Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-190 Findings - HainesBEFORE THE COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF ASHLAND STATE OF OREGON IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATIONS FOR ) PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW ) WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN CORRIDOR, A ) TREE REMOVAl. PERMIT AND SITE ) REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ) NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON LAND ) IN DOWNTOWN ASHLAND LOCATED ) ALONG ASHLAND CREEK AND NORTH ) OFF NORTH MAIN STREET AND WEST ) OF WATER STREET IN THE CITY OF ) ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON ) ) ) Lloyd Haines: Applicant PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Applicant's Exhibit 1 NATURE OF THIE APPLICATION; ADDITIONAL PLANS The subject land use applications are submitted by Applicant Lloyd Haines. The applications are to permit the construction of a three story, mixed use, building in downtown Ashland on property that is adjacent to Ashland Creek. The proposed development is within the C-1 Retail Commercial District and is covered by a Downtown Overlay District designation (C-l- D). Development within the C-1-D district is subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.72, Site Design and Use Standards. Additionally, development located within the floodplain of Ashland Creek is subject to the requirements of Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) Chapter 18.62, Physical Constraints Review with respect to flood plain and riparian protection. Finally, Applicant's plans involve the removal of one tree and pruning of others. Tree removal requires a special permit under ALUO 18.61. The proposed building will house a restaurant, retail and office space and two, residential apartments. The apartments are intended to be on the upper-most floor. Applicant has engaged expert architect Dave Richardson, Architectural Design Works Inc., to undertake architectural and[ site design for the project. Architect Richardson and his staff and consultants have prepared a detailed site design plan and exterior elevations. Applicant's expert landscape architect, John Galbraith, Galbraith & Associates Inc., have prepared landscape and tree protection plans and Applicant's expert civil engineer, Greg Weston, Otak Inc., has assessed[ the flood hazard in relation to municipal regulations and participated in the architectural design of the project. Applicant's final plans ("the approved plans") are included at Record p. 112 to 115, A-26, A-28, A-29 A-30, A-31, AA-16 and AA-Il7. Page 1 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon CHRONOLOGY OF PROCEEDINGS; EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COUNCIL The following is a chronology of proceedings for municipal consideration of this application: 12-Dec-03 Application filed 07-Jan-04 Historic Commission review of Applicants proposal 08-Jan-04 Tree Commission review of Applicants proposal 22-Jan-04 Letter from Applicant's agent Craig Stone to Bill Molnar requesting continuance and 30-day extension of the statutory decision making deadline 18-Feb-04 City deemed the application to be complete 04-Mar-04 Tree, Commission review continued 09-Mar-04 Planning Commission public hearing on consolidated applications fbr Physical Constraints Review for land within a floodplain and riparian corridor, site review and a tree removal permit 13-Apr-04 Planning Commission adopted findings supporting approval 15-Apr-04 Planning Commission findings mailed to parties 23-Apr-04 Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the consolidated applications filed by Randall Hopkins 18-May-04 Council public heating. Hearing continued to June 1, 2004 with the public record left open 01-Jun-04 Continued Council public hearing. Record left open for 7 days for Applicant's written response and another 7 days for opponent's comments. Hearing continued to June 15, 2004 for Council's questions of Applicant 04-Jun-04 Letter extending the statutory decision making deadline. Extension to run up to and through July 22, 2004 15-Jun-04 Continued Council public hearing for Council to pose questions to Applicant. City Council by unanimous vote upheld the decision of the Planning Commission and imposed additional conditions as herein set forth The following evidence was before the Council: Record Page 6-15-04 Council Communication AA- 1 -- AA-2 6-15-04 Email from Randall Hopkins, Motion to Disqualify AA-2. ][ 6-15-04 Email from Randall Hopkins, regarding Councilor Don Laws AA-2.2 - AA-2.3 6-04-04 Letter' from Craig A. Stone dated June 4, 2004 extending the AA-3 statutory decision making deadline Page 2 Findings of Fact a~d Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon 6-08-04 6-15-04 6-13-04 6-11-04 6-08-04 6-01-04 5-31-04 5-31-04 6-01-04 6-01-04 5-26-04 5-25-04 5-14-04 5-14-04 5-14-04 5-14-04 5-14-04 5-14-04 5-14-04 5-14-04 Letter and attachments submitted by Craig A. Stone dated June 8, 2004 Craig A. Stone response to Councilor Jackson questions Revised Site Plan Sheet 101R dated June 8, 2004 Revised Floor Plan Sheet 107R dated June 8, 2004 Memorandum from Attorney John Hassen dated June 8, 2004 Otak Review Update dated June 7, 2004 Otak Map Enclosures Letter from Lloyd Haines dated June 7, 2004 Attacl~anents submitted by Lloyd Haines Revised Site Use Summary submitted by Dave Richardson R. Hopkins Final Response of Opponent Email from Colin Swales to Gino Grimaldi regarding Large Scale Development Email from Colin Swales to Fran Berteau Email from Mike Franell to Council Large Scale Development Interpretation Email from Cate Hartzell to the Council Letter from Colin Swales to Mike Franell Letter from Mike Franell to Colin Swales regarding Large Scale iDevelopment Interpretation Memo to Mayor and Council from Councilor Jackson Council Minutes, Draft Copy Council Communication from John McLoughlin Letter in rebuttal from Craig A. Stone Supplemental Brief from Randall Hopkins Exhibit CC-1 Save the Alder flyer Exhibit CC-2 Applicants Architect Drawing A-101 Exhibit CC-3 Table- Overall Site Use Summary for Shasta Building Exhibit CC-4 Large color photo of deck area Exhibit CC-5 Large color FEMA map and new three stow building Exhibit CC-6 Randall Hopkins Exhibit 34 Exhibit CC-7 Randall Hopkins Exhibit 36 Exhibit CC-8 Randall Hopkins Exhibit 35 AA-4 - AA-35 AA-4 - AA- 15 AA-16 AA-17 AA-18 - AA-19 AA-20 - AA-21 AA-22 - AA-30 AA-31 - AA-33 AA-34 - AA-35 AA-36 - AA-37 AA-38 - AA-41 AA-42--AA-43 AA-44 - AA-45 AA-45.1-AA-45.2 AA-46 AA-47 AA-48 - AA-49 AA-50 AA-55 AA-62 AA-69 AA-77 AA-96 AA-97 AA-98 - AA-54 - AA-61 - AA-68 - AA-76 - AA-95 AA-99 AA- 1 O0 AA-101 AA-102 AA-103 Page 3 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon 5-14-04 5-14-04 5-14-04 5-14-04 5-14-04 5-14-04 5-14-04 5-14-04 5-14-04 5-18-04 5-18-04 5-18-04 6-01-04 6-01-04 5-14-04 5-14-04 5-14-04 5-14-04 5-14-04 5-14-04 5-14-04 5-14-04 6-01-04 5-29-04 5-13-04 5-14-04 5-18-04 5-17-04 5-17-04 5-17-04 Exhibit CC- 12 Exhibit CC- 13 Exhibit CC- 14 Elevation Plan Exhibit CC- 15 Exhibit CC-9 Randall Hopkins Exhibit 33 Exhibit CC-10 Enlargement of page 2 of the Applicants unsigned application Exhibit CC-11 Foam board exhibit of proposed building Enlargement of ODOT tree dripline Copy of architectural drawing A-101 Site Plan Copy of architectural drawing A-201 AA- 104 AA-105 Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit AA- 10(5 AA- 107 AA-108 AA- 109 Copy of architectural drawing A- 107 Floor Plan AA- 110 CC- 16 Architectural drawing of new dining deck AA- 111 CC- 17 Sculptors drawing of proposed art work AA- 112 - AA- 115 CC-18 Enlarged photo of subject property AA-116 CC-19 Enlarged photo of subject property AA-11'7 Exhibit CC-20 Email from Mike Franell Council AA- 118 - AA- 122 to Colin Swales Exhibit CC-21 Councilor Kate Jackson's memo to Mayor AA-123 - AA-127 and Council dated May 31, 2004 Exhibit CC-22 Architects table of cut and fill calculations AA-128 - AA-129 Exhibit CC-23 Large exhibit of new three story building AA-130 Exhibit CC-24 Basement and first floor plan AA-131 Exhibit CC-25 Signed planning application AA-132 Exhibit CC-26 Large exhibit of architects drawing A-301 AA- 13:3 Transparency- Ashland Creek Floodplain Corridor Map AA-134 Transparency - Figure 5 Floodway Schematic AA- 13:5 Transparency-Corridor Map Boundary and FEMA AA-136 Transparency- Building Cross Section AA-13'7 Fax Transmittal copy of LUBA case, BTC Partnership vs. AA-13 8 - AA-150 City of Portland Letter from David Richardson to Bill Molnar AA-151 Letter from Randall A. Hopkins to Mayor DeBoer and Council AA-1512 Letter of transmittal from Dave Richardson to City of Ashland AA- 153 - AA- 154 Email from Colin Swales to Mike Franell regarding AA-155 - AA-160 Large Scale Development Fax from John Galbraith to Bill Molnar revised tree inventory AA-161 - AA-162 Email in support from Marc Heller to Bill Molnar AA-163 Email from Colin Swales to Gino Grimaldi AA-164- 166 Page 4 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon 5-16-04 5-14-04 5-14-04 5-12-04 5-12-04 5-18-04 5-13-04 5-18-04 5-12-04 4-23 -04 4-23 -04 4-15-04 3-12-04 3-09-04 3-09-04 3-09-04 3-05-04 2-13-04 1-09-04 1-07-04 Letter in opposition from Diane McDermott Letter in support from Judy Howard dated May 12, 2004 Letter in support from Judy Howard dated February 26, 2004 Site Use Summary Table dated May 18, 2004 Letter in support from Michael C. Babcock dated ]May 10,2004 Record For Planning Action 2004-002 Council Communication Supplemental Record of Applicant Letter from Atty. Alan D. B. Harper addressing grounds for appeal dated 5-12-04 Letter from Atty. Lloyd M. Haines dated 5-10-04 Tidings Editorial dated 4-28-04 Letter from Arborist Tom Meyers dated 4-24-04 Letter and Packet from Landscape Architect John Galbraith dated :5-12-04 Lines and encumbrances affecting title of property dated .5-12-04 Revised Maps provided by Applicants representatives Notice of Council Public Hearing and applicable criteria mailed April 28, 2004 Memo from the Ashland Tree Commission Written objections submitted by Randall Hopkins Notice of Appeal submitted by Randall Hopkins Letter of Approval and Planning Commission Findings, Conclusions & Order dated March 9, 2004 ODOT Fax, landscape permit for new tree Ashland Planning Commission Minutes Staff Report & Staff Exhibit Planning Commission Public Hearing Notice and applicable criteria Applicants revised drawings Applicants Findings and Exhibits Tree Commission Planning Application Review Ashland Historic Commission Minutes Miscellaneous Public Comments Cover Sheet AA-167 - AA-168 AA- 169 AA- 170 AA-171 AA- 172 AA- 174 AA- 17;5 A- 1 - A-31 A- 1 - A-4 A-5 - A-9 A-10 A-11 A-12 - A-22 A-23 - A-24 A-25 - A-31 1-3 4-5 6-63 64-69 70-78 79-82 83-91 92-106 107-109 l10-119A 120-253 254 255-257 258 Page 5 Findings of Fact ar, rd Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon 3-09-04 3-09-04 3-09-04 3-08-04 3-08-04 3-08-04 3-08-04 3-08-04 3-08-04 3-08-04 3-04-04 3-04-04 3-02-04 3-O2-O4 3-01-04 3-01-04 3-01-04 3-02-04 2-26-04 1-25-04 Email from opponent Randall Hopkins to Bill Molnar Email in opposition from Oriana Spratt to Bill Molnar Phone message in opposition from Beth Evonuik Letter from Arborist Tom Myers Letter from John Galbraith Landscape Architect Letter in opposition from Diane McDermott Letter in opposition from Richard Benson Letter in support from Billy Harto Email in support from David and Patricia Sprague to Bill Molnar Letter in Email in Letter in Letter in Letter in Letter an Letter in Letter an Letter in Letter in Email in Ashland support from support from support from support from support from support from 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 support from Robert Harvey 268 opposition from Oriana Spratt to Susan Yates 269-270 support from Ingrid Boldt 271 Peter Brunner and Cynthis White 272 Judith Ginsburg 273 Ken Silverman 274 Frank and Nancy Phillips 275 Michael C. Babcock 276 Christopher R. Ashenbrener 277 support from Judy Howard 278 opposition from Oriana Spratt to 279 Council III RELEVANT SUBSTANTIVE APPROVAL CRITERIA The Council has determined that the below relevant substantive criteria constitute all of the approval standards prerequisite to approving this Physical Constraints Review permit, Tree Removal permit and Site Design and Use Review permit. A recitation of lhe relevant standards and criteria in the Physical and Environmental Constraints, Tree Removal, Tree Preservation and Protection and Site Design and Use Standards are contained in Section V of this document. In Section V, each relevant standard or criterion (or groups of standards and criteria) are followed by the conclusions of law and ultimate conclusions of the Council. The conclusions of law and ultimate conclusions are based upon the findings of fact in Section IV and the evidence enumerated in Section II. PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC)) Page 6 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon ALUO Chapter 18~62 Physical Constraints Review Permit ALUO 18.62,040(!) 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 ir'npacts to t`he property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. That the Applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development ma,./ create and implemented measures to rnitigat`e the potential hazards caused by the developmentv , That the Applicant has taken alt 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 t`he maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. ALUO 18.62.070 Development Standards for Flood plain Corridor Lands, For all land use ;actions which could result in development of the Flood plain corridor, the following is required in addition to any requirements of Chapter 15.10. A. Standards for fill in Flood plain Corridor lands: 1. Fill shall be designed as required by the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, where applicable. 2. The toe of the fill shall be kept at least ten feet outside of floodway channels, as defined in section 15.t0; and the fill shall not exceed the angle of repose of the material used for fill. The amount of fill in the Flood plain Corridor shall be kept to a minimum. Fill and other material imported from off the lot that could displace floodwater shall be limited to the following: a. Poured concrete and other materials necessary to build permitted structures on the lot. b. Aggregate base and paving materials, and fill associated with approved public and private street and driveway construction. c. Plants and other landscaping and agricultural material. total of 50 cubic yards of other imported fill material. The above limits on fill shall be measured from April 1989, and shall not exceed the above amounts. These amounts are the maximum cumulative fill that can be imported onto the site, regardless of the number of permits issued. If additional fill is necessary beyond the permitted amounts in (3) above, then fill materials must` be obtained on the lot from cutting or excavation only to the extent necessary to create an elevated site for permitted development. All additional fill material shall be obtained from the portion o~ the lot in the Flood plain Corridor. 5, Adequate drainage shall be provided for the stability of the fill, 6. Fill to raise elevations for a building site shall be located as close to the outside edge of the Flood plain Corridor as feasible, B~ Culverting or bridging of any waterway or creek identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to section 18.62.060 must be designed by an engineer. Stream crossings shall be designed to the standards of Chapter 15.10, or where no floodway has been identified, to pass a one hundred (100) year flood without. any increase in the upstream flood height elevation. The engineer shall consider in the design the probability that the culvert will be blocked by debris in a severe flood, and accommodate expected overflow. Fill for culverting and bridging shall be kept to the minimum necessary to achieve property access, but is exempt from the limitations in section (A) abow.~. Culverting or bridging of streams identified as Riparian Preservation are subject to the requirements of 18.62.075. Page 7 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon C~ P~ F, S. U~ K. Non-residential structures shall be flood-proof to the standards in Ct~apter 15.10 to one foot above the elevation contained in the maps adopted by chapter t5.10, or up to the elevation contained in the official maps adopted by section 18.62.060, whichever height is greater. Where no specific elevations exist, then they must be floodproofed to an elevation of ten feet above the creek channel on Ashland, Bear or Neil Creek; to five feet above the creek channel on alt other Riparian Preserve creeks defined in section 18.62.050oB; and three feet above the stream channel on all other drainage ways identified on the official maps. All residential structures shall be elevated so that the lowest habitable floor shall be raised to one foot above the elevation contained in the maps adopted in chapter 15.10, or to the elevation contained in the official maps adopted by section 18.62.060, whichever height is greater. Where no specific elevations exist, then they must be constructed at an elevation of ten feet above the creek channel on Ashland, Bear, or Neil Creek; 'to five feet above the creek channel on all other Riparian Presen,'e creeks defined in section 18.62.050.B; and three feet above the stream channel on all other drainage ways identified on the official maps, or one foot above visible evidence of high flood water flow, whichever is greater. The elevation of the finished lowest habitable floor shall be certified to the city by an engineer or surveyor prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the structure. To the maximum extent feasible, structures shall be placed on other than Flood plain Corridor Lands. in the case where development is permitted in the Flood plain corridor area, then development shall !se Existing lots with buildable land outside the Flood plain Corddor shall locate all residential structures outside the Corridor land, unless 50% or more of the lot is within the Flood plain Corridor. For residential uses proposed for existing lots that have more than 50% of the lot in Corridor land, structures may be located on that portion of the Flood plain corridor that is two feet or less below the flood elevations on the official maps, but in no case closer than 20 feet to the channel of a Ripadan Preservation Creek. Construction shall be subject to the requirements in paragraph D above. New non-residential uses may be located on that portion of Flood plain Corridor lands that equal to or above the flood elevations on the official maps adopted in section 18.62.060. Second stop./construction may be cantilevered over the Flood plain corridor for a distance of 20 feet if the clearance from finished grade is at least ten feet in height, and is supported by pillars that will have minimal impact on the flow of floodwaters. The finished floor elevation may not be more than two feet below the flood corddor elevations. All lots modified by lot line adjustments, or new lots created from lots which contain Flood plain Corridor land must contain a building envelope on all lot(s) which contain(s) buitdable area of a sul~cient size to accommodate the uses permitted in the underling zone, unless the action is for open space or conservation purposes. This section shall apply even if the effect is to prohibit further division of lots that are larger than the minimum size permitted in the zoning ordinance. Basements, 1. Habitable basements are not permitted for new or existing structures or additions located within the Flood plain Corridor. 2. Non-habitable basements, used for storage, parking, and similar uses are permitted for residential structures but must be flood-proofed to the standards of Chapter 15.10. Storage of petroleum products, pesticides, or other hazardous or toxic chemicals is not permitted in Flood plain Corridor lands. Fences constructed within 20 feet of any Riparian Preservation Creek designated by this chapter shall be limited to wire or electric fence, or similar fence that will not collect debris or obstruct flood waters, but not including wire mesh or chain link fencing. Fences shall not be constructed across any identified riparian drainage or riparian preservation creek. Fences shall not be constructed within any designated floodway. Decks and structures other than buildings, if constructed on Flood plain Corridor Lands and at or below the levels specified in section 18.62.070.C and D, shall be flood-proofed to the standards contained in Chapter 15.10. Page 8 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon M. Local streets and utiiity connections to developments in and adjacent to the Flood plain Corridor shall be located outside of the Flood plain Corridor, except for crossing the Corridor, and except in the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor as outlined below: Public street construction may be allowed within the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor as part of development following the adopted North Mountain Neighborhood Plan. This exception shall only be permitted for that section o'f the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor between North Mountain Avenue and the Nevada Street right-of-way. The new street shall be constructed in the general location as indicated on the neighborhood plan map, and in the area generally described as having the shallowest potential 'for flooding within the corridor. 