Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-086 Findings - HainesBEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF ASHLAND JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON IN THE MATTER OF CONDITIONAL ) USE PERMIT AND SITE DESIGN ) REVIEW AUTHORIZATION FOR THE ) CONSTRUCTION OF A CONDOMINIUM ) HOTEL OFFICE COMPLEX WHICH ) INCLUDES RETAIL COMMERCIAL ) AND FOR PHYSICAL AND ENVIRON- ) MENTAL CONSTRAINTS PERMIT ON ) LAND LOCATED ON WATER STREET ) IN THE CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON) ) Lloyd Haines: Applicant ) FINDINGS OF FACT AND FINAL ORDER I NATURE OF THE APPLICATIONS AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT Planning action 91-099 concerns the following land use applications: A conditional use permit (CUP) application. Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) § 18.32.030 (E) and (F) list "hotels and motels, and "residential uses, subject to all the requirements of the R-3 district," as conditional uses. · An application for site design and architectural review under ALUO Chapter 18.72. An application for physical and environmental constraints permit for portions of the project affected by the floodplain and riparian corridor of Ashland Creek ALUO Chapter 18.62. The subject property is 2.67 acres in size, and is situated near Ashland's downtown commercial core within the city limits and urban growth boundary. The property is defined by the following streets that in part border it: Water Street, Helman Street, Central Street, and "C" Street. The property is within a Retail Commercial (C-l) zoning district, and is designated for commercial use by the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, (ACP). The property is identified as Tax Lots 100 and 400 on Jackson County Assessor plat map 39-1E-9BB. The land is owned in fee simple by the applicant. FINAL ORDER Page I Planning Action 91-099 The development project is an integrated mixed-use condominium consisting of three components: residential/hotel, office, and retail. The residential/hotel is designed to function on a flexible design and ownership basis. The units may be owned outright by a single owner or by multiple owners on a "timeshare" basis. The individual units may also be rented overnight as visitor accommodations. The design of the units allows broad flexibility. As owner-occupied living spaces, as few as 45 units are possible. As overnight accommodations, as many as 106 "rooms" are possible. Off-street parking, located primarily under the buildings, is hidden and provided in amounts sufficient to accommodate the living units and total project without regard to how the living units function. The project's operational concept is intended to be similar to that found in the Oregon recreational communities of Sun River and Black Butte. The project's office and retail spaces are also intended to be divided as "air-space" condominium units, allowing business owners to also own their business property. The applicant anticipates that some of the office and retail spaces will be sold, and others will be leased or rented to business owners. The applicant's desire is to retain a maximum amount of flexibility in the way the interior spaces of the project are owned and used. The conditional use permit (CUP) sought will allow the desired flexibility. The residential/hotel has two planned conference/meeting rooms located off th6 lobby area, with limited kitchen facilities to serve them. The project has a planned pool and spa facilities that will be offered to the local public on a fee basis. II PROCEDURALBACKGROUND The applications were received by the Ashland Planning Department ("the Department") on June 7, 1991. The applications were not returned or otherwise deemed incomplete. Following public notice as required by the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO), Planning Action (PA) 91-099 was set for public heating before the Ashland Planning Commission ("the Planning Commission") on July. 9, 1991. During the public hearing all parties and interested persons were afforded an opportunity to present evidence and argument. Absent motions to continue the public hearing or to leave the record of the public hearing open, both were closed. Following public testimony the Planning Commission deliberated on the evidence and rendered a unanimous decision to approve PA 91-099, instructing the Department to prepare findings of fact and Final Order. The Final Order was signed by the Chairman on August 13, 1991. On August 27, 1991 the Depamnent received a letter from Carola Lacey ("the appellant") appealing the Planning Commission's decision on PA 91-099, (Exhibit 36). Following public notice as required by the ALUO, a public heating was scheduled before the Ashland City Council ("the City Council") on October 1, 1991, to consider the appeal of PA 91-099. The public hearing was conducted as a de novo evidentiary hearing under ALUO § 18.108.070. During the public hearing all parties and interested persons were afforded an opportunity to present evidence and argument. Following public testimony the applicant requested that the record be left open for a period of seven days to enable him to submit written rebuttal. The motion was granted. Rebuttal testimony of the applicant (Exhibit 68) was received by the Department on October 7, 1991. Written testimony was also submitted by other parties and interested persons FINAL ORDER Page 2 Planning Action 91-099 following the public hearing. On October 15, 1991 the City Council deliberated on the evidence and by a majority vote acted to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to conditionally approve PA 91-099. III EXHIBITS The following constitutes the complete and entire record of PA 91- 099 that was before the City Council as of October 15, 1991: Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 Exhibit 8 Exhibit 9 Exhibit 10 Exhibit 11 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 13 Exhibit 14 Exhibit 15 Exhibit 16 Exhibit 17 Exhibit 18 Exhibit 19 Exhibit 20 Exhibit 21 Exhibit 22 Exhibit 23 Applicant's Proposed Findings of Fact. Applicant's Site Plan and Architectural Plans. Assessor Plat Map (39-1 E-gBB). Comprehensive Plan Map of area, submitted by applicant. Zoning Map of Area, submitted by applicant. Topographic Survey Map by Hoffbuhr & Associates, Inc. Board of Architectural/Construction Material Samples. Photographs of Neighborhood and Kay Map. Landscape Plans (2 sheets). Memorandum from terry Lofrano regarding building height. Ashland Transportation Plan Map of Area, submitted by applicant. City of Ashland Topographic Map. City of Ashland AutoCad Floodplain Corridor and Topography Map. Ashland Vacant Commercial and Industrial Land Inventory. Traffic Study prepared by Kittleson & Associates, Inc. None. Signed Application Form. AutoCad Floodplain Map with structure and floodplain lex:arians and topography. Building He~ht determination materials from Terry Lofrano, AIA. Affidavit of Notice 6/19/91. Notice of Planning Commission Hearing w/criteria. Letter from Don Rist, Jack Latvala, Mary Pat Smith. Letter from Ken Silverman. FINAL ORDER Page 3 Planning Action 91-099 Exhibit 24 Exhibit 25 Exhibit 26 Exhibit 27 Exhibit 28 Exhibit 29 Exhibit 3O Exhibit 31 Exhibit 32 Exhibit 33 Exhibit 34 Exhibit 35 Exhibit 36 Exhibit 37 Exhibit 38 Exhibit 39 Exhibit 40 Exhibit 41 Exhibit 42 Exhibit 43 Exhibit 44 Exhibit 45 Exhibit 46 Exhibit 47 Exhibit 48 Exhibit 49 Exhibit 5O Exhibit 51 Exhibit 52 Letter from Richard J. Hansen. Letter from Michael J. Pierce. Letter from Jim Bourgue. Letter from Joann Johns. Letter from Nancy Kilheirn. Letter from Beasy McMiitan. Topographic Map - City of Ashland. Planning Department Staff Report 7/9/91. Minutes of Planning Commission 7/9/91. Approval Latter and Planning Commission findings of approval. Affidavit of Mailed findings for approval by Planning Commission 8/16/91. Letter from Carola Lacey to City Council 9/23/91. Appeal letter from Carola Lacey dated 8/27/91. Notice of Public Hearing and applicable criteria. Map of project area submitted by Carola Lacey (green posterboard). Statement of CUP criteria submitted by Carola Lacey (white posterboard). Roll of paper cars submitted by Carola Lacey. Statement of concerns from Informational Meetings. Early lithograph of Ashland, from Ashland Comprehensive Plan. Resolution Objecting to Haines' Proposal (petition of 31 pages). Letter from Joan D. Drager. Document titled "Appeal of Haines Proposal" submitted by Carola Lacey. Letter from John Clolnysky. Letter from Barbara Allen. Letter from Valrie Lambert. Letter from Carol Mirassou. Letter from Michael Donovan. Letter from Michael Donnelly. Letter from Jim F. Bourgue. FINAL ORDER Page 4 Planning Action 91-099 Exhibit 53 Exhibit 54 Exhibit 55 Exhibit 56 Exhibit 57 Exhibit 58 Exhibit 59 Exhibit 60 Exhibit 61 Exhibit 62 Exhibit 63 Exhibit 64 Exhibit 65 Exhibit 66 Exhibit 67 Exhibit 68 Exhibit 69 Exhibit 70 Letter from Alan Kaufman. Letter from Donna Andrews. Letter from Steve Jannusch. Letter from Dee Shelby and Terry Adams. Letter from Debra Barchard. Petition from Ali Ross and 9 others, Letter fmm Harry A. Skerry. Letter from Michael D, Rydbom. Letter from Reid Burns. Lette~ fmm Judy Howard. None. Letter from Joseph Travisano, Letter from Ronald E, Roth, Letter from Richard Ernst. Letter from Carola Lacey 10/8/91, Applicant's Rebuttal Document. Minutes of City Council Meeting 10/1/91, Minutes of City Council Meeting 10/15/91 IV SUBSTANTIVE APPROVAL CRITERIA The City Council has determined that the applicable substantive criteria that apply and are prerequisite to granting approval of the three land use applications that comprise PA 91~099 are: · The criteria for granting conditional use permits are in ALUO § 18.104.040. · The criteria for granting site review permits are in ALUO § 18.72.050. · The criteria for granting physical and environmental consuaint permits are in ALUO § 18.62.040(E)~ The individual approval criteria are recited verbatim in Sections V, VI and VII herein. FINAL ORDER Page 5 Planning Action 91-099 V ALUO CHAPTER 18.104; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Applicable Standard or Criterion ALUO § 18.104.040: A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SHALL BE GRANTED IF THE APPROVAL AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE PROPOSAL CONFORMS WITH THE FOLLOWING GENERAL CRITERIA: ALUO § 18.104.040(A). THE PROPOSAL IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Past decisions have established that ALUO § 18.104.040(A), requiring a conditional use permit application to conform to the city's comprehensive land use plan, does not automatically transform all goals and policies into decisional criteria. Benjamin v. City of Ashland, Or LUBA )LUBA No. 90- 065, November 13, 1990). In order to be considered as approval criteria, the language of the goals and policies, and the context in which the language is used, must indicate that the city intended the goals and policies to constitute approval criteria. The City Council has carefully reviewed the comprehensive plan and concludes that the following provisions may appropriately be considered as approval criteria: POLICY X11-1: THE CITY SHALL STRIVE TO MAINTAIN AT LEAST A 5-YEAR SUPPLY OF LAND FOR ANY PARTICULAR NEED IN THE CITY LIMITS. THE 5-YEAR SUPPLY SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE RATE OF CONSUMPTION NECESSITATED IN THE PROJECTIONS MADE IN THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Findings of Fact After considering all of the evidence, testimony and argument received into the record, the City Council reaches the following conclusions of fact, and finds them to be tree with respect to the application. Where conflicts arose, the City Council has resolved them as follows: 1. In Murphy v. City of Ashland, Or LUBA __ (LUBA No. 89-123, May 16, 1990), LUBA held that ACP Policy XII-1 is a decisional criterion because the policy is implemented by the plan itself. 2. In July 1990, the Ashland Planning Department published a study entitled: Vacant Commercial and Industrial Lands in Ashland. The Maps and Inventory Report were published February 26, 1991. The inventory, (Exhibit 14) contains an explanation of the methodology used to inventory "vacant" land, and presents the inventory results, which are that 30.42 acres of vacant land zoned Retail Commercial (C-l) presently exist within the corporate limits of Ashland. 3. The ACP projects that a total o~f 98 acres of commercial land would be needed over the City's 20-year planning period. A five year supply is equal to 25% of 98 acres, or approximately 25 acres. The subject property is 2.67 acres. FINAL ORDER Page 6 Planning Action 91-099 4. Following consumption of the subject property by the proposed project, the City will have remaining 27.75 vacant acres, (30.42 - 2.67 = 27.75). Conclusions of Law The City Council finds and concludes that following consumption of the subject property, the City will have more than a five year supply of vacant land zoned for commercial use. The availability of a five year land supply evidences that the City has strived to maintain a sufficient land supply consistent with the requirements of ACP Policy XII-1. Applicable Standard or Criterion ALUO § 18.104.040(B). THE LOCATION, SIZE, DESIGN AND OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ARE SUCH THAT THE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE REASONABLY COMPATIBLE WITH AND HAVE MINIMAL IMPACT ON THE LIVABILITY AND APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT OF ABUTTING PROPERTIES AND THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. ALUO § 18.104.040(C), IN DETERMINING THE ABOVE, CONSIDERATION SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE FOLLOWING: (1) HARMONY IN SCALE, BULK, COVERAGE AND DENSITY (2) THE AVAILABILITY AND CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND UTILITIES. (3) THE GENERATION OF TRAFFIC AND THE CAPACITY OF SURROUNDING STREETS. (4) PUBLIC SAFETY AND PROTECTION. (5) ARCHITECTURAL AND AESTHETIC COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. Findings of Fact After considering all of the evidence, testimony and argument received into the record, the City Council reaches the following conclusions of fact, and finds them to be tree with respect to the application. Where conflicts arose, the City Council has resolved them as follows: 1. Surrounding Neighborhood and Area Location and Description. The applicant testified in Exhibit 1 that the "neighborhood" consists of: The surrounding area bordered by the "C" Street viaduct on the south, Van Ness Street to the north, and to the east and west, the land and uses that front upon Helman and Water Streets between "C" Street and Van Ness. The applicant also testified that the southerly portions of the neighborhood, where the subject property is located, is also influenced by the downtown area and its fringe, including the large single family dwellings located on the south side of North Main Street west of its intersection with Helman. The City Council f'mds and concludes that the boundaries of the neighborhood as described above are credible, appropriate and undisputed, and the City Council adopts the above definition to be the boundaries of the "surrounding neighborhood" and "surrounding area" the terms are as FINAL ORDER Page 7 Planning Action 91-099 used in ALUO § 18.104.040(B) and 18.104.040(C)(5). 