Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2004-0406 Council Packet
Council Meeting Pkt. BARBARA CHRISTENSEN CITY RECORDER CITY OF -.ASHLAND council meetings may speak on any item on the agenda, unless it )ny subjectnot on the printed agenda; if you wish to speak, please fill out the Speaker Request form located near the entrance to the Council Chambers. Thechair will recognize you and inform you as to the amount of time allotted to you. The time granted will be dependent to some extent 0n the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people who wish to be heard, and the length of the agenda. AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL April 6, 2004 Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street 6:30 p.m. Executive Session: Labor Negotiations with Ashland Firefighter's Association pursuant to ORS 192.660(1)(d). 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: II. ROLL CALL: III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Council Meeting Minutes of March 16, 2004, Study Session Minutes of March 17, 2004 and Minutes for the Special Meeting of March 18, 2004. IV. JPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS: · Proclamation of April 16 - 18, 2004 as National Youth Service Day. . Proclamation of April 4 - 10, 2004 as Arbor Week in Ashland. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker, unless it is the subject ora Land Use Appeal. All hearings must conclude by 9:30 p.m. or be continued to a subsequent meeting.) 1. ODOT's Request to Approve Night Construction Work on the Green Springs Highway (OR 66) within the City Limits (MP 0.8 to MP 1.99). 2. Appeal of Planning Action 2003-188, a request for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Permit to construct a single family residential home on Hillside Lands within a Historic District. Applicant: Sidney and Karen DeBoer. VII. 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.) COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BR()AI)CAST I,IVE ON (?t:.IANNEI, 9 V1SH' 'F}IE CITY OF ASHI.,AND'S WEB SI'I't:~ AT WWW.ASltI,AND.OR.tIS IX. XI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: (None) NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:: 1. Ratification of Labor Contract between the City and Ashland Firefighter's Association. 2. Recommendation from the Ad Hoc Grove Committee. ORDINANCES~ RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS: ¢'1. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Creating the Charter Review Committee." ,,/ 2. Reading by title only of '% Resolution Establishing Cable Television and Internet Rates for the Ashland Fiber Network, readopting all other Rates without change and Repealing Resolution No. 2003-03." 3. Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance Creating New Sections 15.28.150 and 15.28.160 of the Ashland Municipal Code to Provide Fees for the Uniform Fire Code Plan Review and Inspections Be Set by Resolution." OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL Xll. LIAISONS: ADJOURNMENT: REMINDER A Study Session will be held at noon on Wednesday, April 7 in Council Chambers: Topics of discussion will include: 1 ) Update regarding the Public Art Commission; 2) Proposed Billings Ranch Golf Course - Effluent Reuse Options/Update on DEQ WWTP Temperature Standards and Permit Renewal; and, 3) Discussion regarding the allocation of Transient Occupancy Tax Revenues for Cultural and Economic Grants. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735- 2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). COIJNCII. MEETINGS ARE BROAI)CAS"I' I,IVE ON CtfANNEI. 9 VISIT TIlE CITY OF ASltLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASIILANI).OR.[JS MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHI~AND CITY COUNCIL March 16, 2004 - 7:00 p.m. Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor DeBoer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilors Laws, Hartzell, Jackson, Morrison and Hearn were present. Councilor Amarotico was absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of March 2, 2004 were approved as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS Mayor acknowledged that Lieutenant Rich Walsh received the "Above and Beyond Award for Employer Support of the Guard & Reserve Agency." CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees. 2. Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Amy Crumme Korth to the Housing Commission for a term to expire April 30, 2005. Mayor DeBoer added to the Consent Agenda the Confirmation of Carol Voisin to the Housing Commission. Councilor Morrison/Jackson m/s to approve Consent Agenda, including the addition by the Mayor. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion Passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS (None) PUBLIC FORUM Eric Navickas/711 Faith Avenue/SpOke regarding the logging project occurring in the Ashland Watershed. Explained the fu'e triangle of fuel, heat, and oxygen, and stated all of these elements are increased by thinning the forest. Stated the best way to prevent a fire is to maintain a closed-canopy, cool, moist forest, and feels the City is creating more problems than this Restoration Project is solving. Noted the project states that 96% of the trees are under 17" diameter, but feels that this is an inaccurate description. Asked the City to look at these issues and take a conscience role in the Forest Service's proposal. Patti Morey/435 ~ Scenic Drive/Spoke regarding lite Ashland Pet Center building which has been empty for 6 years. Stated the business had to close because the owners could not afford the lease. Cited various other buildings in Ashland that are sitting empty due to high lease rates and requested that the City institute some kind of fine for buildings that stay unoccupied over a certain amount of time. Bryan Hoiley/324 Liberty Street/Noted the loss of an Ashland resident, Jack Blackburn, and explained how he was a valued citizen and very active in the comrnunity. George Kramer/386 N. Laurel/Stated he is frustrated by the state of land use planning in Ashland and explained there is a disconnect between much of what the community wants and what they are getting. Stated Ashland needs to retum to its' strong commitment and consistent voice in guiding the planning process; added Ashland has built a vision before and we need to do it again. Kramer noted Goal #29, which speaks on increasing discussion and awareness of land use planning and asked that Council make this goal a priority. He ,4SttL,4 ND CITY COUNCIL MEETING M,4RCtt 16. 2004 P~IGE I 0t:4 explained that land use is an area where they have considerable authority to shape this city's future if they choose to exercise it. Kramer stated that city policy and how it is implemented is the root cause of the affordable housing situation, the decline in school enrollment, and the skyrocketing development costs. He suggests the Council promotes a discussion recognizing this issue, and also suggests rezoning and encouraging apartment development. Stated Ashland is in a bad cycle and is needing strong guidance. Kramer asked for the Council's leadership in fostering a true community wide discussion' about Ashland's future and offered his support in reaching this goal. In response to Public Forum, Mayor DeBoer clarified that a property owner cannot deduct income they do not receive and the owners do have to pay property taxes. He stated that Ashland is performing a thinning project above the park and residents can expect logging and about 2 weeks of helicopters at the first of April; he added that there is further information listed on the Ashland website. DeBoer thanked Holley for mentioning the loss of Jack Blackburn. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None) NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS (None) ORDINANCES~ RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. First reading by title only of "An Ordinance Creating New Sections 15.28.150 and 15.28.160 of the Ashland Municipal Code to Provide Fees for the 'Uniform Fire Code Plan Review and Inspections Be Set by Resolution." Fire ChiefKeith Woodley explained that during the budget process last spring, the Fire Department informed the Budget Committee that the turnaround time for Fire Prevention Plans review was approaching 20 days. After a discussion on this point, the Fire Department proposed adding a Fire Prevention Officer to help with the workload and move the timeframe to a 5 day turnaround. At that time the Fire Department received direction from the Budget Committee to seek cost recovery for a portion of that position. The ordinance that comes before the Council tonight is intended to accomplish this recommendation. Assistant Fire Chief/City Fire Marshall Dave Hard clarified that the dollar amount for the Subdivision Review Fee reflected the amount for a single house located in the subdivision. He also clarified that the fees are based on the Building Departments' table which depend on square footage type construction and overall value. They did not want to create any new tables for this so what they are doing is taking 10% of the permit and plan review fees. Hard added that the City needs to be careful, in ensuring that they are not charging twice for the same services. Council questioned that rather than simply taking 10% of the building fee, would it be possible for the City to approach these fees in a way that gets them closer to cost recovery. Woodley explained that Staff was concerned with the accumulated impact on the cost of building and the outcome of the discussion was to not seek 75% of cost recovery, but rather 50%. In response to Council, Hard clarified that the fees are based on the value of the building and the building permit because the City incurs more expense in inspecting buildings that cost more. He also explained that commercial development is much more ina/cate than residential development and as the size of the residential home goes up, so does the intricacies of access, fire flow and fire hydrant distance. Woodley added that typically there is a corresponding relationship between cost and square footage that has to be inspected, and therefore the fee reflects this in a fair way. Councilor Laws/Hearn m/s to approve first reading and place on agenda for second reading of ordinance. Roll Call Vote: Hearn, Hartzell, Laws, Morrison and Jackson, YES. Motion Passed. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS 1. Report from Councilor Kate Jackson on National League of Cities conference. ,4StIL.4 ND CT]')~ COUNCIL MEETLYG /~£,tRCH 16. 2004 PAGE 2 OF 4 Councilor Jackson relayed that while attending the conference she had done some lobbying for the City and explained that she had met with various senators, congressmen, and the Fish and Wildlife Service. The main target was the funding for the construction of the Forensics Laboratory expansion, however Ashland's efforts to reduce the fire fuels in the watershed, the Intemet Tax, the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act, and the Safe Harbor Provisions were also topics of discussion. In regards to George Kramer's testimony, Councilor Hm-tzell stated she would like to work with Staff to discuss the issues mentioned including being more pro-actiw, and defining the key issues. Councilor Morrison stated the comments made by Kramer held merit and emphasized the need to obtain a good idea of what they want to accomplish and where they want to go. Councilor Laws agrees that this needs to be discussed on a community wide basis. However stated that the problem is not that Ashland is lacking a vision, but rather the carrying out documents are not working as well as they ought to. Would agree that much of the community is not aware of what is in the Comprehensive Plan, and they are not informed that the City already wants the same things they are speaking out about. Laws stated they need to reexamine the visions and goals which may need some updating, however noted they need to keep in mind that this is a tremendous workload for staff. Laws stated he took an oath to abide by the constitution and feels it is his responsibility to follow what the ordinance says or change it, and to not seek out the loopholes. Councilor Heam stated he would like to see the Council work on some of these things, and believes they need to look at the ordinances and Comprehensive Plan and make the necessary adjustments. Heam noted that for a town it's size, Ashland is a cutting edge city in terms of land use, but added it is important to continue to vision and see what we can be done to make it better. City Administrator Gino Grimaldi stated this project is too big and too important to rush into, and would like to meet with Community Development Director John McLaughlin first and bring forward options for discussion at a Study Session. Grimaldi stated there are a number of significant issues that they are presently dealing with, but would like to start moving forward with this with a goal of having something more specific to Council in the July/August timeframe. Councilor Laws feels the timeframe mentioned by Grimaldi is acceptable, noted that any changes to the Land Use Ordinance should involve the Planning Commission, and expressed his concem with not having a Citizens Planning Advisory Committee. Councilor Hartzell wants to look at the problem and does not believe they need staff to do that. Added staff is a piece of this, but does not feel comfortable waiting to address this issue. She would like to be more proactive and meet with the public and identify what some of the barriers are. Her fear is that if they turn this into a "visioning process" they are looking at a 5-year process, and would like to look into a more immediate address to these issues. Councilor Jackson stated she does not want to confuse the issue, and stated that land use planning is a separate process from visioning. Council and Mayor noted the 'Dawn to Dusk' agreement for the logging project noting that this will be an imposition on the residents and asked that they remain patient as it will be over soon. Councilor Hartzell stated that for the future she would like more information on the cost figures that lead to Staffs conclusions. Mayor reminded Council that there is a Study Session Wednesday and noon and a Special Meeting to discuss ,4SHL,4 ND CITY ('OUNCIL Mt:;ETING M.,~RCft 16. 20(;4 Ptt(i['~ 3 OF 4 the Ashland Fiber Network on Thursday at 7:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder Alan DeBoer, Mayor ,4SHL,qND C//T C'OUNCIL MEE']'ING M,,IRCIt 16. 2004 P.,IGE 4 0t: 4 ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Wednesday, March 17, 2004 at 12:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor DeBoer called the meeting to order at 12:06 p.m. ATTENDANCE City Council: Councilors Morrison, and Laws were present. Councilor Jackson arrived at 12:15. Councilors Hearn, Hartzell and Amarotico were absent.. Staff: Management Analyst Ann Seltzer, City Attorney Paul Nolte, Assistant City Attorney Mike Franell and City Administrator Gino Grimaldi. I. Charter Review Discussion Management Analyst Ann Seltzer introduced Sandra ~M-p who is a Codification Consultant with the American Legal Publishing Corporation. Arp shared her experience with assisting various cities with Charter Reviews, and explained the process and her participation as a Charter Consultant. She stated that she is aware of the Ashland Charter and noted that it is unique in Oregon. Arp presented the most recent Model City Charter for the League of Oregon Cities. She explained that cities will often change their Charter because items become no longer enforceable or legal, and stated it is a common evolution for a city to mow~ from the Mayor/Council form of government to the Council/Manager form. Arp stated there are some strange things in the Ashland Charter that make it unique to Oregon, explained Ashland's Charter is a longer than it needs to be, and noted there are items that have become outdated. Arp stated that all of the election laws have changed since the adoption of the Ashland Charter in 1970, and added that Ashland's Charter could cause problems if it is not updated. Arp explained that there are a number of ways to review a Charter as long as the present Charter does not dictate how it should be done. The Council could draft it themselves, assign a Staff member, or they could appoint a committee. If Council appoints a committee, Arp suggests appointing 7-9 individuals from various interest groups in the City, and stressed having a strong chair. Arp stated that the City of Seaside appointed their Municipal Judge as the chair, and suggests that Ashland look at using a former City Council member or someone with a strong knowledge of the City. Arp also recommended that our Legal Department be involved in this process. Arp explained that how the Council makes up the committee is often considered a political decision. She also clarified that the Charter Committee meetings would be open to the public with public notice, as any other public meeting would be. Arp noted that a new Charter or Charter amendments could go on any of the 4 elections dates, and explained that if is often rnuch easier to adopt a new Charter rather than amending various sections. She noted that Ashland's Charter is written in gender neutral terms, and explained that these are the types of things that may be overlooked when doing amendments. Arp also noted that if you try to amend several sections, they could not be put on the same ballot title; however a new Charter can be listed as one title. Atp spoke regarding the model charter. She explained that the general grants of powers became the basis for the first model charter, and there have been various additions of that model up through today. With Ashland's Charter there are general grants of powers, but also specific powers listed. If you mix the two it means that the general grants don't really mean what they say. Arp stated the City Charter should be a basic document that lists your authority, power, form of government and any limitations on how to in act a law. She added that legislation is not the purpose of the Charter and should not be included. Arp stated that 85-90% of the cities in Oregon has a Charter that is based on a version of this model. Atp explained there are three types of issues to took ;at when doing a Charter review: 1) Legal issues, 2) Open meeting laws, and 3) Political issues. Arp stated she could not tell from the Charter how the administrative duties are divided between the Mayor and the Administrator, and stated it is hard to determine what the chain of command is because of the way the Mayor's duties and functions are described. Arp noted that some of the political issues to consider when drafting the Charter is whether or not the Mayor is able to vote, if it is a paid ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL STUD Y SESSION MARCH 17, 2004 Page 1 of 3 position, and how long the terms for Council seats are. On a side note, Arp added that you should never list dollar amounts in a Charter (which Ashland has done in its current version). Arp explained that generally a Charter Committee will meet many times and the Council should plan on holding several meetings regarding the draft Charter. She stated the Council will be able to give direction to the committee (even though it may not be followed), and once the draft is provided to the Council they will be able to fine tune it before sending it to the ballot. Atp stated she has not experienced a situation where the Council did not follow the suggestions of a committee, but then again most cities do not appoint a committee but rather just follow the model. Arp stated the make-up of a committee should include those who are interested, such as the League of Women's Voters, or a former councilor, mayor or city attorney. She stated the most important thing is to appoint a strong chair, and the committee should include members who are active and interested. Atp stated she would not recommend the current mayor or councilors to a part of the committee. She added it was an option for the Council to draft the charter themselves, but it would require a lot of time in meetings and would also mean no citizen involvement. Council noted there are several items in the Charter that simply need to be updated, and others that are highly controversial. Arp stated that she believes the committee would help to alleviate these issues by enabling the public to look at the new Charter as a consensus of the people and see that no one faction has total control. Arp noted that it is the smaller communities with staffing issues that typically end up undertaking the Charter Revisions themselves. Arp recommended that the City Attorney attend the committee meetings, not as a member, but to keep the members on the straight and narrow. She added that often committee members will attempt to include items that are totally illegal or unconstitutional. City Administrator Gino Grimaldi stated he believes it is best to have the City Attorney position appointed by the City Council, not the City Manager; and explained that in order to be effective the City Attorney needs to be kept independent from the organization. Council questioned whether the Charter update could be ready in time/hr the fall election. Atp explained that it depends on how fast the committee works, and restated that a new Charter can be put on any ballot. If it is not done in time for the November ballot, it could go on the March ballot. Arp added that the Charter Committee should not look at the makeup of the Council as it is now, but have them draft a Charter for the future. She added that if Ashland uses the model charter as a base, we would want to adopt footnotes as legislative history. City Attorney Paul Nolte agreed, stating that the Ashland Charter is lacking good legislation history and agreed that this is very important to have. Council discussed the proposed timeline of the meetings. Seltzer stated she had included this information to give the Council a visual, and this would not necessarily be the set schedule. Jackson asked if there was a particular reason why they were looking at the November election. Morrison stated an intensive schedule with weekly meetings would work best and keep the information fresh. Arp noted that there they may be items that Council will want to preserve from the current Charter, and if so they can be reproduced in the new one. Mayor DeBoer recommended hiring a consultant to review the Charter and make recommendations prior to the formation of the committee. He added they should focus on identify technical problems first and then move to the more sensitive political issues. Council discussed whether to use the normal appointment process to recruit committee members. Seltzer noted examples of questions that could be used (in addition to the letter of interest) for selection purposes. Council discussed whether this was a good idea or not. Laws stated if they ask for volunteers, they will mainly get people who have a special interest in changing some part of the charter. Laws suggests starting out with those that have a major stake in the community. Morrison feels the way to deflect criticism is to develop a process that does not just round up the usual suspects, but is as inclusive as it can possibly be. Laws stated you cannot do this by just having people volunteer. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL STUD Y SESSION Page 2 of 3 MARCH 17, 2004 Morrison questioned whether they should hire someone to perform the legal review or whether the Legal Department would handle it. City Attorney Paul Nolte recommends that they use both, explaining that this would give them a broader view. The consultant would be useful in answering questions and helping the committee to operate. Nolte stated he would not suggest having the consultant help with the recruitment, explaining they should utilize someone with knowledge of our community. Laws stated the consultant should start out by explaining the different forms of government (Mayor/Council vs. Manager/Council) and pointing out some of the problems in the current Charter. Nolte suggests that the consultant be present at the first few meetings to get the committee rolling, and then be used periodically as issues arise. It was clarified that the consultant would draft the measure with the assistance of the legal staff. Seltzer stated the cost of a consultant ranged from $5,000 - $10,000. Grimaldi expressed concern that there were three council members missing from the meeting, and suggests that a memo go out to the Council to bring the absent members up to speed. Mayor noted numerous openings on the various commi ssions and committees. Council and Staff discussed how to better get the information out regarding these vacancies. Meeting was adjourned at 1:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Christensen, City Recorder ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL STUD Y SESSION MARCH 17, 2004 Page 3 of 3 Minutes for the Special Meeting Ashland City Council and Citizen's Budget Committee Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 7:00 p.m. Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E Main Street Call to Order Mayor DeBoer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. Roll Call Councilor Laws, Amarotico, Jackson, Morrison and Hearn were present. Councilor Hartzell was absent. Budget Committee members Dave Williams, Jim Moore and Ray Olson. New & Miscellaneous Business 1. The Ashland Fiber Network Electric and Telecommunications Director Dick Wanderscheid introduced Navigant consultant Nelson Hyde. Hyde presented suggested discussion points as project's objective, project team, approach and analysis conducted, Ashland market profile and AFN's position, benchmark results, market survey results, recommended new initiatives and financial implications and modeling. He explained the three main purposes of the project as 1) Review and update as appropriate AFN's financial projections, 2) Identify new revenue-generating opportunities and 3) Evaluate AFN operations, policies and procedures for potential enhancements, plus and new needs. The project team consisted of Navigant Consulting and the Advisory Committee. The project assessed three different areas of impact for AFN's financial model and future. These areas are revenue-generating opportunities, AFN base-case financial assumptions and AFN internal development opportunities. The process involved a series of analyses and detailed investigations. Multiple perspectives and data-points to establish realistic forecasts were used. Hyde indicated Ashland's market profile in comparison to all network competitors. Ashland's Cable Television (CATV) penetration is on par with the national average and the modem penetration is close to three times the national average for cable modem and DSL combined. He pointed out that AFN dominates the cable modem market, and was almost matching Charter for CATV at this fiscal year's beginning. A graph indicating AFN's market position compared to other peer overlay systems - CATV showed stronger competitive CATV forces in Ashland, impact AFN's overall penetration of the market. AFN sets the pace for cable modem penetrations among the overlay systems studied. He stated that Ashland achieved these results despite some significant and unique conditions in Ashland. Hyde explained that market research was one key point of reference for future trends. The survey conducted showed slowing adoption of services, and point to AFN competitive advantages of service and value. The survey also revealed AFN's market advantages in customer service and value for the price. He reported that simple staffing benchmarks against peers suggest AFN has fewer staffproportionally. Hyde stated that the project developed new forward-looking assumptions for the base-case financial projections. Among the variables evaluated and updated were household and business growth, future technology adoption by new customers, shifting market share, upgrades and migrations by existing customers, institutional and large customer high-speed data market, operational expenses and capital expenses. He explained that revenue-generating initiatives then add incrementally to the base-case. Navigant worked with the Advisory Committee to detail the opportunity for 13 new initiatives. Hyde reported on the AFN internal review. The project examined performance and practices in customer service, marketing, advertising and sales, engineering, technical and operations. Recommendations were 3/18/04 City Council and Budget Committee Special Meeting 1 customer service training and guarantees; marketing ancl sales - better customer information for targeting, more support; programming - incorporate more "business case" factors; and technical - convert second full DS3 to a fractional DS3, more support. He indicated the implications as 1) Staff: ¼ clerical and ½ technical FTE and 2) Financials: savings offset costs. The resulting assumptions represent one reasonable future for AFN under the "Keep and Enhance" option. The project developed the analytical basis for making forward-looking assumptions as: Realistic, Conservative and Achievable. The project linked these to dynamic market drivers that can be updated as conditions evolve, identified new initiatives and specific, detailed next steps for enhancement and provided one basis for evaluating any and all options that AFN has. On request, Hyde gave examples of initiatives as new offerings to customers and expansion of AFN outside the city limits. He stated that some initiatives are ways to stimulate the market. Comment was made that the initiatives seem to favor cable television. Comment regarding the Program Committee providing information for financial purposes was noted as encouraged. Hyde stated that a written detailed report on assumptions would be provided to the council. He noted that the Advisory Committee had spent a great deal of time going over these assumptions. In reference to the survey, the difference between switching and adoption behavior was explained and examples given. He stated that the question of why a customer would not switch was not asked through the survey but gave several reasons why he felt there was some resistance and how to address this resistance. Hyde commented and noted emerging new technologies and difficulty in modeling because of the changing pace of technology. He noted that most communities placed the issue of fiber optic before the community, some went over budget, but most communities have all proceeded differently. Wanderscheid explained the process as taking the 21 initiatives and working these down to 13 initiatives with the help of the Advisory Committee. He explained that the report recently sent to the council was the result of this work. Finance Director Lee Tuneberg walked the Council and Budget Committee through the Pro Forma and how it was integrated into the project. He explained that the Pro Forma is a one-year plan and he felt that we have a better product that will work with the Pro Forma. He stated this will help to better and continually monitor and report to the council the progress on meeting targets and to use it as a guide to make mid course corrections as circumstances dictate. Financial Pro Formas were presented on Capital Expenditures, Operating Expenses, Revenue Summary, Debt Summary, Cash Flow Summary and Income Summary. Questions and discussion on various elements of the Pro Formas was held. Tuneberg noted that this is a better Pro Forma than in the past and that independent reviews were used. He noted the importance of ensuring expense tracking with revenue. Tuneberg explained that the Plan comparison prepared by Navigant for statistical and financials assumptions at 5, 10 and 15 years. This comparison was on the 2001-02 Plan (2001 Ad Hoc) and the 2004- 2005 Plan (enhanced programs) and indicated the 10 and 15 year cumulative gain/loss. The assumptions compared on statistics were residential passings, CATV residential percent of passings, CATV residential customer counts, CATV bulk customer counts, cable-modem residential customer counts and high speed customer counts. The assumptions compared on financials, total to date were CATV revenue, bulk cable revenue, cable-modem revenue and high-speed revenue. Tuneberg noted that we are starting to see an increase of revenue over expenses and subsequent increases over the next few years. He stated that there is still a problem with cash flow. 3/18/04 City Council and Budget Committee Special Meeting Hyde noted the necessary length of depreciation and the reason for the twenty years. He commented on how technology changes could affect AFN and how this impact would be based on how aggressive Ashland is on marketing AFN outside the City. Comment was made that prior Plans presented have always provide~l less real numbers on revenue and expenses and questioned what the difference is with the Plan before the Council at this time. Tuneberg explained that through known history and modeling, better information has been provided on assumptions through various ways. He feels better about revenue calculations and the bases of these came through good surveys and an Advisory group. He feels more corntbrtable with a conservative Plan. Wanderscheid commented that given past Plans that were off target, it was important to keep this Plan conservative. He noted the areas where AFN is growing and the desire to keep up with new technology. Budget Committee member Dave Williams commented that all he wants to know, is that staff believes that AFN will succeed. Wanderscheid briefly spoke regarding the steps being taken in regards to expansion of AFN. He noted potential strategies that staff is working on in this regard and the ability to grow and gain revenue from customers outside the City. He stated that this Plan recognizes the impact on moral and staff given the amount of customers that are being served. Comfort level with projections as reported in the Plan was noted, but also the one thing to be most concerned with is keeping up with new technology and the inability to predict the future. Tuneberg referenced the Income Summary Pro Forma at 15 years. City Administrator Gino Grimaldi indicated that staff was looking for an acceptance of the Pro Forma. Tuneberg explained that staff would come back to Council in May with a recommendation. Councilor Hearn/Jackson m/s to adopt the revised Pro Forma which will then be used to prepare the FY 2004-05 budget for AFN and allow staff to begin work on other AFN Financial issues. DISCUSSION: Tuneberg explained that he would like to have the opportunity to look at all options for the recommendation to be presented to the Council. Morrison commented that although the numbers presented are truer and more accurate, concern still remains on the debt risk. Hyde suggested looking at an acceptable level of risk that the Council would be comfortable with and go from there. He feels that this Plan is a reliable alternative project. Ite noted the need to keep in mind fatal flaws, such as new technology and budgetary issues. It was noted that there is a need to keep in mind the benefit to the community. Comment was made that periodic review is crucial and that reports are made to the Council. Voice Vote: ali AYES. Motion passed. Mayor voiced his appreciation to Navigant Consultants, Cow Creek Indian Tribe for their contribution to AFN and staff for their effort and work regarding AFN. Meeting was adjourned at 9:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Christensen, City Recorder 3/18/04 City Council and Budget Committee Special Meeting 3 PROCLAMATION · In 1988, Youth Service America (YSA) and the Campus Outreach Opportunity League (COOL) organized the first National Youth Service Day. · In the last decade, National Youth Service Day has grown to the largest s__ervice event in the world, engaging millions of young people. · As a public awareness and education campaign, National Youth Service Day highlights the amazing contributions that young people make to their communities. National Youth Service Day encourages youth to participate in community activities, begin youth on a lifelong path of service and civic engagement, and mobilize youth as leaders to identify and address the needs of their communities through service. · Youth who volunteer are more likely to do well in school, graduate, vote and volunteer the rest of their lives. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council and Mayor, on behalf of the citizens of Ashland, hereby proclaim April 16 - 18, 2004 as: "NATIONAL YOUTH SER VICE DA Y" and urge our citizens to participate wholeheartedly in its observance. Dated this 6th day of April, 2004. Alan DeBoer, Mayor Barbara Christensen, City Recorder PROCLAMATION · J. Sterling Morton proposed to the Nebraska Board of Agriculture in 1872 that a special day be set aside for the planting of trees. · This holiday, called Arbor Day, was first observed with the planting of more than a million trees in Nebraska. -- · Arbor Day is now observed throughout the nation and the world. Trees can reduce the erosion of our precious topsoil by wind and water, reduce heating and cooling costs, moderate the temperature, clean the air, produce oxygen, and provide a habitat for wildlife. Trees are a renewable resource giving us paper, wood for our homes, fuel for our fires, and countless other wood products; and trees in our city increase property values, enhance the economic vitality of business areas, and beautify our community; and trees are a source of joy and spiritual renewal. · Ashland has been recognized as a Tree City USA by the National Arbor Day Foundation for nineteen years and desires to continue its tree-planting ways. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council and Mayor, on behalf of the citizens of Ashland, hereby proclaim April 4 to April 10, 2004 as ARBOR WEEK INASHLAND and urge all citizens to support efforts to care for our trees and woodlands and to support our City's community forestry program. I further urge all citizens to plant trees to gladden the hearts and promote the well-being of present and future generations. Dated this 6th day of April, 2004. Alan DeBoer, Mayor Barbara Chfistensen, City Recorder Ashland Traffic Safety cOmmission Minutes February 26, 2004 Hembers Present: Doris Mannion, Keith Massie, Terry Doyle, David Chapman, Pam Hammond, Patti Busse, William Snell, Don Laws Staff Present: Dawn Lamb, Officer Tom Cook, Jim Olson Members Absent: Corey VanLandingham, Jim Green II. III. CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 29th Minutes approved with changes. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION' A. PUBLIC FORUM ITEMS: None B. REVIEW OF TRAFFIC REQUESTS / PROJECTS PENDING/ACTION REQUIRED 1, Report on Traffic Laws By Officer Tom Cook Officer Cook did a presentation of some of the new traffic laws that are in effect, One deals with pedestrian right of way on a marked highway crosswalk. New law says when a pedestrian is in an adjacent lane to the driver the vehicle must stop and remained stopped until the pedestrian is one full lane away. If an island is separating the directions of traffic then the traffic in both lanes on side of the island must stop. On a two lane, two way street after the pedestrian steps off the curb then both lanes have to stop until the pedestrian is back on the curb On an unmarked crosswalk, the pedestrian yields to the vehicle right of way or the pedestrian is in violation. Skateboarders and scooters under sixteen must wear protective headgear. Failure to maintain a safe distance from an emergency vehicle. If an emergency vehicle is parked on the side of a two lane same direction road with the lights on you must move to lane opposite and slow down. If on a two lane with traffic going both directions you must slow down and make a proper lane pass. Minors on the external part of the vehicle. If a minor is under 18 years of age they can not ride on the external part of the vehicle including the bed of a pickup truck except if there is a secure device like an approved harness. Adults can still ride in the external part of the vehicle. Accident reporting requirement change. If you are in an accident with an injury or $1,500 worth of damage to either vehicle you have to file an accident report. This is an increase from $1,000. DUI diversion. If you go into a diversion program after being cited with a DUI you must plead guilty. Breathalizer requirement. If you refuse to take a breathalizer test you can be fined from $500 to $1,000 and have your license suspended. Speed fines have increased. If you are 11-20 MPH over the limit the fine went from $109 to $141. A crosswalk violation went from $175 to $237 and pedestrian fines went from $77 to $94. Massie asked if we wanted to continue the crosswalk operations what needs to happen. Officer Cook needs funding to continue, we will need to go to Council for support. C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\February 26 04.doc Page I of 6 2. Request for Stop Signs at Grandview/Sunnyview Intersection Last month the commission heard from several residents of the Grandview/Sunnyview area regarding the signage at the intersection of Grandview Drive, Sunnyview Street and Skycrest Drive. The commission received testimony in support of the following options: 1. Leave the signage as is and improve the visibility at the corners. 2. Relocate the yield signs onto Grandview Drive (north) and Sunnyview Street. 3. Replace the existing yield signs at Grandview Drive (west) and at Skycrest Drive with stop signs. 4. Install stop signs at Grandview Drive (north) and at Sunnyview Street. Several good arguments were listed in favor of each option. The intersection I~as been operating with the present signage since 1998. This signage has not significantly improved the safety of the intersection even though it was installed in accordance with good engineering principles and practices. The intersection has a number of unique conditions that are not addressed under standard engineering principles. With an ADT of less than 600 vehicles per day, stop signs are not warranted, but on-site traffic observations and crash records tend to indicate that standard warrants cannot apply in this situation. Even with the removal of the site obstructions posed by the cedar trees at the southwest corner, visibility is still impaired. Far too many drivers are failing to yield at the two posted locations because of the grades on Grandview Drive and Sunnyview Street are steep and do not encourage stopping and starting; the traffic volumes are so Iow that many drivers are willing to take the chance that no other traffic is approaching and enter the intersection without the proper caution required of a yield intersection; and the westerly section of Grandview Drive is so much lower than Sunnyview Street that it is difficult to see approaching traffic from either direction. After a careful analysis of the intersection including a consultation with Dan Durall, ODOT Traffic Engineer, Staff recommends that the following actions be taken: Direct the owner of the property at the southwest corner of the intersection to trim the trees to conform to standard vision clearance requirements. Install "Stop" signs on Grandview Drive (north) and on Sunnyview Street. Install two "Stop Ahead" signs on Grandview Drive (north). One at the 90 degree curve near the intersection and a second sign approximately 400 feet in advance of the first sign at the beginning of a curve. Paint a centerline on Grandview Drive (north) from the stop sign location northeasterly approximately 500 feet. Discussion: Olson informed the commission that this is not an intersection that we can apply textbook engineering solutions too. Because of the grades and the vision problems combined with the blind curve on Grandview all make this a tricky intersection. The accident rate is high enough for us to warrant some kind of action. The solution that is suggested is a little askew from basic engineering. This is not a solution that Olson is happy with because it goes against basic engineering principles. Lee Perlman, 235 Grandview, disagree with recommendation because no one pays attention now to yield signs. Why would it be different for a stop sign. It is a tough situation leave as is and get more enforcement in the area. Chapman voiced concern over adding a center stripe on Grandview. This will lead drivers further to the shoulder where pedestrians are walking. He also doesn't agree with taking out the yield signs and replacing them with stops when the yield signs are not be respected, why do we think the stops will be respected any more. Where the placement of the stop signs will need to be people will be rolling forward past them to see anyway. He will be supportive of the stop if that's what is chosen but feels C;:\WlNDOWS\TEMP\February 26 04.doc Page 2 of 6 strongly about removing the yields when the problem is enforcement. Laws commented that even with yield signs they don't or can't stop but as you have said if they have to stop they will be stopped and slowed down and have a better chance to see other drivers. Olson suggested painting a stop bar beyond the stop sign. Chapman may be right about striping the first section of Grandview but at the Sunnyview intersection vehicles are going all over the place. Decision: Snell moved to accept the staff recommendation. Direct the owner of the property at the southwest corner of the intersection to trim the trees to conform to standard vision clearance requirements; Install "Stop" signs on Grandview Drive (north) and on Sunnyview Street; Install two "Stop Ahead" signs on Grandview Drive (north). One at the 90 degree curve near the intersection and a second sign approximately 400 feet in advance of the first sign at the beginning of a curve; and paint a centerline on Grandview Drive (north) from the stop sign location northeasterly approximately 500 feet. Vote passed unanimously. 3. Request for 2 Hour Parking on Limitation on Second Street At its December 4, 2004 meeting, the commission heard a request from several business owners in the 100 block of Second Street to establish a 2-hour parking zone north of Lithia Way on Second Street. No decision was reached in December and the commission elected to revisit this request at the February meeting. Following is a list of pros and cons to be considered with this request. Points in FAVOR of a Parking Zone Establishment 1. The first 100 feet of frontage from Lithia Way is basically commercial use. 2. The parking zone will force a greater utilization of existing parking by cycling the parking. 3. Commercial districts generally function better with shorter term parking limits. 4. Utilization of the on-street parking by employees of downtown businesses and the Post Office generally acquire the majority of available parking. 5. Private parking provided by the business is not adequate for the employees and businesses alike and the off-street parking is not always known by clientele. Points in OPPOSZTZON to a Parking Zone Establishment 1. The area is within the railroad district and has historical significance. 2. Diamond parking patrol currently does not provide services north of Lithia Way. 3. The parking change may negatively impact the residential uses further north on Second Street. 4. The parking limitation would force employees to park elsewhere, which would merely transfer the problem to another location. 5. Private parking is not well utilized for clientele parking. This problem is similar to those faced in several of the fringe neighborhoods where the former residential nature of the neighborhood is gradually giving way to a commercial use. The unlimited parking is needed in a residential area, but does not work well in a commercial area. The commission heard a similar request on Third Street a year ago and elected to not make any changes in the parking as it tends to push the problem into nearby neighborhoods. Staff recommends that no change be made to the parking limits on Second Street. Discussion: Busse asked about the status of the Parking Committee at this time. Laws was member of the Transportation Committee who made their report two years ago to the City Council. It was accepted at that time but there was no specific action taken. Laws did not recall a recommendation on parking ~3:\WlNDOW$\TEMP\February 26 04.doc Page 3 of 6 being made for the downtown. Doyle asked if we could override the democracy of the parking commission and move forward and do something. Could there be parking areas marked on the pavement delineating the parking spaces to help utilization. :Is there any action we could take to encourage the postal workers to be more considerate of the parking challenges? If they are faced with a two hour limit maybe they will change their habits before the two hour limit is put into affect. Massie commented that none of the parallel streets on the north side of Lithia Way with the exception of the first block on Oak Street have parking limits. Massie suggested designating an area similar to something delineated on the zoning maps as the downtown area and apply timed parking on all the streets within the area so that we don't encourage a trend of requests. Hammond voiced that this will only push the traffic to somewhere else, most likely residential, and while she understands the need there are just so many people needing a long term place park where they are not hiking from further and further away. Massie asked to have staff contact Diamond Parking to see Whether they would be willing to increase their area, if this would cost the City more per year? Officer Cook said that the contract with Diamond pays the City part of the revenue then excess revenue is theirs so there should be motivation to expand their area. Busse asked if the post office had been approached could they utilize more of their own lot for employee parking? David Allen, 630 Ray Lane, owner of business on Second Street felt that with changes in the residency and with the increase of commercial use on the street that this will become an economical hardship for him. Busse asked if the corner of Second and Lithia Way could be re-curbed to allow a couple more parking spaces at the physical therapy building. Olson had talked with the owner during design of the intersection and that is what will happen and it will create two more parking spaces. Massie asked if designs creating head in parking on other streets in the area could be utilized. :It would create more parking. Olson looked at a plan on C Street and it only added two spaces. The traffic volumes are too high on most of the streets to support head-in parking. Massie asked Olson if delineating the spaces would be a possibility, Olson has marked places in the downtown corridor painted but no where else because of the maintenance costs, but it might be possible. Busse asked if the post office could be asked to have the employees be more conscientious about their habits. Allen commented that the church on the corner has given the post office employees permission to use their parking lot and none seem willing to walk the extra block. They will not: make a change until there is a definite discipline attached to the request. Allen feels this area is very much leaning toward commercial zoning. Massie agreed that if zoning becomes commercial then the parking will need to be addressed. Hammond cautioned that if we limit parking here everyone will expect the same for the businesses in this area and there is simply not enough parking and it will encroach on the residential areas. Doyle and Massie both looked for potential ways to have less vehicles and other modes of transportation for work. Staff had been in process of designing a new plan for the railroad district which was put on hold due to lack of funding. Massie asked if it was in our power to change the parking in this area for two or three blocks. Laws commented that if we do this incrementally we will just keep chasing the problem. We need to have a more comprehensive approach, if the transportation committee was resurrected by the Mayor and Council to have the committee finish what was started and implement followed up this could be addressed. We need to encourage the Mayor to revive this committee and get it going again to help carry out the recommendations they made. Chapman remembered the committee wanting to wait for the summer months to complete some of the studies before implementing changes to parking. Allen commented that parking is a huge problem all over Ashland and the Copeland lot and the dental office for sale next door is prime parking space and no one is contemplating these options. Massie countered that the availability is not as much a problem as the habits. Hammond felt it is a problem with availability. Decision: Massie motioned to have staff look at designating that all properties zoned in the commercial downtown core be limited to 2 to 4 hour parking and ask Diamond Parking if they would expand to enforce this new area and how much revenue this would generate for the city. Seconded by Chapman. Hammond felt this would cause an uproar from the businesses. There is too much commercial C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\February 26 04.doc Page 4 of 6 property in this area. Massie felt the designation as a commercial area by the Planning Department should be consistent. Olson felt this would be a bad practice for areas of mixed use. The Planning department now requires adequate parking for all new commercial development. Chapman felt wary not knowing who had created the downtown boundary marked on the map, it seemed haphazard. Vote called four in favor and four against, motion dies. Hammond felt the Council and the parking committee should be making this decision. Laws agreed, this is not a traffic safety issue and we need to ask for progress. Lets send a memo to the Council asking that they could give timelines on resolving the problems and reaching a solution. Doyle moved to put marking along Second Street delineating the parking areas from Lithia Way to B Street. Massie seconded the motion. Snell commented that this is not a traffi~ safety issue and Doyle felt these people deserve some kind of action, they have been patient in waiting for a response. Laws commented that the problem for one person becomes a problem for other people. They came to a public forum to be heard. Massie asked if the number of cars parking along the street be counted before and after the markings are added. Vote called. Four opposing and four in favor, vote dies. 4. Council Goals Massie presented a draft of a tri-fold for the commissioners to review and parry down to a workable size. The commissioners worked together to go over the language to shorten the wording. When finished this will be included with invite letters to neighbors. Decision: Massie and Chapman will incorporate changes and staff will speak with Ann Seltzer about connecting the www.trafficcalming.org and to include this flyer on the city web page. Follow-Up On Previous Actions: Pending ODOT Actions - Welcome signs - no word from ODOT on the placement of the signs, Olson will report when he has information. 20 MPH speed reduction for downtown is still pending. Traffic Safety Education 1. Uniform Traffic Control Devices, March 10-12, OSU 2. Legal Aspects of Traffic Safety, April 14, OSU Development Review 1. Bike &Ped Commission Agenda 2. Planning Commission Agendas 3. Hearings Board Agenda F. Capital Projects Update- G. Other 1. Street Projects: a. Downtown Pedestrian Project: This project is underway and the ODOT crews will be installing handicap ramps, curb bumpouts and new traffic signals lights and poles. b. Siskiyou Boulevard Project: The timing of the lights won't be completed until the new lights being installed with the Downtown project are ready for operation. There is a stacking of cued vehicles happening at the Wightman, Siskiyou and Ashland Street intersection that becomes a hassle. The signal timing loops will be added in the next couple weeks in preparation for the final paving which is planned for the second or third week of April, weather pending. Chapman asked if the emergency signal on Siskiyou for the Fire Department vehicle access could C:\WlNDOWS\TEMP\February 26 04.doc Page 5 of 6 IV. be changed from a green light to a yellow light. This has been asked of ODOT and we are waiting for a response. There was discussion of another signal ahead sign to help drivers realize a traffic signal existed past the emergency signal. City Source Message Miscellaneous Communication New Business: Chapman asked if the intersection of Orchard and Westwood could be added to next month's agenda. He also asked if there could be a report on what the major causes of accidents between bikes and 'vehicles. Could the Parks and Recreation Department be asked to have the vehicles go slower through the park, and can a policy be made to have all city vehicles go under the posted speed limit. Could the commission petition the DMV to have more bicycle laws added to driver's training. Adjourned 9:05 PM C:\WlNDOWS\TEMP\February 26 04.doc Page 6 of 6 Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission February 19th, 2004 Regular Meeting Minutes Roll Call Members present: Council Liaison: Staff: RVTD liaison: High school liaison: John Baxter, Chair David Chapman Jack Catron, Vice Chair John Morrison (absenO Derek Severson, Account Clerk Dan Masi (present) Vacant Jack Christman Richard Beaudoin Brad Knickerbocker SOU liaison: None Guy Nutter (late) Lexi Delgado Tom Cook, APD Officer Call to Order Baxter called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. Approval of Minutes Chapman/Catron m/s to approve the minutes of January 15th, 2004 as presented. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. Public Forum Chapman and citizen Brad who is helping him with the Bicycle Friendly Communities application inquired as to whether the city supported National Bike Month in May. Brad stated that Bike Week was May 16-May 22, and that May 21st was Bike to Work Day. He asked if the commission was promoting any or all of these events; Baxter asked that this be an agenda item next month. 2004-2005 Budget It was noted that no money had been spent yet, and it was explained that some funds had been earmarked but not yet expended. Severson noted that the fiscal year ended June 30th, and stated that the commission needed to prepare its budget request at this meeting. Catron/Christman m/s to make a budget request in the same amount ($3,300) for Fiscal Year 2004-2005. Discussion: Delgado stated that she would like to see some further discussion. She added that if the commission had not spent it funds this year she did not feel it was appropriate to make the same request again. Beaudoin pointed out that the $1000 that had been budgeted for signage was picked up by the Street Department. Christman added that if the money were not spent, it would be returned to the general fund. Chapman suggested that the signage line item be replaced by neighborhood safety kits, printed materials, web postings, and traffic calming. Christman questioned the status of Keith Massey's school project request. Masi noted that he had spoken with Massey and the RVTD Marketing Director and he stated that RVTD could provide bags, coupons, coloring books, bus passes, and safety materials as part of the packets for Massey's project. He stated that Massey would just need funding to operate. Delgado added that the commission could likely provide some of the reflectors that were still on hand. Delgado questioned what the Walk/Bike $1500 item was to mean this year. Chapman noted the need to add Safe Routes into the budget. Baxter emphasized the need to provide some rationale for requesting and spending money. Delgado raised the issue of additional signage on the newly redesigned Siskiyou Boulevard. Chapman stated that the commission's original plan included Siskiyou signage. Catron stated that he would like to see "No Bikes/Scooters/Skateboards" signage posted on sidewalks. Chapman and Baxter responded that such signage would not come from this commission's budget. Delgado inquired whether the Bike Swap budget item could include the cost of a new banner. She stated that she was willing to recycle, but felt that some money to refurbish it would help. She stated that she would like $650 to cover potential costs for this year's Swap. Chapman suggested the following: Bike Swap - $500, Educational Materials - $500, Neighborhood Safety Kits - $800, Bike Education/Safe Routes - $1500. Members expressed general consensus with this breakdown. Chapman clarified that the neighborhood safety item would be to create a resource to resolve typical neighborhood safety problems. He stated that the money could go to staff support, web design, printed materials for kits and handouts, promotional items. Beaudoin questioned whether the commission intended to continue working with the BTA. Chapman also questioned doing some kind or adult bike safety training. Baxter clarified that the commission could not hire someone or enter into a contract, but could provide funds to a group likes the Parks Foundation to fund such training. Nutter questioned if BTA was to be in the budget. Catron suggested that an increase was iii-advised, and noted that amounts within the budget could be realiocated as needed. Baxter agreed. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. 2004-0219 Bike & Ped Min.doc Page lof3 Subcommittee Report: Bike Swap Delgado noted that the Swap would be held May 8t~ in the Grove parking lot. She stated that the location was approved and that they are working to reserve the Grove building itself. She stated that the subcommittee would be meeting following tonight's meeting. Subcommittee Report: Education - Outreach Trainin,q/Safe Routes Catron noted that he had distributed an item that was proposed as an open alert sign to pedestrians. He added that Police Chief Bianca had approved the wording. He stated that the proposal was to distribute this alert in hand-outs, posters, ads and brochures. He requested commission approval for the subcommittee to work on final wording. Baxter presented a bicycling laws card he had as a sample format for distribution. Nutter stated that he liked the idea. Cook agreed. Chapman suggested using both the card and posters. Catron asked for approval to print and make the alert available under the commission logo. Baxter stated that he would support this, with the final product to come back for full commission approval. There was general consensus. Catron expressed concern with delaying this another month, and stated that he would like to distribute based on the subcommittee's decision. ChapmanINutter m/s to authorize the subcommittee to finalize wording of the pedestrian alert for production and distribution. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. Subcommittee Report: Bicycle Friendly Communities Application Chapman stated that he was working on this item, and he added that staff work from Harris was the next step. He pointed out that materials would be complete by the 27t~ and ready for submittal by the end of the month, two weeks early. Subcommittee Report: Neiqhborhood Safety/Safe Routes Chapman noted that he, Nutter and Hartzell were working on a packet and using it with the Nevada Street neighbors. He clarified that Hattzell was mediating the neighborhood dispute, and he added that they are now discussing things and have a plan to get to solutions. He suggested that they would hopefully come back to bump outs. He explained that they are preparing a packet as they go. Chapman went on to not that the work with the Nevada neighbors had lead to parents requesting funding for a Safe Routes program at Helman School. Pilot Bicycle Safety Education for 2nd & 3rd Grades at Helman School - Discussion Delgado explained that last fall, after speaking with the BTA, she had spoken to local P.E. Teacher Matt Damon. She stated that he had expressed interest in a Bike Safety program, and that she had again contacted him. She noted that he would like to get a self- sustaining program underway; she discussed the proposed program as a one hour per day, twice per week program that would require parent volunteers. Delgado recommended that the commission help in coming up with volunteers, and suggested that working with Carol Lee Rogers might be the way to do this. She added that Damon was finding out which students had bicycles and was hoping to use BTA bikes for the others. Delgado pointed out that the other item to address would be identifying curriculum for young children, and she suggested that the BTA program was too dull for the age group's attention span. She noted that the first day would likely be conducted in the classroom without bikes for thirty minutes, and she explained that the program would fall under the school umbrella. Chapman confirmed that parents were interested. New Business Joany McGowan discussed the "In My Village" experience based on monthly meetings at the Old Ashland Armory. She stated that the meetings involved creation circles, and added that one of these was a transportation group. She noted that Andrew Bangsberg was bringing his shuttle service back to town and that they were also working to encourage people to get out of their cars. She discussed one such promotion which would be "Tickets to Ride": $10 cash or coupons given to cyclists around Ashland ten to twenty times per month. She emphasized that there would be no prize obligation, but there would be an option to be included in a press release. She explained that they were also trying to include a fitness element that would involve before and after weigh-in's and a fashion show. She noted the goal of the program was to get people out of their cars and reduce their vehicle miles traveled by 10-20% per month. She stated that they would provide tools to track money saved and that they are also planning a scavenger hunt/bike race in the summer. She noted that the office is at 33 Third Street downstairs and the website at http://www.tranzpo.com. McGowan suggested that the group's mission was to decrease the number of one-three mile trips in Ashland, and that their method is to express what they would like to see happen and then take the steps to actualize that expressed vision. She pointed out that the grofip currently numbers 250 and is Ashland-centered. She expressed interest in having a booth at the Bike Swap. Nutter/Catron m/s to provide McGowan's group with 15 lightsets for promotional giveaway (with some sort of credit to be provided to the commission). Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. 2004-0219 Bike & Ped Min.doc Page 2of3 Chapman/Catron m/s to purchase fifty more lightsets. Discussion: Cook noted that there had been good sales for a while when they were advertised. He stated that sales had tapered somewhat. Baxter questioned Christman's opinion of the program as a local shop owner, and Christman responded that he found the program to be OK for shop owners and worth the commission's funding. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. Masi noted that RVTD was seeking transportation her nominations.. Chapman suggested getting the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to add bicycling questions on the driver's test. Delgado and Baxter expressed their approval of the idea. Nutter suggested a letter to DMV. Baxter recommended contacting a state legislator. Masi suggested addressing this to the state's bicycle and pedestrian group. Chapman added that it might_be possible to go through BTA's lobbying arm. Delgado asked if RVTD would help. Baxter stated that this would identify bikes as a legitimate part of traffic. Chapman noted that he was one of Ashland's representatives on the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and stated that they were in the midst of updating the regional transportation plan to guide spending of transportation dollars. He suggested that the plan as it stands is somewhat scary and noted some of the goals which troubled him. He emphasized that bicycles and pedestrians were not adequately represented and were not scored in projects. He asked for members to help draft the plan, which is a twenty year plan for adoption in 2005. Baxter discussed concerns with the bikelanes on Mountain between the Railroad Tracks and Hersey, and stated that the striping has worn away. He added that there was a similar problem from B Street to East Main and at Walker and East Main. Chapman added that the crosswalks in the downtown also had fading striping. McGowan questioned the possibility of eliminating crosswalk at East Main and 1 st, where the fatality had occurred in 2003. Chapman stated that it had been discussed in the Downtown Plan. McGowan stated that she would also like some sort of pedestrian signage. At the commission's suggestion, this was referred to the Traffic Safety Commission. An audience member suggested that the pedestrian alert card being proposed by Catron should include some direction to look for the least likelihood of being hit in selecting a crossing point. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:45 P.M. Next Meetin.q March 18th, 2004 at 5:15 p.m. 2004-0219 Bike & Ped Min.doc Page 3of3 CITY OF SHLAND ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 2004 CALL TO ORDER - Vice Chair Jon Uto called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. Members Present: Jon Uto, Vice Chair Wendy Ostlund-Rutkai Faye Weisler Liz Peck New Member: Don Mackin Council Liaison: Kate Jackson (present) Absent Members: Matt Small Klm Miller High School Liaison: None SOU Liaison: Ryan Heihn Staff: Brandon Goldman, Housing Specialist Bill Molnar, Senior Planner Sue Yates, Executive Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES - The minutes of the January 28, 2004 meeting were approved. PUBLIC FORUM AARON BENJAMIN, 704 Emigrant Creek Road, mentioned the Bemis project (on Hargadine behind Lithia Springs Hotel) and thought if more affordable housing units had been included in the project, the project might have gotten a more sympathetic ear. Ashland's regulations require that one unit has to be affordable. This brings up a concern he has about inclusionary zoning restrictions at the state level. He strongly recommended the Housing Commission take a position on the inclusionary zoning restriction and urge the Council to take a very aggressive and pro-active position urging the state representatives to support inclusionary zoning as there are projects coming up where the inclusionary zoning would apply. He requested the public forum be placed at the end of the agenda, giving the public a chance to deliberate on items that have come up during the meeting. INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBERS -The newest members, Don Mackin and Ryan Heihn (SOU Liaison) introduced themselves. AGENDA CHANGES - Decide on a date for a work session. PRESENTATION BY BARBARA CHRISTENSEN AND MIKE FRANELL ON PUBLIC MEETINGS LAW AND ETHICS Christensen and Franell gave a Power Point presentation outlining the public meetings law and ethics. Both Christensen and Franell made their resources available to the Commissioners if they should ever have any questions. HOUSING ACTION PLAN - SiX ACTION ITEMS Goldman said this agenda item was set primarily to give a cursory review of Ashland's Affordable Housing Action Plan for the new members. There are six strategies identified that address the problem of affordable housing. 1. Provide funding for affordable housing. 2. Reduce development and operating costs. 3. Adopt land use regulations to promote affordable housing 4. Preserve existing affordable housing and create new affordable housing. 5. Develop organizational capacity for affordable housing. 6. Build an understanding and support for affordable housing. Goldman discussed several points under each strategy as outlined in the Action Plan. Weisler wondered if there are any shorter term ideas with regard to funding. Goldman said liquidation of the Strawberry Lane parcel would be a nice kick-start to put funds into the Housing Trust Fund. That money will be very useful for matching funds for other grants. Goldman said, assuming the Housing Trust Fund is stable and has all the funds it can use, it will be necessary to determine what type of programs the City wants to establish to use those funds. Some uses might include: Home ownership program Rental assistance program These two programs are active currently and are administered by ACCESS, Inc. Rehab programs to rehabilitate homes occupied by Iow/moderate income households. Elderly housing Homeless and transitional housing Fair housing activities Technical assistance to non-profits Employer assisted housing Weisler mentioned the educational component and said she contacted Chris Oswald, former Commissioner, and picked up a brochure the educational subcommittee had prepared that is almost £mished. Weisler expressed an interest in serving on an educational subcommittee. Jackson asked Goldman what particular strategies and actions he plans to spend his time on. She would like to have a discussion about zoning - where we have multi-family in different parts of town. Molnar said the land use strategy is a priority as well as the framework of the Housing Trust Fund. Goldman's priorities have not been completely decided as he is still working at his other position as a planner. Weisler wondered if it would be possible for the next meeting 'to get a timeline and list of priorities. Molnar thought they could work up a tentative timeline. Hartzell thought it would be helpful if Goldman wrote down the sections of the Land Use Ordinance that would be affected. Goldman said during his transition, he will be working on the Strawberry Lane partition. Assuming the plan is approved, there would be three lots available, two that would be liquidated to fund the Housing Trust Fund. Weisler asked for an explanation of the Housing Trust Fund. Molnar said there is the Ashland Community Land Trust, a separate non-profit involved in affordable housing (an organization). The Housing Trust Fund is a mechanism within the City, outside the general fund, that would go toward housing. Jackson thought setting up a trust fund within the City would be a pretty straightforward thing to do. Hartzell said Rich Rohde, Oregon Action, has put together a workbook on how to set up a housing trust fund. She recommended the Housing Commission request a copy. She suggested it might be appropriate for the finance subcommittee to talk about how to keep it going. Hartzell told the Commissioners that the Jackson County Housing Coalition meets monthly and if anyone is interested they can get information from Staff about when and where they meet. Peck asked if once the Housing Trust Fund is established, would the current line item budget item be funneled into that trust fund? Molar said that would be established by the Finance Director, Lee Tuneburg. With regard to land use regulations, Mackin noted on page 28 of the Action Plan, there are eight items that are already prioritized. An outside consultant prepared the document 16 ~nonths ago. Was this report adopted in total as written and has the entire land use section been sent to Planning with the recommendations of the Council that this is the priority? Jackson said Council unanimously adopted the entire Action Plan. It goes then back into the Community Development Dept. The first step was hiring the Housing Specialist position. Unfortunately, the first hire did not work out. One of the frustrations of the Housing Commission is that the reports keep getting produced and the action is not happening. HARGADINE RFP/RFO Goldman said he has made some modifications to the plan. He inserted wording in the cover letter stating that the purpose of the RFP is for creating and managing affordable housing within the site. The development proposal should seek to provide ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 2004 2 affordable housing to moderate, low and very low income households. He added wording that any proposal include the period of affordability to address the long-term housing needs in the community. Another item of concern Goldman mentioned is the selection criteria for projects. Points would be given adding up to 100. He met with Debbie Price, regional representative for Oregon Housing, to discuss tax credit projects. Price recommended that because no market study has been done in the Ashland area, she would hesitate for the Commission to be very restrictive in establishing income limits or number of affordable umts. Instead, leave it broad to get as many development proposals as possible back and then select according to what meets the community's interest. We just don't want to limit the applications we receive. Weisler said it seems like it is our job to meet the unmet needs. Hartzell suggested a remedy would be to introduce some kind of criteria that is tiered. She spoke with Sandler and it was his understanding that it was going to be suggested that the 60 year minimum was going to be relaxed. He would not be in favor of that. She would suggest looking at the top of the low income. We have the land. This is the one opportunity where we can drive the affordables down as low as we can get. Goldman believes that Hartzell's suggestion about the criteria selection process should speak to that when numbers are established for what is weighted. The Commission may want to put more of the weight into the project vision, the period of affordability, the target of low, moderate income households. Hartzell mentioned both the five year Consolidated Plan and the annual Consolidated Plan are valuable documents should any of the Commissioners wish to read them. Goldman asked if the Commission did want to establish affordable targets and preferences and selection criteria for projects that provide "x" number of units at "x" income range? Does the Commission feel there is an affordability period that should be established? Hartzell says the Ashland Community Land Trust (ACLT) uses 99 years. Goldman said the state (for tax credits) looks very carefully at how the project is going to be managed. Jackson suggested we settle on a period of affordability that is consistent with the time period for affordability for an annexation - 60 year and have an option for renewal. Uto asked about the timeline for sending out the RFP. Staff said they are waiting for a final decision from the Commission but there was not a rush. Goldman also wondered if the Commission wanted to finalize the ranking of the selection criteria. This item will be designated for 30 minutes on next month's agenda. TRAINING SESSION It was decided a training session would be held on March 13, 2004 from 9 until noon at the Siskiyou Room. If Commissioners have any agenda items, e-mail them to Goldman. MARCH 17, 2004 AGENDA ITEMS Hargadine RFP/RFQ Workbook from Rich Rohde regarding the housing trust fund set up. If need be, ask Lee Tuneburg to talk about it. Priority and timeline for Action Plan strategies There was a short discussion concerning subcommittees. Peck is not convinced we are ready for subcommittees. Jackson has reservations about subcommittees. She would prefer using them for targeted subjects. Subcommittees tend to get real familiar with a subject, do extensive research without much staff support and they start to make assumptions. When it is brought back to the group, the discussion is not complete if you don't bring everyone along. Weisler said there is so much to look at. Not everyone can be an expert in all of it. She believes committees would be useful. They need to have a clear understanding of their scope of work. It is a way to get work done between meetings. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 6:05 p.m. ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 2004 CiTY OF -ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2004 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Russ Chairman at 1:40 p.m. Commissioners Present: Absent Members: Council Liaison: Alex Amarotico High School Liaison: SOU Liaison: Staff Present: Russ Chapman, Chair Ray Kistler John Fields None (Council Liaison does not attend Hearings Board meetings to avoid conflict of interest) None None Maria Harris, Associate Planner Mark Knox, Associate Planner Sue Yates, Executive Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS The minutes of the January 13, 2004 meeting were approved The Findings for PA2003-136, 272 Orange Street (Heller) were approved. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 2004-014 REQUEST FOR A THREE-PARCEL LAND PARTITION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF EVERGREEN LANE. APPLICANT: TOM FRANTZ This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 200&016 REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT AN ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT (<500 SQ. FT.) ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 265 ALTA STREET. A PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS PERMIT IS REQUESTED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A STRUCTURE (I.E. "DEVELOPMENT") ON HILLSIDE LANDS. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 1E 05 DC; TAX LOT: 1400. APPLICANT: DIANE AND ALEX AMAROTICO This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2004-017 IS A REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND RESIDENCE (<500 SQ. FT.) ATOP A NEW GARAGE STRUCTURE, TO BE LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY AT 364 HARGADINE STREET.. APPLICANT: REN KOLAR This action was approved. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 2003-150 REQUEST FOR A PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT UPON HILLSIDE LANDS, AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A NEW RESIDENCE 20 PERCENT IN EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED FLOOR AREA (MPFA) ESTABLISHED BY CITY ORDINANCE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 22 SCENIC DRIVE. APPLICANT: T. MICHAEL RYAN Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Site visits were made by all. STAFF REPORT This planning action is a continuation from last month. Knox gave a brief follow-up StaffReport. Last month the applicant was given the opportunity to explore reducing the square footage on the residence. The applicant is also requesting a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit. The applicants have submitted a new site plan and new elevations that show a detached garage. If the garage is separated by more than six feet, it is no longer part of the maximum permitted floor area and, therefore, there is no need for a Conditional Use Permit. The applicants still want to request the approval of the original CUP with the garage attached. But they have tried to show how the volume will not look any less by detaching the garage. The Historic Commission felt that because of the grade, when you detach the garage, the garage has to be brought toward the street and does not improve the aesthetics or mass and scale and could increase the problem. The applicants are open to whatever the Commission wants, but they would like the Commission to make a decision on the Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit today. The Conditions would remain the same except Condition 8. Technically, that Condition probably relates more to the maximum permitted floor area issue and not the requirements of a hillside house. There was a question about drainage on the properly and how that would be handled. Jim Olson, City Engineer said even though drainage would hit the property below it, it would not be acceptable to berm Montview. Olson requested the drainage be piped from the property, the length of Montview and connect to Granite Street. Chapman asked if Condition 6 would cover the drainage. Knox felt it would. PUBLIC HEARING CARLOS DELGADO, 545 A Street, project architect, said the garage has been shifted forward about five feet toward the west. They went through due process to look at the relief valve of the 25 percent of the maximum permitted floor area (mpfa). The CUP process allows them to look at the 25 percent for conditions that exist with this lot. The proposal does increase the appearance of the mass by separating the garage. He reinforced that the Historic Commission approved this project despite the neighborhood opposition because they felt it was working within the intent of the ordinance. Kistler asked if any attempt was made to lessen the massing of volume of the house. Delgado said no. Chapman said in looking at the elevation it does appear to lessen the massing by detaching the garage. He thought that was the intent of the ordinance. Delgado said he is referring to the actual impervious development of the site. There is a larger occupation of the site by separating the garage. The earlier design was trying to achieve containment of the impervious surface. lAUREL PRAIRIE-KUNTZ, 522 Park Avenue, Medford, OR, is representing Frances Sharkey, the adjoining property owner. Who is the applicant and who is the owner? She noticed on some paperwork that the applicant is listed as Michael Young. Knox said that is a clerical error. The owner and applicant is Michael Ryan. On the new plans, where is the front door? The elevation shows it to the south of the garage, but the floorplan shows the entry on the north side of the house. The neighbors are concerned with the CLIP criteria, specifically that the application will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area. They consider the impact area to be those surrounding properties within the notice area. The livability factors identified, specifically, are similarity in scale, bulk and coverage. The Planning Commission's direction at the January meeting was for the applicant to reduce the loft volume and to show that the CUP won't have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. The neighbors have not heard from the applicant nor has the applicant asked for input or discussions. They have prepared an exhibit showing the scale of the proposed house. This issue has not been addressed in the information supplied by the applicant. Prairie-Kuntz said there have been discussions about water flow down Montview Street. She showed a photo where the pavement begins. If the water were to sheetflow onto Montview, it would impact the Reid and Sharkey properties. The neighbors feel the proposed development will create an adverse impact. She would like a Condition added that piping of drainage should be required. Fields said the Commission has to evaluate the evidence. What is the applicant entitled to do according to the ordinance? The house does not exceed the height limitation even though there is a complaint about the downslope mass that it doesn't fit the neighborhood. Kuntz said the structure could be built into the hill instead of on top of it, reducing the mass. By placing it on top, they are ending up with a five foot foundation plus a two story house on top of that and a fairly steep hillside. Neighbors to the north and east and some to the south are severely impacted. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES FEBUARY 10, 2004 2 Fields asked Knox about any requirement for stepping a house into the hillside. Knox said there are no numbers. It is a subjective issue. FRANCES SHARKEY, 163 Granite Street, said she owns the lot directly below and adjacent to the applicant. She has plans to build on the lot directly below 22 Scenic. If Ryan's house is built, it will have an adverse effect on her monetarily and on her personal enjoyment of her property. She asked the scale, bulk and coverage be reduced in this application. The proposed house does not fit into the existing neighborhood. It is out of scale. This neighborhood will see increasing infill in the coming years. If houses are built with similar scale, bulk and coverage, the ambience and livability of the neighborhood will be detrimentally impacted. Scenic Drive marks the edge of the Jackson County designated "Extreme Fire Hazard Area" (submitted for the record). Sharkey spoke with Fire ChiefWoodley and if her house and Ryan's house are 20 feet apart, they will certainly be in a hazardous position in the event of a fire. Woodley thought the Planning Commission had the power to require fire resistant roofing material, fire resistant landscaping, and greater setbacks between houses. Sharkey asked the Commission to address the drainage issue. Sharkey referred to 18.72.010. She also quoted the 18.04.020. She submitted her written comments for the record. Chapman told Sharkey that the Commission tries to have clear and objective standards in their ordinances. However, enough ordinances cannot be written to cover everything. If they deny the CUP and approve the project with the separated garage, the applicant has complied with all the ordinances, as they exist today. Sharkey referred to the exhibit. When she looks out of the house she builds, she will be looking at an enormous five foot block wall. Separating the garage has no impact one way or the other. ARLENE MILLS, 34 Scenic Drive, said she lives on the north side of 22 Scenic and is opposed to this application. She supports the mpfa allowed under ordinance. Since this lot has been divided, it allows another furore house to be constructed below it and it will be developed under the same guidelines with a precedent established. The neighborhood is changing. There are other lots in the neighborhood for sale with steep hillsides. They will all come under the new city ordinance. The three houses built around Mills have all been built so the houses fit the lots. They have not lost their neighborhood identity and livability yet. The proposed house is not compatible with their existing neighborhood. Rebuttal Delgado said their main focus is getting the Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit approved. With regard to storm drainage, the applicant is prepared to pipe the drain to Granite. MICHAEL RYAN said he has offered in the spirit of cooperation f~ncing his property to the neighbors and manipulation of grade. The roof will be fire retardant. The stem wall starts out at two feet and follows the slope. An attached garage would minimize the visual impact from a direct neighbor. Attaching the garage would also reduce the footprint. Staff Response Chapman asked what is the maximum lot coverage? Knox said in an R-1-7.5 zone, 45 percent is allowed. The proposal is for 40.4 percent. Fields said his original discussion regarding violation of the ordinance was asking the applicant to reduce the mass in lieu of separating the garage. Separation of the garage does not have any impact from the street. Knox said Historic Commissioners had similar discussions. MARGUERITTE HICKMAN, Fire Prevention Officer, said if someone is building in the wildfire zone, the Fire Department requires the presentation of a wildfire management plan showing how fuels will be reduced. That would need to be submitted prior to issuance of building permits. She is not certain if non-combustible roofing is required. The proposed lot is approximately one-tenth of a mile from the wildfire hazards zone. The Fire Department has recommended utilizing fire resistant plans in the landscaping. Kistler said there has been no attempt to reduce the scale of the building. He sees the relief valve for the mpfa is going in another direction for times when a house gets pushed into a hill. This house is completely on a pedestal. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES FEBUARY 10, 2004 Fields said the overall effect with the garage detached, is more massive than if it were attached. Fields said the ordinance doesn't address or define massing. The proposed house has wasted volumes that affect the overall mass. The Planning Commission may need to go back and look at what percent of volume does one get on top of the percentage of floor area. Fields said with an inadequate ordinance dealing with volumes both upslope and downslope, they don't have a way to deny the application. The Hillside Ordinance reduced what could be built (from 3000 lots to 250) by taking out the steepest lots. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Chapman said it meets the height and maximum lot coverage. He would like to hold onto the ordinance the way it is written and detach the garage. Chapman moved to approve the Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit and detach the garage. There was no second to the motion. Kistler likes the concept of what we did with the ordinance, but if we approve this one with the attached garage, he can't see the reason for the 25 percent relief valve. He doesn't' think it improves anything to have the garage separated. Fields believes the ordinance has a major flaw. We are not solving the neighbor's issue. But, punishing the applicant isn't the solution either. We are being asked to regulate the building design - attach or detach. The issue is massing. Fields moved to approve Planning Action 2003-150 under the original plan with the attached garage. Approve the Physical and Environmental Permit with the attached nine Conditions. Condition 9 - that they have a landscape plan and thinning plan prior to issuance of a building permit. Fields wanted to note the only reason they are approving the attached garage is because there were no objections as to whether the garage was attached or not. We should go back and look at both volumes and accessory buildings in relationship to mass and scale. Kistler seconded the motion. Chapman still feels the separation of the garage helps break up the mass. From the downhill slope, it would not. The motion carried with Chapman casting a "no" vote. Knox said it is conceivable there will be an appeal to the City Council on this application. Would they consider a second motion to approve the Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit with the detached garage? It allows the applicant an opportunity not to go through the whole process again in order to get approval for the Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit. Fields made a second motion to approve the Physical and Environmental Constraints permit by itself with a Condition to detach the garage. Chapman seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. PLANNING ACTION 2004-004 REQUEST FOR A LAND PARITION TO DIVIDE THE EXISTING PROPERTY INTO TWO LOTS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1249 ASHLAND MINE ROAD. A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED TO PERMIT THE REAR LOT (OFF NORTON) TO HAVE A LOT WIDTH GREATER THAN THE DEPTH. APPLICANT: ADAM FOX AND JOYCE DRESNER Site Visits and Ex Parle Contacts - Site visits were made by all. STAFF REPORT Harris stated the parcel is at Ashland Mine Road and Norton Street. Norton Street is an unimproved street. The lot is almost 16,000 square feet and the proposal is to divide it roughly in half with the existing house accessed on Ashland Mine Road. The applicants will be required to improve Norton Street so the parcel will have a street that meets street standards and adequate transportation capacity. The applicant is proposing a half-street improvement of Norton. The street grade is proposed to be finished at the centerline at 16.2 percent. Staff believes this meets the ordinance. The ordinance requires that new streets meet the 15 percent maximum. However, Norton Street is an existing platted public street right-of-way. In the past, the Planning Commission and City Council have treated-' existing street fight-of-ways not subject to the percentage maximum. An issue has been raised regarding water pressure. The existing water lines in Ashland Mine Road are part of program to be upsized in the future (about 2006). The Engineering Dept. believes there is currently adequate capacity. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4 HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES FEBUARY 10, 2004 There are five trees on the property mostly up by the front house that are shown on the tree survey submitted with the application. There are about six or seven trees and a variety of shrubs in the building envelope not shown in the application. Some of the trees appear to be close to six inches in diameter at breast height. There is some confusion where you measure that. The trees shown in the building envelope could be removed. There are no tree removal permits required with this application because that is only required for trees 18 inches or greater and none of the trees are close to that size. There is a ten foot easement along the south property line accessing lots to the east. A Condition has been added if this is approved, that the easement be delineated on the new survey. The building envelope would be re-worked to stay completely out of the easement. Also, the Condition includes that a driveway apron will be provided off the new Norton Street improvement so people that use that access easement would have a physical drive to get onto it. The applicant needs a Variance because they are creating a lot wider than it is deep. The lot is 93.8 feet wide and 80 feet deep. The applicant is arguing that it is somewhat unusual to have an existing street right-of-way and a lot that has enough square footage to divide but is close on the width and depth measurements. The conditions have not been self-imposed because the pre-existing lot size is not something the applicants have been responsible for. The benefit Staff sees is that it is providing an additional housing unit within the city limits. Staff has suggested 12 Conditions of approval. PUBLIC HEARING EVAN ARCHERD, 120 North Second Street, an advisor and friend of the applicant, said this parcel is unique because it is large enough to divide and yet it is on a public street. Normally, one could create a flag partition in a situation like this, but typically when there is a public street access adjacent to it, that is not the preferred alternative. In that case, we would not be asking for a Variance. The Conditions are not self-imposed. The existing street grade is 16.2 percent. When the engineer did a drawing for the street, they made it clear the 15 percent grade could be met, but it would result in greater cuts on the street and a cut at the end of the street. If the portion in the Urban Growth Boundary is ever brought in, it does flatten out over the top of the hill. He cannot see that it would serve a useful function to reduce the grade to 15 percent. Archerd talked to JimOlson, Engineering Dept., regarding the water pressure. There is 150 psi at the hydrant on Ashland Mine Road. The applicant has provided fully engineered drawings to extend the City water and sewer lines up to the site. There is a public benefit of extending sidewalks to the site, improving a street, and creating an additional lot in the city (infill). Chapman asked about what is required for a turnaround. Archerd said there is not a specific turnaround indicated on the plan. BRIAN ALMQUIST, 128 Wimer Street, said he and his daughter own the property immediately to the east and adjacent to this property. He noted that the ten foot easement was not shown on the initial site plan or the land partition. He understands from today's Staff Report that the easement has been recognized and any objection he might have had has been met. He heard there was going to be a driveway approach from the ten foot easement. He uses the easement to access the rear of his property to mow the weeds on the back of his lot. The same easement that goes across his easement also goes to the third lot. PETER WU, 1269 Ashland Mine Road, lives directly to the west of Norton Street. He objects to the partition based on the criteria. Specifically, (A) the future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded and (B) the development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access will not be impeded. The water pressure is generally low. If the City proposes to upgrade the system by 2006, this means that after this lot is partitioned and he wanted to partition his land, then he would probably have to wait beyond 2006 because the pressure will be even lower. That is impeding his right for future development of land. There is no mention of how electricity will be brought to the parcel. Will more electrical poles be put down? That would lower his property value. The street grade poses a problem for his property. Looking at the topography map, his lot is higher than the proposed partition. At this point, it would go down to Norton Street. If they regrade the street, access from his property will be steeper and impede his access. There is no turnaround on Norton. If a fire track cannot get up onto it, if there is a fire it will endanger his property and house. Can a fire truck get up there? Fields said all utilities are underground. It is his understanding they will not change the grade but leave it at 16.5 percent. Hams said the Fire Dept. is requiring residential fire sprinklers. Woo wondered if there is enough room for a fire truck to get up there. Chapman said the Fire Department will have to sign off on ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES FEBUARY 10, 2004 Fields said if there is adequate water to build this house, there will be adequate water to build the next ten houses. Harris said capacity is not an issue at this time. DANA BUSSELL, 1269 Ashland Mine Road, said there were originally seven lots of identical dimension. Each property added another 80 by 80 feet to each lot. The intent of the request was to provide a buffer, green space or open space. People also wanted access to their backyard so an easement was added. She read the terms of the easement and added it to the record. Partitioning effects the easement. Fields said this one does not need the easement because it has access to a public street. Bussell said they have weak water pressure. Other building has been allowed in the neighborhood. There are trees over six inches diameter at breast height. These should be on the survey. The easement should be on the survey. Norton Street averages 16 percent. It goes up over 20 percent. With regard to the signing in favor of a local improvement district, it will add a large expense to them. Sidewalks, curbs and gutters are expensive. The burden of the expense will fall to future owners. They don't want to see parking on Norton Street eliminated. More housing will cause more congestion. Their neighborhood has been a combination of affordable rental housing and owner occupied housing. The new development will be very upscale and will inflate the cost of housing throughout the neighborhood. She is concerned about fire. There is no open space in her neighborhood. RON SMITH, 1281 Ashland Mine Road, said it is all about open space. More houses mean more traffic. They have provided a buffer strip behind their houses that will stay. All the deer and wildlife are going to stop because they won't have anyplace to go. He agrees with Wu and Bussell. Rebuttal Archerd said from the pre-application review, Mike Moms from the Water Dept. did not see any issues with water pressures in this plan. It is his understanding a turnaround isn't required unless you exceed 250 feet. It is 200 feet from Ashland Mine Road to the back of the subject property line. They are coming off the existing line with an eight inch line to the new property. ADAM FOX said it was always his intention to leave the back area open so the neighbors could use the easement. Chapman reopened the public hearing. JOE SMITH, 1281 Ashland Mine Road, said the field behind their houses posed a fire danger. They put a buffer in place and he would be the last one to give that up. He doesn't want to see any fences on the rear. Fields said it appears just one house (the proposed partition) will be on the only one that can access the rear lot area. Rebuttal Archerd said it is clear the applicant has no desire to change the easement at it exists today. Staff Response Harris thought in Condition 5, after the first sentence, the Hearings Board might want to consider adding, "The existing ten foot mutual access easement shall be maintained." Condition 3 - correct a typographical error - That a driveway apron shall be provided "for" (delete "if there is an")... Maximum street grade on a new street is allowed at 18 percent with a Variance. The only alternative to not sign in favor of a local improvement district would be to require the full street improvement up front with the partition. It seemed disproportionate for the creation of one lot. Staff also felt it would be potentially more disruptive to the neighborhood. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Chapman moved to approve 2004-004 with the attached Conditions. Fields seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 3:35 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES FEBUARY 10, 2004 6 CITY OF 4 .SH LAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2004 CALL TO ORDER Chair Russ Chapman called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Commissioners Present: Absent Members: Council Liaison: High School Liaison: SOU Liaison: Staff Present: Russ Chapman, Chair Mike Morris Kerry KenCaim Marilyn Briggs Colin Swales John Fields Ray Kistler Dave Dotterrer Cameron Hanson Alex Amarotico (Council Liaison doe.,; not attend Planning Commission meetings in order to avoid conflict of interest) None None John McLaughlin, Director, and Community Development Bill Molnar, Senior Planner Mark Knox, Associate Planner Sue Yates, Executive Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS The Planning Commission retreat is scheduled for May 1, 2004. The time and place will be announced later. There will be a Study Session on Tuesday, February 23, 2004. The topic will be announced in the next few days. The Planning Commissioner's "chat" will be held on February 23, 2004 at 3:30 in the Community Development and Engineering Services building. Note the time has changed. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES AND FINDINGS Swales moved to approve the minutes of the January 13, 20(}4 meeting. KenCairn seconded the motion and the minutes were approved. KenCairn moved to approve the Findings for 940 Clay Street. The motion was seconded and the Findings were approved. The Planning Commission will approve the No. Mountain Land Company Findings at the end of the meeting. PUBLIC FORUM - No one came forth to speak. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION 2003-126 REQUEST FOR OUTINE PLAN AND SITE REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A FOUR-LOT, 13-UNIT, MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT (THREE FOUR-PLEXES AND ONE SINGLE FAMLY RESIDENCE) UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 954 B STREET. THE PROJECT INVOLVES THE CONSTRUCTION OF THREE, TWO-STORY, FOUR- PLEX CONDOMINIUM BUILDINGS ON THREE OF THE LOTS, WHILE MAINTAINING THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON ITS OWN LOT. APPLICANT: ARCHERD/DRESNER LLC Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Site visits were made by all but Fields. He is familiar with the property location. Swales, until recently, owned property in close vicinity and knows some of the neighbors personally. He has not had conversations with the neighbors concerning this property. STAFF REPORT Knox said this project is made up of three new buildings, each placed on its own new lot. The existing house will be on its own lot and a fifth common area, coveting all the open space area. The lot is a little over one-half acre and zoned R-3. The applicants are requesting a 15 percent conservation density bonus. There are a total of 13 units proposed. Six units are less than 500 square feet. The single family residence was built in 1900 and is part of the City's National Historic Register Inventory. The three buildings proposed behind the house are a duplication of each other. There is a proposed private driveway that extends from B Street to Eureka Street (similar to Ninth Street Alley). Each building_ will contain four units. The overall footprint of each building is approximately 1,350 square feet. Nineteen parking spaces are required. Eighteen spaces are shown, 17 along the private drive and one along the street. It is likely the nineteenth space will be tucked in right next to space number one on the site plan. The on-street parking standards require meeting the street standards in order receive on-street parking credits. The street is just under the street standard requirement but because it is an existing situation, the on-street credit should be recognized. The Historic Commission and Tree Commission have discussed how to soften the asphalt along the private driveway. The Tree Commission has recommended at least two landscape fingers to help break up the drive. Both Commissions realize it is very difficult to meet the parking standards and demands and build-out density and not have some asphalt impact. During the initial meetings with the applicant, they brought back a new plan that loads the parking off the private driveway and also utilizes the driveway for the back up. That allowed much less impervious surface and created the large open space landscaped area. In an attempt to mitigate parking along the drive, the applicant is proposing to put trees along the driveway on the eastern side of the property. It is not their property, but they have agreements with the owner to help soften the driveway. Eventually when the neighboring property develops as multi-family, the parking won't be seen because the buildings will be along B Street as part of the City's Design Standards. There are 27 trees on the site. Nineteen trees are proposed to be removed. Mostly it relates to inadequate maintenance. The proposal is to replace the entire existing canopy with urban landscaping that will be planted in the right location, irrigated and maintained. The trees will allow shading of the parking areas, thermal cooling of the houses, etc. Knox read the Tree Commission's four recommendations as outlined in the Staff Report. Knox showed the building elevations and explained how the Historic Commission had requested more building detail. The applicants have provided that detail. The Historic Commission will be reviewing the plan again at Final Plan. They have asked the applicant to explore a couple of changes. Staff has recommended approval with the attached ten Conditions. Briggs asked about the driveway. Is it part of the applicant's property? Knox said the applicants have been given permission by the owner to use the driveway. It will suffice for both properties. Swales noted the letter from the neighbor that the agreement is purely an understanding rather than anything legal. Would it be wise to put a Condition regarding the easement? Knox said :it would. Is it all right for the driveway to exit onto B Street on the bend? Knox said Engineering has said it would work. Swales saw the notice map mailed to property owners is the only map showing the property boundaries. He is concerned that the actual depiction of where these buildings will sit on the lot is totally different than what is proposed here tonight. Are the neighbors aware that what they are getting is not what the notice map showed? McLaughlin said the notice requirements require you show a vicinity map of where the development will occur. Staff has tried to show a depiction, however, from the initial submittal and then modifications worked out with Staff, building locations changed. We are required to provide a map and a written description of the proposal. If someone is concerned they will need to contact the office. Briggs asked about the separate lots with common open space. McLaughlin said these units are not designed for individual ownership. The common area is for renters to share. It is not set up for people to have their own yards. The lots are separate. A building will be on a parcel. KenCaim wondered about square footages and number of buildings in relation to ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2004 the R-3 zoning requirements. McLaughlin said the flexibility of the Performance Standards allows the buildings to be on separate parcels but to share common area. PUBLIC HEARING EVAN ARCHERD, 120 North Second Street, said his first goal was to restore the existing house. They intend to create exteriors on the new buildings that mimic the historic quality of the restored house. The process they have gone through with this project has been collaboration between Archerd/Dresner, Sally Crumme, property owner to the east and her representative, Tom Giordano and City Staff. They were able: to reach an agreement whereby they have created the common access, benefiting both properties and the city as a whole. Ultimately it should minimize the amount of asphalt. The main goal was to try to create some rental housing in the City of Ashland. Because of the expense of land in Ashland, it is difficult to create rental projects and make any money. The four-plex should pencil and they ho_pe to create something they can hold onto. It will never be sold as individual condominiums. It wilt always be a rental product. They want to make it as affordable as they can. They believe the way this project has been proposed and platted is a benefit for a number of reasons. There will be a homeowners' association created so there will be four homeowners. There will be the owner of the house and the owner of each building. The homeowners' association will be responsible for maintaining the entire site. There will be a fund to make sure the landscaping is adequately maintained and a consistency. Briggs said it looks like there are some slider windows. Since this is in the Historic District, can they install double hung windows? Knox said the Historic Commission made that change and it is reflected in the new elevation. Swales noted the existing house has a very steeply pitched roof and it is only a story and a half. He thinks the same pitch on the two-story building would be hugely out of character. The narrative mentions the problems with solar. Have they looked at doing a hip roof with an eave overhang? That would reduce the bulk and scale feel for neighboring properties. Fields said the neighbor will have ownership of the road but Archerd will have right-of-way easement. Archerd said they would build the entire road as part of the project, extend utilities and do all the landscaping and be allowed access. Chapman complimented Archerd on the restoration of the old house. SALLY CRUMME, 670 Glenwood Drive, stated she is in favor of the project as it is going to be developed. She has not drawn up a formal agreement with regard to the driveway. TOM GIORDANO, 2635 Takelrna Way, believes it will be beneficial to the city and the three owners involved to provide better connectivity (automobile and pedestrian) to B and C Streets. There will be a private driveway with a public pedestrian connection. It will greatly increase the open space landscaping. There will be more breathing room for the buildings. The Historic Commission will be looking at all the details. Staff Response Knox suggested Condition 11 that prior to fmal plat, the driveway easements be recorded with the property owner to the east. Swales said the Performance Standards Options states it shall be required to meet all other sections of the land use ordinance. How does that affect the house size limitation in the Historic District? His concern is that so soon having passed the house size limitation, we are seeing this erosion in the limitation. Knox said this application is exempt. The application was made on September 12, 2003 prior to the adoption of the ordinance on October 16, 2003. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION KenCairn said if this is higher density than the current ordinance would allow, using this as an example, it is a nice development, not overly dense, yet open. Kistler moved to approve PA2003-126 with the 11 Conditions. KenCairn seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. OTHER McLaughlin told the Commissioners he is working with the City Attorney to modify the way we do our £mdings document. Many decisions the Planning Commission makes are pretty straightforward. They are looking at a more standardized form. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY '10, 2004 It would reference the staff report, the applicant's findings, the minutes and all the attached conditions. This method should provide more efficiency and will not slow down the 120-day process for fairly routine projects. The Planning Commission would adopt the findings at the same meeting the hearing is held. Should an action be appealed to the City Council, the Council tends to rely on the minutes and staff report and written materials more than the findings. He will be bringing the format to the Planning Commission to discuss this further in the near future. Swales wondered who would be preparing the findings? McLaughlin said the Planning Commission findings would be a standardized form with one finding - that the application complies. On appeals to the Council it will probably be the same procedure we have always followed. The applicant carries the burden of proof for approval. Should it go on appeal beyond the Council, that puts the burden onto the applicant. It is the burden of the applicant to defend the approval and that is why they prepare the findings. If the City approves the project, the idea is that the findings support the c!ty to the greatest degree possible so that decision is sustained on appeal. The applicant probably has a greater interest in the findings being supported on appeal than the Staff or City Attorney. It is in their interest to prepare the findings. Swales wanted to iterate that it is important that if the findings are prepared by the applicant and they come before the Council, that the Council will have a chance to review them completely. Briggs feels that speeding up the process for the applicant doesn't seem to be the better choice. McLaughlin said it is in everyone's interest to approve the findings sooner. If there should be an appeal, it compresses the appeal period time with less chance for the Council to handle the appeal process. There is nothing to be gained by anyone to wait 30 days to adopt the findings. Briggs would be concerned about the accuracy of the document in the event there are changes at the meeting. McLaughlin said they would bring this back and if it doesn't work, then they will continue doing what they are doing. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS Planning Action 2003-158, North Mountain Land Company, LLC - The following changes should be made to the Findings. Condition 26 should read "gates in fences" and doors in garages". Condition 40 - The first sentence is fine. The intent and implementation of the swale shall be to preserve the existing groundwater seep, maintain the overflow from TID. The area will also receive supplemental irrigation as any other parkrow improvement would receive. Condition 29 - That all the streets be surfaced or constructed prior to issuance of building permits. Condition 39 - spelling of"intact" is not in tact. ADJOURNM£NT - The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2004 4 CITY OF SHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2004 CALL TO ORDER Chair Russ Chapman called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Members present: Absent Members: Council Liaison: SOU Liaison: High School Liaison: Staff present: Russ Chapman, Chair John Fields Marilyn Briggs Colin Swales Dave Dotterrer Ray Kistler Mike Morris Kerry KenCaim Cameron Hanson Alex Amarotico (present) None None John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development Bill Molnar, Senior Planner Mark Knox, Associate Planner Sue Yates, Executive Secretary UPDATES ON APPEALS McLaughlin gave an update of the active appeals to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). The National Guard Armory appealed the decision by the Council setting limits on their time, type and number of events they can schedule. The second appeal was just filed last week for 212 East Main Street, Ed and Tanya Bemis for their project behind the Lithia Springs Hotel. ORDINANCE HOUSECLEANING McLaughlin handed out a list of items in the ordinance that either needs re-wording, deletion, or further discussion about content. Some items may need to be pulled for further discussion if they are controversial. The following is a brief review of some of the items. 18.08 - Definitions 18.08.020 Accessory structure or use - Add language to differentiate and define. Kistler has seen a lot of accessory units approved by the Commission and they meet all of the criteria. The process creates the idea that these can be stopped because they are Conditional Use Permits. He wondered why it is a CLIP process. McLaughlin said the City of Ashland was one of the first cities in Oregon to allow accessory units in single family zones. There was a lot of concern among neighborhoods that single family home in a neighborhood would turn into rental areas. That was the original reason for requiring a CUP process. The Affordable Housing Action Plan lists a recommendation to make accessory units outright permitted uses given a clear set of criteria. Swales said it is an onerous and expensive process to go through. McLaughlin said removing the hurdles to create more and smaller rental uses, is a positive thing. Molnar said by leaving it a CUP, it lends a flavor that it could be denied. In the Historic District, they might want to have some control over site review. Cate Hartzell said she would like a way to guarantee affordability. Swales said in an R-1 zone, accessory units are allowed. It might be a good idea to have them in R-2 and R-3. He also noted it might be beneficial to have some flexibility with the rear yard side setback if we want to increase density. 18.08.770 Subdivide Land- Change from four lots to three lots McLaughlin explained it could be beneficial to have the ordinance work in a way that a lot could be divided into three parcels under a Partition or the Performance Standards Options, allowing more flexibility. There are some instances where a lot can be divided into three or four lots but it isn't appropriate to divide it as a subdivision. Yet there are some parcels that have limited access on the street but are large in the back that would need a private drive and would be more appropriate processing under the Performance Standards Options. We want the definition to match the two options. Add definitions Basement Gross floor area Briggs asked if the gross floor area is interior or exterior. McLaughlin said to be consistent and measure it as exterior as in the Big Box ordinance. Dotterrer said it would seem the size of the living space would determine how many parking spaces you'd need. Swales said the Big Box has more to do with bulk and scale. McLaughlin said he'd check to see what other cities have done, Half-story Unenclosed porch - minimum dimension - 8'x6 '? Chapter 18.14 W-R 18.14.030.C Private recreational uses and facilities. Exclude RV parks (see 18.16.030.E). Make it clear RV parks are not an allowed use. 18.14.040.A Minimum lot area, Coordinate with Chapter 18.62 Hillside Development requirements - new lots are required to be 35 percent slope or less. Chapter 18.20 R-1 18.20.040.C Lot Depth. No lot shall have a width greater than its depth - find a different way to do an exception - have some flexibility for partitions. McLaughlin said there have been some variances over the years for large parcels because they don't meet this requirement. Instead of having a hard and fast variance, look for a different way for an exception. 