Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-03-20 Council Meeting CITY OF -AS H LA N D Important: Any citizen may orally address the 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 a public hearing and the record is closed. Time permitting, the Presiding Officer may allow oral testimony. 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 speak, and the length of the agenda. AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL March 20, 2018 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street Note: Items on the Agenda not considered due to time constraints are automatically continued to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting [AMC 2.04.030.E.] 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Study Session of March 5, 2018 2. Business Meeting of March 6, 2018 VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS 1. Annual Presentation by the Tree Commission 2. Mayor's proclamation of April 2-8, 2018 as Arbor Week in Ashland VII. MINUTES OF BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES Airport Conservation Forest Lands Historic Housing and Human Srvs. Parks & Recreation Planning Public Arts Transportation Tree Wildfire Mitigation VIII. PUBLIC FORUM Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. The Mayor will set time limits to enable all people wishing to speak to complete their testimony.) [15 minutes maximum] i i I I li CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION DRAFT MINUTES Monday, March 5, 2018 Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street I Mayor Stromberg called the Study Session at 5:34 PM 1. Public Input (15 minutes, maximum) I luelz Gutcheon - Ashland- Spoke regarding Croman Mill District and climate change. II. Look Ahead review Councilor Darrow announced her resignation from City Council effective immediately. She read her resignation letter into the record (see attached). She thanked Council and Staff. Interim City Administrator, John Karns went over the look ahead. Councilor Slattery spoke that would like to discuss the dates for Budget Meetings. He asked Staff to work on the "to be scheduled" portion of the look ahead. Councilor Slattery suggested to move the AFN discussion to an early date. Councilor Seffinger spoke that she will not be here for the approval of Public Art recommendation to be installed at the base of the Bandersnatch trail on April 3`d. She suggested if Council needs information from her to please ask on at the March 19"' Study Session Meeting. III. Discussion of potential revisions to Croman Mill District plan Senior Planner, Brandon Goldman and Planning Manager, Maria I larris presented Council with a PowerPoint presentation regarding the Croman Mill District Plan (see attached). In their presentation they discussed: • History- • District Boundaries. Mixed uses, neighborhood center. Natural features such as the pond on Siskiyou Blvd. Open space corridor along the creek and a central park. • Transportation Network. Street framework. • "boning and Development Standards. Land Use overlays. • Full street improvement or a temporary. • Greater percentage of residential. • Street framework. • Affordable Housing. • Cottage Housing. • Small lot single family. • Potential Plan Amendments. Council discussed whether or not to proceed with developing a scope of work that describes specific tasks, needed staff and financial resources as well as a timeline for amending the Croman Mill District Plan. Council discussed: • Impact on schools. • Population increase. • RVTD routes. • City Staff resources. • Timelines. • Annexation and zone changes. • Public Outreach. • Work plan. Council gave consensus to begin on the scope of work. IV. Update on Downtown Policing strategies Police Chief, Tighe O'Meara gave an update on Downtown Policing strategies (see attached). Items discussed in the presentation: • Disorderly Conduct. • Issues on Will Dodge Way Vinyl Club and O'Ryan's Irish Pub. Assault charge against a bouncer. Working consistently with partner agencies. Potential action against Vinyl Club from OLCC. Fire Marshal has been looking at the back deck of Vinyl. Make a good faith to be good neighbors. Having night clubs leads to negative behavior. Owners have been making good faith efforts. • Deployment. 2 fulltime, 4 additional seasonal cadets, up to 6 seasonal parks patrol. • Enforcement is up in all categories. • Problem solving unit was deployed in 2017, re-defined Community Service Officer (CSO), Backfilling CAP positions when staffing allows and multiple directed patrol assignments downtown especially WDW. • Making sure there is an officer downtown at all times. Police Officer, Jason Billings spoke that disruptions in the downtown have been less in the last year. He spoke that business owners have said there has been improvement. Public Input - Robert Kendrick-Ashland-Spoke regarding the downtown. He explained that the Police Department does do a good job moving people along but right when they leave they return. He spoke that on Will Dodge Way transients camp there, are aggressive and noisy. He spoke regarding the exit at the Irish Pub and that it is not safe. He expressed he wanted to find ways to address all the issues. He submitted a letter for the record (see attached). Mike Szelong-Ashland- Explained he is the new owner at Irish Pub. He spoke that he is a good neighbor and suggested ways how to address issues. He read a letter into the record (see attached). Raymond Kistler- Ashland - Spoke that he is the father of the man who was attacked at the Vinyl Club by a bouncer. He explained his son has been in the hospital for a long time. Ile had to go through 2 facial reconstruction surgeries and has to get his teeth fixed. He spoke that he does not see the Community asset to the Vinyl Club. He spoke that it is a horrible floor plan. There is no fire sprinkling. He asked when will this end on Will Dodge Way. He explained there are 2 officers every night to monitor Will Dodge Way. lie asked what other business gets 2 officers when they are open. Chief O'Meara spoke regarding the assault. He explained the Police Department is not protecting anyone or excusing criminal behavior. He spoke that he agrees with the investigation. He spoke that the Vinyl Club has been in existence for approximately 20 years and the Irish Pub much longer than that. He spoke that the Police Department does their best to work on problerns that come up. I le explained that when there are businesses like this in town it does lead to some negative behavior. He spoke that he is known for being accessible as Chief of Police and if anyone wants to talk to him about anything he would be happy to. Councilor Rosenthal questioned if it is true that there are 2 Police Officers at Will Dodge Way when open. Chief O'Meara answered yes for an average of 2 hours a night during the peak nights. He spoke that he gets emails from neighbors Friday - Sunday with complaints so the Police Department is there to help with the issues and do everything they can do. He explained this is not special treatment they do the same with the Shakespeare Festival. i Councilor Rosenthal questioned what would happen if Council voted no to renew an establishes Liquor License. City Attorney, David Lohman answered that OLCC takes recommendations from the City but ultimately it is up to OLCC. Council discussed the possibility of an exclusion zone to stop operation for a period of time. Mr. Lohman explained that we do not have an exclusionary zone but we do have an expulsion zone. With the courts approval then you can expel a person from a certain area. Chief O'Meara explained that there is a Chronic Nuisance Ordinance. With this Ordinance if there is a certain amount of times of bad behavior it would go to the judge and could be shut down for 180 days. Chief O'Meara explained that the Police Department has to be subjective with each case. There are different rules regarding business and residential. Council discussed ways to improving this situation with Will Dodge Way. Councilor Morris requested for Staff to bring the Fire Inspections to a future meeting. Council discussed possibly changing the Code for administering and regulating business licenses. The Study Session was adjourned at 7:18 PM Respectfully submitted by: City Recorder, Melissa Huhtala Attest: i Mayor Stromberg I it 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). Councilor Rosenthal questioned if it is true that there are 2 Police Officers at Will Dodge Way when open. Chief O'Meara answered yes for an average of 2 hours a night during the peak nights. He spoke that he gets emails from neighbors Friday - Sunday with complaints so the Police Department is there to help with the issues and do everything they can do. He explained this is not special treatment they do the same with the Shakespeare Festival. Councilor Rosenthal questioned what would happen if Council voted no to renew an establishments Liquor License. City Attorney, David Lohman answered that OLCC takes recommendations from the City but ultimately it is up to OLCC. Council discussed the possibility of an exclusion zone to stop operation for a period of time. Mr. Lohman explained that we do not have an exclusionary zone but we do have an expulsion zone. Chief O'Meara explained that there is a Chronic Nuisance Ordinance. With this Ordinance if there is a certain amount of times of bad behavior it would go to the judge and could be shut down for 180 days. Chief O'Meara explained that the Police Department has to be subjective with each case. There are different rules in business and residential areas. Council discussed ways to improving this situation with Will Dodge Way. Councilor Morris requested for Staff to bring the Fire Inspections to a future meeting. Council discussed possibly changing the Code for administering and regulating business licenses. The Study Session was adjourned at 7:18 PM Respectfully submitted by: City Recorder, Melissa Huhtala Attest: Mayor tro berg - 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 1). i DRAFT MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL March 6, 2018 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street Note: Items on the Agenda not considered due to time constraints are automatically continued to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting [AMC 2.04.030.1;. 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting L CALL TO ORDER Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL Councilor Slattery, Councilor Morris, Councilor Sefiinger and Councilor Rosenthal were present. IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Stromberg announced the death ofPolice Officer, Maleus Williams and led a moment of silence. Chief O'Meara spoke regarding Mr. Williams' incident. He explained that when a Police Officer passes they never are unguarded. Ile spoke that a precession came through town about 12:30 AM for the body; the next day his body was again driven by precession for autopsy and during cremation there was a 24-hour watch there during the whole process. He spoke that the Police Department has a partnership with an organization called Oregon Fall and Badge Association. They did all they could to honor and take the burden off Mr. Williams' family and Ashland Police Department in organizing the Celebration of Life. Chief O'Meara spoke that he would like to create a Resolution authorizing a donation to Oregon Badge Foundation when they are in time of need. Mayor Stromberg announced that Councilor Traci Darrow resigned at the March 5th Study Session Meeting effective immediately. He thanked Ms. Darrow for her time on the City Council. Mayor Stromberg moved Item VII- Briscoe School to the March 201h Business Meeting. Mayor Stromberg announced the current Commission vacancies. i V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Business Meeting of February 20, 2018 Councilor Slattery moved to approve the minutes. Councilor Rosenthal seconded. Discussion: None. All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously. Vl. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS None. VII. MINUTES OF BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES Airport Conservation Forest Lands Historic Housing and Human Srvs. Parks & Recreation Planning Public Arts Transportation Tree Wildfire Mitigation VIII. PUBLIC FORUM Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. The Mayor will set time limits to enable all people wishing to speak to complete their testimony.) 115 minutes maximum] James Young-Ashland- He spoke that he is the Chair of Lithia Arts Guild. Spoke in support of the possibility of the City purchasing Briscoe property. Spoke that it would be a great place for City Hall especially because it is a historical building. Alex Sol - Ashland - Spoke regarding gun violence in our Schools and what is being done to protect the children. He spoke that action needs to be taken now and not after the fact. Need to take measures to help in the event of a mass shooting. He spoke of examples of ways to protect the schools. He spoke that there are only fire drills and not shooting drills. He asked Council how this could be addressed. He spoke that he understands that this is a political topic due to gun control but something needs to be done for protecting the schools. He urged Council to do anything they can to work on this topic. Mayor Stromberg explained that the City does strategy in conjunction with the school in case of a shooting. Susan Russ - Ashland- Spoke regarding the Croman Mill Plan. She spoke that she was happy to see this topic show up at the Study Session and to start developing a plan. She urged Staff and Council to address the goals of the CEAP plan and implement them into the Croman Mill Plan. She spoke in excitement to watch the process go forward. 1X. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Liquor license application for RV Roasting Company, LLC Councilor Morris pulled this item. He explained that he may have a conflict of interest on this I ICI item. City Attorney, David Lohman explained that due to the fact of the shortage of Council tonight we have a vote of necessity. He explained that Councilor Morris is eligible to vote but cannot participate in discussion. 2. Endorsement of SOU's Women's Resource Center's Sexual Assault Awareness Month campaign for the purpose of hanging a banner Councilor Slattery moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Councilor Rosenthal seconded. Discussion: None. All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously. X. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Persons wishing to speak are to submit a "speaker request form" prior to the commencement of the public hearing. Public hearings shall conclude at 9:00 p.m. and be continued to a future date to be set by the Council, unless the Council, by a two-thirds vote of those present, extends the hearing(s) until up to 10:30 p.m. at which time the Council shall set a date for continuance and shall proceed with the balance of the agenda.) 1. Public hearing and approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution declaring tax lot 39-1E-5DA, 2703, tax lot 39-1E-0913C, 201, and tax lot 39-1E-11C, 2505 surplus property in the City of Ashland" Administrative Services Director, Mark Welch gave a staff report. Councilor Slattery asked where the money goes once received. Mr. Welch explained that it would be a Council decision but Staff would give recommendations. Council discussed parking options for one of the lots. Councilor Rosenthal questioned if the City charges a fee for any parking spaces. Mr. Welch answered no. Councilor Morris questioned if the City is maintaining these properties. Assistant to the City Administrator, Adam flanks spoke that the City does not maintain these properties. He explained that there must be a standing verbal agreement because no written agreements have been found in City records. Councilor Rosenthal moved to approve a Resolution titled, "A Resolution Declaring Tax Lot 39-1E-5DA, 2703, Tax Lot 39-1E-0913C, 201, and Tax Lot 39-1E-11C, 2505 Surplus Property in the City of Ashland" Councilor Slattery seconded. Discussion: Mayor Stromberg opened the Public Hearing at 7:42 PM. Public Input: None. Mayor Stromberg closed the Public Hearing at 7:42 PM. Councilor Rosenthal spoke that he had questions for the value of the small property and spoke that the City could solve more problems than one car to park. Councilor Slattery agreed with Councilor Rosenthal. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Rosenthal, Councilor Seffinger, Councilor Morris and Councilor Slattery: YES. Motion passed unanimously. I I III II XI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Council moved item 2 to item 1 2. Discussion of vehicles for hire services City Attorney, David Lohman and Assistant City Attorney, Katrina Brown gave a staff report. Ms. Brown gave a brief history regarding vehicles for hire. She explained that there have been some issues with the Transportation Network Companies (TNC's) such as background checks and insurance. She explained Ashland is unique due to its size and large amount of tourism which may cause congestion. Currently Ashland is using Medford's code as a model and will bring back a proposed Ordinance to Council for feedback. Council discussed options and a timeline. Council went over the 7 questions proposed from the Legal Department: 1. What is the appropriate method (fingerprint-based/other) and level (how far back/types of violations) of background checks to utilize for individual vehicles for hire drivers who will be in close contact with the public? Medford and Salem have adopted ordinances which codify Uber's and Lyft's preferred method and level of backgrounds checks, while Portland has adopted more stringent standards. Council discussed not deviating too far from what Medford has done so the City doesn't lose the opportunity. Council discussed whether or not to do background checks like we do now for "T'axi's or do the fingerprinting. Council directed Staff to bring back options in the Draft Ordinance. 2. What is the appropriate fee structure, if any, for charging vehicles for hire to use Ashland's streets for commercial purposes? Some jurisdictions impose a flat application or registration fee while others charge a per ride fee. Portland and the Port of Portland are examples of jurisdictions in Oregon imposing a per ride fee. Council directed Staff to bring back a DraftOrdinance showing fee options. i 3. Should there be any regulation of the rates charged? Should TNCs be allowed to use "dynamic" or "surge" pricing during peak usage times, such as late evenings when OSF plays are ~ ending? Such dynamic pricing is part of Uber's current model. Council directed Staff to bring back the Draft Ordinance with the surge capability in it. 4. What are the appropriate insurance levels for TNC? Should they be required to reflect the i Oregon Tort Claims Act limits for local governments (currently $1,412,000.00)? Most jurisdictions have adopted one set limit of coverage for taxi companies and a tiered approach for "INCs. Page 3 of 3. Council directed Staff to add options in the Draft Ordinance. 5. Should vehicles for hire be required to use designated drop-off and pick-up sites for certain kinds of activities, such as OSF plays, which are likely to result otherwise in significant spot congestion? OSF has indicated that it is interested in establishing such designated sites to ease congestion around its facilities. Council directed Staff to bring back examples. 6. Should vehicles for hire agencies be required to provide wheelchair-accessible vehicles at all times? Medford has a general requirement addressing passengers with disabilities. Portland has specific requirements including a reasonable wait time for such vehicles. Council discussed if there should be a different rate for a wheelchair-accessible service. Ms. Brown explained that TNC's will provide reasonable ADA vehicles. 7. Should there be regulatory equity among the various vehicle for hire agencies? Council discussed making things as equitable as possible with the Taxi's. Staff will bring options back to Council regarding this question. I Council directed Staff to continue discussions with the full range of interested providers of vehicles for hire to craft amendments to the AMC that meet Ashland's unique needs as a tourist destination; and bring a Draft Ordinance containing such amendments back to Council for first reading. Ms. Brown spoke that a Draft Ordinance can be brought back at the April 17th Council Business Meeting. 1. Selection of Councilor Seat #3 finalists (Please note: Packet information for this item will be handed out at the March 5" Study Session). Council was handed a ballot with all seven applicants listed and asked to pick their top three choices. Councilor Seffinger moved to rank each applicant from 1-3. No second. Motion died. Council decided to interview the top three and then appoint at the March 24th Council Business Meeting. It was also decided that whoever doesn't get appointed this round they are still eligible to apply for Council Position 96. The top three selected were: Jackie Bachman with 4 votes. George Kramer with 4 votes. Tonya Graham with 2 votes. (see attached tally sheet) XII. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Climate and Energy Action Plan progress report Assistant to the City Administrator, Adam Hanks and Climate and Energy Analyst, Stu Green gave Council a 1-year progress report. Mr. Green discussed the highlights of last year: • Hired permanent full-time Staff. • Developed a CEAP Committee. • Creating an internal City climate team. • Established CEAP progress indicators. • Planning potential funding sources. • Begin CEAP Actions 65 actions listen in the plan. Semi checked off 3 of these actions and 17 actions will have progress in the near future. Councilor Rosenthal questioned how the recycling crisis that we have impact actions in the plan. Mr. Hanks that the surcharge allowed the same levels and maintain the same recycling standards. Mr. Hanks spoke that they will be giving annual progress reports. 2. Finance Forecast Update Mr. Welch gave a staff report. 1 le explained that this information is in the budget document. Ile spoke that there are not any errors in the current budget. All errors with the methodology were updated. Mr. Welch explained that Staff put the forecast information into a model so you can see impacts on current and future budgets. He spoke that you can also find the model on the City website under Administrative Services- Mr. Welch explained .xrhv the error that was found occurred. Councilor Slattery spoke to the importance in improving transparency with the Community. He asked Mr. Welch if he witnessed any collusion and if he ever did what would he do. Mr. Welch responded there is no collusion going on and if he did witness any he would inform the Mayor and Council. 3. Potential approval of the purchase of Briscoe School property This Item was moved to the March 20`h Council Business Meeting XIII. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS None. XIV. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS Councilor Morris spoke in appreciation of Ashland Community Hospital. He also thanked Councilor Slattery for his work on keeping the hospital here. Councilor Rosenthal reminded all that ballots are due on March 13"' for the Parks Commissioners Recall. He explained you can snail them in or drop them off at the County. Mayor Stromberg announced he is now a representative of Continuum of Care; which is dealing with homeless issues. XV. ADJOURNMENT OF BUSINESS MEETING The Business Meeting was adjourned at 9:28 PM Respectfully submitted by: City Recorder, Melissa Huhtala Attest: Mayor Stromberg 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). Councilor Slattery spoke to the importance in improving transparency with the Community. He asked Mr. Welch if he witnessed any collusion and if he ever did what would he do. Mr. Welch responded there is no collusion going on and if he did witness any he would inform the Mayor and Council. 3. Potential approval of the purchase of Briscoe School property This Item was moved to the March 201h Council Business Meeting XIII. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS None. XIV. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS Councilor Morris spoke in appreciation of Ashland Community Hospital. He also thanked Councilor Slattery for his work on keeping the hospital here. Councilor Rosenthal reminded all that ballots are due on March 13`h for the Parks Commissioners Recall. He explained you can mail them in or drop them off at the County. Mayor Stromberg announced he is now a representative of Continuum of Care; which is dealing with homeless issues. XV. ADJOURNMENT OF BUSINESS MEETING The Business Meeting was adjourned at 9:28 PM Respectfully submitted by: City Recorder, Melissa Huhtala Attest: Ma ,or tromberg 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). C~ a) na/-~J D° PROCLAMATION':: ° J. Sterling Morton proposed to the Nebraska Board of Agriculture in 1872 that a ° special day be set aside for the planting of trees. G This holiday, called Arbor Day, was first observed with the planting of more than Q <<'', a million trees in Nebraska. r Arbor Day is now observed throughout the nation and the world. 00 ■ Trees can reduce the erosion of topsoil by wind and water, reduce heating and cooling costs, moderate the temperature, clean the air, produce oxygen, and ➢ provide a habitat for wildlife. Trees increase property enhance the economic vitality of business areas C ~ beautify our community; and are a source of joy and spiritual renewal for many- >3 ° Trees are a renewable resource giving us paper, wood, fuel, and countless other ° wood products. s Ashland has been recognized as a Tree City USA by the National Arbor Day ° Foundation for 33 years and desires to continue its tree-planting ways. t r 00 o0 ~V NOW, THEREFORE, the Mayor, on behalf of the citizens of Ashland, hereby proclaims April 2 to 8, 2018 as z ARBOR WEEK IN ASHLAND Q and urges all citizens to support efforts to care for our trees and woodlands and to support our City's community forestry program. I further urge all citizens to plant trees to gladden the hearts and promote the well-being of present and future generations. Dated this 20th day of March, 2018 u Q John Stromberg, Mayor ° ➢ Q Melissa Huhtala, City Recorder VJ/ p o ~ o o 0 0 0 o y 0 0 0 0 0 o y o o ~ Council Business Meeting March 20, 2018 Title: Appointment of Princess Erica Franks - Housing and Human Services Commission From: Melissa Huhtala City Recorder Melissa. huhtala@ashland.or.us Summary: Mayor appointment of Princess Erica Franks to the Housing and Human Services Commission with a term to expire on April 30, 2021. Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: I move to appoint Princess Erica Franks to the Housing and Human Services Commission with a term to expire on April 30, 2021. Staff Recommendation: N/A Resource Requirements: N/A Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: Ashland Municipal Code 2.04.090 (C) states the appointments by the Mayor are with the consent of the City Council. Background and Additional Information: N/A Attachments: Application of Princess Erica Franks Page Iof I CITY OF -ASHLAND CITY OF ASHLAND APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at City Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email christeb(a7ashlApior.us. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Name ~1 r e S`~ C C c,. ( n n U Requesting to serve on: t `4 (Commission/Committee) Address( C Occupation kwc Phone: Home Work Email ~r . f A ; Fax 1. Education Background What schools have you attended? What degrees do you hold?j What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this position? 2. Related Exnerience What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to this position? Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field, such as attending conferences or seminars? Why? ( /if)') n l wci ; 15 it ~10t`~ Ll (Gi LJ61 !r, 3. Interests Why are you applying for this position? C- re 4. Availability Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings? , ` a b 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 . i , I ` , t rO S 9'u t fi t ` Rt~~`~~~~ (end ears-I-ar\Gt 1Rr1t``Gt4~~ Q D ~1~~(lGti IY~ o ly, '1110 J -C -ej Date Signa re 11FAL Council Business Meeting March 20, 2018' Title: FEMA Assistance to Firefighters and Fire Prevention and Safety Grant Requests From: Michael D'Orazi, Fire Chief michael.dorazi@ashland.or.us I~ Summary: Application periods for the 2017 FEMA Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program closed on February 2, 2018 and the Fire Prevention and Safety Grant (FP&S) closed on March 16, 2018. Ashland Fire & Rescue applied for several grants for the department to purchase needed apparatus and equipment to replace current items and for updated fire protection equipment for buildings in the community. Due to the timeliness of writing and submitting the grant coinciding with the arrival of our new Fire Chief, the grants requests have already been submitted so that we met deadline requirements. Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: I move to approve the grant funding applications from Ashland Fire & Rescue to FEMA for the AFG and FP&S grant programs. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council approve the grant funding applications. Resource Requirements: There is no cost for submission of the grant funding applications. If approved, these grants typically require the fire department receiving the award fund 10% of the program cost. Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: 4. Support Innovative Programs that protect the community 23 Cultivate external funding opportunities I3ackl4round and Additional Information: The Department of I lomeland Security, through FEMA, fund the AFG and FP&S grant programs that have been in place for a number of years. These grant programs give fire departments an opportunity to acquire equipment, personnel, and training that they would otherwise not be able to fund. Ashland Fire & Rescue has been awarded a number of grants over the past several years. This year Ashland Fire & Rescue wishes to apply for the following grants: • $160,000 for the purchase of 3 new powered ambulance gurneys and 3 compatible load, lift and restraint systems with corresponding standard warranties not to exceed the expected lifespan of the equipment • $925,000 for the purchase of a quint style aerial apparatus. Page 1 of 2 CITY OF -ASHLAND • $60,000 for the purchase and installation of standardized fire department connections on buildings with fire sprinklers Attachments: • Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program Narrative • Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program FAQs ICI I I I i I Page 2of2 CITY OF -ASH LAN D i Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program (AFG) ~pARTg1f JFEMA 5~ p ` - \ AFG Narrative Get Ready • 2017 The Assistance to Firefighters Grants application period Organization and the Community Served will be opening soon. This handy guide will give you a • In your own words, describe your organization. kick-start in prepping your grant application. It will also better prepare you to thoroughly answer application ' What are your special needs required to serve the questions. community? The primary goal of the AFG Program is to meet the • Describe any special hazards in your community. firefighting and emergency response needs of fire • What are the demands of your organization based departments, nonaffiliated emergency medical service on the needs of the community? organizations, and State Fire Training Academies (SFTA). AFG has helped firefighters, emergency Financial Need medical responders, and SFTAs obtain critically needed equipment, protective gear, emergency • Why do you need federal assistance and is it vehicles, training, and other resources needed to consistent with the intent of the AFG program? protect the public and emergency personnel from fire • Describe your financial distress, including budget and related hazards. constraints Be prepared to thoroughly explain, document, and • Describe what attempts have been made to secure provide background information on the following five funding elsewhere and why financial distress is out areas: of your control • Organization (and the community you serve) Project Description and Budget Justification • Financial Need • Clearly discuss project objectives and their • Project Description/Budget justification relationship to budget and risk analysis. • Operations and Safety/Cost Benefit • Explain how the proposed expenses are linked to • Statement of Effect/Impact on Daily Operations completion of the project. The following questions can help you formulate • Describe how the various activities applied for are comprehensive answers on your application. Begin consistent with project objectives, your mission, your discussion with a brief (no more than three and local requirements sentences) opening statement as to what you are • For the most competitive application. select those requesting and why. Then discuss the following: need(s) that most closely align with the highest AFG program priority(ies). Example: Organization "X" has local needs for an additional Fire Boat 20 feet) for their fleet, advanced Marine Firefighter training for members, and new PPE turnout gear to replace their entire 20 year old inventory. 1. Fire Boats are Low u,, priority for all organizations; 2. Marine Firefighter training is a Medium Q priority for all organizations, but 3. Replacing obsolete PPE turnout gear is a High priority for all organizations. Organization "X" is eligible to apply for all three activities (Fire Boat under Vehicle Acquisition, and Marine Firefighting and PPE under Operations and Safety), but among these local needs, the PPE request (which matches the High AFG program priority) will be the more competitive application with the best chance of being funded. Operations/Cost Benefit • What is the benefit to your department if the grant is awarded? • How will you address the operations and personal safety needs of your organization, including cost effectiveness and sharing assets? • Include details about gaining the maximum benefits by citing required costs. • Will the requested items lower or increase your department's operating costs? • Is the request consistent with your mission? Statement of Effect 4112741 `Hr}ir.ir-< • What effect will your request, if funded, have on .,rte, Rsq overall effectiveness, daily operations, and the reduction of common risks? FEMA • How frequently will the items be used and in what capacity? • What impact will this project have on your Quesbons regarding your grant award can be community and the saving of lives and property? directed to FEMNs Grant Programs Directorate (GPD) AFG Program staff at 866-274-0960 or e-mail .firecirants(&dhs.go I Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program (AFG) 11IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ,yti~TION & S:q Fire Prevention & Safety (FP&S) Grants a _ Z FY2017 FP&S Frequently 11111111P; '130 Asked Questions l 20177, What is the purpose of FY2017 FPBS Grants? The purpose of this grant program is to fund Fire Prevention and Safety (FP&S) Activities and Firefighter Safety Research and Development (R&D) Activities. FP&S Activities are designed to reach high-risk target groups and mitigate incidences of death, injuries, and property damage caused by fire and fire-related hazards. Firefighter Safety R&D Activities are aimed at improvements to firefighter health and safety. How do I apply for a FP&S Grant? The automated FY2017 FP&S Grant application is accessible from the AFG website (www.fema.gov/firegrants/). The automated application has been designed with help screens and drop-down menus to assist you throughout the application process. Note: If you are using any Web browser other than Internet Explorer, such as Firefox or Netscape, you may have problems with the drop-down menus in the application. You can either access our application through Internet Explorer (which is preferred) or you can use the up and down keys on your keyboard to make the selection; then click enter. Who is eligible to apply? Eligible applicants for the FP&S Activity include fire departments; and national, regional, state, local, federally recognized tribal, and non-profit organizations that are recognized for their experience and expertise in fire prevention and safety programs and activities. Both private and public non-profit organizations are eligible to apply for funding in this activity. Eligible applicants for the Firefighter Safety R&D Activity include national, state, local, federally recognized tribal, and non- profit organizations, such as academic (e.g., universities), public health, occupational health, and injury prevention institutions, especially those recognized for experience and expertise in firefighter safety research and development programs or whose applications demonstrate strong experience and expertise in research and development that has the potential to improve firefighter safety. Both private and public non-profit organizations are eligible to apply for funding in this activity. Fire departments are not eligible to apply for funding in the R&D Activity. Additionally, for-profit organizations, federal agencies, and individuals are not eligible to receive a grant award under the R&D Activity. What projects can I apply for? FP&S Grants are separated into the following two activities: 1. Fire Prevention and Safety (FP&S) Activity: Applicants can apply for up to three separate projects within this activity. The period of performance for projects funded under the FP&S Activity is generally 12 months. Eligible applicants who propose complex projects, such as those under the National/State/Regional Programs and Studies project category, may apply for up to a 24 month period of performance from the date of award. Eligible project categories include: Community Risk Reduction (Smoke Alarms, Sprinkler Awareness, Risk Assessments, Public Education, Training, General Prevention/Awareness, Juvenile Firesetter Projects, Wildland Fire Prevention Programs), Code Enforcement/Awareness, Fire & Arson Investigation, and National/State/Regional Programs and Studies. Applicants requesting a Risk Assessment project are precluded from applying for additional projects. All applicants are subject to a five percent cost share. 2. Firefighter Safety Research and Development (R&D) Activity: Applicants can apply for up to three separate projects within this activity. The period of performance is 12, 24, or 36 months from the date of award. Proposed projects must address the potential for a successful research outcome to be implemented in the fire service and reduce firefighter fatalities or injuries. Eligible project categories include: Clinical Studies, Technology and Product Development, Database System Development, Dissemination and Implementation Research, Preliminary Studies, and Early Career Investigators. All applicants are subject to a five percent cost share. How many projects can I apply for under FP&S? Applicants may submit only one FP&S Grant application per FP&S Grant application period, but may request financial assistance for as many as three projects under each activity (FP&S and R&D). Does my project have to address children, seniors, or firefighters? You have to determine the target population that is at risk in your community. You do not have to conform to national statistics in order to be eligible for funding. You need to justify how you determined the target population, how your proposed project will address the community's vulnerability and benefit the target population. In addition, you need to ensure your solution is age-appropriate for that target population. Are sprinkler systems eligible for funding? A sprinkler system installed for demonstration only purposes can be eligible for funding, but it must be part of a comprehensive sprinkler educational effort. How much funding is available for the FY2017 FP&S? There is $34.5 million available for funding FP&S Grant Program Activities. Each applicant can submit a request for up to $1.5 million federal share. What is the maximum amount of funding an applicant can be awarded? Each applicant can submit a request for up to $1.5 million federal share and ultimately receive an award for that amount. For multi-year projects, applicants can divide the $1.5 million over the period of performance however they deem necessary. FP&S Research and Development applicants applying under the Early Career Investigator category are limited to a maximum federal share of $75,000 per project year. I I Where do I submit the federally approved Indirect Cost Rate Agreement? You do not need to submit a copy of your Indirect Cost Rate Agreement at the time of application. If you are awarded a grant, we will request a copy at that time. However, please ensure that the request details budget portion of your application includes information pertaining to your Indirect Cost Rate Agreement. I was recently awarded a FY2016 FP&S Grant. Can I still apply for a FY2017 FP&S Grant? Yes. However, since the possibility exists that the period of performance on the FY2016 and the FY2017 Grants will overlap, you need to ensure that if you are awarded a FY2017 Grant, the start of your FY2017 Grant does not depend on the completion of your FY2016 Grant. Additionally, you should ensure that receipt of a FY2017 Grant will not impact your ability to continue with and/or complete your FY2016 Grant. What changes were made to the FP&S since last year? • Under the FP&S Activity, the Community Risk Reduction Category added a new priority for community level risk assessments. • Also under the FP&S Activity, clarification has been provided to the Code Enforcement/Awareness Priority to ensure inclusion of Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) codes for communities with a WUI-wildfire risk. • Early Career Investigator has been added as project category now eligible for funding under the FP&S R&D Activity. • Special Emphasis topics have been added under the R&D Activity. For FY 2017 those topics will be behavioral health, wildland, and situational awareness. How does an eligible applicant obtain help with the application? Call the AFG/FP&S Help Desk at (866) 274-0960 with your questions. During the application period (02/12/2018 - 03/16/2018), the Help Desk will be staffed between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. However, the hours may change as the application period progresses. The toll-free number also accepts voice mail messages after hours or if the lines are busy. Questions may also be faxed to (866) 274-0942 or e-mailed to FireGrants@fema.dhs.gov. What is the deadline for FY2017 FP&S Grant applications to be submitted? All applications must be completed and submitted online by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 16, 2018. How are the FP&S Grant applications reviewed? FP&S Grant applications will be reviewed according to the evaluation criteria listed in the NOFO. Review the NOFO and focus on these criteria in order to develop a competitive application for panel reviews. All eligible FP&S Grant applications go to panel reviews. When will the awards be announced? Award announcements will be made at the beginning of Summer 2018 and on a continuous basis until all available funds have been awarded. Is there a cost share for fire departments? Yes. In general, an applicant seeking an FP&S Grant to carry out an activity shall agree to make available non-federal funds to carry out such activity in an amount equal to and not less than five percent of the grant awarded. The cost share is automatically calculated by the eGrant system in the Budget section of the application. All recipients should ensure that they are thoroughly familiar with FEMA's cost sharing requirements, as well as appropriate cost principles in the federal regulations applicable at the time a grant is awarded. Applicants who are under consideration for award and plan to use in-kind as their method for cost sharing will be asked to submit their plan for documenting and verifying in-kind contributions prior to award. NOTE: The Administrator of FEMA may waive or reduce cost share requirements in cases of demonstrated economic hardship. For more information, please refer to the NOFO, Appendix C. Award Administration Information, I. Economic Hardship Waivers of Cost Share and Maintenance of Effort Requirements for the Fire Prevention & Safety (FP&S) Grant Program. Types of Contributions 1. Cash Cost share match (cash or hard match), including non-federal cash spent for project-related costs. 2. In-Kind In-kind (soft; other than cash payments) cost share matches are allowable for FP&S Grants. Such matches include, but are not limited to, the valuation of in-kind services, complementary activities, and provision of staff, facilities, services, material, or equipment. In-kind is the value of something received or provided that does not have a cost associated with it. For example, where an in-kind match is permitted, then the value of donated services could be used to comply with the match requirement. Also, third party in-kind contributions may count toward satisfying match requirements, provided the recipient receiving the contributions expends them as allowable costs in compliance with provisions listed above. Recipients who use in-kind contributions for their five percent cost share must comply with all applicable regulations and 2 C.F.R. Part 200 regarding matching or cost-sharing. Applicants who are under consideration for award and plan to use in-kind as their method for cost sharing will be asked to submit their plan for documenting and verifying in-kind contributions prior to award. Please see 2 CFR § 200.306, as applicable, for further guidance regarding cost matching. For more information on 2 C.F.R. Part 200, please visit https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/101236. Will there be a cost share requirement for national, regional, state, local or community organizations this year? Yes, there is a cost share requirement of five percent for national, regional, state, local or community organizations applying under either the FP&S Activity or the R&D Activity. In general, all eligible applicants seeking an FP&S Grant to carry out an activity shall agree to make available non-federal funds to carry out such activity in an amount equal to and not less than five percent of the grant awarded. The cost share is automatically calculated by the eGrant system in the Budget section of the application. All recipients should ensure that they are thoroughly familiar with FEMA's cost sharing requirements identified above, as well as appropriate cost principles in the federal regulations applicable at the time a grant is awarded. Applicants who are under consideration for award and plan to use in-kind as their method for cost sharing will be asked to submit their plan for documenting and verifying in-kind contributions prior to award. NOTE: The Administrator of FEMA may waive or reduce cost ahare requirements in cases of demonstrated economic hardship. For more information please refer to the NOFO, Appendix C. Award Administration Information, I. Economic Hardship Waivers of Cost Share and Maintenance of Effort Requirements for the Fire Prevention & Safety (FP&S) Grant Program. Types of Contributions 1. Cash Cost share match (cash or hard match), including non-federal cash spent for project-related costs. 2. In-Kind In-kind (soft; other than cash payments) cost share matches are allowable for FP&S Grants. Such matches include, but are not limited to, the valuation of in-kind services, complementary activities, and provision of staff, facilities, services, material, or equipment. In-kind is the value of something received or provided that does not have a cost associated with it. For example, where an in-kind match is permitted, then the value of donated services could be used to comply with the match requirement. Also, third party in-kind contributions may count toward satisfying match requirements, provided the recipient receiving the contributions expends them as allowable costs in compliance with provisions listed above. Recipients who use in-kind contributions for their five percent cost share must comply with all applicable regulations and 2 C.F.R. Part 200 regarding matching or cost-sharing. Applicants who are under consideration for award and plan to use in-kind as their method for cost sharing will be asked to submit their plan for documenting and verifying in-kind contributions prior to award. Please see 2 CFR § 200.306, as applicable, for further guidance regarding cost matching. For more information on 2 C.F.R. Part 200, please visit https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/101236. Are multi-year projects eligible under the Firefighter Safety R&D Activity? Yes. FirefighterSafety R&DApplicants can propose projects (limited to $1.5 million federal share) with up to a three year period of performance. Greater detail should be given for the first year; and also describe specific goals and objectives for second (and third) year(s). With reference to the study's goals, objectives, and specific aims, provide a literature review that includes citations in the text and references at the end of the application. The review should make it clear that the proposed study is necessary, different from other current studies, offers a unique contribution, or adds to an existing body of knowledge. Additional information provided should include: • Acontingency plan with examples of what maybe the key challenges and plans to address and overcome them. • Amonitoring plan that identifies progress toward achieving established goals and that ensures costs are monitored. • Aspending plan that corresponds with the overall project and specific-year goals and objectives. I am applying for the Firefighter Safety R&D Activity and the Curriculum Vitae (CV) will not fit into the narrative section. Can I attach this as a file? Yes, the CV must be included in the Appendix and each CV is limited to 2 pages. The system accepts attachments. R&D Activity applicants should upload their narrative in the space provided on the narrative screen. Applicants for the R&D Activity must comply with the following guidelines: 1. Applications must include one Narrative Statement and one Appendix document (per project). 2. The Narrative Statement for the R&D Activity is limited to 25 pages per project. The first page of the Narrative Statement must include an abstract of about 250 words that addresses purpose and aims, relevance, methods, and anticipated outcomes. Additionally, the fire service evaluation criteria should be addressed at the beginning of the narrative utilizing no more than five pages. All narrative text, including pertinent references and footnotes must be in the Narrative Statement. It must include which selected R&D category type the project is addressing. Also, the contact information (e-mail address and telephone number) for the principal investigator must be provided on the first page of the Narrative Statement. 3. It may be useful to organize the Narrative Statement to follow the R&D Evaluation Criteria listed within the NOFO, including the Fire Service criteria first followed by the Science criteria. 4. All references and footnotes pertaining to the Narrative Statement must be in the Narrative Statement. Tables and figures may be included in either the Narrative Statement or the Appendix document. 5. The Appendix is limited to 25 pages per project. It includes curriculum vitae and may include other items, such as data collection instruments, additional tables and figures, illustrations, specifications for product designs, and letters of commitment from partners. If this project is a resubmission, applicants may utilize up to two pages of the Appendix to address reviewer concerns from a previous year. 6. A biographical sketch for the PI and lead scientists, as well as other key research personnel listed in the budget, are to be included in the Appendix, but are limited to a maximum of two pages per biosketch. Applicants are strongly encouraged to follow the biographical sketch sample in the NOFO (see Section IV. Other Eligible Project and Ineligible Projects and Costs, Section B. Research and Development Project Eligibility Information, Section ii. Biographical Sketch Sample for Research and Development Projects) in preparing the biosketch. 7. Font: Times New Roman or Arial. 8. Font Size: 11 points (11 pt) or larger. 9. Page Dimensions: Page dimensions must be 8.5" x 11" (21.6 cm x 27.9 cm) or smaller. 10. Margins: All margins (top, bottom, left, and right) must be at least 1" (2.54cm). 11. Header: The header on each page of the Narrative Statement and the Appendix should contain: • PI (surname) • Institution name (abbreviated) • Project Short Title • Page Number II Council Business Meeting March 20, 2018_ Award of Professional Services Contracts for Construction Support Title: Services for the Park Estates and Terrace Street Pump Station Improvements From: Paula Brown Public Works Director Paula. Brown(a-).ashland. or.us Kevin Caldwell Senior Project Manager Kevin. Caldwell(a-)ashland -or. us ~I Summary Before the Council is the award of contracts for professional engineering services with Keller Associates. The contracts are for phase three, construction support services, associated with the Park Estates and "Terrace Street pump station improvements. Council previously awarded preliminary engineering (February 21, 2017) and final engineering (June 20, 2017) contracts to Keller Associates for these projects. Those phases are complete and staff is preparing to begin construction of both facilities. I In addition to these professional engineering services, under separate action, staff is also requesting award of the construction contract with McClure and Sons Inc. at this evening's business meeting. Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: For improved tracking in order to facilitate the loan reimbursement process with the Infrastructure Finance Authority (IFA), staff has separated the Keller Associates contracts; necessitating two council actions, one for each of the two projects: 1) Move to approve a professional services contract with Keller Associates in the amount of $118,797 for construction support services associated with Park Estates pump station improvements. 2) Move to approve a professional services contract with Keller Associates in the amount of $97,380.00 for construction support services associated with Terrace St. pump station improvements. I The option, should Council elect not to move forward with Keller Associates, is to release a separate request for proposals for construction services. This process would take at least 60-90 days and would require getting a new consultant up to speed and likely put staff in a difficult situation of either delaying construction or potentially missing submittal details as the construction contract begins. In addition, as Keller Associates is the "engineer of record" it is their responsibility to ensure the design parameters are met during construction. Page 1 of 3 CITY OF -ASHLAND Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council award the professional services contracts with Keller Associates for construction support for Park Estates and Terrace Street Pump Station Improvements. The construction support service contracts for both pump stations include general support to the City for construction project supervision, monthly progress reports, construction observation for conformance, review and approval of various contractor submittals, requests for information, review/approval of as-builts and the operations and maintenance manual. This contract provides assistance to the City to ensure the contract drawings and specifications are met by the construction contractor and that all of the detailed submittals are correct. In addition, the consultant will provide inspection services at key points in the construction and support to the City for inspection and any necessary change orders. Staff will retain daily inspection responsibilities and general construction contract management, but due to the specialty mechanical requirements of the pump stations, not having a consultant for this specialty work would place the City at risk. Resource Requirements: Funds to complete the project are allocated in the current biennium. The biennium budget has $3,570,000 for the pump stations and pretreatment for the City's use of the Talent Irrigation District (TID) raw water. At the November 21, 2017, Business Meeting, Council approved an increase in the current IFA Loan to cover costs associated with the pump station improvements. The City has a low interest loan from the IFA with $1,924,555 remaining to fund the construction of the Terrace Street and Park Estates pump stations. This funding must be expensed by October 19, 2019, in order to stay in compliance with the loan requirements. The remaining monies required to cover project expenses will come from the appropriations granted in the water supply and distribution budgets. The negotiated costs for the Keller Associates construction support service contracts on a time and materials not to exceed amount, per task are as follows: 1. Construction support service Park Estates Pump Station $118,797 2. Construction support service Terrace Street Pump Station $97,380 Total $216,177 Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: The projects presented above represent the development and subsequent Council approval of the 2012 Comprehensive Water Master Plan Update. The water master plan update was the culmination of a multi-year effort between Carollo Engineers, Ashland Water Advisory Committee (AWAC) and city staff. I i Council Goals: 4. Evaluate real property and facility assets to strategically support city mission and goals. 22. Prepare for the impact of climate change on the community. Department Goals: • Maintain existing infrastructure to meet regulatory requirements and minimize life-cycle costs Page 2 of 3 CITY OF ASHLAND • Deliver timely life-cycle capital improvement projects • Maintain and improve infrastructure that enhances the economic vitality of the community • Evaluate all city infrastructure regarding planning management and financial resources Backl1round and Additional Information: The preliminary design and final engineering contracts for the Terrace Street and Park Estates Pump Station improvements were awarded to Keller Associates by the Council. Both of those phases are complete and staff is prepared to move into the construction phase if approved by Council. The construction support service contracts for both pump stations include general project management, monthly progress reports, construction observation for conformance, review and approval of various contractor submittals and requests for information, and review/approval of as-builts and the operations and maintenance manual. As required by the IFA staff has forwarded all contract and scope documents to the City's regional loan coordinator for review and approval. The regional coordinator has approved all contract and scope documents referenced as attachments to this staff report. Attachments: 1. Keller Associates Park Estates Pump Station Construction Phase Contract 2. Keller Associates Terrace Street Pump Station Construction Phase Contract Reference Links: 1. February 21, 2017 Council meeting authorizing Preliminary Engineering 2. June 20, 2017 Council meeting authorizing Final Engineering I Page 3of3 CITY OF -AS H LA N D Contract for PERSONAL SERVICES CITY OF CONSULTANT: Keller Associates Inc. ASHLAND CONTACT: James Bledsoe, P.E. 20 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 ADDRESS: 131 SW 51 Ave, Suite A Telephone: 5411488-6002 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Fax: 5411488-5311 TELEPHONE: 208-288-1992 DATE AGREEMENT PREPARED: December 28, 2017 FAX: 208-288-1999 BEGINNING DATE: March 20, 2018 Or when executed b C' Council COMPLETION DATE: October 19, 2019 COMPENSATION: Not to exceed $118,797.00 SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED: Construction Phase services necessary for the replacement of the Park Estates Pump Station. See attached "Exhibit D" for scope of work, budget and schedule. The Consultant shall perform the work using the standards of care, skill and diligence normally provided by a professional in the performance of such services in respect to similar work and shall comply will all applicable codes and standards. Consultant shall sign and abide by the attached "Exhibit C": Contract Clauses for contracts with Professional Services Contractors for projects funded by Safe Drinking Water financing. ADDITIONAL TERMS: In the event of conflicts or discrepancies among the contract documents, the City of Ashland Contract for Personal Services will be primary and take precedence, and any exhibits or ancillary contracts or agreements having redundant or contrary provisions will be subordinate to and interpreted in a manner that will not conflict with the said primary City of Ashland Contract Work under this contract is funded by the federal Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund through Business Oregon and a partnership of Local and/or Private Funds. FINDINGS: Pursuant to AMC 2.50.120, after reasonable inquiry and evaluation, the undersigned Department Head finds and determines that: (1) the services to be acquired are personal services; (2) the City does not have adequate personnel nor resources to perform the services; (3) the statement of work represents the department's plan for utilization of such personal services; (4) the undersigned consultant has specialized experience, education, training and capability sufficient to perform the quality, quantity and type of work requested in the scope of work within the time and financial constraints provided; (5) the consultant's proposal will best serve the needs of the City; and (6) the compensation negotiated herein is fair and reasonable. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein the CITY AND CONSULTANT AGREE as follows: 1. Findings I Recitations. The findings and recitations set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. 2. All Costs-by Consultant: Consultant shall, at its own risk and expense, perform the personal services described above and, unless otherwise specified, furnish all labor, equipment and materials required for-the proper performance of such service. 3. Qualified Work: Consultant has represented, and by entering into this contract now represents, that all personnel assigned to the work required under this contract are fully qualified to perform the service to which they will be assigned in a skilled and workerAke manner and, if required to be registered, licensed or bonded by the State of Oregon, are so registered, licensed and bonded. 4. Completion Date: Consultant shall start performing the service under this contract by the beginning date indicated above -and complete the service by the completion date indicated above. 5. Compensation: City shall pay Consultant for service performed, including costs and expenses, the sum specified above. Payments shall be made within 30 days of the date of the invoice. Should the contract be prematurely terminated, payments will be made for work completed and accepted to date of termination. 6. Ownership of Documents: All documents prepared by Consultant pursuant to this contract shalt be the property of city. 7. Statutory Requirements: ORS 279C.505, 279C.515, 279C.520 and 279C.530 are made part of this contract 8. Living Wage Requirements: If the amount of this contract is $20,142.20 or more, Consultant is required to comply with chapter 3.12 of the Ashland Municipal Code by paying a living wage, as defined in this chapter, to all employees performing work under this contract and to any Subcontractor who performs 50% or more of the service work under this contract Consultant is also required to post the notice attached hereto as Exhibit B predominantly in areas where it will be seen by all employees. 9. Indemnification: Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify and save City, its officers, employees and agents harmless Contract for Personal Services, Revised 06/0212015, Page 1 of 9 i 1 from any and all losses, claims, actions, costs, expenses, judgments, subrogations, or other damages resulting from injury to any person (including injury resulting in death), or damage (including loss or destruction) to property, of whatsoever nature to the extent the harm caused arises out of the negligent acts, or errors, -or omissions in performance of this contract by Consultant (including but not limited to, Consultant's employees, agents, and others designated by Consultant to perform work or services attendant to this contract). Consultant shall not be held responsible for any losses, expenses, claims, subrogations, actions, costs, judgments, or other damages, directly, solely, or proximately caused by the negligence of City. 10. Termination: a. Mutual Consent This contract may be terminated at any time by mutual consent of both parties. b. City's Convenience. This contract may be terminated at any time by City upon 30 days' notice in writing and delivered by certified mail or in person. C. For Cause. City may terminate or modify this contract, in whole or in part, effective upon delivery of i written notice to Consultant, or at such later date as may be established by City under any of the following conditions: I. If City funding from federal, state, county or other sources is not obtained and continued at levels sufficient to allow for the purchase of the indicated quantity of services; ii. If federal or state regulations or guidelines are modified, changed, or interpreted in such a way that the services are no longer allowable or appropriate for purchase under this contract or are no longer eligible for the funding proposed for payments authorized by this contract; or iii. If any license or certificate required by law or regulation to be held by Consultant to provide the services required by this contract is for any reason denied, revoked, suspended, or not renewed. d. For Default or Breach. L Either City or Consultant may terminate this contract in the event of a breach of the contract by the other. Prior to such termination the party seeking termination shall give to the other parry 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. ii. Time is of the essence for Consultant's performance of each and every obligation and duty under this contract City by written notice to Consultant of default or breach may at any time terminate the whole or any part of this contract if Consultant fails to provide services called for by this contract within the time specified herein or in any extension thereof. iii. The rights and remedies of City provided in this subsection (d) are not exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this contract. e. Obligation/Liability of Parties. Termination or modification of this contract pursuant to subsections a, b, or c above shall be without prejudice to any obligations or liabilities of either party already accrued prior to such termination or modification. However, upon receiving a notice of termination (regardless whether such notice is given pursuant to subsections a, b, c or d of this section, Consultant shall immediately cease all activities under this contract, unless expressly directed otherwise by City in the notice of termination. Further, upon termination, Consultant shall deliver to City all contract documents, information, works-in-progress and other property that are or would be deliverables had the contract been completed. City shall pay Consultant for work performed prior to the termination date if such work was performed in accordance with the Contract. 11. Independent Contractor Status: Consultant is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. Consultant shall have the complete responsibility for the performance of this contract Consultant shall provide workers' compensation coverage as required in ORS Ch 656 for all persons employed to perform work pursuant to this contract. Consultant is a subject employer that will comply with ORS 656.017. 12. Assignment'and- Subcontracts: Consultant shall not assign this contract or subcontract any portion of the work without ther written consent of City. Any attempted assignment or subcontract without written consent of City shall be void. Consultant shall be fully responsible for the acts or omissions of any assigns or Subcontractors and of all persons employed by them, and the approval by City of any assignment or subcontract shall not create any contractual relation between the assignee or subcontractor and City. 13. Default. The Consultant shall be in default of this agreement if Consultant: commits any material breach or default of any covenant, warranty, certification, or obligation it owes under the Contract; its QRF status pursuant to the QRF Rules or loses any license, certificate or certification that is required to perform the Services or to qualify as a QRF if consultant has qualified as a QRF for this agreement; institutes an action for relief in bankruptcy of has instituted against it an action for'insolvency; makes a general assignment for the benefit of creditors; or ceases doing business on a regular basis of the type identified in its obligations under the Contract; or attempts to assign rights in, or delegate duties under, the Contract 14. Insurance. Consultant shall at its own expense provide the following insurance: a. Worker's Compensation insurance in compliance with ORS 656.017, which requires subject employers to provide Oregon workers' compensation coverage for all their subject workers b. Professional Liability insurance with a combined single limit, or the equivalent, of not less than $2,000,000 for each claim, incident or occurrence. This is to cover damages caused b error, omission or Contract for Personal Services, Revised 06/02/2015, Page 2 of 9 ~ I A negligent acts related to the professional services to be provided under this contract c. General Liability insurance with a combined single limit, or the equivalent, of not less than 2 000 000 for each occurrence for Bodily Injury and Property Damage. d. Automobile Liability insurance with a combined single limit, or the equivalent, of not less than $1,000,000, for each accident for Bodily Injury and Property Damage, including coverage for owned, hired or non-owned vehicles, as applicable. e. Notice of cancellation or change. There shall be no cancellation, material change, reduction of limits or intent not to renew the insurance coverage(s) without 30 days' written notice from the Consultant or its insurer(s) to the City. f. Additional Insured/Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall name The City of Ashland, Oregon, and its elected officials, officers and employees as Additional Insureds on any insurance policies required herein but only with respect to Consultant's services to be provided under this Contract The consultant's insurance is primary and non-contributory. As evidence of the insurance coverages required by this Contract, the Consultant shall furnish acceptable insurance certificates prior to commencing work under this contract. The certificate will specify all of the parties who are Additional Insureds. Insuring companies or entities are subject to the City's acceptance. If requested, complete copies of insurance policies; trust agreements, etc. shall be provided to the City. The Consultant shall be financially responsible for all pertinent deductibles, self-insured retentions and/or self- insurance. 15. Governing Law; Jurisdiction; Venue: This contract shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon without resort to any jurisdiction's conflict of laws, rules or doctrines. Any claim, action, suit or proceeding (collectively, "the claim") between the City (and/or any other or department of the State of Oregon) and the Consultant that arises from or relates to this contract shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the Circuit Court of Jackson County for the State of Oregon. If, however, the claim must be brought in a federal forum, then it shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the United States District Court for the District of Oregon filed in Jackson County, Oregon. Consultant, by the signature herein of its authorized representative, hereby consents to the in personam jurisdiction of said courts. In no event shall this section be construed as a waiver by City of any form of defense or immunity, based on the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, or otherwise, from any claim or from the jurisdiction. 16. THIS CONTRACT AND ATTACHED EXHIBITS CONSTITUTE THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES. NO WAIVER, CONSENT, MODIFICATION OR CHANGE OF TERMS OF THIS CONTRACT SHALL BIND EITHER PARTY UNLESS IN WRITING AND SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES. SUCH WAIVER, CONSENT, MODIFICATION OR CHANGE, IF MADE, SHALL BE EFFECTIVE ONLY IN THE SPECIFIC INSTANCE AND FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE GIVEN. THERE ARE NO UNDERSTANDINGS, AGREEMENTS, OR REPRESENTATIONS, ORAL OR WRITTEN, NOT SPECIFIED HEREIN REGARDING THIS CONTRACT. CONSULTANT, BY SIGNATURE OF ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE/SHE HAS READ THIS CONTRACT, UNDERSTANDS IT, AND AGREES TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS. 17. Nonappropriations Clause. Funds Available and Authorized: City has sufficient funds currently available and authorized for expenditure to finance the costs of this contract within the City's fiscal year budget. Consultant understands and agrees that City's payment of amounts under this contract attributable to work performed after the last day of the current fiscal year is contingent on City appropriations, or other expenditure authority sufficient to allow City in the exercise of its reasonable administrative discretion, to continue to make payments under this contract. In the event City has insufficient appropriations, limitations or other expenditure authority, City may terminate this contract without penalty or liability to City, effective upon the delivery of written notice to Consultant, with no further liability to Consultant. Certification. Consultant shall sign the certification attached hereto as Exhibit A and herein incorporated by reference. I Contract for Personal Services, Revised 06/02/2015, Page 3 of 9 f i Consultant: ~ City of Ashland Z By _ 7 • By Signat a City Administrator j~av r. L iNr~► Print Name Print Name Pr~.~r n ~Nf Title Date W-9 One copy of a W-9 is to be submitted with the signed contract. Purchase Order No. I I i I Contract for Personal Services, Revised 06/0212015, Page 4 of 9 EXHIBIT A CERTIFICATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS: Contractor, under penalty of perjury, certifies that (a) the number shown on the attached W-9 form is its correct taxpayer ID (or is waiting for the number to be issued to it and (b) Contractor is not subject to backup withholding because (i) it is exempt from backup withholding or (ii) it has not been notified by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that it is subject to backup withholding as a result of a failure to report all interest or dividends, or (iii) the IRS has notified it that it is no longer subject to backup withholding. Contractor further represents and warrants to City that (a) it has the power and authority to enter into and perform the work, (b) the Contract, when executed and delivered, shall be a valid and binding obligation of Contractor enforceable in accordance with its terms, (c) the work under the Contract shall be performed in accordance with local professional standards, and (d) Contractor is qualified, professionally competent and duly licensed to perform the work. Contractor also certifies under penalty of perjury that its business is not in violation of any Oregon tax laws, and it is a corporation authorized to act on behalf of the entity designated above and authorized to do business in Oregon or is an independent Contractor as defined in the contract documents, and has checked four or more of the following criteria: (1) 1 carry out the labor or services at a location separate from my residence or is in a specific portion of my residence, set aside as the location of the business. /X (2) Commercial advertising or business cards or a trade association membership are purchased for the business. )C (3) Telephone listing is used for the business separate from the personal residence listing. _ (4) Labor or services are performed only pursuant to written contracts. C (5) Labor or services are performed for two or more different persons within a period of one year. (6) 1 assume financial responsibility for defective workmanship or for service not provided as evidenced by the ownership of performance bonds, warranties, errors and omission insurance or liability insurance relating to the labor or services to be provided. / / Contractor ate) Contract for Personal Services, Revised 06/0212015, Page 5 of 9 CITY • ASHLAND, OREGON EXHIBIT B City of Ashland . LIVING WAUC Per. hour effective June 30, 2016 -(Increases annually. every June 30,by the Consumer Price index) i - - portion of business of their 401K and IRS eligible employer, if the employer has cafeteria plans (including ten or more employees, and childcare) benefits to the has received financial amount of wages received by assistance for the project or the employee. ➢ For all hours worked under a business from the City of service contract between their Ashland in excess of ➢ Note: "Employee" does not employer and the City of $20,283.20. include temporary or part-time Ashland if the contract employees hired for less than exceeds $20,283 20 or more. ➢ If their employer is the City of 1040 hours in any twelve- Ashland including the Parks month period. For more ➢ For all hours worked in a and Recreation Department details on applicability of this month if the employee spends policy, please see Ashland 50% or more of the ➢ In calculating the-living v►rage, Municipal Code Section employee's time in that month employers may add the value 3.12.020. working on a project or of health care, retirement, For additional information: Call the Ashland City Administrator's office at 541488-6002 or write to the City Administrator, City Hall, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520 or visit the city's website at www.ashland.or.us. Notice to Employers: This notice must be posted predominantly in areas where it can be seen by all employees. CITY OF ASHLAND Contract for Personal Services, Revised 0610212015, Page 6 of 9 i "EXHIBIT C" Contract Clauses for contracts with Professional Services Contractors for projects funded by Safe Drinking Water financing i i i; i SAM Registration and DUNS number are required for all entities that enter into direct contracts with the recipients of Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan funds SAM Registration:http:/Iww.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/ DUNS Number NOTE: The SAM registration expires annually and must be kept active 838285500 until the SDWRLF project is dosed Keller and Associates Language to be included verbatim in contracts according to any accompanying instructions 1. Source of Funds Work under this contract is funded by the federal Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund through the Oregon Business Development Department and a partnership of Local and/or Private Funds. Whistleblower (language to be included in all construction contracts and subcontracts) "Contractor receiving SDWRLF funds shall under or through this contract to, post notice of the rights and remedies provided to whistleblowers under No Fear Act Pub. L. 107-174.29 CFR § 1614.703 (d)." 3 Non Discrimination "The contractor shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin or sex in the performance of this contract. The contractor shall carry out applicable-requirements of 40 CFR part 33 in the award and administration of contracts awarded under EPA financial assistance agreements. Failure by the contractor to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this contract which may result in the termination of this contract or other legally available remedies." 4. Termination for Cause and for Convenience & Breach of Contract (language to be included in all construction contracts and subcontracts-in excess of $10,000:) "Contractor shall address termination for cause and for convenience, including the manner by which it will be effected and the basis for settlement. In addition, contractor shall address administrative, contractual, or legal remedies in instances where contractors violate or breach contract terms, and provide for such sanctions and penalties as appropriate." Contract for Personal Services, Revised 06/02/2015, Page 7 of 9 5. Intellectual Property (language to be included in all contracts:) "Contractor hereby grants to the U.S. E.P.A. a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish or otherwise use, and to authorize others to use, for federal government purposes, any intellectual property developed under this contract. Contractor shall secure from third parties the same license in the name of the U.S. E.P.A. regarding any intellectual property developed by third parties as subcontractors to perform this project, or developed under contract with the Contractor specifically to enable Contractors obligations related to this project" 6. Inspections; Information (language to be included in all construction contracts and subcontracts:) "Contractor shall permit, and cause its subcontractors to allow the City of Ashland, the State of Oregon, the federal government and any party designated by them to: (1) Examine, visit and inspect, at any and all reasonable times, the property, if any, constituting the Project. (2) Inspect and make copies of any accounts, books and records, including, without limitation, its records regarding receipts, disbursement, contracts, and any other matters relating to the Project, and to its financial standing, and shall supply such reports and information as reasonably requested. (3) Interview any officer or employee of the Contractor, or its subcontractors, regarding the Project. Contractor shall retain all records related to the Project for three years after final payments are made and any pending matters are closed." 7. Environmental and Natural Resource Laws (include the following language in all contracts and subcontracts in excess of $100,000:) "Contractor shall comply with all applicable standards, orders, or requirements issued under section 306 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857(h)), section 508 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1368), Executive Order 11738, and Environmental Protection Agency regulations (40 CFR part 15). 8. Procurement of Recovered Materials (include the following language in all contracts and subcontracts in excess of $10,000:) "Contractor must comply with section 6002 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, including procurement of recovered materials in a manner designated in guidelines of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at 40 CFR part 247." 9. Prohibition-on the Use of Federal Funds for Lobbying (Certification Regarding Lobbying form follows, fur any contracts in excess of $100,000) (form follows) CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING (Awards to Contractors and Subcontractors in excess of $100,000) The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that: Contract for Personal Services, Revised 06102/2015, Page 8 of 9 (1) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan or cooperative agreement. (2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions. (3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. Signed -r~ f J Title ~2~ 1 o F71 f Date I' Contract for Personal Services, Revised 06/02/2015, Page 9 of 9 EXHIBIT D KELL. associates PARK ESTATES PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT - SCOPE OF WORK Date: December 27, 2017 Owner: City of Ashland Engineer: Keller Associates, Inc. Project Number: 2015-31(KA# 217003-000) Project Name: Park Estates Pump Station Replacement BACKGROUND & SCOPE MODIFICATIONS The City desires assistance with managing and overseeing the construction of the the Park Estates Pump Station Replacement Project. The City intends to replace the existing pump station before March 1, 2019. Design and bidding services were completed under a separate contract. Construction phase services to be completed by the Consultant are described below. Task 1- Proiect Management and Meetings Consultant Responsibilities: 1.1 Provide general project management for this task, including contract administration, monthly invoicing, progress reports, and internal project administration. Progress reports will describe services completed for each task, and identify needs for additional information, reviews, or changes to the scope and budget (if applicable). 1.2 Develop and maintain project schedule and budget. 1.3 Provide Consultant's MBE/WME reporting forms to City. Provide funding assistance as it pertains to Consultant services. All other funding administration services, including wage certification to be provided by the City. 1.4 Maintain SharePoint site for storing approved submittals, change orders, field orders, pay requests, and meeting minutes. Assumptions: 1.5 City to-provide forum for meetings. 1.6 Project management budget is based on a project duration from April 2018 through March 1, 2019. 1.7 Project will be funded with infrastructure Finance Authority (IFA) funding. Funding administration services will be provided-by others. Englneering.$olu6ons Satisfed.Clients . Bend • Clarkson • Idaho Fags - Meridian • Pocatello Rock Sndnds • Roseville • Salem Attachment A - Scope of Work Task 2 - Construction Phase Services Consultant Responsibilities: 2.1 Construction Administration a. Provide monthly construction reports. b. Conduct preconstruction conference. c. Review contractor submittals. d. Review storm water pollution prevention plans and traffic control plans prepared by the contractor. e. Respond to Requests for Information (RFIs). f. Issue construction field orders and prepare construction change orders for execution by City. g. Perform substantial completion review and prepare punchlist. Participate in pump station startup and commissioning. Provide final inspection to check that punchlist items have been completed. h. Review contractor pay requests and make recommendation of payment to City. i. Review and approve record drawings (as-builts) prepared by contractor. j. Review and approve 0&M manual prepared by contractor. k. Design engineer will participate in up to fifteen (15) construction meetings that will be chaired by the City. Participation is anticipated to occur via conference call, with approximately eight (8) onsite meetings to be coordinated with onsite visits during meaningful construction activities. 2.2 Construction Observation a. The City intends to provide periodic construction observation during construction and keep the Consultant informed on construction activities by sharing progress photos and reporting observed construction activities and concerns. The Consultant will be available to make supplemental inspections when meaningful construction activities are occurring. These visits are to generally observe the progress of construction and endeavor to protect the interests of the City. The contractor is responsible for the means, methods, and jobsite safety, and is solely responsible for completing the construction in accordance with the contract documents. For budgeting purposes, the Consultant has assumed 40 hours-per month during the active construction period. City Responsibilities: 2.3 Provide periodic construction observation and construction management support services. Review and' approve pay applications, schedules, participate in construction meetings, review and approve change orders. 