Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2004-0518 Council Mtg Packet
Council Meeting Pkt. BARBARA CHRISTENSEN CITY RECORDER CITY OF SHL. AND Important..~y citizen attendln counc~l;~e~tifl s~":'a s ak on an .::ttem.on~:the.a enda?unless ~t ....... g .. .... ..,.,..,...~ ............ g ............ y pe . y .................. g .. is '~e subjeC, t 0f ;a pub!!P:headng .'.which.:h. aS..:,.been: ~ .~.. ed :: The ~Pu blic.. ~0.ru ;,i:!S: !the. ii.me. .t.g :speak on: '. any?subject ihbti.on' the~.pdhted 'agenda ~!~;y0'u;.WiS~i!t0 :.speak; ~ please;fill 0U, t~the:?S;makiit..Req u est 'fo~,,,Iocatea ~h'bar'the'"'~ntrance~..tb"!th~?~.."~im~Ci!~hambers;· The ~ch'air~iil ;.recogniZb';you and Inform you as'to the amount of time', allOtted to you. The time granted will:be dependent to some extent on the nature of the item under discussion,, the number of people who wish to be heard, and the length of the agenda. .... AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL May 18, 2004 - 7:00 p.m. Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street II. III. IV. Vi VI. VII. VIII. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Council Meeting Minutes of May 4, 2004.. S~PECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS: ~,,"~. Proclamation of May 16 - 22, 2004 as National Emergency Medical Services Week. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissi0 .... ' 1~2. Approval of Intergovemm .~tal ~[F.~nt No. :21397~_.~- Crosswalk Maintenance Agreement between the Cit~3f-Ash-~nd and the oregon Department of .~. Transportation. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Setting a Public Heating to Consider the Vacation of an Alley Stretching between Oregon and Madrone Streets." PUBLIC HEARINGS: (TestimOny limited to 5 minutes per speaker, unless 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.) 1. Appeal of Planning Action No. 2004-02, a request for Site Review and Tree Removal Permit to construct a multi-floor, 8,325 sq. ft. mixed use building at 88 NoAh Main Street. A Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit is requested to permit "development" within the Ashland Floodplain Corridor. Applicant: Lloyd Haines. PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda. ,(Total time allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. Speakers are limited to 5 minutes or less, depending on the number of individuals wishing to speak.) UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Appointment of Michael Dawkins to the Planning Commission for a terrn to expire April 30, 2008. 2. The Grove. COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9 VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.[JS IX. Xe Xl. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: 1. Quarterly Financial Report-- Jan - March, 2004. 2. Ashland Forest Resilien,CyA:Yoject:~ I~' Approval of Agreement ~.21139 ~.,Gongestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Project Ashland, Street F~een the City of Ashland and the Oregon Department of Transportation. ORDINANCES= RESOLUTIONS AI~TS: ~ Se. cond reading by title onl~~Ordinance~mending the Definition of Gross R(.venues to Exclude Revenue-~'h'om Cable Modems under the Telecommunications Chapter of the Ashland Municipal Code." Second reading by title only Nudity." Reading by title only of Plans Review and Ins Reading by title only of Ashland Municipal Cod Reading by title only of a Prohibition Against Public g the Adoption of a Fire Protection Jle." g Rates for Electric Service Pursuant to 16.030 and Repealing Resolution 2003-12." g Rates for Water Service pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code ~4.030 and Repealing Resolution 2003-13." Reading by title only of "~evising Rates for Wastewater Service pursuant to ,Ashland Municipal Cod~ Section 14.08.035 and Repealing Resolution 96-19." OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL XlI. LIAISONS: 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 (7-I-Y 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). C, OUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9 ('~ ' ~'W '~ VI,.,,IT THE CITY O'F ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT Vv W.ASHLAND.OR.[JS ASHLAND CITY COUNCII.J MEETING MAY 4, 2004 - Page 1 of 7 MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL May 4, 2004 - 7:00 p.m. Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor DeBoer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilor Laws, Amarotico, Hartzell, Jackson, Morrison and Heam were present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of April 20, 2004, and minutes of the Executive Session of April 20, 2004 were approved as presented. Mayor DeBoer clarified that the Planning Commission Chair sits on the Historic Commission, not on the Conservation Commission as the minutes stated. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS Mayor presented Certificates of Appreciation to Alexi Butler, Charles Walker, Amy Langford, Maya Hickman and Caitlin Emery for their work during National Youth Service Day. Proclamations of May, 2004 as Mental Health Awareness Month, May 3 - 9, 2004 as National Historic Preservation Week, May 16 - 22, 2004 as National Public Works Week, May 10 - 16, 200,~; as Cover the Uninsured Week and April as School Library Media Month were read out loud. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees. Councilor Hartzell/Morrison m/s to approve Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS (None) PUBLIC FORUM UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Appointment of Allen Douma to the Planning Commission for a term to expire April 30, 2008 to replace Raymond Kistler. Councilor Jackson/Laws m/s to appoint Allen Douma to the Planning Commission. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 2. Appointment of Olena Black to the Planning Commission for a term to expire April 30, 2008 to replace Cameron Hanson. Councilor Hartzell/Morrison m/s to appoint Olena Black to the Planning Commission. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 3. Appointment of David Williams to the Planning Commission for a term to expire April 30, 2008 to replace Colin Swales. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 4, 2004 - Page 2 of 7 Councilor Amarotico/I-Iearn m/s to appoint David Williams to the Planning Commission. DISCUSSION: Councilor Jackson supports the Mayor's decision, but voiced concem on not having a mmofity voice on the Commission. Councilor Hartzell noted her previous request for clarity from the City Attorney on the activities that lead to the Mayor's decision. Hartzell also stated that Staff should be notifying the Council when a problem occurs on the Commission. Councilor Morrison voiced his support of David Williams, but felt that there is no evidence that justifies not re-appointing Colin Swales. Councilor Heam stated the Mayor has the fight to. appoint individuals, and the Council's position is to determine if that person is qualified or not. Voice Vote: ]Laws, Amarotico and Hearn, YES; Hartzell, Morrison and Jackson, NO; Mayor NO. Motion failed 3-4. 4. Council appointment of commissioner to Audit Committee for term to expire April 30, 2007. Councilor Hartzell/Jackson m/s to approve appointment of Guy Nutter to the Audit Committee. Voice Vote: all AYF, S. Motion passed. 5. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Creating the Charter Review Committee." Management .~malyst Ann Seltzer read aloud the synopsis of the staffmemo and noted the Citizen Participation Plan as a new addition to the packet. Seltzer stated the deadlines for submitting information to Jackson County for the March and May 2005 elections and noted the costs associated with placing this as an item for a Special Election. She stated that the Extent of Review needs further discussion. Council discussed the charge of the committee, which may include looking into the governance issue along with updating lhe Charter where appropriate. It was commented that the committee should be able to have the freedom to choose what may need to be addressed and to allow the citizen's to bring specific changes forward. Council discussed the proposed deadline, which included consideration of the November 2004 election and subsequent elections dates thereafter. It was stated that the council should not set a timeline, but that it should be done quickly and efficiently. Council discussed the appointment process for the committee and the need for diversity. It was agreed that these meetings should be easily accessible by the public and that public input would be encouraged. A request that the comm]ittee is educated, regarding the Charter and the process, was made and that either staff or the consultant pro¥ide this information. Council reviewed the proposed Resolution setting the Charter Review Committee and discussed the importance of including public input, and allow the committee to develop their own rules and expectations. It was suggested to remove Section 3 from the proposed resolution. After further consideration, the council agreed that eliminating pages 2 and 3 of the Expectations of the Charter Review Committee would be satisfactory, artd to remove the sentence "The mayor will appoint a member to serve as chair." Additional suggestion was made that the resolution should state that "the council should consider the timeline" and that the proposed Charter Revision be placed on the earliest feasible ballot. Councilor Jackson/Hartzell m/s to approve Resolution #2004-10 as presented, with the attached document in Section 3 referring to Page 1 of the Expectations of the Charter Review Committee with the three edito,rial changes presented. Roll Call Vote: Laws, Hearn, Jackson, Amarotico, Morrison and Hartzell, YES. Motion passed. Bryan Holley/324 Liberty Street/Spoke in regards to the appointments to the Planning Commission. Mr. Holley commented on the issue of bias and is concerned that this word would have a negative effect on the public dialog. Mr. Holley gave examples of different types of biases, and thanked the Mayor for his vote on ASttLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 4, 2004 - Page 3 of 7 the issue. Mayor DeBoer explained the process for appointing the Charter Review Committee. An advertisement will be placed in the newspaper and (~ouncil will be solicited for their comments and suggestions. He will then take a consensus amongst the council when appointing the members. The community was urged to submit applications to the City Recorder and to include their background information. It was noted that applicants are required to be a resident of Ashland in order to be eligible for this committee. It was suggested that the applicants include an explanation as to why they are interested in serving on this committee. In addition, the City Recorder will prepare an application form for the Charter Review Committee selection process and will be available for applicants. .. Pam Vavra/2800 Dead Indian Memorial Rd/Reported on the Earth Day Celebration at North Mountain Park. She shared the comments that the community wrote at the Green Party exhibit. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Ashland Forest Lands Restoration Project Summary. Fire ChiefKeith Woodley noted the staff report presented to the Council. He also thanked the City's Public Works and Police Departments for their support in keeping the area clear in regards to public safety. Eric Navickas/711 Faith Street/Noted that he had attended the field trip and expressed concern, with the large number of trees logged in the riparian area. Mr. Navickas stated the area has been opened up to 50-60% canopy closure, and the increased sunlight will have an impact on the temperature of the streams;. He feds this project has created a bad precedent and that logging of large diameter trees and trees in riparian areas is unacceptable for the City of Ashland. He also mentioned that fire fuel reductions can be done by non- commercial means. Councilor Jackson shared that she had also attended the field trip and was impressed with the work that was done. Mr. Woodley stated the City has avoided removing live timber in the riparian areas because they do not yet have a riparian management plan. He explained that dead timber existed in close proximity to the project area, and that some of this was removed, however there was no concentrated effort to remove timber within the riparian area. It was mentioned that what was completed was best for the forest and that the cost of the project had almost broke even. It was noted that informational signs will be posted that explains what has occurred and why there are logs laying on the ground. It was mentioned that the Forest Lands Commission, which consisted of a large number of expertises, had been working on this project for about 6 years and appreciation for all of their hard work was acknowledged. Mr. Woodley announced that an EMS (Emergency Medical Service) proclamation would be l:¢esented at the next council meeting. Activities are planned in Garfield Park similar to previous events. Mayor DeBoer noted the contract for Superior Helicopter was for $263,091 and the aRer the trees were sold, the net cost to the City of Ashland was only $441.15. 2. Report and Recommendation on Financing Alternatives for Ashland Fiberoptic Network (AFN). Finance Director Lee Tuneberg relayed the synopsis of the staff report to the council. Mr. Tuneberg recommended that the council approve the request to move forward on looking into restructuring AFN's debt for next year. Upon approval, he would bring back a report and a proposal within 30 days. The report will ASHLAND CITY COUNCIl.. MEETING MAY 4, 21)04 - Page 4 of 7 center on utilizing revenue bonds that are taxable. Mr. Tuneberg commented on the benefits of refinancing and stated that this is the right time to go forward with the restructuring of the debt. Mr. Tuneberg explained for council that the feedback from the Ad Hoc Committee had been minimal as all the members had not been present. However, the proposal had been accepted by the committee. Mr. Tuneberg clarified for the Council the taxability of revenue bonds and ratios, and that electric revenue will be used to make debt service if needed. Councilor Hartzell/Amarotico m/s to accept the recommendation from staff and. authorize .the Finance Director to proceed with restructuring the AFN debt, and bringing back to Council a. plan and . resolution within 30 days. DISCUSSION: Mr. Tuneberg stated that this would be brought back to the Council on May 184 or June 1 st along with a proposed resolution. He explained that the bond sale would not occur until late July or early August. At that time, if requested, the public would have the opportunity to place this on the ballot in November. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 3. Ashland Fiber Network Quarterly Report. Electric & Telecommunications Director Dick Wanderscheid explained the report which covered the period of January 1, 2004 to March 31, 2004. The report will continue to change in the future as they will be tracking new items as a result of the recommendations from Navigant Consultants. Mr. Wanderscheid explained AFN has been able to keep its expenses and revenues close to the budgeted amounts. He also noted the figures provided include the donation made by the Cow Creek Tribe and the costs for Navigant Consultants. Implementation of some of the marketing ideas, as suggested by Navigant, have begun. Staff will continue on a quarterly ]basis to update the Council on the progress of AFN. A typographical error on page 3 was noted. Clarification that AFN is at 75% of the year, and the expenses are at 76% of whall was budgeted. AFN is exceeding the residential targets, but is still below the targets for high speed data. Because costs have been down and targets have been exceeding in residential, AFN is breaking even overall. Staff met with the Ashland Chamber of Commerce and performed research as to how to market the high speed data connection. 4. Reconsideration of Armory Decision Conditional Use Permit; Oregon Military Department. Community Development Director John McLaughlin explained the Council had previously approved the request for a conditional use permit for activities at the National Guard Armory that were not part of the original approval. The conditional permit was approved with specific conditions, and the Oregon Military Department them appealed the Council's decision to LUBA. Since then, Staff worked with the Oregon Military Department and the residents of the neighborhood to reach an agreement that both parties could agree upon. Staff recommended that the Council adopt the Findings as submitted and agreed upon by both parties. Susan Rust/42 Wightman/Sidney Abrahams/89 Mallard Street/Submitted a brief joint statement. They believe the revised Findings addressed the needs of the military as well as the concerns of the neighborhood, and asked that the Council adopt the revised Findings. They also thanked the City Staff for their highly professional level of advise and for the level of commitment they displayed. Kathy Lincohff1162 Court Street, Salem/Represented the military in this matter and noted the appreciation of the cooperation of all involved. Ms. Lincoln voiced support for the revised Findings. Eugene Milliron/1763 Camp Baker Rd, MedfordNoiced his appreciation of all involved and supported the revised Findings. It was explained that the proposed Findings were the result of an initial draft by Kathy Lincoln and ASHLAND CITY COUNCIl., MEETING MAY 4, 21)0,4 - Page 5 of 7 modifications by staff based on the meetings with the interveners. It was clarified that this would not result in a new interpretation of the City municipal code as our current code does not refer to community fimctions. This document refers to community functions. It was legal staff's opinion that this particular language would not be applied in other instances, unless council should choose to do so. Mr. McLaughlin clmSfied that this approval is specific to the use of the Armory and does not apply to the rest of the SOU zone. Conditional use permits are site specific and do not necessarily relate to any other building or site in town. The conditions for use was explained as to not regulate small events which met in the meeting :rooms located within this facility in the same way that large events in the auditorium are regulated. If an outdoor event was requested, a new conditional use permit would be required. Council discussed the need to clarify the ending time of an event and examples of possible noise disruptions to the neighborhood were noted. It was suggested that the language be changed to include "time', not to exceed 2 hours at~er the event is concluded." Concem was raised with making changes to the proposed Findings after the involved parties had come to an agreement. The Oregon Military Department may not agree with the discussed changes and appeal the Findings to LUBA. Councilor Morrison/Jackson m/s to adopt the revised Findings with the addition of the language "...not to exceed two hours ...". Councilor Laws moved to amend the motion by striking the words proposed by Council.or Morrison. Motion failed due to lack of second. Voice Vote: Laws, Amarotico, Jackson, Morrison and Hearn, YES; Hartzell, NO. Motion passed 5-1. 5. Letter supporting BPA Agreements with Puget Power and PacifiCorp. Electric & Telecommunications Director Dick Wanderscheid brought forward recommendation 'that the Mayor sign the attached letter supporting the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) proposal. The approval would result in a saving of almost $600,000 of wholesale power costs to the City of Ashland over the next two years. Mr. Wanderscheid clarified that this agreement moves $200 million dollars out of BPA's revenue requirement for the next two years. If this money is included, than Ashland's rates will increase by about 6%. Councilor Hartzeli/Laws m/s to authorize the Mayor to sign the letter supporting this proposal and forward to BPA prior to May 14, 2004. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 6. Request for water and sewer service to 295 Mistletoe. Public Works Director Paula Brown explained that this property is contiguous to Ashland's City Limits and is within the Urban Growth Boundary. Staffrecommended to allow this property to connect to Ashland's water and sewer service. Councilor Morrison/Hartzell m/s to approve the sewer and water service connections for' Mrs. Gessler at 295 Mistletoe Road, and direct staff to obtain ail necessary agreements prior to final connection. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. ORDINANCES~ RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS: 1. Reading by title only of "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Ashland Reiterating its policy of relating the expenditure of monies for Economic and Cultural Development to the Hotel/Motel (Transient Occupancy) Tax and Repealing Resolution 2000-25." Finance Director Lec Tuncberg relayed thc synopsis of thc council communication and provided two proposed resolutions. One resolution was drafted for a Study Session, the alternate resolution was prepared based on additional input. Mr. Tunebcrg noted that thc smallest group of the grantees have already prepared their applications and have begun submitting them to the Finance Department for review. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 4, 2004 - Page 6 of 7 Wendy Sipor.en/212 Gibson Street, TalentYSouthern Oregon Economic Development Coalition/ Ms. Siporen stated that tourism promotion is an important part of the Economic Development Plan, but it is only one aspect of a comprehensive Economic Development Program. She noted that her non-profit organization works to support small businesses in reaching sustainability, and emphasized that diversi~ing the economy is an important goal. She asks that the Council maintain flexibility and to work with the grantees to develop a Comprehensive Economic Development policy for the City. Russ Silbiger/562 Ray Lane/Feels the Staff and Committee did an excellent job at determining the tourism percentage, stating it meets the law and gives the City maximum flexibility now and in the future. Mr. Silbiger noted the Charnber's attempted to claim that all of their funding was for tourism, which contradicted statements they had made', in the past. Mr. Silbiger suggests that ~he Chamber be held to the same financial reporting standards as the rest of the grantees. He explained that he supports the alternative resolution and asked that the Council use it as a starting point. Council discu:~sed using the alternate resolution as a starting point. Suggestion was made that the fixed amounts for the Chamber of Commerce and Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF) be for a specific period of time of either 'two or three years. It was requested that all activities for economic development be reported separately and that projects have separate applications. A report and description on intent of use was requested for the Chamber of Commerce. A suggestion was made that the level of scrutiny for each report be based on the amount of the grant. Concem was raised regarding the legal interpretation of the ordinance and that the committee had focused on what the Charnber had done to attract tourists when there has been no interpretation made for what constitutes welcoming tom-ists. Council questioned what percentage of the Chamber's budget was used for marketing tourism. A suggestion was made to establish a policy that created a reserve with the fund. Mr. Tuneberg clarified for Council that the grants are based upon what is budgeted, and it is incumbent upon staffto try to project what the revenues will be. Councilor Hartzell/Jackson m/s to extend meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: aH AYES. Motion passed. Mr. Tuneberg commented that he is most comfortable with going by the budget and not trying to reconcile. Councilor Laws/Hartzell m/s to approve alternative Resolution #2004-11 with suggestions brought forward by Councilor Jackson. DISCUSSION: Concern was raised in regards to cutting the Chamber's funding by $12,000 and the current impacts to the tourism market. It was clarified that a fixed amount would provide information on an annual basis to the grantees and gradual growth information on availability of funds when determining where additional tourism dollars are being spent. Councilor Morrison/Laws m/s to amend the motion to change the addition amount for the Chamber from $150,000 to $160,000. Roll Call Vote: Amarotico, Jackson, Morrison and Laws, YES. Hearn and Hartzell, NO. Motion Passed 4-2. . First reading by title only of "An Ordinance Amending the Definition of Gross Revenues to Exclude Revenue from Cable Modems under the Telecommunications Chapter of the Ashland Municipal Code." Councilor Laws/Jackson m/s to approve first reading and move to second reading of ordinance. Roll Call Vote: Hartzell, Jackson, Morrison, Hearn, Laws and Amarotico, YES. Motion passed. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIl.. MEETING MAY 4, 21)0,4 - Page 7 of 7 3. First reading by title only of "An Ordinance Creating a Prohibition Against Public Nudity." Police Chief Mike Bianca explained that the motivation for this ordinance was due to over 16 incidents this past year. He explained that the department had experienced difficulties with prior incidents and had numerous citizen complaints. The proposed ordinance would set clear boundaries on behavior. Assistant City Attorney Mike Franell explained that language in the proposed ordinance had already been upheld by the Oregon Supreme Court. Councilor Hartzell/Morrison m/s to approve first reading and move to second reading of ordinance. Roll Call Vote: Morrison, Hearn, Laws, Jackson, and Hartzell, YES; Amarotico, NO. Motion passed 5-1. 4. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Establishing the City of Ashland as a Partner in the Cities for Climate Protection Campaign." Electric & Telecommunications Director Dick Wanderscheid informed the Council that in order to become a partner in this program, they would need to approve the proposed resolution. He explained that the Southern Oregon University students would be not be gathering physical data, but would be using paper data. Councilor Morrison/Laws m/s to approve Resolution #2004-09. Roll Call Vote: Hartzell, Hearn, Jackson, Laws, Amarotico and Morrison, YES. Motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS Council consensus to cancel the discussion on Electric Rates at the scheduled Study Session to the Budget Committee meeting. The Bike Swap was announced for this Saturday, May 8th at the Civic Center, as was the Post Office Food Drive on the same day. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 10:28 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder Alan DeBoer, Mayor PROCLAMATION · Emergency medical services is a vital public service. · The members of emergency medical services teams are ready to provide lifesaving care to those in need 24 hours a day, seven days a week. · Access to quality emergency care dramatically improves the survival and recovery rate of those who experience sudden illness or injury. · The emergency medical services system consist of emergency physicians, emergency nurses, emergency medical technicians, paramedics, firefighters, educators, administrators, and others. The members of emergency medical services teams, whether career or volunteer, engage in thousands of hours of specialized training and continuing education to enhance their lifesaving skills. It is appropriate to recognize the value and the accomplishments of emergency medical services providers by designating Emergency Medical Services Week. The members of Ashland Fire & Rescue are joined by other concerned citizens of Ashland, as well as businesses, schools, service clubs, and organizations in their emergency medical services efforts. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council and Mayor, on behalf of the citizens of Ashland, hereby proclaim the week of May 16 - 22, 2004 as: NATIONAL EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK and call upon the people of Ashland to celebrate the accomplishments of EM.S providers., and to remember, as the 2004 National Emergency Medical Services Week theme suggests: "EMS: THERE WHEN YOU NEED US"' Dated this 18th day of May, 2004. Alan DeBoer, Mayor Barbara Christensen, City Recorder CITY OF SHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES APRIL 13, 2004 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Russ Chapman at 1:35 p.m. Commissioners Present: Absent Member: Council Liaison: High School Liaison: SOU Liaison: Staff Present: Russ Chapman, Chair Ray Kistler John Fields Alex Amarotico (Council Liaison does not attend Hearings Board meetings to avoid conflict of interest) None None Mark Knox, Associate Planner Brandon Goldman, Assistant Planner Sue Yates, Executive Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS The minutes of the March 9, 2004 meeting were approved. Findings for PA2004-029, 650 Oak Street, (Medinger) were approved. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 2004-02 REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-STORY, MIXED-USF (COMMERCIAL & RESIDENTIAL) COMMERCIAL BUILDING, LOCATED AT 81 CENTRAL AVENUE BE~rWEEN HELMAN AND WATER STREETS. APPLICANT: WES AND LUClNDA VAIL This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2004-039 REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 731 WALKER AVENUIE INTO TWO PARCELS WITH ONE BEING A FLAG LOT. THE APPLICATION INCLUDES AN EXCEPTION TO CITY STREET STANDARDS TO PERMIT A REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED SIDEWALK WIDTH FROM SIX FEET TO FIVE FEET. APPLICANT; JONATHAN LANDES This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2004-040 REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE THE EXISTING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 699 WALNUT INTO TWO PARCELS WITH THE REAR PARCEL TAKING ACCESS FROM A FLAG DRIVEWAY ALONG THE! SOUTH BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY. THE APPLICATION INCLUDES A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO REMOVE A POTENTIAL "HAZARD TREE". APPLICANT: BARRY PEVEN This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2004.042 REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATELY 3000 SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL OFFICE ON A LOT LOCATED AT 534 WASHINGTON STREET, WITHIN THE WASHINGTON STREET PLAZA. APPLICANT: HOWARD AND SUE MORNINGSTAR This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2004-043 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A TEMPORARY PRIVATE PARKING LOT ON A VACANT PARCEL LOCATED AT 530 CATALINA DRIVE, SOUTH OF MAPLE STREET. THE REQUEST WOULD ALLOW THE. TEMPORARY PARKING LOT TO BE USED FOR TWO YEARS iN ORDER TO OFFSET THE DISPLACEMENT OF OFF-STREET PARKING ASSOCIATED WITH THE REMODELING OF THE MEDICAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 246 CATALINA STREET (I.E. RETINA AND VITREOUS CENTER). APPLICANT:: DR. WILLIAM RODDEN This action 'was called up for a public hearing. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting adjourned at 1:50 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES APRIL 13, 2004 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL '13, 2004 CALL TO ORDER Chair Russ Chapman called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Commissioners Present: Russ Chapman, Chair Mike Morris Dave Dotterrer " Kerry KenCaim Colin Swales John Fields Ray Kistler Cameron Hanson Absent Members: Marilyn Briggs Council Liaison: Alex Amarotico - not present High School Liaison: None SOU Liaison: None Staff Present: John McLaughlin, Director, and Community Development Bill Molnar, Senior Planner Sue Yates, Executive Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS There will be a study session April 27t~ at 7:00 p.m. McLaughlin said the Commission would likely discuss, the proposed ordinance amendments brought forth a couple of months ago. There might also be some new amendment suggestions coming from the Council. The Planning Commission drop-in "chat" will be held from 3:30 to 4:30 p.m. on April 27, 2004 at the Corm~unity Development and Engineering Services building. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS It was moved and seconded to approve the March 9, 2004 Regular Meeting Minutes. It was moved and seconded to approve the findings for PA2004-002, 88 North Main, Lloyd Haines. PUBLIC FORUM - No one came forth to speak. PLANNING ACTION 2004-025 REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW AND TREE REMOVAL APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A THREE-STORY, 37,285 SQUARE FOOT HOUSING FACILITY TO SERVE UPPER LEVEL SINGLE STUDENTS, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INDIANA AND MADRONE STREET INTERSECTION. THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES AN AMENDMENT TO THE APPROVED SOU CAMPUS MASTER PLAN TO PERMIT THE SITE TO BE DEVELOPED IN HIGHER DENISTY STUDENT HOUSING. APPLICANT: OREGON STATE BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Site Visits were made by all. Kistler stepped down (left the room) as he is the project architect. (He did not return for the second public hearing.) STAFF REPORT Molnar stated the application involves Site Review, a Tree Removal Permit, a Conditional Use Permit and .amendment to the SOU Campus Master Plan. The site is approximately three acres bounded by Madrone, Indiana and Oregon Streets and slopes significantly. There are about twelve residences currently located on the property. Eight or nine will be removed. It is hopeful the structures will be relocated within the city or valley. '" The project is a three-story student housing facility geared toward upper level students. On each of the three levels will are 32 rooms for a total of 96 single occupancy rooms. The rooms are designed in quads, each quad sharing a comrnon kitchen and small common area. There is an appearance of two wings to the building. The footprint is just over 12,000 square feet. The main Site Design aspect is a grand entrance coming up from the intersection of Indiana and Ma&one. The large plaza and landscaped courtyard area in from of the building has been designed around a large California Black Oak, the key design feature in the landscape plan. The parking area provided behind the building consists of 36 spaces. Driveway aisles to access the parking area are both from Madrone and Indiana. Indiana is a collector street with a signalized intersection at Siskiyou. There is currently an alley running south to north through the project area. It is a dirt, unimproved alley, lining up with Sunrise Street at the top and goes all the way down to Madrone. The University has filed a request with the City Council to ultimately vacate the alley. The Planning Commission is charged with forwarding a recommendation to the Council, a separate part of the Commission's decision. The housing projects on the University's campus are subject to the City's Multi-Family Design Standards. They tend to deal with orientation of building towards the street. Parking is required to be behind the building. There is direct access to the building from the sidewalk. 'Architectural guidelines were adopted as part of the 2000-2010 Master Plan. One major element is that new buildings on the campus should relate to public spaces. In this project, there are multiple plaza areas accessed through a procession of stairways leading up to the entrance, focused arOund the large California Black Oak. A major aspect of the project is Tree Removal. Development will take place on the lower two-thirds of the site. The majority of the trees (approx. 38) are within the developed portion of the property. About 15 trees are defined as "significant" (greater than 18 inches diameter at breast height -dbh). The majority of the trees within the area subject to development will be removed with the exception of the large California Black Oak. The healthier trees at the far southerly area of the site, abutting the existing residential neighborhood will be retained as well as the three residential units in that area to maintain a buffer. Because of the grade changes, the building has been dug into the natural slope, setting the building down and in order to not obstruct the views of the residences south of the project. In order to accommodate the parking lot, there are a series of five foot cuts with retaining walls. The parking lot will be placed at about the second floor level of the facility. Another aspect of the project is an amendment to the Master Plan.. Currently a .map in the 2002 Master Plan identifies anticipated projects throughout the planning period. The project before the Commission tonight is identified on the Master Plan under the improvements plate as "Residence Halls, Complex Addition, Student Housing". Other references in the Master Plan refer to it as a major addition to the Cascade Hall's complex on the property west of the existing Cascade Hall's complex (across the street on I:adiana). On the one hand there is a map in the plan referencing what seems to be a larger housing complex. However, earlier in the plan under "Existing Architectural Guidelines - Building Density" discusses areas of the campus and their anticipated development. This area is referred to as low-density, similar to R-1 and states the area south of the campus between Madrone and Oregon Street, west of Indiana will possibly be developed as attached or common wall units to preserve open space. In some respects the two parts of the plan seem to contradict themselves, therefore, Staff felt to be cleaner to propose an amendment to the plan. Overall, Staff is supportive to the change in the Master Plan. The size of the building is not out of character with the types of buildings seen on campus. Generally, Staff supports higher density concentration of housing close to the Boulevard, proximity to transit and the other services available at the Boulevard. It is a balance of accommodating the University's need to provide a different type of housing. The Tree Commission reviewed the plan at their meeting last week. Their comments are in the packet. They wanted to the applicants to explore 'the possibility of modifying the parking area to retain tree/136 (incense cedar). They wondered if rather than a stepped retainhag wall system, a larger retaining wall system could be built to alleviate multiple cuts. With regard to vacation of the alley, the Transportation Element has a policy through the City's street vacation policy, that we maintain public easements for public pedestrian or bicycle access. The applicant has proposed as an alternative a five foot wide path system along the west boundary with a six foot wide landscape buffer. Generally, the City's requirement would be a six foot wide path with a buffer. Staff's main concern is that throughout the process, the applicant did not seem to have an interest in trying to maintain the alley where it exists currently. There is no engineering on the design. Staff's concern is that mid-block connections need to be visible and easily accessible. They want to make sure the proposed alternative is equal to what is there now in terms of location, visibility and directness from the upper neighborhood down to Madrone Street. A Condition has been included stating the final grades should be very similar to the grade of the alley. Staff wonders if the best efforts have been made to retain as many trees as is reasonably feasible. The Tree Commission understood the difficulty of the site, given trying to consolidate a building-of this size to the lower half of the property, reducing bulk and retaining views. There is significant grading. The applicant felt the best way was to retain the most notable tree and submit an elaborate landscaping plan to allow new trees to get the best start to grow to maturity. ASHLAND PLANNINC COMUISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 13, 2004 The parking is based an ordinance standard - two spaces for three dormitory rooms. It is assumed most donrns are double occupancy. The applicant is asking that for the single occupancy standard to apply. Staff did some comparisons and parking standards were similar. The one variable is some universities are in urban areas. If we are short parking spatces, it is the surrounding neighborhood that will have to deal with that issue. Dotterrer asked about the Conditional Use Permit. Molnar explained that the CUP is required because the project is within 50 feet of privately owned property. The purpose is to make sure there is a greater review of potential impacts to the neighboring properties. SOU made an effort to review this project with surrounding properties through neighborhood ou.treach and neighborhood meetings Swales said R- 1 zones have quite a bit of flexibility as far as the number of rooms that can be provided in a ',single family residential home. Were any other pans considered with regard to a kind of grain that is existing with single family homes or attached townhouses? Molnar said they did not have any discussions nor saw any plans reflecting anything other than what is before the Commission. The applicant has been anticipating a higher density complex across from Cascade Hall. PUBLIC HEARING BRUCE MOATS, SOU Facilities Planner and Construction Manager said the team consists of JEANNE STALLMAN, Project Manager, and DIANE BRIMMER, Vice President of Student Affairs. Other members on the design team are: PETER SCHMITZ and I~ATT SMALL, Ogden Kistler Architecture, GREG COVEY, Landscape Architect, and JEFF HIGDAY, Civil Engineer, Hardey Engineering. Moats said (1) this is the first project to provide housing for single students in over 30 years. (2) The 2000-2010 was in conflict in terms of the density issue. Though the plan did suggest this particular portion of the campus could be developed similar to R-1 density, they strongly believe the greater density proposed makes much better sense. (3) They are trying to provide a more environmentally friendly solution for .h. eating and cooling the building while providing a more efficient, cost effective support to the facility over its lifetime. (4) With regard to Condition 13, not all structures lend themselves to relocation. For example, some have stepped daylight basements and it would not be economically feasible to move them. They have issued a request for bids asking to either demolish or relocate the houses. He would suggest wording in Condition 13, instead of"insure" to say, "endeavor to sell for relocation the maximum feasible number of existing houses". JEANNE STALLMAN said the dorm experience is something we outgrow after the first year. The proposed housing is a good second step and transition. Currently, second year students are moving off-campus to Medford or Ashland. SOU loses many of their college students to other communities. This proposal is to bring some of the students back, reduce commuting, traffic and parking demand. This project is not intended to be a set of apartments or townhouses. The 96 residents enter through one of two main entrances. They pass through the common areas to reach their own individual apartment and bedroom. The theory is to limit isolation. The design fosters community. The building will have conference and study space. The pedestrian path is an issue for SOU of public right-of-way. Because this project is a student residence, they are eager to control the right to control the access near the building. An easement allows them to put the path in place and still handle any individual problems as they might arise to insure the safety of the residences. The walkway is aligned with Palmer. The thought is to improve the visibility and line up with something across the street. PfiTER SCHMITZ, Architect with Ogden Kistler, 2950 E. Barnett, Medford, OR 97504, said they tried about 25 different footprints on the site. The property is severely sloping. They wanted to save as many trees as possible, minimize the cuts and fills, increase the open space and terrace the slopes to soften the impact of the cuts and fills. The driveway route was selected to have a drive through access to the site, minimizing the turning movements necessary, and exiting the site on two different streets to distribute the traffic on both streets. They followed the contours of the land to minimize the steep slopes the driveways would have to follow. The driveway has been located in the rear of the building to follow the City's Design Standards. The building shape is a shallow crescent, mirroring the road, driveway and parking area. They 'wanted a full three floors sitting on the ground, not cutting into the hill. The rooms on the backside would have windows rather than facing earth and retaining walls. They didn't want to pile up earth against habitable walls. Pulling the earth down to the main floor level allowed them have windows across the entire back side of the buildings with a view of the landscaped, terraced retaining areas. They were notified today the Staffwould like to double the parking shown. They believe the 36 spaces meet the current code. They have some alternatives for the pedestrian way along the west side. If they brought the path toward the retaining walls, it might cause an unsafe condition. ASHLAND PLANNINC COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 13, 2004 Chapman said with regard to the parking he is willing to trust that not all students will have cars. His main concern is the public right-of-way and what is the best place for realistic pedestrian movement. Some residents have said a straight path down the hill with a buffer to their properties might cause a hazard. Swales said he appreciates the University providing some housing for upper level students. He is concerned with the R-1 zoning. McLaughlin said the property is zoned SO with R-1 as the surrounding zoning. Swales said under what is allowed in a single family zone, one could get 12 units per acre. In looking at the CUP criteria, it is compatible with the other dormitories. It is not architecturally compatible with the surrounding housing. It seems with a steep slope, there are a lot of oppommities for underground parking. What are some other designs they explored? Schmitz said they looked at the townhouse concept for part of the project and mixed with a larger project. They found they were using up so much more land with townhouses because of individual, sidewalks, setbacks and articulating the townhouses. The amount of student capacity was pretty low compared to the wish~es of the Housing Department.- MA?T SUALI., Ogden Kistler Architecture, 2950 E. Barnett Road, Medford, OR 97504, said the studenis can use the kitchen facilities, but they can use the cafeteria at Cascade too. Small said the University believes this building tends to create the community they are looking for rather than having a bunch of small separated units. Dotterrer said he noticed in the application (page 12) the building is 45 feet in height. Schmidt said the midpoint of the roof is 39 feet, 4 inches. JULIE BOERSMA, 1401 Oregon Street, said she is a Residential Assistant in the Cascade complex and will graduate in June. The freshman experience is geared toward a community living experience with shared bathrooms and living, coming into contact with everyone everyday. Upper level students generally prefer more privacy and still have that communal living. The town homes would m>t lend themselves to that. It takes only two minutes to walk to class. Driving takes time and costs money. Anyone entering into an apartment situation has to deal with leases, bills, trusting your roommates. A lease can be for a year and it is difficult to get out of it, a roommate can leave. It is stressful. The study environment would be better at the proposed facility. It would afford more privacy. There is really nothing else that caters to upper division students. Chapman asked Boersma what she would like to see with a walkway. Boersma said she would probably like anything that would be the easiest way to get from point A to point B. Staff Response Molnar said he never meant for the applicants to double the parking. Staff stressed to the applicants that parking is a major issue and shouldn't be taken lightly. The applicants should explore oppommities for additional parking. Currently, the proposed parking is consistent with the ordinance and consistent with some of the other universities they looked at. There is certain vagueness in the Master Plan. With regard to the CUP, the target use of the zone is educational uses affiliated with the University. When Staff evaluates the use, they look at this building in terms of architectural compatibility, bulk and scale. It did not seem inconsistent with the CUP criteria when compan[ng it to other educational facilities being built around campus. They weren't looking at the scale of the- residential neighborhoods across from Oregon Street. Dotterrer asked the pta'pose of Condition 3. Molnar said on lower Indiana, as the road curves, there is a large curved wall. To the right side of the wall is an entrance to the Visual Arts building. The purpose, when the Visual Arts building was approved was for supplies to be, brought in at that entrance. At the time of approval, a Variance to the Site Design Standards was not approved for parking in front of the building right off the street. It was supposed to just be used intermittently. Staff has noticed that a lot of students are parking in that area. The grass pavers are really beaten up. The connection to this project is that Indiana is a collector that has over 2200 trips per day. The proposal is going to generate more trips on that street. Now there is a situation where students are using this entrance area during off-hours to back out onto Indiana. It is not being used for the sole purpose of what was portrayed to the Planning Commission back when it was approved. They would like to put the driveway apron back to the approved function. It might need some bollards to preclude it from being a de facto parking area and backing out onto a collector with large amounts of traffic crossing at the signalized intersection. Molnar said he had a 'voice mail message from a neighbor, Christopher DiLorenzo, supporting the project and commending the University on their outreach to the neighbors on this project. ASHLAND PLANNINC COMUISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 13, 2004 'Rebuttal GREG COVEY, Landscape Architect, said the biggest challenge was dealing with ten to 20 percent grades throughout the site. They were trying to build overlays in the neighborhood of two to five percent. They tried to come up with a building form that reflected and responded to the contours. At the same time, they wanted to maintain accessibility to key poirtts in the building. They tried to save as many trees as possible. They have somewhere between a ten and 15 percent cut they l~ave to perform at the south edge of the parking lot. The Tree Removal and Protection Plan was put together by Tom Myers, Upper Limb It, project arborist. There are 68 trees on site, six inches dbh. Thirty-seven are within the project area. Thirty-two will be removed. Of the 32, seven, are poplars. Several are hazard trees. Many of the remaining trees are in extremely poor health. They felt the compron~ise they were making in removing trees is made up for in the landscape plan. They are proposing about 90 trees on the site. Twenty-two trees are street trees and 68 are within the interior of the site. They tried to have the building fit into the sun,ounding landscape and minimize the obstruction of views. Covey said they wrestled with the public easement. There is not a consistent slope. diM HIGDAY, Civil Engineer, Hardey Engineering, said the existing alleyway is roughly at 12.25 percent grade. It is a dirt, granite road, in poor condition for walking. He also has concerns about slope on the lower half of the proposed walkway to the west. A new sidewalk will be installed along the Indiana frontage. If he were trying to get through there, he would be walking along Indiana. To put a walkway on the west, the lower half has some pretty serious grades requiring some retaining walls and a lot of thought. The Commission could make a path with steps that would be more usable and limit it to pedestrian use. It would be difficult to do it without steps because of the grade changes. KenCaim wondered if they would be open to taking off on contour diagonally across the comer of the site to get a pretty flat pathway and connect about halfway up with the proposed walkway. Higday has concerns about the bottom half. Following the contour would make it about 15 percent grade. Covey said it is possible to engineer it. KenCaim that one of the nicer experiences of living in Ashland is to enjoy walking the dirt, potholed alleyways. KenCaim wondered if they could go with two retaining wall systems and save a couple more trees. The Tree Commission is recommending they try to save one of the trees, perhaps a deodar. Can the walls be wiggled away and save #36? She would like them to at least consider this option. What about g41, 42 and 43? Covey said the one most likely to save is the maple. KenCaim said it loOked like tl~ree Or four parking spaces could be added. Fields said the natural shortcut for those trying to get someplace (like Blockbuster) is through the diagonal. What if they did the diagonal to give a direct route, but allow people to step to the parking lot, allowing pedestrians to cut over to Indiana? Higday said they considered that, however, they would have to introduce steps because of the grade change. Fields said a bicyclist would follow the street. He is thinking more about pedestrians. Morris didn't think there were any paths on the north side of Madrone. Covey confirmed and said there was a slope off the edge. Unless you are dropping offthe edge of Madrone into the campus, he doesn't see why anyone would want to go in that direction. Higday agreed, especially if we have to introduce the stairway system to make it safe. He believes 90 percent of pedestrians would use the sidewalk on Indiana. Chapman agreed with Morris. If the alley was taking a pedestrian to something that connected on campus, he could see it. He is leaning toward vacating the alley and leaving it up to Council to decide whether something should be ther KenCaim said there are other people walking around besides students. It is on the edge of a neighborhood and we want to respond to the neighborhood and students. She is sensitive to the residences on Madrone where this is an opportunity to pull the path away from the back of their property. It seems like we would want to put a path through the trees and pull it off the backs of the homes. .. Fields said when we are abandoning a connection we have to 'be careful not to just give it away. McLaughlin said they made the applicants aware when they were considering the vacation of the alleyway, that the Transportation Element, Policy 4, Bike and Pedestrian Goals "require pedestrian and bicycle easement to provide neighborhood connectors and reduce vehicle trips. Modify street vacation process so pedestrian and bicyclist through access is maintained." The vacation process has been modified to put the Planning Commission in the loop to make a recommendation, ASHLAND PLANNINC COMMISSION 5 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 13, 2004 especially when it is part of a planning action. That's why we were hoping an option would be brought forward that would incorporate the connectivity. McLaughlin said the Commissioners could give some general guidance on this topic and give the applicant a chance to address the issue. KenCaim asked if they could ask the applicant to bring alternatives to the Council. McLaughlin affu--med and added the Council can make the final call. Chapman asked Moats his preference for the pathway. Moats said they want the ability to discourage oPen public access to the back of the residents building. With the slopes they are concerned about the safety of public pedestrians. He would favor a path from the driveway to Madrone. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Ev. eryone concurred with the change suggested.by Moats to change Condition 13 - "to endeavor to sell or relocate the eight homes". KenCaim suggested a Condition 15 regarding the path cutting through the project and at the same time recommending vacation of the alley predicated on creating a preferred alternative. Hanson agreed on vacation of the alley, but he does not see a point in putting a path that goes to Madrone. KenCaim is not interested in vacating the alley unless there is an alternative created. Swales agreed. Dotterrer is concerned about the safety and cost to the applicant. Other than the for esoteric reason, it has nothing to do with transportation planning. KenCaim said it is a livability issue, not esoteric. Fields said if we don't get it now, we might never get it. We definitely want the easement. McLaughlin said they could require an easement with no improvements. Morris noted we have never put pedestrian pathways down driveways. Fields liked .the path/stairs with railroad ties at the top of Grmtdview and Wimer. The Commissioners defined the easement. It would foliow [he grade. Delete the last sentence of Condition 2. They are looking for a six foot wide dirt path that enters close to the middle of the site from Oregon Street down to Madrone. Enter the property anywhere west of the alley. Pick up the six-foot landscape buffer wherever it is adjacent to a residential area. Chapman moved to recommend to the Council vacation of the alley as proposed with the adoption of the new easement and improvements as per the Condition - an identifiable, walkable path. KenCaim seconded the motion. The applicant asked fbr a point of clarification. Schmitz asked for their landscape architect to have an opportunity to provide a design. They might be able to'mitigate the requirements of going through the steep portion. Fields believes there is some flexibility on how they allow people to go through. Covey said he designed the access path from Wimer to Grandview. If that is acceptable, they could look at doing a similar system and coming up with some kind of alternative to drop into the parking lot. They would be prepared to present that to the Council. The vote on the reconamendation to the Council was unanimous.' Dotterrer asked what mitigation plan is needed for the removal of trees (Condition 8). Molnar said it is from the Tree Preservation Protection Chapter. Dotterrer does not understand why, when something is already in the ordinance, it needs to be a Condition. Molnar said it is a checks and balance for Staff. Dotterrer is concerned that Condition 3 pertains to an area not on the site and he doesn't see how it connects to the project. McLaughlin said the nexus is transportation and traffic. Fields said it gives us leverage. SOU is modifying their plan. Staff felt this needed addressing. It has been something that has been neglected and this is a way to fix it. Dotterrer does not believe it is a good policy. Molnar said SOU was asking for an increase in density within a reasonable proximity to where there is a problem. The problem can be handled through enforcement. Fields moved to adop't PA2004-025 with attached 14 Conditions, with changes to Conditions 2 and 14. Hanson seconded the motion and it carded ~manimously. ASHLAND PLANNINC COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 13, 2004 PLANNING ACTION 2004-030 REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A FOUR-LOT (ONE COUNTY LOT) DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS FOR THE PROPERTY AT 795 ORCHARD STREET. THE APPLICATION INCLUDES A VARIANCE TO PERMIT MORE THAN THREE LOTS TO HAVE ACCESS FROM THE EXISTING PRIVATE DRIVEWAY. ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICATION INCLUDES A PHYSICAL CONTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT TO ALLOW SOME DISTURBANCE OF FLOODPLAIN CORRIDOR LAND ASSOCIATED WITH WRIGHT'S CREEK. APPLICAN: ARCHERD AND DRESNER, LLC Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts All except Swales made site visits. Fields is doing a different project for the applicants. They have not discussed this project and he believes he can review it without bias. KenCaim heard some issues bt. ought up by the Tree Commission and noticed the couple that w.as present at that meeting is also at this meeting. STAFF REPORT Molnar reported this is an about a seven acre piece located at the intersection of Orchard Street and Wright's Creek Drive. The dark line on the site plan is the boundary of the parcel. It does not abut a public right-of-way. It is a landlocked parcel with access through a private easement. Half the parcel is outside the city limits. The existing residence on the parcel is in Jackson County. The portion that pertains to this proposal (about 3.4 acres) is in the city limits and split zone. The bulk is Rural Residential, but a small portion that goes along the Wright's Creek tributary (south to north) is in Woodland Residential. The applicants would like to take the 3.4 acres within the city limits and divide it into three lots. That would leave the County portion still in the County, reducing the overall lot size. Access to the property is proposed by upgrading the existing private roadway to more of a city standard. The beginning of the road would be widened to 22 feet but would not have a sidewalk. Once into the property, it would have full street improvements. The streei improvements would stop short of the south boundary and the applicant is proposing a 47-foot wide overlay where the road travels. They are granting an irrevocable consent to dedicate it as public property in the event someday this street continues to service additional property that is in the city limits. Staff feels it is probably cleaner to grant the right-of-way at this point and build a facility within the street right-of- way. Staff does not have a problem with having the street improvements (22 feet) to where it accesses the final lot, Lot 3. The unimproved right-of-way would go up to the southerly boundary of the property. Wright's Creek runs through a portion of the property. There are open spaces associated with the three new lots. They are proposing the area where the Wright's Creek channel goes through, the steep banks and the area within 20 feet of the banks to be in a private open space and left in its natural state. It would not be a public open space. omce this portion is There is a Variance requested. The City allows for a maximum three lots to be served off a private drive. "' not in control of the applicant and would still be within private ownership, it still requires a Variance because we are adding to this situation that currently isn't a street standard and serves more than three parcels. A Physical Constraints Permit is requested. Areas associated with Wright's Creek tributaries within 20 feet of the bank and the floodplain area are considered floodplain corridor lands. There is a possibility the culvert that goes under the private road is undersized and as that roadway is widened to the 22 feet, there will be some minor disturbance in that area. Concerning the Variance criteria, overall, Staff would agree with the applicant that a parcel of this size zoned for additional divisions when it was made part of the City's Urban Growth Boundary and landlocked is to some degree unusual. A case could be made that this is an unusual circumstance. It has not been purposefully self-imposed. What are rite benefits of approving the action and improving the driveway to allow three home sites access? Staff did not see any adverse impact on adjacent properties. In the adopted Parks and Open Space plan, this section of Wright's Creek tributary has been identified as a conservation area. If the Commission decides to approve the application, we would go with what is stipulated in the application. By putting this area in a conservation easement, it would not allow public access. It would insure the natural creek environment would be retained and not be incorporated as part of the more domestic landscaping on the project. An issue that came up at the Tree Commission was the Tree Preservation Plan. Sixty-five trees have been identified. Seventeen are scheduled for removal. Thirteen are in building envelopes and three or four in closer proximity to the drive. There are a couple of oak trees not identified on the plan. It was difficult to determine at the Tree Commission, if in fact, the oak trees would have to be removed. A recommendation of the Tree Commission was to locate the trees and come back at Final Plan. Staff's concern is that once Outline Plan has been approved and the road location is determined, it is hard to come ASHLAND PLANNINC COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 13, 2004 back at Final Plan and change it. Staff would recommend that the trees need to be identified, but possibly a final approval would have to be ce,ntinued next month in order to know where the trees are and if they should or should not be approved. The tree preservation plan shows the improvements suggested in the Condition. The project is supportable. Staff's recommendation, without knowing if the trees have been identified, would be for a continuance until we know exactly where the trees are located. There was an e-mail from Thomas Heumann concerning the sequoia's planted along the eastern boundary of the triangular area. Molnar said rite trees are not identified on the plan at this point and the minor expansion of the roadway should not affect those trees. Swales thought if a property didn't have frontage on a public street, they had to have a physical flag drive. Molnar said there . are provisions in the state statute that allow for granting access.to landlocked parcels. Some of the building code and special plumbing code requ:irements assume you are making a connection (sewer/water) from the pa?eel to the public system. It wreaks havoc with tlhe codes where you have to cross private property to get to the public system. Different easements have to be worked out. Swales ask if the proposal is continued that Staff looks into whether or not a physical connection is needed from the lot to the public street. Molnar said Public Works raised an issue that if and when this street would actually go through, that they would at Final Plan be responsible for maintaining the dedicated section of public street. PUBLIC HEARING EVAN ARCHERD, 120 North Second Street, addressed the trees. He has a revised map showing the locations of five trees not shown on the original plan. They are located in an area where they are planning to provide the access road. The proposed right-of-way is wide enough that they can work around the'trees and at most, remove one tree (oak - 10 dbh). JOHN GALBRAITH, Galbraith & Associates, Inc., 145 S Holly, Medford, OR 97501, will look at saving the oak. Archerd said he believes they meet the Variance criteria. The project's benefits include the advantage of putting the Wright's Creek drainage area :in a conversation easement. They will, if necessary, provide right-of-way all the way through the site. It will provide better wildfire protection. The implementation of the Wildfire Protection Plan they have provided will better protect their own and adjacent properties. It is a better use of urban land. Having three plus acres in the city undivided does not serve the Comp Plan well. This proposal allows at least some division of a very large parcel. They are removing 16 trees. They have been very careful to make sure they are the smallest trees on the property (between six and nine inches dbh).. They are making sure not to disturb the prime trees on the site. Archerd mentioned that the Performance Standards reference the regulation of new development in Ashland. It states is should be done in such a way to minimize the impact to the environment. With the Variance they have tried to minimize the amount of street and still provide the minimum necessary to provide access to the site. Molnar said out of respect, for the process, Staff would suggest continuing this action. The Tree Commission was not provided with location of the trees. Molnar has not seen it until tonight. If all other aspects of the proposal seem fairly clear, and it is continued and the Tree Commission endorses the layout with the tree identification, it is possible when we come back next month, we can have findings prepared for adoption. Fields is confused about the parcel and the easement and the legality. Are they dedicating the part that is part of the easement? Molnar said the "gap" stays there. After leaving the dedicated portion, you'd fall out onto the existing 30-foot wide easement. There is a limitation of three homes off a private drive. This application would add to that, thus creating the need for a Variance. Fields sees the "gap" in the street system that.will never be condemned and will always be a private road. He is not.sure how this is different than any other kind of private drive. Molnar said one difference is that a private drive is required to be improved to 15 feet itt width. Even though the applicant can't dedicate the last portion as public right-of-way, he is does have a certain amount of control, because he is one of the benefitedproperty owners to the easement. He is trying to widen it more to a city street standazd in width. Fields said it seems like we are going out on a limb to take this unknown piece and build it to city standards and the applicant has no control and we have no control. It seems like the City enters into a murky area. Molnar said if the proposal is continued, perhaps we could get additional review of the easement language. ASHLAND PLANNINC COMMISSION 8 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 13, 2004 McLaughlin said the applicant is looking to do development of the parcel within the City. There is no way to do it without a Variance. The options of a Variance are to allow for a relatively large number of homes off a private drive 'that is not approved to city standards. The idea is you want to have the improvements that meet a city standard. The applicants are saying they can meet all the requirements as if it is a city street except for the separate piece of property in the middle cannot be dedicated to the City but they will make it meet all the other standards. YoU couldn't make the connection any farther south. It would take additional efforts to dedicate that portion in the future, but no one is bound by that. Swales asked if the easement is going to be improved to city standards. Archerd said the easement would be improved to 20 feet wide pavement and curb. The easement is 30 feet wide. They can only get about 22 feet improved. Once it is on their · property, it will be improved to full city street standards. He noted that when the lots are improved, they do in fact have frontage on a city street because the portion they are ereating is a city street. The access beyond that is a Variance. Swales believes it becomes a legal question. McLaughlin said it the Commission's determination if these are unique and unusual circumstances. The property is already developed with a home. They have a substantial property right. It is not a clear cut issue. Just because this is a situation they haven't seen before does not make it unique in terms of a Variance or that it meets the hardship requirements for a Variance. That is for the Commission's deliberation. BOB DINKEL, 565 Orchard Street, stated he found the plan confusing. Are they going to hook up to Jackson County facilities too? What stipulations did the County put on the property when it was sold to a prior owner? He does not :see any mention of additional traffic on Orchard, Grandview or Sunnyview. He doesn't see any mention of the size homes that: can be built. He does not see any road improvements that lead into town. There is more than a 20 degree slope. When people come down the road fast and come into a very narrow road - what is going to happen to traffic control? He is concerned with water pressure. He has noticed diminished water pressure on Orchard. Will three houses create more pressure on the City's system? When you have stream valleys that are very young, the upper level flow in a 1 O0 year storm will be so strong it will create floods in the floodplain downstream. They have to be very careful with what they are going to do and how they mitigate anything sloping. He does not see a geological or environmental report. They may have to do blasting betbre he builds. He finds the proposal incomplete. He has an astronomical research observatory that points into the dark area. He hopes we do not get street lights. There are fox in the gulley that have been there for years. The proposed project abuts his property. He would like a buffer zone between his property and the applicant's. He believes the Variance is self-imposed, when someone buys a property and they see it is this kind of property, it is self- imposed. Swales said Condition 13 addresses fire hydrant pressure. MARGUERITTE HICKMAN, Fire Prevention Officer, Ashland Fire and Rescue, 455 Siskiyou Boulevard, said on the submitted utilities plan, she has a concern about the third lot. The fire hydrant does not meet the 250 foot distance. Given the building envelope, it would probably even exceed the distance allowed with sprinklers installed. She was pleased to hear Archerd mention the wildfire control plan. If this is approved, the plan needs to be submitted, approved and implemented prior to issuance of a building permit. Dotterrer wondered if we could add to Condition 13. "The wildland fire control plan shall be submitted, approved and implemented prior to issuance of a building permit." Swales wondered if the current owner of the property is required to implement a wildfire control plan. Hickman said there is an incentive and encourage, but once the property develops, it is a requirement under the City's code. KenCairn moved to extend meeting past 10:30. The motion was seconded and approved. Staff Response McLaughlin said the property in Jackson County outside the UGB cannot hook up to City water or sewer. ASHLAND PLANNINC COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 13, 2004 Dotterrer wondered if the access to the existing house (Lot 4) would change. Molnar said access is from the same location and veers off to where the new improvement will be located. Fields asked the grade of the street. Molnar said the tentative grade is less than 15 percent. Fields asked if the street would be required to have street lights. Molnar said generally, the Electric Dept. only requires the lighting of intersections. But, given the uniqueness of the'. site, he is not certain. Fields asked if we have any evidence about hydrant flow or water pressure. When is it addressed? McLaughlin said no concerns have yet been raised by the Water Department. Molnar said it would be addressed at Final Plan. Swales asked if a geotechnical repo~ is required? Molnar said it is not required because it is not Hillside. Any changes to the crossing through the' floodplain have to' accommodate a 100 year flood flow so-it should improve ilood issues..It has to be designed by a civil engineer.. The £mal design would be at Final Plan. . Dotterrer asked if the:re was any issue regarding traffic control - a STOP sign? McLaughlin said there could be, given the orientation of the intersection. Public Works could require it as part of the design. Chapman asked how far away from the top of bank the development can occur. Molnar said the building envelopes indicate at least 20 feet and then delineated by a short fence. It will be no closer than 20 feet. Rebuttal Archerd said they are, not planning to connect the Jackson County part of the property, to any City services whatsoever. They addressed transportation as part of the original £mdings. The streets have plenty of capacity. They are going to have make sure the existing culvert will meet the 100 year flood standard. If anything, they will be improving flood control, not hindering it. Archerd said they are not proposing or advocating condemnation of Dinkel's property. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Chapman said it would be his preference to make sure the Tree Commission reviews this. He wouldn't object to doing Outline and Final Plan at the same time. Swales asked McLaughlin to find out if it requires frontage on a street. Fields needs to have utility easements going through there. Does the present easement allow easements to be given to a third party? KenCairn wondered about liability and maintenance issues for the "gap". Fields suggested a Co,ndition that the applicant provides legal access for a public utility easement. McLaughlin said it is the City's opinion that adequate water, sewer and street capacity can be met. They don't know for certain that access is met legally. One question deals with capacity. They are looking for a yes or no with regard to access. McLaughlin said next: month the applicant needs to address private property access to the right-of-way - does that meet the requirements for a subdivision - not having access from this subdivision to a public right-of-way? Can a Variance cure that? Can you have a physical gap in the fight-of-way, but do you have to have the public utility easement? The applicant needs to address the liability and maintenance issue for this "gap". Even if it is a public utility easement, the road surface will have to be maintained. How does the responsibility fall to the homeowner's association or property owners? The Tree Commission will review the revised plan. -" Mohiar requested the applicant grant a continuance and a 60-day extension to the 120-day time limit. He asked the applicant to stop by the office and sign the form this week. The applicant agreed to continue until next month. ASHLAND PLANNINC COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 13, 2004 10 Chapman said public testimony will be restricted to the following: the tree issues, private properly connection and right-of- way for a subdivision, public utility easements as it connects to the right-of-way, and liability and maintenance issues for the part that remains in private ownership.. OTHER RETREAT - The Planning Commission Retreat will be held Saturday, May 1st from 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 to 3:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 P.M. ASHLAND PLANNINC COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 13, 2004 11 CITY OF -ASHLAND ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH '17, 2004 CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Jon Uto called the meeting to order at 4:10 p.m. Members Present: New Members: Council Liaison: Absent Members: High School Liaison: SOU Liaison: Staff: Jon Uto, Vice Chair Faye Weisler Liz Peck Matt Small Don Mackin Amy Korth Carol Voisin Kate Jackson (present) Kim Miller None Ryan Heihn Brandon Goldman, Housing Specialist Sue Yates, Executive Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES - The minutes of the February 24, 2004 Housing Commission were approved as submitted. PUBLIC FORUM RICH ROHDE, with Oregon Action and Jackson County Housing Coalition, wanted to alert the Commission to a training oppommity. The JaCkson County Housing Coalition is a coalition of housing groups throughout the county. The next meeting is a Housing Strategies Training on April 12, 2004 from 1 to 4 p.m. at the Santo Center in Medford. INTRODUCTION OF NEW COMMISSIONERS Carol Voisin introduced herself to the Commission. Amy Korth was also appointed to the Commission and arrived later in the meeting. FINANCE DIRECTOR PRESENTATION Goldman introduced ~the City's Finance Director, Lee Tuneberg. He will be talking about accounting of funds from the sale of the Strawberry Lane property into the Housing Trust Fund. Goldman put together a workbook he found that addresses affordable housing mist funds. He will add it to next month's agenda. LEE TUNEBERG said :in the past, the Finance Department has created a separate account for the funds such as the Strawberry Lane property proceecls within the existing general ledger and credits the appropriate funds to that account. Before any money can be appropriated, a request has to go through the supplemental budget process. Jackson asked once rite monies are there, could the money be borrowed for other projects. Tuneberg said the City does not borrow from the general ledger accounts. Weisler asked if the City is legally restricted from borrowing the money or is it discretionary? Tuneberg cannot envision that, as they are not loaning any money from the general fund, but it is possible. Any loan would be paid back to the fund. Interest can be earned on the account and it is whatever is earned in the local investment fund. Voisin expressed an interest in seeing a monthly accounting of the fund. Tuneberg can include a monthly report. · .. Jackson said the supplemental budget has to be approved by the Council. The' Council did specify funds from the. sale of the Strawberry Lane property would be put into a Housing Trust Fund with the exception of the funds needed to buy out The Grove. Jackson asked if we need to ask for the money to be in an account that earns interest. Tuneberg said he would investigate that further. HARGADINE RFP/RFQ Goldman provided th{,' minutes of the November 4, 2003 Council meeting. At that meeting, the Council considered Sandler's request. He read the Council's motion to refer Sandler's request to the Housing Commission and that the Housing Commission make a recommendation on Sandler's request back to the Council and the potential RFP process. There was a previous motion that directed Staffwork with the Housing Commission to look at standards for the development of parking lots downtown for affordable hOUsing in general. Goldman said the Council's motion does not specifically say to develop an RFP. Sandler's request is to purchase and/or lease the airspace above the parking structure for the development of housing lax credit project. He would like to build at least 20 units of housing targeted at 60 percent of median income. Small recalled that Cate Hartzell promoted the RFP. He doesn't think anyone thought about this type of development until Sandier made his presentation. It could have been Hartzell's way of holding offthe decision and bringing other ideas to the table. Weisler asked if there would be other entities competing if we did a reasonable RFP. Goldman said we would advertise out of the area; but it is a relatively small project. Mackin is concerned about/he purchase versus lease of the property. We would be selling a City asset. Sandier stated his reason for requesting purchase of the property is for financing. It is Mackin's experience that leasing the property shouldn't be a problem. He would like to see other options explored. There is so much information and he would like to see Staff and the Commission investigate this further. Have we had Staff review or Legal Dept. review? We need to have the RFP before us. He would like to bring this forward again next month. Weisler agreed. Small thought there are two questions that need answering from the Council's motion made in November. Should we continue with the RFP process? He thinks we should commit today to the RFP process and further review the RFP document. Mackin wondered if Sandler's proposal would fit within the RFP, as proposed. Goldman said the RFP is broad in scope and Sandler's proposal should fit. Mackin asked if there is also an option of lease or purchase. Goldman said there is. Mackin thought we should give the RFP to Sandler and have him tell us the difference between the lease and purchase. For a new commissioner, it is important we do our homework. Small asked if we have the assurance ifa project like this has the backing of the Council. Jackson said the Council wasn't arguing whether or not there should be housing over the parking garage. The question was more about how we would proceed in doing that. Small said he doesn't want the Commission to take the time to develop an RFP and fred out the Council had something else in mind. Jackson wondered what it would take for the Commission to be comfortable with the affordable income targets. She believes it should be broadly written. Mixed-use implies different income brackets. Do we want to push it down to the lower brackets? Heilm has questions about the legalities of this proposal. What happens if we sell the airspace? It seems the Council wasn't saying they wanted to do this, but they wanted the Housing Commission to recommend to them what to do. Peck believes the leasing versus selling is an important point. The City has set a precedent by previously entering into lease agreements. She is not clear on the income ranges. Who would it affect? Where in the City are other types of housing? Where is the need? Goldman said much of that information can be found in the Housing Needs Analysis. Small wondered if we should be discussing the details of the RFP at this point. It is critical there is Council support for the concept of affordable housing over the parking garage. Jackson said the Council referred it back to the Housing Commission to do an RFP. It is important to get the leasing versus sale question answered. The RFP would be soliciting a mixed-use affordable project on top of the parking structure. It is important the Council finds an affordable project to build. The Council unanimously approved the Housing Action Plan and Needs Analysis and the housing specialist position. They need to keep justifying this to the budget commillee and the COmlBunity. Weisler mo.ved to use the RFP process instead of accepting a single proposal. Jackson seconded the. motion and the.motion carried unanimously. The Commission discussed the cost of responding to an RFP and asked Goldman to contact Ron Demele of RVCDC for his input. ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 17, 2004 Small added that Cate Hartzell has expressed a concern as to whether or not affordable housing is a proper use for the parking garage property. It rrfight be better used for a park or sculpture garden or something else. He believes it is important the Housing Commissiort discuss that aspect as well. Small recommended .continuing development of the RFP. He would like to ask the Council to commit to affordable housing above the parking st~jcture. Until we have their backing, he is concerned about the amount of time and work the Commission would devote to this. Mackin said the Council would put out the RFP. Uto recommended dkecting Staff to look into the legal implications of lease versus purchase of the airspace over the parking structure as well as the other issues discussed. Mackin suggested del[erring any further discussion until next month. Although Weisler is anxious to-move this along, Mackin thought we will do wMt we can with the time we have. Next month's meeting is April 28th. Jackson recommended continuing the discussion on how we want to phrase affordability for the target income levels. Uto said any further questions the Commission might have can be e-mailed to Goldman or the group. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Mackin said we don't: want to exclude input. He suggested having sign-up sheets for the audience members. They can sign up for Public Forum or a specific agenda item. The sign-up sheets would be forwarded from Yates to the Chair and the Chair would invite participants to speak at the appropriate time. The Commissioners discussed time limits for the public to speak. Some favored three to five minutes and others favored ten to fifteen minutes. In order to allow some flexibility, the time limits will be kept from three to five minutes but can be longer at the discretion of the Chair. Rhode asked that whatever policy is adopted that it be put it on the agenda. The Commission decided to try the sign-ups and see how it works. The Commission also discussed moving the meeting place during the summer to the Council Chambers due to parking difficulties at the 51 Winbum Way location. They decided to continue meeting at the 51 Winburn Way location for now. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR Uto said he would be on the Commission until June. Weisler nominated Uto for Chair and he was elected unanimously. Mackin nominated Sraall for Vice Chair and he was elected unanimously. AGENDA ITEMS FOR NEXT MONTH In addition to the iterr~s mentioned above, add Report of Subcommittees. The subcommittees are broken down as follows: Education: Faye Weisler Jon Uto Amy Korth Carol Voisin Finance: Matt Small Kim Miller Land Use: Ryan Heihn Liz Peck Don Mackin Agenda Item: Land Use Code Changes Start with a recap. Wlhat are the issues and what might help? ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 17, 2004 Mackin felt it was premature for his subcommittee to meet. They will probably wait until something is refe~xed to them (Land Use). ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 5:50 p.m. ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 17, 2004 ASHLAND FOREST LANDS COMMISSION April 14, 2004 MINUTES .. MEMBERS PRESENT: Members Absent: Staff Present: Non Voting Members Present: Non Voting Members Absent: Frank Betlejewski, Richard Brock, Stephen Jensen (Chair), Bill Robertson Jo Anne Eggers, Anthony Kerwin, Diane White Nancy Slocum Marty Main Chris Hearn, Cameron Meeks (Student Liaison) I. CALl, TO ORDER: 4:44 PM II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 31, 2004 minutes were approved with three minor corrections. III. IV. Vo PUBLIC FORUM: None. STAFF REPORTS (20 MIN) A. M~j Main, Consultant Forester, reported on the Restoration Project. To date the helicopter and log trucks were finished with their work. The project yielded a total of 111 log truck loads. Main's crews were piling slash for burning next winter. (Betlejewski volunteered to research grass seed for the bum piles.) The project was expected to break even financially. Main commended the contractors. Betlejewski no~Ied that the project was well planned. Jensen asked if there were any surprises. Main said the only challenge was dealing with the dead and defective timber. Brock added that the project seemed to be deficient in large woody debris, but had an excess of small coarse wood. Commission thanked Main and Chief Woodley for all their hard work on this project. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: A. Finalize Alternative to the Forest Service's Watershed Projection Plan- Betlejewski reported that he, Brock, Cate Hartzell, Cindy Deacon Williams, Howard Heiner, Joseph Vaile and Marty Main had met to further discuss the possibilitY of a cotnmunity alternative to USFS's Ashland Forest Resiliency Project under the HFRA Act. The goal of a community altemative would be to gain "standing" in the process. Brock read the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment and thoUght treatment of the Ashland Watershed should be done differently. Betlejewski agreed. They suggested blending C:\WINDOWS\TEMPLa, PR 14.doc VI. VIIe VIIIo IX. the Forest Commission's and AWSA's documents to come up with an alternative. Betlejewski explained that no time extension could or would be granted (USFS's current timeline included appeal time) and that Linda Duffy was not the ultimate decision-maker. Heiner volunteered to research county requirements and reported that the community alternative could be a work in progress. His assumption was that the City Council and the County Commissioners would also have to approve the community alternative before April 30th. The next community meeting was. scheduled to be held at Headwaters on April 21 st at 2:30 PM. · . B. Approval of Publ.ic Forum Protocol- Jensen offered a draft statement to be included in future agendas. The statement read: "The AFLC phices great value upon citizen comments to our work. The Public Forum is the time to speak to any item NOT on the printed agenda. Agenda items where the public is invited to comment will have an asterisk attached. The Chair may limit these comments to 3 minutes depending on the topic and the length of the agenda. A comment offered on an agenda item does not automatically allow the participant to continue commenting throughout AFLC deliberations. Written comments are encouraged and always appreciated. Brock thought it important to allow the public to have an opportunity to comment on all agenda items listed as "Items for Discussion". Robertson thought three minutes per citizen might ultimately slow down the meeting. Commission asked Slocm.n to incorporate these comments and draft an agenda with draft protocol added. The commission will review it during the regular May meeting. C. Winbum Goals and Objectives - Commission reviewed White's draft goals and objectives. Robertson asked that the "notes" be separated from the goals, but incorporated into the body of the document. Jensen thought a goal should be included that dealt with water quality and quantity as in the lower parcel. Betlejewski wanted to incorporate the idea of reducing stand density by thinning - active management techniques. PROJECTS PENDING/REQUIRING ACTION- Tabled. OTHER BUSINESS - None REVIEW AND SET COMMISSION CALENDAR / NEXT MEETING Commission voted to hold a special meeting on Thursday, April 22 from 6:00 PM to 9:00 PM to work on an alternative. The commission was asked to bring written comments to that meeting. ADJOURN: 6:01 PM C:\W1NDOWS\TEMPXAPR 14.doc MEMBERS PRESENT: Members Absent: Staff PresenlI: Non Voting Members Present: Non Voting Members Absent: ASHLAND FOREST LANDS COMMISSION April 22, 2004 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES Frank Betlejewski, Richard Brock, Jo Anne Eggers, Stephen Jensen (Chair), Bill Robertson, Diane White Anthony Kerwin Nancy Slocum Marty Main Chris Heam, Cameron Meeks (Student Liaison) II. III. IV. Ve CALL TO ORDER: 6:05 PM APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of the April 14, 2004 minutes was tabled until the May 12th meeting. PUBLIC FORUM: Incorporated into Items for Discussion. STAFF REPORTS (20 MIN) - Tabled. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: A. Finalize Altemative to the Forest Service's Watershed Projection Plan Be, tlejewski summarized the latest community meeting (held April 20th). He believed the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) would be a true alternative. His suggestions for improvement included: starting treatment at the bottom working up to higher elevations, conduct area-wide thinning rather than focusing on fuelbreaks, focus on riparian areas rather than the ridgetops, and update the management plan for the Research Natural Area (RNA). He thought the commission's current restoration plan has wide "community" support. He also invited the community group participants on the May 1 st public hike. Betlewjewski thought the Restoration Project could be modified as the third alternative adding specifics regarding elevations over 35,00 feet. He thought White would be a good resource for that information. Brock thought the Restoration Project had a limited scope as it only described 180 acres. He Wondered how the collaborative process would wOrk and could it be done before the April 30th deadline. Jensen wondered what detail an alternative should include. Robertson said Howard Heiner had an outline of a potential CWPP and felt work on the: CWPP should be a top commission goal after the April 30th deadline. Robertson C:\WINI~DWS\TEMP~APR 22.doc moved to table work on the CWPP until after May 1 st. White seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Jensen opened the meeting to public comments. Chris Chambers, City Forest Grant Worker Coordinator, reported working with several templates from other jurisdictions and, except for the collaboration requirement, all the necess.ary information was there to put together a CWPP before May 1st. He thought there were many benefits to submitting the plan before May 1 st The CWPP would still need an evacuation plan and.approval from local government (City and county),.Fire. Department .and USFS. Main thought the community should not be penalized by USFS for not submitting a CWPP by the deadline. The City of Ashland was simply not given enought time. He thought this sentiment could be added to a cover letter accompanying the alternative (scoping comments). City Councilor Cate Hartzell thought that if the group gets a letter from USFS saying they would accept an incomplete CWPP, the group should submit it. She felt it a matter of packaging. Eggers suggested adding a cower letter that stated what we were submitting, what we need and Main's comments regarding the lack of time. Cindy Deacon Williams, Headwaters, explained the tight USFS deadlines. USFS had the sole authority to decide which submittal would be the third alternative. She thought the community group could produce a good alternative and that it would be chosen and therefore gain all the benefits of a CWPP. She explained that the purpose and need of an alternative must met (must reduce the risk of large, high intensity fires, align with the DFCs, and obtain resilient conditions, must protect values at risk), must offer an approach different that that outlined in the proposed action, must be part of a collaborative process and must be received during the scoping period (April 30th). Williams said Headwaters would have no problem combining their alternative with the commission's alternative and having it labeled as the "City" alternatiw:. She felt the Commission should decide if it wants to collaborate as a community group to produce one alternative. Hartzell asked the commission not to put her in the position of choosing sides. She would like to see one alternative. Heiner would have like to have seen the commission work towards a CWPP, but understands the time limitation. He would like to see the City of Ashland as the driving force. He believed there are large differences between some community groups/members and suggested leaving these issues out of the alternative. He said USFS's alternative is very vague. Hartzell suggested that monitoring could be a way to address differences. Williams added that the scoping comments could include "outst~ding issues and concerns. Betlejewski suggested developing an official AFLC Subcommittee. Jensen asked Betlejewski, Brock and Main if they would be willing along with White adding technical support. All agreed. C:\WINDOWS\TEMP~PR 22.doc VI. IX. The commission asked White to summarize USFS's proposal. White said it contained both fire suppression and fire resiliency components. Fire suppression activities would include DFPZ's at ridgelines with a relative density of.4 - .5 and about 60% canopy cover to inhibit understory vegetation and a wildfire interface buffer with a relative density of.4 - .5 and 15 half mile radius owl circles. Fire resiliency efforts would include late successional habitat treatment with a relative density of.5 - .6 and a Research Natural Area (RNA) to protect heritage pine. White did not agree with the prescription of DFPZ's as they are susceptible to insects, too dense and not ecologically resilient. She generally favors treatment based on Plant Association Gro.ups (PAG). Main thought, the DFPZ's were not defined adequately, but were okay for the short term. He criticized the plan for not discussing the use of multi-layer canopies and vertical discontinuity (ladder fuels). Brock thought the DFPZ's assumes a model and becomes a swath on the landscape. Betlejewski would like to see treatment start at the interface and riparian areas then move up toward the ridge-tops instead of the other way around. Eggers believed the community alternative should focus on what we could do today that would lead to less and less human intervention in the future. Brock suggested working with existing dry forest, low density and PAG's for "natural type" breaks. A][ternative would include beginning treatment with dryer PAG's and working outtward - a different type of compartmentalization. Betlejewski thought habitat connectivity needed to be discussed. Regarding treatment in late successional areas, Brock liked the closed canopy, late seral definition to benefit wildlife, fungi, etc. He admitted that the risk of wildfire was there, but was minimized. Regarding large trees, Main suggested GPS large trees. Robertson thought the fact that this alternative was ecologically driven should be emphasized. Eggers suggested adding a statement of value, listing the value of large trees and including species. Brock's would like USFS to use "real" data for planning. Betlejewski wondered if it was realistic to expect them to use the same level of inventory data as the City. Main reminded the commission that the Memorandum of Understanding between USFS and the City of Ashland was currently the only written document. Heiner reminded the commission that whatever the alternative, there would be a financial funding problem. PROJECTS PENDING/REQUIRING ACTION- Tabled. OTHER BUSINESS - None REVIEW AND SET COMMISSION CALENDAR / NEXT MEETING .Jensen suggested setting a final commission meeting to vote on the alternative. The meeting was set for Thursday, April 29th at 5:30 PM: AD JO,URN 9:05 PM C:\WINI)DWsXTEMPXAPR 22.doc ASHLAND FOREST LANDS COMMISSION April 29, 2004 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Brock, Jo Anne Eggers, Stephen Jensen (Chair), Anthony Kerwin, Bill Robertson, Diane White Members Absent: Frank Betlejewski Staff Present: Nancy Slocum, Keith Woodley Non Voting Members Present: Marty Main, Chris Heam Non Voting Members Absent: Cameron Meeks (Student Liaison) I. CALL TO ORDER: 5:35 PM H. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Tabled llI. PUBLIC FORUM: Incorporated into Items for Discussion. IV. STAFF REPORTS (20 MIN) - Tabled. Ve ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: A. Finalize Scoping Comments to the Forest Service's Ashland Forest Resiliency Project - Cindy Deacon Williams, Headwaters, began the discussion summarizing recent changes to the scoping comments. Comments were received from members of Headwaters, Klamath- Siskiyou Wildland Center, World Wildlife Fund, Howard Heiner, City Councilor Cate Hartzell, Chris Chambers as well as members of the commission. The City would have four chances to comment on USFS's proposal: currently during the scoping period, after the draft EIS, after the final EIS and after the Record of Decision. Woodley, Kerwin an~d Howard Heiner were concerned that the scoping comments, as written, would not be accepted by the Forest Service. This alternative must be detailed enough to able to be analyzed under HFRA. The fact that a "spatially explicit map" was missing was also a key issue. The:se concerns were discussed at length. Eggers moved to authorize the Chair (Stephen Jensen) to sign the scoping comments for the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project with a recommended Community "Third" Alternative and Phase I Ashland Community Wildfire Protection Plan on behalf of the commission after the numerous edits discussed this night were complete. Brock seconded the rnotion and it passed unanimously. VI. PROJECTS PENDING/REQUIRING ACTION - Tabled. VII. OTHER BUSINESS - None VHI. REVIEW AND SET COMMISSION CALENDAR / NEXT MEETING IX. ADJOURN 7:30 PM C:\WINDOWS\TEMPXAPR 29.doc CITY OF -AS lq LAN D Council Communication Title: Approval of Intergovernmental Agreement No. 21397- Crosswalk Maintenance Agreement between the City of Ashland and the Oregon Department of Transportation Dept: Date: Submitted By: Reviewed By: Approved By: Synopsis: Public Works Department May 18, 2O04 Paula Brown Paul Nolte//~ Gino Grimaldi The attached Intergovernmental Agreement No. 21397 is a Crosswalk Maintenance Agreement between the City of Ashland and the Oregon Department of Transportation. At the City's request, ODOT is installing continental crosswalk markings on the State highway system within the City limits. This agreement requires the City to maintain the crosswalks once installed by ODOT. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve Intergovernmental Agreement No. 21397 - Crosswalk Maintenance Agreement between the City of Ashland and the Oregon De. partrnent of Transportation. Fiscal Impact: The City will be responsible for the maintenance costs of each newly crosswalk on the State system (N. Main, E. Main, Lithia Way) within the City's jurisdiction. It is estimated that the maintenance costs will not exceed $80 per crosswalk per year. The maintenance costs are anticipated to be less than $1600 annually, assuming that we will maintain about 20 crossings a year. Background: ODOT has agreed to install the continental crosswalk markings (the wide "zebra" striped markings that the City uses downtown) at the City's request. These have a higher initial construction application cost; yet ODOT has accepted the Ashland standard for the road network within City limits. As such, ODOT has asked that the City maintain these crossings at the City:',s expense. City staff currently maintains other continental style crossings and this additional maintenance requirement is acceptable and not a burden to the crew's current requirement. The City has informally agreed to maintain previously installed crosswalk markings within the City limits and has similar formal agreements for the signal maintenance, electricity to signals and other maintenance items pertaining to the State's road network within City limits. Attachment: Intergovernmental Agreement No. 21397 - Crosswalk Maintenance Agreement between the City of Ashland and the Oregon Department of Transportation CC Apv ODOT Agmt Sidewalk Maint 18May04 Page 1 of I Misc. Contracts & Agreements No. 21397 INTERGOVERNMENTAL City of Ashland Crosswalk Maintenance Agreement THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between THE STATE OF OREGON, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as "ODOT"; and The City of Ashland, acting by and through its elected officials, hereinafter referred to as "City". RECITALS o By the authority granted in ORS 190.110 and 283.110, state agencies may enter into agreements with units of local government or other state agencies for the performance of any or all functions and activities that a party to the agreement, its officers, or agents have the authority to perform. . The City is developing City engineering standards which call for the use of continental crosswalk treatments, as shown in ODOT 2002 Traffic Standard Drawings, TM-535, which are hereby incorporated by reference. NOW THEREFORE, the premises being in general as stated in the foregoing recitals, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: TERMS OF AGREEMENT 1. Under such authority, City and ODOT agree to develop guidelines for the installation and maintenance of continental crosswalks on state highways, within the limits of City, hereinafter referred to as Project. . The work shall, begin on the date all required signatures are obtained and shall remain in effect for twenty years at which time this Agreement expires unless extended by a fully executed amendment. 3. The estimated annual maintenance cost for the Project is approximately $80 per crosswalk, in City funds. All estimated costs are subject to change. CITY OBLIGATIONS 1. City shall perform all necessary maintenance for the continental crosswalks which are currently installed on state highways within City limits at their own expense. The total maintenance cost per crosswalk is estimated at $80 per year. Ashland/ODOT Agreement No. 21397 . City further agrees to perform all necessary maintenance for continental crosswalks which may be installed on state highways, within City limits, as part of future construction projects at their own expense. 3. City shall not enter into any subcontracts for any of the work scheduled under this Agreement without obtaining prior written approval from ODOT. , City agrees to comply with all federal, state, and local laws, regulations, executive orders and ordinances applicable to the work under this Agreemenll, including, without limitation, the provisions of ORS 279.312, 279.314, 279.316, 2:79.320 and 279.555, which hereby are incorporated by reference. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, City expressly agrees to comply with (i) Title VI of Civil Rights Act of 1964; (ii) Section V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; (iii) the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and ORS 659A. 142; (iv) all regulations and administrative rules established pursuant to the foregoing laws; and (v) all other applicable requirements of federal and state civil rights and rehabilitation statutes, rules and regulations. o City shall perform the service under this Agreement as an independent contractor and shall be exclusively responsible for all costs and expenses related to its employment of individuals to perform the work under this Agreement including, but not limited to, retirement contributions, workers compensation, unemployment taxes, and state and federal income tax withholdings. 6. All employers, including City, that employ subject workers who work under this Agreement in the State of Oregon shall comply with ORS 656.017 and provide the required Workers' Compensation coverage unless such employers are exempt under ORS 656.126. City shall ensure that each of its subcontractors complies with these requirements. . City shall, to the extent permitted by the Oregon Constitution and the Oregon Tort Claims Act, indemnify, defend, save, and hold harmless the State of Oregon, Oregon Transportation Commission and its members, Department of Transportation, its officers and employees from any and all claims, suits, and liabilities which may occur in the performance of this project. 8. City's project manager for this Agreement is Paula Brown, Public Works. Director, 20 E Main Street, Ashland OR, 97520, (541) 488-5305. ODOT OBLIGATIONS . In consideration for City agreeing to maintain the Project, ODOT agrees to install continental crosswalks on state highways, within the City limits, on future construction projects, as requested by City. Ashland/ ()DOT A~eement No. 21397 2. ODOT hereby grants City the right to enter onto and occupy state owned right-of- way for the performance of necessary maintenance of the crosswalks. 3. ODOT's project manager for this Agreement is Region 3 Traffic Manager, 3500 NW Stewarl: Parkway, Roseburg, OR 97470, (541) 957-3688. GENERAL, PROVISIONS 1. This Agreement may be terminated by mutual written consent of both parties. ODOT may terminate this Agreement effective upon delivery of written notice to City, or at such later date as may be established by ODOT, under any of the following conditions: a. If City fails to provide services called for by this Agreement within the time specified herein or any extension thereof. bo If City fails to perform any of the other provisions of this Agreement or so fails to pursue the work as to endanger performance of this Agreement in accordance with its terms, and after receipt of written notice from ODOT fails to correct such failures within 10 days or such longer period as ODOT may authorize. Co If StatE; fails to receive funding, appropriations, limitations or other expenditure authority sufficient to allow State, in the exercise of its reasonable administrative discretion, to continue to make payments for performance of this agreement. do If Federal or State laws, regulations or guidelines are modified or interpreted in such a way that either the work under this Agreement is prohibited or if ODOT is prohibited from paying for such work from the planned funding source. Any termination of this Agreement shall not prejudice any rights or obligations accrued to the parties prior to termination. , City acknowledges and agrees that ODOT, the Secretary of State's Office of the State of Oregon, the federal government, and their duly authorized representatives shall have access to the books, documents, papers, and records of City which are directly pertinent to the specific agreement for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcripts for a period of three years after final payment. Copies of applicable records shall be made available upon request. Payment for costs olf copies is reimbursable by ODOT. , If City fails to maintain facilities in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, ODOT, at its option, may maintain the facility and bill City, seek an injunction to enforce the duties and obligations of this Agreemen{ or take any other action allowed by law. Ashland/ODOT Agreement No. 21397 4. This Agreement and attached exhibits constitute the entire agreement between the parties on the subject matter hereof. There are no understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this Agreement. No waiver, consent, modification or change of terms of this Agreement shall bind either party unless in writing and signed by both parties and all necessary approvals have been obtained. Such waiver, consent, modification or change, if made, shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. The failure of ODOT to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver by ODOT of that or any other provision. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and affixed their seals as of the day and year hereinafter written. The Oregon Transportation Commission on June 18, 2003, approved Delegation Order No. 2, which authorizes the Director to approve and execute agreements for' day-to-day operations when the work is related to a project included in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program or a line item in the biennial budget approved by the Commission. On September 6, 2002, the Director of the Oregon Department of Transportation approved Subdelegation Order No. 2, in which the Director grants authority to the Deputy Directors, Division Managers, Chief of Staff, Technical Services Manager/Chief Engineer, Branch and Region Managers for their respective Branch or Region, to approve and execute agreements up to $75,000 when the work is related to a project included in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, other system plans approved by the Commission such as the Traffic Safety Performance Plan, or in a line item in the approved biennial budget. CITY OF ASHLAND, by and through its STATE OF OREGON, by And through Its City Council Department Of Transportation BY BY Agency's Authorized Representative Region 3 Manager Date Date BY Agency's Authorized Representative Date: APPROVAL RECOMMENDED By. Region 3 Traffic Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM Date BY City Counsel RETURN AGREEMENT TO AGENCY: Contact: Paula Brown City of Ashland 20 East Main Street Ashland/ODOT Agreement No. 21397 Date Ashland OR 97520 CiTY OF cAS FI LAN D Council Communication Title: Dept: Date: Submitted By: Reviewed By: Approved By: Resolution Setting a Public Hearing to Consider the Vacation of an Alley Stretching between Oregon & Madrone Streets Public Works Department May 18, 2004 Paula Brown~ Paul Nolte V Gino Grimaldi Synopsis: On March 17, 2004, Mr. Bruce Moats, acting on behalf of Southern Oregon University (SOU) submitted the attached petition requesting the vacation of an unimproved alley stretching between Oregon and Madrone Streets and located between Indiana Street and Monroe Street. The vacation of the alley is a required condition of the development for the proposed SOU Madrone Street housing complex. The vacation request was heard by the Planning Commission on April 27th, 2004. The vacation was approved by the commission with a recommendation that a pedestrian access easement be provided through the development, connecting Oregon and Madrone Streets. The location of the pedestrian access is shown on the attached map. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution establishing a public hearing date of June 15th, 2004 to hear a petition for and any objectives to, the vacation of an alley located between Oregon and Madrone Streets. Fiscal Impact: A $500.00 application fee has been paid by SOU to defray the costs of publications and other expenses. There are no negative fiscal impacts to the City resulting from this vacation. Background: The unimproved alley between Oregon and Madrone Streets was created in 1910 with the recording of the Meikle and Payne Addition. The thirteen (13) foot wide alley runs in a northerly direction and is an approximate extension of Sunrise Street to the south. The alley is opened for traffic but carries no known utilities or service lines. The property on both sides of' the alley is \~COMPAQI~DATA\GOV~oub-wrks~:Imin~PB Coundl~Street Easement Ten~inations\CC Madrone Oregon Alley SOU VacalJon PH 1 owned by SOU as is over two thirds of the affected area, which is that land within 400 feet of each end of the alley and within 200 feet of each sideline. The vacation request was sent to the Fire and Police Departments, Public Works operating divisions and to the Planning Department. There were no objections voiced from any of the above departments and divisions. The Planning Commission considered this vacation at its April 27th meeting;. While there were no objections to the vacation, the Planning Commission recommended the following condition be placed on the development of the SOU Madrone Street housing complex: That a pedestrian access easement be established and a physical pathway be created through the development linking Oregon and Madrone Streets. The pathway should be constructed with an all weather surfacing (crushed rock, etc.) but would not need to be paved nor concreted. The pathway should be designed into the landscaping plan and would not be in the same location as the vacated alley. Attachments: 1. Vicinity iMap 2. Area Map 3. Specific .Access Location Map 4. Copy of Petition 5. Resolution \\COMPAOl~)ATA\GOV~oub-wrks~admin~B Coundl~Street Easement Terminations\CC Madrone Oregon Alley SOU Vacation PH 1 RESOLUTION NO. 04- RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING TO HEAR A PETIITION FOR AND ANY OBJECTIONS TO, THE VACATION OF AN ALLEY BETWEEN OREGON STREET AND MADRONE STREET. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code chapter 4.16 and ORS 271;080 to 271.150, tl'ie City Council of the City of Ashland will conduct a public hearing on June 15, 2004 at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland Oregon, to hear the petition for, and any objections to, the vacation of an alley running between Oregon Street and Madrone Street. SECTION 2. The City Recorder is directed to give notice of the petition and hearing by publishing a notice in the Daily Tidings, once each week for two consecutive weeks prior to the hearing and such other notice as may be required by ORS 271.110. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2004. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of ,2004. Reviewed as to form: Alan DeBoer, Mayor Paul Nolte, City Attorney PAGE 1 - RESOLUTION \\COMPAQl\DATA\GOV~oub-wrks~admin~B Council~Street Easement Terminations\CC Madrone Oregon PH Resolution 4 04.doc tJ.llll CITY OF kSHLAND PROPOSED ALLEY VACATION KI=y ~ Alley to be Vacated ~ Affected Area [----I Taxlots ~ Streets ~ Buildings SCALE: t" = t00' i, · 391E TAXLOT POSITIONS GENERATED BY JACK.NON (.~IL~ITY GIS DEPT. AND lEAR NO WAIIAINTY OF ACCURACY; OTilEB DAT/~ SETS ARE T%'PICALIN WITIIIN IM OF A¢."FIJAL POSITION. I .I I ~) ~ ~ II' II~ i~ ~!~ ii AL~ ~1 I --~"~/ " ~~~~ ~ ~ i ~ ~1 oreg~ stree~. .... .......... .............. _ .... __ : ... Ogd_enKi tier Architectu:re~'^ ~ MI~OA(:H--HONE~T DESIGN 2950 E. Barnett Rd B4t 779.5237' Medrol, OR 97504 541 772~472' SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY MADRONE STREET APARTMENTS REVISED PEDESTRIAN PETITION We the undersigned property owners residing on or near an alley IIocated between Oregon and Madrone Streets do hereby petition the City Council to initiate proceedings to vacate the above mentioned public right-of-way, being further described as follows: All of that thirteen foot wide alley dedicated to the 'City of Ashland ,on the plat of the Meikle and Payne Addition filed for record on August 6, 1910 and recorded in Volume 2, Page 44 of the Plat Records of Jackson County Orsgon. Said alley being west of and contiguous to lots 25 through 32 of BIIock D of said Meikle and Payne Addition. We do further warrant that the signatures below represent 100% of the properties abutting the proposed vacation and at least 66 2/3% of the affected arsa which lies within 200 feet on either side and 400 feet from the ends of the public right-of-way proposed for vacation. Tax Lot Name Addrsss Number Southern Oregon University 1250 Siskiyou Blvd 39 1~ 15BA TL's 9OO i000 1100 1200 1201 1300 1500 1600 - i700 39 lB 15BB TL lmm !0 11 12 State of Oregon County of Jackson On this ~ day of ~"J~/~[/~-__J-,, 2004~personally appeared before me, a Notary Public in and for said State, the Within named~)Y~L~. _ ~ . to me know to be the identical person describ..,ed therein and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that !__'~_~.~, ~'. P~t _n~g~ executed the same freely and voluntarily for uses and purposed therein mentioned. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official stamp the day and year above written. otary15ublic /--/ t ~/ My commission expire~ Rinn~turp, TREASA 8PRAGUE NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO, 341870 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JAN. 10, 200,5 \\coMpAQl~DATA\GOV~pub-wrks\eng~dept-admin~A Blank Forms\Petition Form.doc CITY OF ,.ASHLAND Council Communication Title: Appeal of Planning Action 2004-002, a request for Site Review and Tree Removal Permit to construct a multi-floor, 8,325 sq. ft. mixed use building at 88 North Main Street. A Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit is request6d to permit "development" within the Ashland Floodplain Corridor. Applicant: Lloyd Haines Dept: Planning Department Date: May 18, 2004 Molnar, Senior Planner ~.~/' Submitted By: Bill John McLaughlin, Director of Comm~ty Development Approved By: Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator Synopsis: On December 12, 2003, the applicant filed his request for the above referenced planning action. On February 18, 2004, the application was deemed complete by staff. The 120-day limit rm~s on June 18, 2004. Should the hearing run long, the Council has the option of continuing the hearing to the June 1, 2004 meeting, with adoption of findings on June 15, 2004. Reviews of the application were held in front of the Historic Commission on January 7, :2004 and in front of the Tree Commission on January 8, 2004 and additional review on March 4, 20(}4. Their comments are included in the record. The Historic Commission recommended approval of the application by unanimous vote. The Tree Commission recommended that specific condiitions be attached to the action, should it be approved by the Planning Commission. A public hearing was properly noticed and held in front of the full Planning Commission on March 9, 2004 at which time testimony was heard and evidence was submitted. The Planning Commission voted to approve the action by a 7-1 vote. After the close of the public hearing and vote by the Planning Commission, a 57-page document was submitted to the City by Randall Hopkins (and copies may have been sent to Council members and Tree Commission members) outlining alleged deficiencies and misrepresentations of the original planning submittals. However, since the public hearing was closed, this information could not be.. included as part of the record of this action, nor reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Hopkins was informed that this information could be used as the basis of an appeal to the City Council. The Planning Commission adopted the findings supporting their decision to approve the., application on April 13, 2004, and the findings were mailed to the involved parties on April 15, 2004. A timely appeal was filed by Randall Hopkins on April 23, 2004. The appeal request stated five issues as the grounds for the appeal: 1. Applicant has failed to comply with Section 18.61.200A2, 18.62.040H, 18.61.050, 18.112.090, and 1.08.020 of the Municipal Code, and has violated same. 2. Applicant has failed to satisfy the applicable Criteria for Issuance of a Tree Removal permit under 18.61.080 of th'e Code and filed an incomplete application and evidence. 3. The proposed development fails to fulfill the City's Large Scale Development site standards. 4. Removal of the tree sought to be removed is unnecessary to fulfill the City's site design standards. 5. Undisclosed conflicts of interest in the proceedings below in violation of Sec. 18.108.100 of the Code The majority of these issues were not raised specifically with the Planning Commission to allow them an opportunity to consider these issues in their review. The applicant's attorney has prepared a response to these issues and it is included in the supplemental record (Section A). Further, the applicant and his landscape architect and project architect have provided additional information addressing the issues raised on appeal. Staff concurs with the applicant's attorney regarding the five grounds for appeal. Regarding Objections 1 and 2, we believe that the applicant has provided the necessary information and evidence necessary. Regarding Objection 3 raised by the appellant, Staff reviewed this application as a new and separate development of 8,325 sq. fi. Section 18.72.050.B states: "Any development (emphasis added) in the Detail Site Review Zone as defined in the Site Review Standards adopted pursuant to this chapter, which exceeds 10,000 square feet or is longer than 100 feet in length or width, shall be reviewed according to the Type 2 procedure." While this building may have common structural attachments to the adjoining building, it is not part of the previous development of the adjacent historic structure. It is not an expansion of the adjacent building but rather, the interior spaces, uses, and floors of the new development are independent of the other buildings mad it functions as a separate and independent development. We do not believe that this application constitutes a development greater than 10,000 sq. fi. Regarding Objection 4, we believe that the retention of the alder tree precludes the reasonable use of the property for corrmaercial uses intended in the downtown commercial district.' The applicant's findings and testimony from the applicant's arborist indicate that essentially any structural development of the property would negatively impact the Alder to the point where it is unlikely to survive, no matter the limited nature of that structural development. Downtown design standards requiring buildings to be constructed from up to the sidewalk for an active pedestrian environment and a compatible street faqade further preclude the preservation of the alder. Regarding Objection 5, no evidence has been provided regarding any conflicts of interest in the previous proceedings. Therefore, Staff has no response to this objection. The Tree Commission has submitted a memo to the Mayor and Council outlining their position on the information submitted after the close of the Planning Commission hearing, and the difficulty in reviewing the infi~rmation. Staff would concur with the difficulty in addressing substantive issues after the close of a public hearing. The issues raised by Mr. Hopkins were submitted to the City after the close of the hearing, and the Planning Commission could only consider that information placed before them while the hearing process was open. Similarly, the Historic and Tree Commissions considered the information placed before them during the hearing process. While the amount of information submitted to the City was substantial, we cannot restart the process at the previous levels. The information submitted by Mr. Hopkins provides a basis for his appeal,, and the Council should carefully consider all submitted evidence. Recommendation: The Planning Commission found the project complied with the applicable ordinance requirements, and approved the project by a 7-1 vote. At~er review of the new information and the concems raised by the appellant, Staff supports the decision of the Planning Commission and recommends the Council approve the request with the attached conditions as stated in the findings on pages 71-78 of the record. The Council may wish to attach other conditions that they deem relevant to the criteria for approval. Attachments: The packet is attached. RECORD'FOR PLANNING ACTION 2004-002 REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A MULTI- FLOOR, 8,325 SQUARE FOOT MIXED USE BUILDING AT 88 NORTH MAIN STREET. A PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT IS REQUESTED TO PERMIT "DEVELOPMENT" WITHIN THE ASHLAND FLOODPLAIN CORRIDOR. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: COMMERCIAL; ZONING: C-l-D; ASSESSOR'S MAP #:39 1E 09BB; TAX LOTS: 9800 APPLICANT: LLOYD HAINES 5-18-04 5-13-04 5-18-04 5-12-04 4-23-04 4-15-04 3-12-O4 3-9-O4 3-9-04 3-9-04 3-5-04 1-9-04 1-7-04 1-25-04 to 3-9-O4 Council Communication Supplemental Record of Applicant Letter from Atty. Alan D. B. Harper addressing grounds for appeal Letter from Atty. Lloyd M. Haines Tidings Editorial 4.28.04 Letter from Upper Limb-It Tree Service Letter and Packet from Landscape Architect John Galbraith Lines, encumbrances...affecting title of property Revised Maps provided by applicant's representatives Notice of City Council Public Hearing and applicable criteria (mailed 4-28-04) Memo from Ashland Tree Commission The Gateway Alder, ODOT Grove, Triple Maple, Trees of Ashland Creek and the Shasta Building Project (submitted by Randall Hopkins) Notice of Appeal of PA2004-002 submitted by Randall Hopkins Findings, Conclusions & Orders dated 3-9-04 and cover letter Fax from ODOT re: landscape permit for new tree Ashland Planning Commission Minutes Staff Report & Staff Exhibit Notice of Planni.ng Commission Public Hearing and applicable criteria (mailed 2-18-04) Applicant's Revised Findings, Drawings and Exhibits Ashland Street Tree Commission Planning Application Review Ashland Historic Commission Minutes Miscellaneous Public Comments A-1 - A-31 A-1 - A-4 A-5 - A-9 A-10 A-11 A-12 - A-22 A-23 - A-24 A-25 - A-31 1-3 4-5 6-63 64-69 70-78 79-82 83-91 92-106 107-109 110-253 254 255-257 258-279 Gregory T. Hornecker Robert L. Cowling John R. Hassen R. Ray Heyseli H. Scott Piouse P. David Ingalls Adam T. Stamper* Joseph E. Kellerman James A. Wallan Benjamin M. Bloom HORNECKER, COWLING, HASSEN & HEYSELL, L.L.P. Attorneys at Law 717 Murphy Road Medford, OR 97504 (541) 779-8900 Fax: (541) 773-2635 http://www.roguelaw.eom Charles E. Bolen Alan D.B. Harper Ryan J. Vanderhoof Richard L. Biilin **Shane J. Antholz, LLM Jesse A. Visser Stefanie L. Burke Of Counsel- Fred M. Aebi *Also admitted in California **Also admitted in Washington Retired- B. Kent Blackhurst E~win B. Hogan 1927 - 2000 May 12, 2004 Mayor Alan DeBoer Ashland City Council Members 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Appeal of Planning Action 2004-002; Shasta Building Project Located at 88 North Main Street Dear Honorable Mayor DeBoer and Council Members: This letter and the attached documents are offered in support of the above captioned application and approval in this matter by the Plalming Commission. This firm represents the Applicant and owner of the property in this de novo review by the City Council. The following attached documents address various modifications and changes which are proposed by the Applicant addressing revised information or modified design elements in relation to applicable City standards' Letter from Applicant Lloyd M. Haines Revised Plans and Architectural Drawings by Architect David Richardson. The revised plans incorporate: · Revisions to the plans involve a fixed bridge rather than a drawbridge located to accommodate existing development on the property. · A mechanical room at basement level. · Adjustments in the plans to further accommodate the existing maple tree. These include reduction in the size of the deck and bringing it approximately 18 inches furtkter away from the creek and revisions to the grading plan to reduce soil removal within the tree's root zone. · Revisions to the plans more fully incorporate changes that were before and approved by the Planning Commission, specifically the reduction in the cantilever to accommodate the maple tree. May 13,200.4 The plans were also revised to show additional miscellaneous information and detail as needed to meet the strict requirements of ALUO provisions cited by Appellant. Revised Tree Protection Plan by Landscape Architect John Galbraith. The revised plans more accurately depict the location of trees, their sizes, canopies and drip lines. Letter from Landscape Architect John Galbraith with attachments addressing specific objections raised by Appellant The Notice of Intent to Appeal raises five specific issues, some of which contain multiple items and/or issues within one general topic. The issues raised on appeal are addressed hereinbelow: APPELLANT'S FIRST OBJECTION: Applicant has failed to comply with Sections J 8. 6J.200(A)(2), 1_8.62.040(H), 18.61.050, !8.112.090, and 1.08.20 of the Municipal Code and has violated same. This application received a favorable Staff Report as the project was revised and presented to the Planning Commission. Applicant has submitted all information deemed necessary by the Staff and the application was deemed complete thirty-days after filing. In preparing material for this presentation, an Appeal to the City Council, Applicant has provided additional detail and notation to the attached plans, tree protection plan and other related documents to further support approval of the project. APPELLANT'S SECOND OBJECTION: Applicant has failed to satisfy the applicable criteria for issuance of a Tree Removal ?ermit under 18.6].080 of the Code and has filed an incomplete Application in evidence. After hearing the evidence, the Planning Commission determined that removal of the larger Alder (i~ 1 on the Tree Preservation Plan) met all of the applicable approval standards for removal pursuant to ALUO 18.61.080(B). Following the Planning Commission decision in this matter, Appellant raised issues of tree removal concerning trees on adjacent property owned by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). The additional evidence submitted by Applicant's expert landscape architect establishes that several of the ODOT trees will require pruning along the property line ( # 6, # 12 and # 14 on the Tree Preservation Plan), as allowed by law. The pruning of only one ODOT tree will constitute removal under the ALUO. This one ODOT tree (#5 on the Tree Preservation Plan) is less thzm 6" DBH, therefore exempt from the tree removal permit requirements as set forth in ALUO 18.61.035(D). This tree is located on public land and is, pursuant to ALUO 18.61.035(E), exempt from the City's tree removal permit standards under this different provision. Alternatively, this tree is also a "hazard tree" under ALUO 18.61.080(A) m~d has been identified as such by Applicant' s landscape architect. Page 2 May 13, 2004 APPELLANT'S THIRD OBJECTION: The proposed development fails to fulfill the City's large development site standards. Appellant asserts that the site development standards for large scale projects must apply to this project. Provisions of the City's Site Development Standards (Section II-C-3) which governs applicability of the "Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects" states: '"~'ev ' ~ elopments (!) involving a gross floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet or a building frontage in excess of 100 feet in length, (2) located within the Detail Site Review Zone shall, in addition to complying to the standards for Basic and Detail Site review, shall conform to the following standards:" This project has less than 10,000 square feet (8,300 square feet) of gross floor area ;and building frontage less than 100 feet. While an existing building on this tax lot (which is over 100 years old) combine to produce more than 10,000 square feet, the "development" in this instance involves only the building now proposed. In the context of this project, the term "development" is ambiguous and requires interpretation. The ambiguity concerns whether "development" includes the existing, separate and non-contiguous 100-year-old building or whether it concerns only the proposed building. Applicant asks that the City Council interpret this provision to mean that this building does not constitute a development involving a gross floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet nor a building having frontage in excess of 100 feet in length. Based upon this interpretation, the additional standards simply do not apply to this project by the very threshold terms of those provisions. In the event that the Council interprets this threshold question to define "development" only as projects that occur on one parcel, the Council may impose a condition of approval that all of the development of the proposed project take place on one separate and distinct parcel. This may require applicant to reestablish and adjust property boundaries. Applicant asserts that the same can and will be done, if required by the Council. In the alternative, should the Council determine that this project must be aggregated (because the Council finds the two buildings to be contiguous) with adjacent building owned by Applicant, the standards for large scale projects can still met. However, meeting the standards 'will require the Council to impose conditions: 1) requiring that the proposed building share a common wall with the existing building owned by Applicant, where the common wall may include,, structural elements needed for seismic stability, and 2) that the proposed bridge be widened to accommodate seating which, with other public spaces on the property, will meet the "Public Spaces" requirements of Section II-C-3b of the City's Site Development Standards. APPELLANT'S FOURTH OBJECTION: Removal of the tree to be removed is unnecessary to fulfill the City's Site Design Standards. Appellant appears to be addressing the criteria in ALUO 18.61.080.B. Applicant proposes to remove the existing Alder tree on the property in order to permit a development consistent with the City's applicable land use ordinances, requirements and standards: which Page 3 May 13,200,4 requires buildings in the downtown to extend from side lot line to side lot line. Moreover, other site design/use standards require buildings to maintain a zero setback from the sidewalk or property line (other than for arcades, alcoves and other recessed features). The removal of Alder Tree (Tree # 1 on the Tree Preservation Plan) is needed to permit this application to be consistent with these provisions. While the standard governing front yard setbacks requires buildings to be setback not more than 20 feet from a public sidewalk, the Alder is only +8 feet from the North Main Street sidewalk. However, setting the building back the maximum 20 feet, the building would still be within 12 feet of the trunk. The evidence shows that according to applicant's expert arborist, "if construction is to occur closer than 20 feet from the trunk, it is very unlikely that the Alder would survive." Therefore, the removal of the Alder is also needed to permit this application to be consistent with the City's Site Design and Use Standards. APPELLANT'S FIFTH OBJECTION: Undisclosed conflicts of interest in the proceedings are in violation of Section 18.!08.100 of the Code. Appellant has not raised an issue with sufficient specificity to allow any applicant or the Council to address this general statement of failure to disclose or conflicts of interest as addressed under the hearings procedure section of Ashland's Municipal Code. Applicant has not identified any "actual conflict of interest" which would require a member of a quasi-judicial body to remove themselves. Such a member would have a conflict of interest if they would receive a direct or substantial financial interest from the approval decision before them. There is also no evidence in the record that Appellant raised this issue in a timely manner or with specificity to allow a member of the Planning Commission the opportunity to address these allegations. To the extent that these issues were not raised below, they have been waived and may not be asserted on appeal. As a practical matter, the City Council hears this application as a de novo review, taking new evidence and independently evaluating the approval criteria as it relates to the current configuration of the application before it. To the extent that an Appellant did raise an issue of an actual conflict of interest and could substantiate such actual conflict of interest on behalf of one of the Planning Commission members, he is not prejudiced in that the Council is reviewing the application de novo. The evidence supports approval of this application and Applicant urges its favorable consideration. Very~ truly yours, Alan D. B. Ha~er Attorney at Law AH/cas H:\USER\lvw\WorkVU2)BH\Ashland. Ltr.wpd5/12/04 cc. Lloyd Haines Craig Stone Page 4 N1EMBER OF THE OREGON AND CALIFORNIA BAR LLOYD MATTHEW HAINES ATTORNKY AT LAW 51 WATER STREET SUITE 222 ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 TELEPHONE: (541) 482'9300 FAX: (54i) 482-9334 The following testimony is submitted in support of approval of the application and denial of the appeal relating to the Shasta Building to be constructed on real property located at 88 North Main, Ashland Oregon. History_ of the Project 88 North Main LLC acquired the property in December 2002. I am the manager of the LLC. My intention for this project is to complete the vision set forth in the Dow~atown Plan, which was developed in the late 1980's. That vision included opening the creek to public use, extending from Lithia Park to Water Street. During the past 15 years I have worked with the City in furtherance of this goal by participating in the creation of Bluebird Park and making it accessible by pouring a concrete ramp behind 31 Water Street. Also, the project on Water Street (Condo/Commercial/Hotel) included constructing a public sidewalk through the ]project, so as to permit public access to the creek. The Shasta Building project envisions opening the creek to public use, creating a creek walk, creating a park under the viaduct and donating public art to the City. Shasta Building Design From the inception of the project, we have worked with staff to design a building; that comports with the City's wishes. We have worked with the Historic Commission to design a building, which will be a beautiful and compatible addition to the Historic District. We present a building that is exactly what the City wants. It includes: 1. An In fill project that replaces a deck, which is used only a portion of the year. 2. A mixed use project (retail/office/residential/restaurant). 3. Historic design. 4. A project in scale with the surrounding buildings. 5. Improvement of the creek water carrying and storage capacity. 6. Removal of flood hazards (existing deck and existing bridge). 7. ConsWuction of a new deck further away from the creek and above flood level. 8. Construction of a new bridge above flood level. 9. Landscaping both sides of the creek (although one side is owned by the state) even though there is no landscape requirement for this project. 10. Donation of Public art and artistic benches. We are not requesting any variances or conditional use permits. We are willing to pay for the improvements to create the creek walk, park and public art. The project has the support of staff, the Historic Commission, The Planning Commission and the community (see Tidings Editorial-April 28,2004). The Alder 'Tree When we began the design of the building, we wanted to save the Alder. We looked at notching out the comer of the building to accommodate the tree. After consulting with ap. Arborist, we learned that it would be impossible. Alders are susceptible to root fungus and will die unless construction is held back at least 20 feet. Thus, the building would have to have been held back approximately 30 feet from the sidewalk. Additionally, Alders do not live very long and at best this tree would live atmther 3040 years. It makes no sense to create a structure (that will exist for 100's of years) around a tree that will not exist very far into the future. If the building were held back 30 feet from the sidewalk, it would not be easily seen, would be economically unfeasible and would violate the policy of the city to get high density in tlhe downtown corridor. Additionally, it would violate design standards which generally require the building be constructed adjacent to the sidewalk and in no event further than 20 feet back from the sidewalk. Both the Tree Commission and the Planning Commission approved the removal of the tree. We agreed, by way of remediation, to plant 2 significant trees on the ODOT property. Also, We offer to have Russell Beebe, a local artist, create a beautiful sculpture from the tree, which will be donated to the City as public art. It will be installed on the ODOT property or under the viaduct, where a park will be created (if the City and Sate approve). Lastly, the i.arger branches will be carved into artistic benches, which will be placed under the viaduct and will support public viewing and use of the creek. Issues raised by Appellant 1. Three trunk Maple: We were asked by the Tree Commission to attempt to save the tree. We redesigned the building to accommodate the request. We have prepared and filed a modified tree protection plan. All accommodations have been made to save the tree. The building has been des, igned on pillars to minimize root impact. The Cantilevered portion of the structure has been pulled back from the creek by 10 feet. The deck has been narrowed by 18 inches. The gTading plan has been modified to leave the vast majority of the root system untouched. 2. ODOT Trees: We were requested to and have submitted a tree protection plan for the trees. We: will not use the ODOT property to stage construction. The building has been designed on pillars to reduce root damage. And, of most importance, the impact of construction on the ODOT trees will be minimal (See Arborist letter dated 4/24/04). State law permits us to prone any branches that hang over our property (Oregon State Bar Real Estate Disputes, Section 9.28). There is no prohibition in the Tree Preservation Ordinance against building in the drip line of trees, which are located on adjacent property (the ODOT trees). The necessary pruning will have little impact on the "stand" of ODOT trees and the branches overhanging our property are considered "hazard trees" and can be pruned without a tree removal permit. Lastly, ODOT has no objection to our proposed plan and 18.61.035(e) gives the City very limited control over trees located on public land. 3. Other creek trees: Other trees are located in and around Ashland Creek. None will be removed. All are protected on the modified tree preservation plan. The area under the viaduct is already paved and any equipment or materials that may be used or stored under the viaduct will not touch the trees or their root systems. The vast majority of staging for the project will occur on Main Street. 4. Fraud: I unequivocally deny that I intentionally misrepresented anything to the city or it's Commissions. Further, I unequivocally deny I directed or instructed the professionals working on this project to intentionally misrepresent anything to the City or it's commission nor do I have any knowledge of any intentional misrepresentations that may have been made. It is my belief that all submittals relating to this project were made in good faith.. This is a terribly complicated project with numerous design standards, ordinances and issues involved. Tree, Flood Plain, Historic, Downtown and Riparian issues and ordinances, apply. Any inaccuracies were unintentional and have been corrected with the re-submittal of various documents. The resubmitted Tree Preservation Plan, 'along with the narrative of John Galbraith, correct the inaccuracies and explain the reason the original preservation plan contained some errors (see Galbraith letter attached to new tree preservation plan). I highly value my integrity. I have always dealt ~vith the City honestly and in a straightfov~vard manner. This project is no exception. Real Purpose of the appeal: The appell~mt does not want any building built on this site. He wants the deck left as it is. On two separate occasions, both at a meeting with City staff on 4/26/04, and in a discussion with me on 5/6/04, he has made it entirely clear that the only acceptable solution to this issue is not building any type or size building on the land. Not permitting the development of this site will violate the City's stated goal of supporting In Fill and high-density development in the Downtown Corridor. Conclusion.: This is a good and attractive project. It will be good for the town to afford public access to this portion of the creek. The project improves the water carrying capacity of the creek and storage of floodwaters under the building. It removes obstructions to the flow of It is unfortunate that the Alder tree must be removed. However, it is not a heritage tree and has only a short life span. It will be turned into Art that will benefit the City ftr years to come. It also will become artistic benches, which the public will use while enjoying the creek. I urge you to support this application. Thank you. Respectfully submitted, Lloyd M. May 10, 2004 '~ ' A~HLAND · Publish News Editor ~ Feat~ EdJWr ~~ ~ ~~ M~ M~ Otu' View Project a good fit · for a great area ;. Lloyd Haines, whose 8,325-square-foot pro- ~. posed structure on North Main Street is wend- ' ing its way through the city's approval process, says of the plan, "The project is the , poster boy for downtown.,' He's right. , Concerns about the removal of a large alder tree on the property just north of the Ashland Creek Bar & Grill, the size of the project and its negative effects on the surrounding area are misplaced. The tree isn't indigenous to that spot, nor has it been there particularly long -- about 40 ,. years. It's always unfortUnate to chop down a tree, but the proposal doesn't cut old growth, .. it removes a landscaped alden .. As for the size, in any mixed-use structure, : there is a minimum square footage required to fit : everything in, and though 8,325 isn't that num- . ber, it certainly isn't out of scale for the area. · Finally, the building's facade has a classic feel that will improve the look of the block. · p1 .ans to. develop _walkwaYs that capture the narura_l ueauty of the creek will be a terrific ~ use for this special corner of the city This is the kind of project that embodies ? infrll done correctly, enabling more people to work and live downtown and contributing to the vitality of the city's core. We hope/hat the Plmming Commission's · . approval of the project allows it to move forward : without let or hindrance -- endless appeals are . better suited for projects worth fighting. I p, pR-~4-';L:~ 07:~9 FR~'I:TOI'! I'IYERS $4148841L~6 1541J ??O-51G~l~ T0:54i ?' ' ,~164 P. ~191 Upper Limb-it Tree Service PO Box 881 ' Ashland, OR 97520 Phone; 541-482-3667 assessment for ODOf~roperly near I~ N. Main for the Shasta Pro, ct Moa oi Ihe trees on Ihe O00T ~ am in ~ oon~l~3n l~t in need o~ remedial pruning. Three of ~he bees shoed be removed as lmlicated on the tree mpo~ f~rn ~ With Ibis docume~ The Tom Myer..~ Adx~st ~. A--II sa[braith AN'D ASSOCIATES May 12, 2004 City of Ashland 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Shasta Building '03 / Lloyd Haines Executive Summary To Whom It May Concern: This project involves construction of a new building on a key downtown property which currently consists of outdoor deck seating areas at the edge of Ashland Creek. It may be helpful to consider the customary and normal proCedure for such a project. During any project involving an Architect, an engineer, a Landscape Architect, City commissions, and multiple regulating agencies, the design process involves (several) Preliminary plans, with changes and adjustments to plans prior to Final Plans and permitting. The Tree Commission examines each project individually, since ordinances cannot anticipate all circumstances. The professionals in the design team customarily work with al~ parties and within all laws to arrive at an optimal use for the property and for the community. This fact should be known even without statement, but it is stated since it has been challenged in this case. In his opposition to this project, Mr. Hopkins characterizes this normal procedure as somehow "misleading," alleging that items were "concealed" and "misrepresented". At the Tree Commission Meeting of May 6th, Mr. Hopkins falsely accused me and Mr. Haines of deemphasizing the existing trees in order to prepare for their removal. Mir. Hopkins' creates a scenario of deception that simply does not exist. His exaggerations and allegations of manipulation, concealing, misrepresentation of facts are polar opposites to the open process, professionalism, and high ethical standards of the design team. This letter describes the main adjustments to this project, as a result of meetings with staff and Commissions, and our response to the Appeal. Dripline information: Electronic data of survey information was transferred to our original Tree Preservation & Tree Removal Plan. Though this is typical procedure, the diameters around tree trunks did ntot represent the exact branching outline & driplines of leaning trees. Corrected, accurate dripline areas have been shown on the revised plan. Multi-trunk Maple: The Maple, which was originally slated for removal, will now be preserved. The three- trunked tree, had first been labeled as three trees on the survey, but later observation by the Landscape Architect and Certified Arborist Tom Meyer located only one crown beneath the existing deck. Preservation became possible by eliminating a wall and planning for special deck construction methods which minimize root disturbance. The required excavation for creek flooding will be outside of the critical root zone. Two trunks of the tree will be lightly' pruned. Only one (trunk-like) branch of the tree will be removed, since it protrudes into the proposed building area. 145 S. Holly St. Medford, OR 97501 Tel 541.770.7964 Fax 541.770.5164 email: contact@galbraithla.com Landscape Business License */6661 I Landscape Architect's License OR-254, CA-2980 I General Contractor's License #104274 ODOT Trees & Canopy: Of primary concern, no fill is to be added, and the critical root zone of these off-site trees will not be disturbed, allowing for their preservation. Next, the canopy area (see "dripline information" above) has been corrected on the revised plan. The revised plan shows that the great majority of the canopy/dripline will be retained, with some minor pruning adjacent to the property line. Certified Arborist Tom Myer's letter of April 24, 2004 states, "I feel that the planned construction will not have any significant impact on any of the desirable trees on the ODOT property." Several hazardous trees need pruning or removal regardless of the proposed construction. Planned removal dates are in the Fall 2004. Tree #5: I have examined this Maple and re-measured and found it to be 5.97" caliper. As such, this tree may be removed without a Tree Removal Permit. This tree is a hazard, as it has been injured, leans onto the property, and it is clear that il: is likely to fall and injure persons or property. Thus it will require removal. Tree #6: I obs~erved that one branch of his 3-trunked Ailanthus tree was previously topped, and the sprouted new branch extends over the fenceline towards the proposed building site. This branch is a hazard. It is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property and that branch must be removed, regardless of the construction project. The remaining branches will require minor pruning only. In my opinion this pruned area will be less than 50% of the existing canopy of this tree. Trees #12 & 14: grow against a fence, and branches extending beyond the fence will require pruning. I have examined these, trees, which are not being removed. In my opinion required pruning will affect less than 50% of these trees. Tree #17: I have examined this Robinia pseudoacacia and it is my opinion that this tree is a hazard. The trunk is a stump sprout with a broken leader and it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. Thus, the tree will require removal. Trees located across Ashland Creek: Three trees have Tree Protection Zones which extend across the creek and into the project building site. The revised plan shows that the portion of the Tree Protection Zone which is currently paved, will not require protective fencing. Tree #1: In a letter dated 9-3-03, by Tom Myers, Certified Arborist refers to this tree: "Any construction within its dripline (20"' from the trunk) will have a detrimental impact to its long-term health.. If construction is to occur closer than twenty feet from the trunk, it is very unlikely that the Alder would survive." Ashland Site Design and Use Standards require buildings in the downtown to maintain a zero setback from the sidewalk or property line, and ASDUS II-C-2b (2) requires buildings to be set back not more than 20' from a public sidewalk. Since this tree is approximately 8' from the North Main Street sidewalk, it is not possible to maintain the required 20' radius undisturbed Tree Protection Zone for the tree, and also to comply with the ASDUS requirement. For these reasons removal of Tree #1 is necessary to comply with Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. The above statements constitute my expert opinion on each issue. For an unabridged discussion of these points, please refer to the "Responses'" document. Very truly yours, John Galbraith, ASLA Landscape Architect 145 S. Holly St. Medford, OR 97501 Tel 541.770.7964 Fax 541.770.5164 email: contact@galbraithla.com Landscape Business License #6661 I Landscape Architect's License OR-254, CA-2980 I General Contractor's License #104274 Page 1 TREE PROTECTION NARRATIVE Prepared by Galbraith & Associates, Inc. For Shasta Building '03 May 12, 2004 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS OREGON 04/07/89 Contrary to popular belief, the root systems of trees are not deep taproots in form. Instead most tree roots grow in the top 12 - 18" from the soil surface and are horizontally oriented, extending far beyond the tree's dripline or canopy. See tree and root section drawing Figure 1. A rule of thumb is that a healthy tree may tolerate removal of approximately one third of its roots, and "A healthy, vigorous tree may withstand removal of up to 50 percent of its roots without dying? If roots on one side of a tree are severed, it may become unstable and a hazard. Old and mature trees are less tolerant of construction impacts than younger, more vigorous trees, and trees in a grove or forest stands are best retained in those groups. The species tolerances for trees to be retained within the Shasta Building project are as follows: RELATIVE TOLERANCE OF SELECTED SPECIES TO DEVELOPMENT 1MPACTS2 Bigleaf Maple ACer rnacrophy~'lurn Poor .... Declines following the addition of fill, t-~ierates root pruning ... Alder Alnus spp. Poor Intolerant of root injury ......... O[.egon Ash Fraxinus latifolia Moderate Moderately tolerant of roOt pruni[ng. Incense Cedar "Calocedrus decurrens Moderate Tolerant of root pruning. Responds follo~ving disturbance w.!th good acclimation. Tree of Heaven Ailanthus altissima' Good Responds following disturbance. Black Locust RobiniapseUdoacacia GOod Tolerates root loss & fill. Int01e{ant of saturated soils. Walnut juglans spp. Poor ...... The size of the tree protection zone, the area protective fencing is shown on the Tree Protection Plan, is calculated by species tolerance and tree age category which selects a distance factor from the trunk of the tree. ~' Matheny, N. & Clark, J. 1998. Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development. p. 72. 2 Ibid. Appendix B selections, p. 165 - 178. Galbraith & Associates, Inc. Landscape Architects & Site Planners GUIDELINES FOR OPTIMAL TREE PRESERVATION ZONES~ Page 2 Good Moderate Poor TREEAGE Young (<20% life expectancy) Mature (20%-80% life expectancy) Over mature (>80% life expectancy) Young Mature Over mature Young Mature Overmature DISTANCE FROM TRUNK .5' 0.75' 1.0' 0.75' 1.0' 1.25' 1.0' 1.25' 1.5' Figure 1 Drawing used by permission of Dr. Gary Watson, The Morton Arboretum, Lisle, Illinois. Note: This document and the ideas incorporated herein, as an instrument of professional service, is the property of Galbraith & Associates, Inc. and is not to be used, modified, or changed in whole or in part, for any other purpose without the express written authorization of John Galbraith, Landscape Architect. 3 Ibid., p. 74. Galbraith & Associates, Inc. Landscape Architects & Site Planners Page 3 May 12,2004 City of Ashland 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Shasta Building '03 / Lloyd Haines To Whom It May Concern: This letter concerns the :removal of two trees which are the subject of the application filed by Lloyd M. Haines. The trees are identified on the Tree Preservation Plan which we prepared for the above captioned project. Tree No. 1 (Alnus sp. - Alder): The tree referred to on the attached Tree Permit, No. 1, is an Alnus sp (Alder). It is located on Lloyd Haines Shasta Building construction site, approximately 8' from the North Main Street sidewalk. This tree is located within the building envelope thus it is recommended to be removed. Certified Arborist, Tom Myers has examined this tree and together we have determined that this tree does not presently pose a hazard. However, construction within the 20' radius Tree Protection Zone would lead to the inevitable decline and death of the tree which will then produce a hazard. This species is subject to Armillaria root rot, prevalent in our area, and the root rot is likely to develop with construction It is my expert opinion that the removal of tree No. 1 will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks because: · The tree locati.on is within the building footprint, erosion and soil stability will not be an issue beneath the building, the flow of surface waters will be directed by the new drainage incorporated into the structure. · This is a solitary tree not part of a grove or a windbreak and its removal will not have a negative impact on other trees. It is also my opinion that the removal of tree No. 1 will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property because, · The site is adjacent to Ashland Creek and the existing riparian corridor along the creek contains a wide variety of sizes and densities of wooded species with a varied tree canopy. · Species diversity will not be negatively impacted because this tree is commonly found along Ashland Creek. Mr. Haines will mitigate the removal of this tree. However, due to limited available space on the subject property, the location of the mitigation planting will occur off-site at a location yet to be determined. Tree No. 5 (Acer macrophyllum - Bigleaf Maple): The tree referred to on the Tree Preservation Plan is an Acer Macrophyllum. It is located on the adjacent ODOT property. The tree has been re-measured, and :its' corrected size is 5.97" caliper. This is below the 6" caliper size tree which is required to be shown on the tree in~ventory in Ashland ordinances. It is my opinion that this tree is a hazard tree, because it has been injured, it has a trunk cavity in the plane of lean, and leans directly onto this property. It is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. It will require removal. Tree No. 17 (Robinia pseudoacacia - Black Locust): The tree referred to on the Tree Preservation Plan is a Robinia pseudoacacia. It is located on the adjacent ODOT property. Galbraith & Associates, Inc. Landscape Architects & Site Planners Page 4 It is my opinion that this tree is a hazard tree, because the trunk is a stump sprout and has a broken leader. It is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. It will require removal. It is my opinion that the removal of tree No. 17 will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters;, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks because: · The trunk location is within an existing canopy of trees, erosion and soil stability will not be an issue beneath the remaining canopy of trees. It is also my opinion that the removal of tree No. 17 will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property because, · The site is adjacent to Ashland Creek and the existing riparian corridor along the creek contains a wide variety of sizes and densities of wooded species with a varied tree canopy. · Species diversity will not be negatively impacted because this tree is commonly found along As'hland Creek. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, John Galbraith, ASLA Galbraith & Associates Galbraith & Associates, Inc. Landscape Architects & Site Planners ! RESPONSES In the matter of SHASTA BUILDING '03, LLOYD HAINES May 12, 2004 The Design Process: This project involves construction of a new building on a key downtown property which currently consists of outdoor deck seating areas at the edge of Ashland Creek. It may be helpful to consider the customary and normal procedure for such a project. During any project involving an Architect, an engineer, a Landscape Architect, City commissions, and multiple regulating agencies, the design, process involves (several) Preliminary plans, with changes and adjustments to plans prior to Final Plans and permitting. The Tree Commission examines ,each project individually, since ordinances cannot anticipate all circumstances. The professionals in the design team customarily work with all parties and within all laws to arrive at an optimal use for the property and for the community. This fact should be known even without staternent, but it is stated since it has been challenged in this case. In his opposition to this project, Mr. Hopkins characterizes this normal procedure as somehow "misleading," alleging that items were "concealed" and "misrepresented". At the Tree Commission Meeting of May 6th, Mr. Hopkins falsely accused me and Mr. Haines of deemphasizing the existing trees in order to prepare for their removal. Mr. Hopkins' creates a scenario of deception that simply does not exist. His exaggerations and allegations of manipulation, concealing, misrepresentation of facts are polar opposites to the open process, professionalism, and high ethical standards of the design team. Conclusion: Issues such as those raised by Hopkins, and/or substantive changes in project plans or information are regularly addressed in every project during the permitting procedure. Issues: In his Introduction, Hopkins states that "every tree on or adjacent to the project will be removed or put at serious risk by this development". This is simply NOT TRUE. Rather 'than dealing with sweeping generalities, let me address each point: Dripline information: Our initial site information, including driplines, carne from data collected and reported by the project surveyors. Surveyor's information included trunk diameter, location and diameter of the drip lines of trees, and topographic contours. These written field notes and survey information were transferred to our Tree Preservation & Tree Removal Plan. This practice is typical and routine for our office. While the circles centered around the trunks of the trees accurately depict the electronic files of surveyors' driplines, the circle symbols used do not represent exact field outlines of the branches/ "dripline". Corrected dripline areas have been shown on our latest plan. 1 Multi-trunk Maple: The architects had concerns about the Maple trees located at the proposed deck because of the construction activities right next to them. Preliminary architectural drawings showed the Maples as being removed. We had agreed with this because a proposed retaining wall at the edge of the deck this would cause severe damage to the roots. The owner and planner wanted to retain the Maple(s) and wanted to see an architectural solution. The architects and our office came up with a plan revision calling for the concrete wall to bridge the roots of the Maple, connecting to the earth by piers located away from the crowns of the trees. This new solution would still call for selective intrusion into the root system - but to a much lesser degree than using a spread footing. This still left problems of how to keep construction activity as far away as possible and still construct the project. We submitted with the intention of discussing with the Tree Commission our doubts and concerns. I mentioned my concerns about attempting to save the three Maples near the deck area. Retaining wall work and other construction activity could harm them. Commissioner Don T.odt said that he has seen Big Leaf Maples withstand quite a bit of construction activity in their root zone and they seemed to recover well. Commissioners suggested using plywood and bark as a way of cushioning construction activity. Also, Commissioners wanted to be assured that protective fencing would be installed flush with grade, 'without holes being dug into the root system, and be immovable. While considering the new issues, I revisited the site to review the trees. The owner and architect had proposed moving the proposed cantilever building back in order to save the tree. By doing this one of the trees would still need to be severely cut back. I discovered that the surveyors' points for locating the trees had been taken from the top of the existing deck. The "three" Maples emerge from a large cutout in the deck, with soil and decaying organic matter (duff) that may appear to be grade. However upon my further inspection below the deck, I discovered that the trees actually joined into one crown. Thus the "three" Maples were in fact one tree. I asked Tom Myers to look at it and he thought that it looked to be one tree also. Tree numbering on our plans was revised due to the tlhree Maple numbers which was actually only one tree. After reviewing this new information, I concluded that it would be best to completely remove', the branch that protrudes the most into the revised future building. I also proposed pruning the other two Maple branches as lightly as possible, allowing for the building. When I presented this discovery and proposal to the Tree Commission at their next meeting Commissioner Jennings thought my proposal to completely prune off one of the tree branches would create an opening for rot, and the location of the wound at the crown would quickly spread to the other branches. She suggested cutting the branch high enough so that it could be inspected on an annual basis by a certified arborist. Another issue has since arisen in reference to the Maple tree on the creek bank. Our office discovered that there was to be excavation under the proposed building in order to allow fbr flooding of the creek. It has subsequently been worked out that the required excavation can occur outside the critical root zone of the existing multi-trunk maple. The 2 proposed deck construction will add minimally to root disturbance. No wall will be constructed. This progression once again shows the flexibility and design process at work. Had the Maple(s) been removed, as originally proposed, an entirely different scenario at the creek's edge would have been possible. Urban-styled creek bank protection,, as what was done behind the plaza; planted with native riparian plants, might have been proposed. ODOT Trees & Canopy: We were not unaware of the proposed building's impact to the health of the ODOT tree group. Our primary concern was the critical tree root zone, the tree protection zone shown on the plans. The trees on ODOT property, mostly located on the crest of a slope next to the roadway, were observed while visiting the site with the owner and the architect. The land slopes down from the roadway and trees towards the property line. The architect said that the building would be located at the existing retaining wall inside Mr. Haines property. No fill would be added. The ODOT trees were not on the owner's property and the root area was not going to be disturbed. The critical root zone would be minimally impacted by construction. The letter dated April 24, 2004 by Tom Myers, Certified Arborist, states "I feel that the planned construction will not have any significant impact on any of the desirable trees on the ODOT property." With the Tree Protection Zone addressed, attention can next be turned to the 'tree canopy. As mentioned, it was an oversight that our office neglected to place the accurate location of the trees canopy of the drawings, when relying of the surveyor's dripline information. A correction in the canopy shown has been made on the revised plan. It shows that a large portion of the tree canopy extends into the roadway (north) side of tlhe trees, and this canopy will not be disturbed. Only a minor section of the canopy will be removed. It must be remembered that due to critical root zone being left intact, the ODOT trees will continue their growth after the construction; thus the canopy will continue to enlarge. Tree #5 has been re-measured, and its' corrected size is 5.97" caliper. (Our earlier plan lists a different size.) This is below the 6" caliper size tree which is required to be shown on the tree inventory in Ashland ordinances. This tree has been injured, leans directly onto the property and will require removal. (See photo) Tree #6 is a three-trunked tree. One branch had been previously topped, and the sprouted new branch grew with characteristically weak attachment. This branch extends over the fenceline towards the proposed building site. This branch is a hazard and needs to be removed (removing canopy), regardless of any new project construction. The remaining branches on this tree will require only minor pruning. Trees #12 & 14 are now growing against a fence. Branches which extend into the building will require pruning, but the trees will not be "toothpicks" as alleged by Hopkins. 3 Trees located across Ashland Creek: Three trees located across the creek, #25, 26, & 27, show Tree Protection Zones that cross the creek extending into the construction site. The revised plan shows that the portion of the Tree Protection Zone (across the creek), which is currently paved, will not require protective fencing. . Tree #5, showing injury and tree lean 4 Upper Limb-it Tree-8e PO Box 881 '* Ashland, OR 97520 Phone: 541,482,3667 Affn: Gatbmith and Associates Inc. 4/24/~004 Tree-assessment for'ODOT~Pmpe~ near 88 N.* Main for the Shasta Project and w/J/need to be pllJ~ted baci( Io make ~ ~ the ~. /UI the trees m ~ ~T ~rly regard to the mot simems of the ex_'_-~_~g lrees.. One of Ihe Lree~__.has a scar and associaled decay from des~ trees on the ~T ~. If you have a~y qoestions regarding this refx~ please carl me at 482-3667. 15414828334 $CH~DU~,E B This policy does no= insure against los~ or damage, nor against cost~., &=toxney's fees or expenses, any or &ll which may arise by reason of the following: Liens, ~ncumbrances, defects and other matters a£feccin~ title to said land, or to which said title is subject, as hereinafter set forth: 1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing lie~s by the records of any taxin~ authoriCy that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by =he public =ecord or proceedings by a public agency wh/ch may result in taxes or assessments or no:ices of such proceed£ncjs, whe=he.- or not shown by the record~ of such a~ency or by =he public records. Any faccs, r£gh:s, interesta or claims which are not shown by the public records but which cool, be ascer~ainedbyan inspection of said lan~ or by making inc~iry of persons in possession thereof. 3. Easements, or claims of easement, not shown by the public records,. reservations or excel:ions in patents or in acts author/zing the issuance thcz~of, water rights, claims or title to water. 4. Any lien, or right =o a lien, for service~, labor or ~aterial h~re=ofore or hereafter furnish=d, imposed by law anOn o= shown by =he public records. 5. Diucrepanctes, conflicts in boundary lines, shor=ag~ in area, encroachments or a/~y other facts which a correct survey would disclose. 6. City li~ns, if any, of the City of Ashland. (Liens, levies and/or assessments current as of this date) Rights of the public, riparian owner~ and of governmental bodies in that portion of the above described property lying below the high water mark o~ Ashland Creek. An easement erda:ed by instruct, including the ~crms and ~ro¥isionu thereof, Recorded : Volume: 49 Page: 603 In Favor Of : F. M. Car=er and F. L. Nelson For : POWer piDe line and righto in connection =h~rewi:h 9. Limited access in deed to S~a~e of Oregon, by and through its Department of Tranuportation, Highway D~partn~.n=, which provides that no right or easement of right of access to, from or across the Sta:e Highway other gha~ expressly therein provided for shall attach tO the abuttin~ proper:y, Recorded : January 3, 1956 Volume: 420 Page: 192 Ma~"'l 2__04_.. 12:.._. 12'..p ..... L 1 o~jd_. M. Haines 15.414828334 10. An eanemenC cr~aCad loy tneCrument, i~1~~ C~ ~ ~ R~o~d : ~~~ 3, 1956 VoZ~: 420 Pa~: 192 Z~ Fair Of : State of O~on, ~ ~ t~ugh its S~te ~way 11. An es. semen't; created by inst--:, including the terms and provi~ion~ thereof, Recorded : May 30, 1990 Docum n: ~o. 90-13237 In Favor 0:~ : The City of Ashland, .Ore~on, a Municipal Corporation of the S=a~e of Oregon For : l~blic pedes=rtan purpOueu i / / //// / / / / / / \ \ , / / ' I / / / I I i / / 30' I~ ri1 I i i i m In- Z 0 0 0 \x \ \. \ \ II II ~ I I I I I ~ I I i i ~1~ I II II i i~ II I ~ I ., .... ,,, .... ,,, ......z ~-- / -" ~---- ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I _.., ~ ..... :~ ....... ~ .__ / ~ ?~?:~;, ~ J~~.,~ ~ '~_ J ~1~,~.-- ~ ~:__. :t:~:~_'~¢~ [ ~F T :? ::~-. ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ , ,, II I ::4:>4- .... ~~--~ ~ ~ ,~, ~, 1~ ...... , ~ ~ ,'2 ~ ~ .,.~,.?--~---------~-- ' I--~-~~~-~ ~F~-~-~,,2'~ 'x, .... ' ~ ..... - . _ , I _ ~ ..~.,~ ..... __~::~~::~___~-~_~ ~[ J ~"~' C-~ bL[~. ~(--f~TJ~ ', ~ ~-// ~ '" .... , ,, ..... : , ,:, ,,,_,, _ ; 4"::x'' /'-X'x;'~:~?"/'%d%~x ~ : '~ ' ./%x/~.: w.,.%./ ,,,,../ . .......,/x. ~ ' ~ ' ~:~<~ ~~-I',, I/ ~ L ,/'~./ "~ · ', 'x .' ',/~,, ,"~ ..... ..., /.. ., ,. ,~..~ ,.., ..x ..,<. ~ ......I, ' · -- ._c~ _ I:!il i'[I ~ " ! I I , . . ' '.r. ,,.. ,.':~'.'~,~ ~ Iii t~ · '.,, ..F..-..~.,~,---,: ,:,~. ": - ~' lff~.,, 'T ~ ,_, , ,. , .':~, ,,. ' ;.~.~,~,¥,},.,',~i .,~,. :..::.:..i.';'".' ~ - ,Il:I'll,ih .......... I ~,-:-"-" ~ aLI II,I ',-, I ' "' ?..., 'lliF,:llt;' ~ , , ,':~ .. ~....-.,..,.?,._..:...;::.~. ~,..'-'~" /,'-,,, ' ' "':"' , ,,~:,.... ~.:,.. ....,' ~~ill ~ - '"" ' '""'"' " "~"';*""~" . r ,, ,._,, .,.., ~,,-, .,~ .-,"' ,, , ~ ~ EEE': E',.: .~ ,,,,: ,,:: ~[~ ,, , ~ :::: ,:: ~ ::: ::: ~ ,,,,',', ~, .~ ,,;: ,,,, ~"'"t "'~ t "'" t '"~ 1,''~*'' ,,~ ' :"{ ":' ' '... .;.. . - Il:.." :. ,, '~'" =----- ~ · III II I II I I · II II I I I I I I I I · I II II I I I m · :;; ,.' !;!'i'"'::'"'"" "' ..... ;'-. ...... .!.$.3l. .'. . . / I / I i I / i 1 t / I I Y / / Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC ,RING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LA,-~D USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL on May 18th, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, '1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance cdteda applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection conceming 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 on also precludes your dght 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 applicatic tocuments and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable cdteda are .,able 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 headng 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 Headng, the Mayor shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Mayor shall have the dght 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 541-552-2041. Our TTY phone number is 1-800-735-2900. Subject Proper y , , , ,, , N PLANNING ACTION 2004-002 is a request for Site Review and Tree Removal Permit t° construct multi-floor, 8,325 square foot mixed use building at 88 North Main Street. A Physical Constraints Review Permit is requested to permit "development" within the Ashland Floodplain Corridor. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial; Zoning: C-l-D; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 09 BB; Tax Lot: 9800. APPLICANT: Lloyd Haines ~ SITE REVIEW o. '18.72.50 Criteria for Approval_.. The following cdter~'a shall be used to approve or deny a site plan: A. All apPlicable City ordinances have been met and will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements "of the'Site Review ChaPter have been met. C. The site design complies with the guidelines adoPted by the City Council for the implementation of this-Chapter. .. D. That adequate capac'~y of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the devel0pment,.electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. (Ord. · 2655, 1991) .. 'PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL cONSTRAINTS PERMIT CRITERIA 1'8.62.040 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. 21. 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. · SECTION 18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal - Staff Permit. An applicant for a Tree Removal-Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff AdviSOr may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit. A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal. 1. A hazard tree is a tree that.is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tre~ may also include a tree that is located within public fights of way and is causing damage to existing public' or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of.property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot-reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning. e The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a a~e that is not a hazard if thc applicant demonstrates all of the following: . The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g..other applicable Site Design and Use Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the building: footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and 2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on-erosion, ..soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been.considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the prope~y to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the. residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination,-the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alt,mate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree tTanted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be.a eondi'tion of approval of the perm it. (Ord 2883, Added, 06/04/2002) DATE: TO: FROM: RE: 12 May 2004 Mayor Alan DeBoer and City Councilors Ashland Tree Commission Planning Action 2004-002 The above-referenced planning action was reviewed during normal review procedures at the 8 January 2004 regular meeting of the Tree Commission. Planning director John McLaughlin and associate planner Mark Knox were in attendance, presenting the staff report on this action and answering questions. The applicant and his agents, as well as Councilors Hartzell and Jackson were also in attendance. After discussion, the Tree Commission sent forward its consensual recommendations, as is precedent, to the Planning Commission. You have before you now an appeal from Randall Hopkins. He investigated this project as a private citizen and submitted a document to Tree Commis. sioners (which you have in your packet) of over 30 pages entitled, "The Gateway Alder, ODOT Grove, Triple Maple, Trees of Ashland Creek and the :Shasta Building Project." He has attended subsequent Tree Commission regular monthly meetings, most recently on 6 May 2004. The fact that the Tree Commission had received information alter we had already reviewed this project is unusual. Nonetheless, we agreed that Mr. Hopkins' document raises issues and therefore necessitated an additional discussion by the Tree Commission on 6 May. Mr. Lloyd Haines and his representative, Mr. John Galbraith, were also at that meeting. In fairness to all parties, the Tree Commission allowed Mr. Hopkins five minutes during public forum and Mr. Haines and Mr. Galbraith also received five minutes each. One other citizen was also given an opportunity to speak to this subject during public forum. After that final testimony, Tree Commission Chair Ted Loftus closed public forum and declared that no more discussion would occur about this planning action until the 'Old Business' section of the TC agenda. When 'Old Business,' was finally addressed, only Mr. Galbraith remained in the audience',. In discussion, each Commissioner presented his or her thoughts and views about the situation. Some reported that they had been contacted by citizens who expressed concerns about the loss of the alder tree. Additionally, concerns were raised about fairness to the applicant. We also considered whether we should accept Mr. Hopkins' new documents .or the applicant's new arborist report and revised landscape drawings. Questions were asked of planning department staff, Maria Harris, as to legal arid procedural issues. Mr. Galbraith worded that Commissioners had only received Mr. Hopkins booklet, and none of the latest material generated by the applicant. The Commission decided, as a result, not to accept any new documents from either Mr. Hopkins or Mr. Haines or his agent. To resolve these difficulties and to make our views known, the Tree Commission is now sending you this memorandum. We recognize the entire process probably cannot start over, but this planning action stresses the importance of commissions receiving accurate, detailed information prior to making recommendations. You, however, are now in possession of this additional information, .and we simply ask you to carefully review all the documents -- those provided by Mr. Hopkins and those that are submitted by Mr. Haines or his agents. You are now in the position of having more complete information than what was provided to the Historic, Tree or Planning commissions. THE GATEWAY ALDER, ODOT GROVE, TRIPLE MAPLE, TREES OF ASHLAND CREEK and the SHASTA BUILDING PROJECT INTRODUCTION P.A. 2004-002 seeks a removal permit for a single tree - the Alder that guards the gateway to downtown Ashland. As will be shown, however, the truth is that every tree on or adjacent to the project will be removed or put at serious risk by this development. These include the large grove of trees on the adjacent ODOT property, the beautiful multi-trunk Maple on the subject property, and several large trees along Ashland Creek behind the project. As will also be shown, this reality is concealed by a series of misrepresentations in the Application at issue. Fortunately, the Ashland Municipal Code compels the denial of the requested removal permit and the protection of the other trees precisely because of these very misrepresentations. 1. WHAT INFORMATION WAS THE APPLICANT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE? Applicant was required by not one, but two sections of the Municipal Code to identify the dripline of trees on the project and land adjacent to it. Section 18.61.200(A)(2), which is applicable to any planning action, requires a Tree Protection Plan which includes the following: a. Location, species and diameter of each tree on site and within 15 feet of the site; (and) b. Location of the drip line of each tree. Sec.18.61.020E defines 'dripline' as the imaginary vertical line extending downward from the outermost tips of a tree's branches to the ground. In addition, where a project requires a Physical Restraints Review as this one does, Sec.18.62.040(H)(1)(m) requires the filing of a plan which shall include: Accurate locations of all existing natural features...Natural features on adjacent properties potentially impacted by the pro- posed development shall also be included, such as trees with driplines extending across ..property lines. The location of such trees and their driplines are necessary in order to ascertain whether an Applicant has satisfied the Criteria for Issuance of a Tree Removal Permit. Specifically, Sec.18.61.080(B)(3) provides that the City shall issue a removal permit for a non-hazardous tree when the Applicant proves, among other things, that: '(r)emoval of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on tree densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. ' That cannot be done without determining, accurately, the densities, sizes and canopies of trees that will remain post-removal. Providing these plans and accurately representing tree sizes and canopies is so critical that the City has adopted a special provision in its Tree Ordinance. Sec. 18.61. 050 mandates that: "Misrepresentation of any fact necessary for the City's determination for granting a tree removal permit shall invalidate the permit .... Such misrepresentation may relate to matters including, without limitation, tree size, location, health or hazard condition, justification for issuance of the permit, or owner's authorized signature." As will be shown, Applicant has violated each of the above provisions of the City Code, full copies of which are attached as Exhibit 1. 2. THE APPLICATION GROSSLY MISKEPKESENTS THE DRIPLINE OF THE ODOT GROVE. The attached Exhibits 2 and 4-11 demonstrate that the dripline of the ODOT Grove extends well over the property line onto the subject property. The driplines of Tree #5 (including much of its trunk) and Tree #6, a Tree of Heaven which is the largest of the ODOT trees, extends along a broad front a full 16 feet into the property (as measured from the inner face of the concrete retaining wall). Other trees extend 3 to 12 feet intO the property. The dripline of the ODOT Grove covers close to 25% of the Proposed Building footprint. And that is without counting a single leaf or branch from the Gateway Alder. Yet~ save for a sliver of drip line from Tree #6, the portion of the ODOT Grove drip line over the subject .property is completely missing from all three versions of the Applicant's Tree Protection Plan. Exhibits 3, 18-20. How could this part of the ODOT Grove dripline be missed by the Applicant, an experienced real estate developer, or his Consulting Urban Planner, or his Registered Landscape Architect and Site Planner? REALITY - THIS JACKSON COUNTY AERIAL SHOWS THE ACTUAL CANOPY AROUND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY NOTE THE CONTRAST WITH APPLICANT'S TREE PLAN, WHICH, EXCEPT FOR THE GATEWAY ALDER, SHOWS ONLY SLIVERS OF CANOPY OVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE ODOT GROVE, THE THREE TRUNK MAPLE AND THE ASHLAND CREEK TREES. INSTEAD, THESE TREES ALMOST COMPLETELY COVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ALMOST THE ENTIRETY OF THIS CANOPY WILL BE REMOVED OR PUT AT SERIOUS RISK BY THIS DEVELOPMENT, A FACT CONCEALED BY APPLICANT'S MISLEADING TREE PLAN 2 / ,/ /. PAtiO EXCERPT OF Tree Plan 12-2003 3 ,El::) PATIC~ EXCERPT OF Tree Plan 12-2003 ACTUAL ODOT DRIPLINE OVER SUBJECT PROPERTY 4 ODOT DRIPLINE EXTENDS 16' INTO SUBJECT PROPERTY 5 PART OF ODOT GROVE DRIPLINE EXTENDING 16' INTO PROPERTY- SHOT FROM BELOW CONCRETE RETAINING WALL 6 MORE! ODOT GROVE DRIPLINE OVER SUBJECT PROPERTY 7 TREE OF HEAVEN (TREE #6) DRIPLINE OVER SUBJECT PROPERTY /? SOON TO BE SKINNED CEDARS (TREES #12-14) 9 ..o CEDARS' DRIPLINE OVER SUBJECT PROPERTY (TREES #12-14) 10 . .' i....,,.:,?. UNDISCLOSED ODOT DRIPLINE SEEN FROM REAR PROPERTY CORNER 11 What then is the significance of this strikingly misrepresentative Tree Plan? 3. BY CONCEALING THE EXISTENCE OF THE ODOT GROVE DRIPLINE OVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, APPLICANT CONCEALS THE FACT THE THE PORTION OF THE GROVE ON THE ODOT LAND ITSELF WIT,?? EITHER BE ELIMINATED OR PUT AT SERIOUS RISK. Applicant's Tree Plan represents that the trees in the ODOT Grove are 'existing trees to remain.' Exhibits 3, 18- 20. Indeed, the Planning Staff, expressly relying on information given them byApplicant, points to the continued existence of this grove to justify issuance of the permit for removing the Gateway Alder. The Staff Report states at page 6 that "..the location of many existing, healthy trees along the north side of the property(w/in State right of way) provide a concentration of canopy coverage in the area." But the portion of ODOT trees and canopy over the subject..propertY cannot be removed with_.~removi.qg, or jeopardizing the trees and canopy on the ODOT land itself. Much of the crown of Tree #5, including most of its trunk, extends into the Proposed Building area. It will have to be removed. One of the three multi-trunks o:f Tree #6 will have to be removed, and possibly a second trunk which appears to touch the side of the proposed building. As noted at the Tree Commission hearing of March 2004, removal of one trunk of a multi-trunk puts the whole tree at jeopardy. Besides the Gateway Alder, this Tree of Heaven provides the dominant tree canopy visible upon one's approach into downtown Ashland. Trees #12 and #14 will have be trimmed back from the building space, but since they only have significant foliage on the building side, they will be left as mere wooden toothpicks extending in the air. The upper floors of the building may also impact yet other trees, as the ODOT tree canopy over the subject property extends quite high. All this damage will occur even if the root system of the ODOT Grove stops at the concrete retaining wall. If it doesn't, the potential harm will be that much worse. Moreover, because these trees are part of a grove, removal of one or more the trees will jeopardize the rest. This is why Applicant's proposed Findings of Fact emphasizes at page 51 that the Alder is not part of a grove, as does his Landscape Architect's letter of 1-29- 2004. The Landscape Architect's Tree Protection Guidelines also acknowledge that 'trees in a grove or forest stands are best retained in those groups.' Exhibit 21. Thus, all of the ODOT Grove will be eliminated or put at serious risk by this development. Since this is the very group of trees whose retained canopy is relied on by the City Staff in concluding that Applicant has satisfied the Criteria for Issuance of a removal permit on the Gateway Alder, the justification for issuance of such permit simply evaporates. Yet, these facts are precisely what Applicant conceals by virtue of a Tree Protection Plan that fails to acknowledge that the ODOT Grove occupies much of the same space as the Proposed Building. Anyone looking at the Tree Plan would assume the ODOT Grove was safely out of range of this development. In fact, the ODOT Grove on both sides of the property line is right in the bulls eye. Unfortunately, this is not the only misleading aspect of the Application. 4. APPLICANT HAS ALSO MISREPRESENTED FACTS RELATING TO THE TRIPLE MAPLE LOCATED ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. Exhibits 12, 15-17 show the beautiful Maple located on the subject property. It fills almost the entire width of the property and extends toward the street. In its Application and again at the Tree Commission meeting in January 2004, Applicant represented that while the Alder would go, the. Maple would be saved,. See TC Minutes for Jan. 8, 2004 meeting ( ". .the three multiple- trunk trees near the floodplain are proposed to be saved"). Exhibit 22. Like the ODOT Grove, the Maple was offered as proof that significant tree canopy would remain, thus justifying removal 9f the Alder. But at the very moment these representations were being made, the Maple was facing two separate obstacles that would require its removal. 1. ~'he Maple's 'vertical' problem. In spite of Applicant's representations, the Maple was doomed under the development contemplated in January, because it would occupy the same physical space as a large cantilew~red building segment protruding from the 2nd and 3rd floor of the building all the way back to Ashland Creek. ~ile this Cantilevered Protuberance appeared on the Site Plan and was identified as "(e)dge of cantilever of third level above," it was omitted from the Tree Plan. The Protuberance would have dropped down right on top of the Maple over all three of its trunks. Exhibits 23-25. At first, the significance of this Protuberance for the Maple went unnoticed by City Staff and the Tree Commission and was not remarked upon by the Applicant at the Tree Committee's January hearing. Fortunately, a sharp eyed Planning Staffer discovered the problem in late February, well after the Tree Commission had heard that the~Maple was being saved as justification for cutting the Alder. As expressed in the Staff Report, this discovery demonstrated the impossibility of retaining the Maple. When called on the issue, Applicant Lloyd Haines and his Consulting Urban Planner Craig Stone stated, incredibly, that they were unaware that these upper floors extended back as far as they did. They said they thought the upper floors stopped ten feet back from the Creek. How could they be truly unaware that the approximately 5,000 cubic foot Protuberance existed on the back of the building? By the timethey claimed ignorance, the Protuberance appeared at eight different places on the Site Plan and architect's drawings, and was described in two places as 'cantilever of third level above.' Applicant was also present when the Historic Commission discussed the 'depth and treatment of the overhang in the back' on January 7, 2004. It was even shown on the design plan attached to Craig Stone's 5-21-2003 letter that first advised the City of this project. Exhibit 26. After the work they had put in on this Application, did they really have such a large margin of error on where they thought the building was going to be located and how big it was? If so, do they have the technical c°mpetence to be trusted with planning a building on environmentally sensitive land near Ashland Creek? Whatever the case, this vertical puoblem was removed by elimination of the Creekside Protuberance. But the tree remains severely compromised by a still existing (and still largely concealed) 'horizontal problem.' 2. The Maple's 'horizontal problem.' Even after eliminating the Protuberance, the trunk and canopy of the Maple still extends into the current building plans, horizontally toward the street, by ~out 22 feet. But this is concealed in two ways. First, the Tree Plan identifies the 'Proposed Building' as a large open space bounded with bold lines. But that is only the first floor foot print. The 2nd and 3rd floors, which is where the Maple will confront the building, still extends backward from the first floor approximately 7 feet, even after el~hnination of the Protuberance. Exhibit 28. This is the meaning of the completely undefined dashed line shown on the Tree Plan. Second, the Tree Plan again seriously understates the dripline. From the base of its front trunk (Tree #24), the Maple extends about 24 feet toward the street. The Plan only shows the dripline extending barely half that distance.. Thus, when one looks at the Tree Plan, one assumes the tree is well back from the 'Proposed Building' and that only a few feet of dripline overlaps. In fact, the buildingl's upper floors extend almost to the base of the Maple and overlaps with approximately 22 feet of its dripline.. Compare Exhibits 12-14. Triple trunk Maple Note how dripline extends across entire width of Subject Property Contrast with the far narrower dripline shoWn on the Tree Protection Plan, which shows no dripline over abou~t one- third of the property width 12 I PATIG f" . EXCERPT OF + Tree Plan 12-2003 !'E ,T TRIPLE MAPLE DRIPLINE OVER 2ND/3RD FLOORS OF BUILDING CONTRAST BETWEEN ACTUAL DRIPLINE FROM THE 'TRIPLE MAPLE THAT EXTENDS OVER THE SPACE TO BE OCCUPIIED BY THE CURRENT DESIGN OF THE BUILDING'S 2ND AND 3RD FLOORS VERSUS THE SMALL OVERLAP ON THE TREE PLAN 14 TREE #24 - 100% OF CROWN TO BE REMOVED 15 TREE #23- MAIN TRUNK TO ~'~'['~ST DUE TO UPPER FLOORS 16 ENJOYING A SUNNY-SUNDAY UNDER THE THREE MAPLES 17 Anyone looking at the Tree Plan would be unaware that the entire crown of the eastern most trunk (Tree #24 on the original Tree Plan) will have to be eliminated. This trunk provides the largest canopy of the Maple. It was doomed even as Applicant~was representing to the Tree Commission in January 2004 that the tree would be saved and even without regard to the existence of the Cantilevered Protuberance. In addition, over half of the middle tree (Tree #23) also protrudes into the upper floors and will have to be severely topped. Exhibit 16. 'Topping' means the severe cutting back of a trees limbs to stubs 3 inches or large within the crown to such a degree as to remove the natural canopy and disfigure the tree. Sec.18.61.020(L) attached as Exhibit 1. This trunk consists of a main trunk with one subordinate branch growing toward the creek. All or most of the main trunk will have to go, leaving only the subordinate limb branching off at an odd angle. Applicant's Landscape Architect describes this as ~minor pruning.' Exhibit 27. Significantly, no portion of this drip line on Tree #23 is shown extending into the footprint called 'Proposed Building' on the Tree Protection Plan. The third trunk (Tree #22) is also shown on the Tree Plan as falling outside the 'Proposed Building' footprint, but it too has dripline within the upper floors. Sadly, this includes a healthy part of Tree #22, as one of the limbs that faces away from the building is dead. The portions of the Maple that need to be removed need to be precisely identified and evaluated by objective experts, but it is clearly far more than 50% of the canopy. Under Sec. 18.61.020(I), this means that the Maple is being 'removed' and, in turn, a removal permit is required. Yet, Applicant is proceeding without seeking a removal permit for the Maple. To justify a non-permitted removal, Applicant's Registered Landscape Architect/Site Planner claims that less than 50% of the Maple will be removed. Exhibit 27. But this is the same witness (a) who failed to acknowledge the existence of over 600 square feet of ODOT Grove drip line that could be seen by the simple expedient of looking up in the air, (b) who was, at best, completely unaware of the Creekside Protuberance identified multiple times in the Site plan, even though he is a professional Site Planner, and (c) who curiously understated the drip line of the Maple itself. Under the circumstances, this Architect's claim should be accorded no weight, at least none that favors the Applicant. In short, the whole Maple is being 'removed' as that term is defined by Ashland's law, even under Applicant's latest Site Plan. Yet, one would never learn that from examining the carefully crafted Tree Protection Plan. 5. THE ASHLAND CREEK TREES ARE ALSO AT RISK. In its revised Tree Plan, Applicant's Landscape Architect added a series of large, dashed circles around the four trees on the Ashland Creek back across from the subject property. Exhibit 19. These areas were designated as 'tree protection zones, ' defined as areas where 'no construction activity of any sort shall occur...including, but not limited to dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste, equipment or parked vehicles.' This includes areas under the Lithia Street overpass. While the circles are impressive on paper, they are likely to be meaningless. According to Planning Staff, the area under the overpass is going to be used as a construction staging area. So, will it be a tree protection zone with no construction activity allowed, or the very center of construction staging? How can the two coexist? Even if the staging area is pushed north into t]~e larger parking area or the Tree Protection Zone pushed south, there must still be access between construction staging and the Proposed Building, and that can only' go right through the "Tree Protection Zone" and the Ashland Creekside trees. The situation is especially marked regarding the large, 36" caliper Alder perched on the banks on the Creek. Applicant proposes to remove the existing historic bridge connecting Ashland Creek Bar & Grill and replace it with a drawbridge located even closer to this Alder, right across its drip line. Applicant's repeated claims that the Gateway Alder is a veritable shrinking violet when it comes to construction impacts hardly suggests that the Creekside Alder faces a happier fate. Such is the reality beneath the Pleasing appearance of the Tree Protection Plan's newly drawn circles of protection. 6. MISCEI/2%REOUS EXAGGERATIONS. 1. Applicant's Tree Plan describes Tree #26, also adjacent the creek, as having a 14" dbh caliper. Exhibits 18-20. It is far smaller. By overstating the canopy and tree size of trees that will allegedly remain after construction, the Tree Plan minimizes the negative impact on tree size and canopy from removing the Gateway Alder. 2. Applicant's Tree Plan describes Tree #19, a tree on ODOT property near the ODOT GROVE, as being in good health. A~ objective expert should again check, but this also appears to be an exaggeration. Again, overstating tree conditions off site minimizes the damaging impact of removing the Alder. 7. BENEFITS OF ENFORCING THE LAW. Applicant was required to provide an accurate .information to the Planning Staff, Tree Commission and other city groups that participate in the planning process, including filing a correct Tree Protection Plan. But, in many varied and significant ways, it has failed to do so. This failure destroys the Applicant's evidence for satisfying the Criteria for issuance of a Permit for Removing the Alder, an issue on which Applicant bears the burden of proof. Yet, there is even more at stake here than a mere failure to carry an Applicant's burden of proof. Increasingly complex planning applications arrive at the Planning Dept. all the time. Neither Staff, nor the citizen volunteers who fill the Tree Commission (or the other City Commissions for that matter) have the tin~ to independently verify all the many facts asserted in those Applications. Nor should they be expected to do so. After all, each Application is supposed to be accompanied by a formal certification, signed by the Applicant, that: "...the statements and information contained in (the) application, including the enclosed draw- ings and the required findings of fact, are in all respects true and correct." Sec.18.61.050 of the City Code is clear. When an Applicant misrepresents any fact necessary to the City's determination for granting a tree removal permit, the permit 'shall' be invalidated. This law should be enforced. And, if it is, a message will be sent to all future planning applicants by this Commission and the City - that misrepresentations within planning applications will not be tolerated. After that, it will hopefully be a long time before anyone plays games with their planning applications. The faith that the planning staff and the citizens commission must place in the accuracy of planning representations will then be more justified. Real estate developments will proceed or not proceed on their merits, not upon manipulations. The entire town will benefit. And all you have to do to accomplish this is to ask that the law be enforced. Randall Hopkins ~J'~' oI Asnianct - tVIUINICIFAL Ct,.)L)I~ http://www.ashland.or, us/CodePrint, asp?CodelD=1534 !f2 ! , 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. :[. 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 Protection Plan; an applicant shall submit a plan to the City, which clearly depicts all trees to be preserved and/or removed on the }ite. The plan must be drawn to scale and include the following' Lite; Location, species, and diameter of each tree on site and within :[5 feet of the · 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 18.6:[.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. 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 demoli'tion work, and shall be removed only after completion of all construction activity, including landscaping and irrigation installation. 2. 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. 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 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. 6. 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. C. Inspection. The applicant shall not proceed with any construction activity, except 1 3/29/04 1:02 PM 1:",~ of Ashland - MUNICIPAL CODE http://w ww. ashland, or. us/CodePri nt. as p?CodeI D= 1534 installatio~n 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 ha:s been issued by the City. (ORD 2883 added 06/04/2002) ")f 2 3/29/04 1:02 PlY .--, ~,, ~o,,,,~,,~ - ,~ ~ ,~,-~r~- ,~w=: http://www ashland or us/CodePrint aspOCodeID- 15? ! )f2 18.61.020 Definitions A. Arborist means a person who has met the criteria for certification from the International Society of Arboriculture or American Society of Consulting Arborists, and maintains his or her accreditation. B. Caliper Inch refers to a manner of expressing the diameter inches of a tree as calculated by measuring the tree's circumference and dividing by Pi (approximately 3.14159). Specially calibrated "diameter tapes" or "calipers" are used to determine caliper inches. C. Dead Tree means a tree is lifeless. Such evidence of lifelessness may include unseasonable lack of foliage, brittle dry branches, or lack of any growth during the growing season. D. Diameter at breast height or DBH means the diameter of the think, at its maximum cross section, measured 54 inches (4 1/2 feet) above mean ground level at the base of the trunk. L/~. Dripline means an imaginary vertical line extending downward from the utermost tips of a tree's branches to the ground. F. Heritage Tree means any tree listed on the official City of Ashland Heritage Tree list adopted by the City Council. G. Immediate danger of collapse means that the tree may already be leaning, with the; surrounding soil heaving, and/or there is a significant likelihood that the tree will topple or otherwise fail and cause damage before a tree removal permit could be obtained through the non-. emergency process. "Immediate danger of collapse" does not include hazardous conditions that can be alleviated by pruning or treatment. H. Person means any individual or legal entity. ooI means cut a tree, or remove or more crown, trunk, Removal to down 50% of the r root syste.m,, of a tree; or to damage a tree so as to cause the tree to decline and/or Idle. "Removal'includes topping. "Removal" includes but is not limited to darnage inflicted upon a root system by application of toxic substances, operation of equipment and vehicles, storage of materials, change of natural grade due to unapproved excavation or filling, or unapproved alteration of natural physical conditions. "Removal" does not include normal trimming or pruning of trees. .]. Significant Tree means a "tree" having a trunk 18 caliper inches or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH). K. Staff Advisor means the Planning Director or the Planning Director's designee. ~ah. Topping means the severe back of a tree's limbs to stubs 3 inches or u ,no rger in diameter within the tree s crown to such a degree so as to remove the natural nopy and disfigure the tree. Topping does not include the practice of "pollarding" en conducted in accordance with the standards established by the International ociety of Arboriculture. M. Tree means any woody plant having a trunk six caliper inches or larger in 3/29/04 1:02 P~ it,, of Ashland - MUNICIPAL, CODE http://www.ashland.or, us/CodePrint.asp?CodelD=O - ?f 2 18.62.040 Approval and Permit Required LAPhysical Constraints Review Permit is required for the following activities' Development, as defined in 18.62.030.D, in areas identified as Flood plain Corridor nd, Riparian Preserve, Hillside Land, or Severe Constraint land. B. Tree removal, as defined in 18.62.030.RT., in areas identified as Flood plain Corridor Land and Riparian Preserve. C. Commercial logging, in areas identified as Flood plain Corridor Land, Riparian Preserve, Hillside Land, or Severe Constraint Land. D. Tree removal, in areas identified as Hillside Land and Severe Constraint Land, except that a permit need not be obtained for tree removal that is not associated with development, and done for the purposes of wildfire management and carried out in accord with a Fire Prevention and Control Plan approved by the Fire Chief. E. If a development is part of a Site Review, Performance Standards Development, Conditional Use Permit, Subdivision, Partition, or other Planning Action, then the Review shall be conducted simultaneously with the Planning Action. F. If a development is exclusive of any other Planning Action, as noted in Subsection B, then the Physical Constraints Review shall be processed as a Staff Permit. G. Where it appears that the proposal is part of a more extensive development that would require a master site plan, or other planning action, the Staff Advisor shall require that all necessary applications be filed simultaneously. H1H'. Plans Required. The following plans shall be required for any development requiring Physical Constraints Review: · The plans shall contain the following' a. Project name. b. Vicinity map. c. Scale (the scale shall be at least one inch equals 50 feet or larger) utilizing the largest scale that fits on 22" x 34" paper. Multiple plans or layers shall be prepared at the same scale, excluding detail drawings. d. North arrow. e. Date. f. Street names and locations of all existing and proposed streets within or on the boundary of the proposed development. g. Lot layout with dimensions for all lot lines. h. Location and use of all proposed and existing buildings, fences and structures within the proposed development. Indicate which buildings are to remain and which are to be removed. i. Location and size of all public utilities affected by the proposed development. j. Location of drainage ways or public utility easements in and adjacent to the proposed development. Location of all other easements. A topogralphic map of the site at a contour interval of not less than two feet nor greater than five feet. The topographic map shall also include a slope analysis, indicating buildable areas, as shown in the graphic. I. Location, of all parking areas and spaces, ingress and egress on the site, and on-site circulation. m Accurate locations of all existing natural features including, but not limited to, all trees as required in 18.62.080.D.1, including those of a caliper equal to or greater than six inches d.b.h., native shrub masses with a diameter of ten feet or greater, natural drainage, swales, wetlands, ponds, springs, or creeks on the site, and outcroppings of rocks, boulders, etc. Natural features on adjacent properties potentially impacted by the proposed development shall also be included, such as trees with driplines extending across property lines. In forested areas, it is necessary to identify only those trees 3/29/04 1:02 PM ",/oI Asnian0 - MUINIUIFAL CL)I.)P, http://www.ashland.or, us/CodePnnt.asp?CodelD=1527' diameter at breast height (DBH). If a tree splits into multiple trunks above ground, but below 4.5 feet, the trunk is measured at its most narrow point beneath the split, and is considered one tree if greater than six inches DBH. Plants commonly planted as shrubs, including but not limited to English laurel, photinia, arborvitae, poison oak, English holly, and English ivy shall not be considered a "tree". Trees specifically planted and maintained as a hedge shall also not be considered a "tree". N. Tree Account means an account established by resolution of the Council for the receipt of funds to be utilized for future tree purposes, as outlined in the resolution. O. Tree Removal Permit means written authorization from the City for a tree removal to proceed as described in an application, such authorization having been given in accordance with this chapter. w' Tree Protection Zone means area a or group the reserved around tree of trees in hich no grading, access, stockpiling or other construction activity shall occur as etermined by the Staff Advisor based on review of the tree and site conditions. (ORD 2883 added 06/04/2002) · bf 2 3/29/04 1:02 PN '.i*v of Ashland - MUNICIPAL CODE http://www .ashland.Or. us/CodePri nt. as p?CodelD= 152 :- 18.61.0,80 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal - Staff Permit An applicant for a Tree Removal-Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit. A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal. 1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning. 2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. / . TreE: that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree hat is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following' 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application;~' 2. Rernoval of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; ~3d3~ Rernoval of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree nsities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be.a condition of approval of the permit. (ORD 288:3 added 06/04/2002) ' 3/29/04 1:03 Ply http://www.ashland.or, us/CodePnnt.asP?CodelD=6(. which will be affected or removed by the proposed development. Indicate any contemplated modifications to a natural feature. n. The proposed method of erosion control, water runoff control, and tree protection for the development as required by this chapter. o. Building envelopes for all existing and proposed new parcels that contain only buildable area, as defined by this Chapter. p. Location of all irrigation canals and major irrigation lines. q. Location of all areas of land disturbance, including cuts, fills, driveways, building sites, and other construction areas. Indicate total area of disturbance, total percentage of project site proposed for disturbance, and maximum depths and heights of cuts and fill. r. Location for storage or disposal of all excess materials resulting from cuts associated with the proposed development. s. Applicant name, firm preparing plans, person responsible for plan preparation, and plan preparation dates shall be indicated on all plans. t. Proposed timeline for development based on estimated date of approval, including completion dates for specific tasks. 2. Additional plans and studies as required in Sections 18.62.070, 18.62.080, 18.62.090 and 18.62.100 of this Chapter. I. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints 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. (Ord 2834 S1, 1998) (Ord. 2834, Amended, 11/03/1998, Section 18.62.040 3 "deleted"; Ord 2808, Added, 12/02/1997) .?. pf 2 3/29/04 1:02 P1V 2it. y oI Ashland - MUNICIPAL CDDIz http://www.ashland. Or. us/CodePnnt, asp?CodelD=15 18.61.(350 Plans Required A. An application for all Tree Removal and Tree Topping Permits shall be made upon forrns prescribed by the City. The application for a Tree Removal Permits shall contain: a. The number, size, species and location of the trees proposed to be removed or topped on a site plan of the property. b. The, anticipated date of removal or topping. c. A statement of the reason for removal or topping. d. Information concerning proposed landscaping or planting of new trees to replace the trees to be removed, and e. Evidence that the trees proposed for removal or topped have been clearly identified on the property for visual inspection. f. Any other information reasonably required by the City. B. The applicant shall have the burden of proving that the application complies with the criteria for approval of the applicable class of permit. If the application is for a Tree Removal-Staff Permit, the applicant shall submit specific written findings and eVidence addressing the criteria in section 18.61.080 for issuance of a Tree Removal-Staff Permit. C. IVlisrepresentation of any fact necessary for the City's determination for granting a tree removal permit shall invalidate the permit. The City may at any time, including after a removal has occurred, independently verify facts related to a tree removal request and, if found to be false or misleading, may invalidate the permit and process the removal as a violation. Such misrepresentation may relate to matters including, without limitation, tree size, location, health or hazard condition, justification for issuance of permit, or owner's authorized signature. (ORD 2883 added 06/04/2002) 3/29/04 1:03 Pig ,., :.~ ,~, ~.~,,o~,~, - ~,,~ ~l~,,,,,r,~,~ ,_.,.,w= http://www.ashland.or, us/CodePfint, asp?CodelD= 13(')8 vAli . 112.090 Penalties y person, firm or corporation, whether as principal, acjent employee, or otherwise, latincj or causincj the violation of any of the provisions of this Title has committed an infraction, and upon conviction thereof is punish-able as prescribed in Section 1.08.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code. Such person, firm, or corporation is ~luilty of a separate violation for each and every day durincj any portion of which any violation of this Title is committed or continued by such person, firm or corporation. (Ord. 20152, 1979). ~ p fl "/,7 3/30/04 8:56 Ak iw of Ashland - MUNICIPAl. CODE http://www.ashland.or, us/CodePnnt.asp'!CodelD= 15 1.08.020 Infractions A person who commits an infraction by violating designated provisions of the Ashland Municipal Code shall not suffer any disability or legal disadvantage based upon conviction of crime. The penalty for committing an infraction shall be a fine not to exceed $500; however, each and every day during any portion of which any infraction is committed, continued or permitted by any such person, is a separate violation subject to a separate fine of $500.00 and such person shall be punished accordingly. The trial of any infraction shall be by the Court without a jury. The City of Ashland shall have the burden of proving the infraction by a preponderance of the evidence and the Defendant may not be required to be a witness in the trial of such infraction. At any trial involving an infraction, the City Attorney shall not appear unless the Defendant: is represented by an attorney. Further, at any such trial, defense counsel shall not he provided at public expense. (Ord. 1934, S1, 1977; Ord. 2233, 1983) 3/30/04 8:57 AM · . j (EXHIBIT 3 / ! '"i! A I N ".,,. i!1' . .~:Tl~iE'~ ~ ll'~Tl'i~ HJ~T.A.RI~ C4:~t~gITlOiq' l~[C.~l.'t,'l~NPA?lOl'~ " (I)AIM ~ (4)~ (~)~1~ (12) ~1~ ..... (1¢) ~ m~¢¢~1~ (~)~ m~ro~l~ ' I~" : ., GAIlllRAI~ & AS$OCI~TF.~, [.~DS C~PE ARC~ S ~E PL~N~ OP~ HC~SE No. 254 (~,~) 145 S. HOLLY SL, S~ A 97501 SHASTA, BUI]LDING '03 ASHLAND, OREGON ~l~l SIONS: I Ill l I I I /X._ TI~E PRESERVATIO.N I II D~BY: ~ BY: ~, I I I JOB $~: I I II II III II II ! I [)EC 1 2 2.003 ! ! 21"- IROBINI A t= / I I I ~ATlvlENT IN ~l~ I I I / #1 I~EN~IN~, ('rYe,.) EXISTIN® E~UI LPl 20 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS TREE PROTECTION GUIDELINES Prepared by Galbraith & Associates, Inc. For Shasta Building '03 . January 29, 2004 · 254 · Page 1 Contrary to popular belief, the root systems of trees are not deep taproots in form. Instead most tree roots grow in the top 12 - 18" fi.om the soil surface and are horizontally oriented, extending far beyond the tree's dripline or canopy. See tree and root section drawing Figure 1. A rule of thumb is that a healthy tree may tolerate removal of approximately one third of its roots, and "A healthy, vigorous tree may withstand removal of up to 50 percent of its roots without dying.''