2. Neighborhood Qualities and Characteristics. The qualifies of the area's livability are characterized as follows: Convenient Location: The neighborhood is located on the fringe of the downtown, within one block from the central downtown plaza. There are numerous restaurants and retail shopping outlets within the downtown area, Also in the downtown within four or fewer blocks from the "surrounding neighborhood," there exists the Oregon Shakespeare Festival, consisting of three individual theatres, other performing arts companies, and a multiple screen movie theater. The neighborhood is also located nearly adjacent to Bluebird Park, a small neighborhood park, and within 800 feet of Lithia Park, a large community park consisting of more than 100 acres. The adjacent downtown area is itself an interesting destination for tourists and an enjoyable place for local residents to spend leisure time. Access to downtown and its uses and activities from the "surrounding neighborhood" can be easily accomplished by foot or bicycle. The downtown is also served by public transportation linking Ashland with Medford and other cities in the Bear Creek Valley. Existing sidewalks in the "surrounding neighborhood" presently connect with sidewalks in the downtown that pi'ovide access to all of the above described downtown uses and activities. The above evidence was undisputed, and the City Council finds it credible and adopts it as fact. Mixed Uses and Zoning: The neighborhood is regulated by three zoning districts: High Density Multiple Family Residential (R-3), Employment (E-l), and Retail Commemial (C-l), (Exhibit 5). Within the different zones in the neighborhood there are single family residences, a hotel/restaurant, a bed and breakfast country inn, public parking, a veterinary clinic, light manufacturing (Pyramid Juice Bar Co. and Western Oil and Burner), public utility buildings, outdoor pipe and equipment storage, (Exhibit 8). The mixed uses appear to function compatibly in their present environment. The above evidence was undisputed, and the City Council finds it credible and adopts it as fact. ' Noise: The neighborhood is reasonably quiet even though it exists in near proximity to the "C" Street viaduct; the viaduct is a segment of Oregon Highway 99 a two-lane, one way major arterial street within the City of Ashland. The viaduct carries large volumes of traffic that produces considerable traffic related noise. Some noise is also produced on property occupied by Western Oil and Burner Company, located at the northwest comer of Water Street and Central Street. The above evidence was undisputed, and the City Council f'mds it credible and adopts it as fact. Traffic: The neighborhood has relatively low volumes of traffic on its surrounding streets, with the exception of the "C" Street viaduct. Additional facts concerning existing levels of traffic and new traffic that will be produced by the project is covered later. Pace: The neighborhood, ev6n with its commercial and light manufacturing uses, gives the appearance of having a slower pace than that which occurs in the nearby downtown area. FINAL ORDER Page 8 Planning Action 91-099 Architectural Style: The mixed but compatible architectural style of buildings in the neighborhood is a measure of its livahility. The most consistent architectural style is the "craftsman" style of the single family homes in the neighborhood. The "craftsman" style is characterized by gently pitched roofs with broad overhangs at both the gable and eaves, ridge boards often extending beyond the edge of the roof are supported by straight brackets. Homes in the "craftsman" style may be one, one and one- half, or two story construction. Simple "sfickwork" is frequently used for railings and columns. Often a lower gable roof covers an open or partially enclosed porch. "Craftsman" style siding is typically wood siding or shingles. Windows are typically double hung sash without shutters. Doors are normally five panel although four and six panels were sometimes used in the traditional style. Little or no non-functional architectural embellishments are added to homes in the "craftsman" style. The "craftsman" style bungalow was developed as a simple, inexpensive and functional house in contrast to earlier houses where servants were prevalent. The above evidence was undisputed, and the City Council finds it credible and adopts it as fact. Building Heights and Development Intensity: The height of buildings in the neighborhood vary considerably. Most, but not all buildings have a height lower than those in the project; the single family dwellings and most other uses are lower in height; Bards Inn, a 62 unit motel consisting of separate 2 and 3 story buildings, has a height comparable to the height of the subject buildings. The development intensity of the neighborhood is greatest at its south and north ends. The south end of the neighborhood presently becomes most intense by the influence of Bard's Inn. The north end's intensity owes primarily to the light manufacturing uses which occur on that end. In between, the neighborhood is characterized by single family dwellings, the veterinary clinic and pet grooming establishment located within a concrete block commercial building, and country inn consisting of multiple rooms. The above evidence was undisputed, and the City Council finds it credible and adopts it as fact. Views: The views onto and beyond the properly are varied. The views and the affect of the project upon them are described later. Generally, the views of buildings in the neighborhood are oriented toward the streets on which they front. Views are often obscured by overhead power lines. The above evidence was undisputed, and the City Council finds it credible and adopts it as fact. 3. Surrounding Architectural Styles. The following evidence was undisputed, and the City Council finds it credible and adopts it as fact. Residential: Existing residential structures are a mixture of one and two-story "craftsman" style construction, with hip and gable style composition roofs, and painted wood siding. Front yard areas are generally shallow and well kept. In most cases, dwellings are set back less than twenty feet from the fights-of-way of adjoining city streets. Commercial: Commercial structures in the area are a combination of one, two, and three story construction:. The architectural styles of commercial buildings range from "craftsman", in the case of Bard's Inn, to modem/contemporary in the case of the veterinary clinic. Some buildings in the area are of metal and concrete block construction as shown by the Exhibit 8 photographs. The subject property FINAL ORDER Page 9 Planning Action 91-099 is also near the downtown core area of the City. Buildings in the downtown are of an entirely different style, height, and bulk than residential and commercial structures in the subject neighborhood. Individual commercial buildings in the downtown area are connected and separated only at blocks; downtown building groups are substantially greater in height, scale, bulk, and coverage than that of the subject project, including the Mark Anthony hotel having a height of more than twice that of the subject buildings and any other buildings in the downtown area. 4. Abutting Land Uses. The only "abutting" uses are a municipal parking lot and private parking lot used by Bard's Inn (Jonathan's restaurant), located on Tax Lots 200, 300, and 500 of the Exhibit 3 assessor's map. In all other instances, the property is separated from other structures and uses by the four streets that surround the subject property. Refer to Exhibit 8 photographs and key map. 5. Land Uses Across Streets. Uses directly across the four streets that adjoin the subject property are as follows: West Across Helman Street: Bard's Inn and its restaurant, Jonathan's, a two-story building situated on elevated terrain, and single family residences. Bard's Inn along Helman Street is a two-story structure having 36 rooms that have a direct orientation to Helman; another 8 rooms have an indirect orientation to Helman. Refer to Exhibit 8 photographs. North Across Central Street: A modern, flat- roofed, veterinary clinic mid pet grooming establishment, parking, vacant land, and metal building housing Western Oil and Burner, a light manufacturing use involved in fabricating boilers. Refer to Exhibit 8 photographs. East Across Water Street: Waterside Inn, a country inn featuring multiple rooms within older two-story construction, a municipal parking lot, public utility building of concrete block construction owned by CP National, and vacant land situated along Water Street. Refer to Exhibit 8 photographs. South Across "C" Street and Viaduct: The Bard's Inn three-story addition with 18 rooms in the "craftsman" style, large historic "Queen Ann" and "craftsman" style single family dwellings on elevated terrain. The dwellings have a combination of hip and gable roofs with wood shingles, concrete shingles, and composition shingles. Downtown multi-story retail and commercial buildings and uses are located further south and southeast. Refer to Exhibit 8 photographs. The above evidence was undisputed, and the City Council finds it credible and adopts it as fact. 6. Topography of Subject Property. The subject property is situated at or in some instances substantially below the grade of the surrounding streets. Refer to the Exhibit 6, 12 and 13 topographic survey maps, and Exhibit 8 photographs. The above fact was undisputed and the Council adopts~it as fact. 7. Architectural Style and Construction Materials for the Project. The architectural style of the project is "craftsman." Construction material samples were provided at Exhibit 7. The materials are similar to those used for single family "craftsman" style FINAL ORDER Page 10 Planning Action 91-099 dwellings in the neighborhood to the northwest, west, and southwest. Construction materials consist predominantly of composition shingles on a gable roof, and wood frame construction with painted Masonite siding to give the appearance of painted wood lap siding. Windows in the hotel/residential buildings will be predominantly operable to permit climate control without the use of energy-using equipment. The above evidence was undisputed, and the City Council finds it credible, adopts it as fact and concludes that it represents the true intentions of the applicant. 8. Roof Pitches. The roof pitch on nearby surrounding buildings varies. Some roofs are flat. Pitched residential roofs have slopes ranging between 3:12 and 7:12. The roof pitch for most buildings in the project is 4:12. The roof of the pavilion building adjacent to the viaduct has a steeper pitch. The steeper pitch blends with the lower pitch of the connecting buildings. The above evidence was undisputed, and the City Council finds it credible and adopts it as fact. 9. Operating Characteristics. The mixed use project will have the following operating characteristics: Office Space: Offices will be used in a manner typical of general business offices. Occupancy will be primarily during normal business hours. The volume of traffic produced by office space is estimated later. Retail Commercial Space: Space in the project devoted to retail commercial uses will operate in a manner typical of retail shopping uses and activities. Occupancy will be primarily during normal business hours, plus Saturday and possible Sunday occupancy. The rate and volume of traffic expected from the general retail uses are estimated later. Office and retail parking is generally located outside on the northwest portion of the property. The applicant testified in Exhibit 1 that most retail shopping will be by pedestrians already within the downtown area. The City Council finds that the above is an undisputed fact. Residential/Hotel: Residential/hotel uses will operate as a hybrid combination of the two uses. Units occupied all of the tirrie by their "time-share" owners will operate similar to any multiple family residential occupancy. When the units are occupied by overnight guests, the use will function and operate more like a conventional hotel/motel. The applicant testified in Exhibit 1 that housekeeping services will be available for all living units regardless of their occupancy to further reinforce the hotel flavor of the project. Parking for the residential/hotel units, manager and staff of six is accommodated internally within the buildings, (Exhibit 2 Site and Architectural Plans). The applicant and others testified that perm. an.ent residents and guests will limit much of their travel to walking g/yen the prox,rmty to the downtown area and good connecting pedestrian facilities. The City Council f'mds the above evidence credible and adopts it as fact. * The retail and office uses are in the building nearest the "C" Street viaduct. 10. Off-street Parking. The project has 125 off-street parking stalls, equivalent to the amount required by the ALUO Chapter 18.92, based on the mixed occupancy and "hotel" use of the project. All ol~the adjoining streets, except the "C" Street viaduct, have curb-side parallel parking. The City is presently considering, but has not yet adopted, a program to offer p ng creoats for uses that have adjacent on-street. No credit for on-street parking is sought by the applicant or required for the project to meet FINAL ORDER Page 11 Planning Action 91-099 the parking requirements of ALUO Chapter 18.92. The City Council adopts the above as fact. 11. Project Scale, Bulk, Coverage and Density. The connected structures together form a larger mass of buildings than any other structure in the surrounding neighborhood. The individual structures are broken up but connected to one another by covered walkways. Each individual structure has a size similar to some of the larger buildings in the surrounding neighborhood. Groups of individually owned but connected buildings in the nearby downtown area form a greater building mass than the subject project. The project buildings cover 35,837 square feet, equal to 30% of the site. The ALUO does not prescribe a maximum building coverage for the subject C-1 zone, or adjacent C-l-D, E-I, or M-1 zones, however actual coverage can not exceed 85% since 15% of any site is required to be devoted to landscaping. The adjacent R-3 zone has a maximum lot coverage of 75%. Density is a measure of the number of living units per acre. In this instance, density is not an appropriate method to compare nearby residential uses because the entire project is not "residential." However, for aspects of the project that have a "residential" character, the density for 106 inn rooms on 2.67 acres is +/-40 units per acre. The higher density can be provided while still meeting all physical requirements of the C-1 zone because most off-street parking is provided internally within the buildings. The hotel units are substantially smaller than residential housing units found in the surrounding area. The above evidence was undisputed, and the City Council finds it credible and adopts it as fact. 12. Building Ileight. The buildings in the project observe the 40 feet height limitation of the C-1 zone, [ALUO § 18.32.040(B)]. Refer to Exhibits 10 and, evidence from the applicant's architect interpreting the City's height regulations to the project. The buildings in the project "step down" the slope of the property; at the street grade of Helman Street, the highest point on the property, subject buildings achieve a height consistent with the height of the Bard's Inn buildings located across the street. The subject buildings are somewhat higher in appearance from the Water Street side because this is the lowest point on the property. On the Water Street side the tallest buildings are set back the greatest distance from the street. Refer to the Exhibit 2 building elevations, Exhibit 8 photographs, and Exhibit 19, a precise building height determination provided by Architect Lofrano. The above evidence was undisputed, and the City Council finds it credible and adopts it as fact. 13. Views. A good sense of the existing views can be gained by an examination of the Exhibit 2 plans, and Exhibit 8 photographs. The project affects the views of other properties in the surrounding neighborhood as follows: Itelman Street: Views from the higher elevation Bard's Inn will be minimally altered by the project. Views from the two single family residences located on the west side of Helman Street and south of Central Street are views of the subject property itself, and the sky above and beyond the property. Properties situated along the west side of Helman north of the subject property will have their oblique views affected either minimally or not at all. Water Street: Views from the nearby Waterside Inn will be minimally affected by project buildings. Their primary view orientation is to the creek that runs behind the inn, rather than to the street which faces the subject property. Central Street: Views from the veterinarian clinic will be blocked somewhat by FINAL ORDER Page 12 Planning Action 91-099 project buildings. The clinic has no view orientation toward the subject property or the landscape beyond. "C" Street Viaduct: Views of the subject property from the viaduct will be somewhat blocked by the pavilion building. Views of the landscape beyond the property will be affected either minimally or not at all. The above evidence was undisputed, and the City Council finds it credible and adopts it as fact. 14. Surrounding Streets and Traffic. The streets listed below surround and serve the subject property. A copy of the Ashland Transportation Plan is included at Exhibit 11. Traffic counts taken at various locations by the Ashland Public Works Department and Oregon State Highway Division, the functional classification of the streets (arterial, collector, etc.), and the present level of street construction follows: Helman Street: Helman is a designated collector street having a 60 feet wide right-of-way. Traffic counts are as follows: 1,890 vehicles per day 100 feet north of North Main Street (1985); 1,717 vehicles per day 50 feet south of Van Ness Street (1989). Helman has an improved section measuring 30 feel from curb-to-curb. Concrete curbs, gutters, and sidewalks are on both sides of Helman fronting and extending beyond the property. The sidewalks connect the surrounding neighborhood to Ashland's downtown area. Water Street: Water Street is a lower order local access street having a 40 feet wide right-of-way. No traffic counts are available, but traffic levels are very low as testified to by Craig Stone, consulting urban planner in Exhibit I, and by Kitfleson & Associates in Exhibit 15. Based on the types of uses on Water Street, and its short distance, the applicant's consulting urban planner testified that the street carries less than 800 vehicles per day. Water Street is improved with paving to a width that varies from 16 to 32 feet between Van Ness and North Main Street. Concrete curbs and gutters generally exist on both sides of the street. Presently there are no sidewalks along the frontage of the property or across the street. The City will require Water Street to be improved to full City standards as part of a local improvement district (LID) as a condition of approval, (Condition 1). A part of the project will require widening the bridge crossing Ashland Creek on Water Street. The applicant stipulated in Exhibit 1 to f'manciai participation in the improvements. The applicant testified in Exhibit 1 that he intends to construct a walkway along the north side of the creek to serve as a public sidewalk. The creek-side walkway connects to the existing bridge across Ashland Creek, and from there to the City parking area and the existing adjacent public sidewalks. On the other end, the walkway will connect to a conventional street-side sidewalk to be constructed along Water Street as part of its future improvements through the LID. The applicant intends the creek-side walkway to replace any need for a sidewalk along that portion of Water Street to which it is generally parallel. The Exhibit 2 Site and Architectural Plans accurately depict the applicant's intentions for sidewalk and walkway locations. Central Street: Cen~al Street is a lower order local access street having a 60 feet wide fight-of-way that extends through to Water Street The only available traffic count indicates 160 vehicles per day 100 feet east of Laurel Street in 1989, a point roughly 500 feet west of the subject property. Central Street is improved with FINAL ORDER Page 13 Planning Action 91-099 paving to a width of 30 feet from curb-to-curb. Concrete curbs and gutters exist along the improved segment of Central adjacent to the subject property. Curbs, gutters, and sidewalks exist on the opposite side of the street. Approximately one-third of Central Street east of its present temainus between Helman and Water Streets is presently unbuilt, ff the City at a later date decides to open Central Street, it shall be constructed to full City standards as a condition of the approval, (Condition 2). The applicant has stipulated to the improvements in Exhibit 1. Sidewalks along the Central Street frontage of the property will be a part of the improvements. The sidewalks will connect the project to the downtown area. "C" Street Viaduct: "C" Street along the property frontage is a designated arterial stxeet that is part of the state highway system. The street has a 60 feet wide right-of-way. The viaduct carries only northbound traffic in two lanes adjacent to the site. A traffic count of 12,700 vehicles per day was taken 1/100 mile north of Oak Street in 1989. "C" Street is improved to a curb-to- curb width of 44 feet. It has concrete curbs, gutters, and 6.5 feet wide sidewalks located on either side of the street. Existing sidewalks on the viaduct connect to those along Helman Street. The above evidence was undisputed, and the City Council finds it credible and adopts it as fact. 15. Access into the Site. Vehicular access into the site is from two driveways off Water Street serving parking enclosed within the buildings, and one driveway off Central near Helman serving the outdoor parking areas. Refer to Exhibit 2. 