18.20.040.D Standard Yard Requirements - Change unenclosed porches to 10'? (10' is used in R-1 and R- 3) Molnar said in R-1 you can get as close as 8'. In R-2 and R-3 there is a 10' public utility easement. We should make it the same for R-1, R-2 and R-3. Kistler wondered if the overhang needed to be clarified. McLaughlin said we should add language to clarify there will be no architectural encroachment. 18.20.040.G Maximum Permitted Floor Area - Add size limitation for accessory structures? McLaughlin asked if we should set a size limitation for an accessory structure. Do we set a minimum yard requirement? The Mayor thought we might be discouraging families moving to Ashland because we have very small private yard spaces. Do we need to set a minimum family yard area because new developments have very small private yards? Perhaps this is a bigger issue. Chapter 18.24 R-2 18.24.040.D - Standard Yard Requirements - within Historic Interest Area. - for front yard, allow minimum of 15' excluding garages, and unenclosed porches to be 10' from front property line. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSIOIN (ORDINANCE HOUSECLEANING) MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2004 McLaughlin said when the Historic District was excluded, they didn't want to disturb the historic pattern in the districts, but have found they have run into more problems and complaints by forcing a 20' setback instead of allowing a more flexible setback. Swales said he can appreciate how another five feet could bring some homes into compatibility. Knox said the Historic Commission has made a conscientious effort not to encourage facade changes to the pattern in the Historic District. He would like to see a Variance or CUP process someone can go through to retain the historical fasade. Fields asked if stairs become part of the porch. McLaughlin said they do. Fields said that should be clarified. Hartzell thought the more we start to let people build toward a street, the more it takes away from the comfortable feel in the neighborhood. McLaughlin said the special setback for East Main was about widening. Hartzell believes we need to examine the assumption about what people want to live in. It is a quality of life issue. McLaughlin said this might be a bigger issue. Dotterrer suggested Staff bring language back with a couple of options. 18.24.040.E Special Yards - Distance Between Buildings. Delete 1 and 3, keep 2. McLaughlin said it has been awkward. Development has changed. This ordinance was set up to be used to get some separation between buildings in a large, massive multi-family complex. Today, the difficulty is the building of one or two units and the units are required to be separated by greater distances than would be required in a standard subdivision. He said they are looking at getting rid of distance between principle and accessory buildings based on height. Instead, require an inner courtyard between dwellings. Or, dwellings that have five or more units would have to be separated by certain distances. Swales thinks this could apply to the six foot side yard setback. Palo Alto has a volumetric shape they can use. The higher you get, the more you have to narrow down the building. 18.24.040.1 and J Maximum Permitted Floor Area - Specify that multi-family subdivisions creating units on individual lots cannot use the standard for single family dwellings (I), but is required to use the standard for multiple dwellings on a single lot (J). McLaughlin said when people try to create a single family lot in a multi-family zone, they get the benefit of much larger structures than they would in a single family residential zone. There is a standard in the maximum house size ordinance for multi-family development in multi-family zones, limiting the size. That standard needs to apply even if you are creating individual lots. The language needs to be clear. 18.28. R-3 - See Chapter 18.24 Chapter 18.30 NM 18.30.050 Neighborhood General Overlay -NM-R15, change R15 to R-l-5. Add lot coverage (addressed in NM-C and NM-MF) 18.30.060 Neighborhood Edge Overlay- NM-R17.5. Change R17.5 to R-1-7.5. Add lot coverage (addressed in NM-C and NM-MF) Chapter 18.32 C-1 18.32.025.D Residential uses. Address surface parking in garage/carport - is it permitted and how is it counted in the gross floor area? McLaughlin said they originally thought people would put small apartments over commercial buildings and share the commercial parking with the parking in the back. Now people want garages in the commercial buildings where they live. Is that the intent of the ordinance? This may be a bigger issue. Chapter 18.40 E-1 18.40.030.E Residential uses. Same as C-1 above. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSIOIN (ORDINANCE HOUSECLEANING) MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2004 18.40.040 Conditional uses. Add temporary uses. This is mentioned in the Procedures Chapter. Chapter 18.61 Tree Preservation and Protection 18.61.020.D Diameter at breast height or DBIt. Add "Ifa tree splits into multiple trunks above ground, but below 4.5 feet, the trunk is measured at its most narrow point beneath the split." 18.61.042.B Tree Removal - Verification Permit. This should be expanded to include tree protection measures - so that the Planning Dept. inspects trees to be removed and that tree protection is in place according to plan prior to site work. 18.61.200 Tree Protection. "Tree protection as required by this section is applicable to any planning action." Street Trees - Having a separate permit is confusing to most people and it would be better to have one permit for all tree removal. Chapter 18.62 Physical and Environmental Constraints 18.62.050.A.4 & 5 Floodplain Corridor Lands. Add "top of bank" for 20'/10' setback measurement. 18.62.080.D.3 Tree Conservation in Project Design. Coordinate with Chapter 18.61 size requirements. 18.62.080.D.4 Tree Protection. Coordinate with Chapter 18.61 requirements. Chapter 18.68 General Regulations 18.68.010 Fences. Add a maximum height of 3.5' to 4' for fences along walkways, multi-use paths and open spaces. Bring the fences into more pedestrian scale. 18.68.303 Access. "Each lot shall abut a minimum width of 40 feet upon a public street." Add "or private drive." The last sentence is in conflict with the first sentence. 18.68.90 Nonconforming Uses and Structures. This section has been problematic in several ways. Add "provided the addition or extension meets all requirements of this Title, "to end of section 3. Specify that one can rebuild exactly the same size and same use? with a building permit. · If adding onto nonconforming structure, but new addition meets setbacks, one would need only a building permit. · If extending the nonconforming feature, he/she would need a CUP · Don't allow a CUP to violate rear yard setback for a second story. McLaughlin said he would find what other cities have written for nonconforming uses. 18.68.140.D side and rear yard reduction for accessory buildings. Exclude uses for residential units - this may take care of if accessory building/unit definition is changed. McLaughlin said most accessory buildings are out buildings used for storage or studios. Rarely are they fully occupied. There is a reason for larger setbacks for houses and occupied residential uses. We want to be clear if it is residential, as there is a larger distance. Chapter 18.72 Site Design and Use Standards ASHI.AND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSIOIN (ORDINANCE HOUSECLEANING) MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2004 4 Detail Site Review, II-C2a)l) outside historic district, allow maximum of .85 FAR or eliminate maximum. McLaughlin said this is a larger issue. The FAR should be a public benefit if it is increased. Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards, II-D-3) 1) require trees in parking areas to be evenly spaced throughout parking in planters (not solely around edge) - this is covered in 5), but maybe needs to be more specific - something like 3.5% of 7% required must be in interior of parking area? We are trying to clarify some parking lot and tree standards. Street Tree Standards, II-E-1)I) Change to "Street trees shall be located in the planting slrip in the right- of-way except in cases where a planting strip is not available." Street Tree Standards, II-E-2)b) 25 feet from comer seems like a lot. Street Tree Standards, II-E-2)O Coordinate with street standards - tree wells shall be a minimum of 16 square feet. Swales said there isn't a definition of what "landscaping" is - is it living landscaping or hard landscaping? Is it included within the perimeter of the building or on top of the roof?. There is still an inconsistency between the C-1-D in the Site Design Standards and the Land Use Ordinance - one is 10%, the other 0%. Ashland Boulevard Corridor Design Standards, V-B-3) Eliminate or update to match street standards. Downtown Ashland and Downtown Design Standards - Consolidate two sections. Chapter 18.80 Subdivisions McLaughlin explained this is the old school subdivision standards. There are a lot of items that need to be included back into Chapter 18.88 Chapter 18.88 Performance Standards Options 18.88.020.G Obstructed Street. Change to - a public street, a private drive, or a driveway serving greater than one unit that has been obstructed by a gate or other barriers designed to restrict access. McLaughlin said this is our language that prohibits gated communities of any sort. 18.88.50 Street Standards. · Add a new classification to allow driveways in R-2 & R-3 developments to be public streets (22' curb-to-curb, parking one side, flexibility in sidewalks and parkrows) - add limitations such as under 10 units, under 200 feet in length Driveways must be staggered on Neighborhood Streets · Limit use of 22' standards by # of units and length · Add tree grate requirement · Clean up language on width of sidewalks on commercial streets - add zones, tree well excluded from parkrow width · Increase multi-use path width to 10 feet minimum - unless short (100 feet or less?) and two-way traffic not anticipated. Max length for alleys · Include exception language in handbook · Maximum width for driveway aprons in R-1 McLaughlin said there are a couple of examples of one successful and one less successful private street. Ninth Street Alley is multi-family zoned. It is a private way and has been pretty successful. On the other hand, Birchwood is a private street and the owners don't like it. They want to resurface it. It's allowed in ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSIOIN (ORDINANCE HOUSECLEANING) MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2004 the ordinance because they are multi-family lots. Gas street lights are lit all the time. In all likelihood, they will end up asking the City to take over maintenance of the street. 18.88.060.B On-Street Parking Required. Add .5 of a space requirement for townhome development? Based on size, over 1000 sq. ft.? Require public street if creating lots and will provide on-street parking? Example: Blackberry, people parking on 20' wide private drive. McLaughlin said we are seeing some problems with on-street parking as on Blackberry. Kistler sees a problem in places like Blackberry because we don't have 20' in front of the garages so people are unable to get into their garages. McLaughlin said they are looking at increasing the distance between the face of the garage and insuring adequate turning movements. Chapter 18.92 Off Street Parking 18.92.020.B.5 Offices. Increase medical and dental office parking requirement. 18.92.060.C Mixed Uses. Change maximum reduction to 25%. Existing A St. credits have been around 22% at the most. 18.92.0 Automobile Parking Design Requirements. Add 1) driveway depth requirement so that one car length can park in driveway without intruding into sidewalk, and 2) make it so short that car can't park in front of garage, or 3) and not too long so that 2 cars park stacked, and the second car hangs over the sidewalk. Example: at Chautauqua Trace along Abbot, 2 cars park stacked, one hangs over the sidewalk - if dimension was shorter, 2nd car wouldn't try to squeeze in. Example: Munson Drive - the driveways are short and one car in front of the garage hangs over the sidewalk. 18.92.070.B Driveways and Turnarounds. For garages opposite each other, add minimum setback between structures and garage faces. Example: Some Blackberry Lane units - 11' drive, 13' structure to structure, 30' garage face to garage face - turning radius does not work. Other Blackberry units - 13' drive, 20' structure to structure, 34' garage face to garage face - works. McLaughlin said we are seeing changes in medical uses and that our parking standards are really low. The number of people waiting is more and there are more employees. Kistler said the maximum house size ordinance is trying to cover bulk, scale and mass. People are designing homes with 20' high ceilings and it looks twice as large from the street. McLaughlin said they are getting a greater volume even though it is within the allowed square footage. Kistler said that by separating the garage by five or six feet, they can add more square footage. Fields noted someone could build a 3000 square foot garage and 2200 square foot house. Swales said the basement should be cut down to 10' in residential. Kistler said applicants are jumping to the 25% square footage exception right off the bat. McLaughlin said they are breaking new ground with these requests. They will have to take a look at the first few that come in and work through it. Swales said he is concerned about the Big Box ordinance as it exists now, and still doesn't feel like there is enough protection with our Downtown Standards against incompatible development downtown. Dotterrer asked to see the old ordinance language, the new language and an explanation of why the change the next time. McLaughlin encouraged the Commissioners to send him any ideas for changes they might have. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSIOIN (ORDINANCE HOUSECLEANING) MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2004 CiTY OF - SHLAND Draft ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Minutes March 3, 2004 Community Development/Engineering Services Building - ~1 Winburn Way- Siskiyou Room Historic Commissioners Present: Chair Dale Shostrom, Keith Swink, Tom Giordano, Alex Krach, Joanne Krippaehne, Jay Leighton, Rob Saladoff, Terry Skibby and Sam Whitford. Absent Members: None Council Liaison: John Morrison (absent) Hi.qh School Liaison: None SOU Liaison: None Staff Present: Associate Planner Mark Knox and Secretary Sonja Akerman NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION WEEK DISCUSSION The Historic Commission met at 5:00 in order to discuss and vote on the nominations for awards that will be presented during National Historic Preservation Week, which is May 3-9 this year. Also discussed was the schedule of events. Since the Oregon Heritage Commission will be having its annual conference during this time period (May 6-8) in Ashland, the Commission talked about coordinating some of the events in order to get participation from the people that will be attending. Knox stated he will be talking with Kyle Jansson (Oregon Heritage Commission) next week about this. He also encouraged the Commissioners to attend as many sessions as possible. Among the walking tours that were suggested included the Skidmore-Academy District, the Railroad District, Brad Roupp's property on Oak Street, the new fire station, and the seismic upgrading/restoration projects at Paddington Station and the Lithia Spdngs Hotel. Awards will be presented at noon on Friday, May 7 at the new fire station. Awards will be presented as follows: Civic - 455 Siskiyou Boulevard (new fire station); Commercial Restoration - 138 North Main Street; Historically Compatible New Commercial Construction - 322 Pioneer Street (new glass blowing building); Individual(s) - Hank Henry (posthumously) and Carol Barrett; Historically Compatible New Residential Construction - 385 Vista Street (Reitinger house); Residential Restoration - 117 Almond Street and 123 W. Hersey Street; Historically Compatible Residential Addition- 115 Nob Hill and 658 Siskiyou Boulevard; and Historically Compatible Accessory Building - 8 Beach Avenue and 180 Meade Street. Skibby volunteered to conduct a walking tour of the Skidmore-Academy Distdct on May 3"d and 4th, at 10:00 and 2:00 respectively. Krach suggested inviting people who will be attending the Oregon Heritage Commission to attend the next Historic Commission meeting on May 5th if they arrive the day before. CALL TO ORDER At 6:50 p.m., Chairperson Dale Shostrom called the meeting to order. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Krippaehne moved to approve the February 4, 2004 minutes as submitted. With a second by Krach, the motion was approved with all voting aye except Leighton and Whitford, who abstained because they were absent at the February meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes March 3, 2004 ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA CITY OF -ASHLAND Wes and Cindy Vail presented plans for a proposed building on the old railroad spur between VanNess and Central Avenues and Helman and Water Streets. The Review Board had met with them eadier and after receiving input, the Vails had made some modifications. They wanted to come before the full Commission to get further direction prior to submitting their application for Planning' Commission approval. Knox stated the building will be similar to the one they recently built at 200 Helman Street. Because the Review Board wanted more differences between the two buildings, the Vails are now proposing to use random hardi-shingles for siding. They explained the brackets were removed because the design no longer resembles the Italianate style that was used for the Helman Street building. They also incorporated an entrance off Central Avenue. The Vails passed around pictures of buildings they would like to emulate with brown shingles and dark trim. Discussion of hardi-plank lap siding v. shingled siding ensued. Most members preferTed hardi-plank plank siding to the hardi-shingle. If shingles are used on the proposed building, wood would be preferable. Since no windows will be integrated into the west elevation, all members concurred it should at least have texture built in. They also agreed the footprint and location are fine, as is the new entry. OLD BUSINESS Review Board - Following is the March schedule for the Review Board, which meets every Thursday from 3:00 to at least 3:30 p.m. in the Planning Department: March 4th March 11th March 18th March 25th April 1 st Skibby, Swink and Krippaehne Skibby, Whitford and Shostrom Skibby, Giordano and Saladoff Skibby, Krach and Whitford Skibby, Leighton and Swink Project Assiqnments for Planninq Actions PA #2000-120 PA #2002-100 PA #2002-125 PA #2003-005 PA #2003-035 PA #2003-045/110/122 PA #2003-090 PA #2003-094 PA #2003-108 PA #2003-092 PA #2003-152 PA #2004-017 485 "A" Street (Steve Hoxmeier) 142 East Main Street (Earthly Goods) 44 North Second Street (Trinity Episcopal Church) 35 S. Second Street (Winchester Inn) 665 East Main Street (Kirk McAIlister) 230/232 VanNess Avenue (Serin Eggling/Sherri Morgan) 125 North Main Street (Lynn Thompson) 45 Wimer Street (Paul Crafft) 115 Church Street (Nancy Seward and Tim Bond) 124 Alida Street (Kirt Meyer and Vadim Agakhanov) 44 North Second Street (Trinity Episcopal Church) 364 Hargadine Street (Ken Kolar) Shostrom Leighton Skibby Krippaehne Shostrom Leighton Krach Whitford Saladoff Krippaehne Swink Krach Carneqie Library Restoration - There was nothing new to report. Possible National Reqister Nomination for Lithia Springs Property - Shostrom reported he, Krippaehne and Leighton had attended the February 23~d Parks Commission meeting and offered input on the historic site. The. Gun Club is requesting a lease extension in order to get a grant to build more buildings and berms. Shostrom said he and Kdppaehne read prepared statements (these were included in the packet, along with the 1987 report entitled "An Inventory, Historic Documentation, and Assessment of Cultural Resources at Lithia Springs and Winburn Camp" by Nan Hannon and Clayton G. Lebow for the City of Ashland). He asked the Parks Commission to address the following: 1) How have the histodc features, as documented in the 1987 study, been Ashland Historic Commission Minutes March 3, 2004 2 CITY OF -ASHLAND affected by the Gun Club's stewardship? 2) Target bunkers appear to have been increased from 2 to 10 since 1987. Has this massive redistribution of soils compromised or destroyed the archeological study potential? 3) What is the impact of lead and debds from gunshot activity?. Is an environmental evaluation needed to determine the effects on soils and water quality? The City has some experience in this regard, after a cleanup was performed on the Reeder Pistol Range. 4) If there is an expensive environmental cleanup required, does the Gun Club have sufficient funds to pay the costs involved? and 5) Ar~ there alternative sites for the Gun Club activities which would have less impact on the areas of concern as listed above? The Parks Commission will be toudng the Lithia Springs site in April. Gun Club representatives and the Historic Commission have also been invited. Krippaehne stated she would like to let the Parks Commission know that there are others who are interested in the property also. Questions she would like answered include 1) What are the proposed developments for the property? 2) What is used as the baseline for what the property looked like back in 19697 3) Who is responsible for protecting the site as a resource? 4) What is to prevent further development in the same manner as the development that has already happened in the past 35 years? 5) Who will be looking at the environmental impacts? Someone needs to do this. She also declared the Gun Club needs to provide an overlay map of development that has occurred on the property since 1969 because the lease states at its termination, the Gun Club would need to surrender the property "in as good order and condition as when received..." In addition, Shostrom stated the Parks Commission should know what the costs would be for clean up of the site. The Gun Club should be asked to respond to all the above concerns. It was also noted the City has divided a five-acre parcel from the odginal site, creating a separate tax lot that is used for dumping rock and fill. ADJOURNMENT It was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes March 3, 2004 3 CITY OF ,ASHLAND Council Communication Title: Dept: Date: Submitted By: Approved By: ODOT's Request to Approve Night Construction Work on the Green Springs Highway (OR 66) within the City Limits (MP 0.8 to MP 1.99) Public Works Department April 6, 2004,/~ Paula Brown/;~/~f~i Gino Grimaldi Synopsis: The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) will be soliciting bids in May for a pavement preservation project on thc Green Springs Highway (OR 66) within the City Limits (see attached map). This project includes grading, drainage improvements, paving, signing and signal work. Although it is ODOT's responsibility to meet all local ordinances, including Ashland's Noise Ordinance, ODOT is seeking a variance to the ordinance in accordance with AMC Section 9.08.170.C. ODOT is requesting the option to complete a significant portion of the construction work at night throughout the timeframe of the project; July 1, 2004 through September 1 $, 2004, which requires a variance from the decibel levels in Section C. ODOT's request is attached. It is likely that ODOT would continue to do some of the work during the day such as adjusting inlets and concrete work (sidewalks and curbs) as these items could be completed with short single lane closures. Thc majority of the night work would be to accommodate longer lane closures and to avoid the higher day time traffic volumes, for work items such as asphalt grinding, paving, and possibly installing guardrail. Recommendation: It is recommended that Council hold a public hearing to hear concerns regarding ODOT's request to work at night. Pending the public hearing and assuming no major concerns are voiced at the public hearing, staff would recommend approval of ODOT's request with the following additional conditions: 1) Night work hours should generally coincide with standard work hours for the businesses such that there areno lane restrictions between 8 am and 6 pm. 2) Contractor should maintain one operable travel lane in each direction on the west side of I-5 during this night work period. Any night work on the east side of I-5 must have adequate detours, signage and the contractor must advise emergency dispatch of these closures. 3) The night work may not begin prior to July 112, 2004, and due to the 4th of July holiday, it is the City's preference that work begin after July 74 as opposed to July 1st as specified by ODOT. 4) NO night work shall be conducted between 9 pm Friday through 8 am Monday. CC ODOT Night Work Hwy 66 Mar04.doc Page I of 5 5) It is understood that there will be day time operations that may require periods of intermittent lane and intersection closures. It is the contractor's responsibility to follow safety precautions and notify emergency dispatch during these periods. Fiscal Impact: Although there is no tangible fiscal impact to the City to allow night work, the intangible benefit to the community is positive as this would minimize the traffic impacts during normal business operations on OR66. Background: The City's Municipal Code is very specific regarding the hours of allowable noise. AMC Section 9.08.170.A states "No person shall make, assist in making, continue, or cause to be made any loud, disturbing, or unnecessary noise which either annoys, disturbs, injures, or endangers the comfort, repose, health, safety, or peace of others." Construction activities are exempted between the hours of 7am to 9pm (Section C.4); noises in excess of specific decibel levels are considered public nuisances (Section C), yet the Council can provide a variance (Section C.5). This ODOT project is considered a pavement preservation project. As such, project work will include grinding along the project area in some specific locations, an asphalt pre-leveling course, some drainage inlet improvements, new ADA accessible ramps, guardrail installation (primarily at the ramps along I5 and along the curve at the transition prior to the E. Main Street intersection), driveway approaches and final top lift paving throughout this 1.2 mile section. This project begins just south of the railroad tracks north of Clay Street, and ends at the City limits between Dead Indian Memorial Road and Oak Knoll Drive. Plans have not been included in this Council Communication but are available in the City's engineering office and will be available at the council meeting if there are specific questions of ODOT. The grinding and paving portion of the roadwork will exceed "allowable" decibel limits during the work period, but are exempted as "construction activities" between the hours of 7am to 9pm (Section C.4). Strict compliance with the Decibel Noise Standards would eliminate the ability to complete the grinding and paving work. Strict compliance with the Decibel Noise Standards would cause unusual and unreasonable hardship. If the work can proceed quickly with less impact to businesses along this portion of OR Hwy 66, it is reasonable for Council to grant the variance. Should Council choose not to authorize and grant a variance for night time work, this project will be completed during authorized construction hours of 7:00 am to 9:00 pm. This will result in considerable impact on the businesses, especially those on Hwy 66 between Clay Street and I-5. Attachments: AMC 9.08.170 Unnecessary Noise Map of the area ODOT Request letter dated February 10, 2004 CC ODOT Night Work Hwy 66 Mar04.doc Page 2 of 5 9.08.170 Unnecessary Noise A. No person shall make, assist in making continue, or cause to be made any loud, disturbing, or unnecessary noise which either annoys, disturbs, injures, or endangers the comfort, repose, health, safety, or peace of others. B. The standard for judging loud, disturbing and unnecessary noises shall be that of an average, reasonable person with ordinary sensibilities after taking into consideration the character of the neighborhood in which the noise is made and the noise is heard. Such noises which are in violation of this section include but are not limited to the following: (Ord. 2607 SI, 1990) 1. The keeping of any bird or animal which by causing frequent or long-continued noise disturbs the comfort and repose of any person in the vicinity; 2. The attaching of a bell to an animal or allowing a bell to remain on an animal; 3. The use of a vehicle or engine, either stationary or moving, so out of repair, loaded, or operated as to create any loud or unnecessary grating, grinding, rattling, or other noise; 4. The sounding of a horn or signaling device on a vehicle on a street, public place, or private place, except as a necessary warning of danger; 5. The blowing of a steam whistle attached to a stationary boiler, except to give notice of the time to begin or stop work, as a warning of danger, or upon request of proper City authorities; 6. The use of a mechanical device operated by compressed air, steam, or otherwise, unless the noise thereby created is effectively muffled; 7. The erection, including excavation, demolition, alteration, or repair of a building in residential districts, other than between the hours of seven (7:00) a.m. and six (6:00) p.m. weekdays, and on weekends and Holidays between the hours of eight (8:00) a.m. and six (6:00)p.m., except in case of urgent necessity in the interest of the public welfare and safety and then only with a permit granted by the City Administrator for a period not to exceed ten (10) days. The permit may be renewed for periods of five (5) days while the emergency continues to exist. If the Council determines that the public health, safety and welfare will not be impaired by the erection, demolition, alteration, or repair of a building between the hours of six (6:00) p.m. and seven (7:00) a.m., and if the Council further determines that loss or inconvenience would result to any person unless the work is permitted within these hours, the Council may grant permission for such work to be done within specified hours between six (6:00) p.m. and seven (7:00) a.m. upon application therefore being made at the time the permit for the work is awarded or during the progress of the work. (Ord. 2580, 1990). The actual owner of property may do work on property which is actually owner occupied between the hours of six (6:00) p.m. and ten (10:00) p.m. without obtaining a permit as herein required; 8. The use of a gong or siren upon a vehicle, other than police, fire, or other emergency vehicle; 9. The creation of excessive noise on a street adjacent to a school, institution of learning, church, or court of justice, while the same are in use, or on a street adjacent to a hospital, nursing home, or other institution for the care of the sick or infirm, which unreasonably interferes with the operation of such institution or disturbs or unduly annoys patients; 10. The discharge in the open air of exhaust of a steam engine, internal combustion engine, motorboat, or motor vehicle except through a muffler or other device which will effectively prevent loud or explosive noises and the emission of annoying smoke; 11. The use or operation of an automatic or electric piano, phonograph, gramophone, Victrola, radio, television, CC ODOT Night Work Hwy 66 Mar04.doc Page 3 of 5 loudspeaker, or any instrument for sound producing or any sound-amplifying device so loudly as to disturb persons in the vicinity thereof or in such a manner as renders the use thereofa nuisance. However, upon application to the City Administrator and a report from the Chief of Police, the City Administrator may grant permits to responsible persons or organizations for the broadcast or amplification of programs of music, news, speeches, or general entertainment as a part of a national, state or City event, public festivals, or special events of a noncommercial nature. If the City Administrator disapproves such a permit, the matter may be appealed to the City Council whose decision shall be final. The broadcast or amplification shall not be audible for a distance of more than one thousand (1,000) feet from the instrument, speaker, or amplifier, and in no event, shall a permit be granted where any obstruction to free and uninterrupted traffic, both vehicular and pedestrian, will result. (Ord. 2307, 1984) 12. The making of a noise by crying, calling, or shouting or by means of a whistle, rattle, bell, gong, clapper, horn, hammer, drum, musical instrument, or other device for the purpose of advertising goods, wares, or merchandise, attracting attention, or inviting patronage of a person to a business. However, newsboys may sell newspapers and magazines by public outcry; 13. The conducting, operating, or maintaining of a garage within one hundred (100) feet of a private residence, apartment, rooming house, or hotel in such manner as to cause loud or disturbing noises to be emitted therefrom between the hours of eleven (11:00) p.m. and seven (7:00) a.m. (Ord. 1559 S17, 1968) C. Any source of noise which exceeds the following standards is considered a public nuisance: 1. Decibel Noise Standards Allowable Statistical Noise Levels in any One Hour 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. 9 p.m. to 7 a.m. L50--50 DBA L50--45 DBA L10--55 DBA L10--50 DBA L1--60 DBA L1--55 DBA where: L50 = noise level exceeded 50% of the time L10 = noise level exceeded 10% of the time L1 = noise level exceeded 1% of the time 2. Standards for measurement. Standards for measurement of noise sources shall be described in "Sound Measurement Procedures Manual," current revision, as adopted by the State Department of Environmental Quality. 3. Where measured. Measurement of a noise source shall be made from the closest residential structure in a residential zone. 4. Construction activities exempted. Noise from temporary construction activities is exempted from the noise performance standards from 7:00 a.m. to 9 p.m. 5. Variances. The Council may grant variance to the Decibel Noise Standards when it finds that strict compliance with the ordinance would cause an unusual and unreasonable hardship to a commercial or industrial use. a. The Council shall notify all adjacent residential structures within 200 ft. of the proposed variance and shall hold the public hearing on the variance prior to making any decisions on the request for a variance. b. The variance shall be the minimum necessary to alleviate the unreasonable hardship. (Ord 2215, 1982) CC ODOT Night Work Hwy 66 Mar04.doc Page 4 of 5 Map of Project Area CC ODOT Night Work Hwy 66 Mar04.doc Page 5 of 5 Theodore R. Kulongoski, Governor 2 ?nn Department of Transportation Rogue Valley Area Office " 200 Antelope Road !!ii White City, OR 97503 iL~. 541-774-8184 FAX 541-774-6349 February 10, 2004 Paula Brown City of Ashland 20 E. Main Street Ashland, OR. 97520 CiTY OF ASHLAND FILE CODE: Dear Paula: The Oregon Department of Transportation has a pavement preservation project on the Green Springs Highway (OR66) within the city limits. The project consists of grading, drainage, paving, signing, and signal work. The project boundary limits begin at mile point 0.80 and end at mile point 1.99. Due to the high volume of daytime traffic we are proposing to construct the project at night. The majority of land uses within the project are businesses. Lane restrictions and lane closures during the day would greatly impact those businesses. I am requesting a variance to the City's noise ordinance to allow night work on this project. This includes no lane closures on the Green Springs between 6:00 a.m.- 6:00 p.m. The project is scheduled to go out for bids on May 27, 2004. Before we advertise the project we would like to obtain approval for the noise variance. I can offer the following details on the project: 1) The construction time frame in which we will need the variance is from July 1, 2004 to September 15, 2004. 2) This operation will be a 5 day a week requirement. 3) This variance will be for the entire construction time during the time frame provided in question #1 above. 4) The project will be phased, as the grinding and paving will be a moving operation. 5) There will be no lane closures on weekends. Please let me know ifI can provide any more information and feel free to cai1 me at (541) 774-6393. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. f~n_cerely, Debbie Timms ODOT Project Leader cc: Joe Thomas, ODOT Project Manager Mark Thompson, ODOT Assistant Project Manager Doug Iverson, ODOT Senior Inspector Bill Boyett, ODOT Public Relations Form 734-2451 (1:03) CiTY OF ,ASHLAND Council Communication Title: Dept: Date: Submitted By: Approved By: Ratification of labor contract 'between the City and Ashland Firefighter's Association Administration April 6, 2004 /,~ Tina Gray, HR Manager ~ [///J Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator x/{~/\.. Synopsis: The City has been involved in negotiations with the Ashland Firefighter's Association since their contract expired June 30, 2003. Differences in perspective on economic issues and scheduling conflicts delayed the process. Although mediation efforts proved unsuccessful, both parties worked hard to come to a new agreement outside of arbitration. The City has reached a tentative agreement with the Association, and staff is now recommending final ratification of the agreement by the City Council. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Council authorize the City Administrator to sign the labor contract, ratifying the tentative agreement reached in negotiations. Fiscal Impact: The agreement calls for retroactive pay increases of 2% to be applied to the current wage schedule for the months of July 1, 2003-January 1, 2004, and a 2% increase retro from January 1, 2004 to present. Staff had budgeted for a 3% increase in 2003, so the first contract year amounts to an increased cost to the city of $16,300.84. The new agreement requires a 5% employee contribution for health insurance, which will help offset the increased salary cost. Under this agreement firefighters will be eligible to set aside pre-tax dollars for qualifying health care expenses in the City's Flexible Spending Account program. Participation in this program will generate payroll tax savings for the employees and the city in this and future years. The new agreement also calls for an improvement to the vacation accrual rates for this bargaining unit in order to bring the firefighters in-line with comparator jurisdictions. The improvement to vacation accruals represents a liability of approximately $121,000 over the three-year contract. However, the actual impact on the budget is negligible due to the incremental nature of vacation usage. Minimum staffing levels, vacation bidding and employee turnover dictate the amount of actual vacation time taken by employees, so it is extremely unlikely that all employees in the bargaining unit would utilize their entire vacation accrual during a given year. In fact, most firefighters carry a bank of hours from year to year subject to accrual limitations, so we do not budget the entire vacation liability. The 2nd and 3rd years of the contract call for a 3% increase on July 1st' which have already been projected into the budget and will not have any fiscal impact. Background: The City received notice of intent to bargain from the Ashland Firefighter's Association early in the spring of 2003. After several bargaining sessions it was clear that we had reached impasse over wages and health insurance. The Association and the City were not in agreement over the list of comparators or how to calculate the value of health and retirement benefits in the total compensation figure. After mediation it appeared that both parties would be preparing for interest arbitration. Understanding the negative impact that arbitration has on employee morale and relations between the City and the Association, both parties continued to work at coming closer together in their economic proposals. The largest factor driving negotiations apart was the inclusion of Woodburn as a comparator. The City determined that the Association's opposition to including Woodburn because they do not have paramedics was a viable argument as the City of Ashland does require paramedic certification for all new hires. Removing Woodbum from the computations lead to a breakthrough in negotiations and ultimately a tentative agreement that offers a fair and equitable package to the firefighters and keeps them positioned well among statutory-driven comparators. Additionally', this contract provides significant improvements in contract language, which will enhance operational issues and clarify current practice. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON and ASHLAND FIREFIGHTER'S ASSOCIATION LOCAL #1269 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS July 1, 2003-June 30, 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREAMBLE ...................................................................................................................................... 1 SCOPE OF AGREEMENT ............................................................................................................. 1 ARTICLE I - RECOGNITION AND NON-DISCRIMINATION: ............................................ 1 Section 1. Recognition ......................................................................................................................... 1 Section 2. No Discrimination .............................................................................................................. 1 ARTICLE II - UNION SECURITY AND CHECK-OFF: ........................................................... 2 Section 1. Union Security .................................................................................................................... 2 Section 2. Check Off ........................................................................................................................... 2 Section 3. Indemnification ................................................................................................................... 3 ARTICLE III - MANAGEMENT RIGHTS ................................................................................... 3 ARTICLE IV - STRIKE PROHIBITION: ..................................................................................... 4 Section 1 .............................................................................................................................................. 4 Section 2 ............................................................................................................................................... 4 Section 3 ............................................................................................................................................... 4 ARTICLE V - HOLIDAYS: ............................................................................................................. 5 Section 1. Recognized Holidays ........................................................................................................... 5 Section 2. Holiday Compensation ........................................................................................................ 5 ARTICLE VI - VACATIONS: ......................................................................................................... 6 Section 1. Eligibility ............................................................................................................................. 6 Section 2. Continuous Service ............................................................................................................. 6 Section 3. Accrual Limitations ............................................................................................................. 6 Section 4. Scheduling ........................................................................................................................... 7 Section 5. Payment on Termination .................................................................................................... 7 ARTICLE VII - HOURS OF WORK ............................................................................................. 7 Section 1. Work Schedules .................................................................................................................. 7 Section 2. Shift Transfers .................................................................................................................... 8 ARTICLE VIII - SICK LEAVE: .................................................................................................... 8 Section 1. Accumulation ..................................................................................................................... 8 Section 2. Utilization for Illness or Injury ........................................................................................... 8 Section 3. Integration with Worker's Compensation ......................................................................... 9 Section 4. Sick Leave Without Pay ..................................................................................................... 9 Section 5. Termination ......................................................................................................................... 9 ARTICLE IX - FUNERAL LEAVE: .............................................................................................. 9 Section 1. Funeral Leave ..................................................................................................................... 9 ARTICLE X - OTHER LEAVES OF ABSENCE: ........... : ......................................................... 10 Section 1. Leave of Absence Without Pay ........................................................................................ 10 Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section 2. Jury Duty ............................................................................................................................. 10 3. Appearances ...................................................................................................................... 10 4. Required Court Appearances ............................................................................................ 10 5. Election Day ..................................................................................................................... 10 6. Union Business ................................................................................................................. 10 7. Educational Leave ............................................................................................................ 11 8. Military Leave .................................................................................................................. 11 9. Failure to Retum from Leave ........................................................................................... 11 ARTICLE XI - COMPENSATION: ............................................................................................... 12 Section 1. Pay Schedule .................................................................................................................... 12 Section 2. Section 3. Section 4. Section 5. Section 6. Section 7. Section 8. Section 9. Pay Periods ........................................................................................................................ 12 Overtime ............................................................................................................................ 12 EMT Certification ............................................................................................................. 14 Working Out of Classification ........................................................................................... 14 Educational Expense Reimbursement .......................................................................... : .... 15 Mileage .............................................................................................................................. 15 Haz Mat Team ................................................................................................................... 15 Field Training Paramedic Prgroam ................................................................................... 15 ARTICLE XII - DISCIPLINE AND DISCHARGE: ................................................................... 16 Section 1 .............................................................................................................................................. 16 Section 2 ............................................................................................................................................. 16 Section 3 .............................................................................................................................................. 16 Section 4 ............................................................................................................................................. 16 Section 5 ............................................................................................................................................. 16 Section 6 ............................................................................................................................................. 17 Section 7 ............................................................................................................................................. 17 ARTICLE XIII - SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES: ..................................................................... 17 Section 1. Grievance and Arbitration Procedure ............................................................................... 17 Section 2. Stewards ............................................................................................................................ 18 ARTICLE XIV - SENIORITY: ...................................................................................................... 19 Section 1. Seniority ............................................................................................................................ 19 Section 2. Suspension of Seniority ..................................................................................................... 19 Section 3. Termination of Seniority ................................................................................................... 20 Section 4. Probationary Period ........................................................................................................... 20 Section 5. Layoff and Recall ............................................................................................................... 20 ARTICLE XV - PROMOTIONS: .................................................................................................. 20 Section 1. Testing ............................................................................................................................... 20 Section 2. Section 3. Section 4. Section 5. Section 6. Section 7. Eligibility ........................................................................................................................... 21 Procedure ................................................................ : .......................................................... 21 Credit for Seniority ............................................................................................................ 21 Promotional List ................................................................................................................ 21 Appointment ...................................................................................................................... 21 Promotional Probationary Period ...................................................................................... 22 ARTICLE X¥I - GENERAL PROVISIONS: .............................................................................. 22 Section 1. Bulletin Boards .................................................................................................................. 22 Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section 2. Visits by Union Representatives ....................................................................................... 22 3. Solicitation ......................................................................................................................... 22 4. Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................... 23 5. Rules .................................................................................................................................. 23 6. Other Employment ............................................................................................................ 23 7. Supervisory Employees ..................................................................................................... 23 8. Uniforms, Protective Clothing and Devices ..................................................................... 23 9. Position Classification ....................................................................................................... 24 10. Personnel Files ................................................................................................................ 24 11. Trade Time ...................................................................................................................... 24 ARTICLE XVII - HEALTH AND WELFARE AND RETIREMENT: ................................... 25 Section 1. Health and Welfare ............................................................................................................ 25 Section 2. Health and Welfare Committee ......................................................................................... 25 Section 3. Retirement ......................................................................................................................... 25 Section 4. Deferred Compensation .................................................................................................... 25 ARTICLE XVIII - WORKER'S COMPENSATION: ................................................................ 26 Section 1. Worker's Compensation .................................................................................................... 26 Section 2. Supplementary Payment .................................................................................................... 26 ARTICLE XIX - LIABILITY INSURANCE: .............................................................................. 26 ARTICLE XX - SAVINGS CLAUSE AND FUNDING: ............................................................. 26 Section 1. Savings Clause .................................................................................................................. 26 Section 2. Funding .............................................................................................................................. 26 ARTICLE XXI - TERMINATION AND REOPENING: ........................................................... 27 APPENDIX "A" - CLASSIFICATIONS WITHIN THE BARGAINING UNIT .................... 28 APPENDIX "B" - SALARY SCHEDULE ................................................................................... 29 APPENDIX "C" - HEALTH AND WELFARE BENEFITS ..................................................... 30 PREAMBLE This Agreement is entered into by the City of Ashland, Oregon, hereinafter referred to as the City, and the Ashland Firefighters Association Local #1269, International Association of Firefighters, hereinafter collectively referred to as the Union. Unless indicated otherwise, references to the "City" shall include the Mayor and City Council or their designee(s) as the officials directly responsible for the operation of the department(s) covered by this Agreement. The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the full and complete agreement between the parties on matters pertaining to rates of pay, hours of work and other conditions of employment. SCOPE OF AGREEMENT This Agreement shall apply to those employees of the Ashland Fire and Rescue Department, Ashland, Oregon, as listed in "Appendix A" but excluding volunteer firefighters, part-time employees, seasonal and temporary employees'. Where the term "employee" is used, it shall mean regular employees or probationary employees within the bargaining unit, as the same are defined in Article XIV of this Agreement. "Part-time employee" shall mean persons working a fraction of the normal working week or shift, but normally following a predetermined pattern of working hours. "Seasonal employee" shall mean persons working for summer employment, not exceeding four (4) consecutive months. "Temporary employee" shall mean persons appointed for a limited period of time, not to exceed one (1) year, e.g. college "sleepers", or student firefighters. ARTICLE I RECOGNITION AND NON-DISCRIMINATION Section 1. Recognition. The City recognizes the Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for the purposes of establishing rates of pay, hours of work and other conditions of employment for all employees in the bargaining unit described immediately above. Section 2. No Discrimination. The provisions of this Agreement shall be applied equally to all employees in the bargaining unit without discrimination as to race, religion, creed, color, sex, age or national origin, sexual orientation, marital status, mental or physical disability or other protected status, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification in accordance with applicable law. The Union shall share equally with the City the responsibility for applying the provisions of this Section. All reference to employees in this Agreement designate both sexes, and whenever the male gender is used, it shall be construed to include the male and female employees. Employees shall have the right to form, join, and participate in the activities of the Union or any other labor organization, or to refrain from any or all such activities, and there shall be no discrimination by either the City or the Union by reason of the exercise of such right, except as specifically provided in this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as precluding or limiting the right of an individual employee to represent himself in individual personal matters. ARTICLE II UNION SECURITY AND CHECK-OFF Section 1. Union Security. The terms of this Agreement have been made for all employees in the bargaining unit and not only for the members of the Union. Accordingly, it is fair that each employee in the bargaining unit pay his/her own way and assume his/her obligation along with the grant of equal benefits. Any bargaining unit employee who has not joined the Union within thirty (30) days of becoming a regular or probationary employee shall, as a condition of employment, pay to the Union an amount equal to the uniform dues of members of the Union. Any individual employee objection based on bona fide religious tenets or teachings of a church or religious body of which such employee is a member will require such an employee to inform the City and the Union of his/her objection. The employee will meet with representatives of the Union and establish a satisfactory arrangement for distribution of a contribution of an amount of money equivalent to regular Union membership dues to a non-religious charity. Section 2. Check Off. Upon receipt of a lawfully executed authorization from an employee, the City agrees to deduct the regular initiation fee and regular dues uniformly required of members of the Union, and remit such deduction within fifteen (15) days after the conclusion of the regularly scheduled twenty-seven (27) day pay period, to the official designated by the Union in writing to receive deductions. The Union will notify the City in writing of the exact amount of such initiation fee and regular membership dues to be deducted. Authorization by the employee shall be on forms approved by the City and may be revoked by the employee upon written request. Upon written notification by the Union of a check-off error, the City will make adjustments within sixty (60) days following such notification. 2 Section 3. Indemnification. The Union agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless against any and all claims, orders or judgment brought or issued against the City as a result of any action taken or not taken by the City under the provisions of Article II, Section 2. ARTICLE III MANAGEMENT RIGHTS Union recognizes that it is the prerogative of the City to operate and manage its affairs in all respects in accordance with its responsibilities. The powers or authority which City has not expressly abridged, delegated or modified by this Agreement are retained by the City. It is understood and agreed that the City possesses the sole and exclusive right to operate the City through its City Administrator and department heads, but such rights must be exercised consistent with the other provisions of this Agreement. Those rights include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. To determine the mission of its constituent departments, commissions and boards. 2. To set standards of services. 3. To direct its employees. To discipline or discharge regular employees for just cause and probationary employees at its discretion. o To relieve its employees from duty because of lack of work, finances or other legitimate reasons. 6. To maintain the efficiency of governmental operations. To determine the methods, means and personnel by which government operations are to be conducted. 8. To determine the content of job classifications. 9. To take all necessary action to carry out its mission in emergencies; and 10. To exercise complete control and discretion over its organization and the technology of performing its work. 3 ARTICLE IV STRIKE PROHIBITION Section 1. The Union and its members, as individuals or as a group, will not initiate, cause, permit or participate or join in any authorized strike, work stoppage, or slowdown, picketing, or any other restriction of work at any location in the City. Employees in the bargaining unit, while acting in the course of their employment, shall not honor any picket line established in the City by the Union or by any other labor organization when called upon to cross picket line in the line of duty. Disciplinary action, including discharge may' be taken by the City against any employee or employees engaged in a violation of this Article. Such disciplinary action may be undertaken selectively at the option of the City and shall not preclude or restrict recourse to any other remedies, including an action for damages which may be available to the City. Section 2. In the event of an unauthorized strike, work stoppage, slowdown, picketing, observance of a picket line, or other restriction of work in any form, either on the basis of individual choice or collective employee conduct, the Union will, immediately upon notification, attempt to secure an immediate and orderly return to work. This obligation and the obligations set forth in Section 1 above shall not be affected or limited by the subject matter involved in the dispute giving rise to the stoppage or by whether such matter is or is not subject to the grievance and arbitration provision of this Agreement. Section 3. The City agrees not to engage in a lockout of any Union member of the Ashland Fire Department as a consequence of a dispute arising during the period of this Agreement. 4 ARTICLE V HOLIDAYS Section 1. Recognized Holidays. The following shall be recognized as holidays: New Years Day (January 1) Lincoln's birthday (lst Mon. in Feb.) Martin Luther King Jr. Birthday (3rd Mon. in Jan.) Washington's Birthday (3rd Mon. in Feb.) Memorial Day (last Mon. In May) Independence Day (July 4) Labor Day (lst Mon. in Sept.) Veterans Day (November 11) Thanksgiving Day (4th Thurs. in Nov.) Christmas Day (December 25) Any day declared to be a holiday by the President, Governor or Mayor. Whenever a holiday shall fall on Sunday, the succeeding Monday shall be observed as the holiday. Whenever a holiday shall fall on Saturday, the preceding Friday shall be observed as the holiday. If an employee is on authorized vacation, sick leave, or other leave with pay when a holiday occurs, such holiday shall not be charged against such leave. Section 2. Holiday Compensation. All regular employees shall receive in addition to their regular pay, eleven and two-tenths (11.2) hours pay for each of the holidays in the fiscal year as listed above at their regular straight time rate of pay. The additional compensation shall be paid on the first paycheck of the month of December. In no instance shall the holiday compensation be paid later than December 15th. In the event an employee leaves the City's employment before the end of the fiscal year for which holiday pay is granted, eleven and two-tenths (11.2) hours pay shall be deducted from his/her final paycheck for each holiday which has not yet occurred. Personnel on a forty (40) hour workweek shall receive all recognized holidays off. ARTICLE VI VACATIONS Section 1. Eligibility. An shall employee be eligible to take accrued vacation time off with pay after one (1) full year of continuous service with the City. Vacation time off with pay shall be accrued on a monthly basis in accordance with the following schedule: · Employees with less than four (4) full years of continuous service shall accrue fourteen (14) hours of vacation credit for each full calendar month worked · Employees with more than four (4), but tess than nine full years of continuous service, shall accrue eighteen (18) hours of vacation credit for each full calendar month worked. Employees with more than nine (9), but less than fourteen full years of continuous service, shall accrue-twenty-two (22) hours of vacation credit for each full calendar month worked. Employees with more than fourteen (14), but less than nineteen (19) full years of continuous service, shall accrue twenty-six (26) hours of vacation credit for each full calendar month worked. · Employees with more than nineteen (19), but less than twenty-four (24) full years of continuous service, shall accrue twenty-eight (28) hours of vacation credit for each full calendar month worked. · Employees with more than twenty-four (24) full years of continuous service shall accrue thirty (30) hours of vacation credit for each full calendar month worked. Section 2. Continuous Service. Continuous service, for the purpose of accumulating vacation leave credit, shall be based on the time spent by an employee in active employment or on paid leave. Time spent on leaves which are not paid by the City will not be counted as a part of continuous service for accrual purposes, but employees returning from such leaves and from layoff status shall be entitled to credit for service prior to the leave. Section 3. Accrual Limitations. Accumulation of vacation time off with pay is limited to twenty-four (24) months of accrued vacation credit at the applicable rate. The City shall establish a procedure to notify an employee thirty (30) days in advance of impending loss of accrued vacation time. Any employee who is about to lose vacation credit because of accrual limitations may, by notifying his supervisor fifteen (15) days in advance, absent himself/herself to prevent such loss. Such action taken by the employee shall not constitute a basis for disciplinary action, or loss of pay. If an employee does not take his or her accrued vacation leave after proper notification by the City, such vacation 6 credit shall be deemed forfeited, unless the failure to take vacation is caused by the City's insistence that the employee be at work during a scheduled vacation period. Section 4. Scheduling. Vacation times shall be scheduled by the City based on its judgment as to the needs of efficient operations and the availability of vacation relief. Subject to the foregoing, employees shall have the right to be granted vacation times, off in accordance with the following: Employees shall be permitted to request vacation time off either on a split or an entire basis. Vacation shall be selected on the basis of seniority; provided, however, employees will be permitted to exercise their right to select vacations by seniority only once annually. The vacation schedule shall be posted annually as of December 1st and employees shall exercise their choice by bidding in seniority. There may be up to a total of two (2) employees on vacation or compensatory time off at any given time. The list shall be closed as of January 1st and subsequent changes shall be made only by mutual consent of the parties. Scheduling of vacation periods, to the extent consistent with operation requirements of the City and vacation credits of the employee, shall be in units of not less than one shift (24 hours), and may be scheduled at any time with at least forty-eight (48) hours notice, subject to the operational needs of the department. Section 5. Payment on Termination. In the event of death, termination or other separation of employment of an employee during the initial twelve (12) months of his employment, vacation is not considered earned and no payment in lieu of vacation shall be made. In the event of death, retirement, termination or other separation of employment after an employee has served for twelve (12) continuous months, and is otherwise eligible for vacation credits, the employee shall be entitled to payment for accrued vacation leave at the rate as of the date of eligibility. In the event of death, earned but unused vacation leave shall be paid in the same manner as salary due the deceased employee. ARTICLE VII HOURS OF WORK Section 1. Work Schedules. Employee working hours will be scheduled consistent with the operating needs of the Fire Department. Shift employees will be assigned to work regular shifts totaling a maximum of 204 straight-time hours over a twenty-seven (27) day cycle. Consistent with operating requirements, shift employees shall be scheduled to work on regular work shifts, during this twenty-seven=(27) day cycle and each shift shall have regular starting and quitting times. Work schedules showing the employee's shifts, workdays and hours shall be posted on Department bulletin boards for thirty (30) days prior to their effective date. Except for emergency situations and for the duration of the emergency, changes in work schedules shall be posted seven (7) days prior to the effective date of the change. Employees on a forty (40) hour workweek shall be scheduled to work forty (40) hours within each seven (7) day period beginning on Monday at 8:00 a.m. and ending the following Monday at 8:00 a.m. Section 2. Shift Transfers. No regular employee shall suffer a loss of pay, due to a lesser number of scheduled hours of work as a result of an involuntary transfer from one shift to another shift. ARTICLE VIII SICK LEAVE Section 1. Accumulation. Sick leave shall be earned by regular and probationary shift employees at the rate of twelve (12) hours for each calendar month of service. Sick leave may be accumulated to a total of twelve hundred and forty-eight (1,248) hours and must be taken for purposes specified in Section 2 below, as a condition to any sick leave payment. Personnel regularly assigned to a forty (40) hour workweek shall accumulate eight (8) hours for each calendar month of service to a maximum of seven hundred twenty (720) hours. Section 2. Utilization for Illness or Injury. Employees may utilize their allowance for sick leave when unable to perform their work duties by reason of illness or injury. A maximum of forty-eight (48) hours sick leave per calendar year may also be used when the employees absence is needed to care for an ill or injured immediate family member as defined by the Oregon Family Leave Act. In such event, the employee shall notify their immediate supervisor of absence due to illness or injury, and the nature and expected length of the absence as soon as possible prior to the beginning of his scheduled regular work shift, unless unable to do so because of the serious nature of injury or illness. A physician's statement of the nature and identity of the illness, the need for the employee's absence and the estimated duration of the absence may be required at the option of the City, for absences of over one shif~ (two work days for forty hour personnel) prior to payment of any sick leave benefits and/or prior to allowing the employee to return to work. If the Fire Chief has reason to believe sick leave is being abused, a physician's statement may be required as a prerequisite to payment of sick leave for one shift (two work days for forty hour personnel), provided the employee has been advised in advance of this requirement. In the event of the latter requirement, the City shall bear the cost of sending the employee to a physician designated by the City or to a physician mutually agreed upon by the employee and the City. In emergency cases, employees may be granted sick leave for doctor or dental appointments, if approved by the Fire Chief. Section 3. Integration With Worker's Compensation. When an injury occurs in the course of employment, the City's obligation to pay under this sick leave article is limited to the difference between any payment received for time loss benefits under Worker's Compensation laws and the employee's regular pay. In such instances, one third (1/3) charges will be made against accrued sick leave. Section 4. Sick Leave Without Pay. Upon application by the employee, sick leave without pay may be granted by the City for the remaining period of disability after accrued sick leave has been exhausted. The City may require that the employee submit a certification from a physician periodically during the period of such disability, and before returning to work. After accrued sick leave has been exhausted, an employee may elect to use accrued vacation and/or compensatory leave for sick leave. The City shall notify an employee approximately 30 calendar days before paid sick leave is exhausted. An employee must file a written request for sick leave without pay to the Fire Chief, fourteen (14) calendar days before paid leave is exhausted, otherwise he shall be considered as having resigned his position with the City. Section 5. Termination. 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 his death or termination or other separation of employment for whatever reason, except as provided in ARTICLE XVII, Section 2. Sick leave shall not accrue during any period of leave of absence without pay. ARTICLE IX FUNERAL LEAVE Section 1. Funeral Leave. An employee shall be granted one working shift (two work days for forty hour personnel) funeral leave with regular pay in the event of death in the immediate family of the employee. The immediate family shall be defined as spouse, parents, grandparents, children, brothers and sisters of the employee and the parents, children, brothers, sisters and grandparents of the employee's spouse. The employee will be paid his regular hourly rate for any such days of excused absence which occur only during his assigned workweek. An additional working shift shall be granted, if the funeral is over 500 miles from Ashland, one way. Leave with pay of up to four (4) hours may be granted when an employee serves as a pallbearer, irrespective of whether the deceased is an immediate family member. ARTICLE X OTHER LEAVES OF ABSENCE Section 1. Leaves of Absence Without Pay. Leaves of absence without pay, not to exceed one (1) year, may be granted upon establishment of reasonable justification and where the Fire Chief or his designee has determined that the operation of the Department will not be negatively impacted by the temporai'y absence of the employee. Requests for such leaves must be in writing, and submitted to the Fire Chief or his designee thirty (30) days prior to the requested leave date. Section 2. Jury Duty. 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 by him for such jury service. Upon being excused from jury service for any day an employee shall immediately contact his supervisor for assignment for the remainder of his or her regular workday. Section 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 he may receive as witness fees. Section 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. The regular overtime rate, if applicable, shall apply to employees who are off duty, provided that any compensation he may receive as witness fees shall be paid over to the City. Section 5. Election Day. Employees shall be granted two (2) hours to vote on any election day only if, due to scheduling of work, they would not otherwise be able to vote. Section 6. Union Business. Employees elected to any legitimate full time paid Union office which takes them from their employment with the City, shall upon written request of the Union and the employee, be granted a leave of absence of up to one (1) year without pay, renewable upon application. Employees selected by the Union to attend conventions and related union activities shall, upon written request of the Union and the employee, be granted a leave of absence of up to thirty (30) days without pay. 10 Employees selected by the Union to attend collective bargaining sessions between the Union and the City shall not suffer a loss of pay or benefits as a result of attendance at such meetings. However, all efforts shall be made to schedule such meetings so as not to affect the staffing or operation of the Department. Not more than three (3) member~ shall be allowed this time off for any one meeting. During collective bargaining sessions, bargaining team members may trade time without the application of ARTICLE XVI, Section 11, parts (d) and (e), and further without any records being kept by the City as to trade time debts between employees during such sessions. Section 7. Educational Leave. After completing one (1) year of continuous service, an employee, upon written request, may be granted a leave of absence without pay by the City for the purpose of upgrading his/her professional ability through enrollment in education courses directly related to employment at an accredited school or course of study. The period of such leave of absence shall not exceed one (1) year, but may be renewed or extended upon request of the employee and approval by the Fire Chief or his designee. One year leaves of absence, with requested extensions, for educational purposes may not be provided more than once in any three (3) year period. Replacements shall be considered temporary employees. Employees shall also be granted time off with pay for educational purposes, for reasonable lengths of time, to attend conferences, seminars, briefing sessions, training programs, and other programs of a similar nature that are intended to improve or upgrade the employee's skill and professional ability, when ordered or approved by the Fire Chief or his designee. Section 8. Military Leave. Military leave shall be granted in accordance with state and federal law. The City shall recognize the military year October 1 to September 30 for all employees. Section 9. Failure to Return from Leave. Any employee who is granted a leave of absence and who fails to return to work at the expiration of said leave of absence, shall be considered as having resigned his position with the City, and his position shall be declared vacated; except and unless the employee, prior to the expiration of his leave of absence, has requested an extension and furnished evidence that he is unable to work by reason of sickness, physical disability, inju .ry or other legitimate reason beyond his control. 11 ARTICLE XI COMPENSATION Section 1. Pay Schedule. Employees shall be compensated in accordance with the pay schedules attached to this Agreement and marked "Appendix B" which is hereby incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement. Upon promotion from the Firefighter classification to the Engineer'classification, the rate of pay shall be the entry level salary or the next level salary, if the entry level salary is less than the rate of pay earned in the lower classification. If appointed to the second step, the employee shall remain in that step for twelve (12) months before advancing to the next step. When any position not listed on the pay schedule is established, the City shall designate a job classification and pay rate for the position. The Union shall be notified and the pay rate established by the City shall be considered tentative until the Union has been affOrded the opportunity to meet and discuss the matter. If the Union does not agree that the classification or pay rate is proper, the Union may submit the issue as a grievance according to the grievance procedure or pursue dispute resolution procedures pursuant to ORS as appropriate. Section 2. Pay Periods. Employees shall be paid twice for every twenty-seven (27) day cycle. (a) The first payday of the cycle will be a draw, and will reflect no more than one- half of the pay for regular scheduled hours for the full twenty-seven (27) day cycle. The first payday will be on the twentieth (20th) day of the cycle, unless such day falls on a Saturday, Sunday or Holiday, in which case the payday will be the preceding work day. (b) The second payday of the Cycle will reflect the total hours worked in the twenty- seven day cycle, less the draw amount paid in (a) above and all deductions, plus additions for premium pay (overtime, call-back, etc.) The second payday will be on the sixth (6th) day following the close of the twenty-seven day cycle, unless such day falls on a Saturday, Sunday or Holiday, in which case payday will be on the preceding work day. (c) A schedule showing all scheduled paydays shall be posted on Department bulletin boards, each fiscal year. Section 3. Overtime. (a) 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. Except as provided in Article XVI, Section 11, shift employees shall be compensated at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate for work performed outside their regularly scheduled straight-time shifts of 204 hours during a twenty-seven (27) day cycle as set forth in ARTICLE 12 VII, Section 1. Forty (40) hour personnel shall be compensated at overtime rates for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours within each workweek as defined in ARTICLE VII Section 1. For shift employees, overtime may result from scheduled overtime, as well as call-backs and hold-overs as follows: Call-Back Overtime. Employees called back to work shall receive overtime pay with a guaranteed minimum of one (1) hour at double time for the work for which they are called back. All additional hours worked and annexed to the one (1) hour call-back shall be paid at the overtime rate of time-and-one-half (1-1/2) the regular rate of pay until the beginning of the employee's regular scheduled work shift. Scheduled Overtime. Scheduled overtime is defined as required overtime work for which the employee received notification no less than ten (10) hours prior to the reporting time specified, and shall be compensated at one and one-half (1-1/2) times his regular rate of pay. Scheduled overtime also includes work performed in excess of 204 hours in a twenty-seven (27) day cycle that is scheduled by the Department. Such time worked shall also be compensated at one-and-one-half (1- 1/2) times an employee's regular rate. Hold-Over Overtime. Hold-over overtime is defined as required overtime work for which an employee is required to remain at work beyond his regular work shift or workday and shall be compensated at one and one-half (1-1/2) times the employee's pay. In no event shall overtime compensation be received twice for the same hours worked. (b) Compensation for authorized overtime shall be paid in the form of pay at the applicable rate or banked as compensatory time off. All overtime shall be recorded by the employee and must be approved by the Fire Chief or designated supervisor. (c) For purposes of the Company overtime under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and state statute only, authorized leave with pay shall be considered hours worked. (d) Overtime may be taken in the form of compensatory time off in lieu of paid compensation. Such time off shall be approved by the Fire Chief and shall not be unreasonably withheld. The Fire Chief may withhold approval when the complement of employees has been temporarily reduced due to scheduled vacations, or other previously approved leaves for other employees on that shift. There may be up to a total of two (2) employees on compensatory time off or vacation, at any given time. Permission for such time off must be requested from the affected shift's Captain at least forty-eight (48) hours in advance of the time off. Such time off must be taken in increments of not less than two (2) hours, and shall not interfere with the operations of the Fire Department. Provided, however, 13 that the compensatory time off may not be taken by virtue of hours worked in excess of 53 and less than 57 in a work week. The maximum compensation time that may be accrued is 112 hours (80 hours for 40-hour employees). Section 4. EMT Certification. The City and the Union recognize the need to have highly trained employees to operate the City's rescue equipment and to respond to medical emergencies. To this end, the City and the Union agree as follows: Emergency Medical Technician-B (EMT-B) certification shall be the mandatory minimum level of certification required for all positions in the bargaining unit. (a) The employee shall be responsible for continuing to maintain the required level of EMT certification as a condition of continued employment. (b) The City will pay expenses associated with mandatory EMT recertifications and other mandatory certifications. Such expenses may include transportation and travel costs, application and test fees, registration fees, etc. The City will decide how many employees will be involved at any one time due to budgeting and staffing requirements. (c) Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, certified Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT's), shall be compensated as follows: EMT 'B' EMT 'I' EMT 'P' 1.6% of top Firefighter pay 3.0% of top Firefighter pay 7.25% of top Firefighter pay All the above amounts shall be incorporated into the base wage schedule set forth in Appendix B. If any individuals achieve a higher level of certification, the City will pay the premium pay for the higher level. Section 5. "Working Out of Classification." When an employee is required to work in a higher job classification for at least two (2) hours or more, he/she shall receive the pay rate for the higher classification for time worked in a higher classification until the return to their previous job classification. If an employee takes vacation, sick leave or other paid time off while working in a higher classification and returns to the higher classification, he/she shall be paid their regular position's salary rate for such vacation and sick leave. The Fire Chief may assign an employee to acting-in assignments. Subject to the foregoing, the rate of pay shall be the entry level salary established for the higher position or the next level salary if the entry level salary is less than the rate of pay earned in the lower classification. 14 Section 6. Educational Expense Reimbursement. The City shall pay the cost of books and tuition for successfully completed, job-related courses which have been approved in advance by the Fire Chief. In the event that an employee leaves City service sooner than two years after completion of the course(s), the amount paid by the City will be deducted from the employee's final paycheck to the extent the deduction does not reduce the employee's wages below legal minimums. If the deduction is not sufficient to fully reimburse the City, the employee shall be responsible to make a direct payment in the amount of the differential. Section 7. Mileage. An employee required to report for special duty assignment at any location other than their permanent reporting location and who is required to use their personal automobile for transportation to such location shall be compensated at the rate established by the City, for the use of such automobile directly in the line of duty. Section 8. Haz Mat Team. Should the City participate in the regional haz-mat program, each member of the Haz-Mat Team who maintains membership status on the response team, shall be compensated as follows: (a) Each team member shall be paid an incentive of $500.00 per year for maintaining their required membership status. Payment shall be made in December for the next calendar year. Should the team member not complete an entire year, then the City shall be reimbursed on a monthly prorated basis. (b) Team members shall receive time and one-half their regular pay when involved in a state approved Hazardous Materials Team Activity, or off-duty training required by the Fire Chief. (c) Team members shall receive double their regular pay when activated for response to a Hazardous Materials incident (2-hour minimum). (d) Team members shall receive an annual baseline physical, paid for by the City, to maintain their membership on the regional team. Section 9. Field Training Paramedic Program. Should the City participate in a Field Training Paramedic (FTP) Program, each member assigned by the department as an FTP will receive $90.00 per month, for each calendar month that the employee is so assigned. 15 ARTICLE XII DISCIPLINE AND DISCHARGE Section 1. No regular employee as defined in ARTICLE XIV, Section 4, may be disciplined except for just cause and after due process. Disciplinary action may be imposed upon any employee for failing to fulfill his or her responsibilities as an employee. Conduct reflecting discredit upon the City or Department or which is a direct hindrance to the effective performance of the City functions shall be considered just cause for disciplinary action. Such cause may also include misconduct, inefficiency, incompetence, insubordination, misfeasance, malfeasance, the willful violation of Department rules or for political activities forbidden by law. Section 2. Discipline for just cause may include the following:: 1. Written reprimand; 2. Demotion; 3. Suspension; 4. Discharge. Section 3. An employee may be suspended from employment, with or without pay, while charges against the employee are investigated. Such a suspension may be for no more than five (5) working days, unless mutually extended by the parties. If the employee is cleared completely of the charges, the affected employee will be immediately reinstated without loss of pay or benefits. If the charges are upheld, the suspension or any part of it may be determined to be part of the discipline, effective as of the date of suspension. Section 4. In the event of an offense of such serious nature that immediate disciplinary action is required, the employee may be suspended immediately from employment until such charges are investigated and a decision made to continue or terminate the employee. If the employee is cleared completely of the charges, the affected employee will be immediately reinstated without loss of pay or other benefits. If charges are upheld, the termination date will be the date of suspension. Section 5. In any case of suspension, a written notice of the charges against the employee, and grounds for suspension shall be supplied to the Union and affected employee. Any disciplinary action that is protested, shall be protested only as ghevance through the regular grievance procedure. 16 Section 6. Two (2) years from the date a written reprimand is issued it shall be removed from personnel records provided no other infractions have occurred concerning the same matter. Section 7. An employee having less than twelve (12) months continuous service shall serve at the discretion of the City. ARTICLE XIII SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES Section 1. Grievance and Arbitration Procedure. Any grievance or dispute which may arise between the parties concerning the application, meaning or interpretation of this Agreement shall be settled in the following manner, provided however, the time limits can be extended by mutual consent of the parties. Once a grievance has been filed in writing it may not be changed except as to facts. STEP I (Informal). The affected employee shall discuss the problem with the Fire Chief or his designee within seven (7) business days of its occurrence. The discussion shall include factual details of the incident, the section of this Agreement allegedly violated and the specific remedy requested. The City shall have the seven (7) business days to attempt to resolve the matter and shall answer the employee either verbally or in writing. If the problem is not resolved within the seven (7) business days, it may proceed as a grievance to the second step. STEP II. If the problem has not been settled between the affected employee and the Fire Chief or his designee, it may be presented as a grievance in writing by the Union representative to the Fire Chief within seven (7) business days after the response specified in Step I is due. The written notice shall include details of the grievance, the section of this Agreement allegedly violated and the specific remedy requested. The Fire Chief shall respond to the Union representative in writing within seven (7) business days after receipt of the grievance. STEP III. If the grievance still remains unadjusted, it may be presented by the Union to the City Administrator or his designee(s) within seven (7) business days after the response specified in STEP II is due. The City Administrator or his designee(s) shall respond in writing to the Union within seven (7) business days. STEP IV. If the grievance is still unsettled, either party may, within ten (10) calendar days after the reply of the City Administrator is due, by written notice to the other, request arbitration of the dispute under STEP V. 17 STEP V. If the ghevance is still unsettled, either party may within ten (10) calendar days of the decision of the City Administrator or his designee, under STEP IV, have the fight to have the matter arbitrated by a third party jointly agreed upon by the City and the Union. If the parties are unable to agree upon an arbitrator, the American Arbitration Association or the Oregon Employment Relations Board shall be requested to submit a list of five names of Oregon and/or Washington arbitrators. Both the City and the Union shall have the fight to strike two names from the list. The party requesting arbitration shall strike the first name and the other party shall then strike one name. The process shall be repeated and the remaining person shall be the arbitrator. The City and the Union shall meet in a pre-hearing conference and shall prepare a submission agreement regarding the specific issue(s) in dispute. The designated arbitrator shall hear both parties as soon as possible on the disputed matter and shall render a decision within thirty (30) calendar days which shall be final and binding on the parties and the employee. The arbitrator shall have no fight to amend, modify, nullify, ignore or add provisions to the Agreement, and shall be limited to consideration of the particular issue(s) presented to him. His decision shall be based solely upon his interpretation of the meaning and application of the Agreement. Expenses for the arbitrator shall be borne equally by the City and the Union, however each party shall be responsible for compensating its own representatives and witnesses. If either party desires a verbatim recording of the proceeding, it may cause such record to be made, provided it pays for the record. If the other party desires a copy, both parties shall jointly share the cost of the transcript and all copies. If any grievance is not presented or forwarded by the employee or Union within the time limits specified above, such ghevance shall be deemed waived. Section 2. Stewards. Employees selected by the Union to act as Union representatives shall be known as "stewards" and shall not exceed three (3) in number. The names of the employees selected as stewards and the names of local Union representatives, state council or international representatives who may represent employees, shall be certified in writing to the City by the Union. Duties required by the Union of stewards, excepting attendance at meetings with supervisory personnel and aggrieved employees arising out of a grievance already initiated by an employee under Section 1 above, shall not interfere with their or other employees' regular work assignments as employees of the City. On-the-job contacts between stewards and an aggheved employee shall be made so as not to interfere with or disrupt regular Fire Department operations and with the consent of the Fire Chief or his designee. Requests for such contacts shall not be unreasonably denied, but shall be limited to a total of no more than six (6) hours per month. Union stewards shall not solicit, or "shop" for ghevances while on duty. Time allowed to be authorized for contacts between stewards and an aggrieved employee under this Article shall be used to solve problems, not to encourage them. Stewards shall make every effort to attempt to make contacts during their off-duty hours. 18 ARTICLE XIV SENIORITY Section 1. Seniority. Seniority shall be an employee's length of continuous service with the bargaining unit, dating from his last date of hire and shall apply by job classification in the matter of layoff and recall. In the event of a layoff, such a laid off employee may exercise his seniority to bump into a lower job classification within the Department, provided he is qualified to perform the work. To prevent unnecessary disruption and delays, employees must exercise their bumping rights in writing within seven (14) calendar days of receipt of notice of layoff. Recall from layoff shall be in the reverse order of seniority, provided the recalled employee is qualified to perform the work. Seniority shall continue to accrue during: (a) Authorized sick leave or disability leave up to ninety (90) calendar days; (b) Vacation leave; (c) Educational leave approved by the City; (d) Military leave as specified in ARTICLE X Section 8; (e) Funeral leave; (f) Jury duty; (g) Promotion to a supervisory position outside of the bargaining unit for six (6) months; Section 2. Suspension of Seniority. Seniority shall be retained, but shall not continue to accrue during: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Authorized sick leave or disability leave in excess of ninety (90) days; Educational leave requested by the employee; Military leave in accordance with law; Election to a full time paid Union office up to one (1) year, renewable upon application; and Other authorized leaves of absence of up to one (1) year. 19 Section 3. Termination of Seniority. Seniority and the employment relationship shall be broken or terminated if an employee: (1) Quits; (2) Is discharged for just cause; (3) Is absent from work without notification to the Fire Chief or his designee, by the beginning of his next regularly scheduled work shift; (4) Is laid off and fails to report to work within five (5) days after being recalled; (5) Is laid off- from work for any reason for 24 months or for a period of time equal to his seniority, whichever is shorter; (6) Fails to report for work after the termination of a leave of absence; (7) If while on a leave of absence for personal health reasons accepts other employment without permission, or (8) Retires. Section 4. 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 Department by observing a new employee's work, training, aiding new employees in adjustment to their position, and by providing an opportunity to reject any employee whose work performance fails to meet required work standards. Every new employee hired into the bargaining unit shall serve a probationary period of twelve (12) full months, after which they shall be considered a regular employee and granted seniority retroactively to the last date of hire. The Union recognizes the right of the City to terminate probationary employees for any reason and to exercise all rights not specifically modified by this Agreement with respect to such employees. Termination of a probationary employee shall not be subject to the grievance procedure under ARTICLE XIII. Section 5. Layoff and Recall Recall from layoff exceeding three (3) shifts shall be by certified letter sent to the employee at their last known address furnished to the City by an employee. The City may also use any means to return an employee sooner. The City may require the successful completion of a medical examination as a prerequisite to returning an employee to work following a layoff, at City expense. ARTICLE XV PROMOTIONS Section 1. Testing. No employee shall be promoted from one rank to another without first having passed a promotion examination. Promotion examinations shall be based upon ascertained merit and standing upon examination. Promotional opportunities shall be posted for at least twenty-one (21) calendar days prior to the beginning of the testing procedure. Whenever a promotional examination is given, the notice announcing such examination shall state: the passing score on all parts of the examination; the relative weight of each part of the examination and the length of time the eligibility list established by the examination process will be effective. 20 Section 2. Eligibility. It shall be a prerequisite that any applicant for examination for a position or classification above that of firefighter in the bargaining unit, shall have had service for at least two (2) years for Engineer, and three (3) years for Captain in the Fire Department of the City of Ashland. Promotional vacancies for classifications listed in "Appendix A" may be filled from outside the Ashland Fire Department only in the event of the following: (a) If, after posting a promotional opportunity in accordance with-Section 1 of this Article, the City receives no notices of intent to participate as outlined in Section 3 of this Article; (b) If it is found for Engineer that, after testing in accordance with the terms of this Article, no one within the bargaining unit is deemed qualified for the position by virtue of teSt scores; or (c) If it is found for Captain that, after testing in accordance with the terms of this Article, there are not at least three (3) employees within the bargaining unit deemed qualified for the position by virtue of test scores. Section 3. Procedure. Employees must submit in writing to the Fire Chief or his or her designee, their intent to participate in the testing procedure not later than ten (10) calendar days prior to the test date. The content of the examination shall be limited to measuring of skill, technical knowledge and level of self-development attained for the classification sought by applicants. When oral examinations are given, the oral board will be made up of Fire Department members from outside the Ashland Fire Department. Section 4. Credit for Seniority. In the event two (2) or more applicants are equally qualified by virtue of identical test scores, seniority shall govern placement on the promotional list. Section 5. Promotional List. Promotional lists shall be established from test scores, with number one on the list being that employee who had the best or top overall score. The list will serve to advise each applicant of his standing relative to the outcome of the testing procedure. Section 6. Appointment. When the City desires to fill a vacancy, it shall choose the candidate with the highest overall score on the eligibility list, unless the Fire Chief determines that such individual is not the most qualified, and puts his reasons for such a determination in writing. 21 Section 7. Promotional Probationary Period. Regular employees promoted into a higher classification shall serve a promotional probationary period of twelve (12) full months. The Union also recognizes the right of the employer to demote an employee on promotional probationary status to his previous position. Demotion of an employee on promotional probationary status shall not be subject to the grievance procedure under ARTICLE XIII. Such demotion shall not be considered a disciplinary action. The reasons for demotion shall be supplied in writing to the demoted employee within 48 hours after the demotion. ARTICLE XVI GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 1. Bulletin Boards. The City agrees to furnish and maintain a suitable bulletin board in a convenient place in the work or assembly area to be used by the Union. The Union shall limit its posting of Union notices and bulletins to such bulletin board, which shall be used only for the following Union notices and bulletins: (a) Recreational and social affairs of the Union (b) Union meetings (c) Union elections (d) Reports of Union committees (e) Rulings or policies of the International Union In addition, the Union may post one IAFF sign, and may use the dayroom for Union meetings, provided they first secure permission from the Captain. Section 2. Visits by Union Representatives. The City agrees that accredited representatives of' the International Association of Firefighters and the Oregon State Firefighters Council, upon reasonable and proper introduction, may have reasonable access to the premises of the City at any time during working hours for the purposes of assisting in the administration of this Agreement, if they first obtain permission to do so from the Fire Chief or his designated representative. Section 3. Solicitation. The Union agrees that its members will not solicit membership in the Union or otherwise carry on Union activities during working hours, except as specifically provided in this Agreement. 22 Section 4. Existing Conditions. It is understood and agreed that there exists within the Fire Department certain established working conditions which constitute employment relations under ORS 243.650 through 243.782 which shall continue in effect for the term of this Agreement, unless or until changed by mutual agreement of the parties, or by the City in accord with its prerogatives stated elsewhere in this Agreement, or as required by appropriate State or Federal laws, orders or regulations. In case of changes by other than mutual agreement, the Union shall be notified as soon as practicable of a change or proposed change. Section 5. Rules. It is jointly recognized that the City must retain broad authority to fulfill and implement their responsibilities and may do so by written work rules, existing or future. It is agreed, however, that no work rule will be promulgated or implemented which is inconsistent with a specific provision of this Agreement. Section 6. Other Employment. Prior to accepting outside employment, an employee shall first discuss the matter with the Fire Chief. Acceptance or continuance of regular outside employment by an employee shall be subject to the following criteria: (a) The need for mentally and physically alert public safety employees. (b) Insulating employees from potential conflict of interest situations. (c) Maintaining efficiency unimpaired by other employment, recognizing the nature of the job requiring firefighters to be available for emergency duty twenty-four (24) hours a day. Section 7. Supervisory Employees. It is understood that supervisory employees not covered under this Agreement shall not perform work within the jurisdiction of the Union except in the case of an emergency, or for purposes of instruction or training, or where the complement of regular employees is temporarily reduced by reason of absence of any employee due to illness or other legitimate reason, or where the work load is temporarily increased. Section 8. Uniforms, Protective Clothing and Devices. If an employee is required to wear a uniform, protective clothing or use any type of protective device, such articles shall be provided by the City. Replacements to the initial uniform issued shall be provided through an annual uniform allowance of $225.00, set aside for the exclusive use of each member of the Union for the purchase of required clothing ordered through the Fire Chief or his designee. Lost protective clothing or devices, or damage to protective clothing or devices due to negligence, shall be reimbursed to the City by the employee. Failure of an employee to wear required uniforms, protective clothing, or use protective devices as prescribed 23 by the City shall be cause for disciplinary action as set forth in ARTICLE XII. Loss or damage to personal items owned by the employee shall be the responsibility of the employee. Section 9. Position Classification. The general classifications of labor which shall be recognized throughout this Agreement shall be those set forth in Appendix A. Section 10. Personnel Files. Employees shall have the right to: (a) Inspect their official personnel records kept in the office of the Personnel Director on a quarterly basis. (b) Acknowledge the placement of new materials in their files. (c) Challenge or reply to materials which the employee believes to be obsolete or otherwise inappropriate for evaluation, promotion, or retention. Section 11. Trade Time. The City shall allow time trades provided that: (a) Such trades are applied for on a form provided by the City; (b) Permission is granted by the affected shifts' Captain at least 48 hours in advance of the time to be traded. Such permission shall not be unreasonably denied; (c) The City shall not be liable for payback of time traded or overtime worked as a result of such trades; (d) Trades shall be allowed in increments of not less than two (2) hours; (e) Trades shall not interfere with the operations of the Fire Department. This section shall be interpreted to include protection of paramedic staff; (0 Trades shall occur only between employees of the same job classification, or between equally qualified employees according to the Fire Engineers' promotional eligibility list; (g) Shift trades may be restricted to insure that the minimum Engineer and Firefighter stafflevel and at least two EMT-P's are on duty at all times; 24 ARTICLE XVII HEALTH AND WELFARE AND RETIREMENT Section 1. Health and Welfare. As of May 1, 2004, the City agrees to pay 95% of the cost of the premium for the health and welfare benefit plans shown in Appendix "C" or their equivalent for the duration of this agreement. Employees shall pay 5% for the cost for their coverage through payroll deduction. Retired employees shall be allowed to participate in the existing insurance plan at their own expense to the extent required by state of federal law. Effective May 1, 2004 the City shall also make available to employees an optional choice to participate in the Personal Choice Flexible Spending Account Programs (pre-tax health premium and health and dependent care expense reimbursement). Section 2. Health and Welfare Committee. The Union and the City jointly recognize the escalating cost of Health and Welfare insurance and services. In an effort to control cost and provide the maximum benefits possible, the City may establish an employee-based benefits committee with one member appointed by the bargaining unit. The committee will meet at the option of either the City or the Union, will review insurance options and make recommendations related to controlling costs. Section 3. Retirement. The City agrees to maintain its existing Retirement Plan, subject to the terms and provisions thereof, as it applies to regular employees in the bargaining unit. Upon retirement, one-half of accumulated sick leave will be applied to retirement as set forth in ORS 237.153. The City will also assume or pay the employee's contributions required by ORS for all employees included under this Agreement at a uniform rate of six (6) percent. Section 4. Deferred Compensation. The City agrees to contribute $15.00 per month in matching funds per member enrolled in a City deferred compensation program (currently ICMA or AETNA). This program is at the option of the member and contingent upon a minimum $15.00 per month contribution paid by the member. 25 ARTICLE XVIII WORKER'S COMPENSATION Section 1. Worker's Compensation. All employees will be insured under the provisions of the Oregon State Worker's Compensation Act for injuries received while at work for the City. Section 2. Supplementary Payment. Compensation paid by the City for a period of sick leave also covered by worker's compensation shall be equal to the difference between the worker's compensation pay for lost time and the employee's regular pay rate, as described in ARTICLE VIII, Section 4. ARTICLE XIX LIABILITY INSURANCE The City shall purchase liability insurance as set forth in ORS 30.270 and containing such terms and conditions as are necessary for the protection of all employees covered by this Agreement against claims against them incurred in or arising out of the performance of their official duties. The premiums for such insurance shall be paid by the City. ARTICLE XX SAVINGS CLAUSE AND FUNDING Section 1. Savings Clause. Should any article, section, or portion thereof, of this Agreement be subsequently declared by the proper legislative or judicial authority to be unlawful or unenforceable, or not in accordance with applicable statutes or ordinances, all other provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect for the duration of this Agreement. Section 2. Funding. The parties recognize that revenue needed to fund the wages and benefits provided by the Agreement must be approved annually by established budget procedures and in certain circumstances by vote of the citizens of the City. The City shall not reduce the wages and benefits specified in this Agreement because of budgetary limitations, but cannot and does not guarantee any level of employment in the bargaining unit covered by this Agreement. The City agrees to include in its annual budget request amounts sufficient to fund the wages and benefits provided by this Agreement, but makes no guarantee as to passage of such budget requests or voter approval thereof. 26 ARTICLE XXI TERMINATION AND REOPENING This Agreement shall be effective as of the 1 st day of July, 2003 or upon execution, whichever is later, and shall remain in full force and effect until the 30th day of June, 2006, and shall terminate all prior agreements and practices, and concludes all collective bargaining during the term of this Agreement. This Agreement nullifies and supersedes all previous documents including Letters of Understanding between the parties unless such documen{s are specifically reinstated for the duration of this Agreement. It shall be automatically renewed from year to year thereafter unless either party shall notify the other in writing not sooner than one hundred eighty (180) days nor less than ninety (90) days prior to the expiration or subsequent anniversary date that it wishes to modify this Agreement for any reason. Such notification shall include the substance of the modification and the language with which such desired modifications are to be expressed. In the event notice to modify is given, those provisions not reopened shall automatically renew. In the event that such notice is given, negotiations shall begin not later than thirty (30)days after said notice, unless otherwise mutually agreed. This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect during the period of negotiation. ASHLAND FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL #1269 CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON By: By: . Date: CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON By: Date: 27 APPENDIX "A" CLASSIFICATIONS WITHIN THE BARGAINING UNIT Firefighter Fire Engineer Fire Captain 28 APPENDIX "B" SALARY SCHEDULE 701 2%INCREASE 2%INCREASE 3%INCREASE 3%INCREASE lil:i:l;l[d:il:l: 1 -J an-O 3 1 -J ul-03 1 -J a n-04 1 -J u 1-04 1 -J u I-05 HOUR MONTH HOUR I MONTH HOUR I MONTH HOUR MONTH I HOUR MONTH First 6 Months $13.0006 $3,155 $13.2606 $3,218 $13.5258 $3,282 $13.9316 $3,381 $14.3495 $3,482 Next 6 Months $13.6760 $3,319 $13.9495 $3,385 $14.2285 $3,453 $14.6553 $3,556 $15.0950 $3,663 Next 12 Months $14.3875 $3,491 $14.6752 $3,561 $14.9687 $3,632 $15.4178 $3,741 $15.8803 $3,854 Next 12 Months $15.0629 $3,655 $15.3641 $3,728 $15.6714 $3,803 $16.1415 $3,917 $16.6258 $4,035 Next 12 Months $15.7623 $3,8.25 $16.0776 $3,901 $16.3991 $3,980 $16.8911 $4,099 $17.3978 $4,222 Rate Thereafter $16.4256 $3,986 $16.7541 $4,066 $17.0892 $4,147 $17.6019 $4,271 $18.1300 $4,4001 IFirst 6 Months /513.5071 $3,2761 $13.7773 $3,3431 $14.0528 $3,410 I Next 6 Months /514.1704 $3,4391 $14.4538 $3,5071 $14.7429 $3,578 I .ext12 Months /$14'982° s3,6111 $16.1796 $3,8841 $15.4832 $3,757 I Next 12 Months / $15.5573 $3,7751 $15.8685 $3,8511 $16.1858 $3,028 I Next 12 Months / $16.2327 $3,9391 $16.5573 $4,0181 $16.8885 $4,098 I Rate Thereafter / $16.9080 $4,103~ $17.2462 $4,185~ $17.5911 $4,269 $14 4744 $3,512l 14.9086 $3,618! $15.1852 $3,685J ;15.6407 $3,795J $15.9477 $3,870J ;16.4261 $3,986J $16.6714 $4,0461 ;17.1715 $4,167J $17.3951 $4,2211 ;17.9170 $4,348 $18.1188 $4,3971 ~18.6624 $4,529 First 6 Months Next 6 Months Next 12 Months Next 12 Months Next 12 Months Rate $14.1945 $3,4451 $14.4784 $3,513 $14.8820 $3,6111 $15.1796 $3,684 $15.5814 $3,7811 $15.8931 $3,857 $16.2568 $3,9451 $16.5819 $4,024 $16.9442 $4,1121 $17.2831 $4,194 $17.6316 $4,279 J $17.9842 $4,364 $14.7680 $3,584 $15.4832 $3,757 $16.2109 $3,934 $16.9136 $4,104 $17.6287 $4,278 $18.3439 $4,451 $15.2110 $3,691J ;15.6674 $3,802J $15.9477 $3,87oI ;16.4261 $3,986J $16.6972 $4,0521 ;17.1982 $4,173J $17.4210 $4,2271 ~17.9436 $4,354J $18.1576 $4,4061 ;18.7023 $4,538J $18.8943 $4,5851 ~19.4611 $4,723J I=l~[cll~l=l=l~. HOUR MONTH1 HOUR MONTH I HOUR MONTH J First 6 Months J $16.3171 $3,9601 $16.6434 $4,039 $16.9763 $4,120 J Next 6 Months J $17.0527 $4,1381 $17.3938 $4,221 $17.7417 $4,305 J Rate Thereafter $17.7643 $4,311 $18.1196 $4,397 $18.4820 $4,485 706 First 6 Months Next6 Months Rate Thereafter First 6 Months Next6 Months Rate Thereafter $16.8115 $4,080 $17.5231 $4,252 $18.2587 $4,431 $17.5110 $4,249 $18.2346 $4,425 $18.9703 $4,603 $17.1478 $4,161 $17.8735 $4,337 $18.6239 $4,519 $17.8612 $4,334 $18.5993 $4,513 $19.3497 $4,696 $17.4907 $4,244 $18.2310 $4,424 $18.9964 $4,610 $18.2185 $4,421 $18.9713 $4,604 $19.7367 $4,789 HOUR I MONTH $17.4856 $4,243 $18.2739 $4,434 $19.0364 $4,619 $18.0154 $4,372 $18.7779 $4,557 $19.5663 $4,748 $18.7650 $4,554 $19.5404 $4,742 $20.3288 $4,933 707 7O8 7O9 Df:l'Jlf:lh First 12 Months Next 6 Months Next 6 Months Rate Thereafter First 12 Months Next 6 Months Next 6 Months Rate Thereafter First 12 Months Next 6 Months Next 6 Months Rate Thereafter HOUR IMONTHI HOUR J MONTH I HOUR IMONTHI HOUR IMONTH $18.3506 $4,453 $18.9273 $4,593 $19.5501 $4,744 $20.2422 $4,912 $18.8004 $4,562 $19.3804 $4,703 $19.9884 $4,850 $20.6920 $5,021 $19.4578 $4,722 $20.0460 $4,864 $20.6574 $5,013 $21.3378 $5,178 $18.7176 $4,$421 $19.0920 $4,6331 $19.6647 $4,772 $19.3058 $4,6851 $19.6919 $4,7791 $20.2827 $4,922 $19.9411 $4,839I $20.3399 $4,9361 $20.9501 $5,084 $20.6470 $5,0101 $21.0600 $5,1111 $21.6918 $5,264 $19.1764 $4,653 $19.7680 $4,797 $20.3882 $4,948 $21.1058 $5,122 $19.8470 $4,816 $20.4470 $4,962 $21.0705 $5,113 $21.7646 $5,282 $19.5600 $4,747 $20.1634 $4,893 $20.7959 $5,046 $21.5280 $5,224 $20.2439 $4,913 $20.8559 $5,061 $21.4920 $5,215 $22.1999 $5,387 $20.1468 $4,889 $20.7683 $5,040 $21.4198 $5,198 $22.1738 $5,381 $20.8513 $5,060 $21.4816 $5,213 $22.1367 $5,372 $22.8659 $5,549 $18.0101 $4,370 $18.8221 $4,567 $19.6075 $4,758 $18.5559 $4,503 $19.3413 $4,693 $20.1533 $4,891 $19.3280 $4,690 $20.1266 $4,884 $20.9386 $5,081 HO U R J M O NTH $20.2547 $4,915 $20.8912 $5,070 $21.5786 $5,236 $22.3425 $5,422 $20.7512 $5,036 $21.3913 $5,191 $22.0624 $5,354 $22.8390 $5,542 $21.4768 $5,212 $22.1260 $5,369 $22.8008 $5,533 $23.5519 $5,715 NOTE: Hourly rates are accurate to 4 decimal places Monthly rates are approximate 29 APPENDIX "C" HEALTH AND WELFARE BENEFITS The City agrees to maintain existing or equal or better insurance and benefit plans at present employee/family coverage levels as follows: (1) Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Oregon V-A Health Insurance - employee and family coverage. (2) Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Oregon Dental Insurance Plan III - Employee and family coverage. (3) Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Oregon - UCR- Vision Plan- employee and family coverage. (4) $22 per month paid to the employee toward annual insurance deductible costs. (5) Mercy Flights' Insurance - Family coverage. (6) City paid reimbursement for routine physical exams for employee/dependents, if such coverage is not provided by (1) above: Age 2-18 ....once every 3 years up to $50 Age 19-34 .... once every 5 years up to $140 Age 35-59 .... once every 2 years up to $140 Age 60+ .... once every year up to $140 (7) City paid reimbursement for routine well-baby care, if such coverage is not provided in (1) above, to include first in-hospital exams; six doctor's office exams the first year; three exams the second year up to $100 each exam (includes exam, inoculations and x-ray expenses). (8) City paid reimbursement for programs contained in the City's Wellness Program. (8) Other benefit levels and maximum premium payments by the City shall be as follows: State mandated Life Insurance League of Oregon Cities Life Insurance League Dependent's Life Insurance Salary Continuation Plan $1.35/mo. $0.67/mo. $0.71/mo. $0.59/$100 mo. salary 30 CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication Title: Dept: Date: Submitted By: Approved By: Synopsis: Recommendation fi-om the ad hoc Grove Committee Administration April 6.2004 ^ Ann Seltzer, Management Analyst Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator Over the course of five meetings the ad hoc Grove committee completed their charge. Attached is their recommendation to the council. Recommendation: None Fiscal Impact: Unknown. Background: At the regular council meeting on December 16, 2004 the council agreed to establish an ad hoc committee to evaluate the Grove. The charge of the nine-member committee was to: "...identify the needs of the undeserved youth in the community, to identify a list of providers, to identify a range ofoptionsforresponding to those needs and bring the options and a recommendation back to the city council..." Committee Members: Sam Groveman, Jan Janssen, Tom Cole, Angelina Kohler, Merry Vediner, Aaron Harris, Mark Schoenleber, Cate Hartzell, Alan DeBoer Since the December 16 meeting, HUD has agreed to accept a pledge from the City to reimburse the CDBG funds no later than August 1, 2004. As such, HUD restrictions on activities in the Grove no longer apply. Attachments: I II Recommendation from the ad hoc Grove Committee. Memo from the Mayor and summary of the committee work. ,"-'I Ad hoc Grove Committee Recommendation to City Council April 6, 2004 Phase I May 2004 1) Form a teen board who will reflect a diverse teen culture. 