The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2018-1218 Council Mtg MIN CITY OF ASHLAND MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 18, 2018 Council Chambers l 175 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 Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL Councilor Slattery, Bachman, Seffinger, Rosenthal and Jensen were present. Councilor Morris arrived at 7:06 PM. IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Current Commission/Committee vacancies. Mayor Stromberg thanked Morris and Bachman for their service. V. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT City Administrator Kelly Madding gave a brief update on these items: • Extreme Weather Center • Weed Abatement Ordinance • TNC Ordinance VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Study Session of December 3, 2018 2. Business Meeting of December 4, 2018 Rosenthal/Seffinger moved to approve the minutes. Discussion: None. All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously. VII. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS 1. A Resolution declaring the canvass of the vote ofthe election held in and for the City of Ashland, Oregon on November 6, 2018 and Mayoral proclamation. Mayor Stromberg read the proclamation (see attached). VIII. MINUTES OF BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES Airport Conservation Forest Lands Historic Housing and Human Srvs. Parks & Recreation Planning Public Arts Transportation Tree Wildfire Miti at IX. 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] Dennis Miller- Ashland - Spoke wishing all a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Huelz Gutcheon- HWY 99- Spoke regarding what a crisis is. Dr. Denise Krause - Ashland- Ms. Krause spoke regarding pig/chicken farm and slaughter house. She read a letter into the record (see attached). Dr. Carol Voisin - Ashland- Spoke in concern regarding the farm. She requested the City to submit a letter of concern to Jackson County. She read a letter into the record (see attached). Donna Stewart - Ashland- Spoke in agreement with comments above regarding the farm. Matt Marr-Ashland - Spoke regarding procedural issues in the Land Use Agenda Item. He went over the issues. Mr. Marr submitted a letter into the record (see attached). Slattery requested that Staff to look into the pig farm issue. Ms. Madding spoke that she spoke to County Planning and gave a brief update. She explained that slaughtering would not be onsite. Permits would have to be completed before anything can take place. She spoke regarding the concerns with TID. She spoke that she will look at the letter and if the Council wants to send a letter the most they can say they concur with TID but other than that they have a right to farm their land. Cynthia Moscaritolo asked to speak under Public Forum regarding 188 Garfield Public Hearing. Councilor Slattery moved to suspend the Council Rules. City Attorney David Lohman explained that if you allow a person to speak on this topic may be subjecting an appeal by the applicants. Slattery withdrew the motion. X. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Liquor License Request for Hiro Sushi, Inc. 2. Acceptance of FY 2017/18 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and Component Unit Financial Report Slattery pulled this item. Administrative Services Director Mark Welch gave a Staff report. 3. Confirmation of Mayoral Appointment of Tom McBartlett as Electric Utility Director Jensen pulled this item. He spoke in support of Mr. McBartlett. Ms. Madding gave a brief Staff report and thanked Mr. McBartlett for his work. Mr. McBartlett thanked Council. Rosenthal/Morris moved to approve the consent agenda. Discussion: None. All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously. Rosenthal/Slattery moved to rearrange the Agenda and move item XIII and X1V prior to item XI. Discussion: None. All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Request to Submit FEMA Fire Prevention & Safety Grant Fire Chief gave a Staff report. Jensen/Morris moved to approve the grant funding applications from Ashland Fire & Rescue to FEMA for the Fire Prevention and Safety Grant programs. Discussion: None. Roll Call Vote: Bachman, Morris, Jensen, Slattery, Seffinger and Rosenthal: YES. All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously. XII. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Downtown Parking Management and Enforcement - Contract Approval Madding gave a Staff report. Slattery/Bachman moved to approve a Goods and Services Contract with Diamond Parking Services with typographical errors corrected by Staff. Discussion: Slattery thanked Staff. Ms. Madding thanked Administrative Assistant Adam Hanks for his work on this. Roll Call Vote: Rosenthal, Seffinger, Slattery, Jensen, Morris and Bachman: YES. Motion passed unanimously. 2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 3163 Related to Vehicles for Hire, Amending Ashland Municipal Code 6.28.170 Madding gave a brief staff report. Bachman/Morris moved to approve Second Reading of Ordinance No. 3163 for enactment. Discussion: Bachman spoke that this is the right thing to do for the Taxi drivers moving forward. Morris agreed. Roll Call Vote: Bachman, Morris, Jensen, Slattery, Seffinger and Rosenthal: YES. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Adoption of 880 Park Street Appeal Findings Senior Planner Derek Severson gave a Staff report. Exparte for findings. No councilor announced exparte. Morris/Slattery moved to adopt the findings for the appeal PA-APPEAL-2018-00004 as presented. Discussion: Morris and Slattery spoke in support of the motion. Roll Call Vote: Rosenthal, Bachman, Jensen, Seffinger, Slattery and Morris: YES. All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Approval of Findings Document and Second Reading of hifill Strategy Ordinance and Map Amendments Maria Harris gave a brief staff report. Rosenthal/Jensen moved to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law dated December 18, 2018 to accompany the infill strategy Ordinance and map amendments. Discussion: Rosenthal thanked Staff. Jensen spoke in appreciation of the diligent work. Roll Call Vote: Slattery, Bachman, Morris, Seffinger, Rosenthal and Jensen: YES. All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously. Bachman/Morris moved to approve second reading of an Ordinance titled, an Ordinance Amending the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to Include a new Chapter 18.3.14 Transit Triangle Overlay. Discussion: Bachman spoke to the importance of getting this underway. Morris spoke in agreement with Bachman. Roll Call Vote: Rosenthal, Seffinger, Jensen, Slattery, Morris and Bachman: YES. All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously. Bachman/Jensen moved to approve second reading of an Ordinance titled, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 18.2.1, 18.2.2, 18.2.3, 18.2.5, 18.3.12, 18.3.13, 18.4.3 and 18.6.1 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to Implement an Infill Strategy in the Transit Triangle and Miscellaneous Edits for Clarity and Consistency. Discussion: Bachman spoke that this is an exciting project and best for the Community. Jensen agreed with Bachman. Roll Call Vote: Morris, Bachman, Seffinger, Jensen, Rosenthal and Slattery: YES. All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously. Bachman/Jensen moved to approve second reading of an Ordinance titled, an Ordinance Amending the City of Ashland Zoning Map to Add a Transit Triangle Overlay. Discussion: Bachman spoke in support of the Ordinance. Roll Call Vote: Bachman, Jensen, Morris, Slattery, Seffinger and Rosenthal: YES. All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Second Reading of Ordinance Amending AMC 4.12.030 with respect to certificates of Lien Search fees to be set by Resolution. City Recorder Melissa Huhtala gave a brief Staff report. Rosenthal/Slattery moved to approve the second reading of an Ordinance Amending section 4.12.030 of the Ashland Municipal Code with respect to certificates of lien search fees to be set by Resolution. Discussion: Rosenthal thanked the City Recorder for this update. Slattery agreed. Roll Call Vote: Morris, Slattery, Jensen, Bachman, Rosenthal and Seffinger: YES. All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously. XIII. 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. An Appeal of Planning Action - 188 Garfield Street Mayor Stromberg read a script into the record (see attached). City Recorder Melissa Huhtala read the 12 appeal points into the record (see attached). The Mayor asked if there were any Councilors that had any exparte issues with this item. Morris spoke that he drove by the property and read a statement into the record (see attached). Staff Report Community Development Director Bill Molnar and Senior Planner Derek Severson went over a PowerPoint (see attached). Staff went over the 12 grounds of appeal. City Attorney David Lohman explained the redaction of the written testimony. Council discussed the appeal process. Applicants Presentation Chris Hearn and Amy Gunter Presented a PowerPoint (see attached). Items discussed were: • Council Review of Planning Commission Decision • Substantial Evidence • Needed Housing • Conditions of approval • Conservation Housing Density Bonus • The 12 Grounds of appeal Morris/Slattery moved to extend the Public Hearing until 10:30 PM. Discussion: None. All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously. Appellant Devin Huseby and Michael Hitske presented a PowerPoint presentation (see attached). Items discussed were: • Parking • Outdoor Recreation Space • Statements & deliberation from the Planning Commission. Mr. Huseby spoke to not go through with the process. He spoke that the process was flawed and if approved will go to LUBA. Public Input Dr. Jesse Longhurst- Ashland -Spoke in support of the appeal. He spoke that the Planning Commission had procedural errors and went over the errors. He spoke regarding insufficient off street parking and walking routes. He also spoke in concern of pedestrian danger. Sue LeRoy - Ashland - Spoke in support of the appeal and stated her reasons why. She gave statistics of cost and suggested to go back to the developer. Michael Gutman- Ashland - Spoke in support of the appeal and gave his reasons why. Gregory Zentner - Ashland -Spoke in agreement with the appellants. He spoke regarding bike parking and the difficulty to hang a bike hook on the wall. He spoke in disagreement with redactions of written comments during the process. Rebuttal Mr. Hearn spoke rebutted that the threat to pay a lot of money in attorney fees is not true. He spoke that bike hangers are used all over the State and Country and are easy to use. He spoke that Staff has analyzed this all at length. He spoke in support of the Planning Department and Commission. Mayor Stromberg Closed the Public Hearing at 9:27 PM. Legal/Counsel/Staff Discussion Mr. Severson spoke regarding non-conforming development. Council and Staff discussed the reasoning for the 50 ft. distance for the driveway. Mr. Lohman explained to Council the rules for the decision making. Council and Staff discussed the parking. Ms. Madding discussed a possible extension to the applicant. Jensen/Morris moved to approved the Planning Commission decision on appeal item #1. Discussion: None. All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously. Morris/Jensen moved