Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-0403 Council Mtg PACKET CITY OF ASHLAND Important: Any citizen may orally address the,Council on non,agenda items during the Public Forum.-,Any,citizen may,submit written �._.._,.,...._,_ .c_- —. _� - comments to the Councd`on any item on the Agenda;unless it is'the subject of a public hearing and tfie iecoid is closed' Time permitting;the Presiding Officer may allow,00d testimony. If you wish to:speak,'please-fill out the Speaker Request fomi located near the end cc to the Council an ,Chambers. The chair will.recogmze you and inform you asdo the.amount of time allotted to you if any.The time granted will be dependent to some extent on the nature of the item urider'discussion,the number of people who wish to speak,and the length of the agenda '• AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL April 3, 2012 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street Note: Items on the Agenda not considered due to time constraints are automatically continued to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting [AMC 2.04.030.E.] 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS V. A PROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Study Session of March 19, 2012 Regular Meeting of March 20, 2012 VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS 1. ee City USA Award and p clamation of Ap '12-8 as Arbor Week ProclaA�Onu-ol pril as Fair Housing M onth 3. port presentation VII. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of the minutes of the Boards, Commissions, and Committees 2. Appointment of Kenneth Schmidt to the Tree Commission 3. Appointment of Evan Lasley to the Housing Commission / 4. Approval of grant request for Ashland Creek Park construction V/ 5. KisO :�� PH- -L4 ch, Lt O 7 `(/i 7/r z- VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Per ons wishing to spea are to submit a "speaker request form" prior to the commencement of the public hearing. All hearings must conclude by 9:00 p.m., be continued to a subsequent meeting, or be extended to 9:30 p.m. by a two-thirds vote o ouncll (AMC §2.04.050)) 1 First Rea Inge an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Adding New Sections 18.08.662 an a Definitions Chapter (18.08) of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance and Amending the Historic District Design Standards and Downtown Design Standards of the Site Design and Use Standards for Greater Clarity and Consistency with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation" COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9 VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT W W W.ASHLAND.OR.US 2. Approval of two quitclaim deeds to terminate a bicycle and pedestrian easement in Wildcreek Subdivision IX. PUBLIC FORUM Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. The Mayor will set time limits to enable all people wishing to speak to complete their testimony.) [15 minutes maximum] X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Update on Planning Commission Review of Ordinance Amendments from the Pedestrian Places Project that Apply in the Detail Site Review Zone and Throughout the City XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Report to the Council on Crime in Ashland and use of force by the Ashland Police Department 2. Discussion to Extend the ad hoc Homelessness Steering Committee 3. Approval of Amendment#1 to the Television Head-end Lease and Contract Between City of Ashland and Ashland Home Net XII. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Adoption of Special Event Policy, Repeal of Resolution 2011-22, and Adoption of a new Special Event Fee Resolution 2. Second Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.10.090 Council as Final Decision Maker and Chapter 2.10.100 Budget, Compensation and Expenses on the Ashland Municipal Code" 3. Second Reading of ordinances titled, "An Ordinance Amending the Site Design and Review Chapter.(18.72) of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to Exempt Solar Energy Sytems Meeting Specific- Standards from Site Review Requirements" "An Ordinance Amending the Definitions Chapter (18.08) and General Regulations Chapter (18.68) of the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance" "An Ordinance Establishing Provisions for the Keeping of Chickens Within Residential Districts, and Repealing Fence Provisions Within the Health and Sanitation Chapter 9.08) of the Ashland Municipal Code" 4. First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Repealing AMC Chapter 10.24 Fireworks and Amending AMC Chapters 15.28.070 Amendments to the Oregon Fire Code and 15.28.100 Penalties" XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS XIV. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrators office at(541)488-6002(TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting(28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL, 9 VISIT THE 01 Y OP ASHLAND'S `NEB SITE AT WWW.ASI-ILAND.OR.US C11 Y CUUNCIL N7 UUY Sh V11 UN March 19, 2012 Page I of 2 MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL March 19,2012 Pioneer Hall,73 Winburn Way Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 5:29 p.m. in Pioneer Hall. Councilor Silbiger, Slattery, Lemhouse, Morris, and Voisin were present. Councilor Chapman was absent. 1. Look Ahead Review City Administrator Dave Kanner reviewed items on the Look Ahead. Council and staff discussed the first year of the Ad hoc Homelessness Steering Committee (HSC) expiring and possibly assigning some responsibility of the HSC to the Housing Commission. Council moved the discussion on the Wildlife Feeding Ordinance from a Study Session to a regular Council meeting and expressed concern the ordinance stemmed from a minority of Council not the majority. 2. Will Council provide staff direction on policy issues related to community suggestions associated with safety issues on the bike path? Police Chief Terry Holdemess explained there were 10 recommendations that came from the community, seven were in process or completed with one that required Council action. Staff did not recommend implementing the remaining three for the following reasons: Lighting the Bike Path • It would cost $385,000. • The Lighting would create a false sense of security with.secluded dark areas where attacks could occur. • The David Grubbs homicide was the only reported incident of violent crime on the bike path in Ashland. • There were other areas in the city with lighting issues that lead similar or more violent crimes committed than the bike path. • Residential complaints regarding bike path lighting affecting their property. Chief Holdemess noted the other areas of violent crime were in the Railroad District and Will Dodge Way. The City installed additional lighting on Will Dodge Way with an alternative solution for the Railroad District. He went on to confirm the bike path was City property maintained by the Public Works Department and not part of the Parks and Recreation Department. Council expressed the need for a communication plan to ensure the public understood the reasons for not lighting the bike path. City Administrator Dave Kanner ensured staff would be proactive with a communication strategy. Council supported the staff recommendation not to light the bike path. Councilor Silbiger disclosed he owned property by the railroad tracks and the bike path. Have a Security Evaluation of the Bike Path done by City Police • There were not enough incidents of crime or disorder on the bike path to warrant analysis. • Ashland Police Department lacked staff experience in-Crime Prevention through Environmental Design evaluations. • The area the Grubbs homicide occurred in was one of the safer areas of the bike path. Chief Holdemess explained the Police Department conducted Neighborhood Crime Watch meetings when asked. The Police Department increased volunteer police presence on the bike path but volunteers did not work after dark. Ulf T COUNCIL N7 UUY NLNN/UN March 19, 2012 Page 2 of 2 Change Scope of Transportation Commission to include Community Safety • Public safety issues were substantially outside the purview of the Transportation Commission. The David Grubbs memorial bench will go on Parks and Recreation property near the incident. 3. Update on current status of AFN? Interim Assistant City Administrator/Financial Director Lee Tuneberg noted the eight steps AFN was doing or would do to stave customer loss that totaled 154 since November 2011: I. Do not raise the prices for the internet line up at this time. 2. Increase internet speeds to the maximum extent practical. 3. Market the upgrade and price freeze to our direct customers. 4. Get.the ISP and cable contracts in place, including the modification to the cable television contract. 5. Take the steps necessary to reduce expenditures internally in order to maintain the AFN technology debt payment. 6. Add the ISPs to our web site as an alternative to direct service. 7. Continue to monitor customer migration to see if these actions stem the loss. 8. Assure the ISPs that we will revisit their promotional pricing idea this summer. Currently, there were three Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Councilor Silbiger added Council had directed AFN to increase their direct customer counts and were now at 287 with each paying AFN $10 a month that would normally have gone to an ISP. City Administrator Dave Kanner addressed number 8. Assure the ISPs that we will revisit their promotional pricing idea this summer. He explained the immediate concern was AFN was losing customers at an alarming rate and rather than do something that would cost additional revenue, it was wiser to take the other interim steps that included not raising prices and increasing internet speed to see if that staunched the bleeding. Mr. Tuneberg explained the City had never covered costs on cable TV and any adjustments to the contract with AFN required the City to trim their costs to maintain the contribution to the debt service. Mr. Kanner explained why he wanted to combine the Chief Information Officer (CIO) and Electric Utilities Director positions into one position. The position would require marketing skills to help AFN's marketing issues. The candidate would have management generalist and marketing skills and be technically well informed. Councilor Silbiger observed that as long as AFN stayed competitive the internet side of the business would grow. The cable TV side would make itself obsolete and that would work to AFN's advantage. Network Administrator Chad Sobotka explained the system currently had the maximum capacity of 1,000 megabit per second. The next jump was 1,500 megabit per second. It would require a slight modification of the cable infrastructure and cost under$40,000. Mr. Kanner gave a brief update on the fire that was set in the stairwell at 27 '/z Main. The damage was limited to the stairwell, an office, and part of the adjacent empty retail space. Meeting adjourned at 6:41 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dana Smith Assistant to the City Recorder ASHLAND C.'II Y W UNC:IL MLL'I I NU March 20, 1012 Page I of 3 MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL March 20, 2012 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilor Voisin, Morris, Lemhouse, Slattery, Silbiger, and Chapman were present. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Stromberg requested on behalf of Housing Commission Chair Regina Ayars to add the appointment of Evan Lasley to the Housing Commission to the agenda. Council and staff discussed the need to advertise an item like a commission appointment to allow enough time for citizen input and did not add the item to the agenda. Mayor Stromberg went on-to announce the City was accepting applications for the annual appointments to Commissions and Committees. The deadline for submitting applications is March 30, 2012. Councilor Voisin noted that April was Sexual Assault Awareness Month (SAAM) and that Dawn Schiller, the author of The Road Through Wonderland: Surviving John Holmes was speaking April 5, 2012, from 6:30- 8:30 in the Southern Oregon University(SOU)Recital Hall. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS? The minutes of the Study Session of March 5, 2012, Executive Session of March 6, 2012 and Regular Meeting of March 6, 2012 were approved as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS (None) CONSENT AGENDA 1. Will Council approve the minutes of the Boards, Commissions,and Committees? 2. Will Council approve a recommendation from the Public Art Commission to endorse Southern Oregon Arts and Research (SOAR) which will occur on the SOU campus in May? 3. Will Council, acting as the local contract review board, approve the request for approval of a Contract Specific Special Procurement to seek an exemption from the competitive bid process to directly award a contract to Elstor Sales for the repair and maintenance of City-owned transformers until June 30,2016? 4. Will Council, acting as the local contract review board, approve the request for approval of a Class Special Procurement to seek an exemption from the competitive bid process to directly award public contracts to contractors to perform repairs, maintenance, and service as needed and required on City owned vehicles and equipment until June 30, 2016? 5. Will Council, acting as the local contract review board, approve the request for approval of a Class Special Procurement to seek an exemption from the competitive bid process to directly award public contracts to contractors to perform repairs,'maintenance and service as needed and required to HVAC (Heating,Air& Ventilation) Systems in City-owned buildings until June 30, 2016? 6. Will Council approve the renewal of a Memo of Understanding with the Parks Commission regarding certain services provided between the two organizations and the agreed upon costs? Councilor Chapman/Silbiger m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: ' All AYES. Motion passed. ANHLANO 1.Y7-Y CUUNC/L MLLYINO March 20, 2012 Page 1 of 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Will Council, acting as the local contract review board, hold a public hearing, declare the fire hose as surplus, and award a public contract at no cost for the fire hose to the Sixes Fire Department in Sixes, Oregon? Fire Chief John Kams explained the Ashland Fire Department acquired a complete compliment of fire hose due to a FEMA Grant they received the year before. The surplus fire hose would help the Sixes Fire Department who was currently struggling with their budget. Although the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and federal guidelines often became policy for many fire departments, it did not bind them. Public Hearing Opened: 7:09 p.m. Public Hearing Closed: 7:09 p.m. Councilor Lemhouse/Voisin m/s that the fire hose be declared a surplus and approve the contract award. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC FORUM Julie Norman/596 Helman Street/Provided an update on the Mt. Ashland Ski Expansion discussion. The US Forest Service recently filed a motion to lift the 2007 Injunction that had stopped the expansion. The Plaintiffs filed a response. She attended the Mt. Ashland Association's (MAA) Board meeting the night before and distributed information regarding climate changes and precipitation. She noted the MAA Treasurer report stated MAA had more debt than assets to pay them and the board agreed to a special Study Session. She asked Council to add an agenda item to a future meeting to discuss the City's role now, to strengthen the Memo of Understanding (MOU), and write a letter to the US Forest Service pertaining to City involvement if implementation went forward. Councilor Slattery spoke as the Council Liaison to both the MAA Board and the US Forest Service, acknowledged there were rumors to the contrary, but MAA and the US Forest Service would follow all the legal processes. He was meeting with the US Forest Service the following week. Chris Hardy/774 B Street/Provided background on Village Farm and its organic certification through the USDA National Organic Program and expressed concern that Syngenta was growing genetically modified organisms (GMO) sugar beets just outside city limits. This prompted the formation of GMO-Free Jackson County who were currently working on an initiative for the November ballot to ban GMO crop production in Jackson County. He explained organic farms do not use the same mode of operation as GMO farms and requested Council to have a Study Session regarding GMO's to discuss the issue further. Liza Maltzberger/1257 Siskiyou Boulevard/Addressed the 1929 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding the City's right to comment on the health of the watershed and the US Forest Service's obligation to listen. It was important for the City to remind the US Forest Service that they would be in contempt of court if logging occurred prior to the injunction being lifted. Eric Navickas/711 Faith Street/Expressed concern Mt. Ashland would log preemptively. He agreed there were many rumors but attributed it to a lack of transparency from the US Forest Service and the Mt. Ashland Association (MAA) that they intended to exhaust full judicial process before implementing the project. He felt that it was imperative the City send a letter to the US Forest Service and add it to a future Council meeting for discussion to ensure they allow full judicial process to be exhausted. Once the judge lifted the injunction, the project could go forward. Council was in a strong position with the US Forest Service under the 1929 agreement and by not having the lease. Councilor Slattery agreed with Mr. Navickas' testimony and added there were three stakeholders trying to ensure they were working within the law and currently were identifying the process and benchmarks. Once that was established, they would make it public but it would take time. ASHLAND Gil Y C'DUN'UL MLh77NC, March 10, 2012 Page 3 of 3 Councilor Voisin/Slattery m/s the Council add to the agenda this evening consideration for a Study Session on Mt. Ashland and the US Forest Service after Councilor Slattery as the Liaison has the opportunity to discuss and deal with both entities. DISCUSSION: Councilor Voisin agreed on transparency, thought it was good Councilor Slattery was the Liaison to MAA and the US Forest Service and that a Study Session would help determine the City's future role. Councilor Chapman thought it was premature to discuss the role but agreed a discussion was needed at some point. Councilor Slattery thought in addition to a Study Session, a community dialogue needed to occur as well. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin and Slattery, YES; Councilor Silbiger, Chapman, Lemhouse, and Morris, NO. Motion failed 2-4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None) NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Will Council, acting as the local contracts review board, approve a construction contract with Pilot Rock Excavation, Inc., in the amount of$344,164 to construct the Schofield and Monte Vista Local Improvement District (LID)? Engineering Services Manager Jim Olson explained the project started in 2007 and described the delays that prevented the project from going forward until now. The project was recently re-bid and of the two bids the City received, Pilot Rock Excavation came in with the lowest bid. Staff recommended proceeding with the project as quickly as possible and urged Council to approve the contract. The LID contained 20 units with three lots that had potential for extra units reflected in the cost. The City would pay $13,613.82 because the cemetery was included in the LID and was sizable. Stuart Cotts/100 Schofield/Expressed his appreciation to Council and City staff regarding the project. Councilor Voisin/Chapman m/s to approve a contract with Pilot Rock Excavation Inc., in the amount of $344,164.00 for the improvement of Schofield & Monte Vista under Assessment District No.87. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Should Council approve the First Reading of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.10.090 Council as Final Decision Maker and Chapter 2.10.100 Budget, Compensation and Expenses on the Ashland Municipal Code" and move the ordinance on to Second Reading? Councilor Morris/Slattery m/s to approve First Reading and set the matter for a Second Reading. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Voisin, Slattery, Silbiger,Morris and Lemhouse, YES. Motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERSIREPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 7:41 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John Stromberg, Mayor CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication April 3, 2012 - Regular Meeting Recognizing Ashland as Tree City USA for the 27`" Consecutive Year FROM: Michael Pifia, Assistant Planner, Community Development Department, michael.pina @ashland.or.us SUMMARY The National Arbor Day foundation and the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) have announced that the City of Ashland has been recognized as a Tree City USA for the 27'h consecutive year. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The City of Ashland has consistently met the four criteria set forth by the National Arbor Day Foundation to be recognized as a Tree City USA. The four criteria include: adoption of a tree preservation and protection ordinance, establishment of a tree commission, spending at least $2 per capita on a community tree care programs and conducting an Arbor Day or Arbor Week ceremony. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Make proclamation SUGGESTED MOTION: Motion to recognize Ashland as a Tree City USA ATTACHMENTS: Arbor Week Events— Press Release Page I of I CITY OF ASHLAND News Release FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE,'PLEASE DATE: March 27, 2012 CONTACT: Michael Piiia, Assistant Planner City of Ashland Community Development Department michael.pinanashland.or.us— 541.552.2052 The State of Oregon celebrates Arbor Week during the first full week in April. This year, Arbor week falls on April I" through the 7`h. National Arbor Day is April 30, 2010. The City of Ashland Tree Commission has a number of events planned in April to celebrate Arbor Week and Ashland's designation as a Tree City USA for the 27`h consecutive year. Arbor Day Events ➢ Tuesday, April 3'h 1:00 PM — 2011 Tree of the Year City plaque installation for the Coast Redwood(s)'located at 65 Granite Street. ➢ Tuesday, April 31h 7:00 PM - 2012 Tree City USA Proclamation at the Ashland City Council Meeting. ➢ Friday, April 13"' at 2:00 PM — Ceremonial Tree planting at the Siskiyou School, 631 Clay Street. ➢ Saturday, April V 11 AM to 4 PM - Tree Commission booth at the Earth Day Celebration. For more information about the Arbor Week activities planned during the month of April, please contact Michael Pina, Assistant Planner at michael.pina nashland.or.us or at 541.552.2052. (end) ° �.y Ajk A o r P"}, f P i• :V,. PROCLAMATION J. Sterling Morton proposed to the Nebraska Board of Agriculture in 1872 that a Dry special day be set aside for the planting of trees. �� ➢ Ke,, This holiday, called Arbor Day, was first observed with the planting of more than ➢• �� D a million trees in Nebraska. ( e� Arbor Day is now observed throughout the nation and the world. 6 °° f� Trees can reduce the erosion of our precious topsoil by wind and water, reduce D heating and cooling costs, moderate the temperature, clean the air, produce o oxygen, and provide a habitat for wildlife. ➢� rr Trees are a renewable resource giving us paper, wood for our homes, fuel for our fires;and countless other wood products; and trees in our city increase property QC r values, enhance the economic vitality of business areas, and beautify our ➢aa community; and trees are a source of joy-and spiritual renewal. • Ashland has been recognized as a Tree City USA by the National Arbor Day V Foundation for 27 years and desires to continue its tree-planting ways. ➢ 9 � NOW, THEREFORE, the Mayor, on behalf of the citizens of Ashland, hereby �° proclaim April 2 to 8, 2012 as ARBOR WEEK.INASHLAND D� 6 oo and urge all citizens to support efforts to care for our trees and woodlands and to ➢-D (� support our City's community forestry program. 1 further urge all citizens to plant oo J, trees to gladden the hearts and promote the well-being of present and future o0 generations. Dated this 3rd day of April, 2012 D ! t r. �a D John Stromberg, Mayor PD`oo ° Barbara Christensen, City Recorder F \�91)ay �1s� f y �.j� ji�:p_ Vet!`�v e"�ily'fr G✓V�.v !v J I ¢e ceAev o . cceo� c��,� o c��e9 ¢eoe9 c�©e� c�a� ¢v�,ev ¢dpe� chi n �✓JJ`� q �.ip-�, r "'i ;rf. �e.' t'� o 'a�t.� at� -a wF 1'^y�' -`.'. - °W c,, PROCLAMATION t April 11, 2012, marks the 44th anniversary of the passage of the U.S. Fair Housing Law, Title Vlll of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended, which enunciates a �Q t national policy of Fair Housing without regard to race, color, creed, national v n Q° origin, sex, familial status, and handicap, and encourages fair housing =y opportunities for all citizens. °° ° �� ➢ � The City of Ashland is committed to highlighting the Fair Housing Law, Title V111 ➢°� Q �` DG i of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, by continuing to address discrimination in our D v community, to support programs that will educate the public about the right to P °° Q Q equal housing opportunities, and to plan partnership efforts with other �➢} organizations to help assure every citizen of their right to fair housing. �� QG \ � ° NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council and Mayor, on behalf of the citizens of °°` 6 �i Ashland, hereby proclaim the month of April 2012 as: ➢ ° "Fair Housing Month" and hereby urge all citizens to join in this observance by resolving to fight j discrimination in their daily lives and by making themselves aware of the Fair P ° `� ➢ 1 �. Housing Law and the ways in which it applies to our community. ➢` Q ----� e A __ c Dated this 3rd day of April, 2012. D P John Stromberg, Mayor . P o Barbara Christensen, City Recorder �J z ASHLAND WATER ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES JANUARY 18, 2012 CALL TO ORDER Mike Faught called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room,51 Winbum Way. Committee Members Present: Kate Jackson, Don Morris,Amy Patton, Donna Rhee, Councilor Carol Voisin Absent Members: Pat Acklin, Lesley Adams,Alex Amarotico,Darrell Boldt, Donna Mickley, Rich Whitley,John Williams Staff Present: Mike Faught,Robbin Pearce,Ann Seltzer, Pieter Smeenk, Lee Tuneberg,Jodi Vizzini and Steve Walker Consultants: David Kraska, Rachel Lanigan(Carollo Engineering—via conference call),Shaun Pigott, Steve Donovan (Shaun Pigott Associates), Mark Mularz(Moodio) Public: Doug Gentry, Bill Heimann,Joseph Graf APPROVAL OF MINUTES RheelJackson m/s to approve the October 26,2011,November 9,2011,and November 16,2011 minutes. Voice Vote: all Ayes. Motion passed. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA Mike Faught suggested the public forum follow Shaun Pigott's presentation. The Committee and the public approved his suggestion. DISCUSSIONS AND DECISIONS Financial Rate Analysis: Mr.Pigott provided a PowerPoint presentation/handout and highlighted key areas which included:t)restate financial position . of the water utility;2) review the master plan Capital Improvement Program (CIP) in terms of financial implications of the direction established by the Committee; 3) key assumptions in rate forecast; 4) optional financing strategies, i.e. advance funding and current funding;and 5)options for mitigating seasonal revenue volatility. Mr.Pigott stated the City is in a favorable position, but the trend is not favorable unless some interim actions are taken.Amy Patton questioned the difference between 2011 and 2012 beginning fund balance on p. 4 of the handout. Lee Tuneberg confirmed and explained the interfund loan to the Committee. Staff explained the increases in labor costs as it relates to additional FTE,healthcare,PERS,and labor negotiations. Mr.Pigott and Mr.Donovan explained coverage factoron longterm debt,.interest rates, bonds,and means test to the Committee. Ms.Patton asked if putting off the construction of the Water Treatment Plant(WTP)until a later date would save money. Mr. Faught answered the driving force is meeting the water demand of 2018 and building the WTP solves that problem,as well as adding the Talent Ashland Pipeline(TAP)for emergency use only.The discussion included the need based on conservation. Pieter Smeenk explained 2018 presumes 5 percent conservation which makes it difficult to plan.Mr.Faught added if we do not start increasing the cost now in preparation for 2018, and wait for conservation, then the City will need to raise rates dramatically. Mr.Pigott explained the proposed funding options for the Master Plan CIP which includes advance funding and current funding (illustrated on pp.8—11 of the handout).Ms.Patton asked if there is a potential for rates to go,back down after the significant capital cost period. Mr.Pigott explained the rates will stabilize and there could be a potential for rates to go down but there will be operating and maintenance costs to consider. The Committee looked at the graph on p. 12 of the handout and asked Mr. Pigott to explain the forecast figures. The Committee asked for clarification on the advance funding scenario.Mr.Donavan explained the City has already established the strategy to do this in the master bond resolution that allows authority to create and manage a rate stabilization account and make transfers to and from in the budget process.Mr.Pigott summarized the mechanics are established in the City Ordinance, Ashland Wafer Advisory Committee January 18.2012 • Page l of 3 but the rate increase will have to be approved. Ms. Patton asked if one advantage to this is taking a loan at a later date,and the possibility of taking a smaller loan if the City builds up reserves.Mr.Pigott referred to the strategy as creating a warchest to help pay for debt service,not buy down actual capital costs.Ms.Patton asked if the consultants were making an argument to build sooner. The consultants stated from a financial standpoint, building sooner and faster will cost less in the long run. PUBLIC FORUM Joseph Graf/1160 Fern Street/Stated when he looks at the curves of the graph,as a homeowner,he would pay the same no matter which scenario is chosen,but would pay less in the early years and more in the out years. Where it changes is after the next 10 years he will pay significantly less forever if the build-up early scenario is chosen. Doug Gentry/574 Long Way/Stated he agrees both financially and politically the big steep line on the graph is troubling but the money charged to rate owners earlier has a higher value.This scenario is asking rate payers to forego some money now that has more value verses savings in the future.He added it is a counter balancing thing and would make the same decision but made a point to note the City will be asking people to pay high value dollars and save low value dollars. Bill Heimann/647 Siskiyou/Stated he agrees,however he questioned if this is the right thing to do both politically and morally. The Committee would be asking the citizens to pay the interest now,for a product in the future. He asked the consultants to clarify a comment he thought they made about the fund growing,its impact on the covenant,and it this will cause a demand to increase the reserves. Mr.Donovan clarified those are two separate issues. Ann Seltzer commented as a rate payer she would like the utility bill to be itemized to show the additional amount of money a customer will be paying specifically for the capital project. Mr. Pigott stated he thought that could be possible.Lee Tuneberg agreed it could be done, but questioned if it would help the customer accept the cost of the utility bill. The Committee, consultants, and staff discussed different ideas on how to reflect the cost on the utility bill. Mr. Faught added this will be a critical piece of the public outreach. Mr.Pigott directed the Committee's attention to the issue of revenue volatility as illustrated on pp. 14—15 of the handout and explained demand and fixed costs. Consumption,climate,and conservation were variables of discussion and how it affects revenue. Mr. Pigott suggested the most direct approach is to consider increasing the base portion of the chart and to identify the target contingency. The Committee reviewed estimated revenue, range of base charge increases, and comparisons of surrounding cities as illustrated on pp. 18—19. Doug Gentry/574 Long Way/Stated another way to think of this is in terms of base usage.He explained a stair/tier strategy that would cause high volume,irrigators to pay more than lower use residents. Mr.Pigott replied that a uniform application of any increases on both the base and use side of the equation is being explored. Bill Heimann1647 Siskiyou/Stated the utility bill currently reflects more than the water base rate; it also includes electricity, road use,tax,etc. The overall utility without services is already around$31.00. If$14.00 is added,this\Mll be a large increase. PUBLIC OUTREACH Ms.Seltzer introduced herself to the Committee and explained one of her roles in the City is to assist departments with public outreach. She explained how this particular challenge will be.compiling two years of the Committee's work into simplified information that is balanced and objective,while illustrating the problems and proposed solutions the Committee wrestled. Ms. Seltzer announced a Community Issues Forum, partnering with the Chamber of Commerce,is scheduled in the Rogue River Room/Stevenson Union at Southern Oregon University on March 14,2012 from 7:00—9:00 p.m.She emphasized the importance of AWACS role in this forum. Mr.Faught reminded the Committee of the April 17�1 target date for the adoption of the master plan and the need to shake out the financial piece at the next meeting.The Committee agreed to arrange another meeting within the next two weeks. Ashland lValer Advisory Committee January 18.1011 Page 2 0f3 ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 6:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jodi Vizzini, Office Assistant II Ashland Water Advisory Committee January 1R,2012 Page 3 of 3 ASHLAND WATER ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES February 2,2012 CALL TO ORDER Mike Faught called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way, Committee Members Present: Pat Acklin, Lesley Adams(via phone, not in attendance during voting),Alex Amarotico, Darrell Boldt, Kate Jackson, Don Morris,Amy Patton,Donna Rhee, Councilor Carol Voisin and John Williams Absent Members: Donna Mickley and Rich Whitley Staff Present: Mike Faught, Betsy Harshman,Bryn Morrison,Mike Morrison, Robbin Pearce,Ann Seltzer, Pieter Smeenk,Lee Tuneberg,Jodi Vizzini and Steve Walker Consultants Present: David Kraska and Rachel Lanigan(Carollo Engineering—via phone),Steve Donovan and Shaun Pigott(Shaun Pigott Associates) Public: Bob DiChiro, Bill Heimann and Joseph Graf APPROVAL OF MINUTES Not available at this meeting. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA None DISCUSSIONS AND DECISIONS Updated Financial Rate Analysis: Shaun Pigott went over the agenda for the meeting which included Water Utility's Financial Position and Fiscal Year 2012 Adopted Budget;Master Plan Capital Improvement Project(CIP); Key Assumptions in Rate Forecast;Optional Financing Strategies;Options for Mitigating Seasonal Revenue Volatility; and Rate Comparisons.He recapped the Committee's recommendation of constructing a new water treatment plant (WTP) and implementing the Emergency TalenVAshland/Phoenix(TAP)pipeline. Councilor Voisin questioned howthe inflated costs were determined.Mr.Pigott stated it was based on an inflation factor of three percent. Joseph Graf/1160 Fern St./Added the total cost reflected in the handout is more than just the WTP; it is the total CIP. The Committee agreed the wording needs to be changed to reflect this. Other discussions included infrastructure, construction schedule,funding, and possible CIP rate strategies. The Committee spent a considerable amount of time clarifying advance funding and building a fund balance,current funding and levelized fund balance,and comparing the advance verses current rates over a ten year period. Joseph Graf/1160 Fern St./Stated a missing piece to the graph is a fourth curve that illustrates potential rates if only the essentials of the CIP were implemented without constructing the new WTP and TAP.The Committee agreed this would be an excellent illustration and reduce the sticker shock of a$30 million investment. The consultants presented an overview of the issue of revenue volatility, budgeting and water revenue forecast.The Committee looked at graphs illustrating residential use revenue, base verses use, and looked at current Ashland residential rate calculation assuming 10 cct(units of hundred cubic feet)usage and compared itto surrounding cities.Mr. Pigott summarized the recommendation of staff and AWAC. Ashland WarerAdvismy Committee February 1,10/1 Page/of Mr. Pigott summarized the recommendation of staff and AWAC: Increase the base rate by 10%for all meter sizes. For a typical%"residential meter,this would increase the base charge from$14.84 to$16.32($1.48)per month. The estimated'annual increased revenue is$185,000 which offsets the shortfall experienced in previous years and provides a more stable and predictable revenue structure for the water utility into the future. The actual effect of this increase should be monitored to determine if further revisions to the based rate are warranted. 'based on December, 2011 meter counts and current water rates Bill Heimann/647Siskiyou/Asked for clarification of the advance fund/base rate increase figures. Mr.Pigott explained it as setting the stage to correct the current revenue stream by increasing the base as an immediate triage effort,and layer on top of that the rate increase to fund the master plan improvement. Mr.Pigott added if the City makes the base rate adjustment and perceives funding the master plan with across the board rate increases,it will initially be roughly 10%of both base and use. The Committee discussed revenue, cash carry over, and how that will affect rates. Mr. Donovan added the Council will have the ability to use money from the reserve fund to pay less debt service and borrow less money. The Committee discussed communication strategies on conservation from both sides;saving money for the consumer; and saving water for the future.The City's history of Flooding and the importance of redundancy was another topic of discussion and how it will be utilized in the public outreach. Mr.Faught gave a brief overview of the Sewer Master Plan which will be included in the public outreach.He stated it will require 10% increase for waste water as well. He outlined the regulatory required projects that will total$10 million. Bill Heimann/647 Siskiyoul Stated the Committee has a sales job ahead of them which should include the factual details,but he challenged the Committee to think outside of the box. He stressed the importance of making it very clear what the City has to do regardless of redundancy,to provide water today and tomorrow. He also suggested tiering the base rate, resulting in those using a lot of water paying a higher base rate. Acklin/Boldt m/s to increase the base rate by 10%for all meter sizes. The Committee discussed how the additional revenue will be earmarked if the 10% increase generates more than is projected. Interim Assistant City Administrator and Finance Director, Lee Tuneberg, clarified the 10% increase is to recover costs today, 1)in the event of over revenue,it will be factored in the subsequent years'rate discussion with the Council;2)if additional sales result in money set aside for future capital improvement,the Council will have the choice of not adjusting rates. Joseph Graf/1160 Fern St./Stated the sales job language needs to change.Defining it as a revenue problem makes it appear the City is not looking at the cost. Adjusting rates so the prediction of revenue is better will generate more arguments than building a new WTP. More discussions included stabilization fund,volatility,and infrastructure,supporting annual costs, and keeping water affordable for all citizens. Mr. Boldt suggested wrapping up discussions, vote on the motion, and discuss the public outreach. Before the vote, Ann Seltzer questioned if the proposed increase on the base rate will only address the stabilization; not the capital projects. The Committee agreed this is correct. Motion 1: Mr.Faught asked for a show of hands in favor of increasing the base rate by 10%for all meter sizes as rinds by Acklin/Boldt.All in favor.Motion passed 8—0. Ashland Water Advisory Committee February 2,7017 Page 2 of 3 Motion 2: MorrislAcklin Ms to approve the advance funding strategy after base rate adjustment. Mr. Faught asked for a show of hands.All in favor. Motion passed 8—0. Public Outreach Participation: Mr. Faught updated the Committee on the progress of the public outreach presentation and how it will be divided into a pictorial and highlight redundancy,conservation,summary of projects,and cast.He will send the draft PowerPoint to the Committee and encouraged constructive comments.He reminded-the Committee of the Chamber co-sponsored Public Outreach event scheduled on March 14, 2012 at SOU Stevenson Union from 7:00—9:00 p.m. and the need for all to attend and have a role in the presentation. Other presentations will be the Council Study Session, February 6, and Ashland Rotary Clubs February 23 and March 6, 2012. Bob DiChiro1635 Weller Lane/Stated he has listened to everyone talk about water as a commodity,yet if that supply was cut off it would feel life threatening. He stressed the City is the caretaker of the water and would like the Committee to keep in mind that water is one of the most important elements on the planet. People cannot live without water, and everyone feels they have a right to it. He is concerned that his water bill will start competing with his gas bill. He asked the Committee to think of this when they are considering how to sell it to the people. Pat assured Mr.DiChiro the Committee has had those kinds of discussions. Cost of living,cost impact on families, and redundancy were topics of many heart to heart discussions throughout the two year process. Mr. Morris agreed water is a right;it is a precious commodity;and it is not free.Mr.Williams added conservation is about saving water, not just saving money. r Mr. Faught announced Robbin Pearce's retirement at the end of the month. ADJOURNMENT / Meeting adjourned at 6:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jodi Vizzini, Office Assistant II Ashland Water Advisory Conanafee February 7,7011 Page 3 of MINUTES FOR A MEETING OF THE ASHLAND FIREWISE COMMISSION Wednesday, February 15th, 2012 12:00PM to 1:00PM Conference Room, Ashland Fire Station #1 455 Siskiyou Blvd I. CALL TO ORDER at 12:00 2/15/2012 Lead by Ron Parker II. INTRODUCTIONS Present:, Kathy Kane, Ron Parker, Mike Morris, Kelly Gustafson, Ron Bolstad, Jim Hardt, , Firewise Communities Coordinator Ali True. Absent: Eric Olson,Pete Norvell III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 181h, 2012 meeting Approved 12:03pm IV. PUBLIC FORUM - None V. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA VI. BUSINESS A. Annual report for 2011 a. Please review hand out for the 2011 Annual Report-Forest Interface Division This is what is reported to the Mayor and the State of the City address. It reports grant money received, how many homes we treated, how much money we spent, volunteer time, etc. B. Update on Firewise Projects a) Poster Contest— Commissioner Kane a. Kathy Kane has meet with two elementary school teachers and in April. Walker and Heiman Elementary Schools have both agreed to join the 1 I x17 poster contest. A meeting with Belleview elementary is TBA. A total of 180 kids will be involved. At our April meeting we will judge the posters and decide on a winner. Ali True will check with City Council for presentation of the award. b) Clean-Up Day—'Commissioner Parker a. Ali True and Ron Parker had a meeting with Ashland Recology regarding our Firewise Clean up Day on May 6'h 9:00am -4:00pm, first day of Firewise week. Organic material only will be accepted, and free for disposal. We will need volunteers to help man the (1) 25 yard box and we will have (1) 25 yard box on standby for collection. Service is not provided for commercial or business owners only for Ashland residents. No logs, stumps or larger items will be accepted. We may be able to use the SOU parking lot or the Middle School upper parking lot for our drop point TBA. Flyers, Survey and Advertising is currently being considered. c) Firewise Week— Commissioner Bolstad a. The state wide program, Wildfire Awareness Week. For promoting and education our City Residents we will call it "Firewise Week" would like endorsement from the Council and Mayor. Ali True is checking into getting a banner, Kimberley Summers will provide the specs for the banner. Advertising is being considered would like to get local successful input in the area from TV news stations and Ashland Daily Tidings, Mail Tribune. Display in the Ashland Public Library including a table and materials available in the front entrance. Announcements at service club meetings, and other organizations. Possible themes include: 1. Protect your home protect your neighbor 2. Protect your home,protect your community 3. Firewise Its everyone's responsibility "Protect Your Home, Protect Your Community" chosen as theme of 2012. d) Nursery Partnerships—Ali a. Ali True and Chief Karns have talked to two Nurseries. Ali has developed a training plan to present to the following Nursery's; Valley View, Rays, Ashland Grange, and Ashland Green Houses. This is scheduled next Tuesday evening at Fire Station 1 in the Training room 5:30- 6:30 Kelly Gustafson volunteered to help if needed. e) Landscaping sign— Ali a. ODF will be funding the landscaping sign project. f) Parade and other events (grants)—Ali a. How can we get Firewise in the parade and promote Firewise? Can we consider having a booth at the end of the parade and hand out brochures? Let's talk more about this at the next meeting. D. Upcoming events 1. Firewise Community Assessments in Canyon Park and Thornton Way, February/March 2012 a. Canyon Park is being done this afternoon, TBA Thornton Way will be scheduled 2. Fire Resistant Landscaping class, early March, 2012 3. Firewise week, May 6 712, 2012 E. Discussion of Firewise Neighborhood organization and map Keep some organization, keep neighborhood associations and take out the CERT neighborhood listing. Preference expressed for geographical locations. Names be proposed at next meeting. VII. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Please do not arrive before 11:45 for scheduled meetings due to limited availability of staff and room restrictions at the Fire Department. VIII. REVIEW AND SET COMMISSION CALENDAR/NEXT MEETING A. Next Regularly Scheduled Meetings: March 21'h, 2012 and April 181h, 2012 IX. ADJOURN: 1:00 PM In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, ifyou need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Public Works Office at 488-5587 (TTYphone number 1 800 735 2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting(28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). ASHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Thursday,November 17,2011 Minutes Commissioners Present:Tom Burnham,Shawn Kampmann,Steve Ryan(Chair),Colin Shales,Brent Thompson,and David Young Absent: Corinne Vieville, Brandon Goldman Council Liaison:David Chapman Staff Present:Jim Olson,Steve MacLennan, Mary McClary and Jodi Vizzini CALL TO ORDER Chair Steve Ryan called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main.He acknowledged Julia Sommers resignation from the Transportation Commission and expressed his gratitude for her years of service. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioners Thompson/Swales We to approve the October 20,2011 Transportation Commission minutes. Voice Vote:all AYES.Motion passed 6-0. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA None PUBLIC FORUM Sherry Smilo/215 Tolman Creek/Stated she was attending the meeting to reiterate the same statement as she has previously presented to the Commission.She stated she does not want a road built in the neighborhood as it will;destroy the neighborhood,interfere with everyday fife,cause street vibration,light pollution,force residents to disclose if selling homes,and is distressing to the residents. She added the idea came from a consultant in Portland and wondered if they realized this road would essentially be in someone's back yard. The Commissioners held a general discussion on this item. Several comments were made in regards to Ms. Smilo's statement and the Commission's continued effort to review this component of the TSP. ACTION ITEMS "Operation Lifesaver"Presentation Jim Armstrong from Central Oregon Pacific Railroad introduced the'Operation Lifesaver"program.He shared statistics of pedestrians killed and/or injured while crossing railroad tracks and how the number of incidents has dropped approximately 40%since the program was introduced.The Commissioners viewed a PowerPoint presentation and video. The key areas were public education, the danger involved in crossing tracks, different types of warning devices at crossings,and the law surrounding private property.The key message of the video was'trains can't swerve to avoid a collision;trains can't stop quickly,and trains create opficak illusions.'The information shared can be found atwww.oli.oro. Commissioner Comments: Commissioners comments included the following: the railroad property in Ashland has been unattended for 60 years,yet it is the main ribbon running through the City; it is dearly a source of pedestrian crossing as illustrated in previously viewed photos of the area showing wom pedestrian tracks;it is a danger to pedestrians as many have become casual about crossing the unused tracks; it is a big problem in our community as this area (Oak Street and Mountain) is a shortcut and pedestrians disregard that it is private property,or are unaware of the trespassing law; the dilemma is the City needs to apply for permits and spend time and money attempting to get a crossing installed,but the National Safety Board controls it and is not in favor of this decision. Suggestions from the Commissioners included installation of signaled pedestrian crossings and fencing around the abandoned yard. Tmnspwa0an Commwt Nov &n 17,20 11. Page t of l Presenter's Rebuttal Mr.Anderson's replies to the Commissioner's comments were:the Railroad does not have adequate staff to enforce the law;local law enforcement agencies often do not realize this is private property and therefore do not always enforce the trespassing law;there is a lack of posted trespassing signs due to a lack of resources.Mr.Anderson suggested using Operation LifeSaver as a public education tool.He stated the rail cars will be moved from the yard,but could not give a concrete date of when that will happen. PUBLIC COMMENT Rees Jones/N.Wightman St./Stated the safety message that was presented is correct,but it is not the conversation the community is having which includes;the City has a railroad that does not provide service for our community,does not transport citizens locally,does not bring tourists to our theaters,and does not ship or bring products to ourcommunity,yet it divides our community. He added from a safety standpoint, the pedestrian crossings are not being addressed and concluded that from the Railroad's viewpoint,it is still alright to disrupt the community and provide no services. David Wolske/Airport Commission/Stated there must be people actively involved and in communication with the Railroad. He added this is not only an issue with the Transportation Commission but with the City in general. Councilor Chapman shared information about the new ConnectOregon IV Grant which CORP has requested to utilize for tunnel improvements. He stated that all municipalities in the Valley are strongly supporting that effort. He added the next step will be to make improvements going through Ashland and continuing south to CaRomia. Transportation Safety Workshop Mr. Olson shared he was contacted by Dr. Mojie Takallou, Ph.D., P.E. with the University of Portland School of Engineering about presenting another traffic safety workshop Mr.Olson proposed the Transportation Commission host the workshop in January,2012. Commissioner's Thompson/Burnham m/s to approve hosting the traffic safety workshop in January. Commissioners Ryan/Swales asked if the City has the resources needed to host the workshop. Mr.Olson replied there will be little cost to the City. Voice vote: all AYES.Motion passed 6-0. Proposed Parking Prohibition on Highwood Drive Mr.Olson provided information on the proposed parking prohibition on Highwood Drive. He described the area to the Commissioners as a private drive outside of the City limits,connected by a public street. The areas of concern were the curvature and grade of the area,including Timberline Terrace.Both the Fire Department and Public Wdrks recommend that parking be prohibited on that part of the street. He added this area typically does not generate heavy traffic or parking,but there have been instances when parking has been an issue.Mr.Olson stated he and the Fire Department met with five of the residents and all were in support of the proposal. He added he did not receive any objections. Commissioner's Kampmann/Thompson m/s to accept staff recommendation to prohibit parking on the proposed section of Highwood Drive, including the additional proposed section of Timberline Terrace. PUBLIC COMMENT Jerry Jarvis/1070 Timberline Terrace/Stated this area poses poor visibility and is problematic in icy conditions. He agreed with the decision to prohibit parking in the proposed areas. Voice vote: all AYES. Motion passed 64. NON ACTION ITEMS Memorial Marker Policy Update Tmnsp rradon Cammwion November 17,1011 Page 2 of Mr.Olson shared the Memorial Marker Policy was sent for review to the Public Arts Commission before presentation to the Council for approval in January. Commissioner Swales questioned why the Public Arts Commission does not get involved with other signage in the City. He used the"Adopt A Street"signs as an example of free advertising for local businesses in exchange for litter patrol. He added that if these types of signs are approved by the City,then the concept of memorial markers should have an even playing field. N.Main/Hersey/Wimer Intersection Realignment Update Mr.Olson gave an update of the N.Main/Hersey/Wimer project.He shared the current parties involved to complete the project are right of way agents,property appraisers,landscape architects,outside planning consultants,City Planning and Public Works staff.He gave details of the actions being taken on Dr.Colwell's property involving parking and accesses. He explained that it is a busy and complicated project with a completion goal of late spring/early summer. Commissioner Swales questioned if the Road Diet was still onboard.Mr.Olson verified that it is,but the Council direction was to finish the Hersey/Wimer alignment first,then move immediately into the Road Diet. Traffic Crash Summary No discussion was held. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS Action Summary Commissioners Bumham/Thompson commented on the format of the Action Summary table in regards to clarity, progress and historyof projects.Commissioner Young asked specific questions about the reconfiguration of stripes and angle changes in the Plaza. Mr.Olson gave an update of the progress and explained the concrete angle changes were completed in the spring,and added the line removal on N.Main Street will be completed by an outside contractor using an environmentally friendly process.He added this will take place in May. TC Budget Balance:$5,000.00 Agenda item briefly discussed and set aside. No decisions were made. ` Safety Shorts No discussion was held. Traffic Safety Connection No discussion was held. City of Warrenton: Bike Helmet Communication No discussion was held. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jodi Vizzini, Office Assistant 11 Transportation Commission November 17,1011 Page 3 of 3 ASHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Thursday, December 15,2011 Minutes Commissioners Present: Tom Burnham,Steve Ryan(Chair),Colin Swales,Brent Thompson,Corinne Vi6ville,and David Young Absent:Shawn Kampmann Council Liaison: David Chapman Staff Present: Mike Faught,Kad Johnson,Jim Olson,and Jodi Vimni Ex Officio Members: Brandon Goldman ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA Commissioner Burnham suggested moving the Non Action Items before the Action Item while waiting for Commissioners Vieville and Thompson to arrive. NON ACTION ITEMS Memorial Marker Policy Update Mr.Olson gave an update on the policy stating it has cleared all hurdles and is scheduled forCouncll review and approval on January 17,2012. N.Main/Hersey/Wimer Intersection.Realignment Update Mr.Olson stated the project is moving forward. He gave an update of the progress and clarified Commissioner Swales question regarding previous challenges of meeting the City's requirements for the property at 430 N.Main Street. Mr. Olson explained this has been resolved as the entire property will be developed as public parking with landscape and water features. Mr.Olson added the negotiations for this project will begin within two weeks. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6:08 p.m.in the Civic Center Council Chambers,1175 East Main Street by Chair Ryan immediately following the.arrival of Commissioners Vieville and Thompson. The meeting resumed. Central Ashland Bike Path Lighting Proposal Mr.Olson gave an update of the tentative cost of the luminaries for the project.He explained that based on a rudimentary estimate,the cost of the project will be approximately$385,000.He stated more information will be gathered before the proposal is presented at the Council's March study session. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The November minutes were not available. PUBLIC FORUM None ACTION ITEM A. SOU Student Housing Development Review PLANNING ACTION: 2011-01576 SUBJECT PROPERTIES: 1554 Webster(on the Southern Oregon University campus) APPLICANT: American Campus Community Services DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to construct a new single-story dining hall near the Intersection of Wightman and Webster Streets, two new four-story residence halls near the intersection of Webster and Stadium Streets, two parking Iota and associated site improvements on the Southern Oregon University campus as 1554 Webster Street. Also included are requests for Conditional Use Permits approval to allow buildings that exceed the maximum length and vary from the locations identified in the SOU Master Plan and to exceed the 40 foot height allowance in the SO zoning district,and a request fora Tree Removal Permit to Tmwporfafion Commwion December 15,2011 Page 1 of 5 remove 18 trees that are 18-inches in diameter-at-breast-height(d.b.h.)or greater. The application involves the demolition of five residences and their associated assessor structures near the intersection of Webster and Stadium Streets to accommodate the proposed development COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:Southern Oregon University;ZONING: SO;ASSESSOR'S MAP#: 391E 10 CO;TAX LOT:4200 Declaration of Ex Parts Contact Commissioner Young stated his wife is an employee of SOU and added the approval of this project will not produce a financial benefit to his family. Commissioner Swales stated he does not have a conflict with this project, but he is concerned the consulting firm for SOU, Kittelson & Associates, is the same consulting firm representing the Transportation System Plan(TSP). Mr.Goldman explained the reason for checking conflict of interest has to do with City appointed and/or elected officials who could have an actual or potential conflict by final decisions being influenced by personal financial interest. Mike Faught added Kittelson&Associates was not used to review this document as they have for the TSP;they are the agent for SOU on this project. Chair Ryan opened the Public Hearing at 6:17 p.m. Staff Report(Planning) Senior Planner Brandon Goldman presented the staff report for the planning application.He provided a brief PowerPoint overview of the proposed North Campus Village which included: 1) new dining hall (27,000 sq ft);2)south and north residence halls (providing approximately 700 beds);and 3)two parking lots. He showed the general locations of the proposed facilities. Mr.Goldman continued his presentation and explained the reason for the Transportation Commission review of the SOU Master Plan is due to the pedestrian connectivity,vehicular routes,and parking which are all transportation related.The SOU proposal includes decommissioning an existing residence hall(Cascade)and relocating a new residence hall on the north side of campus. He explained the proposed improvements to Wightman/Siskiyou Blvd intersection and other crossing treatments to accommodate the pedestrian shift, and to improve safety. Mr. Goldman provided a visual of Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons(RRFB)proposed in the plan.He explained the public hearing for the planning action was opened December 13,2011 and continued to January 10,2012 giving the public an opportunity to provide written and/or oral testimony. Further consideration of staff questions and Transportation Commission recommendations will be included in the final Planning Commission report. Prior to the Public Works staff report, Chair Ryan reminded the Commissioners that the purpose of the meeting was to review and comment on the proposed SOU Housing Development. Mr.Faught recommended the Commissioner's review the Conditions of Approval and the sample motion provided: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PLANNING ACTION 2011-01576 S.Mountain Avenue/Siskiyou Boulevard 1) Replace Pedestrian Heads with Pedestrian Countdown Heads 2) Provide a 5 second leading pedestrian phase University Way/Siskiyou Boulevard Replace flashing beacons with Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons Garfield StreeUSiskiyou Boulevard Replace flashing beacons with Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons Avery StreeUSiskiyou Boulevard Replace flashing beacons with Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons Bridge StreeUSiskiyou Boulevard Replace flashing beacons with Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons Wightman Streetllndiana StreeUSiskiyou Boulevard 1)Replace Pedestrian Heads with Pedestrian Countdown Heads Tronsportarion Commission December 15,2011 Page 2 of 5 2)Design and Reconfigure the intersection with single crosswalk as shown conceptually on new Figure 12(see attached);upgrade existing controller at both Wightman and Hwy 66 3) Install high visibility pavement marking for diagonal crosswalk Ashland Street/Siskiyou Boulevard 1)Replace Pedestrian Heads with Pedestrian Countdown Heads ' 2)Provide a 5 second leading pedestrian phase Stadium Street/Ashland Street 1)Install advance pedestrian signs 2) Install Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons(pedestrian activated) 3)Review location of existing crosswalk,and if conditions warrant relocate crosswalk with appropriate pedestrian ways and pedestrian amenities from the new facility Walker Avenue/Ashland Street 1)Replace Pedestrian Heads with Pedestrian Countdown Heads 2)Provide a 5 second leading pedestrian phase Sample Motion MOTION: Move to recommend the Ashland Planning Commission include the Transportation Commission's recommended Transportation Improvements as Conditions of Approval forthe proposed SOU Student Housing. Staff Report(Public Works) Mr.Faught gave an overview of the Public Works staff'Recommended Conditions of Approval for Planning Action 2011- 01576."He systematically went through each condition and explained the staff reasoning forthe individual intersections. Mr. Faught displayed the revised Figure 12 map"Recommended Pedestrian Improvements at the Wightman/Indiana Street Intersection" as a visual reference. He explained in detail Kad Johnson's creative concept in response to Kittelson's 36 second delay scramble recommendation. Mr.Faught explained the applicant will give an overview of the parking proposal based on the Figure 1 map.He added that Public Works staff is recommending a minimum of 280 parking stalls based on SOU's statistics of.27 residing students who use public parking. Questions to Staff Commissioner's questions/oomments were as follows:1)need more detail and a rationale of the recommended parking stalls;2)does the State of Oregon have specific parking requirements for athletic events involving large facilities as the proposed plan does not appear to have enough parking for large events;3)does the plan include a proportionate amount of parking set aside for handicap parking,audible signals,and audible RRFBs;4)questioned the undersized sidewalks and improved street frontage on the Ashland Street lot; 5) improved pedestrian crossing at Stadium Street; 6) improvements on pedestrian diagonal crossings at Wightman and Ashland Streets; 7)questioned if other ideas on crossing Siskiyou Blvd.are off the table,i.e.tunnel and/or bridge as the Transportation Commission has spent a lot of time and money putting in crosswalks and signals only to have it become antiquated in two to three years; and 8) questioned the change in the municipal code on page six of the executive summary. Staff Response 1) Mr.Johnson replied to the recommended parking stall inquiry by stating he would need to take another look at the numbers supplied by Kittelson,but his conclusion was determined on a gut feeling based on future improvements;3)Mr. Olson replied audible signals on RRFBs are standard features. Mr. Faught and Mr. Goldman clarified various questions from the Commissioners regarding improvements being evaluated by the Planning Commission, and encouraged the Transportation Commission to submit their recommendations for consideration. Applicant's Presentation Jonathan Eldridge, Vice President of Student Affairs, gave an overview of the SOU Master Plan which included: 1) vacating 600 beds on the south end of campus with the demolition of Cascade Complex;2) building a new 702 bed Transportation Commission December 15,2011 Page 3 of 5 complex on the north end of campus;,3) public transportation; 4) bicycle parking; 5) neighborhood parking; and 6) pedestrian crossings. Questions to Applicant Commissioner's questions/comments were as follows:l)utilize students as monitorsfor pedestrian crossings;2)concern of gateway locations being sufficient enough to warn approaching motorists,i.e.Walker/Stadium Streets;3)design and cost of proposed overhead walkway; 4) safety of the proposed crosswalk at Wightman/Indiana;5)student crossing patterns;6)future plan for vacant lot left behind after demolition of Cascade Complex; 7)pedestrian places location,8) campus parking demands;and 9)commuter students and public transportation. Applicant's Rebuttal Mr.Eldridge replied as follows:/ &2)the idea is to design a University gateway that will incorporate concrete seat walls and SOU signage which provides awareness to motorists, as well as plazas for pedestrians to load at crossings. In addition SOU and student ambassadors will continue to educate students on pedestrian and bicycle safety as well as public transportation options;3,4&5)Mr.Eldridge stated the plan will be to work with the City,consultants and consider recommendations from the Commissioners;Susan Wright clarified the proposed Wightman/Indiana crosswalk and the reasoning behind not using an island at this intersecfion 6)Mr.Eldridge stated the vacant lot will be landscaped in the near future and it is not included in the 10 year Master Plan for academic purposes; 7) Mr. Faught stated the Commissioners can include this in their Condition of Approval; Mr. Eldridge stated SOU will work with the City on the design and location of a functional crosswalk;8)Susan Wright provided information on existing demands and potential recommendation for the Citys parking code; and 9) Mr. Eldridge shared SOU is working with RVTD on public transportation for commuters. Applicant's Presentation Susan Wright,Kittelson&Associates,provided data on traffic impact analysis,SOU student parking,pedestrian crossing, and pedestrian safety. Questions to Applicant Commissioner's quesfionslcomments included the possibility of a road diet at Siskiyou and Ashland and the pedestrian bridge design and cost. Public Forum Reese Jones/107 N.Wightman St./Stated he thinks the scramble crossing needs revisited based on the following:l) SOU students are not the only pedestrians using this crosswalk; 2) the design will not serve the needs of students traveling from the new development to campus; 3)Oregon state guidelines state clearly to not create multiple legged crossings;4)design is driven by the length of time motorists will have to wait at intersection;and 5)the goal should be to minimize difficulty for pedestrians to get to destinations. Deliberation and Decision Chair Ryan read the sample motion provided with the staff recommended Conditions of Approval Move to recommend the Ashland Planning Commission include the Transportation Commission's recommended Transportation Improvements as Conditions of Approval for the proposed SOU Student Housing.DISCUSSION:Commissioner Swales recommended a robust Transportation Demand Management(TDM)to be included in the recommendations. Commissioner Burnham asked for clarification of on-street parking.Commissioners YounglBumham stressed concern of the short time frame allowed to make important community decisions and felt more time was needed.Mr.Goldman stated that according to the land use process the City is required to make a decision within 120 days after an applicant submits their application. Commissioner Thompson suggested if Commissioners have individual concerns they can attend the Planning Commission meeting on January 10,2012 and share input. Commissioners Thompson/Swales m/s to endorse staffs recommendation of the Conditions of Approval for Planning Action 2011-01576.Commissioner SwalesNieville m/s with an amendment to recommend the Planning Commission enforce the TDM outlined in the overall SOU Campus Master Plan;and the pedestrian amenities on the Ashland Street SOU Campus frontage be brought up to current City standards.DISCUSSION:Commissioner Tronsporl000n Commission December/S,2011 Page 4 off Swales clarified the TDM needs to be more robust and referred to a statement from RVTD.Commissioners discussed the need for wider sidewalks on the Ashland Street frontage.Commissioner Swales added there will be a lot of pedestrian traffic generated from this project and he would like to see the pedestrian amenities brought up to standard now,and not sometime in the future as this may never happen. Commissioner Wville agreed with now rather than later.Voice Vote: Commissioners Ryan, Thompson, Swales, Young, and Vieville, YES; Commissioner Burnham, NO. Motion passed 5-1. Commissioners VievelleNoung mis to amend motion to include audible crosswalk signals to newly installed crosswalk lights indicated in the SOU Campus Master Plan. Voice Vote: Commissioners Ryan, Thompson, Swales,Young,and Vi6ville,YES;Commissioner Burnham,NO. Motion passed 5-1. Commissioner Burnham agreed the Commissioners should push things along,yet he feels useless on the Transportation Commission and stated they are not doing what they were commissioned to do. He feels more time is needed to make decisions. Commissioner Young stated he feels insulted by the statement that they are wasting everyone's time by deliberating.He feels the Commissioners will regret not taking the opportunity to do it right.Commissioner Veville agreed this process was not fair and she was confused on some of the issues,but felt it was better to do something instead of nothing. Chair Ryan reminded the Commissioners they were recommending to add the Conditions of Approval and amendments,not voting to endorse the entire project.Commissioner Thompson added the Commission was making a recommendation for the conditions to be included at the Planning Commission level. Mr. Faught added the Commissioners could opt to continue the public hearing by scheduling another meeting prior to January 10,2012. He stated the staff feels comfortable with the recommendations.Commissioner Swales added he attended the December 13, Planning Commission meeting and spoke as a citizen.He agrees with Commissioner Thompson that voting does not limit their ability as individual citizens to put forward ideas to staff and the Planning Commission. Chair Ryan called for a final vote to endorse staffs recommendation of the Conditions of Approval for Planning Action 2011-01576 with amendments to recommend the Planning Commission enforce the TDM outlined in the overall SOU Campus Master Plan;and the pedestrian amenities on the Ashland Street SOU Campus frontage be brought up to current City standards; and to include audible crosswalk signals to newly installed crosswalk lights indicated in the SOU Campus Master Plan.Voice Vote: Commissioner Ryan, Thompson, Swales, and Vieville,YES;Commissioner Bumham and Young,NO.Motion passed 4-2. Commissioner Burnham added the Transportation Commission learned about the expansions and plans months ago,but did not receive the packet of information until days prior to this meeting.He stated he is not happy with the process and feels this demeans the Commission. Commissioner Thompson replied the primary function of the Transportation Commission is the Master Plan and to not lose sight of the main mission. Commissioner Swales asked Mr.Goldman to clarify Type III Planning Action and if this needs to be approved by the City Council. Mr.Goldman explained this is a site review(Type 11 Commercial),not a Type III Planning Action. The Planning Commission's review on January 10,2012 will be the decision of the City unless appealed. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jodi Vizzini, Office Assistant 11 Trannsporm0on Commission December 15,2011 Page 5 of 5 PLANNING COMMISSION TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION February 09, 2012 Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street Minutes Planning Commission Attendees: Michael Dawkins, Eric Heesacker, Richard Kaplan, Pam Marsh (Chair), and Melanie Mindlin. Transportation Commission Attendees: Tom Burnham, Michael Gardiner, Shawn Kampmann, Steve Ryan, Brent Thompson, Corinne Vieville, and David Young Absent: Colin Swales, Deborah Miller Council Liaison: David Chapman Staff Present: Mike Faught, Mary McClary, Jodi Vizzini Ex Officio Members: Brandon Golden Phone: Susan Wright, Consultant CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. by Chairperson Marsh. She welcomed the newest member to the Transportation Commission, Michael Gardiner. In addition she pointed out Pam Hamlin a candidate for the Transportation Commission, soon to be appointed. . INTRODUCTORY REMARKS AND ADOPTION OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES Chairperson Marsh asked for comments or correction to the minutes of January 12, 2012. Commissioner Young made a motion to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Dawkins Voice Vote: All Ayes. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. Chairperson Marsh announced next meeting date, February 23, 2012 beginning at 6pm. Next she explained that evening the Commissions would discuss some specific projects for the TSP, and hopefully deciding how to move forward. Mike Faught, Public Works Director, congratulated the Commissions on their last meeting and interactions with the citizens who would be impacted specifically by their actions on certain issues. He fell it was one of their best meetings. (Time stamp 2:48) The Commissions next step was to review of Draft Technical Memo 9. The draft preferred and financially constrained plan is available for download at htto://www.ashlandtsD.com/statics/draft documents In addition they would review: A. Review Results of Table 4 (S4—S9)and (1-25)from Nov. 9, 2011 meeting. Group Input on Policies, Programs, Studies and Roadway Projects(30 min.) B. Roadway Projects—R17, R18, R19, R20, R24, R26, R27, R28, R29, R30, R31, R32, R33, R34 (60min.) The Commissions started their review with (S-4). Siskiyou Boulevard(OR 99)from East Main Street to Walker Avenue Conduct access management spacing study and provide near and long term recommendations for improvement. Cost: $75,000.00 Initial result from small groups: 3 agreed,l non-consensus In addition: (S-5) is from Siskiyou Boulevard from Walker Avenue to Tolman Creek Road. Pagel of4 Conduct access management spacing study and provide near and long term recommendations for improvement. Cost: $75,000.00 Initial result from small groups: 3 agreed,l non-consensus. Mike felt both S-4 and S-5 could be discussed together. Mike responded to the comments to only use "in-house consultants"that his staffing does not allow for in-house consultants. He did offer a different aspect of using the $150,000 to hire additional staff, but that cost would not remain a fixed cost. .Commissioner Thompson asked for clarification of the route, and Commissioner Burnham asked for clarification of the dollars to be spent. Mike explained the cost would be spread out over a 5-15 year period (constrained plan). The Commissioners discussed the necessity for these review. Mike explained an access management study reviews conflict points, determining whether or not there needs to be some sort of access mitigation. Commissioner Mindlin pointed out a study on Siskiyou Blvd was already done up to Walker. Susan (consultant on the phone)explained the reason for the study was drive way safety compared to current standards and the increase over time. She felt with the 5-15 year window it would be good to have a plan. Mike asked what the specific issues would be with the driveway conflicts(S-4 specifically). She asked for time to review and readdress the issue later. Commissioner Mindlin also asked for clarification on the issue: roads or driveways. Commissioner Young described the ad hoc committee was not about long range fixes, but bare minimum due to budget restraints. The Commissions discussed (S45 and 7) at the same time. (time stamp 23:50) Most of the discussion included eliminating S4, and continue with S5. Pam asked if S5 could be amended from Ashland Street to Tolman Creek Rd. Commissioner Kaplan felt there was no immediate need now and there was already a development plan. Commissioner Burnham reminded the Commissions this plan would go out 5-15 years. (Time Stamp 30.21) Chairperson Marsh restated the proposal for the access studies to be consolidated from 3 to 2 (eliminating S4), and changing S5 for Siskiyou Blvd to consist of Ashland Street instead of Walker to Tolman Creek Blvd. The commissions discussed different aspects of these studies including prioritize, need, earmarking funds, self direction, prior discussions and the purpose of their discussions. Chairperson Marsh asked for a vote on the proposal that was on the floor., To eliminate S4, amend S5 to be Ashland Street to Tolman Creek and include ST Amended the proposal to not include ST All in favor to with the exception of Commissioner Burnham and Dawkins. Chairperson Marsh stated the Commissions have consensus with this proposal. S7--East Main Street from Siskiyou Blvd to Wightman St. Conduct access management spacing study and provide near and long term recommendation for improvement. 