Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-1102.REG.MIN (W/ATTACHMTS) MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL November 2, 1999 Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The meeting was called to order by Mayor Shaw at 7:03 p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilors Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hanson, Wheeldon and Fine were present Mayor Shaw congratulated the citizens on voter turnout in the city. Stated that Ashland is one of only two cities in the state that have, so far, shown a voter turnout of over 50%. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting of October 19, 1999 and the executive session of October 19, 1999 were approved as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS I. Mayor's Proclamation of "Recycling Awareness Week." 2. Mayor's Proclamation of "A Celebration of 100 years of Medford and Ashland Football". Mayor Shaw read both of the proclamations in full. CONSENT AGENDA I. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees. 2. Approval of a Street Cut on Park Street to install sewer and water facilities. 3. Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance Adding Section 2.04.095 1o the Ashland Municipal Code to Establish Fiscal Priorities for New Programs." It was noted that consent agenda item//3 should read as follows: Second reading by title only of"An Ordinance Adding Section 2.04. 095 to the Ashland Municipal code to better identiJ~, funding mechanisms for new programs." Councilors Wheeldon/Fine m/s to approve consent agenda items and Ordinance #2851 as amended. Roll call vote: Laws, Reid, Hanson, Hauck, Wheeldon and Fine, YES. Motion passed. Council requested that second reading of ordinances be dealt with separately and placed on the agenda accordingly. PUBLIC HEARINGS I. Public Hearing and Motion regardingAppealofPlanning Commission decision: Planning Action 99-062 - request for Site Review Permit for the construction of six apartment units (three duplexes) located on Van Ness Street between Helman and Laurel Streets (Applicant: Dave Green). Mayor Shaw read the land use public hearing guidelines and procedures. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 7:13 p.m ABSTENTIONS, CONFLICTS, EX-PARTE CONTACTS: Hanson noted that he had made a site visit and had conversation with neighbors. Fine noted making a site visit, seeing media information and having brief contact with individuals who wished to discuss the matter, and which he declined because the matter might come before council on appeal. Hauck noted a site visit and viewing of the Planning Commission hearing. Reid noted that she had made a site visit. Laws noted a site visit and a brief conversation with Regular City Council Meeting 11/02/99 Page 1 of I I the Director of Community Development. Wheeldon noted having made a site visit and had a general conversation with neighbors. Hanson clarified that his conversation with neighbors had to do with the history of the lot in question over the last fifty .~ears. Wheeldon clarified that her conversation with neighbors was about in-fill in general and the nature of the neighborhood. Wheeldon emphasized that this conversation provided nothing beyond what is contained in the record and what is general knowledge from living in the city for a long time. STAFF REPORT: Director of Community Development John McLaughlin introduced Associate Planner Mark Knox, the staff planner on this project. Knox read the applicable criteria to be used torthe approval or denial of a site review: A) All applicable City ordinances have been met and will be met by proposed development; B) All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met; C) The site design complies with the guidelines adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter; and D) That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. Knox explained that a similar application was approved by staff as a Type I review permit in 1996. The neighbors appealed, and the item went before the Planning Commission where it was approved with some conditions, including that the alley not be paved. The applicant then allowed that approval to expire, and has submitted a new application. Knox noted that there had been some concern over the possible existence ofwetlands on the site, but that a consultant has confirmed that there are no wetlands. Knox noted that the Division of State Lands had also done an analysis and issued written confirmation that there are no significant wetlands here. Knox discussed the site, noting that there is a 4% slope to the north and relatively little in the way of natural features. Explained that the proposal is for three buildings with duplexes, for a total of six units. Illustrated the site plan and parking with slides. Discussed the design details of the units, with slides of the elevations. Knox stated that staff believes, and the Historic Commission concurs, that the development is compatible with the existing neighborhood. Knox noted that a number of the concerns raised by neighbors had to do with the alley, and explained that neighbors have asked that the alley not be paved. Stated that staff has asked that the alley be graded to at least twelve feet, and improved with "three-quarter minus" rock. Knox noted that the fire department required fifteen foot clearance for emergency vehicle access. Stated that the back two units will also have fire sprinklers as an added precaution. Knox explained trip-generation concerns, noting that national standards indicate the project will likely generate about 36 vehicle trips per day. Stated that typically, 10-15% of these will occur within peak hours. Also noted that concerns over vision clearance at the alley have been rectified by contacting neighbors to have vegetation removed. Knox stated that planning staff supports this application, and noted that the Historic Commission had also recommended approval. Pointed out that the Tree Commission had also recommended approval, but had raised some concerns over some of the existing trees. Explained that Planning Commission felt that the trees were not significant and could be removed. Clarified that the Tree Commission had not reviewed the item after the Planning Commission ruling. McLaughlin clarified some items having to do with the appeal. Noted that the appellants' letter raised the issue of the Planning Commission's use of the site review criteria over elements of the Comprehensive Plan that were raised during the process. McLaughlin briefly explained the multi-tiered process for statewide land-use in Oregon, noting that each Rcgular (_'it.~ Council Meeting 11/02/99 Page 2 of I 1 city adopts a comprehensive plan to implement statewide goals. In this way, statewide goals become localized goals and policies reflecting the values of the local community. From there, the localized goals and policies are implemented with specific local ordinances. McLaughlin noted paragraph c in the appellants' letter which confirms this. McLaughlin emphasized that once a land use ordinance is adopted, decisions are made based on the specific ordinances rather than referring back to the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. By complying with the local ordinances, a plan complies with the comprehensive plan and statewide goals. As such, McLaughlin stated that the appellants' perception of a procedural error is seen as incorrect, as in fact the action had to be considered in the matter that it was. McLaughlin cited the major land-use decision reached in Murphy v. The City of Ashland, wherein LUBA required reliance upon city ordinances in reaching decisions as a way of implementing the policies of the comprehensive plan. Emphasized that it is staffs belief that this is the only approach to use in these matters, and that is the way the Planning Commission arrived at its decision, which was unanimous. Reid questioned how not paving the alley would meet the city' s track-out ordinance and the council's policy of trying to pave alleys. McLaughlin stated that in the historic district, with relatively fiat alleys in residential areas having low traffic counts the neighborhoods have pushed to not have alleys paved to keep them more as linear parks/trails for the enjoyment of the historic area. Stated that prep work done on the alley, and use of a "three quarter minus" crushed base can alleviate track-out concerns. Noted that this is only appropriate to fiat alleys, and that it does mean some increased maintenance. Recognized that there are still air quality and storm