2. Proposed development that is not in accord with the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan shall not be permitted to utilize this exception. ALUO 18.62..075 Development Standards for Riparian Preservation Lands. Ay All development in areas indicated for Riparian Preservation, as defined in section 18.62.050(B), shall comply with the following standards. 1. Development shall be subject to all Development Standards for Flood plain Corridor Lands. (18.62.070) 2. Any tree over six inches d.b.h, shall be retained to the greatest extent feasible. 3, Fill and Culverting shall be permitted only for streets, access or utilities. The crossing shall be at right angels to the creek channel to the greatest extent possible. Fill shall be kept to a minimum. 4. The general topography of Riparian Preservation lands shall be retained. SITE REVIEW Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 18) ALUO Chapter 72 :Site Design and Use Standards ALUO 18.72.050 Detail Site Review Zone. A, B. C. The Detail Site P, eview Zone is that area defined in the Site Design Standards adopted pursuant to Section 18.72.040(A). Any development in the Detail Site Review Zone as defined in the Site Review Standards adopted pursuant to this chapter, which exceeds 10,000 square feet or is longer than 100 feet in length or width, shall be reviewed according to the Type 2 procedure. No new buildings or contiguous groups of buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone shall exceed a gross square footage ,of 45,000 square feet or a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. Any building or contiguous group of buildings which exceed these limitations, which were in existence in 1992, may expand up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. Neither the gross squa~re footage or combined contiguous building length, as set forth in this section shall be subject to any vadance authorized in the Land Use Ordinance. ALUO 18.72.070 Criteria for Approval, The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or 'will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met, C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the Council for implementation of this Chapter. Page 9 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development; electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property.. All improvements in the street right~oPway shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655, t991: Ord 2836 $6, 1999) ASHLAND SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS SECTION I1: APPROVAL STANDARDS AND POLICIES II-A, ORDINANCE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS Il-C, COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT, AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT II-C-1. BASIC SITE REVIEW STANDARDS IFCwla) Orientation and Scale II-C-lb) Streetscape II-C-lc) Landscaping II-C-ld) Parking I I-C-le) Designated Creek Protection II-C-lf) Noise and Glare II-C-lg) Expansions of Existing Sites and Buildings II-C-2. DETAIL SITE REVIEW II-C-2a) Orientation and Scale II-C-2b) Streetscape IFC-2c) Parking & On-Site Circulation II-C-2d) Buffering and Screening II-C-2e) Lighting IFC-2f) Building Materials It-D, PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING STANDARDS II-D-6. OTHER SCREENING Refuse Container Screen: Refuse containers or disposal areas shall be screened from view by placement of a solid wood fence or masonry wall from five to eight feet in height. All refuse materials shall be contained within the refuse area. Service Corridor Screen: When adjacent to residential uses Light and Glare Screen: Artificial lighting shall be so arranged and constructed as to not produce direct glare on adjacent residential properties or streets. ii-E. STREET TREE STANDARDS II-E-l) Location for Street Trees II-E-2) Spacing, Placement, and Pruning of Street Trees II-E-3) Replacement of Street Trees II-E-4) Recommended Street Trees Vi-Co HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS o Height Scale ,, Massing · Setback Roof Shapes Rhythm of Openings Platforms Directional Expression ° Sense of Entry Imitations Page 10 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon SECTION VI: DOWNTOWN ASHLAND VI-l) Parking lots adjacent to the pedestrian path are prohibited. VI-2) Pedestrian amenities such as a broad sidewalks, arcades, alcoves, colonnades, porticoes, awnings and sidewalk seating shall be provided where possible and feasible. VI-3) Weather protection on adjacent key pedestrian paths are required by all new development. VI-4) Windows and other features of interest to pedestrians shall be provided adjacent to the sidewalk. Blank walls adjacent to sidewalks are prohibited. VI-5) Two-story development is encouraged downtown, with the second stodes in commercial, residential, or parking areas. VI-6) Uses which are exclusively automotive such as service stations, ddve-up windows, auto sales, and tire stores are discouraged in the downtown. The city shall use its discretionary powers, such as Conditional Use permits, to deny new uses. Although improvements to existing facilities may be permitted. SECTION VI: DOWNTOWN DESIGN STANDARDS. The following standards are adopted with this plan and shall be used as part of the land use approval process. VI-A) Height VI-B) Openings VI-C) Width VI-D) Openings VI-E) Horizontal Rhythms VI-F) Vertical Rhythms VI-G) Roof Forms VI-H) Materials VI-I) Awnings, Marquees or Similar Pedestrian Shelters VI-J) Other VI-K) Exception to Standards TREE PRESERVATION & PROTECTION PERMIT Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter ALUO Chapter 18.61 Tree Preservation & Protection ALUO 18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal - Staff Permit. An Applicant for a Tree Removal- Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff' Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permiL ALUO 18.61.080(B) Tree that is not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the Applicant demonstrates all of the following: The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the Applicant to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, (e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and 2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted Page11 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternative landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 4. The City shall require the Applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. ALUO 18.61.200 Tree Protection. Tree Protection as required by this section is applicable to any planning action or building permit. A. Tree Protection Plan Required. 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 cleady depicts all trees to be preserved and/or removed on the site. The plan must be drawn to scale and include the following: a. Location, species, and diameter of each tree on site and within 15 feet of the site; b. Location of the ddp line of each tree; c. Location of existing and proposed roads, water, sanitary and storm sewer, irrigation, and other utility lines/facilities and easements; d. Location of dry wells, drain lines and soakage trenches; e. Location of proposed and existing structures; f. Grade change or cut and fill dudng 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 St;:~ff 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. Page 12 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of l_aw Ashland Planning Actio~n 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon . The tree protection zone shall remain free of chemically injurious materials and liquids such as paints, thinners, cleaning solutions, petroleum products, and concrete or dry wall excess, construction debris, or m-off. 7. No excavation, trenching, grading, root pruning or other activity shall occur within the tree protection zone unless approved by the Staff Advisor. C. Inspection. The Applicant shall not proceed with any construction activity, except installation of erosion control measures, until the City has inspected and approved the installation of the required tree protection measures and a building and/or grading permit has been issued by the City. IV FINDINGS OF FACT The Council determines the following facts and finds them to be true with respect to this matter. Where conflicts arose, the Council has resolved them as follows: 1. Property Description; Ownership: The owner of record is 88 North Main, LLC. Applicant Haines is a member of 88 North Main, LLC. The legal description of the subject property, according to the records of the Jackson County Assessor, is Tax Lot 9800 on map 39-1E-09BB. The shape and configuration of the property is shown on the Assessor's Plat Map Record p. 225. e Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations: The subject property is designated Downtown on the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map. The property is within a Retail Commercial (C-I) zoning district and subject to the City's Downtown Overlay District (D); the overall zoning designation of the property is denoted on Ashland's Official Zoning Map as C-1-D. The property is within Ashland's Commercial North Main Historic: District. o Public Facilities, Services and Utilities: The subject property is served with urban public facilities and services, including municipal water, sanitary sewer service, municipal electrical service, natural gas, and transportation facilities, which accommodate the movement of motorized vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians to and through the subject property. Representatives of Applicant testified that they had interviewed representatives of the Ashland Engineering Department and, according to Engineering Department representatives, the municipal infrastructure which serves this property, is sufficient for the proposed development and contemplated land uses. However, connectionL to sanitary sewer and water lines within North Main Street will require a permit through the State of Oregon for the purpose of cutting the pavement to connect the underground infrastructure to the proposed new building. Storm water run off will be diverted directly to Ashland Creek which runs through the subject property. According to representatives of the Ashland Engi[neering Department, there appear to be no existing conditions that would limit the ability to discharge storm water to the creek. 4. Nature of the Proposed Use; Applicant's Final Plans ("The Approved Plans"): The development includes the construction of a mixed use building with an under-floor area, Page 13 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon realignment and replacement of the existing pedestrian bridge over Ashland Creek. While Applicant's plans were revised during the municipal review process, the final plans -- those which were approved by the Council -- are included at Record p. 112 to 115, A- 26, A-28, A-29 A-30, A-31, AA-16 and AA-17. The following is a detailed description of the uses proposed to occupy the subject building: · Mixed Use Building Underfloor. The underfloor will be used for the elevator foundation and mechanical equipment. The underfloor will also be used to store floodwaters during significant flood events, in accordance with the regulations of Ashland and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). By definition the underfloor of this building is not considered habitable and therefore is not consider a "floor" under the ordinary meaning of this term. Habitable Floor is defined in the Ashland[ Municipal Code subsection 15.10.050(J) as follows: "Habitable Floor means any floor usable for living purposes, which includes working, sleeping, eating, cooking or recreation, or a combination thereof. A :floor used only for storage purposes is not a "habitable" floor." Some of tlhe underfloor is below the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) adopted by the City of Ashland and below the FEMA BFE. The underfloor will be of fiow-through construction to accommodate floodwaters (during major flood events) and minimize potential flood damage. See, Record p. A-28, Exterior Elevations Sheet A-201 and Record p. A-29, Building Sections Sheet A-301. Any electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing and mechanical equipment to be located within this area will be flood- proofed or elevated sufficiently to prevent floodwaters from entering or accumulating within these components. Level 1 Lower Floor. A restaurant will be located on this floor. The restaurant will include indoor dining, a kitchen. On this floor is a planned outdoor dining and deck area whiclh will be accessed from a central reception area. The indoor dining area is to be adjacent to the outdoor dining area and have views to Ashland Creek. An outdoor reception area, accessed by a stairway from North Main Street, will be located between the existing Ashland Creek Bar & Grill and the proposed new building. See, Floor Plan Sheet A-107-R at Record p. AA-17. The Level 1 floor elevation is at 1,877 feet, which is 1.50 feet above the Ashland BFE an,d 5.00 feet above the FEMA BFE. See, Record p. A-28 (Exterior Elevations Sheet A-201) and Record p. A-29 (Building Sections Sheet A-301). New decking will be constructed along the east side of the proposed new building and adjacent to the existing Ashland Creek Bm: & Grill. The existing deck cover over a portion of the Ashland Creek Bar & Grill outdoor seating and dining area will be removed. A decorative metal guardrail 'will be installed at the north end of the new deck on the Ashland Creek side. Level 2 Main Floor. Space for retail shops and office suites will be located on this floor, which has access directly from North Main Street. See, Floor Plan Sheet A- Page 14 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon 107-R Record p. AA-17. The main floor elevation is measured at 1,889 feet. The main floor is 13.50 feet above the Ashland BFE and 17 feet above the FEMA BFE. See, Record p. A-28 (Exterior Elevations Sheet A-201) and Record p. A-29 (Building Sections Sheet A-301). Level 3 Upper Floor. Two residential apartments will occupy the upper-most floor. The apartments will be 2 bedroom units with full kitchens. See, Record p. AA-17 (Floor Plan Sheet A-107-R). The upper floor elevation is measured at 1,901.50 feet. The upper' floor is 26.00 feet above the Ashland BFE and 29.50 feet above the FEMA BFE. See, Record p. A-28 (Exterior Elevations Sheet A-201) and Record p. A-29 (Building Sections Sheet A-301). Building Square Footage Breakdown: Based upon Applicant's final and approved plans (Record p. 112 to 115, A-26, A-28, A-29 A-30, A-31, AA-16 and AA-17) the below Table 1 is a statistical breakdown of the proposed development. Table 1 Building/Site Square Footage Breakdown Source: Dave Richardson, Ashland Design Works 4,201 Site Area 100% Coverage New Building (Including Decks) 3,501 83.35% Landscape Coverage (Including Creek) 700~ 16.65%~ Landscaping Required 0 0% Parking 02 0%2 New Building Enclosed Areas [Jnderfloor 891 Lower Floor (Shell) 1,863 lvlain Floor (Shell) 3,078 Upper Floor (Finished) 3,310 Total New Building Enclosed Area 9,142 New Building Unenclosed Areas Lower Floor 1,038 IVlain Floor 93 Upper Floor 40 Total New Building Unenclosed Areas 1,171 Page 15 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon Residential Uses Allowed Density 60/acre 5.79 units allowed Actual number of units 2 units3 Table Notes: Landscaped area figure does not include additional landscaping to be provided on the property located on either side of the new bridge. ALUO 18.32.050(A) provides that land within the "D" Downtown Overlay District is not required to provide off-street parking or loading areas, except for hotels, motels or hostel uses. 3. Residential units will both have two bedrooms Pedestrian Bridge: There is an existing pedestrian bridge which now pen~its people to cross over Ashland Creek by foot in order to access the Ashland Creek Bar & Grill. The existing bridge is proposed to be replaced and slightly realigned to meet Ashland design and floodplain standards. Applicant testified that the final design of the bridge will be cal~ed out by a qualified Oregon-registered engineer and will be ora design to be elevated above the FEMA Base Flood Elevation (BFE), specially at 18'77 feet, and otherwise designed and constructed to meet local, state and federal flood regulations. See, Record p. AA-16 (Site Plan Sheet A-101-R) and the conditions attached to this approval in Section VI. 5. Proposed Method of Heating, Cooling and Lighting: At this time, Applicant proposes to use electricity for heating and cooling throughout the building. However, Applicant may later determine that a combination of electric and natural gas is more beneficial for the proposed uses. The method of heating, cooling and lighting will be finally determined at the time construction drawings are submitted for building permits. e Existing Land Use (Subject Property): The site is presently developed as an outdoor seating and dining area for the Ashland Creek Bar & Grill restaurant. The existing restaurant has indoor as well as outdoor dining areas. That portion of the outdoor dining area which is adjacent to the existing building, is covered by a canopy that is attached to the existing building; this area will remain and be available for outdoor dialing for the Ashland Creek Bar & Grill. The remainder of the existing outdoor seating and dining area is of wood decking which is not covered by any structure and which is intended as the site of the new building. As above mentioned, there is a wood pedestrian bridge which crosses Ashland Creek and connects the Ashland Creek Bar & Grill to a paved parking area located on the north side of Ashland Creek (and beneath the Lithia Way viaduct). 0 Surrounding Area Development: Photographs of the surrounding area and existing development are in Record p. 222 to 224, which includes a photograph key map that shows the station points for each photo and the direction each was taken. All buildings on the same 'block as the subject property, the proposed building and buildings across North Main Street, all have flat roofs. Page 16 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon ge Characteristics of Surrounding Potential Impact Area: The physical characteristics of the surrounding potential impact area are graphically depicted in photographs. See, Record p. 222. through 224. 9. Floodplain Corridor Land: Floodplain Corridor Land is defined in ALU(3 18.62 as follows: ALUO 18.62.050(A) Flood plain Corridor Lands - Lands with potential stream flow and flood hazard. The following lands are classified as Flood plain Corridor lands: 1. All lanq contained within the 100 year Flood plain as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, in maps adopted by Chapter 15.10 of the Ashland Municipal Code. 2. All land within the area defined as Flood plain Corridor land in maps adopted by the Council as provided for in section 18.62.060. 3. All lands which have physical or historical evidence of flooding in the historical past. All area,,; within 20 feet (horizontal distance) of any creek designated for Ripadan Preservation in 18.62.050.B and depicted as such on maps adopted by the Council as provided for in section 18.62.060. 5. All area.,; within ten feet (horizontal distance) of any drainage channel depicted on maps adopted by the Council but not designated as Ripadan Preservation. The subject site contains land that is defined as Floodplain Corridor Land because: A portion of site is within the floodplain and floodway boundary as illustrated on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance irate Maps (FIRM) mad Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps (Floodway). ALUO Chapter 15.10 adopted the Flood Insurance Maps dated June 1, 1981 for establishing areas of special flood hazard within incorporated Ashland. The FEMA floodplain and floodway boundary are depicted at Record p. 113 and 114, Sheets A- 103 and 104. 'The FEMA flood elevation for the subject property is 1,872 feet. The subject site ranges in elevation from 1,886 feet at East Main Street to 1,863 feet at the approximate west bank of Ashland Creek. The building, other than decks, is proposed to be sited on land that is at an elevation of 1872 feet and higher. Land within the floodplain corridor boundary as adopted by the Council in ALUO Section 18.62.060 is shown at Record p. 112 Sheet A-102. The Ashland Base Flood Elevation (BFE) for the adopted floodplain corridor is 1875.50 feet. The flooqplain corridor map adopted by the Ashland Council July 7, 1989 (the Official Map) depicts a floodplain boundary based on historic flood events and field survey conducted by the City of Ashland Planning Department. The Official Map as adopted by the Council on July 7, 1989 also includes the FEMA floodplain boundary. See Record p. 112 (Sheet A-102) and Otak Flood Hazard Assessment Record p. 191 through 194 and AA-20 through AA-21. Page 17 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon · The site is; adjacent to Ashland Creek and is subject to riparian preservation pursuant to ALUO 18.62.050(B). · The site is not within ten feet (horizontal distance) of any drainage channel that is not designated as Riparian Preservation. 