2) Make a formal request to the Parks and Recreation Commission a) Request that the Parks and Recreation Department manage and rent the Grove as is currently done for the Community Center and Pioneer Hall. b) Request that the Parks and Recreation Department in conjunction with a teen board develop and implement teen oriented programs and services and establish partnerships. c) Request that the Parks and Recreation Department explore ways to integrate the established programs and services with the Community Organization which will be formed in the future. d) The City of Ashland will offer the Parks and Recreation Department free rent and free utilities including AFN. Phase II May 2005 or sooner or later Once the new Community Organization is formed: a) The Community Organization will work with the Parks and Recreation Department and the teen board to transition programs. b) The Community Organization will develop and implement a series of support systems for teens such as counseling, job referrals/placement etc. c) The Community Organization will develop and implement a support system for homeless teens such as connecting with other services, find places for teens to sleep, provide phone and computer services etc. d) The City of Ashland will offer free rent and free utilities including AFN until the organization is able to assume those expenses. e) The Community Organization will assume responsibility for the facility. Office of the Mayor Alan ~. DeBoer MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Ann Seltzer, Management Analyst Mayor Alan DeBoer March 23, 2004 Summary of Ad Hoc Grove Committee Please include the summary of the work of the Ad Hoc Grove Committee that you prepared for the group in February in the council packet for the April 6 meeting. My recollection is that the summary included the charge of the committee and a breakdown of each of the elements they had completed. City of Ashland · 20 East Main Street · Ashland, OR 97520 · (541) 488-6002 · Fax: (541) 488-5311 · Email: awdb@aol.com Summary Report Ad hoc Grove Committee April 6, 2004 CiTY OF ,.ASHLAND Over the course of five meetings, the ad hoc Grove Committee identified the needs of youth in the community, identified possible providers to meet the identified needs and identified four options to provide services and programs in the Grove that meet the identified needs of Ashland youth. The common thread throughout the meetings was the importance of teens having a "voice" in the programs and services that will be offered in the Grove. Identify the needs of youth in the community · Provide services to all teens · Provide services to teens exclusively · Provide basic social needs for teens · Provide recreational services to teens · A teen advisory board to review/evaluate programming/management · A place where teens can connect with healthy adult mentors · Create something we don't have, unique to Ashland Other · Teen shelter · Food bank · Basic services for homeless teens Identify Providers The following organization names were identified but there was not consensus with the group that these providers could meet the needs listed above. · YMCA · Youth for Christ · Kids Unlimited (or similar model) · Community Organization as yet unformed to provide a collage of services for a custom designed teen center. Identify a Range of Options 1) One organization assumes responsibility for entire program. Pros · Turnkey operation · Quick timeline Cons · May not completely meet the needs as identified by the committee. 2) City hires staff to coordinate partnerships and programs CITY HALL Tel: 541.488-6002 20 East Main Street Fax: 541.488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www,ashland.or, us Pros · Staff is on-site during facility hours to coordinate and facilitate services and programs · Allows time for another the Community Organization to form Cons · It is expensive to hire staff 3) Community organization/agencies coordinate a program. Pros · Thorough evaluation of teen needs in Ashland · Establishes buy-in and partnerships Cons · Potentially long timeline · Building remains unused during the planning stages 4) City uses the senior center model and permanently runs the Grove. Pros · Allows City control of building activities · Long term funding source for the facility Cons · The City has no expertise in this field. · Likely more expensive to run than by a non-profit (higher wages, benefits etc.) Final Recommendation The recommendation of the committee is a combination of option #2 (modified to include parks rather than the city) and option #3 to be implemented in two phases. CITY HALL Tel: 541488-6002 20 East Main Street Fax: 541488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or, us COMMISSIONERS Diane Amarotico JoAnne Eggers Michael Gardiner Jim Lewis Rich Rosenthal ASHLAND PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION 340 SO. PIONEER STREET ASHLAND, OREGOP~I 97520 TEL.: (541) 488-5340 FAX: (541 ) 488-5314 MEMORANDUM TO : Mayor and Co~ FROM : Don Robertson, Parks DATE : April 5, 2004 SUBJECT : The Grove and Recreation Director This memo is in response to the Mayor's memo dated March 19, 2004. While I have not had a full discussion with the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission regarding the proposal for The Grove, I would like to share the following thoughts. Phase I: 1) Form a Teen Advisory Board that will reflect a diverse teen culture. If the City were to appoint a teen "advisory" board, Parks and Recreation Department staff would be happy to meet with them on occasion to determine the scope and type of parks and recreation programming associated with the building. However, the Teen Advisory Board should probably be responsible to the City Council and not the Commission as it relates directly to the sole issue of The Grove as opposed to general community issues. 2) Make a formal request to the Parks and Recreation Commission a) Request that the Parks and Recreation Department manage and rent The Grove as is currently done for the Community Center and Pioneer Hall. Parks staffcan accomplish this task and has been authorized by City staff to begin this process. b) Request that the Parks and Recreation Department, in conjunction with a Teen Advisory Board, develop and implement teen-oriented programs and services and establish partnerships. Home of Famous Lithia Park The Grove &/emo to M~o,or and Cou~tcil .4/;ril 5, 2004 Page Two Upon appointment of a Teen Advisory Board, Parks staff can meet with them and discuss appropriate teen-related programs for The Grove. However, to fully maximize the use of the building, staff ~vould recommend that other demographic types of programming also be allowed to occur within the building. c) Request that the Parks and Recreation Department explore ways to integrate the established programs and services with the Community. Organization which will be formed in the future. Further clarification xvill be needed on the issue of investigating "other community organizations" in relation to this. Further, staff would recommend that this function remain with City staff as opposed to Parks Department staff. d) The City of Ashland will offer the Parks and Recreation Department free rent and free utilities, including AFN. Further exploration of costs such as custodial and supervision/staffing would need to be explored in conjunction with this matter. Phase II Once the new Community Organization is formed: a) The Community Organization will work ~vith the Parks and Recreation Department and the Teen Advisory Board to transition programs. b) The Community Organization will develop and implement a series of support systems for teens such as counseling, job referrals/placement, and others. c) The Community Organization will develop and implement a support system for homeless teens, such as connecting with other services, finding places for teens to sleep, and providing phone and computer services. d) The City of Ashland will offer free rent and free utilities, including AFN, until the organization is able to assume those expenses. e) The Community Organization will assume responsibility for the facility. Parks and Recreation Department staff will work to facilitate the transition of any m~d all services provided by the department during Phase 1I to another organization. Grove ~emo to ~Ia3,. 'or and Council April 5, 2004 ?ayre Three Further, the Mayor's memo requested information regarding the cost of operating The Grove as a teen center, including costs of utilities, AFN services, and on-site staff, along with any other budgeted requirements. In reviewing The Grove from a facility standpoint, it would make an excellent teen center. The large gathering room, multi-purpose room, studio, kitchen area, classrooms, and offices would conform xvell to a variety of both passive and active uses. The building lends itself well to having several different activities occurring at once. Further, the layout of the building allows for easy supervision of the main areas with minimal movement required. One staff person could supervise the building, which would lower overhead. I have not had the opportunity to calculate utility costs associated with the facility. A quick review of previous utility bills during full operations with adjustments for inflation indicate that at a minimum it is estimated that the cost of full-time utility operations with regular maintenance and cleaning services would cost approximately $42,000 per year, excluding staff supervision and program coordination. It is highly unlikely that fee-for-service would offset this cost. Service fees will realize little more than direct service costs of individual programs. In the event the City wished to proceed with a teen center, I xvould offer the following suggestions: · Allow Parks and Recreation to begin programming the facility on a fee-for-service basis. · Parks and Recreation would utilize a current service provider, such as the YMCA, to offer fitness classes ~vhen possible. · Parks and Recreation would only staff the building during limited designated hours for teen drop-in, and would staff the building during scheduled program hours. Parks and Recreation would also program the building for non-teen use activities during hours when teens typically would not be utilizing the building (i.e., during the day on school days, mornings on weekends, and so on). Programmed hours for the facility would increase gradually over a year-long period, eventually resulting in the facility being staffed almost full-time. In the event the Council wishes to proceed with the concept of the Parks and Recreation Department operating The Grove as a teen/community center, staff will prepare a comprehensive budget for further discussion purposes. Please note that the above discussion does not constitute a proposal, but is simply put forth for discussion purposes. All actions would need to be referred to the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission and be incorporated into the proposed budget. CC: Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator Ann Seltzer, Management Analyst CITY OF ,ASHLAND Council Communication Title: Dept: Date: Submitted By: Approved By: Charter Review and Update Administration 6, 2004 ~up~nrilseltzer, Management Analyst~ Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator' Synopsis: At the council study session on Wednesday, March 17, Sandra Atp, formally with the League of Oregon Cities, spoke to the council about charter reviews and charter review committees and her experience in the field. Sandra has assisted forty cities in Oregon with charter reviews and revisions. Council directed staffto proceed with a draft of the charge of the charter review committee, the process and the timeline and to engage the services of a consultant to review the existing charter. Attached is a draft of the charge of the charter review committee, the expectations of the consultant and a suggested timeline for the committee in order to meet the deadline for inclusion on the November ballot. Recommendation: No recommendation. Should the council approve the attached resolution and draft Expectations of the Charter Review Committee, an advertisement will be placed in the local newspapers and on the city's web site inviting citizens to apply to serve on the committee. The proposed timeline allows for the advertisement for committee members, appointment of members by the Mayor and council approval at the May 4 meeting. Should the council approve the Expectations of the Charter Review and Revision Consultant staff will contact the three "Oregon experts" identified during the study session and invite them to submit a proposal based on the attached expectations. The proposed timeline allows for a consultant to review the existing charter and identify changes, if any, prior to the first committee meeting in May. Fiscal Impact: It is anticipated that contracting with a charter review specialist to assist the committee will cost between $5,000 and $10,000. Background: At the regular council meeting on February 17, the council requested that an expert in charter review and revisions be invited to attend and present at a council study session. Sandra Atp, charter review specialist, formally with the League of Oregon Cities, spoke to the council about the importance of a charter review and update, a charter review committee and make-up and how a specialist can assist in the process. Ms. Atp explained that a city charter should grant powers in a broad general sense, should not include specifics, which are best placed in city code, and that a charter be examined from three perspectives: from a legal standpoint, from a practical standpoint, and from a political standpoint. It is critical that the committee has a strong chair and that members have some expertise and knowledge of the workings of local government. Ms. Arp stressed that a charter review committee should approach the charter review and charter revisions looking towards the future and not at the present. She noted that the durrent charter was amended and adopted in the early 1970s and that a review and revision is in order. In addition to Ms. Arp there are two other Oregonians with experience in charter reviews and revisions: Tom Sponsler and Tim Sercombe. The current Charter of the City of Ashland was reviewed and amended in 1970. Voters approved the proposed amendments in 1972. Cities and counties update their charters for a variety of reasons: to clarify lines of authority, to clarify confusing language, to improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of government, to eliminate obsolete, conflicting and ambiguous provisions. Some charters specify that the document is reviewed on a regular timeline, other charters do not; some specify the make up of a charter review committee others do not. Because the needs of communities change, and State and Federal laws change, it is important that a charter be updated periodically and reflect the current times. Sometimes communities choose to adopt an entirely new charter and include elements of the original. A city charter is viewed as a city constitution. For this reason, city powers are generally stated in broad, general comprehensive terms. The charter should deal only with the basic, broad fundamentals of city government. It should be as concise as possible and adaptable to changing conditions to avoid the need for frequent amendment. A charter can only be amended by a vote of the people. Generally charter amendments are referred to a vote by the Council but amendments can also be proposed by initiative petition. Should the council decide to proceed, the following basic steps should occur. 1) A motion and vote of the council to create a citizen committee to undertake a review of the Ashland City Charter. 2) Define the charge and make up of the committee. 3) Appoint a Charter Review Committee of no more than seven or ten people. 4) Hire a consultant with experience in charter drafting, legal review and evaluation to assist the committee. 5) Council reviews and deliberates on recommendations from the Charter Review Committee and then decides what to place on the ballot. Attachments: I. Draft resolution appointing a charter review committee. II. Draft expectation of the charter review committee III. Expectations of charter review consultant IV Proposed timeline Attachment I RESOLUTION NO. 2004- A RESOLUTION CREATING THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE. Recitals: A. The City of Ashland Charter was last reviewed and amended in 1970. B. A 2004-05 goal of the city council is to "complete a charter review and update". C. The City Council has determined that it wishes to form a Charter Review Committee to evaluate the existing charter and to determine if the charter should be updated or changed. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. A Charter Review Committee is created which shall consist of nine voting members and one alternate, non-voting member, all of whom shall reside within the City of Ashland and who shall be appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the council. Two members of the committee shall be former elected city officials and seven shall be selected at large. No member shall be appointed who currently holds an elected position for the City of Ashland. The mayor and council shall make every effort to appoint members who are impartial, non-biased and free of any perceived political gain and have some expertise and knowledge of the workings of local government. SECTION 2. If the committee determines changes to the charter are warranted, it shall prepare a draft charter or draft amendments to the existing charter for the City of Ashland for review by the council for placement on the ballot for the voters of Ashland. SECTION 3. The committee shall be subject to, and shall follow, to the greatest extent feasible, the attached document entitled "Expectations of the Charter Review Committee." SECTION 4. 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. SECTION 4. 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 \\COMPAQI\DATA\USERS\SELTZERA\Recent~Charter Review~charter commission reso.doc Attachment II CITY OF - SHLAND DRAFT Expectations of the Charter Review Committee "Membership on a charter review committee is accepting responsibility for leadership in the most important single civic effort that any community can undertake. The duty of leadership is to find the highest attainable level of improvement, not just a token advance. Statesmanlike compromise is simply a means to this end." Guide for Charter Commission, National League of Cities Purpose and Overview The primary function of the charter review committee is to review the existing 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. The committee must be impartial, non-biased, and free of any perceived political gain and may approach the task in whatever means results in a document that best serves the citizens of Ashland. In addition to adhering to the Oregon Public Meetings law, the committee will strive to include the community beyond the requirements of the law. The council encourages the committee to seek opportunities to educate the community about the process and purpose of a charter review, the importance of a city charter and to solicit community input. It is the council's experience that undertakings of this scope are best achieved within a set timeline during which committee members are focused on achieving the task in a timely manner. Stretching a task over a period of many months can result in a committee that loses focus, interest and drive and a drop in attendance. As such, the council requests that the committee follow the attached timeline so that the proposed charter can be placed on the November ballot. The city will engage the services of a consultant with expertise in charter reviews and revisions that will assist the committee as detailed in the attached Expectations of the Charter Review and Revision Consultant. Membership The committee will be comprised of nine voting members: two former elected city officials, and seven other citizens. The mayor will appoint a member to serve as chair. An alternate committee member will also be selected and will serve as a non-voting member. Should a member of the committee be unable to fulfill duties, the alternate will assume the role of the voting member. The city attorney will attend all meetings and will act in an advisory role and a current city employee will staff the committee. Expectations of the Charter Review Committee The Charter Review Committee will adopt the following policies and procedures. Regular Meetings 1. Committee will meet every week unless changed by a majority of the committee at a regular meeting. 2) Meetings will occur in council chambers so that they may be televised and or taped. 3) The committee will consider written and oral testimony offered during the charter review process. 4) At the first meeting, the committee should elect a vice-chair who will serve as chair in the absence of the chair. Attendance, Quorum 1) Three consecutive unexcused absences equal resignation. 2) Members will be notified a~er a second consecutive absence to allow an opportunity to attend future meetings. 3) The committee will determine whether absences are excused. 4) Members unable to attend shall notify the staff liaison or chair by phone or e-mail in advance of the regular meeting. 5) Absence equals approval of actions taken at previous meetings. 6) A quorum of at least 5 committee members must be present to conduct business at any meeting. A majority of a quorum is necessary to adopt any motion. 7) A quorum for the final report is two thirds of the committee membership at the time of voting. Subcommittees Subcommittees may be formed for the purpose of gathering information and forming a recommendation to be brought forward to the full committee. However, only the full committee can vote on and accept the recommendation. Subcommittees must meet the requirements of the Oregon Public Meetings law. Alternate Member 1) For the purpose of deliberations, the alternate member may attend all meetings, offer suggestions and participate in discussions and abide by the same attendance rules as other committee members. 2) The alternate member may not vote or make motions on final decisions by the committee. 3) The committee will make every effort to consider the alternate member's positions, respond to questions and treat the alternate member with due respect. Testimony 1) Public testimony will be accepted at each meeting. 2) Meeting agendas will have a designated time for the purpose of hearing public testimony. 3) Public heatings will be scheduled as part of the charter review. 4) Guests may be invited to speak to the committee. 2 Expectations of the Charter Review Committee Motions 1) The chair will strive to reach consensus of the committee whenever possible. 2) Motions on changes to the charter constitute tentative approval of such changes pending approval of the final report to the city council. Consultant 1) The consultant will act in an advisory role to the committee. 2) The consultant will review the existing charter, identify needed changes and updates, perform a legal review of the current charter, compare the existing charter to the model charter and present the information at the first regular meeting of the committee for committee review. 3) Prepare and explain substantive provisions for consideration, draft alternative political provisions for discussion and consideration. 4) Draft a charter and revise the draft based on input from the committee. 5) Prepare a final version of the new charter for committee review and council approval. Prepare a ballot title and explanatory statement. 6) Attend a final meeting in Ashland for presentation to the city council. Staff 1) The city attorney or designee will act in an advisory role to the committee. 2) Staff will support the work of the committee and assist the chair/vice chair in preparing the agenda. Agendas will be mailed electronically or by post in advance of meeting by staff. Staff'will conduct research for the committee, send invitations to speakers/guest requested by the committee. Should the committee require additional staff support beyond what is provided, a request should be made to the city administrator. 3) Comprehensive minutes will be prepared from each meeting and will be sent to committee members prior to the meeting. 4) Staff will post to the city's web page all information related to the committee's proceedings. Miscellaneous 1) Roberts Rules of Order will govern decisions at meeting. 2) The committee will be clear and simple in its procedures and the consideration of matters coming before it. It should avoid invoking the finer points of parliamentary niles, which may serve only to obscure the issues and to cause audience or citizen misunderstanding or misapprehension about action taken at the meeting. Attachment III CITY OF SHLAND DRAFT Expectations of the Charter Review and Revision Consultant The consultant engaged to assist the charter review commission will: · Review the existing charter and identify needed changes and updates · Perform legal review of current charter provisions · Compare 2004 League of Oregon Cities (LOC) model charter for updated charter provisions · Attend the first meeting of the charter review committee to consult about the role and function of a charter, discuss the project goals and expectations and agree on a process and timeline and present the legal review of the current charter · Provide general basic provisions for review · Prepare and explain substantive provisions for consideration · Attend a second meeting in Ashland with the charter review committee, half way through the process · Draft alternative political provisions for discussions and consideration · Distribute draft charter and discuss at a meeting in Ashland · Revise draft charter based on input from the committee · Prepare a final version of the new charter for council review/approval · Prepare a ballot title and explanatory statement · Attend a final meeting in Ashland for presentation to the City Council The above list requires the consultant to attend three meetings in Ashland with the committee, however additional meeting attendance may be necessary. The City of Ashland will: · Exercise overall administrative responsibility for the project · Provide all organizational and staff support for charter review committee, · Act as a liaison for the charter review committee and council · Arrange for publication and distribution of drafts and final charter or amendments · Provide final materials to the county clerk (~ I~ CITY OF SHLAND Council Communication TITLE: DEPT: DATE: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: APPROVED BY: Synopsis: Recommendation: Eiscal Impact: Background: Resolution Establishing Cable Television and Intemet Rates for the Ashland Fiber Network Electric & Telecommunication & Finance April 6, 2004 Dick Wandersch~i~] Lee Tuneberg ~ Paul Nolte(/~ ( ffJ Gino Grimaldi The last AFN rate increase was in May 2003. The revised Pro Forma calls for a rate increased for both CATV and Internet in FY 03-04. The proposal calls for an 8% increase in CATV rates, a $2.40 net rate increase for residential cable modems ($3.12 for those who do not use an ISP) and a $4.40 net increase for business cable modems. This proposal does not include a change to High-Speed Data rates. Franchise fees on Cable modems will no longer be collected for the General Fund but will accrue to AFN. This proposed rate increase would be effective in June 2004. Staff recommends the Council adopt the resolution. The proposed rate increase should provide an additional $330,000 in revenue annually based on current subscriber counts. AFN began service in February 2000. In August 2002, rates were increased for the first time. A second rate increase was enacted in May 2003. This third increase would be effective in June 2004. This rate increase was recommended by Navigant and discussed thoroughly with Staff and the Advisory Committee and is also included in the latest AFN Pro Forma. The Following table illustrates the proposed monthly CATV rate increase: OLD RATE INCREASE NEW RATE Tier 1 $ 7.64 $ .61 $ 8.25 Tier 2 $12.41 $ .99 $13.40 Tier 3 $30.60 $2.44 $33.04 Tier 4 $40.77 $3.26 $44.03 These fees are inclusive of the $.75 PEG Fees that go to RVTV. Premium Packages would be increased by 5%. Electric/Telecommunication Dept. Dick Wanderscheid, Director 90 N. Mountain Ave Phone: (541) 488-5357 Ashland, OR 97520 Fax: (541) 552-2436 For comparison, the latest advertised rate by Charter for service that is comparable to Tier 3, is their expanded Basic product listed at $32.40 plus $2.43 in Franchise and PEG fees for a total customer cost of $34.83. This is $1.79 higher than AFN's new Tier 3 rate of $33.04. For comparison purposes, Charter equivalent services in other parts of Jackson County is about $44.95. Cable Modem fees would increase as illustrated in the following table: Residential (WSP) Residential (No ISP) Business (1-IP address) OLD RATE NEW RATE $21.05 $23.45 $25.78 $28.90 $68.41 $72.81 Also, AFN will be adding 2 new Internet products that would only be available for customers with an ISP. These products will allow residential type service to also purchase a fixed IP address and/or higher up-load speeds. The new rates would be as follows: Service with fixed IP address Service with 1 mb upload speed $48.25 $48.25 Adding the services together is the equivalent to current business cable modem service, which is priced at $72.81 to our retail ISPs. This new service would only be available to customer who purchases services from retail ISP's. With a $2.40 residential cable modem wholesale rate increase, staff expects retail rates to increase by $3-$4 monthly. Ashland ISP's are currently charging around $30- $35 for retail service, so staff expects retail rates to be in the $33-$39 range after this increase. For comparison purposes, Charter currently charges $39.95 for stand-alone cable modem rates and $29.95 for the service if the customer purchases cable TV also. So AFN should remain competitive after the proposed increase. No changes in High Speed Data Rates are proposed. Electric/Telecommunication Dept. Dick Wanderscheid, Director 90 N. Mountain Ave Phone: (541) 488-5357 Ashland, OR 97520 Fax: (541) 552-2436 RESOLUTION NO. 2004- A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CABLE TELEVISION AND INTERNET RATES FOR THE ASHLAND FIBER NETWORK, READOPTING ALL OTHER RATES WITHOUT CHANGE & REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 2003-03. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The attached rate schedule is adopted as the rates and fees for AFN Internet and AFN Cable Television provided by the City of Ashland Electric Utility Department, Ashland Fiber Network Division. These rates are effective with the Cycle 4 Billing in June 2004. SECTION 2. Installation charges, equipment rental, bulk rates, and other charges may be set administratively. To the extent practicable, such fees shall be set to recover, over a fiscally prudent period, the incremental cost of providing such service by taking into account all costs actually incurred. SECTION 3. Nothing in Section 1 or Section 2 shall preclude AFN staff temporarily reducing or waiving rates or charges in conjunction with promotional campaigns, 2) establishing different and nondiscriminatory rates and charges for commercial customers, as allowed by federal law and regulations, or 3) establishing different and nondiscriminatory rates and charges for AFN high speed data and wholesale high speed data commercial customers, as allowed by federal law and regulations. SECTION 4. Resolution No. 2003-03 is repealed as of the effective date of the new rates. SECTION 5. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal code 2.04.090 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 6th day of April, 2004. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED AND APPROVED THIS 6th DAY OF APRIL, 2004. Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Paul Nolte, Ciiy Attomey RESOLUTION NO. 2004- Rate Schedule (Effective on Cycle 4 Billing - June 2004) AFN TELEVISION BASE FRANCHISE RATES FEE FEE PEG INCREMENT TOTAL Tier Rates Per Month Community(Tier I) $ 7.12 $0.38 $0.75 $ 8.25 $ 8.25 Basic (Tier II) $ 4,89 $0.26 $ 5,15 $13,40 - Increment added to Tier I. Expanded (Tier III) $18.66 $0.98 $19.64 $33.04 - Increment added to Tiers I & I1. Digital Plus (Tier IV) $10.44 $0.55 $10.99 $44.03 - Increment added to Tiers I, II & II1. Premium Rates Per Month Starz/Encore $ 9.57 $0.51 $10.08 HBO $13.18 $0,70 $13.88 Showtime $13.18 $0.70 $13.88 Pay Per View Per Event Price Varies From $0 to $250 CHARGE/ADDITIONAL AFN RESIDENTIAL INTERNET BASE FRANCHISE CUSTOMER PREMISE RATES FEE FEE TOTAL EQUIPMENT (CPE) (1 CPE) Residential Internet (wholesale rate to certified ISP) Not $5.00 each Monthly Rates (Includes 1 CPE) $23.45 Applicable $23.45 Residential Internet Direct Connect (no ISP) ** Not $5.00 each Monthly Rates (Includes 1 CPE) $28.90 Applicable $28.90 ** For existing customers only. New customers must choose a certified ISP. CHARGE/ADDITIONAL AFN ADVANCED RESIDENTIAL BASE FRANCHISE CUSTOMER PREMISE INTERNET RATES FEE FEE EQUIPMENT (CPE) TOTAL (1 CPE) Residential Internet with Fixed IP O__.~R 1 mb Upload Speed Not $5,00 each (wholesale rate to certified ISP) $48.25 Applicable ! $48,25 Monthly Rates (Includes 1 CPE) Residential Internet with Fixed IP AND I mb Upload Speed Same Price and Provisions of Business Internet - (wholesale rate to certified ISP) 1 Fixed Address RESOLUTION TABLE - PAGE 1 H:Mi, FN~RESOLUTION AFN RATE TABLE 4-6-04.DOC BASE FRANCHISE FIXED AFN BUSINESS INTERNET RATES FEE FEE ADDRESS TOTAL Business Internet (wholesale rate to certified ISP) Monthly Rates $72.82 Not 1 $72.82 $78.08 Applicable 2 $78.08 $83.34 3 $83.34 $88.60 4 $88.60 $93.86 5 $93.86 $99.12 6 $99.12 $104.38 7 $104.38 $109.64 8 $109.64 AFN High Speed Pricing .5 mbit Access 1 mbit Access 1.5mbit Access 2mbit Access Installation Fee Bundled High Speed Internet Services $400.00 per month $500.00 per month $600.00 per month $700.00 per month $1000.00 one time charge These services assume that the customer will not use all of the available bandwidth for more than 15% of a billing cycle. If the customer needs higher sustained bandwidth, they will be upgraded to the unbundled services. The local loop connection is 100mbit. These prices replace the existing service prices. These are designed to allow a business to use a high speed service at a very Iow rate, but assume that sustained bandwidth to the internet is not needed. For these services the maximum number of IP addresses that will be available per service are 32, and they will be given out in blocks of 16. If a customer needs sustained bandwidth, or other types of services such as a local loop to connect two locations together then the following rate schedule will be used. Unbundled High Speed Access Price per mbit for Internet Access Local Loop Fee Installation Fee All Services are 100mbit local loop. $615.00 per month $390.00 per month $1000.00 one time charge Example: 2mbit service = 390 + (2'615) $1620.00 per month $1000.00 InStallation Example: 1.5mbit service - 390+(1.5'615) $1312.50 per month T1 Equivalent Service $1000.00 Installation For services 3mbit and above, no local loop fees will be charged. For these services any number of IP addresses can be requested, but they must be justified via the American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) regulations. RESOLUTION TABLE - Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CABLE TELEVISION AND INTERNET RATES FOR THE ASHLAND FIBER NETWORK, READOPTING ALL OTHER RATES WITHOUT CHANGE & REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 2002-19. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The attached rate schedule is adopted as the rates and fees for AFN Internet and AFN Cable Television provided by the City of Ashland Electdc Utility Department, Ashland Fiber Network Division. These rates are effective with the Cycle 1 billing in May 2003. '-'--- SECTION 2. Installation charges, equipment rental, bulk rates, and other charges may be set administratively. To the extent practicable, such fees shall be set to recover, over a fiscally prudent period, the incremental cost of providing such service by taking into account all costs actually incurred. SECTION 3. Nothing in Section 1 or Section 2 shall preclude AFN staff from 1) temporarily reducing or waiving rates or charges in conjunction with promotional campaigns, 2) establishing different and nondiscriminatory rates and charges for commercial customers, as allowed by federal law and regulations, or 3) establishing different and nondiscriminatory rates and charges for AFN high speed data and wholesale high speed data commercial customers, as allowed by federal law and regulations. SECTION 4. Resolution No. 2002-19 is repealed as of the effective date of the new rates. SECTION 5. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §~ duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 18th day of February , 2003. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this 18th Rev_~wed as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney day of February ,200~3. Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor RESOLUTION - PAGE 1 H:tAFNU~J~TE RE$O AFN INTERNET CABLE DATA 2-t8.~3.DOC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- Rate Schedule (Effective on Cycle 1 Billing - May 2003) AFN TELEVISION BASE FRANCHISE RATES FEE FEE PEG INCREMENT TOTAL Tier Rates Per Month Community(Tier I) $ 6.54 $0.35 $0.75 $ 7.64 $ 7.64 Basic (Tier II) $ 4.53 $0.24 $ 4.77 $12.41 - Increment added to Tier I. Expanded (Tier III) $17.28 $0.91 $18.19 $30.60 - Increment added to Tiers I & I1. Digital Plus (Tier IV) $ 9.66 $0.51 $10.17 $40.77 - Increment added to Tiers I, II .& II1. Premium Rates Per Month Star7_/Encore $ 9.11 $0.48 $9.59 HBO $12.55 $0.66 $13.21 Showtime $12.55 $0.66 $13.21 Pay Per View Per Event Price Varies From $0 to $150 BASE FRANCHISE FIXED AFN BUSINESS INTERNET RATES FEE FEE ADDRESS TOTAL Business Internet (wholesale rate to certified ISP) Monthly Rates $65.00 + $3.41 1 $68.41 $70.00 + $3.67 2 $73.67 $75.00 + $3.93 3 $78.93 $80.00 + $4.20 4 $84.20 $85.00 + $4.46 5 $89.46 $90.00 + $4.72 6 $94.72 $95.00 + $4.98 7 $99.98 $100.00 + $5.25 8 $105.25 AFN RESIDENTIAL INTERNET BASE RATES FEE Residential Internet (wholesale rate to certified ISP) Monthly Rates (Includes 1 CPE) $20.00 FRANCHISE FEE $1.05 CHARGE/ADDITIONAL CUSTOMER PREMISE EQUIPMENT (CPE) $4.00 each plus Franchise Fee TOTAL (1 CPE) $21.05 Residential Internet Direct Connect (no ISP) Monthly Rates (Includes 1 CPE) $24.50 $1.28 $4.00 each plus Franchise Fee $25.78 Page 1 of 2 ATN High Speed Prleing 5mbi? AcceSS imbit Access l.§mbit Access i?mbit Access Install .Brai. led Hkjh Speed ]:nternet Services $400.OOMonth $500.00Month $600.OOMonth $700,OOMonth $1,000.OOOne Time These services assume that the customer will not use all the avoil~ble bandwidth fo~ mor~ tha~ 15% of a billing cycle. :rf the customer needs higher sustained bancheidth they will be ulx~ed to the The local loop connection is 100Mbits These prices replace the existing service prices. These are designed to allow a bus/ness to use a high speed service at a very Iow rate, but assume that sustained bandwidth to mternet is not needed. For these sea'vices the maximum number oflP addresses that will be available per service are 32, and they will be given out in blocks of 16. Ifa customer needs sustained bandwidth, or other types of.services such as a local loop to connect Iwo locations together then the following rate schedule will be used. Unbundled High Speed Access Price per Mbit for [nternet Access $61§.00Month Local Loop Fee $3go. OOMonth rnstall Fee $1,OOO.OOOne Time All Services a~e lOOmbit local loop. Ex: 2tobit se*vice: 390+{2'615) $1,620.00Month St,O00.O0]:nstell ~x: l. Smbit service: 390+(1.5'615) $1,312.50Monthly T1 £quiva.lent Service $1,000.OOinstall For services 3tobit and ~bove, no local loop fees will be chacged. For these services any number oflP addresses can be requested, but they must be justified via the American Registry for Interact Numbers (ARIN) regulations. Page 2 of 2 CITY OF ,-ASHLAND Council Communication TITLE: DEPT: DATE: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Synopsis: Recommendation: Fiscal Impact: Background: An Ordinance Creating New Sections 15.28.150 and 15.28.160 Of The Ashland Municipal Code To Provide Fees For The Uniform Fire Code Plan Review And Inspections To Be Set By Resolution Ashland Fire & Rescue April 6, 2004 ~X .~/~ Keith E. Woodley, Fire Chief ~ ~_ Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator/w> Paul Nolte, City Attorney ~ This ordinance allows the establishment of fire protection plans review and inspection fees by resolution. Adopt the proposed ordinance for Ashland Fire & Rescue fire protection plans review and inspection program for second reading. Provide an opportunity for public comment pursuant to ORS 294.160 when the resolution setting the fees is adopted by Council. Fire protection plans review and inspection fees, when adopted, will generate revenue to recover 50% of the cost of the new position. The City of Ashland has provided fire code compliance inspection programs as the Authority Having Jurisdiction since the inception of the building inspection program. During that period the fire code compliance program has been administered by the Fire Marshal as one of many duties assigned to the position. A Fire Protection Plans Examiner position has been added to the code enforcement division within the Fire Department to assist with the work load in this program area. The fire protection plans review and inspection fee schedule is intended to help offset the cost of this position. With the addition of this new position, the fire protection plans turnaround time has been reduced from 20 days to 5 days. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE CREATING NEW SECTIONS 15.28.150 AND 15.28.160 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE FEES FOR THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE PLAN REVIEW AND INSPECTIONS BE SET BY RESOLUTION THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. A New section 15.28.150 of the Ashland Municipal Code is established to read: SECTION 15.28.150. Plan Review / Permits - Fees. For application in this city, Uniform Fire Code plan review fees shall be established by resolution of the city council. SECTION 2. A New section 15.28.160 of the Ashland Municipal Code is established to read: SECTION 15.28.160. Code Compliance Inspection - Fees. The fee schedule for fire code compliance inspections shall be established by resolution of the city council. The foregoing ordinance was first read on the __ and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this __ day of day of ,2004, .,20O4. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this ~ day of ,2004. Reviewed as to form: Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor Paul Nolte, City Attorney G:\legal\Mike\Draft Ordinances\Fire Code review & inspection fees.doc FIRE PROTECTION PLANS REVIEW PERMIT FEES Fire protection plans review fees will be applied to any building permit that is routed by, or requires interaction with, the fire department. This includes fire suppression and fire alarm systems. These fees will also be applied to subdivision / plat check reviews which are initiated by Public Works Engineering Division. These fees are in addition to and separate from the Building Permit. These fees will be paid following existing city policies. (Prior to issuance of the Building Permit, when Plat Check is submitted for review, or when Subdivision Engineering Service Fees memo is paid.) These fees address those fire protection issues and features, which are not addressed by the Oregon Structural Specialty Code. (Ex: fire apparatus access, fire hydrants and required fire hydrant flows, the specified locations for fire department pumper connections, fire alarm panels and access key boxes) The fee structure is: ITEM FEE Any Building Permit 10% of the Building Permit Fee and Plan Check fees. New Subdivision or Land Partition 10% of the Engineering Subdivision Plat Check Fee Fire Hydrant Flow Tests required for new installations will be assessed at $100 per flow test. Any review required by the Oregon Uniform Fire Code, and which does not involve a building permit, will be charged at the rate of $50.00 per hour. A minimum charge of $25.00 will be assessed to these reviews. When the Building Division assesses additional fees for plan reviews and/or field inspections, any fire department staff time associated with that activity will be included in their fees at their specified rate. CITY OF -ASHLAND Impact Of Fire Protection Plans Review Fee Implementation On Typical Building Permits The projected Building Permit Fees for the current fiscal year is $ 218,768, thus the projected Structural Plan Review Fees on these permits are $142,200.00. The proposed 10% fire department fee for these permits will result in revenue of $ 36,096.80. Suppression and alarm systems will add another $ 577.00 Engineering Subdivision Plat Check Fees will add another $1450.00 The total projected revenue from the proposed fee structure is $ 38,123.80. The projected cost of the program is $ 67,500. Some examples of the impact of this fee structure are: New house in Riverwalk Subdivision - a typical single-family residence (2072 square feet) Subdivision Review Fee $ 599.00/64 lots $ 9.36 House Plan Review Fee $ 894.33 x 10% $ 89.43 Single Family Residence over 3600 square feet on an existing lot or recent land partition. (Chose fire sprinkler system instead of new fire hydrant) House Plan Review Fee $1390.95 x 10% $139.10 Sprinkler Plan Review Fee $ 103.13x10% $ 10.31 New Warehouse on a new land partition Plan Review Fee $ 2175.53 x 10% Sprinkler PlanReview Fee $ 429.83 x 10% $ 217.55 $ 42.98 Accessory Residential Unit in Wildland Fire Zone (Fire Sprinklers required by Zoning Ord.) ARU Plan Review Fee $ 476.85 x 10% $ 47.69 Sprinkler Plan Review Fee $ 38.78 x 10% $ 3.88 Ashland Surgery Center Plan Review Fee Sprinkler Plan Review Fee Fire Alarm Review Fee $ 6356.15 x 10% $ 635.62 $ 429.83x 10% $ 42.98 $ 50.00x 10% $ 5.00 Lithia Springs Girls Home (Updated Fire Alarm System) Ashland Fire & Rescue 455 Siskiyou Blvd. Ashland, Oregon 97520 ww~N.ashland.or, us Tel: 541482-2770 Fax: 541-488-5318 TrY: 800-735-2900 Plan Review Fee $ 87.50 x 10% $ 8.75 Plaza Inn & Suites (3 story hotel w 2 additional underground parking/room levels) Plan Review Fee $16,389.45 x' 10% $1638.95 Sprinkler Plan Review Fee $ 709.50 x 10% $ 70.95 Fire Alarm Review Fee $ 392.70 x 10% $ 39.27 Recap of jurisdictions contacted. 1. Medford- No plan review or inspection fees. Permits = $75 for each underground storage tank and $20 for special event permits at Rogue Valley Mall. 2. Jackson County Fire District 3 (White City) - No fees 3. City of Grants Pass Public Safety- No fees. 4. State Fire Marshal's Office - No fees for permits. 5. Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue - No fees. 6. City of Salem Fire Department- Yes. $35.00 or 40% of the Building Permit Fee whichever is greater. Re-inspection fee of $118.00 plus each inspector's time if not approved after initial and one follow-up inspection. Special Event Permits can trigger a fire only fee (Tent, Underground storage tank) 7. City of Corvallis Fire Department - Yes. It is 10% of the Building Permit plan review fee, which is 65% of the Building Permit fee that is based upon the valuation of the project. Another way of saying this is 6.5 % of the Building Permit fee. In addition they have a permit fee schedule for certain occupancies and processes. 8. City of Gresham Fire Department - Yes. They only charge for fire sprinkler and fire alarm plan reviews. The fire sprinkler review fee is based upon the number of sprinklers. The fire alarm review fee is based upon the value of the work being performed. Ashland Fire & Rescue Tel: 541-482-2770 455S is kiyou Blvd. Fax'. 541488-5318 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us CiTY OF ,SHLAND Council Communication Title: Appeal of Planning Action 2003-118, a request for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Permit to construct a single family residential home on Hillside Lands within a Historic District Applicant: Sidney and Karen DeBoer Dept: Planning Department Date: April 6, 2004 Submitted By: Mark Knox, Associate Planner John McLaughlin, Director of Com~ity Development Approved By: Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator Synopsis: On September 2, 2003, the applicants filed their request for the above referenced planning action. On October 10th, 2003, the application was deemed complete and administratively approved by staff. A notice was sent to neighbors within 100' of the property noting staff's decision and the right to request a public heating within 10 days. On October 20th, 2003, three letters (one later rescinded) were received requesting a public heating. On October 22, 2003, a notice was sent to neighbors within 200' of the property stating there would be a public hearing in front of the Historic Commission on November 5th, 2003; the Tree Commission on November 6th, 2003; and the Hearings Board on November 12th, 2003. At the Historic Commission meeting on November 5th, 2003, the commission accepted public testimony and evidence. The commissioners moved to deny the application "based on the purview of the commission set in the city charter, reflecting the opinion that the structure does not fit the historic district by its mass, scale, and partitioning of the site." Members clarified that they were not recommending denial based on the Physical and Environment Constraints permit criteria. Voice vote: Krach, Krippaehne, Whitford, Leighton, and Saladoff, YES. Skibby, NO. Motion passed 5-1. At the Tree Commission meeting on November 6th, 2003, the commissioners accepted public testimony and evidence. The commission recommended the following conditions be added should the application be approved: 1) Mitigation for the loss of trees on the site will be as proposed in the application plus an additional one for one 'onsite', to be planted within 50 feet of the property line and/or adjacent to Glenview Drive. This is in addition to the proposed landscape plan. 2) 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. 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. 3) Tree protection signs should be used for this project. At the Hearings Board meeting on November 12th, 2003, the Board accepted public testimony and evidence. The Board agreed to leave the record open for an additional seven days and for a second seven-day period for applicant's rebuttal. At the meeting of December 9th, 2003, after reviewing the additional information and rebuttal information, the Board unanimously moved to approve the application with nine conditions. In their discussion, the Board found that arguments presented in opposition were either not based upon the applicable criteria for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit, or were adequately addressed by the applicant. After two 30-day extension requests were received by the applicant, the findings supporting the decision were adopted by the Board on March 9th, 2004. On March 10th, 2004, a letter was sent to the applicants, people who testified and people who submitted letters informing them of the Board's decision. On March 17th, 2004, a timely appeal was filed by Colin Swales, Brian Holley and Bill Street. The appeal form states the following as grounds for the appeal: 1) First Specific ground for reversal Appellants contend that the Applicant's and Staff's narrow interpretation of the Purpose and Intent as stated in ALUO 18.62.010 is inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan as it should be applied to the interpretation of the approval criteria for Development on Hillside land. 2) First Procedural Irregularity: The Application was 'deemed complete' by City Staff on October 9th, 2003. Contrary to Oregon State Law and the Public Notices sent to neighbors, the Applicant's agent denied the City permission to exercise its statutory duty to make copies of important portions of the application available to the public until November 3rd, 2003. This substantially prejudiced the appellant's rights to perform 'due diligence' prior to the Historic Commission meeting and Hearings Board Public Hearings. 3) Second Specific ground for reversal Appellants contend that Applicant's own definition of surrounding impact area is not supported by Ashland's Comprehensive Plan nor the discussion and adoption of ALUO Ch 18.62 (see LUBA 97-260 ROGUE VALLEY v ASHLAND FO) but instead extends well beyond the merely 200 feet from the boundaries of the property as they contend. Staff Response to Appellants' Argument 1) It is staff's opinion the applicable criteria for this application are clearly noted in 18.62.040 I., Approval and Permit Required - Criteria for Approval. In addition, there are "clear and objective" development standards for Hillside Lands, noted in Chapter 18.62.080 Development Standards for Hillside Lands, the applicant is required to meet. The Hearings Board found that the applicants have met the criteria for approval. For additional explanation on this argument, please refer to "OBJECTIONS DEEMED TO BE UNRELATED TO THE RELEVANT SUBSTANTIVE APPROVAL CRITERIA" on Pgs. A61 - A63 of the Hearings Board's Adopted Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Staff Response to Appellants' Argument 2) Under Federal law the owner of a Copyright has the exclusive right to reproduce or distribute copyrighted work. Oregon's Public Records Law does not authorize the City to violate Federal Copyright Law. Any person has the right to inspect any Copyrighted materials the City may be in possession of, but the City cannot copy or allow someone else to make copies. This is consistent with advice staff has given in the past and it is based on an opinion of the Oregon Attorney General contained in the AG's Public Records Manual at page A-1. It should be made clear that the appellants or any other citizen who requested that copies be made were given the opportunity to inspect the plans during regular office hou. rs. It should also be made clear that when noticed, the applicant's architect did lift the copyright restrictions and plans were copied and made available to the public on November 3rd, 2003. Staff concurs with the applicants and Heatings Board that the rights of the appellants were not prejudiced due to the fact that the information was available to the public at all times and that personal copies of the plans were made available nine days before the Hearings Board's November 12th, 2003 Public Hearing with an additional seven days left open by request of appellant Colin Swales. Staff Response to Appellants' Argument 3) The Hearings Board concluded the "surrounding impact area" is the same as the 200' public notice boundary (Pg. A-25 of the Heatings Board's Adopted Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law). Staff would also state that developments subject to a Physical & Environmental Constraint Permit are reviewed based upon its impacts to "nearby areas" and the "surrounding area", as specifically noted in Criteria #1 and #3 (ALUO 18.62.040 I.). Furthermore, the appellants refer to a definition in the Conditional Use Permit section of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. The subject application is for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Permit (P&E Permit), not a Conditional Use Permit. Recommendation: The Heatings Board found the project complied with the standards in effect at the time of the application, and approved the project by a 3-0 vote. Staff supports the decision of the Heatings Board and recommends the Council approve the request with the attached nine conditions as stated in the findings on pages A67-A68 of the record. By ordinance, the public testimony is required to either be completed by 9:30pm or continued to another meeting. Should the hearing need to be continued; it has been scheduled for 7pm on Thursday, April 8th, 2004 in the Council Chambers. Further, in order to comply with the requirement that the City complete its decision within 120 days, another meeting to adopt the findings has been tentatively set for Monday, April 12 2004. Background: The record for Planning Action 2003-118 was previously sent to the Council on March 26th. Attachments: Previously submitted packet. ADITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED FOR COUNCIL FROM APPELLANT COLIN SWALES. CITY OF ASHLAND Department o.f Community Development Planning Division MEMORANDUM DATE: October 30, 1997 TO: FROM: RE: Ad Hoc Hillside Ordinance Committee John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development Response to issues - new Standards for Hillside Development ordinance i. Affordable Housing It has not been the City's pOlicy to meet affordable housing needs through new development on hillside lands, it is recognized that hillside development generally involves higher cost property, greater construction costs, and additional economic obstacles that make the provision of truly affordable housing (affordable to households at median income or below) unrealistic. As an example, the City defines moderate cost housing (affordable to households at 125% of median income for Jackson County) to be $113,000. The average sales price of single family homes in Ashland in 1996 was $163,11 O, or approximately $50,000 above moderate cost housing. The average assessed value of single family homes within the hillside area of Ashland is approximately $207,152, or approximately $94,000 above moderate cost housing and $44,000 above the average sales price of Ashland homes. Recognizing that the $207,152 value is for existing homes, and that newly constructed homes tend to be higher in value than existing homes, it is very unlikely that any truly affordable housing would be created on existing hillside properties, with or without this ordinance. !!. Impact on Buildable Lands Opponents to the ordinance have raised the issue of the reduction of buildable lands and the Impact on the City's buildable lands inventory. From the city's vacant lands Inventory, there are approximately 415 potential new dwelling units possible In the Hillside Lands area. After implementation of the ordinance, it is estimated that the total number of dwelling units would be reduced by 33, to 382. This is due to change in slope restriction from 40% to 35% for buiidable lands. Within the city limits, there is an estimated vacant lands inventory for 1674 dwelling units. The .reduction of 33 units represents less than 2% of the total developable units. Of the 33 units potentially lost from the Inventory, 26 are in the RR-.5 zoning district, 2 are in the WR zoning district, and 5 are in the R-I zoning district. Again, from the Vacant Lands Inventory, there is currently a 36-year inventory of large lot development opportunities, and the reduction of 26 units changes that to a 33.5-year inventory. Within the R-1 district, there is essentially no change, with a I0 year Inventory still remaining. These inventories are greater than the 5-year inventories required by the City's acknowledged comprehensive plan, and provide many opportunities for the construction of large lot housing within the City. The reduction of 33 units is an estimate by the City regarding the effect of the ordinance, and the total reduction may be less due to the availability of density transfers as allowed under the ordinance - 18.62. I I O; Further, Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660 for the Implementation of Goal 10 - Housing, OAR 66C)-08-005 defines "Buildable Land" as follows: "Buildable land means residentially designated vacant and, at the option of the local jurisdiction, redevelopable land within the Metro urban growth boundary that is not severely constrained by natural hazards (Statewide Planning Goal 7) or subject to natural resource protection measures (Statewide Planning Goals 5 and 15). Publicly owned land is generally not considered available for residential use. Land with slopes of 25%or greater unless othenvise provided for at the time of acknowledgment and land within the 100-year floodplain is. generally considered unbuildable for purposes of density calculation." From this definition, it is clear that from a statewide perspective, urban residential growth is not exp .e~ted to be accommodated in any significant way on hillside slopes greater than 25%. The City of Ashland has recognized that a significant portion of our community is located on steeper hillside slopes and has, through the comprehensive plan, chosen to recognize slopes up to 40% as potentially buildable. However, that decision is clearly a local decision, and cities' have the dght to adopt Implementing ordinances more restrictive than their comprehensive plan. Therefore, the adoption of a 35% limit on bulldable lands in the ordinance is cleady a justifiable decision by the City. .i11. Ashland Comprehensive Plan Policies Opponents have raised the Issue that the adoption of revised hillside standards is not supported by the comprehensive plan. The following represent plan policies and text that Staff believes support the adoption of hillside standards: CHAPTER IV - ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES "Future development on steeper slopes and on granitic terrain should be planned with the contours of the terrain in mind, rather than following a rectangular grid. In many areas of the dty, streets are Impassable during icy conditions due to steep grades. Rain showers often tend to be short and Intense, favoring a high surface runoff. Deeply weathered, easily eroded plutonic terrain commonly silts local storm drains, and diverts volumes of water down the north-trending streets, occasionally flooding streets and private property. These negative effects could. ~ .diminished by strict development controls on areas over 20% slope." "The Ashland planning area has a moderate to high landslide potential, especially where granitic terrains and steep slopes exist .... To prevent activating potential s(ides, deep cuts and excavations should be forbidden wtthout extensive engineering and geologic study, surface runoff should be directed toward existing natural drainages, and clearing vegetation on especially steep slopes should be prohibited." (Ashland Comprehensive Plan - Page IV-4, emphasis added) "Areas of steep slope on highly erosive granitic soils are very sensitiVe to development activities. The best control to erosion is to limit development in areas that are sensitive." (Ashland Comprehensive Plan - Page IV-8) GOAL: HAVE SOUND SOIL CONSERVATION AND EROSION CONTROL PRACTICES IN AND AROUND ASHLAND. Policy IV-5 Require that development be accommodated to natural topography, drainage, and soils and make maximum USe of existing vegetation to minimize erosion. See ordinance section 18.62.080.E. - Building Location and Design Standards regarding accommodating natural topography. See ordinance section 18.62.080.C. - Surface and Groundwater Dra!nage regarding drainage. See ordinance section 18.62.080.B. - Hillside Grading and Erosion Control regarding soils. See ordinance section 18.62.080.B. and D. regarding erosion control and vegetation. Policy IV-6 Prevent development and land management practices which result in rapid runoff and accelerated erosion. See ordinance section 18.62.080.C. - Surface and Groundwater Drainage, and 18.62.080.B. - Hillside Grading and Erosion Control.' Policy IV-7 Require site-preparation procedures and construction practices which minimize erosion and sedimentation. Isee ordinance section 18.62.080.B. Hillside and Erosion Control. Grading Policy IV-8 Protect essential hillside drainage areas for absorption o£storm runoff, and other me. as subject to severe soil erosion, unless cona'ol can be established. See ordinance section 18.62.080.B. - Hillside Grading and ErOsion Control. Policy IV-9 Incorporate site drainage practices that reduce runoff velocity and volume, by utilizing the natural properties of the soils and vegetation in conjunction with'sound engineering practices. ISee ordinance section 18.62.080.C. - Surface and Groundwater Drainage. Policy IV-10 Insure that areas of general slope over 30% are zoned for two dwelling units per acre or less. and permit total lot coverage to be no more than 20%. Policy IV- 11 Restrict any new partitioning or subdivision of land on slopes greater than 40%. ISee ordinance section 18.62.080.A. - General Requirements Policy IV-12 Forbid any new development or cuts and fills on slopes greater than 50% unless absolutely necessary and scientific and geologic evidence is available showing that it may be done safely. ISee ordinance section 18.62.080.A. - General Requirements, 18.62.100 - Development Standards for Severe Constraint Lands. Policy IV-I 3 Use development performance standards based on the natural topography, drainage, soils, lot coverage, and densities in place of arbitrary subdivision standards to ~nsure that natural features area an integral part of the design phase of future developments. GOAL: PRESERVE FOREST AREAS WITHIN AND AROUND THE CITY FOR THEIR VISUAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, WILDLIFE HABITAT, AND WATER QUALITY VALUES. Policy IV-37 Emphasize the preservation of forest vegetation to the extent feasible as forested areas of the City are converted to urban uses. ISee ordinance section 18.62.080.D. - Tree Conservation, Protection and Removal. Policy IV-38 Use low-density zoning to ensure that development of the forested hillsides is kept at a level that maintains the forested integrity of the areas. GOAL: DIRECT DEVELOPMENT TO AREAS THAT ARE LESS THAN 40% SLOPE. ALLOW ONLY LOW DENSITY DEVELOPMENT AT LESS THAN TWO DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE ON AREAS OF GREATER THAN 30% SLOPE. PERMIT ONLY LOW INTENSITY DEVELOPMENT OF STEEP LANDS, WITH STRICT EROSION CONTROL AND SLOPE STABILITY MEASURES. Policy IV-34 Develop erosion control standards to ensure that development of these forested areas will not cause erosion problems. See ordinance section 18.62.080.B. - Hillside Grading and Erosion Control. Policy IV-35 ResWict creation of new lots on land that is greater than 40% slope, unless a buildable area of less than 40% slope is available on each lot. ISee ordinance section 18.62.080.A. - General Requirements Policy IV-36 Zone all lands which have a slope generally greater than 30% for development that will have no more than 2 dwelling units per acre or 20% lot coverage by impervious surfaces. GOAL: TO PRESERVE EXISTING WILDLIFE HABITATS AND NATURAL AREAS WITHIN THE CITY WHEREVER POSSIBLE. Policy IV-41 Continue to strengthen the site review process to assess accurately the environmental impact and ensure that changes inland use acknowledges limitations and opportunities of the site and have as little detrimental impact as possible. ISee - Physical and Environmental 8:62 o~inance 1 Constraints CHAPTER VI - HOUSING GOAL: ENSURE A VARIETY OF DWELLING TYPES AND PROVIDE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE TOTAL CROSS-SECTION OF ASHLAND'S POPULATION, CONSISTENT WITH PRESERVING THE CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF THE CITY. Policy VI-3 a) Slope protection and lot coverage performance standards shall be used to fit development to topography, generally following the concept that density should decrease with an increase in slope to avoid excessive erosion and hillside cuts. This objective shall be used consistent with the desire to preserve land by using the smallest lot coverage possible. Isee section 18.62.080- Development Standards for Hillside Lands CHAPTER IX - PUBLIC SERVICES GOAL: TO PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE STORM WATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CITY OF ASHLAND. Policy IX-23 Ensure that all new developments include a drainage system which protects adjoining property as much as possible. See ordinance section 18.62.080.C. - Surface and Groundwater Drainage. Policy IX-24 Encourage drainage systems that utilize natural drainageways and minimize the amount and rate of surface runoff. See ordinance section 18.62.080.C. - Surface and Groundwater Drainage. IV. 35% Slope vs 40% Slope for Buildable Areas The City currently defines the maximum buildable slope for the creation of new building sites as 40%. The proposed Hillside Development Standards ordinance reduces that maximum down to 35%. As stated above, the Impact of this change is minimal on the buildable land supply within the city. However, .the positive Impact on the environmental resource can be greaL From the Soil .Survey of Jackson County, prepared by the Soil Conservation Service of the USDA, the maJodty of soils on Ashland's hillsides that are Impacted by the ordinance are rated as having severe limitations affecting the construction of dwellings and local streets. From the survey, the following definition Is taken: "Severe - soil properties or site features are so unfavorable or so difficult to overcome that special design, significant Increases in construction costs, and possible increased maintenance are required. Spedal feasibility studies may be required where the soil limitations are severe." The new ordinance recognizes these slope d!fficultles and follows the comprehensive plan, which states UThe best control to erosion is to limit development in areas that are sensitive." Slides have shown to the committee Indicating the difficulties with development on Ashland's hillsides and the erosion and landslide potential of these areas. The reduction of buildable areas from 40% to 35% provides the city with an additional buffer from the potential damage caused by slope disturbance during and after development. Information has been provided Indicating that steep slopes can be successfully developed, even up to 100% slope, it is not disputed that there is an engineering solution to almost all environmental concerns. The concern is not with the construction of new foundations for homes, but rather, with the total site disturbance which leads to further erosion of the hillsides, storm drain blockage, and damage to downhill properties. As stated in the soil survey, "significant Increases in construction costs" occur with development on hillside lands, and the steeper the slopes, the greater the costs. From the "Land Use Geology of Central Jackson County, Oregon" prepared by Department of Geology and Mineral Industries of the State of Oregon, much of Ashland's hillside areas are classified as: "Local slopes 10-50%; landforms Include moderately steep hills and valley, hazards include moderate slope-erosion Potential and local to large scale mass movement; land use potential variable." "Reliance on human memory to define slide hazards completely is not' adequate. Memory is incomplete and often Inaccurate and makes no allowance for changing stability with changing land use. Furthermore, it does not provide the sophistication required to address all pertinent factors of potential mass movement." "The grading provisions of the Uniform Building Code should be adhered to in all cuts and fills. On steep slopes, areas of mass-movement potential, or areas of past mass movement, more detailed and rigorous treatment is generally required." it is our opinion that the reduction of buildable areas down to 3;5% is a justifiable decision of the city, based on the desire to reduce the potential damages that can be caused by hillside disturbance. The balance of a relatively small number of potential dwellings removed from the city's Inventory, compared to the benefits of not developing on slopes greater than 3;5% appear to be clearly favorable to adoption of this new standard. V. Wildfire Lands/Fuel Reduction The Forest Lands Commission has raised concerns that the ordinance, as proposed, requires a rather rigorous review process for landowners who wish to only reduce the wildfire hazards of their property. The ordinance does not distinguish between tree removal associated with subdivision development and for wildfire management - the same standards apply. We have made recommended language adjustments in the ordinance to address this concern. The definition of "development" has been modified to not include tree removal, and a tree removal for wildfire management under review of the Fire Department does not require a Physical Constraints Permit, nor all of the required studies. Vi. Building Location and Design Standards This section of the ordinance has proved to be the most controversial. The use of design standards for single family dwellings is a little used planning tool in Oregon, and has raised concerns from the real estate and development commttnity, as well as general citizens. The basis for the standards was a recognition of the hillside areas as a significant feature of our community, and increased sc~tiny on new development in this area would be appropriate. This section is broken into two parts - building location and building design. The building design portion is primarily concerned with the provision of building envelopes on parcels, clearly Indicating the potential areas for development. The building design portion has seven sections regarding the actual appearance of new structures on hillside lands. Staff has provided three options addressing the concerns raised regarding this section: Maintain the standards as they have been presented with no modification. This recognizes the original concerns and input from the groups that came before the Council requesting that new hillside standards be adopted. Delete ali building design standards ( ! 8.62.080.E.2. a-g) and the building location requirement avoiding ridgeline locations ( ! 8.62.080 E. 1 .d). This recognizes the concern of the real estate and development community'who have recently become involved in the process. Remove the more discretionary location and design standards, maintain the more measurable standards, and provide a separate handout on recommended design guidelines for hillside development. This would involve the deledon of ! 8.62.080.E. 1 .d - (ddgeline exposures), 18.62.080.E.2.e. (roof forms), 18.62.080.E. 2.f. (overhanging decks), and ! 8.62.080.E. 2.g. (color selection). The remaining standards would be retained including those addressing building envelopes ( 18.62.O80.E.i. a-c); and those addressing building design - 18.62.080. E.2.a (hillside building height - 30' max.), ! 8.62.080.E.2.b. (utilize stepped foundations), 18.62.O80.E.2.c. (building stepback and wall height - 20' max.), and ! 8.62.080.E. 2.d. (horizontal building planes - 36' max.). it is our recommendation that the committee consider Option 3. it still provides increased standards for development addressing bulk, scale, and site disturbance in an objective manner, while not being so prescriptive as to prohibit individual choice of color or roof orientation. The changes representing Option 3 are Indicated in the attached ordinance. We have not prepared a booklet of guidelines at this time, but we believe that one could be prepared in a reasonably short period of time for adoption at a later date. Vii. Other Issues Other minor changes have been made in the ordinance to address "housekeeping" concerns raised in the process. These are clearly marked in the ordinance. Notice - The city' attorney has reviewed the requirements for notice regarding this action and has determined that individual notice to property owners is not required by state statute or local ordinance. Public Involvement - the formation of an additional committee to take additional testimony and address concems, and the scheduling of an additJonal public hearing before the Ashland City Council on November 18 has provided opportunities for additional public Involvement. Conclusion Overall, it is Staff's opinion that this ordinance represents an appropriate tool for the regulation of development on Ashland's hillsides. With minor changes, we believe that it should be forwarded to the City Council for a public heating and ultimate adoption on November 18, 1997. Hillside Development Permit Process Is land regulated? Determine location Determine slope (above boulevard?) (>25%?) If both of the above, land is subject to Hillside Development Standards. Is proposed development regulated? Ea~ moving > 50 cu. yds. or > 1000 sq. ft. Removal of trees Construction of road, building, etc.., or addition >20% of existing footprint Prepare Plan - Obtain Professional Assistance: Geotechnical Engineer to prepare grading and erosion control plans Professional Arborist to-prepare tree plans See section 18.62.040.E. 1. Contour Map Existing natui'al features Trees Methods of erosion control Methods of water runoff control Methods of tree protection Proposed land disturbances Proposed storage areas for excess materials If partition or subdivision, additional geotechnical studies regarding geologic hazards are required. Development Area: All lands > 35 % Slope shall be unbuildable, including streets & drives- Exceptions: Entire lot is >35%, then one building site Streets as indicated on street dedication map Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plans Required Must be designed by a Geotechnical Expert Land disturbance shall occur only from May I to October 31 25 + %~ of the area must be retained in a natural State Cut slopes shall be protected from erosion Fill slopes shall be protected from erosion Revegetation required - planting plan required All erosion control/grading shall be maintained in perpetuity. Performance bond required Site grading must eonsider sensitive nature of site Final inspection report required from project geotechnical expert. Surface and Groundwater Drainage All drainage systems must' be designed to avoid erosion Divert storm water from cut faces or fill slopes Use flow-retarding devices to minimize runoff volumes. Tree Preservation Inventory existig, g trees all trees > 6" dbh species, extent of tree canopy, location (~_3') for subdivisions & partitions, must be by landscape professional Evaluate for Preservation Tree healtli Tree structure Species Potential Longevity Tree Preservation in 'Project Design Protect and incorporate trees into project design Locate improvements'such that maximum number of trees are preserved Locate building envelopes such that max. # trees are preserved Tree Protection Before beginning construction, fence trees, etc.., as per 18.62.080.D.4. Protect root zone Avoid changes in soil hydrology and site drainage Tree Removal Determine if'tree can be removed within building envelope within utility easement tree is a hazard within or near cuts and fills Tree Replacement Prepared replanting plan that provides canopy over the project site, and reduces impact. Tree Enforcement Trees must be removed in accord with plans If trees removed without approval, must pay 3 time cost of replacement or market value, whichever is greater. Damaged trees - fine of $50 per sear Building Location and Design Standhrds. Building envelopes required Shall maintain % of natural state Shall maximize tree preservation Shall avoid ridgeline exposures Building Design Max height of 30' Cut buildings into hillside to reduce visual bUlk Ufili?e building stepbacks Orient roof slope with hillside Reduce horizontal building planes Avoid overhanging decks Minimize building color contrast with natural environment Administrative Variances If option can be provided that is better than ordinance standards, variance may be granted by hearing authority. Additional Standards If application is for partition or subdivision (creating new lots), then geotechnical study must be provided analyzing geologic risks of project, project site, and affect on surrounding properties. 18.62.080.A.2. i~UTH 5'I. MILLE~ 7'58 15 ~SLrccL · .,\.3hland. Oregon 97520 ~csidcncc 541 · 482-$659 Oil~cc/F~x =.;4t · 482-5337 PlI~IP C. LAgC, LC8W To: Re.: Please make the attached April 6th. Thank you, Co March Planning Dept. Appeal of Sidney DeBoer House (~ pp-) 2004 part of the appeal packet to be heard RUTH M. MILLER PHILIP C, tANG, nc~w 758 B Street · A~hland, Oregon 97520 Rcsidcncc 541 · 482-8659 OIllcc/F~x 541 ° 482-5387 April 1, 2004 To: Op.-Ed. Editor - Daily Tidings Re.: Article, p.1 3/24/04 - "Ashland under Appeal" The following is submitted as an op.-ed, piece. Because it may have some legal bearing on the upcoming appeal on the Sidney DeBoer house, it is also being submitted to the file on that property. DID HE REALLY SAY THAT?! In the past m~yor DeBoer would call me and set up an appointment to talk. I would like to think that his intention was to get a different point of view on issues 6~kwhi~N we usually disagree. Afterwards, I would reflect on his remarks and say to myself: "Did he really say that?!" That has to be e~ryi{iZizen's response to his comments in the article "Ashland under Appeal" (Tidings-3/24/04). Mayor DeBoer states that appeals are "wasting money through the courts" Was the mayor out of the room when, in 6th grade civics we were taught about the tri-partite division of our government into executive, legislative and judicial branches, providing a series of "checks and balances"? The courts (aiuc6ty council appeal is quasi-judicial, and LUBA is a judicial proceding) have often been the last resort of those oppressed by executive or legislative power. The mayor goes on to say that "it is very small groups of people who want to take everything to court and be negative on most things". Just what "small groups" might these be? Might they be the small group of self- appointed economic elites who continue to run Ashland in their best interests, and compound their exploitation of the rest of us by claiming, as the mayor arrogantly does~ that his point of view represents what the majority of Ashland citizens want? Mayor DeBoer was on council, and was active in the 1997 revision of the hillside ordinance. The recdrd.~h~ws that he tried to prevent any strengthening of the ordinance; that ordinance is relevent in the Sidney DeBoer house appeal before council on April 6th. During his tenure, the issue of FAR (floor area ratios in historic districts) was repeatedly dropped to the bottom of the agendaaathZh~ planning commission for a year, until after his brother got a building permit for the humongous house he propose~ to build (also relevant to the upcoming appeal). Op.-Ed. - Tiding.s - 4/1/04 - pl 2 Moreover, the mayor's comments are misleading. The Bemis project, for which he voices approv&l, is being appealed to LUBA by the developer, after the city council, representing "the majority of what the citizens of Ashland want" turned down the project. The mayor's remarks cast a pall on the Bemis appeal, telling the city attorney "don't try to win this appeal because as mayor I oppose it". The mayor will also be sitting With council on the appeal of his brother's house, and will cast a vote in case of a tie; he has already given his message that this appeal too, is unnecessary and frivolous. His appalling remarks cast__se~ious doubt_on his judgment and capacity to represent us a~ur mayor. APR I 2004 i58 5 SLrcct ° A~hland, Orc$on 97520 O[ticc,~ 541 · 482-5587 PHILIP C. L&NG, ~c&w March 26, 2004 Re.: The proposed DeBoer House See attached drawings: Rendering ~1: Front elevation of the proposed DeBoer House Rendering #2: Front ~levation of the Theodore M. Irwin House (Greene & Greene) Mr. DeBoer has made a point of touting his proposed house as a "Greene and Greene" (type) masterpiece. A House "that will be admired loo years from now". I believe that he has also taken his minions down to Pasadena to view the Gamble House. Greene & Greene, and the widespread Craftsman movement were a revolt against the excesses and vulgarities of turn-of-the-century styles - namely Victorians in the Queen Anne, Italianate, etc. styles. Such houses represented a "politic" as well as an aesthetic. They proclaimed man as "master" - able to torture iron into baroqqee forms of vines and leaves; they celebrated wretched excess: false fronts, conspicuous consumption, over- embellishment everywhere and on everything. These houses fitted the taste of the time of the nouveau fiche making their "statement" in the gilded age. They were the late-19th-early twentieth century versions of today's real-estate developers and car dealers. Itvisiironic that the resurgence of craftsman style, which has been going on for close to two decades now, ~as become the style of the nouveau fiche trying to make their "statement" about their wealth, power and taste. Ironic because first, Greene and Greene would not be designing such houses today. Indeed, at the end of their careers, they hade moved in totally different directions, as their later works indicate. Ironic, secondly, because what the present proposed development offers is extremely similar to a second-rate Greene and Greene remodel of 1906. The Theodore M. Irwin House was a remodel of G. & G.'s Katherine M. Duhcan House of 1900, itself an ordinary house of the time, indicating only "the Greene's leaning toward the Arts and Crafts Movement in its inter&or treatment". (Greene and Greene: Architecture as Fine Art, Randell M. Macksinson, p. 56). Remodelled as the Theodore M. Irwin house of 1906, it bears a stri~ing resemblance to the proposed DeBoer house, with the mO~l~g~iking difference, being the enlargement of the entry pediment to an out-of-scale brutally imposing size ~haZuinti~idA~s~athe~.~thani~elcomes. The Irwin House was demolished over 75 years ago. Unlike other lost Greene and Greene's, no one is mourning its passing. .~L-,li 1 April 2004 Ashland City Council Letter for the record: APR - g 2_004 By__ I am writing to register my support for Sid and Karen DeBoer's construction project that will be the subject of the City Council' s meeting on 6 April. I write not out of any particular friendship with the DeBoers nor do I have any vested interest in seeing the project go forth. I simply like the plan and support it fully. If one looks at what they have done to their property over the past few years, it can only be assumed that this much debated future project will only further enhance the neighborhood. I have seen the plans and I don't find the house to be the intrusive monster that is being discussed so frequently in the press and elsewhere. To the contrary, they have done their level best to adapt it to the property so as to minimize it's impact. There is no doubt that the house is large in comparison to other structures in the Vista area, but the design has taken that aspect into consideration and will minimize it's impact on the neighborhood. I grew up on Vista Street, next door the the DeBoer's house and over the course of 60 years have seen lots of neighbors come and go. Going back in time much farther than any other neighborhood dwellers, I should be the one screaming about this project the loudest. But the Deboer's track record for improving the neighborhood speaks for itself. I am convinced from what I've seen that the project should go forward as planned. As an aside from the main issue, I wish the people that are so vehemently opposed to the project would spend their time and energy fighting the urban sprawl (for instance in the North Mountain area) that will really in the end detract from the fragile little community we call home. Improving old neighborhoods is favorable to building new developments on postage sized lots, further clogging the town with more and more people and automobiles and so forth. End of personal opinion. Respect~lly, Gord~)n Hull RECORD FOR PLANNING ACTION 2003-118 REQUEST FOR A PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOME ON HILLSIDE LANDS WITHIN A HISTORIC DISTRICT. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION' SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP #:391E 09BC; TAX LOTS: 7200 AND 7400. APPLICANT: SID AND KAREN DeBOER 3-29-04 Council Communication 3-17-04 Notice of Land Use Appeal (Swales, Holley & Street) Al-A2 3-17-04 Notice of City Council Public Hearing and Applicable Criteria (mailed A3-A8 to neighboring property owners within 200' and published in Daily Tidings) 3-10-O4 Letter of Planning Commission Hearing's Board approval to A9-A10 Applicants, People who testified, People who submitted letters 3-3-04 Applicant's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for a Physical All-A68 and Environmental Constraints Permit by Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. (adopted by Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board March 9th, 2004) 12-9-03 Staff Report Addendum 1-3 11-25-03 Applicant's Final Rebuttal 4-19 11-19-03 Opponent's Additional Testimony (Colin Swales) 20-58 11-19-03 Opponent's Additional Testimony (Bryan Holley) 59-63 11-19-03 Opponent's Additional Testimony (Bill Street) 64-68 11-17-03 Opponent's Additional Testimony (George Kramer) 69-70 11-12-03 Planning Commission Hearing's Board (PCHB) Minutes 71-78 11-12-03 Opponent's Exhibits from 11-12-03 PCHB Meeting 79-85 11-12-03 Applicant's Exhibits from 11-12-03 PCHB Meeting 86-99 11-6-03 Tree Commission Comments/Minutes 97 11-5-03 Historic Commission Minutes 98-103 11-5-03 from Letters in Support,and Opposition 104-107 11-12-03 11-12-03 Letter Requesting Withdraw for Public Hearing (B.G. Hicks & Paula 108 Daystor) Corrected Notice of Public Hearing and Applicable Criteria (mailed to 109-110 neighboring property owners within 200' and published in Daily Tidings) Notice of Public Hearing and Applicable Criteria (mailed to 111-112 neighboring property owners within 200' and published in Daily Tidings) Request for Public Hearing (B.G. Hicks & Paula Daystor) 113 Request for Public Hearing (Gayle Titus) 114 Request for Public Hearing (Joyce Cowan) 115 Correspondence Regarding Copyright Issues 116-124 10-27-03 10-22-03 10-20-03 10-20-03 10-20-03 10-15-03 from 11-03-03 10-10-03 Planning Staff Approval Public Notice and Applicable Criteria (mailed to neighboring property owners withnin 100') 10-10-03 Findings & Orders (Bill Molnar, Senior Planner) 127-129 125-126 9-2-03 Applicant's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for a Physical 9-2-03 and Environmental Constraints Permit by Craig A. Stone & 130-257 Associates, Ltd. Applicants Application Form 258-259 Notice of Land Use Appeal ~ (Ashland Municipal Code § 18.108.110.A. 2) A. Name(s) of Person Filing Appeal: B. Address(es): 1. Colin Swales 461 Allison Street, Ashland, OR 97520 2. Bryan Holley 324 Liberty Street. Ashland. OR 97520 3. Bill Street 180 Meade Street, Ashland, OR 97520 2. Attach additional pages of names and addresses if other persons are joining the appeal. C. Planning Commission Decision Being Appealed Effective Date of Planning Action #: Title of planning action: Decision: 26 March 2003-118 APPLICATION FOR A PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS ..... REVIEWPERMIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF · CONSTRUCTING A SINGLE FAMILY DtNFI I ~NG (Findings mailed ON LAND ZONED R-~1-7.5, CLASSIFIED AS March 10. 2004) HILLSIDE LANDS AND WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT IN ASHLAND, OREGON. D. How Person(s) Filing Appeal Qualifies as a Party (For each person listed above in Box A, check the appropriate box below.) The person' named in Box ~ They participated in the public headng before the planning commission, either A.. above qualify as a orally or in writing. parties because: Attach additional pages if others have joined in the appeal and describe how each qualifies as a party. E. Specific Grounds for Appeal See attached addendum A Appeal Fee With this notice of appeal I(we) submit the sum of $ 264.00 which is the appeal fee required by § 18.108.110.A of the Ashland Municipal Code. Date: ,March 16. 2004 ~o~rl (s)filing appealj~~~~ (attach additional pages if nec essa ry):-see addenda rn~ Note:. This completed Notice of Land Use Appeal together with the appeal fee must be filed with the City Administrator, City Hall, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520, telephone 541-488-6002. ~)rior to the effective _ MAR ] ~ 2004 Addendum A Notice of Land Use Appeal (Ashland Municipal Code § 18.108.110.A.2) Specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed, based on the applicable criteria or procedural irregularity. Background: The decision LU]3A No. 994)30 (JOHlq FREEDOM, ROBERT E. TABER. and BRAM D. LARRICK v CITY OF ASHLAND states "...The city council has significant discretion in how it interprets .... standards... LUBA must affirm the city council's interpretation of its own legislation unless we conclude that the interpretation is "clearly wrong, "or "beyond all colorable defense." ALUO 18.108.160 states in part: ..Any interpretation of the Land Use Ordinance shall be based on the following considerations: 1. The comprehensive plan; 2. The purpose and intent of the Land Use Ordinance as applied to the particular section in question; and 3. The opinion of the City Attorney .... (Coundl).,,shall have the authority to modify the interpretation. First Specific ground for reversal · Appellants contend that Applicant's and StaWs narrow interpretation of the Purpose and Intent as stated in ALUO 18.62.010 is inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan as it should be applied to the interpretation of the approval criteda for Development on Hillside land. (see Pages 15-19 Apl~;mt's ~lopted' F~dings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Dated 3/9/04 and also Appellants' pdor submittal in Reco~d pages 20 -68 ) First Procedural Irregularity: The Application was 'deemed complete" by City Staff on October 9t~. 2003. Contrary to Oregon State Law and the Public Notices sent to neighbors, the Applicant's agent denied the City permission to exercise its statutory duty to make copies of important portions of the application available to the public until Nov 3r~ 2003. This substantially prejudiced the appellant's dghts to perform 'due diligence' prior to the Histodc Commission meeting and Hearings Board Public Hearings. (see Page 54 F~lings of Fac~ and ~ of Law. Dated 3/9/04 and APl~flant's prior submittal of communicatio~ Second Specific ground for reversal Appellants contend that Applicant's own definition of surrounding impact area is not supported by Ashland's Comprehensive Plan nor the discussion and adoption of ALUO Ch 18.62.( see LUBA 97-260 ROGUE VALLEY v ASHLAND FO ) but instead extends well beyond the merely 200 feet from the boundaries of the property as they contend. (see Pages 15 para F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Dated 3/9/04 and Appellants' rxior submittal Record pages 20 ~) The appellants note that this appeal will be heard as a "de novo" Public Hearing and reserve the right to raise additional objections. They have been severely constrained by time to, allow them to exercise sufficient due diligence with regard the recent 'Findings' (3/9/04) due to the requirements of the Oregon's "f 20-day rule" and the necessary scheduling of Council timetables. Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL on April 6, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond tO the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. During the Public Hearing, the Mayor shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Mayor shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. If you have questions or comments Concerning this request, please feel free to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, at 541-552-2041. Our TTY phone number is 1-800-735- 2900. 265 Glenview Drive GLENVIEW DR Subject Property PLANNING ACTION 2003-118 is a request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit to construct a single family residential home on Hillside Lands within a Historic District located at 265 Glenview Drive. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-7.5; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 09 BC; Tax Lots: 7200 & 7400. APPLICANT: Sidney and Karen DeBoer PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS PERMIT CRITERIA 18.62.040 Approval and Permit Required I. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following: Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. o That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. 391E09BC7800, PA#2003-118 BLOOM BENJAMIN M 215 GLENVIEW DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09BD12600, PA#2003-118 BRONK JAMES B TRUSTEE 50 EL MONTE WAY NAPA, CA 94558 391E09BC5900, PA#2003-118 BUFFINGTON JANE N 1800 SE 10TH AVE SUITE 400 FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33316 391E09BC6100, PA#2003-118 BYERS TERRY P/JOYCE 173 LOWER TERRACE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94114 391E09BC6000, PA#2003-118 CONSERVANCY LLC 625 B ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09BD12400, PA#2003-118 DAVIS RICHARD THOMAS TRSTEE 329 RAVENWOOD PL ASHLAND, OR 97520 9752~h 391E09BC7000, PA#2003-118 DEBOER SIDNEY B TRUSTEE FBO 234 VISTA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09BC6400, PA#2003-118 DELUCA RONALD L TRUSTEE 1665 SISKIYOU BLVD 102 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09CA11200, PA#2003-118 DOUGLASS BELLE G 110 TERRACE ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09BD 12900, PA#2003-118 FRANK M FRANK TRUSTEE 319 RAVENWOOD PL ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09BC7600, PA#2003-118 HARBAUGH JON F TRUSTEE P O BOX 3508 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EOgBCT?01, PA,'?,2003-118 97520 391E09BC7700, PA#2003-118 HICKS BILLIE/PAULA DAYSTAR 190 VISTA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09BC6300, PA#2003-118 HOWE CHARLES L TRUSTEE PO BOX 786 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PO BOX 7.°6 391E09BC7500, PA~2003-118 HULL CHARLOTTE H 2191 SHIELDS AVE EUGENE, OR 97405 391E09CA10701, PA#2003-118 JOHNSON SARA LOU 4 HILLCREST ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09CA11100, PA#2003-118 JULBER KRISTIN 5 HILLCREST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09BD12800, PA#2003-118 KILLEN CLAIR 525 A STREE 5 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09BC6200, PA#2003-118 NUDELMAN RICHARD 244 HARGADINE ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09BC6600, PA#2003-118 OREGON SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL 15 S PIONEER ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09BD12300, PA#2003-118 PATTEE RICHARD S/DOROTHEA C 476 BUCKHORN SPRINGS RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09CB100, PA#2003-118 PATTON WILLIAM W/SHIRLEY D 110 TERRACE ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09BD 13100, PA#2003-118 PEARSON J LAWRENCE/VIRGINIA 2551 HIDDEN VALLEY LN NAPA, CA 94558 391E09BD 13100, PA#2003-118 PEARSON J LAWRENCE/VIRGINIA 2551 HIDDEN VALLEY LN NAPA, CA 94558 391E09BC7805, PA#2003-118 PRUST WILL H/BARBARA SIBLEY 4897 SANTA BARBARA DR MEDFORD, OR 97504 391E09BD11300, PA#2003-118 RAVENWOOD TOWNHOMES OWNERS P O BOX 518 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09BD12700, PA#2003-118 SCHNAPPER AMY PO BOX 428 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09CA 11000, PA#2003-118 SMITH RANDOLPH M TRUSTEE 3 HILLCREST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09BD 12500, PA#2003-118 SPENCE HARRY TRUSTEE FBO 327 RAVENWOOD PL ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09BC6500, PA#2003-118 STEELE WILLIAM H/BARBARA E 370 SAN LUIS WAY NAVATO, CA 94945 391E09BD 13000, PA#2003-118 STRICKLAND EDGAR L TRUSTEE 317 RAVENWOOD PL ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09BC5300, PA#2003-118 SVENDSGAARD LARS D III (LE) 183 VISTA STREET ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09CA10800, PA#2003-118 TITUS GAYLE 1 HILLCREST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09BD 12200, PA#2003-118 WOOD DOUGLAS L TRUSTEE 333 RAVENWOOD PL ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09BC5800, PA#2003-118 ZIEMINSKI BERNIE PO BOX 552 TALENT, OR 97540 391E09BC7000, PA#2003-118 JOYCE COWAN 342 VISTA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09BC7000, PA#2003-118 OGDEN KISTLER ARCHITECTURE 2950 E BARNETT RD MEDFORD, OR 97504 391E09BC7000, PA#2003-118 CRAIG STONE & ASSOC 708 CARDLEY AVE MEDFORD, OR 97504 391E09BC7000, PA#2003-118 HOFFBUHR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2155 ALAMEDA ST, STE #201 MEDFORD, OR 97504 391E09BC7000, PA#2003-118 KERRY KENCAIRN 545 A ST, STE #3 ASHLAND, OR 97520 39 MAILING LIST FINDINGS FOR PA2003-118 265 GLENVIEW DRIVE DEBOER Mailed 3/10/04 SIDNEY AND~REN DEBOER 234 VIST~STREET ASHL~qD OR 97520 CRAIG STON~ CRAIG STONE & ASSOcIATEs 708 C~-RDLEY AVENUE M,E, DFORD OR 97504 JEANNE TAYLOR 3 74 ALNUTT ASHLAND OR 97520 NOLA O'HARA 232 VISTA STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 ANDREA FRYE 480 HERBERT STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 CHRIS ADDERSON 300 VISTA STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 JON HARBAUGH 190 WINDEMAR PLACE ASHLAND OR 97520 DON MACKIN 610 ELKADER STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 SAM DAVIS 900 CYPRESS POINT LOOP ASHLAND OR 97520 JERRY TAYLOR 375 ALNUTT ASHLAND OR 97520 ROBERT DAVIS 190 OAK STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 TOM BECKER 2305 ASHLAND STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 ROBERT BESTOR 288 RIDGE ROAD ASHLAND OR 97520 COLIN SWALES 461 ALLISON STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 BRYAN HOLLEY 324 LIBERTY STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 BILL STREET 180 MEADE STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 DARRELL HUCK HOFFBUHR & ASSOCIATES 3155 ALMEDA STREET STE 201 MEDFORD OR 97504 GEORGE KRAMER 386 NORTH LAUREL ASHLAND OR 97520 AMRHEIN ASSOCIATES INC 804 ROCA STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 CLAUDIA EVERETT 140 S PIONEER STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 CHARLES & MARGARET HOWE 106 FORK STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 / B G HICKS ~e/PAULA DAYSTAR 190 VIST/~FSTREET ASHL.~ND OR 97520 KEN OGDE/ OGDEN K/I'STLER ARCHIT/ECTURE 2950 E/BARNETT RD MED/FORD OR 97504 BILL & SHINY PATTON 110 TER~CE ASHJ,,AqqD OR 97520 GAYLE TITfl3~ 1 HILLC~EST STREET ASHLfiaND OR 97520 KERRY KEN~IRN KENCAIR~VENVIRONMENTAL 545 A ST/REET STE 3 ASHLP)aND OR 97520 .¥-? PHYLLIS WETZEL 491 COURTNEY STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 JOYCE CO~ 342 VIST/A/STREET ASHL~D OR 97520 391E09BC7400~A~2003-118 DE BOER SIfl)'NEY B TRSTEE FBO 234 VIST/.i/ST ASHL~qlI), OR 97520 391E09BC7600/PA#2003-118 HARBAUGH iON F TRUSTEE P O BOX/3508 ASHL~]D, OR 97520 391E09BD 1280~,, PA#2003-118 KILLEN CL/~R 525 A STRzEE 5 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E09CA 11000, P. EA~2003-118 SMITH RAND.~YLPIt M TRUSTEE 3 HILLCRE2SvT ASHLAI~, OR 97520 391E09BC7400~Ag2003-118 CRAIG STO~ & ASSOCIATES 708 CAR~LEY AVE MED~V.D, OR 97504 391E09BD12600, P/A~2003-118 BRONK JAMhES B TRUSTEE 50 EL MO.~tTE WAY NA~ A, ~GSA 94558 391E09BC770~cPA#2003-118 HICKS BILLqE G . 190 VIS;I>X ST ASH~, OR / 97520 HO'ArE CH/~.$~.L' ES L TRUSTEE 391E09CB 100.~A#2003-118 PATTON ~'~LLIAM W/SHIRLEY D 110 TEI~IL~CE ST ASH,~rD' OR075: 97520 391E09CA 19800, PA#2003-118 TITUS G~arYLE 1 HI/LLdEREST A~ILAND, OR 97520 / 391E09BC7400~2003-118 HOFFBU~& ASSOCIATES, INC. 3155 ~:AMEDA ST, STE #201 M~/~FORD, OR 97504 391E09BC6100, P/fA#2003-118 BYERS TE ~R13¥ P/JOYCE 173 LOWf.~TERRACE SAN.F/I:~NCISCO, CA 94114 I~Dti~D 0'~r1¥'~¥ D TDTT~2T[~[~ ['DII HOWE CHuCkLES L TRUSTEE PO BO~86 ASHL/AND, OR 97520 / 391E09BC7500~PA#2003-118 HULL CH~t2LOTTE H 2191 S~tfELDS AVE EUOENE, OR 97405 391E09BD 12700~A#2003-118 S CHNAP P E. EJ?~adMY PO BO~8 ' ASHL/AND, OR 97520 97520 14 CiTY OF -ASHLAND March 10, 2004 Sidney and Karen DeBoer 234 Vista Street Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Planning Action #2003-118 Dear Sidney and Karen DeBoer: At its meeting of December 9, 2003, the Ashland Planning Commission approved your request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit for the property located at 265 Glenview Drive -- Assessor's Map # 39 1E 09 BC, Tax Lots: 7200 and 7400. The Findings, Conclusions and Orders document, adopted at the March 9, 2004 meeting, is enclosed. Please note the follow--ms: 1. A final map prepared by a registered surveyor must be submitted within one year of the date of preliminary approval; otherwise, approval becomes invalid. A final plan must be submitted within 18 months of the date of preliminary approval; otherwise, approval becomes invalid. There is a 15-day appeal period which must elapse before a building permit may be issued. All of the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission must be fully met before an occupancy permit may be issued. Planning Commission approval is valid for a period of one year only, after which time a new application would have to be submitted. Please feel free to call me at 488-5305 if you have any questions. ely, Senior Planner cc: Property Owner, People Who Testified, People Who Submitted Letters DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 20 E. Ma~ Street Ashland, Orego~ 97520 ~ntnv.ashland.or. us Tel: 541-488-5305 TTY: 800-735-2900 ' MAILING LIST FINDINGS FOR PA2003-118 265 GLENVIEW DRIVE DEBOER Mailed 3/10/04 SIDNEY AND KAREN DEBOER 234 VISTA STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 CRAIG STONE CRAIG STONE & ASSOCIATES 708 CARDLEY AVENUE MEDFORD OR 97504 JEANNE TAYLOR 374 ALNUTT ASHLAND OR 97520 NOLA O'HARA 232 VISTA STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 ANDREA FRYE 480 HERBERT STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 CHRIS ADDERSON 300 VISTA STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 JON HARBAUGH 190 WINDEMAR PLACE ASHLAND OR 97520 DON MACKIN 610 ELKADER STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 SAM DAVIS 900 CYPRESS POINT LOOP ASHLAND OR 97520 JERRY TAYLOR 375 ALNUTT ASHLAND OR 97520 ROBERT DAVIS 190 OAK STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 TOM BECKER 2305 ASHLAND STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 ROBERT BESTOR 288 RIDGE ROAD ASHLAND OR 97520 COLIN SWALES 461 ALLISON STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 BRYAN HOLLEY 324 LIBERTY STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 BILL STREET 180 MEADE STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 DARRELL HUCK HOFFBUHR & ASSOCIATES 3155 ALMEDA STREET STE 201 MEDFORD OR 97504 GEORGE KRAMER 386 NORTH LAUREL ASHLAND OR 97520 AMRHEIN ASSOCIATES INC 804 ROCA STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 CLAUDIA EVERETT 140 S PIONEER STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 CHARLES & MARGARET HOWE 106 FORK STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 BILL & SHIRLEY iPATTON 110 TERRACE ASHLAND OR 97520 PHYLLIS WETZEL 491 COURTNEY STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 B G HICKS & PAULA DAYSTAR 190 VISTA STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 GAYLE TITUS 1 HILLCREST STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 JOYCE COWAN · 342 VISTA STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 KEN OGDEN OGDEN KISTLER ARCHITECTURE 2950 E BARNETT RD MEDFORD OR 97504 KERRY KENCAIRN KENCAIRN ENVIRONMENTAL 545 A STREET STE 3 ASHLAND OR 97520 BEFORE THE HEARINGS BOARD FOR THE CITY OF ASHLAND, STATE OF OREGON IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION ) FOR A PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW ) PERMIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ) CONSTRUCTING A SINGLE FAMILY ) DWELMNG ON LAND ZONED R-t-7.5, ) CLASSIFIED AS HILLSIDE LANDS AND ) WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL HISTORIC ) DISTRICT IN ASHLAND, OREGON ) ) ) Sidney and Karen DeBOer: Applicants FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Planning Action 2003-118 NATURE OF THE APPLICATION Sidney DeBoer and Karen DeBoer ("Applicants") propose to construct a 'single family dwelling on land zoned Single-Family Residential (R-1-7.5). The 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.~ II EVIDENCE BEFORE THE HEARINGS BOARD The following evidence was before the Hearings Board: Record Page 12-9-03 11-25-03 11-19-03 11-19-03 11-19-03 11-17-03 11-12-03 11-12-03 11-12-03 Staff Report Addendum 1-3 Applicant's Final Rebuttal 4-19 Opponent's Additional Testimony (Colin Swales) 20-58 Opponent's Additional Testimony (Bryan Holley) 59-63 Opponent's Additional Testimony (Bill Street) 64-68 Opponent's Additional Testimony (George Kramer) 69-70 Hearings Board Hearing's Board (PCHB) Minutes 71-78 Opponent's Exhibits from November 12, 2003 PCHB Meeting 79-85 Applicant's Exhibits from November 12, 2003 PCHB Meeting 86-99 Applicants intend to retain the existing accessory garage structure. [ AR 0 3 2004 Findings of Fac~ Conclusions of Law and Final Order Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 ~.~/~- [ [ Page 1 City of Ashland, Oregon 11-06-03 11-5-03 11-12-03 11-12-03 11-10-03 11-05-03 11-12-03 10-27-03 10-22-03 10-20-03 10-20-03 10-20-03 11-03-03 10-16-03 10-28-03 10-10-03 10-10-03 9-2-03 9-2-03 11-12-03 Tree Commission Comments/Minutes 97 Historic Commission Minutes 98-103 Letter from Claudia Everett 104 Letter from Charles and Margaret Howe 105 Letter from Bill and Shirley Patton 106 Email Correspondence from David Sidman signed by Phyllis Wetzel 107 Letter Requesting Withdrawal from Public Hearing 108 (B.G. Hicks & Paula Daystor) dated November 10, 2003 Corrected Notice of Public Hearing and Applicable 109-110 Criteria (mailed to neighboring property owners within 200 feet and published in Dally Tidings) Notice of Public Hearing and Applicable Criteria 111-112 (mailed to neighboring property owners within 200 feet and published in Daily Tidings) Request for Public Heating (B.G. Hicks & Paula Daystor) 113 Request for Public Hearing (Gayle Titus) dated October 18, 2003 114 Request for Public Hearing (Joyce Cowan) dated October 18, 2003 115 Letter from Ken Ogden Authorizing Plans to be Copied 116 Fax from Ken Ogden regarding Copyright 117-120 Email Correspondence from Colin Swales dated October 28, 2003, 121-124 October 27, 2003 and October 15, 2003 Planning Staff Approval Public Notice and Applicable 125-126 Criteria (mailed to neighboring property owners within 100 feet) Findings & Order (Bill Molnar, Senior Planner) 127-129 · Applicant's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 130-257 for a Physical and Enviromentai Constraints Permit by Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Applicants Application Form 258-259 Hearings Board Transcript of November 12, 2003 Public Hearing 1-18 III RELEVANT SUBSTANTIVE APPROVAL CRITERIA The Hearings Board has determined that the following constitute all of the relevant substantive criteria which are prerequisite to approval of the proposed Physical and Enviromental Constraints Review land use application on land designated Hillside Lands and within a Residential Historic district. The below standards and criteria of the 'City of Ashland Physical and Environmental Constraints Review are cited verbatim hereinbelow. In Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 2 City of Ashland, Oregon Section V, each relevant standard and criterion (or groups of standards and criteria) are followed by the conclusions of law and ultimate conclusions of the Hearings Board. The conclusions of law and ultimate conclusions are based upon the findings of fact in Section IV and the evidence enumerated in Section II. PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT AShland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC)) ALUO Chapter 18.62, Physical Constraints Review Permit ALUO 18.62.040(I) Criteria for Approval. A Physical Constrains Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following: 1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. 2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or 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 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 drive, or driveway on land greater than 35% slope does not exceed a length of 100 feet. 4. Geotechnical Studies. For all applications on Hillside Lands involving subdivisions or partitions, * * B. Hillside Grading and Erosion Control. All development on lands classified as hillside shall provide plans conforming with the following items: All grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans for development on Hillside Lands shall be designed by a geotechnical expert. All cuts, grading or fills shall conform to Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. Erosion control measures on the development site shall be required to minimize the solids in runoff from disturbed areas. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 /4/- /..~ ~IV~AR 0 3 Z0p0ag4e 3 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 exped. The modification of dates shall be the minimum necessary, based upon evidence provided by the applicant, to accomplish the necessary project goals. Retention in natural state. On all projects on Hillside Lands involving paditions and subdivisions, and existing lots with an area greater than one-half acre, an area equal to 25% of the total project area, plus the percentage figure of the average slope of the total project area, shall be retained in a natural state. Lands to be retained in a natural state shall be protected from damage through the use of temporary construction fencing or the functional equivalent. For example, on a 25,000 sq. ft. lot with an average slope of 29%, 25%+29%=54% of the total lot area shall be retained in a natural state. The retention in a natural state of areas greater than the minimum percentage required here is encouraged. Grading - cuts. On all cut slopes on areas classified as Hillside lands, the following standards shall apply: Cut slope angles shall be determined in relationship to the type of materials of which they are composed. Where the soil permits, limit the total area exposed to precipitation and erosion. Steep cut slopes shall be retained with stacked rock, retaining walls, or functional equivalent to control erosion and provide slope stability when necessary. VVhere cut slopes are required to be laid back (1:1 or less steep), the slope shall be protected with erosion control getting or structural equivalent installed per manufacturers specifications, and revegetated. Exposed cut slopes, such as those for streets, driveway accesses, or yard areas, greater than seven feet in height shall be terraced. Cut faces on a terraced section shall not exceed a maximum height of five feet. Terrace widths shall be a minimum of three feet to allow for the introduction of vegetation for erosion control. Total cut slopes shall not exceed a maximum vertical height of 15 feet. (See Graphic) Revegetation of cut slope terraces shall include the provision of a planting plan, introduction to topsoil where necessary, and the use of irrigation if necessary. The vegetation used for these areas shall be native or species similar in resource value which will survive, help reduce the visual impact of the cut slope, and assist in providing long term slope stabilization. Trees, bush-type plantings and cascading vine-type plantings may be appropriate. 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. Utilities. Whenever possible, utilities shall not be located or installed on or in fill slopes. VVhen determined that it necessary to install utilities on fill slopes, all plans shall be designed by a geotechnical expert. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 4 City of Ashland, Oregon Revegetation of fill slopes shall utilize native vegetation or vegetation similar in resource value and which will survive and stabilize the surface. Irrigation may be provided to ensure growth if necessary. Evidence shall be required indicating long-term viability of the proposed vegetation for the purposes of erosion control on disturbed areas. Revegetation requirements. Where required by this chapter, all required revegetation of cut and fill slopes shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, signature of a required survey plat, or other time as determined by the hearing authority. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be substantially established within one year of installation. 7. Maintenance, Security, and Penalties for Erosion Control Measures. Maintenance. All measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control, including but not limited to vegetative cover, rock walls, and landscaping, shall be maintained in perpetuity on all areas which have been disturbed, including public rights-of-way. The applicant shall provide evidence indicating the mechanisms in place to ensure maintenance of measures. Security. Except for individual lots existing prior to January 1, 1998, after an Erosion Control Plan is approved by the hearing authority and prior to construction, the applicant shall provide a performance bond or other financial guarantees in the amount of 120% of the value of the erosion control measures necessary to stabilize the site. Any financial guarantee instrument proposed other than a performance bond shall be approved by the City Attorney. The financial guarantee instrument shall be in effect for a period of at least one year, and shall be released when the Planning Director and Public Works Director determine, jointly, that the site has been stabilized. All or a portion of the security retained by the City may be withheld for a period up to five years beyond the one year maintenance period if it has been determined by the City that the site has not been sufficiently stabilized against erosion. 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) 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. C. Surface and Groundwater Drainage. All development on Hillside Lands shall conform to the following standards: All facilities for the collection of stormwater runoff shall be required to be constructed on the site and according to the following requirements: 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 pad of the overall site improvements, shall be, to the greatest extent feasible, the first improvements constructed on the development site. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 4L/ 0 3 2004 Page 5 City of Ashland, Oregon c. Stormwater facilities shall be designed to dived 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 propedies. 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 headng authority, the evaluation shall be conducted by a landscape professional. Factors included in this determination shall include: a. Tree health. Healthy trees can better withstand the rigors of development than non-vigorous trees. Tree Structure. Trees with severe decay or substantial defects are more likely to result in damage to people and property. Species. Species vary in their ability to tolerate impacts and damage to their environment. d. Potential longevity. e. Variety. A variety of native tree species and ages f. Size. Large trees provide a greater protection for erosion and shade than smaller trees. 3. Tree Conservation in Project Design. Significant trees (2' d.b.h, or greater conifers and 1' d.b.h, or greater broadlea0 shall be protected and incorporated into the project design whenever possible. Streets, driveways, buildings, utilities, parking areas, and other site disturbances shall be located such that the maximum number of existing trees on the site are preserved, while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 6 City of Ashland, Oregon Building envelopes shall be located and sized to preserve the maximum number of trees on site while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. c. Layout of the project site utility and grading plan shall avoid disturbance of tree protection areas. 4. Tree Protection. On all properties where trees are required to be preserved during the course of development, the developer shall follow the following tree protection standards: All trees designated for conservation shall be clearly marked on the project site. Prior to the start of any clearing, stripping, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation, the applicant shall install fencing at the drip line of all trees to be preserved adjacent to or in the area to be altered. Temporary fencing shall be established at the perimeter of the dripline. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits, the fences may be inspected and their location approved by the Staff Advisor. (see graphic) Construction site activities, including but not limited to parking, material storage, soil compaction and concrete washout, shall be arranged so as to prevent disturbances within tree protection areas. No grading, stripping, compaction, or significant change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the drip line of trees designated for conservation unless indicated on the grading plans, as approved by the City, and landscape professional. If grading or construction is approved within the dripline, a landscape professional may be required to be present during grading operations, and shall have authority to require protective measures to protect the roots. Changes in soil hydrology and site drainage within tree protection areas shall be minimized. Excessive site run-off shall be directed to appropriate storm drain facilities and away from trees designated for conservation. Should encroachment into a tree protection area occur which causes irreparable damage, as determined by a landscape professional, to trees, the project plan shall be revised to compensate for the loss. Under no circumstances shall the developer be relieved of responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this chapter Tree Removal. Development shall be designed to preserve the maximum number of trees on a site. The development shall follow the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in VVildfire Lands. When justified by findings of fact, the hearing authority may approve the removal of trees for one or more of the following conditions: (Ord 2834 S3, 1998) a. The tree is located within the building envelope. b. The tree is located within a proposed street, driveway, or parking area. c. The tree is located within a water, sewer, or other public utility easement. d. The tree is determined by a landscape professional to be dead or diseased, or it constitutes an unacceptable hazard to life or property when evaluated by the standards in 18.62.080.D.2. e. The tree is located within or adjacent to areas of cuts or fills that are deemed threatening to the life of the tree, as determined by a landscape professional. Tree Replacement. Trees approved for removal, with the exception of trees removed because they were determined to be diseased, dead, or a hazard, shall be replaced in compliance with the following standards: a. Replacement trees shall be indicated on a tree replanting plan. The replanting plan shall include all locations for replacement trees, and shall also indicate tree planting details.