5-15 years $75,000 Comments:In-house only no consultants 3 Agree, 1 Non consensus (removal) Chairperson called for any dialogue on this study. Commissioner Dawkins believes this would be a low priority. Commissioner Ryan asked about pedestrian traffic, and Mike believed that would be two different studies. Commissioner Thompson believed this study should be eliminated. Mike explained access management with existing roads would be to make advance planning/changes to help with congestion and/or accidents that would result from growth within the next 20 years. The consultant's suggest this might be an area of concern,or to look at for future management. The 5-15 year look-ahead areas already are categorized lower priority.(Time stamp 46:12) Chairperson Marsh summarized they had one suggestion S7 be deleted and one suggestion it remain, but as a low priority. Commissioner Young moved to keep it and designate it as a low priority, seconded by Commissioner Ryan. All in favor to with the exception of Commissioner Thompson. Page 2 of4 Chairperson Marsh stated the Commissions have consensus with this proposal. S8 Downtown Couplet Transition Study Evaluate the feasibility and costs associated with removing the downtown couplet system and returning two-way traffic to Main Street and Lithia Way. As part of the study, the feasibility of roundabouts a the Heiman SUMain SULithia Way and the Siskiyou Blvd/East Main SULithia Way intersections would be explored. High priority 0-5 years $150,000 Comments: Other street would be so busy, would rather have option C for E. Main, two traffic lanes, bicycle wide land, truck off load, too much money 1 Against, 3 Non-consensuses Mike talked about the concept to take two(2) one way roads to two(2)two-way roads. He doesn't believe this would be possible but offered an alternative. (Time stamp 49:23)Commissioner Dawkins suggested keeping the one way on East Main but allowing the two-way on Lithia. If they made Lithia a one way coming into North Main that would allow a left turning lane and leave two lanes of traffic going downtown. In addition, Commissioner Dawkins added, diagonal parking could be included. The other end could do a roundabout, or more discussion would be needed. Chairperson Marsh reiterated the Couplet Study(S8)was suggested to be amended that Lithia way to become two way and East main to remain one way through the heart of downtown. She then asked if the group was in favor of the two-way change with possible diagonal parking. The Commissioners discussed commuters, alternate routes, supporting the amended study, and allowing the study to be conducted. Mike suggested the Commissions invited the Chamber back to discuss the changes. Commissioner Mindlin felt the design would put a lot of pressure on the railroad district for traffic. Chairperson Marsh felt this study was really worth pursuing to create better traffic patterns, slow down traffic and generate interest in commerce. Commissioner Young worried about the roadways being too congested with too much mobile types of transportation. Commissioner Ryan reminded the Commissions we are making decisions for visionary plans. Chairperson Marsh asked for a vote to leave on the study on the table for downtown one-wayRwo-way study that would address making Lithia Way two-way and leaves Main Street one way. With a show of hands, all Commissioners raised their hands in favor and there were no opposed. Chairperson Marsh stated the Commissions have consensus with this proposal. S9 Ashland Street(OR66)/Tolman Creek Road Safety Study Conduct a transportation safety assessment in five years to identify crash trends and/or patterns(if they exist)as well as mitigations to reduce crashes. Medium 5-15 years S20,000 Comments: Do we need a study? Put money into re-doing intersection. 3 Agree,1 Non-consensus (Time stamp 1:10:35) Commissioner Heesacker commented the Commissioners allocate money into conducting what needs to be done for safety reasons. Commissioner Mindlin questioned Clay Street as a major area of concern. Chairperson believed the area of concern was from the freeway overpass to the freeway access and how that would develop over the next few years. The members discussed some different ideas. Commissioner Young made a motion to keep S9 study included in the study, and Commissioner Thompson seconded the motion, and also amended the motion to include Washington St.to Clay Street With a show of hands,all Commissioners raised their hands in favor and there were no opposed. Chairperson Marsh stated the Commissions have consensus with this proposal. L25 Truck Freight Movement Plan The City of Ashland has identified Hersey Street as an alternative truck freight route allowing truck movements to avoid passing through downtown Ashland(unless the truck is destined to downtown Ashland). Page 3 of 4 Comments: What happened when trucks reached Mtn Ave/Not a good street for them, should be under preview of Transportation Commission, need a truck route, but is Hersey the right route. 3 Agree, 1 Non-consensus (1:18:39) The Commissioners discussed this as alternative truck routes and alternative automobile routes. Commissioner Dawkins believed this street was pretty wide and set up for the traffic proposed. He believed there was a lot of commercial development in the Railroad District and he hopes that would continue. In addition, he pointed out Clear Creek at some point would become a through street, which would help as an alternative route for automobiles. Commissioner Mindlin is opposed to the Truck traffic on Mountain stating she believed it was dangerous. The commissioners discussed how the flow of traffic, and truck routes would affect the city and if there was a need for an alternative. Commissioner Gardiner explained there were designated truck routes and alternative truck routes all ready in place, and he believed the trucks would come into the city using the most appropriate entrance that would be closest to their destination. He doesn't believe any large trucks would use this route as an alternative. The Commissioners discussed alternative routes, their necessity, restrictions, driver's discretion, closest route to freeway exits, and alternative automobile routes. Chairperson Marsh stated the discussion had turned to making improvements to the Hersey/Mountain loop to encourage automobiles to by-pass downtown. Commissioner Young believes people already use Hersey as pedestrians, cyclists and drivers. Commissioner Young made a motion to strike L25 from the TSP programs and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Kampmann. Commissioner Dawkins also believed in addition, the Transportation Commission look at using Clear Creek as an alternative route for automobiles. Chairperson called for a vote on the motion. All in favor raise their hand. All in favor no opposed. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. PUBLIC.FORUM Shery Smilo/215 Tolman Creek Rd asked if the consultant had walked through the area she is concerned about. (R22). In addition she asked before any further voting by any of the Commissioners if they would walk through the proposed area. She wondered if there was any consideration of extending Clay St under Ashland St. and it might solve a problem of people living under the bridge that now creates an uneasy environment. She also asked what the number of people was who asked for the connectivity, and mentioned about disclosure in terms of sale of property. She ended with expressing her appreciation for these two Commissions working on these projects. Dan Lindner/300 Clay Street spoke to the Commission regarding the amount of money that is spent on studies, how they identify problems or areas to study and the amount of public input that is taken into consideration. He felt the process was backwards in terms of the process. Mike Faught felt there was not enough time left to discuss anymore projects. He checked in with the Commissioners on the meeting load for this group and their individual commission meetings. Chairperson Marsh requested they meet for 3 hours instead of 2 for the next meeting. The commissioners discussed meeting for longer period of time at the next meeting. ADJOURN: 8:32 PM Respectfully submitted by: Mary McClary, Administrative Assistant to the Electric Dept. Page 4 of4 ASHLAND JOINT TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 23,2012 CALL TO ORDER Chair Steve Ryan called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. Transportation Commissioners Present:Tom Burnham,Mike Gardiner, Shawn Kampmann, Steve Ryan, Brent Thompson, Corinne Vieville and David Young Planning Commissioners Present: Michael Dawkins, Eric Heesacker, Richard Kaplan, Debbie Miller, Melanie Mindlin and Pam Marsh Staff Present: Mike Faughl, Dan Gunter, Steve MacLennan and Jodi Vizzini Ex Officio: Maria Harris Absent: Colin Swales, Councilor David Chapman INTRODUCTORY REMARKS AND ADOPTION OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES Commissioner Kaplan requested the minutes of January 26,2011 be amended to reflect his attendance. Commissioners Marsh/Dawkins m/s to approve minutes. Voice vote: all AYES. Motion passed: 13-0. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA Commissioner Ryan placed Public Forum at the top of the agenda, prior to Roadway Projects and Safe Routes to School PUBLIC FORUM Will Rodden/233 Normal Ave/ Voiced three primary concerns: 1) increased traffic flow would affect park and schools; 2) connecting the Clay Street subdivision to Normal Avenue would cause a primary traffic flow creating traffic difficulty at Ashland and Clay Streets; 3) seemingly there would be less impact if a new street were to be implemented at the cemetery/Lumpy's connection. Mr. Rodden elaborated on why he is not in support of the Clay/Normal extension by stating it would change the pattern of traffic from the Clay development causing Normal to be the primary route of travel. Chair Ryan clarified that roadway projects R19 and R20 were the focus of Mr. Rodden's discussion. William Barry/367 Normal Ave/Voiced he currently lives on a quiet country lane. He fears this project will result in a freeway between E. Main and Ashland Ave. as it will create a shorter route If or travelers. He is in opposition of the roadway. Wendy Hood/144 Normal Ave/Voiced she is personally in opposition of the proposed roadway as it places a road directly through her garage. She stated residents bought their homes in this area because of the beauty and peacefulness and this roadway would rob them of the value and peace. She described the area as having open green spaces, wetlands, and a creek rich in wildlife. She shared how children use this area for nature studies and expressed that it should remain untouched. She understands the need to build, create homes, jobs and a stronger infrastructure. She suggested Shamrock Lane as an option that would be more efficient to move traffic in and out of this area and would be less impacting to residents. Carol Block1355 Normal AvefVoiced opposition of R19 and R20 for the same reasons other neighbors spoke to and Joint TC/PC February 13,1012 Page I of added widening Normal Ave. would ruin the enjoyment value and reduce property value of homes. She expressed her concern for children traveling to and from Hunter Park with the additional traffic the projects would cause. She stated that everyone she has talked to living in this part of the community are in opposition and aghast at the proposal. Sue DeMarinis1145 Normal Ave/Stated she has lived on Normal Ave. for 2 '/3 years. One of her concerns is the designated wetlands area behind her fence and how developing an asphalt road and sidewalks will create run-off heading directly into her house. She suggested an alternative route of E. Main and Ashland Street instead of cutting into an existing neighborhood. She described her neighborhood as one with grazing horses, sustainable agriculture, and a variety of wildlife. She is concerned that increased public thoroughfares will create a sense of insecurity. She stressed the need to preserve Ashland and not turn it into a cement jungle. Beau Sheppard/340 Normal Ave/Stated he and his family have resided at this address for 6 Y2 years. They enjoy a life of farming on this wetlands protected area where his children appreciate the open space. His plan for the future includes organic farming. He referred to this area as a magical place with open sunlight, and quality soil. He strongly recommends this area be preserved. He added he does not currently own the property but rents the 5'/z acres from a landlord who lives out of the county, but is in the process of buying it. Commissioner Marsh reassured residents the Planning Commission is gearing up to do a study of Normal Avenue neighborhood and reassured them they will have opportunities to attend other public meetings which will include broader issues than just access. Mr. Faught added the Transportation Commission looks at all property within the City Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), including the County in the event of development, the appropriate infrastructure is constructed. If it requires water and sewer there will be an annexation process. DISCUSSIONS AND DELIBERATIONS Roadway Projects:. Commissioners Dawkins/Thompson m/s to set aside R19 and R20 for the remainder of the meeting. Commissioner Marsh shared R19 should be wrapped into the bigger Normal Ave. neighborhood study. Commissioner Young disagreed with the motion. Commissioner Mindlin asked staff and/or consultants to address the grant received to study this area. Maria Harris, Planning Manager, explained the grant process. Mr. Faught asked if the Commissioners were to remove the two roads suggested, would the finished product of the study amend the Transportation System Plan (TSP). Ms. Harris replied not typically. She explained the difficulty of street dedication maps and how they are not actually specific locations, but more generic. She added as actual development happens, the streets get fine-tuned. Commissioner Miller asked for more clarification of the process if the proposed roads were adopted in the TSP. Ms. Harris explained that neighborhood plans are refinement plans of the comprehensive plans and are more area specific. Planning adopts a zoning district that is speck to that location and part of the land use ordinance. At the time of development, the location shown on the TSP might not make sense, so an alternative connection could be reevaluated. Commissioner Mindlin questioned if the railroad crossing at Normal Ave. is privately owned. Ms. Harris confirmed it is. Erin Ferguson, Kittelson & Associates, stated if R19 remains in the plan it will require upgrading the railroad crossing from private to public property. She added the Normal Ave. extension has been in the TSP since 1988 and was carried over to the current plan. Joint TC/PC February 23.2017 Page 2 of 4 Commissioner Thompson withdrew his second to Commissioner Dawkins' motion. Mike Gardiner reiterated the TSP is a place holder process and these proposed roadways should remain for further discussion and can be refined to assure connectivity in the future. He stated he was against the motion. Commissioner Heesacker questioned if the roads are pulled from the current consideration would it require a comprehensive plan amendment to take the lines off the comprehensive plan. Ms. Hams stated it would happen at the end of the process, but it would not require a separate comprehensive plan amendment. She added the area has had current development interest and has factors in place that potential annexation could happen in the near future. Commissioner Dawkins stated his motion was misunderstood. He was not taking the streets off per se, but putting it off for further discussion at a future meeting. He withdrew his motion. Mr. Faught,proposed sample motions based on the Commissioner's group activity and combined results of prior meetings.The sample motions were as follows: Motion 1: Recommend approved Roadway Projects R18,R24, R27,R2a, R29, R32 and R34 based on groups' prior activity. Motion 2: Recommend approval of remaining Roadway Projects R17, R19, R20, R26, R30 and R31 based on majority of groups'recommended approval. Commissioners Burnham/Dawkins mis to approve Motion 1: Recommend approved Roadway Projects R18, R24,R27, R28,R29, R32 and R34 based on groups'prior activity. Commissioners discussed pulling R18 from the motion. Commissioner Marsh offered the idea of a pedestrian/bicycle tunnel as an alternative solution to the roadway. Commissioner Miller stressed her concern of making decisions that will have an impact on the future of the community. Commissioners asked if voting in favor of the motion puts R18 on the map as a road. Mr. Faught replied votirig in favor will move the'roadway forward to the final plan. Chair Ryan asked for a show of hands. All in favor: Burnham, Dawkins, Gardiner, Heesacker, Kampmann, Thompson and Young. All oppose: Kaplan,Marsh,Miller, Mindlin,Ryan and Vieville. Motion passed: 7—6. Commissioners BumhamNoung mis to approve Motion 2: Recommend approval of remaining Roadway Projects R17, R19, R20,R26,R30 and R31 based on majority of groups recommended approval. Commissioner Miller stressed the need to discuss the proposed roadways further as the approved documents become part of the comprehensive plan. She stated the concerns of the people who attended the meeting need to be respected. Commissioner Mindlin stated she was not in favor of the motion and felt railroaded with the short amount of time spent in discussion. She feels the conclusions are a gross misinterpretation as her group was not in agreement on many of the projects. Commissioners Burnham, Young, Heesacker and Kampmann replied these roadway projects are placeholders for future development, not fixed in stone. Commissioner Gardiner stated the plan moves forward to assist the planning process. Commissioner Marsh added the Planning Commission will have an opportunity to trump the plan at the Planning level. Commissioner Kaplan stressed the need to discuss R19 further. Commissioner Vieville agreed with the concerns of the Planning Commissioners. Mr. Faught answered questions from the Commissioners regarding lines on the map,development and connectivity. Joint TCIPC February 23,2012 Page 3 of Chair Ryan asked for a show of hands. All in favor: Burnham, Dawkins, Gardiner, Heesacker, Kampmann, Marsh,Thompson and Young. All oppose: Kaplan,Miller, Mindlin,Ryan and Vibville.Motion passed: 8—5. Safe Routes to School/Existing Sidewalks I Sidewalk Projects The Commissioners divided into groups and worked on sidewalk projects.The groups were divided as follows: Group A: Heesacker.Miller, Thompson Group B: Burnham,Marsh, Ryan Group C: Dawkins, Kaplin, Mindlin,Young Group D: Gardiner, Kampmann,Vieville Mr. Faught shared that adjustments were made to the sidewalk maps based on Public Works staff recommendations. Dan Gunter, Streets Department, explained his strategy for sidewalk recommendations. Mr. Faught added the goal for the remainder of the meeting was to discuss the sidewalk projects within their groups and develop a list of priorities. He shared the data will be compiled for discussion at a future meeting. The group was given 30 minutes to work on this project. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Faught thanked Dan Gunter and the Street Division staff for their effort in putting together the information for the revised sidewalk map. Mr. Faught announced the internal promotion of Scott Fleury who will take Jim Olson's position when he retires. Mr. Fleury will attend the next Transportation Commission meeting. Mr. Faught suggested March 15, 2012 as the next Joint TC/PC meeting. An e-mail poll will be sent to the Commissioners to confirm the date. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jodi Vizzini, Office Assistant 11 Joint TC/PC February 23,2011 Page 4 of4 CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication April 3, 2012 — Business Meeting Appointment to Tree Commission FROM: Barbara Christensen, City Recorder, christeb @ashland.or.us SUMMARY Confirmation of the Mayor's appointment of Kenneth Schmidt to the Tree Commission with a term to expire April 30, 2014. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: This is confirmation by the City Council on the Mayor's appointment to the Tree Commission on application received. Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 2.17.020 FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: None SUGGESTED MOTION: Motion to approve appointment of Kenneth Schmidt to the Tree Commission with a term to expire April 30, 2014. ATTACHMENTS: Application received Page 1 of I L CITY OF FEB 21 2012 ASHLAND APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at City Hall,20 E Main Street, or email chrisrebR�hhind.oi.ns❑nd.or.�s. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets if necessary. I I Name �e4ro �k �L.Y�y,�I�C-' Requesting to serve on: TI( c.Q, (Commission/Committee) Address 1 (.2- Occupation 1 l g` Phone: Home /-Mb Work Email Fax 1 1. _Education Background What schools have you attended? 6 eI- I s What degrees do you hold? N sei What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this position? 2. Related Experience What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to this position? // 1 304- yl'51 tn. Cl„s1Y� M o�Sevv�w e-n� cyy�-s ✓�-�.c,-�-a+. s Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field,such as attending conferences or seminars? Why? ELEA CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication April 3, 2012 — Business Meeting Appointment to Housing Commission FROM: Barbara Christensen, City Recorder, christeb @ashland.or.us SUMMARY Confirmation of the Mayor's appointment of Evan Lasley to the Housing Commission with a term to expire April 30, 2013. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: This is confirmation by the City Council on the Mayor's appointment to the Housing Commission on application received. Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 2.17.020 FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: None SUGGESTED MOTION: Motion to approve appointment of Evan Lasley to the Housing Commission with a term to expire April 30, 2013. ATTACHMENTS: Application received. Page I of I 4 CITY OF ASHLAND APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at City.Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email christebAnhiand.or.us. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Name Evan LA-dit _ Requesting to serve on: NoK514 C.onil. L r Commissio ommittee) Address 1) Occupation IsfuQlnf Piani Phone: Home 541 $qo- 75K i Work Email'nnutnr_ nU,S anTi au Fax 1. Education Backeround What schools have you attended? 5r,UPjU,1p�JHhCjn Ul)14—J7 1L What degrees do you hold? j aril In m1+ 5x11101- tivr anfOV./Ilr¢ n aft in I�'la>`�/mzu`':: an� hrsfirU.. What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this position? 2. Related Experience What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to this position? 1 � u 1 hatY �uul L< Ca71f111tinfitl 4f�t_�ci ASj lam( Otllllll,�1�( ci tl1V�'i/di EV`lll1, not-�k f1job.� nti jg6 "' larnnlf nn a m4 0( �l1/Ic �, nlsiarlta� , w+� $Uid issoi. T all an BDU fa a� UNA all �Iia iqe' Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field, such as attending conferences or seminars?Why? yes, esPecia�lu �'or ilne�ls�una�ia� flu �IsDersAl o>c. NUV �'�nds. IN 3. Interests 11 L 1 Why jtare you applying for this position? I am BI({Lt1Ll/f X17 N�rrG43J Ab�llld / �u �UR� Dt PSS !d[ lPLA-C&I G4i1Q ViV/Q1 pulGtbr QI' Ci1N�1155!'M 10 INS}' !e'l J1,11 L, U 4. Availability Are you available to attend special meetings, in additio to the regularly scheduled meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings? !3 El OMA, 01 ee�l� i are 5. Additional Information How long have you lived in this community? Ttioi Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this position t I 99 1 Pa6'1 a passlCul '�af s�tl4l ( I r h�P1�t, f pjyv qp A(Wll�sull Ad Wall(] .I� Itl} DVGf lNai10.Qln c�0.ps ml rArirui Atlf don-Dr 5 irl li 1 a' Uyy '� ie r ,ur asf IANf. Q u Kc Its on Nl o�o�6s. 1 s r 11 C' Cou C10—� Cowtti M�t.�iur�. Data Signature Iri, Ashland City Recorder Evan Lasley 20 E. Main St. 110 Seventh Street Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland, OR 97520 541-890-7545 anuminus@gmail.com 02128/12 Re: Appointment to Citizens' Budget Committee and Housing Commission Dear Mayor and/or City Council, I am applying for volunteer positions on the Housing Commission and Citizens' Budget Committee, and ask to be strongly considered for the positions. With the Housing Commission looking to revisit the Fair Housing Ordinance, and wanting student involvement within this process, I have recruited a student to take on the role of Student Liaison, and am myself applying to be a Commissioner after discussion with members of the Commission.After speaking to several Councillors regarding the importance of the budgetary process to any understanding of City affairs, I have decided to pursue this in line with my interest in serving the City. My interest in serving stems from a deep-seated interest in government, history, law, and economics, as well as a commitment to further understanding the decision-making process of the City of Ashland, of which 1 have been a resident for twenty years. During my time at Southern Oregon University, I have studied mathematics, history, economics, science, music and philosophy, and am now in my senior year, completing a BA in mathematics and history. It was not until 2009 that I began to become actively involved in my community, educating myself on local issues,Joining local non-profits such as the regional chapter of the United Nations Association and Peace House, each of which I now serve on as a member of the Board of Directors.As a student, I have worked to reach out to my fellow students and encourage them to become more actively involved in their community. Through volunteering and organizing educational events, I have had the opportunity to meet many members of the Ashland community. Through this, 1 have acquired a better understanding of the diversity of people who inhabit Ashland, and the part they play within our community. Within the last year I have become further interested in City affairs, examining past budgets and historical documents concerning Ashland, attending City Council meetings and studying the relation of various committees and commissions to the Council and its duties. As a student beginning Honoes theses in mathematics and history, I have experience with examining the grounds of arguments in a variety of contexts and would bring an attention to detail and commitment to research to my service in the City. Through my involvement in a variety of communities in Ashland, I have worked to understand a variety of points of views, and value the ability to listen respectfully to differing opinions in any context. Within City affairs, I understand the crucial importance of working together to accomplish the duties set forth for each given body, and will bring a commitment to actively listen to and work with others. Discipline and responsibility are among my personal core values. The work I have pursued with the greatest discipline up to the present has been primarily academic in nature, but in the last several years I have been pursuing how I can best make our City a better place to live for all its residents. I hope to bring this attitude to the fulfilment of my duties to the City, and look forward to learning further about the process of local government in practice, speaking with other commissioners and citizens to get a variety of perspectives. It is my belief that a government can only serve its true purpose when a variety of diverse citizens are actively involved in and educated about it, working together as a community to serve all of its members. If you have any more specific questions regarding my interest in these bodies, please contact me. I hope to get to know each of you better through this process and understand your experience within City affairs to inform my own. Thank you for considering me for these positions. 1 hope to have an opportunity to serve the City in these capacities and put my best abilities and interest towards fulling the duties therein. Sincerely, Evan Lasley CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication April 3, 2012 — Business Meeting Approval of Grant Request for Ashland Creek Park,Construction FROM: Don Robertson, Director, Ashland Parks and Recreation don.robertson @ashland.or.us SUMMARY Staff has prepared a grant request for the construction of Ashland Creek Park per the Capital Improvement Plan. The source of the grant is a State Parks Local Government Grant. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: In 2002, property was purchased for the construction of a neighborhood park along Hersey Street between Helman and Oak. This purchase was identified in the Parks and Open Space Plan. A master plan for the project was developed and adopted by the commission in 2005. The park will feature an expanded community garden, basketball court, playground, plaza and shelter. There will also be restrooms, trails, and plantings. Native or native-like vegetation will be used to minimize water usage. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The grant anticipates the project cost to be $750,000. $400,000 will come from the grant with the balance generated. from a combination of Systems Development Charges and Food and. Beverage taxes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends approving the submittal for a grant to construct Ashland Creek Park. SUGGESTED MOTION: Move to approve the submittal for a Local Government Grant for the construction of Ashland Creek Park. ATTACHMENTS: N/A Page I of 1 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication April 3, 2012 Business Meeting First reading of an ordinance adding new sections to the Definitions Chapter 18.08 and amending the Site Design and Use Standards' Historic District Design Standards and Downtown Design Standards for greater clarity and consistency with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. ' FROM: Derek Severson, Associate Planner, derek.severson @ashland.or.us SUMMARY The ordinance being presented to the City Council for First Reading includes the addition of new sections 18.08.622 "Rehabilitation" and 18.08.636 "Restoration"to the Definitions Chapter (AMC 18.08) of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, and amendments to the Historic District Design Standards and Downtown Design Standards of the Site Design and Use Standards for greater clarity and consistency with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The City of Ashland is a Certified Local Government (CLG) as part of a federal program administered by the State Historic Preservation Office to promote historic preservation at the local level. Through Ashland's participation as a CLG, the City qualifies to receive matching grants. In keeping with the City's role as a CLG, the "Ashland Preservation Plan 2009-2018" was developed using grant-funds in 2008. This plan set forth a number of goals to further historic preservation planning in Ashland, along with an implementation plan to achieve those goals. Among the goals identified was the, "Need to Revise and Expand Existing Residential Standards." Comprehensive Plan Policy 1-7 provides that, "The City shall develop and implement through law design guidelines for new development as well as for alteration of existing structures within the historic interest areas for structures and areas that are historically significant." To move the Preservation Plan goal forward, in 2010 the City received and the Council accepted a grant to engage a consultant to evaluate and revise Ashland's Historic District Design Standards in order to bring the standards more into line with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, the national standards for historic preservation, while also providing for greater internal consistency within our own Site Design and Use Standards. The project was not envisioned to be a substantial modification of the existing standards but rather as a fine-tuning of standards which have served the city well in guiding development in the historic districts since their adoption in 1985. City staff, the Historic Commission and Planning Commission worked with the consultant team of J. Todd Scott, a preservation architect, and Julie Koler, an architectural historian, to craft revisions to the standards over six months in 2011. The changes proposed are primarily to "Section IV: Historic Page 1 of 3 C:I CITY OF ASHLAND District Development" of the Site Design and Use Standards (fully detailed in the Ordinance's Exhibit A, attached), with limited changes to "Section VI: Downtown Ashland" of the Site Design and Use Standards (fully detailed in the Ordinance's attached Exhibit B), and the addition of definitions for "rehabilitation" and "restoration" in the Land Use Ordinance's Definitions Chapter 18.08. In addition to these proposed revisions, five "Historic Building Briefs" have been created to provide issue-specific supplementary educational materials to support the revised standards. The five "Buildings Briefs"developed include: • Living with Historic Buildings • Windows • Exterior Materials • Additions • Garages & Outbuildings These are intended to be counter hand-out's to provide guidance to homeowners and contractors in implementing the standards relative to specific topics, and are not proposed to be codified. These five building briefs are included in the attached exhibits. A draft of the proposed revisions was presented to Council on August 2, 2011 at which time staff was directed to bring the revisions back for adoption. The revisions in ordinance form were reviewed by the Historic Commission and Planning Commission at their March 2012 meetings, and both bodies unanimously recommended approval and adoption by Council. Draft minutes of these meetings are attached; adopted minutes are not yet available as_neither body has met for their April meeting. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends that Council approve first reading by title only of the ordinance and move it to second reading. SUGGESTED MOTION: Move to approve first reading by title only of the ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Adding New Sections 18.08.622 and 18.08.636 to the Definitions Chapter (18.08) of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance and Amending the Historic District Design Standards and Downtown Design Standards of the Site Design and Use Standards for Greater Clarity and Consistency with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation" and move it on to second reading. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance Exhibit A— Ordinance's Proposed Changes to the Site Design & Use Standards Exhibit B— Ordinance's Proposed Changes to the Downtown Design Standards Exhibit C — Matrix of the Proposed Changes Exhibit D—Map of Ashland's Four National Register-Listed Historic Districts Exhibit E— Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation Page 2 of 3 CITY OF ASHLAND Exhibit F — Proposed Building Briefs Exhibit G— Planning Action P2011-01523 Staff Report date March 13, 2012 Exhibit H — DRAFT Historic Commission Minutes of March 7, 2012 Exhibit I — DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes of March 13, 2012 Exhibit J — Existing Historic District Design Standards (clean copy for reference) Page 3 of 3 . ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ADDING NEW SECTIONS 18.08.622 AND 18.08.636 TO THE DEFINITIONS CHAPTER (18.08) OF THE ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE AND AMENDING THE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS AND DOWNTOWN DESIGN STANDARDS OF THE SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS FOR GREATER CLARITY AND CONSISTENCY WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION. Annotated to show delefiens and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold and additions are in bold underline. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the Citv The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter 'specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan includes policy 1.31.7 which states that, "The City shall develop and implement through law design guidelines for new development as well as for alteration of existing structures within the historic interest areas for structures and areas that are historically significant." WHEREAS, the City of Ashland adopted the Historic District Development standards as additional approval standards for Site Design Review in 1985. WHEREAS, the City of Ashland created the "Ashland Preservation Plan 2009-2018" which sets forth a number of goals and implementation measures to further historic preservation planning in Ashland including a goal to revise the existing standards, noting that in some cases they conflict with or contradict the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation or with the Downtown Ashland development standards; WHEREAS, the City of Ashland received a Certified Local Government Grant for the purpose of evaluating, revising and expanding Ashland's Historic District Design Standards in order to bring these standards more into line with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, the national standards for historic preservation, while also providing for greater internal consistency • within the City of Ashland's Site Design and Use Standards; WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Historic Commission considered appropriate amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code, Land Use Ordinances and Site Design and Use Standards at a duly advertised public hearing on March 7, 2012, and following deliberations recommended approval of the amendments; Ordinance No. 12- Page I of 3 r WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered appropriate amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code, Land Use Ordinances and Site Design and Use Standards at a duly advertised public hearing on March 13, 2012, and following deliberations recommended approval of the amendments; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code, Land Use Ordinances and Site Design and Use Standards on April 3, 2012; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. The following new sections are hereby added to AMC Chapter 18.08 ' [Definitions]: SECTION 18.08.622 Rehabilitation The act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. SECTION 18.08.636 Restoration The act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a prOQerty as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a restoration project. SECTION 3. The Site Design and Use Standards [Section IV Historic District Development] is hereby amended as detailed in the attached Exhibit A. Ordinance No. 12- Page 2 of 3 SECTION 4. The Site Design and Use Standards [Section VI Downtown Ashland] is hereby amended as detailed in the attached Exhibit B. SECTION 5. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 6. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections 1, 3-4) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 2012, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 12012. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this_day of 2012. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney Ordinance No. 12- Page 3 of 3 Exhibit A—Protased Changes to Historic District Design Standards SECTION IV Historic District Development A. Development in Ashland's Historic District Ashland's Historic District is very important to all of the City's residents. Not only does this area contain the City's beginnings, but it is also the area of some of the most prominent landmarks in Ashland, excludkgV4ncludina the Plaza, East Main Street commercial area, Lithia Park,and many Important residential districts.For the most part,the main architectural themes have already been laid down, and must be considered in the design of any new structures or renovation of existing structures. This does not mean that all new structures must be a lavish imitation of an architectural style whose heyday is past, but sensitivity to surrounding buildings and the existing land use patterns is essential to the successful development. While it is critical that buildings be made habitable and safe,it is equally imperative that the architectural character of a building be respected in the process of structural improvements. Unfortunately, this has not always been done in Ashland. The architectural merit of a building has too often been sacrificed for a more contemporary design.For this purpose,the following standards were conceived as a guide to design decisions in the hope that the architectural integrity of Ashland's homes and commercial buildings will no longer be unnecessarily lost It is suggested that you think of your building as a whole—a single unit with no removable parts.Every charge that you make can chip away at the integrity of the whole,like surgery. Efforts to personalize and update the building will leave you with an assortment of miscellaneous parts that bear no relation to each other, or to the original design.Wrought imn columns, asbestos shingles and aluminum frame windows have only one thing in common—the local hardware store.Older buildings in Ashland were built one at a time and such added options can obscure their individuality. Restoration,Rehabilitation and Remodeling Because there is so much activity these days in the improvement of older housing, new terminology has been introduced. The difference between 'resenSngrestorina', 'rehabilitating',and"remodeling'may seem academic,but each results in a major difference in the way the job or project may turn out To'restore'is to return a building to its original condition as if it were a precious museum piece. This technique it typically used for structures of particular significance, such as historic landmarks where accuracy will serve an educational purpose as well as a visual one. Restoration is the most painstaking improvement process and usually the most expensive because it requires technical skill and historical precision for successful results.It can involve the removal of extraneous elements as well as the recreation of original features which may have become deteriorated or been destroyed. A fine example of a restoration project in Ashland is the Swedenberg home found on Siskiyou Boulevard. Great care has been taken to assure that the architectural integrity of the building exterior is practically Identical to that when it was built in the early 1900s. Restoration is also defined in Ashland Municipal Code Section 18.08 Exhibit A Page 1 of 15 Exhibit A—Proposed Changes to historic District Design Standards Remodeling a building is normally at the opposite end of the improvement spectrum from restoration. Unless it is done with sensitivity,to remodel a building Is to redesign it so that the generic features are obliterated and the basic character destroyed in the name of modernization.A remodeling job is to often considered a success if the original structure is unrecognizable in the end result Remodeling is appropriate only used-for buildings which are not historic and have fallen into a state of disrepair due to vacancy or vandalism. Remodeling can also be a proper course of action when a non-historic structure undergoes a change in use,say from a single-family residence to commercial office space. Unfortunately, it is quite common for a house to be remodeled and totally divested of its valuable characteristics when conditions do not require such radical treatment. Hence,the expression 'remodel' can have bad connotations. To many people it suggests a waste of valuable resources. It is possible, however, to remodel with sensitivity, especially with the ' help of a talented architect. To 'rehabilitate' is to take corrective measures which will make a structure livable again. Some aspects of rehabilitation entail renovation and the introduction of new elements.Fire exarapleFor example, it is likely that eulkneded_faadequate electrical circuits would be required to be brought up to code to ensure safety and to provide adequate service for today's modem appliances. When rehabilitating a building, it is essential to protect those . portions or features which convey its historical. cultural and architectural characterihe These are the very features through which the visual integrity and the economic value of the building are preserved.Modem elements shall only be introduced when absolutely necessary,and in a manner which is sympathetic to the original design.An excellent example of a successful rehabilitation is the Ashland Community Center on Winbum Way. Rehabilitation is also defined in Ashland Municipal Code Section 18.108. The rewards of sensitive home improvements are many. First there is the satisfaction of knowing you have done the job right Second,there is the gratification from compliments of other people who appreciate what you have done.Third,there is the pleasure of living in an attractive, comfortable and historically preserved home.While these benefits are difficult to measure, such restoration or rehabilitation can result In significant economic benefits. A perceptive combination of restoration and remodeling will actually contribute to the resale value of your home.Finally,a good rehabilitation project can be surprisingly influential on an entire neighborhood. The City of Ashland has adopted ordinances to assure that all development, including development in the Historic District, remains compatible with the existing integrity of the district. In new construction of a single-family residence, the Historic Commission will use these standards to make recommendations to the applicant. If an applicant requires a Staff Permit, Site Review, or a Conditional Use Permit which involves new construction, a remodel, or any use greater than a single-family use, the authority exists in the law for the Staff Advisor and the Planning Commission to require modifications in the design to match these standards. In this case the Historic Commission advises both the applicant and the Staff Advisor or other City decision maker. Exhibit A Page 2 of 15 Exhibit A—Proposed Changes to Historic District Design Standards r B. Rehabilitation and Remade!Standards for Existing Buildings and Additions The purpose of the following standards is to prevent incompatible ronnae di]ate treatment of Fonneped: _(Defauf<)pr W,p pt buildinas in historic districts and to ensure that new additions and materials maintain the historic and architectural character of the district. These standards apply primarily to cor:naeeea:r-an:(IMaan)�af,It pt residential historic districts, residential buildings in the Downtown Historic District, and National Register-listed historic buildings not located within historic districts. Fa,namcl:ran:tparaax)n:w,tt pt N-B-33 .Replacement finishes on exterior walls of historic buildings shall match the original finish. Exterior finishes on new additions to historic buildings shall be compatible with, but not replicate, the finish of the historic building. IV-B-37 windewe.Replacement windows in historic buildings shall match the oriainal windows. Windows in new additions shall be compatible in proportion,shape and size,but not replicate original windows in the historic building. N-1348 Reconstructed roofs on historic buildings shall match the Ditch and form of the original roof. Roofs on new Design-the-Feel an additions ep-remedelsto Mve4he-same-shall match the Ditch and form of the historic buil� anginal pAGI;as the Wig Ral Fe and shall be attached at a different height so the addition can be clearly differentiated from the historic building. : FeMeaA the ridge 1 ne6 where possible. On one GtQFY FeaF aGIGI WAS, _hed roofs are acceptable for one-story rear additions. N-13410 iRg*18 . New porches or entries shall be compatible with but not replicate,the historic character of the building- IV-8-6 0.421-11 the MIAM Af My aildfiens is 4148 GGIGFS used on the exisfing exterieFExterior wall colors on new additions shall match those of the historic building. IV-B-62 rininal - architectural features shall be restored as much as possible. when those features can be documented. Exhibit A Page 3 of 15 Exhibit A—Pro»osed Changes to Historic District Design Standards IV-849 Asohalt or mposition shingle roofs are - preferred. Asphalt shingles which match the original roof material in axistiag color and texture are acceptable. Wood sShake`odahingles, file and metal roofs shall be avoide 409(them M 2 IS IV-844 Diagonal and vertical siding are not Gempatible in most Gases shall be avoided on new additions or on historic buildings except in those instances where it was used as the original siding. IV-B-" Imitative materials including but not limited to Rush R& sphalt siding, wood textured aluminum siding erand artificial stone_ape-net-sempa"Ihall be avoided. IV-84011 Awy-New detached stwwtuFes-buildings shall be compatible with the existlag associated historic building and shall conform to the above standards. IV-B-14 Styles of otheF ems eF IeGals, n Gh as T deF .and Wiaa.tem styles .am to be aveidedHistoric architectural styles and associated features shall not be replicated in new additions or associated buildings. N-B-12 The latest version of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Fonnaltw:ran:(mdaurt)ndd,tt Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings shall be used in clarifying and determining whether the above standards are met. .•— Fanmtted:Tab stops: SAS,Ld[ - Exhibit A Page 4 of 15 ) Exhibit A—Proposcd Changes to Historic District Design Standards C. Historic District Design Standards . In addition to the standards found in Section II "Approval Standards and Policies", the following additional standards will be used by the Planning and Historic Commissions for new develepment-construction. restoration and rehabilitation And�pnevatien-of existing WuGtwes buildings within the Historic District. For proiects located at the boundary between zoning ------- ror,-anm:Fort:tr pt districts or overlays, appropriate adjustments to building form, massing, height, scale, placement or architectural and material treatment may be considered to address compatibility with the transitional area while not losing sight of the underlying standards or requirements applicable to the subiect property. IV-C-1 Height RECOMMENDED AVOID )X X00 0 YA0 MY -- - - - 1�--- N, --_ Construct new buildings to a height within Avoid-New construction that greatly ----- Formatted:le(t the range of existing-historic building significantly varies in height(too high heights on and or too low)from eldeF-historic buildings across the street. in the vicinity. Exhibit A Pape 5 of 15 c Exhibit A—Proposed Changes to Historic District Design Standards IV-C-2 Scale RECOMMENDED AVOID 6 8 9 0 n e m m WN8 �' 0 8 Relate the s ze and PFGpG iepsHeight.width Aveid-buildings-that-in-Hheight,width, - -- Formatted:Lett,None,space Before: o pt, and massing of new stFustares-buildings to or massing, viela'h^e* "ng of new Drrn't keep with next,Don't keep lines together conform with historic buildings that is Out of-scale e€with Formatted:Left,None,Space Before: o pt, buildings in the immediate vicinity. historic buildings in the afeavicihi Don't keep with next,Don't keep lines together Exhibit A Page 6 of 15 Fxhibit A—Proposed Changes to I istoric District Design Standards IV-C-3 Massing RECOMMENDED AVOID 8 m 9 NOMLI m � ® Hit 8 '- II Avoid-sSingle, monolithic forms that -- Formatted:Leff,none,space Before: o pt, srnaNerSmall, varied masses which-are are not relieved by variations in Don't keep with n"t,Don't keep lines together serarrter�eaiaest-consistent with historic massing. Formatted:Left None,span Before: Opt, buildings�In the Don't keep with next,Don't keep lines[agether immediate vicinity. Exhibii A Page 7 of 15 Exhibit A—Proposed Changes to Historic District Design Standards IV-C-4 Setback RECOMMENDED AVOID 9 8 +0 9 + 9 . ..,.., n....�a..:..i..w..,..v... ex st ..rr aGli ......_ Formatted:Leh,None,Space Before: 0 p[, Ffront walls Of new Don't keep with next,Don't keep lines together buildings are in the same plane as the Ffront walls that are constructed Formatted:Len,None,spare Before: o pt, facades of adjacent historic buildings. forward of or behind setback line of Don't keep with next,Don't keep lines together adjacent the-historic ta§ade Anebuildinas. Exhibit A Pape 8 of 15 Exhibit A—Proposed Changes to Historic District Design Standards , IV-C-5 Roof-Shapes RECOMMENDED AVOID a Relate the°°°°° •Roof shape, pitches and - Aveid-iafredusiagRwofshBpes, -- ror,twetm:ten,None,space Before: opt, materials consistent with historic ferrrts-efthe pitches, or materials not traditionally Don't keep with next,Don't keep lines together buildings to-these-found in the historically used in the areaimmediate rornhatrea:ten,None,swce Before: o pt, areaimmediatevicinity. vicini Dan'tkeepwithnext,DOn'tkeepiire together Exhibit A Page 9 of 15 Exhibit A—Proposed Changes to Historic District Design Standards IV-C-6 Rhythm of Openinns RECOMMENDED AVOID B p e 8 a 8 � B 8 A Pattern or rhythm of wall to door/window Avoid intFodUGiA@ incompatible ---- i'orm,ttea:tea,None,space Before: opt, openings on fa¢adeA-patterns or th..,aPipse',t.�-e DwY keep with next,Don't keep lines together the rhythm of window/door openings that is Formatted:tea,None,space Before: o pt, primary facade or other visually prominent inconsistent with e°•^b' the Don't keep with next,Don't keep lines together elevation is maintained.Alse-seasider swFewiding-strasturesJacenthistoric theMaintain compatible-width-to-height ratio buildings. of bays in the facade. Exhibit A Pape 10 of 15 Exhibit A—Proposed Changes to Historic District Desipn Standards IV-CJ Base or Platforms RECOMMENDED AVOID Adw- ® si The-oqP Of-a-rimed-A clearly defined base, Avoiads-Wwalls that appea rormatW:left,None,Sp"Berm: 0 pt, or platform to rise of bu ldiRgs straight out of the Dent keep with next,Don't keep lines together characteristic of ground without a distinct APR9P^r r romwttea:Left,None,space Berm: o pt, in-Ashlandhistoric buildings in the immediate platform or base at the ground level. Don't keep wpm neM,Don't keep lines together vicinity. _ Exhibit A Pape I1 of 15 Exhibit A—Proposed Changes to Historic District Design Standards IV-C-8 DoMpteonal ExffeGsiGnForm RECOMMENDED AVOID L. Form Re ..e the vertical/,—horizontal Form that varies from that of existing ----- Formatted:ten,Nose,Spam Before: o pt, emphasis of building)that is consistent with adiacent historic buildings. Avoid Boni keep with next,Don't keep fines together that of adiacent historic eF-nendiresHena{ heF Zental oF YeFt set fagade F r atted:ten,None,space Before: o pt, Don't keep with next,Don't keep' together buildings. StFUGIUMS in the immediate aFea Exhibit A Page 12 of 15 Exhibit A—Proposed Changes to Historic District Design Standards IV-C-9 Sense-ef-Entrancestr RECOMMENDED AVOID m0 g 9 B0 Pte'^ ^..,Aa,a.�t„�-,.,m�°°'^'^^Well-defined primary Aveid-Ffapades with no stFang-s.nse --- -- Format[eE:Len,None,Space Before: 0 pt, entrances te-the-builditx}with covered of-minimally defined primary Don'[keep with nez[,Don't keeptings together porches, porticos,and other pFeaeuased enttyances. rwmatted:Lee,Nane,space Before: opt, architectural farms-features compatible but Oon't keep with nett,Don't keep lines together not imitative of historic counterparts. r Exhibit A Pape 13 of 15 Exhibit A—Proposed Changes to Historic District Design Standards IV-C-10 Imitation of Historic Features RECOMMENDED AVOID ® t RECOMMENDED AVOID se WiNaeaAccurate restoration of;er-4iseally Aveid RFeplicating or imitating the ------ Formatted:tee,None,space Before: o pt, Gemp riainal - styles, motifs, or details of eldeF Don't keep with neat,Don't keep lines together architectural features on historic-buildings. peFiedr. Suoh attempts aFe FaFel Formatted:Left,None,spare Before: a pt, For-Nftew Construction, Including additions. Don't keep with next,Don't keep lines together that is clearly contemporary in design which sent a Genf"°'--PiGtUFe of the tF e enhances but does not compete visually spafasteF-ef the historical afeabuildings. sharacter-et t#�with adjacent historic distFisF should be usedbuildings. Exhibit A Pape 14 of 15 Exhibit A—Proposed Changes to Historic District Design Standards IV-C-11 Additions RECOMMENDED AVOID eM Additions that are visually unobtrusive from a &4dditions on the primary facade or any _ Formatted:Fort:11 pt Public right-of-way, and do not obscure or elevation that is visually prominent �r,,,atted,Font:11 pt eliminate character defining features of from a public right-of-way. and historic buildings. additions that obscure or destroy character defining features. IV-C-12 Garage Placement RECOMMENDED AVOID Formatted:Font:(Default)Anal,11 pt t1���1IIIIIIIV`, I I 0 Garage placed behind the primary historic Garage placed beside or in front of the __ -- F atoed:Font color:Auto building with access from a side street or primary historic building. alley if available. Exhibit A Pave 15 of 15 Exhibit B—Proposed Changes to Downtown Design Standards Formatted:Font 14 pt way. It is not the intent of the Design Standards to freeze time and halt progress or restrict ar - Formatted:Height: 14" individual property owner's creativity, but rather to guide new and remodeled proposals to be in context with their historic surroundings. Personal choice should be and can be expressed within the framework of the standards. While many communities across America are attempting to "create" or "re-create" an urban downtown of their own, the Downtown Design Standards are an attempt to preserve what Ashland already has; a "main street' historical district with diverse individual buildings that collectively create an organized, coordinated and ageless rhythm of buildings. As a collective group, the downtown can retain its "sense of place", its economic base, its history and its citizen's vision. Under the procedures of the City's Site Design and Review Process, the applicant must demonstrate the proposal meets all of the design standards in order for the decision making body to approve the proposal. As such, the standards should help increase objectivity and reduce subjectivity. For projects subject to both Section IV "Historic District Development" and Section VI "Downtown Ashland", Section VI shall prevail. with Section IV supplementing where possible to improve overall project design and compatibility. For projects located at the boundary between zoning districts or overlays, appropriate adjustments to building form, massing, height, scale, placement or architectural and material treatment may be considered to address compatibility within the transitional area while not losing sight of the underlying standards and requirements applicable to the subject property. ----- Formatted:justified The following criteria are adopted with this plan and shall be used as part of the land use approval process,: 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 division/facade treatment that"visually'separates it from adjacent buildings, or for restoration of historic facades. (Illustration: Recommend 1, 5& 10;Avoid 3) 2. Multi-story development is encouraged in the downtown. (Illustration: Recommend 1, 5,6& 10). - decorative parapet multiple ------ Formatted:Font:(Default)Arial,11 pt sighxty 6urfau dissimilar dc[ails add roof interost height re6ldent4l of ground level floor or commercial d upper floor U..above flrat floor 1y G Cr Ll 81Min96 break pilasteror s mrldoas art doore ' chaiye arotranaparent of material_ (glees) at base ILLU5TRATION I RECOMMENDED Formatted:Font 10 pt Formatted:Font:10 pt Formatted:Font 10 pt _Exhibit B PaRee,l of I Exhibit C —Matrix of Proposed Changes Amendment Cate o . - Ob ectnie • . us . ,. Exlstm Standard '. ti, ., , � . <- !9 4-_ _. t x _ :., _ vPro osed-Chan a"s.r° .r, f .., ,�r, , Code.or,.Standard Reference" Define"rehabilitation" . Not currently defined. The act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, Rehabilitation definition is proposed for I P"°j` " • Define"restoration." • Not currently defined. alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its AMC 18.08.622 historical, cultural, or architectural values. • Restoration definition is proposed for AMC Definitions • The act or process of accurately depicting the form, features and character of a 18.08.636 property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from See also Draft Ordinance, Section 2 the restoration period. The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing-systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is it appropriate within a restoration project. Provide greater consistency between Current standards speak to Amend language relative to remodeling to clarify that it is not an appropriate treatment • See Site Design & Use Standards Section Sete Design & Use; the City's Site Design & Use remodeling as appropriate for for historic buildings as it by nature can obliterate features and destroy basic character IV.A. "Development in Ashland's Historic R r'°Standards Standards and the Secretary of the buildings which.have fallen into in the name of modernization. District" on pages 39-40 of the Site Design ?' k Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation. disrepair due to vacancy or Amend the language relative to rehabilitation to make clear that it is essential to protect and Use Standards Handbook. Section IV At: vandalism. "portions or features which convey a building's historical, cultural and architectural • Current standards speak to character." See also Exhibit A, pp. 1-3 "Dveve,(opment In rehabilitation in terms of `I `" protecting the"structural and Ashland s�Htstonc P 9 � " F,rz decorative characteristics which IStnct" . a_• belong to the architectural style." =*. Provide greater clarity and Current section title is "Remodel" is proposed to be removed from section heading as the standards • See Site Design & Use Standards Section h.::' ": consistency between the City's Site "Rehabilitation and Remodel discourage remodeling, and the clarification added that the standards apply to"Existing IV.B. "Rehabilitation & Remodel Design & Use Standards and the Standards." Buildings and Additions." Introductory text has been amended to clarify that these Standards" on page 41 of the Site Design Secretary of the Interior's Standards . The current standards address standards apply primarily to residential historic districts & residential buildings in the and Use Standards Handbook. x for Rehabilitation. exterior wall finishes, windows, downtown. { to roof forms, porches and entries, • The standards are proposed to be re-ordered so that they now address general items See also Exhibit A, pp. 3-4 color, rehabilitation and (not replicating historic styles or features in additions, restoring original features where `Sete Design"& Use restoration of original features, possible)first and then proceed to more specific details (exterior finishes, siding, color, Sta'dar5ds" roof materials, siding, imitative imitative materials, windows, roofs and roof materials, porches and entries, and materials, detached structures, detached buildings). -Section and the avoidances of building r z3, g The standards are proposed to be re-worded for consistency with the Secretary of the x styles from other eras or locales. Interior's,Standards with a general focus on new additions being compatible with "Rehabthtatton & Current standards include historic buildings without replication. a , ;Remodel Standards'¢,;; language encouraging windows, A new standard (#12) is proposed to be added noting that the Secretary of the roof forms, porches and entries Interior's Standards are to be used as a supporting reference. on additions to replicate original x details, which is counter to the ; ,g Z Secretary of the Interior's s Standards. "` $ _ - Current standards do not txo. reference the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. 1 Provide greater clarity and• Current standards include text& Proposed revisions involve rewording the text and illustrations to address height, See Site Design & Use Standards Section consistency between the City's illustrations addressing building scale, massing, setback, roofs, rhythm of openings, base or platform, form, IV.C. "Historic District Design Standards" Site Design & Use Site Design & Use Standards and design in terms of height, scale, entrances, and imitation of historic features. Changes to text generally seek a on pages 42-46 of the Site Design and the Secretary of the Interior's massing, setback, roof shapes, greater focus on looking at historic buildings in the vicinity for context. The Use Standards Handbook. Standards y p g primarily 9 p p g Standards for Rehabilitation. rhythm of openings, lattorms, illustration changes rimaril involve shading to emphasize the point being made ` Section IV.0 Address the placement of directional expression, sense of with regard to each standard. See also Exhibit A, pp. 5-15 _ s additions to historic buildings. entry, and imitations. • New text and illustrations are proposed to address"Additions" recommending that ,Historic District Address the placement of The current standards do not they be designed to be visually unobtrusive from the right-of-way and that they not dD�esign Standards" garages on historic properties in a address additions. obscure or obliterate character-defining features of historic buildings. manner consistent with historic The current standards do not New text and illustrations are proposed to address"Garage Placement" behind the 1 %.-"*" F patterns. address garage a lacement. historic building with access from a side street or alley where available. Exhibit C Page 1 of 2 Exhibit C — Matrix of Proposed Changes rsAr'urmraendmy`.tem,ntoNC1 ategory „ <.,.. , Ob _ . Rr.o:. p �1 y +d • Provide greater internal Building heights are to vary from • Add additional language to provide for exceptions for the restoration of historic • See Site Design & Use Standards Section consistency between Historic& adjacent buildings using stepped buildings' facades. VI.A.1 "Height" on page 52 of the Site Site Design & Use Downtown Design Standards with parapets or slightly dissimilar • Add language addressing projects at the boundary between zoning districts or overlays Design & Standards handbook. Standards regard to building heights by overall height to maintain a which provides for consideration of building massing, height, scale, placement or • See Site Design & Use Standards Section allowing for the restoration of staggered streetscape architectural and material treatment as a means to address compatibility between VI "Ashland Downtown Plan" on page 52 Section VI historic buildings which vary from appearance, with the exception districts while not losing sight of the underlying zoning or applicable standards for the of the Site Design &Standards Handbook. the current standard. of buildings with a distinctive subject property. Downtowro Design '' • Address the transition between vertical division or fagade See also Exhibit B, p. 1 ' ��tStandards" °,. zoning districts. treatment to visually separate them from adjacent buildings. ¢ t ,a • Current standards do not a a, consider the area of transition between zoning districts. � �rr! Provide more specific, detailed There are currently no informational Create five new informational hand-outs to support the standards on the following topics: These would be hand-outs to provide issue- ` `- guidance to homeowners, designers, materials to support the Historic specific information, and are not proposed to 4 ° , b Bwlding Briefs ' g g pp p p p Ui1 , and contractors on issues relating to District Design Standards. o Living with Historic Buildings be codified. G , Y the implementation of the standards. o Windows Exterior Materials See Exhibit F o Additions o Garages &Outbuildings Exhibit C Page 2 of 2 � ��- •�: O �/ • '��� il' � 111 111 d`� ■� ` �� -�C � �i �►�n1.1■ �I�■ 11:� .� 111 —. l ■ :�'l�� (i'� ■ OCl7d�if:1 IIiC 1111 illl I li FAR awl an Mill Ashld High w 1� �• ` �"'' kka a/A '' `yam •\� ■ � ■ 'R ��>1�L.'. T 1111 ° u ■ ■ Exhibit E - Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation The Standards(Department of Interior regulations, 36 CFR 67)pertain to historic buildings of all materials, construction types,sizes,and occupancy and encompass the exterior and the interior, related landscape features and the building's site and environment as well as attached,adjacent,or related new construction. The Standards are to be applied to specific rehabilitation projects in a reasonable manner, taking Into consideration economic and technical feasibility. 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development,such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10.New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. P1 Exhibit E Page 1 of 1 Exhibit F - Building Briefs 1,W., HISTORIC DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS living with HISTORIC BUILDING BRIEF No. 1 Historic Buildings Introduction • Historic preservation is a tool to enhance neighborhood " < livability, quality of life, civic pride - it also has economic rewards. • Good preservation results in higher property values, helps to stabilize neighborhoods, and creates a skilled labor force. • Preservation is good sustainable practice—like recycling _ —it minimizes waste and environmental degradation by retaining existing buildings, materials and infrastructure. Ashland's History • Sited on the Applegate Trail which carried pioneers from California to Oregon Territory. • First settlers used Ashland Creek to power a saw mill and flour mill. • Primarily a farming community in early years, until railroad development in 1880s which led to new industries&significant population growth. • Growth was steady through the 1920s when Southern Pacific rerouted the railroad. That action and the Great Depression curtailed growth,thus the majority of Ashland's historic buildings date to the 1880s to 1920s. Historic Registers Ashland's Historic Total Number • Ashland has four historic districts, which are Districts Properties Contributing regulated locally, and each is also listed on the Downtown 100 73 National Register of Historic Places. Railroad Addition 371 256 • Applicable regulations within a district depend Siskiyou-Hargadine 460 274 on property zoning, use and status (historic, Skidmore Academy 484 300 contributing, individually listed, etc.) • The city maintains detailed information on the historic significance of properties in each district; this can be viewed at the city's Planning Department. • Individual properties are classified as resource by their historic integrity and contribution to the character of the district. Some property owners also pursue special assessment tax benefits by having their properties individually listed. Currently 24 properties use this tax benefit. Local Requirements • Ashland is a certified local government (CLG) because it has adopted goals and regulations for historic preservation that meet state standards. Ashland's comprehensive plan and municipal code establish goals and regulations for the preservation of resources in its historic districts. • The Historic Commission is a nine-member, advisory body that meets monthly. A three-member subset of the Commission meets weekly by appointment on Thursday afternoons to review historic district building permits,and can also help to provide feedback on proposals. • Expedited building permits for small residential rehabilitations and additions are available on Thursdays. A city planner and Building Department plans examiner are available from 830 to 11:30 This project is supported in pan by a grant from the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office,Oregon Parks&Recreation Department, funded by the National Park Service through the National Historic Preservation Ad. Exhibit F Page 1 of 10 Exhibit F - Building Briefs Living with Historic Buildings a.m. Permits are reviewed by the Historic Commission's Review Board in the afternoon and'are typically ready to issue the next day. • Generally speaking, exterior changes requiring building permits for contributing commercial properties or for individually listed residential properties require separate land use approval, with review by the full Historic and/or Planning Commissions prior to obtaining building permits. • Land use approval entails review for compliance with the city's Site Design& Use Standards Handbook and The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. These preservation standards ensure changes to historic properties are consistent with the spirit and character of the historic property and district while also meeting community, owner and resident needs. • Demolition of buildings 45 or more years old is carefully regulated. Approval requires a demonstration that rehabilitation or re-use is not feasible or that the structure is unsound. Land use approval for a replacement structure must also be obtained prior to demolition. Building Maintenance • Historic houses need a maintenance plan. • Roofs are highest priority. Keep excess moss and leaf debris removed, and gutters clean. Replace roofing material before it is so deteriorated that leaking occurs. • Windows and doors are second priority. They should work properly, be as airtight as possible, and should only be replaced if they can't be repaired. • Exterior paint is critical to extending the life of a building. A regular plan for repainting should be implemented. Small sections can be done every year to limit expense. Adequate cleaning is required before repainting. Tips for Owners of Historic Houses • Historic houses tend to function differently than new ones. They were designed to allow for natural light and fresh air, not to be hermetically sealed. It is important to use these features rather than trying to correct them, otherwise owners may be dissatisfied. • Every historic building has eccentricities-windows are difficult to open;floors creak; cracks are signs of long life, not a flaw to be repaired. While most of these can be corrected, if they aren't causing problems with everyday life, it's best to let them to contribute to a building's character. Additional Reading • Map of Ashland's historic districts, http://www.ashia nd.or.us/Files/Local%20a nd%2ONationa l%2OH istoric%2ODist%200verview.pdf • Ashland Site Design and Use Standards, http://`www.ashland.or.us/Files/SiteDesign- UseStandards 2011.pdf • Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Buildings, http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tps/standguide/rehab/rehab approach.htm • National Park Service Preservation Brief No. 47: Maintaining the Exteriors of Small and Medium Size Historic Buildings, www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tps/briefs/`brief47.pdf • Oregon Historic Sites Database,statewide list of properties meeting minimal criteria, http://heritagedata.prd.state.or.us/historic/index.cfm?do=v.dsp main First in a series of educational briefs to encourage successful rehabilitation of Ashland's historic buildings. For additional briefs contact: ASHLAND HISTORIC CONNISSION - Tel 541-488-5305 - 51 Winbum Way - Ashland,Oregon 97520 - www.ashland.or.us Exhibit F Page 2 of 10 Exhibit F - Building Briefs CAI HISTORIC DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Windows HISTORIC BUILDING BRIEF No. 2 General Guidelines • Retain and repair whenever possible; replace original windows only when too deteriorated to repair. \ ' • For best energy efficiency,weather-strip windows and use storm windows. • Ultimate goal is sustainability and stewardship of historic components and I materials. i History I • Windows are an important character defining feature of a building. • Large sheets of glass were expensive to produce, so early windows had small panes separated by wood muntins; over time larger panes were used. • Ultimately, number and arrangement of panes became the overriding design element. • Originally constructed of wood because it was readily available and easy to work. • Most early windows were double-hung and were oriented vertically to allow for good light and ventilation - hot air would escape out the top and cooler air would flow in the bottom. They often appear in pairs or triplets to increase overall window size. • Windows were set into walls to decrease potential for water infiltration and to allow space for operating mechanisms, usually ropes and pulleys. Repair and Maintenance • Properly maintained wood windows have greatly extended service and contribute to a building's historic character; it is not unusual for them to work for 150 years or more. • Repairs can be labor intensive, but are typically not complicated. • If considering replacement,think twice; money is often better spent on repairing existing windows. SA4 • Badly deteriorated windows can be restored by applying consolidants or wood putties to split, checked or rotting wood. • Windows that cannot be stabilized may require replacing parts of the MuNTrNS original window. Replacement Windows • Replacement of original windows is a last resort after all repair possibilities have been explored. • If windows are missing or not reparable, match replacements as closely as possible in terms of size, materials, profile and pane configuration. • If replacing windows with muntins, use either an external muntin or true divided light window. These muntins are often much wider and flatter than the originals so they change the look and reduce glass coverage. • Avoid internal or"between the glass" muntins—they don't create a sense of depth like the original window, resulting in a "fake" appearance. • Replacement windows have a much shorter life span than original windows and may require replacement in just a few years, often before installation cost is recovered in energy savings. This project is supported in part by a grant from the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office,Oregon Parks&Recreation Department, funded by the National Park Service through the National Historic Preservation Act. Exhibit F Page 3 of 10 Exhibit F - Building Briefs Windows • Vinyl windows don't fit with historic buildings; they can't be worked like wood;they can't be painted so they are often stark white, a color not usually found on historic buildings;they yellow, crack, and shrink over time due to ultraviolet light exposure. Windows in Additions • Use wood, aluminum clad wood or fiberglass. • They should be single/double-hung sash or casement in operation. 