2.4 Pay for fees associated with construction document management system such as EADOC. 2.5 Locate utilities for surveying and construction. 2.6 Coordinate and execute temporary process and electrical shut downs, potential draining and refilling of reservoir, and reservoir disinfection. 2.7 Participate in startup and operator training by contractor and manufacturers. Assumptions: 217003-000/a_ADMIN_CONTRACT Page 2 Attachment A -Scope of Work 2.8 SCADA system integration services will be provided by others. 2.9 For budgeting purposes, it is assumed that there will be one general contractor and that work will occur over a ten-month construction period with active construction over 16 weeks. It is assumed that the active period of construction for Park Estates and Terrace Street will not overlap. 2.10 Completing construction grade staking, material testing, and specialty inspections for construction will be the responsibility of the contractor. Deliverables: 2.11 Construction meeting agendas and minutes; approved submittals; O&M manual (three hard copies, 1 PDF); punchlist; substantial and final completion documentation. Task 3 -Additional Services Consultant shall complete other additional services listed below: 3.1 Additional services as required by the City of Ashland in performance of approved scope of services (i.e. support services from a local arborist). These services are to be completed as authorized by City staff. 3.2 Utilize the services of Applied Geotechnical Engineering and Geologic Consulting LLC to provide summary documentation of contractor activities and suitability of work at the job site as it relates to the soil nail wall and associated grading. This is anticipated to include intermittent observation and evaluation of 1) installation/grouting of the soil nails, 2) testing of the soil nails, 3) Installation of wall drainage, and 4) site grades for the cut slope. Budget assumes installation of the soil nail wall will take about 2 weeks to complete. SCHEDULE Construction administration and observation activities are expected to begin April 2018 and continue until March 1, 2019. COMPENSATION SCHEDULE Consultant will complete the services for the amounts indicated below. Time and materials budgets will be completed per the current title code pilling rates. While the individual task amounts may be exceeded, the total budget will not be exceeded without prior approval from the City. atlon Task DescrP#wn ; . Csimpens 1 Project Management and Meetings $6,475 2..: Construction Phase Services $93,792 3 ' Additional Services $18,,530 Total $118,797 217003-000/a_ADMIN_CONTRACT Page 3 City of Ashland Last Updated: 12/27/2017 Park Estates Pump Station Engineer Fee Estimate II{{{{{{ ~t ~ _ i t y I I< , r s ~ ; • t 1 ~ I, cn o f a ,may , Task De~'c 1 tier} r ~ ' ' rz. ti' L, ~ ~ cv Ur ~ . ~ C ; ti. oar t. Fates SP?0< '185 ;x$234. ..S':5$ .S1o0! -4130 `$'C 1 SYO 1.1 General Project Admin 2 9 11 $2,125 1.2 Project budget/schedule updates 4 4 5740 1.3 MBEAWE reporting fors 6 8 14 $1,010 1,4 ShamPotntsite maintenance 4 4 8 16 $1,700 Task Total 2 23 0 0 0 0 12 8 $6,475 Gl ti teutYeSf4Ctl . J78sE!. i~f$ :sl.:d~Pg . ~ , 1'$ ; fS t ; ' IN ~ 11,r :,!.i , e 2.1a Monthly progress reports 2 8 8 1 Y 19 $2,260 2.1b Preconstruction meeting 5 6 1 S 400 11 $2,045 2.1c Submittal Reviews 2 4 8 8 16 40 3 81 510,100 2.1d SWPP and traffic control review 2.4 2 $312 2.1a RFls 2 1 5 5 16 16 2 47 $6,996 2.1f Field orders and change orders 2 1 4 4 16 8 35 $4,740 2.1g Substantial /final and startup 8 8 6 32 16 1 $ 400 73 $10,230 2.1h Pay requests 1 8 1 10 $1,295 2.11 Record drawings 1 5 4 1 11 $1,305 2.1) O&M Manual 4 4 4 8 24 2 46 $5,580 2.1k Meetings (16 total, 8 onslte) 30 122 4 $ 3,200 156 $24,890 2,2 Construction observation 4 6 8 32 160 $ 1,600. 212 $25,020 Task Total 0 69 6 3 U.N. 262.4 288 15 884 $93,792 4%'" 4~FF . dditi n ht3etvltza ar°wn' ¢ n •a3f! . e y q 1 u u e 3.1 Management reserve S10,000 $10,000 3.2 Geotechnlcal support 2 12 S 6,600 $8,530 Task Total 2 0 2 0 0 $18,530 I~#1tJl~+:. r fgl,$1:'• ~ x . S+~ i A~~ , ,R~+, sFl L(f2 ~F ~ r.!"t r~~.~ - ~ rr::~,a Total 2 84 8 37 37.00 274.4 280 23 $118,797 TOTAL FOST $118,797 J:1217003 Ashland Park Estates PSUfdndn- Contrad%Siaga 3_ConstrudlonV Atg-WnHmfEaOmsta_park EsfttpS PS_27Dec2017.x4sx 1 of 1 Form Request for Taxpayer Give Form to the (Rev. November 2017) Identification Number and Certification requester. Do not Department of the Treasury send to the IRS. Internal Revenue Service ► Go to www.irs.gov/FormW9 for instructions and the latest information. 1 Name (as shown on your Income tax return). Name is required on this line; do not leave this line blank. Keller Associates Inc. 2 Business name/disregarded entity name, if different from above 3 Check appropriate box for federal tax classification of the person whose name is entered on line 1. Check only one of the 4 Exemptions (codes apply only to following seven boxes. certain entities, not individuals; see a instructions on page 3): o ❑ Individual/sole proprietor or El C Corporation Q S Corporation ❑ Partnership ❑ Trustlestate H single-member LLC Exempt payee code (if any) ai c 060 ❑ Limited liability company. Enter the tax classification (C=C corporation, S=S corporation, P=Partnership) ► `o Note: Check the appropriate box in the line above for the tax classification of the single-member owner. Do not check Exemption from FATCA reporting a, LLC if the LLC is classified as a single-member LLC that is disregarded from the owner unless the owner of the LLC is code if an d 5 another LLC that is not disregarded from the owner for U.S. federal tax purposes. Otherwise, a single member LLC that ( y) is disregarded from the owner should check the appropriate box for the tax classification of its owner. w ,u ❑ Other (see instructions) l► (Appws to actOeats naWx.i ornsae the US 1 co' 6 Address (number, street, and apt. or suite no.) See instructions. Recuester's name and address (optional) N 131 SW 5th Ave Ste A 6 City, state, and ZIP code Meridian ID 83642 7 List account number(s) here (optional) JaM Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) Enter your TIN in the appropriate box. The TIN provided must match the name given on line 1 to avoid Social security number backup withholding. For individuals, this is generally your social security number (S . However, for a m - resident alien, sole proprietor, or disregarded entity, see the instructions for Part I, later. For other - entities, it is your employer identification number (EIN). If you do not have a number, see Now to get a TIN, later. or Note: If the account is in more than one name, see the instructions for line 1. Also see What Name and Employer Identification number Number To Give the Requester for guidelines on whose number to enter. M45 -1015171412 M27 • - Certification Under penalties of perjury, I certify that: 1. The number shown on this form is my correct taxpayer identification number (or I am waiting for a number to be issued to me); and 2. 1 am not subject to backup withholding because: (a) I am exempt from backup withholding, or (b) I have not been notified by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that I am subject to backup withholding as a result of a failure to report all interest or dividends, or (c) the IRS has notified me that I am no longer subject to backup withholding; and 3. 1 am a U.S. citizen or other U.S. person (defined below); and 4. The FATCA code(s) entered on this form (if any) indicating that I am exempt from FATCA reporting is correct. Certification instructions. You must cross out item 2 above if you have been notified by the IRS that you are currently subject to backup withholding because you have failed to report all interest and dividends on your tax return. For real estate transactions, item 2 does not apply. For mortgage interest paid, acquisition or abandonment of secured property, cancellation of debt, contributions to an individual retirement arrangement (IRA), and generally, payments other than interest and dividends, you are not required to sign the certification, but you must provide your correct TIN. See the instructions for Part 11, later. Sign Signature of Here V.S. person ► Date ► ` General Instructionl; • Form 1099-DIV (dividends, inc uding those from stocks or mutual funds) Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code unless of erwise . Form 1099-MISC (various types of income, prizes, awards, or gross noted. proceeds) Future developments. For the latest information about developments • Form 1099-8 (stock or mutual fund sales and certain other related to Form W-9 and its instructions, such as legislation enacted transactions by brokers) after they were published, go to www.irs.gov/FormW9. • Form 1099-S (proceeds from real estate transactions) Purpose of Form • Form 1099-K (merchant card and third party network transactions) An individual or entity (Form W-9 requester) who is required to file an • Form 1098 (home mortgage interest), 1098-E (student loan interest), information return with the IRS must obtain your correct taxpayer 1098-T (tuition) identification number (TIN) which may be your social security number • Form 1099-C (canceled debt) (SSN), individual taxpayer identification number (ITIN), adoption • Form 1099-A (acquisition or abandonment of secured property) taxpayer identification number (ATIN), or employer identification number Use Form W-9 only if you are a U.S. person (including a resident (EIN), to report on an information return the amount paid to you, or other alien), to provide your correct TIN. amount reportable on an information return. Examples of information returns include, but are not limited to, the following. It you do not return Form W-9 to the requester with a TIN, you might • Form 1099-INT (interest earned or paid) be subject to backup withholding. See What is backup withholding, later. Cat. No. 10231X Form W-9 (Rev. 11-2017) KELLASS-01 JYEBRA ACORN F DATE (MMIDDNYYY) CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE 12!0112017 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(les) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to -the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer Fights to the certificate holder In lieu of such endorsemen s . PRODUCER CONTACT The Hartwell Corporation PHONE FAX PO Box 400 INC, No, Ext): (208) 459-1678 A/C, No :(208) 454 1114 Caldwell, ID 83606 E DA 5,thC thehartwellcorp.com INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC / INSURER A: Travelers Indemnity CO of Am. 25658 INSURED INSURER 8: Travelers Indemnity CO 25666 Keller Associates, Inc. INSURER C : Travelers Casual and Sure 31194 131 SW 5th Ave, Ste A INSURER D: XL S ecial Insurance Co. 37885 Meridian, ID 83642 INSURER E: INSURER F : COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. ILT TYPE OF INSURANCE ADD SUER POLICY NUMBER POLI pY EFF POLICY EXP LIMITS A X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1,000,000 CLAIMS-MADE [X] OCCUR X 680-41-1953952 12/0112017 12/0112018 DAMAGE SO RENTED S 1,000,000 PREMIS ED EXP A(Ea _QQ"ffJ@0ce) X CGD381 M n ore person) 10,000 PERSONAL &ADV INJURY 1,000,000 GEML AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 2,000,000 POLICY L x I JECT LOC PRODUCTS -COMP/OPAGG 2,000,000 OTHER: B S AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT 1,000,000 X ANY AUTO X BA-7877L468 12/0112017 12/0112018 BODILY INJURY Per arson $ OWNED SCHEDULED AUTOS ONLY AAUUTµOSSWN~p BODILY INJURY Per accident $ AUTOS ONLY AUTOS ONLY P* 'J I 'SAGE $ $ B UMBRELLA LULB X OCCUR EACH OCCURRENCE S 5,000,000 X EXCESS LIAB CLAIMS-MADE CUP-8961XT79 12/0112017 1210x12018 AGGREGATE 5,000,000 DED X RETENTION$ 10,000 S C ANOREMPLOYERS' LIABILITY X PER 0TH- ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE Y/N u6-8J 1'44072 12/0112017 12/0112018 1000000 q~PICER/MF,IdBT EXCLUDED? N N! A E.L. EACH ACCIDENT S (Mandatory in NH) E.L. DISEASE - EA EPAPLOYE $ 1,000,000 If as, describe under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below E.L. DISEASE - POLICY UMIT S 1,000,000 p Professional Liabill DPR9919947 12/0112017 12/01/2018 Each Claim 2,000,000 D $150,000 deductible DPR9919947 1210112017 12/0112016 Aggregate 4,000,000 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS I LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space Is required) City of Ashland, Oregon, and Its elected officials, officers and employees are additional insureds for general liability as provided by policy form CGD381. CERTIFICATE HOLDEIT CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE City-of Ashland THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. 20 E Main Street 20 OR 97520 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ACORD 25 (2016103) C 1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. BLANKET ADDITIONAL INSURED- (ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS) This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART 1. The following is added to SECTION II - WHO IS h. This insurance does not apply to "bodily AN INSURED: injury" or "property damage" caused by "your Any person or organization that you agree in a work" and included in the "products- "written contract requiring insurance" to include as completed operations hazard" unless the an additional insured on this Coverage Part, but: "written contract requiring insurance" specifically requires you to provide such a. Only with respect to liability for "bodily injury", coverage for that additional insured, and then "property damage" or "personal injury"; and the insurance provided to the additional b. If, and only to the extent that, the injury or insured applies only to such "bodily injury" or damage is caused by acts or omissions of "property damage" that occurs before the end you or your subcontractor in the performance of the period of time for which the "written of "your work" to which the "written contract contract requiring insurance" requires you to requiring insurance" applies, or in connection provide such coverage or the end of the with premises owned by or rented to you. policy period, whichever is earlier. The person or organization does not qualify as an 2. The following is added to Paragraph 4.a. of additional insured: SECTION IV - COMMERCIAL GENERAL c. With respect to the independent acts or LIABILITY CONDITIONS: omissions of such person or organization; or The insurance provided to the additional insured d. For "bodily injury", "property damage" or is excess over any valid and collectible other "personal injury' for which such person or insurance, whether primary, excess, contingent or organization has assumed liability in a on any other basis, that is available to the contract or agreement. additional insured fora loss we cover. However, if you specifically agree in the "written contract The insurance provided to such additional insured requiring insurance" that this insurance provided is limited as follows: to the additional insured under this Coverage Part e. This insurance does not apply on any basis to must apply on a primary basis or a primary and any person or organization for which non-contributory basis, this insurance is primary coverage as an additional insured specifically to other insurance available to the additional is added by another endorsement to this insured which covers that person or organizations Coverage Part. as a named insured for such loss, and we will not share with the other insurance, provided that: f. This insurance does not apply to .the (1) The "bodily injury" or "property damage" for rendering of or failure to render any which coverage is-sought occurs; and "professional services". g. In the event that the Limits of Insurance of the (2) The "personal injury" for which coverage is Coverage Part -shown in the Declarations sought arises out of an offense committed; exceed the limits of liability required by the after you nave signed that "written contract "written contract requiring insurance", the requiring insurance". But this insurance provided insurance provided to the additional-insured to the additional insured still is excess over valid shall be limited to the limits of-liability required and collectible other insurance, whether primary, by that "written contract requiring insurance". excess, contingent or on any other basis, that is This endorsement does not increase the available to the additional insured when that limits of insurance described in Section III - person or organization -is an additional insured Limits Of Insurance. under any other insurance. i CG D3 81 09 15 O 2015 The Travelers Indemnity Company. All rights reserved. Page 1 of 2 Includes the copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY 3. The following is added to Paragraph 8., Transfer 4. The following definition is added to the Of Rights Of Recovery Against Others To Us, DEFINITIONS Section: of SECTION IV - COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CONDITIONS: "Written contract requiring insurance" means that part of any written contract under which you are We waive any right of recovery we may have required to include a person or organization as an against any person or organization because of additional insured on this Coverage Part, payments we make for "bodily injury", "property provided that the "bodily injury" and "property damage" or "personal injury" arising out of "your damage" occurs and the "personal injury" is work" performed by you, or on your behalf, done under a "written contract requiring insurance" with caused by an offense committed: that person or organization. We waive this right a. After you have signed that written contract; only where you have agreed to do so as part of b. While that part of the written contract is in the "written contract requiring insurance" with effect; and such person or organization signed by you before, and in effect when, the "bodily injury" or c. Before the end of the policy period. "property damage" occurs, or the "personal injury" offense is committed. ~I I~ I ~I Page 2 of 2 ® 2015 The Travelers Indemnity Company. All rights reserved. CG D3 81 09 15 Includes the copyrighted material of Insurance Services office. Inc., with Its permission II COMMERCIAL AUTO THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. BLANKET ADDITIONAL INSURED - PRIMARY AND NON-CONTRIBUTORY WITH OTHER INSURANCE This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: BUSINESS AUTO COVERAGE FORM PROVISIONS 2. The following is added to Paragraph B.5., Other 1. The following is added to Paragraph A.i.c., Who Insurance of SECTION IV - BUSINESS AUTO Is An Insured, of SECTION II - COVERED CONDITIONS: AUTOS LIABILITY COVERAGE: Regardless of the provisions of paragraph a. and Any person or organization who is required under paragraph d. of this part 5. Other Insurance, this a written contract or agreement between you and insurance is primary to and non-contributory with that person or organization, that is signed and applicable other insurance under which an addi- executed by you before the "bodily injury" or tional insured person or organization is the first "property damage" occurs and that is in effect named insured when the written contract or during the policy period, to be named as an addi- agreement between you and that person or or- tional insured is an "insured" for Covered Autos ganization, that is signed and executed by you Liability Coverage, but only for damages to which this insurance applies and only to the extent that before the "bodily injury" or "property damage" occurs and that is in effect during the policy pe- person or organization qualifies as an "insured" under the Who Is An Insured provision contained dod, requires this insurance to be primary and in SECTION II. non-contributory. III CA T4 74 02 15 ® 2015 The Travelers Indemnity Company. All rights reserved. Page 1 of 1 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc. with its permission. I Contract for PERSONAL SERVICES CITY OF CONSULTANT: Keller Associates Inc. ASHLAND CONTACT: James Bledsoe, P.E. 20 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 ADDRESS: 131 SW 5P Ave, Suite A Telephone: 541/488-6002 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Fax: 541/488-5311 TELEPHONE: 208-288-1992 DATE AGREEMENT PREPARED: December 28, 2017 FAX: 208-288-1999 BEGINNING DATE: March 20, 2018 Or when executed b City Council COMPLETION DATE: October 19, 2019 COMPENSATION: Not to exceed $97,380.00 SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED: Construction Phase services necessary for the replacement of the Terrace Street Pump Station. See attached "Exhibit D" for scope of work, budget and schedule. The Consultant shall perform the work using the standards of care, skill and diligence normally provided by a professional in the performance of such services in respect to similar work and shall comply will all applicable codes and standards. Consultant shall sign and abide by the attached "Exhibit C": Contract Clauses for contracts with Professional Services Contractors for projects funded by Safe Drinking Water financing. ADDITIONAL TERMS: In the event of conflicts or discrepancies among the contract documents, the City of Ashland Contract for Personal Services will be primary and take precedence, and any exhibits or ancillary contracts or agreements having redundant or contrary provisions will be subordinate to and interpreted in a manner that will not conflict with the said primary City of Ashland Contract Work under this contract is funded by the federal Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund through Business Oregon and a partnership of Local andlor Private Funds. FINDINGS: Pursuant to AMC 2.50.120, after reasonable inquiry and evaluation, the undersigned Department Head finds and determines that (1) the services to be acquired are personal services; (2) the City does not have adequate personnel nor resources to perform the services; (3) the statement of work represents the department's plan for utilization of such personal services; (4) the undersigned consultant has specialized experience, education, training and capability sufficient to perform the quality, quantity and type of work requested in the scope of work within the time and financial constraints provided; (5) the consultant's proposal will best serve the needs of the City; and (6) the compensation negotiated herein is fair and reasonable. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein the CITY AND CONSULTANT AGREE as follows: 1. Findings / Recitations. The findings and recitations set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. 2. All Costs by Consultant: Consultant shall, at its own risk and expense, perform the personal services described above and, unless otherwise specified, furnish all labor, equipment and materials required for the proper performance of such service. 3. Qualified Work: Consultant has represented, and by entering into this contract now represents, that all personnel assigned to the work required under this contract are fully qualified to perform the service to which they will be assigned in-a skilled and worker-like manner and, if required to be registeredi licensed or bonded by the State of Oregon, are so registered, licensed and bonded. 4. Completion Date: Consultant shall start performing the service under this contract by the beginning date indicated above and complete the-service by the completion date indicated above. 5. Compensation: City shall pay Consultant for service performed, including costs and expenses, the sum specified above. Payments shall be made within 30 days of the date of the invoice. Should the contract be prematurely terminated, payments will be made for work completed and accepted to date of termination. 6. Ownership of Documents: All documents prepared by Consultant pursuant to this contract shall be the property of city. 7. Statutory Requirements: ORS 279C.505, 279C.515, 279C.520 and 279C.530 are made part of this contract. 8. Living Wage Requirements: If the amount of this contract is $20,142.20 or more, Consultant is required to comply with chapter 3.12 of the Ashland Municipal Code by paying a living wage, as defined in this chapter, to all employees performing work under this contract and to any Subcontractor who performs 50% or more of the service work under this contract. Consultant is also required to post the notice attached hereto as Exhibit B predominantly in areas where it will be seen b all employees. Contract for Personal Services, Revised 06102/2015, Page 1 of 9 i 9. Indemnification: Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify and save City, its officers, employees and agents harmless from any and all losses, claims, actions, costs, expenses, judgments, subrogations, or other damages resulting from injury to any person (including injury resulting in death), or damage (including loss or destruction) to property, of whatsoever nature to the extent the harm caused arises out of the negligent acts, or errors, or omissions in performance of this contract by Consultant (including but not limited to, Consultant's employees, agents, and others designated by Consultant to perform work or services attendant to this contract). Consultant shall not be held responsible for any losses, expenses, claims, subrogations, actions, costs, judgments, or other damages, directly, solely, or proximately caused by the negligence of City. 10. Termination: a. Mutual Consent. This contract may be terminated at any time by mutual consent of both-parties. b. City's Convenience. This contract may be terminated at any time by City upon 30 days' notice in writing and delivered by certified mail or in person. C. For Cause. City may terminate or modify this contract, in whole or in part, effective upon delivery of written notice to Consultant, or at such later date as may be established by City under any of the following conditions: i. If City funding from federal, state, county or other sources is not obtained and continued at levels i sufficient to allow for the purchase of the indicated quantity of services; ii. If federal or state regulations or guidelines are modified, changed, or interpreted in such a way that the services are no longer allowable or appropriate for purchase under this contract or are no longer eligible for the funding proposed for payments authorized by this contract; or iii. If any license or certificate required by law or regulation to be held by Consultant to provide the services required by this contract is for any reason denied, revoked, suspended, or not renewed. d. For Default or Breach. i. Either City or Consultant may terminate this contract in the event of a breach of the contract 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 i 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. ii. Time is of the essence for Consultant's performance of each and every obligation and duty under this contract City by written notice to Consultant of default or breach may at any time terminate the whole or any part of this contract if Consultant fails to provide services called for by this contract within the time specified herein or in any extension thereof. iii. The rights and remedies of City provided in this subsection (d) are not exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this contract. e. Obligation/Liability of Parties. Termination or modification of this contract pursuant to subsections a, b, or c above shall be without prejudice to any obligations or liabilities of either party already accrued prior to such termination or modification. However, upon receiving a notice of termination (regardless whether such notice is given pursuant to subsections a, b, c or d of this section, Consultant shall immediately cease all activities under this contract, unless expressly directed otherwise by City in the notice of termination. Further, upon termination, Consultant shall deliver to City all contract documents, information, works-in-progress and other property that are or would be deliverables had the contract been completed. City shall pay Consultant for work performed prior to the termination date if such work was performed in accordance with the Contract 11. Independent Contractor Status: Consultant is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. Consultant shall have the complete responsibility for the performance of this contract. Consultant shall provide workers' compensation coverage as required in ORS Ch 656 for all persons employed to perform work pursuant to this contract. Consultant is a subject employer that will comply with ORS 656.017. 12. Assignment and Subcontracts: Consultantshall not assign this contract or subcontract any portion of the work without the written consent of City. Any attempted assignment or subcontract without written consent-of City shall be void. Consultant shall be fully responsible for the acts or omissions of any assigns or Subcontractors and of all persons employed by them,-and the approval by City of any assignment or subcontract shaA not create any contractual relation between the assignee or subcontractor and City. 13. Default. The Consultant shall be in default of this agreement if Consultant: commits any material breach or default of any covenant, warranty, certification, or obligation it owes under the Contract; its QRF status pursuant to the QRF Rules or loses any license, certificate or certification that is required to perform the Services or to qualify as a QRF if consultant has qualified as a QRF for this agreement; institutes an action for relief in bankruptcy or has instituted against it an action for insolvency; makes a general assignment for the benefit of creditors; or ceases doing business on a regular basis of the type identified in its obligations under the Contract; or attempts to assign rights in, or delegate duties under, the Contract. 14. Insurance. Consultant shall at its own expense provide the following insurance: a. Worker's Compensation insurance in compliance with ORS 656.017, which requires subject employers to provide Oregon workers' compensation coverage for all their subject workers b. Professional Liabili insurance with a combined single limit, or the equivalent, of not less than Contract for Personal Services, Revised 06102/2015, Page 2 of 9 i. $2,000,000 for each claim, incident or occurrence. This is to cover damages caused by error, omission or negligent acts related to the professional services to be provided under this contract. C. General Liability insur--ance with a combined single limit, or the equivalent, of not less than .$2;000,000 for each occurrence for Bodily Injury and Property Damage. d. Automobile Liability insurance with a combined single limit, or the equivalent, of not less than $1,00D,000, for each accident for Bodily Injury and Property Damage, including coverage for owned, hired or non-owned vehicles, as applicable. e. Notice of cancellation or change. There shall be no cancellation, material change, reduction of limits or j intent not to renew the insurance coverage(s) without 30 days' written notice from the Consultant or its insurer(s) to the City. f. Additional Insured/Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall name The City of Ashland, Oregon, and its elected officials, officers and employees as Additional Insureds on any insurance policies required herein but only with respect to Consultant's services to be provided under this Contract. The consultant's insurance is primary and non-contributory. As evidence of the insurance coverages required by this Contract, the Consultant shall furnish acceptable insurance certificates prior to commencing work under this contract. The certificate will specify all of the parties who are Additional Insureds. Insuring companies or entities are subject to the City's acceptance. If requested, complete copies of insurance policies; trust agreements, etc. shall be provided to the City. The Consultant shall be financially responsible for all pertinent deductibles, self-insured retentions and/or self- insurance. 15. Governing Law; Jurisdiction; Venue: This contract shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon without resort to any jurisdiction's conflict of laws, rules or doctrines. Any claim, action, suit or proceeding (collectively, "the claim") between the City (and/or any other or department of the State of Oregon) and the Consultant that arises from or relates to this contract shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the Circuit Court of Jackson County for the State of Oregon. If, however, the claim must be brought in a federal forum, then it shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the United States District Court for the District of Oregon filed in Jackson County, Oregon. Consultant, by the signature herein of its authorized representative, hereby consents to the in personam jurisdiction of said courts. In no event shall this section be construed as a waiver by City of any form of defense or immunity, based on the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, or otherwise, from any claim or from the jurisdiction. 16. THIS CONTRACT AND ATTACHED EXHIBITS CONSTITUTE THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES. NO WAIVER, CONSENT, MODIFICATION OR CHANGE OF TERMS OF THIS CONTRACT SHALL BIND EITHER PARTY UNLESS IN WRITING AND SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES. SUCH WAIVER, CONSENT, MODIFICATION OR CHANGE, IF MADE, SHALL BE EFFECTIVE ONLY IN THE SPECIFIC INSTANCE AND FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE GIVEN. THERE ARE NO UNDERSTANDINGS, AGREEMENTS, OR REPRESENTATIONS, ORAL OR WRITTEN, NOT SPECIFIED HEREIN REGARDING THIS CONTRACT. CONSULTANT, BY SIGNATURE OF ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE/SHE HAS READ THIS CONTRACT, UNDERSTANDS IT, AND AGREES TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS. 17. Nonappropriations Clause. Funds Available and Authorized: City has sufficient funds currently available and authorized for expenditure to finance the costs of this contract within the City's fiscal year budget. Consultant understands and agrees that City's payment of amounts under this contract attributable to work performed after the last day of the current fiscal year is contingent on City appropriations, or other expenditure authority sufficient to allow City in the exercise of its reasonable administrative discretion, to continue to make payments under this contract. In the event City has insufficient appropriations, limitations or other expenditure authority, City may terminate this contract without penalty or liability to City, effective upon the delivery of written notice to Consultant, with no further liability to Consultant Certification. Consultant shall sign the certification attached hereto as Exhibit A and herein incorporated by reference. ~I Contract for Personal Services, Revised 06/0212015, Page 3 of 9 Consultant: City of Ashland By l~-'+'► I. By Signat re City Administrator ~,aD T. L~NT~ Print Name Print Name PotiF I K r Title Date W-9 One copy of a W-9 is to be submitted with the signed contract. Purchase Order No. Contract for Personal Services, Revised 0610212015, Page 4 of 9 i EXHIBIT A CERTIFICATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS: Contractor, under penalty of perjury, certifies that (a) the number shown on the attached W-9 form is its correct taxpayer ID (or is waiting for the number to be issued to it and (b) Contractor is not subject to backup withholding because (i) it is exempt from backup withholding or (ii) it has not been notified by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that it is subject to backup withholding as a result of a failure to report all interest or dividends, or (iii) the IRS has notified it that it is no longer subject to backup withholding. Contractor further represents and warrants to City that (a) it has the power and authority to enter into and perform the work, (b) the Contract, when executed and delivered, shall be a valid and binding obligation of Contractor enforceable in accordance with its terms, (c) the work under the Contract shall be performed in accordance with local professional standards, and (d) Contractor is qualified, professionally competent and duly licensed to perform the work. Contractor also certifies under penalty of perjury that its business is not in violation of any Oregon tax laws, and it is a corporation authorized to act on behalf of the entity designated above and authorized to do business in Oregon or is an independent Contractor as defined in the contract documents, and has checked four or more of the following criteria: _ (1) 1 carry out the labor or services at a location separate from my residence or is in a specific portion of my residence, set aside as the location of the business. ~c (2) Commercial advertising or business cards or a trade association membership are purchased for the business. X (3) Telephone listing is used for the business separate from the personal residence listing. X (4) Labor or services are performed only pursuant to written contracts. (5) Labor or services are performed for two or more different persons within a period of one year. C (6) 1 assume financial responsibility for defective workmanship or for service not provided as evidenced by the ownership of performance bonds, warranties, errors and omission insurance or liability insurance relating to the labor or services to be provided. I -F-4 1. 'f' / /2- Zo $ Contractor (D te) Contract for Personal Services, Revised 0610212015, Page 5 of 9 CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON EXHIBIT B City of Ashland LIVING below I i ALL employers described WAGE comply . Ashland laws regulating payment of a living wage. per hour effective June 30, 2016 (Increases annually every June 30,, by the Consumer Price Index) t portion of business of their 401 K and iRS eligible employer, if the employer has cafeteria plans (including ten or more employees, and childcare) benefits to the has received financial amount of wages received by assistance for the project or the employee. ➢ For all hours worked under a business from the City of service contract between their Ashland in excess of ➢ Note: "Employee" does not employer and the City of $20,283.20. include temporary or part-time Ashland if the contract employees hired for less than exceeds $20,283.20 or more. ➢ If their employer is the City of 1040 hours in any twelve- Ashland including the Parks month period. For more ➢ For all hours worked in a and Recreation Department. details-on applicability of this month if the employee spends policy, please see Ashland employee's or more of the ➢ In calculating the living wage, Municipal Code Section time in that month II employers may add the value 3.T2.020. wording on a project or of health care, retirement, I For additional information: Call the Ashland City. Administrator's office at 541-488-6002 or write to the City Administrator, City Hall, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520 or visit the city's website at www.ashland.or.us. Notice to Employers: This notice must be posted predominantly in areas where it can be seen by all employees. CITY OF , ASHLAND Contract for Personal Services, Revised 06/02/2015, Page 6 of 9 f I "EXHIBIT C" Contract Clauses for contracts with Professional Services Contractors for projects funded by Safe Drinking Water financing SAM Registration and DUNS number are required for all entities that enter into direct contracts with the recipients of Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan funds SAM Registration: http:w.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/ DUNS Number NOTE: The SAM registration expires annually and must be kept active 838285500 until the SDWRLF project is closed Keller and Associates Language to be included verbatim in contracts according to any accompanying instructions 1. Source of Funds Work under this contract is funded by the federal Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund through the Oregon Business Development Department and a partnership of Local and/or Private Funds. Whistleblower (language to be included in all construction contracts and subcontracts) "Contractor receiving SDWRLF funds shall under or through this contract to, post notice of the rights and remedies provided to whistleblowers under No Fear Act Pub. L. 107-174.29 CFR § 1614.703 (d)." 3 Non Discrimination "The contractor shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin or sex in the performance of this contract. The contractor shall carry out applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 33 in the award and administration of contracts awarded under EPA financial assistance agreements. Failure by the contractor to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this contract which may result in the termination of this contract or other legally available remedies. 4. Termination for Cause and for Convenience & Breach of Contract (language to be included in all construction contracts and subcontracts in excess of $10,000:) "Contractor shall address termination for cause and for convenience, including the manner by which it will be effected and the basis for settlement. In addition, contractor shall address administrative, contractual, or legal remedies in instances where contractors violate or breach contract terms, and provide for such sanctions and penalties as appropriate." Contract for Personal Services, Revised 06/0212015, Page 7 of 9 it ICI ~I I I i 5. Intellectual Property (language to be included in all contracts:) "Contractor hereby grants to the U.S. E.P.A. a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish or otherwise use, and to authorize others to use, for federal government purposes, any intellectual property developed under this contract. Contractor shall secure from third parties the same license In the name of the U.S. E.P.A. regarding any intellectual property developed by third parties as subcontractors to perform this project, or developed under contract with the Contractor specifically to enable Contractors obligations related to this project." 6. Inspections; Information (language to be included in all construction contracts and subcontracts:) "Contractor shall permit, and cause its subcontractors to allow the City of Ashland, the State of Oregon, the federal government and any party designated by them to: (1) Examine, visit and inspect, at any and all reasonable times, the property, if any, constituting the Project. (2) Inspect and make copies of any accounts, books and records, including, without limitation, its records regarding receipts, disbursement, contracts, and any other matters relating to the Project, and to its financial standing, and shall supply such reports and information as reasonably requested. (3) Interview any officer or employee of the Contractor, or its subcontractors, regarding the Project. Contractor shall retain all records related to the Project for three years after final payments are made and any pending matters are closed." 7. Environmental and Natural Resource Laws (include the following language in all contracts and subcontracts in excess of $100,000:) "Contractor shall comply with all applicable standards, orders, or requirements issued under section 306 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857th)), section 508 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1368), Executive Order 11738, and Environmental Protection Agency regulations (40 CFR part 15). 8. Procurement of Recovered Materials (include the following language in all contracts and subcontracts in excess of $10,000:) "Contractor must comply with section 6002 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,. including procurement of recovered materials in a manner designated in guidelines of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at 40 CFR part 247." 9. Prohibition on the Use of Federal Funds for Lobbying (Certification Regarding Lobbying form follows, for any contracts in excess of $100,000) ' (form follows) CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING (Awards to Contractors and Subcontractors in excess of $100,000) The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that: Contract for Personal Services, Revised 06102/2015, Page 8 of 9 it I ~ I ~ I j II (1) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan or cooperative agreement. (2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions. (3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. Signed Title PREr~o»~T Date / Z Z-o 1 Contract for Personal Services, Revised 06/0212015, Page 9 of 9 EXHIBIT D KELL associates TERRACE STREET PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT SCOPE OF WORK Date: December 27, 2017 Owner: City of Ashland Engineer: Keller Associates, Inc. Project Number: 2015-31(KA# 217003-000) Project Name: Terrace Pump Station Upgrade BACKGROUND & SCOPE MODIFICATIONS The City desires assistance with managing and overseeing the construction of the Park Estates Pump Station Replacement Project. The City intends to replace the existing pump station before March 1, 2019. Design and bidding services were completed under a separate contract. Construction phase services to be completed by the Consultant are described below. Task 1- Project Management and Meetings i i Consultant Responsibilities: 1.1 Provide general project management for this task, including contract administration, monthly invoicing, progress reports, and internal project administration. Progress reports will describe services completed for each task, and identify needs for additional information, reviews, or changes to the scope and budget (if applicable). 1.2 Develop and maintain project schedule and budget. 1.3 Provide Consultant's MBE/WME reporting forms to City. Provide funding assistance as it pertains to Consultant services. All other funding administration services, including wage certification to be provided by the City. 1.4 Maintain SharePoint site for storing approved submittals, change orders, field-orders, pay requests, and meeting minutes. Assumptions: 1.5 City to provide forum for meetings. 1.6 Project management budget is based on a project duration from April 2018 through March 1, 2019. I 1.7 Project will be funded-with Infrastructure Finance Authority (IFA) funding. Funding administration services will be provided by others. i _ Englneering-Solutions,.Satisfied,Clients - Bend • Clarkston • Who Fah • Meridian • Pocatello-- Rods Soft= • Roseville • Salem Attachment A-Scope of Work Task 2 - Construction Phase Services i I. Consultant Responsibilities: 2.1 Construction Administration a. Provide monthly construction reports. b. Conduct preconstruction conference. c. Review contractor submittals. d. Review storm water pollution prevention plans and traffic control plans prepared by the contractor. e. Respond to Requests for Information (RFIs). f. Issue construction field orders and prepare construction change orders for execution by City. g. Perform substantial completion review and prepare punchlist. Participate in pump station startup and commissioning. Provide final inspection to check that punchlist items have been completed. h. Review contractor pay requests and make recommendation of payment to City. i. Review and approve record drawings (as-builts) prepared by contractor. j. Review and approve O&M manual prepared by contractor. k. Design engineer will participate in up to twelve (12) construction meetings that will be chaired by the City. Participation is anticipated to occur via conference call, with approximately six (6) onsite meetings to be coordinated with onsite visits during meaningful construction activities. 2.2 Construction Observation a. The City intends to provide periodic construction observation during construction and keep the Consultant informed on construction activities by sharing progress photos and reporting observed construction activities and concerns. The Consultant will be available to make supplemental inspections when meaningful construction activities are occurring. These visits are to generally observe the progress of construction and endeavor to protect the interests of the City. The contractor is responsible for the means, methods, and jobsite safety, and is solely responsible for completing the construction in accordance with the contract documents. For budgeting purposes, the Consultant has assumed 40 hours per month during the active construction period. City Responsibilities: 2.3 Provide periodic construction observation and construction management support services. Review and .approve pay applications, schedules, participate in construction meetings, review and approve change orders. 2.4 Pay for fees associated with construction document management system such as E4DOC. 2.5 Locate utilities for surveying and construction. 2.6 Coordinate and execute temporary process and electrical shut downs, potential draining and refilling of reservoir, and reservoir disinfection. 2.7 Participate in startup. and operator training by contractor and manufacturers Assumptions: 217003-000/a ADMIN CONTRACT Page 2 Attachment A-Scope of Work I 2.8 SCADA system integration services will be provided by others. 2.9 For budgeting purposes, it is assumed that there will be one general contractor and that work will occur over aten-month construction period with active construction over 16 weeks. It is assumed that the active period of construction for Park Estates and Terrace Street will not overlap. 2.10 Completing construction grade staking, material testing, and specialty inspections for construction will be the responsibility of the contractor. I Deliverables: 2.11 Construction meeting agendas and minutes; approved submittals; 0&M manual (three hard copies, 1 PDF); punchlist, substantial and final completion documentation. Task 3 -Terrace Street Pump Station, Additional Services Consultant shall complete other additional services listed below: 3.1 Additional services as required by the City of Ashland in performance of approved scope of services. These services are to be completed as authorized by City staff. % SCHEDULE Construction administration and observation activities are expected to begin April 2018 and continue until March 1, 2019. COMPENSATION SCHEDULE Consultant will complete the services for the amounts indicated below. Time and materials budgets will be completed per the current title code billing rates. While the individual task amounts may be exceeded, the total budget will not be exceeded without prior approval from the City. 'Task Descriptlon Compensation Project Management and Meetings $6,475 2 Construction Phase Services $81,905 3 Additional Services $9,000 Total $97,38 217003-000/a_ADMIN_CONTRACT Page 3 i City of Ashland last updated: 12r2712D17 Terrace Street Pump Station Engineer Fee Estimate ~ ~ ~ V t I 1 ~ ,e 1' 0 7 v k G cn tr~r a I"gyn. E JQiu u w a 1~' x: x ~_p~ sitp Pa $'230 ~1..~ 5700: : S'I +4 r $10J . $7 1 L'. F oeclh7` a_ogent 11 - ~ - ~ - ~ 1.2 Project budget'sohedule updates 4 I` 1.3 M6EWMME reporting forms 4 $740 6 B 14 $1,910 1.4 SharePoint site maintenance 4 4 e 16 $1 ,700 Task Total' 2 23 Q 0 0, D 1 $6,476 B . 4 . i MWIM rm':„w,..., 2.1a Monthly progress meeUngs 2 8 6 1 19 $2,280 2.1b Preconstruction meeting 5 5 1 $ 400 11 $2,045 2.1c Submhtal Revfews 2 4 6 6 20 40 3 82 $10,155 2.1d SWPPP and traffic control review 2 2 $260 2.1e RFIs 2 1 4 4 8 is 2 37 $4,640 2. it Field orders and change orders 2 1 1 1 12 8 25 $3,275 2.1g Substantial/final and startup 12 2 2 32 16 1 S 400 85 $9,080 2.1 If Pay requests 1 8 1 10 $1,295 2.11 Record drawings 1 5 4 1 11 $1,305 Y.1J 06M Manual 4 2 2 12 24 2 46 $6,470 2.1k Meetings (12 total, 6 onsite) 16 g6 4 $ 2,400 118 $16,120 2.2 Corlstrlydton observellon 4 B 8 24 160 S 1 800 $23.980 Task of 0 49 6 22 25 224 288 15 80204 $81,905 tl tioAal+ I r 3.1 Management reww" $ 8000 $9,o00 Task Total 0 0 0 0 Opp Total 2 72 8 22 25 224 .280 23 S97,380 TOTAL COSTS $97,380 I J:1217g04 Ashland Terrace elmet PS1f_AdmlOtCoklract161age ConslrucllonWsht ManHmrESYmate_Temm PS 12Dec2017.dn 1 D11 Form w-9 Request for Taxpayer Give Form to the (Rev. November 2017) Identification Number and Certification requester. Do not Internal Department the Service ► Go to www.irs.gov/FormW9 for instructions and the latest information. send to the IRS. I Name (as shown on your income tax return). Name is required on this line; do not leave this line blank. Keller Associates, Inc. 2 Business name/disregarded entity name, if different from above M 3 Check appropriate box for federal tax classification of the person whose name Is entered on line 1. Check only one of the 4 Exemptions codes a m Y ( PPN only to following seven boxes. certain entities, not individuals; see a instructions on page 3): o El Individual/sole proprietor or El C Corporation Z S Corporation El Partnership ❑ Trust/estate o c single-member LLC Exempt payee code (if any) CL 0 ❑ Limited liability company. Enter the tax classification (C=C corporation, S=S corporation, P=Partnership) ► `o Note: Check the appropriate box in the line above for the tax classification of the single-member owner. Do not check Exemption from FATCA reporting LLC if the LLC is classified as a single-member LLC that is disregarded from the owner unless the owner of the LLC is code y) another LLC that is not disregarded from the owner for U.S. federal lax purposes. Otherwise. a single-member LLC that (if an a o Is disregarded from the owner should check the appropriate box for the tax classification of its owner. o ❑ Other (see instructions) ► !MOMS 1e•c-W.MW,46vdov1w MUS,! y 5 Address (number, street, and apt. or suite no.) See Instructions. Requester's name and address (optionall 131 SW 5th Ave, Ste A 6 City, state. and ZIP code Meridian, ID 83642 7 List account number(s) here (optional) JUM Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) Enter your TIN in the appropriate box. The TIN provided must match the name given on line 1 to avoid Social security number backup withholding. For individuals, this is generally your social security number (SSN). However, for a resident alien, sole proprietor, or disregarded entity, see the instructions for Part I, later. For other _M entities, it is your employer identification number (EIN). If you do not have a number, see How to get a TIN, later. or Note: If the account is in more than one name, see the instructions for line 1. Also see What Name and Employer identification number Number To Give the Requester for guidelines on whose number to enter. M45 -10151714 2 M27 Certification Under penalties of perjury, I certify that: 1. The number shown on this form is my correct taxpayer identification number (or I am waiting for a number to be issued to me); and 2. 1 am not subject to backup withholding because: (a) I am exempt from backup withholding, or (b) I have not been notified by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that I am subject to backup withholding as a result of a failure to report all interest or dividends, or (c) the IRS has notified me that I am no longer subject to backup withholding; and 3. 1 am a U.S. citizen or other U.S. person (defined below); and 4. The FATCA code(s) entered on this form (if any) indicating that I am exempt from FATCA reporting is correct. Certification Instructions. You must cross out item 2 above if you have been notified by the IRS that you are currently subject to backup withholding because you have failed to report all interest and dividends on your tax return. For real estate transactions, item 2 does not apply. For mortgage interest paid, acquisition or abandonment of secured property, cancellation of debt, contributions to an individual retirement arrangement (IRA), and generally, payments other than interest and dividends, you are not required to sign the certification, but you must provide your correct TIN. See the instructions for Part If. later. Sign Signature of Here U.S. person ► Date ► i General Instructiollb • Form 1099-DIV (dividends, inc uding those from stocks or mutual funds) Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code unless of erwise . Form 1099-MISC (various types of income, prizes, awards, or gross noted. proceeds) Future developments. For the latest information about developments . Form 1099-B (stock or mutual fund sales and certain other related to Form W-9 and its instructions, such as legislation enacted transactions by brokers) after they were published, go to www.irs.gov/FormW9. . Form 1099-5 (proceeds from real estate transactions) Purpose of Form • Form 1099-K (merchant card and third party network transactions) An individual or entity (Form W-9 requester) who is required to file an • Form 1098 (home mortgage interest), 1098-E (student loan interest), information return with the IRS must obtain your correct taxpayer 1098-T (tuition) identification number (TIN) which may be your social security number • Form 1099-C (canceled debt) (SSN), individual taxpayer identification number (ITIN), adoption • Form 1099-A (acquisition or abandonment of secured property) taxpayer identification number (ATIN), or employer identification number Use Form W-9 only if you are a U.S. person (including a resident (EIN), to report on an information return the amount paid to you, or other alien), to provide your correct TIN. amount reportable on an information return. Examples of information returns include, but are not limited to, the following. It you do not return Form W-9 to the requester with a TIN, you might • Form 1099-INT (interest earned or paid) be subject to backup withholding. See What is backup withholding, later. Cat. No. 10231X Form W-9 (Rev. 11-2017) KELLASS-01 JYESR I `4~o~RO CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE 1 D22!0011//22017 1 017 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not-confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). PRODUCER CONTACT 9ME;___ The Hartwell Corporation PHONE PO Box 400 (vc, No, Ext): (208) 459-1678 Ne):(208) 454-1114 Caldwell, ID 83606 E DR s:thc@thehartwelleorp.com INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC O _ .--INSURER A: Travelers Indemnity Co of Am. 25658 INSURED INSURER B: Travelers Indemnity Co 25666 _ Keller Associates, Inc. INSURER C :Travelers Casual and Sure 31194 131 SW 5th Ave, Ste A INsuRER D : XL S ecial Insurance Co. 37885 Meridian, ID 83642 INSURER E INSURER F : COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR TYPE OF INSURANCE ADDL SUER POLICY NUMBER POUCY EFF POLICY EXP LBN LTR 1= (ULA1DD!YTYYI -I A [A _COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1,000,000 CWMS-MADE OCCUR X 680-41-1953952 12101/2017 12/01/2018 oAMAGE To RENTED 1,000,000 CGD381 10,000 (Ea ocoirrence) MED EXP one f P SoNAL&ADVINJURY 1,000,000 GEN'LAGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: GENERAL A REGATE 2,000,000 Rp. POLICY X JPECT F__] LOC PRODUCTS -COMP/OP A 2,DOO,000 OTHER: S B AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT 1,000,000 X ANY AUTO X BA-78771_468 112101/2017 1210112018 BODILY INJURY Per penson) $ OWNED L SCHEDULED AUTOS ONLY AUTOS y{.IEp BODILY INJURY Per accident S - AUTOS ONLY AUTOSypNLY ~OPERTY MAGE $ cadent S B UMBRELLA LIAR X OCCUR EACH OCCURRENCE $ 5,000,000 X EXCESS LIAB CLAIMS-MADE CUP-8961X179. 12101/2017 12/01/2018 AGGREGATE S 5,000,000 DED X RETENTION $ 10,000 C WORKERS COMPENSATION X PER OTI+ AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY Y1-N- A _ ANY PROPRIETORIPARTNER/EXECUTIVE UB-8J144072 1210112017 12/01/2018 E.L. EACH ACCIDENT 1,000,000 QFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? ❑N NIA (Mandatory in NH) E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOY S 1,000,000 It yes, describe under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below E.L. DISEASE -POLICY LIMIT S 1,000,000 D Professional Llablli DPR9919947 12101/2017 12101/2018 Each Claim 2,000,000 D $150,000~deductible DPR9919947 12/01/2017 12/01/2018 Aggregate 4,000,000 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS I LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Addt ional Remarks Schedule, may be attached If more spa" is required) City of Ashland, Oregon, and-its elected officials, officers and employees are additional insureds for general liability as provided by policy form CGD381. CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF THF- ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE. City of Ashland THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, N071CE WILL BE DELIVERED IN C ity E Main Street ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. 20 Ashland, OR 97520 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ACORD 25 (2016/03) 0 ©1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. BLANKET ADDITIONAL INSURED (ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS) This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART 1. The following is added to SECTION II - WHO IS h. This insurance does not apply to "bodily AN INSURED: injury" or "property damage" caused by "your Any person or organization that you agree in a work" and included in the "products- "written contract requiring insurance" to include as completed operations hazard" unless the an additional insured on this Coverage Part, but: "written contract requiring insurance" specifically requires you to provide such a. Only with respect to liability for 'bodily injury", coverage for that additional insured, and then "property damage" or "personal injury"; and the insurance provided to the additional b. If, and only to the extent that, the injury or insured applies only to such "bodily injury" or damage is caused by ads or omissions of "property damage" that occurs before the end you or your subcontractor* in the performance of the period of time for which the "written of "your work" to which the "written contract contract requiring insurance" requires you to requiring insurance" applies, or in connection provide such coverage or the end of the with premises owned by or rented to you. policy period, whichever is earlier. The person or organization does not qualify as an 2. The following is added to Paragraph 4.a. of additional insured: SECTION IV - COMMERCIAL GENERAL c. With respect to the independent acts or LIABILITY CONDITIONS: omissions of such person or organization; or The insurance provided to the additional insured d. For "bodily injury", "property damage" or is excess over any valid and collectible other "personal injury" for which such person or insurance, whether primary, excess, contingent or organization has assumed liability in a on any other basis, that is available to the contract or agreement. additional insured for a loss we cover. However, if you specifically agree in the "written contract The insurance provided to such additional insured requiring insurance" that this insurance provided is limited as follows: to the additional insured under this Coverage Part e. This insurance does not apply on any basis to must apply on a primary basis or a primary and any person or organization for which non-contributory basis, this insurance is primary coverage as an additional insured specifically to other insurance available to the additional is added by another endorsement to this insured which covers that person or organizations Coverage Part. as a named insured for such loss, and we will not share with the other insurance, provided that: t This insurance does not apply to the (1) The "bodily injury" or "property damage" for rendering of or failure to render any "professional services". which coverage is sought occurs; and g. In the event that the Limits of Insurance of the (2) The "personal injury" for which coverage is Coverage Part shown in the Declarations sought arises out of an offense committed; exceed the limits of liability required by the after you have signed that "written contract "written contract requiring insurance", the requiring insurance". But this insurance provided insurance provided to the additional insured to the additional insured still is excess over valid shall be limited to the limits of liability required and collectible -other insurance, whether primary, by that "written contract requiring insurance". excess, contingent or on any other basis, that is This endorsement does not increase the available -to the additional insured when that limits of insurance described in Section III - person or organization is an additional insured Limits Of Insurance. under any other insurance. CG D3 81 09 15 ® 2015 The Travelers Indemnity Company. All rights reserved. Page 1 of 2 Includes the copyrighted material or Insurance Services Office, Inc., with its pennission I COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY I 3. The following is added to Paragraph 8., Transfer 4. The following definition is added to the Of Rights Of Recovery Against Others To Us, DEFINITIONS Section: of SECTION IV - COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CONDITIONS: "Written contract requiring insurance" means that part of any written contract under which you are We waive any right of recovery we may have required to include a person or organization as an against any person or organization because of additional insured on this Coverage Part, payments we make for "bodily injury, "property provided that the "bodily injury" and " damage" or "personal injury" arising out of "your Y eproperty work" performed by you, or on your behalf, done damage occurs and the personal injury" is under a "written contract requiring insurance" with caused by an offense committed: that person or organization. We waive this right a. After you have signed that written contract; only where you have agreed to do so as part of b. While that part of the written contract is in the "written contract requiring insurance" with effect; and such person or organization signed by you before, and in effect when, the "bodily injury' or c. Before the end of the policy period. "property damage" occurs, or the "personal injury" offense is committed. Page 2 of 2 ® 2015 The Travelers Indemnity Company. All rights reserved. CG D3 81 09 15 Includes the copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission COMMERCIAL AUTO THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. BLANKET ADDITIONAL INSURED - PRIMARY AND NON-CONTRIBUTORY WITH OTHER INSURANCE This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: BUSINESS AUTO COVERAGE FORM PROVISIONS 2. The following is added to Paragraph B.5., Other 1. The following is added to Paragraph A.1.c., Who Insurance of SECTION IV - BUSINESS AUTO Is An Insured, of SECTION II - COVERED CONDITIONS: AUTOS LIABILITY COVERAGE: Regardless of the provisions of paragraph a. and Any person or organization who is required under paragraph d. of this part 5. Other Insurance, this a written contract or agreement between you and insurance is primary to and non-contributory with that person or organization, that is signed and applicable other insurance under which an addi- executed by you before the "bodily injury" or tional insured person or organization is the first "property damage" occurs and that is in effect named insured when the written contract or during the policy period, to be named as an addi- agreement between you and that person or or- tional insured is an "insured" for Covered Autos ganization, that is signed and executed by you Liability Coverage, but only for damages to which before the "bodily injury" or "property damage" this insurance applies and only to the extent that occurs and that is in effect during the policy pe- person or organization qualifies as an Insured' under the Who Is An Insured provision contained riod, requires this insurance to be primary and in SECTION II. non-contributory. CA T4 74 02 15 m 2015 The Travelers Indemnity Company. All rights reserved. Page 1 of 1 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc. with its permission. I Council Business Meeting March 20, 2018 Title: Award of Construction Contract for the Construction of the Park Estates and Terrace Street Pump Station Improvements From: Paula Brown Public Works Director Paula. Brown(c_ashland.or.us Kevin Caldwell Senior Project Manager Kevin. Caldwell(a)ashland.or.us Summary: Before the Council is a public works construction contract for improvements to the Park Estates and "Terrace Street pump stations. The apparent low bidder for the project is McClure and Sons Inc. If this contract is awarded, staff will work with the McClure and Sons to immediately begin construction activities associated with the Park Estates Pump Station. Work is anticipated to begin on the Terrace Street Pump Station this winter due to irrigation season and to facilitate the possibility of pumping Talent Irrigation District (TID) water to the water treatment plant. In addition to this construction contract, under separate action, staff is also requesting the award of a construction support services contract to Keller Associates at this evening's business meeting. Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: Move to approve award of the construction contract with additives to McClure and Sons Inc. in the amount of $2.990,630 for the Park Estates and Terrace Street Pump Station Improvements. This project was bid ,vith two additive items; 1) SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) improvements at the Talent-Ashland-Phoenix (TAP) Pump Station to integrate network controls, and 2) additional parking bump-out on Ashland Loop Road. Staff elected to bid these items separately as they are not specifically required for the pump station(s) operation, and could be optional if the bid pricing came in higher than anticipated. Staff recommends both additive items be awarded as the bid pricing was within the engineer's estimate ($3,241,000) and the City may capitalize on the economy of scale. The option, should Council not approve this contract. is to rc-bid the construction as two separate contracts or not complcte the work. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Council accept the bid and award a contract to McClure and Sons Inc. in the amount of $2,990,630 to include the two additives for the Park Estates and Terrace Street Pump Station Improvements. Pagel o174 CITY OF -ASHLAND Resource Requirements: Funds to support the complete project are allocated in the current biennium. The biennium budget has $3,570,000 for the pump stations and pretreatment for the City's use of the TID raw water. At the November 21, 2017, Business Meeting, Council approved an increase in the current Infrastructure Financing Authority Loan (IFA) to cover costs associated with the pump station improvements. The City has a low interest loan from the IFA with $1,924,555 remaining to fund the construction of the Terrace Street and Park Estates pump stations. This funding must be expensed by October 19, 2019, in order to stay in compliance with the loan requirements. The remaining monies required to cover project expenses will come from the appropriations granted in the water supply and distribution budgets. Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: The projects presented above represent the development and subsequent Council approval of the 2012 Comprehensive Water Master Plan Update. The water master plan update was the culmination of a multi-year effort between Carollo Engineers, Ashland Water Advisory Committee (AWAC) and city staff. Council Goals: 4. Evaluate real property and facility assets to strategically support city mission and goals. 22. Prepare for the impact of climate change on the community. Department Goals: • Maintain existing infrastructure to meet regulatory requirements and minimize life-cycle costs • Deliver timely life cycle capital improvement projects • Maintain and improve infrastructure that enhances the economic vitality of the community • Evaluate all city infrastructure regarding planning management and financial resources Background and Additional Information: This project was publicly bid on January 4, 2018. Bids were received from McClure and Sons Inc., James W. Fowler Co (JWF), Adroit Construction and TEK Construction on February 14, 2018. McClure and Sons Inc. submitted the low bid of $2,990,630. On February 28, 2016, JWF, the second low bidder, submitted a bid protest (attachment 6). Staff solicited a reply from McClure and Sons in response to that protest (see attachment 7). conferred with legal and responded to JWF, rejecting their protest. As such, staff and the City's engineering consultants find McClure and Sons Inc. to be the lowest responsive bidder and meets project requirements for construction of the two pump stations. As required by the IFA Loan, staff has forwarded all project plans, specifications and contracts to the City's regional loan coordinator for review and approval. The regional coordinator has approved all contract and construction documents referenced as attachments to this staff report. Page 2 of 4 CITY OF -ASHLAND Park Estates Pump Station: This project addresses pumping redundancy and operational plaguing of the current pump station and addresses estimated fire flow deficiencies in the Park Estates and South Mountain service areas. The current pump station configuration does not generate enough suction pressure to access all water in the Crowson Reservoir, leaving approximately 1 million gallons of untapped potable water unavailable for use ~Nithin the distribution system. The new pump station will provide tine vertical turbine redundant pumps for peak hour capacity and fire flow requirements. All pumps will run off of variable frequency drives (VFDs) providing an efficiency improvement over the current pump station configuration. Keller Associates estimated efficiency improvements and annual pump operating costs which are shown in table 1. Pump Vertical Turbine Submersible Existing Pump Pump Pump 2030 Average Demand 25 gpm 25 gpm 25 gpm Motor Rating S hp 5 hp 30 hp Pump Efficiency at 30% 2030 Demand Point 62% 54% Annual Energy Use (kWh) 17,000 21,000 85,000 Table l: Annual Energy Cost $1,360 $1,680 $6,800 The pump station improvements were also designed and sized to eliminate the South Mountain pump station once the Waterline Road piping project is complete. This will allow the City to abandon a pump station and provide an additional reduction in electrical consumption. In addition, completing the project provides for safer access and maintenance of the pump station as the existing pump station constructed is below grade in a small circular concrete structure. Terrace Street Pump Station: Water curtailment in 2009 necessitated upgrades to the existing pump station used to send water from the TID canal to the Water Treatment Plant during dry years. The current pump station configuration houses three 200-horsepower pumps that are operated manually when the pump station is in use. Manual operation requires 24-hour management of the pump station during these periods to maintain flow to the water treatment plant. The project will replace the existing pumps with three new vertical turbine pumps capable of delivering 3.5 million gallons a day to the water treatment plant and provide a new at-grade pump house. The pump station will also be capable of pre-treating TID water for organics as recommended in the 2012 master plan. Keller Associates estimated efficiency improvements and annual pump operating costs which are shown in table 2. Page 3 of 4 CITY OF -ASHLAND Pump Vedical Turbine Submersible Pump Exisiting Pump I Pump Average Demand $37,013 83.7% 84% Motor Rating 100 hp 100 hp 200 hp Pump Efficiency at 84% 81% 65% Demand Point Annual Energy Use 94,000 101,000 157,000 (kWh) Annual Energy Cost $7,520 $8,080 $12,560 "fable 2: Attachments: 1) Bid Summary 2) Engineer's Estimate 3) Construction Contract 4) Engineer's Recommendation 5) Notice of Award 6) JW Fowler Co Bid Protest Letter (February 28, 2018) 7) McClure and Sons Response to JWF (March 1, 2018) 8) City of Ashland Response to Protest (March 8, 2018) Project Drawings available upon request. I I Page 4 of 4 CITY OF -AS H LA N D I CITY OF ASHLAND - ENGINEERING DIVISION SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS Project: Park Estates / Terrace St Pump Stations Project No: 2012-04 / 2012-01 Date of bid opening: February 14, 2018 - 2:00 p.m., Siskiyou Conference Room No of Addendum: Name of Bidder 1 3 2 4 5 6 McClure and James W Adroit Tek Sons, Inc Fowler Co Construction Construction Park Estates LS $ 1,882,651 $ 1,902,000 $ 1,925,750 $ 1,900,000 Terrace St LS 820,000 812,000 976,960 1,100,000 Control Integration 125,717 125,717 125,717 125,717 Contingency 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Sum of base bid $ 2,878,368 $ 2,889,717 $ 3,078,427 $ 3,175,717 0 0 Additive Bid 1 92,262 92,262 92,262 92,262 Additive Bid 2 20,000 19,280 17,550 50,000 Total Bid Amount $ 2,990,630 $ 3,001,259 $ 3,188,239 $ 3,317,979 G:1pub-wrksleng12015 Project Year115-31 WTP - Crowson II1Bid summary 02.14.18.xlsx City of Ashland Overall Summary Pump Station Cost Estimate PROJECT: Park Estates and Terrace Street PS JOB 217003 LOCATION: Ashland, Oregon DATE : 1/4/2018 ESTIMATE CLASS: 100% Design BY : JK/MS Description Estimated Cost Base Bid Park Estates Pump Station $ 1,927,000 Terrace Street Pump Station $ 1,013,000 Contingency Allowance $ 50,000 Control Integration $ 218,000 Total Base Bid $ 3,208,000 Additive Bid Parking along Ashland Loop Road $ 33,000 Total Additive Bid $ 33,000 The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our professional opinion of accurate costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids or actual construction costs will not vary from the costs presented herein. J:\217003 Ashland Park Estates PS\c DESN\ CALCS\Cost Estimate Combined.xls City of Ashland Park Estates PS Park Estates Booster Station Cost Estimate PROJECT: Park Estates Booster Station JOB 217003 LOCATION: Ashland, Oregon DATE : 1/412018 ESTIMATE CLASS: 100% Design BY: JK/MS Description ~'ated Cost r Sitework/Yard Piping 545,000 Building Structure $ 201,000 Equipment $ 224,000 Mechanical Piping and Valves $ 107,000 HVAC/Plumbing $ 35,000 Electrical $ 301,000 Instrumentation and Controls $ 102,832 Direct Cost for Base Bid $ 1,515,832 General Conditions (mob, demob, field man.) 10% $ 152,000 Subtotal $ 1,667,832 Contingency 5% $ 83,392 Subtotal $ 1,752,000 Contractor Overhead and Profit 10% $ 175,000 Subtotal $ 1,927,000 Total Base Bid $ 1,927,000 Additive Bid Parking along Ashland Loop Road $ 33,000 Direct Cost for Additive Bid $ 33,000 I The cost estimate herein is hawd on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estln,ate reflects our professional opinion of accurate costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrantor guarantee that proposals, bids or actual construction costs will not vary from the costs presented herein. J:\217003 Ashland Park Estates PS\c DESN1 CALCS\Cost Estimate Combined.xls I City of Ashland Terrace Street PS Terrace Street Booster Station Cost Estimate PROJECT: Terrace Street Booster Station JOB 217004 LOCATION: Ashland, Oregon DATE : 114/2018 ESTIMATE CLASS: 100% Design BY : JKIMS Descriv Piping Building Structure/Dry Pit Modifications $ 206,000 Equipment $ 203,000 Mechanical Piping and Valves $ 72,000 HVAC/Plumbing $ 15,000 Electrical $ 149,000 Instrumentation and Controls $ 82,000 Direct Cost for Base Bid $ 797,000 General Conditions (mob, demob, field man.) 10% $ 80,000 Subtotal $ 877,000 Contingency 5% $ 43,850 Subtotal $ 921,000 Contractor Overhead and Profit 10% $ 92,000 Subtotal $ 1,013,000 Total Base Bid $ 1,013,000 The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our professional opinion of accurate costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids or actual construction costs will not vary from the costs presented herein. J:1217003 Ashland Park Estates PS1c DESN1 CALCS1Cost Estimate Combined.xls - I CITY OF ASI ILAND PARK ESTATES AND TERRACE STREET PUMP STATIONS 217003 AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND CONTRACTOR FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (STIPULATED PRICE) THIS AGREEMENT is by and between the City of Ashland, an Oregon municipal corporation ("Owner") and McClure and Sons, Inc. ("Contractor"). Owner and Contractor hereby agree as follows: ARTICLE 1- WORK 1.01 Contractor shall complete all Work as specified or indicated in the Contract Documents. The Work is generally described as follows: improvements to the existing Terrace Street Pump Station and construction of the new Park Estates Pump Station involving construction of steel and masonry structures; demolition and site improvements; installation of pumps, mechanical piping, electrical gear, generator, and appurtenant work. 1.02 Work shall include Base Bid plus Additive Bid Item #1 and Additive Bid Item #2. ARTICLE 2-THE PROJECT 2.01 The Project, of which the Work under the Contract Documents is a part, is generally described as follows: Structural, architectural, mechanical, and electrical design of a new pump station in Park Estates, and upgrades to the existing Terrace pump station. City of Ashland, Oregon Park Estates and Terrace Pump Stations Project No. 217003 ARTICLE 3 - ENGINEER 3.01 The Project has been designed by Keller Associates. 3.02 The Owner has retained Keller Associates, Inc. ("Engineer") to act as Owner's representative, assume all duties and responsibilities, and have the rights and authority assigned to Engineer in the Contract Documents in connection with the completion of the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents. ARTICLE 4 - CONTRACT TIMES 4.01 Time of the Essence All time limits for Milestones, if any, Substantial Completion, and completion and readiness for final payment as stated in the Contract Documents are of the essence of the Contract. Modified from 2013 EJCDC* C-520, Agreement Between Owner and Contractor for Construction Contract (Stipulated Price). Page i of 8 I CITY OF ASHLAND PARK ESTATES AND TERRACE STREET PUMP STATIONS 217003 4.02 Contract Times: A. The Work will be substantially completed by March 1, 2019 after the date when the Contract Times commence to run as provided in Paragraph 4.01 of the General Conditions, and completed and ready for final payment in accordance with Paragraph 15.06 of the General Conditions by April 1, 2019 after the date when the Contract Times commence to run. B. Parts of the Work shall be substantially completed on or before the following Milestone(s): 1. Milestone 1. The Contractor shall complete the SCADA and Integration services at TAP Pump Station by June 1, 2018 if additive bid item #1 is awarded. These integration services are anticipated to the responsibility of the Owner's integrator (ORPAC). 2. Milestone 2. The Contractor shall complete the modifications at Park Estates Pump Station as identified in the drawings and specifications by November 1, 2018. C. Contractor and Owner recognize that time is of the essence as stated in Paragraph 4.01 above and that Owner will suffer financial and other losses if the Work is not completed and Milestones not achieved within the times specified in Paragraph 4.02 above, plus any extensions thereof allowed in accordance with the Contract. The parties also recognize the delays, expense, and difficulties involved in proving in a legal or arbitration proceeding the actual loss suffered by Owner if the Work is not completed on time. Accordingly, instead of requiring any such proof, Owner and Contractor agree that as liquidated damages for delay (but not as a penalty): 1. Substantial and Final Completion: Contractor shall pay Owner $2,000.00 for each day that expires after the time (as duly adjusted pursuant to the Contract) specified in Paragraph 4.02.A above for Substantial and Final Completion until the Work is complete. 2. Milestone 1 and 2: Contractor shall pay Owner $2,000.00 for each day that expires after the time (as duly adjusted pursuant to the Contract) specified in Paragraph 4.02.B above for Milestone 1 and 2 until the Milestones are achieved. 3. Liquidated damages for failing to timely attain Substantial Completion and Final Completion are not additive and will not be imposed concurrently. ARTICLE 5 - CONTRACT PRICE A. For all Work, at the prices stated in Contractor's Bid, attached hereto as an exhibit. The total contract price is $2,990,630.00 . ARTICLE 6 - PAYMENT PROCEDURES 6.01 Submittal and Processing of Payments A. Contractor shall submit Applications for Payment in accordance with Article 15 of the General Conditions. Applications for Payment will be processed by Engineer as provided in the General Conditions. it Modified from 2013 EJCDC® C-520, Agreement Between Owner and Contractor for Construction Contract (Stipulated Price). Page 2 of 8 CITY OF ASHLAND PARK ESTATES AND TERRACE STREET PUMP STATIONS 217003 6.02 Progress Payments, Retainage A. Owner shall make progress payments on account of the Contract Price on the basis of Contractor's Applications for Payment on or about the 30th day of each month during performance of the Work as provided in Paragraph 6.02.A.1 below, provided that such Applications for Payment have been submitted in a timely manner and otherwise meet the requirements of the Contract. All such payments will be measured by the Schedule of Values established as provided in the General Conditions (and in the case of Unit Price Work based on the number of units completed) or, in the event there is no Schedule of Values, as provided elsewhere in the Contract. 1. Prior to Substantial Completion, progress payments will be made in an amount equal to the percentage indicated below but, in each case, less the aggregate of payments previously made and less such amounts as Owner may withhold, including but not limited to liquidated damages, in accordance with the Contract a. 95 percent of Work completed (with the balance being retainage). If the Work has been 50 percent completed as determined by Engineer, and if the character and progress of the Work have been satisfactory to Owner and Engineer, then as long as the character and progress of the Work remain satisfactory to Owner and Engineer, there will be no additional retainage; and b. 95 percent of cost of materials and equipment not incorporated in the Work (with the balance being retainage). B. Upon Substantial Completion, Owner shall pay an amount sufficient to increase total payments to Contractor to 100 percent of the Work completed, less such amounts set off by Owner pursuant to Paragraph 15.011 of the General Conditions, and less 200 percent of Engineer's estimate of the value of Work to be completed or corrected as shown on the punch list of items to be completed or corrected prior to final payment. 6.03 Final Payment A. Upon final completion and acceptance of the Work in accordance with Paragraph 15.06 of the General Conditions, Owner shall pay the remainder of the Contract Price as recommended by Engineer as provided in said Paragraph 15.06. ARTICLE 7 - INTEREST 7.01 All amounts not paid when due shall bear interest at the rate of 6.0 percent per annum. ARTICLE 8 - CONTRACTOR'S REPRESENTATIONS I i 8.01 In order to induce Owner to enter into this Contract, Contractor makes the following representations: A. Contractor has examined and carefully studied the Contract Documents, and any data and reference items identified in the Contract Documents. i B. Contractor has visited the Site, conducted a thorough, alert visual examination of the Site and adjacent areas, and become familiar with and is satisfied as to the general, local, and Site conditions that may affect cost, progress, and performance of the Work. Modified from 2013 EJCDC® C-520, Agreement Between Owner and Contractor for Construction Contract (Stipulated Price). Page 3 of 8 CITY OF ASFILAND PARK ESTATES AND TFRRACF, STREET PUMP STATIONS 217003 C. Contractor is familiar with and is satisfied as to all Laws and Regulations that may affect cost, progress, and performance of the Work. D. Contractor has carefully studied all: reports of explorations and tests of subsurface conditions at or adjacent to the Site and all drawings of physical conditions relating to existing surface or subsurface structures at the Site that have been identified in the Supplementary Conditions, especially with respect to Technical Data in such reports and drawings, and reports and drawings relating to Hazardous Environmental Conditions, if any, at or adjacent to the Site that have been identified in the Supplementary Conditions, especially with respect to Technical Data in such reports and drawings. E. Contractor has considered the information known to Contractor itself; information commonly known to contractors doing business in the locality of the Site; information and observations obtained from visits to the Site; the Contract Documents; and the Site-related reports and drawings identified in the Contract Documents, with respect to the effect of such information, observations, and documents on (1) the cost, progress, and performance of the Work; (2) the means, methods, techniques, sequences, and procedures of construction to be employed by Contractor; and (3) Contractor's safety precautions and programs. F. Based on the information and observations referred to in the preceding paragraph, Contractor agrees that no further examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, studies, or data are necessary for the performance of the Work at the Contract Price, within the Contract Times, and in accordance with the other terms and conditions of the Contract. G. Contractor is aware of the general nature of work to be performed by Owner and others at the Site that relates to the Work as indicated in the Contract Documents. H. Contractor has given Engineer written notice of all conflicts, errors, ambiguities, or discrepancies that Contractor has discovered in the Contract Documents, and the written resolution thereof by Engineer is acceptable to Contractor. 