~ If roots on one side of a tree are severed, it may become unstable and a hazard. Old and mature trees are less tolerant of construction impacts than younger, more vigorous trees, and trees in a grove or forest stands are best retained in those groups. The species tolenmces for trees to be retained within the Shasta Building project are as follows: RELATIVE TOLERANCE OF SELECTED SPECIES TO DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS2 RFI ATIVE (X)MlVg~NAME SC~'NIIFIC ~ TOIIZRAN(~ ~ BigleafMaple Acer macrophyllurn Poor Declines following the addition of fill Alder Alnus sp. Poor Intolerant of root injury Oregon Ash Fraxinus latorolia MOderate MOderately tolerant of root pruning. ~ The size of the tree protection zone, the area protective fencing is shown on the Tree Protection Plan, is calculated by species tolerance and tree age category which selects a distance factor from the trunk of the tree. ' Matheny, N. & Clark, J. 1998. Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development. p. 72. 2 Ibid. Appendix B selections, p. 165 - 178. FEB 1 :t 2004 Galbraith & Associates, Inc. Landscape Architects & Site Planners .~l~enuus ana lvnnutes http://www.ashland.or, us/AgendasResults.asp?AMID= 1585 PLANNING ACTION 2004-001 is a request For Outline Plan approval and a Tree Removal Permit for a ten-unit residential subdivision under the Performance Standards Option for the 2.4 acre property located at 940 Clay Street (east side of Clay Street, south of Siskiyou Boulevard). Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-7.5; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 14 CB; Tax Lots: 600. APPLICANT: Cota Homes, LLC Staff and the Commission reviewed the proposed plans. The landscape and irrigation plan will be reviewed at the time of the Final Plan application. Galbraith, Landscape Consultant and George Cot, a, Applicant were present for any questions. After some discussion, the Commission recommended the following: Landscape Plan to be reviewed with Final Plan application. Trees to be preserved shall have fencing around the dripline and ideally the root zone. Tree protection measures noted in ALUO 18.6:L.200 shall be implemented prior to any site disturbance. All associated tree protection fencing shall be flush with the grade and fencing posts shall not penetrate into the root zone. PLANNING ACTION 2~02 is a request for Site Review and Tree Removal Permit to construct a multi-floor, 8,325 square Foot mixed use building at 88 North Main Street. A Physical Constraints Review Permit is requested to permit "development" within the Ashland Floodplain Corridor. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial; Zoning: C-l-D; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 09 BB; Tax Lot: 9800. APPLICANT: Lloyd Haines Staff and the Commission reviewed the proposed plans. Staff noted the project would be heard by the Planning Commission in February due to floodplain issues. '~ Staff noted that the large White Alder Tree is proposed to be removed and the three multiple-trunk trees (Acer) near the floodplain are proposed to be saved. John Galbraith, Landscape Consultant and Lloyd Haines, Applicant were present. Mr. Haines noted his desire to retain the large Alder tree, but due t:o its location, the arborists' report and the City's Main Street Design Standards, he is asking For the tree's removal. He expressed his desire to make some form of sculpture or public art from the tree. After much discussion, the Commission recommended the following: Tree protection measures as noted in ALUO 18.61.200 shall be implemented prior to any site disturbance for trees along creek. All associated tree protection fencing shall be flush with the grade and fencing posts shall not penetrate into the root zone. Tree protection signs, as noted in ALUO :[8.61.200, shall be installed and visible from the construction zone. Avoid compaction in root zone and use plywood or wood chips. Mitigate loss of large White Alder within adjacent State right-of-way. Mitigate with large specimen tree listed in the Recommended Street Tree List. Consider State right-of-way as "gateway" for future, public art. Commission suggests that the Public Arts Commission, applicant, City staff and ODOT work with Tree Commission to create a plan for that area that is safe while restoring and enhancing this "gateway." PLANNING ACTION 2OO4-003 is a request for Site Review and Conditional Use Permit to authorize the conversion of a non-conforming structure into a studio apartment for the property located 987 Siskiyou Boulevard. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Multi-Family Residential; Zoning: R-2; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 10 CB; Tax Lot 6600. APPLICANT: Marc and Aaron Heller 22 3/22/04 12:16 PM T~RD !RI APPLICANT'S CANTILEVERED PROTUBERANCE ON THE BACK OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING REACHING TO ASHLAND CREEK. THIS DRAWING IS FROM APPLICANT'S DECEMBER 2003 SITE PLAN. THE PROTUBERANCE, WHICH IS DIRECTLY OVER THE MAPLE, APPEARS NUMEROUS TIMES ON THE SITE PLAI~ARCHITECT'S DRAWINGS, BUT NOT ON THE TREE PLAN 23 ~AIR MEN NEW RESTAURANT DINING ROOM iiiiiiii I BOTH THE FLOOR PLANS SUBMITTED IN DEC. 2003 AND FEB. 2004 SHOW THE PROTUBERANCE THAT WOULD BE BUILT DIRECTLY OVER THE TRIPLE MAPLE AS THE DASHED EXTENTION SHOWN ON THE RIGHT HAND OF THIS PLAN. BUT THE TREE BLOCKING PROTUBERANCE NEVER MADE IT TO THE TREE PROTECTION PLAN. .5'7 HERE THE CANTILEVERED PROTUBERANCE APPEARS ON THE FEB. 2004 BUILDING SECTIONS OF APPLICANT'S ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS. THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE BASE OF THE TRIPLE MAPLE IS MARKED WITH AN 'X' 25 CRAIG A. 3TONE & ASSOC . TES,.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 May 21, 2003 MR. JOHN McLAUGHLIN Planning Director City of Ashland 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 RE: REQUEST FOR PRE-APPLICA TION CONFERENCE Shasta Building No. 3: Lloyd Haines, Applicant Dear Mr. McLaughlin: Enclosed are preliminary plans which depict the intentions of my client, Lloyd Haines regarding the construction of improvements on land that he owns in downtown Ashland, adjacent to Ashland Creek. In addition to minor improvements, the plans contemplate: · Construction of a new building on Tax Lot 9800 (39-1E-9BB). · Removal of an existing wood deck and replacement with concrete decks. · Removal of an existing bridge and replacement with a new drawbridge in a slightly different location. Also contemplated (but not shown on the plans) are landscaping improvements beneath Lithia Waywithin the public right-of-way and the removal of a tree on Tax Lot 9800. Applicant would appreciate information and feedback regarding the land use applications that will need to be obtained and the relevant substantive approval criteria for each. Applicant would also appreciate your opinions regarding these plans. Please advise of the date/time/place for the pre-application conference. Enclosed is a check in the amount of $100 to cover the conference costs. Also enclosed are the following plans: 1. One copy of a full set of design drawings. 2. One 24 x 36 sheet which illustrates existing from proposed improvements in plan view 3. One 8-½ x 11 of the above 1t2 plan Please advise if additional information or materials are needed. Very truly yours, CRAIG A. STONE & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ~C A S/m.,.~,,,~,,E,~~,,.~ " Enclosures cc. Lloyd Haines 26. \ · .. f ,2004 City of Ashland 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Shasta Building '03 / Lloyd Haines To Whom It May Concern: A revised tree protection plan is being submitted with the following adjustments and clarifications. 2.) 3.) 4.) It is my professional opinion that the Acer Macrophyllum mentioned previously as three separate trees (#22, 23 and 24 on the tree protection plan) is actually one tree. This has been corroborated by Tom Myers, certified Arborist with Upper Limb-it Tree Service. The tree protection plan has been modified and is being re-submitted to reflect one tree with three minks. One mink will be shortened to allow for the proposed building (see plan). It will not be taken completely out so that it can be observed for deterioration (see Tom Myers' letter). Minor pruning will need to be performed on the two remaining trunks. It is my professional opinion that the required pnming will remove less than 50% of the tree's canopy. Tree protection fencing has been added to the ODOT property contiguous to the northwest property line. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, John Galbraith, ASLA Landscape Architect 27 145 S. Holly Street, SuITe A · Medford, OR 97501 · (541) 770-7964 · Fax (541) 770-5164 Ucensed · Bonded · Insured · L/~dsc&oe 13usin£ss #6661 · Land~ COnTRaCTOr #12398 · General COnmacto~ #104274 · Landscape Arc:bisect 0R.#254, C&-#2980 www.galbraithandassociates.com · contact@galbraithandassociates.com ;; II I I I I " I I I I II APAB,TiMENTS - THIRD LEVEL I I I I I I II I I OFFICE - SECOND LEVEL I I II APPROX. EXI81qNG GRADE FIN FLR TO - II II II ..... _.L _--J NEW GRADE BELOW BUILDING FLOOD PLAIN ALLOWING ADDmONAL STORM WATER STORAGE ARF.~ ~ ' WHILE". THE CREEKSIDE PROTUBERANCE HAS NOW BEEN REMOVED FROM THE PLANS, THIS MARCH 2004 BUILDING SECTION DRAWING SHOWS THAT THE 2ND/3RD LEVELS STILL EXTEND BEYOND THeE FIRST FLOOR. THIS EXTENTION IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE FOOTPRINT LABELED "PROPOSED BUILDING" ON THE TREE PLAN, INSTEAD APPEARING AS THE UNDEFINED DASHED LINE ON THE REAR PART OF THE FOOTPRINT 28 ~2 RANDALL A. HOPKINS 735 S. Mountain Ave Ashland, OR 97520 541-488-0265 521-488-2823 (fax) APR 2 2 2004 By 4-23-2004 TO THE CI'IFY ADMINISTRATOR': The letter constitutes a Notice of Appeal in Planning Action 2004-002 (88 North Main Street). I am qualified as a party to this action, since I partidpated in the public hearing before the Planning Commission, both orally and in writing. The date of the decision being appealed is April 13, 2004, with notice of the Findings, Conclusions and Orders on this action being mailed on April 15, 2004. The g~rounds for this appeal are as follows: 1. Applicant has failed to comply with Sections 18.61.200A2, 18.62.040H, 18.61.050, 18.112.'090, and 1.08.020 of the Municipal Code, and has violated same. 2. Applicant has failed to satisfy the applicable Criteria for Issuance of a Tree Removal permit under 18.61.080 of the Code and filed an incomplete application and evidence. 3. The proposed development fails to fulfill the City's Large Scale Development site standards. 4. Removal of the tree sought to be removed is unnecessary to fulfill the City's site design standards. 5. Undisclosed conflicts of interest in the proceedings below in violation of Sec. 18.108.100 of the Code. The applicable appeal fee is attached. I ask that this appeal be placed on the City Coun~dl meeting for May 18, 2004, if II - -iiiii--- RANDALL &,, MARY HOPKIN~ FAM. TR. ' II "= 735 S. MOUNTAIN AVE. Z.~':~ ::;Z-Z~' ' 25-80/440 IA. Notice of Land Use Appeal (Ashland Municipal Code § 18.108.110.A.2) Name(s) of Person(s) Filing Appeal: Attach additional pages of names and addresses if other persons are joining the appeal. C. Planning Commission Decision Being Appealed Date of Decision: D. How Person(s) Filing Appeal Qualifies as a Party (For each person listed above in Box A, check the appropriate box below.) · because: The person named in Box A. 1 above qualifies as a party The person named in Box A.2. above qualifies as a party because: Attach additional pages if others have joined in the appeal and describe how' each qualifies as a party. 3. The third specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modified is (attach additional pages if necessary): This is an error because the applicable criteria or procedure in tlhe Ashland Municipal Code § or other law in requires that (attach additional pages if necessary): 4. (On attached pages, list other grounds, in a manner similar to the above, that exist. For each ground list the applicable criteria or procedures in the Ashland Municipal Code or other law that were violated.~,~~,~ // /- Appeal Fee With this notice of appeal I(we) submitthe sum of $ which is the appeal fee required by § 18.108.110.A of the Ashland Municipal Code. Date: Sign/~(s) of person(s),~~ filing appeal (attach additional pages if n~.:~,essary): ' E. Specific Grounds for Appeal 1. The first specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modified is (attach additional pages if necessary): This is an error because the applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code § or other law in § requires that (attach additional pages if necessary): 2. The second specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modified is (attach additional pages if necessary): This is an error because the applicable criteria or arocedure in the Ashland Municipal Code § or other law in Note: This completed Notice of Land Use Appea together with the appeal fee must be filed with the City Administrator, City Hall, 20 =ast Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520, telephone 541-488-6002, prior to the effective date of the decision sought to be reviewed. Effective dates of decisions are set fo rth in Ashland[ Municipal Code Section 18.108.070. RANDALL A. HO'PKINS 735 S. Mountain Ave Ashland, OR 97520 541-488-0265 521-488-2823 (fax) APR 9 g 2004 4-23-2004 TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR: The letter constitutes a Notice of Appeal in Planning Action 2004-002 (88 North Main Street). I am qualified as a party to this action, since I participated in the public hearing before the Planning Commission, both orally and in writing. The date of the decision being appealed is April 13, 2004, with notice of the Findings, Conclusions and Orders on this action being mailed on April 15, 2004. The grounds for this appeal are as follows: 1. Applicant has failed to comply with Sections 18.61.200A2, 18.62.040H, 18.61.050, 18.112.090, and 1.08.020 of the Municipal Code, and has violated same. 2. Applicant has failed to satisfy the applicable Criteria for Issuance of a Tree Removal permit under 18.61.080 of the Code and filed an incomplete application and evidence. 3. The proposed development fails to fulfill the City's Large Scale Development site standards. 4. Removal of the tree sought to be removed is unnecessary to fulfill the City's site design standards. 5. Undisclosed conflicts of interest in the proceedings below in violation of Sec. 18.108.100 of the Code. The applicable appeal fee is attached. I ask that this appeal be placed on the City Council meeting for May 18, ,'_~004, if possible. / MARY H. HOPKINS, TREE. 1487 RANDALL & MARY HOPKINS FAM. TR. _ 735 S. MOUNTAIN AVE. · 25-80/440 ASHLAND, OR 9752D-3243 __ ·// . .... ~ Su~menca Secunt~ ~, · ~ ' ~/*~"~ ~' / I u uooao ,.,a[ April~4,/, 2004 CITY OF /kS HLAN D Lloyd M. Haines 51 Water Street Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Planning Action #2004-002 Dear Lloyd M. Haines: At its meeting of March 9, 2004, the Ashland Planning Commission approved your request for Site Review, a Tree Removal Permit and Physical Constraints Review Permit for the property located at 88 North Main Street -- Assessor's Map # 39 1E 09 BB, Tax Lot 9800. The Findings, Conclusions and Orders document, adopted at the April 13, 2004 meeting, is enclosed. ., Please note the followh~ircled ite~: 1. 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 of preliminary 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. Senior Planner cc: Property Owner, People Who Testified, People Who Submitted Letters DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or, us Tel: 541488-5305 TrY: 800-735-2900 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 9, 2004 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2004-002, REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT RO CONSTRUCT A MULTI-FLOOR, 8,325 SQUARE FOOT MIXED USE BUILDING AT 88 NORTH MAIN STREET. A PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT IS REQUESTED TO PERMIT "DEVELOPMENT" WITHIN ASHLAND CREEK FLOODPLAIN CORRIDOR. APPLICANT: Lloyd Haines ]FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS RECITALS: 1) Tax lot 9800 of 391E 09 BB is located at 88 North Main Street and is zoned C-l-D; Retail Commercial District - Downtown Overlay. 2) The applicant is requesting Site Review, Tree Removal and Physical Constraints Review Permit to construct a multi-floor, 8,325 square foot mixed-use building at 88 North Main Street. A Physical Constraints Review Permit is requested to permit "development" upon Ashland Flood Plain Corridor Lands. 3) The application is subject to the following approval standards described within the Ashland Lnad Use I. The approval criteria for a Physical Constraints Review Permit are described in 18.62.040 I. as fl)llows: 1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter,Jhe 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. (Ord 2834 S1, 1998) (Ord. 2834, Amended, 11/03/1998, Section 18.62.040 J "deleted"; Ord 2808, Added, 12/02/1997) Further, the project is required to comply with following development standards for Flood Plain Conridor Lands: 18.62.070 Development Standards for Flood plain Corridor Lands For all land use actions which could result in development of the Flood plain Corridor, the following is required in addition to any requirements of Chapter 15.10: A. Standards for fill in Flood plain Corddor lands: 1. Fill shall be designed as required by the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, where applicable. 2. The toe of the fill shall be kept at least ten feet outside of floodway channels, as defined in section 15.10, and the fill shall not exceed the angle of repose of the material used for fill. 3. The amount of fill in the Flood plain Corridor shall be kept to a minimum. Fill and other material imported lfrom off the lot that could displace floodwater shall be limited to the following: a. Poured concrete and other materials necessary to build permitted structures on the lot. 2/ b. Aggregale base and paving materials, and fill assodated with approved public and private street and driveway construction. c. Plants and other landscaping and agricultural material. d. A total of 50 cubic yards of other imported fill material. e. The above limits on fill shall be measured from Apdl 1989, and shall not exceed the above amounts. These amounts are the maximum cumulative fill that can be imported onto the site, regardless of the number of permits issued. 4. If additional fill is necessary beyond the permitted amounts in (3) above, then fill materials must be obtained on the lot from cutting or excavation only to the extent necessary to create an elevated site for permitted development. All additional fill matedal shall be obtained from the portion of the lot in the Flood plain Corridor. 5. Adequate drainage shall be provided for the stability of the fill. 6. Fill to raise elevations for a building site shall be located as close to the outside edge of the Flood plain Corridor as feasible. B. Culverting or bddging of any waterway or creek identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to section 18.62.060 must'be designed by an engineer. Stream crossings shall be designed to the standards of Chapter 15.10, or where no floodway has been identified, to pass a one hundred (100) year flood without any increase in the upstream fiood height elevation. The engineer shall consider in the design the probability that the culvert will be blocked by debds in a severe flood, and accommodate expected overflow. Fill for culverting and bridging shall be kept to the minimum necessary to achieve property access, but is exempt from the limitations in section (A) above. Culverting or bddging of streams identified as Riparian Preservation is subject to the requirements of 18.62.075. C. Non-residential structures shall be flood-proof to the standards in Chapter 15.10 to one foot above the elevation contained in the maps adopted by chapter 15.10, or up to the elevation contained in the official maps adopted by section 18.62.060, whichever height is greater. Where no specific elevations exist, then they must be flood proofed to an elevation of ten feet above the creek channel on Ashland, Bear or Neil Creek; to five feet above the creek channel on all other Ripadan Preserve creeks defined in section 18.62.050.B; and three feet above the stream channel on all other drainage ways identified on the official maps. D. Ail residential structures shall be elevated so that the lowest habitable floor shall be raised to one foot above the elevation contained in the maps adopted in chapter 15.10, or to the elevation'contained in the offidal maps adopted by section 18.62.060, whichever height is greater. Where no spedfic elevations exist, then they must be constructed at an elevation of ten feet above the creek channel on Ashland, Bear, or Neil Creek; to five feet above the creek channel on all other Riparian Preserve creeks defined in section 18.62.050.B; and three feet above the stream channel on all other drainage ways identified on the official maps, or one foot above visible evidence of high flood water flow, whichever is greater. The elevation of the finished lowest habitable floor shall be certified to the city by an engineer or surveyor pdor to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the structure. E. To the m~mum extent feasible, structures shall be placed on other than Flood plain Corridor Lands. In the case where development is permitted in the Flood plain corridor area, then development shall be limited to that area which would have the shallowest flooding. F. Existing lots with buildable land outside the Flood plain Corridor shall locate all residential structures outside the Corridor land, unless 50% or more of the lot is within the Flood plain Corridor. For residential uses proposed for existing lots that have more than 50% of the lot in Corridor land, structures may be located on that portion of the Flood plain corridor that is two feet or less below the flood elevations on the offidal maps, but in no case closer.than 20 feet to the channel of a Ripadan Preservation Creek. Construction shall be subject to the requirements in paragraph D above. G. New non-residential uses may be located on that portion of Flood plain Corridor lands that equal to or above the flood elevations on the official maps adopted in section 18.62.060. Second story construction may be cantilevered over the Flood plain corridor for a distance of 20 feet if the clearance from finished grade is at least ten feet in height, and is supported by pillars that will have minimal impact on the flow of floodwaters. The finished floor elevation may not be more than two feet below the flood corridor elevations. H. Ail lots modified by lot line adjustments, or new lots created from lots which contain Flood plain Corddor land must contain a building enw.~lope on all lot(s) which contain(s) buildable area of a sufficient size to accommodate the uses permitted in the,underling zone, unless, the action is for open space or conservation purposes. This section shall apply even if the effect is to prohibit further division of lots that are larger than the minimum size permitted in the zoning ordinance: I. Basements. 1. Habitable basements are not permitted for new or existing structures or additions located within the Flood plain Corridor. 2. Non-habitable basements, used for storage, parking, and similar uses are permitted for residential structures but must be flood- proofed to the standards of Chapter 15.10. J. Storage of petroleum products, pesticides, or other hazardous or toxic chemicals is not permitted in Flood plain Corridor lands. K. Fences constructed within 20 feet of any Riparian Preservation Creek designated by this chapter shall be limited to wire or electric fence, or similar fence that will not collect debris or obstruct flood waters, but not including wire mesh or chain link fencing. Fences shall not be constructed across any identified riparian drainage or riparian preservation creek. Fences shall not be constructed within any designated floodway. L. Decks and structures other than buildings, if constructed on Flood plain Corridor Lands and at or below the levels specified in 2 section 18.62.070:C and D, shall be flood-proofed to the standards contained in Chapter 15.10. M..Local streets and utility connections to developments in and adjacent to the Flood plain Corridor shall be located outside of the Flood plain Corridor, except for crossing the Corridor, and except in the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor as outlined below: 1. Public street construction may be allowed within the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor as part of development following the adopted North ~Mountain Neighborhood Plan. This exception shall only be permitted for that section of the' Bear Creek Flood plain corddor between North Mountain Avenue and the'Nevada Street right-of-way. The new street shall be constructed i~n the general location as indicated on the neighborhood plan map, and in the area generally described as having the shallowest potential for flooding within the corridor. 2. Proposed development that is not in accord with the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan shall not be pen'nitted to utilize this exception. (Ord 2808, Added, 12/02/1997) Further, the project is required to comply with following development standards for Riparian Preservation Lands: 18.62.075 Development Standards for Riparian Preservation lands A. All development in areas indicated for Riparian Preservation, as defined in section 18.62.050(B), shall comply with the following standards: 1. Development shall be subject to all Development Standards for Flood plain Corridor Lands (18.6Z070) 2. Any tree over six inches d.b.h, shall be retained to the greatest extent feasible. 3. Fill and Culverting shall be permitted only for streets, access, or utilities. The crossing shall be at right angles 1Io the creek channel to the greatest extent possible. Fill shall be kept to a minimum. 4. The general topography of Riparian Preservation lands shall be retained. (Ord 2808, Added, 12/02/1997) II. The approval criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance as follows: 18.61.080 Cdteda for Issuance of Tree Removal An applicant for a Tree Removal-Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and 2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alltematives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. (ORD 2883 added 06/04/2002) III. The approval criteria for Site Review approval are described in 18.72.060 as follow: 18.72.070 Cdteda for Approval The following crileda shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. Ail requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Coundl for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capadty of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electridty, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject properly. Ail improvements in the street right-of- way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655, 1991; Ord 2836 S6, 1999) 4) The Planrdng Commission, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on March 9, 2004, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission approved the application subject to conditions Pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. Now, therefore, The Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will b.e used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the request for Site Review approval, a Tree Removal and Physical Constraints Review Permit to construct a multi-floor; 8,325 square foot mixed-use building at 88 North Main Street meets all relevant approval criteria as described in the Site Design and Use Standards chapter 18.72, Tree Preservation and Protection chapter 18.61 and Physical and Environmental Constraints chapter 18.62. 2.3 The Commission finds that the proposed site plan and building design are consistent with applicable City of Ashland design standards. The Commission believes the project team has designed a building that complies with relevant City design standards. The buildings two-story scale with flat roof and parapet along North Main Street is appropriate for this City block, and representative of the staggered streetscape pattern seen throughout the downtown. Consistent with Downtown Standards, the building maintains a zero setback from the sidewalk and creates a strong sense of entry through the incorporation of a well-articulated recessed entry with associated pedestrian coveting above. The building width flows from side property line to side property line, while the location of ground level and upper floor windows maintains a consistent proportion of transparency. As described within the downtown's design standards, the building incorporates prominent horizontal and vertical lines and building materials consistent with other downtown buildings. The proposed building consists of traditional downtownL architecture with an exterior faCade consisting of red brick and painted smooth and dappled stucco. Further, the main entrance faces North Main Street and is articulated with pronounced architectural features that denote the building entrance. A marquee entrance covering is proposed above the front entrance, between the adjoining pilasters. The building provides for an alternation of wall areas with windows, doors and interesting architectural features that have been incorporated into the overall design of each wall facade. 2.4 The Commission finds that the request for a Tree Removal Permit for the large Alder tree at the front of the property meets the applicable approVal criteria. The Commission concurs with the applicant's findings based upon information in the application and the written testimony provided by experts in the appropriate fields. Alders appear to be intolerant to root injury and are subject to Armillaria root rot, which is prevalent in this area and is likely to develop when construction in within 20-feet of the trunk. Alternative design scenarios that involve shifting the building further away from the street (approximately 30 feet or more from the,' sidewalk) is inconsistent with City Downtown Design standards, and contrary to the existing development pattern seen along Main Street. Such a shift further limits the developable area of the site due to flood plain management regulations governing the rear of the property. In addition, there is little guarantee that, in the long mn, the tree will weather the impacts of significant grades changes associated with building construction. 2.5 The Commission finds that the request to permit "development" within Floodplain Corridor and Riparian Preservation Lands meets all relevant approval and development standards described in the Physical and Environmental Constraints chapter 18.62. The Commission finds that the application has evaluated potential impacts and hazards that the development may create and incorporates appropriate design options to mitigate the potential impacts associated with the proposal. This includes potential flood related impacts not only to the project, but also upon up and downstream properties, as well as impacts to the creek environment. The Commission recognizes that while specific development standards are in place to guide both residential and corrmaercial development, standards applicable to commercial development allow for greater flexibility Clue to the type of use, location of use and intensity of coverage generally permitted within commercial[ zoning designations. The Commission acknowledges that City Floodplain development standards describe a build to line, delineating how close to the creek a commercial structure can be constructed. This is the closest location that the building footprint or structural supports can conceiwtbly be constructed, based upon the elevation of the existing property. Additionally, the development standards set a maximum distance for upper floor projections or cantilevers, while defining the. elevation of the lowest finished floor level. The Commission finds that the project comPlies with the standards. Specifically, the structural pillars beneath the building footprint do not go beyond (closer to the creek:) the existing ground elevation of 1870. Given that the 100-year base flood elevation defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is 1872, the building complies with the provision that new structures be located on lands no more than two-feet below the 100- year :flood elevation. With the elimination of the cantilevered portions of the second and third floor levels, no portion of the structure encroaches further than 20-feet beyond the 100-year base flood, line (i.e. 18.72 elevation). Consequently, the Commission believes that the design revisions (i.e. removal of 2~d & 3~a floor cantilever) not only demonstrate compliance with City Flood Plain development standards, but also address potential impacts to the three Maple trees currently situated adjacent to the creek channel and within the riparian environment. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Heating on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the request for Site Review, Tree Removal and a Physical Constraints Review Permit to construct a multi-floor, 8,325 square foot mixed-use building at 88 North Main Street meet all applicable approval standards described in the Site Design and Use Standards Chapter 18.72, Tree Preservation and Protection chapter 18.61 and Physical Constraint chapter 18.62. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action//2004-002. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action//2004-002 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) 3) 4) That the installation of plant materials within Riparian Preservation Lands (both sides of the creek) shall be reviewed and approved by the Staff Advisor in consultation with the Oregon Fish & Wildlife Department and Ashland Tree CommisSion. Recommendations on plant materials shall be incorporated into a revised landscaping plan. All planting shall be installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. That both sides of the bank be stabilized through appropriate armoring, such as the placement of medium'to large boulders. The location of the creek armor shall be noted on the revised landscaping plan and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to commencement of building permit review, pursuant to the approval of appropriate government agencies with jurisdiction (i.e. State & Federal). That a metal street tree grate, consistent with the standards of the Public Works Department, be installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy around the existing street tree along North Main Street. 5) That the color, texture, dimensions, shape and building materials for all exterior components of the project be included at the time of submission of building permit. The information shall be consistent with the colors, texture, dimensions and shape of materials and building details proposed and approved as part of the land use application. 6) That the recommendations of the Historic Commission be incorporated into the final design and approved by the Staff Advisor. Building sections identifying theheight, width, depth, material and texture of all exterior architectural features shall be provided with the building permit to verify consistency with the approved building elevations. 7) That the applicant submit an electric distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department prior to final planning approval and/or building permit issuance. Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. 8) That the building setback from the creek channel shall be staked on-site, verified and approved bythe Staff Advisor prior to building permit issuance, and maintained throughout the duration of the project. 9) 'That temporary erosion control measures shall be identified on the construction drawings, approved bythe Staff Advisor, and installed on-site prior to building permit issuance. Temporary erosion control measures shall be maintained throughout the duration of the project and until the final landscaping has been installed. 10) That the design of all storm water mn-offoutfall locations be reviewed bythe Public Works Department and approved bythe Staff Advisor. Outfall locations shall situated as dose to the elevation of the creek channel as possible to reduce the potential for bank erosion. Outfall locations shall be adequately armored and vegetated to reduce the potential of bank erosion. 11) That a final utility plan for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division and Building Divisions prior to issuance of a building permit. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, sewers, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage and catch basins. Given the elevation of lower floor levels, sanitary sewer service may require pumping to the sewer main located in North Main Street. In addition, connection to City water may require the cutting of North Main Street due to the lines anticipated location on the opposite side of the street. 12) That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department, including but not limited to hydrant placement and flow and apparatus access, shall be clearly identified on the construction drawings and reviewed and approved by the Ashland Fire Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 13) That all portions of the building located at an elevation of 1773 or below shall be flood-proofed and designed to the standards identified in 15.10.080 and as suggested by FEMA for non-residential construction. The flood-proofing measures shall be clearly identified on the construction drawings, reviewed and approved by the Building Official, and certified by an Oregon registered professional engineer that the design and methods of construction are in accordance with accepted standards of practice for meeting the provisions of 7 15.10.080 and FEMA. 14) That a covenant or similar deed restriction be recorded on the property prohibiting the establishment or installation of any structure or similar element on the opposite side of the creek (east side) that would in any way restrict the overflow of flood waters into the area beneath the viaduct. The legal instrument shall be prepared by the applicant and reviewed and approved by the Staff. Advisor and City Attorney prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 15) That a sign, awning and marquee program for the development be included at the time of building permit · review. The program shall identify the anticipated number of signs, locations and approximate square footage based upon the requirements described in the Sign Code 18.96. Leases for commercial tenant spaces shall note that awnings, marquees or similar pedestrian shelters shall be consistent with City Downtown Design Standard (V l-l), reviewed by the Ashland Historic Commission and approved by the Planning Department Staff.Advisor. 16) That all reco:mmendations of the Ashland Tree Commission noted on their January 9, 2004 document be addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit. The recommendations shall be included on a revised landscaping plan and final irrigation plan at the time of submission of building permit. 17) That proposed Tree Protection measures address existing trees located immediately north of the property within the State right-of-way. The approval of off-site mitigation on the State right-of-way shall be the responsibility of the applicant. The applicant shall seek ODOT's consent of the planting of a large specimen tree (one to two trees, depending on the species and what canopy it will reach), two and one- half inches in caliper to mitigate the loss of canOpy from the removal of the alder tree. The landscape architect can make the decision as to what type of tree(s). At maturity the tree should be considered a signature tree. 18) That an opportunity-to-recycle site for use by project residents shall be identified for the project in accordance with the standards described in section 18.72.115 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance prior to issuance of a building permit. 19) That the construction drawings submitted at the time Building Permit review shall demonstrate compliance with 18.62.070 (G). 20) That wood clad windows be installed on the front windows with a four-inch mullion (separation). Such revisions to be clearly ide~ntified on the building permit plans. Planning Comrnisfion Approval Date HfiR-12-2004 FR I 12: 68 PPI ODOT ~IH ITE 0 ITY FaX NO. 6417748S4~ P, O1 % OI'CBC, ON ])Bt'l' OF TRAN.~PORTATIO1V ~{FI'E C~'Y, O~ 97503 Phone: (54~) 774-8~84 Fmxt (541) 77'4-6849 FAX TRANSMITTAL Fax #: Date.. Subject: Pages: including this cover sheet 77 MAR 1 ~ 2004 tie~R- 12-2004 FRI 12:68 Pti ODOT WH ITE 0 ITY F,qX NO, 54]7746349 i APPLICATION AND PERMIT TO OCCUt[. JR PERFORM OPERATIONS UPON A STATE HIGHWAY GENERAL LOCATION "t"IT(Ji:I~/VAY NAME AND ROUTE NUMBER Bogue Va_Llie. y,.H_..wy, .e?_ .... I HIGHWAY NUMBER COUNTY 63 15 -- JACKSON BI[']'WEEN OR NEAR LANDMARKS Lithia ,Way ans Main st. [IWY, REFERENCE MAP I DESIGNATED FREEWAY ! E~] YES r~ No APPLICANT NAME AND ADDF1ESS CRy of Ashland 20 E, Main St, Ashland, Oregon 97520 P, 02 PERMrr NUMBER 488-5347 I See O~egon Administrative Rule, Chapter 734, Division 65 CLASS' KEY# PURPOSE OF APPLICATION ............ {'r_0_C_O__N S'~ RUCT/O P£RATE./M Al NTAIN] __ r--1 POLELiNE TYPE J MIN, VERT, CLEARANCE IIN U,S, FOREST ~] YES r JcURIED ABLE ._]PIPE LINE I'YPE TYPE FEE AMOUNT [~ NO ~SIGNNON"COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS OPERATIONS AND/OR r~] FACILITIES AS DESCRIBED BELOW BONO -RE-Qui~ED r{r=lq~l~ENC~; I AMOUNT OF BONO ~- - ~ . - 0AR734-65 I INSURANCE REQUIRED R[.rERI~NCE: { ~;PI;CIFIED COMP. DATE OAR 734.55 DETAIL LOCATION OF FACILITY{For more space attach additional sheets) MILE MILE ENGINEERS ENGINEERS S,D~ O¢ I.~Y on DISTA'N'CE FROM BURIED CABLE OR PIPE ..... SP,~N O POINT STATION TO STATION ANeLE OFCR0$SING CENTER OF PVMT R/~N LINE DEPTH/VERT. -SIZE AND KIND LENGTH 140+55 LAN[I,SCAPE PERMI r TO REPLACE TREE ON ODOT F POINT 19.05 DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION DF NON-COMMERCIAL SIGNS OR MISCELLANEOUS OPERATIONS FACIUTIES Permit is to plant tree as replacement to Alder tt~at is to be removed due to construction. Chinese Pistachio will be the replacement tree. SPECIAL PROVISIONS (FOR', MORE SPACE ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS) TRAFFIC CONTROL rll£eu~nEo . - OPEN CUTTING OF PAVED OR SURFACED AREAS ALLOWED7 · b~ YES IOAR 734-55-025{6)1 [~ NO · r.~ YES [OAR 734-§5-100[2] [~ NO (OAR 734-55-100(1) · AT LEAST 48 HOURS BEFORE BEGINNING WORK, THE APPLICANT OR HIS CONTRACTOR SHALl. NOTIFY THE DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE AT TELEPHONE NUMBER; 774-6342 OR FAX A COPY OF THIS PAGE TO THE DISTRICT OFFICE AT~ 774-634~ SPECIFY TIME AND DATE IN THE SPACE BELOW. · A COPY OF THIS PERIVIIT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS SHALL BE AVAILABLE AT THE WORK AREA DURING CONSTRUCTION. · oRS ?eT,S4 TO 757,5'71 REQUIRES EXCAVATORS TO LOCATE AND PROTECT ALL EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. YOU MAY BE HELD LIABLE FOR DAMAGES, CALL FOR UTILITY LOCATES. CALl_ aEFORE YOU DIG. ,,,.,.,.,,,,,,...,,,,..~..,.,.,.~,..,,..,,....,..,. ~.,.......~,.,.,. ,, ,, COMMENTS - ODOT USE ONLY Traffic control must meet MUTCD standards See atlached landscape provisions A temporary chain link Lance will be allowed around new trees within the right of way IF THE PROPOSED APPLICATION WILL AFFECT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT, ~i~'I~'~.P~;I]~3'A~N-~-SHALL ACQUIRE THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL'S SIGNATURE Bt-FORE ACQUIRING THE DISTRICT MANAGER'S SIGNATURE. LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL SIGNATURE X APPLICANT SIGNATURE X APPLICATION DATE Rulus~ Chl,i}lur 734~ Divlum~ 65, whlcll Is by thE= rn~omnCa m~do a p~ o[ thio porml(, 734-3457(5-03) TITLE DATE , TITLE TELEPHONE NO. DISTRICT MANAGER OR REPRE~'~,'I:i~71~ ......... '~PPROVAL DATE X NAR-12-2004 FRI I,, . , . . !0. 11, 12. 13. 12:$9 Pl'l 'ODOT PlHITE OITY FAX NO, 5417746349 ADDITION AL SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR M lsd ELLANEOU$ PERM ITS. LANDSCAPING (Mar 2000), A copy of this permit and all attachments shall be available at the work area during construction. ORS 757.54 to 757.571 requires excavators to locate and protect all existing underground utilities. You may be held lmble for damages. Call for utilities locate. Call before you dig 1-800-332~ 2344. Contractor to acknowledge receipt of and review of, by letter, thc Oregon Administrative Rules (Chapter 734.55) governing miscellaneous facilities and operation~ on the highway right of way as Ihe governing provisions of th~s pertnit or agreement. 'i'I~¢ Permittce shall not use the right &way to display advertising signs or merchandi.qe of any kind. Tho slopping and parking of vehicles upon State Highway right of way for the maintenance of adjoining property or in furthe~,'aaee of any business transaction or commercial establishment is strictly proh ibited. The spreading of mud or debris upon any State }Iighway is strictly prohibited, and violation shall be cause for immcdlatc cancellation of the permit. Clean up shall be at Applicant's expense, 'rt~e highway shall b~: cleaned of all dirt and debris at flxe end of each workday, or more ~¥cqucntly if so delermined by the District Manager or representative. Ali equipment shall be parked off'the right of way or in areas acceptable to the District Manager or representative. Permltlee shall replace any landscape vegetation or fences that are damaged or deslroycd. Any damage that is not f, dly recovered within one year shall be replaced by ODOT at the expense of Ihe Permittee, Permitte shall be responsible tbr continued maintenance of tile landscape facility. Failure to mainlain landscape will prompt ODOT to remove or rcpair facility at tho expense of the Permitee. Applicant shall obtain an application and permit for trimming or spraying l rees prior to t}xc cutting of trees and brash on the highway right of way (applieatio~t,q are available at the District office), Applicant will be held liable for tree branches or shrubbery interfering with the traveling public, Applicant will install and maintain landscaped areas as shovm on the attached drawings. Planting shall be lhnited to low growing shrubs (less than 24"), grass or flowers that do not attain sufficient height to obslruct clear vision in any direction. The Commission or Engineer shalI have the right to remove said landscaping at any time such removal may appear to the Commission to be in the publie's interest, without liability of loss, injury or dmnage of any nature whatsoever, Applicant is responsible for: [I] Investigating presence / absence of any legally protected or regulated environmental re~o-rce(s) in the action area e.g. }laz~ardous material(s), water quality constraints, wetlands, areh¢ologieal or historic resource(s), state or federal threatened or endangered species, etc. [2] Complying with all applicable environmental laws pertaining to the proposed action. If applicant inadvertently impacts a legal ly protected/regal areal resource, applicant will be responsibIe ['or mitigation / rehabilitation cost. All existing facilities such as utilities, curbs, culverts, signs, mail boxes, sign post, guardrail, h'mdscape vegetation mid fences,and all miscellaneous items within the right &way are to be protected and maintained, or removed and adequately replaced, Any damage tha~ is not fully recovered shall be replaced by ODOT at the expense of the Permlttee. ?/ MAR 1 2 2004 MflR-12-2004 FRI 12:59 PM ODOT PlHII'E CITY FAX NO, 5417746349 O4 '%, i~×ISTtN~ E~II_I~II~ MAIN ET MAR 1 2 ?~1],~ CITY OF -ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 9, 2004 CALL TO ORDER Chaff Russ Chapman called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Commissioners Present: Absent Members: Council Liaison: High School Liaison: SOU Liaison: Staff Present: Russ Chapman, Chaff Mike Morris Kerry KenCaim Marilyn Briggs Colin Swales John Fields Ray Kistler Dave Dotterrer Cameron Hanson Alex Amarotico (Council Liaison does not attend Planning Commission meetings in order to avoid conflict of interest) None None Bill Molnar, Senior Planner Sue Yates, Executive Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Chapman announced there would not be a study session on March 23rd. The monthly Planning Commission "Chat" will be held on 'i'uesday, March 23ra at the Community Development and Engineering Services Building, 51 Winbum Way from 3:30 to 4:30 p.m. Swales and Dotterrer will be available to answer · questions from the public. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS February 10, 2004 Regular Meeting Minutes: Chapman asked for a clarification on page 2. Under Staff Report,, second sentence, change it to read .... The existing house will be on its own lot and a fifth lot common area, covering all the open space. Briggs moved the minutes be approved as corrected, KenCaim seconded the motion and the minutes were approved as corrected. February 24, 2004 Study Session: Swales noted on the bottom of page 1, last sentence, remove "side setback"'. February 10, 2004 Hearings Board Findings for PA2003-118, 265 Glenview Drive, DeBoer: Morris moved to approve the findings. (Note: From the audience, Bill Street asked to speak to the findings and was told by Chapman this is not a public hearing.) Dotterrer seconded the motion and the f'mdings were approved. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forth to speak. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION 2004-002 REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A MULTI-FLOOR, 8325 SQUARE FOOT MIXED USE BUILDING AT 88 NORTH'MAIN STREET. A PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT IS REQUTED TO PERMIT "DEVELOPMENT WITH THE ASHLAND FLOODPLAIN CORRIDOR. APPLICANT: LLOYD HAINES Site Visits and Ex Parle Contacts - The commissioners all had a site visit. KenCairn has had a little exposure to the Tree Commission, but all the information conveyed to her is contained in the packet. STAFF REPORT Molnar said the site is located at the entrance to the downtown. The proposed area of construction currently houses the uncovered wooden deck of the Ashland Creek Bar and Grill. The site slopes significantly from the sidewalk along North Main to Ashland Creek. Ashland Creek and the associated floodplain are located to the rear of the property. The application has three elements. The Physical Constraints Review Permit applies ordinances and regulations to the portion of the project that encroaches into the floodplain area. There is a Tree Removal Permit. In a Commercial zone, under a Site Review process, trees greater than six inches in diameter are required to be identified and those that are proposed to be removed require a Tree Removal Permit. There are approximately four trees in the area that are potentially impacted by the project. Three are proposed to be retained and the largest of the four, a 36 diameter alder tree close to the sidewalk on North Main, is proposed for removal. The third.aspect is Site Review. This is design review, looking at consistency with the City's Downtown Design Standards as well as height requirements and other aspects of site design. Molnar explained the City has a lot of standards regarding development in floodplain corridor lands. Chapter 15 of the Ashland Municipal Code sets a number of other standards that generally pertain to elevating and flood proofing structures. He continued stating our regulations are set up to look at the impact of potential floods on the proposed building as well as the impact associated witlh constructing the structure near the floodplain and how it might impact downstream and upstream property. Another piece is the riparian preservation land. This an overlay that looks at minimizing or addressing the impacts associated with the creek's riparian environment. Our floodplain regulations allow commercial buildings a little bit more latitude than if zoned residential. Flood regulations allow the buildings not only to get close to the 100 year floodplain, but may allow the buildings to encroach into the floodplain corridor but not into an area of the floodplain corridor that is more than two feet below the 100 year floodplain. It allows a minor encroachment into the floodplain as long as the building is flood proofed and the building is adequately engineered. The 100 year flood elevation for this property is approximately 1872 feet, as established by FEMA. The City's ordinance would allow certain structural parts to encroach into the floodplain at 1870 feet. The ordinance also allows for upper floors to be cantilevered out over floodplain corridor lands but sets a maximum projection of 20 feet and any part of the 20 feet has to be ten feet above the flood elevation. This proposed building will be built on pillars, allowing the floodwaters to go beneath the basement area. The structural elements are at 1870 fbet. The initial design showed a second and third floor cantilevered, projecting beyond the 20 foot maximum, making it in conflict with the standard. In addition to the large alder tree, there are three maple trees (upon closer examination, it is one tree with three large trunks) by the creek area, 20 to 25 feet in height, right .below the second and third floor projections. The projections are 17 feet above the base of the trees. The trees would have to be drastically cut to fit underneath the second, and third floor. The applicant has modified the design by pulling back the second and third floor as shown in the drawings dated March 5, 2004. It now meets the floodplain standard, allowing for retention of the maple trees. The lowest floor of the building is proposed to be a restaurant with an outdoor deck at creekside. The second floor level is at sidewalk level and proposed for retail and office. The third floor is proposed to house two large apartments. Fields asked if there was a property line adjustment being made. It looks as though it is one tax lot. Swales thought this appeared to be a development in excess of 10,000 square feet and should be subject to the large-scale building requirements. He could see nothing in the findings addressing that or public space that would be required for sUch a building. Briggs asked if Staff is satisfied with the pullback on the revised plans. Molnar said they are satisfied with the changes at this point and feel the applicant complies with the riparian preservation and floodplain regulations. The current wooden deck goes approximately right to the water's edge. It is probably non-conforming with our current ordinance. Staff directed the applicant early on to bring back some of that degraded riparian area adjacent to the creek. They have pulled the deck back so there is at least ten feet between the water's edge and the deck. The applicant will try to bring the area back to a more natural state with riparian planting. The applicant is proposing a planting plan for the other side of the creek as well. There is a Condition that the applicant coordinate the plan with the Tree Commission and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODF&W), given the disturbance in the area. ODF&W has expressed an interest if the applicant is considering additional placement of boulders or other armoring to stabilize that area, if appropriate. KenCairn asked if there has been any assessment of the current bridge over the creek in relationship to flooding. Molnar said part of this project is a redesign of the pedestrian bridge, allowing it to be hoisted above a 100 year flood event. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 9, 2004 MINUTES Molnar said the applicant has proposed removing the 36 inch alder tree. The tree removal criteria have been addressed in the application as well as the Staff Report. (1) Without removing the tree, the design of the project would be inconsistent with the City's design standards. The applicant has noted the downtown development pattern has most of the buildings up along the sidewalks with a zero front and side setbacks. If the pattern is kept consistent and the applicant complies with the downtown standards, the tree could not be retained. The further the building is set back, the closer it gets to the floodplain issue. The area of development of the property starts shrinking. There is an arborist's report and the landscape architect noted the alder trees are not very tolerant to construction on their root zones. (2) The applicants also have to show the removal will not have a negative impact on erosion or windbreaks. Staff does not feel it will have a negative impact because the tree will be replaced by a building and the precipitation would be taken to a storm system. (3) The removal of trees will not have a negative impact on tree density, sizes and canopies. While it is a notable tree at this location, alder t~ees are not unique in a riparian environment. There are approximately 30 to 35 trees adjacent to the property within the state right-of-way and existing floodplain area. Staff feels adequate findings were presented in the record along with expert testimony from the arborist and landscape architect to meet the criteria for approval of tree removal. The Historic Commission reviewed the application. They are happy with the design and feel it meets the downtown design standards. They are pleased with the removal of the second and third floor projections and recommended approval. The packet contains the recommendati6ns made by the Tree Commission at their January meeting. Staff supports the application and has suggested 21 Conditions if the Commission wishes to approve the application. Molnar showed some of the flood zones in the area. Staff wants to minimize flood potential to the proposed, building. There is a small triangular piece of property under the applicant's ownership. Staff has stipulated that as part of the floodplain modeling, there be some kind of deed restriction precluding any kind of permanent encroachment from being placed there, such as a building or shed that could impede the natural overflow. Swales thought there was some mention about the culvert downstream being changed or taken out. Molnar :said the OTAK study indicates the culvert crossing is probably undersized and at an awkward angle given the flow and velocity. Long term, he thought OTAK's recommendation is the bridges need to be evaluated. Molnar said the last he heard, the 1974 event was a 30-35 year event and similarly, the 1997 event wasnot a 100 year event, but a much lesser event. PUBLIC HEARING CRAIG STONE, Craig Stone and Associates, 708 Cardley Avenue, Medford, OR 97504, is representing 88 North Main, LLC (Lloyd Haines, applicant). Dave Richardson is the architect and John Galbraith the landscape architect. They also worked on the project with civil engineers, OTAK and with a certified arborist, Tom Meyer. Stone said this project is mixed-use to be enclosed in a single building. This building does not touch the adjacent buildings and is separated by at least six inches. It was on separate tax lots. The Jackson County Assessor consolidated the tax lots and currently it is on a single parcel. It can be re-divided. Landscaping is proposed even though it is not required in the downtown. The deck will be moved back to make it more functional and integral to this building and to enhance the riparian landscaping within the riparian corridor. The existing pedestrian bridge is noted as a stipulation in the application. The intent is to replace the bridge with a bridge that can be raised or lowered during flood events. It is important to have this type of pedestrian connectivity. Stone said the approval standards and development standards have been addressed. They have tried to address the impacts or potential for impacts. (1) The building has been set back so it won't impede the flow of waters. It has been designed to increase the volume of water that can be stored on this property during a flood event. The retaining wall ha,,; been designed to channel the normal stream flows downstream underneath the culvert. (2) They do not propose to remove any riparian vegetation. They want to remove the existing deck and construct a new deck away from the creek corridor. They've made great efforts to preserve the maple trees. Since it is one tree and not three, the tree can be pruned to accommodate the building design. Stone noted Galbraith's revised preservation plan, Galbraith's letter and Tom Meyer's letter. (3) Stone said removal of the alder tree is unavoidable. The tree has to be removed to comply with other standards in AMC. There is no way to accomplish building up to the sidewalk, if the tree is retained. If the tree was set back 20 feet, it would put the tree in jeopardy, having development close to the tree. The applicant wishes to create an art park beneath the viaduct. It would involve sculpturing the tree that is proposed to be removed. The sculpture would occupy this property or the adjacent art park. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 9, 2004 MINUTES Stone said with regard to Condition 3, the applicant would be glad to armor the creek .and to work with the city and state. He would like wording such as: "Pursuant to the approval of state and federal agencies having jurisdiction over such matters...(add word~ng in Condition 3). Condition 18 cites a 'Free Commission recommendation from January 9th. He believes there is a more recent Condition. Stone would like clarification on Condition 14. LLOYD HAINES said the first floor is at 1877 feet, five feet above FEMA and a foot and half above Ashland's floodplain. Molnar said Condition 14 could be deleted because what the applicant is proposing shows they have well exceeded the flood elevation. He said they have also noted pruning guidelines. Haines commented that though not part of the application, he would like to complete his vision for this area by making improvements to the ,creek on both sides and make it pedestrian accessible from the park all the way down Water Street. Swales said he is not referring to the big box ordinance. He is talking about IIC3 - Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects. The one building is 8000 square feet and the aggregate of the two buildings would put it in this category. You can't split the lot and have the same development that is proposed because of fn'e restrictions. He believes we need to address the issue of these large-scale projects. Briggs asked if they are rebuilding the existing staircase. DAVE RICHARDSON, Architectural Design Works, 1105 Siskiyou Boulevard, said the stairs go from the second floor to the upper floor of the new building. It has no connection to the existing building. Fields asked if this is one building or isn't it? Richardson said it is one building and it is less than 8000 square feet. The part of the building closest to the existing building will contain firewalls. Fields mentioned that Criterion 23(2)(A) Landscaping Requirements, C-1-D requires ten percent landscaping. Is that an error? Swales said this was a conflict in the ordinance (reviewed on 2-24-04 Study Session). He said the Site Design Standards conflict with the AMC. It says ten in one place and in the other it says zero. Molnar said that needs to be corrected. Fields referred to page 30 of the applicant's findings. Molnar said that must have been taken from the Site Design and Use Standards. He added that in C-1-1D there are no landscaping requirements. Swales said most of the concerns from the public seem to be surrounding removal of the tree. The applicant's findings deal with this issue on page 51 (top bullet point). When you look at the ordinance as it is written, it goes on to say, "An exception to this standard would be an area specifically designed as plaza space, courtyard space, dining space or rear access." In other words, there are allowable ways to have the building not extend from side lot line to side lot line. The second part of the setback requirement states: "Areas having public utility easements or similar restricting conditions shall be exempt from these standards." It seems the tree removal permit would fit the "similar restricting conditions" and therefore the building would be exempt from the standard of that setback. When you look at the rules for exceptions available, is there demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements? It is a very difficult site to build on. The standards go on to say that you can have an "alternative design that encompasses the purpose of the Downtown Design Standards in a manner that is equal or superior to". It would seem there are other options available to the applicant under our Design Standards. He believes the Commission would look favorably on the application if there had been some attempt on this site to actually retain the tree. He believes there are omissions in the findings that speak to alternative proposals that could be on this site. Chapman understood there has to be a 20 foot buffer around the tree during construction. Though Swales does not claim to be a tree expert, it seems it is possible to build a building on this site if you are required to save a tree. It is also in the Site Design Standards to retain as many healthy trees as possible. This tree is of huge stature. KenCaim said one of the criteria is that you don't have to follow the Design Guidelines if you are creating plaza space, etc. If you were to do that around this tree, you couldn't pave it. You'd have to leave it in its natural state. Stone argued that taken as a whole, the Downtown Design Standards were established for the purpose of replicating a traditional downtown facade treatment and compatibility with the those buildings that historically existed. You can make the argument that Swales makes and make some efforts to establish a building with a small feature on the back of the property, sandwiched between the tree setback area and the creek and call it a plaza. He does not believe these standards require you to ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES do that. Stone is not going to say Swales is wrong, but the result of it is a building that doesn't meet what the design guidelines have sought to achieve. Haines explained this property is three tax lots. The assessor joined the property into one parcel. Molnar is not sure, but based on revisions to the Big Box ordinance, outside the downtown, buildings sharing a common wall shall be considered one building. That was not a provision placed with the downtown area. JAMES KOLKER, 1030 Morton Street, said he is a business owner in the area adjacent to the creek. If the building moved back 20 feet, it would end up with a 30 foot gangplank going to a tiny building. He is most concerned about the area containing a dumpster, bike racks, and a large deck with a concrete parking lot. There is a huge electric box there too. The area is a heavily traveled pedestrian area that meanders up from Water Street. Pedestrians are confronted with this bar scene that is very unattractive and uninviting. This area sorely needs something to connect to the main walkway. JOAN VAN LEHN, 310 Holly Street, agrees with Kolker. There are two beautifully developed areas. People enjoy sitting by the creek. The state right-of-way area is a blight. There are boom boxes, loud music, and beer cans. She would just like it to be cleaned up. It could be an incredible asset to the community. JACK HARDESTY, 575 Dogwood Way, said he supports the Haines project. He believes the plan is in keeping with the rest of the downtown area. The plan to provide public space and access to Bluebird Park is decidedly in the public: interest. It will improve the entrance to downtown.. SKIP ANDREW, 216 Scenic Drive, favors the project. He used to live at the north end of town and the only place to walk in a nice quiet green space was at Glen Vista Estates. Haines built that project. In walking downtown, he would walk in Bluebird Park. Haines built that as well. His fa'st response was to save the tree. It is an alder tree that has only about 30 years left. The tree will be gone and the building will still be there. He does not agree with Swales' position. He believes the building needs to be up against the sidewalk. He does not believe it is in the City's best interest to build around a tree. RON ROTH, 6950 Old Highway 99 South, believes this is a good plan and a good project. Downtown Ashland is not a small town, but a small city. What downtown Ashland needs is more people living in or near the downtown core.. This proposed building will provide more housing where more residents can walk to shops and parks. The large tree needs to be removed. He does not think removing the tree will have any significant environmental impact. Alder trees are very plentiful and grow very quickly. They also die at a relatively young age. He would be more in favor of the project if instead of two large apartments, the plan was for half dozen small apartments. He's watched affordable housing disappear in Ashland. ORIANA SPRATT, 212 Patterson Street, said she had also submitted a written opinion. She is not in favor of' killing this plan, but she doesn't think enough work has been done to save the tree. She agrees with Swales. This is the most beautiful part of the plaza. She spoke with an arborist who said this is one of the prettiest trees in Ashland and he is upset it has to be removed. Roots would be damaged by being too close to construction.. DIANE MCDERMOTT, 208 Patterson Street, sent a couple of letters. She said if we didn't have to line up all the buildings, we could save the tree. She is hearing that we don't have adequate information tonight to review this. We don't know if a building can be placed there and still preserve the tree. The tree is 40 years old. You can't see the maple tree. It would be a shame to remove the alder tree if we don't have to. BRYAN HOLLEY, 324 Liberty Street, is still frustrated by Ashland's planning process. Nothing in his comments probably approach the criteria. From a lay perspective it seems funny that the Chamber of Commerce wants more retail. This is a values debate. On the one side we have the property owner and their rights and on the other side we have all the other values. He is supportive of some of the ways the applicant is trying to make this area better. We will find a way to explain away why a particular tree has to go. He would urge the Commission to look at the Valdez principles adopted by the Council. He wondered if it would ever happen that someone couldn't build because of the Valdez principles. Or, maybe they are too idealistic for our town. He mentioned the current Council goals. Another goal in the Tree Ordinance is 18.,61.094 B(1)." Conditions of approval may include, but are not limited to, requiring modifications in the location, design or intensity of a development or activities on a site, or to require or to prohibit certain construction methods. Modifications may result in a decrease in size of residential or commercial structures and modification shall not reduce the density of residential development below the permitted density allowed by the zone." He would like the Commissioners and the iPlanning Dept. to keep this section in mind. He would hope this action could be continued for another month. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 9, 2004 MINUTES KenCairn asked about the most recent response from the Tree Commission concerning the project. Holley said when you have a multi-trunked tree and take it back to where you would normally prune, it creates a weak spot in the tree. The Tree Commission said if the alder has to go, we would like the Planning Commission to work with the Planning Department and the applicant and ODOT. If the alder acts as a gateway, then we have an opportunity to work with the multiple parties and make that gateway the best it can be. It will take some political will. CYNDI DION, 897 Hillview Drive, said she works on the plaza and walks daily in that area. There are some wonderful aspects of this project she is in favor of but she is opposed to removal of the signature alder. She is extremely concerned that this project is set to be very close to the Ashland Creek riparian area. She is on the Ashland Street Watershed Partnership committee and they are currently working with the City to draw up a riparian ordinance. Some of the ordinances could be stricter than what is on the books now. If it is absolutely necessary to remove the alder tree, the mitigation should be exactly as stated by the Tree Commission. The best choice would be to replace it with another tree of equal girth and size, planted specifically along the creek. She personally doesn't feel that a carving of the dead tree trunk mitigates the removal of the tree. The plantings along the riparian area must be riparian plants. Perhaps some sort of work can be done so the maple does not have to be trimmed back as severely as proposed. KenCaim asked if Dion favored the effort between ODOT and the City to do some mitigation to the north of the property boundary. Dion approved of the plan. She believes it is a wonderful idea to work diligently to put more plantings along the creek. RANDALL HOPKINS, 735 S. Mountain Avenue, suggested the Tree Commission made their decision they way they did is because they heard fi'om only one side. There was no notice on the City's website before January 9, 2004. It went to the Tree Commission a second, time on March 4, 2004. The agenda was posted on the website, however, under public hearings, no planning actions were: proposed for the month. The public would have no clue anything was happening. He attended the meeting on the March 4th. It was clear that the Tree Commissioners believed that there is a zero setback requirement. As Swales pointed out, the applicant has been very careful not to include references to the many exceptions and exclusions. He read from the standards: "other recessed features". He believes it is possible to incorporate a recessed feature that would comply with the setback requirement and bring the rest of the building to the sidewalk. Molnar noted that this application was adequately noticed and met the statutes for pubic noticing. Molnar referred to the question about whether this is one development or part of another development. Staff reviewed this as a stand-alone development of approximately 8000 square feet and would not be subject to the large-scale development standards. By taking off the second and third floor cantilevefing, the building is about 7700 square feet. The dining deck and reception area is about 800 square feet and a finding could be made this space is public space. Molnar said the other issue is whether or not to grant tree removal of the alder tree. Staff doesn't take lightly the removal of large trees. We rely on expert testimony from the applicant's team. What is the long-term vision for the downtown based on the downtown development standards and the downtown plan? It talks about buildings up on the street. Given the factors in the arbofist's report that any disturbance within 20 feet of the tree would be detrimental to the long-term health of the tree, etc. would it be in the best: interest of the Downtown Standards if that tree in 30 to 35 years ultimately declined. This is a unique site because of the state fight-of-way next to it. KenCaim wondered if we could ask for mitigation or a condition that would require the applicant to exhaust mitigation opportunities with another public entity. If the alder tree is a gateway tree, the best opportunity for mitigation is on the ODOT property. It would force negotiations with the applicant and ODOT to do mitigation plantings in that area. To be responsible to the community, we would try to force that opportunity. Chapman said Condition 19 addresses the issue. KenCaim would like stronger language. She wants the public to know the measures that the applicant had to go through to do mitigation in that area. Molnar asked if the Tree Commission's recommendation was :sufficient. "The applicant shall plant either a minimum one and one-half inch. caliper, healthy and well- branched deciduous tree or five or six foot tall evergreen tree." Molnar said the Commission has the ability to increase landscaping. Chapman's wording fi>r Condition 19: To mitigate the loss of the alder, the applicant will exhaust all opportunities with ODOT to implement the recommendations of the Tree Commission on the property directly to the north. Fields thought, in order to satisfy the gateway issue around the tree, perhaps plant three trees. KenCaim said there is room for two along that sweep. She thought there should be a larger canopy than a one and one-half inch caliper tree. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 9, 2004 MINUTES ~)f Rebuttal Stone believes the proposed development does not fallunder large scale development. If the County Assessor consolidated three lots into one, Haines is willing to partition the property the way it was originally partitioned, separating the buildings onto individual tax lots. The single building is about 7500 square feet. Stone said the tree doesn't have to taken out to comply with the Design Standards. To create a 20 foot notch around the building would probably not allow it to even hit the sidewalk. It would be pretty disastrous to the design of the project. This project ought to move forward despite the removal of the tree because if by making some heroic efforts in tlhe design of the building to preserve the tree and it dies, we are left with a building that has a comprised design for a feature: that is no longer around. He does not believe it is a requirement to put in alcoves and plazas. He believes ODOT will be cooperative. This is a piece of remnant property within the state right-of-way that looks like it won't be necessary for any transportation purposes. He believes it will be a simple matter to gain their authorization to plant one or multiple replacement trees. Haines would be willing to stipulate three trees. KenCairn asked if they could be two to two and one-half inch caliper. Haines said yes. There are already eight trees going on the right-of-way. It may be the City would rather have a work of art there. KenCaim suggested they could integrate both. Stone said possible language for Condition 19 could read: "Applicant shall seek ODOT's consent to permit the planting of not less than three trees of not less than two to two and one-half inch caliper on the adjacent right-of-way." KenCaim appreciated their generosity and thought three could be too many. Haines will be glad to mitigate even if it's not at that site, but another part of the City. KenCairn wondered if we want to mitigate in that area particularly to honor the canopy/gateway idea. Chapman thinks there is a loss at that site and we would like to put something there to replace that loss. KenCaim said maybe we should go for canopy cover rather number of trees. That's why larger is better and maybe one is enough. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND DECISION Chapman suggested losing the alder and replacing it on the piece of property to the north. Dotterrer concun:ed. The Condition can use words that talk about our goal rather than number of trees. Briggs would like wording that would signify the desire for a special or "specimen" replacement tree. Molnar's wording for Condition 19 as worded with the additional wording - "That the applicant shall seek ()DOT's consent of the planting to mitigate the loss of canopy from the alder to a large specimen tree (one to two trees, depending on the species and what canopy it will reach) of two and one-half inch caliper. The landscape architect can make the decision as to what tree(s). At maturity the tree will be considered a signature tree. Chapman suggested adding a sentence to Condition 3: "The location of the creek armor shall be noted on the revised landscaping plan and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to commencement of building permit review, pursuant to the approval of appropriate government agencies with jurisdiction." Delete Condition 14 (renumber the rest of the Conditions). Chapman said it is always a balancing act between the urban environment, where we choose to build our buildings, and the City's commitment to trees. We have a tree protection ordinance and a Tree Commission. He has to balance that against what he sees as a substantial improvement to this property. He believes it will be an attractive space and an opportunity to make some improvements down toward the creek. He does not believe the tree ordinance was intended to preclude the construction as evidenced by the Tree Commission's recommendation to remove the tree. The Historic Commission has signed off on the building. Swales agreed with the owner of the Blue Giraffe (Andrew) that the state right-of-way area needs cleaning up. Andrew discussed the building not having an entrance right on the street and how it can work. Swales said the building occupied by Christopher Briscoe on Fourth Street has the entrance on the diagonal with the comer of the building taken off. The Golden- Fields building that won an award has a similar entrance on the comer. He feels this particular location is workable because it is at the end of the block, the gateway; it doesn't necessarily have to face Main Street. It could have an entrance on the comer without being a detriment to the design standards. With regard to construction of the building within the root zone, if there was a danger of the tree catching a fungus, he is sure the ground could be treated with a fungicide. He believes there are creative ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 7 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES ~ solutions to the problem. His main contention is this should come under the purview of the largerscale development due to the large size of the lot and the existing buildings on it. Under the code, he doesn't believe a little private eating deck for the restaurant in back qualifies for a plaza or public space. If we take Stone's interpretation that this does not fall under large-scale development, it seems it would be setting a precedent. Anyone that has a large lot could develop a building of 9999 square feet and come back a year' later with another building of the same size without having to meet the requirements of the ordinance. It seems we have to address this as a large-scale development and therefore require a public plaza or 'we have to ask for a continuation for the applicant to come back with a lot partition in association with a revised plan. ]?Ie can't support the application as it is. Morris wondered how much of the building would go away if they left room for the tree. He referenced the letter from Tom Meyer stating the roots go all the way to the creek and it is likely that any construction on this lot would release fungus to the root system of the alder. To change the building to accommodate the tree doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to him. He can't see it is a large-scale development. The survey shows the lot lines as dashed lines so evidently they were individual lots at one time, so that does not seem to apply. With regard to a gateway, he likes the tree that is there, but he does not understand how to change the building;. It looks like a 12 foot drop. The one thing he would like to see is to remove the power poles, the transformers, the utility pedestal and everything else that is sitting on the comer. Though KenCairn stated she has already made her comments, she added a personal comment. Historically, 20 years ago, that whole area was a gathering place for locals. So while she believes it is valuable to upgrade it for the tourists and the Plaza Hotel, she also sees development of it as a loss to the historic community. It's going to end up depleting part of the downtown that a lot of the locals use. Briggs likes trees but ]knows alders need their water. If they try to save this alder and put a building between the tree and the water source, it won't live. When she was part of the development of the Downtown Design Standards, they meant definitely for buildings to come to the street. She is concerned about the mitigation. She would like to see the new trees to the north in the widest part of the arc, something that will create a canopy almost equal in size even it takes 20 to 30 years to get there. If it's a cluster to make that size canopy, that's all right. She likes the idea it is downtown infill. In looking at the planting plan, Kistler thought it looked like even if you notched around the dripline of the tree, there is about four feet left over to the comer of the property. He would prefer to see the building all the way to the sidewalk. Fifty years from now, it will look like we took the right course. He does not feel like this is a Big Box building. It doesn't matter to him where the property line is. Fields likes the building. The scale is not the issue. We are trying to establish a precedent about what is contiguous and how buildings interrelate, l[-Ie thinks they can mitigate the plaza area. He thinks it is Haines' intent to create public space all around the building. He wants to make it clear that this is an important issue. This is like the gateway building into town. There will be windows peaking through the trees with people living in the building. It is infill and he likes the character and quality of the building. Right now there is only 2500 square feet of ground floor area. If they had to save the tree, it would deprive development rights to put a restriction to save the tree. Fields does not understand the wheeled arches. Is it a gateway into the walkway? Molnar said the stand-alone that enters the future walkway is just a possibility. The Historic Commission expressed concern that it might be a little too overdone. He would like to see a true partition between the windows. It is unfortunate the tree is lost to development. Dotterrer agrees with those in support. Molnar added a Condition requiring wood clad windows on the front windows and a four inch mullion (separation). Delete Condition 14. Chapman moved to approve PA2004-002 with the attached Conditions and changes and additions to the Conditions. Dotterrer seconded the motion and it carried with Swales casting a "no" vote. OTHER Chapman had an article in the packet from the Wall Street Journal regarding solar. McLaughlin told Chapman we might be able to have an ordinance that would include wording that any access to the sun shall not be restricted. We might want to talk about this at the retreat or a study session. Briggs mentioned an article Swales had. Swales said in Arcata they have an ordinance with a cap on the number of chain stores allowed in a cormnunity in order to encourage small, locally owned businesses. Briggs thought this could be on the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 9, 2004 ~ MINUTES ~'~ ~ agenda for the retreat. Molnar has found that we get many inquiries from chain stores but our design process is so restrictive that they lose interest. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 9, 2004 MINUTES ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT March 9, 2004 PLANNING .ACTION: 2004-002 APPLICANT': Lloyd Haines LOCATION: 88 North Main Street ZONE DESIGNATION: C-1-D COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Retail Commercial District- Downtown APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: February 18, 2004 REQUEST: Site Review, Tree Removal and Physical Constraints review Perrnit to construct a multi-floor, 8:,325 square foot mixed-use building at 88 North Main Street. The Physical Constraints Review Permit is requested to permit "development" upon Ashland Flood Plain Corridor Lands. I. Relevant Facts Background- History of Application: In April of 1985, an application for Site Review was filed for the expansion of a covered outdoor seating area (PA85-024). There are no other planning actions of record for this site. 2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal: The property is Situated within Ashland's downtown area adjacent North Main Street with a zoning designation of Retail Commercial- Downtown Overlay (C-l-D). The project will be located upon the area generally occupied by a large, uncovered wood deck. The multiple deck levels currently provides an outdoor dining area for the adjoining Ashla~td Creek Bar and Grill restaurant. The ground beneath the deck slopes significantly from the existing public sidewalk adjacent to North Main down to creek side. The "Tree Preservation" plan filed with the application identifies existing trees within the boundaries of the property as well as trees Planning Action 2004-002 Applicant: Lloyd Haines Ashland Planning Depadment- Staff Repod March 9, 2004 Page lof14 immediately surrounding the project site. A large Alder, approximately 36 inches in diameter, is located on the property eight to 10 feet from the existing public sidewalk. A cluster if three Maples (12" to 14" in diameter) are situated along the lower part of the property, adjacent to the waters edge. These four trees represent those species directly impacted by the application. PHYSIC~IL CONSTRAINT REVIEW PERMIT Flood Plain Corridor Lands are defined within the Physical & Environmental Constraints chapter 18.62.050. Lands within Ashland Creek's 100-year flood plain, including the riparian area within 20-feet of top-of-bank, are defined as FlOod Plain Corridor Lands. An application and approval of a Physical Constraints Review permit is required iprior to any development: proposal proceeding on such lands. A portion of the proposed building's footprint above structural support pillars, proposed outdoor deck supports and[ the reconstruction of the existing pedestrian bridge are upon Flood Plain Corridor Lands. Consequently, the application is subject to the approval criteria and development standards noted below. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT The removal of trees greater than 6" in diameter on any private lands zoned C-l, E-I, M-I, or HC requires approval of a Tree Removal Permit. The application proposes to remove the existing 36" in diameter Alder, located approximately eight to 1 O-feet frown the public sidewalk adjoining North Main Street. The tree is located within the proposed[ building envelope. No other trees are designated for removal at this time. SITE RE VIE W A PPR O V/IL The construction of a new commercial building upon commercially zoned land is subject to Site Review approval and compliance with all applicable criteria and standards described in the Site Design and Use Chapter 18.72. The application proposes; to construct an approximately 8,325 square foot multi-story mixed-use building. The building consists of three floors and an under-floor area, creating a two-story appearance from the public sidewalk level along North Main Street. The lower floor (Level 1) adjoining the creek will house a restaurant, including kitchen, restrooms and entry/exit to the proposed Ashland Creek Walkway (page 2 - Applicant's application). On this floor is planned an outdoor dining and deck area overlooking Ashland Creek. The main floor (Level 2) at street level includes spaces for retail shops and office suites, with direct access onto the public sidewalk adjoining North Main Street. The upper floor (Level 3) consists of two, two-bedroom apartments each consisting of approximately 1 ;725 square Planning Action 2004-002 Applicant: Lloyd Haines Ashland Planning Depadment- Staff Report March 9, 2004 Page 2 of 14 feet. A building/site square footage breakdown is identified on page 13 - Applicant's Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law. The property is approximately 4,201 square feet in size. The new building including decks covers 3,461 square feet or approximately 82.5% of the lot area. Accordingly, 740 square feet consists of new landscaped areas and the creek channel. The proposed deck area adjoining the creek has been set back further than the existing deck. This provides an additional 1 O-foot landscape area adjacent to the channel. The area is proposed to be planted with riparian plant materials associated with the creek environment. The proposed building consists of traditional downtown architecture with an exterior fagade consisting of red brick and painted smooth and dappled stucco. The main entrance faces iNorth Main Street and is articulated with pronounced architectural features that denote the building entrance. A marquee entrance coveting is proposed above the front entrance, between the adjoining pilasters. The building provides for an alternation of wall areas with windows, doors and interesting architectural features that have been incorporated into the overall design of each wall fagade. Note: A comprehensive discussion of the proposal is described on pages 10-14 of the applicant's "Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law." II. Pro|ect ,Impact The location of the project adjacent and within Ashland's Flood Plain Corridor Lands, triggers an evaluation and assessment of the project's impact upon projected flood events and the adjoining riparian environment. Additionally, the removal of the 36-inch diameter Alder must be analyzed in conjunction with the City's Tree Removal approval standards. Finally, due to the property's location within the downtown core, the building design must be consistent with the development pattern found along Main Street as reflected in the Downtown Plan and Downtown Design Standards. With this in mind, the impacts of each individual element of the application has been reviewed and discussed below: PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT Development Standards- Flood Plain Corridor Lands The Land Use Ordinance requires that the application recognize impacts and hazards that the development may create and incorporate appropriate design options to mitigate the potential impacts associated with the proposal. This includes potential flood related impacts to the project, upon up and downstream properties, as well as impacts to the creek environment. Specific development standards are in place to guide both residential and commercial development. The standards applicable to commercial development allow for Planning Action 2004-002 Applicant: Lloyd Haines Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report March 9, 2004 Page 3 of 14 greater flexibility due to the type of use, location of use and intensity of coverage generally permitted within commercial zoning designations. The primary development standard regulating the placement of new commen:ial buildings adjacent to and within Flood Plain Corridor Lands is described 18.62.070 (G). This standard adopted in 1989, was incorrectly translated into the Municipal Code, so the adopted language has been provided below: New non-residential uses may be located on that portion of the Floodplain Corridor lands that are two feet or less below the flood elevations on the official maps adopted in section 18. 62.060. Second story construction ma), be cantilevered over the Floodplain corridor for a distance of 2O feet if the clearance from finished grade is at least ten feet in height, and is supported by pillars that will have minimal impact on the flow of floodwaters. The finished floor elevation may not be more than two feet below the flood corridOr elevations. In essence, the fu:st sentence defines a potential buildto line. This is the closest location that the building footprint or structural supports can conceivably be constructed, based upon the elevation of the existing property. The second sentence sets a maximum distance for upper floor projections or cantilevers, while the final sentence defmes the elevation of the lowest finished floor level. Staff has determined that the project complies with part of the standard, but is in conflict with part of the standard. The structural pillars beneath the building footprint do not go beyond (closer to the creek) the existing ground elevation of 1870. Given that the 100-year base flood elevation defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency' (FEMA) is 1872, the building complies with the provision that new structures be located, on lands no more 'than two-feet below the 100-year flood elevation. The second and third floor levels, however, project further than 20-feet beyond the 100-year base flood line (i.e.,. 18.72 elevation). Consequently, Staff fmds that the cantilevered upper floor levels conflict with the above standard and should be modified to comply with the standard. Staff Concern/Recommendation: Staff has determined that the project complies x~[th part of the standard (18.62.070 G), but is also in conflict with a portion of the standard. Specifically, the second and third floor levels project further than 20-feet beyond the 100-year base flood line (i.e. 18.72 elevation). Consequently, Staff £mds that the proposal is in conflict with the above requirement and the building design must be modified to comply with the requirement. Note: It should be recognized that the official maps adopted in section 18.62.060 reference two elevations - the FEMA 100-year base flood elevation of 18.72 and Ashland's Flood Plain Corridor elevation of 1875.5. The applicant has chosen to design the project based upon FEMA data, considering it to be more accurate and reflect the area's existing topography and development pattern. OTAK, an Engineering and Planning Firm out of Lake Oswego provided an evaluation of the two 100-year water s. urface elevations (Exhibit 7B). In their opinion, they conclude that the FEMA Base Flood Elevation of 1872 is more accurate than the City's flood plain corridor elevation of 18.75.5. Planning Action 2004-002 Applicant: Lloyd Haines ¢,5' Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report March 9, 2004 Page 4 of 14 Development Standards - Riparian Preservation Lands The area within 20 feet of the top of bank of Ashland Creek is designated as Riparian Preservation Lands. Development within this area is not only subject to the City's flood 'plain corridor standards, but additional standards intended to protect the riparian environment. In simple terms, a riparian corridor is that area associated with a natural watercourse, including its wildlife and vegetation. The corridor represents a three- dimensional space, including the ground-level environment as well as the airspace above occupied by shrubs, tree canopies and the habitat these environs support. The existing wood deck of Ashland Creek Bar and Grill is only a few feet from the creek channel, located well within the riparian area. The deck as well as much of the development within the downtown along Ashland Creek area was constructed or installed well before current standards regulating development within the creek environment. The application proposes to remove the existing deck and maintain a 1 O-foot wide buffer adjacent to the creek for native, riparian plant materials. Additionally, the project intends to retain the cluster of three large leaf Maples adjacent to the creek (approx. 9-feet back from water's edge). Staff has significant concerns with the project with respect to the riparian area. The site plan identifies an approximate 1 O-foot setback from the uncovered, restaurant dining deck to the edge of creek. While this represents a 1 O-foot encroachment into the 20-foot riparian preservation area, it provides a wider natural buffer than already exists or than is apparent on neighboring properties. Staff's concern is that second and. third floor levels are cantilevered beyond the deck to the water's edge below. It is impossible to retain the three Maple trees given the height of the bottom of the second floor above natural grade. Approximately a third of the current tree size would need to be removed to fit beneath the cantilevered 2nd & 3ra floors. The trees lean significantly toward North Main Street, further complicating their preservation. As noted earlier, a riparian corridor represents a three- dimension space, including the air space above that is occupied by tree canopies and associated functions (i.e. habitat, shade, bank stability, etc.). In Staff's opinion, the current design (i.e. cantilevered 2aa & 3rd floor) precludes adequate long-term establishment of a natural riparian area and will result in the demise of the three trees currently noted for preservation. Staff cannot support the cantilevered upper floor design and believes it inconsistent with the City's development standards for riparian lands. Specifically, the standard states, "any tree over six inches d.b.h, shall be retained to the greatest extent feasible and the general topography of Riparian Preservation lands shall be retained?in Staff's opinion, the current design will result in the removal of the three Maple trees currently identified for preservation and will make it difficult if not impossible to establish trees of any significant size adjacent to the stream. · , , Planning Action 2004-002 Applicant: Lloyd Haines Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report March 9, 2004 Page 5 of 14 Staff Concern/Recommendation: The projection of the second & third floor cantilever precludes the reasonable chance of preserving the Maple trees. Staff recommends that the building design be modified so that the rear building fagade is no closer than a minimum of 1 O-feet (measured horizontally) from the top of creek bank. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT The project proposed to remove the existing 36-inch in diameter Alder tree. The tree is situated approximately' eight to 10-feet from the public sidewalk adjoining North Main Street and is described as being in good health. The criteria governing the issuance of a Tree Removal Permit are described in 18.61.080 and are noted below. The applicant has addressed the approval criteria on pages 50-52 of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Additionally, Landscape Architect John Galbraith and Certified Arborist Tom Myers have provided information with regards to the health of the Alder, potential impacts due to construction and an evaluation of the approval criteria (Exhibit 5). The location and size of the tree has a formidable presence near the entrance to the downtown. However, the location of many existing, healthy trees along the north side of the property (w/in State right-of-way) provide a concentration of canopy coverage in the area. Staff concurs with the applicant's fmdings based upon information in the application and the written testimony provided by experts in the appropriate fields. Alders appear to be intolerant to root injury and are subject to Armillaria root rot, which is prevalent in this area and is likely to develop when construction in within 20-feet of the trunk. The alternative of shifting the building further away from the street (approximately 30 feet or more from the sidewalk) is inconsistent with City Downtown Design Standards, and appears contrary to the existing development pattem seen along Main Street. Such a shift further limits the developable area of the site due to flood plain management regulations goveming the rear of the property. In addition, there is little guarantee that, in the long run, the tree will weather the impacts of significant grades changes associated with building construction. Proposed Mitigation If the Comtnission approves the removal of the Alder tree, mitigation is required as a condition of the Tree Removal Permit. The applicant has stated that areas appropriate for on-site mitigation are limited due to the creek and existing vegetation along either side of the bank. if the Commission believes there is insufficient available space on the property, the mitigation may occur on other property in the applicant's ownership or control, or in a City owned or dedicated open space or park. The Ashland Tree Commission reviewed the application on January 9, 2004 and :suggested the Planning Action 2004-002 Applicant: Lloyd Haines Ashland Planning Department - Staff Repod March 9, 2004 Page 6 of 14 following condition with respect to mitigation: "4) Mitigate loss of Alder within adjacent State right-of-way. Mitigate with large specimen tree listed in the Recommended Street Tree List." Such mitigation planting on the adjoining State right-of- way is subject to the approval of the authorized property owners. If the Commission believes this is an appropriate mitigation site, it 'would be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain the appropriate written approval from the State of Oregon for the installation of large specimen tree upon the adjoining right-of-way. Trees Identified for Retention As noted earlier in the report, it is Staff's opinion that the proposed retention of the cluster of three existing Maples alongside the creek is impossible. To reiterate our earlier concern, the projection of the second & third floor cantilever precludes the reasonable chance of retaining the Maple trees. We recommend that the building design be modified so that the rear building face is no closer than 1 O-feet (measured horizontally) from the top of creek bank. The Tree Commission should be provided an accurate cross-section that clearly identifies the height and location of the existing canopies relative to the building fagade. Staff Concern/Recommendation: The projection of the second & third floor cantilever precludes the reasonable chance of retaining the Maple trees. Staff recommends that the building design be modified so that the rear building face is no closer than a minimum of 1 O-feet (measured horizontally) from the top of creek bank. SITE REVIEW APPR O VAL Downtown Design Standards The project is subject to the City's Detail Site Review, as well as Downtown Design Standards. In Staff's opinion, the project team has designed a building that complies with relevant City design standards (with the exception of concerns noted in the boxes above). The buildings two-story scale with flat roof and parapet along North Main Street is appropriate for this City block, representative of the staggered streetscape pattern seen throughout the downtown. Consistent with Downtown Standards, the building maintains a zero setback from the sidewalk and creates a strong sense of entry through the incorporation of a well-articulated recessed entry with associated pedestrian covering above. The building width flows from side property line to side property line, while the location of ground level and upper floor windows maintains a consistent proportion of transparency. As described within the downtown's design stm~dards, the building incorporates prominent horizontal and vertical lines and building materials consistent with other downtown buildings~ Planning Action 2004-002 Applicant: Lloyd Haines Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report March 9, 2004 Page 7 of 14 III. Procedural- Required Burden of Proof I. The approval criteria for a Physical Constraints Review Permit are described in 18.62.040 I. as follows: 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. (Ord 2834 S1, 1998) (Ord. 2834, Amended, 11/03/1998, Section 18.62.040 J "deleted"; Ord 2808, Added, 12/02/1997) Further, the project is required to comply with following development standards for Flood Plain Corridor Lands: 18.62.070 Development Standards for Flood plain Corridor Lands For all land use actions which could result in development of the Flood plain Corridor, the following is required in addition to any requirements of Chapter 15.10: A. Standards for fill in Flood plain Corridor lands: 1. Fill shall be designed as required by the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, where applicable. 2. The toe of the fill shall be kept at least ten feet outside of floodway channels, as defined in section 15.10, .and the fill shall not exceed the angle of repose of the material used for fill. 3. The amount of fill in the Flood plain Corridor shall be kept to a minimum. Fill and other material imported from off the lot that could displace floodwater shall be limited to the following: a. Poured concrete and other materials necessary to build permitted structures on the lot. b. Aggregate base and paving materials, and fill associated with approved public and private street and driveway construction. c. Plants and other landscaping and agricultural material. d. A total of 50 cubic yards of other imported fill material. e. The above limits on fill shall be measured from April 1989, and shall not exceed the above amounts. These amounts are the maximum cumulative fill that can be imported onto the site, regardless of the number of permits issued. 4. If additional fill is necessary beyond the permitted amounts in (3) above, then fill materials must be obtained on the lot from cutting or excavation only to the extent necessary to create an elevated site for permitted development.. All additional fill material shall be obtained from the portion of the lot in the Flood plain Corridor. 5. Adequate drainage shall be provided for the stability of the fill. 6. Fill to raise elevations for a building site shall be located as close to the outside edge of the Flood plain Corridor as feasible. B. Culverting or bridging of any waterway or creek identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to section 18.62.060 must be designed by an engineer. Stream crossings shall be designed to the standards of Chapter 15.10, or' where no floodway has been identified, to pass a one hundred (100) year flood without any increase in the Upstream flood height elevation. The engineer' shall consider in the design the probability that the culvert will be blocked by debris in a severe flood, and accommodate expected overflow. Fill for culverting and bridging shall be kept to the minimum necessary to achieve property access, but is exempt from the limitations in section (A) above. Culverting or bridging of streams identified as Riparian Preservation is subject to the requirements of 18.62.075. C. Non-residential structures shall be flood-proof to the standards in Chapter 15.10 to one foot above the elevation contained in the maps adopted by chapter 15.10, or up to the elevation contained in the official maps adopted by section Planning Action 2004-002 Applicant: Lloyd Haines Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report March 9, 2004 Page 8 of 14 18.62.060, whichever height is greater. Where no specific elevations exist, then they must be flood proofed to an elevation of ten feet above the creek channel on Ashland, Bear or Neil Creek; to five feet above the creek channel on all other Riparian Preserve creeks defined in section 18.62.050.B; and three feet above the stream channel on all other drainage ways identified on the official maps. D. All residential structures shall be elevated so that the lowest habitable floor shall be raised to one foot above the elevation contained in the maps adopted in chapter 15.10, or to the elevation contained in the official maps adopted by section 18.62.060, whichever height is greater. Where no specific elevations exist, then they must be constructed at an elevation of ten feet above the creek channel on Ashland, Bear, or Neii Creek; to five feet above the creek channel on all other Riparian Preserve creeks defined in section 18.62.050.B; and three feet above the stream channel on all other drainage ways identified on the official maps, or one foot above visible evidence of high flood water flow, whichever is greater. The elevation of the finished lowest habitable floor shall be certified to the city by an engineer or surveyor prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the structure. E. To the maximum extent feasible, structures shall be placed on other than Flood plain Corridor Lands. In the case where development is permitted in the Flood plain corridor area, then development shall be limited to that area which would have the shallowest flooding. F. Existing lots with buildable land outside the Flood plain Corridor shall locate all residential structures outside the Corridor land, unless 50% or more of the lot is within the Flood plain Corridor. For residential uses proposed for existing lots that have more than 50% of the lot in Corridor land, structures may be located on that portion of the Flood plain corridor that is two feet or less below the flood elevations on the official maps, but in no case closer than 20 feet to the channel of a Riparian Preservation Creek. Construction shall be subject to the requirements in paragraph D above. G. New non-residential uses may be located on that portion of Flood plain Corridor lands that equal to or above the flood elevations on the official maps adopted in section 18.62.060. Second story construction may be cantilevered over the Flood plain corridor for a distance of 20 feet if the clearance from finished grade is at least ten feet in height, and is supported by pillars that will have minimal impact on the flow of floodwaters. The finished floor elevation may not be more than two feet below the flood corridor elevations. H. All lots modified by lot line adjustments, or new lots created from lots which contain Flood plain Corridor land must contain a building envelope on all lot(s) which contain(s) buildable area of a sufficient size to accommodate the uses permitted in the underling zone, unless the action is for open space or conservation purposes. This section shall apply even if the effect is to prohibit further division of lots that are larger than the minimum size permitted in the zoning ordinance. I. Basements.. 