1.5 • Line up together,generally at the top of the opening, for each story of a building. NOT rHl� • Orientation should be vertical,that is,taller than they rµ„ are wide, with a minimum ratio vertically to horizontally of 1.5 to 1. If a wider opening is preferred, pairs of vertical windows should be used. • Have a 1/1 light configuration,as large areas of glazing � ,� are readily available, so muntins are not needed. • They should be surrounded by exterior trim on the top and sides, with trim at least four inches wide. • Inset a minimum depth of two inches from the finished exterior wall. PAIRED V6RTICAI t, NOT 1-1+1-5 Energy Efficiency • Most heat is lost because of air infiltration between the window sash and the frame, not through the glass. Despite widespread misconceptions, replacing old windows with new, double-glazed windows will not save money,will not significantly increase the energy efficiency of a house,and will probably cost more in the long term. • Appropriate weather-stripping, insulating the window frame cavity and installing sash locks will significantly reduce air infiltration. • Exterior storm windows should be considered as thermally efficient, cost-effective and reversible solutions for historic buildings,as they allow for the retention of original windows. • Interior storm windows can work, but there is potential for condensation damage. • Storm windows should be the same size as the underlying window. Matte finish anodized or coated frames are best, preferably coated or painted to match the existing color of the windows. • "Mill aluminum" (shiny)windows should not be used. Additional Reading • National Park Service Preservation Briefs: No. 3: Conserving Energy in Historic Buildings www.nps.gov/hps/tps/briefs/brief03.htm No. 9: The Repair of Historic Wooden Windows www.nps.gov/hps/tps/briefs/brief09.htm • Window Preservation Guidance, Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, http://www.dahp.wa.gov/wi ndow-preservation-guidance • The Real Cost of Removing Historic Windows, http://www.apti.org/publications/Past-Bulletin- Arti cl es/Sedovic-36-4.pdf Second in a series of educational briefs to encourage successful rehabilitation of AsNand's historic buildings. For additional briefs contact: ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION - Tel:54148&5305 - 51 Wirbum Way - Ashland,Oregon 97520 - www.ashland.or.us Exhibit F Page 4 of 10 Exhibit F - Building Briefs P,, HISTORIC DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Exterior Materials HISTORIC BUILDING BRIEF No. 3 General Guidelines • Properly maintained, wood siding outperforms wood substitutes and is the best choice. .. • Cement fiber planks are a good choice for new additions or construction. • Paint and most roofing materials are intended to be replaced periodically and therefore more flexibility can be given for substitute colors and materials. History • Horizontal wood siding and shingles were the most common exterior wall materials. • Wood was used because of its abundance in the region and ease of shaping. • The first wood siding was split clapboards,then sawn clapboards. By the early 1900s various patterns were made in a variety of profiles often called drop, rustic, or novelty siding. • Several Victorian-era architectural styles used wood shingles sawn in various patterns such as octagonal and diamond patterns. • Mineral fiber(asbestos)shingles were common in the 1930s;and 40s and were a fairly durable, maintenance free siding. Siding Types • Wood siding, both historically and today, is typically made from cedar or fir and installed with common nails. It is the most durable siding—color is easily changed; blemishes can be sanded or filled. • Brick should not be painted. • Mineral fiber shingles can be painted but break easily. • Installation of vinyl, metal or mineral fiber siding often requires removal of original decorative elements such as cornices, brackets,and window trim. • Vinyl and metal is the least flexible material. It cannot be repaired, painted or replaced in small sections. Vinyl warps and cracks over time. Metal easily show's imprint from tossed baseballs or lawn mower rocks. • Cement fiber siding products are durable,can be painted and often mimic original wood siding. If used, smooth-faced planks are most compatible with historic buildings. Wood-textured planks or panels do not mimic historic wood siding as it was always milled smooth. Large panels of fiber siding do not have adequate shadow lines and leave inappropriate joint lines. Maintenance • Check regularly for loose bricks or deteriorated mortar—tuck pointing may be required. • Previously unpainted brick should not be painted, it encourages deterioration and hides subtle color and texture differences. If brick has been painted, the best color choice for repainting is one that matches original color of the brick. This project is supported in part by a grant from the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office,Oregon Parks d Recreation Department, funded by the National Park Service through the National Historic Preservation Act. Exhibit F Page 5 of 10 Exhibit F - Building Briefs Exterior Materials • Maintain regular paint schedule and replace damaged or rotten boards as soon as discovered. Flaking or badly adhered paint should be removed. Oil-based primers are best for old wood. • Appropriate methods for paint removal are scraping, sanding,thermal and mild chemical strippers. • Inappropriate methods are sandblasting, high pressure power washing, blow torch, or abrasive cleaning and stripping. These usually cause permanent damage to siding materials. • Vinyl and metal siding often traps moisture resulting in hidden damage to walls. If vinyl or metal is damaged it usually requires replacement of entire wall and occasionally entire building. Paint Colors • Italianate and Queen Anne style houses were typically painted in multi-color schemes in deep rich hues. Three to four colors were used,sometimes with each floor or material a different color. The base was usually darkest,with lighter colors on top. Window sash were often black or dark red. • Colonial Revival houses were typically light color(gray,yellow or tan) trimmed with white or cream. Window sashes were often painted black or dark green. • Craftsman houses were usually painted in warm, rich earth tones. Wood siding or shingles were often stained dark brown or green. Trim was lighter,often ivory,tan or cream. Window sashes varied greatly, and were red, black or the trim color. • Tudor/Mission/Spanish Revival houses had light walls with contrasting trim colors and red tile for Mission and Spanish Revival roofs. • Historic paint colors should be documented through paint analysis if possible. Roofing • Most houses were originally roofed with wood shakes/shingles from old-growth trees and lasted many years. Modern shakes/shingles have much shorter life span. • City does not allow wood shakes/shingles due to fire danger in region. • Slate shingles are durable and have a long life span, but were not commonly used during historic period. Should only be used on buildings that had them historically. • High style metal shingles and standing seam roofs are durable and have long life span, but were also not commonly used historically. Corrugated metal panels were common on outbuildings beginning in 1920s. They're utilitarian and should be used on secondary buildings. • Standing seam metal roofs are npt appropriate. The minimal texture and bright colors look out of place in historic neighborhoods. • Asphalt or composition shingles became common in the 1930s. Modern,architectural style asphalt shingles are better solutions in historic districts than the flat,three tab shingles,as they more closely mimic historic wood shakes/shingles. Additional Reading • National Park Service Preservation Briefs No. 8: Aluminum/Vinyl Siding on Historic Buildings, www.nps.gov/hps/tps/briefs/brief08.htm No. 10: Exterior Paint Problems on Woodwork, www.nps.gov/hps/tps/briefs/brieflO.htm • Wood Guidelines, http://www.nps.gov/hps/tps/standguide/restore/restore wood.htm • Siding Profiles, http://www.wwpa.org/patterns/sections/g16.pdf Third in a series of educational briefs to encourage successful rehabilitation of Ashland's historic buildings. For additional briefs contact: ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMSSION - Tel:541488-5305 - 51 Wdwrn Way - Ashland,Oregon 97520 - www ashland.or.us Exhibit F Page 6 of 10 Exhibit F - Building Briefs HISTORIC DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Additions HISTORIC BUILDING BRIEF No.4 General Guidelines • Preserve historic features and materials of the original building. • Design additions so that it is clear it is an addition and not part of the original building. i • Design additions so that they are compatible with the original building. I History • Most historic buildings are compilations of multiple additions overtime. Families grew and added new bedrooms or bathrooms, or businesses needed more floor space. • Additions have always been placed to the rear or less prominent side. • Garages started as separate buildings but were incorporated beginning in the 1920s. Often placed on the side of houses; in hilly locations they were often tucked underneath. • Additions that are historic should be kept. Placement and Size • Locate on an inconspicuous side or rear. • Additions should not be placed on the front nor a prominent side visible from a public right of way. • Must meet current Ashland codes on setback and lot coverage ratios. • Generally, one and two story historic buildings should not'get an additional floor as it changes wornon the character of the building and street. • When used, additional floors should be set back from the front and any prominent side. The LK OF VIEW rule of thumb is that a new upper floor should not be visible from ground level across the soEwix srur s"vc street. • Additions should not overpower the original structure. If a larger addition is planned it should be broken up into smaller segments so that the original building is dominant. Should you match the style of the original building? • An addition should be compatible, but shouldn't exactly match the original. It's important to be able to identify the historic building, and for the addition to be secondary. • Similar materials, similar building elements, or similar sizes most often make an addition compatible. But simplification is important so that the historic building plays the prominent role. • Connections between new and old should be clearly discernible. This can be achieved by setting the new wall plane back from the old or using a transparent connector space between the two. • Compatibility with the existing historic district and streetscape, not just the historic building, is also critical. This project is supported in part by a grant from the Oregon Stale Historic Preservation Office,Oregon Parks 6 Recreation Department, funded by the National Park Service through the National Historic Preservation Act. Exhibit F Page 7 of 10 Exhibit F - Building Briefs Additions • Additions should reflect the overall massing, roof shape, bay spacing, cornice lines and building materials. ,in_ - - r f 19 Successful addition form Non-compatible addition form Tins for a successful addition • Limit the size of the connection between the old and new. This reduces the amount of historic material lost and clearly distinguishes between the old building and the new addition. Utilize existing doors or enlarge windows to make the connections. • Avoid designs that unify the original and the addition as a single architectural whole (see illustration to right). • Take design cues for the new addition from the original building, but don't copy it. • Use new building materials in the same color range as the original. • Base the size, rhythm and alignment of the new addition's window and door openings on those of the original building. • Minimize loss of historic fabric from the original building. Additional Reading • National Park Service Preservation Brief No. 14: New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings: Preservation Concerns, www.nps.gov/hps/tps/briefs/briefl4.htm • National Park Service "The Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation and Ilustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Buildings", http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tps/standguide/rehab/rehab approach.htm • District of Columbia Historic Preservation Guidelines;Additions to Historic Buildings, http://www.chrs.org/documents/HPO%20docs/Additions'.pdf • Bennington,Vermont Preservation Guidelines:Additions, http://www.bennington.com/hpc/pdfs/Time and Place/addit ions.pdf Fourth in a Series of educational briefs to encourage Successful rehabilitation of Astdand's historic buildings. For additional briefs contact: ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION - Tel 541-498-5305 - 51 Wffb m Way - Ashland,Oregon 97520 - www.ashland.or.us Exhibit F Page 8 of 10 Exhibit F - Building Briefs ,W,, HISTORIC DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Garages/Outbuildings HISTORIC BUILDING BRIEF No. 5 yy General Guidelines • Retain and preserve historic garages and outbuildings v whenever possible. • New buildings should not visually detract from the main house. • New buildings should be placed behind the front line of [7S main house. • Single-width garage doors maintain the character of historic neighborhoods. Multiple garage doors detract from historic character. History • Garages originally were separate buildings placed behind the house,often accessed from alleys. • Began to be incorporated into houses in 1920s. Usually placed on side of house, in hilly locations they were often tucked underneath. • Doors were usually swinging doors, one car width wide. VWNs+. may: �•:i �4 rrs' Early 200 century single garage tucked underneath Late 2 century double garage pulled toward street • Garages in Ranch Style houses were under the same roof as main house and often placed in front. • By 1970s,garages were one of most prominent features of a house. Typically placed closer to street, and with wider doors than earlier examples. • Other types of historic outbuildings include sheds for storing s rnEStiT garden/farm equipment, wood sheds, pump houses, spring houses and outhouses. s I H H b a E Placement and Size of New Garages/Outbuildings • Locate as inconspicuously as possible on side or rear of main r a house. Preferably placed behind rear line of main house.) c q • Must meet current City codes on setback and lot coverage e T ratios. ALL&Y This project is supported in pert by a grant from the Oregon Stale Historic Preservation Office,Oregon Parks&Recreation Department, funded by the National Paris Service through the National Historic Preservation Act. Exhibit F Page 9 of 10 Exhibit F - Building Briefs Garages/Outbuildings • Utilize smaller footprints than main house and limit to one-story in height. r ^ • Follow historic setback patterns of other garages and outbuildings on street or in district. • Locate sheds and gazebos in rear yards. • Screen from public view with landscaping. Should outbuildings match style of main house? • Design of new buildings should be secondary to and simpler than that of main house. • Materials should reflect the use and function of building, not that of main house. • Compatibility with historic district and streetscape, not just main house, is important. • Use roof form that compliments main house in shape and pitch. • Metal, plastic,vinyl or canvas prefabricated outbuildings or carports are inappropriate. Garage Doors • Paint to complement garage. == • Use single width doors. If two-car garage is desired, use separate single-width doors for each bay. • Metal doors are not appropriate, but if used they should be painted. • Overhead wood doors that reflect the character of historic swinging doors are good options. • If doors are highly visible from a public street,wood paneled doors are preferred. Additional ReadimE • National Park Service Preservation Brief No. 14: New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings: Preservation Concerns, www.nps.gov/hps/tps/briefs/briefl4.htm • National Park Service "The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Buildings", http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tps/standguide/rehab/rehab approach.htm Some examples of period garage door styles �■ llllflm ne an TO— .� . ■ ®I� �I� ... _ .... .. _ . Mum_ ff ®® - Fifth in a series of educational briefs to encourage successful rehabilitation of Ashland's historic buildings. For additional briefs Contact: ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION - Td:541-488.5305 - 51 Wu6um Way - Ashland,Oregon 97520 - www.ashland.or.us Exhibit F Page 1Q of 10 Exhibit G— Planning Commission Staff Report from March 13, 2012 ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT March 13, 2012 PLANNING ACTION: #2011-01523 APPLICANT: City of Ashland LOCATION: Ashland Four Historic Districts (See Attached Exhibit S-1) ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.72 Site Design Review 18.72.080.0 Site Design & Use Standards REQUEST: The proposal is to revise the Historic District Design Standards found in Section IV of Ashland's Site Design and Use Standards. These standards are approval criteria for Site Review applications for multi-family residential, commercial and industrial applications in the four National Register-listed historic districts, as well as for exterior modifications requiring building permits on single family residential properties that are individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The proposed revisions are intended to bring the standards more into line with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, and to provide greater internal consistency within the standards themselves. In conjunction with the revisions, supporting educational materials have been created to further explain and illustrate the standards with regard to specific topics including living with historic buildings, windows, exterior materials, additions, garages and outbuildings. I. Relevant Facts A. Background - History of Application The City of Ashland. is a Certified Local Government (CLG). The CLG program is a federal program administered through the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and is designed to promote historic preservation at the local level. Through participation as a CLG, the City of Ashland qualifies to receive matching grants from the Oregon SHPO. In keeping with the responsibilities of a CLG, the City created the "Ashland Preservation Plan 2009-2018" which sets forth a number of goals to further historic preservation planning in Ashland, along with an implementation plan for meeting these goals. Among the goals identified was the, "Need to Revise and Expand Existing Residential Standards." In 2010, to move this goal forward the City received and the Council accepted a CLG grant to engage a consultant for the purpose of evaluating, revising and expanding Ashland's Historic District Design Standards in order to bring the standards more into Planning Action PA#2011-01523 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Historic District Design Standards Revisions Exhibit G Page 1 of 12 Exhibit G —Planning Commission Staff Report from March 13, 2012 line with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, the national standards for historic preservation, while also providing for greater internal consistency within the City of Ashland's Site Design and Use Standards. The project was not , envisioned to be a substantial modification of the existing standards, which have served the city well in guiding development in our historic districts since their adoption in 1985, but rather a fine-tuning focused on addressing greater consistency both with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and within the City's own regulations. The team of J. Todd Scott, a preservation architect, and Julie Koler, an architectural historian, were selected to carry out the project. They worked with staff and the Historic Commission to develop proposed revisions to the Historic District Design Standards over the seventeen month grant period which began in April of 2010. The final draft of the proposed revisions were presented to the Historic and Planning Commissions in June of 2011 and both bodies expressed their unanimous support; after reviewing the proposed recommendations in August of 2011 the City Council directed staff to initiate the legislative amendment necessary to formally adopt the revised standards. B. Detailed Description of the Proposed Revisions The revisions proposed include changes to the Historic District Design Standards in Section IV of the Site Design and Use Standards handbook to better address the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, which was a goal of the Preservation Plan. In addition, some changes were proposed for general internal consistency within Ashland's standards and ordinances. Finally, the project included the development of a series of "Historic Building Briefs" which take the form of issue-specific hand-outs to support the revised standards by providing user-friendly educational materials to homeowners and contractors with properties or projects in the historic districts. These hand-outs, while not intended to be codified, would provide guidance in interpreting and applying the standards. The specific revisions are addressed in greater detail below, and the revised Historic District Design Standards and related materials are provided in the attached exhibits along with a copy of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Proposed Changes for Consistency with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards The Secretary of the Interior is responsible for establishing standards for all programs under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior and for advising agencies on the preservation of historic properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. In partial fulfillment of this responsibility "The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties" were developed to guide work undertaken on historic properties. There are separate standards for preservation, rehabilitation, restoration and reconstruction. "The Standards for Rehabilitation" were originally developed to determine the appropriateness of proposed project work on registered properties supported by federal grants. These standards address rehabilitation, the most typical treatment to historic buildings, which is defined therein as "the act or Planning Action PA#2011-01523 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Historic District Design Standards Revisions Exhibit G Page 2 of 12 Exhibit G —Planning Commission Staff Report from March 13, 2012 process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural or architectural values." As stated in the definition, the treatment of rehabilitation assumes that at least some repair or alteration of the historic building will be needed to provide for efficient contemporary use; however, these repairs and alterations must not damage or destroy materials, features or finishes that are important in defining the building's historic character. The intent of the Standards is to assist in the long-term preservation of historic materials and features. ' As such, the Standards pertain to historic buildings of all materials, construction types, sizes and occupancy and consider both the building site and the surrounding environment which provides its context. To be certified for federal tax purposes, a rehabilitation project must be found by the Secretary of the Interior to be consistent with the historic character of the structure(s) and, where applicable, the district in which it is located. Over the years since their creation, the Secretary's Standards have been used to determine if a rehabilitation project qualifies for federal tax incentives as well as to guide federal agencies in carrying out their responsibilities for properties in federal ownership or control. In addition, they have come to be used by state and local officials across the nation to review rehabilitation proposals and have been adopted by historic and planning commissions across the country. The Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) administers the Certified Local Government (CLG) program, a federal program to promote historic preservation at the local level. SHPO also assists property owners, local governments, and interested citizens in listing Oregon's most historically important resources on the National Register of Historic Places. As a Certified Local Government with four National Register-listed historic districts, there is an expectation that the city will support historic preservation programs with adequate funding, staff, and access, and ensure that ordinances and other legislation designed to protect historic cultural resources are enforced. As noted in the "Ashland Preservation Plan 2009-2018" some of the existing standards conflict with or contradict the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. This could be a potential,problem for properties in the Oregon Special Assessment program as SHPO utilizes the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation when evaluating projects, and any work that does not comply with these standards could cause a property to be removed from the program. As an example, existing standards IV-13-1, 3, 4 and 5 encourage new additions to match existing features as much as possible. This contradicts the Secretary of the Interior's Standard #9 which requires, "The new work shall be differentiated from the old." Another example of a conflict is found in IV-13-3 which requires that ridge lines be extended where possible. This could potentially conflict with the Secretary of the Interior's Standard #10 which requires, "New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the Planning Action PA#2011-01523 Ashland Planning Division-Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Historic District Design Standards Revisions Exhibit G Page 3 of 12 Exhibit G — Planning Commission Staff Report from March 13, 2012 future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired." To address these conflicts, the consultants proposed a general re-working of the eleven "Rehabilitation and Remodel Standards" in IV-B for clarity and consistency with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. The revisions proposed are shown in the attached Staff Exhibit S-2 and include the following: 1. The revisions have removed "Remodel" from the chapter heading in IV-B. The section in IV-A which discusses restoration, rehabilitation and remodeling has also been expanded upon to explain that remodeling is often an approach to modernize a building at the expense of its historic character and thus has bad connotations in a preservation context. The discussion explains that remodeling is only appropriate in very limited circumstances such as for non-historic structures in historic districts which have fallen into disrepair or been vandalized. 2. The revisions now make clear that the standards in IV-B apply primarily to residential historic districts, residential buildings in the Downtown Historic District, and historic buildings not located within historic districts. 3. The revisions include a reordering of the existing standards so that they speak first generally to architectural styles and features not being replicated (#1) and to the restoration of original architectural features wherever possible (#2), and then proceed more logically into specific issues. 4. The revisions then clarify that new additions should be compatible with the historic building to maintain historic and architectural character without attempts at replication. This is addressed by rewording the existing standards in terms of exterior finishes (0), exterior siding (44), colors (#5), avoiding imitative materials (#6), windows (0), roof forms (#8), roof materials (#9), porches and entries (#10), and new detached buildings (#11). 5. Finally, a twelfth standard has been added which states that, "The latest version of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings shall be used in clarifying and determining whether the above standards are met." This standard was intend to allow the city to use the federal standards for clarification when questions arose in the application of our own Historic District Design Standards, rather than simply replacing them with the federal standards. In addition, modifications are proposed to the text and drawings in IV-C for clarity and consistency with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. These include: o In IV-C-1 Height, the illustration has been changed to demonstrate a more historically typical range of building heights, rather than all buildings on a block being of an identical height, shading and lines have been added to better illustrate the standard, and the text changed accordingly. Planning Action PA#2011-01523 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Historic Distdd Design Standards Revisions Exhibit G Page 4 of 12 Exhibit G — Planning Commission Staff Report from March 13, 2012 o In IV-C-2 Scale, shading has been added to both illustrations to emphasize the point, and the "Recommended" text has been changed from "Relate the size and proportions of new structures to the scale of adjacent buildings" to "Height, width and massing of new buildings conforms with historic buildings in the immediate vicinity." Similarly, the "Avoid" text has been changed from "Avoid buildings that in height, width or massing, violate the existing scale of the area" to "(Avoid) Height, width and massing of new buildings that is out of scale with historic buildings in the vicinity." o In IV-C-3 Massing, the illustrations are again shaded for greater emphasis of the standard. The "Recommended" text has changed from "Break up uninteresting boxlike forms into smaller, varied masses which are common on most buildings from the historic period" to "Small, varied masses consistent with historic buildings in the immediate vicinity (are recommended)." The "Avoid" text remains the same. o In IV-C-4 Setback, the illustration has been shaded for greater emphasis of the standard and the conceptual boxlike mass of the building in the "Avoid" illustration has been changed to a more building-like form. The "Recommended" text has been changed from "Maintain the historic fafade lines of streetscapes by locating front walls of new buildings in the same plane as the facades of adjacent buildings" to "(It is recommended that) Front walls of new buildings are in the same plane as the facades of adjacent historic buildings." The "Avoid" text has been changed from "Avoid violating the existing setback pattern by placing new building in front or behind the historic fafade line" to "(Avoid) Front walls that are constructed forward of or behind the setback line of adjacent historic buildings. " o In IV-C-S Roof Shapes, the illustration has been shaded for emphasis, and the "Recommended" text has changed from "Relate the new roof forms of the building to those found in the area" to "Roof shapes, pitches and materials consistent with historic buildings in the immediate vicinity (are recommended). " The "Avoid" text remains essentially unchanged. o For IV-C-6 Rhythm of Openings, the illustrations have been shaded for emphasis. Additionally, the "Avoid" illustration has modified the building form and openings so that they are closer in type to the other buildings illustrated and the openings themselves, rather than the building type and massing, are the key points of difference. The "Recommended" text has changed from "Respect the alternation of wall areas with door and window elements in the fafade. Also consider the width to height ration of bays in the fafade" to "(!t is recommended that the...) Pattern or rhythm of wall to door/window openings on the primary fafade or other visually prominent elevation is maintained. Maintain compatible width-to-height ratio of bays in the fafade. " The "Avoid" text has been changed from "Avoid introducing incompatible fafade patterns that upset the rhythm of opening established by the surrounding structures" to "(Avoid) a pattern or rhythm of window/door openings that is inconsistent with adjacent historic Planning Action PA#2011-01523 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Historic District Design Standards Revisions ' Exhibit G Page 5 of 12 Exhibit G—Planning Commission Staff Report from March 13, 2012 buildings. " o In IV-C-7 Platforms, the illustrations have been shaded for better emphasis. The "Recommended" text has been changed from "The use of a raised platform is a traditional siting characteristic of most of the older buildings in Ashland" to A clearly defined base, or platform, characteristic of historic buildings in the immediate vicinity (is recommended). " The "Avoid" text has been changed from "Avoid bringing the walls of buildings straight out of the ground without a sense of platform" to "(Avoid) walls that appear to rise straight out of the ground without a distinct platform or base at the ground level. " o In IV-C-8 the standard's title is proposed to change to "Form" from "Directional Expression." The illustrations have again been shaded for better emphasis. The "Recommended" text has changed from "Relate the vertical, horizontal or non-directional facade character of new buildings to the predominant directional expression of nearby buildings" to "Form (vertical/horizontal emphasis of the building) that is consistent with that of adjacent historic buildings (is recommended). " The "Avoid" text has changed from "Avoid horizontal or vertical faeade expressions unless they are compatible with the character of structures in the immediate area" to "(Avoid) form that varies from that of existing adjacent historic buildings. " o 'In IV-C-9, the standard's title is proposed to change from "Sense of Entry" to "Entrances". The illustrations have been shaded for greater emphasis. The "Recommended" text has changed from . "Articulate the main entrances to the building with covered porches, porticos, and other pronounced architectural forms" to "Well-defined primary entrances with covered porches, porticos, and other architectural features compatible but not imitative of historic counterparts (are recommended " The "Avoid" text has changed from "Avoid facades with no strong sense of entry" to "(Avoid) facades with minimally defined primary entrances. " o In IV-C-10, the standard's title is proposed to change from "Imitations" to "Imitation of Historic Features." A second comparison building has been added in each of the illustrations, and the drawings have been shaded for emphasis. The "Recommended" text has changed from "Utilize accurate restoration of or visually compatible additions to, existing buildings. For new construction, traditional architecture that well represents our own lime, yet enhances the nature and character of the historic district should be used" to "Accurate restoration of original architectural features on historic buildings. New construction, including additions, that is clearly contemporary in design which enhances yet does not compete visually, with adjacent historic buildings. " The "Avoid" text has been changed from "Avoid replication or imitation of the styles, motifs or details of older periods. Such attempts are rarely successful and, even if well done, present a confusing picture of the true character ofthe historical area" to "(Avoid) replicating or imitating the styles, motifs or details of historic buildings. Planning Action PA#2011-01523 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Historic District Design Standards Revisions Exhibit G Page 6 of 12 Exhibit G— Planning Commission Staff Report from March 13, 2012 o A new standard and illustration are proposed as IV-C-11 Additions to recommend "Additions that are visually unobtrusive from a public right-of-way, and do not obscure or eliminate character defining features of historic buildings" while avoiding "Additions on the primary fagade or any elevation that is visually prominent from a public right-of-way, and additions that obscure or destroy character defining features. " o Finally, a new standard and illustration are proposed as IV-C-12 Garage Placement. This standard deals with historically compatible garage placement, recommending that garages be placed behind the primary historic building with access from a side street or alley if available and that garages placement beside or in front of a primary historic building be avoided. Proposed Changes to Provide Greater Internal Consistency In addition to addressing consistency with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, the revisions proposed include changes intended to provide greater internal consistency between the Historic District Design Standards and other city standards. These revisions are as follows: 1. Staggered Building Heights — Section IV-C-1 of the Historic District Design Standards calls for buildings to be constructed to the height of existing historic buildings on and across the street while Section VI-A-1 of the Downtown Design Standards seeks buildings which vary in height to maintain the downtown's traditional staggered streetscape appearance. For the sake of internal consistency, it has been made clear in the revisions to IV-B, as noted above, that the rehabilitation and remodel standards are to apply primarily to the residential historic districts and to residential buildings in the downtown, while the Downtown Design Standards are to take precedence for commercial development in the downtown. In addition, the following clarification has been added to Section VI-A-1 in order to make clear than the restoration of a historic fagade line which was not historically staggered would provide a basis for an exception to the standard calling for varying heights to maintain a generally staggered streetscape appearance: "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 divisionlfagade treatment that "visually" separates it from adjacent buildings, or for restorations of historic facades. " 2. Definitions — The following definitions for "rehabilitation" and "restoration" are proposed to be added to the Definitions chapter(AMC 18.008). Planning Action PA#2011-01523 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Historic District Design Standards Revisions Exhibit G Page 7 of 12 Exhibit G — Planning Commission Staff Report from March 13, 2012 18.08.622 Rehabilitation: The act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. 18.08.636 Restoration: The act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a restoration project. 3. Transitional Areas — In Section IV-C and VI (on page 52) clarifications of how the standards are to be applied for projects located at the boundary between different zoning districts or overlay areas have been added. This is an issue which has arisen a number of times including on the Northlight project and for the commercial building approved but never built at 160 Heiman Street. The revisions are intended to make clear that at the edges of zoning districts or overlays with differing regulations and standards such as where the commercial downtown transitions to the residential portion of the Railroad Addition historic district adjustments to building form, massing, height, scale, placement or architectural and material treatment may be considered as a means to address compatibility within the area of transition while not losing sight of the underlying zoning or applicable standards for the subject property. Proposed Building Briefs Along with the revisions to the Historic District Design Standards, this grant-funded project involved the creation of supporting educational materials intended both to provide general information and references on topics relating historic preservation, and to explain the standards as applied to specific issues likely to be encountered by homeowners or contractors planning projects on historic properties. 'The educational materials created, called "Historic Building Briefs", include the following: 1. Living with Historic Buildings — The hope in creating this hand-out was to provide new owners of historic properties, who may be unfamiliar with preservation in general and Ashland's regulation in particular, with introductory information when they acquire a home in one of Ashland's historic districts, and it was envisioned that these handouts would be made available for distribution by local realtors and contractors. 2. Windows—Alterations to windows can have a significant impact on the integrity of a historic home, yet in many cases window replacement is not subject to land Planning Action PA#2011-01523 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Historic District Design Standards Revisions Exhibit G Page 8 of 12 Exhibit G— Planning Commission Staff Report from March 13, 2012 use approval or building permit review. This brief is intended to educate homeowners about the importance of windows in defining the character of a building, and to provide information on the repair and maintenance of original windows as well as the selection of compatible replacement windows. 3. Exterior Materials — Like windows, exterior materials help to define a home's character yet exterior siding, paint and roofing can typically be replaced without land use approval or building permit review. This brief is intended to provide a background on the maintenance of exterior materials and the selection of compatible replacement materials. 4. Additions — Discusses items to consider when designing historically compatible additions including size, placement, form and how additions can be designed for compatibility without replicating the existing building. 5. Garages & Outbuildings — This topic arose from preliminary meetings with the consultant and Planning Commissioners last year because issues of addressing modem vehicular circulation patterns in a historically compatible manner had arisen in a recent planning action. This brief discusses considerations for the retention and preservation of existing structures as well as the construction of compatible new garages and outbuildings in a historic setting. It is envisioned that additional "Historic Building Briefs" could be created to respond to new issues which arise over time, such as providing district-specific information if a new historic district were created that had substantially different design considerations than the existing districts due to a later period of historic significance. II. Project Impact A. Applicability of the Standards Ashland's four existing historic districts are the Ashland Downtown District, the Siskiyou-Hargadine District, the Skidmore Academy District, and the Railroad Addition District. The districts were established by the city in 1982 with the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, and each district was individually considered and ultimately listed on the National Register of Historic Places between 1998 and 2002. A map of these districts is provided as Staff Exhibit S-1. The Site Design and Use Standards and their Historic District Design Standards already apply within these districts for projects subject to Site Review or Conditional Use Permit. The proposed revisions do not expand the applicability of the standards beyond those areas where they already apply; they are instead intended to provide consistency both with accepted national standards and with other sections of the Site Design and Use Standards and Land Use Ordinance. Planning Action PA#2011-01523 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Historic District Design Standards Revisions Exhibit G Page 9 of 12 Exhibit G —Planning Commission Staff Report from March 13, 2012 B. Revisions for Consistency with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards As a Certified Local Government (CLG), there is an expectation that the city will support historic preservation programs with adequate funding, staff, and access, and ensure that ordinances and other legislation designed to protect historic cultural resources are in place and enforced. As noted in the "Ashland Preservation Plan 2009-2018" some of the existing standards conflict with or contradict the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. This could be a potential problem for properties in the Oregon Special Assessment program as the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) utilizes the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation when evaluating projects, and any work that does not comply with these standards could cause a property to be removed from that program. As an example, existing standards IV-13-1, -3, -4 and -5 encourage new additions to match existing features as much as possible. This is contradictory to the Secretary of the Interior's Standard #9 which requires, "The new work shall be differentiated from the old" Another potential conflict is found in 1V-13-3 which requires that ridge lines be extended where possible. This could potentially conflict with the Secretary of the Interior's Standard #10 which requires, "New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired." The revisions to the standards which are detailed above are intended to bring Ashland's standards into line with these nationally-accepted standards as a way to further protect the character and integrity of our four National Register-listed historic district. B. Revisions for Internal Consistency In staffs view, these revisions are minor and intended primarily for clarification purposes to reflect the standards as they have been applied over recent years. They include a clarification of the treatment of building heights between the Historic District Design Standards and the Downtown Design Standards, the addition of definitions for "restoration" and "rehabilitation" within the Municipal Code, and a clarification of the considerations for compatibility at the boundaries between zoning districts or overlays. C. Historic Building Briefs While not expected to be adopted by the Council as standards themselves, the Historic Building Briefs were envisioned by the Historic Commission as a means to provide general information to educate homeowners about the value of historic preservation, and more specifically to provide detailed information in keeping with the revised standards on issues of interest to homeowners or their contractors. The five briefs prepared initially include Living with Historic Buildings, Windows, Planning Action PA#2011-01523 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Historic Distdct Design Standards Revisions Exhibit G Page 10 of 12 Exhibit G—Planning Commission Staff Report from March 13, 2012 Exterior Materials, Additions, and Garages & Outbuildings. It is envisioned that these initial five hand-outs could be supplemented as preservation-related issues arise. This might involve, as an example, creating a new brief which would address district- specific design considerations for a new historic district if one were ever created that included buildings with a later period of significance than the four existing districts. D. -Planning Commission Recommendations/Legislative Amendments The Site Design and Use Standards are adopted by ordinance pursuant to AMC 18.72.080 in order to provide criteria for the review of projects subject to the Site Design Review Chapter. In AMC 2.12.060.13.3, the Planning Commission is charged with making recommendations to the City Council on planning issues and legislative changes to land use regulations and ordinances; the current request seeks a Planning Commission recommendation to Council on the adoption of the proposed Historic District Design Standards revisions as they will be applied through the land use process through Site Design Review. Similarly, in AMC 2.24.040.13 the Historic Commission is charged with drafting and recommending ordinances and other measures designed to protect and foster interest in the improvement of designated historical properties. They are scheduled to review the proposed revisions at their regular meeting on March 7`s, and their recommendations, while not available as this is being written, will be provided for Planning Commission review at the March meeting. The procedure for a Legislative Amendment calls for the Commission to hold a public hearing, and following public testimony to make a report of its recommendations to Council. After receipt of the report on the amendment from the Commission, the Council will hold a public hearing for the first reading of an ordinance amendment adopting the revisions. This hearing is tentatively scheduled for the April 3, 2012 regular meeting of the Council. III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof 18.108.170 Legislative Amendments A. It may be necessary from time to time to amend the text of the Land Use Ordinance or make other legislative amendments in order to conform with the comprehensive plan or to meet other changes in circumstances and conditions. A legislative amendment is a legislative act solely within the authority of the Council. B. A legislative amendment may be initiated by the Council, by the Commission, or by application of a property owner or resident of the City. The Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed amendment at its earliest practicable meeting after it is submitted, and within thirty days after the hearing, recommend to the Council, approval, disapproval, or modification of the proposed amendment. C. An application for amendment by a property owner or resident shall be filed with the Planning Planning Action PA#2011-01523 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Historic District Design Standards Revisions Exhibit G Page 1 t of 12 Exhibit G — Planning Commission Staff Report from March 13, 2012 Department thirty days prior to the Commission meeting at which the proposal is to be first considered. The application shall be accompanied by the required fee. D. Before taking final action on a proposed amendment, the Commission shall hold a public hearing. After receipt of the report on the amendment from the Commission, the Council shall hold a public hearing on the amendment. Notice of time and place of the public hearings and a brief description of the proposed amendment shall be given notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the City not less than ten days prior to the date of hearing. E. No application of a property owner or resident for a legislative amendment shall be considered by the Commission within the twelve month period immediately following a previous denial of such request except the Commission may permit a new application if, in the opinion of the Commission, new evidence or a change of circumstances warrant it. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations Staff is supportive of the proposed changes to the Historic District Design Standards, and believe they are in keeping with the city's responsibilities as a Certified Local Government, with the goals of the Preservation Plan and more broadly with Comprehensive Plan policy#I-7 which states that, "The City shall develop and implement through law design guidelines for new development as well as for alteration of existing structures within the historic interest areas for structures and areas that are historically significant." In staff's view, these revisions represent a fine-tuning of standards which have served Ashland well for a number of years, and we believe that with the relatively minor revisions proposed for consistency's sake they will continue to do so long into the future. We accordingly recommend that the Planning Commission provide a favorable recommendation to the Council in support of their adoption at the earliest opportunity. Planning Action PA 92011-01523 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Historic District Design Standards Revisions Exhibit G Page 12 of 12 Exhibit H - DRAFT Historic Commissign�IltAlYe9tbr�arch 7,2012 (see Item C under Old Business) ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Meeting Minutes March 7,2012 Community DevelopmentlEngineering Services Building—51 Winburn Way—Siskiyou Room CALL TO ORDER— REGULAR MEETING. 6:00 gm Historic Commissioners Present: Dale Shostrom, Keith Swink,Tom Giordano,Ally Phelps, Kerry Kencaim,Terry Skibby, Sam Whitford Commission Members Absent: Allison Renwick(E),Tobin Fisher(E) Council Liaison:Greg Lemhouse Hiah School Liaison: None Appointed SOU Liaison: None Appointed Staff Present: Planner: Derek Severson;Clerk: Billie Boswell Chairman Shostrom introduced Dave Kanner,new City Administrator. Mr. Kanner explained his background and a little about himself and answered a few questions from the Commissioners. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Boswell pointed out an error in the permit number for 181 Morse and changed it to PA-2011-01755. Mr. Whitford moved to approve the February 8, 2012 minutes as amended. The motion,was seconded by Ms. Kencaim and was approved unanimously. PUBLIC FORUM: No one in the audience wished to speak. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING ACTION: 2012-00237 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 27 Second Street APPLICANT: City of Ashland Public Arts Commission DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to install Public Art at 27 Second Street along the Ender's Alley on the Enders Building a Nationally Registered Historic Contributing building. Mr.Severson described the mural that Ashland High School student,Nicole Shutters is proposing to paint on the side of the Dan's Shoe Repair shop facing Enders Alley for her senior class project. He explained that the project had already been approved by both the Art Commission and the City Council prior to it being discovered that the project needed review by the Historic Commission. Mr.Skibby asked if the building was listed on the National Register. Mr. Severson said Ms.Gunter,the planner for the project,had contacted SHPO and they supported the proposal. Chairman Shostrom was concerned about the roof posts supporting baskets and lights,and also about the awning material installed above the roof-line. Applicant, Nichole Shulters,described her Ashland senior project,why she is doing it and the process she has gone through with the Arts Commission. Her father, Dan Shulters,who is also the owner of Dan's Shoe Repair shop where the mural would be painted,explained the awning fabric he put up to keep people off the roof of the building. Ms.Shulters described the mural representing the Ashland hills and the downtown roof lines. Motion activated lights would be used to shine down on the mural from the roof. Tysin Senestraro,owner of Paddy Brannon's Pub, Ashland Histonc Commission Minutes 327/2012 Exhibit H Page 1 of 3 Exhibit H - DRAFT Historic CommissignlWhlUYe9tbl�arch 7,2012 (see Item C under Old Business) supported the proposal saying that sprucing up the area and adding lights would make the area safer. Mr.Severson read an email from Dave of Bloomsbury Coffee House in support of the mural project. There being no further questions and no one in the audience wishing to speak,the public hearing was closed. "Chairman Shostrom introduced Greg Lemhouse,the new City Council liaison, who joined the meeting. Mr.Skibby questioned how the AC unit would be incorporated into the mural design,but overall fell the design would be an improvement over what's there now. Ms.Phelps approved the overall concept of the mural but was concerned about how dark the design was. Mr.Swink felt the mix of urban and quaint town was a good look. Mr. Whitford made a motion to approve the project as presented and Ms. Kencaim seconded it. Discussion followed. Chairman Shostrom brought up the striped awning material across the roof and felt that it detracted from the mural. There was general consensus about the striped awning. The public hearing was reopened to question Mr.Shulters about other options. It was agreed to use a plain,less decorative fabric and raise it above the top of the roof to expose the parapet cap. There was also agreement to paint the posts black to minimize them. Chairman Shostrom made a motion to recommend approval of the project but amended to use a non-descript fabric and to raise the awning above the parapet roof cap. Ms. Phelps seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: A. Review Board Schedule March 81h Terry,Keith,Allison March 15th Terry,Kerry,All March 22nd Terry,Tom,Tobin March 291h Terry,Tobin,Dale April 5th Terry, Keith, Dale B. Pro'ed Assi nments for Planning Actions—no changes BD-2007-01764 160 Heiman Batzer-Comm Bld Recession Extension approved)) Shostrom/Giordano PA-2007-01939 175 Lithia W y(formedy 165 Llthla lvcherd&Dresner-Mixed Use Bldg—(Expired 7725'x0) Renwick BD-2011-00855 165 W Fork—New SFR on hillside(new owner-Suncrest Hms)(under mnswaion) Swink/Shostrom BD-2011-00436 426 A St(Sidney Brown)Mixed Use Bldg (permit issued 5-18-11)) Giordano PA-2009-00785 255 E Main(Ashland Elks) Balcony on rear(NO permit yeY expired 827/10.) Swink PA-2010-00069 175 N Pioneer Deli Terrell (Previous owner taking back ownershi &fixing) Shostrom BD-2011-01029 400 Allison Robin Biermann New SFR (Reacy to issue Whitford/Renwick BD-2011-00820 156 Seventh Annie McIntyre) Issued 7-12-11 Renwick BD-2011-00368 928 C St 92 Eighth St Charter ARU issued 7-11-11 Swink BD-2011-01059 260 First St S ken house to retail sales(appealed-bldg ermit issued 8-25-11 Phelps PA-2011-00244 485 A St Hoxmeier enclosed porch&food truck no ermit Giordano BD-2011-01079 134 Terrace Allman New SFR issued 2-17-12 Whitford BD-2011-00621 89 Oak St Amorotico New fa de on building under construction Shostrom BD-2011-00802 66 Scenic(Forsyth)Solar Variance issued 7-15-11 Phelps PL-2011-01781 191 Oak St(Cycle Sport)Site Design for enlarging garage issued 1-31-12 Kencaim PL-2011-01656 181 Morse(Malms)CUP to exceed MPFA for ARU Fisher Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 3/27/2012 Exhibit H Page 2 of 3 Exhibit H - DRAFT Historic CommissiQnAlkRaYe9tbr9Qarch 7,2012 (see Item C under Old Business) OLD BUSINESS: (cont.) C. Mr.Severson reported that the Historic Review Standards document was going through the ordinance process. The only change since the Commissioners last saw the draft was adding in lines addressing the transitional areas between joining districts. There was agreement to the change by the Commissioners. D. Chairman Shostrom requested an OK to attend the March 1611,CLG Seminar in Jacksonville regarding brick renovation. Mr.Swink, Mr.Skibby,and Mr. Giordano also expressed an interest in attending. There was consensus from the group for approval. E. Historic Preservation Week—It was agreed that the Historic Preservation Week will be May 13-21,2012. The Historic Preservation Award ceremony will be as the Ashland Public Library on Thursday, May 1711,at noon. The Gresham Room has been reserved from 11:30 to 1:30. After reviewing all the nominees,the Commissioners selected the following award winners: 116 Church Street and 66 Scenic for Historically Compatible New Accessory Structure 155 Eight Street, 111 Nursery Street and 355 Scenic Drive for Historically Compatible Residential Addition • Ashland Historic Railroad Museum for an Organization Award JCLS Ashland Library for a Civic Award Note: 89 Oak was selected for a Commercial Renovation Award but was found to be ineligible because it was unfinished. Ms. Boswell will send owner/contractor/arch-designer information on each winner to the Commissioners to assist in the write-ups. There was also consensus on doing the Hargadine Cemetery tour. DISCUSSION ITEMS: COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT: Greg Lemhouse,Council Liaison reviewed the Land Use Code Revisions discussed at the last City Council meeting.Most of the public discussion had been regarding the keeping of chickens, bees and other backyard animals. The Council remanded it back to the Planning Commission to address some of the concerns. New deer fencing codes were also discussed and revised to require the upper section of the fence to have 80%visibility clearance. New City Administrator Dave Kanner,was introduced and he reviewed with the Commissioners his background and his interest in remaining informed of their issues. ADJOURNMENT: It was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 7:55 p.m. Ashland Histonc Commission Minutes 3/27/2012 Exhibit H Page 3 of 3 Exhibit I — DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes for March 13, 2012 CITY OF -ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING *DRAFT*MINUTES March 13, 2012 CALL TO ORDER Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Eric Heesacker Derek Severson,Associate Planner Richard Kaplan April Lucas,Administrative Supervisor Pam Marsh Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Absent Members: Council Liaison: None Dennis Slattery ANNOUCEMENTS Commissioner Marsh welcomed Dennis Slattery and announced he is the Commission's new council liaison. City Administrator Dave Kanner introduced himself and stated he is always available if the Commission has questions or concerns regarding City business. Commissioner Marsh announced the Planning Commission will hold its annual retreat on May 5;and asked the group to submit agenda topics and places to visit on the field trip. Commissioner Dawkins commented on the Green Codes public hearing before the City Council last week, and noted the significant amount of public testimony regarding the keeping of chickens. He stated when the Commission held their hearing no one came to speak,and wished they had received this same level of input. Councilor Slattery stated it was an interesting meeting and the term "urban farming"was used quite a bit. He added the Council will likely be looking at this as a new Council goal. Commissioner Marsh questioned how to raise more awareness of the issues before the Planning Commission in order to improve public participation,and stated it would have been better if they could have been aware of the public's concerns before this item went before Council. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes. 1. February 14,2012 Regular Meeting. 2. February 28,2012 Special Meeting. Commissioners Dawkins/Mindlin m/s to approve the Consent Agenda.Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Council Memo—Pedestrian Places Re-Review Community Development Director Bill Molnar stated the Pedestrian Places Re-Review will be on the Council's April 31d agenda. No objections were raised to forwarding this Memo to the City Council. Ashland Planning Commission March 13, 2012 Exhibit 1 Page 1 of 3 Exhibit I — DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes for March 13, 2012 PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION:#2011.01523 DESCRIPTION:A proposal to revise the Historic District Design Standards found in Section IV of Ashland's Site Design and Use Standards. These standards are approval criteria for Site Review applications for multi-family residential, commercial and industrial applications in the four National Register-listed historic districts,as well as for exterior modifications requiring building permits on single family residential properties that are individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The proposed revisions are intended to bring the standards more into line with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, and to provide greater internal consistency within the standards themselves. In conjunction with the revisions, supporting educational materials have been created to further explain and illustrate the standards with regard to specific topics including living with historic buildings, windows,exterior materials, additions, garages and outbuildings. Staff Report Associate Planner Derek Severson provided a general overview of the Historic District Design Standards update. He explained the Standards have served the City well since the 1980s, however in preparing the Historic Preservation Plan it was found that there are occasions where the existing Historic District Design Standards contradict with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Mr. Severson stated this update is intended as a fine tuning of the standards to address those conflicts. Mr. Severson explained the Historic District Design Standards apply in the City's four historic districts, and only apply to construction that requires site review or conditional use permit approval. He reviewed the locations of the Ashland historic districts and also provided the contributing and non-contributing property figures for each district. Mr. Severson provided an explanation of the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and reviewed the specific sections of the Ashland Historic District Design Standards that are proposed to be changed. He noted the Historic Commission met several times to review these changes and have recommended approval by the City Council. Mr. Severson also commented briefly on the Historic Briefs that were prepared,which provide additional information on: Living with Historic Buildings, Windows, Exterior Materials,Additions, and Garages/Outbuildings. Deliberations and Decision Commissioner Mindlin suggested two minor corrections to page one: 1) she stated the word"lavish"is used incorrectly in.the first paragraph,and 2)she stated the following sentence in paragraph three seems dated, "Wrought iron columns, asbestos shingles, and aluminum frame windows have only one thing in common—the local hardware store."She also commented that some of the language makes it sound like it is required and not advisory,and asked staff to clarify. Mr. Severson clarified for single family homes that do not require site review or a conditional use permit,the standards are advisory. He added the Historic Commission Review Board has the opportunity make recommendations to the applicant, and typically meets with homeowners or contractors and makes recommendations when the building permit is issued. Commissioner Mindlin asked what would happen if someone wants to tear down their home and build a brand new one. Mr. Severson stated the applicant would have to first obtain a demolition review permit, and the Historic Commission is notified and given opportunity to comment. He also clarified as part of the demolition review,the applicants must provide sufficient evidence that rehabilitation is financially unfeasible. Commissioner Dawkins voiced concern that the Standards don't have enough"teeth",and that ultimately it is all just a recommendation. Mr. Severson noted the Historic Preservation Plan outlines a request for the City to consider residential site review for homes in the historic districts, and review by the Historic Commission for things that do not require permits(replacement of siding, etc.). He added the Historic Commission has also voiced their desire to revise the demolition ordinance and give it more teeth. He clarified when the ordinance was first adopted, you could not prohibit demolition based on a structure's historic significance. He added as future grant cycles come up,this might be something the City wants to pursue. Commissioner Dawkins asked if the City could require an additional fee if people decide to not follow the standards;and Commissioner Miller asked if it is legal to have more restricted standards for single family homes in the historic districts. Mr. Molnar commented that 95%of people who purchase properties in historic areas do so because they like the resource and want to maintain those features. He stated more often than not people choose to follow the guidance given by the Historic Review. even if it is not mandatory. Mr. Severson commented that in some cases, removing the old building is not bad. He cited the LEED certified mixed-use development on A Street and stated the old building was dilapidated, had no discernable historic features, and Ashland Planning Commission March 13, 2012 Exhibit I Page 2 of 3 Exhibit I — DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes for March 13, 2012 was a non-contributing structure. He added there are some instances where demolition is appropriate and supported by the Historic Commission. Commissioner Marsh commented that one of the best things they can-do is to affirm as a community people's choices when we see them doing great projects;to give them easy to understand handouts, and to continue to applaud and promote the historical buildings in our community. She also suggested the City assemble a map of the national historic structures in Ashland and believes this would be a great promotional piece for the City. Commissioner Marsh noted the planning application at 400 Allison and questioned if the Flood Area Ratio issue that came up with that action has been resolved. Mr. Molnar indicated staff will add this to the list of items that need to be addressed. Commissioners Miller/Heesacker m/s to approve the Historic District Standards as revised and forward to the City Council. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Dawkins stated he is supportive of these standards, but would like to reopen this discussion as it relates to the Downtown Plan, particularly on Lithia Way. Suggestion was made for this to be an agenda topic at the Commission's annual retreat.Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6.0. Commissioner Dawkins commented further on Lithia Way. He stated this is a transition zone and suggested they discuss rezoning the north side of the street. He commented on the Northlight property and suggested this area be rezoned as high density residential;and stated a viable downtown needs smaller housing units where people can live,work, and walk. He added he does not believe the downtown area needs to get any bigger. Comment was made questioning if the City has the ability to rezone a property and increase the density to allow for a much taller building. Staff clarified this is possible, however when you rezone a piece of property you do not own, it is best to have support from the property owner. Commissioner Mindlin stated she has some of the same concerns as Dawkins and noted her desire to talk about pocket neighborhoods and denser neighborhood communities. Commissioner Marsh stated she would like to hear about the research Mindlin has done in these areas and asked her to bring this forward for discussion at the retreat. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas,Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission March 13, 2012 Exhibit I Page 3 of 3 Exhibit J - Existing Historic Design Standards (for reference) SECTION IV Historic District Development A. Development in Ashland's Historic District Ashland's Historic District is very important to all of the City's residents. Not only does this area contain the City's beginnings, but it is also the area of some of the most prominent landmarks in Ashland, excluding the Plaza, East Main Street commercial area, Lithia Park, and many important residential districts. For the most part, the main architectural themes have already been laid down, and must be considered in the design of any new structures or renovation of existing structures. This does not mean that all new structures must be a lavish imitation of an architectural style whose heyday is past, but sensitivity to surrounding buildings and the existing land use patterns is essential to the successful development. While it is critical that buildings be made habitable and safe, it is equally imperative that the architectural character of a building be respected in the process of structural improvements. Unfortunately, this has not always been done in Ashland. The architectural merit of a building has too often been sacrificed for a more contemporary design. For this purpose, the following standards were conceived as,a guide to design decisions in the hope that the architectural integrity of Ashland's homes and commercial buildings will no longer be unnecessarily lost. It is suggested that you think of your building as a whole — a single unit with no removable parts. Every change that you make can chip away at the integrity of the whole, like surgery. Efforts to personalize and update the building will leave you with an assortment of miscellaneous parts that bear no relation to each other, or to the original design. Wrought iron columns, asbestos shingles and aluminum frame windows have only one thing in common —the local hardware store. Older buildings in Ashland were built one at a time and such added options can obscure their individuality. Restoration, Rehabilitation and Remodeling Because there is so much activity these days in the improvement of older housing, new terminology has been introduced. The difference between "resorting", "rehabilitating", and "remodeling" may seem academic, but each results in a major difference in the way the job or project may turn out. To "restore" is to return a building to its original condition as if it were a precious museum piece. This technique it typically used for structures of particular significance, such as historic landmarks where accuracy will serve an educational purpose as well as a visual one. Restoration is the most painstaking improvement process and usually the most expensive because it requires technical skill and historical precision for successful results. It can involve the removal of extraneous elements as well as the recreation of original features which may have become deteriorated or been destroyed. A fine example of a restoration project in Ashland is the Swedenberg home found on Siskiyou Boulevard. Great care has been taken to assure that the architectural integrity of the building exterior is practically identical to that when it was built in the early 1900s. Remodeling a building is normally at the opposite end of the improvement spectrum from restoration. Unless it is done with sensitivity, to remodel a building is to redesign it so that �,, Ashland Site Design 8 Use Standards Exhibit J Page 1 of 8 Exhibit J - Existing Historic Design Standards (for reference) the generic features are obliterated and the basic character destroyed in the name of modernization. A remodeling job is to often considered a success if the original structure is unrecognizable in the end result. Remodeling is appropriately used for buildings which were constructed of inferior materials or for the buildings which have fallen into a state of disrepair due to vacancy or vandalism. Remodeling can also be a proper course of action when a structure undergoes a change in use, say from a single-family residence to commercial office space. Unfortunately, it is quite common for a house to be remodeled and totally divested of its valuable characteristics when conditions do not require such radical treatment. Hence, the expression "remodel" can have bad connotations. To many people it suggests a waste of valuable resources. It is possible, however„to remodel with sensitivity, especially with the help of a talented architect. To "rehabilitate" is to take corrective measures which will make a structure livable again. Some aspects of rehabilitation entail renovation and the introduction of new elements. Fore example, it is likely that outmoded electrical circuits would be required to be brought up to code to ensure safety and to provide adequate service for today's modern appliances. When rehabilitating a building, it is essential to protect the structural and decorative characteristics which belong to the architectural style. These are the very features through which the visual integrity and the economic value of the building are preserved. Modern elements shall only be introduced absolutely necessary, and in a manner which is sympathetic to the original design. An excellent example of a successful rehabilitation is the Ashland Community Center on Winbum Way. The rewards of sensitive home improvements are many. First there is the satisfaction of . knowing you have done the job right. Second, there is the gratification from compliments of other people who appreciate what you have done. Third, there is the pleasure of living in an attractive, comfortable and historically preserved home. While these benefits are difficult to measure, such restoration or rehabilitation can result in significant economic benefits. A perceptive combination of restoration and remodeling will actually contribute to the resale value of your home. Finally, a good rehabilitation project can be surprisingly influential on an entire neighborhood. The City of Ashland has adopted ordinances to assure that all development, including development in the Historic District, remains compatible with the existing integrity of the district. In new construction of a single-family residence, the Historic Commission will use these standards to make recommendations to the applicant. If an applicant requires a Staff Permit, Site Review, or a Conditional Use Permit which involves new construction, a remodel, or any use greater than a single-family use, the authority exists in the law for the Staff Advisor and the Planning Commission to require modifications in the design to match these standards. In this case the Historic Commission advises both the applicant and the Staff Advisor or other City decision maker. �a, Ashland Site Design& Use Standards Exhibit J Page 2 of 8 Exhibit J - Existing Historic Design Standards (for reference) B. Rehabilitation and Remodel Standards The purpose of the following standards is to prevent incompatible structures and design and ensure the proper use of materials and details within the Historic District: IV-13-1 Be sure the remodeled portion has exterior wall finish that matches the existing or original material. IV-B-2 Design window additions are to duplicate existing or original windows. IV-B-3 Design the roof on additions or remodels to have the same pitch as the original pitch as the original roof. Extend the ridge lines where possible. On one-story rear additions, shed roofs are acceptable. IV-13-4 Match the style of any porch or entry addition to the original or existing style of the front of the structure. IV-13-5 Match the colors of any additions to the colors used on the existing exterior. IV-13-6 Try to rehabilitate and restore as many features as possible. IV-B-7 Sawn shingle and, for economy composition roofs are preferred. Asphalt shingles which match existing color and texture are acceptable. Shake shingles, tile and metal roofs are not compatible with most Ashland architectural styles (there are a few exceptions). IV-B-8 Diagonal and vertical siding are not compatible in most cases. IV-13-9 Imitative materials such as asphalt siding, wood textured aluminum siding or artificial stone are not compatible. IV-B-10 Any detached structures shall be compatible with the existing building and conform to the above standards. IV-B-11 Styles of other eras or locals, such as Tudor and Western styles are to be avoided. �,, Ashland Site Design 8 Use Standards Exhibit J Page 3 of 8 Exhibit J - Existing Historic Design Standards (for reference) 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 Commission for new development and renovation of existing structures within the Historic District: IV-C-1 Height RECOMMENDED AVOID non 0 Ynol 00 Construct buildings to a height of existing Avoid construction that greatly varies buildings from the historic period on and in height (too high or too low)from across the street. older buildings in the vicinity. IV-C-2 Scale RECOMMENDED AVOID 0 6 6 0 0 e E m e Relate the size and proportions of new Avoid buildings that in height, width, or structures to the scale of adjacent buildings massing, violate the existing scale of the area. �1r, Ashland Site Design 8 Use Standards Exhibit J Page 4 of 8 Exhibit J - Existing Historic Design Standards (for reference) IV-" Massing RECOMMENDED AVOID m a m0 ® n n Break up uninteresting boxlike forms info Avoid single, monolithic forms that are smaller, varied masses which are common not relieved by variations in massing. on most buildings from the historic period. IV-C-4 Setback RECOMMENDED AVOID � 8 � A 8 Maintain the historic fagade lines of Avoid violating the existing setback streetscapes by locating front walls of new pattern by placing new building in front buildings in the same plane as the facades or behind the historic fagade line. of adjacent buildings. CAI Ashland Site Design a Use Standards Exhibit J Page 5 of 8 Exhibit J - Existing Historic Design Standards (for reference) IV-C-5 Roof Shaves RECOMMENDED AVOID Wn e Relate the new roof forms of the building to Avoid introducing roof shapes, pitches, those found in the area. or materials not traditionally used in the area. IV-C-6 Rhythm of Openings RECOMMENDED AVOID 8 8 8 8 a a e Respect the alternation of wall areas with Avoid introducing incompatible fagade door and window elements in the fagade. patterns that upset the rhythm of Also consider the width-to-height ratio of opening established by the bays in the fagade. surrounding structures. �1j, Ashland Site Design& Use Standards Exhibit J Page 6 of 8 Exhibit J - Existing Historic Design Standards (for reference) IV-C-7 Platforms RECOMMENDED AVOID The use of a raised platform is a traditional Avoid bringing the walls of buildings siting characteristic of most of the older straight out of the ground without a buildings in Ashland. sense of platform. IV-C-8 Directional Expression RECOMMENDED_ AVOID Relate the vertical, horizontal or Avoid horizontal or vertical fagade nondirectional fagade character of new expressions unless they are buildings to the predominant directional compatible with the character of ° expression of nearby buildings. structures in the immediate area. 1.5, Ashland Site Design& Use Standards Exhibit J_ Page 7 of 8 Exhibit J - Existing Historic Design Standards (for reference) IV-C-9 Sense of Entry RECOMMENDED AVOID OD g g ea Articulate the main entrances to the building Avoid fagades with no strong sense of with covered porches, porticos, and other entry. pronounced architectural forms. IV-C-10 Imitations RECOMMENDED AVOID Utilize accurate restoration of, or visually Avoid replicating or imitating the styles, compatible additions to, existing buildings. motifs, or details of older periods. Such For new construction, traditional architecture attempts are rarely successful and, that well represents our own time, yet even if well done, present a confusing enhances the nature and character of the picture of the true character of the historic district should be used. historical area. �1, Ashland Site Design&Use Standards Exhibit J Page 8 of 8 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication April 3, 2012 Business Meeting Approval of Two Quitclaim Deeds to Terminate a Bicycle and Pedestrian Easement in Wildcreek Subdivision FROM: James Olson, Engineering Services Manager, olsonj @ashland.or.us SUMMARY The pending development of the Tolman Meadows Subdivision will dedicate Blue Sky Lane, a riew public street, located west of Tolman Creek Road which will support six new residential lots. This development will also provide bicycle and pedestrian connectivity between Apple Way and Tolman Creek Road through several easements, as well as the public street. The newly acquired easements will replace an existing easement which was never developed and which does not provide a connection to Blue Sky Lane. The Council is asked to terminate the existing pedestrian easement in favor of the newly created easement, which will provide a continuous bicycle and pedestrian way from Apple Way to Tolman Creek Road. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Wildcreek Subdivision was developed in 1995 and was situated between the second and third phases of Briggs Subdivision,just south of Apple Way. The subdivision contained only five lots but included a vast array of various types of easements including public utility, access, irrigation, drainage way and bicycle and pedestrian easements. The bicycle and pedestrian easement, where it crosses a tributary of Hamilton Creek was not well defined and contained over 8,400 square feet or 25 percent of Lot 3. The bike and pedestrian trail was never constructed and the easement was granted overly large so that a future creek crossing could be constructed where it would best fit through the natural and manmade obstacles along Hamilton Creek. It was intended that the bicycle and pedestrian trail would be built when another development provided the final connection to Tolman Creek Road, which has not happened until now. Unfortunately, the previously planned route through Lots 3 and 4 of the Wildcreek Subdivision is not the best nor preferred routing for the bike and pedestrian trail. This alignment would require a long span creek crossing, multiple narrow, ninety degree turns and disruption within the riparian corridor. The development of this trail under current riparian protection ordinances would be difficult. It is proposed that an alternate route be created for the bike and pedestrian trail utilizing the existing creek crossing that was developed as a paved access way to Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Wildcreek Subdivision. The Tolman Meadows Subdivision will provide a revised alignment for construction of the bicycle and pedestrian trail that will utilize existing paved access ways. This would eliminate any additional work within the riparian corridor and would provide a more usable and direct route to Blue Sky Lane. Some of the required easements would be dedicated on the plat of the Tolman Meadows Subdivision while Pagel of 3 CITY OF ASHLAND two easements must be granted from adjacent property owners. To accomplish this, the following actions would be required: 1. Create a new public bicycle and pedestrian easement over the existing private access way easement which serves Lots 1, 2, and 3. (done) 2. Create a new public bike and pedestrian easement along the east boundary of Lot 2 over an existing private access easement. (pending) 1 Create a new public bike and pedestrian easement with the dedication of the Tolman Meadows Subdivision to connect to Blue Sky Subdivision. (pending) With the dedication and acceptance of the easements described above, the City should terminate the previous bike and pedestrian easement. POLICY: The disposal of any publicly owned property or interest in property is governed under ORS section 221.725 which requires the following actions: I. Except as provided in ORS 221.727, when a city council considers it necessary or convenient to sell real property or any interest therein, the city council shall publish a notice of the proposed sale in a newspaper of general circulation in the city, and shall hold a public hearing concerning the sale prior to the sale. 2. The notice required by subsection (1) of this section shall be published at least once during the week prior to the public hearing required under this section. The notice shall state the time and place of the public hearing, a description of the property or interest to be sold, the proposed uses for the property and the reasons why the city council considers it necessary or convenient to sell the property. Proof of publication of the notice may be made as provided by ORS 193.070. 3. Not earlier than five days after publication of the notice, the public hearing concerning the sale shall be held at the time and place stated in the notice. Nothing in this section prevents a city council from holding the hearing at any regular or special meeting of the city council as part of its regular agenda. 4. The nature of the proposed sale and the general terms thereof, including an appraisal or other evidence of the market value of the property, shall be fully disclosed by the city council at the public hearing. Any resident of the city shall be given an opportunity to present written or oral testimony at the hearing. 5. As used in this section and ORS 221.727, "sale" includes a lease-option agreement under which the lessee has the right to buy the leased real property in accordance with the terms specified in the agreement. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial obligations for the City for this action. The cost of document preparation and recording, as well as the cost of constructing the trail will be bome entirely by the developer of the Tolman Meadows Subdivision. Page 2 of 3 I`, CITY OF -ASH LAN D STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of the attached two quitclaim deeds which would terminate the City's interest in that bicycle and pedestrian easement granted to the City in 1995 on the plat of the Wildcreek Subdivision. In conjunction with the approval of the quitclaim deeds, the City Administrator should also be granted the authority to sign the attached agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions. These instructions set forth the obligations of each of the parties of this action, including Estelle H. Weller, Roy Marvin, and the City of Ashland. These actions include: • Voeller— Grant a bicycle and pedestrian easement to the City. • City— Execute the quitclaim deeds terminating the existing bicycle and pedestrian easements over Lots 3 and 4. • Marvin— Construct the bicycle and pedestrian way including all adjacent improvements. The order of signing should be: 1. The City Administrator to sign the escrow instruction documents immediately upon council approval. 2. The two quitclaim deeds should be signed by the Mayor following receipt of all needed easement documents which would create the new bicycle and pedestrian way. SUGGESTED MOTION: Move to approve two quitclaim deeds to terminate a bicycle and pedestrian easement in Wildcreek Subdivision and authorize the City Administrator to sign the escrow instructions. ATTACHMENTS: Vicinity map Detail map Escrow Instructions Quitclaim Deed Photos Page 3 of 3 IL, CITY OF ASHLAND VICINITY MAP 2012 Termination of Bicycle and Pedestrian Easement Z � - WIMER'ST O '. E'NERSEY'SS l i _,.•.. . E'MY1S�N.ST _.. .......... el 3 a Y V 3 "O F i G -e N W cm 0r •sxuw ,`1 w B' r—c.O P.NYmaO FIIeIICWOl DEFT. ... ..NYUr FeMrm MBLICatlYC wv. 0 . F cN umu O 1 inch--2,500 feet Miles 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 vicinity_map_8x11_bikeped WILDGREEK 5U5i71\/1510 1 v A Planned Gommunity w. JN+•�4 3 i ' LOCATED in Parcel No. I of Partition Plat No. P-7-I9g4 8 Lot 10, BRI665 SUBDIVISION UNIT NO. 3, and •• In the NW 1/4 of5ectlon 23, T. 3G S., R. I E., KM., City of Ashland, Jackson Gountyl Oregon. �I # 'SURVEYED FOR: snr+y.MSm. 4 October 16, ICIC15 .�Ta w�.N•� � I � �— EASEMENT TO BE TERMINATED ' LINE DATA TABLE �¢ �� °x*"'�°°" w. .etww4 i p5i� SURVEYED BY: ei.orb Srvuyig odtodrnwBlz. wrx9a _ .ww•rm ws'-. ZT e]a waa eer.ss-..e -------- ' ,a.ai nss'•aM .,m rymf cr yo+vav 11•, . n bw.aervssnrm w•oemsw+' Lam. ' „r;1. S�yS�.L. .°+� s wne+. 390IL'£94N49vbD - e 1C ry . •'[ia- . .j+�f.'• L e�. d� zrrwM 4� bab Pmt tr+yar 4SS2° . d IM•w y mm ' .......,� i w' :: .Yy'•'..: ' �Y•,::' • ffery/S!S]!A-X6I I m vwmtcwr A �i.'.s'^"..'•i��?s'•'i•r�•i it r.+...caer. o '°°•sw,. nrr 1* I Aay.t.e TOn las 9D9 1f .••:a�i��tt7:::.•,rp r•«.ea9°a a w�m�i'o9i.'r �' seeistrsl° P4 I I F'N� yp f mod ' t•, ' �,,,.Kr�ti...:ewaa re•omti, xr, I r nily M1ds pl°I to b• °n •eattaa lO NAt # 1385 4 ii�j r °. u b°mW+• n'm' °% Ph°SURVEY;"ho. R •4' 84 •�•�• AND SU RVEYO a.,....... 1.T�._.i>ile_.._._ _..._.%Nfssw g i �. r..'.'.". pR • _:y � / �' F w....'�'�r.r..� +ams °n 1 1 •wWitr wa> ; r,�/ I +••�•A+/aw y .�.N.q �y WYDA&N'YL� 1 i� / � F[' rprMr.w•yrar r✓r.� as ��;� • � j .af• � r,e ti.r..�a.,..e.....rsws...• -«w+: a LEGEND , # 1395 d e'.i s.�� '1. . -sr•.eNys wow a ar e K I I .. _ /�ty��—...s�.�.�• uN' i YKKmws v 1.P w]Il]'dtm Lot . :1 # 1400 O �" I WIT W.3 6� Lot 9 Trn.ea No.3 NN sq. 0 I � # o P TJ' 1405 p.r aaaes sma.MIT W.33 W.MI.ss I:wd Lot TdN� i _ r E � F l a • eg ml 3H•al°. 1.Pei .3 i m:e.•m.s Tsn• v pR11a65 xlao.L«Ir No.9 rw.P.I.»..t.e.n,.ne•.. E� 4 8 • LHIW ve•do^.S 3b.1 Ph w.d plow°cap is r , arr,•ww rva•' i I" er-yvw aeY 3 g _ NOTES: mk6 bA.C)YMADiS]A9'f0.Wr?It %I9. { Y I ..r•rrn�rw 1 I duf:sm pear IH.or:r+l.p a Uielea4>9/D'.21'5W I pn,NMed pw•!K eap VA EtMWADr 5 Z'.99'•.l. I : /�n+WYr 1.�Wury... M rol fa HtKt MY pfopsly ' i :' ' ] / rs✓� M]P •aN°vrNPd IF.•0a W laek°r C TdKOI..Wb-+W.U l P W.d p1.4,eq �L Iri:•r°° ' Iss••a•aM l9.]•a �� a#d. TA lDWAADS-L9 2599'NR r ' �. ' '� ✓1 nrr.N m a..rnpela,°r a.�, wMwta txC.val.999. 4 w. (1.Omslo oMl ncwd aaN ryr BN44a SUED.UNIT W.] EASEMENT TO BE CREATED ;;^�•rrn.-•° r�,IKa o-eKa�•ml�yK.�• I V %pg.96 ctty 1 ma IM yr . y O' p.erl.99, =a•c.se smmrs biKp9Ta o-.gpv4lwR Emaw:N r.p.r plat d CAI6!/19 1011 I]� 1/ /+�p,• T .. - MIT)10.91n1.sa wf.d aYrnw. c.rc•rorc . VD.�Talwt!IrcgalKn pbMC! nb 9%.yy.y Nn r U.:HNU.H6Y Ya! fO I •i 'A.O:ap•src oaa ra.,mf.w N.s>d.rcr,acl[im c -t,0,.gm G.URVE DATA TABLE II r 6''� ww.Aa".W°,u"w... M1c ].; r<co' No. 41GNO CN0.11 Ul':Nip MDIUS ArtL O TA rro'.l a+n r be.r+.u�. Iv M ur GAS•C.4.•' N1+60. T.Wete'a a!tW'N-SaM ants 11v -141 l k ...s]n..reuss•am .ee•ua aav ana • n' ..e.rH.e kamw wee.Lacb.n eom5'+a"M ! I. wllq) xW'N q' .!M D•'IY»' NOAA MR p.IV.IY..WarY�gppw P V w•. aon ••m u' u Irwe unl.r INa nnvrMIT n 9 V way pw tN. Nw'.n.s yea•• iaa. -u»• ybt d BF1665 5SD.Ie11T W.9 I ®•Iw•ua+M azesz0 O .e• . CIVIL IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR TOLMAN MEADOWS SUBDIVISION . LOCATED IN SECTION 23, T. 39 S, R. I E, W.M. (TAX LOT 308, 501) CITY OF ASHLAND JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON BIKE & PED WAY ------------------� I II , ' I 6 I0{ J 6 :; :CST/� h.���•.. Jr BLUE SKY LN. ° PRIVATE .. _ s • I;; 't I 2 � f 1 I � - - - T - �' i i _ i .• i - i i i I I i AGREEMENT AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS THIS AGREEMENT is executed by and among ESTELLE H.VOELLER("Voeller"),ROY MARVIN,Trustee of the Malibar Group,LLC Retirement Plan("Malibar"),and the CITY OF ASHLAND,OREGON,a municipal corporation("City of Ashland"). Recitals: A. Voeller owns the real property described as Lot 3 of the Wild Creek Subdivision,a Planned Community in the City of Ashland,Jackson County,Oregon (the"Voeller Property"). B. Malibar owns the real property described as Lot 4 of the Wild Creek Subdivision,a Planned Community in the City of Ashland,Jackson County,Oregon(the"Malibar Property"). C. The City of Ashland is the approving authority for development applications in Ashland, Oregon,and is authorized on behalf of the public to establish and terminate easements for the benefit of the public. D. The parties desire to enter into this Agreement to facilitate the development of the Malibar Property and modification of easements located on the Voeller Property. IT IS THEREFORE AGREED as follows: 1. Transaction. Voeller agrees to grant a pedestrian easement across her property as detailed below provided Malibar provides the improvements described below and the City of Ashland terminates its existing pedestrian easement across the Voeller Property. Malibar agrees to provide the improvements to the Voeller Property provided Voeller executes the pedestrian casement described below. The City of Ashland agrees to terminate the existing pedestrian easement provided Voeller executes the replacement public easement and Malibar provides said improvements. 2. Closing Date. The transactions contemplated by this Agreement shall be closed in escrow with Phyllis Strosser at Ticor Title Insurance. Malibar shall pay all costs associated with the escrow. The Closing Date shall be the date all of the conditions required herein have been met(the "Closing Date"). 3. Obligations of the Parties. 3.1 Obligation of Voeller. As a condition of closing for the City of Ashland and Malibar's benefit, Voeller agrees to execute and now deposit with the title company the Bicycle and Pedestrian easement attached as Exhibit"1". 3.2 Obligation of City of Ashland. As a condition of closing for the benefit of Voeller and Malibar,the City of Ashland agrees to execute and now deposit with the title company the Quitclaim Deed and Termination of Easement attached as Exhibit"T'. 1 -Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions 3.3 Obligation of Malibar. As a condition of closing for the benefit of Voeller and the City of Ashland,Malibar agrees to complete the following tasks prior to closing: 3.3.1 Finish the road bed at the west side of the Voeller Property with asphalt to its west boundary. This paving shall occur in connection with the installation of the infrastructure for Phase 1 of the Tolman Meadows Subdivision. Any damage to the roadway or ancillary facilities shall be paid for by Malibar. 3.3.2 Install a concrete sidewalk along the boundary between Lots 2 and 3. Both the paving and the sidewalk will meet City specifications. In addition,the sidewalk will be engineered in such a manner as not to cause surface water to drain onto the Voeller Property. Malibar shall obtain Voeller's approval of the plans for the sidewalk prior to commencement of construction. 3.3.3 Arrange for the relocation of the Talent Irrigation District connection serving Lot 3,as necessary,due to the foregoing improvements. This relocation shall meet all the Talent Irrigation District specifications. 3.3.4 Ensure the construction of the sidewalk and roadway shall not impair drainage capabilities of the existing surface drain on the west side of the Voeller Property. If necessary,a second catch basin will be installed west of the sidewalk of sufficient size to handle runoff from Lots 2 and 4. 4. Conditions of Closing. Each party's obligation under this Agreement is subject to the satisfaction at or prior to closing of all the other parties'obligations under this Agreement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing,Voeller's obligations under this Agreement are contingent upon the completion of the construction work performed by Malibar to Voeller's reasonable satisfaction. 5. Miscellaneous. 5.1 Binding Effect. This Agreement will be binding on and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective heirs,personal representatives,successors,and [permitted]assigns. 5.2 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which will he considered an original and all of which together will constitute one and the same agreement. 5.3 Facsimile Simiatures. Facsimile.transmission of any signed original document, and retransmission of any signed facsimile transmission,will be the same as delivery of an original. At the request of any party, the parties will confirm facsimile transmitted signatures by signing an original document. 5.4 Further Assurances. Each party agrees(a)to execute and deliver such other documents and(b)to do and perform such other acts and things,as any other party may reasonably request,to carry out the intent and accomplish the purposes of this Agreement. 5.5 Attorney Fees. If any arbitration,suit,or action is instituted to interpret or enforce the provisions of this Agreement,to rescind this Agreement,or otherwise with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement,the party prevailing on an issue will be entitled to recover with respect 2-Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions to such issue, in addition to costs,reasonable attorney fees incurred in the preparation,prosecution, or defense of such arbitration,suit,or action as determined by the arbitrator or trial court,and if any appeal is taken from such decision,reasonable attorney fees as determined on appeal. 5.6 Entire Agreement. This Agreement(including the documents and instruments referred to in this Agreement)constitutes the entire agreement and understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement and supersedes all prior understandings and agreements,whether written noor oral,among the parties with respect such subject matter. STELLE H.WELLER Date "Voeller" THE MALIB ROUP:E-'L`'C' _ r B)OPPY MARVIN Date Tru ee of the Malibar Group, LLC CITY OF ASHLAND,a Municipal Corporation By: DAVE KANNER Date City Administrator STATE OF OREGON ) ) ss County of Jackson ) On this') day 0f`7Q6v-eh ,2012,personally appeared the above-named Estelle H. Voeller and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be a�voluntary act. Before me: / OFFICIAL SEAL �'" WN CALDWELL Notary Public for Oregon /4 �NOTAFRY PUBLIC-OREGON My Commission Expires: (R T " �!0. 450667 s IGUST 28,2014 County of Jackson ) On this 5 day ofJ?)Ar" ,2012,personally appeared the above-named Roy Marvin and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be a voluntary act. Before m Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: ! .!)4J 1 '� 3 -Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions OFFICIAL SEAL DAWN CALDWELL NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON NY COMMISSION EXPIRES UGUST 28,2014 STATE OF OREGON ) ss County of Jackson ) On this_day of ,2012,personally appeared the above-named Dave Kanner,City Administrator for the City of Ashland,Jackson County,Oregon,and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be a voluntary act and executed with authority of the City of Ashland. Before me: Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: DAVIS,HEARN &BRIDGES A Prolegiml Ompmallon 515 EAST AWN STREET ASHLAND,OREGON 97520 Deed 4- (541)482-3111 FAX(541)458-4455 �A.A.hea EXHIBIT PAGE OF Easement Estelle H. Weller, Grantor 3784 Coleman Creek Road Medford, OR 97501 City of Ashland, Grantee 20 E. Main Street Ashland,OR 97520 After Recording Return To; Barbara Christensen, City Recorder 20 E. Main Street Ashland,OR 97520 PERMANENT BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT FOR CITY OF ASHLAND 1. Grant of Easement. The above named Grantor ,grants to the City of Ashland, Oregon, "Grantee", a perpetual non-exclusive easement in gross to use, operate, inspect, repair, maintain and remove and replace a public pedestrian and bicycle easement across, along and upon the real property described below and further referred to in this easement agreement as the "Basement Area". The Easement Area can be utilized for pedestrian and bicycle access only. The Easement Area is located in Jackson County, Oregon and is described as: The 25 foot wide mutual private access and public utility easement dedicated on the Plat for Wildcreek Subdivision recorded April 19, 1996 in Volume 21 of the Plats at Page 18 of the Records of Jackson County, Oregon, and depicted on the Wildcreek Subdivision Plat Map as "Private Access Easement". 2. Non-Exclusive Use of the Easement. This easement is non-exclusive and Grantor expressly reserves the right to use the Easement Area for all lawful purposes jointly and in common with Grantee for the benefit of all or any portion of the Grantor's Property. In addition, the owners of Lots 1 and 2 in the Wildcreek Subdivision have a pre-existing private access easement, and such owners have a right to use the Easement Area for vehicular ingress and egress as well as utility access in the Easement Area jointly and in common with Grantee. 3. Maintenance. The Easement shall be maintained by a Homeowners Association to be established for the Tolman Meadows Subdivision or Planned Community. The owner of Lot 4 of the Wildcreek Subdivision shall be responsible for establishing such Homeowners Association and ensuring the assumption of maintenance obligations by that Association. The parties to this Agreement agree that the maintenance of the Easement shall be governed by this instrument in conjunction with the maintenance obligations contained within Instrument No. 96- Revised 2/28/12 EXHIBIT PAGE-J-_OF 12488, recorded in the Jackson County, Oregon Deed Records. The Tolman Meadows Association shall be responsible for the removal of obstructions along with any vegetation which grows on the access way. It shall also be responsible for sealing cracks which may develop, to keep the access way safe for pedestrians and bicycles, but any replacement of the pavement shall be controlled by the terms of Instrument No. 96-12488, as well as the repair of damage caused by an owner of Wildcreek Lots 1 —3 or their invitees and licensees. 4. Indemnification. Grantee, its successors, assigns, agents and invitees, shall indemnify and hold Grantor, its successors, assigns, agents and invitees, harmless against any claim for injury to person or property which occurs, or is alleged to have occurred, during the course of a crossing of Grantor's land by any person, other than Grantor and grantor's successors and assigns. This shall include any settlement, judgment and costs of defense, including legal fees and disbursements. 5. Prior Encumbrances. This easement is granted subject to all prior easements or encumbrances of record. 6. Easement Use by Public. The parties to this Agreement intend that the use by the public of the Easement shall be for recreational, pedestrian and bicycle access and any such use shall be construed in observance of the policies and activities contemplated under ORS 105.672- 700. GRANTOR: ESTELLE H. WELLER Date MALIBAR GROUP,LLC RETIREMENT PLAN; OWNER OF LOT 4 OF WILDCREEK SUBDIVISION: ROY MARVIN, Trustee of the Malibar Date' Group, LLC Retirement Plan GRANTEE: CITY OF ASHLAND By: DAVE KANNER, City Administrator Date Revised 2/28/12 EXHIBIT j - PAGE 3 OF STATE OF OREGON ) ss. County of Jackson ) On this day of 2012, personally appeared the above- named ESTELLE H. WELLER and acknowledged the foregoing Permanent Bicycle and Pedestrian Easement to be her voluntary act and deed. Before me: Notary Public for Oregon STATE OF OREGON ) ss. County of Jackson ) On this- day of 2012, personally appeared the above- named ROY MARVIN, who being sworn, stated that he is a Trustee of the Malibar Group, LLC Retirement Plan, an Oregon limited liability company, and that the foregoing instrument was voluntarily signed on behalf of said limited liability company and by authority of its Operating Agreement. Before me: Notary Public for Oregon Revised 2/28/12 EXHIBIT PAGEp STATE OF OREGON ) ss. County of Jackson ) On this_day of February,2012,personally appeared the above-named Dave Kanner, City Administrator for the City of Ashland, and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be a Voluntary act. Before me: Notary Public for Oregon Revised 2/28/12 EXHIBIT"2" UNLESS A CHANGE IS REQUESTED, ALL TAX STATEMENTS SHALL BE SENT TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: No change AFTER RECORDING,RETURN TO: Timothy L.Jackie Foster Denman,LLP Post Office Box 1667 Medford,OR 97501 QUITCLAIM DEED AND TERMINATION OF EASEMENT CITY OF ASHLAND, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, Grantor, releases and quitclaims to ESTELLE H. VOELLER,Grantee,all right,title and interest in and to the real property located in Jackson County,Oregon, and legally described as Lot 3,W ildcreek Subdivision,City of Ashland,County of Jackson and State or Oregon,for purposes of extinguishing the easement delineated as a Pedestrian and Bicycle Easement on the W ildcreek Subdivision Plat recorded April 19, 1996 in Volume 21 of Plats at Page 18 of the Records of Jackson County,Oregon. The true consideration for this conveyance is other value given. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON TRANSFERRING FEE TITLE SHOULD INQUIRE ABOUT THE PERSON'S RIGHTS,IF ANY, UNDER ORS 195300, 195.301 AND 195.305 TO 195.336 AND SECTIONS 5 TO 11, CHAPTER 424, OREGON LAWS 2007. THIS INSTRUMENT DOES NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY THAT THE UNIT OF LAND BEING TRANSFERRED'IS A LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED LOT OR PARCEL,AS DEFINED IN ORS 92.010 OR 215.010,TO VERIFY THE APPROVED USES OF THE LOT OR PARCEL, TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES,AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930, AND TO INQUIRE ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, IF ANY, UNDER ORS 195.300, 195.301 AND 195.305 TO 195.336 AND SECTIONS 5 TO 11,CHAPTER 424,OREGON LAWS 2007. DATED this_day of.2011. CITY OF ASHLAND,OREGON an Oregon municipal corporation By: Its: Exhibit"2"—.Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions STATE OF OREGON ) )ss. County of Jackson ) On this day of September, 2011,. personally appeared the above-named who being sworn, stated that he/she is the of the CITY OF ASHLAND, a municipal corporation, and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be his/her voluntary act and deed,and executed the document on behalf of the CITY OF ASHLAND. - Before me: Notary Public for Oregon Exhibit"2"—Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions Grantor: City of Ashland 20 E Main Street Ashland OR 97520 Grantee: Estelle H.Voeller 3784 Coleman Creek Road Medford OR 97501 When Recorded Mail To: Jack Davis 515 E.Main Street Ashland,OR 97520 • (Phis Space for Recorder's Use) QUITCLAIM DEED AND TERMINATION OF EASEMENT City of Ashland, a municipal corporation, hereby releases and quitclaims to Estelle H. Voeller all right, title and interest of the undersigned, if any, in and to that certain real property situated in Jackson County, Oregon, described as: Lot 3, Wildcreek Subdivision, City of Ashland, for purposes of extinguishing the easement delineated as a Pedestrian and Bicycle Easement on the Wildcreek Subdivision Plat recorded April 19, 1996 in Volume 21 of Plats at Page 18 of the Records of Jackson Couhty, Oregon. The true and actual consideration for this transfer is other value given. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT,THE PERSON TRANSFERRING FEE TITLE SHOULD INQUIRE ABOUT THE PERSON'S RIGHTS, IF ANY,UNDER ORS 195.300, 195.301 AND 195.305 TO 195.336 AND SECTIONS 5 TO 11, CHAPTER 424, OREGON LAWS 2007, AND SECTIONS 2 TO 9 AND 17, CHAPTER 855,OREGON LAWS 2009. THIS INSTRUMENT DOES NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY THAT THE UNIT OF LAND BEING TRANSFERRED IS A LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED LOT OR PARCEL, AS DEFINED IN ORS 92.010 OR 215.010, TO VERIFY THE APPROVED USES OF THE LOT OR PARCEL, TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES,AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930, AND TO INQUIRE ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY DAVIS,HEARN,BRIDGES &ANDERSON A ftfeasbiW Oarpmm on Quitclaim Deed and 515EASTMANSMEET ASHLAND,OREGON 97520 Termination of Easement -1- (SH)4823111 FAX 1641)AS8-4455 OWNERS, IF ANY, UNDER ORS 195.300, 195.301 AND 195.305 TO 195.336 AND SECTIONS 5 TO 11, CHAPTER 424, OREGON LAWS 2007,AND SECTIONS 2 TO 9 AND 17, CHAPTER 855, OREGON LAWS 2009 DATED this_day of 2012. CITY OF ASHLAND By: JOHN STROMBERG,Mayor City of Ashland STATE OF OREGON ) COUNTY OF JACKSON ) On this_day of , 2012,personally appeared the above-named John Stromberg,Mayor, and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be a voluntary act. Before me: Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: DAVIS,HF-ARN,BRIDGES &.ANDERSON A Pmfe al CoWaaan Quitclaim Deed and 51S EAST MAR!STREET ASHLAND,OREGON 97540 Termination of Easement -2- (541)4823111 FAX(54114584455 waw.d0vW*m.WM Grantor: Ciry of Ashland 26%Main Street Ashland OR 97520 Grantee: Maltbar Group,LLC Retirement Plan 1405 Tolman Greek Road Ashland OR 97520 When Recorded Mail To: Jack Davis 515 E.Main Street Ashland,OR 97520 (this Space for Recorder's Use) QUITCLAIM DEED AND TERMINATION OF EASEMENT City of Ashland, a municipal corporation,hereby releases and quitclaims to Malibar Group, LLC Retirement Plan dated November 1,2003, Roy Marvin,Trustee, all right, title and interest of the undersigned, if any,in and to that certain real property situated in Jackson County, State of Oregon, described as: Lot 4, Wildcreek Subdivision, City of Ashland, for purposes of extinguishing the easement delineated as a Pedestrian and Bicycle Easement on the Wildcreek Subdivision Plat recorded April 19, 1996 in Volume 21 of Plats at Page 18 of the Records of Jackson County, Oregon. The true and actual consideration for this transfer is other value given. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT,THE PERSON TRANSFERRING FEE TITLE SHOULD INQUIRE ABOUT THE PERSON'S RIGHTS, IF ANY,UNDER ORS 195.300, 195.301 AND 195.305 TO 195.336 AND SECTIONS 5 TO 11, CHAPTER 424,OREGON LAWS 2007, AND SECTIONS 2 TO 9 AND 17,CHAPTER 855, OREGON LAWS 2009. THIS INSTRUMENT DOES NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY THAT THE UNIT OF LAND BEING TRANSFERRED IS A LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED LOT OR PARCEL, AS DEFINED IN ORS 92.010 OR 215.010, TO VERIFY THE APPROVED USES OF THE LOT OR PARCEL,TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES,AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930, AND TO INQUIRE ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY DAvls,HEARN,DRUDGES &ANDERSON A PmleuhW CcrporaUw Quitclaim Deed and 575 FAST MAIN STREET ASHLAND.OREGON 57520 Termination of Easement -1- (54+)482-3111 FAX(5en<994455 wxw.davlaheam.cem OWNERS, IF ANY, UNDER ORS 195.300, 195.301 AND 195.305 TO 195.336 AND SECTIONS 5 TO 11, CHAPTER 424, OREGON LAWS 2007,AND SECTIONS 2 TO 9 AND 17, CHAPTER 855, OREGON LAWS 2009 DATED this_day of 2012. CITY OF ASHLAND By: JOHN STROMBERG,Mayor STATE OF OREGON ) COUNTY OF JACKSON . ) On this_day of 2012,personally appeared the above-named John Stromberg, Mayor, and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be a voluntary act. Before me: Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: ' DAvis,HEARN,BRIDGES &,wDERSON A PvolaW.W Ca,p.a J n Quitclaim Deed and 61SEASTAWN STREET t$WAND,OREGON 975W Termination of Easement -2- «'1J82�711 FAX(541)4%-4455 www.davishv=.w c �r�l Y �•�� Y �� P' f; ' Ili � r r . of Aqt ;la— -, s s • li fi'' `r. • f �I.� I _ - ._ ry - 14i1 ..--. r i `' 1. -- ,:♦ t;" .' <_ - — S~ f - 1 f r �. .. �� M;�� • ... �S� J;k- ji, , a t.' F N dIft. v. --... r i�� .1.1seT��'E-', r t``� e 1 �.` 'P•�I�J�-t l�/� � ^ f`e'S!t i�r F .� �"r'r.T' 'T.�C.t' .' 1F � •. �. _ �•- �( / -h'i / e�{''-+t � f'r/ 1.•�i� fir? f .� '¢. 1 � I1 � 4 1 �. .�:� '� , .1 ' � �' t ': CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication April 3, 2012 Business Meeting Update on Planning Commission Review of Ordinance Amendments from the Pedestrian Places Project that Apply in the Detail Site Review Zone and Throughout the City FROM: Bill Molnar, Director of Community Development, bill.molnar @ashland.or.us r SUMMARY Subsequent to the adoption of the Zoning Map and Ashland Land Use Ordinance amendments to implement the recommendations of the Pedestrian Places Project, the City Council raised the issue that the ordinance amendments that apply outside the Pedestrian Place Overlay were not fully understood. As a result, the Council directed the Planning Commission to review the ordinance amendments that apply to the Detail Site Review and throughout the city, and make recommendations to Council for changes as appropriate. The Planning Commission completed their review and made a recommendation to leave the recently adopted ordinance amendments in place, and suggested monitoring and revising the Arterial Street Setback Requirements and Pedestrian Access and Circulation requirements as found necessary over the next year. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: _ The City Council approved second reading of the ordinances amending the Zoning Map and Ashland Land Use Ordinance to implement the recommendations of the Pedestrian Places Project on November 15, 2011, and the revisions became effective on December 16, 2011. At the December 6, 2011 Council meeting, a question was raised regarding the amendments that apply throughout the City. At the December 20, 2011 meeting, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to review the ordinance changes made to the Detail-Site Review and city wide, and make recommendations to Council for changes as appropriate. The Planning Commission recommendation as well as the minutes from the Planning Commission meetings and the written comment received are included in pages 1-10 of the attachments. The Planning Commission held public hearings and deliberations on January 24 and February 28 to review the Pedestrian Place ordinance amendments that apply in the Detail Site Review Zone and throughout the city, and finalized their recommendation at the March 13, 2012 meeting. The January 24, 2012 Planning Commission meeting was properly noticed as a public hearing in the newspaper as required in Chapter 18.108 Procedures. Additionally, a postcard notice was mailed to property owners in the previously used notice area for the Pedestrian Places workshops and public hearings, as well as to property owners in the Detail Site Review Zone. The Planning Commission expressed appreciation for the opportunity to review the ordinance amendments applying outside the Pedestrian Place Overlay, and echoed the City Council's concern regarding the need for clarification of those amendments applying to the Detail Site Review Zone and Page ] of 4 CITY OF ASHLAND throughout the City. After reviewing and discussing each ordinance amendment by location, the Planning Commission focused on two primary issues—the Arterial Street Setback Requirement and Pedestrian Access and Circulation. SECTION 18.68.050 Arterial Street Setback Requirement Previous Standard: SECTION 18.68.050 Arterial Street Setback Requirements. To permit or afford better light, air and vision on more heavily traveled streets and on streets of substandard width, to protect arterial streets, and to permit the eventual widening of hereinafter named streets, every yard abutting a street, or portion thereof, shall be measured from the special base line setbacks listed below instead of the lot line separating the lot from the street. Street -.- Setback East Main Street, between City limits and Lithia Way r 35 feet Ashland Street (Highway 66) between 65 feet j City limits and Siskiyou Boulevard Also, front yards for properties abutting all arterial streets shall be no less than twenty (20) feet, with the exception of the CM and C-1-D districts and properties abutting Lithia Way in the C-1 district. New Standard: 18.68.050 Arterial Street Setback Requirement The setback from an arterial street shall be no less than twenty (20) feet, or the width required to install sidewalk and parkrow improvements consistent with the City of Ashland Street Standards in Section 18.88.020.x. whichever is less. The Planning Commission was concerned with understanding the application of the revised arterial setback to each of the arterial streets given the different character and conditions in place. There are five streets in Ashland which are designated as a Boulevard or arterial street—N. Main St., Lithia Way, E. Main St., Siskiyou Blvd. and Ashland St. The previous standard required a 20-foot front yard setback along arterial roads, but exempted the downtown (C-1-D), the properties abutting the north side of.Lithia Way (C-1) and the Croman Mill district from the 20-foot front yard setback on arterial streets. Additionally, a"special baseline setback" was required on E. Main St. and Ashland St. The new standard reserves the space-for a sidewalk and parkrow improvements to City Street Standards along the frontage of properties abutting arterial streets. The Planning Commission reviewed the revised ordinance requirements as applied to vacant and redevelopable sites along the various arterial streets. The analysis showed that using the new standard, typical developments in commercial and employment zoning districts would have the ability to move buildings approximately five to ten feet closer to the property line than under the previous standard Page 2 of 4 CITY OF ASHLAND while still providing a parkrow and sidewalk improvement to city standards. At the same time, residential setbacks ranging from ten to 20 feet from the property line abutting the arterial street remain unchanged, and thereby continue the established residential development pattern. Given that the existing and draft Transportation System Plan do not identify projects involving adding vehicle lanes to the arterial streets, the Planning Commission generally agreed that the new standard adequately addressed future transportation needs by reserving adequate space for future parkrow and sidewalk improvements. There was concern expressed about reserving adequate room for a bike lane on N. Main St. should the Road.Diet project not be implemented. Ultimately, the Planning Commission stated they were in agreement with the revised Section 18.68.050 Arterial Street Setback Requirement for Ashland St., E. Main St. and Siskiyou Blvd., but if the Road Diet does not occur, would like to revisit the setbacks on N. Main St. to address the bike lane issue. SECTION 18.92.080 Pedestrian Access and Circulation (new section) New Standards: See pages 30-32 of attachments. This is a new section that applies to multi-family and commercial development, and addresses: • extending walkway systems throughout developments and connecting to future phases of development, • providing safe, direct and convenient walkways between building entrances and adjacent streets • providing walkways within developments with multiple buildings between buildings and to parking areas, open spaces and other common areas • installing walkways through large parking lots of 50 spaces or more, or of more than 100 feet in average width and depth. • walkway systems are required to be extended "to the greatest extent practicable," and the standards specify that "topographic or existing development constraints may be cause for not making certain walkway connections." • walkway design and construction standards include: • walkway surface and width— concrete or other durable surface, and five feet wide • vehicle/walkway separation — raised and curbed walkway required through parking areas of 50 or more space or when adjacent to a driveway, but hearing authority may approve walkway at the same grade • crosswalks—provide crosswalks where walkways cross parking area or driveway, contrasting paving materials required for crosswalks greater than 24 feet in length • accessible routes— meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements • pedestrian scale lighting—provide pedestrian scale lighting no greater than 14 feet in height The Planning Commission was concerned about the impact of the Pedestrian Access and Circulation standards to smaller developments. Specifically, the issue of having to install a raised and curbed sidewalk along a driveway or through a parking lot for multi-family developments was raised. Staff prepared and the Commission reviewed several examples of parking areas of multi-family and commercial developments which showed that walkways across parking lots and along driveways would typically impact larger developments because most parking areas in Ashland are less than 50 Page 3 of 4 CITY OF ASHLAND parking spaces. There was agreement that the wording of the standards could be improved to clarify the flexibility to use a walkway at the same grade as a parking area or driveway, and that increasing the average width and depth measurements of large parking areas to greater than 100 feet, and excluding multi-family residential developments from the requirement to provide walkways through large parking areas could be items to consider. The Planning Commission recommended fine-tuning the ordinance language of the Pedestrian and Access Circulation standards as part of housekeeping updates over the next year. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: The Planning Commission recommended leaving the recently adopted ordinance amendments in place, and suggested monitoring and revising the Arterial Street Setback Requirements and Pedestrian Access and Circulation requirements as found necessary over the next year. Staff believes the Planning Commission made a thorough and thoughtful review of the ordinance amendments that apply in the Detail Site Review Zone and throughout the city, and supports the Planning Commission recommendation. SUGGESTED MOTION: Move to accept the Planning Commission recommendation to leave the recently adopted ordinance amendments in place that implement the recommendations of the Pedestrian Places Project, and direct the Planning Commission to monitor and suggest revisions to the Arterial Street Setback Requirements and Pedestrian and Circulation requirements as found necessary. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission.Recommendation for the Re-review of the Pedestrian Place Amendments, March 13, 2012 2. Background Material on Ordinance Amendments Applying to the Detail Site Review Zone and Throughout the City Page 4 of 4 FAA CITY OF ASHLAND RE-REVIEW OF THE PEDESTRIAN PLACES ORDINANCE TABLE OF CONTENTS ITEM fi NNW Planning Commission Recommendation: Planning Commission's Memo to City Council 1 January 24,2012 Planning Commission Minutes 2-5 February 28,2012 Planning Commission Minutes 6-8 March 13,2012 Planning Commission Minutes 9 Public Input Received from"pfm" 10 Background Material: Applicability of Ordinance Amendments by Location 11-16 Ordinance Amendments by Chapter 17-38 Map—Detail Site Review Overlay 39 Map—Detail Site Review Overlay&Pedestrian Places Overlay 40 Ordinance#3053 41-48 Ordinance#3054 49-79 CITY OF ASHLAND Memo DATE: March 13, 2012 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Planning Commission RE: Planning Commission Recommendation for the Re-review of Pedestrian Places Ordinance Amendments Recommendation: The Planning Commission reviewed the Pedestrian Place Ordinance Amendments that apply city-wide and in the Detail Site Review Zone, and recommends the revisions remain in place as adopted. The Commission believes the Arterial Street Setback Requirements and Pedestrian Access and Circulation requirements should be monitored, and revisions made over the next year as found necessary. Specifically, the Planning Commission is in agreement with the revised Section 18.68.050 Arterial Street Setback Reouirements for Ashland St., E. Main St. and Siskiyou Blvd., but if the Road Diet does not occur,would like to revisit the setbacks on N. Main St. to address the bike lane issue. Second,the Commission recommends fine-tuning the language in Section 18.92.090 Pedestrian Access and Circulation as part of housekeeping updates to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance during the next year. Future clarifications to consider are: Section 18.92.090 Pedestrian Access and Circulation • Standard: to install protected raised walkways through large parking areas (50 or more spaces, or greater than 100 feet in average width or depth) • clarify the flexibility to use a walkway at the same grade as the parking area or driveway • possibly increasing the average width and depth size of large parking areas • excluding multi-family residential developments from providing walkways through large parking areas Background: The Planning Commission held public hearings and deliberations on January 24, 2012 and February 28, 2012 tore-review the Pedestrian Place Ordinance Amendments that apply city wide and to the Detail Site Review Zone. One person testified at the January 24, 2012 meeting, and one written comment was received. Attachments: 1. Minutes from January 24,2012 Planning Commission Meeting 2. Minutes from February 28, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting 3. Written Comment(email),from"pf n",received January 24, 2012 1 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES January 24,2012 CALL TO ORDER Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar,Community Development Director Eric Heesacker Maria Harris, Planning Manager Richard Kaplan April Lucas,Administrative Supervisor Pam Marsh Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Absent Members: Council Liaison: Russ Silbiger,absent ANNOUCEMENTS Commissioner Marsh announced Mick Church's resignation from the Commission and encouraged interested citizens to submit applications to the Mayors office. PUBLIC FORUM Winston Freedman/Voiced his appreciation for the new bicycle repair station located downtown. Zach BrombacherNoiced concern with the lighting on Siskiyou Blvd.Mr.Brombacher stated the lighting makes it difficult to see, especially in foggy or rainy conditions,and stated this type of passive lighting is dangerous. Commissioner Heesacker noted the Transportation Commission is aware of this problem and have discussed this issue in the past. Several commissioners voiced agreement with Mr.Brombacher's concerns and stated they have noticed this as well. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA-2011-01576,1554 Webster(SOU North Campus Village). Ex Parts Contact No ex parte contact was reported. Commissioner Marsh noted staffs suggested adjustments to Condition#7i and the Pedestrian OvercrossinglUndercrossing language on page 17. Commissioner Dawkins commented on the crosswalks by the university and re-lighting that area.Commissioner Marsh clarified at the public hearing the Commission directed the Transportation Commission to address the issues of lighting and signage. Mr. Molnar added the Public Works Department will also be evaluating the lighting when the associated improvements for the SOU student housing go in. Commissioners DawkinsfKaplan mis to approve the Findings for#PA-2011-01576 with the revisions presented by staff. Voice Vote:all AYES.Motion passed 6-0.' Ashland Planning Commission January 24, 2012 Page 1 of 4 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION:#2011-01174 DESCRIPTION:A public hearing to review the ordinance amendments that were recently adopted as part of the Pedestrian Places project.The zoning the land use ordinance associated with the Pedestrian Places project were approved by the City Council on November 15,2011 and went into effect on December 16,2011.Subsequent to the approval,the City Council directed the Planning Commission to re-review those ordinance amendments that apply to the Detail Site Review Zone and citywide,and make recommendations to the Council for changes as appropriate. Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained the City Council adopted the Pedestrian Places ordinance package back in November; however,subsequent to their decision the Council indicated they did not understand the complete breadth of where the changes apply,and directed staff to bring this back before the Planning Commission for discussion and review. Mr. Molnar provided some background on this project and stated the recommendations that came out of the public meetings included: 1)increasing the FAR(Floor Area Ratio),2)establishing a maximum building setback,3)providing greater flexibility to the parking standards,and 4) allowing a percentage of the required landscaping to be used for plaza spaces. He stated as this project proceeded there was realization that these code adjustments were not just beneficial in creating pedestrian places,but had merit for the rest of the City as well. Mr. Molnar stated this is the Commission's opportunity to take another look at the changes that were made and either validate or recommend changes to the ordinances adopted by the City Council. Staff Report Planning Manager Maria Hams stated the purpose of the Pedestrian Places project is to support the development of small, walkable nodes that provide concentrations of housing and businesses grouped in a way to encourage more walking,cycling,and transit trips;and provided a summary of the ordinance amendments by location. . Amendments that apply city wide: • 18.68.050 Arterial Street Setback Requirements. The previous standard required an approximately 20-foot front yard setback along arterial roads.The new standard requires a 20-foot yard or a setback equal to the width required to install sidewalk improvements,whichever is less. • 18.72.090 Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards. The previous standard included four approval criteria.The new standard describes the same four criteria but also allows an exception for proposals that will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Standards. • 18.92.050 Parking Management Strategies. The previous standard allowed,through the implementation of specific strategies, up to a 35%reduction in required parking, and up to 50%in a Historic District.Through the implementation of specific strategies,the new standard allows up to a 50%reduction in the required parking and permits the City to require a study by a qualified professional to provide justification for offsets in parking demand,access,circulation and other transportation impacts. • 18.92.050 On-Street Parking Credit. The previous standard allowed one off-street parking space credit for every two on-street spaces;24 feet of uninterrupted curb for parallel parking;and 13 feet of uninterrupted curb for 45 degree diagonal parking.The new standard allows one off-street parking space credit for every one on-street parking space;22 feet of uninterrupted curb for parallel parking;and 12 feet of uninterrupted curb for 45 degree diagonal parking. 18.92.050 Alternative Vehicle Parting. This is a new standard and allows altemative vehicle parking facilities to be substituted for up to 25%of the required parking spaces on site. • 18.92.050 Shared Parking. This is a new standard and allows one off-street parking credit for every space constructed in a designated,off-site shared parking area,or payment in-lieu-of-parking fees for a common parking area. • 18.92.050 TDM Plan Credit This is a new standard and allows implementation of a TDM Plan that demonstrates a reduction of long term parking demand by a percentage equal to the credit requested. • 18.92.050 Transit Facilities Credit. This is a new standard and allows projects that require at least 20 spaces and abut a street with transit service to be eligible for a 10%reduction in parking through the implementation of specific requirements. Ashland Planning Commission January 24, 2012 Page 2 of 4 3 • 18.92.080 Addressing Environmental and Microcimatic Impacts of Surface Parking. This standard previously applied just to the Croman Mill zone but now applies City wide and requires that parking areas of more than seven spaces to meet the specified standards. • 18.92.080 Site Circulation. This is a new standard and requires new development to provide a circulation system that accommodates expected traffic on the site,with street-like features such as sidewalks,accessible curb ramps,trees and pedestrian scale lighting. • 18.92.090 Pedestrian Access and Circulation. This is a new standard requires projects to design a walkway system through the project that address specific criteria,and sets standards for walkway design and construction. Amendments that apply to the Pedestrian Overlay and Detail Site Review Zone: • Minimum Floor Area Ratio. The previous standard listed a minimum.35 FAR and maximum .5 FAR.The new standard sets a.5 minimum FAR and no maximum. In addition,an allowance is added for a shadow plan to phase in the FAR requirement for projects including existing buildings or greater than%:acre. • Building Setback from Sidewalk. The previous standard required a building setback or no more than 20 feet from a public sidewalk unless the area is used for pedestrian activities.The new standard requires a building setback of no more than 5 feet from a public sidewalk, unless the area is used for pedestrian activities or for a required public utility easement. • Landscape Buffer. The previous standard required a 10-foot wide buffer between buildings and the street,except in the Historic Districts.The new standard requires a 10-foot wide buffer except in the Historic District and Detail Site Review Zone. Amendments that only apply to the Pedestrian Overlay. • Section 18.56.040 Special Permitted Uses. This is a new standard that allows commercial uses up to 2,500 sq.ft.in residential zones in the Pedestrian Overlay if minimum housing density requirements are met. . • Section 18.56.040 Solar Setback. The previous standard requires new buildings and additions to meet the solar access setback which limits the height of the shadow cast by the building and therefore limits the height of the building.The new standard states solar access setbacks only apply to new buildings and additions which have residential zones to the north. • Section 18.56.040 Plazas and Landscaping Ratio. This is a new standard that states outdoor seating areas, plazas and other useable paved surfaces may count for up to 50%of the required landscape area. Questions for Staff Ms.Hams briefly reviewed the questions submitted by Commissioner Miller and provided clarification to her inquiries regarding parking lot requirements,solar access setbacks,and arterial setbacks.Commissioner Dawkins requested they have a separate discussions for each arterial street.He also raised concern with the circulation requirements and questioned whether they should require sidewalks and wider streets in all new developments.Commissioner Mindlin agreed with Dawkins and recommended they look at what sections of the arterials have a 20 ft setback and which ones have another definition that applies.Commissioner Miller expressed concern with no maximum FAR.Mr. Molnar clarified landscaping,height and parking requirements still apply,and these standards will ultimately prohibit buildings and developments from getting too large.Comment was made expressing concern with changing the minimum FAR to.5 in the Detail Site Review Zone. Public Testimony Zach Brombacher/Requested clarification on whether his property is within the Pedestrian Places zone. Mr.Molnar informed Mr.Brombacher that his property is not within the Pedestrian Places Overlay;however the frontage of the property is still within the Detail Site Review Zone. Ashland Planning Commission January 24, 2012 Page 3 of 4 4 DeliberationsiDecision Commissioner Marsh requested the commissioners list which items they want to discuss further.Alternative Vehicle Parking, Addressing Surface Parking Impacts,Circulation Requirements,Solar Access Setbacks,and Arterial Setbacks were listed for further discussion. Altemattve Vehicle Parking It was questioned whether smart cars or golf carts were considered for the altemative parking standards. Ms.Hams stated the standard applies to motorcycle,scooter and bicycle parking,and further research would need to be done to figure out a standard for alternative vehicles.She added the ordinance is a living document and as technology and use of these types of vehicles improves, they can revisit this provision. Addressing Impacts of Surface Parking Ms. Hams clarified this standard applies to parking areas of more than seven spaces.Comment was made expressing concern with the standard that states at least 50%shade from the tree canopy over the parking area shall be provided within five years of project occupancy.Ms.Hams stated this particular standard is one of four options applicants can choose:She added this standard was taken from LEED and could be something staff tracks to ensure 50%coverage in five years is feasible. Circulation Requirements Commissioner Dawkins recommended at some point the Commission hold a discussion about whether to impose sidewalk requirements on all new developments. Recommendation was made for this to be discussed during the Commission's annual retreat. Commissioner Mindlin voiced her concerns to this standard.She stated these circulation requirements previously only applied to large scale developments and questioned whether they should be imposing this level of construction for modest developments. Staff clarified this language was taken from the State's model code for small communifies and believes the language does provide flexibility for smaller parking areas.Commissioner Mindlin stated she is reading this language differently and restated her concerns. Ms.Hams stated this language was intended to address the issue of not being able to get to and through the site if you are not in a vehicle.Comment was made that we are moving towards a more multi-modal environment and expressing support for requirements. that provide pedestrian access through developments.Suggestion was made for staff to provide examples of how this standard would impact smaller developments. Solar Access Setbacks Comment was made expressing concern that buildings will be placed too dose together and solar access will not be possible.Staff clarified this standard only applies in the Pedestrian Place Overlay and will not be an issue for properties who have a street to the north. Arterial Setbacks Commissioner Dawkins stated this topic has been on the Commission's to-do list for some time now and recommended this standard be addressed specifically for each arterial.Commissioner Mindlin stated her main concern with applying this standard across the board is a lack of understanding about what they are actually doing.Mr. Molnar clarified the Commission does not have to rush this back to the Council and the Commission could hold additional discussions about the arterials. Commissioner Marsh stated the arterial setbacks and the circulation requirement standards would come back before the Commission for further discussion.She asked with the exception of these two items,is the group supportive of the remaining changes implemented through the Pedestrian Places ordinance packet?By show of hands,the group agreed to endorse the remaining items. Commissioner Marsh announced the public hearing on the Pedestrian Places ordinance amendments will be continued to the February 14,2012 Planning Commission meeting. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted,April Lucas,Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission January 24, 2012 Page 4 of 4 5 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES February 28,2012 CALL TO ORDER Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar,Community Development Director Eric Heesacker Maria Harris,Planning Manager Richard Kaplan Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Pam Marsh April Lucas,Administrative Supervisor Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Absent Members: Council Liaison: None Dennis Slattery,absent ANNOUCEMENTS Commissioner Marsh reviewed the Commission's upcoming meeting schedule and announced Dennis Slattery is the Commission's new Council Liaison.She also noted that May 5 and May 19 have been proposed for the Commission's annual retreat and asked each member to check their schedules so that they can make a selection at their next meeting. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA-2011-01731,Green Codes Updates. Commissioner Mindlin questioned why the Commission's decision is moving forward as a recommendation rather than changing the draft ordinance as discussed.She stated she does not support sending this onto the City Council in this format and stated since the Commission is bringing this change forward,the proposed ordinance should say what they want it to say. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman explained the public hearing before the City Council has already been noticed for March 6 and in order to stay with that timeline it was not possible to bring a revised ordinance back before the Planning Commission. He stated the Findings do reflect the direction given by the Commission and they will be presented to the Council along with the draft ordinance. Mr.Goldman commented on items the Commission had requested further research on,and stated the following recommendations will also be presented to Council: 1)front yard deer fencing shall be 85%pervious,2)mesh materials placed in a front yard shall have a minimum open diameter of 1.5 square inches,3)deer fencing(wire or polypropylene)shall be supported by structural supports or tension wire,4)eliminate the requirement to screen chicken coops and runs from public right of ways and adjacent properties,5)eliminate the prohibition again outdoor slaughtering of chickens,and 6)modify the rain barrel requirements to state barrels shall not exceed 6 ft.in height and shall be located so that a minimum clear width of 3 ft. is provided between the barrel and property line. Commissioner Miller agreed with Mindlin and stated she also would have preferred to see their recommendations incorporated into the draft ordinance.Commissioner Marsh stated she is not concerned with moving forward the materials in this format. Commissioner Dawkins agreed and stated the current format makes it much dearer for the Council to understand what was discussed and flushed out by the Planning Commission. Ashland Planning Commission February 28, 2012 Page 1 of 3 6 Commissioners Dawkins/Kaplan mis to approve the Findings for PA-2011-01731.Voice Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Kaplan,Miller and Marsh,YES.Commissioner Mindlin,NO.Motion passed 4-1.[Commissioner Heesacker abstained] PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION:#2011-01734 DESCRIPTION:A continuation of the January 24,2012 public hearing to review the pedestrian access and circulation standards(AMC 18.92)that were adopted as part of the Pedestrian Places project.The zoning and land use ordinance amendments associated with the Pedestrian Places project were approved by the City Council on November 15,2011 and went into effect on December 16,2011.Subsequent to the approval,the City Council directed the Planning Commission to re-review the ordinance amendments that apply to the Detail Site Review Zone and citywide, and make recommendations to the Council for changes as appropriate. Pedestrian Access and Circulation Planning Manager Maria Harris commented on the pedestrian access and circulation standards and clarified these standards only apply to multi-family and commercial developments.She provided an overview of the site layout and design standards and stated: • To the greatest extent possible,walkway systems should be extended throughout the development and connect the buildings to adjacent public sidewalks;parking areas;trails, public parks and open space areas;building entrances;and future phases of the development. • Walkways have to provide safe,reasonably direct and convenient walkway connects. Ms.Hams clarified walkways through parking lots are only required for lots with 50 or more parking spaces(or greater than 100 feet in width or depth).She also noted the provision which states "topographic or existing development constraints may be cause for not making certain walkway connections"and stated this language was intentionally included to provide flexibility. Ms. Hams also reviewed the walkway design and construction standards,which state: • Walkways must be 5 feel wide. • Be made of concrete,asphalt,brick or masonry pavers,or other durable surface. • Be raised and curbed through parking areas of 50 or more spaces or when adjacent to driveways;however the decision body may approve same grade walkways. • Provide crosswalks where walkways cross parking areas or driveways. y • Meet the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA)requirements. • Provide pedestrian scale lighting no greater than 14 feet in height. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman provided several visual samples of existing multi-family and commercial developments in Ashland,and displayed how the developments might look if the new standards were applied. Commissioner Mindlin questioned if her co-housing development on Calypso would have violated these standards.Staff noted there is flexibility built into the ordinance and the decision body has the ability to approve same grade walkways like what was approved for the Calypso development.Commissioner Marsh commented that there are all different types of lots and while it is beneficial to set guidelines,they need to acknowledge that the intent is the most important part and incorporate flexibility that people can trust.Mr. Molnar stated the main goal of this ordinance is to get applicants thinking about how pedestrians will get through a site early on in the process. He also commented on the possibility of modifying the ordinance to provide additional leniency for residential developments. Arterial Setbacks Ms. Harris provided some history of the arterial setback requirements and stated prior to the Pedestrian Places ordinance the requirement for all arterials(except in the downtown and the woman mill areas),was for buildings to be setback 20 ft.from the property line.She explained the revised ordinance establishes a'build-to line"approach and instead of working from the property lines,you are working from the curb line and reserving enough space for future parkrow and sidewalk improvements. Ms.Harris reviewed the benefits of this approach and stated: l)buildings located in the commercial and employment zones have the ability to come closer to the back of the sidewalk and therefore utilize the land more efficiently,2)the character of the residential zones is maintained because the underlying property line setback still applies and properties will have 10 ft.to 20 ft.for front yard space,and 3)you gain predictability because when you work from the curb line you are dealing with a fixed point whereas property lines are fairly arbitrary and can shift. Ashland Planning Commission February 28, 2012 Page 2 of 3 7 Mr.Goldman provided several visual samples of properties located along the arterials and displayed what development under these new standards might look like. Commissioner Dawkins expressed concern with applying this standard to North Main and questioned if this approach would eliminate their opportunity to widen the street and install bike lanes.The Commission discussed whether there is potential to install bike lanes on North Main,and also discussed the proposed Road Diet.Commissioner Marsh stated the Road Diet would be a great solution to this problem and hopes it will move forward. Ms._Hams stated staff believes there are some areas that could use refinement,and noted there will be opportunity to adopt some housekeeping measures through the Unified Land Use Ordinance project.She stated staff is starting to work on this project now, and it will come before the Commission starting in April and will continue for the next 12 months. Commissioner Marsh clarified these changes were passed by the City Council and are currently in effect,and asked how the Commission would like to proceed.She stated they could keep everything the same,request modifications to the entire ordinance, or affirm the actions to this point and ask staff to place specific refinements in the code cleanup project.Mr.Molnar noted one other option is to direct staff to come back immediately with the housekeeping updates and not wait for the Unified Code to come forward. Commissioner Dawkins restated his concern with the arterial setbacks on North Main and how to establish a bike corridor, but noted this concern is dependent on whether the City adopts the Road Diet.Commissioner Marsh agreed that a bike lane is essential there, but stated this is a corridor issue and asked if the group was comfortable revisiting this after they see what happens with the Road Diet.The group voiced their support for the adopted amendment to the arterial street setback for Ashland, Siskiyou and East Main;and if the Road Diet does not occur,to revisit the setbacks on North Main to address the bike lane issue. Commissioner Mindlin stated she is unsatisfied with the circulation language and having a rule that is left to discretion, and suggested removing the parking lot standards for residential developments. Commissioner Marsh noted staff had recommended taking another look at whether to apply the parking lot standards to multi-family developments and in lots greater than 100 feet in width or depth,and asked if the Commission was comfortable dealing with these issues in the next 12 months during the code cleanup project.The group voiced their support for revisiting this issue during the Unified Land Use Code project. Mr. Molnar clarified staff would capture the Commission's decision in memo format and bring it back to the Commission for review and approval before sending it along to the City Council. OTHER BUSINESS Commissioner Dawkins stated he would still like to revisit the sidewalk requirements for areas where they aren't necessary and don't get used. Commission Marsh encouraged the members to think about retreat topics.Suggestion was made by Commissioner Mindlin for them to add pocket neighborhoods to the agenda. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas,Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission _ February 28, 2012 Page 3 of 3 8 CITY O F ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING *DRAFT*MINUTES March 13,2012 CALL TO ORDER Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar,Community Development Director Eric Heesacker Derek Severson,Associate Planner Richard Kaplan April Lucas,Administrative Supervisor Pam Marsh Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Absent Members: Council Liaison: None Dennis Slattery ANNOUCEMENTS Commissioner Marsh welcomed Dennis Slattery and announced he is the Commission's new council liaison. City Administrator Dave Kanner introduced himself and stated he is always available if the Commission has questions or concerns regarding City business. Commissioner Marsh announced the Planning Commission will hold its annual retreat on May 5;and asked the group to submit agenda topics and places to visit on the field trip. Commissioner Dawkins commented on the Green Codes public hearing before the City-Council last week,and noted the significant amount of public testimony regarding the keeping of chickens.He stated when the Commission held their hearing no one came to speak,and wished they had received this same level of input.Councilor Slattery stated it was an interesting meeting and the term 'urban farming"was used quite a bit.He added the Council will likely be looking at this as a new Council goal.Commissioner Marsh questioned how to raise more awareness of the issues before the Planning Commission in order to improve public participation,and stated it would have been better if they could have been aware of the public's concerns before this item went before Council. CONSENTAGENDA A. Approval of Minutes. 1. February 14,2012 Regular Meeting. 2. February 28,2012 Special Meeting. Commissioners Dawkins/Mindlin m/s to approve the Consent Agenda.Voice Vote:all AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Council Memo—Pedestrian Places Re-Review Community Development Director Bill Molnar stated the Pedestrian Places Re-Review will be on the Council's April 3rd agenda.No objections were raised to forwarding this Memo to the City Council. Ashland Planning Commission March 13, 2012 Page 1 of 3 9 Maria Harris From: April Lucas(lucasa @ashland.or.usj Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 12:46 PM To: Maria Harris Subject: Fwd: Public comment RE:CEIVEO JAN 2 4 2011 April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor City of Ashland, Community Development Department 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR 97520 Phone: (541)552-2041, TTY (800)735-2900 ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "PabloGM" <pfmachak @gmail.com> To: "april lucas" <april.lucas @ashland.or.us> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 9:23:14 AM Subject: Public comment Ms. Lucas, I have a suggestion regarding Pedestrian Places. It is in reference to Ashland St, in particular the section that goes over the railroad tracks, near Bimart. Suggestion is to install vertical slats that would deflect auto lights and rain water from being sprayed on pedestrians who use the sidewalks both east and west on the overpass. Would it be possible to inexpensively install these slats on top of the concrete abutments that divide the road from the sidewalk? (BTW I would definitely volunteer to help install these slats.) A lot of folks use this stretch of sidewalk en route to YMCA and shopping, motels, restaurants, etc. I hope I have not submitted this suggestion too late to be considered in tonight's meeting. Please email or call me @ 541 840 6296 if you need more info or have questions. Thank you. pfm i i I I I t 10 j C I T Y OF ASHLAND Applicability of Ordinance Amendments by Location Pedestrian Places Project I. Amendments that apply to Pedestrian Overlay and throughout the entire City GENERAL REGULATIONS — 18.68 1. SECTION 18.68.050 Arterial Street Setback Requirements. Previous Standard • Required an approximately 20-foot front yard setback along arterial roads. New Standard • Requires a 20-foot yard or a setback equal to the width required to install sidewalk improvements (park row and sidewalk), whichever is less. SITE DESIGN REVIEW— 18.72 2. SECTION 18.72.090 Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards. Previous Standard • Described (4) approval criteria for allowing an exception. New Standard • Describes (4)approval criteria for allowing an exception; or • Allows and exception for proposals that"will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Standards." 12.20.2011 Council Meeting—Pedestrian Places Update Page 1 11 OFF-STREET PARKING CHAPTER— 18.92 3. SECTION 18.92.050 Gredit for On streat Automobile Parkin Management Strategies. Previous Standard . • Through implementing speck strategies, allowed up to a 35% reduction in required parking; 50% in a Historic District. New Standard • Through implementing specific strategies, allows up to a 50% reduction in required parking. • Permits the City to require a study by a qualified professional to provide supporting justification for offsets in parking demand, access, circulation and other transportation impacts. 4. SECTION 18.92.050 On-Street Parking Credit. Previous Standard • Allowed one off-street parking space credit for every two on-street spaces up to four credits, thereafter one space credit for each on-street parking space. • Parallel parking = 24 feet of uninterrupted curb. • 45 degree diagonal = 13 feet of uninterrupted curb New Standard • Allows one off-street parking space credit for each one on-street parking space. • Parallel parking = 22 feet of uninterrupted curb. • 45 degree diagonal = 12 feet of uninterrupted curb. 5. SECTION 18.92.050 Alternative Vehicle Parking. New Standard Allows alternative vehicle parking facilities to be substituted for up to 25 percent of the required parking spaces on site. 1. Motorcycle or scooter parking. Permits one off-street parking space credit for four motorcycle or scooter parking spaces. 12.20.2011 Council Meeting—Pedestrian Places Update - Page 2 12 2. Bicycle parking. Permits one off-street parking space credit for five additional, non- required bicycle parking spaces. 6. SECTION 18.92.050 Shared Parking. New Standard Allows one off-street parking space credit for every space constructed in designated off- site shared parking areas, or payment of in-lieu-of-parking fees for a common parking. 7. SECTION 18.92.050 TDM Plan Credit. New Standard Allows implementation of an individual Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan that demonstrates a reduction of long term parking demand by a percentage equal to the credit requested. 8. SECTION 18.92.050 Transit Facilities Credit. New Standard States that projects that require at least 20 spaces and abut a street with transit service are eligible for a 10% reduction in parking through meeting the following standards: 1. Construct a pedestrian and transit supportive plaza 2. Transit service shall have a minimum of 30-minute peak period transit service frequency. 3. Existing parking areas may be converted to take advantage of these provisions. 4. The plaza must be adjacent to and visible from the transit street. . 5. The plaza must be at least 300 square feet in area The plaza must include all of the following elements: a. A plaza that is open to the public. b. A bench or other sitting area C. A shelter or other weather protection. 9. SECTION 18.92.080 Addressing Environmental and Microclimatic Impacts of Surface Parking New Standard (currently applies to Croman Mill zone) Requires that parking areas of more than seven parking spaces meet the following standards: a. Use at least one of the following strategies for the surface parking area, or put 50% of parking underground. i Use light colored paving materials with a high solar reflectance (Solar Reflective Index (SRI) of at least 29) to reduce heat absorption for a minimum of 50% of the parking area surface. 12.20.2011 Council Meeting—Pedestrian Places Update Page 3 13 ii. Provide porous solid surfacing or an open grid pavement system that is at least 50% pervious for a minimum of 50% of the parking area surface. iii. Provide at least 50% shade from tree canopy over the parking area surface within five years of project occupancy. iv. Provide at least 50% shade from solar energy generating carports, canopies or trellis structures over the parking area surface. b. Design parking lots and other hard surface areas in a way that captures and treats runoff with landscaped medians and swales. 10. SECTION 18.92.080 Site Circulation New Standard Requires that new development provides a circulation system that accommodates expected traffic on the site, with street-like features such as sidewalks, accessible curb ramps, trees and pedestrian scale lighting. 11. SECTION 18.92.090 Pedestrian Access and Circulation (new section) New Standards A. Requires projects to design a walkway system through the project that addresses the following: 1. The walkway system shall extend throughout the site and connect to all future phases of development. 2. The walkway shall be safe, direct, and convenient with connections between primary building entrances and all adjacent streets. 