The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDeBoerRECORD FOR PLANNING ACTION 2003-118 REQUEST FOR A PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOME ON HILLSIDE LANDS WITHIN A HISTORIC DISTRICT. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; ZONING: R-1-7.$; ASSESSOR'S MAP #:391E 09BC; TAX LOTS: 7200 AND 7400. APPLICANT: SID AND KAREN DeBOER 3-29-04 Council Communication 3-17-04 Notice of Land Use Appeal (Swales, Holley & Street) A1 -A2 3-17-04 Notice of City Council Public Hearing and Applicable Criteria (mailed A3-A8 to neighboring property owners within 200' and published in Daily Tidings) 3-10-04 Letter of Planning Commission Hearing's Board approval to A9-A10 Applicants, People who testified, People who submitted letters 3-3-04 Applicant's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for a Physical A11-A68 and Environmental Constraints Permit by Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. (adopted by Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board March 9th, 2004) 12-9-03 Staff Report Addendum 1-3 11-25-03 Applicant's Final Rebuttal 4-19 11-19-03 Opponent's Additional Testimony (Colin Swales) 20-58 11-19-03 Opponent's Additional Testimony (Bryan Holley) 59-63 11-19-03 Opponent's Additional Testimony (Bill Street) 64-68 11-17-03 Opponent's Additional Testimony (George Kramer) 69-70 11-12-03 Planning Commission Hearing's Board (PCHB) Minutes 71-78 11-12-03 Opponent's Exhibits from 11-12-03 PCHB Meeting 79-85 11-12-03 Applicant's Exhibits from 11-12-03 PCHB Meeting 86-99 11-6-03 Tree Commission Comments/Minutes 97 11-5-03 Historic Commission Minutes 98-103 11-5-03 from Letters in Support,and Opposition 104-107 11-12-03 11-12-03 Letter Requesting Withdraw for Public Hearing (B.G. Hicks & Paula 108 Daystor) Corrected Notice of Public Hearing and Applicable Criteria (mailed to 109-110 neighboring property owners within 200' and published in Daily Tidings) Notice of Public Hearing and Applicable Criteria (mailed to 111-112 neighboring property owners within 200' and published in Daily Tidings) Request for Public Hearing (B.G. Hicks & Paula Daystor) 113 Request for Public Hearing (Gayle Titus) 114 Request for Public Hearing (Joyce Cowan) 115 Correspondence Regarding Copyright Issues 116-124 10-27-03 10-22-03 10-20-03 10-20-03 10-20-03 10-15-03 from 11-03-03 10-10-03 Planning Staff Approval Public Notice and Applicable (mailed to neighboring property owners withnin 100') 10-10-03 Findings & Orders (Bill Molnar, Senior Planner) 127-129 9-2-03 Criteria 125-126 Applicant's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for a Physical .......... -~T1 T 9-2-03 and Environmental Constraints Permit by Craig A. Stone & 130-257 Associates, Ltd. Applicants Application Form 258-259 Notice of Land Use Appeal (Ashland Municipal Code § 18.108.110.A.2) A. Name(s) of Person Filing Appeal: B. Address(es): 1. Colin Swales 461 Allison Street, Ashland, OR 97520 2. Bryan Holley 324 Uberty Street, Ashland, OR 97520 3. Bill Street 180 Meade Street, Ashland, OR 97520 2. Attach additional pages of names and addresses if other persons are joining the appeal. C..Planning Commission Decision Being Appealed Effective Date of planning Action #: Title of planning action: Decision: 26 March 2003-!18 APPUCATION FORA PHYSICAL CONSTRAJNTS ............ ........ REVIEW.PERMIT FOR-THE PURPOSE'OF ........ (Findings mailed CONSTRUCTING A SINGLE FAMILY DWEMJNG · ON LAND ZONED R-~1-7.5, CLASSIFIED AS March 10. 2004) HILLSIDE LANDS AND WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT IN ASHLAND, OREGON. D. How·PersOn(s) Filing Appeal Qualifies as a Party (For each person listed above in Box A, check the appropriate box below.) The person' named in Box ~. They participated in the public hearing before the planning commission, either A.. above qualify as a orally or in writing. parties because: Attach additional pages if others have joined in the appeal and describe how each qualifies as a pa . E. Specific Grounds for Appeal See attached addendum A Appeal-Fee With this notice of appeal I(we) submit the sum of $ 264.00 which is the appeal fee required by § 18,108.110.A of the Ashland Municipal Code. Date: .March 16. 2004 /ature(s) of person(s) filing appeal (attach additional pages if necessary):-see addendum A Note: This completed Notice of Land Use Appeal together with the appeal fee must be filed with the City Administrator, City Hall, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520, telephone 541-488-6002. ~ to the effective MAR l'~ 2004 Addendum A Notice of Land Use Appeal (Ashland Municipal Code § 18.108.110.A.2) Specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed, based on the applicable criteria or procedural irregularity. Background: The decision LUBA bio. 99-030 ($OI-Ibi FREEDOM, ROBERT E. TABEK, and BRAM D. LARRICK v cn'Y OF ASHIAbiD states ':.. The city council has significant discretion in how it interprets .... standards... L UBA must affirm the city council's interpretation of its own legislation unless we conclude that the interpretation is "clearly wrong, "or "beyond all colorable defense." ALUO 18.108.1.60 states in part: ..~ny interpretation of the Land Use Ordinance shall be based on the following considerations: l. The comprehensive plan; 2. The purpose and intent of the Land Use Ordinance as applied to the particular section in question; and 3. The opinion of the City Attorney ~..~ .-...(Council)...shall have the authority to modify the interpr~Eation. First Specific ground for reversal · Appellants contend that Applicant's and Staff's narrow interpretation of the Purpose and Intent as stated in ALUO 18.62:010 is inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan as it should be applied to the inteqXetafion of the approval criteria for Development on Hillside land. (seePages 15-19 Apes ~dopted' Faxlings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Dated 3/9/04 and also Appeaams' ~ ~ in Recoed pages 2o.es) First Procedural Irregularity: · The Application was 'deemed complete' by City Staff on O~ober 9=. 2003. Contrary to Oregon State Law and the Public Notices sent to neighbors, the Applicant's agent denied the City permission to exercise its statut~ory duty to make copies of important portiOns of the application availa ,bl.e to the public until Nov 3= 2003. This substantially prejudiced the appellant's rights to perform due diligence' prior to the Historic Commission meeting and Hearings Board Public Hearings. ~lh Ihe Cl[y an Ibis malter- Record pages 20 -68 ) Second Specific ground for reversal Appellants contend that Applicant's own definition of surrounding knpa(t area is not supported by Ashland's Comprehensive Plan nor the discussion and adoption of ALUO Ch 18.62.( see LUBA 97-260 ROGUE VALLEY v ASHLAND FO ) but instead extends well beyond the merely 200 feet from the boundaries of the property as theY contend. (seePages 15 tara F. Fkxangs of Fa~ and C~-,:~0m of Law. oared ~ and .%opanants' ixior ~uhn'dUai Record pages 20 ~8) The appellants note that this appeal will be heard as · 'de novo' Public Hearing and reserve the right to raise additional obJectior~ They have been severely constrained by time to. allow them to exercise sufficient due diligence with regard the recent 'Findings' (3/9/04) due to the requirements of the Oregon's '120.day rule' end the nece~___~_ry scheduling of Council timetables. Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the folloWing request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL on April 6, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. at the ASHLAND CiViC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection Concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals {LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance cdtedon the objection is based o~ also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure' of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. During the Public Hearing, the Mayor shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Mayor shall have the fight to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, at 541-552-204'1. Our TTY phone number is 1-800-735- 2900. PLANNING ACTION 2003-118 is a request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit to construct a single family residential home on Hillside Lands within a Historic District located at 265 Glenview DAve. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-7.5; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 09 BC; Tax Lots: 7200 & 7400. APPLICANT: Sidney and Karen DeBoer ............ qT1-T PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS PERMIT CRITERIA .18.62.040 Approval and Permit Required I. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following: Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. 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. 391E09BC7800, PA#2003-118 BLOOM BENJAMIN M 215 GLENVIEW DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09BD 12600, PA#2003-118 BRONK JAMES B TRUSTEE 50 EL MONTE WAY NAPA, CA 94558 391E09BC5900, PA#2003-118 BUFFINGTON JANE N 1800 SE 10TH AVE SUITE 400 FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33316 391E09BC6100, PA#2003 - 118 BYERS TERRY P/JOYCE 173 LOWER TERRACE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94114 391E09BC6000, PAg2003-118 CONSERVANCY LLC 625 B ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09BDI2400, PA#2003-118 DAVIS RICHARD THOMAS TRSTEE 329 RAVENWOOD PL ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E~C74~9, PA#2993 DE 2OER £1DNEY 2 TP~TEE 391E09BC7000, PAg2003-118 DEBOER SIDNEY B TRUSTEE FBO 234 VISTA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09BC6400, PAg2003-118 DELUCARONALD LTRUSTEE 1665 SISKIYOUBLVD102 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09CA11200, PAg2003-118 DOUGLASS BELLE G 110 TERRACE ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09BDI2900, PA#2003-118 FRANK M FRANK TRUSTEE 319 RAVENWOOD PL ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09BC7600, PA#2003-118 HARBAUGH JON F TRUSTEE P O BOX 3508 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09BC7700, PAg2003-118 HICKS BILLIE/PAULA DAYSTAR 190 VISTA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09BC6300, PAg2003-118 HOWE CHARLES L TRUSTEE PO BOX 786 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09BC7500, PAg2003-118 HULL CHARLOTTE H 2191 SHIELDS AVE EUGENE, OR 97405 391E09CA10701, PAg2003-118 JOHNSON SARA LOU 4 HILLCREST ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09CA11100, PAg2003-118 JULBER KRISTIN 5 HILLCREST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09BD 12800, PA#2003-118 KILLEN CLAIR 525 A STREE 5 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09BC6200, PAg2003-118 NUDELMAN RICHARD 244 HARGADINE ST ASHLAND, OR '97520 391E09BC6600, PAg2003-118 OREGON SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL 15 S PIONEER ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09BD 12300, PAg2003-118 PA'FrEE RICHARD S/DOROTHEA C 476 BUCKHORN SPRINGS RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09CB 100, PAg2003-118 PATRON WTT.TIAM W/SHIRLEY D 110 TERRACE ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09BD 13100, PAg2003-118 PEARSON J LAWRENC~GINIA 2551 HIDDEN VALLEY LN NASA, CA 94558 .4--5 39 IE09BD13100, PAg2003-118 PEARSON J LAWRENCE/VIRGINIA 2551 HIDDEN VALLEY LN NAP& CA 94558 // ..; ..... ' / ..ZJ~/9),9~,/ ~" -.~..'~/ L I.~L ........ 391E09BC7805, PA#2003-118 PRUST WILL H/BARBARA SIBLEY 4897 SANTA BARBARA DR MEDFORD, OR 97504 39.1E09CA 11000, PA#2003 - 118 SMITH RANDOLPH M TRUSTEE 3 HILLCREST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09BD13000, PA#2003-118 STRICKLAND EDGAR L TRUSTEE 317 RAVENWOOD PL ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09BC7000, PA#2003-118 JOYCE COWAN 342 VISTA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09BD11300, PA#2003-118 RAVENWOOD TOWNHOMES OWNERS P O BOX 518 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09BD 12500, PAg2003-118 SPENCE HARRY TRUSTEE FBO 327 RAVENWOOD PL ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09BC5300, PA~2003-118 SVENDSGAARD LARS D III (LE) 183 VISTA STREET ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09BD 12200, PA#2003-118 WOOD DOUGLAS L TRUSTEE 333 RAVENWOOD PL ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09BC7000, PA#2003-118 OGDEN KISTLER ARCHITECTURE 2950 E BARNETT RD MEDFORD, OR 97504 391E09BD 12700, PA#2003-118 SCHNAPPER AMY PO BOX 428 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09BC6500, PA#2003-118 STEELE WILLIAM H/BARBARA E 370 SAN LUIS WAY NAVATO, CA 94945 39 ! E09CA 10800, PA#2003-118 TITUS GAYLE 1 HILLCREST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09BC5800, PAg2003-118 ZIEMINSKI BERNIE PO BOX 552 TALENT, OR 97540 391E09BCT000, PAg2003-118 CRAIG STONE & ASSOC 708 CARDLEY AVE MEDFORD, OR 97504 391E09BCT000, PAg2003-118 HOFFBUHR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2155 ALAMEDA ST, STE #201 MEDFORD, OR 97504 391E09BC7000, PAg2003-118 KERRY KENCAIRN 545 A ST, STE #3 ASHLAND, OR 97520 39 MAILING LIST FINDINGS FOR PA2003-118 265 GLENVIEW DRIVE DEBOER Mailed 3/10/04 SIDNEY AND/~N DEBOER 234 VIST~TREET ASHL~Y~D OR 97520 CRAIG STON~ . CRAIG S/TONE & ASSOCIATES 708 C/fia~DLEY AVENUE M,F~DFORD OR 97504 JEANNE TAYLOR 374 ALNUTT ASHLAND OR 97520 NOLA O'HAI~ 232 VISTA STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 ANDREA FRYE 480 HERBERT STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 CHRIS ADDERSON 300 VISTA STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 JON HARBAUGH 190 WINDEMAR PLACE ASHLAND OR 97520 DON MACKIN 610 ELKADER STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 SAM DAVIs 900 CYPRESS POINT LOOP ASHLAND OR 97520 JERRY TAYLOR 375 ALNUTF ASHLAND OR 97520 ROBERT DAVIS 190 OAK STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 TOM BECKER 2305 ASHLAND STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 ROBERT BESTOR 288 RIDGE ROAD · ASHLAND OR 97520 COLIN SWALES 461 ALLISON STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 BRYAN HOLLEY 324 LIBERTY STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 BILL STREET 180 MEADE STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 DARRELL HUCK HOFFBUHR & ASSOCIATES 3155 ALMEDA STREET STE 201 MEDFORD OR 97504 GEORGE KRAMER 386 NORTH LAUREL ASHLAND OR 97520 AMRHEIN ASSOCIATES INC 804 ROCA STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 CLAUDIA EVERETr 140 S PIONEER STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 C~ES & MARGARET HOWE 106 FORK STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 / B G HICKS~PAULA DAYSTAR 190 VIST/~gSTREET · ASHLAND OR/97520 KEN OGDE/ OGDEN K/ISTLER . ARCH1T/ECTURE 2950 E/BARNETT RD MED~ORD OR 97504 BILL & SHILEY PATTON 110 TER~CE ASHJ,,A~D OR 97520 GAYLE TIT~ 1 HILLC~EST STREET ASHL~tqD OR 97520 KERRY KEN~ KENCAIR~VENVIRONMENTAL 545 A STREET STE 3 ASHLAND OR 97520 PHYLLIS WETZEL 491 COURTNEY STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 JOYCE CO~' 342 VIST.~'STREET ASHL~D OR 97520 391E09BC7400r,FAg2003-118 DE BOER S~qEY B TRSTEE FBO 234 VIST.~[ST ASHL~/qD, OR 97520 ./ 391E09BC760~#2003-118 ~AUG~;JON F TRUSTEE P O BOX/3508 ASHL~lqD, OR 97520 / 391E09BD 128~A#2003-118 KILLEN CL~ 525 A ST~ 5 ASHL~, OR / 97520 391E09CA11000, 03-118 SMITH MRA~~~g20yRUSTEE 3 HILLCRE2ST ASItLA~, OR 97520 391E~BC74~2003-118 C~G STO~ & ASSOCIATES 708 C~EY AVE MED~, OR 975~ 391.E09BD 12600, P~rg2003 - 118 BRONK JAM~VB TRUSTEE 50 EL MO~E WAY 94558 391E09BC770~PA#2003-118 HICKS BI~E G 190 ~S~ ST ' ASH~, OR 97520 97520 391E09CB 100~2003-118 PATTON ~LLIAM W/SHIRLEY D 110 TE~.ACE ST ASH~, OR / 97520 391E~CAI~, P~2003- l 18 T~S ~E 1 HI~ST A~L~, OR 97520 391E~BC740~3-118 HO~~& ASSOCIATES, ~C. 3155 ~EDA ST, S~ #201 MF~ORD, OR 975~ 391E09BC6100, P~#2003-118 BYERS TERR~rP/JOYCE 173 LOWF~ TERRACE S~~CISCO, CA 94114 391E09BC6300~2003-118 HOWE CH~ES L TRUSTEE PO BO~6 ASH~, OR 97520 391E09BC750~P~2003-118 HULL CHNM~LOTrE H 2191 S/IffIELDS AVE EU.OENE, OR 97405 391E09BD 12700~A#2003-118 SC~P~ PO BO~8 · ASHL-CAND, OR 97520 14 CITY OF -ASHLAND March 10, 2004 Sidney and Karen DeBoer 234 Vista Street Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Planning Action #2003-118 Dear Sidney and Karen DeBoer: At its meeting of December 9, 2003, the Ashland Planning Commission approved your request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit for the property located at 265 Glenview Drive -- Assessor's Map # 39 1E 09 BC, Tax Lots: 7200 and 7400. The Findings, Conclusions and Orders document, adopted at the March 9, 2004 meeting, is enclosed. Please note the follow' ~,~e'lrcled i~ms: A final map prepared by a registered surveyor must be submitted within one year of the date of preliminary approval; otherwise, approval becomes invalid. A final plan must be submitted within 18 months of the date ofprelirninary approval; otherwise, approval becomes invalid. There is a 15-day appeal period which must elapse before a building permit may be issued. All of the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission must be fully met before an occupancy permit may be issued. Planning Commission approval is valid for a period of one year only, after which time a new application would have to be submitted. Please feel free to call me at 488-5305 if you have any questions. ely, Senior Planner cc: Property Owner, People Who Testified, People Who Submitted Letters Tel: 541488-5305 IlL MAILING LIST FINDINGS FOR PA2003-118 265 GLENVIEW DRIVE DEBOER Marled 3/10/04 SIDNEY AND KAREN DEBOER 234 VISTA STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 CRAIG STONE CRAIG STONE & ASSOCIATES 708 CARDLEY AVENUE MEDFORD OR 97504 JEANNE TAYLOR 374 ALNUTT ASHLAND OR 97520 NOLA O'HARA 232 VISTA STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 ANDREA FRYE 480 HERBERT STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 CHRIS ADDERSON 300 VISTA STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 JON HARBAUGH 190 WINDEMAR PLACE ASHLAND OR 97520 DON MACKIN 610 ELKADER STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 SAM DAVIS 900 CYPRESS POINT LOOP ASHLAND OR 97520 JERRY TAYLOR 375 ALNUTT ASHLAND OR 97520 ROBERT DAVIS 19O OAK STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 TOM BECKER 2305 ASHLAND STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 ROBERT BESTOR 288 RIDGE ROAD 'ASHLAND OR 97520 COLIN SWALES 461 ALLISON STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 BRYAN HOLLEY 324 LIBERTY STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 BILL STREET 180 MEADE STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 DARRELL HUCK HOFFBUHR & ASSOCIATES 3155 ALMEDA STREET STE 201 MEDFORD OR 97504 GEORGE KRAMER 386 NORTH LAUREL ASHLAND OR 97520 AMRHEIN ASSOCIATES INC 804 ROCA STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 CLAUDIA EVERETT 140 S PIONEER STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 cHARLES & MARGARET HOWE 106 FORK STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 BILL & SHIRLEY PATTON 110 TERRACE ASHLAND OR 97520 PHYLLIS WETZEL 491 COURTNEY STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 B G HICKS & PAULA DAYSTAR 190 VISTA STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 GAYLE TITUS 1 HILLCREST STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 JOYCE COWAN ' 342 VISTA STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 KEN OGDEN OGDEN KISTLER ARCHITECTURE 2950 E BARNETT RD MEDFORD OR 97504 KERRY KENCAIRN KENCAIRN ENVIRONMENTAL 545 A STREET STE 3 ASHLAND OR 97520 BEFORE THE HEARINGS BOARD FOR THECITY OF ASHLAND, STATE OF OREGON IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION ) FOR A PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW ) PERMIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ) CONSTRUCTING A SINGLE FAMILY ) DWELMNG ON LAND ZONED R-1-7.5, ) CLASSIFIED AS HILLSIDE LANDS AND ) WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL HISTORIC ) DISTRICT IN ASHLAND, OREGON ) ) ) Sidney and Karen DeBOer:'Applicants FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Planning Action 2003-118 NATURE OF THE APPLICATION Sidney DeBoer and Karen DeBoer ("Applicants") propose to construct a 'single family dwelling on land zoned Single-Family Residential (R-1-7.5). The prol~rty is designated Hillside Lands pursuant to Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) Chapter 18.62 and is within a Residential Historic district. This proposal also requires the demolition of an existing dwelling which was applied for under a separate application which was approved and not appealed2 II EVIDENCE BEFORE THE HEARINGS BOARD The following evidence was before the Hearings Board: Record Page 12-9-03 11-25 -03 11-19-03 11-19-03 11-19-03 11-17-03 11-12-03 11-12-03 11-12-03 Staff Report Addendum 1-3 Applicant's Final Rebuttal 4-19 Opponent's Additional Testimony (Colin Swales) 20-58 Opponent's Additional Testimony (Bryan Holley) 59-63 Opponent's Additional Testimony (Bill Street) 64-68 Opponent's Additional Testimony (George Kramer) 6940 Hearings Board Hearing's Board (PCHB) Minutes 71-78 Opponent's EXhibits from November 12, 2003 PCI-IB Meeting 79-85 Applicant's Exhibits from November 12, 2003 PCHB Meeting 86-99 Applicants intend to retain ~he existing accessory garage structure. r IAR 0 3 2004 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Final Order Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 ti Page 1 ......... IT1 T City of Ashland, Oregon 11-06-03 11-5-03 11-12-03 ' 11-12-03 11-10-03 11-05-03 11-12-03 10-27-03 10-22-03 10-20-03 10-20-03 10~20-03 11-03 -03 10-16-03 10-28-03 10-10-03 125-126 10-10-03 127-129 9-2-03 130-257 9-2-03 11-12-03 Tree Commission Comments/Minutes 97 Historic Commission Minutes 98-103 Letter from Claudia Everett 104 Letter from Charles and Margaret Howe 105 Letter from Bill and Shirley Patton 106 Email Correspondence from David Sidman signed by Phyllis Wetzel 107 Letter Requesting Withdrawal from Public Hearing 108 (B.G. Hicks & Paula Daystor) dated November 10, 2003 Corrected Notice of Public Heating and Applicable 109-110 Criteria (mailed to neighboring property owners within 200 feet and published in Daily Tidings) Notice of Public Hearing and Applicable Criteria 111-112 (mailed to neighboring property owners within 200 feet and published in Dally Tidings) Request for Public Hearing (B.G. Hicks & Paula Daystor) 113 Request for Public Hearing (Gayle Titus) dated October 18, 2003 114 Request for Public Hearing (Joyce Cowan) dated October 18, 2003 115 Letter .from Ken Ogden Authorizing Plans to be Copied 116 Fax from Ken Ogden regarding Copyright 117-120 Email Correspondence from Colin Swales dated October 28, 2003, 121-124 October 27, 2003 and October 15, 2003 Planning Staff Approval Public Notice and Applicable Criteria (mailed to neighboring property owners within 100 feet) Findings & Order (Bill Molnar, Senior Planner) ApPlicant's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit by Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Applicants Application Form Hearings Board Transcript of November 12, 2003 Public Hearing 258-259 1-18 III RELEVANT SUBSTANTIVE APPROVAL CRITERIA The Heatings Board has .determined that the following constitute all of the relevant substantive criteria which are prerequisite to approval of thc proposed Physical and Environmental Constraints Review land use application on land designated Hillside Lands and within a Residential Historic district. The below standards and criteria of the 'City of Ashland Physical and Environmental Constraints Review,are cited verbatim bereinbelow. In Findings of Fact and Conclu*sions of Law Ashbuxl Plmming ~ 2003-1t8 /i /~-,,' Page 2 City of Ashland, Oregon Section V, each relevant standard and criterion (or groups of standards and criteria) are followed by the conclusions of law and ultimate conclusions of the Hearings Board. The conclusions of law and ultimate conclusions are based upon the findings of fact in Section IV and the evidence enumerated in Section II. PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC)) ALUO Chapter 18.62, Physical Constraints Review Permit ALUO 18.62.040(I) Criteria for Approval. A Physical Constrains Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following: 1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. That the apPlicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. 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 Hearings Board shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. ALUO 18.62.080 Development Standards for Hillside Lands. A. General Requirements. The following general requirements shall apply in Hillside Lands. All development shall occur on lands defined as having buildable area. Slopes greater than 35% shall be considered unbuildable except as allowed below. Variances may be granted to this requirement only as provided in section 18.62.080.H. a. Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35% shall be considered buildable for one unit. b. Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35% cannot be subdivided or paYtitioned. 2. All newly created lots either by subdivision or partition shall contain a building envelope with a slope of 35% or less. 3. New streets, flag drives, and driveways shall be constructed on lands of less than or equal to 35% slope with the following exceptions: a. The street is indicated on the City's Transportation Plan Map - Street Dedications. b. The portion of the street, flag drive, or driveway on land greater than 35% slope does not exceed a length of 100 feet. 4. Geotechnical Studies. For all applications on Hillside Lands involving subdivisions or partitions, * * Hillside Grading and Erosion Control. All development on lands classified as hillside shall provide plans conforming with the following items: All grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans for development on Hillside Lands shall be designed by a geotechnical expert. All cuts, grading or fills shall conform to Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. Erosion control measures on the development site shall be required to minimize the solids in runoff from disturbed areas. Rndings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ash.land Planning Action 200~118 City of Ashland, Oregon For development other than single family homes on individual lots, all grading, drainage improvements, or other land disturbances shall only occur from May 1 to October 31. Excavation shall not occur during the remaining wet months of the year. Erosion control measures shall be installed and functional by October 31. Up to 30 day modifications to the October 31 date, and 45 day modification to the May I date may be made by the Planning Director, based upon weather conditions and in consultation with the project geotechnical expert. The modification of dates shall be the minimum necessary, based upon evidence provided by the applicant, to accomplish the necessary project goals. Retention in natural state. On all projects on Hillside Lands involving partitions and subdivisions, and existing lots with an area greater than one-half acre, an area equal to 25% of the total project area, plus the percentage figure of the average slope of the total project area, shall be retained in a natural state. Lands to be retained in a natural state shall be protected from damage through the use of temporary construction fencing or the functional equivalent. For example, on a 25,000 sq. fl. lot with an average slope of 29%, 25%+29%=54% of the' total lot area shall be retained in a natural state. The retention in a natural state of areas greater than the minimum percentage required here is encouraged. Grading - cuts. On all cut slopes on areas classified as Hillside lands, the following standards shall apply: Cut slope angles shall be determined in relationship to the type of materials of which they are composed. Where the soil permits, limit the total area exposed to precipitation and erosion. Steep cut slopes shall be retained with stacked rock, retaining walls, or functional equivalent to control erosion and provide slope stability when necessary. Where cut slOpes are required to be laid back (1:1 or less steep), the slope shall be protected with erosion control getting or structural equivalent installed per manufacturers specifications, and revegetated. Exposed cut slopes, such as those for streets, driveway accesses, or yard areas, greater than seven feet in height shall be terraced. Cut faces on a terraced section Shall not exceed a maximum height of five feet. Terrace widths shall be a minimum of three feet to allow for the introduction of vegetation for erosion control. Total cut slopes shall not exceed a maximum vertical height of 15 feet. (See Graphic) Revegetation of cut slope terraces shall include the provision of a planting plan, introduction to topsoil where necessary, and the use of irrigation if necessary. The vegetation used for these areas shall be native or species similar in resource value.which will survive, help reduce the visual impact of the cut slope, and assist in providing long term Slope stabilization. Trees, bush-type plantings and cascading vine-type plantings may be appropriate. Grading - fills. On all fill slopes on lands classified as Hillside Lands, the following standards shall apply: Fill slopes shall not exceed a total vertical height of 20 feet. The toe of the fill slope.area not utilizing structural retaining shall be a minimum of six feet from the nearest property line.(Ord 2834 S6, 1998) Fill slopes shall be protected with an erosion control netting, blanket or functional equivalent. Netting or blankets shall ortly be used in conjunction with an organic mulch such as straw or wood fiber. The blanket must be applied so that it is in complete contact with the soil so that erosion does not occur beneath it. Erosion netting or blankets shall be securely anchored to the slope in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. Utilities. Whenever possible, utilities shall not be located or installed on or in fill slopes. When determined that it necessary to install utilities on fill slopes, all plans shall be designed by a geOtechnical expert. Rndings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning AoUon 2003-118 MAR 0 3 ZOO4 Page 4 City of Ashland, Oregon do Revegetation of fill slopes shall utilize native vegetation or vegetation similar in resource value and which will survive and stabilize the surface. Irrigation may be provided to ensure growth if necessary. Evidence shall be required indicating long-term viability of the proposed vegetation for the purposes of erosion control on disturbed areas. Revegetation requirements. Where required by this chapter, all required revegetation of cut and fill slopes shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, signature of a required survey plat, or other time as determined by the hearing authority. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be substantially established within one year of installation. 7. Maintenance, Security, and Penalties for Erosion Control Measures. Maintenance. All measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control, including but not limited to vegetative cover, rock walls, and landscaping, shall be maintained in perpetuity on all areas which have been disturbed, including public rights-of-way. The applicant shall provide evidence indicating the mechanisms in place to ensure maintenance of measures. Security. Except for individual lots existing prior to January 1, 1998, after an Erosion Control Plan is approved by the hearing authority and prior to construction, the applicant shall provide a performance bond or other financial guarantees in the amount of 120% of the value of the erosion control measures necessary to stabilize the site. Any financial guarantee instrument proposed other than a performance bond shall be approved by the City Attorney. The financial guarantee instrument shall be in effect for a pedod of at least one year, and shall be released when the Planning Director and Public Works Director determine, jointly, that the site has been stabilized. All or a portion of the security retained by the City may be withheld for a period up to five years beyond the one year maintenance period if it has been determined by the City that the site has not been sufficiently stabilized against erosion. Site Grading. The grading of a site on Hillside Lands shall be reviewed considering the following factors: a. No terracing shall be allowed except for the purposes of developing a level building pad and for providing vehicular access to the pad. b. Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site.(Ord 2834,S2 1998) c. Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site. d. Building pads should be of minimum size to accommodate the structure and a reasonable amount of yard space. Pads for tennis courts, swimming pools and large lawns are discouraged. As much of the remaining lot area as possible should be kept in the natural state of the original slope. Inspections and Final Report. Prior to the acceptance of a subdivision by the City, signature of the final survey plat on partitions, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy for individual structures, the project geotechnicel expert shall provide a final report indicating that the approved grading, drainage, and erosion control measures were 'installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections, as per 18.62.080.A.4.j were conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project. C. Surface and Groundwater Drainage. All development on Hillside Lands shall conform to the following standards: All facilities for the collection of stormwater runoff shall be required to be constructed on the site and according to the following requirements: eo Stormwater facilities shall include storm drain systems associated with street construction, facilities for accommodating drainage from driveways, parking areas and other impervious surfaces, and roof drainage systems. b. Stormwater facilities, when part of the overall site improvements, shall be, to the greatest extent feasible, the first improvements constructed on the development site. Rndings.of Fact end Conclusions of Law Ashland P~nning Action 2003-118 Page 5 City of Ashland, Oregon c. Stormwater facilities shall be designed to divert surface water away from cut faces or sloping surfaces of a fill. d. Existing natural drainage systems shall be utilized, as much as PoSsible, in their natural state, recognizing the erosion potential from increased storm drainage. e. Flow-retarding devices, such as detention ponds and recharge berms, shall be used where practical to minimize increases in runoff volume and peak flow rate due to development. Each facility shall consider the needs for an emergency overflow system to safely carry any overflow water to an acceptable disposal point. f. Stormwater facilities shall be designed, constructed and maintained in a manner that will avoid · erosion on-site and to adjacent and downstream properties. g. ^ltemate stormwater systems, such as dry well systems, detention ponds, and leach fields, shall be designed by a registered engineer or geotechnical expert and approved by the City's Public. Works Department or City Building Official. · Tree Conservation, Protection and Removal. All development on Hillside Lands shall conform to the following requirements: ¸1. 2~ Inventory of Existing Trees. A tree survey at the same scale as the project site plan shall be prepared, which locates all trees greater than six inches d.b.h., identified by d.b.h., species, approximate extent of tree canopy. In addition, for areas proposed to be disturbed, existing tree base. elevations shall be provided. Dead or diseased trees shall be identified. Groups of trees in dose proximity (i.e. those within five feet of each other) may be designated as a dump of trees, with the predominant species, estimated number and average diameter indicated. All tree surveys shall have an accuracy of plus or minus two feet. The name, signature, and address of the site surveyor responsible for the accuracy of the survey shall be provided on the tree survey. Portions of the lot or project area not proposed to be disturbed by development need not be included in the inventory. Evaluation of Suitability for Conservation. All trees indicated on the inventory of existing trees shall also be identified as to their suitability for conservation. When required by the hearing .authority, the evaluation shall be conducted by a landscape professional. Factors included in this determination shall include: a. Tree health. Healthy trees can better withstand the rigors of development than non-vigorous trees. Tree Structure. Trees with severe decay or substantial defects are more likely to result in damage to people and property. d. Potential longevity. Species. Species vary in their ability to tolerate impacts and damage to their envi.ronment. e. Variety. ^ variety of native tree species and ages f. Size. Large trees provide a greater protection for erosion and shade than smaller trees. Tree Conservation in Project Design. Significant trees (2' d.b.h, or greater conifers and 1' d.b.h, or greater broadleaf) shall be protected and incorporated into the project design whenever possible. Streets, driveways, buildings, utilities, parking areas, and other site disturbances shall be located such that the maximum number of existing trees on the site are preserved, while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. Rndings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 6 City of Ashland, Oregon Building envelopes shall be located and sized to preserve the maximum number of trees on site while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. c. Layout of the project site utility and grading plan shall avoid disturbance of tree protection areas. 4. Tree Protection. On all properties where trees are required to be preserved during the course of development, the developer shall follow the following tree protection standards: All trees designated for conservation shall be clearly marked on the project site. Prior to the start of any clearing, stripping, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation, the applicant shall install fencing at the ddp line of all trees to be preserved adjacent to or in the area to be altered. Temporary fencing shall be established at the perimeter of the dripline. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits, the fences may be inspected and their location approved by the Staff Advisor. (see graphic) Construction site activities, including but not limited to parking, matedal storage, soil compaction and concrete washout, shall be arranged so as to prevent disturbances within tree protection areas. No grading, stripping, compaction, or significant change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the drip line of trees designated for conservation unless indicated on the grading plans, as approved by the City, and landscape professional. If grading or construction is approved within the dripline, a landscape professional may be required to be present during grading operations, and shall have authority to require protective measures to protect the roots. Changes in soil hydrology and site drainage within tree protection areas shall be minimized. Excessive site run-off shall be directed to appropriate storm drain facilities and away from trees designated for conServation. Should encroachment into a tree protection area occur which causes irreparable damage, as determined by a landscape professional, to trees, the project plan shall be revised to compensate for the loss. Under no circumstances shall the developer be relieved of responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this chapter Tree Removal. Development shall be designed to preserve the maximum number of trees on a site. The development shall follow the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. When justified by findings of fact, the hearing authority may approve the removal of trees for one or more of the following conditions: (Ord 2834 S3, 1998) a. The tree is located within the building envelope. b. The tree is located within a proposed street, driveway, or parking area. c. The tree is located within a water, sewer, or other public utility easement. d. The tree is determined by a landscape professional to be dead or diseased, or it constitutes an unacceptable hazard to life or property when evaluated by the standards in 18.62.080.D.2. e. The tree is located within or adjacent to areas of cuts or fills that are deemed threatening to the life of the tree, as determined by a landscape professional. Tree Replacement. Trees approved for removal, with the exception of trees removed because they were determined to be diseased, dead, or a hazard, shall be replaced in compliance with the following standards: a. Replacement trees shall be indicated on a tree replanting plan. The replanting plan shall include all locations for replacement trees, and shall also indicate tree planting details.(Ord 2834 S4, 1998) b. Replacement trees shall be planted such that the trees will in time result in canopy equal to or greater than 'the tree canopy present prior to development of the property. The canopy Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 MAR 0 3 Z004 Page 7 City of Ashland, Oregon shall be designed to mitigate of the impact of paved and developed areas, reduce surface erosion and increase slope stability.. Replacement tree locations shall consider impact on the wildfire prevention and control plan. The hearing authority shall have the discretion to adjust the proposed replacement tree canopy based upon site-specific evidence and testimony. Maintenance of replacement trees shall be the responsibility of the property owner. Required replacement trees shall be continuously maintained in a healthy manner. Trees that die within the first five years after initial planting must be replaced in kind, after which a new five year replacement period shall begin. Replanting must occur within 30 daYs of notification unless otherwise noted. (Ord 2834 S5, 1998) 7. Enforcement All tree removal shall be done in accord with the approved tree removal and replacement plan. No trees designated for conservation shall be removed without prior approval of the City of Ashland. Should the developer or developer's agent remove or destroy any tree that has been designated for conservation, the developer may be fined up to three times the current appraised value of the replacement trees and cost of replacement or up to three times the current market value, as established by a professional arborist, whichever is greater. Should the developer or developer's agent damage any tree that has been designated for protection and conservation, the developer shall be penalized $50.00 per scar. If necessary, a professional arborist's report, prepared at the developer's expense, may be required to · determine the extent of the damage. Should the damage result in loss of appraised value greater than determined above, the higher of the two values shall be used. E. Building Location and Design Standards. All buildings and buildable areas proposed for Hillside Lands shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following standards .... F. All structures on Hillside Lands shall have foundations which have been designed by an engineer or architect with demonstrable geotechnical design experience. A designer, as defined, shall not complete working drawings without having foundations designed by an engineer. G. All newly created lots or lots modified by a lot line adjustment must include a building envelope on all lots that contains a buildable area less than 35% slope of sufficient size to accommodate the uses permitted in the underlying zone, unless the division or lot line adjustment is for open space or conservation purposes. TREE PRESERVATION & PROTECTION ALUO 18.61.200 Tree Protection Tree Protection.as required by this section is applicable to any planning action or building permit. A. Tree Protection Plan Required. 1. A Tree Protection Plan approved by the Staff Advisor shall be required prior to conducting any development activities including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation, or demolition work on a property or site, which requires a planning action or bUilding permit. 2. In order to obtain approval of a Tree P~otection Plan; an applicant shall submit a plan to the City, which cleady depicts all trees to be preserved and/or removed on the site. The plan must be drawn to scale and include the following: a. Location, species, and diameter of each tree on site and within 15 feet of the site; b. Location of the drip line of each tree; c. Location of existing and proposed roads, water, sanitary and storm sewer, irrigation, and other utility lines/facilities and easements; Rndings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Acaon 2003-118 o 3 zoo Page 8 City of Ashland, Oregon d. Location of dry wells, drain lines and soakage trenches; e. Location of proposed and existing structures; f. Grade change or cut and fill during or after construction; g. Existing and proposed impervious sUrfaces; h. Identification of a contact person and/or arbodst who will be responsible for implementing and maintaining the approved tree protection plan; and i. Location and type of tree protection measures to be installed per AMC 18.61.230. For development requiring a planning action, the Tree Preservation Plan shall include an inventory of all trees on site, their health or hazard condition, and recommendations for treatment for each tree. B. Tree Protection Measures Required. Except as otherwise determined by the Staff Advisor, all required tree protection measures set forth in this section shall be instituted prior to any development activities, including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation or demolition work, and shall be removed only after completion of all construction activity, including landscaping and irrigation installation. Chain link fencing, a minimum of six feet tall with steel posts placed no farther than ten feet apart, shall be installed at the edge of the tree protection zone or dripline, whichever is greater, and at the boundary of any open space tracts, ripadan areas, or conservation easements that abut the parcel being developed. 3. The fencing Shall be flush with the initial undisturbed grade. Approved signs shall be attached to the chain link fencing stating that inside the fencing is a tree protection zone, not to be 'disturbed unless prior approval has been obtained from the Staff Advisor for the project. No construction activity shall Occur within the tree protection zone, including, but not limited to dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste items, equipment, or perked vehicles. : The tree protection zone shall remain free of chemically injurious materials and liquids such as paints, thinners, cleaning solutions, petroleum products, and concrete or dry wall excess, construction debris, or m-off. 7. No excavation, trenching, grading, root pruning or other activity shall occur within the tree protection zone unless approved by the Staff Advisor. Inspection. The applicant shall not proceed with any construction activity, except installation of erosion COntrol measures, until the City has inspected and approved the installation of the required tree protection measures and a building and/or grading permit has been issued by the City. Findings of Fact and ConclusiOns of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 page 9 City of Ashland, Oregon IV FINDINGS OF FACT The Hearings Board reaches the following facts and finds them to be tree with respect to this matter: A. SUBJECT PROPERTY Property Description; Acreage; Ownership: The subject property is described in the records of the Jackson County Assessor as Tax Lots 7200 and 7400 (39-1E-09BC). Tax Lot 7200 is 0.09 acres and Tax Lot 7400 is 0.88 acre. Applicant proposes to adjust the boundary common to both parcels. There is a pending application to adjust the parcel boundaries. This project concerns the proposed adjusted Tax Lot 7200. After the boundary adjustment, Tax Lot 7200 will have 0.52 acre (22,661 square feet). The property is owned by Sidney B. De Boer, Trustee FBO the Sidney B. DeBoer Trust. Comprehensive Plan Map Designation and Zoning: The subject property is designated Single Family Residential on the comprehensive plan map. The property is zoned R-1- 7.5. 3. Standard Yard Requirements: The following yard requirements are the mioimum setbacks for structures within the R-1-7.5 zoning district: · 15-feet front yard excluding the garage · 6-feet side yard · 10-feet rear yard with an additional ten feet for each story in excess of the first story · C_mrages, accessed from the front, shall have a minimum setback of 20 feet from the front property line2 A lot line adjustment has been proposed between adjacent Tax Lots 7200 and 7400. All. plans in connection with this application assume approval of the proposed lot line adjustment(and the reconfigured Tax Lot 7200) and the Board refers to this land interchangeably as "the property," the "subject property" or .the "reconfigured subject property." The Board finds that the adjusted parcels comply with all relevant provisions of the ALUO. The proposed dwelling will be 19 feet from the front property line on Glenview Street, 44 feet from the rear prOperty line on Vista Street, 63 feet from the west property line and 17 feet from the east property line? The existing garage presently meets 2 The garage on the subject property (adjusted Tax Lot 7200) will take access from the rear of the property off Glenview Drive. 3 The front yard of the subject property is the portion of Tax Lot 7200 which fronts upon Glenview Drive. The rear yard is the portion of Tax Lot 7200 which fronts on Vista Drive. Rndings of Fact. and Conclusi°ns of Law g ,R 0 3 Z004 Page 10 ......... III I .... City of Ashland, Oregon e the yard/setback requirements of the ALUO and will comply following the proposed lot line adjustment. See, Record p. 165. Building Height: The maximum building height within the R-1-7.5 zone is thirty-five (35) feet or two and one-half (2½) stories in height, whichever is less. The proposed residence has a gable roof. ALUO 18.08.290 defines height of buildings, as it pertains to the proposed structure, as the vertical distance from the grade to the average height of the highest gable. The average height of the highest gable is 35-feet above grade. See, Record p. 164. As to number of stories, applicants contend and the plans show that the proposed dwelling has 2-½ stories above the planned basement (which is not a story pursuant to the term definition of "basement" and "grade" in ALUO 18.08.740 and 18.08.280, respectively). Existing Land Use: Tax Lot 7200 is presently developed with a single-family dwelling. A lot line adjustment has been proposed between Tax Lot 7200 and 7400. The lot line adjustment can be approved because the resulting parcels comply with all relevant substantive provisions of the ALUO. Tax Lot 7400 is developed with a single-family residence and two accessory structures --garages. If the lot line adjustment is approved, the property boundary will be relocated so that one single-family residence and the existing 576 square foot garage will be located on Tax Lot 7400 and the existing 3,618 square foot two,story garage and the proposed single-family dwelling will be located on Tax Lot 7200. Applicants plans show the property in its adjusted configuration. Nature of the Proposed Use: The proposed development will require the demolition of the existing single-family residence on what is now Tax Lot 7200 to allow for the construction of the proposed single-family residence. The city has approved a Demolition Permit for this single-family residence, prOposed development will include a residence with basement and three additional levels, one of which is an attic, a swimming pool and conservatory. ® Lot Coverage and Structure Square Footage: Maximum lot coverage within the R.-1- 7.5 zone is forty-five (45) percent. Based upon the prOposed lot line adjustment between Tax Lots 7400 and 7200, the adjusted Tax Lot 7200 will have 22,661 square feet. The proposed dwelling and other site features (which together comprise lot coverage under the ALUO) will be 10,171 square feet-- 44.9 percent See, Record p. 169. Special Considerations: The subject prOperty is identified on the Physical Constraints map as Hillside Lands and has areas where the slope exceeds 25 percent. The subject prOperty is within a Residential HistoriC District. 9. Timeline for Development: See, Record p. 254 10. Building Envelope: Various standards in the ALUO require the delineation of a building envelope and the same is shown on the plan at Record p. 169 wherein it is called the "Setback Line." Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law . Ash~.nd Ptar.~ At, on 2oo~-~8 0 3 ZOO4' Page 11 C~ of Ashland. Oregon B. HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL LANDS The following findings of fact relate to the designation of the property as Hillside Residential Lands pursuant to ALUO 18.62.080: Protected Hillside Areas: Pursuant to ALUO 18.62.050(C)(1) the reeonfigured subject property is included on the Physical Constraints Overlay Map. As established in Record p. 253 and 255, the subject property has an original average slope of 28 percent. Portions of the reconfignred subject property have slopes which are greater and less than 25 percent. Portions of the property with slopes of 25 percent or greater are shown on Record p. 163 and 253 and these are the areas of the property subject to the special regulations for hillside protection. Slope: The proposed development will occur on that portion of the property which has 22 to 30 percent slopes. Based upon Record p. 255, a letter from applicants registered land surveyor, Hoffbuhr & Associates, Inc., the average slope of the subject property is 28 percenL. 3. Driveway: Based upon Record p. 165 and 253 the driveway to serve the new dwelling is on terrain which has a grade of less than 35 percent. e Grading, Fill and Erosion Control: Grading and erosion control has been designed by applicants liecosed Geotechnieal Engineer in Record p.. 223-248 (Site Evaluation and Geotechnical Engineering Report). Record p. 223-248 established the geotechnical parameters for design with respect to grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans, which was used by applicants civil engineers, Hardey & Associates, Inc. to prepare the civil engineering plans for this project. As demonstrated by applicants plans -- Record p. 164 -- the potential for erosion has been mitigated through the planned installation of retaining walls which will mlnlm|?e the erosion of solid matter, in the disturbed m-eas onthe site. Carading cuts have been limited to only the extent needed to 'accommodate the proposed dwelling and protected to the extent possible to protect the area from erosion. Se Cuts: The only cuts to be made on the pwperty are those necessary to accommodate the dwelling footprint and driveway. Cuts for the dwelling will be retained by its foundation walls. Cuts for the driveway are pwposed to be retained by engineered masonry walls. The materials in which the cuts will be made are established in Record p. 223-248. On portions of the property where terracing is proposed, no ten'aced section exceeds a height of five feet nor separated by more than three feet. The total maximum vertical height of the cut slopes is not greater than fifteen feet. See, Record p. 163 and 164. All cut slope termc~ are intended to be landscaped with plant materials which are suitable and appropriate for the stabilization of cut banks. The planting plan for this pwperty was developed by Kerry KenCafim, applicants Landscape Architect, licensed in Oregon. See, Record p. 195-197. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland ptmuting At,on 2003-i18 0 3 2004 p~ 19 ....... 111 l ' - - City of Ashland, Oregon e ® Se Retention in Natural State: The subject site -- the reconfigured parcel after the proposed lot line adjustment- will be 22,661 square feet or 0.52 acres in size. Based upon Record p. 255, the average slope of the reconfigured parcel is 28 percent. See, Record p. 255. Pursuant to ALUO 18.62.080(I3)(3) this property is to have $$ percent of its area retained in a natural state. Both existing parcels (proposed to be reconfigured) have been previously developed with dwellings and accessory garage structures. As such, this property has no undisturbed areas. However, the ALUO defines the term "natural state" to mean: Natural State - all land and water that remains undeveloped and undisturbed. This means that grading, excavating, filling and/or the construction of roadways, driveways, parking areas, and structures are prohibited. Incidental minor grading for hiking trniis, bicycle paths, picnic areas and planting and landscaping which is in nddition to and enhances the nntural environment is permitted. Incidental brush removal for lot maintenance and ecosystem health is permitted. Further, vegetation removal for the purposes of wildfire control in conjunction with an approved fire prevention and · control plan shall also be permitted. Based upon Record p. 163-222 plans, 55 percent of the recomfigured subject property will be left undeveloped and devoted to landscaping and other non-structural site improvements. Revegetation: Revegetation of the subject property is proposed pursuant to the Record p. 195-197 Landscape Plans and the same are consistent with the requirements for revegetafion as set forth in ALUO 18.62.080(B)(4Xe). Public Facilities, Services and Utilities: The subject property is served with the following public facilities, services and utilities: a. Water: There is an existing 6'inch water line within the fight, of-way of Glenview Drive and Vista Street along the south and northeast frontages of the subject property. b. Sanitary Sewer: Glenview Drive subject property. There is an existing 6-inch sewer linc within thc fight-of-way of and Vista Street along the south and northeast frontages of the c. Transportation/Access: The adjusted subject property fronts upon Vista Street and Glenview Drive. Actual aCCess to the property is from Glenview Drive. de Electricity.; Natural Gas: According to representatives for the City of Ashland Electric Department, the existing residence presently receives electric power and power will be available for the proposed residence. Electric power will be used for cooling and lighting of proposed residence. Heat for the dwelling will be supplied by natural gas. e. Urban Storm Drainage: An 8-inch underground storm drain exists at the intersection of Vista Street nnd Glenview Drive. Rndings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Plannleg Actk.12003-118 Page 13 City of Ashland, Oregon De e ® SOLAR ACCESS: The proposed dwelling observes the solar access standards of the City of Ashland and the same is evidenced by Record p. 165. TREE PROTECTION; REMOVAL; REPLACEMENT Tree Removal Permit: Single-family residential zones which are occupied by a single- family detached dwelling and their associated accessory structures, are .exempt from the requirement to obtain a tree removal permit. However, lands subject to the Physical and Environmental Consltaints ordinance arc further regulated by Chapter 18.62 and 18.61.200. Tree Removal: The removal of trees from the reconfigured property falls under four categories as follows: Trees Already Removed within Protected HilLqide Areas: Based upon a misunderstanding shared by applicants and the AsMand Planning Department, applicants removed five trees within the Protected Hillside Area. See, p. 16 Hearings Board Transcript of November 12, 2003 Public Hearing. Applicants propose to mitigate the removal of these trees by agreeing to stipulate to planting 10 trees within a public location to be determined by the Ashland Tree Commission. See, Section VI. b. Trees Already Removed which are not Regulated: Applicants removed two trees on that portion of the subject property which is not within the Protected Hillside Area~ c. Trees to be Removed within Protected Hillside Areas: As sh°wn on Record p. 197, two additional trees are proposed to be removed within the protected area~ de Trees to.be Removed which are not regulated. As shown on Record p. 197, seven additional trees are proposed to be removed within the non-protected pprtion of the reconfigured subject property. Tree Protection: Applicants licensed landscape architect has proposed the methods by which existing trees (to be preserved) will be protected and the same is shown on Record p. 197..The methods of trees protection are consistent with the requirements for pwtection as set forth in ALUO' 18.62.08003)(4). Tree Replacement: In addition to the .ten trees applicants have agreed to supply for planting on public lands located elsewhere: 1) the 6-inch caliper Incense Cedar (Calocedrus decurrens) will be replaced (on-site) with a 10-foot tall Deodar Cedar (Cedrus deodara), and 2) the 12-inch Ponderosa Pine (Pinus ponderosa) will be replaced (on-site) with a 2-inch caliper Japanese Pagoda Tree (Sophorajaponica). Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 d-zq 0 3 ZOO4 Pnge 14 ............ Ill I City of Ashland, Oregon E. TREE PROTECTION; REMOVAL; REPLACEMENT Pursuant to ALUO 18.62.090, the Hearings Board finds that the reconfigured subject property is included on the Physical Constraints Overlay Map as Wildfire Lands. F. SURROUNDING IMPACT AREA The Hearings Board finds that the surrounding impact area is defined as that area entitled to notice of this application. The notice area is an area which is 200 feet from-the boundaries of the subject property. V CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Hearings Board reaches the following conclusions of law and ultimate conclusions under each of the relevant substantive criteria. The conclusions of law are preceded by the criterion or criteria to which they relate and are supported by findings of fact as set forth in Section IV herein above and by the evidence enumerated in Section II: The Hearings Board reaches the following conclusions of law for each of the relevant substantive criteria. In setting forth its conclusions of law for this application, the Hearings Board observes that there are a great many standards and approval criteria, many of which are related. The Board has not attempted to identify all of the linkages among, the standards and criteria, although in Some instances, it has explicitly incorporated by reference and adopted the Conclusions of law for one criterion and applied the same to another.-.The Board's intention, however, and it so hereby declares, is that the COnclusions of law for each criterion is incorporated and adopted for all of the other individual criteria. Additionally, while this /toeument refers to each of the standards and criteria as Criterion 1 through Criterion 30, in fact, only Criterion 1 thro~ 3 function as actual approval criteria; those labeled as Criterion 4 through 30 are development standards. The approval criteria and standards are recited verbatim below and followed by the conclusions of law of the Hearings Board: PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Title 18) ALUO CHAPTER 62 PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL'CONSTRAINTS ALUO 18.62.040(I) Criteria for Approval. A Physical Constrains Review Permit shall be issUed by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following: Criterion I · 1. Through the applicatiOn of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 15 City of Ashland, Oregon Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concludes that the, "development standards of this chapter," are the Standards in ALUO 18.62.80. These standards address the preservation of natural areas (portions of thc-property which are in a "natural state"), erosion control and tree protection. Potential impacts to the property and nearby areas are addressed in detail below. The. Hearings Board rejects opponents' argument that applicants have improperly limited the scope of the impact analysis by limiting it to the notice area. They argue that the prominent location of the subject property requires the Board to consider impacts to the entire city. They support their argument by citing the def'mition of"impact area" found in ALUO 18.104.020 which, for purposes of conditional use permits, requires the city to consider impacts to the area immediately surrounding a use, including land within the applicable notice area and "...any lot beyond the notice area, if the heating authority finds that.it may be materially affected by the proposed use..." The Board finds the definition of "impact area" in ALUO 18.104.020 is irrelevant to this application. Since the phrase "impact area" is defmed, it would have been easy for the City Council, in adopting ALUO 18.62, to use that phrase and "import" its defined meaning into the Physical and Environmental Constraints Review process. That the city did not do so is evidence that the expanded definition of "impact area" for conditionally permitted uses was not intended to apply to eases such as this. Applicants' proposed use is one permitted outright in the zone, subject only to physical and Environmental Constraints Review. Tiffs distinguishes the application from those ALUO 18.104 uses which may only be conditiOnally permitted in city zoning districts and which may require an expanded impact area analysis. While the Board finds and concludes the phrase "impact area" as defined in ALUO 18.104 is nOt releVant to ALUO 18.62 applications, ALUO 18.62.050(I) does require consideration of impacts to "...the'property and nearby areas..." In this instance, the evidence shows that all physical and environmental impacts governed by ALUO 18.62.080 or 18.62.090 will be limited to the boundaries of the subject property and do not even reach the other nearby lands which could be entitled to public notice of this proceeding. The evidence further shows that the site will be completely stabilized following construction. See, Record p. 86A. Therefore, the Board concludes that the potential impact area does not need to be expanded beyond the area entitled to notice of this proceeding; that "nearby areas'" includes and is limited to property lying within the prescribed notice area as required by ALUO 18.108.080. Opponent Swales also argues that the impacts of this project are those related to elements of "identity, aesthetic quality and visual character," all elements recited in the purpose statement for ALUO 18.62.080 which are therein set forth as follows: It is ihe purpose of the DevelOpment Standards for Hillside Lands to provide supplementary development regulations to underlying zones to ensure that development occurs in such a manner asto protect the natural and topographic character and identity of these areas, environmental resources, the aesthetic qualities and restorative value of lands, and the public health, safety, and general welfare by insuring that development does not create soil erosion, sedimentation of lower slopes, slide damage, flooding problems, and severe cutting or scarring. It is the intent of these development standards to encourage a sensitive form of development and to allow for a reasonable use that complements the natural and visual character of the city. Rndings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 16 ........ -liT W IlL City of Ashland, Oregon Opponent here attempts to bootstrap from the general language in this purpose statement, to arguments that relate to issues of visual and historical impact which the Hearings Board' concludes are not matters of consideration in this application. For reasons discussed more fully below, the Board concludes the purpose statement of ALUO Chapter 18.62.080 does not contain independent approval criteria and even if it did, the lang,~age in the purpose statement does not permit the Board to decide this application based upon elements of historic compatibility as urged by this opponent. The purpose statement in ALUO 18.62.080 deals with matters related to identity, Character and the aesthetic value of lands, but these are in the context of protecting Ashland hillsides, not its historic elements. Moreover, the Board believes it is only entitled to apply the purpose statement in resolving ambiguities in the ordinance. As the Board has concluded, the language of Criterion I is dear and unambiguous. Therefore, Mr. Swales objection here does not merit further consideration. The Board herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for below Criterion 10 which deals with portions of the property which are in a "natural state." The Board eoucludes that natural areas (as used in Criterion 1) and areas to be preserved in a "natural state" mean the same thing. From the record, the Board finds that the subject property has already been developed with dwellings, garage, driveway, a swhnmlng pool, pedestrian walkways and ornamental landscaping. As such, this application involves the redevelopment of a previously developed land. As found under Criterion 10, ail portions of this property have been "disturbed" such that no portions presently exist in a natural state. While some may argue that native trees constitute land in a natural state, the ground beneath the trees has been disturbed by gradin__g and ornamental landscaping which has been and is artificially irrigated and maintained. The Board concludes from the evidence that no portions of this property can fairly be characterized as natural areas or areas which are in a natural state; applicants cannot be made to preserve thru which does not exist. Regarding flii control of erosion, applicants have engaged qualified experts in geotechnieal and civil engineering, architecture and landscape architecture in the design of this pwject and there has been more information supplied with this application than has ever been supplied to the city in support of one single-family dwelling. The Hearings Board concludes from the evidence that all reasonable and appropriate measures have been employed and all standards 'and requirements of' the City of Ashland have been incorporated into applicants' design/development plans. The evidence also shows that, following the redevelopment of the property, all areas potentially subject to erosion will be stabiliz~ with retaining walls and plantings such that all potential impacts haVe been addressed and carefully minimiTe, d and mitigated. See, Record p. 86A and 223-248. The Hearings Board has considered the potential impacts to nearby areas, .and .concludes that this project will not produce any impacts beyond the boundaries of the subject property. With respect to tree protection, the Hearings Board concludes: While some trees on the property were removed without benefit of public review, applicants have proposed to replace these at a rate that is consistent with and exceeds thc requirements of the ALUO -- a ratio of two replacement trees for each removed tree. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of .Law ~Nand P~nr~g AcUon 2003-118 3 ZOO4 Page 17 City of Ashland, Oregon e Although some additional trees (within the regulated hillside area) are proposed to be removed, they too will be replaced at a milo of two replacement trees for each removed tree. 3. AH trees outside thc construction/development area arc protected with measures required by thc ALUO and which have been dealt with by applicants expert landscape architect. During the proceeding, opponent Colin Swales argued in Record p. 36 through 41 that several ambiguities may exist in the three approval criteria in ALUO 18.62.0400)m Criterion 1 through 3 herein-- and these should be'resolved pursuant to ALUO 18.108.160.' In support, he cites several passages of what appears to be plan text and various comprehensive plan goals and policies which deal with issues of urban forestry, visual resources and historic site~struetures. These objections have also been dealt with at the end of these conclusions of law under the heading, "Objections Deemed to be Unrelated to the Relevant Substantive Approval Criteria" and the same are herewith incorporated and adopted. The Hearings Board concludes that Criterion 1 is neither unclear nor ambiguous in ways that require the Board to interpret its provisions by relying on the comprehensive plan or purpose statements in ALUO 18.62. The examples of potential ambiguity that this opponent cites are, ,potential impacts," "nearby areas," "minimized," "mitigate," "reasonable steps," shall be considered more seriously," and "shall consider ... surrounding area., While somcof-these words and phrases (from Criterion 1-3) may not have a precise meaning when used generally, they are clear and unambiguous when used in the context of this criteria. These phrases do not require "interpretation,' they require the Board to apply the facts of this application to them. Contending the ordinance is ambiguous, Mr. Swales then argues that l~sge from the Comprehensive Plan must be consulted in order to re'solve the ambiguities, and arrive at a proper interpretation of the ordinance itself. If Board found any of the cited passages to be 4 ALUO 18.108.160 Ordinance Interpretations. A. When in the administration of the Land Use Ordinance there is doubt regarding its intent, the suitability of uses not specified or the meaning of n word or phrase, the Staff Advisor may interpret the proVision in .writing or refer the provision to the Commission for in~rpretation. The Commission shall issue an interpretation in writing to resolve the doubt. Neither the Staff Advisor's interpretation nor the Commission's shall have the effect of mending the provisions of the Land Use Ordinance. Any interpretation of the Land Use Ordinance shall be based on the following considerations: 1. The comprehensive plan; 2. The purpose and intent of the Land Use Ordinance as applied to the particular section in question; and 3. The opinion of the City Attorney. B. The interpretation of the Staff Advisor shall be forwarded to tho Commission who shall have the authority to modify tho interptol~iOlL Tho in--on of the Commission shall be forwarded to tho Council who shall have the authority to modi~ the interpretation. Whenever such an interpretation is of general public interest, copies of such interpretation shall be made available for public distribution. Pi~e 18 City of Ashland, Oregon ambiguous, nowhere does Mr. Swales explain how any of the cited plan provisions would be helpful in resolving such ambiguities and the Board concludes they would not be helpful. The plan provisions citied appear to be used to urge the Board to apply standards of historic preservation to an application that does not regard such standards. Pursuant to ORS 197.763, opponents are required to raise issues with accompanying statements or evidence that is sufficient to afford the decision maker and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue. The way this opponent has raised issues here, does not permit the Board to understand how the various cited plan provisions aid the Board in the interpretation of provisions which the Board has found are not ambiguous. During the proeexating, nearby property owners Charles and Margaret Howe, testified that during the 1996-97 flood, portions of the roadside fill slid off the roadbed of decomposed granite causing the fill to backup against one of their buildings on tax lot 6300. "The flooding was caused by a plugged storm drain at Vista and Hillcrest. This.came at a time when two houses across Vista to the south were raised and fill added to. reach a new level and contour." Mr. and Mrs. Howe express their concern as a question, inquiring if there is more fill on thesubject property, will there be any changes in the movement of underground water? During the public hearing, Ashland Planning Department's Mark Knox observed that during the 1997 flood, "there were failures everywhere in town." The Board can find no tangible connection between the slippage of roadside fill well below the subject property (and during a major flood event) and the constiuetion of this dwelling, given that the expert evidence from applicants geotechnical engineer has clearly established that the subject property will be completely stabilized at~er the dwelling is completed. See, Record p. 86A. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 1. Criterion 2 2, That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concludes that applicants have evidenced their consideration of the potential hazards (that this development might create) in the conduct of detailed geotechnieal investigations. The Hearings Board also concludes that applicants have properly evidenced the implementation of mitigation measures by incorporating the geotechnical investigations into the architectural, engineering and landscape plans of record and in the stipulations applicants agreed to in tendering this application. At ReCOrd p. 21, opponent Colin Swales contended that the application did not show volumes' of cut and fill, whether .any material will be imported to or exported from the site or the nature/type of material to be used. Mr. Swales further argued that the fill to be used for lawn will be retained only with a rubble wall, putting owners below the wall in danger of liquefaction of the fill material during flood conditions. On these objections, the Hearings Board concludes: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning A~Jon 2003-118 ,iL 2..? 0 3 2004 Page 19 City of Ashland, Oregon There is no requirement under the ALUO to show volumes of cut and fill or whether material will be imported or exported from the site, and this opponent cites nothing to support his position. As to rubble retaining walls, applicant's agent testified at Record p. 5 that applicants have not proposed rubble retaining walls. Applicants agent further testified there that in the geotechnical report by applicants expert geotecimical engineer, some of the retaining walls are recommended to be "rockeries" (stacked rock walls with drainage provisions) and these are to face stable slopes and protect them from erosion or sloughing. There are other rookeries intended as part of applicants ornamental landscaping and these are effective in preventing erosion or sloughing. Other portions of the site are to be retained with engineered structural reining walls, including the wall used to retain the lawn area. As to the potential for liquefaction, there is nothing in Ashland's comprehensive plan nor the ALUO that suggests liquefaction poses any threat in Ashland and this opponent cites nothing to support his contention that liquefaction is a hazard. The Board further concludes that this property is not subject to flooding as no streams exist in the area. The record shows that applicants engaged qualified civil, structural and geotechnical engineers, architects and landscape architects to design this project. The Board concludes from the evidence that applicant's consultants are all qualified experts and that this project has been designed and engineered in ways which ensure that all applicable requirements of the ALUO's Physical and Environmental Constraints chapter were been appropriately addressed, including the potential effects of drainage, erosion and sloughing. Therefore and based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board concludes that the application is consistent with Criterion 2. Criterion 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 Hearings Board shall'consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. Conclusions of Law: The potential for adverse impacts upon' the environment include, erosion and mass movement, loss of natural areas, trees and tree canopies, loss of wildlife habitat. Based upon the evidence, the Hearings Board concludes that applicants have undertaken the following reasonable steps to reduce adverse impacts upon the environment: 1. Applicants have engaged qualified' experts who have offered recommendations as to the best methods to accommodate the proposed new dwelling. Rndings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 2004 P~ge 20 City of Ashland, Oregon Applicants design professionals have incorporated all environmental mitigation recommendations into the design and construction plans for the reconfigured subject property. 3. In its consideration of this application, thc Hearings Board has examined the surrounding area and development that now exists. 4. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 3. At Record p. 21, opponent Colin Swales contended that hillside impacts from massive cutting of native significant trees is irreversible and needs to be mitigated by replanting close to the area of impact to stabilize the site and restore the gap in the tree canopy. The Hearings Board concludes that applicants agreed to the tree mitigation plan recommended by AsMand's Tree Commission which requires replanting on and off the subject property. There is nothing in thc ALUO to suggest that mitigation must occur close to the same area where trees were mistakenly removed,s Moreover, the evidence shows that following construction, this property Will be completely stabilized With vegetation, landscaping, rockeries and engineered retaining walls. See, Record p. At Record p. 69, opponent George Kramer contended that applicants too narrowly defined the surrounding area and if it was more accum~ly described, this proposal would be inconsistent With the surrounding development pattern. Mr. Kramer further argued that few if any neighborhood structtcres are as tall, large in volume or are built upon the steepest portion of a lot and that the proposed dwelling does not nestle into the neighborhood as do other dwellings and it will be visible from the valley floor and downtown. The Hearings Board concludes that the objections of this opponent, are aimed at the application of histofic/architectmal standards and criteria that simply do not apply in this instance. In his letter of November 17, 2003, this opponent argues that the application should be denied as inconsistent With the surrounding development pursuant to Criterion 3. The only basis to consider existing development of the surrounding area, is in the context of Criterion 3, and it states only that the Board must consider the 'same and the maximum permitted development under the ALUO. The Hearings Board' concludes this requires only that, in determining the adverse environmental impacts, the Board must consider existing development in the surrounding area and, for vacant or underdeveloped properties, the Board must consider the environmental impacts as. if these lands were developed to the maximum levels permitted by the ALUO. This language does not provide a basis for the Board to consider historic or architectural impacts, nor impacts of a nature not covered by the Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance -- ALUO 18.62. Opponent Kramer here urges the Board to interpret the ordinance in ways that are clearly wrong. s The record makes' clear ~hat trees which were removed on the subject property before this application was filed, were removed based upon erroneous advice from lhe Ashland Planning Department. The Hearings Board believes that applicants acted in good faith based upon advice they received from the Planning Department. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning ~ 200~-118 o 3 ooq Page 21 Oity of Ashland, Oregon During the public heating (p. 11 of Hearings Board TransCript of November 12, 2003 Public) opponent Bryan Holley, argued that he would like the Hearings Board to give the Historic Commission greater consideration since the property is within a Historic District and is a Historic Commission matter. The Hearings Board concludes that while the Historic Commission reviewed this project and tendered a recommendation to thi~ Board, the recommendation was not based upon the approval criteria for a Physical and Environmental Constraints permit. Instead, the Historic Commission based its recommendations on considerations of historic and architectural compatibility that are unrelated to the approval criteria for this application. As such, the Hearings Board accords little weight to the Historic Commission's recommendation. During the public heating (p. 11 of Hearings Board Transcript of November 12, 2003) opponent Bryan Holley also argued, sometimes were are told to stick just to the criteria but in Other cases we're told not to not stick to the criteria. As an example, Mr. Holley cited the Historic Commission's review of this application. The Hearings Board believes that Mr. Holl~y's point is that the Historic Commission did not utilize any approval criteria in its consideration of this matter. The Hearings Board finds that while the .Historic Commission might have employed the approval criteria for this application for 'a Physical and Environmental' Constraints Permit, 'it chose instead to offer only general comments concerning aspects of the project that are unrelated to the relevant substantive criteria on which this Board is required to render its decision. There are simply no historic or architectural standards or criteria applicable to this application other than those which relate to the ph~-~ic.~ ....... ' -:-'- "-- '-:"-: ~- ~ --"'~-- '--~- Also during the public hearing (p. 11 of Hearings Board Transcript of November 12, 2003 Public Hearing) opponent Holley further argued that, "since some of the important trees that might have stopped the project in its tracks were illegally removed I guess that's sort of a catch 22 then." The Hearings Board concludes that mis statement is inaccurate. The Board finds that there is no provision in the ALUO which would have either prevented the removal of the trees (mistakenly removed by applicant) or would have prevented approval of this application. During the public hearing (p. 21 of Heatings Board Transcript of November 12, 2003 Public Hearing) opponent Colin Swales argued that the cutting of native significant trees is irreversible and that the adverse impacts should be mitigated by the planting of trees near the area where the trees were cut down in order to stabilize the site and restore the gap in the tree canopy. The Hearings Board concludes that nothing in the ALUO requires trees to be replanted in the same locations as those which were mistakenly removed. Furthermore, from the evidence, the Board concludes that the trees need not be replaced in these locations in order to stabilize the site; the site will be fully stabilized after construction with the dwelling, retaining walls and landscaping proposed by applicant. See, Record p. $6A. As to restoration of the original tree canopy, there is also nothing in the ALUO which requires canopy restoration. AS we earlier concluded, the trees that applicants mistakenly removed, could have been permissibly removed under the terms of the ALUO. Findings of Fact and Conclusions °f l. sw 0 3 004 Ashland Plimning Actio~ 2003-118 Pnge 22 City of Ashland, Oregon Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 3. ALUO 18.62.080 Development Standards for Hillside Lands. Criterion 4 A. General Requirements. The following general requirements shall apply in Hillside Lands. All development shall occur on lands defined as having buildable area. Slopes greater than 35% shall be considered unbuildable except as allowed below. Variances may be granted to this requirement only as provided in section 18.62.080.H. a. Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35% shall be considered buildable for one unit. b. Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35% cannot be subdivided or partitioned. Conclusions of Law: Based upon Record p. 253 and 255 (a topographic survey of the property and letter from applicants surveyor, Hoffbuhr & Associates, Inc.) the Hearings Board concludes that the original natural average slope of this property is 28 percent. No portion of the property, in its original state, exceeded a slope of 35 percent. While this site was altered to accommodate the existing dwelling, landscaping and landscape features (including terracing) the Heatings Board concludes that the altered grades are not an appropriate consideration in this application. Ninety degree cuts made earlier to accommodate the existing dwelling, retaining walls and other built elements on this site proposed for redevelopment, are not a part of the natural topography and the Board concludes that it would be unfair and inappropriate to measure topography by using these features. Instead, the Hearings Board concludes that the original natural terrain is the appropriate measure of slope for the purpose of ascertaining compliance with the development standards for hillside lands pursuant to ALUO 18.62.080. The Heatings Board concludes that this application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 4. Also see the Hearings Board's conclusions of law for Criterion 5. During the.public hearing (p. 10 of Hearings Board Transcript of November 12, 2003 Public Hearing), opponent Colin Swales argued that the ALUO does not mention original average .slope, it only talks about is slope. The Hearings Board concludes this assertion is not correct. Average slope is addressed in ALUO 18.62.030(B) where that term is defined and again in ALUO 18.62.030(R) which defines the term "slope" and which references a diagram that illustrates how topographic mapping is to be done for the purpose of submitting a complete application. A topographic map consistent with this standard is required in ALuO 18.62.040(H)(1)0c) and the map supplied by applicants (Record p. 253) was done in conformance with this topographic mapping standard. At Record p. 22 opponent Colin Swales argued, that the submittals he had entered into the record during the public hearing (Record p. 79-83) include city survey data which indicates the proposed site has slopes of greater than 35 percent and is unbuildable and that other o ,=.ct ..a Co. ct..io., o, - 33 0 Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 ., ,~ Page 23 Ci~ of Ashl~. Oregon portions of the site are available. The Hearings Board concludes that Mr. Swales statement that he had provided city survey data, is not accurate; the city has not surveyed the subject property. This submittals in Record p. 79-83 include aerial topographic maps and .crossections based upon them. As to Mr. Swales evidence in Record p. 79-83, applicants agents argued and the city staff and Heatings Board agrees: 1. There is no dispute that this property is subject to the Hillside ordinance (ALUO ls.62.0s0). In determining the grade of property for purposes of developing land under the Hillside ~ce, the natural grade of the property must be used. This is because, for hillside lands, already developed property (proposed, as here, for redevelopment) has terraces and other built site features used to retain steep slopes, which produce grades that differ significantly from the original natural grades and otherwise make application of and · compliance with the Hillside Ordinance infeasible. However, the issue of whether to use the natural grade or existing man-made grades to determine matters Under the Hillside Ordinance is somewhat ambiguous and requires interpretation. The purpose of the Hillside Ordinance (expressed in ALUO 18.62.080) is useful in determining whether an existing built grade or natural grade should be used. The purpose of the Hillside Ordinance expressed in that section provides in pertinent part: "It is the purpose of the Development Standards for Hillside Lands to * * * protect tho natural and topographic character and identity of these areas * * * ' If the purpose of the Hillside Ordinance is to protect the natural and topographic character of hillside lands, it makes no sense to construe the ordinance in such a way as to require the protection of slopes which were artificially created by previous development. Therefore, the Hearings Board interprets the term natural grade to mean the topography and terrain before it was altered by human activity. The topographic map (containing slope crossections and calculations) supplied, by opponent Swales, contain no data to establish whether the purported grades are natural or man-made and no scale from which to establish the correctness of the measurements. The Hearings Board believes that this map was from city aerial topography flown in 1998 and, as such, is based upon existing built conditions which bear no relationship to the original natural grades. Record p.' 253 and 255, from applicants land surveyor, establish the original natural grades based upon a 1978 aerial topographic map and on-site survey Work, and are evidence of what the actual historical ground elevations and natural topographic character are or once were. The Board finds that applicants surveyor is a · qualified expert registered in Oregon with whom we are familiar. The Board believes and concludes from the evidence that Mr. Huck undertook the survey on this property, using sound and standard surveying practices and his is appropriate in form and content to enable our evaluation of this application under the approval standards and criteria. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning A~ion 2003-118 MAR 0 3 2004 Page 24 ......... III F City of Ashland, Oregon The only data appearing on opponent Swales submittals are his own and not those of a qualified expert. Based upon the evidence, including topographic surveys by applicants registered professional land surveyor, the Hearings Board COncludes applicants topographic survey work was undertaken in accordance with Ashland standards and the proposed building site 'has an average natural slope of 28 percent and is buildable. No portion of the proposed building site has slopes which equal or exceed 35 percent. See, ReCOrd p. 253 and 255. During the public hearing, Opponent Swales also submitted circa 1910 photographs of Glenview Drive (Record p. 80) near the subject property, which he argued show that the topography of the subject property does not permit the approval of this application. In rebuttal, applicants agents argued that the photograph does not show the subject property and were taken approximately one-quarter mile from the subject property on the west-facing slope above Lithia Park. Applicants agents further argued that there is a distinct difference in slope COntours between the different faces of the ridge that Glenview Drive is built on and that it would be unrea~sonable to associate the slope characteristics of two areas so distant from one another. There are also dimension lines superimposed on one of the photographs which seek to demonstrate some calculation of slope. This photograph is without scale; it is not possible to lay a ruler on a photograph and measure distance with any degree of accuracy. This is simply drawing lines in the air based upon a photograph that does not even depict the subject property, its slope or the surrounding area. The Hearings Board concludes that the photographs of Glenview Drive not at the subject property, are wholly irrelevant. Criterion 5 2. All newly created lots either by subdivision or partition shall contain a building envelope with a slope of 35% or less. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concludes that Criterion 5 is inapplicable by reason that this application does not include the creation of any new lot by subdivision or partition. While a lot boundary adjustment has been proposed, the adjustment of property boundaries is neither a subdivision nor partition because it does not result in the creation of a new land parcel. However, pursuant to Criterion 4, development on this land must occur on land having slopes of 35 percent or less. At Record p. 22 opponent Colin Swales argued that even though not created by subdivision or partition, the reconfiguration of the subject property (by lot boundary adjustment) falls under the meaning .of Criterion 5 which requires a building envelope with slopes of 35 percent or less. The Heatings Board concludes that opponent Swales misses the point; applicant is required under Criterion 4 to observe the 35 percent slope rule even though that rule does not apply under Criterion 5. However, the Hearings BOard COncluded under Criterion 4 that the proposed building site does not violate the 35 percent standard and is buildable. Rndings of Fact and Conclu$1ons.of Law '~4' ~'~ I AR 0 3 Ashland Planning Action 2005-118 , Page 25 City of Ashland, Oregon Criterion 6 3. New streets, flag drives, and driveways shall be constructed on lands of less than or equal to 35% slope with the following exceptions: a. The street is indicated on the City's Transportation Plan Map - Street Dedications. b. The portion of the street, flag drive, or driveway on land greater than 35% slope does not exceed a length of 100 feet. Conclusions of Law: The Heatings Board concludes that the driveway to serve the proposed dwelling already exists. However, the record shows that applicants intend to re-grade and resurface the driveway. The record also shows that applicants intend to use permeable grasscrete and brick for the driveway surface. At Record p. 23 opponent Colin Swales argued that the driveway is more than 100 feet long, is to be moved' from its current location and relocated to land with slopes of more than 35 percent and which produce a resulting loss of more trees. The Hearings Board agrees with applicants that opponent Swales misunderstands this standard, which merely regulates the portion of driveways which are on land with slopes more than 35 percent (and limits these portions to no more than 100 feet in length). The Board concludes from the evidence that the proposed driveway now largely exists and in no case does it (including any new sections) exceed a slope of 35 percent for more than 100 feet. As to this opponents contention that the driveway will result in more lost trees, the same is not relevant under Criterion 6. While the Hearings Board does not believe this is a "new drivewaY" under Criterion 6, the Board concludes that even so,. based upon Record p. 169, 191 and 192, no portion of the existing or altered driveway will exceed a slope of 35 percent. Therefore, the application is · consistent with Criterion 6. Criterion 7 4. Geotechnical Studies. For all applications on Hillside Lands involving subdivisions or partitions, * * * Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concludes that Criterion 7 is inapplicable by reason that this application does not involve either a subdivision or Partition. However, applicants have undertaken a detailed geotechnical study of the property, See, Record p. 225- 248. Criterion 8 B. Hillside Grading and Erosion Control. All development on lands classified as hillside shall provide plans conforming with the following items: Rndings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Ac~g~ 2003-118 Page 26 ].IL City of Ashland, Oregon All grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans for development on Hillside Lands shall be designed by a geotechnical expert. All cuts~ grading or fills shall conform to Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. Erosion control measures on the development site shall be required to minimize the solids in runoff from disturbed areas. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concludes, based upon the findings of fact in Section IV, applicants engaged a qualified geotechnical engineer conducted a geotechnical investigation which was used by applicants civil engineers in the preparation of the engineering construction plans. See, Record p. 225-248. Record p. 225-248 established the geotechnieal parameters for design with respect to grading, retaining wall' design, drainage, and erosion control plans, which was used by applicants civil engineers in the preparation of the engineering construction plans. Based upon Record p. 225-248 and Record p. 191 and 192, the Hearings Board concludes that the proposed cuts, grading and fills will conform to Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. The Hearings Board also concludes, based upon the same evidence, that erosion control measures proposed for this development site, will minimize the solids in runoff from disturbed areas. At Record p. 23 opponent Swales argued that rubble wall to retain 5 feet of additional fill is unsafe during floods. In its consideration of Criterion 2, the Heatings Board found that applicant's agent testified at Record p. 5 that applicants have not proposed rubble retaining walls. Applicants agent further testified there that in the geotechnical report by applicants expert geotechnical engineer, some of the retaining walls are recommended to be "rockeries" (stacked rock walls with drainage provisions) and these are to face stable slopes and protect them from erosion or sloughing. There are other rockeries intended as part of applicants ornamental landscaping and these are effective in preventing erosion or sloughing. Other portions of the site are to be retained with en 'gmeered structural retaining walls, including the wall used to retain the lawn area. Additional. ly and as also earlier addressed, this property is not near any stream and is not subject to flooding and there is no evidence to the contrary that is worthy of belief. Therefore and based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board concludes that this application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 8. Criterion 9 For development other than single family homes on individual lots, all grading, drainage improvements, or other land disturbances shall only occur from May 1 to October 31. Excavation shall not occur during the remaining wet months of the year. Erosion control measures shall be installed and functional by October 31. Up to 30 day modifications to the October 31 date, and 45 day modification to the May 1 date may be made by the Planning Director, based upon weather conditions and in consultation with the project geotechnical expert. The modification of dates shall be the minimum necessary, based upon evidence provided by the applicant, to accomplish the necessary project goals. Conclusions of Law: At Record p. 24 and during the public hearing, opponent Swales argued that applicants have stated their intention to .use the building as a corporate hospitality' center and they have not complied with provisions of the ALUO that govern such use. The Hearings Board concludes that the proposed use is a single family dwelling, permitted in the zone in which this property is located. 0 200 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law /~' ~ 7 Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 ~ P. age 27 City of Ashland, Oregon Opponent Swales also argued under Criterion 9, that applicants construction time frame was not received by the city until after'the public hearing, making the application incomplete and it should not have been accepted. Opponent Swales also' argued that the time frame schedule shows construction during the wet months. The Hearings Board finds that Criterion 9 has nothing to do with the use, application filing requirements or any other objection raised here by opponent Swales. The Hearings Board concludes that Criterion 9 is inapplicable by reason that this application concerns a single family home on an individual lot which is expressly exempt from this standard. Criterion Retention in natural state. On all projects on Hillside Land~ involving partitions and subdiVisions, and existing lots with an area greater than one-half acre, an area equal to 25% of the total project area, plus the percentage figure of the average slope of the total project area, shall be retained in a natural state. Lands to be retained in a natural state shall be protected from damage through the use of temporary construction fencing or the functional equivalent. For example, on a 25,000 sq. ft. lot with an average slope of 29%, 25%+29%=54% of the total lot area shall be retained in a natural state. The retention in a natural state of areas greater than the minimum percentage required here is encouraged. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concludes that the reconfigured subject property will consist of 0.52 acre. Therefore, Criterion [0 applies to this application. At Record p. 25 opponent swales argued that applicants have used the stumps of felled trees to justify the original grade by stating there are no areas in a natural state. He further contends that the hillside was in a natural state before tree removal. Opponent Swales appears to argue here that the trees which occurred on the property were native species and/or the ground beneath the trees is in a natural state. ALUO 18.62.030(N) defines the term "Natural State" to be: "All land and water that remains undeveloped and undisturbed. This means that grad'.m~ excavating, filling and/or the construction of roadways, driveways, parking areas, and structures are prohl'oited. Incidental minor grading for hiking trails, bicycle paths, picnic areas and planting and landscaping which is in addition to and enhances the natural environment is permitted. Incidental brush removal for lot maintenance and ecosystem health is permitted. Further, vegetation removal for the purposes of wildfire contwl in conjunction with an approved fire prevention and control plan shall also be permitted." Applicants argued: 1)The subject property has been developed with dwellings, garage, driveway, a swimming pool, pedestrian walkways and ornamental landscaping, 2) This application involves the redevelopment of the property, inferring that unlike during initial development of urban land (where one might reasonably expect there to be areas in a natural state), all portions of the property have been "disturbed." 3) No portions of the subject property are presently in a natural state and therefore, applicants cannot preserve what does not exist. 5 g IV]AR 0 3 2004 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 28 City of Ashland, Oregon The question before the Hearings Board under Criterion 10 and the ALUO definition of "natural state," is whether any portions of the property remain "undeveloped and undisturbed" and, therefore, are required to be. preserved in a natural state pursuant to Criterion 10. Under Criterion 10, the Hearings Board understands that it is required to determine if existing native trees (trees which occurred on this property naturally and which predate its development) are in a "natural state." The Board also finds that it should determine whether the mistakenly removed trees should have any bearing on the outcome of this proceeding pursuant to Criterion 10. As to whether existing native trees constitute land in a natural state (pursuant the definition of that term in the ALUO) the Board concludes that this land is not in a natural state because, although native trees still exist, the land beneath them has been disturbed with the installation of living and non-living ornamental landscaping and an underground artificial irrigation system. With respect to natural areas, the purpose of the Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance, is to limit and reduce alteration and encroachment upon the natural character and environment. While some of the trees on this property are native trees that predate the property's initial development, the Hearings Board concludes that the ground beneath the trees has been altered with living and non-living ornamental landscaping and irrigation system in ways that the Board cannot interpret as being undisturbed. Therefore, the Board concludes that the areas beneath the existing native trees and all other portions of the subject property have been disturbed to the point that none of the property is in a natural state pursuant to the definition of that term in the ALUO. As to whether the mistaken removal of trees has a bearing on this apPlication, the Hearings Board concludes from the evidence that applicants proceeded in removing trees with the full knowledge and approval of the Planning Department who mistakenly believed that the property was not regulated under ALUO 18.62. The Hearings Board concludes that both the Planning Department and applicants acted in good faith, albeit in error, and the Board concludes that it should not attempt to punish applicants for what it believes was an honest mistake. Moreover, applicants have set aside sufficient amounts of the property for preservation which meets the area/size requirements of Criterion 10, even though portions of the property to be "preserved" are not in a natural state because (as concluded above) no portion of the property exists in an undisturbed condition. Therefore, the Hearings Board concludes that Criterion 10 is inapplicable because no portion of the reconfigured property is presently in a natural state and therefore it cannot be retained as such. Criterion 11 4. Grading - cuts. On all cut slopes on areas classified as Hillside lands, the following standards shall apply: a. Cut slope angles shall be determined in relationship to the type of materials of which they are composed. Where the soil permits, limit the total area exposed to precipitation and erosion. Steep Rndings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2005-118 Pa~e 29 City of Ashland, Oregon cut slopes shall be retained with stacked rock, retaining walls, or functional equivalent to control erosion and provide slope stability when necessary. Where cut slopes are required to be laid back (1:1 or less steep), the slope shall be protected with erosion control getting or structural equivalent installed per manufacturers specifications, and revegetated. Exposed cut slopes, such as those for streets, driveway accesses, or yard areas, greater than seven feet in height shall be terraced. Cut faces on a terraced section shall not exceed a maximum height of five feet. Terrace widths shall be a minimum of three feet to allow for the introduction of vegetation for erosion control. Total cut slopes shall not exceed a maximum vertical height of 15 feet. (See Graphic) Revegetation of cut slope terraces shall include the provision of a planting plan, introduction to topsoil where necessary, and the use of irrigation if necessary. The vegetation used for these areas shall be native or species similar in resource value which will survive, help reduce the visual impact of the cut slope, and assist in providing long term slope stabilization. Trees, bush-type plantings and cascading vine-type plantings may be appropriate. Conclusions of Law: Based upon the findings of fact in Section IV and Record p. 164, 169, 191, 192 and 196 the Hearings Board concludes that this application is consistent with the · requirements of Criterion 11. At Record p. 25 and under Criterion 11, opponent Swales argued that removed trees must be replaced in their original locations. As earlier concluded by the Hearings Board, there is nothing in the ordinance to require removed trees to be replaced in their original locations. The Board further concludes that the methods proposed by applicant and endorsed by the Ashland Tree Commission to deal with the replanting of removed trees, produces similar resource value to the trees that were removed, is appropriate and is consistent with the ALUO. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 11. Criterion 12 Grading - fills. On all fill slopes on lands classified as Hillside Lands, the following standards shall apply: a. Fill slopes shall not exceed a total vertical height of 20 feet. The toe of the fill slope area not utilizing structural retaining shall be a minimum of six feet from the nearest property line.(Ord 2834 S6, 1998) b. Fill slopes shall be protected with an erosion control netting, blanket or functional equivalent. Netting or blankets shall only be used in conjunction with an organic mulch such as straw or wood fiber. The blanket must be applied so that it is in complete contact with the soil so that erosion does not occur beneath it. Erosion netting or blankets shall be securely anchored to the slope in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. c. Utilities. Whenever possible, utilities shall ngt be located or installed on or in fill slopes. When determined that it necessary to install utilities on fill slopes, all plans shall be designed by a geotechnical expert. d. Revegetation of fill slopes shall utilize native vegetation or vegetation similar in resource value and which will survive and stabilize the surface. Irrigation may be provided to ensure growth if Rndings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 0 3 Z004 Page 30 City of Ashland, Oregon necessary. Evidence shall be required indicating long-term viability of the proposed vegetation for the purposes of erosion control on disturbed areas. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concludes as follows: 1. Regarding Subsection a and based upon Record p. 164, no fill slopes exceed a total vertical height of 20 feet and no fill slope toes (not proposed to be retained by structural means) are six or more feet from the nearest property line. 2. Regarding Subsection b and based upon Record p. 190, all fill slopes will be protected with an erosion control netting, blanket or functional equivalent as specified by applicants civil engineer in Record p. 190. 3. Regarding Subsection c and based upon Record p. 163-222 no planned utilities are to be located or installed on or in fill slopes. Regarding Subsection d and based upon Record p. 195-197, the revegetation of fill slopes has utilized vegetation Similar in resource value to that of native vegetation and which, according to applicants expert Landscape Architect, will survive and stabilize the surface. Irrigation has been provided to all fill areas (to be landscaped) which will ensure proper growth.. At Record p. 26, opponent Swales argued that the proposed lawn is not "native 'vegetation" nor "vegetation similar in resource value" and will not stabilize the surface in the event of flood conditions. The Heatings Board concludes that Criterion 12 requires "fill slopes" to utilize native vegetation or vegetation of similar resource value. While the proposed lawn is to be placed on fill, it is not a "fill slope" 'became the lawn is to be on level terrain. The proposed lawn will simply replace an existing lawn, so it has the same resource value as the lawn it will replace. Additionally, the Board finds that turf lawn will, in fact, stabilize the surface. As to flooding, as the Board also held earlier, this property is not near any stream or watercourse and there is simply evidence that this property is subject to flooding~ 6. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings .Board 'concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 12. Criterion13 Revegetation requirements. Where required by this chapter, all required revegetation of cut and fill slopes shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of Occupancy, signature of a required survey plat, or other time as determined by the hearing authority. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be substantially established within one year of installation. Conclusions of Law: Applicants have agreed to stipulate that they will in.q~all all required revegetation of cut and fill slopes 'in accord with the ALUO and the same has been made a condition of this approval. During the proceeding, opponent Colin Swales at Record p. 26 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 MAR 0 3 2004 Page 31 City of Ashland, Oregon argued that the Board should require revegetation with native species of the tree canopy that was removed. The Board concludes: 1) There is nothing in the ordinance that requires the use of native species. 2) Applicants' landscaping plans show that ail cut and fill slopes will be revegetated and that compliance with Criterion 13 has been promised, can be met and will be ensured with the city's required approval of future plans and the carrying out of conditions attached to the approval of this application. The Board also concludes that applicants landscaping plans provide suitable and appropriate revegetafion with landscaping materials which meet ail requirements of the ALUO. Therefore, the Board concludes that this application is consistent with Criterion 13. Criterion 14 7. Maintenance, Security, and Penalties for Erosion Control Measures. Maintenance. All measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control, including but not limited to vegetative cover, rock walls, and landscaping, shall be maintained in perpetuity on all areas which have been disturbed, including public fights-of-way. The applicant shall provide evidence indicating the mechanisms in place to ensure maintenance of measures. Security. Except for individual lots existing prior to January 1, 1998, after an Erosion Control Plan is approved by the hearing authority and prior to construction~ the applicant shall provide a performance bond or other financial guarantees in the amount of 120% of the value of the erosion control measures necessary to stabilize the site. Any financial guarantee instrument proposed other than a performance bond shall be approved by the City Attorney. The financial guarantee instrument shall be in effect for a period of at least one year, and shall be released when the Planning Director and Public Works Director determine, jointly, that the site has been stabilized. All or a portion of the security retained by the City may be withheld for a period up to five years beyond the one year maintenance period if it has been determined by the City that the site has not been sufficiently stabilized against erosion. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concludes that Criterion 14 does not operate as an approvai standard, but rather establishes methods to ensure that erosion mitigation is guaranteed (in accordance with the ALUO) and faithfidly maintained, measures to which applicants have agreed to stipulate and which have been incorporated as approvai conditions. During the proceeding, opponent Colin Swales argued at Record p. 27, that erosion mitigation" caused by tree removai should be replacement of trees rather than development activity. To this objection, applicants argued and the Board agrees that this is not an objection per se, but a recommendation from this opponent that has nothing to do with the standards expressed in Criterion 14. Moreover, Criterion 14 deals with the proper maintenance 'of long-term erosion control measures and requires applicants to post apPropriate security to ensure the faithful maintenance of erosion control measures, ail of which applicants have agreed to stipulate to (and the same have been adopted as approvai conditions). The Board concludes that Criterion 14 has nothing to do with tree removai and as to tree replacement, applicants have agreed to stipulate (and the Board has required as a condition) to the tree mitigation plan recommended by Ashland's Tree Commission.. Based upon the 'foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board coficludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 14. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 4 ~ ~- Ashland Planning ~n 2003-118 0 3 004 Page 32 City of Ashland, Oregon Criterion 15 8. Site Grading. The grading of a site on Hillside Lands shall be reviewed considering the following factors: No terracing shall be allowed except for the purposes of developing a level building Pad and for providing vehicular access to the pad. Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site.(Ord 2834,S2 1998) Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site. Building pads shoUld be of minimum size to accommodate the structure and a reasonable amount of yard space. Pads for tennis courts, swimming pools and large lawns are discouraged. As much of the remaining lot area as possible should be kept in the natural state of the original slope. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concludes as follows: 1. Based upon Record p. 163-222, terracing has only been proposed to establish a level building pad and to provide appropriate vehicular access to the pad. 2. Based upon Record P. 225-248, the reconfigured subject property does not include any areas which are hazardous or unstable. Based upon Record p. 169 the building pad for this dwelling has been minimi?~xi.in size to be approximately one-quarter of the dwelling's total square footage. As such, the Hearings Board concludes that the proposed building pad is of a minimum size to accommodate the planned structure, and will produce minimal impacts to the existing site conditions. The Hearings Board also concludes, as it has above, that the reconfigured subject property does not include any portions which are in a natural state. At Record p. 28 opponent Colin Swales testified that he was unable to find evidence that prior development.on this site and at 300 Vista conformed to ALUO 18.62. He further. argued under Criterion 15, that the stability of the steep slope has been compwmised by tree removal and needs to be replanted. Mr. Swales also reiterated here his contention that the proposed building site is or was in a natural state. Applicants argued that the existing home terracing, pool construction and lawn, referred to by Mr. Swales, were installed before adoption of Ashiand's Hillside Ordinance (a part of the Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance)- ALUO 18.62.080.6 AS to this opponent's' argmnent that the steep slope should be replaced with planting, the evidence shows that this will occur. See, Exhibit Record p..195-197. Regarding the proposed building site being in a "natural state," the Board herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions law for Criterion l, 3 and 10. Above in Criterion 15, the ordinance requires (in permissive terms) that, "as much of the remaining lot area as possible should be kept.in .the natural state of the original slope." The original slope was the slope of the property before it was originally developed. Based upon the evidence, this property has 6 The Hillside Ordinance was adopted in 1997 while the dwelling and other improvements were instnlled in 1988. 0 3 2004 Asldand Planning Action 2003-118 Page 33 CityofAshland, Oregon been disturbed, is not in a natural state with respect to vegetation or topography, and is being redeveloped. Based Upon applicants plans (Record p. 163-222) and the expert evidence submitted by applicants with their application, thc Hearings Board concludes that the building pad for the dwelling has been minimized to accommodate the structure proposed and a reasonable mount of yard space. The Board also concludes that even though there are plans for a swimming pool, the same is not prohibited by the ALUO. As to the ordinance discouragement of large lawns, the Board concludes that the lawn shown in the plans is not large, nor is prohibited by the ordinance. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 15. Criterion 16 Inspections and Final Report. Prior to the acceptance of a subdivision by the City, signature of the final survey plat on partitions,, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy for individual structures, the project geotechnical, export shall provide a final report indicating that the approved grading, drainage, and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans', and that all scheduled inspections, as per 18.62.080.A.4.j were conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project. Conclusions of Law: Criterion 16 does not operate as an approval standard. Instead Criterion 16 serves to put applicants on notice that a final geotechnical report must be submitted which ensures that all approved grading, drainage and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections required .by the ALUO were conducted by applicants geotechnical expert m matters to which applicants have agreed to stipulate. See, Section VI. Criterion 17 Surface-and Groundwater Drainage. All development on Hillside Lands shall conform to the following standards: 1. All facilities for the collection of stormwater.runoff shall be required to be constructed on the site and according to the following requirements: Stormwater facilities shall include storm drain systems associated with street construction, facilities for accommodating drainage from driveways, parking areas and other impervious surfaces, and roof drainage systems. b. Stormwater facilities, when part of the overall site improvements, shall be, to the greatest extent feasible, the first improvements constructed on the development site. c. Stormwater facilities shall be designed to divert surface water away from cut faces or sloping surfaces of a fill. d. Existing natural drainage systems shall be utilized, as much as possible, in their natural state, recognizing the erosion potential from increased storm drainage. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning A~Jon 2003-118 MAR 0 3 2004 Page 34 City of Ashland, Oregon Flow-retarding devices, such as detention ponds and recharge berms, shall be used where practical to minimize increases in runoff volume and peak flow rate due to development. Each facility shall consider the needs for an emergency overflow system to safely carry any overflow water to an acceptable disposal point. Stormwater facilities shall be designed, constructed and maintained in a manner that will avoid erosion on-site and to adjacent and downstream properties. Alternate stormwater systems, such as dry well systems, detention ponds, and leach fields, shall be designed by a registered engineer or geotechnical expert and approved by the City's Public Works Department or City Building Official. Conclusions of Law: During the proceeding, opponent Colin Swales testified at Record p. 29 that "existing erosion" of Glenview Street is insufficient for thc proposed use which includes valet parking for fund-raising events). Mr. Swales further argued that the massive cutting and terracing of Glenview will not improve erosion that has caused damage to neighbors on Vista Street. The methods proposed by applicants to handle storm water, is in the engineering plans. See, Record p. 192, designed by applicants expert civil engineer. In rebuttal at Record p. 9-10, applicants agent argued, as to erosion, that the only evidence of any erosion on Glenview, is a photograph which shows some minor erosion at the intersection of Vista Drive and Glenview Street. They further argued, and the Board agrees, that Glenview (including its intersection with Vista Drive) is at a higher elevation than the subject property and, therefore, applicants project cannot produce further adverse affect in this area4. The project will not affect, positively or negatively, ewsion that may occur on Glenview at its intersection with Vista~ Applicants agents also' argued, contrary to opponent Swales' contention that there will be "massive" cutting and terracing of Glenview Street (ostensibly to accommodate the driveway) that the driveway now exists and will be stabilized with the installation of engineered retaining walls which have been designed by applicants expert strucRtml engineer. The issue of valet parking is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with surface and groundwater drainage or any other aspect of the project controlled by Criterion 17. However, during the Historic Commiasion proceeding, applicants testified that when they entertain larger groups, their invited guests will park elsewhere and be shuttled to the subject property. Based upon Record p. 192, the Hearings Board concludes that stormwater and erosion control has been accommodated in applicants plan in compliance all the requirements of Criterion.17 and the same will be ensured through the required pre-construction meeting, agreed to stipulations of applicants and other conditions attached to this approval by the Board. Regarding Criterion 17, Mr. Swales also testified during the public hearing, that access from Glenview Street is insufficient for the proposed use. On this point, the Hearings Board concludes that this objection does not go to this or any other appwval standard which governs the building of a single family dwelling on hillside regulated land or elsewhere in the city. Findings of Fact end Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 0 3 2004 Page 35 IlL .......... City of Ashland, Oregon Criterion 18 D. Tree Conservation, Protection and Removal. All development on Hiliside Lands shall conform to the following requirements: Inventory of Existing Trees. A tree survey at the same scale as the project site plan shall be prepared, which locates all trees greater than six inches d.b.h., identified by d.b.h., species, approximate extent of tree canopy. In addition, for areas proposed to be disturbed, existing tree base elevations shall be provided. Dead or diseased trees shall be identified. Groups of trees in close proximity (i.e. those within five feet of each other) may be designated as a clump of trees, with the predominant species, estimated number and average diameter indicated. All tree surveys shall have an accuracy of plus or minus two feet. The name, signature, and address of the site surveyor responsible for the accuracy of the survey shall be provided on the tree survey. Portions of the lot or project area not proposed to be disturbed by development need not be included in the inventory. Conclusions of Law: Thc inventory of existing trees is in Record p. !97. Criterion 18 is, in fact, not an approval standard, but simply operates as a filing requirement with which applicants have complied. During the proceeding, opponent Colin Swales at Record p.'29 argued under Criterion 18, that the tree inventory shows numerous regulated trees that have been removed and additional trees proposed for removal. Mr. Swales further argued that evidence he had earlier submitted, shows inaccuracies in the survey regarding trees in the fight-Of-way which are listed as unregulated (but which are regulated) and trees on slopes greater than 35 percent that are listed as being on lesser slopes. In rebuttal (Record p. 10) applicants agent argued and the Hearings Board agrees, that Criterion 18 requires an inventory of existing trees and operates as a filing requirement (which was met) and not an approval standard. The inventory (Record p. 197) does show regulated trees that wexe mistakenly removed earlier (and identifies them as such). There are no additional regulated trees to be removed at this time as part of this application. Trees within the public right-of-way are subject to a future municipal permit, which applicants are required and must obtain. Regarding alleged inaccuracies in the tree inventory (with respect to trees in the right-of-way) the inventory was based upon a professional land survey and is in all ways accurate. Based upon thc foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board concludes that the apPlication is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 18. Criterion Evaluation of Suitability for Conservation. All trees indicated on the inventory of existing trees shall also be identified as to their suitability for conservation. When required by the hearing authority, the evaluation shall be conducted by a landscape professional. Factors included in this determination shall include: a. Tree health. Healthy trees can better withstand the rigors of development than non-vigorous trees. b. Tree Structure. Trees with severe decay or substantial defects are more likely to result in damage to people and property. Rndings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 MAR 0 3 2004. Pa~e ~6 City of Ashland, Oregon c. Species. Species vary in their ability to tolerate impacts and damage to their environment. d. Potential longevity. e. Variety. A variety of native tree species and ages f. Size. Large trees provide a greater protection for erosion and shade than smaller trees. Conclusions of Law: During the proceeding, opponent Colin Swales objected at Record p. 29 that this criterion was not addressed. In rebuttal, applicants agent (Record p. 10-11) acknowledged that the submitted application package did not address Cri(etlon 19 with proposed conclusions of law. However, applicant's agent argued, the record is complete with facts and evidence sufficient to demonstrate compliance. Applicant's agent further argued that part of applicants plans Record p. 195-197 and the supporting text -- all prepared by applicants expert landscape architect -- the matters required under Criterion 19 -- were all addressed and the Hearings Board agrees. Moreover, the Hearings Board finds and concludes that Criterion 19 does not operate as an approval standard, but as a filing requirement and the same was met. Criterion 20 3. Tree Conservation in Project Design. Significant trees (2'. d.b.h, or greater conifers and 1' d.b.h, or greater broadleaf) shall be protected and incorporated into the project design whenever possible. Streets, driveways, buildings, utilities, parking areas, and other site disturbances shall be located such that the maximum number of existing treeS on the site are preserved, while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. Building envelopes shall be located and sized to preserve the maximum number of trees on site while recognizing and following the standardS for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. c. Layout of the Project site utility and grading plan shall avoid disturbance of tree protection areas~ Conclusions of Law: During the proceeding, opponent Colin Swales at Record p. 30 (and others) argued (under Criterion 20) that there are numerous trees within the "Protected Hillside Area," that the property is within Ashland's Wildfire Lands area and is a wildfire hazard, and that previous planting on this and adjacent lots is illegal under ALUO 18.68.010. At Record p. 11-12, applicants agent argued, based upon the plans at Record p. 197, that there are no significant trees to be removed within the Protected HillSide Area as a part of this project and that the maximum number of trees on the 're'COnfigured subject property and within the constrains of this project, have been.Preserved. The Hearings Board agrees with applicants agent that, based upon Record p. 197, there are no significant trees within the regulated hillside area to be removed because of this project. Despite that subsection 'a' of Criterion 20 says, "existing trees," this lang~oge is subordinate to the prefatory language in Criterion 20, which makes clear that the provisions of Criterion 20 deal only with "significant trees" -- trees 2 feet or larger d.b.h. (diameter at breast.height) or greater conifers and I foot d.b.h, or greater broadleaf. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 03 Page 37 2004 ......... 111 r~ LJ. IL ......... City of Ashland, Oregon As to 'the property being within Ashland's Wildfire Lands, the Hearings Board agrees. However, opponent's objections'under this standard suggest only that previous planting on the property was (or has grown) to be illegal under an unrelated section of. thc ALU0 which deals with fences, walls, hedges and screen planting and are irrelevant to this application. The standards for the development of wildfire lands is governed by ALUO 18.62.090:7 ALUO 18.62.090Development Standards for Wildfire Lands, B. Requirements for construction of all structures. 1. All new construction and any construction expanding the size of an existing structure, shall have a "fuel break" ns defined below. ' 2. A "fuel break" is defined ns an area which is free of dead or dying vegetation, and has native, fast-burning species sufficiently thinned so that there is no in~rloeking canopy of this type of vegetation. Where nece~uy for erosion control or aesthetic purposes, the fuel break may be planted in slow-burning species. Establishment of a fuel break does not involve stripping the ground 0f alii native vegetation. "Fuel Breaks" may include structures, and shall not limit distance between structures and residences beyond that required by other sections of this title. 3. Primary Fuel Break - A primary fuel break will be installed, maintained and shall extend a minimum of 30 feet, or to the property line, whichever is less, in all directions around structures, excluding fences, on the property. The goal within this area is to remove ground cover that will produce flame lengths in excess of one foot. Such a fuel break shall be increased by ten feet for each 10% increase in slope over 10.`4. Adjacent property owners are encouraged to cooperate on the development of primary fuel breaks. 4. Secondary Fuel Break - A secondary fuel break will be installed, maintained and shah extend a minimum of 100 feet beyond the primary fuel break where surrounding landscape is owned and under the control of the property owner during construction. The goal of the secondary fuel break is to reduce fuels so that the overall intensity of any wildf'tre is reduced through fuels control. 5. Ail slructures shall be conslruCted or re-roofed with Class B or better non-woed roof coverings, ns determined by the Oregon Structural Specialty Code. Ail re-roofing of existing structures in the W'fldfire Lands area for which at least 50*,4 of the roofing area requires re- roofing shall be done under approval of a zoning permit. No structure shah be constructed or re-roofed with wooden shingles, shakes, wood-product material or other combustible roofing material, ns defined in the City's building code. Fuel breaks in areas which nre also Erosive or Slope Failure Lands shall be included in the erosion control measures outlined in section 18.62.080. Implementation. 1. For land which have been subdivided and required to comPly with A. (6) above, all requirements of the Plan shall be complied with prior to the commencement of construction with combusU'ole materials. 2. For all other structures, the vegetation control requirements of section (B) above shall be complied with before the commencement of construction with combustible materials on the lot. (Ord. 2657, 1991) 7 ALUO 18.62.090(A) contains provisions that govern Subdivisions, Performance Standm'ds Developments, or Partitions. This application concerns none of these. ALUO 18.62.090(B) concerns the subject application. mnding$ of FaC~ and Conclusions of law ~/' ~ ~ Ashland Pt~nnlng A~km 2003.-118 Page 38 0 3 2004 City of Ashland, Oregon As. of November 1, 1994, existing residences in subdivisions developed outside of the Wildfire Lands Zone, but later included duc to amendments to the zone boundaries shall bc exempt from thc requirements of this zone, with thc cxcopfion of section 18.62.090 B.$. above. All new residences shall comply with all standards for new construction in section 18.62.090 B. 4. Subdivisions developed outside of the wildfire lands zone prior to November 1, 1994, but later included as part of the zone boundary amendment, shall not be required to prepare or implement Fire Prevention and Control Plans outlined in section 18.62.090 A. Conclusions of Law (Continued): The Hearings Board concludes that the significance of this property being within Ashland's Wildfire Lands is nil, as this property has been and will be developed as an urban homesite with irrigated ornamental landscaping. No dead or dying vegetation exists on the property nor is such vegetation/landscaping planned and the Hearings Board concludes from the evidence that the proposed landscaping for this property will not produce a fire hazard under ALUO 18.62.090. However, there are small groups of trees which technically form an "interlocking canopy." The Board concludes that these trees cam either be removed or can be thinned to comply with ALUO 18.62.090. As shown in the Record p. 179, roofing is to be concrete tile; no wooden roofing is proposed. As to previous plantings on the subject and adjacent lots, ALUO 18.68.010 is an ordinance which has nothing to do with a Physical and Environmental Constraints permit.. If some of the Vegetation that occurs on this property 'does not comply with the requirements of ALUO 18.68.010, this is a matter to be considered separately by the city as an enforcement action. However, the Hearings Board believes and it.concludes, that plantings on the property which may not conform to ALUO Chapter 18.62, in all likelihood, where planted before adoption of that ordinance in 1994. While applicants should examine these plantings to be omzin they do not violate the ordinance, the same is not relevant here. As to whether this application is consistent with the wildfire standards in ALUO 18.62.090, the Board concludes that applicants can and will comply with these standards and the pre-construction meeting · required by the ALUO and inspections of'the property which occur with the issuance of building permits, ensure that the standards in ALUO 18.62.090 are properly observed. As to opponent Swales argument that the driveway and building footprint arc located to produce the most damage to tree Protection areas, the Heatings Board concludes that the term "tree protection areas" is not a term of art in the ALUO. Thc requirement under Criterion 20 is that a maximum number of existing (significant) trees are preserved. From applicants plans and the testimony of their agents, the Hearings Board concludes that applicants have sought to design the dwelling to preserve the significant madrone trees~ located east of the dwelling. Although the driveway will cause the removal of oak trees, the record shows that these have been historically compromised by improper pnming practices and arc located within the right-of-way of Glenview Street. The matter of the existing oa_k.~ was addressed by Ashland's Tree Commission in its decision to permit the removal of these trees (subject to submittal of a tree removal permi0 and their replacement as part of the overall mitigation strategy for thc property. The replacement plan offered by applicants has been presented and accepted, although the same leaves open the possibility of further discussions regarding where best to plant the replacement trees. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law P~ge 39 Ci~ of Ashland, Oregon Also during the public hearing and in Record p. $9-63, opponent Bryan Holley argued that applicants removal of the "mixed oak and Madrone native forest" had the legal result of removing the legal co~ts of the Hillside Ordinance which would have required their home to keep the native, forested hillside intact. Mr. Holly also argued that: i'By cutting the trees, applicants prepared a no exit legal strategy for themselves that removed them flrom the stringent requirements of the Hillside Ordinance and als0 eliminated them from anything other than a mitigation discussion with the Tree Commission which reducing the Historic Commissioners to the legal'position of simply forwarding and unenforceable opinion." The Hearings Board finds that the tree conservation provisions of ALUO 18.62.080 are in SubsectiOn "D' which provide: 1. An inventory of existing trees over six inches d.b.h. (diameter at breast height). 2. An evaluation of the characteristics of inventoried trees. 3. A requirement to conserve significant trees m conifers larger than 2 feet d.b.h, and broadleaftrees larger than 1-foot d.b.h. 4. The use of certain methods to protect trees during construction. A requirement to preserve the maximum number of trees provided that. development follow the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. And when, justified by findings of fact, the Hearings Board can approve the removal of trees under one or more of five conditions. Among the five conditions are that the trees are within a building envelope, a proposed street, driveway or parking area. 6. Trees to be removed must be replaced based upon a plan. 7. Enforcement provisions. Applicants have undertaken the required inventory and assessment of trees on the property and have proposed to protect significant trees which presently exist. Within the constraints of this property and the size of the dwelling (which the Hearings Board has found should not be subject to this ordinance) and based upon applicants plans and the expert opinions of their landscape architect and the action of the Ashland Tree Commission, the Hearings Board concludes,, for ALUO 18.62.080(D)(3): Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Athl~d ~ ~ ~118 As the.Board concluded above, all provisions of 18.62.080(13), including its subsections, refer to trees are to "significant trees." Even if Subseefious 'a' and 'b' did apply to all trees (which'it does noO the Hearings Board concludes that the trees which now exist on the property have been 'incorporated into the project design whenever possible. This is evidenced by Record p. 197 which shows the planned improvements in relation to trees already removed by mistake, additional trees proposed for removal (and approved by the Ashland Tree Commission) and other trees applicants intend to preserve. The Board also takes note that provisions of ALUO 18.62.080(EX2)(b) requires (for non-historic district -fro 0 3 2004 City of Ashland, Oregon lands) that buildings be cut into hillsides to reduce effective visual bulk. While this property is within a municipal historic district (and therefore exempt from this as a requirement) the Board is sensitive to this concept as there has been much te 'stunony and evidence which go to the visual Size and bulk of this structure. The Board finds that the dwelling would appear substantially larger if placed further north where it could not be cut into the hillside. The Board also concludes from the evidence, that the dwelling itself, as .designed, will appropriately retain the slopes which occur on the site. Based upon Record p. 197 and 257, the Board also concludes that the trees to be removed are within the fight-of-way of Glenview Street and are to accommodate new portions of the driveway to be located in the fight-of-way. The Board also concludes that the proposed driveway improvements will facilitate the safe and efficient ingress and egress to the property by motor vehicles, There was testimony that the large gatherings applicants plan to host on the property will produce traffic comfliets. The Board concludes that traffic conflicts will be more safely and properly managed with the proposed driveway design because it will allow all traffic to the site to enter and leave the premises in a forward direction. The existing driveway design (which would not have necessitated the removal of trees labeled 1446 on Record p. 197) would instead have required vehicles leaving the premises to back into Glenview Street. With respect to ALUO 18.62.080(D)(3)(a) and Co) the Hearings Board also concludes that the requirement to conserve trees, it is with the expressed understanding that preservation is, "while reeo~g and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lamds." As earlier described, this property is designated as Wildfire Lands on the official maps adopted with ALUO 18.62. As earlier cited, ALUO 18.62.090 requires all new construction to have a "fuel break." That ordinance goes on to describe what a fuel break andit and requires native trees to be sufficiently thinned to prevent an interlocking canopy. As shoWn in Record p. 197, trees that were mistakenly removed had an interlocking canopy and would under any circumstances, be required to be removed or severely thinned. AS to Whether the mistaken removal of trees has a bearing on this application, the Hearings Board concludes, as it did under Criterion 10, that applicants proceeded in removing trees with the full knowledge and approval of the Planning Department; the Department inCOrrectly believed that the property was not regulated under ALUO 18.62. The Hearings Board concludes that both the Planning Department and applicants acted in good faith, albeit in error, and the Board concludes that it is not the Boards' proper role to punish applicants, espocially for what it believes was an honest mistake. Provisions for enforcing violations of ALUO 18.62.080(I)) is set forth in ALUO 18.62.0800))(7). The City of Ashland may later determine what penalties, if anY, are appropriate under the ALUO for the trees which were already removed from the property. However, as concluded above, the trees removed by mistake would likely have had to be removed ( or severely pruned) to satisfy the requirements of ALUO 18.62.090. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashl~d Planning Action 2003-118 Page 41 ......... lit ~ City of Ashland, Oregon As to ALUO 18.62.080(D)(3)(c), the Hearings Board concludes from Record p. 190-194, that the layout of the project site utility and grading plan have avoided disturbance of areas where trees are Proposed to be protected. Based upon .the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 10. Compliance is established because all the significant trees on the property have been preserved and because, if applicable, the maximum number of all trees on the reconfigured subject property (and within the constrains of this project and ALUO 18.62.090) have been protected and incorporated into'the project design whenever possible. Therefore, the Hearings Board concludes that the application is consistent with Criterion 20. Criterion 2~ -4. Tree Protection. On all properties where trees are required to be preserved during the course of development, the developer shall follow the following tree protection standards: All trees designated for conservation shall be clearly marked on the project site. Prior to the start of any clearing, stripping, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation, the applicant shall install fencing at the drip line of all trees to be preserved adjacent to or in the area to be altered. Temporary fencing shall be established at the perimeter 6f the dripline. Prior to grading or issuance of any'permits, the fences may be inspected and their location approved by the Staff Advisor. (see graphic) Construction site activities, including but not limited to parking, material storage, soil compaction and concrete washout, shall be arranged So as to prevent disturbances within tree protection' areas. No grading, stripping, comPaction, or significant change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the drip line of trees designated for conservation unless indicated on the grading plans, as approved by the City, and landscape professional. If grading or construction is approved within the ddpline, a landscape professional may be required to be present dudng grading operations, and shall have authority to require protective measures to protect the roots. Changes in soil hydrology and site drainage within tree protection areas shall be minimized. Excessive site mn-off shall be directed to appropriate storm drain facilities and away from trees designated for conservation. Should encroachment into a tree protection area occur which causes irreParable damage, as determined by a landscape professional, to trees, the project plan shall be revised to compensate for the loss. ·Under no circumstances shall the developer be relieved of responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this.chapter Conclusions of Law: During the proee~ing, .opponent Colin Swales at Record p. 31 and under Criterion 21, argued that according to the Tree Commission, the proposal will cause undue stress to the remaining Madrone trees on 300 Vista and result in the removal of other significant trees. In rebuttal, applicants agent argued in Record p. 13 that the recommendation of the Tree Commission clearly inferred, by the following languoge, that the madrone trees will be protected if the plan prepared by applicants expert landscape architect · is followed: "It is essential that the remaining madrones be protected. The tree protection plan as presented by thc Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 42 0 3 2004 City of Ashland, Oregon Landscape Architect should be fully implemented to protect these trees. And in addition a structural footing should be designed by the Architect in conjunction with the Landscape Architect that will ensure the utmost protection of the rootzone." The Hearings Board concludes that Record p. 197 con, ins a tree protection plan, prepared by applicants landscape architect, which incorporates the requirements for tree protection which are established in the above Criterion 21. Therefore, the Hearings Board concludes that this application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 21. Criterion 22 5. Tree Removal. Development shall be designed to preserve the maximum number of trees on a site. The development shall follow the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. When justified by findings of fact, the hearing authority may approve the removal of trees for one or more of the following conditions: (Ord 2834 S3, 1998) a. The tree is located within the building envelope.. b. The tree is located within a proposed street, driveway, or parking area. c. The tree is located within a water, sewer, or other public utility easement. d. The tree is determined by a landscape professional to be dead or diseased, or it constitutes an unacceptable hazard to life or property when evaluated by the standards in 18.62.080.D.2. e. The tree is located within or adjacent to areas of cuts or fills that are deemed threatening to the life of the tree, as determined by a landscape professional. Conclusions of Law: .The Hearings Board concludes that the n~.,onfi~ subject property is designated as Wildfire Lands' and has several native trees, most of which form a canopy on portions of the property. As earlier found, this project has maximized the conservation/preservation of significant Uees (and, if applicable all trees on the property) pursuant to Criterion 20. Trees to be removed are those located within the building envelope and proposed driveway and other site features (as shown on Record p. 169 and 197). The Hearings Board also herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 20. in these, the Board described the various components of Ashiand's tree protection program as set forth in ALUO 18.62.080(D). The requirements of Criterion 22 -- ALUO 18.62.080(D)(5) --.are to establish the circum.qamces under which trees can be removed. Here, the Board will concern itself with existing trees 'proposed for removal and not trees earlier removed by applicants by mistake. Criterion 22 begins by stating that, "[d]evelopment shall be designed to preserve the maximum number of trees on a site." This requirement is similar to Criterion 20 which states that "significant trees shall be protected and incorporated into the project design whenever possible. Under Criterion 20, the Board concluded that the only protected trees under that subsection are significant trees as defined. However, the Board also set'forth its conclusions of law if Criterion 20 applied to all trees on the property and these findings of fact and conclusions of law relate more closely to Criterion 22 which appears to produce something of a "double test" for the removal of trees; the first test is under Criterion 20 and the second Findings of I=act and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 43 0 3 200 - City of Ashland, Oregon under Criterion 22. However, like Criterion 20, Criterion 22 provides that, "[t]he development shall follow the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. Criterion 22 then goes on to list the circUmstances under which trees can be approved for removal, when justified by appropriate findings of fact. For the same reasons concluded under Criterion 20 that all existing trees have been protected and incorporated into the project design whenever possible, the Hearings Board concludes that this development has been designed to preserve the maximum number of trees on the subject property. The conclusions for Criterion 20 and here rely, in part, on the fact that this land is designated as Wildfire Lands and made subject to ALUO 18.62.090, which requires the establishment and maintenance of a fuel break and the same requires tree removal or thinning to prevent an interlocking canopy of native trees. The Heatings Board further concludes that the findings of fact,, and conclusions of law for Criterion 20, justify the approval by this Board for the removal of trees (pursuant to Criterion 22 subsections 'a' and 'b') which are located either within the building envelope (shown at Record p. 169 as the "setback line")for the proposed development (including the proposed swimming pool) or within the proposed driveway/parking area shown on applicants plans. See, Exhibit Record p. 196. During the proceeding, opponent Colin Swales at Record p. 31, testified under Criterion 22 that applicants landscape architect had indicated that trees were removed in anticipation of the adoption of the tree ordinance and staff admitted that if the trees had not been removed, this development would have to be denied. In ReCOrd p. 13, applicants agent acknowledged the testimony of applicants landscape architect, but argued that this is Lrrelevant.s As to this opponents contention that the city staff indicated the application would have to be denied if the trees had not been removed, applicants agents contend in Record p. 13 that this is untrue and exists as unsupported heresy. Moreover, they argued, the notion that had the trees not be removed, this application would have to be denied, is wrong as a matter of law. The Board concludes there is nothing in the ALUO that prevents the removal of trees when necessary to accommodate a homesite or driveway or to deal with the fuel break requirements for W'fldfire Lands in ALUO 18.62.090, provided sufficient findings and evidence are supplied to justify the tree removals. The Hearings Board concludes that trees proposed and approved for removal have been appropriately justified here and under Criterion 20 with appropriate facts 'and evidence. Applicants have observed all requirements for tree preservation and protection; trees that are proposed to be permissibly removed pursuant to recommendations by the Tree Commission, are being replaced in greater numbers (both on and off site) than is required by the ALUO. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 22. s The tree ordnance referred to here is in ALUO 18.61 and not the tree protection requirements in ALUO 18.62.080(1)). Rndings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Planning Action 2003-118 p~e 44 0 3 2004 City of Ashland, Oregon Criterion 23 Tree Replacement. Trees approved for removal, With the exception of trees removed because they were determined to be diseased, dead, or a hazard, shall be replaced in compliance with the following standards: a. Replacement trees shall be indicated on a tree replanting plan. The replanting plan shall include all locations for replacement trees, and shall also indicate tree planting details.(Ord 2834 S4, 1998) Replacement trees shall be planted such that the trees will in time result in canopy equal to or greater than the tree canopy present prior to development of the property. The canopy shall be designed to mitigate of the impact of paved and developed areas, reduce surface erosion and increase slope stability. Replacement tree locations shall consider impact on the wildfire prevention and control plan. The hearing authority shall have the discretion to adjust the proposed replacement tree canopy based upon site-specific evidence and testimony. Maintenance of replacement trees shall be the responsibility of the property owner. Required replacement trees shall be continuously maintained in a healthy manner. Trees that die within the first five years after initial planting must be replaced in kind, after which a new five year replacement period shall begin. Replanting must occur within 30 days of notification unless otherwise noted. (Ord 2834 S5, 1998) Conclusions of Law: Thc Hearings Board concludes as fo[lows: 1. The proposed replacement trees to be planted on the property are shown on Record p. 196. As evidenced by Record P. 196, the proposed replacement trees will, in time, result in canopy greater than the tree canopy of the existing trees to be removed. However, the trees to be replanted on the subject property are not the .only trees proposed by applicants to mitigate the removal of trees. Applicants also agreed to stipulate and the Board has required as a condition, that applicants will provide ten trees having a caliper not less than 2 inches to be planted in a public location to be determined by' the Ashland Tree Commission. These mitigation measures ensure that the tree canopy once pwvided by existing trees on the property, will be replaced. Applicants have agreed to stipulate and the Board has required as a condition, that all replacement trees will be continuously maintained in a healthy manner as part of the overall landscape. During the proceeding, opponent Colin Swales, at Record p. 32 and under Cn'terion 23 argued, that applicants landscape architect stated that. proposed use of the property precludes on-site mitigation and during the public hearing argued that the trees should be replaced from the locations they were removed. Applicants argued in Record p. 13 that the evidence shows that appropriate tree mitigation is being accommodated on-site, additional off-site tree mitigation has been agreed to and Ashland's Tree Commission has accepted the mitigation plan proposed by applicants. Nothing in the ALUO requires trees to be replaced on the same property from which the original trees were removed or at their original locations. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashtand Ptann~g Act~12003-118 Page 45 City of Ashland, oregon Based upon thc foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, thc Heatings Board concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 23. Criterion 24 7. Enforcement a. All tree removal shall be done in accord with the approved tree removal and replacement plan. No trees designated for conservation shall be removed without prior approval of the City of Ashland. Should the developer or developer's agent remove or destroy any tree that has been designated for conservation, the developer may be fined up to three times the current appraised value of the replacement trees and cost of replacement or up to three times the current market value, as established by a professional arborist, whichever is greater. Should the developer or developer's agent damage any tree that has been designated foi' protection and conservation, the developer shall be penalized $50.00 per scar. If necessary, a professional arborisfs report, prepared at the developer's expense, may be required to determine the extent of the damage. Should the damage result in loss of appraised value greater than determined above, the higher of the two values shall he used. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concludes that Criterion 24 does not operate as an approval standard, but instead functions to put property owners on notice of the city's requirements for the removal of or damage to replacement trees. During the proceeding, there was much testimony and evidence on the matter of trees mistakenly removed earlier by applicants. Colin Swales argued at Record p. 32 that applicants did not appraise the value of the mistakenly removed trees and the city has not determined culpability or penalties. Also during the public hearing, Bryan Holley argued the project should be denied and applicants should be required to resubmit a new proposal and this proced~ would allow the city's legal counsel to consider what fines should be imposed for the removal of the trees and what mitigation should be required. The Hearings Board concludes that Criterion 24 provides that no designated trees can be. removed without prior approval of the City :of Ashland. Made clear by the testimony of Ashland Plonnlng Department representative, Mark Knox, during the public hearing (and at Record p. 256, a narrative by applicants landscape architect) is that he had made an honest mistake in advising applicants that the trees could be removed. Simply stated, Mr. Knox's authorization, mistakenly or not, was approval by the city. Moreover, Criterion 24 does not require the city to appraise the value of removed trees nor. assess fmcs, it only provides that fmcs may be levied. To date, the city has not elected to impose fines and appropriate mitigation for the removed nv, es has been recommended by Ashland's Tree Commission and applicants have agree to stipulate to these recommendations and the same have been made conditions of this approval. Rndings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 gAR 0 3 2004- Page 46 City of Ashland, Oregon Criterion 25 E. Building Location and Design Standards. All buildings and buildable areas proposed for Hillside Lands shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following standards * * * Conclusions of Law: While opponent Colin Swales seemed to argue at Record p. 33 and during thc public, hearing that thc extended provisions of Criterion 25 w ALUO 18.62.080(E) -- apply, Hearings Board concludes otherwise. Made clear by subsections 1 and 2 of ALUO 18.62.080(E) is that these regulations apply, in the case of Subsection 1, only to, "newly created lots, either by subdivision or partition," and, in thc case of Subsection 2, do not apply to lands within thc designated Historic District. Criterion 25 is inapplicable by reason that the subject property is not a new lot created by either subdivision or partition and because the subject property, is within a designated Historic DistricL However, based upon the evidence before it, the Hearings Board concludes that applicants design and engineering does observe every standard in Criterion 25. Criterion 26 All structures on Hillside Lands shall have foundations which have been designed by an engineer or architect with demonstrable geotechnical design experience. A designer, as defined, shall not complete working drawings without having foundations designed by an engineer. Conclusions of Law: Thc Hearings Board concludes that the foundation for this dwelling · was designed by applicants expert structural engineer, based upon thc recommendations of applicants expert geotechnical engineer in compliance with Criterion 26. Criterion 27 Go All newly created lots or lots modified by a lot line adjustment must include a building envelope on all lots that contains a buildable area less than 35% slope of sufficient size to accommodate the uses permitted in the underlying zone, unless the division or lot line adjustment is for open space or conservation purposes. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 4. Based upon these, thc findings of fact in Section W and Record p. 253 and 255, no portion of the reconfigured property or land within the building envelope (shown at Record p. 169 as thc (setback linc") ex~eds a slope of 35 percent. Therefore, thc Hearings Board concludes that this application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 27. Opponent Colin Swales at Record p. 33 renews his objections concerning slope and its measurement here. Thc Board again here reaff'~ its conclusions in Criterion 4 and .finds again that the survey work performed by applicants surveyor is appropriate in form, content and methodology. Mr. Swales also argued at Record p. 33 and. during the public hearing, that the submitted topographic map (the Hearings Board believes Mr. Swales is referring to Record p. 253) falls to give a complete survey of the original slope of the southwest comer of the lot. On this Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ' 57 MAR Page 47 .......... -'--I[] 1~ City of Ashland, Oregon point, the Hearings Board concludes that no detailed survey of this portion of the site is necessary, as it includes only land devoted to the existing garage and driveway, both elements that are intended to remain on the property after construction of this project. This portion of thc property also includes the existing dwelling (planned to be removed) and in which no new construction is proposed. However, other drawings prepared by applicants architects and others show the topographic contours in this area of the site. ,gee, 'Record p. 163 for example. The testimony of applicants surveyor is in Record p. 253 and 255 and appears on pages 14 and 15 of the public hearing transcript. This evidence establishes by the expert work of applicants surveyor, that average original slope of the ground at the proposed building site is 28 percent. Record p. 253 is the survey map showing historic natural slopes within-the building envelop area. The building envelope is shown on Record p. 169 and the same is called the "setback line" on this plan. This evidence shows that no part of the building envelope 'has slopes greater than 35 percent. The Board concludes that proposed dwelling can be accommodated within the building envelope in accord with the ALUO. Like applicants, the Heatings Board cannot understand Mr. Swales objections related to trees and stumps. The Hearings Board concludes that the method and content of the topographic survey was done in accordance with the standard practices of professional land surveyors. This opponent cites no evidence to call into question the professional work done by applicants surveyor, Darrell Huck. Furthermore, there is no evidence, 'even if a six-inch difference existed, that it would invalidate Mr. Huck's work. Based upon thc foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board concludes that the application is consistent in all respects, with thc requirements of Criterion 27. TREE PRESERVATION & PROTECTION ALUO 18.61.200 Tree Protection Tree Protection as required by this section is applicable to any planning action or building permit. Criterion 28 A. Tree Protection Plan Required. A Tree Protection Plan approved by the Staff Advisor shall be required prior to conducting any development activities including, but not limited' to clearing, grading, excavation, or demolition work on a property or site, which requires a planning action or building permit. In order to obtain approval of a Tree Protection Plan; an applicant shall submit a plan to the City, which cleady depicts all trees to be preserved and/or removed on the site. The plan must be drawn to scale and include the following: a. Location, species, and diameter of each tree on site and within 15 feet of the site; b. Location of the drip line of each tree; 0 3 2.O04 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland PtanNng Actk)n 2003-118 Page 46 City of Ashland, Oregon c. Locatio.n of existing and proposed roads, water, sanitary and storm sewer, irrigation, and other utility lines/facilities and easements; d. Location of dry wells, drain lines and soakage trenches; e. Location of proposed and existing structures; f. Grade change or cut and fill during or after construction; g. Existing and proposed impervious surfaces; h. Identification of a contact person and/or arborist who will be responsible for implementing and maintaining the approved tree protection plan; and i. Location and type of tree protection measures to be installed per AMC 18.61.230. 3. For development requiting a planning action, the Tree Preservation Plan shall include an inventory of all trees on site, their health or hazard condition, and recommendations for treatment for each tree. Conclusions of Law: Criterion 28 does not function as an approval standard, but instead 'enumerates the requirements for tree inventory and protection plan which have been submitted with this application pursuant to this standard and similar standards in ALUO 18.62.080(D). However, the Hearings Board herewith incorporates and adopt,5, its findings of' fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 4. During the proceeding, opponent Colin' Swales at Record p. 34 and under CriteriOn 28 argued that landscape architect's drawings show contour lines at variance with the existing topography as shown on the city's (lIS map which Mr. Swales submitted during the public hearing (Record p. 79). In rebuttal, applicants agents explained, and the Hearings Board agrees, that applicants landscape' architect used the contour lines which were established by applicants land surveyor and which, as earlier described, are substantially more accurate than those shown on Ashland's (3IS map (which were derived by aerial topographic mapping). 'The 'Hearings Board concludes that this application was submitted with information and evidence which satisfies the requirements of Criterion 28. Criterion 29 Tree Protection Measures Required. 1. Except as otherwise determined by the Staff Advisor, all required tree protection measures set forth in this section shall be instituted prior to any development activities, including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation or demolition work, and shalt be removed only after completion of all construction activity, including landscaping and irrigation installation. Chain link fencing, a minimum of six feet tall with steel posts placed no'farther than ten feet apart, shall be installed at the edge of the tree protection zone or dripline, whichever is greater, and at the boundary of any open space tracts, ripadan areas, or conservation easements that abut the parcel being developed. The fencing shall be flush with the initial undisturbed grade. MAR 0 3 2004 Findings of Fact ,nd Conclusions of law ~' ~ ? Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 49 City of Ashland, Oregon 5o Approved signs shall be attached to the chain link fencing stating that inSide the fencing is a tree protectiOn zone, not to be disturbed unless prior approval has been obtained from the Staff Advisor for the project. No construction activity shall occur within the tree protection zone, including, but not limited to dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste items, equipment, or parked vehicles. The tree protection zone shall remain free of chemically injurious materials and liquids such as paints, thinners, cleaning solutions, petroleum products, and concrete or dry wall excess, construction debris, or m-off. 7. No excavation, trenching, grading, root pruning or other activity shall occur within the tree protection zone unless approved by the Staff Advisor. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concludes that the various protection measures set forth in Criterion 29 are not approval standards, but standards to be observed during construction to ensure that trees to be preserved are adequately protected. These measures have been incorporated into aPplicants plans and the same is evidenced by Record p. 197. During the proceeding Colin Swales reiterated his argument (addressed earlier under Criterion 21) that the proposed dwelling poses a severe risk to the long-term survival of the remaining large Madrone trees. While the Hearings Board finds the objection here to be' irrelevant, the BOard herewith incorporates its findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 21, which demonstrates that adequate measures have been employed to protect the madrone trees. Moreover, applicants are required by the ALUO (and herewith adopted approval conditions) to have a pre-construction meeting with city officials to go over the terms of construction, These steps ensure compliance with Criterion 29 and other substantive requirements of the ALUO. While this opponent is entitled to express his vieWs as to the future health and well-being of certain trees, the Board is without evidence that qualifies this opponent .as an expert in matters of landscaping and horticulture and the Board' concludes that he is not. The Board concludes that this application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 29. Criterion 30 C. Inspection. The applicant shall not proceed with any construction activity, except installation of erosion control measures, until the City has inspected and approved the installation of the required tree Protection measures and a building and/or grading permit has been issued by the City. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concludes that like Criterion 29, Criterion 30 does not operate as an approval standard, but instead simply states as law, that no applicant may proceed with construction prior to approval of tree protection measures and issuance of a building and/or grading permit. To this, applicants have agreed stipulate and the Board has imposed the same as a condition of this aPproval. Opponent Colin Swales at Record p. 35 and under Criterion 30 argues that applicants prOceeded too early with comm~ction activity by preemptively removing regulated trees. On this point, the Hearings Board concludes that it has no enforcement authority, although the city, if it chose, could seek to impose penalties based upon applicants and the planning department's mutual error. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 50 City of Ashland, Oregon OBJECTIONS DEEMED TO BE UNRELATED TO THE RELEVANT SUBSTANTIVE APPROVAL CRITERIA Objection: Colin Swales at Record p. 3640 argued that applicants did not address the purpose statement in ALUO 18.62.080. Additionally, the last six pages of this opponents submittal regards interpretation of the ALUO generally. Although the Hearings Board has difficulty understanding the points attempting to be made, they appear to'be arguments which urge the Board: 1. Pursuant to ALUO 18.108.160, to use thc comprehensive plan to interpret ambiguous provisions of the ALUO. 2. To consider numerous passages, goals and policies of the comprehensive plan to support opponents contentious that the Board should cousider adverse impacts to Ashland's viewshed, that trees, vegetation and historic resources are important assets, and that the purpose statements for ALUO Chapter 18.62 and 18.62.080 should operate as approval standards. Conclusions of Law: The Board concludes that opponent Swales submitted excerpts from the City's compreheusive pian its goals, policies and various provisious of the ALUO, including the "Purpose and Intent" provisious of the Physical and Environmental Constraints chapter (18.62.010) and the "Purpose" statement from the development standards for hillside lands (18.62.080). Applicants agents argued and the Board agrees, that it is well settled Oregon law, that generally worded statements of purpose and intent that express the motivation for adopting a regulation, or the general goals or policies that the local government hopes to achieve by adopting regulation, do not operate as approval criteria. Bennett v. City of Dallas, 17 Or. LUBA 450, 456, a2Fd 96 Or. App. 645 (1989); Stotter v. City of Eugene, 18 Or. LUBA 135, 157 (1989); Beck v. City of Tillamook 20 Or. LUBA 178 (1990), a.t~Fd 105 Or. App. 276 (1991), reversed on other grounds 313 Or. 148 (1992). Wlffle the stated purpose and intent of an ordinance my assist in interpreting ambiguous provisions, the purpose and intent of an ordinance does not operate as an independent approval standard. None of the policies, goals or Purpose and intent statements cited by this opponent purport to apply an independent approval standard. They are generally worded expressious oft he overall goals the City is hoping to achieve. They express only a general purpose; they do not impose any ~ative obligation or set forth any identifiable standards that could act as criteria for approval. Freeland v. City of Bend, ~ Or. LUBe4 __ (LUBe4 No. 2003- 59, August $, 2003). When a purpose statement of policy does not act as an independent approval standard, the City should ignore evidence that the proposal before it does not comply with' that purpose statement. Beck, 20 Or. LUBA 178; Moorefield v. City of Corvallis, 18 Or. LUB.4 95, 119 (1989). The only approval criteria relevant to this application are found in ALUO 18.62.040(I) .t-t MAR 0 3 2004 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 200.t-118 Page 51 City of,~hland, Oregon subsections (1), (2) and (3). This opponent attempts to create ambiguity in these criteria by extracting individual words or phrases, such as "mi~imiTed", "potential impacts", or "nearby areas", and then asserts that these individual words or phrases, standing alone, "might be" examples of ambiguity. The opponent does not even attempt to state an actual ambiguity. He merely theorizes that there "might be" an ambiguity if words or phrases are lffied out of their context and considered without reference to the overall ordinance. Applicants contend and the Hearings Board agrees, that when the approval criteria for this application are read in context, there is no ambiguity. Applicants experts have testified that, with application of sound engineering standards and adherence to the conditions of approval, all potential adverse impacts or hazards on both the subject property and in all nearby areas will be eliminated. There will be no adverse impacts to the environment either on or off the site. In his written arguments, opponent Colin Swales contends applicants have failed to address all relevant approval criteria. Specifically, he contcnds certain words and phrases in ALUO 18.62.040(I) are, or might be, ambiguous. He then argues that, consistent with ALUO 15.108.160, the Board should resolve such ambiguities by referring to various sections of the Comprehensive Plan as well as the Purpose Statement of Chapter. 18.62, Physical and Environmental Constraints Review. The Board finds that the phrases "potential impacts," "potential baT~rds," and "adverse impacts on the environment" as used .in ALUO 18.62.0400) are not ambiguous. ALUO Chapter 18.62 is a comprehensive chapter of the ordinance requiring applicants for certain uses to address sp~ified natural features and conditions occurring upon land and any impacts the development may have on the environment. The requirements of Chapter 18.62 are exacting and exhaustive, and the Board finds no support for the suggestion that the lengthy list of features, conditions and environmental facts is incomplete, ambiguous, or requiring construction in any way. ASsuming, without deciding, the words and phrases cited by Mr. Swales are ambiguous and require construction by resort to the Comprehensive Plan or other ordinance provisions, Mr. Swales has not cited any provision of the Comprehensive Plan with which ALUO 18.62 is in conflict, nor has hc directed the Board to any pmvisious of the Comprehensive Plan which, either because of the text or context, .indicate they were intended to function as approval criteria for Physical and Environmental Constraints Review. Determining whether particular plan provisions are approval criteria applicable to land use permit decisions depends on the language and context of the particular plan provisions and land use regulations. It is not sufficient for oPponents of a land use permit to quote random language from the Comprehensive Plan, then argue that applicants for a land use permit must construct arguments showing the intent of the language is met by a particular application. Rather, it must appear from relevant plan and ordinance language that the city intended something more in the way of review in this ease, beyond addressing the provisions of Chapter 18.62 is necessary in order to'obtain a land use permit. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law AlhlmM Planning ,*~k)n 2003-118 ~ of Ashland, Oregon In this 'ease, Mr. Swales conten& Goal 9 of the Comprehensive Plan clement entitled Urban Forestry should be considered as an approval criterion. He also relies on Plan language in the. clement dealing with Historic Sites and Structures. Goal 9 of the Urban Forestry clement simply requires all new residential development to be "...designed and landscaped to a high standard to complement the proposed site and surrounding area." The Board finds the language of Urban Forestry Goal 9 adds nothing to the specific requirements contained in ALUO 18.62. Moreover, rather than explaining any ambiguity in the Physical and Environmental Constraints Review process, resorting to the Plan language would actually cloud the process because it begs the question "what is meant by "high standard" and "complement?" The same is true with respect to Plan language in the Historic Sites and Structures element. The Board finds the provisions cited by Mr. Swales do not clarify any ambiguity in ALUO ~18.62, but simply reflect the aspirations of the City to identify and protect important historic sites and structures. In this case, the manner in which that protection is afforded is through application of the specific review requirements of ALUO 18.62 m not by attempting to transpose general Plan lang~sge into approval criteria. Put differently, the Board finds ALUO Chapter 18.62 contains the specific procedt~s and development standards necessary to assist in the implementation of both the Urban Forestry and Historic Sites and Structures elements of the Comprehensive Plan. No responsive findings are required when plan goals and policies are expressed not as regulatory requirements, but as aspirational objectives. Ellison v. Clackamas County, 28 Or LUBA 521,525 (1995); Wissusik v. Yamhill County, 20 Or LUBA 246, 254-55. (1990); McCoy v. Tillamook County, 14 Or LUBA 108, 118 (1985). The Board therefore finds and concludes that applicants, having addressed the specific requirements of ALUO 18.62, have complied with all relevant approval criteria. Objection: During the public hearing, opponent Colin Swales, testified regarding the removal of trees that are within the public fight-of-way, stating: "which is also on hillside constrained lands which seems to me should also be subject to a the hillside constraints permit seeing as 25 feet of this land which is going to be developed actually sits in a public right of way." Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board finds it difficult to understand this objection, but believes that Mr. Swales is arguing that the removal of trees within the public right-of-way should not be exempt from the standards of ALUO 18.62.080(D) which govern tree conservation and removal. The Board concludes that this application seeks approval for the removal of trees, including those within thc public fight-of-way of Glenview Street, and the same were addressed appropriately above. Additionally, the Board is aware that the city will be required to grantits consent to removal of three trees within the right-of-way. However, this Board lacks authority to grant such approval and the same is not required for the Board to act on this application, including the removal of trees pursuant to ALUO 18.62.0800)). Objection: Durifig thc public hearing, opponent Colin Swales, testified that paving surrounding the home which is on the National Registry, will be replaced with non-historic 2004 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning .axtion 2003-118 Page 53 Gity of Ashland, Oregon type paving in order to comply with the lot coverage requirements.9 Mr. Swales further argued that the removal of some impermeable paving which surrounds the historic home to make the lot coverage requirement, is a major modification to the National Registry Historic property. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concludes neither objection goes to any of the relevant substantive approval criteria. Objection: During the public hearing and in emall correspondence with city officials, opponent Colin Swales and Bryan Holley both argued that "the application was incomplete due to unfair restrictions made on the public obtaining copies of submittal." Conclusions of Law: In rebuttal, applicants agents argued and the Hearings Board agrees, that during the proceeding, applicants acknowledged.that their architect had placed copyright protections on copies of the plans submitted with this application. It was further explained that' reason for the copyright protection is because applicants plans were detailed working drawings, not simply design drawings and that it is customary for architects to copyright working draWings. When this opponent asked for copies of the plans, the city attorney. advised the Planning Department that federal copyright rules override ORS i 97.763. Upon being notified.of this issue, applicants' attorney took immediate steps to have the copyright protection lifted so that all opponents could obtain copies of the plans. Applicants' architect authorized release of the plans on November 3, 2003 (nine days prior to the public hearing). See, Record p. 116. The delay of a short few days did not prejudice the substantial rights of opponents because: 1) the plans were available for inspection at city offices even during the period that no copies were provided, and 2) opponents (and other parties) were afforded an additional seven-day period to submit new evidence and argument into the record. Objection: During the proceeding, Bryan Holley at Record'p. 59 argued that this matter shOuld be referred to the full Planning Commi~ion because of the publicity it has received. Conclusions of Law: Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 2.14.040 states: "The Hearings Board or Staff Advisor may refer any matter before the Board or Advisor to the planning Commission when it becomes apparent that the matter involves major policy concern or potential serious impacts on surrounding areas." Applicants agents argued in rebuttal and the Hearings Board agrees that this is an application for a land use permit to build one single-family dwelling under Ashland's Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance, for land Subject to steep slopes and wildfu'es. R is not a matter that involves major policy concerns. Moreover, the evidence shows that all physical and environmental constraints are limited to the subject property and that the site will be fully stabilized aRer the dwelling is built. See, Record p. 86A. While this application may be important to some, it is not a major policy issue nor one that will produce serious (or any) 9 Psving proposed by applicants are paver blocks, the centers of wMch are hollow to accommodate ground cover and provide permeability for drainage. MAR Findings O! Fact and Conclu,lon$ of law ~o ~ Page S4 0 3 2004 City of Ashland, Oregon impact upon thc surrounding area. Therefore, the Board has elected to retain its jurisdiction over this matter. Objection: During the proceeding, Bryan Holley at Record p. 60 argued that the Planning Commission should follow the Historic Commission's recommendation to deny this application. Conclusions of Law: The Board concludes that all parties seem to agree that-review of this application by the Historic Commission was not based upon the criteria the Historic Commission typically applies. In fact, the Historic Commission acknowledged in its action that it was not operating under any approval criteria and made no effort to apply the city's hillside development standards. The Hearings Board concludes that it should and will not be bound by a rec°mmendation not based upon the application of any decisional standards or criteria. Objection: During the proceeding .George Kramer at Record p. 69 argued that thc proposal exploits Ashland's regulations by seeking the maximum levels possible under the various applicable standards. Conclusions of Law: Applicant argued in rebuttal that this objection is nonsensical because a city's standards cannot be exploited by observing them. Objection: During the proceeding George Kramer at Record p. 70 argued that thc application should be denied because does not provide any community benefit whatsoever and applicamts should not be given beneficial interpretation, of the ordinance unless they can prove the same is appropriate. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concludes that community benefit is not an approval standard for thc application and permits being sought. The Board also concludes that appropriateness, as urged by this opponent, should be given weight only in context of the rules of construction which the Hearings Board believes it has observed in its consideration of this application. Objection: During the proceeding George Krarner at Record p. 70 argued that rejecting this application is consistent with the community's Ix/st interest and can be accomplished under · the Hillside Ordinance as in effect at the time of submittal. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concludes that a determination of what is in the community's best'interest is a matter of opinion and not a relevant substantive approval criterion. Whether this application might be denied under thc Ashland's Hillside Ordinance is irrelevant if the application, with the imposition of conditions, can be approved. The Hearings Board is required by law to approve an application if it can thorough the imposition of conditions. The Board has found that if it imposes reasonable conditions, along with thc stipulations of applicants, this application can and does meet all of Ashland's standards, and should be approved. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law A ~ - ~ ~ /~l~md ~ Action 2003-118 0 3 2004' Page 55 ......... lit I City of Ashland, Oregon Objection: Durhag the proceeding, Bill Street at Record p. 64-65 argued that applicants should honor the intent and purpose of the Hillside Ordinance by restoring the trees removed from their property and by resubmitting their plans and building their house in the historically appropriate location of the two Vista Street houses they demolished previously. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board agrees with applicants that this objection does not go to any approval criteria and is irrelevant. The Board also concludes that these and any applicants are entitled by law to a decision based on the standards and criteria ~hat existed on the date a complete application was first received. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board has concluded that this application is consistent with the applicable criteria and standards. ObjectiOn: During the proceeding, an opponent submitted an informational article (Record p. $7). Conclusions of Law: The article is not an objection per se, but an account of a landslide event called, "The Abeffan Disaster" that occurred in South Wales in 1966. This event concerned a landslide of mining waste in South Wales. The Hearings Board concludes that this piece of evidence has no relevance to this application. Objection: During the proceeding, an opponent submitted a photo (Record p. 56) taken fxom Ashland downtown towards the subject property. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concludes that this photograph is also not an objection per se, but simply a photo tha~ allegedly depicts the proposed dwOlling. The Board concludes that this photograph appears as an attempt to document historic/architectural issues and the same are not relevant. Objection: During the proceeding, an opponent placed into evidence, emall correspondence from one of the applicants (Karen DeBoer) to "peareer~ashiand.or.us and the same is at Record p. 68. Condnsions of Law: The Hearings Board concludes that this is also not an objection per se, but an ernall communication from Karen DeBoer that expresses her fondness of trees and affront at being told what she can and cannot do with trees in her own garden. The Board finds that this email correspondence exists as an honest expression of applicant Karen DeBoer's opinions at that time and is not relevant to this application. Objection: During the proceeding, an opponent placed into evidence at Record p. 52, a letter dated November 12, 1997 from Robert Taber to then Mayor Golden and City Council. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board again finds that this is not an objection per se, but a 1997 letter that supported adoption of Ashland's Hillside Ordinance. The Board concludes that the letter is irrelevant to this application. Hndings.of Fact .nd Conclusions of law eAR 0 3 2004 Page City of Ashland, Oregon Objection: During the proceeding, an opponent placed into evidence at Record p. 49 and 50, a timeline containing the various meetings that led to adoption of Ashland's Hillside Ordinance and a Table of Contents which.appears to be a list of exhibits for 1997 Hillside Ordinance adoption.. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board again finds these not to be objection per se, but public information regarding the consideration and ultimate adoption Ashland's Hillside Ordinance- ALUO 18.62.080. The Board concludes that these are irrelevant to this application. VI CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL In addition to conditions recommended by the Planning Department in Record p. 2-3 which the Heatings Board herewith incorporates and adopts, the Heatings Board also incorporates and adopts as conditions attached to this approval, the following stipulations agreed to by applicants: Stipulation 1. Applicants will construct the proposed dwelling and other site. improvements in accordance with the approved plans, as amended by reasonable conditions imposed by the Hearings Board. Stipulation 2. Where required by this chapter, all required revegetation of cut and fill slopes shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, signature of a required survey plat, or other time as determined by the hearing authority. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be,, substantially established within one year of installation. Revegetation 18. 62. 080(a) (6) Stipulation 3. Applicants will 'be continuously mointain all replacement trees in a healthy manner as part of the overall landscape of the project area. Stipulation 4. ApPlicants will not proceed with any construction activity, except installation of erosion control measures, until the City has inspected and approved the installation of the required tree protection measures and a building and/or grading permit has been issued by the City. Stipulation 5. Applicants will perpetually maintain all measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control, including vegetative cover, rock walls, landscaping, 'and all areas which have been disturbed, including public rights-of-way. Stipulation 6. Following approval of the Erosion Control Plan by the city (and prior to construction) applicants will provide a performance bond or other financial Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 A- o7 0 3 20D4 Page 57 City of Ashland. Oregon guarantees in thc amount of 120% of thc value of the erosion COntrol measures necessary to stabilize thc site. Stipulation 7. Before issuance of a certificate of occupancy, applicants gcotcclmical expert will prOvide a final., report which indicates that the approved grading, drainage, and erOsion COntrol measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections, as per ALUO 18.62.080(AX4)(j) were COnducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project. Stipulation 8, Applicants will provide ten trees having a caliper not less than 2 inches to be planted in a public location to be determined by thc Ashland Tree Commission. Stipulation 9. Applicants will install all required revegetation of em and fill slopes and the same will occur before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. VII ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and COnclusions of law, thc Hearings Board COncludes that the application is COnsistent with thc requirements of ALUO 18.62.080 and 18.62.090 and all related standards with respect to development on regulated hillside and ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law UAR 0 3 2004 P~ge 58 ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM December 9th, 2003 PLANNING ACTION: 2003-118 APPLICANT: Sidney and Karen DeBoer LOCATION: 265 Glenview Drive; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 09BC; Tax Lot #: 7200 ZONE DESIGNATION: R-1-7.5 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.28 18.62 R-1-7.5 Physical & Environmental Constraints Permit - Hillside Development REQUEST: A request for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Permit to construct a single family residential home on Hillside Lands within a Historic District. I. Relevant Facts 1) Background - History of Application: The application was originally approved as a Staff Permit by the Planning Staff on October 10~, 2003. During the lime of the 1 O-day public notice period, three neighbors appealed staff' s decision and requested a public hearing. One of the neighbors subsequently withdrew their appeal request. On November 12, 2003, a Public Hearing was held by the Planning Commission's Hearings Board. At the meeting the Planning Staffgave a verbal Staff Report on the application to the Board, the Board listened to testimony by the.applicants and their representatives, listened to neighbors and citizens in support of the application and listened to neighbors and citizens not in support of the application. After'the public testimony period was closed, a citizen requested the Hearings Board leave the record open for an additional seven days in order for the public to submit additional "written" testimony. In response to the request, the Hearings Board also agreed to leave the record open an additional seven days (14 days total) in order for "written" rebuttal by the Applicants. The additional written testimony and the applicant's rebuttal are attached and are considered part of the Planning Action record. PA2003-1 ! 8 Page I ........... IlT I II. Conclusions and Recommendations: After heating the testimony presented at the November 12th, 2003 meeting and reviewing the additional information submitted by the opponents and the applicants rebuttal information, staff still supports the original approval and conditions granted on October 104, 2003. The additional evidence submitted in opposition of this application is essentially based on two issues: l) Compatibility with neighborhood and 2) The physical ability of the site to accommodate the house. In addition, there were a number of comments or issues brought up that do not speak to the criteria. It is staff's contention the applicants have thoroughly addressed the criteria for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Pemfit and have thoroughly responded to the additional information submitted by the opposition. Staff concurs with the applicants' findings of fact and recommends the Hearings Board move to approve the application with the following conditions: 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That a Geoteehnical Expert be retained until the project is completed and a final Certificate of Occupancy is issued. 3) That prior to final Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall present to the staff advisor a copy of the Geotechnical Expert's Inspection Schedule. Such inspection schedule shall identify the Geotechnical Expert's final approval for all measurers noted in the Geotechnical Engineering Report. 4) That all recommendations listed in the Amrhein Associates Geologic Evaluation and Geoteehnical Engineering Report (July 204, 2003) be implemented during the construction of the home. Such recommendations will need to be identified in the final Geotechnical Expert's Inspection Schedule. 5) That prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant, Geoteehnical Expert, Building Official and Planning Staff Advisor meet on site in order to review the City's Hillside Development requirements. 6) That prior to final Certificate of Occupancy, the mitigation proposal for the replacement trees as noted in the applicants' findings Shall be met. 7) That all proposed construction work within the Glenview Drive right-of-way be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Engineering Department. 8) That an~encroachment permit be obtained from the Ashland Engineering Department for the existing fence along Glenview Drive. PA2003-118 Page 2 9) That a separate Physical & Environmental Constraints Permit be approved for the removal of the trees by the future pool house (Trees//9-13). PA2003-118 Page 3 U Lll CRAIG A. STONE & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Consultants in Urban Planning and Development 708 Cardley Avenue · Medford, Oregon 97504-6124 Telephone: (541) 779-0569 · Fax: (541) 779-0114 · E-mail: cstone~cstoneassociates.com November 25, 2003 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD c/o Ashland Planning Department 51 Winbum Way Ashland, OR 97520 RE: FINAL REBUTTAL Planning Action 2003-118 Sidney and Karen DeBoer: Applicants Dear Hearings Board: Following the close of public testimony at the November 11, 2003 public hearing on the above captioned matter, the Hearings Board ("Board") left the record open for seven days for all parties and for an additional seven days thereafter, to receive final rebuttal from applicants Sidney and Karen DeBoer. This letter constitutes applicants final rebuttal. During the initial seven-day period the record was left open, the following additional testimony and evidence was received by the city: 1. Opponent Colin Swales Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 2. Letter to John McLaughlin from Bryan Holley, dated November 18, 2003 3. Letter to Russ Chapman from George Kramer, dated November 17, 2003 4. Email correspondence between Colin Swales and Ashland city officials 5. Email correspondence between JBStreet and Ashland's Mark Knox, dated November 18, 2003 6. Interact description of event called, "The Aberfan Disaster" 7. Photo taken from Ashland downtown towards the subject property 8. Email from Karen DeBoer to "pearcer@ashland.or.us 9. Letter from Robert Taber to Mayor Golden and City Council dated November 12, 1997 10. Timeline of Hillside Development Standards Ordinance Adoption (1996-1997) 11. Table of Contents which appears to be list of exhibits for 1997 Hillside adoption Ordinance The above matters are dealt with individually below in a format that cites each opponent objection, followed by applicants rebuttal. 'RECEIVED NOV 2 $ 2003 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board November 25, 2003 Applicants Rebuttal: i. Opponent Colin Swales Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Note: This document contains apparent verbatim recitations of the standards and approval criteria from applicants proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, followed by this opponent's objections and follows applicants numbering of the criteria (Criterion 1, Criterion 2, etc.). Objection: (Criterion 1) The impact area is larger than the notice area cited by applicants and should (pursuant to ALUO 18.104.020) include any lot beyond the notice area if the hearings authority finds that it may be materially affected by the proposed use. This opponent further argues that the impact area is larger because, since the subject property is at a prominent elevated location in the Historic District and based upon the opinion of the Historic Commission, the dwelling will adversely affect the, "identify, aesthetic quality and visual character of the City." Rebuttal: Opponent's objection is based upon language in the purpose statement for ALUO 18.62.080 (Development Standards for Hillside Lands). The purpose statement does not contain independent standards or approval criteria. If the Board believes the physical and environmental impacts of this proposal go beyond the notice area, it is entitled to expand this area. However, the evidence, including the testimony of applicants expert geotechnical engineer, is that all physical and environmental impacts are limited to the boundaries of the subject property and do not even reach the other nearby lands entitled to public notice of this proceeding. The evidence further shows that the site will be completely stabilized following construction. Opponent here simply attempts to bootstrap from a purpose statement, to arguments that relate to issues of visual and historical impact. Applicant has made no attempt to address these types of issues because they are irrelevant and nothing in the purpose statement makes them relevant. Objection: (Criterion 2) The application does not show volumes of cut and fill, whether any material will be imported to or exported from the site or the nature/type of material to be used. The fill to be used for lawn will be retained only with a rubble wall, putting owners below the wall in danger of liquefaction of the fill material during flood conditions. Rebuttal: There is no requirement under the ALUO to show volumes of cut and fill or whether material will be imported or exported from the site, and this opponent cites nothing to support his position. Applicant intends no rubble retaining walls. However, in the geoteehnieal report by applicants expert geotechnical engineer, some of the retaining walls are recommended to be "rockeries" (stacked rock walls with drainage provisions) and these are to face stable slopes and protect them from erosion or sloughing. There are other rockeries intended as part of applicants ornamental landscaping and these are effective in preventing erosion or sloughing. Other portions of the site are to be retained with engineered structural retaining walls, including the wall used to retain the lawn area. As to the potential for liquefaction, there is nothing in Ashland's comprehensive plan nor the ALUO that suggests Applic. ants Final Rebut~al for Planning A~ion 2003-118 ~- ~ ~ ~ Page2ofl6 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board November 25, 2003 liquefaction poses any threat in Ashland and this opponent cites nothing to support his contention that liquefaction is a hazard. Moreover, this property is not subject to flooding as no streams exist in the area. The record shows that applicants have engaged qualified civil, structural and geotechnical engineers, and landscape architects to design this project to ensure that all requirement of Ashland's Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance have been appropriately addressed, including the potential effects of drainage, erosion and sloughing. Objection: (Criterion 3) Hillside impacts from massive cutting of native significant trees is irreversible and needs to be mitigated by replanting close to the area of impact to stabilize the site and restore the gap in the tree canopy. Rebuttal: Applicants have agreed to the mitigation plan recommended by Ashland's Tree Commission which requires replanting on and off the subject property. There is nothing to suggest that mitigation must occur close to the same area where trees were mistakenly removed. Moreover, the evidence shows that following construction, this property will be completely stabilized with vegetation, landscaping, rookeries and engineered retaining walls. Objection: (Criterion 4) Opponents earlier submittals show city survey data that indicates the proposed site has slopes of greater than 35 percent and is unbuildable. Other portions of the site are available. Rebuttal: The statement that this opponent's earlier submittal shows city survey data, is inaccurate. The city has not surveyed the subject property. Opponents submittals include aerial topographic maps which all people involved in the planning and building professions know, is unreliable as to accuracy. In particular, this opponent submitted an aerial topographic map with slope calculations. As to this piece of evidence: 1. There is no dispute that the subject property is subject to the Hillside ordinance (^LUO 18.62.080). Applicants contend and Ashland's municipal staff agree, that in determining the grade of property for purposes of the Hillside Ordinance, the natural grade of the property must be used. This is because, for hillside lands, already developed property (proposed for redevelopment) has terraces and other built site features used to retain steep slopes, which produce grades that differ significantly from the original natural grades and otherwise make application of and compliance with the Hillside Ordinance infeasible. The issue of whether to use of the natural grade or existing man-made topography, to determine matters under the Hillside Ordinance, requires interpretation. The purpose of the Hillside Ordinance (expressed in ALUO 18.62.080) is useful in determining whether an existing built grade or natural grade should be used. The purpose of the Hillside Ordinance expressed in that section provides in pertinent part: "It is the purpose of the Development Standards for Hillside Lands to * * * protect the natural and topographic character and identity of these areas * * *" Applicants Final Rebuttal fro' Planning Aotion 2003-118 NOV 2 5 2OO3 Page 3 of 16 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board November 25, 2003 If the purpose of the Hillside Ordinance is to protect the natural and topographic character of hillside lands, it makes no sense to construe the ordinance in such a way as to require the protection of slopes which were artificially created. The topographic map (containing slope crossections and calculations) supplied by this opponent, contain no date to establish whether the purported grades are natural or man-made and no scale from which to establish the correctness of the measurements. Applicants believe that this map was from city aerial topography flown in 1998 and, as such, is based upon existing built conditions which bear no relationship to the original natural grades. Exhibits 5 and 7, from applicants land surveyor, establish the original natural grades based upon a 1978 aerial topographic map and the stumps of trees which provide evidence of what the actual historical ground elevations were. The only data appearing on this opponents submittals are his own and not those of a qualified expert. Design professionals know that if you want accurate topographic information, you engage a licensed land surveyor to ascertain them. Based upon the evidence already of record, including topographic surveys by applicants registered professional land surveyor, Darrell Huck, the proposed building site has an average natural slope of 28 percent and is buildable. See, Applicants Exhibits 5 and 7. This opponent also submitted photographs of Glenview Drive (circa 1910). These photographs do not show the subject property. In fact, they were taken approximately one- quarter mile from the subject property on the west-facing slope above Lithia Park. There is a distinct difference in slope contours between the different faces of the ridge that Glenview Drive is built on. It is unreasonable to associate the slope characteristics of two areas so distant from one another. These photographs have no more relevance to this application than would a photograph of Mount Hood. There are also dimension lines superimposed on one of the photographs which purports to demonstrate some calculation of slope. This photograph is without scale; it is not possible to lay a ruler on a photograph and measure distance with any degree of accuracy. This is simply drawing lines in the air based upon a photograph that does not even depict the subject property, its slope or the surrounding area. Objection: (Criterion 5) Even though not created by subdivision or partition, the reconfiguration of the subject property falls under the meaning of Criterion 5 which requires a building envelope with slopes of 35 percent or less. Rebuttal: Criterion 5 applies only to lots newly created by subdivision or partition. This criterion does not apply because the subject property is not to be newly created by way of either a subdivision or partition; a lot boundary adjustment is neither a subdivision or partition. Moreover, the average slope of the building site is 28 percent according to applicants surveyor. See, Exhibit 7. Objection: (Criterion 6) The driveway is more than 100 feet long, is moved from its current position and relocated to land with slopes of more than 35 percent with a resulting loss of more trees. R C !VED Applicants Final Rebu~al fo~ Planning A~ion 2003-118 Page 4 of 16 .......... II1 I Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board November 25, 2003 Rebuttal: This opponent misunderstands and misstates the applicable standard, which merely regulates the portion of driveways which are on land which has slopes greater than 35 percent and limits these portions to no more than 100 feet in length. The proposed driveway, largely now exists and in no case does it (including any new sections) exceed a slope of 35 percent for more than 100 feet. As to opponents contention that the driveway will result in more lost trees, this is irrelevant under Criterion 6. Objection: (Criterion 8) The rubble wall to retain 5 feet of additional fill 'is unsafe during floods. Rebuttal: As earlier addressed, this property is not near any stream and is not subject to flooding and there is no evidence to the contrary that is worthy of belief. Objection: (Criterion 9) Applicant has stated that the building will be used as a corporate hospitality center but has not complied with provisions of the ALUO that govern such use. Applicants time frame (for construction) was not received by the city until after the public hearing, making the application incomplete. The application should not have been accepted if incomplete. The construction schedule shows construction during the wet months. Rebuttal: Criterion 9 is inapplicable by reason that this application concerns a single family home on an individual lot which is expressly exempt from this standard. Criterion 9 has nothing to do with the use, application filing requirements or any other objection raised by opponent here. Objection: (Criterion 10) Applicants have used the stumps of felled trees to justify the original grade by stating there are no areas in a natural state. Opponent contends the hillside was in a natural state before tree removal. Rebuttal: This opponents objection does not go to the requirements of Criterion 10 and is, therefore, irrelevant. Opponent appears to argue that this property was in a natural state before the recent mistaken removal of trees. The premise here is wrong because, pursuant to the definition of "natural state" in ALUO 18.62.030(N), lands in a natural state are those which are undeveloped and undisturbed. As earlier observed, the subject property has been developed with dwellings, garage, driveway, a swimming pool, pedestrian walkways and ornamental landscaping, all of which have altered this property from its "natural state" according to the ALUO. The evidence shows that applicants have observed the requirements of Criterion 10 by setting aside sufficient land within the property to meet its requirements, subject to the ALUO definition of the term "natural 'state." Objection: (Criterion 11) Removed trees must be replaced in their original locations. Rebuttal: Same objection as under Criterion 3. There is nothing in the ordinance to require removed trees to be replaced in their original locations. Objection: (Criterion 12) The proposed lawn is not "native vegetation" nor "vegetation similar in resource value" and will not stabilize the surface. Applicants Final Rebuttal for Planning A~tion 2003-118 Page 5 of 16 NOV 2 5 2O03 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board November 25, 2003 Rebuttal: Criterion 12 requires "fill slopes" to utilize native vegetation or vegetation of similar resource value. While the proposed lawn is to be placed on fill, it is not a "fill slope" because the lawn is to be on level terrain. Moreover, the proposed lawn will simply replace an existing lawn, so it has the same resource value as the lawn it will replace. Objection: (Criterion 13) The Planning Commission should require revegetation with native species of the tree canopy that was removed. Rebuttal: This is not an objection per se, but a recommendation from this opponent and has nothing to do with the standards in Criterion 13. Objection: (Criterion 14) "Erosion mitigation" caused by tree removal should be replacement of trees not development activity. Rebuttal: This is not an objection per se, but a recommendation from this opponent that has nothing to do with the standards in Criterion 14. Moreover, Criterion 14 deals with the proper maintenance of long-term erosion control measures and requires applicants to post appropriate security to ensure the faithful maintenance of erosion control measures (which they will do). Criterion 144 has nothing to do with tree removal. As to tree replacement, applicants have agreed to stipulate to the tree mitigation plan recommended by Ashland's Tree Commission. Objection: (Criterion 15) Opponent has been unable to find evidence that prior development on this site and at 300 Vista conformed with ALUO 18.62. The stability of the steep slope has been compromised by tree removal that needs to be replaced with planting. The proposed building site is or was in a natural state. Rebuttal: The existing home terracing, pool construction and lawn, referred to by this opponent, were installed before adoption of Ashland's Hillside Ordinance (a part of the Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance) -- ALUO 18.62.080. The Hillside Ordinance was adopted in 1997; the dwelling and other improvements were installed in 1988. As to the contention that the steep slope should be replaced with planting, the evidence shows that this will occur. Regarding the proposed building site being in a "natural state," refer to applicants rebuttal for Criterion 10. Objection: (Criterion 17) Existing erosion of Glenview Street is insufficient for the proposed use which includes valet parking for fund-raising events). The massive cutting and terracing of Glenview will not improve erosion that has caused damage to neighbors on Vista Street. Rebuttal: This opponents objection does not address the requirements of Criterion 17, which relate to surface and groundwater drainage of the subject property. The only evidence of any erosion of Glenview Street, is a photograph which shows some minor erosion at the intersection of Vista Drive and Glenview Street and this has nothing to do with applicants project. Glenview (including its intersection with Vista Drive) is at a higher elevation than the subject property; water does not drain uphill. This project will not affect, positively or negatively, erosion that may occur on Glenview at its intersecti~~fJgontrary to this Applicants Filial Reblalal for Planning A~liol12003-118 q ~ ~ ~ i~ Pa~e 6 of 16 ~ I.IL Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board November 25, 2003 opponents contention that there will be massive cutting and terracing of Glenview Street (ostensibly to accommodate the driveway) the driveway now exists and will be stabilized with the installation of engineered retaining walls which have been designed by applicants expert structural engineer. During the Historic Commission proceeding, applicants testified that when they entertain, their invited guests will park elsewhere and be shuttled to the subject property. The issue of valet parking is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with surface and groundwat6r drainage. Objection: (Criterion 18) The inventory shows numerous regulated trees that have been removed and additional trees proposed for removal. Evidence earlier submitted (by this opponent) shows inaccuracies in the survey regarding trees in the right-of-way which are listed as unregulated (but which are regulated) and trees on slopes greater than 35 percent that are listed as being on lesser slopes. Rebuttal: Criterion 18 requires an inventory of existing trees and operates as a filing requirement (which was met) and not an approval standard. The inventory does show regulated trees that were mistakenly removed earlier (and identifies them as such). There are no additional regulated trees to be removed at this time as part of this application. Trees within the public right-of-way are subject to a future municipal permit, which applicants are required to and will obtain. Regarding alleged inaccuracies in the tree inventory (with respect to trees in the right-of-way) the inventory was based upon a professional land survey and is in all ways accurate. Objection: (Criterion 19) This criterion was not addressed. Rebuttal: This objection is accurate in that applicants overlooked addressing Criterion 19 with proposed conclusions of law. However, the record is complete with facts and evidence sufficient to demonstrate compliance with Criterion 19, which requires: Evaluation of Suitability for Conservation. All trees indicated on the inventory of existing trees shall also be identified as to their suitability for conservation. When required by the hearing authority, the evaluation shall be conducted by a landscape professional. Factors included in this determination shall include: a. Tree health. Healthy trees can better withstand the rigors of development than non-vigorous trees. b. Tree Structure. Trees with severe decay or substantial defects are more likely to result in damage to people and property. c. Species. Species vary in their ability to tolerate impacts and damage to their environment. d. Potential longevity. e. Variety. A variety of native tree species and ages f. Size. Large trees provide a greater protection for erosion and shade than smaller trees. Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Criterion 19): As part of applicants Exhibit 2 (Sheets L 1 through L3 and the supporting text) -- all prepared by RECEIVED Al~lic~nts Final Rebuttal for Plannin8 Action 2003-118 / 0 ~[~1~ ~ ~ ~ Page 7 of '6 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board November 25, 2003 applicants landscape architect -- the matters required under Criterion 19 have been addressed. Additionally, Criterion 19 does not operate as an approval standard, but as a filing requirement and the same were met. Objection: (Criterion 20) There are numerous trees within the "Protected Hillside Area." The property is within Ashland's Wildfire Lands. Previous planting on this and adjacent lots is illegal under ALUO 18.68.010 and are a wildfire hazard. Rebuttal: Based upon Applicants Exhibit 2 (Sheet L3) there are no significant trees to be removed within the Protected Hillside Area as a part of this project. The maximum number of trees on the reconfigured subject property and within the constrains of this project, have been preserved. As to the property being within Ashland's Wildfire Lands, applicants acknowledge this to be true. However, the objections under this standard suggest only that previous planting on the property was illegal under an unrelated section of the ALUO which deals with fences, walls, hedges and screen planting. The standards for the development of wildfire lands is governed by ALUO 18.62.090:] SECTION 18.62.090 Development Standards for Wildfire Lands. Requirements for construction of all structures. 1. All new construction and any construction expanding the size of an existing structure, shall have a "fuel break" as defined below. 2. A "fuel break" is defined as an area which is free of dead or dying vegetation, and has native, fast- burning species sufficiently thinned so that there is no interlocking canopy of this type of vegetation. Where necessary for erosion control or aesthetic purposes, the fuel break may be planted in slow- burning species. Establishment of a fuel break does not involve stripping the ground of all native vegetation. "Fuel Breaks" may include structures, and shall not limit distance between structures and residences beyond that required by other sections of this title. 3. Primary Fuel Break - ^ primary fuel break will be installed, maintained and shall extend a minimum of 30 feet, or to the property line, whichever is less, in all directions around structures, excluding fences, on the property. The goal within this area is to remove ground cover that will produce flame lengths in excess of one foot. Such a fuel break shall be increased by ten feet for each 10% increase in slope over 10%. Adjacent property owners are encouraged to cooperate on the development of primary fuel breaks. 