HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-0408 Cont Mtg PacketCITY OF
SHLAND
AGENDA FOR THE CONTINUED MEETING
ASHLAND C~TY COUNCIL
April 8, 2004 - 6:00 p.m.
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker, un/ess it is the subject of a Land Use Appeal. All
hearings must conclude by 9:30 p.m. or be continued to a subsequent meeting.) Continued
from Council Meeting of April 6, 2004:
Appeal of Planning Action 2003-188, a request for a Physical & Environmental
Constraints Permit to construct a single family residential home on Hillside Lands
within a Historic District. Applicant: Sidney and Karen DeBoer.
ADJOURNMENT:
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-
2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I).
COUNCIl., MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST I..IVE ON CtlANNEI, 9
V1SIT THE CITY OF ASttLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASltI_AND.OR.US
City of Ashland, Oregon
Objection: During the proceeding, an opponent placed imo 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 Heatings 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 Hearings Board herewith incorporates and adopts, the Hearings 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.o8o6a)(6)
Stipulation 3. Applicants will be continuously maintain 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
IV[AP, 0 3 2004
Pag~ 57
City of Ashland, Oregon
guarantees in the amount of 120% of the value of the erosion control
measures necessary to stabilize the site.
Stipulation 7.
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.
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 1aw, the Hearings Board
concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of ALUO 18.62.080 and
18.62.090 and all related standards with respect to development on regulated hillside and
wildfire lands.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2003-118
MAR 0 3 2004
Page 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
10th, 2003. During the time 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 Staff gave 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 Heatings Board leave the
record open for an additional seven days in order for the public to submit additional "written"
testimony. ~ response to the request, the Heatings 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.
PA2003-118
Page 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 10th, 2003.
The additional evidence submitted in opposition of this application is essentially based on two
issues: 1) Compatibility with neighborhood and 2) The physical abi!ity 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 chteria for a Physical and
Environmental Constraints Permit and have thoroughly responded to the additional information
submitted by the opposition. Staff concurs with the applicants' findings of fact and
recommends the Heatings 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 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 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
Geotechnical Engineering Report (July 20~h, 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 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
CRAIG A. STONE & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Consullanls in Urban Plannin,, 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 Winburn 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. Internet 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 Ordinance
adoption
The above matters are dealt with individually below in a format that cites each opponent
objection, followed by applicants rebuttal. RECEIVED
NOV 2 $ 2OO3