Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-0416 Council Mtg MIN CITY OF ASHLAND 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. MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,April 16,2019 • 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 I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL Councilors' Slattery,Graham,Akins,Seffinger,Rosenthal and Jensen present. IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Stromberg announced the current Commission/Committee vacancies. V. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT City Administrator Kelly Madding spoke regarding the seasonal winter shelter at 2082 East Main. She spoke that ORA has applied for a permit and we are still moving through the process. She spoke that ORA asked for an extension of 30-45 days and they should have it complete this week or next week. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Study Session of April 1,2019 2. Business Meeting of April 2,2019 RosenthaUGraham moved to approve the minutes. Discussion: None. All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously. VII. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS&AWARDS 1. Annual Presentation by the Historic Commission Staff Liaison Fotini Kaufman and Commissioner Keith Swink gave Council an update on the Historic Commission(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 Mitigation 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] Gill Livni—Ashland—Spoke regarding affordable housing. Spoke that permits for apartments are as much as a single home. He suggested Ashland do something with Pacific Power because they support their apartment units. Huelz Gutcheon—Ashland—Spoke that he witnessed a traffic jam today that lasted about 10 minutes. He questioned where all these people driving in the downtown are coming from.He spoke in support of electric cars. He explained that changes in all aspects of society need to take place this decade. George Kramer—Ashland—Spoke regarding fiscal responsibility and the future of Ashland. He spoke to the importance of living within our means. He asked Council to stop raising utility rates and to find other ways to trim the budget. He spoke that if this keeps happening he will lead an effort to change the City Charter. Meredith Paige—Ashland—Spoke in disappointment of Council banning the Santa Clar Vanguard Band Camp at the SOU Football field. She spoke that there are not many performances allowed in Ashland and this is sending a negative message to the young people in Ashland. Band ban. Upset Council not allowing now. Not many performances allowed in Ashland. Slattery explained that the ban was handled by SOU not the City Council. X. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Appointment of Steve Asher to the Wildfire Safety Commission Seffinger pulled this item. She spoke in support of this appointment. 2. Annual Reappointment of Commissioners with Terms Expiring on 4/30/2019 3. Acceptance of 6'h Quarter Financial Report 4. ODOE Renewable Energy Development Grant Slattery/Graham moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Discussion:None. All Ayes.Motion passed unanimously. XI. 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 on the 2019 Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)Award and g tY P � ) CDBG Action Plan Development Staff Liaison Linda Reid and Commission Chari Rich Rhode gave a Staff report. Reid spoke that they received 4 applications and that the applicants are in the audience. Akins questioned why they decided not to award anything to Rogue Retreat. Reid explained that their application did not receive enough points. She explained the process on how the funds are split. Council discussed the possibility of using the left over money to repair the Community Center and Pioneer Hall. Council gave consensus to have Staff complete an analysis on the 2 buildings and bring back this item to a future Council Meeting. Mayor Stromberg opened the public hearing at 7:48 PM. Mary Ferrell—Medford—Founder of the Maslow Project- Spoke regarding the successes of last year. They served between 85-90 individuals.They just opened a winter warming shelter with the City of Medford for ages 18-24. She explained that homeless youth coming to Ashland to stay at the shelters. Last year Ashland adopted same model as Medford. She spoke that it was a successful and good to see kids feel safe. They provided transportation to get kids to school.They received funding from Access and helped families get into low income housing.Over next year and a half 20 units will be provided. Vicky Weiss Volunteer grant writer for St.Vincent De Paul—Ashland- Spoke that she has been around Ashland a long time and sees the strengthen in Community. She spoke to the importance of the help from the CDBG Funds.Each year they are able to match the dollars they get. She spoke how much these funds help people. Council thanked them for their work and passion. Pamela Joy—Ashland-Founder of Food Angels. Joy spoke that this has been going on since 1995. She spoke that they are fully volunteered. She explained they collect food that is useable and get the food to the Food Bank,Head Start and Student programs. She spoke that last year they collected and gave away half a million pounds of food. She spoke that last year one of the doors broke; a volunteer put up a temporary door but it is not lockable and doesn't stay shut. She spoke that this Grant would help improve the building by fixing the door and also getting a new AC unit to keep food from going bad. Seffinger questioned who the sources are to collect the food.Joy answered: Market of Choice, Shop and Kart and the COOP daily. They also have a lot of fresh vegetable options now too from 6-10 local organic farms. Also,every baker in town has contributed over the years. Council spoke in appreciation to the applicant. Mayor Stromberg closed the Public Hearing at 8:05 PM. Akins/Rosenthal moved to direct Staff to draft the 2019 Annual Action Plan for the use of Community Development Block Grant funds reflecting the award of CDBG funding for the 2019 Program year as follows: •$18,000 to Ashland Food Angels in Capital Improvement funding for the repairs to their food storage and processing facility • $15,463 to St.Vincent De Paul in Public Service