4. Secondary Fuel Break - A secondary fuel break will be installed, maintained and shall extend a minimum of 100 feet beyond the primary fuel break where surrounding landscape is owned and under the control of the property owner during construction. The goal of the secondary fuel break is to reduce fuels so that the overall intensity of any wildfire is reduced through fuels control. 5. All structures shall be constructed or re-roofed with Class B or better non-wood roof coverings, as determined by the Oregon Structural Specialty Code. All re-roofing of existing structures in the Wildfire Lands area for which at least 50% of the roofing area requires re-roofing shall be done under approval of a zoning permit. No structure shall be constructed or re-roofed with wooden shingles, shakes, wood-product material or other combustible roofing material, as defined in the City's building code. Fuel breaks in areas which are also Erosive or Slope Failure Lands shall be included in the erosion control measures outlined in section 18.62.080. Implementation. ~ ALUO ! 8.62.090(A) contains provisions that govern Subdivisions, Performance Standards Developments, or Partitions. This application concerns none of these. ALUO 18.62.090(B) concerns the subject application. Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board November 25, 2003 1. For land which have been subdivided and required to comply with A. (6) above, all requirements of the Plan shall be complied with prior to the commencement of construction with combustible materials. 2. For all other structures, the vegetation control requirements of section (B) above shall be complied with before the commencement of construction with combustible materials on the lot. (Ord. 2657, 1991) 3. As of November 1, 1994, existing residences in subdivisions developed outside of the Wildfire Lands Zone, but later included due to amendments to the zone boundaries shall be exempt from the requirements of this zone, with the exception of section 18.62.090 B.5. above.- All new residences shall comply with all standards for new construction in section 18.62.090 B. 4. Subdivisions developed outside of the wildfire lands zone prior to November 1, 1994, but later included as part of the zone boundary amendment, shall not be required to prepare or implement Fire Prevention and Control Plans outlined in section 18.62.090 A. (Ord 2747, 1994) (Ord 2808, Added, 12/02/1997) Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Wildfire Lands): The significance of this property being within Ashland's Wildfire Lands is nil, as this property has been and will be developed as an urban homesite with irrigated ornamental landscaping. No dead or dying Vegetation exists on the property or is planned which will produce a fire hazard sought to be mitigated by these provisions of the ALUO. However, there are small groups of trees which technically form an "interlocking canopy." If required by the Board, applicants will further thin the tree canopy if thc same is needed to reduce the potential danger from wildfire pursuant to the ALUO. As shown in the Exhibit 2 plans (Sheet 7.1) roofing is to be concrete tile; no wooden roofing is proposed. Rebuttal (COntinued): As to previous plantings on the subject and adjacent lots, ALUO 18.68.010 is an ordinance which has nothing to do with a Physical and Environmental Constraints permit. If some of the vegetation that occurs on this property does not comply with the requirements of ALUO 18.68.010, this is a matter to be considered separately by the city as an enforcement action. As to this opponents statement that the driveway and building footprint are located to produce the most damage to tree protection areas, the term "tree protection areas" is not a term of art in the ALUO. The requirement under Criterion 20 is that a maximum number of existing trees are preserved. Applicants have sought to design the dwelling to preserve the significant madrone trees located east of the dwelling. While the driveway will cause the removal of oak trees, these have been historically compromised by improper pruning practices. This matter was recognized by Ashland's Tree Commission in its decision to permit the removal of these oak trees (subject to submittal of a tree removal permit) and their replacement as part of the overall mitigation strategy for the property. Objection: (Criterion 21) According to the Tree Commission, the proposal will cause undue stress to the remaining Madrone trees on 300 Vista and result in the removal of other significant trees. Applicants Final Rebuttal fo~ Planning Action 2003-118 Page 9 of 16 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board November 25, 2003 Rebuttal: The recommendation of the Tree Commission clearly infers, by the following language, that the madrone trees will be protected if the plan prepared by applicants expert land,ape architect is followed: "It is essential that the remaining madrones be protected. The tree protection plan as presented bythe Landscape Architect should be fully implemented to protect these trees. And in addition a structural footing should be designed by the Architect in conjunction with the Landscape Architect that will ensure the utmost protection of the rootzone." Objection: (Criterion 22) Applicants landscape architect indicated that trees were removed in anticipation of the adoption of the tree ordinance and staff admitted that if the trees had not been removed, this development would have to be denied. Rebuttal: It is true that applicants landscape architect indicated that her clients removed trees in anticipation of the adoption of the tree ordinance. However, this is irrelevant. As to this opponents contention that the city staff indicated the application would have to be denied if the trees had not been removed, this is untrue and exists as unsupported heresy. Moreover, the notion that had the trees not be removed, this application would have to be denied, is wrong as a matter of law. There is nothing in the ALUO that prevents the removal of trees when necessary to accommodate a homesite or driveway. See, Criterion 22 (Parts 5(a) and 5Co). Applicants have observed all requirements for tree preservation and protection; trees that are proposed to be permissibly removed pursuant to recommendations by the Tree Commission, are being replaced in greater numbers (both on and off site) than is required by the ALUO. Objection: (Criterion 23) Applicants landscape architect stated that proposed use of the property precludes on-site mitigation. Rebuttal: See applicants response for objections under Criterion 22. Additionally, the evidence shows that appropriate tree mitigation is being accommodated on-site; there is additional off-site mitigation. Ashland's Tree Commission has accepted the mitigation plan proposed by applicants. Objection: (Criterion 24) Applicants did not appraise the value of the trees that were mistakenly removed and the city has not determined culpability or penalties. Rebuttal: Criterion 24 states that no designated trees can be removed without prior approval of the City of Ashland. Made clear by the testimony of Ashland Planning Department representative, Mark Knox, during the public hearing, is that he had made an honest mistake in advising applicants that the trees could be removed. Simply stated, Mr. Knox's authorization, mistakenly or not, was approval by the city. Moreover, Criterion 24 does not require the city to appraise the value of removed trees nor assess fines, it only provides that fines may be levied. To date, the city has not elected to impose fines and appropriate mitigation for the removed trees has been recommended by Ashland's Tree Commission and applicants have agree to stipulate to these recommendations. RI CF_IVED ApplicmltsFinalRcb.lt~,, forPlmmingActioa2003-1lS /3 NOV 25 ~0(~ i~$el0ofl6 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board November 25, 2003 Objection: (Criterion 25) Although not created by "subdivision or partition" the proposed reconfiguration of the property, as stated under Criterion 4, falls within the purpose and intent of this part of the ALUO. Rebuttal: Criterion 25 and the additional standards thereto cited, do not apply to this application because: 1) the proposed parcel is not to be created by either subdivision or partition, and 2) the subject property is within the Historic District. This standard has nothing to do with the purpose and intent of the Physical and Environmental Constraihts ordinance. It is not appropriate to apply provisions of the ordinance which, by its clear and unambiguous language, do not apply. Objection: (Criterion 27) Applicants surveyor stated that the average original slope is 28 percent. Average is irrelevant under the criteria. The survey was based on the elevation of "older trees" but fails to say if the level was on the uphill or downhill side of the massive stumps. A difference of only 6 inches in height would render a slope unbuildable. The submitted topographic map fails to give a complete survey of the original slope of the southwest comer of the lot. Rebuttal: Exhibit 7 is the testimony of applicants surveyor, which states that the average original slope of the ground at the proposed building site is 28 percent. Exhibit 5 is the survey map showing slopes within the building envelop area. The building envelop is shown on Exhibit 2 (Sheet 1.1) and the same is called the "setback line" on this plan. This evidence shows that no part of the building envelope has slopes greater than 35 percent and, in fact, no slopes within the building envelope exceed a slope of 30 percent. The proposed dwelling can be accommodated within the building envelope. These facts and conclusions demonstrate compliance with Criterion 27. Applicants cannot understand the objections here which relate to trees and stumps. The method of topographic survey was done in accordance with the standard practices of professional land surveyors. This opponent cites no evidence to call into question the professional work done by applicants surveyor, Darrell Huck. Furthermore, there is no evidence, even if a six-inch difference existed, that it would invalidate Mr. Huck's work. As to the topographic survey not covering the southwest comer of the property, this is the portion of the property already developed with the existing driveway and garage, both of which are to be retained. Objection: (Criterion 28) The landscape architect's drawings show contour lines at variance with the existing topography as shown on the city's GIS map this opponent submitted during the public hearing. Rebuttal: Applicants landscape architect utiliZed the contour lines which were established by applicants land surveyor and which, as earlier described, are substantially more accurate than those shown on Ashland's GIS map (which this opponent submitted). See, rebuttal under Criterion 4. Objection: (Criterion 29) The dwelling poses a severe risk to the long term survival of the remaining large Madrone trees. Al~licants Final Rg~buttal fo~ Planning Actio~ 2003-118 RE:CI:!:_.I\/FP Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board November 25, 2003 Rebuttal: As stated in applicants proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the requirements of Criterion 29 were incorporated into applicants landscape plans. Moreover, applicants are required by the ALUO (and recommended approval conditions) to have a pre- construction meeting with city officials to go over the terms of construction. These steps ensure compliance with Criterion 29 and other substantive requirements of the ALUO. This opponent is unqualified to express an expert opinion as to the risk to trees, especially if the requirements of Criterion 29 have been observed. Also see rebuttal for Criterion 21. Objection: (Criterion 30) Applicants have proceeded with construction activity by preemptively removing regulated trees. Rebuttal: As stated in applicants proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Criterion 30 does not operate as an approval standard, but instead simply states as law, that no applicant may proceed with construction prior to approval of tree protection measures and issuance of a building and/or grading permit. Applicants have so stipulated. The trees mistakenly removed earlier was not a "construction activity." Objection: Applicants did not address the purpose statement in ALUO 18.62.080. Additionally, the last six pages of this opponents submittal regards interpretation of the ALUO generally. Although applicants have difficulty understanding the points attempting to be made, they appear to be arguments which urge the Board: 1. Pursuant to ALUO 18.108.160, to use the comprehensive plan to interpret ambiguous provisions of the ALUO. To consider numerous passages, goals and policies of the comprehensive plan to support opponents contentions that the Board should consider adverse impacts to Ashland's viewshed, that trees, vegetation and historic resources are important assets, and that the purpose statements for ALUO Chapter 18.62 and 18.62.080 should operate as approval standards. Rebuttal: Opponent Colin Swales submitted excerpts from the City's comprehensive plan its goals, policies and various provisions of the ALUO, including the "Purpose and Intent" provisions of the Physical and Environmental Constraints chapter (18.62.010) and the "Purpose" statement from the development standards for hillside lands (18.62.080). It is well settled Oregon law that generally worded statements of purpose and intent that express the motivation for adopting a regulation, or the general goals or policies that the local government hopes to achieve by adopting regulation, do not operate as approval criteria. Bennett v. City of Dallas, 17 Or. LUBA 450, 456, af~d 96 Or. App. 645 (1989); Stotter v. City of Eugene, 18 Or. LUBA 135, 157 (1989); Beck v. City of Tillamook, 20 Or. LUBA 178 (1990), aff'd 105 Or. App. 276 (1991), reversed on other grounds 313 Or. 148 (1992). While the stated purpose and intent of an ordinance may assist in interpreting ambiguous provisions, the purpose and intent of an ordinance simply does not operate as an independent approval standard. R C IX/ED Applicants Final Rebuttal fo~ Planning Action 2003-118 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board November 25, 2003 None of the policies, goals or purpose and intent statements cited by this opponent purport to apply an independent approval standard. They are generally worded expressions of the overall goals the City is hoping to achieve. They express only a general purpose; they do not impose any affirmative obligation or set forth any identifiable standards that could act as criteria for approval. Freeland v. City of Bend, __ Or. LUBA __ (LUBA No. 2003- 59, August 5, 2003). When a purpose statement of policy does not act as an independent approval standard, the City should ignore evidence that the proposal before it is not in compliance with that purpose statement. Beck, 20 Or. LUBA 178; Moo~efield v. City of Corvallis, 18 Or. LUBA 95, 119 (1989). The only approval criteria relevant to the current application are found in ALUO 18.62.040(I) subsections (1), (2) and (3). This opponent attempts to create ambiguity in these criteria by extracting individual words or phrases, such as "minimized", "potential impacts", or "nearby areas", and then asserts that these individual words or phrases, standing alone, "might be" examples of ambiguity. The opponent does not even attempt to state an actual ambiguity. He merely theorizes that there "might be" an ambiguity if words or phrases are lifted out of their context and considered without reference to the overall ordinance. Applicant contends that, when the approval criteria for this application are read in context, there is no ambiguity. Applicants experts have testified that, with application of sound engineering standards and adherence to the conditions of approval, all potential adverse impacts or hazards on both the subject property and in all nearby areas will be eliminated. There will be no adverse impacts to the environment either on or off the site. 2. Letter to John McLaughlin from Bryan Hoiley, dated November 18, 2003 Objection: This matter should be referred to the full Planning Commission based upon the publicity it has received. Rebuttal: Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 2.14.040 states: "The Hearings Board or Staff Advisor may refer any matter before the Board or Advisor to the Planning Commission when it becomes apparent that the matter involves major policy concern or potential serious impacts on surrounding areas." This is an application for a land use permit to build one single family dwelling under Ashland's Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance, for land subject to steep slopes. It is not a matter that involves major policy concerns. Moreover, the evidence shows that all physical and environmental constraints are limited to the subject property and that the site will be fully stabilized after the dwelling is built. While this application may be important to some, it is not a major policy issue nor one the will produce serious (or any) impact upon the surrounding area. The Board would be on firm ground to retain its jurisdiction over this matter. Objection: The Planning Commission should follow the Historic Commission's recommendation to deny this application. Applicants Final Rebuttal for Planning Action 2003-118 R C IV D NOV 25 ~003 Pag¢13°f16 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board · November 25, 2003 Rebuttal: All parties agree that review of this application by the Historic Commission was not based upon the criteria it typically applies. In fact, the Historic Commission acknowledged in its action that it was not operating under any approval criteria and made no effort to apply the city's hillside development standards. The Board shoUld not be bound by a recommendation not based upon the application of any decisional standards or criteria. Objection: Objections similar to those of Collin Swales regarding the prior ~emoval of trees in violation of the ALUO. Rebuttal: See earlier rebuttal to similar issues. 3. Letter from George Kramer, dated November 17, 2003 Objection: Applicant has too narrowly defined the surrounding area and if it was more accurately described, this proposal is inconsistent with the surrounding development pattern. Few if any neighborhood structures are as tall, large in volume or are built upon the steepest portion of a lot. The proposed dwelling does not nestle into the neighborhood as do other dwellings and will be visible from the valley floor and downtown. Rebuttal: Clearly, this opponents objections are aimed at the application of historic/architectural standards and criteria that simply do not apply in this instance. In his letter of November 17, 2003, this opponent argues that the application should be denied as inconsistent with the surrounding development pursuant to Criterion 3. Criterion 3 provides: 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. The only basis to consider existing development of surrounding area, is in the context of Criterion 3, and it states only that the Board must consider the same and the maximum permitted development under the ALUO. Applicants assert that this means only that in determining the adverse environmental impacts, that the Board must consider existing development in the surrounding area and, for vacant or underdeveloped properties, that the Board must consider the environmental impacts as if these lands were developed to the maximum levels permitted by the ALUO. This language does not provide a basis for the Board to consider historic or architectural impacts, nor impacts of a nature not covered by the Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance -- ALUO 18.62. Opponent here urges the Board to interpret the ordinance in ways that are clearly wrong. Objection: The proposal exploits Ashland's regulations by seeking the maximum levels possible under the various applicable standards. Rebuttal: This objection is nonsensical. A city's standards cannot be exploited by observing them. Applicants Final Rebuttal for Planning Action 2003-118 RECEIVED NOV e S 2003 ,,,,,e 14 of 16 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board November 25, 2003 4. Email correspondence between Colin Swales and Ashland city officials Objection: The email correspondence does not raise objections per se, but deals with the issue raised during the public heating that applicants architect had placed a copyright on his plans which had, for a brief time, prevented this opponent from obtaining copies. Rebuttal: Applicants acknowledge that their architect had placed copyright protections on copies of the plans he submitted as part of this application. The reason for the copyright protection is because applicants plans were detailed working drawings, not simply design drawings. It is customary for architects to copyright working drawings. When this opponent asked for copies of the plans, the city attorney advised the Planning Department that federal copyright rules override ORS 197.763. Upon being notified of this issue, applicants attomey took immediate steps to have the copyright protection lifted so that all opponents could obtain copies of the plans. The delay of a short few days did not prejudice the substantial rights of opponents, and opponents (and other parties) were afforded an additional seven day period to submit new evidence and argument into the record. 5. Email correspondence between Bill Street (JBStreet) and Ashland's Mark Knox, dated November 18, 2003 Objection: Applicants should honor the intent and purpose of the 1997 Hillside Ordinance by restoring the trees removed from their property, by resubmitting their plans and building their house in the historically appropriate location of the two Vista Street houses they demolished previously. Rebuttal: This objection does not go to any approval criteria and is irrelevant. 6. Description of event called, "The Aberfan Disaster" Objection: This is not an objection per se, but an account of a landslide that occurred in South Wales in 1966. Rebuttal: This event concerned a landslide of mining waste in South Wales and has no relevance to this application. 7. Photo taken from Ashland downtown towards the subject property Objection: Also not an objection per se, but simply a photo that allegedly depicts the proposed dwelling. Rebuttal: This photograph appears as an attempt to document historic/architectural issues that are not relevant. 8. Email from Karen DeBoer to "pearcer~ashland.or.us Applicants Final Rebuttal fro' Planning Action 2003- RECEIVED / NOV 2 5 2003 ..e,, 0.6 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board November 25, 2003 Objection: Also not an objection per se, but an email communication from Karen DeBoer expressing her fondness of trees and affront at being told what she can and cannot do with trees in her own garden. Rebuttal: The email exists as an honest expression of applicant Karen DeBoer's opinions at that time and is not relevant to this application. 9. Letter from Robert Taber to Mayor Golden and City Council dated November 12, 1997 Objection: Also not an objection per se, but a 1997 letter that supported adoption of Ashland's Hillside Ordinance. Rebuttal: The letter is irrelevant to this application. 10. Timeline of Hillside Development Standards Ordinance Adoption (1996-1997) Objection: Also not an objection per se, but a timeline containing the various meetings that led to adoption of Ashland's Hillside Ordinance. Rebuttal: The timeline is irrelevant to this application. ll. Table of Contents which appears to be list of exhibits for 1997 Hillside Ordinance adoption Objection: Also not an objection per se, but a listing of evidence before the city in 1997 when Ashland adopted its Hillside Ordinance. Rebuttal: The table of contents (list of exhibits) is also irrelevant to this application. This concludes applicants final written rebuttal. Very truly yours, CRAIG A. STONE & ASSOCIATES, LTD. CAS/m C:~W~DEBOER~qEBUTTAL 1.DOC Enclosures cc. Sidney/Karen DeBoer Gary Peterson RECEIVED Applicants Final Rebut+al for Planning Action 2003-118 /7 ltOV 2 5 2003 Page 16ofl6 2003 I18 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of=~(~mmn~t) Criterion 1 1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the properO, and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized Conclusions of Law: The development standards of ALUO 18.62.80 relate to the preservation of natural areas, erosion control and tree protection. With respect to the preservation of natural areas, the Planning Commission concludes that this application involves the redevelopment of a site (the reconfigured subject property) which has already been urban developed. As such, the recomSigured subject property has no existing natural - areas to be preserved. Regarding erosion control, applicants have engaged qualified experts in geotechnical and civil engineering, architecture and landscape architecture to design this project. All reasonable and appropriate measures have been employed and all standards and requirements of the City of Ashland have been incorporated into applicants design/development plans. As such, the Planning Commission concludes from the evidence, that all so~ of potential erosion have been appropriately addressed and have been mitigated on-site. With respects to tree protection, the Planning Commission concludes: 1. That while some trees on the property were removed without benefit of public review, applicants have proposed to replace these at the rate of two new trees for each trees that was previously removed 2. Although some additional trees (within the Protected Hillside Area) are proposed to be removed, they too will be replaced at a ratio of two to one. 3. All trees outside the construction/development area are protected with measures required by the ALUO. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 1. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 1: The applicant states in the application ( Page 14 - Characteristics of Surrounding Impact Area ) that the surrounding impact area is defined as that area entitled to notice of this application - 200 ft. from the property. Opponent disagrees with Applicants "definition". The ALUO is silent on the definition of"Impact Area" with respect to Ch 18.62 but 18.104.020 gives some guidance. From ALUO 18.104.020 "Impact Area" - That area which is immediately surrounding a use, and which may be impacted by it. All land which is within the applicable notice area for a use is included in the impact area. In addition, any lot beyond the notice area, if the hearing authority finds that it may be materially affected by the proposed use, is also included in the impact area. Due to the prominent elevated location in the Siskiyou - Hargadine Historic District, this development will adversely affect the identity, aesthetic quality, and visual character of the City, [18.62.080]. This is supported by the recent opinion of the Historic Commission to recommend denial of this application ~ and recently passed house size limitations that show Council's concern for such over-large homes. (see Photo #1 ) RECEIVED Criterion 2 2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that applicants have evidenced their consideration of the potential ha~7_ards (this development might create) in the conduct of detailed geotechnical investigations. The Planning Commission also concludes that applicants have properly evidenced the implementation of mitigation measures by incorporating the geoteclmical investigations into the architectural, engineering and landscape plans of record. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with Criterion 2. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 2: The Application does not show volumes of Cut and Fill material and whether any will be exported or imported to/from the site. Nor is the nature of type of material to be used. It is Understood that another 5 ft of fill material is to be spread on the lawn and to be retained with nothing more than a rubble wail. This puts the owners below in grave danger due to possible liquifaction of this fill in severe flooding conditions as have been experienced recently in Ashland. ( see appendix The Aberfan Disaster ) ******************************************************************************* Criterion 3 3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse intpact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously titan reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the e.x'isting development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted developme,t permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. Conclusions of Law: The potential for adverse impacts upon the environment include, erosion and mass movement, loss of natural areas, trees and tree canopies, loss of wildlife habitat. Based upon the evidence, the Planning Commission concludes that applicants have undertaken the following reasonable steps to reduce adverse impacts upon the environment: 1. Applicants have engaged qualified experts who have offered recommendations as to the best methods to accommodate the proposed new dwelling. 2. Applicants design professionals have incorporated all environmental mitigation recommendations into the design and construction plans for the reconfigured subject property. 3. In its consideration of lhi.q application, the Planning Commission has examined the surrounding area and development that now exists. 4. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commi,qsion concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 3. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion:}: The impact to the Hillside due to the massive cutting of native significant trees is irreversible but needs to be mitigated by the applicant taking all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact by replanting close to the area of this impact in order to stabilize the site and restore the gap in the tree canopy.. Criterion 4 A. General Requirements. The following general requirements shall apply in Hillside Lands. 5. AH development shah occur on lands defined as having buildable area. Slopes greater than 35 shall be considered unbuildable except as allowed belme. Variances ma)' be granted to this requirement only as provided in section 18.62.080. H. a. Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35 shall be considered buildable for one unit. b. Existing parcels ~qthout adequate buildable area less titan or equal to 35 cannot be subdivided or partitioned. Conclusions of Law: Based upon Exhibits 5 and 7, the original natural average slope of this property is 28 percent. No portion of the property, in its original state, exceeded a slope of 35 percent. While this site was altered to accommodate the existing dwelling, landscaping and landscape features (including terracing) the Planning Commission concludes that the altered grades are not an appropriate consideration in this application. Instead, the Planning Commission concludes that the original natural terrain is the appropriate measure of slope for the purpose of asceriaining compliance with the development standards for hillside lands pursuant to ALUO 18.62.080. The Planning Commission concludes that this application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 4. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 4: Submittals have already been made showing the City's own survey data showing that the site where the applicant intends to build is in excess of 35% and therefore unbuildable. However there are other areas of the site containg the building pads of two previously demolished homes that would be available. Criterion 5 6. AH newly created lots either by subdivision or partition shah contain a building envelope with a slope of 35 or less. Conclusions of Law: Criterion 5 is inapplicable by reason that this application does not · include the creation of any new lot by subdivision or partition. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 5: Although not created by "subdivision or partition" the proposed major re- configuration of this and associated parcels clearly falls within the meaning and intent of this part of the ALUO. As stated above (criterion 4) there are parts of the lot that are "buildable', but not where the applicant has proposed. Criterion 6 7. New ~reets, flag drives, and driveways shah be constructed on lands of less than or equal to 35% slope with the following exceptions: a. The street is indicated on the City's Transportation Plan Map - Street Dedications. b. The portion of the street, flag drive, or driveway on land greater than 35 slope does not exceed a length of lOO feet. Conclusions of Law: The driveway to serve the proposed dwelling already exists. However, the driveway is intended to be regraded and resurfaced. As shown on Exhibit 2, RECEIVED Sheet 1.1, material for thc driveway will also change from concrete to permeable grasscrcte and brick. As also shown Exhibit 2, Sheets 1.1, C 1.1 and C 1.2, no portion of the existing or altered driveway will exceed a slope of 35 percent in compliance with Criterion 6. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 6: As shown on the applicant's plans, the driveway is more than 100 ft in length and is to moved from its current position and re-located to land in excess of 35% and therefore deemed unbuildable. This re-loaction will cause the loss of even more trees from this environmentally-constrained land. ******************************************************************************* Criterion 7 4. Geotechnical Studies. For all applications on Hillside Lands invoh'ing subdivisions or partitions, * * * Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that Criterion 7 is inapplicable by reason that this application does not involve either a subdivision or partition. However, applicants have undertaken a geotechnical study of the property and the same is in Exhibit 3. ************************************************************************** Criterion 8 B. Hillside Grading and Erosion Control. Alt development on lands classified as hillside shah provide plans conforming with the following items: 1. AH grading, retaining ,,aH design, drainage, and erosion control plans for den,elopment on Hillside Lands shah be designed bt' a geotechnical expert. ~IH cuts, grading or fills shah conform to Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. Erosion control measures on the development site .shah be required to minimize the solids in runofffrom disturbed areas. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes, based upon the findings of fact in Section IV, applicants engaged a qualified geotechnical engineer conducted a geotechnical investigation which was used by applicants civil engineers in the preparation of the engineering construction plans. See, Exhibit 3. Exhibit 3 established the geoteclmical parameters for design with respect to grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans, which was used by applicants civil engineers in the preparation of the engineering construction plan.~, Based upon Exhibit 3 and Extu'oit 2, Sheets C 1.1 and C 1.2, the Planning Commission concludes that thc proposed cuts, grading and fills will conform to Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. The Planning Commission also concludes, based upon the same evidence, that erosion control measures proposed for this development site, will minimize the solids in runoff from disturbed areas. Therefore, the Planning Commi~ion concludes that this application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 8. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 8: The rubble wall to retain 5 ft of additional fill in considered unsafe in flooding conditions. ******************************************************** Criterion 9 2. For dcq,elopment other than single family homes on individual lots, all grading, drainage improvements, or other land disturbances shall only occur from May I to October 31. Excavation shah not occur during the remaining ,,et months of the year. Erosion control measures shah be installed and functional by October 31. Up to 30 day modifications to the RECEIVED IfOV Z 9 20t13 October 31 date, and 45 day modification to the May 1 date ma)' be made by the Planning Director, based upon weather conditions and in consultation with the project geotechnical expert. The modification of dates shall be the minimum necessary, based pon evidence provided by the applicant, to accomplish the necessary projectgoal& Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that Criterion 9 is inapplicable by reason that this application concerns a single family home on an individual lot which is expressly exempt from this standard. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 9: The applicant is on record as having stated that this building's intended use is as a corporate hospitality center. This idea is reinforced by the huge size of the development complex as well as the installation of a secondary cooking facility. The building is more than 6 times the size of the average home in Ashland and 4 times the size of its neighbors. Therefore the devlopment should be subject to this part of ALUO and the proposed timeline does not recognize the weather constraints that have bearing on this massive excavation of the hillside. The applicant's timeline for develoment in the form of a "gant Chart" ( one of the required documents for a complete submittal was not sent to the City until Nov 18.2003 4:30 p.m. Therefore the application was incomplete and should not have been received. [ 18.62.040 H.(t)] Plans Required. The following plans shall be required .... (t) Proposed timeline for development ..... It also shows proposed construction during the wet months of Feb, Mar and April 2004. ***************************************************************************** Criterion 10 3. Retention in natural state. On all projects on Hillside Lands invoh,ing partitions and subdivisions, and existing lots with an area greater than one-half acre, an area equal to 25 of the total project area, plus the percentage figure of the average slope of the total project area, shall be retained in a natural state. Lands to be retained in a natural state shall be protected from damage through the use of temporary construction fencing or the functional equivalent. For example, on a 25,000 sq. fl. lot with an average slope of 29, 25+29=54 of the total lot area shall be retained in a natural state. The retention in a natural state of areas greater than the minimum percentage required her. e is encouragerL Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that the reconfigured subject property will consist of 0.52 acre. Therefore, Criterion 10 applies to this application. However, reconfigured subject property (consisting of portions of two existing lots) has been developed; this application involves the redevelopment of this property. As such, no portion of the subject property presently exists in a natural state as defined in ALUO 18.62.030(N). Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that Criterion 10 is inapplicable because no portion of the recontigured property is presently in a natural state and therefore it cannot be retained as such. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 10: RECEIVED ttOV 19 003 The applicant uses the stumps of felled significant old trees to justify the "original grade". Yet here he states that there are no areas in a natural state. This inconsistency is unforgivable. Opponent feels that this hillside was in a natural state before the applicant felled the trees and should be restored as such. ******************************************************************************* Criterion 11 4. Grading - cuts. On all cut slopes on areas classified as Hillside lands, the following standards shall apply: a. Cut slope angles shall be determhted in relationship to the O'pe of materials of which they are composed. H/here the soH permits, limd the total area exposed to precipitation and erosion. Steep cut slopes shall be retained ,~qth stacked rock, retaining walls, or functional equivalent to control erosion and provide slope stability' when necessary. H/here cut slopes' are required to be laid back (1:1 or less steep), the slope shall be protected with erosion control getting or structural equivalent installed per manufacturers .specifications, and revegetated. b. Exposed cut slopes, such as those for streets, driveway accesses, or yard areas, greater than seven feet in height shall be terraced. Cut faces on a terraced section shall not exceed a maximum height of five feet. Terrace widths shall be a minimum of three feet to allow for the introduction of vegetation for erosion control. Total cut slopes shall not exceed a maximum vertical height of l 5 feet. (,gee Graphic) c. Revegetation of cut slope terraces shall include the provision ora planting plan, introduction to topsoil where necessary, and the use of irrigation if necessary. The vegetation used for these areas shall be native or species similar in resource value which will survive, help reduce the visual impact of the cut slope, and assist in providing long term slope stabilization. Trees, bush- O,pe plantings and cascading vine-type plantings maj' be appropriate. Conclusions of Law: Based upon the findings of fact in Section IV and Exhibit 2, Sheets 1.1, C 1.1, C 1.2 and L2 the Planning Commission concludes that this application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 11. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 11: This part of the ALUO requires revegetation similar in resource value. As the cutting of the original significant trees was in contravention of ALUO 18.62 then it should be mitigated by replacement in its original location. Criterion 12 5. Grading-fills. On all fill slopes on lands classified as Hillside Lands, the following standards shall apply: a. Fill slopes shall not exceed a total vertical height of 20feet. The toe of the fill slope area not utilizing structural retaining shall be a minimum of six feet from the nearest property line.(Ord 2834 $6,1998) b. Fill slopes shall be protected with an erosion control netting, blanket or functional equivalent. Netting or blankets shall only be used in conjunction with an organic mulch such as straw or wood fiber. The blanket must be applied so that it is in complete contact ~th the soil so that erosion does not occur beneath it. Erosion netting or blankets shall be .securely anchored to the slope in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. c. Utilities. H~henever possible, utilities shall not be located or installed on or in fill slopes. When determined that it necessary to install utilities on fiH slopes, aH plans shah be designed by a geotechnical expert. aC Revegetation of fill slopes shall utilize native vegetation or vegetation similar in resource value and which will survive and stabilize the surface. Irrigation ma3' be provided to ensure gro~h if necessary. Evidence shall be required indicating long-term viability of the proposed vegetation for the purposes of erosion control on disturbed areas. Conclusions of La~-: The Planning Commission concludes as follmvs: 1. Regarding Subsection a and based upon Exhibit 2, Sheet 1.1, no fill slopes exceed a total vertical height of 20 feet and no fill slope toes which are not proposed to be retained by structural means. 2. Regarding Subsection b and based upon Exhibit 2, Sheet CI.O, all fill slopes will be protected with an erosion control netting, blanket or functional equivalent as specified by applicants civil engineer in Exhibit 2, Sheet CI.O. 3. Regarding Subsection c and based upon Exhibit 2 no planned utilities are to be located or installed on or in fill slopes. 4. Regarding Subsection d and based upon Exhibit 2, Sheet LI through L3, the revegetation of fill slopes has utilized vegetation similar in resource value to that of native vegetation and which, according to applicants expert Landscape Architect, will suntive and stabilize the surface. Irrigation has been provided to all fill areas (to be landscaped) which will ensure proper growth. 5. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 12. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 12: The revegetation of the 5 ft. of f'dl with a lawn is not considered "native vegetation or vegetation similar in resource value" nor will it "stabilize the surfae~" In the event of flood conditions. ******************************************************************************* Criterion 13 6. Revegetation requirement& Where required by this chapter, all required revegetation of cut and fill slopes shall be installed prior to the issuance ora certificate of occupancy, signature of a requiredsurveyplat, or other time as determined by the hearing authority. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be substantially established within one year of installation. Conclusions of Law: Applicants have agreed to stipulate that they will install all required revegetation of cut and fill dopes. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 13: Opponent contends that the Planning Commission needs to require the revegetaion with native species of the tree canopy that was removed. ******************************************************************************* Criterion 14 7. Maintenance, Necurity, and Penalties for Erosion Control Measures. a. Maintenance. All measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control, including but not limited to vegetative cover, rock ,vails, and landscaping, shah be maintained in perpetuity on all areas which have been disturbed, including public rights-of-way. The applicant shall provide evidence indicating the mechanisms in place to ensure maintenance of measures. .3, G RECEIVED NOV 19 2003 b. Security. Except for individual lots existing prior to January 1, 1998, after an Erosion Control Plan is approved by the hearing authority and prior to construction, the applicant shah provide a performance bond or other financial guarantees in the amount of 120 of the value of the erosion control measures necessary to stabilize the site. Any financial guarantee instrument proposed other than a performance bond shah be approved by the City Attorney. The financial guarantee instrument shah be in effect for a period of at least one year, and shah be released when the Planning Director and Public kVorks Director determine, jointly, that the site has been stabilized. AH or a portion of the security retained by the City may be withheld for a period up to five years beyond the one year maintenance period if it has been determined by the C/t), that the site has not been sufficiently stabilized against erosion. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that Criterion 14 doe~ not operate as an approval standard, but rather establishes methods to ensure that erosion mitigation is guaranteed (in accordance with the ALUO) and faithfully maintained, measures to which applicants have agreed to stipulate. See, Section VI. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 14: Opponent contends that "erosion mitigation" caused by the cutting of trees on the hillside should be replacement of same, not further develoment activity. ******************************************************************************* Criterion 15 8. Site Grading. The grading of a .site on Hillside Lands shah be reviewed considering the following factors: a. No terracing shah be allowed except for the purposes of developing a level building pad and for providing vehicular access to the pad. b. Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site.(Ord 2834,S2 1998) c. Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site. tL Building pads should be of minimum size to accommodate the structure and a reasonable amount of yard space. Pads for tennis courts, s~t~mming pools and large lm,ws are discouraged. As much of the remaining lot area as possible should be kept in the natural state of the original slope. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as follows: 1. Based upon Exhibit 2, terracing has only been used for the purpose of developing a level building pad and to provide appropriate vehicular access to the pad. 2. Based upon Exhibit 3, the reconfigured subject property does not include any areas which are ha?ordons or unstable. 3. Based upon Exhibit 2, Sheet 1.1 the building pad for this dwelling has been minimized in size to be approximately one-quarter of the dweiling's total square footage. As such, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposed building pad is of a minimum size to accommodate the planned structure, and will produce minimal impacts to the existing site conditions. The Planning Commission also concludes, as it has above, that the reconfigured subject property does not include any portions which are in a natural state. 4. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, thc Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 15. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 15: The applicant's prior development of this site as well as at 300 Vista includes but is not limited to terracing, home construction, pool construction and a RECEIVED NOV 1 9 2003 large lawn. The opponent has been unable to fins any evidence of any of this work being done in conformance with 18.62. The stability of the steep slope has been compromised by the cutting of the trees and needs to be replaced with planting. The proposed building site is/was in a "natural state". Criterion 16 9. Inspections and Final Report. Prior to the acceptance t~ a subdivision by the CIO', signature of the final survey plat on partitions, or issuance ora certificate of occupano' fi~r individual structures, the project geotechnical expert shaH provide a final report indicating that the approved grading, drainage, and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that aH scheduled inspections, as per l & 62.080.A.4. J ,,ere conducted bt' the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project. Conclusions of Law: Criterion 16 does not operate as an approval standard, but instead puts applicants on notice that a final gcotechnical report is submitted which ensures that all approved grading, drainage and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections required by the ALUO were conducted by applicants geotechnical expert -- matters to which applicants have agreed to stipulate. Sec, Section VI. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 16: No comment *********************************************************************** Criterion 17 C. Surface and Grounchvater Drainage. All development on Hillside Lands shah conform to the foilo.~ng standards: 1. All facih'ties for the collection of storm..ater runoff shall be required to be constructed on the site and according to the foilmving requirements: a. Storm.,ater facilities shall include storm drain systems associated with street construction facilities for accommodating drainage from driveways, parking areas and other impervious surfaces and roof drainage systems. b. Stornnvater facih'ties, .,hen part of the overall site improvements, shall be, to the greatest extent feasible, the first improvements constructed on the development site. c. Storrmvater facilities shall be designed to divert surface water away from cut faces or slopinq surfaces of a fill. ' a tL Existing natural drainage systems shall be utilized, as much as possible, in their natural state recognizing the erosion potential from increased storm drainage. e. Flow-retarding devices, such as detention ponds and recharge berms, shall be used where practical to minimize increases in runoff volume and peak flow rate due to development Each faciliO, shall consider the needs for an emergeno, overflmv system to safely carry an), overflow ,,ater to an acceptable disposal point. f. Stormwater facilities shall be designed, constructed and maintained in a manner that ,,ill avoid erosion on-site and to adjacent and downstream properties. g. Alternate Stortmvater systems, such as dry ,,ell systems, detention ponds, and leach fields shall be designed by a registered engineer Or geotechnical expert and approved bp' the City's Public Works Department or City Building Official. Conehisions of Law: Based upon Exhibit 2, Sheet C1.2, the Planning Commission concludes that Stormwater has been accommodated in compliance with the requirements of Criterion 17. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 17: RECEIVED The existing erosion of the 14' wide dirt track ( Glenview St.) that provides the proposed access is insufficient for the applicant's proposed use (including valet parking for fund-raising events as proposed in applicant's verbal testimony to Historic Commission). The massive cutting and terracing of this Public Right-of-Way will not improve this continuing erosion that has in the past caused great damage to opposite neighbors on Vista as is stated in the Record. ******************************************************************************* Criterion 18 D. Tree Conservation, Protection and Removal. AH development ott Hillside Lands shall conform to the following requirements': 1 Inventory' of Existing Trees. A tree survey at the same scale as theproject siteplan shah beprepared ,t,hich locates all trees greater than six inches d.b.h., identified by d.b.h., species', approximate extent of tree canopy. In addition, for areas proposed to be disturbed, existing tree base elevations shah be provided. Dead or diseased trees shah be identified. Groups of trees in close proximity (i e those ,~qthin five feet of each other) may be designated as a clump of trees, with the predominant species estimated number and average diameter indicated. AH tree surveys shah have an accuraO' of plus or minus two feet. The name, signature, and address of the site surveyor responsible for the accuray, of the survey shah be provided on the tree survey. Portions of the lot or project area not proposed to be disturbed by development need not be included in the inventory. Conclusions of Law: The inventory of existing trees is in Exhibit 2, Sheet L3. Criterion 18 is, in fact, not an approval standard, but simply operates as a filing requirement with which this application has complied. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 18: The inventory shows the numerous regulated trees that have already been removed and the additional regulated trees still to be removed. This opponent's previos submittal shows inaccuracies in this survey with respect to trees in the Right-of-way that are listed as unregulated ( they are) and trees that are on severe slopes (35%+) that are listed as being on lesser slopes. Criterion 19 2. Evaluation of Suitability for Conservation. ,,iH trees indicated on the inventory of existing trees shah also be identified as to their suitability for conservation, gVhen required by the hearing authority, the evaluation shall be conducted by a landscape professiona~ Factors included in this determination shah include: a~ Tree health. Healthy trees can better withstand the rigors of development than non-vigorous trees. b. Tree Structure. Trees with severe decay or substantial defects are more likely to result in damage to people and property. ~ c. Species. Species vary, in their ability to tolerate impacts and damage to their environment. d. Potential longevity. e. Variety. ~4 variety of native tree species and ages f. Size. Large trees provide a greater protection for erosion and shade than smaller trees. Conclusions of Law: Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 19: The applicant fails to address this criterion. RECEIVED Opponent contends that there are numerous trees that are slated for removal that should be conserved. ************************************************************************************** £¥iterion 20 3. Tree Conservation in Project Design. Significant trees (2' d.b.h, or greater conifers and 1' d.b.h, or greater broadlea]) .shall be protected and incorporated into the project design whenever possible. a. Streets, driveways, buildings, utilities, parking areas, and other site disturbances shah be located such that the maximum number of existing trees on the site are preserved, while recognizing attd folh, wing the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in ~ihlfire Lands. b. Building envelopes .shah be located attd sized to preserve the maximum number of trees on site while recognizing attd following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in l~Vildfire Lands. c. Layout of the project site utility and grading plan shall avoid disturbance of tree protection areas. Conclusions of Law: Based upon Exhibit 2. Sheet L3. the Plamfing Comnfission concludes that there are no significant trees within the Protected Hillside Area to be removed as a result of this project. The maximum number of trees on the reconfigured subject property and within the constrains of this project, have been preserved. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with Criterion 20. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 20: There are numerous trees within the "Protected Hillside Area" The property lies within the City's Wildfire Lands. Previous planting on this and adjacent lots as well as being illegal under ALUO :t8.68.010 (hedges and screen planting) is also a wildfire hazard. The proposal places the driveway and building footprint where they will do the most damage to tree protection areas. *************************************************************** Criterion 21 4. Tree Protection. On all properties where trees are required to be preserved during the course of development, the developer shall follow the following tree protection standards; a. AH trees designated for conservation shall be clearly marked on the project site. Prior to the start of any clearing, stripping, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation, the applicant shall install fencing at the drip line of all trees to be preserved adjacent to or in the area to be altered. Temporary fencing shall be established at the perimeter of the dripline. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits, the fences may be inspected and their location approved by the Staff Advisor, (see graphic) b. Construction site activities, including but not limited to parking, material storage, soil compaction and concrete washout, shall be arranged so as to prevent disturbances within tree protection areas. c. No grading, stripping, compaction, or significant change in ground elevation shah be permitted within the drip line of trees designated for conservation unless indicated on the grading plans, as approved by the City, and landscape professional If grading or construction is approved within the dripline, a landscape professional ma)' be required to be present during grading operations, and shall have authority to require protective measures to protect the roots. d. Changes in soil hydrology and site drainage within tree protection areas shah be minimized. Excessive site run-off shall be directed to appropriate storm drain facilities and away from trees designated for conservation. e. Should encroachment into a tree protection area occur which causes irreparable damage, as determined by a landscape professional, to trees, the project plan shah be revised to compensate RECEIVE/} for the loss. Under no circumstances shall the developer be relieved of responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this chapter Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that Exhibit 2, Sheet L3 contains a tree protection plan, prepared by applicants landscape architect, which incorporates the requirements for tree protection which are established in the above Criterion 21. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that this application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 21. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 21: According to the Tree Commission the proposal will cause undue stress to the remaining Madrone trees on 300 Vista as well as removal of other significant trees. Criterion 22 5. Tree Removal. Development shall be designed to preserve the maximum number of trees or! a site. The development shall follmc the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. 14/hen justified by findings of fact, the hearing authoriO' ma)' approve the removal of trees for one or more of the foihnving conditions: (Ord 2834 S3, 1998) a~ The tree is located },qthin the building envelope. b. The tree is located within a proposed street, driveway, or parking area. c. The tree is located within a water, sewer, or other public utility easement. d. The tree is determined by a landscape professional to be dead or diseased, or it constitutes an unacceptable hazard to life or property when evaluated by the .standards in 18.62.080.D. 2. e. The tree is located within or adjacent to areas of cuts or fills that are deemed threatening to the life of the tree, as determined by a landscape professional. Conclusions of Law: The rcconfigured subject property is not designated as Wildfire Lands. As earlier found, this project has maximized the preservation of trees on the site. Trees to be removed are those located within the building envelop and proposed driveway and other site features (as shown on Exhibit 2, Sheets 1.1 and L3). Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 22. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 22: According to the Applicant's landscape architect's written( Sept. 2. 2003 letter Kencairn) and verbal testimony to the Tree Commission (Nov 6' 2003 ), "The trees were removed in anticipation of the adoption of the tree ordinance. [ALUO 18.61] and admits the "Tree removal was in violation of the hillside ordinance [18.62]. It was also admitted by Staff that were these trees still intact then this proposed development would be denied. They need to be replaced and additional trees do not need to be removed. ************************************************************************** Criterion 23 6. Tree Replacement. Trees approved for removal, ,~th the exception of trees removed because they were determined to be diseased, dead, or a hazard, .shah be replaced in compliance nith the following standards: a. Replacement trees shall be indicated on a tree replanting plan. The replanting plan shah include aH locations for replacement trees, and shall also indicate tree planting details, (Ord 2834 $4, 1998) b. Replacement trees shah be planted such that the trees will in time result in canopy equal to or greater than the tree canopy present prior to development of the property. The canopy shall be RECEIVED designed to mitigate of the impact of paved and developed areas, reduce surface erosion and increase slope stability. Replacement tree locations shall consider impact on the wildfire prevention and control plan. The hearing authority shall have the discretion to adjust the proposed replacement tree canotg' based upon site-specific evidence and testimony. c. Maintenance of replacement trees shall be the responsibility of the properO' owner. Required replacement trees shall be continuously maintained in a healthy manner. Trees that die within the first five years after initial planting must be replaced in kind, after which a n,~v five ),ear replacement period shall begin. Replanting mu,$~ occur ,~qthin 30 days of notification unless other~vise noted. (Ord 2834 ,¥5, 1998) Con¢lusion~ of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as follows: 1. The proposed replacement trees are shown on Exhibit 2. Sheet L2 and the same includes a tree planting detail. 2. As evidenced by Exhibit 2, Sheet L2, the proposed replacement trees will, in time, result in canopy greater than the tree canopy of the existing trees to be removed. 3. Applicants have agreed to stipulate that all replacement trees will be continuously maintained in a healthy manner as part of the overall landscape. 4. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 23. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 23: The Applicant's Landscape architect has stated that the proposed use of the property precludes mitigation on site. This is a single family zoned site with a slope that needs to be replanted and fiat areas of lawn that could be planted. Criterion 24 7. Enforcement a. All tree removal shall be done in accord with the approved tree removal and replacement plan. No trees designated for conservation shall be removed without prior approval of the City of Ashland. b. Should the developer or developer's agent remove or destro.}' an), tree that has been designated for conservation, the developer may be fined up to three times the current appraised value of the replacement trees and cost of replacement or up to three times the current market value, as established by a professional arborist, whichever is greater. c. Should the developer or developer's agent damage any tree that has been designated for protection and conservation, the developer shall be penalized $50.00 per scar. If necessary, a professional arborist's report, prepared at the developer's expense, ma)' be required to determine the extent of the damage. Should the damage result in loss of appraised value greater than determined above, the higher of the two values shall be used. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that Criterion 24 does not operate as an approval standard, but instead functions to put property owners on notice of the city's requirements for thc removal of or damage to replacement trees. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 24: The Applicant has not appraised the value of trees removed in violation of 18.62 The city has nor determined culpability nor assessed required penalties. ******************************************************************* Criterion 25 E. Building Location and Design Standards. All buildings and buildable areas proposed for Hillside RECEIVED Ii0V ! 9 2003 Lands shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following standards * * * Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that this criterion is inapplicable by reason that the subject property is not a new lot created by subdivision or partition and because the subject property is within a designated Historic District. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 25: Although not created by "subdivision or partition" the proposed major re- configuration of this and associated parcels clearly falls within thepurpose and intent of this part of the ALUO. As stated above (criterion 4) there are parts of the lot that are "buildable' - but not where the applicant has proposed. ******************************************************************** Criterion 26 F. All structures on Hillside Lands shah have foundations which have been designed by an engineer or architect with demonstrable geotechnical design experience..4 designer, as defined, shall not complete working drawings **~thout having foundations designed by an engineer. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that the foundation for this dwelling was designed by applicants expert structural engineer based upon the recommendations of applicants expert geotechnical engineer in compliance with Criterion 26. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 26: <no comment> Criterion 27 G. All nearly created lots or lots modified by a lot line adjustment must include a building enveh,pe on aH lots that contains a buildable area less than 35 slope of sufficient size to accommodate the uses permitted in the underlying zone, unless the division or lot line adjustment is for open space or conservation purposes. Conclusions of Law: Based upon the findings of fact in Section IV and Exhibits 5 and 7, no portion of the reconfigured property exceeds a slope of 35 percent. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that this application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 27. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 27: The submittal by Hoffbuhr & Associates (letter Sept 2. 2003) states that the "Average" original slope of the ground is 28%. This average is irrelevant to the proposed criteria. The survey was based on the elevation of "older trees" but fails to say if the level was on the uphill or downhill side of the massive stumps. A difference of only 6" in height would render an unbuildable slope even by Hoffbuhr's standards. The submitted Topographic Map (exhibit 5 dated Nov 10' 2003) fails to give a complete survey of the "original slope" of the SW corner of the lot that will be developed. TREE PRESERV.4 TION & PROTECTION AL UO 18. 62.200 Tree Protection Tree Protection as required by this section is applicable to any planning action or building permit. RECEIVED Criterion 28 A. Tree Protection Plan Required. 1 A Tree Protection Plan approved by the Staff Advisor shah be requiredprior to conducting any development activities including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation, or demolition work on a property or site, which requires a planning action or buildingpermit. 2 In order to obtain approval of a Tree Protection Plan; an applicant shah submit a plan to the City, which clearly depicts aH trees to be preserved and/or removed on the site. The plan must be drawn to scale and include the following: a. Location, species, and diameter of each tree on site and within 15feet of the site; b. Location of the drip line of each tree; - c. Location of existing attd proposed road.,', ;t,ater. sanitary and storm sewer, irrigation, attd other utility lines/facilities attd easemettts; d. Location of dr)' wells, drain lines and soakage trenches'; e. Location of proposed and existing structures; f. Grade change or cut and fill during or after constructio,; g. Existing and proposed impervious surfaces; h. Identification ora contact person and/or arborist who ,qH be responsible for implementing and maintaining the approved tree protection plan; and £ Location and type oftreeprotection measures to be installedper AMC 18.61.230. 3 For development requiring a planni,g action, the Tree Preser*,ation Plan shall include att inve,tory of aH trees on site, their health or hazard condition, and recommendations for treatment for each tree. Conclusions of Law: Criterion 28 does not function as an approval standard, but instead enmnerates the requirements for tree inventory and protection plan which have been submitted with this application. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 28: The Landscape Architect's drawings show contour lines that are at variance with the existing topography as show in the City GIS map previously submitted by Opponent. Criterion 29 B. Tree Protection Measures Required. I Except as other*vise determined by the Staff Advisor, aH required treeprotection measures set forth in this section shah be instituted prior to any development activities, including, but not limited to cearng^ grading, excavation or demolition ***rk, and shah be removed only after completion of aH construction activity, including landscaping and irrigation installation. 2 Chain link fencing, a minimum of six feet tall With steelposts placed no farther than ten feet apart, 'shah be installed at the edge of the tree protection zone or dripline, whichever is greater and at the boundary of any open space tracts, riparian areas, or conservation easements that abut the parcel being developed. 3. The fencing shah be flush ,~th the initial undisturbed grade. 4. Approved signs shall be attached to the chain link fencing stating that inside the fencing is a tree protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior approval has been obtained from the Staff Advisor for the project. 5. No construction activity shah occur ,vithin the tree proteetion zone, including, but not limited to dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste items, equipment, or parked vehicles. 6. The tree protection zone shah remain free of chemically injurious materials and liquids such as paints, thinners, cleaning solutions, petroleum products, and concrete or dry wall excess, construction debris, or m-off, 7. No excavation, trenching, grading, root pruning or other activity shah occur within the tree protection zone unless approved by the .¥taff Advisor. RECEIVED 1 9 20o Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that the various protection measures set forth in Criterion 29 have been incorporated into applicants plans and the same is evidenced by Exhibit 2, Sheet L3. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 29: The close proximity of development poses a severe risk to the long term survival of the few remaining large adjacent Madrone Trees ~¥iterion JO C: Inspection. The applicant shah not proceed with an), construction activity, e_x-cept installation ~ erosion control measures, until the Ci0, has inspected and approved the installation of the required tree protection measures and a building and/or grading permit has been issued by the CIO,. Conclusions of Lan': The Planning Commission concludes that Criterion 30 docs not operate as an approval standard, but instead simply states as law, that no applicant may proceed with construction prior to approval of tree protection measures and issuance of a building and/or grading permit. Applicants have so stipulated. See, Section VI. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 30: Tye Applicant has already proceeded with "constructiuon activity" by pre-emtively removing regulated trees. VI SUMMARY OF APPLICANTS STIPULATIONS Applicants herewith agree to stipulate to the following matters: Stipulation 1. Applicants will construct the proposed dwelling and other site improvements in accordance with the approved plans, as amended by reasonable conditions imposed by the Planning Commission. Stipulation 2. Where required by this chapter, all required revcgctation of cut and fill slopes shah be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, signature of a required survey plat, or other time as determined by the hearing authority. Vegetation shall be installed in such a nmnner as to be substantially established within one year of installation. Revcgetation ~8.62.0S0(B)(6) Stipulation 3. Applicants will be continuously Inaintahl all replacement trees in a healthy manner as part of the overall landscape of the project area. Stipulation 4. Applicants will not proceed with any construction activity, except installation of erosion control measures, until the City has inspected and approved the installation of the required tree protection measures and a building and/or grading permit has been issued by the City. Stipulation 5. Applicams will perpeOmlly l~nintain all measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control, including vegetative cover, rock walls, landscaping, and all areas which have been disturbed,, including public rights-of-way. Stipulation 6. Following approval of the Erosion Control Plan by the city (and prior to construction) applicants will provide a performance bond or other financial guarantees in the amount of 120 of the value of the erosion control measures necessary to stabilize the site. Stipulation 7. Before is~_~nce of a certificate of occupancy, applicants geotechnical expert will provide a final report which indicates that the approved grading, drainage, and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved RECEIVED 19 plans, and that all scheduled inspections, as per ALUO 18.62.080(A)(4)0) were conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project. Stipulation 8. Applicants will provide ten trees having a caliper not less than 2 inches to be planted in a public location to be determined by the Ashland Tree Commission. Stipulation 9. Applicants will install all required revegetation of cut and fill slopes and the same will occur before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. VII ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of ALUO 18.62.080 and.the related standards with respect to development within a Protected Hillside Area. Respectfully submitted on behalf of Applicant Sidney and Karen DeBoer: The applicants make no mention in their submittal of 18.62.080 Development Standards for Hillside Lands It is the purpose of the Development Standards for Hillside Lands to provide supplementary development regulations to underlying zones to ensure that development occurs in such a manner as to protect the natural and topographic character and identity of these areas, environmental resources, the aesthetic qualities and restorative value of lands, and the public health, safety, and general welfare by insuring that development does not create soil erosion, sedimentation of lower slopes, slide damage, flooding problems, and severe cutting or scarring. It is the intent of these development standards to encourage a sensitive form of development and to allow for a reasonable use that complements the natural and visual character of the dty. OPPONENT'S ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS. Based upon the foregoing Opponent's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is inconsistent with the Approval Criteria and Purpose and Intent of the of ALUO 18.62.080 and the related standards with respect to development within a Protected Hillside Area and therefore recommends denial of PA 2003-118. Respectfully submitted by Opponent and concerned neighbor, Colin Swales Wednesday Nov 19. 