1. Habitable basements are not permitted for new or existing structures or additions located within the Flood plain Corridor. 2. Non-habitable basements, used for storage, parking, and similar uses are permitted for residential structures but must be flood-proofed to the standards of Chapter 15.10. J. Storage of petroleum products, pesticides, or other hazardous or toxic chemicals is not permitted in Flood plain Corridor lands. K. Fences constructed within 20 feet of any Riparian Preservation Creek designated by this chapter shall be limited to wire or electric fence, or similar fence that will not collect debris or obstruct flood waters, but not including wire mesh or chain link fencing. Fences shall not be constructed across any identified riparian drainage or riparian preservation creek. Fences shall not be constructed within any designated floodway. L. Decks and structures other than buildings, if constructed on Flood plain Corridor Lands and at or below the levels specified in section 18.62.070.C and D, shall be flood-proofed to the standards contained in Chapter 15.10. M. Local streets and utility connections to developments in and adjacent to the Flood plain Corridor shall be located outside of the Flood plain Corridor, except for crossing the Corridor, and except in the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor as outlined below: 1. Public street construction may be allowed within the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor as part of development following the adopted North Mountain Neighborhood Plan. This exception shall only be permitted for that section of the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor between North Mountain Avenue and the Nevada Street right-of-way. The new street shall be constructed in the general location as indicated on the neighborhood plan map, and in the area generally described as having the shallowest potential for flooding within the corridor. 2. Proposed development that is not in accord with the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan shall not be permitted to utilize this exception. (Ord 2808, Added, 12/02/1997) Planning Action 2004-002 Applicant: Lloyd 'Haines Ashland Planning Department- Staff Report March 9, 2004 Page 9 of 14 Further, the project is required to comply with following development standards for Riparian Preservation Lands: 18.62.075 Development Standards for Riparian Preservation lands A. AII development in areas indicated for Riparian Preservation, as defined in section 18.62.050(B), shall comply with the following standards: 1. Development shall be subject to all Development Standards for Flood plain Corridor Lands (18.62.070) 2. Any tree over six inches d.b.h, shall be retained to the greatest extent feasible. 3. Fill and Culverting shall be permitted only for streets, access, or utilities. The crossing shall be at right angles to the creek channel to the greatest extent possible. Fill shall be kept to a minimum. 4. The general topography of Riparian Preservation lands shall be retained. (Ord 2808, Added, 12/02/1997) II. The approval criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance as follows: 18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal An applicant for a Tree Removal-Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and 2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. (ORD 2883 added 0610412002) III. The approval criteria for Site Review approval are described in 18.72.060 as follow: 18.72.070 Criteria for Approval The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. Planning Action 2004-002 Applicant: Lloyd Haines Ashland Planning Department - Staff Repod March 9, 2004 Page 10 of 14 B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655, 1991; Ord 2836 S6, 1999) IV. Conclusions and Recommendations Staffhas identified specific concerns with respect to the project's inconsistency with relevant development standards applicable to Flood Plain Corridor and Riparian Preservation Lands, and recommends that the project not be approved based upon the current site and building design. Specifically, the second and third floor levels project further than 20-feet beyond the 100-year base flood line. Secondly, the projection of the second & third floor cantilever precludes the reasonable chance of preserving the Maple trees that are currently identified for preservation. While the upper level design conflicts with the noted standards, Staff further believes that the bulk and mass of the 2nd & 3rd floor cantilever over powers the natural creek environment and is uncharacteristic of other creek side development within the downtown area. The applicant has been informed of these issues and has indicated an intention to modify the design to comply with these concerns. Consequently, revised plans may be available prior to or at the public hearing addressing the items noted above. It is important that the revisions not only demonstrate compliance with City flood plain development standards, but also clearly address potential impacts to the three Maple trees currently identified for preservation and the adjoining riparian environment. As noted earlier, the application involves a Tree Removal Permit for the 36-inch diameter Alder that is located approximately 1 O-feet from the public sidewalk adjacent to North Main Street. That application outlines the justification for the removal based upon the appropriate approval standards. Staff concurs that the location of the tree makes it very difficult to develop the site - without its removal. Attempting to incorporate the tree will result in a building design contrary to City Downtown Standards that provides little certainty that, over time, the tree would survive the impacts from the proposed development. Staff cannot support the application at this time due to the inconsistencies with the relevant development standards identified above. If the applicant, however, provides a revised design that addresses the upper level encroachments into the Flood Plain Corridor and the impacts to existing trees within the riparian area, Staff could find that the application is consistent with applicable development standards and support the proposal. Should the concerns raised above be addressed to demonstrate consistency with the relevant development standards and the Commission chooses to approve the project, Staff recommends that the following conditions accompany the decision: Planning Action 2004-002 Applicant: Lloyd Haines Ashland Planning Department- Staff Report March 9, 2004 Page 11of14 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That the installation ofplant materials within Riparian Preservation Lands (both sides of the creek) shall be reviewed and approved by the Staff Advisor in consultation with the Oregon Fish & Wildlife Department and Ashland Tree Commission. Recommendations on plant materials shall be incorporated into a revised landscaping plan. All planting shall be installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 3) That both sides of the bank be stabilized through appropriate armoring, such as the placement of medium to large boulders. The location of proposed armoring shall be noted on the revised landscaping plan and approved by the StaffAdvisor prior to the commencement of building permit review. 4) That a metal street tree grate, consistent with the standards of the Public Works Department, be installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy around the existing street tree along North Main Street. 5) That the color, texture, dimensions, shape and building materials for all exterior components of the project be included at the time of submission of building permit. The information shall be consistent with the colors, texture, dimensions and shape of materials and building details proposed and approved as part of the land use application. 6) That the recommendations of the Historic Commission be incorporated into the final design and approved by the Staff Advisor. Building sections identifying the height, width, depth, material and texture of all exterior architectural features shall be provided with the building permit to verify consistency with the approved building elevations. 7) That the applicant submit an electric distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department prior to final planning approval and/or building permit issuance. Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. 8) That the building setback from the creek channel shall be staked on-site, verified and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to building permit issuance, and maintained throughout the duration of the project. 9) That temporary erosion control measures shall be identified on the construction drawings, approved by the Staff Advisor, and installed on-site prior to building permit issuance. Temporary erosion control measures shall be maintained throughout the duration of the project and until the final landscaping has been installed. Planning Action 2004-002 Applicant: Lloyd Haines Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report March 9, 2004 Page 12 of 14 10) That the design of all storm water mn-off outfall locations be reviewed by the Public Works Department and approved by the Staff Advisor. Outfall locations shall situated as close to the elevation of the creek channel as possible to reduce the potential for bank erosion. Outfall locations shall be adequately armored and vegetated to reduce the potential of bank erosion. 11) That a final utility plan for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division and Building Divisions prior to issuance of a building permit. The utilitY plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, sewers, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage and catch basins. Given the elevation of lower floor levels, sanitary sewer service may require pumping to the sewer main located in North Main Street. In addition, connection to City water may require the cutting of North Main Street due to the lines anticipated location on the opposite side of the street. 12) That the requirements ofthe Ashland Fire Department, including but not limited to hydrant placement and flow and apparatus access, shall be clearly identified on the construction drawings and reviewed and approved by the Ashland Fire Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 13) That all portions of the building located at an elevation of 1773 or below shall be flood- proofed and designed to the standards identified in 15.10.080 and as suggested by FEMA for non- residential construction. The flood-proofing measures shall be clearly identified on the construction drawings, reviewed and approved by the Building Official, and certified by an Oregon registered professional engineer that the design and methods of construction are in accordance with accepted standards of practice for meeting the provisions of 15.10.080 and FEMA. 14) That prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the lowest habitable floor-level shall be certified (by a registered .surveyor) at two-feet above the FEMA base flood elevation or at or above the City of Ashland Flood Plain Corridor elevation, whichever is greater. 15) That a covenant or similar deed restriction be recorded on the property prohibiting the establishment or installation of any structure or similar element on the opposite side of the creek (east side) that would in any way restrict the overflow of flood waters into the area beneath the viaduct. The legal instrument shall be prepared by the applicant and reviewed and approved by the Staff Advisor and City Attorney prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 17) That a sign, awning and marquee program for the development be included at the time of building permit review. The program shall identify the anticipated number of signs, locations and approximate square footage based upon the requirements described in the Sign Code 18.96. Leases for commercial tenant spaces shall note that awnings, marquees or similar pedestrian shelters shall be consistent with City Downtown Design Standard (VI-1), reviewed by the Ashland Historic Commission and approved by the Planning Department Staff Advisor. Planning Action 2004-002 Applicant: Lloyd Haines Ashland Planning Depadment - Staff Report March 9, 2004 Page 13 of 14 18) That all recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission noted on their January 9, 2004 document be addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit. The recommendations shall be included on a revised landscaping plan and final irrigation plan at the time of submission of building permit. 19) That proposed Tree Protection measures address existing trees located immediately north of the property within the State right-of-way. The approval of off-site mitigation on the State right-of- way shall be the responsibility of the applicant. 20) That an opportunity-to-recycle site for use by project residents shall be identified for the project in accordance with the standards described in section 18.72.115 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance prior to issuance of a building permit. 21) That the construction drawings submitted at the time Building Permit review shall demonstrate compliance with 18.62.070 (G). Planning Action 2004-002 Applicant: Lloyd Haines Ashland Planning Depadment- Staff Report March 9, 2004 Page 14 of 14 Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC ~, .,~RING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on March 9, 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 lhe issue, precludes your fight of appeal to the Land Use Board of.Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on 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. copy of the applicatior!!, i¢~uments and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are at .... ~3 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 p~ovided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51 Winbum Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. During the Public Headng, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the fight to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable Cdteda. 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, ff you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Susan Yates at the Ashla .nd Planning Department, 541-552-2041. Our TTY phone number is 1-800- 735-2900 N Subject Property PLANNING ACTION 2004-002 is a request for Site Review and Tree Removal Permit to construct multi-floor, 8,325 square foot mixed use building at 88 North Main Street. A Physical Constraints Review Permit is requested to permit "development'' within the Ashland Floodplain Corridor. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial; Zoning: C-l-D; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 09 BB; Tax Lot: 9800. APPLICANT: Lloyd Haines SITE REVIEW ~18.72.50 Criteria for App.rovaL The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny a site plan: . . A. All apPlicable City ordinances have been met and will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements Of the'Site Review Chapter have been met. C. The site' design complies with the guidelines adopted by the City Council for the implementation of this-Chapter. .. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the develOpment, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. (Ord. 2655, 1991) .. 'PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL cONSTRAINTS PERMIT CRI .TERIA !8.62.040 Approval aqd Permit. Required. I. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints 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. e 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, SECTION 18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal - Staff Permit. An applicant for a Tree Removal-Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. *The Staff AdviSOr may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit. A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal. 1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public' or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot-reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning. . The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of apprOVal of the per~ic B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: I. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and 2. Removal of the tree will not have 'a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been. considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the. residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination,-the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of strUctures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such ~mitigation requirements shall be.a condition of approval of the permit. (Ord 2883, Added, 06/04/2002) REVISED DRAW1NGS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT 3-5-04 ,"i" tl I! /'" ."i , i' / 1/ ',, / /~, l/ ii / / / ',, ,, · , , , · , 30' Iit NURC# IT~EIT ~ /' UKCH $?REET ~ , / ' ' i m ) o~ N00'05'30"1:' ,' ! i J' III I I j. I i iI i ,, II : 'l 11 ........... if OALBRA1TIt & A.gSOCIATES, INC. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS SITE PLANNERS OREOON LICENSE No. 254 (CA~, 2980) 145 S. HOLLY SL, SUITE A MEDFORD, OKEGON 97501 TEL: 541-770-7964 FAX: 541-770-5164 SHASTA BUILDING '03 ASHLAND, OREGON REVISIONS: TREE PRESERVATION JOB NO.: ~ DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: ~ JOB S TAI1JS: ( E~ECTION - TI~.tEt~ P~C)TEC, TIVE FENGIN® ,~-.ol~: I/~"= I'.-O" 21"-~-- HUL.Tt · ~ . l"ll~Al"t,,Ib~q' IN ~ E×ISTIN~ ~ 1"0 IR, E~AIH BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF ASHLAND STATE OF OREGON IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATIONS FOR ) PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW ) WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN CORRIDOR, A ) TREE REMOVAL PERMIT AND SITE ) REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ) NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON LAND ) IN DOWNTOWN ASHLAND LOCATED ) ALONG ASHLAND CREEK AND NORTH ) OFF NORTH MAIN STREET AND WEST ) OF WATER STREET IN THE CITY OF ) ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON ) ) ) Lloyd Haines: Applicant PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Applicant's Exhibit 1 NATURE OF THE APPLICATION; ADDITIONAL PLANS The subject land use applications are submitted by applicant Lloyd Haines. The applications are for the purpose of permitting the construction of a three story, mixed use, building in downtown Ashland along Ashland Creek. The proposed development is within the C-1 Retail Commercial District and has a Downtown Overlay District designation (C-l-D). Development within the C-1-D district is subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.72, Site Design and Use Standards. Additionally, development is located within the floodplain of Ashland Creek and, therefore, is subject to the requirements of Ashland Land Ordinance (ALUO) Chapter 18.62, Physical Constraints Review with respect to flood plain and riparian protection. If approved, applicant proposes to construct a new building which will house a restaurant, retail and office space and two residential apartments. The apartments are intended to be on the upper-most floor. Applicant has engaged the expert assistance of Dave Richardson, Architectural Design Works Inc. to undertake architectural and site design for the project. Architect Richardson and his staff and consultants have prepared a detailed site design plan and exterior elevations. Applicant's landscape architect, John Galbraith, Galbraith & Associates Inc. have prepared a landscape plan and applicant's engineer, Greg Weston, Otak Inc., has prepared a flood hazard assessment report and letter which addresses flood related standards in ALUO 18.62. Mr. Weston also participated fully in the architectural design of the project. Applicant's plans are included as Exhibit 2. FEB 1 3 2004 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 Page 1 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Applicant's Intentions, Not A Part of this Application: As additional mitigation for the proposed removal of a tree on the site, applicant proposes the creation of a tree sculpture, along with various benches, from the trunk of the Alder to be removed from the property. Russell Beeb¢, a local artist skilled in the creation of sculpture and furniture will be retained at applicant's expense to create the sculpture and furniture. Exhibit 12 is a photograph showing a sample of Mr. B¢¢be's work and an accompanying newspaper article. If Ashland elects to create a park under the Lithia Way viaduct (on land owned by the state, but under Ashland's control) applicant suggests that an Art Park be created. The underside of the viaduct would be an appropriate canvas for murals or other works of art, the creation of which would be supervised by the City through its Parks Department or Arts Commission. If this proposal is attractive to the city, applicant will provide the sculpture and furniture at no municipal cost or expense. Additionally, applicant suggests that the city create a walkway which begins on Main Street adjacent and north of the building proposed in this application. This too is state-owned property, which consists of a sliver of right-of-way at the intersection of Lithia Way and North Main Street. This area would be the entrance to the "Ashland Creek Walk" which would wind down towards the creek and under the viaduct. It would traverse through the proposed Art Park and would connect with the pathway along Ashland Creek which winds through Bluebird Park and terminates at Main Street. Thus, there would be a continuous walkway which would start and terminate at either end of the city block in which the proposed new building is to be located. Building elevations which are part of Exhibit 2, show a proposed archway from North Main Street which demarks the beginning of the walkway. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION Applicant herewith submits the following evidence with and in support of its applications for Site Design and Use Review and Physical Constraints Review permit: 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 which include the following: Architectural A-101 A-102 A-103 A-104 A-105 Site Plan City of Ashland Floodplain FEMA Flood Way FEMA 500YR Flood Plain City of Ashland Flood Overall Location Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 Page 2 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. A-106 A-107 A-201 A-301 Surveyors Existing Topography Map (Existing Site Plan) Floor Plans Exterior Elevations Building Sections Color Board Exhibit 3. Tree Preservation Plan Exhibit 4. Planting Plan Exhibit 5. Tree Protection Guidelines and Tree Removal Application by John Galbraith, ASLA, Registered Landscape Architect, dated January 29, 2004 Exhibit 6. Flood Hazard Assessment by OTAK Inc. Dated November 12, 2003 Exhibit 7. (A) Letter by Greg Weston, OTAK Inc. dated December 5, 2003 (B) Letter by Greg Weston, OTAK Inc. dated February 9, 2004 (C) Letter by Greg Weston, OTAK Inc. dated February 10, 2004 (D) Letter by Greg Weston, OTAK Inc. dated February 11, 2004 Exhibit 8. Surrounding Area Photographs and Photographic Key Map Exhibit 9. Assessor Plat of the Subject Property Exhibit 10. City of Ashland Overlay and Special Design District Maps: · Design Standards Boundary · Historic District · Detail Site Review Zone Exhibit 11. Letter by Tom Myers, Upper Limb-it Tree Service, Certified Arborist, dated September 3, 2003, and including two-page Tree Hazard Evaluation Form Exhibit 12. Photograph of Tree Sculpture and newspaper article describing same Exhibit 13. Ashland Creek Hydraulic Investigation (October 13, 1997) page 18 Exhibit 14. Ordinance No. 2528 Adopting a New Chapter 18.62, July 7, 1989 Exhibit 15. Completed Land Use Application Form and Power of Attorney _FEB 1 2 2004 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 Page 3 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. III RELEVANT SUBSTANTIVE APPROVAL CRITERIA The Planning Commission has determined that the below relevant substantive criteria constitute all of those which are prerequisite to approving the proposed Physical Constraints Review permit, Tree Removal permit and Site Design and Use Review permit. A recitation of the relevant standards and criteria in the Physical and Environmental Constraints, Tree Removal, Tree Preservation and Protection and Site Design and Use Standards are contained in Section V of this document. In Section V, each relevant standard or 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. 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 existin9 development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. ALUO 18.62.070 Development Standards for Flood plain Corridor Lands. For all land use actions which could result in development of the Flood plain corridor, the following is required in addition to any requirements of Chapter 15.10. A. Standards for fill in Flood plain Corridor lands' 1. Fill shall be designed as required by the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, where applicable. 2. The toe of the fill shall be kept at least ten feet outside of floodway channels, as defined in section 15.10, and the fill shall not exceed the angle of repose of the material used for fill. 3. The amount of fill in the Flood plain Corridor shall be kept to a minimum. Fill and other material imported from off the lot that could displace floodwater shall be limited to the following: a. Poured concrete and other materials necessary to build permitted structures on the lot. b. Aggregate base and paving materials, and fill associated with approved public and private street and driveway construction. c. Plants and other landscaping and agricultural material. FEB 1 3 ZOO4 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 Page 4 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. C. b. E. O. d. A total of 50 cubic yards of other imported fill material. e, The above limits on fill shall be measured from April 1989, and shall not exceed the above amounts. These amounts are the maximum cumulative fill that can be imported onto the site, regardless of the number of permits issued. If additional fill is necessary beyond the permitted amounts in (3) above, then fill materials must be obtained on the lot from cutting or excavation only to the extent necessary to create an elevated site for permitted development. All additional fill material shall be obtained from the podion of the lot in the Flood plain Corridor. 5. Adequate drainage shall be provided for the stability of the fill. 6. Fill to raise elevations for a building site shall be located as close to the outside edge of the Flood plain Corridor as feasible. Culverting or bridging of any waterway or creek identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to section 18.62.060 must be designed by an engineer. Stream crossings shall be designed to the standards of Chapter 15.10, or where no floodway has been identified, to pass a one hundred (100) year flood without any increase in the upstream flood height elevation. The engineer shall consider in the design the probability that the culved will be blocked by debris in a severe flood, and accommodate expected overflow. Fill for culveding and bridging shall be kept to the minimum necessary to achieve property access, but is exempt from the limitations in section (A) above. Culveding or bridging of streams identified as Riparian Preservation are subject to the requirements of 18.62.075. Non-residential structures shall be flood-proof to the standards in Chapter 15.10 to one foot above the elevation contained in the maps adopted by chapter 15.10, or up to the elevation contained in the official maps adopted by section 18.62.060, whichever height is greater. Where no specific elevations exist, then they must be floodproofed to an elevation of ten feet above the creek channel on Ashland, Bear or Neil Creek; to five feet above the creek channel on all other Riparian Preserve creeks defined in section 18.62.050.B; and three feet above the stream channel on all other drainage ways identified on the official maps. All residential structures shall be elevated so that the lowest habitable floor shall be raised to one foot above the elevation contained in the maps adopted in chapter 15.10, or to the elevation contained in the official maps adopted by section 18.62.060, whichever height is greater. Where no specific elevations exist, then they must be constructed at an elevation of ten feet above the creek channel on Ashland, Bear, or Neil Creek; to five feet above the creek channel on all other Riparian Preserve creeks defined in section 18.62.050.B; and three feet above the stream channel on all other drainage ways identified on the official maps, or one foot above visible evidence of high flood water flow, whichever is greater. The elevation of the finished lowest habitable floor shall be certified to the city by an engineer or surveyor prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the structure. To the maximum extent feasible, structures shall be placed on other than Flood plain Corridor Lands. In the case where development is permitted in the Flood plain corridor area, then development shall be Existing lots with buildable land outside the Flood plain Corridor shall locate all residential structures outside the Corridor land, unless 50% or more of the lot is within the Flood plain Corridor. For residential uses proposed for existing lots that have more than 50% of the lot in Corridor land, structures may be located on that portion of the Flood plain corridor that is two feet or less below the flood elevations on the official maps, but in no case closer than 20 feet to the channel of a Riparian Preservation Creek. Construction shall be subject to the requirements in paragraph D above. New non-residential uses may be located on that podion of Flood plain Corridor lands that equal to or above the flood elevations on the official maps adopted in section 18.62.060. Second story construction may be cantilevered over the Flood plain corridor for a distance of 20 feet if the clearance from finished grade is at least ten feet in height, and is supported by pillars that will have minimal impact on the flow of floodwaters. The finished floor elevation may not be more than two feet below the flood corridor elevations. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 Page 5 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. H. K, M. All lots modified by lot line adjustments, or new lots created from lots which contain Flood plain Corridor land must contain a building envelope on all lot(s) which contain(s) buildable area of a sufficient size to accommodate the uses permitted in the underling zone, unless the action is for open space or conservation purposes. This section shall apply even if the effect is to prohibit further division of lots that are larger than the minimum size permitted in the zoning ordinance. Basements. 1. Habitable basements are not permitted for new or existing structures or additions located within the Flood plain Corridor. 2. Non-habitable basements, used for storage, parking, and similar uses are permitted for residential structures but must be flood-proofed to the standards of Chapter 15.10. Storage of petroleum products, pesticides, or other hazardous or toxic chemicals is not permitted in Flood plain Corridor lands. Fences constructed within 20 feet of any Riparian Preservation Creek designated by this chapter shall be limited to wire or electric fence, or similar fence that will not collect debris or obstruct flood waters, but not including wire mesh or chain link fencing. Fences shall not be constructed across any identified riparian drainage or riparian preservation creek. Fences shall not be constructed within any designated floodway. Decks and structures other than buildings, if constructed on Flood plain Corridor Lands and at or below the levels specified in section 18.62.070.C and D, shall be flood-proofed to the standards contained in Chapter 15.10. Local streets and utility connections to developments in and adjacent to the Flood plain Corridor shall be located outside of the Flood plain Corridor, except for crossing the Corridor, and except in the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor as outlined below: Public street construction may be allowed within the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor as pad of development following the adopted North Mountain Neighborhood Plan. This exception shall only be permitted for that section of the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor between North Mountain Avenue and the Nevada Street right-of-way. The new street shall be constructed in the general location as indicated on the neighborhood plan map, and in the area generally described as having the shallowest potential for flooding within the corridor. 2. Proposed development that is not in accord with the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan shall not be permitted to utilize this exception. ALUO 18.62.075 Development Standards for Riparian Preservation Lands. A. All development in areas indicated for Riparian Preservation, as defined in section 18.62.050(B), shall comply with the following standards. 1. Development shall be subject to all Development Standards for Flood plain Corridor Lands. (18.62.070) 2. Any tree over six inches d.b.h, shall be retained to the greatest extent feasible. 3. Fill and Culverting shall be permitted only for streets, access or utilities. The crossing shall be at right angels to the creek channel to the greatest extent possible. Fill shall be kept to a minimum. 4. The general topography of Riparian Preservation lands shall be retained. SITE REVIEW Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 18) ALUO Chapter 72 Site Design and Use Standards FEB 1 3 2OO¢ Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 Page 6 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. ALUO 18.72.050 Detail Site Review Zone. A. The Detail Site Review Zone is that area defined in the Site Design Standards adopted pursuant to Section 18.72.040(A). e. Any development in the Detail Site Review Zone as defined in the Site Review Standards adopted pursuant to this chapter, which exceeds 10,000 square feet or is longer than 100 feet in length or width, shall be reviewed according to the Type 2 procedure. C. No new buildings or contiguous groups of buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone shall exceed a gross square footage of 45,000 square feet or a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. Any building or contiguous group of buildings which exceed these limitations, which were in existence in 1992, may expand up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. Neither the gross square footage or combined contiguous building length, as set forth in this section shall be subject to any variance authorized in the Land Use Ordinance. ALUO 18.72.070 Criteria for Approval. The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject properly. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655, 1991; Ord 2836 S6, 1999) ASHLAND SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS SECTION I1: APPROVAL STANDARDS AND POLICIES II-A. ORDINANCE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS II-C. COMMERCIAL, EMPLOYMENT, AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT I1-C-1. BASIC SITE REVIEW STANDARDS II-C-la) Orientation and Scale II-C-1 b) Streetscape II-C-lc) Landscaping II-C-ld) Parking II-C-le) Designated Creek Protection II-C-lf) Noise and Glare II-C-lg) Expansions of Existing Sites and Buildings II-C-2. DETAIL SITE REVIEW II-C-2a) Orientation and Scale I I-C-2b) Streetscape II-C-2c) Parking & On-Site Circulation II-C-2d) Buffering and Screening II-C-2e) Lighting II-C-2f) Building Materials II-D. PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING STANDARDS II-D-6. OTHER SCREENING i 3 2004, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 Page 7 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Refuse Container Screen: Refuse containers or disposal areas shall be screened from view by placement of a solid wood fence or masonry wall from five to eight feet in height. All refuse materials shall be contained within the refuse area. Service Corridor Screen: When adjacent to residential uses .... Light and Glare Screen: Artificial lighting shall be so arranged and constructed as to not produce direct glare on adjacent residential properties or streets. II-E. STREET TREE STANDARDS II-E-l) Location for Street Trees II-E-2) Spacing, Placement, and Pruning of Street Trees II-E-3) Replacement of Street Trees II-E-4) Recommended Street Trees Vl-C. HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS · Height · Scale · Massin9 · Setback · Roof Shapes · Rhythm of Openings · Platforms · Directional Expression · Sense of Entry · Imitations SECTION VI: DOWNTOWN ASHLAND VI-l) Parking lots adjacent to the pedestrian path are prohibited. VI-2) Pedestrian amenities such as a broad sidewalks, arcades, alcoves, colonnades, porticoes, awnings and sidewalk seating shall be provided where possible and feasible. VI-3) Weather protection on adjacent key pedestrian paths are required by all new development. VI-4) Windows and other features of interest to pedestrians shall be provided adjacent to the sidewalk. Blank walls adjacent to sidewalks are prohibited. VI-5) Two-story development is encouraged downtown, with the second stories in commercial, residential, or parking areas. VI-6) Uses which are exclusively automotive such as service stations, drive-up windows, auto sales, and tire stores are discouraged in the downtown. The city shall use its discretionary powers, such as Conditional Use permits, to deny new uses. Although improvements to existing facilities may be permitted. SECTION VI: DOWNTOWN DESIGN STANDARDS. The following standards are adopted with this plan and shall be used as part of the land use approval process. VI-A) Height VI-B) Openings VI-C) Width VI-D) Openings VI-E) Horizontal Rhythms VI-F) Vertical Rhythms VI-G) Roof Forms VI-H) Materials Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 Page 8 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. VI-I) Awnings, Marquees or Similar Pedestrian Shelters VI-J) Other VI-K) Exception to Standards TREE PRESERVATION & PROTECTION PERMIT Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 18) ALUO Chapter 18.61 Tree Preservation & Protection ALUO 18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal - Staff Permit. An applicant for a Tree Removal- Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's repod to substantiate the criteria for a permit. ALUO 18.61.080(B) Tree that is not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the applicant to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, (e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and 2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject properly. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternative landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 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. 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; FEB Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 Page 9 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. 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. 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. 4. Approved signs shall be attached to the chain link fenci'~g 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. 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. IV FINDINGS OF FACT The Planning Commission reaches the following facts and finds them to be true with respect to this matter: le Property Description; Ownership: The owner of record is 88 North Main, LLC. Applicant Haines is a member of 88 North Main, LLC. The legal description of the subject property, according to the records of the Jackson County Assessor, is Tax Lot [EB 1 3 2004. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 //¢"Q~ ~? Page 10 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd, e me e 9800 on map 39-1E-09BB. The shape and configuration of the property is shown on the Assessor's Plat Map (Exhibit 9). Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning District: The subject property is designated Downtown on thc City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map. Thc property is within a Retail Commercial (C-l) zoning district and subject to thc City's Downtown Overlay District (D); the overall zoning designation of thc property is denoted as C-I-D. The property is within Ashland's Commercial North Main Historic District. Public Facilities, Services and Utilities: The subject property is served with urban public facilities and services, including municipal water, sanitary sewer service, municipal electrical service, natural gas, and transportation facilities, which accommodate the movement of motorized vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians to and through the subject property. Representatives of applicant interviewed representatives of the Ashland Engineering Department. According to Engineering Department representatives, the municipal infrastructure which serves this property, is sufficient for the proposed development and contemplated land uses. However, connection to sanitary sewer and water lines within North Main Street will require a permit through the State of Oregon for the purpose of cutting the pavement to connect the underground infrastructure to the proposed new building. Storm water run off will be diverted directly to Ashland Creek which is adjacent to the subject property. According to representatives of the Ashland Engineering Department, there appear to be no existing conditions that would limit the ability to discharge storm water to the creek. Nature of the Proposed Use: The development includes the construction of a mixed use building with an under-floor area, realignment and replacement of the existing pedestrian bridge over Ashland Creek. Following is a detailed description of the proposed uses. · Mixed Use Building Underfloor. The underfloor will be used for the elevator foundation and mechanical equipment. The underfloor will also be used to store flood waters during significant flood events, in accordance with the regulations of Ashland and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). By definition the underfloor of this building is not considered habitable and therefore is not consider a "floor" under the ordinary meaning of this term. Habitable Floor is defined in the Ashland Municipal Code subsection 15.10.050(J) as follows: "Habitable Floor means any floor usable for living purposes, which includes working, sleeping, eating, cooking or recreation, or a combination thereof. A floor used only for storage purposes is not a "habitable" floor." The Underfloor elevation is below the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) adopted by the City of Ashland and below the FEMA BFE. The underfloor will be of flow through construction to accommodate floodwaters (during major flood events) and minimize Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 Page 11 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. potential flood damage. See, Exhibit 2, Exterior Elevations Sheet A-201 and Building Sections Sheet A-301. Any electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing and mechanical equipment to be located within this area will be flood-proofed or elevated sufficiently to prevent flood waters from entering or accumulating within these components. New decking will be constructed along the east side of the proposed new building and adjacent to the existing Ashland Creek Bar & Grill. The existing deck cover over a portion of the Ashland Creek Bar & Grill outdoor seating and dining area will be removed. A decorative metal guardrail will be installed at the north end of the new deck on the Ashland Creek side. Level 1 Lower Floor. A restaurant will be located on this floor. The restaurant will include indoor dining, a kitchen, restrooms and entry/exit to the proposed Ashland Creek Walkway.~ On this floor is a planned outdoor dining and deck area which is to be accessed from a central reception area. The indoor dining area is to be adjacent to the outdoor dining area and have views to Ashland Creek. An outdoor reception area, accessed by a stairway from North Main Street, will be located between the existing Ashland Creek Bar & Grill and the proposed new building. See, Exhibit 2, Floor Plan Sheet A-107. The lower floor elevation is at 1,877 feet, which is 1.50 feet above the / Ashland BFE and 5.00 feet above the FEMA BFE. See, Exhibit 2, Exterior Elevations Sheet A-201 and Building Sections Sheet A-301. Level 2 Main Floor. Space for retail shops and office suites will be located on this floor, which has access directly from North Main Street. See, Exhibit 2, Floor Plan Sheet A-107. The main floor elevation is measured at 1,888.50 feet. The main floor is 13.00 feet above the Ashland BFE and 16.50 feet above the FEMA BFE. See, Exhibit 2, Exterior Elevations Sheet A-201 and Building Sections Sheet A-301. Level 3 Upper Floor. Two residential apartments are proposed to be located on the upper floor. The apartments will be 2 bedroom units with full kitchens. See, Exhibit 2, Floor Plan Sheet A-107. The upper floor elevation is measured at 1,900.50 feet. The upper floor is 25.00 feet above the Ashland BFE and 28.50 feet above the FEMA BFE. See, Exhibit 2, Exterior Elevations Sheet A-201 and Building Sections Sheet A- 301. Building Square Footage Breakdown: The following Table 1 is a statistical breakdown of the proposed development. ~ As earlier described, the proposed walkway is to be on land with ODOT right-of-way and this component will be dealt with as a matter separate from this application. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 13/ ,FEB 1 2 2oo Page 12 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Table 1 Building/Site Square Footage Breakdown Source: Dave Richardson, Ashland Design Works Site Area 4,20'1 100% Coverage New Building (Including Decks) 3,461 82.39% Landscape Coverage (Including Creek) Landscaping Required Parking1 New Building Enclosed Areas Lower Floor (Shell) Main Floor (Shell) Upper Floor (Finished) Total New Building Enclosed Area 7401 17.61%1 0 0% 02 0%2 1,970 2,906 3,449 8,325 New Building Unenclosed Areas Lower Floor 899 Main Floor 474 Upper Floor 173 Total New Building Unenclosed Areas 1,5457 Residential Uses Allowed Density 60/acre 5.79 units allowed Actual number of units 2 units3 Table Notes: Landscaped area figure does not include additional landscaping to be provided on the property located on either side of the new bridge. ALUO 18.32.050(A) provides that land within the "D" Downtown Overlay District is not required to provide off-street parking or loading areas, except for hotels, motels or hostel uses. 3. Residential units will both have two bedrooms Pedestrian Bridge: There is an existing pedestrian bridge which now permits people to cross over Ashland Creek by foot in order to access the Ashland Creek Bar & Grill. The existing bridge is proposed to be replaced and slightly realigned to meet Ashland design and floodplain standards. The proposed bridge has been designed so that it can 1 3 200 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 Page 13 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. e e e Se e be raised (drawn-up) during periods of flooding to an elevation which is above the 100-year water surface during large flow events. The bridge is to be designed by a qualified engineer. See, Exhibit 2, Site Plan, and applicant's stipulations in Section VI. Proposed Method of Heating, Cooling and Lighting: At this time, applicant proposes to usc electricity for heating and cooling throughout the building. However, applicant may later determine that a combination of electric and natural gas is more beneficial for the proposed uses. The method of heating, cooling and lighting will be finally determined at the time construction drawings arc submitted for building permits. Existing Land Use (Subject Property): The site is presently developed as an outdoor seating and dining area for the Ashland Creek Bar & Grill restaurant. The existing restaurant has indoor as well as outdoor dining areas. That portion of the outdoor dining area which is adjacent to the existing building, is covered by a canopy that is attached to the existing building; this area will remain and be available for outdoor dining for the Ashland Creek Bar & Grill. The remainder of the existing outdoor seating and dining area is of wood decking which is not covered by any structure and which is intended as the site of the new building. As above mentioned, there is a wood pedestrian bridge which crosses Ashland Creek and connects the Ashland Creek Bar & Grill to a paved parking area located on the north side of Ashland Creek (and beneath the Lithia Way viaduct). Surrounding Area Development: Photographs of the surrounding area and existing development are in Exhibit 8, which includes a photograph key map that shows the station points for each photo and the direction each was taken. All buildings on the same block as the subject property, the proposed building and buildings across North Main Street, all have flat roofs. Characteristics of Surrounding Potential Impact Area: The physical characteristics of the surrounding potential impact area are graphically depicted in photographs. See, Exhibit 8. Floodplain Corridor Land: Floodplain Corridor Land is defined in ALUO 18.62 as follows: ALUO 18.62.050(A) Flood plain Corridor Lands - Lands with potential stream flow and flood hazard. The following lands are classified as Flood plain Corridor lands: Ali land contained within the 100 year Flood plain as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, in maps adopted by Chapter 15.10 of the Ashland Municipal Code. All land within the area defined as Flood plain Corridor land in maps adopted by the Council as provided for in section 18.62.060. 3. All lands which have physical or historical evidence of flooding in the historical past. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law , Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 Page 14 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. . . All areas within 20 feet (horizontal distance) of any creek designated for Riparian Preservation in 18.62,050.B and depicted as such on maps adopted by the Council as provided for in section 18.62.060. All areas within ten feet (horizontal distance) of any drainage channel depicted on maps adopted by the Council but not designated as Riparian Preservation. The subject site contains land that is defined as Floodplain Corridor Land because: A portion of site is within the floodplain and floodway boundary as illustrated on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) and Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps (Floodway). ALUO Chapter 15.10 adopted the Flood Insurance Maps dated June 1, 1981 for establishing areas of special flood hazard within the incorporated city limits of Ashland. The FEMA floodplain and floodway boundary are depicted at Exhibit 2 Sheets A-103 and 104. The subject site ranges in elevation from 1886.43 feet at the street to 1863.22 feet at the approximate west bank of Ashland Creek. The building, other than decks, is proposed to be sited on land that is at an elevation of 1870.00 feet and higher. Land within the floodplain corridor boundary as adopted by the Council in ALUO Section 18.62.060 is shown at Exhibit 2 Sheet A-102. The Base Flood Elevation for the adopted floodplain corridor is 1875.50 feet. The floodplain corridor map adopted by the Ashland City Council July 7, 1989 ( the Official Map) depicts a floodplain boundary based on historic flood events and field survey conducted by the City of Ashland Planning Department. The Official Map as adopted by the City Council on July 7, 1989 also includes the FEMA floodplain boundary. See Exhibit 2 Sheet A-102 and Exhibit 6. · The site is adjacent to Ashland Creek and is subject to Riparian Preservation. Lands designated for Riparian Preservation are sited in ALUO Section 18.62.050(B). · The site is not within ten feet (horizontal distance) of any drainage channel that is not designated as Riparian Preservation. 10. Riparian Preservation: The proposed development is adjacent to Ashland Creek. ALUO 18.62.050(B) designates land along Ashland Creek for Riparian Preservation. As such, the subject property and project are subject to the standards of the ALUO 18.62.075 which establish development standards for Riparian Preservation lands. The standards and criteria for Riparian Preservation in ALUO 18.62.075 are: A. All development in areas indicated for Riparian Preservation, as defined in section 18.62.050(B), shall comply with the following standards. 1. Development shall be subject to all Development Standards for Flood plain Corridor Lands. (18.62.070) 2. Any tree over six inches d.b.h, shall be retained to the greatest extent feasible. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 / ~ ~i Page 15 Feb 23 04 10:49a c~aig A. Sto~e & Associa~. L~. Stone 5~-L,~7790114 Fill and Culverting shall be permitted only for streets, access or utilities. The crossing shall be at dght angels to the creek channel to the greatest extent possible. Fill shall be kept to a minimum. 4. The general topography of Riparian Preservation lands shall be retained. The proposed development is subject to the standards for Flood Plain Corridor Lands as set forth in ALUO 18.62.070 and these have been addressed in the Findings of Fact (Section IV) and the Conclusions of Law (Section V) hereinbelow. Trees on the subject site which are over 6-inches d.b.h, are identified on the Tree Preservation Plan Exhibit 3. One tree which is within the building envelope is proposed for removal, ali other trees outside of the building envelope have been retained. This application does n°t involve the removal of any trees within the Riparian Preservation area. No streets or utilities are proposed in this project which would be within the flood plain or riparian corridor. The only form of access to be within the flood/riparian corridor, is the pedestrian bridge and the same does not require t511 or culverts within the boundaries of the floodplain corridor.2 The only elements of this project which are within the flood plan corridor are the piers for the patio area. The deck support piers are not fill. The term Riparian is defined at ALUO 18.62.030(Q) as, "That area associated with a natural water course including its wildlife and vegetation." The area on the subject site and along Ashland Creek that contains vegetation and possibly wildlife is not proposed for excavation or fill other than what is required for the planting of vegetation for the enhancement of the riparian area. See, Exhibit 4. 11. Timeline for Development: Pursuant to ALUO 18.62.040(H)(1)(t) applicant herewith testifies that, assuming these applications are approved m March 2004, that project development will proceed according to the following approximate task milestones, each of which has an approximate completion date attached: June 2004: Preparation of architectural working drawings and contract documents; submittal to city for building permits; contractor selection - August 2004: Approval of plans and issuance of building permits · September 2004: Start of construction · June 2004: Construction completed · July 2004: Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by City of Ashland ,/ z Them is an existing pedestrian bridge which in this application, is proposed to be realigned and reconstructed as a drawbridge that can be raised during flood events. Finclings ,of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 Page 16 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. V CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The 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 standard, criterion or criteria to which they relate and are supported by findings of fact as set forth in Section IV hereinabove and by the evidence enumerated in Section II: PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Title 18) ALUO CHAPTER 62 PHYSICAL&ENVIRONMENTALCONTRAINTS 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 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 Planning Commission concludes that the development standards of "this chapter" are the standards and criteria addressed hereinbelow as Criterion 4 through 22, the findings of fact and conclusions of law for which are herewith incorporated and adopted. These demonstrate that the development standards of ALUO Chapter 18.62 (including the standards in the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards) have been properly observed. The Commission also concludes that the potential impacts to the subject property and nearby areas consist of: 1) the potential to increase flooding and flood damage up and downstream, 2) the potential damage to the riparian corridor and riparian vegetation and its related impacts to fish and wildlife habitat. On these categories of potential impact, the Planning Commission concludes as follows: Flooding/Flood Damage: Based upon Exhibits 7 and 13 J testimony from applicant's expert engineers -- this project (including removal of the existing deck) will add flood storage volume along this portion of Ashland Creek and will, in accordance with AMC 15.10.080(B)(1), allow the automatic entry and exit of flood waters beneath the proposed building. Additionally, the existing pedestrian bridge is a fixed structure that exists at an elevation lower than the 100-year base flood elevation. As such, the existing bridge is susceptible to flood damage and the potential for it to be transported downstream during a major flood event. Applicant has proposed a new engineered drawbridge that can be raised during flood events. For these reasons, the Commission concludes that this project will not increase areas subject to flooding nor increase the potential for flood damages for this property or nearby areas. ./ Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 Page 17 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. . Riparian Corridor/Vegetation; Fish/Wildlife Habitat: As to the potential for damage to the riparian corridor and its vegetation, this project proposed no removal of riparian vegetation and, in fact, proposes to enhance the riparian vegetation along the new building's Ashland Creek frontage. For these reasons, the Commission concludes that this project will not adversely impact the riparian corridor or its vegetation along Ashland Creek for this property or nearby areas. 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 because, through the application of the development standards of ALUO 18.62 and the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards, the potential impacts to this property and nearby areas have been considered, and the adverse impacts have been minimized appropriately. 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 herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 1, and concludes that applicant has considered the potential hazards this development might potentially create and the same are limited to potential flood damage. The Commission concludes, as it did under Criterion 1, that the potential flood hazard has been appropriately considered and that by increasing the flood storage capacity in this area of Ashland Creek (by removing the existing deck and providing flood storage under the building) that the potential flood hazard has been mitigated. There are no other hazards related to physical and environmental constraints and the Commission concludes that this 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 Planning Commission herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 1 and 2. The Commission concludes that adverse impacts on the environment, in connection with this project, include: 1) the potential to increase flooding and flood damage up and downstream, 2) the potential damage to the riparian corridor and riparian vegetation, and its related impacts to fish and wildlife habitat. The Commission herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 1 and 2 and further concludes as follows: FEB 1 3 200 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 Page 18 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Flooding/Flood Damage: Based upon the evidence, applicant here has taken the following reasonable steps which will reduce the adverse impacts upon the environment with respect to flooding and flood damage: Applicant has set the building back an appreciable distance from the Ashland Creek and designed the building in such a way as to increase the flood storage capacity beneath the building in an amount that is greater than what now exists (with the existing deck in place). Applicant has designed piers (which support the new/proposed deck) to further reduce impediments to channel flow and to protect existing trees within the riparian corridor and permit their preservation. Applicant has carefully studied the stream flooding characteristics of Ashland Creek and designed the project to observe all requirements of the ALUO, AMC 15.10 and the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards. A portion of the proposed deck is within Ashland's designed flood plain corridor and the same is permitted in ALUO 18.62.070(L). See, Exhibit 2 Sheet A-107. The portion of the proposed deck that will be constructed on Flood Plain Corridor Lands and which are at or below the levels specified in ALUO 18.62.070(C) and (D) are the piers which support the patio deck and these will be flood proofed to the standards contained in Chapter 15.10. The existing pedestrian bridge is a fixed structure that exists at an elevation which is beneath the 100-year base flood elevation. As such, the existing bridge is susceptible to flood damage and the potential for it to be transported downstream during a major flood event. Applicant has proposed a new engineered drawbridge that can be raised during flood events. . Riparian Corridor/Vegetation; Fish/Wildlife Habitat: Based upon the evidence, applicant here has taken the following reasonable steps which will reduce the adverse impacts upon the environment with respect to the riparian corridor of Ashland Creek and the riparian vegetation therein: Applicant does not propose to remove any riparian vegetation and, instead plans to enhance the riparian landscape with compatible plant materials, supported by an automatic underground irrigation system. The same will enhance fish and wildlife habitat. Applicant has taken steps to preserve existing significant big leaf maple trees which exist in a clump near the retaining wall adjacent to the riparian corridor. The same will provide continued shading of the creek. Creek shading helps control stream water temperatures and benefits fish species that occupy the creek. The trees also provide habitat for birds which use the trees for perching and nesting. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 Page 19 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Applicant has set the new deck back further from the riparian corridor than the existing deck, thereby providing additional space within which landscaping is planned. Riparian landscaping in a general way will enhance fish and wildlife habitat by providing cover which is an important habitat component for fish and fur-bearing animals. In its consideration of this project, the Planning Commission is required to consider, "the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance." Applicant asserts and the Planning Commission agrees, that this means that it must consider existing development in the surrounding area and, for vacant or underdeveloped properties, the environmental impacts as if these lands were developed to the maximum levels permitted by the ALUO. In this regard, the Commission concludes that virtually all privately held land (except the subject property) is now fully developed (or very nearly so) to the maximum levels permitted by the ALUO, and no further consideration of additional development or the intensification of existing development needs to be considered in this instance.3 While applicant has suggested that the city consider using land beneath the Lithia Way viaduct (with the permission of the Oregon Department of Transportation) as an arts park, the same is not a part of the applications now before the city. However, in that this land might be developed as a future arts park, the city has considered the same in the context of this application, as it is required to consider, "the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance." In this regard, the Planning Commission concludes that nothing in this application would prevent an arts park or similar use on land beneath the viaduct and concludes that such use on this public land would be the maximum permitted development under the ALUO. The Commission reaches similar findings of fact and conclusions of law for the public right-of-way land which exists north of the proposed building, with respect to its use as an improved pedestrian pathway, and concludes that nothing in this application would prevent the same from being implemented. 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. Criterion 4 ALUO 18.62.050 Land Classifications. The following factors shall be used to determine the classifications of various lands and their constraints to building and development on them. ALUO 18.62.050(B) Riparian Preservation. The following Flood plain Corridor Lands are also designated for Riparian Preservation for the purposes of this section and as listed on the Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay Maps: Tolman, Hamilton, Clay, Bear, Kitchen, Ashland, Neil and Wrights Creeks. 3 While there is some vacant land in the vicinity of the subject property, this land either exists as public rights- of-way or has been set aside for public parks. 1 3 004 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 Page 20 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that portions of the subject property are located within the Flood Plain Corridor of Ashland Creek. Therefore, these portions of the property are also subject to the riparian preservation standards in ALUO 18.62.075. The specific standards for riparian preservation are addressed hereinbelow as Criterion 18. Criterion 5 ALUO 18.62.070 Development Standards for Flood plain Corridor Lands. For all land use actions which could result in development of the Flood plain corridor, the following is required in addition to any requirements of Chapter 15.10. A. Standards for fill in Flood plain Corridor lands: 1. Fill shall be designed as required by the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, where applicable. 2. The toe of the fill shall be kept at least ten feet outside of floodway channels, as defined in section 15.10, and the fill shall not. exceed the angle of repose of the material used for fill. 3. The amount of fill in the Flood plain Corridor shall be kept to a minimum. Fill and other material imported from off the lot that could displace floodwater shall be limited to the following: a. Poured concrete and other materials necessary to build permitted structures on the lot. b. Aggregate base and paving materials, and fill associated with approved public and private street and driveway construction. c. Plants and other landscaping and agricultural material. d. A total of 50 cubic yards of other impoded fill material. e, The above limits on fill shall be measured from April 1989, and shall not exceed the above amounts. These amounts are the maximum cumulative fill that can be imported onto the site, regardless of the number of permits issued. If additional fill is necessary beyond the permitted amounts in (3) above, then fill materials must be obtained on the lot from cutting or excavation only to the extent necessary to create an elevated site for permitted development. All additional fill material shall be obtained from the portion of the lot in the Flood plain Corridor. 5. Adequate drainage shall be provided for the stability of the fill. 6. Fill to raise elevations for a building site shall be located as close to the outside edge of the Flood plain Corridor as feasible. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as follows: The provisions of Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 15.10 (Flood Damage Prevention Regulations) are building code standards and requirements which are reviewed by Ashland's Building Official at the time building permits are sought. The Commission concludes that there is nothing in AMC 15.10 that cannot be met in this project and compliance with AMC 15.10 will be assured through this land use process FEB 1 3 004 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 Page 21 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. and Ashland's required review and approval of the construction plans before the issuance of any building permits. Applicant has agreed to stipulate that his construction plans will observe all of the standards of AMC 15.10. Regarding # 1 above, applicant has agreed to stipulate that he will observe the applicable standards of the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, in compliance therewith. Regarding #2 above and based upon Exhibit 7, the concrete foundation wall for the proposed building and deck is the closest part of the project to the stream and floodway channel. The wall is located more than 10 feet from the FEMA Floodway boundary. Regarding #3 above and based upon Exhibits 2 and 7 fill in the floodplain corridor associated with this project is limited to the concrete used to form the structural support for the building and deck. There are no public or private streets or driveways associated with this project. There is less than 50 cubic yards of other imported material (material other than concrete or aggregate base/paving material). Regarding #4 above, and based upon Exhibit 7 no additional fill is necessary beyond the 50 cubic yard amount required in #3. Regarding #5 above, applicant in Section VI has agreed to stipulate to providing proper engineering to address drainage. The Commission concludes that adequate drainage can and will be provided for this project in accordance with city standards. Regarding #6 above, and based upon Exhibit 7, no fill has been specified in the plans for the purpose of raising the elevation of the site to accommodate the proposed building. 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 5. Criterion 6 . Culveding or bridging of any waterway or creek identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to section 18.62.060 must be designed by an engineer. Stream crossings shall be designed to the standards of Chapter 15.10, or where no floodway has been identified, to pass a one hundred (100) year flood without any increase in the upstream flood height elevation. The engineer shall consider in the design the probability that the culved will be blocked by debris in a severe flood, and accommodate expected overflow. Fill for culverting and bridging shall be kept to the minimum necessary to achieve property access, but is exempt from the limitations in section (A) above. Culveding or bridging of streams identified as Riparian Preservation are subject to the requirements of 18.62.075. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission is aware that there is an existing pedestrian bridge that crosses Ashland Creek on the subject property and provides pedestrian access thereto. Applicant proposes to replace the existing fixed bridge with a drawbridge, to be FE , 1 2004 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 /¢/ Pa,e 22 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. designed by a qualified engineer. The drawbridge can and will be designed so it can be elevated (drawn-up) so as to be above the water level during a 100-year flood event. Applicant has agreed to stipulate that the bridge will be designed and constructed in accordance with Criterion 6. The Planning Commission finds and concludes that applicant can comply with this standard and, conditions attached to its approval, ensures that compliance with Criterion 6 will be achieved. Criterion 7 c) Non-residential structures shall be flood-proof to the standards in Chapter 15.10 to one foot above the elevation contained in the maps adopted by chapter 15.10, or up to the elevation contained in the official maps adopted by section 18.62.060, whichever height is greater. Where no specific elevations exist, then they must be floodproofed to an elevation of ten feet above the creek channel on Ashland, Bear or Nell Creek; to five feet above the creek channel on all other Riparian Preserve creeks defined in section 18.62.050.B; and three feet above the stream channel on all other drainage ways identified on the official maps. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that applicant, in Section VI, agreed to stipulate to flood proofing in accordance ALUO 18.62.070(C)- Criterion 7. The Planning Commission finds and concludes that compliance with Criterion 7 can be met and conditions imposed on approval of this application, ensures that the requirements of Criterion 7 will be properly observed. Criterion 8 D) All residential structures shall be elevated so that the lowest habitable floor shall be raised to one foot above the elevation contained in the maps adopted in chapter 15.10, or to the elevation contained in the official maps adopted by section 18.62.060, whichever height is greater. Where no specific elevations exist, then they must be constructed at an elevation of ten feet above the creek channel on Ashland, Bear, or Neil Creek; to five feet above the creek channel on all other Riparian Preserve creeks defined in section 18.62.050.B; and three feet above the stream channel on all other drainage ways identified on the official maps, or one foot above visible evidence of high flood water flow, whichever is greater. The elevation of the finished lowest habitable floor shall be cedified to the city by an engineer or surveyor prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the structure. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that the only residential structures which are a part of this application, are the two apartments to be located on the upper-most floor. The Exhibit 2 plans (and findings of fact in Section IV) show the elevation of the apartments are at an elevation substantially higher than the elevation contained in the maps adopted in AMC Chapter 15.10 or the elevation contained in official maps adopted as part of ALUO 18.62.060, in full compliance with Criterion 8. Criterion 8 also requires the elevation of the finished lowest habitable floor, to be certified to the city by an engineer or surveyor prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the structure and the same will ensure full compliance with Criterion 8. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 Page 23 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Criterion 9 E. To the maximum extent feasible, structures shall be placed on other than Flood plain Corridor Lands. In the case where development is permitted in the Flood plain corridor area, then development shall be limited to that area which would have the shallowest flooding. Discussion and Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that it is unfeasible in this instance to place all structures outside of Flood Plain Corridor Lands. However, development is permitted in the Flood Plain corridor area pursuant to ALUO 18.62.070(G) and the same has been addressed hereinbelow as Criterion 11. Furthermore, development within the Flood Plain corridor is subject to all other requirements in ALUO 18.62.070 and the same are addressed herein as Criterion 5 through 17. The Planning Commission herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 5 through 17. Moreover, the Planning Commission concludes from the evidence that the proposed building, which fronts upon North Main Street has been placed as far from Ashland Creek (the area of deepest flooding) as is feasible. Additionally, the evidence (Exhibit 7) shows that during flood events, flood waters will overflow the creek's right bank (on the opposite side of the subject property) which produces shallow flooding on the subject property. 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 9. Criterion 10 F, Existing lots with buildable land outside the Flood plain Corridor shall locate all residential structures outside the Corridor land, unless 50% or more of the lot is within the Flood plain Corridor. For residential uses proposed for existing lots that have more than 50% of the lot in Corridor land, structures may be located on that portion of the Flood plain corridor that is two feet or less below the flood elevations on the official maps, but in no case closer than 20 feet to the channel of a Riparian Preservation Creek. Construction shall be subject to the requirements in paragraph D above. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that the proposed residential uses are all on the uppermost floor of the proposed building and, based upon on Exhibit 2, the building is located outside the flood plain corridor, in compliance with Criterion 10. Criterion 11 e. New non-residential uses may be located on that portion of Flood plain Corridor lands that equal to or above the flood elevations on the official maps adopted in section 18.62.060. Second story construction may be cantilevered over the Flood plain corridor for a distance of 20 feet if the clearance from finished grade is at least ten feet in height, and is suppoded by pillars that will have minimal impact on the flow of floodwaters. The finished floor elevation may not be more than two feet below the flood corridor elevations. Discussion and Conclusions of Law: The above Criterion 11 w ALUO 18.62.070(G) -- is as it appears in the Ashland Land Use Code. However, ALUO 18.62.070(G) was incorrectly translated into the ALUO; as adopted by Ashland Ordinance No. 2528 on July 7, 1989, that FEB t 3 2OO4 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 Page 24 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. same subsection reads as follows and it is this language which was actually adopted and must be applied: O. New non-residential uses may be located on that portion of Floodplain Corridor lands that are two feet or less below the flood elevations on the official maps adopted in section 18.62.060. Second story construction may be cantilevered over the Flood plain corridor for a distance of 20 feet if the clearance from finished grade is at least ten feet in height, and is supported by pillars that will have minimal impact on the flow of floodwaters. The finished floor elevation may not be more than two feet below the flood corridor elevations Exhibit 2 shows that the proposed use is located two feet or less below the FEMA flood elevations shown on the official maps adopted in ALUO 18.62.060 and further, that the structure complies with the requirements of the second sentence of the criterion with respect to cantilevering. Finally, the finished floor elevation is not more than two feet below the relevant flood corridor elevations. Based upon these facts, the Planning Commission concludes the application complies with Criterion 11. Criterion 12 H. All lots modified by lot line adjustments, or new lots created from lots which contain Flood plain Corridor land must contain a building envelope on all lot(s) which contain(s) buildable area of a sufficient size to accommodate the uses permitted in the underling zone, unless the action is for open space or conservation purposes. This section shall apply even if the effect is to prohibit further division of lots that are larger than the minimum size permitted in the zoning ordinance. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that this application is consistent with Criterion 12 by reason of inapplicability because that the subject property is neither a new lot nor one intended to be modified by lot line adjustment. Criterion 13 I. Basements. 1. Habitable basements are not permitted for new or existing structures or additions located within the Flood plain Corridor. 2. Non-habitable basements, used for storage, parking, and similar uses are permitted for residential structures but must be flood-proofed to the standards of Chapter 15.10. Conclusions of Law: Based upon the Exhibit 2 plans and Exhibit 7, the Planning Commission concludes that no habitable basement is proposed for the new building. The Exhibit 2 plans contemplate a non-habitable basement and the same is described in the findings of fact in Section IV. Applicant in Section VI has agreed to stipulate that flood- proofing will be done in accordance with AMC Chapter 15.10. 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 13. FEB · . Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 ~' ~ Page 25 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Criterion 14 J. Storage of petroleum products, pesticides, or other hazardous or toxic chemicals is not permitted in Flood plain Corridor lands. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that in Section VI, applicant agreed to stipulate that neither he nor his tenants will store petroleum products, pesticides, or other hazardous or toxic chemicals within the designated Flood Plain Corridor, in compliance with Criterion 14. Criterion 15 Fences constructed within 20 feet of any Riparian Preservation Creek designated by this chapter shall be limited to wire or electric fence, or similar fence that will not collect debris or obstruct flood waters, but not including wire mesh or chain link fencing. Fences shall not be constructed across any identified riparian drainage or riparian preservation creek. Fences shall not be constructed within any designated floodway. Conclusions of Law: Based upon the Exhibit 2 plans and Exhibit 7, the Planning Commission concludes that no fences are proposed as part of this project. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with Criterion 15. Criterion 16 Decks and structures other than buildings, if constructed on Flood plain Corridor Lands and at or below the levels specified in section 18.62.070.C and D, shall be flood-proofed to the standards contained in Chapter 15.10. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that applicant, in Section VI, agreed to stipulate to flood-proofing in accordance with the standards in AMC 15.10. Therefore, the Commission concludes that this application is consistent with Criterion 16. Criterion 17 M. Local streets and utility connections to developments in and adjacent to the Flood plain Corridor shall be located outside of the Flood plain Corridor, except for crossing the Corridor, and except in the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor as outlined below: Public street construction may be allowed within the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor as part of development following the adopted North Mountain Neighborhood Plan. This exception shall only,be permitted for that section of the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor between North Mountain Avenue and the Nevada Street right-of-way. The new street shall be constructed in the general location as indicated on the neighborhood plan map, and in the area generally described as having the shallowest potential for flooding within the corridor. FEB Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 Page 26 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. 2. Proposed development that is not in accord with the Nodh Mountain Neighborhood Plan shall not be permitted to utilize this exception. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes, based upon the Exhibit 2 plans, that no new local streets are proposed or required as part of this application. Moreover, all utilities available to this property (and which will be required for the new building) are all within the right-of-way of North Main Street, and no utility connections are required to cross the Flood Plain Corridor, in compliance with Criterion 17. Criterion 18 ALUO 18.62.075 Development Standards for Riparian Preservation Lands. A. All development in areas indicated for Riparian Preservation, as defined in section 18.62.050(B), shall comply with the following standards. 1. Development shall be subject to all Development Standards for Flood plain Corridor Lands. (18.62.070) 2. Any tree over six inches d.b.h, shall be retained to the greatest extent feasible. 3. Fill and Culverting shall be permitted only for streets, access or utilities. The crossing shall be at right angels to the creek channel to the greatest extent possible. Fill shall be kept to a minimum. 4. The general topography of Riparian Preservation lands shall be retained. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that the property is crossed by Ashland Creek and portions of the property are subject to the Riparian Preservation standards pursuant to relevant provisions in ALUO 18.62. The Commission concludes as follows with respect to the four standards in Criterion 18: Regarding #1 above, the same does not operate as an independent approval standard, but rather to establish that land subject to riparian preservation is also subject to the city's flood plain ordinance (ALUO 18.62.070) and the same are addressed hereinabove as Criterion 5 through 17, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of law for which are herewith incorporated and adopted. Regarding #2 above, the evidence shows that the tree removal (Tree No. 1 shown in Exhibit 3) is needed to comply with other requirements of the ALUO, including requirements for buildings to extend from side lot line to side lot line, and not to be set back greater than 20 feet from the front property boundary. In this instance, the evidence shows that even if the building were setback twenty feet, construction near this tree (proposed for removal) would likely result in its demise. See, Exhibits 2, 5 and 11. This evidence shows that all other trees on the property have been preserved to the greatest extent possible, but that Tree No. 1 could not be preserved for the reasons established in Exhibits 5 and 11. · Regarding #3 above, no fill within the riparian corridor is proposed. While the city has Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 Page 27 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. engaged experts who have recommended that the Lithia Way culvert be replaced with one of greater capacity, the same is not proposed as part of this application. The only creek crossing is the pedestrian bridge, which now exists but is planned to be replaced with a drawbridge which better meets the standards of the city. Based upon the evidence in Exhibit 2, the Commission concludes that the bridge location has been placed, to the greatest extent possible given the physical limitations, at a right angle to the creek. · Regarding #4 above, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 show that the topography within the ~' regulated riparian area, has been retained. 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 18. Criterion 19 SITE REVIEW Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 18) ALUO Chapter 72 Site Design and Use Standards ALUO 18.72.050 Detail Site Review Zone. D. E. F. The Detail Site Review Zone is that area defined in the Site Design Standards adopted pursuant to Section 18.72.040(A). Any development in the Detail Site Review Zone as defined in the Site Review Standards adopted pursuant to this chapter, which exceeds 10,000 square feet or is longer than 100 feet in length or width, shall be reviewed according to the Type 2 procedure. No new buildings or contiguous groups of buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone shall exceed a gross square footage of 45,000 square feet or a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. Any building or contiguous group of buildings which exceed these limitations, which were in existence in 1992, may expand up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. Neither the gross square footage or combined contiguous building length, as set forth in this section shall be subject to any variance authorized in the Land Use Ordinance. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that this project is subject to Ashland's Detail Site Review standards. The Commission also concludes that neither this building nor, in the aggregate, the buildings to which this building is contiguous, exceed 45,000 square feet nor a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that this application is consistent with Criterion 19. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 Page 28 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Criterion 20 ALUO 18.72.070 Criteria for Approval. The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 1 through 52 inclusive (but not including this Criterion 20) which, with applicant's Exhibit 2 plans and the other evidence enumerated in Section II hereinabove, demonstrate compliance with all relevant requirements of the ALUO, including those of the Site Review Chapter m ALUO 18.72. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that this application is consistent with Criterion 20. Criterion 21 C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 23 through 52 (inclusive). The Commission concludes that these demonstrate compliance with the Site Design Standards which were adopted by the City Council to implement ALUO Chapter 18.72. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that this application is consistent with Criterion 21. Criterion 22 U. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655, 1991; Ord 2836 S6, 1999) Conclusions of Law: Based upon the findings of fact in Section IV and applicant's plans in Exhibit 2, the Planning Commission concludes that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. Therefore, the Commission concludes that this application is consistent with Criterion 22. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 Page 29 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Criterion 23 CITY OF ASHLAND SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS SECTION II APPROVAL STANDARDS AND POLICIES II-A. ORDINANCE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS The following percentages of landscaping are required for all properties falling under the Site Design and Use Standards. Zone % Landscaping R-1-3.5 45% R-2 35% R-3 25% C-1 15% C-1-D 10% E-1 15% M-1 10% These percentages are the minimum required. At times, more landscaping is required to meet the needs of other sections of the Site Review Ordinance, such as screening of parking areas, landscaping of setback areas, and providing usable outdoor space. In general, all areas which are not used for building or parking areas are required to be landscaped. You should also be aware that, as a condition of approval of your project, you will be required to submit a site and species specific landscape plan to the Planning Division for Staff Advisor approval. Conclusions of Law: The subject property is zoned C-1-D. Pursuant to ALUO 18.72.110, there are no area landscape requirements for land in the C-1-D zone, other than for parking areas and service stations. The project does not include off-street parking nor service station(s). Therefore, this project is not required to observe the minimum landscaping standards in Criterion 23. However, applicant here has provided landscaping along Ashland Creek which, based upon the findings of fact in Section IV, is in an amount greater than 10 percent. Additional landscaping (not a part of this application) is intended within adjacent right-of-way owned by the Oregon Department of Transportation. 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 I1-C-1. BASIC SITE REVIEW STANDARDS APPROVAL STANDARD: Development in all commercial and employment zones shall conform to the following development standards: Il-C-la) Orientation and Scale 1) Buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street rather than the parking area. Building entrances shall be oriented toward the street and shall be accessed from a public sidewalk. Public sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to a public street along the street frontage. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 Page 30 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. 2) Buildings that are within 30 feet of the street shall have an entrance for pedestrians directly from the street to the building interior. This entrance shall be designed to be attractive and functional, and shall be open to the public during all business hours. 3) These requirements may be waived if the building is not accessed by pedestrians, such as warehouses and industrial buildings without attached offices, and automotive service uses such as service stations and tire stores. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that applicant's plans (Exhibit 2, Sheet A-201) clearly demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Criterion 24. Criterion 25 II-C-lb) Streetscape One street tree chosen from the street tree list shall be placed for each 30 feet of frontage for that podion of the development fronting the street. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission finds that Exhibit 8 shows the existence of street trees along the subject property's North Main Street frontage. The Planning Commission concludes that no additional street trees are required to meet the standard in Criterion 25. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that this application is consistent with Criterion 25. Criterion 26 Il-C-lc) Landscaping 1) Landscaping shall be designed so that 50% coverage occurs after one year and 90% coverage occurs after 5 years. 2) Landscaping design use a variety of Iow water use deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and flowering plant species. 3) Buildings adjacent to streets shall be buffered by landscaped areas at least 10 feet in width, except in the Ashland Historic District. Outdoor storage areas shall be screened from view from adjacent public rights-of- way, except in M-1 zones. Loading facilities shall be screened and buffered when adjacent to residentially zoned land. 4) Irrigation systems shall be installed to assure landscaping success. 5) Efforts shall be made to save as many existing healthy trees and shrubs on the site as possible. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as follows: Regarding #1 above, the Exhibit 4 shows, according to applicant's expert landscape architect, that proposed landscaping has been designed to supply 50 percent coverage after one year and 90 percent coverage after 5 years. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 Page 31 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Regarding #2 above, and based upon Exhibit 4, the Commission concludes that the proposed landscaping design has used a variety of low water use deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and flowering plant species. Regarding #3 above, the Commission herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 23, which concludes that this property is not subject to landscaping requirements by virtue of its location within Ashland's C-1-D zoning district. However, as also discussed in the Commission's conclusions of law for Criterion 23, applicant here has provided proposed landscaping along Ashland Creek (and additional landscaping that is not a part of this application, within adjacent rights-of-way owned by the Oregon Department of Transportation). Additionally, as this property is within the Ashland Historic District, the requirements of Criterion 26 (#3) do not apply. Regarding #4 above, applicant in Section VI has agreed to stipulate that the proposed living landscape areas will be served by an automatic underground irrigation system. Regarding #5, applicant contends that efforts have been made to save as many existing healthy trees and shrubs of the site as possible. However, in order to comply with other provisions of the ALUO and Ashland Site Design and Use Standards, the removal of one tree is necessary. ALUO 18.61.080 governs the removal of trees and the same is addressed hereinbelow as Criterion 53, the findings of fact and conclusions of law for which are herewith incorporated and adopted. 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 26. Criterion 27 II-C-ld) Parking 1) Parking areas shall be located behind buildings or on one or both sides. 2) Parking areas shall be shaded by deciduous trees, buffered from adjacent non-residential uses and screened from non-residential uses. Conclusions of Law: The subject project is within the Retail Commercial (C-1) District and within the Downtown Overlay District (C-l-D). Areas within the Downtown Overlay District are not required to provide off-street parking or loading areas except for hotel, motel or hostel uses. As the proposed uses are neither hotel, motel or hostel uses, the Planning Commission concludes that this criterion is not applicable. Therefore, this application is consistent with Criterion 27 by reason of inapplicability. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 Page 32 Craig A, Stone & Associates, Ltd. Criterion 28 II-C-le) Designated Creek Protection 1) Designated creek protection areas shall be considered positive design elements and incorporated in the overall design of a given project. 2) Native riparian plant materials shall be planted in and adjacent to the creek to enhance the creek habitat. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that applicant's plans (Exhibits 2 and 4) demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Criterion 28. In reaching this concludes, the Planning Commission also finds and concludes that the plant materials specified in Exhibit 4 are native riparian plant varieties. Criterion 29 II-C-lf) Noise and Glare Specific attention to glare (AMC 18.72.110) and noise (AMC 9.08.170(c) & AMC 9.08.175) shall be considered in the project design to insure compliance with these standards. Conclusions of Law: As to glare, the Planning Commission concludes that there is nothing in the design of this project which will produce glare at levels inconsistent with the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC). Regarding noise, the Planning Commission finds that this property is within a small city block which is entirely occupied by commercial buildings and uses. Additionally, this block is bounded on all sides by the following streets: North Main Street, Lithia Way and Water Street. While outdoor dining is contemplated in the application, there is no proposal here for the conduct of outdoor entertainment. Based upon these findings, the Planning Commission concludes that specific attention has been paid and consideration has been given to the potential for glare and noise, pursuant to the standards in the Ashland Municipal Code and that the proposed building and anticipated uses can and will comply. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that this application is consistent with Criterion 29. Criterion 30 II-C-lg) Expansions of Existing Sites and Buildings For sites which do not conform to these requirements, an equal percentage of the site must be made to comply with these standards as the percentage of building expansion, e.g., if building area is to expand by 25%, then 25% of the site must be brought up to the standards required by this document. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that this application does not constitute an "expansion" of an existing building because the proposal is for a new building. Therefore, Criterion 30 is concluded to be inapplicable. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 Page 33 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Criterion II-C-2. DETAIL SITE REVIEW Developments that are within the Detail Site Review Zone shall, in addition to complying with the standards for Basic Site Review, conform to the following standards: II-C-2a) Orientation and Scale 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Developments shall have a minimum Floor Area Ratio of .35 and shall not exceed a maximum Floor Area Ratio of .5 for all areas outside the Historic District. Plazas and pedestrian areas shall count as floor area for the purposes of meeting the minimum Floor Area Ratio. Building frontages greater than 200 feet in length shall have offsets, jogs, or have other distinctive changes in the building facade. Any wall which is within 30 feet of the street, plaza or other public open space shall contain at least 20% of the wall area facing the street in display areas, windows, or doorways. VVindows must allow views into working areas or lobbies, pedestrian entrances or display areas. Blank walls within 30 feet of the street are prohibited. Up to 40% of the length of the building perimeter can be exempted from this standard if oriented toward loading or service areas. Buildings shall incorporate lighting and changes in mass, surface or finish to give emphasis to entrances. Infill of buildings, adjacent to public sidewalks, in existing parking lots is encouraged and desirable. Buildings shall incorporate arcades, roofs, alcoves, porticoes and awnings that protect pedestrians from the rain and sun. Conclusions of Law: Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law for the above Criterion 24 through 30 (inclusive)- which are herewith incorporated and adopted the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with all of the requirements for Basic Site Review. The subject property is within the Detail Site Review Zone. Moreover, the Planning Commission herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for the below Criterion 37 through 40 (inclusive) in support of its conclusion that the application is consistent with all of the standards and criteria for Detail Site Review as required for land within the Detail Site Review Zone. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with Criterion 31. The Planning Commission also concludes as follows: · Regarding #1 above, this standard only applies to lands located outside the historic District. As this property is within the Historic District, this standard is inapplicable. Regarding #2 above and based upon applicant's plans (Exhibit 2) the proposed building does not have building frontage greater than 200 feet in length. Therefore, the application is consistent with #2 by reason of inapplicability. · Regarding #3 and based on applicant's plans in Exhibit 2, the only wall within 30 feet of any street is the front elevation wall, at it contains more than 20 percent in display areas, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 / '~ g Page 34 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. windows, or doorways and these allow views into working areas or lobbies, pedestrian entrances or display areas, consistent with #3. Regarding #4 and based upon applicant's plans in Exhibit 2, the building has incorporated lighting and changes in mass, surface and finish and these emphasize the building entrances. Materials are a combination of brick, smooth and dappled stucco and glass. Regarding #5, this project represents an infill of an existing vacant parcel (improved now only with decking). The existing parcel is adjacent to the public sidewalk on North Main Street. While t his project does not constitute i nfill within an existing parking lot, the standard in #5 is expressed only in permissive not mandatory terms and, therefore, is not a required approval standard. Regarding #6 and based upon applicant's plans in Exhibit 2, the proposed building incorporates a canopy along most of the building's front elevation which covers a portion of the adjacent sidewalk and will protect pedestrians from the rain and sun. Additionally, Exhibit 2 shows that there are building overhangs above some of the planned deck surfaces and these provide additional protection for pedestrians. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with all the requirements of Criterion 31. Criterion 32 II-C-2b) Streetscape 1) Hardscape (paving material) shall be utilized to designate "people" areas. Sample materials could be unit masonry, scored and colored concrete, grasscrete, or combinations of the above. 2) A building shall be setback not more than 20 feet from a public sidewalk unless the area is used for pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating areas. If more than one structure is proposed for a site, at least 25% of the aggregate building frontage shall be within 20 feet of the sidewalk. Conclusions of Law: Regarding #1 above, the planned decks (as shown in applicant's plan in Exhibit 2) will be "people" areas. While applicant and his architect have not yet determined the type of material to be used for the decking surface, it will be a masonry material of some type, consistent with the requirements of #1. The Planning Commission, if deemed appropriate, can establish this as a condition attached to approval of this application. As to #2, the only public sidewalk that exists near this property, is the sidewalk on North Main Street, to which the proposed building abuts. Therefore, the proposed building does not setback more than 20 feet. 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 32. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 ~"~¢ Page 35 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Criterion 33 II-C-2c) Parking & On-Site Circulation 1) Protected, raised walkways shall be installed through parking areas of 50 or more spaces or more than 100 feet in average width or depth. 2) 'Parking lots with 50 spaces or more shall be divided into separate areas and divided by landscaped areas or walkways at least 10 feet in width, or by a building or group of buildings. Developments of one acre or more must provide a pedestrian and bicycle circulation plan for the site. On- site pedestrian walkways must be lighted to a level where the system can be used at night by employees, residents and customers. Pedestrian walkways shall be directly linked to entrances and the internal circulation of the building. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that off-street parking is not required within the C-1-D zone and no parking or parking lot is proposed. The Commission also concludes that this project does not equal one acre or more. As to the lighting and linking of pedestrian walkways, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 show complete pedestrian linkages, including a linkage across Ashland Creek by way of the proposed (and existing) bride. The new bridge will be lit and the same is evidenced by applicant's plans in Exhibit 2. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that this application is consistent with Criterion 33. Criterion 34 II-C-2d) Buffering and Screening Landscape buffers and screening shall be located between incompatible uses on an adjacent lot. Those buffers can consist of either plant material or building materials and must be compatible with proposed buildings. 2) Parking lots shall be buffered from the main street, cross streets and screened from residentially zoned land. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as follows: Regarding #1 above, the Planning Commission interprets the term "adjacent" to mean a lot or parcel that is touching the subject property. Based upon the evidence, this property adjoins only one adjacent land use, which is the existing building to which the proposed building will very nearly abut. The existing building is occupied by Ashland Bar & Grill, a restaurant which the Planning Commission deems to be compatible with the restaurant and other uses to occupy the proposed building. As to the residential apartments to occupy the uppermost floor of this building, the Planning Commission finds and concludes that these are not incompatible with the commercial uses to be housed in this building and those adjacent thereto. Upper floor residential uses in Ashland's downtown are desirable and permitted. The Commission also finds that the building materials used in the construction of the new building (and its upper floor residential apartments) is an Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 FEB ! S 200 / Page 36 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. appropriate means to buffer and screen the residential uses from nearby commercial uses. Therefore, the Commission concludes that no landscape buffer or screening is needed because there are no incompatible uses on adjacent land. Regarding #2, this application does not require parking nor is any parking proposed. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the application is consistent with #2 by reason of inapplicability. · Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 34. Criterion 35 II-C-2e) Lighting 1) Lighting shall include adequate lights that are scaled for pedestrians by including light standards or placements of no greater than 14 feet in height along pedestrian path ways. Conclusions of Law: Based upon applicant's plans in Exhibit 2, there is no free-standing lighting proposed. The only lighting will be that which is attached to the building, the pedestrian bridge or the canopies and which is for the purpose of illuminating entrances and outdoor pedestrian/dining areas. In no instance, is lighting to be at a height of more than 14 feet. 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 35. Criterion 36 II-C-2f) Building Materials 1) Buildings shall include changes in relief such as cornices, bases, fenestration, fluted masonry, for at least 15% of the exterior wall area. 2) Bright or neon paint colors used extensively to attract attention to the building or use are prohibited. Buildings may not incorporate glass as a majority of the building skin. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as follows: Regarding # 1 and based upon applicant's plans in Exhibit 2, the proposed building incorporates architectural features of the types listed which cover more than 15 percent of the exterior wall area. Regarding #2 above, and based upon applicant's plans in Exhibit 2, the colors to be used are neither bright nor neon, nor does this building incorporate glass as a majority of the building's skin. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 / ~r~r~ Page 37 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. · Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 36. Criterion 37 II-E. STREET TREE STANDARDS APPROVAL STANDARD: All development fronting on public or private streets shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with the following standards and chosen from the recommended list of street trees found in this section. II-E-l) Location for Street Trees Street trees shall be located behind the sidewalk except in cases where there is a designated planting strip in the right-of-way, or the sidewalk is greater than 9 feet wide. Street trees shall include irrigation, root barriers, and generally conform to the standard established by the Department of Community Development. Conclusions of Law: Based upon applicant's plans in Exhibit 2, the sidewalk on North Main Street is greater than 9 feet in width. Moreover, street trees have already been planted along this block of North Main Street. Therefore, no new street trees are proposed or required to be consistent with this standard. 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 37. Criterion 38 II-E-2) Spacing, Placement, and Pruning of Street Trees All tree spacing may be made subject to special site conditions which may, for reasons such as safety, affect the decision. Any such proposed special condition shall be subject to the Staff Advisor's review and approval. The placement, spacing, and pruning of street trees shall be as follows: a) Street trees shall be placed at the rate of one tree for every 30 feet of street frontage. Trees shall be evenly spaced, with variations to the spacing permitted for specific site limitations, such as driveway approaches. b) Trees shall not be planted closer than 25 feet from the curb line of intersections of streets or alleys, and not closer than 10 feet from private driveways (measured at the back edge of the sidewalk), fire hydrants, or utility poles. c) Street trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet to light standards. Except for public safety, no new light standard location shall be positioned closer than 10 feet to any existing street tree, and preferably such locations will be at least 20 feet distant. d) Trees shall not be planted closer than 2-1/2 feet from the face of the curb except at intersections where it shall be 5 feet from the curb, in a curb return area. e) Where there are overhead power lines, tree species are to be chosen that will not interfere with those lines. Trees shall not be planted within 2 feet of any permanent hard surface paving or walkway. Sidewalk cuts in concrete for trees shall be at least 10 square feet, however, larger cuts are encouraged because they allow additional air and water into the root system and add to the health of the tree. Space between the tree and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 /~'~ 7 Page 38 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. such hard surface may be covered by permeable non-permanent hard surfaces such as grates, bricks on sand, or paver blocks. g) Trees, as they grow, shall be pruned to provide at least 8 feet of clearance above sidewalks and 12 feet above street roadway surfaces. h) Existing trees may be used as street trees if there will be no damage from the development which will kill or weaken the tree. Sidewalks of variable width and elevation may be utilized to save existing street trees, subject to approval by the Staff Advisor. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission herewith incorporates and adopts is findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 37 and concludes that this property already has street trees in amounts, types and locations which are consistent with Criterion 38. Criterion 39 II-E-3) Replacement of Street Trees Existing street trees removed by development projects shall be replaced by the developer with those from the approved street tree list. The replacement trees shall be of size and species similar to the trees that are approved by the Staff Advisor. Conclusions of Law: Applicant does not anticipate the need to remove any existing street tree during construction of this project. Therefore, this application is consistent with Criterion 39 by reason of inapplicability. Criterion 40 II-E-4) Recommended Street Trees Street trees shall conform to the street tree list approved by the Ashland Tree Commission. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission herewith incorporates and adopts is findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 37 and concludes that this property already has street trees of a type which are consistent with Criterion 40. Criterion 41 CITY OF ASHLAND SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS SECTION IV HISTORIC DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT IV-C) Historic District Design Standards In addition to the standards found in Section II, the following standards will be used by the Planning and Historic Commissions for new development and renovation of existing structures within the Historic District: ;:.r:B 'i Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 Page 39 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Recommended: IV-C-l) Height. Construct buildings to a height of existing buildings from the historic periods on and across the street. IV-C-2) Scale. Relate the size and proportions of new structures to the scale of adjacent buildings. IV-C-3) Massing. Break up uninteresting boxlike forms into smaller, varied masses which are common on most buildings from the historic period. IV-C-4) Setback. Maintain the historic fagade lines of streetscapes by locating front walls of new buildings in the same plane as the facades of adjacent buildings. IV-C-5) Roof Shapes. Relate the new roof forms of the building to those found in the area. IV-C-6) Rhythm of Openings. Respect the alternation of wall areas with door and window elements in the fa(;:ade. Also consider the width-to-height ratio of bays in the facade. IV-C-7) Platforms. The use of a raised platform is a traditional siting characteristic of most of the older buildings in Ashland. IV-C-8) Directional Expression. Relate the vertical, horizontal or nondirectional fa0ade character of new buildings to the predominant directional expression of nearby buildings. IV-C-9) Sense of Entry. Articulate the main entrances to the building with covered porches, porticos, and other pronounced architectural forms. IV-C-10) Imitations. Utilize accurate restoration of, or visually compatible additions to, existing buildings. For new construction, traditional architecture that well represents our own time, yet enhances the nature and character of the historic district should be used. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as follows: Standard #1 above, requires buildings to be of, "a height of existing buildings from the historic periods on and across the street." However, Criterion 42(#1) requires building height to, "vary from adjacent buildings" in order to maintain the traditional "staggered" streetscape appearance. The Planning Commission concludes that these separate standards produce an apparent conflict and ambiguity and the Commission resolves the same, by reading the above #1 to mean that new buildings must be of a height, at least as tall as existing historic buildings on and across the street. Applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 and the Exhibit 8 photographs show that the height of the proposed building, is to the height of buildings on the same block and those across North Main Street in compliance with the requirements of # 1. Regarding fl2 above, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 show that the size and proportions of the proposed building, relates well to adjacent structures on the same block because, even though different in some respects, the scale of adjacent buildings is compatible with the proposed building and consistent with other requirements in Ashland's Site Design and Use Standards, which require diversity but in ways that make new buildings compatible with historic ones. For these reasons, this application is consistent with #2. · Regarding fl3 above and based upon applicant's plans in Exhibit 2, the proposed building FE[ I 3 004 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 Page 40 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. is not an uninteresting boxlike form because it has varied masses and interesting architectural features. Therefore, the Commission concludes that this application is consistent with #3. Regarding #4 above, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 show that the front walls of adjacent buildings and those on the same block, are at the North Main Street sidewalk, which is the same location proposed for the new building, consistent with #4. Regarding #5 above, the new building is proposed to have a flat roof similar to buildings on the same block and others in Ashland's historic downtown area. Regarding #6 above, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 show that the proposed building has provided for the alternation of wall areas with doors and windows Which have been incorpOrated into the overall design of the wall facades. Regarding #7 above, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 show a raised platform at the North Main Street building entrance, consistent with #7. Regarding #8 above, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 show the proposed building in relation to those on the same block and demonstrate that its horizontal fa?ade character relates appropriately to the predominant directional expression of nearby buildings in the same block, consistent with #8. Regarding #9 above, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 show that the main entrance to the new building off North Main Street, is appropriately articulated with pronounced architectural features which clearly denote the building entrance, consistent with #9. Regarding #10 above, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 show that the proposed building consists of traditional architecture which the Commission concludes, well represents our own time and enhances the nature and character of the adjacent historic buildings and historic district in general, consistent with # 10. 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 41. FEB I Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 /~'~ Page 41 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Criterion 42 CITY OF ASHLAND SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS SECTION VI DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES VI-A) Height Building height shall vary from adjacent buildings, using either "stepped" parapets or slightly dissimilar overall height to maintain the traditional "staggered" streetscape appearance. An exception to this standard would be buildings that have a distinctive vertical/facade treatment that "visually" separates it from adjacent buildings. (Illustration: Recommend 1, 5 & 10, Avoid 3) 2) Multi-story development is encouraged in the downtown. (Illustration: Recommend 1, 5, 6 & 10) Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as follows: Regarding # 1 above, and based upon applicant's plans in Exhibit 2, stepped parapets have been used and here produce buildings which have dissimilar heights to those in this same block. · Regarding #2 above, although it is not expressed in mandatory terms, the proposed building has multiple stories. 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 42. Criterion 43 VI-B) Setback Except for arcades, alcoves, and other recessed features, buildings shall maintain a zero setback from the sidewalk or property line (Illustration' Recommend 2, 5 & 10). Areas having public utility easements or similar restricting conditions shall be exempt from this standard. 2) Ground level entries are encouraged to be recessed from the public right-of-way to create a "sense of entry" through design or use of materials. (Illustration: Recommend 2, 5, 6 & 10; Avoid 3). Recessed or projecting balconies, verandas or other useable space above the ground level on existing and new buildings shall not be incorporated in a street facing elevation. (Illustration: Avoid 4 & 7). Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as follows: Regarding # 1 above, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 show that the proposed building maintains a zero setback from the only sidewalk which exists near the property on North Main Street and the same clearly demonstrates compliance with the requirements of #1. Regarding #2 above, and based upon applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 the building's North Main Street entry is recessed, consistent with #2. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 Page 42 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Regarding//3 above, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 shows that the only projected balcony is the cantilever which is located on the buildings rear elevation. The rear elevation is not a street facing elevation. Therefore, this application is consistent with//3. 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 43. Criterion 44 VI-C) Width The width of a building shall extend from side lot line to side lot line (Illustration: Recommend 5). An exception to this standard would be an area specifically designed as plaza space, courtyard space, dining space or rear access for pedestrian walkways. Lots greater than 80' in width shall respect the traditional width of buildings in the downtown area by incorporating a rhythmic division of the facade in the building's design. (Illustration: Recommend 5 & 10; Avoid 3). Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as follows: Regarding # 1 above, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 show that the proposed building will extend from the northwesterly side property line and very nearly adjoin the existing building to the southeast, forming a connected series of four buildings which extend across the North Main Street streetscape within this downtown block, consistent With # 1.4 Regarding//2 above, the evidence in applicant's plans (Exhibit 2) and the photographs of the subject property and surrounding area (Exhibit 8) do respect the traditional width of buildings found in Ashland's downtown and has done so by incorporating divisions in the facade in the building's design, which the Commission concludes from the evidence, are rhythmic. 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 44. 4 Three of these four buildings are owned by this owner and, with the proposed building, these three buildings will extend from side lot line to side lot lin6 of the subject property. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 Page 43 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Criterion 45 VI-D) Openings 1) Ground level elevations facing a street shall maintain a consistent proportion of transparency (i.e., windows) compatible with the pattern found in the downtown area. (Illustration: Recommend 1, 5, 6 & 10). 2) Scale and proportion of altered or added building elements, such as the size and relationship of new windows, doors, entrances, columns and other building features shall be visually compatible with the original architectural character of the building. (Illustration: Recommend 5 & 6; Avoid 4 & 9). 3) Upper floor window orientation shall primarily be vertical (height greater than width). (Illustration: Recommend 1, 5 & 6; Avoid 8). 4) Except for transom windows, windows shall not break the front plane of the .building. (Illustration: Recommend 5). 5) Ground level entry doors shall be primarily transparent. (Illustration: Recommend 10; Avoid 4). Windows and other features of interest to pedestrians such as decorative columns or decorative corbeling shall be provided adjacent to the sidewalk. (Illustration: Recommend 1 & 5; Avoid 4 & 7). Blank walls adjacent to a public sidewalk is prohibited. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as.follows: Regarding # 1 above, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 show a consistent pattern of windows which are compatible with the pattern found in the downtown area and with buildings in this same block. Applicant's plans are also consistent with illustrations 1, 5, 6 and 10 of the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards and establish compliance with the requirements of # 1. Regarding #2 above, this application involves a new building and does not involve altered or added building elements. Therefore, this application is consistent with #2 by reason of inapplicability. · Regarding #3 above, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 clearly demonstrate compliance with the requirements of #3. · Regarding #4 above, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 clearly demonstrate compliance with the requirements of #4. · Regarding #5 above, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 clearly demonstrate compliance with the requirements of #5. · Regarding #6 above, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 show windows and other interesting architectural features which demonstrate compliance with the requirements of #6. 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 45. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 Page 44 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Criterion 46 VI-E) Horizontal Rhythms 1) Prominent horizontal lines at similar levels along the street's streetfront shall be maintained. (Illustration: Recommend 1, 5, 6 & 10; Avoid 4 & 8). 2) A clear visual division shall be maintained between ground level floor and upper floors. (Illustration: Recommend 1, 5, 6 & 10). 3)' Buildings shall provide a foundation or base, typically from ground to the bottom of the lower window sills, with changes in volume or material, in order to give the building a "sense of strength". (Illustration: Recommend 1, 5 & 10; Avoid 4 & 8). Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as follows: · Regarding # 1, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 (which also show the streetfront of buildings within this same block) demonstrate compliance with the requirements of # 1 Regarding #2, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 show a canopy which produces a clear visual division between the ground floor and upper floors compliance with the requirements of #2. Regarding #3, the proposed building has a base similar to buildings on this same block. If the Planning Commission finds that a greater base in needed to achieve more clear compliance with this standard, applicant is willing to so stipulate. 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 46. Criterion 47 VI-F) Vertical Rhythms 1) New construction or storefront remodels shall reflect a vertical orientation, either through actual volumes or the use of surface details to divide large walls, so as to reflect the underlying historic property lines. (Illustration: Recommend 5 & 6; Avoid 3). 2) Storefront remolding or upper-story additions shall reflect the traditional structural system of the volume by matching the spacing and rhythm of historic openings and surface detailing. (Illustration: Recommend 6; Avoid 4 & 9). Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as follows: Regarding #1, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 show that the front elevation has been broken up by stepping back the sides from the middle section and the same promotes a vertical orientation. The windows and doors of the building further produce a vertical emphasis. The application is consistent with #1.~- F_~ } o~:~ ~00~ Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 /~ ~ Page 45 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Regarding #2, the application involves a new building and not storefront remodeling or upper story additions, therefore this application is consistent with #2 by reason of inapplicability. Therefore, 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 47. Criterion 48 VI-G) Roof Forms Sloped or residential style roof forms are discouraged in the downtown area unless visually screened from the right-of-way by either a parapet or a false front. The false front shall incorporate a well defined cornice line or "cap" along all primary elevations. (Illustration: Recommend 1,5 & 10; Avoid 7). Conclusions of Law: Applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 show that the proposed roof will be flat and will be screened by a parapet which contains a well defined cornice line on all sides of the building, in compliance with the requirements of Criterion 48. Criterion 49 VI-H) Materials 1) Exterior building materials shall consist of traditional building materials found in the downtown area including block, brick, painted wood, smooth stucco, or natural stone. (Illustration: Avoid 4 & 9). 2) In order to add visual interest, buildings are encouraged to incorporate complex "paneled" exteriors with columns, framed bays, transoms and windows to create multiple surface levels. (Illustration: Recommend 1,5& 10;Avoid7,8&9). Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as follows: · Regarding fl 1, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 show that the exterior building materials will be red brick and painted smooth and dappled stucco consistent with # 1. Regarding #2, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 show transoms on lower floor doors and windows and these, along with the doors and windows themselves, form complex panels consistent with #2 (which in any event merely encourages and does not operate as an approval standard). 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 49. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 /6o5 Page 46 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Criterion 50 VI-I Awnings, Marquees or Similar Pedestrian Shelters 1) Awnings, marquees or similar pedestrian shelters shall be proportionate to the building and shall not obscure the building's architectural details. If mezzanine or transom windows exist, awning placement shall be placed below the mezzanine or transom windows where feasible. (Illustration: Recommend 1,5, 6 & 10; Avoid 4 & 9). 2) Except for marquees - similar pedestrian shelters such as awnings shall be placed between pilasters. (Illustration: Recommend 1 & 5; Avoid 9). 3) Storefronts with prominent horizontal lines at similar levels along the street's streetfront shall be maintained by their respective sidewalk coverings. (Illustration: Recommend 5; Avoid 8). Conclusions of Law: Based upon applicant's plans in Exhibit 2, the Planning Commission concludes as follows: · Regarding # 1, the canopy to be located on the front building elevation is proportionate to the building and does not obscure its architectural details. · Regarding #2, the proposed canopy is placed between the pilasters. Regarding #3, the subject property exists on a sloped street. However, as shown on the Exhibit 2 plans (which also depict nearby buildings in the same block) the prominent horizontal lines (including canopies) of the proposed building are at similar levels to similar features on the nearby buildings within this street's streetfront. The proposed building has prominent horizontal lines which are similar to the levels of the horizontal lines of the streetfront. · Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 50. Criterion 51 VI-J) Other Non-street or alley facing elevations are less significant than street facing elevations. Rear and sidewalls of buildings shall therefore be fairly simple, i.e., wood, block, brick, stucco, cast stone, masonry clad, with or without windows. Visual integrity of the original building shall be maintained when altering or adding building elements. This shall include such features as the vertical lines of columns, piers, the horizontal definition of spandrels and cornices, and other primary structural and decorative elements. (Illustration: Recommend 6; Avoid 4 & 9). Restoration, rehabilitation or remodeling projects shall incorporate, whenever possible, original design elements that were previously removed, remodeled or covered over. (Illustration: Recommend 6; Avoid 4 & 9). Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 Page 47 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. 4) Parking lots adjacent to the pedestrian path are prohibited. (Refer to Site Design and Use Standards, Section II-D, for Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards.) An exception to this standard Would be paths required for handicapped accessibility. 5) Pedestrian amenities such as broad sidewalks, surface details on sidewalks, arcades, alcoves, colonnades, porticoes, awnings, and sidewalk seating shall be provided where possible and feasible. 6) Uses which are exclusively automotive such as service stations, drive-up windows, auto sales, and tire stores are discouraged in the downtown. The city shall use its discretionary powers, such as Conditional Use Permits, to deny new uses, although improvements to existing facilities may be permitted. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as follows: Regarding #1, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 show that the rear and sidewalls of the proposed building are, in fact, fairly simple and consist of red brick, smooth and dappled painted stucco, consistent with the requirements of #1. Regarding #2 and #3, these appear to deal with changes to existing buildings. As the application here is for a new building, it is consistent with #2 and #3 by reason of inapplicability. · Regarding #4, no parking lot proposed or required in this application. Therefore, the application is consistent with #4 by reason of inapplicability. Regarding #5, the applicant's Exhibit 2 plans show the existence of broad sidewalks which are more than 10 feet wide. The Exhibit 2 plans also show several pedestrian amenities and details that are oriented to pedestrians consistent with #5. As to sidewalk seating, none is proposed. However, sidewalk seating could be provided if determined by the Planning Commission to be needed to comply with #5 and, if so determined, applicant herewith agrees to stipulate. · Regarding #6, the proposed building and uses intended to be housed in it, are not exclusively automotive. Therefore, the application is consistent with #6. · Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 51. Criterion 52 CITY OF ASHLAND SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS SECTION VI DOWNTOWN ASHLAND AREA STANDARDS The following criteria are adopted with this plan and shall be used as part of the land use approval process: Approval Criteria for Downtown Area Development: VI-l) Parking lots adjacent to the pedestrian path are prohibited. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 1~ ? Page 48 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. VI-2) Pedestrian amenities such as broad sidewalks, arcades, alcoves, colonnades, podicoes, awnings, and sidewalk seating shall be provided where possible and feasible. VI-3) Weather protection on adjacent key pedestrian paths are required by all new developments. VI-4) Windows and other features of interest to pedestrians shall be provided adjacent to the sidewalk. Blank walls adjacent to sidewalks are prohibited. VI-5) Two-story development is encouraged downtown, with the second stories in commercial, residential, or parking uses. v~-6) Uses which are exclusively automotive such as service stations, drive-up windows, auto sales, and tire stores are discouraged in the downtown. The city shall use its discretionary powers, such as Conditional Use permits, to deny new uses, although improvements to existing facilities may be permitted. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as follows: · Regarding VI-1 above, no parking lots are required or proposed Regarding VI-2, the Planning Commission herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for #4 in Criterion 51 and concludes that this application is consistent with #VI-2, above. Regarding VI-3, the only key pedestrian path adjacent to the proposed building is the sidewalk on North Main Street and it is protected from the weather by a canopy proposed on the front building facade, making this application consistent with # VI-3. Regarding VI-4, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 show that windows and other architectural features of interest to pedestrians, have been provided on the building's front facade, adjacent to the North Main Street sidewalk, consistent with #VI-4. The Commission also concludes that no blank walls adjacent to sidewalk has been proposed. Regarding VI-5, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 and the findings of fact in Section IV, show that the proposed building is of multiple stories with the upper floors devoted to commercial and residential uses consistent with #VI-5. Regarding VI-6 the Planning Commission herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for #6 in Criterion 51 and concludes that this application is consistent with #VI-6, above. 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 52. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 /'/~:' ~ Page 49 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Criterion 53 TREE PRESERVATION & PROTECTION PERMIT Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 18) ALUO Chapter 61 Tree Preservation & Protection ALUO 18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal - Staff Permit. An applicant for a Tree Removal- Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit. A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning. 2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and 2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. Conclusions of Law: This application involves the proposed removal of one tree which is identified as Tree No. 1 on applicant's Tree Preservation Plan (Exhibit 3). Tree No. 1 is a stand-alone tree. Based upon the evidence in Exhibits 5 and 11, the tree is not considered a hazard at this time, although according to applicant's expert landscape architect and arborist the tree would become a hazard because of the effect construction would have on the root system. While applicant's experts agree that the tree to be removed would become a hazard, it is not deemed a hazard at this time. Therefore, the Planning Commission will consider the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 /4 ? Page 50 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. removal of this tree (Tree No. 1) pursuant to the four standards in ALUO 18.61.080(B) -- trees that are not a hazard, and reaches the following conclusions of law: Regarding #B(1), the standard expressed in Section VI-C(1) of the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards (ASDUS) requires buildings in the downtown to extend from side lot line to side lot line. Moreover, the standard in ASDUS VI-B(4) requires buildings to maintain a zero setback from the sidewalk or property line (other than for arcades, alcoves and other recessed features). The removal of Tree No. 1 is needed to permit this application to be consistent with ASDUS VI-C(1) and VI-B(4). Additionally, ASDUS II- C-2b(2) requires buildings to be setback not more than 20 feet from a public sidewalk. Tree No. 1 is approximately 8 feet from the North Main Street sidewalk. By setting the building back the maximum 20 feet, the building would still be within 12 feet of the trunk. In Exhibit 11, applicant's expert arborist testified: "If construction is to occur closer than 20 feet from the trunk, it is very unlikely that the Alder would survive." Therefore, the removal of Tree No. 1 is also needed to permit this application to be consistent with ASDUS II-C-2b(2). For these reasons, the Commission concludes that the removal of Tree No. 1 is in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use Standards), consistent with #B(1) above. Regarding #B(2), the Commission concludes, based upon Exhibit 5 and the expert opinion of applicant's landscape architect, that removal of this tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks because: 1) This tree is within the building footprint; erosion and soil stability will not be an issue beneath the building, and because the flow of surface waters will be directed by the new drainage incorporated into the proposed structure, and 2) this is a solitary tree and not part of a grove or a windbreak and its removal will not have a negative impact on other trees. Regarding #B(3), the Commission concludes, based upon Exhibit 5 and the expert opinion of applicant's landscape architect, that removal of this tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property because: 1) the site is adjacent to Ashland Creek and the existing riparian corridor along the creek contains a wide variety of sizes and densities of wooded species with a varied tree canopy, and 2) species diversity will not be negatively impacted because this tree is commonly found along Ashland Creek. For these reasons, the Commission concludes that removal of Tree No. 1 is consistent with #B(3) above. Regarding #B(4), the Commission concludes, based upon Exhibit 5, that applicant will mitigate the removal of these trees and has agreed to stipulate in Section VI. Due to limited available space on the subject property the location of the mitigation planting will also need to occur off-site at a location yet to be determined. Applicant also intends to commission an artist's sculpture from the trunk of Tree No. 1 and the creation of benches Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 / '7© Page 51 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. from that trunk, to be displayed in an appropriate location. See, Exhibit 12. Applicant has also made recommendations as to where these would be displayed and the same are stated in the findings of fact in Section I. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of #B(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 53. Criterion 54 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. 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. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 . /7/ Page 52 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. . Chain link fencing, a minimum of six feet tall with steel posts placed no fadher 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. 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. 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 Planning Commission concludes that the Tree Preservation Plan and Tree Protection Guidelines submitted by applicant in Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 5, prepared his expert landscape architect, fully complies with Ashland's tree protection standards. Therefore, the Commission concludes that this application is consistent with Criterion 54. VI SUMMARY OF APPLICANTS STIPULATIONS Applicant herewith agrees to stipulate to the following matters: Stipulation 1. Heating/Cooling/Lighting: Applicant will provide the method of heating, cooling and lighting of the building and the approximate annual amount of energy used per each source and the methods used to make the approximation at the time the construction drawings are submitted and prior to issuance of building permits. Stipulation 2. Engineered Utility Plans: Applicant will provide engineered plans which show the location and size of all public utilities in and adjacent to the proposed development. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 Page 53 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Stipulation 3. Recycling: Pursuant to ALUO 18.72.115, applicant will provide an opportunity-to-recycle site for the use of the project occupants and said side will be located within the interior of the proposed building. Stipulation 4. Mitigation for Tree Removal: Applicant will mitigate the removal of Tree No. 1 as shown on Exhibit 3. However, because space on the subject property is limited, the location of the mitigation planting will need to occur off-site at a location to be determined by the City of Ashland. As further mitigation: 1) applicant will commission an artists sculpture (as envisioned in Exhibit 12) from the trunk of Tree No. 1 (and various benches) for display in a location deemed appropriate by the city, 2) applicant will plant ferns and other appropriate riparian vegetation within the riparian corridor of Ashland Creek, and 3) also see Applicant's Intentions, Not A Part of this Application as described in Section I hereinabove. Stipulation 5. Tree Protection Measures: Applicant will fully observe and implement the tree protection measures recommended by registered landscape architect, John Galbraith, in the Tree Preservation Plan and Tree Protection Guidelines submitted by applicant as Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 5. Stipulation 6. Fill: Fill will be engineering and constructed in accord with applicable requirements of the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70. Stipulation 7. Pedestrian Bridge: The proposed pedestrian bridge will replace the existing bridge on the subject property. The bridge will be designed as a drawbridge that can be raised to an elevation above the 100-year water surface during large flow events. The bridge will be designed by an engineer licensed in Oregon and will be designed to comply with ALUO 18.62.070(B). Stipulation 8. Flood Proofing: All portions of the property required to be flood proofed, will conform in all respects with the relevant provisions of ALUO 18.62.070(C) and AMC 15.10. The elevation of the finished lowest habitable floor will be certified by a qualified engineer or surveyor prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the structure Stipulation 9. Storage of Materials within Flood Plain Corridor: Neither applicant nor applicant's tenants shall store petroleum products, pesticides, or other hazardous or toxic chemicals on any part of the property located within the Flood Plain Corridor. Stipulation 10. Irrigation System: All proposed living landscape areas on the property, will be served by an automatic underground irrigation system. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 175 Page54 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Stipulation 11. Drainage: Applicant will provide plans prepared by a qualified engineer registered in Oregon which address how adequate drainage will be provided for this project in accordance with city standards. Stipulation 12. Uses' Applicant will ensure that not less than 65 percent of the gross floor area of the ground floor of the building will be occupied by uses that are permitted or special permitted and excluding residential uses. Stipulation 13. Applicant will comply fully with Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 15.10 (Flood Damage Prevention Regulations) in the preparation and submittal of construction plans for the proposed building. 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 Criterion 1 through 53 -- the relevant substantive criteria and standards which are prerequisite to approval of the various applications submitted as part of this consolidated land use application. Therefore the applications are conditionally approved and made subject to the agreed to stipulations of applicant enumerated in Section VI hereinabove and the additional conditions established by the Planning Commission, which are a part of the staff report on this matter. Respectfully submitted on behalf of Applicant Lloyd Haines and 88 North Main, LLC: CRAIG A. STONE & ASSOCIATES, LTD. C .~~~~~Con lb~ Urban Planner Dated: February 12, 2004 FEB I 3 2001 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Lloyd Haines, Applicant February 12, 2004 /z // z / ,/ ,, '" - ' ii i i i i #UlICH K T /?? ,' · ,, ,.. ,\ m NOO'O5'30"E mall 1TIEET m ! ! I I i i ,, ! ! ! ! ! m .~ cH: ~,~nlc2t'~ IEI~f. x2HH'~ATI ON5 1~I'4AIN · ~1 - TIN~ 'I'I~EE TI~,EE - ~t-EET FOR "MAIN ,, I , . LANDSC~PE ARClttrFECTS SITE PLANNEILS OI[EGON LICENSE No. 254 (CA., 2980) 145 S. HOLLY St., $tJri'E A MEDFORD, OREGON 97501 TEL: 541-770-7964 FAX: 541-770-5164 ' SHASTA BUI]LDING '03 ASHLAND, OREGON REVISIONS: TI~:EE PRESERVATION ll JOB NO.: ~ DR AW'N BY: R EVIEalrED BY: ~. II JOB STAIXIS: III DEC l 2 2003 m X Rlbee ~.jLulneum Al, LO IFIIR, I~,ATION NOTL=~, ~Z.Z~CT S . LANDS CA~PE ARCHITECTS SITE PLANNERS OR:EOON LICI*~q'SE No. 254 (CA., 2980) 145 S. HOLLY St., SUITE A MEDFC)RD, OREGON 97501 TEL: 541-770-7964 FAX: 541-770-5164 I/ I SHASTA BUILDING '03 ASHLAND, OREGON I P-.EVI S[ONS: PLANTING PLAN JOB NC).: I~ DRAgq'I BY: REVIEWED BY: ~ JOB STATUS: l l X III Page 1 TREE PROTECTION GUIDELINES GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS Prepared by Galbraith & Associates, Inc. For Shasta Building '03 January 29, 2004 · 254 · Contrary to popular belief, the root systems of trees are not deep taproots in form. Instead most tree roots grow in the top 12 - 18" from the soil surface and are horizontally oriented, extending far beyond the tree's dripline or canopy. See tree and root section drawing Figure 1. A rule of thumb is that a healthy tree may tolerate removal of approximately one third of its roots, and "A healthy, vigorous tree may withstand removal of up to 50 percent of its roots without dying.''l If roots on one side of a tree are severed, it may become unstable and a hazard. Old and mature trees are less tolerant of construction impacts than younger, more vigorous trees, and trees in a grove or forest stands are best retained in those groups. The species tolerances for trees to be retained within the Shasta Building project are as follows: RELATIVE TOLERANCE OF SELECTED SPECIES TO DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS: Ri~ ATIVE (X)MlVlON NAME SC~NIIFIC NAME ~ CO~VlENIS Bigleaf Maple ~4cer macrophyllum Poor Declines following the addition of fill Alder Alnus sp. Poor Intolerant of root injury Oregon Ash Fraxinus latifolia Moderate Mo.derately tolerant of root pruning. The size of the tree protection zone, the area protective fencing is shown on the Tree Protection Plan, is calculated by species tolerance and tree age category which selects a distance factor from the trunk of the tree. ' Matheny, N. & Clark, J. 1998. Trees and Development:/t Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development. p. 72. 2 Ibid. Appendix B selections, p. 165 - 178. Galbraith & Associates, Inc. Landscape Architects & Site Planners GUIDELINES FOR OPTIMAL TREE PRESERVATION ZONES~ Page 2 Good Moderate Poor TREEAGE Young (<20% life expectancy) Mature (20%-80% life expectancy) Over mature (>80% life expectancy) Young Mature Over mature Young Mature Overmature .5' 0.75' 1.0' 0.75' 1.0' 1.25' 1.0' 1.25' 1.5' Figure I Drawing used by permission of Dr. Gary Watson, The Morton Arboretum, Lisle, Illinois. Note: This document and the ideas incorporated herein, as an instrument of professional service, is the property of Galbraith & Associates, Inc. and is not to be used, modified, or changed in whole or in part, for any other purpose without the express written authorization of John Galbraith, Landscape Architect. 3 Ibid., p. 74. Galbraith & Associates, Inc. Landscape Architects R Site Planners January 29, 2004 City of Ashland 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Shasta Building '03 / Lloyd Haines To Whom It May Concern: This letter concems the removal of a single tree which is the subject of applications filed by Lloyd M. Haines. The tree is identified on the Tree Preservation Plan which we prepared for the above captioned project. The tree is identified on the Tree Preservation Plan as Tree No. 1. Tree No. 1 (Alnus sp. - Alder): The tree referred to on the attached Tree Permit, No. 1, is an Alnus sp (Alder). It is located on Lloyd Haines Shasta Building construction site, and is not a hazard at the present time. However, because this tree is located within the building envelope it is recommended to be removed. On this tree, we have worked with Certified Arborist, Tom Myers and together we have determined that this tree does not presently pose a hazard. However, this species is subject to Armillaria root rot, prevalent in our area, and the same is likely to develop with construction on this site, especially construction within 20 feet of its think. While not a hazard at this time, construction near the tree will lead to the inevitable decline and death of the tree which will then produce a hazard. It is my opinion that the removal of tree No. 1 will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks because: The tree location is Within the building footprint, erosion and soil stability will not be an issue beneath the building, the flow of surface waters will be directed by the new drainage incorporated into the structure. · This is a solitary tree not part of a grove or a windbreak and its removal will not have a negative impact on other trees. It is also my opinion that the removal of tree No. 1 will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property because, · The site is adjacent to Ashland Creek and the existing riparian corridor along the creek contains a wide variety of sizes and densities of wooded species with a varied tree canopy. · Species diversity will not be negatively impacted because this tree is commonly found along Ashland Creek. 145 .S. Holly Street, SuiTe A · Medford, OR 97501 · (541) 770-7964 · Fax (541) 770-5164 Licensed - Bonded · Insured · Landscape Business #6661 · Landscape Conmactor #12398 · General Conmactor #10427-'1 - landscape A~chitrc~ OR-#25'1, CA-#7980 ww 'galbrai'handass°cia'es'c°m ' c°ntactT Tithandass°ciates'c°m FEB I 32004 Mr. Haines will mitigate the removal of this tree. However, due to limited available space on the subject property, the location of the mitigation planting will occur off-site at a location yet to be determined. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, John Galbraith, ASLA Galbraith & Associates 04107/89 Page 2 Property Owner Location ot 'l'ree Oqote address · ditferem than above and include a sket~ on back side o~ paper ~ neet, ssary.): :~~-~r~ . ~.#z.,~,~_o ....... TRF~ COMItlSSION RliCO~ATION 12335 svv boones ferry road . lake oswego, oreSon 970]t5-5z17 (sos) o~-~61e . Pax (5o3) b~-5~95 www. otak.com November 12, 2005 Mr. Lloyd Haines 51 Water Street, Suite 222 Ashland, OR 97520 Re: Flood Hazard Assessment for Shasta Building '03 Otak Project No. ] ] 826 Dear Mr. Haines: Otak has reviewed the site plans provided by Architectural Design Works, Inc., as shown in the attachments. It is our conclusion that the proposed building and site improvements will improve the hydraulic performance and habitat function of Ashland Creek adjacent to the project and are designed in such a way as to ~ impacts to Ashland Creek during flood conditions. This letter documents the aspects of the design that Otak was asked to consider and how the design fits within the requirements outlined by the City of Ashland Flood Hazard Ordinances. Ashland Creek According to the "A~hland Creek Hydraulic Investigation" (Otak, 1997), this reach of Ashland Creek flows in a backwater condition during flood flows due to the limiting size of the culvert beneath Lithia Way that is located immediately downstream of the subject project. This condition will continue during flood flows until such time as the culvert is removed or replaced with a larger culvert. After such time as the culvert is removed or replaced, the water surface elevation upstream of the existing culvert and adjacent to the subject property would be reduced during flood flows. Flood Hazard Elevations The City of Ashland participates in the Federal Emergency Management Agencfs (F}~MA) National Flood Insurance Program. Ashland Creek is part of that program and the 100-year floodplain was mapped, adopted, and published by FEM. A in 1981. Maps published by FEMA also define a Floodway Boundary. Buildings and walls are not allowed to be constructed within the Floodway. The City of Ashland ALUO 18.62.070(A)(2) further restricts development within I0 feet of the Floodway. The proposed project is not located in the Floodway, and the plans show the building more than the required 10 feet from the Floodway boundary. At the location of this project site, the 100-year water surface elevation or Base Flood Elevation (BFE) adopted by FEMA is at elevation 1,872 feet. The 15:38 Mr. Lloyd Haines Flood Hazard Assessment for Shasta Building '03 Page 2 November 1% 2003 City of Ashland maint, i,s a separate flood hazard zone based on observations made during past flood events. The City of Ashland BFE at the location of this project site defined by the City's Flood Hazard boundary is 1,875.5 feet. Proposed Shasta Building '03 The proposed site plan includes construction of a new building between Main Street and Ashland Creek, landscape planting to enhance the riparian area adjacent to Ashland Creek on both sides of the Creek, and replacement of the pedestrian bridge over Ashland Creek. The base of the new building will be setback further from the water's edge than the edge of the existing decks to allow room for planting a riparian area between the stream and the buLlding. The foundation for the new building consists of a concrete wall and will include at least one square inch of opening for every square foot of floor area through the foundation wall to allow flood water access to the underfloor space per City of Ashland Municipal Code 15.10.080 (B) ?rovisions for Flood Hazard Protection: Specific Standardsf As shown in attached Drawing A-301 the Fixst Level, Second Level, and Third Level will all be entirely above both the FEMA BFE and the City of Ashland BFE. Conveyance of Flood Flows If the culvert beneath Lithia Way were to be removed or replaced with a larger culvert, then the Ashland Creek Bar & Grill building and Siskyou Brewery building create a constriction to flow immediately upstream of the proposed project. Since the proposed project will be located further from the stream edge, it increases the width of stream channel available for conveyance of flood flows which will be wider than the width of flow upstream between the neighboring buildings. The conveyance capacity of a stream in backwater is controlled at the downstream end. The culvert beneath Lithia Way will not change as a result of this project. Therefore, Ashland Creek wi_Il continue to flow in a backwater condition. As shown on the plans, this project will increase flood storage volumes over current levels. Estimated Flood Storage Impacts Attached Drawings A-106 and A-301 show the finished ground contours and profile relative to the existing ground contours and profile. The volume of fill assoc/ated with this project that will be located below the Base Flood Eleva~ons is equal to the volume of concrete needed to construct the building, deck, and elevator foundation walls. Calculation of the estimated volume is summarized in Table 1. Mr. Lloyd Haines Flood Hazard Assessment for Shasta Buildirrg '03 Page 3 November I2, 2003 Table 1 Es'timated volume of fill below the Base Flood Elevation resulting from this project Fill Material Assumed Dimensions Volume Below Volume Below FEMA BFE Ashland BFE Concret~ 198 feet of, $ i~ches thick, fotmdation 1,330 1,796 Fomadation Walls wall. 10 feet high to FEMA BFE 13.5 feet high to Ashland BFE Concrete Patio 483 square feet of area. 24" thick, 966 966 Deck including floor joists and slab, _ Elevator Shzft/ 8.3 square feet of area. l0 feet high to 830 1,114 Mechanical FEMA BFE 13.8 feet high to Ashland Equipment l~oom BFE TOTAL 3,126 3,87.6 , Estimated Flood Storage Mitigation The proposed project includes removal measures to bslance (and over-compensate for) the fill that will be placed below the BFE. The removal measures include excavation of existing bank materials to create ample crawl space below the building and an access hallway on Level 1 to the Ashland Creek Bar & Grill. An unknown volume of wood timbers will also be removed from below the BFE's when the existing decks are removed. Calculation of the estimated volume is summarized in Table 2. Table 2 Estimated volume of removal below the BFE resulting from this project Removal Assumed Dimensions Volume Below Volume Helow Material FEMA BFE Ashland BFE ,i Patio, Hallway, Hallway width is .4.5 feet. 289 ft3/foot of 907 1,300 and Stairs to hallway width for Ashland BFE, 202 Aah!and Creek is/foot of hallway width for FEMA BFE. Bar & Grill Soil excavation for Excavate along 43 feet of the stream. 1!,279 4,085 crawl space Max of 190 ft~/ft of bank for Ashland BFE, 106 ft~/ft of bank for FEMA BFE. Average removal along stream is half of maximum (95 ~ts or 53 ft'~/ft) of bank. ,, TOTAL 3,186 5,385 , , 1.800\1182~',,A dram \CO P,R,F_,SFx~ ~ l I I.~:03L01 .wpcl DEO 1 2 2003 Mr. Lloyd Haines Flood Hazard Assessment for Shasta Building '03 Page 4 November 12, 2003 Conclusion This project allows for increased channel conveyance if other restrict/ohs to flow in the vicinity of this project site are removed. This project will add flood storage volume to thie location of Ashland Creek, While the flood storage volume is beneath the proposed building, design features required by the City of Ashland Municipal Code 15.10.080(B)(1) have been incorporated to allow the automatic entry and exit of flood-waters between Ashland Creek and the flood stnrage volume. All of the new building will be located above the Base Flood Elevation. If there are add~tiona! questions or concerns regarding the site design relative to the flood functions of Ashland Creek, please call Kevin Timmins at (503) 699.4577. Sincerely, O~ak, Incorporated R. Gregg Weston, PF~ Principal KT:RGW:bld C~aig Stone, via Mail and Fax (541) 779.0114 Bobbi Becker Dasd R/chardson Enclosuxes ]kNProj~t\l 1 ~0\ 11826 ~ \C,O ~",['t aine~ I 11205L01 DEC-11-O3 15:3~ FROM:OTAK · ID=503 ~35 538S 17355 sw boon¢~ f-:rry ro~d , lake oswego, oregon 970.~.5-5217 (503) 635-3618 · fax ~03) 635.5395 www. otok,com December 5, 2003 Mr. Lloyd Haines 51 Water Street, Suite 222 Ashland, OR 97520 Shasta Building '03 -- Development Standards for FlOodplain Corridor Lands- Otak Project No. 11826 Dear Mr. Haines: You asked us to comment and express our opinion relative to some of the City of Ashland's Development Standards as they relate to your proposed development. Based on our review of the plane for this project prepared by your architect, Dave Richardson (a copy of which is attached), Otak offers the following comments and opirdon$: ALUO 18.62,070 Development Standards for Floodplain Corridor Lands For all land use actions which could result in development of the Floodplain corridor, the following is required in addition to any requirements of Chapter 15.10. A. Standards for fill in Floodplain Corridor lands: 2. The toe of the fill shall be kept at least ten feet outside of floodway channels, as defined in section 15.10, and the fill shall not exceed the angle of repose of the material used for fill. ., Otak Comment -- The term '~%odway' is a Federal Emergency Managemerrt Agency (FEMA) term. The floodway of Ashtand Creek is shown on Sheet A-I03 of.the architect's plans. The concrete foundation wall for the proposed deck/building is the closest part of tM project to the stream. The wall is located more than 10 feet from the FEMA Floodway boundary. No earthen fill is proposed within the floodway or ten feet from it. 3. The amount of fdl in the Flood plain Corridor shz_]/be kept to a minimum. Fill and other material imported from off the lot that could displace floodwater shall be limited to the following: a. Poured concrete and other materials necessary to build permitted structures on the lot. DEC 1% 1003 DEC-II-03 15~3~ F~OH:OTAK Inc. Mr. Lloyd Haines SI~xsta Building '03 ~ Development Standards for Floodplain Corridor Lands Page 2 December 5, 2003 b. Aggregate base and paving materials, and fi/1 associated with approved public and private street and driveway construction. d. A total of 50 cubic yards of other imported fill material. Otak Comment ~ According to the architectural plans for the project, fill in the floodplain corridor associated w£th this project is limited to the concrete used to form the structural sut~port for the building and deck. There are no public or private streets or driveways associated with this project. There is less than 50 cubic yards of other imported material (material other than concrete or aggregate base/paving material). . If additional fi11 is necessary beyond the permitted amounts in (3) above, then fflJ materials must be obtained on the lot from cutting or excavation only to the extent necessary to create an elevated site for permitted development. All additional fiJ/ material shah be obtained fxom the portion of the lot in the Floodplain Corridor. Otak Comment -- Fill marshal shown on plans does not exceed the permitted amours in item number three (e?) above. 6. Fill to raise elevations for a building site shall be located as close to the outside edge of the Flood plain Corridor as feasible. Otak Comment ~ No fill is specified in the plans to be used to raise the site. B. Culverting or bridging of any waterway or creek identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to section 18.62.060 must be des~ned by an engineer. Otak Comment -- Through discussion with the architect, it is our understanding that the rtew drawbridge shown on the plans replaces the pedestrian bridge with a drawbridge that can be raised to an elevation above the lO0.year water surface during large flow events. D, Ail residential structures shall be elevated so that the lowest habitable floor shall be raised to one foot above the elevation contained in the maps adopted in chapter I5. or ~o the elevation contained in the official maps adopted by section 18.62.060, whichever height is greater. Where no specific elevations exist, then they must be constructed at an elevation of ten feet above the creek channel on Ashland, Bear, or Nei.l Creek; to five feet above the creek channel on all other Riparian Preserve creeks defined in section 18.62.050.B; and thxee feet above the stream channel on all other drainage ways identified on the official maps, or one foot above visible evidence of high flood water flow, whichever is greater. The elevation of the finished lowest habitable floor shall be certified to the city- by an engineer or surveyor prior to issuance o£ a certi~cate of occupancy for the structure. I~,Proie~t\ 1 lg00\ 1 L826 kY~imln \CORRES]~NHt~0 ss 1201503L0 Lwpd DEC i 2003 D~C-11-03 Mr. Lloyd Haines Shasta Building '03-- Development Standards for Floodplain Corridor Lands Page 3 December 5, 2003 Otak Comment -- ~e Third Level contains residential apartment units. The plans show that this level and ali access rou'te~ will be located more than one-foot above both the elevation contairred in the maps adopted by chapter 15.10 and the elevation contained in the official maps adopted by section 18.62.060. I. Basements 1. Habitable basement~ are not permitted for new or existing structures or additions located within the Flood plato Corridor. Otak Comment -- The planz do not show a habitable basement in the proposed building. , Non-habitable basements, used for storage, parking, and simiiar uses are permitted for residential structures but must be flood-proofed to the standards of Chapter 15.10. Otak Comment -- The foundation walls are designed to allow entry and exit of flood waters to the non-habitable underfloor portion of the b~ild~ng. The underfloor area will'be flood-proofed to the standards in Chapter 15.10 of the Ashland Municipal Code. K. Fences constructed within 20 feet of any Riparian Preservation Creek designated by this chapter shall be limited to wire or electric fence, or similar fence that will not collect debris or obstruct flood waters, but not including wire mesh or chain Link fencing. Fences shall not be constructed across any identified riparian drainage or riparian preservation creek. Fences shall not be constructed within any designated floodway. Otak Comment ~ There are no proposed fences shown on the plans ir~ conjunction with this project. L. Decks and structures other than buildings, if constructed on Flood plain Corridor Lands and at or below the levels specified in section 18.62.070. C and D, shall be flood-proofed to the standards contained in Chapter 15.10. Otak Comment- There are no decks or structures at or below the levels specified in section J$.62.070. C and D. Mr. Lloyd Haines Shasta Building '03-- Development Standards for Floodplain Corridor Land. s Page 4 December 5, 2003 We trust this letter will assist you in addressing the City of Ashland's various application approval standards. Please contact Kevin Timmins at (503) 699-4577 or myself with questions regarding the contents of this letter. Sincerely, Otak, Incorporated R. Gregg Weston, PE Prmc/pal KT:RGW:bId Craig Stone, rio Mail and Fax (541) 77~-0114 Bobbi Becket David Richardson Enclosures 17355 sw boones ferry road · lake oswego, oregon 97035-5217 (503) 635-3618 · fax (503) 635-5395 February 9, 2004 Mr. L1/s 51 W~l~[~Street, Suite 222 As~, OR 97520 Re*~ "'Estimated 100 year Water Surface Elevation [or Shasta Building '08 Otah Project No. 118£¢ Dear Mr. Haines: This letter is in response to review comments provided by the City of Ashland regarding the proposed Shasta Building located along Ashland Creek. The comments relate to the 100-year water surface elevation of Ashland Creek and as referenced in City Ordinance 18.62.070 (G). The language in this ordinance has not appeared in published versions of the City's ordinance received by Otak prior to our previous analysis, however we understand that it states that, "New non-residential uses may be located on that portion of Floodplain corridor lands that are two feet or less below the flood elevations on the official maps adopted in 18. 62.060. Second story construction ~nay be cantilevered over the floodplain corridor /:or a distance of 20 feet if the clearance from finished grade is at least ten feet in height, and is supported by pillars that will have ~nini~nal impact on the flow of floodwaters. The finished floor elevation ~nay not be ~nore than two feet below the flood corridor elevations." As discusSed previously, this ordinance has significant impact on the development potential of your property and therefore, the actual 100-year water surface elevation is of critical concern. Background Based on observations that are specific to your property, you have expressed the belief that water surface elevations during a flood would never reach a water surface elevation of 1,875.5 feet as is specified in the Ashland Flood Corridor Maps of Section 18.62.060. This observation is based on the fact that the parking area and land along Ashland Creek opposite your proposed building is much lower than 1,875.5 and would provide an overflow for floodwaters resulting in a 100-year water surface elevation better represented by the FEMA map for Ashland Creek. L:XProjectX 11800~ 1182G~A~inXCORRESP~H~nes020904L01.~d Mr. Lloyd Haines Esti~nated lO0-year Water Surface Elevation for Shasta Building '03 Page 2 February 9, 2004 To support your observation, Otak was asked to consider additional survey data, hydrology and hydraulic data available in the FEMA Flood Insurance Study and the "Ashland Creek Flood Restoration Project Report" (Otak, 1997), in order to provide an estimate of the 100- year water surface elevation in this specific reach of Ashland Creek. Given that the on the ground survey data recently obtained is more accurate than that used for the FEMA Flood Insurance Study and that the previous Otak model was not intended to be used for floodplain mapping, we considered the available data sources and performed the following analysis. Analysis Based on the recent survey data provided by Hoffbuhr & Associates, Inc. in the immediate vicinity of your property, it is apparent that Ashland Creek would begin to overflow its right bank at an elevation of approximately 1,871.45 feet. In an effort to estimate the 100- year water surface, we needed to know the conveyance capacity of the parking area that would convey overflow during a flood. The representative cross-section shown in the attached Figure i was assumed. The representative cross-section follows the alignment shown in the attached Figure 2. Manning's equation was used to develop a discharge rating curve by calculating the discharge at various depths in the overflow channel. The average bottom slope for the overflow channel was calculated to be 0.036 feet/feet, and a roughness coefficient of 0.02 was assumed. The HEC-RAS model developed as part of the "Ashland Creek Flood Restoration Project Report" (Otak, 1997) for existing conditions does not assume overflow to occur at this location in Ashland Creek. This is probably because that model was intended to determine the potential impacts of the types of flows encountered during the 1996 flood and that much of the flow in Ashland Creek during the 1996 flood escaped the main channel of the Creek upstream of the Winburn Way culvert. However, upon review, the model is capable of providing a discharge rating curve at this location in Ashland Creek immediately upstream of the Lithia Way culvert. The rating curve can be compared with the rating curve developed for the overflow channel available through the parking lot across from your property in order to estimate the 100-year water surface elevation. The chart shown in Figure 3 provides such a comparison. For each water surface elevation shown on the 'Y'-axis, the discharge predicted for the main channel can be added to the discharge predicted for the overflow channel. The water surface elevation, at which the sum of the two discharges is equal to the 100-year flow rate, corresponds to the approximate 100-year water surface elevation. L:\Project\ 11800X 11826XAdminXCORRESP\Haines020904L01 .wpd Mr. Lloyd Haines Esti~nated lO0-year Water Surface Elevation for Shasta Building '03 Page 3 February 9, 2004 Results Assuming the 100-year flow rate of 2,259 cfs used by FEMA to map the 100-year floodplain, our estimate shows the 100-year water surface would be approximately 1,872.4 feet at the location of the proposed Shasta Building. This corresponds with 540 cfs of overflow through the parking lot and 1,719 cfs in the main channel. Assuming the 100-year flow rate of 3,100 cfs used in the "Ashland Creek Flood Restoration Project Report" (Otak, 1997), our estimate shows the 100-year water surface would be approximately 1,873.0 feet at the location of the proposed Shasta Building. This corresponds with 1,240 cfs of overflow through the parking lot and 1,860 cfs in the main channel. Conclusions The water surface estimated above indicates that the actual 100-year water surface elevation in this reach of the stream is closer to the 100-year elevation reported in the FEMA maps as 1,872 feet. Based on the available information, we can conclude that the 100-year water surface elevation is not likely to get as high as 1,875.5 feet. Therefore, it is our opinion that the FEMA Base Flood Elevation of 1,872 is more accurate than the City's floodplain corridor elevation of 1875.5. If there are additional questions or concerns regarding the information presented in this letter, please call Kevin Timmins at (503) 699-4577. Sincerely, Otak, .Incorporated R. Gregg Weston, PE Principal KT:RGW:bld David Richardson, Architectural Design Works Enclosures L:XProject\ 11800\ 11826XAdminNCORRESPXHaines020904L0 l.wpd CD cD DNI~IqlA8 E)NIISIX3 0 q_ > 0 ICL OC~ ~ B Uo ~ U ~ > (~0 nxu i,i _1 _L _l --L ~ _1_ 1_ _I ..... -'7 --F7 --I--? --I-- T--t T' ........ I .- t ......... 1 ...... ! ...... ~ ....... ! ...... !. ......... I ....... !,.. I t 1 I i: I I i i I 1 i I ~: I I I i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 o 0 o o 0 0 o XREF LIST · =:::::: Lt$cc~e: 1 -, ....... Re$olve(~ N~-C-TP ~qLK22X34 U_nje_s21_ye_d_ _ 02270CONTOUR Inc.) . . ./ / / / / / · r;.~)" / / / ,/ / /- / / /- / / / / / / ./ SSOCIATES, INC. SUITE ~201 EGON 97504'~ . 9-4641 PLS No. 2025 o~- oO~ Phone: (~80) 8~-86~8 FAX: (~80) 85~-6800 Internet: ~.Otak. CO~ 11826 Project No Drawing flo FIGURE 2 Sheet No. 17355 Sw boones ferry road · lake oswego, oregon 97035-5217 (503) 635-3618 · fax (503) 035-5395 Vd W V',/. 0~'~! [I. CO February 10, 2004 Mr. Llo~Haines 51 W~ Street, Suite 222 Ash/, OR 97520 Re:*''~ Floodway Boundary ]'or Shasta Building '08 ~ Otah Project No. 1182¢ Dear Mr. Haines: At the conclusion of the meeting on January 22, 2004 held at the City of Ashland, City staff requested that you hire an engineer to confirm that the location of the FEMA Floodway boundary shown on the site plans prepared by Architectural Design Works, Inc. is correct. This letter is intended to fulfill the City's request. Floodway Boundary As defined in the Flood Insurance Study for City of Ashland, Oregon, Jackson County, published in 1980: Regulatory Floodway---A floodplain ;nanage;nent tool that is the regulatory area defined as the channel of a stream, plus any adjacent floodplain areas, that must be kept free of encroach~nent so that the base flood discharge can be conveyed without increasing the BFEs ~nore than a specified amount. The regulatory floodway is not an insurance rating factor. In simpler terms, the Floodway Boundary is a theoretical line that is determined using a hydraulic model. The model is used to simulate the constriction of flow in the floodplain until the resulting water surface is one foot higher than the water surface under an unconstricted condition. A boundary line is drawn representing the constricted channel as determined by the model. That boundary line represents the Floodway. The Floodway boundary shown on the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map is a legal line that has been adopted by FEMA. Adjustments to that line will only be approved by FEMA if it can be demonstrated that better data is available that significantly changes what is shown on the map. Better topographic data is one of the reasons that FEMA will consider adjustments to the Flood Insurance Maps. However, map revisions are a significant undertaking that would be cost prohibitive for a small site developer. FEB I L:XProj~tX 11800X11826XAdminXCORRESPkH~nes021004L01 .wpd Mr. Lloyd Haines Floodway Boundary for Shasta Building '03 Page 2 February 10, 2004 It is Otak's conclusion that the Floodway boundary line shown by the Architect on the Attached Sheet A-103(A) correctly identifies the FEMA Regulatory Floodway boundary. Separate Encroachment Analysis In lieu of revisions to the FEMA Regulatory Floodway, we offer a separate analysis to demonstrate that encroachment of the proposed project onto floodplain corridor lands is less than would result from a formal revision to the Flood Insurance Study. According to the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for Ashland Creek, the Floodway was computed on the basis of the energy grade instead of the water surface elevation. A maximum surcharge of 1.0 foot was allowed in the energy grade. The results of the computations are tabulated in the FIS and show the floodway width at cross-section "P" that was modeled at Lithia Way culvert had a width of 20 feet. The floodway width at cross-section "Q" that was modeled at the Main Street culvert was 30 feet. Our analysis is based on results derived from modifications to a previous HEC-RAS model that was developed for the City as part of the "Ashland Creek Flood Restoration Project" (Otak, 1997). A channel cross-section was added to the HEC-RAS model at the location of the proposed Shasta Building site. The channel cross-section was based on survey data collected for the Shasta Building project by Hoffbuhr & Associates, Inc. The attached Figure I shows the location of the new cross-section relative to the other cross-sections in the model. Review of the survey data shows that the right bank of Ashland Creek at this location is lower than the water surface elevation predicted by the HEC-RAS model and that flood flows would probably overflow the right bank and escape the main channel of Ashland Creek. Since the HEC-RAS model developed as part of the "Ashland Creek Flood Restoration Project Report" (Otak, 1997) does not assume overflow to occur at this location in Ashland Creek, the cross-sections input to the model are truncated on the right bank as can be seen in Figure 2. The model assumes a vertical boundary at the truncated end of the cross-section and therefore, conservatively over-predicts the water surface elevation in this reach of Ashland Creek. Overflow at this location in Ashland Creek was probably not simulated as part of the "Ashland Creek Flood Restoration Project because the model was intended to determine the potential impacts of the types of flows encountered during the 1996 flood. Much of the flow in Ashland Creek during the 1996 flood escaped the main channel of the Creek upstream of the Winburn Way culvert. Further discussion and analysis of the overflow condition in this part of Ashland Creek is documented in a separate letter dated February 9, 2004 regarding "Estimated 100-year Water Surface Elevation for Shasta Building '03." L:\Project\ 11800X 11826\Admin~CORRESPXHaines021004L01.wpd Mr. Lloyd Haines Floodway Boundary for Shasta Building '03 Page 3 February 10, 2004 However, upon review, the previous HEC-RAS model is capable of providing a relative comparison of water surface elevations under varying channel conditions in Ashland Creek. Our analysis considered three different scenarios and modified the HEC-RAS model to simulate three separate conditions. All scenarios were based upon the proposed Shasta Building shown in the Attached Sheet A-107 and A-301. Scenario One -- Encroachment from the Left Bank The edge of the proposed Shasta Building deck will extend to Station 70.2 feet as shown in the Attached Figure 2. By modeling the building as a blocked obstruction, we have conservatively exaggerated the impacts of the building since the proposed building will be supported by pillars and not a wall or fill. The 100-year flow rate published in the Flood Insurance Study for Ashland Creek of 2,259 cfs was assumed for this scenario since this scenario is for comparison with the location of the FEMA Floodway boundary. Results of this scenario are summarized in Table 1. They demonstrate that construction of the proposed building is expected to have minimal influence on the 100-year water surface elevation. Table 1 Results of Scenario One - Encroachment from the Left Bank FEMA lO0-year Flow Variable (Condition) Q = 2,259 cfs Water Surface (Existing) 1,874.89 Water Surface (Scenario 1) 1,874.73 change -0.16 Energy Grade (Existing) 1,875.10 Energy Grade (Scenario 1) 1,875.06 change -0.04 L:\Project\ 11800\11826\Admin\CORRESPXHaines021004L01 .wpd Mr. Lloyd Haines Floodway Boundary for Shasta Building '03- Page 4 February 10, 2004 Scenario Two -- Encroachment from Both Sides The model was modified to simulate a second scenario. The second scenario simulates encroachment on the channel from both sides of the creek. Both encroachments are an equal distance from the edge of the cross-section as shown in the attached Figure 3. The encroachment distance is based upon the location of the proposed Shasta Building and extends to Station 70.2 in the cross-section. The 100oyear flow rate published in the Flood Insurance Study for Ashland Creek of 2,259 cfs was assumed for this scenario since this scenario is for comparison with the location of the FEMA Floodway boundary. Results of this scenario are summarized in Table 2. They demonstrate that the encroachment assumed in this scenario is less than would result from a formal revision to the Flood Insurance Study. Table 2 Results of Scenario Two - Encroachment from the Both Sides FEMA l O0-year Flow Variable (Condition) Q = 2,259 cfs Water Surface (Existing) 1,874.89 Water Surface (Scenario 2) 1,874.04 change -0.85 Energy Grade (Existing) 1,875.10 Energy Grade (Scenario 2) 1,875.25 change 0.15 Scenario Three m Encroachment Under Future "No Obstructions" Condition · The third scenario that we modeled demonstrates the effects of encroachment on a future condition in Ashland Creek when obstructions to flow are removed. As part of the "Ashland Creek Flood Restoration Project"(Otak, 1997) the HEC-RAS model developed for the project was modified to simulate a "No Structures" condition in Ashland Creek in which all of the major obstructions to flow were removed from the simulation. Encroachment evaluated in Scenario Two was applied to the "No Structures" stream condition, as shown in Figure 4, to demonstrate that the energy grade line would not increase by more than one foot. The 100-year flow rate published in the "Ashland Creek Flood Restoration Project Report" (Otak, 1997) of 3,100 cfs was assumed for this scenario since this scenario is not for comparison with the FEMA Floodway boundary. Instead, this scenario is information requested by the City engineer as evidence that the proposed Shasta Building is not expected to become an obstruction to flow under a future condition L:\Project\11800~ 11826M4dmin~CORRESP\Haines021004L01.wpd .... Mr. Lloyd Haines Floodway Boundary for Shasta Building '03 Page 5 February 10, 2004 in which other obstructions to flow have been removed. Results of this scenario are summarized in Table 3. They demonstrate that the simulated encroachment results in a minor change to the energy grade line. Table 3 Results of Scenario Three - Encroachment Under Future "No Obstructions" Ashland lO0-year Flow Variable (Condition) Q = 3,1 O0 cfs Water Surface (Existing) 1874.31 Water Surface (Scenario 3) 1873.15 change - 1.16 Energy Grade (Existing) 1,874.79 Energy Grade (Scenario 3) 1,874.75 change -0.04 Proposed Shasta Building '03 The existing site is covered by several tiers of wood decking that extend out into the Floodway of Ashland Creek. The proposed project includes several elements that are expected to improve flood conditions on Ashland Creek. · The existing decks will be removed. · The proposed building and associated deck will be supported by pillars that have minimal influence on the water surface elevation in Ashland Creek. · The pillars that support the proposed building are located at least 10 feet from the Floodway. · The additional setback from the creek will allow for planting a riparian area along the left bank of Ashland Creek. · The project also proposes to enhance the riparian area of Ashland Creek on the opposite bank. Conclusions Topographic data provided by the City of Ashland and the Floodplain boundary published on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map for Ashland Creek both suggest that the floodplain of Ashland Creek is not equally proportioned on both sides of the Creek. L:\Project\ 11800\ 11826XAdmin\CORRESP\Haines021004L01.wpd Mr. Lloyd Haines Floodway Boundary for Shasta Building '03 Page 6 February 10, 2004 The Floodway Boundary shown on the project site plans match the legal boundary published by FEMA. Additionally, the analysis presented in this letter demonstrate that development of the Shasta Building property is not expected to result in an increase in the 100-year water surface of Ashland Creek. Our analysis also demonstrates that equal encroachment from both sides of the channel is not expected to increase the energy grade by more than one-foot. Several project elements are expected to improve flood conditions as well as the ecological functions of Ashland Creek. The analysis presented in this letter is limited to this project and conclusions about specific flood corridor development on the opposite side of the creek should be evaluated on a case- by-case basis. If there are additional questions or concerns regarding the information presented in this letter, please call Kevin Timmins at (503) 699-4577. Sincerely, Otak, Incorporated R. ~~eston, PE Principal KT:RGW:bld Craig Stone David Richardson, Architectural Design Works Enclosures L:\Project\ 11800~ 11826~xAdmin\CORRESP\Haines021004L01 .wpd URCH STREET m 114 Z' · / / / / /' II m "4-- ~ o ~oo~ II iu .I I.. u! uJ I- Z ! ui al ii"j 0 0 ill m -! o I ! 9,~O'NOlLD3SX-¥1SYHSXSIIEIHX3XO~0\9g[t 1~009 L~lO3rO~Jd~ :'1 <-- uJd[E :g t, 0/Lt,/g0 INiA3)q :q 1878 1876 1874- 1872' 1870 1868 1866 1864 1862 Ashland Creek Plan: 1) Shasta Exist 2/10/2004 2) Encrch 1side 2/9/2004 RS = 91.333 .o18 + ................ .o3 Legend · £G FEMA 100yr - Shasta Exist · EG FEMA 100~ - Encrch 1side WS FEMA 100yr- Shasta Exist I WS FEMA 100yr- Encrch 1side · Ground Bank Sta 1860~ 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Station (fl) Figure 2 Encroachment from left bank modeled in Scenario 1 140 L:\Project\ 11800\ 11826 ~Admin\CORRESPXH ~ines021004L01.wpd 1878 1876 1874 1872- 18701 1866 1862t 1860~- Ashland Creek .0t8 Plan: Shasta Existing Conditions 2/10/2004 RS = 91.333 T .o3 · -- .o18 ,{ · o 20 40 60 80 1 oo 12o Station (fi) Figure 3 Encroachment from both sides modeled in Scenario 2 Legend · EG FEMA Encroach EG FEMA lO0yr WS FEMA 100yr WS FEMA Encroach GrOund · Bank Sta Encroachment 140 L:\Project\ 11800\ 11826NAdmin\CORRESP\Haines021004L0 l.wpd 1878- 18761 1874 1872 1870 1868' 1866 1864 1862 .018 Ashland Creek Plan: Shasta Bldg Remove Obstructions 2/9/2004 RS = 91.333 .o3 .............. + .o18 ....... ~ 1860~ ~--' --~-- ~- ............. ~ -- ~ 0 20 4~0 60 80 100 120 140 Station (ft) Figure 4 Legend EG 100 year EG Encr;achment WS Encroachment Groeund Bank Sta I Encroachment Encroachment from both sides under future "No Obstructions" condition modeled in Scenario 3 L:\Project\ 11800\ 11826\AdminXCORRESP\Haines021004L01.wpd 17355 sw boones ferry road · lake oswego, oregon 97035-5217 (503) 635-3618 · fax (503) 63.5-5395 I£XHIBIT ii November 12, 2003 Revised February 11, 2004 Mr. Llo~ines 51 WfStreet, Suite 222 ^s tl i Re: Flood Hazard Assessment for Shasta Building '03 Otak Project No. 11826 Dear Mr. Haines: Otak has reviewed revisions to the site plans provided by Architectural Design Works, Inc., as shown in the attachments. This letter is an update to the Flood Hazard Assessment letter dated November 12, 2003. We have updated the letter to reflect changes to the site plans that have occurred since November in response to review comments provided by the City of Ashland. It remains our conclusion that the proposed building and site improvements will improve the hydraulic performance and habitat function of Ashland Creek adjacent to the project and that the Shasta Building is designed in such a way as to minimize impacts to Ashland Creek during flood conditions. Ashland Creek According to the "Ashland Creek Hydraulic Investigation" (Otak, 1997), this reach of Ashland Creek flows in a backwater condition during flood flows due to the limiting size of the culvert beneath Lithia Way that is located immediately downstream of the subject project. This condition will continue during flood flows until such time as the culvert is removed or replaced with a larger culvert. After such time as the culvert is removed or replaced, the water surface elevation upstream of the existing culvert and adjacent to the subject property would be reduced during flood flows. Flood Hazard Elevations The City of Ashland participates in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program. Ashland Creek is part of that program and the 100-year floodplain was mapped, adopted, and published by FEMA in 1981. Maps published by FEMA also define a Floodway Boundary. Buildings and walls are not allowed to be constructed within the Floodway. The proposed building is not located in the ~ RC t¢ IT ECT'iJ R E · ENGINE£RING L,~. N DSC 1~ F' E D,R'CHITECT URE' [ ]800~ 11826~A~in~CORRESP~nes021 ~04~0 l.wpa __ Mr. Lloyd Haines Flood Hazard Assessment for Shasta Building '03 Page 2 Nove~nber 12, 2003 Revised February 11, 2004 Floodway and the plans show the building more than 10 feet from the Floodway boundary. At the location of this project site, the 100-year water surface elevation or Base Flood Elevation (BFE) adopted by FEMA is at elevation 1,872 feet. The City of Ashland maintains a separate flood hazard zone based on observations made during past flood events. The City of Ashland BFE at the location of this project site defined by the City's Flood Hazard boundary is 1,875.5 feet. Proposed Shasta Building '03 ~ The proposed site plan includes construction of a new building between Main Street and Ashland Creek, landscape planting to enhance the riparian area adjacent to Ashland Creek on both sides of the Creek, and replacement of the pedestrian bridge over Ashland Creek. The base of the new building will be setback further from the water's edge than the edge of the existing decks to allow room for planting a riparian area between the stream and the building. The new building will be supported by concrete pillars to minimize disturbance to flow and to allow flood water access to the underfloor space. As shown in the attached Drawing A-301 the Lower Floor, Main Floor, and Upper Floor will all be entirely above both the FEMA BFE and the City of Ashland BFE. Conveyance of Flood Flows If the culvert beneath Lithia Way were to be removed or replaced with a larger culvert, then the Ashland Creek Bar & Grill building and Siskyou Brewery building create a constriction to flow immediately upstream of the proposed project. Since the proposed project will be located further from the stream edge, it increases the width of stream channel available for conveyance of flood flows which will be wider than the width of flow upstream between the neighboring buildings. The conveyance capacity of a stream in backwater is controlled at the downstream end. The culvert beneath Lithia Way will not change as a result of this project. Therefore, Ashland Creek will continue to flow in a backwater condition. As shown on the plans, this project will increase flood storage volumes over current levels. Estimated Flood Storage Impacts Attached Drawings A-106 and A-301 show the finished ground contours and profile relative to the existing ground contours and profile. The volume of fill associated with this project that will be located below the Base Flood Elevations is equal to the volume of concrete needed to construct the pillars, the elevator foundation walls, and walls along the Main Street and Lithia Way sides of the building. Calculation of the estimated volume is summarized in Table 1. L:XProject\ 11800\ 11826~AdminXCORRESP\Haines021104L01.wpd FEB i 3 2004 Mr. Lloyd Haines Flood Hazard Assessment for Shasta Building '03 Page 3 November 12, 2003 Revised February 11, 2004 Table 1 Estimated volume of fill below the Base Flood Elevation resulting from this project,,, Volume Below Volume~Below FEMA BFE Ashland BFE Fill Material Assumed Dimensions (ft3) (ftz) Concrete Pillars 18 inches square 101 345 Elevator 9'X 6' 270 459 Foundation Retaining Walls Along existing Ashland Creek Bar & 50 607 Grill, along Main Street, and along Lithia Way. Side access hall to 20'X 6' N/A 240 Ashland Creek Bar & Grill Fill behind wall 40' X 4' X 2' N/A 320 along Main Street TOTAL 421 1,971 ,, Estimated Flood Storage Mitigation The proposed project includes removal measures to balance (and over-compensate for) the fill that will be placed below the BFE. The removal measures include excavation of existing bank materials to create ample crawl space below the building. An unknown volume of wood timbers will also be removed from below the BFE's when the existing decks are removed. Calculation of the estimated volume is summarized in Table 2. Table 2 Estimated volume of removal below the BFE resulting from this project Volume Volume Below Removal Below FEMA Ashland BFE Material Assumed Dimensions BFE (ft3) (ft3) ,, Soil excavation Excavation estimate using average end for underfloor area method based on excavation areas crawl space shown in the sections on sheet A-301. Section A shows 31 ft3/ft below the FEMA 341 528 BFE and 48 ft3/ft below the Ashland BFE for 11 feet Of stream bank. Section B shows 34 ft3/ft below the FEMA 714 4,095 BFE and 195 ft~/ft below the Ashland BFE for 21 feet of stream bank. Section C shows 138 ft3/ft below the FEMA 1,518 3,454 BFE and 3149 ft3/ft below the Ashland BFE for 11 feet of stream bank. TOTAL · 2,573 8,077 L:\Project\llS00\l182GXAdminqCORRESP\Haines021104L01.wpcl ~ ~ ~ F._~B I 3 Z~4 Mr. Lloyd Haines Flood Hazard Assess~nent for Shasta Building '03 Page 4 Nove~nber 12, 2003 Revised February 11, 2004 Conclusion This project allows for increased channel conveyance if other restrictions to flow in the vicinity of this project site are removed. This project will add flood storage volume to this location of Ashland Creek. While the flood storage volume is beneath the proposed building, the project has been designed to allow the automatic entry and exit of flood-waters between Ashland Creek and the buildings crawl space. All of the new building will be located above the Base Flood Elevation. If there are additional questions or concerns regarding the site design relative to the flood functions of Ashland Creek, please call Kevin Timmins at (503) 699-4577. Sincerely, Otak, Incorporated R. Gregg Weston, PE Principal KT:RGW:bld Craig Stone ~son Enclosures L:XProject\ 1 I$00X 11826XAdmin\CORRESP~Haines021104L0 l.wpd r. , Exhibit 8 2~ 3~ 5~ .. 6: Lloyd Haines - 88 North Main Street LLC. 2OO3 Exhibi~ 8 8: Lloyd Haines -88 North Main Street LLC. iii ii ii i ~-~-~. Tax Lots ::'~L:i~' Urban Growth Boundary ':Strbams & Ditches AZ' Streams Ditches Station Point and Photograph Number Exhibit 8 Photograph Key Map Source: Jackson County GIS Services Lloyd Haines December 10, 2003 4o Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. ' Medford, Oregon ...... ..... ! o 40 80 120 Feet ' I i 3501 42OO ~02 2'100 4700 JACKSON COUNTY ~,,=~ SEE SUPP. MAP 1O0oo o.o~ ~, _~APPROX, coP,. 89 IE 9BB & n~lgX ASHLAND 009 ~ APPROX, 7800 O,'ll .~,, \\\\\\%\\ 89 1E 9BB &INDEX ASHLAND Tax Lots Exhibit 9 Assessor Map Source: Jackson County GIS Services Lloyd Haines December 10, 2003 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Medford, Oregon Not to Scale CITY OF ASHLAND..., -----' DESIGN ~TANDARDS BOUNDARY ~ole ir, fe~t ~00 2_0O 3OO 4O0 E IIII r COMPlJ"{~R O~H~:RA'~D MAP EAST ~A~N ST. ST. .[ · .";'J'{'/ .ii,.-,,, l, ._...t?~l',,~... ~'~. ~: '""'~' ·. ,,} ~',-.~..,~.' ~ ./ .... .' -'" :l"'T'~'-~/'.r~ ~._ ::.-:.. · · ,J','": ~-"~': '"~- .. "'.-. -.:L.,?'-k . ' ......t F' · %Z,.%~i ." .--'",'..-'~,¢. "f.-' , /..; ~-/.- -'~-:'%.-'.' [.,J.~ i ,.,'}" -"' ""' '"":'" ' /,' ......~'q."F'-'~;/'"'-'":'--:': :" i~'' :l. .i ,-,. ii .. ~ SEP- EI~- 880~ 05: 4~ FROM: TOM MYERS 54i4884186 Upper Limb-it Tree PO Box 881 Ashland, OR 97520 Phone 541.482-3667 TO: 541 488 9.~34 P. 001 September 3, 2003 L~oyd Hai~e~ 82 N. Main Almland, OR 97520 Tree Protection Plan for 88 N. Main The Alder at 88 North Main is in good overall health. The enclosed f'~ notes document its current condition. Any construction wil~h its ddpline, (20 feet from the trunk) will hmve a detrimental impact to its bng-~erm health. Alders are particularly susceptible to root damaging fungus. The cutting of the root system can introduce any number of root rotting fungi into the system, if roots over four inches in diameter am cut, the structural integrity of fl3e tree will be compromised, If construc[ion is to ccc, ur closer than twenty feet from the trunk, it is very unlikely that the Alder would survive. The Alder's mots extend ali the way down to ne creek so it is likely that roots would have to be cut in order to build on this site. Because Armillad.'a root rot is prevalent in our area it is likely Hat any construction on this lot will introduce the fungus into the root system of the alder. If this happens it will lead to the inevitable decline and death of the Alder. I have enclosed specifications for oonstruction around flees, if you have any further questions please call me at 482-3667. Sincerel~. Tom Myers Cer~ Art~rlst DBA Upper Utah.it Site~Address: ~ :~lk- A Photographic Guide to the E~luat. ..... i~ in Urban Areas .... Map/Location: .... private ~ unknown , other I)ale gl last inspeclm: Failure , Sm · TalQet Potential of part Rating ~ Immediate action needed , , Dead tree Form: 'C~/0enerally symmetric I-t minor asymmetry [:3 major asymmetry [] stump sprout I-I stag-headed Crown cla~. 'l~"dominant [] m-dominant E~intermediate [] suppressed ~n ratio: .... % Age cla~: [] young [] semi-mature E;a~'mture [] over-mature/senescent Pruning history: [~wn cleaned [] excessively thinned [] topped [] crown raised [] pollarded [] crown reduced [] flush cuts [] cabled/braced [] none F'lmultiple pruning events Approx. dates: Spatial Value: I-I specimen [] heritag&~historic E::: wildlife [] unusual l-'l sb'eet tree ~reen []~'s~de [] indigenous ~ Protected by gev. agency EpLcormics? i_ Foliage Coloc [] chlorotic [] necrotic Y t~ Folla0e dens~: ~rrnal []sparse Leaf size: E:)normal E~small Annualshool gm,Ih: Dexcellent []average [] poor Twi0 Dieback? Y N Woundwood development:. []excellent ~veraoe El pq. or [] none Vigor class: [] excellent [2'~"verage E2 fair ~ poor Major pests/diseases: i i ii Gre*ih ol~'tm~tior~ [] stakes [] wire/ties []signs [] curb/pavement [] guards [] other [] cables SITE CONDITIONS .......... i i i i _ Site Character:. F'3 residence I~P~commemial "-industrial '-' park [] open space [] natural Landscape lype: [] parkway = raised bed :__ container ~ mound [] lawn ~ shrub border Irrigation: 1-1, none ,.~]'~quate []inadequate ~ excessive :.:trunk wettled Recent sile disturbance? Y N ~ constru~on -- soil disturbance ~.grade change % dripline paved: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-?5% 75-100% % dripline wi fill soil: 0% 10-25% 25-505'0 50-75% 75-100% % dripline grade lowered: 0% ~0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% [] woodland~orest [] wind break line clearing FL,.} srte cleadng Pavement lilled? Y N Soil pmblerr~ [] drainage [] shallow [-1 compacted ~ droughty [] saJine [] alkaline [] acidic [] small volume [] disease center F'] history of fail [] clay [] expansive [] slope ~ ° aspect: Ob,~llction~: [] lights r'-] signage [] line-of-sight []view [3 overfeed lines [] underground utilities [3traffic [3 adjacent veg. El ~ Exposure to wind: i3~'~'ngle tree [] below canopy [] above canopy [] recently exposed E3 windward, canopy edge [:3 area prone to windthmw Prevailing wind direction:/~J ~ Occurrence of snowAce storms [3 never E~-seldom [] regularly TARGET _ _ , ..................... U~ Under Tree: E] building [] parking [] traffic l~P"~estdan l~?ecreation [] landscape El hardscape [] small features [] utility lines Can target be ino~d? Y(~ Can u~e be restricted? Y (~ Om::upaflClC E:] occasional use ~rmitteflt use [] frequent use []constant use The International Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations derived from use of this form. Specimen: TREE UAZARD EVALUATION FORM, Page I TREE DEFECTS ; .J- . ....... Suspect mot mt: Y (~ Ikshroom/conk/braek~ present: Y N lO: F.~ ~: 0 sewre 0 moderate OIow UM~ne. fmm~ E3 severn R~ grimed: .____ ~istance from trunk R~ ~m affa~d: ...... % ae~dded mot area: [] severe C) moderate D k)w Potential far mot failure: LEAN: ,~ deg. from vertical [] rmturai r-i unnatural E] self-coffected ~ in rune o~ mn: Y ~ Rom mm. ¥ d~ so. m.~dng: Y ~2 O iTmdemte 'C3 Iow O~wmmtd~: Y N []severe []moderate Soil heaving: Y (~ Wlmc Compeunding facto~ Lu. severity: l-isevere []moderate []low CROWN DEFECTS: Indicate )~en~ of individual defects and rate their severity (s = severe, m = moderate, I = Iow) Bow, sweep C_,~ominantsl~rks, . ' , r .... ~ ......... Multip!e attachments .... ~ Included bark ......... '.y~1. ' Excessive end weiDht ........... ' .... Cracks/splits ...... - ' - - Hangers ..... '- _ . ..... Girdling "' - Wounds/seam',' , ' . .... ' ....... ' ' ~ Decay .......... - C_onks/.m,.~sh~0r~Sr°racket ,, ,, ' . ,, . ...... · e;~mlJno/sap flow " ' Loose/cr-,.~ed bark - _Nesting ho!.efoee hive ......... _ ..... Oeadwood/st,ub,s... L_ ' ' ' Borers/termites/ants '" , ~s/burts Previous fail.._......~ure HAZARD RATING ___ '---- ~ Tree part most likely to fail: Failure potential: I - Iow; 2 - medium; 3 - high; 4 - severe Inspection period: ______ annual _ biannual_ other _~,~x.,.- ~ Size of part: 1 - <6' (15 cra); 2 - 6-18' (15-45 cra); Failure Poterrtial + Size of Part + Target Rating = Hazard RaUng - 3 - 18-30' (45-75 cra); 4 - >30' (75 cm) - ) + J + z.- = z~_ Target rating: 1 - occasional use; 2 intermittent use; HAZARD ABATEMENT 3- frequBnt use; 4- constant Prune: [] remove defective part l'-] reduce end weight I:) crown clean []thin [] raise canopy [] crown reduce [] restructure [] shape Cable/Brace: inspect Imtber. [] root crown [] decay r-i aerial [] monitor Remove tree: y N Replace? ¥ N Movefafget: y N Other:. Effect on adjacent trees: [] none [] evaluate I~ottficatiml: []owner [] manager [] governing agency Date: COMMENTS Specimen: TREE HAZARD ~--"~~~~~= VALUATION FORM, Page 2 Specifications for Demolition and Site Clearing 1. The demolition contractor is required to meet with the consultant at the site prior to beginning work to review all work procedures, access and haul routes, and tree protection measures. 2. The limits of all tree protection zones shall be staked in the field. o Tree(s) to be removed that have branches extending into the canopy of tree(s) to remain must be removed by a qualified arborist and not by demolition or construction contractors. The qualified arborist shall remove the tree in a manner that causes no damage to the tree(s) and under story to remain. 4. Any brush clearing required within the tree protection zone shall be accomplished with hand-operated equipment. · o Trees to be removed shall be felled so as to fall way from tree protection zones and to avoid pulling and breaking of roots of trees to remain. If roots are entwined, the consultant may require first severing the major woody root mass before extracting the trees. This may be accomplished by cutting through the roots by hand, with a vibrating knife, rock saw, narrow trencher with sharp blades, or other approved root-pruning equipment.] 6. Trees to be removed from within the tree protection zone shall be removed by a qualified arborist. The trees shall be cut near ground level and the stump ground out. o All downed brush and trees shall be removed from the tree protection zone either by hand or with equipment sitting outside the tree protection zone. Extraction shall occur by lifting the material out, not by skidding it across the ground. 8. Brush shall be chipped and placed in the tree protection zone to a depth of 6 inches ° Structures and underground features to be removed within the tree protection zone shall use the smallest equipment possible and operate from outside the tree protection zone. The consultant shall be on site during all operations within the tree protection zone to monitor demolition activity 10. All trees shall be pruned in accordance with the provided Pruning Specifications 11. A six-foot chain link fence with posts sunk into the ground shall be erected to enclose the tree protection zone 12. Any damage to trees due to demolition activities shall be reported to the consulting arborist within six hours so that remedial action can be taken. Timeliness is critical to tree health. 13. If temporary haul or access roads must pass over the root area of trees to be retained, a roadbed of 6 inches of mulch or gravel shall be created to protect the soil. The roadbed material shall be replenished as necessary to maintain a 6-inch depth. Specifications for Tree Preservation During Construction l, , Before beginning work, the contractor is required to meet with the consultant at the site to review all work procedures, access routes, storage areas, and tree protection measures. Fences have been erected to protect trees to be preserved. Fences define a specific protection zone for each tree or group of trees. Fences are to remain until all site work has been completed. Fences may not be relocated or removed without the written permission of the consultant, 3. Construction trailers and traffic and storage areas must remain outside fenced areas at all times. . o o 7, o . All underground utilities and drain or irrigation lines shall be routed outside the tree protection zone. If lines must traverse the protection area, they shall be tunneled or bored under the tree. No materials, equipment, spoil, or waste or washout water may be deposited, stored, or parked within the tree protection zone (fenced area). Additional tree pruning required for clearance during construction must be performed by a qualified arborist and not by construction personnel. Any herbicides placed under paving materials must be safe fc~r use around trees and labeled for that use. Any pesticides used on site must be tree-safe and not easily transported by water. If injury should occur to any tree during construction, the tree consultant should evaluate it as soon as possible so that appropriate treatments can be applied. The consulting arborist must monitor any grading, construction, demolition, or other work that is expected to encounter tree roots. 10. All trees shall be irrigated on a schedule to be determined by the consultant. Irrigation shall wet the soil within the tree protection zone to a depth of 30 inches. 11. Erosion control devices such as silt fencing, debris basins, and water diversion structures shall be installed to prevent siltation and/or erosion within the tree protection zone. 12. Before grading, pad preparation, or excavation for foundations, footings, walls, or trenching, any trees within the specific construction zone shall be root pruned 1 foot outside the tree protection zone by cutting all roots cleanly to a depth of 24 inches. Roots shall be cut by manually digging a trench and cutting exposed roots with a saw, vibrating knife, rock saw, narrow trencher with sharp blades, or other approved root-pruning equipment. 13. Any roots damaged during grading or construction shall be exposed to sound tissue and cut cleanly with a saw. 14. If temporary haul or access roads must pass over the root area of trees to be retained, a road bed of 6 inches of mulch or gravel shall be created to protect the soil. The road bed material shall be replenished as necessary to maintain a 6-inch depth. )EO i 2003 ~EXH.IBIT~) Ashland Creek Hydraulic Investigation October 13, 1997 Submitted to: City of Ashland Ashland, Oregon Submitted by: Otak, Inc. 17355 SW Boones Fe~y Road Lake Oswego, OR 97035 (503) 635-3618 DEC 1 2 ZOO3 Other areas were not considered for possible improvements due to the relatively minor impact of flooding or the impracticality of replacing a structure or widening the creek for a relative minor amount of flood damage reduction. The priority projects listed above are based on a subjective but none-the-less deterministic rmnking system. Potential Ashland Creek Improvements Calle Guanajuato Reach The conceptual improvement to the Calle Guanajuato reach includes widening the creek by ten feet on the left bank (looking downstream) and constructing a low floodwall on the right bank. The wider channel width would be designed, taking into account environmental and aesthetic concerns. This improvement would be required through the entire Calle Guanajuato reach. The floodwall would be located on the west edge of the Calle Guanajuato and would range from I to 3.5 feet in height, with an average of two feet above the existing street grade. The freeboard on the proposed floodwall ranges between 0.6 feet and 3.0 feet, with an average freeboard of 1.5 feet. At the extreme lower end of the Calle Guanajuato, a seven-foot-high floodwall would be necessary due to the low street elevation at this point (low point of appro~mately 1875 feet) and to contain the backwater from the Main Street Bridge. At this end (north) of the CalIe Guanajuato, the lower buildings would be flooded due to backwater from Main Street if the higher floodwall were not constructed. With a proposed 100-year water surface elevation of 1881.9 at cross section 95+38 where the lower retaining wall begins, the following businesses would have first finished floor elevations below the Main Street Bridge backwater elevation: Munchies (finished floor elevation of 1873.5 feet), Green]ear Restaurant (elevation of 1878.6 feet), The Blacksheep (elevation of 1880.9 feet), and Players Bar (elevation of 1875.4 feet), Rare Earth (elevation of 1876.2 feet), and American Trails (elevation of 1879.0 feet). The floodwall could be a permanent or a temporary structure (to be put in place in the fall and removed the following spring). It is noted that the City of Portland has recently added a structure of this type along the downtown sea wall. An example of a temporary structure would be reinforced concrete sections placed into slotted concrete posts. The concrete panels could be put in storage during the summer~ Included with this improvement would be a new replacement pedestrian bridge to span the wider creek. It is recommended that the ex/sting creek bsnk.~ in the Calle Guanajuato be restored in locations where the g~mite b_~n]~ protection is failing. The hydraulic model was modified to incorporate Calle Guanajuato reach improvements and was evaluated with the proposed new Con-Span Bridge in Winburn Way. Figure 10 indicates the water surface profile comparison between the ex/sting conditions and proposed modifications (i.e., enlarged creek channel cross Ashland Creek Hydraulic Investigation 17 otak section, floodwall, longer pedestrian bridge, and the proposed Winburn Way Con- Span Bridge). It is noted that the existing conditions include the previous Winburn Way Culvert in place as it was before the January 1997 flood event. Figure 11 is a plan view showing the lateral extent of flooding with the proposed improvements in place. Table D-3 shows the proposed water surface elevations and associated hydraulic parameters of the Calle Guanajuato improvements with the proposed new Winburn Way Bridge versus existing conditions. The proposed improvements to Calle Guanajuato do not affect the creek downstream of Main Street or upstream of Winburn Way. The proposed Calle Guanajuato modifications (widening of the creek and floodwall) will lower the 100oyear flood event water surface elevation by an average of 0.9 feet between Winburn Way and the location of the existing pedestrian bridge, as compared to existing conditions. Between the existing pedestrian bridge and Main Street, the change in water surface elevation is typically increased by 1.2 feet due to the increased amount of flow passing through the proposed Winburn Way Bridge. Lithia Way Culvert and Bluebird Park Reach The high water surface elevations in the Bluebird Park vicinity between the Lithia Way Calvert and Main Street are mainly to the calvert under Lithia Way and the restriction of the creek caused by the existing restaurants and the 31 Water Street building. The recommended improvement to Bluebird Park is to replace the 18-foot- wide by 9-foot-high Lithia Way Culvert with a 30-foot-wide by 10-foot-high arch culvert. Other recommended improvements include widening the creek channe! upstream and downstream of the culvert to maintain the efficiency of the larger culvert. Removal of the 31 Water Street building was also studied in the model. The hydraulic model was modified to reflect these proposed improvements. Modifications to the Bluebird Park reach have no effect on the water surface elevation downstream of the Lithia Way Culvert or upstream of Main Street. These proposed improvements will affect the right overbank flow downstream of Lithia Way Culvert, with less overbsnk flow occurring due to the increased hydraulic capacity of the larger calvert. Figure 12 indicates the water surface profile with the conceptual improvements compared to the existing conditions water surface profile. Also a plan view (see Figure !1) is shown indicating the lateral extent of flooding due to the improvements. It canbe readily seen that the lateral extent of tootling with these proposed improvements does not change significantly (except for the location of the 31 Water Street building) as compared to reductions in 100-year water surface elevations that are achieved by the proposed improvements. Table D- 4 (located in Appendix D) shows the hydrauhc parameters of the proposed Bluebird Park improvements as compared with the existing channel conditions. Ashland Creek Hydraulic Investigation ~. O.I~CT~780~78~AH Y~D RA UL~..~ H'LA2'~ 2. W PD 18 otak DEC 1 2, 200,t Ordinance ~/'" An ordinance adopting a new Chapter 18.62 of the Ashland Municipal Code relative to Physical and Environmental Constraints, and repealing the existing Chapter 18.62. The people.of the Ci.ty of Ashland do ordain as follows; Section 1: Chapter 18.62 of the Ashland Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety. Section 2: The following section is hereby adopted as Chapter 18.62, and shall read as follows: Chapter. 18,62 PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS Sections: 18.62.010 18.62.020 18.62.030 18.62.040 18.62.050 18.62.060 18,62.070 Purpose and Intent. Regulations. Definitions. Approval and Permit Required. I_and Classifications. Official Maps. Development Standards for Floodplain Corridor Lands. 18.62.075 Deve.lppment Standards for Riparian Preserve Lands. 18.62.080 DeveloPment Standards for Erosive and Slope Failure Lands. 18.62.090 Development Standards for Wildfire Lands. 18.62.100 Development Standards for Severe Constraint Lands. !8,62..0.1..0 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; to limit alteration of topography and reduce encroachment upon, or alteration of, anY natural environment and; to provide for sensitive development in areas that are constrained by various natural features. Physiographic conditions can be considered to include, but are not limited to: slope of the land, natural drainage ways, wetlands, soil characteristics, potential landslide areas, and natural and wildlife habitats. !8.62.020 Re~lations. The type of regulation applicable to the land depends .upon the classification in which the land is placed, as provided in Section 18.62.050. If those regulations conflict with other regulations of the City of Ashland's Municipal Code, the ·more stringent of the two regulations shall govern. 