HomeMy WebLinkAboutPA 2004-002: Exhibit 21
Memo to Mayor and Council
May 31, 2004
From Councilor Jackson
Subject: Appeal of 2004-002,
Action, Shasta Building
((;II/oc.f
Wb. cc,~1
PA too ~-(t)1-
Lloyd Haines Planning
I have the following observations to make about this appeal at this
point in time.
First, I have no issues with the building design vis a vis the site
design standards. I am not decided whether public space should be
required and if so, whether off-site is acceptable, per the
proposals that Mr. Haines has included in his application.
Normally I would not consider the new deck public unless it is open
to the public, not just restaurant customers.
Where I have concerns are how the floodplain, riparian protection
and tree protection proposals corne together at the rear of the
building. At present, we have versions of drawings from November
2004 with revisions in December, February, March and May. We have
findings approved by the Planning Commission on April 13, 2004 and
newer drawings with additional revisions.
Without a clear set of drawings that show all the necessary
setbacks and clearly overlay together into a single whole, it is
challenging for anyone to know that the approved design meets all
three standards noted above.
Has the 20 foot riparian setback been met? What is the Base Flood
Elevation that best protects this section of the Ashland Creek
Corridor? How does one resolve the conflict between the Landscape
Plan that notes no grading allowed in the dripline of protected
trees and the architectural drawings that propose excavation of
that same area for backwater storage?
I do not propose that these questions cannot be addressed in a
satisfactory way. There is commonly much sequential adaptation of
plans between engineers, architects and landscape managers to
finalize project plans. Nevertheless, these plans do not yet meet
the standards.
In my mind, Council has two options:
1) Deny the application without prejudice and allow a 'clean'
project to corne through planning, and Commissions again, or
I'll
11.1
2) Approve the application with conditions to provide a suitable
set of drawings for final approval.
I would suggest the following conditions for an approval:
1) Start with Pla.nning Commission approved conditions.
2) Seek staff input on Condition #1: this condition should not
include conclusions cited by the applicant throughout the
application as implying Council's agreement.
3) Seek additiona.l input on Condition #3: is armoring desirable,
why is it proposed?
4) Submit complete new set of drawings, with engineer's stamp on
architect's drawing (or equivalent) to demonstrate that the flood
storage calculations fit the design shown, and acknowledge the tree
protection requirements. Accurate floodplain and riparian setbacks
must be shown. Accurate figures for calculation of storage volume
must tie to actual areas, number of piers, etc.
5) An engineer is required to stamp the design and flood
compliance of any creek crossing.
6) Restore the FEMA elevation certificate requirement at the
higher elevation (#14 from pg 104) .
7) Correct #13: FEMA flood elevation plus one foot is 1873 not
1773 feet.
8) Plans and documents shall be reviewed and agreed to by Public
Works for compliance with City's strictest flood damage protection
rules.
9) Utility and storm water plans shall reflect tree protection
measures to the greatest extent possible.
10) Applicant to pursue Art Park concept with ODOT and the City of
Ashland (Parks, Public Art Commission, Planning, etc.). If not
possible in preferred location, mitigate tree loss elsewhere on
public land.
11) Tree Commission to be consulted prior to issuance of building
permit for revised comments and mitigation plans under Conditions
#16 and #17.
Councilor Kate Jackson
Comments on Record of PA 2004-002
Page 2 of 4
12) Stipulation #9, page 173, of applicants' submittal be brought
forward and extended beyond toxic materials to any materials that
would reduce the flood storage volume beneath the building.
Below, I describe my observations made from review of the record
that led me to the above proposal. I have made no ex parte
contacts of any kind since the May 18 hearing date.
To deal with the Alder at the beginning, the Tree Ordinance is
secondary [18.61.080(B) (1)]to the Site Design Standards, thus the
removal of the alder is permissible but requires mitigation. It
was fascinating to hear that the Native Americans consider carving
the tree a tribute to its existence, while others are commenting
that removal of a large canopy is an insult or a curse. I am
persuaded by the Native American view, and support Mr. Haines'
stated intention to make sculpture(s) from the tree. The creation
and donation of the resulting sculptures to the City of Ashland
should be a condition of approval.