water run-off issues, but that the rock is considerably better than decomposed granite. Stated that it fell to the council's discretion to require paving if they feel it to be necessary in light of these concerns. Wheeldon asked for clarification that this is a de novo hearing. Shaw confirmed that this item was being heard de novo, and explained that council was not restricted to a particular issue and could look at all applicable criteria. Wheeldon questioned whether the thirty foot rear setback included parking. Mark confirmed this, and noted that the alley right of way was sixteen feet and that the parking was about eight feet from the building. McLaughlin confirmed that staff worked with the Fire Department and they were comfortable with the alley access. Knox noted that there are encroachmeats at the Helman end of the alley, and letters will be sent asking property owners to remove their fences and hedges from the right-of-way. Confirmed for Wheeldon that alley maintenance is not the developer's responsibility the developer does the initial work, which will likely be serviceable for two to three years. Knox also confirmed that the applicant need only improve the alley from the rear property line to Helman Street. McLaughlin emphasized that council has the discretion to request additional requirements. Wheeldon questioned the trees being affected here. Knox clarified that two trees are on the applicant's property, and that a third tree is located on a neighboring property six feet from the property line. Discussed the capacity of this alley. McLaughlin noted that the true capacity of an alley is difficult to measure, given the physical possibility for traffic versus for the character as an alley. McLaughlin noted that the capacity will handle the eventual level of development proposed for the neighborhood, which could be fifteen more units. Discussed the role of alleys as parking and rear access to complement the role of public streets in an interconnected network. Reid questioned the full build out that could be allowed on the lot being discussed. McLaughlin confirmed that the lot' s base density was 6.8 units, meaning that six would be the base density with seven allowed with a density bonus if an affordable housing unit were included. APPLICANT PROPOSAL: Dave Greene/Applicant and Richard Stevens/211 Genesee Place, Medford, 97504 Pointed outthatpropertyis zoned R3, and the proposed use in permitted outright in that zone. Explained that the process here is multi-level with general site plan review and historic review. Emphasized that the Planning Commission, Historic Commission, and planning staff have all reviewed this application and concurred that it does in fact meet applicable criteria. Emphasized that the Regular City Council Meeting 11/02/99 Page 3 of 11 applicant's position is that there has been extensive review confirming that criteria have been satisfied, and asked that council confirm the Planning Commission approval. Stevens stated that the applicant will improve the alley with three quarter minus gravel as required by the Planning Commission, and sign an agreement consenting to participate in the local improvement district for paving when that district is formed. Explained that the applicant is willing to address the concerns of the neighboring property owner regarding the tree and will hire an arborist to protect this tree, to the best extent possible. Stated that the issues raised by the appellants are not approval criteria or standards that can be applied to this type of application. While the applicant empathizes, there are state requirements which are being followed appropriately for the type of application. Concluded that the issues brought forward citing Oregon Revised Statutes and the city's Comprehensive Plan are not approval standards or criteria for this type of application: noted that the application has met all applicable standards under review by the appropriate bodies: asked the council to approve the application. IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICANT: Elaine Delsman/341 Beach St/Noted that she owns property on Van Ness, across the street from the proposed development. Explained that there are numerous apartment buildings in the area, and stated that she feels that this project will be a benefit to the community. OPPOSED TO THE APPLICANT: Council discussion of whether speakers should be allowed to donate their time to other speakers. Laws stated that because the council has previously allowed this practice, it should be allowed tonight. Suggested that council set policy for future meetings that donating time to other speakers will not be allowed. Council expressed their agreement with this as future policy. Robert Hirschboek/71 Scenic Dr/Read a prepared statement into the record (see attached). Eva Ruth Cooley/143 Van Ness Av/Noted that two other speakers had donated time to allow her more time to speak. E:xplained that neighbors and concerned citizens filed this appeal because the Ashland Planning Commission failed to follow proper procedure as stated in ORS 197 and 227. Emphasized that this procedural error deprived the appellants ot'a substantial right to the reasonable opportunity to submit their case to the Planning Commission. Stated that the appellants contend that ORS 197 requires the provision for comprehensive plans, and read requirements from the statutes. Stated that the Planning Commission hearing limited testimony which did not address the site review standards in the land use ordinance. Also noted that staff advice to the commission directed them that their discretion was limited to the site review criteria. Suggested that this limited the scope of evidence to only the site review standards, and stated that based on the previously cited statutes the comprehensive plan should precede these standards. Stated that the limitation of discussion to the site review standards is not only a violation of the requirements of law but a breach of the appellants right to due process. Ask that council review the facts, admonish the Planning Commission and instruct them as to their responsibility as stated in ORS 197 and 227. Further asked that this matter be sent back to the Planning Commission to be reopened subject to all of the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. ,!ohn Freedom/442 Holly St/Noted that council is being called upon in this appeal by the neighbors to correct a pattern or practice of decision making by the Planning Commission and Planning Department that is in contravention to ORS 107 and 227. Specifically stated that this practice deprives citizens of a substantial right to reasonable opportunity to prepare and submit their cases at public hearings. Suggested that officials handling planning and development in the city are neither aware of nor familiar with the laws requiring that development occur in accordance with the comprehensive plan and applicable land use ordinances. Stated that the Planning Commission and Planning Department are in place to serve the people, and suggested that it would be timely for the council to issue a directive admonishing both to operate within the scope of, and in compliance with, the ORS, comprehensive plan and the municipal code. ('oncluded that making decisions is easy, but that making the right decision is the challenge for the council. Regular City Council Meeting 11/02/99 Page 4 of 11 Alfred Wilstatter/128 Central Av/Noted that he has resided on this street for thirty years. Explained that he has no problem with the development, but suggested that land-locking this development with only alley access is setting a dangerous precedent. Emphasized that street access is needed. STAFF RESPONSE: At the request of Councilor Hauck, City Attorney Paul Nolte confirmed that both Murphy v. City of Ashlandand Miller v City of ,~shland which were decided roughly ten years ago specifically require the decision to be made based on the ordinance in place to implement the comprehensive plan. Nolte concurred with the advice provided by Director of Community Development John McLaughlin and Planning Commissioner Steve Armitage, and confirmed that council may not look at anything other than the site review standards. Reiterated that council is legally bound in this matter. Laws clarified that once ordinances are in place to implement the comprehensive plan, they then take over the job of cart2¢ing out the expressed comprehensive plan. McLaughlin clarified for Laws that the current zoning ordinance and site review standards do carry out all aspects of the