Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-0615 Council Mtg PacketCITY OF SHLAND (Amended) AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL June 15, 2004 - 7:00 p.m. Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street I1. III. IV. V~ VI. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Council Meeting Minutes of June 1, 2004, and Executive Meeting Minutes of June 4, 2004. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS: 1. Recognition of C.E.R.T. Graduates. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees. 2. Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Goa Lobaugh to the Airport Cornmissi°n for a term to expire Apdl 30, 2005. 3. Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Pamela Garrett to the Ashland Fiber Network Programming Committee for a term to expire April 30, 2005. 4. Confirmation of Mayor's appointments of: Hal Cloer, John Enders, LauriE; MacGraw, Keith Massie, Carole Wheeldon, Para Marsh, Kate Culbertson, Alfred Willstatter, Roy Bashaw and Don Montgomery to the Ad Hoc Charter Review Committee. 5. Deed Exchange - Liberty Street Open Space. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker, unless it is the subject of a Land Use Appeal. All headngs must conclude by 9:30 p.m. or be continued to a subsequent meeting.) 1. Continuation of 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 North Main Street. A Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit is requested to permit "development" within the Ashland Floodplain Corridor. Applicant: Lloyd Haines. 2. Public Hearing and First reading of "An Ordinance Vacating a Public Alley Between' Oregon Street and Madrone Street." 3. Public Headng and Reading by title only of "A Resolution Adopting a Supplemental Budget Establishing Appropriations Within the 2003-2004 Budget." CO[.INCII.. MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9 VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US VII. VIII. IX. Xl XI. 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. Adoption of Findings for Planning Action 2003-118 Approving a Physical Constraints Review Permit for the Purpose of Constructing a Single Family Dwelling on Land Zoned R-1-7.5, Classified as Hillside Lands and Within a Residential Historic District in Ashland, Oregon. Applicant: Sidney and Karen DeBoer 2. Quarterly Financial Report- Jan - March, 2004. 3. Summary of Council Goals for FY' 2004-2005 and Timeline. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: (None) ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS: 1. Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance Creating a Prohibition Against Public Nudity." 2. Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon, Authorizing the Issuance of Bonds to Finance the Ashland Fiber Network." 3. Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance Levying Taxes for period July 1, 2004 to and including June 30, 2005, such taxes in the sum of $8,483,000 upon all the Real and Personal Property subject to Assessment and Levy within the Corporate Limits of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon." 4. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Transferring Appropriations within the 2003- 2004 Budget." 5. Reading by title only of"A Resolution Amending the Pay Schedule for Management and Confidential Employees for Fiscal Year 2004-2005." 6. Reading by title only of "A Resolution of the City of Ashland Clarifying Certain Conditions of Employment for Management and Confidential Employees and Making such Conditions Consistent with the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act by Repealing Resolution No. 97-18." 7. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Dedicating Property for Open Space Park Purposes pursuant to Article XIXA, Section 2, of the City Charter (River Walk by Nom.oco, LLC)," and Authorization to accept deed donating River Walk to City. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL XII. LIAISONS: ADJOURNMENT: REMINDER A Study Session will be held at noon on Wednesday, June 16 in Council Chambers: Topics of discussion will include: 1) Discuss Downtown Plan; and, 2) Presentation by Mike Cavallaro of RVCOG. meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735- 2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). COUNCIl. MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LWE ON CH ANNEL9 VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING JLLNE I ST, 200~4- Page 1 of 7 MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL June 1, 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 C-ALL Councilor Laws, Amarotico, Hartzell, Jackson, Morrison and Heam were present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of May 18, 2004 were approved as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS Russ Dale presented to the City of Ashland a comprehensive map of Ashland. Proclamations of June 14, 2004 as Flag Day in the City of Ashland and June 17, 2004 as Methamphetamine Awareness Day were read aloud. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees. 2. Conf'lrmation of Mayor's appointment of Diane Wimams, and re-appointments of David Bernard and Marilyn Hanna to the Hospital Board for terms to expire June 30, 2008. Liquor License Application from Quinn Courtright dba Alex's Plaza Restaurant & Bar at 35 North Main Street. 4. Ambulance License Renewal. . Councilor Hartzell/Amarotico m/s to approve Consent Agenda items. Voice Vote: ali AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Continuation of Appeal of Planning Action No. 2004-02, a request for Site Rev~iew and Tree Removal Permit to construct a multi-floor, 8,325 sq. ft. mixed use building at 88 Nort]l Main Street. A Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit is requested to permit "development" within the Ashland Floodplain Corridor. Applicant: Lloyd Haines. Mayor DeBoer explained the public hearing process and re-opened the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. EX PARTE CONTACT Mayor DcBoer received cmails from Randall Hopkins and Betty Jo Reynolds, and a memo from Councilor Jackson. Councilor Hartzell conducted a site visit. Councilor Morrison received thc same ernails mentioned by thc Mayor, as well as an cmail from Assistant Attorney Mike Francll. Due to time constraints, Council agreed to open the public hearing to consider the adoption of'the 2004-2005 Budget before continuing with the public hearing for Planning Action 2004-02. 2. Public Hearing to consider adoption of 2004-2005 Budget. Finance Director Lee Tuneberg explained the process for adopting the budget and summarized the information provided to the Council. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 7:18 p.m. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIl., MEETING JUNE 1 ST, 2004 - Page 2 of 7 PUBLIC IlEA]RING CLOSED: 7:18 p.m. Continued Public Hearing of PA 2004-02: OPPOSED TO. APPLICANT [continued from Council meeting of May 18, 2004] Randall Hopkins/735 S Mountain Avenue/Mr. Hopkins commented on the differences between the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Floodplain and the Ashland Floodplain Corridor. According to FEMA, the floodplain is located at 1872, but the Ashland Floodplain lists it at 1875.5. Mr. Hopkins added that the FEMA Floodplain had been noted for its inaccuracies, while the Ashland Floodplain Corridor is based 'on actual events. Mr, Hopkins stated the map that the City provides is a rough depiction of where the floodplain lies and includes a disclaimer against using the data in the way the Applicant did. Mr. Hopkins stated it is difficult to determine which level is best, but believes the Applicant has chosen to design the project based on the FEMA Floodplain. Mr. Hopkins commented that the OTAK studies were based on a plan that had since been modified, and also noted the discrepancy between the version of the code listed on the City's website and what is used by the Planning Department. Mr. Hopkins cited his exhibit g48, which he believes best depicts the site survey data. Mr. Hopkins noted one corner of the building lies at 1868, and explained why he does not believe this should be permitted. Mr. Hopkins added he does not believe this application can be salvaged by the imposition of conditions. Council questioned if the level of a 100-year flood could really be predicted. Mr. Hopkins commented that he would err on 'the side of caution and would stay away from this area. In terms of where the flood water will flow, Mr. Hopkins questioned what would happen if debris were to clog up the expected overflow route forcing water elsewhere, or if the pillars would collect debris and force water in greater volumes to the north. Mr. Hopkins noled the importance of the process, and questioned how things might have changed if handled differently from the beginning. He noted the Certificate of Truth was finally signed by the Applicant on May 25, but was signed with an asterisk by his name. At the bottom of the certificate it stated "This certification I have made relates to all of the documents that were originally filed in this matter as amended, modified, and corrected by subsequent filings". Mr. Hopkins stated that even today the information is not correct, and cited page A-30 (Tree Protection Plan) of the council packet. Mr. Hopkins clarified the Tree Protection Plan shows a protective fencing surrounding the trees, but the entire fence lies within the flood way and is not permitted under the code. Mr. Hopkins stated that no person is well served by this process, and if the Council were to deny this application it would-send a powerful message and assure that every subsequent application began with tree and accurate infbrmation. Mr. Hopkins noted the linoleum level of the plan is above the floodplain level, however beneath the linoleum is a two-foot slab, pillars, and an additional storage room, which all lie inside the floodplain. IN OPPOSITION OF APPLICANT Diane McDermott/208 Patterson/Shared the discussion that took place during Planning Commission meeting regarding the removal of the Alder tree, and the allowed variance which could save the tree. Ms. McDermott questioned if all the decisions had been made based on correct information, and noted that each commission gives weight to the previous commission's decision. She also questioned if the plans would continue to change should the Council approve the application. Oriana Spratt/212 Patterson St/Requested acknowledgement that she opposes the application. Marilynn Young/345 Harrison St/Stated the original project had been incorrectly approved through insufficient and :incorrect information. Ms. Young voiced concern regarding removal of the tree canopy and ASHI..AND CITY COUNCIl.. MEETING JLrNE I ST, 2004 - Page 3 of 7 potential flood risks, and questioned if there were further inaccuracies that have not yet been untcovered. Ms. Young commented on how she felt strongly about not destroying the Alder tree, regardless of its value to the proposed art display. Ms. Young stated that although this project may be good for Ashland in l~he future, she does not believe it is needed at this time. Rivers Brown/1067 Ashland St/Voiced concern over the displacement of the under 30 crowd, :and stated this project will eliminate a place that the college residents use. Mr. Brown stated that any change to this space would only add to the new demographic of this community. He commented that the Alder Tree is known as the Tree of Resurrection and voiced opposition to its removal. . . · Jocelyn Hillman/109 Pine/Requ. ested acknowledgement that she opposes the application. STAFF RESPONSE Community Development Director John McLaughlin explained the process of an application, and acknowledged that Staff failed to notice that the Certificate of Truth was unsigned. McLaughlin noted the application follows a checklist for completeness, not necessarily correctness. McLaughlin commented on the 120-day rule, and stated it is not unusual to send out notice for review before an application is deemed complete. McLaughlin clarified the asterisk on the Certificate of Truth was not seen by Staff as a disclaimer of misinformation, but was more for clarification purposes. Staff noted there is always some level of change to each application, most of which arise from concems raised during the review process. McLaughlin stated he has not seen an attempt on the part of the Applicant to intentionally falsify information. McLaughlin spoke on the difference between the FEMA Floodplain and the Ashland Floodplain Corridor. He explained the Ashland Floodplain Corridor is more like a zoning line on the map. It is angular and does not follow the contours of the land. Generally speaking, the Ashland Floodplain Corridor is wider than the FEMA Floodplain. McLaughlin clarified that lands within the Ashland Floodplain Corridor do not have a regulatory setback, rather it is an identification of lands that are then subject to the floodplain standards. The comer of the building mentioned by Mr. Hopkins is within the 1872 line, and Staff determined this project is subject to Ashland's Corridor Floodplain Standards. In response to Mr. Hopkins claim, McLaughlin clarified the fences in the floodplain are temporary to protect the trees during construction and are theretbre allowable. McLaughlin stated the elevation figures for the floodplains came from a 1978 aerial photo, which was later found to hold inaccuracies. Because of this, Staff required that the Applicant supplement this information with the Flood Analysis by Otak, and encouraged the Applicant to construct at the higher elevation McLaughlin explained that the Site Review, Tree Protection, and Site Design Use Standard Ordinances all list the different plans that are required. Staff then goes through these lists to determine if the application is complete. Mr. Franell clarified that Council could not deny the application because they are not saris:fled with Staff procedure, but need to base their decision on whether the application meets the criteria of the code. It was also clarified that this is a de novo hearing and therefore new evidence that might supplement possible deficiencies is allowed. McLaughlin stated that in his opinion;-the Ashland Floodplain Corridor with the FEMA "omnp' .is the most accurate. McLaughlin clarified the City does allow for structures to encroach into the Floodplain Corridor, as long as it is high enough and/or flood proofed. McLaughlin explained that the new deck and support structure will be pulled back farther away from the creek than the existing structure. In addition, the new structure will be designed to withstand a flood, while the current deck is not flood-proofed. McLaughlin clarified the 2nd and 3rd floors extend 6 feet over the 1st floor, and are stmcmrally supported by the first story. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 1 ST, 2004 - Page 4 of 7 Council discussed whether this project violated the Riparian Area standard. Staff stated there is really no natural riparian area where the deck is proposed to go. In addition, there are conflicting parts of the code that need, to be considered. Staff believes the Applicant is allowed to build in this area, and compared to the existing situation, the creekside improvements would be far better than they are today. Council discussed what would happen if they were unable to complete their discussion tonight. Mr. Franell clarified the Public Hearing would need to be extended to the next council meeting, and noted the 120-day rule currently expires on June 18th, 2004. The City can ask the Applicant to grant an extension, but they cannot require them to do so. APPLICANT REBUTTAL' Craig StonefRepresenting the Applicant/Stated there are good answers to all of the concems raised tonight. Mr. Stone agreed that there have been some misunderstandings, but assured the Council that the plans before them are now correct. Mr. Stone stated that the Applicant is prepared to grant a reasonable waiver, and also offered to respond in writing to the concerns raised. Mr. Stone cited his written rebuttal dated May 26th, which covered the floodplain issues, tree preservation, and large-scale development requirements. He spoke regarding the confusion of the two floodplains, stating there are two different lines and two sets of elevations that do not match up. Mr. Stone explained Ashland's regulations allow for the building to be 2 feet below the floodplain, but the Applicant has proposed to construct this building 1½ feet above Ashland's permissible level, and 5 feet above the FEMA level. Mr. Lloyd Haines/Applicant/Apologized for the inaccuracies and the omissions to the application but stated they have been now been corrected. Mr. Haines commented on the complexity of this project and noted that some of the City regulations are in conflict with one another. Mr. Haines stated the City Staff has shown no favoritism towards him, and noted Staff's significant demands for additional data and surveys. Mr. Haines stated there is ow,n-~vhelming evidence from competent engineers that the building is safe and that the trees will not be killed. Council discussed extending the Public Hearing to the June 15thCouncil Meeting. Mr. Haines agreed to a 35- day extension. Mayor DeBoer clarified they will be continuing the Public Hearing to June 15th, 2004, which will consist of questions of the Applicant and Council discussion. Mr. Franell clan[fled the Applicant is permitted, to respond in writing, as long as no new information is introduced. If a~ty additional information is provided, than the opponent could request additional time to respond. Mr. Fnmell added if the Applicant could have their response to Staff by June 8th, then they could accept written comments from the opponents up to June 15th. PUBLIC FORUM Erik Navickas/711 Faith Street/Spoke regarding the City's position on fire issues. Mr. Navickas read an article, which touched on the concerns of the City of Ashland regarding the Forest Service long-term objectives and the interim plan for the Ashland Watershed. Mr. Navickas explained that historically the City of Ashland has supported un,der-burning as a means for fuels reduction as opposed to timber removal. 'UNFINI'SHED BUSINESS · ' 1. Adoption olr Findings for Planning Action 2003-118 Approving a Physical Constraints RevieW Permit for the Purpose of Constructing a Single Family Dwelling on Land Zoned R-1-7.5, Classified as Hillside [,ands and Within a Residential Historic District in Ashland, Oregon. Aoolicant: Sidney and Karen DeBoer. Due to direct cortflict of interest, Mayor DeBoer excused himself from council chair. ASHLAND CITY COUNC:IL MEETING J'I..~rNE 1ST, 2004 - Page 5 of 7 Community Development Director John McLaughlin explained the Findings before the Comacil had been prepared by the Applicant's agent and reviewed by City Staff. Staff felt the Findings appropriately reflect the decision of the City Council and recommended adoption. Council expressed concem with some of the language in the Findings, and questioned if the interpretations could set precedent in future cases. Council also expressed their discomfort with the number of affn-mations in the Findings that Council did not discuss. McLaughlin'clarified the Findings purpose is to assert that the application has met the numerous standards. The Findings should be as defensible as possible in supporting the Council's decision to approve this project. McLaughlin explained that when the Council ultimately approve the project, they found that it met all applicable criteria regardless of whether they expressly discussed each criterion. McLaughlin clarified if Staff had prepared the Findings instead of the Applicant, they would have written them in the same manner. Councilor Jackson/Morrison m/s to extend meeting until 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. McLaughlin clarified that the Applicant had granted a time extension for the adoption of the Findings, assuming that the adoption is in support. Council discussed the possible implications of re-writing the Findings to their satisfaction. Comment was made that only policy decisions and gross errors should be removed fi.om the Findings. Council[ discussed the possibility of holding a special meeting to discuss this issue. Comment was made that it is the Council's responsibility to ensure these Findings do not produce unexpected consequences. Council discussed working through the entire Findings document, and it was suggested to have the City Attorney review Ute Findings for policy concerns. Councilor Morrison/Jackson m/s to refer this to the City Attorney for review and allo,w Council to submit comments for particular review. DISCUSSION: Councilor Morrison clarified he is not suggesting a special meeting to discuss these Findings, and would like to see this come back to the Council at their next scheduled meeting. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed. 2. Quarterly Financial Report -- Jan - March, 2004. Tabled to future Council Meeting due to time constraints. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Summary of Council Goals for FY 2004-2005 and Timeline. Tabled to future Council Meeting due to time constraints. ORDINANCES~ RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance Creating a Prohibition Against Public Nudity." Rivers Brown/1067 Ashland Street/Stated these incidents are extremely rare and the community is not voicing complaints. Mr. Brown explained that there are indecent ways to expose oneself, but walking down the street nude is not one of them. Mr. Brown believes there should be more input fi.om the public before enacting a law, especially when there doesn't seem to be a real need for it Trevor Gamble/37 Alida St #6/Mayor DeBoer read Mr. Gamble's statement in opposition to the ordinance and submitted it into the record. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIl.. MEETING JL.rNE I ST, 2004 - Page 6 of 7 Police Chief Michael Bianca stated this ordinance is in reaction to the 16 incidents that occurred last summer in the downtown area; and explained the Police Department has received many complaints regarding this issue. Mr. Bianca clarified the purIx)se of this ordinance is not to criminalize nudity, but to give police officers some legal standing to stop the individual and tell them to cover up. Failure to cover up could result in a citation, but would not send the individual to jail. However several citations could move this into a criminal realm. Mr. Bianca stated this is not a huge problem, but it is an issue that should be addressed. Mayor DeBoer stated he has received a significant number of complaints from people who were offended by nude people rurming through town with various body parts painted. Councilor Laws motion to approve Ordinance. Failed due to lack of second. Issue will be continued at the next Council Meeting. 2. First reading by title only of "An Ordinance of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon, Authorizing the Issuance of Bonds to Finance the Ashland Fiber Network." Councilor Laws/Hartz,Il m/s to approve first reading and place on agenda for second reading. DISCUSSION: Councilor Jackson clarified this ordinance does not authorize any additional taxes or changes to the tax rates 'that were not already adopted as part of the budget. Roll Call Vote: Hearn, Jackson, Morrison, Laws, Amarotico and Hartzell, YES. Motion passed. Finance Director Lee Tuneberg clarified he will be bringing a resolution providing the authority to do the sale at the July 20th Council Meeting. Council noted the AFN Bond Levy carries with it the potential for a vote of the people. Councilor Law~#Morrison m/s to give thanks to Finance Director Lee Tuneberg on the clarity of the resolutions provided to the Council.. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. . First reading by title only of "An Ordinance Levyi0g Taxes for period July 1, 2004 to and including June 30, 201}5, such taxes in the sum of $8,483,000 upon all the Real and Personal Property subject to Assessment and Levy within the Corporate Limits of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon." Councilor Law~artzell m/s to approve first reading of ordinance and place on agenda for second reading. Roll Call Vote: Amarotico, Jackson, Laws, Hartzell, Morrison and Hearn, YES. Motion passed. ' 4. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Adopting the Annual Budget and Making Appropriations." Councilor Laws/Hartzell m/s to approve Resolution #2004-18. Roll Call Vote: Hartzell, Morrison, Laws, Amarotico, Hearn and Jackson, YES. Motion passed. 5. Reading by title only of "A Resolution declaring City's election to receive State Revenues." Councilor Hartzell/Morrison m/s to approve Resolution #2004-17. Roil Call Vote: Jackson, Laws, Hearn, Morrison, Hartzell and Amarotico, YES. Motion passed~ .-- 6. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Certifying City provides sufficient municipal services to qualify for State Subventions." Councilor Harttell/Morrison m/s to approve Resolution #2004-19. Roll Call Vote: Hearn, Morrison, Jackson, Hartzell, Amarotico and Laws, YES. Motion passed. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIl'., MEETING JUNE I ST, 2004 - Page 7 of 7 OTltER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS Mayor DeBoer noted 1) City Attorney interviews start at 8:00 a.m. on Friday June 4th in the Siskiyou Room, 2) Council needs to submit their recommendations for the Charter Review Committee to him by Monday evening, and 3) tomorrow is the first day to file for electing City positions. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjoumed at 10:30 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder Alan DeBoer, Mayor RECOGNITION OF CERT GRADUATES Twice a year, the City of Ashland Fire and Rescue Department instructs a group of local citizens in a 9- week, 27 hours of emergency management procedures and graduates them into our Community Emergency Response Team (CERT). These neighbors are trained to respond to emergencies ranging from a house fire, building collapse, or heart attack to catastrophes like earthquakes, wildfires or ftoods. Once trained, many CERT members attend monthly and quarterly meetings, and the annual "Summer Games" for additional training and practice. Basic Training classes are offered free to local community members, young and older. People, interested in trainings can contact the Ashland Fire Department. The following people have completed the CERT training and the 3-hour hands-on exercise, and deserve our recognition and appreciation for their commitment to community and their spirit of volunteerism. Graduates of the CERT 2004 Winter Training · Donald Johnson · Rhoda Abrahams · Diane Kirkendall · Brice Brandt · Barb Magee · Frances Brandt · Connie Murray · Cheryl Collins · Ginny Pryne · Harry Detwiler · Gary Roberts · Jonothan Ellis · Terry Stone · Patricia Farrell · Kevin Taylor · Sandy Fenn · Tyme Taylor · Brad Galusha · Kathryn TeSelle · Gallagher Galusha · Faye Weisler · Taylor Gimbel · Statia Welch · Martin Haas · Elbert Harris Graduates from the CERT Spring Basic Training session: · Becky Laursen · Eric Laursen · Ross Barker · Bran Jones · Mark Logan · Carol Voisin · Jessica Haas · Jan Jacobs · Jill McKean · Robert McKean · Dan Ragen · Kai Yasui Kirah Solomon is the new CERT Program Coordinator. We would like to welcome Kirah m~d say a fond farewell to Michelle Argent, who served as the CERT Program Coordinator for the last couple of years. ASHLAND FOREST LANDS COMMISSION May 12, 2004 MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Members Absent: Staff Present: Non Voting Members Present: Non Voting Members Absent: Frank Betlejewski, Richard Brock, Jo Anne Eggers, Stephen Jensen (Chair), Diane White Bill Robertson Anthony Kerwin Chris Chambers, Nancy Slocum, Keith Woodley Marty Main Chris Heam, Cameron Meeks lo CALL TO ORDER: Chair Jensen called the meeting to order at 4:31 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the Regular Commission Meeting of April 14, 2004, and minutes of the two Special Meetings of April 22 and April 29, 2004 were approved as edited. III. PUBLIC FORUM: No one spoke. IV. COMMISSIONER ETHICS/PUBLIC MEETING LAW TRAINING City Recorder Barbara Christensen explained that this training was in response to a City Council goal. The presentation was taped by RVTV in preparation for a video training tape. Christensen went over public meeting requirements, parliamentary procedures and public records law. Assistant City Attorney Mike Franell discussed ethics. Of special note to the commission: an official subcommittee meeting must be noticed if a quorum of the subcommittee is present and if the other groups involved have not noticed the meeting. This meeting must be noticed at least 24 hours in advanced by posting on thc,, meeting building's bulletin board and faxed to the Daily Tidings. Commission training is not a meeting requiting notice. Christensen invited the commissioners to email her ideas for future training. Vo STAFF REPORTS A. Update on Lower Watershed -Fire Chief Woodley reported that 26 people attended the May 1 st public hike. They visited Units H, G and N and the BTI trail. There is an interpretive sign for BTI being planned to explain the restoration work. Main reported ongoing piling and slash work. They are scoring some :green downed Douglas fir to help prevent beetles. B. Update on USFS and CWPP Proposal - The City had just received word that it was C:\WINDOWS\TEMP~MAY 12.doc VI. granted until October 1, 2004 to complete the Community Alternative. Data collection would be at the City's expense and could become an issue. USFS will assist in providing GIS data and a Forest Service Specialist would be available on a limed basis to answer questions. Linda Duffy did not believe there would be a conflict of interest witlh Commissioners that are also Forest Service employees. Woodley forwarded Duffy's request for one or two point people fi.om the City to act as liaisons to the Forest Service on this project. Woodley was contacted by a national newsletter called 'Land Letter', a subdivision of Environment and Energy Publishing.out of Washington D.C. He expected a lot of peer review as our alternative was one of the first under the new HFRA Act. Cba'is Chambers, Forest Grant Worker Coordinator, researched grant money for data collection, but most money would not be available until after the October 1 st deadline. Perhaps money could be used for follow-up surveys. Jensen thanked Chambers for all his hard work on the CWPP. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: A. Approval of Public Forum Protocol- Jensen offered a draft agenda that included a proposed statement as well as "Other Business" broke down into "New" and "Old" Business. Assistant City Attorney, Mike Franell, reviewed and approved the additional wording. Robertson moved to approve the language and include it in future agendas. Eggers seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Be Restoration Project: Winbum Parcel - Jensen wondered if the Commission's work on the Winbum parcel should be postponed while working on the Community Al'temative. Brock thought that, as a microcosm of the entire watershed, the Winbum P~rcel could be used as a research site for mid elevation landscapes. Betlejewski said the detailed inventory (180 plots) of Winbum could be used to develop prescriptions at llhe seral stage. White noted that the scales were quite different (160 versus 8,000 acres). Main said the CWPP would be time intensive.~He believed there is no urgency in Wi[nbum as large trees have recently been thinned around - his concern was losing large trees. Betlejewski thought the Watershed could potentially be treated with 20-30 prescriptions replicated over and over. Robertson noted that if we evaluate the entire watershed, we would answer many questions about Winbum. Commission agreed to pu~t management of the Winburn parcel on hold until after October 1st. Ce Community Wildfire Protection Plan/Community Alternative- Eric Navickas asked to 'be recognized. Navickas said the Forest Service plan, as proposed, would create a ½ mile fuel break into a roadless area on the Winbum ridge and it would be compartmentalized into 5 acre pieces. The Community Alternative as submitted was site specific, but did not allow for roadless protection. Ro.bertson noted the need for funding for data collection. Betlejewski estimated around $50,000. Woodley thought it important to look at the Forest Service's existing data first. Jensen asked for volunteers to form a subcommittee to inspect the Forest C:\WINDOWSXTEMPhMAY 12.doc Service's data. Betlejewski, Brock and White volunteered and asked Marty Main to join them. Commission agreed. Robertson moved to continue the meeting until 6:30 PM. Eggers seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Eggers suggested contacting private foundations to help with immediate funding needs. Chambers volunteered to talk to local groups. Brock would invite community groups to send a technical representative(s) to be part of the gap analysis subcommittee. Robertson volunteered to help with the CWPP. Jensen, Eggers and Slocum would work on public collaboration efforts. It was noted that subcommittee work would include "technical," "social," and "other" values. The commission asked the outreach group to schedule a meeting with all stakeholders as soon as possible. VI. PROJECTS PENDING/REQUIRING ACTION- Tabled. VII. OTHER BUSINESS - None VIIIo REVIEW AND SET COMMISSION CALENDAR / NEXT MEETING Commission agreed to hold a special meeting on Wednesday, May 26 from 4:30 PM to 6:00 PM depending upon the availability of the meeting room. IX. ADJOURN: 6:32 PM C:\WINDOWS\TEMPhMAY 12.doc CITY OF SHLAND Draft ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Minutes June 2, 2004 Community Development/Engineering Services Building- 51 Winburn Way- Siskiyou Room Historic Commissioners Present: Dale Shostrom, Keith Swink, Tom Giordano, Alex Krach, Joanne Krippaehne, Terry Skibby, Sam Whitford, and Jay Leighton. Absent Members: Rob Saladoff Council Liaison: John Morrison Hi.qh School Liaison: None Appointed SOU Liaison: None Appointed Staff Present: Associate Planner Mark Knox and Secretary Sonja Akerman CALL TO ORDER At 7:06 p.m., Chair Shostrom called the meeting to order. PRESENTATION Knox and the Historic Commission presented Akerman with a framed photograph from Skibby's collection and a framed certificate for 19 years of providing staff support to the Commission. This will be her last meeting. COMMISSION TRAIINING City Recorder Barbara Christensen and City Attorney Paul Nolte presented a training session on being a commission member. Topics included 1) definition of a public meeting, 2) public meeting requirements, 3) parliamentary procedures, 4) public records law, and 5) ethics. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Krach moved to approve the May 5, 2004 minutes as submitted. With a second by Giordano, the motion was approved with all voting aye except Leighton (because she missed most of the meeting) and Shostrom (because he was absent), who both abstained. PUBLIC HEARINGS Planning Action 2004-071 Conditional Use Permit/Transfer of Ownership and Site Review 438 North Main Stn;et Dermot O'Brien Most members had site visits; none had ex parte contacts. Knox reported this application is for a transfer of ownership and addition of a seventh unit to the Bayberry Inn. The owner is proposing to convert the existing carriage house off Lod Lane for the additional unit. Windows and details will be added to the structure. Knox then presented revised plans for the carriage house that the applicant had just brought in. Owner/applicant Dermot O'Brien stated he and his wife are the new owners. He cladfied the current use of the carriage house is fora garage, as it is not conducive to other uses at the moment. O'Bden stated the existing floor will need to be llaken out and redone no matter what the use of the building. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes June 2, 2004 CITY OF SHLAND There was no one in the audience who wished to speak regarding this application. Giordano moved to recommend approval of Planning Action 2004-071 as presented. Leig,~ton seconded the motion and it passed with a unanimous vote. Planning Action 2004-072 Conditional Use Permit/Transfer of Ownership 134 N. Second Street Mary Nelke Most members had site visits; none had ex parte contacts. Knox explained this application is for a Transfer of Ownership for an approved Bed & Breakfast the applicant has previously owned and operated. The applicant has moved back to this property and will operate the Second Street Cottages as the owner. There was no one in the audience who wished to speak regarding this application. Giordano moved to recommend approval of Planning Action 2004-072 as presented and Leighton seconded the motion, which then passed with a unanimous vote. Planning Action 2004-062 Conditional Use Permit/Transfer of Ownership 142 North Main Street Dennis and Alma Gay Knox stated this application is also for a Transfer of Ownership. Mary Nelke (applicant for previous action) has sold the property to the Gays, who will also operate the business. There have been no issues with this property and Staff is recommending approval. There was no one in the audience who wished to speak regarding this application. Leighton moved to recommend approval of Planning Action 2004-062 as presented. Whitford seconded the motion and it passed with a unanimous vote. Planning Action 2004-073 Site Review 215 Gresham Street Katy Cowan Swink stepped down because he lives adjacent to this property. Most members had site visits; none had exparte contacts. Knox explained the applicant is proposing to convert her non-conforming building as a second residential unit on her property. All conditions have been met, including parking, which will be located adjacent to the structure off the alley. A neighbor on Mead Street has concerns about the deck on the north side, but Knox stated the applicant and neighbor are in communication regarding these concems. Proposed exterior changes include the addition of a deck, a large window (which will replace the garage door) and windows in the roof area on the north side. A door will be installed and a ground floor deck will be added to the east side. Windows will also be added on the south and west sides of the building. There was no one in the audience who wished to speak regarding this application. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes June 2, 2004 CiTY OF SHLAND Giordano stated there could be a lot of building issues that would affect the design. Knox related Condition 6 states that the recommendations of the Histodc Commission/Review Board shall be incorporated into the building permit submittals. Giordano asked if it could come back to the full Commission if the Review Board is not comfortable with the design and Knox said it could. Shostrom related the large window on the lower story of the north elevation is off center and there are incompatible openings with the proposed windows for the rest of the structure. He would like to see the large window lined up or ,,stacked. Double hung windows would help with the symmetry. The overall asymmetrical design is questionable. Skibby.commented that even though the structure is in the alley, it is important to pay attention to details in the design. The large horizontal window is inappropriate and the door is out of scale. Shostrom moved to recommend denial of Planning Application 2004-073 in hopes the design issues can be worked out for the meeting in July. Design modification recommendations are as follows: 1) change the 8-foot sliding glass doors to 6-foot doors or to French doors, 2) align the window below the deck on the north elevation with the glass doors above, preferably with vertical elements, and 3) all building changes that affect the exterior be seen at Review Board meetings and/or at the full Commission meeting on July 7. Leighton seconded the motion and it passed with all voting aye. Planning Action 2004-081 Final Plan and Site Review 954 "B" Street Archerd/Dresner, LLC Giordano stepped down because he is the architect on record for this project. All members had visited the site 'recently or pdor to the February meeting. None had exparte contacts. Knox reported the headng for Outline Plan approval was heard in February. Histodc Commission comments and suggestions were incorporated into the Final Plan design. The proposal is for a 13-unit PUD and will consist of four separate buildings, including the existing house on the property that was moved and renovated. The four apartments in the remaining three buildings will be rental units. The stairwells, while not internal as suggested, were centered. Skibby asked about the existing structure that will be removed. Applicant Evan Archerd replied most of the building is actually on the adjacent property with a small portion on this site. The building is not in good condition. Archerd, 120 North Second Street, stated the project is essentially the same as what was proposed in February. He thanked the Commission for the suggestion of moving the stairwell and stated he is pleased with the outcome. By centering the stairwell, more light is let in and the design is much better. Archerd cladfied for Krach the units will not be condominiums as stated in the findings. They will be part of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and rented out. Although they have no plans to do so, each building could be sold, but not the individual apartment units. Shostrom commented the design elements look great, however, there are two items of concern for him. One is that the 7-inch sidi,ng looks a little less detailed than if 6-inch siding were used (which would result in a 5-inch exposure). The other is that while the double hung windows are satisfactory, if they were a little longer with a 2 to 1 ratio, they would match the windows in the existing house. Archerd will look into the cost. Shostrom noted' the positive aspects of the applicants' use of real cedar shingles. Swink asked if the rear elevation windows would be. sliders as depicted in the drawings and Archerd responded the windows will be double hung. Swink stated that continuity is important so he was glad to hear that. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes June 2, 2004 CiTY OF SHLAND Kdppaehne stated the plans are very nice but she is uncomfortable with the entry to the second floor unit with the valley coming down in the center of the stairway. Shostrom concurred, as did Archercl. Kdppaehne was confident the design of this area could be changed by playing with it a bit. Leighton asked for more clarification as to why the existing small structure would need to be removed. Archerd replied it is in the middle of the proposed driveway, it straddles two properties, it has no foundation and it is in such poor condition it cannot be moved. Since it is less than 500 square feet, there is n,o need to receive approval from the Building Appeals Board. Archerd added there was never a consideration~ to keep it. There was no one in the audience who wished to speak regarding this application. : Skibby said he feels comfortable with the way the design has evolved, appreciates the fact that the existing house was renovated and likes the project overall. Skibby then moved to recommend approval of Planning Action 2004-081 with the following conditions: 1) double hung windows be reflected on all four sides of the buildings, 2) the siding be 6-inch with a 5-inch exposure, 3) the gable rows over the stairwell be explored to mitigate the cantilever sense, and 4) the windows be extended to 4 ~ to 5 feet if the budget allows. Swink seconded the motion and it passed with a unanimous vote. Planning Action 2004-084 Site Review 440 Normal Avenue City of Ashland/Public Works Department Shostrom and Giordano noted site visits; no members had exparte contacts. Knox stated that while this property is not in the Histodc District, the site is'Mt. View Cemetery, which is on the National Register of Historic Places. Public Works is proposing to place a 1,280 square foot storage facility (which had been at the Waste Water Treatment Plant) in order to provide storage for landscaping maintenance equipment and City document archives. The metal structure is 16 feet high and will be located on the opposite side of the street from the mausoleum near the bike path next to an existing smaller metal storage building. There was no one in the audience who wished to speak regarding this application. Giordano said he runs on this route so he passes by the site frequently. Generally, the cemetery is very nice, but the comer where this building is proposed to be located has a lot of debds, mounds of ,dirt, etc. The whole site needs to be screened as it detracts from the main part of the cemetery. Shostrom related he had been to the site and noticed the foundation for the building had already been poured. He also noted he was appalled at the site. There is an older existing building that is approximately 10' x 10' that has horizontal siding plus another metal building. The proposed building is 16 feet high and it will be very difficult to screen with landscaping. There was no landscape plan with the application. In addition, the building will[ be visible from the mausoleum. Shostrom said there seems to be no regard for what the place is. The bike path traverses the property on two sides and he feels the City should be more sensitive to the surrounding area. He asked if the building could be 8 feet instead of 16 feet high because it would be much easier to screen a shorter structure. Knox responded that height and secudty are both issues that will need to be addressed and added the Tree Commission will also hear the proposal. Leighton asked if the building really belongs in the cemetery. If it will be used for stodng archives, will there be an archival environment in the building? Shostrom stated the plans indicate the building will be unheated. Krippaehne also asked if the building belonged at this site. If the building will be used for archival storage, why does it need to be on a National Register site? Krippaehne said she sees this as two sets of standards - one for the public and one for the City. Knox stated the use issue is a Council and Public Works decision. The Histodc Commission can recommend design changes only. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes June 2, 2004 CITY OF ASHLAND Swink commented he is amazed the City can plop such a building where it is proposed. This is an opportunity to improve the property rather than create an eyesore. Whifford agreed with Kdppaehne that the City should not have a lower standard than the pdvate sector. Swink wondered if something else with a more compatible design could be' built on the foundation that was recently poured. Giordano stated that at the very least, a landscape plan is needed. Swink added that he has been in several cemeteries and noticed that most all the outbuildings are designed to blend in with the surroundings. Leighton moved to recommend denial of Planning Action 2004-084 as presented because 1) the design is inappropriate for thins cultural historic site, 2) the size, scale and materials are inappropriate, and 3) the Commission would lille to see an altemative design with a landscape/screening plan. Whitford seconded the. motion and it passed with a unanimous, vote. OLD BUSINESS Review Board - Following is the June schedule for the Review Board, which meets every Thursday from 3:00 to at least 3:30 p.m. in the Planning Department: June 3rd June 10th June 17th June 24th July 1 st July 8th Skibby, Leighton and Swink Skibby, Leighton and Krippaehne Skibby, Giordano and Shostrom Skibby, Krippaehne and Shostrom Skibby, Whitford and Krach Skibby, Swink and Krach Project Assi.qnments for Planninq Actions PA #2000-120 485 "A" Street (Steve Hoxmeier) Shostrom PA #2002-100 142 East Main Street (Earthly Goods) Leighton PA #2003-005 35 S. Second Street (Winchester Inn) Krippaehne PA #2003-092 124 Alida Street (Kirt Meyer and Vadim Agakhanov) Kdppaehne PA #2004-017 364 Hargadine Street (Ken Kolar) Krach PA #2004-026 81 Central Avenue (Wes & Lucinda Vail) Giordano PA #2004-018 322 Pioneer Street (Al & Sandra Cadson) Swink PA #2004-043 246 Catalina Ddve (Dr. William Rodden) Krach PA #2004-081 954 "B" Street (Archerd/Dresner) Kdppaehne PA #2004-071 438 North Main Street (Bayberry Inn) Swink Revised Plans for Addition to Unitarian Church Located at 87 Fourth Street - Bill Emerson presented revised plans, addressing some of the issues that were discussed dudng the May meeting. Specifically, he removed details that matched the odginal church that stood on the same site, the windows of the addition are more plain but have retained their individuality, the span of the gable on the "C" Street elevation has been reduced and centered to look less; residential. Emerson also presented s scale model of the existing church and proposed addition. He then stated he has proposed a subtle difference in color to distinguish the two buildings. In the rear, he has repeated the gables,, emulating the roofline (though not the same pitch) of the existing church and repeated window elements. The church will evolve from being not in scale with the neighborhood to an important building creating a division between the residential area and the church. He reminded the Commission the addition will be a social hall. Kdppaehne explained she did (and still does to a lesser extent) feel the addition looks too "housey." Knox noted that under the Secretary of Intedor Standards, it is necessary to make sure a new addition on a histodc building Ashland Historic Commission Minutes June 2, 2004 CiTY OF -ASHLAND looks separate from the odginal structure, keeping in mind that the differences can be subtle and in the materials used. Leighton suggested using even taller windows, not necessarily arches, on the Fourth Street side to pull away from a residential look even more. Swink stated he thought the scale of the addition was apl:,ropdate to the site. Whitford commented he does not think the addition should duplicate any part of the odginall church because it is gone. In further discussions of the design, some members thought it read as residential and some didn't. Kdppaehne again said she felt the building size looked too residential. Emerson pointed to the extedor elevation drawing and said the model did not show the 4-foot of drop from the finish floor to the grade on the "C" Street side. Shostrom stated that could make a difference and aSked what kind of treatment was going to be used between the floor and the foundation. Emerson responded he did .not know if he would show any division between the two surfaces but planned to run the plaster down to the grade of the foundation. Shostrom thought that would help with the height. Skibby said there should be a rendering to show what the model could not show. Emerson agreed and said he also thinks there should be a drawing of the streetscape. At 10:00, Skibby moved and Leighton seconded to extend the meeting until 10:30. The motion was unanimously passed. Design issues for Emerson to consider are: · Make the windows on the Fourth Street side more substantial (taller and wider) to help give the addition more of a civic or public look. · Look into separating the buildings more. · Although the back porch has functionality due to the use of the addition, the back porch and gables in the rear give a more residential look. · Elongate the roof in the rear so it is more like 60 feet rather than 40 feet. · Simplify all three proposed gables into one gable. · Simplify the details of the windows and tdm. Articles for City Source - Krach will have his article to Management Analyst Ann Seltzer by the end of the month. National Historic Preservation Week Recap - Will be discussed next month. Co-Sponsorship with Conservation Commission for Fall Workshop - Will be discussed next month. Memoto,Ceuncil Reqardin.q Authorization for Multiple Listing for National Reqister- This will be discussed at next month's meeting. Krach volunteered to write the memo after the discussion. Possible National Reqister Nomination for Lithia Spdn.qs Property- There was nothing new to report. Cameqie Library Restoration - There was nothing new to report. NEW BUSINESS Brown Baq Lunch Ideas -Will be discussed next month. ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA- Staff was asked to add vinyl siding issues to the July agenda. ADJOURNMENT With a motion by Leighton and second by Skibby, it was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes June 2, 2004 CiTY OF SHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MAY 11, 2004 MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER Chaff Russ Chapman called the Ashland Planning Commission Heatings Board meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. on May 11, 2004 at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: ABSENT MEMBERS: COUNCIL LIAISON: HIGH SCHOOL LIAISON: SOU LIAISOiN: STAFF PRESENT: Russ Chapman, Chaff .. Marilyn Briggs Kerry KenCairn None Alex Amarotico ((Council Liaison does not attend Planning Commission meetings in order to avoid conflict of interest.) None None Mark Knox, Associate Planner Mafia Harris, Associate Planner Brandon Goldman, Assistant Planner Sue Yates, Executive Secretary II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS The minutes of the April 13, 2004 Heatings Board were approved. III. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS A. PLANNING ACTION 2004-049 IS A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TRAVELER'S ACCOMMODATION LOCATED AT 115 NORTH MAIN STREET. APPLICANT: JESSICA AND BRUCE CAPP This action was approved. B. PLANNING ACTION 2004-051 IS A REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION AND BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT TO DIVIDE TWO EXISTING PARCELS INTO THREE PARCELS (I.E. NET INCREASE OF ONE PARCEL) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 705 CLAY STREET. APPLICANT: MERLIN NUSS This action was approved. C. PLANNING ACTION 2004-052 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW TO CONVERT A PORTION OF THE EXISTING RESIDENCE AT 904 GARDEN WAY INTO AN ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT. APPLICANT: DENNIS GRAY AND JANE CORY-VANDYKE This action was called up for a public hearing. D. PLANNING ACTION 2004-053 REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAN APPROVAL 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). APPLICANT: COTA HOIVlES, LLC This ~/ction was approwed. E. PLANNING ACTION 2004-018 IS A REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY, 1800 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF PIONEER AND "A" STREETS AT 322 PIONEER STREET. THE BUILDING ADDITION IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE EXISTING GATHERING GLASS STUDIO (AND ASSOCIATED MANUFACTURING AREA) AND CONSISTS OF 1,050 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE AND A 750 SQUARE FOOT ONE-BEDROOM APARTMENT. APPLICANT: AL CARLSON AND SANDRA This action was approved. IV. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION 2004-023 REQUEST.FOR A CONDITIOAL 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 STAFF REPORT Goldman said the intent of the request is to offset the current On-street parking demands. The proposed patting lot would accommodate 16 parking spaces. Staff has recommended several conditions of approval to assure the parking lot remains only a temporary use. They have directed the applicant not to do physical improvements to the site that would become a de facto permanent parking lot and not to formalize the existing driveway curb cut to the north. Staff has recommended a Condition that would allow the applicant to bond for the sidewalk improvements to be completed at a future date with the site design for a future building. A 3500 square foot building that could be accommodated on the site with ten parking spaces (hypothetical medical building) would be a greater impact on the site than the parking lot. Staff believes 16 parking spaces would generate less traffic (vehicular and pedestrian) than would a medical office. Staffhas had concerns with the storm drain runoff due to the seven percent slope on the property. The applicant has proposed a bioswale to extend along the south property line, continuing downhill until it gets to the lowest point on the lot in the northem comer. A sump pump would be installed at that point to pump the water back up to the catch basin and into the storm drain system. The Engineering Dept. has said the proposal can work. Condition 3 has been added requiring submittal of a revised storm drain plan. The applicant has proposed installing an automatic gate at the parking lot entrance. Only employees would be allowed to access for parking. During the construction phase on the Catalina building, the applicants envision a valet parking where patients' cars would be parked in the lot. Staffis recommending at the conclusion of the CUP (two years), if no extension for a CUP has been filed, that either bollards be installed or the automatic gate disabled so the parking lot wouldi be permanently closed. The parking lot will have a six inch shale base. The applicant has proposed using "Earthbind" on the surface for adherence and dust abatement. The Tree Commission has recommended the poplar trees along the property line be removed and replaced. The existing almond tree is proposed for retention. The Tree Commission did not believe parking in the vicinity of the .almond tree would damage it. However, they recommended a barrier around the tree to keep cars from hitting the mink of the tree. The Tree Commission has recommended the apple tree in the travel lane be preserved. Retaining the apple tree would eliminate five parking spaces. Staff only recommends preservation of the almond tree. There are seven Conditions attached. KenCaim and Briggs favored the Tree Commission's recommendation to retain the almond tree, but agreed with Staff that the apple tree should be removed. PUBLIC HEARING MARK REITENGER, 305 Vista Street, concurred with Staff's recommendation to remove the apple tree. If they could remove the almond tree, they would be willing to make an exchange and provide a tree as large or larger as a street tree. Goldman responded they would have to go through the tree removal staff permit process. Reitenger said Dr. Rodden felt the use of a temporary parking lot would be the best way to aid them in reworking their own parking lot and bringing it up to current standards. The hospital construction is taking a bite out of on-street parking. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES MAY 11, 2004 CASEY BRIGHT, 531 Scenic Drive, lives to the west of the proposal. He has no objections to a temporary parking lot, but his main concern is with the storm drain nmoffand surface runoff. The whole area - Catalina, Scenic, Dr. Fried's office and his property- are the low point. They have had a lot of summer/winter water (subsurface) runoff and the nmoff has been re- routed by the City Engineering Dept. He has seen the bioswale proposal and is concerned with overflow or inability of the bioswale to absorb the storm water. The overflow would end up in Bright's garage. There is a utility easement along the north side of his property from Scenic to Catalina. Vv~nen the medical clinic was built, all the utilities were laid in the ground on the north side of his property and they made allowances for furore development. He just doesn't want this project to exacerbate the nm-off problems. Chapman suggested Bright make a list and give it to Jim Olson. YVONNE FRIED, 540 Catalina, said she likes the almond tree. There is almost no parking on Catalina. She does not like the idea of a gravel parking lot next to her office as it is not in keeping with the neighborhood. She is 'concerned with the incline. Her parking lot is paved. She has the same .incline in her lot. She has to stop at the top and sometimes pull back. She envisions someone trying to get out of gravel lot and if they have a stick shift, they will have to accelerate, tossing rocks. There will be some amount of dust generated and it will be a problem for her office. She has a lot of computer equipment and already deals with dust. Paving would be fmc. If they have valet parking for their patients, it implies there will be a lot of use of the space. Construction usually takes longer than anticipated. The hospital will soon be starting the construction of their new wing. Fried said her husband is concerned about the lack of beauty and would like to make sure the parking lot has a rim of appropriate green space. KenCairn noted that paving would only make the storm water issue worse. The Commissioners agreed to add a Condition that a 25' x 10' wide paved strip extend from the existing curb cut on Catalina to the interior of the p~,rcel. Add to Condition 7 that Earthbind be reapplied "annually". Rebuttal Reitenger heard there was an easement on the east side of the property. Jim Olson, City Engineer told him there is no way to access the easement for storm drain purposes. Staff Response · Goldman recommended a Condition that the dead poplars along the south property line be removed and be replaced with.new trees and that a detailed, revised landscape and irrigation plan be provided and approved by the Staff Advisor along with the bioswale areas. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Briggs/KenCairn m/s to approve PA2004-043 with the following: Modify Condition 7 to add "annually", add Condition 8 to remove the dead poplars (as stated under Staff Response), add Condition 9 that a 25' x 10' wide strip of paving extend from the existing curb cut on Catalina Street to the east. ~ Roll Call Vote: The rnotion passed. B. PLANNING ACTION 2004-054 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A 770 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6'10 ORCHARD STREET. A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM SIX FEET TO ZERO FEET. APPLICANT: LUClNDA PATTERSON Site Visits or Ex Parte Contacts - Site visits were made by everyone. STAFF REPORT Knox said the application identified an oak and a hawthorn tree. The Tree Commission corrected the application stating the trees were a maple and crab apple. The property is zoned R-l-10. The property is 22,000 square feet. Comparing the potential impact for a Conditional Use Permit, the Commissioners need to look at what is permitted outfight for the property or possibly two houses. Staff believes the impacts would be less than what would typically be found for two homes. The design of the unit is compatible with other structures in the area. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES MAY 11, 2004 With regard to the Variance, the applicant wanted to keep the maple tree away from the structure. Knox said Staff felt there are alternative locations for the accessory unit. Has the applicant explored a construction technique that could equally benefit the tree? Staff would like further exploration for siting the unit back on the property. There would not be a setback issue or a problem with any vegetation. Another alternative would be to set the structure at six feet and do some type of cribbing measure at the footings that nm parallel over the root zone. The Tree Commission recommended the applicant use post and beam foundation due to the vigorous surface roots of the maple. With proper tree protection measures and proper cutting of limbs during construction, Staff does not believe a Variance is needed. The accessory unit could shift to a three foot setback (50 percent Variance). Staff would recommend shifting the unit to another location on the lot or using construction techniques to eliminate any potential harm to the tree. The applicant is working with the Fire Department, as there is an issue with the fire hydrant location or possible installation of an interior residential sprinkler system. There are seven Conditions attached. Chapman asked if there was any downside to the community if the Variance were to be approved. Knox said there is no impact to the community, but Staff believes the other criteria have not been fully explored to justify the Variance. PUBLIC HEARING LUCINDA PATTERSON, 610 Orchard, submitted photos. She had a graphic of the site and showed what would happen if she constructs the alternatives. It would interfere with her view. She would end up 70 feet from the road and she is concerned that would be too far for the eventual use a wheelchair to transport her father from his unit to a car (at the road). Commissioners KenCaim and Briggs offered alternatives and solutions to the Variance. Patterson said an arborist recommended the unit be built farther away from the maple tree. MARGUERITTE HICKMAN, Ashland Fire Safety Officer, discussed fire apparatus access. The furthest point on the building cannot exceed 150 feet from the street or they will need to provide some type of apparatus that could allow them to get closer to the building. KenCaim is not inclined to support the Variance when there is no need for it and there are other options awailable. Maple trees can withstand post and beam construction. Rebuttal Patterson said she would put the unit six feet closer to the trees. Briggs does not want to set a precedent by approving the Variance. She also believes Patterson can come up with an alternative design that will work. Patterson said this is a unique and unusual circumstance; The tree abuts county land that is not usable. Sb: did not plant the tree, therefore the circumstances were not willfully self-imposed. Knox stated the burden is on Patterson to meet all three criteria. Of course the Tree Commission said it is best to move the building away from the tree. Location of the unit elsewhere on the site has not been fully explored. Patterson could push the driveway along the property line and locate the accessory unit in the back. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Brigg/KenCairn rn/s to deny the Variance for PA 2004-054. Chapman did not believe the Variance would set a precedent. Each Variance application should be reviewed on its own merits. He felt there are unique and unusual circumstances. Nothing can be developed on the other side of the property line (county property). He can understand her desire to move to the unit to the front of the property. There are no negative impacts to the community or the neighbors. Patterson did not plant the tree. KenCaim said this a 22,000 square foot lot. She imagined someone said just move it over to the property line and the applicant was led to believe it is a viable solution. There is tons of room on this lot for an accessory unit. It's all a choice. She does not see a hardship. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES MAY 11, 2004 Knox said Patterson dM not supply information to argue her case for setting a precedent. Briggs withdrew her motion. Briggs/KenCairn m/s to approve the Conditional Use Permit and Site Review for PA2004-054 and deny the Variance for a zero side yard setback. Roll Call Vote: The motion passed. V. ADJOURNMEI~IT - The meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Yates, Executive Secretary ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES MAY 11, 2004 CITY OF SHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 1'1, 2004 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Russ Chapman called the Ashland Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. on May 11, 2004 in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: ABSENT MEMBERS: COUNCIL LIAISON: Russ Chapman, Chair Mike Moms Kerry KenCaim* John Fields Marilyn Briggs Allen Douma 0lena Black Dave Dotterrer Alex Amarotico (coUncil Liaison does not attend Planning Commission meetings in order to avoid conflict of interest.) HIGH SCHOOL LIAISON: None SOU LIASON: None STAFF PRESENT: John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development Bill Molnar, Senior Planner Maria Harris, Associate Planner Brandon Goldman, Assistant Planner/Housing Specialist Sue Yates, Executive Secretary * KenCairn left the meeting after the first public hearing. II. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chapman introduced the new Commissioners, Allen Douma and Olena Black. The next drop-in Planning Commissioner's "Chat" will be held from 3:30 to 4:30 p.m. at the Community Development and Engineering Services building on May 25, 2004. Members of the public are welcome to attend to talk about general land uses issues. The Planning Commission will hold a Study Session at 7:00 p.m. on May 25, 2004 at the Council Chambers. The topic will be re-forming the Citizens Planning Advisory Committee. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS Morris/KenCairn m/s to approve the minutes of the April 13, 2004 Regular Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed. There were no Findings reviewed for adoption. IV. PUBLIC FORUM Lynn Constantino, 892 Harmony Lane, expressed his concern regarding illegal accessory units. He would like to require property owners to live on-site. He has seen garages converted to living spaces and automobiles end up parking on the street. The converted garage units oftentimes end up close to property lines. These units are beginning to change the character of the neighborhood. Should there be guidelines limiting the number of rentals in a neighborhood? McLaughlin said the Housing Commission is looking at making accessory residential units easier to approve. This might be a good topic to revisit. V. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 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 CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT TO ALLOW SOME DISTURBANCE OF FLOODPLAIN CORRIDOR LANDS ASSOCIATED WITH WRJGHTS CREEK. APPLICANT: ARCHER[) AND DRESNER LLC Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts New members, Douma and Black did not participate in this heating. ; Briggs was not present last month but she listened to the .tapes and read the materials in the packet, therefore will participate at tonight's meeting. Chapman noted the hearing would be restricted to the tree issues, private property 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. STAFF REPORT' Molnar reviewed the application. The application is to divide the property into four lots, three within the city limits. The fourth lot would retain the existing residence in Jackson County. The application was continued because there are numerous oak and pine trees on the land and not all the trees were shown on the application. The applicant provided the additional information showing where the trees are located. Additional findings have been provided by the applicant addressing some of the issues from last month regarding the ability to provide utilities to the property and the ability to serve a subdivision that is landlocked. The property doesn't touch city right- of-way. It is currently accessed by a 30 foot wide ingress/egress easement that was originally provided for three parcels. The easement documentation includes an allowance ingress/egress to the property, extension of utilities through the easement, it requires all benefited properties to assist in maintenance of the easement area, and also identifies that the easement rights would go onto any furtlher divisions of these properties. The Staff Report notes there are a total of 89 trees inventoried in the Tree Protection Plan. Twenty-one trees are earmarked for removal. Five to six trees will need to be removed in order to construct the roadway to City standards, 22 feet, curb and gutter on both sides and a sidewalk along the side under control of the applicant. Fifteen trees are in the proposed building envelope locations. There was an e-mail in the record from Thomas Heumann. His property fronts on Orchard and he had gotten permission from the current owner to plant some sequoia trees for screening. He expressed his concern about the impact on the trees due to expanding the road. Staff's review has indicated there are some options for extending utilities to the property. Staff has provided a Condition 5 that discusses the final utility plan be coordinated with the Tree Protection Plan to choose the most non- intrusive route through critical root areas. Last month the question was raised: Is there a procedural issue in approving a subdivision that is landlocked? The City's Legal Department made an interpretation that unless our Land Use Ordinance clearly states that one cannot apply for a Variance to the provision (in the subdivision code), requesting a Variance is legal. The applicant is requesting serving four lots instead of the three with a private drive, therefore, a Variance is required to increase the number of lots served beyond those already deriving access. The applicants are willing to construct the access facility to a street standard that would normally be required if ten to 30 home sites were served. They are willing to dedicate right-of-way all the way to the southern point of the property, if at a later date the road should be extended. The public improvement (asphalt, curb, gutter and sidewalk) would terminate at Parcel 3. The road could be extended at a later date. Molnar noted there is additional correspondence in the record from Alvin Turiel, Planning Manager, Jackson County, stating the parcel was legally created but it doesn't conform to the minimum lot size for the county zoning district. The City's position (as in similar applications) is the area under the City's jurisdiction (3.4 acres) is not changing. It makes sense to review it under City ordinances. The portion in the County, (3.5 acres) will stay as it is. Turiel wanted the City to make it clear in the record that the applicant is aware that by making the home on the site more non-conforming in the eyes of the County ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 11, 2004 ordinance that it could place some restrictions on the residual parcel for further improvements to that property. Staff reviewed it with the City's Legal Department. They felt our ordinance is silent to this issue and the City applies approval standards to what is in the city limits. Staff has recommended strongly to the applicant that if the application is granted approval at this meeting, before they go to Final Plan approval, they should have another conversation with the County. The City's Legal Department also recommended the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) address not only the Tree Protection Plan and maintenance of the section of roadway outside the right-of-way, but the CC&R's raise a flag to the residual remaining parcel. A cheek with the County would need to be done before any further improvements are made because there could be restrictions based upon subdividing of the property in the City. Staff felt the justification for the Variance and the criteria for a Physical Constraints Permit and Outline Plan have been met. There are 15 attached Conditions. Molnar suggested a Condition 16 that the three properties would sign in flavor of agreeing to participate iii the event a Local Improvement District (LID) is formed for the f'mal extension of the road. The Tree Commission passed along a revised recommendation suggesting wording in the CC&R's regarding the trees; (included in the record). Briggs noted the stop signs and street lights were mentioned during last month's meeting. Molnar said Engineering will evaluate at the time of final design, the necessity of installing a stop sign at that intersection. Chapman wondered how the easements 'from a private to a public street will be worked out. Molnar said they couldn't grant a pubic easement across a private easement. Public Works discussed a number of ways that have been done before, but they are waiting for Final Plan to take into consideration tree location to find the best option to use. PUBLIC HEARING EVAN ARCHERD, P. O. Box 699, Ashland, OR, introduced JOHN GALBRAITH, Landscape Designer. He addressed the issues from last month's meeting: Utilities: In the very comer of the property is a junction box and conduit - everything they need. They can come offthe junction box and put a transformer somewhere next to the road, so electrical service won't be an issue. There are a couple of ways to bring water to the site. They can connect to the existing sanitary sewer easement. Trees: They tried not to remove any more trees and not encroach onto the neighbor's common lot line. The smallest trees are those they have chosen for removal. ROBERT DINKEL, 605 Orchard Street, questioned Page 8, Condition 14 of the Staff Report (dated May 11, 21304). Molnar said they wanted a one foot wide street plug at the southern terminus of the property for the eventual extension of the roadway. A one-foot street plug is a one foot wide strip of land by the width of the right-of-way, owned in fee by the City in order for the City to have control for the orderly extension of that street. Molnar said the Condition should read: "That a one-foot street plug be provided on at the southern terminus of the property." Delete the remainder of the Condition. Dinkel said he did not see where traffic was addressed. He is concerned about slowing down traffic. Staff Response Molnar said traffic issues are usually addressed through the Street Standards and the Traffic Safety Commission. He said there is some grade as the street starts turning to a 13 percent downhill grade. The City's narrowest street standard of 22 feet should serve to slow cars down. Rebuttal Archerd has spoken with the County and he felt they could come to a resolution. Also, he would like to see a stop sign at the intersection. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Chapman restated the amendment to Condition 14. It should read "That a one-foot wide street plug be provided on the southern terminus of the new public street." Condition 16, "That the homeowners agree to participate in a iLID for a future street connection." Briggs asked Molnar to reorder all the Conditions so everything pertaining to trees is together and everyt~ag about the creek is together. Molnar said he would do that for the Findings document. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 11, 2004 KenCaim/Fields m/s to approve PA2004-030 with the attached Conditions and modification of Condition 14 and the addition of Condition 16. There was no further discussion. Roll Call Vote: Morris, KenCairrg Chapman, Fields and Brigg, YES. Motion passed. KenCaim left the meeting. B. PLANNING ACTION 2004-031 REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE AN EXISTING LOT INTO THREE PARCELS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF STRAWBE, RRY LANE AND WESTWOOD STREETS -' APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND .. Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - All Commissioners had a site visit. STAFF REPORT Goldman gave a brief history of the property as outlined in the Staff Report dated May 11, 2004. In January of 2004, the City Council recommended that Staff proceed with a three-lot partition. The City filed an application on February 6, 2004 and after notice was mailed to surrounding property owners, it was called up for a public heating. A Tree Protection Plan has been provided. The property is zoned RR-.5. Three parcels are proposed, each exceeding one-half acre in size. Lot 1 is sizable enough to be partitioned at a future date into two separate lots, one with a flag lot accessed off Westwood Street. Each lot complies with the minimum lot size. The lot width and depth dimensions (100 feet in width and 150 feet deep) are met. The partition and subsequent development of properties won't impede access to adjoining properties. All public facilities are available to the site. Tire City has recommended a Condition of approval recommended by the Fire Department that would require installation of interior sprinkler systems in each of the properties. Goldman compared the lots proposed for partition with the surrounding lots. Most range in the half-acre minimum lot size, although there was dedicated common open space for the subdivisions. There is some City public open space in the vicinity. Goldman mentioned tree preservation. There are three trees on the site that are over six inches in diameter at breast height (dbh). He is suggesting a modification to Condition 4 so the trees on both Lots 2 and 3 shall be protected consistent with the Tree Protection Plan. It was the Housing Commission's original request that the City Council consider selling the parcel as surplus property. The City Council, as an applicant, directed Staff to divide the property, as presented, and has committed to using the proceeds from this sale to establish a housing trust fund. Staff has concluded the application meets all applicable criteria for a Land Partition. Only three lots are proposed. Given the future development potential of Lot 1, Staff wanted to show that could be subdivided at a future date with a flag partition. There are eight attached Conditions. Douma noted there wa.,; some confusion in the lot numbers. Goldman clarified the largest lot is Lot 1. PUBLIC HEARING JOHN MCLAUGHLIN, Director of Community Development, City of Ashland, is representing the City Council as the applicant. McLaughlin said for several years the Strawberry Lane area was under moratorium due to inadequate water pressure to serve the upper areas of Ashland. In 1986, the City purchased the block of land and partitioned it into three lots. Through a trade, the City was able to use a portion of land in the Strawberry area to construct a new reservoir. The City has always maintained the proposed property in se, parate ownership (not dedicated as parks) as something to utilize in the future for perhaps another trade for land or for some other purpose of public benefit. McLaughlin said that over the years, the area was been taken offthe moratorium, the streets have been improved, and services provided. The Council, at the request of the Housing Commission found it would be appropriate to sell this as surplus property but use. the proceeds for a housing trust fund. The Council is looking at maximizing their return on this property. The Council discussed this item at its meeting of April 20, 2004. McLaughlin included a memo in the packet addressing the Council's concerns. While the Council is sympathetic to the neighborhood, they feel it is in the public's interest to continue on with ultimately a four-lot subdivision. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 11, 2004 McLaughlin explained the ways in which the City has been a participant in the development of this area. The lot sizes they are proposing are similar to those of the surrounding area and not out of character in size or style with the slope that is proposed. While the City is ultimately doing a subdivision, they have also dedicated substantial amounts of open space for the neighborhood, along with providing trail access. The City owns a parcel above that provided the public faciilities that allowed for development of the area. In addition, the City has put in over $450,000 in public funds to allow for street improvements. Here is an opportunity to partition and sell a piece of property for a genuine public good and one identified iaa the Housing Action Plan endorsed by the City. The overall public benefit of the four lots will provide an additional $300,000 per lot that can be used directly for affordable housing. It is McLaughlin's belief that all ordinance requirements have been met. It is an appropriate pattern of development for the neighborhood. The Council and the Housing Commission is looking at surplus property. The City looked at rezoning, found it inappropriate and rather than trying to build affordable housing at this location, they felt they should sell it and use the proceeds tO leverage opportunities for affordable housing e. lsewhere. Douma asked had an average citizen owned this property, and if there was not all the common good occurring as a result, does the application meet all the ordinances anyway? McLaughlin's opinion is yes. If a private party tried to palTtition the lot, it would be held to the same City standards and ordinances. Briggs wondered if the neighbors want to hold the City to a higher standard and why has the City chosen not to ask for four lots now? McLaughlin said that would be a subdivision and a subdivision under the City's Performance Standards sets an allowable density for the one-half acre zone at 1.2 units per acre. It is assuming when doing a subdivision, the parcel would be larger and building a public street and dedicating open space for a larger number of lots. Under that approach, the City could not apply for a four-lot subdivision on this property. Because the property is relatively flat, there are no significant natural features; there is no need to build additional streets because we dedicated right-of-way when we did the partitions previously. The partition seemed to be the appropriate way to achieve allowable densities and meet an overall public benefit.. Chapman read an e-mail from Debra Kutcher. ALEX KNECHT, 959 Drew Lane, stated he is an adjacent property owner and is not opposed to the development. His development group paid for a large section of road development. The City is not required to show building envelopes, landscaping, access, pedestrian access, trees, etc., all the things his group was required to provide. He thought they should have a conceptual plan for the four lots. He agreed they met the criteria for approval, but there should be some continuity to the 21 lot subdivision there now. MEG BROWN OLSON,:385 Strawberry Lane, said their development group had to develop with one unit per acre. It is a little galling to have the City come in and they get four lots. Her land is too steep to go more than one unit per acre. Since the City is doing a subdivision in a roundabout way, it would be nice if they had to conform to the type of neighborhood they set up. KIRK MCALLISTER, 395 Strawberry Lane, agreed with the City's intent to build on this land. He is not so sure the City can get more value from three lots rather than four. By increasing the density, the .other lots around could be reduced in value. Aesthetically, maybe two-third acre parcels would be more pleasing. PAUL HWOSCHINSKY, 443 Strawberry Lane, objects to the half-acre parcels. For the properties within the Strawberry Meadows subdivision, a building site may be a half-acre but it is bordered by private open space. Having a creek between you and the next neighbor is a very different quality from having a half-acre with a six foot fence around the other half-acre. The City doesn't own the property; they are holding it in trust for the community. It is for a good cause. Hwoschinsky said they spent ten to twelve years creating an ambience and that ambience is being changed.. They created value and the City created tremendous value. The development group took that risk. That has to be honored. He understood originally the City was going to ask for three lots, not four. There is no integrity in the process. Hwoschinwsky wanted some kind of CC&R's. They have 60 pages of CC&R's that the City could fold into. KEN BARNES, 274 Village Park Drive, owns the property contiguous to Lot 1. He is asking the City to take the same care that was required and taken by thc surrounding area so it could bc sccn as part of thc larger development. Hc is concerned about how thc property is currently being cared for. There has bccn a fair amount of dirt dumped on thc property from road construction. It has left a four or five foot unnatural grade. Whoever builds on this lot, will bc four or five fcct higher. There arc drainage issues on thc parcel. ASHLAND PLANNING coMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES CATHERINE DIMINO, 2682 Takelma Way, asked the partition be considered part of the Strawberry Meadows subdivision and that they come under the same requirements that have been imposed by the CC&R's for a subdivision. They are concerned about the rural character of the whole neighborhood. She wanted the same design review standards for the neighborhood. Staff Response ~ Goldman noted that in evaluating subdivisions, the City requires CC&R's only as they relate to the maintenance of common areas. There is no cornrnon area proposed in this application and the City did not see CC&R's were needed. Building envelopes are,, not being required. Envelopes are required to delineate where the potential home sites will be in order to stay out of sensitive areas. The property is ten percent slope and Staff did not see a need to establish building envelopes other than the base setbacks that apply. · ' -' Goldman stated there is a Condition of approval in the Staff Report stating that one tree per' 30 feet of street frontage be provided both on Strawberry Lane and Westwood. Molnar said that while there is not a building envelope required to be identified, it doesn't mean someone could cover the entire lot. It is still bound by the ordinance. Rebuttal McLaughlin said the Council considered the CC&R's but felt they did not want to create such a document for such a small development. There is not a requirement to provide CC&R's. The City has had extensive involvement as a property owner over the years. We have a trail system that is developed in the area and is all part of a maintenance agreement established with the Parks Commission.. The Parks Commission could easily consider a park on the ten acre parcel. He will check with Public Works regarding the fill on the site and have it removed, if necessary. The Council considered lot value and size and they felt it was in the best interest of the community to achieve four parcels. The Council will make the determination on how the lots will be marketed or sold. Black thought as an applicant, the City to insure the quality of the homes, should consider CC&R's. McLaughlin said he could recommend to the Council that they require CC&R's. Briggs said there is a wide variety of building types existing there now. Briggs suggested the larger lot might sell for twice the money if left as one lot. McLaughlin said he would take that suggestion to the Council. Briggs wondered if the larger northern lot was ever mined into a flag lot, why wouldn't the flag be the easement? McLaughlin said that might be considered. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Chapman verified the modification of Condition 4 as stated above. · Fields felt there is no doubt the City has met the requirements for a partition like any other applicant. Additionally, he stated he thought there is more value in an independent lot not being part of the CC&R's and everything involved in a homeowner's association. Any other developer can take advantage of partitioning if they have a parcel such as the City's. The sheer value of the lots will insure high quality homes will be built there. CC&R's won't really protect people. Civic pressure is enough to keep people in line. Fields/Briggs m/s to approve PA2004-031 with the attached Conditions and modification to Condition 4. Douma said the critical[ issue is that the citizens that came to testify have their perspective of what is happening. There is a perception the City doesn't have to jump through the same hoops they had to. Regardless of how the vote goes, we need to communicate to people,' that· the City doesn't have a higher power. The amount of money the City makes is not the issue. It.. appears to follow the criteria. At the same time, %e need to go out of our way to make shre that we undeisfand there is this kind of a weird thing between partitioning and subdivisions and part of it makes sense and to some, part of it doesn't make sense. Morris had concerns that this would create a precedent on how this could develop. It appears to fit the criteria of the partition and he cannot see a reason to deny it. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMIISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 11, 2OO4 Black is uncomfortable that someone can buy that lot and develop it. What is the minimum someone can do? It seems the City is not protecting the investment of the neighborhood. Chapman doesn't see anything in the criteria that would allow him to vote against the application. He would agree with Fields and Douma. Roll Call Vote: Morris, Douma, Chapman, Briggs and Fields voted YES. Black voted NO. Douma wanted to make sure we communicated the nuances and complexities of this, particularly to those who testified, but in general because he would presume it will happen again. McLaughlin added that he would take forward the Planmng Commissioners; concerns to the City Council. VI. ~)THER A. Ordinance Interpretation regarding the use of private residential garages in the E-1 zones Employment with the Residential Overlay E-1. STAFF REPORT Harris said it is unusual for the Planning Commission to look at an interpretation. A potential applicant requested it. Staff believed the issue was important and has broader implications for areas of Ashland that allow mixed use' development. Staff felt they had an obligation to seek a recommendation from the Planning Commission to ultimately take to the Council for their interpretation. As a word of caution, though some information has been provided in terms of the history of the interpretation request, it is likely an application on this property will come before the Planning Commission in the future for a decision, therefore, Hams suggested it would be best not to talk about the facts or merits of the specific application. The question before the Commission is: Are individual private residential garages permitted in the E-1 zone with mixed-use development for the purposes of satisfying the off-street parking requirement? Staff has revieWed the issue and made an interpretation based on the requirements of the Procedures Chapter. The Planning Commission can adopt or modify the interpretation for their recommendation to the City Council. Harris showed some examples of mixed-use development in E-1 zones. Can you enclose one or two parking spaces with this type of development? What kind of parking configuration can you have? A garage is not accessible at all 'times. It only becomes accessible to the individuals who have access to the garage. In a mixed use building, can there be: a garage associated with the residential unit or units on the second floor or in the development? The garages would be strictly :for the tenants of the residential unit. In reviewing the Land Use Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan policies, and the history of the-revisions to Chapter 18.92 (Off- Street Parking) and 18.40 (E-l) of the Land Use Ordinance, Staff's opinion is that garages should not be permitted in the E-1 zone as a component of required off-street parking for mixed use development. The two reasons are: 1) Garages prevent the shared use of parking or the flexibility of parking. When parking spaces begin to be enclosed in a garage, the fluid movement of cars using spaces can no longer happen. They can only be accessed by certain individuals. 2) When garages are built, they can be used for storage. The cars that were intended to park in the space or spaces end up going to the adjacent spaces. Displaced automobiles can cause a potential impact not only on the site but if there are neighboring businesses, people tend to park in the neighboring businesses parking or on-street. When those areas become full, the parking will begin to spill into adjacent neighborhoods. Harris has used A Street as an example in the Staff Report, largely because it is an area that has developed under our ordinance requirements, put in place in 1992. That development has been happening over the last ten years and we have seen what does and doesn't work. Harris showed five of the Comprehensive Plan policies Staff looked at in coming to the interpretation. Thc,' Procedures Chapter (18.108) says if there is doubt regarding the intent of an ordinance, the Staff Advisor may interpret the provision or refer it to the Planning Commission. In doing an interpretation, the Planning Commission is required to consider: 1) the Comprehensive Plan, 2) the Purpose and Intent of the Land Use Ordinance, and 3) the opinion of the City Attorney. The City Attorney has ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 7 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 11, 2004 reviewed the interpretation as presented in the Staff Report and concurs with the interpretation. Items 1 and 2 are discussed in the Staff Report. The Comprehensive P]tan calls for an efficient parking system that tries to use parking spaces to their highest capacity. There is a recognition in the policies that has to be balanced with maintaining livability of adjacent neighborhoods. When you introduce an element such as an individual private garage not intended to be built in the zone, what is the impact? In this case, when there is a parking system that is working quite well, Staff's concern is allowing garages to tip that balance in the wrong direction and cause an impact that would be unacceptable. McLaughlin said because of setback requirements in residential zones, there are driveways that handle the overflow parking. The impact does not go beyond the residence. In an E-1 zone, setbacks can go right up to the property line, especially if there are alleys. There is increasing pressure tO build ~esidential in commercial zones.- By pushing hard for garages to-create truly residential units (homes) in a commercial zone, is impacting the commercial zone to the degree it becomes less effective in creating jobs and employment oppommities for the community and it becomes better ~/t providing home sites~ Harris showed several examples of parking capacities on A Street. The parking demand is peaking during normal business hours. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Briggs said Reeves gave several examples of existing garages. McLaughlin said as we see the bigger picture, garages may not be the correct direction for us to go. We need to look at all sides of the issue. Briggs said she remembered some discussion during the development of A Street. The idea would be that the people work downstairs and live upstairs so their use of an automobile would be minimal. Or, they may not have an auto. On the other hand, it is very difficult for someone to find employment within walking distance. She wondered, instead of a two-car garage for a unit, keep it to a one-car garage per unit. The number one criteria for the Employment zone is employment. The residential is overlay. This would be a small compromise. She also remembered it would be shared parking in that residents would park there at night and would be gone during the day, leaving open spaces for clients and customers. It isn't necessarily working out that way. Fields said the mixed use parking credit allows a little latitude. Could someone use a credit for a garage? McLaughlin said it would be difficult to enforce an enclosed garage. Fields did not think we could have less than the required parking because uses change and the use becomes more intense. Eventually, it will force people out of their cars. McLaughlin said we are possibly looking at an ordinance amendment. Douma wondered how many residences are in the E-1 corridor on A Street. Molnar thought eight to 12, not counting houses. Douma said if all of those took one parking space each with garage parking, what percentage capacity would we reach? Harris said on the alley there .are 30 spaces. Twenty-eight cars were parked. The two spaces not available were accessible. Black considered using a garage for storage of inventory. It might not be used for parking, but you couldn't use it in your count. McLaughlin said if all other parking requirements are met, could a garage be allowed? None of the mandated parking could be in a garage. Harris suggested the wording "private garages are not permitted in the E-1 and C-1 zone for the purposes of satisfying the off- street parking requirement." In other words, a garage cannot replace the mandatory off-street parking requirement. McLaughlin said assigned parking would probably require an ordinance amendment. Harris said in reviewing the files from 1992 and the staff report, there was a clear discussion that the primary purpose of the E- l zone is to create business. Her understanding in reading the discussions is that though we want the residential component, we need to maintain art. inventory of land for economic oppommity and job.creation. . . Molnar explained that the Housing Commission has talked a lot about mixed use. They had assumed the units built above the businesses would be moderately priced rentals. As you add amenities like garages, they are not moderately priced. How do we still try to get moderately priced housing in mixed-use neighborhoods? ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 11, 2004 Briggs suggested limiting it to one car per unit of so many square feet (1000 square feet or more) to warrant a garage. McLaughlin is not sure how that would fit with an interpretation. Harris said they have a couple of options. They can adopt the interpretation Harris read and Staff could look at specific modifications that would be more tailored to consider all the factors to refine the ordinance in the furore. Douma/Briggs rn/s to continue the meeting past lO:30 p. m. Motion passed. Douma said in trying to encourage multi-modal transportation, where do we factor in the discouragement of the auto? Fields said our strategy is that there is not enough parking now. Morris felt Employment should be for employment and the residential is an add-on. He does not think we want to promote residential b.y giving people a garage over E-1. . . Fields said he agreed with the intention of the interpretation. There is a limited amount of parking and it needs to be unassigned and it needs to be available. He is not willing to interpret it to say no garages are allowed. There was discussion regarding assigned parking spaces (example - Ashland Community Food Store, Umpqua Bank and Land Mart). Can an owner control his or her own parking? McLaughlin said he would work on this. Harris said the Land Use Ordinance says the Planning Commission may grant the mixed-use credit. McLanghlin gave an example of an overlapping use. The "may" language seems to work well. Fields/Chapman m/s to adopt the ordinance amendment and send to the Council with the following wording: Private garages are not permitted in the E-1 and C-1 zone for the purposes of satisfying the off-street parking requirement. Voice Vote: The motion passed. B. NEW DATE FOR RETREAT The Planning Commission retreat is tentatively scheduled for Friday, June 18, 2004 from 11:30 a.rn. to 5:00 p.m. VII. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Yates, Executive Secretary ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 11, 2004 CITY OF -ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES MAY 25, 2004 CALL TO ORDER Chair Russ Chapman called the meeting the Ashland Planning Commission Study Session to order at 7:10 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: NEW MEMBER: ABSENT MEMBER: COUNCIL LIAISON: HIGH SCHOOL LIAISON: SOU LIAISON: STAFF PRESENT: Russ Chapman, Chair Mike Morris Dave Dotterrer John Fields Olena Black Marilyn Briggs Michael Dawkins Kerry KenCairn Allen Douma Alex Amarotico (present) None None John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development Bill Molnar, Senior Planner Sue Yates, Executive Secretary Chapman introduced newly appointed Planning Commissioner, Michael Dawkins. McLaughlin introduceCl the presenters for the evening: Barbara Christensen, City Recorder, Mike Franell, Assistant City Attorney, and Barbara Jarvis, former Planning Commissioner. I. PUBLIC MEETINGS GUIDE Christensen presented a guide to public meetings covering several topics concerning how to conduct a meeting, noticing, minutes, how to make a motion and what constitutes public record and e-mails. Franell discussed public ethics rules dealing with conflict of interest, including potential conflict of interest and bias. II. COMMISSIONERS' RESPONSIBILITIES AND EX PARTE CONTACTS Barbara Jarvis, former .Ashland Planning Commission Chair, reviewed the handout "Making Land Use Decisions" and explained how ordinam:e criteria have to be met when making land uses decisions and what constituted an ex parte contact. III. ANNOUNCEMENT: Planning Commissioner training is scheduled for Friday, June 18, 2004 for 11:30 a.m. at the Community Development and Engineering Services building at 51 Winbum Way in the Siskiyou Room. IV. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted,. Susan Yates Executive Secretary oREGoN Office of the Mayor Alan ~. DeBoer MEMORANDUM' DATE: TO: FROM: June 9, 2004 City Council Members Mayor Alan DeBoer Appointment to Airport Commission June 15, 2004 Council Meeting Please confirm my appointment of Goa Lobaugh to the Airport Commission for a term to expire April 30, 2006. The vacancy was created when Brent Thompson recently resigned from his seat on the Airport Commission. An advertisement for the open position appeared in the Ashland Daily Tidings (attached), and was also advertised on the City's Web site and posted on the notice board in City Hall. Attachment City of Ashland · 20 East Main Street · Ashland, OR 97520 · (541) 488-6002 · Fax: (541) 488-5311 · Ernail: awdb@aol.com Please publish: Tidings - May 12, 14 and 15 Refer to P.O. 62990 Questions? Please call Fran at 488-6002 The City of Ashland has vacancies on the AIRPORT COMMISSION (term to expire April 30, 2005) and ASHLAND FIBER NETWORK PRO- GRAMMING COMMISSIONS (term to expire April 30, 2006). If you are interested in being considered for either of these volunteer positions, please submit your request in wdting, with a copy of your re- sume (if available) to the City Recorder's office. Additional information regarding these positions can be obtained from the office of the City Re- corder, and/or the City's Web site at www. ashland.or, us. APPLY TO: The City Recorder, City Hall, 20 East Main St., Ashland. APPLY BY: Tuesday, May 25, 2004. CITY OF dkSHLAND Office of the Mayo-r Alan VZ. DeBoer MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: June 9, 2004 City Council Members Mayor Alan DeBoer Appointment to Ashland Fiber Network Programming Committee June 15, 2004 Council Meeting Please confirm my appointment of Pamela Garrett to the Ashland Fiber Network Programming Committee for a term to expire April 30, 2006. The vacancy was created when Jocelyn O2qeill recently resigned from her seat on the Ashland Fiber Network Programming Committee. An advertisement for the open position appeared in the Ashland Daily Tidings (aa:ached), and was also advertised on the City's Web site and posted on the notice board in C. ity Hall. Attachment City of Ashland · 20 East Main Street · Ashland, OR 97520 · (541) 488-6002 · Fax: (541) 488-5311 · Email: awdb@aol.com Please publish: Tidings- May 12, 14 and 15 Refer to P.O. 62990 Questions? Please call Fran at 488-6002 The City of Ashland has vacancies on the AIRPORT COMMISSION (term to expire Apd130, 2005) and ASHLAND FIBER NETWORK PRO- GRAMMING COMMISSIONS (term to expire April 30, 2006). If you are interested in being considered for either of these volunteer positions, please submit your request in wdting, with a copy of your re- sume (if available) to the City Recorder's office. Additional information regarding these positions can be obtained from the office of the City Re- corder, and/or the City's Web site at www. ashland.or, us. APPLY TO: The City Recorder, City Hall, 20 East Main St., Ashland. APPLY BY: Tuesday, May 25, 2004. CITY OF -ASHLAND ~ 01KEGO~ ~½h Office of the Mayor Alan DeBoer DATE: TO: FROM: MEMORANDUM June 11, 2004 City Council Members Mayor Alan DeBoer Appointments to Ad Hoc Charter Review Committee . June 15, 2004 Council Meeting I would like to confirm the following appointments to the Ad Hoc Charter Review Committee: · Hal Cloer · John Enders · Laurie MacGraw · Keith Massie · Carole Wheeldon · Para Marsh · Kate Culbertson · Alfred Willstatter · Roy Bashaw · Don Montgomery An alternate will be selected at the first meeting of the Ad Hoc Charter Review Committee. By way of background, at the City Council meeting of May 4, 2004, City Council approved a resolution creating the Charter Review Committee and reviewed and approved the Expectations of the Charter Review Committee. The current Charter of the City of Ashland was last reviewed and amended in 1972, and voters subsequently approved the proposed amendments. A charter can only be amended by a vote of the people. The committee shall terminate at the time a new charter or charter amendments are voted on by the people of Ashland, unless the committee determines changes are not warranted. In ,,such case the committee shall terminate when it makes such report to the city council. An advertisement for the open positions appeared in the Ashland Daily Tidings (attached), and was also advertised on the City's Web site and posted on the notice board in City Hall. Complete copies of applications have previously been provided and are available in the office of the City Recorder and the Administration Department. City of Ashland · 20 East Main Street · Ashland. OR 97520 · (541) 488-6002 · Fax: (541) 488-5311 · Emaih awdb@aol.com Please publish: Tidings--May 13, 15 17 Refer to P.O. 62976 Questions? Please call Fran at 488-6002 The Mayor of Ashland is seeking seven citizens to serve on the newly- formed Charter Review Committee who are impartial, non-biased, free of any perceived political gain and have some knowledge or experience in the workings of local government. The nine-member committee (two of which shall be former elected officials), shall reside in the City of Ash- land. These volunteer positions will be for the duration of the review of the City's charter. The pdmary function of the charter review committee is to review the ex- isting charter to determine if it will adequately serve the community well into the future. If necessary, the committee is to prepare a draft charter for the City of Ashland. The proposed charter will ultimately be reviewed by the City Council for placement on the ballot for the voters of Ashland. If you are interested in being appointed to a volunteer position on the Charter Review Committee, please contact the City Recorder's office fror further information and/or the City's Web site at www. ashland.or, us. APPLY TO: The City Recorder, City Hall, 20 East Main St., Ashland. APPLY BY: Thursday, May 27, 2004 CITY OF -ASHLAND CITY OF -ASH LAN D Council Communication Title: Dept: Date: Submitted By: Approved By: Synopsis: Deed Exchange - Liberty Street Open Space Legal Department June 15, 2004 Paul Nolte /~ Gino Grimaldi This deed exchange will place the city in sole ownership of one of two parcels located at the end of Liberty Street. Kurtz and Walsh, LLC, (Kurtz/Walsh) will become the sole owner of the: other parcel. The two parcels were originally purchased as a single lot by the city and Kuflz/Walsh with the understanding that the lot would be split for the purpose of dividing ownership between the co- purchasers. The partition has been finalized and the partition plat has now been recorded. The council previously dedicated the city's parcel as open space in December 2003. Recommendations: Approve the deed from the city to Kurtz and Walsh Property, LLC, and authorize the mayor to sign it on behalf of the city in exchange for a deed from Kurtz/Walsh to the city for the open space parcel. Fiscal Impact: None. The purchase price and partition costs have previously been approved by the council. Background: In October of 2002 the City of Ashland entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding the division of real property located off Liberty Street (Tax Lot 391E16AC-200) whereby the City Park and Recreation Department and Kurtz and Walsh Property LLC would jointly purchase the ]property then divide the property into two separate parcels. The City would acquire the larger parcel (0.99 acm) and would dedicate it as open space. Kurtz/Walsh would acquire the westerly parcel (0.88 acre) as a future building site. In December 2003, thc council approved the partition plat delineating the two parcels and adopted a resolution dedicating thc parcel to be acquired in the city's name as open space. Attachments: Deed from City to Kurtz/Walsh, Deed from Kurtz/Walsh to City Vicinity Map Partial Partition Plat Map Memo From Parks Director 1- G:~legahPaUL\PaRKS\Kurtz exchancje deed from city cc.wpd BARGAIN AND SALE DEED Return Document To: Barbara Christensen, City Recorder, 20 East Main, Ashland, OR 97520 Send Tax Statements To: City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520 Kurtz-Walsh Property, LLC, Grantor, conveys and to City of AShland, Grantee, the following real properly as described on the attached Exhibit A. THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND usE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. The true and actual consideration for this conveyance $1.00 and other good and valuable consideration. Dated this "7.t/-'~ day of ---.-.J ,2004. State of Oregon County of Jackson This instrument was acknowledged before me on ,.._..~ by ~c¢ 7/-~ ¢'~'/"7z~ as .. ,2004, 2- G:~IegaI\PAUL\PARKS\Kurtz exchange deed from city cc.wpd of Kurtz-Walsh Property, LLC and of Kurtz-Walsh Property, LLC. as JAMES. H OLSON NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON COMMISSION NO. 362969 MY COMMISSION EXPgIE:S_O[C_._8,_.2_O~_ Notary Public for Oregon My Commission expires: My commission expires: _ / G:~IegaI~'AUL\PARKS~Kurtz exchange deed from dty cc.wpd EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF LAND TO BE DEEDED TO CITY OF ASHLAND A parcel'of land located in the Northeast Quarter of Section 16, Township 39 South, Range 1 East of the Willamette Base and Meridian, City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon, further described as Parcel No. 1 of that Land Partition recorded as Partition Plat No. P-12-2004 of the records of Partition Plats in Jackson County Oregon and filed in index Volume 15 Page 12. .° June 7, 2004 Lot 391E16AC 200 Partition Kurtz/Walsh to City G:~pub-wrks~eng~dept-admin~SURVEYORL391E16AC 200 Description City to Kurtz Walsh Parks 6 04.doc BARGAIN AND SALE DEED Return Document To: Kurtz-Walsh Property, LLC Address: Send Tax Statements To: Kurtz-Walsh Property, LLC Address: City of Ashland, Oregon, Grantor, conveys to Kurtz-Walsh Property, LLC, Grantee, the following real property as described on the attached Exhibit A. THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBFD IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. The true and actual consideration for this conveyance $1.00 and other good and valuable consideration. Dated this day of ,2004. GRANTOR: State of Oregon County of Jackson This instrument was acknowledged before me on ,2:004, 6- G:~IegaI\PAUL\PARKS\Kurtz exchange deed from city cc.wpd by Alan W. DeBoer as Mayor of the City of Ashland, Oregon, and by Barbara Chdstensen as City Recorder of the City of Ashland. Notary Public for Oregon My Commission expires: 7- G:~IegaI~PAUL\PARKS\Kurtz exchange deed from city cc.wpd EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF 'LAND TO BE DEEDED TO KURTZ/WALSH A parcel of land located in the Northeast Quarter of Section 16, Township 39 South, Range 1 East of the Willamette Base and Meridian, City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon, further described as Parcel No. 2 of that Land Partition recorded as Partition'Plat No. P-12-2004 of the records of. Partition Plats in Jackson County. Oregon and filed in index Volume 15 Page 12. June 7, 2004 Lot 391E16AC 200 Partition City to Kurl~ Walsh · .. 