3. Walkways within developments including multiple buildings shall be include connections between building entrances, and provide walkway connections between parking area and recreational facilities and other common areas. 4. Install protected raised walkways large parking area (>50 spaces) B. Sets standards for Walkway Design and Construction, which address the following: 1. Vehicle/Walkway Separation. 2. Crosswalks. 3. Walkway Surface and Width. 4. Accessible routes. 5. Pedestrian Scale Lighting 12.20.2011 Council Meeting—Pedestrian Places Update Page 4 14 II. Amendments that apply to Pedestrian Overlay and Detail Site Review Zone (Commercial & Employment zoned land adjacent to major streets) 1. Minimum Floor Area Ratio (II-C-2 DETAIL SITE REVIEW STANDARDS) Previous Standard • Minimum .35 FAR; Maximum FAR .5 New Standard • Minimum .5 FAR; No Maximum FAR. F( AR). In addition, an allowance is added for a shadow plan to phase in FAR requirement for projects including existing buildings or greater than 1/2 acre. 2. Building Setback from Sidewalk (II-C-2 DETAIL SITE REVIEW STANDARDS ) Previous Standard • A building setback of no more than 20 feet from a public sidewalk unless the area is used for pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating areas. New Standard • A building setback of no more than 5 feet from a public sidewalk unless the area is used for pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating areas, or for a required public utility easement. 3. Landscape Buffer (II-C-2 DETAIL SITE REVIEW STANDARDS) Previous Standard • A 10-foot wide buffer required between buildings and the street, except in the Ashland Historic District. New Standard • A 10-foot wide buffer required between buildings and the street, except in the Ashland Historic District and Detail Site Review Zone. 12.20.2011 Council Meeting—Pedestrian Places Update Page 5 15 III. Amendments that apply to Pedestrian Overlay (exclusively) 1. SECTION 18.18.56.040 Special Permitted Uses New Standard Commercial uses such as professional offices, stores and restaurants up to 2,500 square feet permitted in residential zones in Pedestrian Overlay if minimum housing density requirements are met. 2. SECTION 18.56.040 Solar Setback Previous Standard • New buildings and additions required to meet the solar access setback which limits the height of the shadow permitted at the north property line, and thereby limits the height of the building. New Standard • The solar access setback applies only to those new buildings and additions which have residential zones located to the north. 3. SECTION 18.56.040 Plazas and Landscaping Ratio New Standard Outdoor seating areas, plazas and other useable paved surfaces may count for up to 50% of the required landscape area. 12.20.2011 Council Meeting—Pedestrian Places Update Page 6 16 Ordinance Amendments by Chapter Pedestrian Places Project Note: This document shows the ordinance language with the adopted amendments fully incorporated. 1. GENERAL REGULATIONS—18.68 SECTION 18.68.050 Arterial Street Setback Requirements. The setback from an arterial street shall be no less than twenty (20) feet, or the width required to install sidewalk and parkrow improvements, consistent with the City of Ashland Street Standards in Section 18.88.020JR,whichever is less. Comment[hl]:New hvguage curves the spa« (m stdcwaa and parhow impr v rrwun. Exceptions to the standard for the downtown(C.1 D),nosh side of Litho Way(C-1)and Conran Mil 2. SITE DESIGN REVIEW-18.72 dulrict(CM),and": al bine hae uniuW for E. Maw St.and Ashhvd St.ddtled. SECTION 18.72.090 Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards. ' An exception to the requirements of this chapter may be granted with respect to the requirements of the Site Design Standards adopted under section 18.72.080 if, on the basis of the application, investigation and evidence submitted, all of the following circumstances are found to exist: A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site Design and Use Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure p1{ the proposed use_of a_site;_and_approval_of the exception will not comment[113]:Added toprovidocaas" y substantial) negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exce tlon is with standards for m Ex ptiou to the Downtown Y 9 Y P 1 P P PP P consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Standards; and the Ixaign stmaarda. exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty,or B. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Standard Comment[h3]:New hnguage. 2012-01-24 Planning Commission Pedestrian Places Re-review Page I i ) 17 3. PARKING,ACCESS AND CIRCULATION—18.92 (Formerly OFF-STREET PARKING) CHAPTER 18.92 PARKING,ACCESS AND CIRCULATION SECTIONS: 18.92.010 Purpose. 18.92.020 Applicability. 18.92.030 Automobile Parking Spaces Required. 18.92.040 Disabled Person Parking Places. 18.92.050 Parking Management Strategies. 18.92.060 Bicycle Parking. 18.92.070 Variances for Commercial Buildings in the Historic District 18.92.080 Parking,Access and Circulation Design Requirements. 18.92.090 Pedestrian Access and Circulation. 18.92.100 Construction. 18.92.110 Alterations and Enlargements. 18.92.120 Availability of Facilities. SECTION 18.92.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to provide standards for development of vehicle and bicycle parking, and to ensure developments provide safe and effective access and circulation for pedestrians,bicyclists and vehicles. SECTION 18.92.020 Applicability. In all districts, except those specifically exempted, whenever any building is erected or enlarged, parking or access is reconfigured,or the use is changed, parking, access and circulation shall be provided as set forth in this chapter. The City may require a study prepared by a qualified professional to determine offsets in parking demand, access, circulation and other transportation impacts. SECTION 18.92.030 Automobile Parking Spaces Required. Uses and standards are as follows: A. Residential Uses. For residential uses the following automobile parking spaces are required. 1. Single family dwellings. Two spaces for the primary dwelling unit and the following for accessory residential units: a. Studio units or 1-bedroom units less than 500 sq.ft.-- 1 space/unit. b. 1-bedroom units 500 sq.ft.or larger--1.50 spaces/unit. c. 2-bedroom units—1.75 spaces/unit. 2012-01-24 Planning Cammissim Pedestrian Places Re4eview Page 2 18 d. 3-bedroom or greater units--2.00 spaces/unit. 2. Multi-family dwellings. a. Studio units or 1-bedroom units less than 500 sq.ft.--1 space/unit. b. 1-bedroom units 500 sq.ft.or larger— 1.50 spaces/unit. c. 2-bedroom units— 1.75 spaces/unit. d. 3-bedroom or greater units—2.00 spaces/unit. e. Retirement complexes for seniors 55-years or greater—One space per unit. 3. Clubs.fraternity and sorority houses, rooming and boarding houses.dormitories. Two spaces for each three guest rooms; in dormitories, 100 square feet shall be equivalent to a guest room. 4. Hotels and motels. One space for each guest room, plus one space for the owner or manager. 5. Manufactured housing developments. Parking requirements are as established in Chapter 18.84. 6. Performance Standards Developments. Parking requirements are as established in Chapter 18.88. B. Commercial Uses. For commercial uses the following automobile parking spaces are required. 1. Auto, boat or trailer sales, retail nurseries and other open-space uses. One space per 1,000 square feet of the first 10,000 square feet of gross land area; plus one space per 5,000 square feet for the excess over 10,000 square feet of gross land area;and one per two employees. 2. Bowling Alleys. Three spaces per alley, plus additional spaces for auxiliary activities set forth in this section. 3. Business.general retail. person services. General - one space for 350 square feet of gross floor area. Furniture and appliances-one space per 750 square feet of gross floor area. 4. Chapels and mortuaries. One space per four fixed seats in the main chapel. 5. Offices. Medical and dental-one space per 350 square feet of gross floor area. General- one space per 500 square feet of gross floor area. 6. Restaurants,bars, ice cream parlors and similar uses. One space per four seats or one space per 100 sq. ft. of gross leasable floor area,whichever is less. 7. Skating rinks. One space per 350 sq.ft.of gross building area. B. Theaters,auditoriums,stadiums,gymnasiums and similar uses. One space per four seats. C. Industrial Uses. For industrial uses the following automobile parking spaces are required. 1. Industrial and Warehousing uses. 2012-01-24 Planning Commission Pedestrian Places Re-review Page 13 i 19 One space per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or for each two employees, whichever is less,plus one space per company vehicle. 2. Public utilities(gas,water,telephone, etc.), not including business offices. One space per two employees on the largest shift, plus one space per company vehicle;a minimum of two spaces is required. D. Institutional and Public Uses. For institutional and public uses the following automobile parking spaces are required. 1. Child care centers having 13 or more children. One space per two employees; a minimum of two spaces is required. 2. Churches. One space per four seats. 3. Golf courses, except miniature. Eight spaces per hole, plus additional spaces for auxiliary uses set forth in this section. Miniature golf courses-four spaces per hole. 4. Hospitals. Two spaces per patient bed. 5. Nursing and convalescent homes. One space per three patient beds. 6. Rest homes, homes for the aged,or assisted living. One space per two patient beds or one space per apartment unit. 7. Schools,elementary and junior high. One and one-half space per classroom, or the requirements for public assembly areas as set forth herein,whichever is greater. 8. High schools. One and one-half spaces per classroom, plus one space per 10 students the school is designed to accommodate, or the requirements for public assembly as set forth herein,whichever is greater. 9. Colleges,universities and trade schools. One and one-half spaces per classroom, plus one space per five students the school is designed to accommodate, plus requirements for on-campus student housing. E. Unspecified Uses. Where automobile parking requirements for any use are not specifically defined in this section, such requirements shall be determined by the Staff Advisor based upon the most comparable use specified in this section, and other available data. F. Maximum Allowable Number of Automobile Parking Spaces. The number of spaces provided by any particular use in ground surface lots shall not exceed the required number of spaces provided by this ordinance by more than 10%. Spaces provided on-street, or within the building footprint of structures, such as in rooftop parking, or under-structure parking, or in multi-level parking above or below surface lots, shall not apply towards the maximum number of allowable spaces. 2012-01-24 Planning Commission Pedestrian Places Re-review Page 4 20 SECTION 18.92.040 Disabled Person Parking Places. The total number of disabled person parking spaces shall comply with the following: Total in Parking Lot Required Minimum Number of Accessible Spaces 1 to 25 1 26 to 50 2 51 to 75 3 76 to 100 4 101 to 150 5 151 to 200 6 201 to 300 7 301 to 400 i 8 401 to 500 1 9 One in every eight accessible spaces, but not less than one, must be van accessible.A van accessible parking space is required to be at least nine feet wide and have an adjacent access aisle that is at least eight feet wide. Required Disabled Person Parking spaces shall be designed in accord with all requirements of the State of Oregon, including minimum widths, adjacent aisles, and permanent markings. Disabled Person Parking space designs are included at the end of this chapter. SECTION 18.92.050 Parking Management Strategies. The amount of required off-street parking may be reduced up to�. through the application of__ Cemmmt[M]:Pmviab�y-11.ed ap t. the following credits. rtdweoa aud..p ro so^�N o xsrodc onnmt. A. On-Street Parking Credit. The amount of off-street parking required shall be reduced by the following credit provided for on-street parking: one off-street parking space credit for every one on-street parking�pac�._____________________________ commmt[hs]:P« a b y auow a as aasb«t 1. Dimensions. On-street parking shall follow the established configuration of pie w« «alr«�y��m«Ia ,to(nedib,lhert eac ave space«edit fm existing on-street parking, except that 45 degree diagonal parking may be nch w-oral pukiv pace. allowed with the approval of the Public Works Director, taking into account traffic flows and street design, with the parking spaces designed in accord with the standards on file with the Public Works Department. The following shall constitute an on-street parking s ace: a. Parallel parking,each 22 Fee of uninterupted curb._ comment[he]:Prey ablywa b. 45 degree diagonal, each 12 eed of uninterrupted curb.........___________ _ commmt[h7]:P.,ioe ly was 13 f«I. 2. Location. a. Curb space must be contiguous to the lot which contains the use which requires the parking. b. Parking spaces may not be counted that are within 20 feet measured along the curb of any comer or intersection of an alley or street, nor any other parking configuration that violates any law or standard of the City or State. c. Parking spaces located on arterials and collectors may only receive credit if the arterial or collector is greater in width than the minimums established by the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. 2012-01-24 Planning Ca assion Pedestrian Places Re4eview Page 15 21 d. Parking spaces may not be counted that are within 200 feet of a C-1-D or SO zone. 3. Availability. On-street parking spaces credited for a specific use shall not be used exclusively by that use, but shall be available for general public use at all times. No signage or actions limiting general public use of on-street spaces shall be permitted. Alternative _Vehicle Parking._Alternative_ vehicle_parking_facilities_ may_be_ - Comment[ha]:New a mdud. substituted for up to 25 percent of the required parking space on site. 1. Motorcycle or scooter parking. One off-street parking space credit for four motorcycle or scooter parking spaces. 2. Bicycle parking. One off-street parking space credit for five additional, non- required bicycle parking spaces, C. Mixed Uses. In the event that several users occupy a single structure or parcel of land, the total requirements for off-street automobile parking shall be the sum of the requirements for the several uses computed separately unless it can be shown that the peak parking demands are offset. In such case, the mixed-use credit shall reduce the off-street parking requirement by a percentage equal to the reduced parking demand. D. Joint Use of Facilities. Required parking facilities of 2 or more uses, structures, or parcels of land may be satisfied by the same parking facilities used jointly, to the extent that it can be shown by the owners or operators that the need for the facilities does not materially overlap (e.g., uses primarily of a daytime vs. nighttime nature) and provided that such right of joint use is evidenced by a deed, lease, contract, or similar written instrument establishing such joint use. E. Shared Parking. One off-street parking space credit for every space constructed in designated off-site shared parking areas, or through payment of in-lieu-of-parking fees for a common' arkind- Comment[h9]:Newatendud. F. TDM Plan Credit. Through implementation of an individual Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan that demonstrates a reduction of long term parking demand by a percentage equal to the credit requested.__________________________J Cemment[h10]:New:mm.a. G. Transit Facilities Credit.Sites where at least 20 spaces are required, and where at least one tot line abuts a street with transit service may substitute transit-supportive plazas for required parking as'ollowsL-------------------------------------- Comment[hll]:New smudmd. 1. Pedestrian and transit supportive plazas may be substituted for up to ten percent of the required parking spaces on site. 2. A street with transit service shall have a minimum of 30-minute peak period transit service frequency. 3. Existing parking areas may be converted to take advantage of these provisions. 4. The plaza must be adjacent to and visible from the transit street. If there is a bus stop along the site's frontage,the plaza must be adjacent to the bus stop. 2012-01-24 Planning Commission Pedeshian Places Re4eview Pape 16 22 5. The plaza must be at least 300 square feet in area and be shaped so that a ten foot by ten foot square will fit entirely in the plaza. 6. The plaza must include all of the following elements: a. A plaza that is open to the public. The owner must record a public access easement that allows public access to the plaza; b. A bench or other sifting area with at least five linear feet of seating; c. A shelter or other weather protection. The shelter must cover at least 20 square feet and the plaza must be landscaped. This landscaping is in addition to any other landscaping or screening required for parking areas by the Code. SECTION 18.92.060 Bicycle Parking. A. All uses, with the exception of detached single-family residences and uses in the C- 1-D zone, shall provide a minimum of two sheltered bike parking spaces. B. Every residential use of two units or more per structure, and not containing a garage, shall provide bicycle parking spaces as follows: Multi-Familv Residential: One sheltered space per studio and 1-bedroom unit 1.5 sheltered spaces per 2-bedroom unit 2.0 sheltered spaces per 3-bedroom unit Senior Housing: One sheltered space per 8 units(80%of the occupants are 55 or older) C. In addition, all uses which require off street parking, except as specifically noted, shall provide one bicycle parking space for every 5 required auto parking spaces. Fractional spaces shall be rounded up to the next whole space. Fifty percent of the bicycle parking spaces required shall be sheltered from the weather.All spaces shall be located in proximity to the uses they are intended to serve.(ad 2697 sr.1993) D. All public and commercial parking lots and parking structures shall provide a minimum of one bicycle parking space for every five auto parking spaces. E. Elementary, Junior High, Middle and High Schools shall provide one sheltered bicycle parking space for every five students. F. Colleges, universities, and trade schools shall provide one bicycle parking space for every five required auto parking spaces,of which one half is to be sheltered. G. No bicycle parking spaces required by this standard shall be rented or leased, however, a refundable deposit fee may be charged. This does not preclude a bike parking rental business. H. The required bicycle parking facilities shall be constructed when an existing residential building or dwelling is altered or enlarged by the addition or creation of 2012-01-24 PlanniM Commission Pedestrian Places Reiev m Page 7 23 dwelling units, or when a non-residential use is intensified by the addition of floor space, seating capacity,or change in use. I. Bicycle Parking Design Standards. 1. The salient concern is that bicycle parking be visible and convenient to cyclists and that it provides sufficient security from theft and damage. 2. Bicycle parking requirements can be met in any of the following ways: a. Providing a bicycle storage room, bicycle lockers,or racks inside the building. b. Providing bicycle lockers or racks in an accessory parking structure, underneath an awning or marquee,or outside the main building. c. Providing bicycle racks on the public right of way. This must be approved by City of Ashland Public Works Department. d. Providing secure storage space inside the building. 3. All required exterior bicycle parking shall be located on site within 50 feet of well- used entrances and not farther from the entrance than the closest motor vehicle parking space. Bicycle parking shall have direct access to both the public right- of-way and to the main entrance of the principal use. For facilities with multiple buildings, building entrances or parking lots (such as a college), exterior bicycle parking shall be located in areas of greatest use and convenience for bicyclists. 4. Required bicycle parking spaces located out of doors shall be visible enough to provide security. Lighting shall be provided in a bicycle parking area so that all facilities are thoroughly illuminated and visible from adjacent walkways or motor vehicle parking lots during all hours of use. Bicycle parking shall be at least as well lit as automobile parking. 5. An aisle for bicycle maneuvering shall be provided and maintained between each row of bicycle parking. Bicycle parking shall be designed in accord with the illustrations used for the implementation of this chapter. 6. Each required bicycle parking space shall be accessible without moving another bicycle. 7. Areas set aside for required bicycle parking shall be clearly marked and reserved for bicycle parking only. 8. Parking spaces configured as indicated in the figure at the end of this chapter meet all requirements of this chapter and is the preferred design. Commercial bike lockers are acceptable according to manufacturer's specifications. A bicycle parking space located inside of a building for employee bike parking shall be a minimum of six feet long by 3 feet wide by 4 feet high, unless adequate room is provided to allow configuration as indicated in the figure at the end of this chapter. 9. Sheltered parking shall mean protected from all precipitation and must include the minimum protection coverages shown in the figure at the end of this chapter. 10.Bicycle parking shall be located to minimize the possibility of accidental damage to either bicycles or racks.Where needed, barriers shall be installed. 11.Bicycle parking shall not impede or create a hazard to pedestrians. They shall not be located so as to violate vision clearance standards. Bicycle parking facilities should be harmonious with their environment both in color and design. 2012-01-24 Planning Commission Pedesnian Places Re4mew Pape 10 24 Facilities should be incorporated whenever possible into building design or street furniture. J. Bicycle Parking Rack Standards. 1. All required bicycle parking racks installed shall meet the individual rack specifications shown in the figure at the end of this chapter. Single and multiple rack installations shall conform with the minimum clearance standards shown in the figures at the end of this chapter. Alternatives to the above standard may be approved after review by the Transportation Commission and approval by the Staff Advisor.Alternatives shall conform with all other applicable standards of this section. Bicycle parking racks or lockers shall be anchored securely. (omsos., a 17JIMI) 2. The intent of this Subsection is to ensure ttiat required bicycle racks are designed so that bicycles may be securely locked to them without undue inconvenience and will be reasonably safeguarded from intentional or accidental damage. a. Bicycle racks shall hold bicycles securely by means of the frame. The frame shall be supported so that the bicycle cannot be pushed or fall to one side in a manner that will damage the wheels. b. Bicycle racks shall accommodate: i. Locking the frame and both wheels to the rack with a high-security U- shaped shackle lock, if the bicyclists removes the front wheel;and ii. Locking the frame and one wheel to the rack with a high-security U- shaped shackle lock, if the bicyclists leaves both wheels on the bicycle; and iii. Locking the frame and both wheels to the rack with a chain or cable not longer than 6 feet without removal of the front wheel. c. Paving and Surfacing. Outdoor bicycle parking facilities shall be surfaced in the same manner.as the automobile parking area or with a minimum of two inch thickness of hard surfacing (i.e., asphalt, concrete, pavers, or similar material) and shall be relatively level. This surface will be maintained in a smooth, durable, and well-drained condition. SECTION 18.92.070 Variances for Commercial Buildings in the Historic District. In order to preserve existing structures within the Ashland Historic District, while permitting the redevelopment of property to its highest commercial use, a variance of up to 50% of the required automobile parking may be granted to commercial uses within the Ashland Historic District as a Type I Variance. It is the intent of this clause to provide as much off-street parking as practical while preserving existing structures and allowing them to develop to their full commercial potential.Additionally, to identify redevelopment of existing commercial and residential buildings for commercial use within the Ashland Historic District as an exceptional circumstance and unusual hardship for the purposes of granting a variance. 2012-01-24 Planning Commission Pedestrian Places Rermew Page 19 25 SECTION 18.92.080 Parking,Access and Circulation Design Requirements. A. Parking Location. 1. Except for single and two-family dwellings, required automobile parking facilities may be located on another parcel of land, provided said parcel is within 200 feet of the use it is intended to serve. The distance from the parking lot to the use shall be measured in walking distance from the nearest parking space to an access to the building housing the use, along a sidewalk or other pedestrian path separated from street traffic. Such right to use the off-site parking must be evidenced by a deed, lease, easement, or similar written instrument establishing such use,for the duration of the use. 2. Except as allowed in the subsection below, automobile parking shall not be located in a required front and side yard setback area abutting a public street, except alleys. 3. In all residential zones, all off-street parking of automobiles, trucks, trailers and recreational vehicles in the front yard shall be limited to a contiguous area which is no more than 25% of the area of the front yard, or a contiguous area 25 feet wide and the depth of the front yard, whichever is greater. Since parking in violation of this section is occasional in nature, and is incidental to the primary use of the site, no vested rights are deemed to exist and violations of this section are not subject to the protection of the nonconforming use sections of this ordinance. However, a 24-hour warning notice of violation shall be provided prior to the issuance of a citation to appear in Municipal Court, and it shall be rebuttably presumed that the vehicle was parked with permission of the person in control of the property. Subsequent violations shall not require a warning notice. B. Parking Area Design.Required parking areas shall be designed in accordance with the following standards and dimensions. 1. Parking spaces shall be a minimum of 9 x 18 feet. 2. Up to 50% of the total automobile parking spaces in a parking lot may be designated for compact cars. Minimum dimensions for compact spaces shall be 8 x 16 feet. Such spaces shall be signed or the space painted with the words "Compact Car Only." 3. Parking spaces shall have a back-up maneuvering space no less than twenty- two (22) feet, except where parking is angled, and which does not necessitate moving of other vehicles. 4. Parking lots with 50 spaces or more shall be divided into separate areas. Parking areas may be divided into separate areas by a building or group of buildings, landscape areas with walkways at least 10 feet in width, plazas, streets or driveways with street-like features. Street-like features, for the purpose of this section, means a raised sidewalk of at least five feet in width, six-inch curb, accessible curb ramps, street trees in planters or tree wells and pedestrian- oriented Mightind---------------------------------------------------- Commmt[h12]: Newe:end"previ=ly 5. Parking areas shall be designed to minimize the adverse environmental and Ruued to Dtd Sik Review Zo . microclimatic impacts of surface parking through design and material selection. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces shall meet the following (standards(,__ --- Commentth13t:New s:evde,d,pevuusty — ___________________________________________________ appaed mCmvun Miazuoe. 2012-01-24 Planning Commission Pedesaian Places Reimew Page 110 . 26 a. Use at least one of the following strategies for the surface parking area,or put 50%of parking underground. i Use light colored paving materials with a high solar reflectance (Solar Reflective Index (SRI) of at least 29) to reduce heat absorption for a minimum of 50%of the parking area surface. ii. Provide porous solid surfacing or an open grid pavement system that is at least 50% pervious for a minimum of 50%of the parking area surface. iii. Provide at least 50% shade from tree canopy over the parking area surface within five years of project occupancy. iv. Provide at least 50% shade from solar energy generating carports, canopies or trellis structures over the parking area surface. b. Design parking lots and other hard surface areas in a way that captures and treats runoff with landscaped medians and swales. C. Vehicular Access and Circulation. The intent of this section is to manage access to land uses and on-site circulation, and to preserve the transportation system in terms of safety,rapacity and function. 1. Applicability. This section applies to all public streets within the City of Ashland and to all properties that abut these streets. The standards apply when developments are subject to a planning action (e.g. Site Review,Conditional Use Permit, Land Partition, Performance Standards Subdivision). 2. Site Circulation. New development shall be required to provide a circulation system that accommodates expected traffic on the site. All on-site circulation systems shall incorporate street-like features as described in Section 18.92.090.A.3.c. Pedestrian connections on the site, including connections through large sites, and connections between sites and adjacent sidewalks must conform to the provisions of Section 18.92 p91�_ --- comet t[h141:M.:rmduda 3. Intersection and Driveway Separation. The distance from a street intersection to a driveway, or from a driveway to another driveway shall meet the minimum spacing requirements for the street's classification in the Ashland Transportation System Plan (TSP). a. In no case shall driveways be closer than 24 feet as measured from the bottom of the existing or proposed apron wings of the driveway approach. b. Any partitioning or subdivision of property located in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1, CM or M-1 zone shall meet the controlled access standards set forth below. If applicable, cross access easements shall be required so that access to all properties created by the land division can be made from one or more paints. c. Street and driveway access points in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1 or M-1 zone shall be limited to the following: 1. Distance between driveways. On arterial streets- 100 feet; on collector streets-75 feet; on residential streets-50 feet. 2. Distance from intersections. On arterial streets- 100 feet; 2012-01-24 Planning Commission Pedeshm Places Re-m m Pape 111 - 27 on collector streets-50 feet; on residential streets-35 feet. d. Street and driveway access points in the CM zone are subject to the requirements of the Croman Mill District Standards.tomaos,a ,wvr:roro) e. Access Requirements for Multi-family Developments. i. All multi-family developments which will have automobile trip generation in excess of 250 vehicle trips per day shall provide at least two driveway access points to the development. Trip generation shall be determined by the methods established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. ii. Creating an obstructed street as defined in Section 18.88.020.G is prohibited. 4. Shared Use of Driveways and Curb Cuts. a. Plans submitted for developments subject to a planning action shall indicate how driveway intersections with streets have been minimized through the use of shared driveways and shall indicate all necessary access easements. Where necessary from traffic safety and access management purposes, the City may require joint access and/or shared driveways in the following situations. i. For shared parking areas; ii. For adjacent developments, where access onto an arterial is limited; and iii For multi-family developments,and developments on multiple lots. b. Developments subject to a planning action shall remove all curb cuts and driveway approaches not shown to be necessary for existing improvements or the proposed development. Cuts and approaches shall be 'replaced with standard curb, gutter or sidewalk as appropriate. All replacement shall be done under permit of the Engineering Division. c. If the site is served by a shared access or alley, access for motor vehicles must be from the shared access or alley and not from the street frontage. D. Driveways and Turn-Around Design. Driveways and tum-arounds providing access to parking areas shall conform to the following provisions: 1. A driveway for a single dwelling shall have a minimum width of nine feet, and a shared driveway serving two units shall have a width of 12 feet. 2. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces per lot shall be provided with adequate aisles or turn-around areas so that all vehicles may enter the street in a forward manner. 3. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces shall be served by a driveway 20 feet in width and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic on or off the site, with due regard to pedestrian and vehicle safety, and shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined. Parking areas of seven spaces or less shall be served by a driveway 12 feet in width. 4. Vertical Clearances. Driveways,aisles,turn-around areas and ramps shall have a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6"for their entire length and width. 5. Vision Clearance. No obstructions may be placed in the vision clearance area except as set forth in Section 18.68.020. 2012-01-24 Planning Commission Pedestrian Places Re-review Page 112 28 E. Parking and Access Construction. The development and maintenance as provided below,shall apply in all cases,except single-family dwellings. 1. Paving. All required parking areas, aisles, tum-arounds and driveways shall be paved with concrete, asphaltic, pervious paving, or comparable surfacing, constructed to standards on file in the office of the City Engineer. 2. Drainage. All required parking areas, aisles and turn-arounds shall have provisions made for the on-site collection of drainage waters to eliminate sheet flow of such waters onto sidewalks, public rights-of-way, and abutting private property. 3. Driveway approaches. Approaches shall be paved with concrete surfacing constructed to standards on file in the office of the City Engineer. 4. Marking. Parking lots of more than seven spaces shall have all spaces permanently and clearly marked. 5. Wheel stops. Wheel stops shall be a minimum of four inches in height and width and six feet in length. They shall be firmly attached to the ground and so constructed as to withstand normal wear. Wheel stops shall be provided where appropriate for all spaces abutting property lines, buildings, landscaping, and no vehicle shall overhang a public right-of-way. 6. Walls and Hedges. a. Where parking abuts upon a street, a decorative masonry wall or evergreen hedge screen of 30-42 inches in height and a minimum of 12" in width shall be established parallel to and not nearer than two feet from the right-of-way line, Screen planting shall be of such size and number to provide the required screening within 12 months after installation. The area between the wall or - hedge and street line shall be landscaped. All vegetation shall be adequately maintained by a permanent irrigation system, and said wall or hedge shall be maintained in good condition. The required wall or screening shall be designed to allow for free access to the site and sidewalk by pedestrians. b. In all zones, except single-family zones,where parking facilities or driveways are located adjacent to residential or agricultural zones, school yards, or like institutions, a sight-obscuring fence, wall, or evergreen hedge not less than five feet, nor more than six feet high shall be provided on the property line as measured from the high grade side. Said wall, fence or hedge shall be reduced to 30 inches within required setback area, or within 10 feet of street property lines, and shall be maintained in good condition. Screen plantings shall be of such size and number to provide the required screening within 12 months after installation. Adequate provisions shall be made to protect walls, fences or plant materials from being damaged by vehicles using said parking areas. 7. Landscaping. In all zones, all parking facilities shall include landscaping to cover not less than 7% of the area devoted to outdoor parking facilities, including the landscaping required in subdivision 6(a) above. Said landscaping shall be uniformly distributed throughout the parking area, be provided with irrigation facilities and protective curbs or raised wood headers. It may consist of trees, plus shrubs, ground cover or related material. A minimum of one tree per seven parking spaces is required. 2012-01-24 Planning Commission Pedestrian Places Reaevim Page 113 29 8. Lighting of parking areas within 100 feet of property in residential zones shall be directed into or on the site and away from property lines such that the light element shall not be directly visible from abutting residential property. SECTION 18.82.080 Pedestrian Access and' Irculatio4 Comment[h15]:N. fi.. Ch.18.72 Site Design and Use Standards previously A. Site Layout and Design. To ensure safe, direct, and convenient pedestrian included pedestrian mud bicycle circulation, circulation, all developments, except single-family dwellings on individual lots and methods, Dmil Site Review Zone,and moronape accessory uses and structures, shall provide a continuous walkway system. The mwrevaornu for ou-site CYrolini In systeOsr walkway system shall be based on the standards in subsections 1-4, below: Large Snk Developmant 1. Continuous Walkway System. Extend the walkway system throughout the development site and connect to all future phases of development, and to existing or planned off-site adjacent sidewalks, trails, public parks, and open space areas to the greatest extent practicable. The developer may also be required to connect or stub walkway(s)to adjacent streets and to private property for this purpose. 2. Safe. Direct. and Convenient. Provide safe, reasonably direct, and convenient walkway connections between primary building entrances and all adjacent streets, based on the following definitions: a. Reasonably direct. A route that does not deviate unnecessarily from a straight line or a route that does not involve a significant amount of out-of-direction travel for likely users. b. Safe and convenient. Routes that are reasonably free from hazards and provide a reasonably direct route of travel between destinations. c. "Primary entrance" for commercial, industrial, mixed use, public, and institutional buildings is the main public entrance to the building. In the case where no public entrance exists, street connections shall be provided to the main employee entrance. Cl. "Primary entrance" for residential buildings is the front door (i.e. facing the street). For multifamily buildings in which each unit does not have its own exterior entrance, the "primary entrance" may be a lobby, courtyard, or breezeway which serves as a common entrance for more than one dwelling. 3. Connections within Development. Walkways within developments shall be provide connections as required in subsections a c, below: a. Connect all building entrances to one another to the extent practicable, as generally shown in Figure 1; b Connect all on-site parking areas, recreational facilities and common areas, and connect off-site adjacent uses to the site to the extent practicable. Topographic or existing development constraints may be cause for not making certain walkway connections,as generally shown in Figure 1;and 2012-01-24 Pkmnhg Commission Pedestrian Places R� Page 114 30 Figure 7 Pedestrian Pathway System fTVpical) Pobpe Sid,wdim t. (Cmdnmm) . Envy Waawq, rub,1 sm.,m (Cmdm,m) c-=9 nowrrmm PU=Md AM Md a my= �6w ean�r=&MaW c. Install protected raised walkways through parking areas of 50 or more spaces,or of more than 100 feet in average width or depth. B. Walkway Design and Construction. Walkways shall conform to all of the standards in subsections 1-4,as generally illustrated in Figure 2: 1. Vehicle/Walkway Separation. Except for crosswalks (subsection 2), where a walkway abuts a driveway or street, it shall be raised six inches and curbed along the edge of the driveway/street. Altematively, the decision body may approve a walkway abutting a driveway at the same grade as the driveway if the walkway is protected from all vehicle maneuvering areas. An example of such protection is a row of decorative metal or concrete bollards designed to withstand a vehicle's impact,with adequate minimum spacing between them to protect pedestrians. 2012-01-24 Planning Commission Pedestian Places Re-review Pape 115 31 2. Crosswalks. Where walkways cross a parking area or driveway, clearly mark crosswalks with contrasting paving materials (e.g., light-color concrete inlay between asphalt), which may be part of a raised/hump crossing area. Painted or thermo- plastic striping and similar types of non-permanent applications may be approved for crosswalks not exceeding 24 feet in length. 3. Walkway Surface and Width. Walkway surfaces shall be concrete, asphalt, brick/masonry pavers, or other durable surface, and at least five feet wide. Multi- �wa.ro use paths (i.e. for bicycles and pedestrians) shall be concrete or wd � asphalt, and at least 10 feet wide in accordance with the Ashland Street Standards in Section 18.88.020.K. a ; 4. Accessible routes. Walkways shall comply with applicable Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and State of Oregon requirements. The ends of all raised walkways, where the walkway intersects a driveway or street shall provide ramps that are ADA accessible, and walkways ""�"BU1dngftt' shall provide direct routes to primary building entrances. 5. Provide pedestrian scale lighting no greater than 14 feet in height along pedestrian facilities.. SECTION 18.82.100 Construction. The required parking, access and circulations facilities, shall be installed prior to a release of a certificate of use and occupancy or a release of utilities, and shall be permanently maintained as a condition of use. However, the Building Official may, unless otherwise directed by the Planning Commission or Staff Advisor, release a temporary certificate of use and occupancy and a temporary release of utilities before the installation of said facilities provided: (1) there is proof that the owner has entered into a contract with a reputable installer for the completion of the parking, including design standards,with a specked time, and that there remains nothing for the owner to do prior to installation; or(2)the owner has posted a satisfactory performance bond to ensure the installation of said parking facilities within a specified time. 2012-01-24 Planning Commission Pedestrian Places Re-m m Page 116 32 SECTION 18.92.110 Alterations and Enlargements. The required parking, access and circulation facilities shall be constructed when an existing building or dwelling is altered or enlarged by the addition or creation of guest rooms or dwelling units, or when a use is intensified by the addition of floor space, seating capacity,or change in use. SECTION 18.92.120 Availability of Facilities. Required parking, access and circulation shall be available for use by residents, customers and employees only, and shall not be used for the storage or display of vehicles or materials. 2012-01-24 Planning Commission Pedesmw Places Re4mm Pape 117 33 4. SITE DESIGN REVIEW—.18.72 ' Site Design and Use Standards C. Commercial, Employment, and Industrial Development II-C-1 Basic Site Review Standards APPROVAL STANDARDS Development in all commercial and employment zones shall conform to the following development standards: II-C-1a) Orientation and Scale 1. Buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street rather than the parking area. Building entrances shall be oriented toward the street and shall be accessed from a public sidewalk. Where buildings are located on a comer lot,the entrance shall be oriented toward the higher order street or to the lot comer at the intersection of the streets. Public sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to a public street along the street frontage. Buildings shall be located as close to the intersection comer as practicable. 2. Building entrances shall be located within 20 feet of the public right of way to which they are required to be oriented. Exceptions may be granted for topographic constraints, lot configuration, designs where a greater setback results in an improved access or for sites with multiple buildings, such as shopping centers,where this standard is met by other buildings.Automobile circulation or parking shall not be allowed between the building and the right- of-way. The entrance shall be designed to be clearly visible,functional, and shall be open to the public during all business hours. 3. These requirements may be waived if the building is not accessed by pedestrians, such as warehouses and industrial buildings without attached offices,and automotive service stations. 11-C-1 b) 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. II-C-1c) Landscaping 1. Landscaping shall be designed so that 50% coverage occurs after one year . and 90%coverage occurs after 5 years. 2. Landscaping design shall utilize a variety of low water use and deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and flowering plant species. 3. Buildings adjacent to streets shall be buffered by landscaped areas at least 10 feet in width, except in the Ashland Historic District and Detail Site Review Zone. Outdoor store0e_areas shall be screened from-view-from_-- tamrnene(hea):trewu�sp. adjacent public rights-of-way,except in M-1 zones. Loading facilifies shall be . screened and buttered when adjacent to residentially zoned land. 4. Irrigation systems shall be installed to assure landscaping success. 2012-01-24 Planning Commission Pedestrian Places Reiemew Pape 18 34 5. Efforts shall be made to save as many existing healthy trees and shrubs on the site as possible. II-C-1d) 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. II-C-1e) Designated Creek Protection 1. Designated creek protection areas shall be considered positive design elements and incorporated in the overall design of a given project. 2. Native riparian plan materials shall be planted in and adjacent to the creek to enhance the creek habitat. II-C-1f) Noise and Glare Special 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. II-C-1g) 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 a building area is expanded by 25%, then 25%of the site must be brought up to the standards required by this document. II-C-2 Detail Site Review APPROVAL STANDARDS Developments that are within the Detail Site Review Zone shall, In addition to complong with the standards for Basic Site Review, conlbrm to the following standards: II-C-2a) Orientation and Scale I. Developments shall have a minimum Floor Area Ratio.(FAR)of -Plazas-__- Comment[1,171:F iommiviae waa35 and pedestrian areas shall count as floor area for the purposes of meeting FAR and them was a maximum FAR of.S mueide the minimum FAR. Projects including existing buildings or vacant parcels of "°`°W Dlaakt. em.isloa fw a Shadow vwa is s< a half an acre or greater in size shall achieve the required minimum FAR,or provide a shadow plan (see graphic) that demonstrates how development may be intensified over time to meet the required minimum FAR- 2012-01-24 Planning Cornmssbn Pedestrian Places Re-mview Page 119 35 a..sme,.e ad.avA.rw.... M�'a Lfr fns" IL--� Jl I 1 1 $l,albw plan 2- Building frontages greater than 100 feet in length shall have offsets,jogs, or have other distinctive changes in the building fagade. 3. Any wall which is within 30 feet of the street, plaza or other public open space shall contain at least 20%of the wall area facing the street in display areas, windows, or doorways. Windows must allow view into working areas - or lobbies, pedestrian entrances or displays areas. Blank walls within 30 feet of the street are prohibited. Up to 40%of the length of the building perimeter can be exempted for 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 or 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. 11-C-2b) Streetscape 1. Hardscape (paving material) shall be utilized to designate "people" areas. Sample materials could be unit masonry, scored and colored concrete, grasscrete,or combinations of the above. 2. A building shall be setback not more than 5 'ee{from_a public sidewalk _ - Co 111,191: r iouoly waety.could be unless the area is used for pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside ¢1MCt oo omre toes 20 fen soot d.e:idewelt. eating areas, or for a required public utility�asemenf_This standard_shall __- cmrmmt[h191:re.e W,,co,. apply to both street frontages on comer lots. If more than one structure is proposed for a site, at least 65%of the aggregate building frontage shall be within 5 feet of the sidewalk. 2012-01-24 Planning Commission Pedestrian Places Re-review Page 120 36 ll-C-2c) Buffering and Screening 1. Landscape buffers and screening shall be located between incompatible uses on an adjacent lot.Those buffers can consist or either plant material or building materials and must be compatible with proposed buildings. 2. Parking lots shall be buffered from the main street, cross streets and screened from residentially zoned land. II-C-2d) Building Materials 1. Buildings shall include changes in relief such as comices, bases, fenestration,fluted masonry,for at least 15%of the exterior wall area. 2. Bright or neon paint colors used extensively to attract attention to the building or use are prohibited. Buildings may not incorporate glass as a majority of the building skin. Il-C-3 Additional Standards for Large Scale Protects APPROVAL STANDARDS Developments(1)Involving a gross floor area In excess of 10,000 sq.ft. or a building frontage In excess of 100 feet in length,(2)located within the Detail Site Review Zone,shall,In addidon to complying to the standards for Basic and Detail Site review,shall conform to the following standards: Il-C-3a) Orientation and Scale 1. Developments shall divide large building masses into heights and sizes that relate to human scale by incorporating changes in building masses or direction, sheltering roofs, a distinct pattern of divisions on surfaces, windows,trees,and small scale lighting. 2. Outside of the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone shall conform to the following standards: a., Buildings sharing a common wall or having walls touching at or above grade shall be considered as one building. b. Buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 square feet as measured outside of the exterior walls and including all interior courtyards. For the purpose of this section an interior courtyard means a space bounded on three or more sides by walls but not a roof. c. Buildings shall not exceed a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet,including all interior floor space,roof top parking,and outdoor retail and storage areas,with the following exception: Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint and in the basement shall not count toward the total gross floor area. For the purpose of this section, basement means any floor level below the first story in a building. First story shall have the same meaning as provided in the building code. 2012-01-24 Planning Commission Pedestrian Places Re+eview Page 121 37 d. Buildings shall not exceed a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. Inside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 square feet or a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet, including roof top parking,with the following exception: Automobile parking areas locate within the building foot print and in the basement shall not count toward the total gross floor area. For the purpose of this section, basement means any floor level below the first story in a building. First story shall have the same meaning as provided in the building code. 3. Buildings not connected by a common wall shall be separated by a distance equal to the height of the tallest building. If buildings are more than 240 feet in length,the separation shall be 60 feet. II-C-3b) Public Spaces 1. One square foot of plaza or public space shall be required for every 10 square feet of gross floor area. 2. A plaza or public spaces shall incorporate at least 4 of the 6 following elements: a. Sifting Space—at least one sitting space for each 500 square feet shall be included in the plaza. Seating shall be a minimum of 16 p inches in height and 30 inches in width. Ledge benches shall have a minimum depth of 30 inches. b. A mixture of areas that provide both sunlight 8 shade. c. Protection from wind by screens and buildings. d. Trees—provided in proportion to the space at a minimum of 1 tree per 500 square feet,at least 2 inches in diameter at breast height. e. Water features or public art. f. Outdoor eating areas or food vendors: II-C-3c) Transit Amenities Transit amenities, bus shelters, pullouts, and designated bike lanes shall be required in accordance with the City's Transportation Plan and guidelines established by the Rogue Valley Transportation District. IIC3d) Recycling Recycling areas shall be provided at all developments. 2012-01-24 Plannug Commission Pedestrian Places Re4new Page 122 . 38 Detail Site Review Overlay y i x � ,East Mafn'SC, m se� 39 Detail Site Review Overlay Pedestrian Places Overlay I is (, Xaast Main Sli, 1 i D i 3 i ' 1 N j 40 ORDINANCE NO. 3bS3 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC 18.72.080 SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS IMPLEMENTING'THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PEDESTRIAN PLACES PROJECT Annotated to show deletiens and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold lined4hrough and additions are in bold underline. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v.•International Ass'n of Firefighters. Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland is projected to grow by approximately 3,250 residents by 2030 and 2,000 employees by 2027, and the City Council reaffirmed the long-standing policy of accommodating growth within the Ashland Urban Growth Boundary rather than growing outward into surrounding farm and forest lands in the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving(RPS)planning process; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland seeks to balance projected population and employment growth with the community goal of retaining a district boundary and preventing sprawling development, and to this end examines opportunities to use land more efficiently for housing and businesses; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland continues the community's tradition of integrating land use and transportation planning, and using sustainable development measures such as encouraging a mix and intensity of uses on main travel corridors to support transit service and use, integrating affordable housing opportunities, and reducing carbon emissions by providing a variety of transportation options; and WHEREAS, the City conducted a planning process involving a series of public workshops,on- line forum, key participant meetings and study sessions from October 2010 through September 2011 involving a three-step process in which participants identified the qualities that make a successful pedestrian place, developed vision statements for the three study areas, and reviewed and revised plans illustrating an example of what development might look like in a key location; . and An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.080 Site Design and Use Standards Page 1 41 WHEREAS,the final report for the Pedestrian Place project included recommended amendments to the zoning map and land use ordinance which would support the development of the Pedestrian Places envisioned in the planning process being small walkable nodes that provide concentrations of housing and businesses grouped in a way to encourage more walking, cycling and transit use; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above-referenced recommended amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance at a duly advertised public hearing on October 11, 2011,and following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments by a unanimous vote; and WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on November 1, 2011 and, following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article X of the Ashland City Charter-, and WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance in manner proposed; that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. Site Design and Use Standards [C. COMMERCIAL, EMPLOYMENT, AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT—II-C-1 BASIC SITE REVIEW STANDARDS] is hereby amended to read as follows: 11-C-1c) Landscaping I. Landscaping shall be designed so that 50% coverage occurs after one year . and 90%coverage occurs after 5 years. 2. Landscaping design shall utilize a variety of low water use and deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and Flowering plant species. 3. Buildings adjacent to streets shall be buffered by landscaped areas at least 10 feet in width, except in the Ashland Historic District and Detail Site Review Zone. 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. An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.080 Site Design and Use Standards Page 2 42 SECTION 3. Site Design and Use Standards [C. COMMERCIAL, EMPLOYMENT,AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT— 11-C-2 DETAIL SITE REVIEW STANDARDS) is hereby amended to read as follows: 11-C-2a) Orientation and Scale I. Developments shall have a minimum Floor Area Ratio F( ARl of.511:35-end the 1140401F-00 —DiStFiet. Plazas and pedestrian areas shall count as floor area for the purposes of meeting the minimum FAR. Proiects including existing buildings or vacant parcels of a half an acre or greater in size shall achieve the required minimum FAR or provide a shadow plan (see graphic) that demonstrates how development may be intensified over time to meet the required minimum FAR. Fcnat:voivw Oc-.9 . /�'aerr+tl:ara 1 i �1 1 shadow plan 2. Building frontages greater than 100 feet in length shall have offsets, jogs, or have other distinctive changes in the building fagade. 3. Any wall which is within 30 feet of the street, plaza or other public open space shall contain at.least 20% of the wall area facing the street in display areas, windows, or doorways. Windows must allow view into working areas or lobbies, pedestrian entrances or displays areas. Blank walls within 30 feet of the street are prohibited. Up to 40%of the length of the building perimeter can be exempted for 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. Infil) or buildings, adjacent to public sidewalks, in existing parking lots is encouraged and desirable. An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.080 Site Design and Use Standards Page 3 43 6. Buildings shall incorporate arcades, roofs, alcoves, porticoes, and awnings that protect pedestrians from the rain and sun. 11-C-2b) Streetscape 1. Hardscape (paving material) shall be utilized to designate "people" areas. Sample materials could be unit masonry, scored and colored concrete, grasscrete, or combinations of the above. 2. A building shall be setback not more than 5 20 feet from a public sidewalk unless the area is used for pedestrian, activities such as plazas or outside eating areas, or for a required public utility easement. This standard shall apply to both street frontages on comer lots. If more than one structure is proposed for a site, at least 65% of.the aggregate building frontage shall be within 5 20 feet of the sidewalk. (Amended September 23, 2003 Ordinance# 2900) 1. Pr-;- Pptpd Faised walliways shall be installed through par-king areas or- more spa e es or m 9 r e 9--h--a n- I ON &--e#- -0 n ever-age width o r depth-. 2. Par-king leis with 50 spsees or- more shall be divided inte separate areas and divided by landseaped areas or walleways a!least 10 feet In width, or- by a building or group of buildings; eir-eulation plan for thp site. 0-mp site pedestrian walkways must be lighted !a a level wheFe ilhe system eon be used at night by employees residents and eustainers. Pedestrian wallyways shall be dir-eeilly linlEed to eniranees.and to the internal eir-eul-Ation A-F the build-int. I1-C-3d2JcBuffering and Screening 1. Landscape buffers and screening shall be located between incompatible uses on an adjacent lot. Those buffers can consist or either plant material or building materials and must be compatible with proposed buildings. 2. Parking lots shall be buffered from the main street, cross streets and screened from residentially zoned land. i Lighting Lighting she'! inelude adequate lights that are sealed for pedesirian*-by o neluding light standards oF plueements of no gFemer than 14 feel In height II-C-Md)Building Materials 1. Buildings shall include changes in relief such as cornices, bases, fenestration, fluted masonry, for at least 15%of the exterior wall area. 2. Bright or neon paint colors used extensively to attract attention to the building or use are prohibited. Buildings may not incorporate glass as a majority of the building skin. An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.080 Site Design and Use Standards Page 4 44 SECTION 4. Site Design and Use Standards [C. COMMERCIAL, EMPLOYMENT, AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT— II-C-3 ADDITIONAL STANDAREDS FOR LARGE SCAEL PROJECTS] is hereby amended to read as follows: II-C-3a) Orientation and Scale 1. Developments shall divide large building masses into heights and sizes that t relate to human scale by incorporating changes in building masses or direction, sheltering roofs, a distinct pattern of divisions on surfaces, windows, trees, and small scale lighting. 2. Outside of the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone shall conform to the following standards: (Amended September 23, 2003 Ordinance#2900) a. Buildings sharing a common wall or having walls touching at or above grade shall be considered as one building. b. Buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 square feet as measured outside of the exterior walls and including all interior courtyards. For the purpose of this section an interior courtyard means a space bounded on three or more sides by walls but not a roof. c. Buildings shall not exceed a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet, including all interior floor space, roof top parking, and outdoor retail and storage areas, with the following exception: Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint and in the basement shall not count toward the total gross floor area. For the purpose of this section, basement means any floor level below the first story in a building. First story shall have the same meaning as provided in the building code. d. Buildings shall not exceed a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. Inside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 square feet or a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet, including roof top parking, with the following exception: Automobile parking areas locate within the building foot print and in the basement shall not count toward the total gross floor area. For the purpose of this section, basement means any floor level below the first story in a building. First story shall have the same meaning as provided in the building code. 3. Buildings not connected by a common wall shall he separated by a distance equal to the height of the tallest building. If buildings are more than 240 feet in length, the separation shall be 60 feet. An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.080 Site Design and Use Standards Page 5 45 trees SECTION 5. Site Design and Use Standards [SECTION VIII CROMAN MILL DISTRICT STANDARDS-B. DESIGN STANDARDS ] is hereby amended to read as follows: VIII-B-2 Parkin?Areas and On-site Circulation I. Primary parking areas shall be located behind buildings with limited parking on one side of the building. 2. Parking areas shall be shaded by deciduous trees, buffered from adjacent non-residential uses and screened from non-residential uses. 3. Parking areas shall meet the Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards of Section II-D of the Site Design and Use Standards. Additional Parking Area and On-site Circulation Standards for Developments Adjacent to Active Edge Streets, or Within NC, MU and OE Overlays: 4. Parking areas shall be located behind buildings. spaces or more than _100 feet in average width or depth. 6. Paridag lots wkh 50 spsees or- moreshall be divided into separate areas and diAde by landseeped a-, least ten feet in width, or-hy a building or-group 7. Developments of one nere er more must provide .—Pie e*reulaioan plan lor !he site. On site pedesirm eel where the system eon be used a! night by employees, r-esidents a;--d eust-a-me-r-s. Pedestrian Walkways shall he dweefly linked !a entranees and to the internal eireulation of!he ef-bu+Wiegs: building. VIII-B-3 Automobile Parkin? With the exception of the standards described below, automobile parking shall be provided in accordance with the Off-Street Parking chapter 18.92, Section VIII-C Croman Mill District Green Development Standards, and Section II-D Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards of the Site Design and Use Standards. Par-king. The amount of required offstreet Fedueed by not more then 50916,!hFough applienizon of!he following a. On Stree!Credit- One off -.Qtr-pet parking space er-edit for every an street 9psee. b. T-DM Plan Grediti Through implementation of an individual TFan�peAaflon Demand Mamagemen! (:FDA!) plan the! demonstr-ales a reduetion of long term e. A4i*ed Use Gredit, Through a mixed use par-king or-raingement !he demonstrates the peak parking demands are offsei. The ered'! shall reduee the off sireet parldng Fequiremen! by a percentage equal to !be offset in partin • demand= An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.080 Site Design and Use Standards Page 6 46 d Sh flFed Parking Gredw One off street parking space .....alit L... every __ construeged in designsied off site shared parldag areas, or- through payment a D n lieu of parking fees for a eemmen'par-king slruelur-e(s) upon establishment a 2-. 1. Maximum On-Site Surface Parking. After a parking management strategy for the Croman Mill District is in place, a maximum of 50%of the required off-street parking can be constructed as surface parking on any development site. The remaining parking requirement can be met through one or a combination of the credits for automobile parking in VIII-B 3(I) 18.92.025. SECTION 6. Site Design and Use Standards [SECTION VIII CROMAN MILL DISTRICT STANDARDS -B. GREEN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ] is hereby amended to read as follows: VIII-C-4 Design Green Surface Parking A maximum of 25% of the project area shall be used for surface parking Psflimingiweas shell-be designed to minimize the adverse environmental and microclimatic impacts of surface parking through design and material selection. All parking areas shah-meet the following standards, and shall comply with the with the Off-Street Parking chapter 18.92, with Section VIII-B Croman Mill Design Standards, and Section II-D Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards of the Site Design and Use Standards. 0 of the projeet area for-su�_ee parking; 2. ■ ge .at least Ane of the call.....:_.. strategies f,._ the s _feee parking area . enoi or- of parking underground. a. Use light colored paying meter-in's with a high selar refleeianee (Solar Refleetive inde* (SRI) of at least 29) to reduee hea! absorption for a mininium of 50910 a the parlding area surfseew b. PFewide per-num qn-lid- quirfeei i pavement system that ig at least 50% penieusferaminimum -50" F11 king area sur-Fitee. c. Provide at lens! 5094 shade f 4ver the surfeep lot within five VIII-C-5 Manage and Reuse of Stormwater Run-Off Reduce the public infrastructure costs and adverse environmental effects of stormwater run- off by managing run-off from building roofs, driveways, parking areas, sidewalks and other hard surfaces through implementation of the following standards. 1. Design grading and site plans to capture and slow runoff. 2. Design par-king lots and ether hAFd starkee areas in a way Abel esplur-es and tr-eats 1.2.Use pervious or semi-pervious surfaces that allow water to infiltrate the soil. 44.Direct discharge storm water runoff into a designated green street and neighborhood storm water treatment facilities. ".Retain rainfall on-site through infiltration, evapotranspiration or through capture and reuse techniques. An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.080 Site Design and Use Standards Page 7 47 SECTION 7. Severability.The sections, subsections,paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 8. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word"ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections I- 4) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in ac ordanc with Article X, Section 2(C)of the City Charter on the__Z-_day of Dd 2011, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this AS day of 12011. ,6,46a 4 ez Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this �y day ofA"Aq--2011. oh Stromberg, Mayor Revi ed as to for 7 avid Lohman, City Attorney An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.080 Site Design and Use Standards Page 8 48 ORDINANCE NO. O SL1 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC 18.08 9 18.12.0209 18.68.0509 18.72.0309 18.72.080, 18.72.0909 18.889 18.88.080, 18.929 18.108.040, 18.108.060 AND 18.108.080 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE AND LAND USE ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PEDESTRIAN PLACES PROJECT Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold ' and additions are in bold underline. WHEREAS,Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. Ci of Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefighters. Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734(1975); and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland is projected to grow by approximately 3,250 residents by 2030 and 2,000 employees by 2027,and the City Council reaffirmed the long-standing policy of accommodating growth within the Ashland Urban Growth Boundary rather than growing outward into surrounding farm and forest lands in the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving(RPS)planning process; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland seeks to balance projected population and employment growth with the community goal of retaining a district boundary and preventing sprawling development, and to this end examines opportunities to use land more efficiently for housing and businesses; and WHEREAS,the City of Ashland continues the community's tradition of integrating land use and transportation planning,and using sustainable development measures such as encouraging a mix and intensity of uses on main travel corridors to support transit service and use, integrating affordable housing opportunities,and reducing carbon emissions by providing a variety of transportation options; and WHEREAS, the City conducted a planning process involving a series of public workshops, on- line forum, key participant meetings and study sessions from October 2010 through September 2011 involving a three-step process in which participants identified the qualities that make a An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 1 49 successful pedestrian place, developed vision statements for the three study areas,and reviewed and revised plans illustrating an example of what development might look like in a key location; . and WHEREAS, the final report for the Pedestrian Place project included recommended amendments to the zoning map and land use ordinance which would support the development of the Pedestrian Places envisioned in the planning process being small walkable nodes that provide concentrations of housing and businesses grouped in a way to encourage more walking, cycling and transit use; and e WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above-referenced recommended amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances at a duly advertised public hearing on October 11, 2011, and following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments by a unanimous vote; and WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on November 1, 2011 and on subsequent public hearing continuance dates, and following the close of the public hearing and record,deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article X of the Ashland City Charter; and WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City,it is necessary to amend the Ashland Municipal-Code and Land Use Ordinance in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments arc fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. AMC Chapter 18.08 [Definitions] is hereby amended as follows: SECTION 18.08.651 whieh yard measuremenis sire made, measured herizentafly and a! vigh! angles ffem said ,SpeeiaU SECTION 18.08.655 Shadow Plan A schematic or conceptual desimt for future land development when a lot could be developed at a higher intensity. A shadow plan demonstrates that the proposed development will not impede the future use of the lot to be fully developed to the required buildine intensity standards(i.e. Floor Area Ratio), and that the proposed development has been planned to prevent piecemeal and uncoordinated development. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 2 50 SECTION 3. AMC Chapter 18.12.020 [Classification of Districts] is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.12.020 Classification of Districts. For the purpose of this Title, the City is divided into zoning districts designated as follows: Zoning Districts and Overlays Map Symbol and Abbreviated Designation Airport Overlay A Residential - Rural RR Residential - Single Family R-1 Residential - Low Density Multiple Family R-2 Residential - High Density Multiple Family R-3 Commercial C-1 Commercial - Downtown C-1-13 Employment E-1 Industrial M-1 Woodland Residential WR SOU - Southern Oregon University SOU Performance Standards _Options Overlay PSO Pedestrian Place Overlay PP Detail Site Review Zone DSR Health Care Services Zone HC North Mountain Neighborhood NM Croman Mill District Zone CM Residential Overlay R Freeway Sign Overlay F SECTION 4. AMC Section 18.68.050 [Arterial Street Setback Requirements] is hereby deleted as follows: SECTION 18.68.050 Arterial Street Setback Requirements. To permit or! afford better light, air and vision on more heavily traveled streets and on s#Feels of substandard width, to preteet arterial sty-eetq, and to permit the eventual widening of here 0 nafter named streets, every yard abutting a street, or- peFlien thereof-, shefl be measure ' ' - . I base line seibeeks listed below instead of the Wt line separating the la!&om Me sir-eel. c ' _--_-- Setbeek _i p,yeen 35-feet .4sh-land -99reet (Highway 66) between I 6✓fee An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.]8 Page 3 51 Also--The setback from an arterial street shall be no less than twenty (20) feet,or the width required to install sidewalk and parkrow improvements consistent with the City of Ashland Street Standards in Section 18.88.020.1(, whichever is less SECTION 5. AMC Chapter 18.72.030 [Applicability) is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.72.030 Applicability. Site design standards shall apply to all zones of the city as outlined below. A. Applicability. The following development is subject to Site Design Review: 1. Commercial, Industrial, Non-Residential and Mixed uses: a. All new structures, additions or expansions in C-1, E-1, HC, CM and M-1 Zones. b. All new non-residential structures or additions (e.g. public .buildings, schools, churches, etc.). c. Mixed-use structures or developments containing commercial and residential uses in residential zoning districts within the Pedestrian Places Overlay. e d.Expansion of impervious surface area in excess of 10%of the area of the site or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less. d e.Expansion of parking lots, relocation of parking spaces on a site, or other changes which alters or affects circulation on adjacent property or a public right-of-way. e f. Any change of occupancy from a less intensive to a more intensive occupancy, as defined in the City building code, or any change in use which requires a greater number of parking spaces. f-g.Any change in use of a lot from one general use category to another general use category, e.g., from residential to commercial, as defined b the zoning regulations of this Code. g h.Any exterior change to a structure which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places or to a contributing property within an Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places that requires a building permit, or includes the installation of Public Art. It i.Mechanical equipment not otherwise exempt from site design review per Section 18.72.030(B). i. Installation of wireless communication facilities in accordance with Section 18.72.180. 2. Residential uses: a. Two or more residential units on a single lot. b. Construction of attached single-family housing(e.g. town homes, condominiums, row houses, etc.) in all zoning districts. c. Residential development when off-street parking or landscaping, in conjunction with an 'approved Performance Standards Subdivision required by ,ordinance and not located within the boundaries of the individual unit parcel (e.g. shared parking). d. Any exterior change to a structure individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places that requires a building permit, or includes the installation of Public Art. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 4 52 e. Mechanical equipment not otherwise exempt from site design review per Section 18.72.030(B). (Ord 2984, amended, 05/19/2009; Ord 2951, amended, 07/01/2008; Ord 3036, amended, 08/17/2010) f. Installation of wireless communication facilities in accordance with Section 18.72.180. B. Exemptions. The following development is exempt from Site Design Review application and procedure requirements provided that the development complies with applicable standards as set forth by this Chapter. 1. Detached single family dwellings and associated accessory structures and uses. 2. Land divisions regulated by the following chapters: Partitioning (18.76), Subdivisions (18.80), Manufactured Housing (18.84) and Performance Standards (18.88). 