comprehensive plan that would be relevant in this matter. Explained that the comprehensive plan includes a chapter on implementation listing specific ordinances addressing requirements or'the plan's goals and policies. At Reid's request, Nolte clarified that he was pleased to hear that the Planning Commission and planning staff recognized the need to follow the criteria stated in the city's implementing ordinances. McLaughlin noted that the condition requiring the applicant to sign in favor of future paving addressed the possibility that council may eventually implement paving standards for alleys. McLaughlin clarified that staff is following the Ashland Municipal Code's chapter 18.72 very closely. Explained that land use in the ORS becomes very complex, but that the approval of needed housing must be reviewed by "clear and objective standards." Stated that reverting to the comprehensive plan standards would completely change the process. APPLICANT REBUTTAL: The applicant's attorney Richard Stevens noted that most of his concerns had already been addressed in the staff rebuttal. Noted that while this type of development is relatively simple, the fact that it is in the historic district means that the review process has been quite extensive. Emphasized that the applicants have demonstrated compliance with applicable standards~ and stated that this compliance was upheld in the Planning Commission's decision. Noted that while he didn't believe there had been any procedural errors, the possibility is adequately addressed by conducting this &, novo hearing tonight. Stevens noted that there are numerous court cases requiring the use of criteria, and explained that ORS 197.763 requires listing all applicable criteria in the public notice which is mailed out, and these criteria must be recited by staff at the hearing. Emphasized that these then become the only applicable criteria to be addressed in the hearing. Issues raised by opponents must be specific, and the level ofspecificity must be such that the applicants can address it. Stated that no issues raised by the appellants have any degree of specificity, and are not approval criteria but general policies. Asked that the Planning Commission decision be upheld, with the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission, and allow the project to move ahead. In response to Wilstatter's concerns, Stephens noted that the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan states that parking spaces and structures should be located in alleys, and the applicant was encouraged to do this. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:24 p.m. Fine stated that the council has no other option but to follow the applicable criteria. Emphasized that the Comprehensive Plan consists of general norms which are too vague to serve as requirements. Noted that there may be a need to better clarify what may be ambiguous goals, but in this case the standards are clear. Explained that council is sitting tonight in a law-applying role rather than a law-making role. Asked that if citizens are unhappy with how Regular City Council Meeting I 1/02/99 Page 5 of 1 ] strategies are outlined, that they hold the council accountable in the future as rules are made. Stated that he would be voting in favor of the application according to the criteria. Councilor Laws clarified that council is bound to the ordinances that are in place to carry out the comprehensive plan. Stated that if these ordinances are seen by citizens as poorly designed, then the citizens need to come before the council to have these ordinances redesigned. At the present time, the existing implementation ordinances must be applied, as required by LUBA. Councilor Hauck pointed out that the site review criteria go well beyond their four short sentences, in that they require the applicant to meet all applicable city ordinances, which are very detailed and complex in seeking to implement the comprehensive plan. Councilor Wheeldon commented on the impact of in-fill projects and questioned what could be done to allow for less impact in the neighborhood. Wheeldon suggested some changes that could be brought forward to better make the area more palatable to the neighborhood, such as better care of the alley, the appropriateness of fencing, and possibly the coverage of the parking areas. Councilor Reid voiced her concern with redesigning the project for this development, and stated that it may be inappropriate for council to do so at this time. Felt that these types of conditions should be raised at the Planning Commission level, and that the council should not attempt to micro-manage neighborhoods. Laws emphasized that any conditions imposed here would need to be specific, but stated that he would agree to requiring paving of the alley. Suggested that the required alley improvements be extended to include the alley north from the property to the cross alley, and on the cross alley from the intersection to Van Ness. Emphasized that this did not need to be paving, but could merely be three quarter minus gravel. Clarified that this would require changing the wording of condition five to require alley improvements "for the entire alley, between Helman and Laurel" rather than from Helman to the property line. Councilor Hanson clarified that there had been concessions made by the developer due to the concerns brought forward b\ the neighborhood during the process of this application before the Planning Commission, Tree Commission and H ~storic Commission. D~scussion of the need for better communication in these matters. Wheeldon suggested that the general feeling of the comprehensive plan may not be translating specifically enough into the implementing ordinances. Laws stated that the problem is that the ordinances are supposed to clearly spell out how to comply with the comprehensive plan by objective criteria as required by state law. Suggested that these ordinances need to be looked at to make them better specific expressions of comprehensive plan implementation. Wheeldon suggested that council ask the developer to meet with a group of neighbors in order to come up with ~nitigating requirements that would be mutually agreeable. Reid stated that this is not the appropriate time to do this, and discussed that this matter is before the council on appeal and the processes have already been conducted. Fine emphasized that there is a need to complete this matter under the 120-day rule, and there is not time under that rule to enter a broad ranging process. Suggested that staff look at bringing back potential improvements to the in-fill ordinances and strategies. Discussion noting that this is a de novo hearing and needs to be conducted as such. Councilors Reid/Hauck m/s to approve the application with the suggested condition change suggested by Councilor Laws. Roll call vote: Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hanson, Wheeidon, and Fine, YES. PUBLIC FORUM Eric Navickas/711 Faith Av/Spoke regarding the recent death of Jim Berkman and asked that listeners celebrate his life. Noted the amount of volunteer community involvement by Mr. Berkman, and how very difficult it will be to Regular City Council Meeting I 1/02/99 Page 6 of 11 replace an individual like Berkman. Navickas requested that council consider a grant in the memory of Jim Berkman to help fund the Ashland Community Bike Program as a monument. Shaw suggested that Navickas contact her so that there could be discussion on doing something, possibly through the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission. Bob Kiger/227 S Freeman St/Submitted proposal for Ashland Bicycle Center and stated that Ashland would make a world-class bicycle touring center. as he feels that Ashland is the best qualified location on the Pacific coast. Noted the ingredients necessary for a center to exist and how this could be complemented by the Bear Creek Greenway project. Offered his assistance to the city for economic development in th is area, suggesting that this could be a $15-$20 million industry supporting 400 jobs. Councilor Laws clarified that the city does offer grants through the budget process. Russ Silberger/562 Ray Ln/Spoke regarding the new proposal by the City Administrator to charge a fee of $0.50 per page for requested documents. Noted that these fees are twice the amount charged by the state. Feels that the new policy is designed to restrict access to documents and control information. Noted some previous requests for infi3rmation that he has made, and asked if it is appropriate to charge such high fees for access to public records. Concluded that he hopes that these new fees do not intimidate anyone who is seeking information. Michael Gutman/1257 Quincy St, #5/Would like to revisit the issue of affordable housing. Noted the California (;arttens affordable housing development next to Garfield Park. Asked that council to reconsider how SDC charges are handled up front, and suggested deferring SDCs for later collection. Also questioned the condition of approval for fire sprinklers in townhouses based on water flows, when the city could upgrade the waterlines on California Street. Shaw urged Gutman to follow up with Public Works, giving the fact that the project is moving forward as a planning action and the matter is not appropriate for council discussion at this stage. Gutman explained that the water line would provide a great benefit to the future owners of these units, and that a waterline improvement would also benefitthe ParksideApartments. which is currently under-protected from fire danger. Wheeldon volunteered to speak to Dave Petersen in regards to this issue, and Laws noted that the SDC deferral request would be best addressed to the Housing Commission. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS I. Council Meeting Look Ahead. Presented for council information. 2. Application for Taxicab Certification. City Administrator Mike Freeman briefly explained the background of this application for taxi certification, and noted the four criteria that must be considered to grant a certificate. Stated that in staff's opinion, the application does not adequately address those criteria, and recommended that council return the application and request additional intbrmation. Freeman clarified for Wheeldon that the council is the regulatory body in determining whether or not to grant a person a certificate to do business. Hauck suggested that the ordinance may need to be revisited. Fine stated that Finance Director Jill Turner is revisiting the ordinance at the staff level. Councilor Laws/Fine m/s to return the application to Cascade Shuttle for further information, under advice of staff. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. 3. Presentation by Oregon Shakespeare Festival regarding new theater project. Dan Thorndyke, representing the Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF) board of directors, and Paul Nicholson, also from Oregon Shakespeare Festival, requested support from council for OSF's new theatre/parking lot proposal in concept, Regular City Council Meeting 11/02/99 Page 7 of 11 and also asked council to authorize city staff to work in conjunction with the festival to renegotiate the city's lease with OSF in order to accommodate this project in both scope and term. I'horndyke gave a background on the effort and discussion that has occurred in this process. Noted that the festival does have a large and diverse board of directors and that this has been a long, ongoing process. Stated that the current proposal came through the public input process and that the aim is now to maximize the positive impact, rather than simply trying to minimize the negative impact, on parking. Emphasized that the proposed project will greatly improve the parking lot. as well as improving the artistic product and long-term viability of OSF. Ntcholson explained that the proposal is near the end of the schematic design stage and that OSF is far from proposing a final design through the planning process. What is being presented to the council here is the conceptual design and how that design would address current concerns and limitations. The proposal is as follows: l)Leave Carpenter Hall where it is, and upgrade it so that it can be made more available to local performing arts groups when OSF's theatres are not in operation; 2)Construct a new, state-of-the-art theatre seating 260 in a three-quarter thrust configuration and up to 350 in arena or in-the-round seating; 3 )Build a two-level, 120 space parking structure, with one level at Hargadine Street and the other as an underground area at approximately the lower level of the existing parking lot; 4)Continue to work in partnership with the City, the Chamber's Parking and Transportation Committee and Ashland businesses to develop a comprehensive plan that addresses transportation, traffic flow, parking and other issues; and 5)Enhance the landscaping surrounding Carpenter Hall so the new theatre fits harmoniously into the neighborhood. Also pointed out the possibility of working with the Mark Antony to extend this new parking structure all the way to First Street for a potential gain of 90 parking spaces. Asked that the city re-energize a group to focus attention on developing real solutions to parking issues, traffic flow, and congestion, and tying that in to the comprehensive plan. Noted that this is a $8-10 million investment on OSF's part, and that pointed out that there are specific benefits to the City of Ashland. OSF will present plays at the highest level of performance, plus there are economic benefits of approximately $6.5 million per year, and there will be an increase in the city's hotel/motel tax and food and beverage tax and sales to many local businesses. Feels that the project itself will serve as a catalyst for change. Nicholson requested the general support of the council to continue in developing the design concept and to authorize staff to work with OSF both in planning process and in renegotiating the lease. Nicholson noted the areas owned by the city. and explained that the Black Swan is expected to be kept as a working space for new play development and theatre education activities. Thorndyke clarified that there have been long-term goals to redevelop the Black Swan building and its immediate area. Councilor Reid voiced her concern with losing additional street level area on Hargadine Street, and suggested that the parking structure need not extend all the way to First Street. Stated that building/structure use and street scape should be considered. Nicholson stated that Doug Neuman had indicated his interest in using the parking structure as a way to develop the parking lot, as Reid had suggested. Thorndyke explained that because this is city property, OSF needs council approval to move forward with specific land use issues, both internally and through the city planning process. Stated that they would like to work with staff to develop a lease that would encompass the entire area under discussion. Nicholson explained for council that the issues surrounding the charge for parking has not been worked out and that they are continuing to explore options and have discussions. Explained that they anticipate that anyone using the parking facility during festival times would be required to pay, and clarified that during the off-season and/or off-hours this may not be a requirement. Councilor Laws commented on the need to look at the report recently completed on the city's transit system. Laws ~tated that he would like to see the city maintain control overthe necessity of charging for parking. Noted that he would Regular City Council Meeting I 1/02/99 Page 8 of 11 like to take advantage of the opportunity to work with Doug Neuman, as owner of the Mark Antony. Stated that the idea of putting a committee of fifty together may not be right for the present time, given the level of development that already exists in this plan. Suggested that a smaller working committee representing major stakeholders and able to take action would be more suited to the present circumstances. Councilor Wheeldon suggested dealing with "Ordinances, Resolutions, and Contracts" items which are time-sensitive now to reserve the remainder of the meeting for discussion of the OSF proposal. Dealt with items # 1 and 2 here as they were time sensitive. Councilors Reid/Laws m/s to extend the meeting past 10:00 p.m. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC INPUT Duane Smith/2165 W Jackson/Noted moving here 36 years ago as the city was the cheapest community he could live in with a five-year college program, and spoke of the way the town developed with the Festival. Explained how the parking lot on Hargadine came about, noting it is only owned by the city because of the actions of the Festival. Stated that the Festival really built the town, and they should be supported on their path to excellence. Bill Street/180 Mead/Commented on the dynamics of the council chambers and how the audience does not feel a part of the discussion. Suggested that the experience is neither democratic nor artistic, and that perhaps the Black Swan would be a more appropriate venue. Noted the letter submitted by Michael Donovan with the statement that it is conservatively estimated that over 15,000 vehicles pass southbound on East Main, and 13,000 vehicles pass northbound on Lithia Way every single day. Emphasized that is more cars than travel both north and south on Interstate 5 per day. Voiced concern with transportation and growth problems and asked how to limit the problem. Questioned ifFestival's proposal adds to the current problem of transportation and growth, or contributes to the solution to that problem. Questioned whether Ashland is losing its small town character and moving away from a balanced economy. kn~phasized that this proposal is not a solution to the growth and transportation problems that must be addressed. Colin Swales/143 Eighth Street/Voiced his surprise at learning that the city owns the parking lot that the OSF is proposing to develop. Commented on the design of the proposed building and the arrogance of the festival in assuming that they can build what, where, and when they want. Emphasized that a windowless auditorium commanding magnificent views is a criminal waste. when the site would have been ideal for the library. Pointed out that the ma×imum building height allowable under the areas zoning is forty feet, not the sixty four feet proposed. Stated that the initial plan was to demolish Carpenter Hall, and pointed out that the lease with the city requires OSF to grant use of the grounds to civic groups, conventions, and other such organizations. Stated that OSF is in arrears on this community obligation. Also noted planning for a 3000 square foot lecture hall over the Black Swan has been discussed. Concluded that with $28 million in assets and a $2.8 budget surplus, no further handouts are in order from the city. Bob Mayers/4890 Hwy 66/Noted that he is on the Chamber Board, and has been a business owner in Ashland for twenty years. Stated that in order to maintain a business, it requires a lot of work. Commented on the positive influence of OSF and the community support for successful businesses. Feels that the community should share in the enthusiasm of'the Festival in their striving to excel. Noted some of the community organizations that support the Festival's proposal, and requested that council support the OSF in this new endeavor. .lim Lewis/640 A Street/Chair of Ashland Historic Commission/Commented on the Historic Commission's top priority in keeping Carpenter Hall in its original location. Stated that the Historic Commission would definitely prefer the proposal for the alternative development of the parking lot. Requested that if the council is to accept this development, he feels there should be a substantial increase in community use of the building. Gary Moore/668 N. Main St./Noted that he has been a B&B owner for six years. Commented on the difficulty guests have in obtaining tickets to the Black Swan theatre, and suggested that the proposal wouldn't necessarily bring more I',cgt~lar City Council Meeting 11/02/99 Page 9 of l 1 guests but might allow the same people to see more shows, and also allow for expanded shows in the spring and the fall off-seasons. Stated his support for the proposal in that it provides for additional use in the off-season. (;ate Hartzell/881 E. Main St./Feels that the council is a bargaining position and that the foundation to be used in determining a new lease would involve fair judgement of previous agreements. Expressed concern with previous commitments to allow use by community groups and the fact that these commitments may have been unfulfilled. Commented on individuals who are not at the meeting and their concern that the festival may go back to original plan if the current plan is not approved. Suggested that this is organizationally selfish. Suggested that any support she expresses tonight is based in resignation and disappointment that this is already a "done deal." Stated that there should have been consideration given to adding on to the Black Swan before moving into city-owned property. Asked that council consider seeking city ownership of Carpenter Hall as part of the bargaining process. Suggested that it be made more accessible, with possible management by a community group. Stated that council needs to consider all citizens in this negotiation. and keep in mind the impact of the mass and appearance of this building on the downtown. Stated that paid parking will have additional impact on the neighborhood around the neighborhood, and asked that council consider the C-1-D zoning and revisit parking commitments required in that zone. Concluded that there is a need to have a better dialogue within the community. Mike Gorton/! 06 S. Pioneer/Directly effected by the proposal. Commented on the advantages and disadvantages from the standpoint of residing on Pioneer Street. Expressed his support for the project, but feels that it is important to have community input. Councilors Wheeldon/Fine m/s to continue the public hearing to the November 16th council meeting. Discussion: Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS !. Reading by title only of "A Resolution accepting Transfer of a portion of Tolman Creek Road from Jackson County to the City of Ashland." Councilors m/s to approve Resolution # 99-63. Roll Call Vote: Hanson, Fine, Wheeldon, Hauck, Reid and Laws, YES. Motion passed. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Exempting from Competitive Bidding Equipment Purchases through the National Cable Television Cooperative for the Ashland Fiber Network Cable Television System." Councilors m/s to approve Resolution #99-64. Roll Call Vote: Reid, Wheeldon, Hauck, Fine, Laws and Hanson, YES. Motion passed. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Amending 93-35 by Deleting Advertising Contracts as an Exemption from Competitive Bidding," and reading by title only of "A Resolution Amending Resolution 93-35 by Defining Advertising Contracts." Item removed and placed on next council agenda. Reading by title only of "A Resolution requesting that the United States Government ensure that certain provisions be included in the Multilateral Agreement on Investments (MAI) Agreement if it is to be ratified by the United States." Item removed and placed on next council agenda. Rcgular City Council Meeting I 1/02/99 Page 10 of 11 Reading by title only of "A Resolution establishing a Training, Travel and Business Expenses Reimbursement Policy for the Mayor and City Council." Councilors m/s to approve Resolution #99-62. Roll Call Vote: Wheeldon, Fine, Reid, Hanson and Hauck, YES. Laws, NO. Motion passed 5-1. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:29 p.m. / ~ Ci'.g, Recorder Regular City Council Meeting 11/02/90 Page I 1 of 1 l Public Statement to City Council re: Green Development Mayor Shaw, Ladies & Gentleman of the City Council: MV name is Rob Hirschboeck I own the propedV at 147 Van Ness Avenue, and am the main signatory appealing Planning Action 99-062. We are hem tonight not to argue the details of Dave & Don Green's multiplex apadment development plans. or to have you as City Council suddenly chanqe hats and metamorphize into planninq commissioners. We are here to contend that we as the neiclhborhood contestincl the Green's triple duplex development did not receive fair and lust hearing under the law and required by Oreqon Revised Statutes 197 & 227; And having not received due process in that regard we are here to ask You the City Council to refer this matter back to the Planning Commission with instruction to hear, discuss, and address pedaining issues relating this development to the Comprehensive Plan as acknowledged by the Council and as required by LAW. We trust and are confident that our appointed commissioners, once understandincl and instructed properly as to the full dimensions of their responsibility and the latitude of consideration they are required Io give the Comprehensive Plan under law will be able to conduct a fair discussion and come to an appropriate decision re.qardin_q this development issue here at the local level. The planning Commission has not been able to do that because, to this point in the process, at least one half of their legal responsibility as commissioners has been habitually and systematically defined out from underneath them by mistaken procedure and advisement of the City Plannine Office. and specifically at the hearincl by Mr. John McLauqhlin and Commission Chair person Steve Armitage. (Those statements you may read in the submitted