to support the Planning Commission recommendation on appeal item #2. Discussion: None. All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously. Morris/Bachman moved to support the Planning Commission recommendation on appeal item #3. Discussion: None. Councilor Slattery, Morris and Jensen: YES. Councilor Seffinger, Slattery and Rosenthal: NO. Mayor Stromberg: YES. Motion Passed 4-3. Morris/Bachman moved to support the Planning Commission recommendation on appeal item #4. Discussion: None. Councilor Slattery, Morris, Jensen, Seffinger and Rosenthal: YES. Councilor Seffinger NO. Motion passed 5-1. Jensen/Morris moved to support the Planning Commission recommendation on appeal item 45. Discussion: Council agreed to direct staff to address in the Findings the capacity is adequate in the record and the master plan is about future growth and not individual project. All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously. Rosenthal/Jensen moved to support the Planning Commission recommendation on appeal item #6. Discussion: None. All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously. Jensen/Morris moved to support the Planning Commission recommendation on appeal item #7. Discussion: None. Councilor Slattery, Morris, Jensen, Seffinger and Rosenthal: YES. Councilor Seffinger NO. Motion passed 5-1. Jensen/Morris moved to support the Planning Commission recommendation on appeal item #8. Discussion: Council agreed to add in the Findings "based on evidence in the record it is a nonconforming and not subject to a variance or exception". All Ayes. Councilor Slattery, Morris, Jensen, Seffinger, Rosenthal and Seffinger: YES. All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously. Rosenthal/Jensen moved to support the Planning Commission recommendation on appeal item #9. Discussion: None. Councilor Slattery, Morris, Jensen, Seffinger, Rosenthal and Bachman: YES. All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously. Morris/Bachman moved to support the Planning Commission recommendation on appeal item #10. Discussion: None. Councilor Slattery, Morris, Jensen, Seffinger, Rosenthal and Bachman: YES. All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously. Bachman/Morris moved to support the Planning Commission recommendation on appeal item #11. Discussion: Slattery questioned the process of the appellant. Council and staff discussed the process. Councilor Bachman, Morris and Jensen: YES. Councilor Slattery, Rosenthal and Seffinger: NO. Mayor Stromberg: YES. Motion passes 4-3. Jensen/Morris moved to support the Planning Commission recommendation on appeal item #12. Discussion: Slattery questioned the 7-day notice rule. Mr. Severson spoke that it was remedied with additional time. Mr. Lohman agreed with Severson and spoke that it was a procedural error which did not prejudice the appellant. Councilor Slattery, Morris, Bachman, Rosenthal and Jensen: YES. Councilor Seffinger: NO. Motion passed 5-1. Rosenthal/Slattery moved to direct staff to prepare findings reflective of the Council decision tonight. Discussion: None. Roll Call Vote: Slattery, Morris, Bachman, Jensen and Rosenthal: YES. Seffinger: NO. Motion passes 5-1. XIV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS XV. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS Council thanked Councilor Morris and Councilor Bachman for their service. XVI. ADJOURNMENT OF BUSINESS MEETING The Business Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 PM Respectfully submitted by: City Recorder Melissa Huhtala Attest: May 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). PROCLAMATION I, John Stromberg, Mayor of the City of Ashland, Oregon, do proclaim that at the election held in the City of Ashland, Oregon, on the 6"' day of November, 2018, there was submitted to the voters the question of the elections of persons to various elective offices in the City. It is hereby declared that the following persons were elected to the positions set forth next to their names: Ashland City Recorder, Melissa Huhtala Ashland Municipal Judge, Pamela Burkholder Turner Council Member, Position #2 Tonya Graham Council Member, Position #3 Julie A. Akins Council Member, Position #4 Stefani Seffinger Council Member, Position 96 Stephen Jensen Park Commissioner, Position #3 Mike Gardiner i Park Commissioner, Position #4 Julian Bell Parks Commissioner, Position #5 Rick Landt Dated at Ashland, Oregon, this 18" day of December, 2018. John Stromberg, Mayor Melissa Huhtala, City Recorder Dear Members of the Council: My name is Dr. Denise Krause from Ashland. I am a retired professor of public health and epidemiology. The owners of 3152 Siskiyou Blvd and the new business, Uproot Ashland, or Uproot Meats, have applied for a permit with Jackson County to operate a poultry/hog feeding operation and slaughterhouse in the most unlikely of places on the upper side of a steep, formerly wooded hillside right on the edge of the City of Ashland above Weisinger's Winery. This is the same property where the same owners did extensive excavation to put in a marijuana grow operation before getting permitted and without water rights, visible from 1-5, Siskiyou Blvd, and Tolman Creek Rd. The surrounding properties (all downhill) are homes, farms, wineries, and public and private water sources. Animal feeding and processing facilities are well known to adversely affect water quality and air quality and to introduce numerous public health risks, while producing j excessive methane gases contributing to climate change. We are not opposed to the concept of a small family farm and many of us are even attracted to the idea of a meat CSA, if responsibly raised. This proposal, however, is not for a small farm. This land use permit is to expand this small-scale farm into a medium-sized confined animal feeding operation and slaughterhouse with 20,000 chickens per year (mostly in a very confined space) and 40-50 hogs at a time, feeding and excreting on a steep, eroding, barren slope on the edge of town. Location, location, location. According to the national hog farmer profession, the most important factor for success for this type of operation is proper site selection. "Good site selection should consider surrounding topography. Relatively level terrain, no obstacles, and areas with moderate to high wind velocity promote good odor dispersion. Confined valleys where sensitive sites are downslope of the facility are much more vulnerable." The location of this operation meets none of these criteria. It is situated on a steep slope in a neighborhood, thus endangering soil, water, and air in the surrounding area. This property does not have pastureland where animals should be rotated on a regular basis. On the contrary, it is on a denuded, eroding, unstable, porous hillside with an irrigation canal, multiple residential wells, natural springs, and Tolman Creekjust below. Many of the trees that might have helped with erosion control have been eliminated by fire or excavation as can be witnessed from any direction. The Rogue Valley is a confined valley known to be subject to inversions. The proposed site is upslope of all other properties, putting all those below at considerable risk from environmental pollution. Water Quality. The hog lot sits on a steep slope just above the TID irrigation canal, which serves several communities and serves as a drinking water source for Ashland. TID management officials have stated their concerns due to the proximity to the canal. Moreover, the property owners do not have an industrial septic system to handle the waste. Runoff could threaten the TID and all these other water sources. Incidentally, the property itself does not have TID irrigation access rights, yet it threatens that water source for so many others. Air quality. Odor from pig farms has long been a contentious issue and can have a dramatic impact on health-related quality of life. Rising concerns about how emissions from livestock operations might be affecting nearby communities have led to a number of lawsuits in recent years. Farmers have been charged with violations of the Clean Air Act and Right to Know laws. In Oregon, state law stipulates that "new confined animal feeding operations should not be located where prevailing winds are likely to carry odors into residential or recreational areas." Food Safety. We have seen recently in the news what happens when irrigation water contaminated by manure is used on crops numerous reports of severe illnesses, hospitalizations, and even deaths. The federal administration has weakened food safety standards and oversight specifically for chicken and pork slaughterhouses, making it harder for inspectors to review each carcass and increasing the risk of disease outbreaks. Industrial-scale livestock operations have also become a ticking time bomb for antibiotic-resistant superbugs, contributing to a public health crisis in America. We understand that they have a Right to Farm. We also understand that we all have a right to clean water, clean air, and safe food. Jackson County's decision "to approve is subject to thirteen conditions:"The TID submitted a letter of concern to the Jackson County Planning Department about erosion and potential contamination of the canal that serves so many. The DEQ has a number of concerns about contamination of surface and ground water contributed to inadequate waste management practices. The fire district is concerned with access to the property, the slope, and the limitations of the bridge to support a 50,000 lb. fire truck. The airport has its list of requirements. The concerns of these groups, and several others, have not yet been addressed, but are largely represented in the thirteen conditions. These conditions must still be adequately addressed and some may not even be possible to mitigate. It is important to note that some of the organizations who received notice are not represented in the conditions for approval, such as the City of Ashland and the Department of Agriculture. Other agencies were not even included in the notice, such as OSHA. I, along with many other Ashland residents, strongly believe that the proposed operation in the proposed location raises serious public health and environmental concerns and would lead to an overall diminished quality of life for people in the area, while also having a negative impact on property values. It would be detrimental to neighboring residences and businesses, growers who supply food to the community and raise animals, backyard gardeners, and those who consume local food in surrounding communities, or drink the water in Ashland. The Rogue Valley is prone to inversion. Adding to water and air pollution, as well as the production of methane gases, is the last thing Ashland needs to allow to happen in its backyard. At this point in history, when we are in the midst of a climate change crisis, this is time to be part of the solution, not the problem. Ashlanders need to know that you've got their back. Thank you for your time and attention. Y Denise Krause, Ph.D. Don't Uproot Ashland! Committee 1 r December 18 - Statement to Ashland City Council Dr. Krause gave you an overview of a farm located on a severe slope just three-quarters of a mile from Ashland city limits and directly uphill of the TID canal. This is of concern because the canal provides Ashland with supplemental drinking water during most of the summer. Jackson County's decision "to approve is subject to