16. Traffic Generation. The applicant's agent, Craig Stone, testified in Exhibit 1 that, according to the source reference, Trip Generation, by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 4th Edition, the subject uses will generate traffic at the following rates and volumes: Use Trip Generation Rate Unlts/SF ADT* Hotel 10.189/occupied mom 106 1,080 Office Space 24.39/1000 SF 1,998 SF 49 Retail 40.675/1000 SF 4,500 SF 183 Total 1,312 Table Notes: (1) ADT = Average Daily Vehicle Trips. (2) Traffic volumes from Trip Generation were estimated under the following categories: Motel {Code 320), Office Space (Code 710), Retail (Code 814). The table indicates average weekday traffic generated by the uses. Weekday traffic produces the highest peak traffic volumes. The Traffic Study prepared by Kittleson & Associates, Inc. (Exhibit 15) on page 11 determined that the project would produce 1,336 average daily vehicle trips, and 96 vehicle trips during the "peak hour." The study is based on a "worst case scenario." The City Council f'mds that the above traffic information is undisputed, accurate, and credible, and adopts it as fact. 17. Traffic Impacts. Three types of streets carry traffic to the property. The streets are either adjacent to or will serve the site. The streets are: The "C" street viaduct, an FINAL ORDER Page 14 Planning Action 91-099 arterial sUeet; Helman Street, a collector; and, Water and Central Streets, both local access streets. The Exhibit 15 Traffic Study prepared by registered transportation engineers, (Kittleson & Associates, Inc.), analyzes traffic during the afternoon peak period. Traffic counts were taken during Ashland's tourist season while the Oregon Shakespeare Festival's Elizabethan Theatre was operating. The "afternoon peak" is the time of day when the most vehicles during any given hour travel City streets. As stated in Exhibit 15: "If intersections can operate efficiently, the street segments associated with the intersections can be expected to even more operate efficiently." Exhibit 15 projected a "worst case" scenario with respect to project occupancies; the report assumes that 106 moms will be used for overnight accommodations. The traffic impacts analyzed also include those produced by retail and office uses. The report states that it has overestimated the magnitude of impacts the project will actually produce. The above evidence was undisputed, and the City Council finds it credible and adopts it as fact. Conclusions of the Exhibit 15 Traffic Study (Pages 16-18) are: "Based on a review of the circulation system and land use distribution in the vicinity of Oak Street and B Streets, it is assumed that traffic volumes on both of these streets is of the same order of magnitude as the traffic on Water Street, Helman Street and Central Avenue." "As shown for the other intersections in the vicinity, the addition of 25 vehicles of site generated traffic during the afternoon peak hour will not create a significant impact on street or intersection operations." "The majority of the 25 vehicles referenced above are related to the overnight lodging of the condominium development. Overnight lodgers would not necessarily be aware of the opportunity to use Oak Street and B Street. Therefore, 25 vehicles may over state the amount of traffic that may use these two streets." "Vehicles accessing the site via the Central Avenue driveway may still find C Street to Helman Street to Central Street to the driveway as being faster than C Street to Oak Street to B Street to Water Street to Central Street using the driveway. Again, 25 vehicles may be overstating the amount of traffic using the Oak Street route." "Based on a comparison of existing conditions to those after project development, it is our opinion that conditions are nearly identical, and that no significant volumes of traffic will be distributed on local streets." "Intersection levels-of-service' (LOS) 'do not change with the addition of site generated traffic and no traffic mitigation measures are required." "We have analyzed the traffic impacts in relation to the City of Ashlaud' s criteria in Subsections 18.104.040(B) and (C) of their land development ordinance. Our opinion is that the project will not generate peak hour or total cumulative traffic at levels that produce impa~ts to the surrounding neighborhood that is greater than minimal given the location, size, design attd operating characteristics of the development. Based on our analysis, it is also our opinion that peak hour and total traffic produced by the development will not result in the project being FINAL ORDER Page 15 Planning Action 91-099 incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. From a traffic generation perspective, we conclude that the project will be compatible. In comparison to other potential uses that are permitted outright in the C1 zone, the subject use will produce far less traffic and be substantially more compatible." In addition, the Exhibit 15 Traffic Study (Page 16) examined the potential traffic impact that could be produced if the property were used for a retail shopping center, a permitted use that does not require a conditional use permit. The Traffic Study found that a shopping center would produce on the order of four to five times the volume of traffic produced by the subject use. Kittleson & Associates qualifications as experts in the field of traffic analysis was undisputed, and the City Council concludes that they are experts. We find this evidence to be undisputed, substantial, and credible, and adopt the information as fact. 18. Sanitary Sewer Service. There is a 10-inch sewer line in Water Street, and 6-inch sewer line in Helman Street. The Ashland Public Works Department found that the lines are of adequate size and condition to serve the project. During the public hearing, Ashland's Public Works Director, Steven Hail, testified unequivocally that the condition and capacity of municipal sewer collection and treatment facilities are adequate to accommodate the proposed project. The testimony of the public works director was based upon the conclusions contained in two adopted sewerage facility plans: Draft Pro,am Plan for Improvements to the Wastewater Treatment Plant Di~chitrg¢ into Bcgr Creek (1989), and Sewerage Study for the City of Ashland. (1986). The above evidence was undisputed, and the City Council finds it to be factual and true. 19. Water Service. Four-inch cast iron water mains are in Helman and Water Streets. An 8-inch cast iron water main intersects the 4-inch main at the intersection of Water and Spring Streets. The Ashland Public Works Department has advised the applicant that water system improvements in the area are needed to support the project. The needed improvements are covered by conditions of approval, (Condition 3). The applicant stipulated to the recommended improvements. During the public hearing, Ashland Public Works Director Hall testified unequivocally that the condition and capacity of municipal water treatment, storage, and distribution facilities, and water pressure are adequate to accommodate the proposed project in consideration of the conditions that were to be and are attached to the approval, (Conditions 3 and 23). The approval conditions were based on a careful examination by municipal departments of the project's anticipated requirements. The testimony of the public works director is based upon the conclusions contained in the adopted sewerage facility plan, entitled: City of Ashland Water Supply Report by R.W. Beck and Associates, (1989). The above evidence was undisputed, and the City Council finds it to be factual and tree. Some areas in Ashland have public facility limitations, and these areas are under localized moratoria. The subject property is not within an area subject to any moratorium, ff a community-wide public facility limitation existed, which the City Council does not concede, a moratorium could be declared under ORS § 197.520. The City has not declared a community-wide moratorium because of a public facility shortage or for any other purpose. The City has augmented its water supply with water from the Talent Irrigation District (~FID) since the 1970's. 20. Storm Drainage. The property drains naturally to Ashland Creek. The applicant testified in Exhibit 1 that the project will include an underground storm drainage system FINAL ORDER Page 16 Planning Action 91-099 having a direct discharge into Ashland Creek. The project has 40,821 square feet of total impervious surface area, (36% of the site), New impervious surfaces will increase the speed and volume of storm runoff. Any development creates new impervious surfaces. Storm drainage discharges will be required to meet Oregon water quality standards. Direct discharge into the adjacent creek is consistent with the following adopted plan: City of Ashland Master Drainage Plan, (1985). The above evidence was undisputed and adopts it as fact. 21. Public Safety and Protection Services. The property is served by the Ashland Police Department. Supplemental police protection is provided by the Oregon State Police. Fire protection is supplied by the Ashland Fire Department. Supplemental protection under a mutual aid agreement is provided by Jackson County Rural Fire District 5. The fire station is located less than one mile from the property, and response time is estimated at less than 5 minutes. Four fire engines would respond to a fire. All equipment would arrive in 10 minutes or less. The applicant testified in Exhibit 1 that the preceding information regarding equipment and response time was furnished by the Ashland Fire Department. The above evidence was undisputed, and the City Council f'mds it credible and adopts it as fact. 22. Utilities. The property is served with electricity by the City of Ashland Eleclric Utility. The site also has telephone and cable television utilities available. During the winter of 1990-91 the City experienced a power black-out for a period of approximately 24 hours that was due to a substation failure. The City has acquired access to a portable substation from the Pacific Power and Light Company. The City is presently in the process of siting a new substation. The above evidence was undisputed and adopts it as fact. 23. Public Schools. The City Council finds that intended use of project will generate few ff any school age children, and, therefore, impacts upon the public school system will be no greater than minimal. 24. Landscaping. Landscaping will be installed according to the Exhibit 9 Landscape Plans. The project has 39,757 square feet of lands4aped area, (34% of the site). ALUO § 18.72.090(A) requires a minimum of 15% of a site to be landscaped. The landscaping will be irrigated by an automatic underground system using pop-up sprinklers for lawn areas, and drip irrigation for all shrub beds. Existing trees along Ashland Creek will be preserved. Creek-side vegetation will be cleaned-up consistent with the City's riparian preservation regulations and conditions of approval, (Condition 7). The City Council finds the above evidence credible and adopts it as fact. 25. Zoning. The subject property is zoned Retail Commercial (C-l). The property and surrounding neighborhood is an area where several zoning districts are either adjacent or within close proximity. The zoning pattern is shown on the Exhibit 5 zoning map. Identical C-1 zoning borders the south and portions of the east and west boundaries of the site. Employment (E-l) zoning borders the north and a portion of the east boundaries. High Density Multiple Family Residential (R-3) zoning borders a portion of the west boundary. The adjacent and nearby uses fall into the following zones: Bard's Inn, Jonathan's restaurant and its parking are on land zoned C-1. The City parking lots are zoned C-1. ThegVaterside Inn, veterinarian clinic, and public utility building are on land zoned E-1. The existing single family residences across Helrnan Street from the subject property, and other single family dwellings along and on the west side of Helman are zoned R-3. Dwellings and light manufacturing uses on the east FINAL ORDER Page 17 Planning Action 91-099 side of Helman north of the subject property are zoned E-1. The outfight permitted uses in C-I, E-i, and R-3 zones are as follows: ALUO § 18.32.020 (Permitted uses in C-1 zone): A. Professional, financial, business and medical offices, and personal service establishments such as beauty and barber shops, launderettes, and clothes and laundry pick-up stations. B. Stores, shops and offices supplying commodities or performing services, such as a department store, antique shop, artists' supply store, and including regional shopping center or element of such center, such as a major department store. C. Eating, drinking, entertainment, and dancing establishments. D. Theatres, but not including a drive-in. E. Manufacture or assembly of items sold in a permitted use, provided such manufacturing or assembly occupies 600 sq. ft. or less, and is contiguous to the permitted retail outlets. ALUO § 18.40.020 (Permitted uses in E-1 zone): A. Professional, financial, business and medical offices, and personal service establishments such as beauty m~d barber shops, launderettes, and clothes and laundry pick-up stations. B. Stores, shops and offices supplying commodities or performing services, but not including a shopping center with more than one store per tax lot unless located on a street designated an arterial in the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. C. Eating, drinking, entertainment, and dancing establishments. D. Cabinet, carpentry, electrical, furniture, machine, plumbing or heating shop, printing, publishing, lithography or upholstery. E. Light manufacturing, assembly, fabricating, or packaging of products from previously prepared materials, such as cloth, plastic, wood (not including saw, planing, or lumber mills or molding plants), paper, cotton, precious or semi-precious metals or stone. F. Manufacture of electric, electronic, or optical instruments, and devices. G. Administrative or research establishments. H. Motion picture, television, or radio broadcasting studios operating at an established or fixed location. FINAL ORDER Page 18 Planning Action 91-099 ALUO § 18.28.020 (Permitted uses in R-3 zone): A. Single-family dwellings and two-family dwellings. B. Multi-family dwellings. C. Boarding or rooming houses, fraternity or sorority houses, and dormitories. D. Home occupations. E. Agriculture. F. Public schools, parks and recreation facilities. G. Nursery schools, kindergarten, and day nurseries. H. Residential planned unit developments when authorized in accordance with the Chapter on Planned Unit Developments. The City Council finds the above evidence undisputed and credible, and adopts it as fact. 26. Open Space. The subject property is presently vacant, but has been developed twice earlier, a building once stood on its northwest comer, (Exhibit 12). The property has probably functioned as open space for the surrounding area even though it is and has been in private ownership. The property is not designated by the ACP for public park or open space, and the City has no plan to acquire the property for such use. An owner of the Waterside Inn testified that the subject property is used by "bums" and "drug users." The City Council adopts the above evidence as fact. 27. Noise. Noise in the area is primarily from ~-a.ffic on the "C" Street viaduct, (a segment of Oregon Highway 99) and other local streets. Some noise is also produced by Western Oil and Burner, a company located across Cen~xal Street from the property on the northwest comer of Central and Water Streets. The company manufactures boilers. Viaduct traffic is the largest single source of ambient noise in the area. Additional noise will be localized in the vicinity of parking access and the tennis court. The Water Street parking access and tennis court are directly across Water Street from the Waterside Inn. An owner of the Waterside Inn spoke strongly in favor of the project and raised no objection regarding noise. The Central Street parking access is across from the veterinarian clinic and pet grooming establishment and its parking. As a business, the clinic operates primarily during normal business hours. Animal clinics are not typically noise-sensitive land uses. Loud, disturbing, or unnecessary noise in Ashland is regulated by the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Section 9.08.170. AMC Subsection 9.08.170(C) establishes allowable statistical noise levels. The allowable noise levels are five decibels lower (more restrictive) than comparable state standards. All general categories of land use, including the subject conditional uses, are regulated by and subject to the cited noise standards. There was testimony that tour busses serving the property would produce excessive noise. There is no indication in the record that the use of tour busses is proposed by the applicant or planned. The City Council FINAL ORDER Page 19 Planning Action 91-099 finds that the intended use of the subject property will produce noise that has no greater than a minimal impact upon the surrounding neighborhood. 