3. The following mechanical equipment: a. Private, non-commercial radio and television antennas,not exceeding a height of seventy (70) feet above grade or thirty (30) feet above an existing structure, whichever height is greater and provided no part of such antenna shall be within the yards required by this Title. A building permit shall be required for any antenna mast, or tower over fifty(50) feet above grade or thirty(30) feet above an existing structure when the same is constructed on the roof of the structure. b. Not more than three (3) parabolic disc antennas, each under one (1) meter in diameter, on any one lot or dwelling unit. c. Roof-mounted solar collection devices in all zoning districts, with the exception of Employment and' Commercial zoned properties located within designated historic districts. The devices shall comply'with solar setback standards described in 18.70 and height requirements of the respective zoning district. d. Installation of mechanical equipment not exempted by (a, b, c) above or (e) below, and which is not visible from a public right-of-way or adjacent residentially 'zoned property and consistent with other provisions of this Title, including solar access, noise, and setback requirements of Section 18.68.140(c). e. Routine maintenance and replacement of existing mechanical equipment in all zones. (Ord 2951, amended, 07/01/2008) SECTION 6. AMC Chapter 18.72.080 (Site Design Standards] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.72.080 Site Design Standards. A. The Council may adopt standards by ordinance for site design and use. These standards may contain: 1. Additional approval criteria for developments affected by this Chapter. 2. Information and recommendations regarding project and unit design and layout, landscaping, energy use and conservation, and other considerations regarding the site design. 3. Interpretations of the intent and purpose of this Chapter applied to specific examples. 4. Other information or educational materials the Council deems advisable. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 5 53 B. Before the Council may adopt or amend the guidelines standards, a public hearing must be held by the Planning Commission and a recommendation and summary of the hearing forwarded to the Council for its consideration. C. The Site Design and Use Standards adopted by Ordinance No's. 2690, 2800, 2825, 2900 and 3031, shall be applied as follows: 1. The Multi-family Residential Development Standards in Section II.B shall be applied to the construction of attached single-family housing (e.g. town homes, condominiums, row houses, etc.). 2. The Commercial, Employment, and Industrial Development standards in Section II.C. shall be applied to non-residential development (e.g. public buildings, schools, etc.) SECTION 7. AMC Chapter 18.72.090 [Administrative Variance from Site Design and Use Standards] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.72.090 Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards. An administrative varianee exception to the requirements of this chapter may be granted with respect to the requirements of the Site Design Standards adopted under section 18.72.080 if,on the basis of the application, investigation and evidence submitted, all of the following circumstances are found to exist: A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site Design and Use Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Standards, and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty, or prepertiest Use ChappteF; and D The Yarianee requested *9 the minimum varianee whieh would alleviate !he- diffieulty B. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Standards. SECTION 8. AMC Chapter 18.72.120 [Controlled access] is hereby deleted as follows: SEGTION 18.72.120 Controlled seeess. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 6 54 A. Any partiflaning or-subdivision of pr-epeFty leented On an R 2, R 3, G 1, E; , I zone shall meet the eenir-o'led neeess st-and—ar-d-s set ferih below. If appileable, eres aeeess easements shall he required so that seeess go all properties ereated by!be land- divisian Pan be -made from one OF more points; B. Stree!find dfiveway seeess poinis on an R 2,R 3, C 1, E 1 or M 1 zone shall be limited ie the following!Dissanee between driveways • On ierial streets 110 L... . on eelleeter-streets :75 fee!, on r-es'denfial streeft 50 fee!. On arterial StFeeis 100 on , ....n......... streets GIB f...... added,on residential streets 35 feet. the Greman Mill F-Mit-Fiet st-andard-q- (Ord 3036,D. Aeeess Requirements fer Multi family Developme 1. All multi family developments whieh will have suiamobile trip generation On emeess of 250 vehiele trips per- day shall provide at least two driveway seeess paints to the development. Trip generation shall be deter-mined by !he methods established by th institute of Transportation Engineers. 2. Creeiing an obstrueled street, as defined in , is prohibited. SECTION 9. AMC Section 18.88 [Sections] is hereby amended to read as follows: CHAPTER 18.88 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS SECTIONS: 18.88.010 Purpose and Intent. 18.88.020 Definitions. 18.88.030 Procedure for Approval. 18.88.040 Performance Standards for Residential Developments. 18.88.050 Street Standards. 18.88.060 Parking Standards. 18.88.070 Setbacks. 18.88.080 PSO-Overlay Zone. 18.88.090 Performance Standards Guidelines. 18.88.100 Applicability of Other Sections of the Land Use Development Ordinance. SECTION 10. AMC Section 18.88.080 [Sections] is hereby amended to read as follows: An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 7 55 SECTION 18.88.080 PSO-Overlay-time. A. The purpose of the PSO-overlay tennis to distinguish between those areas which have been largely developed under the subdivision code, and those areas which, due to the undeveloped nature of the property, topography, vegetation, or natural hazards, are more suitable for development under Performance Standards. , B. All developments, other than partitionings, which involve the division of land, or development of individual living units, in the PSO-overlay areas, shall be processed under this Chapter of the Land Use Ordinance. The rpinimum number of dwelling units for a Performance Standards Subdivision within residential zoning districts shall be three. (Ord 3036, amended, 08/18/10) C. In a PSO-overlay area, the granting of the application shall be considered an outright permitted use, subject to review by the Commission for compliance with the standards set forth in this Ordinance and the guidelines adopted by the Council. D. If a parcel is not in a PSO-overlay area, then development under this Chapter may only be approved if one or more of the following conditions exist: 1. The parcel is larger than two acres and is greater than 200 feet in average width; or 2. That development under this Chapter is necessary to protect the environment and the neighborhood from degradation which would occur from development to the maximum density allowed under subdivision standards, or would be equal in its aesthetic and environmental impact; or 3. The property is zoned R-2, R-3 or CM. SECTION 11. AMC Chapter 18.92 [Off-Street Parking] is hereby amended to read as follows: CHAPTER 18.92 ^F 'Va"�' STREET PARKING,ACCESS AND CIRCULATION _ SECTIONS: 18.92.010 Generally Purpose. 18.92.020 Applicability. 18.92.8x0030 Automobile Parking Spaces Required. 18.92.040 Disabled Person Parking Places. 18.92.823050 Parking Management Strategies. bled Person Per-king Plaees. 18.92.848060 Bicycle Parking. poet Car- PaF'z*ng; 18.92.0555070 Variances for Commercial Buildings in the Historic District. 1-9-ralle-tions,Location,Use of Feeilities; 18.92.838080 Parking,Access and Circulation Design Requirements. 18.92.090 Pedestrian Access and Circulation. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 8 56 18.92.080100 Construction. 18.92.090110 Alterations and Enlargements. 18.92.120 Availability of Facilities. SECTION 18.92.010 GeneeallyPur ose. enlarged, or the use is ehanged, off street parking shall be provided as met lo-Fth in Chi C-hepier_ The purpose of this chapter is to provide standards for development of vehicle and bicycle parking, and to ensure developments provide safe and effective access and circulation for pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles. SECTION 18.92.026 Applicability. In all districts, except those specifically exempted,whenever any building is erected or enlarged, parking or access is reconfigured, or the use is changed, parking,access and circulation shall be provided as set forth in this chapter. The City may require a study prepared by a Qualified professional to determine offsets in parking demand, access, circulation and other transportation impacts. SECTION 18.92.020030 Automobile Parking Spaces Required. Uses and standards are as follows: A. Residential Uses. For residential uses the following automobile parking spaces are required. 1. Single family dwellings. Two spaces for the primary dwelling unit and the following for accessory residential units: a. Studio units or I-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft. --1 spacelunit. b. I-bedroom units 500 sq. ft. or larger-- 1.50 spaces/unit. c. 2-bedroom units--1.75 spaces/unit. d. 3-bedroom or greater units-- 2.00 spaccs/unit. 2. Multi-family dwellings. a. Studio units or 1-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft. -- 1 spacelunit. b. 1-bedroom units 500 sq. ft. or larger-- 1.50 spaces/unit. c. 2-bedroom units-- 1.75 spaces/unit. d. 3-bedroom or greater units --2.00 spaces/unit. c. Retirement complexes for seniors 55-years or greater -- One space per unit. 3. Clubs, fraternity and sorority houses. rooming and boarding houses dormitories. Two spaces for each three guest rooms; in dormitories, 100 square feet shall be equivalent to a guest room. 4. Hotels and motels. One space for each guest room, plus one space for the owner or manager. 5. Manufactured housing developments. Parking requirements are as established in Chapter 18.84. 6. Performance Standards Developments. Parking requirements are as established in Chapter 18.88. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.]8 Page 9 57 B. Commercial Uses. For commercial uses the following automobile parking spaces are required. 1. Auto, boat or trailer sales, retail nurseries and other open-space uses. One space per 1,000 square feet of the first 10,000 square feet of gross land area; plus one space per 5,000 square feet for the excess over 10,000 square feet of gross land area; and one per two employees. 2. Bowling Alleys. Three spaces per alley, plus additional spaces for auxiliary activities set forth in this section. 3. Business, general retail, person services. General -one space for 350 square feet of gross floor area. Furniture and appliances - one space per 750 square feet of gross floor area. 4. Chapels and mortuaries. One space per four fixed seats in the main chapel. 5. Offices. Medical and dental - one space per 350 square feet of gross floor area. General - one space per 500 square feet of gross floor area. (Ord 3034, amended, 08/17/10) 6. Restaurants,bars, ice cream parlors and similar uses. One space per four seats or one space per 100 sq. ft. of gross leasable floor area, whichever is less. 7. Skating rinks. One space per 350 sq. ft.of gross building area. 8. Theaters, auditoriums- stadiums,gymnasiums and similar uses. One space per four seats. C. Industrial Uses. For industrial uses the following automobile parking spaces are required.. 1. Industrial and Warehousing uses. One space per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or for each two employees, whichever is less, plus one space per company vehicle. 2. Public utilities (gas, water, telephone, etc.), not including business offices One space per two employees on the largest shift, plus one space per company vehicle; a minimum of two spaces is required. (Ord 3034, amended, 08/17/10) D. Institutional and Public Uses. For institutional and public uses the following automobile parking spaces are required. 1. Child care centers having 13 or more children . One space per two employees; a minimum of two spaces is required. 2. Churches. One space per four seats. 3. Golf courses, except miniature. Eight spaces per hole, plus additional spaces for auxiliary uses set forth in this section. Miniature golf courses -four spaces per hole. 4. Hospitals. Two spaces per patient bed. S. Nursing and convalescent homes. One space per three patient beds. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.]8 Page 10 58 6. Rest homes, homes for the aped, or assisted living One space per two patient beds or one space per apartment unit. 7. Schools, elementary and junior high. One and one-half space per classroom, or the requirements for public assembly areas as set forth herein, whichever is greater. 8. High schools. One and one-half spaces per classroom, plus one space per 10 students the school is designed to accommodate,or the requirements for public assembly as set forth herein, whichever is greater. 9. Collepes, universities and trade schools. One and one-half spaces per classroom,plus one space per five students the school is designed to accommodate, plus requirements for on-campus student housing. E. Unspecified Uses. Where automobile parking requirements for any use are not specifically defined in this section, such requirements shall be determined by the Staff Advisor based upon the most comparable use specified in this section, and other available data. F. Maximum Allowable Number of Automobile Parking Spaces. The number of spaces provided by any particular use in ground surface lots shall not exceed the required number of . spaces provided by this ordinance by more than 10%. Spaces provided on-street, or within the building footprint of structures, such as in rooftop parking, or under-structure parking, or in multi-level parking above or below surface lots, shall not apply towards the maximum number of allowable spaces. SECTION 18.92.040 Disabled Person Parking Places. The total number of disabled person parking spaces shall comply with the following. Required Minimum Number Total in Parking Lot of Accessible Spaces I 1 to 25 1 --— 26 to 50 _ 2 51 to 75 3 r 76 to 100 --- 4---- 101 to 150 5 --- —--- - -------------- -- L151 to 200 -- ---- -6— - - ----I 201 to 300 —_ _ 7� � 301.to 400 – 8 401 to 500 9 One in every eight accessible spaces, but not less than one, must be van accessible. A van accessible parking space is required to be at least nine feet wide and have an adiacent access aisle that is at least eight feet wide. Required Disabled Person Parking spaces shall be designed in accord with all requirements of the State of Oregon, including minimum widths, adiacent aisles, and permanent markings. Disabled Person Parking space designs are included at the end of this chapter. An Ordinance Amending Misc.-Section of Ch.18 Page 11 59 SECTION-18.92.02-3050 Parking Manaa`ement Strategies. The amount of required off-street narking may be reduced up to 50% through the application of the following credits. A. On-Street Parking Credit. The amount of off-street parking required shall be reduced by the following credit provided for on-street parking: one off-street parking space credit for every tweone on-street ,thereafter one spnee er-edit for eaeb an street parking space. 8-.I.Dimensions. On-street parking shall follow the established configuration of existing on- street parking, except that 45 degree diagonal parking may be allowed with the approval of the Public Works Director, taking into account traffic flows and street design, with the parking spaces designed in accord with the standards on file with the Public Works Department.The following shall constitute an on=street parking space: Iza.Parallel parking, each 24 22 feet of uninterrupted curb. 2-b45 degree diagonal, each 43 12 feet of uninterrupted curb. 2. Location. 6:a.Curb space must be contiguous to the lot which contains the use which requires the parking. D-.h.Parking spaces may not be counted that are within 20 feet measured along the curb of any corner or intersection of an alley or street, nor any other parking configuration that violates any law or standard of the City or State. E-.c.Parking spaces located on arterials and collectors may only receive credit if the arterial or collector is greater in width than the minimums established by the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88;Performance Standards Options. (Ord 2836 S 14, 1999) " iA.Parking spaces may not be counted that are within 200 feet of a C-I-D or SO zone. G-. .Availibility.On-street parking spaces credited for a specific use shall not be used exclusively by that use,but shall be available for general public use at all times. No signage or actions limiting general public use of on-street spaces shall be permitted. B. Alternative Vehicle Parking. Alternative vehicle parking facilities may be substituted for up to 25 percent of the required parking space on site. 1. Motorcycle or scooter parking. One off-street parking space credit for four motorcycle or scooter parking spaces. 2. Bicycle parking. One off-street parking space credit for five additional, non- required bicycle narking spaces. C. Mixed Uses. In the event that several users occupy a single structure or parcel of land, the total requirements for off-street automobile parking shall be the sum of the An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 12 60 requirements for the several uses computed separately unless it can be shown that the peak parking demands are offset. In such case, the mixed-use credit shall reduce the off-street parking requirement by a percentage equal to the reduced parkins demand. D. Joint Use of Facilities. Required parking facilities of 2 or more uses, structures, or parcels of land may be satisfied by the same parking facilities used iointly, to the extent that it can be shown by the owners or operators that the need for the facilities does not materially overlap (e.g., uses primarily of a daytime vs. nighttime nature) and provided that such risht of joint use is evidenced by a deed, lease, contract, or similar written instrument establishing such ioint use. E. Shared Parkins. One off-street parking space credit for every space constructed in designated off-site shared parkins areas, or throush payment of in-lieu-of-parkins fees for a common parkins. F. TDM Plan Credit. Throush implementation of an individual Transportation Demand Manasement (TDM) plan that demonstrates a reduction of Ions term parkins demand by a percentaee equal to the credit requested. G. Transit Facilities Credit. Sites where at least 20 spaces are required, and where at.least one lot line abuts a street with transit service may substitute transit-supportive plazas for required parking as follows. 1. Pedestrian and transit supportive plazas may be substituted for up to ten percent of the required parking spaces on site. 2. A street with transit service shall have a minimum of 30-minute peak period transit servicefreguencv. 3. Existing parking areas may be converted to take advantage of these provisions. 4. The plaza must be adjacent to and visible from the transit street. If there is a bus stomp the site's frontage,the plaza must be adjacent to the bus stop. 5. The plaza must be at least 300 square feet in area and be shaped so that a ten foot by ten foot square will fit entirely in the plaza. 6. The plaza must include all of the following elements: a. A plaza that is open to the public. The owner must record a public access easement that allows public access to the plaza; b. A bench or other sitting area with at least five linear feet of seating: c. A shelter or other weather protection. The shelter must cover at least 20 square feet and the plaza must be landscaped. This landscaping is in addition to any other landscaWns or screening required for parkins areas by the Code. )30 D-sabled Person Per-king Pleem. The total number- of disabled per-son pardring spnees shall eemply wiIh ithe following, Total In Per-king r -------------- - ef�4eeessiblepaees I 36:o-66 2 i An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 13 61 13 3 --mac;��—i-- °4 ------ 151 $0200 6 201 to 300- 7 i X499- 8 401 to 500 Required Disabled Per-son Parking spnees shall be designed in neeard with oil requireinews at the _89—age At Oregon, ineluding mininnifn widths, aisles, and permanent markings. Disabled Per-son Parking spsee designs are ineluded a!the end of ihis ehapter SECTION 18.92.948060 Bicycle Parking. A. All uses, with the exception of detached-single-family residences and uses in the C-1-D zone, shall provide a minimum of two sheltered bike parking spaces. B. Every residential use of two units or more per structure, and not containing a garage, shall provide bicycle parking spaces as follows: Multi-Family Residential:One sheltered space per studio and 1-bedroom unit 1.5 sheltered spaces per 2-bedroom unit 2.0 sheltered spaces per 3-bedroom unit Senior Housine: One sheltered space per 8 units (80%of the occupants are 55 or older) i C. In addition, all uses which require off street parking, except as specifically noted, shall provide one bicycle parking space for every 5 required auto parking spaces. Fractional spaces shall be rounded up to the next whole space. Fifty percent of the bicycle parking spaces required shall be sheltered from the weather. All spaces shall be located in proximity to the uses they are intended to serve. (Ord '2697 SI, 1993) D. All public and commercial parking lots and parking structures shall provide a minimum of one bicycle parking space for every five auto parking spaces. E. Elementary, Junior High, Middle and High Schools shall provide one sheltered bicycle parking space for every five students. F. Colleges, universities, and trade schools shall provide one bicycle parking space for every five required auto parking spaces,of which one half is to be sheltered, G. No bicycle parking spaces required by this standard shall be rented or leased, however, a refundable deposit fee may be charged. This does not preclude a bike parking rental business. H. The required bicycle parking facilities shall be constructed when an existing residential building or dwelling is altered or enlarged by the addition or creation of dwelling units, or An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 14 62 when a non-residential use is intensified by the addition of floor space, seating capacity, or change in use. 1. Bicycle Parking Design Standards 1. The salient concern is that bicycle parking be visible and convenient to cyclists and that it provides sufficient security from theft and damage. 2. Bicycle parking requirements can be met in any of the following ways: a. Providing a bicycle storage room,bicycle lockers, or racks inside the building. b. Providing bicycle lockers or racks in an accessory parking structure, underneath an awning or marquee, or outside the main building. c. Providing bicycle racks on the public right of way. This must be approved by City of Ashland Public Works Department. d. Providing secure storage space inside the building. 3. All required exterior bicycle parking shall be located on site within 50 feet of well-used entrances and not farther from the entrance than the closest motor vehicle parking space. Bicycle parking shall have direct access to both the public right-of-way and to the main entrance of the principal use. For facilities with multiple buildings, building entrances or parking lots (such as a college), exterior bicycle parking shall be located in areas of greatest use and convenience for bicyclists. 4. Required bicycle parking spaces located out of doors shall be visible enough to provide security. Lighting shall be provided in a bicycle parking area so that all facilities are thoroughly illuminated and visible from adjacent walkways or motor vehicle parking lots during all hours of use. Bicycle parking shall be at least as well lit as automobile parking. 5. An aisle for bicycle maneuvering shall be provided and maintained between each row of bicycle parking. Bicycle parking shall be designed in'accord with the illustrations used for the implementation of this chapter. 6. Each required bicycle parking space shall be accessible without moving another bicycle. 7. Areas set aside for required bicycle parking shall be*clearly marked and reserved for bicycle parking only. 8. Parking spaces configured as indicated in the figure at the end of this chapter meet all requirements of this chapter and is the preferred design. Commercial bike lockers are acceptable according to manufacturer's specifications. A bicycle parking space located inside of a building for employee bike parking shall be a minimum of six feet long by 3 feet wide by 4 feet high, unless adequate room is provided to allow configuration as indicated in the figure at the end of this chapter. 9. Sheltered parking shall mean protected from all precipitation and must include the minimum protection coverages shown in the figure at the end of this chapter. 10. Bicycle parking shall be located to minimize the possibility of accidental damage to either bicycles or racks. Where needed,barriers shall be installed. 11. Bicycle parking shall not impede or create a hazard to pedestrians. They shall not be located so as to violate vision clearance standards. Bicycle parking facilities should be harmonious with their environment both in color and design. Facilities should be incorporated whenever possible into building design or street furniture. J. Bicycle Parking Rack Standards. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 15 63 1. All required bicycle parking racks installed shall meet the individual rack specifications shown in the figure at the end of this chapter. Single and multiple rack installations shall conform with the minimum'clearance standards shown in the figures at the end of this chapter. Alternatives to the above standard may be approved after review by the Bieyele Transportation Commission and approval by the Staff Advisor. Alternatives shall conform with all other applicable standards of this section. Bicycle parking racks or lockers shall be anchored securely. 2. The intent of this Subsection is to ensure that required bicycle racks are designed so that bicycles may be securely locked to them without undue inconvenience and will be reasonably safeguarded from intentional or accidental damage. a. Bicycle racks shall hold bicycles securely by means of the frame. The frame shall be supported so that the bicycle cannot be pushed or fall to one side in a manner that will damage the wheels. b. Bicycle racks shall accommodate: i. Locking the frame and both wheels to the rack with a high-security U-shaped shackle lock, if the bicyclists removes the front wheel; and ii. Locking the frame and one wheel to the rack with a high-security U-shaped shackle lock, if the bicyclists leaves both wheels on the bicycle; and iii. Locking the frame and both wheels to the rack with a chain or cable not longer than 6 feet without removal of the front wheel. c. Paving and Surfacing. Outdoor bicycle parking facilities shall be surfaced in the same manner as the automobile parking area or with a minimum of two inch thickness of hard surfacing (i.e., asphalt, concrete, pavers, or similar material) and shall be relatively level. This surface will be maintained in a smooth, durable, and well- drained condition. SECTION 18.92.050 Compee!Car- Parldng Up to 50310 of ih par-ldng spsees in a parking lat may be designated for eampoe! cars. Minimum dimensions for eempoet spsees shall he 8 x 16 fee!. Sueh spoees shall.be signed er- !he spsee painted with the werils "Gompae! Car Only." SECTION 18.92.033070 Variances for Commercial Buildings in the Historic District. In order to preserve existing structures within the Ashland Historic District, while permitting the redevelopment of property to its highest commercial use, a variance of up to 501/o of the required automobile parking may be granted to commercial uses within the Ashland Historic District as a Type 1 Variance. It is the intent of this clause to provide as much off-street parking as practical while preserving existing structures and allowing them to develop to their full commercial potential. Additionally, to identify redevelopment of existing commercial and residential buildings for commercial use within the Ashland Historic District as an exceptional circumstance and unusual hardship for the purposes of granting a variance. SECTION 18.92.060 Limitations, Ineeation, Use of A. Leention. Emeept &r- single and two family dwellings, r-equired' suiemobile parking facilities may be 'oeo#ed an another par-eel of 'and, provided sold par-eel :5 within 20 fee! of the use it is intended to se"e. The distance from the par-ldng lot to the use shall be measured In walking dis#aaee from the nearest par-iiing spsee to an neeess to the . An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.19 Page 16 64 building housing the use, a sWeivalk n� other pedestrian path separated fro street traffie. Sueh right to use !he off 9-te per-king must be evideneed by a deed, lease easement, or similar- written hisir-umetit establishing suek use, for !he duration of the use requi Exeep! as allowed in 18.92.060.F and meept On the M Industrial automobile parking shall not be loested in a required front and side yard selbeek are , Q Momed Uses. in the even! that sever-a' users oeeupy a single strueture or per-eel of• land,the total r-equir-ements for eff street automobile par-king shall be the sum of !he requimments for- !he several uses eemputed sepMately unless it eon be shown that the peak per-king demands are offiet. in sueh ease the Staff Adviser may reduee the tote requirements seeardingly, but not by meFe then . D joint Use of Feeilitie. Required narking. fee-li fies of 2 .. D. vv.aaa ", siruetures, or jointly,par-eels of land may be satisfied by !he some paFking feeiNties used that It eon be shown by !he owners or operators that the need for the feeilifies does not materially ever-lap (e.g., uses pr-imar-ily of a daytime %,. nighttime nature)- I . " I to the e0en that s____ -'_g"_ of Jam____ use ... r..dr..err by .. r..vr, ,,.r r, wu„rey v. u«««r. written, instrument establishing sueb joint use E Availability of Leeilkies All automobile and hCeyele ...anal..g shall be available lor per-king of residents, eustemers and employees my, and shall o! be used for the zones,storage or display of vehicles or- materials. F. in a" reAdential paFldng of automobiles, , trailers a MOFe than 259'6 Of-the ar-PA At she 1- fr n! yard, or a eentiguous area 25 feet wide and A-e depth of!he front yard, whieheveF is greater-. Sinee paFking on Violation of this seetion is oeessional in nature, and *9 ine'dental to !he primary use of the site, no vested rights are deemed to exist and violations of this seetion BFe not subjeet to the proteetion of the violation shati be provided prior in the issu-supe of a eitation to appear-A Gourt, and it shall be rebuttably presumed that !he vehiele was parke I of the per-son in eontrol of the property. Subsequ war-ning ne0ee. (Ord 2320, 1994 SECTION 18.92.078080 Automobile Parking,Access and Circulation Design Requirements. A. Parking Location. 1. Except for sin¢le and two-family dwellines, required automobile parkine facilities may be located on another parcel of land, provided said parcel is within 200 feet of the use it is intended to serve. The distance from the parkine lot to the use shall be measured in walking distance from the nearest parking space tb an access to the building housing the use, atone a sidewalk or other pedestrian path separated from An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 17 65 street traffic. Such right to use the off-site parking must be evidenced by a deed. lease,easement,or similar written instrument establishing such use,for the duration of the use. 2. Except as allowed in the subsection below, automobile parking shall not be located in a required front and side yard setback area abuttine a public street, except alleys. 3. In all residential zones, all off-street parking of automobiles, trucks, trailers and recreational vehicles in the front yard shall be limited to a contiguous area which is no more than 25% of the area of the front yard, or a contiguous area 25 feet wide and the depth of the front yard, whichever is greater. Since parking-in violation of this section is occasional in nature, and is incidental to the primary use of the site, no vested rights are deemed to exist and violations of this section are not subject to the protection of the nonconforming use sections of this ordinance. However, a 24- hour warning notice of violation shall be provided prior to the issuance of a citation to appear in Municipal Court, and it shall be rebuttable presumed that the vehicle was parked with permission of the person in control of the property. Subseauent violations shall not require a warning notice. A.B.Size and AeeessParking Area Design. AU-(Required parking areas shall be designed in accordance with the ollowing standards and dimensions. 1_Parking spaces shall be a minimum of 9 x 18 feet, exeept that 509,6 of!he speees may 2. Up to 50% of the total automobile parking spaces in a parking lot may be desienated for compact cars. Minimum dimensions for compact spaces shall be 8 x 16 feet. Such spaces shall be signed or the space painted with the words "Compact Car Only." 3. Parking spaces shall have a back-up maneuvering space no less than twenty-two (22) feet, except where parking is angled, and which does not necessitate moving of other vehicles. 4. Parkine lots with 50 spaces or more shall be divided into separate areas. Parking areas may be divided into separate areas by a building or croup of buildings, landscape areas with walkways at least 10 feet in width:plazas, streets or driveways with street-like features. Street-like features, for the purpose of this section, means a raised sidewalk of at least five feet in width, six-inch curb, accessible curb ramps. street trees in planters or tree wells and pedestrian-oriented lightine. 5. Parking areas shall be designed to minimize the adverse environmental and microclimatic impacts of surface parking through design and material selection. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces shall meet the following standards. a. Use at least one of the following strategies for the surface parking area, or put 50% of parking underground. i Use light colored pavine materials with a high solar reflectance (Solar Reflective Index (SRI) of at least 29) to reduce heat absorption for a minimum of 50% of the parking area surface. ii. Provide porous solid surfacing or an open grid pavement system that is at least 50% pervious for a minimum of 50% of the parking area surface. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 18 66 iii. Provide at least 50% shade from tree canopy over the parking area surface within five years of project occupancy. iv. Provide at least 50% shade from solar energy generating carports, canopies or trellis structures over the Parking area surface. b. Design parking lots and other hard surface areas in a way that captures and treats runoff with landscaped medians and swales. C. Vehicular Access and Circulation.The intent of this section is to manage access to land uses and on-site circulation,and to preserve the transportation system in terms of safety, capacity and function. 1. Applicability.This section applies to all public streets within the City of Ashland and to all properties that abut these streets.The standards apply when developments are subiect to a planning action (e.g. Site Review,Conditional Use Permit, Land Partition, Performance Standards Subdivision). 2. Site Circulation. New development shall be required to provide a circulation system that accommodates expected traffic on the site. All on-site circulation systems shall incorporate street-like features as described in Section 18.92.090.A.3.c. Pedestrian connections on the site, including connections through large sites,and connections between sites and adjacent sidewalks must conform to the provisions of Section 18.92.090. 3. Intersection and Driveway Separation. The distance from a street intersection to a driveway, or from a driveway to another driveway shall meet the minimum spacing reuuirements for the street's classification in the Ashland Transportation System Plan (TSP). a. In no case shall driveways be closer than 24 feet as measured from the bottom of the existing or proposed apron wings of the driveway approach. b. Any partitioning or subdivision of property located in an R-2, R-3. C-1, E-1,CM or M-1 zone shall meet the controlled access standards set forth below. If applicable, cross access easements shall be required so that access to all Properties created by the land division can be made from one or more Points. c. Street and driveway access points in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1 or M-1 zone shall be limited to the following: 1. Distance between driveways. On arterial streets - 100 feet: on collector streets - 75 feet: on residential streets - 50 feet. 2. Distance from intersections. On arterial streets - 100 feet: on collector streets - 50 feet: on residential streets-35 feet. d. Street and driveway access points in the CM zone are subject to the requirements of the Croman Mill District Standards. (Ord 3036, added, 08/17/2010) e. Access Requirements for Multi-family Developments. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 19 67 L All multi-family developments which will have automobile trip generation in excess of 250 vehicle trips per day shall provide at least two driveway access points to the development. Trip generation shall be determined by the methods established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. ii. Creating an obstructed street as defined in Section 18.88.020.G is prohibited. 4. 'Shared Use of Driveways and Curb Cuts. a. Plans submitted for developments subject to a planning action shall indicate how driveway intersections with streets have been minimized through the use of shared driveways and shall indicate all necessary access easements. Where necessary from' traffic safety and access management purposes, the City may require loin( access and/or shared driveways in the following situations. L For shared parking areas, ii. For adjacent developments,where access onto an arterial is limited: and iii For multi-family developments, and developments on multiple lots. b. Developments subject to a planning action shall remove all curb cuts and driveway approaches not shown to be necessary for existing improvements or the Proposed development. Cuts and approaches shall be replaced with standard curb, (jotter or sidewalk as appropriate. All replacement shall be done under permit of the Engineering Division. c. If the site is served by a shared access or alley, access for motor vehicles must be from the shared access or alley and not from the street frontage. &L-Driveways and Turn-Arounds Design. Driveways and turn-arounds providing access to parking areas shall conform to the following provisions: 1. A driveway for a single dwelling shall have a minimum width of nine feet, and a shared driveway serving two units shall have a width of 12 feet. 2. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces per lot shall be provided with adequate aisles or turn-around areas so that all vehicles may enter the street in a forward manner. .3. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces shall be served by a driveway 20 feet in width and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic on or off the site, with due regard to pedestrian and vehicle safety, and shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined. Parking areas of seven spaces or less shall be-served by a driveway 12 feet in width. 4- Shared Use of Driveways and Curb Cuts a. Developments subjee! to a planning netion or divisions ef pro minor 'and partition eF subdivision, shall min-mire thp H­M�pr of drdvewa oter-seetions with 9tireets by Abe use of shared driveway� with adjoining lots wbPro feasible. in no ease shall dFiveways be einger. than 34 feet as measured &am the bottom of the e*isiing or proposed apron wings of the drivews approeeh b. Plans IbF property being paAftioned or- sub-d-oicid-ed or for multi famil developments shel.1 indWale heA' dFiveway inter-seetions with streets have been neeess easements; e. Developments subjeet to a planning Mean shall r-pmnq,p' not __ curb euts and driveway appresehes not shown to be neeessery for existing Improvements or Me propose " I I G ats and appresehes shall be repineed with standard An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.)8 Page 20 68 eurb, gufter or sidewalk as appropriate. A" repleeenteni shall be done under permit of the Engineer-Ing Division E4Vertical Clearances. Driveways, aisles, turn-around areas and ramps shall have a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6" for their entire length and width. D,S.Vision Clearance.No obstructions may be placed in the vision clearance area except as set forth in Section 18.68.020. E. Parking and Access Construction Development and Maintenance. The development and maintenance as provided below, shall apply in all cases, except single-family dwellings. 1. Paving. All required parking areas, aisles, turn-arounds and driveways shall be paved with concrete, asphaltic, pervious Paving. or comparable surfacing, constructed to standards on file in the office of the City Engineer. 2. Drainake. All required parking areas, aisles and tum-arounds shall have provisions made ' for the on-site collection of drainage waters to eliminate sheet Flow of such waters onto sidewalks, public rights-of-way, and abutting private property. 3. Driveway approaches. Approaches shall be paved with concrete'surfacing constructed to standards on file in the office of the City Engineer. 4. Marking. Parking lots of more than seven spaces shall have all spaces permanently and clearly marked. 5. Wheel stops. Wheel stops shall be a minimum of four inches in height and width and six feet in length. They shall be firmly attached to the ground and so constructed as to withstand normal wear. Wheel stops shall be provided where appropriate for all spaces abutting property lines, buildings, landscaping, and no vehicle shall overhang a public right-of-way. 6. Walls and Hedges. a. Where parking abuts upon a street, a decorative masonry wall or evergreen hedge screen of 3042 inches in height and a minimum of 12" in width shall be established parallel to and not nearer than two feet from the right-of-way line. Screen planting shall be of such size and number to provide the required screening within 12 months after installation. The area between the wall or hedge and street line shall be landscaped. All vegetation shall be adequately maintained by a permanent irrigation system, and said wall or hedge shall be maintained in good condition. The required wall or screening shall be designed to allow for free access to the site and sidewalk by pedestrians. b. In all zones, except single-family zones, where parking facilities or driveways are located adjacent to residential or agricultural zones, school yards, or like institutions, a sight-obscuring fence, wall, or evergreen hedge not less than five feel, nor more than six feet high shall be provided on the property line as measured from the high grade side. Said wall, fence or hedge shall be reduced to 30 inches within required setback area, or within 10 feet of street property lines, and shall be maintained in good condition. Screen plantings shall be of such size and number to provide the required screening within 12 months after installation. Adequate provisions shall be made to protect walls, fences or plant materials from being damaged by vehicles using said parking areas. 7. Landscaping. In all zones, all parking facilities shall include landscaping to cover not less than 7% of the area devoted to outdoor parking facilities, including the landscaping An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 21 69 required in subdivision 6(a) above. Said landscaping shall be uniformly distributed throughout the parking area, be provided with irrigation facilities and protective curbs or raised wood headers. It may consist of trees, plus shrubs, ground cover or related material. A minimum of one tree per seven parking spaces is required. 8. Lighting of parking areas within 100 feet of property in residential zones shall be directed into or on the site and away from property lines such that the light element shall not be directly visible from abutting residential property. (Ord 2951, amended, 07/01/2008) SECTION 18.92.090 Pedestrian Access and Circulation. A. Site Layout and Design. To ensure safe,direct, and convenient pedestrian circulation, all developments, except single-family dwellings on individual lots and accessory uses and structures,shall provide a continuous walkway system.The walkway system shall be based on the standards in subsections 14, below: 1. Continuous Walkway System. Extend the walkway system throughout the development site and connect to all future phases of development, and to existing or planned off-site adjacent sidewalks,trails, public parks, and open space areas to the greatest extent practicable. The developer may also be required to connect or stub walkway(s) to adjacent streets and to private property for this purpose. 2. Safe, Direct, and Convenient. Provide safe, reasonably direct, and convenient walkway connections between primary building entrances and all adjacent streets, based on the following definitions: a. Reasonably direct. A route that does not deviate unnecessarily from a straight line or a route that does not involve a significant amount of out-of- direction travel for likely users. b. Safe and convenient. Routes that are reasonably free from hazards and provide a reasonably direct route of travel between destinations. C. "Primary entrance" for commercial,industrial, mixed use, public, and institutional buildings is the main public entrance to the building. In the case where no public entrance exists, street connections shall be provided to the main employee entrance. d. "Primary entrance" for residential buildings is the front door(i.e. facing the street). For multifamily buildings in which each unit does not have its own exterior entrance. the "primary entrance" may be a lobby,courtyard,or breezeway which serves as a common entrance for more than one dwelling. 3. Connections within Development.Walkways within developments shall be provide connections as required in subsections a-c, below: a. Connect all building entrances to one another to the extent practicable, as generally shown in Figure 1: An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 22 70 b. Connect all on-site parking areas, recreational facilities and common areas, and connect off-site adincent uses to the site to the extent practicable. Topoeraphic or existing development constraints may be cause for not making certain walkway connections,as generally shown in Figure 1; and. Figure 1 Pedestrian Pathway System (Typical) Pa61ic 5adeera0v i, (tamtimaout) c i • fee7 Walkwsrs IntetnW Sidenallu . (Cmtimepns) � � t.etbee�cmuills � ('le7av Llmds Plumd Ater Betw k . - PnldagmdlB. •$� Paimm Lm c. Install protected raised walkways through parking areas of 50 or more spaces, or of more than 100 feet in average width or depth. B. Walkway Design-and Construction. Walkways shall conform to all of the standards in subsections 14;as generally illustrated in Figure 2: I. Vehicle/Walkway Separation. Except for crosswalks (subsection 2),where a walkway abuts a driveway or street, it shall be raised six inches and curbed along the edge of the driveway/street. Alternatively,the decision body may approve a walkway abutting a driveway at the same grade as the driveway if the walkway is protected from all vehicle maneuvering areas. An example of such protection is a row of decorative metal or concrete bollards designed to withstand a vehicle's impact,with adequate minimum spacing between them to protect pedestrians. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.1 S Page 23 71 o ' 2. Crosswalks. Where walkways cross a parking area or driveway, clearly mark crosswalks with contrasting paving materials (e.g., light-color concrete inlay between asphalt),which may be Dart of a raised/hump crossing area. Painted or thermo-plastic striping and similar types of non-permanent applications Figure 2 Pedestrian Walkway Detail may be approved for crosswalks not (Typical) exceeding 24 feet in length. 3. Walkway Surface and Width. Walkway surfaces shall be concrete, asphalt, brick/masonry pavers,or other durable surface, .] and at least five feet wide. Multi- use paths(i.e. for bicycles and pedestrians)shall be concrete or >ti asphalt,and at least 10 feet wide in accordance with the Ashland .!` Street Standards in Section 18.88.020.K. WARamp 4. Accessible routes. Walkways Atft�y shall comply with applicable °"'"" ktWtPa 'p Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and State of Oregon � ; requirements. The ends of all s+m • raised walkways, where the walkway intersects a driveway or TKj 7T street shall provide ramps that are ADA accessible, and walkways shall provide direct routes to primary building entrances. p" 5. Provide pedestrian scale lighting no greater than 14 feet in height along pedestrian facilities. SECTION 18.92.080100 Construction. The required parking, access and circulations facilities, ' shall be installed prior to a release of a certificate of use and occupancy of a release of utilities, and shall be permanently maintained as a condition of use. However, the Building Official may, unless otherwise directed by the Planning Commission or Staff Advisor, release a temporary certificate of use and occupancy and a temporary release of utilities before the installation of said facilities provided: (1) there is proof that the owner has entered into a contract with a reputable installer for the completion of the parking, including design standards, with a specified time, and that there remains nothing for the,owner to do prior to installation; or (2) the owner has posted a An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 24 72 5 satisfactory performance bond to ensure the installation of said parking facilities within a specified time. SECTION 18.92.110 Alterations and Enlargements. The required parking, access and circulation facilities shall be constructed when an existing building or dwelling is altered or enlarged by the addition or creation of guest rooms or dwelling units, or when a use is intensified by the addition of floor space, seating capacity, or change in use.(Ord 2659, 1991; Ord 2777, 1996) SECTION 18.92.120 Availability of Facilities. Required parking, access and circulation shall be available for use by residents, customers and employees only, and shall not be used for the storage or display of vehicles or materials. SECTION 12. AMC Section 18.108.040 [Type 1 Procedure—Actions Included] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.108.040 Type I Procedure. A. Actions Included. The following planning actions shall be subject to the Type I Procedure: 1. Site Design Review. The following developments that are subject to the Site Design Review Standards outlined in 18.72 shall follow the Type I.permit procedures. a. Downtown Design Standards Zone. Any development which is less than 2,500 square feet or ten percent of the building's square footage, whichever is less. b. Detail Site Review. Any development in the Detail Site Review Zone, as defined in the Site Review Standards adopted pursuant Chapter 18.72, which is less than 10,000 square feet in gross floor area. c. Commercial, Industrial and Non-residential Uses. i. All new structures, additions or expansions in C-1, E-1, HC and M zones, not within the Downtown Design Standards zone, that do not require new building area in excess of 20% of an existing building' s square footage or 10,000 square feet of gross floor area, whichever is less. ii. All new structures or additions less than 15,000 square feet of gross floor area in the CM zoning district. (Ord 3036, added, 08/17/10) iii. Mixed-use buildings and developments containing commercial and residential uses in residential zoning district with the Pedestrian Place Overlay. iii: iv.Expansion of impervious surface area in excess of 10% of the area of the site or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less iv. v.Expansion of parking lots, relocation of parking spaces do a site, or other changes which alters circulation affecting adjacent property or public right- of-way. % viAny change of occupancy from a less intensive to a. more intensive occupancy, as defined in the City building code, or any change in use which requires a greater number of parking spaces. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 25 73 vi: viiAny change in use of a lot from one general use category to another general use category, e.g., from residential to commercial, as defined by the zoning regulations of this Code. vii: viilAny exterior change to a structure which requires a building permit and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places or to a contributing property within an Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places. ix. Mechanical equipment not otherwise exempt from site design review per Section 18.72.030.B. x. Installation of wireless communication facilities in accordance with Section 18.72.180. d.Residential. i. Two or more residential units on a single lot. ii. All new structures or additions less than 10,000 square feet of gross floor area, other than single-family homes or accessory uses on individual lots iii. Construction of attached single-family housing (e.g. town homes, condominiums, row houses, etc.) in all zoning districts. iv. Off-street parking or landscaping, in conjunction with an approved Performance Standards Subdivision required by ordinance and not located within the boundaries of the individual unit parcel (e.g. shared parking). v. Any exterior change to a structure which requires a building permit and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. vi. Mechanical equipment not otherwise exempt from site design review per Section 18.72.030.B. vii.Installation of wireless communication facilities in accordance with Section 18.72.180. 2. Miscellaneous Actions. a. Amendments or modification to conditions of approval for Type I planning actions. b. Amendment or modification to conditions of approval for Type 11 actions where the modification involves only changes to tree removal and/or building envelopes. planning-aetiens. c. Physical and Environmental Constraints Review permits as allowed in Chapter 18.62. d. Tree removal permits as required by Section 18.61.042(D). e. Limited Activities and Use permits as allowed in Chapter 18.63. f. Water Resource Protection Zone Reductions of up to 25% as allowed'in Chapter 18.63. 3. Conditional Use Permits. The following conditional use permits are subject to Type I review procedures: a. Conditional use permits involving existing structures or additions to existing structures, and not involving more than three(3) residential dwelling units. b. Installation of wireless communication facilities in accordance with Section 18.72.180. Ir c.Temporary uses. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 26 74 e, d.Enlargement, expansion, etc. of nonconforming structures in accordance with Section]8.68.090(2). d-. e.Govemment signs per Section 18.96.150. e:EThe following uses in Residential zones: i. Accessory residential units ii. Daycare centers. iii. Public and public utility buildings,structures and uses less than 2,500 square feet in building footprint and disturbs less than 7,500 square feet of land. iv. Structures in excess of 35 feet in R-3 zone. v. All new structures, additions or expansions that exceed MPFA in historic district up to 25%, but the addition is no larger than 300 s.f. or 10% of the existing floor area, whichever is less. vi. Hostels. vii.Public Parking Lots in the NM-C zone. viii. Community Services in the NM-R15 zone. F.g,The following uses in Commercial or Industrial zones: i. Electrical substations ii. . Outdoor storage of commodities. gr h.The following uses in the Health Care Services Zone: i. Limited personal service providers in the home, such as beauticians and masseurs. ii. Professional offices for an accountant, architect, attorney, designer, engineer, insurance agent or adjuster, investment or management counselor or surveyor. iii. Any medically-related use, located on City-owned property that is not specifically allowed by the Ashland Community Hospital Master Facility Plan. Ir i.Conditional uses in the Southern Oregon University District. 4. Variances for: a. Sign placement. b. Non-conforming signs, when bringing them into conformance as described in Section 18.96.130.D. c. Up to 50%reduction of standard yard requirements. d. Parking in setback areas. e. Up to 10%reduction in the number of required parking spaces. f. Up to 10%reduction in the required minimum lot area. g. Up to 101/o increase in the maximum lot coverage percentage. h. Up to 20%reduction in lot width or lot depth requirements. i. Up to 50% reduction for parking requirements in Ashland's Historic District as described in Section 18.92.055. j. Up to 10% variance on height, width, depth, length or other dimension not otherwise listed in this section. k. Site Design and Use Standards as provided in Section 18.72.090. 5. Partitions and Land Divisions. a. Partitions which require no variances or only variances subject to Type 1 procedures. b. Creation of a private way,as allowed in Section 1'8.80.030.B. c. Final Plan Approval for Performance Standards Subdivisions. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 27 75 6. Any other planning action designated as subject to the Type I Procedure. 7. Prior to the Staff Advisor providing notice of application and making a decision, applicants or the Staff Advisor may request planning actions subject to .a Type I procedure be heard by the Commission or Hearings Board. In such case, the Staff Advisor shall not make a decision and shall schedule a hearing before the Commission or Hearings Board to be heard as provided in Section 18.108.050. SECTION 13. AMC Section 18.108.060 [Type III Procedures] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.108.060 Type HI Procedures. A. The following planning actions shall be subject to the Type 111 Procedure: 1. Zone Changes or Amendments to the Zoning Map or other official maps, except for legislative amendments. 2. Comprehensive Plan Map Changes or changes to other official maps, except for legislative amendments. 3. Annexations. 4. Urban Growth Boundary Amendments B. Standards for Type III Planning Actions. I. Zone changes, zoning map amendments and comprehensive plan map changes subject to the Type III procedure as described in subsection A of this section may be approved if in compliance with the comprehensive plan and the application demonstrates that one or more of the following: a. The change implements a public need,other than the provision of affordable housing, supported by the Comprehensive Plan; or b. A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances; or c. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action; or d. Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one zoning district to another zoning district, will provide 25% of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in Section 18.106.030(G); or e. Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial, employment or industrial zoned lands (i.e. Residential Overlay), will not negatively impact the City of Ashland's commercial and industrial land supply as required in the Comprehensive Plan, and will ,provide 25% of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in Section 18.106.030(G). The total number of affordable units described in sections D or E shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction,or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. Sections D and E do not apply to An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 28 76 council initiated actions. C. Type 111 Procedure. 1. Applications subject to the Type 111 Procedure shall be process as follows: a. Complete applications shall be heard at the first regularly scheduled Commission meeting which is held at least 45 days after the submission of the application. b. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed as provided in Section 18.108.080. c. A public hearing shall be held before the Commission as provided in Section 18.108.100. 2. For planning actions described in section 18.108.060.A.1 and 2, the Commission shall have the authority to take such action as is necessary to make the amendments to maps and zones as a result of the decision without further action from the Council unless the decision is appealed. The decision of the Commission may be appealed to the Council as provided in Section 18.108.110. 3. For planning actions described in Section 18.108.060.A.3 and 3 4, the Commission shall make a report of its findings and recommendations on the proposed action. Such report shall be forwarded to the City Council within 45 days of the public hearing. a. Upon receipt of the report, or within 60 days of the Commission hearing, the Council shall hold a public hearing as provided in Section 18.108.100. Public notice of such hearing shall be sent as provided in Section 18.108.080. b. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. SECTION 14. AMC Section 18.108.080 [Public Hearing Notice] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.108.080 Public Hearing Notice. Public notice for hearings before the Staff Advisor, Hearings Board or Commission for planning actions shall be given as follows: A: Notices shall be mailed at least 10 days prior to the hearing to: 1. The applicant or authorized agent, 2. The subject property owner, and 3. All owners of record of property on the most recent property tax assessment roll within 200 feet of the subject property. B. Mailed notices shall contain the following information, provided, however, that notices for hearings before the Council shall not contain the statements specified in paragraphs 8 and 9: I. Explanation of.the nature of the application and the proposed use or uses which could be authorized. 2. List of the applicable criteria from the ordinance and the plan that apply to the application at issue. 3. The street address or other easily understood geographical reference to the subject property. 4. The name of a local government representative to contact and the telephone number where additional information may be obtained. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 29 77 5. A statement that a copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost. 6. The date, time and location of the hearing or of the meeting, if no hearing is involved. 7. A statement that failure of an issue to be raised in a hearing, in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) based on that issue. 8. A statement that if additional documents or evidence is provided in support of the application, any party shall be entitled to a continuance of the hearing. 9. A'statement that unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. C. Posted Notice. A notice, as described in this subsection, shall be posted on the subject. property by the city in such a manner as to be clearly visible from a public right-of-way at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing. Failure by the city to post a notice, or post in clear view from a public right-of-way shall be considered an incomplete application. The city shall certify, for the record of the hearing, that the posting was accomplished. The failure of the posted notice to remain on the property shall not invalidate the proceedings. The posted notice shall only contain the following information: planning action number,brief description of the proposal, phone number and address for contact at Ashland Planning Department. D. Additional Requirements for Type 11 and III Public Notice. In addition to the notice specified in section 18.108.080.A, B and C, notice for Type 11 and 111 procedures shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing before the Commission. E. The failure of a property owner to receive notice as provided in this section shall not invalidate such proceedings if the City can demonstrate by affidavit that such notice was mailed. The failure to receive notice shall not invalidate the decision after the action is final if a good faith attempt was made to notify all persons entitled to receive notice. F. Whenever it is demonstrated to the Staff Advisor that: 1. The city did not mail the notice required in §18.108; 2. Such error adversely affected and prejudiced It person's substantial rights; and 3. Such person notified the Staff Advisor within 21 days of when the person knew of should have known of the decision, the Staff Advisor shall schedule a hearing for the next regular Commission or Hearings Board meeting allowing adequate time to comply with the notice requirements of Section 18.108.080. The public hearing shall be conducted as provided in §18.108.100. If a hearing is conducted under this section, the decision of the Commission or Hearings Board shall supersede the previous decision. G. Whenever it is demonstrated to the Staff Advisor that: An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18' Page 30 78 I. The city did not comply with the notice requirements in §I8.108.080.A through E; 2. Such error adversely affected and prejudiced a person's substantial rights;and 3. Such person notified the Staff Advisor within 21 days of when the person knew or should have known of the decision, the Staff Advisor shall schedule a hearing before the Board, Commission or Council that heard or would have heard the matter involving the defective notice. a. The Staff Advisor shall notify by mail all persons who previously appeared in the matter and all persons who were entitled to mailed notice but were not mailed such notice. b. The hearing shall be conducted as provided in §18.108.100 if it is a hearing before the Board or Commission, except that the record of the previous hearing shall be reviewed and considered by the Board or Commission. If it is an appeal before the Council, the Council may hear such matters as are permitted in §18.108.110. A decision made after the hearing shall supersede the previous decision. H. Notwithstanding the period specified in subsections F.3 and G.3 of this section, the period for a hearing or appeal shall not exceed three years after the date of the initial decision. SECTION 15. Severability.The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable.The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 16. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance"may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments(i.e. Sections'], 22-23) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C)of the City Chartcr on the day of 44 2011, an my PASSED and ADOPTED � day of /Jp1.+C�JYi �✓` , 2011. ' Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this Al day At4 . 2011.r Jo n Stromberg, Mayor 7]Re 'ewed as to form: avid LoWan,City Attorney An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 31 79 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication ' April 3, 2012 Business Meeting Report to the Council on Crime in Ashland and use of force by the Ashland Police Department FROM: Terry Holdemess, Police Chief, holdemet @ashland.or.us SUMMARY In 2008 the Council directed the Police Chief to make an.annual report to the Council on crime in the City of Ashland and use of force by the police department. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Crime rate is based on the number of part one crimes occurring in a jurisdiction. Part one crimes are those that are reported annually to the FBI for inclusion into the Uniform Crime Report.y They are Homicide, Rape, Robbery, Aggravated Assault, Burglary, Auto Theft and Larceny. In 2011 the Police Department took 714 reports of part one crimes occurring in the City of Ashland. This is a 22.4% increase in part one crime when compared to the 583 part one crimes reported in 2010 but still less than the 764 partone crimes reported on 2008. The increase in crime was almost all in the areas of thefts from vehicles and thefts of bicycles. Violent crime is defined as Homicide, Rape, Robbery and Aggravated Assault. There were 25 violent crimes reported in Ashland in 2010 and 25 violent crimes reported in 2011. In_2011 the Police Department cleared 32% of all part one cases. During 2011 the Police Department used force 32 times. In 22 cases the only force used was a control hold or the suspect was forced to the ground or against an object in order to be handcuffed. Seven of the other cases involved more intensive struggles with suspects, one involved the use of pepper spray, one the use of a police K9 which bit a suspect and one involved the use of a Taser. There were seven incidents where suspects complained of minor injury but that did not require medical attention. The suspect bitten by the K-9 was treated for the injury before booking. One suspect had a cut on his face that was treated by AFR at the scene and one suspect required stitches over his eye after hitting his head on the pavement. Nine officers, including one from another agency, received minor injuries during these incidents. The majority of suspects involved in use of force incidents were under the influence of alcohol. During 2011 each officer received a minimum of 20 hours of training related to use of force. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: The Council can accept the report as presented or request the Police Chief provide additional information. Page] of 2 I`, CITY OF ASHLAND SUGGESTED MOTION: N/A ATTACHMENTS: None Page 2 of 2 !WALAII-, CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication April 3, 2012 Business Meeting Discussion to Extend the ad hoc Homelessness Steering Committee FROM: Dave Kanner, City Administrator, kannerd @ashland.or.us SUMMARY At the March 19 Study Session, the City Council requested this item be placed on the April 3 agenda. In October 2011, the Council heard a report and recommendations from the ad hoc Homelessness Steering Committee. At the October 18, 2011 the Council voted not to extend the committee beyond April 5, 2012 stating that to do so at that time would be premature. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: On April 5, 2011, The City Council adopted Resolution 2011-10 Defining the Duties and Responsibilities of the ad hoc Homelessness Steering Committee (attached). The Resolution states the committee will automatically dissolve after one year from the date of its approval by Council. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION(s): 1) I move to extend the term of service of the ad hoc Homelessness Steering Committee for 2) I move to dissolve the ad hoc Homelessness Steering Committee per Resolution 2011-10. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 2011-10 Memo from HSC Page I of I �r, ,a�,,y RESOLUTION NO 1n`- - A RESOLUTION DEFINING THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE . I AD HOC HOMELESSNESS STEERING COMMITTEE RECITALS: A. The City of Ashland City Council adopted a goal to create the Homelessness Steering Committee to filter and qualify stakeholder proposals to the City Council. B. The City Council seeks to work with community stakeholders on issues related to homelessness. . C. The City Council believes that solutions or actions submitted by stakeholders will benefit the community. D. Two City Council liaisons will work with the committee as non-voting members. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Committee Established. The Homelessness Steering Committee(HSC)is established beginning May 4, 2011 and shall consist of up to nine voting members. The HSC will automatically dissolve after ohe year from the date of its approval by the City Council. During this time the Committee may-notify the Council that it no longer is receiving any more stakeholder proposals and therefore should be disbanded, or it may propose that it be reorganized in a specific way that better suits its intended purpose. At the end of the year the HSC will make a recommendation to the Council regarding whether or not it should be continued. SECTION 2. Terms, Oualifications. Vacancies 1) All members will be appointed by the Mayor with confirmation by the City Council, except for City staff designated as ex-officio, non voting members. Members shall be named by the City Council and serve until the dissolution of the Homelessness Steering Committee. 2) The City Administrator and/or their designee shall serve as an ex-officio, non-voting member of the Homelessness Steering Committee. 3) Any member of the Homelessness Steering Committee who will be absent from a meeting the member must notify the chair or the staff liaison at least two hours prior to the meeting. Any member who has two or more unexcused absences in a six month period shall be considered inactive and the position vacant. Further any member not attending a minimum of two-thirds (2/3)of all scheduled meetings shall be considered inactive and the position vacant. 4) Homelessness Steering Committee will elect a person to serve as Chair and Vice Chair from among the voting members at the first meeting. SECTION 3. Ouorum and Rules. At least six voting members shall constitute a quorum. The Homelessness Steering Committee shall establish rules for its meetings as it deems appropriate and shall meet as many times as necessary. SECTION 4. Responsibilities. The committee shall be responsible for: l) Soliciting proposals from stakeholders to the City Council, whose intent is to address issues of homelessness in Ashland 2) Transmitting to the City Council proposals that are well-developed, factually supported, capable of implementation and fall within the Council's scope of authority to implement 3)Return to the authors those proposals that are incomplete but that have the potential to fall under#2 above, with specific recommendations for the necessary improvements and encourage resubmittal of the reworked proposals 4)Connecting stakeholders whose proposals either complement and/or duplicate each other's for possible collaboration 5)For proposals that don't fall in the above groups, suggest alternative sponsorship if possible. SECTION 5, Reports. Recommendations of the Homelessness Steering Committee to the City Council considered advisory in nature and shall not be binding on the Mayor or City Council. The Committee will report to the Council quarterly. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 5 day of 2011, and takes ect upon signing by the Mayor. Barbara Christensen,, City Recorder SloqED and APPROVED thisl (o day ofj . 2011. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: TIM zIn==, Do s Mcdea egal Co tractor For Consideration by Members of the Ashland City Council We, the Ad Hoc Homelessness Steering Committee members, respectfully submit the following for review and discussion on April 3,2012: We ask that you consider the accomplishments we have made in less than a year since the committee began its work! We began with outreach to the community for proposals and comments; we prioritized those and began the work to bring the most significant ideas to fruition: • Implementation of the Council approved Listening Post initiative which has been expanded to three locations. • The Council approved installation of a 24 hour/day Porta-Potty in downtown. • The installation by June of the Council approved Donation Box initiative. • Ongoing research on the concept of, and investigation into locations for,a Day Center to provide comprehensive services to Ashland's homeless community members(the work has included identifying a model for a Center and outreach to social service agencies) • Outreach, development and partnership implementation of the medical and dental van health care initiative by La Clinica in Ashland • The development of cooperative dialogue with the Ashland Homeless Coalition The Homelessness Steering Committee is dedicated to the cause of addressing the issues of homelessness in Ashland and has developed a synergistic working style that motivates our continued commitment to facilitating change. However, we have realized that overcoming the issues of poverty, homelessness,crime and mental health will take more time and effort to make real change. The members of our committee wish to continue with this charge. Work in Progress: • This week there has been further discussion on a day center agency and location. An issue you urged us to pursue. • We have interviewed downtown businesses and community members about the exclusionary zone. We have been exploring ways to make this program successful rather than just punitive. We hope that the Council would consider this committees' input into the development of a program. • We have met with Chief Holderness and participated with the Coalition to begin investigation and planning for a jobs program based on successful models in other cities. • Due to recent events, we are even more dedicated to identifying additional mental health resources that can be brought to our community. Whether the Ad Hoc Homeless Steering committee or another committee or commission is assigned this work, these problems will not go away without significant attention. We urge you to consider continuing the work of this committee. CITY 'OF ASHLAND Council Communication April 3, 2012 Business Meeting Approval of Amendment #1 to the Television Head-End Lease and Contract Between City of Ashland and Ashland Home Net FROM: Lee Tuneberg, Acting Assistant City Administrator, tuneberl @ashland.or.us SUMMARY Amendment #1 to the Television Head-End Lease and Contract recognizes the financial impact of changes in the industry subsequent to entering into the Agreement on February 10, 2011. Trends in the cable television industry are such that the agreement requirement for a significant growth in customer counts is not feasible and such a provision compromises the cooperative intent of the contract. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The city outsourced its cable television service in 2006 and bid a partner relationship in FY 2010-2011. Only Ashland Home Net submitted a bid to provide services as identified in the Request for Proposal. The corresponding contract required growth in customer counts to provide sufficient revenues for the successful bidder to pay for an advanced level of services provided by the City and cost sharing between both parties. It also required a fixed payment amount for these advanced services. Cable television service providers all over the country are experiencing a reduction in viewership, perceived to be caused by changes in technology and consumer approaches to viewing content. Consequently, there may be less opportunity to improve the number of connections relating to cable television viewing. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The impact is accepting less in the way of CATV revenues to the incumbent and a reduced ability to pay fixed costs included in the agreement. The offset to lost revenue to the incumbent and the City - about $100,000 - is reduced operational costs to support the cable television product line, thus minimizing the impact on the Telecommunications Fund bottom line or ending fund balance. This will be done as part of the proposed budget for FY 2012-2013. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends the City recognize the importance to adjust the contract to maintain a cooperative effort between it and the partner who uses the Hybrid Fiber Coax system to serve the community. Approving the contract amendment allows the both parties to adjust to a difficult, competitive industry. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to approve Amendment 91 to the Television Head-End Lease and contract between the City of Ashland and Ashland Home Net. Page 1 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND ATTACHMENTS: Amendment #1 to the Television Head-End Lease and Contract Agreement. Television Head-End Lease and Contract dated February 10, 2011 Page 2 of 2 TELEVISION HEAD-END SYSTEM LEASE AGREEMENT AND CONTRACT BETWEEN CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON AND ASHLAND HOME NET Amendment#1 TELEVISION HEAD-END SYSTEM LEASE AGREEMENT AND CONTRACT("Agreement") entered this 1 st day of January, 2011, between the City of Ashland, Oregon, ("City") by and through its Ashland Fiber Network division ("AFN"), and Ashland Home Net, a Nevada Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Home Net". WHEREAS, in November, 2010, AFN issued a request for proposals ("RFP," attached hereto as Exhibit A) for the lease of the television head-end (as defined below) and the provision of cable television services; and WHEREAS, Operator submitted a proposal in response to the RFP issued by AFN (the "Proposal," attached hereto); and WHEREAS, after reviewing Home Net's proposal, the RFP Evaluation Committee selected Home Net to as the successful proposer to lease AFN's television head-end and provide television services as described in the RFP; and WHEREAS, Home Net wishes to provide services to the Ashland, Oregon, community as described in the RFP for the incentives negotiated with AFN; and WHEREAS, this Agreement serves as a lease for the television head-end and contract for services between AFN and Home Net; and WHEREAS, Home Net must execute a Franchise Agreement with the City because AFN is not a cable television operator and will not maintain a cable television franchise; and WHEREAS, AFN and Home Net entered into the Agreement February 10, 2011, and changes in the cable television industry have rendered certain parts of the original agreement no longer feasible, and both parties now desire to amend the Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY AND ASHLAND HOME NET HEREBY AGREE TO AMEND THE AGREEMENT AS FOLLOWS: I. LEASE OF TELEVISION HEAD-END: Is left without amendment. 2. LEASE FEES 2.1 BASE OPERATING FEES: Home Net pay to AFN, as rent and for the cost of basic operations of the television head-end, a set monthly fee effective retroactive back to January 1, 2012. However, an amount of$75,000 outstanding from the original agreement is hereby reduced to $37,500 and is agreed to be paid to the City in monthly installments or lump sum by July 31, 2012. Future Base Operating Fees will be $1750 per month with an annual charge of $200 for security for a total of$21,200. 2.2 MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES AND FEES: Home Net shall pay AFN for services rendered per the table in this section. Payments for services are due and payable no later than thirty (30) days after the billing period, or per date listed on invoices sent by AFN. Payments shall be made by Home Net without deduction or setoff of any kind, and be addressed to AFN at the address set forth in this Agreement. Fees, hourly rates, and miscellaneous charges will apply RFP—Television Services,January I,2012,Page I or 3 from the effective date of this Agreement and last through June 30, 2012, after which they may be amended by AFN provided AFN gives Home Net 60-days prior notice. 2.2.1 Traps. Home Net shall pay for cable television traps("filters"). 2.2.2 Signal Filings. AFN shall pay for annual aeronautical signal leak detection and fly-over examinations, which shall be filed accordingly with the FCC by AFN. 2.2.3 Waivers & Discounts. At its discretion, AFN may waive Miscellaneous Charges and Fees or charge reduced rates. Description of Services RATE Installation Fee (Additional charges for parts and supplies apply.) [$20.00] Disconnect Fee $50.00 Standard Outlet Fee $20.00 Add/Remove Trap Fee $10.00 Field Technician Hourly Rate (Non-standard work such as advanced troubleshooting,nonstandard outlets, [$40.00] wall fishing,etc. Consulting and Technical Support—Hourly Rate (Charge applies to support for issues not related to AFN infrastructure [$70.00] performance and reliability.) Staff Screening Fee (Charge for each employee submitted for authorization to access AFN and [$150.00] City Service Center facilities. 2.3 REVENUE SHARING: Revenue sharing payments shall be due and paid monthly no later than the twenty fifth (25'h) day of the following month. Revenue sharing shall be for the following services and calculated and described: 2.3.1 Non-Advertising Revenue are revenues from all services other than advertising sales. Revenue share shall be paid by Home Net to AFN at 7% of all Non-Advertising Revenues, with a minimum of$75,000 per year, beginning January 1, 2012, and excluding the amount in Section 2.1. 2.3.2 Advertising Revenues are those revenues generated from the sale of advertising time and/or services. Home Net shall pay AFN 0% of its Advertising-related Revenues for the first three years of the original agreement (January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2013, after which AFN will receive 5% of revenues. 3. SPECIAL EXAMINATIONS: Is left without amendment. 4. TERM OF AGREEMENT: The term of the original Agreement is revised as noted above and continue through the following dates (with other terms noted): Dates Term Base Operating Fee Technical Operating Review Basis Review Basis January 1, 2012,to Three years $175o/month plus 7% Services& Financial& December 31, 2014 of applicable revenue Com liance Marketing One-year extension or Fifth Year of the January 1, 2015,to original agreement as To be negotiated Services& Financial& December 31, 2015 amended by this Compliance Marketing agreement 4.1 AFN may, at its sole discretion, extend the term of this Agreement for one additional one year term. The extension shall be communicated in writing by AFN and sent to Home Net at least ninety(90) days prior to the end date of this Agreement. 4.2 The terms of the 5'h Year will be negotiated. RFP—Television Services,January I,2012,Page 2 or 3 5 USE OF PROPERTY: Is left without amendment. 6 STORE-FRONT LOCATION: Is left without amendment. 7 WHOLESALE TELEVISION PRODUCTS: Is left without amendment- 8 BILLING, ACCOUNTING, AND CONTRACTS: Is left without amendment. 9 CONDITIONS OF USE: 9.1 -9.7: Is left without amendment. 9.8 Minimum Customers. This section is deleted. 9.9 New Customers. This section is deleted. 9.10 Customer Churn. This section is deleted. All other sections and terms of the original agreement remain in force. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement at Ashland, Oregon, on this day of 2012. By: City of Ashland By: Ashland Home Net Lee Tuneberg, ACA/Finance Director Jim Teece, President & CEO ORDER The governing body hereby approves and authorizes the terms of this lease as set forth above. Mayor/Mayor's Designee, City of Ashland Date RFP—Television Services,January 1,2012,Page 3 or 3 TELEVISION HEAD-END SYSTEM LEASE AGREEMENT AND CONTRACT BETWEEN CITY OF ASHLAND,OREGON AND ASHLAND HOME NET TELEVISION HEAD-END SYSTEM LEASE AGREEMENT AND CONTRACT("Agreement") entered this 10"day of February,2011, between the City of Ashland, Oregon, ("City") by and through its Ashland Fiber Network division ("AFN"),and Ashland Home Net, a Nevada Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Home Net". WHEREAS, in November, 2010, AFN issued a request for proposals("RFP," attached hereto as Exhibit A) for the lease of the television head-end (as defined below)and the provision of cable television services; and WHEREAS,Operator submitted a proposal in response to the RFP issued by AFN (the"Proposal," attached hereto); and WHEREAS, after reviewing Home Net's proposal,the RFP Evaluation Committee selected Home Net as the successful proposer to lease AFN's television head-end and provide television services as described in the RFP;and WHEREAS, Home Net wishes to provide services to the Ashland, Oregon,community as described in the RFP for the incentives negotiated with AFN; and WHEREAS,this Agreement serves as a lease for the television head-end and contract for services between AFN and Home Net; and WHEREAS, Home Net must execute a Franchise Agreement with the City because AFN is not a cable television operator and will not maintain a cable television franchise; and WHEREAS, AFN and Home Net wish to enter into this Agreement to clarify the lease terms and to ensure that the Agreement reflects the intent and current practices of the parties; NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY AND ASHLAND HOME NET HEREBY AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. LEASE OF TELEVISION HEAD-END: AFN hereby leases to Home Net its television head-end and all the associated equipment located at the City of Ashland Service Center,90 N. Mountain Avenue, Ashland, Oregon 97520, as set forth in the RFP and attached hereto, and 450 MHz and 860 MHz WAN bandwidth provided by and through AFN's hybrid fiber-coax network (the "Network") as required to provide cable television service to residents of the City of Ashland, subject to the limitations set forth herein(hereinafter referred to as the "television head-end"). The television head- end does not include the outside plant. Home Net holds and maintains ownership rights to television subscribers and cable television from the head-end and into the customer premises. 2. LEASE FEES 2.1. BASE OPERATING FEES: Home Net shall pay AFN, as rent and for the cost of basic operations of the television head-end,the sum of two hundred thousand dollars($200,000 USD), which shall be due and payable in quarterly installments paid no later than the twenty fifth (25'")day of March, June, September, and December of each year. This Base Operating Fee shall be paid in arrears for the previous three-month period, without deduction or setoff of any kind, and be addressed to AFN at the address set forth in this Agreement. RFP—Television services,February 10,2011,Page 1 or 9 2.2. MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES AND FEES: Home Net shall pay AFN for services rendered per the table in this section. Payments for services are due and payable no later than thirty(30) days after the billing period,or per date listed on invoices sent by AFN. Payments shall be made by Home Net without deduction or setoff of any kind, and be addressed to AFN at the address set forth in this Agreement. Fees, hourly rates, and miscellaneous charges will apply from the effective date of this Agreement and last through December 31,2011,after which they may be amended by AFN provided AFN gives Home Net 60-days prior notice. 2.2.1.Traps. Home Net shall pay for cable television traps ("filters"). 2.2.2.Signal Filings. AFN shall pay for annual aeronautical signal leak detection and fly-over examinations, which shall be filed accordingly with the FCC by AFN. 2.2.3.Waivers. At its discretion, AFN may waive Miscellaneous Charges and Fees. Description of Services RATE Installation Fee (Additional charges for parts and supplies apply.) $20.00 Disconnect Fee $50.00 Standard outlet Fee $20,00 Add/Remove Trap Fee $10.00 Field Technician Hourly Rate (Non-standard work such as advanced troubleshooting,nonstandard $40.00 outlets wall fishing,etc.) Consulting and Technical Support—Hourly Rate (Charge applies to support for issues not related to AFN infrastructure $70.00 performance and reliability.) _ Staff Screening Fee (Charge for each employee submitted for authorization to access AFN and $150.00 City Service Center facilities.) 2.3. REVENUE SHARING: Revenue sharing payments shall be due and payable in quarterly installments paid no later than the twenty fifth (251")day of March,June, September,and December of each year,for the previous quarter's total. Revenue sharing shall be for the following services and calculated in the following manner: 2.3.1. Non-Advertising Revenues are revenues from all services other than advertising sales. Revenue share shall be paid by Home Net to AFN as a percentage of all Non- Advertising Revenues,calculated from overall average revenue per customer. 2.3.1.1. For customers 1 to 3000, Home Net shall pay AFN 0%of Non-Advertising Revenues. 2.3.1.2. For customers 3001 to 3500, Home Net shall pay AFN 5%of Non-Advertising Revenues. 2.3.1.3. For customers 3501 to 4000, Home Net shall pay AFN 3%of Non-Advertising Revenues. 2.3.1.4. For customers 4001 and above,Home Net shall pay AFN 1%of Non-Advertising Revenues. 2.3.2. Advertising Revenues are those revenues generated from the sale of advertising time and/or services. Home Net shall pay AFN 0%of its Advert ising-related Revenues for the first three years of this agreement,after which AFN will receive 1%of revenues. 3. SPEC]AL'EXAMINATIONS: Home Net agrees that the City may'initiate a special examination of its finances to confirm accuracy of payments at any time after giving reasonable notice to Home Net. Special examination shall not exceed one per year. In the event of a special examination, Home Net must and shall make all files, materials,and staff fully available to AFN,or its assigned independent contractors or agents. 3.1. Reporting. At least annually, Home Net shall submit a current financial report reviewing the financial status of the company and its operations. RFP—Television Services,February 10,2011,Page 2 or 9 3.2. Scope. The scope of any special examinations will be limited to services contracted and/or proposed in Home Net's response to.the RFP. 3.3. Selecticin. AFN shall select contractors or agents with the necessary qualifications to review Home Net's financial report. 3.4. Cost. Special examinations shall be paid for equally by Home Net and the City if the selected contractor determines payments by Home Net do not exceed three percent (<3%) less than was due to AFN. If payments to AFN by Home Net exceed three percent (>3%) less than was due to AFN and the errors were not inadvertent, Home Net agrees to pay the full cost of the special examination. 4. TERM OF AGREEMENT: The initial term of this Agreement shall commence on the date noted above and continue through the following dates(with other term noted): Dates Term Base Operating Fee Technical Review Operating Review Basis Basis January 2,2011,to Services& Financial& December 2, 201y Four years s2oo,000(Year2-y) Compliance Marketing January 2,2025,to Possible one-year Services& Financial& December 2, 2025 extension Fifth ear s2o5,o00(Year 5) Compliance Marketing 4.1. AFN may, at its sole discretion,extend the term of this Agreement for one additional one year tens. The extension shall be communicated in writing by AFN and sent to Home Net at least ninety(90)days prior to the end date of this Agreement. 4.2. The 51b Year will be automatically awarded if Home Net has>3,000 television customers as of December I,2014. 5. USE OF PROPERTY: Home Net shall be granted use of and access to the AFN television head-end for the provision of television services to residents of Ashland,OR, pursuant to the RFP, Proposal, and Cable Franchise. As used herein, "television services" means: (A)the transmission to subscribers of analog video programming, and (B)the one-way transmission to subscribers of digital video programming. Home Net is not permitted under this Agreement to use the television head-end to provide any non-television services or use the television head-end to provide any other services or for any other purposes except as specifically granted under this Agreement. - 6. STORE-FRONT LOCATION: Home Net agrees to maintain a commercial storefront location within the City of Ashland's urban growth boundary throughout the term of this Agreement. Said offices shall be equipped and staffed to handle on-site customer visits for connects, disconnects,and equipments and parts pick-up. 6.1. Hours of Operation. Store-front facility shall be open to the public standard business days and hours, except for national and State of Oregon holidays. 6.2. ' Service Standard. Customer support staff must be courteous and professional. 7. WHOLESALE TELEVISION PRODUCTS: Home Net agrees to make its television products available to AFN and its partners at reduced wholesale prices. 7.1. Packages and Prices. Home Net agrees to make available for resale.its television packages for at least a 10%discount from its retail prices. These packages will be made available only to AFN and its designated partners. 7.2. Management of Wholesale Purchases. Vendors shall be able to purchase television services directly from Home Net by a process Home Net defines and manages. 7.3. Notification. Home Net shall notify AFN, customers of its services,and vendors purchasing its products at wholesale rates of any related prices or product changes. Notifications must be sent at least sixty (60)days prior to price and product changes taking effect, unless required in a shorter timeframe by law. 8. BILLING,ACCOUNTING,AND CONTRACTS: Home Net shall independently manage its commitments and operations as they relate to the services under this contract. Home Net agrees it carries complete and sole liability for its billing, accounting,contracts, and related processes. 9. CONDITIONS OF USE: RFP—Television Services,February 10,2011,Page 3 or 9 9.1. Disposition of Customers. Without exception, Home Net agrees it and AFN share mutual interest in all customers obtained under the duration of this Agreement and for the services specified. 9.1.1. Home Net shall share customer data openly, fully,and exclusively. Customer data shall be maintained in a secure fashion and shall not be shared,transmitted,or otherwise revealed to third parties without the consent of AFN. 9.1.2. Home Net shall not sell or otherwise transfer customer accounts, nor sell or transition customers to alternative services, without mutual agreement and addendum to this Agreement. 9.2. Cable Franchise. Without exception, Home Net must obtain and maintain a valid Cable Franchise Agreement with the City of Ashland for the duration of this Agreement. Further, Home Net agrees to fully accept revisions to the City Code affecting administration of the City's rights-of-way and telecommunications franchise agreements. Failure to comply with these requirements and obligations may result in termination of this Agreement pursuant to the termination provisions set forth herein. 9.3. Business License. Without exception, Home Net must obtain and maintain a valid Business License with the City of Ashland for the duration of this Agreement, as well as any extensions. Failure to comply with these requirements and obligations may result in termination of this Agreement pursuant to the termination provisions set forth herein. 9.4. Co-Marketing. Home Net agrees to cooperatively market all services and products under this Agreement with AFN. This includes inclusion of the AFN logo and brand in all marketing effons and providing AFN management opportunity to review and control use of its logo and brand. Failure to comply with these requirements and obligations may result in termination of this Agreement pursuant to the termination provisions set forth herein. 9.5. Use of Facilities. Home Net's use of the television head-end shall be conditioned upon its compliance with the requirements and obligations set forth in the RFP, Proposal,Agreement, and Cable Franchise Agreement. Failure to comply with these requirements and obligations may result in termination of this Agreement pursuant to the termination provisions set forth herein. AFN agrees to provide all information, documents, materials and services that are within its possession or control and are required by Home Net for performance of the requirements and obligations set forth in the RFP, Proposal and Cable Franchise. 9.6. Reliability. Home Net's lease and contract (Agreement)shall be conditioned upon maintaining access for subscribers to channels and content at least [99.9%] of all available hours. 9.7. Compliance. Home Net's lease and contract (Agreement)shall be conditioned upon receiving no more than [36] notices of violation from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Public Utilities Commission (PUC),or other regulating bodies. 9.8. Minimum Customers. Home Net's lease and contract (Agreement) shall be conditioned upon maintaining market penetration of no less than two thousand(2000)customer accounts in Ashland, Oregon. 9.8.1. Customer Accounts. For all purposes in this Agreement, Customer Accounts are defined and will be calculated as unique customer addresses,as determined by Ashland Electric.Department utility billing records. 9.8.2. Year 1 Minimum. By the end of the first year of the Agreement, Home Net shall acquire customers to meet or exceed two thousand three hundred fifty(2350)customer accounts. 9.8.3. Year 2 Minimum. By the end of the second year of the Agreement,Home Net shall acquire customers to meet or exceed two thousand six hundred(2600)customer accounts. 9.8.4. Year 3 Minimum. By the end of the third year of the contract, Home Net shall acquire customers to meet or exceed two thousand eight hundred fifty(2850)customer accounts. 9.9. New Customers. Home Net's Lease Agreement and Contract shall be conditioned upon acquiring at least 100 New Customers per year in Ashland, Oregon. For all purposes in this RFP—Television Services,February 10,2011,Page 4 or 9 Agreement, a "New Customer" is defined and will be calculated as one switching to television entertainment services with Home Net and who had not purchased those services from Home Net either directly or indirectly in the previous twelve calendar months, and who remains a customer of Home Net for no less than six full calendar months. 9.10. Customer Churn. Home Net's Lease Agreement and Contract shall be conditioned upon achieving a Customer Chum (turnover rate)of no more than 20%per year in Ashland, Oregon. For all purposes in this Agreement,Customer Chum is defined as deactivated customer accounts in the twelve months preceding the date of an inquiry. 9.11. Maintenance of Assets. Home Net shall,at its own expense,operate, maintain,and repair the television head-end and keep it in proper operating condition during the term of this Agreement. 9.12. Customer Service Surveys. Home Net shall conduct at least one (1)periodic customer service survey per year,which shall be reviewed and approved by AFN prior to sending to subscribers. Home Net's Lease Agreement and Contract shall be conditioned upon maintaining a customer satisfaction rating of at least 75%of customer ratings overall services and "Good" to"Excellent". 9.13. Taxes. Home Net shall he responsible for all applicable taxes including, but not limited to, franchise fees and PEG fees due pursuant to the Cable Franchise. Home Net shall not deduct from Lease Fees due under this Agreement any such taxes or fees paid by Home Net. 9.14. Permits and Licenses. Home Net shall obtain all necessary permits and licenses required to operate the television head-end and to provide cable television services over the television head-end. 9.15. Coordination of Use. Home Net acknowledges that the television head-end is located in the same facility as AFN's network and that the network capacity provided to Home Net under this Agreement is also used by AFN to provide internet access services over its Network. Home Net acknowledges and agrees that the terms of this Agreement do not limit AFN's access to that facility for any purpose associated with the operation,maintenance, repair or use of the Network,nor does it grant Home Net the exclusive use of the Network or otherwise place any limitations on AFN's use of the Network. 9.16. Other Conditions. I lome Net further agrees to the following conditions on access to and use of the television head-end: 9.16.1. The City of Ashland and its agents shall at all times(upon reasonable notice to Home Net)have access to television head-end equipment for the purposes of inspecting and assessing its condition and state of repair. 9.16.2. Home Net may not operate the television head-end in a manner that fails to maintain the signal integrity of AFN's network or to meet ingress and signal to noise specifications set by AFN. 9.16.3. Notwithstanding the grant of use,Home Net shall not be permitted to erect, install, construct, repair, replace, reconstruct and retain the television head-end,or any part thereof,without AFN's written permission. 9.16.4. Home Net may upgrade the television head-end pursuant to the RFP, provided that any alteration, improvement,or addition(s)to the television head-end shall be conducted by Home Net with AFN's prior written permission. Such changes, additions or alterations shall be at the sole expense of Home Net. All alterations, improvements,or additions to the television head-end shall become property of AFN after installation. 9.16.5. Home Net shall only allow access to the television head-end by designated staff who have passed background checks by the City of Ashland or other entities as deemed necessary by the City's Information Technology Department. 9.16.6. Home Net shall not store any equipment or supplies on City property without prior approval by the City's Information Technology Department, and shall not park vehicles on City property other than in authorized parking spaces. RFP—Television Services,February 10,201 1,Page 5 or 9 9.16.7. Home Net shall not access the network equipment or any other area within City's property, or use City property for any reason other than as permitted herein or in the RFP. 9.16.8. AFN shall invest at least$25,000 in advertising per year and will co-market Ashland Home Net's services and products in its materials whenever possible. 9.16.9. The City of Ashland will offer television services to customers signing up for utilities with the City. . 9.16.9.1. AFN will communicate that the City's television partner is"Ashland Home Net." 9.16.9.2. The City will provide prominent space and presence for Home Net to provide its products and services information. This will be in the area where customers visit to sign up for utilities. 9.16.9.3. AFN will include Home Net's products and services as primary sales options on AFN's website.. 9.16.9.4. AFN will allow magnetic signage from Home Net on AFN vehicles. Signage must fit the vehicle areas designated and be approved by AFN management. 9.16.9.5. AFN will include Home Net's logo on the apparel of its installation technicians at Home Net's election. 9.16.9.6. Home Net will be allowed at least two stuffers per year to be included with utility bills. Home Net shall pay production costs for its included materials and those materials shall meet the City's specifications for size,weight,and professionalism. 9.16.9.7. For its compensation to the City under this contract, Home Net shall be the exclusive television provider allowed to present its products and services - advertisements in the City's utility signup areas. 10. ADDITIONAL SERVICES: Ashland Home Net will render the following value-added services at the stipulated revenue sharing. 10.1. DVR—Home Net agrees to offer Ashland residents digital video recording products. AFN shall have no additional revenue share from this service. 10.2. Internet Connectivity—Home Net shall purchase its Internet connectivity products exclusively from AFN for customers in Ashland's urban growth boundary. Home Net agrees to purchase AFN connectivity products at the rates approved by City Council and shall resell those products to the community at retail prices it deems appropriate. AFN shall have no additional revenue share from this service above its revenue from connectivity wholesale purchases. 10.3. ESPN 3/ESPN 360—Home Net shall offer specialized online ESPN content services to its customers. AFN shall endeavor,to the extent feasible,to manage its network in a way that supports the services. AFN shall have no additional revenue share from the online ESPN services. 10.4. Phone Service—Home Net shall offer phone services to its customers. AFN shall have no additional revenue share from this service so long as Home Net's revenues from phone services remain under$5,000 per year. AFN and Home Net must agree to a revenue sharing arrangement if revenues meet or exceed $5,001 per year. 10.5. Support—Home Net agrees to provide computer and networking support services to AFN on a per-call fee basis at AFN's request. Cost of support shall not exceed $15 per call, or shall follow a price agreement added to this contract as an addendum. AFN revenue share is not applicable to this service. 11. EFFECT ON PREVIOUS AGREEMENTS AND FRANCHISE AGREEMENT: Upon execution of this Agreement by both parties,this Agreement shall supersede and render null and void all previous leases,agreements,and contracts between AFN and Home Net for television services. 12. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS: 12.1. This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon. Home Net shall promptly observe and comply with all present and future laws,orders, RFP—Television Services,February 10,2011.Page 6 or 9 regulations,rules and ordinances of federal, state and local governments with respect to the lease of the television head-end and the requirements and obligations of the RFP and Proposal, including but not limited to provisions of ORS 279B.220,279B.230 and 279B.235. 12.2. Home Net is a "subject employer" as defined in ORS 656.005 and shall comply with ORS 656.017. If it has not already done so as required by the Cable Services Agreement,within 10 business days of the execution of this Agreement, Home Net shall certify to City that it has workers'compensation coverage required by ORS Chapter 656. If Home Net is a tamer insured employer, Home Net shall provide City with a certificate of insurance. If Home Net is a self-insured employer,Home Net shall provide City with a certification from'the Oregon Department of Insurance and Finance as evidence of Home Net's status. 13. INSURANCE: 13.1. Home Net shall, at its own expense, and at all times during the term of this Agreement, maintain in force: 13.1.1. A comprehensive general liability policy including coverage for contractual liability for obligations assumed under this contract, blanket contractual liability, products and completed operations and owner's and contractor's protective insurance;and 13.1.2. A comprehensive automobile liability policy including owned and non-owned automobiles. 13.2. The coverage under each liability insurance policy shall be equal to or greater than the limits for claims made under the Oregon Tort Claims Act with minimum coverage of$1,000,000, or higher,per occurrence (combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage claims)or $500,000,or higher,per occurrence for bodily injury and $100,000,or higher,per occurrence for property damage. Liability coverage shall be provided on an "occurrence" basis. "Claims made"coverage is not acceptable,except for the automobile liability policy coverage required by paragraph 13.1.2. 13.3. Certificates of insurance acceptable to City shall be filed with City within 10 business days of the execution of this Agreement, if not already on file with City. Each certificate shall state that coverage afforded under the policy cannot be cancelled or reduced in coverage until at least thirty(30) days prior written notice has been given to City. A certificate that states merely that the issuing company "will endeavor to mail" written notice is unacceptable. 14. INDEMNIFICATION: Home Net shall defend, indemnify and hold City, its officers,agents,and employees harmless from any and all claims, actions,costs,judgments, damages or other expenses resulting from injury to any person (including injury resulting in death),or damage to property (including loss or destruction), of whatsoever nature arising out of, or incident to,the negligent performance of this Agreement by Home Net. Home Net's indemnification of the City and AFN includes, but is not limited to,the negligent acts or omissions of Home Net's employees,agents and others designated by Home Net to access the television head-end,provide cable television services, perform work or services attendant to this Agreement,and/or maintain the security of customer data. Home Net shall not be held responsible for any claims, actions,costs,judgments, damages or other expenses, directly and proximately caused by the direct negligence of City. 15. DEFAULT: 15.1. There shall be a default under this Agreement if either party fails to perform any act or obligation required by this Agreement within ten (10)days after the other party gives written notice specifying the nature of the breach with reasonable particularity. If the breach specified in the notice is of such a nature that it cannot be completely cured within the 10 day period, no default shall occur if the party receiving the notice begins performance of the act or obligation within the 10 day period and thereafter proceeds with reasonable diligence and in good faith to effect the remedy as soon as practicable. 15.2. Misrepresentations of experience, staff, references,or other qualification of material • importance to accurately rating the ability of proposers in the RFP process shall be considered a default and shall constitute grounds for terminating this Agreement. RFP—Television Services,February 10,2011,Page 7 or 15.3. Notwithstanding Section 13.1, either party may declare a default by written notice to the other party, without allowing an opportunity to cure, if the other party repeatedly breaches the terms of this Agreement. 15.4. If a default occurs, the party injured by the default may elect to terminate this Agreement and pursue any equitable or legal rights and remedies available under Oregon law.All remedies shall be cumulative. 15.5. Any litigation arising out of this Agreement shall be conducted in Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Jackson County. 16. TERMINATION FOR PUBLIC INTEREST: In addition to the right to terminate this Agreement under Section 15,City may terminate this Agreement and Contract by giving Home Net sixty(60)days prior written notice if it determines termination is required for the interests of the community. If City terminates under this Section, Home Net shall be paid all fees earned and costs incurred prior to the termination date set forth in the notice. Home Net shall not be entitled to be compensated for lost profits. 17. WAIVER: Failure of City or Home Net in any one or more instances to insist upon the performance of any of the terms,of this Agreement, or to exercise any right or privilege conferred herein,or the waiver of any breach of any term of this Agreement should not thereafter be construed as a waiver of such term,which shall continue in force as if no waiver had occurred. 18. NOTICES: Any notice required to be given under this Agreement or any notice required to be given by law shall be in writing and may be given by personal delivery or by registered or certified mail, or by any other manner prescribed by law. 18.1. Notices to City shall be sent to: CIO/Director of Information Technology City of Ashland 90 N. Mountain Avenue Ashland,Oregon 97520 With a copy to: City Administrator City of Ashland .20 East Main Street Ashland,Oregon 97520. 18.2. Notices to Ashland Home Net shall be sent to: Ashland Home Net c/o Jim Teece 607 Siskiyou Boulevard Ashland,OR 97520 19. ASSIGNMENT: City and Home Net and the respective successors, administrators, assigns and legal representatives of each are bound by this Agreement to the other party and to the partners, successors,administrators, assigns and legal representatives of the other party. Home Net shall not assign or subcontract Home Net's rights or obligations under this Agreement without prior written consent of City.Except as stated in this Section, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to give any rights or benefits to anyone other than City or Home Net. 20. MODIFICATION: No modification of this Agreement"shall be valid unless in writing and signed by the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement at Ashland, Oregon,on this 10th day of February, 2011. RFP—Television Services,February 10,2011,Page 8 or 9 By: City of Ashland By: Ashland Ho a Net Rob Lloyd, CIO/Director Jim Teece, President &CEO ORDER The goove piing ody hereby approves and authorizes the terms of this lease as set forth above. Ato tulD I� M�yor John Stromberg Date RFP—Television Services,February 10,2011,Page 9 or 9 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication April 3, 2012 Business Meeting Adoption of the Special Event Policy, Repeal of Resolution 2011-12 and Adoption of a New Special Event Fee Resolution FROM: Ann Seltzer, Management Analyst, seltzera @ashland.or.us SUMMARY Council directed staff to develop a special event policy to clarify the use of the public right of way for special events, to minimize City expenses associated with special events, to provide options and to minimize expenses for special event coordinators and to minimize safety risks to the event participants and the generalpublic. Resolution 2012-xx sets the fees identified in the special events policy. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: At their study session March 5, 2012, the City Council reviewed the draft Special Event Policy and directed staff to make changes. Changes include the following edits: Page I — second pars rg aph: "...and/or substantially impacts or impedes traffic flow." Page I — Community-wide events: "The July 4`h celebration is a community-wide event and is exempt from this policy. The City Council may add other events to this category at their discretion." Pave 2 — Fees: "If the application is not approved, or if the applicant withdraws the request, the City Administrator and/or staff designee will evaluate and subsequently determine if a refund is appropriate." Page 2 ODOT Certified Flaggers: The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) provides traffic flagger training. After completing the training, participants will be certified flaggers for two years. If using ODOT Certified Flaggers, the applicant must submit to the City a list of the volunteers who will work the event. If the applicant is unable to recruit the required number of ODOT Certified Flaggers, City staff will be assigned to work the event, if available, and the applicant will pay 60%of the overtime costs. The City cannot guarantee city staff will be available to work the event with less than 30 days notice from the date of the event. If the applicant cannot secure the required number of certified flaggers and city staff is not available the event cannot proceed. Page 3: Rolling Road Closure: "The rolling road closure event is one that occurs during daylight hours, lasts 45 minutes...." Page ] of 3 CITY OF ASHLAND Page 3 Time Limit for Road Closure: "Exceptions to this rule include the July 4'h celebration, Children's Halloween Parade and the Festival of Lights. Council may exempt future events which that require a road closure for longer than two hours. Page 4 Race Start Times: "For the safety of the general public, races must clear the downtown area no later than 9:30 a.m. Page 4 Neutral Start for Bicycle Races: "A neutral start is the preferred option and will be used until the event reaches a predetermined location. "...City staff will determine at what point the neutral start ends and the racing begins and a signal is given by a race official. If an applicant chooses not to use a neutral start, the applicant will pay 60% of overtime costs." Page 4 Certificate of Insurance and Hold Harmless Agreement: "Events that can be accommodated with a rolling road closure are not required to secure a Certificate of Liability insurance for the City (this is required by ODOT for events on State Highways). However the City strongly recommends the organizers secure liability insurance to protect themselves. If during the event a participant is injured and seeks damages or if private or public property is damaged by a participant, the insurance provides protection for the event organizer." At the Study Session there was some discussion about the ODOT classes for volunteers to receive traffic flagger training. The City is not offering monthly classes but will coordinate with ODOT to provide the classes as the need arises. Currently, more than 60 people have signed up to attend the ODOTclass on April 5. An internal team of representatives from Public Works, Police, Parks, Administration and Fire has met regularly since June of 2011 to evaluate the current practice to approve or deny special event permit applications and to identify challenges and opportunities for changes to the current practice and permit fees. The team reviewed, the many different types of special events that occur in Ashland, the city resources associated with the various events, the safety for the general public, spectators and event participants and the impacts, both negative and positive, on the community and the disruption of public services. In September, the team met with event coordinators each of whom organizes an annual special event in Ashland. One of the suggestions that surfaced during that meeting was the use of volunteers for traffic control rather than the use of city staff. Another suggestion was to develop pre-approved routes and identify required resources for those routes. More recently, the Police Chief and Public Works Director met with race organizers about the proposed routes and associated resources and with citizens who expressed concern about the potential impact of the policy on First Amendment rights. The proposed fees for special events include $130 for every special event permit application and 60% of costs for city staff overtime if needed for the special event. Once adopted by the City Council, the Special Event Policy and the Resolution go into effect immediately. Page 2 of 3 �r, CITY OF ASHLAND FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The policy requires applicant to pay a base fee of$130 plus 60% of staff overtime needed for the event: Both Public Works and Police budget for overtime costs. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends Council adopt the Special Event Policy and Fee Resolution. SUGGESTED MOTION: Move to adopt the Special Event Policy as written, repeal Resolution 2011-12, and adopt the new Fee Resolution. ATTACHMENTS: Revised Special Event Policy Fee Resolution Resolution 2011-12 Page 3 of 3 CITY OF ASHLAND Revised DRAFT Special Event Policy Overview Ashland values special events as a means of bringing people together to enrich lives and strengthen our community through the celebration of arts, sports, culture, commerce and more. A Special Event is an organized activity, such as a parade, race, street fair, athletic event etc. that requires the exclusive use of public right of ways or city-owned property including but not limited to sidewalks, streets, parking spaces, parking lots, alleys etc. and/or substantially impacts or impedes traffic flow. The City of Ashland regulates these types of events to ensure the safety of the event participants, spectators and the general public and to minimize inconvenience to the general public and disruption of public services. NOTE: This policy does not apply to neighborhood residential block parties. Purpose The purpose of this policy is clarify the use of the public right of way and city property for special events; to minimize City expenses associated with special events; to provide options and minimize expenses for special event coordinators; and to minimize safety _ risks to the'event participants and the general public. Scope This policy applies to all persons requesting the use of any public right of way which has been determined by Police Department and or the Public Works department to require unimpeded access and controlled traffic for the safety of the event participants and general public. Use of City parks and facilities is subject to policies set forth by the Parks and Recreation Commission. Use of the Plaza requires a separate permit available at www.ashland.or.us/plazapermi t. V 41 - // , as Pfd Community-wide events 5t°dn 'r �ks �" I The July 4`h celebration is a community-wide event and i y. The City Council may add other events to this category at their discretion. Permit Permits are required for all special events. Special Event Permits are available on line at www.ashland.or.us/specialevent. 1 Note: Applicants requesting use of State Highway 99 (North Main, East Main through downtown, Lithia Way, Siskiyou Blvd.) and/or Highway 66 (Ashland Street)must secure a permit from the Oregon Department of Transportation, in addition to a permit from the City of Ashland. Applicants requesting use of East Main from Walker east to the city limits and/or Crowson Road must secure a permit from Jackson County. Siskiyou Blvd. between Gresham Street and Walker Street is under City jurisdiction. Fees All applicants pay an administrative fee of$130 when the application is submitted. If the application is not approved, or if the applicant withdraws the request, the City Administrator and/or staff designee will evaluate and subsequently determine if a refund if appropriate. 1) Events that do not require City staff overtime (determined by the City): City staff will review the route proposed in the permit application and determine the location of barricades, traffic safety cones and traffic control locations where an ODOT certified flagger can be used. The event coordinator is responsible for securing and placing barricades, cones and flaggers at each designated location at least 60 minutes in advance of the start of the event. The event cannot begin until authorized City personnel drive the route prior to the race to make sure barricades, cones and volunteers are in place and then informs the event organizer of approval. If event organizers are unable to secure the required number of ODOT certified flaggers and city staff must be used for traffic control, the applicant will pay 60% of actual cost for staff overtime. 2) Events that require City staff overtime (determined by the City) City staff will review the proposed route and determine how much City staff overtime will be needed. In addition to the base permit fee of$130, the event applicant will be charged 60% of actual costs. ODOT Certified Flaggers may not work at intersections or other locations where the City has determined there is significant risk. ODOT Certified Flaggers The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) provides traffic flagger training. After completing the training, participants will be certified flaggers for two years. If using ODOT Certified Flaggers, the applicant must submit to the City a list of the volunteers who will work the event. If the applicant is unable to recruit the required number of ODOT Certified Flaggers, City staff will be assigned to work the event, if available, and the applicant will pay 60% of the overtime costs. The City cannot guarantee city staff will be available to work the event with less than 30 days notice from the date of the event. If the applicant cannot secure the required number of certified flaggers and city staff is not available the event cannot proceed. 2 Meeting with City Staff After receiving the completed Special Event Permit, a meeting between City staff and the applicant will occur so both parties can review the proposed route and traffic management plan and are clear on the expectations, limitations and costs of the event. Pre-approved Routes The City has identified a number of different special event routes within Ashland, on both State and non-State Highways. The approximate resources and requirements associated with traffic control for each pre-approved route are available for event coordinators planning a special event. fv{4'dYPJ4e4V_.ejf 0) Rolling Road Closure Some special events on roadways with two or more lanes of traffic in each direction can be accommodated with a rolling road closure of one lane of traffic. A rolling road closure event is one that occurs during daylight hours, lasts 45 minutes or less, does not block intersections for more than 5 minutes and can be managed with on-duty city staff. These events are subject to the $130 base fee only and will not be charged a Rush Fee (see below). Permit approval is subject to staff availability. MIA CU/t 3 V� Application and Deadline d The application for a special use permit is posted on the City's website at www.ashiand.or.us/specialevent or can be obtained from the Public Works Department at 541-488-5587. Completed applications should be submitted to the Public Works Department no later than 90 days in advance of the event date. It can take up to three months for City Departments to coordinate traffic plans, police services, public work services and more. Applicants will be notified of permit approval at least 60 days after the application is submitted. Rush Fee: With the exception of rolling road closures, applicants for a special event permit who cannot meet the 90 day requirement will be charged a Rush Fee of$250 in addition to the base fee of$130 if the requisite City staff can be made available within the time frame requested. Otherwise the permit will be denied and the $250 will be refunded. Time Limit for Road Closure Roads will be closed for no longer than two hours. Event organizers should plan accordingly. Road closures, particularly in the downtown and business areas of the community, impact local businesses and can impede customer access. A maximum road closure of two hours ensures those businesses are not adversel� impacted by the special event. Ekceptions to this rule include the July 4' Celebration, Children's Halloween Parade and the Festival of Lights. Council may exempt future events that require a road closure for longer than two hours. 3 Race Start Times The downtown area, particularly the Plaza, becomes extremely busy with pedestrians, vehicles, merchants, etc. For the safety of the general public and participants,races must start and clear the downtown area no later than 9:30 a.m. Neutral Start for Bicycle Races A neutral start is the preferred option and will be used until the event reaches a location predetermined by City staff. . A neutral start is used at the beginning of bicycle races to create a parade atmosphere as the event gets underway This controlled pace protects, riders, pedestrians and vehicles in highly congested traffic zones. City staff will determine at what point the neutral start ends and the racing begins and a signal is given by a race official. If an applicant chooses not to use a neutral start, the applicant will pay 60% of overtime costs. Special Event applicants may be denied future permits if racers pass the lead police vehicle. Notification of Businesses and Neighbors Event organizers are responsible for posting notification signs along the event route 24 hours in advance of the event. In addition, event organizers must notify businesses and homes along the route of the street closure, as well as cul-de-sac streets that intersect with ' the route, fourteen days in advance. At a minimum, the notification must include the date and length of time road will be closed. Public Works may require signatures to be collected indicating the property owners have been advised of the closure. Public Safety ' Safety of participants and the general public is the highest priority. The final decision on public safety requirements rests with the Ashland Police Department and Public Works. The Oregon Department of Transportation requires certified flaggers or police personnel at locations that require traffic control. ODOT Certified Flaggers may not work at intersections or other locations where the City has determined there is significant risk. Certificate of Insurance and Hold Harmless Agreement The City of Ashland requires a Certificate of Insurance in the amount of no less than one million ($1,000,000) dollars to protect the City against claims for personal injury or property damage that could that could occur because of the event. The certificate will name the City as an additional insured. A copy of the certificate must be submitted with the completed permit application. ODOT also requires a Certificate of Insurance if the event occurs on ODOT right of way. Events that can be accommodated with a rolling road closure are not required to secure a Certificate of Liability insurance for the City(this is required by ODOT for events on State Highways). However the City strongly recommends the organizers secure liability 4 insurance to protect themselves. If during the event a participant is injured and seeks damages or if private or public property is damaged by a participant, the insurance provides protection for the event organizer. In addition, the City requires all applications to sign a hold harmless agreement (provided by the City) in order to receive a permit. The Special Event Permit covers the use of the sidewalk(s) or street(s). It is possible your event may need additional permits such as a noise permit or a Parks permit. The following questions will help you determine if you need additional permits. Questions Contact Phone Will the event begin, end or Parks and Recreation 541-488-5340 ass through a city ark? Will a public address Administration 541-488-6002 system or amplified music be used? Will your event interfere RVTD, Field Operation 541-779-2877 with a bus route or Coordinator schedule? Will food be served at the Jackson County Health 541-774-8206 event? — Division Ashland Fire & Rescue 541-482-2770 Will alcoholic beverages be Oregon Liquor Control 541-776-6191 sold? Commission . Ashland Fire & Rescue 541-482-2770 Will your event include Ashland Fire Department 541-482-2770 tents, canopies, booths, cooking, pyrotechnics etc.? Is your event a film or Administration 541-488-6002 video? Ashland Fire & Rescue 541-482-2770 Does your event involve the Administration 541-488-6002 Plaza? Will you event occur on Oregon Department of 541-774-6328 North Main, East Main Transportation 541-774-6360 Lithia Way, Siskiyou Blvd. (Highway 99), Ashland Jackson County Roads (541) 774-8184 Street (Highway 66 Do you need reserved Public Works 541-488-5857 parking? Criteria for Approval/Denial of application In issuing a permit for a special event, the City considers whether: 1) Another event is scheduled for the same day/weekend 2) The event is reasonably likely to cause injury to persons or property 5 3) The event will substantially interfere with the safe and orderly movement of pedestrians and vehicular traffic in the area 4) The proposed location is adequate for the size and nature of the event 5) City equipment, staff and services are available 6) All permit requirements have been met 7) ODOT and/or Jackson County Permits secured 8) All required insurance documents are submitted 9) Previously identified issues have been addressed in the application Included in this packet: Special Event Permit Application Pre-approved routes Parks and Recreation Special Event Permit Application Sanitation and Recycling The permit application requires the applicant submit a plan for clean-up and recycling. . Ashland Fire & Rescue Permits are required for the following: An additional permit from the fire department may be required when the event is held in public or private property within the city limits and includes any one or more of the following: • Cooking or open flames including fire dancing; candle light vigils, sweat lodges, and ceremonial events • All outdoor fire and regulated by the fire department through the Ashland Municipal Code • Open flames inside a building other than approved, fixed appliances • Tents or canopies • When an activity occurs in a building outside its normal use • Carnivals, fairs, beer gardens, haunted houses • An event where the public gather within boundaries delineated by a physical barrier such a snow fencing, metal gates or tape • Events in private homes or on private property that are open to the public OR charge a fee • Other unique activities not listed may require a permit. Approved: Date: Dave Kanner, City Administrator Reviewed as to form: Date: David Lohman, City Attorney 6 RESOLUTION NO. 2012- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FEES FOR SPECIAL EVENTS AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 2011-22 RECITALS: A. Section 1 1.12.050 of the Ashland Municipal Code authorizes the temporary closure of a City street to traffic when deemed necessary for parades, dances, races, or other special events. B. The number of types of special events is increasing. Such temporary closures can have an impact on city services including Police, Ashland Fire and Rescue, Parks and Recreation and Public Works. C. On April 3, 2012 the City Council approved the Special Event Policy. D. Special events have an economic benefit to the community and yet can increase the city's costs. The special event fees below reflect a standard special event permit fee of$130, 60% of actual overtime costs for City staff and a fee of$250 for applicants who do not submit the permit application ninety days in advance of the event date. E. A Special Event is an organized activity, such as a parade, race, street fair, athletic event etc. that requires the exclusive use of public right of ways or city-owned property including but not limited to sidewalks, streets, parking spaces, parking lots, alleys etc. or that reroutes or delays the normal flow of pedestrians and vehicles thereon. F. The Special Event Permit requirements do not apply to neighborhood block parties or to activities for which the City has previously established fee and requirements, such as film and video production activities. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The following special event fees are set forth in Table 1 and are hereby approved and established. TABLE 1 Type Fee Base Special Event Permit Fee $130 Events that require city staff overtime The Special Event Permit Applicant will pay 60% of city staff overtime costs in addition to the base fee of$130. Rush Fee $250 will be charged, in addition to the base fee of$130, to applicants who do not submit the permit application 90 days in advance of the event. Section 2. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2012, and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. Page 1 of 2 Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 2012. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2011- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING INTERIM FEES FOR SPECIAL EVENTS RECITALS: A. Section 11.12.050 of the Ashland Municipal Code authorizes the temporary closure of a City street to traffic when deemed necessary for parades,dances,races, or other special events. B. The City of Ashland has been approving such events for many years, charging the applicant actual city costs including overtime and equipment. C. The number of types of special events is increasing. Such temporary closures can have an impact on city services including Police, Ashland Fire and Rescue, Parks and Recreation and Public Works. D. On May 17, 2011 the City Council authorized staff to develop a new Special Events Permit and to implement interim special event fees. E. Special events have an economic benefit to the community and yet can increase the city's costs. The proposed interim special event fees below reflect an average cost-per-type of event that splits the city-incurred expenses between the applicant and the City. F. A Special Event is an organized activity that reroutes or delays the normal flow of pedestrians and traffic, such as parades,races, athletic events or other processions in. streets,on sidewalks or pedestrian pathways. G. The interim Special.Event Permit requirements do not apply to neighborhood block parties or to activities for which the City has previously established fee and requirements, such as film and video production activities. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The following interim special fees are set forth in Table 1 and are hereby approved and established. TABLE 1 Event Type Interim Fee Large Event four hours or more with Entry Fee $1,000 Large Event four hours or more no Entry Fee $850 Small Event less than four hours with Entry $700 Fee Small Event less than four hours no Entry Fee $350 Basic Event no city staff required) $130 City Sponsored Event $0 Page I of 2 Section 2. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2011,and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this�day of 12011. fan Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: D . i Lohman, ity Attorney Page 2 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication April 3, 2012 - Business Meeting Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.10.090 Council as Final Decision Maker and Chapter 2.10.100 Budget, Compensation and Expenses of the AMC FROM: David Lohman, City Attorney, lohmand @ashland.or.us -SUMMARY The City Council, at their regular meeting on March 20, 2012, approved the First Reading of this ordinance. The ordinance is presented to the City Council to conduct the Second Reading by title only, and adoption of the amendments to Chapter 2.10.090 Council as Final Decision Maker and Chapter 2.10.100 Budget, Compensation and Expenses of the Ashland Municipal Code. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The City Council wishes to have the Ashland Municipal Code section on Uniform Policies and Operating Procedures for Advisory Commissions and Boards reference the adopted policies and guidelines for obtaining approval of board and commission expenditures, endorsements or sponsorships of events, activities or programs through the City Council, established by Resolution. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends Council approve the Second Reading by title only. SUGGESTED MOTION: Move to approve second reading and adopt the ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.10.090 Council as Final Decision Maker and Chapter 2.10.100 Budget, Compensation and Expenses of The Ashland Municipal Code" ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance Page 1 of I ORDINANCE NO. 12- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2.10.090 COUNCIL AS FINAL DECISION MAKER AND CHAPTER 2.10.100 BUDGET, COMPENSATION AND EXPENSES OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold fined4hrwdgh and additions are in bold underline. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to have the Ashland Municipal Code section on Uniform Policies and Operating Procedures for Advisory Commissions and Boards reference the adopted policies and guidelines for obtaining approval of board and commission expenditures, endorsements or sponsorships of events, activities or programs. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. -The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. AMC Chapter 2.10.090 is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.10.090 Council as Final Decision Maker With the exception of certain delegated quasi-judicial actions, most advisory commissions and boards do not make final decisions subject to appeal but rather make recommendations to, or act in an advisory capacity to the council. The City Council is the final decision-maker on all city policies and the use of city resources. Proposals by boards and commissions for endorsement or sponsorship of events, activities or programs must receive approval by City Council as provided by Resolution. SECTION 3. AMC Chapter 2.10.100 is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.10.100 Budget, Compensation and Expenses Money is set aside in department budgets for Commission and Board expenses. Should an advisory body require additional funds, requests should be submitted to the department head through the staff liaison. Regular members of the advisory commissions and boards shall receive no compensation for services rendered. Members must receive permission and instructions from An Ordinance Amending Chapters 2.10.090&2.10.100 Page 1 the staff liaison in order to be reimbursed for training or conferences and associated travel expenses related to official business. Procedures and criteria for boards and commissions to obtain approval of expenditures are established by Resolution. SECTION 4. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 5. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance"may be changed to "code", "article", "section', or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections 4- 5) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the - day of 12012, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 12012. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2012. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney An Ordinance Amending Chapters 2.10.090&2.10.100 Page 2 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication April 3, 2012, Business Meeting Second Reading of three ordinances amending the Ashland Land Use Ordinance and Municipal Code to implement the Green Codes Updates. FROM: Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner, Brandon.Goldman@ashland.or.us SUMMARY Three ordinance updates are being presented to the City Council to conduct Second Reading and adopt amendments that establish new standards for deer fencing, the keeping of chickens, solar panels on commercial and employment zoned properties within Ashland's designated historic districts, and yard setback requirements relating to rain barrels and eave extensions BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The City Council held a public hearing on March 6, 2012,and passed first reading of the ordinances incorporating numerous revisions as recommended by the Planning Commission and Staff. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 10, 2012, and recommended approval of the ordinances with specific revisions as outlined in the Planning Commission Recommendation Findings presented to Council at first reading of the proposed ordinances. During the City Council's March 6`h 2012 first reading of the proposed ordinances Staff was further directed to present additional amendments for consideration. The amendments discussed by Council have been included in the attached ordinances and are described in the attached Memo to Council dated 4/3/2012. The proposed "green code" amendments are intended to remove regulatory barriers to promote local food production and energy and water conservation. These amendments address the 2011 City Council Goal: Adopt land use codes, building codes, green building standards, and fee structures that creates.strong incentives for development that is energy, water, and land efficient and supports a multi-modal transportation system. Comprehensive Plan Policies relating to the proposed ordinance amendments include the following: Chapter I: Historical Sites and Structures: Goal: To preserve historically significant structures and sites in Ashland. I-7: The City shall develop and implement through law design guidelines for new development as well as for alteration of existing structures within the historic interest areas for structures and areas that are historically significant. Chapter XI: Energy, Air, and Water Conservation The City shall strive, in every appropriate way, to reduce energy consumption within the community. XI-2) Existing Housing Page 1 of CITY OF ASHLAND c)Program experience from other areas indicates that water conservation in existing homes can provide additional water for growth. Programs aimed at acquiring this resource shall be thoroughly evaluated on equal footing with new supply options. g) Passive solar design and sun tempering has application in existing homes. Also, solar water heating technology and photovoltaic might prove to be very cost effective in the future in existing homes. Consequently, solar access protection is still very important. Therefore, we shall continue our aggressive policy of protecting solar access. XI-7 Water Conservation c) Irrigation is a large water usage and it also can be accomplished with lower quality water. Therefore, water conservation efforts shall be directed toward an overall reduction of water usage (conservation) and substitution of lower quality water for outdoor irrigation. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends Council approve Second Reading of the ordinances as amended. SUGGESTED MOTION: To independently address each of the three ordinances presented for consideration, the City Council must make three separate motions. 1. Move to approve second reading and adopt the ordinance amending the Site Design and Review Chapter(18.72)of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance relating to the installation of solar energy systems. Title: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SITE DESIGN AND REVIEW CHAPTER (18.72) OF THE ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE TO EXEMPT SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS MEETING SPECIFIC STANDARDS FROM SITE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS. 2. Move to approve second reading and adopt the ordinance amending the Definitions Chapter (18.08) and General Regulations Chapter (18.68) of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. Title: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE DEFINITIONS CHAPTER (18.08) AND GENERAL REGULATIONS CHAPTER (18.68) OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE AND LAND USE ORDINANCE. 3. Move to approve second reading and adopt the ordinance amending the Health and Sanitation Chapter(9.08)of the Ashland Municipal Code. Title: AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING PROVISIONS FOR THE KEEPING OF CHICKENS WITHIN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, AND REPEALING FENCE PROVISIONS WITHIN THE HEALTH AND SANITATION CHAPTER 9.08 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE ATTACHMENTS: • Ordinance amending the Site Design and Review Chapter (18.72) of the ALUO • Ordinance amending the Definitions Chapter(18.08) and General Regulations Chapter(18.68) of the ALUO Page 2 of 3 CITY OF ASHLAND • Ordinance amending the Health and Sanitation Chapter (9.08) of the Ashland Municipal Code .• Memo to Council dated 4/03/2012 • University of New Mexico white paper: Residential Urban Chicken Keeping: An examination of 25 Cities. • Letters: • Pam Lott dated 3/05/2012 • Amy Haptonstall dated 3/8/2012 and 3/12/2012 • Barbara Barnes dated 3/12/2012 • Jeanne Powell dated 3/13/2012 • Kim Blackwolf dated 3/13/2012 • The City Council 3/06/2012 packet contains the following materials presented at First Reading: • Exhibit A — Planning Commission Recommendation Findings dated February 28, 2012 • Exhibit B — Alternative Ordinance language options. • Exhibit C — Planning Action 2011-01731 Staff Report dated Feb 14, 2012 o Exhibit D—Applicability of Ordinance Amendments by Location • Exhibit E— Fence Study and Opacity Illustrations provided by Dale Shostrom • Draft Planning Commission Minutes dated February 14, 2012 • Draft Historic Commission Minutes dated February 8, 2012 • Draft Rain Barrel Guide • Letter to Council from Amy Haptonstall dated February 15, 2012 Page 3 of 3 ORDINANCE NO. 12- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SITE DESIGN AND REVIEW CHAPTER (18.72) OF THE ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE TO EXEMPT SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS MEETING SPECIFIC STANDARDS FROM SITE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold and additions are in bold underline. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, Oregon House Bill 3516, adopted in 2011, established that installation and use of solar photovoltaic energy systems or solar thermal energy systems on residential or commercial buildings shall be an outright permitted use in any zone where such structures are an allowed use. WHEREAS,the Ashland City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the citizens of the City to promote the use of solar energy systems to help reduce peak power demands, provide residents and business owners with an alternative source of power during power outages, and to help control the rising costs of electricity; WHEREAS, the Ashland City Council has determined that it would be advantageous and beneficial to the citizens of the City of Ashland to create procedures and incentives for the implementation of green building practices including the installation of solar energy systems; WHEREAS, the Ashland City Council has determined that it is appropriate to provide standardized requirements for the placement of solar energy systems within Ashland's designated historic districts to minimize the aesthetic impact upon the character of the historic resources; WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the recommended • amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances at a duly advertised public hearing on February 14, 2012, and following deliberations recommended approval of the amendments; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances on March 6, 2012; Ordinance No. 12- Page 1 of 4 WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing . and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2 AMC Chapter 18.72.030 [Site Design and Use Standards] is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.72.030 Applicability Site design standards shall apply to all zones of the city as outlined below. A. Applicability. The following development is subject to Site Design Review: 1. Commercial,Industrial, Non-Residential and Mixed uses: a. All new structures, additions or expansions in C-1, E-1, HC, CM and M-1 zones. b. All new non-residential structures or additions (e.g. public buildings, schools, churches, etc.). c. Mixed-use structures or developments containing commercial and residential uses in residential zoning districts within the Pedestrian Places Overlay. d. Expansion of impervious surface area in excess of 10% of the area of the site or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less. e. Expansion of parking lots, relocation of parking spaces on a site, or other changes which alters or affects circulation on adjacent property or a public right-of-way. f. Any change of occupancy from a less intensive to a more intensive occupancy, as defined in the City building code, or any change in use which requires a greater number of parking spaces. g. Any change in use of a lot from one general use category to another general use category, e.g., from residential to commercial, as defined b the zoning regulations of this Code. h. Any exterior change to a structure which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places or to a contributing property within an Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places that requires a building permit, or includes the installation of Public Art. i. Mechanical equipment not otherwise exempt from site design review per Section 18.72.030(B). j. Installation of wireless communication facilities in accordance with Section 18.72.180. 2. Residential uses: Ordinance No. 12- Page 2 of 4 a. Two or more residential units on a single lot. b. Construction of attached single-family housing (e.g. town homes, condominiums, row houses, etc.) in all zoning districts. c. Residential development when off-street parking or landscaping, in conjunction with an approved Performance Standards Subdivision required by ordinance and not located within the boundaries of the individual unit parcel (e.g. shared parking). d. Any exterior change to a structure individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places that requires a building permit, or includes the installation of Public Art. e. Mechanical equipment not otherwise exempt from site design review per Section 18.72.030(B). f Installation of wireless communication facilities in accordance with Section 18.72.180. (Ord 2984, amended, 05/19/2009; Ord 2951, amended, 07/01/2008; Ord 3036, amended, 08/17/2010, Ord 3054, amended 12/16/2011) B. Exemptions. The following development is exempt from Site Design Review application and procedure requirements provided that the development complies with applicable standards as set forth by this Chapter. 1. Detached single family dwellings and associated accessory structures and uses. 2. Land divisions regulated by the following chapters: Partitioning (18.76), Subdivisions (18.80), Manufactured Housing (18.84) and Performance Standards (18.88). 3. The following mechanical equipment: a. Private, non-commercial radio and television antennas not exceeding a height of seventy (70) feet above grade or thirty (30) feet above an existing structure, whichever height is greater and provided no part of such antenna shall be within the yards required by this Title. A building permit shall be required for any antenna mast, or tower over fifty (50) feet above grade or thirty (30) feet above an existing structure when the same is constructed on the roof of the structure. b. Not more than three (3) parabolic disc antennas, each under one (1) meter in diameter, on any one lot or dwelling unit. c. Roof-mounted solar collection devices in all zoning districts, with the exception of Employment and Commercial zoned properties located within designated historic districts. The devices shall comply with solar setback standards described in 18.70 and height requirements of the respective zoning district. d. Roof-mounted solar collection devices on Employment and Commercial zoned properties located within designated historic districts if the footprint of the structure is not increased, the plane of the system is parallel to the slope of the roof and does not extend above the peak height of the roof or existing parapets, or is otherwise not visible from a public right of way. The devices shall comply Ordinance No. 12- Page 3 of 4 with solar setback standards described in 18.70 and height requirements of the respective zoning district. d. e. Installation of mechanical equipment not exempted by (a,b,c, 4) above or(e f below, and which is not visible from a public right-of-way or adjacent residentially zoned property and consistent with other provisions of this Title, including solar access, noise, and setback requirements of section 18.68.140(c). e:E Routine maintenance and replacement of existing mechanical equipment in all zones. SECTION 3. Severability. The sections, subsections,paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections,paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 4. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections 1, 3-4) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 2012, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 12012. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2012. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney Ordinance No. 12- Page 4 of 4 ORDINANCE NO. 12- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE DEFINITIONS CHAPTER (18.08) AND GENERAL REGULATIONS CHAPTER (18.68) OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE AND LAND USE ORDINANCE. Annotated to show ae'a�ns and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold lined through and additions are in bold underline. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the Citv The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the Ashland City Council has determined that it would be advantageous and beneficial to the citizens of the City of Ashland to create procedures and incentives for the implementation of green building practices; WHEREAS, the City Council of City of Ashland, Oregon, finds it is in the interest of the City and its citizens to provide standards for fences for the purposes of protecting vegetation from deer, and that adoption of this Ordinance promotes more sustainable food practices and reasonably furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City Ashland; WHEREAS,the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the citizens of the City to promote energy efficiency, water conservation, and increased self sufficiency; WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the recommended amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances at a duly advertised public hearing on February 14, 2012, and following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances on March 6, 2012; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and Ordinance No. 12- Page 1 of 7 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. AMC Chapter 18.08 [Definitions] is hereby amended to add a new definition to read as follows: 18.08.175 Deer Fence. An open fence used to prevent entry by deer or other wildlife for the purpose of protecting gardens,vegetation and yards. 