materials or view on the submitted tape of the Hearin_q.) We argue that truncated instructions to only consider matters concerning Site Review Standards as stipulated in Ordinance 18.72.050 - without regard to or consideration of The Comprehensive Plan is a hardship and extreme disservice to all partys involved in and with this planninq action. It is also illeqal! Those badIV served bV such narrowed instruction include the neiqhbors contestinq this development, the developers themselves, the appointed commissions responsible for rendering appropriately considered decisions, and citizen padicipation by the Ashland Community at large in the way we the people of Ashland effect our own neighborhoods and town's evolution in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The appointed commissions have not been fully advised as to their full rights or responsibilities under the law; in fact they have consistently and out of old practice and habit been misadvised! How then can they possibly do their lobs properly and appropriately in service to the community under such circumstances? Let me illustrate this further; here are the results: 1 )De__velopers: as a result of .qiven assurances by City Planning, developers create plans fully believing that site review criteria and zoning are all they must satisfy; that other issues addressed repeatedly in the Comprehensive Plan: Historical issues, traditional usage, neighborhood compatibility beyond the scope of building structure, community and neighborhood, culture. safety issues, Iivability, and all those things the City is on record as wanting to foster in the development of the town - All become cateqorized as emotional issues and those who raise them somehow as fanatics opposed to economic growth, or simply reticent to change. And Vet. consideration of the Comprehensive Plan is required by Law! 2) The Neiqhbors: For the neighbors and interested community members we are told at each step of the process; that we are to be commended as "good citizens" for conscientiously raising such impodant issues; that many commissioners even planners themselves recognize our concerns. are moved and sympathetic. We are praised for our civic dedication and the spirited involvement in our neighborhood and the community - BUT! we are ,told over. and order aqain. that this however is not the "Proper Forum" for discussion of these substantive issues: Not at the Planning Office; Not at the Historic Commission (which was admonished by staff for brazenly voting 4-3 against planning's insistence that our issues were outside the "criteria") - NOT at the Tree Commission (who advised against the Green's plans but stipulated that "If planning has no other way to go then we must also approve." ) - NOT at the Planning Hearing where commissioners were told that Site Review Standards are All the Should - Infact, All they COULD as commissioners hear or consider! Yet Oregon Revised Statutes over and over again stipulate and legally require consideration and adherence to the Comprehensive Plan. This is Against the Law ....Send it Back! In effect, in all development issues in this town, appointed commissions and commissioners are hog lied by the narrowing of considerations that are by law required. The insistence of Planning Staff that Site Review Standards: which way the boards run on the buildings, set backs, absolute legal densities etc. are a complele distillation of all issues addressed and policies put in place by the Comprehensive Plan into quantifiable standards is negligent and myopic nonsense. It is a disservice that deprives the commissions. the community, and the developers alike from doing their jobs and from padicipating in the crealion and evolution of the livable neighborhoods and communily that we as Ashland citizens, and invested home & properly owners have the right and responsibility to participate in. tr) l ~ c") r~ l,"7 It is against good sense, it is against community and neighborhood ownership of our communities. It is in no ones good interesl; It is against the Law. Send it Back! Finally, I want to draw your attention to the overhead. This is a quote by Albed Einstein which is posted prominently in the City Planning Office. It Reads; "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them!" Albed Einstein Ladies and Gentleman of the City Council, I submit to you that this problem has been created and will continue to create problems all over town, by an old entrenched and habitual way of thinking and acting with regard to the site review handcuffs that have make development serve first developers and quite secondarily the community as a whole. That this way of thinking systematically cancels and ignores 1/2 of the rules that must; as in "SHALL BE" adhered to regarding development issues. Our neighborhood is not opposed to development by the Greens or by anyone else on what we believe is a beautiful and appropriate building site in our neighborhood. It can be a beautifully done; a welcome compatible addition contributing to the neighborhood culture and the community. We are, however, opposed to the truncation of our rights to be heard in regard to the Comprehensive Plan and once again state that Planning Action 99-062 circumvents The Comprehensive Plan, violates our rights as citizens, The Municipal Code and Oregon Revised Statutes, and fails to meet requirements of the Law! We ask, we demand as citizens, that you send this back to the Planning Commission with accurate and legal advisement as to the latitude of their responsibilities. And we have high confidence that this matter can be appropriately addressed by a fully impowered Commission at the local level. Thank You. Rob H irschboeck '2r-f <~ ~-.,~ ~-; ~, ~ 1 P / ~a ^l..? - Monday August 2, 1999 Re: Planning Action 99-062 Dave Green Application Van Ness Street Dear Ashland Planning Commission; I am writing this statement to be submitted in the name of a group of concerned home owners and local neighbors in the Van Ness, Central, Helman, Laurel, and Skidmore community. We are in opposition to a Planned Six (6) Unit Apadment complex proposed by Dave Green for construction off Van Ness and the main alley running east / west between Helman and Laurel. These Units, all under 1000 Sq Ft., would be housed in three duplexes filling 75% or more of an existing "L" shaped lot. The proposal calls for 9 - 10 parking spaces off the alley two lots distant from it's intersection with Helman St. The long alley would be graveled or paved to it's junction with the Bush Lane alley between Central and Van Ness. We contend in this statement that the proposed development does not conform to the existing neighborhood, it's traditional usage, historic character, to intentions of City zoning, nor to Comprehensive Plan Policy. We believe such a development, in it's density, transient character, and parking requirements can not easily be assimilated into or become an integral pad of the existing neighborhood. It would in fact negatively impact and likely destroy what is now a uniquely interactive four block community, alley culture, and successfully zoned neighborhood. We will attempt to show that the criteria for application approval (18.72.070) have not to date, nor cannot be satisfactorily met by this proposal in it's current form. We fudhermore contend as local neighbors, that the cross alley system between Helman & Laurel, Central & Van Ness does not have adequate carrying capacity, safety conditions. or infrastructure suited or appropriate to the increased traffic usage this development would bring about. We suggest that such usage would in fact be a significant danger to residents ot the alley, create a general traffic hazard at Helman Street, and be unsafe to pedestrian and bike traltic in everyday use between Briscoe School, the Skateboard Park, local shopping facilities and the Down Town. All of these exist within a one to two block radius. "The challenge to the community is to have all changes, by growth or any other cause, result in a living environment equal to, or better than, the present one." (Chapter tl - 1 Ashland Comprehensive Plan) The Present Neiqhborhood: The Van Ness, Central, Helman, Laurel community is today a square block neighborhood intersected by a cross alley system. Zoned R/3 it predominantly consists ot small lower income single family owned homes, many with an additional unit or two on the property to help support modgages. These rental units, most with adequate space for their own yards or gardens, support an eclectic mix of young families, students, local employees, and