funding for their Home Visitation Program •$10,850 to Maslow Project in Public Service funding for their School Based Services. Discussion: Akins spoke that this is a great investment and thanked all. Rosenthal agreed and spoke in appreciation. Seffinger spoke to the importance of this. Roll Call Vote: Jensen,Graham,Slattery, Akins, Seffinger and Rosenthal:YES. Motion passed unanimously. g P 2. Public Hearing for Land Use Appeal(Planning Action#PA-T2-2018-00006; 476 N. Laurel Street) City Attorney David Lohman gave a brief overview of Public Hearing rules. The Mayor and Recorder read the Script(see attached). Conflict of interest Jensen explained he had contact before the applicant submitted the application since he lives around the corner of the project. Applicant Mark Knox discussed the project with him but he does not feel he has any conflict of interest and read a statement into the record: "I have not prejudged this application and I am not prejudiced or biased by my prior contacts or involvement;I will make this decision based solely on the application of the relevant Code standards to Me facts and evidence in the record of this proceeding". Akins spoke that she for KDA Homes but has no conflict of interest and read the above statement into the record. Slattery spoke he read about it in the paper and had no conflict of interest.He read the above statement into the record. Staff Report Community Development Director Bill Molnar and Derek Severson Senior Planner gave a Staff Report. Severson went over a PowerPoint presentation(see attached). Items discussed were: • Located on the corner of North Laurel and Mountain View Drive. And continues down to Orange. • Site Plan the applicants have provided. • Central Open Space. • Picture of the development. • Attached units and frontage along Mountain View. • 5 Points of appeal. Staff spoke in support of the Planning Commissions decisions and suggested bring back Findings at the May 7th Council Business Meeting. Applicant Presentation Sydnee Dreyer and Mark Knox of KDA Homes presented to Council. Dreyer spoke that this is an unusual appeal and the record shows it was very clear that all criteria was met. She went over the 5 points of appeal speaking that there were no grounds for appeal for each item. Slattery/Graham moved to extend the Public Hearing until 10:30 PM. Discussion:None.Voice Vote: All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously. Appellant's Presentation Greg Clevenger—Ashland—Spoke that he understands Cottage Housing proposal and that it is needed. He spoke that he is in support of the project except for the issue on Mountain View Drive regarding the queuing lane. He spoke that it would be dangerous if there was a fife and needed to get out. The streets would be too narrow. He questioned how a decision can be made without considering Mountain View being extended and traffic will increase. Patricia Potter—Ashland- Spoke that it is clear that the development should be required to have 7 parking bays. She spoke that this would be dangerous for the neighborhood and too congested with parking. She suggested no queuing lane. She spoke this will be dangerous for kids riding bikes to school and danger for people that want to use the park. She also spoke regarding wildfire danger. She spoke that a traffic study being done and paid for by KDA homes is a conflict of interest. She spoke that the neighborhood has asked numerous times for 7 bays. She explained she wants to have safe projects that benefit the citizens. Oral Arguments Kerry Hofsess—Ashland—Spoke that there are 500 homes in Quiet Village.He explained that there will be no way out to North or East. It will be down to one lane with traffic on both sides. Robert N.Lane—Ashland—Spoke that the main issue is Parkside Drive and East Drive which make up to 40-50 homes and only 2 ways out. He explained the primary evacuation routes are Mountain View Drive. He spoke that the other end of development of 22 ft. is too narrow. He explained the record shows 12 parking spots that are small and 12 cottages.He spoke that most families have more than one vehicle and will need to park on the street. Rebuttal by applicant Dreyer spoke that the only comments from Fire Marshal that can be considered are what was in the record. He spoke of no concerns. She spoke that she is not unsympathetic to what the neighbors are saying but she is concerned with process and laws. She explained if the City wants to look at different standards for streets and cottage housing this can be looked at in the future. Mayor Stromberg closed the Public Hearing at 9:16 PM Advice from Legal Counsel and Staff None. Deliberation and Decision Jensen/Rosenthal moved to affirm the decision of the Planning Commission, reject the appeal and direct staff to prepare written findings for approval reflecting the original Planning Commission decision from March 12,2019 for adoption by Council. Discussion: Jensen spoke that this is needed and that Staff adequately addressed the concerns of the appellant. He spoke in appreciation of the appellant and understands the concerns;but limited to the constraints listed. Rosenthal spoke that he doesn't see anything that would lead him to believe that the decision should be reversed. Graham spoke that she hasn't heard anything that would lead her to think there was a procedural or legal error. She also spoke to the importance of the process. Slattery agreed with the above statements. He suggested a review of this project down the line to see if adjustments need to be made. Mayor Stromberg spoke in support of Staff about each appeal point. Roll Call Vote: Rosenthal,Jensen,Slattery,Akins, Seffinger and Graham: YES. All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously. XII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS XIII. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. TOT Allocation and Grant Award Review Process Madding gave a Staff report. Assistant to the City Administrator Adam Hanks presented Council with PowerPoint presentation (see attached). Items discussed were: • BN 2019-21 Revenues. • Tourism Restricted Funds. • Unrestricted Funds. • Grant Allocations. • Small Grant Application amount and asking costs. • Process Options. Council discussed their options and the process. Slattery/Rosenthal moved to recommend to the Budget Committee that a Sub-Committee be established to make recommendations to award the small grants program; and recommend that the restricted tourism dollars consist of roughly$80,000 and the unrestricted consist of roughly $150,000.Discussion: Slattery spoke that he does not want to stop this process and spoke to the importance of the small grants program and would like it to continue. Rosenthal agreed with Slattery. Graham spoke that while she supports the program she had concern of the budget. She spoke if this gets passed we are telling the Budget Committee that we want this money to have special priority. She spoke that this isn't a conversation we should be having now. She spoke that the Budget Committee Meetings begin tomorrow and that is where this conversation should be had. She spoke she is ok to have the tourism restricted funds be allocated tonight but would like to look at the unrestricted funds separately. Seffinger spoke to the importance of transparency and to look at the goals and look at necessary services first. She spoke in agreement with Graham. Akins spoke that we already moved some money around and awarded money to Visitor and Convention Bureau and Shakespeare and spoke in agreement with Slattery and Rosenthal. Jensen asked Graham if she is amending the motion. Graham answered that she would be ok with approving allocating the tourism restricted fund but not the unrestricted. Slattery clarified that this is not something he is suggesting to dictate to the Budget Committee, it is still there for them to decide. The Council is just saying they want to keep this program in place.Jensen spoke that it seems everyone in general in agreement. He is concerned with the clarity of how this motion is going to be interpreted. Slattery spoke that he would be there to clarify. Council discussed the process. Slattery/Rosenthal moved to call the question.Roll Call Vote: Slattery,Akins and Rosenthal: YES. Graham,Seffinger and Jensen: NO. Mayor: NO. Motion failed 3-4. Discussion of main motion continues: Madding clarified the Council has allocated portions of the of the restricted funds but not any of the unrestricted. Tonya/Seffinger moved to split the motion one for making a recommendation for restricted funds and one making a recommendation for unrestricted funds. Discussion: Graham spoke that unrestricted can be used for things in the unrestricted General Fund. And believes we can get working on the tourism side and set up the sub-committee. Seffinger agreed with Graham. Akins spoke that this is valid but it is just a recommendation to continue small grants and clarified we are not spending money tonight. Jensen spoke that he likes the idea keep out of unrestricted funds for now. Slattery clarified that this is not to lock the Budget Committee in it is just a recommendation. He spoke that Council needs to weigh in on whether they support the small grants program but the budget can change it as they see fit. Roll Call Vote: Seffinger,Graham and Jensen: YES. Slattery,Akins and Rosenthal: NO. Mayor: NO. Motion failed 3-4. Main Motion Roll Call Vote: Slattery,Rosenthal,Akins: Yes. Graham,Seffinger and Jensen: NO. Mayor: Yes. Motion passed 4-3. Hanks spoke that Staff will have a Resolution come back for all of the decisions on the allocations. Council discussed process and timelines. XIV. ORDINANCES,RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS XV. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS XVI. ADJOURNMENT OF BUSINESS MEETING The Business Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 PM Respectfully submitted by: City Recorder Melissa Huhtala Attest: ..f e or 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 (TIYphone 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). HISTORIC COMMISSION COUNCIL UPDATE APRIL 16TH, 2019 Introduction: The Ashland Historic Commission is a nine-member citizen committee appointed by the Mayor and reviews planning applications, building permits, and sign permits within the historic districts.The Historic Commission cooperates with developers and property owners to ensure that both new construction and renovation compliments the four National Register historic districts. Since last year's update, the Historic Commission has: ✓ Reviewed and made recommendations on 8 land use applications, and 86 building and sign permits. ✓ Provided over 150 volunteer hours for the Thursday afternoon historic review board which provides community members, property owners and design professionals an opportunity to consult on potential and on-going projects in the historic districts. ✓ Worked with the Public Arts Commission on the "Marking Ashland Places" project in the Railroad Historic District, to commission plaques to mark and commemorate various historic sites in town: be on the lookout for those plaques this upcoming year! Historic Preservation Week, "Discover America's Hidden Gems" May 20-24, 2019 • On Tuesday, May 215% Historic Commissioner Terry Skibby is being honored at the Meese Room in the Hannon Library at SOU from 4-6 pm for his photographic collection now being digitized by the Southern Oregon Digital Archives. We have postcards here for anyone who knows Terry and wishes to attend. • This year National Historic Preservation Week is the third week in May. The Historic Commission will hold the Ashland Historic Preservation Awards ceremony on Wednesday, May 22nd at Pioneer Hall located at 73 Winburn Way at 12:30 P.M. • On Thursday, May 23rd the Ashland Memorial Mausoleum at the Mountain View Cemetery will be open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. for a self-guided tour and a special tour with Commissioner Ellen Babin at 2 p.m. • On Friday May 24th from 2:00-3:30 P.M. Commissioner Terry Skibby will lead a tour of the Historic Railroad District beginning at the gazebo on 'A' Street. The Historic Commission encourages everyone to attend these events-Thank you! The Historic Commission , as you must know, is made up of volunteers with widely varied skill sets, expertise and knowledge. All have in common, a profound interest in guarding the historic heritage of our town and native area. But I feel it very important to acknowledge that the professional polish that we, as a group of volunteers muster, is a result of the excellent