18.08.616 Rain Barrel: A barrel used to collect and store rain water runoff from rooftops via rain gutters for non-potable use. 18.08.61618.08.617.Reconstruct To recreate or reassemble a structure or building with a new or replacement structure that recreates or reproduces its form, shape and location as originally built. (ORD 2951, 2008) SECTION 3. AMC Chapter 18.68.010 [Fences] is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 18.68.010 Fences Fences, walls, hedges and screen planting shall be subject to the following standards: A. Height A.1 In any required front yard, provided they do not exceed three and one-half(3 %) feet in height. B2. In any rear or side yard, provided they do not exceed six and one-half(6 ''/I) feet in height. G1. The height of fences or walls in rear or sideyard setback areas abutting a public street shall be c-'° eight (48` in °° four (4) feet or less if said fences or walls are within ten (10) feet of any public street except an alley. 4. The height of a fence is the vertical distance measured from the natural grade to the highest point of the fence, including the structural supports. a) Below-Grade Lots. On lots that are not generally level with the adiacent street, height may be measured from the top of the adjacent Ordinance No. 12- Page 2 of 7 sidewalk or curb, or, where curbs are absent, from the crown of the adjacent street plus six inches. --- t MM m c Curb Sidewalk LL Street Grade ---------- --- t � Property Line ; i b) When fences are built on top of retaining walls, or one lot is markedly higher than an adjacent lot, height shall be measured from the highest adjacent grade, except that the solar access of adjacent properties to the north shall-be maintained in accordance with AMC 18. 70. ---— -n 0 0 m 2 ca Adjacent Grade _ :r Natural Grade is used to determine �N�ru=/GraO,e maximum fence height under the solar ordinance when fence shades a property to the North. B. Construction 131. The framework for newly constructed fences and walls shall face toward the builder's property, except where fences are jointly constructed. 1;2. Fences shall lean at an angle from the vertical plane no greater than five (5%) percent. In cases where this limitation is exceeded and a written complaint is received by the Planning Department, the property owner shall be notified, in writing of the problem. The Planning Department shall take action only on the basis of a written complaint, or on its own action. 3. Fences shall not be constructed across any waterway or stream identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to Section 18.62.060. Fences shall not be constructed within any designated floodway. Fences within water resource Ordinance No. 12- Page 3 of 7 protection zones shall be located and constructed in accordance with Section 18.63.060.B.3. C. Materials 1. The use of barbed wire, razor wire, electrified wire and similar security fencing materials shall be limited as follows: a) shall not be located adiacent to a sidewalk, a public way. or along the adjoining property line of another person; b) shall not be erected or maintained at less than six and a half(6'h) feet above grade; c) may be located in commercial, employment or industrial lands if not visible from the public right of way, or with approval from the Community Development Director on properties deemed to be hazardous or in need of additional security. D. Deer Fencing 1. Deer fencing may be attached to a permitted front, side, or rear yard fences provided the area in excess of the allowable fence heights per 18.68.010 is designed and constructed to provide a clear view through the fence. a) Within required front yards at least eighty rive percent(85%) of the surface shall be unobstructed to both light and air when viewed perpendicular to the plane of the fence. b) Within required side and rear yards at least eighty percent (80%), of the surface shall be unobstructed to both light and air when viewed perpendicular to the plane of the fence. 2. Deer fencing shall have a minimum height of six and a half feet (6 '/:' ) and shall not exceed eight feet(8') above grade. 3. Permitted deer fencing materials may include, woven wire fencing, field fence, "hog panels", wire strand or polypropylene mesh net that is open and visible through the material. Within front yards all mesh material shall.have a minimum open diameter of one and a half(1 '/2) square inches. 4. Deer fencing shall be supported by structural supports, or tension wires, that run along the top of the fence to prevent sagging. 5. Chain link fences shall not be considered to be deer fences under this section even if they meet the criteria above. Ordinance No. 12- Page 4 of 7 2'I open mesh 4.5' - �deerfehcmg 6' OOOD0000 OD000000800000000 rrIrI ; - 000DUO�OOUOOU�HHIOHH119 3.5' 1 rear or side yard front yard SECTION 4. AMC Chapter 18.68.040 [Yard Requirements] is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 18.68.040 Yard Requirements All yard measurements to and between buildings or structures or for the purpose of computing coverage or similar requirements shall be made to the building or nearest projection. Architectural projections may intrude eighteen (18) inches into required yards. Eaves and awnings may intrude three feet (3') into required yards. 18.68.140 Accessory Buildings and Structures Accessory buildings and structures shall comply with all requirements for the principal use except where specifically modified by this Title and shall comply with the following limitations: A. A greenhouse or hothouse may be maintained accessory to a dwelling in an R district. B. A guest house may be maintained accessory to a single-family dwelling provided there are no kitchen cooking facilities in the guest house. C. A chicken coop and a chicken run may be maintained accessory to a single family dwelling in a residential district provided the following conditions are met: 1 1) No more than five(5) chickens shall be kept or maintained on properties of less than five thousand (5000) square feet in area; 2) No more than one (1) chicken for each one thousand (1,000) square feet of lot area, up to a maximum of twenty (20) chickens, shall be kept or maintained on properties greater than five thousand (5000) square feet in area, 3) No roosters shall be kept on the property at any time. 4) Chicken coops and chicken runs shall be constructed as follows: a) they shall be located within a side or rear yard only, and shall be at least twenty (20) feet from dwellings on adjoining properties. b) structures shall not exceed six (6) feet in height. c) chicken coops shall not exceed forty (40) square feet in area, or four (4) square feet per chicken,which ever is greater. Ordinance No. 12- Page 5 of 7 d) chicken runs, as enclosed outdoor structures, shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet in area, or ten (10) square feet per chicken, which ever is greater. ■ ■ �. _- r a 3 ft. minimum Gppp setback ,CnicKell 1 The keeping of chickens, and the maintenance of their environment, shall be in accordance with Keeping of Animals chapter of the Ashland Municipal Code (Ch. 9.08.040). E D Mechanical equipment shall not be located between the main structure on the site and any street adjacent to a front or side yard, and every attempt shall be made to place such equipment so that it is not visible from adjacent public streets. Mechanical equipment and associated enclosures, no taller than allowed fence heights, may be located within required side or rear yards, provided such installation and operation is consistent with other provisions of this Title or the Ashland Municipal Code, including but not limited to . noise attenuation. Any installation of mechanical equipment shall require a building permit. E. Rain barrels may be located within required side or rear yards provided such installation and operation is consistent with other provisions of this Title or the V tQi Ashland Municipal Code, and as follows: 1) Rain barrels shall not exceed six(6) feet in height; and 2) Rain barrels shall be located so that a minimum clear width of three(3) feet is provided and maintained between the barrel and property line; and 3) Rain barrels shall be secured and installed on a sturdy and level foundation, or platform, designed to support the rain barrel's full weight. 4) Every attempt shall be made to place rain barrels so that they are screened from view of adjacent properties and public streets. DY Regardless of the side and rear yard requirements of the district, in,a residential district, a side or rear yard may be reduced to three (3) feet for an accessory structure erected more than fifty (50) feet from any street, other than alleys, provided the structure is detached and separated from other buildings and structures by ten (10) feet or more, and is no more than fifteen (15) feet in height. Any conversion of such accessory structure to Ordinance No. 12- Page 6 of 7 an accessory residential unit shall conform to other requirements of this Title for accessory residential units, including any required planning action and/or site review. SECTION 5. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 6. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance"may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections 1, 5-6) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 12012, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2012. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _day of , 2012. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney Ordinance No. 12- Page 7 of 7 ORDINANCE NO. 12- AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING PROVISIONS FOR THE KEEPING OF CHICKENS WITHIN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, AND REPEALING FENCE PROVISIONS WITHIN THE HEALTH AND SANITATION CHAPTER 9.08 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold lined N+reugh and additions are in bold underline. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the Citv The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, Section 9.08.040 of the Municipal Code regulates the keeping of animals within the City; WHEREAS, under the Municipal Code it is unlawful to keep poultry within 75 feet of another dwelling, which limits the opportunities for residents to keep chickens within the City; WHEREAS, the City Council of City of Ashland, Oregon, finds that the keeping of a limited number of chickens in residential districts should be authorized, and that adoption of this Ordinance promotes more sustainable food practices and reasonably furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City Ashland; WHEREAS, Section 9.08.140 of the Municipal Code addresses requirements for fences which are more appropriately addressed in Chapter 18.68.010 of the Ashland Land Use Code which provides standards for fences location, construction and materials; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances on March 6, 2012; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance in the manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the Ordinance No. 12- Page 1 of 4 comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. The purpose of these ordinance amendments is to provide standards for the keeping of domesticated chickens. It is intended to enable residents to keep a small number of female chickens (up to 5) on a non-commercial basis while creating standards and requirements that ensure that domesticated chickens do not adversely impact the neighborhood surrounding the property on which the chickens are kept. SECTION 3. AMC Chapter 9.08.040 [Health and Sanitation: Keeping ofAnimals] is hereby amended to read as follows: 9.08.040 Keeping of Animals A. Except as otherwise permitted by ordinance, no person shall keep or maintain more than three (3)dogs over the age of three (3) months on any one (1)parcel or tract of land. B. No person shall keep or maintain swine. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence or the provisions of section 18.20.020, keeping or maintaining swine commonly referred to as Miniature Vietnamese, Chinese, or Oriental pot-bellied pigs (sus scrota vittatus) is allowed, subject to the following: 1. Such pigs shall not exceed a maximum height of 18 inches at the shoulder or weigh more than 95 pounds. 2. No more than one such pig shall be kept at any one parcel or tract of land. 3. Such pigs shall: a. Be confined by fence, leash or obedience training to the property of the person keeping or maintaining them or to the property of another if such other person has given express permission; b. Be confined to a car or truck when off property where otherwise confined; or c. Be on leash not longer than six feet in length. 4. Such pigs shall be kept in accordance with the standards of minimum care for domestic animals as set forth in ORS 167.310. 5. Notwithstanding any of the above, no such pig shall be allowed in any park. C. No person shall keep or maintain poultry within seventy-five (75) feet of another dwelling, except that chickens may be kept or maintained even within said seventy- five (75) foot buffer zone provided each of the following requirements is continuously met inside the buffer zone: 1. No more than rive(5) chickens shall be kept or maintained on properties of less than rive thousand (5000) square feet in area; 2. No more than one(1) chicken for each one thousand (1,000) square feet of lot area, up to a maximum of twenty (20) chickens, shall be kept or Ordinance No. 12- Page 2 of 4 maintained on properties greater than rive thousand (5000) square feet in area, 3. No chickens shall be allowed on properties containing multi-family complexes, including duplexes; 4. In residential zones chickens shall be kept for personal use only,and not for the commercial exchange of goods or commodities with the exception of the sale of surplus eggs directly to the end consumer. 5. No roosters shall be allowed; 6. Chickens must be secured at all times and located at least twenty feet (20') from dwellings on adjoining properties: a. During non-daylight hours a secure chicken coop shall be provided to protect chickens from predators; b. During daylight hours, chickens shall be located in a chicken run that meets the requirements of AMC 18.68.140(C)(2) or in a securely fenced backyard, 7. To protect public health, the areas in which chickens are kept must be maintained in compliance with AMC 9.08.060 and the following requirements: a. Chicken feed must be kept in rodent- and raccoon-proof containers; b. Chicken manure must be collected, stored, and removed from the Property on a regular basis in accordance with the following requirements: i. All stored manure shall be within a non-combustible, air-tight, container and located in accordance with the Oregon Fire Code relating to the outdoor storage of combustibles; ii. No more than one 20-gallon container of manure shall be stored on any one property housing chickens; and iii. All manure not used for composting or fertilizing shall be removed-, 8. Chicken coops and runs shall be built in compliance with AMC 18.68.140(C)(2) and with all applicable building and zoning codes; 9. The requirements of AMC 18.20.020(D)regarding of the keeping of livestock shall not apply to the keeping of chickens or the buildings and structures that house chickens. 10. Noise resulting from the keeping or maintaining of chickens must not exceed the limitations set forth in AMC 9.08.170. D. No person shall keep or maintain rabbits within one hundred (100) feet of another dwelling or within seventy-five (75) feet of a street or sidewalk. E. No person shall keep or maintain a bee hive, bees, apiary, comb, or container of any kind.or character wherein bees are hived, within one hundred fifty (150) feet of another dwelling or within one hundred fifty (150) feet of a street or sidewalk. F. No person shall keep or maintain a stable within one hundred (100) feet of another dwelling. Ordinance No. 12- Page 3 of 4 G. Where the conditions imposed by subsections (B) to (F) of this section differ from those imposed by another ordinance, the provision which is more restrictive shall control. H. The applicable minimum care requirements of ORS 167.310 shall apply to all animals identified in this section. I. Keeping of animals is a Class III violation. SECTION 4. AMC Chapter 09.08.140 [Fences] is hereby repealed as follows: AMC / 9.08.140 Fenees A 1V.. .. ..h..... e of property shall ,. ....1.uet o maintain a bar-bed wire thereon,fenee permit e feet,or-publie way, e . I by be plaeed above the top of other-feneing not less than six (6)B. No owner or per-son in ehfkr-ge of property shall e maintain, or-operate an eleetrie fenee along a sidewalk or publie way or- along the adjoining property line o another per-son. SECTION 5. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 6. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections 1- 2,-5-6) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 2012, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2012. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this_day of 2012. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney Ordinance No. 12- Page 4 of 4 CITY OF ASHLAND Memo DATE: 4/03/2012 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner RE: Green Code amendments for second reading The City Council reviewed numerous proposed amendments to the Land Use and the Health and Sanitation chapters of the Municipal Code at their regular meeting on March Oh, 2012. During deliberations the City Council provided specific direction to Staff to further amend the draft ordinances. Below is a summary of the City Council direction received relating to each of the.five main components, of the Green Codes amendments, including a general description of the changes to the ordinances that will be presented for consideration at second reading scheduled for April 3`d, 2012. • Keeping of Chickens The City Council requested Staff further evaluate the proposed maximum number of chickens allowed. Specifically, Staff was directed to identify a method of correlating the number of chickens permitted to be proportionate with lot size. The ordinances to be presented at second reading have been modified to allow up to five chickens on any single family property(as was originally proposed), and allow an additional chicken for each thousand square feet of lot size in excess of 5000sq.ft, up to a maximum of 20 chickens on lots 20,000 square feet in area or greater. The City Council requested Staff present an amendment to allow residents to engage in limited commercial activity with the intent to allow people to sell their surplus eggs to their neighbors. The ordinance to be presented at second reading retains the general prohibition on commercial activity in residential zones but now provides an explicit exception allowing the sale of eggs to the end consumer(e.g. neighbors). This new exception is consistent with Oregon Department of Agriculture regulations that allow individuals to sell eggs "directly to the end consumer" without first obtaining an egg handler's license. Alternatively, wholesale distribution of eggs or meat (e.g. sold to restaurants, or secondary retailers) would necessitate site inspections and special licensing by the ODA and as such this increased level of commercial activity would not be permitted in residential zones as the ordinance is drafted. DEPT.OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel 541A885305 20 E.Main Street Fax 541-488-6006 Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 =, www.ashland.or.us The City Council requested Staff confer with the Fire Department regarding any fire hazard relating to heat buildup in a container of manure. The ordinance to be presented at second reading contains new wording that addresses two suggestions provided by the Fire Department. They requested that the provision be modified to stipulate the 20 gallon container shall be "non-combustible and air-tight", and that the code provide an acknowledgement of the applicability of the Oregon Fire Code relating to the outside storage of combustibles materials (chicken manure).. The City Council supported the proposed prohibition on the keeping of chickens on multi-family complexes and duplexes. The ordinance to be presented at second reading retains this prohibition. The City Council concurred with the Planning Commission recommendation to remove the prohibition on outdoor slaughtering. The ordinance to be presented at second reading eliminates this prohibition. The City Council requested Staff further address the proposed requirement that "During non- daylight hours" that chickens be kept in a coop, noting that some chickens may prefer to roost outdoors at night, but that a coop should be available. The ordinance to be presented at second reading has been amended accordingly. • Rain Barrels: The City Council concurred with the Planning Commission's recommendation to remove the 90 gallon size limitation on rain barrels originally proposed. The City Council was supportive of the six foot height and three foot clearance recommendations but wanted staff to further research structural and clearance issues. The City Council specifically requested Staff confer with the Fire Department regarding the adequacy of the proposed three foot minimum clearance to property line. The ordinance to be presented at second reading incorporates the recommendations of the Planning Commission and Staff, and has further been amended to clarify-that rain barrels shall be located on a level foundation, or platform, designed to accommodate the weight of the barrel when full. The Fire Department reviewed the proposed three feet (3') clearance requirement and had no concerns as 3' is sufficient to enable firefighter access. The Fire Department expressed a general concern relating to the potential for repurposed barrels (i.e. 55 gallon drums) to be erroneously labeled as containing hazardous material if those pre-existing labels are not removed. To address this concern and provide guidance to residents the informational Rain Barrel Installation Guide has been amended to note that all pre- existing labels should be removed and barrels should only be labeled as "non-potable water" • Deer Fencing: The City Council concurred with the Planning Commission's recommendations to amend the draft ordinance to require the following: o 80% transparency in side and rear yards; o 85% transparency in front yards; DEPT.OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel:541 A88-5305 20 E.Main Street Fax:541A88-6006 Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 =, w .ashland.orus o Elimination of the 2"x2" structural support size limit in front yards; Clarification of the provision requiring that deer fencing be supported to keep from sagging; Mesh used in front yards shall have a minimum 1.5" diameter. The ordinance to be presented at second reading has been modified to incorporate each of these changes. • Eave Extensions The City Council concurred with the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve the ordinance amendment including Staff's proposed amendment to eliminate "gutters" from the listing of what can encroach up to 3' into required setbacks. The ordinance to be presented at second reading has been modified to eliminate the word "gutters"but is otherwise unchanged. • Solar Energy Systems on Commercial and Employment properties in Historic Districts The City Council concurred with the Planning Commission and Staff recommendations to approve the ordinance amendments as presented. The ordinance amendments to be presented at second reading are unchanged. DEPT.OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel:541-088-5305 20 E.Main street Fax:541488-6006 Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 w .ashland.or.us Residential Urban Chicken Keeping: An Examination of 25 Cities FJ e V Y O Missoula Residents with their backyard chickens. Source:http://www.missoWacom/news/nodct226 KT LaBadie CRP 580 Spring 2008 University or New Mexico May 7`s 2008 Table of Contents Introduction.......................................................................................................................4 ResearchMethods.............................................................................................................5 Analysis..............................................................................................................................6 Locating and Understanding the Ordinances............................................................... 12 Number of Birds Permitted.............................................................................................7 Regulation of Roosters.................................................................................................... 8 Permitsand Fees............................................................................................................. 8 Enclosure Requirements.................................................................................................9 NuisanceCl auses.........................................................:..................................................9 Slaughtering Restrictions...................................................:.......................................... 10 Distance Restrictions.................................................................................................... 10 UniqueRegul ations....................................................................................................... 11 Findingsand Recommendations.................................................................................... 12 Conclusions...................................................................................................................... 14 References........................................................................................................................ 16 AppendixA...................................................................................................................... 17 25 Ordinances Analyzed............................................................................................... 17 AppendixB...................................................................................................................... 18 Sources for 25 Ordinances............................................................................................ 18 AppendixC...................................................................................................................... 19 Exampleordinance........................................................................................................ 19 2 Abstract City councils across the United States and Canada are increasingly being faced with the task of deciding whether or not to allow chicken keeping in residential backyards. In many cases this issue has two opposing sides: those citizens who want to keep chickens for egg production and those citizens who are concerned about the effects of chickens on their communities. This paper provides an analysis of pro-chicken ordinances from 25 cities in an effort to define the components of a just and well functioning chicken ordinance. Of the 25 ordinances, no two were identical but a variety of common regulatory themes were found across cities. Based on these findings, some considerations are suggested when forming an urban chicken keeping ordinance. 3 V Introduction "/can't say that/would have envisioned chickens as an issue,but I've heard from a tot of people about them,and it seems like it's something maybe we ought to pay a little attention to."t -Stacy Rye,Missoula City Councilwoman It's happening right now in cities across the United States and Canada. Community members are organizing themselves into groups and approaching their city councils about an important urban planning issue: chicken keeping in the city. This question of whether or not_cities should allow backyard chicken keeping has increased substantially over the past 5 years as citizens become more interested in participating in their own food production. The issue has appeared recently before city councils in Missoula2, Halifax3, and Madison°, and a case is currently pending in Ann Arbor, Michigan 5. In many cases this interest in backyard chicken keeping has been met with much opposition and city councils often do not know how to begin approaching the issue. The recent increase in urban backyard chicken keeping has come about for three main reasons. First,the local food movement itself has become very popular which has sparked a new interest for many in backyard food production. Since chickens are one of the smaller protein producers, they fit well into a backyard food production model. Second, rising energy and transportation costs have caused concern over increases in food costs, and backyard eggs offer a cheaper solution as they do-not have to travel far to reach the plate. Lastly, many citizens are becoming increasingly concerned about food safety, and with meat recalls and other animal industry issues in the news, backyard chickens offer many a safer solution. For these reasons, backyard chickens have become R Moore,Michael. Urban Chickens Scratching up a Controversy in Missoula. .Available online at http://www.missoula.congnews/node/226 s Medley,Ann and Jonathan Stumph. Video:Missoula Squabbles Over Urban Chickens. Available online at http://www.newwcst.net/city/articletmissoulas_urban_chicken_squabble/C8/L8/ a CBC News. Halifax to Study Chickens in Cities. Available online at htt p://www.cbc.ca/consu nier/story/2008/02/12/chicken-report.htrnl °Harrison-Noonan,Dennis. Urban chicken keeper, Madison,Wisconsin. Interviewed on April 8,2008. s Kunselman,Steve.City Councilor(ward 3)Ann Arbor,Michigan. Interviewed on April 29,2008. 4 increasingly popular, but not everyone likes the idea of chickens living in their neighborhood. There are generally two sides to the chicken keeping issue: those who are for allowing Gallus domesticus in residential backyards, and those who are opposed. There are a variety of reasons why people want to keep chickens, ranging from having a safe source of protein to gaining a closer relationship to the food they consume. Those who are opposed to backyard chickens however, often express concerns about noise, smells, diseases, or the potential for chickens running loose. There is also debate between the two sides as to the appropriateness of chickens in a city environment and if chickens qualify as pets or livestock. Chicken keeping in urban environments is nothing new, but it is now something that needs to be planned for in all major cities and small towns across the United States. As the interest in the local food movement continues to increase, and as citizens become more interested in growing their own food, municipalities will eventually be faced with the issue of regulating backyard chicken keeping within their city limits. Planning for chickens can either be pro-active on the part of the city council and planning staff, or reactionary as citizens will eventually bring the issue to city hall. Municipalities often do not know how to approach the chicken keeping issue, and this paper serves to provide some insight through an analysis of urban chicken ordinances from across the United States. Research Methods The main goal of this paper was to analyze how residential backyard chicken keeping is regulated through the examination of chicken ordinances from a variety of cities. To achieve this, data was gathered through the examination of residential chicken ordinances, as well as through a variety of interviews, newspaper articles, video footage, and other resources. Residential chicken ordinances from over 30 cities were gathered, however only 25 of the cities allowed the keeping of chickens, so only those were used in the analysis(see 5 Appendix A). The ordinances were sourced from city web sites, online web ordinance databases, and other online sources (see Appendix B). In a few instances calls were made to city planning departments to verify language in the ordinances. Interviews were conducted with the following city officials, urban chicken keepers, and urban food/gardening community organizations: • Steve Kunselman,City Councilor(ward 3) Ann Arbor, Michigan. He proposed pro-chicken ordinances for Ann Arbor, which are being voted on in May of 2008. • Thomas Kriese: An urban chicken keeper in Redwood, CA and writer about urban chickens at http://myurbanchickens.blogspot.com/ • Dennis Harrison-Noonan, urban chicken keeper, Madison, Wisconsin. He was involved in the adoption of pro-chicken ordinances for Madison. • Debra Lippoldt, Executive Director of Growing Gardens, Portland, OR These interviews served to provide personal insights into urban chicken keeping, stakeholder positions, and the urban chicken movement. The interviews were also crucial in receiving feedback about chicken ordinances and the process involved in legalizing chicken keeping. Analysis Of the 25 cities evaluated, no two were identical in their restrictions and allowances (see chart of detailed findings in Appendix A). There were, however, common regulatory themes that emerged from the set evaluated. These common themes are as follows: • The number of birds permitted per household • The regulation of roosters • Permits and fees required for keeping chickens • Chicken enclosure/containment restrictions • Nuisance clauses related to chickens • Slaughtering restrictions • Coop distance restrictions in relation to homes or property lines The findings of the above commonalities, as well as unique regulations that emerged, are Q discussed in detail below. The ease and accessibility of finding the ordinances is also discussed. 6 Number of Birds Permitted Of the 25 cities evaluated, only 6 had unclear(or not specifically stated) regulations on the numbers of birds permitted, while 13 stated a specific number of birds. Of the remaining, 3 cities used lot size to determine the number of chickens permitted, 2 cities used distance from property lines as a determining factor, and 1 city placed no limit on the number of chickens allowed. Over half of the cities evaluated stated a specific number of allowable chickens, which ranged from 2 to 25 birds. The most common number of birds permitted was either 3 or 4 birds, which occurred in 8 cities. The most common number of birds permitted was 3 or 4,'which will supply on average between 1 and 2 dozen eggs per week. Depending on the size of the family in the household, this may be sufficient. In some cases however, 3 to 4 birds may not be enough for larger family sizes or allow for giving away eggs to neighbors. In cities where it is legal to sell your eggs at farmers markets, 3 or 4 birds would not be sufficient. So what is a good number of chickens to allow in residential backyards for home consumption? Thomas Kriese, an urban chicken keeper who writes online about chicken keeping and ordinances, feels that no more than 6 birds should be permitted. "That's approximately 3 dozen eggs a week which is a LOT of eggs to consume, plus that's a lot of food to go through, and excrement to clean up," he stated in a personal correspondence.6 The answer of how many birds to allow is not an easy one, as other factors such as average property sizes and controlling for nuisances should be considered. A good example of how to address the issue surrounding the number of birds is Portland, Oregon's chicken ordinance. Portland allows the keeping of 3 birds per household; however you are allowed to apply for a permit to keep more(See Appendix A). In this case the ordinance is flexible, as a sufficient number of birds are permitted outright, and those wishing to keep more can apply to do so. 6 Kriese,Thomans. Urban chicken keeper,Redwood City,CA. Personal correspondence on April 28, 2008. His coverage of urban chicken ordinances is available online at http://myurbanchickens.blogspot.com/ 7 Regulation of Roosters The regulations regarding roosters were unclear in 14 cities and in 7 cities the keeping of roosters was not permitted. Of the remaining 4 in which the keeping of roosters was permitted, 1 city allowed roosters if kept a certain distance from neighbors residences, 1 allowed roosters only under 4 months of age, I allowed a single rooster per household, and 1 placed no restrictions. Many cities choose to not allow the keeping of roosters, as neighbors often complain about the crowing which can occur at any hour of the day. Since one of the main reasons people choose to keep chickens is for the eggs, which roosters do not provide, it is generally accepted to only allow hens. In the case of Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1 rooster is allowed per household but it is still subject to noise ordinances (see Appendix A). So in this case, you can keep your rooster if your neighbors do not mind the crowing. This does allow people to have more choice, however it can also increase the costs associated with enforcing noise complaints. Permits and Fees The regulation of chickens through city permits and fees was unclear in I 1 of the cities evaluated, while 4 required no permits or associated fees, and 10 required permits, fees, or both. The fees ranged from $5.00 to$40.00, and were either 1 time fees or annual fees. Of the 10 that required permits/fees, 3 required permits only if the number of birds exceeded a set amount which ranged from 3 to 6 birds. In two instances, it is also required that the birds be registered with the state department of agriculture. e Requiring a permit for chickens is no different than requiring one for dogs and cats, which is the case in most cities. From the perspective of affordable egg production however, attaching a large fee to the permit undermines that purpose. If a fee is too steep in price, it can exclude lower income populations from keeping chickens by increasing the costs of egg production. Fees may be necessary however to cover the associated costs for the municipality to regulate chickens. Another option, which was the approach of 3 cities, was to allow a certain number of birds with no permit/fee required, and anything 8 above that required a permit/fee. This allows equal participation and lowered costs, while still providing revenue for the regulation of larger bird populations. Enclosure Requirements In 9 cities the ordinances were unclear in regards to enclosure requirements or the allowance of free roaming chickens. Of the remaining, 2 had no restrictions and 14 required that chickens be enclosed and were not permitted to"run at large". In one case, the approval of a coop building plan and use of certain materials was required. Over half of the cities evaluated required that chickens be enclosed, and this regulation can help to alleviate the concerns of neighbors. Many chicken keepers want to keep their chickens confined in a coop and outdoor run, as this helps to protect them from predators. However, it is very restrictive to require confinement of chickens at all times, as many keepers enjoy watching their chickens free range about the yard. Just as there are regulations for leashing your dog, so too could there be regulation for only allowing chickens to roam in their own yard. Requiring a building permit with specific material requirements, is also restrictive to lower income populations, and takes away from the sustainability of keeping chickens for eggs. In many cases, chicken coops are built with scrap materials and suit the design needs of the owner. Requiring a specific design or materials takes those choices away from the chicken keeper. Coops should be treated similar to dog houses, which are generally not subject to this type of regulation. Nuisance Clauses There were a variety of nuisance regulations stated in 17 of the cities evaluated, while the remaining 8 cities had unclear nuisance regulations. The nuisances that were stated in the 17 ordinances included one or more of the following: noise, smells, public health concerns, attracting flies and rodents, and cleanliness of coops/disposal of manure. Chicken keeping alone does not cause the nuisances listed above, but rather they result from improper care and maintenance which can sometimes occur. 9 A properly shaped ordinance can prevent potential nuisances by establishing clear guidelines for chicken care and maintenance, such as only allowing smaller sized flocks and not permitting roosters. An active community led education campaign,such as chicken keeping classes and coup tours, is another way in which to educate the public to ensure proper care and reduce the potential for nuisances. In many cities,chicken keeping community organizations have helped to educate the public on how to properly keep chickens within the limits of the law, thereby reducing nuisances and complaints. Slaughtering Restrictions Regulations regarding the slaughtering of chickens in residential areas were unclear in 19 of the cities evaluated. Of the remaining,4 allowed slaughtering of chickens while 2 stated it was illegal to do so. This regulatory theme had the highest level of unknowns, most likely due to the issue not being included in the ordinance, or it being stated in another section of the general animal ordinances, and not referring specifically to chickens. Although slaughtering chickens within city limits seems gruesome to some, others may wish to slaughter their birds for meat. Rogers, Arkansas for example,only allows the slaughtering to take place inside(Appendix Q, which could help prevent neighbor complaints about the process. Allowing for slaughtering however, may also have its benefits, such as being a solution to aging urban chickens that no longer produce eggs. Distance Restrictions Distance restrictions between the location of the chicken coop and property lines, or coop and nearby residences, were stated in 16 of the ordinances evaluated. There were no restrictions in 3 of the ordinances and 5 were unclear. Of the 16 with distance restrictions, 12 were distances required from residences, while 3 were distances required from property lines. The distance required from property lines ranged from 10 to 90 feet, while the distances from residences ranged from 20 to 50 feet. If a city chooses to have distance restrictions, the average lot sizes need to be taken into consideration. For example, Spokane, WA has a property line distance restriction of 90 10 feet (see Appendix A), which may be impossible to achieve in many residential yards. This large of a requirement would prevent many people from keeping chickens. The lower distance requirements, such as 10 or 20 feet are more feasible to achieve for those with smaller lot sizes. Distance requirements to neighboring homes (vs. property lines) are also easier achieve as the distance considers part of the neighbors property in addition to the chicken keepers property. Unique Regulations All 25 ordinances evaluated had some combination of the above common themes,but there were also some unique regulations that one (or a few)'cities had related to residential chicken keeping. These unique regulations are as follows: • Chicken feed must be stored in rat proof containers • Pro-chicken regulations are on a 1-year trial basis with only a set number of permits issued until the yearly re-evaluation. • For every additional 1,000 sq. feet of property above a set minimum, I additional chicken may be added to the property. • The allowance of chickens in multi-family zoned areas (allowance in single family zoning is most common) • Coops must be mobile to protect turf and prevent the build up of pathogens and waste. • Chickens must be provided with veterinary care if ill or injured • Minimum square footage requirements per bird for coop/enclosure The unique regulations listed offer some innovative solutions to possible issues such as pests and waste, as well as defining minimum space and health care standards for chickens. Some of these regulations also allow for more flexibility, such as extending the right to keep chickens to those living in multi-family dwelling units or allowing more birds on larger property sizes. In the case of Portland, ME, the permitting of chickens is on a trial basis, which may be a good option if a city wants to reevaluate residential chicken keeping after a certain time frame. 11 Locating and Understanding the Ordinances Of the 25 pro-chicken ordinances, very few were actually easy to locate. In most cases, pages of code had to be searched in order to find the regulation and even then the chicken ordinances were often vague, incomplete, or regulations were spread throughout multiple sections of the code. This is an issue that should be considered, as unclear or hard to find ordinances can only lead to increased non-compliance. The most easily accessible chicken ordinances were those specifically stated on city web pages, and those found through websites and literature from urban gardening organizations or community groups. One example of easily accessible ordinances is that of Rogers, Arkansas (Appendix Q. Their chicken ordinance is not only easily accessible directly from the city website, but it is also clear and comprehensive. A clearly stated and easily accessible ordinance allows resident to know how they can keep chickens within the limits of the law, which can reduce complaints and other issues related to non- compliance. Findings and Recommendations "Issues such as rodent control are a real concern and the ordinance can have a positive influence on keeping an already urban issue from being exacerbated any more than it already is". -Debra Lippoldt,Executive Director of Growing Gardens,Portland,OR The original question for this paper was "What is a good urban chicken ordinance?"This was based on the idea of examining a variety of ordinances and then singling out those that were better than most and could serve as an example. After having conducted the analysis however, the question was changed to "What are the good components and considerations that make up a just and functional urban chicken ordinance?" There is no superior"one size fits all"ordinance to regulate urban chickens, as each city has different physical, environmental, social, and political needs. Although each ordinance will be different from one city to the next, a pro-chicken ordinance should be built upon the following considerations: Lippoldt,Debra.Executive Director of Growing Gardens,Portland,OR. Personal Correspondence on April 8,2008. 12 • It satisfies the needs of most stakeholder groups and acknowledges that some stakeholders on both sides of the issue will be unwilling to compromise • It does not discriminate against certain populations, such as those of lower incomes who can not afford high permitting fees, or those with smaller property sizes • It allows for flexibility and provides choice, such as giving chicken keepers the right to choose their own coop design and building materials • It allows for citizen input and participation in the ordinance forming process to assure that the ordinance fits the needs of, and is supported by the community • It recognizes the role chickens can play in developing a more sustainable urban environment • It recognizes the importance of the ordinance being clearly stated and easily accessible to the public, which will help ensure compliance and reduce violations. The general considerations above are a good compliment to the specific allowances that each municipality chooses to fit its needs and that of its citizens. These specifics however can be more difficult to choose and looking to other cities as examples can provide insight into the best possible choices. The evaluation of 25 different chicken ordinances showed a wide spectrum of choices that municipalities have made in the regulating of chickens. Looking at the number of chickens permitted, for example, cities ranged anywhere from 2 chickens to unlimited chickens. Only allowing for 2 chickens may not be an ideal choice, as they are social creatures and if one were to become ill an die, only one chicken would he left. Two chickens also do not produce enough eggs for a larger sized family. On the other hand, allowing for unlimited chickens may mean increased nuisance enforcement, or allowing for that many chickens may be met with increased public opposition. Often the average allowances found(not the most extremes)are the best choices of an example regulation for other cities to look to when considering the formation of their own chicken ordinance. In the case of the cities evaluated, the most common allowance was 4 to 6 birds, which can provide enough eggs for a family and does not highly increase the potential for i nuisances. It also allows for a more sustained population if a bird becomes ill and dies. 13 Another example of the middle ground being a good option would be permitting and fees for keeping chickens. In some cities there were high fees for permitting, while in others no fee or permit was required. A few cities, which only required permits and fees if you have over a certain number of birds, show a good middle ground for how to permit chickens. That model allows for citizens to keep a certain number of chickens without added costs, while also creating revenue for enforcement and regulation when people choose to exceed that amount. Many cities are concerned over increased costs if chicken keeping is legalized, and this is one way to alleviate those concerns while still allowing citizens to keep chickens. In some of the regulatory themes, such as in the examples above, the middle ground does provide a choice which can alleviate concerns while still allowing for the keeping of chickens. Other regulatory themes, such as the slaughtering of chickens, may come down to more of a yes of no answer, as was seen in many of the cities. In either case, if a city is going to adopt a pro-chicken ordinance, the most important part is to first allow for the keeping of chickens, with the understanding that the ordinance can be revisited and changed at a future time. Allowing for the keeping of chickens is the best way to see if the concerns surrounding chicken keeping ever come to fruition, and the ordinance can then be adjusted accordingly. In many cases, cities adopt a more restrictive ordinance as that is what will pass public approval and city council. Then as time passes with few complaints or nuisances, those regulations become more relaxed and tailored specifically to the needs of the city and its residents. Conclusions '7t seems that if we want to be a town that does its part for sustainability, this is something we , ought to consider./think we want to allow folks to use their good judgment and move toward more sustainable food practices." -Mayor John Engen,Missoula, MT N Many cities and towns are now looking at how they can be more sustainable, and allowing urban chickens is one step towards that goal of increased sustainability. Not "Moore,Michael. Urban Chickens Scratching up a Controversy in Missoula. Available online at hup://www.missoula.com/news/node/226 , 14 only can backyard chickens provide residents with a fresh and important food source, but they also bring about an increased awareness of our relationship to the food cycle. By forming a just and well thought out pro-chicken ordinance, cities can allow citizens the right to keep chickens while also addressing the concerns of other stakeholder groups. With that said,city councils should approach the issue of urban chicken keeping with a "how"rather than a"yes"or"no", as a growing list of pro-chicken cities across the nation shows that it can be done successfully. 15 References (References for 25 City Ordinances: See Appendix B) CBC News. Halifax to Study Chickens in Cities. Available online at http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2008/02/12/chicken-report.htmi Harrison-Noonan, Dennis. Urban chicken keeper, Madison, Wisconsin. Interviewed on April 8, 2008. Just Food. City Chicken Project. City Chicken Guide. Information available online at http://www.justfood.org/cityfarms/chickens/ Kunselman, Steve. City Councilor(ward 3) Ann Arbor, Michigan. Interviewed on April 29, 2008. Kriese,Thomans. Urban chicken keeper, Redwood City, CA. Personal correspondence on April 28, 2008. His coverage of urban chicken ordinances is available online at http://myurbanchickens.blogspot.com/ Lippoldt, Debra. Executive Director of Growing Gardens, Portland, OR. Personal Correspondence on April 8, 2008. Medley, Ann and Jonathan Stumph. Video: Missoula Squabbles Over Urban Chickens. Available online at http://www.newwest.net/city/article/missoulas_urban_chicken_ squabble/C8/L8/ Moore, Michael. Urban Chickens Scratching up a Controversy in Missoula. . Available online at http://www.missoula.com/news/node/226 16 Appendix A 25 Ordinances Analyzed City/State #of birds Roosters Permit/ Enclosure Nuisance Slaughter Property line Details or unique permitted allowed unit cost ulred clause permitted restrictions re ulations Los Angeles, unclear only if 100 unclear unclear Yes unclear 20 it from owners CA ft from home,35 it from nei hbors neighbors Rogers,AK 4 No $5yr Yes Yes Inside only. 25 ft from neighbors house Keywest,FL unclear Yes None Yes Yes No No Can't use droppings as fertilizer,feed must be stored in rat proof containers Topeka,KS unclear unclear unclear Yes Yes unclear 50 it from neighbors house South 6 No $25/yr Yes, Yes unclear Yes On trial basis till Portland,ME building November 2008,only permit 20 permits issued till required yearly evaluation Madison,WI 4 No $6/yr Yes Yes No 25 It from nei hbors house New York, No limit No Yes No Yes unclear No NY Albuquerque, 15 1 per None No Yes Yes No NM household Portland,OR 3 without unclear $31 one time Yes Yes unclear unclear limit fee for 4+ Seattle,WA 3 unclear unclear unclear Yes unclear 10 it from property 1 additional chicken per line 1,000 sq ft of property above minimum Spokane,WA 1 per unclear unclear unclear unclear unclear 90 it from property Chickens allowed in 2,000 sq it line multi-family zoned areas of land San Antonio, property unclear unclear unclear unclear unclear 20 ft minimum 5 birds allowed 20 it TX line from another from home, 12 birds at dependent dwellinq 50 tt 50 birds at 150 it Honolulu,HI 2 unclear unclear unclear unclear unclear unclear Oakland,CA unclear No unclear unclear unclear unclear 20 it minimum from another dwelling St.Louis,MO 4 max. unclear $40 permit unclear unclear unclear unclear without for more than ' milt 4 birds San Diego, 25 unclear unclear unclear Yes unclear 50 it from Feed must be stored in CA neighbors house rat proof container San Jose,CA dependent only permit Yes unclear unclear Ranges from 0 to <15 it=0 birds allowed, on coop to roosters< needed for 6 50 it,determines 15 to 20 it-4 birds,etc, property 4 months or more birds #of birds up to 50 it=25 birds line old Austin,TX unclear unclear unclear unclear unclear Yes 50 it from neighbors house Memphis,TN unclear unclear unclear Yes Yes Yes unclear Feed must be stored in rat proof container Ft.Worth,TX based on unclear No Yes Yes unclear 501t from <1/2 acre=12 birds, lot size neighbors house >1/2 acre=25 birds Baltimore, 4 unclear Must register Yes Yes unclear 25 it from Coops must be mobile MD with animal neighbors house to prevent waste build control and up,minimum 2 sq Dept of Ag. ft/bird Charlotte,NC based on unclear $40yr Yes Yes unclear 25 it from property minimum 4 sq.ft/bird, lot size line no more than 20/acre Missoula,MT 6 No $15 permit Yes Yes unclear 20 it from Feed must be stored in neighbors house rat proof container Boise,ID 3 No unclear Yes unclear unclear unclear San 4 Unclear No Yes Yes unclear 20 feet from door Francisco, or wirklow,of CA residence i7 Appendix B Sources for 25 Ordinances City/State Source for Ordinance Los Angeles, CA Los Angeles Animal Services. http:/ANww.laanimalservices.org/permitbook.pdf Rogers, AK Ordinance No. 06-100 httpJAvww.rogersarkansas.com/clerk/chkordinance.asp Keywest, FL Part 2,Title 5 Section 62 www.keywestchickens.com/cfty Topeka, KS Section 18-291 www.municode.com South Portland, ME Chapter 3Article 2 Section 3 httpJ/www.southportland.org/index.asp?Type=B_LIST&SEC=(93286El E-9FF8- 40D2-AC30-8840D EB23A29 Madison,WI httpJ/www.m cit chickens.com/and www.municode.com New York, NY Just Food's City Chicken Project. City Chicken Guide. Information available online at http://www.justfood.org/citytarms/chickens/ Albuquerque, NM City ordinance chapter 9, article 2, part 4, §9-2-4-3,c-3 -hftpJ/www.amlegal.com/albuquergue nm/ Portland, OR Ordinance 13.05.015 httpJ/www.portlandontine.com/Auditor/index.cfm?c=28228#cid 13497 Seattle,WA Ordinance 122311 section 23 www.seattleurbanfarmco.com/chickens Spokane, WA Title 17 Chapter 17C.310 Section 17C.310.100 h :/Avww.s okanecft .o services/documents/smc/?Section=170.310.100 San Antonio, TX Municipal code 10-112, Keeping of farm animals www.sanantonio.gov/animaicare/healthcode.as Honolulu, HI Chapter 7 Section 7-2.5 www.honolulu.gov/refstroh Oakland, CA Ordinance 6.04.320 www.oakiandan imalservices.or St. Louis, MO Ordinance 62853-7 www.slpl.lib.m us/cco/code/data/1102001.htm San Diego, CA Ordinance 42.0709 h J/docs.sandiego.gov/municode/municodechapterO4/chO4artO2divisionO7.pdf San Jose,CA Ordinance 7.04.030, 140, &150 www.sanioseanimals.com/ordinances/somc7.04.htm Austin,TX Title 3 Chapter 3-2 www.aml al.com/Austin-nxt/ atewa .d]VTexas/austin Memphis, TN Title 9Chapter 9-80-2, 9-68-7 httpJ/municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com Ft.Worth, TX Section 11A-22a www.municode.com Baltimore, MD Baltimore City Health Code Title 2-106;Title 10, Subtitles 1 and 3 www.baftimorehealth.org/press/2007 02 02 AnimalRegs.pdf Charlotte, NC Section 3-102 httpJAvww.ch arm eck.org/departm a nts/animal+con trol/local+ordi nances/perm its/htm and municode.com Missoula, MT Ordinance Chapter 6 Section 6-12 ftpJAvww.ci.missoula.mt.us/Packets/Council/2007/2007-12- 17/Chicken Ordinance. df Boise, ID Chapter 6 Section 14 httpJ/www.cityofboise.org/cfty_plerk/cftycode/0614.pdf and httpl/home.centurytel.neVthecitychicken/chickenlaws.html San Francisco, CA San Francisco Municipal Health Code Section 37 httpJ/sfgov.org/site/acc_page.asp?id-5476 18 Appendix C Example ordinance Rogers, AK . ORDINANCE NO.06- 100 AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE CONTAINMENT OF FOWL AND OTHER ANIMALS WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF ROGERS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROGERS, ARKANSAS: Section 1: It shall be unlawful for any person to permit or allow any domesticated fowl to run at large within the corporate limits of the city. It shall be lawful to keep poultry flocks of any size in A-I zones of the city, so long as they are confined., Section 2: It shall be lawful for any person to keep, permit or allow any fowl within the corporate limits of the city in all other zones,except A-I, under the following terms and conditions: a. No more than four(4) hens shall be allowed for each single-family dwelling. No birds shall be allowed in multi-family complexes, including duplexes. b. No roosters shall be allowed. c. There shall be no outside slaughtering of birds. d. All fowl must be kept at all times in a secure'enclosure constructed at least two feet above the surface of the ground. e. Enclosures must be situated at least 25 feet from the nearest neighbors residence. f. Enclosures must be kept in a neat and sanitary condition at all times, and must be cleaned on a regular basis so as to prevent offensive odors. g. Persons wishing to keep fowl within the city must obtain a permit from the Office of the City Clerk, after an inspection and approval by the Office of Animal Control, and must pay a$5.00 annual fee. Section 3: The above Section 2 is not intended to apply to the 'ducks and geese in Lake Atalanta Park, nor to indoor birds kept as.pets, such as, but not limited to, parrots or parakeets, nor to the lawful transportation of fowl through the corporate limits of the city. Neither shall it apply to poultry kept in areas of the City which are zoned A-I. Section 4: Fowl currently existing in the city shall not be "grandfathered" or permitted to remain after the effective date of this Ordinance; however, owners of the poultry will have 90 days from the effective date to come into compliance with this ordinance. Source: http://www.rogersarkansas.com/clerk/chkordinance.asp 19 From: Pam Lott <paml(o)mind.net> Date: March 5, 2012 9:09:58 AM PST To: Bill Molnar <molnarb(cDashland.or.us> Subject: Comments Re: Setback Exemption for Rainwater Harvesting Containers RE: Setback Exemption for Rainwater Harvesting Containers Thank you for having the foresight to create a setback exemption for smaller rainwater harvesting containers with-in the city limits. Homeowners often have limited space within which to place collection containers and having a setback exemption will be helpful in supporting water conservation efforts by those who choose to collect rainwater and reduce impacts on our potable supply. As you consider the height requirements for rainwater harvesting containers in setbacks please bear in mind that a container height of 7' is likely the maximum height one would see in a "slim line" tank designed for narrow spaces. Accommodating this height, as a opposed to a 6' limitation, would allow a homeowner to maximize the amount of rainwater collected in a single vessel (approximately 620 gallons @ 2'd x 7'7"I x 6'9"h) and provide a variety of choices suitable to site, budget and level of commitment. Please also consider that making these efforts visible in our community, rather than hiding them away behind screening, can be inspiring by example and prompt others to also make efforts to collect water and conserve our resources. It's much harder for "Green to Become Mainstream" when it's hidden away. Pam Lott + pam lott consulting and design 798 oak st ashland oregon 97520 paml(a)mind.net 541.941.8999 "The frog does not drink up the pond in which she lives." American Indian proverb From: haptonstalls @q.com To:ashplancomm@gmail.com,rpkaplan46 @gmail.com, "pam marsh"<pam.marsh @gmail.com>,"parr marsh" <pam.marsh@gmail.com>,hmiller @jeflnet.org,sassetta @mind.net,molnarb@ashland.or.us, "council.ashland.m.us"<dennis @wuncil.mhland.or.usdemis> Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2012 3:08:34 PM Subject: Chicken ordinance Dear Planning Commission, I am hoping that information given at the council meeting from those who have years of experience raising chickens will help the planning commission decide on what is fair for the citizens of Ashland who wish to raise chickens. Some of the information given by the planning department I am guessing is based off of people who wish to keep chickens confined to cages which is highly unlikely the case in Ashland. The space was too small and the estimated number of eggs was inaccurate for free ranging. Even if it were accurate, it would equate to 3.25 eggs per day. Our family of only three goes through 5-6 a day. Since they are so much better for you, yes, you can eat them every morning. I strongly suggest all the numbers and measurements be dropped. They are rediculously unenforceable unless Ashland has the spare money to hire a coop cop. I have spoke to Kip about that before and he sure doesn't want to be one. Medford with the population of 75,000,three times the size of Ashland, allows chickens under the guidelines that the environment they are kept in must be kept odor and debris free, and the chickens cannot cause a noise disturbance to neighboring properties. This is very simple and only requires a persons ears and nose to enforce and everyone with chickens can understand it. The numbers and measurements are so unnecessary. If they don't crow(no roosters), they are kept on their own property, and cleaned up after, there is no issue with the number a person has or the size of pen they are in. Keep in mind some people are better keepers. One person could have 5 and be odorous, then others with 20 and the neighbors may not even know. It is in the care not the numbers. I am also strongly against the number and measurements due to past experience of people trying to cite me out of spite and retaliation. Sgt. Smith can back me on the issue that I had a neighbor that had threatened the life of another neighbor, requiring Sgt. Smith to be on our block every morning until the man moved, I was trying to help the victim and the man who was the threat found out I was supporting the victim and was found trespassing on my property, having to search to confirm that I had chickens so that there was a way he could report me. Only violation I was in was the 75 ft rule. Also, I had two cats trying to kill my chickens. I don't allow Any cats on my property due to their filth and diseases in my garden and flower beds, I humanely trapped one and took it to Animal Control. They(animal control) accidentally released my information so she too tried to report my chickens even though she lived a distance away from me. I don't want people coming in my yard or peeping over the fence trying to measure and count just to retaliate. I do feel it is fair that they report any problem with odor or noise that is present from their property though. Again, all that is needed is a nose and ears for that. My family has been in Ashland for over 100 years. I find the detailed regulations a waste of time, money and energy. Keep it simple and the simpler it will be for people to follow and the simpler it will be to enforce if any problems arise. Thank you, Amy Haptonstall Beach St. Letter RE: Keeping of Chickens Received 3/12/2012 Did you know that Colorado Springs, CO (population 360,000), allows chickens and/or rabbits as long as they have a minimum of 4 sq. ft per animal, and they don't exceed 10 EACH? D.Any shelter provided for rabbits or fowl shall contain an area of at least four (4) square feet for each rabbit or fowl. An adequate area outside the shelter must be provided for any rabbits or fowl. The maximum number of rabbits or fowl maintained on a premises shall not exceed ten (10) each of the age of six (6) months or older. Amy Haptonstall \ City Website Comment Received: 3/12/2012 From: Barbara Barnes EmailAddress: barbanddave @jeffnet.org Phone: 541-776-3524 Subject: chickens Nature of Suggestion: Comments I would like an email response: yes Message: I have lived in Ashland off and on since 1971 and currently live in Medford. Therefore, I don't know if my comment is valid. However, we sometimes consider moving back to Ashland. I was shocked to read that the City is considering allowing people to slaughter chickens in their backyards. Permitting chickens is a great idea and as you know an urban trend. Allowing the slaughter of chickens is another matter entirely and should not be permitted. I believe this would result in lowering home values and would be completely out of keeping for any small city. Email Received: 3/13/2012 Slaughtering Chickens Please, please NOP H For those of us who value human and animal life this is really horrible. I feel I'm being punished to have to live with such barbarous neighbors. Thank you for having a compassionate heart in this matter. Jeanne Powell March 13, 2012 Some concerns and thoughts concerning the poultry ordinance. I would like to reiterate that Ashland might be trying to make this rule more difficult than it needs to be. I would hope that the Council is in support of local food production, self-reliance, and home based commerce or as I call it very, very small business. 1. If a person meets the 20 -foot set back from a neighbors dwelling and their poultry is kept odor and debris free, then the number of chickens should not matter. The number of chickens should be based on the minimum space needed to humanely care for that bird, generally thought to be 4 square feet of inside space and 6 square feet of enclosed run space. Do not limit coop or run size or tie the number of birds to your lot size. It will be self- limiting by the bird space need requirement. If some one wants a third of their yard to be chicken coop and it fits the above requirements, who are we to say they can't raise meet and/or eggs for their family and a few others. If you must have a maximum number go for 25 or 30 provided the minimum space requirements per bird are met. That way a person with some retired birds, some young—not laying yet, and some layers can be with in the law. Especially if they are also raising meat. 2. Please take non- commercial out of the ordinance. Perhaps a business license should be required. Please support small business and the inter-relationships of very local food, small income, and neighbors. Bottom line we should be able to practice urban farming without so much regulation. Let the quality of the product speak for itself. This is happening all over the country. There are many reasons one may want to live in the city and still farm. This is a great resource for our town. Ultimately it could be very simple: Chickens are allowed but with conditions: The coop and run must be 20 feet from neighbors dwellings, the environment they are kept in must be kept odor and debris free; and the chickens cannot cause a noise disturbance to neighboring properties. A secure coop must provide a minimum of 4 square feet per bird and the enclosed run at least 6 square feet per bird. Except for the set-back, and minimum space requirement which I added, this is Medford's rule. Yes we could be like Medford. Thanks, Kim Blackwolf CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication April 3, 2012 Business Meeting An Ordinance Repealing AMC Chapter 10.24 Fireworks and Amending AMC Chapters 15.28.070 Amendments to the Oregon Fire Code and 15.28.100 Penalties FROM: Margueritte Hickman; Division Chief/ Fire Marshal, hickmanm @ashland.or.us SUMMARY This ordinance both cleans up conflicting sections of the Ashland Municipal Code and simplifies the fireworks ordinance adopted by the'City of Ashland in 2010. In addition, this amendment will modify the penalties section of the Oregon Fire Code adoption to allow multiple life threatening violations occurring in one day to be cited. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: In 2010, the Ashland Municipal Code was amended to prohibit the use of retail fireworks within the city limits of Ashland. Included in the definition of fireworks are wood-cored sparklers. After the adoption of this ordinance, it was found that wire-cored sparklers are considered a "novelty" item and not regulated by the state or included in the definition of retail fireworks. Based on oral history from the Oregon State Fire Marshal's office, years ago, there was a "gentleman's" agreement by the wholesalers to not sell wire cored sparklers because of the dangers they present to kids. There were no formal agreements or restrictions. Now that we are many years past, new wholesalers have emerged and do not follow the same informal agreement. This conflict causes challenges to both public education and to enforcement. In fact, both wood cored and wire cored sparklers are hot enough to cause injuries or start fires. By eliminating the use of both, neither will be allowed to be used in a manner which will cause fires or injuries. The second modification being presented is to modify the penalties section to make it consistent with existing penalties sections of the AMC and to provide the ability to issue more than one citation in a day when a life threatening code violation exists. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends Council approve the First Reading by title only and set the matter for Second Reading. Page I of 2 �r, CITY OF ASHLAND SUGGESTED MOTION: Move to approve first reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Repealing AMC Chapter 10.24 Fireworks and Amending AMC Chapters 15.28.070 Amendments to the Oregon Fire Code and 15.28.100 Penalties" and move the ordinance on to second reading. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed ordinance. Page 2 of 2 �r, ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AMC CHAPTER 10.24 FIREWORKS AND AMENDING AMC CHAPTERS 15.28.070 AMENDMENTS TO THE OREGON FIRE CODE AND 15.28.100 PENALTIES Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold fined-fhfeugh and additions are bold underlined. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section I of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City. The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above-referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop, 20 Or. App. 293, 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1875). WHEREAS, fuel loading, terrain slope and aspect, and narrow steep streets make fires both more likely and more difficult to fight in Ashland; WHEREAS, the City can best protect against fires caused by fireworks by prohibiting fireworks in the City limits; and WHEREAS, life-threatening code violations need to be stopped immediately and shall not continue or be repeated within the same day. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. AMC Chapter 10.24 [Fireworks] is hereby repealed as follows: 10.24 10.24.010 Adoption of state fir-eworks llmN spt-toenq 49(). -1-10 through 480.170 of the Oregon Revised Statutes are adepted and ineorpornted herein by refer-eneee- Any person wh i I I I . iswn of this Chapter- shall be punished as set for-th in Seetmon 1.08.020 of the Ashland Munie-pid Code. Page 1 of 5 SECTION 2. AMC Chapter 15.28.070 [Amendments to the Oregon Fire Code] is hereby amended as follows: 15.28.070 Amendments to the Oregon Fire Code The Oregon Fire Code is amended in the following respects: Oregon Fire Code section 105.6.30 Open Burning. Delete and replace with the following: See Ashland Municipal Code 10.30. A. Section 506.1 Add the following sentence: The key box shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions,and shall contain keys to gain necessary access as required by the fire code official. B. Section 507.5.1 Delete and replace with the following: Where required. Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 300 feet from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the fire code official. Exceptions: 1. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 300 feet. 2. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet(183 m). C. Section 3301: Notwithstanding ORS 480.110 through ORS 480.165 and OAR 837-012-0600 through OAR 837-012-0675, the following are prohibited within the City of Ashland-: Th.. -me of_,....:l r._,...,._l,., wothgn the 0 is -ohib:. a 1. The sale and/or use of retail fireworks as defined in OAR 837-012- 0610 is prohibited at all times; 2. The sale and/or use of sparklers as defined in ORS 480.110 is prohibited at all times; 3. 'The use of retail fireworks within the City is prohibited at all times; and 4. The advertising of retail fireworks or sparklers is prohibited within the City of Ashland in accordance with ORS 480.152 and OAR 837- 012-0665. D. Section 3301 Storage of Explosives - Prohibited. The scope referred to in Chapter 3301.1 of the Oregon Fire Code which references the Oregon Revised Statutes and Oregon Administrative Rules related to explosives is amended as follows. The sale, manufacture, possession, transfer and storage of explosives as defined by ORS 480.200 (3)are prohibited in all areas within the City of Ashland. Page 2 of 5 E. Above-ground Storage of Flammable or Combustible Liquids. The limits referred to in Section 3404.2.9.6.1 of the Oregon Fire Code in which the storage of flammable or combustible Class I and II liquids in above-ground tanks outside of buildings is restricted are established as follows: All City of Ashland residential and historical district areas as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. F. Storage of Liquefied Petroleum Gases -Restricted. The limits referred to in Section 3804.2 of the Oregon Fire Code, in which storage of liquefied petroleum gas is restricted, are established as follows: All City of Ashland residential and historical district areas as defined in the Comprehensive Plan are limited to the aggregate capacity of anyone installation shall not exceed'a water capacity of 500 gallons. 1. Exception: In particular installations, this capacity limit shall be determined by the Fire Code Official, after consideration of special features such as topographical conditions, nature of occupancy, and proximity to*buildings, capacity of proposed containers, degree of fire protection to be provided and capabilities of the City of Ashland Fire& Life Safety Division. G. Appendix D105 —Aerial Fire Apparatus Access Roads. Remove and replace D105.1 with the following: Where required. Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 24 feet in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway. Remove and replace D105.2 with the following: Width. Fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of building more than 24 feet in height. H. Appendix A1010.1 1 - If the complainant or appellant is aggrieved by the final order of the Ashland Board of Appeals, the complainant may file an appeal to the Oregon State Fire Marshal's Office within 10 days of the Board's final order. SECTION 3. AMC Chapter 1 5.28.100 [Penalties] is hereby amended as follows: 15.28.100 Penalties A. Any person •..ho vs violating or causing violation of any of the provisions of this chapter; has committed a Class I violation, and upon conviction thereof, is punishable as prescribed in Section 1.08.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code. Such person, firm or corporation is guilty of a separate violation for each and every day during which any violation of this Chapter is committed or continued by such person, firm or corporation. the Oregon Fire Code as adopted iii this ehapter- or who shall vielat-e �_r 1741*1 tA PAMPI!l with any order made thereunder, or-who shall build in violation of any Page 3 of 5 detailed statement of speeifientions or plans submitted and approved .................. or any ........,....... or permit issued tbereunder, and from Whieh no nppeal bas been tnken, or who shall fail to eemply with sueh an order a eempetent jurisdietion, within the tifne fiNed herein, shall severally for efleh and ever�, sueh violation and e respeetiVely, be guilty of-a vielation punishable by a fine as set forih in Ashland Munieipal Seetion 1.08.020. The imposition of one penalty for an),violation shall exeuse the violation or- permit it te continue, and all sneh per-sons shall+e e i e eneh ten days that prohibited eonditions are maintained shall constitute a separate oftense. B. For any violations of this Chapter deemed to be life threatening, a citation can be issued for each and every occurrence, including multiple occurrences in one day. Life threatening hazards include but are not limited to overcrowding, locking or obstructing doors designated to remain unlocked, and shutting off or removing designated fire protection equipment. BC. The application of the above penalty shall not be held to prevent the enforced removal of prohibited conditions. SECTION 4. Savings. Notwithstanding this amendment/repeal, the City ordinances in existence at the time any criminal or civil enforcement actions were commenced, shall remain valid and in full force and effect for purposes of all cases filed or commenced during the times said ordinances(s) or portions thereof were operative. This section simply clarifies the existing situation that nothing in this Ordinance affects the validity of prosecutions commenced and continued under the laws in effect at the time the matters were originally filed. SECTION 5. Severabilitv. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 6. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance"may be changed to "code", "article", "section", "chapter"or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 4-6) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 2012, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of '12012. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder Page 4 of 5 SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2012. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David H. Lohman, City Attorney Page 5 of 5