2003 Reprinted under the Fair Use doctrine of international coD~'iQht law This document contains copyrighted tr~terial the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. [ am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of environmental, government education, political, human rights, economic, republic Vs. democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Low. ]:n accordance with Title 17 U.$.¢. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who hove expressed o prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/lO7.shtml. ]:f you wish to use copyrighted material from this document for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. RECEIVED Planning Action 2003-118: Applicant Sid and Karen DeBoer Written submittal by Colin Swales. Comments on the oral testimony of the applicant at the Hearings Board meeting Nov 12. 2003 regarding Purpose and Intent of Hillside Ordinance. craig stone, having Power of Attomey for the Applicant stated before the Planning Hearings Board that only the criteria of Approval need to be considered while deciding on the merits or otherwise of this application. But Mr. Stone alluded to certain ambiguities within the ALUO. To resolve those ambiguities there are laid down procedures for 'interpretation" of that code as found in ^LUO. I quote below (emphasis added) 18.108.160 - Ordinance Interpretations A. When in the administration of the Land Use Ordinance there is doubt regarding its intent, the suitability of uses not specified or the meaning of a word or phrase, the Staff Advisor may interpret the provision in writing or refer the provision to the Commission for interpretation. The Commission shall issue an interpretation in writing to resolve the doubt. Neither the Staff Advisor's interpretation nor the Commission's shall have the effect of amending the provisions of the Land Use Ordinance. Any interpretation of the Land Use Ordinance shall be based on the following considerations: 1. The comprehensive plan; 2. The purpose and intent of the Land Use Ordinance as applied to the particular section in question; and 3. The opinion of the City Attorney. B. The interpretation of the Staff Advisor shall be forwarded to the Commission who shall have the authority to modify the interpretation. The interpretation of the Commission shall be forwarded to the Council who shall have the authority to modify the interpretation. Whenever such an interpretation is of general public interest, copies of such interpretation shall be made available for public distribution. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following: Through the apPlication of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. m That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. 3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Xrreversible 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. Examples of ambiguity might be "potential impacts"; "nearby areas"; "minimized"; ) ..,/ RECEIVED NOV 1 9 200ii "mitigate"; "reasonable steps"; "shall be considered more seriously"; "shall consider..surrounding area" etc. To resolve these ambiguities, let us first look to the Comprehensive Plan: Section 8.14 Urban Forestry Ashland's environment and appearance are often noted as important parts of the general livability of the City, and are frequently cited as reasons for' residents remaining in the area aod for tourists coming to Ashland. Early pioneers planted trees along the streets and boulevards that have grown into majestic specimens. Many of these trees remain today in the older sections of the City. The maintenance of civic pride and of visitor's favorable impressions depend especially on the scenic quality of major access routes and thoroughfares. Also, the appearance of private property has an effect on one's impression of Ashland. A significant portion of this impression is created by trees and intact plant communities. Areas such as Winbum Way and Siskiyou Boulevard have greater scenic value due to the presence of large trees and a variety of shrubs. Ashland's backdrop as viewed from the Southeast and Northwest entries and from I-5 is forest covered hili~ and mountains. This setting, Ashland nestled in among the forested hills creates a strong positive impression. The existing, intact native plant communities in riparian areas and on steep slopes re-enforces this impression. The Urban Forest Interface at the southern boundary of Ashland presents challenges and oppommities. Its aesthetic value, wildlife habitat and recreational oppommities have been well documented by citizens. This interface also presents problems for fire prevention and control. Trees, especially large trees, enhance the quality of life in Ashland in many ways, providing shade, protection from wind, erosion control, wildlife habitat, sound barriers, air pollution removal and play areas for children, among other things. Ashland has a long history of honoring and protecting its trees, including being named a Tree City, USA each year since 1986. Trees are a fragile resource. The proven benefits oftrees can only be maimained through favorable consideration in the political process. Section 8.15 Visual Resources The Ashland's view shed is an irreplaceable asset to the community and deserves protection. <snip> As previously mentioned, vegetative cover, particularly mature trees, adds much to the beauty of Ashland and its surroundings, enhancing the views out of the city and from the gateways, like I-5, looking into the city. The forested hills and mountains directly behind the city as seen from the freeway, act as a backdrop (sic) and from for the city. There are a number of prominent features and dramatic vistas visible from the city, in addition to vegetation, that add to the beauty of Ashland's setting <snip> Numerous smaller, but no less important features exist within the city <snip>. Steep hillsides with mature conifers are other examples. Goals: 9. Require all new residential, commercial and industrial developments to be designed and landscaped to a high standard to complement the proposed site and the surrounding area. RECEIVED flOV 19 2003 ......... lit ~ 12. Require, where possible, that the original vegetation be retained and require the restoration of new vegetation if it is removed. 19. Increase the portion of the city covered by a tree canopy, especially parking lots and other paved areas 20. Develop an urban forest interface plan to enhance the aesthetic and recreational opportunities created by this resource. The plan will also include wildlife enhancement measures and a fire control plan. 21. Establish criteria and map the visual resources of Ashland, from selected points outside the city looking in, and from strategic points within the city looking out. Of great importance also when interpreting the Purpose and Intent of this Ordinance is the Impact of the proposal on the "nearby areas", Criteria for approval 18.62.040 Para I 1 1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. I do not agree with the applicant's findings that the "impact area" is limited to a 200 ft radius from the subject property. This prominent piece of land is visible from the Histodc downtown core and much of the City including !-5. This impact is especially poignant here as this neighborhood is listed on the National Historic Register (NR) as is the adjacent Humboldt Pracht House. The removal of some of the surrounding property from the latter home, (which has benefited from some 15 yrs of Special Assessment tax freeze) is a simultaneous and necessary adjunct to this planning action. The applicant stated to the tree Commission that the paving surrounding the NR home is to be replaced with a non-historic type in order to comply with lot coverage requirements that would be exceeded due directly to this lot line adjustment. Ashland's Comprehensive Plan CHAPTER I: HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES GOAL: TO PRESERVE HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURES AND SITES IN ASHLAND POLICIES I - 1 The City recognizes that the preservation of historic sites and buildings provides both tangible evidence of our heritage and economic advantages. General policy, not implemented by law or through the land use process. I - 2 The Historic Commission shall offer recommendations Code. to the City Council and Planninq Commission concerning the alteration or disposition of structures, sites, or neighborhoods within the historic interest areas in Ashland. 2) Chapter 2.24 and 18. 74 of the Ashland Municipal Code (18. 74 now extinct) I - 3 The Historic Commission shall review all building, sign, demolition, or moving permits occurring in the areas of historic interest, using procedures established by law, in order to offer its opinion on the proposal's impact on historic preservation. 3 q RECEIVED I 0V 1 9 003 3) Chapter 18. 74 of the Ashland Municipal Code. (18. 74 now extinct} I - 4 The Historic Commission shall encourage and promote general educational programs to inform the public of the values of historic preservation. 4) Chapter 2.24, of the Ashland Municipal Code, policy I - $ The Historic Commission shall seek the official designation of important historic buildings and districts by national, state and local organizations. The Commission shall assist the Planning Staff and Planning Commission in exercising appropriate controls on the external appearance and disposition of such buildings and districts. $) Chapter 18.74, Chapter 18.72, AMC I - 6 The City shall identify and inventory its significant historic buildings, structures, sites, objects and districts employing photographic, written and oral documentation, and maps, and shall protect those resources identified as significant. 5) General Policy I - ? The City shall develop and implement through law design guidelines for new development as well as for alteration of existing structures within the historic interest areas for structures and areas that are historically significant. 7) Chapters 18. 72, 18. 74, AMC I - 8 The Historic Commission shall take appropriate measures to encourage City communication with local, state and federal agencies which can supply funding, information and political support for Ashland's historic preservation activities. 8) General Policy I - 9 The City shall develop and maintain guidelines for analyzing and resolving conflicting uses of its historic resources, and shall encourage traditional uses of historic resources. 9) General policy, not implemented through the land use process. This application is located in a Nationally-Registered Historic District and as part of the lot re- configuration it is taking property from a NR Home. According to Letter ( Oct 8' 2003 Kencairn), this necessitates removal of some of the impermeable paving surrounding the home in order to bring the lot coverage down from its existing 66% to 43.5% ( 45% allowed). This is a major modification of the NR properly. The feelings of the Historic Commission have been firmly expressed at their meeting on Nov 5 and are already part of the Record for this planning Action. Also attached are notes taken by the Historic Hearings Board earlier in the process. RECEIVED 19 2003 So the Vision and Goals of the Comprehensive Plan were put into effect as amendments to the Hillside Ordinance over a period of time in 1996-7 and received much publicity within the City and coverage in the local newspapers. This resulted in an appeal to LUBA by the local Realtors and even went to the Oregon Supreme Court. Indeed the Applicant's brother. Alan DeBoer (then a city councilor and now Mayor) was appointed to the Ad Hoc Committee charged with the task of discussing the details of this ordinance amendment and hearing all public testimony. Copies of the Record are attached as appendices. The Record clearly shows that this Environmental Constraints ordinance was amer~ded not just to protect the citizens downslope from erosion and slope failure but to protect the Urban forest backdrop to our City as an aesthetic resource for all. This community vision was finally distilled into ALUO 18.62 - Physical & Environmental Constraints and later 18.61 - Tree Preservation & Protection and also 18.20.040 Maximum Permitted Floor Area for dwellings within the Historic District. (the latter amendments post-dated this application ) 8.62.010 Purpose and :Intent The purpose of this Chapter is to provide for safe, orderly and beneficial development of districts characterized by diversity of physiographic conditions and significant natural features; to limit alteration of topography and reduce encroachment upon, or alteration ofv any natural environment and; to provide for sensitive development in areas that are constrained by various natural features. Physiographic conditions and significant natural features can be considered to include, but are not limited to: slope of the land, natural drainage ways, wetlands, soil characteristicsv potential landslide areas, natural and wildlife habitats, forested areas, significant trees, and significant natural vegetation. 18.62.080 Development Standards for Hillside Lands [t is the purpose of the Development Standards for Hillside Lands to provide supplementary development regulations to underlying zones to ensure that development occurs in such a manner as to protect the natural and topographic character and identity of these areas, environmental resources, the aesthetic qualities and restorative value of lands, and the public health, safety, and general welfare by insuring that development does not create soil erosion, sedimentation of lower slopes, slide damage, flooding problems, and severe cutting or scarring. :It is the intent of these development standards to encourage a sensitive form of development and to allow for a reasonable use that complements the natural and visual character of the city. A. General Requirements. The following general requirements shall apply in Hillside Lands: 1. All development shall occur on lands defined as having buildable area. Slopes greater than 35% shall be considered unbuildable ..... RECEIVED The minutes of the Ad Hoc Committee for Hillside development: 10/11/97 (excerpt) (Ad Hoc Committee member) Donovan would like to revisit the percentage of slope. Also, is there a tool to make property owners aware of the ordinance? She would like a discussion on aesthetics" 11/3/97 (excerpt) "(City Planning Director) HcLaughlin explained that aesthetics has been a key factor from the beginning of the ordinance discussion" Attached · Timeline of Hillside Development Standards Ordinance Adoption (pg. 469 LUBA Record) · Table of contents for 1,768 pages of LUBA Record 97-260 Letter Dated 11/13/97 from Progressive Citizens Alliance about citizen's petition with "over 1,100 signatures from residents of Ashland favoring the "original form of the Ordinance" (18.62) · Details taken from "Large Exhibits not included in Copied Record" LUBA97-260 a) Map showing Hillside Lands etc.- with subject property; b) Map showing Hillside Lands w/>25% Slope overlay - with subject property. · Photo of subject property from Historic Downtown from City Records for PA 2003-118. Already Provided - to be included in the Record. · Map (color) from City GIS survey showing unbuildable areas. · Detail from previous map showing building footprint, tree removal, driveway location and Right-of Way boundary and cross section lines.. · Historic Photo circa 1910 showing slope. · Aerial Photo from City (B&W) showing tree canopy and develoment at 300 Vista St. · Two cross sections prepared by Colin Swales based on item 2 above showing building and existing topography with slope calculations. RECEIVED NOV ! 9 2003 Colin Swales' Communication with City Staff- being a continued effort to obtain copies of documents for PA# 2003-118 · As substantiating evidence that the application was incomplete due to unfair restrictions made on the public obtaining copies of submittal. From: "Colin Swales" <colin~mind net> 10/15/03 09:52AM >>> Derek, Could you please make me a copy of the applicant's submittal for the upcoming 265 Glenview Drive development.( do you have a.pdf o£ this?) Also the accompanying staff report ( e-mai this if possible) thanks Colin From: "Derek severson" <dercks~ashland. or.us> To: <colin@mind.net> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 11:39 AM Subject: Re: Glenview Colin, The staff findings are attached. I don't have the applicant's submittal electronically, but I will photocopy the narrative for you and set it out in the basket. I'm not sure if you are looking for copies of the plans that were included in the submittal, but because the plans are stamped/copyrighted by Ogden Kistler, I can't photocopy them without written permission to you fi.om their office. And because it's not commission business, our standard copying charges do apply - $0.50 perpage for projects over 15 pages for standard sized pages and larger format copies at $8 per page. We do have them available for review in office as part of the file. (The narrative falls into the 15 pages at no cost when double sided.) I then went to the Planning Office whereupon Mark Knox said he was willing to make copies of three of the reduced drawings I had requested. But he was told that they were copyright and so I requested that he obtain permission from Ogden Kistler and let me know soon, as I was heading out of town the following day. He told me that if I didn't hear by the end of the day then copies would not be allowed. I did not hear anything. When I returned and upon learning that this application had been called up for public hearing, I again requested the copies. I was informed that Planning Commissioner Briggs had also requested some copies and that Ken Ogden had told Staff, "She can just come into the office to see the plans like anyone else" "Colin Swales" <colin~mind.net> 10/27/03 9:11:28 AM >>> /43 REC IVIED Mark, I understand that PA# 2003-118 has been called up for a Public Heating. You might remember when I came into the office a couple of weeks ago in order to obtain information concerning this application and was allowed to inspect the submitted plans. Although you personally were perfectly willing to make me a copy of a couple of the 8" x 11" reduced versions of the plans I understand that you were over-ruled by Mac and the City Attorney who said that I must first obtain the express permission of the copyright holder (Ogden Kistler Architecture). I then asked for you to request such permission. You replied that if I didn't hear from you before days end, that permission was not forthcoming. I did not hear from you so I have to assume that permission to copy these public documents was denied. However, on reading ORS 197.763 (3h) (http ://www.leg. state, or.us/ors/197, html) I read: "...all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost .... "(my emphasis). Could you please therefore make me the couple of copies I requested. Also, could you please make sure that this request is entered into the Record for PA# 2003-118 and that the City Attorney and Planning Director are made aware as are Derek and Adam who also thought they were not allowed to make such copies.( see e-mail below) thanks Colin Swales lmllllllmmlmllmmlllll mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm m mmmmmmmmlmlmmmlllllmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmllm From: "Paul nolte" <Noltep~ashland.or.us> > To: "Mark knox" <mark~ashland.or.us>; <colin~mind.net> > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 8:06 AM > Subject: Re: Copies of Submitted Documents? > > > Mark, as I previously advised copyrighted plans may not be duplicated. ORS > 197.763 does not trump Federal copyright laws. Do not copy the plans without the consent of the copyright holder. > > Paul Nolte > City Attorney > City of Ashland, OR > (541) 488-5350 - PHONE NOV 1 9 200 > NOTE NEW FAX # AS OF JUNE 25, 2003: (541) 552-2092 - FAX > noltepC-b_,ashland, or. us > > Visit the city's web site at: www.ashland.or.us > Our TTY phone number is 1 (800) 735-2900 ************************************************************** From: "Colin Swales" <colin@mind net> To: "Paul nolte" <Noltep~ashland.or.us> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 9:18 AM Subject: Re: Copies of Submitted Documents? Paul, Re PA~ 2003-118 Thanks for your opinion on this matter. The applicant, according to my understanding, and subsequent to my request for copies of the reductions of their plans that were made part of their planning action submittal, furnished the city with a written denial to make such copies of their evidence available to the public. I myself was unable to exercise due diligence in this matter due to this action by the applicants. As such a categorical denial is contrary to Oregon Planning Law (as stated below) I would like to request that Ihe planning Action should not have been received and accepted by the City as a complete and full application and furthermore that the City requests that this application is withdrawn and submitted at a later date containing only such evidence to support their application that the applicant is willing to share fully and unreservedly with the public and without such illegal restrictions on access and scrutiny. Yours Colin Swales JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ ..... Original Message .... From: "Paul nolte" <Noltep~ashland.or.us> To: <colin~mind.net> Cc: "John mclaughlin" <mac,ashland.or.us>; "Mark knox" <mark@ashland.or.us> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 4:01 PM Subject: Re: Copies of Submitted Documents? Colin, if your are inquiring as a citizen, not as a planning commissioner, then you need to make these assertions at the heating itself. If you are inquiring as a planning commissioner then I would advise you that the applicant's submission is not contrary to law, that submitting copyrighted plans does not mean a complete application has not been submitted, that the applicant has done nothing illegal and that asserting one's rights under the copyright law is not putting "illegal RECEIVED AIOV 19 restrictions on access and scrutiny." >>> "Colin Swales" <colin~mind.net> October 30, 2003 5:26:15 AM >>> Mark, I came by the office today and saw that the notice for the upcoming PA#2003-118 has been sent out to the surrounding property owners and others. When was it mailed out? Also could you tell me the status of the lot-line adjustment that is proposed for this site. How does that go through the planning process? Is it a separate action? Also, I saw in the file that you had received a fax on Oct 28th from Ogden Kistler Architecture that stated, "Mark it is okay to make copies of the DeBoer Residence as needed specifically for the Planning Commissionaires who will be reviewing the project at the November 12th, 1:30 meeting" thank you Ken Ogden Does that mean that there is now permission granted for myself and other members of the public to obtain copies or must I still come down to the office in order to inspect the plans? Who will be the decision makers at that meeting. I know you told me that Kerry Kencairn was scheduled. If she is stepping down, who will replace her? I would appreciate a written reply to this and my previous e-mail (copied below) as time really is of the essence and I need to know about this issue very soon. thanks as always for your help, Colin Colin, We had two notices mailed out after the call-up notice. The first notice was mailed Oct. 22nd and the second was mailed Oct. 27th. The first notice had listed the property address at 265 "Grandview" instead of Glenview. As I'm sure you noticed, the notice had a site map that showed the property and the correct streets, just the text in the description was wrong. The second notice rectified the minor error. The original Staff Permit Approval notice had the correct address. The lot line adjustment is a separate action and is considered a "Ministerial Action". This is on my desk and I'm close to having it signed and sent to the recorder. It is my understanding the fax from Ken Ogden was intended for the three Hearings .. Board members only. We have had follow faxes that also allow copying for the Tree and Historic Commissioners. RECEIVE D NOV 19 2OO3 Dave Dotterrer, Mike Morris and I believe Kerry's replacement is Russ Chapman. - Mark ..... Original Message ..... From: Colin Swales To: Mark Knox Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 5:35 AM Subject: Ogden Fax - PA# 2003-118 Mark, re PA# 2003-118 I picked up the copy of the fax - thanks. However, it says that "..the plans are copyrighted ..... They cannot be reproduced without direct consent of OKA...) This is just a statement of fact. Can you confirm that my specific request for the direct consent of OKA to have such copies made was actually denied. If not I would still like the copies I requested. Unfortunately at the "PC chat session" I was fully occupied from 4-5 and anyway, both meeting rooms were occupied. Perhaps I can find another time to look at the full-size drawings ..... thanks Colin >>> "Colin Swales" <colin(D,,mind net> October 30 Mark, Can I then assume that my specific requests (Thursday 16 Oct 2003 and subsequently since ) for consent to make copies of the plans has been denied by the copyright holder,9 I need you to be specific on this. thanks Colin ..... Original M~ssage ..... From: "Mark knox" <mark~ashland. or. us> To: <colin~mind.net> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 9:00 AM Subject: Re: Copyright permission obtained PA#2003-118.9 NOV 1 9 Yes, to not just you but for anyone beyond the Planning, Tree, Historic Commission members not hearing the Planning Action. On November 3'a'2003, Ken Ogden went into the Planning Department office with his lawyer and signed a copyright release. Mark Knox subsequently gave me a copy of the Historic Commission packet ( including reduced plans) for the meeting on the 5th November 2003. OREGON LAND USE LAW ORS Chapter 197 -- Comprehensive Land Use Planning Coordination ORS 197.763 (3h) (http://www. leg.state.or.us/ors/197.html) (h) State that a copy of the application, ali documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost; FEDERAL COPYRIGHT LAW (Fair Use) htto://,nanwv.coovri~ht.~ov/titlel 7/92chap 1.html#107 § 107. Limitations on exchlsive fights: Fair nsc~ Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A. the fair tkse of a copyrighted work. including such use ~- reproduction in copies or phonorecords or ~' any other means specified bx' that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -- (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a conunercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the mount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. NOV 1 9 2OO3 ---lll-[ ~ HL Timeline of Hillside Development Standards Ordinance Adoption Initial PC Study Session Concerned Citizens Info Meeting Concerned Citizem Field Meeting Sub-committee - Architecture Sub-committee- Land Integrity Sub-committee- Fire/Traffic Concerned Citizens Review Meeting Concerned Citizens Review Meeting 6/27/95 3/I I/96 3/16/96 3/18/96 3/20/96 4/3/96 4/8/96 4/29/96 Legal notice in newspaper. Article in paper, notices mailed. Article in paper, notices marled. Article in paper Article in paper Ankle in paper Article in paper, mailed notice Article in paper, previous meeting notice PC/Concerned Citizens Review Meeting 6/! 7/97 Concerned Citizens Review Meeting 7/8/96 Plannimt Commission Study Session 7/30/96 Concerned Citizens Review Meeting Technical Committee Review PC/City Coundl Study Session Technical Committee Review 4/9/97 Technical Committee Review 4/16/97 ]~C/City Coundl Study Session 4/29/97 Concemed Ckizens Review Meeting 6/2/97 Planning Commission Publh: Hearin~ 6/! 0/97 City Coundl Public Hearing 8/5/97 City Council/First Reading 9/2/97 10/2/96 11/21/96 I I/26/96 Mailed notice Mailed notice, article in paper Mailed notice, newspaper, legal notice Notice by Concerned Citizens Marled notice to committee members Mailed notice, newspaper, legal notice Mailed notice to committee members Mailed notice to committee members Newsoaoer. legal notice Notice by Concemed Citizens Newsoaoer. legal notice Newspaper, published agenda, legal notice - Newspaper, published agenda City Council/Second Reading 9/16/97 aty Council/Second Reading 10/7/97 Newspaper Newspaper RSCSlV cD TABLE OF CONTENTS 12-2-97 12-2-97 12-2-97 11-25-97 11-19-97 11-19-97 9-14-97 thru 11-19-97 11-18-97 11-18-97 11-18-97 11-13-97 11-12-97 11-3-97 10-30-97 10-20-97 10-20-97 10-16-97 10-10-97 10-7-97 10-7-97 9-16-97 9-11-97 9-2-97 8-26-97 8-1-97 5-23-97 4-29-97 4-29-97 4-9-97 6-13-96 "lVlap vMap ~Slides ~'Slides ,l~hotos "Photos V'Map MVlap Ordinance 2808 Adopted 12-2-97 Findings in Support of Adoption Ordinance 2808 Council Minutes Ordinance Second Reading Minutes for the Adjourned Meeting Ashland City Council Realtor Packet presented to Council Pa.qes 1-32 33-43 44-45 46-78 79-86 87-230 Miscellaneous Letters Minutes for the Regular Meeting Ashland City Council DLCD Response Council Packet Citizen Petition Vacant Lands Analysis Ad Hoc Hillside Committee Minutes Ad Hoc Hillside Committee Packet Ad Hoc Hillside Committee Minutes Hillside Development Committee Packet Realtor Packet DLCD Notice Letter from Richard Stevens Company, LLC Minutes for the Regular Meeting Ashland City Council Minutes for the Regular Meeting Ashland City Council Memorandum to Mayor and City Council re: Hillside Development Standards - Reading from John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development Minutes for the Regular Meeting Ashland City Council Memorandum to Mayor and City Council re: Hillside Development Standards - Reading from John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development 231-357 358-368 369-370 371-567 568-664 665-686 687-691 692-781 782-784 785 -964 965-1317 1318-1322 1323-1420 1421 - 1426 1427-1432 Second 1433-1465 1466-1470 First 1471-1504 Memorandum to Mayor and City Council re: Hillside Development Standards from John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development 1505-1549 Memorandum to Interested Parties re: Final Draft (Version 2.1) from Ashland Planning Department 1550-1584 Hillside Development Standards (Version 2.0) 1585-1617 Early Comments/Input 1618-1698 Physical & Environmental Constraints (Version 1.1) 1699-1735 Physical & Environmental Constraints (Version 1.0) 1736-1768 LARGE EXHIBITS NOT INCLUDED IN COPIED RECORD Geologic Map of the parts of ASHLAND & LAKE CREEK QUADRANGLES Oregon Geologic Hazard Map of the parts of ASHLAND & LAKE CREEK QUADRANGLES Oregon Slide presentation by Planning Director John McLaughlin presented to Hillside Ordinance Committee Slide presentation by Rick Harris presented to Ashland City Council Color photos (xerox 8 1/2 x 11) of Ashland homes Photo album of Ashland homes City of Ashland Vacant Lands Inventory Hillside Lands, Floodplain Corridor, Vacant Lands City of Ashland Vacant Lands Inventory Hillside Lands w/>25% Slope overlay ,~Map City of Ashland Zoning Map Mylar Overlay on Buildable Lands ' ,"Map City of Ashland Slope Demarcation Map ~Map Zoning Map Mylar Overlay on Tax Lots colored by size ,~Large Graphic. 35% slope explanation ~Large Graphic 'Hillside Development Ordinance" - 5 bulleted points RECEIVED November 13, 1997 Honorable Mayor Golden and City Council 20 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 Re: Hillside Developement Standards Ordinance Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council: It gives us great pleasure to submit the attached letters of petition with signatures of over one thousand one hundred residents of Ashland who are strongly in favor of the original form of this ordinance as submitted to you on September 16, 1997. The sections viewed as essential were those pertaining to 35% maximum buildable slope, with adamant preference for less slope, retention of the natural state on all parcels, building design and hillside grading and erosion control. Many were in favor of the suggested change by councilor DeBoer regarding color restrictions. These signatures were obtained by a small group of volunteer citizens at three easily accessible locations in the city over a period of seven days. The overwhelming response to this petition in such a very short period of time with minimum exposure clearly indicates the citizens mandate to you, our elected rePresentatives. This is a resounding example of citizen participation in city government that you and many others have been working long and hard to stimulate and encourage. Congratulationsl! We respectfully urge you to pass this ordinance including the. above noted change, as submitted and dated for your approval on September 16, 1997, and entitled City Adopted Version- Second Reading. Robert E. Taber, For: Progressive Citizens Alliance 97 Scenic Drive Ashland, Oregon 97520 RECEIVED I{OV ! 9 Aberfan Disaster Description l~ttp://www, nutt.ox.ac, u~pOllUCS/al>ertan/Oesc.htm The Aberfan Disaster Brief Description At 9.15 am on Friday, October 21, 1966 a waste tip slid down a mountainside into the mining village of Aberfan, near Merthyr Tydfil in South Wales. It first destroyed a farm cottage in its path, killing all the occupants. At Pantglas Junior School, just below, the children had just returned to their classes after singing All Things Bright and Beautiful at their assembly. It was sunny on th~ mountain but foggy in the village, with visibility about 50 yards. The tipping gang up the mountain had seen the slide start, but could not raise the alarm because their telephone cable had been repeatedly stolen. (The Tribunal of Inquiry later established that the disaster happened so quickly that a telephone warning would not have saved lives.) Down in the village, nobody saw anything, but everybody heard the noise. Gaynor Minett, an eight-year-old at the school, remembered four years later: It was a tremendous rumbling sound and all the school went dead. You oould hear a pin drop. Everyone just froze in their seats. I just managed to get up and I reached the end of my desk when the sound got louder and nearer, until I could see the black out of the window. I can't remember any more but I woke up to find that a horrible nightmare had just bcgun in front of my cycs. The slide engulfed the school and about 20 houses in the village before coming to rest. Then there was total silence. George Williams, who was trapped in the wreckage, remembered that 'In that silence you couldn~ hear a bird or a child'. 144 people died in the Aberfan disaster: 116 of them were school children. About half of the children at Pantgias Junior School, and five of their teachers, were killed. lof2 11/19/2003 6:30 AM Abeffan Disaster Description nttp://www.nun.ox.ac.u~ponucs/a~enasvaesc.nm~ So hordfifing was the disaster that everybody wanted to do something. Hundreds of people stopped what they were doing, threw a shovel in the car, and drove to Aberfan to try and help with the rescue. It was futile; the untrained rescuers merely got in the way of the trained rescue teams. Nobody was rescued alive after 1 lam on the day of the disaster, but it was nearly a week before all the bodies were recovered. The above description is taken from Iain McLean, On Moles and the Habits of Birds: The Unpolitics of Aberfan, Twentieth Century British History, vol.8, Doe. 1997. With quotes from: Gaynor Madgewick, Aberfan: Struggling out of the darkness, (Blaengarw: Valley & Vale, 1996), p.23 (The bulk of the book, including the passage quoted here, comprise the author's recollections of the disaster, written in a school notebook between 1970 and 1972.) & Report of the Tribunal appointed to require into the Disaster at Aberfan on October 21st, 1966, Chairman Lord Justice Edmund Davies, HMSO, 1967, HL 316 & HC 553, p.27. Return to the Aberfan Disaster home page 2of2 11/19/2003 6:30 AM .......... II1 I' 18 November 2003 John McLaughlin Director, Community Development City of Ashland 20 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 RE: Planning Action 2003-118 ! 265 Glenview CC: Planning Commission Dear John McLaughlin: This letter is my additional testimony on the above-referenced matter, and reaches you within the comment period allowed by the Planning Hearings Board at its 12 November 2003 afternoon meeting. My first request is that you move this item from the agenda of the Planning Hearings Board to the agenda of the full Planning Commission-. All parties acknowledge to be true that this proposal to build the largest private residence ever built in one of Ashland's Historic Districts has attracted a great degree of public attention. Rogue Valley media, including the Medford Mail Tribune and the Ashland Daily Tidings have published articles about it and received numerous letters to the editor about it. The chronology, filing of documents and entire project history has had more than its share of unusual twists and convolutions. As just one example, its review by the Historic and Tree Commissions required those commissions to look at this project using a different 'lens' of legal, applicable language and criteria than customary. Therefore, I think the full Planning Commission should exercise its responsibilities and carefully review this matter. Please inform me if a precedent already exists about the power of citizens to ask the Hearings Board to move an item from its agenda to that c~f the full Hanning Commission. I made this request at the 12 November 2003 Hearings Board hearing during my testimony but neither the Board not staff brought it up for further discussion or action~ I bring to your attention the results of the review of this project by two of the city's volunteer commissions. The Historic Commission, stripped of its normal opportunity to send you its review from its normal legal ground, instead was encouraged by City Councilor (and Historic Commission RECEIVEr' liaison) John Morrison to send its opinions forward through some process and language, F, ncouraged by this~ the Historic Commission passed by a 5-1 vote its recommendation that the Planning Commission should deny, for Historic-related reasons (bulk&scale, etc.), the applicants' request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit. Representatives of the applicant have already argued that the Planning Commission should simply dismiss this Historic Commission recommendation as not legally_ relevant to the decision-making process. While this narrow view may have the hollow ting of technical truth, it defies the spirit of the long-term relationship of respect and collegial relationship among members of the Historic Commission and the Planning Commission. A long-standing, bipartisan track record of asking applicants to adhere to Historic Commission recommendations will be reversed if the Planning Commission simply dismisses the majority vote from the Historic Commission. As for the Tree Commission, its members have long realized that they act in only an advisory capacity to the quasi-judicial Planning Commissiom It is not the charge of the Tree Commission to make any recommendation to the Planning Commission as to whether a project should be approved or denied, and therefore, it made no such recommendation for this project. This is a long-standing precedent. What is true, again, is the reality that a relationship of collegiality exists among members of the Tree Commission and the Planning Commission. Many Tree Commissioners work as arborists, horticulturists, landscape professionals or parks professionals and bring a career's worth of knowledge -- as well as their local experience of Ashland's unique botany -- to their volunteer duties. I believe that explains why the Planning Commission frequently includes Tree Commission recommendations into the Conditions of Approval for projects. In any case, again due to the uncommon (but legal) language through which the Tree Commission was required to review this proposal, it is fact that they made no recommendation whether to approve or deny (as is precedent) and instead sent forward a mitigation strategy that was agreed to by the applicant should this proposal meet with ultimate approval. The mitigation strategy was required because of one of the unusual twists in this planning 'actionJ Sometime in early 2003~ city staff in the planning department, in response to a query from the applicant, told the applicant that trees on their property could be cut down because their property was not covered by AMC 18.61. This is correct as far as it goes but RECEIV JlOv 1 9 2003 staff now agrees with all parties that this approval to cut was in violation of sections of the Hillside Ordinance, which would have required a Tree Inventory, among other actions, as cited in ALUO 18.62.080 Development Standards for Hillside Lands. If, for example, the applicant had first presented a Tree inventory, this might have invoked Section O, 1 which states "Building envelopes shall be located and sized to preserve the maximum number of tree's on site while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands." Had this 'mistake' not occurred, the applicant could not have illegally removed five (-5) large trees (ranging in DBH [diameter at breast height] from 18 inches to 40 inches) in a mixed oak/madrone native hillside forest. The Hillside Ordinance language would have obtained, a Tree Inventory would have been required, and Section O, 5 would have become relevant "Tree Removal. Development shall be designed to preserve the maximum number of trees on a site. The development shall follow the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands." Section O, 7a. would also been required: "All tree removal shall be done in accord with the approved tree removal and replacement plan-. No trees designated for conservation shall be removed without prior approval of the City of Ashland." According to one of applicants' representatives, KenCairn Environmental Design~ these native trees were removed ",,, in anticipation of the adoption of the Tree Ordinance." It is a matter of public record (photocopies, dated 1/01/02 and 1/02/0'2 attached) that Sid and Karen DeBoer opposed the adoption of the Tree Ordinance (passed with a 5-1 City Council vote on 4 June 2002; legal as of 5 July 2002, some months before the actual removal of trees at 265 Olenview.) Their disdain of the appropriateness of legal constraints that might regulate the removal of trees could not be more clear. Sid DeBoer states unequivocally in his e-mail, "...we must leave it up to the property owners where they want to put their houses and treesJ' According to KenCairn, "The appliCant had numerous conversations with staff at the City of Ashland over the removal of these trees, and it was agreed that there were no restrictions on their removal." Staff testimony at the Public Hearings Board meeting on 12 November 2003 suggested that perhaps just one conversation, a phone call, led to staff's erroneous recommendation to applicant that there were "...no restrictions on their & / RECEIVF' AIOV 19 2003 removal." This difference of opinion about what actually happened affirms my assertion that this project has already had many unusual twists: KenCairn later asserts, on behalf of applicants, that "Because the tree removal was in violation of the Hillside Ordinance, the following mitigation has been proposed." This declaration makes clear that, whatever their intent, the applicants' removal of this mixed oak/madrone native forest h-ad the legal result of removing the applicants from the legal constraints of the Hillside Ordinance language which would have required their home proposal to keep the native, forested hillside intact, By cutting the trees-, applicants prepared a no-exit, legal strategy for themselves that removed them from the stringent requirements of the Hillside Ordinance, and also eliminated them from an~ything other than a mitigation discussion with the Tree Commission while reducing the Historic Commissioners to the legal position of simply forwarding an 'unenforceable' opinion. It is also a general understanding among Ashland's landscape professionals that madrone trees are very difficult to transplant and nearly impossible to purchase or grow from seed. Given the size and age of the native madrones and oaks cut down by the applicants, it is fair to assume that they were not planted by humans, but were instead part of the natural succession of botanic species on the front of this ridge projecting into downtown Ashland. I'm sure many of us who walked by thi's property over the last quarter century believed we were looking at a representative example of what Ashland's hillsides looked like before human domestication, adorned with a mixed forest of mature, specimen madrone and oak trees. We never imagined that any property owner would illegally cut them down! As a result of this tree-cutting mistake, applicants' representatives now freely state, on Page 24 of their 'Findings of Fact and Conclusions of -Law' document, in the section relating to Criterion 20, that".., there are no significant trees within the Protected Hillside Area to be removed as a result of this project." Let me translate this into Will Rogers' common-sense speech: "Yep, you betcha, those trees are gone and now that they are cut down illegally and everyone admits it was illegal, then one of the favorable outcomes for you is that you won't be subject to Criterion 20, Section 3, a., b. and c. which therefore means that you will be able to propose an 1 LOOOsq,ft,+ home, since the trees will be gone and no longer in the way of the proposed building envelope." R~(~i:::~V '~ I believe impartial observers would agree, after hearing all this evidence, that this whole project should simply be denied and applicants required to re-submit a new proposal. In such an event, all parties could be assured that the full breadth of ali applicable ordinances would be carefully evaluated from a legal perspective in a second review by the Planning Department and legal staff. From my seat, the Planning Commission should simply deny approval of this permit. That would allow city legal staff an opportunity to begin considering what kind of fines (see 18.62.080, 7 b. "Should the developer or the developer's agent remove or destroy any tree that has been designated for conservation; the developer may be fined up to three times the current appraised value of the replacement trees and cost of replacement or up to three times the current market value, as' established by a professional arbofist, whichever is greater.") to impose and what kind of restoration mitigation actions will be required to restore and heal the damaged native forested hillside. Finally, each noticed planning action, including this one, has language on the front page stating: "A copy of the application) all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested." This allows Ashland citizens a chance to participate in the planning future of their community. Questions on this project about availability of the copyrighted drawings, legal release of-same, the exact number of days of availability during the comment period and any other legal issues involved could be laid to rest, perhaps, if copies of all e-mail, faxed or written correspondence between applicants; applicants' representatives and city staff were compiled and made available for public review as part of the decision-making process. Best, Bryan Holley 324 Liberty Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 BH:BH -- attachments RECEIVED liO~V 1. 6 20O3 Mark knox, Deboer House Application , Page 1 From: To: Date: Subject: "JBStreet" <jbstreet@ashlandhome.net> "Mark Knox" <mark@ashland.or.us> November 18, 2003 9:18PM Deboer House Application Mark, Please attach the document referred to below ('q'imeline of Hillside Development Standards Ordinance Adoption" ) to this additional submission to the DeBoer House public record. Please confirm receipt to my work address as well: bill.street@ashland.k12.or.us. Thank you very much, Bill November 18, 2003 To: Ashland Planning Commissioners Ashland Planning Department Re: Sid and Karen DeBoer Planning Application After giving my testimony at last week's Hearing Board meeting (Wednesday, November 12, 2003), I was approached at the end of the meeting by Commissioner Morris. He referred to my comments and said he didn't recall the Hillside Ordinance process in the way that I did. He commented that it was his opinion that there was considerable opposition at the time and that the Council Chambers were "filled with people who were opposed to it." After thinking about his opinion, I feel it is necessary to put in writing my reasons for introducing into the record a number of quotes from the Medford Mail Tribune which appeared in print in 1997. My intent was to establish that the Hillside ordinance was well publicized and its provisions repeatedly discussed publicly over six years ago. I hope the Commissioners will review the 'q'imeline of Hillside Development Standards Ordinance Adoption" (a City of Ashland document available from the Planning Department) in order to clarify the record in their minds before making a decision on the DeBoer House application. The "Timeline of Hillside Development Standards Ordinance Adoption" document is a legal record prepared in response to the Rogue Valley Association of Realtors decision to take the case to LUBA. The document cleady establishes the city's record of public meetings, legal notices, published agendas and articles in the paper which appeared between 6/27/95 and 10/7/97. There are numerous detailed statements in this public record of the provisions of the ordinance. The intent of my testimony was to make clear that the public, as well as Sid and Karen DeBoer and their various professional advisors and legal councilors, were informed of the previsions of the Hillside Ordinance as far back as the Public Hearing of 8/5/1997. It seems appropriate that Planning Commissioners would consider this in making their decision in this matter. I attempted to establish in my Hearing Board testimony that the Hillside Ordinance makes numerous references to its intent to protect trees and vegetationon our hillsides. I hope you will agree that it is a responsibility shared by'private citizens and the City of Ashland. In this case, a mistake was made when the DeBoers were given permission to cut down a group of significant natural trees on their hillside property. I would like to propose that the City and the DeBoers honor the intent and purpose of the 1997 Ordinance* (see below) by sharing the responsiblity of restoring the natural hillside canopy of trees on their property. As a consequence, it will be necessary for the DeBoers to resubmit their house plans and build their house in the historically appropriate location of the two Vista Street houses they demolished previously. Mark knox - Deboer House Application Page 2 Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough consideration, Bill Street 180 Mead Street Ashland 18.62.080 Development Standards for Hillside Lands It is the purpose of the Development Standards for Hillside Lands to provide supplementary development regulations to underlying zones to ensure that development occurs in such a manner as to protect the natural and topographic character and identity of these areas, environmental resources, the aesthetic qualities and restorative value of lands, and the public health, safety, and general welfare by insuring that development does not create soil erosion, sedimentation of lower slopes, slide damage, flooding problems, and severe cutting or scarring. It is the intent of these development standards to encourage a sensitive form of development and to allow for a reasonable use that complements the natural and visual character of the city. CC: "Sue Yates" <Sue@ashland.or.us> Timeline of Hillside Development Standards Ordinance Adoption Initial PC Study Session Concerned Oflzens Info Meeting Concerned Oflzem Field Meeting Sub-committee - Architecture Sub-Committee- Land Integrity Sub-committee - Fire/Traffic Concerned Citizem Review Meeting Concerned Odzem Review Meeting 6/27/95 3/11/96 3/16/96 3/18/96 3/20/96 4/3/96 4/8/96 4/29/96 Legal notice in newspaper. ArTicle in paper, notices mailed. ^rticle in paper, notices mailed. Article in paper Article in paper Article in paper Article in paper, mailed notice Article in paper, previous meeting notice PC/concemed Citizens Review Meeting Concerned Citizem Review Meeting Planninf~ Commission Study Session Concerned Citizens Review Meeting 6/17/97 7/8/96 7/30/96 1~2~6 Technical Committee Review PC/City Coundl Study Session Technical Committee Review Technical Committee Review PC/CIty Council Study Session 11/21/96 I I/26/96 4/9/97 4/! 6/97 4/29/97 Concerned Citizens Review Meeting 6/2/97 Planning Commission Public Hearing 6/10/97 City Coundl Public Heating 8/5/97 City Council/First Reading 9/2/97 Mailed notice Mailed notice, article in paper Mailed notice, newspaper, legal notice Notice by Concerned Citizens Mailed notice to committee members Mailed notice, newsnaper, legal notice Mailed notice to committee members Mailed notice to committee members Newspaper, legal notice Notice by Concerned Qtizens Newspaper. legal notice Newspaper, published a~enda, leical notice Newspaper, published agenda City Council/Second Reading 9/i 6/97 Newspaper City Council/Second Reading 10/7/97 Newspaper P~arce , Proposed Tree RemoVal Ordinance Page 1 From: To: Date: Subject: "Sid Deboer" <sdeboer@lithia.com> <pearcer@ashland.or. us> 1/1/02 2:29PM Proposed Tree Removal Ordinance I am opposed to passing the Tree Removal Ordinance as it is proposed. I beli~-~C4t~A~enforceable and will lead to co~t:y :~t~g&[;v,,. ~ This is bureaucratic interference at its worst form in the personal property dghts of property owners. Just say No to the Tree Ordinance. I love trees and think we all support the idea of having a city of beautiful trees-but we must leave it up to the property owners where they want to put their houses and trees. Sidney B. DeBoer, 234 Vista St., Ashland, Oregon. 482-0915 CC: <jed@quest5.com>, <Awdb@aol.com> RECEIVED NOV 19 20O3 ~n pearce - Proposed Tree Removal Ordinance Page I From: To: Date: Subject: "Karen Deboer" <kdeboer@lithia.com> _/ <pearcer@ashland.or.us> 1/2/02 9:45AM ~ ~ , Proposed Tree Removal Ordinance I love trees. I plant trees-every year at our home and take pride in selecting a varietal of trees and nurturing them but I feel its personally an affront that a commission would th'.,,h~..of telling .me w~ I do with any of the trees in my garden. This vigilante group must be sto~DeBoer ~ Karen DeBoer [,~_.~.~~_ CC: "Jed Meese" <jed@quest5.com>, <Awdb@aol.com> could RECEIVED NOV 19 2OO3 FROM TIlE DESK OF GEORGE KRAMER Monday, November 17, 2003 Mr. Russ Chapman Chair, Ashland Planning Commission c/o Mark Knox, Associate Planner (via e-mail) Dear Russ, I would like this letter added to the public record regarding PA #2003-118, concerning a physical and environmental constraints permit for the proposed structure at 265 Glenview Drive, within Siskiyou-Hargacline National Register-listed historic district. At the Commission's Nov. 12th Hearings Board staff presented the four criteria for approval of this permit. Criterion #3 stated that the Commission "...shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area and the maximum development permitted by the Land Development Ordinance" in determining whether to grant the applicant's permit. I believe it is false to define the surrounding area within the tight constraints the applicant suggests and that if "the surrounding area" were defined in more accurate and appropriate terms with regard to the impact of the project, that this proposal can be clearly found at odds with the existing development pattern. Such a position is supported by findings that few if any structures in the neighborhood, not to mention the district as a whole, are 1) as tall, 2) as large in volume or 3) are built upon the steepest portion of the related lot. Houses in the immediate vicinity, on both Vista and even Glenview, are generally sited in traditional fashion to respect the streetscape and are built upon flat or gently sloped portions of their lots. As a result other nearby dwellings nestle into the neighborhood rather than looming above it as the proposed structure clearly will. You will recall the one aspect of the original Hillside Ordinance discussions involved visual impact from the valley floor. This building will dearly be visible from the majority of the downtown core. As a community Ashland has clearly stated its opposition to projects such as this one being built in our historic districts. This application, although submitted to circumvent the timing of the Maximum House Size ordinance, blatantly exploits to the maximum virtually every pertinent aspect of the LDO in terms of height and allowable lot coverage, requires the manipulation of existing lot lines to create a monster parcel that borrows from adjacent properties under the same ownership, and, in my opinion, pushes the definitions of what is a basement or building story to the maximum allowed under the code. This is not a proposal that is slightly outside the community standard in a single regard, but rather one that smashes through those standards by magnitudes of order in every direction possible. Quite simply the request for a physical and environmental constraints permit represents the only aspect of the code that could not be maximized or finessed to the applicant's advantage without the City's concurrence. Given that this is a proposal a strong majority of Ashland opposes this request for permit devolves to the simple legal question as to whether there is any basis within the LDO 386 NORTH LAUREL · ASHLAND, OREGON 97520-1154 541-482-9504 541-482-9438 [FAX] gkramer~je ffnet.org 17 NOVEMBER, 2003 prior to the adoption of the Maximum House Ordinance upon which it might be legally denied. In my opinion it is reasonable, and entirely permitted under the code at the time of application, for the Commission to find that this project is inconsistent with the surrounding development as defined under Criterion 3 of the Hillside ordinance. There are differing views on the actual slope of the building site, along with questions about where that slope should be measured which result in determinations that the project may or may not be within the allowable limits. Such determinations are entirely outside the realm of any widely supported community ordinance that went into effect specifically to halt projects such as this one within Ashland's historic districts. The proposal contained in PA 2003-118 is dearly not a project Ashland wishes to see built, nor one that provides any community benefit whatsoever that I can discern. While every applicant, no matter how self-interested, is certainly entitled to the full protection of the law, there is no requirement that they be given benefit in interpretation unless they can prove such is appropriate. Rejecting this request is consistent with the community's best interest and can be accomplished under the Hillside ordinance as in effect at the time of submittal. Though the applicant may well, and probably will, threaten further action, I urge the Planning Commission to step up to the plate and exercise its authority to the community's benefit. This is a project that should not be inflicted upon Ashland's historic district and one that can easily be proven counter to the criteria for approval under the code at the time of application. Sincerely, George Krarner CITY OF -ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 12, 2003 Council Liaison: High School Liaison: SOU Liaison: Staff: CALL TO ORDER Chaff Russ Chapman called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m.. Commissioners Present: Russ Chapman, Chair Mike Morris Dave Dotterrer (No absent members) Alex Amarotico - not present None None Bill Molnar, Senior Planner Mark Knox, Associate Planner Brandon Goldman, Assistant Planner Sue Yates, Executive Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS Dotterrer moved and Morris seconded thc approval of the minutes of the October 14, 2003 Hearings Board. Dotterrer moved and Morris seconded the approval of the findings for PA2003-110, 230 and 232 Van Ness AvenUe (Eggling). TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 2003-137 REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW FOR A NINE-UNIT EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING WINGSPREAD MOBILE HOME PARK LOCATED AT 321 CLAY STREET. ALSO REQUEST FOR TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. APPLICANT: WINGSPREAD LLC This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2003-138 REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT AN ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT, APPROXIMATELY 499 SQUARE FEET, ON THE SECOND FLOOR ABOVE A NEW TWO-CAR GARAGE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 556 FORDYCE STREET. APPLICANT: KUR'I-Z-WALSH PROPERTY, LLC This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2003-139 REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 4,410 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING AT 510 WASHINGTON STREET (LOT 3), OF THE WASHINGTON PROFESSIONAL PLAZA. APPLICANT: GENESIS BUSINESS ENTERPRISES, LLC This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2003-141 REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,250 SQUARE FOOT METAL BUILDING ADDITION TO THE EXISTING WAREHOUSE FACILITY LOCATED AT 684 TOLMAN CREEK ROAD. APPLICANT: BATZER, INC. This action was approved. 7/ PLANNING ACTION 2003-142 REQUEST FOR A THREE PARCEL LAND PARTITION AND PHYSICAL CONSTRNNTS REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT (I.E. DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION) ON HILLSIDE LANDS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 735 PRIM STREET. APPLICANT: VAL DUTSON This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2003-143 REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONVERT THE EXISTING 672 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE INTO AN ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT AND A PHYSICAL CONSTRNNTS REVIEW PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A NEW RESIDENCE UPON AREAS IDENTIFIED AS HILLSIDE LANDS FOR THE PROPERTY AT 714 PALMER ROAD. APPLICANT: FRED GANT AND JEANNE LEGRAND This action was approved. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 2002-129 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW TO CONVERT AND EXPAND AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE INTO AN APPROXIMATELY 622 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT. 900 GLENOALE STREET APPUCANT: SCOTT ALLISON Site Visita and Ex Parte Contacts - Site Visits were made by all. STAFF REPORT Goldman reported that Staffbelieves this proposal meets the requirements for an accessory residential unit. The proposed accessory unit involves the conversion of an existing building at the northeast rear comer of the property. Staffhas no evidence that this structure has ever been used or approved as a secondary residence. It is non-conforming. The structure is set back 4.5 and 4.7feet, respectively to the side and rear yards. The structure is within the required setbacks, but no closer than three feet from the side or rear property lines. Four parking spaces are required, two for the primary residence and two for the accessory residential unit. The applicant proposed to utilize the existing tandem parking - one space in the carport, one space behind the carport space. The tandem parking has existed since 1958. Staff is agreeable to this arrangement because a carport is rarely used for storage, leaving both areas open for parking. The Fire Department has required the installation of an interior sprinkler system. When the accessory building was built in 1958 there were no zoning requirements regarding setbacks. It became non- conforming in 1967 when the zoning ordinances were put in place. Staff recommends approval with the attached nine conditions. Chapman asked why a variance was not requested in this instance. Goldman said if a new structure is built that does not comply with setbacks, then a variance would apply. Chapman wondered how far we want to go with stacked parking. Goldman said the parking configuration existed before the off-street parking ordinance was in place, therefore, it is "grandfathered" in. Molnar said there is discretion afforded to the Commission on this issue. The definition of a parking stall says if you have to move one car to get to another, it only counts as one space. Obviously, throughout town, there are similar situations. Staff has recognized existing stacked situations. Chapman said if this was previously a storage shed and the neighbor said the structure is non-conforming and he doesn't want it there, Chapman wants to defend the ordinance. Goldman said under today's ordinance, an accessory structure can be built within three feet of the side and rear property lines and is considered a residential use - guest house, storage, garage, etc. In evaluating the Conditional Use Permit, does the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 12, 2003 Commission find this is an intensification of use beyond what would be permitted in the zone with the current setbacks? Molnar added that the question is: Does the side and rear yard (in relationship to the property line with a full-time residential use) create such a negative imposition in the neighborhood that it would fail to meet the conditional use? Chapman said there is a neighbor that feels the residential structure would crowd him. PUBLIC HEARING SCO'i'i' ALLISON, 900 Glendale, said the unit has had electrical and plumbing. At some point, it was set up for a living situation. It was more than a storage unit. Allison will be upgrading the landscaping, painting the house, adding the parking. It is small and he sees the impact as very minimal. He has offered to do things to mitigate any impact on the neighbors such a installing dense hedging or fencing. He is willing to do what he can to make the situation favorable to everyone. Dotterrer asked if there is a fence. Allison affirmed. He said thc neighbor would like a block wall. He is willing to extend the chain link fence. Goldman asked Allison if he plans to remove thc two north windows shown in the plans. Allison said the drawing is incorrect. There are two windows on the east side and no windows on the north side. RICH VANDERWYST, 888 Glendale, had written testimony that he submitted for thc record. He asked for denial of thc application based on the five items in his submittal. The five points are: (1) The action is not in conformance with the 18.20.010, (2) The structure's design is not consistent with the houses in thc neighborhood, (3) Inaccuracies in thc Findings of Fact, (4) Fire danger due to close proximity of the structure, and (5) Parking configuration will cause congestion on Glendale. Vanderwyst said there is nothing in the ordinance that states only new construction requires a variance. He believes this application should be considered a variance. Chapman said that under the ordinances this may not represent an upgrade, however, there is a difference between a residence and a storage shed. To him, the issue is one of non-conforming setbacks with a more intensive use and the affect that is going to have on Vanderwyst. He asked Vanderwyst what the impacts will be for him. Vanderwyst restated the items from his submittal - potential noise, design, elevation, fire safety, and traffic along his fenceline. He would like a soundproof barrier along the porch area. The front area is of the most concern to him. They already have a fence, so he would like something more. Morris noted that if the structure complied with thc setbacks, it would move the structure closer to Vandetwyst's home. Rebuttal Allison believes there is ample parking on the street. Thc street is wide and there is usually parking available on the street. He is willing to extend the length and height of thc fence with perhaps a dense hedge. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Goldman responded to the items in Vanderwyst's submittal. He said accessory residential units are conditional uses and are in conformance with the zoning codes. There will be a large usable side yard area available and it seems compatible with other accessory structures in R-l-5 zones. Accurate measurements should be taken by the applicant, but in any case the 622 square foot accessory unit is still less than 50 percent of the main structure. The on-street parking credit is allowed. Goldman suggested a condition that no windows shall be located on the north wall. Dotterrer requested a condition be placed extending a six foot fence to at least thc northwest comer of thc existing northwest comer of the existing structure. Try to get it at least the edge of the porch. Dotterrer moved to approve PA2003-129 with the nine attached.conditions and two additional conditions - no windows on the north wall and extension of the fence. Morris seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 12, 2003 PLANNING ACTION 2003-118 REQUEST FOR A PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOME ON HILLSIDE LANDS WITHIN A HISTORIC DISTRICT. 265 GLENVlEW DRIVE APPLICANT: SIDNEY AND KAREN DEBOER Site Visits and Ex Parts Contacts - Site visits were made by all. STAFF REPORT Knox reported this application is to construct a new home. Development on property of 25 percent or more on designated hillside ]ands is subject to a Physical and Envkonmental Constraints Pernfit (P&E). Thc review looks at mass and sca]c, erosion control, retaining walls, cut and fill, etc. to make sure there are stable conditions once the construction is complete. This application has been in process for more than two years. Knox has been involved with the applicants and the Historic Commission trying to work out square footage or design issues. The applicants also own 234 Vista Street and it is on the National Register of Historic Places. Two years ago, they applied to add approximately 4,000 square feet to the house (234 Vista). It could not be done without affecting the house's historic integrity. The applicant agreed it was not appropriate. At that point, they chose the Glenview site. Today, because thc request is to build on a 25 percent slope, it is subject to thc P&E permit. This was approved last month as a StaffPermit approval. Hillside developments are subject to staff review and approval. Notices are sent out to property owners within 100 feet of the property. The decision was appealed by neighbors. A StaffPermit can be called up for a public hearing. The Procedures Chapter states ifa Staff Permit is called up it is processed as a Type II public hearing. The Historic Commission and Tree Commission reviewed the application. The Historic Commission really has no review of single family house designs in the Historic District. The Hillside Ordinance precludes any notion of any type of design restrictions in the Historic District. There are really no criteria on which the Historic Commission could base a decision. They made a motion recommending opposition to the application, based on opinion, not criteria (Historic Commission Minutes dated November 5, 2003). The Tree Commission recommended approval of the application with conditions that mitigation be done for replacement trees, etc. Knox said the applicants are proposing to demolish the existing three and one-half story house on the site. The height of the proposed home is equal to or a little less than the existing garage. The proposal is construct an approximately 11,000 square foot house. This application was probably the impetus for the maximum house size ordinance. The application was submitted before October 16, 2003, the date the maximum house size ordinance went into effect. All decisions regarding this application are based on the regulations in place at the time of submittal. Thc house consists of a basement, first story, second story, and a half story. The maximum building height in any district is 35 feet or two and one-half stories. Thc basement is not considered a story. Thc half story is a building code definition. That is, it can be no greater than 40 percent of thc floor below it. Thc house is 110 feet wide, little to slightly less than 35 feet in height. There arc multiple rooflines and breaks. The inspiration was the Green and Green Craftsman style homes seen in southern California. Knox showed the list of criteria for hillside development on thc overhead. There are eight attached conditions in the Staff Report. He would like to add the Tree Commission's recommendations that are listed on the Ashland Street Tree Commission Site Review dated November 6, 2003. He would also like to add a Condition 10 that prior to removal of thc trees above the pool area that a separate P&E permit be obtained. Knox reminded the Commissioners that the P&E ordinance does not give us any leeway to discuss house size. It is Staff's opinion that the question is how the site is treated once it is disturbed. How do you leave it so it does not collapse on the adjacent neighbor or on itself?. PUBLIC HEARING SID DEBOER, 234 Vista, stated he is the applicant and will bc represented by Craig Stone. CRAIG STONE, 708 Cardlcy Avenue, Medford, OR 97504, emphasized that this application was not made to beat thc maximum house size ordinance recently adopted by the City Council. This design process simply concluded about the same time. Hc reminded the Commission that the applicant is entitled to a decision under the regulations in effect at the time thc ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 12, 2003 7 q 4 application is filed. This application does not include anything about neighborhood impacts other than those of an environmental or physical nature. It does not involve the architecture or size of the dwelling, its appearance, views or historic consideration. Stone said the Planning Department has taken responsibility for a mistake that was made to remove some trees on the site. The Tree Commission took that into consideration and made two recommendations. The applicants believe it is an appropriate way to rectify the error and they do not object. There is a pending lot line adjustment. Stone asked that the drawings from thc landscape architect are made part of the record showing the resulting developed lot would comply with lot coverage standards. Stone asked the Commissioners to take the Historic Commission's recommendation in the proper context. It is without benefit of any measurable standards. They have simply issued an opinion. It should be given little or no weight. The application made reference to a Gantt chart that had been missing. It makes reference to the length of time it will take to construct the house. It is estimated it will take about one year, following all City's considerations such as planning and building approval permits. Twenty-eight percent slope is the average slope of the home site. Stone discussed the criteria. Potential impacts considered and adverse impacts minimized. They hired Mark Amrhein, a geotechnical engineer to do a study. He evaluated the various physical features of the site. He pointed out areas of some concern and recommended certain mitigation measures. Based on his report, the architect, the structural engineer, and the civil engineer did their work and incorporated all of Amrhein's recommendations. If this is approved, all of the recommendations of Amrbein and his ge0technical investigation would be incorporated as conditions to the approval. He entered, along with Amrbein's recommendations, Amrhein's professional qualifications. Evaluate and consider potential hazards and implement mitigation measures. The hazards were included in Amrhein's report. If the recommendations are carried out, there are no physical or environmental impacts produced neither outside the property nor within it, after the stabilization measures have been employed. Examine existing development in the surrounding area and the maximum that might be permitted under the ordinance. There is a photo exhibit that depicts buildings and other improvements in the surrounding area along with a description. This is an urban setting. There are not vacant parcels in the area. The subject property is not a vacant property. There are no natural areas on it. It has been fully developed with an existing dwelling that is proposed to be demolished. The landscaping is ornamental. Directly across the street are a couple of attached housing projects. The P&E ordinance discusses preservation of things that are part of the natural environment. The natural environment was altered when the dwelling on the property was built and when the landscaping was installed. All the things that will occur as a result of constructing a dwelling on this property will be mitigated before there is a certificate of occupancy issued. Stone said one might argue the criterion that the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce adverse impacts on the environment, to mean that you have to reduce the size of the dwelling in order to reduce the magnitude of the impacts. He does not believe that is a fair reading of the ordinance, and in fact, the reading of the ordinance that way is flawed. If there is an ambiguity in the ordinance, first look at the text. The text in the Land Use Ordinance contains objective standards. You have to take what is proposed and apply the ordinance to it. This proposal meets all of the objective standards. Stone said his client is prepared to stipulate to any reasonable form of mitigation. They are not willing to reduce the size of the dwelling. Chapman referred to page 13 of Stone's fmdings. It states that 55 percent of the reconfigured property is in a natural state. Stone said the natural state refers to the undisturbed natural area. Chapman said on page 15 it states under Conclusions of Law there are no existing natural areas to be preserved. He said natural area is an area that exists as a natural of stand of trees, undisturbed terrain. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 12, 2003 JEANNIE TAYLOR, 374 Alnutt, read a letter in support of thc proposal from CLAUDIA EVERETT, 140 South Pioneer Street. NOLA O'HARA, 232 Vista Street, said she lives next door to the DeBoers. She submitted photos of strUctures in the area that are not historic. She had a photo showing the existing home and how after it is demolished, the new home will be a good addition. ANDREA FRYE, 480 Herbert Street, said she is enthusiastically waiting the construction of the DeBoer's house. She would like to see more diversity in Ashland with large and small homes. CHRIS ADDERSON, 300 Vista, supports the construction of this home. JON HARBAUGH, 190 Windemar Place, said they own 212 Vista. Based on what they have seen, they approve of the bulk and scale of the new house. DON MACKEN, 610 Elkader Street, believes the project, as proposed, is the highest and best use of the property. SAM DAVIS, 900 Cypress Pont Loop, wants the DeBoer's to have fairness and justice with this project. If we disregard the City's ordinances and let opinions and emotions guide decisions, the City will be subject to limitless litigation and chaos. He believes the house conforms to the ordinances and should be approved. JERRY TAYLOR, 375 Alnutt Street, believes because the DeBoer's have had to go through many hoops puts Ashland in a very poor light. He asked the Commissioners to look at the criteria. ROBERT DAVIS, 190 Oak Street, said he is the DeBoer's builder. The DeBoer's have always taken great care of the trees, landscaping and environmental impacts on their property. TOM BECKER, 2305 Ashland Street, said the proposed home will be an asset to the community. Craig Stone did an excellent job of speaking to the criteria and he believes the application should be approved. ROBERT BESTOR, 288 Ridge Road, said that in 100 years, we will have a great historic home. COUN SWALES, 461 Allison Street, noted that he is speaking as a citizen and neighbor to the project. He is recusing himself from the Planning Commission should this project go any further. He has been involved in the project since the original demolition permit. This is the first time in Swales' dealings with the Planning Department, he was denied copies oftbe planning application. According to Oregon land use law and printed on the top of the notice mailed to neighbors, copies will be made available at a reasonable cost. He requested copies in the middle of October. The copies were denied. Staff was willing to make the copies available, but the architect for the project said' they were copyrighted and would not be made available. He requested this application be withdrawn and resubmitted at a later date with plans that are available for copying under Oregon land use law. He distributed copies to the Commissioners. He said page 1 was prepared based on the current GIS survey of the property. Everything above Haragdine is on the City's hillside land constraints map. The subject property is two blocks above the limit. Anything on the map is pink, dark red or gray. The gray area is considered unbuildable. Referring to page 2 is the red outline of the home site, sitting on land that is colored gray. Also on that map is the extent of the trees. The larger group has been removed. The smaller group of trees is proposed to be removed where the pool house is going to be located. The trees along Glenview are in the City's right-of-way. This seems like a land grab where someone would be allowed to develop and remove trees on hillside land on City right-of-way. Swales said there is a photograph of the lot from 1910 showing about 53 percent slope. He said Stone is saying the original average slope of the site is 28 percent. There is no mention in the ordinance of original average slope. All it discusses is slope. The next page (blue and black lines) he has shown sections of grade - 52%, 46%, and 46%. The existing building footprint is on a slope of 45 percent. The reconfigured lot has a buildable area on it. The buildable area is on Vista Street. Swales said if the Commissioners decide to move this to the full Commission or take action other than to deny the application, he would request the public record remain open for at least seven days so he can provide further testimony in the record. Stone said the Commi~ioners were asked to give the Historic Commission's decision no weight. The Historic Commission ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 12, 2003 7 ~ BRYAN HOLLEY, 324 Liberty Street, said he would recommend denial of the appliCation and continue it to the full Commission. did not like this application. They felt hand-tied. The maximum house size took two years to approve. He would ask they give the Historic Commission's decision a lot of weight. The Tree Commission never recommends approval or denial. (Holley is a Tree Commissioner.) Their purview is to review the landscape plans. Since some of the important trees that might have stopped the project in its tracks were illegally removed, the situation is a Catch 22. Sometimes they are asked to stick to the criteria, other times they are not. Regarding natural stands of trees, it is very challenging to plant madrone trees. Madrones don't do well. The madrone grove has been removed. What does it take to call that madrone grove "natural" when we know from landscaper's recommendations that they can't be planted as landscaping? Those trees were there prior to any home built on that site. BILL STRE~'I', 180 Meade Street, read a letter from CHARLES AND MARGARET HOWE, 106 Fork Street, objecting to the application due to their concerns about erosion and water run-off that might come from the subject property. Their letter will be included in the record. Street referred to the comments by employees of the applicant. Kerry KenCaim, landscape architect was asked by Street that if the trees on the hillside slope were still there, would it be possible to approve this application? KenCaim responded, "No, the hillside ordinance would not allow this house on this slope if those trees were still there." Street noted Ogden's testimony at the Historic Commission meeting. Ogden said if the house was built on the level where the historic pattern of houses is located, there would not be an issue. Street wondered if there is any way to encourage and require the DeBoer's to resubmit their application to build on a level part of the property?. He noted the hillside ordinance and all the meetings and discussions that took place in 1997. There was every attempt to inform the citizens of Ashland about the hillside ordinance. Craig Stone and Knox have stressed repeatedly that they have spent a number of years working on this application. There have been lots of meetings with the Planning Department. They were encouraged to consider another site. The DeBoer's have hired an extensive team of professional counsel. This counsel failed to advise the DeBoer's that the hillside ordinance applied to their property. Karen DeBoer called the Planning Department and was given permission to cut down the trees that were on the hillside. The trees were significant. He is asking the Commissioners to deny the application and advise the City of Ashland to take responsibility for its mistake and to restore the hillside back to the original canopy and the original ground control erosion natural settlement of land. And further, to advise the DeBoer's to resubmit their application on the level ground where it would be more appropriate and less dangerous to neighbors below the DeBoer complex. Rebuttal Stone said when they found the copyright was placed on the architectural drawings, they took immediate steps to have it removed. It was removed and the maps and plans were made available to Swales within about a day after they were requested. Stone does not believe it has diminished Swales' fight to review the plans and present adequate testimony and evidence. Stone noted Swales' map showing the property in 35 percent slopes. Stone referred to criterion 4 (as Stone numbered). He asked Darrell Huck to testify. Stone said with regard to the trees, a mistake was made. His clients were not certain the property even fell under the P&E ordinance. Staff wasn't certain when they gave permission to remove trees. It doesn't prevent this project. Page 25, Criterion 22 (Sa) of Stone's findings says that trees can be removed when they are within a building envelope. Stone referred to the letter from the Howe's and the erosion of Vista. He does not know anything about how the roadbed was put together. This property has been evaluated by a geotechnical engineer and his team. They have taken that information into account to stabilize the slopes either with the dwelling and its foundation or with retaining walls so there is no place for any earth to move off this site. Any part of the disturbed site will be vegetated sufficiently to stabilize any disturbed slopes. DARRELL HUCK, Hoffbuhr and Associates, said he is a licensed surveyor. He said he has tried to identify the natural slope of the land prior to any disturbance. Historically, that neighborhood had been disturbed many years ago. Using the data available, they came up with a slope varying from 34 to 24 percent. There has been a lot of disturbance in that area. He hasn't had a chance to evaluate Swales' testimony. Morris asked if the procedure he used is standard. Huck said it was. He said he f'u'st surveyed the site in the early 1990's. Dotterrer asked Knox if the tree removal mattered. Knox said it is difficult to say because the trees are gone. It doesn't mean you can't propose to remove trees. With regard to KenCaim's comments, he believes it would be difficult to remove those ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 12, 2003 trees. The trees that are there are of similar size as those that have been removed. Knox said h made the error. The request came in during the time the tree ordinance had just gone into effect. Removal of trees on a single family lot are exempt and he didn't think about the lot requiring a hillside permit. Knox said it was noted on the plans that the plans were copyrighted. By the time they were released by the architect, it was Monday, November 3fa. He is aware that two persons who spoke today prior to November 3rd reviewed the file in the office. Knox said Staff based their decision regarding slope on Huck's (a licensed surveryor) information. coMMISSIONERS' DECISION AND MOTION Chapman said no decision will be made as it was requested the public record remain open. The Commission will convene on December 9, 2003 and review any new information that has been submitted and make a decision. Stone asked if at the end of the seven day period that the applicant can have a seven day period in which to review the materials and issue a final rebuttal on the additional testimony. Mo[nar said the public hearing does not have to be re-opened at the December 9th meeting. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 12, 2003 Pro Lines for identification only- not ~;alable ["-"! Building.shp Slope2 .shp 0 -15 15-25 25 - 30 III 30-35 already cut or to be removed R( Glenview Drive circa 1910 section lines section line C~ ITl --I 0 r-O Ill II 63.000 glenview drive oxisting driveway ITl 2100 2090 2O8O 2070 2060 2050 o 0 0 I',0 I'O I'O I'0 .1~ 0'1 O) 0 0 0 -.~ 0 0 0 -4 O0 (O 0 0 0 0 0 Glenview 21 .existing Drive X X IMG 2920. JPG IMG 2921.JPG ,Jan 30 .04 02:54p CraiC Stone · i1-13-~003 03:4Zl~m From-FOSTER DENW, N llP ILP 5417'790114. p. a +541'1'l'06~02 T-211 P,000/009 F-:~04 November 6. 2003 Ken Ogden Ogden Kistler Archit~=tum 2950 E. Barnett Road Med~, OR 975O4 Re: Proposed DeBoer Residence 265 Glenview Drive Ashland, Oregon Dear Mr. Ogden: You have asked Amrhein Associates, Inc. (AAI) to comment on the potential impacts that the proposed development would have on the surrounding and nearby areas in regards to the geotechnical aspecis of Me above referenced project. The site is underlain by decomposed granitic soils described in our geotechnical engineering report, dated July 20, 2003. The site soils consist of medium dense soils grading to vc~ d~nse d~o~o~ granite. The proposed project would not adversely affect the overall stability of the slope on the site or the area above the site, In addition, the erosion control measures that have been proposed will control the migration of sediment off site during c~onsm~ction, it is important'the erosion control measures be propedy maintained durirlg the construction process. The completed project, with proper landscaping, will effectively mitigate tile long-term potential for erosion from the site. We hope this addresses any concerns that may arise regarding the geotechnicat aspects of the proposed pn)ject. Please give me a call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Ammein Associates, Inc. cc: Sid & Karen DeBoer with and at North Mountain Park, Tree Walks all around town including Lithia park, classes, our own video. B. Report from the Planning Director - There was no report this month. C. Liaison 1. 2. 3. Reports Kate Jackson - Kate had nothing to report this month. Donn Todt - Dorm was not present this month. January Jennings - January did nOt attend the last Forest Lands-Committee because she was at the workshop in Sunriver. She is aware they have completed the Forest Lands Restoration Phase II document and she will be bringing this document to goal setting. Also, January is working with the Parks department for support on a joint OCT membership. D. Mitigation Options - This item will be discussed at goal setting. Eo Other - 1. Votes continue to come in for the tree of the year. Friday, the 7th is the last day. Suggestions that have come in this year are marking the trees, adding pictures to the ballot and/or the web. January Jennings will write a letter of appreciation to be published in the Tidings. Bryan Holley will write a letter of appreciation Mr. Streng's Lincoln school class. V. New Business A. Site Reviews - Planning Action 2003-118 (Sid& Karen DeBoer on Glenview) Laurie Sager declared conflict of interest and dismissed herself from a voting position and Bryan Holley declared his involvement. 1)Mitigation for loss of trees on this site will be as proposed in the application plus an additional 1 for 1 'onsite', to be planted within 50 feet of the property line and/or adjacent to Glenview. This is in addition to the proposed landscape plan. 2) It is essential that the remaining maclrones be protected. The tree protection plan as presented by the Landscape Architect should be fully implemented to protect these trees. And, in addition, a structural footing should be designed by the Architect in conjunction with the Landscape Architect that will ensure he utmost protection of the rootzone. 3) Tree protection signs should be sued for this project. B: Other - 1. City of Medford has asked permission to 'use' the Recommended Street Tree Guide. Discussion included drafting a letter of support for the Medford Tree Committee. It was decided Bryan Holley will call John Galbraith of the Medford Tree COmmittee and discuss possible projects. 2. Ted Loftus suggested the Tree Commission establish a liasi°n with the Parks Commission. This will be discussed at goal setting. C. Announcements - There were no announcements this month. D. Statement of Account - Staffis working on the reimbursement of the grant for january's tuition which should fully reinstate the budget. E. Adjournment - Meeting adjourned at 9:10pm. q? CiTY OF SHLAND ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Minutes November 5, 2003 CALL TO ORDER At 7:02 p.m., Chairperson Dale Shostrom called the meeting to order in the Siskiyou Room, located in the Community DevelopmentJEngineering Services Building at 51 Winburn Way. In addition to Shostrom, members present were Alex Krach, Joanne Krippaehne, Jay Leighton, Rob Saladoff, and Sam Whitford. Also present were Council Liaison John Morrison, Associate Planner Mark Knox, and Account Clerk Derek Severson. Terry Skibby arrived at 7:06 p.m. (Member Keith Chambers is on sabbaticaL) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Krippaehne requested the following correction to the October 8th, 2003 minutes, in the fourth paragraph of page six: 'Krippaehne asked about using access for parking from the alley between the hetel existing parking garage and the proposed building." WhitfordlSaladoff mis to approve the minutes of October 8th as amended. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. Krippaehne stated that in the fourth paragraph of page one, she would like to make the following change in the third sentence: 'For example, she cited Craftsman and Queen Anne styles as being completely different at the turn of the century; k Krippaehne/Leighton mis to approve the minutes of October 21st as amended. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS Planning Action 2003-118 Physical & Environmental Constraints Permit 265 Glenview Drive Sidney and Karen DeBoer Krippaehne noted that she had a conflict of interest due to a professional relationship with the applicants and would be removing herself from the meeting. Knox recounted the background of this application and noted that it had originally been granted staff approval but was then called up to a public headng. He noted three maps that had been posted to illustrate the site, and discussed the proposal. Knox explained that the property is zoned R-1-7.5 and has an existing house that was built in the 1980's which is to be removed. He added that the remaining parcel is 22,000 square feet with a roughly 11,000 square foot home proposed to be built. Knox reported that an addition was initially proposed for the 1910 Frank Clark-designed Humboldt Pracht house but that plan was changed to the current design to address concerns expressed by this commission. Knox pointed out that multiple architects had been involved in the project and that there had been numerous meetings between these architects and staff. Knox further explained that the previously proposed addition to the Pracht house would not have required public review by the Historic Commission. He stated that the changes in response to commission concerns lead to the current design and this public review. Knox noted that the design minimized the mass and scale of the structure given the large size. He added that he .had seen the evolution of the design resulting in the structure being setback into the hillside and mitigating the impact. Knox discussed the nature of Physical and environmental constraints permit applications. He stated that they are a staff permit and the applicable criteria do not address design within the historic district. Knox pointed out that the proposal is Ashland Historic Commission Minutes November 5, 2003 CITY OF SHLAND located within the historic district but is classified as non-contributing due to its age. He explained that the proposal was to locate the new house thirty feet away and up the hill from the National Register-listed Pracht house. Knox reiterated that that a Physical and environmental constraints permit review has no design controls within the historic districts. He added that such controls were specifically omitted to avoid limiting typical design features of historic homes such as gables, steep roof pitches, and masses. He emphasized that there were no design criteria to approve or deny the application, and further explained the need to consider erosion control measure, cut and fill aspects, and tree preservation in the motion. Knox stated that the applicants had employed a geotechnical engineer to address these aspects of the application. Saladoff clarified that the lot containing the Frank Clark home was being reduced to 8884 square feet, and asked staff whether lot coverage issues had been looked at. Knox confirmed that staff had looked at lot coverage and that the proposal would barely meet the lot coverage standards by removing some elements such as a brick courtyard in order to address impervious surfaces. Saladoff questioned considering the attic as a half-story, and he noted that there was cleady living space above. He stated that while the basement might not be considered a story he felt there was clearly a third story of living space. Knox responded that the standard is for two-and-a-half stories and a maximum height of thirty five feet. He stated that the bottom floor here, as seen from Vista Street, is by definition a basement as it is covered by earth. He explained that the home consists of a basement, first and second stories and a half-story above. He added that the average height is right at thirty five feet. Skibby asked whether only one structure was being replaced. Knox stated that the garage would remain and that only the 1980's house would be removed. He added that the house to be removed is three-and-a-half stodes, and that the proposed structure is not as high. He stated that the new structure is similar to the garage but wider. Applicant Sid DeBoer/234 Vista Street thanked Knox for providing a history of the application. He stated that he finds this proposal to be a better solution than the original proposal. He emphasized that the applicants do not want to damage the town, and added that he feels that they have enhanced the town. He stated that the new home will one day be historically significant. He emphasized that the proposal has a 4,000 square foot footprint. He explained that the original design was more prominent and not set into the hillside, but after meeting with staff and the commission the decision was made to set the structure into the hill and meet all of the standards. DeBoer pointed out that the elevations do not illustrate the degree of coverage provided by the hillside in mitigating the impact of the structu~'e. He discussed how the design mitigates the impact; Karen DeBoer added that a new paint color will be used to further lessen the impact. Project Architect Ken Ogden, of Ogden Kistler Architecture/2950 E Barnett Road, Medford, OR 97504, emphasized that if the house were built on the lawn area no review would have been necessary. He explained that the applicants desire to nestle the structure into the hill out of respect for the neighbors lead to the need for this application. Ogden noted that the proposed design emulated Greene and Greene-designed houses in Pasadena. He added that the trees on site will screen the structure, and he suggested that the applicants' role in the community necessitates the inclusion of a large room for events. He stated that at such events, they have valet parking at the nearby'parking structure. DeBoer added that they also sometimes have guests staying at the Ashland Springs Hotel and walking to their home for events. DeBoer concluded that the applicants had compromised to the extent possible, and that they hope for the commission's support. He emphasized that the project was not undertaken lightly. Ogden showed color and material samples. Ogden added that engineers Amrhein and Taylor had worked to design the stair-stepped cuts into the hillside in order to avoid destabilization, and that the structure would be appropriately founded into the hill with appropriate retainage. Ogden stated that the structure's being nestled into the hillside reduces its solar impact. He stated that it was fifteen to twenty feet below the limit calculated under the solar ordinance, and would cast no shadow on the neighbors' properties. He reiterated that the new structure is lower than the existing structure which is to be removed. He added that the Demolition Review Committee had approved the demolition proposed, and the intent was to salvage materials from the demolished structure if site constraints prevent it from being moved off-site. Ogden pointed out that the design as viewed on-site will be less harsh than the two dimensional elevations as the elevations cannot adequately illustrate the way the structure is setback and articulated. He explained that the grade at Glenview will lessen the structure's profile by reducing its massing. He restated that it will appear less massive than the existing house. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes November 5, 2003 CITY OF SHLAND Ogden stated that he was available for questions by the commission, and he commended the applicants for their efforts. He stated that the proposal represents true architecture rather than mere gingerbread surface treatments. He stated that the home's essence is a truism reflected in functional features such as the prominent exposed beams, and he suggested that the home will be long-lived. Morrison clarified that the new structure is roughly two-and-a-half times wider than the existing. DeBoer noted that this is somewhat deceptive due to the amount of city street right-of-way nearby. DeBoer discussed the need to get space in the new home for events without dominating the site. He added that much of this was accomplished within the basement area which is not visible from the street. Ogden noted that from Vista Street, some of the roofline would be visible. He added that the vegetation to remain will screen the structure and a berm will be used to offset excavated areas. Shostrom opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Phil Selby/spoke in favor of the application. He noted that he was a Iongtime Ashland resident and that his father had the Chevrolet dealership in town when DeBoer's father had the Chrysler dealership. He stated that he has known the DeBoers for years. Selby noted that when his father built one of the largest homes in Ashland in 1953 on Walker Street there was a similar outcry from the citizens. He suggested that while it may bring envy and resentment, he feels that if the project meets city standards and fits the site the applicants should be allowed to build it. He emphasized that the proposal meets city requirements, and added that the applicants have done a lot for the community. He concluded by noting that criticism of large houses occurred in the past as well, and those houses are now considered historically significant. Bill Patton1110 Terrace Street stated that he lives directly above Glenview, and that he built his home there forty years ago. He stated that he likes his site for the view, and he was concerned with the proposal initially. He explained that after seeing the design, he is very impressed with how well it fits the site. He stated that it is lower than the present structure and enhances the site. He suggested that it will be nearly unseen from the street. He commended the DeBoers for their community work, and added that the house would be a community asset and an enhancement. Chris AddersO~ Vista Street neighbor stated that he agreed with others in favor of the project, and added that it will be magnificent.' He Stated that this is not a ~show-me" house, and he added that he felt that jealousy and small-mindedness had lead to the negative comments about the proposal. He pointed out that the community benefit from the house will outweigh any personal benefit to the DeBoers in that the house will allow events in support of community resources such as the hospital and the YMCA. Bryan Holley1324 Liberty Street noted that he has been given testimony at public meetings for a long time and is frequently told he must stick to criteria not irrelevant issues. He asked the commission, with all other issues aside, to consider whether this proposal was a single family home or an entertainment center. Bill Street/180 Meade Street asked for clarification about the commission's role. He noted that his feeling is that the commission's role gives them the freedom to comment and express their opinions. He reiterated that commissioners should be able to evaluate based on their historical expertise and comment. Street recounted that the DeBoers had moved to the site ten or eleven years ago and had since demolished two houses that fit the neighborhood. He reiterated that the commission's role was to comment in order to preserve the histodc neighborhood. Street discussed local historian George Kramer's call for a maximum house size ordinance in historic districts; he emphasized that this ordinance had been approved by this commission, the Planning Commission and the City Council as a clear indication of the community's will. He asked that the commissioners keep this in mind when making motions as this structure has no resemblance to any historic pattern, and he added that the construction of such a structure would create a huge disruption for the neighborhood. He restated concerns with the impact of the large home and its proposed role as an entertainment center with potentially late hours on a small town historic neighborhood. Joan Steele/332 Glenn Street asked commissioners to recognize that the DeBoers' philanthropy was not at issue here. She added that Holley's analogy to an entertainment center was apt, and questioned what would happen to this home in f'~ty or one hundred years. She stated that it would endure even though the DeBoers would be gone. She asked whethei' there will be a need for a palace or entertainment center at that time. She added that a person can entertain in many places, and she noted that DeBoer's brother was remodeling a large home outside the district. She stated that the commission has a moral obligation to preserve the district and protect the character of the town. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes November 5, 2003 CITY OF kSHLAND Colin Swales/461 Allison Street noted that he was a Planning Commissioner speaking on his own behalf. He added that he would recuse himself from the Planning Commission hearing as he had been the one who called the demolition application up to a public hearing at the request of concerned neighbors. He stated that he would be speaking as a private citizen at the Tree Commission meeting and the Headngs Board headng. He stated that the historic pattern was for smaller houses, and the proposal represents a different pattern. He suggested that the Historic Commission should not be limited to dealing with criteria and should instead be considering the historic district impact. Swales pointed out that the DeBoer house was on the cover of the document George Kramer prepared inventorying historic district homes for the city. He added that the new house will be visible from all around the city, and as such the view from the district, from downtown, and from all over the city must be considered. He pointed out that the Humboldt Pracht house was the largest home in the city at one time, and that the proposed home is four times larger. He urged the commission to consider LCDC Goal 5 and the city's Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the proposal involves cutting down the historic home's lot to the bare minimum, and he suggested that the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) should be contacted for their ruling on the impact of the proposed boundary line adjustment on the Frank Clark-designed home. Swales recalled the meeting where the initial proposal of a 4,000 square foot additiOn was considered and suggested that this proposal is no better. Swales added .that his own inquiry about the Physical and Environment Constraints permit review requirements were all that brought this item before the commission. He also stated that the house could not be built more to the front of the lot due to the solar ordinance, and he suggested that it would be better in his estimation if houses were built to the front of their lots. He suggested that the placement of five feet of fill on the lawn area was inappropriate. Louis Leger1243 No.rth Laurel Street explained that he owned a small home in the Skidmore Academy District. He emphasized that the commission's role is not to carry out Planning Commission or City Council functions but rather to provide historical expertise. He questioned how the proposal could be seen to fit in any historical concept. He added that the hospital on Laurel and the Swedinburg house on the SOU campus are the only structures that come close, and he emphasized that neither ware single family homes. He suggested that the only exception seems to be that there is always one standout, prominent citizen, but he added that those homes are normally built within context. He stated that this proposal is not in context for Ashland. He noted that it does not look like the Ashland of the past, and he challenged anyone to explain the house in a historical context. He questioned the role and mandate of the commission. He pointed out that as a citizen, he was proud of the small 1911 single family home that he had restored and he likes Ashland for that sort of character. He stated that he did not want someone moving in and disrupting that character. He reiterated that he like the districts and their small homes, shacks and garage, with some homes a little larger than others. He concluded that the proposed neo-Greene and Greene is pretend, not Ashland. Knox explained the role of the commission as listed in the Comprehensive Plan as protecting the historic district, streetscapes and historic resources. He recognized that this home is to be the biggest in Ashland by his estimation. He noted that staff and the commissioners have worked to list each district in the city on the National Register in order to protect the homes and the city's heritage. He added that the city has adopted a maximum house size ordinance for its historic districts, and that he and the commission co-authored this ordinance to limit the maximum house size within the district at 3,249 square feet. He suggested that there was no intent on the part of the applicants to beat the deadline on this ordinance as the process began two years ago. Knox stated that the Histodc Commission Review Board looks at single family home plans every Thursday afternoon, and he explained that they have no 'yea or nay' power only an advisory role. He reiterated that this application is narrowly limited by the ordinance to address site issues as the histodc district is intentionally excluded form the Physical and environmental constraints permit review criteria. He stated that the ordinance criteria cannot be shifted midstream, and he added that commissioners may comment on the design but should be clear to state whether their comments are based on opinion or criteria. Knox added that he had spoken to SHPO and that they basically support the commission's decision as a body recognized for its expertise by the state and federal governments. He stated that the commissioners must base their approval or denial on criteria. DeBoer stated that they would avoid disrupting the neighborhood during construction. He noted that he owns two of the neighboring houses, and added that there was no new driveway encroachment proposed. He pointed out that the Oregon Shakespeare Festival already has events all night through the season, and .his events would be planned on Mondays wheh the Festival is not running. He concluded that in f'~ty years, the property would be donated to the Sid and Karen DeBoer Foundation, and would likely be sold by the foundation with proceeds to be used to support educational charities in Southern Oregon. He indicated that this proposal meets the criteria without hurting the neighborhood, and is not an entertainment center but rather a two person single family home that will host an occasional party or event. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes November 5, 2003 4 CITY OF ASHLAND Shostrom closed the public hearing at 8:12 p.m. Shostrom emphasized the criteria were the focus here, and noted that the commission would not even be hearing the item if it had not been called up to a public hearing. He reiterated that historic district design considerations are specifically excluded from the Physical and Environment Constraints ordinance. Shostrom suggested that the design is vertical as recognized by the applicants, but he recognized that that is not a criterion for consideration here. He concluded that while the issues of impact on the historic district are valid they are not at issue here. Krach asked staff if there was any way for the commission to protect the district in this case. He stated that he was disheartened that there was such a lack of protection and suggested that he feels that the commission's hands are tied. Knox stated that this was unfortunate, but he added that he would not want to see an appeal'filed over the commission stepping out of bounds. Knox emphasized that the protections in place in Ashland are among the best in Oregon. He pointed out that the maximum house size ordinance is the most imposing restriction in the state without limiting design, just mass and scale. He explained that the Review Board's power of persuasion has been very effective in the past and that he feels most projects reviewed have benefited. He stated that the powers of the commission are limited by the state, and that there are no regulations on design review of single family homes within historic districts and even less review on new structures. He noted that this may change down the road, but that changes are not in place now. He recognized the desire for change that he hears from the community. He concluded that the commissioners could certainly state their opinions and express their frustration. Skibby reiterated that this was not a site review application. He added that it seemed to be an improvement over the proposal that had the structure placed nearer to the street. He stated that the current placement lessens the impact and is scaled down with less massing. He cited the reduced mass from Glenview. He recognized that the proposal is wider than the existing house, but he added that it is also more set back. He suggested that the visual impacts are comparable to the condominiums or apartments across the street. He also stated that the site is somewhat isolated, with newer homes down the street, and as such it is in an area where it will have a lesser impact. He recognized that the home will be seen from a distance, and that the windows suggest more mass, but he stated that the design had been scaled down. He concluded that the area is different than if this were proposed for B Street or Siskiyou Boulevard. Leighton stated that she did not feel that the commission was able to critique the design. She cited the huge mass, the disruption of the street pattern, and the impact to views from the entire valley as areas of concern. She emphasized that the commissioners were not skilled in areas needed to address the physical and environmental constraints review criteria. Shostrom suggested that the projects engineers had addressed the physical and environmental constraints criteria. He stated that he too was disheartened by the proposal, which he noted was six times the size of the average home and four times that which would be allowed under the new maximum house size ordinance. He stated that while this is disturbing it will be the last one and lead to the rally for the ordinance. He added that he feels for the neighbors who will have to deal with the construction's disruptions and the size and massing. Skibby emphasized that these issues could not be addressed tonight. Shostrom asked if the commission was really in a position to vote on this; Knox responded that commissioners could approve or deny based on criteria with a note of their opinions. He stated that he felt commissioners could review the proposed design details and identify any specific concerns. He reiterated that he believed the commissioners could still voice design concerns. Whitford noted that he is a Greene and Greene fan, and stated that he feels the proposed home is beautiful and totally inappropriate to the district. He recognized that this could .not be addressed however, as the submittal predates the maximum house size ordinance. He pointed out that the view from little-used Glenview will be beautiful, but he stated that from Vista Street it appears more like a hotel with all of the decks and balconies. Skibby suggested that perhaps the commission could speak to this in its decision and recommend lessening the impact of the windows and decks while retaining their function. He reiterated that the proposal was quite an improvement over the original. Leighton agreed that the house wes more visually interesting from Glenview, but she noted that the asymmetricity from the Vista Street side was heavy on one side. She noted the massing by the chimney and in the area near the garage. She questioned if the nearby garage would have the effect of increasing the massing. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes November 5, 2003 5 IIlTI l CiTY OF SHLAND Skibby pointed out how the lower railing was broken bya bay window. Ogden stated that the elevations were more broken up into multiple planes than could be shown in two dimensions. Skibby suggested that some offsetting might lessen the hotel-like appearance. Knox referred commissioners to floor plan sheets 3.1 and 3.2 in their packets as an illustration of how offsets are being used in the design. Skibby stated that he felt the mass would be lessened when viewed in three dimensions. Saladoff noted that numerous planes are used to mitigate the mass. He agreed that in two dimensions, the elevations seem hotel-like, but he stated that the floor plans help to clarify. Shostrom stated that the architects had done a good job with what they were given to accomplish; he suggested that it might be as good as could be done with such a project. Saladoff stated that his concern was not with the design, it was with a 10,000 to 11,000 Square foot home being built on the hillside. He agreed that the project was nicely designed, and added that his objections are more philosophical. He added that he had concerns with the size, scale, neighborhood patterns, and issues of sustainability. He questioned the amount of waste material that would be produced by such a project, but recognized that this was not an issue that fell within the criteria to be considered. He suggested that from a design standpoint, the applicants had come as far as they can and any design comments would be minor. Leighton questioned if the commission had previously simply passed on reviewing a project that fell outside of their purview. Knox stated that this may have been done on a minor item before. He stated that the commission could opt to do the same here, and he added that the physical and environmental constraints review criteria were cleady outside of the commission's charter purview. He reiterated that members could simply opt to not make any recommendation. Leighton stated that without being able to speak to the massing or design it leaves little room for a decision. Knox suggested looking to Craft a motion that managed to somehow express the opinion of commissioners as well as a decision. Krach stated that he could see a motion that moved to approve based on criteria with an expression of concern. Leighton stated that the decision needed is outside of the purview while design and scale are real concerns. Krach agreed that the voice needed seemed to be powerless but was still there. Whitford stated that the laws are stronger now. Krach suggested that the commission had influence with no real power. Morrison discussed his experience that matters like this are seldom clear cut, and he suggested that the key was to find a balance between the competing interests through the process. He stated that commissioners could certainly express their opinions from their historic and design expertise. He cautioned members away from pessimism, and pointed to the small victories achieved in retaining the Pracht house and finding the DeBoers responsive to eadier concerns. He added that the applicants have chosen an area near the downtown where larger buildings are more appropriate. He emphasized the need to find a balance through small victories. He added that members should make suggestions, and stated that he found the applicants to have been responsive. He stated that this had lead to a design that was as compatible as it could be. He recognized the difficulty that commissioners were experiencing, and he encouraged them to find a way to express this collective opinion. Knox confirmed for Saladoff that the commission would see this application again at the building permit review stage. Shostrom and Leighton suggested that the commission could move for denial based on the opinion that this decision would best preserve the neighborhood. Leighton/Whitford mis to deny Planning Action 2003-118 based on the purview of the commission set in the city charter, reflecting the opinion that the structure does not fit the historic district by its mass, scale, and partitioning of the site. Discussion: Members clarified that they were not recommending denial based on the Physical and Environment Constraints permit criteria. Krach suggested that this was an honorable motion even though it amounted to tilting at windmills. He recognized that the building was a beautiful design, but added that it was just proposed for the wrong place. Voice vote: Krach, Krippaehne, Whifford, Leighton, and Saladoff, YES. Skibby, NO. Motion passed 5-1. Shostrom called for a brief break at 8:46 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:00 p.m. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes November 5, 2003 Claudia Everett 140 S. Pionee/-~t. Ashland, OR. November 12, 2003 To the Ashland Planning Commission This is in support of Karen and Sid DeBoer's house proposal. My name is Claudia Everett. I live at 140 S. Pioneer St. I am 'around the comer' from the DeBoer's current home on Vista_.St. My house is in the old Hargadine Tract and is included in that Historic District. For the record, I am a friend of Karen and Sid. We attended Ashland High School together. I have a lot of feelings about the issue of Historic Designation and the larger issue of what is becoming of Ashland, but I will stick to some specific points about the home under consideration today. First of all, I often walk on the roads above my house, down Glenview, which is on the uphill side of the DeBoer's property, ming down Vista, which their property faces. This is not a neighborhood of 'historic homes', but rather a very mixed assortment of places built during the 50's through the 90's. Some stand empty most of the year, as they are 'vacation homes'. I have seen Karen and Sid's house plans, (several versions as they continue to re-design to accommodate City and.County restrictions). It looks to me that only about 1 V2 stories will be visible from Glenview. The house that's there now is much more visible. Most of the house, as seen from Vista St. will lie against the hill and be compatible with 'the lay of the land'. This is much more aesthetically pleasing and respectful to the property than the countless places recently built in town that rise up on skinny columns to break the contour of the hillsides and are visible from all over town. Tree, it's a big house. But the lot is large and anyone who's looked at Karen's yard knows that once their home is done, in no time there will be beautiful landscaping, that compliment the house and help blend it into its place on the hill. I have to add that I personally like to live in small houses. Mine is about 900 sq. t~. But this doesn't keep me from appreciating the truly exceptional design of this Arts and Crafts-style home, and believe me, the DeBoer's have.put a lot of thought and concern for the site into it. I think it' s time to let them build. ~7c~ Charles and Margaret Howe 106 Fork Street Ashland, Oregon. 97520 November 12, 2003 City of Ashland, Planning Commission .Ashland, Oregon. Re: DeBoer Application Gentlemen: We own three tax lots directly North across Vista street frc~ the area of the application. Lots 6201, 6300 and 6401 fronting some 300'+ on Vista street. During the flood of December 96-97, a portion of the roadside fill slid off the roadbed of decomposed granite against one of our buildings on lot 6300. Tne fill seemed to be mostly the type of gumbo normal to orchards. The bank for most of the distance was mush. The water came because a stopped and plugged storm drain at Vista and Hillcrest sent water in flood to the North side of Vista. The summer following it pretty well dried up. After that period we began to notice water accumulating behind the building lasting all through the s~m~r until August when it would dry up. This was during the time that the two houses across Vista to the South were razed and fill added to reach a new level and contour. At this time I put in a low level concrete wall with perforated drainage pipe alongside the building and that helped quite a bit but not wholly. Finally, I put in another drainpipe about 20 feet behind the building and partway up the bankside and after two years, the problem of standing water seems to have been solved. It is only conjecture on our partwhere that water ca~e from. During this year of 2003, the ground dried up in May or June. It is only conjecture on my part since I am not a soil expert, but my concern n~ is that if there is more soil or fill rearrangement on the property to the south of and above us, will there be any change in the movement of underground water. We have owned this property since 1974 and have actively managed it since 1983. We are pretty well aware of its quirks and features over each season of the year as well as seasonal changes that occur. Very Sincerely, Charles and Margaret Howe WILLIAM W. PATTON TREETOPS - ] 10 TERRACE, ASHLAND, OR 97520 November 10, 2003 Ashland Planning Commission Attn: Mark Knox 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Commission Members: Our home is located directly above the new one planned on Glenview Drive by Sid and Karen DeBoer. Initially we were concerned, fearing that the structure would be too tall and large for the site. Now that we have had an opportunity to study the plans and drawings, we believe the new development will be an improvement over the house presently on the site. We are impressed with the manner in which the architect has nestled the proposed building into the hillside, and especially so in view of the fact that the roof line actually will be lower than that of the existing house. The DeBoers have been good neighbors taking excellent care of their property on Vista and we wish to go on record as being supportive of their plans for their new home. We regret that we will be out of town at the time of your hearing on this matter. Sincerely, Bill and Shirley Patton Mark knox - deboer house Page 1 From: To: Date: Subject: "David Sidman" <dsidman@jeffnet.org> <akermans@ashland.or.us> November 05, 2003 7:20PM deboer house Dear Ms. Ackerman, I hope you will share this with the other Historic Commissioners... I have lived in Ashland for 28 years; I raised 3 children in a home I owned in the historic district. They cannot afford to raise their families here. I watch with much sadness the changes that are fast enveloping our community. An 11,000 plus square foot home in our historic district is preposterous to me. Please recommend to the planning commission, or whoever is paying attention, to not let this house be built. I understand about personal freedom, but there also needs to be commitment to community. Once a building like this is erected, it is too late, and it changes the face of the community forever... Thank you, Phyllis Wetzel 491 Courtney ,St. Ashland 482-1199 Mr. John Mc Laughlin Community Development Director City of Ashland 51 Winbum Way Ashland Oregon Dear Mr. Mc Laughlin: By this letter I hereby withdraw my request for a public hearing on Plarmin~ Action File 2003-118. Respectfully, B G H~c s Paula Dayst0r Date B.G. Hicks Paula Daystibr 190 Vista Street Ashland OR 97520 Notice is.hereby given that a PUBUC HEARING on the.foltoWing · request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will · be. held.befOre the ASHLAND pLANNING COMMissION HEARINGS' BOARD on November 12, 2003 at 1:30 p.m. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. A copy ~ Ihe application, all documec~ and evidence relied upon by the applicant and apprcable cdteda are available loc inspecOo~ at no cost and will be provided at. Stre~ A.sh~nd, Omgo~ 97520. GLF-N~EW 265 Glcnview Drive __ .Subject NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard bythe Ashland Historic Commission on November 5, 2'003, 7:00 p.m. in the Community Development and Engineering'Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 · Winbum Way. NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Tree Commission on November· 6, 2003 in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room) located at.6:00 p.m. - at 51 PLANNING ACTION 200:3-118 is a request for a Physical and Environmental Con~i~.a:n~~truct~, single family residential home on Hillside Lands within a Historic District located .~randviewJ3~~ Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-7.5;: As~oo,,. ~ ~ap ~t: 3~ lt: 09 Be; Tax Lot: 7200. APPLICANT: Sidney and Karen DeBoer /o? PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS PERMIT CRITERIA 18.62.040 Approval and Permit Required I. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following: Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. 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. I10 Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD on November 12, 2003 at 1:30 p.m. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance crite'a aPplicable to this al:~lication are attached to this no6ce. Oregon lew state~ that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person o~ by letter, or failure to PrOvide sufficle~ specificity to affo~l the decision maker an o~ to respond to the Issue, precludes your right d appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that Issue. Failure to specify which ordinance crite~on ~he object,on Is based o~ also precludes your right d appeal to LUBA on that c~tedon. Failure dlhe al~lican{ to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity allow this Commission to respond to the Issue precludes an action for damages In circuit court. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, If requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days Ixior to the headng and will be pmvtded at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are =vallable ~,t the Ashland Planning Department, City Hall, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520. During the Public Hearing, the Chair 'shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable c.,~efla. Unless there is a continuance, If a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. If you have questions ~ comments concerning this requesL please feel free to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, City Hall, at 541-552-2041. Our TTY phone number Is 1-800-735-2900. GLENVIEW O Subject Property NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Historic Commission on November 5, 2003, 7:00 p.m. in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way. NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Tree Commission on November 6, 2003 in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room) located at 51 Winburn Way at 6:00 p.m. PLANNING ACTION 2003.118 is a request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit to construct a single family residential home on Hillside Lands within a Historic District located at 265 Grandview Drive. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-7.5; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 09 BC; Tax Lot: 7200. APPLICANT: Sidney and Karen DeBoer II~ PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS PERMIT CRITERIA 18.62.040 Approval and Permit Required I. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following: Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. 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. In the matter of an Application for a Physical Constraints Review Permit for the purpose of Constructing a Single Family Dwelling on land zoned R-1-7.5 classified as Hillside Lands and within a Residential Historic District in Ashland, Oregon, (Applicant $id & Karen DeBoer) and in accordance with the requirements of ALUO 18.108.030 (Staff Permit Procedure), we the undersigned respectfully request a Public Hearing on said Planning A~ion..200S-ll8... 391E 09BC ........ We request that the staff approval decision be reversed based on the following applicable criteria: Page 16 of the Applicant's Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law concludes that the "application is consistent with the r~tluirements of Criterion $" We respectfully disagree. In our opinion, the submitted evidence shows that the "maximum development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance" will be exceeded by this proposal. We also do not feel that the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. ALUO m6Z040 Criterion $. Ti~ the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment Irreversible actions shall be conshlo~d 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 perndtted by the Land Use Ordinanc& We also reserve the right to introduce at the Public Hearing any additional evidence to support our request for staff decision reversal. OCT E 0 20O3 In the matter of an Application for a Physical Constraints Review Permit for the purpose of Constructing a Single Family Dwelling on land zoned R-1-7.5 classified as Hillside Lands and within a Residential Historic District in Ashland, Oregon, (Applicant $id & Karen DeBoer) and in accordance with the requirements of ALUO 18.108.030 (Staff Permit Procedure), we the undersigned respectfully request a Public Hearing on said Planning Action...2003-118... 391E 09BC ........ We request that the staff approval decision be reversed based on the following applicable criteria: Page 16 of the Applicant's Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law concludes that the "application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 3" We respectfully disagree. In our opinion, the submitted evidence shows that the "maximum development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance" will be exceeded by this proposal. We also do not feel that the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. ALUO 18.62.040 (I) Criterion 3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on tke environmenL 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 Ordinanc& We also reserve the fight to introduce at the Public Hearing any additional evidence to support our request for staff decision reversal. ^ddress / OCT 2 0 2003 In the matter of an Application for a Physical Constraints Review Permit for the purpose of Constructing a Single Family Dwelling on land zoned R-1-7.5 classified as Hillside Lands and within a Residential Historic District in Ashland, Oregon, (Applicant Sid & Karen DeBoer) and in accordance with the requirements of ALUO 18.108.030 (Staff Permit Procedure), we the undersigned respectfully request a Public Hearing on said Planning Action...2003-118... 391E 09BC ........ We request that the staff approval decision be reversed based on the following applicable criteria: Page 16 of the Applicant's Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law concludes that the "application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 3" We respeclfully disagree. In our opinion, the submitted evidence shows that the "maximum development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance" will be exceeded by this proposal. We also do not feel that the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. ALUO 18.62.040 (I) Criterion $, That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environmen~ Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible action~ 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 Ordinanc& We also reserve the right to introduce at the Public Heating any additional evidence to support our request for staff decision reversal. Name Address Signed Date · ! · Sent By: Ogden, Kistier & Associates AIAA;541 772 8472; 0ct-16-03 4:57PM; Page 2/3 C.L~pyd~t,t Off, ce f~.e~ are subject to cha~ge. .;*or cttrrent fees: check the Copyri.~i~? right Office= o~ carl {202} FORM .VA For aWork of the Visual A~ts UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE REGISTRATION NUMBER VA VAU EFFECTIVE 0ATE OF REGISTRATION DO NOT WRITE ABOV~ THIS LINE. IF YOU NEED MORE SPACE, USE A SEPARATE CONTINUATIDN SHEET. .__ .... ~_=~_~--~..**;=-~ i-_--£ ._--__,.- -- -____ -- ......................... ~_ ...... -_:~_ :' ~.£. __:.7___ . -~-_=[ ~ ......... I Title et This Work · NATUR[ OF TLllS WORK · se~ rmruc~o~ NAME OF A[FFHOR · Who ems coutdbutJ~ te ~h¢ work · NOTE "work ~ f~w hi.st U.d., ~. ~-, f~o ~ ~ha 'mhm-' ~f Aill~o~J ~aLk)flalfly er Domicile I, bmu d CaJn~ OR( Cifizea of · '~ mm~, Nature of Authorship Jot Blt'o' ~ ~aa7 the I-i 3-Dimc~sioml ~ctzl[~ [] employer, net (see I~tmc- 0 Reproduction tic)ns). For aa), pert ~ this wefll teat was I · mede for hire' iwe~idea, live ~ [] T~xx Darn d'l~irth mud Death death b4lnk. Natured'Authorship ,Cl~eek qq~qxb~. ~r.(e~),See in~ffucflon s .- ~- r '--"- ......... ~ ~'~2 ....... - .......... ~- CO~RI~T CLAIM A~(S) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gi~u ~ if ~ c~t is ~ ~ ~ U2 APPLICAT~ RE~IVED ~ ~O DEPOSITS RE~I~D bmr~e~nt ~' ~ eh~t(s) ~ ~ip or~ ~ V ~ FUNDS ~CE~ED DO NOT WRfTE HERE 1 IlliJ Sent By: Ogden, Klstier & Associates AIAA;541 772 8472; 0ct-16-03 4:57PM; Page 3/3 EXAMINED BY '-='~ ''"''' ~ ' FORM VA CHECKED BY CORRESPONDENCE Ye~ DO NOT WRITE A~OVE THIS LINE. IF YOU NJ:=Fn MORE SPACE, USE A SEPAI~IkTE CONTINUATION FOR COPYRIGHT OFFICE USE ONLY 6 ~a~.af [be ,,ww,~iJ that IsU bees added k> thh wock snd bt whidt ' is eloimd, flu ~ ~nt Nlm~ ~ 7 8 Certificate will b~ mailed in wJfldow address: Ree: June ~)(Xl · ~LW]o web Rlw:. June 2LI(]2 ~l pt kll~j Ull W impe¢ /I (~ U- &. Oe~nlment I~nlJr~ QffwJ' 2000~ 1.11~20,0~1 ~ent By: Ogden, Klstier & Assoc±ates AIAA;541 772 8472; 0ct-28-03 5:08PM; Page 1/1 PAGE fax INCLUDING THIS PAGE TO FROM DATE JOB NO, OgdenKistter Architecture^~ 54:1. 779,5237" 54.i 772,8472r ?.950 E Barne[t Rd Medford, OR 97504 [] No original documents will follow, unl*''~ requested, [] Original ~uments will follow by mall, - IIITI I Sent By: Ogden, Klstier & Associates A[AA;541 772 8472; 0ct-29-03 4:00PM; Page 1/1 Ogde.nKist[er fax Arch'tecture^'^ / PAGE INCLUDING THIS PAGE ,.__. 54[ 779.5237e 541 772.8472F /~ ~ ~, 2950EBame~Rd ........................................................... Medford, OR 97~4 ...... ~ <.~~ ................................................. ~o..o ........ ~ :.~ .... /~ ...... /~ .................... ................. .... .... .~:A...~~...~~~~;~....~ ..... ~...~ .......... :::::: .... ~..~ ..... ~..~ .... ~...~.: ............................................................ TO FROM [] No original documa~ts will follow, unless requested. [] Original dom~ments will follOW by mail. IMark knox - Re: Denial of Permission to make copies. PA# 2003-118 Page 1 From: To: Date: Subject: "Colin Swales" <colin@mind.net> "Mark knox" <mark@ashland.or.us> October 28, 2003 8:34AM Re: Denial of Permission to make copies. PA# 2003-118 Mark, re: Denial of Permission to make copies. PA# 2003-118 I thought the City had just hired another attorney! Does he not understand Land Use Law enough to give an opinion on this matter? As a concerned neighbor to this project, I am very frustrated by all this. Had the public been allowed to have access to copies of these submittals, other neighbors might also have come forward and requested a public hearing. I personally was unable to check out any details while out of town and therefore could not come to a reasoned decision on the matter within the 10-day time limit. Most people work 9-5 and are unable to come into the planning office personally to inspect the plans. It is even more worrisome as two current planning commissioners are directly involved and hired for this project. Some citizens have pointed out that our Planning Director is also a close personal friend of the other partner of the architectural partner that denied full access. How is all this perceived by the public who seem at every Planning Commission / Council meeting to criticize the fairness of our City's process? As a member of the Planning Commission myself, I find this all very embarrassing. BTW, was my name mentioned when permission to make copies was made by Mac to Ogden Kistler Architecture? thanks Colin ~ Original Message From: "Mark knox" <mark@ashland.or.us> To: <colin@mind.net> Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 3:50 PM Subject: Re: Denial of Permission to make copies. Yes. Also, Paul (I just found out) is out sick today but is expected in tomorrow. >>> "Colin Swales" <colin@mind.net> October 27, 2003 11:40:48 AM >>> Mark, Re: PA# 2003-118 Could you also please make me a copy of the Applicant's written ( and oral ?) response to my request to obtain copies of the submitted plans. thanks Colin ' ' I]ITI t Mark knox - Fw: Copies of Submitted Documents PA# 2003-118 (reply to Paul) Page 1 From: To: Date: Subject: "Colin Swales" <colin@mind.net> "Mark Knox" <knoxm@ashland.or.us> October 28, 2003 9:25AM Fw: Copies of Submitted Documents PA# 2003-118 (reply to Paul) Mark, FYh Please add to the "Record" thanks Colin ..... Original Message ..... From: "Colin Swales" <colin@mind.net> To: "Paul nolte" <Noltep@ashland.or.us> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 9:18 AM Subject: Re: Copies of Submitted Documents? > Paul, > Re PA# 2003-118 > Thanks for your opinion on this matter. > The applicant, according to my understanding, and subsequent to my request > for copies of the reductions of their plans that were made part of their > planning action submittal, furnished the city with a written denial to make > such copies of their evidence available to the public. I myself was unable > to exercise due diligence in this matter due to this action by the > applicants. > As such a categorical denial is contrary to Oregon Planning Law (as stated > below) I would like to request that the planning Action should not have been > received and accepted by the City as a complete and full application and furthermore that the City requests that this application is withdrawn and submitted at a later date containing only such evidence to support their application that the applicant is willing to share fully and unreservedly with the public and without such illegal restrictions on access and scrutiny. Yours Colin Swales - Original Message From: "Paul nolte" <Noltep@ashland.or.us> To: "Mark knox" <mark@ashland.or.us>; <colin@mind.net> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 8:06 AM Subject: Re: Copies of Submitted Documents? Mark, as I previously advised copyrighted plans may not be duplicated. ORS > 197.763 does not trump Federal copyright laws. Do not copy the plans without > the consent of the copyright holder. > Paul Nolte IMark knox - Fw: Copies of Submitted Documents PA# 2003-118 (reply to Paul) Page 2 > City Attorney > City of Ashland, OR > (541) 488-5350 - PHONE > NOTE NEW FAX # AS OF JUNE 25, 2003:(541 ) 552-2092 - FAX > noltep@ashland.or.us > > Visit the city's web site at: www.ashland.or.us > Our TTY phone number is 1 (800) 735-2900 >>> "Colin Swales" <colin@mind.net> 10/27/03 9:11:28 AM >>> Mark, I understand that PA# 2003-118 has been called up for a Public Hearing. You might remember when I came into the office a couple of weeks ago in order to obtain information concerning this application and was allowed to > inspect the submitted plans: Although you personally were perfectly willing > to make me a copy of a couple of the 8" x 11" reduced versions of the plans > I understand that you were over-ruled by Mac and the City Attorney who said > that I must first obtain the express permission of the copyright holder > (Ogden Kistler Architecture). I then asked for you to request such > permission. You replied that if I didn't hear from you before days end, that > permission was not forthcoming. > I did not hear from you so I have to assume that permission to copy these > public documents was denied. > > However, on reading ORS 197.763 (3h) > (http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/197.html) I read: > "...all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant > and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be > provided at reasonable cost...." ( my emphasis). > > Could you please therefore make me the couple of copies I requested. > Also, could you please make sure that this request is entered into the > Record for PA# 2003-118 and that the City Attorney and Planning Director are > made aware as are Derek and Adam who also thought they were not allowed to > make such copies.( see e-mail below) > > thanks > > Colin Swales > ---- Original Message > From: "Derek severson" <dereks@ashland.or.us> > To: <colin@mind.net> > Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 11:39 AM Mark knox - Fw: Copies of Submitted Documents PA# 2003-118 (reply to Paul) Page > Subject: Re: Glenview > Colin, > The staff findings are attached. I don't have the applicant's submittal > electronically, but I will photocopy the narrative for you and set it out in > the basket. > I'm not sure if you are looking for copies of the plans that were included > in the submittal, but because the plans are stamped/copyrighted by Ogden > Kistler, I can't photocopy them without written permission to you from their > office. And because it's not commission business, our standard copying > charges do apply - $0.50 per page for projects over 15 pages for standard > sized pages and larger format copies at $8 per page. We do have them > available for review in office as part of the file. (The narrative falls > into the 15 pages at no cost when double sided.) > Thanks, > > Derek >>> "Colin Swales" <colin@mind.net> 10/15/03 09:52AM >>> Derek, Could you please make me a copy of the applicant's submittal for the upcoming 265 Glenview Drive development.( do you have a .pdf of this?) Also the accompanying staff report ( e-mai this if possible) thanks Colin ';'he Ashland Planning Department approved this request with applicable conditions on October 10, 2003. Any affected property owner or resident has a right to request, AT NO CHARGE, a public hearing before the Ashland Planning Commission on this action. To exerclce this right, a WRITTEN request must be received in the Planning Department, 51 Winbum Way, prior to 3:00 p.m. on October 20, 2003. The written request for the public hearing must Include your name, address, the file number of the planning action and the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed. If you do not SPECIFICALLY REQUEST A PUBUC HEARING by the time and date stated above, there will be no public testimony permitted. If a hearing is requested, it will be scheduled for the following month. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. The on:linance cdteda applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning ~is application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide suff'~,ent specific~ to afl .o~d. the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on alse pmciudas your riglt of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the appticant to raise constltu6onal ~' olher issues relating to profx3sed conditions of approval wffi-~ sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages In circuit court. A copy of the application, all dacume~s and evidence'relied upon by the apidicant and al~ticable criteda are available for inspection at no cost and will be providad at reaso~alfle cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Relx~ will be available for inspecfie~ seven days prior to the hearing and will be pmvlded at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, City Hall, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520. Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, City Hall, at 541-552-2041. Our lq'Y phone number is 1-800-735-2900. _- PLANNING ACTION 2003-118 is a request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit to construct a single family residential home on Hillside Lands within a Historic District located at 265 Glenview Drive. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-7.5; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 09 BC; Tax Lot: 7200. APPLICANT: Sidney and Karen DeBoer PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS PERMIT CRITERIA 18.62.040 Approval and Permit Required I. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following: Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. .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. PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS PERMIT CRITERIA .18.62.040 Approval and Permit Required I. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following: Through the application of the development standards of this chapter~ the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. That the applicant has considered the'potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. 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. ' fNITI ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS & ORDERS October l0th, 2003 PLANNING ACTION 2003-118 is a request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for a new home at 265 Glenview Drive. The proposed home is located on the Hillside Lands Overlay Map and is subject to the requirements of the Hillside Ordinance; Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Residential; Zoning: R-1-7.5; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 09BC; Tax Lot #: 7200. APPLICANT: Sidney and Karen DeBoer On Friday, October 10~, 2003, a meeting was held in the Planning Office to review this application. In attendance were Mark Knox and Maria Harris, Associate Planners, and Bill Molnar, Senior Planner and John McLaughlin, Community Development Director serving as the Staff Advisor. The applicant is requesting a Physical and Environmental Constraints Pemfit to construct a residence at 265 Glenview Drive, which is located on slopes greater than 25%. As such, the development is subject to the requirements of the Hillside ~-Cili~n~e2 The lOt h~s' existing slopes of 0-65% with unnatural cut and fill areas that have created the most significant slopes. The cut and fill areas have occurred due to the construction of the existing hoUSe (approved to be demolished), construction of a swimming pool, garage and the recontouring of the yard for landscape and recreational purposes such as a level lawn area and outdoor dining area. According to the applicant's findings and survey, the natural slope of the property, prior to the man-made alterations, the slope was 28%. This can also be verified by evaluating the slope of properties within the nearby vicinity that have not been altered. The applicants have also submitted a survey plat to amend the lot lines with the adjacent property to the northwest at 234 Vista Street (current residence of the applicants). The Lot Line AdjUStment is an administrative decision. The adjustment increases the subject lot size fi:om a non-conforming 3,000 square feet to 22,661 square feet and reduces the adjacent lot size from 25,300 to 8,084 square feet. The minimum lot size in the R-1-7.5 zone is 7,500 square feet. There are a number of trees on the property, four regulation size trees that are proposed to be removed and five regulation size trees already removed. Unfortunately, the five trees already removed were mistakenly approved by the Planning Staff back in June due to a misunderstanding that the trees were exempt. The removal of the trees was an unfortunate mistake, but in no case was this an error of the applicants. However, the applicants have agreed to mitigate the loss, including the loss of the four other trees proposed to be removed, by replanting on site two additional trees and replanting off-site on public lands ten trees. The mitigation proposal is consistent with the mitigation requirements noted in the recently adopted Tree Ordinance (18.61.084). The applicants have hired Mark Amrhein, Amrhein Associates, Inc., to prepare the Site Evaluation and Geotechnical Engineering report. The report identifies the site and the proposed building and its relationship with the site's physical geological constraints. The report also identifies the constraint issues listed in the Hillside Ordinance (seismic factors, erosion control, slope stability, storm water etc.) and specifically lists the appropriate mitigation requirements. The report also discusses the need for periodic inspections in order to assure compliance with the Geotechnical Expert's findings and recommendations. This will allow Mr. Amrhein time to evaluate each mitigation proposal during construction. Each mitigation noted in the applicants' Geotechnical Report will be a condition of approval. As noted, the existing house was approved to be demolished with the new house_being constructed in its place. The existing detached garage will remain. The new ho;use-~iiihsit to the east of the garage and be two and one-half stories and consist of approximately i.l_,~0~square feet. The home's footprint is approximately 3,250 square feet. The home has four levels consisting of a basement, 1st floor, 2'~a floor and attic or ¼ story. The general dimensions are 35' in height, 110' wide and 48' deep. The home, although large, is broken up with multiple rooflines, balconies and stepbacks. Vehicular access to the proposed home will be from Glenview as it currently is. The driveway leads to a porte cochere and circles around to allow exiting cars to enter the road in a forward manner. The driveway also leads to the existing garage. In the middle of the circular driveway will be landscaping. The criteria for approval of a physical constraints review permit for the construction of a home on Hillside Lands is as follows: 0 That the development will not cause damage or hazard topersons orproperty upon or adjacent to the area of development. 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. 3) That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously that reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding are, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. 4) That the development is in compliance with the requirements of the chapter and all other applicable City Ordinances and Codes. Based upon the evidence submitted, which include the applicants' findings, elevations, landscape plan, survey, photos, site evaluation and geotechnical report, the application for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit meets the Hillside Development Standards and all applicable criteria for approval. The Staff Advisor includes by reference all of the applicant's submittals in the decision and based on the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, Planning Action 2003-118 is approved. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval. Further, if any one or more of the following conditions are found to be invalid for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action 2003-118 is denied: 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That a Geotechnical Expert be retained until the project is completed and a final Certificate of Occupancy is issued. 3) That prior to final Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall present t9 the staff advisor a copy of the Geotechnical Expert's Inspection Schedule. Such inspection schedule shall identify the Geotechnical Expert's final approval for all measurers noted in the Geotechnical Engineering Report. 4) That all recommendations listed in the Amrhein Associates Geologic Evaluation and Geotechnical Engineering Report (July 20th, 2003) be implemented during the construction of the home. Such recommendations will need to be identified in the final Geotechnical Expert's Inspection Schedule. 5) That prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant, Geotechnical Expert, Building Official and Planning Staff Advisor meet on site in order to review the City's Hillside Development requirements. 6) That prior to final Certificate of Occupancy, the mitigation proposal for the replacement trees as noted in the applicants' findings shall be met. 7) That all proposed construction work within the Glenview Drive fight-of-way be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Engineering Department. 8) That an encroachment pemfit be obtained from the Ashland Engineering Department for the existing fence along Glenview Drive. This Planning Application approval will become final on October 20th, 2003. Bill Molnar, Senior Planner Date BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF ASHLAND STATE OF OREGON IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION ) FOR A PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW ) PERMIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ) CONSTRUCTING A SINGLE FAMILY ) DWELMNG ON LAND ZONED R-1-7.5, ) CLASSIFIED AS HILLSIDE LANDS AND ) WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL HISTORIC ) DISTRICT IN ASHLAND, OREGON ) ) SidneylKaren DeBoer: Applicants PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Applicant's Exhibit 1 NATURE OF THE APPLICATION Applicants, Sidney DeBoer and Karen DeBoer, propose the construction of a single family dwelling on land zoned Single-Family Residential (R-1-7.5) and designated as Hillside Lands pursuant to Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) Chapter 18.62 and within a Residential Historic district. This proposal also requires the demolition of an existing dwelling which was applied for under a separate application.' II EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION Applicant herewith submits the following evidence with and in support of its applications for plan amendment, rezoning and site review: Exhibit 1. The proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (this document), demonstrating how the application complies with the applicable substantive criteria of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) as hereinbelow enumerated Exhibit 2. Project Plans, including: · Sheet Rest Stop · Sheet PL 1.1 Planning Site Plan · Sheet PL 1.2 Hillside Site Plan Applicant intends to retain the accessory garage structure. Findings of Fact and ConcluSions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 Page 1 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. · Sheet PL 1.3 Solar Access · Sheet 1.1 Architectural Site Plan · Sheet 0.1 Vicinity Map and · Sheets 0.2 and 0.3 Construction Materials Information · Sheet 3.0 Basement Floor Plan · Sheet 3.1 First Floor Plan · Sheet 3.2 Second Floor Plan · Sheet 3.3 Attic Floor Plan · Sheet 5.0 Basement Reflected Ceiling Plan · Sheet 5.1 First Floor Reflected Ceiling Plan · Sheet 5.2 Second Floor Reflected Ceiling Plan · Sheet 5.3 Attic Reflected Ceiling Plan · Sheet 6.1 Window and Door Types · Sheet 7.1 Exterior Elevations · Sheets 8.1 through 8.8 Building Sections · Sheet 10.1 Roof Plan · Sheet 12.1 Construction Types · Sheet C 1.0 General Note Sheet for Civil Engineering · Sheet C 1.1 Civil Site Plan · Sheet C 1.2 Civil Grading and Paving Plan · Sheet L1 Landscape Site Plan · Sheet L2 Planting Plan · Sheet L3 Tree Removal and Protection Plan Exhibit 3. Site Evaluation and Geotechnical Engineering Report Exhibit 4. Surrounding Area Photographs and Photograph Key Map Exhibit 5. Topographic Map by Surveyors, Hoffbuhr & Associates, Inc. Exhibit 6. Gantt chart timeline Exhibit 7. Letter from Surveyors, Hoffbuhr & Associates, Inc. Exhibit 8. Letter/Tree Inventory from Landscape Architect, Kerry KenCaim Findings of Fact and' Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 Page 2 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. III RELEVANT SUBSTANTIVE APPROVAL CRITERIA The Planning Commission has determined that the following constitute all of the relevant substantive criteria which are prerequisite to approving the proposed Physical and Environmental Constraints Review land use application on land designated_ Hillside Lands and within a Residential Historic district. The below standards and criteria of the City of Ashland Physical and Environmental Constraints Review are cited verbatim hereinbelow. In Section V, each relevant standard and criterion (or groups of standards and criteria) are followed by the conclusions of law and ultimate conclusions of the Planning Commission. The conclusions of law and ultimate conclusions are based upon the findings of fact in Section IV and the evidence enumerated in Section II. PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC)) ALUO Chapter 18.62, Physical Constraints Review Permit ALUO 18.62.040(I) Criteria for Approval. A Physical Constrains Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following: 1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. 2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. 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 18.62.080 Development Standards for Hillside Lands. A. General Requirements. The following general requirements shall apply in Hillside Lands. 1. All development shall occur on lands defined as having buildable area. Slopes greater than 35% shall be considered unbuildable except as allowed below. Variances may be granted to this requirement only as provided in section 18.62.080.H. a. Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35% shall be considered buildable for one unit. b. Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35% cannot be subdivided or partitioned. 2. All newly created lots either by subdivision or partition shall contain a building envelope with a slope of 35% or less. 3. New streets, flag drives, and driveways shall be constructed on lands of less than or equal to 35% slope with the following exceptions: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 Page 3 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. a. The street is indicated on the City's Transportation Plan Map - Street Dedications. b. The portion of the street, flag drive, or driveway on land greater than 35% slope does not exceed a length of 100 feet. 4. Geotechnical Studies. For all applications on Hillside Lands involving subdivisions or partitions, * * * Hillside Grading and Erosion Control. All development on lands classified as hillside shall provide plans conforming with the following items: All grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans for development on Hillside Lands shall be designed by a geotechnical expert. All cuts, grading or fills shall conform to Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. Erosion control measures on the development site shall be required to minimize the solids in runoff from disturbed areas. For development other than single family homes on individual lots, all grading, drainage improvements, or other land disturbances shall only occur from May 1 to October 31. Excavation shall not occur during the remaining wet months of the year. Erosion control measures shall be installed and functional by October 31. Up to 30 day modifications to the October 31 date, and 45 day modification to the May 1 date may .be made by the Planning Director, based upon weather conditions and in consultation with the project geotechnical expert. The modification of dates shall be the minimum necessary, based upon evidence provided by the applicant, to accomplish the necessary project goals. Retention in natural state. On all projects on Hillside Lands involving partitions and subdivisions, and existing lots with an area greater than one-half acre, an area equal to 25% of the total project area, plus the percentage figure of the average slope of the total project area, shall be retained in a natural state. Lands to be retained in a natural state shall be protected from damage through the use of temporary construction fencing or the functional equivalent. For example, on a 25,000 sq. ft. lot with an average slope of 29%, 25%+29%=54% of the total lot area shall be retained in a natural state. The retention in a natural state of areas greater than the minimum percentage required here is encouraged. 4. Grading - cuts. On all cut slopes on areas classified as Hillside lands, the following standards shall apply: Cut slope angles shall be determined in relationship to the type of materials of which they are composed. Where the soil permits, limit the total area exposed to precipitation and erosion. Steep cut slopes shall be retained with stacked rock, retaining walls, or functional equivalent to control erosion and provide slope stability when necessary. VVhere cut slopes are required to be laid back (1:1 or less steep), the slope shall be protected with erosion control getting or structural equivalent installed per manufacturers specifications, and revegetated. Exposed cut slopes, such as those for streets, driveway accesses, or yard areas, greater than seven feet in height shall be terraced. Cut faces on a terraced section shall not exceed a maximum height of five feet. Terrace widths shall be a minimum of three feet to allow for the introduction of vegetation for erosion control. Total cut slopes shall not exceed a maximum vertical height of 15 feet. (See Graphic) Revegetation of cut slope terraces shall include the provision of a planting plan, introduction to topsoil where necessary, and the use of irrigation if necessary. The vegetation used for these areas shall be native or species similar in resource value which will survive, help reduce the visual impact of the cut slope, and assist in providing long term slope stabilization. Trees, bush-type plantings and cascading vine-type plantings may be appropriate. 5. Grading - fills. On all fill slopes on lands classified as Hillside Lands, the following standards shall apply: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 Page 4 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Fill slopes shall not exceed a total vertical height of 20 feet. The toe of the fill slope area not utilizing structural retaining shall be a minimum of six feet from the nearest property line.(Ord 2834 S6, 1998) Fill slopes shall be protected with an erosion control netting, blanket or functional equivalent. Netting or blankets shall only be used in conjunction with an organic mulch such as straw or wood fiber. The blanket must be applied so that it is in complete contact with the soil so that erosion does not occur beneath it. Erosion netting or blankets shall be securely anchored to the slope in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. Utilities. VVhenever possible, utilities shall not be located or installed on or in fill slopes. VVhen determined that it necessary to install utilities on fill slopes, all plans shall be designed by a geotechnical expert. Revegetation of fill slopes shall utilize native vegetation or vegetation similar in resource value and which will survive and stabilize the surface. Irrigation may be provided to ensure growth if necessary. Evidence shall be required indicating long-term viability of the proposed vegetation for the purposes of erosion control on disturbed areas. Revegetation requirements. VVhere required by this chapter, all required revegetation of cut and fill slopes shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, signature of a required survey plat, or other time as determined by the hearing authority. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be substantially established within one year of installation. 7. Maintenance, Security, and Penalties for Erosion Control Measures. Maintenance. All measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control, including but not limited to vegetative cover, rock walls, and landscaping, shall be maintained in perpetuity on all areas which have been disturbed, including public rights-of-way. The applicant shall provide evidence indicating the mechanisms in place to ensure maintenance of measures. b. Security. Except for individual lots existing prior to January 1, 1998, after an Erosion Control Plan is approved by the hearing authority and prior to construction, the applicant shall provide a performance bond or other financial guarantees in the amount of 120% of the value of the erosion control measures necessary to stabilize the site. Any financial guarantee instrument proposed other than a performance bond shall be approved by the City Attorney. The financial guarantee instrument shall be in effect for a period of at least one year, and shall be released when the Planning Director and Public Works Director determine, jointly, that the site has been stabilized. All or a portion of the security retained by the City may be withheld for a period up to five years beyond the one year maintenance period if it has been determined by the City that the site has not been sufficiently stabilized against erosion. Site Grading. The grading of a site on Hillside Lands shall be reviewed considering the following factors: a. No terracing shall be allowed except for the purposes of developing a level building pad and for providing vehicular access to the pad. b. Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site.(Ord 2834,S2 1998) c. Avoid hazardous or unstable portions Of the site. Building pads should be of minimum size to accommodate the structure and a reasonable amount of yard space. Pads for tennis courts, swimming pools and large lawns are discouraged. As much of the remaining lot area as possible should be kept in the natural state of the original slope. Inspections and Final Report. Prior to the acceptance of a subdivision by the City, signature of the final survey plat on partitions, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy for individual structures, the project geotechnical expert shall provide a final report indicating that the approved grading, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 Page 5 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. drainage1 and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections, as per 18.62.080.A.4.j were conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project. Surface and Groundwater Drainage. All development on Hillside Lands shall conform to the following standards: 1. All facilities for the collection of stormwater runoff shall be required to be constructed on the site and according to the following requirements: Stormwater facilities shall include storm drain systems associated with street construction, facilities for accommodating drainage from driveways, parking areas and other impervious surfaces, and roof drainage systems. b. Stormwater facilities, when part of the overall site improvements, shall be, to the greatest extent feasible, the first improvements constructed on the development site. c. Stormwater facilities shall be designed to divert surface water away from cut faces or sloping surfaces of a fill. d. Existing natural drainage systems shall be utilized, as much as possible, in their natural state, recognizing the erosion potential from increased storm drainage. Flow-retarding devices, such as detention ponds and recharge berms, shall be used where practical to minimize increases in runoff volume and peak flow rate due to development. Each facility shall consider the needs for an emergency overflow system to safely carry any overflow water to an acceptable disposal point. f. Stormwater facilities shall be designed, constructed and maintained in a manner that will avoid erosion on-site and to adjacent and downstream properties. Alternate stormwater systems, such as dry well systems, detention ponds, and leach fields, shall be designed by a registered engineer or geotechnical expert and approved by the City's Public Works Department or City Building Official. Tree Conservation, Protection and Removal. All development on Hillside Lands shall conform to the following requirements: Inventory of Existing Trees. A tree survey at the same scale as the project site plan shall be prepared, which locates all trees greater than six inches d.b.h., identified by d.b.h., species, approximate extent of tree canopy. In addition, for areas proposed to be disturbed, existing tree base elevations shall be provided. Dead or diseased trees shall be identified. Groups of trees in close proximity (i.e. those within five feet of each other) may be designated as a clump of trees, with the predominant species, estimated number and average diameter indicated. All tree surveys shall have an accuracy of plus or minus two feet. The name, signature, and address of the site surveyor responsible for the accuracy of the survey shall be provided on the tree survey. Portions of the lot or project area not proposed to be disturbed by development need not be included in the inventory. Evaluation of Suitability for Conservation. All trees indicated on the inventory of existing trees shall also be identified as to their suitability for conservation. When required by the hearing authority, the evaluation shall be conducted by 'a landscape professional. Factors included in this determination shall include: a. Tree health. Healthy trees can better withstand the rigors of development than non-vigorous trees. b. Tree Structure. Trees with severe decay or substantial defects are more likely to result in damage to people and property. c. Species. Species vary in their ability to tolerate impacts and damage to their environment. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 Page 6 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. d. Potential longevity. e. Variety. A variety of native tree species and ages f. Size. Large trees provide a greater protection for erosion and shade than smaller trees. 3. Tree Conservation in Project Design. Significant trees (2' d.b.h, or greater conifers and 1' d.b.h, or greater broadlea0 shall be protected arid incorporated into the project design whenever possible. Streets, driveways, buildings, utilities, parking areas, and other site disturbances shall be located such that the maximum number of existing trees on the site are preserved, while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. Building envelopes shall be located and sized to preserve the maximum number of trees on site ,while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. c. Layout of the project site utility and grading plan shall avoid disturbance of tree protection areas. 4. Tree Protection. On all properties where trees are required to be preserved during the course of development, the developer shall follow the following tree protection standards: All trees designated for conservation shall be clearly marked on the project site. Prior to the start of any clearing, stripping, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation, the applicant shall install fencing at the drip line of all trees to be preserved adjacent to or in the area to be altered. Temporary fencing shall be established at the perimeter of the dripline. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits, the fences may be inspected and their location approved by the Staff Advisor. (see graphic) Construction site activities, including but not limited to parking, material storage, soil compaction and concrete washout, shall be arranged so as to prevent disturbances within tree protection areas. No grading, stripping, compaction, or significant change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the drip line of trees designated for conservation unless indicated on the grading plans, as approved by the City, and landscape professional. If grading or construction is approved within the dripline, a landscape professional may be required to be present during grading operations, and shall have authority to require protective measures to protect the roots. Changes in soil hydrology and site drainage within tree protection areas shall be minimized. Excessive site run-off shall be directed to appropriate storm drain facilities and away from trees designated for conservation. Should encroachment into a tree protection area occur which causes irreparable damage, as determined by a landscape professional, to trees, the project plan shall be revised to compensate for the loss. Under no circumstances shall the developer be relieved of responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this chapter Tree Removal. Development shall be designed to preserve the maximum number of trees on a site. The development shall follow the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. When justified by findings of fact, the hearing authority may approve the removal of trees for one or more of the following conditions: (Ord 2834 S3, 1998) a. The tree is located within the building envelope. b. The tree is located within a proposed street, driveway, or parking area. c. The tree is located within a water, sewer1 or other public utility easement. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 ,,~r'r~ ~ ~'~ Page 7 ~[~ r--r ~ LUU3 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. e. The tree is determined by a landscape professional to be dead or diseased, or it constitutes an unacceptable hazard to life or property when evaluated by the standards in 18.62.080.D.2. f. The tree is located within or adjacent to areas of cuts or fills that are deemed threatening to the life of the tree, as determined by a landscape professional. Tree Replacement. Trees approved for removal, with the exception of trees removed because they were determined to be diseased, dead, or a hazard, shall be replaced in compliance with the following standards: a. Replacement trees shall be indicated on a tree replanting plan. The replanting plan shall include all locations for replacement trees, and shall also indicate tree planting details.(Ord 2834 S4, 1998) b. Replacement trees shall be planted such that the trees will in time result in canopy equal to or greater than the tree canopy present prior to development of the property. The canopy shall be designed to mitigate of the impact of paved and developed areas, reduce surface erosion and increase slope stability.. Replacement tree locations shall consider impact on the wildfire prevention and control plan. The hearing authority shall have the discretion to adjust the proposed replacement tree canopy based upon site-specific evidence and testimony. c. Maintenance of replacement trees shall be the responsibility of the property owner. Required replacement trees shall be continuously maintained in a healthy manner. Trees that die within the first five years after initial planting must be replaced in kind, after which a new five year replacement period shall begin. Replanting must occur within 30 days of notification unless otherwise noted. (Ord 2834 S5, 1998) 7. Enforcement a. All tree removal shall be done in accord with the approved tree removal and replacement plan. No trees designated for conservation shall be removed without prior approval of the City of Ashland. b. Should the developer or de~/eloper's agent remove or destroy any tree that has been designated for conservation, the developer may be fined up to three times the current appraised value of the replacement trees and cost of replacement or up to three times the current market value, as established by a professional arborist, whichever is greater. c. Should the developer or developer's agent damage any tree that has been. designated for protection and conservation, the developer shall be penalized $50.00 per scar. If necessary, a professional arborist's report, prepared at the developer's expense, may be required to determine the extent of the damage. Should the damage result in loss of appraised value greater than determined above, the higher of the two values shall be used. E. Building Location and Design Standards. All buildings and buildable areas proposed for Hillside Lands shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following standards .... F. All structures on Hillside Lands shall have foundations which have been designed by an engineer or architect with demonstrable geotechnical design experience. A designer, as defined, shall not complete working drawings without having foundations designed by an engineer. G. All newly created lots or lots modified by a lot line adjustment must include a building envelope on all lots that contains a buildable area less than 35% slope of sufficient size to accommodate the uses permitted in the underlying zone, unless the division or lot line adjustment is for open space or conservation purposes. TREE PRESERVATION & PROTECTION ALUO 18.62.200 Tree Protection Tree Protection as required by this section is applicable to any planning action or building permit. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 Page 8 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. A. Tree Protection Plan Required. A Tree Protection Plan approved by the Staff Advisor shall be required prior to conducting any development activities including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation, or demolition work on a property or site, which requires a planning action or building permit. In order to obtain approval of a Tree Protection Plan; an applicant shall submit a plan to the City, which clearly depicts all trees to be preserved and/or removed on the site. The plan must be drawn to scale and include the following: a. Location, species, and diameter of each tree on site and within 15 feet of the site; b. Location of the drip line of each tree; c. Location of existing and proposed roads, water, sanitary and storm sewer, irrigation, and other utility lines/facilities and easements; d. Location of dry wells, drain lines and soakage trenches; e. Location of proposed and existing structures; f. Grade change or cut and fill during or after construction; g. Existing and proposed impervious surfaces; h. Identification of a contact person and/or arborist who will be responsible for implementing and maintaining the approved tree protection plan; and i. Location and type of tree protection measures to be installed per AMC 18.61.230. For development requiring a planning action, the Tree Preservation Plan shall include an inventory of all trees on site, their health or hazard condition, and recommendations for treatment for each tree. B. Tree Protection Measures Required. Except as otherwise determined by the Staff Advisor, all required tree protection measures set forth in this section shall be instituted prior to any development activities, including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation or demolition work, and shall be removed only after completion of all construction activity, including landscaping and irrigation installation. Chain link fencing, a minimum of six feet tall with steel posts placed no farther than ten feet apart, shall be installed at the edge of the tree protection zone or dripline, whichever is greater, and at the boundary of any open space tracts, riparian areas, or conservation easements that abut the parcel being developed. 3. The fencing shall be flush with the initial undisturbed grade. Approved signs shall be attached to the chain link fencing stating that inside the fencing is a tree protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior approval has been obtained from the Staff Advisor for the project. No construction activity shall occur within the tree protection zone, including, but not limited to dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste items, equipment, or parked vehicles. The tree protection zone shall remain free of chemically injurious materials and liquids such as paints, thinners, cleaning solutions, petroleum products, and concrete or dry wall excess, construction debris, or m-off. 7. No excavation, trenching, grading, root pruning or other activity shall occur within the tree protection zone unless approved by the Staff Advisor. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Inspection. The applicant shall not proceed with any construction activity, except installation of erosion control measures, until the City has inspected and approved the installation of the required tree protection measures and a building and/or grading permit has been issued by the City. FINDINGS OF FACT The Planning Commission reaches the following facts and finds them to be true with respect to this matter: A. SUBJECT PROPERTY Property Description; Acreage; Ownership: The subject property is described in the records of the Jackson County Assessor as Tax Lots 7200 and 7400 (39-1E-09BC). Tax Lot 7200 is 0.09 acres and Tax Lot 7400 is 0.88 acre. Applicant proposes to adjust the boundary common to both parcels. There is a pending application to adjust the parcel boundaries. This project concerns the proposed adjusted Tax Lot 7200. After the boundary adjustment, Tax Lot 7200 will have 0.52 acre (22,661 square feet). The property is owned by Sidney B. De Boer, Trustee FBO. Comprehensive Plan Map Designation and Zoning: The subject property is designated Single Family Residential on the comprehensive plan map. The property is zoned R-1-7.5. Standard Yard Requirements: The following yard requirements are the minimum setbacks for structures within the R-1-7.5 zoning district: · 15-feet front yard excluding the garage · 6-feet side yard · 1 O-feet rear yard with an additional ten feet for each story in excess of the first story · Garages, accessed from the front, shall have a minimum setback of 20 feet from the front property line2 A lot line adjustment has been proposed between adjacent Tax Lots 7200 and 7400. All plans in connection with this application assume approval of the proposed lot line adjustment (and the reconfigured Tax Lot 7200). The proposed dwelling will be 19 feet from the rear property line, 44 feet from the front property line, 63 feet from the west property line and 17 feet from the east property line.3 The existing garage presently meets the yard/setback requirements of the ALUO. See, Exhibit 2. 2 The garage on the subject property (adjusted Tax Lot 7200) will take access from the rear of the property off Glenview Drive. 3 The front yard of the subject property is the portion of Tax Lot 7200 which fronts upon Vista Street. The rear yard is the portion of Tax Lot 7200 which fronts on Gienview Drive. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants / I~0 Page 10 September2, 2003 ~EP ~ 2003 Crai~ A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Building Height: Thc maximum building height within the R-1-7.5 zone is thirty-five (35) feet or two and one-half(2½) stories in height, whichever is less. The proposed residence has a gable roof. The ALUO, Section 18.08.290, defines height of buildings, as it pertains to thc proposed structure, as the vertical distance from thc grade to thc average height of the highest gable. Thc average height of the highest gable is 35-feet above grade. See, Exhibit 2, Sheet PL 1.2. As to number of stories, applicants contend and thc plans show that thc proposed dwelling has 2-½ stories above thc planned basement (which is not a story _pursuant to thc term definition of"bascmcnt" and "grade" in ALUO 18.08.740 and 18.08.280 respectively). Existing Land Use: Presently, Tax Lot 7200 is developed with a single-family dwelling. A lot line adjustment has been proposed between Tax Lot 7200 and 7400. Tax Lot 7400 is developed with a single-family residence and two accessory structures--garages. If the lot line adjustment is approved, the property boundary will be relocated so that one single-family residence and the existing 576 square foot garage will be located on Tax Lot 7400 and the existing 3,618 square foot two-story garage and the proposed single-family dwelling will be located on Tax Lot 7200. Nature of the Proposed Use: The proposed development will require the demolition of the existing single-family residence on what is now Tax Lot 7200 to allow for the construction of the proposed single-family residence. Proposed development will include a residence with basement and three additional levels, one of which is an attic, a swimming pool and conservatory. Lot Coverage and Structure Square Footage: Maximum lot coverage within the R-1-7.5 zoning district is forty-five (45%) percent. Based upon the proposed lot line adjustment between Tax Lots 7400 and 7200, the adjusted Tax Lot 7200 will have 22,661 square feet. The proposed dwelling and other site features which together comprise lot coverage under the ALUO, will be 10,171 square feet -- 44.9 percent. See, Exhibit 2, Sheet 1.1 Special Considerations: The subject property has areas where the slope exceeds 25 percent and is identified on the Physical Constraints map as Hillside Lands. The subject property is within a Residential Historic District. Timeline for Development: See, Exhibit 6. B. HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL LANDS The following findings of fact relate to the designation of the property as Hillside Residential Lands as set forth in ALUO 18.62.080: Protected Hillside Areas: Pursuant to ALUO 18.62.050(C)(1) the reconfigured subject property is included on the Physical Constraints Overlay Map. As established in Exhibits 5 and 7, the subject property has an original average slope of 28 percent. Portions of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 Cra~ ^. Stone & ,a~oc~ates, Ltd. reconfigured subject property have slopes which are greater and less than 25 percent. Portions of the property with slopes of 25 percent or greater are shown on Exhibit 2, Sheets 1.1 and L3 and these are the areas of the property subject to the special regulations for hillside protection. Slope: The proposed development will occur on that portion of the property which has 22% to 30% slopes. Based upon Exhibit 7, a letter from applicants registered land surveyor, Hoffbuhr & Associates, Inc., the average slope of the subject property is 28 percent. Driveway: Based upon Exhibit 5 the driveway to serve the new dwelling is on terrain which has a grade of less than 35 percent. Grading, Fill and Erosion Control: Grading and erosion control has been designed by applicants licensed Geotechnical Engineer in Exhibit 3 (Site Evaluation and Geotechnical Engineering Report). Exhibit 3 established the geoteehnical parameters for design with respect to grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans, which was used by applicants civil engineers, Hardey & Associates, Inc. to prepare the civil engineering plans for this project. As demonstrated by applicants plans -- Exhibit 2 (Sheet RS) -- the potential for erosion has been mitigated through the planned installation of retaining walls which will minimize the erosion of solid matter in the disturbed areas on the site. Grading cuts have been limited to only the extent needed to accommodate the proposed dwelling and protected to the extent possible to protect the area from erosion. Cuts: The only cuts to be made on the property are those necessary to accommodate the dwelling footprint and driveway. Cuts for the dwelling will be retained by its foundation walls. Cuts for the driveway are proposed to be retained by engineered masonry walls. The materials in which the cuts will be made are established in Exhibit 3. On portions of the property where terracing is proposed, no terraced section exceeds a height of five feet nor separated by more than three feet. The total maximum vertical height of the cut slopes is not greater than fifteen feet. See, Exhibit 2, Sheets 1.1, C 1.1 and C 1.2. All cut slope terraces are intended to be landscaped with plant materials which are suitable and appropriate for the stabilization of cut banks. The planting plan for this property was developed by Ken'y KenCairn, applicants Landscape Architect, licensed in Oregon. Retention in Natural State: The subject site -- the reconfigured parcel a~er the proposed lot line adjustment -- will be 22,661 square feet or 0.52 acres in size. Based upon Exhibit 7, the average slope of the reconfigured parcel is 28 percent. See, Exhibit 7. Pursuant to ALUO 18.62.080(B)(3) this property is to have 55 percent of its area retained in a natural state. Both existing parcels (proposed to be reconfigured) have been previously developed with a dwellings and accessory garage structures. As such, this property has no undisturbed areas. However, the ALUO defines the term "natural state" to mean: Natural State - all land and water that remains undeveloped and undisturbed. This means that grading, excavating, filling and/or the construction of roadways, driveways, parking areas, and structures are prohibited. Incidental minor grading for hiking trails, bicycle paths, picnic areas and planting and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/K~ren D~Bo~i*, Applicants September 2, 2003 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. landscaping which is in addition to and enhances the natural environment is permitted. Incidental brush removal for lot maintenance and ecosystem health is permitted. Further, vegetation removal for the purposes of wildfire control in conjunction with an approved fire prevention and control plan shallalso be permitted. Based upon the Exhibit 2 plans, 55 percent of the reconfigured subject property will be in a natural state pursuant to the ALUO definition. Revegetation: Revegetation of the subject property is proposed pursuant t6 the Exhibit 6 Landscape Plans and the same are consistent with the requirements for revegetation as set forth in ALUO 18.62.080(B)(4)(c). Public Facilities, Services and Utilities: The subject property is served with the following public facilities, services and utilities: Water: There is an existing 6-inch Water line within the right-of-way of Glenview Drive and Vista Street along the south and northeast frontages of the subject property. Sanitary Sewer: There is an existing 6-inch sewer line within the right-of-way of Glenview Drive and Vista Street along the south and northeast frontages of the subject property. · Transportation/Access: The adjusted subject property fronts upon Vista Street and Glenview Drive. Actual access to the property is from Glenview Drive. Electricity; Natural Gas: According to representatives for the City of Ashland Electric Department, the existing residence presently receives electric power and power will be available for the proposed residence. Electric power will be used for cooling and lighting of proposed residence. Heat for the dwelling will be supplied by natural gas. · Urban Storm Drainage: An 8-inch underground storm drain exists at the intersection of Vista Street and Glenview Drive. C. SOLAR ACCESS[m]: The proposed dwelling observes the solar access standards of the City of Ashland and the same is evidenced by Exhibit 2, Sheet PL 1.3. D. TREE PROTECTION; REMOVAL; REPLACEMENT Tree Removal Permit: Single family residential zones which are occupied by a single- family detached dwelling and their associated accessory structures, are exempt from the requirement to obtain a tree removal permit. However, lands subject to the Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance are further regulated by Chapter 18.62 and 18.61.200. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 Page 13 Craig A. Sto~e & Associates, Ltd. Tree Removal: The removal of trees from the reconfigured property falls under four categories as follows: Trees Already Removed within Protected Hillside Areas: Based upon a misunderstanding shared by applicants and the Ashland Planning Department, applicants removed five trees within the Protected Hillside Area. Applicants propose to mitigate thc removal of these trees by agreeing to stipulate to planting 10 trees within a public location to be determined by the Ashland Tree Commission. See, Section VI. 2. Trees Already Removed which are not Regulated: Applicants removed two trees on that portion of the subject property which is not within thc Protected Hillside Area. 3. Trees to be Removed within Protected Hillside Areas: As shown on Exhibit 2, Sheet L3, two additional trees are proposed to be removed within the protected area. Trees to be Removed which are not regulated. As shown on Exhibit 2, Sheet L3, seven additional trees are proposed to be removed within the non-protected portion of the reconfigured subject property. Tree Protection: Applicants licensed landscape architect has proposed the methods by which existing trees (to be preserved) will be protected and the same is shown on Exhibit 2, Sheet L3. The methods of trees protection are consistent with the requirements for protection as set forth in ALUO 18.62.080(D)(4). Tree Replacement: In addition to the ten trees applicants have agreed to supply for planting on public lands located elsewhere: 1) thc 6-inch caliper Incense Cedar (Calocedrus decurrens) will be replaced (on-site) with a 1 O-foot tall Deodar Cedar (Cedrus deodara), and 2) the 12-inch Ponderosa Pine (Pinus ponderosa) will be replaced (on-site) with a 2-inch caliper Japanese Pagoda Tree (Sophorajaponica). E. CHARACTERISTICS OF SURROUNDING IMPACT AREA The surrounding impact area is defined as that area entitled to notice of this application. The notice area is an area which is 200 feet from the boundaries of the subject property. The surrounding impact area has the following characteristics: Vr CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Ashland Planning Commission reaches the following conclusions of law and ultimate conclusions under each of the relevant substantive criteria. The conclusions of law are preceded by the criterion or criteria to which they relate and are supported by findings of fact as set forth in Section IV herein above and by the evidence as enumerated in Section II: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen OeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 '$EP Z2003 Page 14 - ' IIITI I Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Jackson County reaches the following conclusions of law for each of the relevant substantive criteria for a conditiOnal use in the Exclusive Farm Use zone. The approval criteria are recited verbatim below and followed by the conclusions of law of Jackson County: PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Title 18) ALUO CHAPTER 62 PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONTRAINTS ALUO 18.62.040(I) Criteria for Approval. A Physical Constrains Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following: Criterion I 1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. Conclusions of Law: The development standards of ALUO 18.62.80 relate to the preservation of natural areas, erosion control and tree protection. With respect to the preservation of natural areas, the Planning Commission concludes that this application involves the redevelopment of a site (the reconfigured subject property) which has already been urban developed. As such, the reconfigured subject property has no existing natural areas to be preserved. Regarding erosion control, applicants have engaged qualified experts in geotechnical and civil engineering, architecture and landscape architecture to design this project. All reasonable and appropriate measures have been employed and all standards and requirements of the City of Ashland have been incorporated into applicants design/development plans. As such, the Planning Commission concludes from the evidence, that all sources of potential erosion have been appropriately addressed and have been mitigated on-site. With respects to tree protection, the Planning Commission concludes: o That while some trees on the property were removed without benefit of public review, applicants have proposed to replace these at the rate of two new trees for each trees that was previously removed 2. Although some additional trees (within the Protected Hillside Area) are proposed to be removed, they too will be replaced at a ratio of two to one. 3. All trees outside the construction/development area are protected with measures required by the ALUO. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants I '~/'""' 2003 September 2, 2003 Page 15 Craig ^. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 1. Criterion 2 2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may creat~ and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that applicants have evidenced their consideration of the potential hazards (this development might create) in the conduct of detailed geotechnical investigations. The Planning Commission also concludes that applicants have properly evidenced the implementation of mitigation measures by incorporating the geotechnical investigations into the architectural, engineering and landscape plans of record. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with Criterion 2. Criterion 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. .. Conclusions of Law: The potential for adverse impacts upon the environment include, erosion and mass movement, loss of natural areas, trees and tree canopies, loss of wildlife 'habitat. Based upon the evidence, the Planning Commission concludes that applicants have undertaken the following reasonable steps to reduce adverse impacts upon the environment: 1. Applicants have engaged qualified experts who have offered recommendations as to the best methods to accommodate the proposed new dwelling. Applicants design professionals have incorporated all environmental mitigation recommendations into the design and construction plans for the reconfigured subject property. 3. In its consideration of this application, the Planning Commission has examined the surrounding area and development that now exists. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 3. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 Page 16 Craig A. Sto~e & Associates, Ltd. ALUO 18.62.080 Development Standards for Hillside Lands. Criterion 4 A. General Requirements. The following general requirements shall apply in Hillside Lands. All development shall occur on lands defined as having buildable area. Slopes greater than 35% shall be considered unbuildable except as allowed below. Variances may be granted to this requirement only as provided in section 18.62.080.H. a. Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35% shall be considered buildable for one unit. b. Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35% cannot be subdivided or partitioned. Conclusions of Law: Based upon Exhibits 5 and 7, the original natural average slope of this property is 28 percent. No portion of the property, in its original state, exceeded a slope of 35 percent. While this site was altered to accommodate the existing dwelling, landscaping and landscape features (including terracing) the Planning Commission concludes that the altered grades are not an appropriate consideration in this application. Instead, the Planning Commission concludes that the original natural terrain is the appropriate measure of slope for the purpOse of ascertaining compliance with the development standards for hillside lands pursuant to ALUO 18.62.080. The Planning Commission concludes that this application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 4. Criterion 5 6. All newly created lots either by subdivision or partition shall contain a building envelope with a slope of 35% or less. Conclusions of Law: Criterion 5 is inapplicable by reason that this application does not include the creation of any new lot by subdivision or partition. Criterion 6 7. New streets, flag drives, and driveways shall be constructed on lands of less than or equal to 35% slope with the following exceptions: a. The street is indicated on the City's Transportation Plan Map - Street Dedications. b. The portion of the street, flag drive, or driveway on land greater than 35% slope does not exceed a length of 100 feet. Conclusions of Law: The driveway to serve the proposed dwelling already exists. However, the driveway is intended to be regraded and resurfaeed. As shown on Exhibit 2, Sheet 1.1, material for the driveway will also change from concrete to permeable grasscrete Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 Page 17 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. and brick. As also shown Exhibit 2, Sheets 1.1, C 1.1 and C 1.2, no portion of the existing or altered driveway will exceed a slope of 35 percent in compliance with Criterion 6. Criterion 7 4. Geotechnical Studies. For all applications on Hillside Lands involving subdivisions or partitions, * * * Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that Criterion 7 is inapplicable by reason that this application does not involve either a subdivision or partition. However, applicants have undertaken a geotechnical study of the property and the same is in Exhibit 3. Criterion 8 B. Hillside Grading and Erosion Control. All development on lands classified as hillside shall provide plans conforming with the following items: All grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans for development on Hillside Lands shall be designed by a geotechnical expert. All cuts, grading or fills shall conform to Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. Erosion control measures on the development site shall be required to minimize the solids in runoff from disturbed areas. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes, based upon the findings of fact in Section IV, applicants engaged a qualified geotechnical engineer conducted a geotechnical investigation which was used by applicants civil engineers in the preparation of the engineering construction plans. See, Exhibit 3. Exhibit 3 established the geotechnical parameters for design with respect to grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans, which was used by applicants civil engineers in the preparation of the engineering construction plans. Based upon Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 2, Sheets C 1.1 and C 1.2, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposed cuts, grading and fills will conform to Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. The Planning Commission also concludes, based upon the same evidence, that erosion control measures proposed for this development site, will minimize the solids in runoff from disturbed areas. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that this application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 8. Criterion 9 For development other than single family homes on individual lots, all grading, drainage improvements, or other land disturbances shall only occur from May I to October 31. Excavation shall not occur during the remaining wet months of the year. Erosion control measures shall be installed and functional by October 31. Up to 30 day modifications to the October 31 date, and 45 day modification to the May 1 date may be made by the Planning Director, based upon weather conditions and in consultation with the project geotechnical expert. The modification of dates shall be the minimum necessary, based upon evidence provided by the applicant, to accomplish the necessary project goals. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that Criterion 9 is inapplicable by reason that this application concerns a single family home on an individual lot which is expressly exempt from this standard. Criterion 10 Retention in natural state. On all projects on Hillside Lands involving partitions and' subdivisions, and existing lots with an area greater than one-half acre, an area equal to 25% of the total project area, plus the percentage figure of the average slope of the total project area, shall be retained in a natural state. Lands to be retained in a natural state shall be protected from damage through the use of temporary construction fencing or the functional equivalent. For example, on a 25,000 sq. fl. lot with an average slope of 29%, 25%+29%=54% of the total lot area shall be retained in a natural state. The retention in a natural state of areas greater than the minimum percentage required here is encouraged. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that the reconfigured subject property will consist of 0.52 acre. Therefore, Criterion 10 applies to this application. However, reconfigured subject property (consisting of portions of two existing lots) has been developed; this application involves the redevelopment of this property. As such, no portion of the subject property presently exists in a natural state as defined in ALUO 18.62.030(N). Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that Criterion 10 is inapplicable because no portion of the reconfigured property is presently in a natural state and therefore it cannot be retained as such. Criterion Grading - cuts. On all cut slopes on areas classified as Hillside lands, the following standards shall apply: Cut slope angles shall be determined in relationship to the type of materials of which they are composed. Where the soil permits, limit the total area exposed to precipitation and erosion. Steep cut slopes shall be retained with stacked rock, retaining walls, or functional equivalent to control erosion and provide slope stability when necessary. Where cut slopes are required to be laid back (1:1 or less steep), the slope shall be protected with erosion control getting or structural equivalent installed per manufacturers specifications, and revegetated. Exposed cut slopes, such as those for streets, driveway accesses, or yard areas, greater than seven feet in height shall be terraced. Cut faces on a terraced section shall not exceed a maximum height of five feet.. Terrace widths shall be a minimum of three feet to allow for the introduction of vegetation for erosion control. Total cut slopes shall not exceed a maximum vertical height of 15 feet. (See Graphic) Revegetation of cut slope terraces shall include the provision of a planting plan, introduction to topsoil where necessary, and the use of irrigation if necessary. The vegetation used for these areas shall be native or species similar in resource value which will survive, help reduce the visual impact of the cut slope, and assist in providing long term slope stabilization. Trees, bush-type plantings and cascading vine-type plantings may be appropriate. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Conclusions of Law: Based upon the findings of fact in Section IV and Exhibit 2, Sheets 1.1, C 1.1, C 1.2 and L2 the Planning Commission concludes that this application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 11. Criterion 12 5. Grading - fills. On all fill slopes on lands classified as Hillside Lands, the followir~g standards shall apply: a. Fill slopes shall not exceed a total vertical height of 20 feet. The toe of the fill slope area not utilizing structural retaining shall be a minimum of six feet from the nearest property line.(Ord 2834 S6, 1998) b. Fill slopes shall be protected with an erosion control netting, blanket or functional equivalent. Netting or blankets shall only be used in conjunction with an organic mulch such as straw or wood fiber. The blanket must be applied so that it is in complete contact with the soil so that erosion does not occur beneath it. Erosion netting or blankets shall be securely anchored to the slope in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. c. Utilities. Whenever possible, utilities shall not be located or installed on or in fill slopes. When determined that it necessary to install utilities on fill slopes, all plans shall be designed by a geotechnical expert. d. Revegetation of fill slopes shall utilize native vegetation or vegetation similar in resource value and which will survive and stabilize the surface. Irrigation may be provided to ensure growth if necessary. Evidence shall be required indicating long-term viability of the proposed vegetation for the purposes of erosion control on disturbed areas. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as follows: Regarding Subsection a and based upon Exhibit 2, Sheet 1.1, no fill slopes exceed a total vertical height of 20 feet and no fill slope toes which are not proposed to be retained by structural means. Regarding Subsection b and based upon Exhibit 2, Sheet Cl.0, all fill slopes will be protected with an erosion control netting, blanket or functional equivalent as specified by applicants civil engineer in Exhibit 2, Sheet C 1.0. 3. Regarding Subsection c and based upon Exhibit 2 no planned utilities are to be located or installed on or in fill slopes. Regarding Subsection d and based upon Exhibit 2, Sheet L 1 through L3, the revegetation of fill slopes has utilized vegetation similar in resource value to that of native vegetation and which, according to applicants expert Landscape Architect, will survive and stabilize the surface. Irrigation has been provided to all fill areas (to be landscaped) which will ensure proper growth. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/K~ren DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 I Page 20 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 12. Criterion 13 Revegetation requirements. Where required by this chapter, all required revegetation of cut and fill slopes shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, signature of a required survey plat, or other time as determined by the hearing authority. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be substantially established within one year of installation. Conclusions of Law: Applicants have agreed to stipulate that they will install all required revegetation of cut and fill slopes. Criterion 14 7. Maintenance, security, and Penalties for Erosion Control Measures. Maintenance. All measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control, including but not limited to vegetative cover, rock walls, and landscaping, shall be maintained in perpetuity on all areas which have been disturbed, including public rights-of-way. The applicant shall provide evidence indicating the mechanisms in place to ensure maintenance of measures. Security. Except for individual lots existing prior to January 1, 1998, after an Erosion Control Plan is approved by the hearing authority and prior to construction, the applicant shall provide a performance bond or other financial guarantees in the amount of 120% of the value of the erosion control measures necessary to stabilize the site. Any financial guarantee instrument proposed other than a performance bond shall be approved by the City Attorney. The financial guarantee instrument shall be in effect for a period of at least one year, and shall be released when the Planning Director and Public Works Director determine, jointly, that the site has been stabilized. All or a portion of the security retained by the City may be withheld for a period up to five years beyond the one year maintenance period if it has been determined by the City that the site has not been sufficiently stabilized against erosion. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that Criterion 14 does not operate as an approval standard, but rather establishes methods to ensure that erosion mitigation is guaranteed (in accordance with the ALUO) and faithfully maintained, measures to which applicants have agreed to stipulate. See, Section VI. Criterion ~15 8. Site Grading. The grading of a site on Hillside Lands shall be reviewed considering the following factors: a. No terracing shall be allowed except for the purposes of developing a level building pad and for providing vehicular access to the pad. b. Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site.(Ord 2834,S2 1998) Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/K~ren DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 Page 21 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. c. Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site. Building pads should be of minimum size to accommodate the structure and a reasonable amount of yard space. Pads for tennis courts, swimming pools and large lawns are discouraged. As much of the remaining lot area as possible should be kept in the natural state of the original slope. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as follows: 1. Based upon Exhibit 2, terracing has only been used for the purpose of developing a level building pad and to provide appropriate vehicular access to the pad. 2. Based upon Exhibit 3, the reconfigured subject property does not include any areas which are hazardous or unstable. Based upon Exhibit 2, Sheet 1.1 the building pad for this dwelling has been minimized in size to be approximately one-quarter of the dwelling's total square footage. As such, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposed building pad is of a minimum size to accommodate the planned structure, and will produce minimal impacts to the existing site conditions. The Planning Commission also concludes, as it has above, that the reconfigured subject property does not include any portions which are in a natural state. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 15. Criterion 16 Inspections and Final Report. Prior to the acceptance of a subdivision by the City, signature of the final survey plat on partitions, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy for individual structures, the project geotechnical expert shall provide a final report indicating that the approved grading, drainage, and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections, as per 18.62.080.A.4.j were conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project. Conclusions of Law: Criterion 16 does not operate as an approval standard, but instead puts applicants on notice that a final geotechnical report is submitted which ensures that all approved grading, drainage and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections required by the ALUO were conducted by applicants geotechnical expert -- matters to which applicants have agreed to stipulate. See, Section VI. Criterion 17 Surface and Groundwater Drainage. All development on Hillside Lands shall conform to the following standards: 1. All facilities for the collection of stormwater runoff shall be required to be constructed on the site and according to the following requirements: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 .~F'D ,) ,~nn,~ Page 22 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Stormwater facilities shall include storm drain systems associated with street construction, facilities for accommodating drainage from driveways, parking areas and other impervious surfaces, and roof drainage systems. Stormwater facilities, when part of the overall site improvements, shall be, to the greatest extent feasible, the first improvements constructed on the development site. Stormwater facilities shall be designed to divert surface water away from cut faces or sloping surfaces of a fill. Existing natural drainage systems shall be utilized, as much as possible, in their natural state, recognizing the erosion potential from increased storm drainage. Flow-retarding devices, such as detention ponds and recharge berms, shall be used where practical to minimize increases in runoff volume and peak flow rate due to development. Each facility shall consider the needs for an emergency overflow system to safely carry any overflow water to an acceptable disposal point. f. Stormwater facilities shall be designed, constructed and maintained in a manner that will avoid erosion on-site and to adjacent and downstream properties. Alternate stormwater systems, such as dry well systems, detention ponds, and leach fields, shall be designed by a registered engineer or geotechnical expert and approved by the City's Public Works Department or City Building Official. Conclusions of Law: Based upon Exhibit 2, Sheet C1.2, the Planning Commission concludes that stormwater has been accommodated in compliance with the requirements of Criterion 17. Criterion 18 D. Tree Conservation, Protection and Removal. All development on Hillside Lands shall conform to the following requirements: Inventory of Existing Trees. A tree survey at the same scale as the project site plan shall be prepared, which locates all trees greater than six inches d.b.h., identified by d.b.h., species, approximate extent of tree canopy. In addition, for areas proposed to be disturbed, existing tree base elevations shall be provided. Dead or diseased trees shall be identified. Groups of trees in close proximity (i.e. those within five feet of each other) may be designated as a clump of trees, with the predominant species, estimated number and average diameter indicated. All tree surveys shall have an accuracy of plus or minus two feet. The name, signature, and address of the site surveyor responsible for the accuracy of the survey shall be provided on the tree survey. Portions of the lot or project area not proposed to be disturbed by development need not be included in the inventory. Conclusions of Law: The inventory of existing trees is in Exhibit 2, Sheet L3. Criterion 18 is, in fact, not an approval standard, but simply operates as a filing requirement with which this application has complied. Criterion 19 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 ~ ~,UUJ Page 23 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. 2. Evaluation of Suitability for Conservation. All trees indicated on the inventory of existing trees shall also be identified as to their suitability for conservation. When required by the hearing authority, the evaluation shall be conducted by a landscape professional. Factors included in this determination shall include: a. Tree health. Healthy trees can better withstand the rigors of development than non-vigorous trees. b. Tree Structure. Trees with severe decay or substantial defects are more likely to result in damage to people and property. c. Species. Species vary in their ability to tolerate impacts and damage to their environment. d. Potential longevity. e. Variety. ^ variety of native tree species and ages f. Size. Large trees provide a greater protection for erosion and shade than smaller trees. Conclusions of Law: Criterion 20 3. Tree Conservation in Project Design. Significant trees (2' d.b.h, or greater conifers and 1' d.b.h, or greater broadlea0 shall be protected and incorporated into the project design whenever possible. Streets, driveways, buildings, utilities, parking areas, and other site disturbances shall be located such that the maximum number of existing trees on the site are preserved, while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. Building envelopes shall be located and sized to preserve the maximum number of trees on site while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. c. Layout of the project site utility and grading plan shall avoid disturbance of tree protection areas. Conclusions of Law: Based upon Exhibit 2, Sheet L3, the Planning Commission concludes that there are no significant trees within the Protected Hillside Area to be removed as a result of this project. The maximum number of trees on the reconfigured subject property and within the constrains of this project, have been preserved. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with Criterion 20. Criterion 21 4. Tree Protection. On all properties where trees are required to be preserved during the course of development, the developer shall follow the following tree protection standards: All trees designated for conservation shall be clearly marked on the project site. Prior to the start of any clearing, stripping, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation, the applicant shall install fencing at the drip line of all trees to be preserved adjacent to or in the area to be altered. Temporary fencing shall be established at the perimeter of the dripline. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits, the fences may be inspected and their location approved by the Staff Advisor. (see graphic) Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 /,s",-/ SEP ,- .... Page 24 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Construction site activities, including but not limited to parking, material storage, soil compaction and concrete washout, shall be arranged so as to prevent disturbances within tree protection areas. No grading, stripping, compaction, or significant change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the drip line of trees designated for conservation unless indicated on the grading plans, as approved by the City, and landscape professional, tf grading or construction is approved within the dripline, a landscape professional may be required to be present during grading operations, and shall have authority to require protective measures to protect the roots. Changes in soil hydrology and site drainage within tree protection areas shall be minimized. Excessive site run-off shall be directed to appropriate storm drain facilities and away from trees designated for conservation. Should encroachment into a tree protection area occur which causes irreparable damage, as determined by a landscape professional, to trees, the project plan shall be revised to compensate for the loss. Under no circumstances shall the developer be relieved of responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this chapter Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that Exhibit 2, Sheet L3 contains a tree protection plan, prepared by applicants landscape architect, which incorporates the requirements for tree protection which are established in the above Criterion 21. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that this application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 21. Criterion 22 Tree Removal. Development shall be designed to preserve the maximum number of trees on a site. The development shall follow the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. VVhen justified by findings of fact, the hearing authority may approve the removal of trees for one or more of the following conditions: (Ord 2834 S3, 1998) a. The tree is located within the building envelope. b. The tree is located within a proposed street, driveway, or parking area. c. The tree is located within a water, sewer, or other public utility easement. d. The tree is determined by a landscape professional to be dead or diseased, or it constitutes an unacceptable hazard to life or property when evaluated by the standards in 18.62.080.D.2. e. The tree is located within or adjacent to areas of cuts or fills that are deemed threatening to the life of the tree, as determined by a landscape professional. Conclusions of Law: The reconfigured subject property is not designated as Wildfire Lands. As earlier found, this project has maximized the preservation of trees on the site. Trees to be removed are those located within the building envelop and proposed driveway and other site features (as shown on Exhibit 2, Sheets 1.1 and L3). Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 22. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 Craig A. Stone 8, ^ssociates, Ltd. Criterion 23 Tree Replacement. Trees approved for removal, with the exception of trees removed because they were determined to be diseased, dead, or a hazard, shall be replaced in compliance with the following standards: a. Replacement trees shall be indicated on a tree replanting plan. The replanting plan shall include all locations for replacement trees, and shall also indicate tree planting details.(Ord 2834 S4, 1998) Replacement trees shall be planted such that the trees will in time result in canopy equal to or greater than the tree canopy present prior to development of the property. Th-e canopy shall be designed to mitigate of the impact of paved and developed areas, reduce surface erosion and increase slope stability. Replacement tree locations shall consider impact on the wildfire prevention and control plan. The hearing authority shall have the discretion to adjust the proposed replacement tree canopy based upon site-specific evidence and testimony. Maintenance of replacement trees shall be the responsibility of the property owner. Required replacement trees shall be continuously maintained in a healthy manner. Trees that die within the first five years after initial planting must be replaced in kind, after which a new five year replacement period shall begin. Replanting must occur within 30 days of notification unless otherwise noted. (Ord 2834 S5, 1998) Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as follows: 1. The proposed replacement trees are shown on Exhibit 2, Sheet L2 and the same includes a tree planting detail. 2. As evidenced by Exhibit 2, Sheet L2, the proposed replacement trees will, in time, result in canopy greater than the tree canopy of the existing trees to be removed. 3. Applicants have agreed to stipulate that all replacement trees will be continuously maintained in a healthy manner as part of the overall landscape. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 23. Criterion 24 7. Enforcement a. All tree removal shall be done in accord with the approved tree removal and replacement plan. No trees designated for conservation shall be removed without prior approval of the City of Ashland. bo Should the developer or developer's agent remove or destroy any tree that has been designated for conservation, the developer may be fined up to three times the current appraised value of the replacement trees and cost of replacement or up to three times the current market value, as established by a professional arborist, whichever is greater. Should the developer or developer's agent damage any tree that has been designated for protection and conservation, the developer shall be penalized $50.00 per scar. If necessary, a professional arborist's report, prepared at the developer's expense, may be required to determine Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 - IIITI I 2003 26 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. the extent of the damage. Should the damage result in loss of appraised value greater than determined above, the higher of the two values shall be used. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that Criterion 24 does not operate as an approval standard, but instead functions to put property owners on notice of the city's requirements for the removal of or damage to replacement trees. Criterion 25 E. Building Location and Design Standards. All buildings and buildable areas proposed for Hillside Lands shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following standards * * * Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that this criterion is inapplicable by reason that the subject property is not a new lot created by subdivision or partition and because the subject property is within a designated Historic District. Criterion 26 All structures on Hillside Lands shall have foundations which have been designed by an engineer or architect with demonstrable geotechnical design experience. A designer, as defined, shall not complete working drawings without having foundations designed by an engineer. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that the foundation for this dwelling was designed by applicants expert structural engineer based upon the recommendations of applicants expert geotechnical engineer in compliance with Criterion 26. Criterion 27 All newly created lots or lots modified by a lot line adjustment must include a building envelope on all lots that contains a buildable area less than 35% slope of sufficient size to accommodate the uses permitted in the underlying zone, unless the division or lot line adjustment is for open space or conservation purposes. Conclusions of Law: Based upon the findings of fact in Section IV and Exhibits 5 and 7, no portion of the reconfigured property exceeds a slope of 35 percent. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that this application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 27. TREE PRESERVATION & PROTECTION ALUO 18.62.200 Tree Protection Tree Protection as required by this section is applicable to any planning action or building permit. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sldney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Criterion 28 A. Tree Protection Plan Required. A Tree Protection Plan approved by the Staff Advisor shall be required prior to conducting any development activities including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation, or demolition work on a property or site, which requires a planning action or building permit. In order to obtain approval of a Tree Protection Plan; an applicant shall submit a plan to the City, which clearly depicts all trees to be preserved and/or removed on the site. The plan must be drawn to scale and include the following: a. Location, species, and diameter of each tree on site and within 15 feet of the site; b. Location of the drip line of each tree; c. Location of existing and proposed roads, water, sanitary and storm sewer, irrigation, and other utility lines/facilities and easements; d. Location of dry wells, drain lines and soakage trenches; e. Location of proposed and existing structures; f. Grade change or cut and fill during or after construction; g. Existing and proposed impervious surfaces; h. Identification of a contact person and/or arborist who will be responsible for implementing and maintaining the approved tree protection plan; and i. Location and type of tree protection measures to be installed per AMC 18.61.230. 3. For development requiring a planning action, the Tree Preservation Plan shall include an inventory of all trees on site, their health or hazard condition, and recommendations for treatment for each tree. Conclusions of Law: Criterion 28 does not function as an approval standard, but instead enumerates the requirements for tree inventory and protection plan which have been submitted with this application. Criterion 29 B. Tree Protection Measures Required. Except as otherwise determined by the Staff Advisor, all required tree protection measures set forth in this section shall be instituted prior to any development activities, including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation or demolition work, and shall be removed only after completion of all construction activity, including landscaping and irrigation installation. Chain link fencing, a minimum of six feet tall with steel posts placed no farther than ten feet apart, shall be installed at the edge of the tree protection zone or dripline, whichever is greater, and at the boundary of any open space tracts, riparian areas, or conservation easements that abut the parcel being developed. 3. The fencing shall be flush with the initial undisturbed grade. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 SEP 2003 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Approved signs shall be attached to the chain link fencing stating that inside the fencing is a tree protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior approval has been obtained from the Staff Advisor for the project. 5. No construction activity shall occur within the tree protection zone, including, but not limited to dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste items, equipment, or parked vehicles. The tree protection zone shall remain free of chemically injurious materials and liquids such as paints, thinners, cleaning solutions, petroleum products, and concrete or dry wall excess, construction debris, or m-off. 7. No excavation, trenching, grading, root pruning or other activity shall occur within the tree protection zone unless approved by the Staff Advisor. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that the various protection measures set forth in Criterion 29 have been incorporated into applicants plans and the same is evidenced by Exhibit 2, Sheet L3. Criterion 30 Inspection. The applicant shall not proceed with any construction activity, except installation of erosion control measures, until the City has inspected and approved the installation of the required tree protection measures and a building and/or grading permit has been issued by the City. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that Criterion 30 does not operate as an approval standard, but instead simply states as law, that no applicant may proceed with construction prior to approval of tree protection measures and issuance of a building and/or grading permit. Applicants have so stipulated. See, Section VI. VI SUMMARY OF APPLICANTS STIPULATIONS Applicants herewith agree to stipulate to the following matters: Stipulation 1. Applicants will construct the proposed dwelling and other site improvements in accordance with the approved plans, as amended by reasonable conditions imposed by the Planning Commission. Stipulation 2. Where required by this chaPter, all required revegetation of cut and fill slopes shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, signature of a required survey plat, or other time as determined by the hearing authority. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be substantially established within one year of installation. Revegetation 18.62.080(B)(6) Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 /5"/' Page 29 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Stipulation 3. Stipulation 4. Stipulation 5. Stipulation 6. Stipulation 7. Stipulation 8. Stipulation 9. Applicants will be continuously maintain all replacement trees in a healthy manner as part of the overall landscape of the project area. Applicants will not proceed with any construction activity, except installation of erosion control measures, until the City has inspected and approved the installation of the required tree protection measures and a building and/or grading permit has been issued by the City. Applicants will perpetually maintain all measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control, including vegetative cover, rock walls, landscaping, and all areas which have been disturbed, including public rights-of-way. Following approval of the Erosion Control Plan by the city (and prior to construction) applicants will provide a performance bond or other financial guarantees in the amount of 120% of the value of the erosion control measures necessary to stabilize the site. Before issuance of a certificate of occupancy, applicants geotechnical expert will provide a final report which indicates that the approved grading, drainage, and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections, as per ALUO 18.62.080(A)(4)(j) were conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project. Applicants will provide ten trees having a caliper not less than 2 inches to be planted in a public location to be determined by the Ashland Tree Commission. Applicants will install all required revegetation of cut and fill slopes and the same will occur before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. VII ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of ALUO 18.62.080 and the related standards with respect to development within a Protected Hillside Area. Respectfully submitted on behalf of Applicant Sidney and Karen DeBoer: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 SEP 2 2003 Page 30 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. CRAIG A. STONE & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants / 6 / Page 31 September2, 2003 SEP 2 2003 LIMITED SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY AUTHORIZATION TO ACT on behalf of the owner of real property described as Tax Lot 7200 on Jackson County Assessors Map 39-1E-09BC. LET IT BE KNOWN that Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. is the duly authorized representative of Sidney DeBoer the owner of record of the above described real property and applicant for a Physical & Environmental Constraints permit on the above described real property. By this instrument, Sidney DeBoer hereby authorizes Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. to perform in his name all acts procedurally required in conjunction with the Physical & Environmental Constraints permit, building permits and such other land use and development applications and permits on the above described property as may be required by and through the City of Ashland as legal prerequisites to actual development of the real property herein above described. THIS LIMITED AND SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY shall be used for only the limited and special purposes above described and shall not be used to buy, sell or convey any part or any interest whatsoever in this or any other land owned by Sidney DeBoer. THIS LIMITED AND SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY has been expressly authorized by the undersigned record owner and shall expire on August 30, 2004, but may be extended by the mutual consent of the parties. Done and dated this ,,~ ~ fi~dday of ~idney'lSe-~-oer 2003 tl / / 'O IJl~ ijJ J DeBOER J OgdenKistler m_,, lll*J t-~l. RESIDENCE I A~-chJt¢ctul-¢'" ! ! ! ! ! VISTA STREET ArchitectureS'* ,,s.,,,~,. o,,~o. ~---.-.,.; I~!...i,~. / / / / / r- A~chitecture'" ---- RESIDENCE ASHLAND, OREGON N ! i j I i !1 II II / / / / I , t r --4- -i ] i I I dellS~lLJe IF-3 i I I ! I t t !I!? I ! ! Jl t I I RESIDENCE J A~chitecture* I I'J_-j, I~_.' ~ ASHLAND r~EGON I "'"'~-' m I~l,l ~m ~'l ! I Bm, /// / Il moll iii Iii ii 11 · I J t ii lil I I I ' RESIDENCEI ..~'Ctd~C~' I I'. I t.m- ) RE$1C)ENOE ASHLAND, i L I .~s~.c~ ~.~..~___~_~ ASHLAND, OREGON ~..~'".a -"rog: DeBOER Ogd. enKistler RESIDENCE ,~'t~tcctt~C~ A~HLAND, OREGON , I r ..... J I I j D~BOER Og~nlO~tl.~r j ~j'~'j'~J RESIDENCE -'~'c~tectu~e'~ N . Jells~ flap 60 ,: ',:: :I i , hll . [ :l , ,:, ,: ,,.,,,,.,,, :,,:,,:,,:,,, :, ,,.,,,:, ,,,:,,,:,,, ,,,,,,, I[1 [IIl l: I ,:Il, .-l: l .,, Ii I [ l, l,, I , Il .i Il[: [ iI.l [ . I l ~ll, l I, [,I il l,:l ,, I l,l ,, [II ~l ' I ~ ["ll~l:I" II'Il[ I Il [ [ [ 'l [ I ill[ I l.[ , :. i , :, i, ~ Jllli Ii IM I llil Ill lJ l JllJJ llllJlll llll,,lflilll lilll,fll I:IIIII III [illlll[ll IdllJJJl]~[lJ[lJJll Il ~ j:J Ill [ i I l jll I j l llll Il Jl Il Il J J · J ,l I I I I ] ltl:Ii j ,J. ,ill I, [ i[j I' Il llll llli:~ . J I Il :Il l lliit,l~ I 1[ i Ii J Il ? il: Ji i:l II I J '! ,,: ~ :, Ilqt,,,tlll I l! l, : h l,~ jtt I..:l, ill [,, I I ,[ i JJJl: J, ~ :l' ~J iii:, I,I, , ,, l!J, ~l,!ll:,`:jl,j J ,I, :~, [lq:i,!I::,, J J,i q~ll:j,.:, l J Ii. Il': .', ,. :1 '11., t.: ~ : ~ ' :,1 , :' J'[J'lJ I:. , ,i, I, J :,If,:: llJl, ll,lII:, l.lJ,. Ji~ ~I, ,Il I, lJl,hll Jl,i.l:l,,j l,,,llJ,,~ Il lJll lJlJ S i l lJ ' l: I~: I :: . l:i !i!ll[ Jill i:i' ,, !:Jl'[l !fi i IljIll Ill l[ IJJllli J,t,l : il,: I,jl,: I, !,,,~ i ,,, Ii, ,~J I, I I. ,. iii:: ,,, 1,1,:~ Jl ,! . I[ ,I,, !,. ~ ~ I .,..: J, 1,1 I~ , ,,,i1~, :~, ~1 il. lJ l,ll,ll Jill!, [l!jJ~i[ i!li [iJ!i tlJlllj, lid ,l~l' J~'J [ I¥ l il ~ ~i'llt::'~ ~il ~ J:~ I I,I Jill ti[ lilJ fill: llllil iii,ill Jill, llhl lJll Il!. lilll[, fill II llJllJJJ [llJJ,,:h Ill [.ljll! Il'l, o aeilsDItJepSo I Ill! ,1 ]11 l:hlh~ Im ,. ,, I i .*-*1 i / ! Jells!)ttiepSo i BiJi'"i"'-",:,! Jl:~a ~,~!!,!:~!~,i ;,, i! ~,! ~,..'..'"" "" '"~":';; ! 11'tI, ~ I!i,~ n:,:l!.~ ''"' i I11] '" "'Iii ,,, ~,,,, " , lJil,:,!~ "~' ' , " :"", , I:,., ~i., III, ! ~!~ ! ~p~ iliJ' ,,, !, i '.'.'. il Illllllll~lllll ::i'l"ll ~'I" DeBOER RESIDENCE ASHLAND, O R E C-. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -~ 3 N oo 1.~,~ z / \ II lJlll I/ / / / / / ,,.; ",,( i / / / / / ; / V /\ / / ill / , / / / / / / / / / / DeBOER RESIDENCE ASHLAND. OREC-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-~N l/:,/ Jl i / / / / / / / / /' I / /* ~ ,, ,11I ,.11,,I ,,.. I .1,1,... . ! I !~ li'i !; ~i.!!~!i!!l~i~l!!'ji!!i!'t!!Jj~j ij!~! '.|J!i'rl~; !ii :[ j ,il [ I I Ill[ Ill ;!Jill :R!llI jill*l il: ~ i:i :"[ 'i J Ol~ ~ ~ I RESIDENCE I ~Il I J[ AsHLAND, OEEC:ON Hardey Engineering & ?/'"/ i Jl // ,i ,': I I I ? I ~ DoBOER I i.~~.Inc. J, RESiDENcE I I ~ l DeBOER RESIDENCE ASHLAND, O R E C.-. -. -. -. -. -. -. -K ~ :i :i 0 "om il I i:?ll I I ~.1:,,:~ 'iiii,h~i~,i :. · ,.. I, , ,.. , . lllll] . iii :[ ~ . !' , ' i i i! ~{~{i ::i :: ,,~; Il ;I" II ~li:{, l~l:.. I...u,,.~[~ :[ :ll~ [~, I t .: IIII11 III; .[~, .!': ,~I ~ I,l[::, l'~i:,, [II ~.. !! :l,[l i.[III L i ll l,l,l .~ ., DeBOER RESIDENCE ASHLAND, OREGON I~Kistter ~ I ~c~tecum~ I ~- --~---- DeBOER RESIDENCE RESIDENCE -A~cb-JtectLtgC~ ASHLAND, OREGON ..~.__. =,.~.. ! Il DeBOER RESIDENCE Ogcl_enKistter ,~ III I ! DeBOER RESIDENCE DeBOER OgdenKistter ASHLMID, OREGON .~.~ RESIDENCE ~Z '1 ~t DoBOER Ogd_enKistier J RESlDEI~E -A~cl~tectuze~ DeBOER Ogd. enKist~er ~ [~BOE~ I~ESIDENCE Ogd_e.nKistLer t ii ; 11'4 "t~ ! DeBOER RESIDENCE Ogd_enKistl. er RESIDENCE A~chitecture~ DeBOER RESIDENCE Ogd_enKist[er A~chitecture~ It ll'flii t1: DEBOER RESIDENCE ASHLAND, OREGON ~nKistler RESIDENCE -'~chitecture~ ~.u~o. OeEOO. ~'---T~-----.' DEBOER Ogd_enKist,er L~1 '"~i~ ' RESIDENCE .A.~chitecture~ ASHLAND, OREGON --.--~--~-- I~1., Il DeBOER RESIDENCE ASHLAND. OREGON 0gd_enKistler A~chitecture~ RESIDENCE ASHLAND, OREGON OgdenKistter ~ Amrbein Associates, Inc. SITE EVALUATION AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PROPOSED DeBOER RESIDENCE 265 GLENVIEW DRIVE ASHLAND, OREGON July 20, 2003 Prepared for: Sid and Karen DeBoer 234 Vista Street Ashland, OR 97520 Prepared by: Amrhein Associates, Inc. 804 Roca Street Ashland, OR 97520-3318 Project No. OK57-02.01 2003 Sep-02-03 11:14A ~rhein Associates, Inc. 541 482-6750 l lJll P.O;· Amrhein Associates, Inc. MARK J. AMRHEIN, P.E. PRESIDENT I SENIOR ENGINEER Mr. Amrhein is a professional civil (geotechnical) and environmental engineer with over 20 years of expedance. He is the president and senior engineer for Amrhein Associates, Inc. During the last 6 years he was also working under contract with the City of Grants Pass managing the operations, permitting and capital projects design and construction for the Merlin Landfill in Josephine County. Prior to that, Mr. Amrhein was the Director of Engineering for the Meclford office of EMCON, a national environmental engineering company. He also practiced foundation and geotechnical engineering in Seattle for 5 years where he completed over 100 projects. .Areas of Expertise · Conducting geotechnical engineering studies for residential, commercial, industrial, public and medical facilities, bridges, roadways, and other structures · Conducting slope stability and landslide evaluations · Providing retaining wall and shoring recommendations · Providing design recommendations for pile foundations · Permitting, design, construction and operation of solid waste landfills · Design and operation of leachate and groundwater treatment systems · Assisting sites through the environmental permitting process E2)UCA TION ~d~d= of Sc~B(~ Civ~ C~li£ ,tl~e ~vcr~y, l ~mr-~ty ol'Cali~., ]Ele~.~cy Member, Amwi~ia Sociay ofCi~ Ea~ia~er~ Me=aM:r, NaUenl~ Society M'I~. EllS. Cat~ed landfill Openbx, .qWANA yEAI~ OF ICt[PEAIENCE: 20 Project Experience 0 Garfield Street Affordable Housing, Ashland, OR - Foundation investigation 0 Ashland Surgen/Center, Ashland, OR - Drilled Pier Foundation 0 City of Ashland Guanajuato Way Stairs, Ashland, OR - Design recommendations 0 Medical Office Building for Mahar Homes, Medford, OR - Foundation investigation 0 Medical Office Building for Delgado Design, Ashland OR - Founda#on investigation 0 Wolf Creek Culverts, BLM, Medford District - Foundation investigation 0 Fishhook Road stabilization, BUd, Medford District - Foundation investigation 0 Applegate Way Office/Warehouse Building, Ashland, OR - Foundation investigation 0 Shucks Auto Supply, Medford, OR - Foundation investigation 0 Rogue Valley Manor, Medford III Senior Apts., Meclford, OR - Foundation investigation 0 Rogue Waste Truck Wash, Meclford, OR - Foundation investigation & sewer connection 0 Courtyard by Marriott, Southcenter, WA - Timber pile supported 0 Weyefhae~ Planer Facility, Aberdeen, WA - Heavy/oads, timber ptTe supportecl o NorU'twest Kidney Center, Seattle, WA - Spread footings, shotecl excavation 0 Lakeside School Math & Science Building, Seattle, WA - Spread footings 0 Univers~ Presbyterian Church, Seattle, WA - Soil nailing shored excavation 0 Alverson Street Bridge, Everett, WA - Differing pile types support 0 Univ. of Wash. Power Plant Stack, Seattle, WA - Augercast pile support 0 Pacific Northwest Research Foundation, Seattle, WA - Shored founcletion excavation Amrhein Associates, Inc. 804 Roca Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520-3318 (541) 482-6680 SEP 2003 Sid & Karen DeBoer DeBoer Residence, 265 Glenview Drive July 20, 2003 Project No: OK57-02.01 SITE EVALUATION AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT DeBOER'RESIDENCE 265 GLENWlEW DRIVE ASHLAND, OREGON The engineering material and data contained in this Geotechnical Engineering Report were prepared under the supervision and direction of the undersigned, whose seal as a registered professional engineer is affixed below. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report have been prepared in conformance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. No other warranty, either expressed or implied, is made or intended. Amrhein Associates, Inc. President'/'Senior Engineer r...-~,~.o~,~o~ ii ~..'~,~ Amrhein Associates, Inc.' Sid & Karen DeBoer DeBoer Residence, 265 Glenview Drive Table of Contents July 20, 2003 Project No: OK57-02.01 1 2 3 4 5 SUMMARY ................................................................................ PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................ SITE CONDITIONS .................................................................. 3.1 Surface Conditions ......................................................... 3.2 Subsurface Conditions ................................................... CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................... 4.1 Site Preparation ............................................................... 4.2 Shallow Foundations ....................................................... 4.3 Slab-on-Grade Floors ...................................................... 4.4 Temporary Slopes and Cuts ............................................ 4.5 Retaining Wall Design Criteria ........................................ 4.5.1 Active Earth Pressures ......................................... 4.5.2 Surcharge Loading ............................................... 4.5.3 Passive Earth Resistance ..................................... 4.5.4 Tieback Anchor Recommendations ...................... 4.5.5 Retaining Wall Backfill .......................................... Structural Fill ................................................................... Permanent Slopes ........................................................... Rockeries ........................................................................ Drainage Considerations ................................................. Erosion Control Measures ............................................... 4.10.1 Temporary Erosion Control Measures ............... 4.10.2 Permanent Erosion Control Measures ............... INSPECTION SCHEDULE ......................................................... 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 8 9 10 10 11 11 11 12 12 Figures Figure 1 - Site and Exploration Plan Figure 2 - Footing Overexcavation Details Figure 3 - Cantilever or Single Row Tiebacks Design Criteria and Lateral Pressures Figure 4 - Rockery Details Figure 5 - Erosion Control Details Appendices Appendix A - Subsurface Exploration Procedures and Logs iii ~ ~. ~o Amrhein Associates, Inc. Sid & Karen DeBoer 265 Glenview Drive July 20, 2003 Project No: OK57-02.01 1.0 SUMMARY The proposed residence is to be located at 265 Glenview Drive in Ashland, Oregon. The proposed residence is feasible with respect to the subsurface and slope conditions at the site. A brief summary of the projects' geotechnical considerations is presented below. The site was moderately sloping with grades ranging from 20 to 35 percent. An existing residence occupied part of the proposed site and the remainder of the area vegetated with vinca major ground cover. Subsurface conditions in the proposed building area consisted of medium dense, silty sand fill and weathered decomposed granite soil with trace organics overlying very dense decomposed granite. The fill depth encountered in the test holes ranged from 7.5 to 8.5 feet. No indications of slope movement or faulting were observed at or above the site. We recommend the houses be supported on shallow spread footings designed with a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 pounds per square foot for footings founded on native, undisturbed, very dense decomposed granite. Much of the fill will be removed with the excavation of the house. Any areas still underlain by fill should be overexcavated and backfill with crushed rock or lean mix concrete. Cantilevered retaining walls or retaining walls with one row of tiebacks supporting the moderate site slopes should be designed for a lateral equivalent fluid pressure of 45 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for flexible walls. Surcharge and seismic loadings should also be added to this lateral force. The tieback anchors will be drilled into the slope and the steel tendons grouted in place with an allowable soil/concrete adhesion of 1,000 psf. These pressures assume that the wall backfill is clean, granular, free-draining material. The site soils are extremely prone to erosion. Erosion control measures should be implemented during construction and maintained until permanent vegetation has been established. Two primary erosion control measures are to minimize the area of disturbance as much as possible and to construct a silt fence downslope from the construction area. Exposed soil areas should be covered with plastic, mulch or straw prior to any precipitation. This summary is presented for introductory purposes only and should be used in conjunction with the full text of this report. The project description, site conditions and detailed design recommendations are presented in the text of this report. The scope of work was completed within the constraints of the site and in accordance with our proposal. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Sid and Karen DeBoer, and their agents, for specific application for these projects in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. 1 Amrhein Associates, Inc. Sid& Karen DeBoer 265 Glenview Drive July 20, 2003 Project No: OK57-02.01 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed residence is to be located at 265 Glenview Drive in Ashland, Oregon. The proposed project consists of the demolition of the existing house and the construction of a new, single-family residence in the area of the existing house and onto the adjacent slope to the east. We understand that structural retaining walls will be incorporated into the house design to support the slope above. In the event of any changes in the nature, loading, or location of the proposed house, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should be reviewed and modified, if necessary, to reflect those changes. 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS The site conditions were evaluated on June 6, 2003. The site was investigated by hand drilling three test holes in order to observed soil material types and consistency. The surface and subsurface conditions are described below. The locations of the test holes are indicated on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 1. A description of the test hole drilling method and detailed interpretive logs are provided in Appendix A. 3.1 Surface Conditions The site was moderately sloping with slopes ranging from approximately 20 to 35 percent. An existing residence occupied part of the proposed site and the remainder of the area vegetated with vinca major ground cover. At the base of the slope, and what will be the front of the house is a manicured lawn area. Several, large trees located on the slope had been recently cut down and their stumps remained on the slope. No surficial signs of slope movement were observed on or above the site. 3.2 Subsurface Conditions The site was covered with a topsoil layer of approximately 1.5 feet in depth. All the test holes encountered medium dense fill soils consisting of silty, fine sand with some roots. It is likely that this fill transitioned into the native, medium dense, weathered, decomposed granitic soil, but the similarity in' density, color and gradation between the fill and the weathered granitic soil made this contact not discernable. The fill depth ranged from 7.5 to 8.5 feet. Underlying the fill and weathered decomposed granitic soil, the test holes encountered very dense decomposed granite to their full depths ranging from 13.5 to 13.8 feet. We understand that a nearby domestic water well drilled for the exiSting house found granite to several hundred feet. Geo-Report.061803 2 Amrhein Associates, Inc. Sid & Karen DeBoer 265 Glenview Drive July 20, 2003 Project No: OK57-02.01 The subsurface conditions should be confirmed during construction by the geotechnical engineer in accordance with the construction inspection schedule described in Section 5.0. No expression of groundwater was seen at the site during our evaluation in June 2003. However, it may be possible that some perched zones with limited volumes of water may exist randomly in the upper soil stratums after extended periods of precipitation, especially atop the very dense, decomposed granite. It should be noted-that the level of groundwater may fluctuate due to variations in rainfall, season, site utilization and other factors. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Site Preparation Prior to excavating the site for the foundation, erosion control measures should be implemented at the site as described in Section 4.10. The building footings should be excavated into the very dense, decomposed granite. If the footing excavations do not extend into very dense material, they should be over-excavated and the material replaced as described in Section 4.2. The floor slab areas, or any area to receive structural fill should be stripped of all topsoil and fill down to at least medium weathered, decomposed granitic soil. If the soils are not at least medium dense, they should be recompacted or removed and replaced with "structural fill" as described in Section 4.6. We recommend that the geotechnical engineer observe the subgrade prior to the forming for the building footings or placement of structural fill. The site soils are silty and therefore are prone to disturbance in wet site conditions. The contractor should minimize traffic on prepared footing and floor slab subgrade areas. 4.2 Shallow Foundations The proposed structures may be supported by conventional shallow spread footings and continuous wall footings, founded on undisturbed dense to very dense native soil. The footings should not be set in or above uncontrolled fill. If overexcavation of the uncontrolled fill or lower density material is required, the overexcavation should be backfilled with compacted crushed rock or shale, or a lean concrete mix. The lateral limits of the overexcavation below the footings is shown on Figure 2. All footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches. The base of exterior footings should be located at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent ground surface or top of floOr slab, for frost protection. Interior footings may penetrate 12 inches below the lowest surrounding grade or slab surface. Based upon these conditions, we recommend that the footings be designed with a maximum allowable bearing pressure Amrhein Associates, Inc. Sid & Karen DeBoer 265 Glenview Drive July 20, 2003 Project No: OK57-02.01 of 4,000 pounds per square foot (psf). The allowable loads may be increased by up to one-third to accommodate seismic or transient loads. As the silty site soils are moisture sensitive, site work in the presence of water or during wet weather would disturb the bearing strata. The contractor should avoid disturbance of these soils and limit traffic areas the building pads and foundation areas during wet weather. To minimize disturbance associated with formwork and reinforcement bar placement, the use of a "mud mat" or crushed rock blanket may be required. Assuming the foundation elements are founded on the prescribed bearing strata, we anticipate that the total settlements should be less than %-inch with differential settlements on the order of half of that total. Most of the settlement should occur during the construction of the buildings. If any disturbed or soft materials area left within the footing areas prior to concrete placement, settlements may be increased. For that reason, the condition of the footing subgrades should be observed prior to concrete placement, to confirm the condition of the bearing soils are consistent with those assumed during design. 4.3 Slab-on-Grade Floors Any slab-on-grade subgrade should be prepared in accordance with Section 4.1, Site Preparation. The slab-on-grade floors should be founded on undisturbed native soil or propedy compacted structural fill (Section 4.6). We recommend that the floor slab be underlain by a minimum of a 6-inch thickness of clean, crushed rock, washed rock or pea gravel to serve as a capillary break and working surface. An impervious moisture barrier (plastic sheeting) should also be placed beneath the slabs. 4.4 Temporary Slopes and Cuts Temporary excavation slope stability is a function of many factors including soil type, density, cut inclination, depth, the presence of groundwater and the length of time that the cut is to remain open. As a cut is deepened, or as the length of time the excavation is open increases, the likelihood of bank failures increases. For this reason, temporary slope safety should remain the responsibility of the contractor, who is present at the site and able to observe changes in the site soil conditions and monitor the performance of the excavation. A maximum temporary slope of 1 H:IV in soil is recommended for planning purposes. If seepage is observed exiting the slope face, flatter slopes will be necessary. It may also be necessary for the contractor to install temporary shoring with raking braces to support cuts that cannot be flattened to a safe slope. The construction contract should include provisions for protection of the existing structures or roads which are satisfactory to the owner, architect, structural engineer and geotechnical engineer, but in addition, the contractor should be allowed to implement additional protective measures, if appropriate, depending on conditions disclosed in the Geo-Re~r{.061803 4 Amrhein Associates, Inc. Sid & Karen DeBoer 265 Glenview Drive July 20, 2003 Project No: OK57-02.01 excavations once construction is underway. In any case, cut slopes should conform to applicable federal, state and/or local safety guidelines. 4.5 Retaining Wall Design Criteria 4.5.1 Active Earth Pressures Design of temporary retaining wall could be based on either "active" or "at rest" lateral earth pressures, depending on the degree of deformation of the retaining wall which can be tolerated. Retaining walls that are free to deform on the order of 0.001 to 0.002 times the height of the retaining wall is considered to be capable of mobilizing active earth pressures. Active earth pressures are typically used for retaining wall adjacent to streets, alleys, and vacant lots, unless settlement-sensitive utilities are located in close proximity to the cut face. If no structural elements are located within this zone, or if structural elements within the zone are considered to be insensitive to this degree of settlement, then it would be appropriate to design utilizing active earth pressures. An assumed "at rest" earth pressure condition theoretically assumes no movement of the soil behind the retaining wall, however, some settlement should realistically be anticipated due to the construction practices and/or the fact that it is not possible to construct a perfectly stiff retaining wall system. "At-rest" earth pressures are typically used for retaining wall adjacent to buildings or other settlement-sensitive features. We understand that the proposed retaining wall will accommodate this amount of deformation and therefore will have active lateral pressures acting on the wall. This lateral deformation is likely to be accompanied by vertical settlement of roughly up to 0.005 times the height of the retaining wall, which may extend from the side of the cut a distance equal to roughly the height of the cut. Lesser amounts of settlement may also occur within a setback extending twice as far. Any greater amount of lateral deformation could allow greater vertical settlements. Utilities oriented perpendicular to the retaining wall is often particularly sensitive to lateral retaining wall deformation. It is presently anticipated that most retaining wall on the project will utilize either cantilever retaining walls or a single mw of tiebacks. For the case of a cantilevered retaining wall system, or retaining wall with only one level of tieback anchors, the applied lateral earth pressure would be represented by a triangular pressure distribution termed an equivalent fluid pressure (EFP). Figure 3 of this report illustrates the recommended pressure distribution. Pressures are presented for a flat backslope considering the driveway and street located behind the proposed wall. If alternate backslopes are proposed, AAI should be consulted for appropriate design recommendations. Geo-ReporL061803 5 Amrhein Associates, Inc. Sid& Karen DeBoer 265 Glenview Drive July 20, 2003 Project No: OK57-02.01 4.5.2 Surcharge Loading In addition to the lateral pressures discussed above, the effect of surcharge pressures from vehicles on the driveway and street, or construction stockpiles or equipment adjacent to the excavation must be considered in the design of retaining wall. Street surcharges are typically modeled as a uniform pressure on the retaining wall, equivalent to the lateral pressure caused by a 2-foot soil surcharge, as shown on Figure 3. Surcharge pressures due to footings located behind the wall can be determined by the method shown on Figure 3c, and should be added to the active equivalent fluid earth pressures described above. The structure should be designed to resist seismic forces due to earthquakes. The U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) developed shaking-hazard maps in 1996 that provide estimated accelerations for different size earthquakes based upon the probability that that earthquake may occur. In addition, the USGS has developed these shaking- hazard maps for different period spectral accelerations. These different period spectral accelerations are typically used for deeper soft soils or taller buildings. Since the site is basically on bedrock and is a relatively small building (less than 7 stories), we recommend that the peak ground accelerations provided by the USGS be used. The probability that a particular earthquake and that its peak acceleration may be exceeded is based upon an estimated return period for that earthquake. For instance, considering the probability of an acceleration being exceeded over the next 50 years is 10%, the peak acceleration would be 0.137g ( g being the acceleration due to gravity). Another way of expressing this would be that a 0..137g acceleration would be exceeded only once every 475 years. The appropriate peak ground acceleration for this site may be selected from the following options: Probability of Peak Ground Estimated Return Exceedance Acceleration Period 10% in 50 yrs. 0.137g 475 years 5% in 50 yrs. 0.187g 975 years 2% in 50 yrs. 0.268g 2,475 years 4.5.3 Passive Earth Resistance Resistance to lateral earth pressures acting on retaining wall could be obtained by passive resistance in front of the toe of the retaining wall and friction along the bottom of the retaining wall footing, as well as the tieback soil anchors discussed below. A value for the allowable passive earth resistance of 400 pcf may be assumed for each foot of penetration below the ground surface. This assumes that there are no excavations in front of the toe of the wall for a distance of 3 times the footing depth or Geo-Report.061803 6 Amrhein Associates, Inc. Sid & Karen DeBoer 265 Glenview Drive July 20, 2003 Project No: OK57-02.01 that any excavation has been backfilled with at least a lean mix concrete. An allowable wall base friction value of 0.45 is recommended. This assumes that the concrete makes intimate contact with the soil. 4.5.4 Tieback Anchor Recommendations The following geotechnical design criteria relates primarily to the retaining wall tiebacks. Permission of adjacent property owners to install tiebacks on the property appears necessary for a tieback supported system, or open-cut slopes extending outside the property line. We recommend that the tiebacks be installed from a bench cut at the appropriate elevation to allow for easy access by the drilling equipment. The drill rig and the materials necessary to construct the tiebacks will not be able to access the tieback locations if the excavation is completed to its full depth prior to tieback installation. The anchor portion of the tieback must be fully located a sufficient distance behind the retaining wall to develop resistance within a stable soil mass. We recommend the anchorage be attained behind an assumed failure plane that is formed by a 60 degree angle from the base of the excavation and set back from the retained excavation face for a horizontal distance of 0.25 times the height of the wall, as shown on Figure 3. The zone in front of the above-described plane is called the "no load zone". The limits of this zone are based upon placing the anchors beyond the active wedge of soil Pushing against the wall. An anchor located within this wedge would only be carried forward .by the soil wedge and offer no resistance. At some locations, it may be necessary to install tiebacks to greater lengths than indicated by the above-described zone, in order to reach adequate soil for anchorage. The anchor portion of the tieback should be a minimum length of 15 feet, located fully behind the "no-load zone". The tieback anchors should be a minimum diameter of 6 inches. All permanent tiebacks must be protected against erosion. The steel tendons or rods will tend to corrode as a result of the acidity of the soil and any stray electric currents present in the soil. The steel within the grouted anchor is protected by the surrounding grout. The steel tendon should be placed in the hole with centralizers to ensure the bar in propedy centered and completely encased in grout. Protection of the steel rod in the "no load zone" most often consists of using epoxy-coated steel or sliding a plastic sheath down the tendon and filling the sheath with grease or grout as protection and as a bond breaker. The tendon holes outside the plastic sheathing should immediately backfilled to prevent possible collapse of the. holes, loss of ground and surface subsidence. We recommend that the backfill consist of a sand or a weak, sand/cement grout. We recommend the tendons should be protected and the holes backfilled only after the anchor has been proof tested. However, if hole collapse, loss of ground, or subsidence becomes evident, the holes should be completely backfilled immediately. Anchor holes should be drilled in a manner that will minimize loss of ground and not disturb previously installed anchors. During the drilling, caving could occur if loose, wet, Geo-Report.061803 7 Amrhein Associates, Inc. Sid & Karen DeBoer 265 Glenview Drive July 20, 2003 Project No: OK57-02.01 or saturated zones are encountered. Such conditions are not anticipated on this project site. Drilling with a continuous-flight auger or a casing would reduce the potential for loss of ground. The designers and/or retaining wall subcontractor should particularly note the presence of existing facilities adjacent to the project site, including buried utilities and foundations, as these may affect the location or extent of the anchor holes. The design for anchor locations, capacities and related criteria, should be reviewed by AAI prior to implementation. In addition, selected tieback anchor installations should be subject to performance testing, field anchor tests, and proof loading. Use of the design value presented herein is dependent on a well-constructed anchor. We recommend that concrete be placed in the drilled tieback anchor hole by tremie methods such as pumping through a hose placed in the bottom of the hole or pumping through the center of a continuous-flight auger. In this way, the grout is forced up through the anchor zone under pressure, with the resulting anchor more likely to be continuous. The grout should not be placed into the anchor zone by simple gravity methods such as falling down a chute. We recommend that AAI continuously monitor all tieback installation. For a tieback retaining wall system, we recommend an allowable concrete-soil adhesion for preliminary anchor design of 1000 psf could be used for the dense to very dense decomposed granite. Tieback adhesion capacities presented above are preliminary estimates based on the soils conditions encountered in the borings, and previous tieback load tests on similar soils. We recommend that one 200-percent tieback capacity test be completed prior to installation of production tiebacks. Acceptance criteria should state that the 200-percent test load must be held for 30 minutes with less than 0.01 inch of creep. In addition, all tiebacks should be proof loaded to at least 150 percent of design capacity and held for five minutes with less than 0.01 inch of creep. The tieback testing program should be monitored by AAI. We understand that the tie back tendon rods will be tied into the retaining walls as integral components of the retaining wall's steel reinforcing. Due to this likely structural detail and the necessity of backfilling the wall after concrete placement, no post- construction loading of the tiebacks will be possible. 4.5.5 Retaininq Wall Backfill All backfill placed behind the walls or around foundation units should be placed in accordance with our recommendations for structural fill. The above lateral earth pressures, are based upon granular backfill and no buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. To minimize lateral earth pressure and prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressures, the wall backfill should consist of free-draining, granular material with drainage provisions as discussed in Section 4.9, Drainage Considerations. Ideally all backfill behind the retaining walls should be free-draining, angular gravel or washed rock, however at a minimum, the thickness of the gravel drainage material should be at least 24-inches against the wall. C-eo-Repo~'t.061803 8 Amrhein Associates, Inc. Sid& Karen DeBoer 265 Glenview Drive July 20, 2003 Project No: OK57-02.01 If silty soils are used as backfill behind the wall, far greater lateral pressures can be expected to act on the wall. It is difficult to evaluate what lateral earth pressures will actually be imposed on the retaining wall due to the lower permeability silty backfill. The density of the soils, as well as the moisture content plays a significant role. If much of the soil material is loose, the soil will readily absorb and become a saturated mass, even further increasing wall pressures. Also, the fines can plugged the footing drain itself, which may allow full hydrostatic pressures to develop. The soil pressure and water pressure are additive and can approximately triple the total lateral-pressure against the wall. 4.6 Structural Fill All fill placed in the building area, including under concrete slab-on-grade and the driveway, and the backfill behind structural retaining walls should be placed in accordance with the recommendations for structural fill. All surfaces to receive fill should be prepared as previously recommended. Structural fill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 12 inches in thickness. Individual lifts should be compacted such that a density of at least 90 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM:D 1557) is achieved. We recommend that a representative of the geotechnical engineer be present during placement of structural fill to observe the work and perform a representative number of in-place density tests. In this way, the adequacy of the earthwork may be evaluated as grading progresses. The suitability of soils used for structural fill depends primarily on the soil particle size gradation and moisture content of the soil when it is placed. As the amount of fines (that portion passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve)increases, the soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. Soil containing more than about 5 percent fines by weight, when measured against the minus No. 4 sieve fraction, cannot be compacted to a firm and non-yielding condition when the moisture content is about 2 percent above optimum. If needed, the use of clean, granular soil would expedite wet weather construction. The site soils, except for the topsoil, can be used for structural fill purposes. The silty sand soil contains fines and should be considered moisture sensitive. It will most effectively be used during the dry summer months when the water content may be carefully controlled. In all cases, site soils or soil imported to the site to be used for structural fill should have a maximum particle size on the order of 8 inches and be free of organics and other deleterious material. If inclement weather occurs during grading, the upper wetted portion of the subgrade may need to be scarified and dried prior to further earthwork. If it is not practical to dry the wet, silty soils, it may be more expedient to remove the wet materials and replace them with dry soil. Amrhein Associates, Inc. Sid& Karen DeBoer 265 Glenview Drive July 20, 2003 Project No: OK57-02.01 4.7 Permanent Slopes We recommend that permanent cut and fill slopes be designed for a maximum inclination of 1-1/2H:1V, but these steeper slopes must be covered with topsoil and erosion control matting installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. The erosion control matting may be eliminated for slopes less than 2H:IV. The maximum fill slope height should not exceed 20 feet. The top of all slopes greater than 6 feet in vertical height should be protected from runoff be diversion berms or swales. Permanent fill slopes should be constructed in accordance with our recommendations for structural fill. The surface of the fill slope should compacted to the same 90 percent density (ASTM:D 1557) as the body of the fill. This may be accomplished by overbuilding the embankment and then cuffing if back to its compacted core or compacted the surface of the fill as its is constructed. If the fill is being placed on a slope, the fill should be keyed and benched into the slope with a series of stair stepping benches. The material can be most effectively compacted on the level bench. The bottom key should be a horizontal cut at least 6 feet in width. Each horizontal bench should be cut at least 4 feet into the native soil. All slopes should be protected from runoff be diversion berms or swales. The surface of the slopes should be covered with topsoil and protected by the erosion control measures discussed in Section 4.10. 4.8 Rockeries Rockeries, or stacked rock walls, may be used to face stable cut or fill slopes. Rockeries should be constructed no greater than 5 feet in height. If more than one rockery is to be used for greater heights, each rockery must be set back at least 3 feet horizontally from the top of the lower rockery. Rockeries should be constructed of sound, durable rock with a batter no steeper than 6V:IH. The bottom course of each rockery should be founded at least medium dense native or fill soil and set into a 6-inch deep "key". The long dimension of the rock should be set perpendicular to the wall face. A minimum 4-inch diameter perforated pipe should be installed behind the first rockery course and be fully embedded in washed rock or pea gravel. The drain line should discharge into the storm drainage system or other suitable discharge point. Asthe large rocks are being placed, free- draining crushed rock (1 to 4 inches in size) should be placed behind the rockery to provide for drainage and prevent soil migration through the rockery. The top foot of the wall may be backfilled with native or topsoil for vegetation and prevent direct communication of surface water on the terrace into the rock backfill. Typical details for rockery construction are shown on Figure 4. Amrhein Associates, Inc. Sid & Karen DeBoer 265 Glenview Drive July 20, 2003 Project No: OK57-02.01 Although commonly used to face cut slopes in this area, it should be noted that rockeries are not truly engineered structures such as a retaining wall. The primary function is to face stable slopes and protect from erosion and sloughing at a relatively Iow cost. It also should be realized that rockeries, even when properly constructed, can lose rocks and need maintenance. 4.9 Drainage Considerations During periods of high precipitation, seepage zones may develop randomly in the cut faces. Any seepage should be routed away from the construction and building area as much as possible. We recommend that the house be provided with a permanent footing drain system to collect any available water. The footing drains should consist of at least 4-inch diameter perforated pipe surrounded by at least 4 inches of pea gravel on all sides. The drain pipe should be at least schedule 40 PVC in order to avoid crushing during backfill plaCement and to allow for future cleanout by jetting or mechanized snaking. The drain pipe should lead away from the house via gravity to the storm water system or other suitable discharge. Site grades should be planned to slope away from 'the house. Roof and surface runoff should not discharge into the footing drain system; instead a separate tight line drain system should be installed or splash blocks should be used. 4.10 Erosion Control Measures Erosion control measures should be implemented to limit and control the erosion as a result of the proposed development. The erosion and sedimentation process is a natural process whereby particles of soil are loosened from the soil and vegetation matrix and carried down by water. Construction and land disturbance can increase the rate of erosion above natural background levels by several hundred percent. Good erosional control practices during construction can significantly reduce the erosion process during and after construction. However even with the best erosion control practices, disturbed areas will produce more sediment than naturally vegetated, undisturbed areas. Typically the rate of erosion is highest during construction and improves significantly after the permanent erosion control measures are installed and vegetation becomes established. Over time with the establishment and maturing of vegetation and proper maintenance of the erosion control features, the rate of erosion can stabilize to near natural conditions. 4.10.1 Temporary Erosion Control Measures The following measures should be implemented during construction in order to best limit the rate of erosion from the site. Some erosion control measure details are shown on Figure 5. Amrhein Associates, Inc. Sid& Karen DeBoer 265 Glenview Drive July 20, 2003 Project No: OK57-02.01 Surface water from the project will flow toward lawn and landscaping onsite. No project site drainage is expected onto City streets. The following are some measures that should be implemented. 1) Minimize the disturbed area. The natural topsoil and root mat offer the best protection from erosion. 2) Shield the exposed soil from rainfall impact and hold soil particles in place. This should be done by protecting exposed or disturbed soils prior to rain by means of a complete layer of straw, erosion control matting, or plastic sheeting. 3) Construct a filter fabric fence downslope of the disturbed area to check the water velocity and to allow some sediment to be filtered out. It is best if the filter fabric fence allows for the slow release of water through the fabric. 4) Place a crushed rock pad for parking construction vehicles. This will prevent tires from becoming muddy and tracking the mud onto the street. 4.10.2 Permanent Erosion Control Measures The following permanent erosion control measures should be implemented and maintained at the site. 1) Surface water concentrations should be controlled by directing the flow to appropriate paths and structures. If surface water routes are not designed, water will create its own path sometimes across or into undesirable areas. 2) Maintain the soil's capacity to absorb water. Topsoil should be placed over the native soil after construction has been completed. Ground cover vegetation or bark/wood mulch should be used over new topsoil areas. 3) Implement a thorough maintenance and follow-up program. Maintenance of the erosion control measures is critical over the long term. The major reason for failure of erosion control measures is poor maintenance. 5.0 INSPECTION SCHEDULE The integrity of the site development, foundation support, retaining wall support, and pavement subgrade depends on proper site preparation and Construction procedures. It is recommended that a representative of the geotechnical engineer observe the construction at key times to determine the adequacy of construction as it progresses. also allows the engineer to observe variations in the site and subsurface conditions, It Geo-Report.061803 12 Amrhein Associates, Inc. Sid & Karen DeBoer 265 Glenview Drive July 20, 2003 Project No: OK57-02.01 and provide additional geotechnical recommendations to minimize delays as the project develops. The geotechnical engineer will be required by the City to verify that these items were observed and completed in general conformance with the plans and specifications. It should be made the contractor's responsibility to notify the engineer with at least 24 hours notice that each of the following items are ready to be observed. The key items are as follows: Temporary Erosion Control Measures - Prior to the start of site preparation and other earthwork, erosion control measures must be installed and observed by the engineer. · Subgrade Preparation - When any loose fill, topsoil or other soft or organic material has been removed and structural fill is ready to be placed. Structural Fill Placement - During placement of structural fill, a representative number of in-place density tests should be performed to verify the density and adequacy of the structural fill. · Footing Subgrades - Footing subgrades should be observed during or after reinforcement steel has been placed and prior to pouring concrete. · Tieback Anchor Placement and Testing - During installation of the tieback anchors, performance testing and proof testing. In addition, the corrosion protection system installation and "no load zone" .backfilling. Retaining Wall Backfilling - Prior to beginning of retaining wall backfill so that the drainage system can be vedfied. The acceptability of the drainage material should also be verified. A representative number of density tests should also be conducted during the backfill placement. Floor Slab Subgrade - Subgrades should be observed during or after reinforcement steel or mesh has been placed and prior to pouring concrete. Placement of the vapor barrier should also be verified. Amrhein Associates, Inc. S~IR~)I=I Limit of compacted rock fill / / / / B + D I=~'' :"'"'"~""~k Footing width \ 2 \ Final Grade (B) Uncontrolled fill to be removed and replaced replacement ~,// / /11 ! I ' mix concrete / '~ ' replacement / - '~ .... Firm,native soil J I ~ A.~.~oci~e.¢_ [nc_ F~ ~J J F~TING OVEREXCAVATDN 2 D~AILS lid ..r z o [-- 0 0 O_ N 0 .I Natural slope or setback to next rockery Min. ,, 1 to2 6 Topsoil or vegetative soil Free-draining angular rock Min. 6" height Washed rock or peagravel Min. 4" diam. erf.slopePltPoe outlet) 1) Rockery should be founded on firm, undisturbed soil. 2) The long dimension of oil rocks shell be placed perpendicular to the well. 5) Each rock should bear on at least two rocks in tier below. 4) Rock shell consist of sound, durable rock. 5) Rockeries ere erosion control structures, not retaining walls. Cut face must be stable, and free standing. Filter fabric material supported by wire mesh if necessary Bury bottom of fabric in 9" to 12" deep trench 6' Max. FILTER FABRIC SILT FENCE Attach filter fabric -5 places per post Anchor I trenct~ -~ ~iH 2" by 2" wood stake or metal T stake ~oo(~ 12" Co(]rse Rock Rocked Access Drive I---- Amrh ein --.-------""' Associates, Inc. Sid and Kamn DeBoer 265 Olenvlew Drive Aehland. Oregon EROSION CONTROL DETAILS APPENDIX A SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROCEDURES AND LOGS Sid & Karen DeBoer 265 Glenview Drive July 20, 2003 Project No: OK57-02.01 APPENDIX A SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROCEDURES AND LOGS SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION The field exploration program conducted for this study consisted of three, hand-drilled test holes. The approximate exploration locations are shown on Figure 1, Site and Exploration Plan. The locations of the explorations were obtained in the field by measurement with a tape measure from existing fence lines and houses shown on the topographic survey. TEST HOLES The test holes were drilled and the soils logged by Mark Amrhein, P.E. on June 6, 2003. The drilling was accomplished by hand using a 2-inch diameter, bucket-type auger. Disturbed soil samples were obtained from the bucket auger continuously throughout the drilling process. The test hole logs presented in this appendix are based upon the field logs and inspection of the soil recovered. The relative soil densities indicated on the test hole logs are interpretive description based on the conditions observed during the drilling and hand probing with a W' diameter steel rod down the holes. Test Hole TH-1 DEPTH (f_ee_D 0.0- 1.5 1.5-8.5 SOILS DESCRIPTION TOPSOIL FILL - Medium dense, moist, brown, silty, fine SAND (likely transitioning to weathered decomposed granite soil) DECOMPOSED GRANITIC - Very dense, damp, reddish-tan, silty, fine SAND turning mottled gray & reddish-tan @ 9.5' W' diameter root.@ 10' No seepage noted No caving of drilled hole TestHo~es.061803 Amrhein Associates, Inc. Sid & Karen DeBoer 265 Glenview Drive July 20, 2003 Project No: OK57-02.01 Test Hole TH-2 DEPTH (fe_.e._t.)_ ........... SOILS DESCRIPTION 0.0- 1.5 TOPSOIL 1.5 - 7.5 FILL - Medium dense, moist, brown, silty, fine SAND (likely transitioning to weathered decomposed granite soil) 7.5 - 13.5 DECOMPOSED GRANITIC - Very dense, damp, mottled gray & reddish-tan, silty, fine SAND No caving of drilled hole Test Hole TH-3 DEPTH (fee_t) SOILS DESCRIPTION 0.0- 1.5 TOPSOIL 1.5 - 8.5 FILL - Loose to medium dense, moist to wet, brown, silty, fine SAND (likely transitioning to weathered decomposed granite soil) 8.5 - 13.8 DECOMPOSED GRANITIC - Very dense, damp, reddish-brown, silty, fine SAND - turning mottled gray & reddish-tan @ 7.5' No seepage noted No caving of drilled hole TestHoles.061803 2 Amrhein Associates, Inc. reaTax Lots Urban Growth Boundary ms & Ditches S treams Ditches · Photograph Station Point Exhibit 4 Photographic Key Map Soume: Jackson County GIS Services Sid DeBoer /~ugu~t 20, 2002 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. N 80 0 80 160 240 Feet SEP ~ 2003 Exhibit 4 1:215 Vista Street 2:225 Vista Street - Apartments 3:225 Vista Street 4: Alley Way - Ashland Spdngs Hotel* 5:264 Hargadine Street - Apartments Sidney and Karen DeBoer 6: Parking Lot 2003 Exhibit 4 7: Ravenwood Place - Condominiums 8:4 Hillcrest Street 9:1 Hillcrest Street 10:300 Vista Sidney and Karen De'Boer 12:110 Terrace Street 2003 ' Exhibit 4 13:232 Vista Street 14: 205, 211 and 215 Glenview Drive 15:232 Vista Street 16:190 Vista Street '17:212 Vista Street Sidney and Karen DeBoer 0 z / /.// / / HOFFBUHR & ASSOCIATES, SURVEYORS/PLANNERS INC. September 2, 2003 Craig Stone 7(18 Cardley Ave. Medford, Or. 97504 RE: SID DEBOER PROJECT- Tax Lots 7200 & 7400 of Assessor's lnap 39 1E 09BC At the request of Sid DeBoer, owner of the subject tax lots, a topographic survey was' done on his property. Based on this survey an analysis was made of existing features, including the identification of older trees. The larger trees, due to their age, give evidence of what the actual historical ground elevation was, prior to mom recent ground disturbance. A copy of the 1978 Ashland city aerial topographic lnap was also considered in this mmlysis. Based on the existing physical evidence available and measurements made, 1 have detemfined that the "Average" original, slope of the ground, at the proposed building site, is 28%. Darrell L. Huck 3155 Alameda Street, Suite 201 · Medford, OR 97504-8407 {5411 779-4641 FAX {541) 770-2573 SEP 2003 September 2, 03 City of Ashland Planning Department DeBoer Residence Ashland, Oregon Tree Inventory and Mitigation Strategy_ The proposed redevelopment by the applicant at the intersection of Glenview and Vista is complicated by numerous tree issues. There were a number of trees removed from the property prior to this application, there are also a number of trees being proposed for removal, and then there are a number of trees to be preserved on properties that are or will become adjacent after the new lot division is finalized and a mitigation proposal. Trees removed nrior to this submittal There were a total of 7 trees removed from this site prior to this submittal. These trees are identified on Sheet L-3 in the graphic portion of the submittal package. Two of the removed trees were non regulated, (1 and 2) their removal not regulated by any ordinance. Five of the trees were removed wrongfully (3 through 7) and the specifies of that situation are described below. Trees removed: 1. 6" Madrone - Arbutus menziesii 2. 36" Oak - Quercus kelloggii According to the Tree Removal and Protection Plan (L-3) the 5 following trees require mitigation. 3. 18" Madrone - Arbutus menziesii 4. 18" Oak - Quercus kelloggii 5. 30" Madrone - Arbutus menziesii 6. 40" Madrone- Arbutus menziesii 7. 24" Madrone - Arbutus menziesii Due to a misunderstanding between the City of Ashland and the applicant, a number of trees were removed on the slope that would contain the proposed new structure. The trees were removed in anticipation of the adoption of the tree ordinance. The applicant had numerous conversations with staff at the City of Ashland over the removal of these trees, and it was agreed that there were no restrictions on their removal. These conversations took place before it was understood that some of the trees were in slopes of greater than 25%, brining the trees under the jurisdiction of the hillside ordinance. Because the tree removal was in violation of the hillside ordinance, the following mitigation process has been proposed. The applicant is proposing mitigation for the tree removal at a rate of 2 trees for each wrongfully removed tree. The trees proposed for mitigation will be 2" to 2.5" caliper trees from Northwest Shade Tree. The applicant will provide the trees and have them delivered and planted at a public location designated by the tree commission. The applicant would also like to leave the species and variety choice up to the tree commission or the receiving public body. Trees proposed for removal - Non Regulated Referring to Sheet L-3 there are four trees proposed for removal that are non-regulated, they are within a private residential lot and are not on slopes exceeding 25%. The non-regulated trees proposed for removal include: 8. 6" Cedar - Calocedrus deccurrens 9. 30" Oak - Quercus kelloggii 10. 6" Cedar - Calocedrus deccurrens 11.6" Cedar - Calocedrus deccurrens Trees nronosed for removal - Hillside Lands Referring to Sheet L-3 there are two trees proposed for removal that are within the hillside lands (slopes over 25%) and they will require a city permit for removal. The trees proposed for removal that are within hillside lands include: 12.6" Cedar - Calocedrus deccurrens 13.12" Pine - Ponderosa Pine These trees are healthy and the reason for removal is to facilitate the building project Trees nronosed for removal - Within the City. of Ashland Right of Way Referring to Sheet L-3 there are three trees proposed for removal that are within the City of Ashland Right of Way, if this portion of the project moves forward a permit will be required to remove these tree. The trees proposed for removal that are within hillside lands include: 14.6" Oak - Quercus spp. 15. Oak Clump - Quercus spp. 16. 12" Oak - Quercus spp. These trees are the typical scrub oak seen throughout the Ashland area, they are not specimen trees and the chance of them ever truly contributing the overall canopy is small. Date Received CITY OF ASHLAND PLANNING APPLICATION Type '[/z/o Fi~e No. 2--~o'3 -II ~' Filing Fee / / Zoning R-1-7.5 Comp Plan Designation Single Family Residential Receipt # APPLICATION IS FOR: [] Minor Land Partition [] Variance [] Conditional Use Permit [] Boundary Line Adjustment [] Outline Plan (# Units [] Final Plan [] Site Review [] AnneXation [] Zone Change ~ [] Comp Plan Chagge ' /I ~5~Staff-Permit f'~ E-Oo~£/5~'%/Jt [] Solar Waiver (' ll APPLICANT Application pertains to 18.6 2 chapter, section, subpart of the Ashland Municipal Code. Name Address Sidney and Karen DeBoer 234 Vista Street Phone PROPERTY OWNER Name Address R~n~y and Karen DeBoer 234 Vista Street Phone SURVEYOR, ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Name Hoffbuhr & Associates Inc. Address3155 Alameds Street Suite 201 Medford OR 97504 (may need to use back page) Phone 779-4641 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Street Address 265 Glenview Drive Assessor's Map No. 39 1E 09BC Tax Lot(s) 7200 When was the above described property acquired by owner? Approx. 1993 On a separate sheet of paper,/ist any covenants, conditions or restrictions concerning use of property or improvements contemplated, as we//as yard set-back and area or height requirements that were p/aced on the property by subdivision tract developers. Give date said restrictions expire. ' FINDINGS OF FACT Type your response to the appropriate zoning requirements on another sheet(s) of paper and enclose it with this form. Keep in mind your responses must be in the form of factual statements or findings of fact and supported by evidence. List the findings criteria and the evidence which supports it. ~ ;~ ~-~'" Ken Ogden OgdenKistler Architecture 2950 E. Barnett Rd Medford OR 97504 779-5237 Kerry KenCairn KenCairn Environmental Design, ASLA 545 'A' Street, Suite 3 Ashland OR 97520 (Landscape Architecutre & Environmen~alPlanning) Craig A. Stone & Associates Ltd. 708 Cardley Ave. Medford OR 97504 (Agent) I hereby certify that the statements and information contained in 't~lis application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in all respects true and correct. I understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested; the burden will be on me to establish: 1) 2) 3) 4) that I produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request; that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request; that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further thaz' all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground. Failure in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in any structures being built in reliance thereon being required to be removed at my expense. If I have any doubts, I am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance. Applicants's Signature (.~c~%~. ~ q~e. L~. Date As owner of the property involved in this request, I have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property owner. Property Owner's Signature Date NOTICE: Section 15.04.240 of the Ashland Municipal Code prohibits the occupancy of a building or a release of utilities prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the Building Division AND the completion of all zoning requirements and conditions imposed by the Planning Commission UNLESS a satisfactory performance bond has been posted to ensure completion. VIOLATIONS may result in prosecution and/or disconnection of utilities.