1. The Contract Documents are generally sufficient to indicate and convey understanding of all terms and conditions for performance and furnishing of the Work. J. Contractor's entry into this Contract constitutes an incontrovertible representation by Contractor that without exception all prices in the Agreement are premised upon performing and furnishing the Work required by the Contract Documents. ARTICLE 9 - CONTRACT DOCUMENTS 9.01 Contents A. The Contract Documents consist of the following: 1. This Agreement (pages 1 to 8 , inclusive). 2. Performance bond. 3. Payment bond. 4. General Conditions (pages 1 to 66 , inclusive). 5. Supplementary Conditions (pages 1 to 13 , inclusive). 6. Specifications as listed in the table of contents of the Project Manual. Modified from 2013 EJCDC® C-520, Agreement Between Owner and Contractor for Construction Contract (Stipulated Price). Page 4 of 8 CITY OF ASI ELAND PARK ESTATES AND TERRACE STREET PUMP STATIONS 217003 7. Drawings (not attached but incorporated by reference) consisting of 87 sheets with each sheet bearing the following general title: Park Estates & Terrace Street Pump Stations. 8. Addenda (numbers 1 to 4 , inclusive). 9. Exhibits to this Agreement which are fully incorporated herein by this reference (enumerated as follows): a. Contractor's Bid (pages 1 to 39 , inclusive), including completed IFA forms. b. Construction Contract Requirements for Recipients of Safe Drinking Water Financing. c. The Oregon Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund Program Labor Standards Guidelines. 10. The following which may be delivered or issued on or after the Effective Date of the Contract and are not attached hereto: a. Notice to Proceed. b. Work Change Directives. C. Change Orders. d. Field Orders. B. The documents listed in Paragraph 9.01.A are attached to this Agreement (except as expressly noted otherwise above). C. There are no Contract Documents otherthan those listed above in this Article 9. D. The Contract Documents may only be amended, modified, or supplemented as provided in the General Conditions. ARTICLE 10 - MISCELLANEOUS 10.01 Terms A. Terms used in this Agreement will have the meanings stated in the General Conditions and the Supplementary Conditions. 10.02 Assignment of Contract A. Unless expressly agreed to elsewhere in the Contract, no assignment by a party hereto of any rights under or interests in the Contract will be binding on another party hereto without the written consent of the party sought to be bound; and, specifically but without limitation, money that may become due and money that is due may not be assigned without such consent (except to the extent that the effect of this restriction may be limited by law), and unless specifically stated to the contrary in any written consent to an assignment, no assignment will release or discharge the assignor from any duty or responsibility under the Contract Documents. Modified from 2013 EJCDCO° C-520, Agreement Between Owner and Contractor for Construction Contract (Stipulated Price). Page 5 of 8 II CITY OF ASHLAND PARK ESTATES AND TERRACE STREET PUMP STATIONS 217003 10.03 Successors and Assigns A. Owner and Contractor each binds itself, its successors, assigns, and legal representatives to the other party hereto, its successors, assigns, and legal representatives in respect to all covenants, agreements, and obligations contained in the Contract Documents. 10.04 Severability A. Any provision or part of the Contract Documents held to be void or unenforceable under any Law or Regulation shall be deemed stricken, and all remaining provisions shall continue to be valid and binding upon owner and Contractor, who agree that the Contract Documents shall be reformed to replace such stricken provision or part thereof with a valid and enforceable provision that comes as close as possible to expressing the intention of the stricken provision. 10.05 Contractor's Certifications A. Contractor certifies that it has not engaged in corrupt, fraudulent, collusive, or coercive practices in competing for or in executing the Contract. For the purposes of this Paragraph 10.05: 1. "corrupt practice" means the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any thing of value likely to influence the action of a public official in the bidding process or in the Contract execution; 2. "fraudulent practice" means an intentional misrepresentation of facts made (a) to influence the bidding process or the execution of the Contract to the detriment of Owner, (b) to establish Bid or Contract prices at artificial non-competitive levels, or (c) to deprive Owner of the benefits of free and open competition; 3. "collusive practice" means a scheme or arrangement between two or more Bidders, with or without the knowledge of Owner, a purpose of which is to establish Bid prices at artificial, non-competitive levels; and i 4. "coercive practice" means harming or threatening to harm, directly or indirectly, persons or their property to influence their participation in the bidding process or affect the execution of the Contract. 10.06 State Drinking Water Financing Contract Provisions A. The Contractor agrees to abide by the requirements of the Clean Drinking Water Revolving Fund Program as applicable to this project, including all of the required contract clauses found in the Construction Contract Requirements for Recipients of Safe Drinking Water Financing attached to this Agreement and incorporated herein by this reference. B. The Contractor agrees to abide by the Oregon Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund Program Labor Standards Guidelines attached to this Agreement and incorporated herein by this reference (pages 1 to 12, inclusive). I C. Contractor shall carry out applicable requirements of Infrastructure Finance Authority (IFA) in the award under the Clean Drinking Water Revolving Fund Program. Failure by the Contractor to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this contract which may result in the termination of this Contract or other legally available remedies. Modified from 2013 EJCDCO C-520, Agreement Between Owner and Contractor for Construction Contract (Stipulated Price). Page 6 of 8 CITY OF ASHLAND PARK ESTATES AND TERRACE-; STREET PUMP S"T'A"T'IONS 217003 10.07 Governing Low The Contract shall be governed by the laws of the State of Oregon without regard to conflict of laws principles. Exclusive venue for litigation of any action arising under this Contract shall be in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Jackson County unless exclusive jurisdiction is in federal court, in which case exclusive venue shall be in the federal district court for the district of Oregon. Each party expressly waives any and all rights to maintain an action under this Contract in any other venue, and expressly consents that, upon motion of the other party, any case may be dismissed or its venue transferred, as appropriate, so as to effectuate this choice of venue. 10.08 Effective Date The Contract shall become effective on the date of execution on behalf of the Owner, as set forth below (the "Effective Date'). I i ~I Modified from 2013 EJCDC' C-520, Agreement Between Owner and Contractorfor Construction Contract (Stipulated Price). Page 7 of 8 l_ _ i CITY OF ASE [LAND PARK ESTATES AND TERRACE, STREET PUMP STATIONS 217003 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Owner and Contractor have signed this Agreement as of the dates set forth below. OWNER: CONTRACTOR: City of Ashland, Oregon McClure and Sons, Inc. By: By: Title: Title: (If Contractor is a corporation, a partnership, or a joint venture, attach evidence of authority to sign.) Attest: Attest: Title: Title: Address forgiving notices: Address for giving notices: City of Ashland, City Engineering Office McClure and Sons, Inc. 20 East Main Street 15714 Country Club Drive Ashland, Oregon 97520 Mill Creek, Washington 98012 License No.: 71127 (where applicable) (If Owner is a corporation, attach evidence of authority NOTE TO USER: Use in those states or other to sign. If Owner is a public body, attach evidence of jurisdictions where applicable or required. authority to sign and resolution or other documents authorizing execution of this Agreement.) Modified from 2013 EJCDC® C-520, Agreement Between Owner and Contractor for Construction Contract (Stipulated Price). Page 8 of 8 KELLER ASSOCIATES February 22, 2018 Mr. Kevin Caldwell, Senior Project Manager City of Ashland, Public Works 20 East Main Street Ashland OR 97520 Re: Bid Evaluation and Recommendation for Award Ashland Park Estates and Terrace Street Pump Stations Dear Mr. Caldwell: am writing to summarize our evaluation and recommendation to award the above referenced project. Four (4) bids were received on February 14, 2018, from the following qualified contractors: McClure & Sons, Inc.; James W. Fowler Co.; Adroit Construction Co., Inc.; and Tek Construction, Inc. Contractor base bids ranged from $2,878,368 to 3,175,717, with an Engineer's Estimate of $3,208,000 (see enclosed bid summary). McClure & Sons, Inc., from Mill Creek, WA, is the low bidder. We have reviewed their bid forms and find their bid to be responsive to the requirements of the bid documents. McClure & Sons, Inc. included a bid of $92,262 for Additive Bid Item #1, and $20,000 for Additive Bid Item #2. Keller Associates recommends that the City of Ashland award the project to McClure & Sons, Inc. in the amount of $2,990,630 to cover the Base Bid and Additive Bid Items #1 and #2, as it is understood that this recommendation fits within the City's budget. Please call if you have questions or need additional information. Sincerely, KELLER ASSOCIATES, INC. Jason King, P.E. Project Engineer Enclosures (Bid Summary) cc/enc: File 217003-001 GROWING POSSIBILITIES EJCDC-- NOTICE OF AWARD Date of Issuance: 03/07/2018 Owner: City of Ashland, Oregon Owner's Contract No.: 2015-31 Engineer: Keller Associates, Inc. Engineer's Project No.: 217003-001 Project: Park Estates and Terrace Street Pump Contract Name: Park Estates and Terrace Stations Street Pump Stations Bidder: McClure & Sons, Inc. Bidder's Address: 15714 Country Club Drive Mill Creek, WA 98012 TO BIDDER: You are notified that Owner has accepted your Bid dated February 14`h, 2018 for the above Contract, and that you are the Successful Bidder and are awarded a Contract for: City of Ashland Park Estates and Terrace Street Pump Stations (Base Bid, Additive Bid #1, and Additive Bid #2). The Contract Price of the awarded Contract is: Two Million Nine Hundred Ninety Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Dollars 2,990,630). [1] Unexecuted counterparts of the Contract Documents (except Specifications and Drawings). Accompany this Notice of Award. [3] Sets of the Contract Documents, Specifications, and Drawings will be provided to the Contractor at the Pre-Construction meeting. [1] Copy of the fully executed Contract Documents, Specifications, and Drawings will be provided to the Contractor in electronic portable document format (PDF). You must comply with the following conditions precedent within 15 days of the date of receipt of this Notice of Award: 1. Deliver to Owner [1] counterparts of the Agreement, fully executed by Bidder. 2. Deliver with the executed Agreement(s) the Contract security [e.g., performance and payment bonds] and insurance documentation as specified in the Instructions to Bidders and General Conditions, Articles 2 and 6. 3. Certifications of Representation and IRS Form W-9 4. Funding Agency Forms: DBE Six Good Faith Efforts and Form, Certification Regarding Lobbying, and Prime/Sub-Contractor Data Sheet(s). Failure to comply with these conditions within the time specified will entitle Owner to consider you in default, annul this Notice of Award, and declare your Bid security forfeited. Within ten days after you comply with the above conditions, Owner will return to you one fully executed counterpart of the Agreement, together with any additional copies of the Contract Documents as indicated in Paragraph 2.02 of the General Conditions. Owner: By: Signature: Title: Copy: Engineer EICDC" C-510, Notice of Award (Modified). Page 1 of 1 James W Fox-der Co. Feb 28, 2018 W 0 JOE neral COlllracLors Ge Mr. Kevin Caldwell City Engineering Office 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520 Re: Ashland Park Estates and Terrace Street Pump Station Mr. Caldwell, James W Fowler Company (JWF) submitted a bid on Feb 14, 2018 to the City of Ashland for the Park Estates and Terrace Street Pump Station. When bids were opened on Feb 14, 2018 JWF was the second place bidder out of the four bids received. JWF submitted a first tier sub disclosure within 2 hours after the bid opening. Two subcontractors were listed. One was the electrical subcontractor and the other was a subcontractor to construct the specified Soil Nail Wall. Both of these subcontract amounts met the criteria to be listed (5% of bid or over $350,000). In regards to the soil nail wall subcontractors, JWF received 3 bids on Feb 14, 2018 from potential soil nail wall subcontractor 1. Northwest Soil Stabilization $306,372 2. TBH $334,735 3. LASST NW Inc $337,800 Each one of these subcontract values was greater than 5% of the bid therefore JWF needed to list one of these subcontractors on the First Tier Sub disclosure form. JWF did not meet the qualification experience requirements listed in specification section 02840 Section 1.5 B-D therefore JWF would not be able to self-perform this work. It is the understanding of JWF that McClure and Sons (the apparent low) did not list a Soil Nail Wall Subcontractor on their first tier sub disclosure. It is JWF's understanding that McClure and Sons does not meet the criteria set forth in spec section 02840.1.5 B-D to self-perform this work and therefore would need to list a qualified subcontractor to perform this critical scope on the Park Estates and Terrace Street Pump Station project. In accordance with 2015 ORS 27913.4101 (1) A bidder or proposer may protest the award of a public contract or a notice of intent to award a public contract, whichever occurs first if: (a) The bidder or proposer is adversely affected because the bidder or proposer would be eligible to be awarded the public contract in the event that the protest were successful; and PO Box 489 . 12775 Westview Drive • Dallas, Oregon 97338 Phone 503.623.5373 * ■ ♦ Fax 503.623.9117 www.jwfowler.com (a) The reason for the protest is that: (A) All lower bids or higher ranked proposals are non-responsive. JWF believes the bid submitted by McClure and Sons to be non-responsive because of their failure to list a qualified Soil Nail Wall Subcontractor on the first tier subcontractor disclosure form. Because of this JWF believes the apparent lowest responsive bid for this project was submitted by JWF and that the award of this contract should be to James W Fowler Company. Please consider this letter as JWF's formal protest of the City of Ashland's intent to award McClure and Sons the contract for this project. Respectfully, i Tim Janes fsky Vice President 503 623-5373 office 503 269-1032 cell PO Box 489 • 12775 Westview Drive • Dallas, Oregon 97338 Phone 503.623.5373 • ■ ♦ Fax 503.623.9117 www.jwfowler.com March 1, 2018 INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTORS Kevin Caldwell McClure and Sons Inc. City of Ashland 20 East Main St Ashland, OR 97520 Re: Ashland Park Estates and Terrace Street Pump Stations, response to JW Fowler Protest Mr. Caldwell; This letter is in response to JWF's protest letter dated February 28, 2018. JWF's protest is not valid for the following reasons: 1. It fails to cite a valid section of the bidding documents which MSI has allegedly violated. 2. The only reference cited 02840.1.5 B-D) is to the Quality Assurance section of the work specifications. This section is not considered a bid requirement but is a requirement of the work itself. It has nothing to do with bid responsiveness or responsibility. 3. The State of Oregon First tier subcontractor form was submitted by McClure and Sons within the 2 hours as required by law and contained all subcontractors whose work constitutes more than 5% of McClure and Sons' bid price. 4. JWF's protest is based upon the unfounded and undocumented assumption of a competitor that McClure and Sons would have to utilize a subcontractor for all of the work related to the soil nail wall as reflected in their comment that: "It is JWF's understanding that McClure and Sons does not meet the criteria set forth in spec section 02840.1.5 B-D to self-perform this work and therefore would need to list a qualified subcontractor (emphasis added). McClure and Sons fully intends to meet specification section 02840 requirements in regards to the Soil Nail Wall. Five percent (5%) of our bid value (.05 x $2,990,000) is approximately $143,000. McClure and Sons plans to design the wall ourselves, purchase and self-perform a portion of the work, and to hire appropriate qualified subcontractors for the remaining portions of the work activity, such as shotcrete and drilling. The hired portion of that work will not exceed $143,000 and therefore, McClure and Sons is not required to include it on the First Tier Subcontractor Disclosure Form. i Sincerely, John Ogorsolka Chief Estimator 15714 Country Club Drive, Mill Creek, WA 98012 • FAX. 425 316-6789, Office: 425 316-6999 www.mcclureandsons.com CITY OF ASHLAND March 8, 2018 Tim Janesofsky James W. Fowler Company Post Office Box 489 Dallas, Oregon 97338 Re: Protest of Notice of Intent to Award a Contract for Projects Number 2012-04 and 2012-01, Park Estates and Terrace Street Pump Stations Dear Mr. Janesofsky: I have reviewed your formal letter of protest dated February 28, 2018, submitted on behalf of your business, James W. Fowler Company (JWF), regarding the City's Notice of Intent to Award a contract to McClure and Sons, Inc. (McClure) for the project listed above. Your protest asserts that JWF was adversely affected by the City's decision as JWF would be eligible for award of the contract in the event the protest were successful and that McClure's bid is non-responsive. I have considered the following evidence in evaluating your protest: the solicitation documents, the bids submitted by McClure and JWF, your formal protest letter, a rebuttal letter submitted by McClure, the Ashland Public Contracting Code, the Oregon Revised Statutes, the Oregon Administrative Rules, and verbal representations by City staff. I am hereby rejecting your protest. I find that all bids received were evaluated based on the criteria set forth in the solicitation document and other applicable laws. I further find that the bid submitted by McClure was responsive. Thank you for submitting your bid and for your interest in this project. The City looks forward to your participation in future contracting opportunities. Sincerely, J John Karns City Administrator cc: Project file McClure and Sons Inc. ADMINISTRATION Tel: 541-088-6002 20 East Main Street Fax: 541.488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY; 800-735-2900 Irma www.ashland.or.us 100% Post-Consumer Content _ i Council Business Meeting March 20, 2018 Title: Resolution Modifying Solid Waste Franchise Rates and Fees From: Adam Hanks Interim Assistant to the City Administrator Adam. Hanks@ashland.or. us Summary: Consistent with the 2013 solid waste franchise agreement, Recology Ashland is requesting a consumer price index (CPI) based rate increase for solid waste collection service fees. The CPI increase of 4.2% would become effective April 1, 2018, and amounts to an increase of $.81 (81 cents) on a standard residential customer account. Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: I move to approve the resolution titled, "A resolution modifying solid waste franchise rates and fees." Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the CPI rate adjustment as proposed as it is consistent with the process and calculation prescribed in the October 2013 franchise agreement (Ord 3090). Resource Requirements: Recology Ashland estimates that the CPI adjustment will result in a monthly solid waste and recycling bill increase of $.81 (81 cents) for a typical residential customer, with total bill increases for commercial rate varying by size and frequency of service. The CPI adjustment does not impact the existing surcharge fee for the Recycle Center, which has been and continues to be $1.60 per month per account. Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: N/A BacklZround and Additional Information: A component of the 2013 Solid Waste franchise agreement with Recology Ashland was a rate adjustment methodology intended to provide the Franchisee an annual operating margin range of between eight and twelve percent. Recology Ashland has provided documentation (attached) that the projected 2018-19 rate year operating margin will fall below the eight percent operating margin range which triggers the Consumer Price Index (CPI) based rate increase to restore the franchise approved operating margin range. To meet the franchise agreement service rates and fees requirements set forth in Section 5.8 of Ordinance 3090 and Administrative Operations and Rules Resolution 2014-23, the attached Page Iof2 CITY OF -ASHLAND resolution implements a 4.2% rate increase based upon the CPI-U Portland-Salem index which brings the operating margin to 9.1 Attachments: Recology Ashland Rate Adjustment Request Packet Draft Solid Waste Rate Adjustment Resolution Page 2of2 CITY OF -ASHLAND Recology Ashland WASTE ZERO John Karns, Interim City Administrator City of Ashland 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 February 26, 2018 Dear Mr. Karns: Pursuant to Paragraph C (1) of Attachment A, City of Ashland Resolution No. 2013-32, we are formally submitting our request for a CPI rate increase of 4.2%, to be applied equally across all rate structures. This request is based on the most recent Consumer Price Index-All Urban Consumers-All Items- Portland-Salem (CPI-U). A copy of the most recent report, along with our accompanying financial statement and projections for 2018, is enclosed with this letter. The proposed CPI increase would become effective April 1, 2018. This rate increase amounts to an increase of $.81 (81 cents) per month for the typical residential customer. Please let us know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Gary Blake, General Manager Recology Ashland Inc. Encl. Cc: Dave Larmouth, Derek Ruckman, Adam Hanks ;;v+ ; .ib~.'.+; 1 reco~ogyash;andsar.~taryservee.co,r, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS Western Information Office, 90 7th St.; Suite 14-100, San Francisco, CA 94103 Information Staff (415) 625-2270 /Fax (415) 625-2351 PORTLAND-SALEM Consumer Price Index, All Items, 1982-84=100 for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) SEMI-ANNUAL AVERAGE OVER-THE-YEAR PERCENT CHANGE ANNUAL ANNUAL YEAR 1st Half 2nd Half AVERAGE YEAR 1st Half 2nd Half AVERAGE 1990 124.9 129.8 127.4 1990 4.7 6.7 5.8 1991 132.8 135.1 133.9 1991 6.3 4.1 5.1 1992 138.8 140.9 139.8 1992 4.5 4.3 4.4 1993 143.6 145.8 144.7 1993 3.5 3.5 3.5 1994 147.7 150.1 148.9 1994 2.9 2.9 2.9 1995 152.5 153.9 153.2 1995 .3.2 2.5 2.9 1996 157.2 160.0 158.6 1996 3.1 4.0 3.5 1997 162.6 165.5 164.0 1997 3.4 3.4 3.4 1998 166.1 168.1 167.1 1998 2.2 1.6 1.9 1999 170.8 174.4 172.6 1999 2.8 3.7 3.3 2000 176.4 179.5 178.0 2000 3.3 2.9 3.1 2001 181.2 183.6 182.4 2001 2.7 2.3 2.5 2002 183.5 184.0 183.8 2002 1.3 0.2 0.8 2003 186.0 186.5 186.3 2003 1.4 1.4 1.4 2004 189.8 192.5 191.1 2004 2.0 3.2 2.6 2005 194.5 197.5 196.0 2005 2.5 2.6 2.6 2006 199.8 202.5 201.1 2006 2.7 2.5 2.6 2007 206.653 210.460 208.556 2007 3.4 3.9 3.7 2008 214.619 216.159 215.389 2008 3.9 2.7 3.3 2009 214.102 217.191 215.647 2009 -0.2 0.5 0.1 2010 217.508 219.179 218.344 2010 1.6 0.9 1.3 2011 223.105 226.077 224.590 2011 2.6 3.1 2.9 2012 228.746 230.811 229.779 2012 2.5 2.1 2.3 2013 233.735 237.322 235.528 2013 2.2 2.8 2.5 2014 239.751 242.679 241.215 2014 2.6 2.3 2.4 2015 242.976 245.405 244.190 2015 1.3 1.1 1.2 2016 247.143 251.710 249.426 2016 1.7 2.6 2.1 2017 258.055 261.621 259.838 2017 4.4 3.9 4.2 Table of over-the-year percent increases. An entry for 2ndHalf 2005 indicates the percentage increase from 2ndHalf 2004 to 2ndHalf 2005 (in this example 2.6 percent). U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS Western Information Office, 90 7th St., Suite 14-100, San Francisco, CA 94103 Information Staff (415) 625-2270 /Fax (415) 625-2351 PORTLAND-SALEM Consumer Price Index, All Items, 1982-84=100 for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) SEMI-ANNUAL AVERAGES OVER-THE-YEAR PERCENT CHANGE ANNUAL ANNUAL YEAR 1st Half 2nd Half AVERAGE YEAR 1st Half 2nd Half AVERAGE 1990 121.8 126.6 '124.2 1990 4.6 6.7 5.6 1991 129.6 132.1 130.8 1991 6.4 4.3 5.3 1992 135.5 137.7 136.6 1992 4.6 4.2 4.4 1993 140.3 142.6 141.5 1993 3.5 3.6 3.6 1994 144.3 146.8 145.6 1994 2.9 2.9 2.9 1995 149.1 150.7 149.9 1995 3.3 2.7 3.0 1996 153.9 156.5 155.2 1996 3.2 3.8 3.5 1997 159.0 161.7 160.4 1997 3.3 3.3 3.4 1998 162.2 163.5 162.9 1998 2.0 1.1 1.6 1999 166.2 169.6 167.9 1999 2.5 3.7 3.1 2000 171.8 174.6 173.2 2000 3.4 2.9 3.2 2001 176.4 178.5 177.5 2001 2.7 2.2 2.5 2002 178.7 179.3 179.0 2002 1.3 0.4 0.8 2003 181.7 182.0 181.8 2003 1.7 1.5 1.6 2004 184.9 187.0 185.9 2004 1.8 2.7 2.3 2005 189.4 192.2 190.8 2005 2.4 2.8 2.6 2006 194.7 197.3 196.0 2006 2.8 2.7 2.7 2007 201.217 204.801 203.009 2007 3.3 3.8 3.6 2008 209.456 210.557 210.006 2008 4.1 2.8 3.4 2009 207.898 211.950 209.924 2009 -0.7 0.7 0.0 2010 213.036 214.409 213.722 2010 2.5 1.2 1.8 2011 218.872 221.508 220.190 2011 2.7 3.3 3.0 2012 223.712 225.389 224.551 2012 2.2 1.8 2.0 2013 228.033 231.399 229.716 2013 1.9 2.7 2.3 2014 233.565 236.280 234.922 2014 2.4 2.1 2.3 2015 234.948 236.882 235.915 2015 0.6 0.3 0.4 2016 237.784 242.014 239.899 2016 1.2 2.2 1.7 2017 247.871 250.720 249.295 2017 4.2 3.6 3.9 Table of over-the-year percent increases. An entry for 2ndHalf 2005 indicates the percentage increase from 2ndHalf 2004 to 2ndHalf 2005 (in this example 2.8 percent). City of Ashland Rate Application Rate Year 4-1-18 to 3-31-19 Recolo All Jurisdictions Ashland gy- Actual Adjustments & Adjusted Adjusted Projected Projected Ashland Sanitary Service Fiscal Unallowable Fiscal Allocation Fiscal Changes for Rate Year i WASTE ZERO 2016-17 Expenses 2016-17 Type 2016-17 Rate Year 2018-19 Revenues Rate Adj 4.2% Refuse collection $ 5,430,473 $ $ 5,430,473 Actual $ 3,857,559 $ 168,387 $ 4,025,946 Rate Increase $ - $ 163,742 $ 163,742 Recycling $ 63,458 $ $ 63,458 Program Yards $ 46,451 $ 40,594 $ 87,045 Other- Recycle Surcharge $ - $ $ - Recycle Surcharge $ - $ 128,076 $ 128,076 Total Revenue $ 5,493,931 $ $ 5,493,931 $ 3,900,711 $ 4,404,809 Expenses Labor and Related $ 1,880,720 $ $ 1,880,720 Route Hours $ 1,407,446 $ 161,473 $ 1,568,919 Temp Labors & Subs $ 15,562 $ $ 15,562 Route Hours $ 11,236 $ (11,236) $ - Insurance $ 138,694 $ $ 138,694 Other $ 97,363 $ 11,404 $ 108,766 Disposal $ 1,318,166 $ $ 1,318,166 Yards $ 924,088 $ 612 $ 924,700 Rent and Lease $ 43,823 $ $ 43,823 Other $ 30,764 $ 756 $ 31,520 Supplies $ 59,606 $ $ 59,606 Route Hours $ 43,035 $ 2,749 $ 45,785 Franchise Fees $ 271,710 $ $ 271,710 Actual $ 193,501 $ 26,739 $ 220,240 Repairs and Maint $ 138,128 $ $ 138,128 Route Hours $ 99,729 $ 9,384 $ 109,113 Fuel and Oil $ 163,860 $ $ 163,860 Route Hours $ 118,686 $ 22,402 $ 141,088 Building and Facility $ 2,368 $ $ 2,368 Other $ 1,662 $ 410 $ 2,072 Licenses and permits $ 15,276 $ $ 15,276 Route Hours $ 11,029 $ 581 $ 11,610 Utilities $ 4,928 $ $ 4,928 Other $ 3,640 $ (108) $ 3,532 Freight $ 24,696 $ $ 24,696 Recycle Surcharge $ 17,830 $ 51,886 $ 69,716 Processing Fees $ 24,462 $ $ 24,462 Recycle Surcharge $ 17,172 $ 82,422 $ 99,594 Cost of Goods Sold $ - $ $ - Other $ - $ - $ - Professional Services $ 17,658 $ $ 17,658 Other $ 12,396 $ 248 $ 12,644 Bad Debts $ 18,825 $ $ 18,825 Other $ 13,215 $ (0) $ 13,215 Travel $ 22,716 $ $ 22,716 Other $ 15,946 $ 0 $ 15,946 Office Expenses $ 100,920 $ (7,474) $ 93,446 Other $ 65,599 $ 4,191 $ 69,790 Taxes $ 18,807 $ $ 18,807 Route Hours/Other $ 14,038 $ 295 $ 14,332 Regional/Local Allocations $ 82,036 $ $ 82,036 Other $ 57,589 $ 1,209 $ 58,798 Other Operating $ 48,400 $ $ 48,400 Other $ 33,977 $ 2,170 $ 36,147 Corporate Services $ 259,204 $ $ 259,204 Other $ 181,961 $ 10,918 $ 192,879 Depreciation/Amortization $ 120,803 $ (119,055) $ 1,748 Other $ 1,227 $ 0 $ 1,227 (Gain)/Loss on Sale $ (1,967) $ 2,989 $ 1,022 Other $ - $ - $ - I/C Equipment & Property $ 388,353 $ (55,047) $ 333,305 Route Hours $ 218,451 $ 33,351 $ 251,803 Interest $ (9) $ 9 $ Other $ - $ - $ - Total Expense $ 5,177,740 $ 4,999,162 $ 3,591,582 $ 4,003,437 Net Income before Tax $ 316,191 $ 494,768 $ 309,129 $ 401,371 Operating Margin 9.1% Recology Ashland Rate Application 2018-19 1 10:40 AM Recology Ashland Sanitary Service ' City of Ashland Rates Proposed Increase April 1, 2018 4.20% 4.20% 4.20% Residential Rates Current Proposed Commercial Cart Rates Current Proposed Commercial Bin Rates Current Proposed 32 Gallon $19.32 $20.13 32 Gallon 1 x Week $19.32 $20.13 1 Yard 1 x Week $105.67 $110.11 32 Gallon Bear Cart $24.32 $25.34 32 Gallon 2 x Week $40.32 $42.01 1 Yard 2 x Week $185.13 $192.91 Add'I 32 Gallon Trash Cart $22.02 $22.94 32 Gallon 3 x Week $61.32 $63.90 1 Yard 3 x Week $268.86 $280.15 64 Gallon $40.32 $42.01 32 Gallon 4 x Week $82.33 $85.79 1 Yard 4 x Week $346.15 $360.69 64 Gallon Bear Cart $47.22 32 Gallon 5 x Week $103.33 $107.67 1 Yard 5 x Week $422.37 $440.11 96 Gallon $61.32 $63.90 32 Gallon 6 x Week $124.33 $129.55 1 Yard 6 x Week $494.30 $515.06 32 Gallon Trash On-Call per Setout $8.78 $9.15 64 Gallon 1 x Week $40.32 $42.01 1.5 Yard 1 x Week $131.96 $137.50 96 Gallon Green Waste Cart $7.41 $7.72 64 Gallon 2 x Week $82.33 $85.79 1.5 Yard 2 x Week $230.88 $240.58 Additional Green Waste Cart $2.11 $2.20 64 Gallon 3 x Week $124.33 $129.55 1.5 Yard 3 x Week $335.12 $349.20 32 Gallon Recycle Only Cart $5.29 $5.51 64 Gallon 4 x Week $166.33 $173.32 1.5 Yard 4 x Week $431.36 $449.48 64 Gallon Recycle Only Cart $5.29 $5.51 64 Gallon 5 x Week $208.35 $217.10 1.5 Yard 5 x Week $526.26 $548.36 96 Gallon Recycle Only Cart $6.34 $6.61 64 Gallon 6 x Week $250.35 $260.86 1.5 Yard 6 x Week $615.83 $641.69 Recycling On-Call per Setout $4.18 $4.36 96 Gallon 1 x Week $61.32 $63.90 1.5 Yard 7 x Week $756.15 $787.91 Additional Recycling Cart $2.11 $2.20 96 Gallon 2 x Week $124.33 $129.55 2 Yard 1 x Week $172.23 $179.46 Cart re-delivery fee $20.00 $20.00 96 Gallon 3 x Week $187.34 $195.21 2 Yard 2 x Week $300.94 $313.58 96 Gallon 4 x Week $250.35 $260.86 2 Yard 3 x Week $436.59 $454.93 Medical Waste Rates Current Proposed 96 Gallon 5 x Week $313.36 $326.52 2 Yard 4 x Week $561.81 $585.41 1 Gallon Medical Waste $24.33 $25.35 96 Gallon 6 x Week $376.36 $392.17 2 Yard 5 x Week $685.30 $714.08 2 Gallon Medical Waste $29.62 $30.86 96 Gallon Green Waste Cart $7.41 $7.72 2 Yard 6 x Week $801.81 $835.49 15 Gallon Medical Waste $31.74 $33.07 32 Gallon Recycle Only Cart 1 x Week $5.29 $5.51 2 Yard 7 x Week $984.43 $1,025.78 34 Gallon Medical Waste $58.20 $60.64 32 Gallon Recycle Only Cart 2 x Week $10.58 $11.02 2 Yard Cardboard 1 x Wk $0.00 $0.00 32 Gallon Recycle Only Cart 3 x Week $15.87 $16.54 2 Yard Cardboard 2 x Wk $0.00 $0.00 Go-in Rates Current Proposed 64 Gallon Recycle Only Cart 1 x Week $5.29 $5.51 2 Yard Cardboard 3 x Wk $0.00 $0.00 Off curb up to 40 Yards $6.34 $6.61 64 Gallon Recycle Only Cart 2 x Week $10.58 $11.02 40 yards to 1/2 mile $17.04 $17.76 64 Gallon Recycle Only Cart 3 x Week $15.87 $16.54 1/2 Mile to 1 Mile $34.07 $35.50 96 Gallon Recycle Only Cart 1 x Week $6.34 $6.61 Beyond 1 Mile $56.72 $59.10 96 Gallon Recycle Only Cart 2 x Week $12.70 $13.23 96 Gallon Recycle Only Cart 3 x Week $19.04 $19.84 Compactor per Pickup Rates Current Proposed 4.20% 1 Yard per Load $34.24 $35.68 Bio Mass Rates Current Proposed 2 Yard per Load $68.48 $71.36 4.20% 10 Yard Dropbox $119.42 $124.44 3 Yard per Load $102.71 $107.02 Debris Box per Pickup Rates Current Proposed 25 Yard Dropbox $219.73 $228.96 4 Yard per Load $136.96 $142.71 7 Yard per Load $173.83 $181.13 Daily Rental $14.85 $15.47 8 Yard per Load $273.90 $285.40 10 Yard per Load $215.99 $225.06 15 Yard per Load $410.41 $427.65 25 Yard per Load $362.00 $377.20 20 Yard per Load $507.18 $528.48 40 Yard per Load $579.10 $603.42 no change 25 Yard per Load $603.98 $629.35 10 Yard Recycle $0.00 $0.00 Recycle Center Current Proposed 30 Yard per Load $700.80 $730.23 25 Yard Recycle $0.00 $0.00 Surcharge $1.60 $1.60 Ashland Rates Effective 4-1-18 - Rates 2/28/2018 1:50 PM I i RESOLUTION NO. 2018-06 A RESOLUTION MODIFYING SOLID WASTE FRANCHISE RATES AND FEES RECITALS: A. The Solid Waste and Collections franchise agreement adopted by City Council as Ordinance 3090 and associated Administrative Operations Standards and Rules most recently adopted by Resolution 2014-23 provide a methodology for annual service rates adjustments. i B. The City concurs with the documentation provided by Recology Ashland (Franchisee) that the rate increase provision of the ordinance and resolution dictates the approval of a service rate increase of 2.1% based on the franchise established Consumer Price Index All Urban Consumers (Portland-Salem) THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Effective April 1, 2018, Resolution 2017-04 is repealed in its entirety. SECTION 2. Effective April 1, 2018, solid waste and collection service rates increase by 4.2% as detailed in the attached service rate table. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 2018, and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. i Melissa Huhtala, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2018. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David I-L Lohman. City Attornev Page 1 of 1 Recology Ashland Sanitary Service City of Ashland Rates Proposed Increase April 1, 2018 4.20% 4.20% 4.20% Residential Rates Current Proposed Commercial Cart Rates Current Proposed Commercial Bin Rates Current Proposed 32 Gallon $19.32 $20.13 32 Gallon 1 x Week $19.32 $20.13 1 Yard 1 x Week $105.67 $110.11 32 Gallon Bear Cart $24.32 $25.34 32 Gallon 2 x Week $40.32 $42.01 1 Yard 2 x Week $185.13 $192.91 Add1 32 Gallon Trash Cart $22.02 $22.94 32 Gallon 3 x Week $61.32 $63.90 1 Yard 3 x Week $268.86 $280.15 64 Gallon $40.32 $42.01 32 Gallon 4 x Week $82.33 $85.79 1 Yard 4 x Week $346.15 $360.69 64 Gallon Bear Cart $47.22 32 Gallon 5 x Week $103.33 $107.67 1 Yard 5 x Week $422.37 $440.11 96 Gallon $61.32 $63.90 32 Gallon 6 x Week $124.33 $129.55 1 Yard 6 x Week $494.30 $515.06 32 Gallon Trash On-Call per Setout $8.78 $9.15 64 Gallon 1 x Week $40.32 $42.01 1.5 Yard 1 x Week $131.96 $137.50 96 Gallon Green Waste Cart $7.41 $7.72 64 Gallon 2 x Week $82.33 $85.79 1.5 Yard 2 x Week $230.88 $240.58 Additional Green Waste Cart $2.11 $2.20 64 Gallon 3 x Week $124.33 $129.55 1.5 Yard 3 x Week $335.12 $349.20 32 Gallon Recycle Only Cart $5.29 $5.51 64 Gallon 4 x Week $166.33 $173.32 1.5 Yard 4 x Week $431.36 $449.48 64 Gallon Recycle Only Cart $5.29 $5.51 64 Gallon 5 x Week $208.35 $217.10 1.5 Yard 5 x Week $526.26 $548.36 96 Gallon Recycle Only Cart $6.34 $6.61 64 Gallon 6 x Week $250.35 $260.86 1.5 Yard 6 x Week $615.83 $641.69 Recycling On-Call per Setout $4.18 $4.36 96 Gallon 1 x Week $61.32 $63.90 1.5 Yard 7 x Week $756.15 $787.91 Additional Recycling Cart $2.11 $2.20 96 Gallon 2 x Week $124.33 $129.55 2 Yard 1 x Week $172.23 $179.46 Cart re-delivery fee $20.00 $20.00 96 Gallon 3 x Week $187.34 $195.21 2 Yard 2 x Week $300.94 $313.58 96 Gallon 4 x Week $250.35 $260.86 2 Yard 3 x Week $436.59 $454.93 Medical Waste Rates Current Proposed 96 Gallon 5 x Week $313.36 $326.52 2 Yard 4 x Week $561.81 $585.41 1 Gallon Medical Waste $24.33 $25.35 96 Gallon 6 x Week $376.36 $392.17 2 Yard 5 x Week $685.30 $714.08 2 Gallon Medical Waste $29.62 $30.86 96 Gallon Green Waste Cart $7.41 $7.72 2 Yard 6 x Week $801.81 $835.49 15 Gallon Medical Waste $31.74 $33.07 32 Gallon Recycle Only Cart 1 x Week $5.29 $5.51 2 Yard 7 x Week $984.43 $1,025.78 34 Gallon Medical Waste $58.20 $60.64 32 Gallon Recycle Only Cart 2 x Week $10.58 $11.02 2 Yard Cardboard 1 x Wk $0.00 $0.00 32 Gallon Recycle Only Cart 3 x Week $15.87 $16.54 2 Yard Cardboard 2 x Wk $0.00 $0.00 Go-in Rates Current Proposed 64 Gallon Recycle Only Cart 1 x Week $5.29 $5.51 2 Yard Cardboard 3 x Wk $0.00 $0.00 Off curb up to 40 Yards $6.34 $6.61 64 Gallon Recycle Only Cart 2 x Week $10.58 $11.02 40 yards to 1/2 mile $17.04 $17.76 64 Gallon Recycle Only Cart 3 x Week $15.87 $16.54 1/2 Mile to 1 Mile $34.07 $35.50 96 Gallon Recycle Only Cart 1 x Week $6.34 $6.61 Beyond 1 Mile $56.72 $59.10 96 Gallon Recycle Only Cart 2 x Week $12.70 $13.23 96 Gallon Recycle Only Cart 3 x Week $19.04 $19.84 Compactor per Pickup Rates Current Proposed 4.20% 1 Yard per Load $34.24 $35.68 Bio Mass Rates Current Proposed 2 Yard per Load $68.48 $71.36 4.20% 10 Yard Dropbox $119.42 $124.44 3 Yard per Load $102.71 $107.02 Debris Box per Pickup Rates Current Proposed 25 Yard Dropbox $219.73 $228.96 4 Yard per Load $136.96 $142.71 7 Yard per Load $173.83 $181.13 Daily Rental $14.85 $15.47 8 Yard per Load $273.90 $285.40 10 Yard per Load $215.99 $225.06 15 Yard per Load $410.41 $427.65 25 Yard per Load $362.00 $377.20 20 Yard per Load $507.18 $528.48 40 Yard per Load $579.10 $603.42 no change 25 Yard per Load $603.98 $629.35 10 Yard Recycle $0.00 $0.00 Recycle Center Current Proposed 30 Yard per Load $700.80 $730.23 25 Yard Recycle $0.00 $0.00 Surcharge $1.60 $1.60 Ashland Rates Effective 4-1-18 - Rates 2/28/2018 1:50 PM Council Business Meeting March 20, Title: 475 E. Nevada St. Rezoning From: Bill Molnar Director of Community Development bill. molnar(cb-ashland. or.us Derek Severson Senior Planner derek.severson(D_ashland. or.us Summary: A land use public hearing and first reading of an ordinance for a proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change for the properties located at 475 East Nevada Street. The application also includes Outline Plan and Site Review approvals for a 20-lot, 23-unit subdivision; Tree Removal Permit to remove ten trees, and Exceptions to Street Standards. The existing Comprehensive Plan designation is "Single Family Residential Reserve" and the existing zoning is "Rural Residential (RR-.5-P"). The proposal would change the Comprehensive Plan Map designation to "North Mountain Neighborhoood Plan" and the zoning to "North Mountain Multi-Family (NM-MF)." This item comes to Council because the Zone Change is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment requested and requires a Council decision and the adoption of amended maps by ordinance. The Planning Commission has reviewed and approved elements of the application which fall under their purview and has recommended that the Council approve the request. Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: The Council can choose to approve the request as recommended by the Planning Commission or with additional conditions and move the ordinance to second reading; refer the action back to the Planning Commission for modifications; or choose not to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map designation and Zoning of the property. The Council will also need to adopt written findings for their decision, and should incorporate the Planning Commission's decision into those findings for concurrent adoption. Staff recommends the following motions: o A move approval of first reading of the ordinance and scheduling of second reading of the ordinance for April 3, 2018"; and o "I move to direct staff to prepare written findings for approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change, and to incorporate the findings for the Planning Commission's decision, for Council adoption on April 3, 2018." Staff Recommendation: Staff concurs with the Planning Commission, and recommends that the request be approved. II PagcIof 5 CITY OF -ASHLAND At the Planning Commission, staff raised two issues that we believe merit Council consideration. As proposed, the project includes a mixture of attached townhomes, single family residences attached at the garages, and detached residences totaling 20 units. Above the garages of the detached residences, three accessory residential units are proposed as "optional. These could be installed at the individual property owners' discretion, but would not be required. In considering the need for low- and moderately-priced rental and ownership housing in the community, staff believes the Council should consider: 1) Requiring the applicants to construct the three small accessory units currently described as "optional" in the application; and 2) Directing the applicants to look at providing more moderately priced housing by adding some smaller units. This would be permissible under the proposed zoning. In considering the staff recommendations, the Planning Commission found that requiring the applicant to provide additional residential units or smaller units as a condition of approval would fall under the legislative authority of the City Council. The requested zone change results in density increase from 1.2 dwelling units/acre to 12 dwelling units/acre. Staff believes that requiring more and/or smaller units would be a valid and timely exercise of the Council's discretion. Resource Requirements: If approved, the project would require staff time to review subsequent applications for Final Plan and Site Design Review and associated engineering drawings and building permits similar to other development applications for vacant properties in the City, as well as inspections by Public Works, Engineering, Planning and Building staff as the project builds out. Stafi'does not believe that approval would result in workload issues or adversely affect project prioritization. If the adjacent City-owned parcel (Map 04AD Tax Lot 4100) is included in the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and "Lone Change as proposed, and development of that property is ultimately pursued, an appraisal would need to be obtained, and there would be expenditures to fully evaluate the site's trees and possible wetland. Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: Council Goals 5.2.a Pursue affordable housing opportunities, especially workforce housing. Identify specific incentives for developers to build more affordable housing. Comprehensive Plan Elements: Element VI - Housing 6.10 Ensure a variety of'dwelling types and provide housing opportunities for the total cross-section ofAshland 's population, consistent with preserving the character and appearance of the city. 6.11.1.b Allow a wide variation in site-built housing types through the use of the City's Performance Standards Ordinance. The use of attached housing, small lots and common open spaces shall be used where possible to develop more moderate cost housing and still retain the quality of life consistent with Ashland's character. PaRe?ot'5 C I T Y OF -ASHLAND North Mountain Neighborhood Plan Purpose 18.3.5.01O.A This district is designed to provide an environment suitable for traditional neighborhood living, working, and recreation. The NM district and Neighborhood Plan is a blueprint for promoting a variety of housing types, mixed-use developments, neighborhood oriented businesses, and community services in a manner which enhances property values and preserves open spaces and significant natural features. The purpose of the Neighborhood Plan is to provide a comprehensive set of design standards, policies, and regulations to guide future development within the identified area. Through the use of the standards a greater sense of neighborhood can be accomplished, as well as accommodating all forms of transportation, including walking, bicycling, and transit. Background and Additional Information: Plan Amendment & Zone Change The applicant requests to rezone the properties to North Mountain, Multi-Family (NM-MF) zoning, which allows for up to 12 dwelling units per acre, an increase from the current RR-.S-P zoning which allows 1.2 dwelling units per acre. A zone change to NM-MF, which differs from the property's Comprehensive Plan Map designation, requires a legislative amendment of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps. This is a discretionary decision by the City Council. In similar previous requests, the Council has looked for a compelling argument that such a change addresses a clear public need. In staff's view, the extension of City facilities to the area, adoption of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, and subsequent development of the Meadowbrook Park 11 subdivision immediately to the south cited by the applicants do constitute significant changes in circumstances since the time the original zoning was established and would support the requested Zone Change and Plan Amendment. But staff does not believe that these changes in and of themselves create the necessity for a change in the properties' zoning. For staff, the compelling change of circumstance necessitating the requested zone change is the housing crisis and the documented need for more land to accommodate affordable and moderately priced rental and ownership housing. In the Regional Problem Solving (RPS) process, the City committed to not expand the Urban Growth Boundary for the foreseeable future and instead to accommodate anticipated growth with more efficient land use inside existing boundaries. Staff believes that these are the circumstances which necessitate the requested up- zoning and that the extension of City facilities in conjunction with the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan's build-out supports it. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 9, 2018, and approved the relevant components of the application subject to a number of conditions, contingent upon the City Council's ultimate approval of the requested Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change. The Planning Commission recommended Council approval of these requests. I Page 3 of 5 CITY OF -ASHLAND Affordable Housing With a Plan Amendment and "Lone Change, the applicants are typically required to dedicate a percentage of the base density as affordable housing units In this case, the applicants have proposed to transfer land sufficient to develop the required number of affordable units to a non- profit affordable housing provider to accommodate four affordable units at 60 percent of the area median income (AMI). This portion of the development would be deed-restricted to be affordable to those at 60 percent AMI for 60 years. The applicants have been working with Rogue Valley Habitat for Humanity in hopes that they will be able to develop the required affordable housing. With approval, the area for four dwelling units will be transferred to a qualifying affordable housing provider. Representatives for Rogue Valley Habitat for Humanity ("Habitat'') provided testimony in support of the proposal at the Planning Commission hearing. The criteria for affordable units in AMC section 18.5.8.050.6 call for 50 percent of affordable units to be issued permits before the last of the first 50 percent of the market rate units have been occupied. "These criteria also provide that the final 50 percent of the affordable units must be ~ occupied before the final ten percent of market rate units receive permits, that the affordable units must be distributed throughout the project, that they must include a mix of bedrooms and housings type comparable to that of the larger development, and that they must be constructed of comparable materials and have equivalent amenities. Because the applicants propose to provide property directly to an affordable housing provider to be developed separately from their market rate units, they requested Exceptions from these standards. AMC 18.5.8.050.6. provides for exceptions where an alternative mix of housing types, phasing or distribution would accomplish additional benefits and be completed in a timely fashion. The applicants argued that the dedicated land must be located in one area to minimize development costs, and that this further facilitates coordinated site planning so that the building placement, yard areas, play areas, parking, etc. can be planned as part of the initial development to further minimize development costs. They further suggested that attached wall, townhouse structures that are contiguous to one another with similar designs and floorplans minimize development and long-term maintenance costs and are thus beneficial to the affordable housing providers. They conclude that in their discussions with I labitat, it has been indicated that the housing need for affordable, three-bedroom units is critical. The applicants believe that with the zone change it would be possible to transfer title to the property, and complete Final Plan and Site Review in the very near future. In considering the requested Exceptions, the Planning Commission found that while clustering the affordable units contrary to the distribution requirements of AMC 18.5.8.050.G.5 was acceptable for logistics and cost savings as requested by the applicants, the project should remain subject to the other standards and requirements for affordability, including required levels and term of affordability, timely completion of the affordable units (AMC 18.5.8.050.G.4) and comparable materials and amenities (18.5.8.050.6.6). Subsequent to the Planning Commission's hearing, staff has been in communication with representatives of I Iabitat and been made aware of its concerns that the applicants' desired sale price for the property, the City's required 60-year term of affordability, the 60 percent AMI affordability level. and the limitations on sale price are in conflict with some parameters of Habitat's Page 4 of 5 CITY OF -ASH LAN D program. Habitat has expressed uncertainty that it will ultimately be able to partner with the applicants. I Iabitat has provided an explanation of its program, which is attached. But it has not provided a requested written explanation of how the affordability requirements would need to be adjusted to work with its program. It is staffs understanding that a Habitat representative will be in attendance at the Council hearing to discuss these issues. I In staffs view, the Planning Commission's support of an Exception to the affordable housing standards to allow clustering of the units was based on logistical and cost savings of having a non- profit affordable housing provider separately develop the affordable housing on site. Should that partnership not materialize with Habitat or a similar non-profit housing provider, staff believes the request would need to be further considered by the Planning Commission or Council. I Inclusion of City-Owned Parcel The city owns a 0.35-acre contiguous parcel (Map 04AD "fax Lot #100). After discussions with Administration, Planning staff had recommended that it be included in the Plan Amendment and Zone Change in hopes that it might be able to be incorporated into a future affordable housing development proposal to increase land available for the project and thereby make development more viable for an affordable housing provider. This parcel is near the area where the applicants' affordable units would be placed, which could allow the development of both sites with more efficient use of funds, labor and materials. While the City parcel has trees and a possible wetland which would need to be further evaluated before development could be considered, in staff's assessment its inclusion in the zone change would have no negative impacts and might ultimately enable the development of more affordable housing in the area. i Attachments: 1. Ordinance 2. Ordinance Exhibit A Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 3. Ordinance Exhibit B Zone Change 4. Letter from the Applicants submitted March 13, 2018 5. Notice for Council Hearing and First Reading mailed February 28, 2018 6. Habitat for Humanity Fact Sheet 7. Findings, Conclusion, Orders and Recommendations adopted by the Planning Commission on February 13, 2018 8. Planning Commission Minutes for the January 9, 2018 hearing (video of the hearing is available at: http://vp.telvue.com/player?&chapter=132251&id=T01550) 9. Items Submitted at the Planning Commission Hearing 10. Planning Commission Packet Materials for Planning Action #2017-02129 Page 5of5 CITY OF -ASHLAND ORDINANCE NO. 3152 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION AND ZONING FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 475 EAST NEVADA STREET WHEREAS, Article 2. Section I 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, "l ax lots 41100. 1200 and 1300 of Map 39 lE 04A and Tax Lot 9100 of Map 39 l E 04AD are located at 475 East Nevada Street, and the portions of those properties presently within the city limits have a Comprehensive Plan Map designation of "Single Family Reserve"and a Zoning Map designation of "Rural Residential (RR-.5-P)." WHEREAS, the owners of the properties have requested a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment from "Single Family Reserve" to "North Mountain Neighborhood Plan" and "Zone Change from "Rural Residential (RR-.5-P)" to "North Mountain Multi-Family(NM-MF)" for those portions of their properties at 475 East Nevada Street located within the city limits, as illustrated in the attached Exhibit A and Exhibit B. WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above referenced Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change at a duly advertised public hearing on January 9, 2018, and following deliberations recommended approval of the request by a vote of 7- 0; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above referenced Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change at a duly advertised public hearing on March 20, 2018; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; 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 Page 1 of 2 amend the Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map in the manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. The officially adopted City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map, referenced in Ashland Comprehensive Plan Chapter II [PLAN MAP 2.03.04] is hereby amended to change the Plan Designation of the subject properties at 475 East Nevada Street from "Single Family Reserve" to "North Mountain Neighborhood Plan" as illustrated in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. SECTION 3. The officially adopted City of Ashland Zoning Map, referenced in the Ashland Municipal Code Section 18.1.2.070, is hereby amended to change the Plan Designation of the subject properties at 475 East Nevada Street from "Rural Residential (RR-.5-P)" to "North Mountain Multi-Family(NM-MF)"as illustrated in Exhibit B, attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. SECTION 4. 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. 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 12018 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 12018 Melissa Huhtala, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 2018. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Ili David H. Lohman, City Attorney i i Page 2 of 2 '31T COMPREH SIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT 'v TO CHANGE Zesidential Reserve O intain Multi-Family #2017-02129 i E. NEVADA ST BJECT PROPERTIES PA #2017-02129 475 E NEVADA ST SUBJECT PROPERTY 04A 1200 T.L. 04A 1300 s ti s ~Ac> 475 E NEVADA ST RE-ZONE Comp Plan y COMPPLAN Commercial Downtown Employment 4 Industrial Health Care Low Density Residential Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential 950 High Density Residential Suburban Residential Single Famiily Residential Reserve North Mountain Plan Airport _ / Sotuhern Oregon Universitv 'OT ZONING M AMENDMENT 'v TO CHANGE ural Residential) 0 intain Multi-Family) 12017-02129 E. NEVADA ST WECT PROPERTIES PA #2017-02129 475 E NEVADA ST SUBJECT PROPERTY 14A 1200 T.L. 04A 1300 .s 475 E NEVADA ST RE-ZONE T. . 04AD 10 40 City Zones ZONING C -1 1r - _ _ C 1-D E-1 {T HC M-1 NM R-1-10 R-1-3.5 R-1-5 :95EI' R-2 R-3 RR-.5 RR-1 SO _ nnct In io ROGUE PLANNING 6 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC March 13, 2018 Ashland City Council 20 E Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Subject: Request for Public Hearing regarding Planning Action 2017-01890, a request for Comprehensive Plan Map and Zone Change approval for the rural residentially zoned properties located at 475 E Nevada Street. The request includes Outline Plan approval for a Performance Standards Subdivision (PA2017-01890) that contains a mixture of attached, detached, semi-detached, market rate and deed restricted, for-sale, affordable housing units. Dear City Councilors and Mayor Stromberg, The property owner, and the applicant of the Katherine Mae Subdivision (PA2017-01890) located at 475 East Nevada Street, on three parcels of land that are partially within the City and partially outside of City limits are seeking approval of a new, 20-unit subdivision. The parcels are due north of East Nevada Street, west of the North Mountain Avenue, freeway overpass, would like to request the subject application be heard at a public hearing on the next available City Council agenda. On January 9th, 2018, the City of Ashland, Planning Commission held a public hearing to discuss this Subdivision. At this hearing, the Planning Commission gave unanimous approval for the proposed Outline Plan, associated Land Use Ordinance specific requests for exception to street standards for the improvements to East Nevada Street, tree removal requests and general subdivision layout approval. The Planning Commission provided some specific recommended conditions of approval that will be addressed with the Final Plan Submission. These involve the treatment of the open space, the re-orientation of two units, and keeping the second units above the garages of the detached residences as optional. The request requires approval of the City Council because of the Comprehensive Plan Map amendment and Zone Change are Legislative amendments that require City Council approval. The Comprehensive Plan designation for the property is Single Family Residential Reserve, and the zoning is Rural Residential (RR-.5). One of the key components of a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment and a Zone Change request is demonstration that the criteria for Annexation from AMC 18.5.8.050 (G4-G6) which requires the development of affordable housing can be met. With the original application, and still true today, the applicant is committed to providing the affordable housing units as required in AMC 18.5.8.050.G.1,b. 1 I ROGUE PLANNING G DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC At the time of the application submittal, and still true today, in accordance with AMC 18.5.8.050.G.2. the property owner has agreed to provide title to a sufficient amount of buildable hand for the development complying with 18.5.8.050.G.1.b which allows for the total number of affordable units provided to qualify buyers, equal to, or exceed 25 percent of the base density as calculated using the unit equivalency values set forth in the ordinance. Based on AMC 18.5.8.OSO.G.1.b., four-units held at 60% AMI (low income housing) will be developed by a non- profit, affordable housing provider. See, the findings in the attached Applicant's Submittal beginning on page 15 of 61, for the applicant's discussion of affordable housing and the requested exceptions. In addition to the exception that the Planning Commission supported, the applicant finds that the other sections of the code for which exceptions were requested, are still necessary and request the Council to review and approve the requested exceptions to AMC 18.5.8.050.G.2 - G.S. as described in AMC 18.S.8.OSOG.7. The application seeks exception to the standards found within AMC 18.5.8.080 as they pertain to location, distribution, and timing of development of affordable units relative to the market rate housing development. With a land transfer to an affordable housing developer, as allowed in AMC 18.5.8. 050.G.2., it is illogical to limit the rate of development of the market rate housing to the rate of the affordable housing development. Once the land has transferred, the developer of the market rate housing has no control over the timing of the affordable housing portion of the development. Affordable housing developers must fundraise, write grants, seek donations, etc. and that can take additional time that is outside of the control of the developer of the remainder of the project area. A significant issue has arisen is that appears to reach beyond the scope of the review of the Planning Commission due to the Legislative Decision authority of the City Council as described in AMC 18.5.1.070. This issue came to the attention of the applicant's following the Planning Commission review, and it bears review by the Ashland City Council because it relates directly to the Affordable Housing Standards found referenced within AMC 18.5.8.050.G. It has been determined by the preferred affordable housing provider, internationally renowned, Habitat for Humanity that their program does not comply with the City of Ashland criteria for affordable housing. Specifically, Habitat for Humanity does not comply with all of the Ashland affordable housing program requirements (AMC 18.5.8.050.G.2.d). One of Habitat for Humanities' affordable housing, board adopted practices is a 30-year deed restriction, and exception to the standards of AMC 18.5.8.050.G.2.d to allow for the reduction of the deed restriction from 60-years to 30-years. Additionally, Habitat for Humanity, as a lending agency cannot have their monthly mortgage payment amounts / limits dictated by an outside entity. 2 ROGUE PLANNING E DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC The other affordable housing providers, NeighborWorks Umpqua, have expressed interest in the project. The proposal has addressed, without request for density bonus, one of the City's most important needs: affordable housing. As proposed, the applicant's will be placing the necessary area of land for four affordable housing units, and their necessary site improvements including open space, parking and setbacks. The units are for purchase, affordable, family housing. The applicant's support Habitat for Humanity's, or any other affordable housing providers quest to obtain funding for the future development of the site, but believe that the discussion of the details of the affordable housing partnership with any affordable housing provider is premature before it is known if the request for Comprehensive Plan amendment and Zone Change for the subdivision are approved. The applicant's feel strongly that the project as presented meets a number of the needs addressed repeatedly by City staff, City leaders and community members. The applicant's have put forth a project that is design on the principals of family friendly housing consistent with the layout, housing style, density and neighborhood compatibility. The applicant's trust that the City Council concurs and allows the Comprehensive Plan modification and Zone Change request to move forward to help ease the burden of the lack of available housing in Ashland, including affordable housing. Sincerely, Amy n er Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC 33 N Central Avenue, Suite 213 Medford, OR 97501 3 L&I Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 CITY O F 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 -AS H LAN D PLANNING ACTION: PA-2017-02129 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 475 East Nevada Street OWNERS: Young Family Trust & City of Ashland APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development Services DESCRIPTION: A request for Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment; Zone Change; Outline Plan approval for a 20-lot, 23- unit subdivision; Site Design Review; and Tree Removal Permit for the properties located at 475 East Nevada Street. The existing Comprehensive Plan designation is "Single Family Residential Reserve" and the existing zoning is "Rural Residential (RR-.5-P"). The proposal would change the Comprehensive Plan Map designation to "North Mountain Neighborhood Plan" and the zoning to "North Mountain Multi-Family (NM-MF)." (NOTE: Portions of the subject properties are located outside of the city limits; the current request involves only those portions within the city limits.) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential Reserve (Existing), North Mountain Neighborhood (Proposed); ZONING: RR-.5-P (Existing), NM-MF (Proposed); ASSESSOR'S MAP 391 E 04A; TAX LOT #'S : 391 E 04A 1100, 1200 & 1300 and 39 1 E 04AD 100. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 7:00 PM, Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street tiro PA 020, 7.02, Z9 QS E. NE VADA ST SUBJECT PROPERTIES 5 S~ - j 7; ti~ 9L City-md Parcel Proposed to, Indnaton j ExAtInq Zonm¢ RR,S-P ISing yamiy ResideaealRasemeM Proposed Zoning: NY-Mr 1No Yountnm YalpiamayM VADA ST - r, 4 \ E I eNotice 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. I The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. During the Public Hearing, the Mayor shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Mayor shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. 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 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 1). If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Department, at 541-488-5305. G.',comm-dev\planning\Councd & MayorTouncd Packet Materials\2018\032018\475 E NEVADA REZONE\Submitted to Diana\PA-2017-02129 Councd Hearing Notice.docx Applicability and Review Procedure 18.5.9.020 Applications for Plan Amendments and Zone Changes are as follows: A. Type II. The Type II procedure is used for applications involving zoning map amendments consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map, and minor map amendments or corrections. Amendments under this section may be approved if in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the application demonstrates that one or more of the following. 1. The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable housing, supported by the Comprehensive Plan. 2. A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances. 3. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action. 4. Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one zoning district to another zoning district, will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G. 5. Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial, employment, or industrial zoned lands (i.e., Residential Overlay), will not negatively impact the City's commercial and industrial land supply as required in the Comprehensive Plan, and will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G. 6. The total number of affordable units described in 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 or 5, above, shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 and 5 do not apply to Council initiated actions. B. Type III. It may be necessary from time to time to make legislative amendments in order to conform with the Comprehensive Plan or to meet other changes in circumstances or conditions. The Type III procedure applies to the creation, revision, or large-scale implementation of public policy requiring City Council approval and enactment of an ordinance; this includes adoption of regulations, zone changes for large areas, zone changes requiring comprehensive plan amendment, comprehensive plan map or text amendment, annexations (see chapter 18.5.8 for annexation information), and urban growth boundary amendments. The following planning actions shall be subject to the Type III procedure. 1. Zone changes or amendments to the Zoning Map or other official maps, except where minor amendments or corrections may be processed through the Type II procedure pursuant to subsection 18.5.9.020.A, above, 2. Comprehensive Plan changes, including text and map changes or changes to other official maps. 3. Land Use Ordinance amendments. 4. Urban Growth Boundary amendments. OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL 18.3.9.040.A.3 Approval Criteria for Outline Plan. The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds all of the following criteria have been met. a. The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City. b. 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. 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. The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e. There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS 18.5.2.050 The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is G comnrdev'.planning ' Council R VIa%(3r' Council Packet NSatenals 2018`.032018'47_5 E NEVADA REZONESubnutted to Diana `PA-2017-02 129 Council Hearing Notice doca the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 18.5.7.040.B 1. Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6. b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10. b. 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. c. 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. d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to 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 of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS 18.4.6.020. B.1 Exception to the Street Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the standards section in 18.4.6.040 Street Design Standards 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 exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable. i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience. ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic. iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway. c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A. I I li I G:\wrnn-dev\planninglCouncil R Mayor\Council Packet Materials\2018\032018\475 E NEVADA REZONE\Subn fined to Diana\PA-2017-02129 Council Hearing Notice.docx • • • Habitat 1 for Humanity' Rogue Valley Habitat for Humanity (HFH) is an independent, nonprofit affiliate, under the umbrella of parent company, Habitat for Humanity International. I labitat for Humanity builds homes in partnership with low income people in need, selling upon completion with an affordable monthly mortgage payment. ❖ The local affiliate started in the Rogue Valley in 1987 and has completed and sold 61 homes. Homes are typically built new using volunteer labor and with as many donated materials and services as possible. HFH has completed 57 small repair projects & 9 critical home repair projects for low income homeowners in need. Habitat holds the mortgage note for each house sold and must follow federal lending laws regarding the loan process, and is as follows: o Homes are sold for the appraised value The note is broken into two parts ■ The first lien is the cost of construction and land ■ The second lien is the difference between the cost and the appraised value ■ Housing payments can't exceed 30% of the household income • HfH may subsidize if necessary o The note is a 30 gear contract with no interest. o HfH holds a shared equity agreement. ■ Within the first five years if the house is sold the homeowner owes the balance of the first and the second note. The homeowner receives no part of equity ■ At year six the homeowner has earned 3.5% of any equity gained. The percentage increases each year until year 30. The homeowner then realizes 100% of all equity and the second lien is forgiven. o Restrictions: ■ When government funds are used for land acquisition and/or construction costs, HFH will allow a restrictive deed to be placed, typically 10-20 years. If sold during the restrictive period, funds are paid back to government entity to reinvest in affordable housing. o HfH always has first right of refusal for every home sold. o HfH services each note and must comply with federal law regarding delinquencies. ❖ HfH is an equal opportunity lender and must comply with all federal lending laws including all discrimination laws and fair credit standards. HfH is not a licensed broker and specific requirements must be met in order to be in compliance with federal laws. This includes: o Nondiscrimination o Fair lending ■ Approved applicants must not pay more than 30%of their income for housing. ■ Approved applicants must not have more than 43% debt-income ratio. o HfH employees must complete required trainings annually. o Sales price can't exceed the appraised value. o Oregon requires a re-certification process annually. o Mortgages can't exceed a 30 year term. o Balloon payments are not allowed. ❖ The Habitat program is a handup, not a hand-out. By providing stability and affordability the low income household can rely less on government and agency assistance, and have more cash to purchase better food, day care and health care. Habitat homeowners become stable in their employment, and children growing up in an HfH home are more apt to complete their education, often with college degrees. •3 Habitat builds homes for Jackson county residents who are in need of housing and whose income is between 40%-70% of federal median income. (This can be adjusted based on the situation and need) ❖ Habitat builds simple decent, quality, attractive housing. A two bedroom is typically 900 square ft., four bedrooms is 1200 square feet. HfH will work hard to build to satisfy HOA requirements. s• Volunteers and the selected family build the homes, with over 1000 active volunteers a year. Each selected applicant must complete at least 500 hours of sweat equity towards the completion of their home as well as participating in other Habitat activities. Funding: 45% from Individuals, 11% from Businesses and In-Kind Donations, 14% from Reinvested Mortgages, 7%, from Churches, 7% from KeStore, 12% grants and foundations and 11% from other sources. As the families pay their monthly mortgage payments, that money is collected to be used on the next project. ❖ Selected applicants are required to attend a rigorous pre-purchase education series to prepare them for homeownership. Workshops include budgeting, exterior landscape maintenance, indoor maintenance and repair, homeowner insurance training, recycling, how to get along with your neighbor and city codes. HfH has foreclosed on one home due to divorce and both parties moving. Four homes have been resold. To qualify for the program applicants must be low income, must have a need for housing and must be willing to "partner" with HfH. i III BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 13,2018 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2017-02129, A REQUEST FOR } COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT; ZONE CHANGE; OUTLINE PLAN) APPROVAL FOR A 20-LOT, 23-UNIT SUBDIVISION; SITE DESIGN REVIEW; ) TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO REMOVE TEN TREES GREATER THAN SIX- } INCHES IN DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT; AND EXCEPTION TO STREET ) STANDARDS FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 475 EAST NEVADA ST. ) THE EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION IS "SINGLE FAMILY } RESERVE" AND THE EXISTING ZONING IS "RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR-.5-P)". ) FINDINGS, THE PROPOSAL WOULD CHANGE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DES- ) CONCLUSIONS, IGNATION TO "NORTH MOUNTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN" AND THE ZON- ) ORDERS & ING TO "NORTH MOUNTAIN MULTI-FAMILY (NM-MF)". [NOTE: PORTIONS } RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS. ) THE CURRENT REQUEST lArVOL YES ONLY THOSE PORTIONS WITHIN THE CITY ) LIMITS] } OWNER/APPLICANT: Young Family Trust & City of Ashland ) RECITALS: 1) Tax lots #1100, 1200 and 1300 of Map 39 lE 04A and Tax Lot #100 of Map 39 IE 04AD are located at 475 East Nevada Street and are presently zoned RR-.5-P, Rural Residential. 2) The applicants are requesting Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment; Zone Change; Outline Plan t approval for a 20-lot, 23-unit subdivision; Site Design Review; Tree Removal Permit to remove ten trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) and Exception to Street Standards for the properties located at 475 East Nevada Street. The existing Comprehensive Plan designation is "Single Family Residential Reserve" and the existing zoning is "Rural Residential (RR-.5-P)". The proposal would change the Comprehensive Plan Map designation to "North Mountain Neighborhoood Plan" and the zoning to "North Mountain Multi-Family (NM-MF)." (NOTE: Portions of the subjectproperties are located outside of the city limits; the current request involves only those portions within the city limits.) The proposal is outlined in plans on file at the Department of Community Development. 3) The criteria for Plan Amendments and Zone Changes are described in AMC 18.5.9.020 as follows: A. Type IL The Type II procedure is used for applications involving zoning map amendments consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map, and minor map amendments or corrections. Amendments under this section may be approved if in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the application demonstrates that one or more of the following. I PA #2017-02129 February 13, 2018 Page 1 3 1 i. 1. The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable housing, supported by the Comprehensive Plan. 2. A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances. 3. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action. 4. Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one zoning district to another zoning district, will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050. G. 5. Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial, employment, or industrial zoned lands (i. e., Residential Overlay), will not negatively impact the Citys commercial and industrial land supply as required in the Comprehensive Plan, and will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050. G. 6 The total number of affordable units described in 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 or 5, above, shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 and 5 do not apply to Council initiated actions. B. Type M. It may be necessary from time to time to make legislative amendments in order to conform with the Comprehensive Plan or to meet other changes in circumstances or conditions. The Type 111 procedure applies to the creation, revision, or large-scale implementation of public policy requiring City Council approval and enactment of an ordinance; this includes adoption of regulations, zone changes for large areas, zone changes requiring comprehensive plan amendment, comprehensive plan map or text amendment, annexations (see chapter 18.5.8 for annexation information), and urban growth boundary amendments. The followingplanning actions shall be subject to the Type III procedure. i 1. Zone changes or amendments to the Zoning Map or other official maps, except where minor amendments or corrections may be processed through the Type II procedure pursuant to subsection 18.5.9.020.A, above. 2. Comprehensive Plan changes, including text and map changes or changes to other official maps. 3. Land Use Ordinance amendments. 3 4. Urban Growth Boundary amendments. 4) The criteria for Outline Plan approval are described in AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3 as follows: a. The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City. PA #2017-02129 February 13, 2018 Page 2 n E ~ b. 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 facil ity to operate beyond capacity. C. 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 The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e. There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project f. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. 5) The criteria for Site Design Review approval are described in AMC 18.5.2.050 as follows: 1 A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). 1 C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site 1 1 Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will L not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or F PA #2017-02129 1 February 13, 2018 t Page 3 I 'I 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. 6) The criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in AMC 18.5.7.040.B as follows: 1. Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safer), hazard (i. e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and k such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6 b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Stich mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. E } Z Tree That is Not a Hazard A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following i criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10. ; b. 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. C. 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. d Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to 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 of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a i; condition of approval of the permit. PA #2017-02129 z February 13, 2018 Page 4 g 7) The criteria for an Exception to Street Standards are described in AMC 18.4.6.020.B.1 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 exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the followingfactors where applicable. i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience. ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traff c. iii. For pedestrian.facilities, feeling ofsafety, quality of experience (i. e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway. C. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6040. A. 8) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on January 9, 2017 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. Subsequent to the closing of the hearing, the Planning Commission approved the application, contingent upon the City Council's ultimate approval of the requested Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change, subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. U Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes, orders and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony 1 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. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS 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. PA #2017-02129 February 13, 2018 Page 5 c n G 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for Outline Plan, Site Design Review, Tree Removal Permit and Exception to Street Standards approvals meets all applicable criteria for Outline Plan approval described in AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3; for Site Design Review approval described in AMC 18.5.2.050; for a Tree Removal Permit as described in AMC 18.5.7.040.13; and for Exception to Street Standards as described in AMC 18.4.6.020.B.1. The Planning Commission further finds that the requested Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change meets the applicable criteria in AMC 18.5.9.020. 2.3 The Planning Commission finds that, as detailed in AMC 18.5.9.020, Zone Changes may be processed as a Type II procedure when they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, however when a Zone Change is proposed that is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation as is the case here it requires a Type III procedure with a hearing and recommendations from the Planning Commission followed by decision through a hearing before the City Council in conjunction with the adoption of necessary ordinances and amended maps. a The approval criteria for a Type 11 Zone Change, where the Zone Change is consistent with the existing Plan designation, require that one or more of the following be demonstrated: 1) The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable housing, supported by the Comprehensive Plan; 2) A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances; 3) Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action; 4) Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one zoning district to another zoning district, will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G; 5) Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial, employment, or industrial zoned lands (i.e., Residential Overlay), will not negatively impact the City's commercial and industrial land supply as required in the Comprehensive Plan, and will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G; and 6) The total number of affordable units described in 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 or 5, above, shall be 1 determined by rounding down fiactional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 and 5 do not apply to Council initiated u actions. In terms of these criteria, in staff's view #4 dealing with the provision of affordable housing seems the most relevant. Where a Zone Change request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation, the Land Use I Ordinance calls for a Type III review, noting that, "It may be necessary from time to time to make legislative amendments in order to conform with the Comprehensive Plan or to meet other changes in circumstances or conditions. The Type 111 procedure applies to the creation, revision, or large-scale implementation of public policy requiring City Council approval and enactment of an ordinance; this includes adoption of regulations, zone changes for large areas, zone changes requiring comprehensive plan amendment, comprehensive plan map or text amendment, annexations (see chapter 18.5.8 for PA #2017-02129 February 13, 2018 Page 6 l rLF h pF d rS F annexation information), and urban growth boundary amendments. " Type III reviews typically involve "large-scale implementation ofpublic policy" rather than looking at one owner's relatively small property, however because the current request requires not only a zone change for a relatively small group of properties but also an amendment to their Comprehensive Plan Map designation and as such triggers Type III review. In past applications involving what are essentially minor, property specific changes to the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission and Council have looked for a compelling public need but have also relied upon the "Type II" criteria of AMC 18.5.9.020.A in considering the more property- specific aspects of the requests. The Planning Commission's consideration in making a recommendation here accordingly looks at the changes in circumstances or conditions which necessitate the request, but does so with the more property-specific criteria in mind as well. The application explains that, "There has been a significant change in the neighborhood development pattern since the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan's adoption in 1997. The subject properties were part of the large area of underdeveloped land on the north side of Bear Creek accessed only by a gravel- surfaced North Mountain Avenue. Between 1997 and today, major public and private expenditures were made to bring paved streets, sewer and water service to this area. The current property owner sees the great value in working with the City and providing additional developable land consistent with the adjacent properly zones and development pattern allowing for further the Comprehensive Plan with respect to urbanization." The application goes on to note that the "primary change in circumstances is the development and build- out of the adjacent Meadowbrook Park 11 Subdivision properties (immediately) to the south. When the comprehensive plan designations were set, the properties to the north of East Nevada Street and the areas to the south were designated as Rural Residential. With the North Mountain Plan overlay, the zoning of the properties to the south of East Nevada Street was modified to correspond to the North Mountain Plan Overlay. The properties to the north of East Nevada Street were not included in the North Mountain Plan i Overlay." The Planning Commission finds that in the 1970's, prior to the adoption of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, the entire area - including the subject properties - was given residential half-acre zoning because it lacked key city facilities and had limited paved access. In the early 1990's, city services were extended and upgraded to serve the Mountain Meadows development on the east side of North Mountain Avenue. At that point, there began to be interest on the part of property owners in developing the west side of the sheet. The City was aware of the property owners' interest in developing the area, but I there were concerns about a piecemeal approach to development versus a more coordinated effort. This ultimately lead to a grant-funded master planning process that began in January of 1994 and ended in May of 1997, with the City Council's adoption of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan which included Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map amendments in conjunction with new chapter in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance that set the zoning framework for the district and provided design standards for development within the approximately 75-acre North Mountain Neighborhood. 