18,62,030 Definitions. The folk3wing terms are hereby defined as they apply to this Chapter: A. Architect - An architect licensed by the State of Oregon. t B. Buildable area That portion of an existing or proposed lot that is free of building restrictions. For the purpose of this ordinance, a buildable area cannot contain any setback areas, easements, and similar building restrictions, and cannot contain any land that is identified as Floodplain Corridor Lands, or any land that is greater than 40% slope. C. Cohesive Soils - Residual or transported soils, usually originating from parent rock which contains significant quantities of minerals which weather to clay. Cohesive soils have a Plasticity Index of 10 or · more, based on laboratory testing by AASHTO, or a site-specific scientific analysis of a particular soil material. D. Development - Alteration of the land surface by: 1) grading, filling, cutting or other earth-moving activity involving more than 50 cubic yards on any lot; 2) the 'removal of three or more living trees of over six inches diameter at breast height (DBH), or the removal of 5% of the total number of living (or dead trees) over 6~ DBH, whichever is greater, on any lot within any one calendar year, or any form of commercial logging; 3) construction of a building, road, driveway, parking area, or other structure, 4) culverting.of any stream. E. Engineer - A registered professional engineer licensed by the State of Oregon.. F. Engineering Geologist - A registered professional engineering geologist licensed by the State of Oregon. G. Floodway Channel - The floodway channel as defined in the Flood Insurance Study for Ashland, Oregon, published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency on December 1, 1980. H. Gully- A drainage incision, commonly caused by erosion, which does not experience regular or seasonal stream flow, but does act as a channel for runoff during periods of high rainfall. I. Non-cohesive Soils - Residual or transported soils containing no or very little clay, usually from crystalline granitic parent rock. Non-cohesive soils have a Plasticity Index of less than 10, based on laboratory testing by AASHTO, or a published scientific analysis of a or less. 1) Location of all parking areas and spaces, ingress and egress on the site, and on-site circulation. re)Locations of all existing natural features including, but not limited to, all trees of a caliper greater than 6 inches DBH, natural drainages or creeks on the site, and outcroppings of rocks, boulders, etc. In forested areas, it is necessary to identify only those trees which will be affected. or removed by the proposed development. Indicate any contemplated modifications to a natural feature. n) The proposed method of-eroSion control, water runoff control, and tree protection for the development. o) Building envelopes for all existing and proposed new parcels that contain only buildable area, as defined by this Chapter. 2. Additional plans and studies as required in Sections 18.62.070, 18.62.080, .18.62.090, 18.62.100 of this Chapter. E. Criteria for Approval. A Physical' Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the Hearings Officer when the Applicant demonstrates the following: 1.That the development will not cause damage 'or hazard to persons or property 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 than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Plann~fig Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. 4. That the development is in compliance with the requirements of this chapter and all other applicable City Ordinances and Codes. F. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission has the power to amend plans to include any or all of the following conditions-if it is deemed necessary to mitigate any potential negative impact caused by the development: 1. Require the retention of trees, rocks, ponds, water courses and other natural features. 2. Require plan revision or modification to mitigate Possible negative or irreversible effect upon the topogi'aphy or natural features that the particular soil type. .I. Riparian - That area associated with a natural water course including its wildlife and vegetation. K. 'l___W_i!.0_~- Fire caused by combustion of native vegetation, commonly referred to as forest fire or brush fire. !8.62,040 Approval and Permit Re~_uire. d. A. A Type I Physical Constraints Review Permit is required for any development, as defined in 18.62.030 (C), in areas identified as Floodplain Corridor Land, Riparian Preserve, Erosive and Slope Failure land, or Severe Constraint land. B. If a development is part of a Site Review, Performance Standards Development, Conditional Use Permit, Subdivision, Partition, or other Planning Action, then the Review shall be conducted simultaneously with the Planning Action and no additional fee shall be charged. C. If a development is exclusive of any other Planning Action, as noted in Subsection B, then the Physical Constraints Review shall be processed as a Staff Permit. D .Plans Required. The folloWing plans shall be required for any development requiring a Physical Constraints Review: 1. A site plan containing the following: a) Project name. b) Vicinity map. c) Scale (the scale shall be at least one inch equals 50 ?feet or larger).. d)' North arrow. e) Date. f) Street names and locations of all existing and proposed streets within or on the boundary of the proposed development. g) Lot layout with dimensions for all lot lines. h) Location and use of all proposed and existing buildings, fences and structures within the proposed development. Indicate which buildings are to remain and which are.to be removed. i) Location and size of all public utilities.affected by the proposed development. j) Location of drainage ways or public utility easements in and adjacent to the proposed development. k) A topographic map of the site at a contour interval of 5 feet 2,.// FEB 1 3 2004 damage from erosion and slope failure. The following lands are classified as Erosive and Slope Failure Lands: 1. All areas defined as erosion and slope failure lands on the Physical Constraints Overlay map and which have a slope of 40% or greater. D. Wildfire Lands - Lands with potential of wildfire. The following lands are classified as Wildfire Lands: 1. All areas defined as wildfire lands on the Physical Constraints Overlay map. E. Severe Constraint Lands - Lands with severe development characteristics which generally limit normal development. The following lands are classified as Severe Constraint Lands.: 1. All areas which are within the floodway channels, as defined in the City's Flood Protection Ordinance, Chapter 15.10. 2. All lands with a slope greater than 50%. F. Classifications Cumulative. The above classifications are cumulative in their effect and, if a parcel of land falls under, two or more classifications, it shall be subject to the regulations of each classification. Those restrictions applied shall pertain only to those portions of the land being developed and not necessarily to the whole parcel. 18,62,060 Official Maps. A. The City Council shall adopt official maps denoting the above identified areas. Substantial amendments of these maps shall be a Type 3 procedure. B. Minor .amendments of the maps to correct mapping errors when the amendments are intended to more accurately reflect the mapping criteria contained in this ordinance or in the findings of the Council in adopting a official map may be processed as a Type 1 procedure. 18.62.070.Development Sta.n. dards for Floodplain Corridor Land~ For all land use actions which could result in development of the Floodplain Corridor, the following is required in addition to any requirements of Chapter 15.10: A. Standards for fill in Floodplain Corridor lands: 1. Fill shall be designed as required by the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, where applicable. 2. The toe of the filI shall be kept at least 10 feet outside of floodway proposed development may cause. G. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission may deny the Physical and Environmental Cgnstraints Review Permit if, in its opinion: 1. The proposed development will have a detrimental effect on the lands regulated and protected by this Chapter, or if inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Where it appears that the proposal is part of a more extensive development that would require a master site plan, or other Planning Action. In this case, approval is to be postponed until a complete planning application has been processed. 18.62.050 Land Classifications. The following factors shall be used to determine the classifications of various lands and their constraints to building and development on them: A. Floodplain Corridor Lands - Lands with potential stream flow and flood hazard. The following lands are classified as Floodplain Corridor lands: 1. All land contained within the 100 year floodplain as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, in maps adopted by Chapter 15.10 of the Ashland Municipal COde. 2. All land within the area defined as Floodplain Corridor land in maps adopted by the Council as provided for in section 18.62.060. 3. All lands which have physical or historical evidence of flooding in the historical past. 4. All ~il-eas within 20 feet (horizontal distance) of any creek designated for Riparian Preservation in 18.62.050 (B) and depicted as such on maps adopted by the Council as provided 'for in section 18.62.060." 5. All areas within 10 feet (horizontal distance) of any drainage channel depicted on maps adopted by the Council but not designated as Riparian Preservation. Bi Riparian Preservation- The following Floodplain Corridor Lands are also designated for Riparian Preservation for the purposes of this Section and as listed on the Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay Maps: Tolman, Hamilton, Clay, Bear, Kitchen, Ashland, Nell, and Wrights Creeks. C. Erosive and Slope Failure Lan. ds - Lands with potential erosion hazards. Erosive Lands and Slope Failure Lands are. lands which are subject to channels, as defined in section 15.10. 3. The amount of fill in the Floodplain Corridor shall be kept to a minimum. Fill and other material imported from off the lot that could displace floodwater shall be limited to the following: a. Poured concrete and other materials necessazy to build permitted structures on the lot. b. Aggregate base and paving materials. c. Plants and other landscaping material. d. A total of 50 cubic yards of other imported fill material, or 300 cubic yards per acre, whichever is greater. These amounts are the maximum cumulative fill that can be imported onto the site, regardless of the number of permits issued. e. The above limits on fill shall be measured from April, 1989, and shall not exceed the above amounts. 4. If additional fill is necessary beyond the permitted amounts in (3) above, then fill materials must be obtained on the lot from cutting or excavation only to the extent necessary to create an elevated site for permitted' development. All additional fill material shall be obtained from the portion of the lot in the Floodplain Corridor. 5. Adequate drainage shall be provided for the stability of the fill. 6. Fill to raise elevations for a building site shall be located as close to the outside edge of the Floodplain Corridor as feasible. B. Culverting or bridging of any waterway or creek identified on the official maps adopted pfirsuant to section 18.62.060 must be designed by an engineer. Stream crossings shall be designed to the standards of Chapter 15.10, or where no floodway has been identified, to pass a 100 year flood without any increase in the upstream flood height elevation. The engineer shall consider in his/her design the probability that the culvert will be blocked by debris in a severe flood, and accommodate expected overflow. Fill for culverting and bridging shall be kept to the minimum necessary, but is exempt from the limitations in section (A) above. Culverting or bridging of streams identified as Riparian Preservation are subject to the requirements of 18.62.075. C. Non-residential structures shall be flood-proofed to the standards in Chapter 15.10 to one foot above the elevation contained in the maps adopted by chapter 15.10, or up to the elevation contained in the official maps adopted by section 18.62.060, whichever height is greater. Where no specific elevations exist, then they must be elevated to an elevation of 10 feet above the creek channel on Ashland, Bear, or Neil Creek; to 5 feet above the creek i 3 200 channel on all other Riparian Preserve creeks defined in section 18.62.050 (B); and 3 feet above the stream channel on all other drainage ways identified on the official maps. D. All residential structures shall be elevated so that the lowest habitable floor shall be raised to one foot above the elevation contained in.the maps adopted in chapter 15.10, or to the elevation contained in the official maps adopted by section 18.62.060, whiever height is greater. Where no specific elevations exist, then they must be elevated to an elevation of 10 feet above the creek channel on Ashland, Bear, or Nell Creek; to 5 feet above the creek channel on all other Riparian Preserve creeks defined in section 18.62.050 (B); and 3 feet above the stream channel on all other drainage ways identified on the offidal.maps. The elevation of the finished lowest habitable · floor shall be certified to the city by an engineer or surveyor prior to issuance of a certificate of OcCUpancy for the structure. E. To the maximum extent feasible, structures shall be placed on other than Floodplain Corridor Lands. In the case where development is permitted in the Floodplain c6rridor area, then development shall be limited to that area which would have the shallowest flooding. F. Existing lots with buildable land outside the Floodplain Corridor shall ~ locate all residential structures outside the Corridor land, unless 50% or more of the of the lot is within the Floodplain Corridor. For residential uses proposed for existing lots that have more than 50% of the lot in Corridor land, structures may be located on that portion of the floodplain corridor that is 2 feet or less below the flood elevations on the official maps, but in no case closer than 20 feet to the channel of a Riparian Preservation Creek. Construction shall be subject to the requirements in paragraph. D above. :.G;~New non-residential uses may be located on that portion of Floodplain Corridor lands that are two feet or less below the flood elevations on the official maps adopted in section-18.62.060. Second story construction may be cantilevered ov'6r' the floodplain corridor for a distance of 20 feet if the clearance from finished grade is at least 10 feet in height, and is supported by pillars that will have minimal impact on the flow of floodwaters. The finished, floor elevation may not be more than two feet below the flood corridor elevations. H. All lots modified by lot line adjustments, or new lots created from lots which contain Floodplain Corridor land must contain a building envelope on all lot(s) which contain(s) buildable area of a sufficient size to accommodate the uses permitted in the underling zone, unless the action is for' open space or conservation purposes. This section shall apply even if the effect is to prohibit further division of lots that are larger than the minimum size permitted in the zoning ordinance. I. Basements 4. The general topography of Riparian Preservation lands shall be retained. 18,62.080 Development Standards for Erosive and Slope Failur~ Lands. A. All development which removes vegetation or disturbs topsoil and leaves the disturbed soil at a slope of 50% or more shall comply with the following standards: 1. Any exposed soil shall be revegetated in a manner to reestablish a vegetative communi .ty within a one-year period from issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. If. irrigation is not provided, then the exposed soil must be planted with species which can survive without irrigation. 2. Vegetative cover, rock, dry or conventional masonry, or other permanent cover must be maintained in perpetuity on areas which have been disturbed. 3. These restrictions shall not apply to areas of exposed bedrock which exhibit no erosion potential. B. Any development which increases the natural runoff by decreasing the infiltration of the soil shall conform to the' following standards: 1. All roof drainage must be collected, controlled and directed either by underground pipe or concrete or asphalt gutter to a City street or storm drain or a natural water course. 2. All drainage from driveways, parking areas and other impervious surfaces must be collected, controlled and directed to a City street or storm drgin by underground pipe or concrete or asphalt gutter. 3. Other alternate methods of storm water disposal, such as a leachfield, must be approved by the City's public Works Department. C. Cuts and Fills. 1. All cuts, grading or fills shall conform to Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. 2. In addition, any cuts and/or fills greater than 250 cubic yards must be designed by an engineer to comply with UBC Chapter 70. Such cuts and/or fills shall be designed in such a manner that they will be. stable for the use intended. 3. If the excavation is not a City street or a public right-of-way, the FEB i 3 2004 1) Habitable basements are not permitted for new residential 'structures or additions located within the Floodplain Corridor. 2) Non-habitable basements, used for storage, parking, and similar uses, are permitted for residential structures but must be flood-proofed to the standards of Chapter 15.10, 3) Development of habitable basements of existing non-residential structures that are at or below the flood elevations contained in the official maps shall be permitted in the Ashland Historic Interest Area, as defined in the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. 4) No new habitable basements lower than two feet below the floodplain corridor elevations shall be permitted on any existing or new non-residential structure outside the historic interest area. 5) Habitable basements shall not be used for sleeping quarters. J. Storage of petroleum products, pesticides, or other hazardous or toxic chemicals is not Permitted in Floodplain Corridor lands. K. Fences' constructed within 20 feet of any Riparian Preservation Creek designated by this ordinance, shall be limited to wire or electric fence, or similar fence that would not collect debris or obstruct flood waters, but not including Wire mesh or chain link fencing. L. Decks and structures other than buildings, if constructed on Floodplain Corridor Lands and at or below the levels specified in paragraph (C) and (D) of the section,' shall be flood-proofed to the standards contained in Chapter 15.10. M. Local streets and utility connections to developments in and adjacent to the Floodplain Corridor shall be located outside of the Floodplain Corridor, except for crossing the Corridor in the shortest possible distance. 18.62.075 Development Standards for Riparian Preservation lands, A. All development in areas indicated for Riparian Preservation, as defined in 18.62.050 (B), shall comply with the following standards: 1. Development shall be subject to all Development standards for Floodplain Corridor Lands (18.62.070). 2. Any species of pine, oak, fir, madrone, yew, or Douglas Fir over 6 inches DBH shall be retained to the greatest extent feasible. 3. Fill and Culverting shall be permitted only for streets, access, or utilities. The crossing shall be at right angles to the creek channel to the greatest extent poss~ble. Fill shall be kept .to a minimum. FEB 1 3 2004 engineer shall declare to the City, after the cut and/or fill is completed, that it was constructed to plans and meets all standards set forth in the plans approved. 4. Nothing in this Section shall abridge the City's right to inspect work in progress or in its completed state, to make appropriate measurements and tests to determine if the cut and fill was made according to plan, and to require alterations prior to final approval of the cut and/or fill. D. Any development or partitioning which is proposed in Erosive and Slope Failure Lands must be shown on a master plan at the time the final plan or plat is filed. All development must comply with the master plan. Any improvements necessary for the implementation of the master plan (e.g., storm drains, gutters, etc.) which involve two or more parcels of land must be constructed by the applicant prior to any development occurring on the parcels. E. All structures'in Erosive and Slope Failure Lands shall have foundations which have been designed by an engineer or architect. F. 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 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. 18.62.090 Development..Standards for W~.!.dfir, Lands. A. A 30 foot ~shaded fuel break" shall be installed and maintained around each dwelling unit or structure. Such fuel break shall be increased by 5 feet for each 10% increase in slope over 10%. B. A "shaded fti'~l 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. Fuel breaks do not involve stripping the ground of all native vegetation. C. No structure shall be constructed or re-roofed with wooden shingles, shakes or other combustible roofing material, as defined in the City's building code. 'D. 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. E. In subdivisions or Performance Standards Developments, provisions for the maintenance of fuel breaks shall be included in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the development. 18.62.100 Development Standards for Severe Constraint Lands. A. Severe Constraint Lands are extremely sensitive to development, grading, filling, or vegetation removal and, whenever possible, alternative development should be considered. B. Development of floodways is not permitted except for bridges and road crossings. Such crossings shall be designed to pass the 100-year flood without raising the upstream flood height more that 6 inches. C. Development of land or approval for a planning action shall be allowed only when the following study has been accomplished. An engineering geologic study approved by the. City's Public Works Director and Planning Director establishes that the site is stable for the proposed use and development. The study shall include the following: 1. Index map. 2. Project description to include location, topography, drainage, vegetation, discussion of previous work and discussion of field exploration methods. 3. Site geology, based on a surficial survey, to include site geologic maps, description of bedrock and surficial materials, including artificial fill, locations of any faults, folds, etc., and structural data including bedding, jointing and shear zones, soil depth and soil structure. 4. Discussion of any off-site geologic conditions that may pose a potential hazard to the site, or that may be affected by on-site development. 5. Suitability of site for proposed development from a geologic standpoint. ' 6. Specific recommendations for cut slope stability, seepage and drainage control or other design criteria to mitigate geologic hazards. 7. If deemed necessary by the engineer or geologist to establish whether an area to be affected by the proposed development is stable, additional studies and supportive data shall include cross-sections showing subsurface structure, graphic logs with subsurface exploration, results of laboratory test and references. 8. Signature and registration number of the engineer and/or geologist. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(c) of the City Charter on the 20th day of June, 1989, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 5th day of u~, 1989. {" . ~?' ~ .... .."/... . ~ ¢ .. ,.~.C ->~ ~' "--- Nan ~. Franklin City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this .... ~.~-"~ day of July, 1989. Catherine M. Golden Mayor FEB i 3 200 9. Additional information or analyses as necessary to evaluate the site. 18,62,110 Densitt' ~ansre.r Density may be transferred out of unbuildable areas to buildable areas of a lot provided the following standards are met: A. Partitions and subdivisions involving density transfer shall be processed under Performance Standards, Chapter 18.88 of the Ashland Municipal Code. B. A map shall be submitted showing the net buildable area to which the density will be transferred. C. A covenant shall be recorded limiting development on the area from which density is transferred. D. Density may not be transferred fi.om one ownership to another, but only within the lot(s) Owned by the same person. E. Density may be transferred only on contiguous lots under common ownership. F. The density of the buildable area may not be increased to more than two (2) times the permitted density of the underlying zone. Fractional units are to be rounded down to the next whole number." -.'~,' Section'3. Section 18.68.100 is hereby repealed in its entirety. Section 4. The maps attached hereto and by this reference made a part of this ordinance are hereby adopted as the official maps referenced by Section 18.62.060 of the above adopted chapter. Section 5. The' filing fee for a minor amendment as defined in Section 18.62.060(B) of the maps adopted by Section 4 above is hereby waived'for a period for 6 months from the effective date of this ordinance. Section 6. The Floodplain Corridor for Bear Creek is specifically excluded from this ordinance, and the Bear Creek Floodplain Area will continue under the moratorium adopted by the Council until a floodplain corridor is adopted for Bear Creek through Section 18.60.060. Date Received Zoning r~WY OF ASHLAND PLANNIN~-'~_PPLICATION ~ '~ Type I b[/L[O~ File No. tO~'- 00 ~ Filing Fee Comp Plan Designation Receipt # APPLICATION IS FOR: [] Minor Land Partition [] Variance [] Conditional Use Permit [] Boundary Line Adjustment [] Outline Plan (# Units [] Final Plan ltl Site Review [] Annexation [] Zone Change [] Comp Plan Change [] Staff Permit [] Solar Waiver APPLICANT Application pertains to 18.62 and 18.72 chapter, section, subpart of the Ashland Municipal Code. Name Lloyd M. Haines Phone Address 51 Water Street Ashland OR 97520 Suite 222 PROPERTY OWNER Name 88 North Main, LLC Phone Address 51 Water Street Suite 222 Ashland OR 97520 SURVEYOR, ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT (may need to use back page) Name Craig A. Stone S Associates Ltd. .Aqent Phone 779-0569 Address 708 Cardley Ave Medford OR 97504 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Street Address aa Nort-_h Main Assessor's Map No. 39 1E 09BB Tax Lot(s) 9800 When was the above described property acquired by owner? On a separate sheet of paper, list any covenants, conditions or restrictions concerning use of property or improvements contemplated, as well as yard set-back and area or height requirements that were placed 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. LIMITED SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY AUTHORIZATION TO ACT on behalf of the owner of real property described as Tax Lot 9800 on Jackson County Assessors Map 39-1E-09BB. LET IT BE KNOWN that Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. is the duly authorized representative of 88 North Main LLC., the owner of record of the above described real property and its member, Lloyd Matthew Haines, who is acting as applicant for land use applications on the above described real property. By this instrument, 88 North Main LLC. and Lloyd Matthew Haines, hereby authorizes Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. to perform in their names all acts procedurally required in conjunction with obtaining a Physical Constraints Review, Site Review and Tree Removal Permit on the above described real property by and through the City of Ashland, Oregon and such other land use and development applications and permits for the above described real property as may be required by and through the City of Ashland as legal prerequisites to actual development of the real property. 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 88 North Main, LLC or Lloyd Matthew Haines. THIS LIMITED AND SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY has been expressly authorized by the undersigned record owner and shall expire on December 30, 2004, but may be extended by the mutual consent of the parties. Done and dated this t O~day of ~ ~~4q,~.., 2003. 88 NORTH MAIN, LLC BY:Li oyd~Matt!e~ Authorized Signatory Lloyd Matthew Haines EXHIBIT 12 IS MISSING. Photograph of Tree Sculpture and newspaper article of same. ASHLAND STREET TREE COMMISSION PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW Applicant: Lloyd Haines Date: January_ 9, 2004 Address: 88 North Main Street Commercial: X Residential: Proposed Action: PLANNING ACTION 2004-002 is a request for Site Review and Tree Removal Permit to construct multi-floor, 8,325 square foot mixed use building at 88 North Main Street. A Physical Constraints Review Permit is requested to permit "development" within the Ashland Floodplain Corridor. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial; Zoning: C-'I-D; Assessor's Map #: 39 '1E 09 BB; Tax Lot: 9800. Recommendation: 1) Tree protection measures as noted in ALUO 18.61.200 shall be implemented prior to any site disturbance for trees along creek. All associated tree protection fencing shall be flush with the grade and fencing posts shall not penetrate into the root zone. 2) Tree protection signs, as noted in ALUO 18.61.200, shall be installed and visible from the construction zone. 3) Avoid compaction in root zone. 4) Mitigate loss of large Alder within adjacent State right-of-way. Mitigate with large specimen tree listed in the Recommended Street Tree List. 5) Consider State right-of-way as "gateway" for future public art. Commission Representative: Follow-up: Date: CITY OF LAN D Krippaehne commented she feels the applicants are not threatening an ultimatum here. Rather, she feels the applicant has opened up to considerably more input form the Commission and the neighbors by keeping the garage attached to the house. As itself, the square footage of the house is fine. She feels the Commission should take the opportunity to move in the direction of the applicant mitigating the concerns of the neighbors. Shostrom stated that under normal conditions, a 2,500 square foot house is of average size. Leighton acknowledged there are unusable corners of the lot that will not be used. She would still like to see a smaller house on the lot, however. Skibby argued the hOuse size itself is within the law. Krach agreed, but wondered why the limit needs to be pushed every time. Saladoff said the obvious option would be that the applicant move the garage to separate the two buildings. Exceptions provide valid arguments to see more of these projects at full Commission meetings. Saladoff agrees there are some scale issues from the neighboring lots but doesn't want to see the bulk and scale increased by separating the buildings. Whitford declared he would like to see a smaller house on the lot but also acknowledged the house will seem larger if the garage is detached and pushed over six feet. Krippaehne said she understands about the height of the foundation and agreed there should be a condition to screen it through landscaping. Leighton maintained that coverage is the issue here. The applicant should have created a smaller house. Shostrom related there are many hillsides in Ashland and many large houses. He feels the landscape should be used to mitigate the appearance of the house from Granite Street. Ryan stated he was trained as a landscape architect and would be willing to soften the look of the foundation with different materials and landscaping. Knox stated that if the Planning Commission votes to approve this application, a condition could be added stating the following: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant meet with the neighbor to the east (Sharkey) to address screening along the shared property line. Plans shaft be submitted to the Staff Advisor for final review and approval. In discussing this further, Shostrom recounted this is an unusually steep lot that dictates where the house will be built. Other issues that contribute to the uniqueness include: separating the house and the garage would only add to the mass, the square footage is not unusually large, the driveway grade is very steep, the house sits five feet below the garage, the Iow pitches of the roofiine mitigate the height issue, and modulation of the rooflines and stepping back sections of the house have contributed to breaking up the elevations. Shostrom moved to reCommend approval of this application based on the odd shaped lot and mitigating architectural design of the house with one of the conditions of approval reading as follows: Priorto issuance of a building permit, the applicant meet with the neighbor to the east (Sharkey) to address screening along the shared property line. Plans shaft be submitted to the Staff Advisor for final review and approval. Krippaehne seconded the motion and it passed with the following voice vote- Krippaehne, Leighton, Saladoff, Shostrom, Skibby and Swink voting aye and Krach and Whitford voting nay. Planning Action 2004-002 Site Review, Physical Constraints Review and Tree Removal Permit 88 North Main Street Lloyd Haines Knox reported this application is for an 8,325 square foot three-story building. The first floor is 1,970 square feet and will accommodate a restaurant and deck area. The second floor is 2,906 square feet and will include office and retail space. The 3,449 square feet in the third floor will comprise two residential units. An elevator will be incorporated in the building. He explained the North Main Street elevation will be built to the property line. The Ashland Historic Commission Minutes January 7, 2004 CiTY OF -ASHLAND existing pedestrian bridge that crosses Ashland Creek to give access to Ashland Creek Bar & Grill will be removed and replaced with an engineered draw bddge that can be raised if flooding occurs. Although officially not part of this application, a new walkway (Ashland Creek Walk) is proposed, which will start at North Main Street and wind down toward Ashland Creek and the parking area under the viaduct and connect with Bluebird Park. Knox stated there will be a lot of landscaping around the north and west portions of the building. Staff feels the archway that would be the entrance to Ashland Creek Walk should be simplified but is generally supportive of this and the project. There are still flood plain issues that are being worked out so Knox explained if the Planning Commission does not hear this application in January, it will be heard dudng the February meeting. The design of the building and landscaping will not change. Applicant Lloyd Haines explained the concept of placing the building where the existing decking is in the rear to North Main Street. The building was designed to fit the Downtown Standards and it has been revised to address Historic Commission concerns that were expressed at the November meeting. It will be a mixed use building with office, retail, residential and restaurant space. Haines stated he is very excited about Ashland Creek Walk. The concept is to get rid of the deck and disturbances associated with Ashland Creek Bar & Grill and create an art park. The walkway will connect Bulebird Park with the viaduct and back to North Main Street. Unfortunately, it is not feasible to keep the large Alder tree; however, Haines stated he has offered to hire local artist Russell Beebe to create a sculpture and furniture out of the Alder. The sculpture and benches will be placed along the walkway. Since the State of Oregon owns the property under the viaduct, the City has the right to use it and Haines is hoping to work with the City and Parks Commission on this project. Haines has offered to finance the sculpture, benches, lighting and some of the landscaping. Architect Dave Richardson stated he revised the northwest elevations to incorporate Historic Commission concerns. Windows were added and stepped down copings on the side were integrated. He said they have created an attractive side that ties in to the front of the building. Cantilevers have softened the design, details have been added to the bottom in addition to corbels. Richardson also stated the base is now heavier. Leighton asked about the third story stairway and landing on the southeast side of the building, noting it should be visible from all sides except the northwest. Richardson acknowledged it should have been on all elevations and noted it is 40 feet back from the front of the building. The stairway will have a railing on its entirety. When asked about the materials for the proposed building, Richardson responded the main building will be stucco with brick sills and heads. The grills on the deck and stairway will be steel. Shostrom opened the public hearing. Aaron Heller, 824 Holton Road, Talent, stated he was neutral about the project but wanted to say a few things. He grew up in Ashland and used to ride his bike on portions of the property that have been developed by Mr. Haines. He would like the existing deck associated with Ashland Creek Bar & Grill to remain so people would be able to have a place to hang out. Haines, however, said with the rowdy crowds, use of alcohol and vandalism that has been occurring, this is not a case of money pushing out entertainment. Most everyone agrees there should be less activity in that area. His concept will be to bring in a new flavor. As there was no one else to speak on this planning action, Shostrom closed the public hearing. Krippaehne asked who would be paying fOr and maintaining Ashland Creek Walk. Haines said he would be willing to provide the infrastructure, including the lights, artwork, benches, etc. if the Parks Department would maintain the area. Whitford commented it is a great looking project that will enhance the Downtown District. He also said the pathway is a wonderful and charming concept. Skibby agrees on the design and the pathway; however, while he feels it is necessary to mark the entrance of the walk, he would like to see a simplified version of the arch. Knox said he would talk with landscape architect Kerry KenCairn, who has been working on the design of the stairway replacement from Granite Street to Calle Guanajuato. Perhaps something similar could be used for the walkway. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes January 7, 2004 CiTY OF -AS H LAN D Skibby related that where Bluebird Park is now located, originally there were two larger buildings that spanned the creek. They were demolished in the 1960s. Shostrom asked what type of windows will be used and Richardson said they have not yet decided. Shostrom noted he would like the Commission to review the windows as they get further into the project. Krippaehne stated she likes what has been done to the northwest side of the building, nevertheless she is still troubled by the depth and treatment of the overhang in the back. In her opinion, it feels oppressive with the huge corbels. She wondered what type of pedestrian experience one would feel standing in that area. Skibby said he feels pedestrians would feel more protected with more covering. Richardson remarked the bottom of the corbels goes up seven feet and there is about 15 feet between the floors. This is the deck area for the restaurant. Saladoff asked if the restaurant floor area will be the same elevation grade as the deck and Richardson responded in the affirmative, noting it is a half flight up from the existing building. Skibby moved to recommend approval of this application to the Planning Commission and Whitford seconded the motion. On voice vote, all voted aye. The Commission asked Haines and Richardson to come to the Review Board when the design gets to .the detailing stage. Planning Action 2004-003 Site Review and Conditional Use Permit 987 Siskiyou Boulevard Marc and Aaron Heller Knox reported the applicants are requesting that a 317 square foot non-conforming garage be granted permission to be used as a small single family residence. The existing siding will be maintained, windows will be added on the north and west elevations, the garage door will be removed and replaced with a window and entrance door on the south elevation, and windows will be removed on the east elevation (per building code requirement). The building is fairly well hidden off Siskiyou Boulevard. Parking for the existing chiropractic business in the house and the proposed unit is off the alley at the rear of the property. Staff's only concem is that one tree may be removed. Aaron Heller stated they do not plan to take out any trees. Marc Heller explained that originally, the driveway went all the way back to the garage, but after he bought the property he planted trees in that area. He said this application is a simple project. He had a garage that wasn't being used for much and the roof was leaking. Aaron came up with the idea they could convert the building to a small residential unit, fix it up and keep it as a reasonably priced rental. The house and garage are both stucco- sided. Marc said the windows in the house are double and single hung with some being casement. Since he bought the property in 1999, he has upgraded the windows but has not put in sliders. Shostrom asked what type of windows would be put in the converted building and Marc stated they would be casement, but he wasn't sure if they would be wood or vinyl. If vinyl, they will look the same as those on the house. Leighton asked if real stucco will replace the windows that need to be removed on the east elevation. Aaron said he will do what he can to match the existing stucco. Shostrom asked that he match the stucco and match the windows to the existing ones in the house, preferably with wood. Krippaehne noted that on the drawings, which were submitted for the west elevation, it appears the left window will be a slider. Marc agreed it should not be and stated he will match the windows with the house. He also said landscaping will hide any imperfections in the stucco on the east elevation. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes January 7, 2004 Miscellaneous Public Comments 'Susan yates- PA 2004-002 .................... From: To: Date: Subject: mencken <mencken@internetcds.com> <molnarb@ashland.or.us> 3/9/2004 3:25:27 PM PA 2004-002 I am participating in the Planning Commission hearing on this matter via writing. Please place the following in the file on the Haines matter. 1. Applicant concedes that the alder tree in question is not a hazard and his arborist concedes that the tree is presently in good overall health. 2. Removal of the alder is not necessary to permit the application to be consistent with applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including the ALUO sections cited in Applicant's proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. 3. Applicant has failed to demonstrate that issuance of a removal permit satisfies the requirements of Section 18.61.080 (Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal Permit) of the Muncipal Code, including subsections B(2) and (3). Removal would, in fact, violate those subsections. 4. Applicant's proposed mitigation is inadequate under subsection B(4) of Section 18.61.080 and .084. 5. Applicant has failed to provide proper notice for consideration of his Application by the Ashland Tree Commission and thus the Planning Commission. The undersigned also incorporates by reference all other objections lodged, either orally or in writing, by any other person to this Application. Randall Hopkins an Ashland citizen CC: <sue@ashland.or.us>, <yeatss@ashland.or.us> From: To: Date: Subject: Oriana Spratt <oriana.spratt@charter.net> <molnarb@ashland.or.us> 3/9/2004 4:19:33 PM Alder tree In addition to the earlier comment I emailed for inclusion in the Haines file (PA 2004-002), I also support any other objections from others that are brought up on this matter, either orally or in writing. Thank you, Oriana Spratt Ashland homeowner 3-9-04 Re: PA2004-002 (Haines) PHONE MESSAGE FROM BETH EVONUIK 95 NORTH MAIN CO-OWNER OF BROTHERS RESTAURANT FOR OVER 20 YEARS (Her e-mail was down and, therefore, she called in her comments.) Beth wanted to express her opposition to this planning action. She is heartbroken about the potential development on the Haines property. She feels there will be a loss of a beautiful tree and open space in downtown. Now that there is a potential for loss, she has heard many of her patrons, both locals and tourists, express to her how very much they have enjoyed entering Ashland- the trees and greenness of the space and the welcome feeling they get - the Haines space in particular. They are afraid by developing this property and losing the natural beauty of this space, Ashland will become like everyplace else. No one has expressed to her their excitement or approval for this project, but mostly sadness. (Message taken by Sue Yates, Planning Secretary) MAR-08-8004 11:01 FROM:TOM MYERS 5414884186 TO: 541 · ??0 5164 P.001 Upper Limb-it Tree Service PO Box 881 Ashland, OR 97520 Phone 541-482-3667 March 8, 2004 Lloyd Haines 82 N. Main Ashland, OR 97520 Tree Protection Plan for 88 N. Main The multi-trunked Maple near the creek at 88 North Main is in good overall health. Because it is so close to the proposed building, some extra precautions will be needed to insure that it survives the building process. Although the building has been moved back to accomidate the tree, one of the trunks will still be in the way of construction. That leader will need to be shortened in order to accommodate the building. If that leader were cut all the way down, it could lead to decline of the entire trunk so it is preferable to shorten it so that the rest of the tree can survive. All pruning on this tree, either before or during construction, should be done by a certified arbofist If proper precautions are taken as outlined in the original specit'matio~ for tree protection, this Maple should survive the building process. If you have any further questions please call me at 482-3667. Tom Myers Certified Arbonst DBA Upper Limb-it March 8, 2004 City of Ashland 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Shasta Building '03 / Lloyd Haines To Whom It May Concern: A revised tree protection plan is being submitted with the following adjustments and clarifications. 1.) 2.) 3.) 4.) It is my professional opinion that the Acer Macrophyllum mentioned previously as three separate trees (#22, 23 and 24 on the tree protection plan) is actually one tree. This has been corroborated by Tom Myers, certified Arborist with Upper Limb-it Tree Service. The tree protection plan has been modified and is being re-submitted to reflect one tree with three trunks. One trunk will be shortened to allow for the proposed building (see plan). It will not be taken completely out so that it can be observed for deterioration (see Tom Myers' letter). Minor pruning will need to be performed on the two remaining trunks. It is my professional opinion that the required pruning will remove less than 50% of the tree' s canopy. Tree protection fencing has been added to the ODOT property contiguous to the northwest property line. Thank you for your consideration of this mater. Sincerely, John Galbraith, ASLA Landscape Architect 145 S. Holly StreeT, Suite A · Medford, OR 97501 ° (541) 770-7964 · Fax (541) 770-5164 Licensed · Bonded · Insured · Landscape Business #6661 · Landscape Contractor #12398 · General ContracTor #104274 · I;xndscape ~clfl~eCt OR-#75'1, (A-#2980 www.galbraithandassociates.com · contact@galbraithandassociates.com From: To: Date: Subject: · "Diane Mcdermott" <giraudo@earthlink.net> <molnarb@ashland.or. us> 3/8/2004 9:24:37 PM Objection to alder tree removal February 17, 2004 Ashland City Council Ashland, Oregon Dear Council Members: Earlier this month I learned that the large alder tree on the east side of Main Street will be removed to make room for the construction of a new building. This decision concerns me. As a one year old resident of Ashland, I've heard complaints from people that the new library addition caused a large tree to be removed.. Some people even said they have refused to go to the library because they are still upset about that decision. Are these people silly, old fashioned - not willing to move with the times, or do they actually have their minds and their hearts in the right place? It is no secret that the plaza, the head of Ashland, is a large part of what draws visitors here. "Walking distance to the Plaza" is a familiar selling point seen in Ashland real estate ads. Shouldn't it be imperative that we do everything possible to preserve the beauty of the plaza area? This particular alder tree sits handsome and stately at the entrance to the downtown plaza from the north. Even in the middle of winter it stands full and elegant. What can be more beautiful than a healthy mature tree? A tree that took decades to become what it is today - and something that we cannot create. Must we really destroy this? One of the reasons I moved here from Southern California was that, in my research of the city of Ashland, there seemed to be a love, an honor, and respect for trees. For example: the tree of the year pick, the fact that you can't remove trees at your whim, and the cherished and beautiful Lithia Park. I would hate to see our plaza become merely rows of buildings. I find it difficult to believe that there is no other available land for this new construction. How many more trees can we remove and still keep the unique beauty of Ashland - when do we stop? I respectfully request that the decision to remove the alder tree be reconsidered, and I must believe there are many more people in Ashland who share my sentiments. Sincerely, Diane McDermott Ashland homeowner Ashland Planning Commission City of Ashland 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Re: The Shasta Building at 88 North Main Street Dear Commissioners, I am writing to encourage you to look favorably upon the proposal for an art walk/art park/sculpture garden as part of the proposal for the Shasta Building design at 88 North Main Street. In addition to being a business owner on the plaza I am also a member of the Public Art Commission of the City of Ashland, an associate member of the Ashland Gallery Association, a member of the Elks and Rotary clubs, an Adjunct Professor at SOU and a member of the Siskiyou WoodcraR Guild. None of these affiliations should be construed as making me a spokesperson for any of these organizations however I do believe that they allow a qualified insight into the implications of the Shasta Building proposal and support my conclusion that this is a desirable feature for our community. Currently the area for the proposed art walk/art park/sculpture garden is a disgusting blight on the creek side area. There is soiled concrete, random parking usage and a dreary cement waffle ceiling. All this is within a few yards of one of Ashland' s most picturesque pocket parks (Bluebird) and less than ½ block from the Plaza. Some efforts have been made by neighboring businesses to improve this space but it remains the aesthetically worst afflicted area of the downtown core. I'm sure that you have seen it and can confirm this assessment yourself. By contrast the art walk/art park/sculpture garden as part of the proposal for the Shasta Building is open, inviting and provides much needed hosting opportunities for compatible public art in our downtown core without negatively impacting the existing character and identity of the city. This is precisely the kind of development that enhances the quality of life for our community. For these reasons I urge you to encourage this proposal. Respectfully submitted, 351 Morton Street Ashland, OR 97520 Billy Harto Owner, Thai Pepper Restauram 84 N. Main Ashland, OR 97520 March 1st, 2004 Planning Department City of Ashland 20 E. Main St. Ashland, OR 97520 To whom it may concern, I am writing to express my support for the proposed development at 90 N. Main Street. This project will contribute to the beautification of Ashland, and benefit local businesses with the added retail space it provides. This will make Ashland a more pleasant place for locals and a more attractive tourist destination for those who vacation here. Lloyd Haines has proven in his past business ventures that he understands the future of Ashland is dependent on growth that is well planned and within the character of our quaint small town. I extend my trust and support to Lloyd and this project. Please feel free to contact me for further comments. Sincerely, Billy Harto i'Bill Molnar - Planning Action- Site Review for '~;~'-~-r~0~'~i .............................. { From: To: Date: Subject: "Dave Sprague" <dave@spraguerealestate.com> <molnarb@ashland.or.us> 3/8/2004 10:42:02 AM Planning Action - Site Review for Tree Removal Bill Molnar, I would like to state that I have no objection to the Planning Action for Lloyd Haines' project at the corner of North Main and Church streets. I have seen the architect's renderings done for the project and feel it will be a positive addition to the downtown area. It is unfortunate that the large tree must be removed for the plan but Lloyd's use of the products from the tree for artistic display around the new addition is a nice gesture. My wife, Patricia and I, own the property directly accross North Main from the project. David and Patricia Sprague 99 North Main St Ashland, OR 97520 541-482-2905 BEAffY~S ON THE CREEK Planning Commission & City Council Members Re: Proposed Shasta Building. Location: 88 N Main St. 03/05/04 I thank you in advance for your time in reading this letter. My name is Robert Harvey; I own & operate Beasy's on the Creek located at 51 Water St., adjacent to the proposed Shasta building. I would like to voice my support for the project by focussing on the points of; 1) beautification of the area beneath the Lithia Way bridge, and the entrance to downtown, 2) avoidance of dangerous pedestrian traffic through the intersection of Lithia Way, Church St., North Main St., and Helman St, and 3) the benefit to the patrons of the businesses on the North side of Lithia way. 1) Current conditions beneath the bridge are less than inviting. Barbed wire outlines portions of the fence lining Ashland Creek in an attempt to keep out individuals seeking shelter beneath the bridge. It is not uncommon to see an occasional bedroll tosses beneath the bridge nor is it uncommon to see the accumulation of trash throughout the bushes that line the gateway to the downtown. This downtown enWance could be as inviting and attractive as the Ashland Street and Siskiyou Boulevard entrances have become. The project could also exhibit Ashland's appreciation for the arts converting an unkempt area into a visually inviting display of sculptures and their incorporation into the surrounding landscape. With the completion of the proposed Shasta Building project the surrounding area would receive a desireable improvement, which would include the Art Park and the Ashland Creek Walk. 2) The Ashland Creek walk provides a plan for safe passage of pedestrians from the comer of N mare and Church SC beneath and to the north side of the Lithia Way, bridge. This path allows pedestrians to avoid negotiating the inherently dangerous intersection of Helman St, N Main St., Church St., and Lithia Way. A natural, circular pedestrian traffic pattern is formed by the completion of these two paths. It would guide pedestrians along the business fronts between Water St and the turn from Lithia Way back towards the downtown, it would then, depart from the street circling down along Ashland Creek to the proposed Art Park. At this point foot traffic can decide to continue on to their destinations north of Lithia Way or return to the plaza via Blue Bird Park. 3) The last point I would like to touch on is the traffic generated by the Plaza Inn & Suites, the 3~d annex of the Bard's Inn, The Blue Giraffe, and Beasy's on the Creek. During the festival season a large percentage of my business is attributed to theatergoers. After dining with us they depart for the theater with the intent of walking through and enjoying the downtown. The Art Park and Ashland Creek walk will provide a clean, attractive, and safe passage, for these individuals to the downtown area. In conclusion, my support for the Shasta Building project is with the image of a more beautiful area beneath the Lithia Way bridge, more focussed on art, the creek, and a cleaner, safer passage for pedestrians. Thank you again for your time. ~1 WATER ST. ASHLAND OREO 05,~1) 488-5009 Robert Harvey From: 'To: Date: Subject: Oriana SPratt <oriana.spratt@charter.net> <sue@ashland .or.us> 3/4/2004 10:35:14 PM Thoughts on Ashland Trees I attended my first Ashland Tree Commission meeting this evening, to see what was being done to save that large, healthy alder on North Main, next to the Creekside Grill, that serves as a verdant gateway to the plaza. Every person who enters Ashland from the north sees this dominant tree and benefits from its welcoming beauty, consciously or not. What I learned at the meeting was that two weeks ago, that tree was all but given its death warrant due to a proposed building, with an explanation to the tune of "property owners' rights, what can you do, it's a shame." The meeting then focused on gyrations to save a much smaller tree in the back of the property that 99% of Ashland residents have probably never even seen. As an ordinary citizen I'd like to get on record that it really is a shame that in this otherwise wonderful city, anyone can buy a piece of land with a significant, very public tree that a whole town has enjoyed for decades and cut it down just because they paid for it. It isn't that way in every town. I know of one (Palo Alto, Ca.) where there are strictly enforced guidelines identifying and protecting every "heritage tree" within city limits and where individual property owners' financial interests take second seat to the shared responsibility of a city to protect its urban forest. Violations quickly yield a $5000 fine and/or a halted construction project. Every American town--and most in this valley--that has been denuded of its signature trees has reams of city planning minutes that logically justify their removal. But those reasons get filed away and the resulting reality is everywhere--cities that have lost their natural beauty, tree by tree by tree. A city's trees don't generate profit, but they do make people love their town. I hope the Planning Council has the muscle to think big and protect this tree for the rest of us. Oriana Spratt 212 Patterson St. 482-1803 PS Below is FYI, as an example of how another similar city addresses its tree issues. Palo Alto and Ashland have much in common...progressive college towns, both own their own utilities, ahead of the curve in terms of recycling etc. and both have large parks. More info is available at www.canopy.org. Heritage Tree Ordinance Canopy's Summary of Palo Alto's Tree Ordinance No. 4362 The following summary is intended to merely outline the main points of the ordinance. It is not legal advice, nor has the wording of this summary been reviewed by City staff. If you think you may be affected by the ordinance, you should read the official wording in its entirety. You may request a copy from the City Clerk's office. The full text is also available here. Susan yates - Tho-~-ghi~-'0'n-A'shl,~' Page 2..J What Trees are Protected? * All Coast Live Oaks (Quercus agrifolia) 11.5" or greater in diameter (measured at 54" above the natural grade level -- roughly "chest height") * All Valley Oaks (Quercus Iobata) 11.5" or greate.r in diameter * Individual trees of any size and species which are specially designated by the City Council as "Heritage Trees." To receive such a designation, a tree must be an outstanding specimen, especially old or large, or of distinctive form, location, or historical significance. The Council may be asked to reverse its designation of a Heritage Tree. What Does "Protected" Mean? The following actions are illegal: * Removing a protected tree * Damaging a protected tree, for example, by excessive pruning or overwatering Details are described in the Tree Technical Manual. What is the Tree Technical Manual? The City of Palo Alto's Tree Technical Manual provides details about how protected trees must be maintained and cared for during building and construction. It specifies padicular practices for builders and owners of protected trees. The manual is, in essence, a detailed extension of the ordinance. What are the Exceptions for RemOval? * A protected tree can be removed if it is dead, dangerous, or a nuisance, as attested by an arborist's report, submitted to the City and paid for by the tree owner. * A protected tree in or very close to the "building area" of an approved single family residence design can be replaced by another tree. * A protected tree can be removed if its presence reduces the building area of the lot by more than 25%. How does the Ordinance Affect Building Permit Applications? Building plans must show protected trees on the property and within 30 feet of it in neighboring yards. What are the Penalties for Violations? * The City can halt a construction project. * The City can fine up to $5000 or the replacement value of a removed protected tree, whichever is greater. March 4,2004 Ashland Planning Commission, 20 E Main Street, Ashland Or. 97520 Ref: Shasta Building Site 88 N Main Street, Ashland, OR. I feel obligated to express my views regarding this proposed project. Trees are beautiful, they enhance nature and most people's lives. And,I can certainly understand the opposition of some members of this community to scrap this project, because of an old existing tree, trees. However, having seen the new building plans with the adjacent area, I feel, that this is a great improvement over what is now, a very unattractive, blighted site. I should think a cleanup of this area, would be in the interest of the City of Ashland. Also, it provides a very pleasant /~hhort cut to the City Center, for the many Plaza Hotel guests o visit nd~ Ingi'id Boldt Manager/Owner 51 Water St.; Ste 225 Ashland, OR 97520 USA (541) 482-9341 E-Mail: setsail~lithia-cruises.com Fax (541) 482-9426 Planning Commission Members Ashland Planning Department 20 East Main Street Ashland OR 97520 Re: 88 N. Main/Shasta Building March 2, 2004 Dear Commissioners, Our office has been located at 77 North Main Street for 13 years, almost directly across from Lloyd Haines' proposed Shasta Building at 88-92 North Main. Having reviewed his plans we are supportive of his proposal and feel that it will be an attractive addition to the downtown streetscape. It is our understanding that one large tree will need to be removed in order for the proposal to be feasible. We support the removal of this tree, which is unattractive and disproportionately large for the general design of this pivotal comer entrance to our downtown area. We are also considering traffic safety. Mr. Haines' design (including the removal of this tree) will enhance the safety of this awkward, confusing, and dangerous intersection. -- Peter Brunner'"--....~ Principal Broker ~ cipal Broker 77 North Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520 web site: www. brunnerwhiterealtors.com (541) 482-8701 FAX: (541) 482-8664 March 2, 2004 Planning Commission 20 E Main St Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Members of Planning Commission, SUBJECT: 88 N. MAIN/SHASTA BUILDING In writing this letter, I hope to persuade you to endorse the Lloyd M. Haines proposed building project at 88 N Main Street. A s p art owner o f property at 31 Water Street and 82 N. Main, I believe this project will improve the surrounding properties for many reasons. First, after seeing the building plans, I find the proposed building attractive and appropriate in style for its downtown location. The proposed fagade maintains the historical context of its setting and blends with the existing buildings on Main Street. The proposed landscaping provides a greenbelt around the building that will be attractive to both passengers in cars and pedestrians. Second, the proposed Ashland Creek walk that connects with Bluebird Park will be a delightful place to enjoy the sounds and movement of the Creek. The proposed walk furthers this wonderful sense of place in the heart of downtown Ashland. Another aspect of this project that speaks to my background as a former Ashland Middle School art teacher, former chair of the Department of Art and Professor Emeritus at Southern Oregon University, is the proposal to create an artpark under the viaduct. Not only will this cleanup the area, but also will create a much-needed space for public art. Mr. Haines also proposes to create a public work of art and public benches and tables out of an existing tree slated for removal in the building process. I applaud Mr. Haines for his interest in commissioning a public work of art out of this tree rather than disposing ofit. Mr. Haines' proposal is consistent with his long time support of art and artists in our region. Sincerely, Judith Ginsburg 630 LEONARD ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 March 1, 2004 Planning Commission 20 East Main. Street Ashland, OR 97520 To Whom It May Concern: I am writing in regard to the property owned by Lloyd Haines at 88 North Main Street. I understand that a currently standing tree is proposed to be cut down and then be used as the material for a sculpture by Russell Beebe. I believe this is a wondeIful idea that will serve to delight Ashland citizens and'"":' ..... for generations. I was fortunate to observe and film Russell sculpting a tree on Mr. Haines home property. The result was nothing short of fantastic and I am certain that a grateful public would very well receive the sculpture at 88 North Main. Russell is an extremely talented artist whose work will be cherished for generations. We are lucky to have a citizen like Mr. Haines who is willing to underwrite the creation of an outstanding piece of art for our town. Ken Silverman, President 25 East Main St. · Ashland, OR 97520 · (541) 482-3621 · FAX: (541) 482-3898 March 1~t, 2004 City of Ashland Planning commission 20 East Main Ashland, Oregon 97520 Re: 88-92 North Main Street, the Shasta Building Members of the Ashland planning commission: In regards to the construction of the Shasta Building, as long time residents of Ashland and current business owners and operators of a small business, we are in support of this project. We currently are two building lots south of the proposed project. We have seen the architect's plans and realize this project will probably be of some inconvenience to our business during construction. However, we are still in support of this undertaking for the following reasons. The building design is consistent in architecture style and scale with the surrounding buildings. The building fits into the landscape without dominating the area. The building will provide the community with multiple choices of enterprise within the building and within the downtown area. The building will improve the business atmosphere within the block for all, as more selections and choices always do. City residents and city coffers will benefit from the improved site and from the expanded tax base. This is part of the business city "infill". This addressed commission should project. /~ Frank Philipps and Nanc~Pliflipps Frank Philipps Pottery 88 North Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 Michael C. Babcock 71 Water Street, Unit 304 Ashland, OR 97520 March 1, 2004 Mr. John McLaughlin City of Ashland Planning Dopanmem 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR .97520 RE: Proposed Project - "88 N. Main" (Ashland Bar & Grill) Dear Mr. ~ghlin: I reside at the above address and I am currently the President of the Ashland Creek Condominiums -As sociatioaof UnitOwaers. This letter is written to you and the Planning Commission in support of the above referenced project. As both a resident and member of our Association Board of Directors, I have had extensive con~ and e~-with Ihe developer-~,4he 88 N~ Main St. Pmjac.~t Mr. Lloyd Haines. My experience in working with Mr. Haines has been positive in every respect. His m ~nt~ concern for ~Xhe~munity-aadfl~e~egmfi~m .ofxhis~roje~-~as been wallcons~~ I have had an opportunity to review the preliminary plans for this project. Based on the information~vi~~-todat~te, xhisproject-has myancond]fiom.!~ suppoO_ Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly. Michael C. Babcock A & A CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT, INC. 202 E~st Trent Avenue, Suite 400, Spokane, W~shinston 99202 ($09) 624-1170 f~x ($09) 624-1255 March 2, 2004 Ashland Planning Commission 1175 East Main St. Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Planning Action 2004-002 Ladies and Gentlemen: My partner, Bill Lawson, and I own the Plaza Inn and Suites at Ashland Creek just to the south of and adjoining property owned by Lloyd Haines for which the above proposed action is sought. My partner and I have reviewed the proposal by Lloyd Haines and we are in agreement for what we understand to be the projected use, project limitations, and conditions recommended by the Ashland Planning Staff. As such, we recommend approval of the project proposed by Mr. Haines. However, we want to make sure that pedestrian access between the Plaza and our hotel remains open and will be enhanced, and that other site improvements will be made to improve the overall area including reconfiguration and cleanup of the garbage dumpsters. If you should have any questions or concerns regarding this recommendation of approval, please feel free to contact me at 509-624-1170. Very truly yours, Christopher R. Ashenbrener CRA: sf Contractor's Licenses Alaska AA20704 Arizona 124930 California 760705 Ore, on 66668 Utah 0000431130 Washinston AACONDI134LE HANo °N'?HOWAI D el Y 82 N. MAIN ST. ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 (541) 488-2562 February 26, 2004 Planning Department City of Ashland 20 E Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Proposed new building at 88 North Main Ladies and Gentlemen: I'm sending this letter to the Planning Department because I'm unable to attend the upcoming hearing for the proposed building at 88 North Main. Please present this letter as my testimony at the time of the hearing. My business, Hanson Howard Gallery, is located adjacent to the Ashland Creek Bar and Grill, which is the area where the proposed building will be constructed. I have seen plans for the building and believe it is well designed and consistent with the many improvements that Mr. Haines has developed around the creek area. The proposal to create the "Ashland Creek Walk" connecting with Bluebird Park brings continuity to the entire development which is in my opinion a very good idea. I understand that Mr. Haines is offering to have Russell Beebe carve a sculpture from the tree that must be removed when the building is constructed. As an artist and gallery owner, I'm familiar with Russell's work and have seen the sculpture he has recently created from a tree that needed to be removed from another property. He is a very fine artist and a long time area resident. His work would be a welcome addition to the city. Public Art is important for any city, especially Ashland. In this time of limited resources, it is difficult for the city to acquire art, so Mr. Haines proposal to have the tree sculpture donated as a gift is a generous overture. Public Art enhances and beautifies the City and enriches all of our lives. Thank you for considering this letter. Sincerely, From: To: Date: Subject: Oriana Spratt <oriana.spratt@charter.net> <council@ashland .or.us> 1/25/04 9:31 PM Please, save the 'Gateway to Ashland' tree! I was very upset to find out about the proposed removal of an alder tree that serves as the gateway to Ashland, next to the creek and across from Brothers Restaurant. Why did the issue not get more publicity before the belatedly announced "public hearing?" The approach to Ashland on 99 from the north is so much more special than from the south-in large part, just because of that tree. Every Ashlander I have talked to about this issue is outraged at the idea of allowing it to be chopped down. To replace a large, healthy tree that has served for decades as a living, welcoming symbol of Ashland's special beauty with a SCULPTURE is a joke! Please, if you approve it's removal you (and all of us who pride ourselves on Ashland's reverence for nature) will have to live with that forever...don't do it! I hope it is not too late to save it. Please let me know when and where I can appear to express my opinion where it will matter. Oriana Spratt 482-18O3 Ma~ 17 04 08:28a ¢albraith & assooiates (541) 770-5164 p.1 DATE: CO': FAX #: ~'e- --/2z9~ MESSAGE:. , ~'/-.~ T~ , :~g'/~" 5' CC: FROM' We are sending a total of _ pages (including cover sheet). Please notify, us at 770-7964 if you did not receive all pages. CONFIDENTIALITI' NOTICE: This facslndle transndl~imt intO, contain confidential and privileged information. The information contained in this transmission is intended for tht addressee only. If you ar~ not the addressee of thi~ facsimile, please do nat review, disclose, copy or ttLnfrtbute it. If you have recelw, d tld~ tranzetd~'~on by ndstake, l~leas~ I~ttephone u.~ imrn~.dlate~V. Thtmk'.vou. 145 S, I-Iolly St. Medfovd, O.IK 97801 Phone, ~41.770.79fi4 Fax 541.770.5164 email: conract@galbraithla.¢om M~ 17 04 08: m. ~5411 770-51~4 From: To: Date: Subject: "Marc Heller" <mheller@internetcds.com> <bill@ashland .or.us> 5/17/2004 7:46:09 AM Shasta Building Dear Bill, I am writing in regard to the Shasta Building @ 88 N. Main. Would you please present this at the Tuesday meeting. This is a good project. Yes, one big tree has to be sacrificed, but the overall project makes sense. Its a well-thought out design that makes sense for the entrance to downtown. The incorporation of the creek walk is a powerful plus for this project, it adds public value to the project. Thanks for considering this. Marc Heller, DC m heller@internetcd s.com www. DrMarcHeller.com From: To: Date: Subject: Gino Grimaldi Colin Swales 5/17/2004 1:27:52 PM Re: Questions for Staff - upcoming appeal 2004-002 Colin, The Council also gets the material on Friday afternoon for the meeting on Tuesday. I've asked Mike Franell to look into the issues you've raised. Gino >>> "Colin Swales" <colin@mind.net> 05/17/04 09:44AM >>> Gino, I requested the Staff Report last week on this upcoming appeal (2004-002) but it would seem that it was only available last Friday afternoon. Is this considered sufficient time to enable the public to ascertain the Planning Staff's response to the Appeal criteria? I had hoped to get this request to Council eadier for inclusion in their packet but delay in obtain the information necessitates this e-mail ..... I still have some questions with regard my NO vote when this came before the PC. In spite of additional submittals, they still seem to be unanswered. Could you please.direct these questions to the departments concerned (building? planning?) and copy myself and Council on this request and any replies. (I don't want to trigger any ex-parte contact concerns with the decision makers) It seemed clear at the public hearing that neither Staff nor the applicant had addressed the possible issue of the aggregate group of buildings on that lot being in excess of 10,000 sq. ft and therefore subject to the provision of public open space or plaza etc. The latest Staff Report deals with this as "Regarding Objection 3 raised by the appellant, Staff reviewed this application as a new and separate development of 8,325 sq. ft. Section 18.72.050.B states: "Any development (emphasis added) in the Detail Site Review Zone as defined in the Site Review Standards adopted pursuant to this chapter, which exceeds 10,000 square feet or is longer than 100 feet in length or width, shall be reviewed according to the Type 2 procedure." ...We do not believe that this application constitutes a development greater than 10,000 sq. ft. When I raised this issue at the PC public meeting, the minutes of that meeting correctly reflected my concern as shown in the SDUS not the ALUO referenced above by Staff. "Swales... is talking about [SDUS] IIC3 - Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects. The applicant's testimony seemed to imply that the Building Department was considering this development as one large group of buildings for the purposes of Fire Code compliance etc. Is this the case and if so why does Planning Staff "believe" that they are separate buildings? How does this Staff interpretation affect a possible serial development on a single tax lot of groups of buildings, (each under the 10,000 sf limit) that would not then trigger the need for public space) ? The SDUS diagram shows just such a group (Large Scale Development conceptual site plan - page 25 Hard Copy page 28 of .pdf file http:llwww.ashland.or.uslFileslSite Desiqn.pdf - that includes the required public spaces. If this was developed serially could they ignore the 10% public space requirement? Alan Harper's letter of May 13th (just last Thursday !) states "This may require applicant to reestablish and adjust property boundaries. Applicant asserts the same can and will be done .... " If the buildings in this development (that are currently on one tax lot) were subject to a lot split then would a different design be required for fire separation and other Building Code compliance, occupancy etc.? Mr. Harper goes on to say "should the council determine this project must be aggregated..." and goes on to offer to additional (restaurant?) seating on the bridge. But just how "public" are these dining areas. At the moment they seem to be padlocked off during non-business hours. And just how does the possible up-grading by perhaps the City itself of the existing public footpath to create an "art walk" on adjacent (ODOT) public property relate to the approval criteria for this project? And of what relevance to those criteria is the eventual use (beautiful sculpture, artistic benches?) of the felled trees? thanks Colin Swales 461 Allison Street Bill Molnar - Re: Questions fo~'"]S't~ff'-'~JPc-~-mg .................................................... CC: Bill Molnar; City Council; John McLaughlin; Mike Franell May 16, 2004 Dear Alan De Boer, Ashland Counsel Members, and City Planners, In March the Tidings printed a front-page photo showing only the bare trunk of the Alder tree to be cut down to make room for the proposed Haines building on North Main near the plaza. This photo did not do justice to the loss this city will experience with the removal of that tree. Unfortunately, they did not print a full photo of that same beautiful tree now, in its fully leafed glory! I understand that City planners approved the Haines project hoping it will "cleanup'' the site and the area around it. There are other ways to clean up this property, with public access to the creek, besides sandwiching a big building in there that blocks the sun, and wipes out trees that shape the character of Ashland's plaza. From attending TC meetings, I now understand that the Alder, and a huge triple trunk Maple, may be lost, and a grove of 20 or more adjacent trees face a slow death after major branches are removed and roots disturbed to make room for the building. Last week I spoke to nearly 65 Ashland citizens, shop owners, and people walking the Plaza streets, and they don't want a sculpture, or another park bench- the trees are the beauty of Ashland - not the buildings. Listen to us! This 'Gateway Alder' is thriving because it is just were it wants to be - by the creek, at the entrance to the city. It could live another century if we let it! Since those of you in charge haven't listened to reason or public outcry, perhaps you will listen to Celtic folklore, which says: "The Alder is the tree to stand with when life tests your own strength -- it gives the impression of taking on anything that would harm you including your own fearS. The Alder is a tree of the leader warrior and very passionate about those under its care. So much so that one who cuts down an Alder ...shall bring a curse on his village." The first curse will be a huge downtown traffic tie-up lasting many months, just when we thought we were finished with street construction. As you well know, this will negatively impact businesses on North Main by cutting down foot-traffic. ! strongly urge you to look at alternatives to the proposed project, and I'm convinced that efforts have not been exhausted to do that. From the onset, I listened to members of the TC make decisions based on a lack of clarity of city codes, and incorrect, and incomplete information from the applicant. Then I witnessed Planning Commission members vote in favor of the project basing their vote on no TC objections and incorrect information. I even listened to the applicant's builder site city codes inaccurately, which were later clarified by Colin Swales. The one thing I believe to be right and prudent is that persons in a position to make decisions that will impact all the citizens of a city, have an obligation to base their decisions on true and correct information. This has not been done. As a one year old citizen of Ashland, this was my first observation of how decisions are made here, and I was very disappointed. I sympathize with Mr. Haines, yet I believe when you buy a piece of property, downtown, by the creek with a number of mature trees on it, along with that comes an commitment to the citizens of Ashland to preserve the natural beauty of the space - not necessarily a legal commitment, but a nobler duty because it's just the right thing to do. I request that this get on public record, and please forward to the members of the TC. Thank you. Respectfully, Diane McDermott Ashland homeowner 482-5008 HANSON HOWARD GALLeRy 82 N. MAIN ST. ASHLAND, OREGON 97'520 (541)488-2562 May 12, 2004 MAY 1 4 2004 By City Council City of Ashland · 20 E Ma~, SU'eet Ashland, OR 975'20 Proposed New Building at 88 North Main Dear City Council Members: · UnrUly, once again, I am unable to attend the uIx:oming meeting v~mxding the proposed new building at 88 North Main. Enclosed with this letter isan earlier letter I prepared and sent to the City supporting the project. Ireiterate my total support of the project. The proposed building is beautiful, the improvements to the creek will vastly improve the area next to my business, Hanson Howard Cmllery, and the proposal to donate public art is wonderful. Thank you for considering this letter. Sincerely, HANSON HOWARD GALLERY 82 N. MAIN ST. ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 (541)488-2562 February 26, 2004 Planning Department City of Ashland 20 E Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Proposed new building.at 88 North Main Ladies and Gentlemen: I'm sending this letter to the Planning Department because I'm unable to attend the upcoming hearing for the proposed building at 88 North Main. Please present this letter as my testimony at the time of the hearing. My business, Hanson Howard Gallery, is located adjacent to the Ashland Creek Bar and Grill, which is the area where the Proposed building will be constructed. I have seen plans for the building and believe it is well' designed and consistent with the many improvements that Mr. Haines has developed around the creek area. The proposal to create the "Ashland Creek Walk" connecting with Bluebird Park brings continuity to the entire development which is in my opinion a very good idea. I understand that Mr. Haines is offering to have Russell Beebe carve a sculpture from the tree that must be removed when the building is constructed. As an artist and gallery owner, I'm familiar with Russell's work and have seen the sculpture he has recently created from a tree that needed to be removed from another property. He is a very fmc artist and a long time area resident. His work would be a welcome addition to the city. Public Art is imPortant for any city, especially Ashland. In this time of limited resources, it is difficult for the city'to acquire art, so Mr. Haines proposal to have the tree sculpture donated as a gift is a generous overture. Public Art enhances and beautifies the City and enriches all of our lives. Thank you for considering this letter. Sincerely, LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Architectural Design Works, Inc. Date: 5/14/2004 Project: Haines Shasta Bldg. Job No.: HAl RE: See Below 1105 Siskiyou Blvd. P. O. Box 1348 Ashland, Oregon 97520 5411488-0719 TO: City of Ashland 51 Winbum Way Ashland, OR. 97520 Attn: Bill Molnar WE ARE SENDING YOU: [] PRINTS [] SAMPLES X DOCUMENTS [] SHOP DRAWINGS [] CHANGE ORDER [] CATALOGUE 171 page(s) to follow [] SUBMITTALS [] COPY OF LETTER [] OTHER COPIES: DATES: DESCRIPTION: I copy REMARKS: 5118104 Revised Site Use Summary Bill: Attached is a revised Site Use Summary that I forgot to include in the information, we submitted the moming of 12 May 2004, for the City Council appeal. This Site Use Summary updates the revisions required by cuffing back the building for saving the Maple Tree. Dave, HAI_T06-Bill Molnar.doc Site Use Summary fOr Shasta Building '03 ~ Owner: Lloyd Haines Architect: Architectural Design Works (Note: Developed area only) Zoning: C-1-D Downtown Commercial I Tax Lot 6 Site Area: 4,201 SF 100.00% 0.10 Acres Covera~le: INew Building: 3,395 SF New Bridge (portion on Lot 6) 106 SF Total Coverage: 3,501 SF 83.35% Landscape Coverage: (Incl Creek) I 700 SF I 16.65% Including Creek Landscape Required:IN°ne Required I Parking: I~one Required for C-1-D New Building Enclosed Areas: Basement: (Mechanical) 890 SF Lower Floor: (Shell) 2,135 SF Main Floor: (Shell) 3,170 SF Upper Floor (Finished) 3,313 SF Total: 9,508 SF New Buildin~l Outside Areas: Lower Floor Dining Deck 754 SF Upper Floor Balcony 40 SF Total: 794 SF Residential Uses: ID'nsity Allowed: I 60 per acre = 5.786 Units Allowed Actual number of units:I I 2 Units At least 65% of the total gross floor area of the ground floor shall be designated for permitted or special permitted uses, excluding residential: I 100.00%lPermitted Uses Revised: 5/18/04 Page 1 Michael C~_~bcock 71 Water Street, #304 Ashland, OR 9?520 MAY ! ~ ~004 ~_~,, May 10, 20.04 Ashland City Council 1175 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 Re: Planning~20.04~002./88.Main Sl__Pmject Dear Council Members: We are writing in_support of the above referencedproject~ We call your attention to our correspondence of March 1, 2004 (copy attached) to the City Plannilxg Commission also in support af this~proje~ We believe that this project represents a positive addition to the neighborhood and the community. Thebenefi~.of_the_project far outweigh the saving of.the alder_tree in · question and we believe the permit to remove the tree should be approved. Thank you for your ermsid~fi~ Sincerely, Michael C.]tabe~,,k .... Michael C. Babcock 71 WateF Street, Unit 304 Ashland, OR 97520 March 1,'2004 Mr. John McLaughlin City of Ashl /'Xa niag 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Proposed Project - "88 N. Main" (Ashland Bar & Grill) Dear Mr. ~in: I reside at the above address and I am currently the Presidem of the Ashland Creek Condominb. m~ Associati. en of L~*. Owners. This letter is written to you and the Planning Commission in support of the above referenced ~ject. As both a residem and member of our Association Board of Directors, I have had extensive conraC, and .extmrieac. e with4~ de, v~.~ t1~.88 N..Maia St. Mr. Lloyd Haines. My experience in working with Mr. Haines has been positive in every respect. His cone, em I have had an opportunity to review the preliminary plans for this project. Based on the informatio~-e~viewed to da~..thiswoj~-has.my~ena! support. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, Michael C. Babcock HANSON ,. HOWARD GALLeRy 82 N. MAIN ST. ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 (541)488-2562 February 26, 2004 Planning Department City of Ashland 20 E Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Proposed new building at 88 North Main Ladies and Gentlemen: I'm sending this letter to the Planning Department because I'm unable to attend the upcoming hearing for the proposed building at 88 North Main. Please present this letter as my testimony at the time of the hearing. My business, Hanson Howard Gallery, is located adjacent to the Ashland Creek Bar and Grill, which is the area where the proposed building will be constructed. I have seen plans for the building and believe it is well designed and consistent with the many improvements that Mr. Haines has developed around the creek area. The proposal to create the "Ashland Creek Walk" connecting with Bluebird Park brings continuity to the entire development which is in my opinion a very good idea. I understand that Mr. Haines is offering to have Russell Beebe carve a sculpture from the tree that must be removed when the building is constructed. As an artist and gallery owner, I'm familiar with Russell's work and have seen the sculpture he has recently created from a tree that needed to be removed from mnother property. He is a very fine artist and a long time area resident. His work would be a welcome addition to the city. Public Art is important for any city, especially Ashland. In this time of limited resources, it is difficult for the city to acquire art, so Mr. Haines proposal to have the tree sculpture donated as a gift is a generous overture. Public Art enhances and beautifies the City and enriches all of our lives. Thank you for considering this letter. Sincerely, HANSON HOWARD GALLERY 82 N. MAIN ST. ASHLAND, OREGON May 12, 2004 97520 (541) 488-2562 MAY 1 4 2004 By City Council City of Ashland 20 E Main Sta'eet Ashland, OR 97520 Dear City Council Members: Proposed New Building at 88 North Main Unfortunately, once gain, I am unable to attend the tq:nx)ming meeting regarding the proFx)sed new building at 88 North Main. Enclosed with this letter is an earlier letter I prepared and sent to the City supporting the project. I reiterate my total support of the project. The proposed building is beautiful, the improvements to the creek will vastly improve the area next to my business, Hanson Howard Gallery, and the proposal to donate public art is wonderful. Thank you for considering this letter. Sincerely, ~h.e,~rst curse will be a huge downtown trafficking many months~;alt, the~.b~g~~.U~. ~{ is going to be set up right in the stre~t,-~6"l(~kii~'g the bottleneck of North Main. Help save the Alder. Come to the City Council meeting this Tuesday, ~118, 7:00 pm at 1175 E. Main St. and speak up. Otherwise, this stately tree will be .turned into a totem pole! The Gateway Alder: Going, going, gone? From Applicant's file Office of the Mayor Alan DeBoer MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: May 12, 2004 City Council Members Mayor Alan DeBoer ~ Appointment to Planning Commission May 18, 2004 Council Meeting At the May 4, 2004 City Council Meeting, council discussed three Planning Commission appointments whose terms expired on April 30, 2004. Two new appointments were confirmed (Olena Black and Allen Douma), leaving one remaining vacancy. In accordance with Section 2.04.080 of the Ashland City Code, I request confirmation from City Council of the appointment of Michael Dawkins to the Planning Commission for a term to expire April 30, 2008. A copy of Mr. Dawkins' application is attached. Attachment: City of Ashland · 20 East Main Street · Ashland, OR 97520 · (541) 488-6002 · Fax: (541) 488-5311 · Emaih awdb@aol.com 646 East Main St. Ashland 482 2703 Hm. 840 9542 cell To the mayor and members of city council: I am applying for the open seat on the planning commission. MAR ~ 9 ~004 Y' -, -11 , i1 , , i -~- Bom: 1946 Ashland 1949- 1977 Aspen, Co. 1977-2002 Ashland 2002 -present There are few people who love my home town ol~ Ashland as much as I, and for that reason I wish to be involved in how the town grows. A~ter returning lrom what originally was going to be a Winter in Aspen, I mn for a seat on the park commission which I narrowly lost to Rich R osenthal. The pa~k commission would have been a good ffi for both the city and I because I cared deeply about the parks and open space I grew up with, and that I am by trade, a ho~t~ltudst. Though that did not happen, I still remain passionately interested in growth issues, and the two commissions that fit with this passion are planning and historic. While in Aspen I sat on and was an appointed representative of several transportation and trails committees of which I always had perfect attendance. I take very seriously and stay involved with such appointments. I also was involved with several focus groups conceming growth and housing. I very much want to serve off this commission, Michael Dawkins CITY OF SHLAND Council Communication Tire: Dept: Date: Submitted By: Approved By: Synopsis: The Grove Administration May 18, 2004 Ann Seltzer, Management Analyst Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator At the April 6 meet_ing, council reviewed the recommendation of the ad hoc Grove Committee. There was discussion about a number of issues including: mixing social services with recreation, estimated costs to the City to maintain the Grove and run it as a teen center, where the money would come from, opening/renting the facility to other activities during non-teen hours, asking the Parks Department to run a teen center versus issuing an RFP for an independent organization and if the City is ready to take on this commitment at this time. Recently a group of recreation and social service providers in the valley met to discuss the Grove and the ad hoc committee recommendation. The group included representatives from the YMCA, United Way, Community Works, Ashland School District, On-track, Methodist Church (representing the faith community), Mayor DeBoer, Councilor Hartzell and city staff. There was discussion about whether teen recreation and social service needs were already being met, mixing social services with recreation, whether a teen center should be paid for with public dollars or private dollars, what worked in the Grove and what did not work. Generally the group agreed that Phase I of the ad hoc committee recommendation was a good approach but that it should not include social services for at least three years allowing time for the Grove to establish a proven track record before approaching funding agencies with grant requests. The group did not support issuing an RFP for an independent provider. Currently, the Grove is being used by city departments for training and some meetings. The City has purchased tables and chairs, basic audiovisual equipment, microwaves and a refrigerator. Recommendation: Discussion of the options is suggested. BackgroUnd: Over the course of five meetings the committee completed their charge and submitted a recommendation to the council. ~. At the regular council meeting on December 16, 2004 the council agreed to establish an ad hoc committee to evaluate the Grove. The charge of the nine-member committee was to: "...identify the needs of the undeserved youth in the community, to identify a list of providers, to identify a range of options for responding to those needs and bring the options and a recommendation back to the city council..." Committee Members: Sam Groveman, Jan Janssen, Tom Cole, Angelina Kohler, Merry Vediner, Aaron Harris, Mark Schoenleber, Cate Hartzell, Alan DeBoer Since the December 16 meeting, HUD has agreed to accept a pledge fi.om the City to reimburse the CDBG funds no later than August 1, 2004. As such, HUD restrictions on activities in the Grove no longer apply. Attachment III is the Summary Report of the ad hoc Grove committee. The report lists the needs of youth in the committee, the list of providers and a range of options all identified by the committee. The final recommendation of the committee was derived fi.om the range of options. Options: The Ad Hoc Committee discussed the first two options. The Ad Hoc Committee did not discuss the third option. 1) Committee Recommendation Phase I Adopt the ad hoc committee recommendation as is. Parks and Recreation will manage the Grove as is done currently for the Community Center and Pioneer Hall and in conjunction with a Teen Board and implement teen oriented programs and services. Parks will assume respOnsibility for the building and make programming decisions in conjunction with a Teen Board. Estimated costs: $42,000 for basic maintenance and utilities plus staffing and programs. Estimated revenue: $35,000 (based on current combined revenue of the Community Center and Pioneer Hall). Phase II Once the new Community Organization is formed, Parks would transition the established programs to a newly formed Community Organization. The new organization would develop integrate recreational and support systems for teens. Later, the Community Organization will assume responsibility and program ' decision-making for the facility. Estimated costs to the City: Unknown. 2) Independent Contractor/Teen Center Issue an RFP for an independent provider to run the Grove as a teen center. Possible providers include the YMCA and Youth for Christ. These are the only two organizations staff is aware of that have expressed interest in operating the Grove. The YMCA has made it clear that they would not be interested in providing services for teens exclusively but rather for a range of ages. The City would have to determine what amount if any it was willing to underwrite. Staff has not researched or identified other possible providers. The independent contractor would assume responsibility and program decision-making for the facility. Estimated cost to the City: Unknown. This alternative was discussed by the Ad Hoc Committee but was not selected. 3) Teen Center Ask the Parks and Recreation Commission to operate the Grove and provide teen recreation programs and make the Grove available for community use during non-teen use. This differs from the committee recommendation in that there is not a transition to a coalition of community organizations. Parks would assume responsibility and program decision-making for the building. Estimated costs: $42,000 for basic maintenance and utilities plus staffing and programs. Estimated revenue: $35,000 (based on current combined revenue of the Community Center and Pioneer Hall). Fiscal Impact: Don Robertson, Parks and Recreation Director is preparing a hypothetical budget for operating the Grove as a teen center. Don will present that information at the council meeting on May 18. It is not included in this packet. Note: A proposal to operate the Grove has not been presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission and would require their support before moving forward. Basic maintenance and utilities in the Grove is approximately $42,000 per year. That amount is not included in the 2004-2005 budget. Should council move forward with one of the options listed above, a budget adjustment is needed. Attachments: I II III IV V VI VII VIII Minutes ad hoc Grove committee Recommendation from the ad hoc Grove Committee Summary Report ad hoc Grove committee Comments from social service and recreation providers at the May 3 meeting Letter from Patti Busse E-mail from Carolyne Ruck Request from Don McMillan List of community requests to use the Grove. Attachment I Minutes of Ad Hoc Meeting January 8, 4:15 - 5:30 pm Lithia Room, Community Development Building, 51 Winbum Way Chair: Mayor Alan DeBoer Committee Members in Attendance: Sam Groveman, Jan Janssen, Angelina Kohler, Mary Vediner, Aaron Harris, Mark Schoenleber, Cate Hartzell (Staff Liaison), and Ann Seltzer (Staff) Also in attendance were approximately 18 other citizens concerned with the future of the Grove.. The meeting was called to order at 4:15 pm by Chair Alan DeBoer The following was expressed by nearly everyone in the room regarding what the committee wants the Grove to do: - provide services'to all teens - provide services to teens exclusively - provide social services to teens - provide recreational services to teens; some ideas discussed were rock climbing, music, ropes course, large screen tv, snack bar, art studio - having teens and adults work together to mn the Grove - having the Grove be a community hub, where teens can connect with healthy adult mentors - provide teen shelter - create something we don't already have Other ideas: - teen shelter - food bank - from a survey of high school students: snack bar, ball pit, big screen tv, nude volleyball, after hours activities, better snacks, mini-ramp for skateboarding, nice furniture There was much discussion about providing social services, including a shelter, and whether that can be done in conjunction with a teen center. Discussion about starting out slowly with the shelter idea. Perhaps starting out with a food bank and other services for homeless teens and then integrating a shelter later, if feasible. Concerns expressed: - Importance of matching needs with users - If people aren't using the Grove we are not providing the right services - Current perception is that it's a middle school hang-out - Appropriate management is key to success Next Steps: - Who would nm the Grove? Identify people who are serving teens now. Name leaders in the community - Find out the variance and zoning information for the Grove regarding a shelter - Ann Seltzer - What is the definition of a shelter? Contact people in the Bay Area to see if any teen centers combined with teen shelters exist - Philip Lang Next meeting to be held Thursday, January 15, 2003, from 4:15 - 6 pm, at the Grove Meeting was adjourned at 5:15 pm by Chair Alan DeBoer Minutes of Ad Hoc Meeting January 15,4:15-6:00 pm The Grove Chair: Mayor Alan DeBoer Committee Members in Attendance: Sam Groveman,Jan Janssen, Angelina Kohler, Mary Vediner, Aaron Harris, Mark Sch0enleber, Cate Hartzell (Staff Liaison), and Gino Grimaldi (Staff, City Administrator) Also in attendance were 'aPproximately 11 other citizens concerned with the furore of the Grove. I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 4:15 pm by Chair Alan DeBoer II. Approval of Minutes III Old Business Action follow up: The zoning ordinance would have to be amended to allow any sort of overnight shelter at the Grove. The process would take (or will take) at least two months. IV New Business Cate Hartzell distributed Proposed Grove Ad Committee TasksThe information led to much discussion, including: - The Teen Center shall be for middle school - high school age teens or ages 11 - 20. - The Committee wants more teens involved in the planning stages. - The music studio currently using the Grove is a success and has permission to use the Grove until June 2004. - There is a need to generate income by renting the Grove out. Philip Lang provided information dated November 13, 2003 entitled: Grimaldi Gram #3: What to do with the Ashland Adolescent Center New ideas that were proposed include: - Activities levy funds were mentioned as a possible resource. - The committee will need more time than the allotted four meetings to complete the task. - Possibly constructing an organization to nm the Grove versus finding an already existing organization to manage the Grove. V. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 6:00 pm by Chair Alan DeBoer Next meeting to be held Thursday, January 22, 2004, from 4:15 - 6 pm, at the Grove Minutes of Ad Hoc Meeting January 22, 4:15 - 6:00 The Grove Chair: Mayor Alan DeBoer Committee Members in Attendance: Sam Groveman, Jan Janssen, Mark Schoenleber, Cate Hartzell (Staff Liaison), and Ann Seltzer (Staff) Also in attendance were approximately 6 other citizens concerned with the future of the Grove. I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 4:39 pm by Chair Alan DeBoer II. Approval of Minutes III. Old Business IV. New Business - Ann Seltzer passed out the Committee agenda with background information concerning the history of the Grove .and committee contact information. - Cate Hartzell passed out a diagram with examples of two different ways the Grove could be nm: community defined and driven and contracting out use of the building. Some of the major discussion points included: - Brad conveyed the idea of the importance of having one point person who rallies the community;. Someone who is passionate about working with teens, and someone who can raise funds and sign checks. Alan said it could possibly be a city employee. - Desire to have everything in the building eventually owned by the Grove. If someone manages it, we want all the furniture, and appliances, etc. to stay with the Grove when the management leaves. Ginger talked about another model: a consortium effort of organizations to provide resources in the Grove. - Hire coordinator who is attached to the city. Then there is no' single organization in control. The committee decides who. provides services. - Clarify the level of ownership in the community. - Funding available through various grants, including the Carpenter Fund. - Could rent out the Grove to generate income while the RFP's are out. - Don Robertson expressed the importance of defining what the problems are. which we are attempting to solve with a teen center. Once these problems are defined, we can set them out specifically in the RFP. This will allow the respondents to the RFP's come up with solutions. Requests for Proposal to community: - Being specific in Request for Proposgls about what we want. - Include grant-writing in the RFP. - Prepare several RFP's for'different services. Action Items: - Committee members and interested parties to draft "problem statements" to email to Committee before next meeting. - Ann to bring "bare bones" RFP document for review. - Discuss a possible youth commission. - Discuss criteria for decision-making. - Clarify identity of problems to be solved by the Grove. V. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 6:20 pm by Chair Alan DeBoer Next meeting to be held Thursday, January 29,2004, from 4:15 - 6 pm, at the Grove. Minutes of Ad Hoc Meeting January 29; 4:15 - 6:00 pm The Grove, 1195 East Main Street Chair: Mayor Alan DeBoer Committee Members in Attendance: Sam Groveman, Jan Janssen, Mark. Schoenleber, Tom Cole, Cate Hartzell (Staff Liaison), and Gino Grimaldi (Staff) Also in attendance were approximately 6 other citizens concerned with the furore of the Grove I. The meeting was called to order at 4:25 p.m. by Chair Alan DeBoer II Approval of Minutes. No changes to last week's minutes were requested. III Old Business. - Clarify identity of problems to be solved by the Grove. Problems to be solved by the Grove/Services to be provided were outlined on the board: 1) Recreation - Social, life skills - Intergenerational experience, music, fine arts classes, kinetic activity; safe place to hang out, a place to do research, school work 2) Support/Assistance Jobs, education Social services - health counseling Mentorship - Focal point for teen community service 3) Support for homeless/underserved teens - Connect with services; help with finding place to sleep, phone, shower, computer, basic services IV New Business Options as outlined on the board: 1) One organization assumes responsibility for whole program 2) City hires staff in interim to coordinate partnerships/programs. 3) Community organizations/agencies coordinate a program 4) City uses the senior center model- permanently "runs". Approach: OVERSEEN BY TEEN BOARD Next meeting will focus on what recommendations we want to make to the council Next meeting of the Ad Hoc Grove Committee will be Thursday, February 19, 2004, at 4:15 p.m. at the Grove. V Meeting was adjourned at 6:00 pm by Chair Alan DeBoer. Minutes Ad Hoc Meeting February 19, 2003 The Grove Attendance Committee members, Sam Groveman, Jan Janssen, Mark Schoenleber, Cate Hartzell, (council liaison), Ann Seltzer (staff liaison) were present. Absent Alan Deboer, Tom Cole, Merry Vediner, Angelina Kohler, and Aaron Harris were not present. Guests Joy Bannon, Parks & Recreation Employee; Don Robertson Parks & Recreation Director, Renee Fisk, Karen Gosetti, Mica Cardillo, community members Call to Order Cate Hartzell called the meeting to order at 4:25 p.m. Approval of minutes. Minutes were approved. Old Business Ann Seltzer distributed a summary report of the work of the committee, which included a draft of a recommendation to be submitted to the Council. The report was discussed and the following changes were identified: · Delete the word "advisory" from the teen board. · Expand on the role of the committee: identify services and phases, select a teen board, work with Parks as it moves forward, and convene potential partners. · Approach will reflect diverse teen culture Action Seltzer will revise draft recommendation and send to the committee members. Committee members will edit the recommendation and agree to a final recommendation to be submitted to the City Council. Adjournment Cate Hartzell adjourned the meeting at 6:00 p.m. Next Meeting Thursday, March 18 at 4:15 pm at the Grove. Attachment II Ad hoc Grove Committee Recommendation to City Council Apdl 6, 2004 Phase I May 2004 1) Form a teen board who will reflect a diverse teen culture. 2) Make a formal request to the Parks and Recreation Commission . a) Request that the Parks and Recreation Department manage and rent the Grove as is currently done for the Community Center and Pioneer Hall. b) Request that the Parks and Recreation Department in conjunction with a teen board develop and implement teen oriented programs and services and establish partnerships. c) Request that th6 Parks and Recreation Department explore ways to integrate the established programs and services with the Community Organization which will be formed in the future. d) The City of Ashland will offer the Parks and Recreation Department free rent and free utilities including AFN. Phase II May 2005 or sooner or later Once the new Community Organization is formed: a) The Community Organization will work with the Parks and Recreation Department and the teen board to transition programs. b) The Community Organization will develop and implement a series of support systems for teens such as counseling, job referrals/placement etc. c) The Community Organization will develop and implement a support system for homeless teens such as connecting with other services, find places for teens to sleep, provide phone and computer services etc. d) The City of Ashland will offer free rent and free utilities including AFN until the organization is able to assume those expenses. e) The Community Organization will assume responsibility for the facility. Attachment III Summary Report Ad hoc Grove Committee February 19,2004 CITY O'F -ASHLAND Over the course of four meetings in January, the ad hoc Grove Committee identified the needs of youth in the community, id6ntified possible providers to meet the identified needs and identified four options to provide services and programs in the Grove that meet the identified needs of Ashland youth. " The common thread throughout the meetings was the importance of teens having a "voice" in the programs and services that will be offered in the Grove. The next step is to bring a recommendation f0rward.to the City Council. Identify the Needs · Provide services to all teens · Provide services to teens exclusively · Provide basic social needs for teens · Provide recreational services to teens · A teen advisory board to review/evaluate programming/management · A place where teens can connect with healthy adult mentors · Create something we don't have, unique to Ashland Other · Teen shelter · Food bank · Basic services for homeless teens Identify Providers The following organization names have been tossed around but there is not consensus with the group that these providers can meet the needs listed above. · YMCA · Youth for Christ · Kids Unlimited (or similar model) · Community Organization as yet unformed to provide a collage of services for a custom designed teen center. Identify_ a Range of Options These are listed verbatim and in the order they were written on the board at the last meeting in January. 1) One organization assumes responsibility for entire program. Pros ,, · Turnkey operation · Quick timeline Cons · May not completely meet the needs as identified by the committee. 2) City hires staff in interim to coordinate parmerships and programs Pros 10 · Staff is on-site during facility hours to coordinate and facilitate services and programs · Allows time for another the Community Organization to form Cons · It is expensive to hire staff 3) Community organization/agencies coordinate a program. Pros · Thorough evaluation of teen needs in Ashland · Establishes buy-in and partnerships Cons · Pot.entially long timeline · ' Building remains unused during the planning stages' ' 4) City uses the senior center model and permanently runs the Grove. Pros · Allows City control of building activities · Long term funding source for the facility Cons · The City has no expertise in this field. · Likely more expensive to run than by a non-profit (higher wages, benefits etc.) Final Recommendation The recommendation of the committee is a combination of option #2 (modified to include parks rather than the city) and option #3 to be implemented in two phases. 