adists. Several families with small children live directly on the alley with front doors opening on to it - making the narrow alley more or less their front yard. (2) Most of the occupants have been in residence for many years, are a variety of ages and incomes and work locally. Our Children attend Briscoe School and there is a nice feeling of urban neighborhood friendship amongst the inhabitants. Central and Van Ness home owners as well as alley residents have come to know one another and become friends. We love the historic nature of our neighborhood; its diversity and close proximity to downtown, yet with relative peace and quiet. Perhaps the head of this unique community is the "alley culture" that has grown up between Central and Van Ness. With owner's propedies backing to the main alley and the open space currently surrounding residences, the alleys provide a peaceful crossroads environment for neighborly interaction. Whereas Van Ness Avenue is something of a race way and off Main shod cut in and out of town; the alleys by contrast enable neighbor to neighbor interaction and backyard chats. They are a safe pedestrian thoroughfare for locals and a play area for children. They encourage biking and leisurely walkers to Briscoe School, to work, to Cantwell's, and to town. We believe this is precisely the kind of near to school and downtown neighborhood which the Comprehensive Plan seeks to encourage: "One fact that is unusual about Ashland is the method of travel to work by Ashland workers... This is significant, as this factor contributes to a host of relate subjects, such as traffic density, air pollution and the impodance of pedestrian and bikeways to the local population... For many, it is simply quicker and less expensive to walk or bike to work... Therefore, the City should pursue policies that make these alternatives convenient." (Chpt. VII - 9, Mode Of Travel - Comp Plan) "Residential Neighborhoods can also contribute to a reduction in energy use by providing solar access and encouraclinq trips by bicycle and foot... This type of development should be encouraged." (Chpt VI -11 ) Moreover, this Skidmore Academy and Briscoe School neighborhood is deemed by the, Handbook for Planning and Design of Streets, as a "traditional or neo-traditionar' area. (pg. 2 Section 1 ) The section deals with street design and says, "Neighborhood identity is largely influenced by the streets in the area." A traditional neighborhood, "street is treated as a public space and is considered a key element of the neighborhood." (ibid. pg. 4) Though alleys are all but ignored in City Planning documents, we as a neighborhood would hold the same applies to our central cross alley system and alleyscape. Traditional neighborhoods, this section goes on to say, "...revisit many of the features of urban neighborhoods developed prior to World War II ...and were designed to be easily used by pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders." -" In the traditional neighborhood street network, the traveler can choose from many routes available on the basis of what they see out on the street... the multiplicity of routes available also lets the walker/cyclist match the route to their padicular skills. For example, exped cyclists can choose to take their place in traffic as a fully-vested vehicle, while low-skilled cyclists can travel on small, possibly more circuitous routes" (pgs. 2,4 ibid) Let it be acknowledged that the skill level of most of the kids living on the alley and many who use it as a way to Briscoe School has not yet readied them to travel as "fully-vested vehicles". This alley access, narrow and unsuited to two way traffic, allows them that alternative. Should this "equal opportunity" (ibid pg. 5) for small children and others to walk or bicycle safely in this neighborhood be sacrificed in favor of one non-resident developer, and landlord's multiplex parking needs? Why? The Proposed Development: The Six small Units (4 at 916 sq. ft. - 2 at 768 sq. It.) would encourage a density of a more transient housing population not consistent with anything now existing between Van Ness and Central and set a precedent over time for converting the entire alley adjacent neighborhood into a densely populated small apadment zone drastically and forever altedng the character and quality of the successful existing Van Ness t Central; Helman / Laurel community. a) The Developments 10 alley parking spaces would generate a minimum 40-50 more daily traffic trips along the alleys, with increase speed, noise, & dust, to a currently pedestrian and child friendly thoroughfare. b) Nothing of this sort currently exists between Van Ness and Central. Multi-units do exist on the North side of Van Ness which have no existing backyard community flavor as they back to the Railroad tracks and Saw Mill. The multiplexes on the north side of Van Ness work well, are appropriate to the neighborhood and coincide with the Comprehensive Plan, which says; "North of the railroad district is the Hersey Street Industrial area, which extends from Laurel Street to Ann Street. This area features mostly manufacturing and service related industries. HerseV Street here forms a border between a residential area and a manufacturing and commercial area. So uses at the edges sometimes cause conflicts... New uses should be encouraaed to be relatively quiet.) (Chpt VII - 10) These multiplexes on the periphery of the residential neighborhood, which, as apartment housing are generally more transient, traffic intensive, and generale more noise, nevedheless, here act as desirable "Buffer zones" to the industrial area, and, "provide a transition from one type of privacy level to another", as recommended on page 6 of the City Site Desiqn and Use Standards. They have been integrated and work well within the neighborhood. (*It should be noted by planning that these successful multi-units along the nodh side of Van Ness are all accessed by Van Ness curb cuts.) In the heart of the neighborhood. however, such multiplexes would manifestly disturb if not destroy entirely the the character and quality of a successfully existing community. Housing Chapter VI ot the Comprehensive Plan states in this regard: 1 ) "The marketplace will then be the major determinant of which type of housing will be built in the various zones. within limits imposed by the City based on density, aesthetics, and neighborhood compatibility." (Chpt. VI- 4 Comp Plan) 2) "Various housing types each have a place in Ashland in providing for housing demand. However, it should be recognized that some of these are more compatible than others with the City, and with the neiclhborhoods in which they would locate, so care must be exercised in allowing some housing types." (Chpt VI - 6 Comp Plan - Housing Types) (4) 3) "Do not allow deterioration of residential areas by incompatible uses and developments. -..Mixed uses... should be considered wherever they do not disrupt an existin.q residential area." (Chpt VI-12 Comp Plan - Policies: 2, a & c) Fudhermore Section B. Multi Family Residential Development, ot Site and Design Use Standards (pg. 14), states: "For new multi-family residential developments, careful design considerations must be made to assure that the development is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood." More than 80 protest signatures from surrounding neighbors of this development contest irs compatibility; mostly with regard to the density of the housing, design of it's parking plan, and their effects on the cross alley thoroughfare at the heart of this existing and successful neighborhood culture. We do not believe that this development will; "...result in a living environment equal to or better than, the present one." Other Issues: There are a number of other significant or troublesome issues of concern to the Neighborhood; these include: 1 ) Alley Capacity & Safety 2) Drainage and Wetland Concerns 3) Insufficiencies and inaccuracies in Current Plans. These will be discussed in brief, followed by suggestions that would make the development more palatable to the existing neighborhood and more easily assimilated into it. 1 ) Alley Capacity: As has been noted the alleys in question are narrow. Unimproved they have a width ranging irregularly from 11 - 14 feet. Even improved from the parking structure to Helman Street as proposed, (which would require removal of a neighbor's existing fence on the left side of the alley) it still would not provide two way traffic clearance at the intersection. This means cars coming from the development