10. Riparian Preservation: The proposed development is adjacent to Ashl.and Creek. ALUO 18.62.050(B) designates land along Ashland Creek for Riparian Preservation. As such, the subject property and project are subject to the standards of the ALUO 18.62.075 which establish development standards for Riparian Preservation lands. The standards and criteria for Riparian Preservation in ALUO 18.62.075 are: A. All development in areas indicated for Riparian Preservation, as defined in section 18.62.050(B), shall comply with the following standards. 1. Development shall be subject to all Development Standards for Flood plain Corridor Lands. (18.62.070) 2. Any tree over six inches d.b.h, shall be retained to the greatest extent feasible. Fill and Culverting shall be permitted only for streets, access or utilities. The crossing shall be at right angels to the creek channel to the greatest extent possible. Fill shall be kept to a minimum. 4. The general topography of Riparian Preservation lands shall be retained. The proposed development is subject to the standards for Flood Plain Corridor Lands as set fortlh in ALUO 18.62.070 and these have been addressed in the Findings of Fact (Section IV) and the Conclusions of Law (Section V) hereinbelow. Trees on the subject site which are over 6-inches diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) are identified on the Tree Preservation Plan at Record p. A-30. One tree which is within the building envelope is proposed for removal, all other trees outside of the building envelope have been retained. This application does not involve the removal of any trees within the Riparian Preservation area. The triple-trunk maple tree (within the Riparian Preservation Area) will be pruned although the evidence from Applicant's expert landscape architect is that such pruning will not constitute removal under the ALUO. No streets or utilities are proposed in this project which would be within the flood plain or riparian corridor. The only form of access to be within the flood/riparian corridor, is the pedestrian bridge and the same does not require fill or culverts within the bounqaries of the floodplain corridor, other than the potential bridge footings to anchor the bridge on the side of the creek opposite the proposed building.~ The only ~ There is an existing pedestrian bridge which in this application, is proposed to be realigned and reconstructed at an elevation of 1877 feet, 5 feet above the FEMA Base Flood Elevation (BFE) of 1,872 feet. Page 18 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon elements of this project which are within the flood plan corridor are the pillars for the patio area. The deck support pillars are not fill.2 The term Riparian is defined at ALUO 18.62.030(Q) as, "That area associated with a natural water course including its wildlife and vegetation." The area on the subject site and along Ashland Creek that contains vegetation and possibly wildlife is not proposed for excavation or fill other than what is required for the planting of vegetation for the enhancement of the riparian area. See, Record p. A-31. 11. Timeline for Development: Pursuant to ALUO 18.62.040(H)(1)(t), Applicaxtt testified that if the applications were approved in March 2004, project development would proceed approximately according to the following milestones: · June 2004: Preparation of architectural working drawings and contract ,documents; submittal 'to city for building permits; contractor selection · August 2004: Approval of plans and issuance of building permits · September 2004: Start of construction · June 2005: Construction completed · July 2005 :: Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by City of Ashland The dates listed above, of course, will change with reference to the date upon which these applications are ultimately approved. 12. Tree Removal and Protection: Applicant's plans contemplate the removal of one tree and the pruning of several others, including one on Applicant's property and others on adjacent right-of-way of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). V CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Council reaclhes the following conclusions of law and ultimate conclusions under each of the relevant substantive criteria. The conclusions of law are preceded by the standard, criterion or criteria to which they relate and are supported by findings of fact as set forth in Section IV hereinabove and by the evidence enumerated in Section II: PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Title ALUO CHAPTER 62: PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONTRAINTS ALUO t8.62.040(t) Criteria for Approval. A Physical Constrains Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff 2 In this document, die terms pillars and piers are used interchangeably and mean the same thing. Page 19 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following: Criterion 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 Council concludes that the development standards of "this chapter" are the standards and criteria in ALUO Chapter 18.62, the standards which are addressed below .as Criterion 4 through 18. The findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 4 through 18 are incorporated and adopted and these demonstrate that the development standards of ALUO Chapter 18.62 (including the standards in the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards) have been properly observed. The Council also con~cludes that the potential impacts to the subject property and nearby areas include: 1) the potential to increase flooding; and flood damage up and downstream, 2) the potential damage to the riparian corridor and riparian vegetation and its related impacts to fish and wild]life habitat. On these categories of potential impact, the Council concludes as follows: Flooding/Flood Damage: Based upon Record p. 191 to 221, Record p. 235 to 237 and Otak Letter Record p. AA-20 and 21 -- testimony from Applicant's expert engineers from Otak w this project (including removal of the existing deck) will add flood storage volume along this portion of Ashland Creek and will, in accordance with AMC 15.10.080(B)(1), allow the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters beneath the proposed building.3 The amount of flood storage will more than offset the volume of fill and support pillars that will be placed in the flood hazard area. The evidence also shows that the proposed 'building (including decks which are permitted within the flood hazard area) will be at an elevation of 1,877 feet, an elevation that is five feet higher than the 100-year FEMA BFE which, on this property, is at an elevation of 1,872 feet. Moreover, the building (not including the decks) will be constructed so that no portion of it lies within the FEMA BFE topographic contour of 1,872 feet as the same is depicted at Record p. AA-16. The Council concludes that the flood hazard area must be viewed as both a vertical and horizontal area within which buildings should not be built. The evidence shows that no portion of the building will violate either the horizontal or vertical boundaries of the flood plain corridor of Ashland Creek. Additionally, the existing pedestrian bridge is a fixed structure that exists at an elevation lower than the 100-year FEMA BFE (an elevation of 1,872 feet). As such, 'the existing bridge is susceptible to flood damage and the potential for it to be transported downstream during a major flood event. Applicant proposed and the Council has approved a new engineered bridge that will be realigned to meet Ashland design and floodplain standards. Applicant testified that the final design of the bridge will1 be carded 3 Flood storage means areas on the property which can be excavated to store waters during large storm events and is sometimes used to offset fill and other things placed within a flood plain which would otherwise displace water and increase the amount of water that flows downstream during a major flood event. While .good practice, neither the ALUO nor Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 15, require additional flood storage, although the same has been provided for in this project. Page 20 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon out by a qualified Oregon-registered engineer and will be constructed at an elevation of 1877 feet, 5 feet above the FEMA Base Flood Elevation (BFE) of 1,872 feet and otherwise designed and constructed to meet local, state and federal flood regulations. Conditions attached to this approval require the bridge to be properly engineered and Ashland regulations will require the realignment to meet all other municipal standards. For these reasons, the Council concludes that this project will not increase areas subject to flooding nor increase the potential for flood damage to this property or nearby areas both upstream and downstream. 2, Riparian Corridor/Vegetation; Fish/Wildlife Habitat: As to the potential :for damage to the riparian corridor and its vegetation, this project proposed no removal of riparian vegetation and, in fact, proposes to enhance the riparian vegetation along the new +building's Ashland Creek frontage. However, while no riparian vegetation is to be removed, an existing triple-trunk maple tree within the flood plain corridor must be severely pruned to accommodate the building. During the Council's public heating of May 18, 2004, Applicant's expert landscape architect testified that less than 50 percent of the tree canopy will be removed and therefore the pruning does not constitute, "removal" under the ALUO. Applicant's expert arborist testified in writing at Record p. 262 that the tree will survive this pruning. For these reasons, the Council concludes that this project will not adversely impact the riparian corridor or its vegetation along Ashland Creek for this property or nearby areas. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 1 because, through the application of the development standards of ALUO 18.62 and the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards, the potential impacts to this property and nearby areas have been considered, and the adverse impacts have been minimized appropriately. Criterion 2 2. That the Applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. Conclusions of Law: During the public hearing of June 1, 2004, Opponent Hopkins testified that the support pillars for the deck could collect debris or cause increased velocities or volume to the north and posed the rhetorical question whether this might produce flooding that would not otherwise occur. The Council also considered the testimony of Applicant's expert engineer from Otak who acknowledged that debris flow does occur during major storm events but that the velocity of the storm flows in Ashland Creek at the subject property are slow due to water that backs up at the culvert downstream from the subject property and this causes the water to pool at the property and overflow the creek's banks on the lower, opposite side of the creek. As such, debris that might wash into the pillars will qo so at low velocities that are not expected to cause damage to the pillars which, as required by the ordinance, must be flood-proofed. Page 21 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon Opponent Hopkins testified during the public hearing of June 1, 2004 that Otak's flood studies were based upon earlier building plans which had since been modified. The Council concludes that to the extent earlier letters in evidence from Otak were based upon Applicant's plans which have since changed, Otak reaffirmed its conclusions in a later letter dated June 7, 2004 at Record p. AA-20. To this letter of June 7, 2004, Otak attached copies of,Applicant's most recent plans and these are the plans approved by the Council. There being no evidence to the contrary from any other qualified source, the Council concludes that the evidence from Otak as to flood corridor/hazard matters to be reliable and the Council adopts the same as fact. The Council incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law fi)r Criterion 1, and concludes that Applicant has considered the potential hazards this development might potentially create and the same are limited to potential flood damage. 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 Council incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 1 and 2. The Council concludes that potential adverse impacts on the environment which are connected to this project, include: 1) the potential to increase flooding and flood damage up and downstream, 2) the potential damage to the riparian corridor and riparian vegetation, and its related impacts to fish and wildlife habitat. The Council herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 1 and 2 and further concludes as follows: o Flooding/Flood Damage: Based upon the evidence, Applicant here has. taken the following reasonable steps which will reduce the adverse impacts upon the environment with respect to flooding and flood damage: Applicant has set the building (other than the permissible decks) back from Ashland Creek such that it will not penetrate either the 1,872 foot FEMA BFE nor the 1,872 topographic contour and designed the building in such a way as to increase the flood storage capacity in an amount that is greater than what will be taken by the support pillars and fill. Applicant intends to remove the existing deck which is of substandard construction and subject to damage during flood events and intends its replacement with decking thai is further removed from the flood channel of Ashland Creek and will be of flood proof construction pursuant to the ALUO and AMC. This will reduce potential impediments to channel flow. Page 22 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon The evidence shows that Applicant carefully studied the stream flooding characteristics of Ashland Creek and designed this project to observe all re, quirements of the ALUO, AMC 15.10 and the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards. The existing pedestrian bridge is a fixed structure that exists at an elevation which is beneath the 100-year FEMA BFE. As such, the existing bridge is susceptible to flood damage and the potential for it to be transported downstream during a major flood event. Applicant has proposed a new engineered bridge to replace the existing bridge and the same will be slightly realigned to meet Ashland design and floodplain standards. Applicant testified that the final design of the bridge will be cm.'fled out by a qualified Oregon-registered engineer and will be constructed at an elevation of 1877 feet, 5 feet above the FEMA Base Flood Elevation (BFE) of 1,872 f~et and be designed and constructed to meet local, state and federal flood regulations. Conditions of the approval require the bridge to be properly engineered and Ashland regulations will ensure that the realigned location will comply will all municipal standards. . Riparian Corridor/Vegetation; Fish/Wildlife Habitat: Based upon the evidence, Applicant has taken the following reasonable steps which will reduce the adverse impacts upon the environment with respect to the riparian corridor of Ashland Cre, ek and the riparian vegetation therein: Applicant does not propose to remove any riparian vegetation and, instead plans to enhance the riparian landscape with compatible plant materials, supported by an automatic underground irrigation system. The same will enhance fish and wildlife habitat. See, Record p. A-31 (Planting Plan). Applicant has taken steps to preserve the existing triple-trunk maple tree which exists near the existing retaining wall adjacent to the riparian corridor. While the one of the three trunks will be removed and the others pruned, the tree will provide continued shading of the creek. Applicant's agent testified and the Council agrees that creek shading helps control stream water temperatures and benefits fish species that occupy the creek. The trees also provide habitat for birds which use the trees fbr perching and nesting. Applicant has set the new deck back further from the riparian corridor than the existing deck, thereby providing additional space within which landscaping is planned. Applicant's agent testified and the Council agrees that riparian landscaping in a general way will enhance fish and wildlife habitat by providing cover which is an important habitat component for fish and fur-bearing animals. In its consideration of this project, the Council is required to consider, "the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance." Applicant's agent asserted and the Council agrees, that this means that it must consider existing development in the surrounding area and, for vacant or Page 23 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon underdeveloped properties, the environmental impacts as if these lands were developed to the maximum levels permitted by the ALUO. In this regard, the Council concludes that virtually all privately held land (except the subject property) is now fully developed (or very nearly so) to the maximum levels permitted by the ALUO, and no further consideration of additional development or the intensification of existing development needs to be considered in this instance. 4 There were no other objections based upon adverse impacts upon the environment and based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 3 because this Applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Criterion 4 ALUO 18.62.050 Land Classifications. The following factors shall be used to determine the classifications of various lands and their constraints to building and development on them. ALUO 18.62.050(B) Riparian Preservation. The following Flood plain Corridor Lands are also designated for Riparian Preservation for the purposes of this section and as listed on the Physical and E. nvironmental Constraints Overlay Maps: Tolman, Hamilton, Clay, Bear, Kitchen, Ashland, Nell and Wrights Creei~s. Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that portions of the subject property are located within the Flood Plain Corridor of Ashland Creek. Therefore, these portions of the property are also subject to the riparian preservation standards in ALUO 18.62.075. The specific standards for riparian preservation are addressed hereinbelow as Criterion 18. ~Ilae Council also concludes that Criterion 4 does not operate as an approval standard, but rather to establish the applicability of Ashland's riparian preservation standards for any giw~n parcel. Criterion 5 ALUO 18.62.070 Development Standards for Flood plain Corridor Lands. For all land use actions which could result in development, of the Flood plain corridor, the following is required in addition to any requirements of Chapter 15.10. A. Standards for fill in Flood plain Corddor lands: 1. Fill shall be designed as required by the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, where applicable. 2. The toe of the fill shall be kept at least ten feet outside of floodway channels, as defined in section 15.10, and the fill shall not exceed the angle of repose of the matedal used for fill. 3. The amount of fill in the Flood plain Corridor shall be kept to a minimum. Fill and other matedal imported from off the lot that could displace floodwater shall be limited to the following: a. Poured concrete and other materials necessary to build permitted structures on the lot. 4 While there is some vacant land in the vicinity of the subject property, this land either exists as public rights- of-way or has been set aside for public parks. Page 24 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon b. Aggregate base and paving materials, and fill associated with approved public and private street and driveway construction. c. Plants and other landscaping and agricultural material. d. A total of 50 cubic yards of other imported fill material. e. The above limits on fill shall be measured from April 1989, and shall not exceed the above amounts. These amounts are the maximum cumulative fill that can be imported onto the site, regardless of the number of permits issued. . If additional fill is necessary beyond the permitted amounts in (3) above, then fill materials must be obtained on the lot from cutting or excavation only to the extent necessary to create an elevated site for permitted development. All additional fill material shall be obtained from the portion of the lot in the Flood plain Corridor. 5. Adequate drainage shall be provided for the stability of the fill. 6. Fill to raise elevations for a building site shall be located as close to the outside edge of the Flood plain Corridor as feasible. Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes as follows: The provisions of AMC Chapter 15.10 (Flood Damage Prevention RegulLations) are building code standards and requirements which are reviewed by Ashland's Building Official at the time building permits are sought. The Council concludes tlaat there is nothing in AMC 15.10 that cannot be met in this project and compliance with AMC 15.10 will be assured through this land use process and Ashland's required review and approval of the construction plans before the issuance of any building permits.. Applicant has agreed to stipulate, and the Council has required as a condition, that the c, onstruction plans for this project will observe all of the standards of AMC 15.10 and the Council concludes that these can and will be met. Regarding #1 above, Applicant has agreed to stipulate, and the Council has required as a condition, that he will observe the applicable standards of the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, in compliance therewith. Regarding #2 above and based upon Record p. 195 to 221, the concrete pillars for the proposed building and deck are the closest part of'the project to the stream an~d floodway channel. The pillars are located more than 10 feet from the FEMA Floodway boundary. Concrete pillars are not fill and are permitted. Moreover, the concrete pillars will have no "toe" and because concrete is a hardened material, it will also have no angle of repose. Regarding #3 above and based upon Record p. AA-16 and 17 (Sheets 101-R and 107-R) and Record p. 195 to 221, fill in the floodplain corridor associated with this project is limited to the concrete used to form the structural support pillars for the deck. There are no public or private streets or driveways associated with this project. There is less than 50 cubic yards of other imported material (material other than concrete or aggregate base/paving material). The Council concludes that the amounts of fill (even including the support pillars which are not fill) have been kept to a minimum. Page 25 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon Regarding #4 above, and based upon Record p. 195 to 221 and Otak Letter Record p. AA-20 and 21, no additional fill is necessary beyond the 50 cubic yard amount required in #3. Regarding #5 above, Applicant in Section VI has agreed to stipulate, and the Council has required as a condition, that proper engineering will be required to address drainage. The Council further concludes that adequate drainage can and will be provided for this project in accordance with city standards. Regarding #6 above, and based upon Record p. 195 to 221 and Otak Letter Record p. AA-20 and AA-21, no fill has been specified in the plans for the purpose of raising the elevation of the site to accommodate the proposed building. · Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 5. Criterion 6 B. Culverting or bridging of any waterway or creek identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to section 18.62.060 must be designed by an engineer. Stream crossings shall be designed to the standards of Chapter 15.10, or where no floodway has been identified, to pass a one hundred (100) year flood without any increase in the upstream flood height elevation. The engineer shall consider in the design the probability that the culvert will be blocked by debris in a severe flood, and accommodate expected overflow. Fill for culverting and bridging shall be kept to the minimum necessary to achieve property access, but is exempt from the limitations in section (A) above. Culverting or bddging of streams identified as Riparian Preservation are subject to the requirements of 18.62.075. Conclusions of Law: The Council is aware that there is an existing pedestrian bridge that crosses Ashland Creek on the subject property and provides pedestrian access thereto. Applicant has proposed a new engineered bridge to replace the existing bridge and will be slightly realigned to meet Ashland design and floodplain standards. Applicant testified that the final design of the bridge will be carded out by a qualified Oregon-registered engineer and will be constructed at an elevation of 1877 feet, 5 feet above the FEMA Base Flood Elevation (BFE) of 1,872 feet and otherwise designed and constructed to meet local, state and federal flood regulations. Conditions of the approval require the bridge to be properly engineered and Ashland regulations will ensure that the realigned location will comply will all municipal standards, including Criterion 6. Criterion 7 c) Non-residential structures shall be flood-proof to the standards in Chapter 15.10 to one foot above the elevation contained in the maps adopted by chapter 15.10, or up to the elevation contained in the official maps adopted by section 18.62.060, whichever height is greater. Where no specific elevations exist, then they must be floodproofed to an elevation of ten feet above the creek channel on Ashland, Bear or Neil Creek; to five feet above the creek channel on all other Riparian Preserve (:reeks defined in section 18.62.050.B; and three feet above the stream channel on all other drainage ways identified on the official maps. Page 26 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that Applicant, in Section VI, agreed to stipulate to flood proofing in accordance ALUO 18.62.070(C) Criterion 7 and the Council has required the same as a condition. The Council finds and concludes that compliance with Criterion 7 can be met and conditions imposed on the approval of this application, ensures that the requirements of Criterion 7 will be properly observed. Criterion 8 D) All residential structures shall be elevated so that the lowest habitable floor shall be raised to one foot above the elevation contained in the maps adopted in chapter 15.10, or to the elevation~ contained in the official maps adopted by section 18.62.060, whichever height is greater. Where no specific elevations exist, then they must be constructed at an elevation of ten feet above the creek channel on Ashland, Bear, or Neil Creek; to five feet above the creek channel on all other Ripadan Preserve creeks defined in section 18.62.050.B; and three feet above the stream channel on all other drainage ways identified on the official maps, or one foot above visible evidence of high flood water flow, whichever is greater. The elevation of the finished lowest habitable floor shall be certified to the city by an engineer or surveyor prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the structure. Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that the only residential structures 'which are a part of this application are the two apartments to be located on the upper-most floor. The approved plans show that the apartments are at an elevation substantially higher than the elevation contained in the maps adopted in AMC Chapter 15.10 or the elevation contained in official maps adopted as part of ALUO 18.62.060, in full compliance with Criterion 8. The upper-most floor elevation is measured at 1,901.50 feet. The upper-most floor is 26.00 feet above the Ashland BFE and 29.50 feet above the FEMA BFE. See, Record p. A-28 (Exterior Elevations Sheet A-201) and Record p. A-29 (Building Sections Sheet A-301). Criterion 8 also requires the elevation of the finished lowest habitable floor, to be certified to the city by an engineer or surveyor prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the structure and the same will ensure full compliance with Criterion 8. Applicant has agreed to stipulate, and the Council has required as a condition, that proper flood hazard certifications will accompany the construction plans. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 8. Criterion 9 E. To the maximum extent feasible, structures shall be placed on other than Flood plain Corridor Lands. In the case where development is permitted in the Flood plain corridor area, then development shall be limited to that area which would have the shallowest flooding. Discussion and Conclusions of Law: The approved plans show that the building has been placed outside the flood plain corridor- outside the horizontal and vertical boundaries of the FEMA BFE and Ashland's designated Flood plain corridor lands. While portions of the deck are within the flood plain corridor, decks are expressly permitted within the corridor Page 27 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon pursuant to ALUO 18.62.070(L) and the Council interprets this criterion to exclude decks as structures to be placed on other than flood plain corridor lands Furthermore, development within the flood plain corridor is subject to all other requirements in ALUO 18.,62.070 and the same are addressed herein as Criterion 5 through 17. The Council herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 5 through 17. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 9. Criterion 10 Existing lots with buildable land outside the Flood plain Corridor shall locate all residential structures outside the Corridor land, unless 50% or more of the lot is within the Flood plain Corridor. For residential uses proposed for existing lots that have more than 50% of the lot in Corddor land, structures may be located on that portion of the Flood plain corridor that is two feet or less below the flood elevations on the official maps, but in no case closer than 20 feet to the channel of a Ripadan Preservation Creek. Construction shall be subject to the requirements in paragraph D above. Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that the proposed residential uses are all on the uppermost floor of the proposed building and, based upon the plans at Record p. AA-16 and AA-17, the building is located outside the flood plain corridor and 20 or more feet from the channel of Ashland Creek which is a Riparian Preservation Creek, in compliance with Criterion 10. Criterion G. New non-residential uses may be located on that portion of Flood plain Corridor lands that equal to or above the flood elevations on the official maps adopted in section 18.62.060. Second story construction may be cantilevered over the Flood plain corridor for a distance of 20 feet if the clearance from finished grade is at least ten feet in height, and is supported by pillars that will have minimal impact on the flow of floodwaters. The finished floor elevation may not be more than two feet below the flood corridor elevations. Discussion and Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that the lower floors of the building are non-residential uses. During the proceeding, Opponent Hopkins testified that neither the Applicant nor staff has provided a map showing the accurate Ashland Floodplain Corridor (a limit based on actual events, rather than an hydraulic study), as required as part of the original application. At Record p. AA-69 and AA-70 Applicant's agent testified that Applicant's architect, Dave Richardson had worked closely with Applicant's engineers at Otak to produce the design of this building. Mr. Richardson's testimony is at Record p. AA- 73 and AA-74 and that of Otak in the record. In summary, architect Richardson testified: o The Ashland Flood Corridor and FEMA Floodway are accurately depicted on the design plans he has prepared. In plan view, the building is clearly shown to be outside both the Ashland Flood Corridor and FEMA Floodway. Page 28 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon . 3. . . There are two 100-year flood plain maps and two flood plain elevations- FEMA's and Ashland's- and these have been adopted by Ashland. Applicant commissioned Otak engineers to undertake additional detailed flood analysis which verified the accuracy of the FEMA BFE. There exists a discrepancy between the flood plain lines (both Ashland's and FEMA's) and the respective flood plain elevations. However, the evidence makes clear that the proposed building's first finished floor of the building is at an elevation of 1,877, which is 1.5 feet above the Ashland flood elevation and 5 feet at or above the FEMA BFE. See, Record p. A-28. With respect to flood plain elevations, both are accurately represented on the: elevations for the building and show that the building's first finished floor is at or :above both Ashland's and FEMA' s base flood elevations. See, Record p. A-28. Because the opposite bank of Ashland Creek is lower than the flood plain elevation, before the flood level can rise to a level that would affect this building, it will spill out on the other side of the creek, running through the paved parking area and down Water Street and the same has been attested to by Otak engineers. See, Record p. 199 and 201 and AA-20 and AA-21. The proposed bridge will be at an elevation of 1,877 feet, which is 5 feet: above the FEMA BFE for Ashland Creek. The bridge will be anchored to the building. . Mr. Richardson offered stipulations with respect to flooding and riparian enhancement and the Council has made these conditions of the approval: 1) that applicant will enhance the riparian area beneath both the existing and proposed bridges subject to city approval of enhancement plans, and 2) applicant will eliminate the bridge support pier in Ashland Creek flood corridor and instead anchor the bridge to the building deck. The approved plans show that the proposed building and use has been elevated on support pillars to an elevation of 1,877 feet which is five feet higher than the FEMA BFE which is the elevation shown on the official maps adopted in ALUO 18.62.060. Moreover, the structure complies with the requirements of the second sentence of the Criterion 11 with respect to cantilevering. During the proceeding, Opponent Hopkins testified that there will be walls for a large mechanical room extending down to 1,868 feet within this floodplain. While the mechanical room has a floor elevation of 1,868 feet, it is underground and outside of the vertical and horizontal limits of the flood plain corridor and is, therefore, compliant With this c:dterion and Criterion 13 which expressly permits non-habitable basements if flood proofed. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 11. Criterion '12 Page 29 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon Ho All lots modified by lot line adjustments, or new lots created from lots which contain Flood plain Corridor land must contain a building envelope on all lot(s) which contain(s) buildable area of a sufficient size to accommodate the uses permitted in the underling zone, unless the action is for open space or conservation purposes. This section shall apply even if the effect is to prohibit further division of lots that are larger than the minimum size permitted in the zoning ordinance. Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that this application is consistent with Criterion 12 by reason of inapplicability because that the subject property is neither a new lot nor one intended to be modified by lot line adjustment. Criterion 13 I. Basements. 1. Habitable basements are not permitted for new or existing structures or additions located within the Flood plain Corridor. 2. Non-habitable basements, used for storage, parking, and similar uses are permitted for residential structures but must be flood-proofed to the standards of Chapter 15.10. Conclusions of Law: Based upon the approved plans and Record p. 195 to 221 and AA-20 to 21, the Council concludes that no habitable basement is proposed for the new building. The approved plans contemplate a non-habitable basement and the same is described in the findings of fact in Section IV. Applicant has agreed to stipulate, and the Council Etas required as a condition, that flood-proofing will be done in accordance with AMC Chapter 15.10. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 13. Criterion 14 J. Storage of petroleum products, pesticides, or other hazardous or toxic chemicals is not permitted in Flood plain Corddor lands. Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that in Section VI, Applicant: agreed to stipulate, and the Council has required as a condition, that neither he nor his tenants will store petroleum products, pesticides, or other hazardous or toxic chemicals within the designated Flood Plain Corridor, in compliance with Criterion 14. Criterion 15 Ko Fences constructed within 20 feet of any Riparian Preservation Creek designated by this chapter shall be limited to wire or electric fence, or similar fence that will not collect debris or obstruct flood waters, but not including wire mesh or chain link fencing. Fences shall not be constructed across any identified dparian drainage or dparian preservation creek. Fences shall not be constructed within any designated floodway. Page 30 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon Conclusions of Law: During the public hearing, Opponent Hopkins testified that the application violates this approval standard because fencing is shown within portions of the property where the same is prohibited under this standard. The Council finds that, reasonably construed, the ordinance prohibits permanent fencing within designated areas of any riparian preservation creek. Evidence educed during the public hearing showed that the only fencing proposed by Applicant is temporary construction fencing, designed to protect existing trees from damage during construction. No permanent fencing is proposed. The Council concludes that the application does not violate this criterion by proposing only' temporary construction fencing. Since no permanent fencing is proposed, the Council concludes that the application does not violate, and is consistent with Criterion 15. Criterion 16 Lo Decks and structures other than buildings, if constructed on Flood plain Corddor Lands and at or below the levels specified in section 18.62.070.C and D, shall be flood-proofed to the standards contained in Chapter 15.10. Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that Applicant, in Section VI, agreed to stipulate, and the Council has required as a condition, to flood-proofing in accordance with the standards in AMC 15.10. Therefore, the Council concludes that this application is consistent with Criterion 16. Criterion 17 M. Local streets and utility connections to developments in and adjacent to the Flood plain Corridor shall be located outside of the Flood plain Corridor, except for crossing the Corridor, and except in the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor as outlined below: Public street construction may be allowed within the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor as part of development following the adopted North Mountain Neighborhood Plan. This exception shall only be permitted for that section of the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor between North Mountain Avenue and the Nevada Street right-of-way. The new street shall be constructed in the general location as indicated on the neighborhood plan map, and in the area generally described as having the shallowest potential for flooding within the corridor. 2. Proposed development that is not in accord with the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan shall not be permitted to utilize this exception. Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes, based upon the approved plans, that no new local streets are proposed or required as part of this application. Moreover, all utilities available to this property (and which will be required for the new building) are all within the right-of-way of North Main Street, and no utility connections are required to cross the Flood Plain Corridor, in compliance with Criterion 17. Criterion Page 31 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon ALUO 18.62,075 Development Standards for Riparian Preservation Lands. All development in areas indicated for Riparian Preservation, as defined in section 18,62.050(B)~ shall comply with the following standards, 1, Development shall be subject to all Development Standards for Flood plain Corridor Lands. (18.62.070) 2, Any tree over six inches d.b.h, shall be retained to the greatest extent feasible. 3, Fill and Culverting shall be permitted only for streets, access or utilities. The crossing shall be at right angels to the creek channel to the greatest extent possible. Fill shall be kept to a minimum. 4. The general topography of Riparian Preservation lands shall be retained. Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that the property is crossed by Ashland Creek and portions of the property are subject to the Riparian Preservation standards pursuant to relevant provisions in ALUO 18.62. The Council concludes as follows with respect to the four standards in Criterion 18: Regarding #1 above, the same does not operate as an independent approval standard, but rather to establish that land subject to riparian preservation is also subject to the city's flood plain ordinance (ALUO 18.62.070) and the same are addressed hereinabove as Criterion 5 through 17, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of law for which are herewith incorporated and adopted. Regarding #2 above, the evidence shows that no trees over six inches d.b.h, are proposed to be removed on lands designed for Riparian Preservation. Regarding #3 above, no fill within the riparian corridor is proposed, other than the support pillars (which are not "fill") and which are permitted by the ordinance to occur within the floodplain. The only creek crossing is the pedestrian bridge. Applicant has proposed a new engineered bridge to replace the existing bridge and the same will be slightly realigned to meet Ashland design and floodplain standards. Applicant testified that the final design of the bridge will be carried out by a qualified Oregon-registered engineer and will be constructed at an elevation of 1877 feet, 5 feet above the FEMA Base Flood Elevation (BFE) of 1,872 feet and otherwise designed and constructed to meet local, state and federal flood regulations. Conditions of the approval require the bridge to be properly engineered and Ashland regulations will ensure that the realigned location will comply will all municipal standards. Based upon the evidence at Record p. 112 to 115, A- 26, A-28 and A-29 and Sheets 101R and 107R Record p. AA-16 and 17, the Council concludes that the bridge location has been placed, to the greatest extent possible given the physical limitations of this site (which relate to existing buildings and preservable trees) at a right angle to the creek. Regarding #4 above, Applicant's plans at Record p. 112 to 115, A-26, A-28 and A-29 and Sheets 101-R and 107-R Record p. AA-16 and 17 show that the existing topography within the regulated riparian area, has been retained. · Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes Page 32 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of A:shland, Oregon that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 18. Criterion 19 SITE REVIEW Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 18) ALUO Chapter 72 Site Design and Use Standards ALUO 18.72.050 Detail Site Review Zone. A. The Detail Site Review Zone is that area defined in the Site Design Standards adopted pursuant to Section 18.72.040(A). Bo Any development in the Detail Site Review Zone as defined in the Site Review Standards adopted pursuant to this chapter, which exceeds 10,000 square feet or is longer than 100 feet in length or width, shall be reviewed according to the Type 2 procedure. C. No new buildings or contiguous groups of buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone shall exceed a gross square footage of 45,000 square feet or a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. Any building or contiguous group of buildings which exceed these limitations, which were in existence in 1992, may expand up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. Neither the gross square footage or combined contiguous building length, as set forth in this section shall be subject to any vadance authorized in the Land Use Ordinance. Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that this project is subject to Ashland's Detail Site Review standards. The Council also concludes that neither this building nor, in the aggregate, the buildings to which this building is contiguous, exceed 45,000 square feet nor a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. Therefore, the Council concludes that this application is consistent with Criterion 19. Criterion 20 ALUO 18.72.070 Criteria for Approval. The following cdteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. Conclusions of Law: The Council herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 1 through 52 inclusive (but not including this Criterion 20) which, with Applicant's approved plans and the other evidence enumerated iht Section II hereinabove, demonstrate compliance with all relevant requirements of the ALU(), including those of the Site Review Chapter m ALUO 18.72. Therefore, the Council concludes that this application is consistent with Criterion 20. Page 33 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon Criterion C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the Council for implementation of this Chapter. Conclusions of Law: The Council herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 23 through 52 (inclusive). The Council concludes that these demonstrate compliance with the Site Design Standards which were adopted by the Council to implement ALUO Chapter 18.72. Therefore, the Council concludes that this application is consistent with Criterion 21. Criterion 22 D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655, 1991; Ord 2836 S6, 1999) Conclusions of Law: Based upon the findings of fact in Section IV and ,Applicant's approved plans, the Council concludes that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. Therefore, the Council concludes that this application is consistent with Criterion 22. Criterion 23 CITY OF ASHLAND SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS SECTION II APPROVAL STANDARDS AND POLICIES II-A. ORDINANCE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS The following percentages of landscaping are required for all properties falling under the Site Design and Use Standards. Zone % Landscaping R-1-3.5 45% R-2 35% R-3 25% C-1 15% C-1-D 10% E-1 15% M-1 10% These percentages are the minimum required. At times, more landscaping is required to meet the needs of other sections of the Site Review Ordinance, such as screening of parking areas, landscaping of setback areas, and providing usable outdoor space. In general, all areas which are not used for building or parking areas are required to be landscaped. You should also be aware that, as a condition of approval of your project, you will be required to submit a site and species specific landscape plan to the Planning Division for Staff Advisor approval. Page 34 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon Conclusions of Law: The subject property is zoned C-1-D. Pursuant to ALUO 18.72.110, there are no area landscape requirements for land in the C-1-D zone, other than for parking areas and service stations. This project does not include off-street parking nor service station(s). Therefore, this project is not required to observe the minimum landscaping standards in Criterion 23. However, Applicant here has provided landscaping alo:ng Ashland Creek which, based upon the findings of fact in Section IV, is in an amount greater than 10 percent. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, tlhe Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 23. Criterion 24 I1-C-1. BASIC SITE REVIEW STANDARDS APPROVAL STANDARD: Development in all commercial and employment zones shall conform to the following development standards: Il-C-la) Orientation and Scale 1) 2) 3) Buildings shall have their pdmary orientation toward the street rather than the parking area. entrances shall be oriented toward the street and shall be accessed from a public sidewalk. sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to a public street along the street frontage. Building Public Buildings that are within 30 feet of the street shall have an entrance for pedestrians directly from the street to the building interior. This entrance shall be designed to be attractive and functional, and shall be open to the public during all business hours. These requirements may be waived if the building is not accessed by pedestrians, such as warehouses and industrial buildings without attached offices, and automotive service uses such as service stations and tire stores. Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that Applicant's approved plans clearly demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Criterion 24. Criterion 25 Il-C-lb) Streetscape One street tree chosen from the street tree list shall be placed for each 30 feet of frontage for that portion of the development fronting the street. Conclusions of Law: The Council finds that photographs and photograph key map at Record p. 222 to 224 shows the existence of street trees along the subject property's North Main Street frontage. The Council concludes that no additional street trees are required to meet the standard in Criterion 25. Therefore, the Council concludes that this application is consistent with Criterion 25. Page 35 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon Criterion 26 II-C-lc) Landscaping 1) Landscaping shall be designed so that 50% coverage occurs after one year and 90% coverag,~ occurs after 5 years. 2) Landscaping design use a vadety of Iow water use deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and flowedng plant species. 3) Buildings adjacent to streets shall be buffered by landscaped areas at least 10 feet in width, except in the Ashland Historic District. Outdoor storage areas shall be screened from view from adjacent public rights-of- way, except in M-1 zones. Loading facilities shall be screened and buffered when adjacent to residentially zoned land. 4) Irrigation systems shall be installed to assure landscaping success. 5) Efforts shall be made to save as many existing healthy trees and shrubs on the site as possible. Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes as follows: Regarding #1 above, Record p. A-31 shows, according to Applicant's expert landscape architect, that proposed landscaping has been designed to supply 50 percent coverage after one year and 90 percent coverage after 5 years. Regarding #2 above, and based upon Record p. A-31, the Council concludes that the proposed landscaping design has used a variety of low water use deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and flowering plant species. Regarding #3 above, the Council herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 23, which concluded that this property is not subject to landscaping requirements by virtue of its location within Ashland's C-1-D zoning district. However, as also discussed in the Council's conclusions of law for Criterion 23, Applicant here has provided proposed landscaping along Ashland Creek (and additional landscaping that is not a part of this application, within adjacent rights-of-way owned by the Oregon Department of Transportation). Additionally, as this property is within the Ashland Historic District, the requirements of Criterion 26 (#3) do not apply. Regarding fi4 above, Applicant in Section VI has agreed to stipulate, and the Council has required as a condition, that the proposed living landscape areas will be se, rved by an automatic underground irrigation system. Regarding #5, the Applicant contends and the Council concludes that efforts have been made to save as many existing healthy trees and shrubs of the site as possible and all but one has been preserved. However, in order to comply with other provisions of the ALUO and Ashland Site Design and Use Standards, the removal of one tree is necessary. ALUO 18.61.080 governs the removal of trees and the same is addressed hereinbelow as Criterion 53, the findings of fact and conclusions of law for which are herewith incorporated and adopted. Page 36 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 26. Criterion 27 II-C-ld) Parking 1) Parking areas shall be located behind buildings or on one or both sides. 2) Parking areas shall be shaded by deciduous trees, buffered from adjacent non-residential uses and screened from non-residential uses. Conclusions of Law: The subject project is within the Retail Commercial (C-l) District and within the Downtown Overlay District (C-l-D). Areas within the Downtown Overlay District are not required to provide off-street parking or loading areas except for hotel, motel or hostel uses. As the proposed uses are neither hotel, motel or hostel uses, the Council concludes that this criterion is not applicable. Therefore, this application is consistent with Criterion 27 by reason of inapplicability. Criterion 28 II-C-le) Designated Creek Protection Designated creek protection areas shall be considered positive design elements and incorporated in the overall design of a given project. 2) Native riparian plant materials shall be planted in and adjacent to the creek to enhance the creek habitat. Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that Applicant's approved plans demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Criterion 28. In reaching this conclusion, the Council also finds and concludes that the plant materials specified at Record p. A-31 are native riparian plant varieties which have been recommended to meet this standard by .Applicant's expert landscape architect. Criterion 29 II-C-lf) Noise and Glare Specific attention to glare (AMC 18.72.110) and noise (AMC 9.08.170(c) & AMC 9.08.175) shall be considered in the project design to insure compliance with these standards. Conclusions of Law: As to glare, the Council concludes that there is nothing in the design of this project which will produce glare at levels inconsistent with the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC). Regarding noise, the Council finds that this property is within a small[ city block which is entirely occupied by commercial buildings and uses. Additionally, this block is bounded on all sides by the following streets: North Main Street, Lithia Way and Water Page 37 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon Street. While outdoor dining is contemplated in the application, there is no proposal here for the conduct of outdoor entertainment. Based upon these findings, the Council cortcludes that specific attention has been paid and consideration has been given to the potential for glare and noise, pursuant to the standards in the Ashland Municipal Code and that the proposed building and anticipated uses can and will comply. Therefore, the Council concludes that this application is consistent with Criterion 29. Criterion 30 II-C-lg) Expansions of Existing Sites and Buildings For sites which do not conform to these requirements, an equal percentage of the site must be made to comply with these standards as the percentage of building expansion, e.g., if building area is to expand by 25%, then 25% of the site must be brought up to the standards required by this document. Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that this application does not constitute an "expansion" of an existing building because the proposal is for a new building. Therefore, Criterion 30 is concluded to be inapplicable. Criterion 31 II-C-2. DETAIL SITE REVIEW Developments that are within the Detail Site Review Zone shall, in addition to complying with the standards for Basic Site Review, conform to the following standards: II-C-2a) Orientation and Scale 1) Developments shall have a minimum Floor Area Ratio of .35 and shall not exceed a maximum Floor Area Ratio of .5 for all areas outside the Historic District. Plazas and pedestrian areas shall count as floor area for the purposes of meeting the minimum Floor Area Ratio. 2) Building frontages greater than 200 feet in length shall have offsets, jogs, or have other distinctive changes in the building facade. 3) Any wall which is within 30 feet of the street, plaza or other public open space shall contain al: least 20% of the wall area facing the street in display areas, windows, or doorways. Windows must allow views into working areas or lobbies, pedestrian entrances or display areas. Blank walls within 30 feet of the street are prohibited. Up to 40% of the length of the building perimeter can be exempted from this standard if oriented toward loading or service areas. 4) Buildings shall incorporate lighting and changes in mass, surface or finish to give emphasis to entrances. 5) Infill of buildings, adjacent to public sidewalks, in existing parking lots is encouraged and desirable. 6) Buildings shall incorporate arcades, roofs, alcoves, porticoes and awnings that protect pedestrians from the rain and sun. Conclusions of Law: Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law for the above Criterion 24 through 30 (inclusive) which are herewith incorporated and adopted the Council concludes that the application is consistent with all of the Page 38 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon requirements for Basic Site Review. The subject property is within the Detail Site Review Zone. Moreover, the Council herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for the below Criterion 37 through 40 (inclusive) in support of its conclusion that the application is consistent with all of the standards and criteria for Detail Site Review as required for land within the Detail Site Review Zone. Therefore, the Council concludes that the application is consistent with Criterion 31. The Council also concludes as follows: · Regarding #1 above, this standard only applies to lands located outside tlae Historic District. As this property is within the Historic District, this standard is inappliicable. Regarding #2 above and based upon Applicant's approved plans, the proposed building does not have building frontage greater than 200 feet in length. Therefore, the application is consistent with #2 by reason of inapplicability. Regarding #3 and based on Applicant's approved plans, the only wall within 30 feet of any street is the front elevation wall, and it contains more than 20 percent in display areas, windows, or doorways and these allow views into working areas or lobbies, pedestrian entrances or display areas, consistent with #3. Regarding/14 and based upon Applicant's approved plans, the building has incorporated lighting and changes in mass, surface and finish and these emphasize the building entrances. Materials are a combination of brick, smooth and dappled stucco and glass. Regarding #5, this project represents an infill of an existing vacant parcel (improved now only with decking). The existing parcel is adjacent to the public sidewalk on ]North Main Street. While this project does not constitute infill within an existing parking lot, the standard in #5 is expressed only in permissive not mandatory terms and, therefore, is not a required approval standard. Regarding #6 and based upon Applicant's approved plans, the proposed building incorporates a canopy along most of the building's front elevation which covers a portion of the adjacent sidewalk and will protect pedestrians from the rain and sun. Additionally, Applicant's approved plans show that there are building overhangs above some of the planned deck surfaces and these provide additional protection for pedestrians. · Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes that the application is consistent with all the requirements of Criterion 31. Criterion 32 II-C-2b) Streetscape Page 39 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon 2) Hardscape (paving material) shall be utilized to designate "people" areas. Sample materials could be unit masonry, scored and colored concrete, grasscrete, or combinations of the above. A building shall be setback not more than 20 feet from a public sidewalk unless the area is used for pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating areas. If more than one structure is proposed for a site, at least 25% of the aggregate building frontage shall be within 20 feet of the sidewalk. Conclusions of Law: Regarding #1 above, the Council concludes that the planned decks (as shown in Applicant's approved plans) will be "people" areas. While Applicant and his architect have not yet determined the type of material to be used for the decking surface, it will be a masonry material of some type, consistent with the requirements of #1. As to #2, the only public sidewalk that exists near this property is the sidewalk on North Main Street, to which the proposed building abuts. Therefore, the proposed building does not setback more than 20 feet. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 32. Criterion 33 II-C-2c) Parking & On-Site Circulation 1) Protected, raised walkways shall be installed through parking areas of 50 or more spaces or more than 100 feet in average width or depth. 2) Parking lots with 50 spaces or more shall be divided into separate areas and divided by landscaped areas or walkways at least 10 feet in width, or by a building or group of buildings. 3) Developments of one acre or more must provide a pedestrian and bicycle circulation plan for the site. On- site pedestrian walkways must be lighted to a level where the system can be used at night by employees, residents and customers. Pedestrian walkways shall be directly linked to entrances and the internal circulation of the building. Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that off-street parking is not required within the C-1-D zone and no parking or parking lot is proposed. The Council also concludes that this project does not equal one acre or more. As to the lighting and linking of' pedestrian walkways, Applicant's approved plans show complete pedestrian linkages, including a linkage across Ashland Creek by way of the proposed (and existing) bride. The new bridge will be lit and the same is evidenced by Applicant's approved plans. Therefore, the Council concludes that this application is consistent with Criterion 33. II-C-2d) Buffering and Screening l) 2) Criterion 34 Landscape buffers and screening shall be located between incompatible uses on an adjacent lot. Those buffers can consist of either plant material or building materials and must be compatible with proposed buildings. Parking lots shall be buffered from the main street, cross streets and screened from residentially zoned land. Page 40 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes as follows: The subject property is adjacent to only one existing land use, the existing 'building to which the proposed building will very nearly abut and which is occupied by tire Ashland Bar & Grill, a restaurant which the Council deems to be compatible with the restaurant and other uses to occupy the proposed building. As to the residential apartments to occupy the uppermost floor of this building, the Council finds and concludes that these are not incompatible with the commercial uses to be housed in this building and the building next door. Upper floor residential uses in Ashland's downtown are desirable and permitted. The Council also finds that the building materials used in the construction of the new building (and its upper floor residential apartments) are an appropriate means to buffer and screen the residential uses from nearby commercial uses. Therefore, the Council concludes that no landscape buffer or screening is needed because there are no incompatible uses on adjacent land. Regarding #2, this application does not require parking nor is any parking proposed. Therefore, the Council concludes that the application is consistent with #2 by reason of inapplicability. · Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 34. Criterion 35 II-C-2e) Lighting 1) Lighting shall include adequate lights that are scaled for pedestrians by including light standards or placements of no greater than 14 feet in height along pedestrian path ways. Conclusions of Law: Based upon Applicant's approved plans, no free-standing lighting is proposed. The only lighting will be that which is attached to the building, the pedestrian bridge or the canopies and which is for the purpose of illuminating entrances and outdoor pedestrian/dining areas. In no instance, is lighting to be at a height of more thLan 14 feet. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 35. II-C-2f) Building Materials Criterion 36 1) Buildings shall include changes in relief such as cornices, bases, fenestration, fluted masom¥, for at least 15% of the exterior wall area. 2) Bright or neon paint colors used extensively to attract attention to the building or use are prohibited. Buildings may not incorporate glass as a majority of the building skin. Page 41 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes as follows: Regarding # 1 and based upon Applicant's approved plans, the propose, d building incorporates architectural features of the types listed which cover more than 15; percent of the exterior wall area. Regarding #2 above, and based upon Applicant's approved plans, the colors to 'be used are neither bright nor neon, nor does this building incorporate glass as a majority of the building's skin. · Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 36. Criterion 37 II-E. STREET TREE STANDARDS APPROVAL STANDARD: All development fronting on public or pdvate streets shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with the following standards and chosen from the recommended list of street trees found in this section. II-E-l) Location for Street Trees 1) Street trees shall be located behind the sidewalk except in cases where there is a designated planting strip in the right-of-way, or the sidewalk is greater than 9 feet wide. Street trees shall include irrigation, root barriers, and generally conform to the standard established by the Department of Community Development. Conclusions of Law: Based upon Applicant's plans at Record p. 112 to 115, A-26, A-28 and A-29 and Sheets 101R and 107R Record p. AA-16 and 17, the sidewalk on North Main Street is greater than 9 feet in width. Moreover, street trees have already been planted along this block of North Main Street. Therefore, no new street trees are proposed or required to be consistent with this standard. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 37. Criterion 38 II-E-2) Spacing, Placement, and Pruning of Street Trees All tree spacing may be made subject to special site conditions which may, for reasons such as safety, affect the decision. Any such proposed special condition shall be subject to the Staff Advisor's review .and approval. The placement, spacing, and pruning of street trees shall be as follows: a) b) Street trees shall be placed at the rate of one tree for every 30 feet of street frontage. Trees slhall be evenly spaced, with variations to the spacing permitted for specific site limitations, such as driveway approaches. Trees shall not be planted closer than 25 feet from the curb line of intersections of streets or alleys, and not closer than 10 feet from private driveways (measured at the back edge of the sidewalk), fire hydrants, or utility poles. Page 42 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon c) Street trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet to light standards. Except for public safety, no new light standard location shall be positioned closer than 10 feet to any existing street tree, and preferably such locations will be at least 20 feet distant. d) Trees shall not be planted closer than 2-1/2 feet from the face of the curb except at intersections where it shall be 5 feet from the curb, in a curb return area. e) Where there are overhead power lines, tree species are to be chosen that will not interfere with those lines. Trees shall not be planted within 2 feet of any permanent hard surface paving or walkway. Sidewalk cuts in concrete for trees shall be at least 10 square feet, however, larger cuts are encouraged because they allow additional air and water into the root system and add to the health of the tree. Space between the tree and such hard surface may be covered by permeable non-permanent hard surfaces such as grates, bdcks on sand, or paver blocks. g) Trees, as they grow, shall be pruned to provide at least 8 feet of clearance above sidewalks and 12 feet above street roadway surfaces. h) Existing trees may be used as street trees if there will be no damage from the development which will kill or weaken the tree. Sidewalks of vadable width and elevation may be utilized to save existing street trees, subject to approval by the Staff Advisor. Conclusions of Law: The Council herewith incorporates and adopts is findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 37 and concludes that this property already has street trees in amounts, types and locations which are consistent with Criterion 38 and the same is evidenced in Applicant's approved plans. Criterion 39 II-E-3) Replacement of Street Trees Existing street trees removed by development projects shall be replaced by the developer with those from the approved street tree list. The replacement trees shall be of size and species similar to the trees that are approved by the Staff Advisor. Conclusions of Law: Applicant does not anticipate the need to remove any existing street tree during construction of this project. Therefore, this application is consistent with Criterion 39 by reason of inapplicability. Criterion 40 II-E-4) Recommended Street Trees Street trees shall conform to the street tree list approved by the Ashland Tree Commission. Conclusions of Law: The Council herewith incorporates and adopts is findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 37 and concludes that this property already has street trees of a type which are consistent with Criterion 40 and the same is evidenced in Applicant's approved plans. Page 43 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon Criterion 4 ~! CITY OF ASHLAND SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS SECTION IV HISTORIC DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT IV-C) Historic District Design Standards In addition to the standards found in Section II, the following standards will be used by the Planning and Historic Commissions for new development and renovation of existing structures within the Historic District: Recommended: IV-C-l) Height. Construct buildings to a height of existing buildings from the histodc periods on and across the street. IV-C-2) Scale. Relate the size and proportions of new structures to the scale of adjacent buildings. IV-C-3) Massing. Break up uninteresting boxlike forms into smaller, vaded masses which are common on most buildings from the historic pedod. IV-C-4) Setback. Maintain the histodc fa(;ade lines of streetscapes by locating front walls of new buildings in the same plane as the facades of adjacent buildings. IV-C-5) Roof Shapes. Relate the new roof forms of the building to those found in the area. IV-C-6) Rhythm of Openings. Respect the alternation of wall areas with door and window elements in the fa(;ade. Also consider the width-to-height ratio of bays in the facade. IV-C-7) Platforms. The use of a raised platform is a traditional siting characteristic of most of the older buildings in Ashland. IV-C-8) Directional Expression. Relate the vertical, horizontal or nondirectional fa(;ade character of new buildings to the predominant directional expression of nearby buildings. IV-C-9) Sense of Entry. Articulate the main entrances to the building with covered porches, porticos, and other pronounced architectural forms. IV-C-10) Imitations. Utilize accurate restoration of, or visually compatible additions to, existing buildings. For new construction, traditional architecture that well represents our own time, yet enhances the nature and character of the historic district should be used. Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes as follows: Standard #1 above, requires buildings to be of, "a height of existing buildings from the historic periods on and across the street." Applicant's approved plans and Record p. 222 to 224 photographs show that the height of the proposed building is compatible in height with buildings on the same block and those across North Main Street in compliance with the requirements of #1. Regarding #2 above, Applicant's approved plans show that the size and propm~tions of the proposed building, relates well to adjacent structures on the same block because, even though different in some respects, the scale of adjacent buildings is compatible with the proposed building and consistent with other requirements in Ashland's Site Design and Page 44 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon Use Standards, which require diversity but in ways that make new buildings compatible with historic ones. For these reasons, this application is consistent with #2. Regarding #3 above and based upon Applicant's approved plans, the proposed building is not an uninteresting boxlike form because it has varied masses and interesting architectural features. Therefore, the Council concludes that this application is consistent with #3. Regarding ~/4 above, Applicant's approved plans show that the front walls .of adjacent buildings and those on the same block, are at the North Main Street sidewalk, which is the same location proposed for the new building, consistent with ~4. Regarding #5 above, the new building is proposed to have a flat roof similar to buildings on the same block and others in Ashland's historic downtown area and tlhe same is evidenced in Applicant's approved plans. Regarding #6 above, Applicant's approved plans show that the proposed building has provided for the alternation of wall areas with doors and windows which have been incorporated into the overall design of the wall facades. Regarding #7 above, Applicant's approved plans show a raised platform al: the North Main Street building entrance, consistent with #7. Regarding #8 above, Applicant's approved plans show the proposed building in relation to those on the same block and demonstrate that its horizontal faq:ade character relates appropriately to the predominant directional expression of nearby buildings in the same block, consistent with #8. Regarding #9 above, Applicant's approved plans show that the main entrance to the new building off North Main Street is appropriately articulated with pronounced architectural features which clearly denote the building entrance, consistent with #9. Regarding #10 above, Applicant's approved plans show that the proposed building consists of traditional architecture which the Council concludes, well represents our own time and enhances the nature and character of the adjacent historic buildings and historic district in general, consistent with #10. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 41. Criterion 42 CITY OF ASHLAND SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS SECTION VI Page 45 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES VI-A) Height 1) Building height shall vary from adjacent buildings, using either "stepped" parapets or slightly dissimilar overall height to maintain the traditional "staggered" streetscape appearance. An exception to this standard would be buildings that have a distinctive vertical/facade treatment that "visually" separates it from adjacent buildings. (Illustration: Recommend 1,5 & 10, Avoid 3) 2) Multi-story development is encouraged in the downtown. (Illustration: Recommend 1, 5, 6 & 10) Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes as follows: Regarding #1 above, and based upon Applicant's approved plans, stepped parapets have been used and here produce buildings which have dissimilar, yet compatible heights to those in this same block. · Regarding #2 above, although it is not expressed in mandatory terms, the proposed building has multiple stories. · Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 42. VI-B) Setback 1) 2) 3) Criterion 43 Except for arcades, alcoves, and other recessed features, buildings shall maintain a zero setback from the sidewalk or property line (Illustration: Recommend 2, 5 & 10). Areas having public utility easements or similar restricting conditions shall be exempt from this standard. Ground level entries are encouraged to be recessed from the public right-of-way to create a "sense of entry" through design or use of materials. (Illustration: Recommend 2, 5, 6 & 10; Avoid 3). Recessed or projecting balconies, verandas or other useable space above the ground level on existing and new buildings shall not be incorporated in a street facing elevation. (Illustration: Avoid 4 & 7). Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes as follows: Regarding # 1 above, Applicant's approved plans show that the proposed building maintains a zero setback from the only sidewalk which exists near the property on North Main Street and the same clearly demonstrates compliance with the requirements of #1. · Regarding #2 above, and based upon Applicant's approved plans, the building's North Main Street entry is recessed, consistent with #2. Regarding #3' above, Applicant's approved plans show that the only cantilever is the balcony which is located on the buildings rear elevation. The rear elevation is not a street facing elevation. Therefore, this application is consistent with #3. Page 46 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon · Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 43. Criterion 44 VI-C) Width 1) The width of a building shall extend from side lot line to side lot line (Illustration: Recommend 5). An exception to this standard would be an area specifically designed as plaza space, courtyard space, dining space or rear access for pedestrian walkways. 2) Lots greater than 80' in width shall respect the traditional width of buildings in the downtown area by incorporating a rhythmic division of the facade in the building's design. (Illustration: Recommend 5 & 10; Avoid 3). Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes as follows: Regarding #1 above, Applicant's approved plans show that the proposed building will extend from the northwesterly side property line and very nearly adjoin tlhe existing building to the southeast, forming a connected series of four buildings which extend across the North Main Street streetscape within this downtown block, consistent with #1.5 Regarding #2 above, the evidence in Applicant's approved plans and the photographs of the subject property and surrounding area (Record p. 222 to 224) do respect the traditional width of buildings found in Ashland's downtown and has done so by incorporating divisions in the facade in the building's design, which the Council concludes from the evidence, are rhythmic. · Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 44. VI-D) Openings l) 2) 3) Criterion 45 Ground level elevations facing a street shall maintain a consistent proportion of transparency (i.e., windows) compatible with the pattem found in the downtown area. (Illustration: Recommend 1,5, 6 & 10). Scale and proportion of altered or added building elements, such as the size and relationship of new windows, doors, entrances, columns and other building features shall be visually compatible with the odginal architectural character of the building. (Illustration: Recommend 5 & 6; Avoid 4 & 9). Upper floor window orientation shall primarily be vertical (height greater than width). (Illustration: Recommend 1, 5 & 6; Avoid 8). 4) Except for transom windows, windows shall not break the front plane of the building. (Illustration: Recommend 5). 5 Three of these four buildings are owned by this owner and, with the proposed building, these three buildings will extend from side lot line to side lot line of the subject property. Page 47 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon 5) Ground level entry doors shall be primarily transparent. (Illustration: Recommend 10; Avoid 4).. 6) Windows and other features of interest to pedestrians such as decorative columns or decorative corbeling shall be provided adjacent to the sidewalk. (Illustration: Recommend 1 & 5; Avoid 4 & 7). Blank walls adjacent to a public sidewalk is prohibited. Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes as follows: Regarding #1 above, Applicant's approved plans show a consistent pattern of windows which are compatible with the pattem found in the downtown area and with buildings in this same block. Applicant's plans are also consistent with illustrations 1, 5, 6 and 10 of the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards and establish compliance with the requirements of #1. Regarding #2 above, this application involves a new building and does not inw)lve altered or added building elements. Therefore, this application is consistent with #2 by reason of inapplicability. · Regarding #3 above, Applicant's approved plans show and clearly demonstrate compliance with the requirements of #3. · Regarding g4 above, Applicant's approved plans show and clearly demonstrate compliance with the requirements of ~4. · Regarding #5 above, Applicant's approved plans show and clearly demonstrate compliance with the requirements of #5. · Regarding #6 above, Applicant's approved plans show windows and other interesting architectural features which demonstrate compliance with the requirements of #6. · Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 45. Criterion 46 VI-E) Horizontal Rhythms 1) Prominent horizontal lines at similar levels along the street's streeffront shall be maintained. (Illustration: Recommend 1,5, 6 & 10; Avoid 4 & 8). 2) A clear visual division shall be maintained between ground level floor and upper floors. (Illustration: Recommend 1,5, 6 & 10). 3) Buildings shall provide a foundation or base, typically from ground to the bottom of the lower' window sills, with changes in volume or material, in order to give the building a "sense of strength". (Illustration: Recommend 1,5 & 10; Avoid 4 & 8). Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes as follows: Page 48 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon · Regarding # 1, Applicant's approved plans (which also show the streetfront of buildings within this same block) show and demonstrate compliance with the requirements of #1 Regarding #2, Applicant's approved plans show a canopy which produces a clear visual division between the ground floor and upper floors compliance with the requirements of #2. · Regarding #3, the proposed building has a base similar to buildings on this same block. · Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 46. Criterion 47 VI-F) Vertical Rhythms 1) New construction or storefront remodels shall reflect a vertical orientation, either through actual volumes or the use of surface details to divide large walls, so as to reflect the underlying historic property lines. (Illustration: Recommend 5 & 6; Avoid 3). 2) Storefront remolding or upper-story additions shall reflect the traditional structural system of tlhe volume by matching the spacing and rhythm of historic openings and surface detailing. (Illustration: Recommend 6; Avoid 4 & 9). Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes as follows: Regarding #1, Applicant's approved plans show that the front elevation has been broken up by stepping back the sides from the middle section and the same promotes a vertical orientation. The windows and doors of the building further produce a vertical emphasis. The application is consistent with #1. Regarding #2, the application involves a new building and not storefront remodeling nor upper story additions. Therefore this application is consistent with #2 by reason of inapplicability. · Therefore, based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 47. Criterion 48 VI-G) Roof Forms Sloped or residential style roof forms are discouraged in the downtown area unless visually screened from the right-of-way by either a parapet or a false front. The false front shall incorporate a well defined cornice line or "cap" along all primary elevations. (Illustration: Recommend 1,5 & 10; Avoid 7). Conclusions of Law: Applicant's approved plans show that the proposed roof will be flat Page 49 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon and will be screened by a parapet which contains a well defined cornice line on all sides of the building, in compliance with the requirements of Criterion 48. Criterion 49 VI-H) Materials 1) 2) Exterior building materials shall consist of traditional building materials found in the downtown area including block, brick, painted wood, smooth stucco, or natural stone. (Illustration: Avoid 4 & 9). In order to add visual interest, buildings are encouraged to incorporate complex "paneled" exteriors with columns, framed bays, transoms and windows to create multiple surface levels. (Illustration: Recommend 1, 5 & 10; Avoid 7, 8 & 9). Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes as follows: · Regarding #1, Applicant's approved plans show that the exterior building materials will be red brick and painted smooth and dappled stucco consistent with #1. Regarding #2, Applicant's approved plans show transoms on lower floor doors and windows and these, along with the doors and windows themselves, form complex panels consistent with #2 (which in any event merely encourages and does not operate as an approval standard). · Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 49. Criterion 50 VM Awnings, Marquees or Similar Pedestrian Shelters 1) Awnings, marquees or similar pedestrian shelters shall be proportionate to the building land shall not obscure the building's architectural details. If mezzanine or transom windows exist, awning placement shall be placed below the mezzanine or transom windows where feasible. (Illustration: Recommend 1, 5, 6 & 10; Avoid 4 & 9). 2) Except for marquees - similar pedestrian shelters such as awnings shall be placed between pilasters. (Illustration: Recommend 1 & 5; Avoid 9). 3) Storefronts with prominent horizontal lines at similar levels along the street's streeffront shall be maintained by their respective sidewalk coverings. (Illustration: Recommend 5; Avoid 8): Conclusions of Law: Based upon Applicant's approved plans, the Council concludes as follows: · Regarding #1, the canopy to be located on the front building elevation is proportionate to the building and does not obscure its architectural details. · Regarding #2, the proposed canopy is placed between the pilasters. Page 50 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon Regarding #3, the subject property exists on a sloped street. However, as shown on the approved plans (which also depict nearby buildings in the same block) the prominent horizontal lines (including canopies) of the proposed building are at similar levels to similar features on the nearby buildings within this street's streetfront. The proposed . building has prominent horizontal lines which are similar to the levels of the., horizontal lines of the streetfront. · Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 50. Criterion 51 VI-J) Other 1) Non-street or alley facing elevations are less significant than street facing elevations. Rear and sidewalls of buildings shall therefore be fairly simple, i.e., wood, block, bdck, stucco, cast stone, masonry clad, with or without windows. 2) Visual integrity of the original building shall be maintained when altering or adding building elements. This shall include such features as the vertical lines of columns, piers, the horizontal definition of spandrels and cornices, and other primary structural and decorative elements. (Illustration: Recommend 6; Avoid 4 & 9). 3) Restoration, rehabilitation or remodeling projects shall incorporate, whenever possible, original design elements that were previously removed, remodeled or covered over. (Illustration: Recommend 6; Avoid 4 & 9). 4) Parking lots adjacent to the pedestrian path are prohibited. (Refer to Site Design and Use Standards, Section II-D, for Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards.) An exception to this standard would be paths required for handicapped accessibility. 5) Pedestrian amenities such as broad sidewalks, surface details on sidewalks, arcades, alcoves, colonnades, porticoes, awnings, and sidewalk seating shall be provided where possible and feasible. 6) Uses which are exclusively automotive such as service stations, drive-up windows, auto sales, and tire stores are discouraged in the downtown. The city shall use its discretionary powers, such as Conditional Use Permits, to deny new uses, although improvements to existing facilities may be permitted. Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes as follows: Regarding #1, Applicant's approved plans show that the rear and sidewalls of the proposed building are, in fact, fairly simple and consist of red brick, smooth and dappled painted stucco, consistent with the requirements of #1. Regarding #2 and #3, these appear to deal with changes to existing buildings. As the application here is for a new building, it is consistent with #2 and #3 by reason of inapplicability. Regarding #4, no parking lot proposed or required in this application. Therefore, the application is consistent with g4 by reason of inapplicability. Page 51 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon Regarding #5, the Applicant's approved plans show the existence of broad[ sidewalks which are more than 10 feet wide. The approved plans also show several pedestrian amenities and details that are oriented to pedestrians consistent with #5. As to sidewalk seating, none is proposed. · Regarding #6, the proposed building and uses intended to be housed in it, are not exclusively automotive. Therefore, the application is consistent with #6. · Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 51. Criterion 52 CITY OF ASHLAND SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS SECTION VI DOWNTOWN ASHLAND AREA STANDARDS The following criteria are adopted with this plan and shall be used as part of the land use approval process: Approval Criteria for Downtown Area Development: VI-l) Parking lots adjacent to the pedestrian path are prohibited. VI-2) Pedestrian amenities such as broad sidewalks, arcades, alcoves, colonnades, porticoes, .awnings, and sidewalk seating shall be provided where possible and feasible. VI-3) Weather protection on adjacent key pedestrian paths are reqUired by all new developments. VI-4) Windows and other features of interest to pedestrians shall be provided adjacent to the sidewalk. Blank walls adjacent to sidewalks are prohibited. VI-5) Two-story development is encouraged downtown, with the second stories in commercial, residential, or parking uses. VI-6) Uses which are exclusively automotive such as service stations, drive-up windows, auto sales, and tire stores are discouraged in the downtown. The city shall use its discretionary powers, such as Conditional Use permits, to deny new uses, although improvements to existing facilities may be permitted. Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes as follows: · Regarding VI-1 above, no parking lots are required or proposed Regarding VI-2, the Council herewith incorporates and adopts its findings .of fact and conclusions of law for ~4 in Criterion 51 and concludes that this application is consistent with #VI-2, above. Regarding VI-3, the only key pedestrian path adjacent to the proposed building is the sidewalk on North Main Street and it is protected from the weather by a canopy proposed on the front building faCade, making this application consistent with # VI-3. Page 52 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon Regarding VI-4, Applicant's approved plans show that windows and other architectural features of interest to pedestrians, have been provided on the building's front fagade, adjacent to the North Main Street sidewalk, consistent with #VI-4. The Council also concludes that no blank wall adjacent to sidewalk has been proposed. Regarding VI-5, Applicant's approved plans and the findings of fact in Section IV, show that the proposed building is of multiple stories with the upper floors devoted to commercial and residential uses consistent with #VI-5. Regarding VI-6 the Council herewith incorporates and adopts its findings ,of fact and conclusions of law for #6 in Criterion 51 and concludes that this application is consistent with #VI-6, above. · Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 52. Criterion 53 TREE PRESERVATiON & PROTECTION PERMIT Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 18) ALUO Chapter 61 Tree Preservation & Protection ALUO 18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal - Staff Permit, An Applicant for a Tree Removal- Staff Permit shalt demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied, The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit, A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the Applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal. . A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The Applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning. 2. The City may require the Applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the Applicant demonstrates all of the following: The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and 2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and Page 53 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon o Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree remow~l have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the altematives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. The City shall require the Applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. Conclusions of Law: This application involves the proposed removal of one tree which is identified as Tree No. 1 on Applicant's Tree Preservation Plan (Record p. A-30). Tree No. 1 is a stand-alone tree. Based upon the evidence at Record p. A-12 to A-21 and A-11, the tree is not considered a hazard at this time, although according to Applicant's expert landscape architect and arborist the tree would become a hazard because of the effect construction would have on the root system. See, Record p. 229. While Applicant's experts agree that the tree to be removed would become a hazard, it is not deemed a hazard at this time. Therefore, the Council must consider the removal of this tree (Tree No. 1) pursuant to the four standards in ALUO 18.61.080(B) -- trees that are not a hazard, and reaches the following conclusions of law: Regarding #B(1), the standard expressed in Section VI-C(1) of the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards (ASDUS) requires buildings in the downtown to extend from side lot line to side lot line. Moreover, the standard in ASDUS VI-B(4) requires buildings to maintain a zero setback from the sidewalk or property line (other than fbr arcades, alcoves and other recessed features). The removal of Tree No. 1 is needed to permit this application to be consistent with ASDUS VI-C(1) and VI-B(4). Additionally, ASDUS II- C-2b(2) requires buildings to be setback not more than 20 feet from a public sidewalk. Tree No. 1 is approximately 8 feet from the North Main Street sidewalk. By' setting the building back the maximum 20 feet, the building would still be within 12 feet of the trunk. At Record p. A-11, Applicant's expert arborist testified: "If construction is to occur closer than 20 feet from the trunk, it is very unlikely that the Alder woulld survive." Therefore, the removal of Tree No. 1 is also needed to permit this application to be consistent with ASDUS II-C-2b(2). For these reasons, the Council concluqes that the removal of Tree No. 1 is in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use Standards), consistent with #B(1) above. Moreover, applicant has agreed, and the Council has required as a condition, to: 1) plant 'trees on the adjacent ODOT property or other specified location, 2) produce community sculpture from the removed Alder which, 3) might be located in an art park applicant desires to create on nearby land. See, Record p. 173. Finally the Council agrees with the opinion of its Assistant City Attorney that Ashland's tree regulations do not trump its design/development standards. · Regarding #B(2), the Council concludes that based upon Record p. A-12 to A-21 and the expert testimony and opinion of Applicant's landscape architect, that removal of this tree Page 54 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks because: 1) This tree is within the building footprint; erosion and soil stability will not be an issue beneath the building, and because the flow of surface waters will be directed by the new drainage incorporated into the proposed structure, and 2) this is a solitary tree and not part of a grove or a windbreak and its removal will not have a negative impact on other trees. Regarding #B(3), the Council concludes that based upon Record p. A-12 to A-21 and the expert opinion of Applicant's landscape architect, that removal of this tree will[ not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property because: 1) the site is adjacent to Ashland Creek and the existing riparian corridor along the creek contains a wide variety of sizes and densities of wooded species with a varied tree canopy, and 2) species diversity will not be negatively impacted because this tree is commonly found along Ashland Creek. For these reasons, the Council concludes that removal of Tree No. 1 is consistent with #B(3) above. Regarding #B(4), the Council concludes, based upon Record p. A-12 to A-21, that Applicant will mitigate the removal of this tree and has agreed to stipulate in Section VI. However, due to limited available space on the subject property, the Council concludes that the location of mitigation planting will need to occur off-site at a location yet to be determined. However, the location must be consistent with ALUO 18.61.084(2) or, alternatively ALUO 18.61.084(3). The artist's sculpture from the trunk of Tree No. 1 and the creation of benches from that trunk, have also been offered as additional (but not required) mitigation and Applicant agreed to stipulate, and the Council has required as a condition, that the said sculptures be donated to the city for display in an appropriate location. See, Record p. AA-112 to 115. During the proceeding, Opponent Hopkins argued at Record p. 259 that the proposed mitigation is inadequate under ALUO 18.61.080(B)(4) and 18.61.084. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and conditions of approval, the Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of #B(4) and that mitigation required as a condition of this approval is consistent with ALUO 18.61.084. · Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 53. Criterion 54 ALUO 18,61,200 Tree Protection, Tree Protection as required by this section is applicable to any planning action or building permit. A. Tree Protection Plan Required. A Tree Protection Plan approved by the Staff Advisor shall be required prior to conducting any development activities including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation, or demolition work on a property or site, which requires a planning action or building permit. Page 55 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon B. C. 2. In order to obtain approval of a Tree Protection Plan; an Applicant shall submit a plan to the City, which clearly depicts all trees to be preserved and/or removed on the site. The plan must be drawn to scale and include the following: a. Location, species, and diameter of each tree on site and within 15 feet of the site; b. Location of the ddp line of each tree; c. Location of existing and proposed roads, water, sanitary and storm sewer, irrigation, and other utility lines/facilities and easements; d. Location of dry wells, drain lines and soakage trenches; e. Location of proposed and existing structures; f. Grade change or cut and fill during or after construction; g. Existing and proposed impervious surfaces; h. Identification of a contact person and/or arbodst who will be responsible for implementing and maintaining the approved tree protection plan; and i. Location and type of tree protection measures to be installed per AMC 18.61.230. 3. For development requiring a planning action, the Tree Preservation Plan shall include an inventory of all trees on site, their health or hazard condition, and recommendations for treatment for each tree. 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 pdor approval has been obtained from the Staff Advisor for the project. 5. No construction activity shall occur within the tree protection zone, including, but not limited to dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste items, equipment, or parked 'vehicles. 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 Vee 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. Conclusions of Law: Opponent Hopkins at Record p. AA-82 and A-29 showed that not only was the amount of excavation around the tree not being reduced, it was being increased. Page 56 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon Based upon Applicant's approved plans, there will be no excavation and the only disturbance within the dripline of the triple-trunk maple (Tree #22) will be to establish footings for the support pillars and these will not produce appreciable harm to the tree. Opponent Hopkins also testified at Record p. 8 that the dripline of trees on the subject property and adjacent property owned by ODOT are not shown and the same is required. The Council concludes that the Tree Preservation Plan and Tree Protection Guidelines submitted by Applicant in Record p. A-30 and A-12 to A-21, prepared by his expert landscape architect, fully complies with Ashland's tree protection standards and accurately shows the dripline. While earlier plans prepared by Applicant's landscape architect show areas of "critical root mass" rather than driplines, the approved tree protection plan at Record p. A-30 illustrates driplines in accordance with the ALUO. Therefore, the Council concludes that this application is consistent with Criterion 54. GENERAL OBJECTIONS (NOT TIED TO SPECIFIC APPROVAL CRITERIA) The following general objections raised during the proceeding were not identified with any of the relevant substantive approval criteria but are addressed by the Council as follows: Objection: Opponent Hopkins at Record p. AA-79 argued that the application, should be denied on the basis of a failure to properly sign and certify the application either by the filing date (December 12, 2003) or as of the deemed complete date (February 18, 2004). Disposition: Applicant's attorney, John Hassen, cited BCT Partnership v. City of Portland, 27 Or LUBA 278 (1994), holding that a local government is not required to den), a land use application where the application form is unsigned. Rather, if a local regulation does not expressly state a signed application is necessary to confer jurisdiction, the local government may consider the matter to be procedural and consider the application on the merits. Here, Ashland's land use ordinance does not specify a signed application is a jurisdictional necessity and the City Council holds that it is not. Additionally, the application in this case was found by City Staff to be "complete" within the meaning of ORS 227.178(2) on February 18, 2004. Applicant was not notified the city considered the application to be incomplete for lack of a signature and the City Council finds it would be inequitable at this point to refuse to consider the application on the merits. Finally, the application has since been signed and the City Council can find no prejudice as a result of the initial, unsigned, submission. The objection is denied. Objection: Opponent Hopkins at Record p. AA-80 argued that portions of the planning process have been denied to opponents, being swept along by the force of the 120 day rule. Disposition: The Council concludes that all opponents were given a fair and even-handed opportunity to present evidence and argument during all municipal proceedings on this Page 57 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon matter, consistent with the procedures established in the ALUO and in ORS 197.763. substantial rights were denied this or any party during the proceedings. No Objection: By written objection dated May 25, 2004, Opponent Hopkins, at Record p. AA- 85, objected to the submission of "further evidence," including any additional Staff Report, on the ground that Opponents' time for testifying to the Council had expired. The Council finds that all Opponents who wished to testify completed their testimony during