28. Appropriate Development. The vacant land abutting and within the area surrounding the subject property may be appropriately developed with permitted uses allowed in their respective zones. Surrounding zones include R-3, C~I, E-l, and M-l, (Exhibit 5). The permitted and conditional uses are listed in ALUO Chapters 18.24, 18.28, 18.32, 18.40, and 18.52. The City Council finds and concludes that the preceding facts 1 through 28 are credible, and adopts them as fact. Conclusions o! Law Based on the preceding findings and conclusions of fact, the City Council reaches the following conclusions of law and ultimate conclusions with respect to ALUO § 18.104.040 (B) and (C). Unless otherwise noted, our conclusions that the use is "compatible" and will not produce greater than minimal impacts, relates to all abutting properties and those in the surrounding area, and to the appropriate development of those properties. Neighborhood Location and Boundaries: The City Council concludes that the "surrounding neighborhood," as asserted by the applicant, (refer to findings of fact), is appropriate and correct. While some people asserted potential impacts in areas beyond the boundaries of the "surrounding neighborhood," there was no evidence or argument by any party that the "surrounding neighborhood" differed from the area defined by the applicant. The City Council concludes that some impacts produced by a conditional use can occur in areas beyond an area defined to be the "surrounding neighborhood." However, tile magnitude of impacts outside of the "surrounding neighborhood" in all cases will be of equal or less magnitude than impacts felt within the surrounding neighborhood; if impacts within the surrounding neighborhood are no greater than minimal, then impacts beyond the surrounding neighborhood will be of an equal or lesser magnitude. Location: The City Council finds and concludes that the location of the subject uses are appropriate, and will be reasonably compatible with and produce no greater than minimal impacts upon the livability and appropriate development in the surrounding neighborhood. We find and conclude that the applicant's treatment of the site represents good planning having as its foundation Ashland's Downtown Plan, (adopted July 19, 1988). The project takes dramatic advantage of the topography and provides an attractive mixed use project to create a planned extension of the downtown as envisioned by the Downtown Plan. Pedestrian linkages with the downtown along Ashland Creek are an integral part of the overall design. The project won unanimous support and high praise from Ashland's Planning Commission and Historic Commission. An earlier congregate care project proposed for the subject property was denied by the city; the denial led to the City establishing a mixed-use policy for the subject property that was incorporated into the Downtown Plan. The project precisely conforms to the vision for the subject property expressed in the Downtown Plan; page 42 the Plan addresses the subject property (Newbry Site) as follows: "The Newbry site is the last large parcel of vacant land in the downtown area. Its development will affect the downtown for many years to come. The City must give FINAL ORDER Page 20 Planning Action 91-099 careful thought how its development can enhance the downtown not detract from it. The parcel has many possibilities, but whatever the development of this property, it must be considered an extension of the downtown and the functions of this area must support the healthy economic expansions of the downtown area. It seems to lend itself to a mixed use commercial development - retail shops, tourist and possibly residential housing, and restaurants." Furthermore, we conclude that the front property line defining the front yard area is along Helman Street. The buildings principally orient toward Helman. We further conclude the location of the buildings are appropriate in relation to property boundaries and other nearby uses and structures. We further conclude that the location for a mixed use development of the type contemplated is appropriate and consistent with Ashland's Downtown Plan. We conclude that a residential/hotel location in near proximity to the downtown will promote a convenient pedestrian- oriented and energy efficient use of the land consistent with the objectives of the comprehensive plan. Size~ Scale and Bulk: The individual but connected buildings that comprise the project are found to be larger in size, scale and bulk than any other nearby structure except for those in the downtown area. However, the projects sloping site, "stepped" architecture, and setbacks serve to make it harmonious and compatible in size, scale and bulk with other smaller nearby buildings. To the extent the size, scale and bulk of the buildings are larger and differ from that of others in the surrounding area, we find the that the differences are harmonious and compatible, and will produce impacts no greater than minimal upon the area's livability. During the public hearing, some opponents asserted that the project creates a dominance exceeding "any thing downtown" because it does not have subtle breaks in color, design, and interest that buildings in the downtown have; and that the building mass overpowers anything in the surrounding neighborhood. The City Council f'mds and concludes that the downtown consists of a collection of adjoining buildings constructed and generally owned independent of one another, and these features account for the architectural and color diversity inherent in downtown buildings. While most individual downtown buildings may be smaller than those in the project, the mass of contiguous buildings on separate blocks in the downtown are larger, bulkier structures. While somewhat larger, the subject buildings are also comparable to Bards Inn, a commercial motel and restaurant located across Helman Street from the subject property. As illustrated by some Exhibit 8 photographs, Bards Inn, a "surrounding neighborhood" building also does not have the architectural and color diversity of individual downtown buildings, but instead is similar and compatible to the subject project in that it too has a an integrated architectural design and color scheme. Elements of the subject building are taken from the "craftsman style," as described in the findings of fact. Craftsman is the architectural style that dominates single family dwellings in the surrounding neighborhood. We conclude that the buildings are architecturally and aesthetically appropriate and compatible, and that they are harmonious in scale, bulk, coverage, and density with other buildings in the downtown and surrounding neighborhood. To the extent that the subject buildings are different, we conclude that the differences are compatible and do not produce impacts greater than minimal upon the livability of the surrounding neighborhood. There is no evidence that the architecture, aesthetics, scale, bulk, coverage or density of the project will be incompatible or produce adverse impacts upon the livability of abutting properties or those in the surrounding neighborhood. FINAL ORDER Page 21 Planning Action 91-099 As to building coverage, the project has a coverage of approximately 30% of the site, (Exhibits 1 and 2). ALUO § 18.32.040(A) allows substantially more of the site to be covered by buildings. Approximately 34% of the site is placed in permanent landscaping. ALUO § 18.72.090(A) requires landscaping to cover only 15% of the site. Design of the Developroent, Architecture and Aesthetics: We conclude that the development design is appropriate in terms of its architecture and aesthetics to the abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood. The architecture is specifically compatible to the "craftsman" style homes predominating in the area, and other buildings in the area constructed in the "craftsman" style. To the extent the architectural/aesthetic style of the buildings differ from that of others in the surrounding area, we fred the that the differences are compatible and will produce impacts no greater than minimal upon the area's livability. Also refer to the preceding conclusions with respect to "Size, Scale and Bulk" of the project. Operating Characteristics: We Conclude that the operating characteristics of the mixed use project will be similar to some adjacent and nearby uses, (Waterside Inn and Bard's Inn), but different than others, including single family occupancies and the veterinarian clinic. The retail and office uses produce the greatest difference in operating characteristics in comparison to uses in the surrounding area. Nearby residential uses are most different in terms of operating characteristics. We conclude that the location of retail and office uses nearest the viaduct and furthest from the nearby residential uses is a sound method to promote project compatibility. To the extent the operating characteristics of the subject uses differ from that of others in the surrounding area, we find the that the differences are compatible and will produce impacts no greater than minimal upon the area's livability. There is no evidence that the differences in operating characteristics between the subject and nearby uses will produce incompatibility or greater than minimal impacts upon the livability of the surrounding neighborhood. Density/Intensity: We believe and, therefore, conclude that the term "density" is not a good yardstick to measure and compare different types of land use. The subject use, while having a somewhat residential occupancy, is not "residential" in the ordinary meaning of the tenn. "Density" is a term applied to residential land uses. As to the project's overall intensity, we conclude that it will be somewhat greater than that of other surrounding properties. In this location, we conclude the more dense/intense use can be reasonably accommodated because of its near proximity to the downtown, even though the property interfaces with other similar, albeit somewhat less intense neighbors. We conclude that the design of the development accommodates its greater intensity. The design places the most intensive uses, offices and retail commercial, nearest the downtown interface and furthest from the other less intense adjoining uses. To the extent the proposed use is more dense or intensive than other uses in the surrounding area, we conclude that the differences will be compatible and harmonious, and will not produce impacts greater than minimal upon the area's livability. During the public hearing, soroe opponents asserted that the project will increase the pace of the area because of constant activity produced by the project and 212 people that it could accommodate at any one time. Opponents also argued that the project's occupants will crowd the downtown and produce activity associated with swimming and tennis that will change the neighborhood's pace and make it incompatible. Opponents determined that the project will produce 212 people because, at maximum, there can be 106 rooms used for overnight accommodations and these could be at double occupancy. FINAL ORDER Page 22 Planning Action 91-099 The objection is that the hustle-and-bustle of vehicles accessing site, people walking to and within the downtown, and use of the swimming pool and tennis court will incompatibly alter the pace of the neighborhood. Regarding downtown congestion, we conclude that tourists will visit the downtown whether they stay at the project or elsewhere. The downtown is an attraction in itself, that includes the collection of features described in findings of fact: numerous restaurants, retail shopping outlets, the Oregon Shakespeare Festival consisting of three individual theatres, other performing arts companies, a multiple screen movie theater, Bluebird and Lithia Parks. At the project site, tourists can walk to the adjacent downtown area. Traveler accommodations outside the downtown require tourists to drive to the downtown area and search for scarce parking. We do not believe or conclude that pedestrians traveling to the nearby downtown on existing and planned sidewalks is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood, or will produce a change in the neighborhood's pace that poses a greater than minimal impact to its livability. While the project may at any given time accommodate 212 people, it is very unlikely that all 212 will be walking to or within the' downtown at any one time. There was testimony that downtown merchants rely heavily on tourist trade. We conclude that the presence of tourists is a positive feature of Ashland's economy, and that the additional people produced by the project will not be incompatible with the downtown ~or the surrounding neighborhood, or produce greater than minimal negative impacts thereupon. As to pedestrian traffic in nearby residential neighborhoods, the pedestrian linkages do not require visitors staying on the premises to traverse residential neighborhoods on route to the downtown. We conclude that pedestrian traffic produced by the project in residential neighborhoods will be compatible because: 1) the pedestrian traffic will be light; and 2) sidewalks presently exist in the residential areas. We conclude that the small amount of pedestrian traffic expected in residential areas will be compatible, and will not produce impacts greater than minimal or alter the pace or livability that presently exists in the neighborhood. The swimming pool is located centrally on the site. View of the pool is blocked by planned buildings and vegetation along the creek. The tennis court is located adjacent to land zoned Employment (E-l) a zone allowing commercial and light industrial uses. The only property owner living on Water Street, nearest to the pool and tennis area, testified in favor of the project. Noise produced by swimmers will be blocked by planned buildings to the north and west. Ambient noise is produced by the highway viaduct, other surrounding streets and by water running in the creek. We conclude that use of the swimming pool and tennis court will be harmonious, and will not be incompatible or produce greater than minimal impacts that affect the "pace" and livability of the area. We conclude that an important consideration here is that existing development on all streets bordering the subject property is of a commemial nature with the exception of two existing single family dwellings located on Helman Street south of its intersection with Central Avenue. Coverage: The Exhibit 8 photography key map (showing property lines and some structures), and the Exhibit 12 Ashland Topographic Map, (showing all structures that existed when the map was prepared), indicate building coverages for the surrounding properties. The Exhibit 2 Site and Architectural Plans illustrate the building coverage for the project Building coverage is approximately one-third of the site. ALUO § FINAL ORDER Page 23 Planning Action 91-099 18.32.040(A) explicitly exempts development in the C-1 zone from any specific requirement for building coverage other than those imposed under site design review or through solar access requirements of the ALUO. We conclude that the differences among building coverages for uses in the surrounding area in comparison to those of the project are not significant, will be compatible and harmonious, and will not produce impacts greater than minimal upon the neighborhood's livability. Appropriate Development: We have considered the allowable uses in all surrounding zones, and conclude that the project will not produce greater than minimal affects upon the appropriate development of abutting properties and those in the surrounding area. We conclude that Ashland's conditional use permit, and site plan and architectural review processes have provided a sound basis to analyze the subject project and make it compatible with all existing and future appropriate development in the surrounding area. The site plan and architectural review process will provide a means to ensure that all future appropriate development in the surrounding area will itself be compatible. Public Facilities and Utilities: We conclude that a full range of public facilities and services are presently available to the subject property. All public facilities and services are presently adequate in their capacity to support project development, with the following exceptions: 1) Water Sheet and its bridge over Ashland Creek along the subject property frontage requires widening. 