'tll'aI t.l.I <~o ~'cSw I.l.I TO: Paul Nolte, City Attorney FROM: Don Robertson, Director, Parks and Recreation DATE: June 9, 2004 RE: Liberty Street Land Dedication ACTION REQUESTED: Approve Liberty Street property dedication and designate as open space. BACKGROUND: Council Adopted the Parks and Recreation open space master plan in July of 2002. It recommends the addition of the Liberty Street property as open space. The Liberty Street property will serve as a trail connection between Liberty Street and a section of the TID ditch. Hiking within Ashland has shown itself as one of the greatest demands for recreational use. This, property will help facilitate that use. RECOMIvlENDATION: Staff recommends the dedication of the Liberty Street property as a dedicated open space. From: To: Date: Subject: "Colin Swales" <colin@mind.net> "Gino Grimaldi" <gdmaldg@ashland.or. us> 06/11/2004 7:24:19 AM Development Definition (act or result) 'Gino, Please Include in the Council Packet Mayor and Council (cc Mike Franell, City Recorder, Fran Berteau)) RE: PA 2003-003 Shasta Building - Lloyd Haines Mike Frannel's opinion (below) that,"Under this interpretation of the code, if buildings are serially developed on a single tax lot, each building would be independently evaluated to see if it is subject to the additional standards for large scale developments, including the 10% public space requirement." seems to confirm my worse fears that I expressed to you about this development complex creating the unhealthy precedent for allowing an end-run around the requirement for provision of public space/plaza and I think it flies in the face of the meaning and intent of both the ALUO and also the Comprehensive Plan with regard to provision of such public space. Please read carefully Comprehensive Plan Section 13.08 Parks, Open Space and Aesthetics GOAL: TO PROVIDE THE PEOPLE OF ASHLAND WITH A VARIETY QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF PARKS, PARK FACILITIES, OPEN SPACES, TRAILS, AND VISUAL RESOURCES SUFFICIENT FOR THEIR NEEDS (http://www. ashland.or, us/Files/ComprehensivePlan.pdf (scroll to page 208 of online .pdf filE; onward ) To use Craig Stone's own argument (as used to define Impact Area for Sid DeBoer - see below) Council does not use the definition for one part of the code to apply to another. (Although at least in the DeBoer case the wording and meaning were exactly the same.) In the Haines case the Asst. City Attorney confuses the definition of Development used in 18.62. As used in 18.62 it refers to the act of developing - such as cutting, filling stripping, building etc.). In the SDUS it refers to the result of development. Two totally different meanings. (Please look up in a dictionary) I contend that in the SDUS development(s) refer to a building or group of buildings under common ownership on a single tax lot sharing common boundaries and amenities such as ingress/egress, etc. This is clearly shown in the SDUS diagram that I shared with you during my testimony (and should be entered into the record.) I contend that all the Haines buildings on this single tax lot are just such a development and .,should be evaluated as such. Even using Mike Franell's own interpretation; the other development activity on this lot such as grading, excavating, landscaping the building of the bridge, stairways and other structures clearly benefit and abut the existing building and symbiotically join the two. This makes all the buildings on the lot a development in excess of 10,000 sq. ft. As such, Public space needs to be included (and/or dedicated ?) Colin Swales From Michael Franell, Assistant City Attorney A question about the definition for development has again arose. I am including with this en'~ail, information that I provided to Colin Swales a cou~31e of weeks ago in response to questions in this area. If - you have any further questions, please let me know. 1) 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. i ................. .~ ' ...... 'If ............................. I"1 1riM1 '111 ..... The 10,000 square feet issue is set forth in Section II-C-3 of the Site Design Standards. It applies to: "Developments (1) 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..." The proposed development is located within the Detail Site Review Zone, therefore meeting criteria (2) for the standards to apply, so the question that needs to be answered is whether this is a development involving a gross floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet. As I understand your contention, you believe that it is because the aggregate of existing buildings, together with the proposed building are in excess of 10,000 square feet. However, the answer to the whole question hinges on what a "Development" is. The SDUS does not contain any definitions to help resolve this question. Therefore, we must go back to the ALUO to see if there is a definition of Development that helps resolve the question. The only place in the ALUO in which development is defined is in the Physical and Environmental Contraints Perrnit Section. ALUO Section 18.62.030 E defines "Development" as: E. Development- Alteration of the land surface by: 1. Earth-rnoving activities such as grading, filling, stripping, or cutting involving more than 20 cubic yards on any lot, or earth-moving activity disturbing a surface area greater than 1000 sq. ft. on any lot; 2. Construction of a building, road, driveway, parking area, or other structure; except that additions to existing buildiings of less than 300 sq. ft. to the existing building footprint shall not be considered development for section 18.62.080. 3. Culverting or diversion of any stream designated by this chapter. Of key importance is subsection 2, which defines Development as the Construction of a building (emphasis added). There is nothing in the definition that ties Development to the construction of an aggregate of buildings. Therefore, as long as the proposed project is a building, and is not an addition to the existing buildings, the 10,000 square feet provision needs to be applied only to the construction of the proposed building. In a review of the proposed plans, the building will have its own foundation, the building will have its own walls. There are not any shared walls with other buildings, although, there are abutting walls. Consequently, under the provisions of the ADUS, this building has been reviewed as an independent building and has been determined to be less than the 10,000 square feet of gross floor area and less than the 100 feet of frontage and is therefore not subject to the large scale project standards. The only instance in which our code addresses an aggregate of buildings is in the "big box" provisions which limits the total frontage to no more than 300 lineal feet and total gross floor area square footage to no more than 45,000. The aggregate of the proposed building, together with the existing buildings does not violate the big box provisions. Therefore they are not applicable and were not addressed. 2. 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) ? Under this interpretation of the code, if buildings are serially developed on a single tax lot, each building would be independently evaluated to see if it is subject to the additional standards for large scale developments, including the 10% public space requirement. Michael FranellAssistant City AttorneyCity of Ashland, OR(541)488-5350 - PHONE (541)552-2092 -. FAXTTY 1 (800)735-2900franellm@ashland.or. us From DeBoer Findings: The Council finds the definition of "impact area" in ALUO 18.104.020 is irrelevant to this application. Since the phrase "impact area" is defined, it would have been easy for the City Council, in adopting ALUO 18.62, to use that phrase and "import" its defined meaning into the Physical and Environmental Constraints Review process. That the city did not do so is evidence that the expanded definition of "impact area" for conditionally permitted uses was not intended to apply to cases such as this. CC: "Fran berteau" <Fran@ashland.or. us>, "Barbara christensen" <barbarac@ashland.or. us>, "Mike Franell" <franellm@ashland.or. us> CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication Title: Public Hearing & First Reading of an Ordinance Vacating A Public Alley Between Oregon Street & Madrone Street D~pt: Date: · Submitted By: Reviewed By: Approved By: Synopsis: 'Public Works D~partment June 15, 2004 Paula Brow~.~]~ Paul Nolte Gino Grimaldi 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 Planning Commission heard and approved the vacation request on April 27, 2004, 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. At the May 18, 2004 meeting, the City Council established June 15, 2004 as the public hearing date to hear a petition for and any objectives to, the vacation of an alley located between Oregon and Madrone Streets. All required notices have been made. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council hold the public hearing and pending no significant objection, adopt a motion to forward the attached ordinance to a second reading to be held on July 20, 2004. 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 Madr0ne Street~ 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 owned by SOU as is \\COMPAQBDATA\GOVXpub-wrks~adminXPB Council\Street Easement Terminations\CC Madrone Oregon Alley SOU Vacati, 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 Plarming Department. There were no objections voiced from any of the above departments mad divisions. The Planning Commission considered this vacation at its April 27, 2004 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 ipedestrian 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 (crashed rock, e~c.) 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. SOU has accepted the requirements of the Planning Commission and show the pedestrian path alignment on attachment 4. Attachments: . 2. 3. 4. 5. Orqinance Vacating the Public Alley with a Description (Exhibit A) Vicinity Map Area Map Specific Pedestrian Path Alignment Map Copy,Of Petition \\COMPAQ lkDATA\GOV~pub-wrks\admin~PB Council\Street Easement Terminations\CC Ma drone Oregon Alley SOU Vacati, ~~ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PUBLIC ALLEY BETWEEN OREGON STREET AND MADRONE STREET THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The public alley between Oregon Street and Madrone Street as more particularly described on the attached Exhibit A is vacated. SECTION 2. As a condition of approval of this vacation the applicant shall grant to the City of Ashland a public pedestrian access easement to be located with the Madrone .Street Housing Development at a mutually acceptable location. The foregoing ordinance was first READ on the 2004, of And duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ,2004. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of ,2004. State of Oregon ) County of Jackson ) Signed before me on Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor , by , and Notary Signature: My Commission Expires: Paul Nolte, City Attorney G:~pub-wrks~admin~PB Council~Street Easement Terminations\CC Madrone Oregon Alley SOU Vacation Ordinance 6 04.doc EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF ALLEY TO BE VACATED A public alley within the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon located between Oregon and Madrone Streets and 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'Additi6n filed for record on August 6, 1910 and recorded'in Volume 2, Page 44 of the Plat Records of Jackson County Oregon. Said alley being west of and contiguous to lots 25 thorugh 32 of Block D of said Meikle and Payne Addition. June 7, 2004 Alley Vacation G:\pub-wrks~aclmin~PB Council~Strcet Easement Terminations\CC Madrone Oregon Alley SOU Vacation Description 6 04.doc CITY OF dkS H LAN D PROPOSED ALLEY VACATION ~ Affected I-----I Taxlots ~ Misc. Pa~ent ~ Buildings N S SCALE: t' = t00' TAXIAYI' PosmoNs GF. NEP, ATED BY .lACK,NON COUNTY GIS DEPT. AND BEAR NO WARRANTY OF ACCURAC'~ OTHER DATA ~ ARE TYPICALLY WITHIN LM OF ACTUAL PosmoN. · - madrone street WIDE PATH. w/STAIRS. ,gon street · EXISTING ALLEY OgdenKi t. ter ~chitec~e~'^ 2~0 F. ~melt Rd INt 779.S237 . Medfae:l, OR ~7504 ~4t 772.8472 SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY MAORONE STREET APARTMENTS REVISED PEDESTRIAN ~ ll~'~l~ .~!~11~rNMENT It ~m ~ APR'~ 0 ~0~ PETITION Date Filed: We the undersigned property owners residing on or near an alley located 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, 191-0 and recorded in Volume 2, Page 44 of the Plat Records of Jackson County Oregon. Said alley being west of and contiguous to lots 25 through 32 of Block 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 area which lies within 200 feet on either side and 400 feet from the ends of the public right-of-way proposed for vacation. Name Address Tax Lot ' Number Southern Oregon University 1~50 S~skiyou Blvd 39 iR 15BA TL's 9OO i000 1100 ~201 1300 , ,. 1500 1600 - i700 39 1Ei15BB TL ,, 1~0 ., . !0 11 12 State of Oregon County of Jackson 15-L[t~~ On this ~__ day of ~f'~/',j[~rCZ., 2004~_personally appeared before me, a Notary Public in and for said State, the v~ithin named~-~~ _ ~ to me know to be the identical person descdb..,ed therein and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that !__-'~_~.. &'. ~ 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. Notary~ublic ''-x--! t ~ My commission expires,~.; ~ ~ TREASA SPRAGUE NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 341870 COMMISSIO, N EXPIRES JAN, 10, 2005 \\coMpAQl~DATA\GOV~pub-wfl(s\eng\dept-admin~, Blank Forms\Petition Form.doc CITY OF SHLAND Council Communication TITLE: DEPT: DATE: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: A Public Hearing and Resolution Adoptin~ a Supplemental Budget for FY 2003-2004. . Finance Department June 15, 2004 Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director ,~ Gino Gfimaldi, City Administrator Synopsis: A Public Hearing and a resolution are needed to adjust the FY 2003-04 Budget and keep the City in compliance with Oregon Budget Law. The original legal notice did not anticipate a public hearing since the proposed changes were below the minimum criteria. However, late developments in the availability of money from HUD to purchase, properties through the Community Development Block Grant Fund elevated the requirements causing a second legal notice and public hearing. Staff recommends that the fund adjustments listed in both ads be dealt with in the public heating to assure maximum public exposure. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution. Fiscal Impact: Adjusts the FY 2003-2004 budget for unforeseen events including unanticipated revenues and corresponding expenses as follows: d*. a. Appropriates for a donation to the Senior Program of the General Fund by the Soroptimists to provide emergency reimbursement to senior citizens for health care "shortfalls." b. Appropriates for the expenses related to helicopter logging in the interface areas funded by the revenue generated at the mill for logs transported. c. Adjusts the Electric Fund appropriations to facilitate the supplemental budget needed in the Telecommunications Fund, providing additional borrowing authority to resolw: cash flow shortfalls if needed at the end of the fiscal year. Lending of the cash will only be done if, and to the extent necessary. Appropriates for additional intemal borrowings if needed in.the Telecommunications Fund at the end of the fiscal year ensuring a positive cash balance for the fund and to remain compliant with generally accepted accounting principles. Borrowing of the cash will only be clone if, and to the .. extent necessary. e. Appropriates for capital outlay in the Community Development Block Grant Fund to acquire two properties for use in the Affordable Housing program. Back round: There are three ways in which to change appropriations after the Budget is adopted. . A transfer of appropriations decreases an appropriation and increases another. This is the simplest budget change allowed under Oregon Budget law. This does not increase the overall budget. This is approved by a City Council resolution. 2. A supplemental budget of less than 10 percent of total appro, priations within an individual fund follows a process similar to the'transfer of appropriations. 3. A supplemental budget in excess of 10 percent of total appropriations requires a longer process. This process includes a notice in the paper and a public hearing. The third type of'budget change is necessary and has been duly advertised and noticed. Attached is a resolution for your approval. The recommended changes in the budget are explained after each request. Attached are the notices published in the local paper on June 9 and 10, 2004. Notice of Supplemental Budget A proposed supplemental budget for the City of Ashland, Jackson County, State of Oregon, for the fiscal year July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004 will be considered at the Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon as part of the City's regular business on June 15, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. A copy of the supplemental budget document may be inspected or obtained on or after June 9, 2004 at the Finance Department, 20 East Main, Ashland, Oregon 97520 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. A summary of the supplemental budget is presented below. Resources , Requirements GENERAL FUND Donations $2,000 Administration Department - Senior Program TOTAL $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 To appropriate $2,000 donated by the Soroptimists to the Senior Program to fund emergency reimbursement of senior citizen health care needs. WATER FUND Intergovernmental Revenues Public Works- Forest Lands Management TOTAL $263,000 $263,000 $263,000 $263,000 To appropriate in Forest Land Management the costs and revenues related to logging forest interface areas as part of fire prevention. ELECTRIC FUND Contingency Other Financing Uses (Interfund Loans) TOTAL $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 · To appropriate additional monies to be loaned to Telecommunications Fund if needed at year end to meet cash flow requirements. Lending of cash will only occur if necessary. TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND Interfund Loans $100,000 Operations TOTAL $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 To recognize additional interfund loan authority if needed at year end depending upon cash flow requirements. Borrowing of cash will only occur if necessary. TOTAL ALL FUNDS $465,000 $465,000 Notice of Supplemental Budget Public Hearing A public headng regarding a proposed supplemental budget for the City of Ashland, Jackson County,. State of Oregon, for the fiscal year July 1,2003 to June 30, 2004 will be considered at the Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon as part of the City's regular business on June 15, 2004, at 7:(;10 p.m. A copy of the supplemental budget document may be inspected or obtained on or after June 9, 2004 at the Finance Department, 20 East Main, Ashland, Oregon 97520 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. A summary.of the supplemental budget is presented below. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND Intergovernmental Revenue Capital Outlay TOTAL Resources Requirements $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 To appropriate $200,000 additional CDBG funds received from HUD foraffordable housing program expenditures. TOTAL ALL FUNDS $200,000 $200,000 RESOLUTION NO. 2004- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET ESTABLISHING APPROPRIATIONS WITHIN THE 2003-2004 BUDGET Recitals: ORS 294.480 permits the governing body of a municipal corporation to make a supplemental budget for the fiscal year for which the regular budget has been prepared under one or more of the-following reasons: a. An occurrence or condition which had not been ascertained at the time of the preparation of a budget for the current year which requires a change in financial planning. b. A pressing necessity which was not foreseen at the time of the preparation of the budget for the current year which requires prompt action. c. Funds were made available by another unit of federal, state or local government and the availability of such funds could not have been ascertained at the time of the preparation of the budget for the current year. d. Other reasons identified per the statutes. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Because of the circumstances stated below, the Mayor and City Council of the City of Ashland determine that it is necessary to adopt: a supplemental budget, establishing appropriations as follows: General Fund Appropriation: Resource: Administrative Services- Senior Program Donations $2,000 $2,000 To appropriate $2,000 donated by the Soroptimists to the Senior program to fund emergency reimbursement of senior health care needs. Community Development Block Grant Fund Appropriation: Capital Outlay Resource: Intergovernmental revenue $200,000 $200,000 To appropriate up to $200,000 in additional and unanticipated HUD granted money to acquire two properties necessary for the Affordable Housing program. Water Fund Appropriation: Public Works - Forest Lands Management Resource: Miscellaneous Revenue $263,000 $263,000 To appropriate in Forest Land Management the costs and revenues related to logging forest interface areas as part of fire protection. Electric Fund Appropriation: Other Financing Uses (Interfund Loans) Resource: Contingency $100,000 $100,000 To appropriate additional monies to be loaned to Telecommunications Fund if needed at year end to meet cash flow requirements. Lending of cash will only occur if necessary. Telecommunications Fund Appropriation: Electric Operations Resource: Interfund Loans $100,000 $100,000 To recognize additional interfund loan authority if needed at year end depending upon cash flow requirements. Borrowing of cash will only occur if necessary. SECTION 2. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code Section 2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 15th day of June, 2004: Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this 15th day of June, 2004: Reviewed as to form: Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor Paul Nolte, City Attorney CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication Title: Dept: Date: Submitted By: Approved By: Synopsis: Continued Hearing on the Appeal'of Planning Action 2004-002, a request for Site Review and Tree Removal Permit to construct a multi-floor, 8,325 sq. fi. mixed use building at 88 North Main Street. A Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit is requested to permit "development" within the Ashland Floodplain Corridor. Applicant: Lloyd Haines Planning Department June 15, 2004 John McLaughlin, Director of Comm~ty Development Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator///] On June 1, the Council heard additional testimony from the appellant and opponents on this planning action. The Council also asked questions of staff to clarify issues that had been raised. The applicants began their rebuttal with the council, however the hearing was continued due to time constraints at the meeting. The applicant agreed to an extension of the 120-day time limit to July 22, 2004. The applicant has provided additional detailed rebuttal information, addressing the concerns raised by Councilor Jackson in a memo presented at the June 1 meeting, and addressing issues raised by other council members, the appellant, and the public. Further, due to concerns raised during the hearing, Staff conducted additional research regarding the history of Floodplain Corridor standard 18.62.070(G). This standard was found to be modified from the original adopted version during the creation of the Hillside Standards ordinance. No explanation as to the modification was found in the staff report or record, and the modification appears to be part of a group of housecleaning edits throughout the chapter that were done concurrently with the Hillside ~ Ordinance. While the standard has internal inconsistencies, the modified version in the current ordinance is the adopted standard and requires compliance. In essence, the standard requires that the 1872' elevation line be the build-to line of this project for structures other than decks. Staff informed the applicant of this issue, and that Staff had incorrectly applied a previous ordinance which allowed intrusion into the floodplain corridor two feet below the FEMA flood elevation, per the previous ordinance. In order to comply with the ordinance as adopted, the applicant has proposed to modify the first floor of the building to remove that portion located on lands identified as Floodplain Corridor (those areas within the 1872' elevation line.) [See Sheet A-101R and A107R of the revised submittals] The proposal changes this portion of the project from interior restaurant space to deck area. Decks are allowed to be located on floodplain corridor lands. The second and third stories of the building remain as originally proposed, cantilevered over the floodplain' Corridor lands in accoi'dance with 18.62.070(G). The street elevations on North Main remain the same. Staff believes that the modified building complies with 18.72.070(G) and keeps the structure (other than allowed decks) out of the Floodplain Corridor. While some may argue that this constitutes a significant change, the majority of the building remains essentially the same, the only change being interior restaurant space being converted to an outdoor deck area. The important part of the change, however, is that all portions of the structure, other than decks, are located on other than floodplain corridor lands. Staffbelieves that this modification is appropriate for the site and required for compliance with the ordinance. An email has been included from Colin Swales requesting clarification as to how the Building Department will review this structure at the time of building permit. The action before the Council is regarding an application subject to the land use ordinance. The Building Code, and the building official's determination, are not part of the Council's review of this project. Once the land use process is complete, and should the project be approved, the plans will be reviewed for compliance with all building code requirements. Recommendation: After review of the newly submitted information in regard to standard 18.72.070(G), rebuttal information submitted in response to concerns from Councilor Jackson and Appellant Hopkins, and review of the testimony and exhibits presented at the previous hearings, Staff recommends the Council approve the request with the attached conditions as stated in the findings on pages 71-78 of the record, and other conditions deemed appropriate, especially those proposed by Councilor Jackson. Attachments: The supplemental packet information is attached. · Letter from Craig Stone extending the 120-day time limit to July 22, 2004 · Letter from Craig Stone replying to memo from Councilor Jackson, and issues from appellant Hopkins · Site Plan A-101R showing revised footprint of structure outside 1872' elevation line · Floor Plan A-107R showing revised first floor plan · Memorandum from John Hassen regarding legal issues raised during previous meetings · Letter from Otak - Professional Engineer R. Gregg Weston regarding flood issues · Letter from Lloyd Haines offering rebuttal to testimony · Maps previously submitted by applicant · A-101 · A-102 · A-103 · A-104 · A-105 · A-106 · A-107 · A-201 · A-301 · Email from Colin Swales regarding building code issues · Email in opposition from Betty Jo Reynolds CRAIG A. STONE & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Consultants in Urban Planning and Development 708 Cardley Avenue ® Medford, Oregon 97504-6124 Telephone: (541)779-0569 ® Fax: (541)779-0114 ® E-mail: cstone~cstoneassociates.com June 4, 2004 MR. JOHN McLAUGHLIN c/o Ashland Planning Department 51 Winbum Way Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Planning Action 2004-002; Lloyd Haines: Applicant Dear Mr. McLaughlin: Pursuant to my Power of Attorney in the above captioned matter and in follow-up to oral representations made by applicant Lloyd M. Haines during the continued public hearing of June 1, 2004, applicant herewith agrees to extend the statutory decision-making deadlines set forth in ORS 227.178. The said time extension is to run up to and through July 22, 2004. Very truly yours, CRAIG A. STONE & ASSOCIATES, LTD. C~con~dl, i~g Urban Planner CAS/m C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CRAIG STONE.CRAIG\MY DOCUMENTS\WS\HAINES\3\CONTINUANCE LET 2.DOC cc. Lloyd M. Haines Alan Harper John Hassen File CRAIG A. STONE & ASSOCIATES., LTD. Consultants in Urban Planning and Development 708 Cardley Avenue · Medford, Oregon 97504-6124 Telephone: (541) 779-0569 · Fax: (541) 779-0114 · E-mail: cstone~cstoneassociates.com June 8, 2004 MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL c/o Ashland Planning Department 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Planning Action 2004-002; Lloyd Haines: Applicant Dear Mayor and Council: As promised during the continued public hearing of June 1, 2004, the following constitutes replies to: 1. Questions, observations and potential approval conditions tendered in writing by Councilor Jackson during the June 1 st public hearing. 2. Objections and questions raised by appellant Hopkins in his Supplemental Brief of May 25, 2004 Councilor Jackson's Queries Jackson Inquiry: Should public space 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. Reply: The standard referred to states: "Developments (1) involving a gross floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet or a building fi'ontage 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:" While some opponents have asserted that this standard applies to the subject application, Applicant contends that it does not apply. This project comprises less than 10,000 square feet and building frontage less than 100 feet. (Re~ora p. ^-25) While the existing building on this tax lot (over 100 years old) could be combined to produce more than 10,000 square feet, the "development" in this instance involves only the building now proposed. Jackson Inquiry: Where I have concerns are how the flood plain, riparian protection and tree protection proposals come 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. [~!-~ (~ ~ ~ ~.. ~,.~ ~"~ll~ Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Ma~or aM City Council June 8, 2004 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 approval design meets all three standards noted above. Reply: While applicant is not entitled to submit new drawings, the below table sets forth the drawings that are most current, which will allow the Council to distinguish between the most current plans and earlier versions. Site Plan (Herewith Submitted) A-101-R 6-8-2004 New Site Plan City of Ashland Flood Data A-102 2-02-2004 112 FEMA Flood Data A-103 2-02-2004 113 FEMA 500 Year Flood Plain A-104 2-02-2004 114 Site Plan City of Ashland Flood Overall Location A-105 2-02-2004 115 A -106 5-18-2004 A-26 Surveyor's Existing Topography Map Existing Site Plan Floor Plan (Herewith Submitted) A~107-R Exterior Elevations A-201 Building Sections A-301 Tree Preservation L1.1 Planting Plan L1.2 6-8-2004 New 5-18-2004 A-28 5-18-2004 A-2g 5-12-2004 A-30 5-12-4004 , A-31 , As to the question of how the plans show the building coming together at its interface with Ashland Creek with respect to flood plain, riparian protection and tree protection: The building is outside the Ashland Flood Plain Corridor as shown on the adopted Official Physical and Environmental Constraints Map pursuant to ALUO 18.62.060. The building, with its first finished floor at an elevation of 1,877 is well above the FEMA BFE of 1,872. As explained more fully below, there is no "riparian setback" per se, although applicant has proposed riparian planting in the area now covered by the existing deck (proposed to be removed). As to tree protection, the only affected tree at the creek interface is the triple-mink maple. Applicant has taken steps to preserve this tree. However, its preservation requires the removal of one of the three minks and pruning of the other two. During the Council public hearing on May 18, 2004, applicant's landscape architect testified that less than 50 percent of the tree canopy will Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Mayor and City Council June 8, 2004 be removed and therefore the pruning does not constitute "removal" under the ordinance. Applicant's arborist testified in writing that the tree will survive this pruning. ~ecora p. 202) One opponent testified that it might as well be removed as it would be unattractive following pruning.- Applicant disagrees and believes the tree will recover from the pruning (as trees normally do) and will exist in the future as an important site feature. Jackson Inquiry: Has the 20 foot riparian setback been met? Reply: There is no riparian setback requirement. The only provision in the Flood Plain Corridor or Riparian Preservation ordinances is the reference in ALUO 18.62.050(A)(4) which indicates only that areas within 20 feet of any creek designated for Riparian Preservation covered by the Flood Plain Corridor Ordinance (which permits structures of certain types within the Flood Plain Corridor). However, Applicant has proposed to landscape the riparian area now covered by the existing deck. (Record p. A-31) Jackson Inquiry: What is the Base Flood Elevation that best protects this section of the Ashland Creek Corridor? Reply: The City's Legal and Planning Departments have advised Applicant that 'the FEMA elevation of 1,872 is the elevation to be used in determining compliance with Ashland's Flood Plain Corridor Ordinance. Independent studies undertaken by applicant's expert: engineers have verified that the FEMA elevation is accurate. Jackson Inquiry: 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? Reply: The only area in which there was a conflict involved a small portion of the triple-mink maple tree's root zone. Applicant will agree to stipulate that no grading/scouring will occur within any portion of the rootzone as shown on Record p. A-30 (other than excavation for the purpose of the installing pillars for the deck and building) and the same can be made a condition of approval. Jackson Inquiry: Potential conditions of approval: Reply: Applicant's reply to the conditions proposed below. Where Applicant has offered no reply, this should be interpreted to mean that Applicant has no objection to making the same a condition of approval. Jackson Condition 1. Start with Planning Commissio, mannroyed conditions. JUN- 8 200 Page 3 of 12 CraigA. Stone&Associates, Ltd. Mayor~dCiW Co~eil J~e8,2~4 Jackson Condition 2. Seek staff input on Condition gl: this condition should not include conclusions cited by the applicant throughout the application as implying Council's agreement. Reply: The purpose of Condition #1 is to incorporate the plans and stipulations of applicant, not to adopt findings of fact or conclusions of law. Jackson Condition 3. Seek additional input on Condition #3: is armoring desirable, why is it proposed? Reply: Condition #3 was proposed by the Planning Department. The proposed armoring is to help mitigate bank erosion during flood events. Jackson Condition 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 flood plain and riparian setbacks must be shown. Accurate figures for calculation of storage volume must tie to actual areas, number of piers, etc. Reply: Applicant will agree to stipulate to furnishing a complete new set of drawings as a condition of approval which incorporates any conditions imposed by the City Council and will do so at the time building permits are sought. Applicant also agrees to stipulate to submit future construction plans that will include the architect's stamp and the same is required by Oregon law. As to calculations of flood storage, as mentioned, this is not a requirement of Ashland's ordinances but nonetheless was submitted during the continued public hearing of June 1, 2004. Jackson Condition 5. An engineer is required to stamp the design and flood compliance of any creek crossing. Jackson Condition 6. Restore the FEMA elevation certificate requirement at the higher elevation (#14 from pg 104). Reply: As above mentioned, the City's Legal Department has advised Applicant that this project must proceed under the FEMA flood plain elevation. Jackson Condition 7. Correct #13: FEMA flood elevation plus one foot is 1873 not 1773 feet. Jackson Condition 8. Plans and documents shall be reviewed and agreed to by Public Works for compliance with City's strictest flood damage protection roles. Jackson Condition 9. Utility and storm water plans shall reflect tree protection measures to the greatest extent possible. Page 4 of 12 Craig A. Stone & Asso~tes, Ltd. Mayor and City Council June 8, 2004 Jackson Condition 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. Jackson Condition 11. Tree Commission to be consulted prior to issuance of building permit for revised comments and mitigation plans under Conditions #16 and # 17. Jackson Condition 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. Jackson Inquiry: The creation and donation of the resulting sculptures to the City of Ashland should be a condition of approval. Reply: Applicant herewith agrees to stipulate. Jackson Inquiry: 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 L1.1, page A-30 appeal file). The notes say no grading can occur with the dripline of protected trees. Reply: Other responses herein cover these issues/concerns. Jackson Inquiry: 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. Reply: As explained above, applicant will agree (and the Council can impose as a condition) that no excavation or scouring will occur within the protected area of the triple-trunk maple or any other tree slated for preservation, including Tree No. 27, other than excavation for the purpose of the installing pillars for the deck and building. Excavation for flood storage (although not a requirement) will occur beneath the building in areas that are not covered by either of these two trees. JUN - 8 21]0 Page 5 of 12 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Mayor and City Council June 8, 2004 Jackson Inquiry: 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." Reply: As to engineer calculations of flood storage, a letter from OTAK is herewith submitted which confunns that all modifications to the building to date, including the addition of the mechanical room basement, has not altered their opinion that, "the proposed building and site improvements will improve the hydraulic performance and habitat function of Ashland Creek adjacent to the project and that Shasta Building is designed in such a way as to minimize impacts to Ashland Creek during flood conditions." The mechanical room is underground and outside the flood plain area. (R~ord p. A-~.?) While the below-ground floor of the mechanical room basement is below the FEMA BFE of 1,872, the mechanical room will not displace floodwaters and there is no need for off-setting flood storage. The first finished floor (not the basement mechanical room) at an elevation of 1,877 is above both the FEMA BFE (1,872) and Ashland Flood Plain Corridor elevation of 1,875.5. While Applicant proposes no fill in the Ashland Flood Plain Corridor, if despite the evidence, the City Council has concerns regarding the amount of flood storage to offset pillars within the Ashland Flood Plain Corridor (even though pillars are not fill), Applicant will agree to stipulate (and the same can be made a condition of approval): flood storage will be provided in an amount equal or greater than the volume of the pillars within the Ashland Flood Plain Corridor and that such flood storage will not encroach into the protected area of any tree that is slated for preservation nor within the riparian protection zone (measured 20 feet from the Ashland Creek). Jackson Inquiry: On pages 74 to 78, one finds the Planning Commission's 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 made of the Ashland Flood Corridor elevation of 1875.5 feet. Yet the applicants drawings and 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 Plan 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. Reply: The City's Legal and Planning Departments have advised Applicant that the operative elevation is the FEMA BFE of 1,872. FEMA rules require an Elevation Certificate and the same will be provided at the time of building permits. Jackson Inquiry: 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 JUN 8200 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Mayor and City Council June 8, 2004 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. Reply: Pursuant to the opinion of the City Legal and Planning Depamnents, the building must be at or above the FEMA BFE of 1,872 and it is. The building will have its first finished floor at an elevation of 1,877; lower portions of the fu-st floor are not subject to flooding because these too are well above the FEMA BFE. Jackson Inquiry: Finally, I disagree that the project meets flood plain 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-year 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. Reply: Applicant has the following replies: As discussed above, ALUO 18.62.050 does not establish a "riparian setback" per se, it merely indicates only that areas within 20 feet of any creek designated for Riparian Preservation are covered by the Flood Plain Corridor Ordinance (which permits stmctm'es of certain types within the Flood Plain Corridor). Applicant has proposed to landscape the riparian area now covered by the existing deck. (Record p. Ao31) 2. The FEMA Base Flood Elevation (BFE) is at an elevation of 1,872. . Since the June 1, 2004 continued public hearing, applicant was advised by city staff that the published version of ALUO 18.62.070(G) is the operative standard. As such, the building (not including decks) must be at or above the FEMA BFE of 1,872. Thus, Applicant has been required to change certain plans and the same are herewith submitted as Revised Drawings A-101 and A-107. The changes to these design plans show that portions of the building which were within the 1,872 topographic contour, have been converted to deck, and the same is permitted ALUO 18.62.070(L). . The creek edge is shown on Applicant's plans (R~rd v. A-25) as the shaded area within Ashland Creek. The edges of the shaded area depict the incised channel (top of bank) of the creek which is also the floodway. However, the issue of creek edge raised by Councilor Jackson goes to measuring a "riparian setback" which, as discussed above, is not a requirement under the ordinance. Jackson Inquiry: 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 2na and 3ra floors, which has been done). Is this an JUN - 8 Page 7 of 12 Craig A. Ston~ & ^~sociates, Ltd. Mayor and City Council June 8, 2004 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 flood plain 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? Reply: As above discussed, there is no "riparian setback" in the ALUO. Therefore, variance relief is not: required. Decks may permissibly extend into the flood plain corridor pursuant to ALUO 18.62.070(L) provided they are flood-proofed. Appellant Hopkins Supplemental Brief of May 25, 2004 Hopkins Objection: The application should be denied on the basis of a failure to properly sign and certify the application either by the filing date (December 12, 2003) or as of the deemed complete date (February 18, 2004). Such a construction of Section 18.108.017 and the application form is consistent with the express language of the rules and is clearly consistent with the purpose and underlying policy of proper planning. Reply: The lack of signature on the application form was a simple oversight and was not intended by Applicant to allow the submission of inaccurate information. The application has since been signed and the matter is moot. Moreover, the lack of signature on the application form is a procedural rather than jurisdictional matter and does not constitute grounds for denying the application. Hopkins Objection: Portions of the planning process have been denied to opponents, being swept along by the force of the 120 day rule. Reply: This application was filed on December 12, 2003. To date this application has been under consideration by the city for approximately 180 days and Applicant has agreed to extend the deadline to July 22, 2004, an additional 40 days. This opponent and others have had ample opportunities to review and comment on matters in connection with the application. For opponents whose objective is to see nothing built on the property, there will never be sufficient time for review and comment. Hopkins Objection: Without a certification of truth and the incentive for compliance that the application form provides, how can the City safely and reasonably determine compliance with any applicable approval standards? Reply: The application has been signed. The municipal staff has the responsibility to ascertain the correctness of information supplied with this or any application and they have done so. Page 8 of 12 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Mayor and City Council June 8, 2004 Hopkins Objection: To date neither the applicant nor staff has provided a map showing the accurate Ashland Flood Plain Corridor (a limit based on actual events, rather than an hydraulic study), as required as part of the original application. Reply: The official map which adopted the Flood Plain Corridor shows the subject property as a small area approximately ¼ square inch in size. The corridor boundary was translated from this map to Ashland's GIS mapping database. This is all that exists and there is no map of greater accuracy. Applicant used the city's GIS translation from the original adopted map. Hopkins Objection: Drawing A-29 showed that not only was the amount of excavation around the tree not being reduced, it was being increased. Reply: This is simply wrong. This opponent did not accurately locate the maple tree when he attempted to translate its location from plan view to elevation view. Hopkins Objection: Opponents presentation time has now expired. This restricts Opponent's ability to respond to any late appearing material. Opponent therefore objects to further evidence as denying the ability to respond. For similar reasons, Opponent objects to any further Staff Report not filed at least 7 days before the heaing on June 1 and invokes his right under Urquhart v. Lane Council of Governments, 14 Or LUBA 335, 339 (1986), rev'd on other grounds 80 Or App 176 (1986) Reply: Pursuant to ORS 197.763, Opponents had the right to ask for additional time to review new evidence. Opponents made no such request. Moreover, in his email of May 29, 2004, Opponent Hopkins withdrew any objection related his need for additional time in favor of having the Council reach a decision on June 1. In any.event, the City Council has provided opponents seven days (from the date of this letter) to respond in writing to any issues that may be raised. Appellant Hopkins Email of May 29, 2004 Hopkins Objection: Applicant drawings have repeatedly used the coarse data ..... to create the appearance for anyone that looked that these lines, .... are the actual flood plain limits of 1872' and 1875.5'. Reply: Applicant is required to use the Ashland Flood Plain Corridor as adopted. Applicant is not entitled to redraw adopted lines on maps. This is the line on the adopted map that has been translated into Ashland's GIS mapping database. However, for purposes of flood safety, applicant has used the Ashland and FEMA flood plain elevations and has elevated the building above these elevations. This is the difference between lines on a map and topographic elevations and while this may be confusing, applicant is required to apply the adopted maps and other standards and has done so. Page 9 of 12 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Mayor and City Council June 8, 2004 Hopkins Objection: No portion of the building is to be constructed in either the Ashland Flood Corridor or the FEIMA Flood Way. Reply: No portion of the building is constructed within either the Ashland Flood Plain Corridor nor the FEMA flood way. Opponent wants to persuade you that the Ashland Flood Plain Corridor line on the adopted map is without meaning and should be interpreted to the 1,875.5 elevation. In fact, the Ashland Flood Plain Corridor line is the "build-to" boundary for the building and the elevation is just that -- the elevation at or above which the first finished floor must be built. The proposed building has its first finished floor at 1,877, which is 1.5 feet above the Ashland Flood Plain Corridor elevation of 1,875.5. Hopkins Objection: There will be walls for a large mechanical room extending down to 1,868 feet within this floodplain. Reply: The mechanical room is outside the flood plain and Ashland Flood Plain Corridor and is proposed as a basement. Thus, the floor elevation of the basement is irrelevant and merits no further consideration. Hopkins Objection: Do the concrete support piers and the flood proof walls of the mechanical room create the potential for flood barriers? Can these impediments capture debris washed down by the force of a flood, creating a damming effect which causes a further back water impact? Can these impediments divert the floodwater more forcefully or in greater volumes into unexpected areas? Reply: Again the walls of the mechanical room are below ground and will not affect flooding positively or negatively. As to the support piers for the building and deck, these are permissible building elements under the Ashland Flood Plain Ordinance pursuant to ALUO 18.62.070(G) and (L). Moreover, the lower elevation of the opposite creek bank causes water that pools up at the culvert to discharge over the opposite bank. Also refer to the OTAK letter herewith submitted which states that, "the proposed building and site improvements will improve the hydraulic performance and habitat function of Ashland Creek adjacent to the project and that Shasta Building is designed in such a way as to minimize impacts to Ashland Creek during flood conditions." Hopkins Objection: Exhibit A-301 shows that what is at 1877' is the carpet level of the first floor ...the: building will rest on an approximately 2' slab which extends into the Ashland floodplain :zone. And will also rest on the multiple pillars and mechanical room walls which squarely extend into both the floodplains. Reply: The building must be built so its first finished floor is at or above the FEMA elevation of 1,872 which has been verified by qualified experts as the flood elevation. The first finished floor is to be at an elevation of 1,877, five feet above the verified flood elevation. Page 10 of 12 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Mayor and City Council June 8, 2004 Hopkins Objection: OTAK's studies relied upon the original excavation plan. ~l~ae amount of excavation now planned is quite minimal, and is probably more than offset by the existence of the mechanical room located at 1868 feet. The mechanical room never factored into anything OTAK did. Reply: The mechanical room is outside of the flood plain corridor and is not affected by flooding because it is below ground. Therefore, the amounts of cut and fill within the Flood Plain Corridor will be unaffected by the basement mechanical room. Moreover, the proposition of offsetting fills by excavating new flood storage areas is not a requirement of Ashland's ordinances, it is merely good practice that Applicant has elected to observe. The amounts of cut and fill calculated by Applicant's architect and placed into evidence during the June 1, 2004 public hearing are accurate and show that there will be substantially greater amounts of flood storage provided to offset the fills (pillars). The OTAK letter herewith submitted relies upon the most current plans for this project. Hopkins Objection: What if the north side of the creek is dammed up by fast flowing debris? And if not might the Shasta Building itself, or the debris that it catches, cause water to flow in larger quantities or in greater and more dangerous velocities toward the north? Reply: It's difficult to imagine the adjacent parking lot on the north side of Ashland Creek to become dammed. However, the ordinance does not require the Council to consider any scenario an opponent chooses to paint, only to ascertain whether the planned building is consistent with the regulations, which it is. Moreover, this project includes removal of the existing deck and existing bridge, both of which lie within the flood plain and conflict with current flood plain ordinances. The proposed new deck will produce less encroachment into the Flood Plain Corridor and be flood-proofed in accordance with the ordinance. The new bridge will be built at or above the FEMA BFE of 1,872. To the extent that the Council is required to consider floating debris, the proposed building, deck and bridge will produce less risk than the existing deck and bridge. Also see OTAK letter herewith submitted. Hopkins Objection: Slight of hand arguments like "finished floor levels" have the effect of obscuring these questions. Reply: The term "fmished floor levels" is neither slight of hand nor Applicant's invention, it is taken from ALUO 18.62.070(G) which states in pertinent part: "The finished floor elevation may not be more than two feet below the flood corridor elevations." (emphasis added) Page 11 of 12 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Mayor and City Council June 8, 2004 Very truly yours, CRAIG A. 'STONE & ASSOCIATES, LTD. C~~~~~Co~~i.~g Urban Planner CAS/m C:~DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CRAIG STONE.CRAIG~MY DOCUMENTS\WS~HAINESK'.~LET 4.DOC Enclosures: 1. Lloyd M. Haines letter dated June 7, 2004 2. John Hassen Memorandum dated June 8, 2004 3. OTAK letter dated June 7, 2004 4. Revised Plans, Sheets A-101-R and A-107-R CC. Lloyd Haines John Hassen Alan Harper Dave Richardson Page 12 of 12 /' -I -I iI / iI iI /' lt ll ! / ? I/ ,.TO' ,J. B B M.I.S NJVN TO: FROM: DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM Ashland City Council John R. Hassen June 8, 2004 Planning Action 2004-002; Lloyd Haines: Applicant This memorandum is being submitted in support of the application of Lloyd Haines referenced above. At the hearing before the Council, the principal opponent, Randall Hopkins, raised a number of issues relating to the legality of the application and the procedure before the Council. This memorandum will address three of those. 1. The Signing of the Application. The opponent has argued that the Council should not consider the application because it was not signed by the applicant or the applicant's agent at the time it was filed. This is not the law. BCT Partnership vs. City of Portland (1994 WL 1726856 (Or LUBA)) states that, if a local regulation does not explicitly state that the signing requirement is jurisdictional, the local government may consider it procedural and process the application. Further support for this is tbund in the State statute which requires a local government to determine whether an application is complete within 30-days after it is filed. If the local government does not notify the applicant that the application is not complete for specified reasons, the application is deemed complete. In addition, the applicant has since signed the application and this meets the requirements of the City code. 2. Procedures for De Novo Hearing. The City of Ashland determined some years ago that appeals of planning actions to the City Council would be heard de novo rather than on the record. Opponent does not seem to understand this process. The opponent has argued that the new evidence presented to the Council should not be allowed because of his concern that the application has changed or that the Planning Commission and Tree Commission did not get to consider certain evidence. As the Council knows, a de novo hearing means that the matter is heard as though it is being heard for the first time. The applicant has the burden of proof and must submit sufficient evidence to the Council to support the application. In a de novo hearing, both the applicant and the opponents can present any new testimony and evidence considered necessary to support their positions. In fact, under certain circumstances, new evidence and testimony can be presented until the record is closed after the public hearing is closed. Only if the hearings below are reviewed by the Council on the record are the parties limited to arguing the record of those proceedings without being able to put in new testimony or evidence. This is not the procedure adopted by the City of Ashland. Memorandum - City of Ashland Page 2 3. The Weight of Expert Testimony. The applicant has used a number of experts to assist in preparing and presenting his application. Those experts include a consulting planner, landscape architect, architect and engineer. The principal opponent has stated several times that he is not an expert, but he has raised questions concerning matters submitted to the City by applicant's experts in connection with this application. Although the decision making body in a land use proceeding is not required to follow an expert's uncontradicted opinion, that opinion is entitled to great weight if not challenged by the opinion of another expert. The rule in Oregon is that a governing body may not without explanation disregard expert testimony unless it demonstrates that the record contains other evidence a reasonable decision maker would have relied upon to reach a contrary conclusion. Utah Intemational Inc. v. Wallowa Coun _ty, 7 Or LUBA 77 (1982); Sims v. Tillamook County, 2 Or LUBA 83 (1980). For the reasons stated herein by the applicant and by applicant's other consultants, the Council should deny Mr. Hopkins' appeal. Respectfully Submitted, ~ssen JRH:lvw H:\USER~FILESX25605hMem. JRH.06.07.04.wpd June 7,2004 1T355 sw boones ferry road · lake oswego, oregon 97035-5217 (503) 635-3618 · fax (503) 635-5395 www. otak.com Mr. Lloyd Haines 51 Water Street, Suite 222 Ashland, OR 97520 Re: Review of Updated Site Plan for Shasta Building '03 Otak Project No. 11826 Dear Mr. Haines: This letter is in response to questions raised during the public hearing process regarding the validity of our previous analysis and conclusions given that the proposed site plan has been changed since the date of our last letter. Otak has reviewed the latest revisions to the site plans provided by Architectural Design Works, Inc. and can ascertain that our previous conclusions have not changed. A copy of the current site plans we reviewed are provided in the attachments. 