(Ord 2834 S4, 1998) b. Replacement trees shall be planted such that the trees will in time result in canopy equal to or greater than the tree canopy present prior to development of the property. The canopy Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 / 7 MAR 0 3 2004 Page 7 City of Ashland, Oregon shall be designed to mitigate of the impact of paved and developed areas, reduce surface erosion and increase slope stability.. Replacement tree locations shall consider impact on the wildfire prevention and control plan. The hearing authority shall have the discretion to adjust the proposed replacement tree canopy based upon site-specific evidence and testimony. Maintenance of replacement trees shall be the responsibility of the property owner. Required replacement trees shall be continuously maintained in a healthy manner. Trees that die within the first five years after initial planting must be replaced in kind, after which a new five year replacement period shall begin. Replanting must occur within 30 days of notification unless otherwise noted. (Ord 2834 S5, 1998) 7. Enforcement All tree removal shall be done in accord with the approved tree removal and replacement plan. No trees designated for conservation shall be removed without prior approval of the City of Ashland. Should the developer or developer's agent remove or destroy any tree that has been designated for conservation, the developer may be fined up to three times the current appraised value of the replacement trees and cost of replacement or up to three times the current market value, as established by a professional arborist, whichever is greater. Should the developer or developer's agent damage any tree that has been designated for protection and conservation, the developer shall be penalized $50.00 per scar. If necessary, a professional arborist's report, prepared at the developer's expense, may be required to determine the extent of the damage. Should the damage result in loss of appraised value greater than determined above, the higher of the two values shall be used. 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 engineer or architect with demonstrable geotechnical design experience. A designer, as defined, shall not complete working drawings without having foundations designed by an engineer. All newly created lots or lots modified by a lot line adjustment must include a building envelope on all lots that contains a buildable area less than 35% slope of sufficient size to accommodate the uses permitted in the underlying zone, unless the division or lot line adjustment is for open space or conservation purposes. TREE PRESERVATION & PROTECTION ALUO 18.61.200 Tree Protection Tree Protection as required by this section is applicable to any planning action or building permit. A. Tree Protection Plan Required. A Tree Protection Plan approved by the Staff Advisor shall be required prior to conducting any development activities including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation, or demolition work on a property or site, which requires a planning action or building permit. In order to obtain approval of a Tree Protection Plan; an applicant shall submit a plan to the City, which clearly depicts all trees to be preserved and/or removed on the site. The plan must be drawn to scale and include the following: a. Location, species, and diameter of each tree on site and within 15 feet of the site; b. Location of the drip line of each tree; c. Location of existing and proposed roads, water, sanitary and storm sewer, irrigation, and other utility lines/facilities and easements; Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 8 City of Ashland, Oregon d. Location of dry wells, drain lines and soakage trenches; e. Location of proposed and existing structures; f. Grade change or cut and fill during or after construction; g. Existing and proposed impervious surfaces; h. Identification of a contact person and/or arborist who will be responsible for implementing and maintaining the approved tree protection plan; and i. Location and type of tree protection measures to be installed per AMC 18.61.230. For development requiring a planning action, the Tree Preservation Plan shall include an inventory of all trees on site, their health or hazard condition, and recommendations for treatment for each tree. 13. Tree Protection Measures Required. Except as otherwise determined by the Staff Advisor, all required tree protection measures set forth in this section shall be instituted prior to any development activities, including, but not limited to clearin9, grading, excavation or demolition work, and shall be removed only after completion of all construction activity, including landscaping and irrigation installation. Chain link fencing, a minimum of six feet tall with steel posts placed no fadher than ten feet apart, shall be installed at the edge of the tree protection zone or dripline, whichever is greater, and at the boundary of any open space tracts, ripadan areas, or conservation easements that abut the parcel being developed. 3. The fencing shall be flush with the initial undisturbed grade. Approved signs shall be attached to the chain link fencing stating that inside the fencing is a tree protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior approval has been obtained from the Staff Advisor for the project. No construction activity shall occur within the tree protection zone, including, but not limited to dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste items, equipment, or parked vehicles. The tree protection zone shall remain free of chemically injurious materials and liquids such as paints, thinners, cleaning solutions, petroleum products, and concrete or dry wall excess, construction debris, or m-off. 7. No excavation, trenching, grading, root pruning or other activity shall occur within the tree protection zone unless approved by the Staff Advisor. Inspection. The applicant shall not proceed with any construction activity, except installation of erosion control measures, until the City has inspected and approved the installation of the required tree protection measures and a building and/or grading permit has been issued by the City. Findings of Fact and ConclusiOns of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 2004 Page 9 City of Ashland, Oregon IV FINDINGS OF FACT The Hearings Board reaches the following facts and finds them to be true with respect to this matter: A. SUBJECT PROPERTY Property Description; Acreage; Ownership: The subject property is described in the records of the Jackson County Assessor as Tax Lots 7200 and 7400 (39-1E-09BC). Tax Lot 7200 is 0.09 acres and Tax Lot 7400 is 0.88 acre. Applicant proposes to adjust the boundary common to both parcels. There is a pending application to adjust the parcel boundaries. This project concerns the proposed adjusted Tax Lot 7200. After the boundary adjustment, Tax Lot 7200 will have 0.52 acre (22,661 square feet). The property is owned by Sidney B. De Boer, Trustee FBO 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. 3. Standard Yard Requirements: The following yard requirements are the minimum setbacks for structures within the R-1-7.5 zoning district: · 15-feet front yard excluding the garage · 6-feet side yard · 1 O-feet rear yard with an additional ten feet for each story in excess of the first story · Garages, accessed from the front, shall have a minimum setback of 20 feet from the from property line: A lot line adjustment has been proposed between adjacent Tax Lots 7200 and 7400. All. plans in connection with this application assume approval of the proposed lot line adjustment (and the reconfigured Tax Lot 7200) and the Board refers to this land interchangeably as "the property," the "subject property" or the "reconfigured subject property." The Board f'mds that the adjusted parcels comply with all relevant provisions of the ALUO. The proposed dwelling will be 19 feet from the front property line on Glenview Street, 44 feet from the rear property line on Vista Street, 63 feet from the west property line and 17 feet from the east property line? The existing garage presently meets : The garage on the subject property (adjusted Tax Lot 7200) will take access from the rear of the property off Glenview Drive. 3 The front yard of the subject property is the portion of Tax Lot 7200 which fronts upon Glenview Drive. The rear yard is the portion of Tax Lot 7200 which fronts on Vista Drive. Findings of Fact, and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 MAR 0 3 Z004 Page 10 City of Ashland, Oregon Se e ® the yard/setback requirements of the ALUO and will comply following the proposed lot line adjustment. See, Record p. 165. Building Height: The maximum building height within the R-1-7.5 zone is thirty-five (35) feet or two and one-half (2%) stories in height, whichever is less. The proposed residence has a gable roof. ALUO 18.08.290 defines height of buildings, as it pertains to the proposed structure, as the vertical distance from the grade to the average height of the highest gable. The average height of the highest gable is 35-feet above grade. See, Record p. 164. As to number of stories, applicants contend and the plans show that the proposed dwelling has 2-½ stories above the planned basement (which is not a story pursuant to the term definition of "basement" and "grade" in ALUO 18.08.740 and 18.08.280, respectively). Existing Land Use: Tax Lot 7200 is presently developed with a single-family dwelling. A lot line adjustment has been proposed between Tax Lot 7200 and 7400. The lot line adjustment can be approved because the resulting parcels comply with all relevant substantive provisions of the ALUO. Tax Lot 7400 is developed with a single-family residence and two accessory structures garages. If the lot line adjustment is approved, the property boundary will be relocated so that one single-family residence and the existing 576 square foot garage will be located on Tax Lot 7400 and the existing 3,618 square foot two-story garage and the proposed single-family dwelling will be located on Tax Lot 7200. Applicants plans show the property in its adjusted configuration. Nature of the Proposed Use: The proposed development will require the demolition of the existing single-family residence on what is now Tax Lot 7200 to allow for the eoustmetion of the proposed single-family residence. The city has approved a Demolition Permit for this single-family residence. Proposed development will include a residence with basement and three additional levels, one of which is an attic, a swimming pool and conservatory. Lot Coverage and Structure Square Footage: Maximum lot coverage within the R-1- 7.5 zone is forty-five (45) percent. Based upon the proposed lot line adjustment between Tax Lots 7400 and 7200, the adjusted Tax Lot 7200 will have 22,661 square feet. The proposed dwelling and other site features (which together comprise lot coverage under the ALUO) will be 10,171 square feet -- 44.9 percent. See, Record p. 169. Se Special Considerations: The subject property is identified on the Physical Constraints map as Hillside Lands and has areas where the slope exceeds 25 percent. The subject property is within a Residential Historic District. 9. Timeline for Development: See, Record p. 254 10. Building Envelope: Various standards in the ALUO require the delineation of a building envelope and the same is shown on the plan at Record p. 169 wherein it is called the "Setback Line." Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 MAR 0 3 2004' Page 11 City of Ashland, Oregon B. HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL LANDS The following f'mdings of fact relate to the designation of the property as Hillside Residemial Lands pursuant to ALUO 18.62.080: Protected Hillside Areas: Pursuant to ALUO 18.62.050(C)(1) the reconfigured subject property is included on the Physical Constraints Overlay Map. As established in 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 that portion of the property which has 22 to 30 percent slopes. Based upon Record p. 255, a letter from applicants registered land surveyor, Hoffbuhr & Associates, Inc., the average slope of the subject property is 28 percent. 3. Driveway: Based upon Record p. 165 and 253 the driveway to serve the new dwelling is on terrain which has a grade of less than 35 percent. e Grading, Fill and Erosion Control: Grading and erosion control has been designed by applicants licensed Geotechnical Engineer in Record p. 223-248 (Site Evaluation and Geotechnical Engineering Report). Record p. 223-248 established the geotechnical parameters for design with respect to grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans, which was used by applicants civil engineers, Hardey & Associates, Inc. to prepare thc civil engineering plans for this project. As demonstrated by applicants plans -- Record p. 164 -- the potential for erosion has been mitigated through the planned installation of retaining walls which will minimize the erosion of solid matter in the disturbed areas on the site. Grading cuts have been limited to only the extent needed to accommodate the proposed dwelling and protected to the extent possible to protect the area from erosion. Cuts: The only cuts to be made on the property are those necessary to accommodate the dwelling footprint and driveway. Cuts for the dwelling will be retained by its foundation walls. Cuts for the driveway are proposed to be retained by engineered masonry walls. The materials in which the cuts will be made are established in Record p. 223-248. On portions of the property where terracing is proposed, no terraced section exceeds a height of five feet nor separated by more than three feet. The total maximum vertical height of the cut slopes is not greater than fifteen feet. See, 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 developed by Kerry KenCalm, applicants Landscape Architect, licensed in Oregon. See, Record p. 195-197. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 MAR 0 3 2004 Page 12 City of Ashland, Oregon e Retention in Natural State: The subject site -- the reconfigured parcel after the proposed lot line adjustment -- will be 22,661 square feet or 0.52 acres in size. Based upon Record p. 255, the average slope of the reconfigured parcel is 28 percent. See, Record p. 255. Pursuant to ALUO 18.62.080(B)(3) this property is to have 55 percent of its area retained in a natural state. Both existing parcels (proposed to be reconfigured) have been previously developed with dwellings and accessory garage structures. As such, this property has no undisturbed areas. However, the ALUO defines the term "natural state" to mean: Natural State - all land and water that remains undeveloped and undisturbed. This means that grading, excavating, filling and/or the construction of roadways, driveways, parking areas, and structures are prohibited. Incidental minor grading for hiking trails, bicycle paths, picnic areas and planting and landscaping which is in addition to and enhances the natural environment is permitted. Incidental brush removal for lot maintenance and ecosystem health is permitted. Further, vegetation removal for the purposes of wildfire control in conjunction with an approved fire prevention and · control plan shall also be permitted. Based upon Record p. 163-222 plans, 55 percent of the reconfigured subject property will be left undeveloped and devoted to landscaping and other non-structural site improvements. e 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 fight-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. de Electricity; Natural Gas: According to representatives for the City of Ashland Electric Department, the existing residence presently receives electric power and power will be available for the proposed residence. Electric power will be used for cooling and lighting of proposed residence. Heat for the dwelling will be supplied by natural gas. e. Urban Storm Drainage: An 8-inch underground storm drain exists at the intersection of Vista Street and Glenview Drive. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Pianrdng Action 2003-118 0 3 2004 Page 13 City of Ashland, Oregon e e SOLAR ACCESS: The proposed dwelling observes the solar access standards of the City of Ashland and the same is evidenced by Record p. 165. TREE PROTECTION; REMOVAL; REPLACEMENT Tree Removal Permit: Single-family residential zones which are occupied by a single- family detached dwelling and their associated accessory structures, are .exempt from the requirement to obtain a tree removal permit. However, lands subject to the Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance are further regulated by Chapter 18.62 and 18.61.200. Tree Removal: The removal of trees from the reconfigured property falls under four categories as follows: ae Trees Already Removed within Protected Hillside Areas: Based upon a rrd. sunderstanding shared by applicants and the Ashland Planning Department, applicants removed five trees within the Protected Hillside Area. See, p. 16 Hearings Board Transcript of November 12, 2003 Public Hearing. Applicants propose to mitigate the removal of these trees by agreeing to stipulate to planting 10 trees within a public location to be determined by the Ashland Tree Commission. See, Section VI. b. Trees Already Removed which are not Regulated: Applicants removed two trees on that portion of the subject property which is not within the Protected Hillside Area. c. Trees to be Removed within Protected Hillside Areas: As shown on Record p. 197, two additional trees are proposed to be removed within the protected area. de Trees to be Removed which are not regulated. As shown on Record p. 197, seven additional trees are proposed to be removed within the non-protected portion of the recomfigured subject property. Tree Protection: Applicants licensed landscape architect has proposed the methods by which existing trees (to be preserved) will be protected and the same is shown on Record p. 197. The methods of trees protection are consistent with the requirements for protection as set forth in ALUO18.62.080(D)(4). Tree Replacement: In addition to the ten trees applicants have agreed to supply for planting on public lands located elsewhere: 1) the 6-inch caliper Incense Cedar (Calocedrus decurrens) will be replaced (on-site) with a 10-foot tall Deodar Cedar (Cedrus deodara), and 2) the 12-inch Ponderosa Pine (Pinus ponderosa) will be replaced (on-site) with a 2-inch caliper Japanese Pagoda Tree (Sophorajaponica). Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 0 3 2004 Page 14 City of Ashland, Oregon E. TREE PROTECTION; REMOVAL; REPLACEMENT Pursuant to ALUO 18.62.090, the Hearings Board finds that the reconfigured subject property is included on the Physical Constraints Overlay Map as Wildfire Lands. F. SURROUNDING IMPACT AREA The Hearings Board finds that the surrounding impact area is defined as that area entitled to notice of this application. The notice area is an area which is 200 feet from-the boundaries of the subject property. V CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Hearings Board reaches the following conclusions of law and ultimate conclusions under each of the relevant substantive criteria. The conclusions of law are preceded by the criterion or criteria to which they relate and are supported by findings of fact as set forth in Section IV herein above and by the evidence enumerated in Section II: The Heatings Board reaches the following conclusions of law for each of the relevant substantive criteria. In setting forth its conclusions of law for this application, the Hearings Board observes that there are a great many standards and approval criteria, many of which are related. The Board has not attempted to identify all of the linkages among the standards and criteria, although in some instances, it has explicitly incorporated by reference and adopted the Conclusions of law for one criterion and applied the same to another. _The Board's intention, however, and it so hereby declares, is that the conclusions of law for each criterion is incorporated and adopted for all of the other individual criteria. Additionally, while this 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 Hearings Board: PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Title 18) ALUO CHAPTER 62 PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ALUO 18.62.040(I) Criteria for Approval. A Physical Constrains Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following: Criterion I 1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the properly and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 NAR 0 3.2004 Page 15 City of Ashland, Oregon Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concludes that the, "development standards of this chapter," are the Standards in ALUO 18.62.80. These standards address the preservation of natural areas (portions of 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 Hearings Board rejects opponents' argument that applicants have improperly limited the scope of the impact analysis by limiting it to the notice area. They argue that the prominent location of the subject property requires the Board to consider impacts to the entire city. They support their argument by citing the 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 Board 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. Applicants' proposed use is one permitted outright in the zone, subject only to physical and Environmental Constraints Review. This distinguishes the application from those ALUO 18.104 uses which may only be conditionally permitted in city zoning districts and which may require an expanded impact area analysis. While the Board finds and concludes the phrase "impact area" as defined in ALUO 18.104 is not relevant to ALUO 18.62 applications, ALUO 18.62.050(1) does require consideration of impacts to "...the property and nearby areas..." In this instance, the evidence shows that all physical and environmental impacts governed by ALUO 18.62.080 or 18.62.090 will be limited to the boundaries of the subject property and do not even reach the other nearby lands which could be entitled to public notice of this proceeding. The evidence further shows that the site will be completely stabilized following construction. See, Record p. 86A. Therefore, the Board concludes that the potential impact area does not need to be expanded beyond the area entitled to notice of this proceeding; that "nearby areas" includes and is limited to property lying within the prescribed notice area as required by ALUO 18.108.080. Opponent Swales also argues that the impacts of this project are those related to elements of "identity, aesthetic quality and visual character," all elements recited in the purpose statement for ALUO 18.62.080 which are therein set forth as follows: It is the purpose of the Development Standards for Hillside Lands to provide supplementary development regulations to underlying zones to ensure that development occurs in such a manner asto protect the natural and topographic character and identity of these areas, environmental resources, the aesthetic qualities and restorative value of lands, and the public health, safety, and general welfare by insuring that development does not create soil erosion, sedimentation of lower slopes, slide damage, flooding problems, and severe cutting or scarring. It is the intent of these development standards to encourage a sensitive form of development and to allow for a reasonable use that complements the natural and visual character of the city. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 16 City of Ashland, Oregon Opponent here attempts to bootstrap from the general language in this purpose statement, to arguments that relate to issues of visual and historical impact which the Hearings Board' concludes are not matters of consideration in this application. For reasons discussed more fully below, the Board concludes the purpose statement of ALUO Chapter 18.62.080 does not contain independent approval criteria and even if it did, the language in the purpose statement does not permit the Board to decide this application based upon elements of historic compatibility as urged by this opponent. The purpose statement in ALUO 18.62.080 deals with matters related to identity, character and the aesthetic value of lands, but these are in the context of protecting Ashland hillsides, not its historic elements. Moreover, the Board believes it is only entitled to apply the purpose statement in resolving ambiguities in the ordinance. As the Board has concluded, the language of Criterion 1 is clear and unambiguous. Therefore, Mr. Swales objection here does not merit further consideration. The Board herewith incorporates and adopts its f'mdings of fact and conclusions of law for below Criterion 10 which deals with portions of the property which are in a "natural state." The Board concludes that natural areas (as used in Criterion 1) and areas to be preserved in a "natural state" mean the same thing. From the record, the Board finds that the subject property has already been developed with dwellings, garage, driveway, a swimming pool, pedestrian walkways and ornamental landscaping. As such, this application involves the redevelopment of a previously developed land. As found under Criterion 10, all portions of this property have been "disturbed" such that no portions presently exist in a natural state. While some may argue that native trees constitute land in a natural state, the ground beneath the trees has been disturbed by grading and ornamental landscaping which has been and is artificially irrigated and maintained. The Board concludes from the evidence that no portions of this property can fairly be characterized as natural areas or areas which are in a natural state; applicants cannot be made to preserve that which does not 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 and there has been more information supplied with this application than has ever been supplied to the city in support of one single-family dwelling. The Hearings Board concludes from the evidence that all reasonable and appropriate measures have been employed and all standards and requirements of the City of Ashland have been incorporated into applicants' design/development plans. The evidence also shows that, following the redevelopment of the property, all areas potentially subject to erosion will be stabilized with retaining walls and plantings such that all potential impacts have been addressed and carefully minimized and mitigated. See, Record p. 86A and 223-248. The Hearings Board has considered the potential impacts to nearby areas, and concludes that this project will not produce any impacts beyond the boundaries of the subject property. With respect to tree protection, the Hearings Board concludes: While some trees on the property were removed without benefit of public review, applicants have proposed to replace these at a rate that is consistent with and exceeds the requirements of the ALUO -- a ratio of two replacement trees for each removed tree. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 gAR 0 3 2004 P,ge '17 City of Ashland, Oregon Although some additional trees (within the regulated hillside area) are proposed to be removed, they too will be replaced at a ratio of two 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. During the proceeding, opponent Colin Swales argued in Record p. 36 through 41 that several ambiguities may exist in the three approval criteria in ALUO 18.62.1M0(I) -- Criterion 1 through 3 herein m and these should be resolved pursuant to ALUO 18.108.160.n In support, he cites several passages of what appears to be plan text and various comprehensive plan goals and policies which deal with issues of urban forestry, visual resources and historic sites/structures. These objections have also been dealt with at the end of these conclusions of law under the heading, "Objections Deemed to be Unrelated to the Relevant Substantive Approval Criteria" and the same are herewith incorporated and adopted. The Hearings Board concludes that Criterion 1 is neither unclear nor ambiguous in ways that require the Board to interpret its provisions by relying on the comprehensive plan or purpose statements in ALUO 18.62. The examples of potential ambiguity that this opponent cites are, "potential impacts," "nearby areas," "minimized," "mitigate," "reasonable steps," shall be considered more seriously," and "shall consider ... surrounding area." While 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 require the Board to apply the facts of this application to them. Contending the ordinance is ambiguous, Mr. Swales then argues that language from the Comprehensive Plan must be consulted in order to resolve the ambiguities and arrive at a proper interpretation of the ordinance itself. If Board found any of the cited passages to be 4 ALUO 18.108.160 Ordinance Interpretations. A. When in the administration of the Land Use Ordinance there is doubt regarding its intent, the suitability of uses not specified or the meaning of a word or phrase, the Staff Advisor may interpret the provision in writing or refer the provision to the Commission for interpretation. The Commission shall issue an interpretation in writing to resolve the doubt. Neither the Staff Advisor's interpretation nor the Commission's shall have the effect of amending the provisions of the Land Use Ordinance. Any interpretation of the Land Use Ordinance shall be based on the following considerations: 1. The comprehensive plan; 2. The purpose and intent of the Land Use Ordinance as applied to the particular section in question; and 3. The opinion of the City Attorney. B. The interpretation of the Staff Advisor shall be forwarded to the Commission who shall have the authority to modify the interpretation. The interpretation of the Commission shall be forwarded to the Council who shall have the authority to modify the interpretation. Whenever such an interpretation is of general public interest, copies of such interpretation shall be made available for public distribution. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 4- 2 ~AR 0 3 2004 Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 18 City of Ashland, Oregon ambiguous, nowhere does Mr. Swales explain how any of the cited plan provisions would be helpful in resolving such ambiguities and the Board concludes they would not be helpful. The plan provisions citied appear to be used to urge the Board to apply standards of historic preservation to an application that does not regard such standards. Pursuant to ORS 197.763, opponents are required to raise issues with accompanying statements or evidence that is sufficient to afford the decision maker and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue. The way this opponent has raised issues here, does. not permit the Board to understand how the various cited plan provisions aid the Board in the interpretation of provisions which the Board has found are not ambiguous. During the proceeding, nearby property owners Charles and Margaret Howe, testified that during the 1996-97 flood, portions of the roadside fill slid off the roadbed of decomposed granite causing the fill to backup against one of their buildings on tax lot 6300. "The flooding was caused by a plugged storm drain at Vista and Hillcrest. This came at a time when two houses across Vista to the south were raised and fill added to reach a new level and contour." Mr. and Mrs. Howe express their concern as a question, inquiring if there is more fill on the subject property, will there be any changes in the movement of underground water? During the public hearing, Ashland Planning Department's Mark Knox observed that during the 1997 flood, "there were failures everywhere in town." The Board can f'md no tangible connection between the slippage of roadside fill well below the subject property (and during a major flood event) and the construction of this dwelling, given that the expert evidence from applicants geotechnical engineer has clearly established that the subject property will be completely stabilized after the dwelling is completed. See, Record p. $6A. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 1. Criterion 2 2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concludes that applicants have evidenced their consideration of the potential hazards (that this development might create) in the conduct of detailed geotechnical investigations. The Heatings Board also concludes that applicants have properly evidenced the implementation of mitigation measures by incorporating the geotechnical investigations into the architectural, engineering and landscape plans of record and in the stipulations applicants agreed to in tendering this application. At Record p. 21, opponent Colin Swales contended that the application did not show volumes of cut and fill, whether any material will be imported to or exported from the site or the nature/type of material to be used. Mr. Swales further argued that the fill to be used for lawn will be retained only with a rubble wall, putting owners below the wall in danger of liquefaction of the fill material during flood conditions. On these objections, the Hearings Board concludes: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 IAR 0 3 2004 Page 19 City of Ashland, Oregon There is no requirement under the ALUO to show volumes of cut and fill or whether material will be imported or exported from the site, and this opponent cites nothing to support his position. As to rubble retaining walls, applicant's agent testified at Record p. 5 that applicants have not proposed rubble retaining walls. Applicants agent further testified there that in the geotechnical report by applicants expert geotechnical engineer, som6 of the retaining walls are recommended to be "rookeries" (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. As to the potential for liquefaction, there is nothing in Ashland's comprehensive plan nor the ALUO that suggests liquefaction poses any threat in Ashland and this opponent cites nothing to support his contention that liquefaction is a hazard. The Board further concludes that this property is not subject to flooding as no streams exist in the area. The record shows that applicants engaged qualified civil, structural and geotechnical engineers, architects and landscape architects to design this project. The Board concludes from the evidence that applicant's consultants are all qualified experts and that this project has been designed and engineered in ways which ensure that all applicable requirements of the ALUO's Physical and Environmental Constraints chapter were been appropriately addressed, including the potential effects of drainage, erosion and sloughing. Therefore and based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board concludes that the application is consistent with Criterion 2. Criterion 3 That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Hearings Board shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. Conclusions of Law: The potential for adverse impacts upon' the environment include, erosion and mass movement, loss of natural areas, trees and tree canopies, loss of wildlife habitat. Based upon the evidence, the Hearings Board concludes that applicants have undertaken the following reasonable steps to reduce adverse impacts upon the environment: 1. Applicants have engaged qualified experts who have offered recommendations as to the best methods to accommodate the proposed new dwelling. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 0 3 2004 Page 20 City of Ashland, Oregon Applicants design professionals have incorporated all environmental mitigation recommendations into the design and construction plans for the reconfigured subject property. 3. In its consideration of this application, the Heatings Board has examined the surrounding area and development that now exists. 4. Based upon the foregoing fmdings of fact and conclusions of law, the Heatings Board concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 3. At Record p. 21, opponent Colin Swales contended that hillside impacts from massive cutting of native significant trees is irreversible and needs to be mitigated by replanting close to the area of impact to stabilize the site and restore the gap in the tree canopy. The Hearings Board concludes that applicants agreed to the tree mitigation plan recommended by Ashland's Tree Commission which requires replanting 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,s Moreover, the evidence shows that following construction, this property will be completely stabilized with vegetation, landscaping, rookeries and engineered retaining walls. See, Record p. 86A. At Record p. 69, opponent George Kramer contended that applicants too narrowly defined the surrounding area and if it was more accurately described, this proposal would be inconsistent with the surrounding development pattern. Mr. Kramer further argued that few if any neighborhood structures are as tall, large in volume or are built upon the steepest portion of a lot and that the proposed dwelling does not nestle into the neighborhood as do other dwellings and it will be visible from the valley floor and downtown. The Hearings Board concludes that the objections of this opponent, are aimed at the application of historic/architectural standards and criteria that simply do not apply in this instance. In his letter of November 17, 2003, this opponent argues that the application should be denied as inconsistent with the surrounding development pursuant to Criterion 3. The only basis to consider existing development of the surrounding area, is in the context of Criterion 3, and it states only that the Board must consider the same and the maximum permitted development under the ALUO. The Heatings Board concludes this requires only that, in determining the adverse environmental impacts, the Board must consider existing development in the surrounding area and, for vacant or underdeveloped properties, the Board must consider the environmental impacts as if these lands were developed to the maximum levels permitted by the ALUO. This language does not provide a basis for the Board to consider historic or architecttmd impacts, nor impacts of a nature not covered by the Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance m ALUO 18.62. Opponent Kramer here urges the Board to interpret the ordinance in ways that are clearly wrong. s 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 believes that applicants acted in good faith based upon advice they received from the Planning Department. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 21 City of Ashland, Oregon During the public hearing (p. 11 of Hearings Board Transcript of November 12, 2003 Public) opponent Bryan Holley, argued that he would like the Hearings Board to give the Historic Commission greater consideration since the property is within a Historic District and is a Historic Commission matter. The Hearings Board concludes that while the Historic Commission reviewed this project and tendered a recommendation to this Board, the recommendation was not based upon the approval criteria for a Physical and Environmental Constraints permit. Instead, the Historic Commission based its recommendations on considerations of historic and architectural compatibility that are unrelated to the approval criteria for this application. As such, the Hearings Board accords little weight to the Historic Commission's recommendation. During the public hearing (p. 11 of Hearings Board Transcript of November 12, 2003) opponent Bryan Holley also argued, sometimes were are told to stick just to the criteria but in other cases we're told not to not stick to the criteria. As an example, Mr. Holley cited the Historic Commission's review of this application. The Hearings Board believes that Mr. Holl~y's point is that the Historic Commission did not utilize any approval criteria in its consideration of this matter. The Hearings Board finds that while the Historic Commission might have employed the approval criteria for this application for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit, it chose instead to offer only general comments concerning aspects of the project that are unrelated to the relevant substantive criteria on which this Board is required to render its decision. There are simply no historic or architeetuml standards or criteria applicable to this application other than those which relate to the p~---"--' ........ '-'- ~-- ~:"-" ~ .... ~ ---" ~'-- '-- ~ - Also during the public heating (p. 11 of Hearings Board Transcript of November 12, 2003 Public Hearing) opponent Holley further argued that, "since some of the important trees that might have stopped the project in its tracks were illegally removed I guess that's sort of a catch 22 then." The Hearings Board concludes that this statement is inaccurate. The Board finds that there is no provision in the ALUO which would have either prevented the removal of the trees (mistakenly removed by applicant) or would have prevented approval of this application. During the public heating (la. 21 of Hearings Board Transcript of November 12, 2003 Public Hearing) opponent Colin Swales argued that the cutting of native significant trees is irreversible and that the adverse impacts should be mitigated by the planting of trees near the area where the trees were cut down in order to stabilize the site and restore the gap in the tree canopy. The Hearings Board concludes that nothing in the ALUO requires trees to be replanted in the same locations as those which were mistakenly removed. Furthermore, fxom the evidence, the Board concludes that the trees need not be replaced in these locations in order to stabilize the site; the site will be fully stabilized after construction with the dwelling, retaining walls and landscaping proposed by applicant. See, Record p. g6A. As to restoration of the original tree canopy, there is also nothing in the ALUO which requires canopy restoration. As we earlier concluded, the trees that applicants mistakenly removed, could have been permissibly removed under the terms of the ALUO. 0 3 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law /' ~ ~-~ Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 ZOO4 Page 22 City of Ashland, Oregon Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 3. ALUO 18.62.080 Development Standards for Hillside Lands. Criterion 4 A. General Requirements. The following general requirements shall apply in Hillside Lands. All development shall occur on lands defined as having buildable area. Slopes greater than 35% shall be considered unbuildable except as allowed below. Variances may be granted to this requirement only as provided in section 18.62.080.H. a. Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35% shall be considered buildable for one unit. b. Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35% cannot be subdivided or partitioned. Conclusions of Law: Based upon Record p. 253 and 255 (a topographic survey of the property and letter from applicants surveyor, Hoffbuhr & Associates, Inc.) the Heatings Board concludes that the original natural average slope of this property is 28 percent. No portion of the property, in its original state, exceeded a slope of 35 percent. While this site was altered to accommodate the existing dwelling, landscaping and landscape features (including terracing) the Hearings Board concludes that the altered grades are not an appropriate consideration in this application. Ninety degree cuts made earlier to accommodate the existing dwelling, retaining walls and other built elements on this site proposed for redevelopment, are not a part of the natural topography and the Board concludes that it would be unfair and inappropriate to measure topography by using these features. Instead, the Hearings Board concludes that the original natural terrain is the appropriate measure of slope for the purpose of ascertaining compliance with the development standards for hillside lands pursuant to ALUO 18.62.080. The Hearings Board concludes that this application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 4. Also see the Heatings Board's conclusions of law for Criterion 5. During the public hearing (p. 10 of Hearings Board Transcript of November 12, 2003 Public Hearing), opponent Colin Swales argued that the ALUO does not mention original average slope, it only talks about is slope. The Hearings Board concludes this assertion is not correct. Average slope is addressed in ALUO 18.62.030(B) where that term is defined and again in ALUO 18.62.030(R) which defines the term "slope" and which references a diagram that illustrates how topographic mapping is to be done for the purpose of submitting a complete application. A topographic map consistent with this standard is required in ALUO 18.62.040(H)(1)(k) and the map supplied by applicants (Record p. 253) was done in conformance with this topographic mapping standard. At Record p. 22 opponent Colin Swales argued that the submittals he had entered into the record during the public hearing (Record p. 79-83) include city survey data which indicates the proposed site has slopes of greater than 35 percent and is unbuildable and that other Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 23 City of Ashland, Oregon portions of the site are available. The Heatings Board concludes that Mr. Swales statement that he had provided city survey data, is not accurate; the city has not surveyed the subject property. This submittals in Record p. 79-83 include aerial topographic maps and crossections based upon them. As to Mr. Swales evidence in Record p. 79-83, applicants agents argued and the city staff and Heatings Board agrees: 1. There is no dispute that this property is subject to the Hillside ordinance (ALUO 18.62.080). In determining the grade of property for purposes of developing land under the Hillside Ordinance, the natural grade of the property must be used. This is because, for hillside lands, already developed property (proposed, as here, for redevelopment) has terraces and other built site features used to retain steep slopes, which produce grades that differ significantly from the original natural grades and otherwise make application of and compliance with the Hillside Ordinance infeasible. However, the issue of whether to use the natural grade or existing man-made grades to determine matters under the Hillside Ordinance is somewhat ambiguous and requires interpretation. The purpose of the Hillside Ordinance (expressed in ALUO 18.62.080) is useful in determining whether an existing built grade or natural grade should be used. The Purpose of the Hillside Ordinance exPressed in that section provides in pertinent part: "It is the purpose of the Development Standards for Hillside Lands to * * * protect 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 Heatings Board interprets the term natural grade to mean the topography and terrain before it was altered by human activity. The topographic map (containing slope crossections and calculations) supplied by opponent Swales, contain no data to establish whether the purported grades are natural or man-made and no scale from which to establish the correctness of the measurements. The Hearings Board believes that this map was from city aerial topography flown in 1998 and, as such, is based upon existing built conditions which bear no relationship to the original natural grades. Record p. 253 and 255, from applicants land surveyor, establish the original natural grades based upon a 1978 aerial topographic map and on-site survey work, and are evidence of what the actual historical ground elevations and natural topographic character are or once were. The Board finds that applicants surveyor is a · qualified expert registered in Oregon with whom we are familiar. The Board believes and concludes from the evidence that Mr. Huck undertook the survey on this property, using sound and standard surveying practices and his is appropriate in form and content to enable our evaluation of this application under the approval standards and criteria. NAR 0 3 2004 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland P~annir~ Act]on 2003-118 Parle 24 City of Ashland, Oregon 4. The only data appearing on opponent Swales submittals are his own and not those of a qualified expert. Based upon the evidence, including topographic surveys by applicants registered professional land surveyor, the Heatings Board concludes applicants topographic survey work was undertaken in accordance with Ashland standards and the proposed building site has an average natural slope of 28 percent and is buildable. No portion of the proposed building site has slopes which equal or exceed 35 percent. Soe, Record p. 253 and 255. During the public hearing, Opponent Swales also submitted circa 1910 photographs of Glenview Drive (Record p. 80) near the subject property, which he argued show that the topography of the subject property does not permit the approval of this application. In rebuttal, applicants agents argued that the photograph does not show the subject property and were taken approximately one-quarter mile from the subject property on the west-facing slope above Lithia Park. Applicants agents further argued that there is a distinct difference in slope contours between the different faces of the ridge that Glenview Drive is built on and that it would be unreasonable to associate the slope characteristics of two areas so distant from one another. There are also dimension lines superimposed on one of the photographs which seek to demonstrate some calculation of slope. This photograph is without scale; it is not possible to lay a ruler on a photograph and measure distance with any degree of accuracy. This is simply drawing lines in the air based upon a photograph that does not even depict the subject property, its slope or the surrounding area. The Hearings Board concludes that the photographs of Glenview Drive not at the subject property, are wholly irrelevant. Criterion 5 2. All newly created lots either by subdivision or partition shall contain a building envelope with a slope of 35% or less. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concludes that Criterion 5 is inapplicable by reason that this application does not include the creation of any new lot by subdivision or partition. While a lot boundary adjustment has been proposed, the adjustment of property boundaries is neither a subdivision nor partition because it does not result in the creation of a new land parcel. However, pursuant to Criterion 4, development on this land must occur on land having slopes of 35 percent or less. At Record p. 22 opponent Colin Swales argUed that even though not created by subdivision or partition, the reconfiguration of the subject property Coy lot boundary adjustment) falls under the meaning of Criterion 5 which requires a building envelope with slopes of 35 percent or less. The Hearings Board concludes that opponent Swales misses the point; applicant is required under Criterion 4 to observe the 35 percent slope rule even though that nile does not apply under Criterion 5. However, the Hearings Board concluded under Criterion 4 that the proposed building site does not violate the 35 percent standard and is buildable. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 25 City of Ashland, Oregon Criterion 6 3. New streets, flag drives, and driveways shall be constructed on lands of less than or equal to 35% slope with the following exceptions: a. The street is indicated on the City's Transportation Plan Map - Street Dedications. b. The podion of the street, flag drive, or driveway on land greater than 35% slope does not exceed a length of 100 feet. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concludes that the driveway to serve the proposed dwelling already exists. However, the record shows that applicants intend to re-grade and resurface the driveway. The record also shows that applicants intend to use permeable grasscrete and brick for the driveway surface. At Record p. 23 opponent Colin Swales argued that the driveway is more than 100 feet long, is to be moved fi:om its current location and relocated to land with slopes of more than 35 percent and which produce a resulting loss of more trees. The Hearings Board agrees with applicants that opponent Swales misunderstands this standard, which merely regulates the portion of driveways which are on land with slopes more than 35 percent (and limits these portions to no more than 100 feet in length). The Board concludes fi:om the evidence that the proposed driveway now largely exists and in no case does it (including any new sections) exceed a slope of 35 percent for more than 100 feet. As to this opponents contention that the driveway will result in more lost trees, the same is not relevant under Criterion 6. While the Hearings Board does not believe this is a "new drivewaY'' under Criterion 6, the Board concludes that even so, based upon Record p. 169, 191 and 192, no portion of the existing or altered driveway will exceed a slope of 35 percent. Therefore, the application is consistent with Criterion 6. Criterion 7 4. Geotechnical Studies. For all applications on Hillside Lands involving subdivisions or partitions, * * * Conclusions of Law: The Heatings Board concludes that Criterion 7 is inapplicable by reason that this application does not involve either a subdivision or partition. However, applicants have undertaken a detailed geotechnical study of the property, See, Record p. 225- 248. Criterion 8 B. Hillside Grading and Erosion Control. All development on lands classified as hillside shall provide plans conforming with the following items: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 26 City of Ashland, Oregon All grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans for development on Hillside Lands shall be designed by a geotechnical expert. All cuts, grading or fills shall conform to Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. Erosion control measures on the development site shall be required to minimize the solids in runoff from disturbed areas. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concludes, based upon the findings of fact in Section IV, applicants engaged a qualified geotechnical engineer conducted a geotechnical investigation which was used by applicants civil engineers in the preparation of the engineering construction plans. See, Record p. 225-248. Record p. 225-248 established the 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 concludes that the proposed cuts, grading and fills will conform to Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. The Hearings Board also concludes, based upon the same evidence, that erosion control measures proposed for this development site, will minimize the solids in runoff from disturbed areas. At Record p. 23 opponent Swales argued that rubble wall to retain 5 feet of additional fill is unsafe during floods. In its consideration of Criterion 2, the Hearings Board found that applicant's agent testified at Record p. 5 that applicants have not proposed rubble retaining walls. Applicants agent further testified there that in the geotechnical report by applicants expert geotechnical engineer, some of the retaining walls are recommended to be "rockeries" (stacked rock walls with drainage provisions) and these are to face stable slopes and protect them from erosion or sloughing. There are other rockeries intended as part of applicants ornamental landscaping and these are effective in preventing erosion or sloughing. Other portions of the site are to be retained with engineered structural retaining walls, including the wall used to retain the lawn area. Addition01. ly and as also earlier addressed, this property is not near any stream and is not subject to flooding and there is no evidence to the contrary that is worthy of belief. Therefore and based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board concludes that this application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 8. Criterion 9 For development other than single family homes on individual lots, all grading, drainage improvements, or other land disturbances shall only occur from May I to Qctober 31. Excavation shall not occur during the remaining wet months of the year. Erosion control measures shall be installed and functional by October 31. Up to 30 day modifications to the October 31 date, and 45 day modification to the May 1 date may be made by the Planning Director, based upon weather conditions and in consultation with the project geotechnical expert. The modification of dates shall be the minimum necessary, based upon evidence provided by the applicant, to accomplish the necessary project goals. Conclusions of Law: At Record p. 24 and during the public hearing, opponent Swales argued that applicants have stated their intention to .use the building as a corporate hospitality center and they have not complied with provisions of the ALUO that govern such use. The Hearings Board concludes that the proposed use is a single family dwelling, permitted in the zone in which this property is located. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law /~' 5'7 ~[R 0 3 2004 Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 27 City of Ashland, Oregon Opponent Swales also argued under Criterion 9, that applicants construction time frame was not received by the city until at~er the public hearing, making the application incomplete and it should not have been accepted. Opponent Swales also argued that the time frame schedule shows construction during the wet months. The Hearings Board finds that Criterion 9 has nothing to do with the use, application filing requirements or any other objection raised here by opponent Swales. The Hearings Board concludes that Criterion 9 is inapplicable by reason that this application concerns a single family home on an individual lot which is expressly exempt from this standard. Criterion Retention in natural state. On all projects on Hillside Land,~ involving partitions and subdivisions, and existing lots with an area greater than one-half acre, an area equal to 25% of the total project area, plus the percentage figure of the average slope of the total project area, shall be retained in a natural state. Lands to be retained in a natural state shall be protected from damage through the use of temporary construction fencing or the functional equivalent. For example, on a 25,000 sq. ft. lot with an average slope of 29%, 25%+29%=54% of the total lot area shall be retained in a natural state. The retention in a natural state of areas greater than the minimum percentage required here is encouraged. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concludes that the reconfigured subject property will consist of 0.52 acre. Therefore, Criterion I0 applies to this application. At Record p. 25 opponent Swales argued that applicants have used the stumps of felled trees to justify the original grade by stating there are no areas in a natural state. He further contends that the hillside was in a natural state before tree removal. Opponent Swales appears to argue here that the trees which occurred on the property were native species and/or the ground beneath the trees is in a natural state. ALUO 18.62.0300'4) defmes the term "Natural State" to be: "All land and water that remains undeveloped and undisturbed. This means that grading, excavating, filling and/or the construction of roadways, driveways, parking areas, and structures are prohibited. Incidental minor grading for hiking trails, bicycle paths, picnic areas and planting and landscaping which is in addition to and enhances the natural environment is permitted. Incidental brush removal for lot maintenance and ecosystem health is permitted. Further, vegetation removal for the purposes of wildfire control in conjunction with an approved fire prevention and control plan shall also be permitted." Applicants argued: 1) The subject property has been developed with dwellings, garage, driveway, a swimming pool, pedestrian walkways and ornamental landscaping, 2) This application involves the redevelopment of the property, inferring that unlike during initial development of urban land (where one might reasonably expect there to be areas in a natural state), all portions of the property have been "disturbed." 3) No portions of the subject property are presently in a natural state and therefore, applicants cannot preserve what does not exist. MAR 0 3 2004 Finclings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 28 City of Ashland, Oregon The question before the Hearings Board under Criterion 10 and the ALUO definition of "natural state," is whether any portions of the property remain "undeveloped and undisturbed" and, therefore, are required to be preserved in a natural state pursuant to Criterion 10. Under Criterion 10, the Hearings Board understands that it is required to determine if existing native trees (trees which occurred on this property naturally and which predate its development) are in a "natural state." The Board also finds that it should determine whether the mistakenly removed trees should have any bearing on the outcome of this proceeding pursuant to Criterion 10. As to whether existing native trees constitute land in a natural state (pursuant the definitiOn of that term in the ALUO) the Board concludes that this land is not in a natural state because, although native trees still exist, the land beneath them has been disturbed with the installation of living and non-living ornamental landscaping and an underground artificial irrigation system. With respect to natural areas, the purpose of the Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance, is to limit and reduce alteration and encroachment upon the natural character and environment. While some of the trees on this property are native trees that predate the property's initial development, the Hearings Board concludes that the ground beneath the trees has been altered with living and non-living omamental landscaping and irrigation system in ways that the Board cannot interpret as being undisturbed. Therefore, the Board concludes that the areas beneath the existing native trees and all other portions of the subject property have been disturbed to the point that none of the property is in a natural state pursuant to the def'mition of that term in the ALUO. As to whether the mistaken removal of trees has a beating on this application, the Heatings Board concludes fi:om the evidence that applicants proceeded in removing trees with the full knowledge and approval of the Planning Department who mistakenly believed that the property was not regulated under ALUO 18.62. The Hearings Board concludes that both the Planning Department and applicants acted in good faith, albeit in error, and the Board concludes that it should not attempt to punish applicants for what it believes was an honest mistake. Moreover, applicants have set aside sufficient mounts of the property for preservation which meets the area/size requirements of Criterion 10, even though portions of the property to be "preserved" are not in a natural state because (as concluded above) no portion of the property exists in an undisturbed condition. Therefore, the Hearings Board concludes that Criterion 10 is inapplicable because no portion of the reconfigured property is presently in a natural state and therefore it cannot be retained as such. Criterion 4. Grading - cuts. On all cut slopes on areas classified as Hillside lands, the following standards shall apply: a. Cut slope angles shall be determined in relationship to the type of materials of which they are composed. VVhere the soil permits, limit the total area exposed to precipitation and erosion. Steep Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 MAP, 0 3 20134 Page 29 City of Ashland, Oregon cut slopes shall be retained with stacked rock, retaining walls, or functional equivalent to control erosion and provide slope stability when necessary. Where cut slopes are required to be laid back (1:1 or less steep), the slope shall be protected with erosion control getting or structural equivalent installed per manufacturers specifications, and revegetated. Exposed cut slopes, such as those for streets, driveway accesses, or yard areas, greater than seven feet in height shall be terraced. Cut faces on a terraced section shall not exceed a maximum height of five feet. Terrace widths shall be a minimum of three feet to allow for the introduction of vegetation for erosion control. Total cut slopes shall not exceed a maximum vedical height of 15 feet. (See Graphic) Revegetation of cut slope terraces shall include the provision of a planting plan, introduction to topsoil where necessary, and the use of irrigation if necessary. The vegetation used for these areas shall be native or species similar in resource value which will survive, help reduce the visual impact of the cut slope, and assist in providing long term slope stabilization. Trees, bush-type plantings and cascading vine-type plantings may be appropriate. Conclusions of Law: Based upon the findings of fact in Section IV and Record p. 164, 169, 191, 192 and 196 the Hearings Board concludes that this application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 11. At Record p. 25 and under Criterion 11, opponent Swales argued that removed trees must be replaced in their original locations. As earlier concluded by the Hearings Board, there is nothing in the ordinance to require removed trees to be replaced in their original locations. The Board further concludes that the methods proposed by applicant and endorsed by the Ashland Tree Commission to deal with the replanting of removed trees, produces similar resource value to the trees that were removed, is appropriate and is consistent with the ALUO. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 11. Criterion 12 Grading - fills. On all fill slopes on lands classified as Hillside Lands, the following standards shall apply: Fill slopes shall not exceed a total vertical height of 20 feet. The toe of the fill slope area not utilizing structural retaining shall be a minimum of six feet from the nearest property line.(Ord 2834 S6, 1998) Fill slopes shall be protected with an erosion control netting, blanket or functional equivalent. Netting or blankets shall only be used in conjunction with an organic mulch such as straw or wood fiber. The blanket must be applied so that it is in complete contact with the soil so that erosion does not occur beneath it. Erosion netting or blankets shall be securely anchored to the slope in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. Utilities. Whenever possible, utilities shall ngt be located or installed on or in fill slopes. When determined that it necessary to install utilities on fill slopes, all plans shall be designed by a geotechnical exper. d. Revegetation of fill slopes shall utilize native vegetation or vegetation similar in resource value and which will survive and stabilize the surface. Irrigation may be provided to ensure growth if Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 MAR 0 3 2004 Page 30 City of Ashland, Oregon necessary. Evidence shall be required indicating long-term viability of the proposed vegetation for the purposes of erosion control on disturbed areas. Conclusions of Law: The Heatings Board concludes as follows: 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. Regarding Subsection b and based upon Record p. 190, all fill slopes will be protected with an erosion control netting, blanket or functional equivalent as specified by applicants civil engineer in Record p. 190. 3. Regarding Subsection c and based upon Record p. 163-222 no planned utilities are to be located or installed on or in fill slopes. Regarding Subsection d and based upon Record p. 195-197, the revegetation of fill slopes has utilized vegetation similar in resource value to that of native vegetation and which, according to applicants expert Landscape Architect, will survive and stabilize the surface. Irrigation has been provided to all fill areas (to be landscaped) which will ensure proper growth. At Record p. 26, opponent Swales argued that the proposed lawn is not "native 'vegetation" nor "vegetation similar in resource value" and will not stabilize the surface in the event of flood conditions. The Hearings Board concludes that Criterion 12 requires "fill slopes" to utilize native vegetation or vegetation of similar resource value. While the proposed lawn is to be placed on fill, it is not a "fill slope" 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 replace. Additionally, the Board finds that turf lawn will, in fact, stabilize the surface. As to flooding, as the Board also held earlier, this property is not near any stream or watercourse and there is simply evidence that this property is subject to flooding. 6. Based upon the foregoing f'mdings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 12. Criterion 13 Revegetation requirements. VVhere required by this chapter, all required revegetation of cut and fill slopes shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, signature of a required survey plat, or other time as determined by the hearing authority. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be substantially established within one year of installation. Conclusions of Law: Applicants have agreed to 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 proceeding, opponent Colin Swales at Record p. 26 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 _6t MAR 0 Page 31 3 ZOO4. City of Ashland, Oregon argued that the Board should require revegetation with native species of the tree canopy that was removed. The Board concludes: 1) There is nothing in the ordinance that requires the use of native species. 2) Applicants' landscaping plans show that ail cut and fill slopes will be revegetated and that compliance with Criterion 13 has been promised, can be met and will be ensured with the city's required approval of future plans and the carrying out of conditions attached to the approvai of this application. The Board aiso concludes that applicants landscaping plans provide suitable and appropriate revegetation with landscaping materials which meet ail requirements of the ALUO. Therefore, the Board concludes that this application is consistent with Criterion 13. Criterion 14 7. Maintenance, Security, and Penalties for Erosion Control Measures. Maintenance. All measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control, including but not limited to vegetative cover, rock walls, and landscaping, shall be maintained in perpetuity on all areas which have been disturbed, including public rights-of-way. The applicant shall provide evidence indicating the mechanisms in place to ensure maintenance of measures. Security. Except for individual lots existing prior to January 1, 1998, after an Erosion Control Plan is approved by the hearing authority and prior to construction, the applicant shall provide a performance bond or other financial guarantees in the amount of 120% of the value of the erosion control measures necessary to stabilize the site. Any financial guarantee instrument proposed other than a performance bond shall be approved by the City Attorney. The financial guarantee instrument shall be in effect for a period of at least one year, and shall be released when the Planning Director and Public Works Director determine, jointly, that the site has been stabilized. All or a portion of the security retained by the City may be withheld for a period up to five years beyond the one year maintenance period if it has been determined by the City that the site has not been sufficiently stabilized against erosion. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concludes that Criterion 14 does not operate as an approvai standard, but rather establishes methods to ensure that erosion mitigation is guaranteed (in accordance with the ALUO) and faithfully maintained, measures to which applicants have agreed to stipulate and which have been incorporated as approval conditions. During the proceeding, opponent Colin Swales argued at Record p. 27, that erosion mitigation" caused by tree removai should be replacement of trees rather than development activity. To this objection, applicants argued and the Board agrees that this is not an objection per se, but a recommendation from this opponent that has nothing to do with the standards expressed in Criterion 14. Moreover, Criterion 14 deals with the proper maintenance of long-term erosion control measures and requires applicants to post appropriate security to ensure the faithful maintenance of erosion control measures, all of which applicants have agreed to stipulate to (and the same have been adopted as approval conditions). The Board concludes that Criterion 14 has nothing to do with tree removal and as to tree replacement, applicants have agreed to stipulate (and the Board has required as a condition) to the tree mitigation plan recommended by Ashland's Tree Commission. Based upon the 'foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 14. ******************** Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 4~ ~ ~-- Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 32 City of Ashland, Oregon Criterion 15 8. Site Grading. The grading of a site on Hillside Lands shall be reviewed considering the following factors: 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 podions of the site. Building pads should be of minimum size to accommodate the structure and a reasonable amount of yard space. Pads for tennis couds, swimming pools and large lawns are discouraged. As much of the remaining lot area as possible should be kept in the natural state of the original slope. Conclusions of Law: The Heatings Board concludes as follows: 1. Based upon Record p. 163-222, terracing has only been proposed to establish a level building pad and to provide appropriate vehicular access to the pad. 2. Based upon Record p. 225-248, the reconfigured subject property does not include any areas which are hazardous or unstable. Based upon Record p. 169 the building pad for this dwelling has been minimized in size to be approximately one-quarter of the dwelling's total square footage. As such, the Hearings Board concludes that the proposed building pad is of a minimum size to ac. gx)mmodate the planned structure, and will produce minimal impacts to the existing site conditions. The Hearings Board also concludes, as it has above, that the reconfigured subject property does not include any portions which are in a natural state. At Record p. 28 opponent Colin Swales testified that he was unable to find evidence that prior development on this site and at 300 Vista conformed to ALUO 18.62. He further argued under Criterion 15, that the stability of the steep slope has been compromised by tree removal and needs to be replanted. Mr. Swales also reiterated here his contention that the proposed building site is or was in a natural state. Applicants argued that the existing home terracing, pool construction and lawn, referred to by Mr. Swales, were installed before adoption of Ashland's Hillside Ordinance (a part of the Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance) -- ALUO 18.62.080.6 As to this opponent's argument that the steep slope should be replaced with planting, the evidence shows that this will occur. See, Exhibit Record p. 195-197. Regarding the proposed building site being in a "natural state," the Board herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions law for Criterion 1, 3 and 10. Above in Criterion 15, the ordinance requires (in permissive terms) that, "as much of the remaining lot area as possible should be kept in .the natural sate of the original slope." The original slope was the slope of the property before it was originally developed. Based upon the evidence, this property has s The Hillside Ordinance was adopted in 1997 while the dwelling and other improvements were installed in 1988. 0 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 4- dc,-~ 3 2004 Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 33 City of Ashland, Oregon been disturbed, is not in a natural state with respect to vegetation or topography, and is being redeveloped. Based Upon applicants plans (Record p. 163-222) and the expert evidence submitted by applicants with their application, the Hearings Board concludes that the building pad for the dwelling has been minimized to accommodate the structure proposed and a reasonable amount of yard space. The Board also concludes that even though there are plans for a swimming pool, the same is not prohibited by the ALUO. As to the ordinance discouragement of large lawns, the Board concludes that the lawn shown in the plans is not large, nor is prohibited by the ordinance. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 15. Criterion 16 Inspections and Final Report. Pdor to the acceptance of a subdivision by the City, signature of the final survey plat on partitions, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy for individual structures, the project geotechnical expert shall provide a final report indicating that the approved grading, drainage, and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections, as per 18.62.080.A.4.j were conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project. Conclusions of Law: Criterion 16 does not operate as an approval standard. 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 Surface and Groundwater Drainage. All development on Hillside Lands shall conform to the following standards: 1. All facilities for the collection of stormwater runoff shall be required to be constructed on the site and according to the following requirements: Stormwater facilities shall include storm drain systems associated with street construction, facilities for accommodating drainage from driveways, parking areas and other impervious surfaces, and roof drainage systems. b. Stormwater facilities, when part of the overall site improvements, shall be, to the greatest extent feasible, the first improvements constructed on the development site. c. Stormwater facilities shall be designed to divert surface water away from cut faces or sloping surfaces of a fill. d. Existing natural drainage systems shall be utilized, as much as possible, in their natural state, recognizing the erosion potential from increased storm drainage. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland PAnning Action 2003-118 0 3 2004 Page 34 City of Ashland, Oregon Flow-retarding devices, such as detention ponds and recharge berms, shall be used where practical to minimize increases in runoff volume and peak flow rate due to development. Each facility shall consider the needs for an emergency overflow system to safely carry any overflow water to an acceptable disposal point. f. Stormwater facilities shall be designed, constructed and maintained in a manner that will avoid erosion on-site and to adjacent and downstream propedies. Alternate stormwater systems, such as dry well systems, detention ponds, and leach fields, shall be designed by a registered engineer or geotechnical expert and approved by the City's Public Works Department or City Building Official. Conclusions of Law: During the proceeding, opponent Colin Swales testified at Record p. 29 that "existing erosion" of Glenview Street is insufficient for the proposed use which includes valet parking for fund-raising events). Mr. Swales further argued that the massive cutting and terracing of Glenview will not improve erosion that has caused damage to neighbors on Vista Street. The methods proposed by applicants to handle storm water, is in the engineering plans. See, Record p. 192, designed by applicants expert civil engineer. In rebuttal at Record p. 9-10, applicants agent argued, as to erosion, that the only evidence of any erosion on Glenview, is a photograph which shows some minor erosion at the intersection of Vista Drive and Glenview Street. They further argued, and the Board agrees, that Glenview (including its intersection with Vista Drive) is at a higher elevation than the subject property and, therefore, applicants project cannot produce further adverse affect in this area;. The project will not affect, positively or negatively, erosion that may occur on Glenview at its intersection with Vista. Applicants agents also argued, contrary to opponent Swales' contention that there will be "massive" cutting and terracing of Glenview Street (ostensibly to accommodate the driveway) that the driveway now exists and will be stabilized with the installation of engineered retaining walls which have been designed by applicants expert structural engineer. The issue of valet parking is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with surface and groundwater drainage or any other aspect of the project controlled by Criterion 17. However, during the Historic Commission proceeding, applicants testified that when they entertain larger groups, their invited guests will park elsewhere and be shuttled to the subject property. Based upon Record p. 192, the Hearings Board concludes that stormwater and erosion control has been accommodated in applicants plan in compliance all the requirements of Criterion 17 and the same will be ensured thrOugh the required pre-construction meeting, agreed to stipulations of applicants and other conditions attached to this approval by the Board. Regarding Criterion 17, Mr. Swales also testified during the public heating, that access from Glenview Street is insufficient for the proposed use. On this point, the Hearings Board concludes that this objection does not go to this or any other approval standard which governs the building of a single family dwelling on hillside regulated land or elsewhere in the city. IAR 0 3 2004 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 35 City of Ashland, Oregon Criterion 18 D. Tree Conservation, Protection and Removal. All development on Hillside Lands shall conform to the following requirements: Inventory of Existing Trees. A tree survey at the same scale as the project site plan shall be prepared, which locates all trees greater than six inches d.b.h., identified by d.b.h., species, approximate extent of tree canopy. In addition, for areas proposed to be disturbed, existing tree base elevations shall be provided. Dead or diseased trees shall be identified. Groups of trees in close proximity (i.e. those within five feet of each other) may be designated as a clump of trees, with the predominant species, estimated number and average diameter indicated. Ail tree surveys shall have an accuracy of plus or minus two feet. The name, signature, and address of the site surveyor responsible for the accuracy of the survey shall be provided on the tree survey. Portions of the lot or project area not proposed to be disturbed by development need not be included in the inventory. Conclusions of Law: The inventory of existing trees is in Record p. 197. Criterion 18 is, in fact, not an approval standard, but simply operates as a filing requirement with which applicants have complied. During the proceeding, opponent Colin Swales at Record p. 29 argued under Criterion 18, that the tree inventory shows numerous regulated trees that have been removed and additional trees proposed for removal. Mr. Swales further argued that evidence he had earlier submitted, shows inaccuracies in the survey regarding trees in the right-of-way which are listed as unregulated (but which are regulated) and trees on slopes greater than 35 percent that are listed as being on lesser slopes. In rebuttal (Record p. 10) applicants agent argued and the Hearings Board agrees, that Criterion 18 requires an inventory of existing trees and operates as a filing requirement (which was met) and not an approval standard. The inventory (Record p. 197) does show regulated trees that were mistakenly removed earlier (and identifies them as such). There are no additional regulated trees to be removed at this time as part of this application. Trees within the public right-of-way are subject to a future municipal permit, which applicants are required and must obtain. Regarding alleged inaccuracies in the tree inventory (with respect to trees in the right-of-way) the inventory was based upon a professional land survey and is in all ways accurate. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 18. Criterion 19 Evaluation of Suitability for Conservation. All trees indicated on the inventory of existing trees shall also be identified as to their suitability for conservation. When required by the hearing authority, the evaluation shall be conducted by a landscape professional. Factors included in this determination shall include: a. Tree health. Healthy trees can better withstand the rigors of development than non-vigorous trees. b. Tree Structure. Trees with severe decay or substantial defects are more likely to result in damage to people and property. IAR 0 3 2004 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 36 City of Ashland, Oregon c. Species. Species vary in their ability to tolerate impacts and damage to their environment. d. Potential longevity. e. Variety. A variety of native tree species and ages f. Size. Large trees provide a greater protection for erosion and shade than smaller trees. Conclusions of Law: During the proceeding, opponent Colin Swales objected at Record p. 29 that this criterion was not addressed. In rebuttal, applicants agent (Record p. 10-11) acknowledged that the submitted application package did not address Criterion 19 with proposed conclusions of law. However, applicant's agent argued, the record is complete with facts and evidence sufficient to demonstrate compliance. Applicant's agent further argued that part of applicants plans Record p. 195-197 and the supporting text -- all prepared by applicants expert landscape architect -- the matters required under Criterion 19 -- were all addressed and the Heatings Board agrees. Moreover, the Heatings Board finds and concludes that Criterion 19 does not operate as an approval standard, but as a filing requirement and the same was met. Criterion 20 3. Tree Conservation in Project Design. Significant trees (2' d.b.h, or greater conifers and 1' d.b.h, or greater broadleaf) shall be protected and incorporated into the project design whenever possible. Streets, driveways, buildings, utilities, parking areas, and other site disturbances shall be located such that the maximum number of existing trees on the site are preserved, while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. Building envelopes shall be located and sized to preserve the maximum number of trees on site while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. c. Layout of the project site utility and grading plan shall avoid disturbance of tree protection areas. Conclusions of Law: During the proceeding, opponent Colin Swales at Record p. 30 (and others) argued (under Criterion 20) that there are numerous trees within the "Protected Hillside Area," that the property is within Ashland's Wildfire Lands area and is a wildfire hazard, and that previous planting on this and adjacent lots is illegal under ALUO 18.68.010. At Record p. 11-12, applicants agent argued, based upon the plans at Record p. 197, that there are no significant trees to be removed within the Protected Hillside Area as a part of this project and that the maximum number of trees on the reconfigured subject property and within the constrains of this project, have been preserved. The Hearings Board agrees with applicants agent that, based upon Record p. 197, there are no significant trees within the regulated hillside area to be removed because of this project. Despite that subsection 'a' of Criterion 20 says, "existing trees," this 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 at breast height) or greater conifers and 1 foot d.b.h, or greater broadleaf. 0 3 20o4 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 37 City of Ashland, Oregon As to the property being within Ashland's Wildfire Lands, the Hearings Board agrees. However, opponent's objections under this standard suggest only that previous planting on the property was (or has grown) to be illegal under an unrelated section of 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 18.62.090:7 ALUO 18.62.090Development Standards for Wildfire Lands. B. Requirements for construction of all structures. l. 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 flee 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 contxol 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 wildfwe is reduced through fuels control. 5. All structures shall be constructed or re-roofed with Class B or better non-wood roof covetings, as determined by the Oregon Structural Specialty Code. All re-roofing of existing structures in the Wildfn'e Lands area for which at least 50% of the roofing area requires re- roofing shall be done under approval of a zoning permit. No structure shall be constructed or re-roofed with wooden shingles, shakes, wood-product material or other combustible roofing material, as defined in the City's building code. Fuel breaks in areas which are also Erosive or Slope Failure Lands shall be included in the erosion control measures outlined in section 18.62.080. Implementation. 1. For land which have been subdivided and required to comply with A. (6) above, all requirements of the Plan shall be complied with prior to the commencement of constmctinn with combustible materials. 2. For all other structures, the vegetation control requirements of section (B) above shall be complied with before the commencement of construction with combustible materials on the lot. (Ord. 2657, 1991) 7 ALUO 18.62.090(A) contains provisions that govern Subdivisions, Performance Standards Developments, or Partitions. This application concerns none of these. ALUO 1 $.62.090(B) concerns the subject application. MAR Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 38 0 3 2004 City of Ashland, Oregon As. of November 1, 1994, existing residences in subdivisions developed outside of the Wildfire Lands Zone, but later included 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 concludes that the significance of this property being within Ashland's Wildfire Lands is nil, as this property has been and will be developed as an urban homesite with irrigated ornamental landscaping. No dead or dying vegetation exists on the property nor is such vegetation/landscaping planned and the Hearings Board concludes from the evidence that the proposed landscaping for this property will not produce a fire hazard under ALUO 18.62.090. However, there are small groups of trees which technically form an "interlocking canopy." The Board concludes that these trees can either be removed or can be thinned to comply with ALUO 18.62.090. As shown in the Record p. 179, roofing is to be concrete tile; no wooden roo£mg is proposed. As to previous plantings on the subject and adjacent lots, ALUO 18.68.010 is an ordinance which has nothing to do with a Physical and Environmental Constraints permit. If some of the vegetation that occurs on this property 'does not comply with the requirements of ALUO 18.68.010, this is a matter to be considered separately by the city as an enforcement action. However, the Hearings Board believes and it concludes, that plantings on the property which may not conform to ALUO Chapter 18.62, in all likelihood, where planted before adoption of that ordinance in 1994. While applicants should examine these plantings to be certain they do not violate the ordinance, the same is not relevant here. As to whether this application is consistent with the wildfire standards in ALUO 18.62.090, the Board concludes that applicants can and will comply with these standards and the pre-construction meeting · required by the ALUO and inspections of the property which occur with the issuance of - building permits, ensure that the standards in ALUO 18.62.090 are properly observed. As to opponent Swales argument that the driveway and building footprint are located to produce the most damage to tree protection areas, the Hearings Board concludes 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 concludes that applicants have sought to design the dwelling to preserve the significant madrone trees located east of the dwelling. Although the driveway will cause the removal of oak trees, the record shows that these have been historically compromised by improper pruning practices and are located within the right-of-way of Glenview Street. The matter of the existing oaks was addressed by Ashland's Tree Commission 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 thc property. The replacement plan offered by applicants has been presented and accepted, although the same leaves open the possibility of further discussions regarding where best to plant the replacement trees. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland PLanning Action 2003-118 Page 39 City of Ashland, Oregon Also during the public hearing and in Record p. 59-63, opponent Bryan Holley argued that 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. Mr. Holly also argued that: "By cutting the trees, applicants prepared a no exit legal strategy for themselves that removed them from the stringent requirements of the Hillside Ordinance and also eliminated them from anything other than a mitigation discussion with the Tree Commission which reducing the Historic Commissioners to the legal position of simply forwarding and unenforceable opinion." The Heatings 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 broadleaftrees larger than 1-foot d.b.h. 4. The use of certain methods to protect trees during construction. A requirement to preserve the maximum number of trees provided that development follow the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. And when, justified by findings of fact, the Hearings Board can approve the removal of trees under one or more of five conditions. Among the five conditions are that the trees are within a building envelope, a proposed street, driveway or parking area. 6. Trees to be removed must be replaced based upon a plan. 7. Enforcement provisions. Applicants have undertaken the required inventory and assessment of trees on the property and have proposed to protect significant trees which presently exist. Within the constraints of this property and the size of the dwelling (which the Hearings Board has found should not be subject to this ordinance) and based upon applicants plans and the expert opinions of their landscape architect and the action of the Ashland Tree Commission, the Hearings Board concludes, for ALUO 18.62.080(D)(3): Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 As the Board 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 concludes that the trees which now exist on the property have been incorporated into the project design whenever possible. This is evidenced by Record p. 197 which shows the planned improvements in relation to trees already removed by mistake, additional trees proposed for removal (and approved by the Ashland Tree Commission) and other trees applicants intend to preserve. The Board also takes note that provisions of ALUO 18.62.080(E)(2)(b) requires (for non-historic district Page 40 0 3 2004 City of Ashland, Oregon lands) that buildings be cut into hillsides to reduce effective visual bulk. While this property is within a municipal historic district (and therefore exempt from this as a requirement) the Board is sensitive to this concept as there has been much testimony and evidence which go to the visual Size and bulk of this structure. The Board finds that the dwelling would appear substantially larger if placed further north where it could not be cut into the hillside. The Board also concludes from the evidence, that the dwelling itself, as .designed, will appropriately retain the slopes which occur on the site. Based upon Record p. 197 and 257, the Board also concludes that the trees to be removed are within the right-of-way of Glenview Street and are to accommodate new portions of the driveway to be located in the right-of-way. The Board also concludes that the proposed driveway improvements will facilitate the safe and efficient ingress and egress to the property by motor vehicles. There was testimony that the large gatherings applicants plan to host on the property will produce traffic conflicts. The Board concludes that traffic conflicts will be more safely and properly managed with the proposed driveway design because it will allow all traffic to the site to enter and leave the premises in a forward direction. The existing driveway design (which would not have necessitated the removal of trees labeled 14-16 on Record p. 197) would instead have required vehicles leaving the premises to back into Glenview Street. With respect to ALUO 18.62.080(D)(3)(a) and (b) the Hearings Board also concludes that the requirement to conserve trees, it is with the expressed understanding that preservation is, "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 goes on to describe what a fuel break and it and requires native trees to be sufficiently thinned to prevent an interlocking canopy. As shown in Record p. 197, trees that were mistakenly removed had an interlocking canopy and would under any circumstances, be required to be removed or severely thinned. As to Whether the mistaken removal of trees has a bearing on this application, the Hearings Board concludes, as it did under Criterion 10, that applicants proceeded in removing trees with the full knowledge and approval of the Planning Department; the Department incorrectly believed that the property was not regulated under ALUO 18.62. The Heatings Board concludes that both the Planning Department and applicants acted in good faith, albeit in error, and the Board concludes that it is not the Boards proper role to punish applicants, especially for what it believes was an honest mistake. Provisions for enforcing violations of ALUO 18.62.08009) is set forth in ALUO 18.62.080(D)(7). The City of Ashland may later determine what penalties, if any, are appropriate under the ALUO for the trees which were already removed from the property. However, as concluded above, the trees removed by mistake would likely have had to be removed ( or severely pruned) to satisfy the requirements of ALUO 18.62.090. ,,/-5/ Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 41 City of Ashland, Oregon As to ALUO 18.62.080(D)(3)(c), the Hearings Board concludes from Record p. 190-194, that the layout of the project site utility and grading plan have avoided disturbance of areas where trees are proposed to be protected. Based upon .the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 10. Compliance is established because all the significant trees on the property have been preserved and because, if applicable, the maximum number of all trees on the reconfigured subject property (and within the constrains of this project and ALUO 18.62.090) have been protected and incorporated into the project design whenever possible. Therefore, the Hearings Board concludes that the application is consistent with Criterion 20. Criterion 21 -4. Tree Protection. On all propedies where trees are required to be preserved during the course of development, the developer shall follow the following tree protection standards: All trees designated for conservation shall be clearly marked on the project site. Prior to the stad 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 ddpline. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits, the fences may be inspected and their location approved by the Staff Advisor. (see graphic) Construction site activities, including but not limited to parking, material storage, soil compaction and concrete washout, shall be arranged so as to prevent disturbances within tree protection areas. No grading, stripping, compaction, or significant change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the ddp line of trees designated for conservation unless indicated on the grading plans, as approved by the City, and landscape professional. If grading or construction is approved within the dripline, a landscape professional may be required to be present during grading operations, and shall have authority to require protective measures to protect the roots. Changes in soil hydrology and site drainage within tree protection areas shall be minimized. Excessive site run-off shall be directed to appropriate storm drain facilities and away from trees designated for conservation. Should encroachment into a tree protection area occur which causes irreparable damage, as determined by a landscape professional, to trees, the project plan shall be revised to compensate for the loss. Under no circumstances shall the developer be relieved of responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this chapter Conclusions of Law: During the proceeding, opponent Colin Swales at Record p. 31 and under Criterion 21, argued that according to the Tree Commission, the proposal will cause undue stress to the remaining Madrone trees on 300 Vista and result in the removal of other significant trees. In rebuttal, applicants agent argued in Record p. 13 that the recommendation of the Tree Commission dearly 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 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 2. Page ,42 City of Ashland, Oregon Landscape Architect should be fully implemented to protect these trees. And in addition a structural footing should be designed by the Architect in conjunction with the Landscape Architect that will ensure the utmost protection of the rootzone." The Heatings Board concludes 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 Hearings Board concludes that this application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 21. Criterion 22 Tree Removal. Development shall be designed to prese[ve the maximum number of trees on a site. The development shall follow the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. When justified by findings of fact, the hearing authority may approve the removal of trees for one or more of the following conditions: (Ord 2834 S3, 1998) a. The tree is located within the building envelope. b. The tree is located within a proposed street, driveway, or parking area. c. The tree is located within a water, sewer, or other public utility easement. d. The tree is determined by a landscape professional to be dead or diseased, or it constitutes an unacceptable hazard to life or property when evaluated by the standards in 18.62.080.D.2. e. The tree is located within or adjacent to areas of cuts or fills that are deemed threatening to the life of the tree, as determined by a landscape professional. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concludes that the 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 Hearings Board also herewith incorporates and adopts its f'mdings 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 Criterion 22 -- ALUO 18.62.080(D)(5) --are to establish the circumstances under which trees can be removed. Here, the Board will concern itself with existing trees proposed for removal and not trees earlier removed by applicants by mistake. Criterion 22 begins by stating that, "[d]evelopment shall be designed to preserve the maximum number of trees on a site." This requirement is similar to Criterion 20 which states that "significant trees shall be protected and incorporated into the project design whenever possible. Under Criterion 20, the Board concluded that the only protected trees under that subsection are significant trees as defined. However, the Board also set forth its conclusions of law if Criterion 20 applied to all trees on the property and these findings of fact and conclusions of law relate more closely to Criterion 22 which appears to produce something of a "double test" for the removal of trees; the first test is under Criterion 20 and the second Findings of Pact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 43 3 2004- City of Ashland, Oregon under Criterion 22. However, like Criterion 20, Criterion 22 provides that, "[t]he development shall follow the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. Criterion 22 then goes on to list the circumstances under which trees can be approved for removal, when justified by appropriate findings of fact. For the same reasons concluded under Criterion 20 that all existing trees have been protected and incorporated into the project design whenever possible, the Hearings Board concludes that this development has been designed to preserve the maximum number of trees on the subject property. The conclusions for Criterion 20 and here rely, in part, on the fact that this land is designated as Wildfire Lands and made subject to ALUO 18.62.090, which requires the establishment and maintenance of a fuel break and the same requires tree removal or thinning to prevent an interlocking canopy of native trees. The Hearings Board further concludes that the findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 20, justify the approval by this Board for the removal of trees (pursuant to Criterion 22 subsections 'a' and 'b') which are located either within the building envelope (shown at Record p. 169 as the "setback line") for the proposed development (including the proposed swimming pool) or within the proposed driveway/parking area shown on applicants plans. See, Exhibit Record p. 196. During the proceeding, opponent Colin Swales at Record p. 31, testified under Criterion 22 that applicants landscape architect had indicated that trees were removed in anticipation of the adoption of the tree ordinance and staff admitted that if the trees had not been removed, this development would have to be denied. In Record p. 13, applicants agent acknowledged the testimony of applicants landscape architect, but argued that this is irrelevant? As to this opponents contention that the city staff indicated the application would have to be denied if the trees had not been removed, applicants agents contend in Record p. 13 that this is untrue and exists as unsupported heresy. Moreover, they argued, the notion that had the trees not be removed, this application would have to be denied, is wrong as a matter of law. The Board concludes there is nothing in the ALUO that prevents the removal of trees when necessary to accommodate a homesite or driveway or to deal with the fuel break requirements for Wildfire Lands in ALUO 18.62.090, provided sufficient findings and evidence are supplied to justify the tree removals. The Hearings Board concludes that trees proposed and approved for removal have been appropriately justified here and under Criterion 20 with appropriate facts 'and evidence. Applicants have observed all requirements for tree preservation and protection; trees that are proposed to be permissibly removed pursuant to recommendations by the Tree Commission, are being replaced in greater numbers (both on and off site) than is required by the ALUO. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Heatings Board concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 22. s The tree ordinance referred to here is in ALUO 18.61 and not the tree protection requirements in ALUO 18.62.080(D). Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 44 0 3 2004 City of Ashland, Oregon Criterion 23 Tree Replacement. Trees approved for removal, with the exception of trees removed because they were determined to be diseased, dead, or a hazard, shall be replaced in compliance with the following standards: a. Replacement trees shall be indicated on a tree replanting plan. The replanting plan shall include all locations for replacement trees, and shall also indicate tree planting details.(Ord 2834 S4, 1998) Replacement trees shall be planted such that the trees will in time result in canopy equal to or greater than the tree canopy present prior to development of the property. The canopy shall be designed to mitigate of the impact of paved and developed areas, reduce surface erosion and increase slope stability. Replacement tree locations shall consider impact on the wildfire prevention and control plan. The hearing authority shall have the discretion to adjust the proposed replacement tree canopy based upon site-specific evidence and testimony. Maintenance of replacement trees shall be the responsibility of the property owner. Required replacement trees shall be continuously maintained in a healthy manner. Trees that die within the first five years after initial planting must be replaced in kind, after which a new five year replacement period shall begin. Replanting must occur within 30 days of notification unless otherwise noted. (Ord 2834 S5, 1998) Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concludes as follows: 1. The proposed replacement trees to be planted on the property are shown on Record p. 196. As evidenced by Record p. 196, the proposed replacement trees will, in time, result in canopy greater than the tree canopy of the existing trees to be removed. However, the trees to be replanted on the subject property are not the-only trees proposed by applicants to mitigate the removal of trees. Applicants also agreed to stipulate and the Board has required as a condition, that applicants will provide ten trees having a caliper not less than 2 inches to be planted in a public location to be determined by the Ashland Tree Commission. These mitigation measures ensure that the tree canopy once provided by existing trees on the property, will be replaced. Applicants have agreed to stipulate and the Board has required as a condition, that all replacement trees will be continuously maintained in a healthy manner as part of the overall landscape. During the proceeding, opponent Colin Swales, at Record p. 32 and under 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 fxom 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. 0 3 2004 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 45 City of Ashland, oregon o Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 23. Criterion 24 7. Enforcement a. All tree removal shall be done in accord with the approved tree removal and replacement plan. No trees designated for conservation shall be removed without prior approval of the City of Ashland. Should the developer or developer's agent remove or destroy any tree that has been designated for conservation, the developer may be fined up to three times the current appraised value of the replacement trees and cost of replacement or up to three times the current market value, as established by a professional arborist, whichever is greater. Should the developer or developer's agent damage any tree that has been designated fo~ 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. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concludes that Criterion 24 does not operate as an approval standard, but instead functions to put property owners on notice of the city's requirements for the removal of or damage to replacement trees. During the proceeding, there was much testimony and evidence on the matter of trees mistakenly removed earlier by applicants. Colin Swales argued at Record p. 32 that applicants did not appraise the value of the mistakenly removed trees and the city has not determined culpability or penalties. Also during the public hearing, Bryan Holley argued the project should be denied and applicants should be required to resubmit a new proposal and this 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 Hearings Board concludes that Criterion 24 provides that no designated trees can be. removed without prior approval of the City of Ashland. Made clear by the testimony of Ashland Planning Department representative, Mark Knox, during the public hearing (and at Record p. 256, a narrative by applicants landscape architect) is that he had made an honest mistake in advising applicants that the trees could be removed. Simply stated, Mr. Knox's authorization, mistakenly or not, was approval by the city. Moreover, Criterion 24 does not require the city to appraise the value of removed trees nor. assess fines, it only provides that fines may be levied. To date, the city has not elected to impose fines and appropriate mitigation for the removed trees has been recommended by Ashland's Tree Commission and applicants have agree to stipulate to these recommendations and the same have been made conditions of this approval. Findings of Fact end Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 IAR 0 3 200 Page 46 City of Ashland, Oregon Criterion 25 E. Building Location and Design Standards. All buildings and buildable areas proposed for Hillside Lands shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following standards * * * Conclusions of Law: While opponent Colin Swales seemed to argue at Record p. 33 and during the public heating that the extended provisions of Criterion 25 -- ALUO 18.62.080(E) -- apply, Hearings Board concludes otherwise. Made clear by subsections 1 and 2 of ALUO 18.62.080(E) is that these regulations apply, in the case of Subsection 1, only to, "newly created lots, either by subdivision or partition," and, in the case of Subsection 2, do not apply to lands within the designated Historic District. Criterion 25 is inapplicable by reason that the subject property is not a new lot created by either subdivision or partition and because the subject property is within a designated Historic District. However, based upon the evidence before it, the Hearings Board concludes that applicants design and engineering does observe every standard in Criterion 25. Criterion 26 All structures on Hillside Lands shall have foundations which have been designed by an engineer or architect with demonstrable geotechnical design experience. A designer, as defined, shall not complete working drawings without having foundations designed by an engineer. Conclusions of Law: The Heatings Board concludes that the foundation for this dwelling was designed by applicants expert structural engineer, based upon the recommendations of applicants expert geotechnieal engineer in compliance with Criterion 26. Criterion 27 All newly created lots or lots modified by a lot line adjustment must include a building envelope on all lots that contains a buildable area less than 35% slope of sufficient size to accommodate the uses permitted in the underlying zone, unless the division or lot line adjustment is for open space or conservation purposes. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board herewith 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 Heatings Board concludes that this application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 27. Opponent Colin Swales at Record p. 33 renews his objections concerning slope and its measurement here. The Board again here reaffirms its conclusions in Criterion 4 and .finds again that the survey work performed by applicants surveyor is appropriate in form, content and methodology. Mr. Swales also argued at Record p. 33 and during the public hearing, that the submitted topographic map (the Hearings Board believes Mr. Swales is referring to Record p. 253) falls to give a complete survey of the original slope of the southwest comer of the lot. On this Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law A ° *.-~7 MAR Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 47 City of Ashland, Oregon point, the Heatings Board concludes that no detailed survey of this portion of the site is necessary, as it includes only land devoted to the existing garage and driveway, both elements that are intended to remain on the property after construction of this project. This portion of the property also includes the existing dwelling (planned to be removed) and in which no new construction is proposed. However, other drawings prepared by applicants architects and others show the topographic contours in this area of the site. See, Record p. 163 for example. The testimony of applicants surveyor is in Record p. 253 and 255 and appears on pages 14 and 15 of the public hearing transcript. This evidence establishes by the expert work of applicants surveyor, that average original slope of the ground at the proposed building site is 28 percent. Record p. 253 is the survey map showing historic natural slopes within the building envelop area~ The building envelope is shown on Record p. 169 and the same is called the "setback line" on this plan. This evidence shows that no part of the building envelope 'has slopes greater than 35 percent. The Board concludes that proposed dwelling can be accommodated within the building envelope in accord with the ALUO. Like applicants, the Hearings Board cannot understand Mr. Swales objections related to trees and stumps. The Hearings Board concludes that the method and content of the topographic survey was done in accordance with the standard practices of professional land surveyors. This opponent cites no evidence to call into question the professional work done by applicants surveyor, Darrell Huck. Furthermore, there is no evidence, even if a six-inch difference existed, that it would invalidate Mr. Huck's work. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board concludes 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 clearly depicts all trees to be preserved and/or removed on the site. The plan must be drawn to scale and include the following: a. Location, species, and diameter of each tree on site and within 15 feet of the site; b. Location of the drip line of each tree; Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 48 City of Ashland, Oregon 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 struc[ures; f. Grade change or cut and fill during or after construction; g. Existing and proposed impervious surfaces; h. Identification of a contact person and/or arborist who will be responsible for implementing and maintaining the approved tree protection plan; and i. Location and type of tree protection measures to be installed per AMC 18.61.230. 3. For development requiring a planning action, the Tree Preservation Plan shall include an inventory of all trees on site, their health or hazard condition, and recommendations for treatment for each tree. Conclusions of Law: Criterion 28 does not function as an approval standard, but instead enumerates the requirements for tree inventory and protection plan which have been submitted with this application pursuant to this standard and similar standards in ALUO 18.62.080(D). However, the Hearings Board herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 4. During the proceeding, opponent Colin Swales at Record p. 34 and under Criterion 28 argued that landscape architect's drawings show contour lines at variance with the existing topography as shown on the city's GIS map which Mr. Swales submitted during the public hearing (Record p. 79). In rebuttal, applicants agents explained, and the Hearings Board agrees, that applicants landscape' architect used the contour lines which were established by applicants land surveyor and which, as earlier described, are substantially more accurate than those shown on Ashland's GIS map (which were derived by aerial topographic mapping). The 'Hearings Board concludes that this application was submitted with information and evidence which satisfies the requirements of Criterion 28. Criterion 29 Tree Protection Measures Required. 1. Except as otherwise determined by the Staff Advisor, all required tree protection measures set forth in this section shall be instituted prior to any development activities, including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation or demolition work, and 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, dparian areas, or conservation easements that abut the parcel being developed. 3. The fencing shall be flush with the initial undisturbed grade. MAR 0 3 2004 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 49 City of Ashland, Oregon 4. Approved signs shall be attached to the chain link fencing stating that inside the fencing is a tree protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior approval has been obtained from the Staff Advisor for the project. 5. No construction activity shall occur within the tree protection zone, including, but not limited to dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste items, equipment, or parked vehicles. 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 walt excess, construction debris, or m-off. 7. No excavation, trenching, grading, root pruning or other activity shall occur within the tree protection zone unless approved by the Staff Advisor. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concludes that the various protection measures set forth in Criterion 29 are not approval standards, but standards to be observed during construction to ensure that trees to be preserved are adequately protected. These measures have been incorporated into applicants plans and the same is evidenced by Record p. 197. During the proceeding Colin Swales reiterated his argument (addressed earlier under Criterion 21) that the proposed dwelling poses a severe risk to the long-term survival of the remaining large Madrone trees. While the Hearings Board finds the objection here to be irrelevant, the Board herewith incorporates its findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 21, which demonstrates that adequate measures have been employed to protect the madrone trees. Moreover, applicants are required by the ALUO (and herewith adopted approval conditions) to have a pre-construction meeting with city officials to go over the terms of construction. These steps ensure compliance with Criterion 29 and other substantive requirements of the ALUO. While this opponent is entitled to express his views as to the future health and well-being of certain trees, the Board is without evidence that qualifies this opponent as an expert in matters of landscaping and horticulture and the Board concludes that he is not. The Board concludes that this application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 29. Criterion 30 Inspection. The applicant shall not proceed with any construction activity, except installation of erosion control measures, until the City has inspected and approved the installation of the required tree protection measures and a building and/or grading permit has been issued by the City. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concludes that like Criterion 29, Criterion 30 does not operate as an approval standard, but instead simply states as law, that no applicant may proceed with construction prior to approval of tree protection measures and issuance of a building and/or grading permit. To this, applicants have agreed stipulate and the Board has imposed the same as a condition of this approval. Opponent Colin Swales at Record p. 35 and under Criterion 30 argues that applicants proceeded too early with construction activity by preemptively removing regulated trees. On this point, the Hearings Board concludes that it has no enforcement authority, although the city, if it chose, could seek to impose penalties based upon applicants and the planning department's mutual error. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 50 City of Ashland, Oregon OBJECTIONS DEEMED TO BE UNRELATED TO THE RELEVANT SUBSTANTIVE APPROVAL CRITERIA Objection: Colin Swales at Record p. 3640 argued that applicants did not address the purpose statement in ALUO 18.62.080. Additionally, the last six pages of this opponents submittal regards interpretation of the ALUO generally. Although the Hearings Board has difficulty understanding the points attempting to be made, they appear to be arguments which urge the Board: 1. Pursuant to ALUO 18.108.160, to use the comprehensive plan to interpret ambiguous provisions of the ALUO. To consider numerous passages, goals and policies of the comprehensive plan to support opponents contentions that the Board should consider adverse impacts to Ashland's viewshed, that trees, vegetation and historic resources are important assets, and that the purpose statements for ALUO Chapter 18.62 and 18.62.080 should operate as approval standards. Conclusions of Law: The Board concludes that opponent Swales submitted excerpts from the City's comprehensive plan its goals, policies and various provisions of the ALUO, including the "Purpose and Intent" provisions of the Physical and Environmental Constraints chapter (18.62.010) and the "Purpose" statement from the development standards for hillside lands (18.62.080). Applicants agents argued and the Board agrees, that it is well settled Oregon law, that generally worded statements of purpose and intent that express the motivation for adopting a regulation, or the general goals or policies that the local government hopes to achieve by adopting regulation, do not operate as approval criteria. Bennett v. City of Dallas, 17 Or. LUBA 450, 456, aff'd 96 Or. App. 645 (1989); Stotter v. City of Eugene, 18 Or. LUBA 135, 157 (1989); Beck v. City of Tillamook, 20 Or. LUBA 178 (1990), aJ~d 105 Or. App. 276 (1991), reversed on other grounds 313 Or. 148 (1992). While the stated purpose and intent of an ordinance may assist in interpreting ambiguous provisions, the purpose and intent of an ordinance does not operate as an independent approval standard. None of the policies, goals or purpose and intent statements cited by this opponent purport to apply an independent approval standard. They are generally worded expressions of the overall goals the City is hoping to achieve. They express only a general purpose; they do not impose any affirmative obligation or set forth any identifiable standards that could act as criteria for approval. FreeIand v. City of Bend, __ Or. LUBA __ (LUBA No. 2003- 59, August 5, 2003). When a purpose statement of policy does not act as an independent approval standard, the City should ignore evidence that the proposal before it does not comply with that purpose statement. Beck, 20 Or. LUBA 178; Moorefield v. City of Corvallis, 18 Or. LUBA 95, 119 (1989). The only approval criteria relevant to this application are found in ALUO 18.62.040(I) I_JAI MAR 0 3 2004 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 51 City of Ashland, Oregon subsections (1), (2) and (3). This opponent attempts to create ambiguity in these criteria by extracting individual words or phrases, such as "minimized", "potential impacts", or "nearby areas", and then asserts that these individual words or phrases, standing alone, "might be" examples of ambiguity. The opponent does not even attempt to state an actual ambiguity. He merely theorizes that there "might be" an ambiguity if words or phrases are lifted out of their context and considered without reference to the overall ordinance. Applicants eomend and the Hearings Board agrees, that when the approval criteria for this application are read in context, there is no ambiguity. Applicants experts have testified that, with application of sound engineering standards and adherence to the conditions of approval, all potential adverse impacts or hazards on both the subject property and in all nearby areas will be eliminated. There will be no adverse impacts to the environment either on or off the site. In his written arguments, opponent Colin Swales contends applicants have failed to address all relevant approval criteria. Specifically, he contends certain words and phrases in ALUO 18.62.1M0(I) are, or might be, ambiguous. He then argues that, consistent with ALUO 18.108.160, the Board should resolve such ambiguities by referring to various sections of the Comprehensive Plan as well as the Purpose Statement of Chapter 18.62, Physical and Environmental Constraints Review. The Board finds that the phrases "potential impacts," "potential hazards," and "adverse impacts on the environment" as used in ALUO 18.62.0400) are not ambiguous. ALUO Chapter 18.62 is a comprehensive chapter of the ordinance requiring applicants for certain uses to address 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 Board finds no support for the suggestion that the lengthy list of features, conditions and environmental facts is incomplete, ambiguous, or requiring construction in any way. Assuming, without deciding, the words and phrases cited by Mr. Swales are ambiguous and require construction by resort to the Comprehensive Plan or other ordinance provisions, Mr. Swales has not cited any provision of the Comprehensive Plan with which ALUO 18.62 is in conflict, nor has he directed the Board to any provisions of the Comprehensive Plan which, either because of the text or context, indicate they were intended to function as approval criteria for Physical and Environmental Constraints Review. Determining whether particular plan provisions are approval criteria applicable to land use permit decisions depends on the language and context of the particular plan provisions and land use regulations. It is not sufficient for opponents of a land use permit to quote random langa~age from the Comprehensive Plan, then argue that applicants for a land use permit must construct arguments showing the intent of the language is met by a particular application. Rather, it must appear from relevant plan and ordinance language that the city intended something more in the way of review in this case, beyond addressing the provisions of Chapter 18.62 is necessary in order to'obtain a land use permit. 0 2004 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning/~Jon 2003-118 Page 52 City of Ashland, Oregon In this case, Mr. Swales contends Goal 9 of the Comprehensive Plan element entitled Urban Forestry should be considered as an approval criterion, He also relies on Plan language in the element dealing with Historic Sites and Structures. Goal 9 of the Urban Forestry element simply requires all new residential development to be "...designed and landscaped to a high standard to complement the proposed site and surrounding area." The Board finds the language of Urban Forestry Goal 9 adds nothing to the specific requirements contained in ALUO 18.62. Moreover, rather than explaining any ambiguity in the Physical and Environmental Constraints Review process, resorting to the Plan language would actually cloud the process became it begs the question "what is meant by "high standard" and "complement?" The same is true with respect to Plan language in the Historic Sites and Structures element. The Board finds the provisions cited by Mr. Swales do not clarify any ambiguity in ALUO 18.62, but simply reflect the aspirations of the City to identify and protect important historic sites and structures. In this case, the manner in which that protection is afforded is through application of the specific review requirements of ALUO 18.62 -- not by attempting to transpose general Plan language into approval criteria. Put differently, the Board 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 therefore finds and concludes that applicants, having addressed the specific requirements of ALUO 18.62, have complied with all relevant approval criteria. Objection: During the public hearing, opponent Colin Swales, testified regarding the removal of trees that are within the public 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 right of way." Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board finds it difficult to understand this objection, but believes that Mr. Swales is arguing that the removal of trees within the public right-of-way should not be exempt from the standards of ALUO 18.62.080(D) which govern tree conservation and removal. The Board concludes that this application seeks approval for the removal of trees, including those within the public right-of-way of Glenview Street, and the same were addressed appropriately above. Additionally, the Board is aware that the city will be required to grant its consent to removal of three trees within the right-of-way. However, this Board lacks authority to grant such approval and the same is not required for the Board to act on this application, including the removal of trees pursuant to ALUO 18.62.080(I2)). Objection: During the public hearing, opponent Colin Swales, testified that paving surrounding the home which is on the National Registry, will be replaced with non-historic 0 3 2004 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 53 City of Ashland, Oregon type paving in order to comply with the lot coverage requirements.9 Mr. Swales further argued that the removal of some impermeable paving which surrounds the historic home to make the lot coverage requirement, is a major modification to the National Registry Historic property. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concludes neither objection goes to any of the relevant substantive approval criteria. Objection: During the public hearing and in email correspondence with city officials, opponent Colin Swales and Bryan Holley both argued that "the application was incomplete due to unfair restrictions made on the public obtaining copies of submittal." Conclusions of Law: In rebuttal, applicants agents argued and the Hearings Board agrees, that during the proceeding, applicants acknowledged that their architect had placed copyright protections on copies of the plans submitted with this application. It was further explained that reason for the copyright protection is because applicants plans were detailed working drawings, not simply design drawings and that it is customary for architects to copyright working drawings. When this opponent asked for copies of the plans, the city attorney advised the Planning Department that federal copyright rules override ORSq97.763.~lpon - being notified of this issue, applicants' attorney took immediate steps to have the copyright protection lifted so that all opponents could obtain copies of the plans. Applicants' architect authorized release of the plans on November 3, 2003 (nine days prior to the public hearing). See, Record p. 116. The delay ora short few days did not prejudice the substantial rights of opponents because: 1) the plans were available for inspection at city offices even during the period that no copies were provided, and 2) opponents (and other parties) were afforded an additional seven-day period to submit new evidence and argument into the record. Objection: During the proceeding, Bryan Holley at Record p. 59 argued that this matter should be referred to the full Planning Commission because of the publicity it has received. Conclusions of Law: Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 2.14.040 states: "The Hearings Board or Staff Advisor may refer may matter before the Board or Advisor to the Planning Commission when it becomes apparent that the matter involves major policy concern or potential serious impacts on surrounding areas." Applicants agents argued in rebuttal and the Hearings Board agrees that this is an application for a land use permit to build one single-family dwelling under Ashland's Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance, for land Subject to steep slopes and wildfh'es. It is not a matter that involves major policy concerns. Moreover, the evidence shows that all physical and environmental constraints are limited to the subject property and that the site will be fully stabilized after the dwelling is built. See, Record p. 86A. While this application may be important to Some, it is not a major policy issue nor one that will produce serious (or any) 9 Paving proposed by applicants are paver blocks, the centers of which are hollow to accommodate ground cover and provide permeability for drainage. Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 54 0 3 2004 City of Ashland, Oregon impact upon the surrounding area. Therefore, the Board has elected to retain its jurisdiction over this matter. Objection: During the proceeding, Bryan Holley at Record p. 60 argued that the Planning Commission should follow the Historic Commission's recommendation to deny this application. Conclusions of Law: The Board concludes that all parties seem to agree that-review of this application by the Historic Commission was not based upon the criteria the Historic Commission typically applies. In fact, the Historic Commission acknowledged in its action that it was not operating under any approval criteria and made no effort to apply the city's hillside development standards. The Hearings Board concludes that it should and will not be bound by a recommendation not based upon the application of any decisional standards or criteria. 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: Applicant argued in rebuttal that this objection is nonsensical because a city's standards cannot be exploited by observing them. Objection: During the proceeding George Kramer at Record p. 70 argued that the application should be denied because 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 concludes that community benefit is not an approval standard for the application and permits being sought. The Board also concludes that appropriateness, as urged by this opponent, should be given weight only in context of the rules of construction which the Hearings Board believes it has observed in its consideration of this application. Objection: During the proceeding George Kmmer at Record p. 70 argued that 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 Heatings Board concludes that a determination of what is in the community's best interest is a matter of opinion and not a relevant substantive approval criterion. Whether this application might be denied under the Ashland's Hillside Ordinance is irrelevant if the application, with the imposition of conditions, can be approved. The Heatings Board is required by law to approve an application if it can thorough the imposition of conditions. The Board has found that if it imposes reasonable conditions, along with the stipulations of applicants, this application can and does meet all of Ashland's standards, and should be approved. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-t 18 o 3 2004 Page 55 City of Ashland, Oregon Objection: During the proceeding, Bill Street at Record p. 64-65 argued that applicants should honor the intent and purpose of the Hillside Ordinance by restoring the trees removed from their Property and by resubmitting their plans and building their house in the historically appropriate location of the two Vista Street houses they demolished previously. Conclusions of Law: The Heatings Board agrees with applicants that this objection does not go to any approval criteria and is irrelevant. The Board also concludes that these and any applicants are entitled by law to a decision based on the standards and criteria that existed on the date a complete application was first received. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board has concluded that this application is consistent with the applicable criteria and standards. Objection: During the proceeding, an opponent submitted an informational article (Record p. 57). 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 concludes that this piece of evidence has no relevance to this application. Objection: During the proceeding, an opponent submitted a photo (Record p. 56) taken from Ashland downtown towards the subject property. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concludes that this photograph is also not an objection per se, but simply a photo that allegedly depicts the proposed dwelling. The Board concludes that this photograph appears as an attempt to document historic/architectural issues and the same are not relevant. Objection: During the proceeding, an opponent placed into evidence, email correspondence from one of the applicants (Karen DeBoer) to "peareer@~ashland.or.us and the same is at Record p. 68. Conclusions of Law: The Heatings Board concludes 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 Board finds that this email correspondence exists as an honest expression of applicant Karen DeBoer's opinions at that time and is not relevant to this application. Objection: During the proceeding, an opponent placed into evidence at Record p. 52, a letter dated November 12, 1997 from Robert Taber to then Mayor Golden and City Council. Conclusions of Law: The Heatings Board again finds that this is not an objection per se, but a 1997 letter that supported adoption of Ashland's Hillside Ordinance. The Board concludes that the letter is irrelevant to this application. MAR 0 3 ZOO4 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 56 City Of Ashland, Oregon Objection: During the proceeding, an opponent placed into evidence at Record p. 49 and 50, a timeline containing the various meetings that led to adoption of Ashland's Hillside Ordinance and a Table of Contents which appears to be a list of exhibits for 1997 Hillside Ordinance adoption. · Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board again finds these not to be objection per se, but public information regarding the consideration and ultimate adoption Ashland's Hillside Ordinance -- ALUO 18.62.080. The Board concludes that these are irrelevant to this application. VI CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL In addition to conditions recommended by the Planning Department in Record p. 2-3 which the Hearings Board herewith incorporates and adopts, the Hearings Board also incorporates and adopts as conditions attached to this approval, the following stipulations agreed to by applicants: Stipulation 1. Applicants will construct the proposed dwelling and other site improvements in accordance with the approved plans, as amended by reasonable conditions imposed by the Hearings Board. Stipulation 2. Where required by this chapter, all required revegetation of cut and fill slopes shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, signature of a required survey plat, or other time as determined by the hearing authority. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be substantially established within one year of installation. Revegetation 18.62.o8o( )(0 Stipulation 3. Applicants will be continuously maintain all replacement trees in a healthy manner as part of the overall landscape of the project area. Stipulation 4. Applicants will not proceed with any construction activity, except installation of erosion control measures, until the City has inspected and approved the installation of the required tree protection measures and a building and/or grading permit has been issued by the City. Stipulation 5. Applicants will perpetually maintain all measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control, including vegetative cover, rock walls, landscaping, and all areas which have been disturbed, including public fights-of-way. Stipulation 6. Following approval of the Erosion Control Plan by the city (and prior to construction) applicants will provide a performance bond or other financial Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 0 3 ZOO4 Page 57 City of Ashland, Oregon guarantees in the amount of 120% of the value of the erosion control measures necessary to stabilize the site. Stipulation 7. Before issuance of a certificate of occupancy, applicants geotechnical expert will provide a final, report which indicates that the approved grading, drainage, and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections, as per ALUO 18.62.080(A)(4)(j) were conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project. Stipulation 8. Applicants will provide ten trees having a caliper not less than 2 inches to be planted in a public location to be determined by the Ashland Tree Commission. Stipulation 9. Applicants will install all required revegetation of cut and fill slopes and the same will occur before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. VII ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of laTM, the Hearings Board concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of ALUO 18.62.080 and 18.62.090 and all related standards with respect to development on regulated hillside and wildfire lands. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 MAR 0 3 2004 Pa9® 58 ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM December 9th, 2003 PLANNING ACTION: 2003-118 APPLICANT: Sidney and Karen DeBoer LOCATION: 265 Glenview Drive; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 09BC; Tax Lot #: 7200 ZONE DESIGNATION: R-1-7.5 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.28 18.62 R-1-7.5 Physical & Environmental Constraints Permit - Hillside Development REQUEST: A request for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Permit to construct a single family residential home on Hillside Lands within a Historic District. I. Relevant Facts 1) Background - History of Application: The application was originally approved as a Staff Permit by the Planning Staff on October 102, 2003. During the time of the 1 O-day public notice period, three neighbors appealed staW s decision and requested a public hearing. One of the neighbors subsequently withdrew their appeal request. On November 12, 2003, a Public Heating was held by the Planning Commission's Heatings Board. At the meeting the Planning Staff gave a verbal Staff Report on the application to the Board, the Board listened to testimony by the applicants and their representatives, listened to neighbors and citizens in support of the application and listened to neighbors and citizens not in support of the application. After the public testimony period was closed, a citizen requested the Heatings Board leave the record open for an additional seven days in order for the public to submit additional "written" testimony. In response to the request, the Heatings Board also agreed to leave the record open an additional seven days (14 days total) in order for "written" rebuttal by the Applicants. The additional written testimony and the applicant's rebuttal are attached and are considered part of the Planning Action record. PA2003-118 Page I II. Conclusions and Recommendations: After hearing the testimony presented at the November 12th, 2003 meeting and reviewing the additional information submitted by the opponents and the applicants rebuttal information, staff still supports the original approval and conditions granted on October l0th, 2003. The additional evidence submitted in opposition of this application is essentially based on two issues: 1) Compatibility with neighborhood and 2) The physical abil_ity of the site to accommodate the house. In addition, there were a number of comments or issues brought up that do not speak to the criteria. It is staff's contention the applicants have thoroughly addressed the criteria for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit and have thoroughly responded to the additional information submitted by the opposition. Staff concurs with the applicants' findings of fact and recommends the Hearings Board move to approve the application with the following conditions: 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That a Geotechnical Expert be retained until the project is completed and a final Certificate of Occupancy is issued. 3) That prior to final Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall present to the staff advisor a copy of the Geotechnical Expert's Inspection Schedule. Such inspection schedule shall identify the Geotechnical Expert's final approval for all measurers noted in the Geotechnical Engineering Report. 4) That all recommendations listed in the Amrhein Associates Geologic Evaluation and Geotechnical Engineering Report (July 20th, 2003) be implemented during the construction of the home. Such recommendations will need to be identified in the final Geotechnical Expert's Inspection Schedule. 5) That prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant, Geotechnical Expert, Building Official and Planning Staff Advisor meet on site in order to review the City's Hillside Development requirements. 6) That prior to final Certificate of Occupancy, the mitigation proposal for the replacement trees as noted in the applicants' findings shall be met. 7) That all proposed construction work within the Glenview Drive right-of-way be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Engineering Department. 8) That an encroachment permit be obtained from the Ashland Engineering Department for the existing fence along Glenview Drive. PA2003-118 Page 2 9) That a separate Physical & Environmental Constraints Permit be approved for the removal of the trees by the future pool house (Trees #9-13). PA2003-118 Page 3 CRAIG A. STONE & ASSOCIATES, Consullanls in Urban Planning and I)evelopment LTD. 708 Cardley Avenue · Medford, Oregon 97504-6124 Telephone: (541) 779-0569 · Fax: (541 ) 779-0114 · E-mail: cstone~cstoneassociates.com November 25, 2003 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD c/o Ashland Planning Department 51 Winbum Way Ashland, OR 97520 RE: FINAL REBUTTAL Planning Action 2003-118 Sidney and Karen DeBoer: Applicants Dear Hearings Board: Following the close of public testimony at the November 11, 2003 public hearing on the above captioned matter, the Hearings Board ("Board") left the record open for seven days for all parties and for an additional seven days thereafter, to receive final rebuttal from applicants Sidney and Karen DeBoer. This letter constitutes applicants final rebuttal. During the initial seven-day period the record was left open, the following additional testimony and evidence was received by the city: 1. Opponent Colin Swales Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 2. Letter to John McLaughlin from Bryan Holley, dated November 18, 2003 3. Letter to Russ Chapman from George Kramer, dated November 17, 2003 4. Email correspondence between Colin Swales and Ashland city officials 5. Email correspondence between JBStreet and Ashland's Mark Knox, dated November 18, 2003 6. Internet description of event called, "The Aberfan Disaster" 7. Photo taken from Ashland downtown towards the subject property 8. Email from Karen DeBoer to "pearcer~ashland.or.us 9. Letter from Robert Taber to Mayor Golden and City Council dated November 12, 1997 10. Timeline of Hillside Development Standards Ordinance Adoption (1996-1997) 11. Table of Contents which appears to be list of exhibits for 1997 Hillside adoption Ordinance The above matters are dealt with individually below in a format that cites each opponent objection, followed by applicants rebuttal. RECEIVED NOV 2 5 2003 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board November 25, 2003 Applicants Rebuttal: I. Opponent Colin S~vales i'roposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Note: This document contains apparent verbatim recitations of the standards and approval criteria from applicants proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, followed by this opponent's objections and follows applicants numbering of the criteria (Criterion 1, Criterion 2, etc.). Objection: (Criterion 1) The impact area is larger than the notice area cited by applicants and should (pursuant to ALUO 18.104.020) include any lot beyond the notice area if the hearings authority finds that it may be materially affected by the proposed use. This opponent further argues that the impact area is larger because, since the subject property is at a prominent elevated location in the Historic District and based upon the opinion of the Historic Commission, the dwelling will adversely affect the, "identify, aesthetic quality and visual character of the City." Rebuttal: Opponent's objection is based upon language in the purpose statement for ALUO 18.62.080 (Development Standards for Hillside Lands). The purpose statement does not contain independent standards or approval criteria. If the Board believes the physical and environmental impacts of this proposal go beyond the notice area, it is entitled to expand this area. However, the evidence, including the testimony of applicants expert geotechnical engineer, is that all physical and environmental impacts are limited to the boundaries of the subject property and do not even reach the other nearby lands entitled to public notice of this proceeding. The evidence further shows that the site will be completely stabilized following construction. Opponent here simply attempts to bootstrap from a purpose statement, to arguments that relate to issues of visual and historical impact. Applicant has made no attempt to address these types of issues because they are irrelevant and nothing in the purpose statement makes them relevant. Objection: (Criterion 2) The application does not show volumes of cut and fill, whether any material will be imported to or exported from the site or the nature/type of material to be used. The fill to be used for lawn will be retained only with a rubble wall, putting owners below the wall in danger of liquefaction of the fill material during flood conditions. Rebuttal: There is no requirement under the ALUO to show volumes of cut and fill or whether material will be imported or exported from the site, and this opponent cites nothing to support his position. Applicant intends no rubble retaining walls. However, in the geotechnical report by applicants expert geotechnical engineer, some of the retaining walls are recommended to be "rockeries" (stacked rock walls with drainage provisions) and these are to face stable slopes and protect them from erosion or sloughing. There are other rockeries intended as part of applicants ornamental landscaping and these are effective in preventing erosion or sloughing. Other portions of the site are to be retained with engineered structural retaining walls, including the wall used to retain the lawn area. As to the potential for liquefaction, there is nothing in Ashland's comprehensive plan nor the ALUO that suggests Applicants Final Rebuttal for Planning Action 2003-118 ~.. ~B~ ~5 ~[~ Page2ofl6 Craig A. SIone & Associates, Lid. Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board November 25, 2003 liquefaction poses any threat in Ashland and this opponent cites nothing to support his contention that liquefaction is a hazard. Moreover, this property is not subject to flooding as no streams exist in the area. The record shows that applicants have engaged qualified civil, structural and geotechnical engineers, and landscape architects to design this project to ensure that all requirement of Ashland's Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance have been appropriately addressed, including the potential effects of drainage, erosion and sloughing. Objection: (Criterion 3) Hillside impacts from massive cutting of native significant trees is irreversible and needs to be mitigated by replanting close to the area of impact to stabilize the site and restore the gap in the tree canopy. Rebuttal: Applicants have agreed to the mitigation plan recommended by Ashland's Tree Commission which requires replanting on and off the subject property. There is nothing to suggest that mitigation must occur close to the same area where trees were mistakenly removed. Moreover, the evidence shows that following construction, this property will be completely stabilized with vegetation, landscaping, rockeries and engineered retaining walls. Objection: (Criterion 4) Opponents earlier submittals show city survey data that indicates the proposed site has slopes of greater than 35 percent and is unbuildable. Other portions of the site are available. Rebuttal: The statement that this opponent's earlier submittal shows city survey data, is inaccurate. The city has not surveyed the subject property. Opponents submittals include aerial topographic maps which all people involved in the planning and building professions know, is unreliable as to accuracy. In particular, this opponent submitted an aerial topographic map with slope calculations. As to this piece of evidence: 1. There is no dispute that the subject property is subject to the Hillside ordinance (ALUO 18.62.080). Applicants contend and Ashland's municipal staff agree, that in determining the grade of property for purposes of the Hillside Ordinance, the natural grade of the property must be used. This is because, for hillside lands, already developed property (proposed for redevelopment) has terraces and other built site features used to retain steep slopes, which produce grades that differ significantly from the original natural grades and otherwise make application of and compliance with the Hillside Ordinance infeasible. The issue of whether to use of the natural grade or existing man-made topography, to determine matters under the Hillside Ordinance, requires interpretation. The purpose of the Hillside Ordinance (expressed in ALUO 18.62.080) is useful in determining whether an existing built grade or natural grade should be used. The purpose of the Hillside Ordinance expressed in that section provides in pertinent part: "It is the purpose of the Development Standards for Hillside Lands to* * * protect the natural and topographic character and identity of these areas * * *" Applicants Final Rebuttal for Planning Action 2003-118 NOV 2 5 20O3 Page 3 of 16 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board November 25, 2003 If the purpose of the Hillside Ordinance is to protect the natural and topographic character of hillside lands, it makes no sense to construe the ordinance in such a way as to require the protection of slopes which were artificially created. The topographic map (containing slope crossections and calculations) supplied by this opponent, contain no date to establish whether the purported grades are natural or man-made and no scale from which to establish the correctness of the measurements. Applicants believe that this map was from city aerial topography flown in 1998 and, as such, is based upon existing built conditions which bear no relationship to the original natural grades. Exhibits 5 and 7, from applicants land surveyor, establish the original natural grades based upon a 1978 aerial topographic map and the stumps of trees which provide evidence of what the actual historical ground elevations were. The only data appearing on this opponents submittals are his own and not those of a qualified expert. Design professionals know that if you want accurate topographic information, you engage a licensed land surveyor to ascertain them. Based upon the evidence already of record, including topographic surveys by applicants registered professional land surveyor, Darrell Huck, the proposed building site has an average natural slope of 28 percent and is buildable. See, Applicants Exhibits 5 and 7. This opponent also submitted photographs of Glenview Drive (circa 1910). These photographs do not show the subject property. In fact, they were taken approximately one- quarter mile from the subject property on the west-facing slope above Lithia Park. There is a distinct difference in slope contours between the different faces of the ridge that Glenview Drive is built on. It is unreasonable to associate the slope characteristics of two areas so distant from one another. These photographs have no more relevance to this application than would a photograph of Mount Hood. There are also dimension lines superimposed on one of the photographs which purports to demonstrate some calculation of slope. This photograph is without scale; it is not possible to lay a ruler on a photograph and measure distance with any degree of accuracy. This is simply drawing lines in the air based upon a photograph that does not even depict the subject property, its slope or the surrounding area. Objection: (Criterion 5) Even though not created by subdivision or partition, the reconfiguration of the subject property falls under the meaning of Criterion 5 which requires a building envelope with slopes of 35 percent or less. Rebuttal: Criterion 5 applies only to lots newly created by subdivision or partition. This criterion does not apply because the subject property is not to be newly created by way of either a subdivision or partition; a lot boundary adjustment is neither a subdivision or partition. Moreover, the average slope of the building site is 28 percent according to applicants surveyor. See, Exhibit 7. Objection: (Criterion 6) The driveway is more than 100 feet long, is moved from its current position and relocated to land with slopes of more than 35 percent with a resulting loss of more trees. Applicants Final Rebuttal for Planning Action 2003-118 Page 4 of 16 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board November 25, 2003 Rebuttal: This opponent misunderstands and misstates the applicable standard, which merely regulates the portion of driveways which are on land which has slopes greater than 35 percent and limits these portions to no more than 100 feet in length. The proposed driveway, largely now exists and in no case does it (including any new sections) exceed a slope of 35 percent for more than 100 feet. As to opponents contention that the driveway will result in more lost trees, this is irrelevant under Criterion 6. Objection: (Criterion 8) The rubble wall to retain 5 feet of additional fill-is unsafe during floods. Rebuttal: As earlier addressed, this property is not near any stream and is not subject to flooding and there is no evidence to the contrary that is worthy of belief. Objection: (Criterion 9) Applicant has stated that the building will be used as a corporate hospitality center but has not complied with provisions of the ALUO that govern such use. Applicants time frame (for construction) was not received by the city until after the public heating, making the application incomplete. The application should not have been accepted if incomplete. The construction schedule shows construction during the wet months. Rebuttal: Criterion 9 is inapplicable by reason that this application concerns a single family home on an individual lot which is expressly exempt from this standard. Criterion 9 has nothing to do with the use, application filing requirements or any other objection raised by opponent here. Objection: (Criterion 10) Applicants have used the stumps of felled trees to justify the original grade by stating there are no areas in a natural state. Opponent contends the hillside was in a natural state before tree removal. Rebuttal: This opponents objection does not go to the requirements of Criterion 10 and is, therefore, irrelevant. Opponent appears to argue that this property was in a natural state before the recent mistaken removal of trees. The premise here is wrong because, pursuant to the definition of "natural state" in ALUO 18.62.030(N), lands in a natural state are those which are undeveloped and undisturbed. As earlier observed, the subject property has been developed with dwellings, garage, driveway, a swimming pool, pedestrian walkways and ornamental landscaping, all of which have altered this property from its "natural state" according to the ALUO. The evidence shows that applicants have observed the requirements of Criterion 10 by setting aside sufficient land within the property to meet its requirements, subject to the ALUO definition of the term "natural state." Objection: (Criterion 11) Removed trees must be replaced in their original locations. Rebuttal: Same objection as under Criterion 3. There is nothing in the ordinance to require removed trees to be replaced in their original locations. Objection: (Criterion 12) The proposed lawn is not "native vegetation" nor "vegetation similar in resource value" and will not stabilize the surface. Applicants Final Rebuttal fo~ Planning Action 2003-118 5 of 16 Page NOV 2 5 2003 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board November 25, 2003 Rebuttal: Criterion 12 requires "fill slopes" to utilize native vegetation or vegetation of similar resource value. While the proposed lawn is to be placed on fill, it is not a "fill slope" because the lawn is to be on level terrain. Moreover, the proposed lawn will simply replace an existing lawn, so it has the same resource value as the lawn it will replace. Objection: (Criterion 13) The Planning Commission should require revegetation with native species of the tree canopy that was removed. Rebuttal: This is not an objection per se, but a recommendation from this opponent and has nothing to do with the standards in Criterion 13. Objection: (Criterion 14) "Erosion mitigation" caused by tree removal should be replacement of trees not development activity. Rebuttal: This is not an objection per se, but a recommendation from this opponent that has nothing to do with the standards in Criterion 14. Moreover, Criterion 14 deals with the proper maintenance of long-term erosion control measures and requires applicants to post appropriate security to ensure the faithful maintenance of erosion control measures (which they will do). Criterion 144 has nothing to do with tree removal. As to tree replacement, applicants have agreed to stipulate to the tree mitigation plan recommended by Ashland's Tree Commission. Objection: (Criterion 15) Opponent has been unable to find evidence that prior development on this site and at 300 Vista conformed with ALUO 18.62. The stability of the steep slope has been compromised by tree removal that needs to be replaced with planting. The proposed building site is or was in a natural state. Rebuttal: The existing home terracing, pool construction and lawn, referred to by this opponent, were installed before adoption of Ashland's Hillside Ordinance (a part of the Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance) -- ALUO 18.62.080. The Hillside Ordinance was adopted in 1997; the dwelling and other improvements were installed in 1988. As to the contention that the steep slope should be replaced with planting, the evidence shows that this will occur. Regarding the proposed building site being in a "natural state," refer to applicants rebuttal for Criterion 10. Objection: (Criterion 17) Existing erosion of Glenview Street is insufficient for the proposed use which includes valet parking for fund-raising events). The massive cutting and terracing of Glenview will not improve erosion that has caused damage to neighbors on Vista Street. Rebuttal: This opponents objection does not address the requirements of Criterion 17, which relate to surface and groundwater drainage of the subject property. The only evidence of any erosion of Glenview Street, is a photograph which shows some minor erosion at the intersection of Vista Drive and Glenview Street and this has nothing to do with applicants project. Glenview (including its intersection with Vista Drive) is at a higher elevation than the subject property; water does not drain uphill. This project will not affect, positively or negatively, erosion that may occur on Glenview at its intersecti~'~-'t~.g]gontrary to this Applicants Final Rcbuttal for Planning Action 2003-118 q H~ ~' ~) LI. ILI~) Page 6 of 16 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board November 25, 2003 opponents contention that there will be massive cutting and terracing of Glenview Street (ostensibly to accommodate the driveway) the driveway now exists and will be stabilized with the installation of engineered retaining walls which have been designed by applicants expert structural engineer. During the Historic Commission proceeding, applicants testified that when they entertain, their invited guests will park elsewhere and be shuttled to the subject property. The issue of valet parking is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with surface and groundwat6r drainage. Objection: (Criterion 18) The inventory shows numerous regulated trees that have been removed and additional trees proposed for removal. Evidence earlier submitted (by this opponent) shows inaccuracies in the survey regarding trees in the right-of-way which are listed as unregulated (but which are regulated) and trees on slopes greater than 35 percent that are listed as being on lesser slopes. Rebuttal: Criterion 18 requires an inventory of existing trees and operates as a filing requirement (which was met) and not an approval standard. The inventory does show regulated trees that were mistakenly removed earlier (and identifies them as such). There are no additional regulated trees to be removed at this time as part of this application. Trees within the public right-of-way are subject to a future municipal permit, which applicants are required to and will obtain. Regarding alleged inaccuracies in the tree inventory (with respect to trees in the right-of-way) the inventory was based upon a professional land survey and is in all ways accurate. Objection: (Criterion 19) This criterion was not addressed. Rebuttal: This objection is accurate in that applicants overlooked addressing Criterion 19 with proposed conclusions of law. However, the record is complete with facts and evidence sufficient to demonstrate compliance with Criterion 19, which requires: Evaluation of Suitability for Conservation. All trees indicated on the inventory of existing trees shall also be identified as to their suitability for conservation. When required by the hearing authority, the evaluation shall be conducted by a landscape professional. Factors included in this determination shall include: a. Tree health. Healthy trees can better withstand the rigors of development than non-vigorous trees. b. Tree Structure. Trees with severe decay or substantial defects are more likely to result in damage to people and property. c. Species. Species vary in their ability to tolerate impacts and damage to their environment. d. Potential longevity. e. Variety. A variety of native tree species and ages f. Size. Large trees provide a greater protection for erosion and shade than smaller trees. Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Criterion 19): As part of applicants Exhibit 2 (Sheets L1 through L3 and the supporting text) -- all prepared by ECE_B/ED Applicants Final Rebuttal for Planning Action 2003-118 / O ~[~ 2 ~ ~[~ Page7 of 16 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board November 25, 2003 applicants landscape architect -- the matters required under Criterion 19 have been addressed. Additionally, Criterion 19 does not operate as an approval standard, but as a filing requirement and the same were met. Objection: (Criterion 20) There are numerous trees within the "Protected Hillside Area." The property is within Ashland's Wildfire Lands. Previous planting on this and adjacent lots is illegal under ALUO 18.68.010 and are a wildfire hazard. Rebuttal: Based upon Applicants Exhibit 2 (Sheet L3) there are no significant trees to be removed within the Protected Hillside Area as a part of this project. The maximum number of trees on the reconfigured subject property and within the constrains of this project, have been preserved. As to the property being within Ashland's Wildfire Lands, applicants acknowledge this to be true. However, the objections under this standard suggest only that previous planting on the property was illegal under an unrelated section of the ALUO which deals with fences, walls, hedges and screen planting. The standards for the development of wildfire lands is governed by ALUO 18.62.090:~ SECTION 18.62.090 Development Standards for Wildfire Lands. 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 interlockin9 canopy of this type of vegetation. Where necessary for erosion control or aesthetic purposes, the fuel break may be planted in slow- burnin9 species. Establishment of a fuel break does not involve strippin9 the 9round 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 throu9h fuels control. 5. All structures shall be constructed or re-roofed with Class B or better non-wood roof coverings, as determined by the Oregon Structural Specialty Code. All re-roofing of existing structures in the Wildfire Lands area for which at least 50% of the roofing area requires re-roofing shall be done under approval of a zoning permit. No structure shall be constructed or re-roofed with wooden shingles, shakes, wood-product material or other combustible roofing material, as defined in the City's building code. Fuel breaks in areas which are also Erosive or Slope Failure Lands shall be included in the erosion control measures outlined in section 18.62.080. Implementation. ~ ALUO 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. Applicants Final Rebuttal for Planning Action 2003-118 // Page 8 of 16 t~ 2 5 Craig A Stone & Associates, Ltd Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board November 25, 2003 1. For land which have been subdivided and required to comply with A. (6) above, all requirements of the Plan shall be complied with prior to the commencement of construction with combustible materials. 2. For all other structures, the vegetation control requirements of section (B) above shall be complied with before the commencement of construction with combustible materials on the lot. (Ord. 2657, 1991) 3. As of November 1, 1994, existing residences in subdivisions developed outside of the Wildfire Lands Zone, but later included due to amendments to the zone boundaries shall be exempt from the requirements of this zone, with the exception of section 18.62.090 B.5. above.- All new residences shall comply with all standards for new construction in section 18.62.090 B. 4. Subdivisions developed outside of the wildfire lands zone prior to November 1, 1994, but later included as part of the zone boundary amendment, shall not be required to prepare or implement Fire Prevention and Control Plans outlined in section 18.62.090 A. (Ord 2747, 1994) (Ord 2808, Added, 12/02/1997) Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Wildfire Lands): The significance of this property being within Ashland's Wildfire Lands is nil, as this property has been and will be developed as an urban homesite with irrigated ornamental landscaping. No dead or dying Vegetation exists on the property or is planned which will produce a fire hazard sought to be mitigated by these provisions of the ALUO. However, there are small groups of trees which technically form an "interlocking canopy." If required by the Board, applicants will further thin the tree canopy if the same is needed to reduce the potential danger from wildfire pursuant to the ALUO. As shown in the Exhibit 2 plans (Sheet 7.1) roofing is to be concrete tile; no wooden roofing is proposed. Rebuttal (Continued): As to previous plantings on the subject and adjacent lots, ALUO 18.68.010 is an ordinance which has nothing to do with a Physical and Environmental Constraints permit. If some of the vegetation that occurs on this property does not comply with the requirements of ALUO 18.68.010, this is a matter to be considered separately by the city as an enforcement action. As to this opponents statement that the driveway and building footprint are located to produce the most damage to tree protection areas, the term "tree protection areas" is not a term of art in the ALUO. The requirement under Criterion 20 is that a maximum number of existing trees are preserved. Applicants have sought to design the dwelling to preserve the significant madrone trees located east of the dwelling. While the driveway will cause the removal of oak trees, these have been historically compromised by improper pruning practices. This matter was recognized by Ashland's Tree Commission in its decision to permit the removal of these oak trees (subject to submittal of a tree removal permit) and their replacement as part of the overall mitigation strategy for the property. Objection: (Criterion 21) According to the Tree Commission, the proposal will cause undue stress to the remaining Madrone trees on 300 Vista and result in the removal of other significant trees. Applicants Final Rebuttal for Planning Action 2003-118 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board November 25, 2003 Rebuttal: The recommendation of the Tree Commission clearly infers, by the following language, that the madrone trees will be protected if the plan prepared by applicants expert landscape architect is followed: "It is essential that the remaining madrones be protected. The tree protection plan as presented bythe Landscape Architect should be fully implemented to protect these trees. And in addition a structural footing should be designed by the Architect in conjunction with the Landscape Architect that will ensure the utmost protection of the rootzone." Objection: (Criterion 22) Applicants landscape architect indicated that trees were removed in anticipation of the adoption of the tree ordinance and staff admitted that if the trees had not been removed, this development would have to be denied. Rebuttal: It is true that applicants landscape architect indicated that her clients removed trees in anticipation of the adoption of the tree ordinance. However, this is irrelevant. As to this opponents contention that the city staff indicated the application would have to be denied if the trees had not been removed, this is untrue and exists as unsupported heresy. Moreover, the notion that had the trees not be removed, this application would have to be denied, is wrong as a matter of law. There is nothing in the ALUO that prevents the removal of trees when necessary to accommodate a homesite or driveway. See, Criterion 22 (Parts 5(a) and 5(b). Applicants have observed all requirements for tree preservation and protection; trees that are proposed to be permissibly removed pursuant to recommendations by the Tree Commission, are being replaced in greater numbers (both on and off site) than is required by the ALUO. Objection: (Criterion 23) Applicants landscape architect stated that proposed use of the property precludes on-site mitigation. Rebuttal: See applicants response for objections under Criterion 22. Additionally, the evidence shows that appropriate tree mitigation is being accommodated on-site; there is additional off-site mitigation. Ashland's Tree Commission has accepted the mitigation plan proposed by applicants. Objection: (Criterion 24) Applicants did not appraise the value of the trees that were mistakenly removed and the city has not determined culpability or penalties. Rebuttal: Criterion 24 states that no designated trees can be removed without prior approval of the City of Ashland. Made clear by the testimony of Ashland Planning Department representative, Mark Knox, during the public hearing, is that he had made an honest mistake in advising applicants that the trees could be removed. Simply stated, Mr. Knox's authorization, mistakenly or not, was approval by the city. Moreover, Criterion 24 does not require the city to appraise the value of removed trees nor assess fines, it only provides that fines may be levied. To date, the city has not elected to impose fines and appropriate mitigation for the removed trees has been recommended by Ashland's Tree Commission and applicants have agree to stipulate to these recommendations. ApplicamsFinalRcbuthal forPlanningAcfion2003-11g /3 ~0V 25 20{)3 Pagel0ofl6 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board November 25, 2003 Objection: (Criterion 25) Although not created by "subdivision or partition" the proposed reconfiguration of the property, as stated under Criterion 4, falls within the purpose and intent of this part of the ALUO. Rebuttal: Criterion 25 and the additional standards thereto cited, do not apply to this application because: 1) the proposed parcel is not to be created by either subdivision or partition, and 2) the subject property is within the Historic District. This standard has nothing to do with the purpose and intent of the Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance. It is not appropriate to apply provisions of the ordinance which, by its clear and unambiguous language, do not apply. Objection: (Criterion 27) Applicants surveyor stated that the average original slope is 28 percent. Average is irrelevant under the criteria. The survey was based on the elevation of "older trees" but fails to say if the level was on the uphill or downhill side of the massive stumps. A difference of only 6 inches in height would render a slope unbuildable. The submitted topographic map fails to give a complete survey of the original slope of the southwest comer of the lot. Rebuttal: Exhibit 7 is the testimony of applicants surveyor, which states that the average original slope of the ground at the proposed building site is 28 percent. Exhibit 5 is the survey map showing slopes within the building envelop area. The building envelop is shown on Exhibit 2 (Sheet 1.1) and the same is called the "setback line" on this plan. This evidence shows that no part of the building envelope has slopes greater than 35 percent and, in fact, no slopes within the building envelope exceed a slope of 30 percent. The proposed dwelling can be accommodated within the building envelope. These facts and conclusions demonstrate compliance with Criterion 27. Applicants cannot understand the objections here which relate to trees and stumps. The method of topographic survey was done in accordance with the standard practices of professional land surveyors. This opponent cites no evidence to call into question the professional work done by applicants surveyor, Darrell Huck. Furthermore, there is no evidence, even if a six-inch difference existed, that it would invalidate Mr. Huck's work. As to the topographic survey not covering the southwest comer of the property, this is the portion of the property already developed with the existing driveway and garage, both of which are to be retained. Objection: (Criterion 28) The landscape architect's drawings show contour lines at variance with the existing topography as shown on the city's GIS map this opponent submitted during the public hearing. Rebuttal: Applicants landscape architect utilized the contour lines which were established by applicants land surveyor and which, as earlier described, are substantially more accurate than those shown on Ashland's GIS map (which this opponent submitted). See, rebuttal under Criterion 4. Objection: (Criterion 29) The dwelling poses a severe risk to the long term survival of the remaining large Madrone trees. RFCFI\/FD Applicants Final Rebuttal for Planning Actio~ 2003-118 NOV 2 5 ~003 Page Craig A. Stone & Associates, Lid. Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board November 25, 2003 Rebuttal: As stated in applicants proposed iFindings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the requirements of Criterion 29 were incorporated into applicants landscape plans. Moreover, applicants are required by the ALUO (and recommended approval conditions) to have a pre- construction meeting with city officials to go over the terms of construction. These steps ensure compliance with Criterion 29 and other substantive requirements of the ALUO. This opponent is unqualified to express an expert opinion as to the risk to trees, especially if the requirements of Criterion 29 have been observed. Also see rebuttal for Criterion 21. Objection: (Criterion 30) Applicants have proceeded with construction activity by preemptively removing regulated trees. Rebuttal: As stated in applicants proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Criterion 30 does not operate as an approval standard, but instead simply states as law, that no applicant may proceed with construction prior to approval of tree protection measures and issuance of a building and/or grading permit. Applicants have so stipulated. The trees mistakenly removed earlier was not a "construction activity." Objection: Applicants did not address the purpose statement in ALUO 18.62.080. Additionally, the last six pages of this opponents submittal regards interpretation of the ALUO generally. Although applicants have difficulty understanding the points attempting to be made, they appear to be arguments which urge the Board: 1. Pursuant to ALUO 18.108.160, to use the comprehensive plan to interpret ambiguous provisions of the ALUO. To consider numerous passages, goals and policies of the comprehensive plan to support opponents contentions that the Board should consider adverse impacts to Ashland's viewshed, that trees, vegetation and historic resources are important assets, and that the purpose statements for ALUO Chapter 18.62 and 18.62.080 should operate as approval standards. Rebuttal: Opponent Colin Swales submitted excerpts from the City's comprehensive plan its goals, policies and various provisions of the ALUO, including the "Purpose and Intent" provisions of the Physical and Environmental Constraints chapter (18.62.010) and the "Purpose" statement from the development standards for hillside lands (18.62.080). It is well settled Oregon law that generally worded statements of purpose and intent that express the motivation for adopting a regulation, or the general goals or policies that the local government hopes to achieve by adopting regulation, do not operate as approval criteria. Bennett v. City of Dallas, 17 Or. LUBA 450, 456, aff'd 96 Or. App. 645 (1989); Stotter v. City of Eugene, 18 Or. LUBA 135, 157 (1989); Beck v. City of Tillamook, 20 Or. LUBA 178 (1990), aff'd 105 Or. App. 276 (1991), reversed on other grounds 313 Or. 148 (1992). While the stated purpose and intent of an ordinance may assist in interpreting ambiguous provisions, the purpose and intent of an ordinance simply does not operate as an independent approval standard. Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board November 25, 2003 None of the policies, goals or purpose and intent statements cited by this opponent purport to apply an independent approval standard. They are generally worded expressions of the overall goals the City is hoping to achieve. They express only a general purpose; they do not impose any affirmative obligation or set forth any identifiable standards that could act as criteria for approval. Freeland v. City of Bend, __ Or. LUBA __ (LUBA No. 2003- .59, August 5, 2003). When a purpose statement of policy does not act as an independent approval standard, the City should ignore evidence that the proposal before it is not in compliance with that purpose statement. Beck, 20 Or. L UBA 178; Mooeefield v. City of Corvallis, 18 Or. LUBA 95, 119 (1989). The only approval criteria relevant to the current application are found in ALUO 18.62.0400) subsections (1), (2) and (3). This opponent attempts to create ambiguity in these criteria by extracting individual words or phrases, such as "minimized", "potential impacts", or "nearby areas", and then asserts that these individual words or phrases, standing alone, "might be" examples of ambiguity. The opponent does not even attempt to state an actual ambiguity. He merely theorizes that there "might be" an ambiguity if words or phrases are lifted out of their context and considered without reference to the overall ordinance. Applicant contends that, when the approval criteria for this application are read in context, there is no ambiguity. Applicants experts have testified that, with application of sound engineering standards and adherence to the conditions of approval, all potential adverse impacts or hazards on both the subject property and in all nearby areas will be eliminated. There will be no adverse impacts to the environment either on or off the site. 2. Letter to,lohn McLaughlin from B©,an Holley, dated November 18, 2003 Objection: This matter should be referred to the full Planning Commission based upon the publicity it has received. Rebuttal: Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 2.14.040 states: "The Hearings Board or Staff Advisor may refer any matter before the Board or Advisor to the Planning Commission when it becomes apparent that the matter involves major policy concern or potential serious impacts on surrounding areas." This is an application for a land use permit to build one single family dwelling under Ashland's Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance, for land subject to steep slopes. It is not a matter that involves major policy concerns. Moreover, the evidence shows that all physical and environmental constraints are limited to the subject property and that the site will be fully stabilized after the dwelling is built. While this application may be important to some, it is not a major policy issue nor one the will produce serious (or any) impact upon the surrounding area. The Board would be on firm ground to retain its jurisdiction over this matter. Objection: The Planning Commission should follow the Historic Commission's recommendation to deny this application. Applicants Final Rebuttal for Planning Action 2003-118 RECEIVIF_D Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board November 25, 2003 Rebuttal: All parties agree that review of this application by the Historic Commission was not based upon the criteria it typically applies. In fact, the Historic Commission acknowledged in its action that it was not operating under any approval criteria and made no effort to apply the city's hillside development standards. The Board should not be bound by a recommendation not based upon the application of any decisional standards or criteria. Objection: Objections similar to those of Collin Swales regarding the prior -removal of trees in violation of the ALUO. Rebuttal: See earlier rebuttal to similar issues. 3. Letter from George Kramer, dated November 17, 20{}3 Objection: Applicant has too narrowly defined the surrounding area and if it was more accurately described, this proposal is inconsistent with the surrounding development pattern. Few if any neighborhood structures are as tall, large in volume or are built upon the steepest portion of a lot. The proposed dwelling does not nestle into the neighborhood as do other dwellings and will be visible from the valley floor and downtown. Rebuttal: Clearly, this opponents objections are aimed at the application of historic/architectural standards and criteria that simply do not apply in this instance. In his letter of November 17, 2003, this opponent argues that the application should be denied as inconsistent with the surrounding development pursuant to Criterion 3. Criterion 3 provides: That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. The only basis to consider existing development of surrounding area, is in the context of Criterion 3, and it states only that the Board must consider the same and the maximum permitted development under the ALUO. Applicants assert that this means only that in determining the adverse environmental impacts, that the Board must consider existing development in the surrounding area and, for vacant or underdeveloped properties, that the Board must consider the environmental impacts as if these lands were developed to the maximum levels permitted by the ALUO. This language does not provide a basis for the Board to consider historic or architectural impacts, nor impacts of a nature not covered by the Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance -- ALUO 18.62. Opponent here urges the Board to interpret the ordinance in ways that are clearly wrong. Objection: The proposal exploits Ashland's regulations by seeking the maximum levels possible under the various applicable standards. Rebuttal: This objection is nonsensical. A city's standards cannot be exploited by observing them. Applicants Final Rebuttal for Planning Action 2003-118 RECEIVED / ~ ~0¥ 2 5 200:t P.ge i,,of,,~ Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board November 25, 2003 4. Email correspondence between Colin Swales and Ashland city officials Objection: The email correspondence does not raise objections per se, but deals with the issue raised during the public hearing that applicants architect had placed a copyright on his plans which had, for a brief time, prevented this opponent from obtaining copies. Rebuttal: Applicants acknowledge that their architect had placed copyright protections on copies of the plans he submitted as part of this application. The reason for the copyright protection is because applicants plans were detailed working drawings, not simply design drawings. It is customary for architects to copyright working drawings. When this opponent asked for copies of the plans, the city attorney advised the Planning Department that federal copyright rules override ORS 197.763. Upon being notified of this issue, applicants attorney took immediate steps to have the copyright protection lifted so that all opponents could obtain copies of the plans. The delay of a short few' days did not prejudice the substantial rights of opponents, and opponents (and other parties) were afforded an additional seven day period to submit new evidence and argument into the record. 5. Email correspondence between Bill Street (JBStreet) and Ashland's Mark Knox, dated November 18, 2003 Objection: Applicants should honor the intent and purpose of the 1997 Hillside Ordinance by restoring the trees removed from their property, by resubmitting their plans and building their house in the historically appropriate location of the two Vista Street houses they demolished previously. Rebuttal: This objection does not go to any approval criteria and is irrelevant. 6. Description of event called, "The Aberfan Disaster" Objection: This is not an objection per se, but an account of a landslide that occurred in South Wales in 1966. Rebuttal: This event concerned a landslide of mining waste in South Wales and has no relevance to this application. 7. Photo taken from Ashland do~vntown towards the subject property Objection: Also not an objection per se, but simply a photo that allegedly depicts the proposed dwelling. Rebuttal: This photograph appears as an attempt to document historic/architectural issues that are not relevant. 8. Email from Karen DeBoer to "pearcer~ashland.or.us RECEIVED Applicants Final Rebuttal for Planning Action 2003-118 / NOV 5 2003 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board November 25, 2003 Objection: Also not an objection per se, but an email communication from Karen DeBoer expressing her fondness of trees and affront at being told what she can and cannot do with trees in her own garden. Rebuttal: The email exists as an honest expression of applicant Karen DeBoer's opinions at that time and is not relevant to this application. 9. Letter from Robert Taber to Mayor (;olden and City Council dated November 12, 1997 Objection: Also not an objection per se, but a 1997 letter that supported adoption of Ashland's Hillside Ordinance. Rebuttal: The letter is irrelevant to this application. 10. Timeline of Hillside Development Standards Ordinance Adoption (1996-1997) Objection: Also not an objection per se, but a timeline containing the various meetings that led to adoption of Ashland's Hillside Ordinance. Rebuttal: The timeline is irrelevant to this application. II. Table of Contents which appears to be list of exhibits for 1997 ltillside Ordinance adoption Objection: Also not an objection per se, but a listing of evidence before the city in 1997 when Ashland adopted its Hillside Ordinance. Rebuttal: The table of contents (list of exhibits) :is also irrelevant to this application. This concludes applicants final written rebuttal. Very truly yours, CRAIG A. STONE & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Coh~g Urban Planner CAS/m C:\WS\DEBOER\REBUTTAL 1DOC Enclosures cc. Sidney/Karen DeBoer Gary Peterson RECEIVED Applicants Final Rebuttal for Planning Action 2003-I 18 /7 2003 Page 16 of 16 PA# 2003 118 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law(Opponent) Criterion 1 1. Through the application of the dcn,elopment standards of this chapter, the potential inlpacts to the properO' and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been nlinimized. Conclusions of La~v: The development standards of ALUO 18.62.80 relate to the preservation of natural areas, erosion control and tree protection. With respect to the preservation of natural areas, the Planning Commission concludes that this application involves the redevelopment of a site (the reconfigured subject property) which has already been urban developed. As such, the reconfigured subject property has no existing natural - areas to be preserved. Regarding erosion control, applicants have engaged qualified experts in geotechnical and civil engineering, architecture and landscape architecture to design this project. All reasonable and appropriate measures have been employed and all standards and requirements of the City of Ashland have been incorporated into applicants design/development plans. As such, the Planning Commission concludes from the evidence, that all sources of potential erosion have been appropriately addressed and have been mitigated on-site. With respects to tree protection, the Planning Commission concludes: 1. That while some trees on the property were removed without benefit of public review, applicants have proposed to replace these at the rate of two new trees for each trees that was previously removed 2. Although some additional trees (within the Protected Hillside Area) are proposed to be removed, they too will be replaced at a ratio of two to one. 3. All trees outside the construction/development area are protected with measures required by the ALUO. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 1. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 1: The applicant states in the application ( Page 14 - Characteristics of Surrounding Impact Area ) that the surrounding impact area is defined as that area entitled to notice of this application - 200 ft. from the property. Opponent disagrees with Applicants "definition". The ALUO is silent on the definition of "Impact Area" with respect to Ch 18.62 but 18.104.020 gives some guidance. From ALUO 18.104.020 "Impact Area" - That area which is immediately surrounding a use, and which may be impacted by it. All land which is within the applicable notice area for a use is included in the impact area. In addition, any lot beyond the notice area, if the hearing authority finds that it may be materially affected by the proposed use, is also included in the impact area. Due to the prominent elevated location in the Siskiyou - Hargadine Historic District, this development will adversely affect the identity, aesthetic quality, and visual character of the City, [18.62.080]. This is supported by the recent opinion of the Historic Commission to recommend denial of this application and recently passed house size limitations that show Council's concern for such over-large homes. (see Photo #1 ) RECEIVED NOV 19 2003 Criterion 2 2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development ma.r create attd implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that applicants have evidenced their consideration of the potential hazards (this development might create) in the conduct of detailed geoteclmical investigations. The Planning Commission also concludes that applicants have properly evidenced the implementation of mitigation measures by incorporating the geotechnical investigations into the architectural, engineering and landscape plans of record. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with Criterion 2. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 2: The Application does not show volumes of Cut and Fill material and whether any will be exported or imported to/from the site. Nor is the nature of type of material to be used. It is understood that another 5 ft of fill material is to be spread on the lawn and to be retained with nothing more than a rubble wall. This puts the owners below in grave danger due to possible liquifaction of this fill in severe flooding conditions as have been experienced recently in Ashland. ( see appendix The Aberfan Disaster ) Criterion 3 3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environ,tent. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor ,r Planning4 ('onltllission shall consider the t:ri,~'tinl4 developnlent o.['the surrounding area, and the ma_rinluln pernlitted development pernlitted b.r the Land Use Ordina,ce. Conclusions of Law: The potential for adverse impacts upon the environment include, erosion and mass movement, loss of natural areas, trees and tree canopies, loss of wildlife habitat. Based upon the evidence, the Planning Commission concludes that applicants have undertaken the following reasonable steps to reduce adverse impacts upon the environment: 1. Applicants have engaged qualified experts who have offered recommendations as to the best methods to accommodate the proposed new dwelling. 2. Applicants design professionals have incorporated all environmental mitigation recommendations into the design and construction plans for the reconfigured subject property. 3. In its consideration of this application, the Planning Commission has examined the surrounding area and development that now exists. 4. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 3. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion3: The impact to the Hillside due to the massive cutting of native significant trees is irreversible but needs to be mitigated by the applicant taking all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact by replanting close to the area of this impact in order to stabilize the site and restore the gap in the tree canopy.. . ('riterion 4 A. General Requirements. The following general requirements shall apply itt Hillside Lands. 5. All development shall occur on lan& dRfined as having buiidable area. ,¥1opes greater than 35 sh all be considered unbuildable except as allowed belom Varia,ces may be granted to this requirellletlt ottl. v 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. fi. £:risting parcels ,~ithout adequate buihhtble area less than or equal to 35 ca~tnot he .~uhdivided or partitiotled. Conclusions of Law: Based upon Exhibits 5 and 7, the original natural average slope of this property is 28 percent. No portion of the property., in its original state, exceeded a slope of 35 percent. While this site was altered to accommodate the existing dwelling, landscaping and landscape features (including terracing) the Planning Commission concludes that the altered grades are not an appropriate consideration in this application. Instead, the Planning Commission concludes that the original natural terrain is the appropriate measure of slope for the purpose of ascertaining compliance with the development standards for hillside lands pursuant to ALUO 18.62.080. The Planning Commission concludes that this application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 4. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 4: Submittals have already been made showing the City's own survey data showing that the site where the applicant intends to build is in excess of 35% and therefore unbuildable. However there are other areas of the site containg the building pads of two previously demolished homes that would be available. (Yiterion 5 6. Ail ne**,ly created lots either by subdivision or partition shah contain a building envelope with a slope of 35 or less. Conclusions of Law: Criterion 5 is inapplicable by reason that this application does not include the creation of any new lot by subdivision or partition. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 5: Although not created by "subdivision or partition" the proposed major re- configuration of this and associated parcels clearly falls within the meaning and intent of this part of the ALUO. As stated above (criterion 4) there are parts of the lot that are "buildable", but not where the applicant has proposed. Criterion 6 7. Ncm, strecqs, .flag drives, and drivcm,a)'s shall be constructed on lands t~ less than or equal to 35¢~ slope with thejbHowing exceptions: a. The street is indicated on the (~O"s Tran,~ponation Platt Map - Street Dedications. b. The potion t~the street, flag drive, or drivtm,a)' on land greater than 3fi slope does not e. rceed a length of 100feet. Conclusions of La~v: ~e ~veway to ~e ~e pro~ dwelling ~r~dy e~sts. Howler, ~e driveway is intend~ to ~ regmd~ ~d reseat. ~ shorn on E~bit 2, RECEIVED Sheet 1.1, material for the driveway will also change from concrete to permeable grasscrete and brick. As also shown Exhibit 2, Sheets 1.1, C 1.1 and C 1.2, no portion of the existing or altered driveway will exceed a slope of 35 percent in compliance with Criterion 6. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 6: As shown on the applicant's plans, the driveway is more than 100 fi in length and is to moved from its current position and re-located to land in excess of 35% and therefore deemed unbuildable. This re-loaction will cause the loss of even more trees from this environmentally-constrained land. Criterion 7 4. Gcotechnical Studies. For all applications on Hillside Lands invoh'in~ sul)dix'isions or i)artitions, * * * Conclusions of Law: The Planning Co~ission concludes that Chtehon 7 is inapplicable by reason ~at ~is application d~s not involve eider a su~sion or pa~fion. However, appli~n~ have unde~en a g~tec~cal ~udy of the pro~ ~d the ~me is in Exhibit 3. Criterion ~ B. Hillside Grading and Erosion ¢~mtrol. A# development on lands class~ied as hillside shall con~;rming with tbe Jbllowing items: 1. All grading, retaining ,'all design, drainage, and erosion control plans~r development on Hillside Lands shall be designed ~' a geotechnical expert. ,411 cuts, grading or.fills shall c'olt[brm to Uhapter 70 (~lhe Un,btm Ihlihling ('ode. Erosion control measures on the development site shall be required to minimize the solids in ran(~fjbom disturbed areas. Conclusions of La~v: The Plying Co~ssion concludes, bas~ u~n ~e finings of fact in Section IV, appli~nts engag~ a q~ g~t~h~l en~n~r conduct~ a geotechnicat inve~gafion w~ch was us~ by applic~ts ci~l en~n~ in the p~p~on of ~e ensnaring con~ion plans. See, Exhibit 3. E~bit 3 established ~e g~t~ical paramete~ for design ~ re~t to grading, re~ng w~l design, ~ge, ~d erosion conffol plato, w~ch w~ u~ by appli~ civil en~n~ in ~e p~p~fion of ~e ensnaring ~ction plus. B~ u~n Exhibit 3 ~d E~bit 2, Sh~ C 1.1 ~d C 1.2, the Pla~g Co~ssion conclud~ t~t ~e p~ ~ts, grading ~d fills ~11 co~o~ to Chapter 70 of ~e Umfo~ Buil~ng C~c. ~c Pl~ning Co~ssion ~so ~ncludes, based u~n ~e ~e ~den~, ~at erosion ~nffol m~res pro~ for t~s development site, ~11 ~ze ~e ~li~ ~ ~noff from dist~ ~. Therefor, ~e Planning Co~ssion concludes that ~s appli~on is ~i~cnt ~ ~e r~ui~mcn~ of Criterion 8. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 8: The rubble wall to retain 5 fi of additional fill in considered unsafe in flooding conditions. (Yiterion 9 2. For development other than singlejumily homes on individual lots, ali grading, drainage improvements, or other land disturbances shall on(r occurjkom May 1 to October 31. Excavation shall not occur during the remaining wet months ,~the year. Erosion control measures shall be installed and functional ~V October 31. Up to 30 dqv modifications to the RECEIVED ~OV 1 92003 October 3I date, and 45 day modification to the Ma)' 1 date may be made by the Planning Director, based upon weather comh'tions and itt consultation with the project geotechnical expert. The modification of dates shall be the mininmm necessary, based pon evidence provided by the applicant, to accomplish the neces'sary project goals. Conclusions of La~v: The Planning Commission concludes that Criterion 9 is inapplicable by reason that this application concerns a single family home on an individual lot which is expressly exempt from this standard. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 9: The applicant is on record as having stated that this building's intended use is as a corporate hospitality center. This idea is reinforced by the huge size of the development complex as well as the installation of a secondary cooking facility. The building is more than 6 times the size of the average home in Ashland and 4 times the size of its neighbors. Therefore the devlopment should be subject to this part of ALUO and the proposed timeline does not recognize the weather constraints that have bearing on this massive excavation of the hillside. The applicant's timeline for develoment in the form of a "gant Chart" ( one of the required documents for a complete submittal was not sent to the City until Nov 18.2003 4:30 p.m. Therefore the application was incomplete and should not have been received. [ 18.62.040 H.(t)] Plans Required. The following plans shall be required ..... (t) Proposed timeline for development ..... It also shows proposed construction during the wet months of Feb, Mar and April 2004. ***************************************************************************** Criterion 10 3. Retention in natural state. On all projects on Hillside Lands involving partitions attd subdivisions, and existing lots .qth an area greater than one-hal./'acre, an area eqaal to 25 qf the total prqject area, plus the percentage figure of the average slope of the total project area, shall be retained itt a natural state. Lands to be retained in a natural state shall be protected from damage through the use of temporary cons~truction fencing or the functional equivalent. For ,example, on a 25,000 sq. ft. lot with att average slope of 29, 25+29=54 of the total lot area shall be retained in a natural state. The retention in a natural state of areas greater than the minimum percentage required here is encouraged. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that the reconfigured subject property will consist of 0.52 acre. Therefore, Criterion 10 applies to this application. However, reconfigured subject property (consisting of portions of two existing lots) has been developed; this application involves the redevelopment of this property. As such, no portion of the subject property presently exists in a natural state as defined in ALUO 18.62.030(N). Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that Criterion 10 is inapplicable because no portion of the reconfigured property is presently in a natural state and therefore it cannot be retained as such. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 10: RECEIVED NOV 19 2003 The applicant uses the stumps of felled significant old trees to justify the "original grade". Yet here he states that there are no areas in a natural state. This inconsistency is unforgivable. Opponent feels that this hillside was in a natural state before the applicant felled the trees and should be restored as such. Criterion 11 4. Grading - cats. On all cat slopes on areas chtss~fied as Hillside hinds, thc./~dhm'ing standard.~ shall apply: a. ('nt slope anldles shaH he determined itt relationship to the type q/materials o.f ,'hich th0, are composed I4'here the soil permits, limit the total area e_vposed to precipitation attd erosion. ,¥teep cut slopes shah be retained with stacked rock, retaining walls, or functional equivalent to control erosion attd provide slope stability when necessary, ttTtere cut slopes are required to be hdd back (1:1 or less steep), the slope shall be protected with erosion control getting or structural equivalent installed per manu. fitcturers specifications, and revegetated b. Exposed cut slopes, .such as those for streets, drivcm,ay accesses, or yard areas, greater than seven.[bet in height shall be terraced. ('ut faces on a terraced section shall not e. vceed a ntaxintunt height re}five feet. Terrace widths shah he a minintum qf three feet to allo.'Jbr the introduction of vel4etation for erosion control. Total cut slopes shall not exceed a nlaxinntni vertical height of 15feet. (See Graphic) c. Revel4etation of cut slope terraces shall include the provision of a phtnting plan, introduction to topsoil where necessar, l', and the use t¢'irrigation if necessarj'. The vegetation used for these areas shall be native or ,~pecies similar in resource value which ,'ill survive, help reduce the visual impact of the cut slope, and assist itt providing hmg term slope stabilization. Trees, bush- type plantings and cascading vine-type phuttings may be appropriate. Conclusions of La~v: Based upon the findings of fact in Section IV and Exhibit 2, Sheets 1.1, C 1.1, C 1.2 and L2 the Planning Commission concludes that this application is consistent x~Sth the requirements of Criterion 11. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 11: This part of the ALUO requires revegetation similar in resource value. As the cutting of the original significant trees was in contravention of ALUO 18.62 then it should be mitigated by replacement in its original location. Criterion 12 5. Grading -fills. On all fill slopes on lands classified as Hillside Lands, the following standards shall apply: a. Fill slopes shall not exceed a total vertical height of 2O feet. The toe of the fiH slope area not utilizing structural retaining shall be a minimum of s£v feet from the nearest propert), line. (Ord 2834 S6,1998) b. Fill slopes shah be protected with alt erosion control netting, blanket or functional equivalent. Nettin# or bhtnkets shah onl. F be used in conjunction with att organic mulch sttch as straw or wood fiber. The bhtnket must be applied so that it ix in complete contact with the soil so that erosion does not occur beneath it. Erosion netting or blankets shah be securely attchored to the slope in accordance with manufacturer's recommemhttions. tx Utilities. I~Ttenever possibh,, utilities' shah not be located or installed on or in fiH slopes. NOV ! 9 2003 When determined that it necessat3.' to install utilities on fiH slopes, aH plans shall be designed by a geotechnical expert. d. Revegetation of fill slopes shah utilize native vegetation or vegetation similar in resource value and which will survive and stabilize the surface. Irrigation may be provided to ensure grm~h ~f necessaO.. Evidence shah be required indicating long-term viabiliO. of the proposed vegetation for th e purposes of erosion control on distarbed areas. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Couunission concludes as follo~vs: 1. Regarding Subsection a and based upon Exhibit 2, Sheet 1.1, no fill slopes exceed a total vertical height of 20 feet and no fill slope toes which are not proposed to be retained by structural means. 2. Regarding Subsection b and based upon Exhibit 2, Sheet CLO, all fill slopes will be protected with an erosion control netting, blanket or functional equivalent as specified by applicants civil engineer in Exhibit 2, Sheet CI.O. 3. Regarding Subsection c and based upon Exhibit 2 no planned utilities are to be located or installed on or in fill slopes. 4. Regarding Subsection d and based upon Exhibit 2, Sheet LI through L3, the revegetation of fill slopes has utilized vegetation similar in resource value to that of native vegetation and which, according to applicants expert Landscape Architect, will survive and stabilize the surface. Irrigation has been provided to all fill areas (to be landscaped) which will ensure proper growth. 5. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 12. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 12: The revegetation of the 5 ft. of fill with a lawn is not considered "native vegetation or vegetation similar in resource value" nor will it "stabilize the surfac~" In the event of flood conditions. ******************************************************************************* CYiterion 13 6. Revegetation requirements, f4qtere required b.r this chapter, aH required revegetation of cut and fill slopes shall be inslalled prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupant:r, signature of a required sutw,.'V plat, or other time as determined bt' the hearing authority. Vegetation shah be installed in such a manner as to be subs?antially established within otte )'ear of installation. Conclusions of Lwa': Applicants have agreed to stipulate that they will install all required revegetation of cut and fill slopes. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 13: Opponent contends that the Planning Commission needs to require the revegetaion with native species of the tree canopy that was removed. ******************************************************************************* Criterion 14 7. Maintenance, NecuriO', and Penalties for Erosion Control Measures. a. Maintenance. All measures installedJbr the purposes of long-term erosion control, ittcludittg but not limited to vegetative cover, rock walL~, and landscaping, shall be maintained in perpetuiO' on all areas which have been disturbed, including public rights-of way. The applicant shall provide evidence indicating the mechanisms in place to ensure nlaintenance of measures. .2, RECEIVED NOV 1 9 200~1 b. Securit)'. Except for individual lots exis'ting prior to Januat3. ' 1, 1998, a. fter an Erosion Control Platt is approved b)' 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 necessar), to s?abilize the site. An), financial guarantee instrument proposed other than a performance bond shall be approved by the ('itt' Attorney. The financia[ guarantee instrument shall be in effect fi~r a period of at least one year, and shall he released when the Planning Director and Public Works Director determine, jointl)', that the site has been stabilized. All or a portion ~¢'the securiO, retained b), the (~t)' may be withheld fi~r a period up to .five )'ears ht9'ond the one )'ear maintenance period if it has been deternlined by the (~0' that the site has not been st¥ficientl, r stabilized against erosion. Conclusions of La~v: The Planning Commission concludes that Criterion 14 doe~ not operate as an approval standard, but rather establishes methods to ensure that erosion mitigation is guaranteed (in accordance with the ALUO) and faithfully maintained, measures to which applicants have agreed to stipulate. See, Section VI. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 14: Opponent contends that "erosion mitigation" caused by the cutting of trees on the hillside should be replacement of same, not further develoment activity. ******************************************************************************* Criterion 15 8. ,¥ite Grading. The grading ora site Oll Hillside Lands shall be reviewed considering the .follonqng factors: a. No terraci,g shall be allowed except for tire purposes of developing a level buildi,g pad attd .[br providing vehicular access to the pad. b. .4 void hazardous or unstable portions oj'the site. lord 2834,,¥2 1998) c. A void hazardous or unstable portions of the site. d. Building pads shouhl be t~minimum s&e to accomt, odate the structure attd a reasonable amount of .rard space. Pads for tennis courts, s~,imming pools attd large lawns are discouraged. As much of the remainhtg lot area as possible should be kept in the natural state of the original slope. Conclusions of La,v: The Planning Commission concludes as follows: 1. Based upon Exhibit 2, terracing has only been used for the purpose of developing a level building pad and to provide appropriate vehicular access to the pad. 2. Based upon Exhibit 3, the reconfigured subject property does not include any areas which are hazardous or unstable. 3. Based upon Exhibit 2, Sheet 1.1 the building pad for this dwelling has been minimized in size to be approximately one-quarter of the dwelling's total square footage. As such, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposed building pad is of a minimum size to accommodate the planned structure, and will produce minimal impacts to the existing site conditions. The Planning Commission also concludes, as it has above, that the reconfigured subject property does not include any portions which are in a natural state. 4. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 15. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 15: The applicant's prior development of this site as well as at 300 Vista includes but is not limited to terracing, home construction, pool construction and a RECEIVED large lawn. The opponent has been unable to fins any evidence of any of this work being done in conformance with 18.62. The stability of the steep slope has been compromised by the cutting of the trees and needs to be replaced with planting. The proposed building site is/was in a "natural state". Criterion 16 9. [,spections attd t~na/ Report. Prior to the acceptance t~'a subdivision by the (¥t.r, sij,,nature qf the./Jnal surv<r pht! on partitions, or issuance o./'a certificate t~'occtq~anc3'./br individual structures, the prqject .~eotechnical expert shall provide a.final report ittdicatittg that thc approved grading, drainage, attd erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans, attd that all scheduled insfections, as per 18. 62. 080. A. 4..I were conducted bt' the project geotechuical expert periodicall, r throughout the project. Conclusions of La~v: Criterion 16 does not operate as an approval standard, but instead puts applicants on notice that a final geotechnical report is submitted which ensures that all approved grading, drainage and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections required by the ALUO were conducted by applicants geotechnical expert -- matters to which applicants have agreed to stipulate. See, Section VI. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 16: No comment ('riterion 17 ('. Surface attd (;round,'ater Drainage. All development on Hillside Lands shall conform to the .follmting standards: 1. All focilitiesJbr the collection t~'stornm'ater runq/f shall be required to be cottstructed oil the site and according to the following requirements: a. Stormwater facilities shall include storm drain systems ossocioted with street construction .facilities for accommodating drainage from driv~m'ays, porking areas ond other impervious sttrfaces and roof drainage ~\~,stems. b. Ntormwuter.facilities, when part of the overoll site improvements, shall be, to the greatest extent feasible, the first improvements constructed on the development site. c. Ntormwater facilities shah be designed to divert surface water away from cut faces or slopinq surfaces of a filL ' a d. ExisIing natural drainage ,~ystems shah be utilized, os much as possible, itt their natural state recognizing the erosion potential from increased storm drainage. e. Fh, w-retarding devices, such as detention ponds and recharge berms, shall be used where practical to minimize increases in runoff volume and peak flow rote due to deveh,pment Each facility shall consider the needs for an emergency overflow .qystem to safely carry at:)' overJlo,' water to an acceptable disposal point. fi Ntormwater focilities shah be designed, consIructed and maintained in a manner that will avoid erosion on-site and to adjacent and downstream properties. g. Alternate Ntormwater ,systems, such as d0' well .systems, detention ponds, and leach fiehls shall be designed by a registered engineer or geotechnicai ~vpert and approved by the Ci0' 's Public H g~rks Department or Cit)' Building Official. Conclusions of La~v: Based upon Exhibit 2, Sheet C1.2, the Planning Commission concludes that Stormwater has been accommodated in compliance with the requirements of Criterion 17. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 17: RECEIVED The existing erosion of the 14' wide dirt track ( Glenview St.) that provides the proposed access is insufficient for the applicant's proposed use (including valet parking for fund-raising events as proposed in applicant's verbal testimony to Historic Commission). The massive cutting and terracing of this Public Right-of-Way will not improve this continuing erosion that has in the past caused great damage to opposite neighbors on Vista as is stated in the Record. ******************************************************************************* ( 'riterion 18 D. Tree ('o.servatio., Protectio. attd Removal. All development Olt Hillside Laird,,, ~hall c'o..[}~r.t tt~ the J}~lltmq.g requirentents: I btvento(r t~E. risting IYees. A tree surv<y at the same scale as the prqject site plait shall be prcq~ared ~vhich locates all trees greater thatt six i. ches d.h.h., idettt~ed ~r d.b.h., species, appro.vi.tate e~x'tettt tree canop)'. In addition, J}~r areas proposed to be disturbe& existing tree base elevatiotts shall be provided Dead or diseased trees shah be ident~/ied Groups' q/'trees i. close proximi(y 6 e those within five jket t~/'each otheO may be designated as a clump ~¢'trees, with the predominant ~s~ecies estimated number and average diameter bulicated AH tree surveg's shah have att accuracy t~['pltts' or mi.us ~w.feet. The .ante, signature, and address qf the site sttrveg'or responsible.fi~r the accttra the surv<v shah be provided on the tree surv<v. Portions t~the lot or prqject area not proposed to be disturbed &l' deveIopmettt .eed not be ittcluded itt the ittvetttor)'. Conclusions of La~v: ~e invento~ of existing tr~s is in E~dbit 2, Sh~t L3. Chtehon 18 is, in fact, not ~ approv~ s~n~d, but simply o~mtes as a filing r~mrement wifl~ which t~s application has complied. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 18: The inventory shows the numerous regulated trees that have already been removed and the additional regulated trees still to be removed. This opponent's previos submittal shows inaccuracies in this survey with respect to trees in the Right-of-way that are listed as unregulated ( they are) and trees that are on severe slopes (35%+) that are listed as being on lesser slopes. £¥iterion 19 2. Evaluation of Suitabilio, for Conservation. Ail trees indicated on the inventory of exis'ting trees shah also be identified as to their suitabiliO~ for conservation. When required by the heari,g authoriO~, the ea,aluation shall be conducted by a landscape professional. Factors included itt this determination shall include: a. Tree health. Healthy trees can belier withstand the rigors of development than non-vigorous trees. b. Tree .¥tructure. Trees' with severe deca. r or substantial defects are more like[.y to result in damage to people att d property. c. Species. Species vary in their ability to tolerate intpacts and damage to their enviro,ntent. d. Potential iongevit)'. e. VarieO,. A varieO' of native tree sl~ecies attd ages f. Size. Large trees' provide a greater protection.fi~r erosion and shade tha, smaller trees. Conclusions of Law: Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 19: The applicant fails to address this criterion. RECEIVED Opponent contends that there are numerous trees that are slated for removal that should be conserved. Criterion 20 J. Tree Conservation in Pro. jeer Design. Significant trees (2' d.h.h, or greater conifers and I' d.h.h, or greater broadleqD shall be protected and incorporated into the pr~ect design whenever possible. a. Streets, drivew~trs, baihlings, atilities, parking areas, and other site disturbances shall be located such that the nliLvitnltni number qf c~vis'tin~, trees on the site are preserved, while recognizing and .[~dhmqn&, the standards.[br.[uel reduction ~['lhe developnlent is located in Ii~h[fire Lands. h. Building envelopes shall be located and sized to preserve the maximanl natnber ~?f trees on site while recognizing and fidlowing the standardsJbr~lel reduction ~f the development is located in IlTldfire Lallds. c. Letrou~ qf the project site utiliO' and grading plan shall avoid disturbance q/'tree protection areas. Conclusions of La~v: Based o~11 E~fbit 2. Sheei L3. il~e Plamfing Comn~ssion concludes that there are no signfficant ~s ~n tM Prot~l~ Hillside M~ to ~ ~mov~ as a ~sult of ~s proj~t. The m~imum nm~r of tr~s on ~e r~~ subj~t pro~' ~d wi~n ~e ~ns~ins of t~s proj~t, have ~n prese~. Therefore, the Pl~ng Co~ssion ~ncludes that the appli~fion is ~nsistent wi~ C~te~on 20. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 20: There are numerous trees within the "Protected Hillside Area" The property lies within the City's Wildfire Lands. Previous planting on this and adjacent lots as well as being illegal under ALUO 1.8.68.010 (hedges and screen planting) is also a wildfire hazard. The proposal places the driveway and building footprint where they will do the most damage to tree protection areas. (?riterion 21 4. Tree Protection. On all properties' ,,here 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 shah be clearly marked on the project site. Prior to the start ~' any clearing, stripping, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving or change itt 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. Temporar)' fencing .,'hall be established at the perimeter of the dripline. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits, the fences may be in.,pected and their location approved bi' the Staff Advisor, Cee graphiO b. Construction site activities, including but not limited to parking, material storage, soil compaction attd concrete washout, shall he arranged so as to prevent disturbances within tree protection areas. c. No grading, stripping, compaction, or siL, ni_ficant change in ground eh, ration .,'hall bt, permitted within the drip line of trees designated for conservation unless i,dicated on the grading plans, as approved b), the £~0', and landscape pr~essional. If grading or construction is approved within the dripline, a landscape professional mai' be required to be present during grading operations, attd shah have authoriO' to require protective measures to protect the roots. ti. Changes in soil h),drolog)' and site drainage within tree protection areas shall be ntinintized. Excessive site run-off shall he directed to appropriate ,~lorm drain facilities and away from trees · designated for conservation. e. Should encroachment into a tree protection area occur which causes irreparable damage, as determined b), a landscape professional, to tree.,', the project plan shall be revised to compensate RECEIVE/} for the loss. Under no circumstances shall the developer be relieved of responsibilio' for compliance with the provisions of this chapter Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that Exhibit 2, Sheet L3 contains a tree protection plan, prepared by applicants landscape architect, which incorporates the requirements for tree protection which are established in the above Criterion 21. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that this application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 21. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 21: According to the Tree Commission the proposal will cause undue stress to the remaining Madrone trees on 300 Vista as well as removal of other significant trees. ****************************************************************** Criterion 22 5. Tree Removal. l)evelopment shall be desig, ned to preserve the nla. rinluln mtlttber oj'trees Ol1 a site. The developnlent shaH follow the standards for fuel reduction ~f the development is located in It?Itl. fire Lands. HitCh justified b.l'.fitldin~,,s of fact, the bearinl4 authoriO' ma.r approve the removal of trees for otte or more of'theJbllon'ing conditious: (Ord 2834 S3, 1998) u. l'he tree is located within the building envdope. b. The tree is located within a proposed street, driveway, or parking area. c. The tree is located withiu a water, sewer, or other public utiliO' easement. d. The tree is determined b.r a landscape professional to be dead or diseased, or it constitutes att unacceptable hazard to liJ~, or properO: when evaluated bi' the standurds ht 1 & 62. 080. D. 2. e. The tree is located within or adjacent to areas of cuts or fills that are deemed threatening to the life of the tree, as determined by a landscape professional Conclusions of La~v: The reconfigured subject property, is not designated as Wildfire Lands. As earlier found, this project has maximized the preservation of trees on the site. Trees to be removed are those located within the building envelop and proposed driveway and other site features (as shown on Exhibit 2, Sheets 1.1 and L3). Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 22. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 22: According to the Applicant's landscape architect's written( Sept. 2. 2003 letter Kencairn) and verbal testimony to the Tree Commission (Nov 6' 2003 ), "The trees were removed in anticipation of the adoption of the tree ordinance. [ALUO 18.611 and admits the "Tree removal was in violation of the hillside ordinance I18.62]. It was also admitted by Staff that were these trees still intact then this proposed development would be denied. They need to be replaced and additional trees do not need to be removed. Criterion 23 6. Tree Replacement. Trees apprm,ed fi~r removal, with the exception of trees removed because thor ,'ere determined to be diseased, dead, or a bazar& shah be rephtced itt compliance with the folbmqng standards: a. Replacement trees' shah be btdic'ated on a tree replanting platt. The replantinl~ platt shah include all locations for replacement trees, and shah also indicate tree planthtg details. (Ord 2834 S4, 1998) b. Replacement trees shall be planted such that the trees ,qH in time result in canopy equal to or greater than the tree canopy present prior to development of the properO,. The canopy shah be RECEIVED designed to mitigate of the impact of paved and developed areas, reduce surface erosion attd increase slope stabilit)'. Replacement tree locations shah consider impact on the wihijqre prevention a.d control plan. The hearing authority shah have the discretion to adjust the proposed replacement tree canop)' based upon site-specific evide, ce and testimon)'. c. Muintenance of replacement trees shah be the re.~ponsibility of the properO' owner. Required rephtcement trees shah be cotttinuotts[.V maintained in a health)' manner. Trees that die within the .first.five years after initial planting must be replaced itt kind, after which a ntm'.[ive )'ear replacement period shah bej,.itt. Replanting I~tltS! occttr within 30 da)'s of ttot~[~cation unless othet~vise noted. (()rd 2834 S5, 1998) Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as follows: 1. The proposed replacement trees are shown on Exhibit 2. Sheet L2 and the same includes a tree planting detail. 2. As evidenced by Exhibit 2, Sheet L2, the proposed replacement trees will, in time, result in canopy greater than the tree canopy of the existing trees to be removed. 3. Applicants have agreed to stipulate that all replacement trees will be continuously maintained in a healthy manner as part of the overall landscape. 4. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 23. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 23: The Applicant's Landscape architect has stated that the proposed use of the property precludes mitigation on site. This is a single family zoned site with a slope that needs to be replanted and flat areas of lawn that could be planted. Criterion 24 7. Enforcement a. All tree removal shall be done itt accord with the approved tree removal attd replacement plan. No trees designated for conservation shall be removed without prior approval of the (¥0' qfAshland. b. Should the developer or developer's agent rentove or destro, r att)' tree that has been designated for conservation, the developer may be fined up to three times the current appraised value qf the replacement trees attd cost of replacement or up to three times the current market vahte, as established by a professional arborist, whichever is greater. c. Should the developer or developer's agent damage any tree that has been designated for protection and conservation, the developer shah be penalized $50. O0 per scar. If necessary, a professional arborist's report, prepared at the developer's expense, may be required to determine the ~vtent of the damage. Should the damage result in loss of appraised value greater than determined above, the higher of the two values shah be used. Conclusions of La~v: The Planmng Commission concludes that Criterion 24 does not operate as an approval standard, but instead functions to put property owners on notice of the city's requirements for the removal of or damage to replacement trees. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 24: The Applicant has not appraised the value of trees removed in violation of 18.62 The city has nor determined culpability nor assessed required penalties. Criterion 25 E. Building Location and Design Standards. Ali buihlings and buildable areas proposed fi~r Hillside RECEIVED I~OV 1 9 ~1]03 Lands' shall be designed attd cons?ructed in compliance with the following standards * * * Conclusions of La~v: The Planning Commission concludes that this criterion is inapplicable by reason that the subject property is not a new lot created by subdivision or partition and because the subject property is within a designated Historic District. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 25: Although not created by "subdivision or partition" the proposed major re- configuration of this and associated parcels clearly falls within the purpose and intent of this part of the ALUO. As stated above (criterion 4) there are parts of the lot that are "buildable" - but not where the applicant has proposed. ******************************************************************** Criterion 26 F. All structures ott Hillside Lands shall have foundations which have been desiA,.ed b.r att enl4ineer or architect with dentonstrable geotechnical design e. vperience. A designer, as d~fined, shall not contplete working dran'ings without having fimndations designed by an engineer. Conclusions of La~,: The Planning Commission concludes that the foundation for this dwelling was designed by applicants expert structural engineer based upon the recommendations of applicants expert geotechnical engineer in compliance with Criterion 26. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 26: <no comment> Criterion 27 (;. All newly created lots or lots modified by a lot line adjustment must include a buihling ellvelope 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 divis'ion or lot line adjus'tnlent is for opelt space or conservation purpose& Conclusions of La~v: Based upon the findings of fact in Section IV and Exhibits 5 and 7, no portion of the reconfignred property exceeds a slope of 35 percent. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that this application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 27. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 27: The submittal by Hoffbuhr & Associates (letter Sept 2. 2003) states that the "Average" original slope of the ground is 28%. This average is irrelevant to the proposed criteria. The survey was based on the elevation of "older trees" but fails to say if the level was on the uphill or downhill side of the massive stumps. A difference of only 6" in height would render an unbuildable slope even by Hoffbuhr's standards. The submitted Topographic Map (exhibit 5 dated Nov 10' 2003) fails to give a complete survey of the "original slope" of the SW corner of the lot that will be developed. ************************************************************* TREE PRESERVATION & PROTECTION ALU() 18.62.200 Tree Protection Tree Protection as required b)' this' section is applicable to att)' planning action or buihling permit. RECEIVED ('riterion 28 A. Tree Protection Plan Required. 1 A Tree Protection Plan approved by the ,¥taffAdvisor shall he requiredprior to conducting any development activities including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation, or demolition work o11 a properO' or site, which requires a planning action or building permit. 2 I, order to obtain approval qfa 'Free Prt~tection Platt; an applicant shah suhnlit a plan to the CIO', which clearly depicts all trees to he preserved and/or renloved on the site,..Fhe platt must be drawn to scale and include the.following: tr. Location, species, and dianleter t~.['each tree on site and ~cithin 15feet of the site; h. Location o. f the drip line qf each tree: c. Location o.f ~:vistin.g, attd preIposed reitttl.~', n'atcr, .~attitttr. t' and .~tornl sen'er, irri,,4atiott, a,td other utility litle.~[}tcilities altd easements: d. Location of dr. y wells, drain lines and soakage trenchc.~; e. Location t~f proposed and ~:risting struc'ture~: .[2 (]radc chattgc or cut and./ill thtring or tilter ct~llstructiott; g. Existing and proposed intpervious surfaces: h. ldellt~/ication ora contact person and/or arborist who ,till he responsible for intplenlenting and nlaintaining the approved tree protection plan; and i. Location and O'pe qf tree protection measures to he installed per AMC 18.61.230. 3 For development requiring a planning action, the Tree Preservation Plat, shall include an inventory of aH trees oli site, their health or hazard condition, and recommendations for treatnlent.[br each tree. Conclusions of La~v: 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. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 28: The Landscape Architect's drawings show contour lines that are at variance with the existing topography as show in the City GIS map previously submitted by Opponent. ********************************************************************** ('riterion 29 B. Tree Protection Measures Required. I Except as otherwise determined b.l' the StqffAdvisor, all required tree protection measures set forth in this section shall be hlstituted prior to any development activities, including, but not linlited to cearng ^ grading, excavation or demolition work, and shall be removed only after completion of ali construction activity, including landscaping and irrigation installation. 2 Chain link fencing, a minimum ofsLrfeet tall with steel posts placed no farther titan ten feet apart, 'shah be installed at the edge of the tree protection zone or dripline, whichever is greater and at the boundar, r of any open space tracts, riparian areas, or consetn,ation easements that abut the parcel being den,eloped. 3. The fencing shall be flush with the initial undisturbed grade. 4. Approved signs shah be attached to the chain link fencing stating that inside the fencing is a tree protection zone, not to he dis'turhed unless prior approval has been obtained from the Staff Advisor for th e project. 5. No construction activio~ shah occur within the tree protection zone, including, but not limited to dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste items, equipment, or parked vehicles. 6. The tree protection zone shall renlain free of chemically injurious materials and liquids such as paints, thinners, cleaning solutions, petroleunl products, and concrete or dr), **'all e~x'cess, construction debris, or m-ofj~ 7. No excavation, trenching, grading, root pruning or other activiO' shall occur within the tree protection zone unless approved i%r the NtaJf Advisor. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that the various protection measures set forth in Criterion 29 have been incorporated into applicants plans and the same is evidenced by Exhibit 2, Sheet L3. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 29: The close proximity of development poses a severe risk to the long term survival of the few remaining large adjacent Madrone Trees ('riterio. 30 ('. Itt~pection. The al~plicant shah trot proceed ~,ith att)' co.strm'tion activi(r, c~x'ccpt installation q[ erosio, co.trol measttrcs, tttttil the Ci0' has in.~pected a.d approved the installation ~¢'the required tree protection measures attd a building arid~or gradi,g permit has beett isstted ~1' the Cio'. Conclusions of Law: ~e Planning Commission concludes that Chtehon 30 d~s not o~mte as an approv~ st~d~d, but inst~d simply states as law, that no applic~t may pr~eed with con~mction phor to approval of ~ee prot~tion reinsures ~d iss~nce of a building ancot ~ding ~mit. Applicams have so stipulate. S~, Sec~on ~. Opponent's findings of fact and conclusions of law Criterion 30: Tye Applicant has already proceeded with "constructiuon activity" by pre-emtively removing regulated trees. vi SUMMARY OF APPLICANTS STIPULATIONS Applicants herewith agree to stipulate to the following matters: Stipulation 1. Applicants will construct the proposed dwelling and other site improvements in accordance with the approved plans, as amended by reasonable conditions imposed by the Planning Commission. Stipulation 2. Where required by this chapter, all required 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 be continuously maintain all replacement trees in a healthy manner as part of the overall landscape of the project area. Stipulation 4. Applicants will not proceed with any construction activity, except installation of erosion control measures, until the City has inspected and approved the installation of the required tree protection measures and a building and/or grading permit has been issued by the City. Stipulation 5. Applicants will perpetually maintain all measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control, including vegetative cover, rock walls, landscaping, and all areas which have been disturbed, including public rights-of-way. Stipulation 6. Following approval of the Erosion Control Plan by the city (and prior to construction) applicants will provide a performance bond or other financial guarantees in the amount of 120 of the value of the erosion control measures necessary to stabilize the site. Stipulation 7. Before issuance of a certificate of occupancy, applicants geoteclmical expert will provide a final report which indicates that the approved grading, drainage, and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved RECEIVED plans, and that all scheduled inspections, as per ALUO 18.62.080(A)(4)(j) were conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project. Stipulation 8. Applicants will provide ten trees having a caliper not less than 2 inches to be planted in a public location to be determined by the Ashland Tree Commission. Stipulation 9. Applicants will install all required revegetation of cut and fill slopes and the same will occur before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. VII ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of ALUO 18.62.080 and,the related standards with respect to development within a Protected Hillside Area. Respectfully submitted on behalf of Applicant Sidney and Karen DeBoer: The applicants make no mention in their submittal of 18.62.080 Development Standards for Hillside Lands It is the purpose of the Development Standards for Hillside Lands to provide supplementary development regulations to underlying zones to ensure that development occurs in such a manner as to protect the natural and topographic character and identity of these areas, environmental resources, the aesthetic qualities and restorative value of lands, and the public health, safety, and general welfare by insuring that development does not create soil erosion, sedimentation of lower slopes, slide damage, flooding problems, and severe cutting or scarring. It is the intent of these development standards to encourage a sensitive form of development and to allow for a reasonable use that complements the natural and visual character of the city. OPPONENT'S ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS. Based upon the foregoing Opponent's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is inconsistent with the Approval Criteria and Purpose and Intent of the of ALUO 18.62.080 and the related standards with respect to development within a Protected Hillside Area and therefore recommends denial of PA 2003-118. Respectfully submitted by Opponent and concerned neighbor, Colin Swales Wednesday Nov 19. 2003 Reprinted under the Fair Use doctrine of international copyriqht Iow This document contains copyr,ghted material the use of which has not always been specifically author, zed by the copyr,ght owner. I am making such mater,al ava,labia in my efforts to advance understanding of cnvU'onmental. 9overnment educot,on poht,cal, human rights, economic, r'¢pubhc Ys democracy, scientific, and social 3ustice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes o 'fa,r use' of any such copyrighted material os pray,dad for ,n sect,on 107 of the US Copyright Low. ]~n accordance w,th T,tl¢ 17 U.S.£. Sect,on 107. the mater,al on this s,t¢ ,s distr,buted w,thout profit to those who hove expressed o prior interest in receiving the included reformation for research and educational purposes. For more informer,on go to: http://www.low.cornell.edu/uscode/17/lOT.shtml If you w,sh to use copyrighted material from th,s document for' purposes of your own that go beyond 'fa,r use'. you must obtain perm,ssion from the copyr',ght owner. RECEIVED Planning Action 2003-118: Applicant Sid and Karen DeBoer Written submittal by Colin Swales. Comments on the oral testimony of the applicant at the Hearings Board meeting Nov 12. 