2) Central Sheet requires extension east from its present terminus to connect with Water Street, an extension of roughly 100 feet. 3) Improvements are required for the existing water system in Central and Water Streets. We conclude that conditions attached to the approval make adequate and appropriate provision for the above needed facility improvements. Based on the above conclusions, we find and ultimately conclude that public facilities and utilities are or will be available in sufficient capacity to serve the subject project. The conditions of approval requiring public facility improvements serve to make the project compatible with other uses in the area, and to produce impacts no greater than minimal upon the area's livability. During the public hearing, opponents argued: 1) Some residents in the area presently experience water pressure problems. 2) The project will cause additional water problems by requiring an additional 30,000 gallons per day (gpd). 3) Ashland residents require only 145 gpd per person, but that guests would be unconcerned with Ashland's water problems and would consume as much water as they like. 4) The water conservation measures suggested by the Public Works Department require unreasonable measures. 5) Talent Irrigation District (TID) water is now required to augment other municipal water sources. TID water is of lower quality and should not have to be used by the citizens of the community. 6) In drought years, the project will consume water that should be reserved for residents who live in the City all year long. 7) The "Beck water report" found that the present water system is inadequate for £n'e suppression in some areas of the City. 8) The City's sewerage treatment plant can not accommodate the additional volumes of waste produced by the project. The treatment plant presently discharges untreated sewerage into Bear Creek. Opponents testified that they sometimes smell sewerage. During the public hearing the City of Ashland Public Works Director testified unequivocally, based on adopted utility plans, that the sizes of sewer and water lines in the area, the condition and capacity of sewer and water treatment facilities, and water supply and pressure in the area would be sufficient to support the proposed project. We conclude that the testimony and opinions of Steven Hall, registered professional engineer and Ashland Public Works Director, are those of an expert, and adopt it as fact. FINAL ORDER Page 24 Planning Action 91-099 Them was no evidence that public sewer and water facilities are not adequate to support the project. The City has augmented its water supply with TID water since the 1970's. Conditions of approval require improvements to certain nearby key public facilities. The applicant has stipulated to the improvements in Exhibit 1. The approval conditions were based on a careful examination by municipal departments of the project's anticipated requirements. While some areas in Ashland have public facility limitations, these areas are under localized moratoria. The subject property is not within an area subject to any moratorium. If a community-wide public facility limitation existed, which we do not concede, a moratorium could be declared under ORS § 197.520. The City has not declared a community-wide moratorium because of a public facility shortage or for any other purpose. The City Council has given appropriate consideration to the availability and capacity of public facilities and utilities, and we conclude that these are adequate to accommodate the project and make it compatible with and produce no greater than minimal impacts upon the livability and appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood. One person who owns property in the vicinity of the City's sewer treatment plant testified that he can sometimes smell sewerage, and that this indicates the existence of a treatment capacity problem. We find and conclude that sewer treatment plants periodically produce odors, but that occasional odor is not necessarily in indicator of capacity problems. We accept as fact the opinion of Public Works Director Hall that the treatment plant has sufficient unused capacity to accommodate the proposed project. Also during the public heating, one opponent asserted that the project should not be approved until the City's electrical system is capable of supporting present community needs. During the public heating that opponent in expressing his concerns over electrical power distribution, acknowledged that the 24-hour power black-out during Winter 1990 will not occur again because the City now has access to a portable substation from the Pacific Power and Light Company. As a longer range solution, the City is presently in the process of siting a new substation. We conclude that the availability of a portable substation, and the City's long range efforts to construct a new substation evidence that the subject project will be compatible and not produce greater than minimal impacts upon the livability of the surrounding neighborhood. Traffic Generation and Street Capacity: We accept the conclusions in the Exhibit 15 traffic study and conclude that they are the opinions of an expert who we find to be qualified and credible. We conclude that the project will generate approximately 1,336 average daily vehicle trips, and those, when added to the traffic volumes that presently exist on streets in the area, will be compatible and will not exceed the capacity of neighborhood streets, or produce greater than minimal impacts upon the neighborhood's livability. Conditions of approval, (Conditions 1 and 2), requiring improvements to Central and Water Streets will enhance their capacities and ability to accommodate traffic generated by the project. The conditions of approval requiring street improvements serve to make the project compatible with other uses in the area, and to produce impacts no greater than minimal upon the area's livability. Additionally, the Traffic Study (Page 16) examined the potential traffic impact that could be produced if the property were used for a retail shopping center, a permitted use that does not require a conditional-use permit. The Traffic Study found that a shopping center would produce on the order of four to five times the volume of traffic produced by the subject use. FINAL ORDER Page 25 Planning Action 91-099 During the public heating, opponents argued that noise and traffic from the project will encourage potential conversion of the single family neighborhood zoned R-3 to multiple family housing. We conclude the argument is speculative and not based on any evidence in the record. No property owner within the surrounding neighborhood testified that they would sell or otherwise convert their home to apartments as a result of the project. Given the size of parcels as evidenced by the Exhibit 3 and 12 maps, and sound condition of existing homes in the area as evidenced by the Exhibit 8 photographs, we conclude that the likelihood of apartment conversions is remote; conversions would simply be too expensive, requiring acquisition of at least four individual occupied/built parcels at a cost of +/-$100,000 each to acquire a single acre of land upon which apartments could be built. Even at high land price levels in Ashland, -/+$400,000 per acre is several times the cost of vacant multiple family land. Refer to Exhibit 68. The City Council was persuaded by the analysis and conclusions of the Exhibit 15 traffic study. In particular, we conclude that the following traffic study conclusions are responsive to the relevant criteria in ALUO § 18.104.040(B) and 18.104.040(C)(3), and issues raised during the public hearing which are related to street capacity and traffic: "Based on a review of the circulation system and land use distribution 'in the vicinity of Oak Street and B Streets, it is assumed that traffic volumes on both of these streets is of the same order of magnitude as the traffic on Water Street, H e lman Street and Central Avenue." "As shown for the other intersections in the vicinity, the addition of 25 vehicles of site generated traffic during the afternoon peak hour will not create a significant impact on street or intersection operations." "The majority of the 25 vehicles referenced above are related to the overnight lodging of the condominium development. Overnight lodgers wouM not necessarily be aware of the opportunity to use Oak Street and B Street. Therefore, 25 vehicles may over state the amount of traffic that may use these two streets." "Vehicles accessing the site via the Central Avenue driveway may still find C Street to Helman Street to Central Street to the driveway as being faster than C Street to Oak Street to B Street to Water Street to Central Street using the driveway. Again, 25 vehicles may be overstating the amount of traffic using the Oak Street route." "Based on a comparison of existing conditions to those after project development, it is our opinion that conditions are nearly identical, and that no significant volumes of traffic will be distributed on local streets." "Intersection levels-of-service' (LOS) 'do not change with the addition of site generated traffic and no traffic mitigation measures are required." "We have analyzed the traffic impacts in relation to the City of Ashland's criteria in Subsections 18.104.040(B) and (C) of their land development ordinance. Or opinion is that the project ~ll not generate peak hour or total cumulative traffic at levels that produce impacts to the surrounding neighborhood that is greater than minimal given the location, size, design and operating characteristics of the development. Based on our analysis, it is also our opinion that peak hour and FINAL ORDER Page 26 Planning Action 91-099 total traffic produced by the development will not result in the project being incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. From a traffic generation perspective, we conclude that the project will be compatible. In comparison to other potential uses that are permitted outright in the C1 zone, the subject use will produce far less traffic and be substantially more compatible." Public Safety and Protection: We conclude that police and fire protection constitute public safety and protection services to be considered under ALUO § 18.104.040(C)(4), and that these are presently adequate to protect the public health and safety of the community and subject project. The conditions of approval with respect to fire suppression will enhance the delivery of fire protection and suppression services to the site, (Condition 23). During the public hearing, one opponent testified that people staying at the project will have a "vacation mentality" that will make pedestrian and bicycle travel on Central Avenue dangerous; children use Central Avenue to walk to Briscoe School; dogs on the street would be endangered by increased traffic. Opponents also argued that with parking allowed on both sides of Central Avenue, two cars can not pass without one having to pull over. The widening of Central has not been considered, and, if needed, the cost should not be bom by existing residents along Central; Central should not be a by-pass for the downtown area. There is no evidence that a "vacation mentality" exists, or that people who have a "vacation mentality" drive or otherwise behave in an irresponsible manner. As to children walking on Central Avenue to Briscoe School, (located across North Main), Central has sidewalks. As to the project producing a greater traffic danger to dogs, we f'md and conclude that any dogs running at large in an urban environment are endangered by vehicles. Central Avenue is a fully improved City street that has a paved width of 30 feet, (Exhibit 12). Passenger vehicles are generally about six feet wide or narrower. Parked within six inches of the curbs, there still exists 17 feet, adequate space for vehicles to pass. No widening of Central Avenue between ~Helman and North Main Street is required. While in the long range the City may consider changes in the way traffic and parking in the area are regulated, no changes are proposed at this time and none are required. We conclude that Central Avenue is presently adequate, and that its use by project traffic is not incompatible with the neighborhood, and that traffic impacts to Central will produce livability impacts no greater than minimal. During the public hearing one opponent testified that there are no specific plans for police protection and security. The City Council concludes that police protection for the property and project is and will continue to be furnished by the Ashland Police Department which is adequate and that no additional security will be required. Other than security furnished by management, most hotels do not have their own security force. There is no evidence that the project requires any additional level of security or police protection by virtue of its location, size, design or operating characteristics, and we ultimately conclude that the above noted levels of public safety services will make the project harmonious and compatible, and are sufficient to prevent the project from producing greater than minimak impacts upon the livability of the surrounding neighborhood. Livability: In McCoy v. Linn County (90 Or App at 276), it was held that a similar FINAL ORDER Page 27 Planning Action 91-099 standard required the fact finder to identify the qualities and characteristics which constitute "livability" and determine whether the proposed use will cause mom than a minimal adverse impact upon those. We conclude that the location of the surrounding neighborhood and its qualities and characteristics which constitute and define its livability are those described above in Findings of Fact #1 and #2. We further f'md that the following elements, in addition to those covered above, may affect the qualifies and characteristics of the area's livability: Loss of Open Space: In Benjamin v. City of Ashland, Or LUBA (LUBA No. 90-065, November 13, 1990), an appeal was filed on the City's approval to expand the Ashland Community Hospital as a conditional use in a residential zone. In that case, opponents claimed the entire vacant site to be used for the expansion was de facto or incidental open space which had to be considered as one of the characteristics of livability. Under that subassignment of error, LUBA held: "Accordingly, because the site proposed for development is not designated by the city plan as open space, current use of the entire site as de facto open space need not be considered on the characteristics of neighborhood livability, and ALUO 18.104.040(B) does not require the city to demonstrate that loss of this open space due to the proposed development will not have more than a minimal impact on neighborhood livability." We conclude that, considering "incidental" or "defacto open space," the coverage and density of the proposed use will have no greater than minimal impact upon the livability of the surrounding neighborhood. Noise: We conclude that the project will generate additional levels of traffic on the local street network, and that additional traffic and access onto and from the site will produce additional levels of noise. Some additional noise may also be produced by the tennis court to be located on the northeast portion of the site near the Waterside Inn. We conclude that the uses and their traffic will be able to comply with the City's noise regulations. W~ further conclude that the additional levels of noise and its potential impact will be subject to the City's noise ordinance, [AMC Subsection 9.08.170(C)]. We conclude that enforcement of the noise ordinance, if required, is sufficient to make noise levels compatible and in harmony with uses in the nearby and surrounding area, and to produce impacts no greater than minimal upon the livability of abutting uses and those in the surrounding area. During the public hearing opponents argued that people, automobiles, tour busses, and sports events at all hours will produce noise at levels that impact the livability of the neighborhood, and that project construction will produce noise, dust, and pollutants. There is no evidence that tour busses will be used to transport people staying on the premises, or that the applicant plans to use tour busses. Noise produced by swimming and tennis activities are covered above. There is no evidence that the presence of vehicle traffic will produce noise impacts that affect the neighborhood's livability more than minimally, or that cause the project to be incompatible. Parking: The City Council concludes that the project provides parking FINAL ORDER Page 28 Planning Action 91-099 commensurate with the requirements of ALUO Chapter 18.92. Additional parking will be available along the street frontages adjoining the subject property. The street improvements required as conditions of approval help ensure the future existence of additional parking, (Conditions 1 and 2). We conclude that meeting the City's off- street parking requirements, in addition to there being on-street parking along three of the four abutting streets, will result in compatibility with abutting uses and those in the surrounding area, and that if impacts to the area's livability do result, they will be no greater than minimal. During the public hearing opponents argued: 1) That additional parking should be required for employees, and for use of the conference rooms within the hotel. 