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. Affirmation of Conclusions In a letter dated February 9, 2004, Otak concluded that the 100-year water surface elevation reported as 1,872 in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Study (FIS) is more realistic than the City's floodplain corridor elevation of 1,875.5. This analysis was primarily supported by survey spot elevations provided to Otak by Hoffbuhr and Associates, Inc. for the area located across the creek from the proposed Shasta Building. None of our assumptions have changed. Therefore, our conclusions remain the same. In a letter dated February 10, 2004, Otak concluded that the floodway boundary shown on the project site plans match the legal boundary published by FEMA. Otak also completed a hydraulic analysis demonstrating that development of the Shasta Building's property is not expected to result in an increase in the 100-year water surface of Ashland Creek. The analysis was completed using the HEC-RAS computer model and was based on spot elevations provided by Hoffbuhr and Associates, Inc. While we understand there has been some confusion regarding the elevation of contours shown on the plans, the accuracy of the spot elevations has remained consistent. Additionally, the proposed condition simulated in ARCHITECTURE · ENGINEERING · LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE · PLANNING · SURVEYING E,c MAPPING · URBAN DESIGN L:~Project\11800X11826~AdminXCORRESP~Haines060?04L01.wpd Mr. Lloyd Haines Review of Updated Site Plan for Shasta Building '03 Page 2 June 7, 2004 the computer model conservatively assumed that the Shasta Building completely filled the site to the limits of the proposed building foundation. In actuality, the building foundation will be open to the flow of water around and between the support pillars, iNone of our assumptions have changed. Therefore, our conclusions remain the same. In a letter dated November 12, 2003 and revised February 11, 2004, Otak concluded that this project allows for increased channel conveyance if other restrictions to flow in the vicinity of this project site are removed. This conclusion was based on assumptions that have not changed. Therefore, our conclusion remains the same. While not required by ordinance, Otak pointed out in the same letter that the project will add flood storage to Ashland Creek through the excavation of soil material beneath the proposed building and allow the automatic entry and exit of flood waters between Ashland Creek and the building crawl space. While the existing contours were previously mislabeled, and the existing trees are to be protected, the project is still expected to add beneficial flood storage to Ashland Creek. Proposed Bridge As previously discussed on the phone, Otak has not evaluated the potential for impacts resulting from the proposed bridge. However, we understand that the bridge design is not final and anticipate that the design can be modified to avoid impacts to flood flows. 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, I~r~ R. Gregg Weston, PE Principal KT:RGW:bld JUN -8 2004 c: Craig Stone, Bobbi Becker - Craig Stone Associates via fax (541) 779-0114 and Federal Express David Richardson - ADW, Inc. via Federal Express Enclosures L:X, Project\ 11800\ 11826XAdminX, CORRESPX, Haines060704L01.wpd MEMBER OF' THE OREGON AND CALIFORNIA BAR LLOYD MATTHEW HAINES ATTORNEY AT LAW 51 WATER STREET SUITE 222 _~LSZ~_L~I~TD, 01~E(~Ol~T 975~0 TELEPHONE: (541) 482-9300 FAX: (541) 482-9334 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Ashland June 7, 2004 Re: Appeal of Shasta Building Approval Ladies and Gentlemen: This letter is rebuttal to some of the recent testimony presented by the appellant at the June 1,2004 council meeting. The appellant is on a mission. His openly stated goal is to do whatever he can to insure NOTHING is ever built on the site. It needs to be clearly stated that Mr. Hopkins, a lawyer, is doing what all good defense lawyers do when the facts and law are against them. They make a good deal of noise, attempt to confuse and instill fear. From inundating the town with fliers threatening a curse if the project is approved, to slandering me and the other professionals with conspiring to defraud the City, to alleging that ALL the trees on or around the site will be killed, to claiming the building is dangerous and WILL kill people; ALL these allegations are UNSUPPORTED by ANY EVIDENCE. As can be easily seen, Mr. Hopkins is jumping from issue to issue, looking for any argument to stop the project. Mr. Hopkins has consistently stated "he is no expert" yet muses about all the trees dying and the building causing flooding problems and being dangerous to the public. He is just throwing mud against the wall hoping some will stick and trying to frighten the council with mere conjecture. In fact, you have OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE from COMPETENT PROFESSIONALS that the trees are not in danger (Tom Myers-Certified Arborist) and the building is safe (Planning, Engineering and OTAK-The engineers who did all the flood restoration work for the city after the 1997 flood). -.~ The other big fallacy that Mr. Hopkins asserts is the project is all over the map, has changed constantly, morphs every minute and doesn't look anything like it looked in the beginning or what was approved by the Planning Commission. THIS ALLEGATION IS FALSE. Other than the tree preservation plan that showed computer models of critical root mass and canopies instead of actual drip lines and canopies (a problem that occurred due to John Galbraith's unfamiliarity with the tree ordinance), this project has not changed substantially. The changes that did occur resulted from Staff's attempt to reconcile the five separate chapters of your ordinance, many sections of which are in conflict with each other. The changes also reflect staff's request to make the project better ard to save the maple tree. Lastly, changes occurred due to the natural design process wherein we were working to finalize building plans after approval of the project by the planning Commission (adding a mechanical room). However, the net effect of these changes is not substantial and has not changed the complexion of the project. We still have a multi-story building, in the same place, with the same design, and yet pulled back from the creek to save the maple. The changes that have been made to this project are not any greater than in any other complex planning action. There has NEVER been a complex planning action where some changes are not required. Another prominent and absurd misrepresentation by the appellant is we "once again changed the plans in violation of the ordinance by proposing a fence in the flood plain". The fence in question is temporary fencing to protect trees during construction-done to address appellant's original complaint. Staff and engineering kept our feet to the fire and requested new studies and additional data whenever they had any questions about the safety of the project or it's compliance with the ordinance. The system has worked well and you have a safe and high quality project in front of you. Councilors, you have a basic choice regarding this application. You can decide this project is unsafe, will kill the trees on and around the project, and is of little or no benefit to the community. You can incorporate within the decision making process your concerns with staff and the conflicts in your ordinance. You can decide to make a statement about the planning process with the denial of this application. Or, you can view this project as I do; a project that will enhance the beauty and aesthetic quality of the downtown. One that comes from a tree desire to improve the livability and enliven this part of town. And one that makes the area safer, by removing ,old, wood decking and a bridge, all of which constrict the flow of the creek and WILL BE A HAZARD during a flood. This is an excellent project. It is In Fill, mixed use, suitable scale, will cleam up an eyesore, is a classic design like the IOOF Building, will remove constfic, titm. aadd~e, stg~re"'"ir~'z the creek, open the creek for public use and will donate public art to the city which honors our Native American Ancestors. As you know, given the conflicting sections of the ordinance that regulates this area, you certainly can find a reason to deny this application. On the other hand, if you feel this project benefits the town, you have more than adequate legal authority to reject the appeal. I leave it to you to determine what really is of value here. I simply request you make your decision based upon the over all benefit of the project for Ashland (or lack thereof) and not on the rhetoric which has permeated the process. Thank you for your consideration and wisdom. Respectfully submitted, Lloyd M Save the Alder-- Stop the 'Curse'! Did you know that the large,' healthy 'Gateway Alder' tree on North Main St., welcoming us to Ashland's Plaza, is slated for destruction? It will be cut down to make way for a new multi-story building next to the Creekside Grill. Plus, a grove of 20 more adjacent trees face a slow death after major branches are removed to make room for the building. City planners approved the project hoping it will "clean up" the site and the area around it. But this area could easily be improved and beautified by the Applicant, with public access to the creek as is proposed, without taking out the treesl Since those in charge haven't listened to reason or public outcry, perhaps they will listen to Celtic folklore, which says: _ -_ i"The Alder tree is a symbol of strength and passionate protection; so much so that he who cuts down an Alder shall bring a curse to his village." The first curse will be a huge downtown traffic tie,up lasting many months--all the heavy construction equipment is going to be set up right in the street, blocking the bottleneck of North Main. Help save the Alder. Come to the City Council meeting this Tuesday, 5/18, 7:00 pm at tt75 E. Main St. and speak up. Otherwise, this stately tree will be.turned into a totem pole! Thie Gateway Al Going, going, gone? ' From Ap.plic~l ~t's file ?/ ' ~ ~~ ~ --F--- [ ..... .._~..,~?'~EW~ ", T'x,, sit ,,.= ._-" ~'"'-... , ~! ~' ' ~ ~ '~i~iiiii " J'~',.~,~qo ~ ~,~- '~~ ' -~~ ~,~ ....... ii!t~ t ".- ii,, ~ ~'._~-' - - I Page 1 of 2 John McLaughlin- Fw: Haines Shasta Building- One building or Two? Illllllll Illlllll I !l Il lll!ll I II I From: To: Date: Subject: "Colin Swales" <colin~mind.net> "Fran berteau" <Fran@ashland.or.us>, "Barbara christensen" <barbarac~ashland.or.us> 6/8/04 9:35 AM Fw: Haines Shasta Building - One building or Two? Mayor and Council, Ever since the Planning Commission Heating I have been trying to f'md out how the Haines Development will be treated for Building Code Compliance Issues and whether it will be considered one building (combined with the existing building) or two separate buildings. It would seem that the Building Department are steadfastly avoiding having to give a preliminary opinion on the matter.(see below) Discussion at the Plarming Commission heating seemed to indicate that it was being considered one aggregate building for Fire Code issues butt this has not been confirmed. The applicants initially offered to partition the lot to avoid this problem, but this offer now seems to have been taken off the table? .Please could you fi~rward this e-mail to Council and enter this correspondence into the Planning Record for PA 2004-002. thanks Colin Swales ..... Original Message ..... From: "Mike broomfield" <broom~ashland.or.us> To: <~..o_.!_'.m_~.~m_'md.__t_t._e_t> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 7:45 AM Subject: Re: Haines Shasta Building - One building or Two? we do not review the submitted plans until they receive land use approval. I have seen the plans but am not sure they are the latest revisions. >>> "Colin Swales" <_.c._.o_!i.n_~_m_'m_d.n_e__t_> 06/07/2004 5:11:3'1 PM >>> Mike Broomfield, Building Inspector. Mike, I had an email front Mike Franell a few weeks ago ( see below). I am assuming by now you have had a chance to at least have look at the latest (hopefully) fmal plans. Does the building's fenestration and other openings etc in the side walls indicate that it will be considered one building for code compliance issues together with the neighboring building that shares the same tax lot, or will it be considered two separate buildings. thanks for your hel]p. Colin Swales Subject: Re: Haines development proposal. From: "Mike Franell" Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 17:24:13 -0700 To: Colin: I spoke with Mike conceming this matter. He indicated that his determination will be subject to a number of discretionary items of review as he goes through the fmal plans. At this point, he has not gone through the final plans and file://C :\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW } 00001 .HTM 6/8/04 Il, Page 2 of 2 therefore, does not have a position as to whether this will be a separate building or part of the existing buildings for.building code purposes. Michael FranellAssistant City Attorney file://C :\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW ~ 00001 .HTM , ,o ,,, A Page 1 of 1 John McLaughlin- FW:. Ill I I ! I I Ill II From: To: Date: Subject: CC: "Cate Hartzell" <cate~mind.net> <Council@ashland.or.us> 5/31/04 11:27 AM FW: "Mac McLaughlin" <mac,ashland.or.us> It's unclear to me whether all of you received this. Sorry if you did. Cate ..... Original Message ..... From: 3ack and Be~! Jo Reynolds [mailto:jrandbjo@mind.net] ~ent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 11:13 AM To: cate@mind.net Subject: Just in case you are "keeping count", I wish to say that I am not in favor of the Haines development on N.Main near Water street & tlhe Bluebird park. I do not think we need yet more "tourist shops" and the city certainly has ordinances against the removal of old trees! Betty jo Reynolds file://C :\WINDOWSWEMP\GW } 00003.HTM 6/9/04 Honorable,' Mayor and City Councilors. It's safe to say that none of the neighbors are happy with the decision to house the criminally insane in the Jackson House at the corner of Chestnut and Maple Streets. I would like to express my tremendous disappointment with the Ashland Hospital Foundation for their complete disregard for the neighboring community and with the Jackson County Health Department for their profound lack of judgment in locating this facility. But the disappointment of the neighbors is not likely to affect any change. We believe that the proposed use is wholly inappropriate for a residential area and that the current zoning laws do not support this use. The property is located within the Health Care Services Zone which specifically allows Congregate Care Facilities, Assisted Living Facilities, Residential Care Facilities, and nursing homes. The Ashland Land Use Code unfortunately does not define any of these facilities. The Oregon Revised Statutes, Oregon Administrative Rules, and the Jackson County Land Use Codes do have definitions at least for Residential Care Facilities. The most concise definition is in Chapter 443 of the Oregon Revised Statutes which regulates Home Health Agencies, Residential Facilities, and Hospice Programs. ORS 443 ..400 (4) "Residential care" means services such as supervision; protection; assistance while bathing, dressing, grooming or eating; management of money; transportation; recreation; and the providing; of room and board. (5) "Residential care facility" means a facility that provides, for six or more physically disabled or socially dependent individuals, residential care in one or more buildings on contiguous properties. (6) "Residential facility" means a residential care facility, residential training facility, residential treatment facility, residential training home or residential treatment home. There is no doubt that the patients at the Jackson House will be receiving residential care as it is defined b.y the ORS but there is a critical difference between the proposed population of Jackson House and a typical Residential Care Facility and that is the fact that these patients have been convicted of violent felonies. In addition to providing "residential care" this facility will also provide incarceration. These patients do not have the choice of where they are located. They cannot move into a different home if they don't like the food, their families cannot move them to a different location to be closer to them, they cannot check out if they think they don't need the treatment any longer. This is, in effect, a minimal security prison which provides intense treatment for the mentally ill. This use is far beyond any objective reading of the terms in the Ashland Land Use Code. We assert that the proposed use DOES NOT meet the requirements of the HC zoning and is a violation of the Land Use Code. We believe that the City has an obligation to enforce the code by not allowing this facility to be occupied as proposed. Thank you for your consideration Carl Tappert 591 Chestnut Street CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication TITLE: DEPT: DATE: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Synopsis: Recommendation: Background: Adoption of Findings for Planning Action 2003-118 Approving a Physical Constraints Review Permit for the Purpose of Constructing a Single Family Dwelling on Land Zoned R-1-7.5, Classified as Hillside Lands and Within a Residential Historic District in Ashland, Oregon APPLICANTS: Sidney and Karen DeBoer Department of Community Development Planning Division June 15,2004 ,/~-- Mike Franell, Assistant City Attorney John McLaughlin, Director of Commti~t~J~evelopment~ Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator / On November 12, 2003, the Planning Commission Hearings Board approved the Physical Constraints permit for this property. A timely appeal was filed and the City Council held a public hearing on April 6, 2004, and continued the hearing to April 8, 2004 at which time they upheld the decision of the Planning Commission Hearings Board and approved the request, with conditions. The findings were prepared by the applicants' agent and reviewed by City staff. At the June 1, 2004 City Council meeting, the Council directed the staff to further review the findings, and edit the document in accord with the recommendations of the council members. The revised findings document, including the staff edits, is attached. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the findings as presented. The record supporting the decision of the Council is available for review at the Planning Department. BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF ASHLAND STATE OF OREGON IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION ) FOR A PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW ) PERMIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ) CONSTRUCTING A SINGLE FAMILY ) DWELLING ON LAND ZONED R-1-7.5, ) CLASSIFIED AS HILLSIDE LANDS AND ) WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL HISTORIC ) DISTRICT IN ASHLAND, OREGON ) ) ) Sidney and Karen DeBoer: Applicants FINDINGS OFFACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Planning Action 2003-118 NATURE OF THE APPLICATION; PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Sidney DeBoer and Karen DeBoer ("Applicants") propose to construct a single family- dwelling on land zoned Single-Family Residential (R-1-7.5). The property is designated Hillside Lands pursuant to Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) Chapter 18..62 and is within a Residential Historic district. This proposal also requires the demolition of an existing dwelling which was applied for under a separate application which was approved and not appealed? -' This application was filed and received by the City of Ashland ("the city") on September 2, 2003. On October 10th, 2003, the application was deemed complete by staff. Following public I notice in accordance with law, on November 12, 2003 the application was he, ard by the Ashland Planning Commission Heatings Board ("Hearings Board" or "Board") in an open public heating. During the heating, Pall parties were afforded an opportunity to present evidence and make arguments. Following the public heating the record was kept open fOr seven (7) days to allow opponents to submit additional evidence, and for an additional seven (7) days for Applicants' final rebuttal. Following the conclusion of public testimony, the public heating and record were closed and the Board deliberated to a decision. The Board conditionally approved the application on a 3 to 0 vote. Following the Board's adoption of a final order on this matter the same was appealed to the City Council ("Council"). Following public notice in accordance with law, the Council conducted a public hearing on April 6, 2004. The hearing was continued to April 8, 2004 and Applicants intend to retain the existing accessory garage structure. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 1 City of Ashland, Oregon at the conclusion of public testimony, the public heating and record were closed and the Council de, liberated on the matter. The Council heard the matter de novo and received new evidence and testimony from Appellants/opponents and Applicants, as well as the entire record from the Board hearing. Following close of public testimony and deliberation, and upon a motion duly made and seconded, the application was conditionally approved on a 5 to 1 vote.2 These Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are in support of the Council's decision in this matter. II EVIDENCE BEFORE THE HEARINGS BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL The following evidence was before the Heatings Board and City Council: Record Page 12-9-03 Staff Report Addendum 1-3 11-25-03 Applicant's Final Rebuttal 4-19 11-19-03 Opponent's Additional Testimony (Colin Swales) 20-58 11-19-03 Opponent's Additional Testimony (Bryan Holley) 59-63 11-19-03 Opponent's Additional Testimony (Bill Street) 64-68 11-17-03 Opponent's Additional Testimony (George Kramer) 69-70 11-12-03 Heatings Board Hearing's Board (PCHB) Minutes 71-78 11-12-03 Opponent's Exhibits from November 12, 2003 PCHB Meeting 79-85 11-12-03 Applicant's Exhibits from November 12, 2003 PCHB Meeting 86-99 11-06-03 Tree Commission Comments/Minutes 97 11-5-03 Historic Commission Minutes 98-103 11-12-03 Letter from Claudia Everett 104 11-12-03 Letter from Charles and Margaret Howe 105 11-10-03 Letter from Bill and Shirley Patton 106 11-05-03 Email Correspondence from David Sidman signed by Phyllis Wetzel 107 11-12-03 Letter Requesting Withdrawal from Public Hearing 108 (B.G. Hicks & Paula Daystor) dated November 10, 2003 Ashland Mayor Alan DeBoer recused himself from this matter and did not participate in the proceedings. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 2 City of Ashland, Oregon 10-27-03 10-22-03 10-20-03 10-20-03 10-20-03 11-03-03 10-16-03 10-28-03 10-10-03 10-1'0-03 9-2-03 9-2-03 12-9-03 1-7-04 2-10-04 3-15-04 3-10-04 4-6-04 Exhibit CC-1 Exhibit CC-2 Exhibit CC-3 Exhibit CC-4 Corrected Notice of Public Hearing and Applicable Criteria (mailed to neighboring property owners within 200 feet and published in Daily Tidings) Notice of Public Hearing and Applicable Criteria (mailed to neighboring property owners within 200 feet and published in Daily Tidings) Request for Public Hearing (B.G. Hicks & Paula Daystor) Request for Public Hearing (Gayle Tiros) dated October 18, 2003 Request for Public Hearing (Joyce Cowan) dated October 18, 2003 Letter from Ken Ogden Authorizing Plans to be Copied Fax from Ken Ogden regarding Copyright Email Correspondence from Colin Swales dated October 28, 2003, October 27, 2003 and October 15, 2003 Planning Staff Approval Public Notice and Applicable Criteria (mailed to neighboring property owners within 100 feet) Findings & Order (Bill Molnar, Senior Planner) Applicant's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit prepared by Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Applicants Application Form Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board Minutes 30 day Extension granted by the Applicant ~ 30 day Extension granted by the Applicant Notice of Land Use Appeal Planning Commission Findings, Conclusions and Order Council Communication Appeal of Planning Action 2003-118 Communication to City Council Ashland Municipal Code Section 18.108.110 Appeal to Council Letter of Objection by Gary Peterson, Attorney Dated April 6, 2004 Letter to City Attorney Paul Nolte by Gary Peterson, Attorney Dated April 6, 2004 Topographic Map Illustrating Cross Section Slope 109-110 111-112 113 114 115 116 117-120 121-124 125-126 127-129 130-257 258-259 260-261 262 263 264 272-331 332-334 335-336 337 338 339-341 342 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 3 City of Ashland, Oregon Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit CC:-5 CC-6 CC,-7 CC,-8 CC,-9 CC,-10 CC,-11 CC-12 CC,- 13 Photos CC.- 14 Photos CC- 15 Photos CC- 16 Photos CC- 17 Photos CC-18 Photos CC- 19 Photos CC-20 Photos CC-21 CC-22 CC-23 CC-24 Topographic Map Illustrating Building Envelope Slope Letter from C.P. dated April 6, 2004 Photos of Nearby Existing Development Photos of Nearby Existing Development Photos of Nearby Existing Development Topographic Map Illustrating Cross Section Slope Topographic Map Illustrating Building Envelope Slope Photos of Nearby Existing Development of Nearby Existing Development of Nearby Existing Development of Nearby Existing Development of Nearby Existing Development of Nearby Existing Development of Nearby Existing Development of Nearby Existing Development from Glenview of Subject Property Photo from Vista of Subject Property Photo from Glenview of Existing Vegetation Photo of Subject Property This Exhibit Number was Skipped CC-25 Proposed Structure Body, Roof, and Trim Color CC-26 Supplemental Packet Email Received after 4-6-04 CC.-27 AD HOC Committee for Hillside Development Minutes CC-28 Letter in Opposition from Paul Copeland dated April 8, 2004 CC-29 Photo of Glenview CC-30 Land Partition Survey of Subject Property C,C-31 Letter in Opposition from Janice B. Robertson CC-32 Neighborhood Flyer CC-33 Letter in Opposition "Reasons to Deny" CC-34 Half Story iDefinition Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 343 344-345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364-406 407-580 581 582 583 584-585 586-587 588-590 591-596 Page 4 City of Ashland, Oregon Exhibit CC-35 Letter regarding Wildfire Land, Definition of Dwelling, Front Yard Setback Exhibit CC-36 Letter in Opposition from Larry G. Kellogg Exhibit CC-37 Letter in Opposition from Elizabeth Udall dated April 8, 2004 Exhibit CC-38 Letter in Opposition from Eric Navickas Exhibit CC-39 Letter in Opposition Regarding Trees in Wildfire Lands by Stephen and Carol Jensen dated April 6, 2004 Exhibit CC-40 Letter in Opposition by Regina Ayrs Exhibit CC-41 Power Point Presentation by Colin Swales and Bryan Holley Exhibit CC-42 Emails to the City from Various Opponents Exhibit CC-43 Architects Rendering of Proposed Dwelling Letter in Opposition by Philip C. Lang Additional Information by Opponent Colin Swales City Council Minutes for April 6 and 8, 2004 Letter of Extension of the Statutory Deadlines dated April 9, 2004 11-12-03 Transcript of Heatings Board Public Heating of November 12, 2003 597-599 600-605 606 607 608 609-610 611-656 657-691 692 693-698 699-710 711~723 724 1-18 11-6-04 Transcript of City Council Public Heating of April 6 & 8, 2004 1-89 III RELEVANT SUBSTANTIVE APPROVAL CRITERIA The City Council and earlier the Heatings Board determined that the following constitute all of the relevant substantive criteria which are prerequisite to approval of the proposed Physical and Enviromnental Constraints Review land use application on land designated Hillside Lands and within a Residential Historic district. The following standards and criteria of the City of Ashland Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance are cited verbatim below. In Section V, each relevant standard and criterion (or groups of standards and criteria) are followed by the conclusions of law and ultimate conclusions of the City Council. The conclusions of law and ultimate conclusions are based upon the findings of fact in Section IV and the evidence enumerated in Section II. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 5 City of Ashland, Oregon 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 impllemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Hearings Board shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. ALUO 18.62.080 Development Standards for Hillside Lands. A. General Requirements. The following general requirements shall apply in Hillside Lands. All development shall occur on lands defined as having buildable area. Slopes greater than 35% shall be considered unbuildable except as allowed below. Variances may be granted to this requirement only as provided in section 18.62.080.H. a. Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35% shall be considered buildable for one unit. b. Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35% cannot be subdivided or partitioned. 2. All newly created lots either by subdivision or partition shall contain a building envelope with a slope of 35% or less. 3. New streets, flag drives, and driveways shall be constructed on lands of less than or equal to 35% slope with the following exceptions: a. The street is indicated on the City's Transportation Plan Map - Street Dedications. b. The portion of the street, flag drive, or ddveway on land greater than 35% slope does not exceed a length of 100 feet. 4. Geotechnical Studies. For all applications on Hillside Lands involving subdivisions or partitions, * * B. Hilllside Grading and Erosion Control. All development on lands classified as hillside shall provide plans conforming with the following items: All grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans for development on Hillside Lands shall 'be designed by a geotechnical expert. All cuts, grading or fills shall conform to Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. Erosion control measures on the development site shall be required to minimize the solids in runoff from disturbed areas. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page6 City of Ashland, Oregon , For development other than single family homes on individual lots, all grading, drainage improvements, or other land disturbances shall only occur from May 1 to October 31. Excavation shall not occur dudng the remaining wet months of the year. Erosion control measures shall be installed and functional by October 31. Up to 30 day modifications to the October 31 date, and 45 day modification to the May 1 date may be made by the Planning Director, based upon weather conditions and in consultation with the project geotechnical expert. The modification o.f dates shall be the minimum necessary, based upon evidence provided by the applicant, to accomplish the necessary project goals. Retention in natural state. On all projects on Hillside Lands involving partitions and subdivisions, and existing lots with an area greater than one-half acre, an area equal to 25% of the total project area, plus the percentage figure of the average slope of the total project area, shall be retained in a natural state. Lands to be retained in a natural state shall be protected from damage, through the use of temporary construction fencing or the functional equivalent. For example, on a 25,000 sq. fl. lot with an average slope of 29%, 25%+29%=54% o~~ the total lot area shall be retained in a natural state. The retention in a natural state of areas greater than the minimum percentage required here is encouraged. 4. Grading - cuts. On all cut slopes on areas classified as Hillside lands, the following standards shall apply: Cut slope angles shall be determined in relationship to the type of materials of which they are composed. Where the soil permits, limit the total area exposed to precipitation and erosion. Steep cut slopes shall be retained with stacked rock, retaining walls, or functional equivalent to control erosion and provide slope stability when necessary. Where cut slopes are required to be laid back (1:1 or less steep), the slope shall be protected with erosion control getting or structural equivalent installed per manufacturers specifications, and revegetated. b. Exposed cut slopes, such as those for streets, ddveway accesses, or yard areas, greater than seven feet in height shall be terraced. Cut faces on a terraced section shall not exceed a maximum height of five feet. Terrace widths shall be a minimum of three feet to allow for the introduction of vegetation for erosion control. Total cut slopes shall not exceed a maximum vertical height of 15 feet. (See Graphic) . c. Revegetation of cut slope terraces shall include the provision of a planting plan, introduction to topsoil where necessary, and the use of irrigation if necessary. The vegetation used these areas shall be native or species similar in resource value which will survive, help reduce the visual impact of the cut slope, and assist in providing 10ng term slope stabilization. Trees, bush-type plantings and cascading vine-type plantings may be appropriate. Grading - fills. On all fill slopes on lands classified as Hillside Lands, the following standards shall apply: Fill slopes shall not exceed a total vertical height of 20 feet. The toe of the fill slope area not utilizing structural retaining shall be a minimum of six feet from the nearest property line.(Ord 2834 S6, 1998) Fill slopes shall be protected with an erosion control netting, blanket or functional equivalent. Netting or blankets shall only be used in conjunction with an organic mulch such as straw or wood fiber. The blanket must be applied so that it is in complete contact with the soil so that erosion does not occur beneath it. Erosion netting or blankets shall be securely anchored to the slope in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 7 City of Ashland, Oregon Utilities. Whenever possible, utilities shall not be located or installed on or in fill slopes. When determined that it necessary to install utilities on fill slopes, all plans shall be designed by a geotechnical expert. Revegetation of fill slopes shall utilize native vegetation or vegetation similar in resource value and which will survive and stabilize the surface. Irrigation may be provided to ensure growth if necessary. Evidence shall be required indicating long-term viability of the proposed vegetation for the purposes of erosion control on disturbed areas. P, evegetation requirements. Where required by this chapter, all required revegetation of cut and fill slopes shall be installed pdor to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, signature of a required survey plat, or other time as determined by the headng authority. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be substantially established within one year of installation. 7. Maintenance, Security, and Penalties for Erosion Control Measures. . a. Maintenance. All measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control, including but not limited to vegetative cover, rock walls, and landscaping, shall be maintained in perpetuity on all areas which have been disturbed, including public rights-of-way. The applicant shall provide evidence indicating the mechanisms in place to ensure maintenance of measures. Security. Except for individual lots existing pdor to January 1, 1998, after an Erosion Control Plan is approved by the headng authority and pdor to construction, the applicant shall provide a performance bond or other financial guarantees in the amount of 120% of the value of the erosion control measures necessary to stabilize the site. Any financial guarantee instrument proposed other than a performance bond shall be approved by the City Attorney. The financial guarantee instrument shall be in effect for a pedod of at least one year, and shall be released when the Planning Director and Public Works Director determine, jointly, that the site has been stabilized. All or a portion of the secudty retained by the City may be withheld for a period up to five years beyond the one year maintenance pedod if it has been determined by the City that the site has not been sufficiently stabilized against erosion. Site Grading. The grading of a site on Hillside Lands shall be reviewed considering the following factors: ao No terracing shall be allowed, except for the purposes of developing a level building pad and for providing vehicular access to the pad. b. Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site.(Ord 2834,S2 1998) c. Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site. Building pads should be of minimum size to accommodate the structure and a reasonable amount of yard space. Pads for tennis courts, swimming pools and large lawns are discouraged. As much of the remaining lot area as possible should be kept in the natural state of the original slope. Inspections and Final Report. Prior to the acceptance of a subdivision by the City, signature of the final survey plat on partitions, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy for individual structures, the project geotechnical expert shall provide a final report indicating that the approved grading, drainage, and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections, as per 18.62.080.A.4.j were conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 8 City of Ashland, Oregon C. D. Surface and Groundwater Drainage. All development on Hillside Lands shall conform to the following standards: 1. All facilities for the collection of stormwater runoff shall be required to be constructed on the site and according to the following requirements: a. Stormwater facilities shall include storm drain systems associated with street construction, facilities for accommodating drainage from driveways, parking areas and other impervious surfaces, and roof drainage systems. Stormwater facilities, when part of the overall site improvements, shall' be, to 'the greatest extent feasible, the first improvements constructed on the development site. c. Stormwater facilities shall be designed to divert surface water away from cut faces or sloping surfaces of a fill. d. Existing natural drainage systems shall be utilized, as much as possible, in their natural state, recognizing the erosion potential from increased storm drainage. e. Flow-retarding devices, such as detention ponds and recharge berms, shall be used where practical to minimize increases in runoff volume and peak flow rate due to development. Each facility shall consider the needs for an emergency overflow system to safely carry any overflow water to an acceptable disposal point. g. Stormwater facilities shall be designed, constructed and maintained in a manner that will avoid erosion on-site and to adjacent and downstream properties. Alternate stormwater systems, such as dry well systems, detention ponds, and leach fields, shall be designed by a registered engineer or geotechnical expert and approved by the City's Public Works Department or City Building Official. Tree Conservation, Protection and Removal. All development on Hillside Lands shall conform to the following requirements: . Inventory of Existing Trees. A tree survey at the same scale as the project site plan shall be prepared, which locates all trees greater than six inches d.b.h., identified by d.b.h., species, approximate extent of tree canopy. In addition, for areas proposed to be disturbed, existing tree base elevations shall be provided. Dead or diseased trees shall be identified. Groups of trees in close proximity (i.e. those within five feet of each other) may be designated as a clump of trees, with the predominant species, estimated number and average diameter indicated. All tree surveys shall have an accuracy of plus or minus two feet. The name, signature, and address of the site surveyor responsible for the accuracy of the survey shall be provided on the tree survey. Portions of the lot or project area not proposed to be disturbed by development need not be included in the inventory. . Evaluation of Suitability for Conservation. All trees indicated on the inventory of existing trees shall also be identified as to their suitability for conservation. When required by the headr, g authority, the evaluation shall be conducted by a landscape professional. Factors included in this determination shall include: a. Tree health. Healthy trees can better withstand the dgors of development than non-vigorous trees. b. Tree Structure. Trees with severe decay or substantial defects are more likely to result in damage to people and property. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 9 City of Ashland, Oregon . . c. Species. Species vary in their ability to tolerate impacts and damage to their environment. d. Potential longevity. e. Vadety. A vadety of native tree species and ages f. Size. Large trees provide a greater protection for erosion and shade than smaller trees. Tre~ Conservation in Project Design. Significant trees (2' d.b.h, or greater conifers and 1' d.b.h, or greater broadlea0 shall be protected and incorporated into the project design whenever possible. a. Streets, driveways, buildings, utilities, parking areas, and other site disturbances shall be located such that the maximum number of existing trees on the site are preserved, while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. b. Building envelopes shall be located and sized to preserve the maximum number of trees on site while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. c. Layout of the project site utility and grading plan shall avoid disturbance of tree protection areas. Tree Protection. On all properties where trees are required to be preserved dudng the course of development, the developer shall follow the following tree protection standards: All trees designated for conservation shall be cleady marked on the project site. Pdor to the start of any clearing, stripping, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation, the applicant shall install fencing at the ddp line of all trees to be preserved adjacent to or in the area to be altered. Temporary fencing shall be established at the perimeter of the ddpline. Pdor to grading or issuance of any permits, the fences may be inspected and their location approved by the Staff Advisor. (see graphic) Construction site activities, including but not limited to parking, matedal storage, soil compaction and concrete washout, shall be arranged so as to prevent disturbances within tree protection areas. No grading, striPping, compaction, or significant change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the drip line of trees designated for conservation unless indicated on the grading plans, as approved by the City, and landscape professional. If grading or construction is approved within the dripline, a landscape professional may be required to be present dudng grading operations, and shall have authority to require protective measures to protect the roots. d, Changes in soil hydrology and site drainage within tree protection areas shall be minimized. Excessive site run-off shall be directed to appropriate storm drain facilities and away from trees designated for conservation. e. Should encroachment into a tree protection area occur which causes irreparable damage, as · determined by a landscape professional, to trees, the project plan shall be revised to compensate for the loss. Under no circumstances shall the developer be relieved of responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this chapter Tree Removal. Development shall be designed to preserve the maximum number of trees on a · site. The development shall follow the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. When justified by findings of fact, the hearing authority may approve the removal of trees for one or more of the following conditions: (Ord 2834 S3, 1998) Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Plan, ning Action 2003-118 Page 10 City of Ashland, Oregon a. The tree is located within the building envelope. b. The tree is located within a proposed street, driveway, or parking area. c. The tree is located within a water, sewer, or other public utility easement. d. The tree is determined by a landscape professional to be dead or diseased, or it constitutes an .unacceptable hazard to life or property when evaluated by the standards in 18.62.080.D.2. The tree is located within or adjacent to areas of cuts or fills that are deemed threatening to the life of the tree, as determined by a landscape prbfessional. . Tree Replacement. Trees approved for removal, with the exception of trees removed because they were determined to be diseased, dead, or a hazard, shall be .replaced in compliance with the following standards: Replacement trees shall be indicated on a tree replanting plan. The replanting plan shall include all locations for replacement trees, and shall also indicate tree planting details.(Ord 2834 S4, 1998) Replacement trees shall be planted such that the trees will in time result in canopy equal to or greater than the tree canopy present pdor to development of the property. The canopy shall be designed to mitigate of the impact of paved and developed areas, reduce surface erosion and increase slope stability.. Replacement tree locations shall consider impact on the wildfire prevention and control plan. The headng authority shall have the discretion to adjust the proposed replacement tree canopy based upon site-specific evidence and testimony. Co Maintenance of replacement trees shall be the responsibility of the property owner. Required replacement trees shall be continuously maintained in a healthy manner. Trees that die within the first five years after initial planting must be replaced in kind, after whiclh a new five year replacement pedod .shall begin. Replanting must occur within 30 days ot; notification unless otherwise noted. (Ord 2834 S5, 1998) 7. Enforcement All tree removal shall be done in accord with the approved tree removal and replacement plan. No trees designated for conservation shall be removed without pdor approval of the City of Ashland. Should the developer or developer's agent remove or destroy any tree that has been designated for conservation, the developer may be fined up to three times the current appraised value of the replacement trees and cost of replacement or up to three times the current market value, as established by a professional arbodst, whichever is greater. Should the developer or developer's agent damage any tree that has been designated for protection and conservation, the developer shall be penalized $50.00 per scar. If necessary, a professional arborist's report, prepared at the developer's expense, may be required to determine the extent of the damage. Should the damage result in loss of appraised value greater than determined above, the higher of the two values shall be used. E. Building Location and Design Standards. All buildings and buildable areas proposed for Hillside Lands shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following standards .... All structures on Hillside Lands shall have foundations which have been designed by an engineei' or architect with demonstrable geotechnical design experience. A designer, as defined, slhall not complete working drawings without having foundations designed by an engineer. Findings of Pact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 11 City of Ashland, Oregon G. All newly created lots or lots modified by a lot line adjustment must include a building envelope on all lots that contains a buildable area less than 35% slope of sufficient size to accommodate the uses; permitted in the underlying zone, unless the division or lot line adjustment is for open space or conservation purposes. TREE PRESFRVATION & PROTECTION ALUO 18.61.200 Tree Protection Tree Protection as required by this section is apPlicable to any planning action or building permit. A. Tree Protection Plan Required. 1. A Tree Protection Plan approved by the Staff Advisor shall be required pdor 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 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 ddp line of each tree; c. Location of existing and proposed roads, water, sanitary and storm sewer, irrigation, and other utility lines/facilities and easements; d. Location of dry wells, drain lines and soakage trenches; e. Location of proposed and existing structures; f. Grade change or cut and fill during or after construction; g. Existing and proposed impervious surfaces; h. Identification of a contact person and/or arborist who will be responsible for implementing and maintaining the approved tree protection plan; and i. Location and type of tree protection measures to be installed per AMC 18.61.230. 3. For development requiring a planning action, the Tree Preservation Plan shall include an inventory of all trees on site, their health or hazard condition, and recommendations for treatment for each tree. B. Tree Protection Measures Required. 1. Except as otherwise determined by the Staff Advisor, all required tree protection measures set forth in this section shall be instituted prior to any development activities, including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation or demolition work, and 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, ripadan areas, or conservation easements that abut the parcel being developed. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 12 City of Ashland, Oregon . 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 pdor approval has been obtained from the Staff Advisor for the project. No construction activity shall occur within the tree protection zone, including, but not lirnited 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 debds, 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 City Council reaches the following facts and finds them to be true with respect to this matter: A. SUBJECT PROPERTY le Property Description; Acreage; Ownership: The subject property is described in the records of the Jackson County Assessor as Tax Lots 7200 and 7400 (39-1E-09BC). Tax Lot 7200 is 0.09 acres and Tax Lot 7400 is 0.88 acre. Applicant proposes to adjust the boundary common to both parcels. There is a pending application to adjust 'the parcel boundaries. This project concerns the proposed adjusted Tax Lot 7200. As originally proposed, Tax Lot 7200 (the subject property of this application) would have had 0.52 acres following the boundary line adjustments. However, pursuant to stipulation of Applicants' agent and conditions of approval, the subject property will have less than 0.50 acres following the boundary line adjustments. The property is owned by Sidney B. De Boer, Trustee FBO the Sidney B. DeBoer Trust. e Comprehensive Plan Map Designation and Zoning: The subject property is designated Single Family Residential on the comprehensive plan map. The property is zoned R-1- 7.5. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 13 City of Ashland,. Oregon e,,~+kn,-,1,-o F,-,.- ,,+..,,~-+ ........ ;+1,,;,,, +k,a D 1. '7 ~'- ,-, ,~, ,' ,,, ,~ $~4.Existing Land Use: Tax Lot 7200 is presently developed with a single-family dwelling. A lot line adjustment has been proposed between Tax Lot 7200 and 7400. The lot line 3 The garage on the subject property (adjusted Tax Lot 7200) will take access from the rear of the property off Glenview Drive. 4 The front 'yard of the subject property, is the portion of Tax Lot 7200 which fronts upon Vista Street. The rear yard is the portion of Tax Lot 7200 which fronts on Glenview Drive. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 14 City of Ashland, Oregon adjustment can be approved because the resulting parcels comply with all relevant substantive provisions of the ALUO. Tax Lot 7400 is currently developed with a single- family residence and two accessory structures (garages). If the lot line adjustment is approved, the property boundary will be relocated so that one single-family residence and the existing 576 square foot garage will be located on Tax Lot 7400 and the existing 3,618 square foot two-story garage and the proposed new single-family dwelling will be located on Tax Lot 7200. Applicants' plans show the property in its adjusted configuration (subject to minor furore adjustments to reduce the subject property below 0.50 acres). 6;5.Nature of the Proposed Use: The proposed development will require the demolition of I the existing single-family residence on what is now Tax LOt 7200 to allow for the construction of the proposed single-family residence. The city has approved a Demolition Permit for this single-family residence. Prcpcse~ ~ .... 1 ..... + Will ;~,~,1,,~o ~ vzo9 ~Jx v attic. Althou~ ~ome plus show the location of a proposed furore swiping pool, that me~ is not p~ of this application. ~.Special Considerations: The subject property is identified on the Physical Constraints I map as Hillside Lands and has areas where the slope exceeds 25 percent. The subject property is within a Residential Historic District. · 9;.7.Timeline for Development: See, Record p. 254 10.8. Building Envelope: Various standards in the ALUO require the deline, ation of a building envelope and the same is shown on the plan at Record p. 169 wherein it is called the "Setback Line." B. HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL LANDS The following findings of fact relate to the designation of the property as Hillside Residential Lands pursuant to ALUO 18.62.080: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 15 · City of Ashland, Oregon le Protected Hillside Areas: Pursuant to ALUO 18.62.050(C)(1) the reconfigured subject property is included on the Physical Constraints Overlay Map. As established in Record p. 253 and 255, the subject property has an original average slope of 28 percent. Portions of the reconfigured subject property have slopes which are greater and less than 25 percent.. Portions of the property with slopes of 25 percent or greater are shown on Record p. 163 and 253 and these are the areas of the property subject to the special regulations for hillside protection. e Slope: The proposed development will occur on portions of the property which have between 22 and 35 percent slopes. Based upon Record p. 255, a letter from Applicants' · registered land surveyor, Hoffbuhr & Associates, Inc., the average slope of the subject property is 28 percent. The average cross-section slope of the building site is 27 percent (see Record p. 349). The footprint of the building is within slope contours of less than 35 percent (see Record p. 350). e Driveway: Based upon Record p. 163, 165, 191, 193, and 253, no portion of the driveway to serve the new dwelling is on land greater than 35 percent slope for a distance of more than 100 feet. e Grading, Fill and Erosion Control: Grading and erosion control has been designed by applicants licensed Geotechnical Engineer in Record p. 223-248 (Site Evaluation and GeoteChnical Engineering Report). This geotechnical report (Record p. 223-248) establishes the geotechnical parameters for design with respect to grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans, which was used by Applicants' civil engine,xs, Hardey & Associates, Inc. to prepare the civil engineering plans for this project. As demonstrated by Applicants' plans (Record p. 163, 164, 164A) the potential for erosion has been mitigated through the planned installation of retaining walls which will minimize the erosion of solid matter in the disturbed areas on the site. Grading cuts have been limited to only theextent needed to accommodate the proposed dwelling and protected to the extent possible to protect the area from erosion. ® Cuts: 'The only cuts to be made on the property are those necessary to accommodate the dwelling footprint and driveway. Cuts for the dwelling will be retained by its foundation walls. Cuts for the driveway are proposed to be retained by engineered masonry walls. The materials in which the cuts will be made are established in Record p. 223-248. On portions of the property where terracing is proposed, no terraced section exceeds a height of five., feet, or is separated by more than three feet. The total maximum vertical height of the cut slopes is not greater than fifteen feet. See, Record p. 163 and 164. All cut slope terraces are intended to be landscaped with plant materials which are suitable and appropriate for the stabilization of cut banks. The planting plan for this property was Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 16 City of: Ashland, Oregon developed by Kerry KenCairn, applicants Landscape Architect, licensed in Oregon. See, Record p. 195-197. e Retention in Natural State: The subject property (reconfigured parcel 7200 after the proposed lot line will be less than 0.50 acres. Therefore, the requirement set forth in ALUO 18.62.080(B)(3) does not apply. 