staff support that we are fortunate to enjoy. Regan Trapp and Fotini Kaufman help us maintain a level of professionalism and focus, that I believe, we would struggle to attain without the significant help they provide us. They keep accurate records of meetings, future plans, goals, statistics related to our work, research and invaluable feedback and advice on our varied questions and the challenges we face in working with the public. Any success our commission achieves is largely a result of the time and energy that they, so generously extend to us in the course of their busy work day efforts. On behalf of my fellow commissioners, I would like to honor and thank them for their excellent service and support that they provide to us. Thank you HISTORIC COMMISSION COUNCIL UPDATE APRIL 16TH, 2019 Introduction: The Ashland Historic Commission is a nine-member citizen committee appointed by the Mayor and reviews planning applications, building permits, and sign permits within the historic districts. The Historic Commission cooperates with developers and property owners to ensure that both new construction and renovation compliments the four National Register historic districts. Since last year's update,the Historic Commission has: ✓ Reviewed and made recommendations on 8 land use applications, and 86 building and sign permits. ✓ Provided over 150 volunteer hours for the Thursday afternoon historic review board which provides community members, property owners and design professionals an opportunity to consult on potential and on-going projects in the historic districts. ✓ Worked with the Public Arts Commission on the "Marking Ashland Places" project in the Railroad Historic District, to commission plaques to mark and commemorate various historic sites in town: be on the lookout for those plaques this upcoming year! Historic Preservation Week, "Discover America's Hidden Gems" May 20-24, 2019 • On Tuesday, May 215t, Historic Commissioner Terry Skibby is being honored at the Meese Room in the Hannon Library at SOU from 4-6 pm for his photographic collection now being digitized by the Southern Oregon Digital Archives. We have postcards here for anyone who knows Terry and wishes to attend. • This year National Historic Preservation Week is the third week in May. The Historic Commission will hold the Ashland Historic Preservation Awards ceremony on Wednesday, May 22nd at Pioneer Hall located at 73 Winburn Way at 12:30 P.M. • On Thursday, May 23 rd the Ashland Memorial Mausoleum at the Mountain View Cemetery will be open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. for a self-guided tour and a special tour with Commissioner Ellen Babin at 2 p.m. • On Friday May 24th from 2:00-3:30 P.M. Commissioner Terry Skibby will lead a tour of the Historic Railroad District beginning at the gazebo on 'A' Street. The Historic Commission encourages everyone to attend these events-Thank you! 9 The Historic Commission , as you must know, is made up of volunteers with widely varied skill sets, expertise and knowledge. All have in common, a profound interest in guarding the historic heritage of our town and native area. But I feel it very important to acknowledge that the professional polish that we, as a group of volunteers muster, is a result of the excellent staff support that we are fortunate to enjoy. Regan Trapp and Fotini Kaufman help us maintain a level of professionalism and focus, that I believe, we would struggle to attain without the significant help they provide us. They keep accurate records of meetings, future plans, goals, statistics related to our work, research and invaluable feedback and advice on our varied questions and the challenges we face in working with the public. Any success our commission achieves is largely a result of the time and energy that they, so generously extend to us in the course of their busy work day efforts. On behalf of my fellow commissioners, I would like to honor and thank them for their excellent service and support that they provide to us. Thank you ff 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 for a 12- unit Cottage Housing development and a Performance Standards Subdivision Outline Plan for a 13-lot subdivision located at 476 North Laurel St. The application includes a request for an Exception to the Street Standards to allow reduction of the required parkrow width to 3.7 feet on the Mountain View Dr. frontage of 478 North Laurel St.,a request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove a 12-inch diameter apple tree and a 12-inch diameter walnut tree, and the demolition of the existing home and two accessory buildings. This is an appeal"on the record'of a Type II land use decision. 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 Public 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 parties qualified to participate, your oral arguments tonight are confined to the substance of your previously submitted written arguments. 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 are shown on the screen now and will be read aloud by the City Recorder. [City Reorder reads appeal grounds—see page 4.] The Council's consideration of the appeal is limited to these five grounds. A speaker's testimony must be limited to points already addressed in the existing record and must relate to these five appeal grounds. If you get off track or your testimony does not relate to those five 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 five appeal Y Y Y P pp 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. 