2) That potential overflow parking on nearby streets impact the area's livability. 3) Parking in the "Plaza" area is scarce, and that the project will serve to increase the demand for parking spaces in the Plaza. 4) An earlier proposal was rejected by the City because it did not meet the criteria for a parking variance, and because the City Council then determined that the property should be used for commercial purposes. The off-street parking standards of the ordinance (ALUO § 18.92.020) includes parking for the employees of commercial uses. No additional parking for employees is required by the ordinance. The cover sheet for the Exhibit 2 Site and Architectural Plans indicate the parking breakdown by use, indicating that parking for employees has been provided. Nearly all hotels and motels have rooms used for conferences. The small conference rooms in the hotel are accessory, secondary, and subordinate to the primary hotel/residential use of the property. The ordinance does not require additional parking for the conference rooms or for any other accessory uses. The City has consistently interpreted its parking ordinance, and has never required parking for conference rooms within motels or hotels. Notwithstanding the availability of required parking, some people park on public streets. The project will ultimately involve improving Central Avenue along the frontage of the property. The improvement will result in the provision of 25 additional on-street parking stalls. To the extent that the project may result in some cars parking along nearby streets, this does not make the project incompatible or produce impacts to the neighborhood's livability that are greater than minimal. Regarding a previous land use action on the subject property that resulted in denial because the use sought a parking variance, and was not for commercial purposes, the subject project: 1) Is for commercial uses. The hotel, office, and retail spaces are all uses listed in the C-1 zone. To the extent some units will be occupied by owners, ALUO § 18.21.030(F) allows residential uses in the C-1 zone as a conditional use. 2) No parking variance is requested in this instance. Off-street parking is provided at levels consistent with the requirements of ALUO § 18.92.020. The project is eligible for up to a 15% reduction in the total number of required parking spaces under ALUO § 18.982.060(C); the applicant did not seek any reduction in the number of parking spaces. 3) The Ashland Downtown Plan was developed and adopted (July 19, 1988) in response to the earlier project that was denied. The subject project specifically reflects the City's policy for the subject property that is articulated in the Downtown Plan. FINAL ORDER Page 29 Planning Action 91-099 As to the project making parking in the "Plaza" area more scarce: We conclude that Ashland is a tourist destination. Ashland's primary tourist attractions are in the downtown. If overnight accommodations are located on the outskirts of the City, visitors will drive to their hotel/motel, park and unpack, then drive to the downtown and search for scarce parking. If visitors stay on the subject property, they can park on the site and easily walk to the nearby downtown area that is connected to the subject property with planned and existing sidewalks. Rather than contributing to downtown parking problems, the subject use in the proposed location will reduce the demand for parking. As approved, parking located primarily beneath the buildings is sufficient and compatible with the downtown and other portions of the surrounding neighborhood, and will not produce impacts greater than minimal upon the neighborhood's livability. Population. During the public hearing, opponents testified that greater numbers of people in the community produce livability impacts, and that tourists will rain the town. The City Council can find no evidence that the mere presence of greater numbers of people produce any impact upon livability, or that tourists will "rain the town." Them was testimony during the public hearing that Ashland relies substantially on tourist trade for its economic livelihood, and that encouraging tourism is a matter of City policy. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that one- third of Ashland's total employment is attributable to tourism. We conclude that the project will not result in a significant number of new people in the community, either as visitors or permanent residents; people visiting Ashland will come whether or not the project exists. People seeking to live in Ashland will do so whether or not they live on the subject premises. While the project may produce some "new people," the numbers are less significant than the potential 212 hotel occupancies projected by opponents. Adverse Competition: During the public hearing, some opponents asserted that the project will produce adverse competition with other motels and B&Bs, and may result in "price wars." The City Council finds and concludes that the existence or extent of potential adverse competition is irrelevant. Commercial Usage and Uncontrolled Flexibility: During the public hearing, opponents testified that a hazardous condition could be produced for occupants and the surrounding area by uncontrolled flexibility that would allow the project to be fully occupied with "wall to wall beds" or to stand empty; the property should be reserved for commercial usage, and should be prevented from converting from its intended use to a residential condominium with "40 plus motel operators." Reserving the property for "commercial usage" is irrelevant. The uses intended by the applicant are permitted outright or conditionally in the C-1 zone, and the proposed mix of uses is consistent with the vision for the property expressed in the Ashland Downtown Plan. Opponents do not identify the nature of the hazard to be produced by "uncontrolled flexibility." If opponents allege overcrowding as the hazard source because of fire, the assertion disregards the requirement that any habitable building comply with Oregon's building safety and fire codes. As to there being "40 plus motel operators," the issue is irrelevant. Nevertheless, as the applicant has stated in the record, he will act as the agent for owners who let rooms overnight in the same way similar accommodations are provided in FINAL ORDER Page 30 Planning Action 91-099 Oregon's Sun River and Black Butte resorts; there will not be "40 plus motel operators." Riparian Zone: During the public heating, an opponent testified that the "massive" structure will generate and reflect heat that may destroy trees in the riparian area that exists along the creek, and that natural vegetation should be left in place, and not replaced with other vegetation simply because it is more appealing to humans. The City Council concludes that the approved plan (Exhibits 2 and 9) retains existing trees along the creek. We can f'md no evidence to support the notion that structures in general, or the subject structure will produce heat that will damage nearby trees. Trees are customarily planted and grow adjacent to buildings. Them is no evidence that selective replacement of vegetation as shown on the Exhibit 9 Landscaping Plan will in any way be incompatible with or produce greater than · minimal impacts upon the surrounding neighborhoodl While some parties may disagree with the landscaping intended by the applicant and approved by the City Council, there is no evidence that the choice or placement of landscape materials will produce any adverse impact whatsoever. Storm Waters: During the public heating one opponent testified that the project will increase the velocity of "rain water," asserting that water which would normally seep into the water table will instead be diverted to the creek. Overflowing or clogged storm drains will increase the danger of flood damage to the project and downstream properties by raising flood elevations. The City Council finds and concludes that any building or other surface cover that prevents the seepage of storm waters into the water table increases the velocity of storm runoff. There is no evidence that any storm drain in the area is prone to clogging or overflowing. Removal of some creekside brush will increase the carrying capacity of the creek and reduce the potential for debris to clog the creek. According to the testimony of Engineer Bassett (Page 24 of Exhibit 1), the proposed buildings, "will not, on aggreghte, increase flood levels on or downstream from the subject property." In conclusion, them is no evidence that the above asserted impacts will result in: 1) incompatibility or produce impacts greater than minimal upon the livability of the surrounding neighborhood; 2) cause damage or hazard to persons or property upon or adjacent to the development area. We accept the above conclusions of Engineer Bassett in Exhibit 1 and believe them to be the opinions of an expert who we conclude is qualified and credible. We conclude that the applicant and City have considered the potential hazards that the development may create and have implemented reasonable mitigation measures to reduce adverse environmental impacts. The potential impacts described above are concluded to produce no greater than minimal impact upon the livability or appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood. Wading Pool: One opponent testified that wading and overuse of the creek should be discouraged. Them is no evidence that the project will result in either wading in or overuse of the creek. Iffthe creek was used occasionally for wading, which is not proposed in the application, it would not produce incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood or affect its livability greater than minimally. The applicant has offered to dedicate the creekside land for public use. Regulation of FINAL ORDER Page 31 Planning Action 91-099 wading and use of the creek is and should be a matter of separate concern. Fencing, Landscaping, and Climate Control: During the public hearing, one opponent testified that the location of fencing is unknown, that proposed new trees are small and too few, and that the buildings will be a "four floor oven with air conditioning on to keep cool." An approval condition (as stipulated by the applicant in Exhibit 1) requires that plans for fencing around the swimming pool be later reviewed and approved by the City, (Condition 17). Pool fencing will not be generally visible from the public rights-of-way that surround the subject property because the view of it is blocked by proposed buildings and vegetation along the creek. We conclude that potential fencing can comply with the City's Site Design mid Use Guidelines, and that future review and approval by the City is appropriate and will ensure compatibility. As to proposed trees, we conclude that their size, species, and placement as indicated in Exhibit 9 are appropriate and compatible. The Exhibit 9 Landscape Plan was approved by the Ashland Tree Connnission. There is no evidence that the size, species, and placement of proposed landscaping will be incompatible or produce greater than minimal adverse impacts upon the livability of abutting properties or those in the surrounding neighborhood. Regarding climate control, conditions of approval (as stipulated by the applicant in Exhibit 1) require that windows in the hotel/residential portion of the buildings will be predominantly operable, not "fixed-pane," (Exhibit 1, Pages 3 and 20 and Condition 6). There is no evidence that climate control proposed for the buildings will be incompatible or produce adverse impacts upon the livability of abutting properties or those in the surrounding neighborhood. Cumulative Effects of Many Developments: During the public hearing, one opponent testified that the project fails to consider the cumulative effects produced by the subject and other large development projects that have been approved by the City. The relevant criteria require that the potential impacts of a "proposed development," (based on its location, size, design, and operating characteristics'), be evaluated for its reasonable compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, and to determine whether the magnitude of impacts upon the neighborhood's livability are greater than minimal. The criteria do not require evaluation of the potential impacts produced by approved but yet unbuilt development in other parts of the community, or potential future developmenL The following developments were alleged by opponents to produce an unevaluated impact upon the livability of the surrounding neighborhood: a commercial shopping center; a "factory outlet center"; the "Provost" golf resort development; and, a golf course on the "Billings Ranch." According to Exhibit 68, the location and status of the above identified developments are as follows: Commercial Shopping Center: The approved Tolman Creek Plaza shopping is located near the south Ashland I-5 interchange approximately two and one-half miles from the subject property on the opposite end of FINAL ORDER Page 32 Planning Action 91-099 Ashland. The development is under construction. "Factory Outlet Center": Plans for a "factory outlet center" have been discussed. No project has been approved by the City, and, to date, no permit applications have been filed or received by the City. The property is near the above shopping center on the opposite side of Ashland about two and one-half miles from the subject property. "Provost Golf Resort": The project was approved by Jackson County and appealed. Additional County approvals under remand are required. The project is located on the east side of 1-5 approximately four miles from the subject property. "Billings Ranch Golf Course": The Billings Ranch is located outside of Ashland's city limits and UGB. No plans have been received by either the City or County for consideration of any development. The property is located adjacent to AshlanWs north city limits approximately one mile from the subject property. There is no evidence that these or any approved but yet unbuilt development will produce any impact to the neighborhood surrounding the subject property. In Oregon, cities are required to carry out their long range comprehensive planning responsibilities under the Statewide Land Use Planning Goals (Statewide Goals) and ORS Chapter 197. It is assumed that an acknowledged comprehensive plan is one that has taken into account the potential levels of development based upon the "carrying capacity of the air, land and water resources of the planning area" (Statewide Goals 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 14). Ashland's Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged to comply with the Statewide Goals. We find and conclude that the proposed development does not produce any unique, unusual or unanticipated air, water, land, transportation or public facility impacts in comparison to other potential land uses permitted within the C-1 zone, and there is no evidence to the contrary. We conclude that opponents arguing for denial of the project because of its cumulative effects in connection with other approved and speculative development, seek a forum for population and growth control through the land use entitlement process. We conclude that the City is not compelled to address growth control issues of a community-wide nature in the context of a quasi- judicial land use proceeding. If community-wide public facilities are inadequate because of the "cumulative effects" produced by this and other potential development, which we do not concede, the City is entitled to consider community-wide moratoria under ORS § 197.520. The City has not elected to declare or consider declaring a moratoriun~ We conclude that the "cumulative effects" argument is speculative and without factual basis, and that no evidence exists to support the existence of "cumulative effects," its potential magnitude, and how it potentially affects the livability or appropriate development of a-butting properties and those within the neighborhood surrounding the "proposed development" as required by ALUO § 18.104.04003). Adverse Change to Downtown Character: During the public hearing, one FINAL ORDER Page 33 Planning Action 91-099 opponent testified that the downtown area is changing to an elite shopping area for tourists rather than serving the needs of community residents, and that the subject project should have mom space for shops and offices to stimulate entrepreneurs. We find and conclude that whether downtown shopping caters to tourists mom than residents, and the potential mix of uses in the project are both irrelevant to a consideration of the project under the substantive criteria. Ultimate Conclusions of Law for ALUO § 18.104.040(B): Based on the preceding conclusions of fact and law, we f'md and conclude that the location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed development will be reasonably compatible with and have impacts no greater than minimal upon the livability and appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood. Ultimate Conclusions of Law for ALUO § 18.104.040(C): Based on the preceding conclusions of fact and law, we find and conclude that appropriate consideration was . given to the five enumerated factors in ALUO § 18.104.040(C) with respect to the requirements of ALUO § 18.104.040(B). In summary conclusion, we f'md that the conclusions of fact and law support granting the conditional use permit for the flexible use of the property asboth a "hotel" and as a "residential use" under ALUO § 18.32.030 (E) and (F). VI ALUO CHAPTER 18.72; SITE DESIGN USE GUIDELINES AND POLICIES FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Applicable Standard or Criterion ALUO SECTION 18.72.050: CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL ALUO § 18.72.050(A). ALL APPLICABLE CITY ORDINANCES HAVE BEEN MET AND WILL BE MET BY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. The City Council has determined that the following constitutes the full range of applicable City ordinances and regulations applying to the subject project which are not otherwise required to be addressed through other criteria applicable to the required permits sought by the applicant: ALUO § 18.32.040(A): Area, width, yard requirements: "There shall be no minimum lot area width, coverage, t~ont yard, side yard, or rear yard, except as required under the Off-Street Parking and loading requirements and Solar Access chapter, except where required or increased for conditional uses; and except where required by the Site Review chapter (18.72) of this tide; and except where abutting a residential zone, where such setback shall be maintained at 10 ft. per story for side and rear yards." ALUO § 18.32.040(B): Maximu~ building height: "No structure shall be greater than 40 feet in height." (C-1 zone). FINAL ORDER Page 34 Planning Action 91-099 ALUO § 18.92.020: Off-Street Parking Spaces Required: ALUO § 18.92.020 requires off-street parking to be provided at the following rates: Hotels: "One space for each guest room, plus one space for the owner or manager." [ALUO § 18.92.020(A)(4)] Multi-family Dwellings: "One and one-half spaces per one bedroom unit; one and three-fourths spaces per two-bedroom unit; and two spaces per three or more bedroom unit." General Retail: "General - one space for 300 sq. ft. of gross floor area." [ALUO § 18.92.020(B)(3)] General Offices: "General - one space per 400 sq. ft. of gross floor area." Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law After considering all of the evidence, testimony and argument received into the record, the City Council roaches the following conclusions of fact, and finds them to be true with respect to the application. Where conflicts arose, the City Council has resolved them as follows in reaching the following conclusions of law: 1. We conclude that the front property line defining the front yard area is along Helman Street. The buildings principally orient toward Helman. Access problems associated with the "C" Street viaduct, and topographic and access problems associated with Central Street make these streets impractical to function as front lot lines or front yards upon which the development would orient. 2. Based on the Exhibit 2 Site and Architectural Plans and facts earlier stated under ALUO § 18.104.040(B) and (C), we conclude that the project meets the City's off-street parking and loading, and solar access requirements.. 3. Based on the Exhibit 2 Site and Architectural Plans, and Exhibit l0 memorandum from Architect Loffrano, we find and conclude that all buildings in the project do not exceed a height of 40 feet. 4. With respect to parking, we conclude that the greatest parking requirement for the project under ALUO § 18.92.020 occurs if all of the hotel/residential units are ranted as overnight accommodations. A maximum 106 rooms could potentially be rented as overnight accommodations. The greatest number of "multi-family residential" units possible is 45, and that produces a lesser parking requirement. Overall, with 106 hotel rooms, 4,500 square feet of general retail space, and 1998 square feet of general office space, we conclude that the project, in providing 125 off- street parking stalls, meets and exceeds the parking requirements of ALUO § 18.92.020. Refer to cover sheet of Exhibit 2, and Exhibit 1. Applicable Standard or Criterion ALUO § 18.72.050(B). ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE SITE REVIEW CHAPTER HAVE BEEN MET. FINAL ORDER Page 35 Planning Action 91-099 Findings of Fact After considering all of the evidence, testimony and argument received into the record, the City Council reaches the following conclusions of fact, and finds them m be true with respect to the application. Where conflicts arose, the City Council has resolved them as follows: 1. The Exhibit 2 Site and Architectural Plans and Exhibit 9 Landscaping Plans illustrate that 34% of the site is landscaped, and m be served by an automatic underground irrigation system. The landscaping is located on portions of the site where it is visible from the adjoining public streets, and where it will buffer and screen other nearby land and development. Landscaping in and adjacent to the outdoor parking areas consist of more than 7% of the site devoted to outdoor parking. · 2. The applicant is required to replace any landscaping that docs not survive during the first three years following initial planting, (Condition 4). 3. Parking areas located within the buildings can not generally be seen from points beyond the property boundaries, (Exhibit 2). The outdoor parking areas are screened from public street views by landscaping and buildings, (Exhibits 2 and 9). 4. Site lighting specifications are not included on the Exhibit 2 Site and Architectural Plans. The applicant is required to provide specific lighting plans and specifications that conform to City standards as a condition of approval, (Condition 5). Conclusions of Law We conclude that the project meets the requirements of ALUO Chapter 18.72 dealing with site review, with the singular exception of conformance with ALUO § 18.72.110 dealing with light and glare performance standards. We can make no final conclusion with respect to conformance with that standard because no specifications are provided on the plans. We conclude that the standards of AEUO § 18.72.110 can be met, and the requirements will be addressed later by the applicant as a condition of approval, (Condition 5). Applicable Standard or Criterion ALUO § 18.72.050(C). THE SITE DESIGN COMPLIES WITH THE GUIDELINES ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS CHAPTER. POLICY: DEVELOPMENT IN COMMERCIAL AND EMPLOYMENT ZONES SHALL, WHENEVER POSSIBLE, CONFORM TO THE FOLLOWING: Findings of Fact After considering all of the evidence, testimony and argument received into the record, the City Council reaches the following conclusions of fact, and finds them to be true with respect to the application. Where conflicts arose, the City Council has resolved them as follows: FINAL ORDER Page 36 Planning Action 91-099 1. The Exhibit 2 Site and Architectural Plans indicate the buildings have a primary orientation toward the four streets upon which they face. The outdoor parking areas are almost exclusively located internally on the site. 2. The Exhibit 9 Landscaping Plans illustrate street trees placed at intervals of approximately 30 feet. The trees have been specified from the City's list of approved street trees. 3. The Exhibit 9 Landscaping Plans illustrate landscaping materials known to produce healthy growth under local soil and climatic conditions. The applicant's landscape designer, Terry Lippert, is a long-time Ashland landscape designer/installer with extensive localized knowledge of plant materials and their performance. Note: Although both Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 9 illustrate landscaping, the applicant has specified in Exhibit 1 that the Exhibit 9 Landscaping Plan shall govern with respect to the type, quantity, placement and location of all landscaping materials. Landscaping on the Exhibit 2 Site and Architectural Plans is for illustration purposes only. 4. As earlier found, parking areas located within the buildings can not generally be seen from points beyond the property boundaries, (Exhibit 2) The outdoor parking areas are screened from public street views by landscaping and buildings. 5. The applicant stipulated in Exhibit 1 that the windows in the hotel/residential buildings will be predominantly operable, opening to allow natural climate control, and this is required by Condition 6. 6. Buildings will be constructed to meet or exceed the Uniform Building Code and its heat-loss and weatherization standards. The City Energy Coordinator will review the architectural construction documents and make appropriate recommendations to the applicant or his architect, (Conditions 27 and 18). 7. As earlier found, the project either does or can~ conform with the City's noise and glare regulations and performance standards. Future compliance is ensured by Condition 5. 8. Exhibit 7 indicates the materials with which the buildings will be finished. The materials were selected to be compatible with local examples of "craftsman" style architecture and construction. 9. The Exhibit 2 Site and Architectural Plans indicate that all outdoor parking areas may be observed from the interior spaces of some of the buildings. Surveillance of the parking areas was provided as a means to reduce potential vandalism and mischief. Conclusions of Law We f'md and ultimately conclude that the project complies, or can comply under the conditions attached to the approval, with the Site Design and Use Guidelines adopted by the City Council for implementatio~n of ALUO Chapter 18.72. FINAL ORDER Page 37 Planning Action 91-099 VII ALUO CHAPTER 18.62;PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Applicable Standards or Criteria ALUO § 18.62.040(E). A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the Hearings Officer when the Applicant demonstrates the following: ALUO § 18.62.040(E)(1). That the development will not cause damage or hazard to persons or pmporty upon or adjacent to the area of development. ALUO § 18.62.040(E)(2). That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented reasonable measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. ALUO § 18.62.040(E)(3). That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. ALUO § 18.62.040(E)(4). That the development is in compliance with the requirements of this chapter and all other applicable City Ordinances and Codes. Findings of Fact After considering all of the evidence, testimony and argument received into the record, the City Council roaches the following conclusions of fact, and finds them to be tree with respect to the application. Unless otherwise noted, the City Council finds the following evidence undisputed and credible, and adopts it as fact. Where conflicts arose, the City Council has resolved them as follows: 1. The applicant has considered the potential for damage, hazard, and environmental impacts the project has a potential to produce, and has implemented reasonable mitigation measures that are summarized in the findings of fact contained in this document section. Development of the subject property has the potential to produce damage or hazard to persons or property upon or adjacent to the area, and to produce adverse environmental impacts in the following ways related to flooding and riparian preservation: The creation of impermeable surfaces within the subject property where a natural environment existed before development will increase the quantity and velocity of storm water entering Hamilton Creek and leaving the site. · The quality of storm water is adversely affected by parking lot oil and grease. · Chemical methods of brush removal within the riparian corridor would result in diluted herbicidal chemicals being transported downstream. FINAL ORDER Page 38 Planning Action 91-099 · Storm water inlets to Ashland Creek have a potential m cause stream bank erosion. 2. Physical and environmental constraints found to apply to the subject property under ALUO Chapter 18.62 are those related to the floodplain and riparian preservation area of Ashland Creek. The creek crosses the southeast comer of the subject property. Ashland Creek is a natural drainageway listed in ALUO § 18.62.050(B). 3. The flood plain of Ashland Creek as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency 07EMA) is as shown on the Exhibit 13 City Flood Plain Map. The FEMA floodplain boundary is also shown on the Exhibit 2 Site Plan, Exhibit 6 Topographic Survey, and Exhibit 13 Floodplain Map. Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) § 15.10.070(C)(5) allows the City to interpret the floodplain boundaries. The City's 100-year floodplain boundary interpreted from historic photographs is depicted on the Exhibit 6 and 13 maps. 4. The applicant asserted in Exhibit 1 that the riparian preservation area under the definition of "Riparian" in ALUO § 18.62.030(J) is conf'med to the area covered by an existing tree canopy on either side of the banks of Ashland Creek, an area ranging from roughly 30 to 90 feet wide as it passes through the property, and having ~as its approximate centerline the bottom of the creek. The area is depicted on the Exhibit 2 Site Plan. All portions this con'idor are unaffected by the development to the extent that no development is planned to encroach into the area. The applicant's stated his intention in Exhibit 1 to mechanically (not chemically) "clean-up" the brush and dead trees within the corridor. The applicant's intention was made a requirement under Condition 7. 5. Details for fencing were not furnished as a part of the Exhibit 2 Site and Architectural Plans. Fencing around the pool area will be required by Oregon Statute. The applicant stipulated in Exhibit 1 to furnishing the City with fencing plans for review and approval before construction. The fencing can and will comply with the requirements of ALUO § 18.62.070(K), and is required to do so under Condition 17. 6. The 100-year flood elevation of Ashland Creek as it passes through the property ranges from 1860 to 1870, (Exhibit 13). 7. All mass excavation will occur during the dry months of the year as stipulated to by the applicant in Exhibit 1. Also as stipulated in Exhibit 1, silt fences will be erected along the west side of the creek to mitigate erosion potential if rain develops during the typically dry months. These measures are proposed in consideration of the potential erosion hazard the development might otherwise create, and evidences reasonable mitigation thereof. Refer to Condition 8. 8. All paved parking areas within urban environments collect grease and oil which ultimately seep into drainage systems. Sand/oil separators will be provided on all parking lot catch basins as stipulated to by the applicant in Exhibit 1, (Condition 9). The measure will minimize the seepage of parking lot grease and oil into the drainageway, and reduce adverse environmental impacts. 9. Brush removal within the creek banks will increase capacity of the creek to accommodate storm flows, and allow beneficial replacement landscaping to be installed. Creek landscaping is shown on the Exhibit 9 Landscaping Plan. All brush removal will FINAL ORDER Page 39 Planning Action 91-099 be performed by mechanical means, (Condition 7). Chemicals are not proposed to be used for brash removal. The aim of these measures is to ensure that herbicides do not enter the creek and cause damage or hazard downstream, and evidence reasonable measures taken to reduce adverse environmental impacts in consideration of the potential hazards. 10. The term "damage" is not defined in the ALUO. The applicant asserted in Exhibit 1 that urban development of any type or magnitude can be alleged to cause "damage" depending on how the term is defined and interpreted by the City. 1 I. The applicant stipulated in Exhibit 1 that cut and fill slopes will be graded and compacted to Uniform Building Code (UBC) standards dealing with compaction and methodology, and the same was required by Condition 10. 12. The applicant stipulated in Exhibit 1 that a civil engineer registered in Oregon will prepare a grading and erosion control plan for review and approval by the City prior to the start of construction. A Oregon-registered engineer will also prepare all public facility improvement plans required by the project. Refer to Condition 11. 13. Ashland Creek will remain in its present location. No movement of the creek is contemplated by the project, (Exhibits 2, 6, 9, 12, and 13. 14. Architect Loffrano and Engineer David Bassett have expressed their opinions in Exhibit 1 that the site can and will be mass balanced such that no imported fill will be required. Both acknowledge the possibility that some fill may need to be removed from the site. 15. Base and paving materials are limited to the parking areas, except for the base gravel used for building foundations. Engineer Bassett asserted in Exhibit 1 that gravel under concrete footings for buildings is not fill. No fill is required within the floodplain area. 16. Engineer Bassett asserted in Exhibit 1 that all flooding outside of the floodway of Ashland Creek which would occur within the boundaries of the subject property will be relatively shallow, and that them are no substantial differences in the depth of flooding on any portion of the property. 