3 The Planning Commission finds that, while we concur with the applicants' recounting of the changes in the area, these changes in and of themselves do not necessitate a change in the properties' zoning. However, the current housing shortage and the well-documented need for more land to accommodate i PA #2017-02129 s February 13, 2018 Page 7 I I moderately priced and affordable ownership and rental units is a change in circumstances which we believe necessitates the requested up-zoning, particularly in light of the city's commitment to more efficiently use lands within its existing boundaries under the Regional Problem Solving (RPS) process, and the changes noted by the applicant in bringing city facilities to the area in conjunction with the North Mountain Neighborhood's development support this more efficient land use. I The applicant requests to rezone the properties to North Mountain, Multi-Family (NM-MF) zoning, which allows for up to 12 dwelling units per acre. The mix of units proposed includes townhouses, four single j family units attached at the garages, and three detached single family residences with the possibility for f three attached second units, and the application suggests that the proposed mixture of housing types and density is consistent with the adjacent North Mountain Neighborhood context and further cites the Townhouse Residential discussion in 2.04.04 of the Comprehensive which notes that this townhouses at a density of up to 12 units per acre "encourage innovative residential housing to provide low-cost, owner- occupied housing in addition to lower density rental units." Planning staff had noted that in considering the need for low- and moderately-priced rental and ownership housing, the Planning Commission and Council may wish to consider requiring the applicant to construct the three small accessory units currently described as "optional" in the application, and also to consider requiring the applicants to look at other options to further increase the density of the development with the inclusion of more and/or smaller units that would be possible by using available density bonuses. The Planning Commission finds that requiring the applicant to provide additional residential units or smaller units as a condition of a Type III application approval would fall under the legislative authority of the City Council. The Planning Commission would however be open to considering an increase in the requested density by utilizing available density bonus options at the time of Final Plan, and in particular believes that the applicants should make the option of requesting available density bonuses utilizing the parent parcel density and available density bonuses to an affordable housing provider partner. The application emphasizes that the property owner is committed to partnering with a non-profit affordable housing provider and has been in discussions with Rogue Valley Habitat for Humanity about dedicating the area for four units of housing and associated street improvements, parking, private yard/setback areas, access to common refuse area and recreation space and full participation in the 1 homeowners' association. This portion of the development would be deed restricted as affordable to those at 60 percent of the area median income for 60 years. The applicants propose to extend water, sewer, storm drain and electric facilities to and through the development with the Outline Plan approval, but hope to defer sidewalk, parkrow and irrigation for the new Franklin Street extension proposed until housing is developed by posting a bond for these improvements. The criteria for affordable units calls for the units to be completed proportionally with the market rate units, distributed evenly throughout the project and to be constructed using comparable building materials and include equivalent amenities to the market rate units. Because they propose to provide property directly to an affordable housing provider to be developed separately, the applicants have requested Exception to these standards. AMC 18.5.8.050.G. provides for exceptions where an alternative mix of housing types, phasing or distribution would accomplish additional benefits and be completed in a timely fashion. The applicants explain that the dedicated land must be located in one area to limit development PA #2017-02129 February 13, 2018 Page 8 t i i E costs, and that this further facilitates coordinated site planning so that the building placement, yard areas, play areas, parking, etc. can be planned as part of the initial development to further minimize development costs. They further suggest that attached wall, townhouse structures that are contiguous to one another with similar designs and floorplans minimize development and long-term maintenance costs and are thus beneficial to the affordable housing providers. They conclude that in their discussions with Habitat, it has been indicated that the housing need for affordable units is critical, and they believe that with the zone change it would be possible to transfer title to the property, and complete Final Plan and Site Review in the very near future. In addition, the city has proposed to include an adjacent, city-owned 0.35 parcel in the zone change in hopes that it might be able to be incorporated into a future affordable housing development to provide for additional affordable units and allow the development of both sites with more efficient use of funds, labor and materials than would occur with the development of the same number of units on "scattered sites." In considering the requested Exceptions, the Planning Commission finds that while clustering the affordable units contrary to the distribution requirements of AMC 18.5.8.050.G.5 is acceptable in facilitating coordinated site planning as requested by the applicants, the project should remain subject to the other standards and requirements for affordability, including timely completion of the affordable units (AMC 18.5.8.050.G.4) and for the use of comparable materials and amenities (18.5.8.050.6.6). The Co A zone change to NM-MF, which differs from the property's current Comprehensive Plan Map designation, requires a legislative amendment of the city's Comprehensive Plan Map. This is a discretionary decision by the City Council, and in similar previous requests, the Council has looked for a compelling argument that such a change addresses a clear public need. The Planning Commission finds that the compelling change of circumstance necessitating the requested change is the housing shortage and the need for more land to accommodate affordable and moderately-priced rental and ownership housing. The Commission further finds that the extension of city facilities to the area, adoption of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, and subsequent development of the Meadowbrook Park II subdivision immediately to the south can be found to be significant changes in circumstances since the original zoning was established which further support the requested Zone Change and Comprehensive Plan Amendment. When considered in conjunction with the city's current commitment to maintain the existing Urban Growth Boundary for the foreseeable future as adopted in the Regional Plan Element (XfV) of the Comprehensive Plan, and instead seek to accommodate anticipated growth with more efficient land 1 use inside existing boundaries, the Commission believes that that these circumstances necessitate the requested up-zoning, and we accordingly recommend that the City Council approve the requested Zone Change and Comprehensive Plan Amendment. 2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal satisfies all applicable criteria for Outline Plan approval. The first approval criterion for Outline Plan approval is that, "The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City." The Commission finds that the proposal meets or can meet all applicable ordinance requirements, and that this criterion has been satisfied. PA #2017-02129 February 13, 2018 Page 9 z i The second approval criterion for Outline Plan approval 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. " The Commission finds that adequate public facilities for electricity, natural gas, telephone, television and internet are immediately available to the subject properties from the adjacent rights-of-way and these services will be placed underground to serve the property. With regard to specific facilities, the application materials note: • Sanitary Sewer: Existing sanitary sewer lines are available in Camelot Drive approximately 30- feet south of the intersection of Camelot and East Nevada Street, and there is another line in East Nevada Street at is intersection with Patton. The application explains that the Engineering Division has indicated that the lines are in adequate condition and have capacity to support the proposed subdivision, and the applicants indicate that they will extend the sewer lines up East Nevada to service the subdivision. i • Water: An existing 15-inch water line is in place within East Nevada Street, and the application notes that extension of the line through the development with fire hydrant installation to meet Fire Code will have adequate capacity and availability to service the proposed residences. In discussing the proposal with Water Department staff, they have noted that because of the grade change between the curb and some developable areas of the property, there may be more than a 30-foot elevation gain between the water main and two-story buildings on the embankment above. This poses a potential cross-connection issue, as does an existing well in place on the property, and the Water Department has indicated that this cross-connection potential will need to be addressed for "premises isolation." • Storm Drainage: The application materials indicate that storm drainage on site will be controlled through an on-site detention system with a bio-swale at the terminus of Camelot Drive and the proposed new alley. • Streets & Transportation: The application explains that the properties front on East Nevada Street and will have direct access by way of the proposed new street, the extension of Camelot Drive and a new proposed alley. The application notes that the proposed improvements are generally consistent with city street standards, and that based on the applicants' analysis 23 new residential units will not trigger a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). More specifically, with regard to East Nevada Street, a two-lane avenue, the application notes that there is a paving, curb and gutter in place along the property frontage. The applicants propose a five-foot sidewalk and seven-foot parkrow along the eastern section of the properties' East Nevada Street frontage, with the parkrow planting strip proposed to be reduced to five-feet where eight on-street parking bays are proposed on Nevada Street. These eight on-street parking g PA #2017-02129 February 13, 2018 Page 10 I i bays will require relocation of the existing curb and gutter. In the area of the steep, rocky outcropping the applicants have requested an exception to the street standards to not extend sidewalks along the frontages of tax lots #1100 and #1200 due to the physically impenetrable rock and the difficulties associated with its excavation. The application suggests that they would be willing to post a bond in lieu of installing sidewalks on the flatter approximately 40-foot section of tax lot #1100 in order to allow its frontage to be completed in conjunction with the future development of the large adjacent property to the west at 375 East Nevada Street, rather than f extending a short section of sidewalk that would not connect to adjacent properties at this time, € particularly given that there are no crosswalks connecting to the sidewalks on the south side in this vicinity. The Commission finds that the sidewalk and parkrows proposed on East Nevada Street are consistent with the Avenue standard illustrated in the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, and given the Exceptions requested elsewhere, the parkrow should be kept to their minimum seven-foot width detailed for an Avenue, even where parking bays have been proposed. The applicants propose enhanced intersection treatments at East Nevada Street and Camelot to include amenities such as street lighting, a seating area, and a widened crosswalk using contrasting color or material (i.e. scored or colored concrete) to provide connectivity between the proposed sidewalks and the sidewalks for the existing and future development in the North Mountain Neighborhood to the south. In discussions of the crosswalk treatment with Public Works, Engineering and Planning staff, they have noted that the ramp and crossing need to be placed to better align with ramps opposite so that the ramps are directly connected to those across the street with the shortest, most direct routes possible as this is an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) concern for visually-impaired pedestrians. i a Camelot Drive is proposed to be extended onto the property as a neighborhood street with a proposed 48-foot right-of-way width providing a 15-foot travel surface, eight-foot planting strips and five-foot sidewalks on each side. Two seven-foot wide parking bays would be provided on the west side, with street improvements on this extension to generally match those on the existing street and enhanced crossing treatments with truncated domes and enhanced crosswalks provided at the Nevada Street intersection. i i The application also proposes to extend half-street improvements from a newly named Franklin Street within existing right-of-way at the east end of the Young property. The applicants note that this would be a neighborhood street with a 60-foot right-of-way and improved with a five- foot sidewalk, seven-foot landscaped parkrow, seven-foot on-street parking bays and a 15-foot PA #2017-02129 February 13, 2018 Page 11 E travel lane. The application suggests that these improvements would be bonded and completion deferred until the residential units adjacent to the new street were developed. The applicants also propose a 22-foot public alley extending from the proposed Franklin Street to the fire truck turn-around on the west side of the upper level of development. Parking for the proposed units would be accessed from this alley, eliminating the need for front yard driveways for units on East Nevada and Franklin Streets. Public Works and Engineering staff have indicated that given that this alley will function essentially as a private driveway serving the development without either a need for or benefit from public access, it should be a private driveway or private alley and not necessitate city maintenance responsibilities. In addition, Public Works and Engineering staff have expressed concern with what appears to be services stubbed out to serve the applicants' property outside the city limits and urban growth boundary and have asked that these be corrected in the final civil drawings to avoid the potential illegal extension of urban services outside of the urban growth boundary. Conditions to this effect have been included below. The application includes preliminary civil drawings prepared by Thornton Engineering, and conditions have been included below to require that final electric service, utility and civil plans be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor and city departments, and that these plans address the Water Department's comments regarding cross-connection concern and premises isolation; the Engineering Department's concerns about the alignment of the crossings at Camelot Drive, treatment of the alley as private, and extension of services outside the urban growth boundary; and that the civil infrastructure be installed, inspected and approved prior to the signature of the final survey plat. The third criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that, "The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in 1 the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. " The Commission finds that there is an approximately 18,000 square foot steeply sloped area of the property associated with the large roadside outcropping which has been proposed for inclusion in the subdivision's open space. The Commission finds that the inclusion of this rock outcropping and the sloped area adjacent in common open space provides a significant amenity to the future residents of the development, and further finds that some form of pedestrian access (i.e. a path to a gazebo or other sitting area) should be provided to give future residents access to the vista here. A condition to this effect has been included below. The applicants have provided a survey identifying 27 trees on the property which are greater than six- inches in diameter at breast height. Of these, ten are proposed to be removed in conjunction with the application including a 16-inch diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) Ponderosa Pine, a 16-inch d.b.h. Cedar tree, a nine-inch d.b.h. Pine, a 30-inch d.b.h. Ash tree, four seven-to-eight-inch d.b.h. Oak trees, and a six- inch and a ten-inch d.b.h. Walnut tree. The Commission finds that the trees proposed for removal are the y PA #2017-02129 February 13, 2018 Page 12 ~I minimum necessary to permit the parcel to be developed as proposed under the requested zoning. The trees are noted as being located where streets, driveways and building envelopes are proposed to comply C with the applicable standards while responding to the site's significant topographical constraints. The fourth criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that, "The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. " The Planning Commission finds that the proposal, which seeks to include the city's adjacent tax lot #100 in the requested Plan Amendment and Zone Change, will enable this parcel to develop with four affordable housing units instead of the single family residence that would be possible under the current designation, and the properties to the west and south will not be prevented from developing according to its Comprehensive Plan designation, while properties to the north are outside of the city limits. I N 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 Commission finds that there will be provisions in the CC&R's to address the maintenance of the proposed open space and common areas. A condition has included below to require that a draft copy of the CC&R's be provided for review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the Final Plan submittal. The sixth criterion is that, "The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. " The Planning Commission finds that the developable portion of the subject property is approximately two acres, and at the 12-dwelling unit per acre density of the requested NM-MF zoning, the base density of the subject properties is 24 units. The North Mountain Neighborhood Plan calls for a minimum density of between 75 and 110 percent meaning that at a density of between 18 and 26.4 dwelling units is required. As proposed, the applicants would develop at least 20 units, with three additional small units over the detached residences' garages reserved as optional putting the proposal within the requirements of the requested zoning district. Despite indications in the application that the proposal may qualify for density bonuses with regard to affordability and energy efficiency, no density bonuses are being requested. The Planning Commission finds that density bonuses not requested here may be available, and the Commission would be open to considering additional affordable units supported by a density bonus at the Final Plan should the applicants decide to pursue them. I The final Outline Plan approval criterion is that, "The development complies with the Street Standards. " The Planning Commission finds that the application generally complies with the Street Standards but has requested some Exceptions, discussed later in this document, to address the physical constraints posed by the large rock-outcropping. 2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the development of attached housing requires Site Design Review approval and is subject to the "Building Placement, Orientation and Design" standards for residential development found in AMC 18.4.2.030. The Commission finds that the application includes the identification of building envelopes, site landscaping and open space, and required parking and circulation along with conceptual building elevations intended to illustrate that the property can and will be developed according to the applicable PA #2017-02129 February 13, 2018 Page 13 1 e i E standards under the requested zoning. The application explains that it is the applicants' intent that Site Design Review approvals for the specific buildings to be proposed will be delayed until each phase develops, and that these Site Design Reviews will include final building designs as well as final landscaping and irrigation details. Conditions of approval have been included below to require that Site Design Review approvals for buildings within each phase be obtained concurrently with Final Plan approval for each phase, and that these Site Design Reviews be generally consistent with the site lay-out and conceptual designs here, with the exception of final building designs. The first criterion for Site Design Review is that, "The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards." The Planning Commission finds that the proposed development will comply with all applicable provisions for the underlying zone. The second approval criterion is that, "The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3)." The Planning Commission finds that the property is proposed for inclusion in the NM-MF district within the North Mountain Neighborhood overlay zone, and that all applicable standards have been addressed. The Commission further finds that the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan's "Supplemental Setback Requirements for Garages and Accessory Structures" in AMC 18.3.5.100.A.4 require that where no alleys are present, that garages be located a minimum of 15 feet behind the primary facade and a minimum of 20 feet from the sidewalk. The applicant notes that the garages which take access fiom a public street will be ten feet behind the primary facade. In assessing the site plan, it appears that the only units with a garage taking access from a public street are the two units on the west side of Camelot Drive. These units are at the juncture of the alley and Camelot, and have an 18-foot wide driveway and a garage ten feet (rather than the required 15 feet behind the fagade of the units). This appears to conflict with the standard both in terms of having a garage from the street where alley access is available to at least one of the units, and in having the garage five feet closer to the facade than allowed. Given that the Site Review request is conceptual at this stage, the Commission does not believe an Exception is appropriate and have accordingly included a condition that this situation be addressed in the Final Plan/Site Design Review submittal to either meet the standard or request an Exception. The third criterion for the Site Design Review approval is that, "The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards ofpart 18.4, except as provided by subsection E (which addresses Exceptions) below." The application materials assert that the proposal complies with Site Development and Design Standards and includes site layout plans, landscaping, irrigation and planting plans as well as conceptual elevations to supplement the written findings provided. In considering these standards, the Commission finds that multi-family residential property requires that eight percent (here 8,433 square feet) of the site be provided as recreational space, and the Performance Standards requires that at least five N percent (here 5,270 square feet) of the site be provided in common open space. While the application indicates that approximately 22 percent of the site (or 23,305 square feet) is provided in multi-family open space, the landscape plan illustrates only approximately 4,533 in lawn area, with the remainder of the a property planted with trees, shrubs and ground cover which are not suitable for recreational use. Some PA #2017-02129 February 13, 2018 Page 14 ~I { i of the lawn areas shown have depths as narrow as four feet, some are placed immediately adjacent to the parking area or street right-of-way, and one is within a required park-row planting strip. To demonstrate that the eight percent recreation space requirement is met, a plan clearly illustrating all areas to be counted towards open and recreation space needs to be provided. Landscaped areas counted toward recreation space requirements need to be outside of the right-of-way and placed where they are likely to be used recreationally, surfaced for recreational use, of sufficient depth to allow recreational use, and not include thoroughfares for pedestrian circulation, and individual patio, porch or deck areas need to have a minimum dimension of six feet in depth and eight feet in width (the minimum porch dimension as defined in AMC 18.6.1) exclusive of circulation routes, door swing areas, etc. to accommodate recreational use. Placement of utility infrastructure such as vaults, transformers or cabinets needs to be considered, and areas set aside for these items should not be counted as required open or recreational space. The Commission has accordingly included a condition requiring a revised plan fully addressing these issues be provided for review and approval with the Final Plan application. The fourth approval criterion for Site Design Review addresses city facilities and requires that, "The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section I8. 6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property." Public facilities requirements are addressed in detail in the Outline Plan section 2.4 earlier in these findings. 2.6 The Planning Commission finds that the application includes a request for an Exception to Street Standards to not extend sidewalks along the frontages of Tax Lots #1100 and #1200, west of the intersection of Camelot and East Nevada, due to the steep and rocky slope in this area, and to not install a multi-use path or other alternative to the sidewalk due to the same rocky slopes. The application asserts that the rock is impenetrable here, and has included a report by a geotechnical expert. The applicants note that they considered installing a multi-use path as an alternative, but the slopes were too steep to do so safely, and they further note anecdotally that when the subdivision to the south was installed a local backhoe operator broke many pieces of equipment trying to install street improvements here and the rock ultimately dictated the location of the existing curb. To provide for pedestrian connectivity, the applicants propose to install enhancements to the intersection of Camelot Drive and East Nevada so pedestrians using the north side sidewalk on the eastern portion of the proposed development can cross to the south side in the area where no sidewalks will be installed. These enhancements are to include amenities such as street lighting, seating, and a widened crosswalk using contrasting color or material (i.e. scored or colored concrete) to provide connectivity between the proposed sidewalks and the sidewalks for the existing and future development in the North Mountain Neighborhood to the south After visiting the site, Planning staff had noted that they believed there were opportunities in the area at the base of the rock outcropping where sidewalks are not currently proposed to instead remove weeds and flatten an 18- to 24-inch area behind the curb and surface it in concrete or compacted decomposed granite t in order to provide an area of refuge where pedestrians could step out of the roadway when cars pass to provide. Staff had recommended that the civil plans provided for Final Plan review include such a pedestrian refuge in this area. After consideration, the Commission finds that that this area is still constrained by the presence of the rock outcropping and that the presence of a small refuge area might PA #2017-02129 February 13, 2018 Page 15 l k 3 4 3 4 encourage pedestrians to that side of the street where there would be minimal facilities and very limited area to step out of the right-of-way to avoid cars. The Commission accordingly finds that the small pedestrian refuge is not an appropriate treatment here. The Commission further finds that the rock outcropping does pose a demonstrable difficulty in completing city standard frontage improvements on East Nevada Street, and that the proposed intersection enhancements will yield equivalent facilities and connectivity in terms of providing for the ability to safely and efficiently cross the roadway to the sidewalks on the opposite side. This exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty posed by the rock outcropping and is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Street Standards. Planning staff had noted that the street cross-section illustrated for the properties' East Nevada Street frontage were inconsistent with the standard improvements for an Avenue under the Street Standards, and had recommended that the civil drawings be updated to reflect the required park row and sidewalk width in the standards. The applicants asserted that the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan provided for an alternate Avenue standard within the North Mountain Neighborhood. Planning Commissioners find that there are differing street standards in the code with regard to Avenues. The standard Avenue cross-section described in AMC 18.4.6.040.F calls for a seven- to eight-foot park row planting strip and a six-foot sidewalk to be installed in residential areas; the cross section called out in the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan for North Mountain Avenue calls for a five-foot sidewalk with a seven-foot park row planting strip. Planning Commissioners find that the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan should govern in this case, and that a five-foot sidewalk and seven-foot park row planting strip are an appropriate Avenue treatment for East Nevada Street here. The applicants have also requested an Exception to not install bicycle lanes on East Nevada Street because 's there are none elsewhere on this corridor, the rock slope limits the ability to expand the right-of-way, and the average daily trip counts are very low. Subsequent to the mailing of a notice of public hearing, neighbors Andrea Napoli and Don Morehouse who reside on nearby Stoneridge Avenue submitted written comments indicating that they believed that bicycle access was necessary for the neighborhood before a zone change could occur, noting that currently there is no real bicycle access between the North Mountain Neighborhood and the rest of town, describing the existing bicycle lanes on North Mountain Avenue as dangerous and disappearing, and noting that there is currently no bridge connection over Bear Creek to Oak Street or the Bear Creek Greenway and suggesting that they do not believe a finding of adequate transportation can be made with regard to bicycle access. As noted by the neighbors, there are bicycle lanes on North Mountain Avenue in some places, but they are not continuous and require cyclists to merge into traffic or use a variable width gravel shoulder. While properties in adjacent developments including Meadowbrook Park II immediately to the south have been required to sign in favor of a future Local Improvement District for East Nevada Street which would include construction of a bridge over Bear Creek, this bridge is not currently in place. The Planning Commission finds that an Avenue is typically envisioned to accommodate between 3,000 and 10,000 average daily trips (ADT) as a design assumption. For lesser order streets, the Street Design Standards specifically note, "Bike lanes are generally not needed on streets with low volumes (less than 3, 000 ADT) or low motor vehicle travel speeds (less than 25mph). For over 3, 000 ADT or actual travel speeds exceeding 25 mph, six-foot bike lanes [are required]; one on each side of the street moving in the same direction as motor vehicle traffic." While the design assumptions for an Avenue put the ADT within PA #2017-02129 February 13, 2018 Page 16 4 1 i s the threshold which requires bike lanes, the most recent actual ADT counts for this section of East Nevada Street, taken by the Engineering Division in 2017, have the ADT at 107 trips. On nearby Fair Oaks Avenue, which likely is taking more of the traffic from the Meadowbrook Park Il subdivision out to Mountain Avenue because it is a less circuitous route, ADT was only slightly over 400 trips in 2016, and Engineering staff indicated that it was doubtful even with additional construction completed in 2017 that the current ADT there would be over 500 trips now. The Planning Commission finds that the current ADT on East Nevada Street do not necessitate bicycle lanes, and could accommodate cyclists as shared users of the street without frequent conflicts due to vehicle cross traffic, although the Avenue classification typically requires them. The Planning Commission further fords that an Exception is merited, but that the applicants will be required to sign in favor of a future Local Improvement District (LID) for East Nevada Street as have others in the North Mountain Neighborhood. Such an LID could include both bicycle lanes and bridge construction. 2.7 The Planning Commission fords that the applicants have provided a survey identifying 27 trees on the property which are greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height. Of these, ten are proposed to be removed in conjunction with the application including a 16-inch diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) Ponderosa Pine, a 16-inch d.b.h. Cedar tree, a nine-inch d.b.h. Pine, a 30-inch d.b.h. Ash tree, four seven- to-eight-inch d.b.h. Oak trees, and a six-inch and a ten-inch d.b.h. Walnut tree. The Commission finds that the trees proposed for removal are the minimum necessary to permit the parcel to be developed as proposed under the requested zoning. The trees are located where streets, driveways and building envelopes are proposed to comply with the applicable standards while responding to the significant topographical constraints of the site. The applicants further explain that the trees to be removed on the upper level of the development include the Cedar, Ponderosa Pine and Ash trees which are requested for removal to accommodate the extension of Camelot Drive, which must respond to the existing street location, topography, block length and fire truck turn-around standards. The applicants go on to note that the majority of the trees to be removed are on the lower level of the property on tax lot 41100. These trees are described as being crowded together where the driveway will need to be located to access the proposed lower level units and to maintain vehicular access for the portion of the applicants' property which is outside the city limits while complying with driveway separation requirements. The Commission finds that the removals will not have a significant negative impact on erosion or soil stability, noting that the development of the property will address erosion and soil stability. The applicants emphasize that there are no surface waters on the site, and that the trees proposed for removal are not part of any windbreaks. They also suggest that the removals will generally have no significant impact on tree densities, canopy size or species diversity, although they recognize that the Ponderosa and Cedar may have adverse impacts with regard to this criterion while suggesting that their removals could not be avoided. They explain that with shallow soil depths and significantly rocky soils, large conifers require wider spreading root structure and necessitate larger protection zones which would make it more difficult to preserve and protect them with the proposed development. The applicants propose to plant numerous deciduous trees that are more than 11/2- inch caliper to mitigate the removals proposed, and that three PA #82017-02129 February 13, 2018 Page 17 E ( I~ I t conifers will be planted on the applicants' property to the north to assist in buffering the freeway to mitigate the large conifers to be removed. In reviewing the proposal at their regular meeting in January, the Tree Commissioners noted that the proposed planting list was generally well-selected. They further noted that they believed that Tree #1 identified in the tree inventory as a Cedar was actually a native Juniper, and that Tree #5 identified as an I Ash was actually an Elm. The Tree Commissioners generally discussed that they would prefer to see Trees #1, #2, and #5 preserved and protected, but after discussions of the need for five- to eight-feet of grading near trees #1, #2, #3 and #5 to address access, infrastructure, drainage and home placement according to standards the Commissioners ultimately expressed support for the project subject to a recommendation that the trees proposed for removal being replaced with larger than normal mitigation trees as follows: 1) That all native species such as the Oaks to be removed shall be mitigated on a one- for-one basis with four-inch caliper native species that will attain a similar size to the tree being removed at maturity; 2) That conifers to be removed such as the Juniper & Ponderosa Pine shall be mitigated on a one-for-one basis with conifers that will attain a similar size to the tree being removed at maturity, and that are at least ten feet tall at the time of planting. s In considering these recommendations, the Planning Commission finds that smaller trees are generally E better at quickly establishing themselves, and accordingly adjusts the Tree Commission recommendations to require that the native species be mitigated with at least 2 V2-inch caliper trees and that conifers be mitigated with six- to eight-foot tall replacement trees of a comparable variety. The Planning Commission E further finds that the applicants should not pave the driveway on the lower/western-most units past the garage in order minimize the development impacts and benefit Trees #1b and #17. 2.8 The Planning Commission finds that Oregon state law requires that amendments to comprehensive plans to be in compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals & Guidelines (ORS 195.175(2)(a)). The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment would change the site Comprehensive Plan Map designation F from "Single Family Residential Reserve" to "North Mountain Neighborhood Plan." Consistent with that state law requirement, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Z Amendment and the project proposed for the site under PA #2017-02129 comply with the Statewide Planning Goals & Guidelines as described below: ❑ Goal 1: Citizen Involvement - The Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone affect four parcels, so its impacts are not widespread. The City publicized the proposal as required by the City's Land Use Ordinance by posting the property, mailing notice to all property owners within 200 feet of the sites, and providing notice of the Planning Commission hearing on the City's t website and in the local newspaper. 0 Goal 2: Planning -The sites are on the edge of the City immediately adjacent to the City's North € Mountain Neighborhood District, which is a large planned district in the northern part of the Ashland. The proposed Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning effectively brings these parcels into the North Mountain Neighborhood District. Permits for the proposed development of the parcels will follow the City's existing land use permitting procedures. PA #2017-02129 February 13, 2018 Page 18 ❑ Goal 3: Agricultural Lands - The sites that are the subject of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone are within both the City limits and the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) of the City of Ashland. No Agricultural lands are affected by the proposed development of the site under the proposed amendments. Adjacent lands in Jackson County to the north are not designated Agricultural. To the extent this rezone allows for greater density within the City's UGB, there is less pressure for housing outside the UGB. F. Goal 4: Forest Lands - The sites that are the subject of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone are within both the City limits and the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) of the City of l Ashland. No Forest lands are affected by the proposed development of the site under the proposed amendments. Adjacent lands in Jackson County to the north are not designated Forest. To the extent this rezone allows for greater density within the City's UGB, there is less pressure for housing outside the UGB. [_l Goal S: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces - No natural resources, scenic resources, or historic resources have been identified on the sites. The proposed development of the site under PA-2017-02129 has been determined by the Ashland Planning Commission to comply with the City's Site Design Review process, which requires eight (8) percent of the site to be dedicated to recreational open space. ❑ Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality - The rezone sites are planned for residential t development and this development is not anticipated to negatively impact air, water or land resources. The sites will be fully served by City utilities, which is not currently the case pre- rezone. 0 Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards - The sites are not within any flood, landslide or liquefaction-prone areas identified by the City's natural resources mapping. ❑ Goal 8: Recreational Needs - The sites are near City parks and other recreational resources. The proposed development of the site under PA-2017-02129 has been determined by the Ashland Planning Commission to comply, as conditioned, with City Land Use Code requirements for recreational open space on site. ❑ Goal 9: Economic Development - The City has adequate industrial and commercially zoned land elsewhere. The subject properties have been zoned residential reserve. The residential nature of the zoning will not change, but greater density will be allowed, and some affordable housing units will be provided. ❑ Goal 10: Housing - The Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone will further the City's housing goals and policies by increasing zoned residential density in an area that is already developing with urban levels of housing density. The proposed development for the site will also provide some needed affordable housing in the City of Ashland. ❑ Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services -The City's Public Works Department has determined that there are adequate public facilities and services to serve the rezoned parcels and to serve the proposed development of the site under PA-2017-02129. PA #2017-02129 February 13, 2018 Page 19 ~I 0 Goal 12: Transportation - The street grid in the North Mountain Neighborhood area is adequate to handle the additional traffic from development of the subject parcels at the higher, rezoned density. The proposed project for the site under PA 2017-02129 will provide additional street parking and sidewalks for the area. The transportation study done for the proposed development found that it did not meet any of the thresholds to require a transportation impact analysis. ❑ Goal 13: Energy Conservation - Greater density on these sites within the City's Urban Growth Boundary and City Limits will promote the more efficient use of land and energy. ❑ Goal 14: Urbanization - The Urbanization Goal is furthered by greater residential density within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. ❑ Goal 15: Willamette River Greenway - Not applicable. ❑ Goal 16: Estuarine Resources - Not applicable. ❑ Goal 17: Coastal Shorelands - Not applicable. 0 Goal 18: Beaches and Dunes - Not applicable. ❑ Goal 19: Ocean Resources - Not applicable. State law also requires a change in City land use regulations to comply with the City's Comprehensive Plan (ORS 195.175(2)(b)). With approval of the Comprehensive Plan Map designation amendment to "North Mountain Neighborhood Plan," the zoning designation change to North Mountain Multi-Family (NM-MF)" will comply with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The NM-MF designation is one of the zoning designations approved by the City for adoption within the North Mountain Neighborhood District. The Commission conditionally approves the proposed Outline Plan and Site Design Review for Planning Action PA #2017-02129, subject to City Council approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to "North Mountain Neighborhood Plan" and rezone of the sites consistent with that Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to NM-MF. The Council may wish to adopt the Outline Plan and Site Design Review approvals prior to acknowledgment of the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) by adopting these findings as well, or could alternatively send the Outline Plan and Site Design Review requests back to the Planning Commission for final approval following acknowledgment. I SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposal for Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, Zone Change, Outline Plan approval, Site Design Review approval for a 20-lot, 23-unit Performance Standards Option subdivision, and Tree Removal Permit is supported by evidence contained within the whole record. For the Commission, it is clear that the extension of city facilities to the area, adoption of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, and subsequent development of the Meadowbrook Park II subdivision immediately to the south represent a change in circumstances since the current zoning was established in the 1970's which supports the requested Plan Amendment and Zone Change, but for Commissioners the compelling changes in circumstance which necessitate the requested Plan Amendment and Zone Change PA #2017-02129 February 13, 2018 Page 20 are the well-documented housing shortage around the lack of rental and ownership units that are affordable to a broad spectrum of the community and the city's commitment through the Regional Problem Solving process to accommodate anticipated growth with more efficient land use inside existing city boundaries. The extension of public facilities to support more dense development than was possible when the current zoning was established nearly 50 years ago sets the table for more efficient land use now, and given the current need for more housing, the Commission recommends that the City Council approve the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, the Planning Commission recommends in favor of the Council's approval of the requested Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change and we further approve the Outline Plan, Site Design Review, Tree Removal and Exception to Street Standards components of Planning Action #2017- 01059 subject to the Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2017-01059 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1. That proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. 2. That any new addresses or street names shall be assigned by City of Ashland Engineering Department. 3. That permits shall be obtained from the Ashland Public Works Department prior to any work in the public right of way. 4. That tree protection fencing and other tree preservation measures shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to any site work including demolition, staging, storage of materials or issuance of any permits. The tree protection shall be chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.4.5.030.C. and no construction shall occur within the tree protection zone including dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste, equipment, or parked vehicles. The final Tree Protection Plan shall incorporate the following requirements: 1) That all native species such as the Oaks to be removed shall be mitigated on a one-for-one basis with at least 2r/2-inch caliper trees of a comparable variety (i.e. one that will attain a similar size to the tree being removed at maturity); 2) That conifers to be , removed such as the Juniper & Ponderosa Pine shall be mitigated on a one-for-one basis with conifers of a comparable variety, and that are at least six- to eight-feet tall at the time of planting; and 3) That the applicants shall not pave the driveway on the lower/western-most units (i.e. Tax Lot #1100) past the garage in order minimize the development impacts and benefit Trees #16 and #17. 5. That the applicants shall obtain necessary Demolition and Relocation Review Permits from the Building Division prior to the demolition of any buildings over 500 square feet as required in AMC 15.04, if deemed necessary by the Building Official. 6. The requirements of the Ashland Fire Department, including approved addressing, fire apparatus access and approach, fire flow, hydrant distance and clearance, and fire sprinklers where applicable, shall be complied with prior to issuance of the building permit or the use of combustible materials. Fire Department requirements shall be included on the engineered construction documents. If a fire protection vault is required, the vault shall not be located in the sidewalk PA #2017-02129 February 13, 2018 Page 21 4 f corridor. 7. That prior to the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change being formalized, the applicants shall sign in favor of a Local Improvement District for the future improvements to East Nevada Street including future bridge construction and street improvements, including but not limited to bike lanes sidewalks, parkrow, curb, gutter and storm drainage, prior to signature of the final survey plat. The agreement shall be signed and recorded concurrently with the final survey plat. Nothing in this condition is intended to prohibit an owner/developer, their successors or assigns from exercising their rights to freedom of speech and expression by orally objecting or participating in the LID hearing or to take advantage of any protection afforded any party by City ordinances and resolutions. 8. That prior to Final Plan approval: a. A revised plan to demonstrate that the open and recreation space requirements are met illustrating all areas to be counted towards open and recreation space and their placement, dimension and treatment, and shall include some form of pedestrian access (i.e. a path to a gazebo or other sitting area) to provide access for future residents to the vista here. Landscaped areas counted toward recreation space need to be placed and surfaced for recreational use and not include thoroughfares for pedestrian circulation, and individual patio, porch or deck areas need to have a minimum dimension of six feet in depth and eight feet in width exclusive of circulation routes, door swing areas, etc. to accommodate recreational use. Areas containing above-ground utility infrastructure such as transformers, vaults and cabinets are not to be included as open/recreational space. Common area and open space improvements (i.e. landscaping and irrigation, etc.) shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected and approved prior to signature of Final Survey Plat. b. A phasing plan be provided which details the proposed phasing/timing of the development with the final plan submittal. C. Site Design Review approval for the final building designs shall be obtained concurrently with Final Plan approval for each phase. Site Designs shall be generally consistent with that approved here, with the exception of final building designs. i. The Site Design Review shall address the two units on the west side of Camelot Drive which are at the corner of the alley and Camelot, and have an 18-foot wide driveway and a garage ten feet, rather than the required 15 feet, behind the fagade of the units. The Site Design Review shall consider this both in terms of having a garage where alley access is available to at least one of the units, and in having the garage five feet closer to the fagade than allowed and shall either adjust the design or request an Exception. d. Final Plan and Site Design Review submittals which include the city-owned property (Tax Lot #100) will need to include a tree inventory/protection plan and determination of wetland presence for this property. C. All requirements of the geo-technical expert's report, including that the geo-technical expert reviews grading and building plans for compliance with recommendations and that the geo-technical expert observes earthwork, foundation and drainage installation phases PA #2017-02129 February 13, 2018 Page 22 a d i E of construction and provides a written report of these observations certifying that all construction was consistent with recommendations shall be conditions of approval. The final plan submittals shall include written verification from the project geo-technical expert addressing the consistency of the grading and drainage plans with the report recommendations, and shall include a detailed inspection schedule addressing needed inspections and their timing associated with the project's development. f. Final Site lighting details. Street lights shall be consistent with the city's residential street lighting standard which calls for the "Eurotique" unless another lighting type is already deployed in the neighborhood. g. Final Trash enclosure placement and screening details. h. Final lot coverage calculations demonstrating how lot coverage is to be allocated to comply with the 75 percent lot coverage allowance in the NM-MF zoning district, including all building footprints, driveways, parking, circulation areas and other proposed lot coverage. i. The identification of all proposed easements for public and private utilities, fire apparatus access, and reciprocal utility, maintenance, access and parking shall be indicated on the Final Plan submittal for review by the Planning, Engineering, Building and Fire Departments. j. That a final utility plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning, Engineering, and Building Divisions with the Final Plan application. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, fire hydrants, sanitary sewer lines, storm drain lines and electric services. The utility plan shall also address the issues raised by the Water Department relative to cross connections and premises isolation due to the grade difference between the water main in East Nevada Street and the residential units. The utility plan shall not include the stubbing out of future services connection to serve the applicants' properties outside the city limits/urban growth boundary. k. That the location and final engineering for all storm drainage improvements associated with the project, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Departments of Public Works, Planning and Building Divisions with the Final Plan application. 1. That the applicant shall submit an electric design and distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment with the Final Plan application. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department prior to the signature of the final survey plat. Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets and outside of vision clearance areas, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. Electric services shall be installed underground to serve all proposed units prior to signature of the final survey plat. 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. M. That the engineered construction drawings for the proposed street improvements including East Nevada Street, the extension of Camelot Drive, the extension of the proposed new PA 92017-02129 February 13, 2018 Page 23 ° street (Franklin Street), and the intersection enhancements at Camelot Drive and East Nevada Street shall be submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning and Engineering Divisions with the Final Plan application, prior to work in the street rights-of- way or installation of improvements in the pedestrian corridor. i. For the proposed 22-foot alley at the rear of the property, the alley shall be a private facility rather than a public alley. ii. For East Nevada Street, the section which is to sidewalks shall include the minimum five-foot width, seven-foot park row planting strips (even where parking bays are proposed) required for an Avenue in the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan. iii. For the Camelot Drive extension, a 15-foot queuing lane shall be provided with seven-foot parking bays on one side, with eight-foot park rows and five-foot sidewalks on both sides, and for the enhanced intersection treatment, revised drawings shall be provided which address the ramp and crossing placement to better align with ramps opposite so that the ramps are directly connected to those across the street with the shortest, most direct routes possible in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). iv. For the Franklin Street extension, a 15-foot queuing lane shall be provided with seven-foot parking bays on one side, with seven-foot park rows and five-foot sidewalks the west side. n. Where necessary to accommodate city standard improvements or to align frontage improvements, necessary additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the city or easements provided. All public improvements including but not limited to the sidewalk, park row planting strips with irrigated street trees, and standard Eurotique residential street lights shall be installed to City of Ashland standards under permit from the Public Works Department and in accordance with the approved plan prior to signature of the final survey plat. o. That CC&Rs for the Homeowner's Association shall be provided for review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the Final Plan application. The CC&R's shall describe responsibility for the maintenance of all common use-improvements including landscaping, driveways and parking areas, planting strips, shared garage spaces and street trees. p. That all fencing shall be consistent with the provisions of the "Fences and Walls" requirements in AMC 18.4.4.060. The draft CC&Rs shall include stipulations on height limitations for front, side and rear yard, and shall note that fences adjacent to common open space areas shall not exceed four feet. The location and height of fencing shall be identified at the time of building permit submittals, and fence permits shall be obtained prior to installation. q. The approved Tree Protection Plan and accompanying standards for compliance shall be noted in the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs must state that deviations from the plan shall be considered a violation of the Planning Application approval and therefore subject to penalties described in the Ashland Municipal Code. 90 _"t v Y Febi 13 2018 IVO Planning Commissio pproval Date PA #2017-02129 February 13, 2018 Page 24 i Ii CITY OF -ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 9, 2018 CALL TO ORDER Chair Roger Pearce called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Derek Severson, Senior Planner Debbie Miller Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Melanie Mindlin Haywood Norton Roger Pearce Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: Dennis Slattery, absent ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced John and Scott Fregonese would provide a presentation on the Infill Strategy January 16, 2018, at the City Council Meeting. Staff originally continued PA-2017-01911, regarding the proposal for a 4,000 square foot (sq. ft.) marijuana grow and 2,000 sq. ft. of retail to the January 23, 2018, Planning Commission meeting. The applicants requested postponing until February. Since there was no date certain, staff would re-notice it to the surrounding property owners. The applicant modified the application and withdrew the marijuana grow from the proposal. The annual Mayor's State of the City address was scheduled for January 29, 2018, at the Ashland Springs Hotel. AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES The Wildfire Lands Committee would meet January 31, 2018. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. December 12, 2017 Regular Meeting. Commissioners Thompson/Mindlin mis to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 7-0. PUBLIC FORUM Eric Elerathl419 Clinton Street/Recently purchased a house in the river walk neighborhood. He thought some of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) were flagrant violations of rights to speech. He received a letter of Findings from Community Development Director Bill Molnar regarding 345 Clinton and a density transfer. He had objected to it because there were a lot of issues not addressed in the application. He had issues with the conditions and the language of any CC&Rs required as part of the density transfer. If they were found invalid, the density transfer was revoked. He wanted to know the process that determined whether conditions were invalid. Chair Pearce explained the Community Development staff made that type of determination. It was not in the Planning Commission's purview. He suggested Mr. Elerath talk to Mr. Molnar or his staff. Ashland Planning Commission January 9. 2018 Page 1 of 10 UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA-2017-02134, 1068 Main Street. The Commission had no ex parte contacts regarding the matter. Commissioners Miller/Thompson mis to approve the Findings for PA-2017-02134, 1068 Main Street. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 7-0. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2017-02129 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 475 E. Nevada St. OWNER/APPLICANT: Young Family Trust & City of Ashland/Rogue Planning & Dev. Services DESCRIPTION: A request for Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment; Zone Change; Outline Plan approval for a 20-lot, 23-unit subdivision; Site Design Review; and Tree Removal Permit for the properties located at 475 East Nevada Street. The existing Comprehensive Plan designation is "Single Family Residential Reserve" and the existing zoning is "Rural Residential (RR-.5-P"). The proposal would change the Comprehensive Plan Map designation to "North Mountain Neighborhood Plan" and the zoning to "North Mountain Multi-Family (NM-MF)." (NOTE: Portions of the subject properties are located outside of the city limits; the current request involves only those portions within the city limits.) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential Reserve (Existing), North Mountain Neighborhood (Proposed); ZONING: RR-.5-P (Existing), NM-MF (Proposed); ASSESSOR'S MAP 39 1 E 04A; TAX LOT #'S : 39 1 E 04A 1100, 1200 & 1300 and 39 1 E 04AD 100. Chair Pearce read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. I Ex Parte Contact The Planning Commission declared no ex parte contact and one site visit with staff. Chair Pearce spoke to Mark Knox five years ago regarding the matter. He recalled Mr. Knox had explained the project would need a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a rezone for density, Chair Pearce also participated in one site visit with the Commission and staff. This was a Type III hearing of a rezone that needed a Comprehensive Plan amendment. There were permit applications. The action was a legislative rezone. The Planning Commission would make a recommendation to the City Council who had full legislative discretion. In all rezones and map amendments, the City had to make Findings that it was consistent with statewide planning goals and guidelines. The Planning Commission could only make a conditional decision for the City Council to consider. The City Council could send it back for adoption by the Planning Commission or they could adopt the Findings provided. Senior Planner Derek Severson clarified the only items preliminary or conceptual in the submittal was the building designs. The applicant's intention was doing the project in phases. It would be sold to different people to build out each phase. This was incorporated into the conditions and would come back as a Type I if there were no significant modifications. Staff Report Mr. Severson explained the subject property consisted of three lots along the north side of East Nevada Street, Tax Lot 1100, 1200, and 1300. The subject properties had the city limit line and the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) line running through the back two-thirds of the land. There was a portion outside the city limits and the UGB. Under the Regional Problem Solving Agreement in 2012, the City was committed to not go beyond the UBG for the next 50-60 years depending on how long it took to double the population. The current application would amend the Comprehensive Plan, change the zone, and have approvals only to the portion within city limits. The three lots were 4.5 acres with 2.4 acres actually in city limits. The proposal would demolish the existing house on Tax Lot #1200. The trailer house would most likely remain until that area was developed. There was a City tax lot in the proposal and staff recommended including the .35 acre in the rezone for the affordable housing development. Ashland Planning Commission January 9. 2018 Page 2 of 10 The application included the following components: • Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment (Single Family Residential Reserve to North Mountain Neighborhood Plan). • Zone change (RR-.5 to NM-MF). • Outline Plan approval for a 20-lot, 23-unit subdivision. • Site Design Review approval. • Tree Removal Permit to remove ten trees greater than 6-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.). • The exception to Street Standards to not install bike lanes, and to not install sidewalks on a portion of East Nevada. Note: Portions of the subject properties are located outside of the city limits; the current request involves only those portions within the city limits. • Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.5.9.020.6 - Plan Amendments and Zone Changes - Type III. It may be necessary from time to time to make legislative amendments in order to conform with the Comprehensive Plan or to meet other changes in circumstances or conditions. The Type III procedure applies to the creation, revision, or large-scale implementation of public policy requiring City Council approval and enactment of an ordinance; this includes adoption of regulations, zone changes for large areas, zone changes requiring comprehensive plan amendment, comprehensive plan map or text amendment, annexations (see chapter 18.5.8 for annexation information), and urban growth boundary amendments. The following planning actions shall be subject to the Type III procedure. 1. Zone changes or amendments to the Zoning Map or other official maps, except where minor amendments or corrections may be processed through the Type II procedure pursuant to subsection 18.5.9.020.A, above. 2. Comprehensive Plan changes, including text and map changes or changes to other official maps. 3. Land Use Ordinance amendments. 4. Urban Growth Boundary amendments. • Type II. The Type II procedure is used for applications involving zoning map amendments consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map, and minor map amendments or corrections. Amendments under this section may be approved if in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the application demonstrates that one or more of the followinq. 1. The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable housing, supported by the Comprehensive Plan. 2. A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances. 3. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action. 4. Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one zoning district to another zoning district, will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G. 5. Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial, employment, or industrial zoned lands (i.e., Residential Overlay), will not negatively impact the City's commercial and industrial land supply as required in the Comprehensive Plan, and will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G. 6. The total number of affordable units described in 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 or 5, above, shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 and 5 do not apply to Council initiated actions. The existing R-.5 zoning dated back to the 1970s. The City began the neighborhood plan process in 1994 and adopted it as the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan (NMNP) in 1997. The area filled out with the NMNP in place along with the facilities to support current and future development. The proposal would update the half-acre minimal lot size zoning at the subject property and continue the same level of development. The applicants proposed two units on Tax Lot 1100. The rock outcropping on the lot was steeper than 35% and not buildable per code. The applicants provided site plans depicting attached housing, detached units and two attached units Ashland Planning Commission January 9. 2018 Page 3 of 10 I I I sharing an attached garage. They did not want to install sidewalks along the rock outcropping of East Nevada Street or bike lanes at another section of the street, Camelot Drive would extend into the site as a public street with full street improvements on both sides. They would also extend the North Mountain Avenue right of way and rename it Franklin Street to access an alley at the rear of the site. The applicants wanted the alley to be public but the Public Works Department disagreed and thought it should be private. The applicants provided a Civil Site Plan, plans for Grading and Drainage, Landscape Irrigation, Planting, Electric Service, Tree Removal and Protection, and Conceptual Elevations for the units. The Tree Commission thought Tree #1 was a native Juniper and not a Cedar as indicated in the applicant's plan. They initially wanted Trees #1, #2, and #5 preserved and protected, However, due to 5-8-feet of grading near trees #1, #2, #3 and #5 for access, the Tree Commission recommended the following: 1. That all native species such as the Oaks to be removed be mitigated on a one-for-one basis with four-inch caliper native species that will attain a similar size to the tree being removed at maturity. 2. That the conifers to be removed such as the Juniper & Ponderosa Pine be mitigated on a one-for-one basis with conifers that will attain a similar size to the tree being removed at maturity, and that is at least ten feet tall at planting. Key Items from the Staff Report included: • Open/Recreation Space - Staff asked for a revised plan with usable recreation space placement and treatment. • Building Orientation - Staff recommended a condition that corner units at Camelot Drive and Franklin Street have an orientation with entry and pedestrian connection directly to the higher order East Nevada Street. • Street Improvements o Nevada Street to include standard Avenue improvements where the rock is not impacting. o Staff supported the exception for sidewalks at the rock. o Staff supported the exception for Bike Lanes (sign-in favor of future bridge L.I.D.) There were 107 vehicle trips per day on that section of Nevada Street. The Avenue Standard called for bike lanes under all circumstances with a trip generation number of at least 3,000 vehicle trips per day. o Staff recommended a Pedestrian Refuge at the toe of the rock with 18 to 24-inches flattened, surfaced with decomposed granite or concrete maintained weed-free as a refuge for pedestrians. Staff recognized the following changes in circumstances: • Extension of essential services in conjunction with NMNP adoption and build-out. • Regional Problem Solving (RPS) Commitments to Efficient Land Use within existing boundaries. • Housing Crisis. • Need for More Land to Accommodate Moderately Priced and Affordable Ownership & Rental Units. I The changes supported the requested up-zoning. The additional units were in the public interest. The Planning Commission could recommend that the Council consider requiring the three ARU units currently listed as optional as well as additional density to utilize available density and bonuses. Questions of Staff Mr. Severson explained the applicants were offering 23 units. The maximum number of houses would be 24 units. With density bonuses, it could increase to 28 units, possibly 30. The Avenue Classification was in the Transportation System Plan (TSP). If the bridge went in, it would connect to Oak Street and Mountain Avenue. When the original subdivision was developed, it looked like it needed an alternative connection for fire access. That resulted in the avenue designation. With the recent discussions regarding the bridge, the Public Works Department was considering revisiting the avenue designation during the next TSP update. They also discussed the potential of Kestrel Parkway taking over the avenue function. In terms of not having bike lanes, the Public Works Department could have the Transportation Commission investigate the use of bike Sharrows. Ashland Planning Commission January 9 2018 Page 4 of 10 i ~I Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained sidewalk and park row were the same whether it was a residential neighborhood street or a residential avenue. The Avenue Standard allowed parking bays that were one foot smaller in dimension. Mr. Severson clarified the application would provide 4 units of affordable housing that was 25% of the base density. A memo in the file spoke to transferring the land to an affordable housing provider in the future. It would be a 60% area median income level of affordability that had a conversion factor. The base density would be 25% or six units. Because they were at 60% area median income, there was a 1.5 conversion factor resulting in 4 units at the lower level. The code discussed having affordable housing completed before 50% of the units were built. The applicants did not want it tied to this requirement because the affordable housing provider was not related to the project and applicants would not be building the affordable housing. Commissioner Thompson wanted to know what methods existed that would ensure the affordable housing would be built. Mr. Molnar thought it could be recommended to City Council as a condition. The specific standard stated that "50% of the affordable units shall have been issued building permits prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the last of the first 50% of the market rate units." Mr. Severson noted the applicants were asking for an exception to that standard. Applicant's Presentation Amy Gunter/Rogue Planning and Development Services/1424 South Ivy/Medford, OWThought the Planning Commission could find the change in circumstances with the development of the North Mountain Neighborhood, Skylark, Mountain Meadows, Julian Square and the Great Oaks Subdivision to necessitate changing the zoning and the comprehensive plan map designation for the subject property. The need for all housing types and compliance with the standards from the NMNP was in substantial conformance with the Ashland Land Use Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development for 20-23 units addressed minimum density standards for the NMNP. The layout was similar to a townhouse development and provided a mix of housing types. It allowed four affordable housing units restricted to the 60% area median income. This type of affordable housing was in higher demand. The Conceptual Elevations complied with the NMNP. The C Units were proposed to front on Camelot Drive. The applicants wanted to rotate these units to face on North Mountain Avenue with access from the rear. It would improve orientation to Nevada Street and provide ease of construction. This was a 10% substantial change for orientation from Outline Plan to the Final Plan. It could trigger a Type II planning action at the final plan stage. The Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) called for orientation to "a street" and not a "higher order street." It also spoke to the design of the front facade, the entry layout, corresponding setbacks, and a primary orientation to the front. The front entrances to the D corner units at Camelot Drive and Nevada Street faced West and the other corner unit at Franklin Street and Nevada Street faced East. Both were oriented to their front. The sides would be oriented towards Nevada Street. The Site Design Chapter stated when buildings are located within 20 feet of a street, the primary entrance opening facing the street connected via a right-of-way. The proposed units complied with the North Mountain Neighborhood District 18.3.5.100 Site Development and Design Standards. It also met the standards in 18.3.5.100(A) Housing. Adequate area was provided for the open spaces. The Subdivision open space exceeded the required 5,270 square feet of area. The multi-family recreational space was required to be 8,422 square feet. The application provided 2,500 square feet of play area, 1,870 square feet of deck and 2,100 square feet of patio all more than 6' by 8'. There was also more than 5,150 square feet of lawn area. Many areas of open space could be private or common. Ms. Gunter described potential landscape features that included a path to a vista viewpoint. Public Facilities - Water • There are no wells on site. Ashland Planning Commission Januai y 9. 2018 Page 5 of 10 I i i • The proposed civil engineering plans have located a public water line to extend to the development from Nevada Street and through the development via the public alley and Camelot Drive. The meters would be located as close to the units as practical without the need for pressure increasing devices or cross-connection issues. • Without the alley and with Camelot Drive as a public street, private lines can be extended via private laterals to the detached residences without the "premises isolation" issues. • Fire Hydrants are proposed at the intersection of the alley and Franklin and Camelot and the alley. In the event the alley becomes private, the hydrants would be verified to be within the right-of-way of the two streets. Electric • Electric services to the properties outside of the Urban Growth Boundary are required to be provided and maintained (tax lot 201 has City of Ashland electric service). • Electric service is allowed to and through the development via either a public alley or private driveway. Transportation • Alleys: The City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan (10.05.05) recommends alleys. Throughout the Land Use Ordinance specifically in the connectivity standards found in 18.4.6.040(E) regarding 1) Interconnection; 2) Connectivity to Abutting Lands: 5) Use of alleys is recommended where possible. o Accessing more than three lots via a private driveway requires an exception with demonstrable difficulty. In the development of the subdivision layout, all indications in the code are to provide alleys, not private driveways. • Pedestrian Refuge: Decomposed granite has been discouraged in other applications. The applicant is worried about creating a safety hazard by encouraging pedestrians to walk in the roadway on a blind curve against the flow of traffic. There is a sidewalk along the South side where pedestrians should walk instead of the roadway. The requested modifications to conditions of approval included the mitigation standard in Condition 4 from the Tree Commission. The mitigation exceeded what was required by code. The AMC required 1.5-inch caliper trees. The applicant proposed 2-2.5-inch caliper trees. Kerry KenCairn was an arborist and landscape architect. She did not recommend using trees larger than 2.5-inch caliper due to the rocky terrain. The adjacent neighborhood was unable to plant one tree per thirty feet of frontage required by the code because of the impenetrable rock they encountered. The applicant wanted flexibility with the spacing standards in case they encountered something similar. It would also be difficult to find a 10-foot conifer tree. In addition, they were hard to plant and sustain. The applicant wanted the Conditions to allow for 2.5-inch caliper deciduous trees, and six to eight-foot tall native conifer trees. Another request for modification was Condition 9 requiring orientation to a "higher order" street. This was not supported by the AMC for Site Design Review or the North Mountain Design Standards. A final request for modification was requiring dedication of an additional right-of-way. The applicant proposed the layouts to meet the NMNP standards. It was a 3-foot difference to widen the park row, sidewalk, and parking bay that would encroach on the property and require dedication. The applicant requested it to be a public pedestrian access easement if found to be necessary by the Commission versus a dedication of a public right of way. Questions of the Applicant Ms. Gunter addressed affordable housing and noted the code was not clear. When there was a transfer of property to a different developer, the applicant was excepted from all of the construction standards. When the property was sold, deeded, or transferred to a different developer, she did not think it should hold up a development no longer associated with affordable housing. With the maximum conservation density bonus, open space density provided a 35% density bonus that equated to 8.4 additional units. They could not find more space for additional units on the property due to the pond size for stormwater retention treatment, the number of impervious surfaces, and the parking spaces for three-bedroom units. It was built in a manner that maxed out parking, open spaces, and setbacks. The three optional accessory dwelling units had parking provided. Ashland Planning Commission January 9. 2018 Page 6 of 10 Commissioner Brown confirmed the applicant could not sell the affordable housing land to anyone not building affordable housing. Ms. Gunter addressed the applicant's Findings and the request for an exception from the standards in 18.5.8.050 Approval Criteria and Standards (G) Subsections 4 and 6, timing, location, distribution, and design. They planned to sell the land for affordable housing. Once sold, it would be difficult to control the development of the affordable housing units. Habitat for Humanity was interested in the property. Mr. Molnar clarified 18.5.8.050(G2-G5) allowed for exceptions. Ms. Gunter thought it would cost $200,000 to build each affordable unit. She confirmed street improvements would be constructed prior and were not the responsibility of the affordable housing developer. Due to construction, the applicant wanted to defer installing park rows, sidewalks, and street trees until just before the site review. Staff had rejected the request to bond and the exception to delay improvements for Franklin Street. The areas of exception were Camelot Drive to the rock outcropping. The applicant had requested to bond for the sixty-foot lot at the base of the hill because there were no other sidewalks or pedestrian crossings when the adjacent property to the west was developed, There was a sidewalk opposite the rock outcropping on Nevada Street. Ms. Gunter addressed removing trees #12, #13, #14, and #15. The proposal would build a 3-foot retaining wall at the base of the hill. The lot from the base of the hill to the property line was 60-feet wide. In addition to the retaining wall, there was a driveway with a 20-foot clear width and a 15-foot paved width and two lots. Construction would have a negative impact on the trees. One of the two units would front on Nevada Street and the other would face the driveway. Kerry KenCairn/545 A Street/Explained there was a flat surface area and anything above that was too steep for a road. It was already graded and in order to make both lots viable, it was practical to remove tree #15. The graded driveway already went under the two Oak trees in the back northeast corner and would not affect them. Ms. Gunter commented Jackson County code did not require paving that part of the driveway. The applicants did not plan to pave that section. Ms. KenCairn noted tree #15 was too close to the construction to preserve. Ms. Gunter added native trees would not flourish when irrigation was installed. Public Testimony Gerald Stein/989 Camelot Drive/Wanted to know how many parking spaces, garage spaces, outdoor spaces were proposed. Camelot Drive was narrow and parking was already a challenge. He was concerned parking would encroach where he lived on Nevada Street. He had traffic concerns with the extension of Camelot Drive and wanted to know if a traffic study had occurred. Another concern was water pressure. Tom Marr/955 N Mountain Avenue/Lived there for more than 25 years and would be the most impacted as far as proximity to the project. He thought parking should go in first to accommodate the construction that would be extremely disruptive. He wanted constraints for dust control, noise, hours of operation, and traffic control. He testified before the Tree Commission to preserve as many native trees as possible. He also wanted an assurance the electric, water, and sewer would not enter his property for the use of these 22-28 homes. He supported a buffer for the freeway. He liked the pedestrian refuge. He did not support the Nevada Street Bridge or the City requiring the applicant to sign a future LID to build the bridge. He suggested not developing the City property and keeping it natural. He confirmed that he was affected by freeway noise almost constantly. The sound would change. At times it was very loud and he could hear it from inside his house. Andrea Napoli/325 Stoneridge Avenue/Was concerned about adding more car-dependent density to the neighborhood. Currently, there was no bike connection from North Mountain to the rest of town. There were no bike lanes, the streets were narrow and there was limited sight distance if a bicyclist was on the road. There was not a bike-pedestrian bridge that connected to Nevada Street but it was in the NMNP, The Outline Plan approval noted adequate key facilities could be provided including adequate transportation. It also stated the proposal complied with applicable standards in Section 18.4.6 Public Facilities. Adequate transportation included pedestrians and bicyclists. She questioned how the plan met adequate transportation without a bike connection to the rest of town. Ashland Planning Commission January 9. 