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 Revised procedure for Land Use Hearings—April 2019 Page 1 of 3 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 in terest or report any ex parte contact on this matter? LIF contacts are reported,consider the following: a. Ex parte communications: If 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 of the written or oral communication is not complete. If the presiding officer fails to do so, a member may request a more full disclosure (point of order). Legal counsel will also monitor the disclosure. b. Conflict of 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. If the Conflict is only a potential conflict 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, prejudgment: 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 participating or voting. The member should leave the room to avoid accusations of non-verbal communication. (See also "Challenges" below.) d. After disclosure of an ex parte 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 make 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 following announcement: Any person has the right to rebut the substance of the evidence or information disclosed. Please present your rebuttal evidence on the substance of any ex parte contacts, bias, or actual conflict of interest during the normal time allowed for testimony which has been established for this proceeding. Please reduce any bias, conflict of interest, and prejudgment challenges to writing with supporting evidence and provide these to the City Recorder.] Revised procedure for Land Use Hearings—April 2019 Page 2 of 3 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. If 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 five appeal grounds and staff's evaluation of them. Bill and Derek.... 4. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Would the applicant KDA Homes, LLC 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 Patricia Potter and Gregory A.Clevenger 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... ❑ Kerry Hofsess ❑ Robert N. Lane ... please come to the podium, state your name, address and make any comments you may have for the Council regarding the application? 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 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? Revised procedure for Land Use Hearings—April 2019 Page 3 of 3 GROUNDS FOR APPEAL 1) The Planning Commission erred in dismissing concerns submitted by residents of the 'established neighborhood' who contend that on-street parking and traffic would result in Mountain View Drive becoming a queuing lane that would compromise the purpose and intent of the Cottage Housing ordinance (AMC 18.2.3.090.A), which seeks to ensure compatibility with established neighborhoods; 2) The Planning Commission erred in approving the proposed development according to AMC Table 18.4.3.060 (Parking Management Strategies) and AMC Table 18.5.2.050.E. Parking bays have been requested and are considered of great importance by neighbors, who contend that parking bays comply with street standards and do not widen the street as a whole, as maintained by the Planning Commission; 3) The Planning Commission erred in approving the proposed development because subdivisions in Wildfire Hazard Areas require a Fire Prevention & Control Plan be submitted and none was submitted here. Appellants further contend that the proposal would create a new and inadequate traffic pattern for Mountain View Drive so as to slow traffic during a wildfire evacuation and at all times; 4) The Planning Commission erred in approving a project that did not follow procedural requirements in that the applicants held one meeting with a minimum number of neighbors and the neighborhood's traffic concerns have not been addressed; and 5) The private traffic study presented by the applicant should not have been accepted by the Planning Commission because it is flawed and incomplete in that it fails to show what the impacts of slowing traffic will be on residents and neighbors, especially during a wildfire evacuation; and fails to address or evaluate the increased street patterns and traffic coming with the development of the Reynolds property. Further, the Planning Commission erred in approving the application without asking Public Works/Engineering Department to require a TIA (Traffic Impact Analysis). Revised procedure for Land Use Hearings—April 2019 Page 4 of 3 C I T Y O F The Garden Cottages ASHLAND Grounds for Appeal 1 . The Planning Commission erred in dismissing concerns submitted by residents of the `established neighborhood' who contend that on-street parking and traffic would result in Mountain View Drive becoming a queuing lane that would compromise the purpose and intent of the Cottage Housing ordinance (AMC 18.2.3.090.A), which seeks to ensure compatibility with established neighborhoods; 2. The Planning Commission erred in approving the proposed development according to AMC Table 18.4.3.060 (Parking Management Strategies) and AMC Table 18.5.2.050.E. Parking bays have been requested and are considered of great importance by neighbors, who contend that parking bays comply with street standards and do not widen the street as a whole, as maintained by the Planning Commission; 3. The Planning Commission erred in approving the proposed development because subdivisions in Wildfire Hazard Areas require a Fire Prevention & Control Plan be submitted and none was submitted here. Appellants further contend that the proposal would create a new and inadequate traffic pattern for Mountain View Drive so as to slow traffic during a wildfire evacuation and at all times; 4. The Planning Commission erred in approving a project that did not follow procedural requirements in that the applicants held one meeting with a minimum number of neighbors and the neighborhood's traffic concerns have not been addressed; and 5. The private traffic study presented by the applicant should not have been accepted by the Planning Commission because it is flawed and incomplete in that it fails to show what the impacts of slowing traffic will be on residents and neighbors, especially during a wildfire evacuation; and fails to address or evaluate the substantially increased street patterns and traffic coming with the development of the Reynolds property. Further, the Planning Commission erred in approving the application without asking Public Works/Engineering Department to require a Traffic Impact Analysis. CITY OF The Garden Cottages -ASHLAND Cottage Housing Proposal City Council Appeal H A • ril 16 2019 ,„, ° • i, . ...... • i ,... . . ... v....„,.... ..... ___ . ..,.,• ,,,,,,,...,,,,,,, ,• :,,• .,. ,. ..:.. . . a ..7.7g t � war y i, T y T .1 • , \ _ _ .... 1 t..4. • .)"