17. Architect Loffrano testified in Exhibit 1 that the elevation of the finished floor for habitable units within the 100-year floodplain is 1866, and in this location, the 100-year flood elevation is approximately 1862. The units are situated midway between flood elevations 1860 and 1864. The Exhibit 2 Site and Architectural Plans indicate that 5 to 6 hoteBresidential units are located within the floodplain. According to Architect Loffrano, the elevation of the first finished floor of that portion of the pavilion building located within the 100-year floodplain, can be at or above the 1870 flood elevation. The applicant stipulated in Exhibit 1 that all buildings will be constructed at an elevation not less than two feet below the flood elevation to which they are adjacent. Commercial buildings may be located two feet below the flood elevation. In fact, all buildings can be constructed so their first finished floors are above the adjacent flood elevations. Engineer Bassett testified in Exhibit 1 that the UBC will require the project to be plan-checked as a motel. 18. Engineer Bassett asserted in Exhibit 1 that the lower level parking is not a "basement" under the Uniform Building Code (UBC) definition of basement. In order FINAL ORDER Page 40 Planning Action 91-099 for space to be considered a "basement" under that definition, more than 50% of the perimeter would have to be more than 50% below the finished grade. The Exhibit 2 Site and Architectural Plans indicate the lower level parking does not fit within the cited def'mition constraints. The partially-underground parking areas are considered "new non- residential" construction under ALUO § 18.62.070(G), and may be constructed two feet below the 100 year flood elevation. The Exhibit 2 Site and Architectural Plans indicate the finished floor for the lowest internal parking garage is 1857.44 feet in an area where the nearest flood elevation is 1860. The garage can meet the cited standard, and the applicant has stipulated in Exhibit 1 that the garage will be elevated the required 0.56 inch required to meet the cited standard, and the same is required by Condition 13. 19. If they are constructed, the applicant stipulated in Exhibit 1 to flood-proofing the spa gazebo and attached dressing and massage rooms to be consistent with the requirements of ALUO § 18.62.070(L), and the same is required by Condition 14. 20. Engineer Bassett asserted in Exhibit 1, that to the extent the project has buildings located within the floodplain, this will not, on aggregate, increase flood levels on or downstream from the subject property beyond flood elevation levels because: 1) Over the past 6-7 years there have been 5-6 independent projects located upstream between the middle of the downtown "plaza" through Bluebird Park that have improved the flow conditions of Ashland Creek and have increased its carrying capacity. 2) The project will enhance the creek's carrying capacity by removing brash and debris. 3) The flow-through characteristics of the parking garage will allow storm waters to penetrate inside of the structure. Floodproofing will mitigate the potential for damage to the structure. 21. The applicant stated in Exhibit 1 that he does not intend to store any petroleum products, pesticides, or other hazardous or toxic chemicals within floodplain areas of the site. 22. The bridge over Ashland Creek located on the subject property is to be used exclusively for pedestrian traffic, and to accommodate emergency vehicles in accordance with the Exhibit 2 Site and Architectural Plans. 23. The applicant asserted in Exhibit 1, that to his knowledge no fill has been placed on the site during the thne he has maintained an ownership interest. There are no significant deviations between the Exhibit 6 topographic survey commissioned by the applicant and the Exhibit 12 City's topographic map which was prepared several years earlier. 24. Storm sewer inlets, or "catch basins" located within the outdoor parking areas are to be piped underground to Ashland Creek and discharged. The storm sewer outlets into the creek will be rip-rapped to control erosion. This stipulation in Exhibit 1 serves to evidence reasonable steps to identify and mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts, hazards, and damage which might otherwise affect downstream properties. Refer to Condition 12. 25. No new bridges or culverts are planned across Ashland Creek. The two existing bridges, one crossing Ashland Creek along Water Street, and one crossing the creek near the extreme southeast comer of the property below the viaduct, are both planned to be improved. The Water Street bridge is planned for improvement as part of a local improvement district to improve a substantial segment of Water Street, (Condition 21). FINAL ORDER Page 41 Planning Action 91-099 The small bridge below the viaduct is on the subject property, connecting it to the City's parking lot. Refurbishing the bridge is planned to accommodate pedestrian travel, and emergency vehicle access to the site. Bridge improvements will enhance their ability to acconunodate storm water flows. 26. Once reconstructed, the Water Street bridge, located within the public right-of-way of Water Street, will be maintained by the City. The privately owned bridge located on the subject property will be maintained by the owner. 27. All structures planned for the site are of a commercial nature and do not have basements. No residential structures defined as such by the Uniform Building Code are planned. Standards related exclusively to residential structures, or to structures with basements are inapplicable. 28. Given the size of proposed buildings, City off-street parking, and landscaping requirements, no additional uses or buildings can be provided on the subject property. The applicant asserted in Exhibit 1 that the project will be constructed in substantial conformance with the submitted plans and specifications, and the same is required by Condition 18. 29. All utility connections can occur outside the floodplain corridor area. The exact location of utility connections will be determined at the time future engineering construction drawings are prepared. Refer to Condition I 1. 30. The applicant asserted in Exhibit 1 that he made a careful assessment of all potential sources of environmental impact, damage, and hazard, and that all reasonable steps to reduce impacts, and to mitigate hazards and damage on and adjacent to the development area have or will be implemented through the design and construction practices herein proposed in his plans and stipulations, and these have been incorporated as conditions attached to the approval. 31. The subject property is presently vacant and zoned for the allowable commercial uses listed in ALUO § 18.32.20 and 18.32.30. SurrOunding land is zoned and developed as described under the conditional use permit findings and conclusions. 32. An error exists in the construction of ALUO § 18.62.070(C). The cited subsection reads: "Non-residential structures shall be flood-proofed to the standards in Chapter 15.10 to one foot above the elevation contained in the maps adopted by chapter 15.10, or up to the elevation contained in the official maps adopted by section 18.62.060, whichever height is greater. Where no specific elevations exist, then they must be elevated to an elevation of 10 feet above the creek channel on Ashland, Bear, or Neil Creek; to 5 feet above the creek channel on all other Riparian Preserve creeks defined in section 18.62.050(B); and 3 feet above the stream channel on all other drainage ways identified on the official maps." The word "elevated," as set out in boldface italic type in the above quoted subsection was intended to be "floodproofed.'~ The error is one of construction. The "elevation" of new non- residential buildings is covered in ALUO § 18.62.070(G). If the two subsections are read together they produce conflicting standards. FINAL ORDER Page 42 Planning Action 91-099 33. All of the stipulations made by the applicant in Exhibit 1 have been incorporated into conditions attached to the approval of PA 91-099. Conclusions of Law While the project has both residential and commercial hotel aspects, we conclude that the project is commemial and "non- residential" under the provisions of ALUO Chapter 18.62 because under its flexible use nature, the project will require commercial construction practices, and will be plan-checked against the Uniform Building Code as a commercial building. As to the gravel and concrete used for building foundations, we construe these, to be part and parcel of the building itself and does not constitute fill. Regarding the conclusions and the opinions of Architect Loffrano and Engineer Bassett expressed in the findings of fact herein and in Exhibit 1, we f'md their opinions credible, and hold them to be experts, and accept their opinions as fact. While the Exhibit 2 Site and Architectural Plans do not depict fencing in sufficient detail to allow an absolute conclusion of compliance with ALUO § 18.62.070CK), the applicant stipulated in Exhibit 1, and Conditions 17 requires that specific fencing plans be reviewed and approved by the City before construction begins. With the postponed review and approval procedure, we conclude that the project can comply with the cited fencing standards. The Exhibit 2 plans indicate that the finished fioor of that portion of the parking garage lying within the floodplain is approximately one-half inch lower than two feet below the flood 1860 feet elevation. The applicant has stipulated, and Condition 13 requires that all buildings have their first finished floor no less than two feet below the adjacent flood elevation. We find and conclude that the garage fioor can elevated the required additional one-half inch (0.56 inch) needed to comply with the requirements of ALUO § 18.62.070(G). Therefore, based on the above conclusions of fact, we find and ultimately conclude that the project meets the criteria in ALUO Subsection 18.62.040(E) on the basis that: 1. The development will not cause damage or hazard to persons or property upon or adjacent to the area of development. 2. The applicant, and the City have considered the potential hazards that the development may create and have implemented reasonable measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. The reasonable measures consist of those incorporated into the design of the project, and those incorporated as conditions of approval. 3. The applicant, and the City have taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment in consideration of existing development in the surrounding area, and the maximum levels pern]ijtted by the Land Use Ordinance. 4. The development is found and concluded to be in compliance with the requirements of ALUO Chapter 18.62 and all other applicable City ordinances and codes. FINAL ORDER Page 43 Planning Action 91-099 VIII DECISION AND ORDER Based on the record of the public heating and upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and ultimate conclusions, the subject applications for conditional use pernfit, site design review, and physical and environmental constraints review (Planning Action 91-099) are found to be supported by evidence contained in the whole record. Therefore, the City Council orders that the applications be, and the same hereby is, approved, subject to all of the conditions set forth in Section IX below, and which are hereby attached to the approval. IX CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO THE APPROVAL 1. The applicant will sign a deferred improvement agreement, irrevocably consenting to the improvement of Water Street to City standards as well as the widening of the existing bridge to match. 2. If the City decides to open Central Street along the frontage of the subject property, Central shall be constructed to a full City street improvement resulting in a travel surface equal to the improved portion of Central east of Helman Street, and shall include curbs, gutters, and storm drains, on both sides of the street, and sidewalks on the south side of the street along the subject property frontage. Alternatively, Central Street may be improved to the standards described above under a Local Improvement District with applicant bearing all costs of said improvements. The City Council shall decide whether to oPen Central Street between Water and Helman Streets, and the decision whether to open Central Street will be made at a later time and as a separate decision. 3. The water system supplying the project shall be modified and improved such that adequate water service, pressure, and fire flows can be maintained. Water system improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 4. Landscaping that does not survive during the first three years following initial planting will be replaced. 5. Specific lighting plans and specifications will be provided by the applicant for later review and approval by the City. All outdoor lighting will City standards. 6. Windows in the hotel/residential portion of the buildings will be predominantly operable, not "fixed-pane." _ 7. Brash removal along Ashland Creek will be by mechanical means. Chemical brush control along the creek will not be used. No healthy, mature trees within the FINAL ORDER Page 44 Planning Action 91-099 riparian corridor will be harmed or removed. 8. All mass excavation will occur during the dry months of the year. Silt fences will be erected along the west side of the creek and remain in place during the mass site excavation. 9. Sand/oil separators will be provided on all outdoor parking area catch basins. 10. Cut and fill slopes will be graded and compacted to Uniform Building Code (UBC) standards dealing with compaction and methodology. 11. A civil engineer registered in Oregon will prepare a grading and erosion control plan for review and approval by the City prior to the start of construction. A Oregon-registered engineer will also prepare all public facility improvement plans required by the City. 12. Storm sewer outlets into Ashland Creek will be rip-rapped to control erosion. 13. All portions of habitable buildings and the parking garage located within the 100-year floodplain of Ashland Creek will be constructed not less than tWO feet below flood elevations shown on the City's flood plain maps. 14. The spa gazebo, and attached dressing and massage rooms, if constructed, will be flood-proofed consistent with the requirements of ALUO § 18.62.070(L). 15. The applicant shall convey an easement for the existing irrigation ditch that crosses the property. The ditch shall be maintained in operable condition during the irrigation season, and downline water rights shall be maintained. Should the ditch be placed in a culvert, the applicant shall be responsible for culverting and future maintenance of the culverted portion. The easement and maintenance agreements for the ditch shall be included as part of the deed for the subject property, and shall be reviewed by the state Watermaster. 16. All habitable buildings, including the parking garage, will be constructed with a first finished floor elevation not less than two feet below the flood elevation to which they are adjacent. 17. The applicant will furnish fencing plans for the pool area for review and approval by the City before construction. Fencing will comply with the requirements of ALUO § 18.62.070(K). 18. The project will be constructed in substantial conformance with the plans and specifications approved by the City. 19. The landscaping, street trees, and irrigation be installed as indicated on the approved landscaping plan, with recommendations of the Tree Commission, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 20. All parking areas shall ~be paved and improved prior to the issuance of a Cen/ficate of Occupancy. FINAL ORDER Page 45 Planning Action 91-099 21. The bridge over Water Street shall be widened to 20 feet wide travel surface prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The City shall pursue posting "No Parking" signs along the section of Water Street from the bridge to "B" street. 22. The applicant shall obtain approval from the Oregon State Highway Division for access from the Lithia Way viaduct to the proposed retail/commerciai structure. 23. The final film hydrant and fire suppression facilities shall be installed under guidance and approval of the Ashland Fire Depat'unent. All required hydrants shall be installed prior to the commencement of conslamction with combustible materials. 24. A public access easement shall be provided for the sidewalk proposed for the open space along the creek, allowing public access from Water and Central Streets to the viaduct area. 25. Sidewalks shall be installed along street frontages as indicated on the approved Exhibit 2 site plan. 26. All electrical line and transformer relocations shall be the responsibility of the developer. All relocations, and new service shall be coordinated with the Ashland Electric Utility prior to the connnencement of construction. 27. The applicant shall coordinate with the Conservation Division for design assistance under the Energy Smart Design program. 28. All signage for this project shall be in conformance with the Ashland Sign Ordinance. 29. The building height for the retail/office building be limited to a maximum height of 40' as defined by the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. Confirmation of building height shall be provided and appr6ved by the Staff Advisor prior to issuance of a building permit for this building. 30. Recycling facilities shall be provided on site to the standards of Ashland Sanitary Service. 31. Low flush toilets and water saving shower heads shall be installed throughout the development. 32. Bicycle parking shall be provided in accordance with ALUO § 18.92.040. ' Dated /~ , 1991. Catherine M. Golden Mayor Nan Franklin × City Recorder FINAL ORDER Page 46 Planning Action 91-099