2003 regarding Purpose and Intent of Hillside Ordinance. Craig Stone, having Power of Attorney for the Applicant stated before the Planning Hearings Board that only the cdteda of Approval need to be considered while deciding on the medts or otherwise of this application, But Mr. Stone alluded to certain ambiguities within the ALUO. To resolve those ambiguities there are laid down procedures for "interpretation" of that code as found in ALUO. I quote below (emphasis added) 18.108.160 - Ordinance Interpretations A. When in the administration of the Land Use Ordinance there is doubt regarding its intent, the suitability of uses not specified or the meaning of a word or phrase, the Staff Advisor may interpret the provision in writing or refer the provision to the Commission for interpretation. The Commission shall issue an interpretation in writing to resolve the doubt. Neither the Staff Advisor's interpretation nor the Commission's shall have the effect of amending the provisions of the Land Use Ordinance. Any interpretation of the Land Use Ordinance shall be based on the following considerations: 1. The comprehensive plan; 2. The purpose and intent of the Land Use Ordinance as applied to the particular section in question; and 3. The opinion of the City Attorney. B. The interpretation of the Staff Advisor shall be forwarded to the Commission who shall have the authority to modify the interpretation. The interpretation of the Commission shall be forwarded to the Council who shall have the authority to modify the interpretation. Whenever such an interpretation is of general public interest, copies of such interpretation shall be made available for public distribution. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following: Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. 2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. 3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. Examples of ambiguity might be "potential impacts"; "nearby areas"; "minimized"; RECEIVED NOV ! 9 2003 "mitigate"; "reasonable steps"; "shall be considered more seriously"; "shall consider..surrounding area" etc. To resolve these ambiguities, let us first look to the Comprehensive Plan: Section 8.14 Urban Forestry Ashland's environment and appearance are often noted as important parts of the general livability of the City, and are frequently cited as reasons for' residents remaining in the area Md for tourists COlmng to Ashland. Early pioneers plamed trees along the streets and boulevards that have grovm into majestic specimens. Many of these trees remain today in the older sections of the City. The maintenance of civic pride and of visitor's favorable impressions depend especially on the scenic quali~ of major access routes and thoroughfares. Also, the appearance of private property has an effect on one's impression of Ashland. A significant portion of this impression is created by trees and intact plant communities. Areas such as Winburn Way and Siskiyou Boulevard have greater scenic value due to the presence of large trees and a variety of shrubs. Ashland's backdrop as viewed from the Southeast and Northwest entries and from I-5 is forest covered hills and mountains. This setting, Ashland nestled in among the forested hills creates a strong positive impression. The existing, intact native plant communities in riparian areas and on steep slopes re-enforces this impression. Thc Urban Forest Interface at the southern boundary of Ashland presents challenges and opportunities. Its aesthetic value, wildlife habitat and recreational opportumties have been well documented by citizens. This interface also presents problems for fire prevention and control. Trees, especially large trees, enhance the quality of life in Ashland in many ways, providing shade, protection from wind, erosion control, wildlife habitat, sound barriers, air pollution removal and play areas for children, among other things. Ashland has a long history of honoring and protecting its trees, including being named a Tree City, USA each year since 1986. Trees are a fragile resource. The proven benefits of trees can only be maintained through favorable consideration in the political process. Section 8.15 Visual Resources The Ashland's view shed is an irreplaceable asset to the community and deserves protection. <snip> As previously mentioned, vegetative cover, particularly mature trees, adds much to the beauty of Ashland and its surroundings, enhancing the views out of the city and from thc gateways, like I-5, looking into the city. The forested hills and mountains directly behind the city as seen from the freeway, act as a backdrop (sic) and from for the city. There are a number of prominent features and dramatic vistas visible from thc city, in addition to vegetation, that add to the beauty of Ashland's setting <snip> Numerous smaller, but no less important features exist within the city <snip>. Steep hillsides with mature conifers are other examples. Goals: 9. Require all new residential, commercial and industrial developments to be designed and landscaped to a high standard to complement the proposed site and the surrounding area. 3¢ RECEIVED 19 2003 12. Require, where possible, that the original vegetation be retained and require the restoration of new vegetation if it is removed. 19. Increase the portion of the city covered by a tree canopy, especially parking lots and other paved areas 20. Develop an urban forest interface plan to enhance the aesthetic and recreational opportunities created by this resource. The plan will also include wildlife enhancement measures and a fire control plan. 21. Establish criteria and map thc visual resources of Ashland, from selected points outside the city looking in, and from strategic points within the city looking out. Of great importance also when interpreting the Purpose and Intent of this Ordinance is the Impact of the proposal on the "nearby areas", Criteria for approval 18.62.040 Para I 1 1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. I do not agree with the applicant's findings that the "impact area" is limited to a 200 fl radius from the subject property. This prominent piece of land is visible from the Historic downtown core and much of the City including !-5. This impact is especially poignant here as this neighborhood is listed on the National Histodc Register (NR) as is the adjacent Humboldt Pracht House. The removal of some of the surrounding property from the latter home, (which has benefited from some 15 yrs of Special Assessment tax freeze) is a simultaneous and necessary adjunct to this planning action. The applicant stated to the tree Commission that the paving surrounding the NR home is to be replaced with a non-historic type in order to comply with lot coverage requirements that would be exceeded due directly to this lot line adjustment. Ashland's Comprehensive Plan CHAPTER h HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES GOAL: TO PRESERVE HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURES AND SITES IN ASHLAND POLICIES I - '1 The City recognizes that the preservation of historic sites and buildings provides both tangible evidence of our heritage and economic advantages. General policy, not implemented by law or through the land use process. I - 2 The Historic Commission shall offer recommendations Code. to the City Council and Planninq Commission concerning the alteration or disposition of structures, sites, or neighborhoods within the historic interest areas in Ashland. 2) Chapter 2.24 and 18.74 of the Ashland Municipal Code (18. 74 now exl~'nct) I - 3 The Historic Commission shall review all building, sign, demolition, or moving permits occurring in the areas of historic interest, using procedures established by law, in order to offer its opinion on the proposal's impact on historic preservation. RECEIVED NOV 1 9 3) Chapter 18. 74 of the Ashland Municipal Code. (I8. 74 now ex~'nct) I - 4 The Historic Commission shall encourage and promote general educational programs to inform the public of the values of historic preservation. 4) Chapter 2.24, of the Ashland Municipal Code, policy I - 5 The Historic Commission shall seek the official designation of important historic buildings and districts by national, state and local organizations. The Commission shall assist the Planning Staff and Planning Commission in exercising appropriate controls on the external appearance and disposition of such buildings and districts. Chapter 18.74, Chapter 7 & 72, AMC I - 6 The City shall identify and inventory its significant historic buildings, structures, sites, objects and districts employing photographic, written and oral documentation, and maps, and shall protect those resources identified as significant. 6) GeneraIPo~cy I - 7 The City shall develop and implement through law design guidelines for new development as well as for alteration of existing structures within the historic interest areas for structures and areas that are historically significant. Chapters 18. 72, 18. 74, AMC I - 8 The Historic Commission shall take appropriate measures to encourage City communication with local, state and federal agencies which can supply funding, information and political support for Ashland's historic preservation activities. 8) General Policy I - 9 The City shall develop and maintain guidelines for analyzing and resolving conflicting uses of its historic resources, and shall encourage traditional uses of historic resources. 9) General policy, not implemented through the land use process. This application is located in a Nationally-Registered Historic District and as part of the lot re- configuration it is taking property from a NR Home. According to Letter ( Oct 8 2003 Kencairn), this necessitates removal of some of the impermeable paving surrounding the home in order to bring the lot coverage down from its existing 66% to 43.5% ( 45% allowed). This is a major modification of the NR properly. The feelings of the Historic Commission have been firmly expressed at their meeting on Nov 5 and are already part of the Record for this planning Action. Also attached are notes taken by the Historic Hearings Board earlier in the process. RECEIVED I OV 19 So the Vision and Goals of the Comprehensive Plan were put into effect as amendments to the Hillside Ordinance over a period of time in 1996-7 and received much publicity within the City and coverage in the local newspapers. This resulted in an appeal to LUBA by the local Realtors and even went to the Oregon Supreme Court. Indeed the Applicant's brother, Alan DeBoer (then a city councilor and now Mayor) was appointed to the Ad Hoc Committee charged with the task of discussing the details of this ordinance amendment and hearing all public testimony. Copies of the Record are attached as appendices. The Record clearly shows that this Environmental Constraints ordinance was amended not just to protect the citizens downslope from erosion and slope failure but to protect the Urban forest backdrop to our City as an aesthetic resource for all. This community vision was finally distilled into ALUO 18.62 - Physical & Environmental Constraints and later 18.61 - Tree Preservation & Protection and also 18.20.040 Maximum Permitted Floor Area for dwellings within the Historic District. (the latter amendments post-dated this application ) 8.62.010 Purpose and Intent The purpose of this Chapter is to provide for safe, orderly and beneficial development of districts characterized by diversity of physiographic conditions and significant natural features; to limit alteration of topography and reduce encroachment upon, or alteration of, any natural environment and; to provide for sensitive development in areas that are constrained by various natural features. Physiographic conditions and significant natural features can be considered to include, but are not limited to: slope of the land, natural drainage ways, wetlands, soil characteristics, potential landslide areas, natural and wildlife habitats, forested areas, significant trees, and significant natural vegetation. 18.62.080 Development Standards for Hillside Lands It is the purpose of the Development Standards for Hillside Lands to provide supplementary development regulations to underlying zones to ensure that development occurs in such a manner as to protect the natural and topographic character and identity of these areas, environmental resources, the aesthetic qualities and restorative value of lands, and the public health, safety, and general welfare by insuring that development does not create soil erosion, sedimentation of lower slopes, slide damage, flooding problems, and severe cutting or scarring. Tt is the intent of these development standards to encourage a sensitive form of development and to allow for a reasonable use that complements the natural and visual character of the city. A. General Requirements. The following general requirements shall apply in Hillside Lands: 1. All development shall occur on lands defined as having buildable area. Slopes greater than 35% shall be considered unbuildable ..... RECEIVED N~V 1 9 ~00~I The minutes of the Ad Hoc Committee for Hillside development: 10/11/97 (excerpt) (Ad Hoc Committee member) Donovan would like to revisit the percentage of slope. Also, is there a tool to make property owners aware of the ordinance? She would like a discussion on aesthetics" 11/3/97 (excerpt)"(City Planning Director) McLaughlin explained that aesthetics has I~een a kev factor from the l~eginning of the ordinance discussion" Attached Timeline of Hillside Development Standards Ordinance Adoption (pg. 469 LUBA Record) · Table of contents for 1,768 pages of LUBA Record 97-260 · Letter Dated 11/13/97 from Progressive Citizens Alliance about citizen's petition with "over 1,100 signatures from residents of Ashland favoring the "original form of the Ordinance" (18.62) · Details taken from "Large Exhibits not included in Copied Record" LUBA97-260 a) Map showing Hillside Lands etc.- with subject property; b) Map showing Hillside Lands w/>25% Slope overlay - with subject property. · Photo of subject property from Historic Downtown from City Records for PA 2003-118. Already Provided - to be included in the Record. · Map (color) from City GIS survey showing unbuildable areas. · Detail from previous map showing building footprint, tree removal, driveway location and Right-of Way boundary and cross section lines.. · Historic Photo circa 1910 showing slope. · Aerial Photo from City (B&W) showing tree canopy and develoment at 300 Vista St. · Two cross sections prepared by Colin Swales based on item 2 above showing building and existing topography with slope calculations. RECEIVED I 0V 19 Colin Swales' Communication with City Staff- being a continued effort to obtain copies of documents for PA# 2003-118 As substantiating evidence that the application was incomplete due to unfair restrictions madc on thc public obtaining copies of submittal. From: "Colin Swales" <colin~mind.net> 10/15/03 09:52AM >>> Derek, Could you please make me a copy of the applicant's submittal for the upcoming 265 Glenview Drive development.( do you have a .pdf of this?) Also the accompanying staff report ( e-mal this if possible) thanks Colin From: "Derek severson" <dereks~ashland or.us> To: <colin@mind. net> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 11:39 AM Subject: Re: Glenview Colin, The staff findings are attached. I don't have the applicant's submittal electronically, but I will photocopy the narrative for you and set it out in the basket. I'm not sure if you are looking for copies of the plans that were included in the submittal, but because the plans are stamped/copyrighted by Ogden Kistler, I can't photocopy them without written permission to you from their office. And because it's not commission business, our standard copying charges do apply - $0.50 per page for projects over 15 pages for standard sized pages and larger format copies at $8 per page. We do have them available for review in office as part of the file. (The narrative falls into the 15 pages at no cost when double sided.) I then went to the Planning Office whereupon Mark Knox said he was willing to make copies of three of the reduced drawings I had requested. But he was told that they were copyright and so I requested that he obtain permission from Ogden Kistler and let me know soon, as I was heading out of town the following day. He told me that ill didn't hear by the end of the day then copies would not be allowed. I did not hear anything. When I returned and upon learning that this application had been called up for public hearing, I again requested the copies. ! was informed that Planning Commissioner Briggs had also requested some copies and that Ken Ogden had told Staff, "She can jus! come into the office to see the plans like anyone else" "Colin Swales" <colin~mind net> 10/27/03 9:11:28 AM >>> REC I /ED Mark, I understand that PA# 2003-118 has been called up for a Public Hearing. You might remember when I came into the office a couple of weeks ago in order to obtain information concerning this application and was allowed to inspect the submitted plans. Although you personally were perfectly willing to make me a copy of a couple of the 8" x 11" reduced versions of the plans I understand that you were over-ruled by Mac and the City Attorney who said that I must first obtain the express permissio_n of the copyright holder (Ogden Kistler Architecture). I then asked for you to request such permission. You replied that if I didn't hear from you before days end, that permission was not forthcoming. I did not hear from you so I have to assume that permission to copy these public documents was denied. However, on reading ORS 197.763 (3h) (ht~tp://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/'197.html) I read: "...all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost .... "(my emphasis). Could you please therefore make me the couple of copies I requested. Also, could you please make sure that this request is entered into the Record for PA# 2003-118 and that the City Attorney and Planning Director are made aware as are Derek and Adam who also thought they were not allowed to make such copies.( see e-mail below) thanks Colin Swales From: "Paul nolte" <Noltep~ashland.or.us> > To: "Mark knox" <mark@ashland.or.us>:; <_colin@~nind.net> > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 8:06 AM > Subject: Re: Copies of Submitted Documents? > Mark, as I previously advised copyrighted plans may not be duplicated. ORS > 197.763 does not trump Federal copyright laws. Do not copy the plans without the consent of the copyright holder. > > Paul Nolte > City Attorney > City of Ashland, OR > (541) 488-5350 - PHONE NOV 1 9 > NOTE NEW FAX # AS OF JUNE 25, 2003: (541) 552-2092 - FAX > noltep~ashland, or.us > > Visit the city's web site at: www.ashlandor.us > Our TTY phone number is 1 (800) 735-2900 ************************************************************** From: "Colin Swales" <colin~mind.net> To: "Paul nolte" <Noltep~ashland.or.us> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 9:18 A2vl Subject: Re: Copies of Submitted Documents? Paul, Re PA# 2003-118 Thanks for your opinion on this matter. The applicant, according to my understanding, and subsequent to my request for copies of the reductions of their plans that were made part of their planning action submittal, furnished the city with a written denial to make such copies of their evidence available to the public. I myself was unable to exercise due diligence in this matter due to this action by the applicants. As such a categorical denial is contrary to Oregon Planning Law (as stated below) I would like to request that the planning Action should not have been received and accepted by the City as a complete and full application and furthermore that the City requests that this application is withdrawn and submitted at a later date containing only such evidence to support their application that the applicant is willing to share fully and unreservedly with the public and without such illegal restrictions on access and scrutiny. Yours Colin Swales ..... Original Message ..... From: "Paul nolte" <Noltep~ashland.or.us> To: <colin@mind net> Cc: "John mclaughlin" <mac,ashland.or.us>; "Mark knox" <mark@ashlandor.us> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 4:01 PM Subject: Re: Copies of Submitted Documents? Colin, if your are inquiring as a citizen, not as a planning commissioner, then you need to make these assertions at the heating itself. If you are inquiring as a planning commissioner then I would advise you that the applicant's submission is not contrary to law, that submitting copyrighted plans does not mean a complete application has not been submitted, that the applicant has done nothing illegal and that asserting one's rights under the copyright law is not putting "illegal RECEIVED l:)v 19 2003 restrictions on access and scrutiny." >>> "Colin Swales" <colin@mindnet> October 30, 2003 5:26:15 AM >>> Mark, I came by the office today and saw that the notice for the upcoming PA#2003-118 has been sent out to the surrounding property owners and others. When was it mailed out? Also could you tell me the status of the lot-line adjustment that is proposed for this site. How does that go through the planning process? Is it a separate action? Also, 1 saw in the file that you had received a fax on Oct 28th from Ogden Kistler Architecture that stated, "Mark it is okay to make copies of the DeBoer Residence as needed specifically for the Planning Commissionaires who will be reviewing the project at the November 12th, 1:30 meeting" thank you Ken Ogden Does that mean that there is now permission granted for myself and other members of the public to obtain copies or must ! still come down to the office in order to inspect the plans? Who will be the decision makers at that meeting. I know you told me that Kerry Kencairn was scheduled. If she is stepping down, who will replace her? I would appreciate a written reply to this and my previous e-mail (copied below) as time really is of the essence and I need to know about this issue very soon. thanks as always for your help, Colin Colin, We had two notices mailed out after the call-up notice. The first notice was mailed Oct. 22nd and the second was mailed Oct. 27th. The first notice had listed the property address at 265 "Grandview" instead of Glenview. As I'm sure you noticed, the notice had a site map that showed the property and the correct streets, just the text in the description was wrong. The second notice rectified the minor error. The original Staff Permit Approval notice had the correct address. The lot line adjustment is a separate action and is considered a "Ministerial Action". This is on my desk and I'm close to having it signed and sent to the recorder. It is my understanding the fax from Ken Ogden was intended for the three Hearings Board members only. We have had follow faxes that also allow copying for the Tree and Historic Commissioners. RECIEIVED NOV 19 2003 Dave Dotterrer, Mike Morris and I believe Kerry's replacement is Russ Chapman. - Mark ..... Original Message ..... From: Colin Swales To: Mark Knox Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 5:35 AM Subject: Ogden Fax - PA# 2003-118 Mark, re PA# 2003-118 ! picked up the copy of the fax - thanks. However, it says that "..the plans are copyrighted ..... They cannot be reproduced without direct consent of OKA..) This is just a statement of fact. Can you confirm that my specific request for the direct consent of OKA to have such copies made was actually denied. If not I would still like the copies I requested. Unfortunately at the "PC chat session" I was fully occupied from 4-5 and anyway, both meeting rooms were occupied. Perhaps I can find another time to look at the full-size drawings ..... thanks Colin m mm mmmm mmmmmmmmm m m m mmmmm m m m m m m mmm m m m m m m m m m m mmm m m mmmmmmm mmm m m lmm mmmm m m m m m i m mmm m m m m mmm m m m m l >>> "Colin Swales" <colin~mind.net> October 30, 2003 8:54:01 AM >>> Mark, Can I then assume that my specific requests (Thursday 16 Oct 2003 and subsequently since ) for consent to make copies of the plans has been denied by the copyright holder? I need you to be specific on this. thanks Colin ..... Original Message ..... From: "Mark knox" <mark(~,ashland or.us> To: <colin@mindnet> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 9:00 AM Subject: Re: Copyright permission obtained PA#2003-118 ? BCEI\/ED NOV 1 9 2003 Yes, to not just you but for anyone beyond the Planning, Tree, Historic Commission members not hearing the Planning Action. On November 3'~' 2003, Ken Ogden went into the Planning Department office with his lawyer and signed a copyright release. Mark Knox subseqnently gave me a copy of the Historic Commission packet ( including reduced plans) for the meeting on the 5'h November 2003. OREGON LAND USE LAW ORS Chapter 197 -- Comprehensive Land Use Planning Coordination ORS 197.763 (3h) (http://www.legstate.or.us/ors/197.html) (h) State that a copy of the application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost; FEDERAL COPYRIGHT LAW (Fair Use) http://~v~v~'.copy right, gov/title 17/92chapl.htmi#107 § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use~ Nomithstanding the provisions of sections 1o6 and 106A. the fair use of a copyrighted work. including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or bx' any other meaus specified bx- that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, ne~'s reporting, teaching (including multiple COllies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -- (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. N~V 1 9 2~3 Timeline of Hillside Development Standards Ordinance Adoption Initial PC Study Session Concerned Citizens Info Meeting Concerned Citizens Field Meeting Sub-committee - Architecture Sub-committee- Land Integrity Sub-committee- Fire/Traffic Concerned Citizens Review Meeting Concerned Citizens Review Meedng 6/27/95 3/1 I/96 3/16/96 3/18/96 3/20/96 4/3/96 4/8/96 4/29/96 Legal notice in newspaper. Article in paper, notices mailed. Article in paper, notices mailed. Article in paper Article in paper Article in paper Article in paper, mailed notice Article in paper, previous meeting nodce First Draft of Ordinance Prepared by Ashland Planning Staff PC/Concerned Citizens Review Meeting 6/17/97 Concerned atizens Review Meeting 7/8/96 Planning Commission Study Session 7/30/96 Concerned atizens Review Meedng 10/2/96 Technical Committee Review PC/City Council Study Session Technical Committee Review 4/9/97 Technical Committee Review 4/16/97 ~C/City Council Study Session 4/29/97 Concerned Citizens Review Meeting 6/2/97 Planning Commission Public HeartnE 6/10/97 City Council Public Hearing 8/5/97 City Council/First Reading 9/2/97 11/21/96 11/26/96 Mailed notice Mailed notice, article in paper Mailed notice, newspaper, legal notice Nodce by Concerned Citizens Mailed notice to committee members Mailed notice, newspaper, legal notice Mailed notice to committee members Mailed notice to committee members Newspaper, legal notice Notice by Concerned Citizens Newspaper, legal nodce Newspaper, published agenda, legal notice Newspaper, published agenda first letter received from Rogue Valley Association of Realtors - 9fl5/97 aty Council/Second Reading City Council/Second Reading 9/16/97 Newspaper 10/7/97 Newspaper TABLE OF CONTENTS 12-2-97 12-2-97 12-2-97 11-25-97 11 ~19-97 11-19-97 9-14-97 thru 11 - 19-97 11-18-97 11 - 18-97 11-18-97 11-13-97 11-12-97 11-3-97 10-30-97 10-20-97 10-20-97 10-16-97 10-10-97 10-7-97 1 O-7-97 9-16-97 9-11-97 9-2-97 8~26-97 8-1-97 5-23-97 4-29-97 4-29-97 4-9-97 6-13-96 ~lVlap ,'Map ,,'Slides '~Slides "Photos "Photos V'Map ,-'Map Ordinance 2808 Adopted 12-2-97 Findings in Support of Adoption Ordinance 2808 Council Minutes Ordinance Second Reading Minutes for the Adjourned Meeting Ashland City Council Realtor Packet presented to Council Pages 1-32 33-43 4445 46-78 79-86 87-230 Miscellaneous Letters Minutes for the Regular Meeting Ashland City Council DLCD Response Council Packet Citizen Petition Vacant Lands Analysis Ad Hoc Hillside Committee Minutes Ad Hoc Hillside Committee Packet Ad Hoc Hillside Committee Minutes Hillside Development Committee Packet Realtor Packet DLCD Notice Letter from Richard Stevens Company, LLC Minutes for the Regular Meeting Ashland City Council Minutes for the Regular Meeting Ashland City Council Memorandum to Mayor and City Council re: Hillside Development Standards - Reading from John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development Minutes for the Regular Meeting Ashland City Council Memorandum to Mayor and City Council re: Hillside Development Standards - Reading from John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development 231-357 358-368 369-370 371-567 568-664 665-686 687-691 692-781 782-784 785 -964 965-1317 1318-1322 1323-1420 1421-1426 1427-1432 Second 1433-1465 1466-1470 First 1471-1504 Memorandum to Mayor and City Council McLaughlin, Director of Community Development Memorandum to Interested Parties re: Final Draft (Version 2.1) from Ashland Planning Department Hillside Development Standards (Version 2.0) Early Comments/input Physical & Environmental Constraints (Version 1.1) Physical & Environmental Constraints (Version 1.0) re: Hillside Development Standards from John 1505-1549 1550-1584 1585-1617 1618-1698 1699-1735 1736-1768 LARGE EXHIBITS NOT INCLUDED IN COPIED RECORD Geologic Map of the parts of ASHLAND & LAKE CREEK QUADRANGLES Oregon Geologic Hazard Map of the parts of ASHLAND & LAKE CREEK QUADRANGLES Oregon Slide presentation by Planning Director John McLaughlin presented to Hillside Ordinance Committee Slide presentation by Rick Harris presented to Ashland City Council Color photos (xerox 8 1/2 x 11) of Ashland homes Photo album of Ashland homes City of Ashland Vacant Lands Inventory Hillside Lands, Floodplain Corridor, Vacant Lands City of Ashland Vacant Lands Inventory Hillside Lands w/>25% Slope oveday NOV 19 7003 ,./Map ,"Map ,.-Map ,..-Large Graphic ,."'Large Graphic City of Ashland Zoning Map Mylar Oveday on Buildable Lands City of Ashland Slope Demarcation Map Zoning Map Mylar Oveday on Tax Lots colored by size 35% slope explanation "Hillside Development Ordinance" - 5 bulleted points R C IV 'D 2003 November 13, 1997 Honorable Mayor Golden and City Council 20 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 Re: Hillside Developement Standards Ordinance Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council: It gives us great pleasure to submit the attached letters of petition with signatures of over one thousand one hundred residents of Ashland who are strongly in favor of the original form of this ordinance as submitted to you on September 16, 1997. The sections viewed as essential were those pertaining to 35% maximum buildable slope, with adamant preference for less slope, retention of the natural state on all parcels, building design and hillside grading and erosion control. Many were in favor of the suggested change by councilor DeBoer regarding color restrictions. These signatures were obtained by a small group of volunteer citizens at three easily accessible locations in the city over a period of seven days. The overwhelming response to this petition in such a very short period of time with minimum exposure clearly indicates the citizens mandate to you, our elected representatives. This is a resounding example of citizen participation in city government that you and many others have been working long and hard to stimulate and encourage. Congratulations!! We respectfully urge you to pass this ordinance including the. above noted change, as submitted and dated for your approval on September 16, 1997, and entitled City Adopted Version- Second Reading. Robert E. Taber, For: Progressive Citizens Alliance 97 Scenic Drive Ashland, Oregon 97520 Aberfan Disaster Description l~tlp://w~xv, nml.ox.ac, u~ pol~t~cs/aOcrlan/Oesc, htnl The Aberfan Disaster Brief Description At 9.15 am on Friday, October 21, 1966 a waste tip slid down a mountainside into the mining village of Aberfan, near Merthyr Tydfil in South Wales. It first destroyed a farm cottage in its path, killing all the occupants. At Pantglas Junior School, just below, the children had just returned to their classes after singing All Things Bright andBeaut~ful at their assembly. It was sunny on th~ mountain but foggy in the village, with visibility about 50 yards. The tipping gang up the mountain had seen the slide start, but could not raise the alarm because their telephone cable had been repeatedly stolen. (The Tribunal of Inquiry later established that the disaster happened so quickly that a telephone warning would not have saved lives.) Down in the village, nobody saw anything, but everybody heard the noise. Gaynor Minett, an eight-year-old at the school, remembered four years later: It was a tremendous rmnbling sound and all the school went dead. You could hear a pin drop. Everyone just froze in their seats. I just managed to get up and I reached the end of my desk when the sound got louder and nearer, until I could see the black out of the window. I can't remember any more but I woke up to find that a horrible nightmare had just begun in fi-ont of my eyes. The slide engulfed the school and about 20 houses in the village before coming to rest. Then there was total silence. George Williams, who was trapped in the wreckage, remembered that 'In that silence you couldn't hear a bird or a child'. 144 people died in the Aberfan disaster: 116 of them were school children. About half of the children at Pantglas Junior School, and five of their teachers, were killed. 1 of 2 11/19/2003 6:30 Abeffan Disaster Description lmp://~swxs.nun.ox.ac.u}vpontJcs~aucriawaesc.nm~ So horrifying was the disaster that everybody wanted to do something. Hundreds of people stopped what they were doing, threw a shovel in the car, and drove to Aberfan to try and help with the rescue. It was futile; the untrained rescuers merely got in the way of the trained rescue teams. Nobody was rescued alive after 1 lam on the day of the disaster, but it was nearly a week before all the bodies were recovered. The above description is taken from lain McLean, On Moles mad the Habits of Birds: The Unpolitics of Aberfan, Twentieth Century British History, vol.8, Dec. 1997. With quotes from: Gaynor Madgewick, Aberfan: Struggling out of the darkness, (Blaengarw: Valley & Vale, 1996), p.23 (The bulk of the book, including the passage quoted here, comprise the author's recollections of the disaster, written in a school notebook between 1970 mad 1972.) & Report of the Tribunal appointed to inquire into the Disaster at Aberfan on October 21st, 1966, Chairman Lord Justice Edmund Da~4es, HMSO, 1967, HL 316 & HC 553, p.27. Return to the Aberfan Disaster home page 2 of 2 11/19/2003 6:30 AM 18 November 2003 John McLaughlin Director, Community Development City of Ashland 20 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 RE: Planning Action 2003-118 ! 265 Glenview CC: Planning Commission Dear John McLaughlin: This letter is my additional testimony on the above-referenced matter, and reaches you within the comment period allowed by the Planning Hearings Board at its 12 November 2003 afternoon meeting. My first request is that you move this item from the agenda of the Planning Hearings Board to the agenda of the full Planning Commission: All parties acknowledge to be true that this proposal to build the largest private residence ever built in one of Ashland's Historic Districts has attracted a great degree of public attention. Rogue Valley media, including the Medford Mail Tribune and the Ashland Daily Tidings have published articles about it and received numerous letters to the editor about it. The chronology, filing of documents and entire project history has had more than its share of unusual twists and convolutions. As just one example, its review by the Historic and Tree Commissions required those commissions to look at this project using a different 'lens' of legal, applicable language and criteria than customary. Therefore, I think the full Planning Commission should exercise its responsibilities and carefully review this matter. Please inform me if a precedent already exists about the power of citizens to ask the Hearings Board to move an item from its agenda to that of the full Planning Commission. I made this request at the 12 November 2003 Hearings Board hearing during my testimony but neither the Board not staff brought it up for further discussion or action: I bring to your attention the results of the review of this project by two of the city's volunteer commissions. The Historic Commission, stripped of its normal opportunity to send you its review from its normal legal ground, instead was encouraged by City Councilor (and Historic Commission RECEIVEr' 5 ? NOV 19 ~DO3 liaison) John Morrison to send its opinions forward through some process and language, -Fmcouraged by this~ the Historic Commission passed by a 5-1 vote its recommendation that the Planning Commission should deny, for Historic-related reasons (bulk&scale, etc.), the applicants' request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit. Representatives of the applicant have already argued that the Planning Commission should simply dismiss this Historic Commission recommendation-as not legally_ relevant to the decision-making process. While this narrow view may have the hollow ring of technical truth, it defies the spirit of the long-term relationship of respect and collegial relationship among members of the Historic Commission and the Planning Commission. A long-standing, bipartisan track record of asking applicants to adhere to Historic Commission recommendations will be reversed if the Planning Commission simply dismisses the majority vote from the Historic Commission. As for the Tree Commission, its members have long realized that they act in only an advisory capacity to the quasi-judicial Planning Commission, It is not the charge of the Tree Commission to make any recommendation to the Planning Commission as to whether a project should be approved or denied, and therefore, it made no such recommendation for this project. This is a long-standing precedent. What is true, again, is the reality that a relationship of collegiality exists among members ~of the Tree Commission and the Planning Commission. Many Tree Commissioners work as arborists, horticulturists, landscape professionals or parks professionals and bring a career's worth of knowledge -- as well as their local experience of Ashland's unique botany -- to their volunteer duties. I believe that explains why the Planning Commission frequently includes Tree Commission recommendations into the Conditions of Approval for projects. In any case, again due to the uncommon (but legal) language through which the Tree Commission was required to review this proposal, it is fact that they made no recommendation whether to approve or deny (as is precedent) and instead sent forward a mitigation strategy that was agreed to by the applicant should this proposal meet with ultimate approval. The mitigation strategy was required because of one of the unusual twists in this planning 'actiond Sometime in early 2003, city staff in the planning department, in response to a query from the applicant, told the applicant that trees on their property could be cut down because their property was not covered by AMC 18.61. This is correct as far as it goes but RECEIVED staff now agrees with all parties that this approval to cut was in violation of sections of the Hillside Ordinance, which would have required a Tree Inventory, among other actions, as cited in ALUO 18.62.080 Development Standards for Hillside Lands. If, for example, the applicant had first presented a Tree Inventory, this might have invoked Section O, 1 which states "Building envelopes shall be located and sized to preserve the maximum number of trees on site while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands." Had this 'mistake' not occurred, the applicant could not have illegally removed five (-5) large trees (ranging in DBH [diameter at breast height] from 18 inches to 40 inches) in a mixed oak/madrone native hillside forest. The Hillside Ordinance language would have obtained, a Tree Inventory would have been required, and Section O, 5 would have become relevant "Tree Removal. Development shall be designed to preserve the maximum number of trees on a site. The development shall follow the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands." Section O, 7a. would also been required: "All tree removal shall be done in accord with the approved tree removal and replacement plan: No trees designated for conservation shall be removed without prior approval of the City of Ashland." According to one of applicants' representatives, KenCaim Environmental Desigm these native trees were removed "~:: in anticipation of the adoption of the Tree Ordinance." It is a matter of public record (photocopies, dated 1/01[02 and U02/02 attached) that Sid and Karen DeBoer opposed the adoption of the Tree Ordinance (passed with a 5-! City Council vote on 4 June 2002; legal as of 5 July 2002, some months before the actual removal of trees at 265 Glenview.) Their disdain of the appropriateness of legal constraints that might regulate the removal of trees could not be more clear. Sid DeBoer states unequivocally in his e-mail, "...we must leave it up to the property owners where they want to put their houses and trees:" According to KenCairn, "The applicant had numerous conversations with staff at the City of Ashland over the removal of these trees, and it was agreed that there were no restrictions on their removal." Staff testimony at the Public Hearings Board meeting on 12 November 2003 suggested that perhaps just one conversation, a phone call, led to staff's erroneous recommendation to applicant that there were".., no restrictions on their / RECEIVF ~IOV 19 2O03 removal." This difference of opinion about what actually happened affirms my assertion that this project has already had many unusual twists. KenCairn later asserts, on behalf of applicants, that "Because the tree removal was in violation of the Hillside Ordinance, the following mitigation has been proposed." This declaration makes clear that, whatever their intent, the applicants' removal of this mixed oak/madrone native forest h-ad the legal result of removing the applicants from the legal constraints of the Hillside Ordinance language which would have required their home proposal to keep the native, forested hillside intact: By cutting the trees; applicants prepared a no-exit, legal strategy for themselves that removed them from the stringent requirements of the Hillside Ordinance, and also eliminated them from anything other than a mitigation discussion with the Tree Commission while reducing the Historic Commissioners to the legal position of simply forwarding an 'unenforceable' opinion. It is also a general understanding among Ashland's landscape professionals that madrone trees are very difficult to transplant and nearly impossible to purchase or grow from seed. Given the size and age of the native madrones and oaks cut down by the applicants, it is fair to assume that they were not planted by humans, but were instead part of the natural succession of botanic species on the front of this ridge projecting into downtown Ashland. I'm sure many of us who walked by this property over the last quarter century believed we were looking at a representative example of what Ashland's hillsides looked like before human domestication; adorned with a mixed forest of mature; specimen madrone and oak trees. We never imagined that any property owner would illegally cut them down! As a result of this tree-cutting mistake, applicants' representatives now freely state, on Page 24 of their 'Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law' document, in the section relating to Criterion 20, that".., there are no significant trees within the Protected iHillside Area to be removed as a result of this project." Let me translate this into Will Rogers' common-sense speech: "Yep, you betcha, those trees are gone and now that they are cut down illegally and everyone ~admits it was illegal, then one of the favorable outcomes for you is that you won't be subject to Criterion 20, Section 3, a., b. and c. which therefore means that you will be able to propose an 1 l~000sq:ft-.+ home~ since the trees will be gone and no longer in the way of the proposed building envelope." RECEIVE['! I believe impartial observers would agree, after hearing all this evidence, that this whole project should simply be denied and applicants required to re-submit a new proposal. In such an event, all parties could be assured that the full breadth of ali applicable ordinances would be carefully evaluated from a legal perspective in a second review by the Planning Department and legal staff. From my seat, the Planning Commission should simply deny approval of this permit. That would allow city legal staff an opportunity to begin considering what kind of fines (see 18.62.080, 7 b. "Should the developer or the developer's agent remove or destroy any tree that has been designated for conservation; the developer may be fined up to three times the current appraised value of the replacement trees and cost of replacement or up to three times the current market value, as' established by a professional arborist, whichever is greater.") to impose and what kind of restoration mitigation actions will be required to restore and heal the damaged native forested hillside. Finally, each noticed planning action, including this one, has language on the front page stating: "A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested." This allows Ashland citizens a chance to participate in the planning future of their community. Questions on this project about availability of the copyrighted drawings, legal release of same, the exact number of days of availability during the comment period and any other legal issues involved could be laid to rest, perhaps, if copies of all e-mail, faxed or written correspondence between applicants~, applicants' representatives and city staff were compiled and made available for public review as part of the decision-making process. Best, Bryan Holley 324 ~berty Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 BH:BH -- attachments RECEIVED Mark knox- Deboer House Application ~ Pager From: To: Date: Subject: "JBStreet" <jbstreet@ashlandhome.net> "Mark Knox" <mark@ashland.or.us> November 18, 2003 9:18PM Deboer House Application Mark, Please attach the document referred to below ('q-imeline of Hillside Development Standards Ordinance Adoption" ) to this additional submission to the DeBoer House public record. Please confirm receipt to my work address as well: bill.street@ashland.k12.or.us. Thank you very much, Bill November 18, 2003 To: Ashland Planning Commissioners Ashland Planning Department Re: Sid and Karen DeBoer Planning Application After giving my testimony at last week's Hearing Board meeting (Wednesday, November 12, 2003), I was approached at the end of the meeting by Commissioner Morris. He referred to my comments and said he didn't recall the Hillside Ordinance process in the way that I did. He commented that it was his opinion that there was considerable opposition at the time and that the Council Chambers were "filled with people who were opposed to it." After thinking about his opinion, I feel it is necessary to put in writing my reasons for introducing into the record a number of quotes from the Medford Mail Tribune which appeared in print in 1997. My intent was to establish that the Hillside ordinance was well publicized and its provisions repeatedly discussed publicly over six years ago. I hope the Commissioners will review the ''Timeline of Hillside Development Standards Ordinance Adoption" (a City of Ashland document available from the Planning Department) in order to clarify the record in their minds before making a decision on the DeBoer House application. The "Timeline of Hillside Development Standards Ordinance Adoption" document is a legal record prepared in response to the Rogue Valley Association of Realtors decision to take the case to LUBA. The document clearly establishes the City's record of public meetings, legal notices, published agendas and articles in the paper which appeared between 6/27/95 and 10/7/97. There are numerous detailed statements in this public record of the provisions of the ordinance. The intent of my testimony was to make clear that the public, as well as Sid and Karen DeBoer and their various professional advisors and legal councilors, were informed of the provisions of the Hillside Ordinance as far back as the Public Hearing of 8/5/1997. It seems appropriate that Planning Commissioners would consider this in making their decision in this matter. I attempted to establish in my Hearing Board testimony that the Hillside Ordinance makes numerous references to its intent to protect trees and vegetation on our hillsides. I hope you will agree that it is a responsibility shared by'private citizens and the City of Ashland. In this case, a mistake was made when the DeBoers were given permission to cut down a group of significant natural trees on their hillside property. I would like to propose that the City and the DeBoers honor the intent and purpose of the 1997 Ordinance* (see below) by sharing the responsiblity of restoring the natural hillside canopy of trees on their property. As a consequence, it will be necessary for the DeBoers to resubmit their house plans and build their house in the historically appropriate location of the two Vista Street houses they demolished previously. Mark knox - Deboer House Application Page 2 Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough consideration, Bill Street 180 Mead Street Ashland 18.62.080 Development Standards for Hillside Lands It is the purpose of the Development Standards for Hillside Lands to provide supplementary development regulations to underlying zones to ensure that development occurs in such a manner as to protect the natural and topographic character and identity of these areas, environmental resources, the aesthetic qualities and restorative value of lands, and the public health, safety, and general welfare by insuring that development does not create soil erosion, sedimentation of lower slopes, slide damage, flooding problems, and severe cutting or scarring. It is the intent of these development standards to encourage a sensitive form of development and to allow for a reasonable use that complements the natural and visual character of the city. CC: "Sue Yates" <Sue@ashland.or.us> Timeline of Hillside Development Standards Ordinance Adoption Initial PC Study Session Concerned Citizens Info Meeting Concerned Cidzens Field Meeting Sub-committee - Architecture Sub-committee- Land integrity Sub-committee- Fire/Traffic Concerned Citizens Review Meeting Concerned Citizens Review Meeting 6/27/95 3/1 I/96 3/16/96 3/! 8/96 3/20/96 4/3/96 4/8/96 4/29/96 Legal notice in newspaper. Article in paper, notices mailed. Article in paper, nodces mailed. Article in paper Article in paper Article in paper Article in paper, mailed notice Article in paper, previous meeting notice First Draft of Ordinance Prepal~d by Ashland Planning Staff PC/Concerned Citizens Review Meeting Concerned Citizens Review Meeting Planning Commission Study Session Concerned Citizens Review Meeting 6/17/97 7/8/96 7/30/96 10/2/96 Technical Committee Review PC/City Council Study Session Technical Committee Review Technical Committee Review PC/City Council Study Session 11/21/96 I 1/26/96 4/9/97 4/16/97 4/29/97 Concerned Citizens Review Meeting 6/2/97 Planning Commission Public Hearing 6/10/97 City Council Public Hearing 8/5/97 City Council/First Reading 9/2/97 Mailed notice Mailed notice, article in paper Mailed notice, newspaper, legal notice Notice by Concerned Citizens Mailed notice to committee members Mailed nodce, newspaper, legal notice Mailed notice to committee members Mailed notice to committee members Newspaper, legal notice Notice by Concerned Citizens Newspaper, legal notice Newspaper. published agenda, legal notice Newspaper, published agenda tint letter received from Rogue Valley Association of Realtors - 9/! 5/97 City Council/Second Reading 9/16/97 Newspaper City Council/Second Reading 10/7/97 Newspaper Pearce - Proposed Tree Removal Ordinance Page 1 From: "Sid Deboer" <sdeboer@lithia.com> To: <pearcer@ashland.or. us> Date: 1/1/02 2:29PM Subject: Proposed Tree Removal Ordinance ., I am opposed to passing the Tree Removal Ordinance as it is proposed. I beli¢~t4.s4e~a~-~enforceable and will lead to costly l~t~.~a;.;u,. --,, This is bureaucratic interference at its worst form in the personal property rights of property owners. Just say No to the Tree Ordinance. I love trees and think we all support the idea of having a city of beautiful trees--but we must leave it up to the property owners where they want to put their houses and trees. Sidney B. DeBoer, 234 Vista St., Ashland, Oregon. 482-0915 CC: <jed@quest5.com>, <Awdb@aol.com> RECEIVED ~n Pearce - prOposed Tree Removal orcl'inance Page 1 From: To: Date: Subject: "Karen Deboer" <kdeboer@lithia.com> <pearcer@ashland.or. us> ('// 1/2/02 9:45AM ""-' ~" Proposed Tree Removal Ordinance I love trees. I plant trees every year at our home and take pride in selecting a varietal of trees and nurturing them but I feel its personally an affront that a commission would th~f telling mew~ I could do with any of the trees in my garden. This vigilante group must be stol:~ed. Karen DeBoer ~ Karen DeBoer ~.~ __...~.,,.-/_ CC: "Jed Meese" <jed@quest5.com>, <Awdb@aol.com> RECEIVED F R 0 M T Il IL i) IL S K 0 l' GEORGE KRAMER Monday, November 17, 2003 Mr. Russ Chapman Chair, Ashland Planning Commission c/o Mark Knox, Associate Planner (via e-mail) Dear Russ, I xvould like this letter added to the public record regarding PA #2003-118, concerning a physical and environmental constraints permit for the proposed structure at 265 Glenviexv Drive, xvithin Siskiyou-Hargadine National Register-listed historic district. At the Commission's Nov. 12th Hearings Board staff presented the four criteria for approval of this permit. Criterion #3 stated that the Commission "...shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area and the maximum development permitted by the Land Development Ordinance" in determining whether to grant the applicant's permit. I believe it is false to define the surrounding area within the tight constraints the applicant suggests and that if "the surrounding area" were defined in more accurate and appropriate terms with regard to the impact of the project, that this proposal can be clearly found at odds with the existing development pattern. Such a position is supported by findings that few if any structures in the neighborhood, not to mention the district as a whole, are 1) as tall, 2) as large in volume or 3) are built upon the steepest portion of the related lot. Houses in the immediate vicinity, on both Vista and even Glenview, are generally sited in traditional fashion to respect the streetscape and are built upon fiat or gently sloped portions of their lots. As a result other nearby dwellings nestle into the neighborhood rather than looming above it as the proposed structure clearly will. You will recall the one aspect of the original Hillside Ordinance discussions involved visual impact from the valley floor. This building will clearly be visible from the majority of the downtown core. As a community Ashland has clearly stated, its opposition to projects such as this one being built in our historic districts. This application, although submitted to circumvent the timing of the Maximum House Size ordinance, blatantly exploits to the maximum virtually every pertinent aspect of the LDO in terms of height and allowable lot coverage, requires the manipulation of existing lot lines to create a monster parcel that borrows from adjacent properties under the same ownership, and, in my opinion, pushes the definitions of what is a basement or building story to the maximum allowed under the code. This is not a proposal that is slightly outside the community standard in a single regard, but rather one that smashes through those standards by magnitudes of order in every direction possible. Quite simply the request for a physical and environmental constraints permit represents the only aspect of the code that could not be maximized or fmessed to the applicant's advantage without the City's concurrence. Given that this is a proposal a strong majority of Ashland opposes this request for permit devolves to the simple legal question as to whether there is any basis within the LDO 386 NOR'I'It LAUREL · ASHI. AND, OREGON 9752o-1154 541-482-9504 541-482-9438 [FAX] gkramer~jeffnet.org 17 NOVI~MBI,;R, 2003 prior to the adoption of the Maximum House Ordinance upon xvhich it might be legally denied. In my opinion it is reasonable, and entirely permitted under the code at the time of application, for the Commission to fred that this project is inconsistent with the surrounding development as defined under Criterion 3 of the Hillside ordinance. There are differing views on the actual slope of the building site, along with questions about where that slope should be measured which result in determinations that the project may or may not be within the allowable limits. Such determinations are entirely outside the realm of any widely supported community ordinance that went into effect specifically to halt projects such as this one within Ashland's historic districts. The proposal contained in PA 2003-118 is clearly not a project Ashland wishes to see built, nor one that provides any community benefit xvhatsoever that I can discern. While every applicant, no matter how self-interested, is certainly entitled to the full protection of the law, there is no requirement that they be given benefit in interpretation unless they can prove such is appropriate. Rejecting this request is consistent xvith the community's best interest and can be accomplished under the Hillside ordinance as in effect at the time of submittal. Though the applicant may well, and probably will, threaten further action, I urge the Planning Commission to step up to the plate and exercise its authority to the community's benefit. This is a project that should not be inflicted upon Ashland's historic district and one that can easily be proven counter to the criteria for approval under the code at the 6me of application. Sincerel}; George Kramer CiTY OF -ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 12, 2003 Council Liaison: High School Liaison: SOU Liaison: Staff: CALL TO ORDER Chair Russ Chapman called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m.. Commissioners Present: Russ Chapman, Chair Mike Morris Dave Dotterrer (No absent members) Alex Amarotico - not present None None Bill Molnar, Senior Planner Mark Knox, Associate Planner Brandon Goldman, Assistant Planner Sue Yates, Executive Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS Dotterrer moved and Morris seconded the approval of the minutes of the October 14, 2003 Heatings Board. Dotterrer moved and Morris seconded the approval of the findings for PA2003-110, 230 and 232 Van Ness Avenue (Eggling). TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 2003-137 REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW FOR A NINE-UNIT EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING WINGSPREAD MOBILE HOME PARK LOCATED AT 321 CLAY STREET. ALSO REQUEST FOR TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. APPLICANT: WINGSPREAD LLC This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2003-138 REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT AN ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT, APPROXIMATELY 499 SQUARE FEET, ON THE SECOND FLOOR ABOVE A NEW TWO-CAR GARAGE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 556 FORDYCE STREET. APPLICANT: KURTZ-WALSH PROPERTY, LLC This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2003-139 REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 4,410 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING AT 518 WASHINGTON STREET (LOT 3), OF THE WASHINGTON PROFESSIONAL PLAZA. APPLICANT: GENESIS BUSINESS ENTERPRISES, LLC This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2003-141 REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,250 SQUARE FOOT METAL BUILDING ADDITION TO THE EXISTING WAREHOUSE FACILITY LOCATED AT 684 TOLMAN CREEK ROAD. APPLICANT: BATZER, INC. This action was approved. 7/ PLANNING ACTION 2003-142 REQUEST FOR A THREE PARCEL LAND PARTITION AND PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT (I.E. DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION) ON HILLSIDE LANDS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 735 PRIM STREET. APPLICANT: VAL DUTSON This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2003-143 REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONVERT THE EXISTING 672 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE INTO AN ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT AND A PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A NEW RESIDENCE UPON AREAS IDENTIFIED AS HILLSIDE LANDS FOR THE PROPERTY AT 714 PALMER ROAD. APPLICANT: FRED GANT AND JEANNE LEGRAND This action was approved. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 2002-129 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW TO CONVERT AND EXPAND AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE INTO AN APPROXIMATELY 622 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT. 900 GLENDALE STREET APPLICANT: SCOTT ALLISON Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Site Visits were made by all, STAFF REPORT Goldman reported that Staffbelieves this proposal meets the requirements for an accessory residential unit. The proposed accessory unit involves the conversion of an existing building at the northeast rear comer of the property. Staff has no evidence that this structure has ever been used or approved as a secondary residence. It is non-conforming. The structure is set back 4.5 and 4.7feet, respectively to the side and rear yards. The structure is within the required setbacks, but no closer than three feet from the side or rear property lines. Four parking spaces are required, two for the primary residence and two for the accessory residential unit. The applicant proposed to utilize the existing tandem parking - one space in the carport, one space behind the carport space. The tandem parking has existed since 1958. Staff is agreeable to this arrangement because a carport is rarely used for storage, leaving both areas open for parking. The Fire Department has required the installation of an interior sprinkler system. When the accessory building was built in 1958 there were no zoning requirements regarding setbacks. It became non- conforming in 1967 when the zoning ordinances were put in place. Staff recommends approval with the attached nine conditions. Chapman asked why a variance was not requested in this instance. Goldman said if a new structure is built that does not comply with setbacks, then a variance would apply. Chapman wondered how far we want to go with stacked parking. Goldman said the parking configuration existed before the off-street parking ordinance was in place, therefore, it is "grandfathered" in. Molnar said there is discretion afforded to the Commission on this issue. The definition of a parking stall says if you have to move one car to get to another, it only counts as one space. Obviously, throughout town, there are similar situations. Staff has recognized existing stacked situations. Chapman said if this was previously a storage shed and the neighbor said the structure is non-conforming and he doesn't want it there, Chapman wants to defend the ordinance. Goldman said under today's ordinance, an accessory structure can be built within three feet of the side and rear property lines and is considered a residential use - guest house, storage, garage, etc. In evaluating the Conditional Use Permit, does the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 12, 2003 Commission find this is an intensification of use beyond what would be permitted in the zone with the current setbacks? Molnar added that the question is: Does the side and rear yard (in relationship to the property line with a full-time residential use) create such a negative imposition in the neighborhood that it would fail to meet the conditional use? Chapman said there is a neighbor that feels the residential structure would crowd him. PUBLIC HEARING SCOTT ALLISON, 900 Glendale, said the unit has had electrical and plumbing. At some point, it was set up for a living situation. It was more than a storage unit. Allison will be upgrading the landscaping, painting the house, adding the parking. It is small and he sees the impact as very minimal. He has offered to do things to mitigate any impact on the neighbors such a installing dense hedging or fencing. He is willing to do what he can to make the situation favorable to everyone. Dotterrer asked if there is a fence. Allison affirmed. He said the neighbor would like a block wall. He is willing to extend the chain link fence. Goldman asked Allison if he plans to remove the two north windows shown in the plans. Allison said the drawing is incorrect. There are two windows on the east side and no windows on the north side. RICH VANDERWYST, 888 Glendale, had written testimony that he submitted for the record. He asked for denial of the application based on the five items in his submittal. The five points are: (1) The action is not in conformance with the 18.20.010, (2) The structure's design is not consistent with the houses in the neighborhood, (3) Inaccuracies in the Findings of Fact, (4) Fire danger due to close proximity of the structure, and (5) Parking configuration will cause congestion on Glendale. Vanderwyst said there is nothing in the ordinance that states only new construction requires a variance. He believes this application should be considered a variance. Chapman said that under the ordinances this may not represent an upgrade, however, there is a difference between a residence and a storage shed. To him, the issue is one of non-conforming setbacks with a more intensive use and the affect that is going to have on Vanderwyst. He asked Vanderwyst what the impacts will be for him. Vanderwyst restated the items from his submittal - potential noise, design, elevation, fire safety, and traffic along his fenceline. He would like a soundproofbamer along the porch area. The front area is of the most concern to him. They already have a fence, so he would like something more. Moms noted that if the structure complied with the setbacks, it would move the structure closer to Vanderwyst's home. Rebuttal Allison believes there is ample parking on the street. The street is wide and there is usually parking available on the street. He is willing to extend the length and height of the fence with perhaps a dense hedge. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Goldman responded to the items in Vanderwyst's submittal. He said accessory residential units are conditional uses and are in conformance with the zoning codes. There will be a large usable side yard area available and it seems compatible with other accessory structures in R-l-5 zones. Accurate measurements should be taken by the applicant, but in any case the 622 square foot accessory unit is still less than 50 percent of the main structure. The on-street parking credit is allowed. Goldman suggested a condition that no windows shall be located on the north wall. Dotterrer requested a condition be placed extending a six foot fence to at least the northwest comer of the existing northwest comer of the existing structure. Try to get it at least the edge of the porch. Dotterrer moved to approve PA2003-129 with the nine attached conditions and two additional conditions - no windows on the north wall and extension of the fence. Moms seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 12, 2003 PLANNING ACTION 2003-118 REQUEST FOR A PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOME ON HILLSIDE LANDS WITHIN A HISTORIC DISTRICT. 265 GLENVlEW DRIVE APPLICANT: SIDNEY AND KAREN DEBOER Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Site visits were made by all. STAFF REPORT Knox reported this application is to construct a new home. Development on property of 25 percent or more on designated hillside lands is subject to a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit (P&E). The review looks at mass and scale, erosion control, retaining walls, cut and fill, etc. to make sure there are stable conditions once the construction is complete. This application has been in process for more than two years. Knox has been involved with the applicants and the Historic Commission trying to work out square footage or design issues. The applicants also own 234 Vista Street and it is on the National Register of Historic Places. Two years ago, they applied to add approximately 4,000 square feet to the house (234 Vista). It could not be done without affecting the house's historic integrity. The applicant agreed it was not appropriate. At that point, they chose the Glenview site. Today, because the request is to build on a 25 percent slope, it is subject to the P&E permit. This was approved last month as a Staff Permit approval. Hillside developments are subject to staff review and approval. Notices are sent out to property owners within 100 feet of the property. The decision was appealed by neighbors. A Staff Permit can be called up for a public hearing. The Procedures Chapter states if a Staff Permit is called up it is processed as a Type II public hearing. The Historic Commission and Tree Commission reviewed the application. The Historic Commission really has no review of single family house designs in the Historic District. The Hillside Ordinance precludes any notion of any type of design restrictions in the Historic District. There are really no criteria on which the Historic Commission could base a decision. They made a motion recommending opposition to the application, based on opinion, not criteria (Historic Commission Minutes dated November 5, 2003). The Tree Commission recommended approval of the application with conditions that mitigation be done for replacement trees, etc. Knox said the applicants are proposing to demolish the existing three and one-half story house on the site. The height of the proposed home is equal to or a little less than the existing garage. The proposal is construct an approximately 11,000 square foot house. This application was probably the impetus for the maximum house size ordinance. The application was submitted before October 16, 2003, the date the maximum house size ordinance went into effect. All decisions regarding this application are based on the regulations in place at the time of submittal. The house consists of a basement, fu:st story, second story, and a half story. The maximum building height in any district is 35 feet or two and one-half stories. The basement is not considered a story. The half story is a building code definition. That is, it can be no greater than 40 percent of the floor below it. The house is 110 feet wide, little to slightly less than 35 feet in height. There are multiple rooflines and breaks. The inspiration was the Green and Green Craftsman style homes seen in southern California. Knox showed the list of criteria for hillside development on the overhead. There are eight attached conditions in the Staff Report. He would like to add the Tree Commission's recommendations that are listed on the Ashland Street Tree Commission Site Review dated November 6, 2003. He would also like to add a Condition 10 that prior to removal of the trees above the pool area that a separate P&E permit be obtained. Knox reminded the Commissioners that the P&E ordinance does not give us any leeway to discuss house size. It is Staff's opinion that the question is how the site is treated once it is disturbed. How do you leave it so it does not collapse on the adjacent neighbor or on itself? PUBLIC HEARING SID DEBOER, 234 Vista, stated he is the applicant and will be represented by Craig Stone. CRAIG STONE, 708 Cardley Avenue, Medford, OR 97504, emphasized that this application was not made to beat the maximum house size ordinance recently adopted by the City Council. This design process simply concluded about the same time. He reminded the Commission that the applicant is entitled to a decision under the regulations in effect at the time the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 12, 2003 7 ~ application is filed. This application does not include anything about neighborhood impacts other than those of an environmental or physical nature. It does not involve the architecture or size of the dwelling, its appearance, views or historic consideration. Stone said the Planning Department has taken responsibility for a mistake that was made to remove some trees on the site. The Tree Commission took that into consideration and made two recommendations. The applicants believe it is an appropriate way to rectify the error and they do not object. There is a pending lot line adjustment. Stone asked that the drawings from the landscape architect are made part of the record showing the resulting developed lot would comply with lot coverage standards. Stone asked the Commissioners to take the Historic Commission's recommendation in the proper context. It is without benefit of any measurable standards. They have simply issued an opinion. It should be given little or no weight. The application made reference to a Gantt chart that had been missing. It makes reference to the length of time it will take to construct the house. It is estimated it will take about one year, following all City's considerations such as planning and building approval permits. Twenty-eight percent slope is the average slope of the home site. Stone discussed the criteria. Potential impacts considered and adverse impacts minimized. They hired Mark Amrhein, a geotechnical engineer to do a study. He evaluated the various physical features of the site. He pointed out areas of some concern and recommended certain mitigation measures. Based on his report, the architect, the structural engineer, and the civil engineer did their work and incorporated all of Amrhein"s recommendations. If this is approved, all of the recommendations of Amrhein and his geotechnical investigation would be incorporated as conditions to the approval. He entered, along with Amrhein's recommendations, Amrhein's professional qualifications. Evaluate and consider potential hazards and implement mitigation measures. The hazards were included in Amrhein's report. If the recommendations are camed out, there are no physical or environmental impacts produced neither outside the property nor within it, after the stabilization measures have been employed. Examine existing development in the surrounding area and the maximum that might be permitted under the ordinance. There is a photo exhibit that depicts buildings and other improvements in the surrounding area along with a description. This is an urban setting. There are not vacant parcels in the area. The subject property is not a vacant property. There are no natural areas on it. It has been fully developed with an existing dwelling that is proposed to be demolished. The landscaping is ornamental. Directly across the street are a couple of attached housing projects. The P&E ordinance discusses preservation of things that are part of the natural environment. The natural environment was altered when the dwelling on the property was built and when the landscaping was installed. All the things that will occur as a result of constructing a dwelling on this property will be mitigated before there is a certificate of occupancy issued. Stone said one might argue the criterion that the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce adverse impacts on the environment, to mean that you have to reduce the size of the dwelling in order to reduce the magnitude of the impacts. He does not believe that is a fair reading of the ordinance, and in fact, the reading of the ordinance that way is flawed. If there is an ambiguity in the ordinance, first look at the text. The text in the Land Use Ordinance contains objective standards. You have to take what is proposed and apply the ordinance to it. This proposal meets all of the objective standards. Stone said his client is prepared to stipulate to any reasonable form of mitigation. They are not willing to reduce the size of the dwelling. Chapman referred to page 13 of Stone's findings. It states that 55 percent of the reconfigured property is in a natural state. Stone said the natural state refers to the undisturbed natural area. Chapman said on page 15 it states under Conclusions of Law there are no existing natural areas to be preserved. He said natural area is an area that exists as a natural of stand of trees, undisturbed terrain. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 12, 2003 15' JEANNIE TAYLOR, 374 Alnutt, read a letter in support of the proposal from CLAUDIA EVERETT, 140 South Pioneer Street. NOLA O'HARA, 232 Vista Street, said she lives next door to the DeBoers. She submitted photos of structures in the area that are not historic. She had a photo showing the existing home and how after it is demolished, the new home will be a good addition. ANDREA FRYE, 480 Herbert Street, said she is enthusiastically' waiting the construction of the DeBoer's house. She would like to see more diversity in Ashland with large and small homes. CHRIS ADDERSON, 300 Vista, supports the construction of this home. JON HARBAUGH, 190 Windemar Place, said they own 212 Vista. Based on what they have seen, they approve of the bulk and scale of the new house. DON MACKEN, 610 Etkader Street, believes the project, as proposed, is the highest and best use of the property. SAM DAVIS, 900 Cypress Pont Loop, wants the DeBoer's to have fairness and justice with this project. If we disregard the City's ordinances and let opinions and emotions guide decisions, the City will be subject to limitless litigation and chaos. He believes the house conforms to the ordinances and should be approved. JERRY TAYLOR, 375 Alnutt Street, believes because the DeBoer's have had to go through many hoops puts Ashland in a very poor light. He asked the Commissioners to look at the criteria. ROBERT DAVIS, 190 Oak Street, said he is the DeBoer's builder. The DeBoer's have always taken great care of the trees, landscaping and environmental impacts on their property. TOM BECKER, 2305 Ashland Street, said the proposed home will be an asset to the community. Craig Stone did an excellent job of speaking to the criteria and he believes the application should be approved. ROBERT BESTOR, 288 Ridge Road, said that in 100 years, we will have a great historic home. COLIN SWALES, 461 Allison Street, noted that he is speaking as a citizen and neighbor to the project. He is recusing himself from the Planning Commission should this project go any further. He has been involved in the project since the original demolition permit. This is the first time in Swales' dealings with the Planning Department, he was denied copies of the planning application. According to Oregon land use law and printed on the top of the notice mailed to neighbors, copies will be made available at a reasonable cost. He requested copies in the middle of October. The copies were denied. Staff was willing to make the copies available, but the architect for the project said they were copyrighted and would not be made available. He requested this application be withdrawn and resubmitted at a later date with plans that are available for copying under Oregon land use law. He distributed copies to the Commissioners. He said page 1 was prepared based on the current GIS survey of the property. Everything above Haragdine is on the City's hillside land constraints map. The subject property is two blocks above the limit. Anything on the map is pink, dark red or gray. The gray area is considered unbuildable. Referring to page 2 is the red outline of the home site, sitting on land that is colored gray. Also on that map is the extent of the trees. The larger group has been removed. The smaller group of trees is proposed to be removed where the pool house is going to be located. The trees along Glenview are in the City's right-of-way. This seems like a land grab where someone would be allowed to develop and remove trees on hillside land on City right-of-way. Swales said there is a photograph of the lot from 1910 showing about 53 percent slope. He said Stone is saying the original average slope of the site is 28 percent. There is no mention in the ordinance of original average slope. All it discusses is slope. The next page (blue and black lines) he has shown sections of grade - 52%, 46%, and 46%. The existing building footprint is on a slope of 45 percent. The reconfigured lot has a buildable area on it. The buildable area is on Vista Street. Swales said if the Commissioners decide to move this to the full Commission or take action other than to deny the application, he would request the public record remain open for at least seven days so he can provide further testimony in the record. BRYAN HOLLEY, 324 Liberty Street, said he would recommend denial of the application and continue it to the full Commission. Stone said the Commissioners were asked to give the Historic Commission's decision no weight. The Historic Commission ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 6 HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES .OVEMBER 2003 did not like this application. They felt hand-tied. The maximum house size took two years to approve. He would ask they give the Historic Commission's decision a lot of weight. The Tree Commission never recommends approval or denial. (Holley is a Tree Commissioner.) Their purview is to review the landscape plans. Since some of the important trees that might have stopped the project in its tracks were illegally removed, the situation is a Catch 22. Sometimes they are asked to stick to the criteria, other times they are not. Regarding natural stands of trees, it is very challenging to plant madrone trees. Madrones don't do well. The madrone grove has been removed. What does it take to call that madrone grove "natural" when we know from landscaper's recommendations that they can't be planted as landscaping? Those trees were there prior to any home built on that site. BILL STREET, 180 Meade Street, read a letter from CHARLES AND MARGARET HOWE, 106 Fork Street, objecting to the application due to their concerns about erosion and water mn-off that might come from the subject property. Their letter will be included in the record. Street referred to the comments by employees of the applicant. Kerry KenCairn, landscape architect was asked by Street that if the trees on the hillside slope were still there, would it be possible to approve this application? KenCairn responded, "No, the hillside ordinance would not allow this house on this slope if those trees were still there." Street noted Ogden's testimony at the Historic Commission meeting. Ogden said if the house was built on the level where the historic pattern of houses is located, there would not be an issue. Street wondered if there is any way to encourage and require the DeBoer's to resubmit their application to build on a level part of the property? He noted the hillside ordinance and all the meetings and discussions that took place in 1997. There was every attempt to inform the citizens of Ashland about the hillside ordinance. Craig Stone and Knox have stressed repeatedly that they have spent a number of years working on this application. There have been lots of meetings with the Planning Department. They were encouraged to consider another site. The DeBoer's have hired an extensive team of professional counsel. This counsel failed to advise the DeBoer's that the hillside ordinance applied to their property. Karen DeBoer called the Planning Department and was given permission to cut down the trees that were on the hillside. The trees were significant. He is asking the Commissioners to deny the application and advise the City of Ashland to take responsibility for its mistake and to restore the hillside back to the original canopy and the original ground control erosion natural settlement of land. And further, to advise the DeBoer's to resubmit their application on the level ground where it would be more appropriate and less dangerous to neighbors below the DeBoer complex. Rebuttal Stone said when they found the copyright was placed on the architectural drawings, they took immediate steps to have it removed. It was removed and the maps and plans were made available to Swales within about a day after they were requested. Stone does not believe it has diminished Swales' right to review the plans and present adequate testimony and evidence. Stone noted Swales' map showing the property in 35 percent slopes. Stone referred to criterion 4 (as Stone numbered). He asked Darrell Huck to testify. Stone said with regard to the trees, a mistake was made. His clients were not certain the property even fell under the P&E ordinance. Staff wasn't certain when they gave permission to remove trees. It doesn't prevent this project. Page 25, Criterion 22 (5a) of Stone's findings says that trees can be removed when they are within a building envelope. Stone referred to the letter from the Howe's and the erosion of Vista. He does not know anything about how the roadbed was put together. This property has been evaluated by a geotechnical engineer and his team. They have taken that information into account to stabilize the slopes either with the dwelling and its foundation or with retaining walls so there is no place for any earth to move off this site. Any part of the disturbed site will be vegetated sufficiently to stabilize any disturbed slopes. DARRELL HUCK, Hoffbuhr and Associates, said he is a licensed surveyor. He said he has tried to identify the natural slope of the land prior to any disturbance. Historically, that neighborhood had been disturbed many years ago. Using the data available, they came up with a slope varying from 34 to 24 percent. There has been a lot of disturbance in that area. He hasn't had a chance to evaluate Swales' testimony. Morris asked if the procedure he used is standard. Huck said it was. He said he first surveyed the site in the early 1990's. Dotterrer asked Knox if the tree removal mattered. Knox said it is difficult to say because the trees are gone. It doesn't mean you can't propose to remove trees. With regard to KenCairn's comments, he believes it would be difficult to remove those ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 12, 2003 trees. The trees that are there are of similar size as those that have been removed. Knox said h made the error. The request came in during the time the tree ordinance had just gone into effect. Removal of trees on a single family lot are exempt and he didn't think about the lot requiring a hillside permit. Knox said it was noted on the plans that the plans were copyrighted. By the time they were released by the architect, it was Monday, November 3~d. He is aware that two persons who spoke today prior to November 3rd reviewed the file in the office. Knox said Staff based their decision regarding slope on Huck's (a licensed surveryor) information. COMMISSIONERS' DECISION AND MOTION Chapman said no decision wilt be made as it was requested the public record remain open. The Commission will convene on December 9, 2003 and review any new information that has been submitted and make a decision. Stone asked if at the end of the seven day period that the applicant can have a seven day period in which to review the materials and issue a final rebuttal on the additional testimony. Molnar said the public hearing does not have to be re-opened at the December 9th meeting. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 12, 2003 Pro Lines rot idenlil'ication unl~ - nut s~alable qo &,l:ale. ~' =4~' Budding shp Slope2 shp 0 -15 15-25 25 - 30 30-35 35+ . GLENVIEW already cut or to be removed '::-"'~-~.' '"'"",,:.,:' --, ,.. ;Buiiding footprint'.. '..::.Driveway.?-.~.':,., ,.,' .. ..... .. Public ROW" ..,, ,-/¢ Glenview Drive circa 1910 section lines 66% DR. 52% section line / .?O~o section Ii 00- UC 63.O00 rn 0 --I Z 0 E glenview drive existing driveway 17.674 0 0 131 II C/~ v 2100 2O9O 2O8O o o (.n (33 c) o 2070__ 2O6O 2050 Glenview Drive I .existing X X IMG 2920. JPG IMG 2921.JPG i1'13°Z003 O"~:4Zpm From-FOSTER DENON LLP LLP 54177~01 14 +541T?O~502 T-ZI 1 P.009/009 F-384 p.2 November 6. 2003 Ken Ogden Ogden Kistler Architecture 2950 E. Barnett Road Medford, OR 9750~ Re: Proposed DeBoer Residence 265 Glenview Drive Ashland, Oregon Dear Mr. Ogden: You have asked Amrhein Associates, Inc. (AAI) to comment on the potential impacts that the proposed development would have on the surrounding and nearby areas in regards to the geotechnical aspects of the above referenced project. The site is underlain by decomposed granitic soils described in our geotechnical engineering report, dated July 20, 2003. The site soils consist of medium dense soils grading to very dense decomposed granite, The proposed project would not adversely affect the overall stability of the slope on the site or the area above the site, In addition, the erosion control measures that have been proposed will control the migration of sediment off site dudng construction, it is important"the erosion control measures be properly maintained during the construction process. The completed project, with proper landscaping, will effectively mitigate the long-term potential for erosion from the site. We hope this addresses any concerns that may arise regarding the geotechnicat aspects of the proposed project. Please give me a call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Arnrhein Associates, Inc. Mark J. Amrh~in, P.E. President 1 ~enior Engineer cc: Sid & Karen DeBoer with and at North Mountain Park, Tree Walks all around town including Lithia park, classes, our own video. B. Report from the Planning Director - There was no report this month. C. Liaison Reports 1. Kate Jackson - Kate had nothing to report this month. 2. Donn Todt- Donn was not present this month. 3. January Jennings - January did not attend the last Forest Lands-Committee because she was at the workshop in Sunriver. She is aware they have completed the Forest Lands Restoration Phase II document and she will be bringing this document to goal setting. Also, January is working with the Parks department for support on a joint OCT membership. D. Mitigation Options - This item will be discussed at goal setting. Eo Other - 1. Votes continue to come in for the tree of the year. Friday, the 7th is the last day. Suggestions that have come in this year are marking the trees, adding pictures to the ballot and/or the web. January Jennings will write a letter of appreciation to be published in the Tidings. Bryan Holley will write a letter of appreciation Mr. Streng's Lincoln school class. V. New Business A. Site Reviews - Planning Action 2003-118 (Sid & Karen DeBoer on Glenview) Laurie Sager declared conflict of interest and dismissed herself from a voting position and Bryan Holley declared his involvement. 1)Mitigation for loss of trees on this site will be as proposed in the application plus an additional 1 for 1 'onsite', to be planted within 50 feet of the property line and/or adjacent to Glenview. This is in addition to the proposed landscape plan. 2) It is essential that the remaining 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 he utmost protection of the rootzone. 3) Tree protection signs should be sued for this project. B: Other - 1. City of Medford has asked permission to 'use' the Recommended Street Tree Guide. Discussion included drafting a letter of support for the Medford Tree Committee. It was decided Bryan Holley will call John Galbraith of the Medford Tree Committee and discuss possible projects. 2. Ted Lofius suggested the Tree Commission establish a liasion with the Parks Commission. This will be discussed at goal setting. C. Announcements - There were no announcements this month. D. Statement of Account - Staff is working on the reimbursement of the grant for January's tuition which should fully reinstate the budget. E. Adjournment - Meeting adjourned at 9:1 Opm. CITY OF -ASHLAND ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Minutes November 5, 2003 CALL TO ORDER At 7:02 p.m., Chairperson Dale Shostrom called the meeting to order in the Siskiyou Room, located in the Community Development/Engineering Services Building at 51 Winburn Way. In addition to Shostrom, members present were Alex Krach, Joanne Krippaehne, Jay Leighton, Rob Saladoff, and Sam Whitford. Also present were Council Liaison John Morrison, Associate Planner Mark Knox, and Account Clerk Derek Severson. Terry Skibby atria/ed at 7:06 p.m. (Member Keith Chambers is on sabbatical.) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Krippaehne requested the following correction to the October 8th, 2003 minutes, in the foudh paragraph of page six: "Krippaehne asked about using access for parking from the alley between the hotel existing parking garage and the proposed building." Whitford/Saladoff mis to approve the minutes of October 8th as amended. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. Krippaehne stated that in the fourth paragraph of page one, she would like to make the following change in the third sentence: "For example, she cited Craftsman and Queen Anne styles as being completely different at the turn of the century; however, ne:-: they_,~-"v compat!b!~ ~.,o*'"'-~.w., KrippaehnelLeighton mis to approve the minutes of October 21st as amended. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS Planning Action 2003-118 Physical & Environmental Constraints Permit 265 Glenview Drive Sidney and Karen DeBoer Krippaehne noted that she had a conflict of interest due to a professional relationship with the applicants and would be removing herself from the meeting. Knox recounted the background of this application and noted that it had originally been granted staff approval but was then called up to a public hearing. He noted three maps that had been posted to illustrate the site, and discussed the proposal. Knox explained that the property is zoned R~1-7.5 and has an existing house that was built in the 1980's which is to be removed. He added that the remaining parcel is 22,000 square feet with a roughly 11,000 square foot home proposed to be built. Knox reported that an addition was initially proposed for the 1910 Frank Clark-designed Humboldt Pracht house but that plan was changed to the current design to address concerns expressed by this commission. Knox pointed out that multiple architects had been involved in the project and that there had been numerous meetings between these architects and staff. Knox further explained that the previously proposed addition to the Pracht house would not have required public review by the Historic Commission. He stated that the changes in response to commission concerns lead to the current design and this public review. Knox noted that the design minimized the mass and scale of the structure given the large size. He added that he had seen the evolution of the design resulting in the structure being setback into the hillside and mitigating the impact. Knox discussed the nature of Physical and environmental constraints permit applications. He stated that they are a staff permit and the applicable criteria do not address design within the historic district. Knox pointed out that the proposal is Ashland Historic Commission Minutes November 5, 2003 CITY OF -ASHLAND located within the historic district but is classified as non-contributing due to its age. He explained that the proposal was to locate the new house thirty feet away and up the hill from the National Register-listed Pracht house. Knox reiterated that that a Physical and environmental constraints permit review has no design controls within the historic districts. He added that such controls were specifically omitted to avoid limiting typical design features of historic homes such as gables, steep roof pitches, and masses. He emphasized that there were no design criteria to approve or deny the application, and further explained the need to consider erosion control measure, cut and fill aspects, and tree preservation in the motion. Knox stated that the applicants had employed a geotechnical engineer to address these aspects of the application. Saladoff clarified that the lot containing the Frank Clark home was being reduced to 8884 square feet, and asked staff whether lot coverage issues had been looked at. Knox confirmed that staff had looked at lot coverage and that the proposal would barely meet the lot coverage standards by removing some elements such as a brick courtyard in order to address impervious surfaces. Saladoff questioned considering the attic as a half-story, and he noted that there was clearly living space above. He stated that while the basement might not be considered a story he felt there was clearly a third story of living space. Knox responded that the standard is for two-and-a-half stories and a maximum height of thirty five feet. He stated that the bottom floor here, as seen from Vista Street, is by definition a basement as it is covered by earth. He explained that the home consists of a basement, first and second stories and a half-story above. He added that the average height is right at thirty five feet. Skibby asked whether only one structure was being replaced. Knox stated that the garage would remain and that only the 1980's house would be removed. He added that the house to be removed is three-and-a-half stories, and that the proposed structure is not as high. He stated that the new structure is similar to the garage but wider. Applicant Sid DeBoer/234 Vista Street thanked Knox for providing a history of the application. He stated that he finds this proposal to be a better solution than the original proposal. He emphasized that the applicants do not want to damage the town, and added that he feels that they have enhanced the town. He stated that the new home will one day be historically significant. He emphasized that the proposal has a 4,000 square foot footprint. He explained that the original design was more prominent and not set into the hillside, but after meeting with staff and the commission the decision was made to set the structure into the hill and meet all of the standards. DeBoer pointed out that the elevations do not illustrate the degree of coverage provided by the hillside in mitigating the impact of the structure. He discussed how the design mitigates the impact; Karen DeBoer added that a new paint color will be used to further lessen the impact. Project Architect Ken Ogden, of Ogden Kistler Architecture/2950 E Barnett Road, Medford, OR 97504, emphasized that if the house were built on the lawn area no review would have been necessary. He explained that the applicants desire to nestle the structure into the hill out of respect for the neighbors lead to the need for this application. Ogden noted that the proposed design emulated Greene and Greene-designed houses in Pasadena. He added that the trees on site will screen the structure, and he suggested that the applicants' role in the community necessitates the inclusion of a large room for events. He stated that at such events, they have valet parking at the nearby'parking structure. DeBoer added that they also sometimes have guests staying at the Ashland Springs Hotel and walking to their home for events. DeBoer concluded that the applicants had compromised to the extent possible, and that they hope for the commission's support. He emphasized that the project was not undertaken lightly. Ogden showed color and material samples. Ogden added that engineers Amrhein and Taylor had worked to design the stair-stepped cuts into the hillside in order to avoid destabilization, and that the structure would be appropriately founded into the hill with appropriate retainage. Ogden stated that the structure's being nestled into the hillside reduces its solar impact. He stated that it was fifteen to twenty feet below the limit calculated under the solar ordinance, and would cast no shadow on the neighbors' properties. He reiterated that the new structure is lower than the existing structure which is to be removed. He added that the Demolition Review Committee had approved the demolition proposed, and the intent was to salvage materials from the demolished structure if site constraints prevent it from being moved off-site. Ogden pointed out that the design as viewed on-site will be less harsh than the two dimensional elevations as the elevations cannot adequately illustrate the way the structure is setback and articulated. He explained that the grade at Glenview will lessen the structure's profile by reducing its massing. He restated that it will appear less massive than the existing house. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes November 5, 2003 2 CiTY OF , SHLAND Ogden stated that he was available for questions by the commission, and he commended the applicants for their efforts. He stated that the proposal represents true architecture rather than mere gingerbread surface treatments. He stated that the home's essence is a truism reflected in functional features such as the prominent exposed beams, and he suggested that the home will be long-lived. Morrison clarified that the new structure is roughly two-and-a-half times wider than the existing. DeBoer noted that this is somewhat deceptive due to the amount of city street right-of-way nearby. DeBoer discussed the need to get space in the new home for events without dominating the site. He added that much of this was accomplished within the basement area which is not visible from the street. Ogden noted that from Vista Street, some of the roofline would be visible. He added that the vegetation to remain will screen the structure and a berm will be used to offset excavated areas. Shostrom opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Phil Selby/spoke in favor of the application. He noted that he was a Iongtime Ashland resident and that his father had the Chevrolet dealership in town when DeBoer's father had the Chrysler dealership. He stated that he has known the DeBoers for years. Selby noted that when his father built one of the largest homes in Ashland in 1953 on Walker Street there was a similar outcry from the citizens. He suggested that while it may bring envy and resentment, he feels that if the project meets city standards and fits the site the applicants should be allowed to build it. He emphasized that the proposal meets city requirements, and added that the applicants have done a lot for the community. He concluded by noting that criticism of large houses occurred in the past as well, and those houses are now considered historically significant. Bill Patton/Il0 Terrace Street stated that he lives directly above Glenview, and that he built his home there forty years ago. He stated that he likes his site for the view, and he was concerned with the proposal initially. He explained that after seeing the design, he is very impressed with how well it fits the site. He stated that it is lower than the present structure and enhances the site. He suggested that it will be nearly unseen from the street. He commended the DeBoers for their community work, and added that the house would be a community asset and an enhancement. Chris Addersonl Vista Street neighbor stated that he agreed with others in favor of the project, and added that it will be magnificent. He stated that this is not a "show-me" house, and he added that he felt that jealousy and small-mindedness had lead to the negative comments about the proposal. He pointed out that the community benefit from the house will outweigh any personal benefit to the DeBoers in that the house will allow events in support of community resources such as the hospital and the YMCA. Bryan Holley/324 Liberty Street noted that he has been given testimony at public meetings for a long time and is frequently told he must stick to criteria not irrelevant issues. He asked the commission, with all other issues aside, to consider whether this proposal was a single family home or an entertainment center. Bill Street/180 Meade Street asked for clarification about the commission's role. He noted that his feeling is that the commission's role gives them the freedom to comment and express their opinions. He reiterated that commissioners should be able to evaluate based on their historical expertise and comment. Street recounted that the DeBoers had moved to the site ten or eleven years ago and had since demolished two houses that fit the neighborhood. He reiterated that the commission's role was to comment in order to preserve the historic neighborhood. Street discussed local historian George Kramer's call for a maximum house size ordinance in historic districts; he emphasized that this ordinance had been approved by this commission, the Planning Commission and the City Council as a clear indication of the community's will. He asked that the commissioners keep this in mind when making motions as this structure has no resemblance to any historic pattern, and he added that the construction of such a structure would create a huge disruption for the neighborhood. He restated concerns with the impact of the large home and its proposed role as an entertainment center with potentially late hours on a small town historic neighborhood. Joan Steele/332 Glenn Street asked commissioners to recognize that the DeBoers' philanthropy was not at issue here. She added that Holley's analogy to an entertainment center was apt, and questioned what would happen to this home in fifty or one hundred years. She stated that it would endure even though the DeBoers would be gone. She asked whethe'~ there will be a need for a palace or entertainment center at that time. She added that a person can entertain in many places, and she noted that DeBoer's brother was remodeling a large home outside the district. She stated that the commission has a moral obligation to preserve the district and protect the character of the town. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes November 5, 2003 CITY OF -ASHLAND Colin Swales/461 Allison Street noted that he was a Planning Commissioner speaking on his own behalf. He added that he would recuse himself from the Planning Commission hearing as he had been the one who called the demolition application up to a public hearing at the request of concerned neighbors. He stated that he would be speaking as a private citizen at the Tree Commission meeting and the Headngs Board hearing. He stated that the historic pattern was for smaller houses, and the proposal represents a different pattern. He suggested that the Historic Commission should not be limited to dealing with criteria and should instead be considering the historic district impact. Swales pointed out that the DeBoer house was on the cover of the document George Kramer prepared inventorying historic district homes for the city. He added that the new house will be visible from all around the city, and as such the view from the district, from downtown, and from all over the city must be considered. He pointed out that the Humboldt Pracht house was the largest home in the city at one time, and that the proposed home is four times larger. He urged the commission to consider LCDC Goal 5 and the city's Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the proposal involves cutting down the historic home's lot to the bare minimum, and he suggested that the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) should be contacted for their ruling on the impact of the proposed boundary line adjustment on the Frank Clark-designed home. Swales recalled the meeting where the initial proposal of a 4,000 square foot addition was considered and suggested that this proposal is no better. Swales added that his own inquiry about the Physical and Environment Constraints permit review requirements were all that brought this item before the commission. He also stated that the house could not be built more to the front of the lot due to the solar ordinance, and he suggested that it would be better in his estimation if houses were built to the front of their lots. He suggested that the placement of five feet of fill on the lawn area was inappropriate. Louis Leger/243 No.rth Laurel Street explained that he owned a small home in the Skidmore Academy District. He emphasized that the commission's role is not to carry out Planning Commission or City Council functions but rather to provide historical expertise. He questioned how the proposal could be seen to fit in any historical concept. He added that the hospital on Laurel and the Swedinburg house on the SOU campus are the only structures that come close, and he emphasized that neither were single family homes. He suggested that the only exception seems to be that there is always one standout, prominent citizen, but he added that those homes are normally built within context. He stated that this proposal is not in context for Ashland. He noted that it does not look like the Ashland of the past, and he challenged anyone to explain the house in a historical context. He questioned the role and mandate of the commission. He pointed out that as a citizen, he was proud of the small 1911 single family home that he had restored and he likes Ashland for that sort of character. He stated that he did not want someone moving in and disrupting that character. He reiterated that he like the districts and their small homes, shacks and garage, with some homes a little larger than others. He concluded that the proposed neo-Greene and Greene is pretend, not Ashland. Knox explained the role of the commission as listed in the Comprehensive Plan as protecting the historic district, streetscapes and historic resources. He recognized that this home is to be the biggest in Ashland by his estimation. He noted that staff and the commissioners have worked to list each district in the city on the National Register in order to protect the homes and the city's heritage. He added that the city has adopted a maximum house size ordinance for its historic districts, and that he and the commission co-authored this ordinance to limit the maximum house size within the district at 3,249 square feet. He suggested that there was no intent on the part of the applicants to beat the deadline on this ordinance as the process began two years ago. Knox stated that the Historic Commission Review Board looks at single family home plans every Thursday afternoon, and he explained that they have no "yea or nay" power only an advisory role. He reiterated that this application is narrowly limited by the ordinance to address site issues as the historic district is intentionally excluded form the Physical and environmental constraints permit review criteria. He stated that the ordinance criteria cannot be shifted midstream, and he added that commissioners may comment on the design but should be clear to state whether their comments are based on opinion or criteria. Knox added that he had spoken to SHPO and that they basically support the commission's decision as a body recognized for its expertise by the state and federal governments. He stated that the commissioners must base their approval or denial on criteria. DeBoer stated that they would avoid disrupting the neighborhood during construction. He noted that he owns two of the neighboring houses, and added that there was no new driveway encroachment proposed. He pointed out that the Oregon Shakespeare Festival already has events all night through the season, and his events would be planned on Mondays wheh the Festival is not running. He concluded that in fifty years, the property would be donated to the Sid and Karen DeBoer Foundation, and would likely be sold by the foundation with proceeds to be used to support educational charities in Southern Oregon. He indicated that this proposal meets the criteria without hurting the neighborhood, and is not an entertainment center but rather a two person single family home that will host an occasional party or event. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes November 5, 2003 CITY OF -ASHLAND Shostrom closed the public hearing at 8:12 p.m. Shostrom emphasized the criteria were the focus here, and noted that the commission would not even be hearing the item if it had not been called up to a public hearing. He reiterated that historic district design considerations are specifically excluded from the Physical and Environment Constraints ordinance. Shostrom suggested that the design is vertical as recognized by the applicants, but he recognized that that is not a criterion for consideration here. He concluded that while the issues of impact on the historic district are valid they are not at issue here. Krach asked staff if there was any way for the commission to protect the district in this case. He stated that he was disheartened that there was such a lack of protection and suggested that he feels that the commission's hands are tied. Knox stated that this was unfortunate, but he added that he would not want to see an appeal-filed over the commission stepping out of bounds. Knox emphasized that the protections in place in Ashland are among the best in Oregon. He pointed out that the maximum house size ordinance is the most imposing restriction in the state without limiting design, just mass and scale. He explained that the Review Board's power of persuasion has been very effective in the past and that he feels most projects reviewed have benefited. He stated that the powers of the commission are limited by the state, and that there are no regulations on design review of single family homes within historic districts and even less review on new structures. He noted that this may change down the road, but that changes are not in place now. He recognized the desire for change that he hears from the community. He concluded that the commissioners could certainly state their opinions and express their frustration. Skibby reiterated that this was not a site review application. He added that it seemed to be an improvement over the proposal that had the structure placed nearer to the street. He stated that the current placement lessens the impact and is scaled down with less massing. He cited the reduced mass from Glenview. He recognized that the proposal is wider than the existing house, but he added that it is also more set back. He suggested that the visual impacts are comparable to the condominiums or apartments across the street. He also stated that the site is somewhat isolated, with newer homes down the street, and as such it is in an area where it will have a lesser impact. He recognized that the home will be seen from a distance, and that the windows suggest more mass, but he stated that the design had been scaled down. He concluded that the area is different than if this were proposed for B Street or Siskiyou Boulevard. Leighton stated that she did not feel that the commission was able to critique the design. She cited the huge mass, the disruption of the street pattern, and the impact to views from the entire valley as areas of concern. She emphasized that the commissioners were not skilled in areas needed to address the physical and environmental constraints review criteria. Shostrom suggested that the projects engineers had addressed the physical and environmental constraints criteria. He stated that he too was disheartened by the proposal, which he noted was six times the size of the average home and four times that which would be allowed under the new maximum house size ordinance. He stated that while this is disturbing it will be the last one and lead to the rally for the ordinance. He added that he feels for the neighbors who will have to deal with the construction's disruptions and the size and massing. Skibby emphasized that these issues could not be addressed tonight. Shostrom asked if the commission was really in a position to vote on this; Knox responded that commissioners could approve or deny based on criteria with a note of their opinions. He stated that he felt commissioners could review the proposed design details and identify any specific concerns. He reiterated that he believed the commissioners could still voice design concerns. Whitford noted that he is a Greene and Greene fan, and stated that he feels the proposed home is beautiful and totally inappropriate to the district. He recognized that this could not be addressed however, as the submittal predates the maximum house size ordinance. He pointed out that the view from little-used Glenview will be beautiful, but he stated that from Vista Street it appears more like a hotel with all of the decks and balconies. Skibby suggested that perhaps the commission could speak to this in its decision and recommend lessening the impact of the windows and decks while retaining their function. He reiterated that the proposal was quite an improvement over the original. Leighton agreed that the house was more visually interesting from Glenview, but she noted that the asymmetricity from the Vista Street side was heavy on one .side. She noted the massing by the chimney and in the area near the garage. She questioned if the nearby garage would have the effect of increasing the massing. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes November 5, 2003 5 CiTY OF -ASHLAND Skibby pointed out how the lower railing was broken by a bay window. Ogden stated that the elevations were more broken up into multiple planes than could be shown in two dimensions. Skibby suggested that some offsetting might lessen the hotel-like appearance. Knox referred commissioners to floor plan sheets 3.1 and 3.2 in their packets as an illustration of how offsets are being used in the design. Skibby stated that he felt the mass would be lessened when viewed in three dimensions. Saladoff noted that numerous planes are used to mitigate the mass. He agreed that in two dimensions, the elevations seem hotel-like, but he stated that the floor plans help to clarify. Shostrom stated that the architects had done a good job with what they were given to accomplish; he suggested that it might be as good as could be done with such a project. Saladoff stated that his concern was not with the design, it was with a 10,000 to 11,000 square foot home being built on the hillside. He agreed that the project was nicely designed, and added that his objections are more philosophical. He added that he had concerns with the size, scale, neighborhood patterns, and issues of sustainability. He questioned the amount of waste material that would be produced by such a project, but recognized that this was not an issue that fell within the criteria to be considered. He suggested that from a design standpoint, the applicants had come as far as they can and any design comments would be minor. Leighton questioned if the commission had previously simply passed on reviewing a project that fell outside of their purview. Knox stated that this may have been done on a minor item before. He stated that the commission could opt to do the same here, and he added that the physical and environmental constraints review criteria were clearly outside of the commission's charter purview. He reiterated that members could simply opt to not make any recommendation. Leighton stated that without being able to speak to the massing or design it leaves little room for a decision. Knox suggested looking to craft a motion that managed to somehow express the opinion of commissioners as well as a decision. Krach stated that he could see a motion that moved to approve based on criteria with an expression of concern. Leighton stated that the decision needed is outside of the purview while design and scale are real concerns. Krach agreed that the voice needed seemed to be powerless but was still there. Whitford stated that the laws are stronger now. Krach suggested that the commission had influence with no real power. Morrison discussed his experience that matters like this are seldom clear cut, and he suggested that the key was to find a balance between the competing interests through the process. He stated that commissioners could certainly express their opinions from their historic and design expertise. He cautioned members away from pessimism, and pointed to the small victories achieved in retaining the Pracht house and finding the DeBoers responsive to earlier concerns. He added that the applicants have chosen an area near the downtown where larger buildings are more appropriate. He emphasized the need to find a balance through small victories. He added that members should make suggestions, and stated that he found the applicants to have been responsive. He stated that this had lead to a design that was as compatible as it could be. He recognized the difficulty that commissioners were experiencing, and he encouraged them to find a way to express this collective opinion. Knox confirmed for Saladoff that the commission would see this application again at the building permit review stage. Shostrom and Leighton suggested that the commission could move for denial based on the opinion that this decision would best preserve the neighborhood. Leighton/Whitford mis to deny Planning Action 2003-118 based on the purview of the commission set in the city charter, reflecting the opinion that the structure does not fit the historic district by its mass, scale, and partitioning of the site. Discussion: Members clarified that they were not recommending denial based on the Physical and Environment Constraints permit criteria. Krach suggested that this was an honorable motion even though it amounted to tilting at windmills. He recognized that the building was a beautiful design, but added that it was just proposed for the wrong place. Voice vote: Krach, Krippaehne, Whitford, Leighton, and Saladoff, YES. Skibby, NO. Motion passed 5-1. Shostrom called for a brief break at 8:46 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:00 p.m. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes November 5, 2003 Claudia Everett 140 S. PioneeriSt. Ashland, OR. November 12, 2003 To the Ashland Planning Commission This is in support of Karen and Sid DeBoer's house proposal. My name is Claudia Everett. I live at 140 S. Pioneer St. I am 'around the comer' from the DeBoer's current home on Vista St. My house is in the old Hargadine Tract and is included in that Historic District. For the record, I am a friend of Karen and Sid. We attended Ashland High School together. I have a lot of feelings about the issue of Historic Designation and the larger issue of what is becoming of Ashland, but I will stick to some specific points about the home under consideration today. First of all, I often walk on the roads above my house, down Glenview, which is on the uphill side of the DeBoer's property, turning down Vista, which their property faces. This is not a neighborhood of 'historic homes', but rather a very mixed assortment of places built during the 50's through the 90's. Some stand empty most of the year, as they are 'vacation homes'. I have seen Karen and Sid's house plans, (several versions as they continue to re-design to accommodate City and .County restrictions). It looks to me that only about 1 V2 stories will be visible from Glenview. The house that's there now is much more visible. Most of the house, as seen from Vista St. will lie against the hill and be compatible with 'the lay of the land'. This is much more aesthetically pleasing and respectful to the property than the countless places recently built in town that rise up on skinny columns to break the contour of the hillsides and are visible from all over town. True, it's a big house. But the lot is large and anyone who's looked at Karen's yard knows that once their home is done, in no time there will be beautiful landscaping, that compliment the house and help blend it into its place on the hill. I have to add that I personally like to live in small houses. Mine is about 900 sq. fi. But this doesn't keep me from appreciating the truly exceptional design of this Arts and Crafts-style home, and believe me, the DeBoer's have put a lot of thought and concern for the site into it. I think it's time to let them build. Charles and Margaret Howe 106 Fork Street Ashland, Oregon. 