..., �. ` 1r• \ C I T Y O F The Garden Cottages 'ASHLAND Proposal ❑ Site Design Review approval for a 12-unit Cottage Housing development. ❑ Performance Standards Subdivision Outline Plan approval for a 13-lot subdivision, with 12 lots for the units and a 13th lot for common parking and open space). ❑ An Exception to the Street Standards to reduce the required parkrow width from 7 feet to 3.7 feet on the Mountain View Drive frontage of 478 North Laurel Street. ❑ Tree Removal Permits to remove two trees: a 12-inch diameter Apple tree, and a 12-inch diameter Walnut tree. ❑ A Demolition Permit for the existing home and two accessory buildings located at 476 North Laurel Street. CITY OF The Garden Cottages ASH LAN D Vicinity Map ,„„„„„<„„.,..„„„,..,.,„„,,....,.,. .,..,,..,....,. ............1,.. .,........,,,..,u,...////„//....................77//27,,,,,.... /„ , F—. , i 1 W % —J PA-T2-2018-00006 Z SUBJECT PROPERTY MOUNTAIN VIEW D R --I—La—\ •.•,: s 1 , ...!:: I Ct _Irr—p s W s -- • 5 s ri: CO s ' ' i „2 i i i N , , W — E — Ill 5. } 4 / k . ._ . _ i ___. \ s 1 5 O,,///,,,,„,„,iiii,„„„iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii,iii,,,„„„,/iiiiiii iii,„„„iiiiiiiiiiiii” „\,\,)iiii„„,,iiiiiii,„„,'„,/i;„„,,„9,,iii,I,,,,,,l,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,%iii,iii Iii,.„"1„/iiiiiiiiiiiiii,,,,,i,,hill% CITY OF The Garden Cottages ASHLAND Cottage Housing Outline Plan MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE - - - m'; ;' P LEGEND ..`€-... L 4 r - • . ,o,:,� I,` II ' ,E,. 12 I i , f i�r■._ ��� :: Ilffi III. 1127-1111 1 I Li EEL. II; Rim ■■—__I t • x,:. I � I s ,;;; .-,...ti�.rt I ; F__ 1 I I I� r • �� : ��� ,t. it r iii ' t D1�.!!�l :I ... ■■11■■I 111 L. ;' �� ■Iuma ■ T---- i— __L-7--T--, • x I PI r— •."9iffiI�/1■■■ y..i-}- .� -1 ■ I N —ri`lh `✓ s nE AREA GLCUTATIONS :' ■ !- I II �--- I .uwwl t :..../ : : ' (�I =I 6 1 LM I _ :00.....,o m ■ The Garden Cottages •■ _ ae x ■ Ask:mg,Oregon ,! 'R Q !CT 1 P� .,, ■ t.: �I Isr.. ., z Iti-r- ■ •A ri I.,7 �,2 1■r I-rr� "• ■ II. ;■■Il■■1� I21r r j L.:, t ❑ �■' . LAB �■■■■■■■i1i■■■�■ ■■i �■■■■■■_.■•■•••ii•■■■■• P I :A.-11 i i . 1f�1 w IT ij:": P. f . _..'. _ _-, �I >I` 11111.. .IJn ,> 11 [ .ir 11111,7---- 11 1 [1.,DI 1 1.... _IZI fr�k 111 ;: I- - ! `:;:;'...:1 _ ii ii EMI. I I 111 in 1 I I 'i-il rn-- ■N...I 1I i 1 :- ,•}.` ..1 ■,+.� .xS `I, IEPesip ?c.,t �CISCa lei 'J;p EapS© �i:�rf' .7 01 ,�t. IIr;� � ., F ......�- T- _ice N '1 1 Imo■ i_.-�_ rf9 . ,1.:•� I _�N. ®la'D m. G»_ 1■ ��� r : : Ll r .te r ,. ' .��• C ■■N■■I. al :7A. .,: ■■■■Il■�•III • - 1 ...._ �H — ��{ ' y I _ +� iffirigj ‘._� Lam!!' �., I` '.I� .ate v. -0T: LO T3 :�"�ea ca,00ia LOT ':OL` 1 1076 ... :. -ml- - t :> .o- ..: , --, ,.-- .f--___-__ - ! 'f - / r. — ---d CITY OF The Garden Cottages -ASHLAND Cottage Housing Outline Plan 1` f •.1 - coope, ' I Vt• •.1 • , ' logt 000 `Ark.,10.- -• . , lit • „_, I CITY OF 1 The Garden Cottages ASHLAND ,` e : —• . i a.. ■ l 0 fl -.... o ,. JJ III 1 n, f., uu,� • .....; _� mom._..r:. ,?•CSE.. : _-__ rEr r _I .... ., •••• . .... . f I' : ..' : 1111411k. f '. 7, CITY OF The Garden Cottages ASHLAND Perspectives ...„. ........ " -,. : . ..„... ..... .. „ . x,,,,,_....,„*.i.,,.„..27.„.,,....,.,....,,, . . . :,..,, „ ,, .� Laurel St. • , „1,,-,,,,.,..,,,,..,..:- 1,fi,„. ..,,,:- :- ,,.. ------'''''-.-,, , _ ��4w frontage 'I 3 7A :-e 0 -K M1 0 pp;� R r Mountain View Dr. . � frontage � . � ; Fly -_-_; -_. r-__ v . n, ,..r ITp 1.,.,14,...:1:._.,.. s z o ors` 1{ + I ��r 114., .' 't+ ,7' -.'-rim F-,.1,r-. CITY OF The Garden Cottages ASHLAND Central Open Space ._. ,„.. , •,,,.... ,..„...„,_:;-,...., '.'4,_._'', . _ l' ,,,,,,,,... ‘ ,..- ''.., si . f :,,;:. .•';';„. VINII", ,..., '- :_'•-: --,--.7 -.,---_-_-- --: , 7,'. -- ,.,,_.‘ ' ' Yi.--,*,/ ---- , ...:_ *' ,c41M1W-2.-1 - r. L , ., ir.... i 1 : --,-- ,_. r _.: . . i; 14 NI -.1 la . t;41.41`'-:- . I'' r- - ...; — ......_ Ii ! ...,,, - - ...,:,,.. .........„,.,, ... _....', ... , ., . . . ., ._. - ,... ' ■ ' ' ' . ' ''A ••'Z!co , . ..‘ A.-.44:7.;0'.?, ,,..7 , V ' `k,-' '''''' .' ,, , . • = - --- . .,.. ..,., fitiab* --.....‘„, --. ___.. ..... ..._ !Pr I I -.:.1Z"-11 i P'."-=1-"k . ..,"' ..jk , .:! 1 i . , 111 f" . .....L . , 1 I :., i. ''' tk-..-F mmil7,7-71 ., - ''.' ,01 ' , •,- a a , i, -_L__ • __... 1 ___I 2.!.!;.2; iiip- ,-.. .r. ,,,... -•..t. _ , .,- d • . i' : 4 '':,' ..- • . '+''''. t : „,..,...-, ” ..', ..., -,' . . "„,, , '..'' .;.-., ' .' _ ,`. ' , . .. . .. , . - - • ' ' , '' '' CITY OF The Garden Cottages ASHLAND Grounds for Appeal 1 . The Planning Commission erred in dismissing concerns submitted by residents of the `established neighborhood' who contend that on-street parking and traffic would result in Mountain View Drive becoming a queuing lane that would compromise the purpose and intent of the Cottage Housing ordinance (AMC 18.2.3.090.A), which seeks to ensure compatibility with established neighborhoods; 2. The Planning Commission erred in approving the proposed development according to AMC Table 18.4.3.060 (Parking Management Strategies) and AMC Table 18.5.2.050.E. Parking bays have been requested and are considered of great importance by neighbors, who contend that parking bays comply with street standards and do not widen the street as a whole, as maintained by the Planning Commission; 3. The Planning Commission erred in approving the proposed development because subdivisions in Wildfire Hazard Areas require a Fire Prevention & Control Plan be submitted and none was submitted here. Appellants further contend that the proposal would create a new and inadequate traffic pattern for Mountain View Drive so as to slow traffic during a wildfire evacuation and at all times; 4. The Planning Commission erred in approving a project that did not follow procedural requirements in that the applicants held one meeting with a minimum number of neighbors and the neighborhood's traffic concerns have not been addressed; and 5. The private traffic study presented by the applicant should not have been accepted by the Planning Commission because it is flawed and incomplete in that it fails to show what the impacts of slowing traffic will be on residents and neighbors, especially during a wildfire evacuation; and fails to address or evaluate the substantially increased street patterns and traffic coming with the development of the Reynolds property. Further, the Planning Commission erred in approving the application without asking Public Works/Engineering Department to require a TIA (Traffic Impact Analysis). CITY OF The Garden Cottages ASHLAND Grounds for Appeal #1 ) The Planning Commission erred in dismissing concerns submitted by residents of the `established neighborhood' who contend that on-street parking and traffic would result in Mountain View Drive becoming a queuing lane that would compromise the purpose and intent of the Cottage Housing ordinance (AMC 18.2.3.090.A), which seeks to ensure compatibility with established neighborhoods; ❑ The Planning Commission considered the purpose & intent in the ordinance and found that it was not a criterion for approval, but rather provided the legislative rationale for the ordinance adoption. ❑ The applicant has provided written argument discussing case law relative to purpose and intent statements which support the Planning Commission's finding. ❑ Mountainview Drive is already designated a "Residential Neighborhood Street" in the city's Transportation System Plan. The street standard calls for a "queuing" travel lane. The curb-to-curb configuration that already exists meets the current street standard and is not proposed to change here. CITY OF -ASHLAND The Garden Cottages Residential Neighborhood Streets (Mountain View Drive) Prototypical Section: Residential Neighborhood Street, Parallel Parking Both Sides 5 Ty ,,�_�x'', ,, A °� ,p r r .� �,A- -`/ '1��... _(n, .,.. f I ,r...... i / 5'-6' I, 7' ,. 7' j, 11 -14' j, 7' / 7' 1, 5'-6' 1 Sidewalk Planting Parking Travel Lane Parking Planting Sidewalk Strip (Queuing) Strip / 25'-28' / Curb-to-Curb Paved Width / 50'-55' / Right-of-Way Width 1 1 Mountain View Existing Curb-to-Curb Width: Approx. 27'8" CITY OF The Garden Cottages ASHLAND Grounds for Appeal #2) The Planning Commission erred in approving the proposed development according to AMC Table 18.4.3.060 (Parking Management Strategies) and AMC Table 18.5.2.050.E. Parking bays have been requested and are considered of great importance by neighbors, who contend that parking bays comply with street standards and do not widen the street as a whole, as maintained by the Planning Commission; ❑ Parking Management Strategies in AMC 18.4.3.060 deal with ways to reduce required parking, including on-street credits. No parking reductions are requested here. ❑ There is no "Table" 18.5.2.050.E; the section addresses Exceptions to the Site Development & Design Standards. No such exceptions are requested here. ❑ Development meets parking requirements on site, and is not required to provide or rely on on- street parking credits and does not include Site Design exceptions. ❑ Criteria call for compliance with city street standards, which call for a 25- to 28-foot curb-to- curb width to allow an 11 -14 foot queuing travel lane with 7 feet for parking along both curbs. ❑ Existing street width is 27'8" and complies with the above in its current configuration. ❑ City standards and supporting Comp Plan policies have this standard for traffic calming . . . ❑ PC considered parking bays and found that the queuing lane's traffic calming effects were preferable given their benefit to pedestrians and cyclists. C I T Y O F The Garden Cottages _ASHLAND Residential Neighborhood Streets • Comp Plan Policy 10.09.02.5 - Reduce excessive street pavement width in order to facilitate convenient pedestrian and bicycle circulation, to reduce the costs of construction, to provide for more efficient use of land and to discourage excessive traffic volumes and speeds. • Neighborhood Street Volumes: Design neighborhood streets to carry traffic volumes at low speeds. Neighborhood streets should function safely while reducing the need for extensive traffic regulations, control devices, and enforcement. • Pavement Area: Minimize the pavement area of neighborhood streets, consistent with efforts to reduce street construction and maintenance costs, storm water runoff, and negative environmental impacts. Narrower streets also distinguish neighborhood streets from boulevards and avenues, and enhance neighborhood character. • Designed for 1 ,000 to 1 ,500 average daily trips (ADT). CITY OF SH LAN D The Garden Cottages A On -Street Parkin g Utilization , , z; • imp . , . , _, _ ., ....... : -- , , . ..., I i . .,..„,. ...._., r. - ..........._ t ; `C+.. f t 0 ;}ji g __ , .... -`r Z • w/ Mountain View Existing Curb-to-Curb Width: Approx. 27'8" 1 CITY OF The Garden Cottages ASHLAND Grounds for Appeal Not enough width for bay & sidewalk behind existing curb No Parkrow would require an Exception MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE 4' —"- ----f III 1.110M11 4) CLRBSIDE - ° IK BAYS I LIEU OF PAR RCN 3) CURBSIBE PARKNO BAYS N LIEU CIF PAR : ..../.1.5..A .._ iaIIIIIIIIIIIIII 111111.11111110111 \r' RN ir i --r-- - - - - -400.„.....- - 1 - -1 n.....LEGEND +I i _ __ • LOT 11 - +2 lij I • , r-- - .., . , 1 , . • • I II IQ 1 fl_...i;j1._ 1=1 1 1 __ 1 1 - 0,... I I 11.........11 1 1 ill 7 i II I . : , '4Fil.1 2 l + PA= == k 6+, 1......., - - 1 1 CI . 511111r- Mr AI al 94 I I I-1— A. 0 — I 2 000...WOW. Willelladi- I 1 (-- 44 I aim F. /AMIN *cm ''i 1 ,--- 44 • i a I el I 1 IS I • H.............. i .„._ ii 4 _ 1 1 ;r-11 Ilk — +3 1 . m irz , f• +4 r ci In LJ (J _r.'- .----..,. • li P ‘t — 1--Cg i 1 1— 11 q ovi:11 .- „ .... 1 ., - WV.MAMER VOMMAWOO■ = a 11••••••41. • \ C a.. 786101MMOR 1 ' M i I --- '-------N A '..". ______ -Inn- ../41to I _:,... low 1 r . mz,r; I S 1,11. 11;•• . VI.-, fi f-ag — - - . MI id 11 z Ili-- ....a --- i. .1 j • IN • II -- _•PLI 1:2: u 1, 4 - ale - 4111 . 1- 1111111111111111110. r 47cm-- Erin I moo isms 1 all. ini mi. i . .4= . . ..,.... . WO/- ; IL 11IN •-A I I . ,.. it Li .„... 74.7;11,.., ay, ,c7) • 4—, e 1 . A.woo eix , . raw I 1 1r .-1 4., -1 .- i ..15 II 1 4 ma ..... , •tia-I 1 ■ _ .■I,. 1 li II'. 1 : -1_11 I 1"ult; 2 211 M:le■ ' -:SP OE_ _am Mima: ■ t iH i ,i, r __ _...,„ kiriL 9 20=_... 1'MA ...1...—„, I _1•"''.........,Z, Ilri till ,..0.--......,_ 1 , - ii. 01. ILA( lig 1 z jai -, •=1: 16 I r ig moms 1 iii r.joi if 1111111 44 I Eh t : i - Cha 1 i._61.,..gellel i 1 t • -- lhitti .... : I _1:4= •-11 .4.,. j____,,, M. .1•11 r I ma tOr 2 karg ........1... ...=... vaL I ma, qv., ; lg. mt xtro, mit f, : --..- —,--, • SITE PLAN r > wr tor . T. lir .