2018 Page 7 of 10 Iraj Ostovarl566 Park Street/Supported the annexation. It would add 20-22 lots and there were not many lots available for building at this time. The proposal provided affordable housing. It would add to the base revenue for Jackson County and the City. He thought it was a valuable project. Dan Thomasl18227 Hwy 66/Was the construction manager for Habitat for Humanity. This was a prime opportunity for Habitat for Humanity to build houses. With their corporation partnerships, donations, and volunteer base, they could build a house that would sell as an affordable home. They sold to the federal standard of 40% -70%. The cost of land in Ashland was an issue. There were questions regarding the proposal that needed to be resolved. Habitat for Humanity fund raised because they sold at a zero interest loan. Most families stayed in their homes for 30 years. This was an opportunity for Habitat for Humanity but they were limited by funds and could not spend $100,000 for property and then pay another $200,000 to build a home for a family on minimum wage. Currently, they built 5-6 homes a year. He thought they could start building within a year or two. Applicant's Rebuttal Ms. Gunter explained thirteen three-bedroom units would require 26 parking spaces. The seven detached and semi- detached three-bedroom units would need 14 parking spaces. The three units less than 500 square feet required three for a total of 43 on-site spaces. On-street parking at one space per lot required twenty parking spaces for a grand total of 63. Not all the units would be three-bedroom so the parking ratio could decrease. There were twelve garage units. The remainder were surface and on-street parking. Steve Walker, the water quality supervisor for the Public Works Department had addressed water pressure with the applicant. There was one hundred-pounds static PSI on one side of the street and 90 pounds PSI on the other side. He did not see any impacts to water pressure for the proposed development. She addressed Mr, Thomas' testimony and explained the code allowed for 60%-80% that gave the pro rata of the 1.5 units per 1 for affordability. Habitat for Humanity was within that range at 40%-75%. Ms. Gunter responded to testimony regarding adequate key facilities, transportation, and circulation. The applicants had a transportation engineer look at the project. Through the analysis, offsite improvements were not required because of the number of trips generated by the project were below development thresholds, They looked at the rationale nexus of what improvements the City could require based on the transportation impacts of the project. The proposed transportation improvements along the entire frontage of the project complied with the City standards. They addressed the exception and believed there was demonstrable difficulty meeting the exception. The transportation analysis did not show a rationale for offsite improvements to the bridge or North Mountain Avenue. Additionally, developments were required to pay system development charges (SDCs) for transportation that could pay for offsite bicycle facilities that would better serve the community. There was not an adequate right of way to develop bike lanes. The bike lanes would go from Franklin Street to Camelot Drive then stop. Mr. Molnar explained there were two ways an applicant could provide affordable housing. They could build it or provide title to sufficient amount of buildable land for development transfer to a non-profit affordable housing developer. The provision clearly did not require the applicant to give it to a not for profit housing developer. Community Development staff and the City Legal Department had been discussing that language. They concluded that it was clearly an obligation as part of the application to make that a reality. By the time it went to Council, it should be clear that if a not for profit developer was involved, they had a very strong agreement in place to make the four units a reality under that provision. City Attorney Dave Lohman was not sure it did not require an obligation to negotiate or provide that land to the not for profit developer. Ms. Gunter responded it had been done differently in the past for a variety of affordable housing developments. The code was originally written because people had shirked their responsibility. That was not the intention here. It did not appear Ashland Planning Commission January 9, 2018 Page 8 of 10 there was a precedent in the code to give the land away. Past practices varied from selling, donating, or transferring the land. It was not clear in the code. Deliberations & Decision Mr. Severson explained there was a North Mountain Avenue Standard in the NMNP. It contained a median down the middle of the street and was approximately 3-feet smaller for the park row and parking bays. The Planning Commission agreed to keep the North Mountain Avenue Standards for park rows and sidewalks. For the private alley, staff looked at functional access versus legal access. With the exception of the A Unit, all of the units fronted directly on the public right of way. While they were accessed from an alley at the rear, they all had frontage on a public street. Typically, with flag drives, staff did not count the flag drive lots that had frontage on a public street even though they took access from the flag drive. The applicant could convert to a private alley without requiring exceptions to the access requirement. In the affordable housing requirements, different phases were acceptable provided there were assurances the project would be built. It was not clear where it fell under the statutory provision. Nor was it clear whether it referred to getting an exception to phasing that would require building the affordable units before 50%0 of the project was completed. If that was the case, it might set a standard for an exception and would need adequate assurances that the project would be built. The Commission could make a recommendation to the City Council that having a deed restriction on the property was adequate assurance it would remain affordable and transferred to an affordable housing provider. Mr. Molnar thought there were strong similarities between the City Street Standards and North Mountain Avenue Standards. The only difference was 6-feet versus 5-feet for sidewalks. The parking bay standard of 7 on a residential street would ultimately be decided by the Public Works Director. Commissioner Dawkins spoke to the bike lane exception. It did not make sense to have a bike lane going up the hill. He suspected people would bike through the old mill lumber site to Bear Creek because it was flat. If a bridge went in, bicyclists would most likely follow Kestrel Parkway and a private roadway that connected to North Mountain Avenue. The Planning Commission supported applying the North Mountain Avenue Standards and agreed with the exception made for the bike lane. Chair Pearce noted they would have to make Findings that the application met the street criteria exceptions and there were adequate transportation facilities. The Commission agreed to modify 9(m)(i) and remove the language referring to the refuge area by the rock outcropping. They supported the applicant signing the agreement to participate in a future Local Improvement District (LID) regarding the Nevada Street bridge. Commissioners Dawkins/Mindlin m/s to extend the meeting to 10:00 p.m. Voice Vote: ALL AYES. Motion passed 7-0. The Commission discussed the affordable housing component. Commissioner Mindlin supported having them build 50% of their project but at that time they had to start building the affordable units. If they transferred the land, it should be restricted so that it returned to the applicant if the affordable units were not built in a timely manner. She thought the affordable housing provider should be able to access the additional density if they wanted. Commissioner Miller did not support making the units smaller than 2 or 3-bedrooms. Commissioner Dawkins clarified the ordinance already had the language regarding building 50% of a project then requiring construction to begin on the affordable housing portion. Commissioner Norton thought all the D Units should be built at the same time. It would be less expensive. The units should look similar as well. He supported language to build the affordable units at the 50% point. Chair Pearce suggested having them all built by the time certificates of occupancy were issued. The Commission agreed that by the time 50%u of the project was complete, construction should start on the affordable units. Ashland Planning Commission January 9. 2018 Page 9 of 10 They retained all the requirements in 18.5.8.050(G) with the exception of allowing the units to be clustered. Chair Pearce explained the project needed to be in conformity with the Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines. He had written a document that addressed compatibility with the goals for inclusion in the Findings. The Planning Commission discussed the proposed changes to the trees. They reduced the caliper to 2.5" and the size of the evergreens to 6-8 feet. The applicant could plant comparable trees. They also agreed on not paving the driveway past the western post units to protect Trees #16 and #17. The applicant needed to further identify the condition for the new site plan for open space. The Commission addressed 9-C-1 and gave the applicant permission to rotate the C Units on Camelot Drive and Nevada Street and Nevada Street and Franklin Street. They agreed to keep the alley private and not public. For the right of way improvement along Nevada Street, the Commission and staff supported it being a public easement if improvements extended outside the existing right of way. Building the three additional accessory dwelling units would remain optional. Commissioners Dawkins/Mindlin mis to extend the meeting to 10:10 p.m. Voice Vote: ALL AYES. Motion passed 7.0. The Commission was fine with the applicants having the option to get a bond for the 60-foot street improvements. Commissioners Dawkins/Mindlin m/s to approve Planning Action PA-2017-02129 with the following items: • Retain the North Mountain Avenue Standard. • Accept the bike lane exception. • Modify 9(m)(i) and remove the language referring to the pedestrian refuge area by the rock outcropping. • Retain signing the agreement to participate in a future Local Improvement District (LID) regarding the Nevada Street bridge. • Retain all the requirements in 18.5.8.050(G4-G6) with the exception of permitting the units to be clustered. • Reduce the caliper of trees to 2.5 inches and the size of the evergreens to 6.8 feet and allow the applicant to plant comparable trees. • Not paving the drive just past the garage at the western post units to protect Trees #16 and #17. • The applicant needed to further identify the condition for the new site plan for open space. • For 9-C-1, rotate the C Units on Camelot Drive and Nevada Street and Nevada Street and Franklin Street to comply with driveway length if the developer wanted. • The alley will be private and not public. • Have a public easement for the right of away improvement along Nevada Street if improvements extended outside of the existing right of way. • Keep the 3 accessory dwelling units as optional. • The applicants had the option to get a bond for the 60-foot street improvements. DISCUSSION: Chair Pearce clarified these were recommendations on legislation and proposed findings, conclusions and conditions on the Outline Plan, and the Site Design Review. All conditional on Council approval of the rezoning. The Council could send them back to the Planning Commission for final approval or they could approve them themselves. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Brown, Norton, Thompson, Mindlin, Dawkins, Pearce, and Miller, YES. Motion passed 7.0. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:02 p.m. Submitted by, Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Ashland Planning C0117171lSSI0n January 9. 2018 Page 10 of 10 Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 CITY OF 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 -AS H LAN D PLANNING ACTION: PA-2017-02129 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 475 East Nevada Street OWNERS: Young Family Trust & City of Ashland APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development Services DESCRIPTION: A request for Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment; Zone Change; Outline Plan approval for a 20-lot, 23- unit subdivision; Site Design Review; and Tree Removal Permit for the properties located at 475 East Nevada Street. The existing Comprehensive Plan designation is "Single Family Residential Reserve" and the existing zoning is "Rural Residential (RR-.5-P"). The proposal would change the Comprehensive Plan Map designation to "North Mountain Neighborhood Plan" and the zoning to "North Mountain Multi-Family (NM-MF)." (NOTE: Portions of the subject properties are located outside of the city limits; the current request involves only those portions within the city limits.) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential Reserve (Existing), North Mountain Neighborhood (Proposed); ZONING: RR-.5-P (Existing), NM-MF (Proposed); ASSESSOR'S MAP 39 1 E 04A; TAX LOT #'S: 391 E 04A 1100, 1200 & 1300 and 391 E 04AD 100, NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 6:00 PM in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 7:00 PM, Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street PA amT:aa» T 47e E. NEVADA ST ~r •~y" SUBJECT PROPERTIES it, n.." Parch ►ro+osW Nrlatla~ Cif/Limns Loe Edsda9 Zoning: RR.S-P (Sin+l F amllT Rasidandal Rwrva) P osod ZeNap. N.F IN. NOnN W Fd MIJUMAT) -E-NEVADA-ST- - 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 PLANNING COMMISSION 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 I reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. 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 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 1). If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division, 541-488-5305. G \cnmm-da-AplanningU'lenning ActionsWoiicing Folder4blailed Nolices& Sigru1201APA-201 7-02 1 29.doex Applicability and Review Procedure 18.5.9.020 Applications for Plan Amendments and Zone Changes are as follows: A. Type Ii. The Type II procedure is used for applications involving zoning map amendments consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map, and minor map amendments or corrections. Amendments under this section may be approved if in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the application demonstrates that one or more of the following. 1. The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable housing, supported by the Comprehensive Plan. 2. A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances. 3. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action. 4. Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one zoning district to another zoning district, will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G. 5. Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial, employment, or industrial zoned lands (i.e., Residential Overlay), will not negatively impact the City's commercial and industrial land supply as required in the Comprehensive Plan, and will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G. 6. The total number of affordable units described in 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 or 5, above, shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 and 5 do not apply to Council initiated actions. B. Type III. It may be necessary from time to time to make legislative amendments in order to conform with the Comprehensive Plan or to meet other changes in circumstances or conditions. The Type III procedure applies to the creation, revision, or large-scale implementation of public policy requiring City Council approval and enactment of an ordinance; this includes adoption of regulations, zone changes for large areas, zone changes requiring comprehensive plan amendment, comprehensive plan map or text amendment, annexations (see chapter 18.5.8 for annexation information), and urban growth boundary amendments. The following planning actions shall be subject to the Type III procedure. 1. Zone changes or amendments to the Zoning Map or other official maps, except where minor amendments or corrections maybe processed through the Type II procedure pursuant to subsection 18.5.9.020.A, above. 2. Comprehensive Plan changes, including text and map changes or changes to other official maps. 3. Land Use Ordinance amendments. 4. Urban Growth Boundary amendments. OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL 18.3.9.040.A.3 Approval Criteria for Outline Plan. The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds all of the following criteria have been met. a. The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City. b. 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. 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. The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e. There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. j SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS 18.5.2.050 The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below, D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is 2 G komm-devVlanniWlianing AttWroWolicing FoldaWaRed Notices & SipA2017\ A-2017-0129.docx the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 18.5.7.040.B I 1. Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a, The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6. b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10. b. 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. c. 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. d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to 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 of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS 18.4.6.020.B.1 Exception to the Street Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the standards section in 18.4.6.040 Street Design Standards 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 exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable. L For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience. ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic. iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway. c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A. r I 3 GAcomm-devlptsnning\Planning AclionANoticing FoldcAMaged Notices d Signs{20171PA-2017-02129.donc ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT January 9, 2018 PLANNING ACTION: #2017-02129 OWNERS: Young Family Trust City of Ashland APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development Services LOCATION: 475 East Nevada Street ZONE DESIGNATION: Existing: RR-.S-P Proposed: NM-MF COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: Existing: Single Family Residential Reserve Proposed: North Mountain Neighborhood ORDINANCE REFERENCES: (See also https://ashland.municipal.codes/LandUse ) 15.04.210 Demolition 18.2.4 General Regulations for Base Zones 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones 18.3.5 North Mountain Neighborhood 18.3.9 Performance Standards Options & PSO Overlay 18.3.10 Physical & Environmental Constraints 18.4.2 Building Placement, Orientation & Design 18.4.3 Parking, Access and Circulation 18.4.4 Landscaping, Lighting & Screening 18.4.5 Tree Preservation and Protection 18.4.6 Public Facilities 18.4.7 Signs 18.4.8 Solar Access 18.5 Application Review Procedures and Approval Criteria 18.5.2 Site Design Review 18.5.3 Land Divisions & Property Line Adjustments 18.5.7 Tree Removal 18.5.8 Annexations 18.5.9 Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Land Use Ordinance Amendments 18.6.1 Definitions APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE ON: December 3, 2017 Planning Action #2017-02129 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds Applicant: Rogue Planning for Young Family Trust 4 Page 1 of 25 REQUEST: A request for Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment; Zone Change; Outline Plan approval for a 20-lot, 23-unit subdivision; Site Design Review; Tree Removal Permit to remove ten trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) and Exception to Street Standards for the properties located at 475 East Nevada Street. The existing Comprehensive Plan designation is "Single Family Residential Reserve" and the existing zoning is "Rural Residential (RR-.5-P"). The proposal would change the Comprehensive Plan Map designation to "North Mountain Neighborhoood Plan" and the zoning to "North Mountain Multi-Family (NM-MF)." (NOTE: Portions of the subject properties are located outside of the city limits; the current request involves only those portions within the city limits.) L Relevant Facts 1) Background - History of Application In the 1970's, prior to the adoption of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, the entire area - including the subject properties - was given residential half-acre zoning because it lacked key city facilities and had limited paved access. In the early 1990's, city services were extended and upgraded to serve the Mountain Meadows development on the east side of North Mountain Avenue. At that point, there began to be interest on the part of property owners in developing the west side of the street. The City was aware of the property owners' interest in developing the area, and there were concerns about a piecemeal approach to development versus a more coordinated effort. This ultimately lead to a grant-funded master planning process that began in January of 1994. In May of 1997, the City Council adopted the North Mountain Neighborbood Plan which included Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map amendments in conjunction with new chapter in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance that set the zoning framework for the district and provided design standards for development within the approximately 75- acre North Mountain Neighborhood. There are no planning actions of record for the subject properties, which are directly across East Nevada Street from the existing north boundary of the North Mountain Neighborhood. 2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal Site Description As illustrated in the figure below, the subject properties owned by the Young Family Trust consist of three tax lots: Tax Lot #1100 is a roughly rectangular parcel, approximately 0.45 acres in area with 60 feet of frontage on East Nevada Street and extending approximately 332 feet to the north. Cl Tax Lot #1200 is generally trapezoidal in shape, with an approximate area of 1.95 acres, and approximately 365 feet of frontage along East Nevada Street and a depth extending approximately 252 feet to the north. Tax Lot #1200 Planning Acton #2017-02129 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds Applicant Rogue Planning for Young Family Trust 5 Page 2 of 25 currently contains an approximately 1,785 square foot, one-story single family residence with basement which was constructed in about 1954 according to the Jackson County Tax Assessor's records. 0 Tax Lot #1300 is also generally trapezoidal, with an area of approximately 2.10 acres, 262 feet of frontage along East Nevada Street, and a depth extending 250 feet to the north. In addition, the application includes one tax lot owned by the City of Ashland: f 0 Tax Lot #100 is a generally trapezoidal lot with an area of approximately 0.35 acres, with approximately 106 feet of frontage along the East Nevada Street right-of-way, and a depth of approximately 104 feet. PA #2017-02129 PA #2011-02129 475 EAST NEVADA STREET TAX LOT #100, NORTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE SUBJECT PROPERTIES SUBJECT PROPERTY (39 1E 04A Tax Lots #1100, #1200 d 01300) (791E 04AD Tax Lot 0100) ("a in whda is outslda I U.G.B. d not involved) - I,9 3" ' EXISTING COMP. PLAN: Sin a Family Residential Reserve EXISTING ZONING: RR-.5.P( ural Residential) PROPOSED COMP. PLAN: No Mountain Neighborhood Plan J` e PROPOSED ZONING: NM-MF IN rth Mountain - Multi-Famlly) E_NEVADA ST _ Z - SSB J _ ' r. s w ~ _ - ra Q ce ;`7 r w w w~ ?m n JZ I w O I These properties are located on the north side of East Nevada Street, immediately west of the overpass where North Mountain Avenue crosses Interstate 5, and have a combined area of approximately 4.5 acres. The city limits and Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) are located roughly 142 feet north of East Nevada Street and bisect the Young properties. The current application applies only to the 2.42-acre portion of the properties which are located within the City of Ashland city limits, and which would have an approximate base density of 29 units under the requested NM-MF zoning. The remaining 2.08 acres within Jackson County jurisdiction will retain connection to the existing and proposed rights-of-way and will be subject to applicable County regulations should they ever pursue further development. I The application notes that the site has generally level grades with an approximate two percent slope from east to west, but that the western half of Tax Lot #1200 is a rocky Planning Action #2017-02129 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds Applicant: Rogue Planning for Young Family Trust 6 Page 3 of 25 bluff with a steep drop to the west. The application finther explains that the slope in this area is 35 percent and greater, and that the steep rocky slope is vegetated with blackberry bushes, scrub oaks and walnut trees. The application goes on to explain that nearly 18,000 square feet of the 2.42 acres has slopes which are more than 35 percent and which are therefore considered to be unbuildable. This leaves roughly two developable acres. The application includes a detailed Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by Rick Swanson of Marquess & Associates, Inc. which concludes that "From a soil and foundation engineering standpoint, it is our opinion that the development can be constructed as proposed provided the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the project." Conditions have been recommended below to require that the geotecluiical expert review the grading and building plans prior to permit issuance and certify that they are consistent with the geotechnical recommendations, and that the geotechnical expert also observe the earthwork, foundation and drainage installation phases of the construction and provide written certification that they were completed in a manner consistent with the recommendations prior to final approval by the city. The Young family parcels appear to be devoid of any sort of water resources, while the city-owned Tax Lot #100 includes a possible wetland identified on the adopted Water Resource Protection Zones Requirements map. Prior to any formal development proposal including this parcel, a formal determination would need to be made to determine whether any wetlands are present on the parcel. The application identifies 27 trees six-inches in diameter at breast height or larger on the subject properties, with the majority of the trees on Tax Lot #1100 located at the base of the rock slope and the others generally scattered around the remaining lots. The applicants note that the trees include a mix of cedars, ponderosa pines, oaks, walnuts, sequoias and Leyland cypresses. A tree inventory has been provided with the application. r 1 t Current Proposal s The current proposal requests a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change for the properties located at 475 East Nevada Street. The existing Comprehensive Plan designation is "Single Family Residential Reserve" and the existing zoning is "Rural Residential (RR-.5-P"). As proposed, the Comprehensive Plan Map designation would be changed to "North Mountain Neighborhood Plan" and the zoning would change to "North Mountain Multi-Family (NM-MF)" to bring the properties into the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan and allow their ultimate , development at a base density of 12 dwelling units per acre. (Portions of the subject properties are located outside of the Ashland city limits; the current request involves only those portions within the city limits and would not affect those portions under Jackson County's jurisdiction.) In conjunction with the Plan Amendment and Zone Change, Outline Plan approval for a 20-lot, 23-unit subdivision under the Performance Standards Options Chapter (AMC 18.3.9) and Site Design Review are requested. The applicants note that the proposed 20-23 unit density would be within the minimum density allowed in the Planning Action #2017-02129 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report t dds Applicant: Rogue Planning for Young Family Trust Page 4 of 25 r NM-MF district and would include a mixture of attached townhomes, zero-lot line single family attached at the garages, and detached residences. Above the garages of the detached residences, there would be three "optional" accessory residential units. The NM-MF district does not expressly allow accessory units, but the multi-family zoning and available density would allow them to simply be considered dwelling units for the purposes of density calculation. In addition, as a Plan Amendment and Zone Change, the proposal would be required to dedicate a percentage of the base density as affordable housing units In this case, the property owner proposes to transfer land sufficient to develop the required number of affordable units to a non-profit affordable housing provider to accommodate four units at 60 percent of the area median income (AMI). The application notes that the applicants have been in talks with Rogue Valley Habitat for Humanity. With approval, the area for four dwelling units, nine on-site/alley access parking spaces, yard areas and setback compliance will be transferred to a qualifying affordable housing provider. The application also requires a Tree Removal Permit to remove ten trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or greater, and an Exception to Street Standards to allow improvements to East Nevada Street, which is considered an Avenue or Major Collector under the city's Transportation System Plan (TSP), that do not fully meet the Avenue standards because the steep, rocky slope prevents additional street improvements on the north side of East Nevada Street and mean that sidewalks or alternative pedestrian facilities cannot be installed on the frontage of Tax Lots #I 100 and #1200. The applicants propose to provide enhancements at the new intersection of Camelot and East Nevada Street such as street lights, benches and scored concrete that would enable and encourage pedestrians to cross and use the sidewalk on the south side of the street. City-Oipned Parcel Because the city owns a 0.35-acre contiguous parcel (Tax Lot 4100), it is proposed for inclusion in the Plan Amendment and Zone Change in hopes that it might be able to be incorporated into a future affordable housing development proposal to increase land available for the project and thereby make development more viable for an affordable housing provider. a Proiect Impact AMC 18.5.9.020 provides that Zone Changes may be processed as a Type 11 procedure when they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, however when a Zone Change is proposed that is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation it requires a Type III procedure a with a hearing and recommendations from the Planning Commission followed by decision tluough a hearing before the City Council in conjunction with the adoption of necessary ordinances and amended maps. Type III Amendments - Zone Change & Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment The approval criteria for a Type 11 Zone Change, where the Zone Change is consistent with the existing Plan designation, require that one or more of the following be demonstrated: 1) The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable housing, Planning Action #2017-02129 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds Applicant Rogue Planning for Young Family Trust Page 5 of 25 i supported by the Comprehensive Plan; 2) A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances; 3) Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action; 4) Proposed increases in residential zoning density l resulting from a change from one zoning district to another zoning district, will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G; 5) Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial, employment, or industrial zoned lands (i.e., Residential Overlay), will not negatively impact the City's commercial and industrial land supply as required in the Comprehensive Plan, and will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G; and 6) The total number of affordable units described in 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 or 5, above, shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 and 5 do not apply to Council initiated actions. In terms of these criteria, in staff's view #4 dealing with the provision of affordable housing seems the most relevant. Approval Standard for Zone Changes Inconsistent with Comp. Plan Designation Where a Zone Change request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation, the Land Use Ordinance calls for a Type III review, noting that, "It may be necessary from time to time to make legislative amendments in order to conform with the Comprehensive Plan or to meet other changes in circumstances or conditions. The Type III procedure applies to the creation, revision, or large-scale implementation of public policy requiring City Council approval and enactment ofan ordinance; this includes adoption ofregulations, zone changes for large areas, zone changes requiring comprehensive plan amendment, comprehensive plan map or text amendment, annexations (see chapter 18. S.8 for annexation information), and urban growth boundary amendments. " Type III reviews typically involve bigger picture legislative issues rather than looking at one owner's relatively small property, however the current request requires not only a zone change for a relatively small group of properties but an amendment to their Comprehensive Plan Map designation and as such triggers Type III review. As such, the current request is a hybrid of the two in that it involves looking both at the property-specific zone change request in conjunction with the bigger picture legislative consideration of the appropriate Comprehensive Plan designation. The application explains that, "There has been a significant change in the neighborhood development pattern since the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan's adoption in 1997. The subject properties were part of the large area of underdeveloped land on the north side of Bear Creek, accessed only by a gravel-surfaced North Mountain Avenue. Between 1997 and today, major public and private expenditures were made to bring paved streets, sewer and water service to this area. The current properly owner sees the great value in working with the City and providing additional developable land consistent with the adjacent property zones and development pattern allowing for, further the Comprehensive Plan with respect to urbanization." t 3 The application goes on to note that the "primary change in circumstances is the development and build-out of the adjacent Meadowbrook Park H Subdivision properties (immediately) to the south. When the comprehensive plan designations were set, the 1 Planning Action #2017-02129 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report t dds Applicant: Rogue Planning for Young Family Trust Page 6 of 25 1 s properties to the north of East Nevada Street and the areas to the south were designated as Rural Residential. With the North Mountain Plan overlay, the zoning of the properties to the south of East Nevada Street was modified to correspond to the North Mountain Plan Overlay. The properties to the north of East Nevada Street were not included in the North Mountain Plan Overlay." In staff assessment, while we concur with the applicants' recounting of the changes in the area, we do not believe that these changes in themselves necessitate a change in the properties' zoning. However, the housing crisis and the need for more land to accommodate 1 moderately priced and affordable ownership and rental units is a well-documented change in circumstances which we believe necessitates the up-zoning, particularly in light of the city's commitment to more efficiently use lands within its existing boundaries under the Regional Problem Solving (RPS) process, and the changes noted by the applicant in bringing city facilities to the area in conjunction with the North Mountain Neighborhood's development support the more efficient land use needed. The applicant requests to rezone the properties to North Mountain, Multi-Family (NM-MF) zoning, which allows for up to 12 dwelling units per acre. The mix of units proposed includes townhouses, four single family units attached at the gat-ages, and three detached single family residences with the possibility for three attached second units, and the application suggests that the proposed mixture of housing types and density is consistent with the adjacent North Mountain Neighborhood context and further cites the Townhouse Residential discussion in 2.04.04 of the Comprehensive which notes that this townhouses at a density of up to 12 units per acre "encourage innovative residential housing to provide low-cost, owner-occupied housing in addition to lower density rental units." In staffs view, in considering the need for low- and moderately-priced rental and ownership housing, the Planning Commission and Council may wish to consider requiring the applicant to construct the three small accessory units currently described as optional in the application, and may also consider directing them to look at other options to further increase the density of the development with the inclusion of more smaller units that would be possible under the requested density and using available density bonuses. The application emphasizes that the property owner is committed to partnering with a non- profit affordable housing provider and has been in discussions with Rogue Valley Habitat for Humanity about dedicating the area for four units of housing and associated street improvements, parking, private yard/setback areas, access to common refuse area and recreation space and full participation in the homeowners' association. This portion of the development would be deed restricted as affordable to those at 60 percent of the area median income for 60 years. The applicants propose to extend water, sewer, storm drain and electric facilities to and through the development with the Outline Plan approval, but hope to defer sidewalk, parkrow and irrigation for the new Franklin Street extension proposed until housing is developed by posting a bond for these improvements. In past applications, the Planning Commission has preferred that street improvements including sidewalks and street trees be installed in conjunction with the final plat signing to fully develop the required pedestrian streetscape and give street trees the opportunity to establish canopy in advance of development, which may be significantly delayed at times, and staff have accordingly recommended that the street improvements here be installed, rather than deferred with Planning Action 42017-02129 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds Applicant: Rogue Planning for Young Family Trust 10 Page 7 of 25 Ibonding, in the conditions. The criteria for affordable units calls for the units to be completed proportionally with the market rate units, distributed throughout the project and substantially similar in exterior appearance. Because they propose to provide property directly to an affordable housing provider to be developed separately, the applicants have requested Exception to these standards. AMC 18.5.8.050.G. provides for exceptions where an alternative mix of housing types, phasing or distribution would accomplish additional benefits and be completed in a timely fashion. The applicants explain that the dedicated land must be located in one area to limit development costs, and that this further facilitates coordinated site planning so that the building placement, yard areas, play areas, parking, etc. can be planned as part of the initial development to further minimize development costs. They further suggest that attached wall, townhouse structures that are contiguous to one another with similar designs and floorplans minimize development and long-term maintenance costs and are thus beneficial to the affordable housing providers. They conclude that in their discussions with Habitat, it has been indicated that the housing need for affordable, three-bedroom units is critical, and they believe that with the zone change it would be possible to transfer title to the property, and complete Final Plan and Site Review in the very near future. In addition, the city has proposed to include a city-owned lot in the zone change to provide for additional affordable units in the hope that this may allow the development of both sites with more efficient use of funds, labor and materials. A zone change to NM-MF, which differs from the property's Comprehensive Plan Map designation, requires a legislative amendment of the city's Comprehensive Plan Map. This is a discretionary decision by the City Council, and in similar previous requests, the Council 2 has looked for a compelling argument that such a change addresses a clear public need. In staff's view, the extension of city facilities to the area, adoption of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, and subsequent development of the Meadowbrook Park II subdivision immediately to the south can be found to be a significant change in change in circumstances since the original zoning was established and which supports the requested Zone Change and Comprehensive Plan Amendment, however for staff the most compelling change of circumstance necessitating the requested change is the housing crisis and documented need for more land to accommodate affordable and moderately priced rental and ownership 1 housing. When considered in conjunction with the city's commitment to not expand the Urban Growth Boundary for the foreseeable future and instead seek to accommodate anticipated growth with more efficient land use inside existing boundaries, staff believes that these circumstances necessitate the requested up-zoning and that the extension of city facilities in conjunction with the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan's build-out supports it. Outline Plan The first approval criterion for Outline Plan approval is that, "The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City." The application materials assert that the proposal meets or can meet all applicable ordinance requirements, and that this criterion has been satisfied. Planning Action #2017-02129 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report! dds Applicant: Rogue Planning for Young Family Trust Page 8 of 25 r The second approval criterion for Outline Plan approval 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. " The application indicates that adequate city facilities for electricity, natural gas, telephone, television and internet are immediately available to the subject properties from the adjacent rights-of-way and these services will be placed underground to serve the property. The application goes on to note that with regard to other city facilities: • Sanitary Sewer: Existing sanitary sewer lines are available in Camelot Drive approximately 30-feet south of the intersection of Camelot and East Nevada Street, and there is another line in East Nevada Street at is intersection with Patton. The application indicates that the Engineering Division has indicated that the lines are in adequate condition and have capacity to support the proposed subdivision, and the applicants indicate that they will extend the sewer lines up East Nevada to € service the subdivision. C • Water: An existing 15-inch water line is in place within East Nevada Street, and the application notes that extension of the line through the development with fire hydrant installation to meet Fire Code will have adequate capacity and availability to service the proposed residences. In discussing the proposal with Water I Department staff, they have noted that because of the grade change between the curb and some developable areas of the property, there may be more than a 30- foot elevation gain between the water main and two-story buildings on the embankment above. This poses a potential cross-connection issue, as does an ( existing well in place on the property, and the Water Department has indicated that z this cross-connection potential will need to be addressed for "premises isolation." • Storm Drainage: The application materials indicate that storm drainage on site will be controlled through an on-site detention system with a bio-swale at the terminus of Camelot Drive and the proposed new alley. • Streets & Transportation: The application explains that the properties front on East Nevada Street and will have direct access by way of the proposed new street, the f extension of Camelot Drive and a new proposed alley. The application notes that the proposed improvements are generally consistent with city street standards, and that based on the applicants' analysis 23 new residential units will not trigger a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). More specifically, with regard to East Nevada Street, a two-lane avenue, the t application notes that there is a paving, curb and gutter in place along the property frontage. The applicants propose a five-foot sidewalk and seven-foot parkrow along the eastern section of the properties' East Nevada Street frontage, with the parkrow planting strip proposed to be reduced to five-feet where eight on-street parking Planning Action #2017-02129 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report 1 dds Applicant: Rogue Planning for Young Family Trust 1 ^ Page 9 of 25 LJ r r t bays are proposed on Nevada Street. These eight on-street parking bays will require relocation of the existing curb and gutter. In the area of the steep, rocky outcropping the applicants have requested an exception to the street standards to not extend sidewalks along the frontages of tax lots #1100 and #1200 due to the physically impenetrable rock and the difficulties associated with its excavation. The application suggests that they would be willing to post a bond in lieu of installing sidewalks on the flatter approximately 40-foot section of tax lot #1100 in order to allow its frontage to be completed in conjunction with the future development of the large adjacent property to the west at 375 East Nevada Street, rather than extending a short section of sidewalk that would not connect to adjacent properties at this time, particularly given that there are no crosswalks connecting to the E sidewalks on the south side in this vicinity. In staffs assessment, given the Exceptions requested elsewhere, the sidewalk installed should be at the minimum six-foot width for an avenue; the park row planting strips should be kept to their minimum seven-foot width, even where parking bays have been proposed; and the parking bays should be at least eight-feet wide as required for an Avenue. These recommendations are reflected in the conditions below. The applicants propose enhanced intersection treatments at East Nevada Street and Camelot to include amenities such as street lighting, a seating area, and a widened crosswalk using contrasting color or material (i.e. scored or colored concrete) to provide connectivity between the proposed sidewalks and the sidewalks for the existing and future development in the North Mountain Neighborhood to the south. In discussing the crosswalk treatment with Public Works/Engineering staff, they have noted that the ramp and crossing placement will need to be placed to better align with ramps opposite so that the ramps are directly connected to those across the street with the shortest, most direct routes possible as this is an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) concern for visually- impaired pedestrians. Camelot Drive is proposed to be extended onto the property as a neighborhood street with a proposed 48-foot right-of-way width providing a 15-foot travel surface, eight-foot planting strips and five-foot sidewalks on each side. Two seven-foot wide parking bays would be provided on the west side, with street improvements on this extension to generally match those on the existing street and enhanced crossing treatments with truncated domes and enhanced crosswalks provided at the Nevada s Street intersection. ) tl 11 The application also proposes to extend half-street improvements from a newly named Franklin Street within existing right-of-way at the east end of the Young Planning Action #2017-02129 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report 1 dds Page 10 of 25 r Applicant: Rogue Planning for Young Family Trust 13 property. The applicants note that this would be a neighborhood street with a 60- foot right-of-way and improved with a five-foot sidewalk, seven-foot landscaped parkrow, seven-foot on-street parking bays and a 15-foot travel lane. The application suggests that these improvements would be bonded and completion deferred until the residential units adjacent to the new street were developed. In g F past applications, the Planning Commission has seemed to prefer that street s improvements including sidewalks and street trees be installed in conjunction with the final plat signing to give the street trees the opportunity to establish canopy in 1 Y advance of development, which may be significantly delayed at times, and staff 3 i have accordingly recommended that the street improvements be installed, rather than deferred with bonding, in the conditions. r f t s The applicants also propose a 22-foot public alley extending from the proposed 1 Franklin Street to the fire truck turn-around on the west side of the upper level of development. Parking for the proposed units would be accessed from this alley, eliminating the need for front yard driveways for units on East Nevada and Franklin E Streets. Public Works and Engineering staff have indicated that given that this alley 1 will function essentially as a private driveway serving the development without either a need for or benefit from public access, it could be treated as a private driveway or private alley and not necessitate city maintenance responsibilities. In staff's view, the alley should not be public. s The application includes preliminary civil drawings prepared by Thornton Engineering, and conditions have been recommended below to require that final electric service, utility and civil plans be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor and city departments, and that these plans address the Water Department comments regarding cross-connection concern and premises isolation, and the Engineering Department concerns about the aligrunent of the crossings at Camelot Drive, and Planning Staff concerns with regard to the Nevada Street parkrow planting strip widths, and that the civil infrastructure be installed, inspected and approved prior to the signature of the final survey plat. The thud criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is 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 explains that there is an approximately 18,000 square foot steeply sloped area of the property associated with the large roadside outcropping which has been proposed for inclusion in the subdivision's open space. In staff s view, the inclusion of this rock outcropping and the sloped area adjacent in common open space provides a significant amenity to the future residents of the development, and staff believes that some form of pedestrian access (i.e. a path to a gazebo or other sitting area) should be provided to give future residents access to y the vista here. A condition to this effect has been recommended below. i 4 Planning Action #2017-02129 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report t dds Applicant: Rogue Planning for Young Family Trust 14 Page 11 of 25 r The applicants have provided a survey identifying 27 trees on the property which are greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height. Of these, ten are proposed to be removed in conjunction with the application including a 16-inch diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) Ponderosa Pine, a 16-inch d.b.h. Cedar tree, a nine-inch d.b.h. Pine, a 30-inch d.b.h. Ash tree, four seven-to-eight-inch d.b.h. Oak trees, and a six-inch and a ten-inch d.b.h. Walnut tree. The trees proposed for removal are described as being the minimum necessary to permit the parcel to be developed as proposed under the requested zoning. The trees are noted as being located where streets, driveways and building envelopes are proposed to comply with the applicable standards while responding to the significant topographical constraints of the site. The fourth criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that, "The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive .Plan. " The applicants assert that the proposal, which seeks to include the city's adjacent tax lot #100 in the requested Plan Amendment and Zone Change, will enable this parcel to develop with four affordable housing units instead of the single family residence that would be possible under the current designation, and the properties to the west and south will not be prevented from developing according to its Comprehensive Plan designation, while properties to the north are outside of the city limits. 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 indicates that there will be provisions in the CC&R's to address the maintenance of the proposed open space and common areas. A condition has been recommended below to require that a draft copy of the CC&R's be provided for review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the Final Plan submittal. The sixth criterion is that, "The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. " The developable portion of the subject property is approximately two acres, and at the 12-dwelling unit per acre density of the requested NM- MF zoning, the base density of the subject properties is 24 units. The North Mountain Neighborhood Plan calls for a minimum density of between 75 and 110 percent meaning that at a density of between 18 and 26.4 dwelling units is required. As proposed, the applicants would develop at least 20 units, with three additional small units over the detached residences' garages reserved as optional putting the proposal within the requirements of the requested zoning district. Despite indications in the application that the proposal may qualify for density bonuses with regard to affordability and energy efficiency, no density bonuses are being requested. Staff believes that it should be noted that density bonuses may be available and the Commission would be open to considering additional units supported by a density bonus at the Final Plan should the applicants decide to pursue them. The final Outline Plan approval criterion is that, "The development complies with the Street Standards. " As noted above, the application generally complies with the Street Standards but has requested some Exceptions discussed later in this document to address the physical constraints posed by the large rock-outcropping. 9 Planning Action #2017-02129 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report 1 dds Applicant: Rogue Planning for Young Family Trust J Page 12 of 25 1 5 Site Design Review The development of attached housing requires Site Design Review approval and is subject to the "Building Placement, Orientation and Design" standards for residential development found in AMC 18.4.2.030. The application includes the identification of building envelopes, site landscaping and open space, and required parking and circulation along with conceptual building elevations intended to illustrate that the property can and will be developed according to the applicable standards under the requested zoning. However, it is the applicants' intent that Site Design Review approvals for the specific buildings to be proposed will be delayed until each phase develops, and that these Site Design Reviews will include final building designs as well as final landscaping and irrigation details. Conditions of approval are recommended below to require that Site Design Review approvals for buildings within each phase be obtained concurrently with Final Plan approval for each phase, and that these Site Design Reviews be generally consistent with the site lay-out and conceptual designs here, with the exception of final building designs. The first criterion for Site Design Review is that, "The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to., building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards." The application materials provided assert that the proposed development will comply with all applicable provisions for the underlying zone. The second approval criterion is that, "The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3)." In this instance, the property is proposed for inclusion in the NM- MF district within the North Mountain Neighborhood overlay zone, and the application asserts that all applicable standards have been addressed. The North Mountain Neighborhood Plan's "Supplemental Setback Requirements for Garages and Accessory Structures" in AMC 18.3.5.100.A.4 require that where no alleys are present, that garages be located a minimum of 15 feet behind the primary fagade and a minimum of 20 feet from the sidewalk. The applicant notes that the garages which take access from a public street will be ten feet behind the primary fagade. In assessing the site plan, it appears to staff that the only units with a garage taking access from a public street are the two units on the west side of Camelot Drive. These units are at the juncture of the alley and Camelot, and have an 18-foot wide driveway and a garage ten feet (rather than the required 15 feet behind the fagade of the units). This appears to conflict with the standard both in terms of having a garage from the street where alley access is available to at least one of the units, and in having the garage five feet closer to the fagade than allowed. Given that the Site Review request is conceptual at this stage, staff does not believe an Exception is appropriate and have accordingly recommended a condition that this situation be addressed in the Final Plan/Site Design Review submittal to either meet the standard or request an Exception. The third criterion for the Site Design Review approval is that, "The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards ofpart 18.4, except as provided by Planning Action #2017-02129 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds Applicant: Rogue Planning for Young Family Trust J Page 13 of 25 1 subsection E (Which addresses Exceptions) below" The application materials assert that the proposal complies with Site Development and Design Standards and includes site layout plans, landscaping, irrigation and planting plans as well as conceptual elevations to supplement the written findings provided. In considering these standards, staff would note the following: Staff Concern: Open Space Multi-family residential property requires that eight percent (here 8,433 square feet) of the site be provided as recreational space, and the Performance Standards requires that at least five percent (here 5,270 square feet) of the site be provided in common open space. While the application indicates that approximately 22 percent of the site (or 23,305 square feet) is provided in multi-family open space, staff would note that the landscape plan illustrates only approximately 4,533 in lawn area, with the remainder of the property planted with trees, shrubs and ground cover which are not suitable for recreational use. Some of the lawn areas shown have depths as narrow as four feet, some are placed immediately adjacent to the parking area or street right- of-way, and one is within a required park-row planting strip. In staffs view, to demonstrate that the eight percent recreation space requirement is met, a plan clearly illustrating all areas to be counted towards open and recreation space needs to be provided. Landscaped areas counted toward recreation space requirements need to be outside of the night-of-way and placed where they are likely to be used recreationally, surfaced for recreational use, of sufficient depth to allow recreational use, and not include thoroughfares for pedestrian circulation, and individual patio, porch or deck areas need to have a minimum dimension of six feet in depth and eight feet in width (the minimum porch dimension as defined in AMC 18.6. 1) exclusive of circulation routes, door swing areas, etc. to accommodate recreational use. Placement of utility infrastructure such as vaults, transformers or cabinets needs to be considered, and areas set aside for these items should not be counted as l required open or recreational space. As presented, staff does not believe the plan clearly demonstrates that the open space and recreational requirements have been met. A condition requiring a revised plan be provided for review e and approval with the Final Plan application has been included below. Staff Concern - Building Orientation The Site Development and Design Standards require that, "Dwelling units a shall have their primary orientation toward a street. Where residential buildings are located within 20 feet of a street, they shall have a primary entrance opening toward the street and connected to the right-of-way via an I approved walkway." While staff recognizes that the building elevations provided are intended to be conceptual, and there doesn't appear to be a plan clearly correlating the elevation unit numbers with the site plan, in staff's view insuring that orientation is to be carefully considered in the final Site Design Review is important and staff would note that in particular the units at the corner of Camelot Drive and East Nevada Street and at the corner of East 1 Nevada and Franklin Street appear to need a stronger primary orientation with Planning Action #2017-02129 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report 1 dds Applicant: Rogue Planning for Young Family Trust 17 Page 14 of 25 an entry and pedestrian connection toward East Nevada Street, the higher order street to better address this standard. A condition to this effect has been recommended below to require that this be addressed in the Final Plan/Site Design Review submittals. I The fourth approval criterion for Site Design Review addresses city facilities and requires that, "The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property." Public facilities requirements are addressed in detail in the Outline Plan section earlier in this report. Exception to Street Standards The application includes a request for an Exception to Street Standards to not extend sidewalks along the frontages of Tax Lots #1100 and #1200, west of the intersection of Camelot and East Nevada, due to the steep and rocky slope in this area, and to not install a multi-use path or other alternative to the sidewalk due to the same rocky slopes. The application asserts that the rock here is impenetrable here, and has included a report by a geotechnical expert. The applicants note that they considered installing a multi-use path as an alternative, but the slopes were too steep to do so safely, and they further note anecdotally that when the subdivision to the south was installed a local backhoe operator broke many pieces of equipment trying to install street improvements here and the rock ultimately dictated the location of the existing curb. To provide for pedestrian connectivity, the applicants propose to install enhancement to the intersection of Camelot Drive and East Nevada so pedestrians using the north side sidewalk on the eastern portion of the proposed development can cross to the south side in the area where no sidewalks will be installed. Staff Concern - Pedestrian Refute In visiting the site, it appears to staff that there may be some opportunities in the area of the rock outcropping where sidewalks are not proposed to instead remove weeds and flatten an 18- to 24-inch area behind the curb and surface it in concrete or compacted decomposed granite in order to provide an area of refuge where pedestrians could step out of the roadway when cars pass to provide. A condition has been recommended below that the applicants explore this possibility and that the civil plans provided for Final Plan review include such a pedestrian refuge in this area. With regard to the bicycle lane issue, the applicants request an Exception to not install bicycle lanes on East Nevada Street because there are none elsewhere on this corridor, the rock slope limits the ability to expand the right-of-way, and the trip counts are very low. Neighbors Andrea Napoli and Don Morehouse who reside on nearby Stoneridge Avenue have submitted written comments indicating that they feel that bicycle access is necessary for the neighborhood before a zone change occurs, noting that currently there is no bicycle access between the North Mountain Neighborhood and the rest of town, describing the existing bicycle lanes on North Mountain Avenue as dangerous and disappearing, and noting t that there is currently no bridge connection over Bear Creek to Oak Street or the Bear Creek Planning Action #2017-02129 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report t dds Applicant: Rogue Planning for Young Family Trust 18 Page 15 of 25 i Greenway and suggesting that they do not believe a finding of adequate transportation can be made with regard to bicycle access. As noted by the neighbors, there are bicycle lanes on North Mountain Avenue in some places, but they are not continuous and require cyclists to merge into traffic or use a variable width gravel shoulder. While properties in adjacent developments including Meadowbrook Park 11 immediately to the south have been required to sign in favor of a future Local Improvement District for East Nevada Street which would include construction of a bridge over Bear Creek, this bridge is not currently in place. An Avenue is typically envisioned to accommmodate between 3,000 and 10,000 average daily i trips (ADT) as a design assumption. For lesser streets, the Street Design Standards specifically note, "Bike lanes are generally not needed on streets with low volumes (less than 3, 000 ADT) or low motor vehicle travel speeds (less than 25mph). For over 3, 000 ADT or actual travel speeds exceeding 25 mph, six-foot bike lanes [are required]; one on each side of the street moving in the same direction as motor vehicle traffic." While the design assumptions for an Avenue put the ADT within the threshold which requires bike lanes, the most recent ADT counts for this section of East Nevada Street, taken by the Engineering Division in 2017, have the ADT at 107 trips. On nearby Fair Oaks Avenue, which likely is taking more of the traffic from the Meadowbrook Park II subdivision out to Mountain Avenue, ADT was only slightly over 400 trips in 2016, and Engineering staff indicated that it was doubtful even with additional building in 2017 that the current ADT there would be over 500 trips now. In staff s assessment, the current ADT on East Nevada Street do not seem to necessitate bicycle lanes, and could accommodate cyclists as shared users of the street without frequent conflicts due to vehicle cross traffic, although the Avenue classification typically requires them. Staff would accordingly recommend that the Exception be approved but that the applicants be required to sign in favor of a future Local Improvement District (LID) for East Nevada Street as have others in the North Mountain Neighborhood; such an LID could include both bicycle lanes and bridge construction. Tree Removal Permits The applicants have provided a survey identifying 27 trees on the property which are greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height. Of these, ten are proposed to be removed in conjunction with the application including a 16-inch diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) Ponderosa Pine, a 16-inch d.b.h. Cedar tree, a nine-inch d.b.h. Pine, a 30-inch d.b.h. Ash tree, four seven-to-eight-inch d.b.h. Oak trees, and a six-inch and a ten-inch d.b.h. Walnut tree. The trees proposed for removal are described as being the minimum necessary to permit the parcel to be developed as proposed under the requested zoning. The trees are noted as being located where streets, driveways and building envelopes are proposed to comply with the applicable standards while responding to the significant topographical constraints of the site. The applicants further explain that the trees to be removed on the upper level of the development include the Cedar, Ponderosa Pine and Ash trees which are requested for removal to accommodate the extension of Camelot Drive, which must respond to the existing street location, topography, block length and fire truck turn-around standards. The applicants go on to note that the majority of the trees to be removed are on the lower level of the property on tax lot # 1100. These trees are described as being crowded together where the driveway will need to be located to access the proposed lower level units and to Planning Action #2017-02129 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report t dds Applicant: Rogue Planning for Young Family Trust 19 Page 16 of 25 maintain vehicular access for the portion of the applicants' property which is outside the city limits while complying with driveway separation requirements. The application materials suggest that the removals will not have a significant negative impact on erosion or soil stability, noting that the development of the property will address erosion and soil stability. The applicants emphasize that there are no surface waters on the site, and that the trees proposed for removal are not part of any windbreaks. They also suggest that the removals will generally have no significant impact on tree densities, canopy size or species diversity, although they recognize that the Ponderosa and Cedar may have adverse impacts with regard to this criterion while suggesting that their removals could not be avoided. They explain that with shallow soil depths and significantly rocky soils, large conifers require wider spreading root structure and necessitate larger protection zones which would make it more difficult to preserve and protect them with the proposed development. The applicants suggest that they will plant numerous deciduous trees that are more than 1 %z- inch caliper to mitigate the removals proposed, and that three conifers will be planted on the applicants' property to the north to assist in buffering the freeway to mitigate the large conifers to be removed. The Tree Commission has not yet reviewed the application as this report was being prepared. As such, a condition has been suggested below that the Tree Commission recommendations from their regular meeting on January 4, 2018 be made conditions of any approval, where consistent with applicable standards and with final approval by the Staff Advisor. M Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The criteria for Outline Plan approval from the Performance Standards Options Chapter are detailed in AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3 as follows: a. The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City. b. 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. 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. The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e. There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. 1 g. The development complies with the Street Standards. F 6 Planning Action #2017-02129 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report t dds Applicant: Rogue Planning for Young Family Trust 20 Page 17 of 25 I i The criteria for the approval of an Exception to Street Standards are detailed in AMC 18.4.6.020.B.1 as follows: I 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 exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable. i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience. ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i. e., comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic. iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i. e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway. i C. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040..4. The criteria for Site Review approval from the Site Design Review Chapter are detailed in AMC 18.5.2.050 as follows: 4 A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies r+)ith the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards ofpart 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection I or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or E Planning Action #2017-02129 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report 1 dds Applicant: Rogue Planning for Young Family Trust 21 Page 18 of 25 I 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of'the Site Development and Design Standards. The criteria for Tree Removal are described in AMC 18.5.7.040.6 as follows: II 1. Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger ofproperty damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6 b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18,5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authorityfinds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10. b. 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. C. 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, d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to 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 of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation [ requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 7 Planning Action #2017-02129 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report t dds Applicant: Rogue Planning for Young Family Trust ^ ^ Page 19 of 25 22 ~ The criteria for Plan Amendments and Zone Changes are described in AMC 18.5.9.020 as follows: A. Type IL The Type II procedure is used for applications involving zoning map amendments consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map, and minor map amendments or corrections. Amendments under this section may be approved if in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the application demonstrates that one or more of the following. 1. The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable housing, supported by the Comprehensive Plan. 2. A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan designation was proposed necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances. 3. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action. 4. Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one zoning district to another zoning district, will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050. G. 5. Increases in residential zoning density offour units or greater on commercial, employment, or industrial zoned lands (i.e., Residential Overlay), will not negatively impact the City's commercial and industrial land supply as required in the Comprehensive Plan, and will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050. G. 6. The total number ofaffordable units described in 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 or 5, above, shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period ofnot less than 60 years. 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 and 5 do not apply to Council initiated actions. B. Type IIL It may be necessary front time to time to make legislative amendments in order to conform with the Comprehensive Plan or to meet other changes in circumstances or conditions. The Type 111 procedure applies to the creation, revision, or large-scale implementation of public policy requiring City Council approval and enactment of an ordinance; this includes adoption of regulations, zone changes for large areas, zone changes requiring comprehensive plan amendment, comprehensive plan map or text amendment, annexations (see chapter 18.5.8 for annexation information), and urban growth boundary amendments, The following planning actions shall be subject to the Type III procedure. 1. Zone changes or amendments to the Zoning Map or other official maps, except where minor amendments or corrections may be processed through the Type II procedure pursuant to subsection 18.5.9.020.A, above. 2. Comprehensive Plan changes, including text and map changes or changes to other official maps. 3. Land Use Ordinance amendments. Planning Action #2017-02129 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds Applicant: Rogue Planning for Young Family Trust 23 Page 20 of 25 4. Urban Growth Boundary amendments. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations It is clear that as discussed in the application the extension of city facilities to the area, adoption of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, and subsequent development of the Meadowbrook Park I1 subdivision immediately to the south represent a change in circumstances since the current zoning was established in the 1970's which supports the requested Plan Amendment and Zone Change, but for staff the compelling changes in circumstance which necessitate the requested Plan Amendment and Zone Change are the well-documented housing crisis around the lack of rental and ownership units that are affordable to a broad spectrum of the community and the city's commitment through the Regional Problem Solving process to accommodate anticipated growth with more efficient land use inside existing city boundaries. For staff, the extension of facilities to support more dense development than was possible when the current zoning was established nearly 50 years ago sets the table for more efficient land use now, and staff believes that the Planning Commission and Council should not only approve the request but also consider requiring the applicant to both construct the three small accessory units currently described as optional and direct them to look at other options to further increase the density with additional smaller units that would be possible under the requested density and available density bonuses to better address rental housing needs. Should the Commission concur with staff and choose to recommend approval of the proposal to Council, staff would recommend that the following conditions be included in that recommendation: I . That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. 2. That any new addresses or street names shall be assigned by City of Ashland Engineering Department. 3. That permits shall be obtained from the Ashland Public Works Department prior to any work in the public right of way. 4. That all recommendations of the Tree Commission from their January 4, 2018 regular meeting shall be conditions of approval, where consistent with applicable criteria and standards and with final approval of the Staff Advisor. 5. That tree protection fencing and other tree preservation measures shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to any site work including demolition, staging, storage of materials or issuance of any permits. The tree protection shall be chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.4.5.030.C. and no construction shall occur within the tree protection zone including dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste, equipment, or parked vehicles. 6. That the applicants shall obtain necessary Demolition and Relocation Review Permits from the Building Division prior to the demolition of any buildings over 500 square feet as required in AMC 15.04, if deemed necessary by the Building Official. 7. The requirements of the Ashland Fire Department, including approved addressing, fire apparatus access and approach, fire flow, hydrant distance and clearance, and fire sprinklers where applicable, shall be complied with prior to issuance of the building permit or the use of combustible materials. Fire Department requirements shall be Planning Action #2017-02129 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report t dds Applicant: Rogue Planring for Young Family Trust ^ A Page 21 of 25 LJ ~ r included on the engineered construction documents. If a fire protection vault is required, the vault shall not be located in the sidewalk corridor. 8. That prior to the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change being formalized, the applicants shall sign in favor of a Local Improvement District for the future improvements to East Nevada Street including future bridge construction and street improvements, including but not limited to bike lanes sidewalks, parkrow, curb, gutter and storm drainage prior to signature of the final survey plat. The agreement shall be signed and recorded concurrently with the final survey plat. Nothing in this condition is intended to prohibit an owner/developer, their successors or assigns from exercising their rights to freedom of speech and expression by orally objecting or participating in the LID hearing or to take advantage of any protection afforded any party by City ordinances and resolutions. 9. That prior to Final Plan approval: a. A revised plan to demonstrate that the open and recreation space requirements are met illustrating all areas to be counted towards open and recreation space and their placement, dimension and treatment, and shall include some form of pedestrian access (i.e. a path to a gazebo or other sitting area) to provide access for future residents to the vista here. Landscaped areas counted toward recreation space need to be placed and surfaced for recreational use and not include thoroughfares for pedestrian circulation, and individual patio, porch or deck areas need to have a minimum dimension of six feet in depth and eight feet in width exclusive of circulation routes, door swing areas, etc. to accommodate recreational use. Areas containing above-ground utility infrastructure such as transformers, vaults and cabinets are not to be included as open/recreational space. Common area and open space improvements (i.e. landscaping and irrigation, etc.) shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected and approved prior to signature of Final Survey Plat. b. A phasing plan be provided which details the proposed phasing/timing of the development with the final plan submittal. C. Site Design Review approval for the final building designs shall be obtained concurrently with Final Plan approval for each phase. Site Designs shall be generally consistent with that approved here, with the exception of final building designs. i. The Site Design Review submittal shall include clear primary orientation with an entry and pedestrian connection toward East Nevada Street, the higher order street, for those units at the corner of Camelot Drive and East Nevada Street and at the corner of East Nevada and Franklin Street. ii. The Site Design Review shall address the two units on the west side of Camelot Drive which are at the corner of the alley and Camelot, and have an 18-foot wide driveway and a garage ten feet, rather than the required 15 feet, behind the fagade of the units. The Site Design Review shall consider this both in terms of having a garage where alley access is available to at least one of the units, and in having the garage five feet closer to the fagade than allowed and shall either adjust the design or request an Exception. Planning Action #2017-02129 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report I dds Applicant Rogue Planning for Young Family Trust L^ 5 Page 22 of 25 t d. Final Plan and Site Design Review submittals which include the city-owned property (Tax Lot #100) will need to include a tree inventory/protection plan and determination of wetland presence for this property. C. All requirements of the geo-technical expert's report, including that the geo- technical expert reviews grading and building plans for compliance with recommendations and that the geo-technical expert observes earthwork, foundation and drainage installation phases of construction and provides a written report of these observations certifying that all construction was 1 consistent with recommendations shall be conditions of approval. The final plan submittals shall include written verification from the project geo- j technical expert addressing the consistency of the grading and drainage plans with the report recommendations, and shall include a detailed inspection e schedule addressing needed inspections and their timing associated with the c project's development. S £ Final Site lighting details. Street lights shall be consistent with the city's residential street lighting standard which calls for the "Eurotique" unless another lighting type is already deployed in the neighborhood. g. Final Trash enclosure placement and screening details. h. Final lot coverage calculations demonstrating how lot coverage is to be allocated to comply with the 75 percent lot coverage allowance in the NM- ; a MF zoning district, including all building footprints, driveways, parking, circulation areas and other proposed lot coverage. r i. The identification of all proposed easements for public and private utilities, fire apparatus access, and reciprocal utility, maintenance, access and parking shall be indicated on the Final Plan submittal for review by the Planning, Engineering, Building and Fire Departments. j. That a final utility plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the F Planning, Engineering, and Building Divisions with the Final Plan application. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, fire hydrants, sanitary sewer lines, storm drain lines and electric services. The utility plan shall also address the issues raised by the Water Department relative to cross connections and premises isolation due to the grade difference between the water main in East Nevada Street and the residential units. k. That the location and final engineering for all storm drainage improvements associated with the project, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Departments of Public Works, Planning and Building Divisions with the Final Plan application. 1. That the applicant shall submit an electric design and distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment with the Final Plan application. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department prior to the signature of the final survey plat. Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets and outside of vision clearance areas, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. Electric services shall be installed underground to serve all proposed units prior to signature of the final survey plat. At the f Planning Action #2017-02129 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds Applicant: Rogue Planning for Young Family Trust ^ Page 23 of 25 {vim i 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. s in. That the engineered construction drawings for the proposed street improvements including East Nevada Street, the extension of Camelot Drive, the extension of the proposed new street (Franklin Street), and the intersection enhancements at Camelot Drive and East Nevada Street shall be submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning and Engineering Divisions with the Final Plan application, prior to work in the street rights-of-way or installation of improvements in the pedestrian corridor. i. For East Nevada Street, the section including sidewalks shall include the minimum six-foot width, seven-foot park row planting strips (even where parking bays are proposed), and eight-foot parking bays required for an avenue, and shall provide an area 18-24 inches in depth behind the curb, surface in concrete or compacted granite and maintained in a weed-flee condition to provide an area for pedestrians to seek refuge from passing cars outside the roadway. ii. For the Camelot Drive extension, a 15-foot queuing lane shall be provided with seven-foot parking bays on one side, with eight-foot park rows and five-foot sidewalks on both side. iii. For the Franklin Street extension, a 15-foot queuing lane shall be provided with seven-foot parking bays on one side, with seven-foot park rows and six-foot sidewalks the west side; and for the enhanced intersection treatment, revised drawings shall be provided which address the ramp and crossing placement to better align with ramps opposite so that the ramps are directly connected to those across the ' street with the shortest, most direct routes possible in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). n. Where necessary to accommodate city standard improvements or to align fi•ontage improvements, necessary additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the city. All public improvements including but not limited to the sidewalk, park row planting strips with irrigated street trees, and standard Eurotique residential street lights shall be installed to City of Ashland standards under permit from the Public Works Department and in accordance with the approved plan prior to signature of the final survey plat. o. That CC&Rs for the Homeowner's Association shall be provided for review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the Final Plan application. The CC&R's shall describe responsibility for the maintenance of all common use-improvements including landscaping, driveways and parking areas, planting strips, shared garage spaces and street trees. p. That all fencing shall be consistent with the provisions of the "Fences and Walls" requirements in AMC 18.4.4.060. The draft CC&Rs shall include stipulations on height limitations for front, side and rear yard, and shall note that fences adjacent to Planning Action #2017-02129 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report I dds Applicant: Rogue Planning for Young Family Trust 27 Page 24 of 25 common open space areas shall not exceed four feet. The location and height of fencing shall be identified at the time of building permit submittals, and fence permits shall be obtained prior to installation. q. The approved Tree Protection Plan and accompanying standards for compliance shall be noted in the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs must state that deviations from the plan shall be considered a violation of the Planning Application approval and therefore subject to penalties described in the Ashland Municipal Code. 1 f t a` 'r f~ i I L f Planning Action #2017-02129 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report/ dds Applicant: Rogue Planning for Young Family Trust L^ 8 Page 25 of 25 z 1212712017 Mai I - derek.severson@ashland.or.us Re: 475 E. Nevada Street, PA-2017-02129 9 1 Derek Severson Wed 12/27/2017 11:17 AM To:Andrea Napoli <andreanapolisemail@gmail.com>; ccDerek Severson <derek.severson@ashland.or.us>; t ® 1 attachments (341 KB) NOTICE PA-2017-02129.pdf; t Andrea, I've received the message and will print and add to the record on this application. I'm assuming you received the notice for the January 9th public hearing at the Planning Commission, but I've attached it as a PDFjust in case. If I can provide any additional information or assistance, please let me know. - Derek F Derek Severson, Senior Planner City of Ashland, Department of Community Development I 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR 97520 PH: (541) 552-2040 FAX: (541) 552-2050 TTY: 1-800-735-2900 E-MAIL: derek.severson@ashland.or.us This e-mail transmission is the official business of the City of Ashland, and is subject to Oregon's public records laws for disclosure and retention. If you've received this e-mail in error, please contact meat (541) 552-2040. I Thank you. a s ) I i From: Andrea Napoli <andreanapolisemail@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2017 10:54 AM To: amygunter.planning@gmail.com; Derek Severson Cc: Don Morehouse Subject: 475 E. Nevada Street, PA-2017-02129 Hi Amy, Thank you for the notice about the zone change for the residential development at 475 E Nevada Street. My husband and I live at 325 Stoneridge Ave with our backyard along E. Nevada, just steps from the proposed subdivision. I hops:/loutlook.office365.com/owaQrealm=ashiand.or.us&Source=hops%3a%2f°/~.'t hland.sharepoirt.com°/a2fSitePages°/a2fhome.aspx&exsvurl=l&ll-m=... 112 f 12127/2017 Mail - derek.severson@ashland.orms I We feel strongly that prior to a zone change to add additional dwellings in the neighborhood, we MUST have bicycle access to this neighborhood. Currently there is no bike access between the North Mountain neighborhood and the rest of town (N. Mountain has dangerous disappearing bike lanes and no bike/ped bridge exists over Bear Creek). In reviewing the notice from the City of Ashland under the Site Design and Use Standards section, it appears that "adequate transportation" facilities do not exist to serve this project/property. i Thank you, Andrea Napoli & Don Morehouse 325 Stoneridge Ave Ashland, OR (530) 386-0491 ( i l s ( e f e https:!/ouUook.office365.com/owaJ?realm=ashl and,or,us&Soisce-hltps%3a%2f°/.ashl and.sharepdnt.com9'°2fSi t©Pages%2thom e.aspx8exsvurl= l &II-cc=... 212 I i i i o° 475 East Nevada Street Katherine Mae Subdivision Comprehensive Plan Amendment; Zone Change; Performance Standards Subdivision and Site Design Review w_ MOW, R. i i _ u „fir" 3 i. i -l~~~ . AFF, 414 . 100 -W. I 47 ~►::kl~rv Nov 0 3 2017 o ofy 0f Ash Orii ~ olbk ICZ_ W 11 ROGUE PLANNING E DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. LLC 31 / Zone Change, Comprehensive Plan Amendment Outline Plan Approval for Performance Standards Subdivision Outline Plan Approval Sublect Property Property Address: 475 EAST NEVADA STREET Map & Tax Lots: 39 1E 04A Tax Lots: 1100, 1200; 1300 Property Owner: Young Family Trust 348 South Modoc Street Medford, OR 97504 Site Planning / Conceptual Elevations: Giordano Architecture Tom Giordano 495 Chestnut Street; # Ashland, OR 97520 Landscape Architecture / Drafting: KenCairn Landscape Architect James Love 545 A Street, Suite 102 Ashland, OR 97520 Engineering Services: Thornton / Daley Engineering PO BOX 476 Jacksonville, OR 97530 Surveyor: Hoffbuhr & Associates 880 Golf View Drive; Suite 201 Medford, OR 97540 Planning Consultant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, l w E I V Am Gunter s 1424 South Ivy NOV O ~ ~0~1 Medford, OR 97520 Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential Reserve Zoning: SPLIT: City of Ashland RR-.5 p Jackson County Rural Residential (RR-5) Adjacent Zones: NM-R-1.5; NM-MF; Rural Residential (RR-.5); Jackson County RR-5; and Jackson County Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) 1 Findings of Fact November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 1 of 61 32 i I I / I Request: The application requests approval for Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Single Family Residential Reserve to North Mountain Neighborhood Plan; Zane Change from Rural Residential, % Acre minimum (RR-.5-P), to North Mountain Multi Family (MN-MF) Zoning Overlay; Outline Plan and Site Design Review approval for a Performance Standards Subdivision to allow for the future development of a phased subdivision. The Katherine Mae Subdivision is proposed in a manner that allows for creative, innovate and flexible design in accordance with the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan Design Standards. The property is divided by the City of Ashland Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) roughly mid-way between the north and south property lines. The UGB is also the boundary of the city limits. The request is for the 2.42-acre portion of the 4.5-acre properties located at 39 1E 04A; Tax Lots: #1100, 1200 and 1300. Tax Lot #1200 is presently occupied by a single-family residence addressed 475 E Nevada Street. To facilitate orderly development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan, parcel 39 1E 04AD; Tax Lot #100 is included in the comprehensive plan amendment, and zone change portion of the request. This allows for the change of the City of Ashland owned .35-acre parcel located directly east of the subject properties to be rezoned RR-.5-P to MN-MF. The City of Ashland owned parcel is not included in the subdivision request and it is the property owners understanding that the City would facilitate the development of affordable housing units on their property. This request does not include site design review of any of the future residences on the properties as they will be developed in future phases. The application package does include conceptual elevations depicting compliance with the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards. The site plan layout provides conceptual building footprints and approximate lot lines for future development purposes. Property Description: The Katherine Mae Subdivision consists of three properties, tax lots #1100,1200 and 1300. The property is on the north side of East Nevada Street at the intersection of East Nevada Street and an unimproved, remnant portion of the North Mountain Avenue right-of-way. The property extends 250-feet to the north, and 750 feet along East Nevada Street to the west. There are two properties to the east of the right-of-way and the actual roadway of North Mountain, and the overpass of interstate 5 (1-5). These are 39 1E 04 A: #101 and 39 1E 04 AD: #100. A five-acre, triangular lot that is occupied by a single wide mobile unit is located between the subject property and 1-5 (TL#201). See Figure 1 and Figure 2 on the following page. RECEIVED NOV 0 3 2017 ~ity OfAshiand Findings of Fact November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 2 of 61 33 II I 100 t 1, 01 en 1 ua16o , 1 ~ r~ i 201 f'. l e:ik 03.10603 t!t f~, \ i. csnslu C3-1Ull * -3 1100 043!4 11200 V r 1300 ' cs lvr 1.19 Ac 10 at SEE AIAP SEE ? AP 39 IE 04AD 391E01AD SUR NO J Figure 1: Assessor's Map S.E.1/4. N.E.1;4, SECA, T.39S., R.IE.. WM. JACKSON COUNTY I' = 10(Y APPROJ 1116 COR. _ - _ _ SEE MAY 79 lE NA 00 t- lT+L. X00 C r S - -~~J♦1~~11~,--!•.~at11~.1--11t-t-a-j 101'•S ktlti 5 NEVADA ,.i.,~,,..>..,L.,~., STREET EnvcOR 1) r9u 300 m[CCCa~cc,[[t~ccnc ` .v "h 204 i1 ; :3900 ceoK ax~+ e+ ` tW[6 ~GI~[ i ~SL9 y` • 0310,16 1 1 a 40 r- 00 ' • 3800 n0U 01 CS1.6S1 ` to ]v 1+ • u 21DO ~w ttuC` aRFI[~ 1 1~ J r fit` / 3700 1300 900 100 1 . .`na.e 3000 y ' t>r coca o d io IK ( f 21 '1 ' 7 1'Ra Figure 1: Assessor's Map i. NOV 03 1.117 I ~-,ItY OfAshICK1 Findings of Fact 9 November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 3 of 61 34 The subject properties are Comprehensive Plan designated as - , \t Single Family Residential Reserve. See Figure 3 to the left. The subject properties are divided by the Urban Growth Boundary I e ~ T i r t1 (UGB) and the City limits boundaries. 'XIN The properties are zoned City of tZSNL ICI z i • lr i', _._._.-:;r ,'~ti~' ~ ' ,r,~' ~ ; -r'%' Ashland Rural Residential % acre t i 1! minimum with the Performance Standards Overlay (RR-.5-P), and t Figure 3: City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan Jackson County Rural Residential, Five Acre Minimum (1111-5). Tax lot #1200 is occupied by a 1,785- square foot single story, single family residence that was constructed in 1954. There is a detached garage on the county side of the property. Another t outbuilding exists behind the residence. Tax lot 1100 and 1300 are vacant. The properties to the east and west f are also split by UGB and split zoned City of Ashland RR-.5 and Jackson Figure 4: City of Ashland Zoning Map County RR-5. The property to the north at 1059 I - W-0 North Mountain Avenue is zoned i, r' Jackson County RR-5. This lot is I f occupied by a vacant mobile home. fsr~' The property at 375 East Nevada Street, to the west of the subject MAR properties is occupied by a single- family residence and associated out- ~icldl 7.. f buildings. f= u a Figure tierial red line Clenot~'s opi;roti. Ci! r ilrlir= NOV O4 n Findings of Fact eh Of AM111 110 + November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 4 of 61 35 The properties east of the subject property, across the unimproved segment of the North Mountain Avenue are vacant. Across the North Mountain Avenue overpass to the southeast, the properties are zoned Healthcare (HC). These properties are park of the Skylark Assisted Living Facility and Mountain Meadows Retirement community. i North Mountain Zoning Overlay Detail rfa'_ I I' I Q I L - - - STONERIDGEAV f~ 1 j ~ `C 4. z d' i FAIROA (3 FAIR - T { Z OAP F Figure 4: City of Ashland North Mountain Zoning Overlay Detail The properties to the south, across East Nevada Street are within the North Mountain Neighborhood f Plan Overlay. The property at 955 N Mountain Avenue, south of the subject property, across East Nevada Street, is zoned NM-R-1-5 (dark green, upper right corner on Figure 6 above). The property is occupied by a circa 1951, single family residence and associated outbuildings. Further south, fronting on East Nevada Street, (lilac color on Figure 6 above) are commercially zoned (NM-C) properties. These are occupied by mixed use residential/commercial constructed structures. To the south of the subject property, across East Nevada Street to the west of the 955 N Mountain Avenue property, the lots are zoned NM-Multi Family (NM-MF). These lots are the bright green on Figure i. 5 above. The NM-MF lots are either occupied or in development process with attached wall, townhouse developments. These are attached and semi-attached (at wall of garage only) units. At the base of the hill, to the west of the Overlook Drive intersection and East Nevada Street, the properties to the south are again zoned NM-R-1-5, the lots along this side East Nevada Street are semi- attached residences. 1,7 Property Details: NOV 03 2091 The total lot area of the subject properties, TL#1100, 1200 & 1300 is 4.5 acres ai as e . ar vid roughly in half with the Urban Growth Boundary (UBG). The proposal applies to the 2.42 acres of the Findings of Fact November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 5 of 61 36 i properties that are within the City limits. The remainder of the property is 2.08 acres. This area is outside of the UGB and is zoned Jackson County Rural Residential, (RR-5). These lots are to retain connection with the existing and proposed rights-of-way thus retaining development potential for three, single family residences under the jurisdiction of Jackson County. Of the 2.42 acres, a substantial portion of the property, nearly 18,000 square feet has slopes of more 4 than 35 percent slope and is not developable. This leaves 87,415 square feet in area that is developable (2.00 acres). The site has a level grade with approximately two percent slopes generally east to west. The western half of TL# 1200, is a rocky bluff with a steep drop off to the west. The slope in this area is 35 percent and greater. This steep, rocky slope is vegetated with blackberry bushes, scrub oak, walnut trees. Tax lot #1100 is at the base of the hill and has a moderate grade. The east property line of TL# 1100 roughly parallels the base of the rocky bluff. There is 60-feet of frontage along East Nevada Street, the west property line is bound by a wire fence. This lot extends 332.08-feet to the north. The first, roughly 142- feet, is within the City limits. i There are 27 trees six-inches in diameter at breast height and larger. The majority of the sites trees are { on TL# 1100 at the base of the hill, the others are generally scattered throughout the site. The tree types is include, Cedar, Ponderosa Pine, Oak, Walnut, Sequoia and Leyland Cypress. A detailed tree inventory is included in the proposal. Tax lot 1300 is vacant of structures and of most vegetation consists of grasses and blackberry. There are no creeks, floodplains, riparian areas or wetlands found on the subject properties. The property is bound by East Nevada Street along the south property line. According to the street classification in the Transportation System Plan (TSP), East Nevada Street is an Avenue or Major Collector. East Nevada would be considered a two-lane avenue. Avenues have a right-of-way width of between 59 - 86 feet. There is generally, 60-feet of ROW along the frontage of the properties. In the area of steep, rocky slopes between the subject property and the driving surface of East Nevada Street, there is more than 120-feet of ROW. East Nevada Street is not improved to Avenue Standards. Due to the topographical constraints within the ROW, East Nevada Street is narrow, constrained by the development to the south, and by the rock outcropping on the north side. East Nevada has a varying width of improvements. Along the frontage of the property, East Nevada Street is improved with pavement, curb and gutter. There is a 22-foot paved travel lane, curb and gutter. On the south side of East Nevada Street, there are various street improvements within the varying width ROW. The first 272-feet of East Nevada Street across from subject property, there is curb and gutter, no sidewalk. This property is "under-developed" and street improvements will be required with future site development. West of the intersection of Camelot Drive and East Nevada Street, the street improvements include, 22- feet, ' suffic curb, gutter, varying width parkrow and sidewalk. None of East Nevada Stree as tidic c 1e lanes. NOV 03 2017 h CRY OfAshIM10 Findings of Fact November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 6 of 61 i 37 ~I i The right-of-way that forms the east boundary of the property is North Mountain Avenue because it falls within a remnant of the North Mountain Avenue right-of-way, but the actual surface street North Mountain is above the property and transitions from surface street to bridge over the Interstate. The "street" is not improved more than the narrow gravel driveway that serves the five-acre parcel to the north of the subject properties. This street will be referred to as New Street, and Franklin Street is the requested street name. Detailed Proposal: The property is divided roughly mid-way between the south and north property lines by the City of Ashland Urban Growth Boundary (UGB); the proposal applies to the southern 2.42 acres of the property within the City Limits. The remaining area of the property, 2.08 acres, is outside of the UGB. f The request is for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change to change the land use s designation and zoning for the subject properties. The Comprehensive Plan amendment seeks to remove the Single Family Residential Reserve designation from the property. The zone change seeks to rezone from Rural Residential to North Mountain Multi-Family Residential (NM-MF). The proposal includes a request for Outline Plan and Site Design Review approval for a Performance Standards Subdivision and a tree removal permit. The property is due north of the North Mountain Neighborhood Zoning Overlay, a Master Planned Development that was created in 1997 by the City of Ashland through the re-zoning of Rural- Residentially Zoned properties roughly bound by Bear Creek to the south and west, North Mountain Avenue to the east and East Nevada Street to the north. The proposal follows the layout, design, densities and general land use patterns found in the North Mountain Neighborhood. The proposed zone change would allow for additional land area to provide housing inventory of available for-purchase and for rent units within the City limits when demand far surpasses the supply. The proposal also provides some much-needed, deed restricted affordable housing units. Based on the proposal to bring the properties into the NM-MF zone, there is the potential for 12 dwelling units per acre. The lot area within the city limits is two-acres. This is a result of the 18,000 square feet of severe constraints lands that is excluded from the density equations. The base density for two acres is 24 units. The North Mountain Neighborhood Ove !y5~a density standard of 75 percent of base, or 18 dwellings. The North Mountain Neighborhood Plan allows for up to 110% density for a maximum density of 26.4 units. NOV 0 Findings of Fact November 1, 2017 i Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 7 of 61 38 The proposed density is a range of between 20 to 23 units. This includes a mixture of attached townhomes, duplex units (semi-detached), and detached residences. Above the garages of the detached residences, there are three, optional "accessory residential units". In the NM-MF zone, small "accessory units" are considered dwelling units for the purposes density calculations. The proposal, as a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change requires the dedication of 25 percent of the base density as affordable housing units. With the base density of 24 units, 25 percent requires six (6) units at 100 percent Area Median Incomes (AMI). The property owner has determined that the transfer of land area sufficient to develop the required number of affordable housing units is the best course of action. Initial discussions with a non-profit affordable housing developer that restricts incomes to the 60 percent Area Median Incomes (AMI) have been held. When the units are restricted at 60 percent, the required number of affordable units is four units (6 / 1.5 = 4). f Enough area for four (4) dwellings, the required area for nine (9) on-site / alley access parking spaces, yard areas, and setback compliance, will be transferred through title following the approval of the subdivision. The proposal demonstrates that a mixture of attached and detached units can be accommodated on the property. The North Mountain Zoning Overlay to the south of the subject property is a mixture of single family (NM-R-1-7.5 & NM-R-1.5), and attached, multi-family (NM-MF). The proposed mixture of housing I types is consistent with the allowed mixture of housing types allowed in the zone. E The proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone change to North Mountain, Multi-Family ; provides additional land to the historically low inventories with the potential for attached, semi-attached and detached residential units near other North Mountain Zoned properties that have mixture of attached, semi-attached and detached residential units. The subdivision is proposed as a phased development. The first phase is the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone change to facilitate the Outline Plan approval of the Performance Standards Subdivision. Phase Two is Final Plan approval. Phase Three would be for the attached unit Site Reviews. Phases Two and Three may be completed concurrently. Due to the dedication of the land for the affordable housing developer, the property owner cannot guarantee when the affordable housing component would be completed. As evidenced in the letter from Denise James, Executive Director of Rogue Valley, Habitat for Humanity, dedicated affordable housing is a serious need in Ashland. The proposal provides for a unique development flexibility. The property has adequate areas, separations, and layout that townhouse development, condominium development and duplex or multi- family development. There is ample common areas and open spaces, there is amp,l~4 parking proposed and there are adequate private yard areas to demonstrate compliance with, ihe'.!stah~ axd& Performance Standards Subdivision Development. The layout provides opportunit~ies for different property owners to be able to develop all or part of the subdivision exclusive of the affcNAIQ an& his Findings of Fact 1-V of November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 8 of 61 39 is similar to how the existing development within Meadowbrook Park II, to the south and within the North Mountain Plan Overlay area have developed. Homeowner's association language has not been drafted at this early juncture. The HOA and CC&Rs for the Katherine Mae Subdivision will be drafted by a Land Use Attorney familiar with these legally binding documents. i The current Housing Element, of the Comprehensive Plan, recognizes various housing types have a place, but it must be recognized that some development patterns are more compatible than others considering their neighborhood context. The proposed mixture of housing types is consistent with the context of the North Mountain Neighborhood types of housing. The neighborhood development pattern includes detached residences, semi-attached, townhouse and condominium type of structures in North Mountain Avenue neighborhood development to the south, and in the Mountain Meadows Development to the southeast. The proposal is consistent with the purpose of the North Mountain Plan Overlay which promotes a variety of housing types and preserves the significant natural features and provides ample open spaces. North Mountain Neighborhood Design Criteria: The proposed residences and future Site Design Reviews will be consistent with the requirements of the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards. The proposed street design, lot layout and driveways also generally conform to the standards. Some exceptions are necessary to accommodate the steep embankment along East Nevada Street that is impassable for pedestrian and vehicles and therefore affects connectivity and orientation. The units adjacent to the steep slope will be designed similar to those found near Kestrel Parkway and E Nevada Street to the west of the property where the rear of the residence has design elements reflective of a front facade (covered porches or patios, columns, gables, dormers, large eaves, etc.) to enhance the 'street presence'. The residential design will not have repetitive elevations and the attached buildings will have the fagade broken into smaller elements using reveals, recesses, trim, window sizes and locations, door type, location and design. Parking, Access, Circulation: According to 18.3.9.060 Parking Standards, the development shall conform to the following parking standards found within the Performance Standards Option Subdivision Chapter, in addition to the requirements of chapter 18.4.3 Parking, Access, and Circulation. There are two vehicle garages proposed for the detached units (A and B units). A third guest space or parking space for the potential unit above the garage is provided on the A and B type lots. The semi-attached units have either one or two vehicle garages. The semi-attached units on Tax Lot 1100 have a third guest parking space at the end of the "flag driveway". The parking spaces for the 13, attached residences are proposed as surface parking spaces adjacent to the new alley. Streets are being improved and proposed as part of the development. There are 13 on-street parking spaces provided for. Eight spaces are proposed on East Nevadda, 5 hr Findings of Fact NOV 03 ?al] November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision , j `fee e-9 f 631 ' ~ •i,an j 40 "Franklin Street"; and two on Camelot Drive. There are an additional seven parking spaces adjacent to the alley that would function similar to on-street parking spaces. Transportation: Street improvements will be made to East Nevada Street, the extension of North Mountain / East Nevada Street, and Camelot Street which presently intersects into East Nevada Street will be extended to the north into the development. I Elements from the standards for public street design such as benches, residential standard pedestrian street lights, street trees, and concrete sidewalks are proposed on the improved streets. ' I East Nevada: Street improvements proposed for East Nevada frontage of the property include, six-foot sidewalk, five to seven-foot Parkrow (where on-street parking bay Present, landscaping including street trees in five- foot landscape strip between sidewalk and property line). Eight, on-street parking spaces are proposed, these are within a seven-foot wide parking bay. The curb and gutter will require relocation to accommodate the frontage improvements. In the area where the steep, rocky slope prevents additional street improvements on the north side of East Nevada Street, to the west of the new Camelot Drive and East Nevada Street intersection, an exception to street standards is requested to not extend sidewalks along the frontage of subject properties TL#1200 and #1100. This is due to the physically impenetrable rock, see the Geotechnical Report for additional information on the below grade soils and rock. The new intersection of Camelot and East Nevada Street will have an enhanced intersection with street F~ amenities such as street light, benches and scored concrete. Pedestrian facilities exist on Camelot to the south and along the south side of East Nevada Street. These sidewalks connect to existing and p future pedestrian infrastructure that extends to the south and west into the Meadowbrook II Subdivision. The sidewalk along the south side of East Nevada Street leads to a city park. Due to the topographical constraints, the limited number of vehicle trips, and lack of similar improvements, no bicycle lanes are present or proposed on East Nevada Street. N Mountain Avenue AKA Franklin Street: The proposal provides the extension of North Mountain Avenue. Due to the existing street name conventions and associated addresses; split right-of-way for North Mountain Avenue; and future development patterns, the North Mountain Avenue will be re-named Franklin Street. Franklin Street has a 60-foot wide ROW. It is proposed to be constructed to city standards fora Neigltibofhood.,~ t,eet l ? NOV 0 3 2011 Findings of Fact November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision a 2A ` 41 i I with a six-foot sidewalk, a seven to eight-foot landscaped parkrow, seven-foot on-street parking bay and 15-foot travel surface (or % street improvements). Camelot Extension: Camelot Street is proposed to be extended onto the property. Camelot is a Neighborhood Access Street. Camelot Street has a varying width ROW. It ranges between 36-feet at the south intersection with East Nevada Street (10-feet will likely be required to be dedicated with the future development of 955 North Mountain Avenue). The right of way is 46-feet on the south side of 955 North Mountain Avenue. The proposed ROW is 47-feet (consistent with range of ROW width for Neighborhood Street found in AMC 18.4.6). This provides for a 15-foot travel surface, eight-foot planting strips and five-foot sidewalks on each side. The west side of Camelot Street is proposed to have two, seven-foot-wide parking bays. The street improvements on the extension of Camelot will generally match the existing improvements. enhanced intersection with street amenities such as street light, benches and scored concrete. Truncated domes and cross walks across East Nevada Street will be provided. Alley: Across the north boundary of the property, extending from "Franklin Street" to the Fire Truck turnaround on the west side of the upper level of the development, a public alley is proposed. The alley is proposed to have a 22-foot right-of-way. The parking for the attached and semi-attached units within the common area of development are accessed from the alley. Additionally, the 20-lot development required 20 on- street parking spaces. These spaces are found on-street and accessed via the new alley. Public Utilities: The routing for and locations of the following existing and planned public facilities and utilities are shown on the proposed Subdivision Plans: i Financing: Private financing will be utilized to the funding of the development excepting the area of the property devoted to affordable housing units. On the following pages, findings of fact addressing the criteria from the Ashland Municipal Code are provided on the following pages. For clarity, the criteria are in Times New Roman font and the applicant's responses are in Calibri font. A list of attachments for the proposed development is provided on page #61. NOV 03 2017 l Findings of Fact :fy O 4A shlan6 'I November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 11 of 61 42 Applicant's Findings of Fact Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change: 18.5.9.020 Applicability and Review Procedure Applications for Plan Amendments and Zone Changes are as follows: A. Type II. The Type II procedure is used for applications involving zoning map amendments consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map, and minor map amendments or corrections. Amendments under this section may be approved if in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the application demonstrates that one or more of the following. 1. The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable housing, supported by the Comprehensive Plan. i. Applicant's Finding: N/A 2. A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances. Applicant's Finding: There has been a significant change in the neighborhood development pattern since the North Mountain Neighborhood was first adopted in 1997. The subject properties were part of the large area of underdeveloped land on the north side of Bear Creek, accessed only by a gravel surfaced, North Mountain Avenue. Between 1997 and today, major public and private expenditures were made to bring paved streets, sewer and water to this area. The current property ownersees the great value in working with the City and providing additional developable land consistent with the adjacent property zones and development pattern allowing for furthering the Comprehensive Plan with respect to urbanization. The previous Comprehensive Plan designation as Single Family Residential Reserve was when the area was occupied by single family residences like, 475 E Nevada Street and the Marr Property across East Nevada Street. These structures were removed to make way for the present developments, to the south in the Julian Square, Meadowbrook Park iI at North Mountain, and Mountain Heights Planned Unit Development. Skylark Assisted Living, and Mountain Meadows are across North Mountain Avenue, these properties are zoned Healthcare (HC) these were the precursor to the rapid pace of development in the North Mountain Avenue area. The primary change in circumstances is the development and build out of t Meadowbrook Park ii Subdivision properties to the south. When 04)c mpre,,h ' { ~i- NOV Q 2U~ Findings of Fact ~ry November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision r" M e } e 43 designations were set, the properties to the north of E Nevada Street and the areas to the south were designated as Rural Residential. With the North Mountain Pion overlay, the zoning of the properties to the south of East Nevada Street was modified to correspond to the North Mountain Plan Overlay. The properties to the north of East Nevada Street were not included in the North Mountain Plan Overlay. I Based on the Housing Element, of the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan, housing types, various housing types have a place, but it must be recognized that some development patterns are more compatible than others considering their neighborhood context. The proposed mixture of housing types is consistent with the North Mountain Neighborhood types of housing. There are single story, detached structures, semi-attached and townhouse type of structures in North Mountain Avenue neighborhood both in the development to the south and in the Mountain Meadows Development to the southeast. The rezone requests to North Mountain, Multi-Family (NM-MF), which allows for up to 12- dwelling units per acre before density bonuses. Most of the units are specifically for Townhouse type of development versus, a multi-unit apartment complex. There are also four duplex style units and three detached residential, single family types of units, with possible attached second units. The request for townhouse type of development is supported by the density discussion found within Chapter 6, Housing Element. The Comprehensive Plan discussion of housing types finds that multi family apartments have a typical density of 15-22 units with the most successful range of units in Ashland being 15 - 20 dwelling units per acre. More similar to the NM-MF zone, the Comprehensive Plan discussion of townhouses, indicates that townhouse developments densities can range from 7 to 8 dwelling units per acre up over 20 dwelling units per acre. Townhouses have the advantage of providing an opportunity for j individual ownership, in addition to rental housing. Chapter providing According 2.04 Land Use Classifications, of the Comprehensive Plan, there is Townhouse Residential (2.04.04) "This designation allows multiple family residential uses at a density of up to 12 units per acre. This designation would encourage innovative residential housing to provide low-cost, owner-occupied housing in addition to lower density rental units." Though not Townhouse Residential due to the North Mountain Overlay, the density of the NM- MF Zone, as proposed is 12 units per acre, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for providing housing goals to ensure a variety of dwelling types and provide housing opportunities for the total cross-section of Ashland's population, consistent with preserving the character and appearance of the neighborhood. The North Mountain Neighborhood is a substantial distance from public transportation. The Transportation Element, Chapter 10 of the Comprehensive Plan, states that multi family zoning hy, should be located along arterials and boulevards and near public transportation., The topogWC 'i , substantial grade changes, especially from the public transportation rdutes,iEhools, ge~y NOV 0 3 7.j ri Findings of Fact November 1, 2017 7 Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 13 of 61 44 II stores and other essential services, the land is not appropriate for high-density, multi family rental housing. I The proposal is consistent with the purpose of the North Mountain Plan Overlay and promotes a variety of housing types and preserves the significant natural features and provides ample open spaces. 3. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action. Applicant's Finding: N/A 4. Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one zoning district to another zoning district, will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G. Applicant's Finding: Adequate area for affordable housing that complies with the standards of subsection ALUO r 18.5.8.050.G. has been provided. The base density of the two-acre developable area of the subject property is 24 units. Of the potential 24 units, 25 percent equals six (6) units. The property owner is committed to partnering with a non-profit, affordable housing developer. Early discussions with Habitat for Humanity have been had and a letter of understanding has been provided by Habitat for Humanity expressing their interest in the property. The terms would require restriction to the 60 percent Area Median Income (AMI) standards. When properties are restricted to 60 percent AMI, ALUO 18.5.8.050. G. to allow for a 1.5 equivalency value, therefore, four units is the maximum required. The area depicted on the plan, the area for adequate street improvements, parking area, private yard area, setback areas, access to common refuse areas (if provided) and adequate setbacks. The affordable housing portion of the development will have full participation in the Homeowners Association of the Subdivision. 5. Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial, employment, or industrial zoned lands (i.e., Residential Overlay), will not negatively impact the City's commercial and industrial land supply as required in the Comprehensive Plan, and will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G. Applicant's Finding: NIA NOV 03 2011 Findings of Fact f M~ Of rAeR IaWl November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 14 of 61 4 45 6. The total number of affordable units described in 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 or 5, above, shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 and 5 do not apply to Council initiated actions. Applicant's Finding: The total number of affordable housing units is four units when deed restricted for 60 years. The h terms of development working with an affordable housing provider would require restriction to the 60 percent Area Median Income (AMI) standards. Housing Developers such as Habitat for Humanity, Jackson County Housing Authority, when properties are restricted to 60 percent AMI, ALUO 18.5.8.050.G.1.d allows for a equivalency value of 1.5 unit, therefore, four units is the maximum required. Annexation - 18.5.8.050.G. Except as provided in 18.5.8.050.G.7, below, annexations with a density or potential density of four residential units or greater and involving residential zoned lands, or commercial, employment or industrial lands with a Residential Overlay (R-Overlay) shall meet the following requirements. 1. The total number of affordable units provided to qualifying buyers, or to qualifying renters, shall be equal to or exceed 25 percent of the base density as calculated using the unit equivalency values set forth herein. d. Ownership or rental units restricted to households earning at or below 60 percent the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.5 unit. Applicant's Finding: The total number of affordable housing units is four units when deed restricted for 60 years. The terms of development working with an affordable housing provider would require restriction to the 60 percent Area Median Income (AMI) standards. Housing Developers such as Habitat for Humanity, Jackson County Housing Authority, when properties are restricted to 60 percent AMI, ALUO 18.5.8.050.G.1.d allows for a equivalency value of 1.5 unit, therefore, four units is the maximum required. 2. As alternative to providing affordable units per section 18.5.8.050.G.1, above, the applicant may provide title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development complying with subsection 18.5.8.050.G.1.b, above, through transfer to a non-profit (IRC 501(3)(c) affordable housing developer or public corporation created under ORS 456.055 to 456.235. 1 Applicant's Finding: Fes' L I V k 0 NOV 0 3 2011 Findings of Fact r "'tit Of Ashlav)6 November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 15 of 61 46 Sufficient area for the development for four affordable units is proposed. The area includes the four units at the intersection of "Franklin Street", adequate setback yard areas, ample outdoor area for recreational area, and necessary area for nine parking spaces. Eight are the parking spaces for the two or more-bedroom units, one for a unit and the three on Franklin for the other three units. k a. The land to be transferred shall be located within the project meeting the standards set forth in 18.5.8.050.G, subsections 4 - 6. Applicant's Finding: The area of the land to be transferred will be located within the project area. The area of the property dedicated to the future development accommodates up to 1600 SF, townhouse style, three-bedroom units, each requiring two parking spaces. This fulfills the need for affordable, family housing that the affordable housing developer have identified as their needed unit size. An Exception to compliance with the standards set forth in ALUO 18.5.8.050.G, subsection 4 - 6 has been requested. i b. All needed public facilities shall be extended to the area or areas proposed for transfer. Applicant's Finding: All necessary public facilities will be extended to the areas proposed for transfer. The property owner would seek to defer improvements to "Franklin Street"; sidewalk, porkrow and irrigation until the sites are developed with housing. A bond for improvements could be applied. i i Water, sanitary sewer, storm drain and electric facilities are proposed to be extended to and through the development with the Outline Plan Approval. c. Prior to commencement of the project, title to the land shall be transferred to the City, an affordable housing developer which must either be a unit of government, a non-profit 501(C)(3) organization, or public corporation created under ORS 456.055 to 456.235. Applicant's Finding: The title to the land for the area of the affordable housing developer that is a non-profit 501(C)(3) or unit of government, or public corporation created under ORS 456.055 to 456.235. The property owner has had initial discussions with Habitat for Humanity which is a non-profit 501(C)(3) organization. A memo of understanding has been provided by Habitat for Humanity Executive Director, Denise James. See Attachments. d. The land to be transferred shall be deed restricted to comply with Ashland's affordable NOV 03 2011 Findings of Fact November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 16 of 61 I 47 it housing program requirements. Applicant's Finding: The land to be transferred will be deed restricted to comply with Ashland's affordable housing program requirements. 3. The affordable units shall be comparable in bedroom mix and housing type with the market rate units in the development. Applicant's Finding: N/A The affordable units will be developed by others. 4. A development schedule shall be provided that demonstrates that that the affordable housing units per subsection 18.5.8.050.G shall be developed, and made available for occupancy, as follows. Applicant's Finding: An exception to this standard is requested. Though there is a serious need of affordable housing, the organization that takes title of the land area will need to develop according to their own timeline and funding avoilablitlity. The property owner cannot prescribe a development schedule for property that they no longer control. ideally, if the Katherine Mae Subdivision is approved in January 2018, the affordable housing provider could begin fundraising and design in earnest. I a. That 50 percent of the affordable units shall have been issued building permits prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the last of the first 50 percent of the market rate units. f Applicant's Finding: An exception to this standard is requested. The development of the affordable housing units, once the land transfers title is in the control and ownership of a separate party. The property owner or developer of the 16 to 19 units that area not deeded through title to an affordable housing provider should not have their development timeline predicated on when an "adjacent" property owner seeks to develop their property. b. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the final ten percent of the market rate units, the final 50 percent of the affordable units shall have been issued certificates of occupancy. s Applicant's Finding: See Exception findings below. 4 i E CL; I V D NOV 0 3 Findings of Fact November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 17 of 61 48 5. That affordable housing units shall be distributed throughout the project Applicant's Finding: See Exception findings below. 6. That affordable housing units shall be constructed using comparable building materials and include equivalent amenities as the market rate units. Applicant's Finding: The development of the affordable housing units, once the land transfers title is in the control and ownership of a separate party. The property owner cannot force the use of equivalent amenities as the market rate units. With the development proposed within the North Mountain Zone Overlay, building materials are somewhat dictated by code. The property owner can stipulate in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that the building materials are required to be of comparable building materials. a. The exterior appearance of the affordable units in any residential development shall be visually compatible with the market-rate units in the development. External building materials and finishes shall be substantially the same in type and quality for affordable 0 units as for market-rate units. i Applicant's Finding: The proposed units have conceptual elevations that are visually compatible with the housing developments to the south of the subject properties. The CC&R's may require that the external building materials and finishes be substantially the same in type and quality for affordable units as for the market-rate units. The development of the affordable housing units, once the land transfers title is in the control and ownership of a separate party. b. Affordable units may differ from market-rate units with regard to interior finishes and materials provided that the affordable housing units are provided with comparable features to the market rate units, and shall have generally comparable improvements related to energy efficiency, including plumbing, insulation, windows, appliances, and heating and cooling systems. I Applicant's Finding: The affordable units will be under the development control of another property owner. It can be assumed that the affordable housing units and the market rate units will all be constructed to present building code residential energy efficiency sa 004rldY nd r~b~ ~i generally comparable with plumbing, insulation, windows, and 'fhe ' c~tTndrannd' coo inq NOV 0 3 201 i Findings of Fact November 1, 2017 E.~,~•'~ ti Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 18 of 61 49 I systems. The applicantfinds it would be impossible regulate the type of appliances within market rate units and assure the affordable units were using comparable appliances. Appliances can be adjusted and modified to individual tastes and functionality. 7. Exceptions to the requirements of 18.5.8.050, subsections G.2 - G.5, above, may be approved by the City Council upon consideration of one or more of the following. Applicant's Finding: An exception to the requirements of 18.5.8.050, subsection G.4 - G.5 above is requested in this application. 1 a. That an alternative land dedication as proposed would accomplish additional benefits for the City, consistent with the purposes of this chapter, than would development meeting the on-site dedication requirement of subsection 18.5.8.050.G.2. Applicant's Finding: An exception to this standard is necessary. In order to keep development costs lower, the ! affordable housing must be located in one area. As proposed, the attached wall units, the yard areas, and parking areas are in one area of the site and not distributed throughout the project. "Scattered sites", where the affordable units are distributed throughout a project are financially cost prohibitive to affordable housing developers. Additionally, the area deeded by title in a subdivision for development will be a contiguous area that provides for yard areas, structures, building area, access pathways, and parking, this would be a costly and complicated fete for an affordable housing developer to undertake with limited funding sources. i i b. That an alternative mix of housing types not meeting the requirements of subsection 18.5.8.050.G.3.b would accomplish additional benefits to the City consistent with this chapter, than would the development providing a proportional mix of unit types. Applicant's Finding: The proposal is to meet a specific housing type identified by a local affordable housing j provider. The use of attached wall, townhouse type of structures with a similar building area, floor plan, parking needs, access, needs, yard areas that are contiguous allows for h reduced development costs by consolidating the development. A mix of unit types has not j! been proposed because that is not what the local affordable housing developers aret seeking. c. That the alternative phasing proposal not meeting subsection 18.5.8.050.G.4 provided h by the applicant provides adequate assurance that the affordable; kUslIg 'UR(SOT Pe 1, provided in a timely fashion. NOV03207 Findings of Fact November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 19 of 61 50 Applicant's Finding: The property owner cannot guarantee when an affordable housing developer will construct units on the property. But in discussing the project with non-profit, affordable housing developers, they indicated a critical need for affordable, three-bedroom residences. Funding sources are available for affordable housing developers, and affordable land is not readily available. The area of the project devoted to the affordable housing, yard and openspace area, parking, and associated improvements is roughly 11,000 square feet in area. The project area cannot be definitively identified without some i assurances from the City that the requested re-zoning and comprehensive plan amendment will be approved. With expedited approval processing, it is possible to have a transaction and site review for multi family development for the affordable housing units developed in the very near future. I d. That the distribution of affordable units within the development not meeting subsection 18.5.8.050.G.5 is necessary for development of an affordable housing project that provides onsite staff with supportive services. Applicant's Finding: No on-site staff with supportive services are proposed for the four affordable units. J i e. That the distribution of affordable units within the development as proposed would accomplish additional benefits for the city, consistent with the purposes of this chapter, than would development meeting the distribution requirement of subsection l a 18.5.8.050.G.5. Applicant's Finding: The proposed location for the affordable units within the development provides additional benefits to the city. This is because the City of Ashland owned lot across "Franklin Street" is a part of this proposal in request for re-zone and comprehensive plan amendment with the commitment that affordable housing would be developed upon the City's property. This allows for the leveraging of public /private partnerships between the City of Ashland and the affordable housing developer and allows both sites to develop to a higher standard with a more efficient use of money, possibly labor, materials, etc. f. That the materials and amenities applied to the affordable units within the development, that are not equivalent to the market rate units per subsection 18.5.8.050.G.6, are necessary due to local, State, or Federal Affordable Housing standards or financing limitations. Applicant's Finding: ECEIVEr~j_ j ~ !}1 NOV 0,1- 7[I 1r ~L Findings of Fact November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision Page Io of ei 51 I The proposed units are within the North Mountain Overlay and subject to the standards for residential construction found within AMC 18.3.5. Provided within the application are conceptual elevations that demonstrate compliance with the minimum design standards. All units within the development are proposed to meet minimum energy efficiency standards. The project does not request density bonus for energy conservation. The property has numerous southern facing roof area that is adequate for solar panel installation. It can be assumed that the affordable units will be constrained by financing limitations that are not present in the market rate units. I 8. The total number of affordable units described in this section 18.5.8.050.G shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction or similar legal instrument shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. Properties providing affordable units as part of the annexation process shall qualify for a maximum density bonus of 25 percent. Applicant's Finding: The area for the total number of affordable units as described in ALUO 18.5.8.050.G., will be guaranteed through a deed restriction that the affordable units must be compliant with the affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. No density bonus is proposed and the application is not for an annexation. Performance Standards Subdivision Outline Plan Approval 18.3.9.040 Approval Criteria for Outline Plan. a. The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City. Applicant's Finding: The proposed development appears to meet or can meet through the imposition of conditions all applicable ordinance requirements of the City. b. 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. Applicant's Finding: Public Facilities and Services; Utilities: The routing for and locations of the following existing and planned public facilities and utilities are shown on the proposed Subdivision Plans: Electricity, natural gas, telephone, CA TV and internet access are immediately available to the subject property. Utilities will be placed underground pursuant to requirements of the ALUQ ;j_. , The subject properties are more particularly served by the following public facilities anN(JWr4WsP_g91 Findings of Fact ~November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 21 of 61 52 Sanitary Sewer: According to City of Ashland Engineering Department, there is existing sanitary sewer lines in Camelot Drive, approximatly 30 feet south of the intersection of Camelot Drive and East Nevada Street. There is another line in East Nevada Street at the intersection of Patton and East Nevado Street. This line may be extended up East Nevada Street to provide service to the proposed subdivision. According the City of Ashland Engineering Division, the sewer lines are adequate in condition and capacity to support the proposed subdivision. Public Water: There is existing water service constructed within East Nevada Street. This is a 15-inch line, according to the City of Ashland Water Division, extension of this line through the development with fire hydrants as required by Fire Code, has the capacity and availability to service the new residences and for the project. Storm Drainage: Storm water drainage on site will be controlled through an on-site detention system with a bio-swale at the terminus of Camelot Drive and the new public alley. Streets and Transportation: The property fronts upon East Nevada Street, and has direct access by way of "Franklin Street" and the extension of Camelot Drive and the public alley. I The proposed street and alley improvements are consistent with the City of Ashland Street Standards. The proposal of up to 23 new residential units does not trigger a development impact that requires a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) as the density of development falls below the thresholds for when a TiA is required. According to Kelly Sandow, Traffic Engineer and Principal Engineer at Sandow and Associates, the proposed development does not trigger 50 new peak hour vehicle trips and does not generate 20 new heavy vehicle trips and does not meet the City of Ashland Development impact thresholds. The proposed street right-of-way widths and generally all of the proposed improvements comply with the street classifications found in the Transportation System Plan. Consistent with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), the proposed streets and the mix of planned transportation facilities will be sufficient to ensure economic, sustainable and environmentally sound mobility and accessibility for all. Connected sidewalk system, alley access to the majority of residences, only one driveway intersection onto East Nevada Street, enhanced intersection treatment (scored and l i or colored concrete) at Camelot and East Nevada Street, covered bicycle parking facilities within the attached unit common areas, pocket park with natural climbing structure for neighborhood children, street lighting all contribute to the transportation facilities proposed within the development. d East Nevada Street: East Nevada is, a city street, owned and maintained by the City of Ashland which is designated as a N, two-lane avenue with an average capacity of 3,000-10,000 average trips per day. At last count in March 2016, there were 107 average daily trips. There is generally, 60 feet of ROW along th,e fr©ntgg rnd D of the properties. There is also an area of steep, rocky slope between the subject properties , A NOV ~s JnpJ ~l Findings of Fact November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 22 of 61 53 driving surface of East Nevada Street. There is a substantial right of way, with more than 120 feet of ROW at its greatest width between the property and the curb. Due to the topographical constraints within the ROW, East Nevada Street has a varying width of improvements. It is improved with pavement and curb and gutter along the frontage of the subject properties. On the south side of East Nevada Street, there are various street improvements within the varying width ROW. The first 272 feet of East Nevada Street across from subject property TL#1300, there is curb and gutter, no sidewalk, this property is "under-developed" and street improvements will be required with future site development to the standards of the North Mountain Zone. West of the intersection of Camelot Drive and East Nevada Street, the street improvements include, 24.5 feet of driving surface, with curb, gutter, varying width parkrow and sidewalk. Street improvements proposed for East Nevada frontage of the property include, five-foot sidewalk, seven foot parkrow (where on- street parking bay present, landscaping including street trees in five-foot landscape strip between sidewalk and property line). Eight on-street parking spaces are proposed, these are within a seven foot wide parking bay. The curb and gutter will require relocation to accommodate the frontage improvements. In the area where the steep, rocky slope prevents additional street improvements on the north side of East Nevada Street, to the west of the new Camelot Drive, an exception to street standards is requested to not extend sidewalks along the frontage of subject properties TL#1200 and #1100. This is due to the r physically impenetrable rock, and the difficulties of removal of the rock from the site, see the Geotechnical Reportfor additional information. The new intersection of Camelot and East Nevada Street will have an enhanced intersection with street amenities such as street lighting, seating area, and scored or colored concrete. Pedestrian facilities exist on Camelot to the south and along the south side of East Nevada Street. Widened crosswalks in contrasting color or material are proposed. The crosswalks connect to the sidewalks that are in the existing and future pedestrian infrastructure that extends throughout the adjacent developments. Additionally, the sidewalk along the south side of East Nevada Street leads to a city park. Sidewalk i along the frontage of TL#1100 is requesting to be posted as a bond. This allows for the sidewalk to be developed in tandem with the large parcel to the west at 375 East Nevada Street. There are no crosswalks near this property and the approximately 40 feet of sidewalk would not lead to anywhere. It does not seem practical to direct pedestrian traffic to the property frontage when connectivity is provided along the south side of East Nevada Street. Camelot Extension: Camelot Street is proposed to be extended onto the property. Camelot is a Neighborhood Access Street. i Camelot Street has a varying width ROW. It ranges between 36 feet at the south intersection with East Nevada Street (10 feet will likely be required to be dedicated with the future development of 955 North Mountain Avenue), to 46 feet on the south side of 955 North Mountain Avenue. The proposed ROW is 48 feet. This provides for a 15 foot travel surface, eight foot planting strips and flve foot sidewalks, on each side. The west side of Camelot Street is proposed to have two, seven foot-wide'parkinq bays: The il,-! III! l Findings of Fact NQll C November 1, 2017 ° .i r Katherine Mae Subdivision PW b fs~ • k t`~ 54 it I street improvements on the extension of Camelot will generally match the existing improvements. enhanced intersection with street amenities such as street light, benches and scored concrete. Truncated domes and cross walks across East Nevada Street will be provided. N Mountain Avenue AKA Franklin Street. The proposal provides the extension of North Mountain Avenue. Due to the existing street name conventions and associated addresses; split right-of-way for North Mountain Avenue; and future development patterns, the North Mountain Avenue will be re-named Franklin Street. Franklin Street has a 60 foot wide ROW. It is proposed to be constructed to city standards for a Neighborhood Street with a y five-foot sidewalk, a seven foot landscaped parkrow, seven foot on-street parking bay and 15 foot travel surface (or % street improvements). Alley: Across the north boundary of the property, extending from "Franklin Street" to the Fire Truck turnaround f on the west side of the upper level of the development, a public alley is proposed. The alley is proposed to have a 22 foot right-of-way. The parking for the attached and semi-attached units within the development are accessed from the alley. Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan: Alley (10.05.05) The alley eliminates the need for front yard driveways directly to the property from East Nevada Street and "Franklin Street" and provides the opportunity for a more positive front yard streetscape. The alley at the rear of the properties allows Nevada Street to be located adjacent to the front of properties to be a designed using a narrow width with limited on-street parking. According to the Comprehensive Plan, alleys are appropriate in all residential areas. i Police and Fire Protection: Police and fire protection are provided by the City of Ashland. i c. 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 j been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. Applicant's Finding: There is 18,000 square feet of steep slope area on the subject property that has been included in the open space area for the subdivision. The total lot area is 2.42 acres, of that, 18,067 square feet of the lot area has more than 35 percent slope and is not considered developable. With the substantial grade changes that will be necessary to construct the roadways, public utility infrastructure, private utility, irrigation, etc. none of the trees near the existing residence will require removal. Numerous trees are proposed to be planted as part of the development to mitigate the loss of the existing site trees. M C d. The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. NOV 03 2011 Findings of Fact November 1, 2017 OfAfr,-hi,".w( Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 24 of 61 55 i Applicant's Finding: The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown on the Comprehensive Plan. The adjacent properties to the east and west are presently split zoned RR-.5-P and Jackson County Rural Residential. The properties are Comprehensive Plan designated as single family residential reserve. With the proposal to include 39 IE 04AD TL#100 in the rezone and comp plan amendment, the property can develop with four affordable housing units instead of one single family residence as envisioned in the comprehensive plan. The property to the west will not prevent the adjacent land from being developed. Additionally, the properties to the south, excepting 955 North Mountain Avenue, are built out to their maximum potential. The proposed development will not prevent 955 North Mountain Avenue from developing to the uses shown on the Comprehensive Plan. e. 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. Applicant's Finding: The CC&R's and Homeowners Association rules will provide adequate provisions for maintenance of open-spaces and common areas. f. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. Applicant's Finding: The base density is 24 units. The minimum density in the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan is 75% or 18 dwellings. The North Mountain Neighborhood Plan allows for up to 110% density for a maximum density of 26.4 units. The proposed density is a range of between 20 to 23 units. This includes a mixture of attached townhomes, duplex units, and detached single family residences. Above the garages of the detached residences, there are three, optional "accessory residential units". In the zone, they are considered units for the purposes density calculations. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. Applicant's Finding: The proposed development generally complies with the street standards. 18.3.9.060 Parking Standards All development under this chapter shall conform to the following parking standards, which are in addition to the requirements of chapter 18.4.3 Parking, Access, and Circulation. C Findings of Fact NOV 03 2017 November 1, 2017 ` y R' !r -4 Katherine Mae Subdivision s~ ~r e14 df G'T ~A 56 ill i A. On-Street Parking Required. At least one on-street parking space per dwelling unit shall be provided, in addition to the off-street parking requirements for all developments in an R-1 zone and for all developments in R-2 and R-3 zones that create or improve public streets. Applicant's Findings: On-street parking accessed via the alley, on the new street, Camelot Street and East Nevada Street is provided per dwelling unit. B. On-Street Parking Standards. On-street parking spaces shall be immediately adjacent to the public right-of-way on publicly or association-owned land and be directly accessible from public right-of-way streets. On-street parking spaces shall be located within 200 feet of the dwelling that it is intended to serve. In addition, on-street public parking may be provided pursuant to minimum criteria established under subsection 18.4.3.060.A. Applicant's Finding: The on-street parking spaces proposed are on association owned land and are directly accessible from the public right-of-way of the alley. All on-street parking is within 200 feet of the dwellings they intend to serve. C. Signing of Streets. The installation of "No Parking" signs regulating parking in the public right-of-way and any other signs related to the regulation of on-street parking shall be consistent with the Street Standards in 18.4.6.030, and shall be consistent with the respective City planning approval. i Applicant's Finding: All street signs will conform to the city standards. Where necessary or required, yellow curbs or ~I installation of signage to indicate no parking, fire-truck turn around, etc. and will be installed by the developer of the infrastructure. Setbacks - 18.3.9.070 All development under this chapter shall conform to the following setback standards, which are in addition to the requirements of the applicable zone. A. Front Yard Setback Front yard setbacks shall follow the requirements of the underlying district. B. Building Separation. The minimum separation between two buildings must be half of the height of the tallest building, where building height is measured at the two closest exterior walls, and the maximum required separation is 12 feet. Applicant's Finding: All development is proposed to conform to the setback standards of the North Mount pp Neighborpood Plan. Unless attached, a separation of 12 feet or more has been provided. NOV 03 2017 Findings of Fact November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 26 of 61 57 i C. Solar Setback. Solar setbacks shall meet the requirements of 18.4.8. Applicant's Findinp,: The proposed layout with all development consists of primarily connected units. The structures are oriented to avoids any solar shadows to be cast upon any dwelling areas. The residences are shifted towards the southern property lines, open spaces, parking and the alley are to the north which provides for compliance with 18.4.8. The property to the north is outside of the Urban Growth Boundary and the solar setback does not apply to the north property line. r D. Perimeter Setback. Setbacks along the perimeter of the development shall have the same setbacks as required in the parent zone. Applicant's Findinp,: The setbacks at the perimeter of the development will comply with the requested zoned of NM-MF. i E. Building Envelope for Single-Family Structure. Any single-family structure not shown on the plan must meet the setback requirements established in the building envelope on the Outline Plan. i. Applicant's Finding: All proposed structures are shown on the plans. North Mountain Neighborhood Plan The proposed development is consistent with the purpose of the North Mountain (NM) district and Neighborhood Plan. The proposal provides for a variety of housing types, and preserves significant natural features and open spaces. The layout generally adheres to the base policies and regulations that guided the design standards for the neighborhood. The proposal provides for pedestrian connectivity, vehicular and bicycle connectivity with shared travel lanes due to generally low numbers of vehicular traffic. Transit is dependent upon the future planning and funding of RVTD. With enough interest and financial support, a neighborhood shuttle could be developed for the entire North Mountain Neighborhood north of Hersey Street and North Mountain Avenue. This would take community wide support and the development of 20-23 units does not trigger off-site transportation improvements, especially to the magnitude of public transportation where none exists. The proposed layout incorporates many of the concepts of the recently adopted Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan concepts. These include solar oriented buildings. Variety of possible housing types and sizes, solar oriented layout natural area preservation, consolidated parking areas and parking access by alleys. These include provisions for independent structural development post ComprehEepstve Plan a d ent, , Zone Change, Outline Plan, and Site Design Review approval for the Katherine Mae. SubdjW46n; -will ' Findings of Fact NOV U 3 201 November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision A'.~ r.`<F 58 demonstrate compliance with the North Mountain Neighborhood Design and the requirements of 18.5.2 Site Design Review. Typical elevations that incorporate the architectural elements described in the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards have been provided. The attached wall residences and the second units for the detached units will require individual site design review to determine compliance with AMC 18.3.5., and AMC 18.5.3 for Site Design Review. Every attempt to demonstrate compliance with the standards has been provided herein. North Mountain Neighborhood Dimensional Standards -18.3.5.060 The proposed dimensional standards conform to the standards for NM-MF. The density does not exceed 12 dwellings unit per acre. The generalized building envelopes are consistent with the setbacks outlined in the NM Dimension Standards. Setbacks: Front: 10 foot minimum/ 25 foot maximum Front - Unenclosed porch (minimum of 6'X8'): 5 feet Front - Garage: 15 feet from font of residence; 20 feet from sidewalk Not more than 50% of the lineal facade of the residences with attached garage is devoted to garage face. Side - Standard: 5 -foot per story Side - Adj. Street: 10 foot Rear -Standard: 10 foot per story As demonstrated on the site plans, the layout allows for substantial open spaces and common areas, the i total lot coverage is substantially less than the 75% allowed in the zone considering the nearly 18,000 i square feet of undisturbed area. North Mountain Neighborhood Site Development and Design Standards -18.3.5.100 A. Housing. The following design standards apply to residential developments. While the standards are specific, the intent is not to limit innovative design, but rather provide a framework for clear direction and minimum standards. Applicant's Finding: The proposed housing designs demonstrated on the conceptual elevations comply with the specific standards and provide a framework for development to the minimum standards, NOV 03 201 ~ Findings of Factl (71 h '.I November 1, 2017I Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 28 of 62 59 i 1. Architectural Design. The street-facing elevations of residential buildings shall be broken with reveals, recesses, trim elements, and other architectural features to avoid the appearance of a blank wall as illustrated in Figure 18.3.5.100.A.1. In addition, at least two of the following design features must be provided along the front of each residence. a. Dormers b. Gables c. Recessed entries d. Covered porch entries e. Cupolas £ Pillars or Posts g. Bay window (min. 12-inch projection) h. Eaves (min. six-inch projection) L Off-sets in building face or roof (min. 16 inches) Applicant's Finding: The architectural design provided on the conceptual elevations complies with the standards for design from the North Mountain Overlay standards. There are porches, eaves, various roof pitches, orientations and heights to differentiate massing and provide for orientation to the street. No blank walls are proposed on any of the buildings facing any of the public streets. The existing development pattern in the North Mountain Zone is traditional, faux craftsman with gable and hipped gable roofs, and traditional window styles. Present design trends especially to accommodate solar access and orientation and take advantage of the stunning views, a more contemporary design with single gable roofs (shed roof), or skillion style construction may be requested during the Site Review for the attached units. Modern architecture should be acceptable since it can be demonstrated that the design complies with the standards. 2. Orientation. Dwellings shall be designed with a primary elevation oriented towards a street. Such elevation shall have a front door, framed by a simple porch or portico, porch, or other design feature clearly visible from the street to promote natural surveillance of the street. Applicant's Finding: The conceptual elevations demonstrate that future structures will provide for a strong sense of entry. There are porches, patio covers, etc. that will provide clear, visible orientation from the street to the F entrance of the residences. 3. Repetitive Elevations. Excessive repetition of identical floor plans and elevations shall be discouraged. Applicant's Finding: The floor plans have not been proposed. The conceptual elevations and the conceptual building footprints provide for distinctive variations in the facade of the structure. The various groups of buildings also provide a range of materials that con be modified, added to and enhanced as the developer sees fit. Findings of Fact Nov November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision -'Pige 29 of'61 w 60 I I Compliance with this and the other design standards will be demonstrated during the Site Design Review phase of the proposed subdivision development. 4. Supplemental Setback Requirements for Garages and Accessory Structures. In addition to the setback requirements of sections 18.3.5.060, the following garage and accessory structure setbacks are required, in order to promote an attractive streetscape where garages and accessory structures are visually subordinate to primary dwellings. a. Where no alleys are present, garages shall be located a minimum of 15 feet behind the primary facade and a minimum of 20 feet from the sidewalk. See Figure 18.3.5.100.A.4.a. J Applicant's Finding: The proposed garages that take access from the public street are located 20-feet from the i sidewalk and are 10 feet behind the primary facade. i b. Garages and accessory structures adjacent to an internal property line (i.e., neighbor's residence) shall maintain a minimum first floor side yard setback of four feet and a second- floor setback of six feet, excluding dormers. i Applicant's Finding: With the proposed conceptual elevations, all garages comply with this standard. ti c. No side yard setback is required where garages adjoin along a common property line. Applicant's Finding: There are common property line garages provided in the development. d. Garage or accessory structures, including accessory residential units, fronting and or accessed from the alley shall have a minimum rear yard setback of four feet. Applicant's Finding: u The garages accessed from the alley (detached units "A" on L.1.0) have more than a four foot rear yard setback. e. The maximum allowed width of a garage opening is 22 feet. Expansion of the garage's depth is allowed should be considered for additional storage needs. Applicant's Finding: The garage openings are 22 feet or less. NOV 03 2017 Findings of Fact November 1, 2017 ~n Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 30 of 61 61 i i f. Common wall garages (i.e., adjacent garage openings), and dwellings with more than one garage openings, where the total width of adjacent garage openings exceeds 22 feet, shall have at least one garage opening recessed behind the other(s) by not less than three feet. Applicant's Finding: There are two common wall garage buildings proposed. These are Units C & E on L.1.0. The garages on Units C are 22 feet wide and have parallel facade. Units E have more than 22 feet of garage opening but there is more than three-foot recess provided. 5. Terracing. Grading for new homes and accessory structures shall be minimized and building designs shall respond to the natural grade, to the extent practicable, pursuant to the following standards. a. Terracing should be incorporated into the design of each lot's development. Terraces help ease transition between the public and private space. b. In determining whether grading is minimized and building designs are practicable, this standard shall not be interpreted so as to preclude permitted housing at planned densities. y Applicant's Finding: The proposed layout limits grading. This is largely impacted by the sub-soils and the underlaying materials. There is solid bedrock underlaying the site that prevents terracing. Where substantial grade occurs between the property, the structure and the public streets, is in the area of the bluff along the west half of TL#1200. These structures are at grade with a sidewalk system that connects to the larger street network within the development and the adjacent developments. The conceptual building envelope and conceptual elevations provide for porches, patios, orsimilar on the rear elevation of the detached residences. This provides orientation to the street but since physical connection is not provided, the structures are not turning their back on the East Nevada Street frontage. 6. Porches. Where practicable, porches shall be incorporated into building designs within the North Mountain Neighborhood, in order to promote a sense of place, socialization, and natural surveillance of the street, as illustrated in Figure 18.3.5.100.A.6.a. Porches shall be a minimum of six feet in depth and eight feet in width, as illustrated in Figure 18.3.5.100.A.6.b - deep enough to allow a person to stand while the door is opening and large enough to allow at least one person to sit facing the street. Porches with dimensions less than six feet in depth and eight feet in width are often used as storage areas for bike, barbecues, etc., and do not realistically function as outdoor rooms. Applicant's Finding: Each conceptual footprint provides a front porch and rear patio 1 porch area. Every gorch area provided has more than six-feet in depth and more than eight feet in width. As the sitf 4e~ilnffgr, the; dWellinq ;j NOY 03 2011 Findings of Fact ~.A q November 1, 2017 C I, lod Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 31 of 61 62 evolves, adequate setback areas are provided within the building envelops to accommodate all of the standards to be met. G 7. Driveways. In order to minimize impervious surfaces, increase opportunities for on-street parking and street trees, and provide a visually attractive streetscape that comfortably accommodates pedestrians, driveways for single dwellings shall be no greater than nine feet wide, measured at the sidewalk. Where no alley is present and garages for multiple dwellings share a common wall (e.g., townhomes), a common driveway 12 feet in width may be used but shall serve as a shared drive for paired garages. Applicant's Finding: Driveways accessing the public streets from the property is limited to a shared driveway for paired garages on the west side of Camelot and vehicular access to garages via the flag driveway for the units at the base of the hill. In order to provide the most functionality for the single vehicle garages and driveways, a 18 foot wide driveway with six-foot apron wings is requested. Since this is only two driveway accesses from a public street for the development of 20 - 23 units, it appears reasonable to allow exceptions to the standard. This single, wider than 12 feet driveway access will not negatively impact parking, the property has adequate parking for the number of units and lots requested. The proposed driveway will also not prevent a visually attractive streetscape and with the ample sidewalks areas, one driveway will not negatively impact the anticipated neighborhood pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The proposed development areas are predominately oriented towards the public street and sidewalk with no vehicular conflict points across the pedestrian corridor. 8. Accessory Residential Units. When a detached accessory dwelling unit is adjacent to a residential property, the unit shall meet the following standards. Applicant's Finding: With the proposed NM-MF zoning, accessory residential units are not permitted. The small units above the garages are optional second dwelling units per detached residence lot. This allows for the density to achieve 23 units, with the graduated density of the NM zone, 20 - 23 units is within the range of the minimum and maximum densities. C. Street Types and Design. Several types of residential streets are planned for in the North Mountain Neighborhood. These streets would extend through the planned area to accommodate not only multi- modal movement, but also a variety of circulation options. 6 4 Applicant's Finding: The proposal demonstrates compliance with the street standards which have. been updated more J recently that the street standards within AMC 18.3.5. Street trees in accordance r~ith the Sti eee j 1r e; a j Findings of Fact NOV 0 3 2917 November 1, 2017 6 Katherine Mae Subdivision 63 i Standards of section 18.4.4.030 Landscaping and Screening including large stature street trees are proposed to provide a canopy effect for the residential streets. The planting strips will also be planted with low growing ground cover. b 8. Street Lighting. Applicant's Finding: Street lights at the intersection of East Nevada Street, Franklin and Camelot will have Sternberg style lights similar to the lights in the Commercial area of the Meadowbrook Park 11 Subdivision. Light bollards or residential style overhead lights will be used in the alley and along the pedestrian pathways. 9. Street Furniture. Applicant's Finding: Benches, light poles and other outdoor materials and hardscope elements will be consistent throughout the project area. D. Open Space and Neighborhood Focal Point. 