97520 November 12, 2003 City of Ashland, Planning Commission Ashland, Oregon. Re: DeBoer Application Gentlemen: We own three tax lots directly North across Vista street from the area of the application. Lots 6201, 6300 and 6401 fronting some 300'+ on Vista street. During the flood of Dec~nber 96-97, a portion of the roadside fill slid off the roadbed of decomposed granite against one of our buildings on lot 6300. The fill seamed to be mostly the type of gumbo normal to orchards. The bank for most of the distance was n~sh. The water came because a stopped and plugged storm drain at Vista and Hillcrest sent water in flood to the North side of Vista. The summer following it pretty well dried up. After that period we began to notice water accumulating behind the building lasting all through the summer until August when it would dry up. This was during the time that the two houses across Vista to the South were razed and fill added to reach a new level and contour. At this time I put in a 1~ level concrete wall with perforated drainage pipe alongside the building and that helped quite a bit but not wholly. Finally, I put in another drainpipe about 20 feet behind the building and partway up the bankside and after two years, the problem of standing water seems to have been solved. It is only conjecture on our part where that water came from. During this year of 2003, the ground dried up in May or June. It is only conjecture on my part since I am not a soil expert, but my concern no~ is that if there is more soil or fill rearrangement on the property to the south of and above us, will there be any change in the movement of underground water. We have owned this property since 1974 and have actively managed it since 1983. We are pretty well aware of its quirks and features over each season of the year as well as seasonal changes that occur. Very Sincerely, Charles and Margaret Howe WILLIAM W. PATTON TREETOPS - 110 TERRACE, ASHLAND, OR 97520 November 10, 2003 Ashland Planning Commission Attn: Mark Knox 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Commission Members: Our home is located directly above the new one planned on Glenview Drive by Sid and Karen DeBoer. Initially we were concerned, fearing that the structure would be too tall and large for the site. Now that we have had an opportunity to study the plans and drawings, we believe the new development will be an improvement over the house presently on the site. We are impressed with the manner in which the architect has nestled the proposed building into the hillside, and especially so in view of the fact that the roof line actually will be lower than that of the existing house. The DeBoers have been good neighbors taking excellent care of their property on Vista and we wish to go on record as being supportive of their plans for their new home. We regret that we will be out of town at the time of your hearing on this matter. Sincerely, Bill and Shirley Patton lMark knox - deboer house Page From: To: Date: Subject: "David Sidman" <dsidman@jeffnet.org> <akermans@ashland.or.us> November 05, 2003 7:20PM deboer house Dear Ms. Ackerman, I hope you will share this with the other Historic Commissioners... I have lived in Ashland for 28 years; I raised 3 children in a home I owned in the historic district. They cannot afford to raise their families here. I watch with much sadness the changes that are fast enveloping our community. An 11,000 plus square foot home in our historic district is preposterous to me. Please recommend to the planning commission, or whoever is paying attention, to not let this house be built. I understand about personal freedom, but there also needs to be commitment to community. Once a building like this is erected, it is too late, and it changes the face of the community forever... Thank you, Phyllis Wetzel 491 Courtney St. Ashland 482-1199 Mr. John Mc Laughlin Community Development Director City of Ashland 51 Winbum Way Ashland Oregon Dear Mr. Mc Laughlin: By this letter I hereby withdraw my request for a public hearing on Planning Action File 2003-118. Respectfully, B~G Hicl~s- Paula Daysto3r Date B.G. Hicks Paula Daystar 190 Vista Street Ashland OR 97520 Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the foltowing request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD on November 12, 2003 at 1:30 p.m. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. The om"mance criteria appicabie te this appiicatkm are attached to Ibis noGce. Oeego~ law states ~ failure ~ raise an ol~jec~oe c(mcemlng this al:~ication, either in perscm ~ by letter, ~ failure t~ provide suffctent specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the Issue, precludes your ~ht of appeal to lhe Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) 0n lhat Issue. Failure to spedfy ~ich oef~nance crlterlon Ihe objection IS based on also precludes ~3~x rlght of appeal to LUBA o~ Ihat criterion. Failure of Ihe appacant to raise sp~ altow Ibis Commission to resportd to ~e Issue precludes an action for damages A copy of the aplNicatio~, all documents and evidence relied upon by the appiicant and applicable criteria are available fo( i~ at no cost and will be provided at reasor~able cost, if requested. A copy of lhe Staff Report will be available for inspectio~ seven da~ pdo( to the hea~ing and will be provided at reasonable cos~ if requested. All materials are available at Ihe Ashland Planning De. parlmer{t, City Hall, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, O~egon 97520. During the Pubfic Hearing, the Chair'shall allow testimony from the applicant and ~hose the reco~d shah remain ~ k~ at least seven days af~ the heaf~ng. Susan Yates at ~e Ashland Planning Departmer~ City Hall, at 541-552-2041. Our 'l-fY phone number is 1-800-735-2900. 265 Glenv/ew Drive GLENVIEW DR Subject Property NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Historic Commission on November 5, 2003, 7:00 p.m. in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way. NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Tree Commission on November 6, 2003 in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Sisldyou Room) located at 51 at 6:00 p.m. .Sko u Icl t,t v Z)Je. PLANNING ACTION 2003-118 is a request for a Physical and Environmental Con.~s.~ai~ruct ~ single family residential home on Hillside Lands within a Historic District Iocated~2b-'5 Grandview_Driv~ Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-7.5; As~coo,,, o ,vsap ~: 39 1L 09 BC; Tax Lot: 7200. APPLICANT: Sidney and Karen DeBoer /o? PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS PERMIT CRITERIA 18.62.040 Approval and Permit Required I. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following: Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. IiO Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD on November 12, 2003 at 1:30 p.m. at t~e ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance criteda applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in parson or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your dght of appaal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of ap~l to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable cdteda are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the headng and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, City Hall, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520. Dudng the Public Headng, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the dght to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Susan Yates at lhe Ashland Planning Department, City Hall, at 541-552-2041. Our TTY phone number is 1-800-735-2900. GLENVIEW DR Subject Property NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Historic Commission on November 5, 2003, 7:00 p.m. in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way. NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Tree Commission on November 6, 2003 in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room) located at 51 Winburn Way at 6:00 p.m. PLANNING ACTION 2003-118 is a request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit to construct a single family residential home on Hillside Lands within a Historic District located at 265 Grandview Drive, Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-7.5; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 09 BC; Tax Lot: 7200. APPLICANT: Sidney and Karen DeBoer Iii PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS PERMIT CRITERIA 18.62.040 Approval and Permit Required I. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following: Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. o That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. 11.2 In the matter of an Application for a Physical Constraints Review Permit for the purpose of Constructing a Single Family Dwelling on land zoned R-1-7.5 classified as Hillside Lands and within a Residential Historic District in Ashland, Oregon, (Applicant Sid & Karen DeBoer) and in accordance with the requirements of ALUO 18.108.030 (Staft'Permit Procedure), we the undersigned respectfully request a Public Hearing on said Planning A~ion...2003-118... 391E 09BC We request that the staff approval decision be reversed based on the following applicable criteria: Page 16 of the Applicant's Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law concludes that the "application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 3" We respectfully disagree. In our opinion, the submitted evidence shows that the "maximum development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance" will be exceeded by this proposal. We also do not feel that the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. ALUO 18.62.040 (I) Criterion 3. That the applicant has taken ali reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environmen~ Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land l/se Ordinanc~ We also reserve the right to introduce at the Public Hearing any additional evidence to support our request for staff decision reversal. OCT 9 0 2003 //3 In the matter of an Application for a Physical Constraints Review Permit for the purpose of Constructing a Single Family Dwelling on land zoned R-1-7.5 classified as Hillside Lands and within a Residential Historic District in Ashland, Oregon, (Applicant Sid & Karen DeBoer) and in accordance with the requirements of ALUO 18.108.030 (StaffPermit Procedure), we the undersigned respectfully request a Public Heating on said Planning Action...200$-llS.. 391E 09BC We request that the staff approval decision be reversed based on thc following applicable criteria: Page 16 of the Applicant's Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law concludes that the "application is consiste~ with the requirements of Criterion 3" We respectfully disagree. In our opinion, the submitted evidence shows that the "maximum development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance" will be exceeded by this proposal. We also do not feel that the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. ALUO 18.62.040 (I) Criterion 3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted deveiopment permitted by the Land Use Ordinanc~ We also reserve the right to introduce at the Public Hearing any additional evidence to support our request for staff decision reversal. Name Address Signed. Date OCT 2 0 2003 In the matter of an Application for a Physical Constraints Review Permit for the purpose of Constructing a Single Family Dwelling on land zoned R-1-7.5 classified as Hillside Lands and within a Residential Historic District in Ashland, Oregon, (Applicant Sid & Karen DeBoer) and in accordance with the requirements of ALUO 18.108.030 (Staff Permit Procedure), we the undersigned respectfully request a Public Hearing on said Planning Action...2003-118... 391E 09BC We request that the staff approval decision be reversed based on the following applicable criteria: Page 16 of the Applicanfs Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law concludes that the "application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 3" We respectfully disagree. In our opinion, the submitted evidence shows that the "maximum development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance" will be exceeded by this proposal. We also do not feel that the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. ALUO 1862040 (I) Criterion ~. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environmen£ Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinanc~ We also reserve the right to introduce at the Public Hearing any additional evidence to support our request for staff decision reversal. Name Address Signed Date 3 Sent By: Ogden, Kzstler & Associates AIAA;541 772 8472; 0ct-16-03 4:57PM; Page 2/3 Yet c~r~nt fees: chsck t~e Copyrigi~? FORM VA For aWork of the Visual Arts UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE REGISTRATION NUMBER VA VAU EFFECTIVE DATE OF REGISTRATION DO NOT WRITE ABOVE THIS LINE. IF YOU NEED MORE SPACE, USE A SEPARATE CONTINUATION SHEET. I Tith~ of TAb Work · NATUP.~ OF T~IS WORK · ~ ru~uc~oo. te.r nm_ Jcg 5 t.P uv o .c,o J Prevlou~ or Ahern~ive Titles · NAMT. OF AUTHOR · a lz .pkn 'n J. 2 Atllbofr$ NaUoaallty er I)omlclle Nan~ ~ Coon~. Citizen of ]"mmicil ~l in NOTE Under ~a law. the '~ulhor' of DATE~ OF BIRTH A~ DEAT~ Year Boat · Year Di~ · ~-Ed-bl -----' Wn~ ~ Au~or'~ C~bufloa ~ t~e Work a "-,art made Nature of Authonhip ~eck appr~dat¢ Imx(e~).See InstnJctlons I0¢ ~lfe' la genatall7 the ompioynr, nat . ~e emaloyee ~ 2-Dimcnsio~l ~ork ~ Pho~h 6ohs). Far ~ny pert ~ this 'maCe for the provide, give the ~mplGyer w~m the work was prnpmred) ~ &'~ ORj CJfi~ of e~ 'kul~o~ Technical growing Tcx~ Architectural wot~ Da(r~ ufBirih nad Dr, arb Year Eloen · Yea~ Died · Was This Author's Contribution to th, Work If Ihs~ nnn~- I~ ~th~r Anoaymoo~? ~ Y a~ ~ NO ~ ~ qu~s iG P~ymous? CI Y~ ~ No ~.' u~ ~ ~s. apace ~er ames Nature ofA~thot~h~¢ CA~ ~ppropdat~ bo[(~).See in$~ions of blah ~0 death bJank. ~ ~-Dimensionnl sculp~ D Map ~ Tc~ni~l ~ 2-Dimensional ~0~ ~ Pho~g~h ~ Tcxt Y~r In W~h C~n ~ Tkh Work W~ b Da~ and Na~ of ~ P~ll~t~n of Th~ Pa~l~r Wo~ COPYRIGHT CLAIMANT(~} N~ ~ ~ mu~ ~ girt. ~v~ it~ ~1~ i~ ~ ~ ~ "~ APPLICATION ~ ~, ~~ ~ } ONE DEPOSIT RECEIVED ~e~ ~~ ¢~ ~~ ~ ~0 DEPOSITS ~ECEIVED ~sel's~en~n[ ofh~' t~ claimnntt$) o~i~ o~effhip of thc ~[ht · FUNDS ~CEIVED ~~ ..... : ........ ~' . DO NOT WRfTE HERE Sent By: Ogden, KistleP & Associates AIAA;541 772 8472; 0ct-16-03 4:57PM; LL Page 3/3 EXAMINED BY PORbl 'VA CHECKED BY E]CORRESPONDENCE Yes DO NOT WRITE ABOVE THIS LINE. IF YOU NEED MORE SPACE, USE A SEPARATE CONTINUATION SHEET. FOR COPYRIGHT QFFICE USE ONLY DERIVATIVE WORK OR COMPH~TION Compl~-~ b~th apac~ aa ~.d ~ for a ~rlvative work; compl~:~ cml7 ~ £c~ · compi~l~on, 6 [] ~ copyrit~ht chimant t:h~k only one I~ b 7 b work idc~tK'ied ~, ¢fi.~ application ~mt th. at ~ ..aatementz madc by n~ h, Ods appli,c,~ion are co.Ye( to ¢te bet.'t of my knowk, dge. Typcd or printed nam~ and date V 1{ ~i~ a~lica~n ~v~ a date of ~bl~don ~ ~pa~ ~ dO ~t ~ a~ zub~ it ~ that d a~. window ..~.,op~ ~o ~. ~g~ ~ ' ~"~' to this / Sent TO FROM DATE JOB NO, By: Ogden~ Klstler & Associates AIAA;541 772 8472; 0ct-28-03 5:08PM; Page 1/1 PAGE fa x INCLUDING THIS PAGE Ogde.nKistter 541 779,5237" 5z~i 772,8472r 2.950 £ Barnett Rd Medford, OR 97504 .......... .... .... ............... ................ ~ .... ~,~,,_,~.~..,~~ ...... ~,,.~.,,~.,~~ ......... ~......~_.. .~~ .... ./...~ .... /.,:~......~,~q ..................................................... [] Original documents will follow by mall, Sent By: Ogden~ PAGE FROM ...... ~ JOB NO. Klstlen & Associates AIAA;541 772 8472; 0ct-29-03 4:00PM; Page 1/1 fa x INC:LUD(NG THIS PAGE denKistter 'chitecture^,A 54~ 77~,5237~ 541 772.8472~ 2950 g Barnett Rd Madford, OR 97504 L_~ No original documents will follow, un[ass reque~tad. [] Original dOCl,ments wiii follow by mail. Mark knox - Re: Denial of Permission to make copies. PA# 2003-118 Page 1 From: To: Date: Subject: "Colin Swales" <colin@mind.net> "Mark knox" <mark@ashland.or.us> October 28, 2003 8:34AM Re: Denial of Permission to make copies. PA# 2003-118 Mark, re: Denial of Permission to make copies. PA# 2003-118 I thought the City had just hired another attorney! Does he not understand Land Use Law enough to give an opinion on this matter? As a concerned neighbor to this project, I am very frustrated by all this. Had the public been allowed to have access to copies of these submittals, other neighbors might also have come forward and requested a public hearing. I personally was unable to check out any details while out of town and therefore could not come to a reasoned decision on the matter within the 10-day time limit. Most people work 9-5 and are unable to come into the planning office personally to inspect the plans. It is even more worrisome as two current planning commissioners are directly involved and hired for this project. Some citizens have pointed out that our Planning Director is also a close personal friend of the other partner of the architectural partner that denied full access. How is all this perceived by the public who seem at every Planning Commission / Council meeting to criticize the fairness of our City's process? As a member of the Planning Commission myself, I find this all very embarrassing. BTW, was my name mentioned when permission to make copies was made by Mac to Ogden Kistler Architecture? thanks Colin ..... Original Message ..... From: "Mark knox" <mark@ashland.or.us> To: <colin@mind.net> Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 3:50 PM Subject: Re: Denial of Permission to make copies. Yes. Also, Paul (I just found out) is out sick today but is expected in tomorrow. >>> "Colin Swales" <colin@mind.net> October 27, 2003 11:40:48 AM >>> Mark, Re: PA# 2003-118 Could you also please make me a copy of the Applicant's written ( and oral ?) response to my request to obtain copies of the submitted plans. thanks Colin Mark knox - Fw: Copies of Submitted Documents PA# 2003-118 (reply to Paul) Page From: To: Date: Subject: "Colin Swales" <colin@mind.net> "Mark Knox" <knoxm@ashland.or.us> October 28, 2003 9:25AM Fw: Copies of Submitted Documents PA# 2003-118 (reply to Paul) Mark, FYI: Please add to the "Record" thanks Colin ..... Original Message ..... From: "Colin Swales" <colin@mind.net> To: "Paul nolte" <Noltep@ashland.or.us> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 9:18 AM Subject: Re: Copies of Submitted Documents? > Paul, > Re PA# 2003-118 > Thanks for your opinion on this matter. > The applicant, according to my understanding, and subsequent to my request > for copies of the reductions of their plans that were made part of their > planning action submittal, furnished the city with a written denial to make > such copies of their evidence available to the public. I myself was unable > to exercise due diligence in this matter due to this action by the > applicants. > As such a categorical denial is contrary to Oregon Planning Law (as stated > below) I would like to request that the planning Action should not have been > received and accepted by the City as a complete and full application and > furthermore that the City requests that this application is withdrawn and submitted at a later date containing only such evidence to support their application that the applicant is willing to share fully and unreservedly with the public and without such illegal restrictions on access and scrutiny. Yours > Colin Swales > > ..... Original Message ..... > From: "Paul nolte" <Noltep@ashland.or.us> > To: "Mark knox" <mark@ashland.or.us>; <colin@mind.net> > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 8:06 AM > Subject: Re: Copies of Submitted Documents? > Mark, as I previously advised copyrighted plans may not be duplicated. ORS > 197.763 does not trump Federal copyright laws. Do not copy the plans without > the consent of the copyright holder. > > Paul Nolte Mark knox - Fw: Copies of Submitted Documents PA# 2003-118 (reply to Paul) Page 2 > City Attorney > City of Ashland, OR > (541) 488-5350 - PHONE NOTE NEW FAX # AS OF JUNE 25, 2003:(541 ) 552-2092 - FAX noltep@ashland.or.us Visit the city's web site at: www.ashland.or.us Our TTY phone number is 1 (800) 735-2900 >>> "Colin Swales" <colin@mind.net> 10/27/03 9:11:28 AM >>> Mark, I understand that PA# 2003-118 has been called up for a Public Hearing. You might remember when I came into the office a couple of weeks ago in > order to obtain information concerning this application and was allowed to > inspect the submitted plans: Although you personally were perfectly willing > to make me a copy of a couple of the 8" x 11" reduced versions of the plans > I understand that you were over-ruled by Mac and the City Attorney who said > that I must first obtain the express permission of the copyright holder > (Ogden Kistler Architecture). I then asked for you to request such > permission. You replied that if I didn't hear from you before days end, that > permission was not forthcoming. > I did not hear from you so I have to assume that permission to copy these > public documents was denied. :> However, on reading ORS 197.763 (3h) (http://www.leg.state.or.uslors/197.html) I read: "...all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant > and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be > provided at reasonable cost...." ( my emphasis). > > Could you please therefore make me the couple of copies I requested. > Also, could you please make sure that this request is entered into the > Record for PA# 2003-118 and that the City Attorney and Planning Director are > made aware as are Derek and Adam who also thought they were not allowed to make such copies.( see e-mail below) thanks > Colin Swales > ..... Original Message ..... > From: "Derek severson" <dereks@ashland.or.us> > To: <colin@mind.net> > Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 11:39 AM IMark knox - Fw: Copies of Submitted Documents PA# 2003-118 (reply to Paul) Page 3 > Subject: Re: Glenview > Colin, > The staff findings are attached. I don't have the applicant's submittal > electronically, but I will photocopy the narrative for you and set it out in > the basket. > I'm not sure if you are looking for copies of the plans that were included > in the submittal, but because the plans are stamped/copyrighted by Ogden > Kistler, I can't photocopy them without written permission to you from their > office. And because it's not commission business, our standard copying charges do apply - $0.50 per page for projects over 15 pages for standard sized pages and larger format copies at $8 per page. We do have them available for review in office as part of the file. (The narrative falls into the 15 pages at no cost when double sided.) Thanks, Derek >>> "Colin Swales" <colin@mind.net> 10/15/03 09:52AM >>> Derek, Could you please make me a copy of the applicant's submittal for the upcoming 265 Glenview Drive development.( do you have a .pdf of this?) Also the accompanying staff report ( e-mai this if possible) thanks Colin The Ashland Planning Department approved this request with applicable conditions on October 10, 2003. Any affected property owner or resident has a right to request, AT NO CHARGE, a public hearing before the Ashland Planning Commission on this action. To exercise this right, a WRITTEN request must be received in the Planning Department, 51 Winbum Way, prior to 3:00 p.m. on October 20, 2003. The written request for the public hearing must Include your name, address, the file number of the planning action and the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed. If you do not SPECIFICALLY REQUEST A PUBLIC HEARING by the time and date stated above~ there will be no public testimony permitted. If a headng is requested, it will be scheduled for the following month. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the headng, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the headng. The ordinance criteda applicable to this apptication are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning ~his application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specJficity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) oct that issue. Failure to spec/fy which ocdinance criterion the objection is based on also preclude~ your right of appeal to LUBA o~ that o/tenon. Failure of the applicant to raise ~tutiooal or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval wffi-~ sufficient ¢city to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action fo~ damages in circuit court. ^ co~y of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable cdteda are available for inscectio~ at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. ^ copy of the Staff Repod will be available for inspectio~ seven days prior to the headng and will be provided at reasonable cost. if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, City Hall. 20 East Main Street, Ashland. Orego~ 97520. If you have questions or comments coeceming this request, please feel flee to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Ptanning Department. City Hall, at 541-552-2041. Our T1-Y phone number is 1-800-735-2900. PLANNING ACTION 2005-118 is a request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit to construct a single family residential home on Hillside Lands within a Histodc District located at 265 Glenview Drive. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-7.5; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 09 BC; Tax Lot'. 7200. APPLICANT: Sidney and Karen DeBoer PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS PERMIT CRITERIA 18,62.040 Approval and Permit Required I. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following: Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. ¸3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS PERMIT CRITERIA 18.62.040 Approval and Permit Required I. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following: Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS & ORDERS October l0th, 2003 PLANNING ACTION 2003-118 is a request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for a new home at 265 Glenview Drive. The proposed home is located on the Hillside Lands Overlay Map and is subject to the requirements of the Hillside Ordinance; Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Residential; Zoning: R-1-7.5; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 09BC; Tax Lot #: 7200. APPLICANT: Sidney and Karen DeBoer On Friday, October 10th, 2003, a meeting was held in the Planning Office to review this application. In attendance were Mark Knox and Maria Harris, Associate Planners, and Bill Molnar, Senior Planner and John McLaughlin, Community Development Director serving as the Staff Advisor. The applicant is requesting a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit to construct a residence at 265 Glenview Drive, which is located on slopes greater than 25%. As such, the development is subject to the requirements of the Hillside 'OrdinanCe. The lot ha~ existing slopes of 0-65% with unnatural cut and fill areas that have created the most significant slopes. The cut and fill areas have occurred due to the construction of the existing house (approved to be demolished), construction of a swimming pool, garage and the recontouring of the yard for landscape and recreational purposes such as a level lawn area and outdoor dining area. According to the applicant's findings and survey, the natural slope of the property, prior to the man-made alterations, the slope was 28%. This can also be verified by evaluating the slope of properties within the nearby vicinity that have not been altered. The applicants have also submitted a survey plat to amend the lot lines with the adjacent property to the northwest at 234 Vista Street (current residence of the applicants). The Lot Line Adjustment is an administrative decision. The adjustment increases the subject lot size fi.om a non-conforming 3,000 square feet to 22,661 square feet and reduces the adjacent lot size fi.om 25,300 to 8,084 square feet. The minimum lot size in the R-1-7.5 zone is 7,500 square feet. There are a number of trees on the property, four regulation size trees that are proposed to be removed and five regulation size trees already removed. Unfortunately, the five trees already removed were mistakenly approved by the Planning Staff back in June due to a misunderstanding that the trees were exempt. The removal of the trees was an unfortunate mistake, but in no case was this an error of the applicants. However, the applicants have agreed to mitigate the loss, including the loss of the four other trees proposed to be removed, by replanting on site two additional trees and -/ replanting off-site on public lands ten trees. The mitigation proposal is consistent with the mitigation requirements noted in the recently adopted Tree Ordinance (18.61.084). The applicants have hired Mark Amrhein, Amrhein Associates, Inc., to prepare the Site Evaluation and Geotechnical Engineering report. The report identifies the site and the proposed building and its relationship with the site's physical geological constraints. The report also identifies the constraint \ ,~6xo~ ?j~, 7~_~3 nic factors, erosion control, slope stability, storm water ~t.,l~ C~tO~_ \ v~'~ ~-~' ~ ~ 'gation r~uir~ents. ~e r~o~ also discusses ~e ne~ ~ ~,~x~,~ _~ ~ompli~ce with the Geotechnical ExpeWs findings ~d _., ~now Mr. Amrhein time to evaluate each mitigation proposal during ~acn mitigation noted in the applicants' Geotec~ical Repo~ will be a condition of _eproval. As not~, the existing house w~ approved to be d~olish~ with the new house_being ~nstmcted in its place. ~e existing detached garage will remain. The new housexWi-i[~it to the east of the g~age and be ~o ~d one-half stories ~d ~nsist of approximately i 1,g~0 squ~e feet. ~e home's foo¢fint is approximately 3,250 squme feet. ~e home has four levels consisting of a b~ment, I ~t floor, 2® floor and attic or V2 sto~. ~e general dimensions are 35' in heist, 110' wide and 48' deep. ~e home, althou~ large, is broken up with multiple rooflines, balconies and stepbacks. Vehicular access to the proposed home will be from Glenview as it currently is. The driveway leads to a porte cochere and circles around to allow exiting cars to enter the road in a forward manner. The driveway also leads to the existing garage. In the middle of the circular driveway will be landscaping. The criteria for approval of a physical constraints review permit for the construction of a home on Hillside Lands is as follows: 1) That the development will not cause damage or hazard to persons or property upon or adjacent to the area of development. 2) That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented reasonable measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. 3) That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously that reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding are, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. 4) That the development is in compliance with the requirements of the chapter and all other applicable City Ordinances and Codes. Based upon the evidence submitted, which include the applicants' findings, elevations, landscape plan, survey, photos, site evaluation and geotechnical report, the application for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit meets the Hillside Development Standards and all applicable criteria for approwal. The Staff Advisor includes by reference all of the applicant's submittals in the decision and based on the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, Planning Action 2003-118 i:s approved. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval. Further, if any one or more of the following conditions are found to be invalid for any reason whatsoever, then '.Planning Action 2003-118 is denied: 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That a Geotechnical Expert be retained until the project is completed and a final Certificate of Occupancy is issued. 3) That prior to final Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall present to the staff advisor a copy of the Geotechnical Expert's Inspection Schedule. Such inspection schedule shall identify the Geotechnical Expert's final approval for all measurers noted in the Geotechnical Engineering Report. 4) That all recommendations listed in the Amrhein Associates Geologic Evaluation and Geotechnical Engineering Report (July 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. That prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant, Geotechnical Expert, Building Official and Planning Staff Advisor meet on site in order to review the City's Hillside Development requirements. 6) That prior to final Certificate of Occupancy, the mitigation proposal for the replacement trees as noted in the applicants' findings shall be met. 7) That all proposed construction work within the Glenview Drive right-of-way be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Engineering Department. 8) That an encroachment permit be obtained from the Ashland Engineering ]Department for the existing fence along Glenview Drive. This Planning Application approval will become final on October 20th, 2003. Bill Molnar, Senior Planner Date BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF ASHLAND STATE OF OREGON IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION ) FOR A PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW ) PERMIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ) CONSTRUCTING A SINGLE FAMILY ) DWELLING ON LAND ZONED R-1-7.5, ) CLASSIFIED AS HILLSIDE LANDS AND ) WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL HISTORIC ) DISTRICT IN ASHLAND, OREGON ) ) ) SidneylKaren DeBoer: Applicants PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Applicant's Exhibit 1 NATURE OF THE APPLICATION Applicants, Sidney DeBoer and Karen DeBoer, propose the construction of a single family dwelling on land zoned Single-Family Residential (R-1-7.5) and designated as Hillside Lands pursuant to Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) Chapter 18.62 and within a Residential Historic district. This proposal also requires the demolition of an existing dwelling which was applied for under a separate application.~ II EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION Applicant herewith submits the following evidence with and in support of its applications for plan amendment, rezoning and site review: Exhibit 1. The proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (this document), demonstrating how the application complies with the applicable substantive criteria of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) as hereinbelow enumerated Exhibit 2. Project Plans, including: · Sheet Rest Stop · Sheet PL 1.1 Planning Site Plan · Sheet PL 1.2 Hillside Site Plan Applicant intends to retain the accessory garage structure. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 Page 1 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Sheet PL 1.3 Solar Access Sheet 1.1 Architectural Site Plan Sheet 0.1 Vicinity Map and Sheets 0.2 and 0.3 Construction Materials Information Sheet 3.0 Basement Floor Plan Sheet 3.1 First Floor Plan Sheet 3.2 Second Floor Plan Sheet 3.3 Attic Floor Plan Sheet 5.0 Basement Reflected Ceiling Plan Sheet 5.1 First Floor Reflected Ceiling Plan Sheet 5.2 Second Floor Reflected Ceiling Plan Sheet 5.3 Attic Reflected Ceiling Plan Sheet 6.1 Window and Door Types Sheet 7.1 Exterior Elevations Sheets 8.1 through 8.8 Building Sections Sheet 10.1 Roof Plan Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet 12.1 Construction Types C 1.0 General Note Sheet fbr Civil Engineering C 1.1 Civil Site Plan C 1.2 Civil Grading and Paving Plan L1 Landscape Site Plan L2 Planting Plan L3 Tree Removal and Protection Plan Exhibit 3. Site Evaluation and Geotechnical Engineering Report Exhibit 4. Surrounding Area Photographs and Photograph Key Map Exhibit 5. Topographic Map by Surveyors, Hoffbuhr & Associates, Inc. Exhibit 6. Gantt chart timeline Exhibit 7. Letter from Surveyors, Hoffbuhr & Associates, Inc. Exhibit 8. Letter/Tree Inventory from Landscape Architect, Kerry KenCai:m Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 Page 2 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. III RELEVANT SUBSTANTIVE APPROVAL CRITERIA The Planning Commission has determined that the following constitute all of the relevant substantive criteria which are prerequisite to approving the proposed Physical and Environmental Constraints Review land use application on land designated Hillside Lands and within a Residential Historic district. The below standards and criteria of the City of Ashland Physical and Environmental Constraints Review are cited verbatim hereinbelow. In Section V, each relevant standard and criterion (or groups of standards and criteria) are followed by the conclusions of law and ultimate conclusions of the Planning Commission. The conclusions of law and ultimate conclusions are based upon the findings of fact in Section IV and the evidence enumerated in Section II. PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC)) ALUO Chapter 18.62, Physical Constraints Review Permit ALUO 18.62,040(I) Criteria for Approval. A Physical Constrains Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following: Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the properly and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. 2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. That the applicant has taken all reasonablE; steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor 'or Planning Commission shall consider the 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. Existie~g 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 parl[itioned. 2. All newly created lots either by subdivision or partition shall contain a building envelope with a slope of 35% or less. 3. New streets, flag drives, and driveways shall be constructed on lands of less than or equal to 35% slope with the following exceptions: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 { cr ) g 9nn", Page3 - ~-! I,,.vvv Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. a. The street is indicated on the City's Transportation Plan Map - Street Dedications. b. The portion of the street, flag drive, or driveway on land greater than 35% slope does not exceed a length of 100 feet. 4. Geotechnical Studies. For all applications on Hillside Lands involving subdivisions or partitions, Hillside Grading and Erosion Control. All development on lands classified as hillside shall provide plans conforming with the following items: All grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans for development on Hillside Lands shall be designed by a geotechnical exped. All cuts, grading or fills shall conform to Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. Erosion control measures on the development site shall be required to minimize the solids in runoff from disturbed areas. For development other than single family homes on individual lots, all grading, drainage improvements, or other land disturbances shall only occur from May 1 to October 31. Excavation shall not occur during the remaining wet months of the year. Erosion control measures shall be installed and functional by October 31. Up to 30 day modifications to the October 31 date, and 45 day modification to the May 1 date may be made by the Planning Director, based upon weather conditions and in consultation with the project geotechnical expert. The modiification of dates shall be the minimum necessary, based upon evidence provided by the applicant, to accomplish the necessary project goals. Retention in natural state. On all projects on Hillside Lands involving partitions and subdivisions, and existing lots with an area greater than one-half acre, an area equal to 25% of the total project area, plus the percentage figure of the average slope of the total project area, shall be retained in a natural state. Lands to be retained in a natural state shall be protected from damage through the use of temporary construction fencing or the functional equivalent. For example, on a 25,000 sq. ft. lot with an average slope of 29%, 25%+29%=54% of the total lot area shall be retained in a natural state. The retention in a natural state of areas greater than the minimum percentage required here is encouraged. 4. Grading - cuts. On all cut slopes on areas classified as Hillside lands, the following standards shall apply: Cut slope angles shall be determined in relationship to the type of materials of which they are composed. VVhere the soil permits, limit the total area exposed to precipitation and erosion. Steep cut slopes shall be retained with stacked rock, retaining walls, or functional equivalent to control erosion and provide slope stability when necessary. VVhere cut slopes are required to be laid back (1:1 or less steep), the slope shall be protected with erosion control getting or structural equivalent installed per manufacturers specifications, and revegetated Exposed cut slopes, such as those for streets, driveway accesses, or yard areas, greater than seven feet in height shall be terraced. Cut faces on a terraced section shall not exceed a maximum height of five feet. Terrace widths shall be a minimum of three feet to allow for the introduction of vegetation for erosion control. Total cut slopes shall not exceed a maximum vertical height of 15 feet. (See Graphic) Revegetation of cut slope terraces shall include the provision of a planting plan, introduction to topsoil where necessary, and the use of irrigation if necessary. The vecjetation used for these areas shall be native or species similar in resource value which will survive, help reduce the visual impact of the cut slope, and assist in providing long term slopE; stabilization. Trees, bush-type plantings and cascading vine-type plantings may be appropriate. 5. Grading - fills. On all fill slopes on lands classified as Hillside Lands, the following standards shall apply: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 , ;~ £UU,~ Page 4 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Fill slopes shall not exceed a total vedical height of 20 feet. The toe of the fill slope area not utilizin9 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 woocl 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 nettin9 or blankets shall be securely anchored to the slope in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. Utilities. Whenever possible, utilities shall not be located or installed on or in fill slopes. When determined that it necessary to install utilities on fill slopes, all plans shall be designed by a geolechnical expert. Revegetation of fill slopes shall utilize native vegetation or vegetation similar in resource value and which will survive and stabilize the surface. Irrigation may be provided to ensure growth if necessary. Evidence shall be required indicating long-term viability of the proposed vegetation for the purposes of erosion control on disturbed areas. Revegetation requirements. 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 hearin9 authority. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be substantially established within one year of installation. 7. Maintenance, Security, and Penalties for Erosion Control Measures. Maintenance. All measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control, including but not limited to vegetative cover, rock walls, and landscaping, shall be maintained in perpetuity on all areas which have been disturbed, including public rights-of-way. The applicant shall provide evidence indicating the mechanisms in place to ensure maintenance of measures. Security. Except for individual lots existing prior to January 1, 1998, after an Erosion Control Plan is approved by the hearing authority and prior to construction, the applicant shall provide a performance bond or other financial guarantees in the amount of 120% of the value of the erosion control measures necessary to stabilize the site. Any financial guarantee instrument proposed other than a performance bond shall be approved by the City Attorney. The financial guarantee instrument shall be in effect for a period of at least one year, and shall be released when the Planning Director and Public Works Director determine, jointly, that the site has been stabilized. All or a portion of the security retained by the City may be withheld for a period up to five years beyond the one year maintenance period if it has been determined by the City that the site has not been sufficiently stabilized against erosion. Site Grading. The grading of a site on Hillside Lands shall be reviewed considering the following factors: a. No terracing shall be allowed except for the purposes of developing a level building pad and for providing vehicular access to the pad. b. Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site.(Ord 2834,S2 1998) c. Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site. Building pads should be of minimum size to accommodate the structure and a reasonable amount of yard space. Pads for tennis courts, swimming pools and large lawns are discouraged As much of the remaining lot area as possible should be kept in the natural state of the original slope. Inspections and Final Report. Prior to the acceptance of a subdivision by the City, signature of the final survey plat on partitions, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy for individual structures, the project geotechnical expert shall provide a final report indicating that the approved grading, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 ,~LI- ~ I. UUd Page 5 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. drainage, and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections, as per 18.62.08OA4.j were conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project. Surface and Groundwater Drainage. All development on Hillside Lands shall conform to the following standards: 1. AIl 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 sudaces, 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 1[o dived 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 propedies. Alternate stormwater systems, such as dry well systems, detention ponds, and leach fields, shall be designed by a registered engineer or geotechnical exped and approved by the City's Public Works Department or City Building Official. Tree Conservation, Protection and Removal. Alii 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 diisturbed, existing tree base elevations shall be provided. Dead or diseased trees shall be identified. Groups of trees in close proximity (i.e. those within five feet of each other) may be designated as a clump of trees, with the predominant species, estimated number and average diameter indicated. All tree surveys shall have an accuracy of plus or minus two feet. The name, signature, and address of the site surveyor responsible for the accuracy of the survey shall be provided on the tree survey. Portions of the lot or project area not proposed to be disturbed by development need not be included in the inventory. Evaluation of Suitability for Conservation. All trees indicated on the inventory of existing trees shall also be identified as to their suitability for conservation. When required by the hearing authority, the evaluation shall be conducted by a landscape professional. Factors included in this determination shall include: a. Tree health. Healthy trees can better withstand the rigors of development than non-vigorous trees. b. Tree Structure. Trees with severe decay or substantial defects are more likely to result in damage to people and property. c. Species. Species vary in their ability to tolerate impacts and damage to tlheir environment. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law SidneylKaren DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 Page 6 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. d. Potential longevity. e. Variety. A variety of native tree species and ages f. Size. Large trees provide a greater protection for erosion and shade than smaller trees. 3. Tree Conservation in Project Design. Significant trees (2' db.h. or greater conifers and 1' db.h. or greater broadleaf) shall be protected arid incorporated into the project design whenever possible. Streets, driveways, buildings, utilities, parking areas, and other site disturbances shall be located such that the maximum number of existing trees on the site are preserved, while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. Building envelopes shall be located and sized to preserve the maximum number of trees on site while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. c. Layout of the project site utility and grading plan shall avoid disturbance of tree protection areas. 4. Tree Protection. On all properties where trees are required to be preserved during the course of development, the developer shall follow the following tree protection standards: All trees designated for conservation shall be clearly marked on the project site. Prior to the stad of any clearing, stripping, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation, the applicant shall install fencing at the drip line of all trees to be preserved adjacent to or in the area to be altered. Temporary fencing shall be established at the perimeter of the dripline. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits, the fences may be inspected and their location approved by the Staff Advisor. (see graphic) Construction site activities, including but not limited to parking, material storage, soil compaction and concrete washout, shall be arranged so as to prevent disturbances within tree protection areas. No grading, stripping, compaction, or significant change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the drip line of trees designated for conservation unless indicated on the grading plans, as approved by the City, and landscape professional. If grading or construction is approved within the dripline, a landscape professional may be required to be present during grading operations, and shall have authority to require protective measures to protect the roots. Changes in soil hydrology and site drainage within tree protection areas shall be minimized. Excessive site run-off shall be directed to appropriate storm drain facilities and away from trees designated for conservation. Should encroachment into a tree protection area occur which causes irreparable damage, as determined by a landscape professional, to trees, the project plan shall be revised to compensate for the loss. Under no circumstances shall the developer be relieved of responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this chapter Tree Removal. Development shall be designed to preserve the maximum number of trees on a site. The development shall follow the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. When justified by findings of fact, the hearing authority may approve the removal of trees for one or more of the following conditions: (Ord 2834 S3, 1998) a. The tree is located within the building envelope. b. Th'e 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. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 ~l"'m n ,~m.,,~ Page 7 ~r.r ~/,.ULI,) Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. e. The tree is determined by a landscape professional to be dead or diseased, or it constitutes an unacceptable hazard to life or property when evaluated by the standards in 18.62.080.D.2. f. The tree is located within or adjacent to areas of cuts or fills that are deemed threatening to the life of the tree, as determined by a landscape professional. Tree Replacement. Trees approved for removal, with the exception of trees removed because they were determined to be diseased, dead, or a hazard, shall be replaced in compliance with the following standards: Replacement trees shall be indicated on a tree replanting plan. The replanting plan shall include all locations for replacemenl[ 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 9rearer than the tree canopy present prior to development of the property. The canopy shall be designed to mitigate of the impact of paved and developed areas, reduce surface erosion and increase slope stability.. Replacement tree locations shall consider impact on the wildfire prevention and control plan. The hearing authority shall have the discretion to adjust the proposed replacement tree canopy based upon site-specific evidence and testimony. Mair~tenance 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 plantin9 must be replaced in kind, after which a new five year replacement period shall begin. Replanting must occur within 30 days of notification unless otherwise noted. (Ord 2834 S5, 1998) 7. Enforcement All tree removal shall be done in accord with the approved tree removal and replacement plan. No trees designated for conservation shall be removed without prior approval of the City of Ashland. Should the developer or degeloper's agent remove or destroy any tree that has been designated for conservation, the developer may be fined up to three times the current appraised value of the replacement trees and cost of replacement or up to three times the current market value, as established by a professional arborist, whichever is greater. Should the developer or developer's agent damage any tree that has been designated for protection and conservation, the developer shall be penalized $50.00 per scar. If necessary, a professional arborist's report, prepared at the developer's expense, may be required to determine the extent of the damage. Should the damage result in loss of appraised value greater than determined above, the higher of the two values shall be used. E. Building Location and Design Standards. All buildings and buildable areas proposed for Hillside Lands shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following standards .... All structures on Hillside Lands shall have foundations which have been designed by an engineer or architect with demonstrable geotechnical design experience. A designer, as defined, shall not complete workin9 drawings without having foundations designed by an engineer. 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 underlyin9 zone, unless the division or lot line adjustment is for open space or conservation purposes. TREE PRESERVATION & PROTECTION ALUO 18.62.200 Tree Protection Tree Protection as required by this section is applicable to any planning action or building permit. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 Page 8 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. A. Tree Protection Plan Required. 1. A Tree Protection Plan approved by the Staff Advisor shall be required prior to conducting any development activities including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation, or demolition work on a property or site, which requires a planning action or building permit. 2. In order to obtain approval of a Tree 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 o'I the site; b. Location of the drip line of each tree: c. Location of existing and proposed roads, water, sanitary and storm sewer, irrigation, and other utility lines/facilities and easements; d. Location of dry wells, drain lines and soakage trenches; e. Location of proposed and existing structures; f. Grade change or cut and fill during or after construction; g. Existing and proposed impervious surfaces; h. Identification of a contact person and/or arborist who will be responsible for implementing and maintaining the approved tree protection plan; and i. Location and type of tree protection measures to be installed per AMC 18.61.230. 3. For development requiring a planning action, the Tree Preservation Plan shall include an inventory of all trees on site, their health or hazard condition, and recommendations for treatment for each tree. 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, riparian areas, or conservation easements that abut the parcel being developed. 3. The fencing shall be flush with the initial undisturbed grade. 4. Approved signs shall be attached to the chain link fencing stating that inside the fencing is a tree protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior approval has been obtained from the Staff Advisor for the project. 5. No construction activity shall occur within the tree protection zone, including, but not limited to dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste items, equipment, or parked vehicles. 6. The tree protection zone shall remain free o[ chemically injurious materials a,nd liquids such as paints, thinners, cleaning solutions, petroleum products, and concrete or dry wall excess, construction debris, or m-off. 7. No excavation, trenching, grading, root pruning or other activity shall occur within the tree protection zone unless approved by the Staff Advisor. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd Inspection. The applicant shall not proceed with any construction activity, except installation of erosion control measures, until the City has inspected and approved the installation of the required tree protection measures and a building and/or grading permit has been issued by the City. IV FINDINGS OF FACT The Planning Commission reaches the following facts and finds them to be true with respect to this matter: A. SUBJECT PROPERTY Property Description; Acreage; Ownership: The subject property is described in the records of the Jackson County Assessor as Tax Lots 7200 and 7400 (39-1E-09BC). Tax Lot 7200 is 0.09 acres and Tax Lot 7400 is 0.88 acre. Applicant proposes to adjust the boundary common to both parcels. There is a pending application to adjust the parcel boundaries. This project concerns tlhe proposed adjusted Tax ]Lot 7200. After the boundary adjustment, Tax Lot 7200 will have 0.52 acre (22,661 square feet). The property is owned by Sidney B. De Boer, Trustee FBO. Comprehensive Plan Map Designation and Zoning: The subject property is designated Single Family Residential on the comprehensive plan map. The property is zoned R-1-7.5. Standard Yard Requirements: The following yard requirements are the minimum setbacks for structures within the R-1-7.5 zoning district: · 15-feet front yard excluding the garage · 6-feet side yard · 1 O-feet rear yard with an additional ten feet for each story in excess of the first story · Garages, accessed from the front, shall have a minimum setback of 20 feet from the front property line2 A lot line adjustment has been proposed between adjacent Tax Lots 7200 and 7400. All plans in comaection with this application assume approval of the proposed lot line adjustment (and the reconfigured Tax Lot 7200). The proposed dwelling will be 19 feet from the rear property line, 44 feet from the front property line, 63 feet from the west property line ~and 17 feet from the east property line.3 The existing garage presently meets the yard/setback requirements of the ALUO. See, Exhibit 2. 2 The garage on the subject property (adjusted Tax Lot 7200) will take access from the rear of the property off Glenview Drive. 3 The front yard of the subject property is the portion of Tax Lot 7200 which fronts upon Vista Street. The rear yard is the portion of Tax Lot 7200 which fronts on Glenview Drive. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law / ~.. Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants ~O September 2, 2003 Page 10 SEP 2 2003 Craig A, Stone & AsSOCiates, Ltd. Building Height: The maximum building height within the R-1-7.5 zone is thirty-five (35) feet or two and one-half(2½) stories in height, Whichever is less. The proposed residence has a gable roof. The ALUO, Section 18.08.290, defines height of buildings, as it pertains to the proposed structure, as the vertical distance from the grade to the average height of the highest gable. The average height of the highest gable ils 35-feet above grade. See, Exhibit 2, Sheet PL 1.2. As to number of stories, applicants contend and the plans show that the proposed dwelling has 2-1/2 stories above the planned basement (which is not a story _pursuant to the term definition of"basement" and "grade" in ALUO 18.08.740 and 18.08.280 respectively). Existing Land Use: Presently, Tax Lot 7200 is developed with a single-family dwelling. A lot line adjustment has been proposed between Tax Lot 7200 and 7400. Tax Lot 7400 is developed with a single-family residence and two accessory structures--garages. If the lot line adjustment is approved, the property boundary will be relocated so that one single-family residence and the existing 576 square foot garage will be located on Tax Lot 7400 and the existing 3,618 square foot two-story garage and the proposed single-family dwelling will be located on Tax Lot 7200. Nature of the Proposed Use: The proposed development will require the demolition of the existing single-family residence on what is now Tax Lot 7200 to allow for the construction of the proposed single-family residence. Proposed development will include a residence with basement and three additional levels, one of which is an attic, a swimming pool and conservatory. Lot Coverage and Structure Square Footage: Maximum lot coverage within the R-1-7.5 zoning district is forty-five (45%) percent. Based upon the proposed lot line adjustment between Tax Lots 7400 and 7200, the adjusted Tax Lot 7200 will have 22,661 square feet. The proposed dwelling and other site features which together comprise lot coverage under the ALUO, will be 10,171 square feet -- 44.9 percent. See, Exhibit 2, Sheet 1.1 Special Considerations: The subject property has areas where the slope exceeds 25 percent and is identified on the Physical Constraints map as Hillside Lands. The subject property is within a Residential Historic District. Timeline for Development: See, Exhibit 6. B. HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL LANDS The following findings of fact relate to the designation of the property as Hillside Residential Lands as set forth in ALUO 18.62.080: Protected Hillside Areas: Pursuant to ALU() 18.62.050(C)(1) the reconfigured subject property is included on the Physical Constraints Overlay Map. As established in Exhibits 5 and 7, the subject property has an original average slope of 28 percent. Portions of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 ,~'E'I3 n ,,~n,-,,~ Page 11 ~[V t.I- ~ ~(. U U ~1 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd reconfigured subject property have slopes which are greater and less than 25 percent. Portions of the property with slopes of 25 percent or greater are shown on Exhibit 2, Sheets 1.1 and L3 and these are the areas of the property subject to the special regulations for hillside protection. Slope: The proposed development will occur on that portion of the property which has 22% to 30% slopes. Based upon Exhibit 7, a letter from applicants registered land surveyor, Hoffbuhr & Associates, Inc., the average slope: of the subject property is 28 percent. Driveway: Based upon Exhibit 5 the driveway to serve the new dwelling is on terrain which has a grade of less 'than 35 percent. Grading, Fill anti Erosion Control: Grading and erosion control has been designed by applicants licensed Geotechnical Engineer irt Exhibit 3 (Site Evaluation and Geotechnical Engineering Report). Exhibit 3 established the geotechnical parameters for design with respect to grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans, which was used by applicants civil engineers, Hardey & Associates, Inc. to prepare the civil engineering plans for this project. As demonstrated by applicants plans -- Exhibit 2 (Sheet RS) -- the potential for erosion has been mitigated through the planned installation of retaining walls which will minimize the erosion of solid matter in the disturbed areas on the site. Grading cuts have been limited to only the extent needed to accommodate the proposed dwelling and protected to the extent possible to protect the area from erosion. Cuts: The only cuts to be made on the property are those necessary to accommodate the dwelling footprint and driveway. Cuts for the dwelling will be retained by its foundation walls. Cuts for the driveway are proposed to be retained by engineered masonry walls. The materials in which the cuts will be made are established in Exhibit 3. On portions of the property where terracing is proposed, no terraced section exceeds a height of five feet nor separated by more than three feet. The total maximum vertical height of the cut slopes is not greater than fifteen feet. See, Exhibit 2, Sheets 1.1, C 1.1 and C 1.2. All cut slope terraces are intended to be landscaped with plant materials which are suitable and appropriate for the stabilization of cut banks. The planting plan for this property was developed by Kerry KenCaim, applicants Landscape Architect, licensed in Oregon. Retention in Natural State: The subject site -- the reconfigured parcel after the proposed lot line adjustment- will be 22,661 square feet or 0.52 acres in size. Based upon Exhibit 7, the average slope of the reconfigured parcel is 28 percent. See, Exhibit 7. Pursuant to ALUO 18.62.080(B)(3) this property is to have 55 percent of its area retained in a natural state. Both existing parcels (proposed to be reconfigured) have been previously developed with a dwellings and accessory garage structures. As such, this property has no undisturbed areas. However, the ALUO defines the term "natural state" to mean: Natural State - all land and water that remains undeveloped and undisturbed. This means that grading, excavating, filling and/or the construction of roadways, driveways, parking areas, and structures are prohibited. Incidental minor grading for hiking trails, bicycle paths, picnic areas and planting and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 Page12 Craig A. Stone & AsSOCiates, Ltd. landscaping which is in addition to and enhances the natural environment is permitted. Incidental brush removal for lot maintenance and ecosystem health is permitted. Further, vegetation removal for the purposes of wildfire control in conjunction with an approved fire prevention and ,control plan shallalso be permitted. Based upon the Exhibit 2 plans, 55 percent of the reconfigured subject property will be in a natural state pursuant to the ALUO definition. Revegetation: Revegetation of the subject property is proposed pursuant t6 the Exhibit 6 Landscape Plans and the same are consistent with the requirements for revegetation as set forth in ALUO 18.62.080(B)(4)(c). Public Facilities, Services and Utilities: The subject property is served with the following public facilities, services and utilities: Water: There is an existing 6-inch water line within the: right-of-way of Glenview Drive and Vista Street along the south and northeast frontages of the subject property. Sanitary Sewer: There is an existing 6-inch sewer line within the right-of-way of Glenview Drive and Vista Street along the south and northeast frontages of the subject property. · Transportation/Access: The adjusted subject property fronts 'upon Vista Street and Glenview Drive. Actual access to the property is from Glenview Drive. Electricity; Natural Gas: According to representatives for the City of Ashland Electric Department, the existing residence presently receives electric power and power will be available for the proposed residence. Electric power will be used for cooling and lighting of proposed residence. Heat for the dwelling will be supplied by natural gas. · Urban Storm Drainage: An 8-inch underground storm drain exists at the intersection of Vista Street and Glenview Drive. C. SOI_4R ACCESS[Bll: The proposed dwelling observes the solar access standards of the City of Ashland and the same is evidenced by Exhibit 2, Sheet PL 1.3. D. TREE PROTECTION; REMOVAL; REPLACEMENT Tree Removal Permit: Single family residential zones which are occupied by a single- family detached dwelling and their associated accessory structures, are exempt from the requirement to obtain a tree removal permit. However, lands subject to the Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance are further regulated by Chapter 18.62 and 18.61.200. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants / ¢,~ ~P 2 2003 September 2, 2003 Page 13 Craig A. Stone & Associates, I.td Tree Removal: The removal of trees from the reconfigured property falls under four categories as follows: Trees Already Removed within Protected Hillside Areas: Based upon a misunderstanding shared by applicants and the Ashland Planning Department, applicants removed five trees within the Protected Hillside Area. Applicants propose to mitigate the removal of these trees by agreeing to stipulate to planting 10 trees within a public location to be determined by the Ashland Tree Commission. See, Section VI. 2. 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. 3. Trees to be Removed within Protected Hillside Areas: As shown on Exhibit 2, Sheet L3, two additional trees are proposed to be removed within the protected area. Trees to be Removed which are not regulated. As shown on Exhibit 2, Sheet L3, seven additional trees are proposed to be removed within the non-protected portion of the reconfigured subject property. Tree Protection: Applicants licensed landscape architect has proposed the methods by which existing trees (to be preserved) will be protected and the same is shown on Exhibit 2, Sheet L3. The methods of trees protection are consistent with the requirements for protection as set forth in ALUO 18.62.080(D)(4). Tree Replacement: In addition to the ten trees applicants have agreed to supply for planting on public lands located elsewhere: 1) the 6-inch caliper Incense Cedar (Calocedrus decurrens) will be replaced (on-site) with a 1 O-foot tall Deodar Cedar (Ce&us deodara), and 2) the 12-inch Ponderosa Pine (Pinus ponderosa) will be replaced (on-site) with a 2-inch caliper Japanese Pagoda Tree (Sophorajaponica). E. CHARACTERISTICS OF SURROUNDING IMPACT AREA The surrounding impact area is defined as that area entitled to notice of this application. The notice area is an :area which is 200 feet from the boundaries of the subject property. The surrounding impact area has the following characteristics: V CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Ashland Planning Commission reaches the following conclusions of law and ultimate conclusions under each of the relevant substantive criteria. The conclusions of law are preceded by the criterion or criteria to which they relate and are supported by findings of fact as set forth in Section IV herein above and by the evidence as enumerated in Section II: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law /¢¢ '$F.P 2003 Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 Page 14 Craig A. Stone & AsSOCiates, Ltd. Jackson County reaches the following conclusions of law for each of the relevant substantive criteria for a conditional use in the Exclusive Farm Use zone. The approval criteria are recited verbatim below and followed by the conclusions of law of Jackson County: PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Title 18,) ALUO CHAPTER 62 PHYSICAL&ENVIRONMENTALCONTRAINTS ALUO 18.62.040(I) Criteria for Approval. A Physical Constrains Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following: Criterion I 1. Through the application of the development standards; of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. Conclusions of Law: The development standards of ALUO 18.62.80 relate to the preservation of natural areas, erosion control and tree protection. With respect to the preservation of natural areas, the Planning Commission concludes that this application involves the redevelopment of a site (the reconfigured subject property) which has already been urban developed. As such, the reconfigured subject property has no existing natural areas to be preserved. Regarding erosion control, applicants have engaged qualified experts in geotechnical and civil engineering, architecture and landscape architecture to design this project. All reasonable and appropriate measures have been employed and all standards and requirements of the City of Ashland have been incorporated into applicants design/development plans. As such, the Planning Commission concludes from the evidence, that all sources of potential erosion have been appropriately addressed and have been mitigated on-site. With respects to tree protection, the Planning Commission concludes: o That while some trees on the property were removed without benefit ,of public review, applicants have proposed to replace these at the rate of two new trees fbr each trees that was previously removed 2. Although some additional trees (within the Protected Hillside Area) are proposed to be removed, they too will be replaced at a ratio of two to one. 3. All trees outside the construction/development area are protected with measures required by the ALUO. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants 2003 September 2, 2003 Page 15 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 1. Criterion 2 2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may creat(~ and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that applicants have evidenced their consideration of the potential hazards (this development might create) in the conduct of detailed geotechnical investigations. The Planning Commission also concludes that applicants have properly evidenced the implementation of mitigation measures by incorporating the g.eotechnical investigations into the architectural, engineering and landscape plans of record. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with Criterion 2. Criterion 3 That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. Conclusions of Law: The potential for adverse impacts upon the environment include, erosion and mass movement, loss of natural areas, trees and tree canopies, loss of wildlife habitat. Based upon the evidence, the Planning Commission concludes that applicants have undertaken the foil. owing reasonable steps to reduce adverse impacts upon the environment: 1. Applicants have engaged qualified experts who have offered recommendations as to the best methods to accommodate the proposed new dwelling. Applicants design professionals have incorporated all environmental mitigation recommendations into the design and construction plans for the reconfigured subject property. 3. In its consideration of this application, the Planning Commission has examined the surrounding area and development that now exists. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 3. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 Page 16 Craig A. Stone & AsSOC-~ates, Ltd. ALUO 18.62.080 Development Standards for Hillside Lands. Criterion 4 A. General Requirements. The following general requirements shall apply in Hillside Lands. All development shall occur on lands defined as having buildable area. Slopes greater than 35% shall be considered unbuildable except as allowed below. Variances may be granted to this requirement only as provided in section 18.62.080.H. a. Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35% shall be considered buildable for one unit. b. Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35% cannot be subdivided or paditioned. Conclusions of Law: Based upon Exhibits 5 and 7, the original natural ave:rage slope of this property is 28 percent. No portion of the property, in its original state, exceeded a slope of 35 percent. While this site was altered to accommodate the existing dwelling, landscaping and landscape features (including terracing) the Planning Commission concludes that the altered grades are not an appropriate consideration in this application. Instead, the Planning Commission concludes that the original natural terrain is the appropriate measure of slope for the purpose of ascertaining compliance with the development standards for hillside lands pursuant to ALUO 18.62.080. The Planning Commission concludes that tlhis application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 4. Criterion 5 6. All newly created lots either by subdivision or partition shall contain a building enwglope with a slope of 35% or less. Conclusions of Law: Criterion 5 is inapplicable by reason that this application does not include the creation of any new lot by subdivision or partition. Criterion 6 7. New streets, flag drives, and driveways shall be constructed on lands of less than or equal to 35% slope with the following exceptions: a. The street is indicated on the City's Transpodation Plan Map - Street Dedications. b. The portion of the street, flag drive, or driveway on land greater than 35% slope does not exceed a length of 100 feet. Conclusions of Law: The driveway to serve the proposed dwelling already exists. However, the driveway is intended to be regraded and resurfaced. As shown on Exhibit 2, Sheet 1.1, material for the driveway will also change from concrete to permeable grasscrete Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 Page 17 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. and brick. As also :shown Exhibit 2, Sheets 1.1, C 1.1 and C 1.2, no portion of the existing or altered driveway will exceed a slope of 35 percent in compliance with Criterion 6. Criterion 7 4. Geotechnical Studies. For all applications on Hillside Lands involving subdivisions or paditions, * * * Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that Criterion 7 is inapplicable by reason that this application does not involve either a subdivision or partition. However, applicants have undertaken a geotechnical study of the property and the same is in Exhibit 3. Criterion 8 B. Hillside Grading and Erosion Control. All development on lands classified as hillside shall provide plans conforming with the following items: All grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans for development on Hillside Lands shall be designed by a geotechnical expert. All cuts, grading or fills shall conform to Chapter 70 of the Uniforrn Building Code. Erosion control measures on the development site shall be required to minimize the solids in runoff from disturbed areas. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes, based upon the findings of fact in Section IV, applicants engaged a qualified geotechnical engineer conducted a geotechnical investigation which was used by applicants civil engineers in the preparation of the engineering construction plans. See, Exhibit 3. Exhibit 3 established the geotechnical parameters for design with respect to grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans, which was used by applicants civil engineers in the preparation of the engineering construction plans. Based upon Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 2, Sheets C 1.1 and C 1.2, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposed cuts, grading and fills will conform to Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. The Planning Commission also concludes, based upon the same evidence, that erosion control measures proposed for this development site, will minimize the solids in runoff from disturbed areas. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that this application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 8. Criterion 9 For development other than single family homes on individual lots, all grading, drainage improvements, or other land disturbances shall only occur from May 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. tJp to 30 day modifications to the October 31 date, and 45 day modification to the May 1 date may be made by the Planning Director, based upon weather conditions and in consultation with the project geotechnical expert. The modification of dates shall be the minimum necessary, based upon evidence provided by the applicant, to accomplish the necessary project goals. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that Criterion 9 is inapplicable by reason that this application concerns a single family home on an individual lot which is expressly exempt from this standard. Criterion 10 Retention in natural state. On all projects on Hillside Lands involving paditions and subdivisions, and existing lots with an area greater than one-half acre, an area equal to 25% of the total project area, plus the percentage figure of the average slope of the, total project area, shall be retained in a natural state. Lands to be retained in a natural state shall be protected from damage through the use of temporary construction fencing or the functional equivalent. For example, on a 25,000 sq. ft. lot with an average slope of 29%, 25%+29%=54'% of the total lot area shall be retained in a natural state. The retention in a natural state of areas greater than the minimum percentage required here is encouraged. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that the reconfigured subject property will consist of 0.52 acre. Therefore, Criterion 10 applies to this application. However, reconfigured subject property (consisting of portions of two existing lots) has been developed; this application involves the redevelopment of this property. As such, no portion of the subject property presently exists in a natural state as defined in ALUO 18.62.030(N). Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that Criterion 10 is inapplicable because no portion of the reconfigured property is presently in a natural state and therefore it cannot be retained as such. Criterion 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. VVhere the soil permits, limit the total area exposed to precipitation and erosion. Steep cut slopes shall be retained with stacked rock, retaining walls, or functional equivalent to control erosion and provide slope stability when necessary. VVhere cut slopes are required to be laid back (1:1 or less steep), the slope shall be protected with erosion control getting or structural equivalent installed per manufacturers specifications, and revegetated. Exposed cut slopes, such as those for streets, driveway accesses, or yard areas, greater than seven feet in height shall be terraced. Cut faces on a terraced section shall not exceed a maximum height of five feet. Terrace widths shall be a minimum of three feet to allow for the introduction of vegetation for erosion control. Total cut slopes shall not exceed a maximum vertical height of 15 feet. (See Graphic) Revegetation of cut slope terraces shall include the provision of a planting plan, introduction to topsoil where necessary, and the use of irrigation if necessary. The vegel[ation used for these areas shall be native or species similar in resource value which will survive, help reduce the visual impact of the cut slope, and assist in providing long term slope stabilization. Trees, bush-type plantings and cascading vine-type plantings may be appropriate. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 Page 19 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Conclusions of Law: Based upon the findings of fact in Section IV and Exhibit 2, Sheets 1.1, C 1.1, C 1.2 and L2 the Planning Commission concludes that this application is consistent with the :requirements of Criterion 11. Criterion 12 5. Grading - fills. On all fill slopes on lands classified as Hillside Lands, the followir~g standards shall apply: Fill slopes shall not exceed a total vertical height of 20 feet. The toe of the fill slope area not utilizing structural retaining shall be a minimum of six feet from the nearest property line.(Ord 2834 S6, 1998) Fill slopes shall be protected with an erosion control netting, blanket or functional equivalent. Netting or blankets shall only be used in conjunction with an organic mulch such as straw or wood fiber. The blanket must be applied so that it is in complete contact with the soil so that erosion does not occur beneath it. Erosion netting or blankets shall be securely anchored to the slope in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. Utilities. VVhenever possible, utilities shall not be located or installed on or in fill slopes. 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. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as follows: Regarding Subsection a and based upon Exhibit 2, Sheet 1.1, no fill slopes exceed a total vertical height of 20 feet and no fill slope toes which are not proposed to be retained by structural means. Regarding Subsection b and based upon Exhibit 2, Sheet Cl.0, all fill slopes will be protected with an erosion control netting, blanket or functional equivalent as specified by applicants civil engineer in Exhibit 2, Sheet C 1.0. 3. Regarding Subsection c and based upon Exhibit 2 no planned utilities are to be located or installed on or in fill slopes. Regarding Subsection d and based upon Exhibit 2, Sheet L 1 through L3, the revegetation of fill slopes has utilized vegetation similar in resource value to that of native vegetation and which, according to applicants expert Landscape Architect, will survive and stabilize the surface. Irrigation has been provided to all fill areas (to be landscaped) which will ensure proper growth. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 12. Criterion 13 Revegetation requirements. Where required by this chapter, all required revegetation of cut and fill slopes shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, signature of a required survey plat, or other time as determined by the hearing authority. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be substantially established within one year of installation. Conclusions of Law: Applicants have agreed to stipulate that they will install all required revegetation of cut and fill slopes. Criterion 14 7. Maintenance, Security, and Penalties for Erosion Control Measures. Maintenance. All measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control, including but not limited to vegetative cover, rock walls, and landscaping, shall be maintained in perpetuity on all areas which have been disturbed, including public rights-of-way. The applicant shall provide evidence indicating the mechanisms in place 1[o ensure maintenance of measures. Security. Except for individual lots existing prior to January 1, 1998, after an I--rosion Control Plan is approved by the hearing authority and prior to construction, the applicant shall provide a performance bond or other financial guarantees in the amount of 120% of the value of the erosion control measures necessary to stabilize the site. Any financial guarantee instrument proposed other than a performance bond shall be approved by the City Attorney. The, financial guarantee instrument shall be in effect for a period of at least one year, and shall be released when the Planning Director and Public Works Director determine, jointly, that the site has been stabilized. All or a podion of the security retained by the City may be withheld for a period up to five years beyond the one year maintenance period if it has been determined by the City that the site has not been sufficiently stabilized against erosion. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that Criterion 14 does not operate as an approval standard, but rather establishes methods to ensure that erosion mitigation is guaranteed (in accordance with the ALUO) and faithfully maintained, measures to which applicants have agreed to stipulate. See, Section VI. Criterion 15 8. Site Grading. The grading of a site on Hillside Lands shall be reviewed considering the following factors: a. No terracing shall be allowed except for the purposes of developing a level building pad and for providing vehicular access to the pad. b. Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site.(Ord 2834,S2 1998) Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 5111'3 ~ ~'~'~ Page 21 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. c. Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site. Building pads should be of minimum size to accommodate the structure and a reasonable amount of yard space. Pads for tennis courts, swimming pools and large lawns are discouraged. As much of the remaining lot area as possible should be kept in the natural state of the original slope. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as follows: 1. Based upon Ex]hibit 2, terracing has only been used for the purpose of developing a level building pad and to provide appropriate vehicular access to the pad. 2. Based upon Ex]hibit 3, the reconfigured subject property does not include any areas which are hazardous or unstable. Based upon Exhibit 2, Sheet 1.1 the building pad for this dwelling has been minimized in size to be approximately one-quarter of the dwelling's total square footage. As such, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposed building pad is of a minimum size to accommodate the planned structure, and will produce minimal impacts to the existing site conditions. The Planning Commission also concludes, as it has above, that the reconfigured subject property does not include any portions which are in a natural state. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 15. Criterion 16 Inspections and Final Report. Prior to the acceptance of a subdivision by the City, signature of the final survey plat on partitions, or issuance of a cedificate of occupancy for individual structures, the project geotechnical expert shall provide a final report indicating that the approved grading, drainage, and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections, as per 18.62.080.A.4.j were conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project. Conclusions of Law: Criterion 16 does not operate as an approval standard, but instead puts applicants on notice that a final geotechnical report is submitted which ensures that all approved grading, drainage and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections required by the ALUO were conducted by applicants geotechnical expert -- matters to which applicants have agreed to stipulate. See, Section VI. Criterion 17 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: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 --%P 3 """" ....22 ~'UU~ Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Stormwater facilities shall include storm drain systems associated with street construction, facilities for accommodating drainage from driveways, parking areas and other impe~'vious surfaces, and roof drainage systems. b. Stormwater facilities, when part of the overall site improvements, shall be, to the greatest extent feasible, the first improvements constructed on the development site. c. Stormwater facilities shall be designed to divert surface water away from cut faces or sloping surfaces of a fill. d. Existing natural drainage systems shall be utilized, as much as possible, in their natural state, recognizing the erosion potential from increased storm drainage. Flow-retarding devices, such as detention ponds and recharge berms, shall be used where practical to minimize increases in runoff volume and peak flow rate due to development. Each facility shall consider the needs for an emergency overflow system to safely carry any overflow water to an acceptable disposal point. f. Stormwater facilities shall be designed, constructed and maintained in a manner that will avoid erosion on-site and to adjacent and downstream properties. Alternate stormwater systems, such as dry well systems, detention ponds, and leach fields, shall be designed by a registered engineer or geotechnical expert and approved by the City's Public Works Department or City Building Official. Conclusions of Law: Based upon Exhibit 2, Sheet C1.2, the Planning Commission concludes that stormwater has been accommodated in compliance with the', requirements of Criterion 17. Criterion 18 D. Tree Conservation, Protection and Removal. All development on Hillside Lands shall conform to the following requirements: Inventory of Existing Trees. A tree survey at the same scale as the project site plan shall be prepared, which locates all trees greater than six inches d.b.h., identified by d.b.h., species, approximate extent of tree canopy. In addition, for areas proposed to be disturbed, existing tree base elevations shall be provided. Dead or diseased trees shall be identified. Groups of trees in close proximity (i.e. those within five feet of each other) may be designated as. a clump of trees, with the predominant species, estimated number and average diameter indicated. All tree surveys shall have an accuracy of plus or minus two feet. The name, signature, and address of the site surveyor responsible for the accuracy of the survey shall be provided on the tree survey. Portions of the lot or project area not proposed to be disturbed by development need not be included in the inventory. Conclusions of Law: The inventory of existing trees is in Exhibit 2, Sheet L3. Criterion 18 is, in fact, not an approval standard, but simply operates as a filing requirement with which this application has complied. Criterion 19 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 15'3 SEP ..,,,,,.. ~/-.[/U,J Page 23 Craig A. Stone & Associates, I.td. 2. Evaluation of Suitability for Conservation. All trees indicated on the inventory of existing trees shall also be identified as to their suitability for conservation. When required by the hearing authority, the evaluation shall be conducted by a landscape professional. Factors included in this determination shall include: a. Tree health. Healthy trees can better withstand the rigors of development than non-vigorous trees. b. Tree Structure. Trees with severe decay or substantial defects are more likely to result in damage to people and property. c. Species. Species vary in their ability to tolerate impacts and damage to their environment. d. Potential longevity. e. Variety. A variety of native tree species and ages f. Size. Large trees provide a greater protection for erosion and shade than smaller trees. Conclusions of Law: Criterion 20 3. Tree Conservation in Project Design. Significant trees (2' d.b.h, or greater conifers and 1' d.b.h, or greater broadleaf) shall be protected and incorporated into the project design whenever possible. Streets, driveways, buildings, utilities, parking areas, and other site disturbances shall be located such that the maximum number of existing trees on the site are preserved, while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. Building ,envelopes shall be located and sized to preserve the maximum number of trees on site while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands c. Layout of the project site utility and grading plan shall avoid disturbance of tree protection areas. Conclusions of Law: Based upon Exhibit 2, Sheet L3, the Planning Commission concludes that there are no significant trees within the Protected Hillside Area to be removed as a result of this project. The maximum number of trees on the reconfigured subject property and within the constrains of this project, have been preserved. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with Criterion 20. Criterion 21 4. Tree Protectiion. On all properties where trees are required to be preserved during the course of development, the developer shall follow the following tree protection standards: All trees designated for conservation shaHI be clearly marked on the project site. Prior to the start of any clearing, stripping, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation, the applicant shall install fencing at the drip line of all trees to be preserved adjacent to or in the area to be altered. Temporary fencing shall be established at the perimeter of the dripline. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits, the fences may be inspected and their location approved by the Staff Advisor. (see graphic) Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 Page 24 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Construction site activities, including but not limited to parking, material storage, soil compaction and concrete washout, shall be arranged so as to prevent disturbances within tree protection areas. No grading, stripping, compaction, or significant change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the drip line of trees designated for conservation unless indicated on the grading plans, as approved by the City, and landscape professional. If grading or construction is approved within the dripline, a landscape professional may be required to be present during grading operations, and shall have authority to require protective measures to protect the roots. Changes in soil hydrology and site drainage within tree protection areas shall be minimized. Excessive site run-off shall be directed to appropriate storm drain facilities and away from trees designated for conservation. Should encroachment into a tree protection area occur which causes irreparable damage, as determined by a landscape professional, to trees, the project plan shall be revised to compensate for the loss. Under no circumstances shall the developer be relieved of responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this chapter Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that Exhibit 2, Sheet L3 contains a tree protection plan, prepared by applicants landscape architect, which incorporates the requirements for tree protection which are established in the above Criterion 21. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that this application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 21. Criterion 22 Tree Removal. Development shall be designed to preserve the maximum number of trees on a site, The development shall follow the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. When justified by findings of fact, the hearing authority may approve the removal of trees for one or more of the following conditions: (Ord 2834 S3, 1998) a. The tree is located within the building envelope. b. The tree is located within a proposed street, driveway, or parking area. c. The tree is located within a water, sewer, or other public utility easement. d. The tree is determined by a landscape professional to be dead or diseased, or it constitutes an unacceptable hazard to life or property when evaluated by the standards in 18.62.080.D.2. e. The tree is located within or adjacent to areas of cuts or fills that are deemed threatening to the life of the tree, as determined by a landscape professional. Conclusions of Law: The reconfigured subject property is not designated a.s Wildfire Lands. As earlier found, this project has maximized the preservation of trees on the site. Trees to be removed are those located within the building envelop and proposed driveway and other site features (as shown on Exhibit 2, Sheets 1.1 and L3). Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that t]he application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 22. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 2003 Page 25 Craig A. Stone & Associates, I..td. Criterion 23 Tree Replacement. Trees approved for removal, with the exception of trees removed because they were determined to be diseased, dead, or a hazard, shall be replaced in compliance with the following standards: a. Replacement trees shall be indicated on a tree replanting plan. The replanting plan shall include all locations for replacement trees, and shall ;also indicate tree planting details.(Ord 2834 S4, 1998) Replacement trees shall be planted such that the trees will in time result in canopy equal to or greater than the tree canopy present prior to development of the property. Th-e canopy shall be designed to mitigate of the impact of paved and developed areas, reduce surface erosion and increase slope stability. Replacement tree locations shall consider impact on the wildfire prevention and control plan. The hearing authority shall have the discretion to adjust the proposed replacement tree canopy based upon site-specific evidence and testimony. Maintenance of replacement trees shall be the responsibility of the properly owner. Required replacement trees shall be continuously maintained in a healthy manner. Trees that die within the first five years after initial planting must be replaced in kind, after which a new five year replacement period shall begin. Replanting must occur within 30 days of notification unless otherwise noted. (Ord 2834 S5, 1998) Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as follows: 1. The proposed replacement trees are shown on Exhibit 2, Sheet L2 and the same includes a tree planting detail. 2. As evidenced by Exhibit 2, Sheet L2, the proposed replacement trees will, in time, result in canopy greater than the tree canopy of the existing trees to be removed. 3. Applicants have agreed to stipulate that all replacement trees will be continuously maintained in a healthy manner as part of the overall landscape. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 23. 7. Enforcement Criterion 24 a, All tree removal shall be done in accord with the approved tree removal and replacement plan. No trees designated for conservation shall be removed without prior approval of the City of Ashland. Should the developer or developer's agent remove or destroy any tree that has been designated for conservation, the developer may be fined up to three times the current appraised value of the replacement trees and cost of replacement or up to three times the current market value, as established by a professional arborist, whichever is greater. Should the developer or developer's agent damage any tree that has been designated for protection and conservation, the developer shall be penalized $50.00 per scar. If necessary, a professional arborist's report, prepared at the developer's expense, may be required to determine Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 Page 28 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. the extent of the damage. Should the damage result in loss of appraised value greater than determined above, the higher of the two values shall be used. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that Criterion 24 does not operate as an approval standard, but instead functions to put property owners on notice of the city's requirements for the removal of or damage to replacement trees. Criterion ,25 E. Building Location and Design Standards. All buildings and buildable areas proposed for Hillside Lands shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following standards * * * Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that this criterion is inapplicable by reason that the subject property is not a new lot created by subdivision or partition and because the subject property is within a designated Historic District. Criterion ,2§ All structures on Hillside Lands shall have foundations which have been designed by an engineer or architect with demonstrable geotechnical design experience. A designer, as defined, shall not complete working drawings without having foundations designed by an engineer. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that the foundation for this dwelling was designed by applicants expert structural engineer based upon the recommendations of applicants expert geotechnical engineer in compliance with Criterion 26. Criterion ,27 All newly created lots or lots modified by a lot line adjustment must include a building envelope on all lots that contains a buildable area less than 35% slope of sufficient size to accommodate the uses permitted in the underlying zone, unless the division or lot line adjustment is for open space or conservation purposes. Conclusions of Law: Based upon the findings of fact in Section IV and Exhibits 5 and 7, no portion of the reconfigured property exceeds a slope of 35 percent. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that this application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 27. TREE PRESERVATION & PROTECTION ALUO 18.62.200 Tree Protection Tree Protection as required by this section is applicable to any planning action or building permit. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Criterion 28 A. Tree Protection Plan Required. 1. A Tree Protection Plan approved by the Staff Advisor shall be required prior to conducting any development activities including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation, or demolition work on a property or site, which requires a planning action or building permit. 2. In order to obtain approval of a Tree Protection Plan; an applicant shall submit a plan to the City, which clearly depicts all trees to be preserved and/or removed on the site. The plan must be drawn to scale and include the following: a. Location, species, and diameter of each tree on site and within 15 feet of the site; b. Location of the drip line of each tree; c. Location of existing and proposed roads, water, sanitary and storm sewer, irrigation, and other utility lines/facilities and easements; d. Location of dry wells, drain lines and soakage trenches; e. Location. of proposed and existing structures; f. Grade clhange or cut and fill during or after construction; g. Existing and proposed impervious surfaces; h. Identification of a contact person and/or arborist who will be responsible for implementing and maintaining the approved tree protection plan; and i. Location and type of tree protection measures to be installed per AMC 18.61.230. 3. For development requiring a planning action, the Tree Preservation Plan shall include an inventory of all trees on site, their health or hazard condition, and recommendations for treatment for each tree. Conclusions of Law: Criterion 28 does not function as an approval standard, but instead enumerates the requirements for tree inventory and protection plan which have been submitted with this application. Criterion 29 B. Tree Protection Measures Required. 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, inchJding landscaping and irrigation installation. 2. Chain link fencing, a minimum of six feet tall with steel posts placed no farther than ten feet apart, shall be installed at the edge of the tree protection zone or dripline, whichever is greater, and at the boundary of any open space tracts, riparian areas, or conservation easements that abut the parcel being developed 3. The fencing shall be flush with the initial undisturbed grade. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 SEP 2003 P~ge 28 Craig A. Stone & AsSOOates, Ltd. Approved signs shall be attached to the chain link fencing stating that inside the fencing is a tree protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior approval has been obtained from the Staff Advisor for the project. 5. No construction activity shall occur within the tree protection zone, including, but not limited to dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste items, equipment, or parked vehicles. 6. The tree protection zone shall remain free of chemically injurious materials and liquids such as paints, thinners, cleaning solutions, petroleum products, and concrete or dry wall excess, construction debris, or m-off. 7. No excavation, trenching, grading, root pruning or other activity shall occur within the tree protection zone unless approved by the Staff Advisor. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that the various protection measures set forth in Criterion 29 have been incorporated into applicants plans and the same is evidenced by Exhibit 2, Sheet L3. Criterion ,30 Inspection. The applicant shall not proceed with any construction activity, except installation of erosion control measures, until the City has inspected and approved the installation of the required tree protection measures and a building and/or grading permit has been issued by the City. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that Criterion 30 does not operate as an approval standard, but instead simply states as law, that no applicant may proceed with construction prior to approval of' tree protection measures and issuance of a building and/or grading permit. Applicants have so stipulated. See, Section VI. VI SUMMARY OF APPLICANTS STIPULATIONS Applicants herewith agree to stipulate to the following matters: Stipulation 1. Applicants will construct the proposed dwelling and other site improvements in accordance with the approved plans, as amended by reasonable conditions imposed by the Planning Commission. Stipulation 2. Where required by this chapter, all required revegetation of cut and fill slopes shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certific, ate 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 ! 8. 62. 080(B) (6) Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 Page 29 Craig A. Stone & AsSOOates, Ltd, Stipulation 3. Stipulation 4. Stipulation 5. Stipulation 6. Stipulation 7. Stipulation 8. Stipulation 9. Applicants will be continuously maintain all replacement trees in a healthy manner as part of the overall landscape of the project area. Applicants will not proceed with any construction activity, except installation of erosion control measures, until the City has inspected and approved the installation of the required tree protection measures and a building and/or grading permit has been issued by the City. Applicants will perpetually maintain all measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control, including vegetative cover, rock walls, landscaping, and all areas which have been disturbed, including public rights-of-way. Following approval of the Erosion Control Plan by the city (and prior to construction) applicants will provide a performance bond or other financial guarantees in the amount of 120% of the value of the erosion control measures necessary to stabilize the site. Before issuance of a certificate of occupancy, applicants geotechnical expert will provide a final report which indicates that the approved grading, drainage, and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections, as per ALUO 18.62.080(A)(4)(j) were conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project. Applicants will provide ten trees having a caliper not less than 2 inches to be planted in a public location to be determined by the Ashland Tree Commission. Applicants will install all required revegetation of cut and fill slopes and the same will occur before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. VII ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS Based upon the fbregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of ALUO 18.62.080 and the related standards with respect to development within a Protected Hillside Area. Respectfully submitted on behalf of Applicant Sidney and Karen DeBoer: Findings of Fact ,and Conclusions of Law // ~ ~ SidneylKaren DeBoer, Applicants September 2, 2003 Page 30 SEP 2 2003 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. CRAIG A. STONE & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ~anner Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sidney/Karen OeBoer, Applicants / ~ / September 2, 2003 Page 31 SEP 2 21303 LIMITED SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY AUTHORIZATION 'I'O ACT on behalf of the owner of real property described as Tax Lot 7200 on Jackson County Assessors Map 39-1E-09BC. LET IT BE KNOWN' that Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. is the duly authorized representative of Sidney DeBoer the owner of record of the above described real property and applicant for a Physical & Environmental Constraints permit on the above described real property. By this instrument, Sidney DeBoer hereby authorizes Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. to perform in his name all acts procedurally required in co~iunction with the Physical & Environmental Constraints permit, building permits and such other land use and development applications and permits on the above described property as may be required by and through the City of Ashland as legal prerequisites to actual development of the real property herein above described. THIS LIMITED AND SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY shall be used for only the limited and special purposes above described and shall not be used to buy, sell or convey any part or any interest whatsoever in this or any other land owned by Sidney DeBoer. THIS LIMITED AND SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY has been expressly authorized by the undersigned record owner and shall expire on August 30, 2004, but may be extended by the mutual consent of the: parties. ';4a Done and dated this :~<. y of g'idney~lSe--~oer ' . ,2003. ._~ ~;! RESIDENCE ASHLAND, OREGON OgdenKistter Architecture*'* / / DeBOER RESIDENCE VISTA STREET Architecture*'A / / / / ?' / / ?' DeBOER I I 0gdenKistier RESIDENCE ArchitectureS'* ASHLAND, OREGON N aellS!~ldep60 u~oaoa ~ 0 ,allS!~ldep60 '1 i i /?o JellS!~ld;~p60 ! i J F} ..... T'i-"}'-~'- "= i j ii[ ....... L/ ii i I N I I i dellS!~ldeP60 i " j / / I -----"7 03 DeBOER OgdenKistLer · RESIDENCE A~'c~t¢ctu-rd'" ~ ASHLAND, OREGON ~'"~. ~ I~li~ ,, {{ { DeBOER RESIDENCE ASHLAND, OREGON OgdenKistLer Architecture~ I I I I1~ DeBOER RESIDENCE ASHLAND, OREGON Architecture~ / / e DeBOER OgdenKist[er RESIDENCE ArchJ[tecture~ ASHLAND, OREGON RESIDENCE Architecture'~ .,,, ASHLAND, OREGON .,~-'~. "'""'-'=~. ,~. J~, i~J ..... J .Z3~ / ~j I r ~ J l'.~ "1 RESIDENCE / Arch:itecture'~ h"!~i ~ -' '1~ . I ^s,mg.o,,,o, / ~'-'-';~- '1 RESIDENCE Architecture~ ASHLAND, OREGON ~~~ RESIDENCE Arch~[tecturc*~ ASHLAND, OREGON .... I~.z.~i~l I z_ :. lli , Iii O ~ RESIDENCE Architecture*' ,_.%, ASHLAND, OREGON ,.~="'~ m ,,~""~ . RESIDENCE Architecture~ I ~ I I ~ ASHLAND, OREGON li!llllll~Jiil [ii 11!!1[~ :::i:~:: Jif'! DeBOER RESIDENCE ASHLAND, OREGON Hardey Engineering & As~ochttes, Inc. /t ,/ /,. / i~ lit ./ . / / / / / / / :[ DeBOER RESIDENCE ASHLAND, OREGON Jl Jl i T ,,/ /': / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / DeBOER RESIDENCE ASHLAND, OREGON Associates, Inc. .I ! DeBOER RESIDENCE ASHLAND, OREGON IHardey E=nglneerlng & Associates, Inc. M · I IiI~!i · -ii.l · Il'IT N,I,t,!.t4.I,I,tCc1444+I4~ ~l DeBOER RESIDENCE ASHLAND, OREGON ~J o Z I I I I Grandvlew Ashland Oregon KENCAII~I E~RO~",am'~. DESIGN, ASLA ~ ~ A~hland Oregon -~ 'J JiJ'l'l'~ ,~li~l ,J itl ,J,, J ti, J ~Jtl..,' l lt~ fim,,l l! !-Ii · -: Il I llJ %' DeBoer Residence Glenvlew Ashland Oregon KEt, ICAIRN ENVIRgt4'IENTAL DESIGN, ASLA I ,,,,~1, tis [[ ~'~tl[ [ III!!11 I! ill]i !I I I~ :il,,:. ::u,: ,,,t~ :" .1:ttI, I ,..[ l, ~ ~{Irl:li{i'mii~Fqi:l:? Ill ::~ll:].,I '::ti:ll'lli} 'I I:,,.[.11 dj, .i,i I.. ".J ~ ,,I, ~'~'ll':I l.l[l':' "''I ~ j,:~ t i I' "i~. ,....,,,., il.,, ,I, . ~ I 1...I I, !illli: "'"' ' :". ~!:~I~ Ill i ._ ,~ .., ..... .. , .1 t~,.. ~ :,,,:: 1~~I!1 Il..,.: ..~ 1,,, ~ i tl :i Il, Ill.flirt ~ : , : ,. : , il j., , : I. :: ..: :.. ,:::,i, ' ,t .,,,~.,~i,,l,..b,.:,l~ ~[[t!i,: l lll~ll~:i' }'t?[i~ iilil i l:l~ [} Ill Iii:" billtt,j I I,'B .1:::, ,,,I: l J !I ,t ..t, l.l, : .Il. J 1, ,' '"., il. :" ' ' l: , '; I:l, ,, Il t,. [.il J, Jltl :, I I [l|i ~! DeBOER RESIDENCE ASHLAND, O R E C-. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -K ~ J OgclenKistter Architecture'~ DeBOER RESIDENCE ASHLAND, OREGON Ogd_enKistl. er Architecture~ II Ill '[ DeBOER RESIDENCE ASHLAND, OREGON OgdenKist[er _A_~'c~itccturc~ ;j t DeBOER I 0gdenKist[er ~ RESIDENCE ~cl~t¢cture~ DeBOER RESIDENCE ASHLAND, OREGON 0gd_enKistler .A,j-chJt¢ctu~e~ ii1 DeBOER OgdenKistler ~ RESIDENCE Architecture~ L A~HLA~D, Of~E~l~ C~,.Mmm~ .uem~K.-mmma iim~ Ii t ./ ...... jil~ ,- DeBOER OgdenKistJer ~ RESIDENCE Arc]hitecture'~ DeBOER I OgdenKistLer RESIDENCE A3chitecture~' ~SHL~O. O.EC, ON ~ DeBOER 0g(~enKistLer RESIDENCE Architecture~ ASHLAND, OREGON DeBOER RESIDENCE 0gdenKistIer Architecture~ RESIDENCE A~chitecture~ ~J ~ ~.~ II1, ~ I~ ! II II)1 '-.~ ~ (~! ti ! ; I ~, I ~ / !lll~ "~ ~ " // /Il/ ~11~%~ I , ~ t..l. ,: . i I l l DeBOER OgdenKistter RESIDENCE A~clfitecture~ DeBOER OgdenKistLer ~~ RESIDENCE Architecture~ .A~HL~D. 0.~. ~"'-~..~ ; DeBOER 0gdenKistler J ~ RESIDENCE A~'(:~tectur~ ASHLAND, OREGON .... DeBOER OgdenKistl. er ~ RESIDENCE A~chitecture'~ !1 ;/ R -- DeBOER RESIDENCE ASHLAND, OREGON Ogd_enKistter _A~:chitecture~ DeBOER RESIDENCE ASHLAND, OREGON OgdenKist[er Architecture~'~ DeBOER OgdenKist[e~r~ ~ RESIDENCE Architecture" ASHI~ID. OI~OON .... DeBOER RESIDENCE ASHLAND, OREGON OgdenKistler Architecture~ fi ~$HI_AND, ORFGON OgdelnKistler ~ At' hiite '" c cture ITl ~ ~1~ DEBOER OgdenKi,tler (~ ~. RESIDENCE Architecture^'~ ~) ~ ASHLAND, OREGON RESIDENCE Architecture ASHLAND, OREGON DeBOER RESIDENCE ASHLAND, OREGON 0gdenKist[er Architecture~ DeBOER: Ogd_enKistter ' .-'?.~.~. I RESIDENCE A~chitecture ASHLAND, OREGON ~ =~: .z ---='~-- A mrh ein Associates, Inc. SITE EVALUATION AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PROPOSED DeBOER RESIDENCE 265 GLENVIEW DRIVE ASHLAND, OREGON July 20, 2003 Prepared for: Sid and Karen DeBoer 234 Vista Street Ashland, OR 97520 Prepared by: Amrhein Associates, Inc. 804 Roca Street Ashland, OR 97520-3318 Project No. OK57-02.01 ~$EP ~ ZOO3 Sep-02-03 11:14A Amrhein Associates, Inc. 541 482-67'50 .I P.02 Amrhein Associates, Inc. MARK J. AMRHEIN, P.E. PRESIDENT I SENIOR ENGINEER Mr. Amrhein is a professional civil (geotechnical) and environmental engineer with over 20 years of experience. He is the president and senior engineer for Amrhein Associates, Inc. During the last 6 years he was also working under contract with the City of Grants Pass managing the operations, permitting and capital projects ctesign ancl construction for the Merlin Landfill in Josephine County. Prior to that, Mr. Amrhein was the Director of Engineering for the Medford office of EMCON, a national environmental engineering company. He also practiced foundation and geotechnical engineering in Seattle for 5 years where he completed over 100 projects. Areas of Expertise · Conducting geotechnical engineering studies for residential, commercial, industrial, public and medical facilities, bridges, roadways, and other structures · Conducting slope stability and landslide evaluations · Providing retaining wall and shoring recommendations · Providing design recommendations for pile foundations · Permitting, design, construction and operation of solid waste landfills · Design and operation of leachate and groundwater treatment systems · Assisting sites through the environmental permitting process EDU(~ TION Bach.d~ of Scimcc, Civil Engineering Cali£ State University, L~g Beach bk~r of I.;.~,m~rm& Civil (Cmo[edmical) REC, I,~TRA TiON l~ofmsional F. ngjm~x Or~ott Civil & EnVu~umu~l W&.~ml~cm. Civil Member, Atmmcan Soci~.y of Civil Eng~eem Member, Nati~ud Society of Pr~. Fag C~tdlcd Iandfill Ol~'~or, SWANA YEAIi~S 01" E~'PERIENCE: 20 Project Experience Garfield Street Affordable Housing, Ashland, OR - Foundation investigation Ashland Surgery Center, Ashland, OR - Drilled Pier Foundation City of Ashland Guanajuato Way Stairs, Ashland, OR - Design recomrnen~lations Medical Office Building for Mahar Homes, Medford, OR - Foundation investigation Medical Office Building for Delgado Design, Ashland OR - Foundation investigation Wolf Creek Culverts, BLM, Me(fiord District - Foundation investigation Fishhook Road stabilization, BLM, Medford District - Foundation investigation Applegate Way Office/Warehouse Building, Ashland, OR - Foundation investigation Shucks Auto Supply, Medford, OR - Foundation investigation Rogue Valley Manor, Medford III Senior Apts., Medford, OR - Foundation investigation Rogue Waste Truck Wash, Medford, OR - Foundation investigation & sewer connection Courtyard by Marriott, Southcenter, WA - Timber pile supported Weyerhaeuser Planer Facility, Aberdeen, WA - Heavy loads, timberpile supported Northwest Kidney Center, Seattle, WA - Spread ~ootings. shored excavation Lakeside School Math & Science Building, Seattle, WA - Spread footings University Presbyterian Church, Seattle, WA - Soil nailing shored excavation Alverson Street Bridge, Everett, WA - Differing pile types support Univ. of Wash. Power Plant Stack, Seattle, WA - Augetcast pile support Pacific Northwest Research Foundation, Seattle, WA - Shored foundation excavation Amrhein Associates, Inc. 804 Roca Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520-3318 (541) 482-6680 SEP 3 2003 Sid & Karen DeBoer DeBoer Residence, 265 Glenview Drive July 20, 2003 Project No: OK57-02.01 SITE EVALUATION AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT DeBOER'RESIDENCE 265 GLENWlEW DRIVE ASHLAND, OREGON The engineering material and data contained in this Geotechnical Engineering Report were prepared under the supervision and direction of the undersigned, whose seal as a registered professional engineer is affixed below. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report have been prepared in conformance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. No other warranty, either expressed or implied, is made or intended. Amrhein Associates, Inc. ~lraers~ dJ~ n'~3~S ee2?(~ rP~:En ~ i n e er ~,,,o.0~,.03 ii ~,.'~.~ amrhein Associates. Inc. Sid & Karen DeBoer DeBoer Residence, 265 Glenview Drive Table of Contents July 20, 2003 Project No: OK57-02.01 1 2 3 4 5 SUMMARY ................................................................................. 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .........................................................2 SITE CONDITIONS ................................................................... 2 3.1 Surface Conditions .......................................................... 2 3.2 Subsurface Conditions .................................................... 2 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................... 3 4.1 Site Preparation ............................................................... 3 4.2 Shallow Foundations ....................................................... 3 4.3 Slab-on-Grade Floors ...................................................... 4 4.4 Temporary Slopes and Cuts ............................................ 4 4.5 Retaining Wall Design Criteria ........................................ 5 4.5.1 Active Earth Pressures ......................................... 5 4.5.2 Surcharge Loading ............................................... 6 4.5.3 Passive Earth Resistance .....................................6 4.5.4 Tieback Anchor Recommendations ...................... 7 4.5.5 Retaining Wall Backfill .......................................... 8 4.6 Structural Fill ................................................................... 9 4.7 Permanent Slopes ........................................................... 10 4.8 Rockeries ........................................................................ 10 4.9 Drainage Considerations ................................................. 11 4.10 Erosion Control Measures ............................................... 11 4.10.1 Temporary Erosion Control Measures ............... 11 4.10.2 Permanent Erosion Control Measures ............... 