11 Attachment III Meeting at the Grove Social service and recreation providers Comments from meeting attendees May 3, 2004 YMCA (Lisa Molnar) The YMCA is full of teens participating in Y programs and acts as a community teen center. Caution, don't label a program "teen", because teens won't attend. Teens at the Y are participating in wide range of activities. Teens hang out in the.lobby. .. The Y is bursting at the seems and needs more space and would be willing to provide programs in the Grove and "fill the space". The Y is not willing to provide exclusively to teens. Ashland School District (Juli Dichiro) There is not a teen recreation void, but rather a lack of weekend and evening activities. ASD has cut back on dances as they are very hard to manage. A teen center must be staffed by a "kid magnet". The success of Kids Unlimited is due to Tom Cole. The kids respond to him... The Grove was and may still be perceived as a place for problem kids, it won't work if that perception still exists. Whatever is decided, it must be a tax-based operation. Staffing is expensive and yet it is crucial to have good staff and stable funding. I'm willing to help identify kids to serve on an advisory board. Community Works (Amie Green) There are fewer teens in Ashland, the demographics are changing. We offered yoga, art, it was a safe place for teens and we were in the hole $75,000 before we could even open the doors. We'd be willing to offer counseling/support for a couple °fhours a week if the council moves ahead with Phase II. I recommend the Grove make a clean break fi'om what it was and not mix recreation with social services. · United Way (Dee Anne Everson) I don't sense a critical mass to get the Grove open as a teen center. What does that say? The Grove would have to demonstrate a proven track record of three plus years before funding organizations would consider granting requests. Don't include social services for at least three years. I understand the need to "maximize" the use of the building but it can't be both a recreation center and social service center immediately if at all. On-track (Clay Cooke) Is this a recreation center or a social service center? 12 Attachment IV Patti Busse 1372 Woodland Drive Ashland Oregon 97520 541.482.1264 - paflib@jobcou ncil.org May 3, 2004 RE: The Grove Building Dear Mayor and City Council Members: Please give careful consideration to your decision on how is the community will be . best served when considering programs for the "grove" building. My work responsibilities kept me from attending the meeting on May 3rd to consider how this building could benefit the community. I would like to offer some historical perspective that may assist you in your decision. The Ashland Teen Center began as a grass roots effort on a shoestring budget over 20 years ago. The goal was to provide an after school recreation programs for kids 11 to 14. This age range was targeted because mixing older teens with younger teens was too intimidating for the middle school age. The program facility moved over the years. The humble beginnings were in the lower level of the Ashland Library. The Old Ashland Armory was home for many years, but when the National Guard moved, so did the ATC to it's new home, Pioneer Hall. The proximity to the park and the plaza made it attractive to the kids attended, since they liked a "drop in" center program, which made the park and plaza very attractive to the teens attending. The ATC met the needs of some kids, but mostly children who didn't have a lot of other activities in their lives. A majority of young people in Ashland are "involved" in sports, after school activities, clubs and more. They also had parents who were available to present or encourage these activities. Many of the young people who gravitated to the center did not have the opportunity to participate in these activities for a variety of reasons. Unfortunately the center seemed to have a reputation among the teens that it was not the "cool" place to be, therefore many teens would not participate for fear of being "labeled" as not "cool" or "popular". This persisted for years and was still true when I took another career path with The Job Council in 1992. The Ashland Teen Center did merge with what was called' "Youthworks" in 1989 and later became "Community Works" and eventually the "Grove" was born. Knowing the history of the center and the youth that attended, the leap to the Grove was 13. ambitious, and personally concerning to me if it could succeed. I think on many levels the Grove did succeed, but not to level one would hope. Funding issues continued to plaque Community Works, as well as attendance at the Grove. If the City is looking to run a youth or teen program, please consider this: · It is expensive, and limited hours would make the building empty much of the time. · Our youth population is decreasing. We closed one school, and may close another. · The building is not in proximity to area where teens like to gather. · Some teens see 'being next to the Police Station as an issue. AFN has raised their rates, along with an increase in utility rates. It seems many of our citizens are rea~zhing a threshold of "enough is enough". Many critical comments have been made about the hiring of an "Affordable Housing" Coordinator. When you search the City's web site on affordable housing, the list is long on the types of careers folks have who could not afford to live in Ashland. To create another position to run a program for youth only, in my opinion, is not wise. So, you may ask, how can this building be best utilized? Do we need a family resource center like the one in White City? Do we need a "one-stop" for youth? Our schools and the Department of Human Service in Ashland are already providing many of these services. Consider the following: · Extend the offerings of Park & Recreation with class offerings and events. · Rent out the facility for use, like Pioneer Hall and the Community Center. · Contact the Boys & Girls Club to see if they would like to now pursue a program in Ashland. · Would SOU or Head Start consider a partnership? · Would the school district look at offering their home school program at this site, and sell off the land for another financial resource for the district? The facility is wonderful and inviting place. I hope you all give thoughtful consideration to the best use of the building. I am positive that you can find new life that will appreciate this space, while you remain good stewards of the citizen's tax money. If I can be of assistance in any way, please call me at 482-1264, at work 842-2590, or email me at mailto:pattib@jobcouncil.orq. Sincerely, Patti Busse 14 Attachment V Cate Hartzell From: Sent: To: Subject Carolyne Ruck [Ruck@sou.edu] Tuesday, April 06, 2004 11:02 AM cate@mind.net Support of Grove Proposal DearCate, I am an emeritus professor at Southern'Oregon University and have for many years been involved with groups seeking to assist young people who are homeless in Ashland. I applaud the proposal of the Ad Hoc committee regarding the use of the Grove for that purpose and to serve the teen population in Ashland as a whole. The cooperative agency model is, I think, the wave of the future. We can no longer continue to be a fragmented society, putting banda ids on problems without ever really addressing the entire situation. By putting agency resources together in one place, Ashland has an opportunity to not only utilize the resources of the social service agencies more efficiently and effectively, but we also are taking a leadership role in looking at the big picture -- the whole child, the whole family, the whole community. By supporting this recommendation, I believe that you will be really modeling "community spirit" which involves working together for the good of all. White City Elementary School pioneered a similar approach with social service agencies many years ago so that they could serve the whole child. They were working with a younger age of student, but the principle was the same, and they had great success with the model. Agencies used a "case study" approach to help students and families in distress, and it worked beautifully because what one agency couldn't by mission provide, another could so that by working together, they could meet all of the needs of the situation. Loretta Lividais at White City Elementary was a key player in this, so you might want to talk to her about how it was done and what they learned, but at least I know the model can work beautifully and to the great satisfaction of all involved. Thank you for this opportunity to express my opinion, and I do urge support of the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Committee to use the Grove to give a place for various teen centered community agencies to work together for the good of Ashland's youth -- especially the distressed youth. Sincerely, Carolyn Buck (482-9641 or 552-6924) P.S. Dear Cate, This is what I sent to all the council members. Chris was going to write as well, and get the word out to other supporters. I'd be there tonight, but I,have a class from 7 to 10 pm. Hope this does the trick...Carolyne Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.619 1 Virus Database: 398 - Release Date: 3/10/2004 15 Attachment VI The following letter was sent to staff via e-mail on Tuesday, May 11, 2004. Ms. Ann Seltzer City of Ashland Ashland, OR I am writing to request of the City Council the opportunity to rent space at the Grove for the on-going. Journeyman groups of the Boys to Men Mentoring Network. Boys to Men is a three part program designed to address the needs of teenage boys in the community. The first part is a weekend long Mentor training designed to give mentors a deeper understanding of todays teenagers. A primary part of any man's identity is molded by his experiences as an adolescent, and by revisiting this period of their lives, men can develop a greater appreciation for what the boys in our community need. The second part of the program is a weekend long initiation training for teenage boys that is intended to start them off on a conscious journey toward the accountability, self acceptance and emotional maturity of an adult man. They are encouraged to make conscious decisions about what kind of man they want to be and are witneSsed by supportive and interested adult men from the community. The third leg of this program is on-going mentoring support groups for the young men. These weekly groups are led by men who have worked with the boys through the initiatory weekend and are intended to support the decisions made by the young men on the weekend about what kind of men they would like to become. The groups range in size from six boys and three men, to about twelve boys and five men. Within the group meetings there is both group activity and processing and the opportunity for individual conversation and support, depending on what is needed at the time. This is a program that began six years ago in S. Califomia, and has taken root here in S. Oregon over the past year and a half. We are requesting that the City Council make two rooms available at the Grove, both to support this particular program, and to fulfill the original intent of the Grove in this community. Currently, we are meeting weekly on Wednesday evenings from 6:30 to 8:30. This is an entirely volunteer program. None of the men who work with these young men are paid, most of us donate money at times to pay for snacks, and each of the men working with these boys has undergone fingerprint and background checks to assure program safety. We are, of course, willing to pay for use of these rooms. However, we request that the Council consider making this cost as reasonable as possible given our limited resources for payment. Please don't hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns you may have. Sincerely, Bill McMillan, MFT 565 A St. Ashland, OR 482-1072 16 Attachment VII List of community requests to use the Grove. Non-pro fit/go v emment · Ashland Emergency Food Bank Looking for a new location for the food bank. Currently it is in a small shed behind ICCA. · Planned Parenthood teen theatre · Girl Scouts · Church of Christ Rental space for 3-4 months. · Forensic Lab · DEQ · Chamber of Commerce Private Use · Lots of requests to use the space for private parties (family reunions, birthday parties, wedding receptions, baby showers etc.) City Use · Police Department · CERT · Bike Swap 17 Unfinished Business- The Grove To be entered into the public record for Ashland City Council meeting on May 18, 2004. Mica Cardillo 873 Oak Knoll The City Council should move on this issue by approving a motion to have the City staff or APRD staff to draw up an RFP that considers and reflects the following: 1) The term "teen" is defined by ages 13 to 20 for purpose of focus. Age, however, shall not exclude individuals of different ages from participating in programs offered. 2) The RFP states that the primary focus will be to engage and assist programs that promote a positive image where most teens and adults do not have the misconception that this is where the all the "bad kids" hang out. 3) Some AdHoc Committee members and wise community members were clear in stating that creating a successful teen center is going to take time and that funding isn't the most crucial issue. The predicament of how to capture the interest and imagination of teens is a much more crucial issue. Without specific guidance and allowances, most organizations are currently unable to take on the liability and costs associated with sponsoring many of the activities that engage teens. For example, Ashland School District has not been able to sponsor any more school dances due to the sexual nature of the dancing that occurs today. 4) The City Council allows staff to make best use of the building in the interim of 3 to 24 months. The Grove should be rented out by the City as much as possible, with preference to youth programs, until a non-profit organization(s) or the Recreation Department is able and ready to start implementing the ideas and programs that will attract Ashland's teen population. 5) The City staff prepares an RFP with language that does not initially shut the door to newer organizations without a lot of current funding for the project. 6) During the interim, allow local organizations to use the facility for teen-related activities at for a small building maintenance fee. Allow staff to include language in the contract that requires these groups to clean up the facility after themselves. 7) Continue to rent the space to other groups and organizations for using the facility; hopefully recouping some of the costs of utilities and maintenance. 8) Some office space in The Grove is allotted to City's Recreational Department, which will serve to promote partnership in the long run for the organization that is managing the future teen program(s). 9) The City of Ashland provides whatever amount it can set aside in the budget (even if it is small) towards the potential organization that would offer successful teen programs in The Grove. 10) An elected or appointed steering board or committee comprised of at least the following positions: 1 Ashland School District representative, 1 City of Ashland representative, 1 teen-focused program representative, 1 SOU student activities and clubs representative, and a number of teens to meet bi-weekly on a regular schedule at The Grove. Candidates for this steering board/committee complete an application of interest and submit it to to be reviewed by . This "board/committee" shall be appointed by .(fill in the blank). The Ashland School District is willing to recruit and promote this "Steering Committee." The "Steering Committee" will review and provide recommendations on a variety of issues including all aspects of management, program development and implementation, feedback received, censorship, marketing, and other self- determined topics regarding The Grove. The board/committee is advised to make a brief report to the City Council on a bi-monthly basis or other pre- determined time interval. 11) Organizations or groups willing to create and provide innovative programs for the facility are encouraged may submit proposals for use of the facility that can be reviewed by the current and/or the future managing organization and the "Steering Committee." Some examples of what teens are interested in include: · coffee house atmosphere, · free or low cost snack bar · "after the library is closed" study space with access to computers and other resources · information table and office hours held for teens interested in jobs and community service · live music stage and equipment for open mics · access to art supplies and a place to display and promote teen art and culture · kinesthetic recreational activities such as an indoor skateboarding park or rock climbing gym These are just some of the activities or programs that would likely be successful at involving a large and diverse group of teens, even as times and fashions change. 12) Ask that an annual portion (even if it is small) from the youth activities levy be put toward a teen program or a teen general fund for use in The Grove if at all possible. These monies should be released to a specific budget request or program after approval from the "Steering Committee." If nothing else, put the money towards improving and extending the current recording studio program that is offered in the building. 13) The RFP should state that the purpose of The Grove is to "include and serve the interests of most teens." Therefore, any managing organization is obligated to be non-biased or non-faith based so as not to discourage others from participating. The use of the facility, however, should not exclude faith-based activities or social service providers. 14) Following City Council and "Steering Committee" approval of a proposal, the managing organization bans certain uses of the facility, including but not limited to: video games, computer games, Easter egg hunts, and childcare activities (activity geared almost exclusively to children under the age of 12). The purpose of these restrictions is to maintain control of the image of the teen center and to avoid having the facility become something other than a teen center primarily driven by the energy of teens. 15) The evaluation and continuance of any program in The Grove should be based on positive energy and value of what occurs in the building. Costs from management of the facility and the costs of running specific teen programs should be separated. In the event that a program were to fail, other programs and uses of the facility could continue without interruption. 16) The recording studio use of the facility is continued on a semi-permanent basis. Cate's Note on the Grove May 18, 2004 Charge of the Committee 1) Determine Need: · Range is from homeless teens (from those with no choice - domestic abuse, conflict, etc - to those whose homelessness could be addressed by intervention) · to those who need some support (jobs, counseling, food stamps) · to those who would welcome to new opportunities · Actual Shelter discussed but dismissed as too complex and expensive. · "All kids are at-risk" ultimately · Approach must provide support to fill gaps by being attractive place for all to come 2) Providers (see notes) 1) Groups to rent building 2) Groups to use/rent building with programs that can be offered to teens (w/staff) 3) Support services that can be offered at and through site 3) Recommendation: Phase One and Two Benefits of Coalition Approach 1. Allows organizations/entities to contribute the best of what they do without carrying the whole burden and to identify new partners over time to respond to changing needs; 2. Creates a shared ownership/community buy-in that increases likelihood that no one entity's fate, approach, resource limitations, or management weaknesses is visited on the Center; 3. Makes it more difficult to stereotype the Grove based on the perceived image any one organization has, and more amenable to a teen-driven identity; 4. 'Communicates cooperative responsibility: "It takes a village to raise a child" 5. Retains a flexible, community function over time, as teen population levels change it may evolve into something else Potential Constraints to design for: A. Address the fact that the proximity of Grove near the Police Dept is a disincentive for some teens; B. Some private foundations won't grant to government; structure will need to include a partner playing function of fisca~gent 'for at least that funding; C. Integrate support services in after the building has evolved ownership by teens; D. Some PeOPle are resistant to sending younc, er teens to facility with older teens; this can be addressed programmatically in a variety of ways; E. Involvement of teens in governance/advisory functions presents issues of turnover, limited experience with program responsibilities that need to be designed for. Proposal 1) Approve Ad Hoc Grove Committee recommendation 2) Rent the building immediately making 6-8 month commitments and place strong emphasis on use for teen programs May 18, 2004 1 of 2 3) Have Councilor Hartzell and 1-2 Parks Commission representatives (Amaratico, Rosenthal) convene with staff a sedes of meetings that work wittl community members and organizations to: a. Better articulate and document the vision; (shared visioning exercise) b. Define a structure (including governance) that incorporates teen influence, respects the collaborative approach and plays to the strengths of partners while securing accountability; c. Define a funding strategy; d. Develop a timeline and policies for integrating teen programs into rental use and moving into Phase Two. 4) Develop a plan for bringing staff for teen programs in through funded programs and/or with the support of dedicated funding streams or grants 5) Move into Phase Two using the timeline and strategic plan developed through above process. Expense & Income Projections ExPense -' Phase One Phase One Phase Two Phase Three Potential $' ' May-Nov 04 Nov - May 05 May 05 - May May 06- Sources 06 Custodial & $42,000- $42,000-$57,'000' Utilities $57,000 City Budget Staff level #1 Current park 1-2 Progr I (PT/T) Pdvate .... scheduler (PT/T) $16,640 program- $16,640 - related; rental $33,280 income, Levy, Parks budg , Staff level #2 Prog Coord (PT - Private FT) program- $30,000 to related, rental $48,256 income, parks budg, tax Supplies/ $1' 0,000- $10,000- $15,000 Community equipment $15,000 $15,000 fundraising ....... Program $0 - $10,000 $1"0,000 - Private $20,000 program- related, budg, tax, Levy ..... Income Rent $30,000- $20,000 ' ' Program fees. $40,000 , Administration $0. $10,000 Fundraising, private I , foundation Possible private foundation supporters include: Carpenter Foundation, Anna May Foundation, Gordon EIIwood Foundation, Walker Fund, United Way, Rotary May 18, 2004 2 of 2 First of all I would like to express my apologies for not being here, it was a matter of bad luck that this meeting coincided with another event, but that is not important. Suffice to say I have written down my thoughts to be read in the hopes that I might be in two places at once. I have also heard the rumor that some of us may have lost interest in this project, I assure you I have not, and I would love to be informed of any future meetings or committees regarding the Grove. Now that the formalities are taken care of, I would like to point out that I am a teen, and while that may seem obvious to you, the implications may not. As a teen I know what most teens want, I can't say what all teens want because we're all different, but I know the fundamentals that drive all teens. I was also there when the old Grove failed and I heard the comments from my peers on why they thought it failed and what they had thought of the grove. The things that stuck out in my mind are these: 1. The teen representation and control of the Grove was superficial at best. 2. Few to none of the activities they were interested in were being implemented. Such as sports programs and social events like dances. And 3. There was nothing interesting to do at the Grove Is it any wonder the Grove failed when the very people it was trying to reach were being ignored? I hear the grumblings from many people that a resource center is unnecessary and costly. I will admit that is will be costly, but nothing great is ever without cost. As to its necessity, it is highly needed. Why? Ignoring the teens that have no homes, no food, and no shelter in the least--and it is very true that there are such teens in Ashland whatever we'd like to believe--there is no such facility like this anywhere in any form in Ashland whatsoever. We have a YMCA; we have a rec center, what good would it do the community to have more of these, what new benefits would we gain? I'm no politician, I freely admit that I comprehend very little about how the city works and the way the budget and Ashland are run, but I have heard the complaints of countless teens that there is nothing for them to do in Ashland but hang around downtown in the plaza and park. While the time of our teens is being wasted while we quibble over the Grove building itself, we could be educating them, giving them aid, giving them important social interactions that can bridge the gap between teen and teen, and teen and adult. As it is, teens idle their time and the chasm that is always separating the teens from the adults and the world they're going to inherit grows ever wider. Not to mention the fact that more and more teens find it difficult to interact with other teens. The proposals the ad-hoc committee put forth are all valid, but in my opinion only some of these will have the desired result. Phase one we've already agreed on, so I won't bore you with a reiteration. Phase two is the meat of our problem, the all important second step that would determine what the Grove would eventually become. If we hand the Grove off to some organization to deal with it we will be either turning the Grove away from the dream that inspired it to be a community resource center, or we'll be repeating the mistakes of our past. Community Works ran the Grove in the past, and they ultimately failed. I believe they failed because they spread themselves too thin; trying to run the Grove and manage all activities, fundraising, staff and services which eventually took its toll on Community Works. I don't think it would be possible in the least that one organization could run the Grove and have it be the great benefit to our community that I envision. Which brings us the other option of Phase 2: a partnership. Where one can't, many can. If it's not possible for one organization to run the Grove then the obvious solution is to have multiple organizations partner in a combined effort, each organization focusing on what it does best, so that the best possible quality from each organization is being put forth, and no organization is trying to provide what it can't handle. Do I foresee the Grove being a hub of community service who's gossamer webs extend throughout the whole of Ashland, being a haven to those who seek refuge? Yes. Am I idealistic? Perhaps a bit, but if we don't even try there is no way at all that it's even possible. The worst we can do is try. My vision for the Grove is the original vision, born of countless hours of community and teen input: a place for teens, by teens and of teens, and a place for community interaction. That is, a place to help teens make the hard transition from their youth to adulthood. Run by teens through a teen board, so we know their needs are being met and also providing needed resources for teens and their families through education and social interaction. Will this be easy? I won't lie, this will be a long, arduous endeavor, but if we were to only focus on cost and the present then we would never achieve anything great and thus doom the future. Like a house, the foundation that is the essence of the Grove must first be laid, and then the walls built up around, it will be a step by step process that will come to fruition if we persevere. I know for a fact that if people want something, need something, they will do whatever is necessary to see it happen, and I ask only that you not give up before you've tried. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Sam Groveman. Email: stg~mind.net THE GROVE Sample Budget EXPENSE: BASIC Basic Custodial and Utilities $42,000 Staffing · Facility Coordinator (FT)(optional) $16 x 2080 hrs x 1.45 · Program Staff (PT/T) 3 pm- 11 pm = 8 hrs x 2 staff = 16 hrs/day 260 days of service x 16 hrs = 4,160 hfs 4160 hrs x $8 = $33,280 $33,280 $75,280 Total basic staff and operations Program Costs: Fee for Service Contract from YMCA for fimess related programs Contract with local artists for cultural related programs Contract with local guides for outdoor-related programs $5000 $5000 $5000 OPTIMAL $57,000 $48,256 $49,920 $155,176 Provide supervision of drop in related programs, coffeehouse, open mike Kariokie, etc. Supervise with above staff. Supplies and equipmem: $10,000 $15,000 Revenue $30,000 $45,000 CITY OF -ASH LAN D Council Communication Title: Dept: Date: Submitted By: Synopsis: Ashland Forest Resiliency Project Ashland Fire & Rescue /-~ May 18, 2004 Keith E. Woodley, Fire Chief The Ashland Forest Lands Commission, Headwaters, Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands, Ashland Watershed Stewardship Alliance, and the World Wildlife Fund have prepared a "third" community alternative as a City of Ashland proposal to the USFS Ashland Forest Resiliency Project. This alternative is presented in the form of the "Ashland Community Wildfire Protection Plan" (CWPP). The USFS has requested additional information from the City of Ashland on the specifics of our proposal in order to complete their analysis of alternatives. This information must be provided by October 1st. Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council endorse the "Ashland Community Wildfire Protection Plan" process as the community "third" alternative in the USFS Ashland Forest Resiliency Project. The Ashland Forest Lands Commission will coordinate the preparation and submission of the additional information that is requested by the USFS. Fiscal Impact: It is expected that the USFS will fund the selected alternative. Additional data collection required to complete the CWPP may require contractual labor financed by the City of Ashland if Federal funds are not available. The potential cost of this is not yet known. Background: One of the essential functions of the Ashland Watershed is to provide high quality water for domestic supply. In addition to water production, the Ashland Watershed exists as a late-successional and old- growth forest ecosystem that serves as an important habitat for late-successional and old-growth related species, which includes the northern spotted owl. One hundred years of fire suppression and wildfire fuel accumulation in this forest system, as well as within lower elevations of the urban-wildland interface, now present a high potential for large-scale, high intensity wildfires. These wildfire events could significantly interrupt the supply of clean water and the existence of the late-successional and old growth forest ecosystems in the Watershed. The purpose of the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project is to protect these values at risk, reduce crown fire potential, and establish forest ecosystem conditions that are more resilient to wildland fire events. The USFS Ashland Forest Resiliency Project has been granted status as a project under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA). Under HFRA, the USFS is required to evaluate three altematives, (1) no action, (2) a USFS preferred alternative, and (3) a community alternative submitted as a "Community Wildfire Protection Plan". The Ashland Forest Lands Commission, in cooperation with local environmental stewardship groups, has prepared and submitted to the USFS a framework for the "Ashland Community Wildfire Protection Plan" to be evaluated as the third alternative. Due to time constraints for submission, there was insufficient time to provide full details of proposed silvicultural treatments prior to the submission deadline. The Ashland Forest Lands Commission is pulling together a targeted work group to conduct an assessment of the need for additional inventories of vegetation required to complete the analysis. Attachments: "Scoping Comments for Ashland Forest Resiliency Project With a Recommended Community "Third" Alternative, and Phase I Ashland Community Wildfire Protection Plan" May 12, 2004, letter to Mayor DeBoer by Scott D. Conroy,. Forest Supervisor, USFS. United States Department of Agrlcul£ure Forest Service Rogue Rlver-.Slskiyou National Forest Supervlaor's Office 333 W. 8a Street P.O. Box 520 Medford, OR 975;01-0209 File Code: 1950-3/1560 Date: May 12,2004 · Mayor Alan DeBoer City of Ashland 20 E. Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Mayor, I met with City Administrator Gino Grimaldi and Fire & Rescue Chief Keith Woodley last Friday to discuss the City's response to the Forest Service's proposed Ashland Fire Resiliency project that we're planning under the guidelines of the 2003 Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA). The City of'Ashland responded to our proposed action with Phase I of your Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), an element of HFRA that can be prepared by a community at-risk to wildfire, a definition met by the City of Ashland. When the federal agency's proposed action does not implement the recommendations in the CWI'P regarding the general locations and basic method of treatments, the agency is directed to evaluate the CWPP as an alternative to the federal agency's proposed action. HFRA also provides for federal agencies to be partners in the preparation of a C~VPP to the extent that a community desires, within budgetary constraints. This was the basis of our conversation Friday. It appears from the letter you sent, that our proposed action might not be proposing to implement the recommendations in the City of Ashland's CWPP. It is difficult to clearly ascertain what is different about our individual approach and what is similar given the conceptual language of the CWPP as submitted. We find that there is not enough detail provided in your 4/30/04 letter for us to analyze effects and compare to other alternatives without further development on the part of the City. At-Friday's meeting, I offered to put our pencils down in the Forest Service planning effort on Ashland Forest Resiliency and move into a waiting mode to provide the City of Ashland time to provide us the details of your CWPP with enough specificity for the Forest Service to meet the analysis requirements for fair and equal analysis relative to our Proposed Action. The details needed by the Forest Service analysis team are: the specific methods of treatments, the extent of those treatments, and the landscape locations for those proposed treatments. In other words, where specifically on the landscape will treatments be located and how many acres by each treatment method will there be? How much, what size, what species of vegetation will be removed from where, and what are the methods of removal/disposal? This level of detail is needed to understand your proposed amounts of fuel reduction and thinning in order to model for effects analysis. Based on your letter, I feel confident that we arc in agreement on the urgent need to reduce hazardous fuels in the Ashland Watershed both for the community and resources at risk for large scale high severity wildfire. My goal is to have the Forest Service enviromnental analysis Caring for the Land and Serving People Pflntad on Recycle</Po~oor Ca ~d WdST:~O ~00~ ~T '6eW S0~ 8S8 TPS: 'ON XW~ S,~N QOAIMSIS ~N~ ~AI~ Bn~o~: wo~ complete in order for implementation to begin field season 2005. To meet this schedule I will need the details of the City of Ashland's CWPP by October l, 2004. There are likely to be many questions about information needed in your CWPP by the Forest Service so that we can proceed efficiently with the Ashland Forest Resiliency environmental analysis. I will provide to you time from District Ranger, Linda Duffy and Project Team Leader, Chuck Anderson, to answer questions. All available corporate data (Geographic Information System and other) that you may need for your CWPP is available to you. It is also possible, on a limited basis, that other Forest Service specialists may be available to answer questions and help your staff undcn'stand the data provided. I appreciate, Mayor, the collaborative manner your City utilized to encourage meaningful participation of interested citizens in development of your CWPP. Collaboration is a key ' element ofH. FRA for building broad public support for management actions needed to address our significant resource concerns in this watershed. I will wait to hear from you about how you would like to proceed with providing the details of your CWPP for our environmental analysis. Sincerely, 'SCOTZ D. C6 OY Forest Supervisor cc: G/no Grimaldi, Keith Woodley, Linda L Duffy, Chuck Anderson Ed WdG~:PO P00C C~ '6eW S0~ 8S8 ~PS' 'ON.X~ $,BN OOAI~SIS ~N~ ~BAI~ B~O~: CITY OF -fkSHLAND April 30, 2004' Linda Duffy, District Ranger Ashland Ranger District 645 Washington Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 RE: Scoping comments for Ashland Forest Resiliency Project with a recommended Community "Third" Alternative Dear Ms. Duffy: The Ashland Forest Lands Commission and the undersigned organizations submit the following seoping comments for the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest's proposed Environmental Impact Statement for the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project (AFR). As part of our comments, we Offer an alternative that we urge you to accept for consideration and analysis as a third altemative. Each of us are vitally interested in land management decisions on National Forest System lands 'administered by the Forest Service, particularly those located within the Upper Bear Assessment area. We are gratified that the agency has decided to prepare an EIS, rather than relying on an EA, on this proposed action. We concur with Forest Service's determination that both the scale and scope of the potential impacts of this proposal constitute a major federal action that is likely to significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The City of Ashland would like to be more integrally involved in the planning, decision making and implementation of management activities in the Ashland Watershed. The City has clearly shown its ability to act eollaboratively and produce sound professional outcomes on the ground. Our recent experience with the City Forest Lands Restoration Project - Phase 2 produced a project that is both ecologically sensitive and economically efficient. The City has a long history of committed public involvement and likely has as much professional expertise within its paid staff, volunteers, and committed citizens as the current levels of Forest Service staffing. A new arrangement between the City and the Forest Service is needed that integrates this reality in a way that can improve forest management effectiveness in the watershed, build social capital and a sense of responsibility and ownership within the community, and decrease long-standing mistrust of agency actions. Fuel reduction considerations in the Ashland Watershed should address many interrelated issues. The naturally high levels of heterogeneity in forest conditions, elevated and reduced fire hazard due to successional dynamics and past management, increased ignition sources, critical wildlife habitats and other biodiversity considerations, the need to protect water quality, and the uncertain effects of various. PUBLIC WORKS Tel: 5414884587 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541488-6(X)6 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www. ashland.or, us ~COMPAQl~DATA\GOV~oub-w~,s~g~lept-admin~FORES'l~7,ommunity Alternative Final.doc management actions all are important. In recognition of these complexities, we believe' the conceptual alternative outlined below offers a scientifically sound basis for meeting the AFR purpose and need. Our recommended "third" alternative was developed in a collaborative process involving the Ashland Forestlands Commission, Ashland Fire & Rescue, Headwaters, Klamath-Siskiyou Wildland Center, Ashland Watershed Stewardship Alliance, World Wildlife Fund and independent local consultants. We drew upon the understandings developed during past community collaborations. Our propos, al'offers a different approach to restoring fire in the project area - the establishment of fire resistant patches to restore landscape-scale resiliency. Implementation of our recommended management approach would result in an immediate reduction in the risk of large-scale, high intensity wildland fire in the project area, thereby meeting the stated purpose and need. Our proposal tackles head-on the landscape homogenization of fuels that has resulted from past management activities. It's underlying design concept is restoration of heterogeneity in the watershed, We propose to reestablish landscape-scale habitat patchiness through a "fuel discontinuity network," rather than creation of swaths that pass through a mix of stand conditions and plant associations (i.e., DFPZs). We believe this approach will have significantly greater positive ecological benefits than would accrue from the proposal outlined in your scoping notice. We hope that the Forest Service will be willing to work with us to develop this proposal in greater detail and analyze the potential benefits relative to other action alternatives that may be considered. The group of individuals that collaborated on development of this recommendation, including in particular the members of the Ashland Forest Lands Commission, is available to provide their input to the Forest Service in the decision-making process. Recommendation for a Third Alternative Ie Complete a spatially explicit inventory of vegetation and soil conditions in the Ashland Watershed First and foremost, ecologically sound planning in the Ashland Watershed requires a much better site-specific inventory of vegetation, potential fuels, and soil conditions than currently is available. We believe a spatially explicit inventory must be conducted before an informed proposal can be placed on the ground. It is not necessary to do an intensive inventory with fixed plots. Air photo interpretation -. can identify similar stand types and a walk-through inventory with trained personnel would be sufficient for characterizing each polygon. Critical data to be collected include plant association, stand structure, relative density, species composition by canopy class, basal area, shrub and herbaceous cover, as well as anthropogenic ignition sources (such as roads, homes, trails, campgrounds, etc). Completion of this inventory need not preclude timely implementation of this project. A preliminary time estimate for this work is roughly 140 field day equivalents and another 70 day equivalents for analysis and development of GIS layers. This equates to approximately 12 work months. A crew of four qualified individuals could accomplish the fieldwork this summer (June, July, and August), complete the office work by the end of October, and the detailed design for on-the-ground PUBLIC WORKS Tel: 5414884587 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541488-8006 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or, us ~\COMPAQl~DATA~GOV~pub-wrks~eng~lept-admin~FOREST~Community Altemalive Final.doc treatments could be completed by the end of this year. Implementation could begin in early 2005. Ground truthing is essential for this project. Data obtained from satellite imagery and aerial photos are not sufficiently accurate, unless coupled with a walk-through inventory. II. Focus inventory and treatment on the dry plant associations (ponderosa, pine, dry Douglas fir, and dry white fir series) The Ashland watershed includes a diverse array of vegetation types and stand conditions. Some areas currently are outside the natural range of variability in terms of fuel loadings, stand structures and other forest attributes, whereas others have changed relativelylittle. However, fire regimes in the regiOn have not been shown to have a central tendency, so condition class concepts are questionable. In general, the drier plant' associations - those in the ponderosa pine and dry Douglas-fir series - should be the first priority for inventory and treatment. These sites are most at risk from high severity fire, and therefore are the highest priority for strategic fuels reduction work. Inventory and analysis described in item I (above) also should cover the more productive moist plant associations (white fir series) located at middle elevations (approximately 3,000 to 5,000 feet elevation). While treatment priorities should be heavily weighted toward areas within dry plant associations, particular circumstances may warrant immediate action in strategic locations in the moist forest types as well. For example, where remnant stands of large/old fire-resistant pines are found to be at high risk of loss to fire or insects, attempting to control these disturbances may become a high priority. Work may be necessary in moist plant associations determined to be outside natural variability range, however careful planning is critical and must recognize that mesic plant associatiOns, naturally are dense and adapted to a different fire regime. Last, our proposal would focus work within the Ashland Municipal.Watershed before moving into other areas coVered in the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment. The Ashland Municipal Watershed is the priority. III. Compartmentalize fuels and vegetation by Utilizing and enhancing the existing vegetation mosaic While compartmentalization maybe an appropriate conceptual approach for fire hazard reduction in the Ashland Watershed, we believe it should be based to the greatest extent possible on natural landscape and vegetative features rather than artificially engineered linear swaths that pass through a mix of stand conditions and plant associations. This approach would take advantage of the existing heterogeneity in the watershed, and where necessary, create additional discontinuity in fuels (both horizontally and vertically) to reduce landscape-scale fire hazard. Such an approach would achieve variability in'fuel density across the landscape while treating the least number of acres necessary in order to address the purpose and need effectively. We propose a design using the following principles: 1. Identify and use all features that currently have lower potential for crown fire as the initial starting or anchor points for compartmentalizing fuels in the watershed. This may include natural openings, PUBLIC WORKS Tel: 541488-5587 ~ 20 E. Main Street: Fax: 541488-6006 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TrY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or, us ~COMPAQl~DATA~GOWpub-wrks~eng~lept-admin~FORES~munity Alternative Final.doc meadows, relatively open ridgetops, moist riparian areas, and areas where management has ' temporarily reduced crown fire potential. These areas would serve as the cornerstone for re- establishing more landscape-level patchiness in fuels and vegetation conditions, assuming adequate maintenance occurs. . Identify and implement fuel reduction treatments in those areas where relatively little resource investment may be able to create relatively fire-resistant stand conditions. This may include low- productivity sites with relatively little encroachment of small trees, dry plant associations on south and west aspects, open stands dominated by large c6nifers or hardwoods. Targeting initial work, as needed, in these areas will maximize the area to be treated with available funds and personnel, and thereby provide the greatest opportunity to quickly reduce fuels and restore ecosystem function at larger spatial scales. o Identify and implement treatments in those areas that occupy a strategic geographic position in the landscape relative to #1 and #2 sites, and/or are in close Proximity to areas of high resource value that are at high risk of loss due to disturbance processes (e.g., sensitive species locations, key wildlife habitats, areas determined by risk assessment to have high ignition potential, etc.) Strategic selection of these areas to include in the fire-resistant network of patches is based on their ability to disproportionately influence wildfire spread or the risk of losing key resource values to fire or other disturbance. Included in these areas are excessively dense stands that are at high risk of insect- related mortality. Density reduction through thinning of intermediate and suppressed trees that act as ladder fuels can build stand resistance while increasing vertical discontinuity of fuels. The outcome of strategically prioritizing fuel reduction work in these areas would be a network of fire- resistant patches in dry and moist plant associations that provide fuel discontinuities across the project area, thereby reducing the landscape risk of crown fire without imposing undue risk to currently important habitats and remaining high-integrity areas. Ire Where landscape-scale fuel reduction is determined to be most strategic, plan treatments that recognize and foster natural variability, pose the least risk to resource values and facilitate the restoration of fire as a key ecosystem process. Both thinning and prescribed fire are potentially legitimate tools for fuels reduction - each has its own set of risks, limitations, and benefits. While thinning may be successfully used to reduce potential fire hazard at the stand level, it cannot replicate many of the important ecological effects of fire. Where it can be employed with acceptable levels of risk, prescribed fire should be considered the preferred tool in creating more fire-resilient stand conditions. Furthermore, fire preScriptions should be designed to maximize ecological benefits and should be sensitive to soils resources (e.g., broadcast buming over approaches that concentrate effects on soils, and fall burning to reduce the impact on ground layer species critical to soil retention). Careful use of seasonal opportunities during which weather conditions precludes the possibility of crown fire can eXpand the options for use of fire as a primary treatment. However, we believe that many areas will need thinning or Other fuel treatment before fire safely can be PUBLIC WORKS Tel: 541488-5587 20 E. Main Slmet Fax: 541488.-6006 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or, us ~\COMPAQl~DATA\GOV~oub-wrks~eng~lept-admin~FOREST~Community AltematJve Final.doc introduced. Once some fuels reduction further reduces the risk of crown fire, then prescribed' fire should be used to maintain more fire-resilient conditions across the landscape. Decisions about the use of mechanical treatments must be based on site-specific conditions and weighed against the potential for short-term impacts and the long-term likelihood of accomplishing overall objectives. It is clear, however, that mechanical treatments will be most apprOpriate in areas where: 1) reintroduction of fire is infeasible or likely to be detrimental, and 2) the risks of adverse environmental impacts associated with mechanical treatment are relatively low. Within these areas, we suggest the foll'owing as a basis for this alternatiVe: Focus on removal of small, suppressed and intermediate trees, particularly of shade tolerant species that have become more abundant as a result of fire suppression and past logging. Tree removal should be based on the twin goals of reducing the likelihood of crown fires and opening prescription windows such that fire subsequently can be more safely applied. Protect large and old trees. This could be achieved by managing for higher stand occupancy by pine species, hardwoods and large Douglas-fir. These important legacies are disappearing rapidly fi.om the landscape and are biologically valuable fi.om a variety of perspectives. Stand. density reduction with subsequent slash treatment around healthy large pines should be a high priority, particularly below 5000 feet elevation. In those areas where thinning or other fuels reduction (e.g., broadcast burning, chipping, pile burning) are desired, create more open stand structures in those forest types and topographic settings where such conditions would be expected under a natural disturbance regime (e.g., dry plant associations on south and west aspects, upper third slope positions and other low productivity sites) so as to contribute to the landscape-scale restoration of habitat heterogeneity in the watershed. Vertical discontinuity should be encouraged through light thinning-from-below of intermediate and Suppressed trees. To maximize effects on reducing crown fire potential, understory treatment should focus on reducing high rates of surface heating. Manage for naturally high levels of heterogeneity by tailoring prescriptions to different plant associations. Tree density, species composition and other key attributes range widely between different forest types and even within associations. This natural variation should be recognized and incorporated into development of prescriptions. No single prescription or treatment should be applied widely in a uniform fashion. Snag and down log numbers need additional analysis. The current proposal says the Forest Plan will be followed. The Northwest Forest Plan objectives for the Klamath Province still officially are set at 120 feet of down wood per acre, everywhere, all the time. Snag and down log numbers are not constant across plant communities; rather, they are a function of site PUBLIC WORKS Tel: 541488-5587 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541488-6006 Ash .lapd, O~gon 97520 ITY: 800-735-2900 www.eshland.or.us \\COMPAQl~ATA\GOV~oub-wrks~eng~lept-admin~FOREST~ommunity Alternative Final.doc productivity and the disturbance regime. They are different in different plant series. The · target numbers must reflect this ecological reality, the needs of specific indicator species, and the important contribution made by coarse woody material to maintenance of soil stability. Balance the goal of more open forest structures with the protection of existing late-seral forests. For example, late-seral stands in the drier plant associations most likely will not have high canopy closures as they will be dominated by pine and hardwoods. Whereas, forests in more productive plant associations will have high canopy closures. Reduce fuels generated as a. result of mechanical treatments. Surface fuels should be reduced with prescribed fire, pile burning, and chipping rather than machine crushing or piling (which are more likely to result in adverse effects). Protect and enhance soil resources by employing low-impact silvicultural systems. Standards should be implemented that avoid compaction, and maintain soil cover and organics through the use of down logs. Prevent invaSion of exotic species by ensuring equipment does not introduce seed to the site. Achieving these goals should be given serious consideration as a core part of the planning of treatments. Protect ecologically sensitive areas, including areas with highly erosive or unstable soils, steep slopes, riparian areas and rare/unique communities. These sites are more likely to be adversely affected by mechanical treatments and often are local hotspots for biodiversity. V. Incorporate research and monitoring as essential components of this alternative. There are substantial areas of uncertainty- both in theory and practice - surrounding the restoration of fire-adapted ecosystems and reduction in crown fire potential. We have a great deal to learn about the ecological effects of various restoration treatments and how they can be most effectively implemented to produce desired outcomes. Thus, well-designed multiparty monitoring programs [pursuant to HFRA section 102(g)(5)] should be built into this proposal so that we can learn as we go. Quantitative monitoring should be ongoing to assess project layout and implementation and evaluate treatment effects across a variety of different stand types (similar to how the City has discussed "landscape units" in its planning). While much can be gained from a well-designed program of monitoring, some basic research also is critically important. Research programs should be developed to study the effectiveness of fuels reduction treatments. Where possible, projects should be designed as experiments with replicates and controls to test alternative hypotheses. New understanding resulting from these efforts should then be used to adjust subsequent restoration activities, enabling an adaptive management approach. Our . proposal would take advantage of the Ashland Research Natural Area as an excellent opportunity to monitor experimental and ecologically sensitive forest management strategies designed to restore more PUBLIC WORKS Tel: 541-488-5587 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541488-8006 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www,ashland.or.us ~\COMPAOl~DATA\GOV~oub-wrks~eng~lept-admin~'ORES~Community AltemalJve Final.doc fire resistance and resiliency. To maximize the opportunities for such research it may be necessary to update the RNA plan. In addition, it is critical that the Forest Service elevate priority for action in this project to the highest level. This means is it critical that the project receive priority in terms of funding not only for implementation, but also for the inventory, research and monitoring necessary to ensure that the implementation plan effectively provides for ecologically sound, rapid action to restore fire resiliency to the watershed. Relationship to Community Wildfire Protection Plan With passage of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, there is guidance from Congress to local communities regarding development of a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). The community of Ashland has been working collaboratively for years to develop community consensus on fuel hazard reduction in the Ashland Watershed. The City of Ashland has been participating in a multi- agency wildfire issues coordinating group for two years. The goal of this group has been to coordinate management efforts and share information regarding wildland fires and fuels management. One of the long-term goals of this group and the Ashland Watershed Stewardship Alliance is a long-term wildfire protection plan. In 2002, the City contracted out and received a wildfire hazard analysis for over 2,600 acres of wildland urban interface. This report and map have been used to conduct an extensive fuels reduction program using National Fire Plan grant funds through the Oregon Department of Forestry. This ongoing program is run by a Forest Work Grant Coordinator position through Ashland Fire and Rescue. Funded through a Jackson County Title III grant, the coordinator has been working since September 2002 on wildfire fuels reduction and homeowner education in the WUI. Over 150 acres have been treated inside the city limits with the cooperation of local residents, Ashland Parks Department, and the city. Formal adoption of a final Community Wildfire Protection Plan for our community is under way in accordance with guidelines provided by the Society of American Foresters/Association of State Foresters handbook. Our ongoing collaborative effort also has benefited fi'om the plans created by the Applegate Partnership, and California Firesafe Councils. Our CWPP Phase I working draft is attached for your information. Included in our CWPP Phase I working draft is the alternative approach suggested herein for consideration as a "third" alternative in the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project (AFR) Draft Environmental Impact Statement. This element of our CWPP Phase I working draft outlines our community's desired management strategy for federal lands in the AFR project area. The Ashland Forest Lands Commission, working with the community, intends to continue its collaborative effort to develop a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). Our current working timeline anticipates finalization of the CWPP in July/August 2004. Formal approval by the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Ashland Fire Department, and Oregon Department of Forestry will be sought in August. However, Jackson County has not begun formulation of a CWPP, nor established the PUBLIC WORKS Tel: 541488-5587 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541488-6006 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TrY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us \\COMPAQl~DATA~GOV~pub-wflqs~eng~lept-admin~OEES'r~Community Alternative Final.doc organizational infrastructure to do so. Therefore, the city and community of Ashland have sole responsibility for creation of the CWPP. Because the timeline for completion of our CWPP nearly mirrors the Forest Service timeline for the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project, it is our belief that any benefits to the community that would accrue to the City of Ashland for possessing a CWPP should be granted to our community. We appreciate the opportunity to provide scoping comments on the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project. The Healthy Forest Restoration Act directs the agency to consider an additional alternative if it is proposed during scoping [section 104(c)(1)(C)(i)], meets the purpose and need [Pursuant to section 104(c)(1)(C)(ii), and if the proposed-action does not implement the recommendations regarding.general location and basic treatment methods contained in an "at risk" community's community wildfire protection plan. Our recommendation is being offered as part of scoping. We believe it meets the urgent need to reduce the risk of large-scale, high intensity wildland fires while protecting values at risk. Furthermore, the methods and geographic design of the proposed action is inconsistent with the recommendations in Ashland's Phase I working draft Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Sincerely, Stephen Jensen Chair Ashland Forestlands Commission Signing on behalf off Keith Woodley Fire Chief Ashland Fire & Rescue Cindy Deacon Williams Conservation Director Headwaters Joseph Vaile Campaign Coordinator Klamath-Siskiyou Wildland Center XXXX Ashland Watershed Stewardship Alliance 'Dominick DellaSala PUBLIC WORKS Tel: 541488-5587 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541488-6006 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TI'Y: 800-735-2900 · www. ashland.or, us ~COMPAOlDATA\GOV~pub-wrks~eng~ept-admin~'OREST~Community AltemalJve Final.doc Klamath-Siskiyou Regional Program Director World Wildlife Fund PUBLlC WORKS Tel: 541.488-5587 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541488.6006 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www. ashland.or, us ~\COMPAQl~DAT^\GOV~oub-wrks~eng~dept-admin~FORESBCommunity Altemalive Final.doc Introduction Photo: Western Forestry Leadership Coalition The idea for community-based forest planning and prioritization is neither novel nor new. However, the incentive for communities to engage in comprehensive forest planning and prioritization was given new and unprecedented impetus with the enactment of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) in 2003. This landmark legislation includes the first meaningful statutory incentives for the US Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to give consideration to the priorities of local communities as they develop and implement forest management and hazardous fuel reduction projects. In order for a community to take full advantage of this new opportunity, it must first prepare a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). Local wildfire protection plans can take a variety of forms, based on the needs of the people involved in their development. Community Wildfire Protection Plans may address issues such as wildfire response, hazard mitigation, community preparedness, or structure protection--or all of the above. : The process of developing a CWPP can help a community clarify and refine its priorities for the protection of life, property, and critical infrastructure in the wildland-urban interface. It also can lead community members through valuable discussions regarding management options and implications for the surrounding watershed. The language in the HFRA provides maximum flexibility for communities to determine the substance and detail of their plans and the procedures they use to develop them. Because the legislation is general in nature, some communities may benefit from assistance on how to prepare such a plan. This Handbook is intended to provide communities with a concise, step-by-step guide to use in developing a CWPE It addresses, in a straightforward manner, issues such as who to involve in developing a plan, how to convene other interested parties, what elements to consider in assessing community risks and priorities, and how to develop a mitigation.or protection plan to address those risks. This 'guide is not a legal document, although the recommendations contained here carefully conform to both the spirit and the letter of the HFRA. The outline provided offers one of several possible approaches to planning. We hope it will prove useful in helping at-risk communities establish recommendations and priorities that protect their citizens, hOmes, and essential infrastructure and resources from the destruction of catastrophic wildfire. Cover images Photo: David McNew/Getty Images Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images Discussion Communities and the W'ddland-Urban Interface The wildland-urban interface (WUI) is commonly described as the zone where structures and other human development meet and intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels. This WUI zone poses tremendous risks to life, property, and infrastructure in associated communities and is one of the most dangerous and complicated situations firefighters face. Both the National Fire Plan and the Ten-Year Comprehensive Strategy for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment place a prior- ity on working collaboratively within communities in the WUI to reduce their risk from large-scale wildfire. The HFRA builds on existing efforts to restore healthy forest conditions near communities and essential community infrastructure by authorizing expedited environmental assessment, administrative appeals, and legal review for hazardous fuels projects on federal land. The Act emphasizes the need for federal agencies to work collaboratively with communities in developing hazardous fuel reduction projects, and it places priority on treatment areas identified by communities themselves in a CWPP. Role of Community Wildfire Protection Plans The HFRA provides communities with a tremendous opportunity to influence where and how federal agencies implement fuel reduction projects on federal lands and how additional federal funds may be distributed for projects on nonfederal lands. A CWPP is the most effective way to take advantage of this opportunity. Local wildfire protection plans can take a variety of forms, based on the needs of those involved in their development. They can be as simple or complex as a commu- nity desires. Photo: Western Forestry Leadership Coalition 'The minimum requirements for a CWPP as described in the HFRA are: (1) Collaboration: ^ CWPP must be.collaboratively developed by local and · state go*/ernment representatives, in consultation with federal agencies and 'other.intereSted partieS.. '. ' . . . ' ..... ' (2) Prioritized:Fuel' Reduction: A'CWPP must'identify and prioritize'areas .7:.. for :hazardous fuel reduction .treatmen .ts .and:~mmend .the. types ..and: methods of treatment that will protect .ofie.or.'more at-risk C°mmunities' and essential infrastructure, (3) Treatment of Structural Ignitability: A CWPP must recommend meas- ures that homeowners and communities can take to reduce the ignitability of structures throughout the area addressed by the plan. The HFRA requires that three entities must mutually agree to the final contents of a CWPP: · The applicable local government (i.e., counties or cities); · The local fire department(s); and · The state entity responsible for forest management. In addition, these entities are directed to consult with and involve local representatives of the USFS and BLM and other interested parties or persons in the development of the plan. The process is intended to be open and collaborative, as ~ In the absence of a CWPP, Sec- tion 101 (16) of the HFRA defines the wildland-urban interface as" (i) an area extending 1/2 mile from the boundary of an at-risk com- munity; (ii) an area within 1¥2 miles of the boundary of an at- risk community, including any land that (I) has a sustained steep slope that creates the potential for wildfire behavior endangering the at-risk community; (11) has a geographic feature that aids in creating an effective fire break, such as a road or ridge top; or (111) is in condition class 3, as docu- mented by the Secretary in the project-specific environmental analysis; (iii) an area that is adja- cent to an evacuation route for an at-risk community that the Secre- tary determines, in cooperation with the at-risk community, re- quires hazardous fuels reduction to provide safer evacuation form the at-dsk community." described in the Ten-Year Strategy, involving local and state officials, federal land managers, and the broad range of interested stakeholders. Ifa community already has a plan that meets these requirements, the community need not develop an additional plan for the purposes of the HFRA. Benefits to Communities In the context of the HFRA, a CW"PP offers a variety of benefits to communities at risk from wildland fire. Among those benefits is the opportunity to establish a local- . ized definition and boundary fo.r the wildland-urban interface. In the absence of a CWPP, the HFRA limits the WUI to within :/': mile of a community's boundary or within 1 ¥: miles when mitigating circumstances exist, such as sustained steep slopes or geographic features aiding in creating a fire break. Fuels treatments can occur along evacuation routes regardless of their distance from the community. At least 50 percent of all funds appropriated for projects under the HFRA must be used within the WUI as defined by either a C'WPP or by the limited definition provided in the HFRA when no CWPP exists, x In addition to giving communities the flexibility to define their own WUI, the HFRA also gives priority to projects and treatment areas identified in a CWPP by di- recting federal agencies to give specific consideration to fuel reduction projects that implement those plans. Ifa federal agency proposes a fuel treatment project in an area addressed by a community plan but identifies a different treatment method, the agency must also evaluate the community's recommendation as part of the project's environmental assessment process. Preparing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan ~" These step-by-step recommendations are intended to help communities develop a wildfire protection plan that addresses the core elements of com- munity protection. Items required under the HFRA are addressed, as are some additional issues that often are incorporated into wildfire protection planning. Actions beyond those listed in the legislation are not required for the purposes of the HFRA. Community fire planning need not be a complex process. A community can use this outline to develop a fire plan that is as extensive or as basic as is ap- propriate and desired by the community. A key element in community fire planning should be the meaningful dis- cussion it promotes among community members regarding their priorities for local fire protection and forest management. This handbook should help to facilitate these local discussions. ~/ $ ? £ P O N I= _- Convene Decisionmakers The initial step in developing a CWPP should be formation of an operating group with representation from local government, local fire authorities, and the state agency responsible for forest management. Together, these three entities form the core decision-making team responsible for the development of a CWPP as described in the HFRA. The core team members must mutually agree on the plan's final contents. In communities where several local governments and fire departments are within the planning area, each level of government/authority may need to convene ahead of time and identify a single representative to participate, on its behalf, as a core team member. ~/ $ ? £ P ?W O-' Involve Federal Agencies= Once convened, members of the core team should engage local representatives of the USFS and BLM to begin sharing perspectives, priorities, and other information relevant to the planning process,a Because of their on-the-ground experience, mapping capabilities, and knowledge of natural resource planning, these local land management professionals will be key partners for the core team. In some landscapes, they will also be largely responsible for implementing the priorities established in the resulting CWPP. ~/ $ ? £ P ? H R £ £; Engage Interested Parties The success of a CWPP also hinges on the ability of the core team to effectively involve a broad range of local stakeholders, particularly when the landscape includes active and organized neighborhood associations, community forestry organizations that work in forest management, and other stakeholder groups that display a commitment to fire protection and fuels management. Substantive input from a diversity of interests will ensure that the final document reflects the highest priorities of the community. It will also help to facilitate timely implementation of recommended projects. In some circumstances, the core team may wish to invite local community leaders or stakeholder representatives to work along with them in final decisionmaking. As early as possible, core team members should contact and seek active involve- ment from key stakeholders and constituencies such as: · Existing collaborative forest management groups · City Council members · Resource Advisory Committees · Homeowners Associations--particularly those representing subdivisions in the WUI · Division of Wildlife/Fish and Game--to identify locally significant habitats · Department of Transportation--to identify key escape corridors · Local and/or state emergency management agencies · Water districts--to identify key water infrastructure · Utilities · Recreation organizations · Environmental organizations · Forest products interests · Local Chambers of Commerce · Watershed councils This list provides a starting point and is by no means exhaustive. 2 Sec. 103 (b)(2) of the Act states that "the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the planning process and recommendations concerning community wildfire protection plans." 3 A CWPP is legally applicable to federal lands only if they are man- aged by the USFS or the BLM. Nothing in the Act requires a community to exclude other fed- eral agencies--such as the Fish and Wildlife Service or the Na- tional Park Servicemfrom plan- ning efforts, but those agencies are not bound by the provisions of the HFRA. In addition to directly contacting key individuals and organizations, core team members may want to consider using a public notice or public meeting process to acquire additional, more generalized input as the plan is developed. ~/' $ ? I~ I~ leo ti Il I Establish a Community Base Map Using available technology and local expertise, the core team and key partners should develop a base map of the community and adjacent landscapes of interest within the WUI. This map will provide a visual information baseline from which community members can assess and make recommendations regarding protection and risk-sreduction priorities. To the extent practicable, the map should identify: · Inhabited areas at potential risk to wildland fire; · Areas containing critical human infrastructure--such as escape routes, municipal water supply structures, and major power or communication lines--that are at risk from fire disturbance events; and · A preliminary designation of the community's WUI zone. ~/' $ ? I= I· I: ! ¥ I=: Develop a Community Risk Assessment The development of a community risk assessment will help the core team and com- munity members more effectively prioritize areas for treatment and identify the highest priority uses for available financial and human resources. A meaningful community assessment can be developed by considering the risk factors identified below. Choose an appropriate adjective rating (such as high, medium, and low) that best represents the risk to the community posed by each factor. Display the results on the base map to develop a useful tool for the final decision-making process. State and federal land managers will be a valuable resource in helping communi- ties locate the best available data and in producing quality maps that display and aid assessment of that data. Engaging key stakeholders in the rating process will be essential to a successful outcome. A. Fuel Hazards To the extent practicable, evaluate the vegetative fuels on federal and nonfederal land within or near the community. Identify specific areas where the condition of vegetative fuels is such that, if ignited, they would pose a significant threat to the community or essential community infrastructure. Consider how the local topography (such as slope, aspect, and elevation) may affect potential fire behavior. Identify areas affected by windthrow, ice storms, or insect and disease epidemics where fuels treatment would reduce wildfire risks to communities and/or their essential infrastructure. State and federal resource planning documents can be a valuable source of information on local forest and rangeland conditions. Rate each area of identified hazardous fuels and show each on the base map as a high, medium, or low threat to the community. B. Risk of Wildfire Occurrence Using historical data and local knowledge, determine the common causes and relative frequency of wildfires in the vicinity of the community. Consider the range of factors, including critical weather patterns, that may contribute to the probability of fire ignitions and/or extreme fire behavior. Use relative ratings such as high, medium, and low to show areas of con- cern for fire starts on the base map. C. Homes, Businesses, and Essential Infrastructure at Risk Assess the vulnerability of structures within the community to ignition from firebrands, radiation, and convection. Document areas of concern. Identify specific human improvements within or adjacent to the commu- nity, such as homes, businesses, and essential infrastructure (e.g., escape routes, municipal water supply structures, and major power and communication lines) that would be adversely impacted by wildfire. Categorize all identified areas needing protection using ratings of high, medium, or low, and show them on the base map. D. Other Community Values at Risk At the community's option, the risk assessment may also consider other areas of community importance, such as critical wildlife habitat; significant recreation and scenic areas; and landscapes of historical, economic, or cUltural value that would benefit from treatment to reduce wildfire risks. Additional rec- ommendations from local stakeholders should be incorporated as appropriate. Categorize all identified areas that warrant protection using the ratings of high, medium, or low, and show them on the base map. E. Local Preparedness and Firefighting Capability Assess the level of the community's emergency preparedness, including evacua- tion planning, safety zones, and fire assistance agreements, as well as the re- sponse capability of community and cooperator fire protection forces. Consider the insurance industry ISO rating, if available and applicable. Use the knowl- edge and experience of local officials to identify areas in need of improvement. Incorporate local preparedness information into the base map as appropriate. ¢r$ ? £ p $ I }{: Establish Community Hazard Reduction Priorities and Recommendations to Reduce Structural Ignitability Once the community assessment and base map are completed, the core team should convene all interested parties to discuss the results and their implications for local protection and hazard mitigation needs. A key objective of these discussions is to develop the community's prioritized recommendations for fuel treatment projects on federal and nonfederal lands in the WUI, along with the preferred treatment methods for those projects. Recommendations should also be developed regarding actions that individuals and the community can take to reduce the ignitability of homes and other structures in the community's WUI zone. While local interests are gathered, communities may also want to take this opportunity to identify and develop strategies to improve their emergency prepared- ness and fire response capability. The discussion and identification of community priorities should be as open and collaborative as possible. Diverse community involvement at this stage is critical to the ultimate success of the CWPP. Recommendations included in the final CWPP should clearly indicate whether priority projects directly relate to protection of the community and its essential infrastructure or are geared toward reducing risks to other community values. Under the provisions of the HFRA, only projects that directly protect communities and essential infrastructure are eligible for the minimum 50 percent WUI funding specified in the legislation. ff $ ? Ii I~ $ Ii ¥ Ii N -' Develop an Action Plan and Assessment Strategy Before finalizing the CWPP, core team members and key community partners should consider developing an action plan that identifies roles and responsibilities, funding needs, and timetables for carrying out the highest priority projects. Additional consideration should be given to establishing an assessment strategy for the CWPP to ensure that the document maintains its relevance and effectiveness over the long term.a ¢~ $ ? il I~ Ii ! {Ii H ?: Finalize the Community Wildfire Protection plans The final step in developing a CWPP is for the core team to reconvene and mutually agree on the fuels treatment priorities, preferred methods for fuels treatment projects, the location of the wildland-urban interface, structural ignitability recommendations, and other information and actions to be contained in the final document. If an associated action plan has not been developed, the core team should iden- tiff/a strategy for communicating the results of the planning process to community members and key land management partners in a timely manner. 4 Community planning partici- pants may also want to partici- pate in multiparty monitoring of USFS and BLM projects devel- oped under the HFRA as provided for in Sec.102 (g)(5) of the legis- lation: "In an area where signifi- cant interest is expressed in mul- tiparty monitoring, the Secretary shall establish a multiparty mort- itoring, evaluation, and accounta- bility process in order to assess the positive or negative ecologi- cai and social effects of author- ized hazardous fuels reductions projects." s Some states have statutes that may require an environmen- tal analysis for plans adopted by local or state agencies. In such states, core team members should determine whether formal environmental analysis is re- quired before finalizing their plans. 'Summary and Checklist S t e.p '0 II e :' Convene Decisionmakers · Form a core team made up of representatives from the appropriate local governments, local fire authority, and state agency responsible for forest management. S t e p ? w e: Involve Federal Agencies · Identify and engage loc. a} representatives of the USFS and BLM. · Contact and involve other land management agencies as appropriate. S t e p ?h r e e: Engage Interested Parties · Contact and encourage active involvement in plan development from a broad range of interested organizations and stakeholders. St e p Fo u r: Establish a Community Base Map · Work with partners to establish a baseline map of the community that defines the community's WUI and displays inhabited areas at risk, forested areas that contain critical human infrastructure, and forest areas at risk for large-scale fire disturbance. Step Fi ye: Develop a Community Risk Assessment · Work with partners to develop a community risk assessment that consid- ers fuel hazards; risk of wildfire occurrence; homes, businesses, and es- sential infrastructure at risk; other community values at risk; and local preparedness capability. · Rate the level of.risk for each factor and incorporate into the base map as appropriate. St e p S ix: Establish Community Priorities and Recommendations · Use.the base map and community risk assessment to facilitate a collabo- rative community discussion that leads to the identification of local priorities for fuel treatment, reducing structural ignitability, and other . · issues of interest, such as improving fire response capability. · Clearly~indicate whether priority projects.are.directly related to protection of communities and e~sential infrastructure or to reducing wildfire risks to other community values. S t e p S e Ye n: Develop an Action Plan and Assessment Strategy · Consider developing a detailed implementation strategy to accompany the CWPP, as well as a monitoring plan that will ensure its long-term SUCCESS. Step Eight: Finalize CommunityW'ddfire Protection Plan · Finalize the CWPP and communicate the results to community and key partners. · · · · ·: · · ,' ':. '.:.i' ": .. · . ,·. · '.' Sponsor Organizations Communities Committee of the Seventh American Forest Congress www. communitiescommittee.org 919 Elk Park Rd. Columbia Falls, MT 59912 Phone: 406-892-8155 Fax: 406-892-8161 Society of American Foresters w~wv. safnet.org 5400 Grosvenor Lane Bethesda, MD 20814-2198 Phone: (301) 897-3690 Fax: (301) 897-3690 Nadonal Association of Counties www. naco.org 440 First Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Phone: (202) 393-6226 Fax: (202) 393-2630 National Assodation of State Foresters w~vw. stateforesters.or2 444 N. Capitol St., NW Suite 540 Washington, DC 20001 Phone: (202) 624-5415 Fax: (202) 624-5407 ...5:.:.~..:..........!....:F~r.~...~`:;.~:e~tr~n.ic~...versi~.n:..:...:..8:f:..this.. Handbook and the latest information visit: "'. :'.' ':: ........ '... ~. "~i.' 'i..':. '.): ....:: ..'ii.:i.; :i...:'..:' ..":"'"'"': '~':'" "':"" "'"' 'wWW'safn et. or g/po Ii cyan d press/cwp p. cfm Additional Resources on the Web: · Federal Agency Implementation Guidance for the Healthy Forest Initiative and the Healthy Forest Restoration Act: www:fs.fed, us/projects/hfi/field-guide/ · Field Guidance for Identifying and Prioritizing Communities at Risk: www. stateforesters.org/re- ports/COMMUNITIESATRISKFG.pdf · The National Fire Plan: www. fireplan.gov · Fire Safe Councils: w~.firesafecouncil.ore · Western Governors Association: www. westeov, or~ · Collaboration: ~vww. redlodgeclearinghouse.org w~vw. snre.umich.edu/emi/lessons/index.htm Examples of Community Fire Plans (Note: these plans may not meet the requirements of HFRA, became they were created prior to its enactment) Josephine County, Oregon: www. co.josephine.or, us/wildfire/index.htm Applegate Fire Plan: www. grayback, com/applegate-valley/fireplan/index.asp Colorado Springs, CO: csfd.springsgov, com/wildfiremitigation.pdf Jefferson County, Colorado: www. co.jefferson.co.us/ext/dpt/admin svcs/emergmgmt/index.htm Lower Mattole Fire Plan: www. mattole.org/html/publications publication 2.html Trinity County Fire Management Plan: users.snowcrest.net/tcrcd/ 86~z-t,~8oz pur. IXJq,g sxa~salo~I trea!l, aurv Jo L~a!ao . . l'W.' LEGENDi.., WATERSHED BOUNDARY' L, EeAL ....... NATURAL , · · · SOURCE ARE/~S UNDISTURBED AREAS UND LOGGED AREAS .! CLEARCUT ~' C C , PARTIAL CUT PC THIN. TH ROAD9 ' , NON SURFA~tED .'--~- ~'-~ :--" PRIMITIVE SKI AREA BOUNDARY SLOPE FAILURES ! · GS22 SLOPE HAZARD, ', LOW (0-28') INTERMEDIATE (28-37° HIGH (37°and greater) f U ~ IIZ ~ SCALE ' ---- ,. --- ' ...... -- ~ ~ MILE (~ONTOUR INTERVAL. 81~ FEET , . · ROGUE RIVER NATIONAL F~)REST F~RE~'ARED ElY: ...,,/--~'.-,~-~_'"'~-'-.=~-'"'~,/'-~'" °'-~'-: OATE: ~, ;,,f,... ~,_~___ lng F lete ,pletE jec SOURCE AREAS ' , i:,~" , · ' ~AN , , ,. ' SLOP.E. HAZARD , , ... . /.:'~ :','.~J' ', ~: ':; ~':.i ~.~;~j,l'~ :,',;.,,.,;.,il ' r,,~,. .. ' ' , ,~,:~ .... II Cll'Y OF -ASHLAND Council Communication Title: Dcpt: Date: Submitted By: Reviewed By: Approved By: Approval of Agreement No. 21139 - Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Project Ashland, Street Paving between the City of Ashland and the Oregon Department of Transportation Public Works Department May 18, 2004 Paula Brown. A,d~~ Paul Noltd'-_~__ ~ Gino Grimaldi,/~ Synopsis: The attached agreement provides ODOT's commitment for federal grant funds, in an amount up to $597,000 to design and pave Walnut Street between grant and Luna Vista Streets and Eureka / C Streets between 8th to Emerick Streets (see attached maps). The City requested the initial grant in March 2003 through the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) as a part of the federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding program. The project was approved by the Oregon Transportation Commission this past summer and staff has been working on the final agreements and project definition to meet the federal requirements since that time. Recommendation: It is recommended that Council approve Agreement No. 21139 - Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Project Ashland, Street Paving between the City of Ashland and the Oregon Department of Transpo~ation, and the acknowledgement of the use and requirements for use of federal funds. It is further recommended the Council authorize the Mayor and City Administrator to sign the project prospectus and have the Public Works Director execute future design and construction agreements. Fiscal Impact: ODOT has estimated the construction project cost at $1,374,000. The State will fund up to $597,00,0 in federal funds. The City must provide a required 10.27% match of $141,110, and up to the additional $636,000 for the project. The City is responsible for any portion of the project not covered by federal funding. The City's estimate for these two pavement sections was significantly less than the state's estimate. Staff expects the constructionto be less than $900,000. Staffanticipates forming a Local Improvement District for each of the two sections and that will offset the difference in costs that are not federally funded. The LID will fund as much as $549,600 using the State's estimate which would mean that the additional $227,400 would be funded out of the City's street fund if the ODOT estimates are correct. Any savings beyond the grant funded portion in total costs would be shared between the LID residents and the City. CC Apv ODOT CMAQ agmt 21139 18May04 Page I of 2 Background: The City has a goal to pave unpaved streets to help with dust control and water quality due to reduced sedimentation. The City also has a program to help neighborhoods with paving projects though jointly funded local improvement districts. Several City streets are on the City's list of higher use unpaved streets. When the call for grant opportunities came out through the CMAQ program, staff looked at the top four street paving candidates: Granite Street; Eureka & C Street; Walnut Street; and Pinecrest Terrace. These were submitted for the initial round of CMAQ funding. The Council Etas identified the reduction of air pollution as a goal in the strategic plan, and City Ordinances identify a process to secure financing of local improvements through a LID process. Eureka St, C St, Walnut St, and a portion of Pinecrest Terrace all have reached the 50% voluntary participation level required to initiate the LID process. Additionally, the City's Capital Improvement Plan has identified resources to fund LID projects. Once the funding estimates were completed by ODOT, the totals exceeded what was reasonable for the City's mm:ch. Two of the streets were dropped out of the federal grant application to ensure funding; Granite Street due to the width available and that there was no LID match and Pinecrest Terrace as it was the lowest volume and provided the least overall benefit. The final Ashland CMAQ project, with all of the federal requirements was estimated at a cost of $1,374,000 by ODOT and their consultant. Staff still feels that the two portions will come in at $820,000 for tlhe construction. LIDs could fund as much as 40% ($328,000 of the City's estimate or as much as $549,600 with the federal estimate). Federal funding is at $597,000 leaving $227,400 as the City requirements even if the ODOT estimates are correct. The LID portions will be reduced in proportion to the overall costs and final grant amounts. Attachments: 1. Area Maps 2. ODOT Agreement No. 20939 Local Agency Agreement; Transportation Enhancement Program Project Jackson Road - Laurel Street and Project Prospectus 3. RVCOG Project Application Form for the original CMAQ Grants (all 4 projects) CC Apv ODOT CMAQ agmt 21139 18May04 Page 2 of 2 Walnut Street from Sheridan Stree~ ~o Luna Vista Street 1400 LF, 22' Wide $225,000.00 ADT 250 2. Eurek(~ St &~ C St from 8th Street to Emerick Street 800 LF, 22 ft wide S120,000.00 ADT 250 HIGH USE UNPAVED STREETS SCALE 1.5''= 1 mile 1 "= 3520' CITY OF -ASHLAND ENGINEERING DIVISION www, osh/and, or. us 541-488-5547 fox: 488-6006 C1 G:\pub-wrks\eng\02-29\CMAQ Application approved sites.doc Rev 5.13.04 1 of 3 ST. ~EY.. S.T SHERIDAN ST. GRANT ST. CHERRY GREENBRIAR PL. CAMBRIDj <~mN MAPLE ST. "" ct,5 E tIER STi VISTA ~V~W ]~ - WIMER ST. 1 SUSAN LN. ZANIT. ?ECTION MAP- W~:lnut o ~ 2/~ 0/02 SCALE 0 200' 400' I CITY' OF [ ENGINEERING DIVISION ,-ASH LAN D www. oshlond, or.u$ $41-4SS-SJ47 fox: 4SS-6006 I G:\pub-wrks\cng\02-29\CMAQ Application approved sites.doc Rev 5.13.04 ¢2° [ 2 of 3 ST. LIN. ST. ALLEY (PVT.) EUREKA IT. BL^ iNE IOWA ST. SECTION MAP- Eureka & C S~ree~ 0 ~2/~0/02 SCALE 0 200' 400' CITY OF ~SHLAND ENGINEERING DIVISION www. ashland, or. us 541-488-5547 fox: 468-6006 G:\pub-wrks\eng\02-29\CMAQ Application approved sites.doc Rev 5.13.04 3 of 3 Misc. Contracts & Agreements No. 21139 LOCAL AGENCY AGREEMENT CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY PROJECT Ashland Street Paving City of Ashland THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between THE STATE OF OREGON, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as "STATE"; and the CITY OF ASHLAND, a municipal subdivision of the State of Oregon, acting by and through its Elected Officials, hereinafter referred to as "City". RECITALS 1. Walnut Street, Eureka Street, and "C" Street, are a part of the city street system, under tile jurisdiction and control of City. . By the authority granted in ORS 190.110, 366.770 and 366.775, State may enter into cooperative agreements with the counties, cities and units of local governments for the performance of work on certain types of improvement projects with the allocation of costs on terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the contracting parties. NOW THEREFORE, the premises being in general as stated in the foregoing recitals, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: TERMS OF" AGREEMENT . Under ,,such authority, City plans and proposes to pave the following: Walnut Street from Grant Street to Luna Vista Street and Eureka Street and "C" Street from 8th Street to Emerick Street, hereafter referred to as "Project". The location of the .Project is approximately as shown on the, sketch map attached hereto, marked Exhibit A, and by this reference made a part hereof. . This Project shall be conducted as a part of the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program under Title 23, United States Code. The total Project cost is estimated at $1,374,000. The Federal CMAQ funds are limited to $597,000. Eligible costs for the Project will be reimbursed at the full Federal share or until the $597,000 limit is reached. City shall be responsible for the match for the federal funds and any portion of the Project which is not covered by federal funding. The total Project cost is subject to change. City shall be responsible for determining the amount of Federal Funds to be applied to each phase of the Project. City is not guaranteed the use of unspent funds for a particular phase of work. It is City's responsibility to notify State in advance of obligating funds for a subSequent phase if City wants to release funds on the current authorized phase(s) of work. Key No. 13340 Ashland/ODOT Agreement No. 21139 . The term of this Agreement shall begin on the date all required signatures are obtained and shall terminate on completion of the Project and final payment or ten calendar years following the date all required signatures are obtained, whichever is sooner. 4. This Agreement may be terminated by mutual written consent of both parties. State may terminate this Agreement effective upon delivery of written notice to City, .or at such later date as may be established by State, under any of the following conditions: a. If City fails to provide services called for by this Agreement within 'the time specified herein or any extension thereof. b, If City fails to perform any of the other provisions of this Agreement,, or so fails to pursue the work as to endanger performance of this Agreement in accordance with its terms, and after receipt of written notice from State fails to correct such failures within 10 days or such longer period as State may authorize. c. If City fails to provide payment of its share of the cost of the Project. do If State fails to receive funding, appropriations, limitations or other expenditure authority at levels sufficient to pay for the work provided in the Agreement. So If Federal or state laws, regulations or guidelines are modified or interpreted in such a way that either the work under this Agreement is prohibited or State is prohibited from paying for such work from the planned funding source. Any termination of this Agreement shall not prejudice any rights or obligations accrued to the parties prior to termination. 5. The Special and Standard Pi~ovisions attached hereto, marked Attachments 1 and 2, respectively, are by this reference made a part hereof. The Standard Provisions apply to all federal-aid projects and may be modified only by the Special Provisions. The parties hereto mutually agree to the terms and conditions set forth in Attachments 1 and 2. In the event of a conflict, this Agreement shall control over the attachments, and Attachment 1 shall control over Attachment 2. 6. City, as a recipient of federal .funds, pursuant to this Agreement with the State, shall assume sole liability for City's breach of any federal statutes, rules, program requirements and grant provisions applicable to the federal funds, and shall, upon City'S breach of any such conditions that requires the State to return 'funds to the Key No. 13340 2 Ashland/O, DOT Agreement No. 21139 Federal Highway Administration, hold harmless and indemnify the State for an amount equal to the funds received under this Agreement; or if legal limitations apply to the indemnification ability of City, the indemnification amount shall be the maximum amount of funds available for expenditure, including any available contingency funds or other available non-appropriated funds, up to the amount received under this Agreement. 7. City shall enter into and execute this Agreement during a duly authorized session of its City Council. . This Agreement and attached exhibits constitute the entire agreement between the parties on the subject matter hereof. There are no understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this Agreement. No waiver, consent, modification or change of terms of this Agreement shall bind either party unless in writing and signed by both parties and all necessary approvals have been obtained. Such. waiver, consent, modification or change, if made, .shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. The failure of State to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver by State of that or any other provision. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and affixed their seals as of the day and year hereinafter written. This Project is in the 2004-2007 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (key # 13340) that was approved by the Oregon Transportation Commission on November 17, 2003 (or subsequently approved by amendment to the STIP). The federal funding for this Project is contingent upon approval by the FHWA. Any work performed prior to acceptance by FHWA will be considered nonparticipating and paid for at City expense. The Oregon Transportation Commission on June 18, 2003, approved Delegation Order No. 2, which authorizes the Director to approve and execute agreements for day- to-day operations when the work is related to a project included in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program or a line item in the biennial budget approved by the Commission. Key No. 13340 3 Ashland/ODOT Agreement No. 21139 On September 6, 2002, the Director of the Oregon Department of Transportation approved Subdelegation Order No. 2, in which the Director delegates authority to the Deputy Director for Highways, Deputy Director for Central Services, and the Chief of Staff to approve and execute agreements over $75,000 when the work is related to a project included in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, other system plans approved by the Commission, or in a line item in the approved biennial budget. CITY OF ASHLAND, by and through its elected officials STATE OF OREGON, by and through its Department of Transportation By By Title Date By Title Date APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY By City Legal Counsel Date APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY By. Date: Deputy Director, Highway Division Date APPROVAL RECOMMENDED By Technical Services ManagedChief Engineer (if over $75,000) Date By Region 3 Manager Date City Address: City of Ashland Attn: Paula Brown 20 E. Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Key No. 13340 4 Ashland/ODOT Agreement No. 21139 . . . . . o ATTACHMENT NO. 1 TO SPECIAL PROVISIONS Agreement No. 21139 City or its consultant, shall, as a federal-aid participating preliminary engineering function, conduct the necessary field surveys, environmental studies, traffic investigations, identify and obtain all required permits, assist .State with acquisition of necessary right-of-way and/or easements, and perform all preliminary engineering and design work required to produce final plans, preliminary/final specifications and cost estimates. City, or its consultant, shall, upon State's award of construction contract, furnish all construction engineering, field testing of materials, technical inspection and project manager services for administration of the contract. In the event that City elects to engage the services of a personal services consultant to perform any work covered under this Agreement, City and Consultant shall enter into a Personal Services Contract approved by State's Purchasing and Contracts Unit Manager or designee (Salem). Said contract must be reviewed and approved by the Purchasing and Contracts Unit Manager or designee prior to beginning any work. This review includes, but is not limited to the Request for Proposal, Statement of Work, advertisement and all contract documents. This review and approval is required to ensure federal reirnbursement. State maY make available Region 3's On-Call PE, Design and Construction Engineering Services consultant for Local City ProjeCts upon written request. If City chooses to use said services, they agree to manage the work done by the consultant and make funds available to the State for payment of those services. All eligible work shall be a federally participating cost and included as part of the total cost of the project. City shall, upon completion of the Project, maintain the Project at their own expense. Maintenance responsibilities shall survive any termination of this Agreement. City shall, upon completion of the Project, submit an annual (Federal FY) progress report to State on or before November 15th. The progress report as shown in Attachment 3, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, should be sent to the Region 3 Manager. (3500 NW Stewart Parkway, Roseburg, OR 97470) with copies to Region 3 Planning, (3500 NW Stewart Parkway, Roseburg, OR 97470), Transit Division (555 13th Street, Salem, OR 973(:)1) and Environmental Services (1158 Chemeketa St. N.E., Salem,-OR 973(:)1) in order to fulfill State's requirement to report the progress and benefits of the CM^Q program to FHWA and to the Oregon Transportation Commission. The progress report shall survive any termination of this Agreement. Key No. 13340 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 STANDARD PROVISIONS JOINT OBLIGATIONS PROJECT ADMINISTRATION , State (ODOT) is acting to fulfill its responsibility to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) by the administration of this project, and Agency (i.e. county, city, unit of local government, or other state agency) hereby agrees that State shall have full authority to carry out this administration. If requested by Agency or if deemed necessary by State in order to meet its obligations to FHWA, State will further act for the Agency in other matters pertaining to the project. State: and Agency shall actively cooperate in fulfilling the requirements of the Oregon Action Plan. Agency shall, if necessary, appoint and direct the activities of a Citizen's Advisory Committee an&for Technical Advisory Committee, conduct a hearing and recommend the preferred alternative. State and Agency shall each assign a liaison person to coordinate activities and assure that the interests of both parties are considered during all phases of the project. Any project that uses federal funds in project development is subject to plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) review and approval by FHWA or State acting for FHWA prior to advertisement for bid proposals, regardless of the source of funding for construction. . , PRELIMINARY & CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING State, Agency, or others may perform preliminary and construction engineering. If Agency or Others perform the engineering, State will monitor the work for conformance with FHWA rules and regulations. In the event that Agency elects to engage the services of a personal service consultant to perform any work covered by this Agreement, Agency and Consultant shall enter into a State reviewed and approved personal service contract process and resulting contract d°eument. State .must concur in the contract prior to beginning any work. State's personal service contracting process and .resulting contract document will follow Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 172, Title 49 CFR 18, ORS 279.051, the current State Administrative Rules and ODOT Personal Services Contracting Procedures as approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Such personal service contract(s)shall contain a description of the work to be performed, a project schedule, and the method of payment. Subcontracts shall contain all required provisions of Agency as outlined in the Agreement. No reimbursement shall be made using federal-aid funds for any costs incurred by Agency or its consultant prior to receiving authorization from State to proceed. Any amendments to such contract(s) also require State's approval. On all construction projects where State is the signatory party to the contract, and whe, re Agency is doing the construction engineering and project managemefit, Agency, subject to any limitations imposed by state law and the Oregon Constitution, agrees to accept all responsibility, defend STDPRO-2000.doc Rev. 8-29-2003 , · lawsuits, indemnify and hold State harmless, for all tort claims, contract claims, or any other lawsuit arising out of the contractor's work or Agency's supervision of the project. REQUIRED STATEMENT FOR USDOT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT If as a condition of assistance the Agency has submitted and the US Department of Transportation has approved a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Affirmative Action Program which the Agency agrees to carry out, this affirmative action program is incorporated into the financial assistance agreement by reference. That program shall be treated as a legal obligation and failure to carry out its terms shall be treated as a violation of the financial assistance agreement. Upon notification to the Agency of its failure to carry out the approved program, the US Department of Transportation shall impose such sanctions as noted in Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 26, which sanctions may include termination of the agreement or other measures that may affect the ability of the Agency to obtain future US Department of Transportation f'maneial assistance. DBE Obligations. State and its contractor agrees to ensure that Disadvantaged Business Enterprises as defined in 49 CFR 26 have the opportunity to participate in the performance of contracts and subcontracts financed in whole or in part with Federal funds. In this regard, Agency shall take all necessary and reasonable steps in accordance with 49 CFR 26 to ensure that Disadvantaged Business Enterprises have the opportunity to compete for and perform contracts. Neither State nor Agency and its contractors shall discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin or sex in the award and performance of federally-assisted contracts. The Agency shall carry out applicable requirements of 49 CFR Part 26 in the award and administration of such contracts. Failure by the Agency to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this contract, which may result in the termination of this contract or such other remedy as ODOT deems appropriate. The DBE Policy Statement and Obligations shall be included in all subcontracts entered into under this contract. The Agency further agrees to comply with all applicable civil fights laws, rules and regulations, including Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), and Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The parties hereto agree and understand that they will comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, executive orders and ordinances applicable to the work including, but not limited to, the provisions of ORS 279.312, 279.314, 279.316, 279.320 and 279.555, incorporated herein by' reference and made a part hereof; Title 49 CFR, Parts 26 and 90, Audits of State and Local Governments; 49 CFR Parts 18 and 24; 23 CFR Part 771; Title 41, USC, Anti-Kickback Act; Title 23,.U8C, Federal-Aid Highway Act; 42 USC, Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970, as amended; provisions of Federal-Aid Policy Guide (FAPG), Title · 23 Code of Federal Regulations (23 CFR) 1.11,710, and 140; and the Oregon Action Plan. STDPRO-2000.doc 2 Rev. 11-28-2003 STATE OBLIGATIONS . PROJECT FUNDING REQUEST State shall submit a project funding request to the FHWA with a request for approval of federal-aid participation in all engineering, right-of-way acquisition, eligible utility relocations and/or construction work for the project. Bio work shall proceed on any activity in whiclh federal-aid participation is desired until such approval has been obtained. The program shall include services to be provided by State, Agency, or others. State shall notify Agency in 'writing when authorization to proceed has been received from the FHWA. Major responsibility for the various phases of the project will be as outlined in the Special Provisions. All work and records of such work shall be in conformance with FHWA rules and regulations and the Oregon Action Plan. FINANCE 10. 