would need to back up some 60 feet to allow vehicles entering from Helman a chance to clear, assuming it would be more hazardous for the Helman driver to back up into traffic. The whole of the unapproved alley length, to it's junction, or on to Laurel Street would of course still be used by drivers heading to westerly destinations. *(Note: Please refer to attached pictures of the alley, which demonstrate width propodions, child conflicts, and other hazards.) This Alley has already come up for scrutiny with the Traffic Safety Commission due to speeding and parking on the alley thoroughfare. This resulted in the placement of two 15 MPH signs. Even with today's lower alley use by automobiles, speeders do cause considerable risk. As recently as July 22nd a hit-and-run driver clearly out of control, struck and totaled an alley residenrs vehicle parked in a parking pad entirely off the alley. That is a frightening thing considering some eight young children now live directly on the alley. Foliage at the blind alley junction and at the streets has been cut back, but this alley is still not suited or safe for regular auto trips in conflict with pedestrians and child play. It is curious that the City requires 20' widths for standard single residence driveways, yet here will access a 10 car parking lot on a 12' width of alley commonly in use by pedestrians and trafficked during peak hours by children going to and from school. These alleys are not engineered, conceived, or appropriate to use on such a scale! Also in question are adequate access by emergency vehicles, and sanitary trucks. Dave Green's plans indicate a dumpster that can not be accessed by the large trucks needed to pick il up. The alternative would be some 10 - 12 refuse cans (2 per unit) on the alley serviced by the smaller sanitary shuttle, Plans show no visual buffering along the unrelieved two lot wide asphalt parking strip. (For more details on these issues please refer to Lois Van Aken's attached statements to the Historic Commission and Tree Commission, letters from Kevin Boog, and Sherry Bowland to Traffic Safety, and consult Traffic Safety Minutes from Jan. 28, & June 24 1999.) 2) Drainage & Wetlands: Neighbors are concerned with wetlands and drainage issues as they relate to the proposed development. This is an area of traditional springs. On the alleys there have existed for many years an open spring at the alley junction, and another on Bush Lane Alley where it intersects with Van Ness. Aided by seasonal runoff Bush Alley literally flows during winter and spring months and forms a vidual pond yearly for months at a time in front of 147 Van Ness. Water also stands or flows inches deep along the main alley behind Barbara Ross's and Lois Van Aken's properly. Though the main alley has been graveled over and built up from the natural slope water seeps through from these two yards as well as flowing on the alley itself towards Helman draining into the lowest laying lots in the area; those owned by Dave Green. Original volunteer riparian willow trees line the alley along this path and continue in the rear and on both sides of Mr. Green's lot as it comes to Van Ness. These strongly suggest an original drainage, and a current ground water course along this route possibly on it's way to meet Ashland Creek. In a direct'line with this, the multiplex parking lot on the nodh side of Van Ness developed a 10 - 12' sink hole which needed to be filled this past winter. It would seem, then, that there is substantial seasonal ground water moving directly under and through the propedies in question. In addition to this there is a wetlands with established biological plant species* covering much of the rear 3rd of the properly adjoining the alley. This is just where the parking structure and the footprints for two of the proposed buildings are planned. This rear part of the lot is a literal bog six to eight months each year. Though this is one of Ashland"s oldest neighborhoods no structures have previously occupied this padicular parcel, as is seems to be the least favorable or amenable place to build. *(Please refer to attached biologic plant identification by Barbara Knapp.) Now, modern building technology may make all of this a moot point; we are not experts here. Still, we are concerned with possible ground water contamination. We also note that in order to meet solar clearances the buildings are to be sunk down even further from the natural slope in the direction of the water table. and speculate that our new neighbors may periodically experience that ominous sinking feeling... or perhaps wake up with soggy feet. Another concern is that the drain and sewer lines planned to run along the west border of the properly along an existing tree line are to be dug deep in order to avoid root damage. Besides the natural drainage and runoff this line will affract we are not clear how these pipes will then go upward (?) to connect to City drainage at the street. As we have to date not seen detailed drainage nor alley plans we are unclear how such problems will be resolved. Planning assures us that all this will be dealt with at the building permit stage. which all n' all, seems a bit late in the process for adequate neighborhood evaluation, advance. We would like to see those more detailed plans in 3)_ A Note on the Plans: Throughout this process neighbors have been presented with plans drafted in 1993! that no longer appear to meet the City's own Site Review Criteria. Independent review of plans available before the scheduled July 13th hearing by a professional building designer showed dimensional discrepancies in scale and accuracy throughout. These effected solar clearances, minimum yard set backs, and accurate calculations of total impermeable sudace coverage. Since then some minimal corrections have been made, but plans still are to our eyes not up to criteria. There is said to be another set ot plans, but we are told, "...those are missing!" (?) Our point isn't to nitpick; we assume some kind of development will proceed. Still, in order to make reasonable assessment or to ask for modifications it would be useful to the neighbors to have accurate, comprehensive, and up to date plans to evaluate. 4) Modifications & Suggestions: It should be understood that the neighborhood has no problem with welcoming additional homes or neighbors on the proposed site. There are students, and adists, and singles and families in this community now. We am concerned that such evolution and development, however, be in keeping with the density and character of the existing neighborhood community and does not in fact hinder or destroy what is now a very special and successful neighborhood environment. We believe that the units as proposed are designed mostly at lowest cost and highest density, for the greatest income production taking little account of the current neighborhood character, historic usage, or Comprehensive Plan intentions. Why would we do this to our neighborhood? As a neighborhood we could and would welcome a development with the following modifications: We would prefer a single family residence facing Van Ness Street in adherence to all existinq housing on the south side ot Van Ness, and all housinq on the entire square block backing to the cross alley system. Parking for it could be accessed by a standard curb cut. Two to three additional units could be built with substantial surrounding space on the rear podions of the lot. Such density would not crowd existing supplementary units and would correspond with the present pattern of development. It would increase rather than close off neighbor to neighbor contact while providing open space and privacy. It would make for easier inclusion into the existing neighborhood culture rather than drastically altering the arablance that is already here. A smaller four to six vehicle off alley parking structure with appropriate buffering could be accommodated without the imposing size. or visual impairment of the present design on the alleyscape. We believe that the smaller vehicle number would greatly aid in continuing the current human scale of the cross alley environment and help maintain it as a reasonably safe pedestrian and child safe thoroughfare. Such a development would, we believe, be in alignment with the Comprehensive plan's challenge to make the "living environment equal to or better than the present one." We ask you to deny the current application as it is now proposed. Rob H irschboeck 147 Van Ness Ashland. Oregon 97520 Lois Van Aken 140 Central Avenue Ashland, Oregon 97520