12 12 INSPECTION SCHEDULE Figures Figure 1 - Site and Exploration Plan Figure 2 - Footing Overexcavation Details Figure 3 - Cantilever or Single Row Tiebacks Design Criteria and Lateral Pressures Figure 4 - Rockery Details Figure 5 - Erosion Control Details Appendices Appendix A - Subsurface Exploration Procedures and Logs Ceo-~,,ro.06~803 iii ,~ ~, ~ Amrhein Associates, Inc. Sid& Karen DeBoer 265 Glenview Drive July 20, 2003 Project No: OK57-02.01 1.0 SUMMARY The proposed residence is to be located at 265 Glenview Drive in Ashland, Oregon. The proposed residence is feasible with respect to the subsurface and slope conditions at the site. A brief summary of the projects' geotechnical considerations is presented below. The site was moderately sloping with grades ranging from 20 to 35 percent. An existing residence occupie,d part of the proposed site and the remainder of the area vegetated with vinca major ground cover. Subsurface conditions in the proposed building area consisted of medium dense, silty sand fill and weathered decomposed granite soil with trace organics overlying very dense decomposed granite. The fill depth encountered in the test holes rangled from 7.5 to 8.5 feet. No indications of slope movement or faulting were observed at or above the site. We recommend the houses be supported on shallow spread footings designed with a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 pounds per square foot for footings founded on native,, undisturbed, very dense decomposed granite. Much of the fill will be removed with the excavation of the house. Any areas still underlain by fill should be overexcavated and backfill with crushed rock or lean mix concrete. Cantilevered retaining walls or retaining walls with one row of tiebacks supporting the moderate site slopes should be designed for a lateral equivalent fluid pressure of 45 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for flexible walls. Surcharge and seismic loadings should also be added to this lateral force. The tieback anchors will be drilled into the slope and the steel tendons grouted in place with an allowable soil/concrete adhesion of 1,000 psf. These pressures assume that the wall backfill is clean, granular, free-draining material. The site soils are extremely prone to erosion. Erosion control measures should be implemented during construction and maintained until permanent vegetation has been established. Two primary erosion control measures are to minimize the area of disturbance as much as possible and to construct a silt fence downslope from the construction area. Exposed soil areas should be covered with plastic, mulch or straw prior to any precipiitation. This summary is presented for introductory purposes only and should be used in conjunction with the full text of this report. The project description, site conditions and detailed design recommendations are presented in the text of this report. The scope of work was completed within the constraints of the site and in accordance with our proposal. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Sid and Karen DeBoer, and their agents, for specific application for these projects in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. Gao-Report.061803 1 Amrhein Associates, Inc. Sid & Karen DeBoer 265 Glenview Drive July 20, 2003 Project No: OK57-02.01 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed residence is to be located at 265 Glenview Drive in Ashland, Oregon. The proposed project consists of the demolition of the existing house and the construction of a new, single-family residence in the area of the existing house and onto the adjacent slope to the east. We understand that structural retaining walls will be incorporated into the house design to support the slope above. In the event of any changes in the nature, loading, or location of the proposed house, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should be reviewed and modified, if necessary, to reflect those changes. 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS The site conditions were evaluated on June 6, 2003. The site was inw;stigated by hand drilling three test holes in order to observed soil material types and consistency. The surface and subsurface conditions are described below. The locations of the test holes are indicated on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 1. A description of the test hole drilling method and detailed interpretive logs are provided in Appendix A. 3.1 Surface Conditions The site was moderately sloping with slopes ranging from approximately 20 to 35 percent. An existing residence occupied part of the proposed site and the remainder of the area vegetated with vinca major ground cover. At the base of the .,;lope, and what will be the front of the house is a manicured lawn area. Several, large trees located on the slope had been recently cut down and their stumps remained on the slope. No surficial signs of slope movement were observed on or above the site. 3.2 Subsurface Conditions The site was covered with a topsoil layer of approximately 1.5 feet in depth. All the test holes encountered medium dense fill soils consisting of silty, fine sand with some roots. It is likely that this fill transitioned into the native, medium dense, weathered, decomposed granitic soil, but the similarity in density, color and gradation between the fill and the weathered granitic soil made this contact not discernable. -I-he fill depth ranged from 7.5 to 8.5 feet. Underlying the fill and weathered decomposed granitic soil, the test holes encountered very dense decomposed granite to their full depths ranging from 13.5 to 13.8 feet. We understand that a nearby domestic water well drilled for the existing house found granite to several hundred feet. Geo-Report.061803 2 Amrhein Associates, Inc. Sid & Karen DeBoer 265 Glenview Drive July 20, 2003 Project No: OK57-02.01 The subsurface conditions should be confirmed during construction by the geotechnical engineer in accordance with the construction inspection schedule described in Section 5.0. No expression of groundwater was seen at the site during our evaluation in June 2003. However, it may be possible that some perched zones with limited volumes of water may exist randomly in the upper soil stratums after extended periods of precipitation, especially atop thE; very dense, decomposed granite. It should be notedthat the level of groundwater may fluctuate due to variations in rainfall, season, site utilization and other factors. 4.0 CONCLUSIIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Site Preparation Prior to excavating the site for the foundation, erosion control measures should be implemented at the site as described in Section 4.10. The building footings should be excavated into the, very dense, decomposed granite. If the footing excavations do not extend into very dense material, they should be over-excavated and the material replaced as descriibed in Section 4.2. The floor slab areas, or any area to receive structural fill should be stripped of all topsoil and fill down to at least medium weathered, decomposed granitic soil. If the soils are not at least medium dense, they should be recompacted or removed and replaced with "structural fill" as described in Section 4.6. We recommend that the geotechnical engineer observe the subgrade prior to the forming for the building footings or placement of structural fill. The site soils are silty and therefore are prone to disturbance in wet site conditions. The contractor should minimize traffic on, prepared footing and floor slab subgrade areas. 4.2 Shallow Foundations The proposed structures may be supported by conventional shallow spread footings and continuous wall footings, founded on undisturbed dense to very dense native soil. The footings should not be set in or above uncontrolled fill. If overexcavation of the uncontrolled fill or lower density material is required, the overexcavation should be backfilled with compacted crushed rock or shale, or a lean concrete mix. The lateral limits of the overexcavation below the footings is shown on Figure 2. All footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches. The base of exterior footings should be located at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent ground surface or top of floor slab, for frost protection. Interior footings may penetrate 12 inches below the lowest surrounding grade or slab surface. Based upon these conditions, we recommend that tlhe footings be designed with a maximum allowable bearing pressure Geo-Report.061803 3 Amrhein Associates, Inc. Sid& Karen DeBoer 265 Glenview Drive July 20, 2003 Project No: OK57-02.01 of 4,000 pounds per square foot (psf). The allowable loads may be increased by up to one-third to accommodate seismic or transient loads. As the silty site soils are moisture sensitive, site work in the presence of water or during wet weather would disturb the bearing strata. The contractor should avoid disturbance of these soils and limit traffic areas the building pads and foundation areas during wet weather. To minimize disturbance associated with formwork and reinforcement bar placement, the use of a "mud mat" or crushed rock blanket may be required. Assuming the foundation elements are founded on the prescribed bearing strata, we anticipate that the total settlements should be less than :¼-inch with differential settlements on the order of half of that total. Most of the settlement should occur during the construction of the buildings. If any disturbed or soft materials area left within the footing areas prior to concrete placement, settlements may be increased. For that reason, tlhe condition of the footing subgrades should be observed prior to concrete placement, to confirm the condition of the bearing soils are consistent with those assumed during design. 4.3 Slab-on-Grade Floors Any slab-on-grade subgrade should be prepared in accordance with Section 4.1, Site Preparation. The slab-on-grade floors should be founded on undisturbed native soil or properly compacted structural fill (Section 4.6',). We recommend that the floor slab be underlain by a minimum of a 6-inch thickness of clean, crushed rock, washed rock or pea gravel to serve as a capillary break and working surface. An impervious moisture barrier (plastic sheeting) should also be placed beneath the slabs. 4.4 Temporary Slopes and Cuts Temporary excavation slope stability is a function of many factors including soil type, density, cut inclination, depth, the presence of groundwater and the length of time that the cut is to remain open. As a cut is deepened, or as the length of time the excavation is open increases, the likelihood of bank failures increases. For this reason, temporary slope safety should remain the responsibility of the contractor, who is present at the site and able to observe changes in the site soil conditions and monitor thE; performance of the excavation. A maximum temporary slope of 1H:IV in soil is recommended for planning purposes. If seepage is observed exiting the slope face, flatter slopes will be necessary. It may also be necessary for the contractor to install temporary shoring with raking braces to support cuts that cannot be flattened to a safe slope. The construction contract should include provisions for protection of the existing structures or roads which are satisfactory to the owner, architect, structural engineer and geotechnical engineer, but in addition, the contractor should be allowed to implement additional protective measures, if appropriate, depending on conditions disclosed in the Geo-Repod.061803 4 Amrhein Associates, Inc. Sid & Karen DeBoer 265 Glenview Drive July 20, 2003 Project No: OK57-02.01 excavations once construction is underway'. In any case, cut slopes should conform to applicable federal,, state and/or local safety' guidelines. 4.5 Retaining Wall Design Criteria 4.5.1 Active Earth Pressures Design of temporary retaining wall could be based on either "active" or "at rest" lateral earth pressures, depending on the degree of deformation of the retaining wall which can be tolerated. Retaining walls that are free to deform on the order of 0.001 to 0.002 times the height of the retaining wall is considered to be capable of mobilizing active earth pressures. Active earth pressures are typically used for retaining wall adjacent to streets, alleys, and vacant lots, unless settlement-sensitive utilities are located in close proximity to the cut face. If no structural elements are, located within this zone, or if structural elements within the zone are considered to be insensitive to this degree of settlement, then it would be appropriate to design utilizing active earth pressures. An assumed "at rest" earth pressure condition theoretically assumes no movement of the soil behind thE; retaining wall, however, some settlement should realistically be anticipated due to the construction practices and/or the fact that it is not possible to construct a perfectly stiff retaining wall system. "At-rest" earth pressures are typically used for retaining wall adjacent to buildings or other settlement-sensitive features. We understand that the proposed retaining wall will accommodate this amount of deformation and tlherefore will have active lateral pressures acting on the wall. This lateral deformation is likely to be accompanied by vertical settlement of roughly up to 0.005 times the height of the retaining wall, which may extend from the side of the cut a distance equal to roughly the height of the cut. Lesser amounts of settlement may also occur within a setback extending twice as far. Any greater amount of lateral deformation could allow greater vertical settlements. Utilities oriented perpendicular to the retaining wall is often particularly sensitive to lateral retaining wall deformation. It is presently anticipated that most retaining wall on the project will utilize either cantilever retainin~g walls or a single row of tiebacks. For the case of a cantilevered retaining wall system, or retaining wall with only one level of tieback anchors, the applied lateral earth pressure would be represented by a triangular pressure distribution termed an equivalent fluid pressure (EFP). Figure 3 of this report illustrates the recommended pressure distribution. Pressures are presented for a flat backslope considering the driveway and street located behind the proposed wall. If alternate backslopes are proposed, AAI should be consulted for appropriate design recommendations. Geo-Report.061803 5 Amrhein Associates, Inc. Sid& Karen DeBoer 265 Glenview Drive July 20, 2003 Project No: OK57-02.01 4.5.2 Surcharqe Loadinq In addition to the lateral pressures discussed above, the effect of surcharge pressures from vehicles on the driveway and street, or construction stockpiles or equipment adjacent to the excavation must be considered in the design of retaining wall. Street surcharges are typically modeled as a uniform pressure on the retaining wall, equivalent to the lateral pressure caused by a 2-foot soil surcharge, as shown on Figure 3. Surcharge pressures due to footings located behind the wall can be determined by the method shown on Figure 3c, and should be added to the active equivalent fluid earth pressures described above. The structure should be designed to resist seismic forces due to earthquakes. The U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) developed shaking-hazard maps in 1996 that provide estimated accelerations for different size earthquakes based upon the probability that that earthquake may occur. In addition, the USGS has developed these shaking- hazard maps for different period spectral accelerations. These different period spectral accelerations are typically used for deeper soft soils or taller buildings. Since the site is basically on bedrock and is a relatively small building (less than 7 stories), we recommend that the peak ground accelerations provided by the USGS. be used. The probability that a particular earthquake and that its peak acceleration may be exceeded is based upon an estimated return period for that earthquake. For instance, considering the probability of an acceleration being exceeded over the next 50 years is 10%, the peak acceleration would be 0.137g ( g being the acceleration due to gravity). Another way of expressing this would be that a 0.137g acceleration would be exceeded only once every 475 years. The appropriate peak ground acceleration for this site may be selected from the following options: Probability of Peak Ground Estimated Return Exceedance Acceleration Period 10% in 50 yrs. 0.137g 475 year's 5% in 50 yrs. 0.187g 975 year's 2% in 50 yrs. 0.268g 2,475 years 4.5.3 Passive Earth Resistance Resistance to lateral earth pressures acting on retaining wall could be obtained by passive resistance in front of the toe of the retaining wall and friction along the bottom of the retaining wall footing, as well as the tieback soil anchors discussed below. A value for the allowable passive earth resistance of 400 pcf may be assumed for each foot of penetration below the ground surface. This assumes that there are no excavations in front of the toe of the wall for a distance of 3 times the footing depth or Geo-Repod.061803 6 Amrhein Associates, Inc. Sid & Karen DeBoer 265 Glenview Drive July 20, 2003 Project No: OK57-02.01 that any excavation has been backfilled with at least a lean mix concrete. An allowable wall base friction value of 0.45 is recommended. This assumes that the concrete makes intimate co~ntact with the soil. 4.5.4 Tieback Anchor Recommendations The following geotechnical design criteria relates primarily to the retaining wall tiebacks. Permission of adjacent property owners to install tiebacks on the proPerty appears necessary for a tieback supported system, or open-cut slopes extending outside the property line. We recommend that the tiebacks be installed from a bench cut at the appropriate elevation to allow for easy access by the drilling equipment. The drill rig and the materials ~necessary to construct the tiebacks will not be able to access the tieback locations if the excavation is completed to its full depth prior to tieback installation. The anchor portion of the tieback must be fully located a sufficient distance behind the retaining wall to develop resistance within a stable soil mass. We recommend the anchorage be attained behind an assumed failure plane that is formed by a 60 degree angle from the base of the excavation and set back from the retained excavation face for a horizontal distance of 0.25 times the height of the wall, as shown on Figure 3. The zone in front of the above-described plane is called the "no load zone". The limits of this zone are based upon placing the anchors beyond the active wedge of soil pushing against the wall. An anchor located within this wedge would only be carried forward by the soil wedge and offer no resistance. At some locations, it may be necessary to install tiebacks to greater lengths than indicated by the above-described zone, in order to reach adequate soil for anchorage. The anchor portion of the tieback should be a minimum length of 15 feet, located fully behind the "no-load zone". The tieback anchors should be a minimum diameter of 6 inches. All permanent tiebacks must be protected against erosion. The steel tendons or rods will tend to corrode as a result of the acidity of the soil and any stray electric currents present in the soil. The steel within the grouted anchor is protected by the surrounding grout. The steel tendon should be placed in the hole with centralizers to ensure the bar in properly centered and completely encased in grout. Protection of the steel rod in the "no load zone" most often consists of using epoxy-coated steel or sliding a plastic sheath down the tendon and filling the sheath with grease or grout as protection and as a bond breaker. The tendon holes outside the plastic sheathing should immediately backfilled to prevent possible collapse of the holes, loss of ground and surface subsidence. We recommend that the backfill consist of a sand or a weak, sand/cement grout. We recommend the tendons should be protected and the holes backfilled only after the anchor has been proof tested. However, if hole collapse, loss of ground, or subsidence becomes evident, the holes should be completely backfilled immediately. Anchor holes should be drilled in a manner that will minimize loss of ground and not disturb previously installed anchors. During the drilling, caving could occur if loose, wet, Geo-Report.061803 7 Amrhein Associates, Inc. Sid & Karen DeBoer 265 Glenview Drive July 20, 2003 Project No: OK57-02.01 or saturated zones are encountered. Such conditions are not anticipated on this project site. Drilling with a continuous-flight auger or a casing would reduce the potential for loss of ground. The designers and/or retaining wall subcontractor should particularly note the presence of existing facilities adjacent to the project site, including buried utilities and foundations, as these may affect the location or extent of tlhe anchor holes. The design for anchor locations, capacities and related criteria, should be reviewed by AAI prior to implementation. In addition, selected tieback anchor installations should be subject to performance testing, field anchor tests, and proof loading. Use of the design value presented herein is dependent on a well-constructed anchor. We recommend that concrete be placed in the drilled tieback anchor hole by tremie methods such as pumping through a hose placed in the bottom of the hole or pumping through the center of a continuous-flight auger. In this way, the grout is forced up through the anchor zone under pressure, with the resulting anchor more likely to be continuous. The grout should not be placed into the anchor zone by siimple gravity methods such as falling down a chute. We recommend that AAI continuously monitor all tieback installation. For a tieback retaining wall system, we recommend an allowable conc~'ete-soil adhesion for preliminary anchor design of 1000 psf could be used for the dense to very dense decomposed granite. Tieback adhesion capacities presented above are preliminary estimates based on the soils conditions encountered in the borings, and previous tieback load tests on similar soils. We recommend that one 200-percent tieback capacity test be completed prior to installation of production tiebacks. Acceptance criteria should state that the 200-percent test load must be held for 30 minutes with less than 0.01 inch of creep. In addition, all tiebacks should be proof loaded to at least 150 percent of design capacity and held for five minutes with less than 0.01 inch of creep. The tieback testing program should be monitored by AAI. We understand that the tie back tendon rods 'will be tied into the retaining walls as integral components of the retaining wall's steel reinforcing. Due to this likely structural detail and the necessity of backfilling the wall after concrete placement, no post- construction loading of the tiebacks will be possible. 4.5.5 Retaininq Wall Backfill All backfill placed behind the walls or around foundation units should be placed in accordance with our recommendations for structural fill. The above lateral earth pressures, are based upon granular backfill and no buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. To minimize lateral earth pressure and prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressures, the wall backfill should consist of free-draining, !granular material with drainage provisions as discussed in Section 4.9, Drainage Considerations. Ideally all backfill behind the retaining walls should be free-draining, angular gravel or washed rock, however at a minimum, the thickness of the gravel drainage material should be at least 24-inches against the wall. Geo-Repod.061803 8 Amrhein Associates, Inc. Sid & Karen DeBoer 265 Glenview Drive July 20, 2003 Project No: OK57-02.01 If silty soils are used as backfill behind the wall, far greater lateral pressures can be expected to act on the wall. It is difficult to evaluate what lateral earth pressures will actually be imposed on the retaining wall due to the lower permeability silty backfill. The density of the soils, as well as the moisture content plays a significant role. If much of the soil material is loose, the soil will readily absorb and become a saturated mass, even further increasing wall pressures. Also, the fines can plugged the footing drain itself, which may allow full hydrostatic pressures to develop. The soil pressure and water pressure are additive and can approximately triple the total lateral-pressure against the wall. 4.6 Structural Fill All fill placed in the building area, including under concrete slab-on-grade and the driveway, and the backfill behind structural retaining walls should be placed in accordance with the recommendations for structural fill. All surfaces to receive fill should be prepared as previously recommended. Structural fill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 12 inches in thickness. Individual lifts should be compacted such that a density of at least 90 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM:D 1557) is achieved. We recommend that a representative of the geotechnical engineer be present during placement of structural fill to observe the work and perform a representative number of in-place density tests. In this way, the adequacy of the earthwork may be evaluated as grading progresses. The suitability of soils used for structural fill depends primarily on the soil particle size gradation and moiisture content of the soil when it is placed. As the amount of fines (that portion passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve) increases, the soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. Soil containing more than about 5 percent fines by weight, when measured against the minus No. 4 sieve fraction, cannot be compacted to a firm and non-yielding condition when the moisture content is about 2 percent above optimum. If needed, the use of clean, granular soil would expedite wet weather construction. The site soils, except for the topsoil, can be used for structural fill purposes. The silty sand soil contains fines and should be considered moisture sensitive. It will most effectively be used during the dry summer months when the water content may be carefully controlled. In all cases, site soils or soil imported to the site to be used for structural fill should have a maximum particle size on the order of 8 inches and be free of organics and other deleterious material. If inclement weather occurs during grading, the upper wetted portion of the subgrade may need to be scarified and dried prior to further earthwork. If it is not practical to dry the wet, silty soils, it may be more expedient to remove the wet materials and replace them with dry soil. Geo-Reporl.061803 9 Amrhein Associates, Inc. Sid & Karen DeBoer 265 Glenview Drive July 20, 2003 Project No: OK57-02.01 4.7 Permanent Slopes We recommend that permanent cut and fill slopes be designed for a maximum inclination of 1-1/2H:1V, but these steeper slopes must be covered with topsoil and erosion control matting installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. The erosion control matting may be eliminated for '.slopes less than 2H:IV. The maximum fill slope height should not exceed 20 feet. The top of all slopes greater than 6 feet in vertical height should be protected from runoff be diversion berms or swales. Permanent fill slopes should be constructed in accordance with our recommendations for structural fill. The surface of the fill slope should compacted to the same 90 percent density (ASTM:D 1557) as the body of the fill. This may be accomplished by overbuilding the embankment and then cutting if back to its compacted core or compacted the surface of the fill as its is constructed. If the fill is being, placed on a slope, the fill should be keyed and benched into the slope with a series of stair stepping benches. The material can be most effectively compacted on the level bench. The bottom key should be a horizontal cut at least 6 feet in width. Each horizontal bench should be cut at least 4 feet into the native soil. All slopes should be protected from runoff be diversion berms or swales. The surface of the slopes should be covered with topsoil and protected by the erosion control measures discussed in Section 4.10. 4.8 Rockeries Rockeries, or stacked rock walls, may be used to face stable cut or fill slopes. Rockeries should be constructed no greater than 5 feet in height. If more than one rockery is to be used for greater heights, each rockery must be set back at least 3 feet horizontally from the top of the lower rockery. Rockeries should be constructed of sound, durable rock with a batter no steeper than 6V:IH. The bottom course of each rockery should be founded at least medium dense native or fill soil and set into a 6-inch deep "key". The long dimension of the rock should be set perpendicular to the wall face. A minimum 4-inch diameter perforated pipe should be installed behind the first rockery course and be fully embedded in washed rock or pea gravel. The drain line should discharge into the storm drainage system or other suitable discharge point. As the large rocks are being placed, free- draining crushed rock (1 to 4 inches in size) should be placed behind the rockery to provide for drainage and prevent soil migration through the rockery. The top foot of the wall may be backfilled with native or topsoil for vegetation and prevent direct communication of surface water on the terrace into the rock backfill. Typical details for rockery construction are shown on Figure 4. Geo-Report.061803 10 Amrhein Associates, Inc. Sid& Karen DeBoer 265 Glenview Drive July 20, 2003 Project No: OK57-02.01 Although commonly used to face cut slopes in this area, it should be noted that rockeries are not truly engineered structures such as a retaining wall. The primary function is to face stable slopes and protect from erosion and sloughing at a relatively Iow cost. It also should be realized that rockeries, even when properly constructed, can lose rocks and need maintenance. 4.9 Drainage Considerations During periods of high precipitation, seepage zones may develop randomly in the cut faces. Any seepage should be routed away from the construction and building area as much as possible. We recommend that the house be provided with a permanent footing drain system to collect any available water. The footing drains should consist of at least 4-inch diameter perforated pipe surrounded by at least 4 inches of pea gravel on all sides. The drain pipe should be at least schedule 40 PVC in order to avoid crushing during backfill placement and to allow for future cleanout by jetting or mechanized snaking. The drain pipe should lead away from the house via gravity to the storm water system or other suitable discharge. Site grades should be planned to slope away from the house. Roof and surface runoff should not discharge into the footing drain system; instead a separate tight line drain system should be installed or splash blocks should be used. 4.10 Erosion Control Measures Erosion control measures should be implemented to limit and control the erosion as a result of the proposed development. The erosion and sedimentation process is a natural process wlhereby particles of soil are loosened from the soil and vegetation matrix and carried down by water. Construction and land disturbance can increase the rate of erosion above natural background levels by several hundred percent. Good erosional control practices during construction can significantly reduce the erosion process during and after construction. However even with the best erosion control practices, disturbed areas will produce more sediment than naturally vegetated, undisturbed areas. Typically the rate of erosion is highest during construction and improves significantly after the permanent erosion control measures are installed and vegetation becomes established. Over time with the establishment and maturing of vegetation and proper maintenance of the erosion control features, the rate of erosion can stabilize to near natural conditions. 4.10.1 Temporary Erosion Control Measures The following measures should be implemented during construction in order to best limit the rate of erosion from the site. Some erosion control measure details are shown on Figure 5. Geo-Report.061803 Amrhein Associates, Inc. Sid& Karen DeBoer 265 Glenview Drive July 20, 2003 Project No: OK57~02.01 Surface water from the project will flow toward lawn and landscaping onsite. No project site drainage is expected onto City streets. The following are some measures that should be implemented. 1) Minimize the disturbed area. The natural topsoil and root mat offer the best protection from erosion. 2) Shield the exposed soil from rainfall impact and hold soil particles i~r~ place. This should be done by protecting exposed or disturbed soils prior to rain by means of a complete layer of straw, erosion control matting, or plastic sheeting. 3) Construct a filter fabric fence downslope of the disturbed area to check the water velocity and to allow some sediment to be filtered out. It is best if the filter fabric fence allows for the slow release of water through the fabric. 4) Place a crushed rock pad for parking construction vehicles. This will prevent tires from becoming muddy and tracking the mud onto the street. 4.10.2 Permanent Erosion Control Measures The following permanent erosion control measures should be implemented and maintained at the site. 1) Surface water concentrations should be controlled by directing the flow to appropriate paths and structures. If surface water routes are not designed, water will create its own path sometimes across or into undesirable areas. 2) Maintain the soil's capacity to absorb water. Topsoil should be placed over the native soil after construction has been completed. Ground cover vegetation or bark/wood mulch should be used over new topsoil areas. 3) Implement a thorough maintenance and follow-up program. Maintenance of the erosion control measures is critical over the long term. The major reason for failure of erosion control measures is poor maintenance. 5.0 INSPECTION SCHEDULE The integrity of the site development, foundation support, retaining walll support, and pavement subgrade depends on proper site preparation and Construction procedures. It is recommended that a representative of the geotechnical engineer observe the construction at key times to determine the adequacy of construction as it progresses. It also allows the engineer to observe variations in the site and subsurface conditions, Geo-Report.061803 12 Amrhein Associates, Inc. Sid & Karen DeBoer 265 Glenview Drive July 20, 2003 Project No: OK57-02.01 and provide additional geotechnical recommendations to minimize delays as the project develops. The geotechnical engineer will be required by the City to verify that these items were observed and completed in general conformance with the plans and specifications. It should be made the contractor's responsibility to notify the engineer with at least 24 hours notice that each of the following items are ready to be observed. The key items are as follows: Temporary Erosion Control Measures - Prior to the start of site preparation and other earthwork, erosion control measures must be installed and observed by the engineer. · Subgrade Preparation - When any loose fill, topsoil or other soft or organic material has been removed and structural fill is ready to be placed. Structural Fill Placement - During placement of structural fill, a representative number of in-place density tests should be performed to verify the density and adequacy of the structural fill. · Footing Subgrades - Footing subgrades should be observed during or after reinforcement steel has been placed and prior to pouring concrete. Tieback Anchor Placement and Testing - During installation of the tieback anchors, performance testing and proof testing. In addition, the corrosion protection system installation and "no load zone" backfilling. Retaining Wall Backfilling - Prior to beginning of retaining wall backfill so that the drainage system can be verified. The acceptability of the drainage material should also be verified. A representative number of density tests should also be conducted during the backfill placement. Floor Slab Subgrade - Subgrades should be observed during or after reinforcement steel or mesh has been placed and prior to pouring concrete. Placement of the vapor barrier should also be verified. Geo-Repod.061803 13 Amrhein Associates, Inc. S3~lngl=l Limit of compocted rock fill replocement / / / / --~1II Limit of lean mix concrete replacement Firm,naUve soil DES Associates, Inc. I DATE Sid and Karen DeBoer 265 Glenvlew Drive N~hlancl, Oregon FOOTING OVEREXCAVATION DETAILS Final Grade (B) Uncontrolled fill to be removed and replaced FIGURE 2 Natural slope or 3' setback to next rockery-~ Min. ~z~ 6 1 to2 Topsoil or vegetative soil Free-draining angular rock Min. 6" height Washed rock or peagravel Min. 4" diam. erf. pipe slope to outlet) ~) 2) ~) 4) 5) IRockery should be founded on firm, undisturbed soil. The long dimension of all rocks shall be placed perpendicular to the wall. Each rock should bear on at least two rocks in tier below. Rock shall consist of sound, durable rock. Rockeries are erosion control structures, not retaining walls.. Cut face must be stable, and free standing. FIGURE · 4 Filter fabric material supported by wire mesh if necessary Bury bottom of fabric in 9" to 12" deep trench 6' Max. FILTER FABRIC SILT FENCE Attach filter fabric 3 places per post iiiii Anchor iiiii trenc _ 9" to 12_~ 2" by 2" wood stake or metal T stake 12" Coarse Rock Rocked Access Drive Amrfiein ~ Associates, Inc. DWN 265 Glenview Ddve -- Ashland, Oregon DES REV EROSION CONTROL DETAILS FIGURE 5 APPENDIX A SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROCEDURES AND LOGS Sid & Karen DeBoer 265 Glenview Drive July 20, 2003 Project No: OK57-02.01 APPENDIX A SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROCEDURES AN[) LOGS SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION The field exploration program conducted for this study consisted of three, hand-drilled test holes. The approximate exploration locations are shown on Figure 1, Site and Exploration Plan. The locations of the explorations were obtained in the field by measurement with a tape measure from existing fence lines and houses shown on the topographic survey. TEST HOLES The test holes were drilled and the soils logged by Mark Amrhein, P.E. on June 6, 2003. The drilling was accomplished by hand using a 2-inch diameter, bucket-type auger. Disturbed soil samples were obtained from the bucket auger continuously throughout the drilling process. The test hole logs presented in this appendix are based upon the field logs and inspection of the soil recovered. The relative soil densities indicated on the test hole logs are interpretive description based on the conditions observed during the drilling and hand probing with a ½" diameter steel rod down the holes. Test Hole TH-1 ..... DE.P'rH..(feet) ................................ S.O.!I~.S...D.ESCR!P.T!.O.N 0.0- 1.5 TOPSOIL 1.5 - 8.5 FILL - Medium dense, moist, brown, silty, fine SAND (likely transitioning to weathered decomposed granite soil) ' §'i"6 Z'"'~'~;'§ 5"~'E'~"~'~ §'~ ~'"'~'~'~'i"~i'~" Z"~'~~''8'~'~'~';''''8'~''~'~'; silty, fine SAND turning mottled gray & reddish-tan ~ 9.5' ~" diameter root ~ 10' ~ No caving of drilled hole TestHoles.061803 Amrhein Associates, Inc. Sid & Karen DeBoer 265 Glenview Drive July 20, 2003 Project No: OK57-02.01 Test Hole TH-2 DEPTH(feet) S0..!.LS...D.ES c RIp?!.O.N 0.0 - 1.5 TOPSOIL 1.5 - 7.5 FILL - Medium dense, moist, brown, silty, fine SAND (likely transitioning to weathered decomposed granite soil) 7.5 - 13.5 DECOMPOSED GRANITIC - Very dense, damp, mottled gray reddish-tan, silty, fine SAND No seepage noted No caving of drilled hole Test Hole TH-3 DEPTH (feet) ........ SOILS DESCRIPTION 0.0- 1.5 TOPSOIL SAND (likely transitioning to weathered decomposed granite soil) 8.5 - 13.8 DECOMPOSED GRANITIC - Very dense, damp, reddish-brown, silty, fine SAND turning mottled gray & reddish-tan @ 7.5' No caving of drilled hole TestHoles.061803 2 Amrhein Associates, Inc. reaTax Lots Urban Growth Boundary ms & Ditches S treams Ditches · Photograph Station Point Exhibit 4 Photographic Key Map Source: Jackson County GIS Services Sid DeBoer August 20, 2002 Craig A Stone & Associates, Ltd Medford, Oregon ~0 0 80 160 240 Feet SEP ~ 2003 Exhibit 4 1:215 Vista Street 2:225 Vista Street - Apartments 3:225 Vista Street 4: Alley Way - Ashland Spdngs Hotel' 5:264 Hargadine Street - Apartments Sidney and Karen DeBoer 6: Parking Lot ZOO3 Exhibit 4 7: Ravenwood Place - Condominiums 8:4 Hillcrest Street 9:1 Hillcrest Street 10:300 Vista 11: 1 Hillcrest Street Sidney and Karen De'Boer 12:110 Terrace Street SEP 2003 Exhibit 4 13:232 Vista Street 14: 205, 211 and 215 Glenview Drive 15:232 Viista Street 16:190 Vista Street 17:212 Vista Street Sidney and Karen DeBoer / / / / / HOFFBUHR & ASSOCIATES, INC. SURVEYORS/PLANNERS Seplvmber 2, 2003 Craig S(one 708 Cardley Ave. Medl'otd, ()r. 97504 RE: SID DEBOER PROJECT- Tax l,,:)ts 7200 & 7400 of Assessor's map 39 1E 09BC Al the request of Sid DeBoer, owner of the sul!ject tax lots, a topographic survey was' done on his property. Based on this survey an analysis was made of exisling l~altu'es, including the identification of older trees. The larger trees, due to their age, give evidence of what the actual historical ground elevation was, prior to more recent ground disturbance. A copy of the 1978 Ashland city aerial topographic map was also considered in this analysis. Based on the existing physical evidence available aud ~neast,'ements made. I have determined that the "Average" oriainal slope of the groin]d, at the propt~sed building site, is 28%. Darrell I~. ltuck 3155 Alameda Street, Suite 201 · Medford, OR 97504-8407 (541) 779-46411 FAX (541) 770-2573 SEP 2 2003 September 2, 03 City of Ashland Planning Department DeBoer Residence Ashland, Oregon Tree Inventory. and Mitigation Strate~ey The proposed redevelopment by the applicant at the intersection of Glenview and Vista is complicated by numerous tree issues. There were a number of trees removed from the property prior to this application, there are also a number of trees being proposed for removal, and then there are a number of trees to be preserved on properties that are or will become adjacent after the new lot division is finalized and a mitigation proposal. Trees removed nrior to this submittal There were a total of 7 trees removed from this site prior to this submittal. These trees are identified on Sheet L-3 in the graphic portion of the submittal package. Two of the removed trees were non regulated, (1 and 2) their removal not regulated by any ordinance:. Five of the trees were removed wrongfully (3 through 7) and the specifics of that situation are described below. Trees removed: 1. 6" Madrone - Arbutus menziesii 2. 36" Oak - Quercus kelloggii According to the Tree l~'emoval and Protection Plan (L-3) the 5 following trees require mitigation. 3. 18" Madrone - Arbutus menziesii 4. 18" Oak - Quercus kelloggii 5. 30" Madrone - Arbutus menziesii 6. 40" Madrone - Arbutus menziesii 7. 24" Madrone - Arbutus menziesii Due to a misunderstanding between the City of Ashland and the applicant, a number of trees were removed on the slope that would contain the proposed new structure. The trees were removed in anticipation of the adoption of the tree ordinance. The applicant had numerous conversations with staff at the City of Ashland over the removal of these trees,, and it was agreed that there were no restrictions on their removal. These conversations took place before it was understood that some of the trees were in slopes of greater than 25%, brining the trees under the jurisdiction of the hillside ordinance. Because the tree removal was in violation of the hillside ordinance, the following mitigation process has been proposed. The applicant is proposing mitigation for the tree removal at a rate of 2 trees for each wrongfully removed tree. The trees proposed for mitigation will be 2" to 2.5" caliper trees from Northwest Shade Tree. The applicant will provide the trees and have them delivered and planted at a public location designated by the tree commission. The applicant would also like to leave the species and variety choice up to the tree commission or the receiving public body. Trees proposed for removal - Non Regulated Referring to Sheet L-3 there are four trees proposed for removal that are non-regulated, they are within a private residential lot and are not on slopes exceeding 25%. The non-regulated trees proposed for removal include: 8. 6" Cedar- Calocedrus deccurrens 9. 30" Oak - Quercus kelloggii 10.6" Cedar- Calocedrus deccurrens 11.6" Cedar - Calocedrus deccurrens Trees proposed for removal - Hillside Lands Referring to Sheet L-3 there are two trees proposed for removal that are within the hiillside lands (slopes over 25%) and they will require a city permit for removal. The trees proposed for removal that are within hillside lands include: 12.6" Cedar - Calocedrus deccurrens 13.12" Pine - Ponderosa Pine These trees are healthy and the reason for removal is to facilitate the building project Trees proposed for removal - Within the City. of Ashland Right of Way Referring to Sheet L-3 there are three trees proposed for removal that are within the City of Ashland Right of Way, if this portion of the project moves forward a permit will be required to remove these tree. The trees proposed for removal that are within hillside lands include: 14.6" Oak - Quercus spp. 15. Oak Clump - Quercus spp. 16. 12" Oak - Quercus spp. These trees are the typical scrub oak seen throughout the Ashland area, they are not specimen trees and the chance of them ever truly contributing the overall canopy is small. Date Received CITY OF ASHLAND PLANNING APPLICATION Type ¢//%/19 '2~ File No. 2005 -/I g' Filin9 Fee / Zoning R-I-7.5 Comp Plan Designation Single Family Residential APPLICATION IS FOR: Receipt # [] Minor Land Partition [] Variance [] Conditional Use Permit [] Boundary Line Adjustment [] Outline Plan (# Units [] Final Plan [] Site Review [] AnneXation [] Zone Change [] Comp Plan ChaBge ~l'~Staff-Permit ?: [] Solar Waiver APPLICANT Application pertains to 18.6 2 chapter, section, subpart of the Ashland Municipal Code. Name Sidney and Karen DeBoer Phone Address 234 Vista Street PROPERTY OWNER Name Address S~dney and Karen DeBoer 234 Vista Street Phone SURVEYOR, ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Name Hoffbuhr & Associates Inc. Address3155 Alameds Street Suite 201 Medford OR 97504 (may need to use back page) Phone 779-4641 DESCRiPTiON OF PROPERTY Street Address 265 Glenview Drive Assessor's Map No. 39 1E 09BC Tax Lot(s). 7200 When was the above described property acquired by owner? Approx. 1993 On a separate sheet of paper, list any covenants, condition'.; or restrictions concerning use of property or improvements contemplated, as well as yard set-back and area or height requirements that were placed on the property by subdivision tract developers. Give date said restrictions expire. FINDINGS OF FACT Type your response to the appropriate zoning requirements on another sheet(s) of paper and enclose it with this form. Keep in mind your responses must be in the form of factual statements or findings of fact and supported by evidence. List the findinqs criteria and the evidence which supports it. ~, ~ ~" Ken Ogden OgdenKistler Architecture 2950 E. Barnett Rd Medford OR 97504 779-5237 Kerry KenCairn KenCairn Environmental Design, ASLA 545 'A' Street, Suite 3 Ashland OR 97520 (Landscape Architecutre & Environmen~lPlanning) Craig A. Stone & Associates Ltd. 708 Cardley Ave. Medford OR 97504 (Agent) I hereby certify that the statements and information contained/n 't~ds application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are/n all respects true and correct. / understand that a// property p/ns must be shown on the drawings and visible upon site inspect/on. /n the event the p/ns are not shown or their location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes furl responsibility. I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden wi//be on me to establish: 1) 2) 3) that / produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request; that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request; that the findings of fact furnished by' me are adequate; and further ,,,dj all "- ' .........or im, provements are properly '^ ~' '~ ¢uc¢~eu on the Fa//ure in this regard w/ii resu/t most//ke/y in not on/y the request being set as/de, but a/so possibly in any structures being bu//t in re//ance thereon be/n,g required to be removed at my expense, if / have any doubts, / am advised to seek competent profess/ona/ ad'v/ce and ass/stance. Applicants's Signature Date As owner of the property involved in this request, / have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property owner. Property Owner's Signature Date NOTICE: Section 15.04.240 of the Ashland Municipal ,Code prohibits the occupancy of a building or a release of utilities prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the Building Division AND the completion of all zoning requirements and conditions imposed by the Planning Commission UNLESS a satisfactory performance bond has been posted to ensure completion. VIOLATIONS may result in prosecution and/or disconnection of utilities. 265 GLENVIEW DRIVE PA2003-118 SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET E-MAlLS RECEIVED Susan yates- In Support of the DeBoer's house P~ge_l_~ From: To: Date: Subject: Randy and Linda Smith <aubreypub@charter.net> <awdb@aol.com> 4/5/2004 5:12:18 PM In Support of the DeBoer's house Dear Mayor and Council, We live at 3 Hillcrest St. (since 1989) just two houses above the DeBoer property and are writing in support of their application to tear down a house on Glenview and build a new, bigger home between Glenview and Vista. We can see a part of the subject property from our kitchen and backyard. Though physically close, we are not acquainted with Mr. and Mrs. DeBoer. We speak only to the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to build such a large house in the Historic District and not to the issues of hillside or trees--subjects on which we are not completely informed. The objection of some neighbors is understandable. No one looks forward to another year of construction raising dust and blocking traffic, and bad music played by contractors at loud volume. However, many of us have been guilty through our own remodeling projects of causing other neighbors temporary inconvenience. Adding a new theater at OSF, building a new library and fire station have likewise have recently inconvenienced this neighborhood. And although one can certainly react negatively to the idea of two people living in 11,000 sq. ft. it really isn't any of our business to try and make them live smaller. It would be as logical for someone appalled by my wife and I living in a 1000 sq. ft. to try and insist that we enlarge our home. Now, will this large structure negatively impact the Historic District? No one can make this argument successfully. It is a matter of opinion only. However, it seems to me, having walked extensively in Ashland's Historic District, what makes the district interesting is the variety of architectural styles, a mixture of sizes and the occasional white elephant. In historic districts around the country the unique home, the large mansion, the unusual architecture individualizes an area and is often a point of interest. Let's face it, Vista between Fork and Meade is not the best part of the Historic District to start with. The north side of the street is very unhistoric and one's attention, if looking north, is drawn to a couple of uninteresting rentals of newer vintage and an architectural mediocrity--the Ravenwood Condominiums. In fact, all one gets to look at are the roofs of these condos. The DeBoer's efforts so far have at least pulled the eye away from the north side of the street to their very nice restoration, plantings and stone wall on the south side. In addition, the house they intend to tear down is sticks out from the hillside like a sore thumb and is like most of the rest of the street, not historic. Having viewed their plans at the Historic Comission hearing, it appears that the new home is done in a traditional Craftsman design and will sit more into the hillside. It certainly is big but really not out of Susan ~a~i~'-~t~l~i~- of .............. the DeBoe~'~ ~U'~ ...... Page-~ scale when you measure it with the volume of the Ravenwood across the street. So unless there are statutory reasons that preclude the construction we feel you are obligated to approve the permit. Do we wish they weren't going to do this? Well sure. It's a large project in a small space and will be disruptive. When completed, however, it will certainly add to the history of the neighborhood. The only real benefit to us personally that we can see is that we will be able to tell visitors to up Vista to the DeBoer place and take the next right. Good luck, Randy and Linda Smith 3 Hillcrest St. Susan yates -_ FW: DeBoer Palace Page 1 i From: To: Date: Subject: Douglas Wood <dmjwood@charter.net> <council@ashland .or.us> 4/5/2004 5:16:43 PM FW: DeBoer Palace From: Douglas Wood <dmjwood@charter.net> Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 17:03:20 -0700 To: <cate@mind.net> Subject: DeBoer Palace Interesting that the City web site does not mention the de Boer Palace hearing tomorrow, & talks only of road repair on the agenda .... Could that possibly be just an oversight? Yes, I'm an affected neighbor, I live on Vista just across from 2 lovely (& appropriate for the locale) de Boer mansions, one historic, & one very new, much larger, but still undeniably an enhancement to the community .... But this latest proposal is an abomination that should not be stuffed into the neighborhood for any reason (and I believe that the only reasons it could be considered are $$$ & political influence). This district is "historic" only in a very diminished sense of history, but it is "historic" in the very current sense that Mr de Boer's neighbors do not want to be squeezed out by an ostentatious mansion, increased traffic (for the many large entertainments so necessary to Mr de Boer's position, for which purposes the charming historic house on Vista is suddenly inadequate) And, by the way, where are the parking facilities for such a crowd on Grandview? Or could that have been only the flimsiest of pretexts? And how long will it be before the rest of us pay for the paving of Mr De Boer's street, which is now gravel? Why are we doing this & at the same time mewling about the lack of affordable housing, decline of school enrollment, etc? I know you are concerned, & I hope you will stand up & be counted. Sincerely, Doug Wood 333 Ravenwood Plave CC: <mark@ashland .or.us> !susan yate~ - Re: F_w: Fw: DeBoer_House Publi~ He~arin~g Tuesday April 6, 7p~m City_C_ounci! Ch~_mbers ....... _Page 1_! From: To: Date: Subject: Chambers Mike Franell Jack Hardesty; Paul nolte 4/5/2004 3:02:33 PM Re: Fw: Fw: DeBoer House Public Hearing Tuesday April 6, 7pm City Council Jack: Paul asked me to respond to your question in this instance. The simple answer is that the City is bound to apply the standards and criteria which were in place at the time the application is received if the application was either' complete or made complete within 180 days of the date the application was submitted. This is set fodh in ORS 227.178(3), which reads: (3) If the application was complete when first submitted or the applicant submits the requested additional information within 180 days of the date the application was first submitted and the city has a comprehensive plan and land use regulations acknowledged under ORS 197.251, approval or denial of the application shall be based upon the standards and criteria that were applicable at the time the application was first submitted. Therefore, contrary to the assertion that the City only has to accept an application based upon the existing law, but can thereafter apply any future amendments to the law in determining whether to grant the application, the City is bound by state law to apPly the law in place when the application was received in its determination of whether to approve or deny the application. If you have any additional quetsions, please feel free to ask. Michael Franell Assistant City Attorney City of Ashland, OR (541)488-5350 o PHONE (541)552-2092 - FAX TTY 1 (800)735-2900 franellm@ashland.or.us >>> "Jack Hardesty" <jfhardesty@charter.net> 04/05/04 11:29AM >>> Paul, is this information correct? If so, I hope you will so inform the Council tomorrow night before they begin their deliberations. It seems to me that it would change the whole ballgame and eliminate on Law's concern about changing the rules. I'd appreciate hearing back from you asap. Thanks, Jack ..... Original Message ..... From: HulteenC~,aol.com To: jfhardestyCb, charter.net Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 9:53 AM Subject: Re: Fw: DeBoer House Public Hearing Tuesday April 6, 7pm City Council Chambers DearJack, Noreen and I will be out of town during the hearing, but I hope you will remind other people of a point that is often overlooked. Just because the application was filed before the Maximum House Size Ordinance took effect does not rnean that the Council has to approve the plan -- it only means that the City CANNOT REFUSE TO ACCEPT the application on that basis,. If it is the will of the Council not to have this sort of house built -- and that is clearly the case, as demonstrated by the subsequent enactment of the ordinance -- then the project can be rejected using the same arguments that prevailed when the ordinance was enacted. Only the right to apply under the old rules was grandfathered, not a requirement to be approved under the old rules. Goodluck. Susan yates - Re: Fw: Fw: DeBoer House Public Hearing Tuesday April 6, 7pm City Council Chambers Ps, ge 2 Ron CC: Bill Street; colin swales; Sharlene stephens Mark Knox - please reject the DeBoer proposal Page 1 } From: To: Date: Subject: "Jay Preskenis" <Jay. Preskenis@ashland.k12,or.us> <council@ashland.or.us>, <mark@ashland.or.us> April 05, 2004 1:46:33 PM please reject the DeBoer proposal Dear City Council; I urge you to reject the DeBoer House proposal located in the historical district of Ashland. 1 ) Its size negatively impacts on, the historic district 2) The spirit and letter of the maximum house size ordinance and the hillside ordinance should be imposed. I do understand that the DeBoers have been generous toward this community. I applaud them for that. Nonetheless, they should be held to the same standard applied to others. Sincerely, Jay Preskenis Susan yates - Re: Fw: The DeBoer House From: To: Date: Subject: "E. Vesecky" <eVesecky@mac.com> <council@ashland.or.us>, <mark@ashland.or.us> 4/5/2004 11:54:32 AM Re: Fw: The DeBoer House Dear Ashland Council, I wonder why the city of Ashland has any guidelines for development, when the construction of an 11,000-plus square foot private home has apparently become all but a done deal. Please do not set a precedent by allowing such a vulgar display of wealth at the expense of sensible development in our city. Sincerely, Liz Vesecky 791 Faith Avenue Ashland, OR 97520 CC: Virginia Lemon <vlemon@charter.net> i~-u~an yate~¥~-B~'~'-'l~u'se- ........................... Fage~ From: To: Date: Subject: S D <SD194@webtv.net> <council@ashland .or.us> 4/5/2004 11:45:49 AM DeBoer House Ladies and Gentlemen: It's my sincere hope that either the DeBoers will withdraw their application or the Council will reject it. A book or two would be necessary to fully explain why--and neither you nor I have the time for that. So just a few remarks: A town is more than buildings, water lines, roads, and such. It's also an easily destroyed fabric of relationships, a culture. This "soft" truth is very easily overlooked by "hard-headed" people. Their focus on the "practical," though definitely important, can mislead them into "solid" decisions whose result is destructive. John Kotter, of Harvard Business School, succinctly makes the point: Smart people rniss the mark.., when they are insensitive to cultural issues. Economically oriented finance people and analytically oriented engineers can find the topic of social norms and values too soft for their tastes. So they ignore culture-at their peril. 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. Stan Druben 125 Brooks Lane Ashland Susan yates - the DeBoer Colossus P~ge~11] From: 1'o: Date: Subject: "Savitra (Alan Sasha Lithman)" <savitra@earthlink.net> <mark@ashland.or.us>, <council@ashland.or.us> 4/5/2004 8:06:37 AM the DeBoer Colossus To the City and Community of Ashland: Re: the Deboer 11,250 sq. ft. "home" For me, the question of colonizing a hillside with such a personal colossus presents a stark symbol and metaphor for which direction Ashland will take/is taking in the times ahead. Clearly, there are two Ashlands diverging, just as there are two Americas. Which one will we choose? Or have we given up, abdicating choice to the highest bidder? Is the issue at stake here simply a matter of private property and private domain whe~re narrow legal codes loophole our wider concerns and "nobody has the right to tell me how to spend my money"? Or can we call the bluff of this sacrosant principle which assumes that those who have the money get to do whatever they like? For isn't this blind development-at-the-service-of-the-dollar mindset wearing us down person by person, community by community, value by value, eroding away our planet, ecosystems and resources one forest, one culture, one hillside, one neighborhood, one gingko grove, one Blue Mountain Cafe at a time, inexorably steamrolling over the landscape and soulscape of our lives, disconnecting the very threads that connect us together and give us our unique sense of place? After all, there is only so much we can afford to consume regardless of how much money one has. We have given away far too much power to the whims and dictates of personal ego. As we see in the worlds within and around us, the results have been catastrophic. At some point, common sense and common decency must weigh in and say "enough is enough". For me, this is that point. -Alan Sasha Lithman author, parent, 12-year Ashland resident Page 1 of 2 Mark Knox - DeBoer ]House From: To: Date: Subject: CC: "Pamela Goodwin" <pamelagoodwinl ~hotmail.com> <mark@ashland. or. us> 4/5/2004 6:5,6 AM DeBoer House <council~ashland.or.us> This 11,2S0 square foot house will not only affect the immediate neighbors, it will be visible from all over the valley. Yes, the plans were submitted before the Maximum House Size Ordinance went into effect, but it also violates our 1997 Hillside Ordinance as well. The Findings of Fact, wriitten by the DeBoer's attorney Craig Stone, effectively gut the 1997 Hillside Ordinance. THIS IS JUST NOT OK.. THIS IS TOTALLY WRONG TO ALLOW SOMETHING THIS HUGE ON A HILLSIDE AND VISIBLE FROM FAR AWAY. MAY I REMIND YOU OF THE FOLLOWING ORDINANCE: 18.62.040 Approval and Permit Required A Physical Constraints Review Permit is required for the following activities: A. Development, as defined in 18.62.030.D, in areas identified as Flood plain Corridor Land, Riparian Preserve, Hillside Land, or severe constraint land. D. Tree removal, in areas identified as Hillside Land and Severe Constraint Land, Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following: 1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been miniimized. 2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. 3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area~ and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. file://C:LDocuments%20and%20SettingsX&noxm\Local%20S ettings\Temp~GW} 00001 .HTM 4/5/2004 Page 2 of 2 Check out MSN PC Safety~.~ ~&~ Security tohelp ensure your PC is protected agcl safe. g-/¢ file://C 5Documents%20and%20S ettings~cnoxm\Local%20 Settings\Temp\GW } 00001 .HTM 4/5/2004 r Iii i Ashland City Council All Council Members Dear Council: We are writing to explain the series of events that has led to the hearing appeal before you on April 6th. The matter concerns our plan to build a house at 265 Glenview. This process started in the fall of 2001, when we submitted a set of building plans to the historic commission for their input on a possible expansion of our home at 234 Vista Street. We purchased this classic 1910 Frank Clark designed craftsman home in 1992, and in 1993-94 we completely restored this home in order to preserve it and hopefully make it more suitable for our lifestyle. Although we added as much space as we could, without affecting the character of the house, we found that there were still several shortcomings. My wife Karen is a stroke victim and has trouble with the stairs in the house, and the house cannot accommodate an elevator. With only one bedroom, the house also does not accommodate our large family who visit often. In addition, Karen and I host many small groups for SOU, Shakespeare, Oregon Community Foundation and the Ashland YMCA, to name a few. My leadership role at Lithia Motors calls for me to host small meetings of managers and board members. We have difficulty utilizing the limited space to accommodate those functions. We love this home but it is just too small for our needs.' It became apparent after input from the historic commission that the proposed remodel would destroy the character of the existing home. When we searched for .other alternatives, we quickly ruled out relocation. We love this neighborhood and have purchased enough property in this area because we both feel strongly about living close to Shakespeare and downtown. Having the ability to walk to the theater, to our favorite restaurants, and to our favorite stores were some of the many compelling reasons for us to stay in this neighborhood. After much deliberation, we determined that the best option was to remove the house at 265 Glenview and build a new home on that site that would achieve our objectives. We shared this decision with the historic commissioners who were pleased that we had found a solution that left our historic home untouched. We then asked Ted Fletcher, who had designed the tentative expansion on the historic home, to work with our surveyor to determine how to build a home on the site where 265 Glenview now sits. During that process, it was determined that the average original slope of the property was less than 25%, and therefore not subject to the hillside, ordinance. The determination was based on the original survey taken before we had modified the lot in order to create the flat yard that we have now. Those surveys clearly show trees that were removed and the elevation of the bases of those trees proved the average slope from the front of the property to the back was less than the 25%. The steepest part of what now exists was a result of our creating the flat yard. The roadway for Glenview is not on our property and is steeper due to the creation of the public roadway some years ago. When we began the design process we discovered that the best location to minimize the impact of a large home on Vista St. and maintain the flat yard would be to tuck the home as far into the hillside as we could given the set back regulations. It took over a year to complete the design and required the work of architects, landscape architects, engineers, and geologists. During this proc. ess, it became clear that several of the trees would need to be removed and after getting permission from city staff, we removed the necessary trees. We also applied for and received a demolition permit for the existing structure on Glenview, subject to the issuance of a building permit to replace that structure. In about April of 2003, we submitted our first set of plans and requested a building permit. The city staff was helpful throughout the whole process. They were under the impression as well that the hillside ordinance did not apply as the surveys clearly showed that the average slope was less than 25%. After reviewing our plans and the hillside code, the city staff determined that we did come under the hillside ordinance. There decision was based on the fact that our surveys showed the average slope where the footprint of the ihouse sat was 28%. There is a section in the code that showed that if any portion of the land under the building footprint was greater than 25%, then the ordinance applied to that part of the building. This was contrary to the wording in other places in the code. We were shocked. We had a large amount invested in a fully engineered set of plans to build our home and they were now worthless. We argued our point on the average slope, but we made no progress and decided to accept the ruling and redesign our home. After completely redoing the plans, we submitted them again in late August or early September of 2003. These plans clearly meet all the standards of the hillside ordinance and building codes as verifiecl by the city staff and our professionals. They were submitted before the passage of the large home ordinance and met the rules at the time of submission. All of those involved realized that we had been involved in this process for nearly two years at the time of subrnission. Those who oppose our project submitted petitions to appeal our application under a process allowed[ under the hillside ordinance. The hearings board of three commissioners reviewed our application and voted unanimously.to approve our plans and reject the appeal. We were told by the city attorney that no one had the right to appeal this decision and that it was final unless the council voted to bring it up. The City attorney then informed us that he had re-read the rules and our hearing could be appealed to the Council. That brings us to the current appeal process. We are confident that our plans fit the City's criteria and that the Findings of Fact accepted by the Planning Commission's Hearings Board are comprehensive and clearly identify in detail that our plans fully meet every section of the code. It is our hope that each of you has reviewed them carefully. Beyond the findings that define the legal requirements we have met, we believe that our home is not going to damage the character of our neighborhood or the historic district. We own the property on both sides of the site of the new home and most of our other neighbors support the project. Our home will be located on the upper limit of the historic district. In fact, most of Glenview is not included in the district now and does not actually contain a single historic home. The dividing line for the historic district could just have easily been drawn between Vista and Glenview and we would not be in the historic district. Our home will fit in with the scale for the neighborhood. Our neighbors include the Howe apartments (now owned by Shakespeare) and the Ravenwood Condominiums which are much larger in mass than our home. The home is beautifully designed to fit into its surroundings and will be painted to blend in with the environment. We are planting a large number of trees to further enhance the area. It is a Greene and Greene style craftsman designed to reflect the character of our area that will add to the aesthetics and diversity of our neighborhood and Ashland. The footprint of the home is about 4000 Square feet. It has two floors, a loft area and a full basement. If someone stands on Vista Street directly in front of the new house after it is built, they will only be able to see the very top of the building as we have a hedge of tall Arborvitae there now and a new fence will top the yard which will be raised higher than the existing yard. From Glenview, the roof line will be lower than the street level for most of the length of the home. The house will be lower and further from Glenview than the house that is currently there. There has never been any erosion onto the street or adjoining properties from our property. It is a fully developed residential area--not a natural undeveloped hillside for which the ordinance was designed to protect. The previous owners of the apartments just below our property had implied as part of the hearing that our property caused erosion onto their property. The erosion was because there were no curbs on their side of Vista Street. Runoff from Glenview Street, which is not paved, coming around from the comer of Vista, Glenview and Hillcrest caused a minor wash out in a bad storm a few years ago. Vista Street had no storm sewer at that time. Last year, the City installed a storm sewer, curb and gutters on the other side of Vista Street to prevent any more erosion. We had already installed many feet of sidewalk, curb and gutter at our expense when we developed our properties to insure that all the runoff from our property was contained on our side of the street. Karen and I have been residents of the City of Ashland for many years. We attended Ashland high school together and have lived here on and off since the 1940's. Our company, Lithia Motors, was founded here in 1946. We are committed to this community and want to live comfortably in a home that fits in with the character and integrity of the Ashland that we so love and one that helps us fulfill our role. Our plans meet the code, the letter and intent of the laws created to protect our neighborhoods. We therefore respectfully ask for your support at this time. Sid and Karen DeBoer Susan yates - The outsize DeBoer mansion From: To: Date: Subject: "Isaac Walker" <iwalker@jeffnet.org> <mark@ashland.or.us> 4/4/2004 11:00:58 PM The outsize DeBoer mansion To the Ashland City Council: When the super-rich choose to build super-size mansions to match their super-size egos, the proper site for such extravagance is not a venerated historic district in a city such as Ashland, which greatly values its history and its architecture. Mr. DeBoer's proposed monstrosity would loom over its quaint, time-honored neighborhood as a grotesque and garish impostor, permanently despoiling the spirit of this special part of Ashland. He should erect his pile in an appropriate rural or suburban setting. The site he has chosen is the least appropriate in Ashland for an outsize, vanity mansion. Our city is already under serious assault from the forces of "progress," from the pressures of growth at any price. As the citizen's representatives, you should feel it not just an obligation to resist the more outrageous proposals to desecrate our city's heritage, but a pleasure. Sincerely, Isaac Walker Ashland CC: "Ashland City Councilors" <council@ashland.or.us> Mark?o~x- DeBoe~r__Hous~e ~Pa_._ge I t From: To: Date: Subject: "Randy Ellison" <rellison@mind.net> <mark@ashland.or.us>, <council@ashland.or.us> April 04, 2004 10:48:54 PM DeBoer House I have looked at the plans for this mansion and all I can say is that it is grossly out of place. If the DeBoer's want a country estate they should build it in the country. If they can't tell the difference, then it is up to the City of Ashland to let them know that this single family hotel is totally inappropriate in the middle of Ashland, in a residential zone. Please do not let this monstrosity to be built in our community. Thank you, Randy Ellison 92 8th St. Ashland 482-8435 page 1; Mark Knox - The DeBoer ProPosal From: To: Date: Subject: "Tom Marvin" <marvin@sou.edu> <council@ashland.or.us>, <mark@ashland.or.us> April 04, 2004 10:22:40 PM The DeBoer Proposal To the Planning Commision and the City Council: Please add my name to the list of citizens of Ashland who are not in favor of the deBoer proposal. My objection is based on its size. However legal someone is able to make it appear, we all know it violates every spirit of the size rule the city has adopted. The rules come from the public, and the spirit of them did not materialize out of thin air. The rules have a sufficiently deep meaning that the spirit of them should guide any applicant and every city officer. While the deBoers are trying to defeat the spirit of the Size ordinance, they are also attempting end-runs on a lot of other long-existing planning rules such as height, floors, and impact. The deBoers are testing the ability of Ashland to maintain its character. They are willing to compromise that character, and seem indifferent to neighbor interests. When I have applied to the Planning Dept for various improvements, my proposals have had to pass two criteria. One was compatibility with my neighborhood. The second was a formal Historical Commission review for context. There is little liklihood the deBoer proposal can do this, without undue favor. I am hoping you can help guarantee such favor is not the way Ashland does business. Please let me know if I can offer any additional input on this matter. Tom Marvin 499 Iowa St. (Historical District, Ashland) 482-5310 Mark Knox - Appeal of DeBoer project _ P~age 1~ From: To: Date: Subject: "Jack Hardesty" <jfhardesty@charter.net> <mark@ashland.or.us>, <council@ashland.or.us> April 04, 2004 10:12:49 PM Appeal of DeBoer project April 4, 2004 Dear Council membe:rs: I urge you to uphold the appeal of the DeBoer house. I do not believe the Planning Department met the legal requirements of giving adequate weight to its potential impact on existing houses in the neighborhood or the existing development there. Common sense tells us that a four-stow (from the front), 11,000 plus sq. ft. mansion dumped on a narrow road in a neighborhood of relatively modest bungalows and two stow homes is going to have a major negative impact which should not be ignored. It is my understandin9 that the Council has some flexibility in dealing with matters such as this, and I hope that you exercise it as; you did with the Bemis project, another one which was supposed to be meeting the letter of the law. When all the legalize is stripped away, a mansion of the proposed size in a historic district is an affront to reasonable sensibilities and a negation of what the Council tried to do in establishing the hillside ordinance and house size limitations in historic districts. Please uphold what I believe to be a reasonable, legitimate appeal and help maintain the integrity of one of Ashland's historic districts. Sincerely, Jack Hardesty 575 Dogwood Way Mark Knox-DeBoer House Public Hearing- 18.62.040 From: To: Date: Subject: "Shirlie Joseph" <shirlie@mind.net> <mark@ashland.or.us>, <council@ashland.or.us> April 04, 2004 9:02:27 PM DeBoer House Public Hearing- 18.62.040 I find it amazing that a house of this size could even be considered in the area the DeBoer's are choosing; and to make a statement that they were going to enhance the character of our historic district, is absurd. I oppose the size, the removal of trees, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas. Where are all these potential people that are visiting going to park? We have a constant traffic and parking problem in Ashland now, do we need to compound our problem? It appears the permit was granted without any thought as to the irreversible actions such a building can cause to the neighbors and the town. I walk that area weekly, and enjoy the rural feeling. All this will be gone with an impact of this size and nature. While walking in front of this area, it's difficult to avoid the cars when they buzz by, can you even fathom what this would be like with making a "showcase" in this area? Let the DeBoer's build their house out in the country, where it will not impact our environment! Shirlie Plummer-Joseph From: To: Date: Subject: "Dan Altman" <danalt@windows.microsoft.com> <council@ashland .or.us> Apriil 04, 2004 7:37:57 PM DeBoer Mansion Dear Ashland City Council, I am not familiar with all the details, but from looking at the plans, the DeBoer Mansion does not seem to fit at all with the quaint, historic nature of downtown Ashland. Do we want to turn Ashland into Orange County? This house looks like it belongs more in Orange County than in Ashland. Please consider the preciousness of the feeling of our town before ruling on this appropriateness of this type of construction in Ashland. Thank you for your tinne -- I do want you all to know I really appreciate the job you have done in keeping Ashland a great place to live. Thanks much! - Dan Dan AItman 145 Almond St. Ashland, OR. 9752(;i 541-482-7321 CC: <mark@ashland .or.us> [SuSan yates - DeBoer House Page~ From: To: Date: Subject: <nashthill@opendoor.com > <council@ashland.or.us> 4/4/2004 4:30:23 PM DeBoer House We find the proposed Deboer house an elephantine abomination, a potential blight on the landscape, completely unnecessary and out of keeping with the historical district. His self-serving arguments for its construction are quite pathetic. Please do not allow it to be built. Le.w Nash Kate Thill 88 Baum St., Ashland (also in an historical district) Mark Knox - The DeB°er House .......... P~g? 1~ From: To: Date: Subject: "Virginia Lemon" <vlemon@charter.net> <council@ashland.or.us>, <mark@ashland.or. us> April 04, 2004 12:15:57 PM Th(; DeBoer House That house which the. DeBoers are planning is absolutely grotesque. I ask you not even to give it serious consideration. Even as an office building it would be unacceptably ugly. As a residence and in a historic district, it adds up to a very bad joke, The size, the design....a five-year old could do better planning. Your choice here should be obviousl Virginia C. Lemlon 855 Stony Point Ashland Mark Knox - DeBoerLand Page 1 From: To: Date: Subject: Vesta Snow <talkhappy2@yahoo.com> <council@ashland.or.us>, <mark@ashland.or.us> April 04, 2004 10:43:03 AM DeBoerLand Dear Mark Knox, I live 2 blocks from the proposed DeBoer building site. Does this mean I too can build a 2 or 3 stow building on my R2 zoned property (right behind my cute 1906 Victorian)? I am also aware of another neighbor who wanted to expoand a 50's cottage to accomodate her 80 yr old, non ambulatory mother and was told a resounding "NO" by the city because of its location in a historic neighborhood. She did not have the funds to convince the city nor to blitz the neighborhood with mass mailings. Something is wrong with this picture JUST SAY NO Sincerely, Rebecca Holt 4 Beach Avene Ashland "Because when they looked at her (the Black Madonna), it occurred to them for the first time in their lives that what's divine can come in dark skin. You see, everybody needs a God who looks like them, Lily." -Sue M. Kidd, The Secret Life of Bees Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://prom otions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/ Mark KnoX ~ DeB°er House grotesquely out of scale Page 1 i From: To: Date: Subject: Paul Copeland <tech@jotobjects.com> <mark@ashland.or.us>, <council@ashland.or.us> April 04, 2004 10:41:04 AM DeBoer House grotesquely out of scale Note to Ashland Planning Department and City Council: The planned DeBoer house is grotesquely out of scale to the downtown hillside location. Can the DeBoer's be encouraged to build a mansion worthy of their place in the community in a suitable location? For example, Cynthia Lord's complex on the edge of town has been an attractive center for rnany events over the years. The DeBoer's could likewise build a grand home in a suitable location that would stand the test of time as a monument to their contributions to the community. -- Paul Copeland, Ashland I Mark Knox - Hillside monstrosity I~[ Page 1 From: To: Date: Subject: jennifer bacon <jennylouwho@yahoo.com> <council@ashland.or.us>, <mark@ashland.or. us> April 04, 2004 10:29:37 AM Hillside monstrosity While I espouse property owner rights, I feel the prosposed DeBoer residence is a behemoth. Way too large for the already in existance historic neighborhood. It is setting a disasterous precedence for the future of Ashland. Why don't they build this essate out in the country where there is room? Sincerely, Jennifer Baon Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/ SuSan yate. s - Letter in Support of the DeBoer Residence ................................. p__a_g~e 1~ From: To: Date: Subject: "D & M Forsyth" <dmforsyth@ccountry.net> <council@ashland.or.us> 4/3/2004 5:03:12 PM Letter in Support of the DeBoer Residence Dear Council Members, I am writing in suppor[ of Sid and Karen BeBoer's permit to build a home of their choice on their land in Ashland. To deny them the opportunity now to build their home based on some new trumped up technicalities is just plain wrong. It is wrong to deny them the opportunity to build because a few second growth trees have or will be removed. When the council is itself removing hundreds of trees from the hillsides in the Ashland Watershed and for go,od reason, then the DeBoers should be allowed to do likewise. Why should they be judged by a different standard from the Council or other homeowners who have the right, based on need, to freely remove trees from their hillside properties or in the Council's case, from public land? To deny them the opportunity to build on a hillside when others already have done so and others plan to, is also just plain wron~g. To allow objections from naysayers because their proposed home is larger than any that have been built before and therefore poses a potential risk to the stability of the hillside is not a viable arguement. In order to get Council approval the home will be required to be built to code and in doing so, will meet the Council's standard for hillside construction. I also assume that the DeBoers will incorporate any additional engineering needed to ensure that the house is safely anchored to the hillside, is stable and will stand for many years. Why would they or anyone else in a similar position do otherwise? I understand that these are the main objections standing in the way of final approval, then I believe, based on precident, that they are both moot. I therefore ask that the Ashland City Council finally approve Karen and Sid DeBoer's application to build and allow them to build their dream home. They deserve no less. Yours sincerely, Doug Forsyth 65 Granite Street Ashland From: To: Date: Subject: <Wuzude@aol.com> <council@ashland .or.us> April 06, 2004 4:07:44 PM DeBoer Family Residence I am a neighbour living on Allison Street. I am offended by the negative impact the DeBoer residence will have in my community. That they continue this display tells me they have very little or no consideration of what this dwelling will, and has done, to our small neighbourhood. Let's face it: the State of Oregon has no money. Telling 'incoming' famlies they are restricted to building homes up to a certain size does not mean the schools will re-open. Truth: if those families have the income to purchase land and then build their residence they will more than likely send their children to private/charter school or home schooling. I have seen the area where trees were cut down. When the City of Ashland has a 'Best Tree in the City' contest every year then it is of vast importance we feel about our environment. I am a voter who reads the small print and between the lines. This 21-thousand square footage 'monster house' should NOT be allowed to continue. It really isn't very neighoburlly. Keziah Daye Jones Resident and Voter CC: <mark@ashland.or.us> From: Bill Molnar To: Knox, Mark Date: April 05, 2004 8:42:32 AM Subject: Fwd: DeBoer Complex >>> diana versluis <diianav@mind.net> 3/25/2004 9:37:01 AM >>> Mr. Molnar: I cannot attend the Tuesday, April 6th public hearing on the DeBoer Complex. However, I would like to express my concern about this development. "We respectfully hope, Sid and Karen will withdraw their controversial plans and re-submit with a proposal more sensitive to this special neighborhood that we all share," said Colin Swales, one of the appellants. I support the position of the appellants. Apparently, Mr. DeBo,er has given as one of the reasons he needs more space in his home is to host large business-related events. Perhaps this area is not a good location. Where will all of his guests park? And what will the impact b,e on his neighbors and neighborhood? Thank you for including my comments in this discussion. Sincerely, Diana Versluis Mark Knox - Hearing 4/6 re: DeBoer proposal Page 1 From: To: Date: Subject: "Su Rolle" <srolle@mind.net> <mark@ashland.or.us>, <council@ashland.or.us> April 06, 2004 2:57:51 PM Hearing 4/6 re: DeBoer proposal I appreciate that the DeBoer's host events that may benefit the community. But I don't see that as justification for the scale of house proposed in our historic neighborhood. Nor do I believe that more families with children would come to Ashland if larger houses were available. There is no demographic data to support that rationale. There are plenty of large homes available to families if they choose to come to Ashland. And I'm sorry large trees were removed with intention of building a larger home. But that is also not justification for the proposal to move forward. ~ My husband and I have lived at 311 High Street in this historic neighborhood for over 20 years. The attraction of the older homes and old-fasioned yards appealed to us then and still does. There is a very real issue of scale that should be considered in a historic neighborhood. If an old mansion was here already, that's a very different situation than the removal of older homes to replace them with homes in excess of several thousand square feet. Unless an older home shows such extensive damage as cannot be reasonably repaired, I am opposed to demolition. An 11,000 sq.ft home seems out of place in an older neighborhood where the average size is closer to 2500 square feet. ~ Thank you for the opportunity to comment, Su Rolle Susan yates - DeBoer house Page From: To: Date: Subject: <kathmeag@opendoor.com> council <council@ashland.or.us> 4/3/2004 9:34:42 PM DeBoer house Are the DeBoers getting accolades and cheers from the community for the proposed building of ;an 11,250 sq. foot multi-mansion? Personal/property rights over community rights, values and responsibilities are a form of greed and disregard. We have a city council to safeguard tlhe welfare of the whole community and not the wealthy few who beca~use they have wealth, think they can do as they please. The massive and monolithic architecture of the "house" is an aesthetic nightmare in the Ashland environment. That the building of it is even being considered is cause for dismay and skepticism about Ashland's future. I want the DeBoers held responsible for replacing the trees they cut down due to a "misunderstanding". Kathleen Meagher 561 C St., Ashland 482-5337 265 GLENVIEW DRIVE PA2003-118 SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET E-MAlLS RECEIVED AFTER 4/6/04 From: Ken Lindsay 180 Ohio St Ashland, OR 97520 To: Ashland City Council Mark Knox, Associate Planner Re: DeBoer's proposed building plan in GlenviewNista area Date: 6 April 2004 As a homeowner in Ashland, I urge you to NOT approve the DeBoer building plan. Given that he has already (by the report I have seen) cut down large old trees without proper permit on a steep hillside, it is safe to assume that the man does not take much consideration for the consequences of his actions and their potential impact on neighbors downhill, and that this man disregards the rules and laws of the city of Ashland. There is no easy way to replace large old trees which help to hold the steep hillside in place, and I wonder if Mr. DeBoer has even attempted to enact any mitigation of this reckless destruction of trees that lived in this town since before Mr. DeBoer was even born. His action and attitude does not seem congruent with the building permit rule that states that the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered and adverse impacts have been minimized. Casual destruction of large old trees on a steep hillside indicates the exact opposite of the community minded attitude which stands behind this building rule. Additionally, I have walked along Vista street many times in the vicinity of DeBoer's property and the odor of toxic substances like pesticides which can be smelled overwhelmingly for a great distance indicate that he doesn't have much regard for people downstream and downwind who may be sensitive to such substances. Has Mr. DeBoer investigated these health issues with his neighbors? I am also very curious about the nature of his business and how much economic benefit he actually brings to the community of Ashland. While it is pleasant and convenient to conduct business parties in one's home, it would probably benefit the local economy more if Mr. DeBoer was to rent the Armory or some other local large space for his activities. Indeed, he could even help improve the facilities so that the entire community might benefit along with his good fortune. I do not want to deny Mr. DeBoer the opportunity to build a mansion if he so desires, but the size of the project in this case should be set on a property of at least 3 or 4 acres to properly allow the home to be landscaped aesthetically in proper proportion to the size of the structures. There are too many over large houses built recently which are not aesthetically situated in their locale. The city of Ashland should pay more attention to these design principles. I for one do not want any more new houses that jut out from the hillside above downtown like a sore thumb. Sincerely, Ken Lindsay From: To: Date: Subject: "Mary" <mrex@lithiawater. com> <council@ashlandor. us> 4/6/04 4:44:57 PM house size Dear council members, Re the proposal by the DeBoers: In my opinion, 1) this size home is quite out of keeping with the neighborhood and with Ashland regulations re hillside development; 2) the DeBoers have already violated tree removal regulations, (even if this is being called a "misunderstanding", it does not represent a good faith intention to be part of the neighborhood); 3) the DeBoers are attempting to justify their project in part on the basis that to limit home size is to restrict the rights of property owners, (by limiting their ability to have any size home they like). Further, I believe that individual property rights ought not to take precedence over the greater good. In Ashland, the greater good is preservation of the charm, the small town feel. This is why people love to come here. It's our neighborhoods and their character, the mature trees, the walkable downtown, that make Ashland what it is - a very desirable place to live. That's what supports our property values, not freedom to do whatever we like when we remodel or build. My husband and I live in the railroad district, and when we remodeled a few years ago we were more than happy to abide by the restrictions. We believe that such restrictions protect the feel of our neighborhoods, particularly the historic areas and the hillsides. In my view, a project such as the DeBoer proposal would be a major undoing of our town's character. To approve this project would be a statement that Ashland is moving in another direction. I sincerely hope this is not the case. It seems to me that if people want larger homes than the allowable sq footage, perhaps they should build in a town without restrictions rather than attempting to encroach on a neighborhood and to change Ashland to suit their needs. Thank you for listening, Mary Rexford 129 5th Street Barbara ch,'istensen D'~Bo~7 M~a-n-si~ ................. P~ 1 From: To: Date: Subject: "Lynn Blanche" <placeblanche@charter. net> <council@ashland.or. us> 4/7/04 9:33:03 AM DeBoer Mansion Clear DayDear Ashland City Council, I am writing to ask you to prevent the building of the trophy mansion on the DeBoer property in our Ashland Historic District. The addition of an 11,000 square foot house, and even the DeBoers' creation of a "compound" through the acquisition of adjacent properties, go against the true 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. The ordinance represents the residents of Ashland. I call upon you, our council of wise leaders, to do the same and represent us residents of Ashland with wisdom, foresight and truth. Should you allow the creation of this monster building in our Historic District, you will set a precedent; a precedent that goes against past DeBoer building denials by the Ashland planning department. The Ashland City Council and planning department will face future developers who want rules, ordinances and laws waived in favor of their "projects" in our Historic District. Please do not "leave the door aja¢' for future ruin of our Historic District Many ideal property locations exist for the construction of a trophy mansion. I ask you to encourage Sid and Karen DeBoer to build their house on an appropriate property not in the Ashland Historic District. Once again, I ask you to remember the reason for the building ordinance and protect our Historic District in the spirit of the law. Please... do the right thing. Sincerely, Lynn Blanche From: To: Date: Subject: "Ann Magill" <magil1819@earthlink. net> <council@ashland.or. us>, <mark@ashland.or. us> 4/7/04 6:43:11 PM DeBoer Hearing Dear Ashland Community Leaders, Four years ago I moved to Ashland from south coastal Oregon. As a person with an above average income, I consider myself a person "of means." However, even as a person of means I could not afford to continue to rent at Ashland rates, where my landlord asked over $1000 monthly for a modest uninsulated bungalow in the historic district of town. Like so many who work in Ashland or would like to enroll their children in Ashland's schools, I now live in an adjoining community, where two of us inhabit a spacious and affordable dwelling of 1300 square feet. I feel strongly that erecting a structure the size of the proposed deBoer home, which involves demolishing a home far more extravagant than anything I could dream of, violates the housing standards of the neighborhood and establishes a precedent that continues to place the community out of reach to families, even those "of means," as the deBoers espouse themselves to be. If other "families" are waiting to build homes such as this, I presume they are involved in plural marriages and wish to shelter a great many spouses and children. This case is not about infringement of the deBoers' property rights. It is about calling them to be responsive neighbors. As one who cares deeply about this area and the democratic process, I hope you take these remarks into consideration. Ann M. Magill 254 French Circle Talent, OR 97540 (541) 535-3778 Hearings .............. -- ................ Page 1 From: To: Date: Subject: "Joan Steele" <empress@mind net> <council@ashland.or. us> 4/7/04 6:49:59 PM DeBoer Hearings Please let me register my dismay at this endeavor one more time. What follows is an e-mail sent last week to Bill Molnar. I will attend to meeting on Thursday night and would like my comments to be a part of the record. As I will be unable to attend the hearing on 6 April, I wanted to share my concerns with you and your staff regarding this issue. I served two full terms on the Ashland Historic Commission, watching and opposing the attempts to have various huge houses built on the subject property for a good part of that time, so I am fully aware of the background here. My concern is and has been with preserving our city's historic core and thus its unique character. Mr. DeBoer has testified repeatedly about his philanthropy and generosity to the City, the Festival, and numerous other charities and indeed his good works speak for him; he has undoubtedly benefited many organizations here. However, what he will leave as a lasting legacy if this house is permitted to be built in one of Ashland's National Register Historic Districts, will be a monument to private and personal desire triumphing over years of effort on the part of the City and its residents to preserve its historic core. The DeBoers plan 1:o use this immense home to entertain as part of their business and charitable endeavors. This is bound to have a deleterious effect on the neighborhood. Mr. DeBoer has stated publicly that after his death the Grandview I~ouse will be left to the Sid and Karen DeBoer Foundation to be used for charitable enterprises. That is a very worthy sentiment, but to have a charitable foundation in the midst of a neighborhood of small and moderate-sized residences will forever change the character of this neighborhood. No one denies anyone's right to build whatever kind or size of residence that meets the City's (;ode requirements. But why do the DeBoers insist on building this edifice on a hillside in a historic district when a house of this size could be built on many properties more suitable for it and its use both during their lifetime and beyond? VVith respect, Joan Steele 332 Glenn Street Ashland 482-7019 From: To: Date: Subject: Rivers Brown <jrivers@mind.net> <council@ashland.or. us> 4/7/04 6:50:14 PM DeBoer House It is against the law, and i don't want to have to look at this monstrous ego crap. Thanks for your consideration on this matter. Rivers Brown B~r:i~'~-~c~iS'~n~-~-The deB°er Madr°nes ............................................. Page I From: "Stephen and Carol Jensen" <scjensen@mind.net> To: <jmorrison@rvcog.org>, <council@ashland.or. us>, "Chris Hearn" <Cehearn@aol.com>, "Cate Hartzell" <cate@mind.net>, <katejackson@opendoor. com> Date: 4/8/04 10:28:19 AM Subject: The deBoer Madrones Please consider the response below pursuant to a request by Bill Street. Commissioner Jensen, Please comment on the definition, the interpretation below and its implications... B.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. "As earlier cited, ALUO 18.62.090 requires all new construction to have a "fuel break". That ordinance goes on to describe what a fuel break and it and requires native trees to be sufficiently thinned to prevent an interlocking canopy./ks shown in Record p. 197, trees that were mistakenly removed had an interlocking canopy and would under any circumstances, be required to be removed or severely thinned...the trees removed by mistake would likely have had to be removed (or severely pruned) to satisfy the requirements of ALUO 18.62.090." (Exact quotation, typographical errors and punctuation as approved by the Hearings Board of the Planning Commission) Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Final Order, written by Craig Stone, Attorney' for Sidney and Karen DeBoer The below information is provided by Stephen Jensen and Richard Brock who are members of the Ashland Forest Lands Commission pursuant to a request from Bill Street. 1) The "mistakenly removed" mature Madrone trees on the applicant's property would not fall into the category of "fast burning" trees. ']'he possibility of a canopy fire in this grove of mature Madrone trees is extremely remote. Canopy fires are much more a function of uncontrolled ladder fuels which is generally not a problem with mature Madrone groves located on well-cared for property. That is precisely why they are a desirable interface tree. 2) The University of California lists the Madrone as a tree with "a favorable fire-performance rating" and one that they recommend for urban/forest interface planting. 3) The Las Pilitas Nursery, Santa Margarita, CA, rates the Madrone as a "7" on a scale of 1-10, with "1" being a "fire-bomb" and 10 "very safe". Barbara christensen - The deBoer Madrones Page 2 4) The Pacific Madrone (Arbutus menziesii ..(pronounced: R- bew-tis men-zee-see-eye) is noted for being among the slowest and coolest burning trees in the west. This is documented in several US Forest Service Publications 5) It is important to note that a wonderful feature of Madrone trees is their ability to root deeply. The tree is wind-firm, drought-enduring, and somewhat tolerant of wet and freezing conditions. It is an ideal tree for this hillside site. 6) There is a specific procedure for dealing with significant trees in Wildfire Lands and on the hillsides of Ashland contained in "Development Standards for Wildfire Lands" ..and it certainly does not include a capricious preemptive removal on the part of the applicant prior to approval of the project. 7) It is critical that the City Council uphold the definitions and intentions of Wildfire Lands and Hillside Ordinances or they become empty and meaningless. These standards need to be used for their good and intended purpose and not be used to veil unrelated actions. Respectfully submitted to the Ashland City Council April 6, 2004 CC: <mark@ashland.or. us>, "Bill Street" <Bill. Street@ashland.k12.or. us>, "Colin Swales" <colin@mind.net> From: GAYLE TITUS <titus@jeffnet. org> To: <council@ashland.or. us> Date: 4/8/04 10:28:45 AM Subject: De Boer Appeal One of the criteria I would like to address is the potential impact building on this property will have on nearby areas. We are not here to talk about what model citizens the DeBoers are, we are all familiar with their good works in this community. Nor are we here to talk about what an asset this house would be to the community. In an appropriate setting I am sure this would be a beautiful house. I have no doubts that the architects and landscape designers have done a wonderful job. We are here to talk about a very large home in a neighborhood of modest homes and narrow streets, regularly being used as a facility to entertain hundreds of guests. I have heard there would be three kitchens in this home, the DeBoers have two other homes on this property, and they have kitchens also, that's five kitchens for two people expecting lots of visitors. This property is located on Glenview St. and is in fact directly across from my home on the same street. Glenview is a narrow, dirt road, used by joggers;, hikers and bikers on the way to Lithia Park. In the summer it is very dusty, hugh clouds of dust drift up to my house. When I think of two or more years of construction and the never ending curious people coming to have a "look," I am saddened by the traffic this house would produce on this country, dirt road on which there is NO parking. Vista St. also is very narrow, there is very little parking, people Page must jockey to get up or down Vista St. I consider this to speak to the criteria that this home would have an adverse affect to the neighborhood. Gayle Titus 1 Hillcrest St. Ashland, Or. Barbara christenSen - FW: DeB°er Palace From: To: Date: Subject: "Cate Hartzell" <cate@mind.net> <co~uncil@ashland.or. us> 4/8/,04 10:29:20 AM FW: DeBoer Palace Not sure if this went to everyone. Cate ..... Original Message ...... From: Douglas Wood [mailto:dmjwood@charter. net] Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 5:03 PM To: cate@mind.net Subject: DeBoer Palace Interesting that the City web site does not mention the de Boer Palace hearing tomorrow, & talks only of road repair on the agenda .... Could that possibly be just an oversight? Yes, I'm an affected neighbor, I live on Vista just across from 2 lovely (& appropriate for the locale) de Boer mansions, one historic, & one very new,much larger, but still undeniably an enhancement to the community .... But this latest proposal is an abomination that should not be stuffed into the neighborhood for any reason (and I believe that the only reasons it could be considered are $$$ & political influence). This district is "historic" only in a very diminished sense of history, but it is "historic" in the very current sense that Mr de Boer's neighbors do not want to be squeezed out by an ostentatious mansion, increased traffic (for the many large entertainments so necessary to Mr de Boer's position, for which purposes the charming historic house on Vista is suddenly inadequate) And, by the way, where are the parking facilities for such a crowd on Grandview? Or could that have been only the flimsiest of pretexts? And how long will it be before the rest of us pay for the paving of Mr De Boer's street, which is now gravel? Why are we doing this & at the same time mewling about the lack of affordable housing, decline of school enrollment, etc? I know you are concerned, & I hope you will stand up & be counted. Sincerely, Doug Wood 333 Ravenwood Plave Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.619/Virus Database: 398- Release Date: 3/10/2004 Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.619/Virus Database: 398 - Release Date: 3/10/2004 'i~'~'?i~a~:'~,~iS'{~n-s~'n~'"~B~e}'§uper Center Page 1 From: To: Date: Subject: "Tracy Bungay" <stinky@mind.net> <christeb@ashland.or. us> 4/8/04 12:16:06 PM DeBoer Super Center I believe that the most significant issue with regard to the DeBoer Super Center is the fact that this is not a single-family dwelling. This is a building of a much different type designed for entertainment with multiple kitchens and banquet halls. This proposal is comparable to placing another Elk's Lodge into a residential neighborhood In a building that can facilitate a banquet for several hundred people, the question of where these people intend to park their Lithia SUV's must be raised. What the DeBoer's need is a compound outside of the City Limits where there is plenty of room for parking and their clan can have banquets and rally without disturbing the neighbors of our community. What we are seeing is the result of the Mayor heavily stacking commissions to promote his anti-regulation, anti-government agenda. Projects that are not congruent with the character and site specific zoning of our community are not being challenged at the mayoral appointed commission level and citizens are forced to appeal projects to our democratically elected Council. It is time for these anti-regulation zealots to enter the twenty-first century, do we really want to live in a world where banquet halls are allowed in residential neighborhoods, where our water is full of feces and our air is impossible to breathe? Maybe these conflicts would be better addressed with a couple of six-shooters outside of the saloon but in reality citizen appeals are much less messy. The City of Medford is a classic example of poor planning that has resulted from limited regulation. The Downtown has become a chain of car dealerships surrounded with display lots and tasteless helium balloons. The building's designs mitigate their inanity with impressively scaled corporate Iogos and eccentric eye catching marques. It is unfortunate the citizens of Medford didn't have any more respect for the character of their city than to allow such flagrant examples of poor design and planning. Mr. DeBoer needs to realize that the are those among us who give much more respect to an individual for their intelligence, wit, education, and respect for civic responsibility than their ability to sell cars. This project is clearly and edifice to one's ego and a gross display of gluttony and an embarrassment to our entire community. Eric Navickas 711 Faith Ave. Ashland Or. 97520 482-0561 Barbara christensen - DeBoer Home page 1 From: To: Date: Subject: <JKen790606@aol.com> <council@ashland.or. us> 4/8/04 1:55:44 PM DeBoer Home Dear Council: We strongly support Sid DeBoer's right to build his legally permitted home. We own property in the Historic District so we should have some standing on this issue. On a general note if we continue to incourage political gadflys and champion divisive issues Ashland will follow the path of Berkeley California to disfunction. Respectfully Yours; James P. & Judith Kennedy 506 Granite St Ashland, Or. "B~;':b~-r;a'-~,f:'~nsen ' D~ Boer Appeal .............................. -15a-g~e 1 From: To: Date: Subject: GAYLE TITUS <titus@jeffnet.org> <council@ashland.or. us> 4/8/04 2:52:30 PM De Boer Appeal Dear Council Member', You received an e-mail from me earlier today with some remarks I wished to make befor~ the meeting this evening. If I am not permitted to speak, I ask that my message please be read aloud to the audience. Thank you for your consideration. Gayle Titus 1 Hillcrest St. Ashland, Or. III: Barbara chnstensen - Re De Boer Appeal · From: Barbara christensen To: Council City; GAYLE TITUS Date: 4/8/04 3:17:58 PM Subject: Re: De Boer Appeal Gayle, only those that previously signed ~up to speak at the last meeting will be allowed to speak. For those who are unable to make this evening's meeting, but did turn in speaker request forms, they may submit their statement to be read out loud into the record. Any additional statements submitted, including emails received, will be distributed to the council and included as part of the public hearing as exhibits. These will not be read out loud. >>> GAYLE TITUS <titus@jeffnet. org> 4/8/04 3:05:25 PM >>> Dear Council Member, You received an e-mail from me earlier today with some remarks I wished to make before the meeting this evening. If I am not permitted to speak, I ask that my message please be read aloud to the audience. Thank you for your consideration. Gayle Titus 1 Hillcrest St. Ashland, Or. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder City of Ashland 20 E Main Ashland OR 97520 (541) 488-5307 CC: Mike Franell; Paul nolte l'Mark 'k~0~ - DeB0er House PageZ From: To: Date: Subject: Susan Shaffer <suemel@opendoor.com> <mark@ashland .or.us> April 07, 2004 6:05:41 PM Del3oer House Dear Council Members: It seems to me that when contemplating a building of the proportions the DeBoer's have proposed, extreme caution should be taken in evaluating it from the point of view of aesthetics, traffic, and the many criteria governing hillside buildings. Whatever one's personal taste -- building a villa in downtown Ashland is distasteful to me -- I believe that every new structure, especially those built by people with the money to do it right, should conform to th(; prevailing aesthetics of the town. The DeBoer's proposed villa is not going to be remote; rather it is very near the center of town, and in fact will loom over it. It will affect everyone. I urge you to keep th(; greater good of the town in mind when evaluating this proposal. Sincerely yours, Susan Shaffer 129 Almond Street From: To: Date: Subject: <Wuzude@aol.com> <council@ashland.or.us> 4/6/'2004 4:07:44 PM DeBoer Family Residence I am a neighbour living on Allison Street. I am offended by the negative impact the DeBoer residence will have in my community. That the!/continue this display tells me they have very little or no consideration of what this dwelling will, and has done, to our small neighbourhood. Let's face it: the State of Oregon has no money. Telling 'incoming' famlies they are restricted to building homes up to a certain size does not mean the schools will re-open. Truth: if those families have the income to purchase land and then build their residence they will more than likely send their children to private/charter school or home schooling. I have seen the area where trees were cut down. When the City of Ashland has a 'Best Tree in the City' contest every year then it is of vast importance we feel about our environment. I am a voter who reads the small print and between the lines. This 21-thousand square footage 'monster house' should NOT be allowed to continue. It really isn't very neighoburlly. Keziah Daye Jones Resident and Voter CC: <mark@ast-~and.or. us> SuSa~ X'd,t,9s ' Glenview ROW-j~PA 2°0.4-1 !8 P.~ From: To: Date: Subject: "Colin Swales" <colin@mind.net> "Gino Grimaldi" <grimaldg@ashland.or.us> 4/7/2004 9:31:40 AM Glenview ROW - PA 2004-118 GJno, I spoke with Jim Olsen yesterday and he assures me there has still been to discussion or contact whatsoever with Sid and Karen DeBoer with regard to their development which would_seem to extend approximately 26 ft. into public property. Please could you forward this email and the ones copied below to Council. thanks Colin Subject: Re: Fw: Glenview ROW - PA 2004-118 From: "John McLaughlin" <mac@ashland.or.us> Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 08:45:07 -0800 To: <colin@mind.net> CC: "Jim olson" <Jimo@ashland.or. us> Colin, We have not had any discussions at this point with the applicants regarding the right of way. That will likely occur after the decision is final. Mac >>> "Colin Swales" <,colin@mind.net> 3/9/04 7:18:09 AM >>> Jim and Mac, I am re-sending this request (dated 2/27) as I haven't had a reply yet. Any chance I could have a response today as the "Findings" are scheduled for adoption at the PC meeting tonight? thanks Colin ..... Original Message ..... From: Colin Swales To: Jim Olson; John McLaughlin Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 2:31 PM Subject: Glenview ROW - PA 2004-118 Jim and Mac, The Planning Staff Report Addendum dated Dec 9 2003 recommended 9 conditions of approval for the proposed DeBoer ho~me on Glenview Vista PA 2003-118. I understand those conditions were made part of the decision. Condition #7 stated "That all proposed construction work within the Glenview Drive right-of-way be ~n,~t~S '=Gl~nview ROW-PA 2004-118 pag_e 2~ reviewed and approved by the Ashland Engineering Department," Have those plans now been reviewed and approved? Could you please make me copies of any exchanges between the applicants/staff with regard to this matter of development within the Glenview ROW. thanks Colin. CC: "Bill Street" <bill.street@ashland.k12.or.us>, "Bryan Holley" <holley@opendoor.com> s~an ya-a~e~es-~ DoCument request, RVTv DeBoer hearing Page~ From: To: Date: Subject: "Colin Swales" <colin@mind.net> "Gino Grimaldi" <grimaldg@ashland.or.us> 4/7'/2004 5:16:21 AM Document request, RVTV - DeBoer hearing Gino, There were a number of new documents provided to Council last night and added to the Record at last night's hearing that I, as appellant, have not yet seen. These include correspondence from the applicant's attorney with regard to their attempt to dismiss the appeal etc., letters and photographs from those in support and opposed, new drawings and renderings of the proposed project etc. Although I received some forwarded emails from Mac I understand there was also a new letter from Sid DeBoer as a MS Word file that I did not receive. Please could I have copies of those and any other correspondence received by the Council betwen now and the next meeting. I had asked that the pivotal City's paginated Luba Record for the 1997 Hillside Ordinance revisions (LUBA 97-260) and subsequent Court of Appeals filings and decision be made available for reference at the hearing. This request was denied by the City attorney so I must regretfully ask that I am provided a copy of the specific pages listed below. ( Please give my apologies to Derek Sverson who will probably be burdened with this onerous task.) I am also sorry that even more trees will needlessly have to be cut to. enable that paper trail. (or an e-copy containing .pdf files would be fine) Could you please confirm that the continued meeting will be at 6.00 p.m Thursday 8th in the Council Chambers and let me know the precise time and place for the adoption of the subsequent Findings. Please make your best effort to ensure that RVTV Cable access covers the meeting as I will be providing detailed photos and diagrams to explain my case and they need to be in the public record as they would not be covered by merely an audio recording or minutes of the meeting. Please could you forward this request to Council. (perhaps they will need similar copies) thanks Colin Fair use is a copyright principle based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. < http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html > Subject: Re: E-copies and clarification of Historic exemption From: "John McLaughlin" <mac@ashland.or.us> Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 14:54:21 -0800 To: <colin@mind.net> CC: <bill.street@ashland.k12.or.us>, "Bill Molnar" <bill@ashland.or.us>, "Gino Grimaldi" <grimaldg@ashland.or.us>, "Paul nolte" <Noltep@ashland.or.us>, <jbstreet@ashlandhome.net>, <phill@fosterdenman.com>, "Bryan Holley" <holley@opendoor.com> Colin, The electronic files from the Hillside record from seven years ago are not available. I would recommend that you mark the pages in the LUBA record that you want copied and we will be happy to make those copies for you. As for the change in the ordinance regarding the historic district, my recollection, although somewhat ~S/usa_n yates - Document request, RVTV- DeBoer hearing Pag~ cloudy, is that modification was made to not require new homes in the historic district to have mandatory step backs, offsets, and roof designs that may be incompatible with the other homes in the neighborhood. Hope this helps. Mac >>> "Colin Swales" <colin@mind.net> 3/30/04 3:29:30 PM >>> Mac (or Bill or Gino), I am trying to get together the relevant info for the upcoming DeBoer Appeal and wondered if you could provide from your archive an e-copy of the following: I have provided the page numbers from the LUBA Record for the appeal of the Hillside Ordinance for your reference. 1. Ad Hoc Committee for Hillside Development Public Meeting Minutes 11/3/97 ( Pg 687- 691) 2. Memorandum McLaughlin to Ad Hoc Hillside Ordinance Committee 10/30/97 (Pg 692-699) 3. Hillside Development Committee Public Meeting Minutes 10/20/97 ( Pg 766 768 ) 4. e-copies if possible of Slides for (PowerPoint ?) presentation in HOC packet (pg 774 - 776 ) 5. Memorandum Robbin Pearce to McLaughlin - Hillside Development Recommendations - 10/24/97 (778-779) 6. Planning Staff Report PA 97-044 6/10/97 ( 821- 829) 7. PC Minutes Public Hearing 6/10/97 830-831 8. Staff report for Hillside development Committee packet (around page 872) 9. Memorandum and Final Draft Version 2.1 P&E Constraints (1550-1584) 10. Version 1.1 P&E Constraints (1699-1753) 11. Version 1.0 P&E Constraints (i 736-1768) 12. The list of 40 names of interested parties that were noticed about these proceedings. Also I have a question .... Sometime during the process (between Final Draft version 2.1 and the adopted ordinance 2.7) the words "excepting those lands within the designated Historic District" got inserted in 18.62.080 E 2 Building Design. I can find nothing in the Record to suggest why this was done. Could you point me to where I might find that decision by Council to add this phrase and also the justifiable reason for adding it so late in the process? thanks Colin C¢: <Belcastro@sou.edu>, 'q-im Bewley" <dartetim@cdsnet.net>, "Bryan Holley" <holley@opendoor.com>, "Bill Street" <bill.street@ashland.k12.or.us>, "Derek Severson" <seversod@ashland.or.us> Susan yates - Hearing 4/6 re: DeBoer proposal Page_.~ From: To: Date: Subject: "Su Rolle" <srolle@mind.net> <mark@ashland.or.us>, <council@ashland.or.us> 4/6/2004 2:57:51 PM Hearing 4/6 re: DeBoer proposal I appreciate that the DeBoer's host events that may benefit the community. But I don't see that as justification for the scale of house proposed in our historic neighborhood. Nor do I believe that more families with children would come to Ashland if larger houses were available. There is no demographic data to support that rationale. There are plenty of large homes available to families if they choose to come to Ashland. And I'm sorry large trees were removed with intention of building a larger home. But that is also not justification for the proposal to move forward. - My husband and I have lived at 311 High Street in this historic neighborhood for over 20 years. The attraction of the older homes and old-fasioned yards appealed to us then and still does. There is a very real issue of scale that should be considered in a historic neighborhood. If an old mansion was here already, that's a very different situation than the removal of older homes to replace them with homes in excess of several thousand square feet. Unless an older home shows such extensive damage as cannot be reasonably repaired, I am opposed to demolition. An 11,000 sq.ft home seems out of place in an older neighborhood where the average size is closer to 2500 square feet. - Thank you for the opportunity to comment, Su Rolle