11. 12. State shall, in the first instance, pay all reimbursable costs of the project, submit all claims for federal-aid participation to the FHWA in the normal manner and compile accurate cost accounting records. Agency may request a statement of costs to date at any time by submitting a wa:itten request. When the actual total cost of the project has been computed, State shall furnish Agency with an itemized statement of final costs. Agency shall pay an mount which, when added to said advance deposit and federal reimbursement payment, will equal 100 percent of the final total actual cost. Any portion of deposits made in excess of the final total costs of project, minus federal reimbursement, shall be released to Agency. The actual cost of services provided by State will be charged to the project expenditure account(s) and will be included in the total cost of the project. PROJECT ACTIVITIES State shall, if th, preliminary engmeerlng work is performed by Agency or others:, .review and process or approve all environmental statements, preliminary and final plans, specifications and cost estimates. State shall, if they prepare these documents, offer Agency the opportunity to review and approve the documents prior to advertising for bids. The party responsible for performing preliminary engineering for the project shall, as part of its preliminary engineering costs, obtain all project related permits necessary for the construction of said project. Said-permits shall include, but are not limited to, access, utility, environmental, construction, and approach permits. Ail pre-construction permits will be obtained prior to advertisement for construction. 13. State shall prepare contract and bidding documents, advertise for bid proposals, and award all contracts. 14. Upon State's award of a construction contraCt, State shall perform independent assurance testing in accordance with State and FHWA Standards, process and pay all contractor progress estimates, check final quantities and costs, and oversee and provide intermittent inspection services during the construction phase of the project. ., STDPRO-2000.doc 3 Rev. 11-28-2003 15. The State shall, as a project expense, assign a liaison person to provide project monitoring as needed throughout all phases of project activities (preliminary engineering, right-of-way acquisition, and construction). The liaison shall process reimbursement for federal participation costs. RIGHT-OF-WAY State is', responsible for proper acquisition of the necessary right-of-way and easements for construction and maintenance of the project. Agency may perform acquisition of the necessary right- of-way and easements for construction and maintenance of the project, provided Agency (or Agency"'s consultan0 are qualified to do such work as required by the ODOT Right Of Way Manual and haw: obtained prior approval from ODOT Region Right of Way office to do such work. 17. Regardless of who acquires or performs any of the right-of-way activities, a right-of-way services agreement shall be created by ODOT Region Right of Way office setting forth the responsibilities and activities to be accomplished by each party. State shall always be responsible for requesting project funding, coordinating certification of the right-of-way, and providing oversight and monitoring. Funding authorization requests for federal fight-of-way funds must be sent through the Region Right. of Way offices 'on all projects. All projects must have right-of.way certification coordinated thrOugh Region Right of Way offices (even for projects where no federal funds were used for right-of-way, but federal funds were used elsewhere on the projec0. Agency should contact the Region Right of Way office for additional information or clarification. 18. State shall review all right-of-way activities engaged in by Agency to assure compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Agency agrees that right-of-way activities shall be in a6cord with the Unifbrm Relocation Assistance & Real Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970, as amended, ORS 281.060 and ORS Chapter 35, FHWA Federal Aid Policy Guide, State's Right of Way Manual and the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23, Part 710 arid Title 49, Part 24. 19. If any real property purchased with federal-aid participation is no longer needed for the originally authorized purpose, the disposition of such property shall be subject to applicable rules and regulations, which are in effect at the time of disposition. Reimbursement to State 'and FHWA of the required proportionate shares of the fair market value may be required. 20. Agency iinsures that all project right-of-way monumentation will be conducted in conformance with ORS 209'. 150. 21. State an,d Agency grants each other authority to enter onto the other's right-of-way for the performance of the project. STDPRO-2000.doc 4 Rev. 11-28-2003 AGENCY OBLIGATIONS FINANCE 22. Federal funds shall be applied toward project costs at the current federal-aid matching ratio, unless otherwise agreed and allowable by law. Agency shall be responsible for the entire match amount, unless otherwise agreed to and specified in the intergovernmental agreement. 23. Agency's estimated share and advance deposit. A. Agency shall, prior to commencement of the preliminary engineering and/or right-of-way acquisition phases, deposit with State its estimated share of each phase. Exception may be made in the case of projects where Agency has written approval from the State to use in-kind contributions rather than cash to satisfy all or part of the matching funds requirement. g. Agency's construction phase deposit shall be 110 percent of Agency's share of the engineer's estimate and shall be received prior to award of the bid. Any additional balance of the deposit, based on the actual bid must be received within 45 days of receipt of written notification by the State of the final amount due, unless the contract is canceled. Any unnecessary balance of a cash deposit, based on the actual bid, will be refunded within 45 days of receipt by the State of the project sponsor's written request. Pursuant to ORS 366.425, the advance deposit may be in the form of 1) money deposited in the State Treasury (an option where a deposit is made in the Local Government Investment Pool, and an Irrevocable Limited Power of Attorney is sent to the Highway Finance Office), or 2) an Irrevocable Letter of Credit issued by a local bank in the name of State, or 3) cash. D. Agency may satisfy all or part of any matching funds requirements by use of in-kind contributions rather than cash when prior written approval has been given by State. 24. If the estimated cost exceeds the total matched federal funds available, Agency shall deposit its share of the required matching funds, plus 100 percent of all costs in excess of the total matched federal funds. Agency shall also pay 100 percent of the cost of any item in. which the FHWA will not participate. If Agency has not repaid any non-participating cost, future allocations of federal funds, or allocations of 'State Highway Trust Funds, to that Agency may be withhelq to pay the non-participating costs. If the State approves processes, procedures, or contract administration outside the Local Agency Guidelines, that result in items being declared non-participating, those items will not result in the withholding of Agency's future allocations of federal funds: or the future allocations of State Highway Trust Funds. 25. Costs incurred by the State and Agency for services performed in connection with any phase of the project shall be charged to the project, unless otherwise mutually agreed upon. STDPRO-2000.doc 5 Rev. 11-28-2003 26. If Agency makes a written request for the cancellation of a federal-aid project; Agency shall bear 100 percent of all costs as of the date of cancellation. If the State was the sole cause of the cancellation, the State shall bear 100 percent of all costs incurred. If it is determined that the cancellation was caused by third parties or circumstances beyond the control of State or Agency, Agency shall bear alii development costs, whether incurred by the State or Agency, either directly or through contract services, and the State shall bear any State administrative costs incurred. After settlement of payments, State shall deliver surveys, maps, field notes, and all other data to Agency. 27. The requirements stated in the Single Audit Act must be followed by those local governments receiving $300,000 or more in federal funds. The Single Audit Act of 1984, PL 98-502 as amended by PL 104-156, described in "Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133", requires local governments to obtain an audit that includes internal controls and compliance with federal laws and regulations of all federally-funded programs in which the local agency participates. The cost of this audit cart be partially prorated to the federal program. 28. Additional deposits, if any, shall be made as needed upon request from the State. Requests for additional deposits shall be accompanied by an itemized statement of expenditures and an estimated cost to complete the 'project. 29. Agency :shall present invoices for 100 percent of actual costs incurred by Agency on behalf of the project directly to State's Liaison Person for review and approval. Such invoices shall identify 'the project and agreement number, and shall itemize and explain all expenses for which reimbursement is claimed. Billings shall be presented for periods of not less than one-month duration, based on actual expenses to date. All billings received from Agency must be approved by State's Liaison Person prior to payment. Agency's actual costs eligible for federal-aid or State participation shall be those allowable under the provisions of FAPG, 23CFR 1.11,710, and 140. Final billings shall be submitted to State for processing within three months from the end of each funding phase as follows: 1) award date of a construction contract for preliminary engineering 2) last payment for right-of-way acquisition and 3) third notification for construction. Partial billing (progress payment) shall be submitted to State within three months from date that costs are incurred. Final billings submitted after the three months may not be eligible for reimbursement. 30. The cost records and accounts pertaining to work covered by this Agreement are to be kept available for inspea:tion by representatives of State and the FHWA for a period of three (3) years following the date of final voucher to FHWA. Copies of such records and accounts shall be made available upon request. '.For real property and equipment, the retention period 'starts from the date of disposition (49 CFR 18.4.2). 31. State shall request reimbursement, and Agency agrees to reimburse State, for federal-aid funds distributed to Agency if any of the following events occur: That right-of-way acquisition or actual construction of the facility for which preliminary engineering is undertaken is not started by the close of the tenth fiscal year tbllowing the fiscal year in which the federal-aid funds were authorized; b) That right-of-way acquisition is undertaken utilizing federal-aid funds and actual consta'uction is not started by the'close of the twentieth fiscal year following the STDPRO-2000.doc 6 Rev. 11-28-2003 fiscal year in which the federal-aid funds were authorized for right-of-way acquisition. c) That construction proceeds after the project is determined to be ineligible for federal- aid funding (e.g., no environmental approval, lacking permits, or other reasons). 32. Agency shall maintain all project documentation in keeping with State and FHWA standards and specifications. This shall include, but is not limited to, daily work records, quantity documentation, material invoices and quality documentation, certificates'of origin,' process control records, test results, and inspection records to ensure that projects are completed in conformance with approved plans and specifications. RAILROADS 33. Agency shall follow State established policy and procedures when impacts occur on railroad property. The policy and procedures are available through the appropriate Region contact or Railroad & Utility Engineer. Only those costs allowable under 23 CFR 646B & 23 CFR 140I, shall be included in the total project costs; all other cOsts associated with railroad work will be at the sole expense of the Agency, or others. Agency may request State, in writing, to provide railroad coordination and negotiations. However, the State is under no obligation to agree to, perform said duties. UTILITIES 34. Agency shall cause to be relocated or reconstructed, all privately or publicly-owned utility conduits, lines, poles, mains, pipes, and all other such facilities of every kind and nature where such relocation or reconstruction is made necessary by the plans of the project in order to conform the utilities and other facilities with the plans and the ultimate requirements of the project. Only' those utility relocations, which are eligible for federal aid participation under the FAPG, 23 CFR 645A, shall be · included in the total project costs; all other utility relocations shall be at the sole expense of the Agency, or others. State will arrange for utility relocations/adjustments in areas lying within jurisdiction of State, if State is performing the preliminary engineering. Agency may request State in writing to arrange for utility relocations/adjustments lying within Agency jurisdiction, acting on behalf of Agency. This request must be submitted no later than 21 weeks prior to bid let date. However, the State is under no obligation to agree to perform said duties. 35. Agency shall follow established State utility relocation policy and procedures. The policy and procedures are available through the appropriate Region Utility Specialist or ODOT Right of Way Section's Railroad and Utility Coordinator. STANDARDS 36. Design standards for all projects on the National Highway System (NILS) and the Oregon State Highway System shall be in compliance to standards specified in the current ODOT Highway Design Manual and related references. Construction plans shall be in conformance with standard practices of State for plans prepared by its own staff. All specifications for the project shall be in substantial compliance with the most current "Oregon Standard Specifications for Highway.Construction". .. STDPRO-2000.doc Rev. 11-28-2003 37. Agency agrees that minimum design .standards for non-NHS projects shall be recommended AASHTO Standards and in accordance with the current "Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan", unless o,therwise requested by Agency and approved by State. 38. Agency agrees and will verify that the installation of traffic control devices shall meet the warrants prescribed in the "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and Oregon Supplements". 39. All plants and specifications shall be developed in general conformance with the current "Contract Road .Plans Guide" and the current "Standard Specifications" and/or guidelines provided. 40. The standard unit of measurement for all aspects of the project may be either System International (SI) Units (metric), or English Units. However, all project documents and products shall be in one or the other unit of measurement. This includes, but is not limited to, right-of-way, environmental documents, plans and specifications, and utilities. It should'be recognized that the ODOT is currently transitioning to English, and will be completely English by 2006. GRADE CHANGE L/ABILITY 41. AgenCy, if a County, acknowledges the effect and scope of ORS 105.755 and agrees that all acts necessary to complete construction of the project which may alter or change the grade of existing county roads are being accomplished at the direct request of the County. 42. Agency, if a City, hereby accepts responsibility for all claims for damages from grade changes. Approval of plans by State shall not subject State to liability under ORS 105.760 for change of grade. 43. Agency, if a City, by execution of agreement, gives its consent as required by ORS 373.030(2) to any and all changes of grade within the City limits, and gives its consent as required by ORS 373.050(1) to any and all closure of streets intersecting the highway, if any there be in connection with or arising out of the project covered by the agreement. CONTRACTOR CLAIMS 44. 45. Agency .,;hall, to the extent permitted by State law, indemnify, hold harmless and provide legal defense for the State against all claims brought by the contractor, or others resulting from Agency's failure to comply with the terms of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing defense obligations under paragraph 44, neither. Agency nor any attorney engaged by Agency shall defend any claim in the name of the State of Oregon or any agency of the State of Oregon, nor purport to act as legal representative of the State of Oregon or any of its agencies, without the prior written consent of the Oregon Attorney General. The State of Oregon may, at anytime at its election assume its own defense and settlement in the event that it determines that Agency is prohibited from defending the State of Oregon, or that Agency is not adequately defending the State of Oregon's interests, or that an important goVernmental principle is at issue or that it is in the best interests of the State of Oregon to do so. The State of Oregon reserves all rights to pursue any claims it may have against Agency if the State of Oregon elects to assume its own defense. · · .. STDPRO-2000..doc 8 Rev. 11-28-2003 MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES 46. Agency shall, upon completion of construction, thereafter maintain and operate the project at its own cost and expense, and in a manner satisfactory to State and the FHWA. WORKERS' COMPENSATION COVERAGE 47. All employers, including Agency that employ subject workers who work under this Agreement in the State of Oregon shall comply .with ORS 656.017 and provide the required Workers' Compensation 'coverage unless such employers are exempt under ORS 656.126. Agency shall ensure that each of its contractors complies with these requirements. LOBBYING RESTRICTIONS 48. Agency certifies by signing the Agreement that: A.. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any Federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or emplOyee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. Bi If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any Federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit-Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Fonrn to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions. C. The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subgrants, and contracts and subcontracts under grants, subgrants, loans, and cooperative agreements) which exceed $100,000, and that all such subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by Section 1352, US Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. Paragraphs 34, 35, and 45 are not applicable to any local agency on state highway projects. STDPRO-2000.doc 9 Rev. 11-28-2003 Ashland/ODOT Agreement No. 21139 ATTACHMENT No. 3 Please fill out and submit the following Progress Report as directed in Attachment No. 1 (Special Provisions). Submit a separate report for each Congestion Management / Air Quality (CMAQ) funded Project. Please Note: If your Project is a Park & Ride, complete the entire report. Otherwise, complete items 1, 2 and any other applicable items. Project Name: Agreement No.: (as submitted on original prospectus) Project Year: 1. Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) reduction: 2. Actual daily emission reduction of: NOx (kg/day) CO (kg/day) VOC (kg/day) ' ' .................. ' ................... 3. Ave~rage daily Single Occupancy Vehicles (SOV) eliminated from peak traffic. Show split between Park & Ride vs. Park & Pool. Park & Ride Park & Pool 4. Average daily occupancy rate of Park & Rides vs. number of spaces in lot. Spaces occupied Spaces in lot 5. Percentage of filled spaces - Park & Ride vs. Park & Pool. Park & Ride % Park & Pool % Submitting City: Prepared by: Title: Date: CMAQform.doc Phone: Key No. 13340 6 <{5 UJ -C r)-r -gon Theodore R. Kulongoski, Govemor i DEC 15 ?003 CiTY OF AS~iLA:~D Department of TranSportation Region 3 3500 NW Stewart Parkway Roseburg, OR 97470 (541) 957-3500 FAX (541) 957-3547 FILE CODE: December 11, 2003 PAULA BROWN PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR 20 E MAIN ST. ASHLAND, OR 97520 Dear Paula, Attached is Part 1 and Part 2 of the Project prOspectus for your Ashland Street Paving project. The Part 3 Environmental Prospectus is being processed. Please have the appropriate city officials sign on the second page of Part 1 and return the original to me for further processing in the programming cycle. Please contact: me if you have any questions. Copies of all Prospectus parts, and the executed agreement will be retumecl to you when I send in the programming request. Region 3 Local Program Administrator Attachments cc: Art Anderson ~ White City Form 734-1829 (1-03) ~ Ashland Street Paving PROJECT PROSPECTUS Part 1 Project Request (Page 1 of 2) I Highway Name: 0715 URBAN STREET IN JACKSON COUNTY [] Rura~ d UOB No ~ack~ll Rout~ No.: NI-I$ [] Yo~ I HPl~: '1 [] No IFC: 19 bq~ate Senate District: US Congressional District: 2 Prelimina~ Engineering $715 $81 Right of Way Utility Reimbursement Roadway Stmct~_.~_res Si,,enals Hlumination Temporary Protection $318 $120 Constr. Contingencies Constr. Engineering Total CE and Construction: II I To~ad Estimate: I ~ Recommended Let Date By Federal Fiscal Year $120 Grading $20 Paving Structures Si,,ening Illumination $1,234 $1,374 Quarter-Year): Fund: IR/W Fund: Travel Lanes # 2 Structures # 0 0 Signals # 0 0 Y/N N Bike Way Average Daily Traffic # Average Daily TrafficYR Throughway Y/N N N Key Number: . 1 Rogne Valle7 A~ F~: 0.~ To: 0.~ R~r~ ~: V~o~ ~ T~n ~): i~ of A~h~d Jurisdiclkm: Loca__! District: O8 t.~th (km): 0 O0 X Hectares Relocations X Acquisitiom State Rep. Distr~t: s Files (#) I 0 (#) o.ooo (#) o (#) 0 (#) 0 Preliminary Engineering Right Of Way Acquisitions (s,c~, C (s,c,^) C (s,c,^) C (s,c,^) S Environmental Class (I,23,PCE) 2 Design Category (1-7) 06 Work Type Code (1-13) 01 Primary STIP Work Type: UR Fund: 2nd ( :CMAQ I I Unpaved streets contribute airshed. This airshed has problem that is recognized [] State Force I"l City Form; Fund: to PM-lO in the a documented PM-lO in the SIP. Pave streets. Prepared By:. X (07-2001) ~ b~atua: Prelim Planning IProgram Year: ~ll Approved Funding Amoum: Thumtay, December 11, 2003 ~~ P~ 1 ~oj~t R~u~t (P~e 2 of 2) I 13340 - ~: n~: Ro~e V~ ~ Ashland MPO must reduce PM-10 generation into the airshed. SIP recognizes that. Ashland can assist with the reduction in PM-lO by paving streets. Responsible Local Office To Be Contacted For The Following Activities: 1. Public Hea.ng / Citizen Public Works Director Involvement 2. Environmental I Planning Public Works Director 3. Pre-Engineering Public Works Director This Official Request is From: 541-552-2411 (o~r~,) O:'ho.e) (Orate) 541-552-2411 (O~'z.) 541-552-2411 , , (mo.e) cay of: Asl~md ~ ,, ,, , , By: · Ma. yor B~ Cit7 .Administrator Applicable Intergovernmental Agreements: K3A Numbec Jul'iscr~;lion Name: By:. By:. By: Agreement Date: I I II I I I I I III IIII I (07-2001) Projecl Status: Prelim Planning Thursday, December 11, 2003 PROJECT PROSPECTUS Part 2 Project Details (Page 1 of 2) IK~r Numboc I3340 Jufiadic~ion: s~o.: Ashland Street Paving 13 I RO~ Vall~ Are~ 08 Entec. $ - State C - Consultam A - Applicam E - Existing N - No Item New Work Over Existing Item New Work Over Existing surface (mm) S,urface (mm) Surface (mm) sur~a~ (mm) Stmctme Length Width Height Cost Smactm~ Length Width Height Cost ReC Walls 350.00 4.00 $1 , , , Approved Area Manager Date X Storm Sewer ~rance Wetlands Citizen's N Striping N N Land Use N .Endap. gered N Advisory (Permanent) Landscaping Actions/Permits ~peca~ N iC N N N Photogrammetry Project Signing Irrigation Flood Plain Hazmat Reconnaissance N N N N Historic N Survey Detour Borrow Source Building Resource , Public Hearing Illumination Material Source Retfioval/FillSomrCe Air' N N DEQ Non-Point N Field Survey C RR Crossing N Disposal Source Coast Guard Source Water , Soils/Geotech C N N N N Investigation RR Separation Sensitive Land Signal Warrants Noise Study N N Value N Utilities C C Hydraulic Study RR Encroachment Engineering (see below) Section f(4) inion C Subsurface C t~ty Engnmg Right-Of-Way lla~on ¥ ^~s torero! p/tl~0 Curt ~ lq lq 8ingle No. Complex No. Bm'in~ No. Residonfial No. AASHTO Y (07-2001) Status: Prelim Harming Thursday, December 11, ~n: Ashland Street Paving PROJECT PROSPECTUS I Keyn.mb~: Part 2 Project Details (Page 2 of 2) ,I 13340 Juri~: Comment on ,Segment m Altern~tiv,e: E~.',sting O)elm v) u.Rs in: F commem on Ex~.a: Varies 3.00 11.00 11.00 3.00 C 4.00 11.00 11.00 4.00 C Proposed (above) IJnits in: M comntn~ on Propose: I I I I I I I I I I I II · Comment on Segment or Aiten~tiw.~: Units in: Comment on Existing: Proposed (above) Units in: Comment o~ Proposed: Commenl on Segrnent o~ Alterrmtiw;: Existing (below) unas in: mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ,, Proposed (above) u.~ Comment on Segment or Altematiwe: Existing (below) Unaa ~: conun~ ~n F.x~n~: Proposed (above) Units in: Comment on Propose: IIIIIllllII. I Illl Il I I Il IlI Il I . IllllII Illll LL ] h [ Il _ I Il I I. .I I . Ill I ,I _ I II I II I II I I .I I I _ I (07-2001) Proj~ Status: Prelim Planning Thursday, December 11, COUNCIL Transportation Planning Program Rogue Valley Council of Governments 155 N. First Street P.O. Box 3275 Central Point, OR 97502 (541) 664-6674 (541) 664-7927 (fax) PROJECT APPLICATION FORM Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) Project Applicant: City of Ashland Project Name: Paving of High Use Unpaved Streets: Granite St, C St, Eureka St, Walnut St, & PinecrestTerrace Please attach additional pages if more room is needed to complete the application. PROJECT SCREENS 1. Project Eligibility - Projects must be identified as eligible in the CMAQ program guidance (attached). Is the proposed project an eligible activity for the CMAQ program? Ashland lies within the Rogue Valley MPO's Air Quality Maintenance Area (AQMA), which was designated as a non-attainment area for PM-10 and is classified as moderate under Sections 107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 2. Project Consistency- Is the proposed project consistent with State, County, and/or local transportation plans ? The adopted City of Ashland Transportation System Plan (a part of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan) outlines the concept of "modal equity" as well as commitments to pedestrian and bicycle transportation and Handicapped Accessibility. These projects are intended to conform with this approach by making alternative modes more accessible & amenable, as well as markedly improve handicap accessibility in areas that would experience increases of such traffic if constructed. 3. Local Match Availability- Most projects will require a 10.27% local match. Will the required match be available? Please identify likely local match sources (public, private, ,or multi- jurisdictional). The City Council has identified the reduction of air pollution as a goal in the strategic plan, and G:\pub-wrks\eng\02-29\CofA CMAQ Application.doc Rev 5.13.04 City Ordinances identify a process to secure financing of local improvements through a LID process. Eureka St, C St, Walnut St, and a portion of Pinecrest Terrace all have reached the 50% voluntary participation level required to initiate finance through the LID process. Additionally, the City's 5 Year Capital Improvement Plan has set aside resources to fund projects, so that our match is expected to equal at least 40% for the Walnut, Pinecrest, and Eureka & C Street (a total match of approx. $234,000 plus 10.27% of the Granite Street project ($24,000), which leaves a funding request for the remainder equaling $560,600 =818,600-234,000-24,000. We would able to construct any one or more of these projects in any order that the funding agency directs as long as the fhnding amount is at least $72,000 (60% of the Eureka &C Street Project only) but not more them $560,600 (to construct all of the projects, which have a total value of $818,600). Our internal order of priority is as listed below and on the attached sheet C 1: 1. Granite Sllreet requires $209,600 of grant funding, assuming a 10.27% match. 2. Eureka & C Street require an additional $72,000 of grant funding, and assumes a 40% match. 3. Walnut Street requires an additional $135,000 of grant funding, and assumes a 40% match. 4. Pinecrest Terrace requires an additional $144,000 of grant funding to accomplish. 4. Implementation Timeline - CMAQfunds will be programmed for the years 2004-2007. Can the proposed project be completed within this timeframe? See Evaluation Question and answer no 7 below. PROJECT iEVALUATION QUESTIONS 1. Project Description - Identify the location and purpose of the project. If possible, provide information on potential air quality benefits (e.g., provide an estimate of vehicle miles traveled reduced or volume of emissions reduced). R VCOG staff will use this information to prepare t~e initial air quality analysis. Estimates vary widely and depend on a large number of variables including silt content of soils, precipitation, levels and patterns, wind speeds and exposures, as well as the method of testing and analysis, but estimates as high as much as 2000 lbs of dust is kicked up per year by every vehicle traveling daily on a particular mile of dirt road. So- called "Fugitive dust" is a health hazard to drivers, nearby residents and agencies that maintain these roads. When dust is in the air, we breathe it into our lungs. Small dust particles hurt our lungs because they damage tissue and impair the lungs' ability to function. The elderly, children and people with chronic lung disease, like asthma, are especially sensitive to high levels of dust. Unpaved roads are a major contributor to fugitive dust. Calculation of dust reduction is hypothetical without a detailed analysis and verification of the variables that determine PM- 10 reductions, but a rough estimate has been made of the cost/benefit per Kg of fugitive dust reduction. PM 10 reductions is expected to be roughly proportional to these values, and as such can provide a relative comparison of these projects effectiveness. RVCOG is expected to provide the detailed analysis. 1. Granite Street: 111,300 kg per year (7.14 Kg per dollar spent) 2. Eureka & C Street: 32,300 kg per year (4.00 Kg per dollar spent) 3. Walnut Street: 60,300 kg per year (4.00 Kg per dollar spent) 4. Pinecrest Terrace: 62,000 kg per year (3.84 Kg per dollar spent) Total all 4 Projects: 265,900 kg per year (4.87 Kg per dollar spent) Assumptions;: 15 yr pavement life, 909 kg annual fugitive dust per ADT mile, 0% cost of capital Because PM.-10 is the size basis for the current primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter, it represents the particle size range of the greatest regulatory G:\pub-.wrks\eng\02-29\CofA CMAQ Application.doc Rev 5.13.04 importance. The impact of a fugitive dust source on air pollution depends on the quantity and drift potential of the dust particles injected into the atmosphere. In addition to large dust particles that settle out near the source (often creating a local nuisance problem), considerable amounts of fine particles also are emitted and dispersed over much greater distances from the source. PM-10 represents a relatively fine particle size range and, as such, is not overly susceptible to gravitational settling. 2. Project Cost (Detailed Estimate): Total Costs for each project is shown on the attached sheet C 1 (based on 2002 dollars). A detailed breakdown of costs per lineal foot is also included. 3. Does the project has long-term air quality benefit potential (will the project have a positive impact on air quality in 5 years, 10 years) ? The air quality improvements will increase as traffic increases, and will likely increase at a rate greater than the population growth because the street will serve as a collector for areas that are designated for future residential growth. 4. How will the project contribute to reduced reliance on the automobile? Newly paved streets with sidewalks will provide less hazardous & strenuous alternative routes and connectivity for bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Paving Walnut Street is likely to divert local parallel traffic on North Main and reduce VMT for neighborhood trips, as will Pinecrest Terrace. 5. How will the project reduce congestion? Construction of a new roadway parallel to the main arterial serving north Ashland (iHwy 99: North Main St) is likely to divert north-south traffic bound for and from the Wrights Creek, Westwood, & Upper Strawberry Lane neighborhoods. Because of the topography of the roadways, with relatively few driveways and/or cross streets with a very low ADT, traffic will in general tend to re-route away from more crowded collectors and utilize the newly paved roads.. 6. How will the project help to complete a multi-modal transportation system? See question 4 above. 7. Can the project be implemented during the 2004-2007 timeframe? What work remains prior to starting construction or implementing the program ? Any or all of the projects can be completed within 14 to 18 months of securing of funding. No Right of Way acquisition or planning actions are required, other than routine internal administrative processes. From the point at which funding has been secured, the design and public input process will require not more than 10 months to complete for the LID iprojects. Design for the Granite Street will require only 4 to 6 months. Bidding will require an additional 2 months. Private Engineering Design consultants will be used to expedite all parts of these projects. We estimate an additional 4 to 6 months are required to complete each project, but construction can occur concurrently or in sequence, depending on availability of funds. 8. Does the applicant have a history of implementing applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP) requirements (ordinances, policies, etc.)for carbon monoxide (CO) and/or particulate matter (PM~o) ? If yes, please provide details (please list policies, ordinances, etc.). Copies of G:\pub-wrks\eng\02-29\CofA CMAQ Application.doc Rev 5.13.04 ordinance, s, etc., are not necessary. The City of Ashland has Implemented a wide variety of policies & ordinances aimed at improving air quality, which have been periodically updated by both the Public Works and Community Development Depts. including but not limited following: Ordinances: 9.08.060 Nuisances Affecting the Public Health- Dust and Track out 9.24.020 Requirements for Solid Fuel Heating Device Installation 9.24.040 Restrictions for Wood burning and Emissions on High Pollution Days Policies: Free Bus Fares for students inside city limits. RETURN COMPI,ETED APPI_ICA TION BY DECEMBER 3'!, 2002 TO: Craig Anderson Rogue Valley Council of Governments P.O. Box 3275 Central Point, OR 97502 G:\pub-wrks\eng\02-29\CofA CMAQ Application.doc Rev 5.13.04 5. Walnut Street from Sheridan Street ~o Luna Vista Street 1400 LF, 22' Wide $225,000.00 ADT 250 2. Eureka S~ 8c C St from 8th Street to Emerick Street 800 LF, 22 ft wide $~zo, ooo. oo ADT 260 Ashland Creek Dr ~o Olenview Dr 1600 LF, 20' Wide $233,600.00 ADT 404 4. Pinecrest Terrace from Elkader Sf to Leonard St 1500 LF, 22'Wide $24o, ooo. oo ADT 240 HIGH USE UNPAVED STREETS o~/~o/o2 SCALE 1.5"= 1 mile 1"= 3520' CITY' OF -ASHLAND ENGINEERING DIVISION www. ashlond, or. us 541-488-65~7 fax: 488-6006 C1 G:\pub-wrks\eng\02-29\CofA CMAQ Application.doc Rev 5.13.04 5 ofl0 SECTION MAP- Gronite Street o ~ ~/~ 0/'0,2 SCALE 0 400' 800' CITY OF ~ASH 1.AN D ENGINEERI NG DIVISION www, ashland, or. us 541-488-5347 fox: 486-6006 G:\pub-wrks\eng\02-.29\CofA CMAQ Application.doc Rev 5.13.04 6 ofl0 ST. BLA 9TH ST. ALLEY (PVT.') EUREKA ;T. ;> C iOWA sT. SECTION MAP- Eureko & C S~:ree~ o ~ 2/~ 0/02 SCALE 0 200' 400' CITY OF ~SHLAN'D ENGINEERI Ng DIVISION www. ashiond, or.u$ 541-488-5547 fox: 488-6006 G:\pub-wrks\eng\02-29\CofA CMAQ Application.doc Rev 5.13.04 7 oflO ST. ,EY. S.T SHERIDAN ST. GRANT ST. CHERRY GREENBRIAR PL. DR. ~VIEW I[COOIIiLiD ~EG S~I WIMER ST. SUSAN LN. ~NZAN1T CAMBRID1 SECTION MAP- Walnut o 12/~ o/02 SCALE 0 200' 400' CITY OF SHLAND ENGINEERI NG DIVISION www. oshland, or. us 541-488-5,'747 fox: 488-6006 G:\pub-wrks\eng\02-29\CofA CMAQ Application.doc Rev 5.13.04 8 of 10 ST EMMA ST. MADRONE ST. ~ ROSPEC'I ST. ELMS ST. OREGON ST. WINDSOR ST. FIELDER ST. I,WOODLAN D DR. ~'~LILAC Cm. ~A DR. .< SECTION MAP- Pinecrest Terroce o ~ ~/~ 0/02 SCALE ~,l~ 0 200' 400' CITY OF 4kSH LAN D ENGINEERING DIVISION www. oshland, or. us 541-488-5547 fox: 488-6006 G:\pub-wrks\eng\02-29\CofA CMAQ Application.doc Rev 5.13.04 9 ofl0 PROPOSED STREET CROSS SECTION & ESTIMATE Mobilization and Traffic Control Mobilization Temporary Protection & Direction of Traffic Erosion Control 0210. OAOOlOOA 0225.0AOO100A O280.1AOOIOOA Roadwork 0305. OA O0 IOOA 0330.4AOO100K Drainage 0440.4AOOlOOK 0459. 4AOO100K Structures 0459.4AOO100K 0596. OBO0 lxxF Bases 0641.0C00100M Construction Survey Work General Excavation 12" Storm Drain Pipe Curb Inlets and Catch Basins Minor Structure Adustment Retaining Structures 3/4[ Inch Aggregate Base Wearing Surfaces 0745. 9zgooooM 0759. OA O0400F 0759.0AOO400F 0759.0AOO400F 0759. OEOOIOOJ Level 2, 1/2 Inch PG 64-28 HMAC Concrete Curb and Gutter Access Ramps Ddve Aprons Concrete Walks Right-of-Way Development and Control 1040. 0BOO650E Irradiation 1040. OBOO650E Deciduous Trees, 100 mm Caliper 1040.0C00150E Shrubs, No. I Container LS 1 $6,000.00 LS 1 $2,000.00 LS 1 $2,500.00 LS 1 $7,500.00 CY 350 $15.00 LF 850 $30.00 EA 8 $700.00 EA 8 $250.00 SF 1000 $10.00 CY 1222 $15.00 TON 475 $4~00 FT 2040 $9.50 EA 6 $600.00 SF 1200 $4.00 SF 50OO $3.5O SF 6000 $0.00 Each 20 $200.00 Each 60 $45.00 $6,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,500.00 $4,000.00 $5,250.00 $25,500.00 $5,600.00 $2,000.00 $10,000.00 $18,330.00 $19,000.00 $19,380.00 $3,600.00 $4,800.00 $17,500.00 $0.00 $4,000.00 $2,700.00 Sub-Total of Items Contingencies @ 5% $152,160.00 $7,6O8.0O Total for 1000 LF Cost per Linear Foot $159,768.00 J $159.77J Granite St Exception: delete retaining structures trees and shrubs ($146.00 PLF) C & Eureka Exception: delete retaining structures, add irrigation ($150. OOPLF) G:\pub-wrks\eng\02-:29\CofA CMAQ Application.doc Rev 5.13.04 10 of 10 CITY OF -AS H LAN D Council Communication Title: Dept: Date: Submitted By: Approved By: Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending the Definition of Gross Revenues to Exclude Revenue from Cable Modems under the Telecommunications Chapter of the Ashland Municipal Code Legal Department May 18, 2004 Paul Nolte Gino Grimaldi Synopsis: Telecommunication providers within the public rights of way are now required to pay a 5% franchise fee on all telecommunication gross revenues generated within the city. This ordinance amends section 16.04.040.L of the Ashland Municipal Code to remove cable modem fees from the calculation of gross revenue. Recommendations: Adopt the amendment. Fiscal Impact: .The fiscal impact was described at the first reading of this ordinance as approximately $:50,000 per year that the city would no longer be receiving from AFN. The other cable company has never paid the fee. Background: The provision of cable modem services 'is a telecommunication service under the city's telecommunication code (Title 16 of the Ashland Municipal Code). AFN was granted a telecommunications franchise in 1999 and has paid all fees due under the franchise. The: other cable company has never paid based on an FCC ruling which is now in litigation. This amendment will level the playing field until the litigation over these issues is resolved at the federal level. Attachments: An Ordinance Amending the Definition of Gross Revenues to Exclude Revenue from Cable Modems under the Telecommunications Chapter of the Ashland Municipal Code . G:~legal\Office\ORD\~telecomm cable modem amendment 3-04 2d readingcc.wpd ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF GROSS REVENUES TO EXCLUDE REVENUE FROM CABLE MODEMS UNDER THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CHAPTER OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION ill. Section 16.04.040.L of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: L. Gross Revenue. Except for a telecommunications utility, gross revenue means gross revenue derived by grantee from the provision of telecommunications services originating or terminating in the city on facilities covered by the franchise. After July 1, 2004, gross revenues shall not include any revenue derived from cable modem services. For the purposes of this definition net uncollectibles from revenue included in gross revenues may be excluded from gross revenues. For a telecommunications utility, gross revenue means those revenues derived'from exchange access services, as defined in ORS 401.710, less net uncollectibles from such revenues. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, . Section 2(C:) of the City Charter on the ~ day of ,2004, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ,2004. Barbara Chdstensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of ,2004. Reviewed as~to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor 1 - G:~legal\Office\ORD\%telecomm cable modem amendment 3-04 flnal.wpd CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication Title: A Resolution Authorizing the Adoption of a Fire Protection Plans Review and Inspection Fee Schedule Dept: Ashland Fire & Rescue Date: May 18, 2004 Submitted By: Keith E. Woodley, Fire Chief Approved By: Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator Synopsis: In a memorandum to the City Council dated March 16, 2004, it was deemed to be in the public interest to adopt a fire protection plans review and inspection fee schedule. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution. Fiscal Impact: The attachment entitled Fire Protection Plans Review Permit fees sets forth the fee structure. Background: At the City Council meeting of March 16, an Ordinance Creating New Sections 15.28.150 and 15.28.160 of the Ashland Municipal Code to Provide Fees for the Uniform Fire Code Plan Review and Inspections be Set by Resolution was presented to the council. The City Council approved the ordinance at the first reading on March 16 and the second reading on April 6, 2004. ~, Attachments: · Proposed Resolution Authorizing the. Adoption of a Fire Protection Plans Review and Inspection Fee Schedule. · Council Communication dated March 16 and accompanying ordinance. RESOLUTION NO. 04- · A RFSOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ADOPTION OF A FIRE PROTECTION PLANS REVIEW AND INSPECTION FEE SCHEDULE. Recital: The council being fully informed regarding the advisability of establishing a fire protection plans review and inspection fee schedule as recommended by Keith E. Woodley, City of Ashland Fire Chief, in his memorandum to the council dated March 16, 2004, deems it in the public interest to adopt a fire protection' plans review and inspection fee schedule. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 11. Pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code Section 15.28.150 and 15.28.160, the attached fire protection plans review and inspection fee schedule is hereby adopted. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code {}2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this~ day of ,2004. Bad)am Chdstensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of ,2004. Paul Nolte, City Attorney Alan DeBoer, Mayor PAGE 1-RESOLUTION FIRE PROTECTION PLANS REVIEW PERMIT FEES Fire protection plans review fees will be applied to any building permit that is routed by, or requires interaction with, the fire department. This includes fire suppression and fire alarm systems. These fees will also be applied to subdivision / plat check reviews which are initiated by Public Works Engineering Division. These fees are in addition to and separate from the Building Permit. These fees will be paid following existing city policies. (Prior to issuance of the Building Permit, when Plat Check is submitted for review, or when Subdivision Engineering Service Fees memo is paid.) These fees address those fire protection issues and features, which are not addressed I:)y the Oregon Structural Specialty Code. (Ex: fire apparatus access, fire hydrants and required fire hydrant flows, the specified locations for fire department pumper connections, fire alarm panels and access key boxes) The fee structure is: ITEM FEE Any Building Permit 10% of the Building Permit Fee and Plan Check fees. New Subdivision or Land Partition 10% of the Engineering Subdivision Plat Check Fee Fire Hydrant Flow Tests required for new installations . $100 per flow test. Any review required by the Oregon Uniform Fire Code, and which does not involve a building permit, $50.00 per hour. A minimum charge of $25.00 will be assessed to these reviews. When the Building Division asSesses additional fees for plan reviews and/or field inspections, any fire department staff time associated with that activity will be included in their fees at their specified rate~ PAGE 2-RESOLUTION CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication TITLE: DEPT: DATE: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Synopsis: Recommendation: Fiscal Impact: Background: Attachments: An Ordinance Creating New Sections 15.28.150 and 15.28.160 of the Ashland Municipal Code to provide Fees for the Uniform Fire Code Plan Review and Inspections Be Set by Resolution Ashland Fire & Rescue March 16, 2004 David K. Hard, Assistant Fire Chief/~4e Marshal Keith E. Woodley, Fire Chief Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator Paul Nolte, City Attorney This ordinance allows the establishment of fire protection plans review and inspection fees by resolution. Adopt the proposed ordinance for Ashland Fire & Rescue fire protection plans review and inspection program. Provide an opportunity for public comment pursuant to ORS 294.160 when the resolution setting the fees is adopted by Council. Fire protection plans review and inspection fees, when adopted, will generate revenue to recover 50% of the cost of new position. · Ashland Fire & Rescue provides fire protection plans review and related inspections in support of building codes and Uniform Fire Code reqtfirements within the City of Ashland. These code enforcement activities have been largely carried out by the Assistant Fire Chief/Fire Marshal. Activity within this program. area has experienced a steady inereatse for several years. At budget time last Spring we were experiencing a 14 to 20 day turn-around for planS'review actions within the fire department. Effective July 1, 2003, the fire department is funding an additional position of Fire Prevention Officer to address workload issues within this program area. As a result of this additional position, our current turn- around average on' plans review is five working days. The Budget Committee directed staff to seek partial cost recovery of these services through the adoption of a fee schedule. The attached fee schedule will be proposed to the Council for adoption when the attached ordinance, which allows the fees to be set by resolution, becomes effective. Fire protection plans review and inspection fee schedule and Fee Impact Analysis. ORDINANCE NO. ._ AN ORDINANCE CREATING NEW SECTIONS 15.28.150 AND 15.28.160 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE FEES FOR THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE PLAN REVIEW AND INSPECTIONS BE SET BY RESOLUTION THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: I Deletions are lined through, and additions are in bold. Annotated to show deletieF~ and additions to the code sections being modifiied. SECTION 1. -A New seCtion 15~28.150 of the Ashland Municipal Code is established to read: SECTION 15.28.150. Plan Review I Permits - Fees. For applicatioq in this city, Uniform Fire Code plan review fees shall be established by resolution of the city council. SECTION 2. A New section 15.28.160 of the Ashland Municipal Code is estalblished to read: . SECTION 15.28.160. Code Compliance Inspection - Fees. The fee schedule for fire code compliance inspections shall be established by resolution of the city council. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the ~ day of. ,2.004, ' and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this~ day of ,2004. Barbara M. Chdstensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this~ day of , , 2004. Reviewed as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor CiTY OF -ASHLAND Impact Of Fire Protection Plans Review Fee Implementation On Typical Building Permits The projected BuilLding Permit Fees for the current fiscal year is $ 218,768, thus the projected Structural Plan Review Fees on these permits are $142,200.00. The proposed 10% fire department fee for these permits will result in revenue of $ 36,096.80. Suppression and alarm systems will add another $ 577.00 Engineering Subdivision Plat Check Fees will add another $1450.00 The total projected revenue from the proposed fee stxUcture is $ 38,123.80. The projected cost of the program is $ 67,500. Some examples of the impact of this fee structure are: New house in Riverwalk Subdivision- a typical single-family residence (2072 square feet:) Subdivision Review Fee $ 599.00/64 lots $ 9.36 House Plan Review Fee $ 894.33 x 10% $ 89.43 Single Family Residence over 3600 square feet on an existing lot or recent land partition. (Chose fire sprinkler system instead of new fire hydrant) House Plan Review Fee $1390.95 x 10% $139.10 Sprinkler Plan Review Fee $ 103.13 x 10% $ 10.31 New Warehouse on a new land partitio~a Plan Review Fee $ 2175.53 x 10% Sprinkler Plan Review Fee $ 429.83 x 10% $ 217.55 $ 42.98 Accessory Residential Unit in Wildland Fire Zone (Fire Sprinklers Ord.) ARU Plan Review Fee $ 476.85 x 10% Sprinkler Plan Review Fee $ 38.78 x 10% required by Zoning $47.69 $ 3.88 Ashland Surgery Center Plan Review Fee Sprinkler Plan Review Fee Fire Alarm Review Fee $ 6356.15 x 10% $ 429.83 x 10% $ 50.00x10% $635.62 $ 42.98 $ 5.00 Lithia Springs Girls Home (Updated Fire Alarm System) Aahland F~ & Rescue Tel: M1-482-2770 Fax: M1488-5318 TrY: 800-~ Plan Review Fee $ 87.50 x 10% $ 8.75 Plaza Inn & Suites (3 story hotel w 2 additional underground parking/room levels) Plan Review Fee $16,389.45 x 10% $1638,,95 Sprinkler Plan Review Fee $ 709.50 x 10% $ 70.,95 Fire Alarm Review Fee $ 392.70 x 10% $ 39.,27 Recap of jurisdictions contacted. 1. Medford- No plan review or inspection fees. Permits = $75 for each underground storage tank and $20 for special event permits at Rogue Valley Mall. 2. Jackson County Fire District 3 (White City)- No fees 3. City of Grants Pass Public Safety- No fees. 4. State Fire Marshal's Office- No fees for permits. 5. Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue - No fees. 6. City of Salem Fire Department- Yes. $35.00 or 40% of the Building Permit Fee whichever is greater. Re-inspection fee of $118.00 plus each inspector's time if not approved aiter initial and one follow-up inspection. Special Event Pemfits can trigger a fire only fee (Tent, Underground storage tank) 7. City of Corvallis Fire Department - Yes. It is 10% of the Building Permit plan review fee, which is 65% of the Building Permit fee that is based upon the valuation of the project. Another way of saying this is 6.5 % of the Building Permit fee. In addition they have a permit fee schedule for certain occupancies and processes. 8. City of Gresham Fire DepartmelIt - Yes. They only charge for fire spdnlder and fire alarm plan reviews. The fire sprinkler review fee is based upon the number of sprinklers. The fire alarm review fee is based upon the value of the work being performed. FIRE PROTECTION PLANS REVIEW PERMIT FEES Fire protection plans review fees will be applied to any building permit that is routed by, or requires interaction with, the fire department. This includes fire suppression and fire alarm systerns. These fees will also be applied to subdivision / plat check reviews which are initiated by Public Works Engineering Division. These fees are in addition to and separate from the Building Permit. These fees will be paid following existing city policies. (Prior to issuance of the Building Permit, when Plat Check is submitted for review, or when Subdivision Engineering Service Fees memo is paid.) These fees address those fire protection issues and features, which are not addressed by the Oregon Structural Specialty Code. (Ex: fire apparatus access, fire hydrants and required fire hydrant flows, the specified locations for fire department pumper connections, fire alarm panels and access key boxes) The fee structure is: ITEM FEE Any. Building Permit 10% of the Building Permit Fee and Plan Check fees. New Subdivision or Land Partition 10% of the Engineering Subdivision Plat Check Fee Fire Hydrant Flow Tests required for new installations will be assessed at $100 per flow test. Any review required by the Oregon Uniform Fire Code, and which does not involve a building permit, will be charged at the rate of $50.00 per hour. A minimum charge of $25.00 will be assessed to these reviews. When the Buiilding Division assesses additional fees for plan reviews and/or field inspections, any fire' department staff time associated with that activity will be included in their fees at their specified rate. CITY OF -AS H LAN D Council Communication TITLE: DEPT: DATE: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: A Resolution Increasing Electric R~tes. Finance Department May 18, 2004 Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator Synopsis: The FY04-05 budget is proposing a 6% increase in electric rates and a change in commercial and governmental seasonal rates, while holding the BPA surcharge fixed at its current rate of'20.8%. This rate increase is necessary to cover increased personnel expenses, higher BPA Power costs, greater operating expenses and to meet the target electric fund balance. Miscellaneous Charges and Connection Fees established by the previous resolution remain in effect, unchanged until revised by separate Council Action. The increase would be effective for bills prepared on or after July 1, 2004 beginning with Cycle Seven. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Council approve the Electric Rate Resolution that increases electric rates by 6.0%, removes seasonal rates from Commercial and Governmental rates and keeps the BPA suurcharge at 20.8%. Fiscal Impact: The proposed increase of 6% would generate an additional $706,800 annually for the City's Electric Utility. The Franchise fee would increase by $70,938 and general fund revenue from the user's tax would increase by $147,039. This would result in an overall increase of about 2.3% in electric bills for an "average" residential customer. Background: Currently BPA is proposing a settlement with the IOU's which would remove $200 million from the next two years of the rate case. If this occurs the total CRAC's would remain at about current level for the first six months of the rate period. This action would equate to about a $300,000 reduction in wholesale power costs for Ashland in each of the next 2 federal fiscal years (Oct. 1, 2004. to Sept. 30, 2006). Therefore, staff is proposing to leave the BPA surcharge at its current level. If this settlement were to fail or other variables change this situation; there may be a need to adjust our BPA surcharge in October to reflect changing future circumstances. Even with this reduction, our power costs will still increase by about $41.0,547 over our FY 2003-04 costs. Transmission costs are projected to decline by $33,497. This means our net cost increase to BPA will be $377,050 or.6.8% higher than ]FY 03-04 costs. This increase, coupled with rising health care costs, higher PERS costs, cost of living increases in salaries, the increasing costs of electric supplies, and a need to meet the electric fund target balance means the City needs to increase our electric rates to cover these higher expenses. Staff is proposing a general 6% rate increase in the proposed FY04-05 budget and would implement this increase via a resolution that would make the rates effective in July 2004. The proposed new rates would compare to the old rates as illustrated in the following table: CURRENT RATES PROPOSED RATES Residential Basic Charge $ 7.02/Month $ 7.44/Month User Charge.- First 500kwh $ .04390/kWh $ .04653/kWh Balance $ .05400/kWh $ .05724/kWh Bed & Breakfast Basic Charge', $ 7.02/Month $ 7.44/Month User Charge First 600kwh $ .04876/kWh $ .05170/kWh Balance $ .05390/kWh $ .05714/kWh All of these costs 'would also be subject to a 25% Electric User Tax which goes directly into the City General Fund. Staff is also proposing a 6% rate increase for all other customer classes. However, there is also a need to do some rate redesign on our commercial and governmental rates to reflect seasonal wholesale billing changes from BPA. Currently we have seasonal rates for commercial and governmental customers that are actually higher in the winter period (Nov 1-April 30) and lower in the summer period (May 1 to October 30). These rates reflected our BPA wholesale power rates prior to 2001, and BPA has revamped those rates significantly since 2000. The City now incurs high load and low load hour energy charges, that vary every month and also a different demand charge for every month of the year. Finance has calculated the actual wholesale cost of melded kWh rate including demand and energy on aggregate for our entire wholesale power purchases and now the most expensive month of the year is August with melded costs of $.05kWh. September is second, followed by November and December and then followed closely by July. A graph of these costs have; been included for your information. Therefore, the old seasonal rates of lower rates in the summer no l[onger reflect the actual cost of service we incur in providing electricity to these customers. Because of this as a part of the rate adjustment in July, we would propose to change commercial and governmental rates by eliminating seasonality and making them uniform year around as follows: COMMERCIAL Basic Charge 30kW or less Over 30 kW Energy Charge (Winter) First 3,000kWh Next 17,000kWh Balance CURRENT RATE Single Phase $12.53/Mth $47.01/Mth 3 Phase $25.07/Mth $81.47/Mth $.05366/kWh $.05380/kWh $.05407/kWh $.04870/kWh $.04881/kWh $.04891/kWh PROPOSED RATE Single Phase $13.28/Mth $49.83/Mth 3 Phase $26.57/Mth $86.36/Mth $.05532/kWh $.05550/kWh $.05576/kWh $.05065/kWh $.05100/kWh $.05113/kWh Energy Charge (Summer) First 3,000kWh Next 17,000 Balance $.05072/kWh $.05083/kWh $.05114/kWh $.04687/kWh $.04742/kWh $.04757/kWh $.05532/kWh $.05550/kWh $.05576/kWh $.05065/kWh $.05100/kWh $.05113/kWh Demand Charges for commercial customers larger than 15kW would increase from $2.76/kW by 6% to $2.93/kW. Governmental rates would also be amended to remove the seasonality as follows: GOVERNMENTAL Basic Charge 30 kW or less over 30 kW Energy Change (Winter) Next 17,000kWh Balance Energy Change (Summer) Next 17,000kWh Balance CURRENT RATE PROPOSED RATE Single Phase 3 Phase $12.53/Month $25.07/Month $47.01/Month $81.47/Month $ .06480/kWh $ .04643/kWh $ .04325/kWh $.07000/kWh $.05015/kWh $.04702/kWh $ .05905/kWh $ .04643/kWh $ .04325/kWh $.06380/kW11 $.05015/kWh $.04702/kWh Single Phase $13.28/Month $49.82/Month 3 Phase $26.57/Month $86.36/Month $.06564/kWh $.04922/kWh $.04613/kWh $.07091/kWh $.05316/kWh $.04984/kWh $.06564/kWh $ 04922/kWh $.04613/kWh $.07091/kWh $.05316/kWh $.04984/kWh The demand charge would also increase from $2.76/kW to $2.93/kW The intended impact on commercial and governmental customers with the above changes; is an annual revenue increase of 6% from those classes similar to other customers. However, the change from seasonal rates will cause bills for summer use to be higher than would have been reflected under the prior system. Additionally, winter use will billed at a lower amount than would have been billed with seasonal rates. T]hese changes could cause a variance in the total amount paid by any single customer depending on seasonal use and if the customer closes for any period of time. With higher BPA power bills and a change in the seasonality of our BPA wholesale costs, we have encountered some cash flow issues in meeting our BPA payment schedule. This rate increase and also the change in conunercial and governmental seasonality will help to alleviate this problem. The health of the Electric Fund's ending fund balance over the long term is also of concern. The Electric Fund guarantees the debt on the Telecommunications Fund and all financings for the Ashland Fiberoptic Network rely on adequate debt service coverage. Annual acceptable rate increases will help to meet this requirement and guard against coverage problems in the future. RESOLUTION NO. 2004- A RESOLUTION REVISING RATES FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE PURSUANT TO ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 14.16.030 AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 2003-12. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The electric rate schedules are increased 6.0% for rates for electric service provided by the City Ashland effective with Cycle Seven billings prepared on or after July 1,2004 as per the attached rate tables. Additionally, Commercial and Governmental rates are changed from seasonall rates to fiat rates. Miscellaneous Charges and Connection Fees established by the previous resolution remain in effect as per the attached until revised by separate Council Action. SECTION 2. The City of Ashland's 20.8% surcharge on billings for electric usage in addition to charges specified in Section 1 to help pay for wholesale rate increases on power supplied to the City of Ashland by the Bonneville Power Administration remains in effect. The surcharge rate is $0.00801/kwh. SECTION 3. The surcharge revenue is not subject to the Electric Utility Tax or included in the franchise fee calculation for General Fund Revenues. SECTION 4. Copies of this resolution shall be maintained in the Office of the City Recorder. SECTION 5. Classification of the fee. The fees specified in Section 1 and Section 2 of this resolution is classified as not subject to the limits of Section 11 b of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure 5). SECTION 6. Resolution 2003-12 is repealed. SECTION 7. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. 1- Resolution form - Electric rates 2004G:~legal\PAUL\FORMS~resolution form.wpd This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 18th day of May, 2004. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this 18th day of May, 2004. Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor 2- Resolution form - Electric rates 2004G:~legal~PAUL\FORMS~resolution form.wpd City of Ashland, Oregon RESIDENTIAL SERVICE Applicable: To single-family residential customers when all service is supplied to one point of delivery. Monthly Billing: The Monthly Billing shall be the sum of the Basic and Energy Charges and BPA Surcharges Basic Charge: 7.44 Energy Charge: 4.653c per kWh for the first 500 kWh 5.724c for all additional kWh c= cents Minimum Charge: The monthlY minimum charge shall be the Basic Charge. A higher minimum may be required under contract to cover special conditions. Special Conditions: No motor load shall exceed a total of 7 1/2 horsepower connected at one time. SCHEDULES R 01 and R 03 Three-Phase Service (R 03) For residential customers requiring three-phase service, whose single-phase requirements are, or will be supplied under any residential schedule, three- phase service will be supplied only when service is available from the City's presently existing facilities, or where such facilities can be reasonably, installed, and in any event, only when deliveries carl be made by using one service for customer's single phase and three-phase requirements. The demand charge applicable only to customer's three-phase demand shall be $3.04 for each kilowatt of demand, but not less than $7.44 minimum demand charge. The energy charge shall be in accordance with the schedule set forth herein. Continuing Service This schedule is based on continuing service at each service location. Disconnect and reconnect trans- actions shall not operate to relieve a customer from monthly minimum charges. effective July 01,2004 Cycle 7 1 of 13 City of Ashland, Oregon SEASONAL RESIDENTIAL SERVICE Applicable: This rate is applicable to seasenal residential uses such as owner occupied single-family residential customers providing travelers accommodations, and when all service is supplied at one point of delivery. Monthly Billing: The Monthly Billing .,shall be the sum of the Basic and Energy Charges and BPA Surcharges. Basic Charge: 7.44 per month Energy Charge: 5.170c per kWh for 'the first 600 kWh 5.714c for all additional kWh c = cents Minimum Charge: The monthly minimum charge shall be the Basic Charge. A higher minimum may be required under contract to cover special conditions. Special Conditions: No motor load shall exceed a total of 7 1/2 horsepower connected at one time. Effective July, 2004 Cycle Seven SCHEDULE 4 Three-Phase Service (R 03) For residential customers requiring three-phase service, whose single-phase requirements are, or will be supplied under any residential schedule, three- phase service will be supplied only when service is available from the City's presently existing facilities, or where such facilities can be reasonably installed, and in any event, only when deliveries can be made by using one service for customer's single phase and three-phase requirements. The demand charge applicable only to customer's three-phase demand shall be $3.04 for each kilowatt of demand, but not less than $7.44 minimum demand charge. The energy charge shall be in accordance with the schedule set forth herein. Continuing Service This schedule is based on continuing service at each service location. Disconnect and reconnect trans- actions shall not operate to relieve a customer from monthly minimum charges. 2 of 13 City of Ashland, Oregon RENEWABLE RESOURCE GENERATION Applicable: This schedule is applicable to qualifying facilities with a generating design of 100 kilowatts or less. Monthly billing: The. monthly billing for takings from the City shall be in accordance with the applicable schedule or schedules for the type of service received. Generation credit: City shall pay 7.143 cents per kWh for all excess separately metered kWh's generated from a qualifying facility. Parallel Operation: · Interconnection of a qualifying facility with City's system will be permitted only under the terms of a contract between the qualifying facility and the City. The contract must meet requirements of the Department of Electric Utilities. The form of such contract shall include but not be limited to the following: (1) The qualifying facility shall indemnify and hold harmless the City of Ashland from any and all liability arising from the operation and interconnection of qualifying facility. (2) The qualifying facility shall provide a Iockable disconnect switch to isolate qualifying facility's generation from City's system. Such switch shall be accessible to City and City shall have the right to lock such disconnect switch open whenever necessary to maintain safe electrical operating conditions or whenever the qualifying facility adversely affects City's system. SCHEDULE 5 (3) Qualifying facility shall provide an additional meter base adjacent to the delivery meter to rneasure the qualifying facility's total generation independently from the qualifying facility's load. For three-phase generation the qualifying facility .will also provide a meter base for a Kvar meter. (4) Except for the metering, qualfying facility shalll own and maintain all facilities on the qualifying facility's side of a single point of delivery as specified by the City. Qualifying facility's system, including inter- connected equipment, shall meet the requirements of and be inspected and approved by state electrical inspector and any other public authority having jurisdiction before any connection is made to City. Unmetered Generation: If the qualifying facility does not desire to make sales to City, the requirements for separate metering of the generation shall be waived. Such generation may reduce the net delivery and billing to the qualifying facility by City. The delivery meter will be of a type that will not be compensated for unmetered incidental flows to City. Effective July, 2004 Cycle Seven 3 of 13 City of Ashland, Oregon Commercial Service. Applicable: This schedule is applicable to non-residential and multiple-family residential customers whose entire requirements are supplied hereunder, and whose loads have never registered 1,000 kilowatts or more, more than once in any consecutive 18-month period. Deliveries at more than one point, or more than one voltage and. phase classification, will be separately metered and billed. Service for intermittent, partial requirements or highly fluctuating loads, or where service is seasonally disconnected during any one year period will be provided only by special contract for such ser¢ice. Monthly billing: The monthly billing shall be the sum of the Basic, Demand, Energy, and Reactive Power Charges, plus applicable Metering and Delivery adjustments and BPA Surcharges. Basic Charge: Basic Single Three Charge Phase: Phase C 01 C 03 30 kW 13.28 26.57 or less Over 49.83 86.36 30 kW * Note: Kilowatt load size, for determination of Basic Charge, shall be the average of the two greatest non-zero monthly demands established during the 12 month period which includes and ends with the current billing month. SCHEDULE C01 &C03 Basic etc. lo£3 Demand Charge: No charge for the first 15 kW of demand. Price per kW for all kW in excess of 15 kW $2.93 Energy Charge: Energy, Charge Single Phase Three Phase C 01 C 03 Winter- per 5.532 5.065 ' kwh for the first 3,000 kWh Winter - per 5.550 5.'100 <Wh for the next 17,000 kWh Winter - per 5.576 5.113 kWh for all iadditional kWh Summer - per 5.532 5.065 kWh for the first 3,000 kWh Summer - per 5.550 5.100 kWh for the next 17,000 kWh Summer - per 5.576 5.113 kWh for all additional kwh * Note: Rates are shown as cents per kWh Effective July, 2004 Cycle 7 '4 of 13 City of Ashland, Oregon Commercial Service SCHEDULE C01 &C03 Basic etc. Page2 of= 3 Seasonal Definition'.' Seasonal rates no longer in affect as of July 2004. Previously, summer months were defined as the six regular billing periods May through October. Minimum Charge. The monthly charge shall be the basic charge. A higher minimum may be required under contract to cover special conditions. Reactive Power Charges. The maximum 30-minute reactive demand for the month in kilovolt-amperes in excess of 40% of the measured kilowatt demand the same month will be billed, in addition to the above charges, at 60cents per kvar of such excess reactive demand. Demand: Demand shall be the kilowatts shown by, or computed from the readings of the City's demand meter for the 30-minute period of customers greatest use during the month, determined to the nearest kilowatt. Metering & Delivery Voltage Adjustments: The above monthly charges are applicable without adjustment for voltage with delivery and metering are at the City's standard secondary voltage. Metering: For as long as metering voltage is at the City's available primary distribution voltage of 11 kV or greater, the above charges shall be reduced by one and one-half percent (1 1/2 %) to compensate for losses. Delivery: For as long as delivery voltage is at City's available primary distribution voltage of 11 kV or greater, the total of the above charges will be reduced by 15 Cents per kilowatt of load size used for the determination of the Basic Charge billed in the month. A High Voltage Charge of $35 per month will be added where such deliveries are metered at the delivery voltage. When a new delivery, or an increase in capacity for an existing~delivery .is, at the request of the customeri'made'by means of City-owned transformers at a 'voltage other than a locally standard distribution voltage, the above charges for any month will, be increased by 15 Cents per kilowatt o'1: load size used for the determina'ti~n. 6f'the.BasiC ..... Charge billed in the month..' The City retains the right-~tochange ~its line voltage or classification-~ther, eof at. any time, and after reasonable advance notice to any customer affected by such change, such customer then has the option to take, service at the new line voltage or to accept service through transformers to be supplied by City subject to the voltage adjustments above. Contract: The City may require the customer to sign a written contract which shall have a term of not less than one (1) year. Installation and Maintenance: The City may contract for the installation and maintenance of electric facilities on the customer's premises. The terms of such service shall be set forth in a contract, the form and terms of which shall be approved by the City Council. Monthly charges rnade by the City as reimbursement for ownership, operation and maintenance costs .applicable to facilities installed to furnish service under 5 of 13 City of Ashland, Oregon Commercial Service. · rules of this schedule shall be determined in accordance with the following: (1) Operating Charge - shall be equal to 2/3 of 1% per month of the installed cost of facilites paid for by the customer. (2) Facilities Charge -- shall be equal to 1 1/2 % per month of the installed cost of facilities paid for by the customer. (3) Transformer Capacity Charge - shall be equal to 15 Cents per nameplate kva. Special Conditions: Customers shall not resell electric service received from the City under provisions of this schedule to any person, except by written permission of the City, and where customer meters and bills any of his/her tenants at City's regular rates for the type of service which such tenant rnay actually receive. Continuing Service;: This schedule is based on continuing service at each service location. Disconnect and reconnect transactions shall not operate to relieve a customer from monthly minimum charge. SCHEDULE C01 &C03 Basic etc. Page3 Q;~ .3 6 of 13 City of Ashland, Oregon GOVERNMENTAL SERVICE Applicable: This schedule is applicable to governmental customers whose entire requirements are supplied hereunder, and whose loads have never registered 1,000 kilowatts or more, more than once in any consecutive 18-month period. Deliveries at more than one point, or more than one voltage and phase classification, will be separately metered and billed. Monthly billing: The monthly billing shall be the sum of the Basic, Demand, Energy, and Reactive Power Charges, plus applicable Metering and Delivery adjustments and BP^ Surcharges. Basic Charge: Basic Single Three Charge Phase Phase G01 G03 30 kW 13.28 26.57 for less Over 49.82 86.36 30 kW * Note: Kilowatt load size, for determination of Basic Charge, shall be the average of the two greatest non-zero monthly demands established during the 12 month period which includes and ends with the current billing month. Effective July 01, 2004 Schedule G01 & G03 Page I o£ Demand Charge: No charge for the first 15 kW of demand. Price per kW for all kW in excess of 15 kW $2.93 Energy Charge: Energy Charge Single Phase Three Phase G 01 G 03 Winter - per 0.65640 0.07010 kWh for the first 3,000 'kWh Winter - per 0.04922 0.05316 kWh for the next 17,000 kWh Winter - per 0.04613 0.04984 kWh for all additional kWh Summer - per 0.06564 0.07091 kWh for the first 3,000 kWh Summer - per 0.04922 0.05316 kWh for the next 17,000 kWh ~Summer - per 0.04613 0.04984 ~kWh for all additional kWh Note: Rates are shown as cents per kwh Seasonal Defination: Seasonal rates no longer in affect as of July 2004 Cycle Seven. Previously, summer months were defined as the six regular billing pedods, May through October. 7 of 13 CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON GOVERNMENTAL SERVICE Minimum Charge: The monthly minimum charge shall be the basic charge. A higher minimum may be required under contract to cover special conditions. Reactive Power Charges: The maximum 30-minute reactive demand for the month in kilovolt-amperes in excess of 40% of the measured kilowatt demand the same month will be billed, in addition to the above charges, at 60(cents) per kvar of such excess reactive demand. Demand: Demands shall be the kilowatts shown by, or computed from the read.ings of the City's demand meter for the 3~-minute period of customer's greatest us during the month, determined to the nearest kilowatt. Metering & Delivery Voltage Adjustments: The above monthly charges are applicable without adjustment for voltsge when delivery and metering are at the City's standard secondary, voltage. Metering: For as long as metering voltage is at the City's available primary distribution voltage of 1 lkV or greater, the above charges shall be reduced by (1-1/2%) to compensate for losses. Delivery: For as long as delivery voltage is at City's available primary distribution voltage of' 11kY or greater, the total of the above charges will be reduced by 15(cents) per kilowatt of load size used for the determination of the Basic Charge billed in the month. A High Voltage charge of $35.00 per month will be added where such deliveries are metered at the delivery voltage. When a new delivery, or an increase in capacity for an existing delivery is, at the Page 2 of 3 SCHEDULES G01 & G03 request of the customer, made by means of City- owned transformers at a voltage other than a locally standard distribution voltage, the above charges for any month will be increased by 15 (cents) per kilowatt of load size used for the determination of the Basic Charge billed in the month. The City retains the right to change its line voltage or classifications thereof at any time, and after reasonable advance notice to any customer affected by such change. Such customer then has the option to take service at the new line voltage or to accept service through trans- formers to be supplied by City subject to the voltage adjustments above Contract: The City may require the customer to sign a written contract which shall have a term of not less than one (1) year. Installation and Maintenance: The City may contract for the installation and Maint- enance of electric facilities on the customer's premises. The terms of such service shall be set forth in a contract, the form and terms of which shall be ap- proved by the City Council. Monthly charges made by the City as reimbursement for ownership, operation and maintenance costs applicable to facilities installed to furnish service under rules of this Schedule shall be determined in accordance with the following: (1) Operating Charge -- shall be equal to 2/3 of 1% per month of the installed cost of facilities paid for by the customer. (2) Facilities Charge -- shall be equal to 1 1/2% per month of the installed cost of the facilities as t determined by the City for facilities installed at City's expense. (3) Transformer Capacity Charge-- shall be equal to 15 (cents) per nameplate kva. Effective July, 2004 Cycle Seven 8 of 13 City of Ashland, Oregon GOVERNMENTAL SERVICE Special Conditions: Customers shall not resell electric service received from the City under provisions of the schedule to any person, except by written permission of the City, and where customer meters and bills any of~his/her tenants at City's regular rates for the type of service which such tenant may actually receive. · Continuing Service: This schedule is based on continuing service at each service location. Disconnect and reconnect transactions shall not operate to relieve a customer from monthly minimum charges. Schedule G01 & G03 Page 3 o£ 3 Effective July 2004 Cycle Seven 9 of 13 City of Ashland, Oregon LARGE GENERAL SERVICE - METERED TIME OF USE OVER 2,000 KILOWATTS SCHEDULE 48 Applicable: This schedule is applicable to electric service loads which have registered over 2,000 kilowatts more than once in any consecutive 18-month period. Deliveries at more than one point, or more tlhan one voltage and phase classification, will be separately metered and billed. Service for intermittent, partial requirements, or highly fluctuating loads, or where service is seasonally disconnected during any one-year period will be provided only by special contract for such service. Monthly billing: The City will negotiate with a customer a'*rate structure and rate levels based upon the specific circumstances of the customer. At a minimum, the rates developed for this schedule will be set at a sufficient level to recover, all of the costs incurred by the City to serve the customer, including a minimum contribution to fixed assets. Installation and Maintenance: The City may contract for the installation and maintenance of electric facilities on the customer's premises. The terms of such service shall be set forth in a contract, the form and terms of which shall be approved by the City CoUncil. Monthly charges made by the City shall be · approved by the City Council. Monthly charges made by the City as reimbursement for ownership, operation and maintenance costs applicable to facilities installed to fumish service under rules of the Schedule shall be determined in accordance with the following: (1) Operating Charge - shall be equal to 2/3 of 1% per month of the installed cost of facilities paid for by the customer. (2) Facilities Charge - shall be equal to I 1/2% per month of the installed cost of the facilities as determined by the City for facilities installed at City's expense. (3) Transformer Capacity Charge -- shall be equal to 15 (cents) per nameplate kva. Metering & Delivery Voltage Adjustments: The City retains the right to change its line voltage or classifications thereof at any time, and after reasonable advance notice to any customer affected by such change, such customer then has the option to take service through transformers to be supplied by City subject to th6 voltage adjustments above. Special Conditions: Customers shall not resell electric service received from the City under provisions of this schedule to any person, except by written permission of the City, and where customer meters and bills any of his/her tenants at City's regular rates for the type of service which such ,' tenant may actually receive. Contract: The City may require the customer to sign a written contract which shall have a term of not less than one (1) year. Effective 1-Jul-04 Cycle Seven 10 of 13 ~ity of Ashland, Oregon GENERAL SERVICE - GOVERNMENTAL LARGE SERVICE SCHEDULE 50 Page1 of 2 ~pplicable: ;his schedule is applicable to electric service cads which have registered from 1,000 to 3,000 <ilowatts more than once in any consecutive 18-month period. Deliveries at more than one point, or more than one voltage and 3hase classification, will be separately metered and billed. Service for intermittent, partial requirements, or highly fluctuating loads, or where service is seasonally disconnected during any one-year period will be provided only by special contract for such service. Monthly billing: The Monthly Billing shall be the sum of the Basic, Demand, Energy, and Reactive Power Charges, plus appropriate Metering and Delivery adjustments. Basic Charge: Per month 2.032.85 Demand Charge: For each kilowatt of Billing Demand. 3.4185 Ener~l¥ Charge: per kWh 4.011 rates shown as cents 40% of the measured kilowatt demand for the same month will be billed, in addition to the above charges, at rate shown below, per kvar of such excess reactive demand. 0.7977 Meterin,cj: · For as long as metering voltage is at the City's available primary distribution voltage of 11 kV or greater, the above charges shall be reduced by (1-1/2%) to compensate for losses. Delivery: For as long as delivery voltage is at City's current locally available primary or transmission voltage the total of the above charges will be reduced by the following amount per kilowatt of Icad size used for the determination of the Basic Charge billed in the month; and where such deliveries are metered at the delivery voltage, the following high voltage charges shall be added. Standard Service Reduction Hi.qh VoltaRe Voltage Charge Primary voltage of 15 cents $35.00 11 kV or greater per kW per month Transmission 27 cents $340.00 voltage of 80 kV per kW per month or greater Minimum Charge: The monthly minimum charge shall be the basic charge. A higher minimum charge may be required by contract. On-Peak Period Billing Demand: The on peak period kilowatts shown by or computed from the readings of City's demand meter for the 30-minute period of customer's greatest use during the month, determined to the nearest kilowatt. Reactive Power Charge: The maximum 30-minute reactive demand for the month in kilovolt-amperes in excess of When a new delivery, or'a,~ ;ncrease in capacity for an existing delivery is, at the request of the customer, made by means of City-owned transformers at a voltage other than a locally standard distribution voltage, the above charges for any month will be increased by 15 cents per kilowatt of Icad size used for the determination of the Basic Charge billed in the month. The City retains the right to change its line 'voltage or classifications thereof at any time and after reasonable advance notice to any customer affected by such change, such customer then has the option to take service at the new line voltage or to accept service through transformers to be supplied by City subject to the voltage adjustments above. Effective July, 2004 Cycle 7 11 of 13 City Of Ashland, Oregon GENERAL SERVICE - GOVERNMENTAL LARGE SERVICE SCHEDULE 50 Page2 of 2 ! CONTRACT The City may require the customer to sign a written contract which shall have a term of not less than one (1) year. Installation and Maintenance: The City may contract for the installation and maintenance of electrical facilities on the customer's premises. The terms of such service shall be set forth in a contract, the form and terms of which shall be approved by the City Council. Monthly charges made by the City shall be approved by the City Council. Monthly charges made by the City as reimbursement for ownership, operation and maintenance costs applicable to facilities installed to furnish service under rules of the Schedule shall be determined in accordance with the following: Special conditions: Customers shall not resell electric service received from the City under provisions of this schedule to any person, except by.written permission of the City, and where customer meters and bills any of his/her tenants at City's regular rates for the typer of service which such tenant may actually receive. (1) Operating Charge - shall be equal to 2/3 of 1% per month of the installed cost of facilities paid for by the customer. (2) Facilities Charge - shall be equal to 1 1/2% per month of the installed cost of the facilities as determined by the City for facilities installed at city's expense. (3) Transformer Capacity Charge - shall be equal to 15 (cents) per nameplate kva. 12 of 13 City of Ashland, Oregon SCHEDULE 15 OUTDOOR AREA LIGHTING SERVICE Monthly Billing: The rate schedule for outdoor area lighting service furnished from dusk to dawn by City-owned high pressure sodium luminaries which may be served by secondary voltage circuits from City's existing, overhead distribution system, and mounted on City-owned wood poles and served in accordance with City's specifications as to equipment and facilities, shall be as follows: (1) Net Monthly Rate: Inc Percent Type of Nominal Rate Per ~Luminaire Lumen Luminaire Rating High- 5,800 12.32 Pressure Sodium . High 22,000 17.77 Pressure Sodium High 50,000 28.41 Pressure Sodium (2) Pole Charge: A monthly charge of ($1.34) per pole shall be made for each additional pole required in excess of the luminaries installed. Effective July, 2004 Cycle Seven Maintenance: Maintenance will be performed during regular working hours as soon as practicable after customer has notified City of service failure. The City reserves the right to contract for the installation and/or maintenance of lighting service provided hereunder. Suspension of Service: The customer may request temporary suspension of power for lighting by written notice. During such periods the monthly rate will be reduced by the city's estimated average monthly re-lamping and energy costs for the luminaire. Contract: Due to the investment involved and cost of initial installation, the term of the contract shall be by written agreement with the Electric Department, the form of which shall have prior approval by the City Council, and the term of which shall be for not less than three (3) years. 13 of 13 City of Ashland Electric Connection Fee Effective Date, July 1, 2003 ENR@6635 Readopted and Unrevised as of July 1, 2004 A. Temporary Service Drop: Service Current Rate 7/1/1999 Effective 7/1/2003 Single Phase Three phase B. Meter Charges: Meter Test for accuracy Once in twelve months Second or more times in twelve months Meter repairs/replacement (Damaged by Customer) C. Returned Check Charge D. Reconnection Charge: Normal working hours Other hours or on Holidays E. Service Calls (second or more times in 12 months) Normal working hours Other hours or on Holidays F. Service Connection for applicant: Normal working hours Other hours or on Holidays G. Unauthorized Connection $ 97.00 $ 199.00 $ 107.00 $ 219.00 No charge No charge $ 51.00$ 56.00 Actual Costs Actual Costs $ 20.00 $ 16.00 $ 56.00 16.00 56.00 $ 10.00 $ 56.00 $ 153.00 $ 22.00 $ 17.00 $ 61.00 $ 17.00 $ 61.00 $ . 11.00 $ 61.00 $ 169.00 H. Line Extension Charges: 1. Single-family Residential Service: a. Overhead service in existing developed areas from distribution line to and including meter b. Overhead service extension or increased service for 300 amps or less c. Partial underground service installation, extension, increased service for :300 amps or less, or replacement of service from overhead to underground. Customer provides all trenching, back filling and compaction as directed by the City 306.00 204.00 357.00 $ 338.00 $ 225.00 $ 394.00 1 of 2 d. Underground service of 300 amps or less that have not $ 306.00 been previously paid under subsection 1. Customer provides all trenching, back filling and compaction as directed by the City. e. After hours service crew $ 204.00 2. Any service over 300 amps 3. Commercial, Institutional and Industrial. I. Underground Distribution Installation Charges: Per Lot $ 663.00 $ 338.00 $ 225.00 Actual Costs Actual Costs Actual Costs Actual Costs $ 732.00 The above numbers are rounded down to the previous whole dollar. Methodology: Current ENR Rate - Old ENR Rate / Old ENR Rate = % x Old Rate = New Rate 7/1/03 Numbers: 6635-6005.8/6005.8 = 10.47% Factor: 110.47% Source: Engineering News Record Construction cost Index (ENR) 2 of 2 CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication TITLE: DEPT: DATE: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Synopsis: A Resolution Increasing Water Rates. Finance Department 8, 2004 LMeeaYTluneberg, Finance Director Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator The proposed budget for FY 2004-05 calls for an increase of water rates in keeping with the rate model and projected operational costs. In 2002 staff used a consultant to do considerable rate analysis identifying the need for a significant increase or several smaller ones timed with annual reviews of revenues compared to costs. Three smaller increases were chosen over a single increase of 13%. This is the third year adjusting the rates at 5% and a comprehensive rate model review is budgeted for FY 2004-05. The increase would be effective for bills prepared on or after July 1, 2004 beginning with Cycle Seven. Miscellaneous Charges and Connection Fees established by the previous resolution remain in effect, unchanged until revised by separate Council Action. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution. Fiscal Impact: The resolution represents a $170,000 increase in revenues in the Water Fund. It helps to balance projected revenues and operational needs within the proposed FY 2004-05 budget, providing adequate coverage to meet bond covenants. The increase in rates will also generate an additional $8,500 in franchise revenue which represents right-of-way payments to the General Fund. Background: The city last increased water rates 5% effective on bills in July 2003. During FY 2003-04 actual operational costs are projected to be 3.5% above the prior year and are budgeted to rise another 4% in FY 2004-05. Contrasted with this are water sales revenue projected to be nearly 10% less than anticipated for the year ending June: 30, 2004 due to weather and conservation. Cost increases are primarily related to personnel, power, chemicals and supplies. Actual revenues and expenses vary with temperature, rainfall and customer use sometimes compromising financial forecasts and potentially jeopardizing fund balances and bond coverage compliance. A revenue reserve account is employed to minimize such variations but an increase is necessary to adequately fund years where revenues fall short of expenses. The average residential water bill using 1000 cubic feet in a month will increase $1.15 from $22.19 to $23.34 with this change. A commercial account using 3500 cubic feet in a month will increase $3.28 from $62.36 to $65.64. The intent is to raise rates July 2004, monitor the balance of operational revenue to operational expense, adjust where necessary to provide adequate revenue to meet expenses and comply with bond coverage requirements and to update the rate model during FY 2004-05. Part of this rate change is a 5% increase to cover charges for water used from the Talent Irrigation District system. Increasing the TID metered charge from $75.00 to $78.75 will cover the city's maintenance and repair costs and remain consistent with other customer increases. RESOLUTION NO. 2004- A RESOLUTION REVISING RATES FOR WATER SERVICE PURSUANT TO ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 14.04.030 AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 2003-13. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The water rate charges and rotes as shown on the water rate schedule attached as Exhibit "A" shall be effective with Cycle Seven billings prepared on or after July 1,2004. Miscellaneous Charges and Connection Fees established by the previous resolution. · remain in effect as per the attached until revised by separate Council Action. SECTION 2. Copies of this resolution shall be maintained in the Office of the City Recorder. SECTION 3. Classification of the fee. The fees specified in Section 1 and Section 2 of this resolution are classified as not subject to the limits of Section 11 b of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure 5). SECTION 4. Resolution 2003-13 is repealed. SECTION 5. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code {}2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 18th day of May, 2004. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this 18th day of May. 2004. Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor ~aul N~31te, City Attorney 1- Resolution form - Water rates 2004G:~legal\PAUL\FORMS\resolution form.wpd CITY Of ASHLAND, OREGON EXHIBIT "A" WATER RATE SCHEDULE RESOLUTION NO. 2004- ADOPTED MAY 18, 2004 EFFECTIVE WITH CYCLE 7 BILLING, JULY 1,2004 METERED SERVICE All water service provided by the City of Ashland will be in accordance with Chapter 14.04 of the Ashland Municipal Code. 1. WATER RATES WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS A. MONTHLY SERVICE CHARGE: The basic service include any water charge applies to all metered water services and does not consumption. OLD NEW 0.75 Inch Meter ¢ o ~/,,,-,,,~, $ 9 99/month ~ ~1~/. ~ I S I I I~,./l lkl I · 1 Inch Meter ¢ 4o n-~/,,.,,,,,,~, $19.98/month · ~/ IViVVIIIIVIIkl I 1.5 Inch Meter ¢ ~? 4,')/,,.,,-,,,,~, $ 28 48/ ,, ................ month 2 Inch Meter ¢ ,~c ?o~,,,,,,~, $ 37.51/month 'M/ ~.lV. ! &.llllVIIkl I 3 Inch Meter c~ 7,~ ~c~/,,.,,-,,,,~, $ 78.42/month N4/ ! ~.vvI I I IVl Ikl i 4 Inch Meter ¢44A ,)n/,,,,,,,,r, $119.91/month ~ I [ ~.&llVl I I iVI Ikl l 6 Inch Meter ¢o4,~ 4,~,,,,,,,,~, $224 84/month NM/&., I1. IVllllVllkll · 8 Inch Meter ¢'~ ~'"'""*~' $374 72/month · 4/vvv.vvl i i ivi Ikl I · B. WATER QUANTITY CHARGE: All customers will be charged the following rates per cubic feet of water used. Single Family Residential Consumption 0 to 300 cf per month 301 to 1000 cf per month 1001 to 2500 cf per month Over 2500 cf per month OLD NEW ¢4 4n/,.,.~ $1 16/ccf IM/ I · I VIVVI · $-l-~N./e~' $1.4 l/ccf ¢4 ?~/~ $1 84/ccf ~ Iii[ VIVVI · ¢o ")'~1,.,.~ $2 34/c ,,, ......... cf Multi-Family Residential Consumption 0 to 300 cf per month per unit 301 to 1000 cf per month per unit 1001 to 2500 cf per month per unit Over 2500 cf per month per unit OLD NEW ¢ 4 4 n/,.,.~ $1 16/ccf 1~r i · i vi VVl . ,$4-~34¢e¢ $1.4 l/ccf $I .75/ccf $1.84/ccf ¢,) o-~/,.,.~ $2.34/ccf ~d//.. ·/-- vi VVl EXHIBIT A - PAGE 1 - Effective July 1, 2004 . Non-Residential Consumption 0 to 50,000 cf per month Over 50,000 cf per month OLD . NEW ¢ ~ ~/""~ $1 59/ccf ¢ ~ ~/""~ $1 64/ cf ~ ! .~,,~,,~1 vv! · C C. TID IRRIGATION WATER RATES: Unmetered Service ¢?~ nn/~,.,-,-. ,-,,- ~i~. ~ OLD ,,, v.,.,.., .,,.,, ,., .., ~,..,, ,,,.,,, .., =n~,,.v,'~r~rn~ $78.75/acre or portion of an acre - NEW Metered Service Base Service Charge Water Consumption Same as "A" above ~- OLD $0.25/ccf- NEW D. BULK WATER RATE: For water provided on a temporary basis through a bulk meter on a fire hydrant, · the following charges apply: OLD NEW Deposit* Basic Fee Cost of Water *Deposit is refundable less basic fee, cost of water, and any damage to the city meter, valve, wrench, and/or hydrant. E. FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE WATER RATE: This rate shall apply to all fire protection services or fire guards. The basic service charge will be equal to the minimum basic service charge. Water will be billed at commercial rates. RATES OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS All rates and charges for water service provided outside the city limits will be 1.5 times the rates for water service provided within the city limits. EXHIBIT A - PAGE 2 - Effective July 1, 2004 City of Ashland Water Connection Fee Effective Date, July 1, 2003 ENR ~ 6635 Readopted and Unrevised as of July 1, 2004 Service Current Rate Effective 8/1/1999 7/1/2003 A. 3/4 inch service connection from main line including meter. 1. If owner/builder/contractor provides trench and backfill B. 1 inch service connection from main line including meter. 1. If owner/builder/contractor provides trench and backfill C. 1-1/2 inch service connection from main line including meter 1. If owner/builder/contractor provides trench and backfill D. 2 inch service connection from main line including meter 1. If owner/builder/contractor provides trench and backfill E. 3 inch or larger service connection from main line F. 8 inch and one Fire Hydrant per 335 feet G. First utility locate at an address Additional locates at same address H. Other water related fees Water meter re-read Once in 12 months Each additional re-read in 12 months Water Meter Field Test Water Meter Bench Test: 3/4" or 1" Water Meter 1.5"or 2" Water Meter Larger meters billed Water line pressure check once in 12 months Each additional pressure check in 12 months Install Customer 3/4" hand valve Install Customer 1" hand valve $ 1,095.00$ 1,234.00 $ 255.00 $ 287.00 $ 1,250.00 $ 1,409.00 $ 343.00$ 386.00 $ 1,719.00$ 1,938.00 $ 722.00$ 814.00 $ 1,880.00 $ 2,119.00 $ 940.00$ 1,059.00 Actual Cost Actual Cost No Longer Applicable - 7/1/04 No charge No charge $ 46,00 $ 51.00 No Charge No Charge $ 22.00 $ 24.00 $ 33.00 $ 37.00 $7O.OO $ 78.0O $126.00 $ 142.00 Actual Cost Actual Cost No Charge No Charge $27.00 $ 30.00 $86.00 $ 96.00 $98.00 $ 110.00 The above numbers are rounded down to the previous whole dollar. Methodology: Current ENR Rate - Old ENR Rate / Old ENR Rate = % x Old Rate = New Rate 7/1/03 Numbers: 6635-5884.41/5884.41 = 12.757% · Factor: 112.75% Source: Engineering News Record Construction cost Index (ENR) CITY OF kSHLAND Council Communication TITLE: DEPT: DATE: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Synopsis: A Resolution Increasing Wastewater Rates. Finance Department May 18, 2004 Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator '1111 In 2001 staff and a rate consultant reviewed the Wastewater Fund's rate model to evaluate the need for adjustments. The model indicated that an increase could be deferred several years in favor of other enterprise fund increases but should be reviewed annually. As part of the budget process staff has done that and is proposing an increase as part of the budget for FY 2004-05. Operational Cost increases for the Wastewater Fund are projected to be 16% in FY 2003-04 and another 4.4% in FY 2004-05 as compared to operational revenues decreasing 0.5% in FY 2003-04 and increasing 3.3% in FY 2004-05 with this adjustment. Increased costs relate to personal services including added benefit costs, power and chemical costs and debt service on the DEQ loan not covered by the portion of the Food & Beverage Tax revenue allocated here. Revenues are thought to have "flattened" due to changes in water consumption in winter months from weather and conservation. Wastewater rates are based upon winter time water consumption and a drop in water consumption could negatively impact the amounts charged in the Wastewater Fund. Miscellaneous Charges and Connection Fees established by the previous resolution remain in effect,' unchanged until revised by separate Council Action. The increase would be effective for bills prepared on or after July 1, 2004 beginning with Cycle Seven. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution. Fiscal Impact: The resolution represents a $107,200 increase in revenues in the Wastewater Fund balancing current year revenues and operational needs within the approved FY 2004-2005 budget and providing adequate annual revenues to meet the loan reserve requirement of approximately $1.7 million. The increase in rates will also generate an additional $5,360 franchise revenue which represent right-of- way payments to the General Fund. Back round: The city has not increased wastewater rates since April 1996 except for a small increase of connection fees in 2003. Since that time the fund has completed the treatment plant using internal funds and a loan through the State's DEQ program. Debt service began two year's ago at over $3 million and is now stable at $1.7 million per year. Food & Beverage Tax revenues are approximately $1.4 million per year and the difference must be paid by rates or reserves. Operational costs are projected to exceed operational revenues for several years into the future in addition to the debt service shortfall. These differences will impact the fund balance causing a larger portion to be reserved for systems improvements and debt service and less available for operations. Additionally, the Food & Beverage Tax ends in FY 2010-11 and there would be considerable impact on monthly rates to make the debt service payments. It seems prudent to adjust rates to balance operational revenues with operational costs, maintaining a satisfactory fund balance for projects and to soften the impact should rates be needed to fully fund debt service. The intent is to raise rates July 2004 and continue to monitor the balance of operational revenue to operational expense, adjusting where necessary to meet bond coverage requirements and remain close to the fund balance target. A review of the rate model is anticipated in FY 2004-05. RESOLUTION NO. 2004- A RESOLUTION REVISING RATES FOR WASTEWATER SERVICE PURSUANT TO ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 14.08.035 AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 96- 19. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The water rate charges and rates as shown on the water rate schedule attached as Exhibit "A" shall be effective with Cycle Seven billings prepared on or after July 1,2004. Miscellaneous Charges and Connection Fees established by the previous resolution remain in effect as per the attached until revised by separate Council Action. SECTION 2. Copies of this resolution shall be maintained in the Office of the City Recorder. SECTION 3. Classification of the fee. The fees specified in Section 1 and Section 2 of this resolution are classified as not subject to the limits of Section 11 b of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure 5). SECTION 4. Resolution 96-19 is repealed. SECTION 5. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code {}2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 18th day of May, 2004. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this 18th day of May, 2004. Re, wed as t(~rm: P~uI-Nol{'e, C~ty Attorney Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor 1- Resolution form - WasteWater rates - 2004G:~legal\PAUL\FORMS~resolution form.wpd SEWER RATES EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 1 EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON SEWER RATE SCHEDULE RESOLUTION NO. 2004- ADOPTED MAY 18, 2004 EFFECTIVE WITH CYCLE 7, JULY 1, 2004 All sewer service provided by the City of Ashland will be in accordance with Chapter 14.08 of the Ashland Municipal Code. 1. SEWER RATES WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS Quantity Charge is based on average winter water consumption in excess of 400 cubic feet (cf) per month. Winter consumption is defined as the average of water meter readings taken in the months of January, February and March. Annually on April 1 the bill will be adjusted based on the water consumption during the previous three months. Single family residential water accounts with no consumption during the months of January, February and March will be based on 700 cubic feet. Quantity Charge is based on average winter water consumption in excess of 400 cubic feet per month per unit. Winter consumption is defined as the average of the water meter readings taken in the months of January, February and March. Multi-family residential accounts are all accounts in which more than one residential dwelling is attached to the same water service. Annually on April 1 the bill will be adjusted based on the water consumption during the previous three months. Multi-family residential water accounts with no consumption during the months of January, February and March will be based at 500 cubic feet. Two dormitory rooms are equal to one multi-family residential unit. SEWER RATES EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 2 Commercial, Industrial and ..... !~?Govemmental ,:~ ,!i,~.' , . MOnthly.. Service Charge i , i · .Qu~i, li.;y Charge.per'l 00 cf' .' APril 1, 1996 July 2004 C7 '. "....' $12.08 : $1.91 Quantity Charge is based on actual monthly water consumption. Mixed residential and commercial accounts will be billed as commercial. , For commercial, industrial or governmental users where monthly water consumption is not measured through city water meters, the sewer rate will be established as follows: The annual water consumption will be determined by an estimate made by the Director of Finance who shall use water consumption records of similar users or water consumption records of past use, if available. The annual water consumption will be multiplied by the Quantity Charge set forth above and the product divided by twelve. The quotient will be added to the Monthly Service Charge set forth above. The sum shall be the monthly sewer rate for the user. This rate shall be effective beginning in the month after the rate is determined until the following July or until the rate schedule is amended by resolution of the council. At such time the Director shall redetermine the annual water consumption and compute the monthly sewer rate using the formal asset forth above. Water consumption determined in this manner shall be lowered if the user can demonstrate through the use of a meter approved by the city that the user's actual consumption is less than the estimate. ADDJUSTMENTS AND EXEMPTIONS TO COMMERCIAL A.ND INDUSTRIAL SEWER RATES A. If a commercial, industrial or governmental user can demonstrate that the volume of sewage discharged by the user is less than 50% of the water consumed, the City Administrator may adjust the sewer user charge accordingly. Methodology for Special Cases for City Administrator 1. Greenhouses, Churches, and Schools (grades K-12) operating on a nine month school year. SEWER RATES EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 3 Quantity Charge is based on average winter water consumption. Winter consumption is defined as the average of the meter readings taken in the months of January, February and March. Annually on April 1 the bill will be adjusted based on the water consumption during the previous three months. 1. Bed and Breakfasts and Ashland Parks Bathroom Monthly ServiCe Charge Quantity Charge per 100 cf April 1, 1996 $1!.50 $1.82 July 2004 C7 $!2.08 .. $1.91 o Quantity Charge is based on winter water consumption. Winter consumption is defined as the total of water meter readings taken in the months of January, February and March. Annually on April 1 the bill will be adjusted based on the water usage during the previous three months. B. Water used through an irrigation meter is exempt from sewer user charge. SEWER RATES OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS A. The sewer user charge shall apply to those sewer users permitted under Section 14.08.030 of the Ashland Municipal Code. B. The sewer rates for outside the City limits shall be two times the sewer charges for inside the City limits. Unmetered residential accounts will be calculated on an average winter usage of 700 cubic feet of water for single family residences, and 500 cubic feet per unit for multi-family residences. City of Ashland Sewer Connection Fee Effective Date, July 1, 2003 ENR @ 6635 Readopted and Unrevised as of July 1,2004 Service Current Rate 7/1/1998 Effective 7/1/2003 A. Four-inch lateral connection from truck line to normal curb line $ B. Six-inch lateral connection from trunk line to normal curb line $ C. Eight-inch lateral connection from trunk line to normal curb line. $ D. Ten-inch or larger lateral connection from trunk line to normal curb $ E. Manhole maximum depth of five feet. $ 1. Per additional foot of depth. $ F. Eight-inch sanitary sewer line with one five-foot manhole per 400 feet G. Checking for sewer main blockages without finding a blockage. $ 1,428.00 1,494.00 1,516.00 1,864.00 55.00 99.00 $ 1,610.00 1,684.00 1,709.00 2,101.00 62.00 111.00 The above numbers are rounded down to the previous whole dollar. Methodology: Current ENR Rate - Old ENR Rate / Old ENR Rate = % x Old Rate = New Rate 7/1/03 numbers: 6635-5884.41/5884.41 = 12.757% Factor 112.75% Source: Engineering News Record Construction cost Index (ENR)