thirteen conditions:" The TO submitted a letter of concern to the Jackson County Planning Department about erosion and potential contamination of the canal that serves so many. The DEQ has a number of concerns about contamination of surface and ground water contributed to inadequate waste management practices. The fire district is concerned with access to the property, the slope, and the limitations of the bridge to support a 50,000 lb. fire truck. The airport has its list of requirements. The concerns of these groups, and several others, have not yet been addressed, but are largely represented in the thirteen conditions. These conditions must still be adequately addressed and some may not even be possible to mitigate. I Therefore, we, which includes several hundred concerned Ashland citizen petitioners, have a simple and clear ask, given the previously granted Jackson County land use permit for a midsized hog and chicken farm and slaughter house, located directly above the TID canal: We ask that, prior to January 7, 2019, the City submit a letter of concern to the Jackson County Enforcement Division. Our primary concern is the possibility, if not outright likelihood that may well result from runoff of the farm and slaughter house and consequent pollution of TID water, that Ashland uses for some of its drinking water. Granted, our drinking water is treated when combined with TID water, and that treatment includes additional chemicals to treat pollution. Other TID water customers use their water untreated for irrigation of crops, gardens, and other purposes. They also must be made aware of this possible pollution. The basis for such a letter of concern is founded on three City values and goals: 1. The wellbeing of all our citizenry. This wellbeing includes the quality of our water, and clearly our health and safety are at risk if our waterway is polluted. 2. Our City is committed to improving the quality of our water which we assume is focused on lessening pollution. Piping parts of the TID is an example of addressing this goal. But if the water going into those pipes is already polluted, then what good does the TID piping do? i 3. Citizens expect our leaders and paid staff to be mindful of citizens' welfare and safety as a principle of ethical governance. We reasonably expect this awareness will guide all decisions and actions you take on our behalf. We simply ask that you join the concerned voices of DEC., TID, the US Dept. of Agriculture - Food Safety, and CAFO to register your concern about this land use permit and the dangers this commercial venture poses to the TID canal, a critical source of drinking water and irrigation of our property. Thank you for your consideration. Dr. Carol Voisin 908 Fox St. Ashland, OR 97520 I i De V Lip /G~, I ,s e7 f ~M►~ (re do e ra v i " Call city Re: Bill ~ r~~~r~. eRa(~SGuvl ' 1. Revisit the procedures around redaction and create a formal policy and oversight system 2. Pause this development and bring the community back into the process. Since there does not appear to yet be an established appeals process in place, I formally request that you forward my original letter, along with staff arguments why it should not be on the record and my rebuttal as follows, to the City Council for adjudication on the question of if it should be in considered as part of the record. "In my 12/10 letter I outlined in part why that letter should be on the record, as it pertains to errors of procedure at the Planning Commission meeting which therefore could not have been raised earlier. These include but are not limited to: 1. The applicant was allowed to make substantive changes during the meeting which I would have spoken about if there had been a second meeting as the PC should have held. 2. 1 was never given notice that this letter would be excluded from the record or given a reason until I requested it. 3. The posted notice on the property did not define who can join the appeal. 4. Best practice is to err on the side of including more comments on the record when possible. 5. The City Council has not formally delegated authority to remove comments from the record to the Planning staff. Therefore, staff is in error to withhold comments from City Council without providing an explanation to those making the comments. 6. Staff is in error to withhold comments from City Council without providing an explanation to those making the comments. 7. Failure to provide a process for appeal of redactions or exclusions from the planning records violates the due process of citizens. " Wednesday- Clean when Eliza arrives until Michael Thursday- Pack and make calls Confirm ride to airport Sunday list need to prioritize Gmail - Appeal of Garfield St. Development 12118/18, 6:50 PM Appeal of Garfield St. Development Matthew Marr <matwmarr@gmail.com> Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 3:46 PM To: planning@ashland.or.us Cc: Eliza Haas <elizahaas7@gmail.com> Dear Ashland City Council, When I first heard that the former church on Garfield was going to be developed, I was excited because we desperately need more affordable housing in our community. However, I was disappointed when I saw that the proposal would needlessly cut comers and trees. Since none of the units proposed are dedicated to affordable housing there is no reason to allow these exceptions. But the developers never reached out to neighbors to discuss the proposal or its drawbacks. Thus, it is no surprise that several planning commissioners voted against this proposal. We can do better as a community, reaching consensus to build a sustainable neighborhood-friendly development at the heart of town. I join the timely appeal already filed on all 12 grounds. Additionally, the Planning Commision erred in not discussing the unnecessary tree removal requests. I hope the developer will do the right thing and take this proposal back to the community to craft something that we can all be proud of. If not, then for procedural, community and legal reasons, this decision should be remanded to the Planning Commission for more consideration. Most concerning is the lack of sufficient parking. This area already serves as overflow for SOU. While we want to live in a world where we do not need cars, we are not there yet and the Planning Commision accepting less than a sufficient number of parking spaces is not supported by law or good planning policy. Perhaps the developer could consider a multi-story parking building to meet these needs while maximizing occupancy units. The curb cut on Quincy is also ill-advised. Quincy has poorly designed intersections with California and Garfield, which only function now because currently the street mostly serves as parking, not a thoroughfare. On a procedural level, this proposal became a moving target when substantial changes were made mid-meeting (See October minutes). These changes (moving bike parking inside, removing trees for a park row, rebalancing units to address errors in calculations in the proposal) made the proposal sustainably worse. We might have spoken at the Planning Commission if we had known that the proposal would become less neighbor friendly. Thus out of fairness, it should be reheard as is and the Commission allowed to deliberate fresh. Thank you for your service to our community, Mat Marr and Eliza Haas 5416668564 144 Garfield St. Ashland p.s. Mat was born and raised in Ashland and currently lives with his partner Eliza across the street from the proposed development. We have received no notice of any hearings. Please confirm receipt of this appeal and that it is being added to the record and add this email address to future notices regarding 188 Garfield St. Matthew Marr <matwmarr@gmail.com> Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:35 PM To: plan ning@ashland.or. us, Eliza Haas <elizahaas7@gmail.com>, molnarb@ashland.or.us Cc: Jesse Longhurst <jesselonghurst@hotmail.com>, ad min istration@ash land.or. us, michealsgutman53@gmail.com, https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=f4dcac6ccf&view=pt&search=...sg-f%3A1620218369854033806&simpl=msg-a%3Ar-3995783333172064839 Page 1 of 11 i I it I J Gmail - Appeal of Garfield St. Development 12118118, 6:50 PM sheilasmith2@charter.net H[ Bill, I have two concerns regarding the record for the Garfield street development I would like your response to. I have CCed everyone that filed an email regarding the appeal as my second concern relates their letters. First, I submitted a timely letter on 12110 to the email address as directed by the posted appeal notices. 1 have not received a reply, as requested (see my original email below). I also do not see it in the record at: • Please explain what happened to my letter. Second, I am troubled that Planning staff is making direct redactions of significant portions of citizens' letters. I understand that the council can not consider new arguements on appeal. If the staff believes that arguments are new, I certainly support them saying that. The council can then take that into account and the letter writer has a chance to make their case. By redacting it directly I am concerned that the council (the only elected officials in this process) might be improperly denied relevant information. Even though I am sure that the staff is likely making reasonable decisions, I don't have any way to confirm that. Thus, even if the removal decisions are correct the perception of lack of transparency it creates casts a shadow over the entire process. It also creates an unfair perception that citizens (every single neighbor letter in the record had at least one redaction). understand our codes and laws less well than the developer and their attorney (who had no redactions in their massive rebuttal filing.) Were citizens notified that parts of their letters would not be given to the City Council and given an explanation and opportunity to respond? - These procedural concerns only make my letter, which raised earlier procedural concerns, being in the record in a timely manner more important. If there is a justification for this action under council decisions or state law please let me know where to find it. I look forward to your response in advance of the council meeting on this issue Tuesday night so that we can ensure that all parties are receiving due process. It has been a while since we have talked and 1 hope all is well for you, Mat Rs. Please respond via email reply all so we are all on the same page. [Quoted text hidden] Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer-daemon@googlemall.com> Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:35 PM To: matwmarr@gmail.com Address not found michealsgutman53@gmail.com ~.......n.....u,.~....,.._.....r....:u..noi~_.n.r..__n..so...:....._... v..........w_ ...aan.canonaoenocnnooonco..i....d_....... ..aon. anno~ooowwananavn n.,.