7. Revegetation: Revegetation of the subject property is proposed pursuant to the Record p. 195-197 Landscape Plans and the same are consistent with the requirements for revegetation as set forth in ALUO 18.62.080(B)(4)(c). 8. Public Facilities, Services and Utilities: The subject property is served with the following public facilities, services and utilities: a. Water: There is an existing 6-inch water line within the right-of-way of' Glenview Drive and Vista Street along the south and northeast frontages of the subject property. be Sanitary Sewer: There is an existing 6-inch sewer line within the right-of-way of Glenview Drive and Vista Street along the south and northeast frontages of the subject property.~ - c. Transportation/Access: The adjusted subject property fronts upon Vista Street and Glenview Drive. Actual access to the property is from Glenview Drive. d. Electricity; Natural Gas: According to representatives for the ~City of Ashland Electric Department, the existing residence presently receives electric power and power will be available for the proposed residence. Electric power will be used for cooling and lighting of proposed residence. Heat for the dwelling will be supplied by natural gas. e. Urban Storm Drainage: An 8-inch underground storm drain exists at the intersection of Vista Street and Glenview Drive. C. SOLAR ACCESS: The proposed dwelling observes the solar access standards of the City of Ashland in ALUO 18.70 and the same is evidenced by Record p. 165. D. TREE PROTECTION; REMOVAL; REPLACEMENT 1. Tree Removal Permit: Single-family residential zones which are occupied by a single- family detached dwelling and their associated accessory structures, are exempt from the requirement to obtain a tree removal permit. However, lands subject to the Physical and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 17 City of Ashland,, Oregon Enviroranental Constraints ordinance are further regulated by Chapter 18.62 and 18.61.2,00. 2. Tree Removal: The removal of trees from the reconfigured property falls under four categories as follows: ae Trees Already Removed within Protected Hillside Areas: Based upon mistaken advice given Applicants by the Ashland Planning Department, Applicants removed five trees within the Protected Hillside Area. See, p. 16 Transcript of Board Public Hearing of November 12, 2003, and p. 63 and 64 of the transcript of the City Council Public Hearing of April 8, 2004. Applicants propose to mitigate the removal of these trees by agreeing to stipulate t° planting 10 trees within a public location to be determined by the Ashland Tree Commission. See, Section VI. b. Trees Already Removed which are not Regulated: Applicants removed two trees on that portion of the subject property which is not within the Protected Hillside Area. c. Trees to be Removed within Protected Hillside Areas: As shown on Record p. 197, two additional trees are proposed to be removed within the protected area. d. Trees to be Removed which are not regulated. As shown on Record p. 197, seven additional trees are proposed to be removed within the non-protected portion of the reconfigured subject property. Tree Protection: Applicants licensed landscape architect has proposed the methods by which existing trees (to be preserved) will be protected and the same is shown on Record p. 197. The methods of tree protection are consistent with the requirements for protection as set forth in ALUO 18.62.080(D)(4). 4. Tree ]Replacement: In addition to the ten trees Applicants have agreed to supply for planting on public lands located elsewhere: 1) the 6-inch caliper Incense Cedar (Calocedrus decurrens) will be replaced (on-site) with a 10-foot tall Deodar Cedar (Cedrus deodara), and 2) the 12-inch Ponderosa Pine (Pinus ponderosa) will be replaced (on-site) with a 2-inch caliper Japanese Pagoda Tree (Sophorajaponica). E. WILDFIRE LANDS Pursuant to ALUO 18.62.090, the Heatings Board found and the City Council affirms that the reconfigured subject property is included on the Physical Constraints Overlay Map as Wildfire Lands. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page18 City of Ashland, Oregon r F. SURROUNDING IMPACT AREA The Hearings Board found and the City Council affirms that the surrounding impact area is defined as that area entitled to notice of this application. The notice area is any paxcel which is located within 200 feet from the boundaries.of the subject property. 'V CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The City Council reaches the following conclusions of law for each of the relevant substantive criteria. These are preceded by the criterion or criteria to which they relate and are supported by findings of fact as set forth in Section IV herein above and by the evidence enumerated in Section II. In setting forth its conclusions of law for this application, the Council observes that there are a great many standards and approval criteria, manly of which are related. The Council has not attempted to identify all of the linkages among the standards and criteria, although in some instances, it has explicitly incorporated by reference and adopted the conclusions of law for one criterion and applied the same to another. The Council's intention, however, and it so hereby declares, is that the conclusions of law for each criterion is incorporated and adopted for all of the other individmd criteria. Additionally, while this document refers to each of the standards and criteria as Criterion 1 through Criterion 30, in fact, only Criterion 1 through 3 function as actual approval criteria; those labeled as Criterion 4 through 30 are development standards. The approval criteria and standards are recited verbatim below and followed by the conclusions of law of the City Council: PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Title 18) ALUO CHAPTER 62 PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ALUO 18.62.040(I) Criteria for Approval. A Physical Constrains Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following: Criterion I 1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that the, "development standards of this chapter," are the standards in ALUO 18.62.80. These Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 19 City of Ashland,, Oregon standards address the preservation of natural areas (portions of the property which are in a "natural state"), erosion control and tree protection. Potential impacts to the property and nearby areas are addressed in detail below. The Council rejects opponents' argument that Applicants have improperly limited the scope of the impact analYsis by limiting it to the notice area. They argue that the prominent location of the subject property requires the Council to consider the impacts to the entire city. They support their argument by citing the definition of "impact area" found in ALUO 18.104.020 which, for purposes of conditional use permits, requires the city to consider impacts to the area immediately surrounding a use, including land within the applicable notice area and "...any lot beyond the notice area, if the hearing authority finds that it may be materially affected by the proposed use..." The Council finds the definition of ,'impact area" in ALUO 18.104.020, while it should be I considered, is not necessarily determinative, is ;"~'~----,--, ..... · ----* +"-,- *~';---o .... -vv.,,,,,~,,,...~;"~+;"*' Since the phrase I "impact area" is defined, it would have been easy for the City Council, in adopting ALUO 18.62, to use that phrase and "import" its defined meaning into the Physical and Environmental Constraints Review process. That the city did not do so is evidence that the expanded-definition of "impact. area" for conditionally permitted uses was not necessarily I intended to apply to cases such as this. Applicants' proposed use is one permitted outright in the zone, subject only to Physical and Environmental Constraints Review. This distinguishes the application fi.om those ALUO 18.104 uses which may only be conditionally permitted in city zoning districts and which may require an expanded impact area analysis. While the Board found and concluded and the Council affirms the phrase "impact area" as defined in ALUO 18.104 is not r-elevm~-necessarily determinative too~f ALUO 18.62 applications, ALUO 18.62.050(I) does require consideration of impacts to "...the property and nearby areas..." In .this instance, the evidence shows that all physical and. environmental impacts governed by ALUO 18.62.080 or 18.62.090 will most likely be limited to the boundaries of the subject property and dc, probably will not reach other nearby lands which could be entitled to public notice of this proceeding. The evidence further shows that according to the applicant's geotechnical engineer's opinion the site w;.!! should be completely stabilized following construction. See, Record p. 86A. Therefore, the Board concluded and the Council affirms that the potential impact area does not need to be 'expanded beyond the area entitled to notice of this proceeding; that "nearby areas" includes and is li~nited to property lying within the prescribed notice area as required by ALUO 18.108.0810. Some opponents [;'*"~"'~; ......... + e .... ~'--x "~"'- argued that the impacts of this project include t]hose related to elements of "identity, aesthetic quality and visual character," all Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 20 City of Ashland, Oregon elements recited in the purpose statement for ALUO 18.62.080 which are therein set forth as follows: It is the purpose of the Development Standards for Hillside Lands to provide supplementary clevelopment regulations to underlying zones to ensure that development occurs in such a manner as to protect the natural and topographic character and identity of these areas, environmental resources, the aesthetic qualities and restorative value of lands, and the public health, safety, and general welfare by insuring that development does not create soil erosion, sedimentation of lower slopes, slide damage, flooding problems, and severe cutting or scarring. It is the intent of these development standards to encourage a sensi'tive form of development and to allow for a reasonable use that complements the natural and visual character of the city. ....... A; ....... A .... ~,11., ~ .... t~e Bo~d ~ncluded ~d ~e Council a.ffi~s the ~bi~ous. ~efore there is no ne~ for ~e Council to refer to elements of the pu~ose statment in ord~ to resolve mbi~ities in the ordin~ce. The Council finds that the subject property has already been developed with a dwelling, garage, driveway, swimming pool, pedestrian walkways, ornamental landscaping, and other site improvements. As such, this application involves the redevelopment of a previously develo prope · , .......... J ,--- r .............. ' !!> ;~~ ~"~ ~;~;"~ -From ~e ...... · ~] ~"~ .... ; ..... h;~ has ~een and :s e~dence the Bo~d ~nclud~ ~d the Council affi~s, that no si~ific~t potions of t~s prop~ c~ fairly be ch~actefiz~ ~ in the natural state of ~e ofi~nal slope natural ~eas cr ............ =em a ........ state; a ..... vv, ~ ..... + exist Regarding the control of erosion, Applicants have engaged qualified experts in geotechnical and civil engineering, architecture, and landscape architecture in the design of this project. · · ..... ];ga '~ *h~ ~;'I, ; ....... ~ ~¢ .... ;-~ ¢-~;~-, dwelling -From the evidence, the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 21 City of Ashland,, Oregon Heatings Board concluded and the Council affirms that al! reasonable and appropriate measures have been employed and att-standards and requirements of the City of Ashland have been incorporated into Applicants' design/development plans. Based upon the submittals by applicant's experts, :It_he evidence also shows that, following the redevelopment of the property, all areas potentially subject to erosion w;.!! should be stabilized with retaining walls and .plantings such that al! potential impacts have been addressed and carefully minimized and mitigated. See, Record p. 86A and 223-248. The Heatings Board considered the potential impacts to nearby areas, and concluded that this project w;.!l-should not produce any erosion impacts beyond the boundaries of the subject property and the Council affirms. With respect to tree protection, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms: o While some trees on the property were removed without benefit of public review, applicants have proposed to replace these at a rate that is consistent with and exceeds the requirements of the ALUO m a ratio of two replacement trees for each removed tree. . Although some additional trees (within the regulated hillside area) are proposed to be removed, they tee, will be replaced at a ratio of tv;e, one replacement trees for each removed tree. 3. All trees outside the construction/development area are protected with measures required by the ALUO and which have been dealt with by Applicants' expert landscape architect. s ALUO 18.108.160 Ordinance Interpretations. A. When irt the administration of the Land' Use' Ordinance there is doubt regarding its intent, the suitability of uses not specified or the meaning of a word or phrase, the Staff Advisor may interpret the provision in writing or refer the provision to the Commission for interpretation. The Commission shall issue an interpretation in writing to resolve the doubt. Neither the Staff Advisor's interpretation nor the Commission's shall have the effect of amending the provisions of the Land Use Ordinance. Any interpretation of the Land Use Ordinance shall be based on the following considerations: Bo 1. The,' comprehensive plan; 2. The; purpose and intent of the Land Use Ordinance as applied to the particular section in question; and 3. Thc' opinion of the City Attorney. The interpretation of the Staff Advisor shall be forwarded to the Commission who shall have the authority to modify the interpretation. The interpretation of the Commission shall be forwarded to the Council who Findings of' Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 22 City of Ashland, Oregon Opponents argued the criteria in ALUO 18.62.040(1) are ambiguous and should be resolved pursuant to the provisions of ALUO 18.108.160.L'~ ~ ~vv~z ~v~z~ vvx~xx ~ ~xxv The Heatings Board concluded and the Council affirms that Criterion 1 is neither unclear nor ambiguous in ways that require the Board to interpret its provisions by relySng on the comprehensive plan or purpose statements in ALUO 18.62. The examples of potential ambiguity that this opponent cites are, "potential impacts," "nearby areas," "rrdnimized," "mitigate," "reasonable steps," "shall be considered more seriously," and "shall consider ... surrounding area." While some of-these-words and phrases (from Criterion 1-3) may not have a precise meaning when used generally, they are clear and unambiguous when used in the context of this criteria. These phrases do not require "interpretation," they only require that the Council apply the facts of this application to them. Opponents urged the Council to apply the historic preservation standards and provisions to the .application. The Council finds that the historic preservation standards are made applicable when a project is subject to site design review under ALUO 18.72. Pursuant to ALUO § 18.72.040 A. 3., the site design review criteria are not applicable to construction of a single family residence ' · .,.,., ,, +1~.-.+ 1 ...... 4~.,-,,.,., +h,~ ~ ..... 1,,~,,,.;.,,,~ P!P.,'I .... + 1., ....... I+,=A ;,-. ,.,-.-A ,:,.,- + ...... 1,,~ +1~,~ z shall have the authority to modify the interpretation. Whenever such an interpretation is of general public interest, copies of such interpretation shall be made available for public distribution. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 23 City of Ashland, Oregon . . does t~is Council. Opponents expressed ~ncem that any added fill to the prope~ could negatively impact other prope~ies, citing hilures in roadside fill during the 1997 flood. ~e expe~ testimony of Applic~ts' geotec~ical en~neer establishes ~at the subject prope~y wi!! should[ be completely stabiliz~ a~r the dwelling is complete. . removing tho 1 .... ~ ......;+h..., ...... Qpponcnts =~ removal o~ some o~ thc ]=~c trees could aWcct thc slope stability. App]Jc~ts' .cxp~ ~cotcc~Jca] cn~nc~. ~=k ~hcJn (Re.rd p. 223-248 ~d 86A) shows ~at ~o]]owJn~ cons~cfion. ~c subject propc~ wfl] bc ~mp]ctc]y stab~iz~ ~d ~c Cou.cfl ~,.cludcs ~s will bc thc c~c. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 24 City of Ashland, Oregon Based upon the ~-egeiag-findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that the application has considered the variety of potential impacts to the property and nearby areas, and that thc adverse impacts haYe-bee~-should be Criterion 2 2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that applicants have evidenced their consideration of the potential hazards (that this development might create) in the conduct of detailed geotechnical investigations. The Hearings Board also concluded and the Council affirms that Applicants have properly evidenced the implementation of mitigation measures by incorporating the geotechnical investigations into the architectural, engineering and landscape plans of record, and in the stipulations Applicants agreed to in tendering this application. At Record p. 21, opponents Colin Swales contended that the application did not show volumes of cut and fill, whether any material will be imported to or exported from the site or the nature/type of material to be used. M~. Swa!es Opponents further argued that the fill to be used for lawn will be retained only with a rubble wall, putting owners below the wall in danger of liquefaction of the fill material during flood conditions. As to these objections, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms: . There is no requirement under the ALUO to show volumes of cut and fill or whether material will be imported or exported from the site, ~"'~ *~'; ........ * ";~ ..... *~';"" *" ...... ~ his -~o;,;~. . ......... ~..~ .................... ~ ....... c~ts agent ~testified there that in the g~tec~ical repo~ by applic~ts expe~ g~tec~ical en~neer, some of the retaining Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 25 City of Ashland, Oregon walls a~re recommended to be "rockeries" (stacked rock walls with drainage provisions) and these are to face stable slopes and protect them fi.om erosion or sloughing. Applicant's agent also testified :gt_here are other rockeries intended as part of Applicants' omamental landscaping and these are effective in preventing erosion or sloughing. Other portions of the site are to be retained with engineered structural retaining walls, including the wall used to retain the lawn area. Council finds, based upon testimony of applicant, they do not intend to retain fill with a rubble wall. . As to the potential for liquefaction, there is nothing in Ashland's comprehensive plan nor the AEUO that suggests liquefaction poses any threat in Ashland a"d t~';s ....... · ~;*~ concluded and the Council affirms that based upon testimony fi.om applicant's expert geotec[mical engineer, this property is not subject to flooding as no streams exist in the area. The record shows that Applicants engaged qualified civil, structural and geoteclmical engineers, architects and landscape architects to design' this project. The Board ,concluded and the Council affirms fi.om the evidence that Applicants' consultants are all qualified experts and that this project has been designed and engineered in ways which ,ensure that all applicable requirements of the ALUO's Physical and Environmental Constraints chapter were been appropriately addressed, including the potential effects of drainage, erosion and sloughing. Therefore and based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that the application is consistent with Criterion 2. Criterion 3 That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Hearings Board shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. Conclusions of Law: The potential for adverse impacts upon the environment include erosion, rnass movement, the loss of natural areas including trees and tree canopies, and the loss of wildlife habitat. Based upon the evidence, the Heatings Board concluded and the Council affirms that Applicants'have undertaken the following reasonable steps to reduce adverse impacts upon the environment: 1. Applicants have engaged qualified experts who have offered recommendations as to the best methods to accommodate the proposed new dwelling. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 26 City of Ashland, Oregon . Applicants' design professionals have incorporated all environmental mitigation recommendations into the design and construction plans for the reconfigured subject property. 3. Applicants have considered existing development of the surrounding area and lhave taken steps to reduce any adverse impacts on these areas. 4. Applicants have agreed to stipulate to the tree mitigation plan recommend[ed by the" Ashland Tree Commission. Opponents argued the Ashland Land Use Ordinance requires replacement of cut trees in the same general vicinity from where they were cut on the property. The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that Applicants have agreed to the tree mitigation plan recommended by Ashland's Tree Commission, which requires replanting both on and off the subject property. There is nothing in the ALUO to suggest that mitigation must occur close to the same area where trees were mistakenly removed.6 Moreover, the evidence :shows that following construction, this property wi!! should be completely stabilized with vegetation, landscaping, rockeries and engineered retaining walls. See, Record p. 86A. q-~,~ u,~..4.,.~ Do~a concluded and the Council ~m.-~ tkat t~c ~j ......... rv ....... , application should be deni~ ~ in~nsistent with the su~o~ding development pursuit to Criterion 3. ~e only basis to ~nsider existing development of the su~ounding ~ea, is in the ~ntext of Criterion 3, ~d it states only that the Bo~d. must consider the s~ne ~d the 6 The record makes clear that trees which were removed on the subject property before this application was filed, were removed based upon erroneous advice from the Ashland Planning Department. The Hearings Board and this Council believe that Applicants acted in good faith based upon advice they received from the Planning Department. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 27 Ci~ of Ashland, Oregon maximum permitted development under the ALUO. The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms this requires only that, in determining the adverse environmental impacts, the Board must consider existing development in the surrounding area and, for vacant or underdeveloped properties, the Board must consider the environmental impacts as if these lands were developed to the maximum levels permitted by the ALUO. This language does not provide: a basis for the Board to consider historic or architectural impacts, nor impacts of a nature not covered by the Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance ~ ALUO 18.62. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Ac~on 2003-118 Page 28 City of Ashland, Oregon During .... v ............. ~ ~v ....... r~ .... v, of the Heatings by A In their consideration of this application, the Hearings Board and this Council have examined the surrounding area and the development that now exists in that area, and have considered the maximum development in the surrounding area which would be permitted by the ALUO. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that the application is consistent with the requirements of. Criterion 3. ALUO f8,62.080 Development Standards for Hillside Lands. Criterion 4 A, General Requirements. The following general requirements shall apply in Hillside Lands. 1. All development shall occur on lands defined as having buildable area. Slopes greater than 35% shall be considered unbuildable except as allowed below. ,Variances may be granted to this requirement only as provided in section 18.62.080.H. a. Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35% shall be considered buildable for one unit. b. Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35% cannot be subdivided or partitioned. Conclusions of Law: Based upon Record p. 253, 255, 349, and 350 (topographic maps of the property and a letter from Applicants' surveyor, Hoffbuhr & Associates., Inc.) the Heatings Board concluded and the Council affirms that the original natural avemg~slope of I this property is 28 percent. No portion of the property, in its original state, exceeded a slope of 35 percent. While this site was altered to accommodate the existing dwelling, hmdscaping and landscape features (including terracing) the Hearings Board concluded and tlae Council Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 29 City of Ashland,, Oregon affirms that: the altered grades are not an appropriate consideration in this application. Ninety degree cuts made earlier to accommodate the existing dwelling, retaining walls' and other built elements on this site proposed for redevelopment, are not a part of the natural topography and the Board concluded and the Council affirms that it would be unfair and inappropriate to measure topography by using these features. Instead, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that the original natural terrain is the appropriate measure of slope for the purpose of ascertaining compliance with the development standards for hillside lands pursuant to ALUO 18.62.080. Information supplied by Applicants' surveyor at Record p. 349 and 350 indicate that the average natural slope taken through three cross- I sections of the building site is 27 percent and that the entire building site is situated on lands with less than 35 .percent natural slope. The Heatings Board concluded and the Council affirms that this application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 4. Also see the Board's and Council's conclusions of law for Criterion 5. consistent ~ith tl~s standard is required in A~© 18.62.0~0(H)(1)(k) and the mapping At Record p. 22 oPponents Cc!in Swales argued that the submittals he-had-entered into the record befi>re the Hearings Board (Record p. 79-83) include city survey data which indicates the proposed site has slopes of greater than 35 percent and is unbuildable and that other portions of the site are available. During the Council proceeding, opponents S~, ........ -~ +~- .... '-;'~'-+; ..... -~ further argued that ordinance doesn't use the term original, · ~zz~.~ vv ~.~ ~-Z~sO~ v vj '~%~X~..~LX~ future or existing slope, it just says slope. He stated that :[:t_he surveyor iwas manipulating the slope calculation by averaging to lower the slope percentage. At The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that ~'~,,.. o~w~, r.,,r~.~j, the submittals in Record p, 79-83 include only aerial topo~aphic maps ~d cross-sections supefimpos~ upon them._ "'~;~,.-.*- .......... ,,~,~ *,*-,~-*~a "-,~j ,.,~.~ 8wa!es, _T~he Findings of' Fact and ConclUSions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 30 City of Ashland, Oregon submittals do not include actual survey data. As to Mr. Swales opponent's evidence in I Record p. 79-83 and 611-655, the Council concludes: 1. There is no dispute that this property is subject to the Hillside ordinance (ALUO 18.62.080). . In determining the slope of property for purposes of developing land under the Hillside Ordinance, the natural grade of the prOperty (i.e., the grade before manmade disturbance) must be used. This is because; hillside lands which have already been disturbed by I manmade activities often contain terraces, retaining walls, and other built site features which, if measured in their existing state, would produce grades that differ significantly from the original natural grades which the Hillside Ordinance was designed to protect. Using existing manmade features to determine avorag~slope would make application of I and compliance with the Hillside Ordinance infeasible on many properties, including the subject property. To the extent that the issue of whether to use the natural grade or existing manmade grades to determine slope under the Hillside Ordinance could be considered ambiguous, that issue would require interpretation. The purpose of the Hillside Ordinance (expressed in ALUO 18.62.080) is useful in determining whether an existing built grade or natural grade should be used. The purpose of the Hillside Ordinance expressed in that section provides in pertinent part: "It is the purpose of the Development Standards for Hillside I.ands to * * * protect the,, natural and topographic character and identity of these areas * * *" If the purpose of the Hillside Ordinance is to protect the natural and topographic character of hillside lands, it makes no sense to construe the ordinance in such a way as to require the protection of slopes which were artificially created by previous development. Therefore, the Council interprets the term natural grade to mean the topography and terrain in its natural state, before it was altered by human activity. . ....... ~- ~ .... 1 ..... +,.,;.,., ,-,,., A,-,.F,-, +^ ~,o+,-,,1-,l;,,.h ,,,h~+h~.,- +h ...... ,-+,:,fl ,-,-.,-,.,A,~,,, ,.,,,,,~ ,.,,~h,,.,-,1 ,~,,- · · · · · 1~.· · · ·1 ·· J. XJ.t ~4,vJ.· · ........""~'~"~ ~.~o.~"~ Re,rd p. 253, 255, 349 ~d. 350 ~om Applic~ts' l~d su~eyor, establish the ofi~nal na~ral ~ades b~ed upon a 1978 aerial topo~aphic map ~d on- site su~ey work, ~d me evidence of what the ac~al historical ~ound elevations ~d natural topo~aphic chmacter me or once were. ~e Bo~d found ~d Council affi~s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 31 City of Ashland, Oregon that Applicants' surveyor is a qualified expert registered in Oregon and with whom we ave--famiIia~. From the evidence, the Board believed and concluded and the Council affirms, that Mr. Huck undertook the survey on this property using sound and standard surveying practices, and his work is appropriate in form and content to enable our evaluation of this application under the approval standards and criteria. I 5.4.The architects' cross-section drawing (Record p. 649)was not submitted by Applicants to establislh the slope of the building site. Those calculations were made by surveyor Darrell Huck mad are found at Record p. 253,255, 349, and 350. 6:5.Based upon the evidence, including topographic surveys by Applicants' registered I professional land surveyor, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms Applicants' topographic survey work was undertaken in accordance with Ashland standards. The Proposed building site has an average natural slope of approximately 27 percent and no portion of the proposed building site has slopes which equal or exceed 35 percent. See Record p. 349 and 350. Therefore Council concludes that the proposed building site is buildable and in conformance with the ALUO. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 32 City of Ashland, Oregon During the Council proceedings, Opponents gwates-argued that the slope calculation needs [ to be actual slope of where the building is to go --the building footprint- and. not some larger area on the property. The Council concludes from the evidence that whether topography is measured for the entire buildable area or only the building footprint, the topography of this site is less than 35 percent and is buildable. During the Council proceeding opponents ~--81r-eet-argued that excavation for retaining walls and landscaping and paving (of the driveway to connect to Glenview Street) will occur on slopes in excess of 35 percent ~-~,,~ ~1,;1A~1 ..... ~ +~ k~. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 33 City of Ashland, Oregon "The iportion of the. street, flag drive, or driveway on land greater than 35% slope does not exceed a length of 100 feet." The above ALUO 18.62.080(A)(3)(b) permits driveways on lands greater than 35 percent slope if that portion of the driveway does not exceed a length of 100 feet. Based upon the evidence, any portion of the proposed driveway which may be located on lands greater than 35 percent slope (if any) is not longer than 100 feet. Moreover, the evidence also shows that substantial portions of the driveway now exist and the proposed driveway improvements will reduce its slope. Criterion 5 2. All newly created lots either by subdivision or partition shall contain a building envelope with a slope of 35% or less. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that Criterion 5 is inapplicable by reason that this .application does not include the creation of any new lot by subdivision or partition. While a lot boundary adjustment has been proposed, the adjustment of property boundaries is neither a subdivision nor partition because it does not result in the creation of a new land parcel. However, pursuant to Criterion 4, development on this land nmst occur on land having slopes of 35 percent or less. Further, the Council finds that there is a building envelope shown at Record p. 169 (indicated as 'setback line') and that this envelope does not include any lands in excess of 35 percent natur01 slope. At Record p. 22 Opponents_ (~,.d;,v,.,.... ~, ~ .... .v ..~o~ ~-~~'~a ~at even ~ou~ not creat~ by subdivision I or p~itio:n, the re~nfi~ration of ~e subject prope~ ~y lot bound~ adjus~ent) falls under the me~ing of Criterion 5 which r~uires a building envelope with slopes of 35 percent or less. ~e Hearings u~ .... ~,.~ ~ *~ Council finds that the orn~ mo, ~v~ .......................... ~ ..... , c~ts ~e r~uir~ under Criterion 4 to obsewe the 35 percent: slope role, and that there is a building envelope shown at Record p. 169 (indicated as 'setback line') ~d that this envelope does not include any lands of excess of 35 percent Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 34 City of Ashland, Oregon proposed building site does not violate the 35 percent standard and is buildable, whether analyzed under Criterion 4 or 5. Criterion 6 3. New streets, flag ddves, and driveways shall be constructed on lands of less than or equal to 35% slope with the following exceptions: a. The street is indicated on the City's Transportation Plan Map - Street Dedications. b. The portion of the street, flag ddve, or ddveway on land greater than 35% slope does not exceed a length of 100 feet. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that a driveway to serve the proposed dwelling already exists. The record shows that Applicants intend to re-grade and resurface the driveway, and to slightly alter its configuration, but not to .....substantially ~., ........ change +~ its ~..a. present ~..4..v . c^. location a... a.4 ' ............. q-~. . .... ...... .......... ac~.......o.. ~'~^ o ~'.. .. ..... .. ~ *~'~* ..... ^.vv,.v...~ ""];"~"*~ ..;"'~'"'~ .L ~.~.. .. '"' ....o..' ~" { At Record p. 23 Opponents Colin Swales argued that the driveway is more th~m 100 feet I long, and is to be moved from its current location and relocated to land which includes slopes of more than 35 percent, and which will produce a resulting loss of more trees. The Council finds that the standards set forth in subsection 3(b) merely regulates the portion of driveways which are on land with slopes more than 35 percent, it does not prevent building; driveways on land greater than 35 percent slope so long as that portion of the driveway does not exceed 100 feet in length. From the evidence, the Board concluded and the Council affirms that the proposed driveway now largely exists and in no case will any portion of it exceed a slope of 35 percent for more than 100 feet. See Record p. 163, 165, 191,193, and 253. As tc this r,, ......,, .... ,.,~..,.;,,,., ,.~,,,..,-~,~ .4..; ........ il! ..... 1+ ;..~. ! +1..~,. ';,-, '-'r~ ........................... W ...... .',.,.,. ~ OSt + ........... + Criterion 7 4. Geotechnical Studies. For all applications on Hillside Lands involving subdivisions or partitions, * * * Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 35 City of Ashland, Oregon Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board conCluded and the Council affirms that Criterion 7 is inapplicable by reason that this application does not involve either a subdivision or partition. However, Applicants have undertaken a detailed geotechnical study of the property. See Record p. 225-248. Criterion 8 S. Hillside (.grading and Erosion Control. All development on lands classified as hillside shall provide plans conforming with the following items: . All grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans for development on Hillside Lands shall be designed by a geotechnical expert. All cuts, grading or fills shall conform to Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. Erosion control measures on the development site shall be required to minimize the solids in runoff from disturbed areas. Conclusions of Law: The Heatings Board concluded and the Council affirms, based upon the findings of fact in Section IV, Applicants engaged a qualified geotechnical engineer who conducted a geotechnical investigation which was used by Applicants' civil engineers in the preparation of the engineering construction plans. See Record p. 225-248. The engineer's report establishes the geotechnical parameters for design with respect to grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans, which was used by Applicants' civil engineers in the preparation of the engineering construction plans. Based upon Record p. 225-248 and Record p. 191 and 192, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that the proposed cuts, grading and fills will conform to Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. The Hearings Board also concluded and the Council affirms, based upon the same evidence, that erosion control measures proposed for this development site, will minimize the solids in runoff from disturbed areas. At Reccra.. ~. 23 Opponents gwates-argued that a rubble wall proposed to retain 5 feet of additional fill will'be unsafe during floods. In' its consideration of Criterion 2, the Council found that Applicants' agent testified at Record p. 5 that Applicants have not proposed rubble retaining walls. Applicants' agent timber-testified there that in the geotechnical report by Applicants.' expert geotechnical engineer, some of the retaining walls are recommended to be "rockeries" (stacked rock walls with drainage provisions) and these are to face stable slopes and protect them from erosion or sloughing. There are other rookeries intended as part of Applicants',' ornamental landscaping and these are effective in preventing erosion or sloughing. Other portions of the site are to be retained with engineered structural retaining walls, including the wall used to retain the lawn area which will be planted on the-additional fill .~&. Swales is ccncemed ~cut. Additionally, this property is not near any stream and is not subject to flooding, and there is no substantial evidence to the contrary. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 36 City of Ashland, Oregon Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that this application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 8. . Criterion .. For development other than single family homes on individual lots, all grading, drainage irnprovements, or other land disturbances shall only occur from May 1 to October 31. Excavation shall not occur during the remaining wet months of the year. Erosion control measures shall be installed and functional by October 31. Up to 30 day modifications to the October 31 date, and 45 day modification to the May 1 date may be made by the Planning Director, based upon weather conditions and in consultation with the project geotechnical expert. The modification of dates shall be the minimum necessary, based upon evidence provided by the applicant, to accomplish the necessary project goals. Conclusions of Law: At Record p. 24 and during the public hearing, Opponents gwates I argued that Applicants have stated their intention to use the building as a corporate hospitality center and they have not complied with provisions of the ALUO that govern such use. At..,,,~,,.,.° .... a ..v. .,~'m,,, Additionally, single-family dwelling but is in fact designed for entertainment with multiple kitchens and banquet halls. Other opponents raised concem with off-street parking associated with entertaining by the applicants. .................. r.~.,~. Duhng the heahng, staff indicated that[ an review would insure that ihe house met all applicable r~uirments to constitute a sin~e fmily residence. ~e H~ngs Bo~d ~nclud~ ~d ~e Co~cil affi~s ~at ~e propos~ use is a single fmily dwelling, pe~i~ in ~e zone in whch ~s prope~ is locm~. I Opponents Swales also argued under CriteriOn 9, that Applicants' construction 'time frame was not received by the city until after the Board hearing, making the application incomplete, and arguing that it should therefore not have been accepted, r~ ...... * Swales ''~ ....... '~ .~.o~'~:°~a u~.~_~.~ u.,ov ~vw-~,.+ ~e .... .. ~.~o.~ ~e He~ngs Bored conclud~ ~d the Council affi~s 7 Other opponents also raised the issue of off-street parking. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 37 City of Ashland, Oregon that Criterion 9 is inapplicable by reason that this application concerns a single family home on an individual lot which is expressly exempt from this standard. Criterion Retentibn in natural state. On all projects on Hillside Lands involving partitions and subdivisions, and existing lots with an area greater than one-half acre, an area equal to 25% of the total project area, plus the percentage figure of the average slope of the total project area, shall be retained in a natural stat(;. Lands to be retained in a natural state shall be protected from damage through the use of temporary construction fencing or the functional equivalent. For example, on a 25,000 sq. ft. lot with an average slope of 29%, 25%+29%=54% of the total lot area shall be retained in a natural state. The retention in a natural state of areas greater than the minimum percentage required here is encouraged. Conclusions of Law: This application does not involve a partition or subdivision. A condition of approval is that the reconfigured Subject property will have less than 0.50 acre. Therefore, the Council concludes that Criterion 10 does not apply to this application. . Criterion Grading - cuts. On all cut slopes on areas classified as Hillside lands, the following standards shall apply: Cut slope angles shall be determined in relationship to the type. of materials of which they are composed. Where the soil permits, limit the total area exposed to precipitation and erosion. Steep cut slopes shall be retained with stacked rock, retaining walls, or functional equivalent to control erosion and provide slope stability when necessary. Where cut slopes are required to be laid back (1:1 or less steep), the slope shall be protected with erosion control getting or structural equivalent installed per manufacturers specifications, and revegetated. b. Exposed cut slopes, such as those for streets, ddveway accesses, or yard areas, greater than seven feet in height shall be terraced. Cut faces on a terraced section shall not exceed a maximum height of five feet. Terrace widths shall be a minimum of three feet to allow fOr the introduction of vegetation for erosion control. Total cut slopes shall not exceed a maximum vertical height of 15 feet. (See Graphic) Revegetation of cut slope terraces shall include the provision of a planting plan, introduction to topsoil where necessary, and the use of irrigation if necessary. The vegetation used for these · areas shall be native or species similar in resource value which will survive, help reduce the visual impact of the cut slope, and assist in providing long term slope stabilization. Trees, bush-type plantings and cascading vine-type plantings may be appropriate. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 38 City of Ashland, Oregon Conclusions of Law: Based upon the findings of fact in Section IV and Record p. 164, 169, 191, 192 and 196 the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that this application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 11. At Record p. 25 and under Criterion 11, Opponents gvvates-argued that removed trees must be replaced in their original locations. As earlier concluded by this Council, there is nothing in the ordinance to require removed trees to be planted in their original locations. The Board concluded and the Council affirms that the methods proposed by APplicants and endorsed by the Ashland Tree Commission to deal with the replanting of removed trees, produces similar resource value to the trees that were removed, is appropriate and is consistent with the ALUO. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 11. Criterion 5. Grading - fills. On all fill slopes on lands classified as Hillside Lands, the following standards shall apply: a. Fill slopes shall not exceed a total vertical height of 20 feet. The toe of the fill slope area not utilizing structural retaining shall be a minimum of six feet from the nearest property line.(Ord 2834 S6, 1998) b. Fill slopes shall be protected with an erosion control netting, blanket or functional equivalent. Netting or blankets shall only be used in conjunction with an organic mulch such as straw or wood fiber. The blanket must be applied so that it is in complete contact with the soil so that erosion does not occur beneath it. Erosion netting or blankets shall be securely anchored to the slope in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. Co Utilities. Whenever possible, utilities shall not be located or installed on or in fill slope, s. When determined that it necessary to install utilitieS on fill slopes, all plans shall be de:signed by a geotechnical expert. Revegetation of fill slopes shall utilize native vegetation or vegetation similar in resoume value and which will survive and stabilize the surface. Irrigation may be provided to ensure growth if necessary. Evidence shall be required indicating long-term viability of the proposed wggetation for the purposes of erosion control on disturbed areas. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms as follows: 1. Regarding Subsection (a) and based upon Record p. 164, no fill slopes exceed a total vertical height of 20 feet and no fill slope toes (not proposed to be retained by' structural means) are six or more feet from the nearest property line. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 39 City of Ashland, Oregon . , . . o Regarding Subsection (b) and based upon Record p. 190, all fill slopes will be protected with ma erosion control netting, blanket or functional equivalent as specified by Applicants' civil engineer in Record p. 190. Regarding Subsection (c) and based upon Record p. 163-222 no planned utilities are to be located or installed on or in fill slopes. Regarding Subsection (d) and based upon Record p. 195-197, the revegetation of fill slopes lhas utilized vegetation similar in resource value to that of native vegetation and which, according to Applicants' expert landscape architect, will survive and stabilize the surface. Irrigation has been provided to all fill areas (to be landscaped) which will ensure proper :growth. At Record p. 26, opponents ~argued that the proposed lawn is not "native I vegetation" nor "vegetation similar in resource value" and will not stabilize the surface in the event of flood conditions. The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that Criterion 12 requires "fill slopes" to utilize native vegetation.or vegetation of similar resource value. While the proposed lawn is to be placed on fill, it is not a "fill slope" because the lawn is to be on level terrain. The proposed lawn will simply replace an existing lawn, so it has the same resource value as the lawn it will I thc Cc'anci! c....~o ,~.~, ,...-r, ........ ;. ;.. c.~+ ~,~,.;~;... a. .... .-¢~.... As to flooding, the I Council has earlier held that this property is not near any stream or watercourse and there is no substantial evidence that this property is subject to flooding. Based 'upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Heatings Board concluded and the Council affirms that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 12. Criterion o Revegetation requirements. Where required by this chapter, all required revegetation of cut and fill slopes shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, signature of a required survey plat, or other time as determined by the hearing authority. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be substantially established within one.year of installation. Conclusions of Law: Applicants stipulate that they will install all required revegetation of cut and fill slopes in accord with the ALUO, and the same has been made a condition of this approval. During the Board proceeding, Opponents, Ce. lin Swales at Record p. 26, argued that the Board should require revegetation with native species of the tree canopy that was Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 40 City of Ashland, Oregon removed. The Board concluded and the Council affirms: 1) There is nothing in the ordinance that requires the use of native species· 2) Applicants' landscaping plans show that all cut and fill slopes will be revegetated and that compliance with Criterion 13 has beent promised, can be met and will be ensured with the city's required approval of future plans and the carrying out of conditions attached to the approval of this application. The Board also concluded and the Council affi .rms that Applicants' landscaping plans provide suitable and appropriate revegetation with landscaping materials which meet all requirements of the ALUO. Therefore, the Board concluded and the Council affirms that this application is consistent with Criterion 13. Criterion 14 7. Maintenance, Security, and Penalties for Erosion Control Measures. Maintenance. All measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control, including but not limited to vegetative cover, rock walls, and landscaping, shall be maintained in perpetuity on all areas which have been disturbed, including public rights-of-way. The applicant shall provide evidence indicating the mechanisms in place to ensure maintenance of measures. b, Security. Except for individual lots existing prior to January 1, 1998, after an Erosion Control Plan is approved by the hearing authority and prior to construction, the applicant shall provide a performance bond or other financial guarantees in the amount of 120% of the value of the erosion control measures necessary to stabilize the site. Any financial guarantee instrument proposed other than a performance bond shall be approved by the City Attorney. The financial guarantee instrument shall be in effect for a pedod of at least one year, and shall be released when the Planning Director and Public Works Director determine, jointly, that the site has been stabilized. All or a portion of the secudty retained by the City may be withheld for a pedod up to five years beyond the one year maintenance pedod if it has been determined by the City that the site has not been sufficiently stabilized against erosion. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that Criterion 14 does not operate as an approval standard, but rather,~establishes methods to ensure that erosion mitigation is guaranteed (in accordance with the ALUO) and faithfully maintained, measures to which Applicants have stipulated, and which have been incorporated as approval conditions.~.n"';~'",~...e, '~'---,~ ....... v--"~'~-.---e,,'~;" Opponents Cc!;.n ~,e .... ..,..,~.,~"~ argued at Record p. 27, that "erosion mitigation" caused by the tree removal should require replacement of trees rather an eveopment ac v. +1.,;~, ;~, ,-,,-,+ ,,.., ,-,1.,;~,,-,+;,-,,~ ~ lanf ..... ~,~,,A~,f;,-,~, ~-.-,-,,~-, th;~, ,~r-*-,'-,~,~,~' +la,,+ T, .... +h;~,,-~ +,-, .~ .... ;a.. +~.~ o~...~.~.~. ......... .~ ;.. r,.4+~..4... I ~ ~'~ ........ Criterion 14 deals with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 41 City of Ashland,, Oregon ..........,.,,.,..~...,..,~..,~A"A 1.,.,,.,j .A ol.l,,~,A,,,.,o...,~_.~., Trcc Ccrp."..issicn. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, thc Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that thc application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 14. Criterion 15 8. Site Grading. The grading of a site on Hillside Lands shall be reviewed considering the following factors: a. No terracing shall be allowed except for the purposes of developing a level building pad and for providing vehicular access to the pad. b. Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site.(Ord 2834,S2 1998) c. Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site. Building pads should be of minimum size to accommodate the structure and a reasonable amount of yard space. Pads for tennis courts, swimming pools and large lawns are discouraged. As much of the remaining lot area as possible should be kept in the natural state of the odginal slope. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms as follows: 1. Based upon Record p. 163-222, terracing has only been proposed to establish a level building pad and to provide appropriate vehicular access to the pad. 2. Based upon Record p. 225-248, the reconfigured subject property does not include any areas which are hazardous or unstable. ge Based upon Record p. 169 the building pad for this dwelling has been minimized in size to be approximately one-quarter of the dwelling's total square footage:~' As such, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that the proposed building pad is of a minimum size to accommodate the planned structure, and will produce minimal impacts ting ~r~,,, l-I ,~ ,-, ..4 .-, ,-., ,-, 1~,-,.~,-.4 ,-,1 ...... 1,,A,~.A ,-,~-.,-I ~-1-,,~ ~ ..... ;1 to the exis site conditions ............. · 4,4. At Record p. 28 Opponents argued they were Colin Swales testified thor he -;,'as unable I to find evidence that prior development on this site and at 300 Vista conformed to ALUO 18.62. He-They further argued under Criterion 15, that the stability of the steep slope has been compromised by tree removal and needs to be replanted, and: Mr. Swales also ~,.;,,,~.~,,.~,,,,,,,,,,~,,., ~,~,,,,,,,,~ h;,,,o .... ,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,*""""" that the proposed building site is or was in a natural state. Applicants argued that the existing home, terracing, pool construction, lawn, and other Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 42 City of Ashland, Oregon . apl manmade landsc ng .......... ~ ............, Ashland's Hillside Ordinance (a part of thc Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance) m ALUO 18.62.080.s As to this opponent's argument that thc steep slope should bc replaced with planting, the evidence shows that this will occur. See, Exhibit Record p. 195-197. Regarding the proposed building site being in a "natural state," tSe C~te~cn ! and 3. Tt)e ordinance r~uires (in pe~issive te~s) that, "as much of the remaining lot area as possible should be kept in the natural state of the ofi~nal slope." As previously discussed, almost the entire lot has been previously disturbed t~ough cons~ction activity. ~e ofi~nal slope was the slope of the prope~y before it was fi~ lly d 1 d o na eve ope. .......... v pncr to Bas~ upon the App]ic~ts' plus (Record p. i 63-222) ~d the exp¢~ evidence submitted by Applic~ts wi~ their application, the H¢~ngs Bo~d condud~ ~d the Council affi~s that the building pad for the dwelling has been minimized to acco~nodat¢ the s~c~r¢ propos~ ~d a · ¢ Co~cil a~s ~at even ~ou~ s~¢ is not p~ of ~s application ~d is not n¢cess~ly pro~bit~ by ~¢ ALUO. If a pool is propos~ in the ~¢ it will have to meet all applicable criteria at that time. As to the ordin~c¢ dis~uragement of l~g¢ la~s, the Bo~d ~ncluded ~d ~¢ Council a~s ~at ~¢ ]a~ sho~ in will replace ~,i~,~,~ Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 15. Criterion 16 Inspections and Final Report. Prior to the acceptance of a subdivision by the City, signature of the final survey plat on partitions, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy for individual structures, the project geotechnical expert shall provide a final report indicating that the approved grading, drainage, and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections, as per 18.62.080.A.4.j were conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project. s The Hillside Ordinance was adopted in 1997 while the dwelling and other improvements were installed in 1988. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 43 City of Ashland, Oregon Conclusions of Law: Criterion 16 does not operate as an approval standard. Instead Criterion 16 serves to put Applicants on notice that a final geotechnical report must be submitted which ensures that all approved grading, drainage and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections required by the ALUO were conducted by Applicants' geotechnical expert -- matters to which Applicants have agreed to stipulate. See, Section VI.. Criterion 17 C. Surface and Groundwater Drainage. All development on Hillside Lands shall conform to the following standards: 1. All facilities for the collection of stormwater runoff shall be required to be constructed on the site and according to the following requirements: Stormwater facilities shall include storm drain systems associated with street construction, facilities for accommodating drainage from driveways, parking areas and other impervious surfaces, and roof drainage systems. b. Stormwater facilities, when part of the overall site improvements, shall be, to the greatest extent feasible, the first improvements constructed on the development site. c. Stormwater facilities shall be designed to divert surface water away from cut faces or sloping surfaces of a fill. d. Existing natural drainage systems shall be ..utilized, as much as possible, in their natural state, recognizing the erosion potential from increased storm drainage. Flow-retarding devices, such as detention ponds and recharge berms, shall be used where practical to minimize increases in runoff volume and peak flow rate due to development. Each facility shall consider the needs for an emergency overflow system to safely carry any overflow water to an acceptable disposal point. f: Stormwater facilities shall be designed, constructed and maintained in a manner that will avoid erosion on-site and to adjacent and downstream properties. g, Alternate stormwater systems, such as dry well systems, detention ponds, and leach fields, shall be designed by a registered engineer or geotechnical expert and approved by the City's Public Works Department or City Building Official. Conclusions of Law: During the proceeding, Opponents Colin Swa!es testified at Record p. I 29 that "existing erosion" of Glenview Street makes that street insufficient for Applicants' proposed uses which they alleges include valet parking for fund-raising events, ham4wates I Opponents further a~gued that the massive cutting and terracing of Glenview will not I improve erosion that has caused damage to neighbors on Vista Street. The methods proposed by Applicants to handle storm water; is in the engineering plans. See, Record p. 192, I designed by Applicants' expert civil engineer. In rebuttal at Record p. 9-10, Applicants' agent argued, as to erosion, that the only evidence of any erosion on Glenview, is a Findings of' Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 44 City of Ashland, Oregon photograph which shows some minor erosion at the intersection of Vista Drive and Glenview Street. They further argued, and thc Council agrees, that Glcnview (including its intersection with Vista Drive) is at a higher elevation than the subject property and, therefore, Applicants' project cannot produce further adverse affect in this area. The project will not affect, positively or negatively, erosion that may occur on Glcnview at its intersection 'with Vista. Appli ts 1 ...... .~ ..^.+ .... +.~ r~ ...... + e .... ~,.o, .....+~.,.~- ,~+ +r.~.~ il! ~'~ cants' agen a so ,.~,,~,., ........j.,,~ ,.,~, .................................. . . .. . . w ~,,~ ~submitt~d that th~ d~v~way already ~xists ~d that ~y alteration of th~ d~v~way will in fact stabilize th~ site with ~ installation of en~ne~red retaining walls which haw b~en desi~ by Applic~ts~ expe~ st~c~ral en~n~er. The issue of valet parking '~ ;.~..1 .... ,'* : ........... ~ it has nothing to do with surface and groundwater drainage or any other aspect of the project controlled by Criterion 17. Based upon Record p. 192, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that storm water and erosion control has been accommodated in Applicants' plan in compliance with aP, I the requirements of Criterion 17 and the same will be ensured through the required pre- construction 'meeting, agreed to stipulations of Applicants and other conditions attached to this approval by the Board. Criterion D. Tree Conservation, Protection and Removal. All development on Hillside Lands shall conform to the following requirements: Inventory of Existing Trees. A tree survey at the same scale as the project site plan shall be prepared, which locates all trees greater than six inches d.b.h., identified by d.b.h., species, approximate extent of tree canopy. In addition, for areas proposed to be disturbed, existing tree base elevations shall be provided. Dead or diseased trees shall be identified. Groups of trees in close proximity (i.e. those within five feet of each other) may be designated as a clump of trees, with the predominant species, estimated number and average diameter indicated. All tree surveys shall have an accuracy of plus or minus two feet. The name, signature, and address of the site surveyor responsible for the accuracy of the survey shall be provided on the tree survey. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 45 City of Ashland, Oregon Portions of the lot or project area not proposed to be disturbed by development need not be included in the inventory. Conclusions of Law: The inventory of existing trees is in Record p. 197. Criterion 18 is, in fact, not an approval standard, but simply operates as a filing requirement with which Applicants have complied DU:5z · · ~11 ~VI lull {~ U i Villi VO ~li iii · Vli{Ul ] U l VYllO~ili~ ti VVO ~i~ U~Vi ~VO ~0 ~ lliill~ i Villi .......... ~ .................... removing--a ........... a--~ .... way. Reg~ ng alleged inaccuracies in the ~cc inventou (wi~ respect to trees in ~c d~t-of-way) ~e invento~ w~ b~ upon a professional l~d su~ey ~d the Council has no b~is for doubting its accuracy. During the Council proceeding, Opponent_s ~q~-gtr-~3-testified that protected street trees will be removed to accommodate construction of the driveway. On this point, the Council concludes that the trees referred to by this oppov~aCtestimony are three trees located within the public: fight-of-way of Gl·nview Street. Trees within the public right-of-way are regulated by separate ordinance and are not a part of this application. Removal of these trees will be considered at such time that Applicants seek to "~rmect +,heir prcpcsedfurther improve the existing driveway to Gl·nview Street. If these trees need to be removed, Applicants will be required to comply with all applicable regulations. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 18. ******************** Criterion ~ 9 2. Evaluation of Suitability for Conservation. All trees indicated on the inventory of existing trees shall also be identified as to their suitability for conservation. When required by the hearing authority, the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 46 City of Ashland, Oregon evaluation shall be conducted by a landscape professional. Factors included in this determination shall include: a. Tree health. Healthy trees can better withstand the dgors of development than non-vigorous trees. b. Tree Structure. Trees with severe decay or substantial defects are more likely to result in damage to people and property. c. Species. Species vary in their ability to tolerate impacts and damage to their environment. d. Potential longevity. e. Vadety. A vadety of native tree species and ages f. Size. Large trees provide a greater protection for erosion and shade than smaller trees. Conclusions of Law: During the proceeding, Opponents Colin S'::aleg objected al: Record p. 29 that this criterion was not addressed. In rebuttal, Applicants' agent (Record p. 10-11) acknowledged that the submitted application package did not address Criterion 19 with proposed conclusions of law. However, Applicants' agent argued, the record is complete with facts and evidence sufficient to demonstrate compliance. Applicants' agent further argued that part of Applicants' plans (Record p. 195-197) and the supporting text -- all prepared by Applicants' expert landscape architect (and includ.ing the matters required under Criterion 19) were all addressed. Moreover, the Hearings Board found and the Council affirms that Criterion 19 does not operate as an approval standard, but as a filing requirement and the same was met. Criterion 20 3. Tree Conservation in Project Design. Significant trees (2' d.b.h, or greater conifers and 1' d.b.h, or greater broadleaf) shall be protected and incorporated into the project design whenever possible. a. Streets, driveways, buildings, utilities, parking areas, and other site disturbances shall be located such that the maximum number of existing trees on the site are preserved, while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. b. Building envelopes shall be located and sized to preserve the maximum number of trees on site while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is lOcated in Wildfire Lands. c. Layout of the project site utility and grading plan shall avoid disturbance of tree protection areas. Conclusions of Law: During the Board proceeding, Opponent Cc!in S':,'aleg at Record p. 30, argued that there are numerous trees within the "Protected Hillside Area" on this property, that the property is within Ashland's Wildfire Lands area and is a wildfire hazard, and that previous planting on this and adjacent lots is illegal under ALUO 18.68.010. Other opponents have made similar objections. At Record p. 11-12, Applicants' agent argued, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 47 City of Ashland, Oregon based upon the plans 'at Record p. 197, that there are no significant trees to be removed within the Protected Hillside Area as a part of this project and that the maximum number of trees on the reconfigured subject property and within the constrains of this project, have been preserved. Based upon Record p. 197, the Council concludes that there are no significant trees within the regulated hillside area to be removed because of this project. Despite that subsection 'a' of Criterion 20 says, "existing trees," this language is subordinate to the prefatory language in Criterion 20, which makes clear that the provisions of Criterion 20 deal only with "significant trees"' trees 2 feet or larger d.b.h. (diameter a't breast height) or greater conifers and 1 foot d.b.h, or greater broadleaf. As to the property being.within Ashland's Wildfire Lands, the Council agrees. However, Opponent's objections under this standard suggest only that previous planting on the property was (or has grown) to be illegal under an unrelated section of the ALUO which deals with fences, walls, hedges and screen planting and are irrelevant to this application. The standards for the development of wildfire lands is governed by ALUO 18.62.090:9 ALUO 18.62.090Development Standards for Wildfire Lands. B. Requirements for construction of all structures. 1. All new construction and any construction expanding the size of an existing structure, shall have a "fuel break" as defined below. 2. A "fuel break" is defined as an area which is free of dead or dying vegetation, and has native, fast-burning species sufficiently thinned so that there is no interlocking canopy of this type of vegetation. Where necessary for erosion control or aesthetic purposes, the fuel break may be planted in slow-burning species. Establishment of a fuel break does not involve stripping the ground of all native vegetation. "Fuel Breaks" may include structures, and shall not limit distance between structures and residences beyond that required by other sections of this title. 3. Primary Fuel Break - A primary fuel break will be installed, maintained and shall extend a minimum of 30 feet, or to the property line, whichever is less, in all directions around structures, excluding fences, on the property. The goal within this area is to remove ground cover that will produce flame lengths in excess of one foot. Such a fuel break shall be increased by ten feet for each' 10% increase in slope over 10%. Adjacent property owners are encouraged to cooperate on the development of primary fuel breaks. 4. Secondary Fuel Break - A secondary fuel break will be installed, maintained and shall extend a minimum of 100 feet beyond the primary fuel break where surrounding landscape is owned and under the control of the property owner during construction. The goal of the secondary fuel break is to reduce fuels so that the overall intensity of any wildfire is reduced through fuels control. 5. All structures shall be constructed or re-roofed with Class B or better non-wood roof coverings, as determined by the Oregon Structural Specialty Code. All re-roo£mg of existing 9 ALUO 18..62.090(A) contains provisions that govern Subdivisions, Performance Standards Developments, or Partitions. This application concerns none of these. ALUO 18.62.090(B) concerns the subject application. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 48 City of Ashland, Oregon structures in the Wildfh'e I_ands area for which at least 50% of the roof'mg area requires re- roof'mg shall be done under approval of a zoning permit. No structure shall be constructed or re-roofed with wooden shingles, shakes, wood-product material or other combustible roof'mg material, as def'med in the City's building code. Fuel breaks in areas which are also Erosive or Slope Failure Lands shall be included in the erosion control measures outlined in section 18.62.080. . Implementation. For land which have been subdivided and required to comply with A. (6) above, all requirements of the Plan shall be complied with prior to the commencement of construction with combustible materials. For all other structures, the vegetation control requirements of section (B) above shall be complied with before the commencement of construction with combustible materials on the lot. (Ord. 26'57, 1991) As of November 1, 1994, existing residences in subdivisions developed outside of the Wildfire Lands Zone, but later included due to amendments to the zone boundaries shall be exempt from the requirements of this zone, with the exception of section 18..62.090 B.5. above. All new residences shall comply with all standards for new construction in section 18.62.090 B. 4. Subdivisions developed outside of the wildfire lands zone prior to November 1, 1994, but later included as part of the zone boundary amendment, shall not be required to prepare or implement Fire Prevention and Control Plans outlined in section 18.62.090 A. Conclusions of Law (Continued): The Hearings Board mncluded and the Council affirms property has been and will be developed as an urban hornesitc with irrigated ornamental landscaping.' No dead or dying vegetation exists on the property, nor is any such vegetatiordandscaping planned for the property. The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms from the evidence that the proposed landscaping for this property will not produce a fire hazard under ALUO 18.62.090..However, there are small groups of trees which technically form an "interlocking canopy." The Board concluded and the Council affirms that these trees can either be removed or can be thinned to comply with ALUO 18.62.090. As shown in the Record p. 1 ?9, roofing is to be concrete tile; no wooden roofing is proposed. As to previous plantings on the subject and adjacent lots, ALUO 18.68.010 is an ordinance which has nothing to do with a Physical and Environmental Constraints permit. If some of the vegetation that occurs on this property does not comply with the requirements of ALUO 18.68.010, this is a matter to be considered separately by the city as an cnforcerncnt action. However, the Hearings Board concluded and thc Council affirms, that plantings on thc property which may not conform to ALUO Chapter 18.62, in all likelihood, were planted before adoption of that ordinance in 1994. While Applicants should examine these plantings to bc certain they do not violate the ordinance, the same is not relevant hem. As to whether this application is consistent with the wildfire standards in ALUO 18.62.090, the Board Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 49 City of Ashland, Oregon concluded and the Council affirms that Applicants can and must comply with these standards; and the pre-construction meeting required by the ALUO, and inspections of the property which occur with the issuance of building permits, will ensure that the standards in ALUO 18.¢52.090 are properly observed. As to Opponent's gwates-ar, gument that the driveway and building footprint are located .to produc, e the most damage to tree protection areas, the Heatings Board concluded and the Council affirms that the term "tree protection areas" is not a term of art in the ALUO. The requirement under Criterion 20 is that a maximum number of existing (significant) trees are preserved. From Applicants' plans and the testimony of their agents, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that Applicants have sought to design the dwelling to preserve the significant madrone trees located east of the dwelling. Although the driveway may cause the removal of some oak trees, the record shows that these have been historically compromised by improper pruning practices and are located within the right-of-way of Glenview Street. The possible removal of some existing oaks was addressed by Ashland's Tree Conunission in its decision to permit the removal of these trees (subject to submittal of a tree removal permit) and their replacement as part of the overall mitigation strategy for the property. The replacement plan offered by Applicants has been presented and accepted, although the same leaves open the possibility of further discussions regarding where best to plant the replacement trees. Also during the public hearing and in Record p. 59-63, Opponents Applicants' removal of the "mixed oak and Madrone native forest" had the legal result of removing the legal constraints of the Hillside Ordinance which would have required their home to keep the native, forested hillside intact. z The Hearings Board finds that the tree conservation provisions of ALUO 18.62.080 are in Subsection "D" which provide: 1. An inventory of existing trees over six inches d.b.h. (diameter at breast height). 2. An evaluation Of the characteristics of inventoried trees. 3. A requirement to conserve significant trees -- conifers larger than 2 feet d.b.h, and broadleaf trees larger than 1-foot d.b.h. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 50 City of Ashland, Oregon 4. The use of certain methods to protect trees during construction. o A requirement to preserve the maximum number of trees provided that development follow the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. And when, justified by findings of fact, the Hearings Board can approve the removal of trees under one or more of five conditions. Among the five conditions are that the trees are within a building envelope, a proposed street, driveway or parking area. 6. Trees to be removed must be replaced based upon a plan. 7. Enforcement provisions. Applicants have undertaken the required inventory and assessment of trees on the property and have proposed to protect significant trees which presently exist. Within the constraints of this property and the size of the dwelling (which the Board has found should not be subject to this ordinance) and based upon Applicants' plans and the expert opinions of their landscape architect and the action of the Ashland Tree Commission, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms, for ALUO 18.62.080(D)(3): . As concluded above, all provisions of 18.62.080(D), including its subsections, refer to trees are to "significant trees." Even if Subsections 'a' and 'b' did apply to all trees (which it does not) the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that the trees which now exist on the property have been incorporated into the project design whenever possible. This is evidenced by Record p. 197 which shows the planned improvements in relation to trees already removed by mistake, additional trees proposed for removal (and approved by the Ashland Tree Commission) and other trees Applicants intend to preserve. The Council also takes note that provisions of ALUO 18.62.080(E)(2)(b) requires (for non-historic district lands) that buildings be cut into hillsides .to reduce effective visual bulk. While this property is within a municipal historic district (and therefore exempt from this as a requirement) the Board and Council are sensitive to this concept as there has been much testimony and evidence which go to the visual size and bulk of this structure. The Board found and the Council affirms that the dwelling would appear substantially larger if placed further north on the property where it could not be cut into the hillside. From the evidence, the Board concluded and the Council affirms, that the dwelling itself, as designed, will appropriately retain the slopes occurring on the site. Based upon Record p. 197 and 257, the Board concluded and the Council affirms that any trees which may be removed within the right-of-way of Glenview Street to accommodate new portions of the driveway must conform to city ordinances then in effect. The Beard also conc!u~ed and .t-1~,:, t%.-, .... ;1 ._,,c~,.,.,.,o +1.-,,-.,+ d-l., .... ~,^o~A A~.; ......... ; ........... + ....;11 · · xa a.a a_ · · ta ,L· vv · · Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 51 City of Ashland,, Oregon i 1LV UU~A~L ~.~- VULIVL I.,,g-U%~,.~. t,,~I].U k. ILV ~*,-/U ~*11VA1 rb4-LA~I,L 1A. 1~..~ 1.1LvbA.~ ~,.& ~A, IIIV VUAJ. L11V~..&J Yv 111 uv I&IUI V ~.,.A ...... 1 ........ A ,.,;+g, +1~ ........ A A~ ......... A.~o;,.~, 1. ....... ;+ ...411 ,,11 ..... 11 · · V W ~-A condition has also been added than any construction work within the Glenview Drive fi~t-of-wa~ shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Engineering Depa~ment. With respect to ALUO 18.62.080(D)(3)(a) and (b) the requirement to preserve trees is subject to the provision: "while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands." As earlier described, this property is designated as Wildfire Lands on the official maps adopted with ALUO 18.62. As earlier cited, ALUO 18.62.090 requires all new construction to have a "fuel break." That ordinance requires native trees to be sufficiently thinned or pruned to prevent an interlocking canopy. As shown in Record p. 197, the trees that were mistakenly removed had an interlocking canopy which would have may have required thinning or pruning. During the Council proceeding (Record p. 371) Opponents Stephen and Care! Jensen testified that they ar-e-is a members of the Ashland Forest Lands Commission and that the mature Madrone trees (which were removed) should not be characterized as "fast burning trees", that the possibility of a canopy fire in this grove of mature Madrone trees is remote and that Madrone trees have a favorable fire performance rating and are recommended for urban/forest interface planting. The Council concludes that this testimony bears on the amount of thinning or pruning which may have been required if the trees that were mistakenly removed were still on the property. It is therefcre . As to whether the mistaken removal of trees has a bearing on this application, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that Applicants removed the trees after consultation with +~'" full "~ .... '~ .... ~ ........ ' cc the Planning Department, which incorrectly believed at the time that removal of trees from this property was not regulated under ALUO 18.62. The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that both the Planning Department and Applicants acted in good faith, albeit in error, in ~;~_... . ~o an ................... Provisions for enforcing violations of ALUO 18.62.~80(D) ~e set forth in ALUO 18.62.080(D)(7). ~e City ofAshl~d may later dete~ine what penalties, if ~y, ~e appropriate under ~e ALUO for the trees w~ch were already removed ~om the prope~. However, ~ ~nclud~ above, ~e ~ees Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 52 City of Ashland, Oregon removed by mistake ..........~....la ..---~-J-.-._,~;~r~'~'"' have had to be thinned (--or sever-ely-pruned) to [ satisfy the requirements of ALUO 18.62.090. o As to ALUO 18.62.080(D)(3)(c), the Heatings Board concluded and the Council affirms from Record p. 190-194, that the layout of the project site utility and grading plan have avoided disturbance of areas where trees are proposed to be protected. The Council finds that all the significant trees on the property at the time Of the 'application have been preserved, and the maximum number of all trees on the reconfigured property (and within the constraints of this project and ALUO 18.62.090) have been protected and incorporated into the project design whenever possible. Therefore the Heatings Board concluded and the Council affirms that the application is consistent with Criterion 20. Criterion 21 4. Tree Protection. On all properties where trees are required to be preserved during the course of development, the developer shall follow the following tree protection standards: a, All trees designated for conservation shall be clearly marked on the project site. Prior to the start of any clearing, stripping, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation, the applicant shall install fencing at the drip line of all trees to be preserved adjacent to or in the area to be altered. Temporary fencing shall be established at the perimeter of the dripline. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits, the fences may be inspected and their location approved by the Staff Advisor. (see graphic) Construction site activities, including but not limited to parking, material storage, soil compaction and concrete washout, shall be arranged so as to prevent disturbances within tree protection areas. C. No grading, stripping, compaction, or significant change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the drip line of trees designated for conservation unless indicated on the grading plans, as approved by the City, and landscape professional. If grading or constructionqs approved within the dripline, a landscape professional may be required to be present during grading operations, and shall have authority to require protective measures to protect the roots. Changes in soil hydrology and site drainage within tree protection areas shall be minimized. Excessive site run-off shall be directed to appropriate storm drain facilities and away from trees designated for conservation. Should encroachment into a tree protection area occur which causes irreparable damage, as determined by a landscape professional, to trees, the project plan shall be revised to compensate for the loss. Under no circumstances shall the developer be relieved of responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this chapter Conclusions of Law: During the proceeding, Opponents Colin Swales at Record. p. 31 and under Criterion 21, argued that according to th6 Tree Commission, the proposal will cause undue stress to the remaining Madrone trees on 300 Vista and result in the removal of other Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 53 City of Ashland, Oregon significant trees. In rebuttal, Applicants' agent argued in Record p. 13 that the recommendation of the Tree Commission clearly inferred, by the following language, that the madrone trees will be protected if the plan prepared by Applicants' expert landscape architect is followed: "It is essential that the remaining madrones be protected. The tree protection plan as presented by the Landscape Architect should 'be fully implemented to protect these trees. And in addition a structural footing should be designed by the Architect in conjunction with the Landscape Architect that will ensure the utmost protection of the rootzone." The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that Record p. 197 contains a tree protection plan, prepared by Applicants' landscape architect, which incorporates the requirements for tree protection which are established in the above Criterion 21. Therefore, the Heatings Board concluded and the Council affirms that this application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 21. Criterion 22 Tree Removal. Development shall be designed to preserve the maximum number of trees on a site. The development shall follow the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. When justified by findings of fact, the headng authority may approve the removal of trees for one or more of the following conditions: (Ord 2834 S3, 1998) a. The tree is located within the building envelope. b. The tree is located within a proposed street, driveway, or parking area. c. The tree is located within a water, sewer, or other public utility easement. e, The tree is determined by a landscape professional to be dead or diseased, or it constitutes an unacceptable hazard to life or property when evaluated by the standards in 18.62.080.D.2. The tree is located within or adjacent to areas of cuts or fills that are deemed threatening to the life of the tree, as determined by a landscape professional.. Conclusions of Law: The Heatings Board concluded and the Council affirms that the reconfigured subject property is designated as Wildfire Lands and has several native trees, most of Which form a canopy on portions of the property. As earlier found, this project has maximized the conservation/preservation of significant trees (and, if applicable all trees on the property) pursuant to Criterion 20. Trees to be removed are those located within the building envelope and proposed driveway and other site features (as shown on Record p. 169 and 197). The Council also herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 20. In these, the Board described the various components of Ashland's tree protection program as set forth in ALUO 18.62.080(D). The requirements of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 54 City of Ashland, Oregon Criterion 22- ALUO 18.62.080(D)(5)m are to establish the circumstances under which trees can be removed. Here, the CounCil will concern itself with existing trees proposed for removal and not trees earlier removed by applicants by mistake. Criterion 22 begins by stating that, "[d]evelopment shall be designed to preserve the maximum number of trees on a site." This requirement is similar to Criterion 20 which states that "significant trees shall be protected and incorporated into the project design whenever possible. Under Criterion 20, the Board concluded that the only protected trees under that subsection are significant trees as defined. However, the Board also set forth its conclusions of law if Criterion 20 applied to all trees on the property and these findings of fact and conclusions of law relate more closely to Criterion 22 which appears to produce something of a "double test" for the removal of trees; the first test is under Criterion 20 and the second under Criterion 22. However, like Criterion 20, Criterion 22 provides that, "[t]he development shall follow the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands." Criterion 22 then goes on to list the circumstances under which trees can be I approved for removal, when justified by appropriate findings of fact. For the same reasons concluded under Criterion 20 that all existing trees have been protected and incorporated into the project design whenever possible, the Heatings Board concluded and the Council affirms that this development has been designed to preserve the maximum number of trees on the subject property. The conclusions for Criterion 20 and here rely, in part, on the fact that this land is designated as Wildfire Lands and made subject to ALUO 18.62.090, which requires the establishment and maintenance of a fuel break and the same requires tree removal or thinning to prevent an interlocking canopy of native trees. The Hearings Board further concluded and the Council affirms that the findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 20, justify the approval by this Council for the removal of trees (pursuant to Criterion 22 subsections 'a' and 'b') which are located either within the .building envelope (shown at Record p. 169 as the "setback line") for the proposed: development (including the proposed swimming pool) or within the proposed driveway/parking area shown on applicants plans. See Exhibit Record p. 196. · During the proceeding, Opponents Cc!~,n Swales at Record p. 31, testified under Criterion 22 [' that Applicants' landscape architect had indicated that trees were removed in anticipation of ................... t if the trees had not been erroneously the adoption of the tree ordinance and o+ncc n~.,~;,+,~a removed, this development would have to be denied. In Record p. 13, irr-ele'~a~.4° A,?, +'" ,h; ........ +, .... +,~,.,+;,-.,., +g,.,f ti.,,?, ,-,+,-,~¢ ;.A;,-,.+,:,A +1., .... 1;,.,-,+;,,-,,,., ~0 The tree ordinance referred to here is in ALUO 18.61 and not the tree protection requirements in ALUO 18.62.080(D). Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 55 City of Ashland, Oregon w:c~ =c = ma~c~ cf !aw. ~c Bo~d conciud~ ~d thc Council affi~s thc~c thc ALUO that prevents thc removal of trees when ncccssa~ to acco~odatc a homcsitc dfivcwa~ or to dca] with thc ~c] brc~ ~cqukcmcnts for Wildfire L~ds p~ovid~ sufficient findings ~d evidence arc supplied to~justi~ thc trcc removals. Thc Hc~n~s Bo~d Concluded ~d thc Council affi~s that removal have been appropriately jusfifi~ here ~d u~dc~ Criterion ~0 with appropriate facts ~d evidence. Applic~ts have obsc~ .all r~uircmcnts fo~ ~cc prcsc~ation and protection; trees that ~c proposed to bc pc~issib]~ rcmov~ pursuit to rcco~cndafions by thc Tree Co~ission, ~c being rcplac~ in ~cmcr numbers ~oth on ~d off site) th~ is requir~ bY the ALUO. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 22. Criterion 23 . Tree Replacement. Trees approved for removal, with the exception of trees removed because they were determined to be diseased, dead, or a hazard, shall be replaced in compliance with the following standards: a. Replacement trees shall be indicated on a tree replanting plan. The replanting plan shall include all locations for replacement trees, and shall also indicate tree planting details.(Ord 2834 84, 1998) Replacement trees shall be planted such that the trees will in time result in canopy equal to or greater than the tree canopy present pdor to development of the property. The canopy shall be designed to mitigate of the impact of paved and developed areas, reduce surface erosion and increase slope stability. Replacement tree locations shall consider impact on the wildfire prevention and control plan. The headng authority shall have the discretion to adjust the proposed replacement tree canopy based upon site-specific evidence and testimony. Maintenance of replacement trees shall be the responsibility of the property owner. Required replacement trees shall be continuously maintained in a healthy manner. Trees that die within the first five years after initial planting must be replaced in kind, after which a new five year replacement pedod shall begin. Replanting must occur within 30 days of notification unless otherwise noted. (Ord 2834 S5, 1998) Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms as follows: 1. The proposed replacement trees to be planted on the property are 'shown on Record p. 196. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 56 City of Ashland, Oregon .. . . . As evidenced by Record p. 196, the proposed replacement trees will, in time, result in canopy greater than the tree canopy of the existing trees to be removed. However, the trees to be replanted on the subject property are not the only trees proposed by Applicants to mitigate the removal of trees. Applicants have stipulated, and the Council has required as a condition of approval, that Applicants will provide ten trees having a caliper not less than 2 inches to be planted in a public location to be determined by the Ashland Tree Commission. These mitigation measures ensure that the tree canopy once provided by existing trees on the property, will be replaced. Applicants have stipulated, and the Council has required as a condition of approval, that all replacement trees will be continuously maintained in a healthy manner as part of the overall landscape. During the proceeding, Opponents Cc!in Swales, at Record p. 32 and under Criterion 23 argued, that Applicants' landscape architect stated that proposed use of the property precludes on-site mitigation and during the public heating argued that the trees should be replaced from the locations they were removed. Applicants argued in Record p. 13 that the evidence shows that appropriate tree mitigation is being accommodated on-site, additional off-site tree mitigation has been agreed to and Ashland's Tree Commission has accepted the mitigation plan proposed by Applicants. Nothing in the ALUO requires trees to be replaced on the same property from which the original trees were removed or at their original locations. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 23. Criterion 24 7. Enforcement a. All tree removal shall be done in accord with the approved tree removal and replacement plan. No trees designated for conservation shall be removed without pdor approval of the City of Ashland. Should the developer or developer's agent remove or destroy any tree that has been designated for conservation, the developer may be fined up to three times the current appraised value of the replacement trees and cost of replacement or up to 'three times the. current market value, as established by a professional arbodst, whichever is greater. Should the developer or developer's agent damage any tree that has been designated for protection and conservation, the developer shall be penalized $50.00 per scar. 'If necessary, a professional arbodst's report, prepared at the developer's expense, may be required to determine Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 57 City of Ashland, Oregon the extent of the damage. Should the damage result in loss of appraised value greater than determined above, the higher of the two values shall be used. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that Criterion 24 does not operate as an approval standard, but instead functions to put property owners on notice of the city's requirements for the removal of or damage to replacement trees. During the proceeding,, there, was much testimony and evidence on the matter of trees mistakenly removed earlier by Applicants. Colin Swa!es Opponents ar .gued at Record p. 32 thatI Applicants did not appraise the value of the mistakenly removed trees and the city has not determined culpability or penalties. Also during the public hearing, r~._.. .... J,--- u^u~.,....,.~j opponents I argued the project should be denied and Applicants should be required to resubmit a new proposal and this procedure would allow the city's legal counsel to consider what fines should be imposed for the removal of the trees and what mitigation should be required. The Heatings Board concluded and the Council affirms that Criterion 24 provides that no designated trees can be removed without prior approval of the City of Ashland. Made clear by the testimony of Ashland Planning Department representative, Mark Knox, during the public heating (and at Record p. 256, a narrative by Applicants' landscape architect) is that he had made an honest mistake in advising Applicants that the trees could be removed. .......... ] by +he ity Moreover, Criterion 24 does not require the city to appraise the value of removed trees nor assess fines, it only provides that fines may be levied. To date, the city has not elected to impose fines and appropriate mitigation for the removed trees has been recommended by Ashland's Tree Commission and Applicants have agreed to stipulate to these I recommendations and the same have been made conditions of this approval. Criterion 25 E. Building Location and Design Standards. All buildings and buildable areas proposed for Hillside Lands shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following standards * * * Conclusions of Law: nm;,., r~ ...... + r~..,;.. TT IAAAW ~AA~AAL ~W AAA V A d'~4ng pro ' ' ,~. ~.~.~/~° n~n/m ~.~,~"~"' ~e He~ngs Bo~d ~nclud~ ~d the Co~cil affi~s~. the case of Subsection 1 applies; only t~ "newly .eat~ lots, either by subdivision or p~ition,' ~d, in the case of Subsection 2, doe~ not apply to l~ds within ~e desi~ated Historic District. Criterion 25 is inapplicable by reason ~at the subject prope~y is not a new lot creat~ by either subdivision or p~ition ~d because the subject prope~y is wi~in a Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 58 City of Ashland, Oregon Criterion 26 F. All structures on Hillside Lands shall have foundations which have been designed by an engineer o'r architect with demonstrable geotechnical design experience. A designer, as defined, shall not complete working drawings without having foundations designed by an engineer. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings BOard concluded and the Council affirms that the foundation for this dwelling was designed by Applicants' expert structural engineer, based upon the recommendations of Applicants' expert geotechnical engineer in compliance with Criterion 26. Criterion 27 G. All newly created lots or lots modified by a lot line adjustment must include a building envelope on all lots that contains a buildable area less than 35% slope of sufficient size to accommodate the uses permitted in the underlying zone, unless the division or lot line adjustment is for open space or conservation purposes. Conclusions of Law: The Council incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 4. Based upon these, the findings of fact in Section IV and Record p. 253 and 255, no portion of the reconfigured property or land within the building envelope (shown at Record p. 169 as the (setback line") exceeds a slope of 35 percent. Therefore, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that this application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 27. r~ ...... + c,..~;.. ~ .... ~ .~ o .... ~. ~ Lam Swales also Opponents argued at Record p. 33 and during the public hearing, that the submitted topographic map (the Hearings Board believes Mr. Swales is referring to Record p. 253) fails to give a complete survey of the original slope of the southwest comer of the lot. r~...._ ,u;~,,.... v.'.-~,'"';"* ,q'h,.._._.. Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that no detailed survey of this portion of thc site is necessary, as it includes only land devoted to the existing garage and driveway, both elements that are intended to remain on the property after construction of · ' "I'%;o .-.,~.q-;^., ^,c this project ...... .~,, .~., ;...h..~ ,u~ ,~..;~,;.. dwelling r..~ Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 59 City of Ashland, Oregon The evidence of Applicants' surveyor is in the record at pages 52, 55, 349, and 350. The testimony of Applicants' surveyor is also found at pages 14 and 15 of the Hearings .Board Transcript, and pages 74 and 75 of the City Council Hearing Transcript. This evidence and testimony establish that the average natural slope of the ground through the proposed building site is approximately 27-28 percent. Record p. 253, 349, and 350 are survey maps showing the historic natural slopes within the building site area. The building envelope is shown on Record p. 169 and the same is called the "setback line" on that plan. The evidence shows that no part of the building envelope has slopes greater than 35 percent. The Board concluded and the Council affirms that the proposed dwelling can be accommodated within the building envelope in accord With the ALUO. The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that the methods used by Applicants' registered surveyor was were done in accordance with the standard practices of professional land surveyors, and the content of the topographic survey work was done in accordance with the ALUO r~ ...... · S,;;ales ,..;+ ....... ;,~ .... ,. ,-,~11 ;~+ ...... '~.'~h..l~'~ +T., .... 4:'~,,,~;,-~.~,1 .... .,-1. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board. concluded and the Council affirms that the application is consistent in all respects, with the requirements of Criterion 27. TREE PRESERVATION & PROTECTION ALUO 18.61.200 Tree Protection Tree Protection as required by this section is applicable to any planning action or building permit. Criterion 28 A. Tree Protection Plan Required. A Tree Protection Plan approved by the Staff Advisor shall be required prior to conducting any development activities including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation, or demolition work on a property or site, which requires a planning action or building permit. . In order to obtain approval of a Tree Protection Plan; an applicant shall submit a plan to the City, which cleady depicts all trees to be preserved and/or removed on the site. The plan must be drawn to scale and include the following: a. Location, species, and diameter of each tree on site and within 15 feet of the site; Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 60 City of Ashland, Oregon 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 pi'oposed and existing structures; ' ' f. Grade change or cut and fill during or after construction; g. Existing and proposed impervious surfaces; h. Identification of a contact person and/or arbodst who will be responsible for implementing and maintaining the approved tree protection plan; and i. Location and type of tree protection measures to be installed per AMC 18.61.230. 3. For development requiring a planning action, the Tree Preservation Plan shall include an inventory of all trees on site, their health or hazard condition, and recommendations for treatment for each tree. Conclusions of Law: Criterion 28 does not function as an approval standard, but instead enumerates the requirements for tree inventory and protection plan which have been submitted with this application pursuant to this standard 'and similar standards in ALUO 18.62.080(D). However, the Council herein incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for CriteriOn 4. During the proceeding, Oppone.nts, Col'in S'::a!eg at Record p. 34 and under Criterion 28~ argued that landscape architect's drawings show contour lines at variance with the existing topography as shown on the city's GIS map which Mr. S';;a!eg opponents submitted during the public heating (Record p. 79). In rebuttal, Applicants' agents explained, and the Board and Council agree, that Applicants' landscape architect used the contour lines which were established by Applicants' land surveyor and which, as earlier described, more accurately depict actual slope on the property than those shown on Ashland's GIS map which are derived solely by aerial topographic mapping. The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that this application was submitted with information and evidence which satisfies the requirements of Criterion 28. B. Criterion 29 Tree Protection Measures Required. 1. Except as otherwise determined by the Staff Advisor, all required tree protection measures set forth in this section shall be instituted pdor to any development activities, including, but not limited to clearing, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 61 City of Ashland, Oregon grading, excavation or demolition 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 ddpline, whichever is greater, and at the boundary of any open space tracts, dpadan areas, or conservation easements that abut the parcel being developed. 3. Th~ fencing shall be flush with the initial U'~disturbed 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 pdor 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 debds, or m-off. 7. No excavation, trenching, grading, root pruning or other.activity shall occur within the tree protection zone unless approved by the Staff Advisor. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that the various protection measures set forth in Criterion 29 are not approval standards, but standards to be observed during construction to ensure that trees to be preserved are adequately protected. These measures have been incorporated into Applicants' plans and the same are evidenced by Record p. 197. r~...4..,, .~, ....... .~;.... r,..1;.. Swales [,,AA ..... ,4 ,~.-,..1; ..... A,~.. r~;+,~.4,,-,,,, 01'~ +1~,,+ +1., ....... ~,-1 ,4 .... 11;~.,-~ ~.,,-, · , ^~.:~.+:^,. ~,~..~ ,^ 3.~ ~....~1 ..... · *~'~ Cotm¢il herewith incorporates its findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 21, which demonstrates that adequate measures have been employed to protect the ~l~e-si~ificant trees. Moreover, ^pplicants are required by the ALUO (and herewith adopted approval conditions) to have a pre-construction meeting with city officials to go over 'the terms of construction. These steps ensure compliance with Criterion 29 and other substantive requirements of the ALUO. nma~ h ,-,.-lG ,,, ,l +, ..... ,-1 +1,,,~ 1~,-,,~,.,4 .... h,,-1,~,4 ,~,,,,4 *h,~ P ..... ;1 ,,m..~,o +h-+ ,... ;....., The Board concluded and the Council affirms that this application is consistent with the requir~,ments of Criterion ~9. Criterion 30 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 62 City of Ashland, Oregon Co Inspection. The applicant shall not proceed with any construction activity, except installation of erosion control measures, until the City has inspected and approved the installation of the required tree protection measures and a building and/or grading permit has been issued by the City. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that like Criterion 29, Criterion 30 does not operate as an approval standard, but instead simply states as law, that no applicant may proceed with construction .prior to approval of tree. protection measures and issuance of a building and/or grading permit. To this, Applicants stipulate and the Council has imposed the same as a condltion of this approval, r~.~vv,,,.,~..~ Cc!;.n ~, ~ .... ,,,,,,~o~"° at ~,~h~ upon pea:ss:on' ' g:ven' by the.. .° OBJECTIONS DEEMED TO BE UNRELATED TO THE RELEVANT SUBSTANTIVE APPROVAL CRITERIA Objection: Colin Swales .at Record p. 3640 argued that Applicants did not address the purpose statement in ALUO 18.62.080. Additionally, the last six pages of this opponent's submittal addresses interpretation of the ALUO generally. These appear to be arguments which urge the Council: 1. Pursuant to ALUO 18.108.160, to use the comprehensive plan to interpret ambiguous provisions of the ALUO. . To consider numerous passages, goals and policies of the comprehensive plan to support Opponent's contentions that the Board and Council should consider adverse impacts to Ashland's viewshed, that trees, vegetation and historic resources are important assets, and that the purpose statements for ALUO Chapter 18.62 and 18.62.080 should operate as approval standards. In support of these arguments, Swales submitted excerpts from the city's comprehensive plan, its goals and policies, and various provisions of the ALUO, including the "purpose and intent" provisions of the Physical and Environmental Constraints Chapter (18.62.010) and the "purpose" statement from the Development Standards for Hillside Lands (18.62.080). During the Council proceeding Opponent George Kramer testified that the Hearings Board findings, when determining the adverse environmental impacts, must consider existing development in the surrounding area. Opponent Kramer further contends that the goal and intent of the Hillside Ordinance was to protect Ashland's viewshed. As stated in the purpose Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 63 City of Ashland, Oregon statement, "it is the intent of the development standards to encourage a sensitive form of development and to allow for a reasonable 'use that complements the natural and visual character of the city". According to Mr. Kramer natural and visual are two separate areas of concem and should be given equal weight. · . Conclusions of Law: ~q]'.e ~,-,,,..,4 .... h,,4,:,.4 ,...,.4 +1.,,:. r', ..... ;1 org.-~,. +go+ /'~ ...... + ~ ....1,,.,-., · ...1....;++,:,A ,:...,~.~.-..+,. g..-..-.. +1.,,:. ..;+.,' ....... h,:,.o;.,,:. ..1,... ;+o ,...-.,~1o ~.,-.1;.-.; .... A .l~.~ .... It is well settled Oregon law, that generally worded statements of purpose and intent that express the motivation for adopting a regulation, or the general goals or policies that the local government hopes to achieve by adopting the regulation, do not operate as apprOval criteria. Bennett v. City of Dallas, 17 Or. LUBA 450, 456, aff'd 96 Or. App. 645 (1989); Stotter v. City of Eugene, 18 Or. LUBA 135, 157 (1989); Becky. City of Tillamook, 20 Or. LUBA 178 (1990), aff'd 105 Or. App. 276 (1991), reversed on other grounds 313 Or. 148 (1992). While the stated purpose and intent of an ordinance may assist in interpreting ambiguous provisions in the approval criteria, they do not operate as independent approval standards unless their express language indicates they are to be used as independent criteria. ~- None of the policies, goals or purpose and intent statements cited by OpPonents purport to apply independent approval standards. They are all generally worded expressions of the City's motivation for adopting the regulations, or of the overall goals which the City hoped to achieve. They do not impose any affirmative obligations, or set forth any identifiable standards that could act as criteria for approval. Freeland v. City of Bend, (LUBA No. 2003- 59, August 5, 2003). When a purpose statement reflects only general policy and does not act as an independent approval standard, the City should ignore evidence that the proposal before it does not comply with that purpose statement. Beck, 20 Or. LUBA 178; Moorefield v. City of Corvallis, 18 Or. LUBA 95, 119 (1989). Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 64 City of Ashland, Oregon The only approval criteria relevant to this application are found in ALUO 18.62.040(I) (1), (2) subsections VT z zzz~ ~z~ z z z z ~ ~1. ~ zvzz v~/cv~ Applicants contend and the Council agrees, that when the approval criteria for this application are read in context, there is no ambiguity. Applicants' experts have testified that, with application of sound engineering standards and adherence to the conditions of approval, al! potential adverse impacts or hazards on both the subject property and in all nearby areas will be etimiaate&..minimized or mitigated. There will be no adverse impacts to the environment either on or off the site. .. ,,; .... .4,, ......... *" Opp Appli ........... o ......... , onents t'~"l;" C .... 1~ mntends c~ts have failed to address fill relev~t approval cfit~a. Specifically, !he~ ~ntends c~ain words ~d p~es in ALUO 18.62.~0(I) ~e, or mi~t be, mbi~ous. ~ey ~en ~~ ~m, ~nsistent wi~ ALUO 18.108.160, the Council should resolve such mbi~ities by refe~ng to v~ous sections of the Comprehensive PI~ ~ well ~ ~e P~ose Statment of Chapter 18.62, Physical and Environmental Co~traints Review. The Council finds that the phrases "potential impacts," "potential hazards," and "adverse impacts on the environment" as used in ALUO 18.62.040(1) are not ambiguous. ALUO Chapter 18.62 is a comprehensive chapter of the ordinance requiring Applicants~ for certain uses: to address specified natural features and conditions occurring upon land and any impacts the development may have on the environment. The requirements of Chapter 18.62 are exacting and exhaustive, and the Council finds no support for the suggestion that the lengthy list of features, conditions and environmental-~facts is incomplete, ambiguous, or requiring construction in any way. Assuming, without deciding, the words and phrases cited *'-',.j ,....~- Swales are ambiguous and require construction by resort to the Comprehensive Plan or other ordinance provisions, Mr. Swales Sas Opponents have not cited any provision of the Comprehensive Plan with which ALUO 1'8.62 is in conflict, nor has-he-have they directed the Council to any provisions of the Comprehensive Plan or any purpose .statements which, either because of the text or context, indicate they were intended to function as approval criteria for Physical and Environmental Constraints Review. Determining whether particular plan provisions or purpose statements are approval criteria applicable to land use permit decisions depends upon the language and context of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 65 City of Ashland,, Oregon particular plan provisions or purpose statements, and their relationship to particular land use regulations. It is not sufficient for opponents of a land use permit to quote random language from the Comprehensive Plan or purpose statements in the ordinance, and then argue that applicants for a land use permit must construct arguments showing the intent of the language is met by a particular application. Rather, it must appear from relevant plan and ordinance language that the city intended something more in the way of review in this case, beyond addressing the provisions of Chapter 18.62--is necessary in order to obtain a land use.permit. ,,~_, +,,;,.,.o ..... -~-o-~, .,..naM. oe .... ,, ~.