the continued hearing, June 1, 2004. The public hearing was continued to June 15, 2004, for the purpose of receiving Applicant's written rebuttal to Opponents' testimony and for the Council to inquire of Applicants. Disposition: During the continued hearing on June 1, 2004, neither Opponent Hopkins nor any other Opponent or participant objected to any evidence, argument or response, offered by Applicant or member of the Planning Staff, nor did they request a further continuance of the hearing or opportunity to respond to such evidence, argument or response. Had any sUch objection or request for continuance been made the Council would have considered them in accordance with ORS 197.763(4)(a) and (b). Mr. Hopkins' general, preemptive, objection provided no basis for action by the Council. Objection Opponent Hopkins argued that Applicant's drawings repeatedly used the "coarse data" to create the appearance that the flood plain corridor and 100-year flood plain lines, are the actual flood plain limits of 1872 and 1875.5 feet. Disposition: The Council concludes that the official map which adopted the Flood Plain Corridor shows the subject property as a small area approximately ¼ inch square in size, through which the flood plain corridor line was drawn. The corridor boundary was later translated from this map to Ashland's GIS mapping database by the Ashland Planning Department and this is all that exists; there is simply no map of greater accuracy which depicts the location of the Ashland Creek flood plain corridor. As to FEMA data, the same is based upon elevations and these were translated to applicants' plans by way of on-site survey data. The FEMA flood plain elevation was accurately depicted on Applicant's plans. The Council concludes that the both the FEMA BFE and Ashland Creek flood plain co. rddor were accurately depicted and the Council has taken action on this application based upon the most accurate information possible. Moreover, Applicant's expert engineers verified the accuracy of the FEMA BFE and found it to be accurate. Objection: Opponent Colin Swales testified at Record p. AA-164 that the aggregate group of buildings on the subject property are in excess of 10,000 square feet and are therefore subject of the provision of public open space or plaza. Page 58 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon Disposition: The 10,000 square feet issue raised by Opponent Swales is set forth, in Section II-C-3 of the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards (ASDUS). The standard referred to states: "Developments (1) involving a gross floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet or a building frontage in excess of 100 feet in length, (2) located within the Detail Site Review Zone shall, in addition to complying to the standards for Basic and Detail Site review, shall conform to the following standards:" For this criterion to apply, a project must fall within both of the numbered subparts. This property is located within the Detail Site Review Zone, therefore, the project meets subpart 2 of the criterion. The question then becomes whether it meets subpart 1. That is, whether this is a development which involves a gross floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet. As we understand Mr. Swales' contention, he believes that because the aggregate .of existing buildings, together with the proposed building are in excess of 10,000 square feet, that subpart 1 is also met and, therefore, the standards under ASDUS II-C-3 apply, and the same cannot be met. However, the answer to the question hinges on what a "Development" is. The SDUS does not contain any definitions to help resolve this question. Therefore, we must go back to the ALUO to see if there is a definition of Development that helps resolve the question. The only place in the ALUO in which the term "development" is defined is in the Physical and Environment Constraints Permit Chapter: ALUO 18.62.030(E) which provides the following definition: "E. Development - Alteration of the land surface by: . Earth-moving activities such as grading, filling, stripping, or cutting involving more than 20 cubic yards on any lot, or earth-moving activity disturbing a surface area greater than i 000 sq. fi. on any lot; Construction of a building, road, driveway, parking area, or other structure; except that additions to existing buildings of less than 300 sq. fi. to the existing building footprint shall not be considered development for section 18.62.080. 3. Culverting or diversion of any stream designated by this chapter." Of key importance is subsection 2, which, in pertinent part, defines Development as the, "construction of a building". There is nothing in the definition that ties Develop:ment to the construction of an aggregate of buildings. Therefore, as long as the proposed ]project is a building, and is not an addition to the existing buildings, the 10,000 square fee, t provision needs to be applied only to the construction of the proposed building. In the approved plans, the building will have its own foundation and its own walls. There are not any slhared walls with other buildings, although, there are abutting walls. Consequently, under the: provisions of the ADUS, this building has been reviewed as an independent building and, the approved plans show the building to have less than the 10,000 square feet of gross floor area and less than 100 feet of frontage. Therefore, this project not subject to the large scale project standards in ASDUS II-C-3. Page 59 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon The only instance in which the ALUO addresses an aggregate of buildings is in the 'big box' provisions which limits the total frontage to no more than 300 lineal feet and total gross floor area square footage to no more than 45,000. The evidence shows that the aggregate of the proposed building, together with the existing buildings, does not violate the big box provisions. Therefore the standards in ASDUS II-C-3 are not applicable and nLeed not be addressed. Objection: During the proceeding before the City Council, Opponent Randall Hopkins objected on the basis that the application would result in the removal of trees located on adjacent land owned by Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). Disposition: The evidence showed that trees located on the adjacent ODOT property grow over and onto the subject property and that one of these trees was either a hazard tree or of insufficient caliper so as to require analysis. The Council also concluded that no special permit to prune these trees was required because they exist on land that is publicly owned. Moreover, the proposed pruning would not constitute removal as defined by the ordinance even if a permit were required. VI CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The City Council herewith accepts the various stipulations of Applicant and attaches the same as conditions of this approval, along with the additional conditions enumerat.ed below: Applicant Stipulations: o Heating/Cooling/Lighting: Applicant will provide the method of heating, cooling and lighting of the building and the approximate annual amount of energy used per each source and the methods used to make the approximation at the time the construction drawings are submitted and prior to issuance of building permits. 2. Engineered Utility Plans: Applicant will provide engineered plans which show the location and size of all public utilities in and adjacent to the proposed development. . Recycling: Pursuant to ALUO 18.72.115, Applicant will provide an opportunity-to- recycle site for the use of the project occupants and said site will be located, within the interior of the proposed building. . Mitigation for Tree Removal: Applicant will mitigate the removal of Tree No. 1 as shown on Record p. A-30. The said mitigation will be in accordance with ALUO 18.61.084. However, because space on the subject property is limited, the location of the Page 60 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon o . . . , mitigation planting will need to occur off-site at a location to be determined by the City of Ashland. As further mitigation: 1) Applicant will commission an artist's sc. ulpture (as envisioned in Record p. AA-112 to 115) from the trunk of Tree No. 1 (a.nd various benches) for display in a location deemed appropriate by the city, 2) Applicant will plant ferns and other appropriate riparian vegetation within the riparian corridor ,of Ashland Creek, and 3) also see Applicant's Intentions, Not A Part of this Application as described in Section I hereinabove. Tree Protection Measures: Applicant will fully observe and implement the tree protection measures recommended by registered landscape architect, John Galbraith, in the Tree Preservation Plan and Tree Protection Guidelines submitted by Applicant at Record p. A-30 and A-12 to A-21. Fill: Fill will be engineering and constructed in accord with applicable requiirements of the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70. Pedestrian Bridge: The proposed pedestrian bridge will replace the existing; bridge on the subject property. Applicant has proposed a new engineered bridge to :replace the existing bridge and will be slightly realigned to meet Ashland design and floodplain standards. Applicant testified that the final design of the bridge will be carried out by a qualified Oregon-registered engineer and will be constructed at an elevation of 1877 feet, 5 feet above the FEMA Base Flood Elevation (BFE) of 1,872 feet and otherwise designed and constructed to meet local, state and federal flood regulations. Conditions of the approval require the bridge to be properly engineered and Ashland regulations will ensure that the realigned location will comply will all municipal standards, including ALUO 18.62.070(B). Flood Proofing: All portions of the property required to be flood proofed, will conform in all respects with the relevant provisions of ALUO 18.62.070(C) and AMC 15.10. The elevation of the finished lowest habitable floor will be certified by a qualified engineer or surveyor prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the structure Storage of Materials within Flood Plain Corridor: Neither Applicant nor Applicant's tenants shall store petroleum products, pesticides, or other hazardous or toxic: chemicals on any part of the property located within the Flood Plain Corridor. 10. Irrigation System: All proposed living landscape areas on the property, will be served by an automatic underground irrigation system. 11. Drainage: Applicant will provide plans prepared by a qualified engineer registered in Oregon which address how adequate drainage will be provided for this project in accordance with city standards. Page 61 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon 12. Uses: Applicant will ensure that not less than 65 percent of the gross floor area of the ground floor of the building will be occupied by uses that are permitted or special permitted and excluding residential uses. 13. Flood Damage Prevention Regulations: Applicant will comply fully with Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 15.10 (Flood Damage Prevention Regulations) in the ipreparation and submittal of construction plans for the proposed building. 14. Riparian Enhancement: Applicant will enhance the riparian area beneatlh both the existing and proposed new bridge. The riparian enhancement will be subject to city approval of the enhancement plans. 15. Bridge Support: Applicant will eliminate the bridge support pier within the Ashland Creek flood corridor and instead anchor the bridge to the building deck Additional Conditions imposed by the City Council (which include the below conditions imposed by the Planning Commission in its approval of this application: 1. That all proposals of the Applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. . That the installation of plant materials within Riparian Preservation Lands (both sides of the creek) shall be reviewed and approved by the Staff Advisor in consultation with the Oregon Fish & Wildlife Department and Ashland Tree Commission. Recom:mendations on plant materials shall be incorporated into a revised landscaping plan..till planting shall be installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. . That both sides of the bank be stabilized through appropriate armoring, such as the placement of medium to large boulders. The location of the creek armor shall be noted on the revised landscaping plan and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to commencement of building permit review, pursuant to the approval of appropriate government agencies with jurisdiction (i.e. State & Federal). . That a metal street tree grate, consistent with the standards of the Public Works Department, be installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy around the existing street tree along North Main Street. . That the color, texture, dimensions, shape and building materials for all exterior components of the project be included at the time of submission of building permit. The information shall be consistent with the colors, texture, dimensions and shape of materials and building details proposed and approved as part of the land use application. 6. That the recommendations of the Historic Commission be incorporated into the final design and approved by the Staff Advisor. Building sections identifying the height, Page 62 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon . . o 10. 11. width, depth, material and texture of all exterior architectural features shall be provided with the building permit to verify consistency with the approved building elevations. That the Applicant submit an electric distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department prior to final planning approval and /or building permit: issuance. Transformers and cabinet shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access needs of the Electric Company. That the building setback from the creek channel shall be staked on-site, verified and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to building permit issuance, and maintained throughout the duration of the project. That temporary erosion control measures shall be identified on the construction drawings, approved by the Staff Advisor, and installed on-site prior to building permit issuance. Temporary erosion control measures shall be maintained throughout the duration of the project and until the final landscaping has been installed. That the design of all storm water mn-off outfall locations be reviewed by the Public Works Department and approved by the Staff Advisor. Outfall locations shall be situated as close to the elevation of the creek channel as possible to reduce the potential for bank erosion. Outfall locations shall be adequately armored and vegetated to reduce the potential of bank erosion. That a final utility plan for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division and Building Divisions prior to issuance of a building permit. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the location of water lines and meter sizes, sewers, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage and catch basins. Given the elevation of lower floor levels, sanitary sewer service may require pumping to the sewer main located in North Main Street. In addition, connecting to City water may require the cutting of North ]Main Street due to the lines anticipated location on the opposite side of the street. 12. That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department, including but not limited to hydrant placement and flow and apparatus access, shall be clearly identified on the construction drawings and reviewed and approved by the Ashland Fire Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 13. That all portions of the building located at an elevation of 1873 or below shall be flood- proofed and designed to the standards identified in 15.10.080 and as suggested by FEMA for non-residential construction. The flood-proofing measures shall be clearly identified on the construction drawings, reviewed and approved by the Building Official, and certified by an Oregon registered professional engineer that the design and methods of Page 63 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon construction are in accordance with accepted standards of practice for meeting the provisions of 15.10.080 and FEMA. 14. That the covenant or similar deed restriction be recorded on the property prohibiting the establishment or installation of any structure or similar element on the opposite side of the creek (east side) that would in any way restrict the overflow of floodwaters into the area beneath the viaduct. The legal instrument shall be prepared by the Applicant and reviewed and approved by the Staff Advisor and City Attorney prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 15. That a sign, awning and marquee program for the development be included at the time of building permit review. The program shall identify the anticipated number of signs, locations and approximate square footage based upon the requirements described in the Sign Code 18.96. Leases for commercial tenant spaces shall note that awnings;, marquees or similar pedestrian shelters shall be consistent with City Downtown Design Standards (VI-l), reviewed by the Ashland Historic Commission and approved by the Planning Department Staff Advisor. 16. That all recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission noted on their January 9, 2004 document be addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit. The recommendations shall be included on a revised landscaping plan and final irrigation plan at the time of submission of building permits. 17. That proposed Tree Protection measures address existing trees located immediately north of the property within the State right-of-way. The approval of off-site mitigation on the State right-of-way shall be the responsibility of the Applicant. The Applicant shall seek ODOT's consent of the planting of a large specimen tree (one to two trees, depending on the species and what canopy it will reach), two and one-half inches in caliper to mitigate the loss of canopy from the removal of the alder tree. The landscape architect can make the decision as to what type of tree(s). At maturity the tree should be considered a signature tree. 18. That an opportunity-to-recycle site for use by project residents shall be identified for the project in accordance with the standards described in section 18.72.115 of tlhe Ashland Land Use Ordinance prior to issuance of a building permit. 19. That the construction drawings submitted at the time Building Permit review shall demonstrate compliance with 18.62.070(G). 20. That wood clad windows be installed on the front windows with a four-inch mullion (separation). Such revisions to be clearly identified on the building permit plans. 22. Submit complete new set of drawings, with engineer's stamp on architect's drawing (or equivalent) to demonstrate that the flood storage calculations fit the design shown, and acknowledge the tree protection requirements. Accurate flood plain and riparian setbacks Page 64 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon must be shown. Accurate figures for calculation of storage volume must tie to actual areas, number of pillars, etc. 23. An engineer is required to stamp the design and flood compliance of any creek crossing. 24. Restore the FEMA elevation certificate requirement at the higher elevation (#14 from pg 104). 25. Correct #13: FEMA flood elevation plus one foot is 1873 not 1773 feet. 26. Plans and documents shall be reviewed and agreed to by Public Works for ,compliance with City's strictest flood damage protection rules. 27. Utility and storm water plans shall reflect tree protection measures to the greatest extent possible. 28. Applicant to pursue Art Park concept with ODOT and the City of Ashland (Parks, Public Art Commission, Planning, etc.). If not possible in preferred location, mitigate tree loss elsewhere on public land. 29. Tree Commission to be consulted prior to issuance of building permit :for revised comments and mitigation plans under Conditions #16 and #17. 30. Stipulation #9, page 173, of Applicants' submittal be brought forward and extended beyond toxic materials to any materials that would reduce the flood storage volume beneath the building. 31. Artist sculptUres produced from the removed Alder tree shall be donated to the City of Ashland. VII ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council affirms the decision of the Planning Commission and concludes that this application is consistent with all of the applicable relevant substantive criteria and development standards of the City of Ashland. Therefore the application is approved and made subject to all of the stipulations and conditions set forth in Section VI bove. Dated: /~Lg¢~LA~lr I(~i'Z.OOq ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL Page 65 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 City of Ashland, Oregon By: Alan DeBoer Mayor Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2004-002 Page 66