•.n s,n Gmail - Appeal of Garfield St. Development 12/18/18, 6:50 PM The response was: The email account that you tried to reach does not exist. Please try double-checking the recipient's email address for typos or unnecessary spaces. Learn more at u84sor820532oib.6 - gsmtp Final-Recipient: rfc822; Action: failed Status: 5.0.0 Diagnostic-Code: smtp; The email account that you tried to reach does not exist. Please try double-checking the recipient's email address for typos or unnecessary spaces. Learn more at u84sor820532oib.6 - gsmtp Last-Attempt-Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 21:35:56 -0800 (PST) Forwarded message From: Matthew Marr <matwmarr@gmail.com> To: planning@ashland.or.us, Eliza Haas <elizahaas7@gmail.com>, molnarb@ashland.or.us Cc: Jesse Longhurst <jesselonghurst@hotmail.com>, administration@ashland.or.us, michealsgutman53@gmail.com, sheilasmith2@charter.net Bcc: Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 21:35:43 -0800 Subject: Fwd: Appeal of Garfield St. Development Hi Bill, I have two concerns regarding the record for the Garfield street development I would like your response to. I have CCed everyone that filed an email regarding the appeal as my second concern relates their letters. First, I submitted a timely letter on 12/10 to the email address as directed by the posted appeal notices. I have not received a reply, as requested (see my original email below). I also do not see it in the record at: Please explain what happened to my letter. Second, I am troubled that Planning staff is making direct redactions of significant portions of citizens' letters. I understand that the council can not consider new arguements on appeal. If the staff believes that arguments are new, I certainly support them saying that. The council can then take that into account and the letter writer has a chance to make their case. By redacting it directly I am concerned that the council (the only elected officials in this process) might be improperly denied relevant information. Even though I am sure that the staff is likely making reasonable decisions, I don't have any way to confirm that. Thus, even if the removal decisions are correct the perception of lack of transparency it creates casts a shadow over the entire process. It also creates an unfair perception that citizens (every single neighbor letter in the record had at least one redaction) understand our codes and laws less well than the https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=f4dcac6ccf&view=pt&search=...g-f%3A1620218369854033806&simpl=msg-a%3Ar-3995783333172064839 Page 3 of 11 Gmail - Appeal of Garfield St. Development 12/18118, 6:50 PM developer and their attorney (who had no redactions in their massive rebuttal filing.) Were citizens notified that parts of their letters would not be given to the City Council and given an explanation and opportunity to respond? These procedural concerns only make my letter, which raised earlier procedural concerns, being in the record in a timely manner more important. If there is a justification for this action under council decisions or state law please let me know where to find it. I look forward to your response in advance of the council meeting on this issue Tuesday night so that we can ensure that all parties are receiving due process. It has been a while since we have talked and I hope all is well for you, Mat P.s. Please respond via email reply all so we are all on the same page. Forwarded message From: Matthew Marr < > Date: Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 3:46 PM Subject: Appeal of Garfield St. Development To: < > Cc: Eliza Haas < > Dear Ashland City Council, When I first heard that the former church on Garfield was going to be developed, I was excited because we desperately need more affordable housing in our community. However, I was disappointed when I saw that the proposal would needlessly cut corners and trees. Since none of the units proposed are dedicated to affordable housing there is no reason to allow these exceptions. But the developers never reached out to neighbors to discuss the proposal or its drawbacks. Thus, it is no surprise that several planning commissioners voted against this proposal. We can do better as a community, reaching consensus to build a sustainable neighborhood-friendly development at the heart of town. I join the timely appeal already filed on all 12 grounds. Additionally, the Planning Commision erred in not discussing the unnecessary tree removal requests. I hope the developer will do the right thing and take this proposal back to the community to craft something that we can all be proud of. If not, then for procedural, community and legal reasons, this decision should be remanded to the Planning Commission for more consideration. Most concerning is the lack of sufficient parking. This area already serves as overflow for SOU. While we want to live in a world where we do not need cars, we are not there yet and the Planning Commision accepting less than a sufficient nu Message truncated Derek Severson <derek.severson@ashland.or.us> Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:29 AM To: Matthew Marr <matwmarr@gmail.com>, planning <planning@ashland.or.us>, Eliza Haas <elizahaas7@gmail.com>, s hfin c•Ilm ail nnnnln nnm/mail/f17iL-fA.~nanR nrf4..ic...-nP.ena.. h_ n_fo%7A'1R7117'IR7COR RA/17'JRl1RO.c~mn1_m~n_oW ~A._7DO S7R'~'1']'~~77ARA 0'SO Dann A of 11 Gmail - Appeal of Garfield St. Development 12/18/18, 6:50 PM Bill Molnar <bill.moinar@ashland.or.us> Cc: Jesse Longhurst <jesselonghurst@hotmail.com>, administration <administration @ashland.or.us>, "michealsgutman53@gmail.com" <michealsgutman53@gmail. com>, "shei lasmith2@cha rter. net" <shei lasmith2@charter. net>, David Lohman <david.lohman@ashland.or.us>, Cynthia Moscaritolo <czrider8@googlemail.com> Matt, I hope all is going well for you, and I'm sorry for not contacting you sooner on this. The appeal process involved here is "on the record." Appeal procedures are detailed in the code in AMC 18.5.1.060.1. Appeals "on the record" are limited to the appeal issues raised in the appeal notice, and those allowed to participate in the hearing are limited to "parties" to the original decision. I've included some code sections below with key language in bold and underlined: 18.5.1.060.1.5.a Oral Argument. Oral argument on the appeal shall be permitted before the Council. Oral argument shall be limited to ten minutes for the applicant, ten for the appellant, if different, and three minutes for any other party who participated below. A party shall not be permitted oral argument if written arguments have not been timely submitted. Written arguments shall be submitted no less than ten days prior to the Council consideration of the appeal. Written and oral arguments on the appeal shall be limited to those issues clearly_ and distinctly set forth in the notice of appeal; similarly, oral argument shall be confined to the substance of the written argument. 18.5.1.060.1.1 explains that "'Parties' shall be defined as the following. a. The applicant. b. Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally or in writing_ Failure to participate in the public hearing, either orally or in writing,_precludes the right of appeal to the Council. c. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to error. Staff have redacted portions of the written arguments that were not directed at the 12 identified appeal issues and thus outside the scope of the appeal on the record. Staff has also not included written arguments into the records that were submitted by people who did not participate in the original public hearing process either orally or in writing and thus are not qualified as parties to the appeal by code (you and Cynthia Zwerling). I will be notifying those whose items were redacted today as well and advising them that oral testimony needs to be limited to the appeal issues in their original written arguments. If I can clarify any of the above, or provide any additional information, please let me know. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=f4dcac6ccf&view=pt&search=...g-f%3A1620218369854033806&simpl=msg-a%3Ar-3995783333172064839 Page 5 of 11 Gmail - Appeal of Garfield St. Development 12/18/18, 6:50 PM - Derek Derek Severson, Senior Planner City of Ashland, Department of Community Development ) 552-2040 FAX: (541) 552-2050 TTY: 1-800-735-2900 E-MAIL: 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 me at (541) 552-2040. Thank you. From: Matthew Marr < ° > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 9:35:43 PM To: planning; Eliza Haas; Bill Molnar Cc: Jesse Longhurst; administration; ; Subject: Fwd: Appeal of Garfield St. Development (Quoted text hidden) Matthew Marr <matwmarr@gmail.com> Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 10:54 AM To: Derek Severson <derek.severson@ashland.or.us> Cc: Bill Molnar <bill.molnar@ashiand.or.us>, Cynthia Moscaritolo <czrider8@googlemail.com>, David Lohman <david.lohman@ashland.or.us>, Eliza Haas <elizahaas7@gmail.com>, Jesse Longhurst <jesselonghurst@hotmail.com>, administration <administration@ashland.or.us>, "michealsgutman53@gmail.com" <m ichaelsgutman53@g mail. corn>, planning <planning@ashland.or.us>, "sheilasmith2@chartennet" <sheilasmith2@charter.net> Hi Derek, Thanks for the quick response. I appreciate your detailed explanation of the planning appeals process. I have a few initial follow up questions: 1. What city policy governs staffs use of redaction? 2. Who specifically makes the redactions and what is the oversight of this redaction process? 3. What is the appeals process for citizens whose letters have been rejected and/or redacted from the record? 4. When was written notice of the Garfield planning action mailed to adjacent neighbors? (The lack of notice to me tir.n~.//...,u ,•.nnn~n nnmf...-..1/..H9iL-{A.~n..rRnnFfl...7n...-nt D.nnn.nF.- n_fo/.9A9R9f1Q'Ip']G Op GA f10Q pAf.4.nimnl_...nn _..o<p Ai_OOOL']p 77 OOTT9nRA p90 ❑~nn a n~ a~ Gmail - Appeal of Garfield 8t. Development , . 12118/18, 6:50 PM was raised in my.original appeal email.) um Things are very good for me, thanks for asking, our big speech and Debate tournament in Ashland was last weekend was a big hit 1 hope all is wellfor you. „ Mm Thank you, Mat [Quoted text hidden] , - - Derek Severson <derek.severson@ashland.or.us> Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 11:17 AM To: Matthew Marr <matwmarr@gmail.com> • Cc: Bill Molnar <b[ll.molnar@ashland.or.us>, Cynthia Moscaritolo <czrider8@geoglemall.com>, David Lohman <david.lohman@ashland.orus>, Eliza Haas <elrzahaas7@gmail.com>, Jesse Longhurst <jesselonghurst@hotmail.com>, administration <administration@ashland.or.us>, "michealsgutman53@gmail.com" <michaelsgutman53@gmail.com>, planning <planning@ashland.or.us>, "sheilasmith2@charter.net" <sheilasmith2@chartecnet> Matt, As far as the noticing issue, the land use ordinance requires that we send notices to the property owners of record within 200 feet (See AMC 18.5.1.060.C.) It looks like your address at 144 Garfield is listed in tax records under the• ownership of •Nicholas W. Feldman. Notices were initially mailed 9.26.2018. We also send notice to the Tidinds'and post a sign announcing the hearing on the property. Given the large site, I posted three signs - one on each frontage. I've attached photos of the signs posted on the property and the mailing labels used for notices, which includes Mr. Feldman as the owner of your property. The Staff Advisor (Bill, as Community Development Director) is charged with: administering the land use ordinance and oversaw the redactions, which were carried out based on the appeal procedure limiting written arguments to the identified appeal issues and to qualifying parties. - Derek Derek Severson, Senior Planner City of Ashland, Department of Community Development 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR 97520 1 PH: (541) 552-2040 FAX: (541)552-2050 TTY: '1-800--7352900 E-MAIL: This e-mail transmission is the official business of the City of Ashland, and is-subject to L 1 - https:IlMail.google.COM/mall/u/171k=f4dmcBccf&view=pt&search=-g4%3Al620218369854033806&simpl=msg-a%3Ar-3995783333172064839 Page 7 of 11 Gmail - Appeal of Garfield St. Development 12/18118, 6:50 PM L 1 i NtiAP: 39 E 10%S: TAX LOT: 2100 & 2101. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL. MEETING: Tues ay+ D ?ber 18, 2018 at 7:00 PfK As:° • d~ , stl t:- ^cEssed on the record according to AMC 18.5.1.060.1. The grounds for the appeal as idpn`;-ie,r' by the ~ornmission erred in approving the conservation housing density bonus. Tne Punning Commission erred in approving the outdoor recreation space density bonus' the Planning Commission erred in approving the major recreational facility density bonus; The Planning Commission erred in approving the alternative bicycle parking solution proposed by the applicant; The Planning Commission erred in failing to address evidence in the record regarding the inadequacy of existing watt deficiencies. The Planning Commission erred in calculating each of the 72 units as .75 units; The Planning Commission erred in granting the on-street parking credits and by approving a project with insufficient off-street i The Planning Commission erred in approving a driveway location on Quincy Street in exception to the street standards; The content of the notice of public hearing was insufficient in not including the name and phone number of a City contact perso for decision, G i The Planning Commission erred in approving an alternative to the landscaped medians and swales, 1T) She Planning Commission erred procedurally and failed to provide due process by admitting new evidence density ce dubo~ng apd,oper to respond and in making findings which contradict the conditions of approval with regard ' 11 The City erred procedurally and failed to provide due process by failing to provide the parties with the staff rep nd initial rE pubic hearing, and in not making the full record available publicly _ QU3 The appeal on the record will be limited to the 12 grounds for appeal i t- _ which have been clearly and distinctly identified in the appeal request. Parties wishing to provide oral argument at the appeal hearing must 1-4- +..6.Rf<<o5T i armer naorevrr w submit written arguments no less than 10 days prior to the appeal hearing cr / . Iw r>.re, f+fr a,c, a , . Written and oral w ! arguments on the appeal shall be limited to the 12 grounds above; oral LL 1 argument shali be confined to the substance of the written argument. i httnc•I/moil nnnnln nnm/mail l../77iL-fA rir on RnrfP...iow-ntBen~rrh- n_fo~ZA'IQ7/17'I[1ZRO ASAn,7 R(1RR.cimnl-mcn_oW_ZAr_7GU['.7q 74'27177/1[.`IIRZO Dono 1n of 11 Gmail - Appeal of Garfield St. Development 12/18/18, 6:50 PM I are _ ,.v# ad . q i + t wh iced only brparties the pla I i s« 70 Meeting, ie-mwwd to r ~'r Yi please contact the City n t t' ffi o to the meeting. 2 R 35.102,-V `'DA f-f e , e n in the Ashland 1.4 W U I A 2' WATAI [Quoted text hidden) https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=f4dcac6ccf&view=pt&search=...g-f%3A1620218369854033806&simpl=msg-a%3Ar-3995783333172064839 Page 11 of 11 PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR LAND USE HEARINGS [READ ALOUD ALL HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW FOLLOW THE STEPS AND ASK EACH QUESTION IN FULL] 1. CALL TO ORDER The Public Hearing is now open. This is a hearing for City Council to listen to and consider an appeal "on the record" of the Planning Commission's approval of a request for Site Design Review approval to construct a 72-unit studio apartment development at 188 Garfield Street. The application includes requests for a Tree Removal Permit to remove 15 trees that are more than six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.); an Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards to treat stormwater run-off in a combination of bio-swales, underground treatment facilities and detentions ponds ratherthan in landscaped parking lot medians and swales; and for Exceptions to Street Standards to retain the existing curbside sidewalk system along the frontage of the property and for the location of the driveway curb cut on Quincy Street, which is proposed to be shared with the property to the east and which would exceed the maximum driveway curb cut width for residential developments. (All of the proposed units are studio units that are less than 500 square feet in gross habitable floor area and each counts as 3/ of a unit.for purposes of density calculation; density bonuses are requested for conservation housing, outdoor recreation space and major recreation facilities. ) This is an appeal "on the record" of a Type II land use procedure. This is a quasi-judicial land use hearing which requires the observance of certain procedural formalities. We'll take a few moments to cover some preliminary matters and required statements. Rules for the conduct of the hearing are in the Pubic Hearing Format for Land Use Hearings - A Guide for Participants and Citizens and are available on the wall in the back of this room. Please note that the only persons permitted to make presentations to the Council at this hearing are staff, the applicant, the appellant, and persons who participated in the Planning Commission hearing process AND submitted written arguments prior to this hearing. For those of you who intend to participate, your evidence must be in written or spoken testimony. If you intend to speak, you must fill out the yellow speaker request form located at the back of the room and give it to the City Recorder. Within about 10 minutes we will begin the hearing, and I will call you when it is your turn to present your evidence. Now, if you have not done so already, this is your time to provide your request forms and any written evidence to the City Recorder. This appeal "on the record" will be processed according to AMC 18.5.1.060.1. The identified grounds for the appeal is shown on the screen now and will be read aloud by the City Recorder. [City Reorder reads appeal grounds.] The Council's consideration of the appeal is limited to these 12 grounds. A speaker's testimony or evidence must be limited to points already addressed in the existing record and must relate to these 12 appeal grounds. If you get off track or your testimony does not relate to those 12 appeal grounds, I will stop you in order to avoid confusion and wasting time. Any questions from the Council will not count against a speaker's allotted time. In your testimony or evidence, if you fail to raise an issue that is within the scope of those 12 appeal grounds, then you cannot argue that issue later on in an appeal of the Council's decision. The remainder of this hearing process will consist of the following elements 1. I will ask Council members for applicable preliminary disclosures. Revised procedure for Land Use Hearings - December, 2018 Page 1 of 3 2. Persons permitted to make presentations to the Council at this hearing may submit to the City Recorder any challenges to Council members for bias, prejudgment or conflict of interest. 3. Planning staff will present the staff report. 4. The applicant and the appellant will each have ten minutes to present their arguments. 5. Parties who participated in the Planning Commission hearing process AND submitted written arguments in advance of this hearing have three minutes to summarize their arguments. 6. The applicant will have 5 minutes for rebuttal, if requested. 7. I will then close the appeal hearing, and, after any advice from Legal Counsel or City staff, the Council will deliberate to a decision. 2. ABSTENTIONS, CONFLICTS, EX PARTE CONTACTS This is the time for any members of the Council to declare any conflict of interest or bias and to report any ex parte contact on this matter. If you declare a bias, conflict or ex parte contact, you may still participate in the hearing provided your conflict or bias is not so material or deeply held that you cannot make a decision based on the law because of that conflict, bias, or prior contract. If, however, you feel you cannot make a decision based solely on the applicable decision criteria and the facts and evidence in the record, you may choose to abstain by stating that it is your choice and stepping down from your chair. However, if your presence is required for a quorum, you should stay but not participate or vote. Do any members of the Council wish to declare a personal bias or conflict of interest or report any ex parte contact on this matter? [IF contacts are reported, consider the following: a. Ex carte communications: Y 'a member has had ex parte communication the substance of the contact must be disclosed. The presiding officer should question the member if the disclosure ofthe written or oral communication is not complete. If the presiding off cer fails to do so, a member rnav request a more. full disclosure (point of order). Legal counsel will also monitor the disclosure. b. Conflict o Interest: If a member has an actual or potential Conflict of Interest, the member must both announce the conflict and explain the nature of the conflict. ff the Conflict is only a potential conflicl the member may participate and vote after making an affirmative statement of impartiality (see below). If the Conflict is an actual conflict, the member- must then announce that the member will not be participating or voting. c. Actual personal bias. ire judgment: If a member is actually personally biased, (that is, the member cannot make the decision based upon applying the relevant Code standards to the evidence and argument presented), the member must announce the nature of the bias and also announce that he/she will not be partic ipating or voting. The member should leave the room to avoid accusations ofnon-verbal communication. (See also "Challenges" below.) d After disclosure o f 'an ex pane contact, (or potential conflict of interest or after a challenge for bias ('see below) the member should either abstain or make the following affirmative statement of impartiality: "I have not prejudged this application and I am not prejudiced or biased by my prior contacts or involvement; I will mate this decision based solely on the application of the relevant Code standards to the facts and evidence in the record of this proceeding." After° disclosure of any ex parte a contact or potential conflict of interest and any affirmative statement of impartiality, the presiding officer must make the follolving announcement: Any person has the right to rebut the substance of the evidence or information disclosed Please Revised procedure for Land Use Hearings - December, 2018 Page 2 of 3 presentyorrr- rebuttal ei~ider7ce on the saabstance of any ex pai•te contacts, bias, or actual conflict of interest during the normal time allowed fin- testimonlt which has been established f61° this proceeding. Please reduce any bias, conflict of interest, and prejudgment challenges to writing with supporting evidence and provide these to the Cite Recorder. J 2. CHALLENGES City Recorder, do we have any challenges to members of this hearing body for bias, prejudgment or conflict of interest`? IF a challenge is made, the challenge needs to be entered into the record and summarized by the presiding officer. #'a member is challenged for bias, the member should make the above statement of impartiality or abstain and not participate further. 3. STAFF REPORT At this time, I call for the staff to summarize the applicant's proposal and summarize the 12 appeal grounds and staffs evaluation of them. Bill and Derek.... 4. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Would the applicant or the applicant's representative please come to the podium. You will have 10 minutes to make any comments you may have regarding the application; at 9 minutes you will be asked to conclude your remarks. Please state your name and address and proceed. 5. APPELLANT'S PRESENTATION Would the appellants Devin Huseby and Michael Hitsky please come to the podium? You will have 10 minutes to make any comments you may have regarding the application; at 9 minutes you will be asked to conclude your remarks. Please state your name and address and proceed. 6. PARTIES' ORAL ARGUMENTS Would the following parties please come to the podium., state your name, address and make any comments you may have for the Council regarding the application? ❑ Lyn Godsey ❑ Michael Gutman ❑ Susan Leroy ❑ Jesse Longhurst L Sheila Smith ❑ Gregory Zentner You will have 3 minutes to make any comments you may have regarding the application; when the 3 minutes are up, you will be asked to conclude your remarks. When it is your turn to speak, state your name and address and proceed. 7. REBUTTAL BY APPLICANT If the applicant has any rebuttal to the evidence presented by those questioning or opposing the application, you will five minutes for your rebuttal. 8. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING At this time, I close the public hearing. The record is now closed. 9. ADVICE FROM LEGAL COUNSEL AND STAFF Revised procedure for Land Use Hearings - December, 2018 Page 3 of 3 Does the Council have any questions of Legal Counsel or Planning staff, or does the staff have any matters they wish to address? 10. COUNCIL DELIBERATION AND DECISION How would the Council like to proceed? I i Revised procedure for Land Use Hearings - December, 2018 Page 4 of 3 188 GARFIELD POINTS OF APPEAL 1. The Planning Commission erred in approving the conservation housing density bonus; 2. The Planning Commission erred in approving the outdoor recreation space density bonus; 3. The Planning Commission erred in approving the major recreational facility density bonus; 4. The Planning Commission erred in approving the alternative bicycle parking solution proposed by the applicant; 5. The Planning Commission erred in failing to address evidence in the record regarding the inadequacy of existing water and sewer facilities and failed to plan to rectify those deficiencies; 6. The Planning Commission erred in calculating each of the 72 units as .75 units; 7. The Planning Commission erred in granting the on-street parking credits and by approving a project with insufficient off-street parking; 8. The Planning Commission erred in approving a driveway location on Quincy Street in exception to the street standards; 9. The content of the notice of public hearing was insufficient in not including the name and phone number of a City contact person and in failing to cite the applicable criteria and citations for decision; 10. The Planning Commission erred in approving an alternative to the landscaped medians and swales; 11. The Planning Commission erred procedurally and failed to provide due process by admitting new evidence during the applicant's rebuttal without providing other parties an opportunity to respond and in making findings which contradict the conditions of approval with regard to unit sizes, density bonuses and open and recreation space; 12. The City erred procedurally and failed to provide due process by failing to provide the parties with the staff report and initial recommendations at least seven days before the initial public hearing, and in not making the full record available publicly. N have not prejudged this application and I am not prejudiced or biased by my prior contacts ors involvement; I will make this decision based solely on the application of the relevant Code standards to the facts and evidence in the record of this proceeding_j s MidTown Lofts Appeal 188 Garfield Street December 18, 2018 , Ii a yy 7 . ax r ~ i Lu i Y't.~ ' Pk 7--i«. ! ~V ~ j l I •.I { i 'r r4 .Iii ` 't►""'' ~ tit i f ilt -~a ."S fit: •aJ . .use.... ^~3 ? I,~ _t v IY~~1.':oialu~r,...c •~-..Y°~ Y .w~`3. i+.i $ ,al~ w,,. r i wa ~ CITY • MidTown Lofts Appeal 188 Garfield Street - Points of Appeal 1. The Planning Commission erred in approving the conservation housing density bonus. 2. The Planning Commission erred in approving the outdoor recreation space density bonus; 3. The Planning Commission erred in approving the major recreational facility density bonus. 4. The Planning Commission erred in approving the alternative bicycle parking solution proposed by the applicant. 5. The Planning Commission erred in failing to address evidence in the record regarding the inadequacy of existing water and sewer facilities and failed to plan to rectify those deficiencies. 6. The Planning Commission erred in calculating each of the 72 units as .75 units; CITY • -ASHLAND MidTown Lofts Appeal 188-Garfield Street - Points of Appeal 7. The Planning Commission erred in granting the on-street parking credits and by approving a project with insufficient off-street parking. 8. The Planning Commission erred in approving a driveway location on Quincy Street in exception to the street standards. 9. The content of the notice of public hearing was insufficient in not including the name and phone number of a City contact person and in failing to cite the applicable criteria and citations for decision. 10. The Planning Commission erred in approving an alternative to the landscaped medians and swales. 11. The Planning Commission erred procedurally and failed to provide due process by admitting new evidence during the applicant's rebuttal without providing other parties an opportunity to respond and in making findings which contradict the conditions of approval with regard to unit sizes, density bonuses and open and recreation space; CITY • MidTown Lofts Appeal -ASHLAND 88 Garfield Street - Points of Appeal 12. The City erred procedurally and failed to provide due process by failing to provide the parties with the staff report and initial recommendations at least seven days before the initial public hearing, and in not making the full record available publicly. CITY • -ASHLAND MidTown Lofts Appeal 188 Garfield Street - Scope of Appeal 18.5.1.060.1.5b. Scope of Appeal Deliberations. Upon review, and except when limited reopening of the record is allowed, the Council shall not re-examine issues of fact and shall limit its review to determining whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the Planninq Commission, or to determining if errors in law were committed by the Commission. Review shall in any event be limited to those issues clearly and distinctly set forth in the notice of appeal. No issue may be raised on appeal to the Council that was not raised before the Commission with sufficient specificity to enable the Commission and the parties to respond. CITY • MidTown Lofts Appeal -ASHLAND 188 Garfield Street Proposal Proposal The application requests Site Design Review approval to construct a 72-unit studio apartment community. All of the units were studios less than 500 square feet in gross habitable floor area, which count as 3/4 of a unit for purposes of density calculation. Density bonuses are requested for conservation housing, outdoor recreation space and major recreation facilities. The application also includes requests for a Tree Removal Permit to remove 15 trees that are more than six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.); an Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards to treat stormwater run-off in a combination of bio-swales, underground treatment facilities and detentions ponds rather than in landscaped parking lot medians and swales; and for Exceptions to Street Standards to retain the existing curbside sidewalk system along the frontage of the property and for the driveway curb cut on Quincy Street, which was proposed to be shared with the property to the east and which would exceed the maximum driveway curb cut width for residential developments. CITY • MidTown Lofts Appeal -ASHLAND 188 Garfield Street r f .~..i viii- +w' N t r + '~.r~,,: ~ J z r fill- w. fit, c 44 . I F a _ t 71 • d MidTown Lofts Appeal -ASHLAND 188 Garfuleld Street ramnrvmr L14 u.prtnr nMY tpxC 1 b: 1 hl 1 1 +.<wi aM VCwIVM nuxna u:>L nh.. ._1... i 1 M~ qn WI W0. 0 1 a ~ J... bra• k~ - ..._•.M'--.-_ _ ~ r° .rn~ rw nna a ar~~ n 1 ~ '"f' ~ ~\\1 1 1 ~sl 4 .~+rie~nz: i;~eK+~x I ? ~ 'NrrDM n4,Y6 V : Pi a,'+Ii1r,Maq-w VYHrgppn \ I - rinaN IIfM n' it I aaaaraaskn nMYClnrMx}n l i ~ .wrN.,naaaa~erpio frW6alnna'waaap 1 _ \ 1 nr.. ~ \ \b c na. J r~. + m,~.r ~ ~\~\~tM uxuw.e n.nw. ~f Z~ ~ anuu uwna a.r 1 ~ ~ rt.Y ~ n'l' t'9' aa' Y f~la J__i_ ~~IIV IYa' P _ •rs~ aFyV~ ~k,\,11 _..'i r ~tX I r I uananl .nn «nn wla,rn~~ ixsrw rtwn a.e a.m... ,.ar+n r. 1 '•q 1 Ia a.... t' .,gin •n. at MAY `--1--sr----~~. vy J 1 D STREET C 1 i~ ~S 1 LF r i CITY • -ASHLAND MidTown Lofts Appeal 188 Garfield Street 1~ ~ *~f4ro to r b ~ M1x ^h~ G y ..b - Y_ F- -77 * r t :a - w IT -1 . - I 1 01 7f r: CITY OF MidTown Lofts Appeal -ASHLAND 188 Garfield Street - Appeal Issue #1 The Planning Commission erred in approving the conservation housing density bonus. ✓ Earth Advantage is a third-party certification program where point sheets based on the permit drawings are reviewed by a third-party reviewer. ✓ PC found it was feasible to obtain third-party certification. ✓ Conditions to require evidence pursuing certification at permit and evidence of certification at occupancy. CITY • -ASHLAND MidTown Lofts Appeal 188 Garfield Street - Appeal Issue #2 The Planning Commission erred in approving the outdoor recreation space density bonus. ✓ Drawings identify 23.6 percent of the site in open space (8°o required of all) and additional outdoor recreation space (add-'I 10°o percent proposed for bonus). ✓ PC found that semi-private patios and decks could be considered outdoor recreation space rather than requiring it to meet the open space definition. CITY • MidTown Lofts Appeal -ASHLAND 188 Garfield Street F----------------------*------- - i5^ 1 v.e..z„u, y 1 t r, I .M.su P 1 wwr. o w 1 w - - - N•r ' .r ar wMn wM~. ~^`1w p.s ..'t I, ,Irr 1 _J % GARFIELD STREET " i r CRy of MhWW Monnft EahlbU SITE PLAN W1 AREAS ASHLAND MID-TOWN LOFTS PAN r, D.Okk -r6-0~ a- _ PLANNIYG DIft ~O -~j-,A016' SITE PLAN W/ AREAS AP1.1 L" CITY OF -ASHLAND MidTown Lofts Appeal 188 Garfield Street - Appeal Issue #3 The Planning Commission erred in approving the major recreational facility density bonus. ✓ PC founds proposed facilities were similar facilities (an adult playground) and that the estimate provided was from a qualified architect and thus satisfied the code. CITY • • r MidTown Lofts Appeal 188 Garfield Street iG - October 16, 2018 C C C C C C 7 C -C i C C 7 I ~ 6 t L U Value of Major Recreational Facilities for the Ashland Urban Lofts Dear Staff and Commissioners, VNRS 53-54 This letter is to clarify the value of the project proposal for the MiclTown lofts, and the cost of the - - i` f 1 :1 proposed Major Recreational Facilities In order to obtain a six percent density bonus. ^t t Following the submittal of the S1 ite Review application, the appraisal of the development by Paul Zacha, MAI of Real Property Consultants Grants Pass (RPC) was completed. The appraised prospective market ...J value of the subject project, assumed complete, unoccupied and available for lease by late 2019, is \ UNR54850 estimated to be $11,775,000.00. Prior to the appraisal, when the application was submitted, the vNR,?a I J w M! project team's estimate of $10,800,000.00 was too low. The project value is based on the professional appraisal. Additionally, construction costs are rapidly increasing, this increases the expenses towards the space. The application addresses the costs associated with when the initial application was submitted and not on Increased construction costs i For each one percent of the total costs devoted to recreational f p project acililies, a six percent density bonus shall be awarded. One percent of the project costs is: $ 11,775,000 X.01 = $117,750.00 UNR511-12 is 1 UNrrS 4546 ~ The project costs devoted to the major recreational facilities are as follows: L ,J Estimated value of Activity Equipment: $ 2,000. ` ~•P 1. Estimated value of surfaces (activity surfaces and courtyard hardscape): 3,600 X $20 per SF: $72,000. uNR; 15-18 l_ : •_c1 . i ; uNriS 412 Estimated value of sheltered, outdoor cooking areas: $ 4,000. Outdoor kitchen area (RRQ and cooking prep area): $ 4,000. . ""'x"' '::...