I cannot get a complete picture of the concerns at the rear of the
building because the drawings have changed so recently. The
landscape drawing describes treatment of soil in the ,vicinity of
the trees-to-remain (Figure Ll.l, page A-30 appeal file). The
notes say no grading can occur with the drip line of protected
trees.
I cannot tell what version of A-301 (page A-29, dated 5/18/04 and
page 213 dated 12/8/03) the engineer's calculation of backwater
storage relies upon in his revised letter dated 2/11/04. Can
excavation take place more than 17 feet from the root protection
zone or not at all in the dripline. Note there is a large dripline
from Tree No. 27 that overlaps the maple and covers the entire
riparian area along the creek at the building site. You cannot
simultaneously excavate for storage volume and preserve soil rooted
to the spot by tree growth.
Do the engineer's calculations include the area of the more recent
890 square feet of mechanical room? The letter does state, on page
219, the assumption that the "Lower Floor, ..., will all be
entirely above both the FEMA BFE and the City of Ashland BFE."
On pages 74 to 78, one finds the Planning Commissions conditions of
approval, dated 4/13/04. The findings of fact, on page 76, refer
only to the FEMA Base Flood Elevation of 1872 feet, no mention is
Councilor Kate Jackson
Comments on Record of PA 2004-002
Page 3 of 4
III
III
made of the Ashland Flood Corridor elevation of 1875.5 feet. Yet
the applicants drawings and the OTAK engineer's letters show and
address concerns about this higher base flood elevation. On page
104, the staff report proposed condition #14 that the "lowest
habitable floor level shall be", two feet above the FEMA BFE or
above the City of Ashland Flood Plain Corridor, whichever is
greater". (underline added). This condition is removed in the
approved findings. Not only does this appear to be backtracking on
the elevation requirements, but it implies that an Elevation
Certificate is not required prior to occupancy. Unless the FEMA
rules have changed, a Certificate is a requirement of the FEMA
program.
The architectural drawings show the lowest finished floor elevation
as 1877: is this an intentional design to address the higher flood
risk established by the City's own experience of flood damage? By
this logic, it seems to me the bottom of the lowest floor should be
at 1875.5 feet (it looks very close) and flood-proofed. The
purpose would be to not intrude into the potential high water level
of a serious flood. The need for excavation to provide storage
volume would decrease or perhaps disappear by keeping the building
floor out of the water storage area. The question of interfering
with the riparian habitat and established rooting patterns under
the building becomes moot.
Finally, I disagree that the project meets floodplain development
standards, as written on page 75-76 of the record. The City code
(18.62.050) requires a 20-foot setback for riparian preservation.
Examining the latest drawings for setbacks for riparian protection
raises more questions than answers. For example, Drawing A-107,
page A-27 of the record, Basement Floor Plan/Site Plan: the FEMA
100 yr flood is shown at 1870, where it is stated elsewhere as
1872, the creek edge is not shown, setback of foundation elements
of 20 feet from creek edge cannot be deduced. The text of the
staff report, on page 96, reduces the 20-foot setback to 10 feet.
(I want to acknowledge the fact that staff are protecting the maple
and a riparian area by requesting removal of cantilevered 2nd.and
3~ floors, which has been done) . Is this an acceptable decision
with or without a variance? The applicants' findings on page 146
address the standards but do not refer to the 20 feet: trees must
remain, minimal grading, "retain general topography". Do both the
floodplain and the riparian standards allow intrusion into the 20
feet if the building is elevated on piers? The old deck may be at
the creek and the new deck is better at 10 feet, but does not the
riparian preservation area extend 20 feet?
Councilor Kate Jackson
Comments on Record of PA 2004-002
Page 4 of 4
I apologize for the length of these comments and for not delivering
them to all parties sooner. I had my own time demands to deal with
in reviewing the materials in depth.
Councilor Kate Jackson
Comments on Record of PA 2004-002
Page 5 of 4
III
11.1