1. Open Space. A variety of open space types are located within the North Mountain Neighborhood and each type should be designed based upon its environmental impact and benefiting attributes. Open space types within the area include the Bear Creek Floodplain, pocket parks, pedestrian accessways, a commercial common (plaza) and street medians. Each type of open space shall be accessible to the general public at all times. Development of open spaces shall be as follows. a. Except for pedestrian accessways and a small picnic area, use of the Bear Creek Floodplain shall be kept to a minimum. No buildings shall be permitted the area except for a small gazebo type structure associated with the picnic area. Applicant's Finding: N/A a i b. Whenever possible, pocket parks and pedestrian access ways shall be linked to formulate a more interesting and inevitable alternative. Each should be designed around natural features minimizing their impact, but increasing their appeal. Developments fronting these areas are encouraged as long as vehicular access is from an alley. Applicant's Finding: Pedestrian walkways throughout the development all connect the pocket park at the intersection to the open-space, play area within the development: Alt sidewalks, and pedestrian walkways are proposed to be interconnected and' connect ; to the public sidewalk system that exists in the North Mountain Neighborhood to #f1~ 0outh. 2U~ 3 Findings of Fact ; November 1, 2017 d Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 33 of 61 64 i c. Street medians or small pocket medians shall be designed with large stature trees, shrubs, and perennial flowers as an accent as illustrated in Figure 18.3.5.100.D.1.c. Use of turf shall be minimized wherever possible. An irrigation system shall be installed at the time of plant installation. Applicant's Finding: The pocket park areas are proposed to have a small turf area with large stature shade trees. Trees to shade the pocket park are also proposed. d. A plaza or commons area, similar to the plaza in the downtown shall be incorporated within the NM-C zone. j r 4 Applicant's Finding: N/A e. The area shall enclose and define the central space of the commercial core. The relationship of the maximum height of the surrounding buildings to the width of the plaza area should fall between a 1:1 and 1:5 ratio to assure special definition. Applicant's Finding: N/A 2. Neighborhood Focal Point. Applicant's Finding: N/A I Site Review Standards -18.4 Parking Applicant's Finding: The proposed development of the property with 23 units requires a minimum of 43 off-street p parking spaces. With the requirement of one parking space for each lot being created to be provided, there are 20 additional parking spaces provided. a The parking spaces are a combination of single and two vehicle garages, surface parking and surface parking with the potential to have a carport, canopy or similar structure. A if NOV 03 2dll Findings of Fact ity Of A~~~~nO November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 34 of 61 65 Parking: 13 ATTACHED- 3 BR 26 7 DETACHED / SEMI-DETACHED: 3 BR 14 3 2nd Units @ Less than 500 SF 3 Tota I: 43 On-Street @ 1 Per Lot 20 Total Parking Spaces: 63 i Provided parking: On-Site Parking (Garage/Surface): 16. Alley access parking: 34 On-street parking: 1 13 Tota I: 63 The proposed layout contained in this application provides for all units to be three-bedroom. This is not required, but the provided parking meets the maximum number of spaces for a 23-unit development, with three of the units less than 500-sf. Fewer number of bedrooms is possible and that would in turn lower the required number of parking spaces. i Bicycle Parking -18.4.3.070: Applicant's Finding: The development of the property could require up to 43 covered bicycle parking spaces. These are not specifically accommodated through the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Performance Standards Subdivision process, as Site Design Review Approval for the buildings is not requested at this time. The units with garages will accommodate for their bicycle parking within garages. The others will be accommodated for in a common area structures new the development areas. There is ample open space and lot coverage area that the placement of a structure and the concrete surface necessary can be accommodated for on the site. Parking Area Design -18.4.3.080: Required parking areas shall be designed in accordance with the following standards and dimensions as illustrated in 18.4.3.080.B. See also, accessible parking space requirements in section 18.4.3.050 and parking lot and screening standards in subsection 18.4.4.030.F. 1. Parking spaces shall be a minimum of 9 feet by 18 feet. I Applicant's Finding: All of the proposed parking spaces are 9 feet by 38 feet. 2. Up to 50 percent of the total automobile parking spaces in a parking.,1@t, rpay, be designated for compact cars. Minimum dimensions for compact spaces sh ll be $ f, b;y:.i ; Novo, Findings of Fact November 1, 20171 Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 35 of 61 66 I 16 feet. Such spaces shall be signed or the space painted with the words "Compact Car Only." Applicant's Finding: Presently, none of the spaces are proposed as compact. This feature could be added to reduce the parking area and increase landscaping areas as permitted. In any application, not more than 50 percent of the total automobile parking spaces are to be designated for compact cars. Ij ij I 3. Parking spaces shall have a back-up maneuvering space not less than 22 feet, except where parking is angled, and which does not necessitate moving of other vehicles. Applicant's Finding: 22 feet of back up is provided as both the alley surfacing and the back-up maneuvering space. i 4. Parking lots with 50 or more parking spaces, and parking lots where pedestrians must traverse more than 150 feet of parking area, as measured as an average width or depth, r shall be divided into separate areas by one or more of the following means: a building or group of buildings; plazas landscape areas with walkways at least five feet in width; streets; or driveways with street-like features as illustrated in Figure I8.4.3.080.B.4 Street-like features, for the purpose of this section, means a raised sidewalk of at least five feet in width, with six-inch curb, accessible curb ramps, street trees in planters or tree wells and pedestrian-oriented lighting (i.e., not exceeding 14 feet typical height). i Applicant's Finding: The parking lot consists of 34 parking spaces. The parking area has separate areas divided with landscape areas and five-foot walkways. A raised sidewalk with accessible ramps, street trees and pedestrian oriented lighting. S 5. Parking areas shall be designed to minimize the adverse environmental and microclimatic impacts of surface parking through design and material selection as illustrated in Figure 18.4.3,080.B.5. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces shall meet the following standards. a. Use at one or more of the following strategies for the surface parking area, or put 50 percent of parking underground. For parking lots with 50 or more spaces, the approval authority may approve a combination of strategies. i. Use light colored paving materials with a high solar reflectance (Solar f Reflective Index (SRI) of at least 29) to reduce heat absorption for a minimum of 50 percent of the parking area surface. E ii. Provide porous solid surfacing or an open grid pavement system that is at least 50 percent pervious for a minimum of 50 percent~of the perking a surface. ~ Findings of Fact NOV 03 November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision 67 iii. Provide at least 50 Percent shade from tree canopy over the parking area surface within five years of project occupancy. iv. Provide at least 50 percent shade from solar energy generating carports, canopies or trellis structures over the parking area surface. Applicant's Finding: The parking area has been designed to achieve this standard through the use of light colored paving for at least 50 % of the parking area. With the proposed setbacks, it would be possible for a carport or energy generating cover to be installed that would comply with minimum setbacks for accessory structures. b. Design parking lots and other hard surface areas in a way that captures and treats runoff with landscaped medians and swales. Applicant's Finding: The parking area and the other hard surfaces areas are designed to capture and treat the runoff through the landscape median. C. Vehicular Access and Circulation. The intent of this subsection is to manage access to land uses and on-site circulation and maintain transportation system safety and operations. For transportation improvement requirements, refer to chapter 18.4.6 Public Facilities. 2. Site Circulation. New development shall be required to provide a circulation system that accommodates expected traffic on the site. All on-site circulation systems shal I incorporate street-like features as described in 18.4.3.080.B.4. Pedestrian connections on the site, including connections through large sites, and connections between sites and adjacent sidewalks must conform to the provisions of section 18.4.3.090. Applicant's Finding: The new development has a circulation system that accommodates expected traffic on- site. The layout has street-like features. Pedestrian connections through the site and to i the adjacent sites. 3. Intersection and Driveway Separation. The distance from a street intersection to a driveway, or from a driveway to another driveway shall meet the minimum spacing requirements for the street's classification in the Ashland Transportation System Plan (TSP). Applicant's Finding: The driveway is more than 35 feet from the intersection of Camelot and East Nevada Street. This complies with the driveway spacing standards on a neighborhood street. Findings of Fact NOV 0 J 2017 November 1, 2017 _ Katherine Mae Subdivision '00ga37Rfyti c 68 a. In no case shall driveways be closer than 24 feet as measured from the bottom of the existing or proposed apron wings of the driveway approach. I Applicant's Finding: No driveways are closer than 24 feet. f b. Partitions and subdivisions of property located in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1, CM, or M-I zone shall meet the controlled access standards set forth below. If applicable, cross access easements shall be required so that access to all properties created by the land division can be made from one or more points. Applicant's Finding: Though not within the zones, the proposal complies with the controlled access standards. r i c. Street and driveway access points in an R-2, R-3, C-l, E-1, CM, or M-1 zone j shall be limited to the following. Applicant's Findiniz: N/A d. Access Requirements for Multi family Developments. All multi-family developments which will have automobile trip generation in excess of 250 vehicle trips per day shall provide at least two driveway access points to the development. Trip generation shall be determined by the methods established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Applicant's Finding: N/A 4. Shared Use of Driveways and Curb Culs. a. Plans submitted for developments subject to a planning action shall indicate how driveway intersections with streets have been minimized through the use of shared driveways and all necessary access easements. Where necessary from traffic safety and access management purposes, the City may require joint access and/or shared driveways in the following situations, i. For shared parking areas. ii. For adjacent developments, where access onto an arterial is limited. iii. For multi-family developments, and developments on On' U" iple lots.'! N()V U 3 2017 Findings of Fact ~ + x r # t' November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 38 of 61 69 i Applicant's Finding: See Exception findings. b. Developments subject to a planning action shall remove all curb cuts and driveway approaches not shown to be necessary for existing improvements or the proposed development. Curb cuts and approaches shall be replaced with standard curb, gutter, sidewalk, and planter/furnishings strip as appropriate. Applicant's Finding: All unnecessary curb cuts will be removed. i c. If the site is served by a shared access or alley, access for motor vehicles must be from the shared access or alley and not from the street frontage.i Applicant's Finding: Primary access is proposed via the alley. There is one driveway access from East Nevada Street proposed and one from Camelot. All others are accessed via the alley. ij 5. Alley Access. Where a property has alley access, vehicle access shall be taken from the alley and driveway approaches and curb cuts onto adjacent streets are not permitted. Applicant's Finding: Primary access to the residences is via the alley. Where alley access not present, the access is via a curb cut. D. Driveways and Turn-Around Design. Driveways and turn-arounds providing access to parking areas shall conform to the following provisions. 1. A driveway for a single dwelling shall be minimum of nine feet in width, and a shared driveway serving two units shall be a minimum of 12 feet in width, except that driveways over 50 feet in length or serve a flag lot shall meet the width and design requirements of section 18.5.3.060. Applicant's Finding: The proposed driveways comply with this standard and are more than nine feet wide. 2. Parking areas of seven or fewer spaces shall be served by driveway 12 feet in width. Applicant's Finding: N/A Le r) Findings of Fact ~~~V ; ?~y7 November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision ' , +~fo` 6i. 70 ~I i 3. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces shall be served by driveway 20 feet in width and constructed to: facilitate the flow of traffic on or off the site, with due regard to pedestrian and vehicle safety; be clearly and permanently marked and defined; and provide adequate aisles or turn-around areas so that all vehicles may enter the street in a forward manner. p Applicant's Finding: The drive aisle that serves the majority of the parking spaces is 207 feet and widens to 22- r~ feet to provide adequate back-up for the head-in parking. 4. The width of driveways and curb cuts in the parkrow and sidewalk area shall be minimized. I' Applicant's Finding: The one driveway curb cut through the parkrow is proposed at 18 feet. This is the minimum necessary. 5. For single-family lots and multi-family developments, the number of driveway approaches and curb cuts shall not exceed one approach/curb cut per street frontage. For large multi-family developments and other uses, the number of approaches and curb cuts shall be minimized where feasible to address traffic safety or operations concerns. Applicant's Finding: The number of driveway approaches and curbcuts does not exceed one per street frontage. s 1 6. Vertical Clearances. Driveways, aisles, turn-around areas and ramps shall have a i1 minimum vertical clearance of 13.5 feet for their entire length and width. Parking structures are exempt from this requirement. Y ti Applicant's Finding: Vertical clearances will be maintained. 7. Vision Clearance. No obstructions may be placed in the vision clearance area except as set forth in section 18.2.4.040. c t Applicant's Finding: No obstructions are anticipated in the vision clearance areas.' V Findings of Fact icV 0 q 2f ~l November l 2017 /f ~_H Katherine Mae Subdivision ~ffe4~of6~~, 71 8. Grades for new driveways in all zones shall not exceed 20 percent for any portion of the driveway. If required by the City, the developer or owner shall provide certification of driveway grade by a licensed land surveyor. Applicant's Finding: None of the areas of development are in areas of 20 percent or more. 9. All driveways shall be installed pursuant to City standards prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for new construction. Applicant's Finding: N/A I 10. Driveways for lots created or modified through a land division or property line adjustment, including those for flag lots, shall conform to the requirements of chapter 18.5.3 Land Divisions and Property Line Adjustments. Applicant's Finding: N/A ti I E. Parking and Access Construction. The development and maintenance as provided below, shall apply in all cases, except single-family dwellings. 1. Paving. All required parking areas, aisles, turn-arounds, and driveways shall be paved with concrete, asphaltic, porous solid surface, or comparable surfacing, constructed to standards on file in the office of the City Engineer. II Applicants Finding: I The parking areas, aisles, turn-arounds and driveways will be paved with concrete, asphaltic, porous solid surface or comparable surfacing in accordance with the standards on file with the City Engineer. 2. Drainage. All required parking areas, aisles, and turn-arounds shall have provisions made for the on-site collection of drainage waters to eliminate sheet flow of such waters onto sidewalks, public rights-of-way, and abutting private property. Applicant's Finding: All drainage will be engineered to comply with the standards. NOV 03 Findings of Fact ,ter Of ,,A c a "4 November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 41 of 61 P 72 i 3. Driveway Approaches. Approaches shall be paved with concrete surfacing constructed to standards on file in the office of the City Engineer. Applicant's Finding: The driveway approaches will be paved with concrete surfacing to the standards on file in the office of the City Engineer. ~I 4. Marking. Parking lots of more than seven spaces shall have all spaces permanently and clearly marked. i Applicant's Finding: The parking spaces will be permanently marked. i 5. Wheel stops. Wheel stops shall be a minimum of four inches in height and width and six feet in length. They shall be firmly attached to the ground and so constructed as to withstand normal wear. Wheel stops shall be provided where appropriate for all spaces abutting property lines, buildings, landscaping, and no vehicle shall overhang a public right-of-way. Applicant's Finding: Wheel stops will be provided for the head-in parking spaces accessed via the alley. 6. Walls and Hedges. a. Where a parking facility is adjacent to a street, a decorative masonry wall or evergreen hedge screen between 30 and 42 inches in height and a minimum of 12 inches in width shall be established parallel to and not nearer than two feet from the right-of-way line, pursuant to the following requirements. i. The area between the wall or hedge and street line shall be landscaped. ii. Screen planting shall be of such size and number to provide the required screening within 12 months of installation. iii. All vegetation shall be adequately maintained by a permanent irrigation system, and said wall or hedge shall be maintained in good condition. iv. Notwithstanding the above standards, the required wall or screening shall be designed to allow access to the site and sidewalk by pedestrians and shall meet the vision clearance area requirements in section 18.2.4.040. Applicant's Finding: No parking is adjacent to the streets. i' i b. In all zones, except single-family zones, where a parking facil~t,Y~or driveway is adjacent to a residential or agricultural zone, school yard, or like iYU06,ht- ! Findings of Fact November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision 73 Page 42 of 61 i obscuring fence, wall, or evergreen hedge shall be provided, pursuant to the following requirements. Applicant's Finding: A sight-obscuring fence or vegetated hedge will be provided along the north property line. 7. Landscaping. In all zones, all parking facilities shall include landscaping to cover not less than seven percent of the area devoted to outdoor parking facilities, including the landscaping required in subsection 18.4.3.080.E.6, above. Said landscaping shall be uniformly distributed throughout the parking area, and provided with irrigation facilities and protective curbs or raised wood headers. It may consist of trees, plus shrubs, ground cover, or related material. A minimum of one tree per seven parking spaces is required. Applicant's Finding: More than seven percent of the area devoted to outdoor parking is landscaped areas that are uniformly distributed throughout the parking area. Irrigation, curbing, trees, shrubs, ground cover and mulch are provided in the parking area. 8. Lighting. Lighting of parking areas within 100 feet of property in residential zones shall be directed into or on the site and away from property lines such that the light element shall not be directly visible from abutting residential property. Lighting shall comply with section 18.4.4.050. Applicant's Finding: All lighting will be directed on to the properties and not directly visible from abutting i residential property. I j 7 I Pedestrian Access and Circulation - 18.4.3.090 1. Continuous Walkway System. Extend the walkway system throughout the development site and connect to all future phases of development, and to existing or planned off-site adjacent sidewalks, trails, public parks, and open space areas to the greatest extent practicable. The developer may also be required to connect or stub walkway(s) to adjacent streets and to private property for this purpose. i Applicant's Finding: A safe, direct, convenient, continuous walkway system extend through the development and leads to the pocket park within the development and leads to the public sidewalks on the new and existing streets. The walkway system is connected to the walkways leading to the primary entrances of the residential units. The walkway system is a raised sidewalk with traditional curbing to protect the pedestrian from automobile traffic. Raised or contrasting material crosswalks are also proposedt,Accessible 'rptltesrare e provided throughout the development. Nov o,,4 it of 'A.- Findings of Fact November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 43 of 61 74 I I Landscaping and Screening - 18.4.4 i Applicant's Finding: The proposed landscape plan is conceptual in nature and demonstrates that minimum landscape area and maximum coverage areas are proposed for on the property. As presented, the lot coverage for the property area is 46,120-square feet with 41,000-square feet is landscape area, openspace area or other undisturbed areas. The maximum lot coverages area in the proposed NM-MF zone is V The conceptual plan will need to be installed at various stages of the project. The landscape areas shown in direct relationship to the common wall units in the private yard areas is shown with primarily landscape planting areas and not lawn. The specific plants and plant sizes are conceptual in nature and individual landscape plans would be submitted with the specific building site design review. Using 1.75 to 2-inch caliper street trees and one-gallon shrubs, the planting plan provided herein achieves a coverage of not less than 50 percent within one year and 90 percent coverage within five years of planting. A variety of evergreen trees, shrubs and ground covers that are appropriate to the local climate, exposure and water availability. Where known, the utilities have been considered. The storm water facilities use water tolerant species that are known for the storm water retention / detention qualities. The plan calls for street trees selected from the Recommended Street Tree Guide. The proposed street trees will form a deciduous canopy over the sidewalk and the street. Large trees are also proposed in the internal alley, and parking areas. The landscape plan demonstrates compliance with the street tree planting standards. The parking lot area adjacent to the alley has seven percent of the area provided in landscape areas. There are 11 shade trees proposed for the 34 surface parking spaces. The landscape areas are distributed throughout the development. A five-foot landscape strip has been provided where the parking abuts the property lines. The parking is 12 feet, four-inches from the building. A refuse area has not been determined. It would likely be adjacent to the north property line. Individual cans is another option. In any case, the containers will be screened from view. The mechanical equipment will be placed in an area where is has limited view from the public right of way, excepting the alley. Individual site reviews will demonstrate compliance with this standard. Irrigation systems will be installed to ensure landscape success. The common area landscaping will be on a separate system than the individual lots. Outdoor Lighting -18.4. 4 `P ego. y Applicant's Finding: NOV 03 2017 i Findings of Fact ~.~hy hlan , November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 44 of 61 75 The lighting is proposed in a manner that will provide for pedestrian safety, property identification, and crime prevention. The standards are such that no direct illumination onto adjacent residential properties is anticipated. Light poles of not more than 14 feet in height for the pedestrian facilities are proposed. Light fixtures will not block accessibility. Tree Protection -18.4.5.030 Applicant's Finding;: Compliance with the tree protection preservation plans have been submitted. Tree protection fencing in compliance with the standards will be provide onsite in accordance with the plans. No construction is to occur within the driplines of the trees. g Street Design Standards - 18.4.6.040 j General Requirements. New and reconstructed streets, alleys, and pathways shall conform to the following requirements. The proposed street layout conforms to the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose and intent of the street design standards. As proposed, the street extensions and new alley are consistent with the street types and model layout with minor variations to fit the particular topographical constraints found on the property, and within the abutting East Nevada Street right-of-way. The proposed modified grid design creates and maintains a low speed environmental where people will feel comfortable walking, bicycling and ideally using transit when it becomes available in the area. The new streets and alleys are proposed to be paved, have standard, vertical, non-mountable curbs. The parkrows and sidewalks will be shaded bystreet trees selected from the Recommended Street Tree Guide. I The severe constraints present on the site, shallow soil, steep rocky embankments found on the property and within the East Nevada Street right-of-way will necessitate some exception to the street standards. Findings to this effect are found on the following pages. 1. Dedicated Public Streets Required. All streets serving four units or greater, and which are in an R-1, RR and WR zone, must be dedicated to the public and shall be developed to the Street Standards of this section. Applicant's Finding: The extension of Camelot and the new alley including the fire truck turn around area will be dedicated to the public and will be developed in accordance with the Street Standards. 2. Location. Locate transportation facilities, such as streets, pedestrian and' bicycle; ways, and transit facilities, within public rights-of-way, except that the approval authority tnayapprove transportation facilities outside a public right-of-way where a public accessIVM, T)~gt provided. Findings of Fact November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 45 of 61 76 I Applicant's Finding: The proposed transportation facilities are proposed within the public rights-of-way to be dedicated as part of this proposal. I 3. Dead End Streets. No dead-end street shall exceed 500 feet in length, not including the turnaround. Dead end roads must terminate in an improved turnaround as illustrated in Figure 18.4.6.040.G.5. Applicant's Finding: The proposed street and alley network do not extend to a dead end of more than 500 feet from the intersection of Camelot (NIS) and the public alley (E/W). The alley terminates in an improved turnaround consistent with Figure 18.4.6.040. G. 5. The end of the turnaround provides driveway access to the adjacent Jackson County RR-5 zone to the north of the terminus. 4. Obstructed Streets. Creating an obstructed street is prohibited. Applicant's Finding: No obstructed streets are proposed. 5. Street Grade. Street grades measured at the street centerline for dedicated streets and flag drives shall be as follows. a. Street and private drive grades in developments subject to chapter 18.3.9 Performance Standards Option Overlay shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15 percent. b. Street and private drive grades in developments subject to chapter 18.3.9 Performance Standards Option Overlay shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15 percent. No variance may be granted to this section for public streets. Variances may be granted for private drives for grades in excess of 15 percent but not greater than 18 percent for no more than 200 feet subject to chapter 18.5.5 Variances. Applicant's Finding: At no point do the proposed streets, alleys or private driveways have grades of 15 percent or more. i Street Design Standards 18.4.6.040.D. Required Street Layout and Design Principles Nov o3 2o,T Findings of Fact 9'±~ 3 November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 46 of 61 77 The proposed streets and alley layout creates a safe environment for all users, treating the streets and alley as public spaces, and enhances the livability of the neighborhood. The design and proposed amenities are oriented to the human scale and provisions for seating, colored or scored concrete, and sidewalks with street trees. Street lights in accordance with the city standards for pedestrian scale street lights are proposed at the intersection of East Nevada Street and Franklin Street, Franklin Street and the alley, and Camelot and East Nevada Street. Residential standard street lights will be provided within the development. Separate bicycle facilities are not proposed on East Nevada Street. This is due to the extreme topography along the street right of way. The proposed layout has limited driveway accesses from the public streets. The majority of the building facades to be oriented to the public street and access is provided primarily from the alley. The semi- detached structures fronting on the west side of Camelot have single vehicle garages proposed. The lots that have driveway access from the street have the fagade of the garage recessed from the facade of the living area. The design accommodates the anticipated volume of pedestrian, bicycle and motor vehicle traffic each day and at peak hours. The design accommodates for lower speeds encouraged with the alley design through the parking area to reduce speeds to and through the development. Sidewalk, shade trees selected from the Recommended Street Tree Guide, and interconnected walkways through the development that connect to the existing sidewalk network in the adjacent subdivision to the south. The proposed street improvements provide connection to the future development of the property at 955 South Mountain Avenue. The sidewalk system within the development, leads to the connected sidewalk system that provides access to the sidewalks leading to the public park at the base of the hill on East Nevada Street and Kestrel Parkway. Additionally, the sidewalk system leads into the Meadowbrook Subdivision which has commercially zoned properties. The design and layout preserves the substantial slope area. The presence of the steep slope within the development, prevents the interconnection of the upper portion of the property from the lower portion of the property. The proposed alley dead-ends to provide access to the three, detached lots within the proposed development. The topography and the material of the hillside that creates the bluff on the subject properties, is very steep and a multi-use path or trail would be very challenging to construct on the street slope. An exception to the "connectivity" standards is included in the application. Also, the adjacent properties to the north, post development, that are outside of the UGB but developable as single family residential lots under the jurisdiction of Jackson County require access from the streets and the alley. The proposed streets, Franklin and Camelot both relate to and are proposed to be designed to the same functional classification of Neighborhood Street. The streets and alley have been designed with emergency service provider access in mind. E. Connectivity Standards. New and reconstructed streets, alleys, and pathways shal).co form to the following connectivity standards, and the Street Dedication Map. ~,3 11 troy c ~ ?Ot7 '^A' Findings of Fact}., November 1, 2017 ` r Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 47 of 61 78 1. Interconnection. 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. In certain situations where the physical features of the land create severe constraints, or natural features should be preserved, exceptions may be made. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, topography, wetlands, mature trees, creeks, drainages, and rock outcroppings. See also, subsection 18.4.6.040.1 Hillside Streets and Natural Areas. i i Applicant's Finding;: The proposed streets are interconnected to the maximum extent when considering the severe constraints posed by the topography of the site. The proposed modified grid system is designed to reduce travel distance, promote pedestrian and bicycle use, provides multiple travel routs and provide efficient provision of utilities and emergency services. 2. Connectivity to Abutting Lands. Design streets to connect to existing, proposed, and planned streets adjacent to the development, unless prevented by environmental or topographical constraints or existing development patterns. Where the locations of planned streets are shown on the Street Dedication Map, the development shall implement the street(s) shown on the plan pursuant to chapter 18.4.6. Wherever a proposed development abuts vacant, redevelopable, or a future development phase, provide street stubs to allow access to logically extend the street system into the surrounding area. Provide turnarounds at street ends constructed to Uniform Fire Code standards, as the City deems applicable. Design street ends to facilitate future extension in terms of grading, width, and temporary barricades. Applicant's Finding: The modified grid system connects to the existing streets adjacent to the development. The property is not included in the Street Dedication Map. The proposed development abuts vacant land that is outside of the UGB but requires connection to a public right-of- way to retain development potential. The proposed layout allows for future development of the lands outside of the UBG. Afire truck turnaround that conforms to the Uniform Fire Code standards has been provided at the termination of the UGB. Considering the developable area is generally a wide, but narrow parcel, with severe constraints topography that prevents an east / west connection, excepting the limited right-of-way of the physically constrained East Nevada Street right-of-way, a connected street system with lower order residential streets and alley connection with majority of the parking accessed via the rear of the structures is the street design and layout for the majority of the development. 3. Efficient Land Use. Street layout shall permit and encourage of oen~ lot layout and attainment of planned densities. rJOV Q ~3 zn~,Findings of Fact November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision aa4sdF611 r"r) 79 Applicant's Finding: The proposed street and alley layout permits and encourages efficient lot layout and allows for the proposed density to comply with the minimum and maximum density standards from the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan. 4. Inlegrativn with Major Streets. Integrate neighborhood circulation systems and land development patterns with boulevards and avenues, which are designed to accommodate heavier traffic volumes. Locate and design streets to intersect as nearly as possible to a right angle. Applicant's Finding: The proposed circulation system integrates with the adjacent land development patterns. The proposed streets extensions extend the North Mountain Neighborhood street design into the development and through the development with the use of the alley. East Nevada Street is classified as an Avenue. The current and likely future automobile traffic volumes are substantially lower than even a typical neighborhood street. The streets intersect at right angles. 5. Alleys. The use of the alley is recommended, where possible. Alleys can contribute positively to the form of the street and have many advantages including: alleys allow more positive streetscapes with front yards used for landscaping rather than for front yard driveways; alleys can create a positive neighborhood space where the sidewalk feels more safe and inviting for pedestrians, neighbors socializing, and children playing; when the garage is located in rear yards off the alley, interesting opportunities arise for creating inviting exterior rooms using the garage as a privacy wall and divider of space; alleys enhance the grid street network and provides midblock connections for non-motorists; alleys provide rear yard access and delivery; and provide alternative utility locations and service areas. Applicant's Finding: In accordance with the standards, an alley has been proposed. The lot is oriented with a wide, east to west frontage along East Nevada Street and a narrower, north to south orientation. The proposed alley allows for the residences to face the existing and proposed streets and public pedestrian corridors. The proposed alley positively contributes to the form of the proposed and existing street patterns. The parking is at the rear of the property. With the proposed alley, the necessary public utility infrastructure is able to be routed through the development, provide necessary connections and extensions and improved service area. This is specifically important for the connection of water and electric services. - NOV 08 Findings of Fact November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 49 of 61 80 6. Preserving Natural Features. Locate and design streets to preserve natural features to the greatest extent feasible. Whenever possible, street alignments shall follow natural contours and features so that visual and physical access to the natural feature is provided. Situate streets between natural features, such as creeks, mature trees, drainages, open spaces, and individual parcels in order to appropriately incorporate such significant neighborhood features. The City may approve adjustments to the street design standards in order to preserve natural features, per 18.4.6.040.I Hillside Streets and Natural Areas. Applicant's Finding: The proposed street layout preserves the natural features to the greatest extent possible. 7. Physical Site Constraints. In certain situations where the physical features of the land create severe constraints adjustments may be made. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, topography, wetlands, mature trees, creeks, drainages, and rock a outcroppings. See 18.4.6.040.I Hillside Streets and Natural Areas. Applicant's Finding: The physical, topographical constraints of the property prevent street and / or sidewalk connections though the steep slopes. 8. Off-Street Connections. Connect off-street pathways to the street network and use to provide pedestrian and bicycle access in situations where a street is not feasible. In cases where a street is feasible, off-street pathways shall not be permitted in lieu of a traditional street with sidewalks. However, off-street pathways are permitted in addition to traditional streets with sidewalks in any situation. Applicant's Finding: The majority of off street pathways within the development connect to the street network. Due to the steep slopes, it is not feasible to install an off-street pathway that connects the two portions of the developable areas of the property. 9. Walkable Neighborhoods. Size neighborhoods in walkable increments, with block lengths meeting the following requirements. a. The layout of streets shall not create excessive travel lengths. Block lengths shall be a maximum of 300 to 400 feet and block perimeters shall be a maximum of 1,200 to 1,600 feet. Applicant's Finding: The proposed street layout does not create excessive travel lengths. The proposed block lengths are less than 300 feet. The proposed block perimeter (excepting the steep slope areas that prevent the development of o pubUci`street,;;gff~s[reet pathway or other pedestrian/bicycle connection) is less thanI,1©0+'tv @, 0"'pet, Findings of Fact F `q.- November 1, 2017 j1 F ' ' t-~,1 k Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 0606 1 81 I I, but the lower level of the development is not physically connected via sidewalk or walkwaly to the larger area of the development. Though not in excess of the maximum distances and exception to the street layout is necessary due to the topographical constraints. b. An exception to the block length standard may be permitted when one or more of the following conditions exist. i. Physical conditions that preclude development of a public street. In certain situations where the physical features of the land create severe constraints, or natural features should be preserved, exceptions may be made. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, topography, wetlands, mature trees, creeks, drainages, and rock outcroppings. See 18.4.6.040.1 Hillside Streets and Natural Areas. Applicant's Finding: The sites natural features, primarily steep slopes and the rock outcroppings prevent a traditional block layout and physical connection between the upper and lower portions of the subject properties. I' ii. Buildings or other existing development on adjacent lands, including previously subdivided but vacant lots or parcels, preclude a connection now or in the future considering the potential for redevelopment. Applicant's Finding: N/A iii. Where an existing public street or streets terminating at the boundary of the development site have a block length exceeding 600 feet, or are situated such that the extension of the street(s) into the development site would create a block length exceeding 600 feet. In such cases, the block length shall be as close to 600 feet as practical. Applicant's Finding: N/A ij c. When block lengths exceed 400 feet, use the following measiiresr•to prox id I connections and route options for short trips. NOV G. 2017 Findings of Fact w ii•_ ^np November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision Page sl of 61 82 I i. Where extreme conditions preclude street connections continuous nonautomotive connection shall be provided with a multi-use path. Off- street pathways shall not be used in lieu of a traditional street with sidewalks in cases where extreme conditions do not exist. Applicant's Finding: Due to the extreme physical conditions that preclude a street connection, the topography also prevents continuous non-automotive connection in the form of a multi-use path from being installed. The upper level units "A", the detached units are roughly 860 feet from the units proposed on TL#1100 via the alley to the public streets. This is within the maximum permitted distances for block perimeter distances. i An exception to the multi-use pathway has been requested. ii. Introduce a pocket park, or plaza area with the street diverted around it. Applicant's Finding: A pocket park is proposed where the alley terminates into the fire truck turn f around. This pocket park area has a natural play structure of climbing rock, k' gravel surfacing, lawn area and pathways that connect to the public sidewalk system. iii. At the mid-block point, create a short median with trees or use other traffic calming devices to slow traffic, break up street lengths, and provide pedestrian refuge. Applicant's Finding: Where Camelot intersects with East Nevada Street, a pedestrian refuge area is proposed to direct the pedestrian through the development and towards the sidewalk system within the Meadowbrook Park subdivision to the south. r r 10. Traffic Calming. Traffic calming features, such as traffic circles, curb extensions, reduced street width (parking on one side), medians with pedestrian refuges, speed table, and or special paving may be required to slow traffic in areas with high pedestrian traffic. Applicant's Finding: ~ NOD/ 03 ZD17 Findings of Fact G'41v Ji y l JJ November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 52 of 61 83 i To the applicant's knowledge, there is not a high volume of pedestrian traffic in the development. Colored paving or scored concrete is proposed to provide a measure of traffic calming and provide pedestrian amenities. i F F. Design Standards. Streets and Transportation: The property fronts upon East Nevada Street, and has direct access by way of "Franklin Street" and the extension of Camelot Drive and the public alley. East Nevada is, a city street, owned and maintained by the City of Ashland which is designated as a two-lane avenue with an average capacity of 3,000-10,000 average trips per day. At last count in March 2015, there were 107 average daily trips. There is generally, 60 feet of ROW along the frontage of the properties. There is also an area of steep, rocky slopes between the subject properties and the driving surface of East Nevada Street. There is a substantial right of way, with more than 120- feet of ROW at its greatest width between the property and the curb. Due to the topographical constraints within the ROW, East Nevada Street has a varying width of improvements. It is j improved with pavement and curb and gutter along the frontage of the subject properties. On the south side of East Nevada Street, there are various street improvements within the varying width ROW. The first 272 feet of East Nevada Street across from subject property TL#1300, there is curb and gutter, no sidewalk, this property is "under-developed" and street improvements will be f' required with future site development to the standards of the North Mountain Zone. West of the intersection of Camelot Drive and East Nevado Street, the street improvements include, 24 feet of driving surface, with curb, gutter, varying width parkrow and sidewalk. Street improvements proposed for East Nevada frontage of the property include, five-foot sidewalk, seven foot parkrow (where on-street parking bay present, landscaping including street trees in five-foot landscape strip between sidewalk and property line). Eight on-street parking spaces are proposed, these are within a seven foot wide parking bay. The curb and gutter will require relocation to accommodate the frontage improvements. Avenue standards call for the installation of bike lanes. An exception to this standard is requested. In the area where the steep, rocky slope prevents additional street improvements on the north side of East Nevada Street, to the west of the new Camelot Drive and East Nevada Street intersection, an exception to street standards is requested to not extend sidewalks along the frontage of subject properties TL#1200 and #1100. This is due to the physically impenetrable rock, see the Geotechnical Reportfor additional information on the below grade soils and rock. The new intersection of Camelot and East Nevada Street is proposed to have a protected crossing and enhance the intersection street amenities such as street light, benches and colored or scored concrete. Pedestrian facilities exist on Camelot to the south and olonthe3south side of East Nevada Street, These sidewalks connect to existing and future pedettkian;ilf ast_eu~t tilat rl 11 Nov 03 ~~11 }ag Findings of Fact J > F November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 53 of 61 84 extends to the south and west into the Meadowbrook 11 Subdivision. The sidewalk along the south side of East Nevada Street leads to a city park. Exception to Street Standards 18.4.6.020.B.1. 1. Exception to the Street Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the standards section in 18.4.6.040 Street Design Standards if all of the following circumstances are found to exist. Exceptions to the Street Standards for compliance with the standards for an Avenue are requested. These include a request to not install parkrow and sidewalk along the frontage of the property. Exception request to not provide dedicated bicycle lanes along the f frontage of the property, and a request to not install a multi-use pathway in lieu of public sidewalk. Exception to driveway width from the North Mountain Street Standards which limitshared driveways to 12 feet. Request is for 18 foot curb cut with six-foot concrete wings. 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. Applicant's Finding: In the area where the steep, rocky slope prevents additional street improvements on the north side of East Nevada Street, to the west of the new Camelot Drive and East Nevada Street intersection, an exception to street standards is requested to not extend sidewalks along the frontage of subject properties TL#1200 and #1100. This is due to the physically impenetrable rock, see the Geotechnical Report for Y additional information on the below grade soils and rock. This impenetrable rock forms the two levels of the subject property and creates a bluff between TO 1100 and 1200. This area was explored as an area to install a meandering multi-use path way. Due to the steep topography and the minimum width and maximum grade for a walking path does not appear feasible to construct in a safe manner. The rocky bluff creates a barrier to not only sidewalk, parkrow, multi-use path way in the right-of-way or pathway within the development. Due to the existing improvements for East Nevada Street on the adjacent properties to the south When the Meadowbrook Subdivision to the south was developed, East Nevada Street was partially installed. It is said that Bill's Backhoe, street installed broke many pieces of equipment trying to install the street, the rock dictated the north curbline of East Nevada Street.Q 04 i Findings of Fact Nov 0,3230 November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision f 1 s i Page r54 06 { 85 b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable. i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience. ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic. iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway. Applicant's Finding: 'i ii The exception is to not install street improvements to city standards on East q Nevada Street and the property is due to a unique physical characteristic of the !l property. In lieu of sidewalks and parkrow, an enhanced intersection is proposed for Camelot Drive and East Nevada Street to direct pedestrian traffic across East Nevada and then to the east and west through the Meadowbrook 11 Subdivision. a Improvements to increase the feeling of safety, ability to safely cross the street and the comfort of the sidewalk connections. The classification of East Nevada Street and the estimated vehicle trips for future build-out as an Avenue is a substantial increase in the existing vehicle trips per day. Including the new vehicle trips anticipated as part of the proposed development, the number of vehicle trips is substantially below anticipated Avenue vehicle trips. The current VTD during last review was less than 150. There are no bicycle trip per I day counts. East Nevada Street is developed as a bikeway and will continue as a bikeway. With the tabling of the Nevada Street bridge for the foreseeable future, it is anticipated that vehicle trips will not have a substantial negative impact on the existing shared vehicle and bicycle lane within East Nevada Street. If a pedestrian /bicycle bridge is provided, that may increase vehicle traffic on East Nevada Street, but would not increase vehicle trips. The length of the property is limited and the amount of right-of-way that could be widened to provide for adequate travel lane width and the existing improvements south of the rock embankment, and a bike lane is literally at its maximum extent and cannot accommodate additional excavation of the rock. c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; e Findings of Fact Nov ^ November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision I"' i..L-s'5 nf61 86 Applicant's Finding: 9 The request for exception to the street standards is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty in installing full street improvements for the frontage of the property. The majority of the standards are met. Excepting the bicycle lane exception request, sidewalks are provided throughout the development that connect to the existing neighborhood street pattern that is directly adjacent to the subject property. The proposed intersection treatments attempt to compensate for the proposed exceptions. The exception to not provide bike lanes on East Nevada Street is the minimum necessary. The physical characteristics of the subject property and the improvements on the south side of East Nevada Street prevent further widening of East Nevada Street. R r. d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A. Applicant's Finding: The Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards section speaks to connectivity and design and to creating a public space in the community. The proposed street improvements within the subdivision and in particular, the proposed intersection treatments and proposed connection to the neighborhood furthers the intent of connectivity and design to create a public space. The proposed exceptions will not negatively impact the vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian experience within the proposed subdivision or onto adjacent properties. These factors all contribute to i the unique aspect of East Nevada Street and demonstrate the demonstrable difficulty in installing street improvements. p The street standards section calls for exceptions to be allowed when physical conditions exist that preclude the development of the components of the street. These conditions include topography and rock outcroppings. Camelot Extension: Camelot Street is proposed to be extended onto the property. Camelot is a Neighborhood Access Street. Camelot Street has a varying width ROW. It ranges between 36 feet at the south intersection with East Nevada Street (1Q feet will likely be required to be dedicated with the future development of 955 North Mountain Avenue), to 46 feet on the south side of 955 North Mountain Avenue. The proposed ROW is 48 feet. This provides for a 15 foot travel surface, eight foot planting strips and five-foot sidewalks on each',sido. Tpe, west side of Camelot Street is proposed to have two, seven-foot-wide parkin bays. The street a-~ c Findings of Fact November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 56 of 61 87 improvements on the extension of Camelot will generally match the existing improvements. enhanced intersection with street amenities such as street light, benches and scored concrete. Truncated domes and a widened, concrete, cross walk across East Nevada Street. N Mountain Avenue AKA Franklin Street: Due to the existing street name conventions, remnant right-of-way, existing addresses and future development patterns, to the north of the 90-degree bend in East Nevada Street, the street is proposed as Franklin Street. Franklin Street presently has a 60 foot wide ROW. It is proposed to be constructed to city standards for a Neighborhood Street with a five-foot sidewalk, a seven foot landscaped parkrow, seven foot on-street parking bay and 15 foot travel surface (or Y2 street improvements). N Alley: A public alley is proposed parallel to the north boundary of the property. The alley intersects "Franklin Street"; 111 feet north of the new street intersection. The alley extends 285 feet to the intersection of Camelot. The alley extends an additional 170 feet to the Fire Truck turnaround. The accesses for the three detached, single family type of residences extends directly from the terminus of the alley. The homes are on the bluff and do not have access to East Nevada Street due to the topographical constraints on the site. i The alley is proposed to have a 22 foot right-of-way. The parking for the attached and semi-attached units within the development are accessed from the alley. The proposed alley is similar to the layout pattern provided within the Neighborhood Module Concept plans from the recently adopted Normal Neighborhood District. The proposed alley is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan: Alley (10.05.05). The alley eliminates the need for front yard driveways directly to the property from East Nevada Street and "Franklin Street" and provides the opportunity for a more positive front yard streetscape. The alley at the rear of the properties allows Nevada Street to be located adjacent to the front of properties to be designed using a narrow width with limited on- street parking. According to the Comprehensive Plan, alleys are appropriate in all residential areas. Tree Removal Permit -18.5.7 a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site-Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3:10:-1. Applicant's Finding: Nov 03 ~nf( p d f L T' dd') fr?~~ Findings of Fact November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 57 of 61 88 i There are 27 trees on the subject and adjacent properties. Of those, there are ten trees proposed for removal. These include, a 16 inch DBH Ponderosa Pine a 16-inch DBH Cedar tree, a 9-inch DBH Pine, a 30-inch DBH Ash tree, four Oak trees, two with 7-inch DBH, and two 8-inches DBH. Also proposed for removal are two Walnut trees, one is 10-inches DBH and the other is 6-inches. The trees proposed for removal are the minimum necessary to permit the two-acre parcel to be developed to the City Standards for a 20 - 23-unit development within the North Mountain Neighborhood. The tree locations are in places where streets, driveways, building envelopes are proposed to be located. There are significant topographical constraints restrict the areas of development. 44 6 The trees impacted on the upper level of the proposed development are the Cedar tree, the Ponderosa pine trees and an Ash tree. Connectivity standards require intersections to be aligned at right angles, the existing intersection of Camelot Street that is to the south of the subject property dictated the location i of Camelot Street onto the subject property. Camelot Street is a Neighborhood Street and the proposed right-of-way is the minimum for right-of-way for Neighborhood Street. The steep slopes along the East Nevada Street frontage prevent utilizing Patton Lane intersection as an access to the subject property. Maximum block length standards determine how long the streets/ alleys can be, this lead to the layout shown. With the steep bluff along the west side of the upper area of the property, that extends more than 200 feet to the west of the proposed Camelot Street intersection, a turnaround is necessary since a street cannot be connected downhill to the west. The required dimensional standards for the Fire Truck turnaround dictated the location of the alley and driveway access to the residences to the west of Camelot Street. The North Mountain Neighborhood overlay has specific setback standards for front yard and garage facade setback from front facade of residence that determine where the building footprints for the proposed lots are located. The majority of the trees to be removed are concentrated on the lower level of the property on TL#1100. The trees are crowded together and are located where the driveway will need to be located to access the duplex unit proposed within the subdivision and to retain the connection to the public right-of-way for the area of the property that is outside of the City limits and beyond the Urban Growth Boundary. The driveway is required to be located on the east property line of the subject property on this side of the property in order to meet minimum separation requirements for driveway spacing. The property to the west has a driveway access to their property. The development of the subject property requires the proposed development shift the driveway to the east property line to comply with the separation standards. b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soi I stability, fl4v~ of -face waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. NOV 03 2011 Findings of Fact November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 58oi61 r~ } 89 Applicant's Finding: The removal of the trees will not have a significant negative impact on erosion or soil stability because the redevelopment of the site places structures, roadways, driveways, or improved yard areas where the trees were located. There are no surface waters on the site. The removed trees are not part of windbreaks and are not protecting adjacent trees. c. 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. Applicant's Finding: The removal of the majority of the trees, specifically the deciduous trees, will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes canopies and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. An exception to this criterion is sought with respect to the Ponderosa pines and the cedar tree. Development alternatives were considered but based on the physical development constraints, the minimum density standards, required access locations and connectivity standards, required dimensional standards for the civil improvements, etc. discussed in a. above require the removal of the large stature conifer trees. d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to 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 of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. Applicant's Finding: The applicant finds that the proposed layout was based on the numerous regulations and standards that are required to achieve development consistent with not only the proposed North Mountain Avenue Zone overlay, but also the street standards, and the Site Development standards. The types of trees that require removal, specifically the Cedar and the Ponderosa Pines, require substantial tree protection zones in ideal growing conditions. The subject property has shallow soil depths which means the tree root structures are less deep and spread wider below the surface of the soil putting more street onto the root zones of these larger stature trees. The proposal is within the density standards for, the North Mountain Zone Overlay. Nov 0,3 1 11 Findings of Fact November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 59 of 61 90 i e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. Applicant's Finding: See below 18.5.7.050 Mitigation Required A. Replanting On-Site. The applicant shall plant either a minimum 1 %z-inch caliper healthy and well- branched deciduous tree or a five to six-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. Larger trees may be required where the mitigation is intended, in part, to replace a visual screen between land uses. Suitable species means the tree' s growth habits and environmental I requirements are conducive to the site, given existing topography, soils, other vegetation, exposure to p wind and sun, nearby structures, overhead wires, etc. The tree shall be planted and maintained per the I' specifications of the Recommended Street Tree Guide. Applicant's Finding: Though conceptual in nature, it is demonstrated on the Conceptual Landscape plan that numerous trees that are more than 1 % inch caliper deciduous trees are proposed within the development. B. Replanting Off-Site. If in the City's determination there is insufficient available space on the subject property, the replanting required in section 18.5.7.050.A, above, 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. Applicant's Finding: To provide a buffer from 1-5, the three conifer trees proposed for removal will be mitigated for on property R owned by Dr. David Young that is to the north of the subject property. Evidence of planting will be p provided to the City. 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. Applicant's Finding: f,- NIA Nov 0,3 211 , Findings of Fact • 1' November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision Page 60 of 61 91 D. Mitigation Plan. An approved mitigation plan shall be fully implemented within one year of a tree being removed unless otherwise set forth in a tree removal application and approved in the tree removal permits. Applicant's Finding: The mitigation plan is subject to the same phasing as the remainder of the development. The proposal is for the approval of the zone change, comprehensive plan amendment, and Performance Standards Subdivision layout approval. The street trees and trees within the open spaces will mitigated for the majority of the removed trees. The Site Reviews for the structures will be applied for at a later date, landscape and irrigation plans are triggered with Site Reviews, it is following the construction of the individual dwellings that the landscape plan and mitigation plan will be implemented. Respectfully submitted, Amy Gunter r Attachments: 1) Traffic Impact and TPR Findings: Kelly Sandow, P.E., Sandow Engineering 2) Memorandum of Understanding: Denise James, Executive Director, Rogue Valley Habitat for Humanity 3) Geotechnical Report: Eric "Rick" Swanson, P.E., Marquess and Associates 4) Topographical Survey Map: Hoffbuhr and Associates 5) Preliminary Subdivision Map: LA 6) Tree Removal / Tree Protection and Preservation Plan: L.2 7) Preliminary Grading Plan: L.3 8) Preliminary Landscape and Irrigation Plans: LA and L.5 9) Open space Graphic: OS 10) Preliminary Civil Engineering Plans: C1 through C3 11) Conceptual Elevations 12) City of Ashland Electric Distribution Map ~►tl~~11f~ ~ V':. Nov 09 29-v Findings of Fact . November 1, 2017 Katherine Mae Subdivision 92 Page 61 of 61 SANDOWFNGINEERING 160 MADISON STREET SUITE A EUGENE, OREGON 97402 541.513.3376 October 2, 2017 Karl Johnson, E.I.T., Associate Engineer City of Ashland, Public Works/Engineering 20 East Main St Ashland, Oregon 97520 RE: Nevada Street - TIA and TPR Applicability Sandow Engineering has prepared a trip generation analysis for the proposed zone change and development proposal of Tax Lots 1100, 1200, and 1300 of Assessors Map 39-1E-04A on Nevada Street in Ashland, Oregon. The property is currently zoned RR-05-P, the applicant is @ proposing a zone change and comprehensive plan amendment to rezone the property to NM- R MF to support a 23-unit housing development. As the property is requesting a zone change and comprehensive plan amendment a Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) Analysis is required. The TPR analysis addresses impacts to the system based on a reasonable worst-case development potential of the proposed zoning. The impacts are to be evaluated over the City of Ashland's Transportation System Plan 20-year planning horizon. Additionally, the trip generation of the proposed development is analyzed to demonstrate the applicability of a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for the site. HON PLANNIIA6 RULE: ANALYSIS The trip generation for the site was estimated using information contained within the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition. The existing and proposed worst-case development scenarios are estimated using uses allowed within the Ashland Code and data provided in the Trip Generation Manual for Single Family Detached Housing (LUC 210) and Apartments (LUC 220). Table 1 illustrates the estimated trip generation for the existing and proposed worst-case zoning scenarios. PM Peak Hour Trip Generation ITE Land Use Size Units Rate Trips Trips In Trips Out Existing RR-0.5-P Zoning 1 210 - Single Family Detached Housing 5 DU 1 5 ,24 Proposed NM-MF Zoning 03 220 - Apartments 33 DU 0.62 20 d10 93 i~ From: Kelly Sandow PE Sandow Engineering RE: Nevada Street - TIA and TPR Applicability Date: 10/2/17 Page 2 As illustrated in Table 1, the existing zoning generates 5 trips during the PM peak hour and the proposed zoning will generate 20 trips during the PM peak hour. The proposed zoning is estimated to generate 15 additional trips during the PM peak. I Access to the site is proposed via three driveways. Two driveways will take access from Nevada Street and one driveway will take access from a new street extension from the existing north/south portion of Nevada Street. Approximately half of the trips from the development, 8 trips, will head to/from the east/south on Nevada Street to the intersection of Nevada Street and Mountain Street. The other half of trips from the development, 7 trips, will head to/from the south on Camelot Street the east on Fair Oaks Avenue to the intersection of Fair Oaks Avenue and Mountains Street. No more than 8 trips are estimated to be added to any intersection as a result of the zone change. The increase in traffic due to the zone change will have an insignificant impact to the transportation system and does not warrant intersectional analysis as per the City of Ashland's analysis standards. Goal 12, TPR (OAR 660-12-0060 (1)) requires that a local government ensures that an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation (including a zoning map) does not significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility. A plan or land use amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would: "(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan); The traffic from the proposed plan amendment/zone change and use will not change the functional classification of any existing or planned transportation facilities. (b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or The traffic from the proposed plan amendment/zone change will not change the standard implementing a functional classification system. (c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection based on projected conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area of the amendment may be reduced if the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the amendment. ( A (A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the fS*UaL classification of an existing or planned transportation facility, A u~ W4 ENGINEER~a 94 From: Kelly Sandow PE Sandow Engineering RE: Nevada Street - TIA and TPR Applicability Date: 10/2/17 Page 3 The traffic from the proposed plan amendment/zone change and use will not result in levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility. (B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or The traffic from the proposed plan amendment/zone change and use will not degrade the performance of any existing or planed transportation facility to below mobility standards. (C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan." OAR 660-12-0060(1) i This criterion is not applicable as none of the studied intersections have been identified to not meet the mobility standards. is iMPA I ;=\[-,1A1 V-15 The trip generation for the development was estimated using information contained within the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 9" Edition. The site trips are estimated using the data provided for Apartments (LUC 220). The site generated development trips for the AM and PM peak hours are illustrated in Table 2. Trip Generation ITE Land Use Size Units Rate Trips AM Peak Hour 220 - Apartments 23 DU 0.51 12 PM Peak Hour 220 - Apartments 23 DU 0.62 14 As demonstrated in Table 2, the proposed development is anticipated to generate 12 trips during the AM Peak Hour and 14 trips during the PM Peak Hour. I I, ; , -i~I;I ' , f .r Ashland Code Requires a Traffic Impact Analysis when one of the following occurs: i. , 1,-X iV 1) Addition of 50 newly generated vehicle trips during the adjacent street peakN&41r(; " ~J / The proposed is anticipated to generate 12 vehicles trips in the PM peak hour a414 4ehldle ENGINEERING 95 i I From: Kelly Sandow PE Sandow Engineering RE: Nevada Street - TIA and TPR Applicability Date: 10/2/17 Page 4 trips in the AM peak hour. This criteria is not met for warranting a TIA. 2) Installation of any traffic control device and/or construction of any geometric improvements that will affect the progression or operation of traffic traveling on, entering, or exiting the highway r' The applicant is not installing any traffic control devices or constructing any geometric improvements within the ROW. This criteria is not met for warranting a TIA. 3) Addition of 20 newly generated heavy vehicle trips during the day. The proposal is for a residential housing development. There are a limited number of delivery trucks per day for these uses. The development is not expected to not generate more than 20 J additional heavy vehicle trips during the day. This criteria is not met for warranting a TIA. As demonstrated, the proposed development of 23 housing units is anticipated to generate 14 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. The increase in traffic does not meet the City of Ashland thresholds for triggering a Traffic Impact analysis. The proposed NM-MF zoning is expected to generate 15 additional trips during the PM peak hour over the estimated 5 trips generated by the existing RR-0.5-P zoning. It was determined that the increase in traffic generated by the proposed NM-MF zoning would not significantly affect any existing or planned transportation facility. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or if you need any additional s information. Sincerely, PROfEff ~~5 LNG I NEF~ 7792 PE a Kelly Sandow PE ~ I 0REGO 3 O <114.'t O ~r R. SPA RENEWAL 06 130 /18 Nov o3 2017 SA~TOINtaII1f! ENGI 96 • • ROGUE VALLEY HABITAT FOR HUMANITY 1 P.O. BOX 688 0 MEDFORD, OREGON 97501 • (541) 779 1983 • WWW.ROGUEVALLEYHABITAT. ORG Dr. David Young 348 5 Modoc Medford, OR 97504 October 12, 2017 Dear Dr. Young: We, Rogue Valley Habitat for Humanity, understand that as part of the Katherine Mae Subdivision proposed for the properties located at 39 1E 04A; 1100, 1200 and 1300, four affordable housing units are required to be provided at the 60 - 80 percent Area Median Income (AMI). The Habitat for Humanity mission is to provide affordable housing to (Habitat's target client) that are within the 60 percent AMI. This Memorandum of Understanding is presented to the property owner, Dr. David Young with the understanding that Habitat for Humanity would be the affordable housing provider of choice to address the housing need, and that Habitat has first right of refusal to obtain the property required through deed or title as required by the Ashland Municipal Code. We would be honored to participate with the project which we feel is so needed within the Ashland community and are eager and excited to move forward with our partnership. Habitat for Humanity builds houses in partnership with low income people in need of housing. Each selected applicant must commit to and complete a minimum of 500 hours of sweat equity towards the completion of their home, also included the complete of a rigorous homeowner education program. Volunteers are the backbone of each construction project and over 1500 are utilized each year, including many students seeking to learn new job skills. Upon the completion of each project, the home is sold with a zero interest, 30- year mortgage which Habitat holds the note. Incoming repayment income is used to help build future homes. Funding for each project is raised within the community using constant fundraising processes. Habitat for Humanity/Rogue Valley serves Jackson County and is one of 30 independent affiliates within the state of Oregon. We are in the process of building our 64"' home is the Rogue Valley, which includes three built and sold in Ashland. I believe the need in Ashland is tremendous and would be thrilled at the opportunity to build more houses in a community with such need. Thank you, sincerely, v\<&~ 1t v~~ Denise James Executive Director Habitat for Humanity/Rogue Valley y, 541-773-3411 "OV 0 2017 CC Amy Gunther r~ Of Ashland, 97 o / ~ I I At. R: ~ S, P 541-772-7115 F 541-779-4079 1120 LAST JACKSON PO BOX 490 MEDFORD, OR 97501 & 0(-Jar rs INC. EMAIL: info(Evnraryuess.com WEB: www.marqucss.com April 28, 2017 David Young 348 South Modoc Avenue Medford, Oregon 97504 RE: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 475 EAST NEVADA STREET ASHLAND, OREGON MAI JOB NO. 17-1053 Dear Dr. Young: We are pleased to present our geotechnical investigation report for the proposed development at 475 East Nevada Street in Ashland, Oregon. The purpose of this investigation was to determine the prevailing subsurface conditions at the site and develop earthwork and foundation engineering recommendations for the project design. The proposed development is shown on Drawing 1, Development Plan. The proposed development includes three single family residences, two two-story duplexes, and thirteen two-story townhouses in three to six unit clusters. The development also includes pavements for parking purposes and fire truck access. The structures are expected to be of wood-frame construction with slab-on-grade ground floors. Final grades for the structures and pavements are presently unknown. Scone As presented in our proposal dated February 6, 2017, the scope of service for this investigation was to include: 1. Review of available geotechnical information for the site area and a field reconnaissance of the sandstone cutslope between the property and Nevada Street. 2. Subsurface exploration consisting of five exploratory test pits. 3. Laboratory testing of soil samples obtained from the exploration." 4. Soil and foundation engineering analyses using the field and 1AUmt6q and preparation of a geotechnical investigation report. The report W. quld.presenttdings and recommendations for:. %rilE~11~ 98 David Young April 28, 2017 Page 2 of 13 a) Site geology, subsurface conditions, and seismic design parameters per code. b) Site preparation and grading for the project. c) Structure foundation type, minimum dimensions, depths, and allowable bearing values. d) Estimated foundation settlements. e) Support of concrete slabs-on-grade. f) Backfilling and compaction of utility trenches. g) Surface and subsurface drainage. h) Lateral earth pressures for retaining walls, as appropriate. i) Flexible pavement sections for pavements. j) Any other unusual design or construction condition encountered in the investigation. This report has been prepared for the specific use of Dr. David Young and his designers in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering principles and practices. No other warranty, either expressed or implied, is made. In the event that any substantial changes in the nature, design, or locations of the structures are planned, the conclusions and recommendations of this report shall not be considered valid unless such changes are reviewed and the conclusions of this report modified or verified in writing. It should be recognized that changes in the site conditions may occur with the passage of time due to environmental processes or man-made changes. Furthermore, building code or state of the practice changes may require modifications in the recommendations presented herein. Accordingly, the recommendations of this report should not be relied on beyond a period of three years without being reviewed by a geotechnical engineer. Method of Investization P Five exploratory test pits were excavated with a conventional rubber-tire backhoe with 24-inch soil bucket on March 22, 2017, at the locations shown on Drawing 2, Site Plan. The pits were located by interpolation from the features shown on the drawings provided to us. The logs of the test pits are presented on Drawing 5. A key describing the soil classification system and soil consistency terms used in this report is presented on Drawing 4. Samples of the soil materials from the pits were returned to our laboratory for classification and testing. The results of moisture content, Atterberg Limits, percent finer than No. 200 sieve, and free swell tests are shown on the logs. A description of the tests is presented on Laboratory Testing Procedures, Drawing 3. 4 V NOV 03 231/ Q(y 99 David Young April 28, 2017 Page 3 of 13 Site Conditions A. Surface The parcel is located on the north side of East Nevada Street at the intersection with Mountain Avenue. The parcel is roughly 140' deep with a frontage of about 700'. The site is vacant and undeveloped except for an existing single family residence in the westerly portion of the property. The topography at the site generally slopes gently downward to the southwest except where the existing residence lies. The existing residence is atop a knoll that is slightly elevated above the easterly portions of the site. The ground surface south and west of the knoll slopes steeply y downward to the west and south (these steep areas are not being considered for development). B. East Nevada Street Roadcut There is a steep, 20 high plus/minus cutslope between the parcel and East Nevada Street across from the intersection with Camelot Drive. The cutslope exposes firm to hard sandstone that ' appears to strike roughly east-west and dip 30 degrees or so into the slope. Shale interbeds about 4" to 8" thick lie within the sandstone and are spaced 1' to more than 5' apart. The shale is soft and the shale interbeds form the dominant weak zones in the cutslope. Rock jointing varies from parallel to the cutslope orientation to perpendicular to the cutslope and near-vertical. The jointing varies from closely spaced (6" to 12" apart), tight, and discontinuous, to 2' to 4' apart and pervasive. Most of the rock joints appear to be tight and unweathered. The rock strength, based on blows with a rock hammer, varies from soft to firm to hard; however, the sandstone in the westerly portion of the cutslope rings hard when struck. C. Subsurface The test pits (Test Pits 1-4) in the easterly half of the parcel encountered clayey/sandy soil overlying sandstone. Test Pit 5, which was located on the knoll, encountered clayey/sandy over clayey gravel over sandstone. Claye /Y.Sandy Soil. Clayey/sandy soils were encountered at the ground surface in every test pit and the soils extended to depths of 1.3' to 2.7' deep below the existing ground surface. These soils were loose or medium stiff and moist to very moist. Based on our lab testing, these soils have a moderate expansion potential. 'I Clayey Gravel (in Test Pit 5). Medium dense clayey gravel with varying cobble and boulder content was encountered beneath the clayey/sandy surficial soils to a depth of 5' below existing grade. Sandstone. Firm to hard sandstone was encountered in every test pit at varyin$1~qpce, most shallow sandstone was observed at 1.3 deep below existing grade in Pit 2. 1`he Ie~,~dst sandstone was encountered in Pit 5 at a depth of 5' deep below existing gfadG. ;+The dstQ e 100 David Young April 28, 2017 Page 4 of 13 was firm to hard in excavation characteristics. Every test pit was excavated to refusal in the underlying sandstone, and these refusal depths varied from 3.4' to 5.2' deep below existing grades. The attached logs and related information depict subsurface conditions only at the specific locations shown on Drawing 2 and on the date excavated. Sail conditions at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at these locations. Also, the passage of time may result in a change of soil conditions at these locations due to environmental changes. D. Groundwater Free groundwater was encountered in all test pits, except Pit 5, at depths of 1.7' to 4' deep below existing surface grade during excavation. Free groundwater was not observed in Pit 5. Fluctuations in the groundwater level at the site may occur, however, because of variations in rainfall, temperature, runoff, irrigation, and other factors not evident at the time our observations were made and reported herein. Geology and Seismicity A. Geology The property lies within the Rogue Valley which is bounded by the Western Cascades physiographic province on the north and east and the Klamath Mountains province to the west and south. The geological map of the area (Beaulieu and Hughes, 1977, Land Use Geology of Central Jackson County, Oregon: State of Oregon DOGAMI Bulletin 94) indicates the site is underlain by Eocene sedimentary rock. B. Seismicity Southern Oregon is in an area of moderate to potentially high seismic activity. As with the entire Oregon coastal belt, the site is in a region that is dominated seismically by the Cascadia Subduction Zone. The subduction zone is formed by the sinking of the offshore Juan de Fuca Plate beneath the onshore North American Plate. Earthquakes are generated within the subductiog Juan de Fuca Plate (intraslab), at the frictional contact between the two plates (interface), and within the upper North American Plate (crustal). From a historical perspective, recorded seismicity in the region has been relatively low in comparison to Northern Oregon and Northern California. The Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) is capable of great earthquakes with Moment Magnitudes (M,,,) of 8.5 plus and lies about 110 miles to the west. The potential ground shaking from the CSZ would likely be of greater severity and duration than earthquakes generated from intraslab and crustal faults. Intraslab earthquakes of Mw 7.0 plus are capable on the seismigenic part of the subd ~t~ate in the CSZ. These earthquakes typically occur at depths of 40 to 60 km. ail l 3 fl i 4 1 101 ~I IDavid Young April 28, 2017 Page 5 of 13 Crustal earthquakes of up to Mw 6.5 can occur at relatively shallow depths of 25 km or less. Crustal faults typically produce most of the earthquakes in the region. Historically, crustal earthquakes have not exceeded Mw 6.0 and are usually less than Mw 4.5. All the above types of earthquakes are considered potential "design earthquakes" by the building code. C. aultin I~ The nearest mapped (Beaulieu and Hughes, 1977) fault lies about two miles southeast of the site. This fault, and all others in the Rogue Valley, offset pre-Quaternary geologic formations and are not considered active or potentially active. The nearest known active fault (fault displaying movement within the last 10,000 years) system is the Sky Lakes Fault Zone that lies about 35 miles east of the site. A few miles east of the Sky Lakes Fault Zone lies the active Klamath Graben faults. The Klamath Falls earthquakes of 1993 (Mw 5.9, Mw 6.0, and several small aftershocks) occurred on the Klamath Graben faults. Geologic and Seismic Hazards Evaluation A. Design Earthquake The design earthquake for the project area is based on methodologies in the Code and was determined from on-line U.S.G.S. seismic design maps (2012 IBC). The site has a Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) spectral response acceleration at 0.2 seconds for Site Class C of Ss=0.618g. The site also has an MCE spectral response acceleration at 1.0 second for Site Class C of Si=0.317g. The MCE peak ground acceleration fiom the on-line seismic design maps (ASCE 7-10 Standard) is about 0.288. Based on the subsurface infonmation and the provisions in the Code, we believe that a Site Class C designation may be assumed for this site. B. Fault Offset Based on our review of existing geologic information, we conclude that there are no known active or potentially active faults in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the hazard resulting from surface rupture or fault offset is considered low. C. Shaking Ground amplification effects at the site are expected to be properly accounted,for using-,the` Code seismic design methodology. tIOV 03 Ohl c; 102 David Young April 28, 2017 Page 6 of 13 Moderate to strong ground shaking could occur at the site as a result of an earthquake in the region. The proposed improvements should be designed and constructed in accordance with current standards of earthquake-resistant construction. Ground shaking during an earthquake could cause objects within the buildings which are not rigidly attached to the structures to undergo some movements with respect to the structures. The buildings should, therefore, include design measures that minimize such potential movements and also minimize the adverse effects of such movements where they cannot be prevented. D. Soil Liquefaction Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated cohesionless soils lose strength during strong shaking and experience horizontal and vertical movements. Soils that are most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, saturated, uniformly graded, fine-grained, clay-free sands that lie within 50 feet of the ground surface. The earth materials encountered in the test pits include clayey/sandy soils and sandstone bedrock. These materials are considered to be resistant to liquefaction. Conclusions and Recommendations From a soil and foundation engineering standpoint, it is our opinion that the development can be constructed as proposed provided the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated j into the design and construction of the project. Subsurface Conditions. Most of the site is generally covered by a layer of weak and moderately expansive clayey/sandy soil followed by sandstone bedrock at relatively shallow depth. Groundwater was also encountered at relatively shallow depths, presumably because of the shallow sandstone bedrock. I Discussion-Earthwork. The surficial soils east of the knoll are very weak at present (spring) due to soil wetness and the very shallow groundwater table. We also believe these soils will be weak even in warm and dry weather due to the poor site drainage (very shallow groundwater table) and because the clay content in these soils is elevated enough to make the soil moderately expansive. Because these surficial soils pose a long-term stability issue for the proposed development, we recommend removing the surficial soils from beneath structures and replacing with structural fill, as necessary, to support structures. s The knoll is underlain by more stable and drier soils that are better suited to the proposed r development. Foundations. Building footings and slabs should either bear on a supporting layer of'strdctural fill (that bears on stable soil or bedrock) or directly on bedrock. All weak soil shoWd bb 11 removed from beneath footings and slabs. '~!OV 03 207 103 David Young April 28, 2017 Page 7 of 13 Groundwater. Groundwater will likely be encountered at shallow depths and the quantity or inflow will likely be dependent on seasonal conditions. Where groundwater is encountered during construction, it will probably be light and can be dewatered with sump pumps. Hard Rock Excavation. Excavations into the sandstone bedrock will be possible with conventional excavating equipment for l' deep penetrations into sandstone (and locally deeper, based on our variable penetration depths into the sandstone with our rubber-tire backhoe). However, it is likely that deeper excavations, particularly trench-type excavations, will require hard rock excavating equipment such as a hoe-ram. East Nevada Street Cutslope. In our opinion, perhaps most of the exposed rock (possibly 60% of the exposed face) is diggable with conventional excavation equipment defined herein as a 50,000 pound trackhoe with 24" bucket with tiger teeth. Hard rock excavation equipment, such as a hoe-ram, will be required for a large portion of the exposed face. In addition, the sandstone is expected to become harder and more difficult to loosen or excavate with increasing penetration and depth into the slope, i.e. the "diggable" sandstone may become hard sandstone after penetrating 2' to 4' into the cutslope. Some of the rock is also expected to break out into very large boulder-sized blocks that will need to be reduced in size to enable placement into a hauler truck. The recommendations presented in the remainder of the report are contingent on our review of the grading and building plans and observation of the earthwork, foundation, and drainage installation phases of construction. Recommendations A. Earthwork 1. The site should be stripped of surface organics and organic-laden topsoils. In conjunction with the stripping work, obstructions such as buildings, foundations, utilities to be abandoned, trees, and root balls, should also be removed. Holes resulting from the removal of underground obstructions should be backfilled with a suitable material and compacted to the requirements for fill given below. The clearing of holes and the backfilling operations should be performed under our observation. 