•ti-. ..'4^^ Gas Fire Feature: 5,000. • Structure: $ 65,000. Estimated value of outdoor seating areas: $ 12,000. Total Estimate of Recreation Amenities $164,000. _ y..uYSa•. ~ s~v~~ sue...,,. The proposed improvements to the courtyard to provide for major recreational amenities of $164,000.00 exceeds one percent of the estimated appraised value of the protect which is $117,000. Sincerely, PRELIMINARY COURTYARD PLAN Raymond xiatlrr. Principal Archltrcr CITY OF MidTown Appeal 188 Garfield Street i } -t¢ tI f ` r s CITY • MidTown Lofts Appeal -ASHLAND 188 Garfield Street - Appeal Issue #4 The Planning Commission erred in approving the alternative bicycle parking solution proposed by the applicant. ✓ PC found closets with hangers satisfied code, which allows for required bicycle parking to be met with "a bicycle storage room, bicycle lockers or racks inside the building." CITY OF MidTown Lofts -ASHLAND 188 Garfield Street Level 1 Plan f 3 1 4 `S J i ~ II IrI _ }.v N M{ tI - \ Lo' - - F 1 03 4 -"t- - I - ~ tHtfr - :J.~rdrrkoerire is ~ D I-~-* - y ka a \ nlw:wx ~ vA~~`~ V VAV~ INTERIOR BIKE RACK RECEIVED I AUG 2:z 2018 City Of Ashland 41 1 3 1 2•' i I CITY • MidTown Lofts Appeal ASHLAND 188 Garfield Street Appeal Issue #5 The Planning Commission erred in failing to address evidence in the record regarding the inadequacy of existing water and sewer facilities and failed to plan to rectify those deficiencies. ✓ Appeal issue limited to water and sewer, which are considered separately from storm drainage in the code. ✓ Criteria require adequate capacity, and standards call for connection to city systems, requires approval of development permits by City Engineer. Master plan compliance is not a criteria; master plan guides infrastructure projects adequate for full build-out of the city, not individual projects. ✓ Development may be restricted or rationed where a system deficiency exists that cannot be rectified by the development. ✓ Application included an engineered plan showing connection to facilities in right-of-way, and the applicant noted in October 91" presentation that "According to the various City of Ashland Public Works Departments, there is adequate capacity in the City's system for the development of the property to be served by water, electric, sanitary sewer services and " storm water. CITY OF ASHLAND MidTown Lofts Appeal 188 Garfield Street Grading, Drainage & Utilities Jn, I~ 3 _I ( I 1 i ~ I'I 4I 1 i I %1 1 i' - ' I r ~ ~ c3 - y a TrF-~ ~l - , } 1 n ~ rar. ~ ..m.. l - I _ r- a :f 1 ^.•hw I y .e, ~ ~ r ~Fy+ ~ nw r+wa• lI wwaw rn NS , u.~. r.» .r.o r.» l I - - i - u~w~~ I ~1 All i GARFIELD STREET r~ ate- r i- I ,Q! _ ii~E 1 CITY • -ASHLAND MidTown Lofts Appeal 188 Garfield Street - Appeal Issue #6 N11-7741L gm-.- The Planning Commission erred in calculating each of the 72 units as .75 units. ✓ Code allows units < 500 s.f to be counted as 0.75 units for density purposes. Applicants proposed units < 500 s. f., but during hearing it was noted the units were measured incorrectly and were larger. ✓ Applicant proposed to adjust unit dimensions. PC found this was feasible, and added a condition to this effect. The Planning Commission erred in granting the on-street parking credits and by approving a project with insufficient off-street parking. ✓ 72 off-street parking spaces are required for 72 studios. 64 four off-street parking spaces with six on-street parking credits and two credits for additional bicycle parking were approved to meet the requirement. ✓ Six on-street credits require 132 linear feet. PC found that there were sufficient spaces to address this demand between the three frontages. (There are photos in the record illustrating parking available on the frontages.) CITY • MidTown Lofts Appeal -ASHLAND 8 Garfie S ree to .m. 1 1 1 ru tll 1 r 1 .n U ! Z YYY ~ r..-.....~ f i..w~. pi ` ream ~1. ' i 1 i 1 1 fw+ u.. l~nr-r( 1 kr a- b.m GARFIELD STREET CNy otAfhlfer Nwivdi Exhibit SITE PLAN Wt AREA! ASHLAND MID-TOWN LOFTS PAO -r•a aQU -QQW-N PLANNING 1D 'Ave 8Y1-f1?% - SITE PLAN W! AREAS AP1.1 L CITY OF MidTown Lofts Appeal 188 Garfield Street 1 f ~ .M1e j ~ f,.}Yt ~ ~M y , M `y iF r 1 ~ C a -W, 'I; r. ":Y'. CITY OF MidTown Lofts Appeal 188 Garfield Street - Appeal Issue #8 The Planning Commission erred in approving a driveway location on Quincy Street in exception to the street standards. ✓ Existing driveway which served large church parking lot is non-conforming. Standards require a 50 foot separation between driveways for developments of more than three units, 24 foot separation for fewer than three units. Current driveway separation is approximately 18 feet and is thus an existing non-conforming development. ✓ Easement serving another property requires a driveway in the current location. ✓ Applicants requested exception to combine two driveways into one wide curbcut rather than separating. Planning Commission instead approved an alternative to retain existing driveway location. ✓ Appellants argue that a reduction in separation requires a Variance; because this is an existing non-conformity it does not require a Variance but would require a Conditional Use Permit if non-conformity were modified. ✓ Planning Commission could have nonetheless required compliance and did not because with the easement in place it would have meant installing another driveway 50 feet from the existing. ✓ If Council determines roadway access should be otherwise addressed, could remand to PC for a Conditional Use Permit with an extension from the applicant. CITY OF MidTown Lofts Appeal 188 Garfield Street i •~.9a~^,Rri Ir 9N1Z7R OtMLt19r r 0[~pf1Y.h s r IN MISW ( c c c Vi c" c c c C t' c c l c c i c 'C * c C i r. t . u , ~ .Mwr~ssx~i r rmIsafa IT T d f ~ _ 77 r> roc , rrr.,, m 5A, it 1 6 u%<TA Rs UM e7 ~d7Y 70~~ se s ~a (h1f41d~t hMM•?ai r,►~ r~ I " fib • 1R9t?0 i--t y '~,.,I7`C~ E - wrap Una- ~ _ ~ i. ►►`~n~c 1. ~ f~ Esc- zt p~K{ CITY OF MidTown Lofts Appeal -ASHLAND 188 Garfield Street - Appeal Issue #9 The content of the notice of public hearing was insufficient in not including the name and phone number of a City contact person and in failing to cite the applicable criteria and citations for decision. ✓ Notice did not include the name of a City contact, and simply directed to "Planning" at the the main front office phone number where callers could be forwarded to the assigned planner. Template has since been updated. ✓ Issue not raised before the PC and there is no demonstration of any prejudice to a substantial right. Appellants were able to fully participate including requesting that the hearing be continued to allow them additional time to respond. CITY • MidTown Lofts Appeal -ASHLAND 188 Garfield Street -Appeal Issue #10 7 7 The Planning Commission erred in approving an alternative to the landscaped medians and swales. ✓ Second option for Exceptions is that there is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting standard, but exception will equally or better achieve the purpose of the standards. ✓ Purpose of the broader Site Development and Design Standards in Part 18.4 speaks to standards that in part promote resource protection, while purpose of the chapter involved (18.4.3) is more narrowly focused "to provide safe and effective access and circulation for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles." ✓ Applicants engineer noted that swales in parking lot were not suited to meeting drainage requirements, while the applicant indicated that the medians were walked on by tenants at times and a variable grade, rocky or sloped swale possibly filled with a grate system and possibly water was less safe or effective for tenant pedestrians than the alternative. CITY OF MidTown Lofts Appeal -ASHLAND Garfield Carport Tree canopy Figure 18.4.3.080.13.5 "l ; : Parking Design to Red ±uce : Environmental Impacts Porous pavemen olored concrete I Parking lot bioswale b. Design parking lots and other hard surface areas . in a way that captures and treats runoff with ' landscaped medians and swales. CITY OF MidTown Lofts Appeal ASHLAND 188 Garfield Street Grading, Drainage & Utilities VNELI~fWiY nr .ice.. ~ - • 1 o 1 I ' i a ' k L . I ~ m.wr \ . qx d r~ fA i i fi s GARFIELD STREET m6w a IEOBAp, GAAON6.PWIMi lU,l11R ~ ~ k'~ roll w] k You Dic I cl CITY • -ASHLAND MidTown Lofts Appeal 188 Garfield Street -Appeal Issue #11 The Planning Commission erred procedurally and failed to provide due process by admitting new evidence during the applicant's rebuttal without providing other parties an opportunity to respond and in making findings which contradict the conditions of approval with regard to unit sizes, density bonuses and open and recreation space. ✓ Applicant indicated and PC found that compliance was feasible; conditions were imposed to verify compliance. ✓ Issue not raised before the PC and there was no demonstration of any prejudice to a substantial right. Appellants were able to fully participate including requesting that the record be left open to allow them additional time to respond. CITY OF -ASHLAND MidTown Lofts Appeal 188 Garfield Street -Appeal Issue #12 The City erred procedurally and failed to provide due process by failing to provide the parties with the staff report and initial recommendations at least seven days before the initial public hearing, and in not making the full record available publicly. ✓ Staff report and recommendations were provided in initial draft form with the understanding that recommendations might change in final version, which was made available five days prior to hearing. ✓ Issue not raised before the PC and there is no demonstration of any prejudice to a substantial right. Appellants were able to fully participate including requesting that the record be left open to allow them additional time to respond. CITY OF MidTown Lofts Appeal -ASHLAND 188 Garfield Street Staff Recommendation Planning staff recommends that the Council affirm the decision of the Planning Commission, reject the appeal and direct staff to prepare findings for adoption by Council. This application is subject to the 120-day rule under Oregon land use laws, and a final decision of the City is required by December 21st, with findings to be adopted within 14-days thereafter (i.e. by January 4t"). The Council will need to schedule a meeting to adopt findings by the 4th or the applicant would need to extend the time limit to allow additional time to adopt findings at the January 15th regular meeting. Remanding any part of the decision back to the Planning Commission would also require agreement of the applicant to extend the time limit. CITY OF MidTown Lofts Appeal -ASHLAND 188 Garfield Street • • December 18, 2018 I 1V t. ~ r P wool r r ~ F Ti~ , 7, 7 .r ~S RP 'SR t oak A. ^v '6 44 a ~ ~ r. r +,R' •Y` ----ter. ~;~h. - _ _ ' ~ 7, r..,k 1111111 - 1110 M SOUNCIL ReVIEW of PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION • Council shall not re-examine issues of fact. Council review on appeal limited to: • Are Planning Commission findings supported by substantial evidence? • Did Planning Commission commit errors of law? • Were all issues raised clearly and distinctly set forth in Notice of Appeal? "SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE" • Evidence a reasonable planning commission would rely on in reaching a decision. Portland v. BOLI, 298 Or. 104 (1984). "Substantial Evidence Rule": • Did Planning Commission have reasonable basis for decision? Younger v. Portland, 305 Or. 346 (1988). "Needed Housi 1) Needed Housing is all residential housing determined to meet a need within a city's UGB, including multi-family housing for renter occupancy. ORS 197.303(1)(a). 2) City may only apply "clear and objective" standards, conditions, and procedures to a project proposing "Needed Housing" ul density. t . "Needed Housi "(2) (continued) 3) City's land use standards, conditions and procedures may not have the effect, either in themselves or cumulatively, of discouraging "Needed Housing" through unreasonable cost or delay. ORS 197.307(4)(b). 4) City standards applied to a "Needed Housing" proposal must be clear and objective on the face of the ordinance. 2 011111 111 10 Cond'it'ions of Approval • If Planning Commission finds compliance with City criteria is "feasible", then "it is entirely appropriate to impose Conditions of Approval to assure those criteria are met and defer responsibility for assuring compliance with those Conditions to planning and engineering staff as part of a second stage." Rhyne v. Multnomah County, 23 Or. LUBA 442 (1992). • "Feasible": Defined as, "possible, likely & RO.O.",a b to ce Meyer v. City Po n ; 671 1-110 1984. 01 1. Conservation Housing Density Bonus, • Density Bonus "shall be awarded" if Units meet minimum requirements for City's Earth Advantage Program certification. AMC 8.2.5.080. F. 3, a. • "The Planning Commission finds that conservation housing is feasible and can be documented at building permit submittal." Rec: pg. 23 (P.C. Decision). ~rw ra - e u i re rova l of Final Plans 6y"Ea 1 Va 2. Outdoor Recreation Space Density Bonus • 8% of lot area shall be dedicated open space for recreational use by tenants; including "decks, patios, and similar areas" providing "suitable surface for human use." AMC 18.4.2.030. H. • "Open Space" is landscaped or natural vegetation common areas; except thoroughfares, parking areas, or improvements MidTown Lofts Open Space • Criteria require 18% open space /outdoor recreation space. (16,465 sq. ft.). • Applicant provides 23.6% open space / outdoor recreation space (20,465 sq. ft.). • 15,019 sq. IN courtyard & lawn areas. • 13,147 sq. IN outdoor recreation space (including patios and lawns which could be "otherwise developed • Substantial Eviden - RON 3. Major Recreation Facilities Density Bonus • Flexible Outdoor Activity Space for "lawn" games (badminton, spike ball, cornhole, croquet, ladder golf, etc.) • Covered BBQ Kitchen Area, Gas Fire Pit, Covered Seating Area. • Planning Commission found proposed facilities qualify for density bonus based on recreational functionality and unique p(P7u. oec/ 4. Bicycle Park'Ing • Planning Commission found "bicycle closet with rack" in each unit meets AMC 18.4.3.070.1 (`a bicycle storage room, bicycle lockers or racks inside the build • Planning Commission found the 12 covered outdoor bicycle parking spaces qualified for alternative vehicle parking credit under AMC 18.4.3.060.13.2. Rec: pg. 25. 5. Existing Water & Sewer Facmilmitmies • City of Ashland Public Works Department, there is adequate capacity in the City's system for the development of the property to be served by water, electric, sanitary sewer services and stormwater. P. C. Public Hearing Testimony and Rec: pg. 176. • Applicant's licensed engineer provided utility plan. Rec: pg. 189. :Condition 5 PH e, which p ec. is "feasibile 6. 500 sq. ft. Studio Units • Planning Commission found it was feasible for each Units to meet <500 sq. ft. "gross habitable floor area per unit" formula. • Final unit sizes will be adjusted to ensure each unit has less than 500 sq. ft. "gross habitable floor area" under AMC 18.6.1 formula. Rec: pg. 23-24. • Applicant's architect demonstrated <500 sq. ft. per unit "feasible" under AMC 18.6.1 7. On-Street Park'Ing Credits • Applicant submitted ample evidence that justifying the seven (7) on-street parking credits, which is de minimus based on site's 600 linear-feet street frontage (reflecting more than 30 off-street parking spaces available). Rec: pgs. 63-79. • Even if available on-street parking spaces reduced from 30 to 25, Applicant only requested credit for seven (7) off-street Qfli o ing 8. Existing Driveway Curb Cut on Quincy Street • Existing driveway curb cut does not require a variance. (Existing curb cuts served site's former Rivergate Church development). • Driveway curb cut is "existing non= conforming structure." AMC 18.1.4.040. • "Exempt Alteration" requires neither variance nor exception. AMC 18.1.4.030.A. • Commission found existing curb cut location as "unusual aspect of site" and results in ,Pme ual or su erior connectavit 8 t21,11, 9. Planning Commission Hearing Notice • Any "error" in the notice of first Planning Commission hearing (Oct. 9), was "harmless error", because Planning Commission continued public hearing to October 23. • Technical or procedural errors do not support remand, where the petitioner does not demonstrate the procedural error played a role in final decision, or otherwise prejudiced Pet.e ' rights. Jq4i M:,r A 20171M., 10. Stormwater Facilities • Exception to Site Development & Design Standards to allow combination of bio- swales, underground treatment, and detention ponds will equally or better achieve stated purposes of SD&DS. AMC 18.5.2.050. E.2. • Exception based on substantial evidence in record from licensed Oregon engineer. Rec: 177., 11. New Evidence • On October 16, 2018, (more than seven days before the continued hearing), Applicant submitted additional evidence for the record, which was made available to Appellants on City's web site. Rec: pgs. 60-85. • Applicant's October 23 presentation tracked evidence submitted October 16. • Under circumstances, any new evidence submitted played no role in final decision. A AM, jo4j N (2017: . 12. Staff Repo rt & Record • Draft Staff Report provided to Appellants 7 days before hearing. Final Staff Report 5 days before. • Planning Commission continued public hearing from Oct. 9 to Oct. 23. • Technical or procedural errors do not support remand, where the petitioner does not demonstrate the procedural error played a role in final decision, or otherwise prejudiced Swetition...1ri qty of Jefferscin, Yr r~~ :`USA 1 CONCLUSION "Substantial evidence" supports Planning Commission Decision. • Application proposes "Needed Housing" and State law requires only standards which are clear and objective on the face of the City's ordinance may be applied. • Important Opportunity for Council to demonstrate City is serious about addressing Ashland's Rental Housing Appellants' Presentation Devin Huseby & Mike Hitsky December 18, 2018 PLANNING ACTION: PA-APPEAL-2018-00005 (PA-T2-2018-00003) SUBJECT PROPERTY: 188 GARFIELD STREET "Distances from driveway standards are detailed in AMC section 18.4.3.080.C.3, and developments of three units or more per lot are required to provi 50-foot separation between driveways on neighborhood streets like incy Street." (Findings, Concl ns and Orders at 8) CHAPTER 18.4.3 PARKING, ACCESS, AN HAPTER 18.4.6 PUBLIC FACILITIES CIRCULATION 18.4.3.020(D). Exceptions and Variances. 18.4.6.020(8). Exceptions and Variances. D. Exceptions and Variances. Requests to depart from the B. Exceptions and Variances. Requests to depart from the requirements of this chapter are subject to chapter i e-:%D requirements of this chapter are subject to chapter ' Variances, except that deviations from the standards in subsectio Variances, except that deviations from section 18.4.0,00 Street 18.4.3.08!'1.B.,! and 5 and section 18,4-3.0c') Pedestrian Access an Design Standards are subject to 18.4. i10.EN,1 Exceptions to the Circulation are subject to " 35.2. ?5 f,E Exception to the Site Street Design Standards, below. Development and Design Standards. Outdoor Recreation Space I Commission Applicant . . (Aug 23 Submission a, 1 ~ sions, h y > e at 4, 6) WIT Deck + Patio Areas 5,616 5,616 0 Private; not open space • Double-counting (only 2,808 sq ft of site area) • Can't be developed as rec amenity (see below) Rec "Amenities" in 5,754 ? 0? "[T]he purpose of the density bonus for outdoor Purported Rec Facility recreational space is to permit areas that could Area other areas?) otherwise be developed as a recreational amenity" LUO 18.2.5.080(F)(3)(b) • Double-counting "Incidental Open Space 10,273 ? 0 "It is not the purpose of this provision to permit Areas" density bonuses for incidental open spaces" LUO 18.2.5.080(F)(3)(b) 0 Total 21,643 > 18% 16,643) Statements During Oct. 23, 2018 Deliberations From Four Commissioners Who Voted toApprove the Development "What was intended was a structured play "I'm just having trouble "I don't think what has been proposed is area, whether it was swimming pools, tennis getting my mind "I just wish there was something that is similar enough to the courts, or whatever, but something that was around how what they a way the applicant archaic code we have - which is a structured..:other' being something presented meets a could have fleshed basketball court, a tennis court, or a structured... It's just not open grass. And really very clear cut this out a bit more swimming pool. Something that is a major that's the problem I have with it. requirement in the city and qualify for this structured single activity thing. I don't [Structured recreation] was what I think was about driveway bonus" think it works in the definition." the original meaning.... that's where I fell spacing. I'm a little apart on it." flabbergasted "I would just like to say that I am "The thing that bothers me most "I haven't heard any sorry about the recreational "But we don't have any evidence to about the project is the driveway. argument that really amenity or whatever it's called - support it as to what it would be.... I'm thinking that I would probably shows that there's any the developed outdoor I don't feel its quite sufficient.... I let that go [if the Commission were equality of meeting our recreation piece of this - want it to have more build out - to acknowledge] the value of the standard that we're " because I think it's sort of a structural features.... It's just two recreation facility after" f of evidence." big lawn spaces" "What we are trying to do is apply the facts to the law" - Roger Pearce, Planning Commission Chair (Dec. 4, 2018 City Council Meeting)