•• Per IIII •• .8• ON CITY OF The Garden Cottages ASHLAND Grounds for Appeal #3) The Planning Commission erred in approving the proposed development because subdivisions in Wildfire Hazard Areas require a Fire Prevention & Control Plan be submitted and none was submitted here. Appellants further contend that the proposal would create a new and inadequate traffic pattern for Mountain View Drive so as to slow traffic during a wildfire evacuation and at all times; ❑ Staff recommended and the PC conditioned the Outline Plan subdivision approval to require that the Fire Prevention & Control Plan be provided with the Final Plan application, to be reviewed before any work, other than demolition, could occur on the property. ❑ A Fire Prevention & Control Plan addresses: • Location & dimensions (and grade) of existing and proposed structures, parking areas, driveways and fire apparatus access serving all structures on the property, and those structures on adjacent properties within 30 feet of the property line. • Existing & proposed hydrants. Contours and slope. ❖ A Tree & Vegetation Management Plan, with details addressing the General Fuel Modification Area and a schedule of vegetation removal/thinning. ❑ The Fire Marshal indicated that there were two access routes and he saw no obvious red flags with the proposal. ❑ The traffic engineer did note that in his analysis Mountain View Drive by itself could accommodate full neighborhood traffic for the entire neighborhood east of the property with 475 average daily trips where the street standard is designed to accommodate up to 1 ,500 average daily trips. ❑ The street, as it currently exists, meets the current standards for travel lane width and on-street parking and is not proposed to change. CITY OF The Garden Cottages ASHLAND Grounds for Appeal #4) The Planning Commission erred in approving a project that did not follow procedural requirements in that the applicants held one meeting with a minimum number of neighbors and the neighborhood's traffic concerns have not been addressed; ❑ There is no procedural requirement to hold a neighborhood meeting. ❑ There is no procedural requirement to address neighborhood concerns separately from approval criteria. ❑ The information cited in the appeal is a pre-application comment providing advice from staff to the applicant to consider informing neighbors in advance of an application, and is neither a code requirement nor is it part of the record considered by the Planning Commission. ❑ The applicant nonetheless did hold a neighborhood meeting as advised by staff. CITY OF The Garden Cottages ASHLAND Grounds for Appeal #5) The private traffic study presented by the applicant should not have been accepted by the Planning Commission because it is flawed and incomplete in that it fails to show what the impacts of slowing traffic will be on residents and neighbors, especially during a wildfire evacuation; and fails to address or evaluate the substantially increased street patterns and traffic coming with the development of the Reynolds property. Further, the Planning Commission erred in approving the application without asking Public Works/Engineering Department to require a Traffic Impact Analysis(TIA). ❑ The application was not required to provide a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). ❑ The applicant nonetheless provided a traffic report prepared by a qualified engineer noting minimal peak hour trips (6-8) and finding that a full TIA was not required. ❑ The engineer, however, did note that in his analysis Mountain View Drive by itself could accommodate full neighborhood traffic for the entire neighborhood east of the property with 475 average daily trips where the street standard is designed to accommodate up to 1 ,500 average daily trips. Cl As previously noted, the Fire Marshal had also indicated that there were two access routes and he saw no obvious red flags with the proposal. ❑ The street, as proposed, meets the current width standards for the travel lane width and on-street parking. CITY OF The Garden Cottages ASHLAND Staff Recommendation With the above in mind, staff recommends that the Council reject each of the five grounds for appeal, uphold the Planning Commission decision, approve the project and direct staff to prepare written findings for adoption on May 7th. C 1 T Y O F The Garden Cottages ASHLAND Cottage Housing Proposal City Council Appeal H A . rill6 2019 . . . . , . f _ , , . . . .... ,..,..,. ._.. .... . _ ., ........ ... , t 3' ■ y f t ! �v _ , , 'AIM :/1',! "; ; 'H''': '''' -'' .----' . --'..--' ''' . . .... i ,I. jj til t; UP � ' , • -I q��11� < • J, \ . - 4 ,4 i ' 1 3 li City of Ashland Transient Occupancy Tax Allocation BN201 9-21 CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING APRIL 15, 2019 • ® i CITY OF ASHLAND Transient Occupancy Tax BN 2019-21 Revenues * Tourism"'estricted Unrestricted $3,276,369 $949,884 $2,133,571 Council Allocated $556,338 $0 Remaining Allocation $393,546 $2,133,571 *Anticipated Annual Revenues CITY OF "ASHLAND Transient Occupancy Tax Grant Allocations FY 18-19 Tourism Restricted Unrestricted Travel Ashland (VCB) $446,338 $0 Oregon Shakespeare Festival $1 10,000 $0 Small Grants Program $79,703 $150,000 I Public Arts Program $23,911 $0 City Capital Projects (tourism eligible only) $137,080 $0 Future Long Term Parking Supply (from 1% TOT rate increase) $244,060 $0 Economic Development Program (GF) $0 $185,000 General Fund Operations* $0 $1 ,961 ,065 TOTAL TOT ALLOCATION $797,033 2,296,065$ * Includes the additional $104,598 from the 1%increase for Police Dept Officer 1 C I T Y 0 F ASHLAND Transient Occupancy Tax Small Grants `aFY2020Applied Econ Dev Cultural Tourism Sustainability TOTAL 33 Total Applications S168,815 S152,750 $261 ,005 $73,500 $656,070 ➢ Thirty Applications include funding requests across multiple grant funding categories ➢ Three applications request funds from one funding category CITY OF ASHLAND Transient OccupancyTax (LC allocates(4/1b) 101 CC allocates(4/16)restricted CC pnctpnnesallnratinnnf I e.trii.teLJ fur Lour isui(wily) &unrestricted TOT for restricted&unrestricted to grants Economic,Cultural BudgetCurnrnillee Sustainability grant L \ / sv Ad Fluc/Budget Subcommittee review grant BC recommends allocation apps makers of restricted&unrestricted recommendation to CC via budget Cf il . \ \ / .v, Cr makecdaricinnvia CC approves/amends BC recommendation—adopts Resolution&Budget J UCUil re nl budget&resolution \ / V CC approve sformation of ad-hoccom mitteeto rev lewgrant applications ) C_ Ad hoc committee recommendsgrantsto be funded to LC.: t I Resolution 2018