~o~ Opponents ~ntends Goal 9 of the Comprehensive Plan element entitl~ Urban Forest~ should be ~nsidered ~ ~ approval criterion. ~They also rel~ on PI~ l~age in the element dealing with Historic Sites and St~ctures. Gza! 9 zf the The Council finds the language of Urban Forestry Goal 9 adds nothing to the specific requirements contained in ALUO 18.62. Moreover, rather than explaining any ambiguity in the Physical and Environmental Constraints Review process, resorting to the Plan language would actually cloud the process. ~'....... .;~' '~t~,t'Wt'n ~'1~ ...... ~';t'~'l,~ &~I;F~'~' '; ..... ~' ~'~.. (~{l~;t~r'~ I ~AU~ U ~AAU ~AAA~AWAAAWAA~ * The same is true with respect to Plan language in the Historic Sites and Structures element. The Council finds the provisions cited by Mr. Swales opponents do not clarify any ambiguity in ALUO 18.62, but simply reflect the aspirations of the City to identify and protect important historic sites and structures. In this case, the manner in which that protection is afforded is through application of the specific review requirements of ALUO 18.62- not by attempting to transpose general Plan language into approval criteria. Put differently, the Council finds ALUO Chapter 18.62 contains the specific procedures and development standards necessary to assist in the imPlementation of both the Urban Forestry and Historic '~'~'Sites and Structures elements of the Comprehensive Plan. No responsive findings--are required when plan goals and policies are expressed not as regulatory requirements, but as aspirational objectives. Ellison v. Clackamas County, 28 Or LUBA 521, 525 (1995); Wissusik v. Yamhill County, 20 Or LUBA 246, 254-55 (1990); McCoy v. Tillamook County, 14 Or LUBA 108, 118 (1985). The Board concluded and the Council affirms that Applicants, having addressed the specific requirements of ALUO 18.62, have complied with all relevant approval criteria. Objection: During the public hearing, Opponent Colin Swales testified regarding the removal of trees that are within the public right-of-way, stating: "which is also on hillside constrained lands which seems to me should also be subject to a the hillside constraints permit seeing as 25 feet of this land which is going to be developed actually sits in a public fight of way." Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 66 City of Ashland, Oregon Conclusions of Law: The Council finds it difficult to understand this objection, but believes that Mr. Swales is arguing that the removal of trees within the public right-of-way should not be exempt from the standards of ALUO 18.62.080(D) which govern tree conservation and removal. The Board concluded and the Council affirms that this application seeks approval for the removal of trees, including those within the public fight-of-way of Glenview Street, pti ly and the same were addressed, appro ate above. ~ - al ~c · ............. * *~ ALUO Objection: During the public hearing, Opponents.~...,...~^':" ~, e,,,,..,,,,'~ testified that paving surrounding the home which is on the National Registry, will be replaced with non-historic type paving in order to comply with the lot coverage requirements.Il M'~g~s-0pponents further argued that the removal of some impermeable paving which surrounds the historic home to make the lot coverage requirement, is a major modification to the National Registry Historic property. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms neither objection goes to any of the relevant substantive approval criteria. Objection: During the public hearing and in email correspondence with city officials, Opp ~.1;. (2 .... 1 ....A D .... LI.~ll~., ~-^+h argued appli pl onents ................ that "the cation was incom ete due to unfair restrictions made on the public obtaining copies of submittal." Conclusions of Law: Applicants have acknowledged that their architect placed copyright protections on the plans submitted with this application. TheSe plans were detailed working drawings, not simply design drawings, and Applicants' agent stated it was customary for architects to copyright working drawings. When opponents asked for ccopies of the plans, the Planning Department was advised by the city attomey that federal copyright law"*. ..... I takes precedent over ORS 197.763, and the Planning Department was advised not to make I copies for opponents. Upon being notified of this issue, Applicants' attorney took immediate steps to have the copyright protection lifted so that all opponents could obtain copies of the plans. Applicants' architect authorized release of the plans on November 3, 2003 (nine days prior to the initial public hearing). See, Record p. 116. The delay of a few short days did not prejudice the substantial rights of opponents because: (i) the plans were always available for inspection at city offices, even during the period that no copies were provided; (ii) the Hearings Board afforded opponents an additional seven (7) days after close of public Il Paving proposed by applicants are paver blocks, the centers of which are hollow to aCcommodate ground cover and provide permeability for drainage. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 67 City of Ashland, Oregon testimony to submit any new evidence and argument into the record; and (iii) the City Council hearing in this matter was held de novo, and opponents were allowed to submit new evidence into the record for the Council to consider. Opponents therefore had a full five months to review copies of the plans in their possession prior to the Council hearing. . . Objection: During the proceeding George Kramer at Record p. 69 argued that the proposal exploits Ashland's regulations by seeking the maximum levels possible under the various applicable standards. COnclusions of Law: ^,'"';~""* ....... a ;. ~.~.,,**-1 ,u., ,u;o a-Acity's standards cannot be exploited by observing them. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action'2003-118 Page 68 City of Ashland, Oregon Objection: During the proceeding George Kramer at Record p. 70 argued that the application should be denied because it__does not provide any community benefit whatsoever and Applicants should not be given beneficial interpretation of the ordinance unless they can prove the same is appropriate. Conclusions of Law: The-Hearings Board .concluded .and the Council affirms that. community benefit is not an approval standard for the application and permits being sought. The Board also concluded and the Council affirms that appropriateness, as urged by this opponent, should be given weight only in context of the rules of construction which the Council believes it has observed in its consideration of this application. Objection: During the proceeding r,_,o,~,~,o,~ - ...... rOpponents, at Record p. 70, argued that I rejecting this application is consistent with the community's best interest and can be accomplished under the Hillside Ordinance as in effect at the time of submittal. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that a determination of what is in the community's best interest is a matter of opinion and not a relevant substantive approval criterion. Whether this application "might" be denied under the ^shland's Hillside Ordinance is irrelevant if the application, with the imposition of conditions, "can" be approved. The Council is required by law to approve an application if it can, thorough the imposition of conditions, determine that the applicable criteria has been met. The Council has found that if it imposes reasonable conditions, along with the stipulations of the Applicants, this application can and does meet all of Ashland's applicable standards and criteria, and should therefore be approved. Objection: During the proceeding, ma-opponent Swales submitted an informational article (Record p. 57).. Findings ofF act and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 69 City of Ashland, Oregon Conclusions of Law: The article is not an objection per se, but an account of a landslide event called, "The Aberfan Disaster" that occurred in South Wales in 1966. This event concerned a landslide of mining waste in South Wales. The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that this piece of evidence has no relevance to this application. Objection: During the proceeding, an opponent submitted a photo (Record p. 56) taken from Ashland downtown towards the subject property. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that this photograph is also not an objection per se, but simply a photo that allegedly depicts the proposed dwelling. The Board concluded and the Council affirms that this photograph appears as an attempt to document historic/architectural issues and the same are not relevant. Objection: During the proceeding, an opponent placed into evidence, email correspondence from one of the Applicants (Karen DeBoer) to "pearcer~ashland.or.us" and the same is at Record p. 68. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that this is also not an objection per se, but an email communication from Karen DeBoer that expresses her fondness of trees and affront at being told what she can and cannot do with trees in her own garden. The Council finds and the Council affirms that this email correspondence exists as an honest expression of Applicant Karen DeBoer's opinions at that time and is not relevant to this application. Objection: During the proceeding, an opponent placed into evidence at Record p. 52, 'a letter dated November 12, 1997 fi'om Robert Taber to then Mayor Golden and City Council. Conclusions of Law: The Council again finds that this is not an objection per se, but a 1997 letter that supported~adoption of Ashland's Hillside Ordinance. The Board concluded and the Council affirms that the letter is irrelevant to this application. Objection: During the proceeding, an opponent placed into evidence at Record p. 49 and 50, a timeline containing the various meetings that led to adoption of Ashland's Hillside Ordinance and a Table of Contents which appears to be a list of exhibits for 1997 Hillside Ordinance adoption. During the Council proceeding, Opponent Swales placed into evidence (Record Pages 407 - 580 and 700-723) information concerning the work of the city's Ad Hoc Hillside Ordinance Committee and minutes from City Council of the April 6, 2004 City Council public heating. While not stated, this evidence is ostensibly to show that the application of the hillside standards urged by Applicants are at odds with the legislative history of the Hillside Ordinance. The Board concluded and the Council affirms that legislative history is only useful in interpreting provisions of the ordinance that are unclear or Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 70 City of Ashland, Oregon ambiguous. Nowhere does this opponent explain how the legislative history submitted is useful in interpreting ambiguous passages of the ordinance and the Council concludes that the ordinance is not ambiguous in areas other than those areas where the Council has provided its interpretation in these findings. In those instances, the Council concludes that the legislative history is not useful in clarifying the ambiguous passages. Conclusions of Law: The Council again finds these not to be objection per se, but public information i~egarding the consideration and ultimate adoption Ashland's Hlllside Ordinance -- ALUO 18.62.080. The Board concluded and the Council affirms that these are irrelevant to this application. Objection: At Record p. 365, Opponent Ken Lindsay contends the proposed house should be built on property of at least three or four acres to be landscaped aesthetically in proper proportion to the size of the structures. Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that this is not an objection per se, but a statement of opinion that does not go to any of' the approval criteria. Objection: At Record p. 366, Opponent Mary Rexford contends the size of the home is out of keeping with the neighborhood and hillside development. Conclusions of Law: As to whether this home is "in keeping" with the neighborhood, the Council concludes that the same is not an approval standard. Regarding whether the home is "in keeping" with hillside development, the Council concludes that opponents are required to express their objections with sufficient clarity to afford the Council an opportunity to respond; this objection is so general as not to afford the Council an opportunity to properly respond and, as such, it is irrelevant. Objection: ',At Record p. 367, opponent Lynn Blanche argued that the creation of a compound through the acquisition of adjacent properties goes against the tree nature and valuable characteristics of the Historic District. The ordinance limiting the size of buildings in the Historic District supports the true nature of the area and the Council should remember the reason for the building ordinance. Conclusions of Law: As earlier, the Council concludes that provisions of the ALUO which deal. with the historic area and historic properties, and hhe city's ordinance which governs home size do not apply to this application. Objections: During the Council proceeding, several opponents argued that the size and other aspects of the proposed dwelling would produce various impacts of a nature that do not go to Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 71 City of Ashland, Oregon the approval criteria for dwellings under Ashland's Hillside Ordinance. These objections include: At Record p. 368, opponent Ann M. Magill argues that a structure of this size violates the housing standards of the neighborhood and establishes a precedent that continues to place the community out of reach to families. . .- · .. At Record p. 381, opponen~ Susan Shaffer argues that every new structure, especially those built by people with the money to do it right, should conform to the prevailing aesthetics of the town. The proposed villa is not going to be remote; rather it is very near the center of town, and in fact will loom over it and affect everyone. At Record p. 387, opponent Su R011e opposes the'demolition of the existing residence and contends that the l 1,000 square foot home seems out of place in an older neighborhood where the average size is closer to 2,500 square feet. At Record p. 581, opponent Paul Copeland would like the Applicants to accept the will of the community for construction standards in the historic hillside neighborhood. It would be a disastrous change in the character of the city if we had many homes on the scale of the planned home in that neighborhood. The Applicants are asking the city to make an exception for him, since no other home of that scale will be allowed in that area in the future. Why should the applicant be the only one allowed to skirt the new rules? · At Record p. 610, Regina Ayars believes the construction will prevent her and others from enjoying the serenity and pleasure of leisurely walks in the neighborhood. At Record p. 665, Opponent Jay Preskenis wants the application denied because the size negatively impacts the historic district and the spirit and letter of the maximum house size ordinance and the hillside ordinance'should be imposed. At Record p. 667, Opponent Stan Druben contends that what the DeBoers desire is bad for the fabric which is the lifeblood of Ashland, or any town. Given the DeBoers' prominence in our community, I very much hope they will see this reality. If not, then it becomes the Council's duty to deny them their desire for an inappropriate structure in a historic district, a project which violates the sense, now law, of the community. · Opponents contend that the size violates every spirit of the size rule the city has adopted. During the Council proceeding (Record p. 373) opponent Gayle Titus argued that.the traffic and dust caused by years of construction and curious people would have an adverse impact to the neighborhood. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 72 City of Ashland, Oregon · At Record p. 685, Opponent Paul Copeland contends that the house is grotesquely out of scale to the downtown hillside location. Opponent Jane Street argued that inappropriate use of a residential home in a residential neighborhood. .. · - Opponent Jane Street argued that noise' due to buses, cars traveling through a residential' area and should be downtown where it is more appropriate. · Opponent Jane Street argued that she does not want to give up nighttime quiet. At Record p. 365, opponent Ken Lindsay objects to the odor of toxic substances, like pesticides, which can be smelled overwhelmingly for a great distance demonstrates that the applicant doesn't have much regard for people downstream and downwind who may be sensitive to such substances. · Opponent ~Malena Marvin argued that the council should (but is not) considering this matter in global terms and this is a misuse of valuable natural resources. Opponent Pam Vavra argued that the comprehensive plan depicts what the community thinks is important. One of those things is a small town atmosphere. If this project is permitted it goes against that concept. Opponent Pam Vavra argued that there are laws which prohibit large commercial and large multifamily structures within the historic district in anticipation of their use. The intended use of the proposed structure goes beyond what we consider traditional single family. It is a convention center or training center. Opponent Pam Vavra argued that when the city takes in an application they should look at the broader standards rather than the letter of the law and consider what the community vision is. Various opponents argued that applicants are acting within the letter of the law but not within the spirit of the law regarding maximum lot coverage. Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that the matters raised above by opponents do not go to any of the approval criteria or standards in the ALUO which govern the development of this dwelling. Therefore, the objections are irrelevant. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 73 City of Ashland, Oregon Objection: At Record p. 597-599 one opponent (no name or address provided) address issues of fuelbreak, number of kitchens, and front and rear yard setback and possibly discrepancies in file PA 2003-118 (at page 10) and Heatings Board Findings (at page 11). Conclusions of Law: As to issues of Poe!break and the number of kitchens, the Council has determined that. they. are not relevant to the. criteria for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit, although City staff will review the same at such time that a building permit is sought. As to issues of fuelbreak, the Council has dealt w~th these above. As to discrepancies in the file cited by this opponent, the Council observes that it is common for proposals to be modified or the basis on which they are approved to change from an applicant's original proposal to the reasoning used by the city after all testimony and evidence is received. The Council knows of no discrepancy material to its decision or which requires further discussion. As to front and rear yard setbacks, the Council concludes that these are not applicable to Ashland's Hillside Ordinance, although city staff will review the same at such time that building permits are sought. If the dwelling as proposed (and approved) is later determined to violate front or rear setbacks, it must be changed to comply. The Council concludes that reducing setbacks, if required, will not change this application in ways that affect its compliance with the Hillside Ordinance. However, the Council concludes that all setbacks are properly observed. While the architects' drawing at Record p. 169 shows a rear yard setback of only 19 feet, the Council observes that this is measured from the rear property line to the cave line of the proposed dwelling but should, instead, be measured to the building wall. When measured properly from the building wall, the actual rear yard setback exceeds the required 20 feet for the second stow. The rear yard setback for the half-stow is required to be 25 feet and the plans show that this setback has also been properly observed.~2 Objection: At Record p. 621, Opponent Swales argued that Applicants did not address the 4th criteria for approval of this application. (see Planning Commission final order October 10, 2003 at record page 128) ]2 ALUO 18.20.040(D) provides in pertinent part:" * * * rear yard, 10 feet plus 10 feet for each story in excess. of one story." Ashland has consistently interpreted this provision to apply to individual stories separately rather than collectively as a stepped setback, such that independent setback measurements are taken for each story (or half-story) individually. In this instance, the first "story" is the second level because the lowest level is a below- grade basement and it requires a setback of 10 feet. The second story (third level) must be setback an additional 10 feet (20 feet total). The upper-most half-story must be setback an additional 5 feet, a total of 25 feet for the half-story. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 74 City of Ashland, Oregon Conclusions of Law: As was explained by the Planning Director during the Council proceeding (and the Council agrees), the fourth criterion cited by this opponent was removed from the ordinance and does not exist as an approval criterion for this application. Objection: At Record p. 622, Opponent 'Swales argued that the proposed dwelling exceeds the 30 foot height limit for land within an historic district. .. Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that the building height' applicable to the proposed dwellings is 35 feet and not 30 feet. The 30-foot standard (which was part of the Large Dwelling Ordinance) was adopted atter this application was submitted and does not apply. The Council also concludes that building height is not applicable to Ashland's Hillside Ordinance, although city staff will review the same at such time that building permits are sought. If the dwelling is determined to exceed 35 feet, it must be reduced. The Council concludes that reducing the height of the dwelling, if required, will not change this application in ways that affect its compliance with the Hillside Ordinance. Objection: The findings supporting the initial decision were approved by the Hearings Board without discussion and affording opponents an opportunity to comment. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 75 City of Ashland, Oregon Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that the public hearing before the' Hearings Board had been closed, and opponents are not entitled to comment on the adoption of fi dings ~" 'Objection: During the Council proceeding, opponent Jane Street inquired as to how will the. city will enforce the constraints proposed by the .applicant. Conclusions of Law.~l~'t~loe Council concludes that this objection is irrelevant to the fit ri fo app 1 c e a r rova. Objection: During the Council proceeding, opponent Jane Street argued that development of the driveway will preclude sidewalks, curb and gutter, and other street improvements on the down slope side which is contrary to city policy. Conclusions of Law: The Council is aware that despite any improvements made by any property owner (which are within the public right-of-way) the same can be removed or altered by the city as necessary to make public improvements to its public infrastructure. Objection: During the Council proceeding, Opponent Swales argued that certain architectural drawings indicate the upper-most level of the home does not meet the definition of a half-story based upon certain measurements of the height of interior walls· Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that this objection is not relevant to the criteria for approval of a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit and -is a T~,,;1A;,-,,~ T'~,:,,.,,,.,q-,',.',a,',+ when plans are reviewed e~te-matter to be addressed ~'-' +h,~ Ashland ........ ~, ~,~v r cpurpose o ssu n u ng~, ........ , ....................... Pt' · ~ lC +h=, ..i...~ C,-,.. +1., ........... + 4:1. ~,,.-. ...... ~ C.,.,,...,..A +,-,,.., ..;,~1o+. ·,.,,,.,.,.,~ .... o..,..o,,...,.T'o+""+;"~..., ,-vf" th,:, T T,.,,;~ ...... T~,,;1,4;,,-,,-,- t'%'-,Aa ,',,- A T TTI'~ +1-~,:, .,~.1 ...... ;11 h .... +,-, 1,,::, ,-.1., .... A + ..... 1,, Il I ~_, · floor ~4: +h~ A .... 11; ..... 111 ..~+ ~4:4:~+ ;oo ..... 4: .... 1;o ...... ;+h +ha ~;+,,~o Dh,,o;~ol %Jl %.1t'%~t ~.A · ~.,llltl~ ii ill · Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 76 City of Ashland, Oregon Objection: During the Council proceeding, Jane Street argued that the existing fence and illegal cypress and terracing 25 feet into the public right-of-way are in violation of 18.28.010 (fence ordinance) and in violation of wildfire lands and recommended street tree list. Conclusions of Law: The ALUO citation in this objection is in error and should be ALUO 18.68.010. The Council concludes that the.fence, cypress., and terracing are e. xisting conditions which are not properly considered by the Council in the context of this application. Objection: At Record p. 588 to 590, Opponent Swales argues, in summary, that the application should be denied for the following reasons: 1. The structUre is over 35 feet 2. The structUre is a 3 stories in height 3. Evidence submitted by the architect is degrees and not slope, therefore the building envelope is on unbuildable land. 4. Surveyor's topo is based on guesswork and cannot be relied upon. No detailed evidence of methodology was used. 5. Key required documents, topo map and Gantt chart were not provided before application was deemed complete and staff decision given. 6. Applicants' findings re-interpreted city ordinances regarding Hillside and wildfire to the benefit of the Applicants and contrary to Council interpretation as supported by the Record. 7. Findings and city attorney opinion on "Fair Use" of copyrighted documents is plainly wrong. Rear setback is 19 feet from Glenview is less than the 25 feet required for a 2 1/2:story building. 9. Grading for the driveway is contrary to 18.62.080(B)(8)(b). 10. Does not comply with 18.62.080(D)(3)(a-c) Tree Conservation design. 11. Design does not comply with 18.62.080(A)(3), Development Standards for Hillside Lands (NatUral State requirements). 12. Applicants are responsible for illegal tree removal 8.62.080(D)(4)(e). 13. The proposal is not a single family dwelling (drawings clearly show 2 kitchens). 14. Penalties, 18.62.130 in addition to the enforcement actions that may be taken and penalties which may be imposed in Chapter 18.112 for violation of this chapter. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 77 City of Ashland, Oregon Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes as follows with respect to each of the above 14 points: 1. This objection has been addressed above. The structure does not exceed 35 feet in height, measured in ways required by.the. ALUO. This objection is not relevant to the criteria fbr approval of a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit. · . . ~is o ection h~ been addressed above, wh~ ~,~,~, .... ;~ %vc ............... ~ ...... ......... * *~ *h~ ALUO ~"~ l T.;r~ ~,,;1~;.~ ~ /1 T~ This objection is not relevant to the criteria for approval of a Physical and Enviromental Constraints Review Pe~it. . This objection has been addressed above. Topographic information from Applicants' expert surveyor and architect are consistent as to the natural slope of the subject property and it is less than 35 percent and buildable. . This objection has been addressed above. The record shows that the surveyor's work was based upon historic topographic surveys and on-site analysis using the stumps of trees to ascertain the original natural slope before the same was disturbed by earlier construction on the property. The record also shows that Applicants' surveyor undertook work on the property using standard surveyor practices that are accepted within the survey profession. . This objection has been addressed above with respect to the Gantt chart (which shows the prospective time frame for constructing the proposed dwelling). Nowhere has this opponent argued that his substantial rights were diminished as a result of the Gantt chart not being furnished at the time the application was accepted by the city and the Council concludes that his rights were not diminished.~3 Regarding topographic maps, the Council concludes-that these were submitted at the time the application was filed with the city. That it was later found missing from city files does not mean that it was not submitted and the missing topographic map was replaced in advance of the Hearings Board public heating. This opponent has had ample opportunity to review and comment on Applicants' topographic information and the record shows that his comments on that topic are extensive during both the Hearings Board and Council proceedings. . Applicants urged interpretation of ambiguous provisions of the ALUO in ways that the Council deems logical and appropriate. Opponent's contention that the same are contrary to Council's interpretations is wrong. The Council has not been asked nor has it 13 The Gantt chart was submitted in advance of the public hearing. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 78 City of Ashland, Oregon . interpreted ambiguous ALUO provisions differently than it has in the past and neither this or any other opponent has cited any example to the contrary. The issue of copyright protection of the architects' plans has been addressed above. As to whether or not the City Attorney's opinion on the dissemination of copyrighted material was correct, that issue is irrelevant, Nowhere does this or any other .opponent cite any evidence to suppo~ a conclusion that their substantial rights were damaged as a result of not being able to obtain copies of the plans for a few short days during November of 2003. Copies of the plans were available to opponents for five months prior to the City Council public hearing. o This objection has been addressed above. All building setbacks observe the requirements of the ALUO.. This objection is not relevant to the criteria for approval of a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit. . This objection has been addressed above. ALUO 18.62.080(B)(8)(b) requires (when grading a site on Hillside Lands) to, "avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site." The evidence shows that major portions of the .driveway already exist and grading to accommodate the new driveway configuration can occur without destabilizing the site in ways that violate or threaten to violate substantive provisions of the Hillside Ordinance. 10. This objection has been addressed above and the application has been shown to comply with ALUO 18.62.080(D)(3)(a-c) which govems tree conservation in the design of projects under the Hillside Ordinance. 11. This objection has been addressed above. The Natural State requirements in ALUO 18.62.080(A)(3) apply only to parcels in excess of 0.50 acre. Based upon Applicants' stipulation during the Council proceedings and conditions of approval, the adjusted boundaries of the subject property will have less than 0.50 acre. Therefore, ALUO 18.62~080(A)(3) simply does not apply to this application. 12. This objection has been addressed above. As vetted at great length during the proceeding, Applicants proceeded to remove trees under a&';,ce fremafter consultation with city staff ~'~..,.~ ""..,~ special "'"-~;'v,~..-.~s ........... ..,,.,, .,,,~,...,,,~.;~ All parties now know that the advice from city staff was in error. Moreover, Applicants have agreed and the Board and Council have required trees t~ ~ ~,,, ^c · ....... ~ ...... · · .... c ..... ~ · .......... ~ replace those which were mistakenly removed. Finally, that the trees were removed in violation of the Hillside Ordinance is not a matter of consideration in this application. · . · . .. 13. This objection has been addressed above. This structure is and will operate as a single family dwelling. That there is an additional kitchen which will be used for entertaining_~s_ Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 79 City of Ashland, Oregon a matter Which is irrelevant to the criteria under current consideration t?~ and is a matter that will be reviewed when the applicant seeks a building permit. 14. This objection has been hddressed above and is similar t° #12 above which deals with enforcement (for the mistaken removal of trees). VI CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 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) That a Geotechnical Expert be retained until the project is completed and a final Certificate of Occupancy is issued. 3) That prior to final Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall present to the staff advisor a copy of the Geotechnical Expert's Inspection Schedule. Such inspection schedule shall identif-y the Geotechnical Expert's final approval for all measurers noted in the Geotechnical Engineering Report. 4) That all recommendations listed in the Amrhein Associates Geologic Evaluation and Geotechnical Engineering Report (July 20th, 2003) be implemented during the construction of the home. Such recommendations will need to be identified in the final Geotechnical Expert's Inspection Schedule. 5) That prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant, Geotechnical Expert, Building Official and Planning Staff Advisor meet on site in order to review the City's Hillside Development requirements. 6) That prior to final Certificate of Occupancy, the mitigafon proposal for the replacement trees as noted in the applicants' findings shall be met. 7) That all proposed construction work within the Glenview Drive right-of-way be reviewed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 80 City of Ashland, Oregon and approved by the Ashland En~neering Department. 8) That an encroachment permit be obtained from the Ashland Engineering Department for the existing fence along Glenview Drive. 9) That a separate Physical & Enviromnental Constraints Permit be approved for the removal of the trees by. the future pool house (Trees #9-13). .. In addition to the nine conditions ........ ,~,~,~ ~,,, ,h~ m ~..~.;.. r~....,.~..~.., ;.. t> .... ~ ~, , ~ which the Council hevev,4+b-incorporates and adopts, the Council also incorporates and adopts as conditions of this approval, the following stipulations agreed to by Applicants: Stipulation 1. Applicants will construct the proposed dwelling and other site improvements in accordance with the approved plans, as amended by reasonable conditions imposed by the Council. Stipulation 2. Where required by this chapter, all required revegetation of cut and fill slopes shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, signature of a required survey plat, or other time as determined by the hearing authority. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be substantially established within one year of installation. Revegetation 18.62.080(B)(6) Stipulation 3. Applicants will continuously maintain all replacement trees in a healthy manner as part of the overall landscape of the project area. Stipulation 4. Applicants will not proceed with any construction activity, except installation of erosion control measures, until the City has inspected and approved the installation of the required tree protection measures and a building and/or grading permit has been issued by the City. Stipulation 5. Applicants will perpetually maintain all measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control, including vegetative cover, rock walls, landscaping, and all areas which have been disturbed, including public rights-of-way. Stipulation 6. Following approval of the Erosion Control Plan by the city (and prior to construction) Applicants will provide a performance bond or other financial 'guarantees in the amount of 120°23 of 'the value of the erosion control measures necessary to stabilize the site. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 81 City of Ashland, Oregon Stipulation 7. Before issuance of a certificate of occupancy, Applicants' geotechnical expert will provide a final report which indicates that the approved grading, drainage, and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections, as per ALUO 18.62.080(A)(4)(j) were conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project. Stipulation 8. Applicants will provide ten (10) trees having a caliper not less than two (2) inches to be planted in a public location to be determined by the Ashland Tree Commission. Stipulation 9. Applicants will install all required revegetation of cut and fill slopes and the same will occur before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Stipulation 10. Applicants' lot line adjustment will result in the subject property having less than 0.50 acre. Stipulation 11. Applicants' final plans and construction will not cover the subject property with impermeable surfaces above the ,forty-five percent (45%) maximum allowed under ALUO. VII ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council hereby affirms the Hearings Board decision and concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of ALUO 18.62.080 and 18.62.090 and all related standards with respect to development on regulated hillside and wildfire lands. Dated: ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL By: Cate Hartzell Council Chairperson Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 82 Hartzell Proposed Changes to DeBoer Findings June 15, 2004 Page where Change 1 49 Conclusions of law REMOVE "As to previous plantings on the subject and adjacent lots, ALUO 18.68.010 is an ordinance which has nothing to do with a Physical and Environmental Constraints permit. 2 50 same REMOVE "term "tree protection areas" is not a term of art in the ALUO. The" 4~ 51 Paragr after 7. REMOVE (which the Board has found should not be subject to this ordinance) 52 2na paragr REMOVE That ordinance requires native trees to be sufficientlY thinned or pruned to prevent an interlocking canopy. 52 2. INSERT "informal" in front of consultation in sentence "As to whether the mistaken removal of trees has a bearing on this application, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that Applicants removed the trees after consultation with the Planning Department,..." 6 52 2. REMOVE "... which incorrectly believed at the time that removal of trees from this property was not regulated under ALUO 18.62." (rest of the sentence amended above) 7 52 2. REMOVE However, as concluded aboye, the trees removed by mistake may have had to be thinned or pruned to satisfy the requirements of ALUO 18.62.090. /. (last Sentence) 54 ' ' Conclusions of law REMOVE As earlier found', this project has maximized the conservation/preservation of significant trees (and, if applicable all trees on ~ the property) pursuant to Criterion 20. 9 67 Conclusions of law REMOVE "... finds it difficult to understand this ... objection, but..." 10 79 7. Change "... a few~k~rr..." tg..2~m~' ~e~ $ * 11 79 12 REMOVE "As vetted at gr~at length during t~e Proceeding..." 12 79 12 .~ Change "Finally, that the trees were removed in violation of the Hillside j~~~ Ordinance is not a matter of consideration in this application." To "c&o.~-:.nc~l &vided ihat enforcement af 18 67~ ! 3O ;,ouid hot ia: ~pt,li~d i. ihis maii~r." CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication Title: Dept: Date: Submitted By: 'Approved by: Approved by: An Ordinance Creating a Prohibition Against Public Nudity Ashland Police June 15, 2004 Michael Bianca, Chief of Police Michael Franell, Assistant City Attorney Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator Synopsis: Police department requests a city ordinance to address uncivil behavior occurring in past summers of adult persons going without clothes in public areas of town. Recommendation: Adopt second reading by title only of the ordinance. Fiscal Impact: Violators could be fined up to $250 in Ashland Municipal Court. Background: No state law specifically bans public nudity. Situations of naked people in public are generally awkward for police to address but become problematic when the person is not intoxicated, delusional or violent. Such behavior is very upsetting to community sensibilities. Ordinance gives authority for police to stop and detain violators and to give a lawful order to 'cover up'. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE CREATING A PROHIBITION AGAINST PUBLIC NUDITY THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. A new section 10.44.012 of the Ashland Municipal Code is adopted to read:~ ~ .~ 10.44.012 Publiclq~dity. / _ . ,,,'hTHJ/t I~tis unlavv~,u; any O~?'l'/v"'~'~~ ,~ for person to expose his or her genitalia while i..._,___.._ _,or-,. a ' o ' . This provision is not intended to ~/' .~ apply to a person who is prepubescent or who has taken steps to create ~" ~ ~.) an envelope of privacY upon their own property and the nudity occurs ,y, X, ~,~' within that envelope. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article ×, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the ~ day of ,2004, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this~ day of ., 2OO4. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of ,2004. Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor Re 'awed as to form: au Nolte, City Attorney G:\LEGAL\OFFICE\ORD\P\PUBLIC NUDITY - FINAL.DOC Page - 1 Nudity Ordinance Proposal Submitted by Paul Copeland 6/15/2004 Alternate Proposal: lit is unlawful for any person to expose his or her genitalia in a public place within a l~usiness district or r>ublic mr_k unless the area is designated to allow nudity. This '~rovision does not apply to prepubescent persons or persons engaged in acts of artistic or political expression. As Proposed by City: It is unlawful for any person to expose his or her genitalia while in a public place or place visible from a public place, if the public place is open or available to persons of the opposite sex. This provision is not intended to apply to a person who is prepubescent or who has taken steps to create an envelope of privacy upon their own property and the nudity occurs within that envelope. June 5, 2004 Mayor and Councilors 20 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 LJLJ 'JUN ! 0 ~oo4 Honorable Mayor and Council, 'I write to express my opposition to the proposed anti-nudity ordinance. I have read the ordinance. While I am not a resident of Ashland I have always valued the feeling of Ashland being a community that supports the diversity of all. I question the potential impact this ordinance may have on the arts and theater community. Please give considerable thought before considering this ordinance. As a 54 year old grandmother I continually see our civil liberties being erased. I compliment the city of Ashland that the city police would have time to enforce this ordinance. I recently attended the movie "Same River Twice." This movie gave some great public relations to the city of Ashland. Junction City community members recently raised over Vn million dollars in support of the schools with the Long Grange Calendar. This calendar with "nude but not nude" photos of older men grange members will soon be a book and movie. Please let Ashland be known for arts and theater and avoid passing this ordinance. Surely there are other ways to deal with whatever issues prompted this proposed ordinance. Springfield, Oregon 97477 541-747-8097 CITY OF SHLAND Council Communication TITLE: DEPT: DATE: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Second Re~tding of an Ordihance Authorizing 'the Issuance of Bonds to Finance- the' Ashland Fiber Network Finance Department 5, 2004 ~eU~eT2eberg, Finance Director ~- Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator 5{/~ Synopsis: This is the second reading of the Ordinance authorizing the issuance of bonds to finance Ashland Fiber Network (AFN). The ordinance was first read June 1, 2004. This debt restructure avoids future cash flow problems between AFN and the other funds that have loaned money to finance operating cash short falls. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached Ordinance by its second reading. Fiscal Impact: Enables the City to sell bonds replacing the existing debt including $7.5 million in bank loans and $7 million in interfund borrowing. The total amount of the bonds will include issue costs and extend the debt service over a twenty year period. The additional interest and fees over the life of the bonds will exceed $2,000,000 by this action. Background: The debt restructure has been discussed many times at internal and public meetings and this is the next appropriate step in the accepted process for refinancing. We have chosen a negotiated sale rather than bid in that it will provide the City the most flexibility in getting the lowest rate and terms necessary to structure this debt to the City's benefit. Upon second reading the following schedule will be followed: 1.. Wait.30 days for the ordinance to be in effect and.the referral period to end (these run .... .. concurrently). 2. If no referral a resolution will be submitted to Council July 20 requesting that the authority and empowerment to sell bonds and negotiate terms be delegated to the Finance Director with the City Administrator as an alternate. 3. Prepare official statement, file sale with state and price the bonds in late July. 4. Close on negotiated bond sale in early August. If referred to a vote a resolution will be submitted to Council in August authorizing a referendum to be added to November's ballot and that process will be followed and a resolution will be submitted to Council requesting internal borrowings of the requisite amount to fund AFN until an election determines the appropriate course of action. A supplemental budget may be required for the Telecommunications Fund to complete the fiscal year. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS TO FINANCE THE ASHLAND FIBER NETWORK. The people of the City of Ashland do ordain as follows: Section 1. Findings. The City Council finds: A. The City is authorized to issue revenue bonds for any public purpose under Oregon's Uniform Revenue Bond Act (ORS 288.805 to 288.945 or the "Act"). Revenue bonds issued under the Act may be payable from all or any portion of the "revenues" of the City, as defined in the Act. The Act defines "revenues" to include all fees, tolls, taxes, and other income available to the City. B. The Act permits the City to authorize revenue bonds by enacting a nonemergency ordinance. The City may not sell those revenue bonds for thirty days after the nonemergency ordinance is enacted. If the nonemergency ordinance is referred to a vote during that thirty day period, the City may not sell the revenue bonds described in that ordinance unless the voters approve the ordinance. C. The City enacts this nonemergency ordinance to authorize the issuance of up to $16,000,000 of bonds to finance the Ashland Fiber Network. D. The City will cause a plan to be prepared showing that the estimated revenues that are pledged to pay the bonds will be sufficient to pay those bonds. Section 2. Revenue Bonds Authorized. The City hereby authorizes the issuance of not more than Sixteen Million Dollars ($16,000,000) in aggregate principal amount of revenue bonds under the Act to finance costs of the Ashland Fiber Network, including costs of refinancing existing bank loans and interfund loans for the Ashland Fiber Network, and costs of issuing the revenue bonds. The bonds shall be payable from the revenues of the Ashland Fiber Network, and the City may pledge those revenues, the revenues of the City's electric system, and any other "revenues" (as defined in the Act) to pay the bonds authorized by this ordinance. Prior to selling the bonds the City Council shall adopt a resolution or ordinance establishing the terms and conditions of the bonds pursuant to ORS 288.520, or delegating the authority to establish those terms and conditions. Section 3. No Additional Taxes Authorized; Bonds Payable Solely from Revenues. Neither the authorization nor the issuance of the bonds described in Section 2 of this ordinance shall authorize the City to levy any additional taxes. SectiOn 4: Procedure. The bonds'described in Section 2 ofthis ordinance shall not be sold until the period of referral of this nonemergency ordinance has expired. If tliis ordinance is referred, the City may not sell the bonds described in Section 2 of this ordinance unless the voters approve this ordinance. The foregoing ordinance was first READ by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the 1st day of June, 2004, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of June, 2004. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of June, 2004. Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney CITY OF kSHLAND Council Communication TITLE: DEPT: DATE: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Second Reading of an Ordinance Levying Taxes for the Period of July 1, 2004 to and Including June 30, 2005. Finance Department June 15, 2004 Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator Synopsis: The second reading of the Ordinance levying taxes for the period of July 1, 2004 to and including June 30, 2005 that was first read June 1, 2004. Such taxes in the sum of $8,483,000 upon all the real and personal property subject to assessment and levy within the corporate limits of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon. The levy consists of three parts: (1) a permanent rate supporting the General and Parks Funds of $3.5647, totaling $5,696,000 (2) a local option levy supporting Ashland Youth Activities Fund at a rate of $1.3800, totaling $2,205,000, and (3) four bonded debt levies totaling $582,000 with a combined rate of $0.3642. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached Ordinance by its second reading. Fiscal Impact: Enables the City to levy a property tax rate and receive revenue as authorized by the budget committee. Background: The estimated total tax rate is expected to decrease over last fiscal year due to a slight reduction in bonded debt levies. This Ordinance is consistent with the Budget Committee's recommendation. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE LEVYING TAXES FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2004 TO AND INCLUDING JUNE 3 0, 2 005, SUCH TAXES IN THE SUM OF $8,483,000 UPON ALL THE REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO ASSESSMENT AND LEVY WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Ashland hereby levies the taxes provided for in the adopted budget in the permanent rate of $3.5647 per thousand an amount estimated to be $5,696,000, voter authorized Local Option in the rate of $1.3800 per thousand an amount estimated to be $2,205,000, as well as $582,000 authorized for the repayment of General Obligation Debt and that these taxes are hereby levied upon the assessed value for the fiscal year starting July 1,2004, on all taxable property within the City. Section 2. That the City Council hereby declares that the taxes so levied are applicable to the following funds: General Fund Parks and Recreation Fund Youth Activities Levy 1982 Water Bond Levy 1992 Water Bond Levy 1997 Flood Restoration Bond Levy 2000 Flood and Fire Station' Bonds Permanent Rate Local Option Bonded Debt Per $1,000 $ 2,352,000 1.4719 3,344,000 2.0928 $ 2,205,000 1.3800 83,000 84,000 105,000 310,000 $ 5~696r000 $ 2~205r000 $ 582~000 The foregoing ordinance was first READ by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the 1st day of June, 2004, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of June, 2004. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day ofJune, 2004. Paul Nolte, City Attorney Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor CITY OF 4kSHLAND Council Communication TITLE: DEPT: DATE: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Synopsis: A Resolution Transferring Appropriations within the 2003-2004 Budget. Finance Department June 15, 2004 Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director Gino Gfimaldi, City Administrator This resolution changes the 2003-2004 Budget and keeps the City in compliance with Oregon Budget Law. Transfers at this time of the year recognizing how business activities and projects have changed from what was projected 15 to 18 months ago are normal. The resolution details the transfers needed by fund. Recommendation' · Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution. Fiscal Impact: Adjusts the FY 2003-2004 budget to match anticipated expenditures. This resolution reduces the Street Fund Contingency $142,000; reduces the Electric Fund Contingency $175,000~d~es the Central 100,000 Service Fund Contingency $10,000; reduces the Insurance Fund Contingency $ ~-~d-~ reduces the Equipment Fund Contingency $15,000. It also modifies appropriations between categories in the Street Fund to meet actual needs. Background: There are three ways in which to change appropriations after the Budget is adopted. 1. A transfer of appropriations decreases an appropriation and increases another. This is the simplest budget change allowed under Oregon Budget law. This does not increase the overall budget. This is approved by a City council resolution. 2. A supplemental budget of less than 10 percent of total appropriations within an individual fund follows a process similar to the transfer of appropriations. 3. A supplemental budget in excess of 10 percent of total appropriations requires a longer process. This process includes a notice in the paper and a public hearing. The first type of budget change is necessary and is the second such transfer requested for FY 2003-2004. Attached is a resolution for your approval. The recommended changes in the budget are explained after each request. RESOLUTION NO. 2004- A RESOLUTION TRANSFERRING APPROPRIATIONS WITHIN THE 2003-2004 BUDGET THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Because of the circumstances stated below, the Mayor and City council of the City of Ashland determine that it is necessary to transfer appropriations as follows: Street Fund To: Public Works- Street Operations Public Works- Local Improvement Districts Public Works- Transportation SDCs From: Public'Works - Storm Water SDCs Contingency $125,000 $17,000 $300,000 $300,0OO $142,000 This transfer modifies appropriations for capital projects (Siskiyou, Tolman and Strawberry) to match actual costs projected for year end and adjusts ($300,000) between Transportation and Storm Water SDC programs to better match the original project cost allocation proposed by Public Works. Electric Fund To: Electric - Supply Division Electric - Distribution Division From: Contingency $25,000 $150,000 $175,000 This transfer provides increased appropriations for Supply and Distribution divisional costs including wholesale (demand) power and additional personnel costs for newly improved areas and system maintenance. Central Service Fund To: City Recorder Division From: Contingency $10,000 $1o,ooo This transfer provides added appropriations for increased banking fees charged to the City Recorder division related to automated payment programs and added benefit costs. Insurance Services Fund To: Finance Department- Materials & Services From: Contingency $100,000 $100,000 This transfer provides increased appropriations for higher workers compensation claims and general liability coverage premiums than originally projected. Equipment Fund To: Public Works - Personal Services From: Contingency $15,000 $15,000 This transfer provides increased appropriations for overtime and benefit costs to maintain the City's fleet. SECTION 2. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code Section 2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 15th day of June, 2004: Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this 15th day of June, 2004: Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney CITY OF : SHLAND Council Communication Title: Dept:. Date: Submitted By: Approved By: Reading by title only of"A Resolution Amending the pay schedule for Management and Confidential Employees. for Fiscal Year 2004-2005." Administration 15, 2004 JTiU~ae Gray, Human Resource Manager/~ Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator ~i~]£ Synopsis: The proposed resolution would adjust the pay schedule for the all Management and Confidential employees, the City Recorder and Municipal Judge. Additionally, six mid-management positions have been identified as requiring an additional amount above the 3% adjustment to ensure they are being adequately compensated for their additional managerial responsibilities when compared to the wages of represented positions under their direct supervision. The resolution also gives Department Heads the ability to grant up to one week of administrative leave to their exempt management staff. The time will be required to be taken as time off each year that it is granted. The additional leave will be subject to annual review and granted on a merit basis to serve as recognition of the significant time contributions managers make to the City for which no overtime or other compensation is received. Recommendation: Staff recommends the adoption of the attached resolution, which provides for a 3% salary adjustment for all management classifications, 3.5% for confidential employee classifications, further adjustments to five mid-management positions necessary to maintain adequate internal equity, and revisions to the Management Resolution regarding administrative leave. The elected City Recorder and Municipal 'Judge are covered by a provision in the city charter, which links their salaries to the "...average salary adjustment of the other supervisory employees and department heads..." (Article III.3.). In this case the average salary adjustment and recommendation to the city council is a 3.359% increase. Fiscal Impact: Adequate funds are available in the 2004-2005 budget for a 3% increase for all Management and Confidential classifications. The additional .5% increase for confidential employees will result in an increased cost of $1,685, which can be absorbed into the affected departmental budgets for the eight confidential positions. Additionally, this recommendation includes one week of Administrative Leave may be granted to exempt management employees at the discretion of their Department Head. The leave will be required to be taken as time off each year therefore no additional cost will be generated beyond the increased salary cost. The six positions targeted for additional increase to prevent compression issues will result in an additional cost of $9,816. These six positions (Electric Operations Superintendent, Assistant Fire Chief/Fire Marshal, Senior Planner, Building Official, Police Sergeant, and Finance Division Manager) represent 10 employees from multiple departments and funds, and we are confident the additional cost can be absorbed by each of the affected departments by cutting back on expenditures in other areas. Compression issues have been identified with Department Head salary ranges but we are not .recommending a change at this time. Background: The city has entered into multi-year contracts with its five bargaining units. Four of the five labor contracts call for a wage adjustment of 3%, which was projected into the FY 04/05 budget. The IBEW Electric union increase will be 2% based on their- contractual agreement based upon the Consumer Price Index (CPI). This is the final year in a three-year agreement in which they have received 3%, and 3.2% respectively. There are approximately 45 employees within the management, supervisory or confidential classifications that are not represented by a union or association. The increase for this group is set each July by recommendation of the City Administrator to the City Council. A variety of factors go into this recommendation, including the CPI, bargaining contract settlements, comparing jurisdictions, labor market factors and internal equity and compression between managers and the staff they are responsible for supervising. In the past the city council has determined that it is important to maintain reasonable salary differentials between organized employees and the supervisory/management staff. Furthermore the council has determined it is important that the city maintain a pay schedule that is competitive and fiscally responsible. The proposed wage adjustment for non-union employees does attempt to maintain adequate salary differentials between organized employees and supervisory management. However, in order to work within budget parameters there is still some overlap between salary ranges after the proposed adjustment. Non-represented employees received a 2% salary adjustment last year, and all other unions received adjustments of 3-5% for the year, further diminishing the differential between these two groups. The increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) has averaged 1.4% during the last year (March to March), and spiked significantly in April 2004 to 2.1% showing an upward trend. The City conducted a salary survey for its non-represented employees using the same comparators and methodology used for the police and fire unions earlier this spring. Overall, the positions that we were able to find matches for showed us to be at or close to the average in base wages. When looking at total compensation, the City of Ashland did come out slightly above average largely in part to the costing out of our overall benefit package. While the survey did help us benchmark a few positions, it was evident that Ashland provides a much higher level and vari'ety of services to citizens than many Oregon cities of equivalent population. Numerous positions had little or no match among our comparators, revealing that the same compensation formula used for union personnel does not produce a pure result when comparing management staff where titles and duties vary significantly from organization to organization. The salary survey also included a survey on vacation accruals. Vacation is difficult to compare because each jurisdiction has different longevity steps at which the employee's accrual rate increases, and some cities use a Paid Time Off (PTO) system that lumps all leave together and lets the employee determine how it is used. The chart below shows a comparison of maximum accrual rates of responding cities, revealing that Ashland is among the lowest by comparison in its vacation offerings, and our employees have to work much longer to earn vacation time than in other cities, which helps support the recommendation of one week of Administrative Leave. A similar survey on Administrative Leave revealed that a majority of the comparators below and other Cities in our market area offer at least one. week of Administrative leave for exempt management employees in recognition of the extraordinary time commitments required outside of regular work hours. ~ GRANTS PASS REDMOND WOODBURN ROSEBURG KLAMATH FALLS NEWBERG AVERAGE TOP ~ 20 days 30 Days 25 Days 25 Days 30 Days 22 Days 25.33 Days Length ~ After 6 years (all After 25 years After 25 years After 16 years After 20 years After 20 ofi mgrs.) 20 days years Service after 3 years (Department Heads) RESOLUTION NO. 2004- A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE PAY SCHEDULE FOR MANAGEMENT AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005.' RECITALS: . - The wage adjustment for four City Labor unions' is established in the amount of 3%. The - fifth union, adjustment is established at 2% based on contractual agreement tied to the .. Consumer Price Index (CPI). . The budget for Fiscal year 2004/2005 anticipates a 3% adjustment for all management, and confidential employee classifications. . It is the desire of the City to maintain its management and confidential pay plan at a level commensurate with other jurisdictions to enhance recruitment and retention in these key positions. It is also important to maintain salary differentials and avoid compression between represented employees and the supervisory/management staff. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The overall pay schedule is hereby modified by 3% for Management and Mid- Management Supervisory employees, and 3.5% for confidential employees effective July 1, 2004. SECTION 2. The salary of the Municipal Judge and the City Recorder shall be adjusted by 3.359%, which is the weighted average of the adjustments made for Department Heads and Supervisors as set forth in the City Charter. SECTION 3. 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 ~ day of ,2004. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of ,2004. Reviewed as to form: Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor Paul Nolte, City Attorney RESOLUTION NO. 04- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND CLARIFYING CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT FOR MANAGEMENT AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES AND MAKING SUCH CONDITIONS CONSISTENT WITH THE FEDERAL FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT BY REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 97-18. Recitals: A. The City of Ashland has negotiated collective bargaining agreements with all employees who are members of labor unions; B. The management and confidential employees of the city are not an organized group for the purpose of collectively negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment; and C. It is in the best interest of the city and efficient and effective government to clearly set forth the city's expectations for the performance of its management and confidential employees; The mayor and council resolve as follows: 1, Scope of Resolution, Resolution No. 97-18 is repealed. This 2004 resolution shall apply to all management and confidential employees of the City of Ashland as set forth in Appendix "A", dated June 2004. Where the term "employee" is used, it shall mean regular full-time employees and probationary employees as defined in section 0 and Appendix A. This resolution does not apply to any employee who is a member of any collective bargaining unit. 2. Definitions. 2.1. Confidential employee. As defined in ORS 243.650(6), a confidential employee is one who assists and acts in a confidential capacity to a person who formulates, determines, and effectuates management policies in the area of collective .bargaining. Confidential employees are paid houdy for work performed and they are subject to payment for overtime according to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Confidential employee includes those classifications in Appendix "A" under "Confidential." 2.2. Department head. A person directly responsible to the city administrator, mayor or city council for the administration of a department. Department heads are exempt from overtime payment. Department heads include those Management classifications in Appendix "A" under "Department heads." PAGE 1'RESOLUTION G:\City Policies\Union Contracts~Management and Management_Confidential~04 Management Resolution Updated 7.1.04.doc m 1 2.3 Division Sur~ervisor. A person directly responsible to a department head or the City Administrator for the operational functions of a city department or division. Division supervisors are exempt from overtime payment. Division supervisors include those Management classifications in Appendix "A" under "division supervisors." 2.4 Mid-Level Sur~ervisor. A person reporting to a division supervisor or department head who may receive overtime payment for work outside their normal scope and duties. Mid-level supervisory positions require autonomy, independent decision making, planning, and 'may provide sUpervision to Other personnel. 2.5 Emp_L~v_ee. A person in any of the classifications listed in Appendix "A" who has completed the probationary period. 2.6 Management or Manager. Those classifications included in Appendix "A" under the title "Management" including Department heads, Division Managers and Mid-Level Managers. 2.7 Probationary. Employee. A person appointed to a regular position but who has not completed a probationary period during which the employee is required to demonstrate fitness for the position by actual performance of the duties of the position. 2.8 ~d.oew. Js_o_[. Any person responsible to a higher divisional or departmental level authority who directs the work of others and who is not in a collective bargaining unit. Ettr. l:ms.e. The purpose of this resolution is set forth generally in the preamble. More specifically, the resolution has three fundamental purposes: 3.1. To cleady establish which classifications in the city service are management or confidential. 3.2. To cleady set forth the functions of management and to establish criteria for the evaluation of managerial performance. 3.3. To establish the personnel policies governing the conditions of employment of management and confidential employees. Manaoerial Performance. 4,1, Goal Setting. Basic goals for the City of Ashland are set by the mayor and city council. Resources for achieving those goals are provided via the annual budget. Operational goals and short- range objectives are set by the city administrator working with department heads. The single most important factor in achieving the goals of the City of Ashland is the performance of the city's managers. PAGE 2-RESOLUTION G:\City Policies\Union Contracts~Nlanagement and Management_Confidenfial~04 Management Resolution Updated 7.1.04.doc 4.2. Managerial Responsibilities. Each of the city's managers at a minimum have the following responsibilities: 4.2.1. 4.2.2. 4.2.3. 4.2.4. 4.2.5. 4.2.6. Getting the job done properly and on time, Keeping the workplace safe and healthy, Encouraging team work and cooperation among employees and departments, Developing employee skills, Keeping records and making reports, and Actively promoting affirmative action at all levels. 4.3. General Expectations Regarding Management Employee.~. In addition to the specific performance standards mentioned above, there are also general city expectations of its managers. 4.3.1. Job Commitment. All management employees are expected to have a high degree of commitment to the City of Ashland and to their jobs. When a new manager is hired, the city expects a commitment of continued service of at least three years unless unforeseen circumstances warrant eadier resignation or termination. Management employees are expected to devote whatever hours are necessary for the accomplishment of their duties as part of their normal work week. Overtime will only be paid as set forth in section 0. Management employees may take compensatory time off at their discretion as long as they exercise judgement so that their absence does not unreasonably interfere with the city's operations. In the event of voluntary termination, management employees are expected to give a minimum of 30 calendar days notice in order to give the city adequate time to recruit a qualified replacement. 4.3.2. Professionalism. Management employees are expected to maintain the standards of their individual profession. This includes remaining current with new developments, maintaining memberships in professional societies, and attending meetings with professionals in their field. Where professionals have codes of ethics or standards of performance, these should also be followed in the manager's work for the City of Ashland. 4.3.3. Termination. If at any time a manager's performance is deemed unacceptable, the city administrator or appropriate department head may ask for the employee's resignation. In most cases, reasonable time will be given to the employee to find other suitable employment. The city may provide severance pay in the event of resignation or involuntary termination. PAGE 3-RESOLUTION G:\City Policies\Union Contractsffv~anagernent and Management_Confldential~04 Management Resolution Updated 7.1.04.doc 4.4. 4.3.4. J~e._sJd_eQc_~. Residency within the Urban Growth Boundary shall be a job requirement of the city administrator and strongly encouraged for department heads. The following employees shall establish their residence to enable them to report for emergency duty within 30 minutes of notification including "get ready" and travel time: Public Street Water Water Works Superintendent Supervisor' Quality Supervisor (Collection) Quality Supervisor (Distribution) Water Plant Supervisor Electric Operations Superintendent EMS/Fire Division Chief Police Sergeant Police Captain Police Lieutenant Assistant Fire Chief Telecommunications Engineer Network Administrator Database Administrator User Support Administrator Maintenance Safety Supervisor Telecommunications/Computer Technician Residence shall be established by new employees in these classifications within these boundaries or limitations within a period of twelve months of hire or promotion. Essential Management Functions. The following are the essential functions of all city management positions and the expected standards for their performance: 4.4.1. P_~. Anticipates future needs and makes plans for meeting them; recognizes potential problems and develops strategies for averting them; makes long and short range plans to accomplish city and/or departmental goals. 4.4.2. _O~. Efficiently and economically organizes and carries out assigned operations; carries out responsibilities in a sound and logical manner; operates the unit smoothly and in a well organized manner; effectively delegates authority and establishes appropriate work rules. PAGE 4-RESOLUTION G:\City Policies\Union Contracts~Management and Management_Confidential~04 Management Resolution Updated 7.1.04.doc 4.4.3. Coordinating. Coordinates all activities related to work objectives; maintains coordination and cooperation with other departments and divisions; maintains good communication with employees, and allows employees to make significant contributions to the accomplishment of objectives. 4.4.4. Leadership Motivation. Creates a climate providing challenge and motivation to employees. 4.4.5. Decision Making/Problem Solving. Analyzes situations and pr01~lems, weighs the pros and cons of alternative solutions, exercises logical · thinking and good judgment, is creative, and is able to make decisions. 4.4.6. Em[~loyee Relations. Equitably adjusts grievances among subordinate employees, propedy administers union agreements, and administers discipline in a fair and progressive manner; trains and develops subordinate employees. 4.4.7. Public Relations. Maintains a high level of contact with the public, maintains a sensitivity to the public's needs, and meets the needs of the public within available resources. 4.4.8. ~. Prepares operational and capital budgets to meet the public's needs, and expends fUnds within adopted budgeted limits. 4.4.9. ~. Maintains a safe, clean, pleasant work environment, and supports the city's overall safety program. 4.4.10. Self Development. Stays current with new ideas and procedures in the manager's field of responsibility. 4.4.11. Affirmative Action. Actively supports and implements Affirmative Action within the manager's area of responsibility, including the hiring and promotion of women, minorities, and the disabled. Is sensitive to sexual harassment in the workplace. PAGE 5-RESOLUTION G:\City Policies\Union Contracts~Management and Management_Confidenfial~04 Management Resolution Updated 7.1.04.doc = 1 J~. Recognized holidays are set forth in AMC §3.08.080. For convenience they are listed here: New Years Day (January 1) Martin Luther King Day (3rd Monday in January) Washington's Birthday (3rd Monday in February) Memorial Day (last Monday in May) Independence Day (July 4) Labor Day (Ist Monday in September) Veteran's Day (November 11) Thanksgiving Day (4th Thursday in November) Day after Thanksgiving (in lieu of Lincoln's birthday) Christmas Day (December 25) 5.1. 5.2. Police Sergeants shall receive paid compensation in addition to regular salary for each of the holidays listed above, in lieu of time off. This shall be paid on the first payday in December of each year. Newly-hired Police Sergeants shall receive this paid compensation pm-rated from the date of hire. If an employee is on authOrized vacation, or other leave with pay when a holiday occurs, such holiday shall not be charged against such leave. Vacations for Mana~3ement and Confidential Emnlovees. 6.1. E~. Management employees shall be eligible for vacation with pay in accordance with the following sections: 6.1.1. Employees with less than four full years of continuous service shall accrue 8.67 hours of vacation for each calendar month of service worked. 6.1.2. Employees with more than four but less than nine full years of continuous service shall accrue 10.67 hours of vacation credit for each calendar month of service. 6.1.3. Employees with more than nine but less than 14 full years of continuous service shall accrue 12.67 hours of vacation credit for each calendar month of service. 6.1.4. Employees with more than 14 but less than 19 full years of continuous service shall accrue 14 hours of vacation credit for each calendar month of service. 6.1.5. Employees with more than 19 but less than 24 full years of continuous service shall accrue 15.34 hours of vacation credit for each calendar month of service PAGE 6-RESOLUTION G:\City Policies\Union Contracts~Management and Management_Confidential~04 Management Resolution Updated 7.1.04.doc 6,2. 6,3, 6,4, 6,5, 6,6, 6,7. 6.1.6. Employees with more than 24 full years of continuous service shall accrue 17.34 hours of vacation credit for each calendar month of service (NOTE: The above schedule includes one day of leave which was previously designated as "birthday holiday".) U_tJJJzatJO. Q. Vacation leave taken shall not be in excess of that actually accrued at the time it is taken. However, the city administrator has the discretion to authorize all management employees to take vacation in advance of accrual when warranted by special circumstances. - o. Continuous Service. Continuous service, for the purpose of accumulating vacation leave credit, shall be based on the regular paid hours worked by the employee. Time spent by the employee on city-authorized, city-paid absences shall be included as continuous service. Time spent on unpaid absences shall not be counted as service, provided that employees returning from such absences shall be entitled to credit for service prior to the leave. Accrual Limitation. Management and Confidential employees are required to take at least 75% of their annual vacation accrual as time off each year. All Management and Confidential employees may elect to receive up to twenty-five percent of their unused annual vacation accrual as cash on the first pay check in June each year. The balance of the twenty-five percent not elected for cash payment will be added to their cumulative vacation accrual. In no event shall the employee's total vacation accrual exceed twice the amount of the employee's annual accrual without approval. Scheduling. Vacation times shall be scheduled based on the city administrator's or department head's judgement as to the needs of efficient operations. Payment on Termination. An employee terminated after six-months employment shall be entitled to prorated payment for accrued vacation leave at the rate as of the date of termination. In the event of death, earned but unused vacation leave shall be paid in the same manner as salary due the deceased employee is paid. Administrative Leave. Exempt management employees may be granted u~ oneweek of Administrative Leave each July at the discretion of their department head. No cash payment will be made for Administrative Leave, and-it can only be taken as time off durin~ the year in which it is granted. Administrative Leave must be used by June 30"' each year or it will be deemed forfeited. In the event of termination or retirement, no cash payment will be made for Administrative Leave. PAGE 7-RESOLUTION G:\City Policies\Union Contracts\Management and Management_Confidential~04 Management Resolution Updated 7.1.04.doc 7. Hours of Work for Confidential I=mnlovees. el 7,1, ~/_o.r.J~;~P.,P~. The workweek, to the extent consistent with operating requirements, shall normally consist of five consecutive days as scheduled by the department heads or other responsible authority. 7.2. Hours. The regular hours of an employee shall be 8 1/2 consecutive hours, including 1/2 hour for a meal period, which shall not be paid. 7,3. Work Schedules. All employees, to the extent Consistent with operating requirements, shall be scheduled to work on a regular work shift, and-each shift- shall have regular starting and quitting times. It shall be the responsibility of the department head to notify employees of their scheduled shifts, workdays, and hours. 7,4. Rest Periods. A rest period of 15 minutes shall be permitted for all employees during each half shift, which shall be scheduled by the city in accordance with its determination as to the operating requirements and each employee's duties. 7,5. Meal Periods. To the extent consistent with operating requirements of the respective department, meal periods shall be scheduled in the middle of the work shift. Sick Leave. 8,1, Eu~.o~s_e. Sick leave is provided for the sole purpose of providing financial security to employees and their families. Under no circumstances shall the city grant an employee sick leave with pay for time off from city employment caused by sickness or injury resulting from employment other than with the City of Ashland. 8,2, Accumulation. Sick leave shall be earned for the purpose stated by each employee at the rate of eight hours for each full calendar month of service. Sick leave must be taken for the purposes specified in section 8.3 as condition precedent to any sick leave payment. The maximum accrual cannot exceed 720 hours. Sick leave shall continue to accrue only during leaves of absence with pay. 8.3. UJJJJT. a~.Q. Employees may utilize their allowance for sick leave when unable to perform their work duties by reason of illness or injury. In such event, the employee shall notify the department head or city administrator of absence due to illness or injury, the nature and expected length of the absence, as soon as possible prior to the beginning of the next scheduled regular work shift, unless unable to do so because of the serious nature of injury or illness. For absences longer than 24 hours, employees shall notify their department head on a daily basis. At the option of the department head or city administrator, a doctor's certificate of illness may be required as a pre-requisite for the payment of sick PAGE 8-RESOLUTION G:\City Policies\Union Contracts~lanagement and Management_Confidential~04 Management Resolution Updated 7.1.04.doc leave. Confidential employees and Mid-Level Supervisors may be granted sick leave for doctor or dental appointments at the discretion of the department head. Such time off shall be charged against sick leave time on an houdy basis. Confidential employees and Mid-Level Supervisors may be granted the use of sick leave for illness in the immediate family. 8.4, Integration with Worker's compensation. When injury occurs in the course of employment, the city's obligation to pay is limited to the difference between any payment received under workers' compensation laws and the employee's regular pay. In such instances', prorata charges will be made against' accrued sick I'eaVe until sick leave is exhausted. Thereafter, the only compensation will be workers' compensation benefits, if any. 8,5, Sick Leave - Without Pay. Sick leave is provided by the city in the nature of insurance against loss of income due to the illness or injury. No compensation for accrued sick leave shall be provided for any employee upon death or termination of employment, except that upon retirement accumulated sick leave will be any leave will be applied as provided in ORS 238.350. Sick leave shall not accrue during any leave of absence without pay. 8,6, Pa.v for Unused Sick Leave. All Management and Confidential employees may elect to receive twenty-five percent of their unused annual sick leave accrual (maximum of 24 hours) as cash on their first paycheck in December. If cash payment is not elected, the unused portion of sick leave will be added to cumulative sick leave balance. 1 Funeral Leave. An employee may be granted five calendar days funeral leave with regular pay in the event of death in the immediate family of the employee. An employee's immediate family shall include spouse, parent, children, brother, sister, mother-in-law, father-in-law, or other relatives living in the same household. Leave with pay, for up to four hours may be granted when an employee serves as a pallbearer. 10. Other Leaves of Absence 10.1. Criteria and Procedure. Leaves of absence without pay not to exceed 90 calendar days may be granted upon establishment of reasonable justification therefor in instances where the work of the department will not be seriously handicapped by temporary absence of the employee. Requests for such leaves must be in writing. Normally, such leave will not be approved for an employee for the purpose of accepting employment outside the service of the city. 10.2. J.u~. Employees shall be granted leave with pay for service upon a jury; provided; however, that the regular pay of such an employee for the period of absence shall be reduced by the amount of money received for such jury service, and upon being excused from jury service for any day an employee shall immediately contact the supervisor for assignment for the remainder of their regular workday. PAGE 9-RESOLUTION G:\City Policies\Union Contracts~lanagement and Management_Confldential~04 Management Resolution Updated 7.1.04.doc 10.3. Appearances. Leave with pay shall be granted for an appearance before a court, legislative committee, judicial or quasi-judicial body as a witness in response to a subpoena or other direction by proper authority; provided, however, that the regular pay of such employee shall be reduced by an amount equal to any compensation received as witness fees. 10.4. Required Court Appearances. Leaves of absence with pay shall be granted for attendance in court in connection with an employee's officially assigned duties, including the time required for'travel to the court and return to the employee's headquarters. " 10.5. Family Medical LeaVe. Leave in accordance with the Federal Family and Medical Leave Act and the Oregon Family Medical Leave Act shall be granted to employees eligible under those acts and for the purposes described in those acts. Leave may be unpaid or paid as provided in these acts. 10.6. Military. Leave. Military leave shall be granted in accordance with ORS 408.290. 10.7. Failure to Return from Leave. Any employee who is granted a leave of absence and who, for any reason, fails to return to work at the expiration of said leave of absence, shall be considered as having resigned their position with the city, and the position shall be declared vacated; except and unless the employee, prior to the expiration of the leave of absence, has furnished evidence of not being able to work by reason of sickness, physical disability or other legitimate reason beyond the employee's control. 11. Discipline and Discharge. The following section applies only to those employees subject to this resolution who do not have a written individual employment agreement with the city. 11.1. ~. The city shall abide by the legal requirements of due process prior to taking disciplinary action. Disciplinary action may include the following: (a) Oral reprimand (b) Written reprimand (c) Demotion (d) Suspension (e) Discharge Disciplinary action may be imposed upon any employee for failing to fulfill responsibilities as an employee. Conduct'reflecting discredit upon the city or department, or which is a direct hindrance to the effective performance of city functions, shall be considered good cause for disciplinary action. Such cause may also include misconduct, inefficiency, incompetence, insubordination, misfeasance, the willful giving of false or confidential information, the withholding PAGE 10-RESOLUTION G:\City Policies\Union Contracts\Management and Management_Confidenfial~04 Management Resolution Updated 7.1.04.doc 12. 13, of information with intent to deceive when making application for employment, willful violation of departmental rules or this management resolution, commission of any matter listed in AMC §3.08.030.B or for political activities forbidden by state law. 11.2. ~. An employee having less than twelve months of continuous service shall serve at the pleasure of the city. An employee having continuous service in excess of twelve months shall be discharged only for cause. 11.3. Due Process. Dae process procedures shall be'followed before a suspension without pay,'demotion or discharge is 'imposed upon an employee. Employees, other than those appointed by mayor and city council, may appeal a suspension without pay, demotion or discharge to the city administrator. The city administrator's decision shall be final. Probationary Period. 12.1. New Employee Probationary. Period. The probationary period is an integral part of the employee selection process and provides the city with the opportunity to upgrade and improve the departments by observing a new employee's work, training, aiding new employees in adjustment to their positions, and by providing an opportunity to reject any employee whose work performance fails to meet required work standards. Every new employee shall serve a minimum probationary period of 12 months after which, upon recommendation of the department head, the employee shall be considered a regular employee. The probationary period may be extended upon request of the department head if an adequate determination cannot be made at the end of the probationary period. 12.2. Promotional Probationary. Period. An employee promoted into a management or confidential position will be required to serve a six-month promotional probationary period. The city may at any time demote an employee on promotional probationary status to their previous position with or without cause. General ProvisionR. 13.1. Non Discrimination. The provisions of this resolution shall be applied equally to all employees without discrimination as to race, color, religion, marital status, age, national origin, sex, sexual orientation or disability. 13.2. Other/Outside Employment. Outside employment shall be permitted only with the express prior written approval of the department head or City Administrator. The general principles to 'be followed by the City in permitting or restricting such outside employment shall be: 1. The need for mentally and physically alert City employees; PAGE 11-RESOLUTION G:\City Policies\Union Contracts~4anagement and Management_Confidential~04 Management Resolution Updated 7.1.04.doc 14. 2. Insulating employees from potential conflict of interest situations; . Maintaining efficiency unimpaired by other employment, particularly for those city positions requiring employees to be available for duty 24 hours a day. In the event that the above principles are violated, the department head or City Administrator may revoke previously granted permission to hold outside employment. 13.3. Worker's compensation. All employees will be insured under the provisions of the Oregon state Workers' Compensation Act for injuries received'while at work for the city. Compensation paid by the city for a period' of sick leave also' covered by workers' compensation shall be equal to the difference between the Workers' compensation pay for lost time and the employee's regular pay rate. 13.4. Liability Insurance. The city shall purchase liability insurance in the maximum amounts set forth in ORS 30.270 for the protection of employees against claims against them incurred in or arising out of the performance of their official duties. Comnensation 14.1. Pay Periods. Employees shall be paid on a bi-weekly basis, on every other Friday. In the event a regularly scheduled pay date falls on a holiday, the preceding workday shall be the pay date. 14.2. Compensation - Pay Schedule. Employees shall be compensated in accordance with the pay schedule adopted by resolution of the city council. When any position not listed on the pay schedule is established, the city administrator shall designate a job classification and pay rate for the position. 14.3. .Q_v.P,.dJJz~. Exempt management employees are expected to devote whatever time is necessary to accomplish their job. For all non-exempt employees, the city has the right to assign overtime work as required in a manner most advantageous to the city and consistent with the requirements of municipal service and the public interest. 14.4. Form of Compensation. The city administrator, city attorney, department heads and division supervisors are not eligible for paid overtime but are allowed compensatory time off at their own discretion depending on the operating requirements of the city. Mid-Level supervisors and confidential personnel shall be compensated in the form of pay at the rate of time and one-half the regular rate for overtime work or given equivalent time off at the option of the city. No employee shall have more than 40 hours of compensatory time on the records at any time. 14.5. Administration of Pay Plan. Employees shall be entitled to pay in accordance with the current salary resolution. In the event of a vacancy, the city administrator may appoint a new employee at any appropriate step within the pay range. PAGE 12-RESOLUTION G:\City Policies\Union Contracts~Vlanagement and Management_Confldential~04 Management Resolution Updated 7.1.04.doc 15. Health. Welfare and Retiremerlf. 16. 17. The city agrees to provide health, welfare and retirement benefits in accordance with Appendix "B" for employees subject to this resolution. Comnliance with FLSA. · This resolution shall be interpreted in a manner to preserve the exempt status of the city's bona fide administrative, executive, and'professional employees, as those terms are used 'in the Federal 'Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Such exempt employees shall not have their pay docked or reduced in any manner that would be inconsistent with the salary test set forth in the FLSA and they are not subject to disciplinary suspensions of less than a week except for major safety violationS. Effective Date. This resolution shall become effective as of July 01,2004. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of July, 2004. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of July, 2004. Reviewed as to form: Alan DeBoer, Mayor Paul Nolte, City Attorney PAGE 13-RESOLUTION G:\City Policies\Union Contractsff~/lanagement and Management_Confidential~04 Management Resolution Updated 7.1.04.doc APPENDIX "A" Classifications in the Management and Confidential Employee Groups City Administrator City Attorney Police Chief Electric & Telecommunications' Director Finance Director Fire Chief Public Works DirectodCity Engineer Exem Exem Exem .. Exem Exem Exem Exem Ele.ctdc.Operations Superintendent. Assistant Fire Chief/Fire Marshal Deputy Police chief EMS/Fire Division Chief HR Director Public Works Superintendent Engineering Services Manager Telecommunications Engineer Cable TV Manager Network Administrator Database Administrator Management Analyst Senior Planner Building Official Finance Division Manager User Support Administrator Assistant City Attorney Senior Program Director Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Police Sergeant Fire Prevention Officer Water Plant Supervisor Water Quality Supervisor (Distribution) Water Quality Supervisor (Collection Plant) Associate Engineer GIS Analyst Maintenance Safety Supervisor Street Supervisor Police Administrative Services Manager Police Accreditation & Training Manager Telecommunications/Computer Technician Legal Assistant/Claims Management Non-Exem ~t Non-Exem 3t Non-Exem ~t Non-Exem ~t Non-Exem 3t Non-Exem 3t Non-Exem 3t Non-Exem 3t Non-Exem 3t Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt PAGE 14-RESOLUTION G:\City Policies\Union Contracts~Management and Management_Confidential~04 Management Resolution Updated 7.1.04.doc Executive Secretary Legal Secretary Administrative Assistant/Secretary Administrative Secretary Secretary Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt PAGE 15-RESOLUTION G:\City Policies\Union Contracts~lanagement and Management_ConfidenflaN34 Management Resolution Updated 7.1.04.doc APPENDIX "B" Health. Welfare. and Retirement Benefits The city agrees to provide health, welfare and retirement benefits in accordance with this appendix for employees subject to this resolution. 1. Health Insurance. Blue Cross/Blue Shield'medical Plan V-A, UCR Vision and dental plan III for employees and their eligible dependents. New employees will begin coverage on the first day of the month after they are hired. As of January 1,2003, the City will pay 95% of the total monthly health premium, with the employee paying the remaining 5% on a pre-tax basis. a. Reimbursement for preventative/wellness medical costs as provided in the city's Wellness Program. . Life Insurance. Premiums for the League of Oregon Cities life insurance policy for each employee at one times annual salary. . Dependent's Life Insurance. Premiums for the League of Oregon Cities $1,000 life insurance policy for each qualified dependent of an employee. . o Sala~ Continuation Plan. Premiums for the League of Oregon Cities Long Term Disability Insurance. EP. JJr_.eme~. As required by law, the city will contribute to the Oregon State Public Employees Retirement System for each employee. Enrollment will commence six months from the date of employment for new employees, unless that person was in PERS immediately before coming to work for the city. Upon retirement, one-half of unused sick leave earned will be applied to retirement as provided in statute. The city will also assume or pay the employees' contributions required by ORS 237.071 for employees at a uniform rate of six percent. PAGE 16-RESOLUTION G:\City Policies\Union ContractsVvlanagement and Management_Confidential~04 Management Resolution Updated 7.1.04.doc APPENDIX "R" Health. Welfare & Retirement Renefit_~ Page: Two . Social Security. Contributions to Social Security as required by law. . , Medical Insurance f0~' Retirees, All employees retiring from city employment and their eligible dependents will have the option of continued participation in'the city's medical insurance program at the same monthly group premium as active employees. The retiree must be actively covered under the city's group plan at the time of retirement to be eligible for continued retiree covera.~e. Retirees must make their health insurance payment to the city on or before the 15 of the month prior to the covered month to continue health coverage. The right to participate and medical coverage ceases when the retiree or their eligible dependent(s) become Medicare-eligible at age 65. Any employee retiring in a position covered by this resolution who has 15 or more years of service and who is Medicare-eligible at the time of retirement, shall be provided with Blue Cross Preferred Choice 65/Plan C, or equivalent plan selected by the city. The city will pay the premium for the retiree. The retiree must have been participating in the city's group plan at the time of retirement to be eligible for this benefit. Early retirees who retire in a position covered by this resolution, and have 15 or more years of service, and are at least age 60 at retirement shall receive a monthly check equal to the amount paid for Blue Cross Preferred Choice 65/Plan C, or equivalent plan selected by the city, until they become eligible for Medicare at age 65. The retiree must elected continued retiree coverage under the city's group plan to be eligible for this benefit. Once the retiree turns 65 and establishes Medicare eligibility, the city will pay 'the premium directly to Blue Cross Preferred Choice 65/Plan C or the equivalent plan selected by the city, on the retiree's behalf. ,Deferred Comoensation. Deferred compensation in the amount of $30.00 per month in matching funds per employee enrolled in a city deferred compensation program. This program is at the option of the employee and contingent upon a minimum $15.00 per month contribution paid by the employee. PAGE 17-RESOLUTION G:\City Policies\Union Contracts~lanagement and Management_Confidential~04 Management Resolution Updated 7.1.04.doc MANAGEMENT/CONFIDENTIAL Salary Schedule 3% COLA MONTHLY HOURLY MONTHLY I II Step A - First 6 Months $47.9928 $8,319 $49.4325 $8,568 Step B - Next 12 Months $50.3885 $8,734 $5t.9002 $8,996 Step C - Next 12 Months $52.4071 $9,084 $53.9794 $9,356 Step D - Next 12 Monts $54.5034 $9,447 $56.1385 $9,731 Step E - Thereafter $56.6773 $9,824 $58.3776 $10,119 I I I I IIII I III Step A - First 6 Months $40.2287 $6,973 $38.3282 $6,644 Step B - Next 12 Months $41.8259 $7,250 $39.8476 $6,907 Step C - Next 12' Months $43.5118 $7,542 $41.4356 $7,182 Step D - Thereafter $45.2531 $7,844 $43.0807 $7,467 Step A. First 6 Months $37.2119 $6,450 $38.3282 $6,644 Step B - Next 12 Months $38.6870 $6,706 $39.8476 $6,907 Step C - Next 12 Months $40.2287 $6,973 $41.4356 $7,182 Step D - Thereafter $41.8259 $7,250 $43.0807 $7,467 a , ,, Il Step A - First 6 Months $37.2119 $6,450 $38.3282 $6,644 Step B - Next 12' Months $38.6870 $6,706 $39.8476 $6,907 Step C - Next 12 Months $40.2287 $6,973 $41.4356 $7,182 Step D - Thereafter $41.8259 $7,250 $43.0807 $7,467 Step A - First 6 Months $37.2119 $6,450 $38.3282 $6,644 Step B - Next 12 Months $38.6870 $6,706 $39.8476 $6,907 Step C - Next 12 Months $40.2287 $6,973 $41.4356 $7,182 Step D - Thereafter $41.8259 $7,250 $43.0807 $7,467 Step A - First 6 Months $37.2119 $6,450 $38.3282 $6,644 Step B - Next 12 Months $38.6870 $6,706 $39.8476 $6,907 Step C - Next 12 Months $40.2287 $6,973 $41.4356 $7,182 Step D - Thereafter $41.8259 $7,250 $43.0807 $7,467 Step A - First 6 Months $37.2119 $6,450 $38.3282 $6,644 Step B - Next 12 Months $38.6870 $6,706 $39.8476 $6,907 Step C - Next 12 Months $40.2287 $6,973 $41.4356 $7,182 Step D - Thereafter $41.8259 $7,250 $43.0807 $7,467 Step A - First 6 Months $37.2118 $6,450 $38.3282 $6,644 Step B - Next 12 Months $38.6870 $6,706 $39.8476 $6,907 Step C - Next 12 Months $40.2287 $6,973 $41.4356 $7,182 Step D - Thereafter $41.8259 $7,250 $43.0807 $7,467 FOR 2004-2005 COMMENTS * 7111o4 Range made equal to all department heads when vacated Title change 5/29/01 * 3/1/03 Range increased to match dept. head range REVISIONS EFFECTIVE: 711104 Last Increase At,led: 3.5% COLA for Confidential Classifications. 3% for All Management Classifications. Also Includes adjustments to Indlvldulal positions to alleviate compression. MANAGEMENT/CONFIDENTIAL Salary Schedule 3% COLA HOURLY MONTHLY HOURLY MONTHLY I Step A - First 6 Months $32.8606 $5,696 $33.9951 $5,892 Step B - Next 12 Months $34.1598 $5,921 $35.4116 $6,138 Step C - Next 12 Months $35.5262 $6,158 $36.8281 $6,384 Step D - Thereafter $36.9485 $6,404 $38.3020 $6,639 Step A - First 6 Months $32.0878 $5,562 $33.8068 $5,860 Step B - Next 12 Months $33.3646 $5,783 $35.2149 $6,104 Step C. - Next 12 Months $34.6974 $6,014 $36.6241 $6,348 Step D - Thereafter $36.0861 $6,255 $38.0881 $6,602 Step A - First 6 Months $30.6878 $5,319 $31.6084 $5,479 Step B - Next 12 Months $31.9086 $5,531 $32.8658 $5,697! Step C - Next 12 Months $33.1742 $5,750 $34.1694 $5,923 Step D - Thereafter $34.4958 $5,979 $35.5306 $6,159 Step A - First 6 Months $29.6574 $5,141 $30.5471 $5,295 Step B - Next 12 Months $30.9006 $5,356 $31.8276 $5,517 Step C - Next 12 Months $32.1886 $5,579 $33.1 542 $5,747 Step D - Thereafter $33.5326 $5,812 $34.5385 $5,987 Step A - First 6 Months $27.3726 $4,745 $28.1938 $4,887 Step B - Next 12 Months $28.8174 $4,995 $29.6819 $5,145 Step C - Next 12 Months $30.3294 $5,257 $31.2393 $5,415 .Step D - Thereafter $31.9310 $5,535 $32.8889 $5,701 Step A - First 6 Months $27.0702 $4,692 $27.8823 $4,833 Step B - Next 12 Months $28.1454 $4,879 $28.9897 $5,025 Step C --Next 12 Months $29.2542 $5,071 $30.1318 $5,223 Step D - Next 12 Months $30.4190 $5,273 $31.3316 $5,431 Step E - Thereafter $31.6358 $5,484 $32.5848 $5,648 Step A - First 6 Months $27.0702 $4,692 $27.8823 $4,833 Step B - Next 12 Months $28.1454 $4,879 $28.9897 $5,025 Step C - Next 12 Months $29.2542 $5,071 $30.1318 $5,223 Step D - Thereafter $30.4190 $5,273 $31.3316 $5,431 Step A - First 6 Months $25.6030 $4,438' $27.0610 $4,691 Step B - Next 12 Months $26.6222 $4,615 $28.1885 $4,886 Step C - Next 12 Months $27.6750 $4,797 $29.3161 $5,081 Step D - Thereafter $28.7726 $4,987 $30.4847 $5,284 I II Step A - First 6 Months $25.5246 $4,424 $26.4794 $4,590 Step B - Next 12 Months $26.5550 $4,603 $27.5827 $4,781 Step C - Next 12 Months $27.6078 $4,785 $28.6861 $4,972 Step D - Thereafter $28.6942 $4,974 $29.8270 $5,170 FOR 2004-2005 * Includes a 3% COLA + additional adj. to offset compression 7/1/04 * Deputy Police Chief New position added 7/1/04, * Includes a 3% COLA + additional adj. to offset compression 711/04 *HR Director- New position Added 7/1104 * Police Lieutenant vacant and reclassified to Deputy Chief 7/1/04 Added Step E 12/01 * Administrative Svcs/HR Mgr added 7/22/02, reclassifed to HR Director 7/1/04 * Title Change from Communications Mgr. to Mgmt Analyst per 9/03 Budget Comm. Mtg. * 07101/02 Building Official range made equivalent to Senior Planner * Includes a 3% COLA + additional adj. to offset compression 711/04 Includes a 3% COLA + additional adj. to offset compression 711/04 REVISIONS EFFECTIVE: 711/04 Last Increase N)olled: 3.5% COLA for Confidential Classifications, 3% for NI Management Classifications. Also includes adjustments to Indlvldulal po~lUons to alleviate com~. MANAGEMENT/CONFIDENTIAL Salary Schedule 3% COLA HOURLY MONTHLY HOURLY MONTHLY step A - First 6 Months $23.7289 $4,113 $24.4408 $4,236 Step 13 - Next 12 Months $24.9116 $4,318 $25.6589 $4,448 Step C - Next 12 Months $26.1577 $4,534 $26.9425 $4,670 Step D - Next 12 Months $27.4616 $4,760 $28.2854 $4,903 Step E - Thereafter $28.8347 $4,998 $29.6997 $5,148 I I'1 Step A - First 6 Months $23.9328 $4,148 $26.0193 $4,510 Step 13 - Next 12 Months $24.8861 $4,314 $27.1039 $4,698 Step C - Next 12 Months $26.1336 $4,530 $28.1881 $4,886 Step 13 - Thereafter $27.4400 $4,756 $29.3077 $5,080 I Step A - First 6 Months $24.6723 $4,277 $25.4125 $4,405 Step B - Next 12 Months $25.6484 $4,446 $26.4178 $4,579 Step C - Next 12 Months $26.6715 $4,623 $27.4716 $4,762 Step D - Thereafter $27.7299 $4,807 $28.5618 $4,951 Step A - First 6 Months $24.6723 $4,277 $25.4125 $4,405 Step B - Next 12 Months $25.6464 $4,446 $26.4178 $4,579 Step C - Next 12 Months $26.6715 $4,623 $27.4716 $4,762 Step D - Thereafter $27.7299 $4,807 $28.5618 $4,951 Step A - First 6 Months $23.4974 $4,073 $24.2023 $4,195 Step 13 - Next 12 Months $24.4271 $4,234 $25.1599 $4,361 Step C - Next 12 Months $25.4014 $4,403 $26.1634 $4,535 Step D - Thereafter $26.4095 $4,578 $27.2017 $4,715 Step A - First 6 Months $20.6861 $3,586 $21.3067 $3,693 Step B - Next 12 Months $21.7094 $3,763 $22.3607 $3,876 Step C - Next 12 Months $22.8097 $3,954 $23.4940 $4,072 Step D - Next 12 Months $23.9540 $4,152 $24.6726 $4,277 Step E - Thereafter $25.1424 $4,358 $25.8967 $4,489 _ L -- -- Step A - First 6 Months $22.1310 $3,836 $22.7950 $3,951 Step B - Next 12 Months $23.0046 $3,987 $23.6948 $4,107 Step C - Next 12 Months $23.9342 $4,149 $24.6523 $4,273 Step D - Thereafter $24.8862 $4,314 $25.6328 $4,443 Step A - First 6 Months $22.1310 $3,836 $22.7950 $3,951 Step B - Next 12 Months $23.0046 $3.987 $23.6948 $4,107 Step C - Next 12 Months $23.9342 $4,149 $24.6523 $4,273 Step D - Thereafter $24.8862 $4,314 $25.6328 $4,443 Stop ^ -Fimt 6 Months $22.1310 $3,836 $22.7950 $3,951 Step 13 - Next 12 Months $23.0046 $3,087 $23.6948 $4,107 Stop ¢ - Next 12 Months $23.9342 $4,149 $24.6523 $4,273 Step D - Thereafter $24.8~2 $4,314 $25.6328 $4,443 Step ^ -Fimt 6 Months $22.1310 $3,836 $22.7950 $3,951 Stop 13 - Next 12 Months $23.0046 $3,087 $23.6948 $4,107 Step G - Next 12 Months $23.9342 $4,149 $24.6523 $4,273 Step D - Thereafter $24.8862 $4,314 $25.6328 $4,443 FOR 2004-2005 *Title Change effective 7/1/04 From Fire Protection/Plans Examiner Based on changes to job duties * Includes a 3% COLA + additional adj. to offset compression issues 7/1/04 * 10/01/01 5% for extra duties/responsibilities rolled into salary range * 07/01/01 salary range increased to make it equivalent to Water Plant Supervisor * New position added 4/17/00 *Gis Analyst added 2/04 * Customer Service Supervisor New Position Added 6/01, Vacant when incumbant reclassified to Finance Division Mgr. 7/1/04 · Zlll0'~ Title CI3ange trom Communications Supervisor to. Accreditation/Training Mgr. '7/1/02 Communications Supervisor salary range made equivalent to Police Admin Services Mgr. REVISIONS EFFECTIVE: 711/04 Last Increase ADOiled: 3.5% COLA fo~' Confldenttal Classifications, 3% fo~ All Management Classifications. Also includes adjustments to Indlvidulal positions to alleviate compression. MANAGEMENT/CONFIDENTIAL Salary Schedule 3% COLA HOURLY MONTHLY HOURLY MONTHLY Step A - First 6 Months $21.7554 $3,771 $22.4081 $3,884 Step B - Next 12 Months $22.6617 $3,928 $23.3416 $4,046 Step C - Next 12 Months $23.5679 $4,085 $24.2749 $4,208 Step D - Thereafter $24.5094 $4,248 $25.2447 $4,376 Step ^ - First 6 Months $21.6158 $3,747 $22.2643 $3,859 Step B - Next 12 Months $22.4670 $3,894 $23.1411 $4,011 Step C - Next 12 Months $23.3742 $4,052 $24.0755 $4,173 Step D - Thereafter $24.3038 $4,213 $25.0329. $4,339 Step A - First 6 Months $18.7070 $3,243 $19.2682 $3,340 Step B - Next 12 Months $19.4535 $3,372 $20.0371 $3,473 Step C - Next 12 Months $20.2314 $3,507 $20.8383 $3,612 Step D - Next 12 Months $21.0407 $3,647 $21.6719 $3,756 I -- ,,1I --" ...... -'~-~"- I Step A - First 6 Months $17.3263 $3,003 $17.6461 $3,093 Step B - Next 12 Months $18.0207 $3,124 $18.5613 $3,217 Step C - Next 12 Months $18.7375 $3,248 $19.2996 $3,345 Step D - Thereafter $19.4767 $3,376 $20.0610 $3,477 3.5% COLA HOURLY MONTHLY HOURLY MONTHLY I ?"' ""-' 1"1111111 IIIIIJ.ll[!ll III III II Step A - First 6 Months $16.9033 $2,930 $17.4950 $3,032 Step B - Next 12 Months $17.5808 $3,047 $18.1961 $3,154 Step C - Next 12 Months $18.2801 $3,169 $18.9199 $3,279 Step D - Thereafter $19.0012 $3,294 $19.6663 $3,409 Step A - First 6 Months $13.6958 $2,374 $14.1751 $2,457 Step B - Next 12 Months $14.3848 $2,493 ~- $14.8883 $2,581 Step C - Next 12 Months $15.1023 $2,618 $15.6309 $2,709 Step D - Next 12 Months $15.8427 $2,746 $16.3971 $2,842. Step E - Thereafter $16.6285 $2,882 $17.2105 $2,983 iiii Step A - First 6 Months $12.7463 $2,209 $13.1924 $2,287 Step B - Next 12 Months $13.3773 $2,319 $13.8455 $2,400 Step C - Next 12 Months $14.0313 $2,432 $14.5224 $2,517 Step D - Next 12 Months $14.7311 $2,553 $15.2467 $2,643 Step E - Thereafter $15.4654 $2,681 $16.0066 $2,774 -- ,ml~ I I Step A- First 6 MOnthS $11.0369 $1,913 $11.4231 $1,980 Step B - Next 12 Months $11.5761 $2,007 $11.9812 $2,077 Step C - Next 12 Months $12.1612 $2,108, $12.5868 $2,182 Step D - Next 12 Months $12.7578 $2,211 $13.2043 $2,289 Step E - Thereafter $13.3773 $2,319 $13.8455 $2,400 FOR 2004-2005 ' New position added 8/1/03 * Legal Assistant/Claims Management Reclassified 10/1/2002 * Position Reclassifed; range decreased 10/01/01 ' Legal Secretary Added 12/5/2002 City Recorder Municipal Judge * Includes a revised 2.42% COLA calculated for Elected Officials per City Charier ' Includes a 3.359% COLA calculated for Elected Officials per C,#y Charter REVISIONS EFFECTIVE: 711/04 ~: 3.5% COLA for Confidential Classifications. 3% for All Management C. Jesslflcatlons. Also Includes adjustments to Indlvldulal positions to alleviate compression. CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Commu'nication Title: · (1) A Resolution Dedicating Property for Open Space Park Purposes Pursuant to Article XIXA, Section 2, of the City Charter (Riverwalk - development by NOMOCO, LLC, at Bear Creek and North Mountain Avenue) (2) Authorization to accept'deed donating River Walk to city. Dept: Date: Submitted By: Approved By: Synopsis: Legal Department June 15, 2004 [t~l~aul Nolte ~ Gino Grimaldi This resolution dedicates property donated by NOMOCO, LLC, in the River Walk Subdivision which is located on Bear Creek downstream from North Mountain Avenue. The deed transfers title to the city for the property being donated. Recommendations: Move to adopt the resolution and authorize the mayor to accept the deed on behalf of the city. Fiscal Impact: None. The property was donated by the developer of River Walk subdivision, NOMOCO, LLC. Background:' In seeking approval for the 67-1ot River Walk Subdivision, the developer offered to donate several acres of the site to the city for a new city park. Thc subdivision was approved in planning action 2002-054, the plat has been recorded and the subdivision streets and houses are now being constructed. Attachments: Resolution Deed from NOMOCO, LLC, to City of Ashland Vicinity map of donation Memo from Parks Director 1- G:~legal\PAUL\ORD\dedicate Riverwalk - NOMOCO, LLC.wpd RESOLUTION NO. 2004- A RESOLUTION DEDICATING PROPERTY FOR OPEN SPACE PARK PURPOSES PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XlXA, SECTION 2, OF THE CITY CHARTER (RIVER WALK BY NOMOCO, LLC) THE CITY'oF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The land described below is dedicated for open space park purposes pursuant to Article XIXA, Section 2, of the Ashland City Charter: That tract designated as Open Space 3 (OS3) on RIVER WALK SUBDIVISION, A PLANNED COMMUNITY, according to the Official Plat thereof, now of record, in Jackson County, Oregon. SECTION 2. 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 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of June ,2004. Barbara Chdstensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of ,2004. Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor e~ form: _ I~a[~l Nolte, City Attorney 1- RESOLUTION DESIGNATING RIVER WALK PARK G:UegaI~PAUL~DARKS\Dedicate River Walk Reso 604.wpd WARRANTY DEED Return Document To: Barbara Christensen, City Recorder, 20 East Main, Ashland, OR 97520 Consideration: $1.00 and other valuable consideration Send Tax Statements To: City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520 NOMOCO, LLC, Grantor, conveys and warrants to CITY OF ASHLAND, Grantee, the following real property free of encumbrances except as specifically set forth herein: That tract designated as Open Space 3 (OS3) on RIVER WALK SUBDIVISION, A PLANNED COMMUNITY, according to the Official Plat thereof, now of record, in Jackson County, Oregon. THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. The true and actual consideration for this conveyance and easement is ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration. Dated this ~ day of ,2004. GRANTOR: State of Oregon County of Jackson 'This instrument was acknowledged before me on' ' ~ by as and as · ;20O4, of NOMOCO, LLC, of NOMOCO, LLC. Notary Public for Oregon My Commission expires: 1 - G:~legal\PAUL\PARKS~,iverwalk warranty deed of dedication.wpd TO: Paul Nolte, City Attomey FROM: Don Robertson, Director, Parks and Recreation DATE: June 9, 2004 RE: Riverwalk Land Dedication ACTION REQUESTED: Approve Riverwalk dedication and designate as open space BACKGROUND: Council adopted the Parks and Recreation open space master plan in July of 2002. It recommends the addition of the river walk area as open space. The Riverwalk open space will serve the purpose of protecting the riparian habitat along Bear Creek. It will also serve recreational values of hiking, wildlife viewing and biking. Further the protection of the riparian area will aid in the general health of the stream by shading the water and maintain the temperature control. .Another benefit to the preservation of the Riverwalk area will be the enhanced character of the nature center located with in North Mountain Park directly across the street. RECOMENDATAION: Staff recommends the dedication of the Riverwalk area property as designated open space. oF=.