2. Site Excavations-Buildings. All existing weak soils should be removed from beneath buildings and these removals should extend at least 2' beyond the building perimeters. We anticipate the depths of the weak soils east of the knoll will vary from 1.3' to 2.7' deep below existing grades. The depths of the weak soils on the knoll are expected to vary from l' to 2' deep below existing grades. We should be called out during the excavation phase for all structures to evaluate the exposed subgrade soils prior to placement of structural fill or concrete formwork. , Nov 0- r7 104 David Young April 28, 2017 Page 8 of 13 Site Excavations-Paving. There are no minimum requirements for the removal of weak soil beneath pavements. The existing ground should be excavated to the required subgrade depths and evaluated by observation and proofrolling methods. If the ground is weak, or spongy due to wetness, or will not support grading equipment, or will not allow the adequate compaction of structural fills or pavement baserock, some removal and replacement will probably be necessary. The existing surface soils across most of the site are presently weak, and are expected to still be weak in warm dry weather. If the subgrades are soft at the time of grading, and cannot be adequately strengthened by compaction, some additional over- excavation of subgrades and backfilling will be required and the extent of this extra work will need to be determined at the time of construction. The earthwork should be performed during the warm dry months of the year to facilitate construction and minimize change orders. 3. Subgrade Preparation. After the site excavations are completed, the exposed subgrade soils should be evaluated by our field representative for the presence of deleterious or weak soil. The subgrade soils in pavement areas will likely require recompaction prior to placing fill; however, recompaction of the subgrades may be waived by our soils engineer if the subgrade materials are firm and undisturbed by the excavation operations. Where required, the recompaction should consist of moisture conditioning the soils to approximately three percent above optimum and compacting them to at least 95 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM Test Method D698. Compaction should be performed using heavy equipment such as a self-propelled vibratory compactor. All subgrades should be evaluated by our field representative for stability and strength by proofrolling methods prior to placing fill. 4. Fill. Structural fill material, such as imported, high quality %"-0 and 4"-0 crushed aggregate that is suitable for use on City streets, should be used beneath building footings, building slabs, and exterior slabs. Building slabs should be underlain by a 4" thick layer of capillary rock that is- underlain by at least 8" of structural fill with the composite layer of capillary rock and structural fill being at least V in thickness. Exterior slabs such as private sidewalk slabs should be directly underlain by at least 12" of structural fill. 5. All fill materials should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM Test Method D698. Fill materials should be moisture- conditioned and spread in lifts not exceeding eight inches in uncompacted thickness. Compaction should be performed with a smooth drum vibratory roller capable of producing at least 24,000 pounds of dynamic force, NOV 03 2017 105 i David Young April 28, 2017 Page 9 of 13 The compaction of the fill, thickness of lifts, and control of the moisture content should be monitored and tested by our field representative. Compaction should be evaluated by use of nuclear gauge field density testing and by proofrolling with loaded 10 cy gravel trucks. 6. Utility trenches should be backfilled with compacted fill placed in lifts not exceeding eight inches in uncompacted thickness, except thicker lifts may be used with the approval of the soil engineer provided satisfactory compaction is achieved. The upper three feet of trench backfill should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D698). Jetting of backfill to obtain compaction should not be permitted. 7. Soil En ineer Construction Monitoring. Grading and earthwork should be monitored and tested by our representative for conformance with the project plans/specifications and our recommendations. This work includes site preparation, site excavations, selection of satisfactory fill materials, and placement and compaction of the subgrades and fills. Sufficient notification prior to commencement of earthwork is essential to make certain that the work will be properly observed. B. Foundations 1. The proposed structures may be supported on spread footings bearing directly on bedrock. The building footings may also bear directly on the medium dense clayey gravel, as encountered in Test Pit 5 on the knoll. The building footings may also bear I. on structural fill that is underlain by bedrock or medium dense clayey gravel. All existing weak soil should be removed from beneath building footings and the removals should extend at least 2' beyond all sides of the footings. # Our field representative should evaluate the subgrade materials prior to filling and should monitor the placement and compaction of the fill. 2. Footings should bear at least twelve inches below lowest adjacent finished grade. 4 Footings located adjacent to utility trenches should have their bearing surfaces below an imaginary 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) plane projected upward from the edge of the bottom of the trench. !I 3. Footings can be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 2000 psf for dead plus live loads and this bearing pressure may be increased by one-third for short-term loading conditions. All footings should be provided with sufficient reinforcement to provide structural continuity. 4. Lateral loads can be resisted by friction between the foundation bottoms and the supporting subgrade. A friction coefficient of 0.3 can be used. In addition, a passive, pressure equal to an equivalent fluid pressure of 250 pcf can be taken against the t ' L sides of footings poured neat or against compacted fill. Nov ~V0f 106 1 David Young April 28, 2017 Page 10 of 13 5. Foundation settlements and heave are expected to be within tolerable limits for the proposed construction. Total differential movements of the foundations are expected to be less than about 3/4 inch. i C. Slabs-On-Grade 1. Building slabs should be supported on at least 12" of structural fill. All existing weak soil should be removed from beneath building slabs. y 2. Where moisture protection is required beneath the building slabs, the slabs should be underlain by at least four inches of free-draining 3/4" crushed rock (no fines, no round rock) to act as a capillary break. t If additional protection against moisture vapor is desired, a vapor barrier may also be incorporated into the design. The vapor barrier may be covered with two inches of p sand that is lightly moistened just prior to pouring the slab. Factors such as cost, vehicle loadings, special considerations for construction, and the floor coverings, indicate that decisions on the use of vapor barriers, sand, and capillary rock should be made by the architect and owner. The free-draining crushed rock layer can be used as the upper four inches of the required 12" of structural fill beneath building slabs. 3. The slabs should be reinforced in accordance with the anticipated use and loading, but as a minimum, slabs should be reinforced with at least No. 4 rebars on 16-inch centers, both ways. 4. Exterior slabs for sidewalks and patio slabs (i.e. slabs not subject to wheel loads) should be underlain by at least 12" of structural fill. The subgrade soils beneath exterior slabs should be compacted well enough to enable placement of well- compacted structural fill beneath slabs. Please contact us with regards to subgrade preparation for exterior slabs subject to wheel traffic. D. Pavements I 1. Based on our previous experience with similar soil conditions in the area, the following pavement sections are recommended: ► ~V C .NOV 03 AM ~R4 1~ 0 f~irl nr i 107 i David Young April 28, 2017 Page 11 of 13 Recommended Pavement Sections Asphalt 3/4"-0 4"-0 Traffic Concrete Crushed Rock Crushed Rock Condition (inches) (inches) (inches) Auto Parking 2.0 4.0 12.0 Heavy Vehicle Lanes 3.0 6.0 12.0 I I 2. The 3/4"-0 crushed rock should meet Section 02630, latest ODOT/APWA Standard Specifications. The crushed rock should be placed in a manner to prevent segregation a and should be uniformly moisture-conditioned and compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D698, Method A) to provide a smooth, unyielding surface. 3. The 4"-0 crushed rock should be high quality processed 4"-0 crushed rock that is G approved for use on City streets. The crushed rock must be dense after compaction and non-deflecting under proofrolling with a fully loaded ten-yard gravel truck. The 4"-0 crushed rock should be underlain by a 5 oztYd minimum (or equal), non- woven, permeable stabilization fabric. 4. The upper twelve inches of soil subgrade beneath the 4"-0 crushed rock should be unyielding under the wheels of a fully loaded 10 cu. yd. dump truck and compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D698). All fill placed beneath the pavement section should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D698). Grading for pavements should be performed during the dry and warm months of the year. E. Retaining Walls 1. Walls should be supported on footing foundations designed in accordance with our previous recommendations. Unrestrained walls with gentle (sloped less than 25 percent) backslopes should be designed to resist an equivalent fluid pressure of 45 pcf. Restrained walls with similar backslopes should be designed to resist an equivalent fluid pressure of 60 pcf. 2. The preceding pressures assume that sufficient drainage is provided behind the walls, to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressures from surface or subsurface water' infiltration. Adequate drainage may be provided by means of 3/4 i ch drain rock material enclosed in a filter fabric and a four inch diameter rigid "rW fttVe 108 David Young April 28, 2017 Page 12 of 13 placed at the base of the wall. The pipe should be tied into closed pipes that discharge into suitable drainage facilities. 3. Backfill placed behind retaining walls should be non-expansive and compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction using light compaction equipment. All interior walls should be thoroughly waterproofed. c F. Site Drainage 1. Positive surface gradients of at least five percent on porous surfaces and two percent on paved surfaces should be maintained away from the buildings so that surface water does not collect in the vicinity of the foundations. Water from roof downspouts should be collected into closed pipes that discharge the water into approved drainage facilities. 2. A foundation drain should be placed adjacent to the perimeter building footings to help control moisture beneath the buildings. I 3. Consideration should be given to constructing a drainage cutoff ditch or trench drain along the north property line to minimize groundwater movement onto the site. G. Plan Review and Construction Observation 1. We recommend that we xeview the foundation, grading, and drainage plans and specifications for the project. We should also be retained to provide soil engineering monitoring and testing services during the excavation, foundation, and drainage installation phases of the project. This will provide us the opportunity for correlation of the soil conditions found in our investigation with those actually encountered in the field, and thus permit any necessary modifications in our recommendations resulting from changes in anticipated conditions. JOY 03 2(111 109 David Young April 28, 2017 Page 13 o111 Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding this report. 1~ PRVery truly yours, 16885 r`~ p2 MARQUESS & ASSOCIATES, INC. f~,9 Fpr 21.1~g O~ /V ~Cq, gW P~5 Rick Swanson, P.E. Civil Engineer 16885 ~XPIRES: 6.30W n RS/ler Copies: Addressee (2), also by email Amy Gunter, by email Attachments: Development Plan, Drawing 1 Site Plan, Drawing 2 Laboratory Testing Procedures, Drawing 3 Key to Boring and Pit Logs, Drawing 4 Logs of Pits 1-5, Drawing 5 l i I NOY 0 3 2017 110 1 N'f1.1RY weuCt kit ~ t t`.•w~f) Tr we~.r Rl~1~e• Moue ~~--1 \ a L (taut+T'sr) ~ ~.!!.e?'r_,;•. g L-ro 7mRYtoca161f a• ' SY .:000 •v e.~.0 4Aybf9 ` ' (-bY al-.flQ A4Oo5. I.t1.eYy q0' ♦LL6Y (tU tar ~ ~s 1 ' r.. ' • v a ~ ' Cdvt GIM, IAND~!~,!' • i !:k A Vb-Mo srMf (ammww..F) I im - J "TOVtN MOtfbE' i]N mS i~a~ wM1c~ i Hoar Z •;YR w"`/ yew' 130 ~i ~µ~c m btabtp ris Ptwlffrhtr& PIa„ l ~-p J.JA Md. 07-1053 i ~ i h 3nN3AY NiviNnon 3nK3AY NIVINnOV4 Aa cr ~ 1 N I N < t I s / ~ U j ~ ~ = I III 1 t 3L I I u all NOV 03 2017 a Q ~ - ~ j girl I a ` 1 a~ /i C'M -`1 r ill ij:d 1 1 I I ri~0~"Rp~Y 1 W ' I O , + 1 W z I 112 LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES The laboratory testing program was directed toward a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the physical and mechanical properties of the soils underlying the site. The natural water content was determined on four samples of the materials recovered from the pits in general accordance with the ASTM Test Method D2216. These water contents are recorded on the logs at the appropriate sample depths. One Atterberg Limit determination was performed on a sample of the subsurface soil materials in general accordance with the ASTM Test Method D4318 to determine the range of water contents over which the material exhibited plasticity. The Atterberg Limits are used to classify soils in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System and to evaluate the soils' expansion potential. The results of this test are presented on the logs. The percent soil fraction passing the #200 sieve was determined on three samples of the subsurface soils in general accordance with the ASTM Test Method D1140 to aid in the classification of the soils. The results of these tests are shown on the logs at the appropriate sample depths. Free swell tests were performed on three samples of the soil materials to evaluate the swelling potential of the materials. The tests were performed by pouring ten mL of the dry material into a 100 mL graduated cylinder containing about 40 mL of distilled water. The mixture was stirred repeatedly and allowed to equilibrate for 24 hours, then distilled water was added up to the 100 mL mark. The graduated cylinder was left undisturbed to equilibrate. The free-swell volume was then noted. The percent free swell was calculated by dividing the free-swell volume by ten and multiplying by 100 percent. The results of these tests are presented on the logs. 1,10V 03 2~1t~ f =,a,,~~7p1 Drawing No. 3 113 PRIMARY DIVISIONS GROUP SYMBOL SECONDARY DIVISIONS GRAVELS CLEAN Well graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or rn a GRAVELS GW no fines. i MORE THAN HALF (LESS THAN Poorly graded grovels, or gravel-sond mixtures, little O' S OF COARSE 5X FINES) GP or no fines. c FRACTION IS GRAVEL GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures, LL z w LARGER THAN yylT}I non- lastlc fines. ~'-I 0 N Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-cloy mixtures, Z !ti i us No. 4 SIEVE FINES GC plastic fines. 0 T SANDS CLEAN SW Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. SANDS W a MORE THAN HALF (LEA FINES N SP Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little or FE n OF COARSE ) no fines. 0 W N FRACTION IS SANDS SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures, non-plostlc fines 0 SMALLER THAN VATH No. 4 SIEVE FINES S(`, Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines. to SILTS AND CLAYS ML Inorganic silts an very fine sands, roc lour, silty or j clayey fine sands or clayey silts with slight plasticity, 0 Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly LIQUID LIMIT IS CI.., clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays. LESS THAN 5OX LU = VI OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity. N SILTS AND CLAYS MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or is omoceous ne o sand or silt soils elastic silts. 0 W o z LIQUID LIMIT IS CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays, z 2 GREATER THAN 50X OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, or onic silts. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt Peat and other highly organic soils. UNIFIED SOIL ~,.ASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D-2 B s r U.S. STANDARD SERIES SIEVE CLEAR SQUARE SIF~VE OPENINGS 200 40 10 4 3/4" 9iUV1:e %I h SILTS AND CLAYS SAND GRAVEL A~BL s /br 1Ef FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE GRAIN SIZES ANDS & GRAVELS BLOWS/FOOT SILTS & CLAYS STRENGTH BLOWS/FOOT VERY LOOSE 0 - 4 VERY SOFT 0 - 1/4 0 - 2 LOOSE 4 - 10 SOFT 1/4 - 1/2 2 - 4 MEDIUM DENSE 10 - 30 FIRM 1/2 - 1 4 - 8 STIFF 1 - 2 8 - 16 DENSE 30 - 50 VERY STIFF 2 - 4 16 - 32 VERY DENSE OVER 50 HARD OVER 4 OVER 32 RELATIVE DENSITY CONSISTENCY tNumber of blows of 140 pound hommer falling 30 inches to drive a 2 Inch O.D. (1-3/8 inch I.D.) split spoon (ASTM D-1586). #'Unconflned compressive strength In tons/sq. ft. as determined by laboratory testing or approximated by the standard penetration test (ASTM 0-1586), pocket penetrometer, torvone, or visual observation. r su$a-M-nu I TO DORM AND PTT LOOP! DRAWIIJO Red&nthl Dw&pn= To IM4I0 MA ~ s 0117701 475 East Nm& Sreet ri~rra.. 4 wn. ~:.~.r o AsbiYlld n cftp - - - - - - I-W X* Na 17-WO DRAWN RS LS1V8 DA A ZO17 Ct{FQM RS OF 5 DW05 r TEST PIT 1 0 Very CLAYEY SAND (SC-CL), brown, loose, moist *17 1' X 01': Finer than #200 = 37 Y., Free Swell - 45 X 2-- 3'- SANDSTONE, brown, flrm to hard, highly weathered and fractured 4' 1 04': groundwater seepage during digging Bottom of test pit = 4.2', practical excavation refusal at 4.2' TEST PIT 2 0 Very CLAYEY SAND (SC-CL), brown, loose, moist it 2' py- SANDSTONE, brown, firm to hard, highly weathered and fractured 02.2': groundwater seepage during digging Bottom of test pit = 2.5', practical excavation refusal at 2.5' TEST PIT 3 0 SANDY CLAY (CL), dark gray-brown to block, medium stiff, very moist •25 1' X 2, 02': groundwater seepage during digging SANDSTONE, brown, flrm to hard, highly weathered and fractured 3 01': Liquid Limit = 37 % Plasticity Index = 16 % 4' Finer than #200 - 55 7, Free Swell = 55 X 5' Ih 17:11 Bottom of test pit = 5', practical excavation refusal at 5- TEST PIT 4 NOV O 0 Very CLAYEY SAND (SC-CL), brown, loose, moist *20 1' X Z 01': Finer than #200 = 42 90, Free Swell 50 X *29 2' X 02': Finer than 200 = 49 X Free Swell 50 % 3' SANDSTONE, brown, firm to hard, highly weathered and fractured 01.7': groundwater seepage during digging Bottom of test pit - 3.4', practical excavation refusal at 3.4' TEST PIT 5 0 CLAYEY SAND (SC), dark grog-brown, loose, moist, with grovels and cobbles 1r grading below to 2' CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC), brown and dark brown, medium dense, moist, 3' with cobbles, grading below to 4' CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC). brown, medium dense, moist, with cobbles and boulders 5' SANDSTONE, brown, firm to hard, highly weathered and fractured Bottom of test pit = 5.2', practical excavation refusal at 5.2' *moisture content in percent rstilri'm Log of Plts I - S DRAWII+I(3 umwTy=m Rakkadal Development }01=490 475 East Nevada Sma MAR' lLL 1,,~ 4 A7tOLRTi w l _ ilmd r -.t )Y[) f181LaI1L1 Orwn MM 1B Wa 17.109 DItAWNI RS Nam De 2017 CHI RS OF 5 DWOS pAVID 'T'ouNa 13LACKBERRYS Located In. N89'58' 51'W ' 80.00 The N.E. 1/4 Sec. 4, T396., R IE., W.M. City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon r 1 1 r 2~`\ 1 1 / ~0 1 39 1E 04A ate, Ir i o w. 1 TAX LOT 201 \ 1 1 1 I _ o 1'1 It'~'Ii It t11111'Ill% I'l 11 N89'58'52aW, 77 1 1 1 t x IL 1 t1 t1111 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 t l t l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I x x x x 1 l 1 IJ 1 111` ~t 1tt 1 1 1`y 1 1 1 1 1 1` txl 1 x-1 xx I I 1 Itl ~llyi tl~~ 39 1E 04A { 1. t tt1\'\I'\\ \~1'`'''''\1`1t1111i'\ 111 t~ ~It ` 1 1 i / i TAX LOT 1200 w 1 1 \ 1 1` I l y t\ t'1' 1 1 1\ \ 1 1 1111 1 y 1 1 1 1 1 / r I 1 1 1\ t `y 1 1 1 `1'1 \ \'\'i t 1 11 `I 1 1 iii 1 i i 39 1E 04A i i . i t t'1 ~'1 ` TAX LOT 1300 It 1 / 111 X 1 1 1 11 \ i : ~tilii /1 1 i11'tt tt t'YIt 1111 ` 111 1 1 i _ \ < ~ \ \ "01 /I//Irr~'~1\1'1111111\111'\ ' '1\t1 0. 1 11 11yt 1\It \I1 1 I I \ s \ 1 i fr/rrr iW 1 1 1\\III III i19,1111~ 1 \ yll\ 1 1 ♦ 1 r r I/r I t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 /r ` ♦ t i III j l l j~ 1! 1 1 1 1 11 1 11 11'1 \ 1 11 1 1 1 1 `J t tV 1 1111 ~ I_----,` ~ N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l / ! 1 / 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ t 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 l l t 1 1 1 t ll '1 ' 1 1 " 1 / ~ ` 1 / r 1 1 1 1' I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ` I l' ' l l V 1 ~1 1 I _ ~ ♦ ~^I I % I' 1 1 1 t l l t t l I j 1 1` t t 1 t~ t It 1 1 1 1 ~1 1' 1 U / ~ j `y 11 ; 1\ ; t t I t t j 1 1 %I t It 1 1 `I t 1 11 11 1 11 I 1 1 1'1 ' I N, j 1 t 11 , t I t!! 1111'1, It 11 I'' l l t it it I ,1,,," I it CITY LIMITSQOI, it 1, o / I ,1111 1 `1 `y `\1 1 `1 tyl t1 `1 11 1 1 1 1 1 11 V I II IH'I k i. `1 j 1t - 1 - - - - 4 I a. - ---~c~- - - , `1 1 rl 1 IT~TT ' 1 t I J, V\! 1 1 1 1 I 1 I ♦ / N - \1 l 1 `y t j ` 1V '1'1'1 ` I 1 11 't' 1V 1 ` 1 `'1 1 I 1 r 11 / \ A. ♦ ; i \ 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i ° 1 `I 1' 1 1 1 \ `t l` 1 `1 y 1 `1 1 1\\ 1 1 1 1 I l 1 I \ \ ec, m 1 \ y 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 \ 1 1 y \ 1 t t; 1 1 1 1 1 1 1` 1 1 111 1 i~ \ l^i (r~ \ l 1\1 I 1 I \ I \ 'Y~` ~ ~'1\I t t 1 1 t 1 1 `1 `I ~ L 11 tl 11 \1 I 1 ' 1 1 ` \ i_ _ / 1♦ a / \1 Z~ 39 il dill t\11111 t t 1111 t1 t1 1, 1i II t, `tKlt !11!111!'!``_ Oc9' .o TAx}L0T041100 \\I'i N \`\tit111lttitttttt\Ilitt ~Ir/- - - ~3AVnl rr \ . \ _ r 11 111111ti11 yl \1i t 1111 111 \ t \ \ 1 r / ' ' \ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 11 i RE OENCE ZROA&-~._ \I ° i ! 1 11 1 1 1 11' It %I ' 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 111 1111111111 X1111 '1\t1 1'\11/ I _ r I V t t l t 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 \ t\ 1 1` I t l\ ~ orn ~O7`F7t3~\ ~ 1 / 1 1 1 1 1` 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1''i ``iLtll~~ / / t't1t1111t1t 11111 It 11 11 t 1 1 1 11111 ' ` I 111 1111 1111111111111111 11111 1 01 I , . 111/1/11 j111t11 y111t 1111111111\'t ' M _ '1l 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 / - t1t1111t1j1j1t111\111111111 111\ 1 / \ j 'I 1 1 111 1 1 1 1 I' 1 1 11 1 1` l l \ 11 Ill 1 1 1 1 1 1 / 1 lttjj ll t 111 !111111 1 1 1\\ i 1\ / I IIt I 1 1 1 1 1 ! II I t 1 1 1 1't 1 1 t 1t 1 1'1 1 1'l 1\ 1 11 11 I\ i~f'i ♦ 1 1 111!1!1 t 111 !1111 1111 \ 1 1 \ \ Cf ♦ '1 1 1111 I1t 11 tII 1111111111! 11 `Il \'1 \\x ` / \ t t 1 1 1 1 111 t 11 l y 1 1 1 y 1 1 1 , / I\ 1 I t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t l ll t l l l l\ I y t 1 1\\\ \ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 V` 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1\\\\ ` \ _ , \ t l 1 ~ 1 1 1 l l l l l l` 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1' \ \ t 1 1 / r 1 1 1 1! 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 y 1 1 t \ --1800--------- - 1- - 1 1 ' / r / 11 1 1 1 ` ' it RH9'S1S'S1"W'~ _-b90.5 ' 95851E i 60.00' 111 it 1 I \ 111 - a oxA ` ' i ar °JG r ` ILC t 1I~ ? R 1 Irll ~\Zl! ` Q o Z r + I _ - - i a / ! / i i 1 1 1 1 `1 \ \t \I t \ 1 '1 4_ _ 1 i 1 STREET NEVADA - /r ` `--1 1-1-~-V-1-; 1 \ 1 \ , \ ~`t -00 ' - -gym ~ ~ r 1 I I ~ I \ \ \ } i `e1p7 I J S w~ GRAPHIC SCALE n >o w IM ~•-1 ~',1 a°-=' /'`ti; ( IN rur t 1 t taob - So ft / f 1 TE: ! 2 SCALIB o~ I >e NOV 0 ti 5Y: DARREL L. FaUCK Y f'ROJEGTI 15_109 REOISTERED S i PROJECT NOs PROFESSIONAL t o em w LAND SURVEYOR NOTE, D 1w. A E: V- FILE 30, Oa No or 4 20 Contours are at 2' intervals 15 SCAL 10FFBUHR REVISION NO.: Irucrrmmc corn Index contours are at 10' Intervals ^ ASSoCUTES, Me. REVISION DATE: oR~ooH (v~ ~xrni~ clll'a~[u°i`Rlnitx Utility Information depicted this mop is potted SHEET I OF 1 from 1Rlriad features and uti llty markings located x1 ]DR., A3I8 MAR' Y NO 9116 s,.wr... mn sha/sox~ In the field and record Information supplled by tka: __I... u1 1..r,.....nlinn should be field L L--J, 1 PROPOSED l/ STRUCTURE PROPOSED STRUCTURE PROPOSED i PROPOSED PROPOSED - ~ PROPOSED PROPOSED STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE I STRUCTURE STRUCTURE J A~T NEVADA ST 1 r PROJECT TEAM: OWNER i YOUNG FAMILY TRUST t 348 SOUTH MODOC AVENUE MEDFORD, OREGON 97504 PLANNER i AMY GUNTER i' Rogue Planning and Development Services 541 951-4020 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT KERRY KENCAIRN ! JAMES LOVE KenCalrn Landscape Architecture 541488-3194 CIVIL ENGINEER MIKE THORNTON Thornton Engineering 541899-1489 CONTENTS: MAP COVER SITE PLAN + VICINITY L 1.0 LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN L 2.0 TREE PROTECTION PLAN L 3.0 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN L 4.0 PRELIMINARY IRRIGATION PLAN L 5.0 PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN 117 274' PLN Ma !Xuwoscu+E , TY 4 b riumrm I > w 1 I 6 LAM A m3 vuaucAUEr ; APEA iaP NAiIME PLAY 4T-0- 1 1 ,cy7X~' ~ O ' I )'h PVGLIC ALLEY - v 1A1N1 fEi Sf n • 119 Si r - Y, I - - ` J B W f a Innn "Lo < <,i D ,C x ; ;C, Iwvm L/JIDSCI.PC y ` L l - C7 r. ~ PINRINa ({Y' v 7 ` `.k x7,xx Lvw T..E vw+lvroE >.Z ` '~~C J, X l viumrw L. - - 1 - EAST NEVADA STREET 1 ,x~:j~;3: - - - - _ - _--1 - - - 'y - _ SITE DATA MAP AND TAX LOT: w ogCu E 391 E04AC TAX LOT: 1100,1200 S 1300 R us, 1 TOTAL SITE AREA. 4.5 AC (196,020 FTI 1\ x I \ PRPOSED ZONE: NM-MF I } ZONING SPLIT - JO RR-5 2.08 AC (90,604.80 FT') E 1 ZONING SPLIT - CITY LIMITS 2.42 AC (105,415.20 FT-) w PARKING DATA 17Y Z - ' J ON-SITE PARKING (GARAGEISURFACE): 16 STALLS W ALLEY ACCESS PARKING: 34 STALLS l m ON-STREET PARKING: 13 STALLS Q TOTAL PARKING: 63 STALLS 2 1~ u N OPEN SPACE } SUBDIVISION OPEN SPACE: 5,270 FT' (REQUIRED, 5%) vz sv 1 a 18,067 FT' (PROPOSED, 17%) E 1 = MULTI-FAMILY OPEN SPACE: 8,422 FT- (REQUIRED, 8%) n 23,305 FT' (PROPOSED, 22°,6) <<\ UNIT DATA BEDROOM UNIT'A' DETACHED (3) s.. _ x - nlgrrh o UNITS'' DETACHED (2) BEDROOM f UNITS'C' SEMI-ATTACHED (2) BEDROOM ATTACHED UNITS D' (2) BEDROOM o UNITS'E' SEMI-ATTACHED (2) BEDROOM - - 77-1 EAST NEVADA ST. NOV 0 3 2011 118 -8 \ \ 4 \ 3 1 } e;y- TFLFFFTRJTFTT-- 4 ~ 20- l 1 ' - 1' 1 . (III- r I ~ l _ l 21- L,' s 22- 23-- 24 14 ~i 12 l' - 2 I L ( - t III - 5 I 20 Ec3-EKy_- - - - - - - - 27 - EAST NEVADA ST. - - - - - - TREE PROTECTION AND REMOVAL N OTES TREE LEGEND D (Dwell) Ne Radlw Z Tras Protection raasce to Condition Nd" 1. PRIOR DAi_ ELIVERING EXCAVATION EOT T OR COMMENCING ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES THE SITE, it. EROSION CONTROL DEVICES M SD°d°f (hchef) FeM In to Fee Fea[ Z. R.11., Redlus In In 1. CGononatrucllan THE GEN NERAL CONTRACTOR SHAH CONTANTACT THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR A PRE-CONS7RUCTION MEETING SHALL INSTALLED ON THE _ MATH THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND EXCAVATION SUPERVISOR PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY ANY WORK K ON THE EROSION N WITHIN THE TREE PI SITE. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED BY THE CONTRACTOR IB HRS. IN ADVANCE FOR ALL SITE e9ood 1 Cedue WD• 18 35 Eacegent REMOVE 2 Pyw, p0nderoas 16 40 9 Good Good REMOVE VISITS REQUESTED, CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE 12. BEFORE GRADING. PAD PREP THE S Moderate Good REMOVE j THAT CONSTRUCTION MAY BEGIN AFTER ALL OF THE DESCRIBED FENCING IS IN PLACE. FENCING SHALL REMAIN PRANY TREES OTECTION WITHIN BY CUPEC ZONE 3 P... epp 9 25 8 IN PLACE UNTIL THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED. SHALL BE CUT BY MANUALLY 4 Fm gnua app. us opp. ta 12 30 25 ,2 9 GOOD Good 2. PRIOR TO DEMOLITION AND REMAINING THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSTRUCT A ROCK SAW. NARROW TREND Clueac 8 Good Gotdn 40 20 Moderate Good REMOVE 8' TEMPORARY CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH 2 DIA. STEEL POST @ 10' O.C. MAX. MOUND ALL EXISTING TREES TO URIt, 6 Ouercus ganyans 18 >D 15 12 Good Good REMAIN AND ALL AREAS AS SHOWN BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ON THIS PLAN. STEEL POSTS SHALL NOT 11 ANY ROOTS S DAMAGED 90 DEGRDEE AN HAVE ANY PERMANENT CONCRETE FOOTINGS WHEN INSTALLED. DEPTH EOLJA 90 THE EEXISTI E AN 7 Guemus ganyona f0 25 10 8 Good 1.9 30 12 7 Goad poor ~ 3. CONSTRUCTION TRAILERS, TRAFFIC. AND STORAGE AREAS MUST REMAIN OUTSIDE FENCED TREE PROTECTION 8 Ouarcus garryna 14. IF TEMPORARY HAUL OR ACC q Quorcus genyens 8. B 20 10 8 Good Good Crowded. REMOVE BED OF B INCHES OF MULCH, AT ALL TIMES. 10 urcu 9°n7ena 8 20 S ODOd For 4, ALL PROPOSED UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, DRAIN LINES, AND IRRIGATION LINES SHALL BE ROUTED OUTSIDE THE SHALL BE REPLENISHED AS h i 10 40 12 Moderate Fag Crowded. REMOVE TREE PROTECTION ZONE. IF LINES MUST TRANSVERSE THE PROTECTION AREA, THEY SHALL BE TUNNELED OR BAS 13 Oue Good REMOVE BORED UNDER THE TREE ROOTS. NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY If ANY PROJECT PLANS 15' SPOIL FROM ZONE, EITHER 1 11 Jugians app. 12 Juglemapp 8 25 4'5 Gotlarala Fair REMOVE CONFLICT WITH THIS REQUIREMENT. rous ga ey°ne 7 25 REMOVE S. NO MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SPOIL, WASTE, OR WASHOUT WATER MAY BE DEPOSITED, STORED. OR PARKED 18. NO BURN PILES OR DEBRIS P 14 OuamtIs garryeno 7, $ 22 1 10 G0 Cooodad od Good REMOVE WITHIN THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE (FENCED AREA). OR GARBAGE MAY BE DUMPE 18 1S OOuercuuercus s ga gaanyene yena a20 40 H10 E 15 24 Go 15 Gaud Fay Mature B. DO NO PRUNING OF ANY TREES IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO. DURING, OR IMMEDIATELY AFTER CONSTRUCTION 17. MAINTAIN FIRE-SAFE AREAS 17 Overaa garryana 36 50 25 27 Good Good Mature IMPACT. PERFORM ONLY THAT PRUNING WHICH IS UNAVOIDABLE DUE TO CONFLICTS WITH THE PROPOSED SMOKING IS ALLOWED NEAR 18 Proms alp. Multi s 6 (Not tagged -Nel&" Lot) DEVELOPMENT. PRIOR TO PRUNING CONSULT WITH LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR THE SOUTHERN OREGON 15 DO NOT RAISE THE SOIL LEVI 8 25 7.5 8 Moderate UNIVERSITY ARSORIST. GRADES WITH SIDEWALKS At 19 sequoia semperMrena 12 30 3 8 Good (Not tagged - Neighbor LOO GRADE AT APPROXIMATELY: 20 Malus 5pp• 6, 7, 8 25 5 5 Moderate (Not tagged - Neighbor Lot) I (Not Lagged- Neighbor Lot) 7. ANY HERBICIDES PLACED UNDER PAVING MATERIALS MUST BE SAFE FOR USE AROUND TREES AND LABELED FOR 22 a laytan 19 REMOVE THE ROOT WAD FOI 21 Sequels earopaMra d ill 9 11 35 30 3 5 7 7 Good Good (Not tagged - Neighbor Lot) THAT USE. Good (Hot tagged- Neighbor Lot) I 5. I MMEDIY SHOULD Or-CUR CONSTRUCTION REES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 20. EXCEPTIONS TO THE TREE P WITH WRII 12 95 4 8 ATELY. ALL DAMAGE AGE CAUSED USED BY BY TO TO EXISTING E%1STING TREES SHALL LL BE BE CO COMPENSATED FOR BY COMMENCING. Sequoia sw 23 S aprpervkens 24 Cupreasace" leylarldll 10 30 5 S Good (Not tagged - Neighbor Lot) IMMEDI I THE OFFENDING PARTY, BEFORE THE PROJECT WILL BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE. (Not Logged - Neighbor lot) 10. WATERING SCHEDULE: THE WATERING OF PROTECTED TREES SHALL FOLLOW THESE STANDARDS. PERIODS OF 21. AS A PROTECTIVE MEASURE 2S Sequoiaicatia rlrard 10 35 e 8 Good (Nottagged - Neighbo( lot) 28 Cupressacaae Iaylsndll 10 20 6 8 Good EXTREME HEAT, WIND. RAINFALL, AND DROUGHT MAY REQUIRE MORE OR LESS WATER THAN RECOMMENDED IN CAL STR UCTION, ALL RETAlh 27 PURPOSE SOLUBLE PER Pines 5eedgs (Not togged - Neighbor Lot) THESE NOTES: Moderate 1 A. MOST SPECIES: (1) TIME EACH MONTH DURING IRRIGATION SEASON (USUALLY MARCH THROUGH FORMULATED NATURAL ROC _._1218 _-_10 _---~2 ROOT SYSTEMS. THIS PROR SEPTEMBER). / CANOPY OF TREE - _ B. OUERCUSIOAK: DEEP WATER IN MAY AND SEPTEMBER (1) TIME EACH MONTH. DO NOT WATER DURING REMAINING ROOT STRUCTUI PROTECTION TREE TREESTO TREES TO BE PROTECTION som PROPOSED OTHER MONTHS. FOR OAKS ALREADY IN THE VICINITY OF IRRIGATED CONDITIONS, AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS EE . APES 30 GALS. OF ( I s X REMOVED CONTOURS OR REGULAR WATERING SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED TO SPRAY ON OR WITHIN 3 FEET Of THE TRUNK. THE IN N QUANTITIES ARCHITECT PRE OF 1/2 GALLC ZONE REMAIN FENCING ms- WATER SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED TO POOL. OR DRAIN TOWARDS THE TRUNK. C. WATERING METHOD: HAND WATERING SYSTEMS ARE RECOMMENDED FOR THE ENTIRETY OF CONSTRUCTION MYCOAPPLY IS AVAILABLE F UNTIL AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION IS INSTALLER v' THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE FOR EACH TREE IS BASED ON THE GUIDELINES ESTABLISHED BY: ' ) 4 1, Matsarry,N.&Clark. J.1998.M>•+and V,-Jpmvnr. AT-Anrcal Gutdr to Prr•.r .6-OfT- Dunag Laa/ Dsrrbpwm. p. 72. NOV c 119 1 l \ \ sEOFAENTK BLOCK WALL. BEGNEMAL BLOCK WALL.--- 19P M. MEET EK GRACE -1 WDRY AL9TACNSIONG- 121' . ` II, (1!07.9) \ Wes- ~ M -1..-- " - - - - - \ ` I _iF 16W.0 sEOMENTAL BLOCK WALL. t 36-MA%.Kr. I '1Y i -ee ~MP I8050 I 7I9~- IFFII IL. - T- "Ij fF 1BOOA t I I I ~ ~ 1 I , ~FF IBOIA I1` IIIJII U , ~1 r Q I FF 17f1A co _ fF 1709.0 iF / Q !I ~fF 1801.0 +FF 1007.0 IILJII , 'f" FF 10054 fF low.0 FF 1007.0 W W LFF 1799.0 ` fF nW.o Z - -1 I. Li Li U'r - - = = a f - - SEGMENTAL BLOCK WALL. - SEGMENTAL BLOCKwuI. 1 3WMAK Hr. 1 SEGMENTAL SLOG( WALL. - _rr- >d' MAK NT. 4r ""'LM' EAST_INEVADA ST. _ 7= Z: Z FF IMW0 • , y L4 , l LU Q W t Z _FF 17114\ 1G 11 ~11 EAST NEVADA ST. 120 ex, x< <I 1 _-ee ' \ - zv- III 11 r l r % C Y~ I.IfXI~ / "i~'~ Y I J, E A S T'`'- N E V A D A ST. PRELIMINARY IRRIGATION LEGEND SYM. ITEM SHRUB IRRIGATION - LOW VOLUME OVERHEAD IRRIGATION 1 \ 1 \ 1, HUNTER MP ROTATOR SERIES TURF IRRIGATION -LOW VOLUME OVERHEAD IRRIGATION aj^ 1 \ HUNTER NP ROTATOR SERIES IRRIGATION NOTES _ 1. THE CITY OF ASHLAND TO REVIEW AND APPROVE ALL LANDSCAPE 1S PIPE DEPTH. LATERAL LINES - 12 INCH MINIMUM; MAINLINE - 181NCH RELATED ITEMS PRIOR TO BEGINNING LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION MINIMUM. 10. BOTTOM OF TRENCHES AND SACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL BE FREE OTHER SHARP 4 > Z. MAINTAIN AT JOB SITE ONE (1 I COPY OF DRAWINGS. CTS. SNAKE PIPE SCKS, CLODS, PECIFICATIONS, ADDENDA, AND APPROVED ED SHOP ORAWAINCS, OF RO OS DE TO SIDE pTO7RENCH 00 ON OEAILOW E PANSION. m CHANGE OROERS,AND OTHER PROJECT DOCUMENTS. Q 3. A DOMESTIC WATER PRESSURE HEADING OF 120PSI WAS OBTAINED 17. DO NOT INSTALL HEADS UNTIL LINES HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY CLEAN { LLI FROM THE CITY OF ASHLAND PJBLIC WORKS ON 12.08.10. 1A SH TESTED OFF AND VALVES FLUSHED ARE REQUIRED AT { 1. ALL WORK SHALL BE INSTALLED BY COMPETENT WORKMEN . LR EACH POINT OF CONNECTION. 1 w EXPERIENCED IN TRADE IN A NEAT AND ORDERLY MANNER VALVE BOX, AND AT EVERY LOCATION INHERE THE MAINLINE Fn PASSES UNDER 20 FEET OF PAVEMENT. ACCEPTABLE TO THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE, 1 8. CONFORM TO ALL PERTINENT CODES AN❑ REGULATIONS. COMPLY 19. A MANUAL DRAIN MUST BE INSTALLED AT THE LOW SPOT OF EACH 1 ' UJ WITH THE LATEST RULES OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE AND ZONE.THE DRAIN SHOULD BE A BRASS MANUAL ANGLE VALVE WITH THE AMERICAN LIASTER PLUMBERS CODE. 'T- STEAL DRAINS LOCATED ON LATERAL LINES SHALL BE V SIZE. - I J 0. VERIFY FIELD CONDITIONS ARE AS INDICATED ON DRAWINGS. 20. COORDINATE WIRE AND CONUUI (lOCA7ION3 BETWEEN ELECTRIC 1I ` { = 7. NOTIFY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE IB HOURS IN ADVANCE OF ALL CONTROL VALVES AND THE ELECTRIC CONTROLLER. SITE OBSERVATION VISITS REQUIRED BY THE OWNER'S 21, UPON CCMPLETION OF ALL SYSTEMS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL }(t. 1 REPFIESENTATNE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE PRESENT AT EACH PERFORM A COVERAGE TEST TO DETERMINE THAT WATER IS BEING S 1 SITE OBSERVATION VISIT. RECUIRED VISITS INCLUDE: PRESSURE AP PLIED CORRECTLY AND ADEQUATELY TO ALL PLANTINGS. X V t TEST AFTER MAINLINE LAID. AFTER NON-PRESSUR12ED LINES CHANGE ANY HEADS, NOZZLES. OR ORIFICES AS MAY BE REQUIRED {1~ PRIOR TO BACKFILL, AND FINAL OPERATION OF ALL IRRIGATION TO PROVIDE COVERAGE AS INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS- STATIONS INCLUDING HEAD TO HEAD COVERAGE, PROMPTLY ADJUST HEADS TO KEEP WATER OFF BUILDINGS AND 8. IRRIGATION PIPE. HEADS, VALVES, BACKFLOW DEVICE AS NOTED STRUCTURES WITH MINIMAL SPRAY ON PAVED SURFACES. ^ ON LEGEND. 22. ALL SPRAY HEADS IN LAWN AREAS ARE TO HAVE 8' RISERS. ALL - < 9. VERIFY LOCATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING SHRUB HEADS ARE TO HAVE 12' RISERS. 11 WORK. S- LEEVIN6+ h 10. PIPING LAYOUT IS DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY. ROUTE PIPING IN 20. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY SIEEING LOCATIONS AND PLANTERS AND AVOID UTILITIES AND STRUCTURES. LAYOUT SHALL COORDINATE WITH THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. SLEEVES ARE FOLLOW AS CLOSELY AS PRACTICAL THE SCHEMATIC DESIGN ON TO BE PROVIDED BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR. 1 THE DRAWINGS. ALIKE NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES WITHOUT 24. COORDINATE THE INSTALLATION OF ELECTRICAL SERVICE AND PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. CONDUIT TO THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED IRRIGATION 11. ALL LATERAL PIPE SIZES ARE INDICATED ON THE PLAN CONTROLLER. 12. COORDINATE ALL IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT LOCATIONS PATH OTHER EAST NEVADA S T. CONTRACTORS. NOTIFY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE IF CONFLICTS ARE ENCOUNTERED. 14. ALL SPRINKLER HEADS ALONG SIDEWALKS SHALL BE TWO INCHES FROM SIDEWALKS. 121 edM ne - \ y rv•A-e j --a 2tlG-2 - ~ t I Owr-f ' T' O I d y h~ -l rrl ~ I I I I CNf l w t+ ~ - L c 1 I 1 •.Y. GN I ` we fpl. to IIrOSw ,S /GI nD 1 f .r.'.. Ni[11 ( LA'.:"1 . A.eG ~r 111 nsl., S;us-, 1: • f,A. d ee i , -fie NrnH.,] • • • • ,,.m _ i i ~ _ N• euA.f I r.! I t - Ca . Wa•4 - srn•n . V aN I ae,O ]a r~' , en. ) - - ( ~ ~ ~ ir. •r] ~ V y Ca4.N _ \ a~ b.r, ~ • i f r \ V < ~ R+r! tl C.].,4 eN.-t Nat ,t ~ 1 ' J MA.3d - ~ Ilpr.f ♦ - I*.)u.,d • _ - N.J 1 ` C• ,.]ra IJr-,9 • \'N.11 ~J R W ' . e,'.:1 • SJn.• • • N,n -5] _ 6. , • Ia]A-. 11 m - fay. rv I •'.I f V r' PGrrear-i - A W ♦ IbuC.rd ' --D~4e.f / x•,l-]] In I 1 / / ' I x --c,a.e w,,. ngo.l va+.-f N.rs. ,s drtx ~ ta.! Iwv-Jr ~ o Z ] ~ fl_e ~ - .s Ate r] I vrn ra W+s. rl 0eJ-]a ya U srA J. I I _ aeA-1 _ pv.a3 bN.ld - EAST '-NEVADA S T. _ ~ _ _ _ ~ _ PRELIMINARY PLANT LEGEND I - - 1 IsIZE NOTE 3YM8M eOTANICALNAME COIXJON NAME r1 t SYIJeOIBOTANICAL NAME COMIAditWL1E L aM•1 • • 11 iRE - SNRl~38GMJ9E9 L- AchM ArHIM x T.IponsNnu' h1UONSHINE YAR LVROWWZANRA Arcbphyl.s denslBora'HOV and hlch5nl ~HOYJAHO IACLAINN i AreF Acer rubrum'fd i-SF~~nEO SUNSET MAPLE 2-Cal ArH sla '~1, AcaB Acsrn NM*Bowhalr BOWHALL RED MAPLE - J- s,al-f \ ~ Ba10 Sot aM iraiDum Heat' _ DURA ME AT RIVE RBIRQH 5psl. I.Idq.slean ArcE IN mslaphylp, uvaursl En d Carpe[ FERjjjSONCARPF.ARBERRY P C1f 150N PYGMY BARBERRY j FepR ell s a11- TRICOLOR BEECH Cal. BeIC Buda Nurtbergl Crimson Pypny Cj BerA B rbmla munbaspY Alropurpuma' RED _EAF BARBERRY 1 L1F Lkandron lusplen fasdplate' COLUMNAR F. LIP TREE .,-,.•r--I r Platanus ecedfdla `Bloodpoo8 eLOOD0000 PLANE TREE 2'Cel. W BA Bouteloua prafWn T3bnd---- aN~- - AS N F-AMBITIONGMIA GRASS 1 Ow5 Ouercus fminaltG Sclaridf FOREST GRE - Coll. g Buddta)a x'ASlan hlpon ASIAN AOON BUTTERFLY BUSH ` x EN OAK 2 1 J~ j l ' 4 ~ Over Ouerwsrubre NORTHERN RED OAK 2'Cel. Bunt BuxuS x'Glsen lAOUnlaln' GREEN MOI,NTAIN SOXYJOOD CW Calluna wlgans sp_ COTCH MEATHCk VARIETIES ILL. 1 'CeL 1 W TY6 Tllla cartlate'Greenepiro' GREENSPIRE LINDEN 2 _ a it j _ J GREEN VASE 2ELKOVA 1 ' CW. CI,B CISNS x'Blen he WHITE R E C♦lycanlhus oald lalls WESTERN N SPICE SPICE BUSH ZeIG Ze9wva 6amata O rean Vane' - Call. t , ` X41 OROLBI CorM ve(tlc111 u Tbonbeam I OONDEN.1 COREOPSIS DCOVER Caps 1 `I Q CoM Cornus zedceu R(ehoyP KCLSEYS D'.VARF RED-OSIER DO s,,v e L j , an Odsle lyda LYD1A WOADWAXEN 19dQ Dap C Dapnnaburk wa117_Cerol Alaebd CAROL HACKIE DAPHNE Q 36'OC D.P. Dphne Odom V1WLR DAPHNE I p W Gad Ganya hemonN I FR tH0 NT SILKTASSEL _ 11 ~I Ij Lu JJ' Aunn]S paNns CALIFORNIA (TREY RUSH 99.1 IN Homo HemomcaNls SnMl Orb.C SC An LET ORBIT DAYLILLY u~• • 1 > 1B'OC NOmS Ha nxaYls'Slella de Ora STELLA DE ORD DAYLILLY kF W HypH Hyp dvm x'Hltltole _i HIDCOTE ST JOHNS WORT Y ° •Jf' •a 1 Z 1' rrf l ,ludpanls hMZapY, Y4wz BLUE RU JUNIPER , 0 6 Ls.G Levandda , Intennada'Grofso' 1 FAT 8U0 LAVENDER _ 09'OC _ Lym -Udapemuscerl 'LILVTURf 1J~°-J y = i11_t Lyw Lydtlnuacar.e a ROSE CAI IP ON V ; v Rubes CREEPWG BRAhIB1.E 4' pot u Mahn Alehonla repens CREEPING OREGON GRAPEHOL It St 1 T-' 35'OC Mahe Mahema eu mneata'So mess' _ SOFT _CARESSf UHONIA a t: Npl~ May h9acaMhuaanensh Yeku,hkne' DWARF MAIDEN GRASS_ R+W - - ~13'2I Il W fssb,la In aroldn BARREN SIMWBERRY a-p MuhR MuNeubergla dgons DEER GRASS swa-°- pAJN 1 l f~~, 2c'OC OamO Osmar,Nu, delo-i DALMJnYOSHANTHU3 t"O.] -1 - ! ~ rrw-n l \ Penes Pannlsetum alcPa-deef -W FOUNTAIN CRASS n A- _ ---t------A ` 4-pat PhyD Pieys.carpuSO'OImbl DIABLONINEBARK _ hoe IAlle " Me fp., sp., a fp., Plai Pleda IapoMc. LILY OF THC VALLEY ttd ` _ AcAillesa P.10 P.IfnulefrelfellI.wGoWlinger GOLOFINGER POTENTILLA un f \ _ PT. Pdystlchum mu~iNm WESTERN 5 WORD FERN l rw-2 / ^Lmm SOD LAWN(FESCUE) RheB Reaphklapla Mdke Ballfdna' BALLERINA HAYJTHORN vl _ eus s - RheC Rhamnua lmngula'Cdumn~- I COLUMNAR BUCKTh10RN - PRELIMINARY PLANTING NOTES RhaM Rh ph6Tepl,nelew'MIR.r }LDwAI~F reDDA-HAwTHDRN lh.G Rhua w mauca OGe L OR01J LOW FRAGRANT SUMAC - RED FL04VERIN CURRANT 1. ALL LANDSCAPE PLANTING AREAS SHALL RECEIVE CLEAN, 3. ALL PLANTING AREAS SHALL RECEIVE S' OF UNSETTLED Rib, - fUbo anguNOUm _ EAST NEVADA S T. SANDY LOAM TOPSOIL TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 1Z' OR AS ORGANIC MULCH. Roses Rosa mpoaa 9/ensP HANSA OOODEN ROSE xPJM' PPub RH00DEURON NOTED ON THE PLAN. 4. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM WILL PROVIDE A FULLY RISP _ Rhododertdron 2. ALL PROPOSED STREET AND SITE TREES WILL HAVE A AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION CONTROLLER AND BACKFLOW Rude Rudbedda 1. GdIWm' _ GOLOSTRUM BLACK-EYED SUW MINIMUM OF 121 CUBIC FEET OF SOt VOLUME FOR EACH PREVENTION DEVICE THAT WILL MEET THE CITY OF _ Sl 11 1 1111 1 a (25 ds /75 Female) JAPANESE SKIMIAIA SQUARE FDOT OF TREE CANOPY AT MATURITY. SOIL ASHLAND REQUIREMENTS. Spld Spi..a dsnMe- SUB-ALRNE SPIREA VOLUME WILL BE ACHIEVED BY MEANS OF TOPSOIL IN 5. THE PROPOSED IRRIGATION SYSTEM WILL CONSIST OF LOW SPIN - Spbaea bumald&'NOOn Flash' NEON FLASH SPIREA PLANTERS AND STRUCTURAL SOILUNDER IMPERVIOUS VOLUME DISTRIBUTION. SOG iSglaea iepanka'GddmounC GOLDh10UND SPIREA SURFACES. S S Symphodrarpos'Su~ei? SCARLET PEARL SNOWB_ERRY 5yAA SyAle Pubeacens'Ml5. Kim' !.1155 KIM LILAC Vibd Vib-ne daNdi DAVID VIBURNUM YNB. aqn -sylk S CHASE TREE 122 ura-ass (Irs) OZSL6 80 awl4sV 3AV NN1NnOJY W 06 '(9S/6a O4AV) 9561 Ni O3LSnl'0V (NW) N8(M 13N Y-79U ONV7HSV "6a61 !0 Wruvo 7You" ON CO-70 7VM)UVN 3N1 3H1 'Viva SNOISN3a NO 03SYg .1-ro'Ll6{ = NO11VA373 NOLIVIS 133HIS NNJV 1SV3 llllM OWY X33210 NYW70L 40 NOU.93S831N1 3H1 30 1SV3HLnOS a98-ma, (109) LIOZ/6l/Ol 31V0 00r A731VWIXOBddV 3A8nO V JO ON3 A783HIROS 3H1LV 10SL6 N0D380 'CHO- 3W OYDB X3380 NVW701 JO 30IS 1SY3 3H1 NO 031V007 3138ONOO IS 3dVVD HIROS 9Z8 pf- W XSo SSWq r V '.90S NM704 NOLWS SdO ONV7HSV SNOL{V0lNOWIVOO 8318VHO d0 A11O 51 A3wns SIHL 80j 708&00 7VOUL W f0 SISVO 3H1 wim RmLYQ 7rmLm A 10,91-611 On) to9L6 80 '080303W 89-9-9LL On) M3Mm 1N3n0 - .5" 'WR38d X LIOL/B!/171 LOZ Nins I09C6 X09310 O8 >JI• '8O AAA 4700 Oat? 088 1331!15 HLY A N1 'M aFl waaammm 1m Kru itKID 'ONI 'S3LV7o0SSY 8 BHnwon NNr"MN30 n}yoM -4lgWbulpl.!n8 punlgsV to F71O- NGAU W miff"ST •ol pa2{ugl 7ou Inq bulDnlr!1 suo!Igiprunl w ) sl!w"d a/gaorydda lp bw,ujo2go jo) al¢suodsa lolJOlIW9 puo JOVmO 6£Lr-AS8 (I tS) LSfS-A8r 0,0915 N09380 '080103W oZ4L6 N093210 ONV7HSV oWaaPL 3X80 XHVd SS3NISR8 089 3n1130 NIV1N70W 'N OB S3N178n V1S{AV 1N3W18Yd30 018LO313 ONY7HSY 3iWA H31VM AM DNldv3S0NY7 5/7 f~fl 11"Od 8313W 83LVM WM 3dld .40 183ANI ANI 03LON 3SIM83H10 SS37N(l Non iNV80AH 38L-1 H) FSOlSL6f'5-80 'O886 0 tS) *G) SO£S- sum j0 d01 01 Jams) 11SIMS O3 1S NNW 3 0Z OZSL6 80 "QNY7HSY NN80 NYOIS OS 3OV8D 7VNIOl80 DO 881 ({+S) OBVONVIS Q15 ON11SIX3 1SIX3 1N3WI8Yd30 Y31VM ONV7HSY 1S NPo7v 3 OZ _ X7YM30l M/S NORVA373 73 =LYM OWHSY JO ADO x001 Zr'Z 9L0,'Sol 7Y101 -40 ON-3 W-09 zffm XZr Zo't OrS"t0, 5Y32N 5nOM83d 7V83LYf 83M3S ANY11NYS 759 N8RL38 88n AVM3Af80 M/0 690,1-669 (1*9) 3UVJ][1"/RgOJ8/8i X99 Or't 9+6'09 SY38V SIIOL'1N3dW! X36i3S A8V11NVS SS 3138ON00 ONO-9 OML6 80 377k4NOSXOY!' AVM-dO-IHDIB M08 +0916 80 "08R103W 1~ 1N3W3SV3 AtnUn OI78Rd 3Rd 3N17 83LN30 7J 1338LS O8r 'N 09Z '3AV 0000W S 9tf •RV Tm giiY 3N17 U&3doYd Z1 137X1 88n0 TO 9Ct X08 'O'd sym ~~*y 370HNtnv 'H'W X811138 88n0 30 9N1NNfO38 '8'0'g •01,11 '~fR/33NA9N3 NO1N80N1 ONROA OIAVO X d4♦ iYRW/N1lY NIW syn0 d0 NOYB 0'9 ~M r1ID U]AO ivn)vlxv" XV1v 31380NOD ~01Lm7Y~HddSVVy '0'Y f lomq►v st ~ou1 ama • ~ «ti I .7ww i In 1) 0 0~ :I :'JIVW N V7d 3WE Iii CJi wakvians A8 3X00 39 OI JY7d -bW A&wtnn38d/3Iw'XO&ddv 32N a SNOISN3W10 0,Y 53N17 107 310M- N -ffi3WdO73~,30 G.?SOdOW ~ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - ~ sue- _ BLS VaV AVkT ' Lo-I ShLL5Ix3 107 DNILSIX3 - 38ntanais -?Ynto a Ls d i a Sib D3sodo2ld 0350"d 03SOd a3sodoud _ ---j 2rn1ondus ll`t r - - 03SOdO8d RQp~, 1( 1 l1 `44 3817LOR1l15 Hd !'0 R \ - A377V 0350d08d ' 1 \ 3rlatOnal5 o_ g z Aj7N 035od08d 32NfL0n815 1 t 1 1' 1 t \ a3sOd J a o3sodo8d t 1 z a LftiLLU 2 ON I%3 ,6l' LO-1 Nl1S1 - - - - -b LOl ONi1SIX3 ,9CrL -~'~a 11 t _ _.x.492 3Wdo73A30 035DdO8d C6 L9 ,i i , - uo0Ril0 `ASUn"oa Nosxavr `UmvrlHsv 00c1 v `OOU 110011 slorl XVl Vvo 91 69 •ui Qgsvaorl NOISIAI RUTS HYN Hi IHHHZV3I I kTrJTATAnrlW A W l Arll]NVA-Ilrlfll I CI21SOdoUcl V U o, I c W I Z ~ i I I ~IR I i LQ N P I4 ~ a ~ ~ ~ 4 I is ~ xv3a9 o I o ~ ~ ~ ~ ' 1 I 1 I 2Kn rn ~ t ~1 \ I ------3Nn ioi MUaa I' $*g .0'f =3OIj1210 ! 1 ` 00'1081=%INI ' ,tit NISI>9 NOlb'0 OS 0,. 3dV L M3N V ` ti Aar I LO i 3N17 107 Nrmd - = JE NEW S/DEWALK~~ _`t 1 c 1 r (--ra T- PRELIM LOT LINE - I HPVA ` ' I 6FCIgNA•A 1 ` pt~ir•'r'rrm• b trn e.ro n..>tw 25 I A ~r•rw~w NEW SIDEW ~m°eip11 NEW VEGETATED 1 DITCH 1 i:. "gym SEE DITCH • y w ~...~s I CROSS SECTION r I---~ r ~•a"" Mv.r tw rr iaa..rM1AK - ~ _ - 11Ar :Llmm~eMb i " TRANSFORMER" STANDARD "D 5 INLI "NOTE.- SEE DETAIL BELOW FOR SITE EXIST Cl 1+. N TYPE 'b DAS1'~ r_- - EvA 01.5( - - - - NEW NEW 8' HOPE S .D. 3. ORIFICE 1801 OG Fj TRANSFORMER GRADING/DRAINAGE PLAN-LOWER SGUC 1•-p, p p 40 SITE INLET DET1 (11X17 SGILC /-40) DETENTION NOTES (10 YR.) -MAXIMUM TOTAL ALLOWABLE DISCH 1748 1748 -TOTAL POST-DEVELOPMENT DISCHA -ACTUAL POST DETENTION DISCHAR( -REQUIRED POND STORAGE = 1,67 PROPOSED 1744 - - PROPOSED 1744 -POND ELEVATION REQ'D TO ACHIEI SIDEWALK - CURBS 00_TYP -POND OUTLET - 8° HDPE PIPE w 1740 1740 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PROPOSED WALL-OfSICN BY PROPOSED O 1736 FLAG OTNfRS DRIVEWAY PROPOSED VEGETATED ` . 1734 DITCH 1:1 CROSS 1734 SLOPE 0+25 DITCH CROSS SECTION SCALE.- 11-3' p S 1p DRAWN: m1d (11x17 SG1LG 1'-2.5) DATE: 10/19/2017 REVISIONS 17 1 - 1-' _ _ - CID - r_ .1 -4 - r `y~m~,..,,..K,e,,,..~,,........,,:+.~.-,.rt ;-r-v..,+"mr(y,..•~ w.rr;nx...,wr.r~ ..,r'wm+"'" 15 OUT 126 LL -t I-, 7L 1_11 - ~Jjj. l- LT, - - ;1- ~ X11 Ir I ' I I, 1 i - 1'' _1 ~ r . : _ _.-.1 C-k-\ ca it 77. U! _L ~--I--4~ ~ I~,_ _ _ _ t . r_ 'ice,-' 4 1 (a C~ t•~1 ti I ~ I" C~. -71 -]FIT 6OUTH 127 err,` ~ - n il- Jr - _ i t u_ - I -b -7- l ~t._LI.1~ - 1 t . \ t v IF-- r" ji I i - - 11, r i~~-► ors WEB 128 i - f - ~r -~u a 7 11' FF Al Oj LF-A i _ E~6T L ] P.- IT - - _ - n ~t - 77- I: ~~ME".t..~T ' ' ~I I'~ ►i 1111 I:' ~T= I, I ~ ILL TFL; IT / OU T H 129 1-7 IT" ~ ~ ,'T : it I I J1 7T, 0) V11 7 7-37 1 - l I + L- ! . I T~ CAS 130 Print Date: 911412017 w E Future 4" PVC Stub Out (2) Future 4" PVC S I Stub Outs I 1575-DUAL-TRANS 150 KVA 1201240 3" PVC I E5047609 E 410 AL i Future T5047610 ;i 3" PVC 110 AL O I I tion 1 1 + s i p 644-TRANS-ASH © 3" PVC 0 O _ _ 1 I 1 a T5047629 i 50 KVA 120/240 1 I 3" PVC i y og (2) 4" PVC 3"PVC Q 350 AL i i QQ- --1 „c 17 I~ I 11U M`v OM I 11 a~ 3" PVC i ; T5046635 I = M 4/0 AL Install 1I0 AL PRI to new Refeed I 25 KVA TRANS B phase I I existing Vault: 644-TRANS-ASH ■ service T5047606 L9 i • Open Splice Pit _ _ fl ~ . - R , - 01- Option 1.) Intercept existing road crossing $5047605 J L 504663 c/o Existing XFR ® if possible. 25 KVA 1201240 H50476 1 See Street Option 2.) Install new 4" PVC road crossing Install Vault Light Detail 644-TRANS-ASH ?-Vault Lid 575-DUAL-TRANS T5046627 CIO Lid to DUAL-TRANS-CAB - 155047628 H5046634 f ~ E E5047603 0 30 60 i - I Nevada Street Development Street Light Detail Light Type: Eurotique ' NOTES: t 4. VAULTS: 575-DUAL-TRANS (2) +644-TRANS-ASH (1) PVC: Large Sec 350 AL 4" a No 1\1 F Street Light 2" z 110 Primary 3" 3 Stub Outs 4" 0 I " ST LIGHTS: Eurotique N Street Light Disconnect Required (2) 1 1114" PVC ~ ( 2" PVC F BASES: 4-LB - - - - - - - - - .0 L J AN St Light Sec Ped Disconnect Trans 8' Set Back from Transformers to Combustible Buildings 101 Council Business Meeting March 20, 2018 Title: Appointment of Council Position #3. From: Melissa Huhtala City Recorder Melissa.huhtala@ashland.or.us Summary: At the Council Business Meeting of February 20'", Council moved to advertise Council Position #3 beginning February 21" with a deadline of March 2°a at 5 PM. Seven applications were received. At the Council Business Meeting of March 6, 2018, Council moved to approve three applications that were selected by ballot. The applicants selected were: Jackie Bachman, Tonya Graham, and George Kramer. Council decided to individually interview the three applicants and make an appointment at the March 201" Business Meeting. Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: "I move to appoint to Councilor Position #3 with the term ending December 31, 2018". Resource Requirements: N/A Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: City Charter states that a vacant elective office shall be filled within sixty (60) days by the City Council electing some qualified person to fill the vacancy. The deadline for filling this seat is April 7, 2018. Backsround and Additional Information: At the February 6`" Council Business Meeting, Councilor Lemhouse resigned from Ashland City Council Position #3 effective immediately. Attachments: Application-Jackie Bachman Application-Tonya Graham Application-George Kramer Ballot Results Page IofI CITY OF ASHLAND Jackie Bachman 943 B Street Ashland, OR 97520 760 889-5122 iackie.bachman53@g_mail.com February 21, 2018 Melissa Huhtala City Recorder City Hall 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Ms. Huhtala, I am interested in being considered for the open seat of Council Position #3 with the term expiring December 31, 2018. ' Since moving to Ashland 3 years ago, I have become an active supporter of our municipal government. I have observed the communication, collaboration, and mutual respect of our City Councilors and the Mayor, as they have addressed critical issues and taken steps to solve and prioritize our community's challenges. I am very impressed with their work! Through my involvement with Parks and Recreations's Senior Program, as the Chair of the Ad Hoc Senior Advisory Committee, as well as my appointment on the City's Housing and Human Services Commission, I have gained a greater understanding of how Ashland's municipal government functions. There are many similarities to what I did in my professional life and what is required as a Councilor. As a Special Education Director, my job was to bring groups, from 5 to 20 people, (staff, parents, attorneys, upper management) to consensus on how to move forward in best meeting the needs of a student, who was the focus of our concern. As a Councilor, I would be looking at the needs of our community, and listening to the different perspectives, asking clarifying questions, and working with my peers to develop detailed plans to solve problems in our city, step by step. I believe my communication skills and leadership experience in solving problems, bringing people together to create new strategies, and prioritizing objectives, will help our City continue on the path of fiscal accountability, accessibility for all ages, transparency in decision making through constructive engagement, and environmental protection for our exceptional community. I look forward to sharing my ideas with the Mayor and Councilors in the coming weeks. Please find the answers to the 4 application questions attached to this letter. Sincerely, Jackie Bachman February 26, 2018 Responses to Ashland City Council Application Interview Questions from Jackie Bachman: f 1. What do you think are the biggest issues facing the City? The biggest issues facing the City right now, in my opinion, are: a. Maintaining transparency and inclusion in decision making, b. Hiring the right City Administrator for Ashland, c. Openly addressing financial concerns, especially related to PIERS, d. Clarifying and communicating Council priorities, e. Affordable housing, including regional options for the homeless and mentally ill. 2. What is your primary motivation for seeking a vacant Council Seat? My primary motivation for seeking a vacant Council Seat is to use my proven leadership, problem solving, and communication skills to keep Ashland on the right path. This is my community. I want to help. 3. What Community and City activities have you been involved in recently? Community Activities: Senior Center Program Advisory Committee Member for 2 years, Food Project Neighborhood Coordinator, Olli Senior Program Ambassador, OSF Member, Senior Program Line Dance Treasurer, Improv Student/Perf ormer. City Activities: Currently serving on the Housing and Human Services Commission, Chair of the Parks and Rec Ad Hoc Senior Program Advisory Committee, involved in promoting an Age Friendly Ashland, with accessibility for all as a major goal. 4. What is the Role of the City Councilor? The Role of the City Councilor is to: a. Weigh all the information available on any issue, b. Listen to the many perspectives of Citizens, Staff, and Council Members, c. Discuss the pros and cons of specific strategies to address each issue, d. Make non partisan decisions in collaboration with Council Members, e. Do the right thing for Ashland now and into the future. i February 27, 2018 Dear Ashland City Council, With this letter, I am formally indicating my interest in being appointed to fill the remainder of Greg Lemhouse's term for City Council Position #3. I grew up in a small town in Nevada and have lived in Ashland for over 20 years, during which time it has become my second hometown. I have raised my children here specifically because of its safe environment, natural beauty and biodiversity, dedication to its children, and the eclectic mix of small town and world renowned theater, art, and music. As you all know, Ashland is an incredible place to live and work. My desire to serve the people of Ashland on the City Council comes from my love of this place and the deep connection I feel to people I have gotten to know in. many different spheres: the people in the nonprofit sector who are working hard to solve conservation and social challenges, the members of my faith community, some local business owners, the parents of other children in the school system, and of course, my neighbors, close friends, and family. Ashland is in a unique position to be able to innovate and experiment with various ways of solving the challenges that come with being a small city in the modern world. We have many different people with interesting experiences to draw from who can help us be both resilient and creative. I would like to be part of the work that keeps our. community vibrant and lend my knowledge and experience to the task of addressing the serious challenges we are facing. • My father served as a Justice of the Peace and I grew up watching him serve the people of his community with thoughtfulness, compassion, and accountability. He ran for office the first time not because he had aspirations of holding public office, but because his community needed a Justice of the Peace with integrity. By the time I graduated from college, I knew I wanted to eventually serve in some formal capacity in local government. Now that my children are older and most of them are off to college, I have the time and energy to serve on the City Council. I' am being drawn to serve. at this time because of the housing crisis we are facing that shows itself both in terms of homelessness as well as in skyrocketing rental prices and lack of housing availability. My knowledge and experience in climate change and conservation issues could also be particularly helpful to the Council as it works to implement the Climate.and Energy Action Plan and the 10X20 ordinance. I affirm that I live within the boundaries of Ashland and am a registered voter. Thank you for considering my application for City Council Position #3. Sincerely, Tirga ~-alalx What do you think are the biggest issues facing the city? Ashland is faced with several serious issues, some of which will be addressed in the time remaining on this term and others which need to be addressed over the longer term. Please note that the items on this list are in no'particular priority order. Hiring a New City Administrator The City Council will soon be hiring to fill the vacancy of City Administrator, which is a particularly important role within our city government. It is critical that the City Council handle this process in a thoughtful way-that not only guarantees that we hire a person who is qualified to do the job, but also ensures that this new leader shares the values of Ashland's citizens and is committed to moving the community toward inclusiveness, diversity, economic vitality, and ecological sustainability. It is very important that the City Council do all it can to ensure that the process is fair and free of implicit bias for all applicants. Addressing Structural Concerns with City Hall The Council is currently in the process of assessing the safety of City Hall in terms of earthquake risk and determining the best way to address those safety concerns through a remodel or rebuild. This will be a large infrastructure project requiring significant financial investment. Affordable Housing When I arrived in Ashland, over 20,years-ago, I did as many people with newly minted college degrees do. I picked up several "rent" jobs and worked to get my career off the ground while living in an upstairs apartment on North Main Street. I was able to do this without needing a co- signer on my apartment because the,rent was reasonable and something I could clearly afford with my various jobs. Not so now. Rents have been climbing incredibly fast and housing stress is becoming a fact of life for too many Ashlanders who are finding it increasingly difficult to make their rent payments. Home buying is getting even more out of reach for low and even middle income families. My vision for Ashland is that it is a vibrant community that welcomes and accommodates people with a range of incomes and that the people who work here can afford to live here. I am committed to assisting with the efforts that are underway to ensure that we have adequate affordable rental stock and that we figure out how to make home ownership more accessible for people with low and middle incomes in Ashland. Climate Change The climate crisis is the greatest global challenge faced by all communities and requires an immediate and effective response by the City of Ashland and its residents. Fortunately, we have made a good start with the Climate and Energy Action Plan-and the 10X20. ordinance. Through several different venues and processes, the citizens of Ashland have signaled clearly that they are very concerned and want appropriately scaled action from the City on this issue. The I Council must now determine the most effective ways to invest in implementing these plans so that Ashland can successfully meet the aggressive, but absolutely necessary, targets it has set for itself. People Who Do Not Have' Homes The issues around people who do not have homes are complex because not all homeless people have similar situations or need similar help. The situation of a family living in their car or on a neighbor's couch is'vastly different than that of a young summer traveler passing through or that of a chronically homeless elder. The "solution" is likely to be several solutions that understand and address that complexity and take advantage of resources available in all sectors of our community. We also need to ensure that our citizens local businesses, and visitors experience Ashland as a fun, friendly, and safe place. Our downtown needs to be welcoming, lively, and accessible to all, including people without homes, but there also needs to be accountability and responsibility in that access. In that process, the City needs to continue to move forward to address this issue by working directly with this population as well as others in county and state government and in the nonprofit sector to ensure that the City takes on aspects of solutions that are appropriate to its role and function. Getting There This is certainly not an all-inclusive list of challenges the City is facing, but these are the most important from my perspective. Fortunately, Ashland has a good many strengths to draw from in its efforts to address these issues, including an active and'engaged citizenry, a functional and thoughtful City Council, financial resources; significant knowledge and experience within its citizenry, and a team of dedicated professionals working for city government who clearly care about the work they do. While the problems listed above are not easy to solve, they are.not impossible either. Working together, we can develop a shared understanding of these issues and determine what the "design specs" are for our solutions so that we take advantage of the resources Ashland has in creating effective solutions that align with our values. i What is your.primary motivation for seeking the vacant council seat? I am very interested in bringing my problem solving experience to bear to address the issues facing Ashland at this time. My interests certainly include climate change and sustainability, but am committed to social justice and working together to make sure we take care of each other here in Ashland. I recognize that a healthy community rests on the foundation of a healthy economy and that a diversified; local business sector is key to that healthy economy. There is always a balance that needs to be maintained with the City taking on the responsibility of maintaining and improving municipal services and infrastructural systems while working in partnership with its citizens and neighboring communities to move forward on important community issues. I have extensive experience developing partnerships and integrated, holistic, community-based solutions that I believe would be a nice fit given the challenges the City of Ashland has before it. I have always been civic minded - registering young voters, assisting with local issue and candidate campaigns, and writing the occasional letter to the editor. My first recollection of conversations around voting and public service came when 1 was about 10 years old and I was helping my father build a plywood sign for out in front of our local courthouse. It was a dual purpose sign that said "Register here today!" and had an overlay that made it say "Vote here today!". That carpentry project initiated many conversations with my parents about how we govern ourselves and the civic responsibility each of us carries. I believe everyone has a role to play in serving their community and I am excited by the prospect of serving on the Council as one of the ways that I can personally contribute. The last twenty years of my professional life have been spent working to solve issues, starting from a place of-collaboration and aiming for a win-win solution wherever possible. In that time, have developed skills that I believe would be helpful to the City Council as it makes critical decisions that will chart the course for our community well into the future. While I will need to learn more about the specifics of the formal process the City employs in its decision-making, I have transferable experience on decision-making bodies and with governance processes. envision the Ashland of the future as a place inhabited by people of mixed incomes where citizens and the City do their part to address climate change, and move us toward greater ecological sustainability; our business community is vibrant, healthy, diversified, and strong; and people of diverse races, ethnicities, and religions choose to call it home. Ashland will make many decisions. in the next few years that will determine to what extent this vision can become a reality. I would like to be part of that work by serving on the City Council. What community and city activities have you been involved in recently? City of Ashland Wildfire Mitigation Commission I have served on the Wildfire Mitigation Commission since July of 2017. This commission is making very good progress on its goals of reducing the risk from wildfire for Ashland residents. I have appreciated the opportunity to offer my climate change adaptation skills and experiences to the Commission. Ashland School District Bond Committee I am serving on the Bond Committee to develop the plan for investing the proceeds from a new school facilities bond given that the existing bond is nearing completion. The process involves helping the school district bring facilities information to the Bond Committee as well as conducting public engagement efforts, surveying faculty and staff, and refining the list of project possibilities into a final plan for consideration by the Ashland School Board later this spring. Ashland First Congregational United Church of Christ I am an active member of the UCC congregation and support a variety of programs of the church. I currently serve on the Church Council and my term ends in June. In the past, I served as Chair of the Selection Committee for an Interim Pastor to hire a temporary pastor to lead our congregation while the formal search process was underway for the new settled pastor. Climate and Energy Action Plan In my role as Executive Director of the Geos Institute, I worked with our ClirnateWise® team to secure resources to assist the City of Ashland in developing its Climate and Energy Action Plan. That effort has resulted in the Geos Institute completing a climate vulnerability assessment and citizen survey that complemented the efforts of the'City's contractor on the project. AHS Turf Field Campaign I volunteered to assist the Ashland Schools Foundation and the Ashland School District as the co-coordinator of the turf field fundraising effort at Ashland High School. That effort raised enough money for the District to replace the problematic grass football field with a multi-sport, natural fill, turf field at the outdoor stadium that can be used for football, soccer, high school PE classes, and community events. My responsibilities included serving on the Turf Field Committee at the school district, writing grants and fundraising appeals, and assisting with budgeting and outreach. AHS Senior All Night_ I have assisted with the AHS Senior All Night.celebration for five of the past six years. The first two years I served as a chaperone and clean up volunteer. The next two years I served as a to- -chair of-the volunteer parent committee that organizes the celebration. In that capacity, my responsibilities included facilitating the planning meetings, managing the overall effort for creating the event, supporting the various committees, assisting with fundraising, and helping refine the budget to ensure that we kept our expenses within our means. This year I am assisting with fundraising. John Muir School I served as the volunteer parent driver coordinator for 9 years organizing drivers to transport the students to a variety of nature activities and field trips. I also assisted with specific events for.the school and served as a parent chaperone on some of their day trips and overnight excursion's. Nonprofit Association of Oregon While this community engagement is focused on a state level organization, it.touches local organizations in Ashland because of the role that NAO plays in the nonprofit sector across the state. I served on NAO's Board of Directors as an at-large member and then as the Treasurer. My term ended in the fall of 2015. My contributions as Treasurer focused on ensuring that'the Board had a strong understanding of the organization's finances by working with the Finance Director to develop more effective ways of communicating the organization's financial position to the Board members so that we could better anticipate potential funding challenges. What is the role of the city councilor? The City of Ashland has several important documents that guide the work of the City Council, including the Ashland 2020 Strategic Plan and the Council's Goals and Objectives, which help the City meet those strategic plan goals. These documents create a strong framework within which the Council does its work on behalf of the people of Ashland. The Council as a whole must balance and weigh the various goals against the resources it has to invest and the timeliness of the need for various actions in order to chart an effective course for meeting the City's goals. As a key decision-maker in this process, the City Councilor has several different roles. First and foremost, the Councilor works to translate the goals of its citizens into action to improve the community through ordinances, strategic planning, and the budget process. Part of this is balancing sh.ort-term needs with long-term investments and prioritizing what action the City should take, and the scale, timeline, and level of investment of that action. The councilor serves as an important connection between the Council and the citizen commissions that work to further the goals of the City and identify new issues to be considered. By serving as a liaison to several commissions, the councilor ensures that the Council is kept informed about developments in those commissions, new concerns or opportunities that are arising, and actions that the Council may be asked to take at some point. In that context, the councilor can bring the perspective'of the larger whole of the City to those commission discussions while taking back to the Council the top level ideas and concerns of the commission. Citizens rely on the councilors to have their ear to the ground in terms of issues that are bubbling up within the larger community, so councilors have a responsibility to maintain their connections in the community and develop new ones that are perhaps not their natural inclination. It is important that each councilor have relationships with multiple sectors to ensure that they have a well-rounded understanding of what the challenges the City is facing actually look like from different perspectives. Finally, the role of the councilor includes supporting strong governance processes, transparency, and accountability. City councilors should speak up when a process does not include adequate opportunities for citizen engagement or when a process is so focused on engagement that it threatens to fail to reach its objectives. The councilor should do her or his work-in such a way that the citizens have faith that even if that councilor does not agree with them in the end, the process was fair and their concerns were given thoughtful consideration. Relationships are particularly important in governing bodies like a City Council,.so it is important that councilors treat each other with respect, especially when they have serious disagreements regarding the best way forward. If the process is solid, all councilors should respect the final vote of the Council and model integrity in government for our young people who are just learning how to engage in this grand experiment we call democracy. ' I s I from the Desk of GEORGE KRAMER 386 North Laurel Street, Ashland, OR 91520 541-482-9504 george0 oreserveoregon.com 27-February-2018 Ashland City Council C/O Melissa Huhtala (via e-mail) Melissa.huhtala vashland.or.us RE: Council Position 43 Dear Mayor Stromberg and Members of the Ashland City Council. Please consider this my letter of interest in filling the current vacancy in Council Position 43, with a term to expire on December 31, 2018. It is my intention to run for election to council in November 2018. The following responds to the four questions as detailed in the position announcement. What are the biggest issues facing the City? Ashland continues to be faced with issues related to its work-force housing supply, affordable housing and homelessness, all of which are, in my opinion, linked with economic development. We need to continue looking for creative solutions such as the Transit Triangle plan that encourage and incentivize other-than-SFR residential development. We must also work to expand the economy beyond tourism and government to create family-wage job opportunities. I believe we can do this by promoting high-tech, medical, and clean industries in addition to the staples of tourism and service jobs. We must continue to re-assess our planning process to minimize obstacles to creative and appropriate residential and commercial development. Additionally, Ashland's budget process has become overly fractious. The City needs to improve how it prioritizes its budget and how it communicates, both to address public concern and more importantly to assure a sustainable future. Both these issues, housing and budgets, in the largest sense stem from an over-arching need to bring the city together to develop a broad-ranging vision of what we want Ashland to be in the next 20 years. We must work creatively and collaboratively to craft programs and policies that can help to move us toward our larger community goals. What is your primary motivation for seeking a vacant Council seat? I have lived in Ashland for over 35 years and can't imagine living anywhere else. As you know. I have been engaged in and with city government in many forms and it seems high time for me to step up and play a more active and direct role. I am a creative, collaborative, problem-solver and bring a wide range of experience to a task. I think that I have the background and skills that would be appropriate to a council seat and hope that I will have the opportunity to put those skills to use to strengthen our community. G. Kramer, Letter of Interest, Feb 27, 2018 Page 2 What Community and City activities have you been involved with recently? I was appointed to the Ashland Historic Commission in the early 1980s and resigned as its Chair when I returned to graduate school at the University of Oregon. In years past I have been on multiple special-function committees including the City's public facilities committee, the Ashland Fire Station #2 committee, the bond committee for that fire station and, most recently, the Ad Hoc Committee on City I lall. Professionally I have worked for the City on multiple occasions, including writing all four of Ashland's National Register District nominations, as part of the library design team and many other projects as well. Most recently I worked with staff and helped design the restoration of the Lithia Fountain and Pioneer Mike. As a community member I have been involved with multiple issues, from the "Maximum I louse Size" ordinance to working with the Festival to save Carpenter Hall. I currently serve as the Board President of the Ashland Emergency Food Bank and have been active in that organization for many years. My wife Joyce and I are longtime supporters of the Ashland Food Project, the Ashland Public Library and other regional non-profits. Outside of Ashland I serve as a gubernatorial appointee to the Oregon Cultural Trust Board of Trustees and am the former Chair of the Oregon Heritage Commission, as well as service on several state and national professional groups. What is the role of the City Councilor? I believe the volunteer council's primary role is working collaboratively with the City's professional staff and the community as a legislative body to evaluate and establish policy for Ashland. It's council's role to listen and determine the community's priorities, and then, working within the limitations of time and money, help craft workable solutions that help Ashland achieve those goals. I appreciate that Council has other duties, including its quasi-judicial role and supporting staff and commissions, but believe that Council is, and ought to serve as, the focal point for the city's direction on the issues before us. In the end, the Council's collective wisdom represents and reflects the interests and concerns of Ashland's residents. It is also, I believe, Council's role to maintain a realistic expectation of what the City cannot do and to educate the public on the limitations that the city faces. I believe process is important. Not every decision is universally popular, nor does every constituent always get what they want. But I do see Council as the mechanism by which Ashland can achieve and maintain a practical, achievable, sustainable, community for a broad, diverse, and changing citizenry. I look forward to discussing these issues with each of you as the council moves through this decision in the comin-, weeks. Sincerely. Gcorge Kramer )86 North Laurel Street 541-482-9504 CITY COUNCIL VACANCY APPOINMENT FOR SEAT #3 TALLY SHEET Councilors Slattery Councilor Morris Councilor/Seffinger Councilor Rosenthal Total 14 Jackie Bachman v V Anne Cowden Ton a Graham ✓ Z Mark HaneberI George Kramer - I Shaun Moran Theodore White Council Business Meeting March 20, 2018 Discussion of City Councilor Appointment Process of Councilor Position Title: #6. From: Melissa Huhtala City Recorder Melissa. huhtala@ashland.or. us Summary: At the March 5th Council Study Session Meeting, Councilor Darrow resigned from Ashland City Council effective immediately. The City Council has 60 days to fill this position. Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: Council moves to approve the appointment process. Staff Recommendation: Council consideration of the proposed timeline: • Council agrees to an appointment process at the March 20th Council Business Meeting. • City Recorder advertises on March 21St to the local newspaper and the City website. • Applications are due Friday, March 30th at 5:00 PM. • City Recorder will send applications to Council as received and post on the City website. • Council will vote on the top 3 applicants at the April 3rd Council Business Meeting. • Council appoints the position at the April 17th Council Business Meeting. OR Council decides to appoint at a specified Special Meeting other than above but prior to May 4th Resource Requirements: N/A Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: Per Charter the vacancy needs to be filled within 60 days: Section 4. Vacancies An office shall be deemed vacant upon the incumbent's death; adjudicated incompetence; conviction of a felony; other offense pertaining to his/her office, or unlawful destruction of public records; resignation; recall from office or ceasing to possess the qualifications for the office; or, in the case of the Mayor or Council Member, upon his/her absence from the City for thirty (30) days without the consent of the Council or upon his/her absence from meetings of the Council for sixty (60) days without like consent, and subsequent declaration of the vacancy by a two-thirds affirmative vote of the Council. A vacant elective office in the City shall be filled within sixty (60) days by the Council electing some qualified person to fill such vacancy. The appointee's term of office shall begin Page 1 of 2 CITY OF -ASHLAND immediately upon appointment and shall continue until a successor, elected at the next biennial election, takes office for the unexpired term. The Council shall have the power, by a two-thirds affirmative vote, to expel any member of the Council for disorderly conduct in Council or inattention to duties. No Council member shall be expelled without notice and a hearing by the Council. Background and Additional Information: Past Council practice has been to advertise, determine a set of questions to be asked to the applicants, interview and vote on appointment. Below are the questions asked for the last City Council appointment: • What are the biggest issues facing the City? • What is your primary motivation for seeking a vacant Council seat? • What Community and City activities have you been involved in recently? • What is the role of the City Councilor? Attachments: None. J r I r Page 2 of 2 C I T Y O F ASHLAND Council Business Meeting March 20, 2018 Title: Briscoe School Property From: Adam Hanks Interim Assistant to the City Administrator Adam.Hanks@ashland.or.us Summary: With prior direction from Council, Staff entered into exploratory negotiations with the Ashland School District (ASD) regarding a financially feasible transfer of the Briscoe School property from ASD to City ownership. The negotiations include participation from the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission, as one of the primary objectives of the transfer is the acquisition of the playground and grass field area of the property as city park land. With multiple separate public entities involved in the negotiations, scheduling and timing for each of the three elected bodies to provide direction and ultimately deliberate to a decision is a logistical challenge. The negotiations have been candid and deferential. City staff expects that a fully vetted and agreed upon Purchase Agreement will be completed and available to Council at or prior to this meeting date and that before then the respective administrators will have executed a Letter of Intent outlining the outlining the staffs' mutual understanding of key terms. Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: 1) I move to authorize and direct the City Administrator to sign the Purchase Agreement for acquisition of the Briscoe School Property and continue to work with both the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission and the Ashland School District to address the contingencies in the Agreement. 2) 1 move to cease negotiations on the purchase of the Briscoe School Property and re-direct Staff efforts to negotiate with the Ashland School District for the acquisition of the playground and grass fields for City park land only. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the purchase of the Briscoe School property as described in the Purchase Agreement. This action provides long term ownership and control of a complete City block that includes an existing playground and activities field and a 38,000 square foot building. The acquisition provides the City with the opportunity to guide future development on the site for a variety of uses. including additional housing and/or public uses with either direct public funding investment or a public/private partnership model. Resource Requirements: See Purchase Agreement (to be provided prior to the meeting, if all parties have agreed to the terms.) Page 1 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND i Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: Council Goal #3 - Support and empower our community partners Council Goal #4 - Evaluate real property and facility assets to strategically support city mission and goals. BacklZround and Additional Information: Basic Briscoe School Property Facts: 0 3.79 acres • 38,000 square foot building) • Currently leased to Oregon Child Development Coalition • Land use zoning is R-2 • Existing playground and activity/grass field area • All Municipal infrastructure services to the site (water, electricity, sewer, etc.) • Complete street/transportation system on all four sides of property Attachments: To be provided when publicly available Page 2 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND