Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-0406 Council Mtg PACKET CITY OF ASHLAND AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL April 6, 2010 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. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS? [5 minutes} 1. Study Session of March 15, 2010 2. Regular Meeting of March 16,2010 VI, SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS 1. RVCOG Annual Presentation [5 Minutes] 2. Proclamation of Arbor Week in Ashland, April 4 - 10, 2010 [5 Minutes] 3. Tree City USA Presentation [5 Minutes] 4. Proclamation of Independent Media Week, April 18 - 24, 2010 [5 Minutes] 5. Proclamation of April as Sexual Assault Awareness Month [5 Minutes] VII. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes] 1. Does Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application from Sukhdev Singh dba Stop N Shop, at 110 Lithia Way? 2. Should Council approve continuance of First Reading of an Ordinance related to Storage of Vehicles to the May 4, 2010 agenda? 3. Should Council approve continuance of First Reading of an Ordinance related to the Advanced Financing of Public Improvements to the May 18, 2010 agenda? 4. Will Council approve and agreement with Jackson County for the City to assume maintenance responsibilities for the improvements to be installed on Clay Street in conjunction with the Snowberry Brook Subdivision development? COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9 VISIT THE CtTY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.lIS 5. Does Council wish to authorize the Mayor to sign the second 12-month extension amendment to the 1994 Lease Agreement between the Ashland Gun Club and the City of Ashland, extending the lease of real property to the Ashland Gun club to May 30, 2011? 6. Will Council approve a scrivener's error correction to Exhibit A of Resolution No. 2010-07 revising rates for water service, which was approved at the March 16, 2010 Council meeting? VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Persons wishing to speak 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 of council {AMC'S2.04.050}) 1. Should the Council approve the first reading of ordinances adopting Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill and related ordinance, Ashland Comprehensive Plan, and Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map amendments? [90 Minutes] 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 None. XI, NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS None. XII, ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Should Council approve First Reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 9 concerning weed abatement and move the ordinance on to Second Reading? [10 Minutes] 2. Should Council approve First Reading of an ordinance amending adding a uniform violation abatement procedure to the Ashland Municipal Code and move the ordinance on to Second Reading? [15 Minutes] 3. Should Council approve First Reading of an ordinance amending AMC Chapter 14.06 relating to water curtailment and move the ordinance on to Second Reading? [15 Minutes] XIII, OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERSIREPORTS 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 Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior 10 the meeting witt enable the City to make reasonabte arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35. 102-35. 104 ADA Title t). COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9 VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASJ-ILAND.OR.US '. CITYCOUNCUSTUDYSES~ON March /5. 20/0 Page / of3 MINUTES FOR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Monday, March 15,2010 Siskiyon Room, 51 Winburn Way Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room. Councilor Navickas, Silbiger, Jackson, Voisin and Chapman were present. Councilor Lemhouse was absent. I. Look Ahead Review City Administrator Martha Bennett reviewed the items on the Council Look Ahead. 2. Discussion regarding revising the public contracting code and personal services code. Assistant City Attorney Megan Thornton gave a presentation that included: . Public Contracting Code . Focus . Definition of Public Contract . Types of Contracts o Buying goods and services (Procurement) o Building stuff (Public IrnprovementsIWorks) o Buying special services (Personal Services) . State Law Provide a framework for Procuring Goods and Services o Public Contracting Code o Attorney General Model Rules . Basics of Public Contracting . Authority to Adopt Public Contracting Code . Default under State Law . Assumption . GOALS: Simple, Efficient and Fair Staff clarified the proposal would adopt rules that worked for the City and Council would determine limits. The rules would be the same as State code with added safeguards for specific procedures. . Staff Recommends o Adopt the Oregon public contracting code ORS 279A (General), 279B (Procurement) and 279C (Public Improvement) o Adopt the Attorney General model rules OAR 137-046 (General), 137-047 (Procurement) and 137-049 (Public Improvements) . Do not adopt 137-048 (Architects, Engineers, Surveyors, etc.) Staff eXplained the reason for not adopting 137-048 was the code treated Architects, Engineers and Surveyors differently. The City would formally opt out of this procedure in the proposed ordinance. . Procurement ORS 279B & OAR 137-47 o General Rule: Formal competitive sealed bids (ITB) or competitive sealed proposals (RFP) are required to procure goods and services, unless there is an exemption. . Exemptions: By adopting the ORS 279B and OAR 137-47, the City will adopt the model rules for all procurement methods, including the exemptions, such as small procurements. CITYCOUNCUSTUDYSES~ON March 15. 2010 Page2of3 . Does Council wish to use the small procurement exempt.ion to the formal process to the extent authorized by law? o Small Procurement Exemption (informal process) generally allows a direct award of a contract up to $5,000. o Intermediate Procurement Exemption (informal process) requires three informally solicited competitive quotes and a written record and allowed for contracts $5,000 - $150,000. o Proposed Ordinance incorporates additional safeguards into the process in AMC 2.50.100. Currently the City limit for purchasing Goods is $75,000 and $50,000 for Personal Services. The State statute would increase both amounts to $150,000. The minimum bid amount for competitive quotes is three but could be more. . Additional Safeguards for Exempt.ions AMC 2.50.100 o Required written findings showing grounds for an exemption exists. o Sign off by Legal on Contract. o Sign off by Finance on Budgeted Funds. o Right of City Attorney, City Administrator or Local Contract Review Board (LCRB) to compel competitive bid or proposal process. Council expressed concern raising reporting limits to $150,000 and briefly discussed lowering the current $75,000 reporting limitation. Staff noted lowering the amount would affect a department's ability for immediate purchase by adding an additional two weeks to incorporate a City Council meeting. The vendor would not guarantee price quotes. . PP Public Improvements: Building Public Infrastructure and Facilities. o By adopting ORS 279C and OAR 137-49, the City will adopt the model rules for all procurement methods, including the exemptions, such as small procurements and sole source procurements. . Does Council wish to use the small procurement exemption to the formal process to the extent authorized by law? o Intermediate Procurement Exemption (informal process) requires three informally solicited competitive quotes and a written record and allowed for contracts $5,000-$100,000. o Proposed Ordinance incorporates additional safeguards into the process in AMC 2.50.100. . Personal Services Contracts are services that are provided by a highly educated, or registered, or licensed professional. o Currently personal services are governed by AMC 2.52. o Proposal is to use the same rules for personal services used for other goods and services under ORS 279B and OAR 137-047, with a few exceptions. o Proposal is not to use OAR 137-048, which is the model rules for procuring architectural, engineering, and land surveying services. . Personal Service Contracts: Does Council wish to allow direct award of personal services contracts greater than $5,000? o Model Ru1e~ allow direct award of personal service contracts up to $50,000 (OAR 137- 048-0200). o Proposed Ordinance incorporates additional safeguards into the process in AMC 2.50.100. . Personal Service Contracts - Current Process $5,000 - $50,000. o 2.52.070 A. - three competitive written proposals from prospective contractors. . Personal Service Contracts - Current Process over $50,000. o 2.52.070 C. CITYCOUNCILSTUDYSES~ON March 15, 2010 Page 3 of3 o For personal service contracts that will cost $50,000 or more, the Department Head shall award the contract based on AMC 2.50.090 (Formal RFP Process). . Example: RFP - Engineering Services. I. Writing Scope of Work. 2. Formal Advertising. 3. One month to answer questions and give proposers time to prepare and submit proposals 4. Pre-proposal Meetings. 5. Bid Closing. 6. 3-6 Staff members and other agencies to review proposals - normally takes a couple of weeks. 7. Additional time to allow for contesting award of bid. . Personal Service Contracts - Benefits of the new process: o Projects begin sooner - it takes 2-5 months to prepare a project for award using the current formal bidding procedure. o Reduces costs: it takes approximately $7,000 in staff time and advertising to complete the bid process. Based on an average of 10 projects a year, the expense of the RFP process amounts to $70,000 per year. o Conserves staff time. Staff summarized the proposal for Personal Service contracts would allow a direct award up to $50,000 with three or more solicitations in writing for projects $50,000-$100,000 and a formal RFP process for projects over $100,000. Council discussed changing the limitation to $75,000 instead of $1 00,000. The proposed thresholds for Goods and Services and Public Improvements would allow a direct award up to $5,000, three or more bids for projects $5,000-$100,000 and a formal RFP for projects over $100,000. Council thought the limitation should be $75,000 and discussed the possibility of requiring three or more bids for projects in the $5,000-$75,000 range with an RFP for projects over $75,000. Staff will prepare options and ranges for Council to review at a future meeting. Meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dana Smith Assistant to the City Recorder ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 16. 2010 Page 1 of7 MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL March 16, 2010 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Council Chair David Chapman called the meeting to order at 7 :00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilor Voisin, Navickas, Jackson and Silbiger were present. Councilor Lemhouse and Mayor Stromberg were absent. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS City Recorder Barbara Christensen announced vacancies for the annual appointments for Commission and Committee members. The deadline for applications was March 19,2010. Council Chair Chapman noted an article in the March 14, 20 I 0 Medford Mail Tribune on the assistance efforts for the return of the 41" Brigade Combat Team of the Oregon National Guard (1/186). SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS? The Study Session minutes of March 1,2010, Executive Session of March 2, 2010 and Regular Meeting of March 2, 20 I 0 were approved as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS Council Chair Chapman introduced Rob Lloyd as the new IT Director and read a brief biography. CONSENT AGENDA I. Does Council wish to approve the minutes of the Boards, Commissions, and Committees? 2. Does Council wish to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Carol Davis to the Public Arts, Commission with a term to expire April 30, 2011? 3. Does Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application from Patricia V olk dba Chateaulin at 50 E Main Street? 4. Will Council approve the attached resolution establishing traffic control and regulation for Will Dodge Way from Pioneer to First Street and repealing Resolution No. 90-51? 5. Does Council have questions about the Mayor's committee member selection for the Ashland Water Advisory Committee (A W AC) for the Water Master Plan update? Councilor Voisin requested Consent Agenda item #5 be pulled for discussion. Councilor NavickasiVoisin m1s to approve Consent Agenda items #1-#4. Voice Vote: aU A YES. Motion passed. Public Works Director Mike Faught explained that staff had recommended the Mayor appoint Councilor Jackson as Council liaison. Councilor Voisin expressed interest in being a co-liaison. Council discussed whether to retain a member on the committee who lived outside city limits. Councilor Silbiger/Jackson m1s to approve the committee member selections with the exception of Ron Roth and add Councilor Voisin as co-liaison. Voice Vote: Councilor Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman, YES; Councilor Navickas and Voisin, NO. Motion passed 3-2. ASHLA/ofD CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 16. 2010 Page 2 all PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Will Council increase Water Utility Rates 8% and add a potable water irrigation surcharge during summer months and increase Wastewater Rates 9% with a combined, average monthly impact (excluding irrigation) on a single family residence of $4.92 per month? Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg explained both funds were struggling due to lower sales, higher treatment costs and Capital Improvements and the steps staff took to minimize the need for increases. Staff proposed staggering the increases with Water adjustments effective May 1,20 I 0 and Wastewater rates June 1,2010. The proposed summer irrigation surcharge would affect households exceeding 3,600 cubic feet (et) (27,000 gallons) of water per month and result in a 30% increase for the next unit(s) used. Staff clarified sewer rates were determined on winter water consumption and influenced by water efficient devices. The formula used for the calculations needed review. The City uses a consumption driven system and a rate structure review should encompass lower income subsidies and cover fixed costs. Not having a high rate base created less of an impact on lower income families and residents could lower water bills through conservation where increasing base charges would not affect bills with water conservation efforts. Mr. Tuneberg eXplained currently Electric, Water and Wastewater pay 10% in Franchise Fees. The full I 0% from Electric and 8% of Water and Wastewater goes into the General Fund with the remaining 2% going to the Street Fund. During the budget process, there was a decision to set those funds aside in a separate reserve for the coming years. Staff will research information on the Franchise Fees charged for private utilities. Public Works Director Mike Faught explained the irrigation surcharge targeted residential only and was based on a 100 gallons of water per resident in a 2.5 person household. A residence that size would require 7,500 gallons of water monthly for domestic use leaving the remainder for irrigation or other purposes. The surcharge would affect approximately 500 residential customers who tend to go over the 3,600( ct) allotments and represent 6.5% of the entire system. Conservation Water Specialist Robbin Pearce further eXplained staff efforts regarding water allocation for gardening use versus landscape use. Initial raw data indicates a household will need an additional 25% to the monthly 3,600(ct) allotment for vegetable gardening. Actual amounts would fluctuate depending on garden size and water efficiency. The surcharge would provide an extra allocation of water for residents growing food on their property if they exceed the 3,600(ct). Mr. Tuneberg noted he would have a response for refinancing the loan with the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) within 90 days. Public Hearing open: 7:46 p.m. Ron Roth/6950 Old Hwy 99 Southrrhought Council should noi approve the irrigation surcharge and instead use Talent Irrigation District (Till) water earlier. Using Till sooner last year would have eliminated the need for water curtailment. He referred to the "other projects" listed as expense in the Water Budget and wanted to know what they were and whether they were necessary. Tom Marr/955 N Mountain A venuelExpressed his frustration with the rate increase. It was impossible to grow food crops using only City water because rates were so high. There are times on his utility bill where he pays more in fees than services. He suggested using the rates in effect 10 years before and not raising rates higher than the cost of Social Security. Khosro Khosraolucdi/2371 Ashland StreetJDisagreed with the rate increases and explained he operates two car wash facilities within the City. Even with a water recycle system he pays tremendous amounts on his water and power bills. He has not raised his prices in three years and questioned why the City cannot work within a ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 16. 2010 Page 3 al7 more limited budget when everyone else was. He suggested the City privatize or hire qualified people to run it. The community is suffering. If the rate increase is for administrative costs, it should be stopped. If it is for repairs, he wanted to know the details since he was paying for them. Babaek Khosraolucdi/2371 Ashland Street/Explained cost ofliving raises were not occurring nationwide but thought one was being implemented in the proposed rate increase. The proposal was punishing people for being conservative. The community conserved water only to be charged an additional 8%-10%. He felt the rate increases went against the purpose of conservation. Public Hearing closed: 8:02 p.m. Staff clarified that the "other projects" expense referred to during Public Testimony were associated with Capital Improvement Projects (CIP). The report also included next years' negotiated 5% increase for the Laborers Union, 0% for Management and Confidential Employees and the estimated 8% increase in the healthcare plan. Councilor NavickasNoisin m/s to approve the Water Service Rate Resolution ata 7% increase and reduce the Franchise Fee by 1 % to the General Fund. DISCUSSION: Councilor.Navickas explained the current tax structure forced the City to create regressive taxes. Addressing this through franchise fees will begin to counter that affect. Councilor Voisin was concerned the City was driving the middle class out of Ashland through rate increases. She understood the increase was needed but thought there must be other ways to deal with the situation. Councilor Silbiger noted the decrease to the General Fund would create a property tax increase and reminded Council on the decision made last year to break up the rate increase over two years. The costs involved were real. Conservation efforts work well for conserving water but always cost more, the benefit is in not having to build a larger plant to cover increased water use in the future. Councilor Jackson reiterated the costs were real and the rate increase was not enough to cover them. Councilor Chapman would not support the motion or the irrigation surcharge and thought the City should sell more water through Till instead. Councilor Voisin felt the process the rates were based on was flawed and the City needed to address the problem. Councilor Jackson agreed the rate structure needed reworking but that would not happen this year and there was a budget need. Councilor Navickas thought the motion was a good compromise. Voice Vote: Councilor Navickas and Voisin, YES; Councilor Silbiger, Jackson and Chapman, NO. Motion failed 2-3. Councilor JacksoniSilbiger m/s to approve Resolution #2010-07 (Water Service Rate) as presented by staff. Councilor NavickasN oisin m/s to amend the motion to allocate II, percent of Franchise Fees toward low- income subsidies. DISCUSSION: Mr. Tuneberg explained the City did not have a low-income program for water service and staff would develop program details if one were established. Voice Vote: Councilor Navickas and Voisin, YES; Councilor Silbiger, Jackson and Chapman, NO. Motion failed 2-3. Councilor ChapmanN oisin m/s to amend motion to eliminate the irrigation surcharge (Section 3). DISCUSSION: Councilor Chapman did not think the surcharge was effective and the focus should be conservation through public education. Councilor Navickas was sympathetic to those wanting to garden but using treated drinking water to grow vegetables was not the most sustainable means for producing food and Till water was highly regulated. Councilor Silbiger suggested giving discounts based on Agricultural Best Practices. Councilor Jackson reminded Council the surcharge would affect 6% of the community. Voice Vote: Councilor Chapman and Voisin, YES; Councilor Navickas, Jackson and Silbiger, NO. Motion failed 2- 3. Voice Vote on original motion: Conncilor Silbiger, Jackson and Chapman, YES; Councilor Navickas ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING March /6, 20/0 Page 4 oJ7 and Voisin, NO; Motion passed 3-2. Conncilor Jackson/Silbiger mls to approve Resolntion #2010-08 (Wastewater Rates) as presented by staff. DISCUSSION: Councilor Jackson acknowledged the concern regarding the rate increases and how staff provided a minimum to attempt to cover shortages in operating costs and the Ending Fund Balance by postponing projects. Councilor Navickas would not support the increases without low-income subsidies or moving excessive franchise fees to the General Fund. Councilor Voisin would not support the increase either, the City would be reducing the interest payment on the DEQ loan by approximately $135,000 and that should help reduce the rate increase to 5%. Councilor Chapman was not comfortable with the rate increase and hoped the changes staff makes will avoid increases in the future. Voice Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Jackson and Chapman, YES; Conncilor Navickas and Voisin, NO; Motion passed 3-2. 2. Will Conncil grant the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) a variance to the City noise ordinance that will allow work on Interstate 5 on and near Exit I4? City Engineer Jim Olson presented the staff report and eXplained the project would address areas of structural failings in the bridge at Exit 14 and operational defects the interchange currently experiences. During peak periods, the interchange has a failed Level of Service (LOS). The project will widen the existing bridge and lower 1-5 lanes underneath to accommodate the newly required 18 feet of clearance, signalize the interchanges with Ashland Street, and provide bicycle and pedestrian facilities along with aesthetic improvements. Due to the volume of traffic on 1-5, ODOT's requirement to conduct lane closures at night from 7:00pm to 9:00am conflicts with the City's decibel standards. The project will take two years with an estimated 8-week impact to the Ashland Noise Variance. Council options include strictly granting a variance to ODOT to the noise standards or adopt it with specific requirements. The only dwelling within 1,000 of the project site was on Clover Lane. Mr. Olson confirmed State ordinances take precedence over Municipal ordinances. Public Hearing open: 8:53 p.m. Khosro Khosraolucdi/2371 Ashland StreetJExplained he owned the Texaco gas station at Exit 14. He voiced support for the improvements as well as concern on the impact the two-year project will have on businesses located near the site. Public Hearing closed: 8:55 p.m. Karen Tatman, a Sub-Consultant to ODOT from Quincy Engineering and Joe Thomas, the ODOT Project Manager confirmed nothing restricted the contractor from working during weekend nights but it was unlikely to happen due to overtime pay and budget constraints. They went on to explain the construction timeline and how there would be 3 weeks of nighttime work during July 20 I 0, three weeks November 20 I 0 and two nights in June or July 2011 when both ramps will be closed one night each. ODOT's outreach efforts to local businesses and the public were listed and described. Mr. Thomas expressed concern regarding the City's specification on installing temporary or portable acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise surfaces. Staff clarified that requirement would not apply to this project. Councilor JacksonlChapman mls to grant ODOT a variance to the City noise ordinance for a period of approximately eight 8 weeks with the proposed staff conditions including the contractor shall notify all adjacent businesses. DISCUSSION: Councilor Jackson noted previous violations from ODOT regarding the noise variance. City Attorney Richard Appicello eXplained it was a violation of Chapter 9 in the City code and would consist of a citation up to a $500 fine for each violation. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC FORUM - None ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 16. 2010 Page 5 of7 UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS I. Will Council review plans for the Exit 14 interchange reconstruction and provide direction to City and ODOT staff for recommended changes? Karen Tatman, a Sub-Consultant to ODOT from Quincy Engineering gave a presentation that included: . OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program . Aesthetics . Aesthetic Treatments . Fence Detail . Architect's Rendering . Sidewalk View . Irrigation System . Seeds and plants . Irrigation System ., Water Usage . RoadwaylBridge Width . Striping Plan . Southbound Ramp Intersection Ms. Tatman explained the State Traffic Engineer agreed with the recommendation to move the eastbound bike lane to the shoulder and install a bike signal but did not support a bike signal on the westbound side since there was plenty of site distance and safe movement. Art Anderson, the ODOT Area Manager further eXplained the westbound side would have a drop lane where the eastbound had an add lane. In this type of interchange, the westbound side afforded safe operational movement and therefore did not need added measures. . Bicycle Signal in Portland Ms. Tatman described how bicycle detection loops in the pavement would sense bicycles and activate the bike signal. Activation will cause an all red phase where vehicles stop while bicycles move through the intersection. . Interstate 5 . 1-5 Ramps . Traffic Signals - Ramps . Upcoming Public Involvement . Public Involvement . Construciion Schedule Council discussed alternative striping options with staff, concerns on not having a bike signal for the westbound bike lane and issues with lane and turn design. Mr. Anderson suggested staff draft a letter to the State Traffic Engineer regarding the westbound bike signal. Councilor JacksonlNavickas mls to support ODOT's proposed Exit 14 adding a bike signal in the eastbound direction and to write a letter to the State Traffic Engineer requesting a bike signal in the westbound direction. Voice Vote: Councilor Navickas, Jackson, Silbiger and Voisin, YES; Councilor Chapman, NO. Motion passed 4-1. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 16.2010 Page 6 0[7 2. Does Council want to intervene on the side of the Forest Service in the lawsuit challenging the record of decision for the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project? Council Chair Chapman introduced Donna Mickley, the ~ew Siskiyou Mountains District Ranger. Councilor Navickas noted a conflict of interest regarding the topic and asked Council to excuse him from the discussion. Councilor SilbigerN oisin m/s to excuse Councilor Navickas due to a conflict of interest. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Councilor Navickas left the room at 10:12 p.m. City Administrator Martha Bennett explained if Council chose to intervene in the lawsuit and the City lost, they would litigate over legal fees. City Attorney Richard Appicello further eXplained scenarios where the City might incur fees. Council discussed what the impacts might be if the City intervened, noted the only issue with the project was in the road less areas and suggested sending a letter showing the City's continued support for the Ashland Forest ,Resiliency project. Councilor Jackson/Silbiger m/s to send a letter to the Forest Service that the City continues to strongly support the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project. Voice Vote: Councilor Jackson, Silbiger;and Chapman, YES; Councilor Voisin, NO. Motion passed 3-1. Councilor Navickas returned to meeting at 10:22 p.m. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Should Council approve Second Reading of an ordinance that amends the Living Wage ordinance clarifying that the City does not require retroactive payments? .' -, Councilor VoisinlNavickas m/s Direct staff to develop language that an employee's accumulation of hours continued as long as they are an employee and exempt people 18 years old and younger: DISCUSSION: Councilor Jackson asked what the impact of introducing an age related exemption was. City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified the intent was not applying the Living Wage to people working summer jobs as part of their High School program. The impact will increase the wage and the cost to the employer and may result in not hiring people with prior experience. Parks and Recreation Director Don Robertson expressed concern how the motion would affect Park Patrol. Councilor Silbiger suggested contacting other contractors including non-profits that may be affected by the change. V oiceY ote: Councilor Navickas and Voisin, YES; Councilor Silbiger, Chapman and Jackson, NO. Motion failed 2-3. Mr. Appicello read the ordinance title aloud, noted the following change - former Section 1 which included the text "...calendar year with at least a three-month break in service...," deleting '.'...12 month period..." was removed in its entirety and the Sections were renumbered [former Section 2 became Section I]. Councilor Jackson/Silbiger mls to approve Ordinance #3008. Roll Call Vote: Councilor, Chapman, Jackson and Silbiger, YES; Councilor Voisin and Navickas, NO. Motion passed 3-2. 2. Should Council approve First Reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 9 concerning weed abatement and move the ordinance on to Second Reading? Delayed due to time constraints. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING March /6, 2010 Page 70f7 3. Should Council approve First Reading of an ordinance adding a uniform violation abatement procedure to the Ashland Municipal Code and move the ordinance on to Second Reading? Delayed due to time constraints. . 4. Should Council approve First Reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 13 to add provisions concerning Advanced Financing of Public Improvements and move the ordinance on to Second Reading? Delayed due to time constraints. 5. Should Council approve the First Reading of an' ordinance amending AMC Chapter 11.24.020 relating to the storage of personal and recreational vehicles and move the ordinance on to Second Reading? Delayed due to time constraints. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS 1. Discussion of implementation of compensation and classification study. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 10.30 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder David Chapman, Council Chair CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Meeting Date: Department: Secondary Dept.: Approval: Tree City USA Presentation April 6. 2010 Primary Staff Contact: Community Development E-Mail: Planning Departm rJ1... Secondary Contact: Martha Bennett 1:/ Estimated Time: Amy Gunter guntera(cV,ashland.or. us Bill Molnar 5 minutes Statement: The National Arbor Day foundation and its sponsor, the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) have announced that the City of Ashland has been recognized as a Tree City USA for the 25th consecutive year. This year, Ashland also received a Tree City USA Growth Award for demonstrating progress in its community forestry program. Staff Recommendation: N/A Background: For the past 25 years the City of Ashland has meet the four criteria set forth by the National ArbDr Day Foundation. The four criteria include a tree care ordinance, establishment of a tree board or commission, spending at least $2 per capita on a community tree care program and conducting an Arbor Day or Arbor Week ceremony. Related City Policies: The Comprehensive Plan has a policy in the Parks, Open Space and Aesthetics Chapter 8.17which states: "The City shall take necessary steps to annually be a Tree City, USA." The City's ordinances related to this topic are the Street Tree Commission, Powers and Duties in Chapter 2.25 of the Ashland Municipal Code and the Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance in Chapter 18.61 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. Additionally, tree inventories, preservation and planting plans area a key component ofthe City's development review process, specifically, during subdivision, multi-family and commercial design review. Council Options: N/A Potential Motions: NIA Attachments: National Arbor Day Foundation - Award Letter National Arbor Day Foundation - Press Release Arbor Week Events - Press Release Page I of I ~~, @Arbor Day Foundation'" 211 N. 12th 51.' Lincoln, NE 68508' 888-448-7337' arborday,org We il/spi,.e people to plal/t, lIurlure, alld celebrate trees, March 18,2010 Martha Bennett City Administrator 20 E. Main St. Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Ms. Bennett, The Arbor Day Foundation congratulates Ashland on being named a Tree City USA@ community and for achieving a Growth Award for 2009. Residents of Ashland should take pride in the fact that they live in a community that makes it a priority to plant and nurture trees. You already know that trees are a vital component of the infrastnucture in cities and towns, providing environmental, economical and health benefits for YDur citizens. In fact, trees are a rare component of a community's infrastnucture in that they actually increase in value and service over time from a modest investment. Enclosed is a press release for your convenience as you prepare to contact your local media outlets to share this commendable achievement with the public. We hope you are excited to share the significance of this accomplishment. If you wish to receive this press release in electronic fonm, please emaH Mark Derowitsch, Public Relations Manager of the Foundation at mderowitschtlilarbordav.orq. We will send it to you within one business day. The Tree City USA program is sponsored in cooperation with the National Association of State Foresters and the USDA Forest Service. Today, more than 3,400 cities and towns have been recognized as a Tree City USA community. State foresters are responsible Jar the presentation of the Tree City USA flag and other materials. We will forward your awards to Paul D. Ries in your state forester's office. They will be coordinating the presentation with you. It would be especially appropriate to make the Tree City USA award a part of your Arbor Day ceremony. Again, we celebrate your diligence i" improving the quality of life for the citizens of Ashland and thank you for creating a healthier, more sustainable world for us all. Best regards, ~~ John Rosenow Chief Executive' cc: Amy Gunter C2~r"\f-~~\ Ji~_r- i:" t:...-'.....I~= ~ ~ c:~. MAR ~ ~ 2010 r~:.&.~. ..f. ,~ _'__: ~"""'--!A"",'.::;l For more information, contact Mark Derowitsch, Public Relations Manager, at mderowitsch@arbordav.orCl or call 888-448-7337. News from @?> Arbor Day Foundation'" 211 N. 12th St.. Lincoln, NE 68508' 888.448-7337' arborday.org We iI/spire peoPle to plal/t, 1II111/1,.e, alld celeb,-ate t,.ees. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Arbor Day Foundation Honors Ashland with Tree City USA@ Recognition, Growth Award Ashland, OR, was recognized by the nonprofit Arbor Day Foundation as a Tree City USA community for its commitment to urban forestry. It is the twenty-fifth year Ashland has earned this national recognition. . Ashland also received a Tree City USA Growth Award for demonstrating progress in its community forestry program in the following activity areas: Education and Public Relations community-wide tree event continuing education for tree workers tree-care workshop The prestigious Growth Award honors environmental improvement and higher levels of tree care in Tree City USA communities. The Tree City USA program is sponsored by the Arbor Day Foundation in cooperation with the National Association of State Foresters and the USDA Forest Service. Ashland has met the four standards to become a Tree City USA community. Tree City USA communities must have a tree board or department, a tree care ordinance, a comprehensive community forestry program, and an Arbor Day observance and proclamation. "Communities that are honored with a Tree City USA designation and a Growth Award make a strong commitment to planting and caring for trees, and we applaud their efforts,' said John Rosenow, chief executive and founder of the Arbor Day Foundation. "We also commend a community's elected officials, volunteers and its citizens for providing needed care for its trees. They recognize that trees provide numerous environmental, economical and health benefits for the community every day: More information about Tree City USA can be found at www.arbordav.orCl/TreeCitvUSA. About the Arbor Day Foundation The Arbor Day Foundation is a nonprofit, environmental and education organization of nearly one million members, with a mission to inspire people to plant. nurture, and celebrate trees. More information on the Foundation and its programs can be found at www.arbordav.orCl. ;G>-~== l.J::::::'.::,-'iRsov'INKI CITY OF ASHLAND News Release FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, PLEASE DATE: March 31, 2010 CONTACT: Amy Gunter, Assistant Planner City of Ashland 54 I -552-2044 The State of Oregon celebrates Arbor Week during the first full week in April, April 4th through the 10th. 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 25th . consecutive year. This year Ashland also received a Tree City USA Growth Award for demonstrating progress in its community forestry program. The prestigious Growth A ward honors environmental improvement and higher levels oftree carc in Tree City USA communities. Arbor Events '" Tuesday, April 6th 7:00 PM - 2009 Tree City USA Presentation by Orcgon Department of Forestry 120 I 0 Arbor Day Proclamation at the Ashland City Council Mceting. , Wednesday, April 7th 11:00 AM - Ceremonial Tree planting at the Ashland Public Library in conjunction with the Children's Story time. '" Saturday, April 24lh 11 AM to 4 PM - Tree Commission booth at the Earth Day Celebration. '" Friday, May 14th at 2:00 PM: 2009 Tree of the Year plaque installation for the Pink Dogwood located at 634 Iowa Street. For more infonnation about the Arbor Week activities planned during the month of April to celebrate Arbor Week please visit the City of Ashland web page, www:"shland.or.lls. Or contact Amy Gunter, Assistant Planner at guntcrai{i)ashbnd.or.us or 54 I .552.2044. (end) CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Meeting Date: Department Secondary Dept.: Approval: Liquor License Application April 6, 2010 Primary Staff Contact City Recorder E-Mail: None Secondary Contact: Martha Benne Estimated Time: Barbara Christensen christeb{alash land.or. us None Consent Question: Does the Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application from Sukhdev Singh dba Stop N Shop at 110 Lithia Way. Staff Recommendation: Endorse the application with the following: The City has determined that the location of this business complies with the City's land use requirements and that the applicant has a business license and has registered as a restaurant, if applicable. The City Council recommends that the OLCC proceed with the processing of this application. Background: Application is for a new license. The City has determined that the license application review by the city is set forth in AMC Chapter 6.32 which requires that a determination be made to determine if the applicant complies with the City's land use, business license and restaurant registration requirements (AMC Chapter 6.32). Related City Policies: In May 1999, the Council decided it would make the above recommendations on all liquor license applications. Council Options: Approve or disapprove Liquor License application. Potential Motions: Approve or disapprove Liquor License application. Attachments: None Page i of I ~.l' CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Meeting Date: Department: Secondary Dept.: Approval: Ordinance Relatin~ to Stora~e of Vehicles April 6, 2010 Primary Staff Contact: Richard Appicello City Attorney's Office E-Mail: appicelr@ashland.or.us Police Department I ~ Secondary Contact: Terry Holderness Martha Bennett V Estimated Time: Consent Question: Should the Council approve continuance of First Reading of this ordinance from April 6, 2010 to May 4,2010? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council continue First Reading of this ordinance to May 4, 2010. Background: This item was originally scheduled for the March 16,2010 Council meeting but was automatically continued to April 6, 2010 by operation of AMC 2.04.030.E. City Administration requested this matter be continued to the May 4,2010 regular Council meeting. Related City Policies: N/A Council Options: I. Move to approve continuance of First Reading to May 4, 20 10. 2. Postpone First Reading to another date certain. Potential Motions: Motion to continue First Reading of the ordinance to May 4,2010. Attachments: N/A Page I of 1 ~~, CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Meeting Date: Department Secondary Dept.: Approval: Ordinance Creating a New Chapter 13.30 - Relating to the Advance Financing of Public Improvements Primary Staff Contact E-Mail: Secondary Contact Estimated Time: April 6, 2010 Public Works N/A Martha Bennet Michael R. Faught faughtm@ashland.or.us Richard Appicello Consent Question: Should the Council approve continuance of First Reading of this ordinance from April 6, 2010 to May 18,2010? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council continue First Reading of this ordinance to May 18. 2010. Background: This item was originally scheduled for the March 16, 2010 Council meeting but was automatically continued to April 6, 2010 by operation of AMC 2.04.030.E. City Administration requested this matter be continued to the May.18, 2010 regular Council meeting. Related City Policies: N/A Council Options: I. Move to approve continuance of First Reading to May 18'\ 2010. 2. Postpone First Reading to another date certain. . Potential Motions: Motion to continue First Reading of the ordinance to May 18, 2010. Attachments: N/A Page i of I r~' CITY Of ASHLAND Council Communication Approval of City Maintenance of Required Improvements on Clay Street Meeting Date: Department: Secondary Dept.: Approval: April 6, 2010 Public WorkslEngineering Community De pment Martha Benn Primary Staff Contact: E-Mail: Secondary Contact: Estimated Time: James Olson olsonj(al,ashland.or.us Michael R. Faught Consent Agenda Question: Will the City Council approve an agreement with Jackson County for the City to assume maintenance responsibilities for the improvements to be installed on Clay Street in conjunction with the Snowberry Brook Subdivision development? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council approve an agreement with Jackson County for the City to assume maintenance responsibilities for the improvements to be installed on Clay Street in conjunction with the Snowberry Brook Subdivision development. Background: Executive Summary Snowberry Brook Subdivision is currently being developed by the Housing Authority of Jackson County. The subdivision, which contains 60 apartment units, provides much needed low income housing for Ashland. Planning approvals for this project required certain street design elements that do not meet Jackson County Standards. Since the County considers these design elements to be "substandard," they have asked the City to bear responsibility for the maintenance. The agreement would be in the fonn of the attached letter. City Standards for Street Improvements Jackson County builds roads and streets for a different purpose and to a different standard then does the City of Ashland. The county's goal is to move traffic safely and efficiently in a predominantly rural setting. The City's street standards are aimed at providing a more livable community, to promote alternative modes of travel and to consider these modes on an equal footing with automobile travel. City standards, for instance, require the creation of a park row or planting strip between the curb and sidewalk. The county, on the other hand. requires that sidewalks be adjacent to the curb. The Snowberry Brook Subdivision also uses bioswale and wetland treatment of stonn runoff, a concept that would not be allowed under county standards. For the county to accept the Clay Street improvements as a part of their street network would require that all improvements be built to County standards. Staff believes the benefit to be gained by a well- designed, pedestrian-friendly, urban street far outweighs the added responsibility of the infrastructure maintenance. Prior Practice Although the number is gradually decreasing, there are still a few streets within the City limits that remain under the jurisdiction of Jackson County including: Page I of2 r~' CITY OF ASHLAND 1. Tolman Creek Road - south of Siskiyou Boulevard; 2. Clay Street - between Siskiyou Boulevard and East Main Street; 3. Peachey Road - between Walker Avenue and Hillview Drive; 4. Paradise Lane - south of Peachy Road 5. East Main Street - from Walker Avenue east to Highway 66. In past years, the jurisdiction of county streets within the City limits has passed onto the City as these streets were improved with the county paying for a portion of the improvement cost. Often times the improvement has been developer driven and included only a small portion of the street. If the improvement constitutes only a few hundred feet of frontage, it would not be beneficial for the City to assume jurisdiction. A compromise to a full jurisdictional exchange is for the City to assume maintenance of just the improvement portion of the street, as happened with the Bud's Dairy Subdivision on lower Clay Street. Maintenance Requirements By City ordinance sidewalk maintenance is assigned to the adjacent property owners, but the City (or other public agency) is obligated to maintain the concrete curbs, storm system and street surfaces indefinitely. Generally there is little or no maintenance of new infrastructure for the first 10 to 15 years. Concrete curbs and walks generally have a much longer life expectancy than asphalt surfacing which generally needs some sort of remedial action within 20 years. The nature and type of action varies greatly depending upon the type of failure and could be as little as a seal coat or fog seal or in the most extreme condition, a full overlay, maintenance costs run from approximately $2.00 per square yard for a slurry seal to $27 per square yard for asphalt overlay. Related City Policies: The City is empowered to enter into agreements with other governmental agencies for various purposes including agreements for maintenance or jurisdictional transfers. Council Options: I. Council may approve the agreement with Jackson County for the City to assume maintenance responsibilities for improvements installed on Clay Street in conjunction with the Snowberry Brook Subdivision. 2. Council may reject the agreement to assume maintenance responsibilities on Clay Street. Potential Motions: I. Move to approve the agreement with Jackson County for the City to assume maintenance responsibilities for improvements installed on Clay Street in conjunction with the Snowberry Brook Subdivision; 2. Move to reject the maintenance agreement. Attachments: . Vicinity Maps (2) . Letter of Agreement Page2of2 ri. ., 00 ..... ",z~ o~~ >-....J ~ 1-' ;;.. "T"l .... -..z UrJ)g ~> / ( r:/J f'-<;->.. z>-< ~ ~:i' o~o o>~ ~oCl lJ:i~tJ ~~el. ~Zf'-< lJ:iOr:/J ~>-<:>-< O~<C Z>.....:i r:/J>-<U @Z ;::JO r:/J ",' =- , m Z~ .'!! ::'i - ~~2'~ on :lQO", :1:", .2 ;; .... ~~~'" .!1 0 . B.-file 0 ~~~ 0 on 6~~~ oj on " 0 .c u .5 -i , ~ j c on " i 0 N ,. " l ~ 0 !:! 0 0 Ii .. " u fO. 0 I- CJ) W ..J o Z w r------- /"'" ! W ~..J coO "'z w :1 !! ~ :1 !1 "----.1' j ~ 1.. o. .lS OHVlll^ 0 ~j 'Ji~~'-~~ ~[~ ~~ ~ ~ IU LJ ~ J @~ ~:i "':! W ."..J ...0 "'z w ':El r:: o 'iij 'S: :;; .0 (I) (TI "W 0 (1)(1) 0 "'(I) N Ow 0" eo::: ~ me :::- ~e " ... <( ..., Cl> .0 ~ o r:: (I) ~ i1 ~ 2 o 0 W ~..J ",0 "'z W . . W .....J "'0 "'z w ~ ~ s " " ~ " N " ~ i1 !1 ;: N ;; " W ",..J ",0 "'z W ~!!~;;~ o ",a: ",<( ......J "'..J :;; Sl/wn Alia aNV1HSV' 30lsmo .~ /" ~~ "'0 ;! !1 :1 !! :il~ "'u , ~ March 17, 2010 CITY OF ASHLAND Mike Kuntz PE Jackson County Engineer 200 Antelope Road White City OR 97503 RE: MAINTENANCI; RESPONSIBILITIES ON CLAY STREET Dear Mike: The Snowberry Brook Subdivision currently being constructed in the east side of Clay Street by the Jackson County Housing Authority requires construction of improvements that may not meet Jackson County Standards, particularly the use of bioswales and. parkrows. These improvements do, however, meet City of Ashland Standards and have been approved by both the City Public Works and Community Development Departments. The City of Ashland is prepared to assume full maintenance responsibilities for the section of Olay Street that will be improved under the Snowberry Brook Subdivision development. The improvement area includes the frontage along the following tax lots: 1.391E11CBTaxLot1100 2. 391E 11C Tax Lot 2500 3. 39 1E 11C Tax Lot 2501 4. 39 1E 11C Tax Lot 250i The above four lots comprise approximately 988 feet of frontage on the east side of Clay Street roughly between Dollarhide Way and Dillard Street. If this is acceptable, please sign below and return a copy to me at your earliest opportunity. Sincerely, James H. Olson Engineering Services Manager Accepted by: Date: Engineering 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 5411466.5347 Fax: 541./466.6006 TTY; 600/735-2900 G:\pub-wrks\eng\09.10 Snowberry Brook Developmenl\C_Construction\Correspondance\contrador\Clay St Maintenance Accept Itr to Kuntz 3 1710.doc . CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Resolution Correction Bulk Water Rate Exhibit A Resolution 2010-07 Meeting Date: April 6, 2010 Primary Staff Contact Lee Tuneberg Department Administrative Services E-Mail: tuneberl@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact None Approval: Martha Benne Estimated Time: Consent Question: Will Council approve a scrivener's error correction to Exhibit A of Resolution No. 2010-07 revising rates for water service which was approved at the March 16,2010 Council meeting? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Council adopt the attached resolution with Exhibit A corrections. Background: The Council adopted a Rate Resolution (2010-07) on March 16,2010 increasing water rates by 8%. In Exhibit A the section entitled "Bulk Water Rate" for basic fee "OLD" should be $137.13 and "NEW" should be $148.10. The Exhibit had incorrectly listed last year's Water Rates. Related City Policies: N/A Council Options: I) Adopt the attached rate resolutions 2) Decline to adopt the resolution Potential Motions: Move to adopt the attached rate resolution that corrects the Bulk Water Rate in Exhibit A. Attachments: Resolution Page 1 of I ~.l' RESOLUTION NO. 2010- A RESOLUTION CORRECTING EXHIBIT A FOR WATER SERVICE PURSUANT TO ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 14.04.030 AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 2010-07. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The water rate charges and rates as shown on the water rate schedule attached as Exhibit "A" shall be effective for actual o~ estimated consumption on or after May 1, 2010. Prorated calculations are permitted for any bills prepared for a partial month or billing period that overlaps the effective date of this Resolution. Miscellaneous Charges and Connection Fees established by the previous resolution remain in effect as per the attached until revised by separate Council Action. SECTION 2. Copies of this resolution shall be maintained in the Office of the City Recorder. SECTION 3, Classification of the fee, The fees specified in Section 1 and Section 2 of this resolution are classified as not subject to the limits of Section 11 b of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure 5).- SECTION 4. Resolution 2010-07 is repealed. . ...:.". ," This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this effective date is May 1, 2010 upon signing by the Mayor. day of April, 2010, and the Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of April, 2010. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney Page 1 of 1 CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON EXHIBIT "A" WATER RATE SCHEDULE 8% INCREASE RESOLUTION NO. 2010- PROPOSED MAY 1, 2010 EFFECTIVE METERED SERVICE All water service provided by the City of Ashland will be in accordance with Chapter 14.04 of the Ashland Municipal Code. 1. WATER RATES WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS A. MONTHLY SERVICE CHARGE: The basic service charge applies to all metered water services and does not include any water consumption. 0.75 Inch Meter 1 Inch Meter 1.5 Inch Meter 2 Inch Meter 3 Inch Meter 4 Inch Meter 6 Inch Meter 8 Inch Meter OLD $12.49/month $24.95/month $35.57/month $46.86/month $97.97/month $149.78/month $280.84/month $468.05/month B. WATER QUANTITY CHARGE: NEW $13.49/month $26.95/month $38.42/month $50.61/month $105.81/month $161.76/month $303.31/month $505.49/month All customers will be charged the following rates per cubic feet of water used. SinQle Familv Residential Consumption o to 300 cf per month 301 to 1000 cf per month 1001 to 2500 cf per month Over 2500 cf per month OLD $1.43/ccf $1.76/ccf $2.34/ccf $3.03/ccf Multi-Familv Residential Consumption o to 300 cf per month per unit 301 to 1000 cf per month per unit 1001 to 2500 cf per month per unit Over 2500 cf per month per unit OLD $1.43/ccf $1.76/ccf $2.34/ccf $3.03/ccf EXHIBIT A - PAGE 1 - Effective May 1, 2010 NEW $1.54/ccf $1.90/ccf $2.53/ccf $3.27/ccf NEW $1.54/ccf $1.90/ccf $2.53/ccf $3.27/ccf Non-Residential Consumption o to 50,000 cf per month Over 50,000 cf per month OLD $2.01/ccf $2.07/ccf NEW $2. 17/ccf $2.24/ccf C. TID IRRIGATION WATER RATES: Unmetered Service $99.31/acre or portion of an acre - OLD $1 07.25/acre or portion of an acre -NEW Metered Service Base Service Charge Water Consumption Same as "A" above $0.32/ccf - OLD $0.35/ccf - NEW D. BULK WATER RATE: For water provided on a temporary basis through a bulk meter on a fire hydrant, the following charges apply: Deposit* Basic Fee Cost of Water OLD NEW $1085.95 $1,172.83 $137.13 $148.10 Same as Commercial. *Deposit is refundable less basic fee, cost of water, and any damage to the city meter, valve, wrench, and/or hydrant. \ E. FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE WATER RATE: This rate shall apply to all fire protection services or fire guards. The basic service charge will be equal to the minimum basic service charge. Water will be billed at commercial rates. 2. RATES OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS All rates and charges for water service provided outside the city limits will be 1.5 times the rates for water service provided within the city limits. EXHIBIT A - PAGE 2 - Effective May 1,2010 3. SURCHARGE IRRIGATION RATES - WATER QUANTITY CHARGE All customers will be charged the following rates per cubic feet of water used for the months of June through September. Sinqle Familv Residential ConsumDtion o to 300 cf per month 301 to 1000 cf per month 1001 to 2500 cf per month 2501 to 3600 cf per month Over 3600 cf per month Multi-Familv Residential Consumption o to 300 cf per month per unit 301 to 1000 cf per month per unit 1001 to 2500 cf per month per unit 2501 to 3600 cf per month per unit Over 3600 cf per month per unit EXHIBIT A - PAGE 3 - Effective May 1, 2010 OLD $1 .43/ccf $1.76/ccf $2.34/ccf $3.03/ccf N/A NEW $1.54/ccf $1.90/ccf $2. 53/ccf $3.27/ccf $4.25/ccf OLD $1 .43/ ccf $1.76/ccf $2.34/ccf $3.03/ccf N/A NEW $1.54/ccf $1.90/ccf $2.53/ccf $3.27/ccf $4.25/ccf CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Meeting Date: Department: Secondary Dept.: Approval: Renewal of Ashland Gun Club Lease April 6, 2010 Primary Staff Contact: Public Works E-Mail: Community Devel ent Secondary Contact: Martha Bennet Estimated Time: Michael R. Faught faughtm@ashland.or.us James H. Olson Consent Question: Does the Council wish to authorize the Mayor to sign the second 12-month extension amendment to the 1994 Lease Agreement between the Ashland Gun Club and the City of Ashland extending the lease of real property to the Ashland Gun Club 10 May 30, 2011? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign the second 12-month extension amendment to the 1994 Lease Agreement between the Ashland Gun Club and the City of Ashland. Background: The draft level II Ecological Risk Assessment has been completed. However, the next step is for the Department of Quality Control (DEQ) to review the document which is estimated to take an additional three months. In addition, DEQ may decide to require additional studies ofthe site (Level III and/or Level IV) which could extend the time to complete the project through February or March of2011. To allow adequate time for DEQ review and potential new study requirements, staff is recommending that Council au1horize the Mayor to sign a second 12-months extension of the 1994 Gun Club Lease. Then, based on Council direction, Staff can negotiate a new lease to ensure best practices by the Gun Club or can negotiate a transition plan, if Council wants to use the property for something else. At the February 3, 2009 City Council meeting, Council authorized staff to extend the Gun Club's Lease Agreement up to one year on a month to month basis. The City's legal staff then developed an agreement with the Gun Club (see attached) that extended the 1994 Lease Agreement to May 30, 2010 and included a month to month termination clause by giving 30 days notice. The primary purpose of the one year lease extension was to provide City staff time to conduct a level I and if needed level II (Screening Level) Ecological Risk Assessment. The draft study has been completed by the consultant, Brown and Caldwell, and staff will be presenting the findings of the draft report to the City Council at their AprilS, 2010 City Council Study Session. A summary of the report is as follows: . Emigrant Creek - No chemicals were detected above ODEQ SL Vs or above the upstream sample Creek Sediment - No chemicals were detected above ODEQ SL Vs or above the upstream sample Groundwater - No comple1e exposure pa1hway was identified Skeet Range Soil- Iron exceeded the ODEQ SL Vs for invertebrates and plants Page I of2 . . . rA1 CITY OF ASHLAND . Range Berm Soils - Lead, arsenic, antimony, copper, iron, nickel, tin, and zinc were above default background levels and exceeded ODEQ SL Vs. Lead concentrations will drive decisions about cleaning up the site Iron may be within actual background concentrations for this site and should be evaluated to establish a site background level Lead concentrations exceed the RCRA hazardous waste criteria Some cleanup and disposal of contaminated soil is likely to be required . . . . In addition to the proposed 12-month extension of the 1994 Lease Agreement, staff will also formally inform the gun club that only certified hazardous waste specialists can be used to mine lead in the contaminated areas. In addition to the environmental study, a Management Plan for the Historic and Archaeological Resources plan identifies the property as historic archeological site registered with the State of Oregon which means that the City's current permitted clean fill site on the property can not be used. To that end, City crews will no longer be using the site for that purpose. Related City Policies: None Council Options: I) The City Council could decide to authorize the Mayor to sign the second 12 month extension amendment to the 1994 Lease Agreement between the Ashland Gun Club and the City of Ashland, extending the lease of real property to the Ashland Gun Club to May 30, 20 I I. 2) The City Council could decide to modify ( ) staff's recommendations. 3) The City Council could decide not to extend the Gun Club's Lease Agreement. Potential Motions: I) Move to authorize the Mayor to sign the second 12 month extension Amendment to the 1994 Lease Agreement between the Ashland Gun Club and the City of Ashland extending the lease of real property to the Ashland Gun Club to May 30, 20 I I. 2) Move to modify ( ) staffs recommendation. 3) Move not to extend the Gun Club Lease. Attachments: . Proposed Second Amendment to the 1994 Lease Agreement Between the AsWand Gun Club and 1he City of Ashland. Page 2 of2 r.l1 SECOND AMENDMENT TO 1994 LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASHLAND GUN CLUB AND THE CITY OF ASHLAND THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into between the CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON, by and through the Ashland City Council, hereinafter referred to as Lessor, and the ASHLAND GUN CLUB, INC., hereinafter referred to as Lessee. WHEREAS, the Lessee has formally leased from Lessor, certain City-owned Property for gun club purposes since 1968; and WHEREAS, the current 1994 Lease Agreement will expire May 30, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Lessor and Lessee desire to continue negotiating a new long-term lease that will further the public interest with the inclusion of a lead abatement/cleanup schedule, together with other conditions and restrictions on the use of the city-owned property that will address the concerns of abutting property owners and the City; and WHEREAS, the lease negotiations regarding the new lease may not be complete by May 30, 2010; and WHEREAS, on April 5'h, 2010, the results of the level two environmental assessment will be discussed at a study session before the Ashland City Council; and WHEREAS, the results of the environmental assessment are important to the Council's upcoming decision regarding whether the City should continue to lease the property to the Ashland Gun Club; and WHEREAS, the Council specifically required that this lease extension not serve as an extension of the abatement / cleanup schedule in the proposed lease agreement; NOW THEREFORE, LESSOR AND LESSEE HEREBY AGREE THAT THE 1994 LEASE AGREEMENT IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference; and 2. Lease Extension. The 1994 Lease Agreement termination date as reflected in the body of 1994 Lease Agreement is hereby extended for a period of one year, from May 30, 2010, to May 30,2011; and 3. Month to Month Termination. Notwithstanding any other provision of the 1994 Lease Agreement, the extension granted in paragraph 2 above may be terminated at the option of Lessor by giving 30 days written notice to Lessee if the Lessor determines, at any time, that a long-term lease is not in Lessor's best interest. If this extension is terminated, as provided for herein, Lessor may remove Lessee, and any of Lessee's members or property by legal action or 2009-2010 Ashland Gun Club Lease Extension Page 1 of2 by self-help with the use of reasonable force, without liability for damages, and without having accepting a surrender. 4. Savings. All other provisions of the 1994 Lease Agreement, not inconsistent with the above changes remain in full force and effect. LESSEE: Ashland Gun Club, Inc. Date ORDER Pursuant to ORS 271.360 the City of Ashland hereby approves and authorizes the First Amendment to the 1994 Lease Agreement between the Ashland Gun Club, Inc. and the City of Ashland, as set forth herein. LESSOR: Mayor, City of Ashland Date 2009-2010 Ashland Gun Club Lease Extension Page 2 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication First Reading of Ordinances Adopting Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill and Related Ordinance, Ashland Comprehensive Plan, and Comprehensive Plan and Zonin~ Map Amendments Meeting Date: April 6, 2010 Primary Staff Contact: Bill Molnar Department: Community Development E-Mail: molnarbial.ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: Maria Harris Approval: Martha Bennett Estimated Time: 90 Minutes Question: Should the Council approve the first reading of ordinances adopting Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill and related ordinance, Ashland Comprehensive Plan, and Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map amendments? Staff Recommendation: Staffrecommends approval of the first reading of ordinances adopting Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill and related ordinance, Ashland Comprehensive Plan, and Comprehensive and Zoning Map Amendments. Two options are discussed below: 1) approve first reading of ordinances with amendments recommended by the Planning Commission, and 2) approve first reading of ordinances with further amendments in addition to those recommended by the Planning Commission. Background: The Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan is the outcome of a planning process that took place in 2008. Subsequently on February 17, 2009, the City Council directed staff to work with the Planning Commission to prepare the necessary accompanying Ashland Land Use Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan amendments to implement the redevelopment plan. The Planning Commission proceeded to study and refine the plan, the implementing ordinances and plan amendments over the course often meetings from March through December 2009. Additionally, the Croman Advisory Commission (CAe) met four times in 2009 to review and provide comments to the Planning Commission regarding the implementation strategy for the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan. The Planning Commission completed their work in the beginning of2010 (January 12, February 9 and February 23) by holding a public hearing and making a formal recommendation. Potential Options I. Approve first reading of ordinances with amendments recommended by the Planning Commission. On February 23, 2010, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Croman Mill District implementation package including: I) the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map amendments, 2) the adoption of the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan as a supporting document to the Comprehensive Plan, 3) the addition ofa new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill to the Ashland Municipal Code, 4) the addition of a new Section VIII - Croman Mill District Standards to the Site Design and Use Standards, and 5) the revision of various sections of Chapter 18 to provide consistency with Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill. The Planning Commission recommended Page 1 of6 .~~, CITY OF ASHLAND approval of adopting the Economic Opportunity Analysis as a supporting document to the Comprehensive Plan, Chapter VII, the Economy on October 9,2007. Along with the recommending approval of the ordinance, plan and map amendments, the Planning Commission suggested several revisions which are noted in the February 23,2010 meeting minutes. The amendments suggested by the Planning Commission have been incorporated into the Proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments (attachment 5-Exhibits A, B and C), the Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill (attachment 2-Exhibit A) and the Section VIII - Croman Mill District Standards (attachment 3-Exhibit A). There are three items discussed below - Green Development Standards, East-West Street Alignment Alternative and Parking Management Strategy - which are included in the Planning Commission's recommendation and need further explanation. Addi1ionally, an update on the Transportation Analysis Update is provided. Green Develoument Standards The Planning Commission recommendation included the following revision: "To strongly endorse the Green Development Standards VIII-C-8 through VIII-C-II and ask that the standards are recommendations, but for the Council to look into making these more specific and required standards." The standards have been revised to be more specific, and have been retained as requirements. Standards VIII-C-I through VIII-C-II address potable water reduction for irrigation, solar orientation, building shading, and recycled content in infrastructure. East-West Street Alil!nment Alternative In addition to the specific amendments to the ordinances and maps, the Planning Commission "strongly recommended the East-West street orientation" as shown on the East-West Alignment Alternative map attached to this memo (Attachment 9). The east-west street alignment locates the majority of the street network within 15 degrees of true east-west, whereas the original design is within 45 degrees of true east-west. In general, an east-west street alignment is used in residential development to encourage energy efficiency by creating optimum conditions for the use of passive and active solar strategies. In Staffs research, the primary solar issues for commercial buildings in the Southern Oregon climate are avoiding overheating in the warm months, providing opportunities for allowing day light into buildings and maximizing the roof area available for solar energy devices. The benefit of the east- west street alignment appears to be providing the opportunity to position the short walls of future buildings facing to the east and west so that there is less exposure to the intense summer sun, which thereby reduces overheating. Additionally, the layout of rectangular solar collection devices on building roofs may be more efficient. Compared to the original street network, the east-west street alignment results in more irregularly-shaped block sizes throughout the plan area. Irregularly- shaped blocks result in irregularly shaped parcels ofland which are generally considered less desirable for non-residential development. If the Council chooses the east-west street alignment, Staff recommends reducing the minimum lot size in the Compatible Industrial (CI) zoning overlay from 40,000 to 30,000 square feet. The east- west alignmen1 results in some reduced block sizes, and the reduction in minimum lot size will Page2of6 , ~.1I r_'1 CITY OF ASHLAND allow the smallest blocks in the CI overlay to be divided into two lots. These changes could be incorporated in the plan materials for second reading. Parkine: Manae:ement and Financine: Stratee:v The second item that is related to the amendments to the ordinances and maps before the Council involves the Croman Mill District parking management and financing strategy. The Planning Commission recommended "for the [parking] management plan to consider multi-modal options and the possible phasing of parking requirements." Staff believes the Planning Commission recommendation on this item is a suggestion to include measures to offset motor vehicle parking demand in the parking management and financing strategy for the Croman Mill District. The Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan (December 2008) includes a list of priority projects necessary to implement the plan: adopt the redevelopment plan, create and adopt a Croman Mill District zoning plan, identifY feasibility of creating an urban renewal district, update the City's Transportation System Plan and develop a parking management and financing strategy. Initial parking management strategies are included under Automobile Parking Standard VII-B-3 in Section VIII - Croman Mill District Standards. The parking management and financing strategy would identify needed spaces and potential funding options for the creation of multi-level structured and shared parking in the district. This is an informational item, and no action is required by the Council at this time because the parking management and financing strategy is a potential future project, and is not included in the attached ordinances. Transportation Analvsis Update The transportation analysis for the Croman Mill District is in the process of being updated, and preliminary results are expected in the first week of April. The analysis is being updated to reflect the current "hybrid" industrial/office land use plan, as well as to address the phasing of the central boulevard should the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) maintenance yard remain in place indefinitely, the impacts of a railroad crossing connecting the plan area to Washington Street and the new findings requirements of the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). ODOT submitted a letter on February I, 2010 identifying the need to update the transportation analysis to be consistent with hybrid land use plan, to address the phasing of the central boulevard should the ODOT maintenance yard on Tolman Creek Road remain in place indefinitely and to support findings addressing the TPR. A transportation analysis was completed as part ofthe development of the Croman Mill Site 'Redevelopment Plan in 2008. The project including the transportation analysis was funded and administered by the Transportation and Growth Management (TGM), ajoint program of the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) and ODOT. The TGM project scope of work required a transportation analysis for the redevelopment plan and the four initial land use scenarios including an office scenario and an industrial scenario. However, the redevelopment plan ultimately resulted in a fifth scenario, or a "hybrid" scenario including a mix of industrial and office land uses. The proposed update to the transportation analysis will address the hybrid land use plan that was developed after the initial transportation analysis was completed. Staff does not anticipate major revisions to the Croman Mill District plan materials based on the transportation analysis update. The primary piece of work that is pending the completion ofthe transportation analysis update is including the results in draft findings for a potential decision, and Page) of 6 r~' CITY OF A.SHLAND integrating off-site transportation projects into the City's Transportation System Plan (TSP). Additionally, plan map modifications may be necessary if a railroad connection to Washington Street is added to the street network. Staff believes any necessary revisions to the map could be incorporated in the plan materials for second reading. This is an informational item, and no action is required by the Council at this time because the transportation analysis update is not complete. 2. Approve first reading of ordinances with further amendments in addition to those recommended by the Planning Commission. If the Council feels the Croman Mill District Implementation Plan needs additional adjustment, the Council can direct staff to make further refinements to the various components of the implementation plan. Related City Policies: Ashland Comprehensive Plan - Chapter II: Introductions and Definitions, Chapter III: Citizen Participation, Chapter IV: Environmental Resources, Chapter VII: The Economy, Chapter VIII: Parks, Open Spaces and Aesthetics, Chapter X: Transportation, Chapter XI: Energy, Air and Water Conservation, Chapter XII: Urbanization Chapter 18.108 Procedures Council Options: The Council may approve, approve with modifications, or deny the first reading of ordinances adopting Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill and related ordinance, Ashland Comprehensive Plan, and Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments. Potential Motions: 1. Move to approve first reading of the following ordinances and request that the ordinances be brought back for second reading on May 4,2010. I . Ordinance #1: An Ordinance amending the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan to add a new Croman Mill District designation to Chapter II [Introduction and Definitions] to add the Croman Mill Plan Designation on the adopted Land Use Map Legend and adopt the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan and Economic Opportunities Analysis as support documents to the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan Exhibit A: Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan (December 2008) Exhibit B: City of Ashland: Economic Opportunity Analysis Exhibit C: Comprehensive Plan Map Legend Exhibit D: Comprehensive Plan Appendix A: Technical Reports & Supporting Documents . Ordinance #2: An Ordinance amending the Ashland Land Use Ordinance creating a new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill Exhibit A: Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill . Ordinance #3: An ordinance amending AMC 18.72.080.C Site Design Review Standards to add new Site Design and Use Standards for the Croman Mill District Exhibit A: Section VIII Croman Mill District Standards . Ordinance #4: An ordinance amending AMC 18.08.190, 18.08.341, 18.08.342, 18.08.343, 18.08.845,18.12.020,18.61.042,18.68.020, 18.68.050, 18.72.030, 18.72.110,18.72.120, 18.72.140, 18.72.180, 18.84.100, 18.88.070, 18.88.080, 18.92.020, 18.96.090, 18.104.020, 18.106.030, 18.108.0174 of the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance for consistency with new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill Page 4 of6 ~~, CITY OF ASHLAND . Ordinance #5: An Ordinance amending the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan to change the land use map designation of approximately 99 acres of land within the City of Ashland Urban Growth Boundary from Industrial, Employment, Single-Family Residential and Rural Residential (Jackson County) to the newly created Croman Mill Plan Designation; amending the City of Ashland Zoning and Land Use Control Maps to rezone approximately 78 acres of land within the City Limits from M-I, E-I, and R-I-5 Districts to the newly created Croman Mill Zone; and imposing five Corman Mill Overlay Districts on the Croman mill zoned properties, including Compatible Industrial, CM-CI, Office Employment, CM-OE, Mixed Use, CM-MU, Open Space, CM-OS, Neighborhood Center, CM-NC Exhibit A: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Designation Exhibit B: Proposed Cromim Mill District Zone (CM) Exhibit C: Proposed Zoning Map Changes . Ordinance #5a: An Ordinance Extending the City of Ashland Detail Site Review Zone Exhibit A: Croman Mill District Detail Site Review Update . Ordinance #6: An Ordinance amending AMC Chapter 15 to create LEED Certified Building Priority 2. Move to approve first reading with proposed amendments as noted after each ordinance, and request that the ordinances be br~ught back for second reading on May 4,2010. (see list of ordinances above) Attachments: I. Ordinance #1: An Ordinance amending the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan to add a new Croman Mill District designation to Chapter II [Introduction and Definitions] to add the Croman Mill Plan Designation on the adopted Land Use Map Legend and adopt the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan and Economic Opportunities Analysis as support documents to the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan Exhibit A: Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan (December 2008), can be found on-line at http://ashland.or.us/files/Croman DraftPlan. pdf Exhibit B: City of Ash/and: Economic Opportunity Analysis can be found on-line at http://www.ashland.or.us/files/Ashland EOA 06 27 07.odf Exhibit C: Comprehensive Plan Map Legend Exhibit D: Comprehensive Plan Appendix A: Technical Reports and Supporting Documents 2. Ordinance #2: An Ordinance amending the Ashland Land Use Ordinance creating a new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill Exhibit A: Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill 3. Ordinance #3: An ordinance amending AMC 18.72.080.C Site Design Review Standards to add new Site Design and Use Standards for the Croman Mill District Exhibit A: Section VIII Croman Mill District Standards 4. Ordinance #4: An ordinance amending AMC 18.08.190, 18.08.341, 18.08.342, 18.08.343, 18.08.845, 18.12.020, 18.61.042, 18.68.020, 18.68.050, 18.72.030, 18.72.11 0, 18.72.120, 18.72.140, 18.72.180, 18.84.100, 18.88.070, 18.88.080, 18.92.020, 18.96.090, 18.104.020, 18.106.030, 18.108.0174 of the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance for consistency with new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill Page 5 of6 r~' CITY OF ASHLAND 5. Ordinance #5: An Ordinance amending the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan to change the land use map designation of approximately 99 acres of land within the City of Ashland Urban Growth Boundary from Industrial, Employment, Single-Family Residential and Rural Residential (Jackson County) to the newly created Croman Mill Plan Designation; amending the City of Ashland Zoning and Land Use Control Maps to rezone approximately 78 acres ofland within the City Limits from M-I, E-I, and R-I-5 Districts to the newly created Croman Mill Zone; and imposing five Corman Mill Overlay Districts on the Croman mill zoned properties, including Compatible Industrial, CM-CI, Office Employment, CM-OE, Mixed Use, CM-MU, Open Space, CM-OS, Neighborhood Center, CM-NC Exhibit A: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Designation Exhibit B: Proposed Croman Mill District Zone (CM) Exhibit C: Proposed Zoning Map Changes 6. Ordinance #5a: An Ordinance Extending the City of Ashland Detail Site Review Zone Exhibit A: Croman Mill District Detail Site Review Update 7. Ordinance #6: An Ordinance amending AMC Chapter IS to create LEED Certified Building Priority 8. Planning Commission and Croman Advisory Commission minutes 9. East-West Alignment Alternative Map 10. Record for Planning Action #2009-01292, Croman Mill District Implementation Plan Page 6 of6 ral' ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF ASHLAND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADD A NEW CROMAN MILL DISTRICT DESIGNATION TO CHAPTER II [INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITIONS], TO ADD THE CROMAN MILL PLAN DESIGNATION ON THE ADOPTED LAND USE MAP LEGEND AND ADOPT THE CROMAN MILL SITE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES ANALYSIS AS SUPPORT DOCUMENTS TO THE CITY OF ASHLAND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 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. City of Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefiqhters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above-referenced recommended amendments to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan at a duly advertised public hearing on January 12, 2010 and subsequent public hearing continuance dates, and on February 23, 2010, following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments by a vote of 6-2; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on April 6, 2010 and on subsequent public hearing continuance dates; and . 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 Comprehensive Plan in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are Page 1 of 3 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 City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Chapter II, [INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITIONS] is hereby amended to add the following new Section [CROMAN MILL 2.04.16] and to adopt the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan, as amended, as a supporting document to the City's Comprehensive Plan; former Section 2.04.16 is renumbered [PLAN REVIEW 2.04.17], to read as follows: Pl^N REVIEW (2.04.16) CROMAN MILL PLAN 12.04.16\ The desiqnation is for an employment area that promotes family waQe-jobs and includes industrial and office uses that are compatible and complimentarv. The area also includes neiqhborhood-oriented businesses, mixed-uses. a variety of transportation options and open spaces to encouraQe services and leisure activities within walkinQ distance of the employment center. as well as to encouraQe multi-modal trips within and to and from the area. While the area is primarily dedicated to iob creation and economic development purposes, areas on the perimeter of the plan area allow residential units in mixed-use buildinQs at densities ranQinQ from 15 to 60 dwellinQ units per acre. This area implements the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan 12008\. as amended. PLAN REVIEW 12.04.17\ SECTION 3. The City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to add an Appendix entitled "Technical Reports and Supporting Documents". Previously added support documents are acknowledged on this Appendix. The Appendix is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit D. SECTION 4. The document entitled "The City of Ashland Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan, (2008), as amended," attached hereto as Exhibit A, and made a part hereof by this reference is hereby added to the above-referenced Appendix to support Chapter II, [INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITIONS] the Comprehensive Plan. SECTION 5. The document entitled 'The City of Ashland ,Economic Opportunities Analysis (April 2007)", attached hereto as Exhibit B, and made a part hereof by this Page 2 of 3 reference is hereby added to the above-referenced Appendix to support Chapter VII [ECONOMY] the Comprehensive Plan. SECTION 6. The officially adopted City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map, referenced in Ashland Comprehensive Plan Chapter II [PLAN MAP 2.03.04] is hereby amended to add a new Plan Designation [Croman Mill Plan] to the Comprehensive Plan Map Legend, attached hereto as Exhibit C, and made a part hereof by this reference. 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 Comprehensive Plan 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-Iettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 1, 3-6 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 , 2010, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ,2010. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of ,2010. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney Page 3 of 3 o ~z o~ >-..J ~:I Ur./) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 C: ro ll.. c ro c a. ro .- .~c. .- ::s :2: o .~ ffi E e () .?;- 'w '- Q) .~ c ::> c o C> Q) '- o c '- Q) .c - ::s o if) CI) roo Q) '- <3: c: o. CI) :0:; ~ ro '- ~ ro Q) ll.. CI) >. c: :.'!::: 0 () () "0 :c ro "0 o o s ~~IJ~~ D I. .. - _... . c' __ . __ .'. .c t. o 'Z Q) ~. Q) CI) Q) ,~ .ro -- ro ro ro :+::;. ro :0:; :0:; c. :0:; :0:; c C Q): C c ro Q) Q) :2' Q) Q) :0:; "0 ."0 CI): "0 "0 C CI) CI) Q) CI) CI) Q) Q) Q) ~ Q) Q) "0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 'CI) >. >. Q) ->. ,>. E" >. - ~ ~ E: :=:'. "w CI) ro E 'C c ro c. LL, ro :Q) ro LL Q) ~- LL 0 :C. 0 Q) '- Q) I ::s 3: C> :0:; J::: .0 -0) 0 c: ::s C> ::s c- .....,J if) ~ I if) if) 'f.~'..:~ D ~ I D ~ .'X...1e:...., "':'.:;.1. .t~.~.:-t .;.:~.~~~, 'Q;..t~ 'i~~:,<.', :U;lQ.o:; +oJ ro C.Q) c Q) '- ;;;f .~ ~. ~ ~ ~ t E 3: c..::s ro 8.: iii 8 8 ~ ~ .~. ~ 'I~DI~I E Q,l E -~ ~ :2 ".. Q,l ~ Q,l"" -~ Ill" ~.!!!.Q,l .1::::.~ O:':c: C-.U GJ III J!! 0. ' .... -~ G.l c: .. III -c 0 . ~ ~ .5-'+: -c-8Q,lG "2.0.9 .. -c ~ ~t;;':;_~- c: ~ 0 "C o (/).c c: u~(/)m .'" a-Ill Q,l "E (t1 5 g Q).- G.l OJ,.....n; - .c:=uoo u <(.0 'x (/) .- Q) .!!! ~~~ "d~ ~ .E! ,5 a -g ~ 0.., fil'..e!E ~_....G.l ..::00> c .c ~ '0 ..... := .... o a:l ..::l ~ o ... d '" .- ..... ..... .... ,::l ....:l .... .a C ..D ...... .... U' ::J DO ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE CREATING A NEW CHAPTER 18.53 CROMAN MILL WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the Citv. The City sha!1 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 Firefiqhters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and 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 January 12, 2010 and subsequent public hearing continuance dates, and on February 23,2010, following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments by a vote of 6-2; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on April 6, 2010 and on subsequent public hearing continuance dates; and 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 con~istent 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. Page 1 of 2 Appendix A: Technical Reports and Supporting Documents City of Ashland, Oregon Comprehensive Plan Periodically, the City may choose to conduct studies and prepare technical reports to adopt by reference within the Comprehensive Plan to make available for review by the general public. These studies and reports shall not serve the purpose of creating new city policy, but rather the information, data and findings contained within the documents may constitute part of the basis on which new policies may be formulated or existing policy amended. In addition, adopted studies and reports provide a source of information that may be used to assist the community in the evaluation of local land use decisions. Chapter II, Introduction and Definitions The following reports are adopted by reference as a supporting document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Chapter II, Introduction and Definitions. . 1. Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan (2008) by Ordinance _ on Chapter IV, Environmental Resources The following reports are adopted by reference as a support document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Chapter IV, Environmental Resources. 1. City of Ashland Local Wetland Inventory and Assessment and Riparian Corridor Inventory (2005/2007) by Ordinance 2999 on December 15, 2009. Chapter VII, Economy The following reports are adopted by reference as a support document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Chapter VII, The Economy. 1. City of Ashland: Economic Opportunities Analysis (April 2007) by Ordinance _ on .... SECTION 2. A new Chapter 18.53 of the Ashland Municipal Code creating a new zoning district [CROMAN MILL] set forth in full codified form on the attached Exhibit A and made a part hereof by this reference, is hereby added to the Ashland Municipal Code. 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-Iettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections 1-4) 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 , 2010, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ,2010. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of ,2010. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney Page 2 of 2 CHAPTER 18.53 CM CROMAN MILL SECTIONS: 18.53.010 18.53.020 18.53.030 18.53.040 18.53.050 18.53.060 18.53.070 Purpose General Requirements Croman Mill District Plan Development Standards Use Regulations Dimensional Regulations Croman Mill District Open Space Overlay Applicability of Other Sections of the Land Use Ordinance SECTION 18.53.010 Purpose The purpose of this section is to implement the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan. The district is designed to provide an environmenf suitable for employment, recreation and living. The CM zoning district is a blueprint for promoting family-wage jobs, professional office and manufacturing commerce, neighborhood-oriented businesses, mixed-use projects and community services in a manner that enhances property values by providing transportation options and preserving significant open spaces while minimizing the impact on natural resources through site and building design. SECTION 18.53.020 General Requirements A. Conformance with the Croman Mill District Plan Land uses and development, including buildings, parking areas, streets, bicycle and pedestrian access ways, multi-use paths and open spaces shall be located in . accordance with those shown on the Croman Mill District Plan maps adopted by ordinance num5eri(III1W'itlUV.e1ifj. B. Major and minor amendments to the Croman Mill District Plan shall comply with the following procedures: 1. Major and Minor Amendments. a. Major amendments are those which result in any of the following: (1) A change in the land use overlay. (2) A modification to the street layout plan that necessitates a street or other transportation facility to be eliminated. (3) A change not specifically listed under the major and minor amendment definitions. b. Minor amendments are those which result in any of the following: (1) A change in the Plan layout that requires a street, access way, multi-use path or other transportation facility to be shifted more than 25 feet in any direction, as long as the change maintains the connectivity established by the Croman Mill District Plan. (2) Changes related to street trees, street furniture, fencing or signage. Ch.1B.53 Draft 4.6.10 Pagel (3) A change in the design of a street in a manner inconsistent with the Croman Mill District Standards. (4) A modification of a driveway access location in a manner inconsistent with the Croman Mill District Standards. (5) A site layout, landscaping or building design which is inconsistent with the Croman Mill District Standards. (6) A change In a dimensional standard requirement in section 18.53.060, but not including height and residential density. 2. Major Amendment Type II - Approval Procedure A major amendment to the Croman Mill District Plan is subject to a public hearing and decision under a Type II Procedure. A major amendment may be approved upon the hearing authority finding that: a. The proposed modification maintains the connectivity established by the district plan, or the proposed modification is necessary to adjust to physical constraints evident on the property, or to protect significant natural features such as trees, rock outcroppings, wetlands, or similar natural features, or to adjust to existing property lines between project boundaries; b. The proposed modification furthers the design, circulation and access concepts advocated by the district plan; and c. The proposed modification will not adversely affect the purpose and objectives of the district plan. 3. Minor Amendment Type I Procedure A minor amendment to the Croman Mill District Plan is subject to an administrative decision under the Type I Procedure. Minor amendments shall not be subject to the Administrative Variance from Site Design and Use Standards of Chapter 18.72. A minor amendment may be approved upon finding that granting the approval will result in a development design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose and objectives of the district plan. SECTION 18.53.030 Croman Mill District Plan Development Standards A. Ashland Local Street Standards The design and construction of streets and public improvements shall be in accordance with Ashland's Local Street Standards, except as otherwise permitted for the following facilities within the Croman Mill District: a. Central Boulevard. b. Tolman Creek Road Realignment c. Local Streets d. Protected Bikeway and Pedestrian Path e. Central Bike Path f. Multi-use Path g. Accessways ~ Ch.1B.53 Drafl4.6.10 Page 2 B. Site Design and Use Standards - Croman Mill District New development shall be designed and constructed consistent with Chapter 18.72 Site Design Review, and Section VIII - Croman Mill District Standa,ds of the Site Design and Use Standards. SECTION 18.53.040 Use Regulations A. Generally Uses are permitted, special penmitted or conditional uses in the Croman Mill District as listed in the Land Use Table. Croman Mill District land Use I NC MU OE CI I OS residential uses temporary employee housing [J [J [J [J ~-- ~-=-~--~---_:.=- -:- -- stores, restaurants, and shops less than 3,000 sq.ft., excluding . fuel sales, automobile sales and repair limited stores, restaurants and shops [J [J [J professional, financial, business and medical offices . . [J administrative or research and development establishments . . . child or day care centers . [J [J [J fitness, recreational sports, gym or athletic club . ancillary employee services (e.g. cafeteria, fitness area) [J [J [) kennels.(indoor) and veterinary clinics [J [J motion picture, television or radio broadcasting studios . . . temporary uses 0 0 0 0 0 ~~~---- . --~~-_. manufacturing, assembly, fabrication or packaging including . [J . manufacturing of food products limited manufacturing affiliated with a retail use [J rail freight loading dock facilities . rail or rapid transil passenger facilities . . . . warehouse and similar storage facilities [J [J [J Iimiled. outdoor storage [J [J [J wireless communication facilities attached to an existing 0 0 . . structure pursuant to 18.72.180 freestanding wireless communication support structures 0 0 0 0 pursuant to 18.72.180 Ch.18.53 Dratt4.6.10 Page 3 , [;!llj]ij9Is:ffil~mUi~i'lfi?~ public service or community buildings with office or space used . 0 0 0 . directly by public public service or community buildings w~hout office or space used directly by public public and quasi-public utility facilities enclosed in a building Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) maintenance facility and yard private school, college, trade school, technical school or similar school . electrical substations o o o o o [) [) o [) [) [) [) o o o o o . Permitted Use [I Special Permitted Use o Conditional Use CI = Compatible Industrial OS = Open space NC = Neighborhood Center MU" Mixed Use OE = Office/Employment B. Special Permitted Uses The following uses and their accessory uses are special penmitted uses as listed in the Land Use Table and are subject to the requirements of this section and the requirements of Chapter 18.72, Site Design and Use Standards. 1. Residential Uses. a. The ground fioor area shall be designated for permitted or special permitted uses, excluding residential. b. Residential densities shall not exceed the densities in section 18.53.060. For the purposes of density calculations, units of less than 500 square feet of gross habitable floor area shall count as 0.75 of a unit. c. Residential uses shall execute a hold harmless covenant and agreement stating they shall not protest impacts from commercial and industrial uses within the district. 2. Temporary Employee Housing. Residential units for use by persons employed within the facility and their families when the following standards are met. a. Employee Housing densities shall not exceed two units per acre. For the purposes of density calculations, uniis of less than 500 square feet of gross habitable floor area shall count as 0.75 of a unit. b. The employee housing shall be in conjunction with a permitted or special penmitted use on the property. c. Units shall be restricted by covenant to be occupied by persons employed by a business operating on the property. 3. Limited Stores, Restaurants and Shops. Stores, restaurants and shops, excluding fuel sales, automobile sales and repair, when the following standards are met. a. The maximum floor area dedicated for use as stores, restaurants and shops in a building or a group of associated buildings located on the Ch.IB.53 Draft 4.6.10 Page4 same parcel is a cumulative 1,500 square feet, or ten percent (10%) of the ground floor area, whichever is less. b. In the MU Mixed Use overlay, the floor area shall be limited to retail uses in conjunction with a penmitted use. 4. Professional, Financial, Business and Medical Offices in CI Overlay. Developments in the CI Compatible Industrial overlay may include ancillary office uses to support the operations of a permitted use on-site provided the maximum floor area dedicated for office uses shall not exceed 50 percent of the ground fioor area. . . 5. Child or Day Care Facilities. Child or day care facilities when the following standards are met. a. Primary program activities are integrated into the interior of the building. b. The maximum floor area dedicated to use as a day care facility shall be 1,500 square feet, or ten percent (10%) of the ground floor area, whichever is less. 6. Ancillary Employee Services. Developments may include ancillary employee services such as cafeterias, fitness areas, or other supportive services generally intended to support the needs of employees when the following standards are met. a. The use is integrated into the interior of the building. b. The maximum floor area dedicated to an ancillary employee service use is a cumulative 2,500 square feet, or ten percent (10%) of the ground floor area, whichever is less. c. The ancillary employee services shall be in conjunction with a penmitted or special penmitted use on the property. 7. Kennels. a. Kennels shall be located at least 200 feet from the nearest residential dwelling. b All animals shall be boarded within a building at all times. c. No noise or odor shall emanate outside the walls of the building used as a kennel. d, A disposal management plan shall be provided demonstrating all animal waste will be disposed of in a sanitary manner. 8. Manufacture, Assembly, Fabrication and Packaging in OE Overlay. Developments in the OE Office Employment overlay may include ancillary manufacturing, assembly, fabrication and packaging uses to support the operations of a penmitted or special penmitted use on-site when the following standards are met. a. The maximum floor area dedicated to manufacturing, assembly, fabrication and packaging shall be 50 percent of the 'ground floor area. b. No outside space shall be used for the manufacturing, assembly, fabrication and packaging processes. c. Manufacturing, assembly, fabrication packaging operations requiring an air contaminant discharge penmit from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) shall be prohibited. Ch.18.53 Draft 4.6.10 PageS 9. Limited Manufacturing Affiliated with a Retail Use. Manufacturing, assembly, fabrication or packaging contiguous to and associated with a retail space, provided the maximum floor area dedicated to manufacturing occupies 1,000 sq.ft., or ten percent (10%) of ground floor area, whichever is less. 10. Warehouse and Similar Storage Facilities. a. The maximum floor area dedicated for use as warehouse or similar storage uses in the OE and MU overlays shall be 50 percent of the ground floor area. b. Warehouse and storage facilities shall be provided only in conjunction with, and for the exclusive use by, a penmitted or special permitted use on the property. c. Self-service mini-warehouses are prohibited. d. No outside space shall be used for storage, unless approved as a limited outdoor storage area. 11. Limited Outdoor Storage. Limited outdoor storage associated with a penmitted or special permitted use. when the following standards are met. a. The maximum area dedicated to outdoor storage shall be 1,000 sq. ft. in the OE and MU overlay; and 2,500 sq. ft. in the CI. overlay, or 50 percent of the ground floor area of the building housing the associated penmitted or special penmitted use, whichever is less. b. The outdoor storage shall be located behind or on the side of buildings, and shall be located so the outdoor storage is the least visible from the street that is reasonable given the layout of the site. c. The outdoor storage shall be screened from view by placement of a solid wood or metal fence, or a masonry wall from five to eight feet in height. All outdoor storage materials shall be contained within the refuse area. d. The associated permitted use shall obtain a minimum of 50% of the employment density targets for the Croman Mill District. 12. Public and Quasi-Public Utility Service Buildings. a. Facilities and structures that are accessory to a public park in the OS overlay, including but not limited to maintenance equipment storage, enclosed picnic facilities, and restrooms. b. Public and Quasi-Public utility service building relating to receiving and transmitting antennas and communication towers are subject to the applicable provisions of 18.72.180. c. Public and Quasi-Public utility service building shall demonstrate: i. The need for the facility, present or future; and how the facility fits into the utility's Master Plan. ii. The facility utilizes the minimum area required for the present and anticipated expansion. iii. Compatibility of the facility with existing surrounding uses and uses allowed by the plan designation. Ch.18.53 Draft4.6.10 Page6 13. Oregon Department of Transportation Maintenance Facility and Storage Yard For the Oregon Department of Transportation Ashland maintenance facility and storage yard located on property within the NC overlay the following shall apply. a. Buildings may be enlarged or replaced subject to Basic Site Review Standards. b. Are exempt from the Dimensional Regulations per 18.53.050 with the exception of minimum side and rear yard setbacks abutting a residential district and maximum height. c. Are exempt from the requirements of Section VIII Croman Mill District Standards of the Ashiand Site Design and Use Standards. SECTION 18.53.050 Dimensional Regulations The lot and building design requirements are established in each zoning district regulation in the Dimensional Standards Table. : L:olSize: , minimum, s uare feet Franta e . minimum, feet t:ot Width .- minimum, feet Y...rd Abilllin "a Street minimum ard, feet maximum yard abutting a street, fee Slde',Y...rd Abilllin .... Residential District minimum, feet Re...d Yard 'Abullin ... Residential District minimum er sto ,feet ,Laiidsc"a iri ',Covera e minimum ercenta e covera e Heiht minimum number of stories maximum hel ht without bonus, stories/feet maximum hei ht with bonus, stories/feet Solar Acc-ess '. 20,000 100 40,000 100 50 100 100 10 10 10 15 15 15 10 2 2.5/35 4/50 2 3/40 4/50 2 3/40 5/75 2 3/40 5/75 1/20 The solar access setback in Chapter 18.70 Solar Access does not a I in the Croman Mill District. 1 Minimum yard in CI Overlay abutting an Active Edge Street is two feet, minimum yard in CI Overlay not abutting an Active Edge Street is ten feet 2 Maximum yard requirements shall not apply to entry features such as alcoves, and to hardscape areas for redestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating areas. Second story shall be a minimum of 20% of the gross floor area. 4 Solar energy systems and parapets may be erected up to five feet above the calculated building height, and no greater than five feet above the height limited specified by the district. S Solar energy systems and parapets may be erected up to five feet above the calculated building height, and no greater than five feet above the height limited specified by the district. Ch.18.53 Draft 4.6.10 Page 7 I 'Ii. Frontace Build Out an Active Edc'eStreet. ,. . .. minimum, nercent 65 65 65 65 --- Flccr Are'a RaticlFARl" minimum 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.50 ---. Residential DensW , I maximum units~er acre without bonus 30 15 .---- ----- ---- maximum units ner acre with bonus 60 30 SECTION 18.53.060 Croman Mill District Open Space Overlay All projects containing land identified on the Croman Mill District Land Use Overlays Map as open space shall dedicate those areas as commonly-owned or public open space. It is recognized that the master planning of the properties as part of the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan imparted significant value to the land, and the required dedication of those lands within the Croman Mill district for open space and conservation purposes is proportional to the value bestowed upon the property through the change in zoning designation. SECTION 18.53.070 Applicability of Other Sections of the Land Use Ordinance Development located within the Croman Mill (CM) zoning district shall be required to meet all other applicable sections of the Land Use Ordinance, except as otherwise provided in this Chapter. 8 Plazas -and pedestrian areas shall count as floor area for the purposes of meeting the minimum Floor Area Ration (FAR). 7 Density of the development shall not exceed the density established by this standard. Density shall be computed by dividing the total number of dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the public. Fractional portions shall not apply toward the total density. . Ch.1B.53 Draft4.6.10 Page 8 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC 18.72.080.C SITE DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS TO ADD NEW SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS FOR THE CROMAN MILL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City ~harter 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 FirefiQhteis. Local 1660. Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and 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 January 12, 2010 and subsequent public hearing continuance dates, and on February 23,2010, following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments by a vote of 6-2; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on April 6, 2010 and on subsequent public hearing continuance dates; and 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. Page 1 of 2 SECTION 2. The Ashland Site Design and Use Standards authorized in Section 18.72.080.C, are hereby amended to add a new Subsection VIII [CROMAN MILL DISTRICT STANDARDS] and is set forth in full codified form on the attached Exhibit A and made a part hereof by this reference, and said section is hereby added to the Ashland Municipal Code. 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-Iettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections 1-4) 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 , 2010, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ,2010. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of ,2010. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney Page 2 of 2 SECTION VIII Craman Mill District Standards Adopted by the Ashland City Council aalEi Ordinance 'fflf!!. - A. Street Standards VIII-A-1 Street Desian The design and construction of streets and public improvements shall be in accordance with the Ashland Street Standards, except as otherwise required for the following facilities within the Croman Mill District. A change in the design of a street in a manner inconsistent with the Croman Mill District Street Design Standards requires a minor amendment in accordance with Section 18.53.020.B. 1. Central Boulevard The tree-lined' boulevards along Siskiyou Boulevard and Ashland Street are an easily identifiable feature of Ashland's boulevard network. Application of this street design to the Central Boulevard will create a seamless boulevard loop, linking the Croman Mill district with downtown Ashland. The Central Boulevard also serves as the front door to the Croman Mill district, creating a positive first impression when entering the district. MecliaIWTum LMw TT=-- - -- -r ! '+~r'+"'-+-07-+.".+.t'.+. IS W ~ .. Central Boulevard 2. Phased Street Plan Build-out of the Central Boulevard can be accommodated through a phased development plan. a. Phase I implementation will require: i. Maintain the existing Mistletoe Road alignment from Tolman Creek Road to the northwest comer of the Croman Mill site. ii. Include developer-constructed minor improvements to the existing portion of Mistletoe Road such as a minimum six-foot wide sidewalk on the north side of ~A' Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 4.6.10 1 the street, two 11-foot travel lanes and the addition of a left-turn pocket at the intersection with Tolman Creek Road. iii. A developer -constructed three-lane Central Boulevard from the northwest corner of the district to Siskiyou Boulevard. b. Phase II implementation will require: i. The realignment of Tolman Creek Road and construction of the second phase of the central boulevard is contingent upon future sale and relocation of the existing ODOT maintenance yard. ii. Consideration of realignment of Grizzly Drive and Tolman Creek Road. iii. Acquisition of right-of-way or negotiating dedicated easements necessary to accommodate Phase II roadway. iv. Vacating a portion of City-owned property. v. Options addressing the final street configuration and intersection geometry will be evaluated with the final Phase II design of the northwest section of the Central Boulevard. ~A' Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 4.6.10 2 3. Tolman Creek Road Realignment Additional traffic will be generated by the redevelopment of the Croman Mill district. The realignment of Tolman Creek Road with the Central Boulevard will discourage non-local through traffic in the Tolman Creek neighborhood and in the Bellview School area. The modifications to the street network will preserve neighborhood character and address impacts to the neighborhood by directing traffic away from the neighborhood and Bellview School, and toward the Croman Mill district while maintaining access to Tolman Creek Road for neighborhood- generated trips. Key elements of the realigned Tolman Creek Road include: a. Two through traffic lanes and a northbound turn lane. b. New traffic signal. c. Bike lanes. d. Sidewalks separated from auto traffic by landscaping and canopy trees. e. Landscaped neighborhood gateway. f. Evaluation of the intersection alignment of local streets with Tolman Creek Road including Takelma Way, Grizzly Drive and Nova Drive. .~ Tolman Creek Road Realignment ~A' Neighborhood Center end Tolman Creek Road Realignment Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 4.6.10 3 4. Local Commercial Streets Local Commercial Streets provide district circulation to and from employment uses, the Central Park and the neighborhood center. Sldowa~ Trovellone j i11"13't r-s' +10'.11'+10'.11'+ r-s' t11,.13't +- 38'~.cu~t~~ --+- I Local Commercial Street 5. Protected Bike Lane The protected bike lane runs parallel to the Central Boulevard and connects with the City's existing Central Bike Path in two locations - adjacent to the Central Park and at the neighborhood center. a. A grade-separated two-way colored bicycle lane buffered from on-street parking by landscaping. b. A sidewalk separated from the bicycle lane by striping, bollard, grade separation or other treatments. c. Tabled intersections. d. Elimination of auto right turns on red at intersections. e. Incorporate rumble strips along the bike lane at the approaches to all intersections. f. Signage, lighting or other treatments to alert drivers, pedestrians and riders approaching intersections. g. Consideration of a bikes-only signal phase at signalized intersections. The design of the protected bike lane should include the following elements: ~A' Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 4.6.10 . , . ';-? I~-:'- !j'Sc"? --"'". > .. 1,-.-. . ~/-. :) ~' t ~-I;. - ~~\ _, ":l';'r, J~IF. '\. ...... " '~ :::'],':)', y .~.-: ); ,.. ".~ _'.:.1 'i' -' ~" ,III . . .'~ ..,,,, . , ,. ';' / / 4 Parkrow Sidewalk . Optional Parallel Parking t Travel Lone 8' Por1crow Required When "loading Zone is Not Provided Optional Parallel Parking t Protected Sidewalk Bike lone j -t' +]' t]' + 10' + 10' + 7' 13' --+-- 34' mox. curb-to-curb 7' -+-10'-+6't 23'----+ Local Commercial Street with Protected Bike Lane 6. Multi-use Paths The mutti-use paths provide pedestrian and bicycle connections between the district and adjacent neighborhood, employment and commercial areas, The plan includes the extension of the Central Bike Path and the establishment of the Hamilton Creek Greenway trail. The Central Bike Path extends the existing multi-use path along the southem edge of the CORP rail line within a 20-foot wide dedicated easement, and serves as a viable commuter route and link to the downtown. The Hamitton Creek Greenway trail provides access to the neighborhood center and an eastlwest connection across the creek. ; tR~,. ~ ' 1=.:::......:'1' ~'cy,.,~~,lf.. ~~ /'~\,',' : / ;...,t '" \,' :1..' ~'\ ::-:J'\ ) \),0',", ~\ ':;'i .// ,0/',(;)^,,- , '~ !'~l -l(OV"<:<J ~,r.-,~Q:>QUOV~' ~,l,: ,~' ',-,', '\'" -: ' "J ' ~_ , '. ~ ,:;~ ,.~,' rt"-J r-::-l I' f +..=-:-:~~~" . " !I LLJ' . i'f~ ~,~ /, '/f7~:, }< L,; 'Wlj( ~:/ J),:'J '~"~h~";; ~A' Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 4.6.10 !=::.~ Multi-Use Path 5 ;;"(j;~<)~: I~":'=I' /'"V, , '. L:. c/' ~,~C :: :,cl,-.::~_~' 'II"~ '. I \\~' ~-,~!,- ;-'~,j ',~, ' , I .,~,~ ~r- ,I, , ~ !c~7',C)t~O'CG" :~\~ .'-I,~..:;j;"'. -_,' ,'\ ",'""../ 'UOC '\ .",1. '-.'\'1 - '\ Jf"],2;d;:,r--.::. '", Je" '\'-.VA ~ ;:1,' 1 r,~0"'(u)''Gj, , " J /";' '::' /'=l -[ ~L'J8'':: .LJ " z..~ I., " ,.------ 'I': .,,'~: ," n L...=' , ~,,.-J .,~ {k , ~- , .~; -- .. :,,1," j ," ,:-:.I' / ,/. ".. , y~. '~/'! , :",,1 ' '~'~"" 1"-- - ;"~ ,,-'" '. , 1/>,: \, J...~ ,,~.,f" /> R.O.W. Multi.Use Una Sidewalk Path Central Bike Path 8'Pol1crow Required When loading Zone Is Not ProvIded Sidewalk Multi-tJse Path P<>'<row Sidewalk ~ . 6' + 7' t r + 10' + 10' -+- 7' t 7' tt.'-+-IO' 13' +- 34'max.curb-t~urb --+ r-+---2O' 62'.72' R,Q,W. Central Bike Path at Accessway ~A' Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 4.6.10 6 7. Accessways The accessways are intended to balance circulation needs of pedestrians, bicycles and vehicular access, and to preserve the grid that encourages development of a form that is of human scale and proportion. The accessways would connect the Central Boulevard to the Central Bike Path and allow for shared bicycle,' travel lanes, optional on-street parking, and temporary loading zones as necessary to serve development sites. c,.......Disttkt .....,.-..l ~ r.'.. -1_,. ~;'l ."t~. .. . P' L~~ $hooldoo B;.Dro,ctional MtAII-Ulopcrh Planting '"" t # t COnc:rele 01 comparable MOCO (not ospOOlll I I r L t I .,/5'108\..........-16. ---FU-StOB'J" 'j II II -.f- 3O'lo3S'ffiO)(. - . Accessway: Multi-Use Path Option Sidewalk Optional Shared Bicycle Parking ar and Auto ~~ ~1- Optianal Parking or loading Zone Tree Weill Planting Strip with 6' sidewalk t 13' t 7' +-10'+10'-+ 7' t 13' t -t--- 34' max. curb-Io-curb -----+ Ac:cessway: Full Street Option ~A' Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 4.6.10 7 VIII-A-2 Limited Auto Access Streets Developments abutting the Central Boulevard and the Central Park shall not have curb cuts. through the sidewalk and the protected bike lane on the Limited Auto Access Streets as indicated on the Limited Access Streets map. A modification of a driveway access location in a manner inconsistent with the Croman Mill District Standards requires a minor amendment in accordance with Section 18.53.020.B. VIII-A-3 Access 1. Street and driveway access points in the Croman overlay zones shall be limited to the following. a. Distance Between Driveways, On Collector Streets - 75 feet On Local Streets and Accessways - 50 feet b. Distance from Intersections On Collector Streets - 50 feet On Local Streets and Accessways - 35 feet 2. Shared Access. All lots shall provide a shared driveway aisle to abutting parking areas that is at least 20 feet in width. The applicant shall grant a common access easement across the lot. 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. VIII-A-4 ReQuired On-Street Parkina On-street parallel parking shall be provided along the Central Boulevard and local streets as indicated on the Required On-Street Parking map. Angled parking and loading zones are prohibited on these streets. ~A' Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 4.6.10 .,0." ~?; .: 8 B. Design Standards The Croman Mill District Design Standards provide specific requirements for the physical orientation, uses and arrangement of buildings; the management of parking; and access to development parcels. Development located in the Croman Mill District shall be designed and constructed consistent with the following Design Standards. Additional design standards apply and are specified for developments located adjacent to an Active Edge Street, or that are located within the NC, MU and OE overlay zones. A site layout, landscaping or building design in a manner inconsistent with the Croman Mill District Design Standards requires a minor amendment in accordance with Section 18.53.020.B. VIII-B-1 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, All front doors must face streets and walkways. Where buildings are located on a corner lot, the entrance shall be oriented toward the higher order street or to the lot corner at the intersection of the streets. Buildings shall be located as close to the intersection corner as practicable. Public sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to a public street along the street frontage. 2. Building entrances shall be located within ten 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 where this standard is met by other buildings, The entrance shall be designed to be clearly visible, functional and shall be open to the public during all business hours. 3. Automobile circulation or parking shall not be allowed between the building and the right- of-way. 4. These requirements may be waived if the building is not along an Active Edge Street and is not accessed by pedestrians, such as warehouses and industrial buildings without attached offices. 5. Buildings shall incorporate lighting and changes in mass, surface or finish giving emphasis to entrances, Additional Orientation and Scale Standards for Developments Adjacent to Active Edge Streets, or Within NC, MU and OE Overlays: 6. Building frontages greater than 100 feet in length shall have offsets, jogs or have other distinctive changes in the building fayade. 7. Buildings shall incorporate arcades, roofs, alcoves, porticoes and awnings that protect pedestrians from the rain and sun. 8. Buildings shall incorporate display areas, windows and doorways as follows. Windows must allow view into working areas or lobbies, pedestrian entrances or displays areas. Blank walls within 30 feet of the street are prohibited. a. For Buildings Within the NC, MU and OE Overlays and Not Adjacent to an Active Edge Street. 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. Up to 40% of the length of the building perimeter can be exempted for this standard if oriented toward loading or service areas. ~A' Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 4.6.10 9 b. For Buildings Adjacent to Active Edge Streets. At least 50% of the first-floor fac;:ade is comprised of transparent openings (clear glass) between three and eight feet above grade. VIII-B-2 ParkinQ Areas and On-site Circulation 1. 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 11-0 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. 5. Protected raised walkways shall be installed through parking areas of 50 or more spaces or more than 100 feet in average width or depth. 6. Parking lots with 50 spaces or more shall be divided into separate areas and divided by landscaped areas or walkways at least ten feet in width, or by a building or group of buildings. 7. Developments of one acre or more must provide a pedestrian and bicycle circulation plan for the site. On-site pedestrian walkways must be lighted to a level where the system can be used at night by employees, residents and customers, Pedestrian walkways shall be directly linked to entrances and to the internal circulation of the building. VIII-B-3 Automobile ParkinQ 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 11-0 Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards of the Site Design and Use Standards. 1, Credit for Automobile Parking. The amount of required off-street parking shall be reduced by not more than 50%, through application of the following credits. a. On-Street Credit: One off-street parking space credit for every on-street space. b. TOM Plan Credit: Through implementation of an individual Transportation Demand Management (TOM) plan that demonstrates a reduction of long term parking demand by a percentage equal to the credit requested, c. Mixed Use Credit: Through a mixed-use parking arrangement that demonstrates the peak parking demands are offset. The credit shall reduce the off-street parking requirement by a percentage equal to the offset in parking demand. d. Shared Parking Credit: One off-street parking space credit for every space constructed in designated off-site shared parking areas, or through payment of in- ~A' Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 4.6.10 10 lieu-of-parking fees for a common parking structure(s) upon establishment of a parking management strategy for the Croman Mill District. 2. 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(1). VIII-B-4 Streetscape 1. 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. Street trees shall meet the Street Tree Standards in Section II-E of the Site Design and Use Standards. Additional Streetscape Standards for Developments Adjacent to Active Edge Streets, or Within Ne, MU and OE Overlays: 2. Hardscape (paving material) shall be utilized to designate "people" areas. Sample materials could be unit masonry, scored and colored concrete, pavers or combinations of the above, 3. A building shall be setback not more than ten feet from a public sidewalk unless the area is used for pedestrian entries such as alcoves, or for pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating areas. This standard shall apply to both street frontages on corner lots. If more than one structure is proposed for a site, at least 65% of the aggregate building frontage shall be within ten feet of the sidewalk. VIII-B-5 Building Materials 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. VIII-B-6 Building Height Requirements All buildings shall have a minimum height as indicated in the Building Height Requirements Map and Dimensional Standards Table, and shall not exceed the maximum height except as provided for a performance standard bonus. 1. Street Wall Height: Maximum street wall fa~de height for the Croman Mill district for all structures located outside the Residential Buffer Zone is 50 feet. 2. Upper-floor Setback: Buildings taller than 50 feet must step back upper stories, beginning with the fourth story, by at least six feet measured from the fa~de of the street wall facing the street, alleyway, public park or open space. 3, Residential Buffer Zone: All buildings in the Croman Mill District within the Residential Buffer Zone shall meet the following height standards: a, Maximum Height: The maximum height allowance for all structures within the Residential Buffer ~A' Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 4.6.10 11 Zone is 35 feet in the NC overlay and 40 feet in the MU, b. Upper Floor Setback Requirements: Buildings taller than two stories must step back the third story by at least six feet measured from the fayade facing the street, alleyway, public park or open space. 4. Architectural Standards for Large Scale Buildings Located Adjacent to Active Edge Streets, or Within NC, MU and OE Overlays: The following architectural standards will apply to all buildings with a gross floor area greater than 10,000 square feet, a fayade length in excess of 100 feet or a height taller than 45 feet. a. On upper floors use windows and/or architectural features that provide interest on all four sides of the building. b. Use recesses and projections to visually divide building surfaces into smaller scale elements. c. Use color or materials to visually reduce the size, bulk and scale of the building. d. 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 pattem of divisions on surfaces, windows, trees and small scale lighting. e, On-site circulation systems shall incorporate a streetscape which includes curbs, sidewalks, pedestrian scale light standards and street trees, VIII-B-7 Landscapina 1. Efforts shall be made to save as many existing healthy trees and shrubs on the site as possible. 2. Landscaping design shall utilize a variety of low water use deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and flowering plant species as described in the mandatory policies in Section 111- Water Conserving Landscaping Guidelines and Policies, 3. For developments in the CI Overlay and not adjacent to an Active Edge Street, buildings adjacent to streets shall be buffered by landscaped areas at least ten feet in width, unless the area is used for entry features such as alcoves or as hardscape areas for pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating areas. 4. Loading facilities shall be screened and buffered when adjacent to residentially zoned land. 5. Landscaping shall be designed so that 50% coverage occurs after one year and 90% coverage occurs after fIVe years. 6. Irrigation systems shall be installed to assure landscaping success. VIII-B-8 Liahtina lighting shall include adequate lights that are scaled for pedestrians by including light standards or placements of no greater than 14 feet in height along pedestrian pathways, VIII-B-9 Screenina Mechanical Eauipment 1. Screen rooftop mechanical equipment from public rights-of-way or adjacent residentially zoned property through extended parapets or other roof forms that are integrated into the overall composition of the building, Screen ground floor mechanical equipment from public rights-of-way or adjacent residentially zoned property. 2. Parapets may be erected up to five feet above the calculated building height, and shall be no greater than five feet above the height limit specified in the district in accordance with the Dimensional Standards Table in Section 18.53.050. ~A' Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 4.6.10 12 3. Solar energy systems are exempt from this standard. Additionally, rooftop solar energy systems may be erected up to five feet above the calculated bui)ding height, and shall be no greater than five feet above the height limit specified in the district in accordance with the Dimensional Standards Table in Section 18.53,050. 4. Installation of mechanical equipment requires Site Review approval unless otherwise exempted per Section 18.72.030.B.3. VIII-B-10 Transit Facilities Standards The location of planned transit routes within the Croman Mill District shall be defined according to the Croman Mill District Transit Framework map in collaboration with the local transit authority. Transit service facilities such as planned bus rapid transit facilities, shelters and pullouts shall be integrated into the development application consistent with the following standards. 1. All Large Scale development located on an existing or planned transit route shall accommodate a transit stop and other associated transit facilities unless the Director of Community Development determines that adequate transit facilities already exist to serve the needs of the development; or 2. Provide the City with a bond or other suitable collateral ensuring satisfactory completion of the transit facilities at the time transit service is provided to the development. Suitable collateral may be in the form of security interest, letters of credit, certificates of deposit, cash bonds, bonds or other suitable collateral as determined by the City Administrator, , ,:--~:. "j:;, ~F~~ _~~ ~_ .1..--__ - l)-~._ YJr~....__ VIII-B-11 Freight Rail Spur Easement - Compatible Industrial/CIl 1. A Rail Spur easement a minimum of 500 feet in length by 25 feet in width shall be set aside at the approximate location presented on the Croman Mill District Transit Framework Map. 2. No buildings or permanent structures can be established within the spur easement so not to preclude installation of a rail spur for freight loading and unloading. 3. Buildings adjacent to the reserve strip shall be designed and configured to permit loading and unloading. ~A' Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 4.6.10 ,/ 13 VIII-B-12 Commuter Rail Platform Easement - Neiahborhood CommerciallNC\ 1. A Commuter Rail Platform easement or designated rail road right-of-way a minimum of 400 feet in length and 25 feet in width shall be set aside at the approximate location presented on the Croman Mill District Transit Plan Map. 2. No buildings or permanent structures can be established within the platform easement so as not to preclude installation of a commuter rail platform or planned bus rapid transit facility for loading and unloading. 3. Buildings adjacent to the reserve strip shall be designed and configured to permit loading and unloading. VIII-B-13 Open Spaces 1. Central Park. The purpose of the Central Park is to serve as a public amenity and accommodate the daily needs of employees (e.g. breaks, lunch time) as well as for special events that will attract residents citywide. The Central Park design shall provide a minimum of the following elements. a, Circulation through and around the park. b. A centrally located hardscape area to accommodate large gatherings, and of no more than 50% of the total park area. c, Street furniture, including lighting, benches, low walls and trash receptacles along walkways and the park perimeter. d. Simple and durable materials. e. Trees and landscaping that provide visual interest with a diversity of plant materials. f. Irregular placement of large-canopy trees within passive areas adjacent to the Central Boulevard. g. Eight-foot minimum sidewalk width and seven-foot minimum parkrow width. h. Landscaped swales to capture and treat runoff, i. Porous solid surfacing for at least 50% of the hardscape area, and paving materials that reduce heat absorption (Solar Reflective Index (SRI) of at least 29). J:i ~A' Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 4.6,10 14 2. Transit Plaza. A location for the transit plaza shall be reserved between the commuter rail platform and commercial uses along the Central Boulevard. The design of the plaza shall include the following elements. a. A passenger waiting, loading and unloading area. b. Outdoor gathering space adjacent to commercial uses. c. Accommodate the central bike path. d, Conveniently located and secure bike parking. Transit Plaza VIII-B-14 ComDact DeveloDment The site layout is compact, and enables future intensification of development and changes to land use over time. The following measures shall- be used to demonstrate compliance with this standard. 1. The development achieves the required minimum floor area ratio (FAR) and minimum number of stories, or shall provide a shadow plan that demonstrat~s how development may be intensified over time for more efficient use of land and to meet the required (FAR) and minimum number of stories; and 2. Opportunities for shared parking are utilized. ~A' Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 4.6.10 15 C. Green Development Standards The Croman Mill District Green Development Standards provide specific requirements for the management of stormwater run-off, use and collection of recycled materials, solar orientation and building shading, and conserving natural areas. Development located in the Croman Mill' District shall be designed and constructed consistent with the following Green Development Standards. A site layout, landscaping or building design in a manner inconsistent with the Croman Mill District Green Development Standards requires a minor amendment in accordance with Section 18.53.020.8. VIII-C-1 Conserve Natural Areas Preserve water quality, natural hydrology and habitat, and preserve biodiversity through protection of streams and wetlands. In addition to the requirements of Chapter 18.63 Water Resources, conserving natural water systems shall be considered in the site design through application of the following standards. 1. Designated stream and wetland protection areas shall be considered positive design elements and incorporated in the overall design of a given project. 2. Native riparian plant materials shall be planted in and adjacent to the creek to enhance habitat. 3, Create a long-term management plan for on-site wetlands, streams, associated habitats and their buffers. VIII-C-2 Create Diverse Neiahborhoods Use the following measures to encourage diversity in the district by providing a balanced range of housing types that compliment a variety of land uses and employment opportunities. 1. Differentiate units by size and number of bedrooms. 2. For developments including more than four dwelling units, at least 25% .of the total units shall be designated as rental units, 3. Affordable purchase housing provided in accordance with the standards established by Resolution 2006-13 for households earning at or below 80% of the area median income shall apply"toward the required percentage of rental housing per VIII-C-2(2), 4, Units designated as market rate or affordable rental units shall be retained as one condominium tract under one ownership. VIII-C-3 Desian Green Streets Green Streets are public streets that have been buitt or retrofitted to include landscape areas that increase stormwater infiltration, reduce and slow the rate of runoff, and use bio- filtration to remove pollutants. 1. New streets shall be developed to capture and treat stormwater in a manner consistent with the Croman Mill District Stormwater Management Plan Map, the City of Ashland Stormwater Master Plan and Ashland Green Streets Standards. 2. All development served by planned Green Streets as designated on the Croman Mill District Green Street Map shall accommodate said facilities by including the same in the development plan; and/or . ~A' Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 4.6.10 16 3. Provide the City with a bond or other suitable collateral ensuring satisfactory completion of the Green Street(s) at the time full street network improvements are provided to serve the development. Suitable collateral may be in the form of security interest, letters of credit, certificates of deposit, cash bonds, bonds or other suitable collateral as determined by the City Administrator. J .-, d.. ~ T -r=-- - ...-, Pfole<;IedSldowol< PT I - '~1.+"-+-:-+,,,+.t':+. .. Green Streets VIII-C-4 Desian Green Surface Parkina Parking areas shall be designed to minimize the adverse environmental and microclimatic impacts of surface parking through design and material selection. All parking areas shall 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 11-0 Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards of the Site Design and Use Standards. 1. Use a maximum of 25% of the project area for surface parking. 2. Use at least one of the following strategies for the surface parking area, or put 50% of parking underground. a. Use light coloredlhigh albedo 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. b. 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. c. Provide at least 50% shade from tree canopy over the surface lot within five years of project occupancy. VIII-C-5 Manaae 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. ~A' Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 4.6,10 17 I 1. Design grading and site plans to capture and slow runoff. 2. Design parking lots and other hard surface areas in a way that captures and treats runoff with landscaped medians and swales. 3. Use pervious or semi-pervious surfaces that allow water to infiltrate the soil. 4, Direct discharge storm water runoff into a designated green street and neighborhood storm water treatment facilities. 5. Retain rainfall on-site through infiltration, evapotranspiration or through capture and reuse techniques. VIII-C-8 RecyclinQ Areas All developments in the Croman Mill District shall provide an opportunity-to-recycle site for use of the project occupants. 1. Commercial. Commercial developments having a solid waste receptacle shall provide a site of equal or greater size adjacent to or with access comparable to the solid waste receptacle to accommodate materials collected by the local solid waste franchisee under its on-route collection program for purposes of recycling, Both the opportunity-to-recycle site and the common solid waste receptacle shall be screened by fencing or landscaping such as to limit the view from adjacent properties or public rights-of-way. 2. Residential. All newly constructed residential units, either as part of an existing development or as a new development, shall provide an opportunity-to-recycle site in accord with the following standards. a. Residential developments not sharing a common solid waste receptacle shall provide an individual curbside recycling container for each dwelling unit in the development. b. Residential developments sharing a common solid waste receptacle shall provide a site of equal or greater size adjacent to or with access comparable to the common solid waste receptacle to accommodate materials collected by the local solid waste franchisee under its residential on-route collection program for purposes of recycling. Both the opportunity-to-recycle site and the common solid waste receptacle shall be screened by fencing or landscaping such as to limit the view from adjacent properties or public rights-of-way. 3. Screening refuse and recycle areas. Refuse and recycle areas shall be screened from view by placement of a solid wood, metal, or masonry wall from five to eight feet in height. All refuse and recycle materials shall be contained within the refuse area. VIII-C-7 Minimize Construction Impacts Minimize pollution and waste generation resulting from construction activity through the following measures. 1. Construction Activity Pollution Prevention, Develop and implement an erosion and sediment control plan to reduce pollution from construction activities by controlling soil erosion, waterway sedimentation and airborne dust generation in accordance with Ashland Public Works Standards, The erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted with the final engineering for public improvements and building permits. 2, Construction Waste Management. Recycle and/or salvage non-hazardous construction and demolition debris in accordance with the Building Demolition Debris Diversion requirements in 15,04.216.C. ~A' Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 4,6.10 18 VIII-C-8 Potable Water Reduction for Irrigation Provide water efficient landscape irrigation design that reduces by 50% the use of potable water after the initial period for plant installation and establishment. Calculations for the reduction shall be based on the water budget, and the water budget shall be developed for landscape irrigation that conforms to the mandatory policies in Section III - Water Conserving Landscaping Guidelines and Policies, Methods used to accomplish the requirements of this section may include, but are not limited to, the following, 1. Plant species. 2. Irrigation efficiency. 3. Use of captured rainwater. 4. Use of recycled water. 5. Use of graywater. 6, Use of water treated for irrigation purposed and conveyed by a water district or public entity. VIII-C-9 Solar Orientation Incorporate passive and active solar strategies in the design and orientation of buildings and public spaces. When site and location permit, orient the building with the long sides facing north and south. VIII-C-10 Building Shading Shade the building through the following measures, 1. Provide horizontal exterior shading devices for south-facing windows to control solar gain during the peak cooling season, 2. Provide vertical exterior shading devices for east- and west-facing windows to control solar gain and glare due to low sun angles during the peak cooling season, 3. A combination of horizontal and vertical exterior shading devices may be necessary to control solar gain on southwest- and southeast-facing windows. VIII-C-11 Recycled Content in Infrastructure For new streets, driveways, parking lots, sidewalks and curbs, the aggregate materials shall be at least 50% by volume recycled aggregate materials such as crushed Portland cement concrete and asphalt concrete. Above-ground structured parking and underground parking are exempt from this requirement. VIII-C-12 Outdoor Lighting Minimize light pollution from the project to improve nighttime visibility, increase night sky access and to reduce development impact on noctumal environments by using down- shielded light fixtures that do not allow light to emit above the 90 degree plane of the fixture. Lighting fixtures provided to implement Federal Aviation Administration mitigation measures to enhance safe air navigation are exempt from this standard. ~A' Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 4.6.10 19 VIII-C-13 Performance Standard Bonuses The permitted building height or base residential density, whichever is applicable, shall be increased by the number of stories or percentage residential density as outlined below. In no case shall the building height or residential density exceed the height and density bonus maximums in the Dimensional Standards Table in Section 18.53.050. 1. Green Building Bonus Projects that achieve a high performance green building standard and significantly improve energy performance beyond the current minimum Oregon requirements are eligible for a building height bonus as follows. a. In the event that a building or structure is determined to be meet the standard for LEE[)@ Certified building, the building height may exceed the maximum height specified for the CM overlay districts within the Dimensional Standards Table in Section 18.53.060, through application of a height bonus as follows. i. A building obtaining LEED<fl> Certification as meeting the LEE[)@ Silver Standard may be increased in height by up to one story. ii. A building obtaining LEE[)(fj) Certification as meeting the LEE[)(fj) Gold Standard may be increased in height by up to two stories. iii. A building in the Residential Buffer overlay obtaining LEED<fl> Certification as meeting the LEE[)(fj) Silver or Gold Standard may be increased in height by ~ story up to a maximum height of 40 feet. iv. Applications to increase the building height in excess of the maximum permitted height through the application of a height bonus shall address any conditional determination by the Federal Aviation Administration regarding mitigation measures requested to enhance safe air navigation. b. Demonstration of Achieving LEE[)@ Certification. Projects awarded a height bonus pursuant to this section, shall provide the City with satisfactory evidence of having completed the following steps in the process toward demonstrating achievement of LEE[)@ certification. i. Hiring and retaining a LEED<fl> Accredited Professional as part of the project team throughout design and construction of the project. ii. Developments seeking a height bonus shall provide documentation with the planning application, and prior to issuance of a building permit, that the proposed development as designed and constructed will meet or exceed the equivalent LEE[)@ standard relating to the height bonus awarded. iii. A final report shall be prepared by the LEE[)(fj) Accredited Professional and presented to the City upon completion of the project verifying that the project has met, or exceeded, the LEED<fl> standard relating to the height bonus awarded, iv. The report shall produce a LEE[)(fj) compliant energy model following the methodology outlined in the LEE[)(fj) rating system. The energy analysis done for the building performance rating method shall include all energy costs associated with the building project. 2. Structured Parking Bonus. A building may be increased by up to one story in height when the corresponding required parking is accommodated underground or within a structured parking facility, subject to building height limitations for the zoning district. 3. Affordable Housing Bonus. a. For every percent of units that are affordable, an equivalent percentage of density bonus shall be allowed up to a maximum bonus of 100%. b, Affordable housing bonus shall be for residential units that are affordable for moderate income persons in accordance with the standards established by ~A' Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 4.6.10 20 ~A' resolution of the City Council and guaranteed affordable through procedures contained in said resolution. VIII-C-14 Emplovment Density To promote transit supportive development, efficient use of employment zoned lands and local economic vitality, it is recommended that developments within the Croman Mill District are planned to accommodate employment densities as follows. a. 60 employees per acre in the Office Employment (OE) OVerlay. b. 25 employees per acre in the Compatible Industrial (CI) Overlay. c. 25 employees per acre in the Mixed Use (MU) Overlay, d. 20 employees per acre in the Neighborhood Center (NC) Overlay. Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 4.6.10 21 Additional Plan Maps .""-"CJ I s .J ~,~,~~'"'' ~'[~\IT : _,,:.J-cs ~~...., ~- Z'- IJ,Ih,1 _c:J~; ~I,} ~L ' .jCT_ ,. '"'1 q C G-Q; ~~'.:oJ.l::P ,~ l 1- '1 \..:: c i: '.~~~- ;J ..' -~. : C "" ...:...L _!" "]0. ~ ,9n"" fH,b 0,1 ': ..- I.:,' 1PJ"l-M'-'I;'m~, , j'J~I:cN ,[;;11110, r, ~ r --.1"---1 /' -.- <~... \_: -:::l;';~._ .-.. ./; : ~ -='1 L ' , 'ITCI " ~ 1'- -Ir-o-- E=" . (' QI~I--..Jj: ..:::J "1) ''1 ~_~ ~- (~ i --,. _ c;.j t., , ~C~I ' --== "~ Z; ie-;: cJ~' ~,[) ~~ 'l; ~I'':g' ", ,~ 'J J? r--~,J ~r ~. , LI'--0 o/~ [L~ , -- ~ CO : r n tj . u, I ;-: ::-s [ -'} J ,~ C::l:2Jn l) ~ r, 8'O,S', \"!; ~"'_' Q I" ;-<,0::::: Xv 0 ;-) I . (j U~,... ' o -u~ \7', "fJ &/", ~DIC c,'" / ~ :::UC 12, )I[?F~ IJo n' -=flJ ftl ~' I ~ooc ~ -gD . Croman Mill District Comprehensive Plan Designation rm Groman_District \\ \ ,."~~ \\ 'Ii" ~!I- , I.t ' -,' -.,.,~~)@ ~ fi... ..'7 V//Ir> /.'t'~~, ,77-,<(<7 4 11j." '^-'; WjR'1;l Co '".__ l ,\ c ;-'- '-, I"~ r': ' . \ ~ \,(" -k' , " f(' ~ ,~ .....:, \\~ "> F '\\%~~~.~, ~'~--I.A ').~.}:;: ~?"<- ~Ii; \\r-<"}' v- \~~.\ ".; \\ \;:~' ;- '\ oS-- ,I C (j < ~ :"=' j --;1 ~, I '" j .... ~ ~ ~- ~ B ~ -J P:--- , L ~;;>,~ (:~ ' ~\,~ /~" / ) " ~ N I} ~A' Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 4.6.10 22 f- - ~} ~~ c,.~. ~,;;~~~' ~ ~ 1/"- ~ ~~~~~ ~ \\ tjj~ I '\ ~ : " !~~;:~ ~ '\ A .;.~ ~ u \ 1Jj~ . ~ ,~ '" ~ k '~ ')i~i!~ ~~ ~, ~ 1,1"- ~~ ~~ "q, '0 (iI~Q' '+-~ I ~. '" '"tj ~" <'5 0 ~ ~ ,Wl Er-;,Jh 1=i'~. " "I " ~~' ,./~ :,' - rc' ~ " /'-,0 , . I O)"f!it,,, " '\' ".:;:: ..,~ r::J~ !~~ '- g I -"""","' 1111 11111 ""~ ---'- ) I ~A' , , I ' Lisj I 1 !If .Jf~ ~T. rS I' ,.. - "/; ~,~~ ~ r- , H Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 4.6.10 23 , ~A' d Use Standards Ashland Site Design an DRAFT 4.6.10 24 ~~~~i ~ \ i ~J, W'l~C. r-" ~J 'Jj ~~ ~~:~ .~, [J ~ :m;J'q,,: "., -uL"~l~~~ "-Il~ ill. '\,~ .--., -.' ~~~ "I ) \.L II-- '[Ii) :, )h I I \,_ ~l 1:" __ - , ,,'J' J::II!' :) Iq (: c!f1 "~ --f t;,C~b!C:, L Jrl ~~ ,) _ c:: -,= 0 0 \ ' ~ r'~ ' '~[111 irF'-- t, '\ J, W !.!II ICY' J : r---' ifJl '" ~ ;;",,- a 'Ijj'\ [7 L', i\I~111,,~ ' '.=i=j\? I :l ' " 1iW1~t"~,,,k- ~,f'1\ ~ : ']1 =:-. \ 1\ \UQ~ Irr,' !~' ""~1i '''-~ ~,,' , It] I~," ,"_.'" 8'tL ' J -.. ----.....~, o+,,.r.-' '1 . -._ _'.; .~ .. ::::11::;' ?~CI r--; ~ .r) r-; , \ Croman Mill District Street Framework _ local commercial street _ central boulevard _ accessway 'I :2. \ ,~ 11 D ~- l , , ~~ , .-1- \~ / 00 0 ~'" ~ S\G~ t) o .~\ '~ lY/1 A. \\~ , ~t2~ /~l~ \ Y- -,J r: L] ~ [' l, ~_I " ___ ic-.:J' :::r: A D 1c:::J' LL'2 -L r I [1 ~'J 'if D "1 ~{t ru D~ ,I> J;:kc . L-; ~1 ............!!n . E===: CJ' =[Ji ~ ~~ J~~l'~ ~ I .- '" II"- I J ~ -", n r " t'--- ~~ ~ tl I." F" ~~ J ,~ j'\~ c [Ljl.o~~ ~ "~, ,?~~, ~ ~ ~ "---.: ,J - c=l ,-""", " U fft;-!::o~, C', ~ ~ h '" CJ (J j,' '::: I '" ,I n '<Il""E LJ n~':" . ~ " ~~DI[~' Q ~,'<;J'O' 0 I v' ,n~ a~ Yif .: : ~ f ~, r.::s,-Jj[?bLfj G. I ref]' ~.: lit::! l b~ 0 J .. S)..., c:J 0 . ~ Q. oJ' " . ' .t~. !l"" s/.". ~A' Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 4.6.10 ~w~ I\~ \~I;s:z~ \' \ ~ "tf: . \ ~\]l: "',.\ ~~~ , .\ ~ ~ ~, ~ u, ~ 25 h Croman Mill District Pedestrian & Bicycle Framework - bikelpedestrian accessway 111111 central bike path ...... multiuse path _ protected pedestrianibike way Groman yhase2 _ alt1 , , , ( ~A' Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 4.6.10 26 '" , ~A' Standards Ashland Site Design and Use DRAFT 4.6.10 27 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC 18.08.190,18.08.341, 18.08.342, 18.08.343, 18.08.845, 18.12.020, 18.61.042, 18.68.020, 18.68.050, 18.72.030, 18.72.110, 18.72.120,18.72.140,18.72.180,18.84.100, 18.88.070, 18.88.080, 18.92.020, 18.96.090,18.104.020,18.106.030,18.108.0174 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE AND LAND USE ORDINANCE FOR CONSISTENCY WITH NEW CHAPTER 18.53 CROMAN MILL 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 above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. Citv of Be'averton v. International Ass'n of Firefiqhters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and 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 January 12, 2010 and subsequent public hearing continuance dates, and on February 23,2010, following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments by a vote of 6-2; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on April 6, 2010 and on subsequent public hearing continuance dates; and 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: Page 1 of 17 SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference, SECTION 2. AMC Chapter 18,08,190 [Definitions - District] is hereby amended to add the a new subsection to read as follows: 18,08.190 District. A zoning district. A. "R" district indicates any residential zoning district. B. "C" district indicates any commercial zoning district. C. "M" district indicates any industrial zoning district. D, "A" district indicates any airport overlay district. E. "CM" District indicates any Croman Mill Plan zonina district SECTION 3. AMC Chapter 18,08 [Definitions] is hereby amended to add the following new definitions in alphabetical order, with subsequent sections renumbered and re- lettered to read as follows: 18.08.341 LEEO@Accredited Professional. A person who has earned a credential as a Leadership in Enerav and Environmental Desian (LEED@) Accredited Professional from the U.S. Green Buildina Council, or Green Buildina Certification Institute. in accordance with their standards and reauirements. 18.08.342 LEE[)@ certification. A buildina reaistered with the U.S. Green Buildina Council which has satisfied all prereauisites and has earned a minimum number of points outlined in the Leadership in Enerav and Environmental Oesian (LEEO@) Ratina System under which it is reaistered. Levels of certification include Certified. Silver, Gold and Platinum. 18.08.343 LEEO@ Green Buildina Ratina Svstem" or "LEEO@ Ratina System. The most recentlv published version of the Leadership in Enerav and Environmental Oesian (LEED@) Green Buildina Ratina Systems bv the U.S. Green Buildina Council. or the version to be superseded for one year after the publication of a new applicable LEED@ Ratina System version. 18.08.845 Water Budaet The amount of water a landscape needs takina into account the inputs and ' outputs of water to and from the root zone. Inputs. such as precipitation, are subtracted from outputs. such as evapotranspiration. to calculate the water needs of the landscape. ) Page 2 of 17 SECTION 4. 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: '. .,. ".,', <Map $Yrnbola~g , .', Zoning Districts and Overlays Abbreviated Desianation Airport Overlay A Residential - Rural RR Residential - Sinqle Family R-1 Residential - Low Density Multiple Family R-2 Residential - Hiqh Density Multiple Family R-3 Commercial C-1 Commercial - Downtown C-1-D Employment E-1 Industrial M-1 Woodland Residential WR SOU - South em Oreqon University SOU Performance Standards (P) - Overlay P Detail Site Review Zone DSR Health Care Services Zone HC North Mountain Neiahborhood NM Croman Mill District Zone CM Residential Overlav R Freewav Sian Overlav F SECTION 5. AMC Section 18,61.042. D. [Tree Preservation and Protection - Approval and Permit Required - Tree Removal Permit] is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.61 Tree Preservation and Protection 18,61.042 Approval and Permit Required D, Tree Removal Permit: 1. Tree Removal- Permits are required for the following activities: a, Removal of trees greater than 6" DBH on any private lands zoned C-I, E-I, M-I, CM,or HC. b. Removal of trees greater than 6" DBH on multi-family residentially zoned lots (R-2, R-3, and R-1-3,5) not occupied solely by a single family detached dwelling. c. Removal of significant trees on vacant property zoned for residential purposes including but not limited to R-1, RR, WR, and NM zones. Page 3 of 17 d. Removal of significant trees on lands zoned SOU, on lands under the control of the Ashland School District, or on lands under the control of the City of Ashland. 2, Applications for Tree Removal - Permits shall be reviewed and approved by the Staff Advisor pursuant to AMC 18.61.080 (Approval Criteria) and 18.108.040 (Type Procedure). If the tree removal is part of another planning action involving development activities, the tree removal application, if timely filed, shall be processed concurrently with the other planning action. SECTION 6. AMC Section 18.68,020 [General Regulations - Vision Clearance Areas] is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.68 General Regulations 18,68.020 Vision Clearance Area. Vision clearance areas shall be provided with the following distances establishing the size of the vision clearance area: A. In any R district, the minimum distance shall be twenty-five (25) feet or, at intersections including an alley, ten (10) feet. B. In all other districts except the C-1am1-E-1, and CM, the minimum distance shall be fifteen (15) feet or, at intersections, including an alley, ten (10) feet. When the angle of intersection between streets, other than an alley, is less than thirty (30) degrees, the distance shall be twenty-five (25) feet. C. The vision clearance area shall contain no plantings, fences, walls, structures, or temporary or permanent obstructions exceeding two and one-half (2 Y:.) feet in height, measured from the top of the curb, except that street trees exceeding this height may be located in this area, provided all branches and foliage are removed to a height of eight (8) feet above the grade. D. The vision clearance standards established by this section are not subject to the Variance section of this title, (Ord, 2605, S1, 1990) SECTION 7. AMC Section 18.68.050 [General Regulations - Arterial Street Setback Requirements] is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.68 General Regulations 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. Page 4 of 17 Street _.'_._._'---'~-----------'_._--'---- East Main Street, between City limits and Lithia Way Ashland Street (Highway 66) between City limits and Siskiyou Boulevard Setback I 35 feet 1 65 feet 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 district!. and properties abutting Lithia Way in the C-1 district. SECTION 8. AMC Section 18.72.030 [Site Design and Use Standards - Applicability] is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.72 Site Design and Use Standards 18.72.030 Applicability. Site design standards shall apply to all zones of the city as outlined below. A. Applicability. The following development issubject 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. Expansion of impervious surface area in excess of 10% of the area of the site or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less. d. Expansion of parking lots, relocation of parking spaces on a site, or other changes which affect circulation. e. 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. 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. 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. h. Mechanical equipment not otherwise exempt from site design review per Section 18.72.030(B). 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 Page 5 of 17 (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). SECTION 9. AMC Section 18.72.110 [Site Design and Use Standards - Landscaping Standards] is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.72 Site Design and Use Standards 18.72.110 Landscaping Standards. A. Area Required. The following areas shall be required to be landscaped in the . following zones: I R-1 ..<1:~%of.tl?!.?lcl~'!~!l?P~c!I()!_~r~~._._.____ , - , [-.-;-- ..--...-..-.-'''"-.....-.......-.--.-.----.--...-.---...'---- , R-2 i - 35% of total developed lot area i I R-3 - 25% of total developed lot area I C-1 15% of total develofJed lot area , , - i C-1-D None, except parking areas and service stations shall meet , - , , the landscaping and i screening standards in Section II.D. of the Site Design and i i Use Standards. i E-1 - 15% of total develofJed lot area -- i M-1 . .1Q"Iol?!!().!~lcl~'!~Il?P~cllgU,3~~~.. , - ....--1 ---.-......-...-.-.-- ...-...... ....---.--...--.--..-.. ....--..-......----.-...... ..........-...-............. CM-NC - 15% of total developed lot area , ... CM-OE - 15% of total developed lot area i t CM-CI - I ~ - 15% of total developed lot area I :- CM-MU - 10% of total developed lot area I - , SECTION 10. AMC Section 18.72.120 [Site Design and Use Standards - Controlled Access] is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.72.120 Controlled access. A. 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 in sectioR (8) 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. B. 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: Page 6 of 17 , , 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. C. Street and drivewav access points in the CM zone are subiect to the reQuirements of the of Croman Mill District Standards. G..Q. Access Requirements for Multi-family Developments. 1. 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. 2. Creating an obstructed street, as defined in 18.88.020.G, is prohibited. SECTION 11. AMC Section 18.72.140 [Site Design and Use Standards - Light and Glare Performance Standards] is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.72.140 Light and Glare Performance Standards. There shall be no direct illumination of any residential zone from a lighting standard in any other residential lot, C~1, E-1 or M-1, SO, CM or HC lot. SECTION 12. AMC Section 18.72.180 D.[Site Design and Use Standards- Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities] is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.72.180 Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities D. All installation of wireless communication systems shall be subject to the requirements of this section in addition to all applicable Site Design and Use Standards and are subject to the following approval process: Zoning Designations Attached to Alternative Freestanding Existing Structures Support Structures Structures Residential Zones(1) CUP Prohibited Prohibited C-1 CUP CUP Prohibited C-1-D (Downtown)<2) CUP Prohibited Prohibited C-1 - Freeway overlay Site Review Site Review CUP E-1 Site Review Site Review CUP Page 7 of 17 M-1 Site Review Site Review CUP SOU Site Review CUP CUP NM (North Mountain) Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Historic District(2) CUP Prohibited Prohibited A-1 (Airport Overlay) CUP CUP CUP HC (Health Care) CUP Prohibited Prohibited CM-NC CUP CUP CUP CM-OE Site Review Site Review CUP CM-CI Site Review Site Review CUP CM-MU CUP CUP CUP CM-OS Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited SECTION 13. AMC Section 18.84.100 [Manufactured Housing Developments - Special Conditions] is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.84 Manufactured Housing Developments 18.84.100 Special Conditions. A. For the mitigation of adverse impacts, the City may impose conditions. Restrictions may include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Require view-obscuring shrubbery, walls or fences. 2. Require retention of specified trees, rocks, water ponds or courses, or other natural features. B. No manufactured housing developments may be located within the Ashland Historic District. C. No manufactured housing developments may be located, relocated, or increased in size or number of units, within any zones designated for commercial use -- C-1, C- 1-D, E-1, CM or M-1. SECTION 14. AMC Section 18.88.070 [Performance Standards Options - Setbacks] is hereby amended to read as follows: .18.88 Performance Standards Options 18.88.070 Setbacks. A. Front yard setbacks shall follow the requirements of the underlying district. B. Setbacks along the perimeter of the development shall have the same setbacks as required in the parent zone. C. Maximum heights shall be the same as required in the parent zone. D. One-half of the building height at the wall closest to the adjacent building shall be required as the minimum width between buildings, except within non-residential zoninQ districts includinQ C-1, C-1-D, E-1, CM, and M-1. Page 8 of 17 E. Solar Access Setback. Solar access shall be provided as required in Section -t&68 18.70 except within the C-1-D and CM zoninQ districts. F. Any single-family structure not shown on the plan must meet the setback requirements established in the building envelope on the outline plan. SECTION 15. AMC Section 18.88.080 [Performance Standards Options - P-Overlay Zone] is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.88 Performance Standards Options 18.88.080 P-Overlay Zone. A. The purpose of the P-overlay zone is 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 P-overlay areas, shall be processed under this Chapter of the Land Use Ordinance. The minimum number of dwelling units for a Performance Standards Subdivision within residential zoninQ districts shall be three. C. In a P-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 P-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. Gf R-3. or CM. SECTION 16. AMC Section 18.92.020.B. [Off-Street Parking - Automobile Parking Spaces Required- Commercial Uses] is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.92 Off-Street Parking 18.92.020 Automobile Parking Spaces Required 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. Page 9 of 17 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. Bowlinq Allevs. Three spaces per alley, plus additional spaces for auxiliary activities set forth in this section. 3. Business. qeneral 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-4W 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. Skatinq rinks. One space per 350 sq. ft. of gross building area. 8. Theaters. auditoriums. stadiums. qvmnasiums and similar uses. One space per four seats. SECTION 17. AMC Section 18.92.020.C. [Off-Street Parking - Automobile Parking Spaces Required- Industrial Uses] is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.92 Off-Street Parking 18.92.020 Automobile Parking Spaces Required C. Industrial Uses. For industrial uses the following automobile parking spaces are required. 1. Indllstrialllses, except war-ehollSinQ. One space per two employees on the largest shift or for each 7gg sqllare feet of gross floor area, ':Jhichever is less, pillS one space per company .:ehicle. 2-.--lndustrial and Warehousing uses. One space per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or for each two employees, whichever is greater less, plus one space per company vehicle. 3-.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. SECTION 18. AMC Section 18.96.090. [Sign Regulations - Commercial, Industrial and Employment Districts] is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.96 Sign Regulations Page 10 of 17 18.96.090 Commercial, Industrial and Employment Districts. Signs in commercial, industrial... -and-employment, and Croman Mill districts, excepting the Downtown-Commercial Overlay District and the Freeway Overlay District, shall conform to the following regulations: A. Special Provisions. 1. Frontaqe. The number and use of signs allowed by virtue of a given business frontage shall be placed only upon such business frontage. 2. Aqqreqate number of siqns. The aggregate number of signs for each business shall be two signs for each business frontage. 3. Aqqreqate area of siqns. The aggregate area of all signs established by and located on a given street frontage, shall not exceed an area equal to one square foot of sign area for each lineal foot of street frontage. Aggregate area shall not include nameplates, and temporary real estate and construction signs. B. Types of Signs Permitted. 1. Wall Signs. a. Number. Two signs per building frontage shall be permitted for each business, or one sign per frontage for a group of businesses occupying a single common space or suite. b. Area. Buildings with two or fewer business frontages shall be permitted one square foot of sign area for each lineal foot of business frontage. For the third and subsequent business frontages on a single building, the business shall be permitted one square foot of sign area for every two lineal feet of business frontage. The maximum sign area on any single business frontage shall not exceed sixty (60) square feet. ( Business frontages of three or more, on a single building, shall comply with the following criteria established within the City's Site Design and Use Standards: i. A pedestrian entrance designed to be attractive and functional, and open to the public during all business hou rs Page 11 of 17 ii. The pedestrian entrance shall be accessed from a walkway connected to a public sidewalk. c. Proiection. Except for marquee or awning signs, a projecting sign may project a maximum of two feet from the face of the building to which they are attached, provided the lowest portion of the sign is at least eight feet above grade. Any portion lower than eight feet can only project four inches. d. Extension above roof line. Signs may not project above the roof or eave line of the building. 2. Ground Signs. a: Number. One sign shall be permitted for each lot with a street frontage in excess of fifty lineal feet. Corner lots can count both street frontages in determining the lineal feet of the street frontage but only one ground sign is permitted on corner lots. Two or more parcels of less than fifty feet may be combined for purposes of meeting the foregoing standard. b. Area. Signs shall not exceed an area of one square foot for each two lineal feet of street frontage, with a maximum area of sixty square feet per sign. c. Placement. Signs shall be placed so that no sign or portion thereof shall extend beyond any property line of the premises on which such sign is located. Signs on corner properties shall also comply with the vision clearance provisions of Section 18.96.060(F). d. Heiqht. No ground sign shall be in excess of five feet above grade. 3. Awning or Marquee Signs. a. Number. Two signs shall be permitted for each business frontage in lieu of wall signs. . b. Area. Signs shall not exceed the permitted aggregate sign area not taken up by a wall sign. c, Proiection. Signs may not project beyond the face of the marquee if suspended, or above or below the face of the marquee if attached to and parallel to the face of the marquee. Page 12 of 17 d. Heiqht. Signs shall have a maximum face height of nine inches if attached to the marquee. e. Clearance above qrade. The lowest portion of a sign attached to a marquee shall not be less than seven feet, six inches above grade. f. Siqns painted on a marquee. Signs can be painted on the marquee in lieu of wall sign provided the signs do not exceed the permitted aggregate sign area not taken up by wall signs. 4. Portable Business Signs a. Number. One portable business sign, limited to sandwich boards, pedestal signs, ' A' frame signs, flags, and wind signs, shall be allowed on each lot excepting that buildings, businesses, shopping centers, and business complexes with permanent ground signs shall not be permitted to have portable signs. b. Area. Sign area shall be deducted from the aggregate sign allowed for exempt incidental signs established in 18.96.030(H). Signs shall not exceed an area of four (4) square feet per face including any border or trim, and there shall be no more than two (2) faces. c. Heiqht. Sandwich board signs and' A' frame signs shall not extend more than three (3) feet above the ground on which it is placed. Pedestal signs shall not extend more than four (4) feet above the ground on which it is placed. A freestanding wind sign shall not extend more than five (5) feet above the ground on which' it is placed. d. Placement. Signs shall be placed so that no sign or portion thereof shall extend beyond any property line of the premises on which such sign is located. Portable signs shall be located within ten feet of the business entrance and shall not be placed on public right-of-way. No portable business sign shall be constructed and placed so as to interfere with pedestrian ingress and egress as regulated within the Ashland Municipal Code. e. General Limitations. Signs shall be anchored, supported, or designed as to prevent tipping over, which reasonably prevents the possibility of signs becoming hazards to public health and safety. Signs shall not be constructed of plastic, illuminated or contain any electrical component. No objects shall be attached to a portable sign such as but not limited to balloons, banners, merchandise, and Page 13 of 17 electrical devices. Portable business signs shall be removed at the daily close of business. These signs are prohibited while the business is closed. 5. Three-Dimensional Signs. a. Number. One three-dimensional sign shall be permitted for each lot in lieu of one three square foot incidental sign otherwise allowed per 18.96.030H. b. Surface Area. Flat surfaces in excess of two square feet shall count toward the total aggregate sign area per 18.96.090(A) 4. c. Placement. The three-dimensional sign shall be located so that no sign or portion thereof is within a public pedestrian easement or extends beyond any property line of the premises on which such sign is located into the public right-of-way unless the sign is attached to the face of the building and located eight feet above grade, or the sign is attached to a marquee with the lowest portion of the sign not less than seven feet, six inches above grade not projecting beyond, or above, the face of the marquee.' d. Dimensions. No three-dimensional sign shall have a height, width, or depth in excess of three feet. e. Volume. The volume of the three-dimensional sign shall be calculated as the entire volume within a rectangular cube enclosing the extreme limits of all parts of the sign and shall not exceed three (3) cubic feet. For the purposes of calculating volume the minimum dimension for height, width, or depth shall be considered one foot. f. Materials. The three-dimensional signs shall be constructed of metal, wood, bronze, concrete, stone, glass, clay, fiberglass, or other durable material, all of which are treated to prevent corrosion or reflective glare. Three dimensional signs shall not be constructed of plastic. Three dimensional signs shall not be internally illuminated or contain any electrical component. I SECTION 19. AMC Section 18.104.020. [Conditional Use Permits - Definitions] is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.104 Conditional Use Permits 18.104.20 Definitions. Page 14 of 17 The following are definitions for use in this chapter. A. "Impact Area" - That area which is immediately surrounding a use, and which may be impacted by it. All land which is within the applicable notice area for a use is included in the impact area. In addition, any lot beyond the notice area, if the hearing authority finds that it may be materially affected by the proposed use, is also included in the impact area. B. "Target Use" - The basic permitted use in the zone, as defined below. 1. '.!l!R (Woodland Residential) and RR (Rllral Residential) zones: 1. WR (Woodland Residential) and RR (Rural Residential) zones: Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by Section 18.88.040. , 2. R-1 (Single Family Residential) zones: Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by Section 18.88.040. 3. R-2 and R-3 Zones: Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by the zone. 4. C-1. The general retail commercial uses listed in 18.32.020 B., developed at an intensity of .35 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. ' 5. C-1D. The general retail commercial uses listed in 18.32.020 B., developed at an intensity of 1.00 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. 6. E-1. The general office uses listed in 18.40.020 A., developed at an intensity of .35 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. 7. M-1. The general light industrial uses listed in 18.40.020 E., complying with all ordinance requirements. 8. SO. Educational uses at the college level, complying with all ordinance requirements. 9. CM-CI. The Qeneral liqht industrial uses listed in 18.53.050 A.. developed at an intensitv of .35 aross floor to area ratio, complyinQ with all ordinance reauirements. 10. CM-OE. The aeneral office uses listed in 18.53.050 A.. developed at an intensitv of .50 Qross floor to area, complvinQ with all ordinance requirements. 11. CM-MU. The Qeneral office uses listed in 18.53.050 A., developed at an intensity of .50 qross floor to area, complyina with all ordinance requirements. 12. CM-NC. The retail commercial uses listed in 18.53.050 A., developed at an intensity of .50 aross floor to area ratio, complvina with all ordinance requirements. SECTION 20. AMC Section 18.106.030.H. [Annexations - Approval Standards] is hereby amended to read as follows: Page 15 of 17 18.106 Annexations 18.106.030 Approval Standards H. One or more of the following standards are met: 1. The proposed area for annexation is to be residentially zoned, and there is less than a five-year supply of vacant and redevelopable land in the proposed land use classification within the current city limits. "Redevelopable land" means land zoned for residential use on which development has already occurred but on which, due to present or expected market forces, there exists the likelihood that existing development will be converted to more intensive residential uses during the planning period. The five-year supply shall be determined from vacant and redevelopable land inventories and by the methodology for land need projections from the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan; or 2. The proposed lot or lots will be zoned CM, E-1 or C-1 under the Comprehensive Plan, and that the applicant will obtain Site Review approval for an outright permitted use, or special permitted use concurrent with the annexation request; or 3. A current or probable public health hazard exists due to lack of full City sanitary sewer or water services; or 4. Existing development in the proposed annexation has inadequate water or sanitary sewer service; or the service will become inadequate within one year; or 5. The area proposed for annexation has existing City of Ashland water or sanitary sewer service extended, connected, and in use, and a signed "consent to annexation" agreement has been filed and accepted by the City of Ashland; or 6. The lot or lots proposed for annexation are an "island" completely surrounded by lands within the city limits. SECTION 21. AMC Section 18.1 08.017.C. [Procedures - Applications] is hereby added to read as follows: 18.108 Procedures 18.108.017 Applications C. Priority planninQ action processinQ for LEED@ certified buildinQs. 1. New buildinQs and existinQ buildinQs whose repair, alteration or rehabilitation costs exceed fifty percent of their replacement costs, that will be pursuinQ certification under the Leadership in EnerQV and Environmental DesiQn Green BuildinQ RatinQ Svstem (LEED@) of the United States Green BuildinQ Council shall received top priority in the processinQ of planninQ actions. Page 16 of 17 2. Applicants wishinQ to receive priority planninQ action processinQ shall provide the followinQ documentation with the application demonstratinQ the completion of the followinQ steps in the workinQ towards LEED@ certification. a. HirinQ and retaininq a LEED@ Accredited Professional as part of the proiect team throuQhout desiQn and construction of the proiect. b. The LEED@ checklist indicatinq the credits that will be pursued. SECTION 22. 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 23. 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-Iettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (Le. Sections 1, 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 Charter on the day of , 2010, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ,2010. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of ,2010. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney Page 17 of 17 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF ASHLAND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO CHANGE THE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 99 ACRES OF LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF ASHLAND URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY FROM INDUSTRIAL, EMPLOYMENT, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND RURAL RESIDENTIAL (JACKSON COUNTY) TO THE NEWLY CREATED CROMAN MILL PLAN DESIGNATION; AMENDING THE CITY OF ASHLAND ZONING AND LAND USE CONTROL MAPS, TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 78 ACRES OF LAND WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS FROM M-1, E-1, AND R-1-5 DISTRICTS TO THE NEWLY CREATED CROMAN MILL ZONE; AND IMPOSING FIVE CROMAN MILL OVERLAY DISTRICTS ON THE CROMAN MILL ZONED PROPERTIES, INCLUDING COMPATABLE INDUSTRIAL, CM-CI, OFFICE EMPLOYMENT, CM-OE, MIXED USE, CM-MU, OPEN SPACE, CM-OS, AND NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER, CM-NC. Annotated to show dolotions 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 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 Firefiqhters. Local 1660. Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above-referenced recommended amendments to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map and Ashland Zoning Map at a duly advertised public hearing on January 12, 2010 and subsequent public hearing continuance dates, and on February 23,2010, following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments by a vote of 6-2; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on April 6, 2010 and on subsequent public hearing continuance dates; and 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 Page 1 of 4 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 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map 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 officially adopted City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map, adopted and referenced in Ashland Comprehensive Plan Chapter II [PLAN MAP 2.03.04] is hereby amended to change the Comprehensive Plan map designation of approximately 93.5 acres of land inside the urban growth boundary from Industrial, Employment, Single Family Residential, and Rural Residential (Jackson County), to the Croman Mill Plan designation, said amendment is reflected on the revised adopted Comprehensive Plan Map, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and made a part hereof by this reference. SECTION 3. The officially adopted City of Ashland Zoning and Land Use Control Maps, adopted and incorporated by Ashland Municipal Code Section 18.12.030, are hereby amended to change the zoning designation of approximately 78 acres of land within the City limits of the City of Ashland, from M-1, E-1 and R-1-5, to the Croman Mill Zone designation, said amendment is reflected on the revised Zoning and Land Use Control Maps, attached hereto as Exhibit B, and made a part hereof by this reference. SECTION 4. The officially adopted City of Ashland Zoning and Land Use Control Maps, adopted and incorporated by Ashland Municipal Code Section 18.12.030, are hereby amended to impose the Croman Mill Compatible Industrial [CM-CI] overlay zoning designation on approximately 28.29 acres of land in the Croman Mill Zone within the City limits of the City of Ashland, said overlay amendment is reflected on the revised Zoning and Land Use Control Maps, attached hereto as Exhibit C, and made a part hereof by th is reference. SECTION 5. The officially adopted City of Ashland Zoning and Land Use Control Maps, adopted and incorporated by Ashland Municipal Code Section 18.12.030, are hereby amended to impose the Croman Mill Office Employment [CM-OE] overlay zoning designation on approximately 29.44 acres of land in the Croman Mill Zone within the City limits of the City of Ashland, said overlay amendment is reflected on the revised Zoning and Land Use Control Maps, attached hereto as Exhibit C, and made a part hereof by this reference. Page 2 of 4 SECTION 6. The officially adopted City of Ashland Zoning and Land Use Control Maps, adopted and incorporated by Ashland Municipal Code Section 18.12.030, are hereby amended to impose the Croman Mill Mixed Use [CM-MU] overlay zoning designation on approximately 4.39 acres of land in the Croman Mill Zone within the City limits of the City of Ashland, said overlay amendment is reflected on the revised Zoning and Land Use Control Maps, attached hereto as Exhibit C, and made a part hereof by this reference. SECTION 7. The officially adopted City of Ashland Zoning and Land Use Control Maps, adopted and incorporated by Ashland Municipal Code Section 18.12.030, are hereby amended to impose the Croman Mill Neighborhood Center [CM-NC] overlay zoning designation on approximately 5.91 acres of land in the Croman Mill Zone within the City limits of the City of Ashland, said overlay amendment is reflected on the revised Zoning and Land Use Control Maps, attached hereto as Exhibit C, and made a part hereof by this reference. SECTION 8. The officially adopted City of Ashland Zoning and Land Use Control Maps, adopted and incorporated by Ashland Municipal Code Section 18.12.030, are hereby amended to impose the Croman Mill Open Space [CM-OSI] overlay zoning designation on approximately 6.19 acres of land in the Croman Mill Zone within the City limits of the City of Ashland, said overlay amendment is reflected on the revised Zoning and Land Use Control Maps, attached hereto as Exhibit C, and made a part hereof by this reference. SECTION 9. 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 10. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Comprehensive Plan 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-Iettered, and amendments - including map amendments, combined, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions and text descriptions of the map amendments (Le. Sections 1, 2-8, 9-10) 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 , 2010, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 2010. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder Page 3 of 4 SIGNED and APPROVED this ~ day of Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney ,2010. John Stromberg, Mayor Page 4 of 4 , . Proposed Comprehensive Plan DesiQnatlon Croman Mill District Vicinity r I n I I ~ I-- I 1-'- I - ~ -L '-I ~. [[:1'1 ,- fBi~~ .~ jlJ ~\(\ .L,~ EEgmt:: = ~ CltvLlmits\' ~\\~\ J\f~9;}j; I ~ A..1,---1/ :-/- "- \' ilL "" I I /, "/ "/. . 1._ ,,',- I r II' ~ . . ~ . j' ::{' " 1'- .' "l ~~.. ~~~"< ~~\Y~ Fi III Ii II ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ L-I ~ I, =~ . . ~ ~? ~~~. ~ "-"~ l>",' ] . ~ ~. _'~ ,~~v~ f;}f ~ . ~~ '0 ~ ___J '\E~t I~" ~~1)~~7/~' :~~ -= r= ~ ~ ~.~ ~ '\ ~ IV f-- 1;1 . ~ ~ ij/ (((/ ~ ~ . ~ . ~~ ~ 0$-"'-1:. ~ ~':/ ~ 4~ '\ r ~o,,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e/vj ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ T II 7 +~ - \ - - Feet o 170 340 eao 1.020 1,360 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Designation ~ Croman Mill Plan CITY OF ASHLAND rA' 4-6-10 ProDosed Croman Mill District Zone (CM) Croman Mill District Vicinity ~ ~l;d '1 u .~ [I ~~\ ~~ ~' {~ / CitvLbnits \\\\ '\\ I ~ ~ ~ \ ,~~~ ~ .I~~~:~~ ~ \~ 'v~~ \ /\.~ ,c):J , ~~4\ ~ ~ ~ ~ "\1 I II:;;;" - I - L " g- lV - . I .. mr;~ ~I~- CJem ~TII 1 L- _ /T-~'-- ~ ~,D ~,~ " ~ J Ji~~ "I - olPa1 ~ I ~ ~ =- ilL ~~~I'" ~ I I--- ~'-- ~.. , ~ 1--0,-, ~/'b- I iI(' "- ~ -^ /{7"/\ - - Feet o 130 260 520 760 1.040 Proposed Zone ~ Croman Mill Zone (eM) CITY OF ASHLAND r~' 4-6-10 ProDosed Zon'nQ Map ChanQes Croman Mill District Vicinity ',"i '//~"""- .... I LI ~ \\, ,1\ bifJ~~ "i :;'~~ ...,\\\\'4FI1flLi1I ~ R1i HBJ I\~~ 6'~1/ I 'I I \' ,lty1\~. ~ " I 1:'1 J~ ~ \ ~ ~\---Y~.}!( I H I I ,I I r I Lr 1 '< \' ~~~ " ~ 1=ffiHHfF]bm]E ... ~. /~~ - T 1"1 r~{ i t:! ;~ =cl,1f-(0 :? \= ~ g \-~, III 1'/ ,.- ~~ r-- L~I L r \3 (V\1.A ~ \ ~ j2 h ~V(~ '" ~ M ~ - ~ \~: 9 / f-- ~J~ - T ,,\\ ~ --L ~ ~ /-" '\ ~~ ........ ,e- rc ffi ''''' ~"'- /' ~ Y, ~il ~r /' ~ " " ' ,- '" ..... ."".... . ' " ~ " :'Yo" ~ ~$" ~~, <9/~0'1' ~ I ~ I ~ \A~ '\ " , I LC ! F [,~I ~ T ./"1 II I ]L ,J -; f- II' ~~~ +/ - \ Proposed Zoning Overlay Designations _ compatable industrial (CM-CI) _ office employment (CM-OE) D mixed-use (CM-MU) D openspace (CM-OS) D neighborhood center (CM-NC) 1m Detail Site Review (DSR) Note: Areas outside the City Umits would retain their current County zoning designations until annexation. - - Feet o 150 300 600 900 1,200 CITY Of ASHLAND r., 4-6-2010 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE CITY OF ASHLAND DETAIL SITE REVIEW ZONE Annotated to show delotions 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 above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. Citv of Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefiqhters. Local 1660. Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above-referenced recommended amendments to the Ashland Zoning Map at a duly advertised public hearing on January 12, 2010 and subsequent public hearing continuance dates, and on February 23, 2010, following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments by a vote of 6-2; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on April 6, 2010 and on subsequent public hearing continuance dates; and 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 Zoning Map 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: Page 1 of 2 SECTION 1., The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. The officially adopted City of Ashland Zoning and Land Use Control Maps, adopted and incorporated by Ashland Municipal Code Section 18.12.030, are hereby amended to extend the Detail Site Review (DSR) zone designation to approximately 3.57 acres of land in the Croman Mill Zone within the City limits of the City of Ashland, said overlay amendment is reflected on the revised Zoning and Land Use Control Maps, attached hereto as Exhibit C, and made a part hereof by this reference. 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 Comprehensive Plan 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-Iettered, and amendments - including map amendments, combined, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions and text descriptions of the map amendments (Le. Sections 1, 3 and 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 , 2010, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ,2010. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of ,2010. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney Page 2 of 2 '~x. ~x Xl ~ .\I\.'V'II'> ~ 1\.01, . p:J p:J . 0,!'-j'. . - . ~ ;;:: -;:(, ~;c; K x :%<.\\& . fm1=: ~ N yo, ~ "'0 x' ~ Croman Mill District 6 O':~- "U . ~ ex 0< XX" . Detail Site Review Update ~ ',; Q:<? )( .~ r= . Asifl~ria Sql:f~(66 I%XXI Detail Site Review j . ~> ~~ C> W Z~ . ex ~ ~~:0(~ +1&/ . ~~ ~. ~jli 1I ~~ ~ i' -: ~"J""'-' ~ (1J, i ~ 1s:;1; :);00 \2< -\\QQ%1' ~ ex ~I I. . I. ,"' XX; ~; '/"5; (){>O ,\V\1XX: ~ ~~:~, ;C :i,~1 ~~; ~ ' Y~~mly.~~~~I,~~ "iJ~ / 'I ~ ~~.~ ~~. . Il~J.ll '.J I_'~"',::JI ~~" , 1[/:< .\ "J -~ 1" [ t I / ~, J . ~ ~ ~4 ~ I '1 \~ I I i _; __;~: .... 1:',;1 ~,' --:.: '/'-. .~ ~' , ~ Proposed Addition , , J~: ,'U\[,'p, ,'.' '''' ., '. . , \ ,<;:1- ":; r:+,- i "_'~ 'et:' ~:,.. ,,\. ,~ - . nr/"-'I:-~ I 1'- I,.,~, . ,)).~ I f""' '" , _l_ -- II 1 [ -,' ., ' '_', '" ,_J',.'~" ""...-, - -~ "1\..',,,- ~ .... '. \ -,; - . \: Ii ,;-,~.....,,-~ , -; "' '~- ' :;...::. "'~ "--t', "f __, - '\':-~ ./ Ire ,':,;; ~ ~',CL"J::':;:---._;-:~~~Ir '.';~'~' · ~h. ~ ~'?/ In' . ., :.: '-,. '..:::: =:,:, '=~ ., __' _'. .' f-:;-1- IX . . '""[- .u ~ i+- .lt1f ',"~ 'P': ~Gtlj7'" ~ ~ ~ " r~(~~'~~'~l b ,0 .~ V. /1 b ~. '-'~ .!c.. r ~ :.J ~l ;-- ~ ,- ~ D " \I: '1-' J;; r>~~ ~I [i'-._" " I.... ~ ) _ "- "' I"l h 'c ~ ~ ~-.-l ~ -J~' I;' ~;:.~~o'l~~ ~~~ "', '~~~'~ f!JCJ ' ~ /r). "u.:..'.....:I~ -,,~.f!h c...~ ~ '" ~ ~ ~. /....1 ..--~ n' --;\ ~J.l......a (~ ~~ .....~~>- '--- I ) ! ~~'-;<. . ~':~; I" --II >:J ~~1:q c:::..i I , "'" ')"?:" [J (J PF:;- C:J ~I~c} ~~..., l'- I [j../L ':'-0 u. ~Hrr'7. ~:" 0 :;;A:~~!~ u .,:r:., .JI RJ ~~ ~ dL~;:~'~lIlr~I~~11 ~ ,_ ~ Feet La .IL \\+ II \\'\ Draft 4-6-2010 o 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC CHAPTER 15 TO CREATE LEED. CERTIFIED BUILDING PRIORITY Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold ,. ~,- and additions are bold underlined. 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 Firefiqhters. Local 1660. Beaverton Shop. 20 Or. App. 293, 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); WHEREAS, as part of the discussion of the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan, incentives to "green building;" were proposed for Council consideration; and WHEREAS, the City would like to prioritize LEED certified building permit applications as an incentive to "green building;" and THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. A new AMC Section 15.04.092 is hereby added to read as follows: 15.04.092 BuildinQ Permits - LEED Certified Prioritv Plan Check 1.New buildinQs and existinQ buildinQs whose repair, alteration or rehabilitation costs exceed fiftv percent of their replacement costs, that will be liursuinQ certification under the Leadership in EnerQV and Environmental DesiQn Green BuildinQ RatinQ System (LEED) of the United States Green BuildinQ Council shall received top priority in the plan check processinQ. 2. Applicants wishinQ to receive prioritv plan check processinQ shall provide the followinQ documentation with the buildinQ permit submittals demonstratinQ the completion of the followinQ steps in the workinQ towards LEED certification. Page 1 of 2 a. HirinQ and retaininQ a LEED Accredited Professional as part of the proiect team throuQhout desiQn and construction of the proiect. b. The LEED checklist indicatinQ the credits that will be pursued. BuildinQ permit submittals must clearlv specify the materials, systems and strateQies thev will use to achieve the credits in the plans submitted to the Citv of plan check approval. 3. A final report shall be prepared bv the LEED Accredited Professional and presented to the Citv upon completion of the proiect verifvinQ that the proiect has met, or exceeded, the LEED standard. SECTION 2. 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 3. SavinQs. Notwithstanding this amendmenUrepeal, 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 ordinance(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 4. 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-Iettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (Le. Sections 2- 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 , 2010 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 2010. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of ,2010. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney Page 2 of 2 BACKGROUND MATERIAL · Planning Commission Minutes March 2009 - December 2009 . · Croman Advisory Committee Minutes July 2009 - November 2009 *Meeting Packets can be viewed online at: www.ashland.or.us/croman (select the Project Materials link at the bottom of the page) CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND.PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 10, 2009 CALL TO ORDER Chair Michael Dawkins called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Planning Commissioners Present: Michael Dawkins Larry Biake Tom Dimitre Dave Dotterrer Pam Marsh Deborah Miller Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Maria Harris, Planning Manager April Lucas. Administrative Assistant Absent Members: None Council Liaison: Eric Navickas ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Oirector Bill Molnar announced the March Study Session has been moved to March 31 in order to accommodate individuals who will be out of town for spring break. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. February 10, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting 2. February 24, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting B. Letter of Support for City of Ashland Transportation and Growth Management Grant Commissioners Marsh/Mindlin m/s to approve the February 10, 2009 Planning Commission minutes. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Commissioners Dotterrer/Marsh m/s to approve the February 24, 2009 Planning Commission minutes. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Planning Manager Maria Harris provided a brief overview of the Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) Grant and explained several of the City's appointed and elected bodies are being asked to sign letters of support to accompany the grant application. Commissioner Marsh expressed disappointment with the letter and stated she would haVe preferred for the language to be stronger and clearer. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Exit 14 and 19 Aesthetics Advisory Committee Update Commissioner Dawkins stated he is a member of the Exit 14 and 19 Aesthetics Advisory Committee (MC) and provided an update on the proposed bridge designs. Dawkins passed around the initial design concepts and stated most of the Committee Ashland Planning Commission March 10, 2009 Page1of3 members preferred a clean look to the bridges. He noted the design for Exit 14 will include a bicycle lane and sidewalks - across the bridge; he also noted the proposed railing and banners. Dawkins shared his concern with the amount of funding the State would provide for this project and suggested the City may have to pay a portion of the landscaping materials and installation. Commissioner Dotterrer stated it was his understanding that the State viewed Exit 14 as an entry into the Oregon and they were willing to spend the money to make it look nice. Dawkins indicated the State has not provided a budget, so the MC is unsure about the amount of funding available for this project. Mr. Molnar stated after the MC comes up with a few options there will likely be an assessment of the State's budget. Then the Committee will be able to make a final decision based on the total costs and funding available. Mr. Molnar commented briefly on the concept of flying banners on the bridge and clarified the City has a permit process for placing banners on public right of way and this would not contlict with the City's Sign Code. Commissioner Miller voiced her support for an attractive bridge design. She stated the preliminary designs are lovely and hopes the State will spend the extra money to make the bridges look nice. B. Planning Commission Input to Council Goal Setting :- Discussion of Priorities Transportation Planninq Commissioner Marsh provided an overview of the Planning Commission's role in the Transportation System Plan (TSP) update and incorporating a planning vision and active participation. She noted the Commission's goal of updating the Ashland Comprehensive Plan and stated you cannot do land use planning without transportation planning, and vice versa. Marsh commented on the recent formation of the Transportation Commission and noted she has had conversations with Mayor Stromberg, Michael Dawkins, and Bill Molnar about how the Planning Commission can specifically be apart of the TSP update process. She recommended there be an official delegate from the Planning Commission to the Transportation Commission and stated they should define an arrangement and obtain the City Council's blessing. Commissioner Dawkins voiced his support for a Planning Commission liaison. Dotterrer suggested the two commissions consider exchanging liaisons and they would participate as an active member on issues related to the TSP update. Mr. Molnar noted he had spoken with Public Works Director Mike Faught and Mayor Stromberg about how to have more interaction between the two commissions and they have discussed bringing the two commissions together every four months or so. Commissioner Blake recommended staff provide the Transportation Commission's agendas so they are aware of when they are meeting and what is being discussed. . Marsh restated her recommendation for the Planning Commission to formalize a role in transportation planning in the form of joint Study Sessions and possibly a dedicated liaison. Dotterrer noted the motion regarding the recommended goals from the previous meeting and felt this adequately captured the intent. Mr. Molnar clarified the Council goal setting is scheduled to take place on April 11 and staff would prepare a statement on behalf of the Commission and bring it back for their review at the March 31st Study Session. Comment was made questioning if the Planning Commission Chair could attend the Council goai setting and present the Commission's recommendations in person. Council liaison Navickas voiced his support for this idea and encouraged Commissioner Dawkins to speak with the Mayor about this possibility. Sustainabililv Commissioner Mindlin provided an overview of the sustainabilily goal. She commented on the completion of the sustainabilily inventory by the Sustainability Work Group and stated when people were asked "What does sustainability mean to you?" some of the main answers were: protecting the environment, wise use of resources, food security, local economic resiliency, and communications. Mindlin stated the second phase of this project is to determine what other communities are doing to promote sustainability, and stated a starting point might include researching sustainability plans, how citizen groups are interfacing with local governments, and local economic development. She stated her hope is that the City Council will support Ash/and Planning Commission March 10, 2009 Page 2 of 3 the Planning Commission's ongoing research into this subject The Commission voiced their support for continuing this research. Croman Mill Site Redevelooment Plan Commissioner Morris commented on the Croman.Mill Site Redevelopment Plan. He stated this is the last big chunk of available land and voiced his support for adopting a master plan before it gets divided up and developed into smaller parcels. He noted that he does have some questions and concems with the Draft Plan, but overall supports moving this forward. Clarification was requested on what the City Council has directed the Planning Commission to do, and whether this Plan has already been adopted. Mr. Molnar explained the City Council did not adopt the Plan, but rather directed staff to initiate the planning for creating the Croman Master Plan. He stated the direction from the Council is for the Planning Commission to start hashing out the details and clarified the Commission would be able to incorporate some flexibility. Comment was made questioning if the Commission would be able to make substantial changes to the Plan. Mr. Molnar indicated they would need to consult with the Council on any major changes. Council Liaison Navickas stated the basic overlay was endorsed by the Council and they have forwarded it onto the Planning Commission to work out the details. Several commissioners shared their preferences on how this limd should be developed and some voiced frustration that the Planning Commission was not given the opportunity to review and issue a recommendation on the Draft Plan before it went to Council. Planning Manager Maria Harris explained the City Council has directed staff to begin the process to implement the Draft Plan, which includes creating new ordinances and zoning overlays. She stated the Council did not adopt the Plan, but rather directed staff to work with the Commission on moving this forward. She noted the lengthy public involvement process that went into creating the Draft Plan and stated this public involvement will continue. Ms. Harris commented on the upcoming outreach that will take place as the Commission moves forward, and stated while some may disagree with elements in the Plan, it is important to respect the work that the community has put in thus far, She added it does not mean the Plan cannot be massaged, but it also should not be ignored. Council Liaison Navickas commented on ways the Plan could be expanded on or changed and provided some examples. Commissioner Marsh commented that it is clear the Croman Plan should be on their list of goals. She noted the dissenting opinions and stated they will have plenty to talk about as this moves forward. Commissioner Dimitre requested staff provided an analysis of how this Plan fits in with the expressed goals, which included workforce housing and sustainability. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjoumed at 8:45 p,m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Ashland Planning Commission March 10, 2009 Page 3 of 3 1. Adopt Croman Mill Redevelopment Plan 2. Transportation Planning - TSP. Transit and Pedestrian Oriented Development (TOO) Overlay. 3. Sustainable Land Use Codes. Solar Orientation, Green Street Standards, and Stormwater Management. 4_ Railroad Oistrict Parking Management Plan. 5. Arterial Setbacks Evaluate existing standards for Ashland Street, E Main Street, Siskiyou Blvd, and N. Main Street. Commissioner Marsh stated this is an ambitious list, but believes 1-3 are achievable in the next year. She added this list will be sent off to the Council for consideration during their goal setting process. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Ashland Pla!1f1ing CommissiolJ December 8, 2009 Page 5 or 5 CROMAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE CITY OF ASHLAND CROMAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES JULY 15, 2009 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room, 51 Winourn Way. Committee Members Present: Alan DeBoer (attending for R. Hendrickson), Airport Commissioner Eric Navickas, City Councilor Russ Chapman, Conservation Commissioner Keith Swink, Historic Commissioner Graham Lewis, Housing Commissioner Jim Lewis, Parks & Recreation Commissioner Larry Blake, Planning Commissioner Matt Warshawsky, Transportation Commissioner Zane Jones, Tree Commissioner Pam Hammond, Chamber of Commerce Representative Rylan Heyerman, Neighborhood Representative Mary Kay Michelsen, Neighborhocio Representative Paul Steinle, sou Representative Absent Members: Richard Hendrickson, Airport Commissioner David Wilkerson, Pubtic Arts Commissioner Ben Bellinson, Neighborhocio Representative Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Maria Harris, Planning Manager Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner INTRODUCTIONS & SELECTION OF CHAIR I VICE CHAIR Community Development Director Bill Molnar welcomed everyone and the members took turns introducing themselves. The selection of the Committee Chair and Vice Chair was moved to the end of the agenda. CROMAN MILL SITE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN I REVIEW OF LAND USE AND STREET FRAMEWORK REFINEMENTS Planning Manager Maria Harris explained the Plan Overview and Land UselStreet Framework Refinements would be combined in a single staff presentation. She explained the presentation would cover: 1) Background on future employment centers in Ashland, 2) Plan development and implementation strategy process, 3) Overview of the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan, and 4) Review of the latest refinements to the land use and street framework plans. Future Employment Centers in Ashland Mr. Molnar presented the segment addressing the future employment centers in Ashland. He familiarized the Advisory Committee with the inventory of employment lands within the City and the types of developments that are influenced by the zoning code and specific design standards. Following this segment, a discussion of the current M-1 Industrial zoning of the majority of the Croman Mill site took place. Comment was made questioning if residential was prohibited in the M-1 or E-1 zones, and Mr. Molnar clarified residential has been allowed in these zones through the addition of residential zoning overlays. It was also questioned if the City had to maintain a certain supply of employment lands under State law. Mr. Molnar explained the Statewide Planning Goal requirements and indicated the Economic Opportunity Overlay (EOA) identified a need for 160 to 170 acres to meet the City's employment projections for the next 20 to 50 years. Staff also clarified whether the zoning of the site was on the table for potential change and stated the proposed zoning adjustments would be covered in tonight's presentation. Croman Advisory Committee July 15, 2009 Page 1 of 3 Plan Development / Overview of Plan Ms. Harris presented the planning and public review process that led to the development of the Plan. She discussed the series of public workshops that were held in which concerns were identified and alternative plans were presented and evaluated. Mr. Molnar provided examples of employment density, noting that the long term viability of transit will require higher employment densities. As examples in the presentation he cited Modern Fan as employing approximately 10 people on a 1-acre property, and Blackstone Audio which employs 120 employees on 2-acres. Ms. Harris spoke of the proposed Neighborhood Center in the location of the existing ODOT yard, and identified a number of its elements, including: openspace, daylighting of Hamilton Creek, a transit plaza, and the pedestrian and bicycle framework. Comment was made questioning the realignment of Tolman Creek Road and the signature street cross section. Ms. Harris explained minimizing the impacts to Tolman Creek Rd. and the route to Bellview School was identified early on as a concern and lead to the idea of building the boulevard through the Croman property to direct that traffic to the site and keep Tolman Creek Rd. as the smaller collector street. Ms. Harris provided the group with a description of the cross section of the signature street, and in response to whether anyone had looked at the traffic on Siskiyou between Crowson and Walker, she clarified a traffic impact analysis was completed with the Plan, and the intersections that needed work are shown on the Plan map (Tolman Creek Rd. and Ashland St., Tolman Creek Rd. and the new street, and the new street and Siskiyou Blvd.) Comment was made questioning the height restrictions in the Airport Overlay Zone. Mr. Molnar clarified the Croman site is 100 ft. above the airport approach zone. He stated the City's Public Works Department had initially indicated multi-story buildings are feasible for this site and provide accommodations for the airport, such as lights. He added the Public Works and Community Development Departments would be working together to finalize this possibility. Review of Land Use and Street Framework Refinements Staff presented the proposed land use and street framework adjustments and then opened the floor to questions from the group. GROUP DISCUSSION Comment was made questioning whether the existing Mistletoe Rd. and Siskiyou Blvd. intersection should go away or be realigned. Mr. Molnar clarified that ODOT had expressed concerns in the past regarding this intersection and that this is an area that would be looked at further. Senior Planner B"randon Goldman provided clarification on the 25% reduction for public improvements and explained the standard deduction taken from the gross acreage to allow for the development of streets and utilities. Staff also provided clarification on the proposed Plexis facility, which would be located in the northern part of the Croman property. It was noted that there have been preliminary discussions about the possibility of Plexis taking access from Mistletoe Rd, should they want to build their facility prior to the larger street being built. Comment was made that Plexis had previously talked about the importance of openspace in their vision for their business. Ms. Harris noted that once a fairly high-end building is built, there will be a desire to have similar buildings and uses surrounding it. Mr. Molnar added that Plexis has discussed the possibility of having restrictions on the property surrounding their potential site that would insure a similar level of building and site development. Concern was expressed that they may be creating a situation where the developer will have to apply for an exception to the Street Standards to build in the area next to Hamilton Creek, and suggestion was made for this area to be possibly be openspace. Staff noted the Street Standards require new streets to run along natural features to provide visual access, such as Winburn Way along Ashland Creek. Comment was made questioning if the area next to Hamilton Creek was dedicated as open space, how would this impact lands for job creation? Mr. Molnar said this would have to be looked at in terms of potentially increasing the business fioor area somewhere else on the site. Comment was made that in order to turn that area into openspace, it would need to be purchased. Ms. Harris concurred and clarified this area is not owned by the Croman property owners. Statement was made noting that the path along Hamilton Creek is identified as part of the Trails Master Plan. The Neighborhood Center was briefiy discussed and it was questioned if there is anything the group needs to know about ODOT's future plans. Staff clarified the City has had discussions with ODOT and they have indicated they are open to moving Croman Advisory Committee July 15. 2009 Page 2 of 3 their operations due to some incompatibilities with the sun:ounding residential neighborhood. Mr. Molnar added ODOT has asked for the City's help in finding another location. Support was voiced for the new permutation of the Plan. Since this area is focused on jobs and will have to be served by trucks, suggestion was made for the on-street parking to be backed away from the corners so that trucks will be able to make the turning radius. Comment was made questioning if the 10-story buildings were still on the table for consideration, and staff clarified that they have not yet gotten to this element; however they have received concerns regarding the potential height of the buildings. . Comment was made questioning the need for a parking garage and noting the problems with the unused structures in Medford. A discussion followed regarding moving the parking garage and making it more of a flexible location. Comment was made that the revised Plan was an improvement and locating the parking structure off of the main street looks to be an effort to create a streetscape on the main boulevard. Additional comment was made that this situation is not comparable to Medford. Suggestion was made for the bulk of the parking structure to be reduced by putting it partially below grade with potential access from the top and bottom utilizing grade cha~ges on site. It was noted that the Plan is looking to create 2,000 to 3,000 new jobs and questioned if there is enough land for 2,000 additional residents within the City's UGB. Mr. Molnar clarified that yes, there is enough land; and Ms. Harris noted that the full build-out of the Plan would take some time. Opinion was voiced that the central boulevard should not run through the industrial area and that the industrial area should be preserved as a 20-acre site for a large user. Opposing comment was made that smaller, light industrial uses are more typical of Ashland and anyone wanting a 20-acre site would likely go to Medford or White City due to cost. Concem wad expressed with straightening out the intersection with Siskiyou Blvd and trucks using Tolman Creek Rd. instead. The Committee concluded their deliberations by holding a brief discussion regarding the existing trailer park off Crowson Rd. Comment was made that this area has historic significance and value as affordable housing and suggestion was made to bring this into a zoning that allows for it to remain. SELECTION OF CHAIR I VICE CHAIR The selection of the Committee Chair and Committee Vice Chair was discussed, and staff asked for volunteers. Matt Warshawsky volunteered to serve as Chair, and Graham Lewis volunteer for Vice Char. SCHEDULE NEXT MEETING DATE Staff suggested the potential dates of August 12, 20 and 26 for the next Croman Advisory Committee meeting. Matt Warshawsky noted the Transportation Commission is meeting on the 20~, and Russ Chapman stated the Conservation Commission meets on the 26~. Mr. Molnar asked what days and times worked best for people and there seemed to be general consensus that Wednesdays work well. Most of the group indicated the August 12 date would work for them. Chapman indicated that he would be out of town on this date but encouraged the group to not let that hold them up. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Croman Advisory Committee July 15, 2009 Page 3of3 CITY OF ASHLAND CROMAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9,2009 CALL TO ORDER Chair Matt Warshawsky called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way. Committee Members Present: Richard Hendrickson, Airport Commissioner Russ Chapman, Conservation Commissioner . Keith Swink, Historic Commissioner Graham Lewis, Housing Commissioner Jim Lewis, Parks & Recreation Commissioner Larry Blake, Planning Commissioner David Wilkerson, Pubtic Arts Commissioner Matt Warshawsky, Transportation Commissioner Pam Hammond, Chamber of Commerce Representative Ben Bellinson, Neighborhood Reprasentative Rylan Heyerman, Neighborhood Representative Paul Steinle, sou Representative Absent Members: Eric Navickas, Cay Councilor Zane Jones, Tree Commissioner Mary Kay Michelsen, Neighborhood Representative Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Maria Harris, Planning Manager Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner April Lucas, Administrative Assistant APPROVAL OF JULY 15. 2009 CROMAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES The minutes of July 15, 2009 were approved as presented. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF PRELIMINARY CROMAN MILL ZONING DISTRICT CHAPTER AND LAND USE MATRIX Community Development Director Bill Molnar briefly commented on the Advisory Committee's role in this process. He stated the Mayor and staff formed this Commitlee with the goal of bringing different perspectives to long range planning efforts. Additionally, the members have been asked to report back to their respective groups and keep them up to date and involved on what it is happening. Mr. Molnar provided the following overview of the Croman materials presented at the last Planning Commission meeting: Draft AMC 18.53 - Croman Mill Mr. Molnar explained this will be a new chapter added to the Land Use Code and will include the following: Purpose, Definitions, General Requirements (including major and minor amendment procedures), Development Standards, and Land Use Matrix. In regards to the "General Requirements" section, Mr. Molnar stated the land use zoning, streets, bikeways, key natural areas and trail connections will be laid out in advance, with the understanding that these may need to be adjusted once surveying and construction begins. The second part of this section addresses major and minor amendments and examples with given for each. Mr. Molnar stated major amendments are fairly significant (such as changes in the employment density or land use overlay) and would be subject to a public hearing before the Planning Commission, while minor amendments (such as a change in street trees) could be approved administratively by staff. Croman Advisory Committee September g, 2009 Page lof3 Mr. Molnar explained a new chapter for Croman will also be added to the City's Site Design & Use Standards. This Chapter will include various illustrations and will address plan elements such as water infiltration for parking lots and the use of bioswales. He noted this document is more user friendly than the AMC language and staff will be presenting these initial design standards to the Planning Commission at their September Study Session. Mr. Molnar added staff will be bringing forward more AMC language and the design standards language to the Croman Advisory Committee at their next meeting and will want to gather their feedback at that time. Comment was made questioning what they can require in terms of green building design, and whether they 'can exceed the requirements in the State Building Code. Mr. Molnar explained the State Building Code sets the requirements, but they have also provided alternate paths for property owners who wish to incorporate "green" elements, such as rainwater catchment systems. He stated there are already a lot of green principles attached to this project, and he expects there to be further discussions as to whether the City will offer incentives to developments who received silver or gold LEED Certification. Comment. was made that developments will likely meet LEED certification standards just by following the elements the Croman Plan and Design Standards outline. Land Use Matrix Planning Manager Maria Harris provided a review of the proposed Land Use Matrix. She explained this document was based on the Crandall and Arambula Draft Plan and the matrix will be placed at the end of the AMC Chapter. She stated this is a new format and instead of having numerous pages listing the different uses, this format puts all that information into a single table. Ms. Harris noted the five categories on the matrix and reviewed the uses that staff did not include. She stated in all three zones nightclubs, theatres/bars, and hotelslmotels have been left off. She explained the main purpose of this Plan is job creation and the goal is to have 25-60 jobs per acre. Additionally, concerns have been raised with having uses that compete with downtown. Ms. Harris continued that mortuarieslcrematoriums, churches, public utilities, and service yardslbuilding material sales yards have also been omitted from the allowed uses. She" stated the concern here is that the Plan speaks to not allowing any outdoor storage since this takes space away from buildings where jobs could be created. Swink asked whether music venues (something similar to the Craterian Theatre in Medford) have been considered as an allowed use, specifically in the industrial area that is farther away from the residential neighborhood. He stated Ashland is lacking a place for this type of use and stated if it didn't work out the land could always be reclaimed for industrial uses. Opposing comment was made that big venues bring their own set of problems and concern was expressed with taking away from the downtown area. A neighbor sitting in the audience also expressed concern with this possibility. Hammond questioned the 10,000 sq. ft. size limit for stores, restaurants, and shops. Staff clarified this figure was taken from the Crandall and Arambula Draft Plan, however at the staff level there has been talk that this may be too much. It was questioned if this size would encourage something like a Cheesecake Factory restaurant. Additional comment was made that this figure would be fine if the building accommodates several businesses. MAP UPDATES Senior Planner Brandon Goldman displayed several maps that outlined the following on the Croman property: 1) Land Use Overlays, 2) Active Edges, 3) Build-to Lines, 4) Pedestrian & Bicycle Framework, 5) Multi-Use Paths, 6) Transit Framework, 7) Required On-Street Parking, and 8) Storm Water Management. Mr. Goldman noted minor street realignments were made in order to create consistent block lengths. He also clarified "actives edges" is a build-to line and these areas would look similar to downtown Ashland where everything is built up to the street. He added these areas would still have sidewalks, bioswales, parkrows and street trees. Hendrickson noted that the Croman property is located within the airport approach zone and stated anything built here will need to be approved by the FAA. Mr. Molnar stated staff has been in communication with the FAA and they fully understand that this needs to meet their standards. He added the FAA does not seem to be opposed to additional height allowances for this area, but as the height increases, stipulations will need to be added to the building (such as lighting requirements). He also clarified that while the Crandall & Arambula plan proposed a much higher building height, staff is considering heights in the 4-6 story range. Warshawsky noted the topography of the site and questioned if the taller buildings should be located at the lower elevations of the property. " Croman Advisory Committee September 9, 2009 Page 2 of 3 Hammond questioned how much the parking structure would really be utilized and stated that people don't like to park that far from their destination. Staff clarified the parking garage was purposefully located next to the office employment area and it is only a 5 minute walk to most locations within the Croman site. Mr. Molnar stated unless they identify placeholders, they will lose the opportunity and while a large parking garage may not be necessary at the beginning, it may be needed in the future. He added they could initially have surface parking in this area, and over time (as need warrants) it could be turned into a parking structure. Hammond asked about moving the office land to the west and locating the industrial land on the east side of the property by the railroad tracks. Mr. Molnar clarified that Plexis has expressed interest in a certain area and there are also topographical issues that played a part in what uses are located where. He stated this type of shift is beyond their scope, and is even beyond the scope of the Planning Commission. He added this is a major change and would have to be approved by the City Council. Comment was made expressing concern that this has been planned around a specific business. Mr. Molnar clarified when this Plan first came forward it was pretty much all office use. Concerns were raised about losing industrial areas in the City, and now the Plan is essentially half industrial use and half office use. He stated the industrial uses may have a lower number of employees, so they would want a higher density of employees in the office areas to balance it out and reach the employment goals of the Plan. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION ITEMS FROM AUGUST 25. 2009 STUDY SESSION Ms. Harris noted the minutes from the August 25, 2009 Planning Commission Study Session were included in the meeting packet. She noted the Planning Commission agreed to dedicate their September 29 Study Session to the Croman Plan and they will be discussing questions that have come up during the process, including; the amendment procedure, the Tolman Creek road alignment, street orientation for solar, the balance of land uses, and possible evening uses: REVIEW NEXT STEPS Mr. Harris clarified staff is currently working on the development standards that will go into the Site Design & Use Standards, and are finishing the AMC language. SCHEDULE NEXT MEETING DATE Ms. Harris stated staff would email the group options for their next meeting. It was asked if the Planning Commission would be accepting testimony at their Study Session. Staff clarified the Planning Commission will typically not turn anyone away if they wish to give testimony on a Study Session item. Comment was made questioning if the owners of the Zen Center are aware of what is happening with the Croman plan since it looks as though a lot of the overlays are going through their property. Ms. Harris clar~ied'staff has been in communication with them. Mr. Molnar encouraged the members to notify staff if they have issues they want discussed. He added any emailed comments from the group could be included in the Planning Commission's Study Session packet. Warshawsky voiced his support for emailing staff their comments, since it gives them a chance to think about what was presented and formulate their comments. . ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, April Lucas, Adminisifative Assistant Croman Advisory Committee September 9, 2009 Page 3 of 3 CITY OF ASHLAND CROMAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2009 CALL TO ORDER Chair Matt Warshawsky called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way. Committee Members Present: Richard Hendrickson, Airport Commissioner Eric Navickas, City Councitor Russ Chapman, Conservation Commissioner Keith Swink, Historic Commissioner Graham Lewis, Housing Commissioner Jim Lewis, Parks & Recreation Commissioner Larry Blake, Planning Commissioner Matt Warshawsky, Transportation Commissioner Kerry KenCairn, Tree Commissioner Pam Hammond, Chamber of Commerce Representative Paul Steinle, sou Representative Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Community Devetopment Director Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Absent Members: David Wilkerson, Pubtic Arts Commissioner Rylan Heyerman, Neighborhood Representative Mary Kay Michelsen, Neighborhood Representative Ben Bellinson, Nei9hborhocio Representative APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 9. 2009 CROMAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES The minutes of September 9, 2009 were approved as presented. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED CROMAN MILL SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS AND IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 18.53) Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained at tonight's meeting staff will review what occurred at recent Planning Commission meetings and review the changes that have been proposed. He stated questions were handed out to the group at the beginning of the meeting and he invited the Committee to send their thoughts and comments to staff after tonight's meeting. Mr. Molnar briefiy commented on the purpose of this Committee and clarified it is to suggest minor adjustments to the plan, to provide a different viewpoint from the groups they represent, and for them to brief the other groups at their respective meetings. Staff reviewed the Croman plan elements that were discussed at the September 29~ Planning Commission meeting. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman commented on the Planning Commission's outline of questions and noted the Planning Commission held a vote on whether the land use designations and how they are laid out is appropriate. He stated the Planning Commission also reviewed the Land Use Matrix and what uses should be allowed in each of the overlay zones. Mr. Goldman clarified the Planning Commission asked staff to look into providing fiexibility to the child/daycare center provision to allow it to be open to the publiC in case this is needed to keep it viable. He stated another change is the option for a manufacturing plant to have a retail outlet to allow goods to be sold on site. Staff was also asked to look at whether public offices should be a conditional use. Mr. Molnar noted if the Committee does not agree with any of these changes, or any of the uses outlined in the matrix, now is the time to discuss it. Groman Advisory Committee October 21, 2009 Page 1 of 3 Mr. Molnar commented briefly on the City's conditional use permit process and clarified these uses would only be allowed under certain circumstances. Comment was made questioning if these circumstances will be clearly defined since it may be difficult to remember the intent 10 years from now when a proposal comes forward. Staff continued their review of the last Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Goldman noted the Commission's discussion of whether the southern porlion of the site should be annexed, and what the implications might be. He stated there has been a lot of concern that annexing this property would facilitate changes in the land uses quicker than desired; and the direction from the Planning Commission was to not recommend annexing the southern piece at this time. Mr. Molnar clarified even though we don't propose annexation at this point, this area would still be included in the plan. He stated the central boulevard proposed to pass through the southern portion could still be built to City standards, and by not annexing it, this would allow the farm and trailer park to remain until a proposal comes forward that is consistent with the Croman plan. Mr. Goldman noted the rail and transit standards included in the proposed Design Standards, and commented on the rail spur easement requirements. Mr. Molnar noted some Planning Commissioners expressed interest in increasing the compatible industrial zone near the railroad, however there are grade and topography issues that would need to be addressed, and staff also has concerns with moving the industrial area too close to the office corridor. Mr. Goldman commented on the proposed residential overlay in the mixed-use and neighborhood center areas, and clarified residential would be allowed, but 100% of the ground fioor is reserved for commercial use. He stated the plan's guiding principles are clear the intent is to provide for a large number of jobs, however, staff is looking into creating opportunities for live-work situations. He stated as part of the special permitted use, upper fioors could be developed for residential so long as they meet the maximum number of residential units per acre that will be embedded in the ordinance. Comment was made questioning if there will be any protection for businesses, and whether they could run a swing or graveyard shift without getting opposition from the residential units in the area. Mr. Goldman noted where the residential would be located and clarified it is a fair distance from the industrial areas at the southern end of the site. Mr. Molnar suggested a possible solution to complaints 'could be requiring residential property owners to sign hold harmless agreements. Comment was made voicing support for this and indicating if they are going to have a residential component, there should be a clear understanding what can and will occur on that site. Comment was made questioning the kennel and veterinary clinic provision, since these uses are not necessarily high employment. Mr. Goldman clarified even though this is listed as an allowed use, the employee per acre component still has to be complied with. He added the restrictions on outdoor running tracks would also limit a large kennel from locating on the Croman site. . Mr. Goldman briefiy reviewed the City's buildable land inventory and the industrial land available. He also commented on the street alignment plan and clarified the Planning Commission asked staff to explore more of an east-west street layout to address solar issues for the buildings. Mr. Goldman stated the next Croman Advisory Committee meeting will be on November 18~, and staff will bring forward an alternative street layout at that time. Mr. Molnar added while staff is currently exploring this possibility, the intent it to keep the package as a whole intact. He stated the street layout may be more important for residential than commercial, and noted it might be possible to address the issues through specific energy requirements for the buildings. Mr. Molnar added the main problem for commercial buildings is keeping them cool, followed by lighting the interior. Mr. Goldman noted in addition to changes in traffic fiow, a new street layout would also create impacts on block widths. Mr. Goldman stated the last element discussed by the Planning Commission was the alignment of Tolman Creek Road. He stated the recommendation from the Planning Commission was for the plan to identify the objective of the central boulevard, but to defer the final design to a later date after the TSP update is complete and the land has been acquired. Mr. Molnar commented on the Design Standards and explained how they are structured. He stated it might appear that the standards are lengthy, but 60% already exist and were pulled over into this section. He also noted the addition of a sustainable standards section, which will address green streets, stormwater management, and parking. Commissioner KenCairn commented on possibly allowing parking at the front of the building if it is attractive, incorporates green tactics, and serves the public better at that location. Croman Advisory Committee October 21, 2009 Page 2 013 Mr. Goldman provided clarification on the proposed active edges and stated this will be required in the highest profile locations where most of the traffic and activity is. He noted the proposed limitations on the number of access points off the main boulevard and around the park area, and clarified this is consistent with the original Crandall & Arambula plan. Mr. Goldman commented briefiy on green streets, and stated this is not a new concept. but is relatively new to Ashland. He explained this will allow storrnwater runoff to stay on the site to the greatest extend possible, instead of fiowing to the City's water treatment plan. He added buildings will also be asked to capture stormwater and use it in their landscaping. Commission KenCairn voiced concern with this provision and stated it is not feasible to collect stormwater for year-round irrigation of landscaping unless you have a huge storage capacity. She added the plan could require storage, but not a percentage to be used for landscaping. KenCairn suggested a possible matrix be developed if they want to successfully achieve this element. REVIEW NEXT STEPS Staff explained the next steps are for the Committee members to update their commissions and groups, and to be prepared to form recommendations at the November 18~ CAC meeting. The Committee chair and other members were also invited to attend the public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. The grant proposal for the central boulevard was noted, and Mr. Molnar explained this is going before the City Council in November. He noted these types of grants (gas tax revenues) are quite competitive and are generally tied to job creation. Staff noted the three questions handed out at the beginning of the meeting and asked that the members email their responses to staff. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. <. Respectfully Submitted, April Lucas, Administ;ative Assistant Croman Advisory Committee October 21, 2009 Page 3 of 3 CITY OF ASHLAND CROMAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 2009 CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Graham Lewis called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way. Committee Members Present: Russ Chapman, Conservation Commissioner Keith Swink, Historic Commissioner Graham Lewis, Housing Commissioner Jim Lewis, Parks & Recreation Commissioner Larry Blake, Planning Commissioner Pam Hammond, Chamber of Commerce Representative Mary Kay Michelsen, Neighborhocio Representative Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Maria Harris, Ptanning Manager Brandon Goldman, Senior ptanner April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Absent Members: Richard Hendrickson, Airport Commissioner Eric Navickas, City Councilor David Wilkerson, Public Arts Commissioner Matt Warshawsky, Transportation Commissioner Kerry KenCairn, Tree Commissioner Paul Steinle, SOU Representative Rylan Heyerman, Neighborhood Representative Ben Bellinson, Neighborhood Representative APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 21. 2009 CROMAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES The minutes of October 21, 2009 were approved as presented. UPDATE OF NOVEMBER 10. 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Planning Manager Maria Harris provided a presentation to the Committee and noted this is the same update that was given to the Planning Commission at their November 10fu meeting. She noted the three main questions being put forward are: 1) Are the land uses in the land use matrix consistent with the goals and objectives of the redevelopment plan? 2) Do the design standards seem consistent with the employment center envisioned in the redevelopment plan? 3) Do the sustainable design standards go too far, not far enough, or seem just about right? Ms. Harris briefly reviewed the project timeline and the public hearing package, which will consist of AMC Chapter 18.53, the Croman Mill District Standards, miscellaneous revisions to the Land Use Ordinance, and amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map. Mr. Harris stated the guiding principles for the plan are circulation, land use, and policies and regulations, and asked the group to focus tonight's discussion on the Croman Mill District Standards. She also commented on the "Dimensional Standards Matrix", which will address lot size, landscaping coverage, height, solar access, fioor area ratio, residential density, and employment density. Street Standards Ms. Harris explained this is the first part of the Standards document and it addresses the central boulevard, local commercial streets, accessways and multi-use paths. She noted the accessways could be used primarily for pedestrians and bicyclists with shared access for delivery vehicles and clar~ied staff would like to keep this language flexible in order to accommodate a range of options. She added depending on what types of businesses go in, a standard street may not be necessary. Ms. Groman Advisory COInmittee November 18, 2009 Page lof3 Harris reviewed where the multi-use path will be located and clarified the Street Standards section also addresses the Tolman Creek Road realignment, access spacing, shared access, on street parking, and limited auto access. Design Standards Ms. Harris explained the Design Standards cover: orientation and scale, parking and on street circulation, streetscape, building materials, architectural standards for large scale buildings, landscaping, and lighting. She added the new standards being added for the Croman site include: active edge streets, street wall height, residential buffer zone, transit facility, freight rail spur easement, commuter rail platform easement, open space, and compact development. Sustainable Development Standards Ms. Harris stated this is the last section of the Standards document and it addresses green streets, stormwater management, and parking. She added there are additional sustainable standards included in this section that came from the Crandall Arambula plan which speak to: conserving natural areas, creating diverse neighborhoods, residential buffer zones, recycling areas, minimizing construction impacts, practicing low-impact site development, and sustainable development bonuses. Ms Harris clarified if buildings receive LEED Certification, they can add anywhere from 1-4 stories. She noted this was encouraged in the Crandall Arambula plan, but the methodology was developed by staff and adapted from what other communities are doing. Comment was made questioning if the height bonus will encroach on the height limitations set by the FAA. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman explained the FAA defers to the local zoning, but the taller buildings will likely have additional requirements they need to satisfy, such as lighting. He added staff has submitted a worse case scenario to the FAA and are waiting to hear back what kind of limitations or requirements they would impose. . Mr. Goldman provided a recap of the Planning Commission's discussion of the Design Standards. He clarified the Planning Commission asked staff to look into other LEED incentives besides height bonuses and also requested some of the Low Impact Development Standards be required, and not just recommended. He stated heights in the residential area was also raised as a concern by some of the Planning Commissioners due to the exclusion of LEED height bonuses in residential areas. Mr. Goldman noted other concerns that have been raised pertain to employment densities and limd intensive uses, freight access, rainwater harvesting, residential proximity, and street layout. It was noted that Crandall Arambula has been asked to prepare a street alignment impact analysis to determine what benefits an east-west layout would achieve in terms of energy savings. Blake commented that solar orientation is one of the easiest way to gain LEED points, and voiced concern with how buildings would achieve this with the original street layout. Michelsen questioned if they are doing anything to encourage green industry. It was clarified that while the plan does not specifically promote green industry, it does prohibit heavy industrial uses which typically aren't considered green. Mr. Molnar noted the Plan's focus on sustainable building, the Council goals, and the other movements in the community, and stated the hope is that a business will come in that mimics the values of the community and this creates a domino effect. Blake asked about the Sustainable Standards and felt the wording was open to interpretation since some are not hard and fast standards. Rather than recommendations, he questioned if there could be other bonuses or incentives to promote these standards. Ms. Harris noted that some cities are using expedited permitting, decreased SDC fees, or cash rebates to encourage LEED buildings, however monetary incentives are more challenging given the current economy. The Committee was asked for their opinions as to whether the Sustainability Standards should be recommended or mandatory. Chapman commented that the availability of recycled materials needs to be considered before this is made a requirement, and also suggested a possible price limit where builders could opt out. Comment was made that before these standards are made mandatory, they need to make sure there are products and means to attain that; otherwise it just creates roadblocks in development. Lewis suggested using alternate non-drinking water for landscaping, such as TID. John Fields, citizen, addressed the Committee and offered his input. He shared his belief that rainwater catchment wont work . in our climate, and stated the cost to do it makes it difficult. Regarding solar, Fields stated the rules for residential are very different than commercial, and explained commercial buildings have very little daylighting demand and shading if often important. He commented on the LEED program and stated builders will receive huge points just for building on the site. He added in order to make this a success those structures will need to be checked periodically after they are built to make sure Croman Advisory Committee November 18, 2009 Page 2 of 3 everything is working correctly. Fields expressed his concern that they are creating a plan that is too complex and stated he is worried the costs will be so huge that no one will be willing to build here. Swink agreed with Fields' concerns and stated they need to have incentives to help people achieve these high standards. Ms. Harris clarified that the types of buildings that are allowed off the central boulevard do not have as high of a standard as those along the central boulevard. She stated there will be higher standards for the main street, but as you go away from the center it moves into compatible industrial land and the standards would be loosened. Fields commented that the Croman site it a very difficult lot to develop, and noted 40-50 ft. of fill will need to be removed. City Council Kate Jackson addressed the Committee and stated if Ashland wants to stay small and grow at a slow rate, they need to create something that is different from what they have now. She stated Ashland is losing families and is turning into a retirement community, and voiced her support for creating jobs on the Croman site. Blake noted the range of sustainable activities that could be done and voiced his support for allowing developers to select the ones they want to do (such as completing 6 out of 10). He stated this would allow people to avoid those that are too cost prohibitive for their business. Hammond voiced support for any kind of incentives they can offers builders, and stated it all benefits the City in the end. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Mr. Molnar clarified staff has been tracking their comments and relaying them to the Planning Commission, and they will ultimately be forwarded to the City Council. He asked if the Committee wanted to issue a formal recommendation or just a list of the issues they have dealt with. Staff encouraged the members to come and make comments at the upcoming public hearings, and they were also encouraged to individually submit answers to the three questions that have been put forward. Vice Chair Graham stated he was not aware it was their job to make a recommendation, but rather to discuss the items they feel are important. He stated they have reached a consensus on the potential for job creation and this should be the primary focus. Lewis provided some feedback from the Parks & Recreation Commission and stated they have questions about how the open space, trails, and central park will be acquired. He noted the adopted Parks plan does not address this area and at some point they will need to amend their plan. He stated the concept of the central park is great, but Parks has concerns with the maintenance and logistics of it all. Mr. Molnar requested anyone else who represents a commission to please talk about this at their next meeting and provide feedback to staff. REVIEW NEXT STEPSITIMELlNE Mr. Molnar stated at this point, there are no future meetings scheduled. He stated as of now they are done, however they may need to reconvene at a later date. Staff clarified all of their meeting memos and comments will be included in the materials that go to the Planning Commission and the City Council, and staff encouraged the members to continue to provide feedback from their respective groups. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Croman Advisory Committee Novemher 18, 2009 Page 3 of 3 ~_N .. .".' '; '^. I R L Croman Mill District ~ ~ 'r' I:tJ IT East-West Alignment Alternative J.. ~, "~.. ' .CM-CI.CM-OE ~ .,~~ ..,/: B::~'~,:; 1 I" ~~~ V \\\ . v ,~ t-- d ~,,\. \~ \\ fill//' [_~'vI . ~?~ J I T ~ _"), I \ ~ \~ \: ;~~ ~ \'-0- " L I \' ,~\\\ Y \\ If-- ":." iQ ."~, " d Y..A\'{ ~ '"- "JJ.) -":~ - 11~11:=j ~ " "lJ i=<, ,~ . r--- (( " _'" =Cill --.)) ~ _~-~., IJI~ ~ m, , , e " ~~I ,d/ t wi b I~ ,--' vI:--: \ ~ ... ~~ [ "- ~R 3,H ;;JfJ r-' == . "~f" I 2)= Fr!~_~~1I U r-J ~It ~~ =a" .., i ; ~, 51 .." _ I.'.; """ (f~~ c ., .', :.L !j: . .- "" ' 'rT' r',. ~' '._. t- ",_ n . , . r': .,; ~;:I i'-'r' l- -.'1- to f?311 ._ '~ '\ \\ \, ." \ //'-~ / " ~~ ~~"- r""'____-..J '.' - o 250. 500 Feet 2,000 1,000 1,500 "' -. . c....L:. .~ ,~ /~~ ~ / Drafl4-a-10 CITY OF ASHLAND TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 18.53 CROMAN MILL PLANNING ACTION #2009-01292 PLANNING ACTION: #2009-01292 APPLICANT: City of Ashland DESCRIPTION: A request to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) creating a new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill, to amend the multiple chapters of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to provide consistency with the new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill (ALUO 18.08, 18.12.020,18.61.042,18_68.050,18.70.040, 18.72_030, 18_72_080, 18.72_110, 18.72_120, 18.72.140, 18.72.180, 18_84.100, 18.88.070, 18.106), to amend the Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map to include the Croman Mill District, and to adopt the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan as a supporting document to the City's Comprehensive Plan. c';>>"L''ci< W' .::lj ",. >.:..> ljl":'..':" "....:..;1",.'.'" U;: ","" ;;;;1>::<.''';,/[' DATE' ITEM ," ,"""..', . PAGEl". 4106/2010 City Council Public Hearing Notice (newspaper) 1 2/24/2010 Letter from Planning Commissioner Larry Blake 2-3 2/23/2010 Planning Commission Meeting Meeting Minutes 4-9 Agenda & Packet Materials 10-25 2/23/2010 Letter from Mark DiRienzo 26 2/22/2010 Letter from Marilyn Briggs 27 2/09/2010 Planning Commission Meeting Meeting Minutes , 28-31 Speaker Request Forms 32-35 Agenda & Packet Materials 36-51 2/09/2010 Email from Wendy Eppinger 52 2/09/2010 Email from Colin Swales 53 2/03/2010 Email from Neil Smith 54-55 2/02/2010 Email from Mark DiRienzo 56-59 2/02/2010 Letter from Oregon Department of Transportation 60-62 2/01/2010 Letter from Zach Brombacher 63-65 1/25/2010 Memo from Transportation Commission 66 1/19/2010 Letter from Marilyn Briggs 67-68 1/12/2010 Planning Commission Meeting Meeting Minutes 69-73 Speaker Request Forms 74-78 Agenda & Packet Materials 79-150 1/12/2010 Email from Mark Knox 151-152 1/12/2010 Letter from David Wick 153-156 1/11/2010 Letter from Stark & Hammack, P,C. 157-158 1/11/2010 Letter from Gerald & Suzanne Knecht Family Trust 159 1/11/2010 Email from Historic Commission Staff Liaison 160 1/06/2010 Letter from Transportation Commission 161 1/02/2010 Planning Commission Public Hearing Notice (newspaper) 162 12/23/2009 Planning Commission/City Council Public Hearing Notice (mail), Measure 56 Notice, 163-189 Affidavits of Mailing, Mailing Lists ~ ATTN: LEGAL PUBLICATIONS (NICK) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE On April 6, 2010 the Ashland City Council will hold a public hearing regarding PA-2009-0 I 292, a proposal to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO), Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps and Comprehensive Plan to implement the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan developed in 2008. The meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. The proposed map, ordinance and plan revisions include the following items. . An Ordinance amending the Ashland Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps to include the Croman Mill District. . An Ordinance adding a new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill to the ALUO. . An Ordinance adding a new Section VIII Croman Mill District Standards to the Site Design and Use Standards. . An Ordinance amending multiple chapters of the ALUO to provide consistency with the new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill (ALUO 18.08, 18.12.020, 18.61.042, 18.68.050, 18.68.050,18.70.040,18.72.030,18_72.080,18.72.110, 18.72.120, 18.72.140, 18.72.180, 18.84.100, 18.84.100, 18.88.070, 18.106). . An Ordinance adopting the Economic Opportunity Analysis and Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan as supporting documents to the City's Comprehensive Plan The proposed map revisions, ordinance amendments and supporting documents are available for review online at: www.ashland.or.lIs/croman and at the City of Ashland Department of Community Development located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday - Friday. Copies of the ordinance and file information are available for purchase if requested. For additional information concerning this ordinance call the Ashland Planning Department at (541) 488-5305. Oral and written public testimony regarding this matter will be accepted at the public hearing on April 6, 2010. Written statements are encouraged and may be submitted prior to the hearing date. 'Mail written comments to Maria Harris, Planning Manager, City of Ashland Department of Community Development, 20 E Main St, Ashland OR 97520, or via FAX at (541 )552-2050, or via E-mail at harrism(ci)ashland.oLus. Failure to raise an issue in person or in writing prior to the close of the public hearing with sufficient specificity to provide the reviewing body opportunity to respond to the issue may preclude your opportunity for appeal on that issue. To receive a notice of the final decision, a person must participate in the public hearings by submitting oral or written testimony and must submit a written request to receive a notice of the final decision. By the order of Bill Molnar, Community Development Director In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to partidpate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TrY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meetin9 will enable the dty to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35,102-35.104 ADA Title I). 1 February24,201O RECEIVED Bill Molnar, CohmiUlilty Development Director Community DeveloRment 51 Winburn Way Ashland,O_R 97520 FEB!24' 2010 .' Dear Bill: City 0' Ashland Communlly Development At last evening' sPlannlng Commission meeting, I had difficulties reconciling the text of Vil-C-9) Solar Orientation and VIII-C-1O) Bulldlhg""Shadlng of the Croman Mill Design Guidelines with the prop()sed street orientation of theCroman Mill Master Plan, In which the streets are oriented approximately 45. to thecardihal coordlhates (North, South, East, West). Basedon my experience in the deslgn"ofthe Student Services Buildl~g at Boise State University, the best practices for solar orientation are: . Orient the long side of a building to .the" south because solar gain on south exposures can be effectively controlled with horizontal'exterior shading devices. Horizontal,shading devices can be designed to shad!! south-facing windows from high.summer solar angles but permit sunlight to passively heat the building and provide natural illumination "in the winter months when sun angles are lower. North sides of buildings are least affected by solar gain, and little or no shading may be. necessary. . Solar gain is mostdifflcult to control on eastand west exposures because of low summer sun angles in the" mornings and evenings, when heat gain ismost problematjc.Solar gain Is best controlled on the east and west"sldes of a building by, reducing the amount of glazlng'on .those sides of the building and prl?viding deep overhangs atwlndows. . -' I don't necessarilyhillie ahyobJectlonstbthewordlng ofVII-(29) Solarbrlentation, except that orienting' bulldlng~ wlt~ the l.ong sides faclng,norlh and south may only be feasible on large parcels (such as the prbposea PlexissilEi); aswe discussed after the meeting_ On smaller parcels, th,estreet orientatlon'wllj 'largely dlctate"theo;lentatlon of the building, which means that few of the long sides of buildings will face northanc! south. Instead, they will face'lOrthwest, southwest,southeast, and northeast, which may: mean that 011 sides of thebulldingswlll have to deal with the solar gain Issues associated with east and, west exposures; That's why I saidthere seem-ecl to be inconslstenciesoetween the proposed street orientatlon'ln:theCroman 1v1i1I.jI.1asterPlan and the Design Standards;, Solar orlentation'ls likely a more important concern for residential and commercial land uses than it would be for industrial land uses because of tt\e~greater amount of glazlngtyplcal.on resldentlai"and commercial buildings. Where'wlndows are i'ncludedon Industrial buildings, the s~meprlnciples would apply. The orientation of roof Joists (on low-slope roofs) cali also affect tlie orieritatlon and efficiency,of solar photovoltaic installations-Ifthe ori.entat1onof rack-m()untedPVsystems Is dictated by'the orientation ofthe:roofjolsts, as was the caseoh,the" Higher Education Center In M(:dford. t have a slr'nllarconcern regarding thewordlng of the second se~tence In VIII-C-1D) Building Shading. If buildings are orientedJo the cardinal coordlhates, vertical shading devices at east, and west-facing windows maybe effective at controlling s.olar gain. However,when sides of a bUildlng"areoriented to the southwestand southeast, In particular, there will likely b~ periods ofthe day when solargain Is not effectively controlled by,vertical.shaaingdi!VIces. During those times, the sun's rays would be parallel to the vertical shading,deviceS"ahd render theyertlca) shading devices Ineffective. To effectively control 2 solar gain on southwest and southeast exposures may require a combination of vertical shading devices and deep overhangs; VIII-C'lOl"Buildlng Shading might be revised as follows: VIII-C-10) Building Shading 1. Provide horizontal exterior shade shadlng:devlces fef' at south,facing windows to control soiar gain during the "peak cooling season. 2." Provide vertical exterior shading devices agaffistat east- andwest- facing windows tOI control ~ solarg~in:and glare due to "low altitHdesun angl!!s fef'durlng the peak: cooling season: A combination o"f horizontal andvertlca.1 exterior Shading deviCes may be necessary to control solar gain on,souitiwest- and.southeast' facing vvlndoWs; For clarity; I would'suggest the followingrevlsiimVIII"C"B) Potable Water Reduction for Irrigation: VIII-ces} Potable Water Reduction'for Irrigation: Potable Water Reduction. Provide water efficient landscape Irrigation design that reduces by SO% the use of potable water over conventional means, beyaRd.after the initial re~HlremeRts perlod:for plant installation and establishment. Calculatio~s for the reduction shall b.e based on theWater budget, and the water budgetshallbedevelopedfor landscape and irrigation that conforms to Section Iii - Water Conserving landscaping Guidelines and Policies. Methods used to accomplish the requirements ofthissectlon may include, but are not limited to, the following. 1. plant species 2. irrigation efficiency 3, use of captured rainwater 4. use of recycled water S, use of graywater 6. use of water treated for irrigation purposed and coriveyed bya water district or public, entity: If tlie GreehDelielo'prnent StimdaidsVIII"C-Bthr6iJgh VIII-C'llgo fOrward t"o the'Clty "C60ncllas mandatory requirements, I would recommend the following revision toVlli-C-ll) Recycled Materials: VIII-C-ll) Recycled Materials Utilize reCYcled materials in the construction of streets, driveways, parking l.ots, sidewalks and curbs to the extent,th.t Ispr.ctlc.l.nd.fe.sible". -" ,", ' ", " " ',-' Philosophically, I am.very much in faVor of making the Green Deveiopment Standards VIII-C-B through VIII"C-ll mandatory. My only concerns with dolngso'relate to issues raised by private developers that the costs associated with meeting these and other requirements of the Croman Mill Master Plan might make realization of the plan financially infeasible; Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, Larry Blake 3 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES February 23, 2010 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: Larry Blake Michael Dawkins Dave Dotterrer Pam Marsh Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris John Rinaldi, Jr. Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Maria Harris, Planning Manager Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Richard Applcello, City Attomey April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Absent Members: None Council liaison: Eric Navickas, absent ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Marsh announced the vacancy on the Planning Commission and encounaged interested citizens to submit applications to the Mayor's Office. She also reminded the Commission the March Study Session has been moved to March 30,2010. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes. 1. February 9, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes, Commissioners Dotterrer/Blake mls to approve the Consent Agenda, Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 8-0, PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. , UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. PLANNING ACTION: #2009.01292 APPLICANT: City of Ashland DESCRIPTION: A request to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) creating a new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill, to amend the multiple chapters of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to provide consistency with the new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill (ALUO 189.08, 18.12,020,18,61.042, 18.68.050,18,70.040,18.72.030, 18.72.080, 18,72,110, 18.72,120,18.72,140, 18,72.180, 18.84.100, 18.88,070, 18.106), to amend the Ashland Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map to Include the Croman Mill District, and to adopt the Cromsn Mill Site Redevelopment Plan as a supporting document to the City's Comprehensive Plan, Commissioner Marsh noted the two letters that were submitted by Mark DiRienzo and Marilyn Briggs. She stated these letters would be added to the record and officially closed the public record at 7:08 p.m. Declaration of Ex Parte Contact Commissioner Miller stated she was contacted by Marilyn Briggs. She informed Ms. Briggs that she could not speak to this issue and encouraged her to submit a lelter. No ex parte contact was reported by any of the other commissioners. Ashland Planning Commission Febmery 23. 2010 Page 1 of6 4 Staff Report Planning Manager Maria Harris provided a brief summary of the Staff Report Addendum Included In the packet materials. She explained the report provides options 10 deal with the Issues raised by ODOT, and stated staff is recommending making the ODOT maintenance yard a special permitted use. Ms. Harris stated this would make the yard a legitimate use, but once it goes away all that can go in there would be the previously defined uses. She stated staff is also recommending language that clarifies before the second phase of the central boulevard Is built, the ODOT maintenance yard will need to be relocated. Ms. Harris noted ODOT has also recommended the City update the Transportation Analysis, and clarified this piece is in progress. Ms. Harris noted the Staff Report includes sample motions and recommended the Commission make separate motions for each of the separate elements Identified. She added the sample motion for 3(a} In regards to the East-West street orientation might be worded too strongly. She stated this is not an either or situation and the Commission could ask that the Council give this option further consideration. Ms. Harris commented briefiyon the Issues raised by Mr. DIRienzo and stated staff does not believe either option that has been put forward would make his buildings non-conforming. She stated If he wanted to enlarge his buildings or needed 10 re- build them he could do so, but they would be subject 10 sile review. Ms. Harris also clarified the plaza space requirements referenced by Mr. DiRienzo only apply to large scale developments (10,000 sq. It or greater or more than 100 ft. in length). She stated once you reach that size you are required to provide 1 sq. ft. of plaza area of every 10 sq. It, of building. Commissioner Mindlin expressed concern that the plan provides preferential treatment for ODOT. Ms. Harris responded that ODOT is in a unique position because all of the other existing buildings In the district could be allowed in the proposed zone, but the plan does not provide for ODOT's public facilities maintenance yard. Community Development Director Bill Molnar noted he met with ODOT and they assured him of their support for the plan and their desire to find a replacemenllocation. He stated ODOT's concern is they do not want to be zoned out until they can find a suitable replacement for their operations. Commissioner Mindlin noted the proposed language revision in response to ODOT's concern about the easements and restated her concern regarding preferential treatment. Staff indicated the proposed language change is more consistent with what has been presented and intended this whole time. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman noted all of the needed easements would be contingent on both parties being agreeable. Ms. Harris stated she does not believe this language treats ODOT differently and stated if the Commission is uncomfortable with the proposed wording, staff is open to any suggestions they may have. Upon request, staff responded to the assertions made In Mr. DiRienzo's letter. Item 1} Clarified staff is recommending Mr. DiRienzo's property retain its M-1 zoning designation. Item 2a} Clarified Modern Fan's newest addition is .45 FAR, which conforms to the requirements in the Detail Site Review zone. Item 2b} Noted the plaza space reqUirements have already been listed. Item 2c) Clarified in the Detail Site Review zone, only structures over 10,000 sq. ft. would be a Type It planning action; anything smaller than 10,000 sq. ft. is still a Type I. And Item 2d} Clarified Mr. DiRienzo could replace his buildings if they are damaged. . Ms. Harris explained staff beiieves the proposed distillery on Mr, DiRienzo's property could still be built if the property goes into the Detail Site Review zone. She stated the distillery's FAR is within the required range and clarified the public requirement would apply, however the approved plans did have some public space included and this would count towards that requirement. Ms. Harris noted the Detail Site Review standards currently apply In the downtown area, as well as along all of the City's main corridors. Commissioner Rinaldi stated he does not agree with the assertion that changing the M-1 zoning designation removes this type of land from the City's inventory, and stated many of the Industrial uses would still be allowed. Ms. Harris agreed and stated a lot of what people think about when they hear Industrlal uses are still allowed; what has been removed Is the land intensive, low employment uses (such as junk yards and concretelasphall batch plants,) Staff provided a brief explanation about advanced financing districts and clarified the adoption of the Croman plan does not obligate Ashland residents to pay for the street installation and infrastructure. The improvements identified for Mistletoe Road during Phase 1 were identified, and staff clarified the updated Traffic Analysis will look at traffic fiows on Mistietoe. As/l/and Plallnlllg Commissloll Febfllsry 23, 2010 Page 2of6 5 Commissioner Marsh recommended the Commission move forward with their recommendations: She noted page 11 of the Staff Report lists sample motions and opened the floor to motions. Commissioners Morris/Rinaldi mls to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map amendments to revise the Comprehensive Plan Map designations of Industrial, Employment and Slngle.Famlly Residential to the Croman Mill District, and revise the Zoning Map designations of M.1Industrlal, E-1 Employment and R.1 Single Family to CM Croman Mill Including the Compatible Industrial (el), Mixed Use (MU), Neighborhood Center (NC), Office Employment (OE) and Open Space (OS) zoning overlays with amendments as follows: a) Include the Mixed Use zoning overlay (CM-MU) In the Zoning Map amendment; b) Retain the M-1lndustrlal zoning for the properties at 650.750 Mistletoe Road, have the Comprehensive Plan designation amended from Industrial to Croman Mill, and include the portion of the site adjacent to the street In the Detail Site Review zone; c) Extend the Croman Mill District to the properties that are currently outside the city limits, but within the UGB, with an underlying Mixed Use zoning designation shoutd they choose to annex. DISCUSSION: The commissioners shared their preferences in regards to whether the property on Mistletoe Road should be included in the Detail Site Review zone. Commissioners Blake and Morris voiced their support for Including this property in the Detail Site Review zone; Dotterrer stated he does not believe it should be Included. Morris recommended it be it Included to protect the area In case the property Is sold and someone else wants to develop it. Marsh voiced her support for the motion and commented on how well designed the buildings along Washington Street are. She stated she Is convinced the Detail Site Review zone will have a big difference and does not believe it will be that onerous. Dotterrer voiced his support for including the Mixed Use Zoning Overlay and noted these areas are located next to the existing neighborhoods. Miller voiced her opposition to the inclusion of the Overlay and stated she would prefer to see more opportunities for Compatible Industrial uses. Regarding (c) Mindlin stated she feels strongly that by rezoning It they are sending a message to future applicants that this is what the City's wants, and stated this option was not really discussed or put up for pUblic Input. Mindlin recommended they leave this property in Its existing zoning and Commissioner Miller agreed. Mr. Molnar explained if they leave this area in its current designation, when an annexation request comes forward it will be for the currently identified E-1 Employment Zone, which receives basic site review. He added the annexation applicants could request a plan designation amendment, but this adds complexity to the process and is often not what people want to do when they are requesting annexation. The Commission talked about this further and received further clarification from staff. Mr. Molnar stated if the property is identified as part of the Croman Mill District, when the annexation requests comes forward there may be a possibility for the Mixed Use designation to be changed to one of the other two Croman designations. Ms. Harris noted the opeh space protections would not apply If the property is not included In the Croman Mill District, and explained as proposed, the property would come in as Croman Mill Mixed Use, which is very fiexible and allows for compatible industrial, office employment, and the option for residential uses on upper floors. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman added that the City does not have a zone comparable to the property's current RR-5 designation, and to keep this property as County RR-5 in perpetuity would require redrawing the Urban Growth Boundary to no longer consider this area urbanizable. Marsh restated the motion on the floor. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Rinaldi, Miller, Dotterrer, Blake, Morris, and Marsh, YES. Commissioners Dawkins and Mindlin, NO, Motion passed 6-2. Commissioner Marsh noted the second sample motion put forward in the Staff Report and listed their options, Commissioners Dotterrer/Mlller mts to recommend approval of adding a new Chapter 18.53 CM to the Ashland Municipal Code, with amendments as follows: a) Revise the Major Amendment section 18.53.020,B.1 to clarify the distinction between a major and minor amendment as It relates to the changes to street or other transportation facilities as described on page 11 of the February 3, 2010 staff memo; b)' Add the manufacture of food products to the Office Employment (OE) zone as a special permitted use. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Miller voiced her support for the manufacture offood products to be Included, Dotterrer also voiced his support and stated this will provide more options for people who want to develop In this area. Roll Call Vole: Commissioners Dotterrer, Blake, Marsh, Miller, Morris, and Rinaldi, YES, Commissioners Mindlin and Dawkins, NO. Motion passed 6.2. Ashland Planning Commission Feblllary 23, 2010 Page 3 of 6 6 Commissioner Marsh noted their options for motion 3 and recommended the group work through their options before a motion Is made. Item 3(a): Should the street orientation follow the frameworlr in the proposed Croman Mil District Implementation Plan, or should the streets and zoning overlays be adjusted to the East-West street orientation? Commissioner Marsh noted they do not have to choose tonight and can recommend that the Council consider the East-West alternative. Mr. Goldman clarified the East-West option results in a slight reduction of Compatible Industrial lands (1.3 acres), and a slight Increase In Mixed Use and Office Employment. Blake stated if there is no significant loss of acreage for the various uses, they should recommend the Council pursue the East-West orientation. He stated the 45' layout Is a bad way to start out, and unless you have fiat roofs on the buildings this is bad planning. Rinaldi voiced his support for recommending the East-West layout. Morris stated he is not a big fan of the East-West layout and is concerned the buildings will get 100 hot. He stated he Is not sure the revisions that would be needed to the streets are worth the gain in solar savings. Mindlin voiced her support for the East-West orientation and stated they know for sure this will Increase the possibilities for solar and believes they should lay the groundwork to make It possible for future owners to achieve solar savings. Item 3Ib): Shouid an altemative locafion for fhe norlhem section of Phase II of the central boulevard as shown in the East- West Altemative Option map be included as a potential option? Commissioner Dotterrer recommended they leave the options as wide open as possible. Miller stated she does not think they should recommend anything since it will be a long while before Phase II happens and they can not anticipate what will change. Marsh clarified this is what is proposed and they are leaving all options on the table. She clarified they are essentially putting forward two conceptual ideas that will be need to evaluated when Phase Ills designed. Item 3(c): Should the onsite surface parlring limitation be revIsed so that a higher percentage of the required off-street parlring can be constfUcted as surfaca parking on the sita until a parlring management plan is established for the Groman Mill DIstrict, and retaIning the 50% maximum once the management pian is in place? Commissioner Rinaldi asked If a development put in their own off-street parking, would they be relieved from any future obligation that comes out of the parking management plan? Ms. Harris clarified the original concept was to have a system set up so that in lieu of putting in parking spaces, a developer could contribute to the funding of the shared parking structure. She added if a developer is able to put In 'thelr own parking, they will not have to pay for the parking structure as well. Marsh asked if the Commission would be willing to recommend the parking management plan address alternative options that limit vehicle traffic on the site. General support was voiced for this, Miller stated she hopes the City will be flexible In how many spaces they require. Item 3(dl: Should the Green Development Standards (VIII-C-B through VIII-C-11) be combined to provide a menu of items the applicant could choose from? Ms. Harris provided a summary of this issue. She explained these items were previously listed under one standard and they were recommended, not required. Through the Planning Commission's discussions, staff revised the language to make these requirements. Blake stated he would like for these four items to be mandatory; however he wants to be sensitive to concerns raised regarding the costs of property development. He also commented that there may be some Internal Inconsistencies and stated if the final plan includes the original 45' street layout, there will be two west sides and two east sides for each building. He explained the way the building shading and solar orientation standards are worded assumes the buildings are oriented north-east-soulh-west. He stated there may be some logic to using the menu approach and giving the developer more latitude. Mindlin stated she Is in favor of leaving this as a list of requlremenls, however she noted the standards do not specify how much or to what degree. Mr. Molnar commented that by not specifying this it provides some flexibility. Dotterrer suggested they add the language 'to the extent practical' to clarify the Intent. Mindlin noted this does not mean to the extent practical financially. Morris stated these are too ambiguous to be requirements, and if they make this a standard they need to quantify them. Marsh stated she does not support the menu approach and felt they should make these either requirements or recommendations. General support was voiced for recommending these as standards, but asking the Council to refine them further. Ashland Planning Commission February 23, 2010 Page 40t6 7 Item 3(el: Should the Green Building Bonus standard be revised to reduce or delete the performance bond and penelty amounts? Commissioner Marsh noted their options and general support was voiced for deleting the performance bond and penalty amounts. It was noted the City could reinstate this language If abuse becomes an issue. Commissioners Dotterrer/Morrls mls to recommend approval of adding a new Section VIII- Croman Mill District Standards to the Site Design and Use Standards, with amendments noted as follows: a) Strongly recommend the East-West street orlentetlon as shown on the East-West Alternative Option Map Included In the January 12, 2010 Planning Commission packet materials; b) For the alternative location of the northern section of Phase II of the central boulevard as shown In the East.West Alternative Option Map be Included as an option. c) For the on.slte surface parking limitation (Standard VIII.B.3.2) be revised so that a higher percentage of the required off-street parking can be constructed as surface parking on site until a parking management plan Is established for the Croman Mill District, and retaining the 50% maximum once the parking management plan Is In placej and for the management plan to consider multi. modal options and the possible phasing of parking requirements; d) To strongly endorse the Green Development Standards VIII.C.8 through VIII.C-11 and ask that the standards are recommendations, but for the Council to look Into making these more specific and required standards; e) Delete the performance bond and penalty amounts from the Green Building Bonus standard VIII.C.13.1. , Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Morris, Blake, Rinaldi, Miller, Marsh, and Dotterrer, YES, Commissioners Mindlin and Dawkins, NO. Motion passed 4.2. The Commission moved onto the final motions outlined In the Staff Report. Commissioners Morrls/Dotterrer mls to recommend approval of revisions of various sections of Chapter 18 to provide consistency with Chapter 18,53 Croman Mill, Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Blake, Dotterrer, Marsh, Miller, Morris, and Rinaldi, YES. Commissioners Dawkins and Mindlin, NO, Motion passed 4-2. Commissioners Dotterrer/Rlnaldl mls to recommend approval of adopting the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan as a supporting document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Miller, Rinaldi, Dotterrer, Blake, Morris, and Marsh, YES. Commissioners Mindlin and Dawkins, NO. Motion passed 4.2. Ms. Harris noted the final decision that needs to be made regarding the suggestions brought forward by staff to deal with the ODOT concerns. Commissioners Dotterrer/Blake mls to amend the Commission's recommendation to the Council for AMC 18,53,040.B and Croman Mill District Standard VIII.A-1.2 as outlined In pages 3 and 4 of the February 23, 2010 Staff Report Addendum, DISCUSSION: Commissioner Miller voiced her opposition to the realignment of Grizzly Drive and Tolman Creek Road which is identified as a requirement for Phase II in Section VII-A-1.2. Marsh clarified the Commission has acknowledged that Phase II of the central boulevard Is going to have to undergo significant planning and design. Suggestion was made to amend the language to read, 'Consideration of the realignment of Grizzly Drlve and Tolman Creek Road.' Commissioner Dotterrer amended his motion to Include this clarification and Blake agreed. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dotterrer, Blake, Marsh, Miller, Morris and Rinaldi, YES, Commissioners Dawkins and Mindlin, NO. Motion passed 6-2. Commissioner Marsh announced this Item will go before the Council on Aprll 6, 2010 and encouraged members of the public to share their Input with the City Council. Marsh commented on the possibility of a minority report and noted the procedures for this to occur. She noted any minority report will need to be presented to the full Commission and they will need to vote on whether to forward it along with their recommendations. Commissioner Dawkins shared his frustraUons. He stated the primary issues he raised were never discussed and he believes the process was totally flawed. 8 AslJ/and Planning CommissIon Febmary 23, 2010 Page 5of6 The Commissioners commented briefiy on the possibility of a minority report and shared their thoughts. Marsh Indicated if a minority report is prepared, it will need to be submitted to the Planning Commission at their next meeting on March 9, 2010, ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p,m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administfative Assistant Ashland Planning Commission FebmBlY 23, 2010 Page 6 0(6 9 Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting Is encouraged 10 do so. If you wish to speak, piease rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, olve vour name and comalate address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak, Please note that the public lestlmony may be limited by the Chair and normally Is not allowed after the Public Hearing Is closed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2010 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. February 9, 2010 Pianning Commission Minutes IV. PUBLIC FORUM V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. PLANNING ACTION: #2009.01292 APPLICANT: City of Ashland DESCRIPTION: A request to amend the Ashland land Use Ordinance (ALVO) creating a new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill, to amend the inultiple chapters of the Ashland land Usa Ordinance to provide consistency with the new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill (ALUO 18.08, 18.12:020, 18.61.042, 18.68.050,18.70,040,18.72.030,18.72.080, 18.72.110, 18,72.120, 18.72.140, 18.72.180, 18.84.100, 18.88.070,18.106), to amend the Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map to include tha Croman Mill District, and to adopt the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan as a supporting document to the City's Comprehensive Plan. (Public Hearillg Closed) VI. ADJOURNMENT C '. T Y 0 f ASHLAND ~.l' In compliance wllh the Amaricans with Dlsabllilles Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Davalopment office at 541-488-5305 (TIY phone Is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior 10 the meeting will enable the City to make reesonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35,102-35.104 ADA Title 1). 10 ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT Addendum February 23, 2010 PLANNING ACTION: 2009-01292 APPLICANT: City of Ashland LOCATION: Croman Mill District Boundary ZONE DESIGNATION: City of Ashland M-I, E-I, R-I-5 and Jackson County RR-5 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: City of Ashland Industrial, Employment, Single-Family Residential and Jackson County Rural Residential Lands ORDINANCE REFERENCE: Chapter 18,52 M-Ilndustrial District, Chapter 18.40 Employment District, Chapter 18.20 Single-Family Residential District, Chapter 18.108 Procedures STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS: 00al2 - Land Use Planning Ooal 9 - Economic Development OREGON REVISED STATUTES (ORS): Chapter 197 - Comprehensive Land Use Planning Coordination OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULE (OAR): 660-009 Economic Development REQUEST: To amend the Ashland Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps to include the Croman Mill District, to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) to include a new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill, to'amend the Site Design and Use Standards to include a new Section VIII- Croman Mill District Standards, to amend multiple chapters of the ALUO to provide consistency with the new Chapter 18,53 Croman Mill (ALUO 18.08, 18.12, 18.61, 18.68, 18.70, 18.72, 18.84, 18.88, 18.l06), and to adopt the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan as a supporting document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. I. Relevant Facts Please refer to the January 12, 20 I 0 Staff Report for the project background, description of site and proposal, and discussion of project impact. . A. Background In FeblUary 2009, the City Council directed staff to work with the Planning Commission to begin the process of adopting the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Planning AcUon PA 112009-1)1292 Applicant: City of Ashland Ashland Planning Div~ion - Slaff Report " Page 1 of 15 . " 11 Plan by preparing the necessary accompanying Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) and Comprehensive Plan amendmcnts. The Planning Commission worked on the development of the Croman Mill Distl"ict Implementation Plan throughout 2009 including one site visit and discussions at nine meetings. Additionally, the Croman Advisory Committee (CAC) met four times in the summer and fall of 2009 to provide feedback on the implementation plan. B. Project Goals and Objectives The issues and opportunities identified dul"ing the first public workshop and key participants meetings in January 2008 were used to create the project goals and objectives as listed below. Circulation o Create a local street network that provides balanced circulation for pedestrian, bikes, autoltruck and transit and Is well connected to existing streets o Improve visibility and Identity for the study area o MItigate Impacts of auto and truck traffic on Tolman Creek Road and Ashland Street o Preserve rail access for commuters, passengers and freight o Improve safety for autos and pedestrians of key intersection sand rail crossings o Provide for non-motorized trails linked to existing trails and parks systems o Create safe routes to Bellview School o Manage traffic Impacts on Exit 14 and Ashland Street Land Use o Provide for a large number of family wage jobs o Allow for light industrial and manufacturing o Create parcels with the flexibility to support local new small business, existing business expansion and large employers o Consider a range of housing options o Allow for a mix of uses o Do not create uses that compete with downtown o Incorporate a public gathering space o Preserve streams and wetlands Policies and Regulations o Recommend code changes to be adopted by the City of Ashland o Recommend commitment of funds for specific infrastructure improvements o Mandate sustainable and green development codes o Develop standards for 'dark skies' II. ProJect Imoact A. OOOT Revisions The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) submitted a letter on February I, 2010 regarding the Croman Mill District Plan. The letter addresses several items from Planning Action PA #2009-01292 Applicant: City of Ashland Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Page 20f15 12 the perspective ofODOT as the property owner of the maintenance yard located on Tolman Creek Road. Additionally, the letter makes suggestions in regards to updating the transportation analysis and meeting the requirements of the Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-0060), 1. Replacement of Mailltenance Yard Buildings ODOT raised a concern regarding the ability of ODOT to rebuild structures on t~e maintenance site in the case of a fire or natural hazard destroying the structures. Additionally, a concern was raised regarding having to meet the proposed dcsign standards in the case a destroyed maintenance yard structure needs to be rebuilt. Staff recommends the addition of "Oregon Depal1ment of Transportation (ODOT) facilities" as a special permitted use to the land use matrix in Chapter 18.53, and the addition ofthe following section to 18.53.040,B Special Permitted Uses. 18.53.040.8 Special Permitted Uses 12. Oregon Department ofTransportatlon Facilities For the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Ashland maintenance facility and storage yard located on property within the NC overlay the following shall apply: a. Buildings may be enlarged or replaced subject to Basic Site Review Standards. b. Are exempt from the Dimensional Regulations per 18,53.050 with the exception of minimum side and rear yard setbacks abutting a residential district and maximum building height. c. Are exempt from the requirements of Section VIII Croman Mill District Standards of the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards. 2. Relocation ofOnOT Maintenance Yard ODOT raised a concern regarding the implementation plan clearly stating the ne~d for the maintenance yard to be purchased and relocated prior to the central boulevard being rOllted through the prope11y. Staff recommends the following change be made to Croman Mill District Standard VIlI-A-I.2 Phased Street Plan. Standard VIII-A-1.2 2, Phased Street Plan Build-out of the Central Boulevard can be accommodated through a phased development plan. a. Phase I Implementation will"require: i. Maintain the existing Mistletoe Road alignment form Tolman Creek Road to the northwest corner of the Croman Mill site. iI. Include developer- constructed minor Improvements to the existing portion of Mistletoe Road such as a minimum six-foot wide sidewalk on the norlh side of the street, two 11-foot travel lanes and the addition of a left-turn pocket at the Intersection with Tolman Creek Road, Iii. A developer-constructed three-lane Central Boulevard from the northwest corner of the district to Siskiyou Boulevard. Planning AcUon PA #2009.01292 Applicant: City of Ashland Ashland Planning Oivlslon - Stall Report Page 3 of 15 13 b. Phase II implementation wiil require: i. The realignment ofTolman Creek Road and construction oflhe second Dhase of the central boulevard is contingent upon future aGq~IEitloR of right of way 1Ilroug/l sale and relocation of the existing ODOT maintenance yards. ii. Realignment of Grizzly Drive and Tolman Creek Road. ' iii. Acauisltlon of rlaht of wav or negotiating dedicated easements. iv. Vacating a portion of City-owned property. v. Options addressing the final street configuration and Intersection geometry wiil be evaluated with the final Phase II design of the northwest section of the Central Boulevard. 3. Traffic Analysis Issues ODOT suggested phasing the traffic analysis to be consistent with the expected redevelopment, with consideration of the fact that it is unknown when ODOT will be able to rclocate their maintenance yard from the Tolman Creek Roa1Jocation. The City Council approved a contract-specific special procurement at the ~t116, 20 I 0 meeting to have DKS Associates update the Croman transpOltation analysis. The purpose of the update is to include an additional land use scenario to address the "hybrid" industrial/office land use plan, as well as to address the phasing of the central boulevard should the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) maintenance yard remain in place indefinitely, impacts of a' railroad crossing connecting the plan area to Washington Street and new findings requirements of the Transportation Planning Rule. Work on the transpOltation analysis is expected to begin in the last week of February and be completed at the end of March. The traffic analysis revisions and findings for the Transportation Planning Rule will be addressed in the findings prepared for the City Council's decision. The adopted findings may need to include an update to the Transp0l1ation System Plan (TSP) project list identifying several transportation projects associated with the Croman Mill District. B. Issues from February 9 Planning Commission Meeting At the February 9th Planning Commission meeting, the Commission requested information on the following issues. . Allowing M-I Uses in Compatible Industrial (CI) Zoning Overlay The Compatible Industrial (CI) zoning allows many of the uses permitted in the M-I Indnstrial district such as manufacturing, assembly, fabrication, packaging, manufacture of food products; offices and limited outdoor storage. Land- intensive uses with low employment densities such as mini-warehouses, junkyard and auto wrecking yards, hotels and motels, building material sales yards, and concrete or asphalt batch or mixing plants are not pe1mitted in the CI overlay ZOlle. Additionally, retail and restaurant uses are limited in square footage under the proposed zoning, rather than being unrestricted in size or scope as is allowed under the M-I Industrial and E-I Employment zoning. As recommended in the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan (2008), the land- intensive uses with low employment densities were not included in the CI zone to address project objectives of creating family wage jobs, using land efficiently to Planning Action PA #2oo9.01292 Applicant City of Ashland Ashland Planning Division -Staff Report Page 4 of 15 14 achieving higher job densities, and creating a unique and distinctive indentify by locating complementary employers with a focus on clean industries and an emphasis on creativity, craft and innovation. Similarly, the service-oriented uses such as shops and restaurants are intended to be of a neighborhood scale to provide manufacturing and industrial uses the opportunity to have direct sales areas, as well as providing opportunities for smallrestaurants/shops (e.g. coffee shop) that would be within easy walking distance of nearby employers. . Retaining Employment Comprehensive Plan Designation for Southern Portion of Plan Area Rathel' than the Proposed Croman Mill District Currently, the southern p011ion of the plan area adjacent to Siskiyou Boulevard (i.e. surrounding the farmhouse, pond and mobile home park) is outside the Ashland city limits, but inside the Ashland UI'ban Growth Boundary (UGB). This area has an Employment designation on the Ashland Comprehensive Plan map, and is proposed to be amended to the Cl'Oman Mill District plan designation. On the proposed zoning map, the southern area is included in the Mixed Use (MU) zoning overlay. The MU zoning overlay provides the flexibility to have manufacturing and offices in the ground floor of buildings. The proposed MU zoning overlay would not go into effect until the property is annexed, The property is currently zoned Jackson County RUl'al Residential (RR-5), and would remain under county zoning until the propel1y is annexed. The Croman Mill Site Implementation Plan does not include the annexation of the southern area. The annexation of the propel1ies would have to be initiated by the prope11y owners. . Financing of Central Boulevard Impl'ovements The issue of financing the central boulevard and related utilities was raised at the February 9th Planning Commission meeting. For subdivision and site review approvals, adequate capacity of transpOltation, water, sewer, storm drainage, and electricity facilities is required for proposed development. As a result, the developer of the property is responsible for the provision o'f transportation and public utilities to and through the site. Accordingly, if a development were proposed in the Croman Mill study area, the developer would be responsible for the construction of the central boulevard and the related utilities. Improvements can be proposed and constructed in phases. In the case where streets and utility lines that are lar'ger facilities which serve a greater area beyond the development, developers can be awarded system development charge (SDC) credits for a portion ofthe cost of the qualifying facilities that they construct. For example, when North MOUlitain Avenue was improved to city standards from North Mountain Park to the city limits, the developer was given credit for a portion of the street impl'Ovements that serve the general public beyond the immediate area. As an A venue (major collector), North Mountain collects and carries traffic in both a n0l1herly and southerly direction from Ashland's neighborhoods to larger streets. Additionally, this Planning Action PA #2009-01292 Applicant: City of Ashiand Ashland Plannin9 Division - Stall Report Page 50115 15 function will expand further at some time in the future when the Nevada Street connection is made. In November 2009, the Public Works Depaltment intl'Oduced the concept of developing Advanced Financing districts to the City Council. The purpose of Advanced Financing is to provide a financial mechanism to reimburse publicly or privately funded public improvement projects that have direct benefit to other propeltyowners. Examples of larger public facilities are construction of street extensions to provide required traffic flows, constl11ction of traffic signals, storm water improvements and corresponding detention basins, larger and/or extended water lines that are require for fire flow for several projects, improved sewer lines to provide capacity to an entire area and right-of-way or easement purchases for required public improvement which may be outside 0 the their property or development boundaries. Advanced Financing is similar to the formation of a Local Improvement District (LID) in that it distributes the cost of public improvement projects based on benefited use. With the Advance Financing method, payment is due when the benefited property owner connects to or accesses the public improvement. In November 2009, the Council authorized Staff to work with Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and Oregon Business Development Department to prepare a grant application for anlmmediate OppOltunity Fund (IOF) grant of up to one million dollars to be used for road construction at the Croman Mill Site. The IOF is a state program, and the state purpose of the IOF is to SUPPOlt primary economic development in Oregon through the construction and improvement of streets and roads and is funded through State gas tax revenue. The Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan (2008) includes a work plan for the next steps in implementing the plan. The first two "time-sensitive" items on.the list are to create and adopt a Croman Mill District overlay zoning plan and to adopt the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment plan. The following items on the list include studying the feasibility of an urban renewal district and developing and urban renewal plan, as well as developing a financing plan for stlUctured parking. Staff has developed a project description and preliminary scope of work for the urban renewal and financing plan projects, has applied for a state grant for funding and is exploring other grant opportunities. As part of the original 2008 plan development project, a transportation cost report was prepared with planning level cost estimates for the intersection as well as the construction of the central boulevard. This repOlt is available on the project web page at www.ashlund.or.us/croman. C. Comprehensive and Zoning Map Change Findings The maps included in the January 12,2010 Planning Commission packet materials show the current and proposed Comprehensive Pion and Zoning designations for the properties within the district. Planning AcUon PA #2009.01292 Applicant: City of Ashland Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Page 6 of 15 16 The area within the boundary of the proposed Croman Mill District including the former 64-acre Croman Mill site is primm'ily zoned M-! Industrial, with some additional areas of E-! Employment adjacent to the southern portion of Mistletoe Road and R-l Single Family on the approximately six-acre 00 aT maintenance yard on Tolman Creek Road. Additionally, the area adjacent to Siskiyou Boulevard and Crowson Road is within the Croman Mill District boundary and in the Ashland urban growth boundary (UGB), but is outside the city limits - this area is designated Employment in the Ashland Comprehensive Plan and is currently zoned Jackson County RR-5 Rural Residential. The proposed Croman Mill District includes five zoning ovel'lays. Again, the bulk of the district is the 64-acre Croman Mill site which would be divided between C! Compatible Industrial an OE Office Employment. Office uses area focused in the northern half ofthe district and manufacturing uses are concentrated in the southern half of the district in an effort to create distinct identities for each area and to maintain freight rail access to the industrial area. The ODOT maintenance yard at the northwest corner of the plan area would be NC Neighborhood Commercial, a mixed-use area including small scale neighborhood commercial uses and residentiall11lits. There are two MU Mixed Use areas with one located between Hamilton Creek and Mistletoe Road and the other surrounding the south entrance on Siskiyou Boulevard. These areas are intended as transitions from the existing residential areas to the west and south, and would allow a mix of uses including office, light manufacturing and residential uses. The ['esidentialuses in the NC Neighborhood Commercial and MU Mixed Use overlays are limited to upper floors of the buildings. Finally, there is an OS Open Space/Conservation Ovel'lay which includes the areas along Hamilton Creek, the Central Park, and the pond and creek in the southeast pOltion of the district. The amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning maps to reflect the master plan is a Type III amendment, and subject to the following criteria. . 18.108.060 Standards for Type III Planning Actions: 1, 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 Ihan 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 10 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 18.106.030(G);or Planning Action PA #2009-01292 Applicant: City of Ashland Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Paga 7 of 15 17 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 18.106.030(G). The total number of affordable units described in sections 0 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 guaranlee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years, Sections D and E do not apply to council initiated actions. It is important to note that with the exception of the ODOT maintenance yard property on Tolman Creek Road, the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map changes are not a wholesale change of the plan and zone designations (e.g. a change from an industrial to a ['esidential designation). Instead, the proposed map amendments are a redistribution of the uses allowed unde1' the current M- I Industrial zoning. The title of the M-I Industrial zoning is somewhat misleading because the zoning district allows a wide range of commercial and employment uses including offices, retail, personal services, restaurants, nightclubs and bars, theaters, and hotels and motels in addition to those uses typically associated with industrial areas such as manufacturing, processing, assembling, mini-warehouses, outside storage of merchandise and raw materials,junkyard and auto wrecking yat'ds, and concrete or asphalt batch or mixing plants. In short, the M -I Industrial zoning district includes the uses that are allowed in the C-I Commercial and E-I Employment zoning districts. In the proposed Croman Mill District, professional offices are targeted for the OE Office Employment zone and manufacturing and assembly is the focus of the CI Compatible Industrial zone, with pl'Ovisions to allow for some cross-over manufacturing and offices associated with the primary use of the zone. Stores, restaurants and shops of a neighborhood scale are located in the NC Neighborhood, and allowed thl'Oughout the OE Office Employment and CI Compatible Industrial zones at a more limited scale. The MU Mixed Use areas allow both the office and manufacturing and assembly uses. With the exception of the residential uses allowed in the NC Neighborhood Commercial and MU Mixed Use zoning ovel'iays, the uses included in the Croman Mill District are allowed under the C\llTent M - I Industrial and E- I Employment zoning. In keeping with the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan (2008) project objectives and recommendations, land-intensive uses with low employment densities such as mini-warehouses, junkyard and auto wrecking yards, outdoor storage areas of unrestricted size, hotels and motels, building material sales yards, equipment storage yards, and concrete or asphalt batch or mixing plants are not permitted in the Compatible Industrial (CI)I and Office Employment(OE) overlay zones. Additionally, retail and restaurant uses are limited to relatively small square footages under the proposed zoning, rather than being unrestricted in size or scope as is allowed under the eUl1'ent M- I Industrial and E- I Employment zoning. Planning AcUon PA #2oo9-01292 Applicant: Cily of Ashland Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Page 80115 18 In staffs opinion, the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map amendments are necessary to respond to a substantial change in circumstances that have occurred since the existing plan and zoning designations were established. A number of factors contributed to the change in circumstances, and the subsequent master planning of the Croman Mill site including the evaluation of the current plan and zone designations. The Cl'Oman Mill Site was established as a lumber and planning mill in 1934, and this use or a similar sawmill use continued on the site until 1996. The "Industrial" designation on City maps has been in place at least since 1966. As late as 1980, the mill was still in full operation with 200 employees working two shifts a day, and it . was the largest private employer in Ashland (Kramer, Historic Overview Study, 'Croman Mill Study Area', January 10, 2008). As the timber industry declined in the 1980's and 1990's, lumber mills throughout Oregon closed as did the Cl'Oman Corporation operation on the Ashland site in 1996. Since the closure of the mill, the property has remained largely unused except for a temporary asphalt batch plant in 2001, and storage of used concrete and decommissioned equipment. The 2007 Economic Opportunity Analysis (EOA) raised a concel'l1regarding the broad range of activities permitted in the M-I, and the compatibility with the site and slll'rounding uses. As a result, the EOA recommended preparing a master plan for the site to evaluate appropriate uses and to incorporate sustainable development concepts. Clearly, the end ofthe mill operations after six decades of use and the propel1y being largely unused and vacant since that time have contributed to the efforts to re- examine the plan arca. In 200 I there was an application to rezone the prope11y for residential purposes, which the City ultimately denied. Subsequent to the City's decision, the 2007 Economic Opportunity Analysis (EOA) identified a need to t'etain existing employment lands, including the Croman Mill site, within the city limits and UGB to accommodate the forecasted employment through 2027. Tn terms of the trends in industrial uses, Ashland has attracted and is expected to continue to attract firms in the specialty manufacturing category which tend have a dedication to envil'Onmental issues, sustainable production and concern for the community (e.g. Dagoba Organic Chocolates, Dream Saks and Plexis Healthcare Systems). At the same time, more traditional heavy industrial uses are not occurring in Ashland, and the community established policies which discourage industrial uses that use large amounts of water and/or emit pollutants. The Economic Element of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan was updated in 1991, and includes several goals and policies that establish the latitude to revise and update employment lands designations, as well as which supp011 the goals and objectives established in the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan (sce section I.B above). Excerpts from the Economic Element goals and policies are listed below. Goal: To ensllre that the local economy increases in its health, and diversifies in the nllmber, type and size of bllsinesses consistent with the local social needs, pllblic service capabilities, and the retention of a high qllality environment. Planning AcUon PA #2009.01292 Applicant City of Ashland Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Page 9 of 15 19 Polley 1: The City shall zone and designale within the Plan Map sufficienl quanlity of lands for commercial and industl'ialuses to provide fol' the employment needs of its residents and a pOl'tion of rliral residents consistent with Ihe populalionfol' the ,n-ban area. Policy 2: The City shall design the Land Use Ordinance 10 provide for: e) COlllmercial or employment zones whel'e business and residenlialuses are mixed. This is especially appropl'iate as buffers between residential and employment or commercial areas, and in the Downtown. Policy 3 - The City shall develop and implement an economic development pl'ogramwhich will attempt to increase the number, variety and size of retain, sel'vice, and light indush'ial activity employers in the urban al'ea, with particular emphasis on employel's who pay wages at 01' above the median COl/nty wage and employ ji"Oln 5 to 100 people, 01' who are locally owned. The City shallwol'k with regional economic development agencies 01' coordInation regional economic development aclivilies. Policy 4: In accol'dance with the policies VlI-2 and VII-2 above, the City shall take sl/ch aclions as al'e necessary to ensl/re Ihat economic development can occl/r in at timely and efficient manner. SI/ch actions may include the following: b) Utilization of available granls and loans to finance the exlension of public . facililies to lands zoned 01' planned for commercial or Indl/slrialuse. c) Inclusion within the Capital Improvemenl programsfacililies impl'ovement which will help achieve long-range development goals and polices. Polley 7: The City is clearly unsuilable for Ihe following types of businesses: a) Businesses which use large amounts of water, especially when Ashland's waleI' needs peak. b) Businesses that emit significant amounls of ail' pollution. c) Businesses thaI create toxic wastes Ihal require specialized dlsposallechniques not available locally. d) The City shall include in Ihe Land Use Ordinance specific list of businesses that are prohibited form operalions in the City Limits, or specific peliol'mance standal'ds that would define I/ses that are unacceptable because they meet One 01' more of the above crilerla. The master planning pl'Ocess was in response to a series of changing circumstances over a decade, and an effort to find opportunities to create a high quality employment center, to address development interests and to incorporate the community's values and goals. The plan area is retained for employment and economic purposes with 64 acres focused on manufacturing and office uses, 16 acres for mixed use with 100 percent manufacturing and office uses required on the ground floor, 7.5 acres of open space and 6 acres of neighborhood center with a mix of commercial and residential uses. The master plan allows more specificity than a standard zoning district for the plan area, and addresses long-term community goals such as creating family wage Planning Action PA #2009.01292 Applicant: City of Ashland Ashiand Planning Division - Staff Report P~a 10 of 15 20 jobs, having a well-connected and multi-modal (i.e. pedestrian, bicycles, auto/truck, freight and transit) transportation system, presel'Ving natural features, creating a built environment that respects Ashland's character, making desu'able public spaces and incorporating green development standards. Industrial Employment Mixed Use OpenSpace Neighborhood Center Residential (R-t-5) Croman Mill District Gross Acreages Existing Comprehensive Plan 64 25 o o o 7 Current Proposal 33 31 16 7.5 6 o D. Planning Commission Deliberations The Planning Commission makes a recommendation on the Croman Mill District Implemcntation Plan to the City Council, and the City Council makes the final decision. Staff recommends the Planning Commission work. through the process of formulating a recommendation by addressing the pieces ofthe Croman Mill District Implementation Plan with separate motions, Sample motions for each implementation plan component are included below; as well as a list ofthe potential revisions the Planning Commission has discussed.. Croman Mill District Implementation Plan 1. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment Potential Motion: Move to recommend approval of Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map amendments to: I) revise the Comprehensive Plan Map designations of Industrial, Employment and Single-Family Residential to the Croman Mill District, and 2) to revise the Zoning Map designations ofM-1 Industrial, E-I Employment and R-I Single-Family Residential to CM Croman Mill including the Compatible Industrial (CI), Mixed Use (MU), NeighbOl'hood Center (NC), Office Employment (OE) and Open Space (OS) zoning overlays, with amendments noted as follows. a. Should the Mixed Use zoning ovel'lay (CM-MO) be included in the Zoning Map amendment? b. Should the properties at 650-750 Mistletoe Road (mini-storage site): I) retain the M-I Industrial zoning, have the Comprehensive Plan designation amended from Industrial to Croman Mill, and include the pOltion of the site adjacent to the strcct in the Detail Site Review Zone, 01' 2) be included in the Croman Mill District as show in January 12, 2010 draft, Planning AcUon PA #2009-01292 Applicant: City of Ashland Ashland Planning Division - Starf Report Page 11 of 15 21 c. Should areas within the Croman Mill District that are currently outside the city limits, but within the UGB retain their existing Jackson County zoning until annexed independent of this plan? 2. Add Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance Potential Motion: Move to recommend approval of adding a new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill to the Ashland Municipal Code, with amendments noted as follows. a. . Should the Major Amendment section 18.53.020.B.] be revised to clarify the distinction between a major and minor amendment as it relates to changes to street or other transportation facilities as described on page I] of the February 3,20]0 staff memo (see below)? Section 18.53.020.8.1 1. Major and Minor Amendments, a. Major amendments are those which result in any of the following: (1) A change in the land use overlay. (2) A modification to the street layout plan that necessitates a street or other transportation facility to be eliminated 9Hosated In a manner Insenslstent with tRe Creman-MIII lJlslrlst Plan. (3) A change not specifically listed under the major and minor amendment definitions. ~ b. Minor amendments are those which result in any of the following: (1) A change In the Plan layout that requires a street, access way, multi-use path or other transportation facility to be shifted more than 25 feet in any direction, as long as the change maintains the connectivity established by the Croman Mill District Plan. (2) Changes related to street trees, street furniture, fencing, or signage. (3) A change in the design of a street in a manner inconsistent with the Croman Mill District Standards. (4) A modification of a driveway access location in a manner inconsistent with the Croman Mill District Standards. (5) A site layout, landscaping or building design which is inconsistent with the Croman Mill District Standards. (6) A change in a dimensional standard requirement in section 18.53.060, but not including height and residential density, b. Should the manufacture of food products be added to the Office Employment (OE) zoning overlay as a special permitted use? Planning Action PA #2009.01292 Applicant: City of Ashland Ashland Planning Oiv~ion - Staff Report Peg. 12 of 15 22 3. Add Section VIII.Croman Mill District Standards to the Site Design and Use Standards Potential Motion: Move to recommend approval of adding a new Section VIII- Croman Mill District Standards to the Site Design and Use Standards, with amendments noted as follows. a. Should the street orientation follow the framework in the proposed Croman Mill District Implementation Plan, or should the streets and zoning overlays be adjusted to the East-West street orientation as shown on the East-West Alternative Option Map included in the January 12,20 I 0 Planning Commission packet materials? b. Should an alternative location for the northern section of the Phase II of the central boulevard as shown in the East-West Alternative Option Map included in the January 12,2010 Planning Commission packet materials be included as a potential option? c. Should the on-site surface parking limitation (standard VIII-B-3.2) be revised so that a higher percentage of the requit'ed off-street parking can be constructed as surface parking on site until a parking management plan is established for the Croman Mill District, and retaining the 50 percent maximum once the parking management plan is in place? d. Should the Green Development Standards VIII-C-8 through VIII-C-ll (i.e. potable water rcduction for irrigation, solar orientation, building shading and recycled materials) be combined to provide a menu of items the applicant could chose from? . . e. Should the Gl'een Building Bonus standard VIII-C-l3.! be revised to: I) reduce the performance bond and/or penalty amounts, 2) delete the performance bound and/or penalty amounts, or 3) retain the performance bond and penalty amounts as included in the Janual'Y 12, 20 I 0 draft of the Section VIII Croman Mill District Standards? 4. Revise Sections of Chapter 18 for Consistency with Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill Potentiat Motion: Move to recommend approval of revisions of various sections of Chapter 18 to provide consistency with Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill, with amendments noted as follows. 5. Adopt the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan as Supporting Document Potential Motion: Move to recommend approval of adopting the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan as a supporting document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. Planning Action PA #2009.01292 Applicant: Cily of Ashland Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Page 13 of 15 23 III. Procedural - Reaulred Burden of Proof 18.108.060 Standards for Type III Planning Actions: 1. 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 resulling 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 18.106.030(G);or e. Increases In residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial, employment or industrlai 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 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 restricllon, 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 council initiated actions. 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 Clly. The Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed amendment at Its earliest pracllcable meeting alter 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 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 Planning Action PA #2009'()1292 Applicant: City of Ashland Ashiand Planning Division - Stall Report Page 140115 24 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 Ashland is fortunate to have an area such as the fOlmer Croman Mill site within the city which can be redeveloped to address future employment needs of the community. The master planning efforts insure that the area will develop into a viable employment center, as well as in a manner which is consistent with the community's values and concerns. The 2008 planning process which resulted in the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan involved a wide variety of participants including the general public, propel1y owners and key participants inCluding neighborhood representatives, government agencies and local interest groups. Staff believes the revisions that have been made in the development of the implementation package have refined and improved the redevelopment plan, and are largely consistent with the original plan goals and objectives. Staff recommends approval ofthe map and ordinance amendments to implement the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan. Planning Action PA #2009.01292 Applicant Cily of Ashland Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Page 150115 25 RECEIVED ,........ . From: Mark 0 <markd@mind.net> Date: Tue, Feb 23,2010 at 10:27 AM Subject: 650-750 Mistletoe To: Bill Molnar <rnolnarb@ashland.or.us> Cc: oam.marsh@amail.com FEB 2 3 2010 . City of Ashl,nd Community Development HI Bill, I see in the packet that our property is still being considered as either conversion to OE or to remain M1 but with detailed site review requirements being added. As mentioned before, neither of these work for our project as it sits today or as planned for the future. Also, these proposed changes to our zone do not work for our prospective tenants either. 1. The conversion to OE makes most of what we've built and planned to build in our business park non conforming or prohibited. Even if you were proposing CI that also makes our building and plan non conforming, so keeping M1 only makes sense. 2. Keeping M1 but choosing to overlay it with Detailed site review standards instead of leaving the basic standard in place also negatively impacts the property as stated in my public comments on the 91h. Negatives include and are not limited to: a. FAR in detailed versus the basic site plan reviews reduce FAR making it impossible for me to build buildings that tenants are demanding (ie, I could not build Mod Fans existing building, nor could I build what Airscape was seeking (prior to throwing their hands up and leaving town) if you put this detailed review burden on my property. b. Plaza space in Detailed review forces a huge space to be set aside for plaza AND counts against FAR making possible buildings even smaller. The detailed site review is more of a downtown standard; not appropriate for a business park. M1 has adequate landscaping and public space requirements. c. We go from a type 1 to type 2 approval. That will only deter possible businesses and tenants frorn moving to the area and committing to build-to-suit or lease arrangements with the risk of a project being mired in planning process. d. It doesn't address the possibility of rne replacing the buildings I have, can I, if one is damaged? The detailed review would affect what I could do again to replace existing structures. . e. There are many more than this short list. PLEASE leave my property M1. This allows me to continue to build office buildings like the one I already have at 700 Mistletoe, It allows me to market the property to folks that want buildings like Modern Fan's, Dreamsaks, etc, and it allows me to continue to pursue the financing with Organic Nation for their distillery building which is an approved plan and COULD NOT be built on my site with either of your two proposed solutions changes to my zone. You told me your main concern to even have brought my property into this project a month ago was to ensure that the high level of design we started with continues. Leaving it M1 still requires a basic site review standard which must still go before the staff to make a determination if it is in keeping with the look of the property, there is still staff discretion. Why make it any more complicated than that. Especially by adding the detailed site review standards that are not appropriate on that site. In reality, the top level design of our existing office building at 700 misteltoe is proof that you and I (Incl your staff) were able to make solid design choices without adding more regulation and process, why not continue let the system work on our property the way it was set up to work. The results were great the first time around, no? Mark DiRienzo Mistletoe Road Business Park 700 Mistletoe Road #106 Ashland, OR 97520 541-621-8393 26 . February 20, 2010 To: Planning Commission, Planning Staff, City Administrator, Mayor, & City Council The Croman Properly proposal has the appearance of being a done-deal. It seems public input was ignored and questions were not really answered during two years of public meetings. This cunent plan reverses many years of wise decisions regarding sprawl and inlill; it is incomprehensively wasteful .of our limited land resources. Please, even though much time has already been invested, it is long past time to answer these fundamentally basic site specific questions: I) In consideration of the State regulation to have a 20 year supply of each zone lype within the urban growth boundray, why allow the "Mixed Use" zone change to reduce industrial use to 22% of Croman acreage when there is NO OTHER PLACE to create industdalland use within Ashland? Why zone away our Ihture with this flawed proposal? 2) Why promote Mixed Use zoning on this site at all? There is a huge surplus of existing Mixed Use zoning, either already built and empty, or, raw land. (Prominent examples include the Railroad District, and the downtown property across from the Post office, formally called Northlight). Exactly how does the SUST AlNABLE goal of our Mayor and City Council dovetail with this proposal's explicit creation of SPRAWL and disregard for INFILL??? !fyour answer is to "promote jobs", isn't it obvious that developers have a plentilhl supply ofland already zoned to fit tills specific need? 3) Why does the proposed "boulevard" configuration arrogantly cut through existing huildings, through existing farm land ontside the City limits, and through ODor property that may not belong to the City lor many years to come, IF EVER? Note, by traversing the ODOT property, this boulevard exits on Tolman Creek Road which parallels an existing residential block; how safe, how fi'iendly is that? 4) Doesn't common sense dictate that it would be more thrifty, as well as considerate, to design the proposed "boulevard" along the existing Mistletoe Road which would not impinge on existing properties? If so, why not straighten the existing Mistletoe Road's westward jog to create a clearer line of sight for the heavy traffic? Since this infi'astructure access is built first, isn't it time to see drawings of the boulevard's exact configuration? 5) Since the applicant for the re-zone is the City itself, not the Croman properly owners, will the Ashland taxpayers be responsible for paying for the infrastlUcture? (The arcllltects did say that cost might be five million dollars). ~~i~I~~~~;sDrive ft(ju;, ~ 'P47p RECEIVED Ashland,Oregon97520 541-482-0903 if FEll'LL ?n'0 I."'. C')'i' 27 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 9,2010 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: Larry Blake Michael Dawkins Dave Dollerrer Pam Marsh Debbie Milier Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris John Rinaldi, Jr, . Staff Present: BiIi Molnar, Community Development Director Maria Harris. Planning Manager Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Richard Appicello, City Attorney April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Absent Members: None Council liaison: Eric Navickas, absent ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Marsh announced the vacancy on the Planning Commission and encouraged Interested citizens to submit applications to the Mayor's Office. Commissioner Rinaldi provided a brief update on the Economic Development Technical Advisory Commillee (TAC). He stated the T AC has completed the Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunllies- Threats analysis and recommended they ask Project Manager Adam Hanks to come and provide a full presentation on the status, Commissioner Marsh asked staff to schedule this on a future agenda as soon as It is feasible. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes. 1. January 12, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes, 2. January 26, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes. Commissioners Morris/Blake m/s to approve Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 8.0. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. TYPE Il PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTIONS: #2009.00726 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 720 Grandvlew Drive APPLICANT: McDonald, Lynn & Bill DESCRIPTION: Appeal by Bonnie Brodersen of the Staff Advisor's decision to approve a request for a modification of a previously approved Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit (PA.2006.01784) for the property localed at 720 Grandvlew Drive. The original approval was for development In the Wrlghts Creek Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Lands for the Improvement of a portion of existing driveway, re.gradlng the transition of the driveway to Grandview Drive, the Installation of a private storm drain and the extension of utilities to serve a new slngle.famlly residence. The proposed modification Involves alterations to the approval already In place In order to Ashland Planning Commission Febmary 9, 2010 Page 10f4 28 accommodate changes In vehicular access, A request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove two dead poplar trees Is also Included, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R.l.l0; ASSESSOR'S MAP #:39 IE 05 CD; TAX LOT: 500, Per the Applicant's request, the public hearing was postponed to a future meeting. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. PLANNING ACTION: #2009.01292 APPLICANT: City of Ashland DESCRIPTION: A request to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) creating a new Chapter 18,53 Croman Mill, to amend the multiple chaptera of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to provide consistency with the new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill (ALUO 189.08, 18.12,020,18.61.042,18,68,050,18,70,040, 18.72.030,18.72.080,18.72.110, 18,72,120, 18.72.140, 18.72.180, 18.84.100, 18,88.070, 18,106), to amend the Ashland Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map to Include the Croman Mill District, and to adopt the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan as a supporting document to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Marsh noted there are members from the publiC who wish to speak and stated she Is willing to re-open the public hearing on this action. Staff Report Planning Manager Maria Harris and Senior Planner Brandon Goldman provided a review of the issues that came up at the Commission's January 12~ discussion. Ms, Harris noted the Memo included in the meeting packet presents two options regarding whether the property located at 650, 700 and 750 Mistletoe Rd. should be included In the Croman Mill District. Option 1 retains the current M-1lndustrial zoning, but . changes the Comprehensive. Plan designation to Croman MiIi, and brings the front portion of the property into the Detail Site Review Zone, The other option is to Include the front portion of the site in the Croman Mill Zoning District. Ms. Harris stated staff Is recommending Option 1 since It addresses the pre-existing uses, current planning approvals and addresses the property owner's concems regarding the change in zoning; and by including the front portion of the property In the Detail Site Review Zone, future development of this property (aside from the current planning approvals) will be required to meet a similar level of site planning and building design as the other buildings along the centrai boulevard. Ms. Harris explained that staff conducted a review of the approved projects at 650 and 700 Mistletoe Rd and compared the approved site plan and building designs to the proposed requirements for the Croman Mill District. Ms. Harris stressed that as long as the property owner has a current approval, they can stili build their projects as planned regardless of whether it is included in the Croman Mill District. She explained based on staffs analysis, the existing planning approvals for 650 and 700 Mistletoe Rd. largely meet the proposed requirements of the Croman Mill District, however inconsistencies were identified in the foilov~ng . areas: 1) Manufacturing and retail uses, 2) On.site surface parking limitation, 3) Minimum number of stories. and 4) Minimum floor area ratio. Ms. Harris reviewed the options outlined In the Staff Memo and stated staff Is recommending the Commission expand the special permitted uses in the Office Employment zoning overlay to Include manufacture of food products, and revise the automobile parking standard so that a higher percentage of the required off.street parking can be constructed as surface parking unlll a parking management plan is established and retaining the 50% requirement once the plan is in place. Ms. Harris noted the question that came up at the last meeting about the distinction between major and minor adjustments for street layout modifications. She explained staff Is proposing revised language that clarifies a major amendment would be eliminating a street or a transportation facility, and a minor amendment would be shifting a street or transportation facility by more than 25 ft. Mr. Goldman reviewed the Green Building bonus and bonding requirements. He stated the purpose of the bond provision was to . provide a financial motivation for an applicant to carry out what they stipulated they would do In terms of energy efficiency objectives in order to receive their height bonus; but if this Is considered to be an impediment to builders applying for the Green Building bonus the Commission can consider removing the bend and penalty sections. Mr. Goldman added that eliminating this language would not preclude the City from Implementing it at a future date if breaches become an Issue. He stated the Commission could also consider reducing the performance bond and penalty amounts so that they don't constituted such a sizeable upfront cost. Asl1land Planning Commission February 9, 2010 Paga 2 of 4 29 Mr. Goldman noted the suggestion for a menu of green standards options. He c1arifled In the current draft Standards VIII-C-B through VIII-C-12 have been separated into separate standards and made requirements Instead of recommendations. However the Commission could consider changing the language to allow applicants to select one or more of the standards. Ms. Harris reviewed the lelter the City received from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) that was included in the Commission's meeting materials. She explained the lelter expressed concern with the proposed easement language for Phase II of the central boulevard and ODOT asked that this language be strengthened to be made clear that their maintenance yard property will need to be acquired. Additionally, they also raised questions about their ability to reconstruct the maintenance buildings shouid a fire or other event occur, and whether they would have to meet the Croman Design Standards. Ms. Harris added the ODOT letter also requests the City update the Transportation Analysis to reflect the phases of the central boulevard. She stated staff Is recommending the Planning Commission continue their deliberations on the proposed Croman Plan to their February 23,2010 meeting so that staff can bring back language modifications that address ODOT's concerns. Mr. Goldman clarified the City's Transportation Commission reviewed the transportation elements of the Croman Plan at their meeting on January 21, 2010. Following their discussion, the Commission issued a recommendation for the Planning Commission and the City Council to allow the Transportation Commission to review the final design of the central boulevard before It Is finalized and constructed. Mr. Goldman stated the Commission's main concern was the cross sections of the central boulevard and for the bike lanes to be addressed further; but because of the minor amendment process they felt this could be accommodated at a later date. Upon request, staff provided further clarification on Floor Area Ratios (FARs), the Mlstietoe property, the Transportation Analysis, and the LEED Certification program. In response to why the Plan does not Include a specific energy efficiency standard, staff clarified the solar orientation and building shading requirements will affect the energy use of the building. In addition, It was noted the State of Oregon has increased energy efficiency requirements in the building code and are in the process of drafting the Oregon Reach code which can be used by the City. Staff also provided c1ariflcatlon on the phasing of the central boulevard, the Tolman Creek realignment, and the possibility of a future connection over to Washington Street. In regards to having drawings prepared that would show what buildings might look like on the site, staff Indicated they have been in discussions with individuals who can perform this work and if the Commission feels this Is important, staff can move forward this. it was noted it will take approximately 4-6 weeks to have someone prepare this information, but it can be ready by the time the Croman Plan goes before the City Council. Commissioner Marsh re-opened the public hearing at 8:11 p.m. Public InDut . Zach Brombacher/640 Tolman Creek Rd/Stated he Is the owner of the printing company on Tolman Creek Rd. and has been at this location since 1967. Mr. Brombacher noted the spaces he provides for small businesses and stated he would like to continue to develop his 13 acre property. He shared his concems with traffic Impacts and suggested the City consider transferring the traffic to Siskiyou Blvd. He stated the south Interchange could be adapted so that the bulk of the traffic is transferred to Siskiyou Blvd. instead of coming up Mistletoe Rd. Mr. Brombacher stated traffic Is a big issue and feels the road should be addressed before they develop the Croman site. He also shared his concerns with financing the road Improvements and state~ he does not want to pay for another local Improvement District. Mark DIRlenzo/700 Mistletoe Rd #106/Stated he owns three tax iots along Mistletoe Rd. and is concerned about how this Plan will affect his property. Mr. DiRienzo stated by including his property In the Croman Mill zone he would have to obtain an exception to gain an access to his southem lot. In addition, he would also have to get a special permitted use for the planned distillery on the site. He stated these requirements can scare prospective tenants away and adds road blocks to the process. Mr. DiRienzo shared his concerns regarding the safety of the road and stated an engineer needs to look at this now and determine whether the angle Is going to be safe. In regards to the bond issue for LEED, he voiced his concern that financial Institutions will not offer a bond to developers and suggested the City make building lEED buildings as simple as possible. Mr. DIRienzo clarified by Including his property In the Detail Site Review Zone he will now have to apply for a Type Ii Planning Action and go before the 30 Ashland Planning Commission Feb/lJaty 9, 2010 pege 3 0'4 Planning Commission for approval which adds uncertainty to the process. He shared his concerns with the FAR requirements and also questioned at what point he would have to transition to the Croman Mill zone. Commissioner Marsh questioned if Mr. DIRienzo could list any other specific elements In the proposed plan that he believes would make it cost prohibitive to develop on the Croman site. Mr. DiRienzo responded that the design of the street (infrastructure costs) as well as' the some of the green standards (cited pervious concrete) could make it expensive to build. He stated he supports green building, but encouraged the City to promote It and provide a menu of options rather than making this a strict requirement. John Kruesl/148 Greenway Circle, Medford/Ashland Warehouse Partnership/Stated they own the property at 695 and 697 Mistletoe Rd. and shared his concems regarding the phasing of the central boulevard. Mr. Kruesl stated the plan shows this road going through their property and asked how they are suppose to plan for the future when they do not know what the City Is going to do. He questioned why they would create an industrial park without having the main road complete and noted if the Croman Plan Is successful they will have a lot of large trucks coming in and out. Marilyn Brlggs/590 Glenvlew Drive/Questioned why the City was moving towards strip zoning and why they are not promoting Infill. Ms. Briggs stated there Is a lot of office space available in town and voiced her opposition to allowing office space on the Croman site. She stated this should be light industrial space where people can earn a sustainable living wage. Ms. Briggs also voiced her concern with the southern end of the boulevard going through the existing farm and trailer park and stated they should stay with the existing Mislletoe Rd. Commissioner Marsh closed the public hearing at 8:53 p.m. Marsh noted the record will remain open and staff will be presenting options at their next meeting In regards to ODOT's Issues. She recommended the Commission make their final recommendations at the next meeting and asked If anyone had any last questions. Commissioner Dawkins voiced his support for moving forward with this at tonight's meeting. Commissioner Dawkins motioned for the Commission to move forward with a vote. Motion died to lack of a second. Commissioner Mindlin noted the annexable land at the south end of the Croman site and queslloned If staff considered leaving this as an E-1 designation when it is annexed Instead of inCluding it in the Croman Mill district. She stated by changing the underlying zone it may give the impression that the City has discussed this and deemed the Crornan Mill mixed use zone to be the most appropriate use when this property is annexed. She suggested if they left this unchanged it may provide more flexibility later on. Commission Dolterrer asked how the City will deal with the ODOT property and asked what their options are to make sure Phase II happens. He also noted the public input regarding development costs and asked if there is any analysis that can be done to ensure this plan will pencil out. Commissioner Rinaldi asked If staff could provide further informallon regarding the access to Mr. DiRienzo's property. Ms. Harris clarified if the Commission decides to leave Mr. DIRienzo's property outside the Croman district, all of this becomes a non issue and he would not be subject to the Croman access requirements. Commissioner Miller shared her concems with the central boulevard, including ODOT's access, the boulevard's width and the cost to build It. She also asked if upgrading Mistletoe Rd. could accomplish the same effect. Commissioner Marsh announced this public hearing will be continued at their February 23,2010 meeting. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjoumed at 9:30p.m. Respec/fully submiUed, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Ashland Plenning Commission Febn/err 9. 2010 Pege 4 of 4 31 Planning Commission Speake,' Request Form I) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to speak about. 2) Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone. 3) State your name and address lor the record. 4) Limit YOlll' comments to the amount of time given 10 you by Ihe Chair, usually 5 minutes. 5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the Secretary for the record. 6) V ou may give written comments to the Secretary for Ihe record if you do not wish to speak. 7) Speakers are solely responsible lor the content of their public statement. NlIIile . Z/leJ,-'t5ro wbj.cke~ A,ddl'eSS(nop,g~:~~Pl'int\)i.l:O'Tstl,vi!l\ . C~e('>_~- 'FA Einail D Touight's Meeting Date' 1- Regular Meeting --,-r-- Agenda item numbcl' .~j '-._OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item) Land Use Public Headng For': Against: Challenge fOl' Contlict oflnte,'est or Bias If you are challenging a member (planning commissioner) with a contlicl of interest or bias, please write your allegation complete with supporling facts on this form and deliver it to the clerk immediately. The Chair will address the written challenge with the member. Plcase be respectful of the proceeding and do not interrupt Vou may also provide testimony about the challenge when you teslif)'during the normal order of proceedings. Written Comments/Challenge:. The Public ,\feeling Law requires Ihal all cil)' meelil/gs lire open 10 Ihe public. Oregoll hOl' does 1101 IIlwa)'s require-llwllhe public be permitled 10 speak. The A"hhmd Plalllling COlllmission general(v in viles Ihe public 10 speak on agenda ilems ami during public forum on lion-agenda ilems unless li/l/e conslrainls lilllit public lest/mOil)'. No person has (/1/ absolu/e righllo speak or parlicipale in el'e/y phll.\e q( a proceeding. Please respecllhe order of proceedings for public hearings and slricllyfollow Ihe direclions q(lhe presidiug qlJicer. Behavior or aclious which are unreasollably loud or disruptive are disrespec!/ill. al/(llIIay cOllslitule disorderly cOllducl. qffenders will be requesled 10 lem'e Ihe room. Comments and stalements by speakers do not represent the opinion aflhe City Council, City Ofticers or employees OJ' the City of Ashland. 32 Planning Commission Speaker Request Form J) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to speak about. 2) Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone. J) State your name and address for the record. 4) Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Chair, usually 5 minutes. 5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the Secretary for the record. 6) Voumay give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak. 7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement. :. -- / ~,?~,. Name I ",'''; . . ...,.:' (please pl'int) . /!. I I. ,,4 Addl'ess(noP.O~Box) lLJg thIU;:///1tUl1Lj G...~L?(..tlE. ..-l'lIt~/J. PhoneSi))-kOj.,,//)iiOEmail" ." K ,)(> f-!fU(i[) wcAtc'i ,"'o/t?". . Tonight's Meeting Date ;;.. 9 - / () ./ri.' c.,: C4.t1~,,', . {~/~()j'vl/I vI Agenda item nnmbel' J)nJ, OR Regnlar Meeting Topic for public forum (non agenda item) FOI': Against: ~. Land Use Public Hearing Challenge for Conl1lct ofIntel'est 01' Bias If you are challenging a member (planning commissioner) with a contlict of interest or bias, please write your allegation complete with supporting tacts on this form and deliver it to the clerk immediately. The Chair will address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do not interrupt. V au may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testify during the normal order of proceedings. Written Comments/Challenge: . . The Pllblic Meelil/g Law reql/ire.! Ihal all cily meelillgs are opell 10 Ihe pllblic. Oregolllaw does 110/ a/way.! require Ihal IIle pllblic be permifled 10 speak The Ash/alld Plalluillg Commissioll gel/erally ill viles Ihe public /0 speak 0/1 agellda ilems alld durillg public forllm olln01I-ag~l/da ilem.! ullle.!.! time cOlls/raillls limil public les/imoIlY. No persall has all absolllle /'ighl 10 .!peak o/' pa/'ticipale ill evely'pha.!e (!! II p/'oceedillg. Plea.!e re.!pecllhe order of proceedillg.!fo/' public hea/'ing.! aud sl/'icIIY.lollow the di/'ectiol/.! oflhe p/'esidillg office/'. Behm'ior a/' acliolls which a/'e ullreasollably 10lld O/' disrllpli.'e are di.!/'e.!pec!!III. al/d may cOl/sti/llle di.!o/'de/'Iy cOl/ducl. O./Jellde/'s will be requesled 10 leave Ihe room. Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council, Cit)' Omcers or emplo)'ees or the Cit)' of Ashland. 33 .....r--.--- ---"]---- - ---- TIllS FORM IS A PUBLIC RECORD ALL INFORM I )N PROVIDED WILL BE MADE A VAIL '"E TO THE PUBLIC I) Complete this fonn and return it to the City Recorderllrior to the discussion of the item you wish to sneak about. 2) Speak to the City Council from the table podium microphone. _ 3)~tl!!eY()urlll!-'1!~J!.Ild_Jl<klL~s.f9rtherecQrd. _ _. ___ 4) Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Mayor, usually 3 or 5' minutes. 5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the City Recorder for the record. 6) You may give written comments to the City Recordeffor the record if you do not wish to speak. (Comments can be added to the back of this sheet if necessary) 7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement. Regular Meetin!!: Agenda topic/item number Cr C1 M Q. Ai OR. Topic for public forum (nou agenda item) Land Use Public Hearing / Please Indicate tbe following: For: Against: Challenge for Con Diet ofInterest 01' Bias If you are challenging a member (a city councilor or a planning commissioner) with a conflict of interest or bias, please write your allegation complete with supporting facts on this form arid deliver it to the clerk immediately. The Presiding Officer will address the \vtitten challenge with the member. Please be respectful of tbe proceeding and do not interrupt. . You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testify during the nonnal order of proceedings. Written Comments/Challenge: - . . The Public Meeting Law requires that aI/ city meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not always require that .the public be permitted to speak. The Ashland City COlmcil generally invites the public to speak on agenda items and during public fOnlm on non-agenda items unless time constraints _ limit public testimony. No person has an absolute right. to speak or participate in eve,y phase of a proceeding. Please respect the order of proceedings for public hearings and strictly follow the directions of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disnlptlve are disrespectful, and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the room. Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council, City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland. 34 ""'.1"------ ---'"'I---- - -- --- TillS FORM IS A PUlILIC RECORD ALL INFORM! )N PROVIDED WILL BE MADE A V AlL '..E TO THE PUBLIC I) Complete this form and return it to the City Recorder.Drior to the discussion of the item vou wish to sDcal, about. 2) Speak to the City Council from the table podium microphone. . 3)st"t~yo)lr I}am~_and addl"ll.s.fQr the recQrd.. _ 4) Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Mayor, usually 3 or 5 minutes. 5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the City Recorder for the record. 6) You may give written comments to the City Recordef for the record if you do not wish to speak. (Comments can be added to the back of this sheet if necessary) 7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their pubtic statement. Rel!ular Meetinl! Agenda topic/item number OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item) C,eO d~) ?lR.fJP~ Land Use Public Hearing X Please Indicate the followiog: For: Against: Challenge for Conflict ofInterest or Bias If you are challenging a member (a city councilor or a planning commissiouer) with a conflict of interest or bias, please write your allegation complete with supporting facts on this form and deliver it to the clerk immediately. The Presiding Officer will address the written challenge with the member. . Please be respectful of the proceeding and do not iritenupt. You may also provide testimony. about the challenge when you testify during the normal order of proceedings. Written Comments/Challenge: - - The Public Meeting Law requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not always require that .the public be permitted to spealr. The Ashland City Council generally invites the public to speak on agenda items and during public forum on non-agenda items unless time constraints limit public testimony. No person Has an absolute right. to speak or participate in every phase of a proceeding. Please respect the order of proceedings for public hearings and strictly follow the directions of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disnpttve are disrespectful, . and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the room. Comments and statements by speakers do nol represent lhe opinion of the City COWlcil, City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland. 35 Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting Is encoureged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you have been recognized by the ChaIr, aive your name and comolete address for the record. You will then be ellowed to speak. Please note Ihat the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is nol allowed after the Public Heering Is closed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 9,2010 AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III, CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. January 12, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes 2. January 26;2010 Planning Commission Minutes IV. PUBLIC FORUM V. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: #2009-00726 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 720 Grandvlew Drive APPLICANT: McDonald, Lynn & Bill DESCRIPTION: Appeal by Bonnie Brodersen of the Staff Adviso~s decision to approve a request for a modification of a previously approved Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit (PA #2006-01784) for the property located at 720 Grandview Drive. The original approval was for development in the Wrlghts Creek Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Lands for the improvement of . a portion of an existing driveway, re-grading the transil/on of the driveway to Grandvlew Drive, the installation a private storm drain and the extension of utilities to serve a naw single-family residence. The proposed modification involves alterations to the approval already in place In order to accommodate changes in vehicular access. A request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove two dead poplar trees Is also Included. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-l-10; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391E 05 CD; TAX LOT: 500. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. PLANNING ACTION: #2009-01292 APPLICANT: City of Ashland DESCRIPTION: A request to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) creating a new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill, to amend the multiple chapters of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to provide consistency with the new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill (ALUO 18.08, 18.12.020, 18.61.042, 18.68.050,18.70.040,18.72.030,18.72.080, 18.72.110, 18.72.120, 18.72.140, 18.72.180, 18.84.100, 18.88.070,18.106), to amend the Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map to include the Croman Mill District, and to adopt the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan as a supporting document to the City's Comprehensive Plan. (Public Hearing Closed on January 12, 2010) VII. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF ASHLAND ~~, In compliance with tha Americans with Disabilities Act. if you nead special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 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 1). 36 CITY OF ASHLAND Memo DATE: February 3, 20 I 0 TO: Ashland Planning Commission FROM: Maria Harris, Planning Manager Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner RE: .Issues from January 12, 20 I 0 Planning Commission Meeting Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan At the January 12th Planning Commission meeting, the Commission requested information on the following issues. In addition, thc Orcgon Department of Transportation (ODOT) submittcd a comment letter which is included in the packet. The items in the letter are briefly addressed at the end of this memo. Inclusion of 650 - 750 Mistletoe Road (Mlnl.Storaae Site) In Cromsn Mill District At the January 12th Planning Commission meeting, the Commission rcqucstcd information about the rationale for including the street frontage of the propelties located at 650 -750 Mistletoe Road in the Croman Mill District (see map below). The properties at 650 - 750 Mistlctoc Road are also known as the mini-storagc site because the easterly portion of the triangular site is developed as a mini-storage facility. The portion of the mini-storage site located adjacent to the street is included in the Croman Mill District plan arca and dcsignatcd in the Office Employment (OE) zoning overlay. 37 .2- The idea to include the propelties in the Croman Mill District was initially raised by the Planning Commission at study sessions, with specific suggestions regarding the inclusion of the site in the Croman Mill District as a potential extension of the ncighbOl'hood center and as a way to encourage redevelopment of the mini-storage buildings on the site. From Staff's perspective, there are several reasons for including the portion of the site adjacent to the street in the planning area. First, the site physically connects the neighborhood center to the central employment area, and the inclusion would provide some continuity as people coming into the site tt'avel along the central boulevard. Second, the area adjacent to the street is largely vacant, and the development of street frontage under the Croman Mill District Standards would insure a similar character of development and level of architecture as the bulk of the plan area. Finally, future development of the site outside of the existing planning approvals would be subject to the Croman Mill District Green Development Standards. An alternative to including the property frontage in the Croman Mill District would be to retain the M-I Industrial zoning, but change the Comprehensive Plan designation to the Croman Mill District Plan. This would recognize the pre-existing uses, current planning approvals and address the propelty owner's concerns regarding the change in zoning, but would allow future requests for the rezoning the property to be included in the district. Additionally, Staff would recommend including the portion of the site adjacent to the street in the Detail Site Review Zone. This would require future development adjacent to the street, outside ofthe existing planning approvals, to meet a similar level of site planning and building design to that of the properties fronting the central boulevard in the Croman Mill District. Under this scenario, the future development adjacent to the street, outside of the existing planning approvals, would not be subject to the Croman Mill Dist1'ict Greim Development Standards. Options . Retain the M-l Industrial zoning for 650 - 750 Mistletoe Road, change the Comprehensive Plan designation to Croman Mill, and include the pOltion ofthe site adjacent to the street in the Detail Site Review Zone. . Include the portion of the site adjacent to the street in the Croman Mill District as shown in the January 12,2010 draft. Review of Approvals for 650 and 700 Mistletoe Road Mark DiRienzo testified at the January 12th Planning Commission meeting regarding perceived conflicts between the approved projects on 650 and 700 Mistletoe Road and the proposed zoning and design standards. Additionally, a written comment from Mark Knox was submitted regarding the same propelties. . The planning approvals for 650 and 700 Mistletoe Road are current and valid, but have not been completed. If the proposed ordinance revisions for the Croman Mill District Plan are adopted, the projects could be developed as approved even if the approved projects do not meet the newly adopted Croman Mill District Standards. The planning approvals in place for the site include: I) the development ofa second two-story office building approximately 7,000 square feet in size and located to the north of the existing office building at 700 Mistletoe Road, and 2) the development ofa 10,100 square foot building with a partial second story that is comprised of light industrial and office uses DEPT. OF GOMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT Tel: 641.488.5305 20 E. Ma~ Street Fex: 541.552.2050 Ashlandh.IOr'lld on 97520 TTY: 800.735.2900 !' A'" WNN.as an .or,us . l'1 38 .3- including an organic distillery with smaller areas identified for a retail space and a restaurant located at 650 Mistletoe Road (see attached site plans). The second office building was approved with an open . floor plan on each level which was described as potentially being used for retail or light manufacturing. The distillery occupies approximately 2/3 of the ground floor with a production area, office and retail space, while the remainder of the building is for separate uses and includes a restaurant space, and flexible area for light manufacturing and offices. In terms of context, there are several factors regarding the 650 - 750 Mistletoe Road site that are worth noting. First, more than halfofthe site acreage is developed with the mini-storage and existing two- story office building - of the total acreage of 5.6 acres in size,just over two acres of land remains undeveloped. The vacant two acres on the mini-storage site represents two percent of the overall land area included in the Croman Mill District plan. Second, Staff believes the majority of the developable land in the Croman Mill District is situated in a planned street network in a manner that allows the division into lots which will meet the dimensional, parking and access requirements of the proposed standards. In contrast, the mini-storage site which was divided and planned prior to the proposed requirements includes three lots of which the developable areas adjacent to Mistletoe Road are configured in such away that the lots are considerably wider than deep. This shallow lot orientation predisposes the buildable areas to also being wide and not deep, and focuses more ofthe parking and access to the sides ofthe buildings. Additionally, the mini-storage site is somewhat physically isolated because a lack of side streets adjacent to the propelty. In contrast, the Croman Mill District includes a grid street network which sets the stage for lot configurations that integrate the development standards. Also, by providing local streets throughout the bulk of the property, there are opportunities to design sharcd acccsscs within each block, and at the same time keeping access points focused on local streets with less traffic. Staff has reviewed the approved developments for 650 and 700 Mistletoe Road, and compared the approved site plan and building designs to the proposed requirements for the Croman Mill District. Staff's analysis of the approved site plans and building designs for 650 and 700 Mistletoe Road is focused on identifying areas that would not meet the Croman Mill District standards if the applications were submitted after the standards are adopted, and adjustments that could be made to improve the plan to benefit the entire plan area in the context of the goals and objectives of the Cmman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan. Based on Staff's analysis, the existing plaiming approvals for 650 and 700 Mistletoe Road largely meet thc proposed requirements for the Cmman Mill District including the use and dimensional standards included in Chapter 18.53 as well as the Cmman Mill District Standards. Staff identified four areas of inconsistencies between the approved plans and the Croman Mill District requirements including limitations on manufactul'ing and retail uses in the Office Employment zone, limitations on on-site surface parking, the minimum number of stories and the minimum Floor Area Ratio (FAR). 1. Manufacturing and Retail Uses: The approved industrial/office building at 650 Mistletoe Road (includes organic distillery) would not meet the use requirements of the Office Employment (OE) zoning overlay in terms of manufacturing food products and the amount of square footage dedicated to manufactUl'ing. The distillery componcnt of the application would not meet the use requirements for the OE zoning OEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tcl: 541-488.5305 20 E. Main Slreel Fax: 541.552.2050 Ashland, Ore9on 97520 TTY: 800.735.2900 WMV.ashland.or.us ~.l' 39 .4- overlay because manufacture of food products is not permitted. In contrast, the Compatible Industrial (CI) zoning overlay allows the manufacture of food products as a permitted use. Additionally, the square footage dedicated to manufacturing exceeds the maximum for the OE zone by 14 percent (maximum manufacturing in DE is 50 percent of the ground floor area). Again, the area dedicated to manufacturing would meet the requirements of the Cl zoning overlay. An adjustment could be made to the OE zoning overlay allowing the manufacture of food products as a special permitted use. Currently, manufacturing, assembly, fabrication or packaging is allowed in the OE zoning overlay as a special permitted use. Options . . Expand the special permitted uses in the OE zoning overlay to include manufacture of food products. Whether the mini-stol'8ge site is included in the Office Employment (OE) zoning overlay 01' the Compatible Industrial (CI) zoning overlay, the approved retail and restaurant space included in the distillery building exceeds the square footage limitation for "limited stores, restaurants and shops.... The approved plan for the distillery building includes a retail space for the distillery. Also included on the ground floor is an area for restaurant space, which appears not to be associated with the distillery. The total area for these two spaces is a little over twice as large as the area allowed for limited stores, restaurants and shops in the Cromari Mill District. The approved retail and restaurant represents 22 percent of the ground floor area (the maximum limited store, restaurant and shop area is 10 percent of the ground floor area, 01' 1,500 square feet, whichever is less). Staff recommends retaining size limitations for limited stores, restaurants and shops in the OE, CI and MU zoning overlays. The Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan identifies project objectives of providing for a large number of family wage jobs, allowing for light industrial and manufacturing and not creating uses that compete with downtown. With a little over 30 acres dedicated to each of the OE and CI overlays, and 16 acres dedicated to the MU overlay, increasing the square footage for stores, restaurants and shops will decrease the available land area dedicated to office and manufacturing uses. Limited stores, restaurants and shops are included throughout the plan area in an effort to create a walkable, pedestrian-oriented employment center. However, a greater amount of retail and restaurants may begin to tip the balance towards a service center rather than a job center. 2. On-Site Surface Parking Limitation: The approved buildings at 650 and 700 Mistletoe Road would potentially have difficulties meeting the Croman Mill District requirement which limits the number of surface lot parking spaces provided on site to 50 pel'cent of the required off-street parking. For the distillery building at 650 Mistletoe Road, 64 percent of the required off-street parking would be provided as surface parking on site, and for the office buildings at 700 Mistletoe Road, 82 percent of the required off-street parking would be provided as surface parking on site. DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 20 E. Main Slreet Ashland. Or'lloo 97520 VNN/.ashland.()(.t1s T d: 541.488.5305 Fax: 541-552.2050 TTY: 800.735-2900 r~' 40 .5- The Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan includes code language regarding the 50 percent limitation on on-site surface parking to address efficient use of land for job creation as well as to address sustainable development practices focused on increasing pedestrian, bicycle and transit options and decreasing land and resources dedicated to automobiles. This requirement is in palt designed to operate in combination with a district wide parking plan that would involve providing payment towards shared parking areas and/or a parking structure in-lieu-of required parking spaces. Other options available to developments are reducing the parking demand through parking management strategies, constructing on-site perking structures and constructing off-site parking at designated shared parking. . Staff recommends revising the automobile parking standard VlII-B-3.2 so that a higher percentage of the required off-street parking can be constructed as surface parking on individual sites until a parking management plan is established for the Croman Mill District, and retaining the 50 percent requirement once the parking management plan is in place. At the onset of the plan, a significant reduction of on-site surface parking may prove difficult to achieve through parking management strategies, private parking structures and shared parking areas without a system established to contribute towards the constl'llction of public surface parking lots and/or a parking stl'llcture in lieu of required parking spaces. Options . Revise automobile pal'king standard VIII-B-3.2 so that a higher percentage of the required off-street parking can be consllucted as surface parking until a parking management plan is established for the Croman Mill District, and retaining the 50 percent requirement once the parking management plan is in place. . No change to maximum of 50 percent for required off-street parking that can be constructed as surface parking. 3. Minimum Number of Stories: The approved distillery building at 700 Mistletoe Road is one and a half stories, and would not meet the two-story minimum for the OE overlay zone. However, the distillery building would meet the minimum story requirement for the CI zoning overlay which requires a second story that is a minimum of 20 percent of the gross floor area -the second story of the approved distillery building is 29 percent of the gross floor al'ea of the approved building. The approved second office building at 700 Mistletoe Road is two stories and would meet the minimum two-stOl'y requirement. Staff recommends l'etaining the requirements for the minimum number of stories as proposed for the OE and CI zoning overlays. The distillery building and use is more consistent with the CI zoning ovel'lay'. Staff believes the project demonstrates that the approach used for the minimum number of stories for the CI zone works ell. 4. Minimum Floor Area Ratio (FAR): The approved buildings at 650 and 700 Mistletoe Road would not meet the minimum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements for the Croman Mill District. The distillery building at 650 Mistletoe DEPT. OF COMMUNITY OEVELOPMENT 20E. Main Slreel Ashland, Oregon 97520 WWN.sshlend,O(.us Td: 541.488.5305 Fax: 541.552-2050 TTY: 801).735.2900 ~., 41 .6. is approved at .36 FAR, and the office buildings at 700 Mistletoe are approved at .5 ] FAR. The minimum FAR for the CI overlay is .50, and for the OE zoning overlay is .60. For comparison, the FAR fat' the ['ecently approved Modern Fan expansion, a light manufacturing use on Washington Street is .45 FAR. Additionally, along the main slt'eets in Ashland (North Main, Siskiyou Boulevard and Ashland Street), the Site Design and Use Standards cUlTently require a minimum of .35 FAR in non-residential developments. Staff recommends retaining the FAR requirements as proposed for the OE and CI zoning overlays. In Staffs opinion, a reduction ofthe minimum FAR to the level of the approved proposals for distillery building and office buildings on the mini-storage site would result in developments in the Croman Mill District that are similar to existing development throughout Ashland. Again, in an effOlt to meet the project objective of creating a large number of family wage jobs, a slight increase in FAR is intended to intensify land use and thereby increase job creation. Central Boulevard and 700 Mistletoe Road Drivewav Locations The installation ofthe Central Blvd., as proposed in the District Plan, would necessitate acquisition of the ODOT property, and obtaining access through existing properties including the removal of a pOltion of an existing building. This is identified as Phase II of the plan. In the January 12th Public Hearing before the Planning Commission Mark DiRienzo and Mark Knox raised questions as to whether this proposed alignment would create an unforeseen situation with existing driveways that would make them inaccessible or dangerous. As the proposed road has not been engineered, and as such the measure of changes necessary to existing driveways can not be conclusively determined. However in mapping the proposed road in consort with the existing impervious surfaces at this location it demonstrates that the existing access points to the DiRienzo property can be largely maintained in their current locations. The existing northern driveway access point would intersect with a "Local Commercial Street" and the southern vehicular access point would intersect with the Central Blvd as shown in the map right. In terms of the safety of these access points the final engineering for this improvement would identify any visibility or maneuvering issues and design the street to incorporate any needed mitigation measures. -"--... i;'1~.. ~-,<,:~,:::~- r".;.;<,;j::..., i , i I I I Regarding the property in the southeast corner ofthe map, it is evident the access would be directly onto the Central Blvd or through an easement on the developed DiRienzo propClty. Additionally the . property shown in the southwest ofthe map would have no other means of access other than onto the Central Blvd directly. The Limited Auto Access Street standards proposed in the plan prohibit driveway accesses and thus an exception to this standard may be necessary to allow for future curb cuts. . OEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 20E.M.lnStreet Ashland, Oregoo 91520 w\//N.ashland.or.us Tel: 541.488-5305 Fax: 541-552.2050 TTY: 800.135.2900 42 ~~, .7- 295 Mistletoe Road and Hamilton Creek Multl.Use Path At the Jan 12'h Public Hcaring a concern was raised by an adjaccnt property owner concerning the proximity of the proposed multi-use path located along on the Bellview School property to his property at 295 Mistletoe Rd. It is important to note that currently no easement exists relating to the final location of this proposed path. As identified in the Croman Mill District plan a bike-pedestrian connection through this property would be anticipated, however its final location can not be determined until either an easement is obtained or a development proposal triggers its installation. In examining the conceptual location presented in the plan, the path in question would be located a minimum of 50' from this neighboring residential property. A 50' wide flag pole, which is part of the Blackstone Audio property, separates the residential property and the school district properly. The propelty at295 Misltletoe Rd is currcntly outside the City Limits and occupied by a single family dwelling, however it has a comprehensive Plan Designation as Employment and therefore would ultimately develop as a commercial use upon annexation to the City. There is currently vacant land available to shift the multi-use path location west, however doing so locates it closer to the newly constructed school building and would bisect existing school grounds with a public path. Elimination of this Multi-use Path in its entirety would significantly diminish bike and pedestrian connectivity in the Plan area as it is centrally located to align with the Croman Mill District center and provides direct access to the School property and Siskiyou Blvd. DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 20 E. Main Slreel Ashland, Oregon 97520 YMW.ashland.or,us Td: 541.488.5305 Fax: 541-552.2050 ffi: 8011-735-2900 r~' 43 -8- Buildable Emplovment Lands The Industrial zone (M-I) presently allows a variety of uses including offices, restaurants, retail (all uses permitted in E-I) and more traditional industrial uses. In developing the Croman Mill District Plan it was recognized that it would be appropriate to more clearly delineate these uses, creating separate overlay zones that allowed for both light industrial and office employment. Throughout the process it has been recognized that market forces of agglomeration tend to further focus the concentration of like businesses to be adjacent to one another, Physical requirements such as topography, proximity to rail and freeway access, eombine with market demand, visibility, land cost, and workforee availability help determine locations of various business types. Ultimately the mix of uses that can be developed on the former Croman.Mill site in aggregate is not so different as those uses that can currently be developed within the M-I zone. The primary distinction is in regulating their distribution to specific areas ofthe site. Some oPPOltunity for non-industria'l activities sueh as small employee serving restaurants and minimal retail oppOltunities may be important amenities for tenants in industrial overlay zones. Through the development of the permitted and special permitted uses within the proposed CM-CI zoning overlay, care has be taken to ensure that the pl'edominate use of the lands in this overlay is light industrial and manufacturing. In recognition that some industri~llands are irreplaeeable given their size, topography and access to transpOltation and freight facilities, such considerations were incorpomted into the Croman Mill Redevelopment plan through provisions that help retain the integrity of the industrial CM-CI zone including the following, . The location of the industrial overlay zone is on land that is essentially level, adjacent to both the cxisting Rail line, and including frontage on the Central Blvd . Large-lot parcel requirements have been proposed in the dimensional table to avoid incremental reductions, such as the 'creation of small lots not suitable for larger scale industrial uses . Limited retail or other non-industrial space within these special districts . Flexibility that accommodates a range of i!ldustrial uses These limitations do not exist in M-I zones and as such 100% ofa site may currently be developed with non-industrial Employment uses. The application of the CM-CI overlay zone thus preserves the industrial land base in the Croman Mill District for manufacturing, fabrication and assembly uses. IndustrIal Lands The Buildable Lands Inventory (2005) shows approximately 75 gross acres of land currently vacant 01' partially vacant that has an Industrial designation within the City's U.'ban Growth Boundary. Of this total, 64 gross acres are currently zoned M-I within the Croman Mill District Plan area as shown in the table below. Croman Mill District Gross Acreages Existing Comprehenelve Plan 33 31' Eaet-West Street Alignment Alternative 31 31' Industrial Employment DEPT, OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 20 E. Main Sired Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.8shland.or.us 64 25 Orlglnat Croman Mill Olstrlct Plan (Crandall.Arambula) 42 40 Current Proposal Tcl: 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 TTY: 800-735-2900 r~' 44 .9. Mixed Use 0 0 16 16 OpenSpace 0 8 7,5" 7.5" Neighborhood Center 0 6 6 6 Residential (R-1-5) 7 0 0 0 ApproxImate Gross acreage, rounded to the whole acre, Net acreage would Include an approximate 25% reduction to account for public facilities) " -D06S not Include 2 acres of E-1land Identified In the origInal Plen but unchanged by the current proposal (Blackstone Audio properties); .. Does not Include 3.5 acres of School ground property Identified In the original Plan as open space. but does Includes an enlarged open space araa In tha vlclnlly ortha pond along Siskiyou Blvd), . . V.ClntCommt,~l"'lll\dt IBulldtbll und tnvlnlory) ~"""',.. Ilml_..' 1ii!l!1,..".,,'" . Approximately 11 acres of vacant developable Industrial land are outside of the Croman Mill District plan area, These prope.,ties are primal'ily adjacent to the district east of the railroad tracts and are unaffected by the Croman Mill District Plan, . Approximately 16 gross acres cUl'l'ently located outside the City Limits along Siskiyou Blvd are presently designated to be annexed to the City as Employment (E-!) pel' the City's Comprehensive Plan map. . 33 gross acres within the distl'ict would be retained as Industrial, and pel' the requirements of the proposed CM-CI zone would be specifically reserved for industrial uses. . A combined 47 gross acres would be designated as either Mixed Use (CM-MU) or Employment (CM-OE), DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 20E,M,InSlred Ashland, Oregon 97520 \WNI.ashlsnd.or.\Is T~:541-488.530S Fax: 541.552.20S0 TTY: 800-73S-2900 r~' 45 -10- . Four acres adjacent to Hamilton Creek currently zoned industrial (M-1) would be within the proposed Mixed Use Overlay (CM.MU), . In total 31 of 64 gross acres presently zoned M-l would be located within the CM.O,E overlay. As proposed 50% of the ground floor of building developed in the CM.OE overlay can be occupied by industrial Uses. As such, in effect this provision supplies the equivalent of an additional 15.5 acres (half of the 31 acres zoned CM-OE) as land available for industrial uses such as assembly and manufacturing. . . The block al'eas proposed for the CM-CI overlay range from 1.4 acres to 5 acres in size, with limitations on divisions to ensure a minimum lot size of nearly I acre. (note the 2007 EOA stated "The Croman site is appraximately 70 acres; if is unlikely that any individual user would require more thanfive acres. Many will need less than one acre" pg5.J2) The 2007 Economic Opportunities Analysis included the following table addressing 'net' buildable acres by Comprehensive Plan Designation. Net acreage includes up to a 25% reduction from gross acreage to account for future public facilities (IE Street right of ways). Table 6. Vacant and partially vacant Industrial and other employment land by plan designation and lot size Lot Size fNet Buildable Acres) 1Q,OQ ac or Plan Designation <0.26 0,26-0.49 0,60-0,99 1,00-1.99 2.00-4,99 6.00-9.99 larger Total Acres Commercia! 0,6 1,1 2.1 1,9 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 Downtown 0,1 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Employment 2.6 6.4 6.1 2D.4 32.2 9.6 15.9 92.4 Heallh Care 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.2 Industrial 0.3 1.' 1.9 '.3 16.7 0.0 31.0 56.7 Total Acres 3.7 9,1 10.1 27.6 49.0 9,8 48,9 166,1 Number of Tax lots Commerclal 4 3 3 1 0 0 0 11 Downtown 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Employment 16 17 9 16 10 1 1 71 Health Care 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Induslrial 4 4 2 3 4 0 2 19 Total Tax Lota 26 24 " 19 ,. 1 3 103 Percenl of Acres 2.4% 5.2% 6.5% 17.8% 31.6% 6.3% 30.2% 100.0% Percenl of Tax LoIs 27.2% 23.3% 13.6% 18.4% 13.6% 1.0% 2.9% 100.0% Source: Ashland buildable lands Inventory update, 2005; analysis by ECONorthwest Minor and Major Amendment Distinction for Street Lavout Modifications At the January 12th Planning Commission meeting, a concern was regarding the distinction .between the minor and major amendment for street layout modifications. Additionally, a suggestion was remove the elimination of an accessway from the major amendment process. To address the ambiguity between the minor and major amendment for street layout modifications, Staff suggests the language under Major Amendments concerning location of streets as shown below, DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 20 E. Main S~e.1 Ash~nd, Oregon 97520 YMW.8shJand.0I'.\ls Td: 541-488-~30~ Fox: 541.~52.2050 ffi: 8011-735-2900 r~' 46 -II- B. Major and minor amendments to the Croman Mill District Plan shall comply with the following procedures: 1. Major and Minor Amendments. a. Major amendments are those which result In any of the following: (1) A change in the land use overlay. (2) A modification to the street layout plan that necessitates a street or other transportation facility to be eliminated GI'-located In a manner InGonslsle"t wllh the C~oman MIU CIstllGt-Plan. (3) A change not specifically listed under the major and minor amendment definitions, b, Minor amendments are those which result in any of the following: (1) A change In the Plan layout that requires a street, access way, multi-use path or other . transportation facility to be shifted more than 25 feet In any direction, as long as the change maintains the connectivity established by the Croman Mill District Plan, (2) Changes related to street trees, slreet furniture, fencing, or slgnage. (3) A change In the design of a street in a manner inconsistent with the Croman Mill District Standards, (4) A modification of a driveway access location in a manner inconsistent with the Croman Mill District Standards, (5) A site layout, landscaping or building design which is inconsistent with the Croman Mill District Standards, (6) A change in a dimensional standard requirement in section 18.53,060, but not Including height and residential density, Staff has concerns with revising the proposed ordinance so the elimination of an accessway requires a minor amendment rather than a major amendment. The accessways were included in the original plan to provide cit'culation for pedestrians and bicycles throughout the site and to preserve a grid netwOl-k that shapes the form of land uses. Staff believes the aceessways and the completion of the grid street network are critical in making the built form, scate and character result in a walkable, pedestrian scale employment center that fits Ashland, rather than the suburban office park that so many people reacted negatively to in the original public workshops. Green BuildinQ Bonus At the January 12th Planning Commission meeting, a concern was raised regarding the bonding and pcnalty sections of the Green Building Bonus. . The Green Building Bonus is a voluntary perfOlmance standard that allows an increase in building height in exchange for the construction of a high performance green building standard. The height of the existing zoning in the plan area has been maintained in the Croman Mill District so that propelty owners can constlUct a building to the maximum height permitted under the current zoning. For example, a building can currently be built to 40 feet in height in the M.I Industrial zoning district. If the property is located in the CI overlay in the Croman Mill District, the maximum height without a bonus is 40 feel. However, if an applicant chooses to construct a LEED certified building in the CI overlay, the DEPT, OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 20 E. Main Slreel Ashland, Oregon 97520 \WNI.ashland.or.us Td: 541-488.5305 Fex: 541-552-2050 TTY: 800-735-2900 r~' 47 .12- height can be increased by up to two stories, depending on the level of LEED celtification (i.e. silver, gold). . The bonding sectioh of the ordinance requires the applicant who has an apPl'Oved building with Ii Green Building Bonus to submit a lien or bond to the city prior a building permit being issued based on the value of the additional stories gl'anted through the bonus. The purpose of the bond is ensure that a . project obtaining the Green Building Bonus is built in a manner compliant with LEED standards in that there is a monetary incentive (release of the bond or lien) for the applicant to achieve the energy efficiency objectives and obtain certification. The penalty section provides a mechanism for retaining the lien 01' bonus with an additional penalty fee if the project ultimately fails to attain LEED certification. The purpose of the penalty section is to provide a deterrent to building additional stories without following through on the construction of a high performance green building. Concern has been raised that the imposition of such a bond 01' lien as currently proposed would constitute a significant upfront development cost that could prove to be a disincentive for developers to apply for the Green Building Bonus, Elimination of the performanee bond and penalty sections at this time would not prohibit the City from adding similar provisions at a future date if it were determined that developments had benefited fl'Om the Green Building Bonus and had failed to achieve the necessary energy efficiency objectives as demonstrated thl'Ough LEED certification. Options . No change to the Green Building Bonus performance bond and penalty sections. . Reduce the Green Building Bonus perfOlmance bond and or penalty amounts. . Delete the Green Building Bonus performance bond and or penalty sections. Menu for Green Standards At the January lih Planning Commission meeting, a question was raised regarding the previously discussed suggestion that several of the Green Development Standards be combined to provide a menu of items the applicant could ehose from. Specifically, standards VIII-C-8 through VIII-C-12 (p 26) were originally part of list of standards that wel'e recommendations rather than requirements. For the latest draft, those items were separated into individual standards and strengthened to be requirements rather than recommendations. However, in reviewing the original redevelopment plan, Staff found one of the project objectives was to "develop standards for 'dark skies"'. As a result, Staff believes standard VII!- C-12 regarding down-shielded light fixtures should be retained as a stand alone requirement for consistency with the original plan objectives, This would leave four standards available for the menu of items to choose from, Staff felt the four remaining items (i.e. potable water reduction for irrigation, solar orientation, building shading and recycled materials) arc somewhat unrelated, and therefore included standards VIII-C-8 through VII!-C-ll as separate requirements. However, the alternative of creating an option of allowing applicants to choose one 01' two of the fOUl' items could be easily accommodated, OOOT Comments The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) submitted a written comment on February 1,20 I 0 regarding the Croman Mill District Plan. The letter addresses several items from the perspective of ODOT as the property ownel' of the maintenance yard located on Tolman Crcck Road, and comments DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 20 E,MalnSlrael Ashland, Oregon 97520 WWii.8shland.or.us Td:541-48S-5305 Fax: 541.552.2050 TTY: SOO-735-2900 r~' 48 -13- l'egarding the findings document meeting the requirements of the Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-0060). Staff has had discussions with ODOT staff, and believes all of the concerns raised in the letter can be addressed. In terms of the ODOT maintenance. yard, the issues raised by ODOT are the need to clearly state in the plan that the ODOT yard would need to move in the second phase of the project, and addressing the ability of ODOT to rebuild structure on the maintenance site in the case of a fire or natural hazard destroying the struetures. Additionally, a concem is raised regarding having to meet the proposed design standards in the case a destroyed maintenance yard structure needs to be rebuilt. Staff believes minor revisions can be made to the plan to address the concel'1ls raised by ODOT as the propelty owner of the maintenance yard. The traffic analysis revisions and findings for the Transportation Planning Rule will be addressed in the findings prepared for the City Council's decision. Staffis in the process of working to have the transportation analysis updated to address ODOT's concerns. To address the Transportation Planning Rule, the adopted findings may need to include an update to the Transportation System Plan (TSP) project list identifying several transportation projects associated with the Croman Mill District. Staff recommends the Planning Commission continue the public hearing on the Croman Mill District Implementation Package to the February 23, 2010 Planning Commission meeting so that Staff can bring back revisions to address the concerns raised by ODOT. Attachments I, Approved Site Plan for 650 Mistletoe Road 2, Approved Site Plan for 700 Mistletoe Road DEPT, OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 20 E. Main Slre.l Ashland, Oregon 97520 YNiW.ashland,or,us Td:541-488-5305 Fax: 541.552.2050 TTY: 800-735-2900 r~' 49 'I ~ 0 III I , . . II z . - ' ~ ~~~i 0 "- ~a II ~ .;.;;;10; III 3AllV.LN3S311d311'0ZN3IlJIQ )!lI'ffl 02 ..- ~ 1~ f~ . - ~ :>11 '~NIOlOH Hl!10S ONVlHSV 1I0'! ~~ "' , " III f~ ,0 ~ ~ OGSL6 1I0 'ONVlHSV I OVOll 30.l3l.1SIW DOL ~ o- II t.! :i:;:; o I ,"- ~L~.:! > " II . @ ElNIOllnS M3N HJ.1I0N 30.l3l.1Sn\l 'l/ . o. ~<( H II ."i w IIII NOlLllllVd ONVlllONIi'l.LO"M: ~ ~ '. - ~<J ! ~. , i 0 0< ~ < I f . ? ~ . ~ . , ~ . ~ . g S . a . ~ . 8 S 2 J.:z i ::i ~ ~: ;i~ 'I 0: J.S ~ d 'i?';::'" E.5. S ~...' ;S ~. ~..." .., '" 5 ~~ ~0!~ ~~ ~g.~ ~ ~ g8! ~ ~oQi ~~~ ~ i Z ~ '3< .~ ~ ~~~~ ..~ ~s ~ ~ ~ ~...a~sD ~s~;~! ~i", u~ i ~ ~~ "'~~ ~~> ~~~;>;~ ~~~ ~~ ~ : ~ ~~~~~~~~~~ :~9~~~~ ~~s as ...~; ~ :~~~~~z~ea 8~~~~! ~ 9~~ ~f ~=~ i ~-~g"'~Q~'" ~gw ~ Q'~ ...~ ~~e iO.w~~3~~~g~ is.~...~ 8~~ ~~ ;~~ ~ _ <~Q~~~O~ ~ OR ~%~ ~= %~ ~ g~30~~~~~ 9~Q!8~~ ~~o ~~ esz ~ <83 ..g~I'~' ~~f.:_~ ~.~ .s ... " S~~~~f~~ fe a~~~~~~s g~~ ~~.~~~ ~ ~fg~3ei~ ~~ ~fg~~~~g ~jg g~ iff ~ . ~ ;;; ?::: - = " ~ S2 '" - ..; N .; . . . " ~/ / ./.l ./ ",./ / #'- .' #'./ ./ /- ./" ." ~ ~ ~ <>. '" ~ " ~ <. C!:O ;<~ o. Ie ~ 'i ~.~~; < . . /. / ~EJ EJ = / ~ """ , ~" , , ~.~ .:~.....--:- ~ . ~ ;!l EJ -~ G) (n ~ x! z 0 I , I Ii II I ~____ OZSL6 ~O 'aNVlHS\f crvOl! 30.L31.1SIi'l ass ....J~8l<1n8 ~O~ > 3S\IHd .L::>3rO~d 3Sn a3XlV'l M3i113~3.lJS ~ ~ ~;. ~o <'9. ",... <>... "'<:> > . ~ e "0 8 1$ ~ "" Zo ~~ ~~ ~ C! ;; . ...... (J)~ . I- . <(j i! ~ ~ < " t ,; ~ 'i . ~ . ~ ~ i ~ ~ ! . ~ . ! . ~ ~~ ~ - ~ ~~ ~ ~~ . ~ I ~ . ~i~ "! .- 0- ~;:: - !" <.'" l:lf~ . 0" ~i ..'<...l;! ~ ~ ~ . "0 !JS ~:o!a::~::< ~ ~I :s~ ~/!!!1;!~i!5..~~~ ~ i I .~~ g~g.~~~~ ~~ ~<:l ~i~~~~tl;. " 0 -...~~o.~<O. . I ,.;;:; ";"!2""'''''~~ ~~i=~ ....~!!; lls....<2. g <;- ::t"'a ~lI:~O o<5~ 0 . . . 5l!i:>li !!!...i~~l!ltP: ~ ......l!i5155l:io<.~)!:z~ . . >-;...............i!!!5s"'8::;lo < ~ ~~m~~~~~;~~ ! I 0 I . ~ . """"""..~.'~. . . , llltll.'ltf~~ uc:g",,& <ale" <>~nQn8~a $9 ..:...oi...odo..:.,;.,;S!:=~~ - ~ - 'j . . Ii ~ . II g . ~ ~ ~ . " . ~I ~~ ~ ;;; " Vi ~ ~ < "' ;2ll 03 . " !::'- Zo ". ei~ b tv , "'- "'- , "'" 1J2~'-2()!~)~p'ril. @~~~:Qol~Qff".,.,., ..faij~lI From: To: Date: Subject: wendy eppinger <wendye@mlnd.net> <Iucasa@ashland,or.us> 219120102:48 PM . hold off...., please don't make any decisions about the Croman property until it works for everyone! We need jobs for our lown.., so spend some more time; listen to the objections and make it workl 52 RECEIVED FLiJ . 9 2010 .,'.j.;'"\'i C.-.j... ",""'1: Page I of2 RECEIVED April Lucas - Traffic - P A 2009-01292 ~~ ~ ,~~-~.,~,...,"..~~ '.." . ~~. -,"~.".""~'<Oi-""",==,=-== - -.'. .~~ r:w.: 9 2010 ' H~',~~ ~.~ From: To: Date: Subject: CC: Colin Swales <colinswales@gmail.com> Mike Faught <faughtm@ashland.or,us> 2/9/2010 10:33 AM Traffic - P A 2009-01292 Bill Molnar <bill@ashland,or.us>, Nancy Slocum <nancy@ashland.or.us>,April Lucas <Iucasa@ashland,or,us> City of A:;f;l<tnd CommuniEy Devuiopmant Mike, (cc Bill, Nancy, April,) [For the Record PA 2009.01292 note -I am not representing other than my own views herein) I never did thank you for preparing to brief the Transportation Commission on the comprehensive Traffic Impact Analysis [TIA] for the Croman Master Plan for our last meeting. Sadly due to the time constraints, and the feeling by some commission members that any input into the process was a bit late, your Interesting briefing was cut rather short, Being out of town, i have now have only just had a chance to take a look at the lest month's PC minutes and the ~ meeting packet for tonight's meeting and apart from some suggestions in a memo from ODOT [pages 114/5 ] regarding the TIA, I cannot see any other information provided for the Planning Commissioners regarding the overall traffic anaiysis and the various mitigation elements required, as was provided to Ihe TC Will you be briefing the PC tonight on the TIA? At the Transportation Workshop recently'held by Dr. Mojie Takallou Ph,O" P,E., some of the OOOT reps there suggested that once a property is re-zoned It is considered that the surrounding infrastructure is then deemed sufficient for all permitled development. ( Makes me think of the ongoing Wai-Mart debacle in Medford) As the applicant for this re-zone elc, is not in fact the Croman property owner but is instead the City itself, wiil the Ashlend taxpayers be responsible for paying for all the infrastructure mitigation? I only mention this as the consultants Crendall Arambula told us that upfront infrastructure costs of perhaps $5 million might be needed, It would be good to have some idea of how the overall financing of this project, so far presumably paid for by the public by way of grant funds, is going to work in practice, As the profits flowing from the property upzoning wiil be going to the private landowners, what Is their share of the infrastructure/master planning costs? I note that the Council in Nov 2009 had il as one of their Goals "..develop IlI/lmplemelltatioll stl'lItegy for flllldillg l/IId Infrastructure for Croman..." [www.ashland.or.uslFilesIGoa! Settine 2010 Atch_odf - 2009-11-25 ] , I have heard of possible things such as an urban renewal zone, but so fer nothing concrete. Seems like the cart is before the horse.... Does Staff have allY more ideas on this? Do Staff have any updated estimate of what possible capital costs might be involved? How are such costs to be apportioned between the va riD us stakeholders? I sincerely hope the PC can be given all the information needed to come to an informed decision and recommendation to Council on this matter. thanks Colin Swalcs Jalisco, MX 53 file://C:\Documents and Settings\lucasa\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4B713AOEAshDo... 2/9/2010 Page I of2 --- April Lucas - Fwd: comments on Croman Mill planning 0"""'"-,""""-,,,,,,,,,,," --~--,-,.__." ~,.- =~=,=:..- - l< ~.;.o!!.l. .:'a~.. - .<: "~=",-__-~-~.,.. :ll:~__ ~ From: To: Date: Subject: CC: Brandon Goldman April Lucas 2/3/20104:22 PM , Fwd: comments on Croman Mill planning Bill Molnar; Maria Harris RECEIVED FEB - 3 2010 Letter from Neil Smith (Airspace) for the Commissioner packet & record, City 01 Asbland Community Devote,;' . On 02/0112010 08:10 PM, neil wrote: Pam, I am writing this email to you as a business owner, who until recently had seriously considered expansion within the city of Ashland, Aithough I understand that as the chairman of the City of Ashland Plennlng Commission, you are certainly not responsible for my decision to put move my business elsewhere, I was encouraged to make my opinions known, In particular I would like to address how the Croman Mill Plan has changed my views on whether or not Ashland is the business friendly city that I previously envisioned, You may be thinking business friendiy -"what's he thinking", To illuminate that point, be aware that I moved up here to create a new business, and have been doing business here for about 2 years, Business friendly to me, does not mean inexpensiv'e, dirty, or ugly, In fact, business friendly, to my mind, means a town that is pleasant to live and work In, allows me t() conduct business, makes and upholds laws In a Just manner, and continually strives to Improve the quality of life. Delivering a business and people friendly city is not a trivial task, and yet such an environment and culture has to be delivered for a reasonable price, Perhaps I am misinformed, but the plan that has been developed for the Croman Mill site seems to be comprised of many different agendas, and In doing so it becomes overly expensive, most likely bureaucratically constrained, and more damning yet, just a copy of California's suburbs. After reading the plan, I would like to communicate my perspective with some Isolated points. If your plan has references to quality and aesthetics that require city Interpretation, you will scare away any businessperson who has heard about the difficulty of working with the city of Ashland's permit process, Between the rail spur easement, the commuter rail platform easement, the open space, the tree- lined streets, the restrictions on buildings, what's left? What customer will pay for all this? I am not a planning expert, but this plan looks very much car-centric with anoverlay of "green", I strongly encourage you to NOT require Leed certification. This is a proprietary system and although it attempts to provide environmental guidance, government should use open standards, There is a better way. I would encourage you take the perspective of the type of entrepreneur who will potentially reiocate to Ashland. You should respecl the cost constralnls of business, and also be aware that past successes are almost certainly not to be repeated. Just as the timber and house building Industries 54 file://C:\Documents and Settings\lucasa\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4B69A2BEAshDo... '2/3/2010 Page 2 of2 have waxed and waned, you have to direct your attention future Industries and occupations, And here is a hint. The future will have to deliver more value for less money, ' Neil Smith AlrScape Inc. www.airscaoefans.com / 55 file://C:\Documents and Settings\lucasa\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4B69A2BEAshDo,., 2/3/2010 Page 1 of2 April Lucas - Re: Fwd: DiRienzo' - Additional input on Croman I~;' ~~~,,,._,_ ==<' ~~~_H_ -~~~~HtiiG,(il\(iQm From: April Lucas To: Marla Harris Subject: Re: Fwd: DIRienzo - Additional Input on Croman FEB - 2 2010 Ci!y.....cfl\-:h':lnd COmrnuniiy Oevo!opm{mt >>> "Mark D" <markd@mlnd.net> 02/02/103:48 PM >>> HI Bill, I write to re-iterate my serious concerns about two things, A.' The status of the Croman Mill plan overall and B. The sudden inclusion of Mistletoe Road Business Park (my 6 acre property Including the ccmpleted office building and storage space) and II's proposed downzbnlng to OlE. A. The plan overall If approved will create the unintended consequences of: 1. Further restricting economic development with the City of Ashland by making It ccst prohibitive and complicated to move ones business here, 2. Creating impractical buildings that may not meet the dimensional needs of potential users or the reality of every day use required by businesses. . 3. Complicating the design and construction process as it relates to street frontage and actual grade changes on the Croman Site, leaving buildings floating in the air on one end or buried on another. 4, Creating structures which no business can afford to rent. For the past ten years (and possibly more) the commercial rents In Ashland have not supported the costs of new construction, This proposed plan simply adds more barriers to development and adds significant costs per sq. It to any project being proposed. Rents will have to rise and business will leave and others will never come, It's happened already, Airscape, a potential 15,000 sq It user has waited patiently to see what the plan will be for Croman and Is so disappointed with the results of the planning process that they are now moving from Ashland to Medford In the next two months, They moved to Ashland 2 years ago and wanted to grow their business in Ashland, the process failed them, 5, Exposing the City to legal action that will further delay the possibilities of economic development at Croman Mill, B, The sudden Inclusion of my properly into this plan and the proposal by staff to downzone this 6 acre properly from M-l to the new OlE Is unacceptable to me, I've been involved in the Croman Mill public process for 2 years and my property was never discussed as being subject to a potential downzone until 2 weeks ago, the day before the planning commission was supposed to approve the plan to move on to Council, I am In the middle of a previously approved multi-phased development and have buill a 7,500 sq It office building and a 70,000 sq It storage business to date. Additionally, I have a building pad prepped and parking lot Installed for our next building as well as an approved and "current" land use approval for a 10,000 sq, It, building that has uses that will no longer be allowed within the "new" OlE zone. I urge you to remove my properly from the proposed masterplan. Some reason include but are not limited to: I. You are removing 6 acres of M-1 from the city industrial land inventories, M-1 zoning is a flexible zone, it allows office and employment uses as well as assembly and fabrication in % that business can realistically use), why downzone my properly to restrict It's use, aren't we trying to attract businesses by offering flexible zoning, 2. The most successful businesses In Ashland tend to require mixed activities, Blackstone, Modern Fan, Dream Saks. Massif!, Adroit, OSF, Hakatai, all of these businesses require high level office for professionals combined with warehousing/fabrication/assembly spaces. The proposed zones OlE and C/I segregate these uses making It practically challenging to design and construct a useable building. My current M-1 zoning would allow for any of these business to move to my property right now and the proposed down-zoning would prohibit them from moving to my properly, This is bad for businesses, bad for the City, and bad for my properly. 3, I believe I have a vested rights to develop in current zone as proven by the millions of dollars I have spent improving the site, constructing buildings based on recent land use approvals, further obtaining approved site design applications for future buildings that ccmply with M-1 zone, for donating land to the city of Ashland to widen Mistietoe Road, paying to improve Mlstietoe Road, gifting the City a 10' wide bike easement along our north properly line, and building everything on that site In compliance with the M-1 56 about: blank 2/312010 Page 2 of2 zone. Lastly, I have attached a pdf document of my comments made before the Planning Commission at the January 12th, 2010 meeting so that they can be made part of the written record rather than just the video record, Please consider niy Input. Regards, Mark DiRienzo 700 Mistletoe Road #106 Ashland, OR 97520 541-621-8393 57 about blank 2/3/20 I 0 DiRienzo, 700 Mistletoe Road January 12,2010 Planning Commission Comments I own Mistletoe Road Business Park, a 6 acre M-I zoned property on Mistletoe Road. Having helped to design the site, build the buildings, and worked in the office building so I have some understanding of the issues out there, I've attended the public meetings and the site visit on the Croman project from the beginning (although having young kids makes it a challenge to be at evel'y single meeting). I support the idea of developing a flourishing business area for Ashland to improve our economic situation, but I feel strongly that there must be the utmost care in drafting this code and that to date this process has been hampered by a series of separate dialogues that staff is now required to somehow compile into a clear, useable code. ' I feel that the proposed code needs a review from people in the private sector that have built pl'Ojects in Ashland and have professional expertise in engineering, construction, and architecture. Also we should include business owners and real estate brokers who truly understand the needs of commercial users. Each of these reviewers can assist om' staff in understanding exactly how this code can be used and the pitfalls that lie in it today, Without this review, I believe we will end up with another section of code that is impossible to intcrpret and one that Cl'eates cost prohibitive developments that businesses cannot practically use. The site will build out slowly, if at all, and no-one will be happy with results. Brandon kindly sent me an email yesterday pointing to the most recent proposed language, I was able to look through the documents briefly and have found a number of pl'Oblem areas, EXAMPLES: I. The Majority of parking must be in the real' of the building with a minority along the side, This will generate buildings that are wider along the street and narrow front to back, creating TWO significant pl'Oblems: a. Grade ehange. The pl'Operlies on Croman slope significantly from south to north along the existing and proposed street frontage on Mistletoe. To keep a level floor inside, and to meet ADA sidewalk standards, buildings will either have to be buried into the uphill side 01' be built up on the downhill side, b. Access into the building: parking in the real' alld walking clear al'Ound a building to get inside is impracticaL The buildings will be wide so the front door will be \6 way around the building just to walk inside, I don't have time to go thl'Ough all of this since there is a personal element to my comments tonight. ' In phase I of our business park project we built the brick and glass office building and the self storage facility, For phase 2, we have approved plans for a 10,000 sq. ft. distillery building for Organic Nation Vodka on our north vacant \6 acre (the company is 58 DiRienzo, 700 Mistletoe Road January 12,2010 Planning Commission Comments awaiting financing for this project) and we are in talks with a energy efficiency engineering company that wants a 15,000 design and assembly space on our south lot. All ofthis fits perfectly with our plans to develop a world class business park on our MI zoned land, Ijust found out yesterday from staff that my project is suddenly being wrapped into the Croman Plan and being rezoned as Office/Employment from M-I, After all these public meetings, walking the Mill site with commissioners and staff, and being told that my property was not palt of the master plan, I feel blind sided. . I can no longer build for Organic Nation because the new zone prohibits it, so their investment in the planning approval completely lost. . I have to call my prospective tenant and tell them that my propelty no longer is zoned to accommodate his business, . I also have to tell my employees at the office building that the road realignment will be creating a deadly comer directly in front of our office building. . I also have to tell my New Zealand business partner on this project that this new zoning will make our propelty non-conforming. o That we cannot build our planned office building next to the one we've built because the new rules don't allow that same design and layout even though we've already installed the parking lot and sidewalks, o That we've lost the flexibility ofM-1 zoning which gives us some freedom to accommodate the needs of the actual tenants who are looking for space on Mistletoe Road, not just some possible future tenant that someone says will someday show up, but the actual prospective tenants that exist today. . I will now own a property that is paltially in the Mill district and paltially out of it, will our lender approve this, will this be practical for the M I industrial zone behind my office buildings when industrial users drive through my office area? T eannot accept this shOl'lnotice inclusion of my propelty into the Croman site without adequate time to review its impacts, I request time to discuss these impacts with staff and appropriate master planning time for my site too, Lastly, consider delaying this approval, encourage a review of the practical implementation of this code, so that we all know how it will be implemented before moving ahead. The project has been delayed any what is another month 01' two to get it right this time? Mark DiRienzo 700 Mistletoe Road # I 06 Ashland, OR 97520 541-621'8393 59 -' , . , , . , " :' ... " " ,,' . . regon Oregon Depal.tment of Transportation District 8 100 Antelope Road RECEIVED While City, OR 97503 Telephone (541) 774-6299 FAX (541) 774-6349 Theodore R. Kulong<t!ld. Governor February I, 20tO Bill Molnar Conununity Development Director City of AsWand 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 FEB- 2 2010 File Cod~: _ City of ^~hl(lnd Community Development RE: Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan Dear Bill, We appreciate the work the city has put into redevelopment of the Croman Mill Site and understand the city's desire to revilalize litis area, Redevelopment is expected 10 increase employment and provide needed housing .options for city residents. We ~Iso appreciate your willingness to work with us in relation to the Ashland Maintenance Yard located withinlhe proposed Croman Mill District. As we discussed on the phone, we wontd like to share some of onr commenls as they relate 10 State transportation facilities. First, the redevelopment plan indicates development of B Usignature streett! referenced in the document as Central Boulevard. As currently written, the plan assumes thai this road will traverse through the Maintenance Yard via an easement. We understand thai the plan is being revised to remove any reference to easements through Ihe property, and will instead add language indicaling the need 10 purchase the property for plaJUled development to occur. We were also concerned that with onr ability to reconstruct the mainlenance buildings should a fire or other disaster occur, necessitating their replacement. We are concerned with our ability to rebuild and meet the new design standards contained in the proposed neighborhood commercial zone. You have indicated that city staff is working to develop langnage Ihat will allow replacement of these buitdings should a catastrophic event occur_ Wilh Ihese !WO changes (pnrchase of property and allowing building replacement), ODOT is satisfied, but would like to review actual language before fmal adoplion. Alternately, one solulion perhaps not considered that would allow building replacement and increase the likelihood of redevelopment would be tllC "down zoning" of our property. As currently propasedj the maintenance yard zoning will change to allow conunerciat development. This is expecled 10 greally increase the value afthe property. Instead, the city might consider changing our zoning to pub~ic reserve and making the property less cosily to redevelop, Secondly, we UIlderstand the city wiil be updating the traffic analysis completed for the Craman Mill District. One suggeslion would be 10 phase Ihe traffic a..lysis consistenl with expected redevelopment. For example, the cnrrenltraffic analysis relies upon the new Central Bonlevard to distribule traffic both north and south of111e sile to Ashland Street and Siskiyou Boulevard. Since it is unknown when ODOT will be able to relocate, Ihe traffic analysis should indicale impacts 10 Siskiyou Boulevard as opposed 10 diverting some of the traffic northward. As DLCD poinled ont in Iheir November letter, the traffic analysis will be important to make findings consistent wilh Ihe transportalion-plalUling mle. We would be happy to offer ollr assistance as you develop Ihese findings, Findings wiil need 10 identity platmed hnprovemenls as well as their funding. We look forward to 1V0rking with you further as this plan moves forward. Please enter Ihis letter into Ihe record, If you have any queslions, I can be reached'8154l-957-3658, , Sincerely, mp Michael Baker ODOT Principat Planner Attachment: DKS Traffic Impacl Analysis (Craman Mill) Review 60 STATE OF OREGON INTEROFFICE MEMO Department of Transportation Region 3, District 8 Development Review Traffic Engineering Section 100 Antelope Road White City, Oregon 97503 P: (504) 774-6316 F: (504) 774-6349 Date: January 29,2010 TO: Shawn Stephen Assistant District 8 Manage.' FROM: Wei "Michael" Wang, P.E. & M.S. Development Review Trame Engineer SUBJECT: Review of Croman Mill Tl'ansportatlon Report Dated January 2, 2009 2 6,14,16, 17,18,19 20,21 12,16 Table 1,7,8, 9,10,11, 12,13 The peak hour volumes are not balanced in Figure 2. There is no Information abOUl truck percentage, peak hour factor, pedestrian, bike volume, and bus rcenta e inlhis anal sis, Please provide 95 percentile queue length for all the intersections, Region 3 Traffic would like to review the related Synchro files and defanlt settings for these intersections. On page 12, the TIA indieales lhat the realignment of Tolman Road has the potential to divert 24 % or between 50-100 peak hour trips due to a.less direcl north/soUlh route to connect to/from OR 99 and Hwy 66. Please provide detailed analysis to show the fact that the 50-100 diverted trips are included in the new Signature Street & OR 99 intersection v/c calculation, 3 4 17 Paragraph 3 On page 16, the TIA discusses changing the peak hour factor from O,8l to 0,92 for future analysis based on the commuter rail service. Region 3 Traffic are not aware of the commuter rail system in Rogue Valley area. Please provide the delailed informalion and verify this mitigation measurement. Based on Figure 6 mitigation, there will be an BB left turn and a WB right turn mitigation at the intersection of Hwy 66 & IS NB Allernative B. 5 21 Paragraph 3 Change the phrase "In addition, a separate weslbound right turn pocket would be..," to "In addition, a separale eastbound left and a weslbound ri 1 turn ocket would be.. ," Based on Figure 6, there will be an BB left turn and a WB right turn mitigation at the intersection of Hwy 66 & 1-5 NB Alternative D. Change lhe phrase "This consisled of signalization and adding a separate westbound right turn pocket." to "This consisted of signalization and addin a se arate eastbound left and a westbound ri ht turn oeket." 61 6 General Mitigation ODOT is planning to rebuild the Exit 14 interchange. The proposed inlerchange will have a four lane cross road with ramps in a diamond configuration. The intersections of Hwy 66 & 1-5 NB, Hwy 66 & 1-5 SB will be signalized, Please coordinate with ODOT for the 2030 Croman Mill mitiaalion at these two intersections. 7 General Mitigation At the intersection of Hwy 66 & Washington Slreet, Region 3 Traffic is not willing to support the signalization of this intersection due to its proximity to the Hwy 66 & 1-5 SB intersection, which will be signalized with the interchange reconstruction project. A non-traversable median will be installed along the west side of lhe interchange from the ramp terminals to Tolman Creek Road as outlined in the 1-5 interchanoe 14 IAMP, 8 General Mitigation There is not enough sight distance for turning movement from OR 99 to Mislletoe Road and from Mistletoe to OR 99, Region 3 Traffic would like to seek the opporlunity to close the Misteltoe approach due to this safety issue. Misteltoe should become a cul-de-sac. The traffic will access to OR 99 via the orooosed Sianature Slreel. 9 General Mitigation The mitigation for the inlersection of Tolman Creek & Mislletoe is proposed to be a signalized inlersection with the lane eon figuration changed to a tee intersection. Please notify the ODOT Rail department of these ol'Ooosed chanaes and aet aooroval with this mitiRation. to General Mitigation The Signature Street proposal indicates the streel will go lhrough the existing ODOT maintenance facility, Is lhe developer proposing to purchase ODOT's property for the new street? Please indicale any additional mitiaation if this connection is not completed, If you have any questions regarding my commenlS, please call me at (54t) 774-6316. cc: Shyam Sharma, Region 3 Ron Hughes. Region 3 Jerry Marmon, Region 3 62 HECEIVED FebnJalY I, 2010 fEB - J 2010 To: April Lucasa City or Ashland Community Oevetcl, u_..,! For: Ashland Planning Commissioners Regarding: Amended Land Use Ordinance and Croman Mill Site Development Dear Commissioners: I watched your meeting as you struggled with the approval of the Croman site development and plan, I was glad to heal' your reservations about the plan and that a few of you noticed that no public showed up to comment. There was a request for anyone to give you some feedback so here are my comments, I tried initially to attend alllhe meetings, This project will dramatically affect my business and home properties located on Tolman Creek Rd. Having lived in this area for over 40 years, I felt I had something to contribute and a selfish interest in what you do in my area. The initial me.etings brought constructive along with ridiculous comments from the audience as we each tried to explain our concerns in the short time allotted. From the start, I felt that since the firm that was hired was not fi'om our area it was not familiar enough with the area to handle this project. I got the feeling that they were putting up with the public meetings for a "head count" for the records to establish a preconceived plan for the project. It was not clear to me why the City of Ashland would spend all this time and money to develop private property for my neighbors. Our project experience with Ashland has been difficult and expensive, so I wondered why Croman's owners allowed their project to be handled by the city. The project looks extremely expensive and the area involved far exceeds Croman propelty. I presume the City will someday reap revenues fi'om crowded in-fill development. (Hopefully, it turns out better than our Fiber Network venture). The landowners, on the other hand, finally were able to break up the only large industrial zoncd land in town and with Ashland Planncrs help establish housing in their plans which flatly was denied previously when the owners applied. From the negative attitude Ashland has shown toward large manufacturing and what it brings to an area, I'm afraid any business of value would waste little time once they saw what they had to confront. So I agree there is little chance to develop large indusl1y in Ashland. Our developments have kept a few older businesses from leaving by supplying them with expansion buildings. Like our company, they are established in Ashland and a move would be costly, In the 70's and 80's, when we came to town, we were welcomed like the town cared that we chose Ashland. Those were different times, and most of us are still here. I doubt that many of the commissioners know of me or our family printing company on Tolman Creek Rd, Over the 40 years we have been in Ashland we have quietly gone about our business 63 creating jobs, training employees, expanding our own business and slowly developing our 13 acres of employment propelty keeping much needed selviee and manufacturing jobs in Ashland. This has been done without grants or special treatment fi'OIl1 any govemment entities. Quite to the contralY, we have payed dearly for fees and assessments along with a major L.l.D. expenditure when Ashland used the Albertson's development as an excuse to up-grade Hwy. 66 and Tolman Creek Rd. at my and other landowner's expense, I have explained all this because, although I am leelY of my city developing my neighbor's property to compete with mine, I am most concellled about the in-fill and if it will cost me monetalily or degrade my property and location in the process. I do not want to do anything to cause trouble for the development, but I saw from the last meeting a few of you realized there could be problems that should be discussed before approvaL I will list the major issues I believe should be fully answered before you breakdown Ashland's only Industrial zoned property that is in a good location. \ I. You should all agree there is no desire to have, or chance to get, a large industrial company to locate at the Croman site in Ashland. 2. A guarantee should be made that citizens will not have to pay allY money, taxes, or bankrofts to build this project 3, At no city expense, an accurate cost analysis should be produced, that will be followed, for infrastmcture adequate to handle the biggest possible standards and development at Croman. ~, 4. Hamilton Creek nms through our propelty and otllers below Croman. Most people do not realize our city pipes untreated street stOllll water from developments not even attached to these watelways and uses them as storm drains, To build on my land, I have had to produee 100 year flood plain studies and maps for the city which become meaningless as Ashland pipes water into Hamilton Creek above me. Fifty acres will create a lot of run off; do not allow it into Hamiltoll Creek. 5. When infrastmctme is being analyzed, make s\u'e that those of us that may develop after Croman will still have adequate water, sewer, and utilities at our locations, Through the years we have made underground improvements anticipating future development. Those improvements must not be lost during this project. 6, Thus far I have been completely ignored about a major flaw in the Croman design. As I see it, blinging any more traffic onto Tolman Creek Rd. is disastrous, especially converging at a railroad crossing on a street with no right turn lane at the intersection on Ashland St. If the development ever happens, there will be a steady line oftraffic all day, Before I go any fiuther, please note I will not give up any property frontage and will never pay another L,LD, charge on that road. 64 There is a simple solution that no one in charge of this project will consider, That is to Cl'eate a complete ingress/egress interchange on Siskiyou Blvd, and 1-5. After I was ignored by City Planners, I called O,D.O.T, and the gentleman I phoned said it was an interesting idea and that he'd mention it to his superiors, Next year, exit 14 will be re- vamped, Why not ask for some stimulus money and drastically improve traffic flow to and from our town. Not only will the Croman Plan lUin any movement along Tolman, but once traffic finally gets to 1-5, there is an inadequate 2-lane road you would be pushing all the traffic into. Siskiyou Blvd. is an open road to work with compared to the mess your plan offers. If Siskiyou would be considered, I would hope that the 111ral atmosphere would be maintained for those who reside along that road, From what I envision, I see space for some expansion and possibly the winery and some locations may find the change beneficial. I tmly hope this idea causes no grieffor any land owners in that area, but until this traffic issue is resolved, the Croman development should be put on hold, That's my "feedback". I wish someone would consider my concems. I know my area well or I would not spend my time bringing these issues to your attention. To my knowledge I've heard none of these items discussed, so I consider them ignored, If there's a reason, set me straight so I can shut up like evelyone else seems to be doing, Sincerely, Zach Brombacher IPCO Development 640 Tolman Creek Rd. Ashland, OR 97520 541-482-4711 65 Memo CITY OF ASHLAND Date: January 25, 2010 From: Colin Swales, TranspOItation COIrunission Chair To: Planning Commission Re: Transportation COlrunents on Croman Plan The Transportation Commission held their regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, January 21, 2010. A discussion of the transportation-related,elements of the Croman Plan was on the agenda, Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner and Mike Faught, Public Works director were in attendance to present details of the plans and answer questions. The Planning Depaltment, after having noted some of the Commission's previous concems over possible future modifications of the street design as it relates to subsequent review and/or adoption of the Transportation System Plan, had already revised the proposed draft of Chapter 18.53.020 relating to Minor Amendments. The Commission was in favor of these revisions and looked forward to reviewing the street design as palt of the upcoming TSP update process. After the presentation, discussion and deliberations were held, the following motion was made: Commission recommends to the Phuming Conunission and the City Council that the final design of Central Boulevard be reviewed by the TranspOltation COllunission before it is finalized and constructed, The motion passed unanimously, I 'I I RECEIVEl) JAW 2 5 2010 City oJ Ashland Corrununity DeV'clvpmen1 ENGINEERING DIVISION 20 E. Main Slreel Ash~nd OR 97520 vNiW.ashlaod.or.us G:\puf>.wrts\eng\depl-admtn\Tfansportation CominlssJon\Croman Plan Response to PC 1 2210.doc Tel; 541/488-5347 Fax: 5411488.6006 TTY: 800"35-2900 r~' 66 To: Mayor, City Council, Planning Commissioners and City Administrator From: Marilyn Briggs (please enter as testimony) Regarding: Croman Property Proposal January 15, 201'0 I urge the denial of the existing Croman Property Proposal for the following reasons: 1. It makes a mockel)' of all our touted efforts at "sustainability" and "infill". . It reverses an earlier Planning Commission decision that was unanimously for keeping ALL the Croman Property in a light industrial zone. About fjve years ago, when "Mac" was head of the Planning Department and I was still serving my eight year appointment on the Planning Commission, an extensive Sl11veywas made for alternative sites for industrial zoning. THERE WERE NONE within our stated goals of livability. . It makes no sense to extend and fragment our core communities of housing and commercial zones when there is an excess of existing vacant properties within the core. Our administrators tout the theme of "sustain ability"; this proposal negates it. 2, It is not a "WELCOME TO OUR COMMUNITY" document. . It disrespects existing property ownerslbusinesses by overlaying their properties with new regulations and nlJlning roads through existing buildings. . It negates our goal of establishing family-wage jobs---it contains ordinances that make it financially difficult for business to WANT to locate here J. The Portland architectural consultants who devised this "MIXED USE" concept, proceeded wilh platant disregard for public input. Yes, there were public meetings, three, at the Hotel which showcased, repetitively, handsome projects they did iu other cities'. But they didn't take audience suggestions.' I had to ask them to take a survey of what the audience wanted, They left doing that up io us, which our currenl Mayor and I tabulated ourselves. And dming the initial project presentation at the Grange, questions and suggestions from the local audience were passed over. Any infatuation with out-of~town consultants who disregard our own stated goals is not tenable, 4, The property owners are probably happy with tllis existing proposal because they surely want to move ahead. But it would be short sighted to aim for any quick build-out that fractures our own GOALS of good land use planning, 5. Suggestions. . ONE ZONE, light industrial. Apart fi'om negating the "infill" goal, any commerciallliving qualtcrs could provoke conflicts about noise, odors or traffic that the industrial facilities might make They are totally incompatible with the goal of providing infrastructure lor family-wage job opportunies. " Sp6..-U-~ Ol ,It a:.1A.00.4'iA H~~ . RECEIVED JAN \ 9 2.OlO 67 City of Asl1land Community Developmont C.,>~ jC< y- ol. . The eXistihg fllim and tJ:ailer park not currently within the City Limits. Are: these property O\VnCfS willing participants ih the overiay? It would. be advantages 10 allow aglicultural illdllstry on this land for it would den\onstrate tlie cmxofbeing a "sustainable"cntity{. It also makes a cohercnl'match with the privllte properties across the road that are well-inanicured opcn space. As people, enter Ashland from the sout~ fre.eway ex.it, the open space look is preferable by far to that ofa "strip" of commercial buildillgS'\vith living quarters above!! The primary r()ad\Vay as drawn cuts through existing properties at both ends: Find another south entry, even. i(.it meanscutti.ng ,into the existing bank; do.n't destroy the farm. As proposed, "too. many secondary streets create too much impelVious surface. The.central "park" should be a limetioning agricultural industl)', (vegctablcs 0.1' nurseries); albeit-with some picn.ic tables. The riparian areas might have rows of windmills or solar collectors'.lO service the light" indl1strial bilildiilgS. 0 . . 6. tonclusioli. Pleasedcny the existing-proposal and create one thaI conforms to our Ashland vision, QUI' own stilted goals and needs, J2&a'pd~ I , )lll tfM-41'\-13 ~J 1 () I ..,' /."r"'dlO/O C;,~ . i mm ~. I HAt; t; ft~~rl .' f !:,":"') it' o.',:m;;.i3' 68 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES January 12, 2010 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: Larry Blake Michael Dawkins Dave Dolterrer Pam Marsh Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris JDhn Rinaldi, Jr, Staff Present: Bill MDlnar, Community Development Director Maria Harris, Planning Manager Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Richard Applcello, City Atlorney April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Absent Members: None Council liaison: Eric Navickas ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Marsh announced the vacancy on the Planning Commission and encouraged interested citizens to subm~ applications to the Mayor's Office. Community Development Director Bill Molnar indicated the CDmmlssion's March Study Session falls over spring break and if a Study Session is needed they will meet on March 30~ instead. Commission Rinaldi provided a brief update on the Economic Development Technical Advisory Committee. He stated the group is currently working on a SWOT analysis and If the commissioners have any questions they can contact him later, Commissioner Marsh recommended adding this to a future agenda so that Rinaldi can provide a more thorough update, CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. December 8,2009 Planning Commission Minutes Commissioners Dotlerrer/Blake mls to approve the Consent Agenda, Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 8.0. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS A, PLANNING ACTIONS: #2009.01292 APPLICANT: City of Ashland DESCRIPTION: A request to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) creating a new Chapter 18,53 Croman Mill, to amend the multiple chapters of the Ashland land Use Ordinance to provide consistency with the new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill (AlUO 18,08, 18.12.020, 18.61.042, 18.68.050, 18.70.040, 18.72.030, 18.72,080, 18,72.110,18,72.120,18.72.140,18.72.180, 18.84.100, 18,88.070, 18.106), to amend the Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map to Include the Croman Mill District, and to adopt the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan as a supporting document to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Ashland Planning CommissIon January 12,2010 Page 10(6 69 Commissioner Marsh read aloud the public hearing procedures and noted the commissioners have been asked to disclose ex parte contact. Mr. Molnar clarified the commissioners will need to report any conversations they had outside the meetings where they were exposed to factual information that they will use to deliberate towards a recommendation, Declaration of Ex Parte Contact Commissioner Dawkins stated he attended the staff organized site visit and has had conversations with Dr, Morris about the plan in general and the cost of the Infrastructure. Commissioner Rinaldi stated he had a briefing on the Croman plan with Planning Manager Maria Harris after he was appointed to the Commission, Commissioner Miller disclosed that she had spoken with the man who runs the Village Farm and he had voiced his concern with a road going through his garden. She also had a conversation with an Individual who indicated their preference for the land to remain mostly manufacturing. Commissioner Dotterrer stated he attended the staff organized site visit. Commissioner Mindlin stated she has had many conversations over the past year; however her exposure to factual information was very limited, She stated she has spoken with Mark DIRienzo but they did not discuss anything that was not In his letter. She has also spoken with the people at the Village Farm and members of the City Council. Commissioner Blake stated he attended the site visit and has been spoken to by Huelz, Commissioner Morris stated he attended the site visit and has also been spoken to by Huelz, He disclosed he has spoken to his parents about the plan and noted his family received notice because their business Is near the site, He added nothing was discussed that changes his views, Commissioner Marsh stated she has spoken with Huelz about energy efficiency and solar orientation, She has also spoken with representatives from SOREDI, attended the Council Study Session on this plan, spoke with an Airport Commissioner about the FAA and helghtlimitalions, and has also spoken with Mark Knox, Commissioner Marsh noted that she will be discussing the issue of quasi-Judicial procedures for legislative items further with staff, Staff Report Planning Manager Maria Harris stated the Commission is being asked to make a recommendation on the Croman Mill District Implementation plan, which: 1) creates the new CM zoning district, 2) establishes development standards for the CM district, 3) revises existing Land Use Ordinance for consistency, and 4) adopts the 2008 Redevelopment Plan as a supporting document to the City's Comprehensive Plan, Senior Planner Brandon Goldman provided a brief overview of the Plan goals and objections, He reviewed the street framework, the central boulevard phasing, the Tolman Creek Road realignment, the pedestrian and bicycle framework, the transit framework, the natural and open space areas in the plan, and the parking framework, Ms, Harris noted the project webpage (www.ashland.or.us/croman) and stated there is an extensive amount of documentation posted if anyone is looking for more inforination. Ms, Harris explained the proposal before the Commission redistributes allowed uses in the district boundary, focuses on land efficientlhigh employment uses, increases the residential density In the neighborhood center, and adds residential uses in mixed use areas. She stated most of the Croman Mill District is within the city limits and the bulk of it is comprised of the former Croman Milt site, Ms. Harris stated the current M-1lndustrial tille is somewhat misleading because this zoning district allows for a wide range of commercial and emplDyment uses in addition to what most would consider typical industrial uses, She elaborated that retail, restaurants, offices, nightclubs/bars, and hotels/motels would all be allowed in the M-1 zone, in addition to industrial uses like manufacturing/assembly warehouses, Junk yards, and outside storage, Ms, Harris explained the p'roposed Croman Mill District Is reaily a redistribution of many Df those uses, Ashland Planning Commission 'January 12, 2010 Page 2016 70 Ms, Harris reviewed the planning application process and stated applicants will still have to go through site review approval; however proposals in the compatible Industrial district will be subject to a smaller set of standards (similar to basic site review), while projects in the neighborhood commercial, office employment zone, mixed use area, and those located along active edge streets will go through a process comparable to detail site review, Ms, Harris noted the green development standards, which focus on site infrastructure, green parking, green streets, and building orientation, and aiso commented briefly on the major and minor amendment process, Community Development Director Bill Molnar noted there have been 15 meetings on this topic, and tonight's meeting Is for the public to see the whDle package and present their comments, He explained the goal Is for the Commission to work on formulating their recommendation to the City Council, and highlighted the following three areas where the Commission could consider issuing sub-recommendations: 1) inclusion of property outside the district boundary, 2) east-west orientation altemative, and 3) alignment alternative for the central boulevard, Mr, Molnar reviewed these three Items in further detail. In regards to their first option, he clarified staff is recommending the front of the property on Mlstietoe Rd (Mistletoe Storage) be included in the district boundary In order to keep continuity, In regards to option two, Mr. Molnar displayed the east-west alternative and stated recommending this layout would provide more opportunity for southem building exposure, but it would impact block lengths and would require staff to make slight modifications to the minimum lot size requirements, Lastiy, option 3 explores a potential realignment of the central boulevard during phase 2 that would look at ways to work around the two eXisting buildings. Mr, Molnar noted the Transportation Commission will be holding a meeting to further explore some of the transportation issues and will be forwarding their comments to the Commission. As such, the Transportation Commission has requested that the Planning Commission not make a formal recommendation to the Council unlilthey have received their comments, Mr, Molnar recommended the Planning Commission hear public testimony and hold a discussion on the options, but to wait and finalize their motion(s) at the February 9~ Planning Commission meeting. Public Testlmonv David Wlck/2560 Eagle Creek Lane/Submitted Information on brtnging the "Triple Bottom Line' concept to the Croman plan, Mr. Wick slated this approach is in line with Ashland's values and the idea is for businesses to pay attention to the following three bottom lines as the key to enhanced prosperity and lasting sustainability: 1) Profit - your established traditional measures of financial performance, 2) People - commitment to your employees, customers, suppliers and community, and 3) Planet- reductiDn of you carbon footprint, resource consumption and pollution. Mr, Wick cited various cities that are using this approach and requested Ashland Incorporate Triple Bottom Line as the framework for the Croman site, Mike Montero/4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 105, Medford/Stated he represents the property owners of the Croman site and stated the revised plan is wholly acceptable to his clients. He stated the plan will provide sufficient flexibility to deal with current and future economic challenges, and he urged the Planning Commission to issue a favorable recommendation to the City Council, Mark DIRlenzo/700 Mistletoe Road/Clarified he owns Mistletoe Road Business Park and shared his concerns with the proposed plan, Mr. DiRienzo stated the new Croman Mill code language will be impossible to interpret and will create cost- prohibited developments that businesses cannot practically use, He stated the site will build out slowly, if at all, and stated_no one will be happy with the results, Mr. DiRienzo explained that he has approved plans for a 10,000 sq, It disUllery building for Organic Nation Vodka and just found out that his land Is now proposed to be included in the district boundary and rezoned as office employment. He added he is also in talks with an energy efficiency engineering company that wants a 15,000 sq, It, design and assembly space on his south lot. Mr, DiRienzo stated the new zone prohibits Organic Nation's distillery building, and he will also lose his other prospective tenant. He slated the proposed road alignment would create a deadly corner directly in front of his office building on Mistletoe Rd" and the new zoning will make his existing building non.conforming and they will not be able to build their planned office building. He stated the current M-1 zoning designation of his property provides freedom to accommodate the needs of actual tenants who are iDoking for space, not just possible future tenants. He stated this plan would make his property partially in the Croman Mill District and partially out. Mr, DiRienzo slated he cannot accept this ShDrt nDtice inclusion of his property into the Croman Mill District wilhoul adequate time to review its Impacts and strongly urged the Commission to delay this plan's approval until a review of [he practical Implementation Is completed. He stated the project has taken this long to assemble, a few more months to ensure they get It right is appropriate, Ashland Planning Commission January 12,2010 Page 3 0(6 71 Staff pointed out the location of Mr. DiRienzo's properly and clarified this is the property referenced In staff option 1. It was noted that up until recently, this area was not included In the plan and staff has presented options to include either all of Mr, DiRienzo's properly, or just the front portion. Mr. DiRienzo clarified he owns three tax lots along lhe Mistletoe Rd. frontage and including the frontage of his properly In the Croman District would split the zoning for the middle lot which houses the existing office building and mini-storage complex, He added the lwo lots on either side would become office employment and he already has prospective tenants for both of these lots which are currently zoned M-1. Mr. DIRienzo also clarified his concerns wlth the blind comer and stated the . proposed angle of the road could create an unsafe transportation Issue. . Commissioner Marsh noted Mr. DiRienzo's suggestion to have the feasibility of the plan looked at and asked if there is any reason why local professionals cannot take what was presented tonight and provide staff with some analysis. She noted tonight's hearing is just one step In the process and staled there is still time for the professionals in the field to submit their Input. Marilyn Brlggs/590 Glenvlew Drive/Stated six years ago the Planning Commission voted to keep the Croman properly as light Industrial and voiced her disapproval of the proposed plan. Ms, Briggs stated the plan takes away from Infill and there are office spaces downtown that could be utilized Instead of constructing new office buildings on the Croman site. She voiced her concerns wllh the firm Crandall Arambula and felt they were not open to public input, and asked thatlhe Commission deny this proposal. John Weber/295 Mistletoe RoadNoiced his concern wlth a proposed bike path and stated it would be located directly behind his house. He stated there are a lot of homeless people In this area and would prefer to not have them wandering behind his house. Commissioner Marsh noted the written testimony that was handed out at the beginning of the meeting and read the letters aloud. Letters were received from Mark Knox, Stark & Hammond P.C., Knecht Family Trust, Historic Commission Staff Liaison Derek Seversen, and Transportation Commission Chair Colin Swales, Commissioner Mersh closed the Public Hearing at 8:35 p.m. Commissioner Marsh noted the public record will remain open and at this point deliberations will be deferred to their February 9,2010 meeting. Advice from LeQal Counsel and Staff City Attorney Richard Appicello recommended the Commission not begin lhelr deliberations since the record Is not closed. He added the Commission is aliowed to identify issues for staff. Commissioner Dawkins shared his concerns wlth the plan. He stated they are being asked to up-zone a piece of property and does not believe a new start up company is going to be able to pay for ali the required infrastructure and stringenl site review standards. Staff commented briefly on the proposed lot sizes and stated the intent was to give businesses room to'grow. Ms. Harris provided examples of existing companies in the area and stated Blackstone Audio is on a one-acre sized lot, and Modern Fan Is just under 2-acres, Commissioner Dotterrer acknowledged the concerns expressed during the public forum and questioned if the plan places too high of a standard, He commented on the LEED standards and asked if this would make the Croman plan economicaliy unviable. Staff clarified the LEED standards only come into effect If an applicant wants a height bonus; however there are other sustainable standards that are required. Commissioner Mindlin shared her concerns wlth minimum building size and the costs Involved with developing a phased concept for start-up businesses. She noted the public concerns raised about parking and asked if they have created a 'catch Ash/anel Planning Commission January 12, 2010 Paga 40'6 72 NEW BUSINESS A. Selection of 2010 Hearings Board Members. A sign-up sheet was passed around the table. Commissioners Morris, Blake and Dotterrer wlll serve on the Hearings Board January through April; Commissioners Miller, Rinaldi and Dawkins wlll serve May through August; and Commissioners Marsh' and Mindlin will serve along with the newly appointed member September through December. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned a19:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Ash/and Planning Commission January 12, 2010 Page 60(6 . 73 Planning Commission Speake.' Request Form v I) Complete this lonn and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to speak about. 2) Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone. 3) State your name and address for the recOl'd. 4) Limit your comments to the amount of lime given to you by the Chair, usually 5 minutes. 5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the Secretary for the record. 6) You may give written comments to 1he Secretary for 1he record if you do not wish to speak. 7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement. Name C (IJlease IJrint) Address (noP,O.Box) j ,,~- "(' . ' 'T ;")l ( J'G(\~3\ () ex Q Q \:: ,0':\1-1( Phone " Email Tou'lght's Meeting Date Regular Meeting Agenda item nnmber \( OR Topic for public fornm (non agenda item) C\;\'O\-\Cln \?Gt~\ ~-' \--\<20..rUi Cj Land Use Public Hcaring For: Against: Challenge for Conflict of Interest 01' Bias If you are challenging a'member (pianning commissioner) with a conflict of interest or bias, please wri1e your allegalion complete with supporting facts on this form and deliver it 10 the clcrk immediately. The Chair will address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge wheu you testif'y during the normal order of prQceedings. Written Comments/Challenge: The Public Meeting Lml' requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregolllall' does not alll'ays require Ihm the public be permilled to speak. The Ashland Plallning COII/missioll generally invites the public to speak 011 agenda items and durillg public forum ollllOlI-agellda ilems ullless time cOllstraillts /ill/it public testimollY. No persoll has all absolute right to speak 01' pal'licipate ill evel)' phase of a proceeding. Please respect the order ofproceedillgsfor public hearings alld strictlyfollow the directions oflhe presidillg o/ficel'. Behaviol' 01' actiolls which are ulIl'easollably loud or disruptive are dis/'espec!ful, alld II/ay cOllstitute disorderly callduct. o.O'ellders will be requested to leave the room. Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council, Cily Officers or employees or the City of Ashland. 74 Planning Commission Slleal<el' Reqnest Form ~/ I) Complete this 10l"ln and return it to the Secre1my prior to the discu'ssion ofthe item you wish to speak about. 2) Speak to Ihe Planning Commission from the table podium microphone. 3) State your name and address for the record. 4) Limit yom comments to the amount of time given to you by the Chair, usually 5 minutes. 5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the Secretary for the record. 6) You may give written comments to 1he SecretalY for the record if you do not wish to speak. 7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of1heir public statement. Name /I1tl<8 ~.fr.l\/~ '~/Ylk~./ll"A-;:; k&<ir:-' , (flleasepl'int) " " ", ,',',', '" ',," ", , "'" ,,' ',',".." " , ,', ' '.', Addl"ess (no P.O.Box) ',Zf'1:~;;:~o.W~)DG67?~.,", A-~ #f/-Eu P1~ /6 ~ , Pbone5"YI-7l?-o 71/ " Email.NJa.&.M0..uiY.w ~A4="-i.+on;>S;;~"'1 ' ' , , Tonigbt's Mceting Dale "I f z../o '1 Regular Meeting Agenda item number I OR Topic for public forum (nonllgeuda item) Land Use Public Hearing For: Against: Cballenge for Conflict ofInterest or Bias If you are challenging a member (planning commissioner) with a conflict of interest or bias, please write YO\lr allegation complete with suppol1ing facts on this form and deliver it to the clerk immediately. The Chair will address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do not intelTllpt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testilY during the normal order of proceedings. Written Comments/Challenge: The Public Aleetiug Loll' requires that all city II/eetings are open to the public. Oregon loll' does not alwa)'s require thatlhe public be perlllilled to speak. The Ash/and P1anlliug COII/lllissioll generall)' invites Ihe public to speak all agenda ilellls alld during public forulII on non-agenda ilellls unless tillle cO/lslminlS lilllit public testilllou)'. No person has an absolute right 10 speak 01' participate in evel)' phase ~la proceeding. Please respect the order of proceedings for public hearings and strictly follow the directiollS oflhe presiding <!fJicer. Behavior or actiol/.f which are 1/IIlwl.l"Onabl)' loud 01' disruptive are disrespecljid, and ilia)' cOIIS/ilute disorderly comlnct. q{lenders will be requested to leave the 1'00111. , Comments and statements by speakers do 110t represent the opinion of the City Council, City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland. 75 Speal{er Request Form THIS FORM IS A PUBLIC RECORD ALL INFORMA Th...' PROVIDED WILL BE MADE A V AILAB~~ TO THE PUBLIC l/ I) Complete this form and return it to the City Recorder ol'ior to the discussion oCthe item you wish to soeak about, 2) Speak to the City Council from the table podium microphone. 3) State your name and address for the record. 4) Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Mayor, usually 3 or 5 minutes. 5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the City Recorder for the record, 6) You may give written comments to the City Recorder for the record if you. do not wish to speak. (Comments can be added to the back of this sheet if necessary) 7) Speakers are solely responsible for the cootent of their public statement. Rel!ular Meetinl! Agenda topic/item number.~/f. c::i DO ,i-f.' ;':1 f,) OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item) C/,'(! (1 fi>1JhJ A-lra. h?i7rllf!/j . Land Use Public Hearinl! Please, indicate the followill'g: \' For: Against: x /' I , "- ChalleogeJor Conflict oflntel'est 0" Bias If you are challengiog a member (a city councilor or a planning commissioner) with a conflict of interest or-l>ias,please-write-your-allegation-eomplete-with-<lupportieg-faetg-on-this-fofm-and-deliver" it to the clerk- immediately. The Presiding Officer will address the written "challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testif'y during the normal order of proceedings. Written commentslChal1enge: ---. . .~---- ..~- The Public Meeting Law requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not always require that the public be permitted to speak. The Ash/and City Council generally invites the public to speak on agenda items and during public fO/'llm on non-agenda items unless time consll'aints limif public testimony. No person has an absolllle right to speak or participate in every phase of a proceeding. Please respect the order of proceedings for public hearings and strictly follow the directions of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disruptive are disrespectful, and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the 1'00111. Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion ofthe City Council, City Officers or employeesfethe City of Ashland. Planning Commission Speal(el' Request Form I) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to speak about. 2) Speak 10 the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone. 3) State your name and address for the record. 4) Limit your comments to the amount of time given 10 you by the Chair, usually 5 minutes. 5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to Ihe Secretary for the record. 6) Y oumay give wrillen comments 10 the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak. 7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement. :::~~:.~~~P""~~ is ui~ p;lone~Emau ' Tonight's Meeting Date @ Regular Meeling Agenda item nUlubel' OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item) Land Use Public Hearing Against: X For: Challenge for Coufllct ofIutel'est 01' Bias If yon are challenging a member (planning commissioner) wilh a conllict of interest or bias, please write your allegation complete with suppOlting facts on this form and deliver it 10 the clerk immediately. The Chail' will address the written challenge with the membel'. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do not interl'llpt. You may aiso provide testimony about 1he challenge when you testifY dlll'ing the normal orderofproeeedings. -1:J. Ie. ~ 1 a C O\.+joVl Written Comments/Challenge: ,e The Public Meetillg Lml' requires that all city II/eetillgs are opellto the public. Oregolllcm> does 1I0t a/ways require thatlhe public be perll/i/led to speak. 71/e Ashlalld l'Iallllillg Commissioll gellerally illvites the public to speak 011 agellda items alld durillg public/orum olllloll-agellda items ullless lill/e cOlIstraillts lill/it public lestill/ollY. No persall has all absolule right to speak or participate ill evel)' phase (!f a proceedillg. Please respect the order o/proceedillgs/or public hearillgs alld strictly/ol/ow the directiolls o/the presidillg officer. Behavior or actiolls which are ullreasollably loud or disruptive are disrespec(ful. alld II/ay cOllstitule disorderly cOllduct. qfJellders will be requested to leave Ihe 1'0011/. Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion ofthe City Council, City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland. 77 Speal{er Request Form TIDS FORM IS A PUBLIC RECORD ALL lNFORMATH.... PROVIDED WILL BE MADE AVAILABL~ TO THE PUBLIC v I) Complete this form and return it to the City Recorder Drior 10 Ihe discussion of the item you wish to sneal( about. 2) Speak to Ihe City Council from the table podium microphone. 3) Slate your name and address for the record, 4) Limit your comments 10 1he amount of time given to you by the Mayor, usually 3 or 5 minutes, 5) If you present written materials, please give a copy 10 Ihe City Recorder for the record. 6) You may give written comments 10 the City Recorder for Ihe record if you ,do not wish 10 speak, (Comments can be added to the back oflhis sheet if necessary) 7) Speakers are solely responsible for the conlenl of their public slalement. Reeulal' Meetine Agenda topic/item number OR , Topic for public forum (non agenda item) C /,0 W"~A- "J Land Use Public Hearine Please indiente Ihe following: For: Against: Challenge for Conflict ofInterest or Bias If you are challenging a member (a city councilor or a planning commissioner) wilh a conflict of interest ., or-bias,please-write-Y(lur-allegalion~mplete-with'supporting-faetll-on-tRis--funn-alld.deliver-it.to the clerk- immediately. The Presiding Officer will address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do not ititerrupt. You may also provide teslimony aboul the challenge , ' when you testif'y during the normal order of proceedings. ~ W,'iffenComments/ChaJ1enge: _n. ..----- --- .._-~-- - , The Public Meetillg Law requires that all city meetillgs are opell to the public. Oregon law does 1I0t always require Ihat the public be permilled to speak The Ashlalld City Coullcil generally invites Ihe public 10 speak 011 agellda items and during public forum 011 1I0n-agellda items ullless time cOllslI'aill/s limit public testimollY. No persoll has all absolule right 10 speak or participale ill eve,y phase of a proceedillg. Please respectlhe order of proceedillgs for public hearillgs alld sll'ict/y follow the directiolls of the presiding officer. Behavior'or acriolls which are ullreasonably loud or disruptive are disrespectful, and may constilllte disorderly conduct. Offellders will be requested to leave Ihe room. Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council, City Officers or employees fa the City of Ashland. Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. II you wish to speak. please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, aive your name and comolete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak, Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is not allowed after the Public Hearing is closed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 12, 2010 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Slreet II, ANNOUNCEMENTS . March Study Session III, CONSENT AGENDA A, Approval of Minutes 1. December 8, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes IV. PUBLIC FORUM V. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS A.pLANNING ACTIONS; #2009-01292 .". APPLICANT: City of Ashland. ' DESCRIPTION: A requesl to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) creating a new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill, to amend the multi pie chapters of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to provide consistency with the new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill (ALUO 18.08, 18.12.020, 18,61.042, 18.68.050,18.70.040,18.72.030,18.72.080, 18.72.110, 18.72.120, 18.72.140, 18.72.180, 18.84.100, 18.88.070,18.106), to amend the Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map to include the Croman Mill District, and to adopt the Croman Mill Sile Redevelopment Plan as a supporting document to the City's Comprehensive Plan. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Selection of 2010 Hearings Board Members VII. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF ASHLAND r~' In compliance with the Americans wilh Dlsabililies Act. il you need special assistance to participate in this meeting. please contaclthe Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notificalion 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 1). ' 79 ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT January 12, 2010 PLANNING ACTION: 2009-01292 APPLICANT: City of Ashland LOCATION: Croman Mill District Boundary ZONE DESIGNATION: City of Ashland M-j, E-I, R-I-5 and Jackson County RR-5 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: City of Ashland Industrial, Employment, Single-Family Residential and Jackson County Rural Residential Lands ORDINANCE REFERENCE: Chapter 18.52 M-I Industrial District, Chapter 18.40 Employment District, Chapter 18.20 Single-Family Residential District, Chapter 18, I 08 Procedures STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS: Goal 2 - Land Use Planning Goal 9 - Economic Development OREGON REVISED STATUTES (ORS): Chapter 197 - Comprehensive Land Use Planning Coordination OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULE (OAR): 660-009 Economic Development REQUEST: To amend the Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map to include the Cl'OmanMill District, to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) to include a new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill, to amend Ashland's Site Design and Use Standards to include a new Section VIII-Croman Mill District Standards, to amend multiple chapters of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to provide consistency with the new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill (ALUO 18.08, 18.12, 18.61, 18.68, 18,70, 18.72, 18,84, 18.88, 18.106), and to adopt the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan as a supporting document to the City's Comprehensive Plan, I. Relevant Facts A, Background. History of Application Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 2 - Land Use Planning, as well as Chapter 197 of the Oregon Revised Statues requires a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use of land. Specifically, plans and implementation measures such as ordinances controlling the use and construction are permitted as measures for carrying out Comprehensive Plans. Planning Action PA #2009-01292 Applicant: Cily of Ashland Ashland Planning Division - Stall Report mh Page 1 of 12 80 Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 9 - Economic Development requires cities and counties to address providing adequate opportunities for a variety of economic activities for residents. As a result, cities in Oregon are required to provide an adeqliate land supply for economic development and employment gl'Owth. Specifically, Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-009 requires cities to periodically conduct an Economic Opportunity Analysis (EOA). The EOA must include identification of economic trends, identification of potential growth industries in the planning area, employment projections. an inventory of vacant and developed lands lor industrial and employment uses and identification of 1he number of sites needed to accommodate expected employment growth. In Decembel' 2001, the Ashland Planning Commission denied an application for the Cl'Oman Mill property for a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment from Industrial to Employment, Health Care Services, Multi-Family Residential, Suburban Residential and Single Family-Residential, and a Zoning Map amendment from M-l to E-I, HC, R-2, R-I-3.5 and R-I-7.5 (PA 2001-103). The denial was based on tindings that the application failed to demonstrate that there was a significant surplus of employment lands within the urban growth boundary (UGB) and that a public need existed to dramatically reduce the City's inventory of land intended to accommodate existing and futlll'e employment. In 2006, the Community Development Department applied for and received a grant from the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) for an Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA). The EOA was completed in April 2007. The EOA identifies a need to retain the Croman Mill site for industrial and employment uses to meet projected employment growth, and recommended developing a master plan for 1he redevelopment of the site. The EOA suggests exploring the concept of developing the Croman Mill sile as an "eco-industrial park" . to attract industries providing family wage jobs, that are non-polluting, 1hat use comparatively little water and that are compatible with Ashland's community values. The Croman Mill site is identified as an ideal location for employment uses for a variety of reasons including the ability to accommodate large parcels of up to ten acres, the pl'Oximity to the interstate and the railroad line, 1he ability to accommodate the nceds of existing Ashland businesses that may wish to relocate within the city, and the ability to attract new businesses. In 2007, the Community Development Depat1ment applied for a T1'8nsportation and Gl'Owth Management (TGM) grant to prepare a master plan for the Cl'Oman Mill site, The TOM program is ajoint program of the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), The City of Ashland received the TOM grant and Crandall Arambula, an urban design and architecture firm, was selected to prepare the draft plan, Pl'Oject work began in December 2007, and the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan was completed at the end of December 2008. The 2008 planning process involved three public workshops, two joint Planning Commission and City Council study sessions Planning Action PA #2oo9.o1292 Applicant: City 01 Ashland Ashland Planning Oi~sion - Staff Report mh paga 20112 81 and numerous stakeholder meetings with property owners, nearby residents and gove1'l1ment agency representatives. In January, March, June and August of2008, a series of public workshops and study sessions were conducted as part of the mas1er plan development. The first workshop in January 2008 focused on identification of issues and concerns, as well as the development of goals and objectives for the redevelopment plan. After Ihe January workshop, fOUl' plan options were developed and presented at the March workshops. In June and August 2008, study sessions were held with the Ashland City Council and Planning Commission to further revise the plan concept. Subsequently, the consultant prepared the draft Redevelopment Plan as required by the state grant. The issues and opportunities identified during the first public workshop and key participants meetings were used to create the project goals and objectives as listed ,below (page 10 of the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan, December 2008), Circulallon o Create a local street network that provides balanced circulation for pedestrian, bikes, auto/truck and transit and is well connected to existing streets o Improve visibiilty and identity for the study area o Mitigate impacts of auto and truck traffic on Tolman Creek Road and Ashland Street o Preserve rail access for commuters, passengers and freight o Improve safety for autos and pedestrians of key intersection sand rail crossings o Provide for non-motorized trails linked to existing trails and parks systems o Create safe routes to Sellview School o Manage traffic impacts on Exil14 and Ashland Street Land Use o Provide for a large number of family wage jobs o Allow for light Industrial and manufacturing o Create parcels with the flexibility to support local newsmall business, existing business expansion and large employers o Consider a range of housing options o Allow for a mix of uses o Do not create uses lhat compete wlth downtown o Incorporate a public gathering space o Preserve streams and wetlands Policies and Regulations o Recommend code changes to be adopted by the City of Ashland o Recommend commitment of funds for specific infrastructure improvements o Mandate sustainable and green development codes o Develop standards for 'dark skies' In February 2009, the City Council directed staff to work with the Planning Commission to begin the process of adopting the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Planning Action PA #2OOS-01292 Applicant: City of Ashland Ashland Plannins Division - Slaff Report mh Page 30112 82 Plan by preparing the necessary accompanying Ashland Land Use Ordinance " (ALUO) and Comprehensive Plan amendments, B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal The Croman Mill District boundary encompasses approximately 95 acres, and is bound by the railroad right-of-way to the north and east, Tolman Creek Road and Hamilton Creek to the west and Siskiyou Boulevard to 1he south. The bulk of the propet1y is compdsed of the Croman Mill site (approximately 64 acres), which is the largest, unused parcel of land in the city limits. The Croman Mill site is centrally located in the plan area, between Mistietoe Road and 1he railroad right-of-way, The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) maintenance yard located south of the intersection of Mistletoe and Tolman Creek, as well as some additional properties to the west of Mistletoe Road and near the intersection of Siskiyou Boulevard and Crowson Road area also included in the plan area. The proposal involves Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map amendments, as well as additions and revisions to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) to implement the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan. The proposed implementation plan includes revising the Ashland Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps to create a new zoning designation for the Croman Mill District. The Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) will be revised to include a new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill, and Ashland's Site Design and Use Standards amended to include a new Section VIII,Croman Mill District Standards to guide and direct both public and private improvements, Additionally, Chapter 18 will be amended in multiple chapters to provide consistency with the new Chapter 18,53 Croman Mill. Finally, the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan will be adopted as a supporting document to the City's. ' Comprehensive Plan. The proposed documents in the implementation plan, with the exception of the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan, are included in this packet. The Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan f!'Om December 2008 was distributed to the Planning Commission in March 2009, and will not be redistributed. For reference, the components of the proposal are outlined below, Croman Mill District Implementation Plan 1. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment o revise current Comprehensive Plan Map designations of Industrial, Employment and Single-Family to Croman Mill District o revise current Zoning Map designations of M-1, E-1 and R-1 to eM 2, Legislative Amendments o add a new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill Planning Action PA #2oo9.o1292 Applicant: Clly of Ashland Ashland Planning Oivision - Staff Report mh Page 4 of 12 83 o add a new Section VIII-Croman Mill Dislnct Standards o Misc. Chapter 18 Amendments o adopt Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan as supporting document to Ashland Comprehensive Plan ' II. Prolect Impact ! I A. Approval Process and Noticing The proposal in,volves Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map amendments, as well as additions and r~visions to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) in an effort to implement the (,:roman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan. The Planning Commission makes a recommendation on the package of amendments, and the City Council makes the final decision. Approximately 250 written notices were mailed regarding the January 12 Planning Commission and March 2 City Council public hearings (see attached notice). The notice area and ,list includes propelty owners in and surrounding the Croman Mill District boundary, as well as the participants from the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan process. Additionally, the Croman Advisory Commission was sent a public hearing notice. Also, a "Measure 56" notice, which is required by state law and notifies property owners that a legislative change is proposed which may affect the permissible uses and value of the their property, was mailed to 40 property owners within the district boundary. A notice was published in the newspaper as required by Cllllpter 18.108, as well as a meeting announcement is posted on the project web page www.ashland.Ol..uslcroman. The Transportation Commission is continuing their review of the Croman Mill , District implementation plan at their upcoming January 21, 2010 meeting. The Transportation Commission has requested that the Planning Commission delay the final recommendation nntil Febl'l1ary, so that the Transportation Commission has an opportunity to submit comments. B. Proposal Impact The attached maps show the CUITent Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations and the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations fOI' the properties within the distl'ict. The area within the boundary of the proposed Croman Mill District including the former Croman'Mill site is primarily zoned M-Ilndustrial, with some additional areas ofE-1 Employment and R-I Single Family. Additionally, the area adjacent to Siskiyou Boulevard and Crowson Road is within the Cl'Oman Mill District boundary and in the Ashland urban growth boundary (UGB), but is outside the city limits - this Planning AcUon PA #2009'()1292 Applicant: City of Ashland Ashland Planning Di~sion - Slaff Report mh Page 50f 12 84 area is designated Employment in the Ashland Comprehcnsive Plan and is currently zoncd Jackson County RR-5 Rural Residential. The title of the M-1 Industrial zoning is somewhat misleading because the zoning district allows a wide range of commercial and employment uses including offices, retail, personal services, restaurants, nightclubs and bars, theaters, and hotels and motels in addition to those uses typically associated with industrial areas such as manufacturing, pl'Ocessing, assembling, mini-warehouses, outside storage of merchandise and raw materials, junkyard and auto wrecking yards, and concrete or asphalt batch or mixing plants. In short. the M-I Industrial zoning district includes the uses that are allowed in the C-I Commercial and E-) Employment zoning districts. The proposed Croman Mill District includes five zoning overlays. Again, the bulk of the district is the Croman Mill Site which would be divided between CI Compatible Industrial an OE Office Employment. Office uses area focused in the nOlthern half of the district and manufacturing uses are concentrated in the southern half of the district in an effort to create distinct identities for each area and to maintain freight rail access industrial area. The ODOT maintenance yard at the northwest corner of the plan area would be NC Neighborhood Commercial, a mixed-use area targeted at small scale neighborhood scrving commercial uses and residential units. There are two MU Mixed Use areas located between Hamilton Creek and Mistletoe Road and surrounding the south entrance on Siskiyou Boulevard. These areas are intended as transitions from the existing residential areas to the west and south, and would allow a mix of uses including office, light manufacturing and residential uses. The residential uses in the NC Neighborhood Commercial and MU Mixed Use overlays are limited to upper floors of the buildings. Finally, there is an OS Open Space/Conservation Overlay which includes the areas along Hamilton Creek, the Central Park, and the pond and creek in the southeast pOltion of the district. The primary impact of the comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments is the redistribution of allowed uses in the district boundal')', and the elimination of land- intensive uses with low employment densities such as mini-warehouses, outside storage, and concrete or asphalt batch or mixing plants. Professional offices are targeted for the OE Office Employment zone and manufacturing and assembly is the focus of the CI Compatible Industrial zone, with provisions to allow for some cross- over manufacturing and offices associated with the primary use of the zone. Stores, rcstaurants and shops of a neighborhood scale are located in the NC Neighborhood, and allowed throughout the OE Office, Employment and CI Compatible Industrial ZOIlCS at an even smaller scale. The MU Mixed Use areas allow both the office and manufacturing and assembly uses. With the exception of the residential uses allowed in the NC Neighborhood Commercial and MU Mixed Use zoning overlays, the uses included in the Croman Mill District are allowed under the current M-I Industrial and E-l Employment zoning. ' Planning AcUon PA ~2009'()1292 Applicant: City 01 Ashland Ashland Planning Di~slon - Staff Report mh Page 60112 85 'The second significant area of change in land uses involves the ODOT maintenance yard and the two MU Mixed Use areas. The ODOT maintenance yal'd is currently zoned R-I-5 Single-Family Residential and the proposed redevelopment plan adds allowances for neighborhood-oriented commercial uses as well as increases the residential density from 4.5 units per acre to 30 units pel' acre. The two MU Mixed Use areas are currently included in the E-I Employment designation. The proposed zoning allows offices and manufacturing uses similar to the E-1 zoning district, but adds the ability to have residential limits in conjunction with a permitted employment use, Currently, residential units are not permitted in the area between Hamiltqn Creek and Mistletoe Road. The residential uses in the NC Neighborhood Commercial and MU Mixed Use overlays are limited to upper floors of the buildings, and rcquire non-residential uses in the ground 11001'. A minor and major amendment process is included in the proposed Chapter 18.53 CM Croman Mill, which will be the ordinance chapter governing the Croman Mill District. The amendment process provides flexibility to address unforeseen changes in conditions such as shifts in demand for types of uses, and physical challenges in individual developments. Major amendments provide for a change in a land use overlay, modification of the street layout plan 01' other transportation facility, a change in the applicable standards, and any other changes not listed. Minor amendments include shifting streets and other transportation facilities, changes related to street trees, slt'eet furniture tcncing or signage, change in street design, modification of driveway access locations and changes in dimensional standard requirements not including building height and residential density. The planning application process for development proposals in the Croman Mill , District iSl'elatively unchanged. Under the current E-l and M-1 zoning, new buildings, additions or expansions require Site Review approval in accordance with , Chapter 18.72. The same Site Review process will be apply to new buildings, additions or expansions in the CM zoning overlays. The primary difference in the review of the applications in the Croman Mill District will be the applicable Site Design and Use Standards. Currently, new conslt'uction in the E-I and M-I zoning districts is subject to the Basic Site Review Standards. Basic Site Review is the entry level of site review focusing on site layout, building orientation and landscaping requirements, and is currently in place in areas such as Hersey Street, Jefferson Avenue ad Benson Way. In the Croman Mill District, new construction would be subject to the Croman Mill District Standards, Structures in the C1 Compatible Industrial will be subject to a similar level of review as Basic Site Review, and stnlctures adjacent to the Active Edge Streets (I.e. central boulevard and slll'rounding the central park) and in'the OE Office Employment, NC Neighborhood , Commercial and MU Mixed Use overlays will be subject to a level of review similar to the Deiail Site Review zone. The Detail Site Review Zone is a higher level of site review than Basic Site Review, and includes further requirements for orientation and scale of buildings, streetscape and building materials. The Detail Site Review Zone is cUI'l'ently in place in other areas of Asbland such as parts of Siskiyou Boulev81'd, Ashland Street, A Street, the downtown and the railroad propelty (i.e. Clear Creek Drive, Russell Drive). Additional Green Development Standards addressing items Planning AcUon PA #2009.()1292 Applicant: City of Ashlnnd Ashland Planning Division - Slaff Report mh Page 7 of 12 86 such as the use of pervious paving, bioswales and reducing potable water use will apply throughout the Croman Mill District. The Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan includes a tl'ansportation framework that is implemented by the Croman MiUDistrict Standards as well as the Transportation System Plan (TSP). The transportation framework includes a street network, a pedestrian and bicycle framework, a transit plan including bus service and commutCl' rail, a parking plan and a freight rail component. The design and general location of the street network is addressed by the street standards section of the Croman Mill ' District Standards, although the final design and engineering would be at the time of the actual development. The pedestrian and bicycle framework includes facilities incorporated into the streets, as weU as off-road multi-use paths including the extension of the Cenh'al Ashland Bike Path adjacent to the railroad tracks, the establishment of a path along Hamilton Creek and across the creek connecting to the residential neighborhood to the west, and establishment of a path across the southel'l1 pond and creek area connecting to the Central Ashland Bike Path. The transit framework includes commuter rail platforms adjacent to the NC Neighborhood Center overlay area and in a central location, and a proposed bus route on the central boulevard, A parking and ride area is planned near the Neighborhood Center and a parking structure to the northeast of the Central Park. A freight rail spur location is delineated on the eastern boundary of the CI Compatible Industrial zoning overlay. C. Discussion Items Latest Revisions The attached Chaptel' 18.53 and the Croman Mill District Standards have be ell revised to include items the Planning Commission has discussed over the past several months. A summary of the highlights of the most recent changes follows. o Properties Outside District Bound8l)' - The propelties to the north of the OE Office Employment zone and to the east of the central boulevard (Le, new office building and mini-storage complex) were not included in the original Croman Mill District boundary. The front of the property along the central boulevard is now included in the OE Office Employment zoning overlay. o Limited Outdoor Storage - Limited outdoor storage was added as a special permitted use in CI Compatible Industrial and OE Office Employment zoning overlays. o Solar Setback Exemption- The Croman Mill District is exempted from the solar access setback in Chapter 18.70. o Employment Density - The employment density was removed from the Dimensional Standards Table as a requirement, and added as a recommendation in the Croman Mill District Standards. o Phasing of Central Boulevard - A description with diagrams of the phased build out of the Central Boulevard including the realignment of the Planning Action PA #2009,01292 Applicant: City of Ashland Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report mh Page 8 of 12 87 intersection with Tolman Creek Road was added to the Cromail Mill District Standards Street Standards. o Accessway Cross Section Option - A narrower pedestrian and bi~ycle only option was added for the accessway street classification. o Relaxed Design Standm'ds for C[ Compatible Industrial- The design standards have been divided into to two categories - those that apply to the Cl Compatible Industrial overlay, and those that apply to the Properties on the Active Edge Streets (Le, central boulevard and surrounding the central park) and the NC Neighborhood Commercial, MU Mixed Use and OE Office Employment overlays. The result is that the CI Compatible Industrial properties, except those located on the Active Edge Streets, will be subject to standards comparable to Basic Site Review. Basic Site Rcview is the entry level of site review focusing on site layout, building orientation and landscaping requirements, and is currently in place in areas such as Hersey St., Jefferson A venue and Benson Way. The remaining areas will be subject to a higher level of design review that is comparable to the Detail Site Review zone. The Detail Site Review includes additional requirements for orientation and scale of buildings, streetscape and building materials. The Detail Site Review Zone is currently in place in other areas of Ashland such as parts of Siskiyou Boulevard, Ashland Street, A Street, the downtown and the railroad property (I.e. Clear Creek Drive, Russell Drive). o Residential and Structurcd Parking and Rcsidential Bonus - The Performance Bonus section was expanded to include a height bonus for the provision of structured parking within a building, and a residential density bonus for atTordable housing units. On-l!oinl! Discussion Items At the December 8 meeting, the Planning Commissiollrcviewed a revised east-west strcet orientation prepared by Crandall Arambula. Also discussed was the possible realignment of the central boulevard in a northerly direction to avoid buildings. These two items have been combined and are shown on the attached East- West Orientation Alternative map. East-West Orientation Altcl'Ilative: [n reviewing the cast-west street orientation, staff idcntificd three items for Planning Commission consideration'-the acreage, building location conflicts and minimum lot sizes in the CI Compatible Industrial zoning overlay. In terms of the acreage analysis, there is no significant change in the acreage assigned to the individual overlay zones from the 1.12.10 draft of the plan maps to the east- west alternative (see table below). Croman Mill District Acrea es by Zoning Overlav Zoning Overlay 2008 Croman Mill Site January 12, 2010 Draft East.West Alternative Redevelopment Plan Comoatible Industrial (CIl 42.3 32.5 31.2 Planning AcUon PA #2009'()1292 Applicant: City of Ashland Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report mh Page 9 of 12 88 Office Emplovment (DE) 40,2 33 33,8 NelQhborhood Center INCl 5,8 5,9 6 Mixed Use IMUl 0 16 16,5 Open SpaceJConselVation (OS\ 8,3 9,2 8,9 Total 96,6 96.6 96.4 The streets in the east-west altel'l1ative, including the central boulevard, do appeal' to go through some of the metal buildings on the former Croman Mill site. These appear to be shed structures associated with the fOl'lner lumber mill. The revised east-west street network results in some reduced block sizes so that blocks which previously contained roughly two acres are reduced to approximately 1.5 acres. As a result, if the Planning Commission decides to recommend the east- west altel'l1ative to the City Council, staff recommends reducing lhe minimum lot size in the CI Compatible Industrial zoning overlay from 40,000 to 30,000 square feel. This will allow the smallest blocks in the C1 Compatible Industrial overlay to be divided into two lots. Location of the Central Boutevard: The nOlthel'l1 section ofthe central boulevard has been redl'awn in the East-West Street Altel'l1ative Map so that it avoids going through existing buildings and properties located on Mistletoe Road near Hamilton Creek. It appears there may be issues with this configuration in terms of adequate width for the street as well as the feasibility or practicality of the turning radius for Im'ger vehicles such as trucks. Given that the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan is a long-range plan and is at a conceptual level, it is not feasible to fully investigate the street design and location at this time. Staff suggests including the alternative location for the nOlthel'l1 section of the central boulevard as a potential option in the Croman Mill District Standards. " III. Procedural- Reaulred Burden of Proof 18.108.060 Standards for Type III Planning Actions: 1, 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 demonslrates 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 10 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 dislrictto another zoning district, will provide 25% of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in 18.106,030(G);or e, Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial, employment or induslrial 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 Planning AcIion PA #2009'()1292 Applicant: City of Ashland Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report mh Page 100112 89 will provide 25% of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent wilh the approval standards set forth in 18.106.030(G). The total number of affordable units described in seclions 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 council initiated actions. 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 ills 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 Department thirty days prior to the Commission meeting al which the proposal is to be first considered. The application shall be accompanied by the required fee. D. Before taking Iinal 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 len days pnor to the date of heanng. 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 Ashland is fortunate to have an area such as the former Croman Mill site within the city which can be redeveloped to address future employment needs of the community for the next 20 year planning pel'iod. The master planning effOlts insure that the area will develop into a viable employment center, as well as in a manner which is consistent with the community's values and concerns. The 2008 planning process which resulted in the Cl'Oman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan involved a wide variety of participants including the general public, property owners and key participants including neighborhood representatives, government agencies and local interest groups. Staff believes the revisions that have been made in the development of the implementation package have relined and improved the redevelopment plan, and are Planning Acllon PA #2009'()1292 Applicant: Cily of Ashland Ashland Planning Division - Sla~ Repo~ mh Page 11 of 12 90 largely consistent with the original plan goals and objectives. Staff recommends approval of the map and ordinance amendments to implement the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan. Planning Action PA #2009'()1292 Applicant: City of Ashland Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report mh Page 12 of 12 91 Croman Mill District Implementation Plan o Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments o Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill o Croman Mill District Standards o Misc. Chapter 18 Revisions 92 ProDosed Zonina Map Chanaes Croman Mill District Vicinity , "'L -i I U II ~ ~L--- I 1'( J-lrrl 1\ ~\\~\ -;'.::--~ ~';r(:/r~ ,- ~ aun~"" ~ I .,. ,,- ,. ~\ '\ ' '~~ -j,~i-C r ~ ~.~~ /:[1 ,~ -' ?i~: - -'=1::..' ):::I:~~:" ~ /~<;:- CII"L1mlts .~ ~ltJJ...I':/ ~J=-:~ ~ - '~~ ' :~~.~ ll_~lg-=~ ~ rs=-. ~,I~~ q,~,~-y/~ =1 1- .IJI I T ,TL ~'\ /~~/)..:, ~ :: F ffifEEB]k~Jil.l. :1 '-, ~ ~ \" ~, ~~~~ I'fi -T T[ '?-< v' ::r-- - ~:"'_If}tl II 1- i- ~[ ---~ p . Jl ~IJ -5 ~~~I~ ,', ~ ',e ~ /(\:-~ '" ~ _ ,,_ ','- ~'~A \( t~ .. ':bJ:] :=' J ~ ,~~ ~:F .. ~ ',~~ r .~::: 1/ .,~~' ~~~~ 8 ~~.fl '=t ~, I / \~\ """'~ ,. ~L.o - L R- '/ \\, J ,----'-'.__ ~.'I= 11m. ,-- ',\\, ;~~., ~71 fL ..-'- f- - ./ ,,\ ' .~ '- ft '--11-, - ~ '~~ YL. I eft\! Imlls ,,r :,{ -n=c- -=STLjl - ~ .l}s :" .. g(\ \" i.-i---~ . " '1'1;0,;' ~ '- , ,~~ \; ? - I roo .. -i -- too y' '. /, ,'.)~~ 1-- -1-1 _ '\ - -'- 7 ~ ;'-.1. Ilfjt- ~Jj.. - +/ .~- Proposed Zoning Overlay Designations _ compatable industrial (CM"CI) _ office employment (CM-bE) D mixed-use (CM-MU) D opens pace (CM-OS) IiIIJ neighborhood center (CM-NC) Note: Areas outside the City Limits would retain their current County zoning designations until annexation. - - ~~ o 162,5325 6S0 975 1.300 CITY Of ASHLAND ~~, 1/12/2009 93 Existin9 Zonina Map Zoning Designtations .'c-1 _M'1 I _C-W~NM E-1 _R-3 : 1 R-1-~ R-1-7.5 ['1 R-2 Croman Mill District Vicinity I - - Feet o 155 310, 620 930 1.240 CITY OF ASHLAND ~:., 1/12/2009 94 Proposed Com orehenslve Plan Map Change .1..,'1 1"'1 "~__ '.' 1 ~q "-. 111.1 ~~~._I~ I, 1blrtL ,:-mm~,~ .,...1. -- ~ =1~~~~~~,___V ~~ ~ /. . n J ..- :o:l~ - '''''L.-'-- ij~'rrtH1 C 'r--ttt~ ~/. , II,..... s::I.1'7//0- III r' .' 'f';;' --~~~J-~ II--~" ,... --SE ~~~ ~-: '" j I~~t ~ -,- I, .1/ -11'1 =- I/t- I 'Tn _ '-'0.' It=fI' -' i~T""'" ,.., ~ ///.~, 'lh ~ 2 ~~ r ~ '/ -~ -. t -1- ",,'~; '- - - l.,..,j i- 1-, _ _ -'IE _ . ~-~ '/. .\'4,f1-, ~~ Ol.t~ . 6'/, p-J) ';:-../.1, Ashland Comprehensive Plan Designations ~'croman_District L:_.j Low Density Residential _ Commercial Single'Family Resideniial o Downtown 0 Multi-Family Residential Employment _ High Density Residential I ..,. Industriai t >>1 Suburban Residential I d Health Care, ~\..\l Single Famlily Reslaential.Reserve Croman Mill District Vicinity. 'l\~ ~\;~_~~$)~r ~ r'~\\W ~~rr . - b ':t. ~.,.(\/ '" . '- I'-' -"~. ~ )v ~~ Cltv llmlt~ ~ , ~ ::J;}.;./ J~, If4f~ ~3~\tY~ ',' '\ 'k - ./). ~{~~~ Q{Vl ~KFiI = IJ-77' ~ - k:11::;.\ '\ \..- '? /, ~. ~ (> ~ - ~J~~' ~ ~ '~ ~ ,.' '/~ '~~" 'f' "~ '// ~ // ' .' .,/"~,, I'l:?"ff;ij, .~, ," , \ ~ '///' ~~)'v ~'R~~1'~ , ,//'//. '//-0' , '/"A'/" ...&'/,0 ~'l"~ ~ ~ / - - Feet o 155 310 620 930 1.240 ~ CROMAN MILL . DISTRICT PLAN (new designations) ~ North Mountain Plan H"it"\!! Airport lmj~:m Sotuhern Oregon University !:d Woodland 1112/2009 95 Exlstina Comprehensive Plan Map 'I" f--T~ ) " - I'"~ -.:- -- , "'-- UJ.s. ~~ ~,c "", o,-,~ ~::' ~/" .~iTIHP. [. ~~ , '7 r-' Croman Mill DistrictVicinity .. rr.~Yj(r N\N~ ,f-.:, 1 h f \-' I '-<./'<. '"'' ?--:::' It t:::: ~ ~ f . t'--.. /,;0~ t- e ~/ \'4 . /''- ~\~W~ .TA~,'>- ~/~.)~. ~ o~ ;.\ ~ .::\. /LiAJ; -- c--Jl ~~.~ ,~.;::;. }\~\ ,\'v("'J~j:Y1:I' '~~~ \~ ~~ . >; OS ' ~" ~" ,~\ ~, ....~_.>"\, '.., >,!,,' ~" . " . ~", ~w :.1 '_ ~~' ?;r< ~.' -'_II-U'\';i;!: ~~ "- , ' 0'> t: ]-; "'::'~~i' 1 '~I~~.'~ p~-'ffi~ ' "l T D .L..., l:t " 1111 /' I I I ,I _I ffil31El] 'II I :d: -~, "F , ,.. t, = 1Ir1~~ I' , I ,"'-- I.....i . -J ~ . ~. 1'.:.:11 , 'JI. Y;"I If=1:'L -- - , , 1- l lTr 1- --' ;--- ./ ~ I - L l'--, ,J rl.... ....-,.;.. , " J. ..:--' --1 . 1 - - Feet- O' 155'310 620' 930' 1,2~0 Ashland Comprehensive Plan Designations ~Comri1ercial D Low Density Resldentiai ~"'~ SingleFamlily Resldenllal,Raserve .'Downtown [_~] Single.Family Residenllal ~. North,Mo~ntain Plan C:::]JEmployment l;ic0~E MUItI,FamilyResldentlal _ Airport, _Industrial _ High,Density Residenllal [)?[@ Sotuhern Oregon University Health Care . Suburban, Residential G'] Woodl~nd 1/12/2009 96 CHAPTER 18.53 CM CROMAN Mill SECTIONS: 18.53.010 18.53.020 18.53.030 18.53.040 18.53.050 18.53.060 18.53.070 Purpose General Requirements Croman Mill District Plan Development Standards Use Regulations Dimensional Regulations Croman Mill District Open Space Overlay Applicability of Other Sections of the land Use Ordinance SECTION 18.53.010 Purpose The purpose of this section is to Implement the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan. The district is designed to provide an environment suitable for employment, recreation, and living, The CM zoning district is a blueprint for promoting family-wage jobs. professional office and manufactunng commerce, neighborhood-oriented businesses, mixed-use projects and community services in a manner that enhances property values by providing transportation options and preserving significant open spaces while minimizing the impact on natural resources through site and building design, SECTION 18.53.020 General Requirements A. Conformance with the Croman Mill District Plan Land uses and development, including buildings, parking areas, streets, bicycle and pedestrian access ways, multi-use paths and open spaces shall be located in accordance with Ihose shown on the Croman Mill District Plan maps adopted by ordinance [Rm~iMM[o!l!Y~l]rl B. Major and minor amendments to the Croman Mill District Plan shall comply with the following procedures: 1. Majorand Minor Amendments. a. Major amendments are those which result in any of the following: (1) A change In the land use overlay, (2) A modification to the street layout plan that necessitates a street or other transportation facility to be eliminated or located in a manner inconsistent with the Croman Mill District Plan. (3) A change not specifically listed under the major and minor amendment definitions. b. Minor amendments are those which result in any of the following: (1) A change in the Plan layout that requires a street, access way, multi-use path or other transportation facility to be shifted more than 25 feet in any direction, as long Ch,18.53 Draft 1,12,10 Pag.t 97 , as the change maintains the connectivity established by the Croman Mill District Plan. (2) Changes related to street trees, street furniture, fencing, or slgnage. (3) A change in the design of a street in a manner inconsistent with the Croman Mill District Standards, (4) A modification of a driveway access location in a manner inconsistent with [he Croman Mill District Standards, (5) A site layout, landscaping or building design which is inconsistent with the Croman Mill Dislrict Slandards. (6) A change in a dimensional standard requirement in section 18,53.060, but not including height and residential density. 2. Major Amendment Type 11- Approval Procedure A major amendment to the Croman Mill District Plan is subject to a public hearing and decision under a Type II Procedure. A major amendment may be approved upon the hearing aulhorily finding that: a. The proposed modification maintains the connectivity established by the district plan, or the proposed modification is necessary to adjust to physical constraints evident on the property, or to protect significant natural features such as trees, rock outcroppings, wetlands, or similar natural features, or to adjust to existing property tines between project boundaries; b. The proposed modification furthers the design, circulation and access concepts advocated by the district plan: and ' c. The proposed modification will not adversely affect the purpose and objectives of the district plan. 3. Minor Amendment Type I Procedure A minor amendment to the Croman Mill District Plan is subject to an administrative decision under the Type I Procedure. Minor amendments shall not be subject to the Administrative Variance from Site Design and Use Standards of Chapter 18.72, A minor amendment may be approved upon finding that granting the approval will resull in a development design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose and objectives of the district plan. SECTION 18.53.030 Croman Mill District Plan Development Standards A. Ashland Local Street Standards The design and conslruction of streets and public improvements shall be in accordance with Ashland's Local Street Standards, except as otherwise permitted for the following facilities within the Croman Mill District: a. Central Boulevard b. Tolman Creek Road Realignment c. Local Streets d. Protected Bikeway and Pedestrian Path e. Central Bike Path Ch,18,5J Draft 1.12.10 Page 2 98 f. Multi-use Path g. Accessways B. Site Design and Use Standards - Croman Mill District New development shall be designed and constructed consistent with Chapter 18.72 Site Design Review, and Ashland's Site Design and Use Standards. Section VIII- Croman Mill District Slandards, SECTION 18.53.040 Use Regulations A. Generally Uses are permitted, special permitted or conditional uses in the Croman Mill District as listed in the Land Use Table. [Jl [Jl temporary employee housing OJ [Jl ~JC::9tn.merclal~~~~~0~~~~f~~)tq~~~~;jif~~~~~~ti?~~ill~~~~~tiJ stores. restaurants. and shops less than 3.000 sq,ft" excluding fuel sales. automobile sales and repair limited stores. restaurants, and shops J'rofessional, financial. business. and medical offices __,___,. . administrative or research and development estabtishments ---- office in conjunction wit~p~nTll!ted use child or day care centers ---~._--_. fitness, recreational sports. gym or athletic club ancillary employee services (e.g, cafeteria. fitness area) !II (Jl [II [II III fat ID II ~ !Ill ill [0 IJj []I ill! I] kennels (Indoor) and veterinary clinics motion picture. television or radio broadcasting studios manufacturing, assembly. fabrication. or packaging manufacture of food products without rendering fats or oils ---~--,----~..~,-_.,_.. manufacture. assembly. fabrication or packaging in conjunction with permitled office employment use limited manufacturing affiliated with a retail use --""",-~-,-"~,,,,-,,--- rail freight loading dock facilities rail or rapid transit passenger facilities warehouse and similar storage facilities m m !lI ~ III IJl III rm rn 1fj rn ~ w.iI I] Ch,18.53 018ft 1.12,10 Page 3 99 limited outdoor storage wireless communication facilities attached to an existing structure pursuant to 18,72,180 freestanding wireless communication support structures pursuant to 18,72,180 1[~~jl~t~1in,:ffiMj:rgn~:fii~ill~Wjfl~.ifal~II~1rg~1!1.lf~~_~1 III []l ill o o iliJ ~' o o o o public service or community buildings with office or space used directly by public i11B [] o o ii!I publiC service or community buildings without office or space used directly by public public and quasi-public utility service buildings enclosed in building private school. college. trade school. technical school or similar school electrical substations 0 0 ~_""___''''__~~'''''''''.!1~ ;m Permitted Use Ol Special Permitted Use 0 Conditional Use o [] o o o , [II []'l [] []'l o []l [] []I [] NC = Neighborhood Center MU = Mixed Use OE = Office/Employment CI = Compatible Industrial OS = Open space B: Special Permitted Uses The following uses and their accessory uses are special permitted uses as listed in the land Use Table and are subject to the requirements of this section and the requirements of Chapter 18.72, Site Design and Use Standards. 1. Residential Uses. a. The ground floor area shall be designated for permitted or special permitted uses, excluding residential. b, Residential densities shall not exceed the densities In section 18.53,060. For the purposes of density calculations, units of less than 500 square feet of gross habitable floor area shall count as 0.75 of a unit. c, Residential uses shall execute a hold harmiess covenant and agreement stating they shall not protest impacts from commercial and industrial uses within the district. 2. Temporary Employee Housing. Residential units for use by persons employed within the facility and their families when the following standards are met. a, Employee Housing -densities shall not exceed two units per acre. For the purposes of density calculations, units of less than 500 square feet of gross habitable floor area shall count as 0.75 of a unit. b. The employee housing shall be in conjunction with a permitted or special permitted use on the property. c. Units shall be restricted by covenant to be occupied by persons employed by a business operating on Ihe property. Ch,18,53 Draft 1.12,10 Page 4 100 3. Limited Stores, Restaurants and Shops. Stores, restaurants and shops, excluding fuel sales, automobile sales and repair, when the following standards are mel. a, The maximum floor area dedicated for use as stores, restaurants and/or shops in a building or a group of associated buildings located on the same parcel is a cumulative 1,500 square feet, or ten percent (10%) of the ground floor area, whichever is less. b. In the MU Mixed Use overlay, the floor area shall be limited. to retail uses in conjunction with a permitted use. c. The remaining building floor area (I.e. total floor area - store/restaurant/shop floor area) is occupied by a permitted use. 4. Child or Day Care Facilities. Child or day care facilities when the following standards are met. a. Primary program activities are integrated into the interior of the building. b. The maximum floor area dedicated to use as a day care faciiity shall be 1,500 square feet, or ten percent (10%) of the ground floor area, whichever is less. 5. Ancillary Employee Services, Developments may include ancillary employee services such as cafeterias, fitness areas, or other supportive services generally intended to support the needs of employees when the following standards are met. a. The use is integrated into the interior of the building. b. The maximum floor area dedicated to an ancillary employee service use is a cumulative 2,500 square feet, or ten percent (10%) of the ground floor area, whichever is less. c. The ancillary employee services shall be in conjunction with a permitted or special permitted use on the property. 6. Kennels, a. Kennels shall be located at least 200 feet from the nearest residential dwelling. b All animals shall be boarded within a building at all times. c. No noise or odor shall emanate outside the walls of the building used as a kennel. d. A disposal management plan shall be provided demonstrating all animal waste will be disposed of in a sanitary manner. 7. Manufacture, Assembly, Fabrication and Packaging In OE Overlay. Developments in the OE Office Employment overlay may include anciilary manufacturing, assembly, fabrication and packaging uses to support the operations of a permitted use on. site when the following standards are met a. The portion of a building used for manufacturing, assembly, fabrication and packaging shall not exceed 50 percent of the ground floor area. b. No outside space shall be used for the manufacturing, assembly, fabrication and packaging processes. c. Manufacturing, assembly, fabrication packaging operations requiring permits from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEa) for air or water discharge, or . similar environmental concerns, shall be prohibited. Ch.18.53 Oraa 1.12.10 PageS 101 8. limited Manufacturing Affiliated with a Retail Use. Manufa~turing, assembly, fabrication or packaging contiguous to and associated with a retail space, provided the manufacture area occupies 1,000 sq.ft., or ten percent (10%) of gross floor area, whichever is less 9. Warehouse and Similar Storage Facilities, a. The portion of a building used for warehouse or similar storage uses shall comprise and area not to exceed 25 percent of the ground floor area. b. Warehouse and storage facilities shall be provided only in conjunction with, and for the exclusive use by, a permitted use on the property. c. Self-service mini-warehouses are prohibited d. No outside space shall be used for storage, unless approved as a limited outdoor storage area. 10. Limited Outdoor Storage. Limited outdoorstorage associated with a permitted use when the following standards are met. a. The maximum square footage dedicated to outdoor storage shall be 1,000 square feet. b. The outdoor storage shall be located behind or on the side of buildings, and shall be located so the outdoor storage is the least visible from the street that is reasonable given the layout of the site. c. The outdoor storage shall be screened from view by placement of a solid wood or . metal fence, or a masonry wall from five to eight feet in height. All outdoor storage materials shall be contained within the refuse area.' d. The associated permitted use shall obtain a minimum of 50% of the employment density targets for the Croman Mill District. 11. Public and Quasi.Public Utility Service Buildings, a. Facilities and structures that are accessory to a public park in the OS overlay, including but not limited to maintenance equipment storage, enclosed picnic facilities, and restrooms. b. Public and Quasi.Public utility service building relating to receiving and transmitting antennas and communication towers are subject to the applicable provisions of 18.72.180 c. Public and Quasi.Public utility service building shall demonstrate: i. The need for the facility, present or future; and how the facility fits into the utility's Master Plan. ii. The facility utilizes the minimum area required for the present and anticipated expansion. iii. Compatibility of the facility with existing surrounding uses and uses allowed by the plan designation. \ Ch. 18.53 Oran 1.12.10 Page 8 102 SECTION 18.53.050 Dimensional Regulations The lot and building design requirements are established in each zoning district regulation in the Dimensional Standards Table. ' feet Ylii(l minimum ard, feet maximum yard abutting a street, feet' Slde,Ylird'Alluttln'ii ReslderitlilIDlatiICtii',: minimum, feet "Re'iidYard'Abuttlnia,Reslderitlal. DlstrICt;;;~;;j;; minimum er sto ,feet ..'" ~_ .r;:;;,,',:::~.):,:;;':~':,~ >, i~~_; ~~:~~~_;:\ ,:i;;:S}.<o;\~j{f;~~;t~.~:;~~~~~~i;1~~Ytt;)I(~~:;ES(~t~ f:~.;:~~(;{i1ii~Hi minimum number of stories maximum hei ht without bonus, stories/feet' maximum hel ht with bonus, stories/feets. Sotiir:A'ccessif.;1i:~j{;,,~:;:;;,'i.::E~'f*':t,Ji'H:iiC,:u,;;n,& ~roritae"BulldOut'onActiVe'Ed 'e:stieeKt;c: minimum, ercent FlooiAieaRatlo FAR minimum Resldentlat Densl maximum units r acre without bonus 30 maximum units er acre wilh bonus 60 I minimum yard in CI Overlay abutung all AcUve Edge Street is two fee~ minimum yard in CI Overaly not abutlil19 an Active Edge Street Is ten feet 2 Maximum yard lequiremenls shall not apply 10 entry features such as alcoves, and to hardscape areas ror pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating areas. 3 Second story shall be a minimum of 20% of the gross floor area. , Solar energy systems and parapats may be erected up to five feet abova the calculate<! building height, and no greater than five leet above the height limited spaofie<! by Ihe dlslrict 5 Solar energy systems and parapals may be erected up to five feel above the calculaled building height, and no grealer than five leef above the helghtlimiled spaofie<! by the dis~icl. 6 Plazas and pedes~lan areas shall count as 8001 area for the purposes of meeting the minimum Floor AIea Ration (FAR). . 7 Density 01 the developmenl shall nolexceed the density established by this standard. Density shall be computed by dividing Ihe lotal number of dwelling units by the acreage 01 the proJecl, including land dedicaled to the public. Fractional porlions shall not apply loward the tol~ density. Minimum density shall be 80% of the calculated base density. Ch. 18.53 Draft 1.12.10 Page 7 103 SECTION 18.53.060 Croman Mill District Open Space Overlay , All projects cOl}taining land identified on the Croman Mill District land Use Overlays Map as open space shall dedicate those areas as open space. It is recognized that the master planning of the properties as part of the Groman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan imparted significant value to the land, and the required dedication of those lands within the Groman Mill district for open space and conservation purposes is proportional to the value bestowed upon the property through the change in zoning designation. SECTION 18.53.070 Applicability of Other Sections of the land Use Ordinance Development located within the Croman Mill (GM) zoning district shall be required to meet all other applicable sections of the land Use Ordinance, except as otherwise provided in this Chapter. , Ch.18.53 Ora" 1.12.10 Page a 104 SECTION VIII Croman Mill District Standards Adopted by the Ashland City Council oatil Ordinance Iffjj A. Street Standards lIP... r.' VIII-A-1) Street Design The design and construction of streets and public improvements shall be in accordance with the Ashland Street Standards, except as otherwise required for the following facilities within the Croman Mill District. A change in the design of a street in a manner inconsistent with the Croman Mill District Street Design Standards requires a minor amendment in accordance with Section 18.53.020.B. 1. Central Boulevard The tree-lined boulevards along Siskiyou Boulevard and Ashland Street are an easily identifiable feature of Ashland's boulevard network. Application of this street design to the Central Boulevard will create a seamless boulevard loop, linking the Croman Mill district with downtown Ashland. The Central Boulevard also serves as the front door to the Croman Mill district, creating a positive first impression when entering the district. Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 1.12.10 105 1 Pen !!ow Tl= MedianlTum Lane Bioswale Travollcno . Protected Sld_ Tl '~~r.+n-+-:-+-"+'l+:+' 'J(1 Central Boulevard 2. Phased Street Plan Build-out of the Central Boulevard can be accommodated through a phased development plan. a. Phase I implementation will require: i. Maintain the existing Mistletoe Road alignment form Tolman Creek Road to the northwest corner of the Croman Mill site. ii. Include developer- constructed minor improvements to the existing portion of Mistletoe Road such as a minimum six-foot wide sidewalk on the north side of the street, two 11-foot travel lanes and the addition of a left-turn pocket at the intersection with Tolman Creek Road. iii. A developer-constructed three-lane Central Boulevard from the northwest corner of the district to Siskiyou Boulevard. b. Phase II implementation will require: i. The realignment of Tolman Creek Road is contingent upon future acquisition of right-of-way through the existing ODOT maintenance yards. ii. Realignment of Grizzly Drive and Tolman Creek Road. iii. Negotiating dedicated easements. iv. Vacating a portion of City-owned property. "~1I .., Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 1.12.10 106 2 Options addressing the final street configuration and intersection geometry will be evaluated with the final Phase II design of the northwest section of the Central Boulevard. v. Phase I 3. Tolman Creek Road Realignment Additional traffic will be generated by the redevelopment of the Croman Mill district. The realignment of Tolman Creek Road with the Central Boulevard will discourage non-local through traffic in the Tolman Creek neighborhood and in the Bellview School area. The modifications to the street network will preserve neighborhood character and address impacts to the neighborhood by directing traffic away from the neighborhood and Bellview School, and toward the Croman Mill district while maintaining access to Tolman Creek Road for neighborhood-generated trips. Phase II Key elements of the realigned Tolman Creek Road include: a. Two through traffic lanes and a northbound turn lane. b. New traffic signal. c. Bike lanes. d. Sidewalks separated from auto traffic by landscaping and canopy trees. e. Landscaped neighborhood gateway. ~A' Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 1.12.10 107 3 f. Evaluate the intersection alignment of local streets with Tolman Creek Road incljuding Takelma Way, Grizzly Drive and Nova Drive. Realign Int.mlctlon ..... Ir.., Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 1.12.10 108 4 11~;"hb.,m,~.,d o:.."I~r Neighborhood Center and Tolman Creek Road Realignment , \', ;"~ A" ~ ..... ._~ Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 1.12.10 5 109 Sidewalk Travel lane 6'~8' Sidewalk . 11'-13' 7'-8' + 10'-11' + 10'-11'+ 7'-8' 11'-13' 38; max.. culb-to-curb Local Commercial Street 5. Protected Bikeway and Pedestrian Path The Protected Bikeway and Pedestrian Path runs parallel to the Central Boulevard and connects with the City's existing Central Bike Path in two locations - adjacent to the Central Park and at the neighborhood center. The design of the protected bikeway should include the fOllowing elements. a. A grade-separated two-way colored bicycle path buffered from on-street parking by landscaping. b. A sidewalk separated from the bicycle path by striping, boilard, grade separation ot other treatments. c. Tabled intersections. d. Elimination of auto right turns on red at intersections. e. Incorporate rumble strips along the bike path at the approaches to all intersections. Jr.. ..." Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 1.12.10 110 6 f. Signage, lighting or other treatments to alert drivers, pedestrians and riders approaching intersections. g. Consideration of a bikes-only signal phase at signalized intersections. Parlq"<?w 8' Porkrow Required When loading Zone is Not Provided Sidewall::: . Optional Paranel Por'King Trovel lane Optional Parallel Porking Protected Sidewall::: Bike lone .t' +, t' + '" + '" -+, r' +++'t 13' +- 34' max. curtrla<uro 23'-----+ Local Commercial Street with Protected Bike Lane 6. Multi-use Paths The multi-use paths provide pedestrian and bicycle connections between the district and adjacent neighborhood, employment and commercial areas. The plan includes the extension of the Central Bike Path and the establishment of the Hamilton Creek Greenway trail. The Central Bike Path extends the existing multi-use path along the southern edge of the CORP rail line within a 20-foot wide dedicated easement, and serves as a viable commuter route and link to the downtown. The Hamilton Creek Greenway trail provides access to the neighborhood center and an east/west connection across the creek. ".' Ashland Site Design and Use Standards Ir..., DRAFT 1.12.10 . 7 111 -M-I~-i4 +-14'-+ Multi-use Path ...~ Ashland Site Design and Use Standards .. DRAFT 1.12.10 R.O.W. Mult(.Use Una Sidewolk Path 8 112 8' Parkrow Required When looding Zone is Not Provk!ed Sidewalk t Sidewolk Multi-Use Path Porlaow . 6' + 7' t 7' + 10' + 10'+ 7' t 7' -F.'--f-HY 13' -+- 34'max.curb.1a-curb -+ 7' -f---2cr 62'-72' R.O.W. , Central Bike Path at Accessway 7. Accesssways The accessways are intended to balance circulation needs of pedestrians, bicycles and vehicular access, and to preserve the grid that encourages development of a form that is of human scale and proportion. The accessways would connect the Central Boulevard to the Central Bike Path and allow for shared bicycle, travel lanes, optional on- street parking, and temporary loading zones as necessary to serve development sites. "4. Ir..., Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 1.12.10 9 113 Sfd8lNOlk:- Optional ShcieCl Blcyde Parldng Of and Auto 'Z:' -1'- OptiOnal Porking or looa,ng lone ri-ee Well I PIontingStrip with 6'sidewoIk +. 13' t 7' +-10'+10'-+ 7' t 13' f -t-- 34'max. curb-to-curb --+ Ilf-Oreclionol level Mul~ Path 5nou1d.. COncref$ Of comparable svrtoce (nol Q5pholtl J5'los..M-16' _kj..5"08.~J. j j I II -(- XI to 35' mox. - - Accessways: Full Street and Pedestrian/Bicycle Path Options VIII-A-2) Limited Auto Access Streets Developments abutting the Central Boulevard and local streets surrounding the Central Park shall not have curb cuts on the Limited Auto Access Streets as indicated on the Limited Access Streets map. A modification.of a driveway access location in a manner inconsistent with the Croman Mill District Standards requires a minor amendment in accordance with Section 18.53.020.B. VIII-A-3) Access 1. Street and driveway access points in the Croman overlay zones shall be limited to the following. a. Distance Between Driveways. On Collector Streets - 75 feet On Local Streets and Accessways - 50 feet b. Distance from Intersections On Collector Streets - 50 feet On Local Streets and Accessways - 35 feet 2. Shared Access. All lots shall provide a shared driveway aisle to abutting parking areas that is at least 20 feet in width. The applicant shall grant a ...... Ashland Site Design and Use Standards ..., DRAFT 1.12.10 114 10 common access easement across the lot. 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. VIII-A-4) Required On-Street Parking On-street parallel parking shall be provided along the Central Boulevard and local streets as indicated on the Required On-Street Parking map. Angled parking and loading zones are prohibited on these streets. ~ ,,\. :"'. . Croman:MltlOistrict "") ';<:;.1>;'.>);";, "".. . I _OitSllmF'lmlng~~ , ...... r.., Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 1.12.10 115 11 B. Design Standards The Groman Mill District Design Standards provide specific requirements for the physical orientation, uses and arrangement of buildings; the management of parking; and access to development parcels. Development located in the Groman Mill District shall be designed and constructed consistent with the following Design Standards. Additional design standards apply and are specified for developments located along an Active Edge Street, or that are within the NG, MU and OE overlay zones. A site layout, landscaping or building design in a manner inconsistent with the Groman Mill District Design Standards requires a minor amendment in accordance with Section 18.53.020.B. . VIII-B-1) 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. All front doors must face streets and walkways. Where buildings are located on a corner lot, the entrance shall be oriented toward the higher order street or to the lot corner at the intersection of the streets. Buildings shall be located as close to the intersection corner as practicable. Public sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to a public street along the street frontage. 2. Building entrances shall be located within ten 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 where this standard is met by other buildings. The entrance shall be designed to be clearly visible, functional, and shall be open to the public during all business hours. 3.. Automobile circulation or parking shall not be allowed between the building and the right-of-way. 4. These requirements may be waived if the building is not along an active edge and is not accessed by pedestrians, such as warehouses and industrial buildings without attached offices. 5. Buildings shall incorporate lighting and changes in mass, surface or finish giving emphasis to entrances. Additional Orientation and Scale Standards for Developments Along Active Edge Streets, and NC, MU and OE Overlays: 6. Building frontages greater than 100 feet in length shall have offsets, jogs, or have other distinctive changes in the building fa9ade. 7. Buildings shall incorporate arcades, roofs, alcoves, porticoes, and awnings that protect pedestrians from the rain and sun. 8. Buildings shall incorporate display areas, windows and doorways as follows. Windows must allow view into working areas or lobbies, "" pedestrian entrances or displays areas. Blank walls within 30 feet of the street are prohibited. a. For Buildings in the NC, MU and OE Overlays Not Along an Active Edge Street. 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. . .... Ashland Site Design and Use Standards Ir.., DRAFT 1.12.10 12 116 Up to 40% of the length of the building perimeter can be exempted for this standard if oriented toward loading or service areas. b. For Buildings Along an Active Edge Streets. At least 50% of the first-floor facade is comprised of transparent openings (clear glass) between three and eight feet above grade. o VIII-B-2) Parking Areas and On-site Circulation , 1. 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 11-0 of the Site Design and Use Standards. Additional Parking Area and On-site Circulation Standards for Developments Along Active Edge Streets,. and NC, MU and OE Overlays: 4. Parking areas shall be located behind buildings. ..&'W Ir.., Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 1.12.10 13 117 . 5. Protected raised walkways shall be installed through parking areas of 50 or more spaces or more than 100 feet in average width or depth. 6. Parking lots with 50 spaces or more shall be divided into separate areas and divided by landscaped areas or walkways at least ten feet in width, or by a building or group of buildings. . 7. Developments of one acre or more must provide a pedestrian and bicycle circulation plan for the site. One site pedestrian walkways must be lighted to a level where the system can be used at night by employees, residents and customers. Pedestrian walkways shall be directly linked to entrances and to the internal circulation of the building. VIII-B-3) Automobile Parking 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 Il-D Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards of the Site Design and Use Standards. 1. Credit for Automobile Parking. The amount of required off-street parking shall be reduced up to 50%, through application of the following credits. . a. On-Street Credit: One off-street parking space credit for every on-street space b. Parking Management Credit: Through Implementation of an parking management strategy that demonstrates a reduction of long term parking demand by a percentage equal to the credit requested. c. Mixed Use Credit: through a mixed-use parking arrangement that demonstrates the peak parking demands are offset 2. Maximum Surface Parking. 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 following methods: a credit for automobile parking in VIII-B-3(1), construction of off-site parking at designated shared parking areas, an on-site structure, or through payment of in-Iieu-of-parking fees to the City for a public parking structure(s) upon establishment of a parking district serving the Croman Mill district. VIII-B-4) Streetscape 1. 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. Street trees shall meet the Street Tree Standards in Section II-E ofthe Site Design and Use Standards. Additional Streetscape Standards for Developments Along Active Edge Streets, and NC, MU and OE Overlays: 2. Hardscape (paving material) shall be utilized to designate "people" areas. Sample materials could be unit masonry, scored and colored concrete, pavers, or combinations of the above. ~&, Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 1.12.10 14 118 3. A building shall be setback not more than ten feet from a public sidewalk unless the area is used for pedestrian entries such as alcoves and pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating areas. This standard shall apply to both street frontages on corner lots. If more than one structure is proposed for a site, at least 65% of the aggregate building frontage shall be within ten feet of the sidewalk. VIII-B-S) Building Materials 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. VIII-B-6) Building Height Requirements All buildings shall have a minimum height as indicated in the Building Height Requirements Map and Dimensional Standards Table, and shall not exceed the maximum height except as provided for a performance standard bonus. 1. Street Wall Height: Maximum street wall fagade height for the Groman Mill district for all structures located outside the Residential Buffer Zone is 50 feet. 2. Upper-floor Setback: Buildings taller than 50 feet must step back upper stories, beginning with the fourth story, by at least six feet measured from the fagade of the street wall facing the street, alleyway, public park or open space. 3. Residential Buffer Zone: All buildings in the Groman Mill District within the Residential Buffer Zone shall meet the following height standards: a. Maximum Height: The maximum height allowance for all structures within the Residential Buffer is Zone 35 feet in the NG overlay and 40 feet in the MU. b. Upper Floor Setback Requirements: Buildings taller than two stories must step back the third story by at least six feet measured from the fagade facing the street, alleyway, public park or open space. ~A' Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 1.12.10 15 119 ~i.--...l.-~ . ----/1 .;.> , (;::~;;~", Croman Mill District, "" "~ ;;:::,:::: Overla~c ,? !I 4. Architectural Standards for Large Scale Buildings Located Along Active Edge Streets, and within the NC, MU and OE Overlays: . The following architectural standards will apply to all buildings with a gross floor area greater than 10,000 square feet, a fac;:ade length in excess of 100 feet, or a height taller than 45 feet. a. On upper floors use windows and/or architectural features that provide interest on all four sides of the building. b. Use recesses and projections to visually divide building surfaces into smaller scale elements. c. Use color or materials to visually reduce the size, bulk and scale of the building. d. 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. e. On-site circulation systems shall incorporate a streetscape which includes curbs, sidewalks, pedestrian scale light standards and street trees. VIII-B-7) Landscaping 1. Efforts shall be made to save as many existing healthy trees and shrubs on the site as possible. .... .-.. .. Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 1.12.10 16 120 2. Landscaping design shall utilize a variety of low water use deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and flowering plant species as described in Section III - Water Conserving Landscaping Guidelines and Policies. 3. For developments in the CI Overlay and not adjacent to an Active Edge Street, buildings adjacent to streets shall be buffered by landscaped areas at least ten feet in width, unless area is used for entry features such as alcoves or hardscape areas for pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating areas. 4. Loading facilities shall be screened and buffered when adjacent to residentially zoned land. 5. Landscaping shall be designed so that 50% coverage occurs after one year and 90% coverage occurs after five years. 6. Irrigation systems shall be installed to assure landscaping success. VIII-B-B) Lighting Lighting shall include adequate lights that are scaled for pedestrians by including light standards or placements of no greater than 14 feet in height along pedestrian pathways. VIII-B-9) Screening Mechanical Equipment . 1. Screen rooftop mechanical equipment from public rights-of-way or adjacent Iesidentially zoned property through extended parapets or other roof forms that are integrated into the overall composition of the building. Screen ground floor mechanical equipment from public rights-of-way or adjacent residentially zoned property. 2. Parapets may be erected up to five feet above the calculated building height, and no greater than five feet above the height limit specified in the district in accordance with ttie Dimensional Standards Table in Section 18.53.050. 3. Solar energy systems are exempt from this standard. Additionally, rooftop solar energy systems may be erected up to five feet above the calculated building height, and no greater than five feet above the height limit specified in the district in accordance with the Dimensional Standards Table in Section 18.53.050. 4. Installation of mechanical equipment requires Site Review approval unless otherwise exempted per Section 18.72.030.B.3. VIII-B-10) Transit Facilities Standards The location of planned transit routes within the Croman Mill District shall be defined according to the Croman Mill District Transit Framework map in collaboration with the local transit authority. Transit service facilities such as planned bus rapid transit facilities, shelters, and pullouts shall be integrated into the development application consistent with the following standards. 1. All Large Scale development located on an existing or planned transit route shall accommodate a transit stop and other associated transit facilities unless the Director of Community Development determines that adequate transit facilities already exist to serve the needs of the development, or IIr.W ._~ Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 1.12.10 17 121 2. Provide the City with a bond or other suitable collateral ensuring satisfactory completion of the transit facilities at the time transit service is provided to the development. Suitable collateral may be in the form of security interest, letters of credit, certificates of deposit, cash bonds, bonds issued by an insurance company legally doing business in the State of Oregon, or other suitable collateral as determined by the City Administrator. ^ Croman !~i~U)i~trict, Transit Framework;: '.'PfoposD<.loollrOOt9" ,.... -' ,':-.,,"," f>-pI'~~'_:~ ::o::propo$lld~il,tipcJr~~ :OPOfI)nI13lbus:~j~: \ \ VIII-B-11) Freight Rail Spur Easement - Compatible Industrial (CI) 1. A Rail Spur easement a minimum of 500 feet in length by 25 feet in width shall be set aside at the approximate location presented on the Croman Mill District Transit Framework Map. 2. No buildings or permanent structures can be established within the spur easement so not to preclude installation of a rail spur for freight loading and unloading. ".11 ..n Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 1.12.10 122 18 3. Buildings adjacent to the reserve strip shall be designed and configured to permit loading and unloading. VIII-B-12) Commuter Rail Platform Easement - Neighborhood Commercial (NC) 1. A Commuter Rail Platform easement or designated rail road right-of-way a minimum of 400 feet in length and 25 feet in width shall be set aside at the approximate location presented on the Croman Mill District Transit Plan Map. 2. No buildings or permanent structures can be established within the platform easement so as not to preclude installation of a planned bus rapid transit facility or commuter rail platform for loading and unloading. 3. Buildings adjacent to the reserve strip shall be designed and configured to permit loading and unloading. VIII-B-13) Open Spaces 1. Central Park. The purpose of the Central Park is to serve as a public amenity and accommodate the daily needs of employees (e.g. breaks, lunch time) as well as for special events that will attract residents citywide. The Central Park design shall provide a minimum of the following elements. a. Circulation through and around the park. b. A centrally located hardscape area to accommodate large gatherings, and of no more than 50% of the total park area. c. Street furniture, including lighting, benches, low walls and trash receptacles along walkways and the park perimeter. d. Simple and durable materials. e. Trees and landscaping that provide visual interest with a diversity of plant materials. f. Irregular placement of large-canopy trees within passive areas adjacent to the Central Boulevard. g. Eight-ft. minimum sidewalk width and seven-ft. minimum parkrow width. h. Landscaped swales to capture' and treat runoff. i. Pourous solid surfacing for at least 50% of the hardscape area, and paving materials that reduce heat absorption. ...... Ashland Site Design and Use Standards r.... DRAFT 1.12.10 19 123 .. '~",.,: Pedesfrian and Bik.eway landScaped Planftng Sfr1p Surrounding' Active Uses L.._~, Central Park 2. Transit Plaza. A location for the transit plaza shall be reserved between the commuter rail platform and commercial uses along the Central Boulevard. The design of the plaza shall include the following elements. a. A passenger waiting, loading and unloading area. b. Outdoor gathering space adjacent to commercial uses. c. Accommodate the central bike path. d. Conveniently located and secure bike parking. Transit Plaza ...:. Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 11'- DRAFT 1.12.10 20 124 ..~.. ._~ VIII-B-14) Compact Development The site layout is compact, and enables future intensification of development and changes to land use over time. The following measures shall be used to demonstrate compliance with this standard. 1. The development achieves the required minimum floor area ratio (FAR) and minimum number of stories, or shall provide a shadow plan that demonstrates how development may be intensified over time for more efficient use of land and to meet the required (FAR) and minimum number of stories.; and 2. Opportunities for shared parking are utilized. Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 1.12.10 21 125 C. Green Development Standards The Croman Mill District Green Development Standards provide specific requirements for the management of stormwater run-off, use and collection of recycled materials, solar orientation and building shading, and conserving natural areas. Development located in the Croman Mill District shall be designed and constructed consistent with the following Green Development Standards. A site layout, landscaping or building design in a manner inconsistent with the Croman Mill District Green Development Standards requires a minor amendment in accordance with Section 18.53.020.8. VIII.C.1) Conserve Natural Areas Preserve water quality, natural hydrology and habitat, and preserve biodiversity through protection of streams and wetlands. In addition to the requirements of Chapter 18.63 Water Resources, conserving natural water systems shall be considered in the site design through application of the following standards. 1. Designated stream and wetland protection areas shall be considered positive design elements and incorporated in the overall design of a given project. 2. Native riparian plant materials shall be planted in and adjacent to the creek to enhance habitat. 3. Create a long-term management plan for on-site wetlands, streams, associated habitats and their buffers. VIII-C-2) Create Diverse Neighborhoods Use the following measures to encourage diversity in the district by providing a balanced range of housing types that compliment a variety of land uses and employment opportunities. 1. Differentiate units by size and number of bedrooms. 2. For developments including more than four dwelling units, at least 25% of the total units shall be designated as rental units. 3. Affordable purchase housing provided in accordance with the standards established by Resolution 2006-13 for households earning at or below 80% of the area median income shall apply toward the required percentage of rental housing per VIII-C-2(2). 4. Units designated as market rate or affordable rental units shall be retained as one condominium tract under one ownership. VIII-C-3) Design Green Streets Green Streets are public streets that have been built or retrofitted to include landscape areas that increase stormwater infiltration, reduce and slow the rate of runoff, and use bio-filtration to remove pollutants. 1. New streets shall be developed to capture and treat stormwater in a manner consistent with the Croman Mill District Stormwater Management Plan Map, the City of Ashland Stormwater Master Plan, and Ashland Green Streets Standards. 2. All development served by planned Green Streets as designated on the Croman Mill District Green Street Map shall accommodate said facilities by including the same in the development plan; and/or 3. Provide the City with a bond or other suitable collateral ensuring satisfactory completion of the Green Street(s) at the time full street ..... ..... .. Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 1.12.10 22 126 network improvements are provided to serve the development. Suitable collateral may be in the form of security interest, letters of credit, certificates of deposit, cash bonds, bonds issued by an insurance company legally doing business in the State of Oregon, or other suitable collateral as determined by the City Administrator .. . "- " -.. ..." Ashland Site Design .and Use Standards DRAFT 1.12.10 23 127 POJkRow 'd""""" I Por_ t. p~ aioswole, ISlievanesl Protected . Sidowollc' ... Lan. t j 5+~5+1l'+lZ+"'+8'rr+IU+5 IS' ro . 25' ro Green Streets VIII-C-4) Design Green Surface Parking Parking areas shall be designed to minimize the adverse environmental and microclimatic impacts of surface parking through design and material selection. All parking areas shall meet the following standards, and shall comply with the with the Off-Street Parking chapter 18.92, with Section VIII-B Groman Mill Design Standards, and Section II-D Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards of the Site Design and Use Standards. 1. Use less than 25% of the project area for surface parking. 2. Use paving materials with a high solar reflectance reduce heat absorption. 3. Provide porous solid surfacing on a least 50% of the parking area surface. 4. Provide at least 50%,shade cover over the surface lot within five years of project occupancy. 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 parking lots and other hard surface areas in a way that captures and treats runoff with landscaped medians and swales. "~:. Ashland Site Design and Use Standards ..- DRAFT 1.12.10 24 128 3. Use pervious or semi-pervious surfaces that allow water to infiltrate the soil. 4. Direct discharge storm water runoff into a designated green street and neighborhood storm water treatment facilities. 5. Retain rainfall on-site through infiltration, evapotranspiration or through capture and reuse techniques. VIII-C-6) Recycling Areas All developments in the Croman Mill District shall provide an opportunity- to-recycle site for use of the project occupants. 1. Commercial. Commercial developments having a solid waste receptacle shall provide a site of equal or greater size adjacent to or with access comparable to the solid waste receptacle to accommodate materials collected by the local solid waste franchisee under its on-route collection program for purposes of recycling. Both the opportunity-to-recycle site and the common solid waste receptacle shall be screened by fencing or landscaping such as to limit the view from adjacent properties or public rights-of-way. 2. Residential. All newly constructed residential units, either as part of an existing development or as a new development, shall provide an opportunity-to-recycle site in accord with the following standards: a. Residential developments not sharing a common solid waste receptacle shall provide an individual curbside recycling container for each dwelling unit in the development. b. Residential developments sharing a common solid waste receptacle shall provide a site of equal or greater size adjacent to or with access comparable to the common solid waste receptacle to accommodate materials collected by the local solid waste franchisee under its residential on-route collection program for purposes of recycling. Both the opportunity-to-recycle site and the common solid waste receptacle shall be screened by fencing or landscaping such as to limit the view from adjacent properties or public rights-of-way. 3. Screening refuse and recycle areas. Refuse and recycle areas shall be screened from view by placement of a solid wood, metal, or masonry wall from five to eight feet in height. All refuse and recycle materials shall be contained within the refuse area. VIII-C-7) Minimize Construction Impacts Minimize pollution and waste generation resulting from construction activity through the following measures. 1. Construction Activity Pollution Prevention. Develop and implement an erosion and sediment control plan to reduce pollution from construction activities by controlling soil erosion, waterway sedimentation and airborne dust generation in accordance with Ashland Public Works Standards. The erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted with the final engineering for public improvements and building permit. 2. Construction Waste Management. Recycle and/or salvage non- hazardous construction and demolition debris in accordance with the Building Demolition Debris Diversion requirements in 15.04.216.C. ...... ..n Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 1.12.10 25 129 VIII-C-S) Potable Water Reduction for Irrigation Potable Water Reduction. Provide water efficient landscape irrigation design that reduces by 50% the use of potable water beyond the initial requirements for plant installation and establishment. Calculations for the reduction shall be based on the water budget, and the water budget shall be developed for landscape and irrigation that conforms to Section III - Water Conserving Landscaping Guidelines and Policies. Methods used to accomplish the requirements of this section may include, but are not limited to, the following. 1. plant species 2. irrigation efficiency 3. use of captured rainwater 4. use of recycled water 5. use of graywater 6. use of water treated for irrigation purposed and conveyed by a water district or public entity. VIII-C-g) Solar Orientation Incorporate passive and active solar strategies in the design and orientation of buildings and public spaces. When site and location permit, orient the building with the long sides facing north and south. VIII-C-10) Building Shading 1. Provide exterior shade for south-facing windows during the peak cooling season. 2. Provide vertical shading against direct solar gain and glare due to low altitude sun angles for east- and west- facing windows. VIII-C-11) Recycled Materials Utilize recycled materials in the construction of streets, driveways, parking lots, sidewalks and curbs. . VIII-C-12) Outdoor Lighting Minimize light pollution from the project to improve nighttime visibility, increase night sky access and to reduce development impact on nocturnal environments by using down-shielded light fixtures that do not allow light to emit above the 90 degree plane of the fixture. Lighting fixtures provided to implement Federal Aviation Administration mitigation measures to enhance safe air navigation are exempt from this standard. , VIII-C-13) Performance Standard Bonuses The permitted base residential density or building height, whichever is applicable, shall be increased by the percentage density or number of stories as outlined below. In no case shall the residential density or building height exceed the density and height bonus maximums in the Dimensional Standards Table in Section 18.53.050. ...... ..., Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 1.12.10 26 130 ..~... ...., 1. Green Building Bonus Projects that achieve a high performance green building standard and significantly improve energy performance beyond the current minimum Oregon requirements are eligible for a building height bonus as follows. a. In the event that a building or structure is determined to be meet the standard for LEED<Il> Certified building, the building height may exceed the maximum height specified for the CM overlay districts within the Dimensional Standards Table in Section 18.53.060, through application of a height bonus as follows: I. A building obtaining LEED<Il> Certification as meeting the LEED@ Silver Standard may be increased in height by up to one story. 'il. A building obtaining LEED@ Certification as meeting the LEED@ Gold Standard may be increased in height by up to two stories. iil. A building in the Residential Buffer overlay obtaining LEED@ Certification as meeting the LEED@ Silver or Gold Standard may be increased in height by Y:. story up to a maximum height of 40 feet. . iv. Applications to increase the building height in excess of the maximum permitted height through the application of a height bonus shall address any conditional determination by the Federal Aviation Administration regarding mitigation measures requested to enhance safe air navigation. b. Demonstration of Achieving LEED@ Certification Projects awarded a height bonus pursuant to this section, shall provide the City with satisfactory evidence of having completed the following steps in the process toward demonstrating achievement of LEED@ certification: I. Hiring and retaining a LEED@ Accredited Professional as part of the project team throughout design and construction of the project. il. Developments seeking a height bonus shall provide documentation with the planning application, and prior to issuance of a building permit, that the proposed development as designed and constructed will meet or exceed the equivalent LEED@ standard relating to the height bonus awarded. ill. A final report shall be prepared by the LEED@ Accredited Professional and presented to the City upon completion of the project verifying that the project has met, or exceeded, the LEED@ standard relating to the height bonus awarded. iv. The report shall produce a LEED<Il> compliant energy model following the methodology outlined in the LEED@ rating system. The energy analysis done for the building Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 1.12.10 .131 27 performance rating method shall include all energy costs associated with the building project. v. The project developer shall be required to provide a lien or performance bond to the City of Ashland in an amount equal to the value of the bonus prior to the issuance of a building permit. i. This lien or performance bond shall be calculated on the square footage of the additional space provided by the bonus multiplied by one hundred dollars ($100.00) per square foot. ii. This lien or performance bond shall be released by the City at such time that the project attains LEE[)@ Certification. c. Height Bonus Penalty Section If the project fails to attain LEE[)@ certification within three years of receiving its initial Certificate of Occupancy, then the Developer shall be sUbject to a fine equal to the higher of: i. 1 % of the total construction costs, or ii. The amount of the Uenl Performance Bond provided pursuant to Section VIII-C-13(b)(v)(i). iii. If the fine is not paid within thirty (30) days of the date it is imposed, then the City shall have the authority to revoke the Certificate of Occupancy for the building. 2. Structured Parking Bonus. A building may be increased by up to one story in height when the corresponding required parking is accommodated underground or within a structured parking facility, subject to building height limitations for the zoning district. 3. Affordable Housing Bonus. a. For every percent of units that are affordable, an equivalent percentage of density bonus shall be allowed up to a maximum bonus of 100%. b. Affordable housing bonus shall be for residential units that are affordable for moderate income persons in accordance with the standards established by resolution of the City Council and guaranteed affordable through procedures contained in said resolution. VIII-C-14) Employment Density To promote transit supportive development, efficient use of employment zoned lands, and local economic vitality, it is recommended that developments within the Croman Mill District are planned to accommodate employment densities as follows: a. 60 employees per acre in the Office Employment (OE) Overlay b. 25 employees per acre in the Compatible Industrial (CI) Overlay c. 25 employees per acre in the Mixed Use (MU) Overlay ..~.. Ashland Site Design and Use Standards ....., DRAFT 1.12.10 28 132 ,,~.. ..., d. 20 employees per acre in the Neighborhood Center(NC) Overlay Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 1.12.10 133 29 Additional Plan Maps ~ ~ \->--- ~.. K,X.J')'" ~ ''\:' CromanMill District J , Land Use Overlays }f" .. co'!lpatible industrial (CM-C:D ! J mixed use (CM-MU) o neighborhood, center (Cr.+NC) ~ ~ ::s:::~;:o:::~I:~~b~oSI o :~1J~ ~' '';;i I . -?> 0 . ,-. - - . 0 255 510 1,020 1.530 . Feel 2,040 .,'" w.' Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 1.12.10 30 134 Croman Mill District. Street Framework D local commercial street _ central boulevard acceSsway ! I I I - spO 1.000 ..... ...1 Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT .1.12.10 31 135 ,....... ;.~ -,- :_ ,'.i t-" ,. Croman Mill District Pedestrian & Bicycle Framework 7 ~ c::::l1!:lI bike/pedestrian accessway ...1.1 central bike path a..... multiuse path r 2 ~ '1 I I '0 6 I d o - - o 250 SOD 1.000 1.500 . 2.000 "4. .., Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 1.12.10 32 136 [.0) , '1'S,'t1 "" 0. I!~'$ i (:;1 n ~r I , I .,~.. . ....... Ashland Site Design and Use Standards DRAFT 1.12.10 33 137 -' AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MULTIPLE CHAPTERS OF THE ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE (AMC 18.08.190, 18:08.341, 18.08.342, 18.08.343, 18.08.845, 18.12.020, 18.61.042, 18.68.020, 18.68.050, 18.72.030, 18.72.110, 18.72.120, 18.72.140, 18.72.180, 18.84.100, 18.88.070, 18.88.080, 18.92.020, 18.96.090, 18.104.020, 18.106.030, 18.108.017), AND THE ADDITION OF A NEW CHAPTER (AMC 18.53) CONCERNING ESTABLISHMENT OF THE. CROMAN MILL DISTRICT Annotated to show GeletieRs and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are Do . and additions are in bold underline. Ch. 18.08 Definitions SECTION 18.08.190 District. A zoning district. A: nRn district indicates any residential zoning district. B. "Cn district indicates any commercial zoning district. C. nM" district indicates any industrial zoning district. D. "An district indicates any airport overlay district. E. "CM" District indicates any Croman Mill Plan zonina district {Below To be inserted In aJphabetlcal order} 18.08.341 LEED@Accredited Professional. A person who has earned a credential as a Leadership in Eneray and EnyironmentalDesian ILEED@} Accredited Professional from the U.S. Green Buildina Council. or Green Buildin!:! Certification Institute, in accordance with their standards and reauirements. 18.08.342 LEEO@certification. A buildlna reaistered with the U.S. Green Buildin!:! Council which has satisfied all prereaulsltes and has earned a minimum number of points outlined in the Leadership In Enerav and Environmental Desian ILEEO@} Ratin!:! System under which it is reaistered. Levels of certification include Certified. Silver. Gold and Platinum. 18.08.343 LEED@ Green Bulldln!:! Ratln!:! Svstem" or "LEED@Ratina Svstem. The most recentlv published version of the Leadership In Enerav and Environmental Desian (LEED@) Green Bulldlna Ratina Systems bv the U.S. Green Buildina Council, or the version to be superseded for one year after the publication of a new applicable LEED@ Ratina Svstem version. 18.08.845 Water Budaet The amount of water a landscape needs taklna Into account the inputs and outputs of water to and from the root zone. Inputs. such as 138 precipitation. are subtracted from outputs. such as evapotranspiration. to calculate the water needs of the landscape. Ch.18.12 Districts SECTION 18.12.020 Classification of Districts. For the purposE! of this Title, the City is divided into zoning districts designated as follows: (Ord 2951, amended. 07/01/2008) .. 'i+toning'\bistfjchfah~OVeriay:'~;.;.-'\;2t :,,!;;;ieVfv1ap~.~m~8'~l1q:';!;::. ...,;;..,'i';,).";;;>c'".....h.l"""",,.-,-,.-d'!.'+.".".""",-df>;,;o;;i'; ;'Mbbreviated'Designatiori;;,.r 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-D Employment E-1 Industrial M-1 Woodland Residential WR SOU - Southern Oregon University SOU Performance Standards (Pl - Overlay P Detail Site Review Zone DSR Health Care Services Zone HC North Mountain Neighborhood NM Croman Mill District Zone CM Residential Overlav R Freeway Sign Overlav F 18.53 - CROMAN MILL DISTRICT [SEE COMPLETE NEW SECTION] Ch. 18.61 Tree Preservation and Protection SECTION 18.61.042- Approval and Permit Required D. Tree Removal Permit: 1. Tree Removal- Permits are required for the following activities; a. Removal of trees greater than 6" DBH on any private lands zoned C-I, E-I, M-I, CM.or HC. b. Removal of trees greater than 6" DBH on multi-family residentially zoned lots (R-2, R-3, and R-1-3.5) not occupied solely by a single family detached dwelling. 139 c. Removal of significant trees on vacant property zoned for residential purposes including but not limited to R-1, RR, WR, and NM zones. d. Removal of significant trees on lands zoned SO!!, on lands under the control of the Ashland School District, or on lands under the control of the City of Ashland. 2. Applications for Tree Removal - Permits shall be reviewed and approved by the Staff Advisor pursuant to AMC 18.61.080 (Approval Criteria) and 18.108.040 (Type Procedure). If the tree removal is part of another planning action involving development activities, the tree removal application, if timely filed, shall be processed concurrently with the other planning action. Ch. 18.68 General Regulations SECTION 18.68.020 Vision Clearance Area. Vision clearance areas shall be provided with the following distances establishing the size of the vision clearance area: A. In any R district, the minimum distance shall be twenty-five (25) feet or, at intersections including an alley, ten (10) feet. B. In all other districts except the C-1aml-E-1, and eM, the minimum distance shall be fifteen (15) feet or, at intersections, including an alley, ten (10) feet. When the angle of intersection between streets, other than an alley, is less than thirty (30) degrees, the distance shall be twenty-five (25) feet. . C. The vision clearance area shall contain no plantings, fences, walls, structures, or temporary or permanent obstructions exceeding two and one-half (2 %) feet in height, measured from the top of the curb, except that street trees exceeding this height may be located in this area, provided all branches and foliage are removed to a height of eight (8) feet above the grade. D, The vision clearance standards established by this section are not sUbject to the Variance section of this title. (Ord. 2605, S1, 1990) 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 st~eet. ; Street .--.. seibaClq i.f::.i!St Main Street, betweerl.gLiy limits and Lithia w"ii 35 feet J i Ashland Street (Highway 66) between ,65 f t J I City limits and SiskiY.Qll Boulevard .._._~:.. 140 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 districl~ and properties abutting Lithia Way in the C-1 district. (ORD 2959, 8/1/2008) Ch. 18.72 Site Design and Use Standards 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. Expansion of impervious surface area in excess of 10% of the area of the site or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less. d. Expansion of parking lots, relocation of parking spaces on a site, or other changes which affect circulation. e. 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. 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. 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. h. Mechanical equipment not otherwise exempt from site design review per Section 18.72.030(B}. 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. e. Mechanical equipment not otherwise exempt from site design review per Section 18.72.030(B}. 141 SECTION 18.72.110 Landscaping Standards. A. Area Required. The following areas shall be required to be landscaped in the following zones: i R-1 1- i 45% of total developed lot area 1 I~}-+~-I-~;~-~H;:~}~~~~l~~'~~-f~}-~~------'--'------'--.-..--.....---i IE-L=j~% of total developed lot area ! I C-1-D I-i. None, except parking areas and service stations shall meet the i. ! i landscaping and , ! i screening standards in Section II.D. of the Site Design and Use j I I Standards. . E-1 . - i 15% of total develo~d lot area PIilT-i-=T1o%OftolliTdeveiQped lot area hCM-NC I.. 115% of total developed lot area 1__ CM-O!: ~: I 15% of total developed lot area CM.CI j: ! 15% of total developed lot area t CM-MU :J_10% of total developed lot area --1 , SECTION 18.72.120 Controlled access. A. 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 ifI sestien (8) 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. B. 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. C. Street and driveway access points in the CM zone are sublect to the reaulrements of the of Croman Mill District Standards. C..Q. Access Requirements for Multi-family Developments. . 1. All multi-family developments which will have automobile trip generation in excess of 250 vehicle trips per day shall provide at least two driveway 142 access points to the development. Trip generation shall be determined by the methods established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2. Creating an obstructed street, as defined in 18.88.020.G, is prohibited. SECTION 18.72.140 Light and Glare Performance Standards. There shall be no direct illumination of any residential zone from a lighting standard in any other residential lot, C-1, E-1 or M-1, SO, CM or HC lot. SECTION 18.72.180 Development Standards for YYlreless Communication Facilities D. All installation of wireless communication systems shall be subject to the requirements of this section in addition to all applicable Site Design and Use St d d d b' h f II . I an ar s an are su llect to t e 0 OWInQ approva process; Zoning Designations Attached to Alternative Freestanding Existing Structures Support Structures Structures Residential Zones(1) CUP Prohibited Prohibited C-1 CUP CUP Prohibited C-1-D (Downtown)lZ) CUP Prohibited Prohibited C-1 - Freewav overlav Site Review Site Review CUP E-1 Site Review Site Review CUP M-1 ' Site Review Site Review CUP SOU Site Review CUP CUP NM (North Mountain) Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Historic District\<J CUP Prohibited Prohibited A-1 (Airport Overlav) CUP CUP CUP HC (Health Care) CUP Prohibited Prohibited CM-NC CUP CUP CUP CM-OE Site Review Site Review CUP CM-CI Site Review Site Review CUP CM-MU CUP CUP CUP CM-OS Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Ch. 18.84 Manufactured Housing Developments SECTION 18.84.100 Special Conditions. A. For the mitigation of adverse impacts, the City may impose conditions. Restrictions may include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Require view-obscuring shrubbery, walls or fences. 2. Require retention of specified trees, rocks, water ponds or courses, or other natural features. . B. No manufactured housing developments may be located within the Ashland Historic District. 143 C. No manufactured housing developments may be located, relocated, Q! increased In size or number of units, within any zones designated for commercial use -- C-1, C-1-D, E-1, CM or M-1. Ch. 18.88 Performance Standards Options SECTION 18.88.070 Setbacks. A. Front yard setbacks shall follow the requirements of the underlying district. B. . Setbacks along the perimeter of the development shall have the same setbacks as required in the parent zone. C. Maximum heights shall be the same as required in the parent zone. D. One-half of the building height at the wall closest to the adjacent building shall be required as the minimum width between buildings, exceDt within non- residential zonlna districts Includlna C-1, C-1-D, E-1, CM, and M-1. E. Solar Access Setback. Solar access shall be provided as required in Section ~18.70 exceDt within the C.1.D and CM zonlna districts. F. Any single-family structure not shown on the plan must meet the setback requirements established in the building envelope on the outline plan. ; ! i i I i SECTION 18.88.080 P-Overlay Zone. A. The purpose of the P-overlay zone is 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 P-overlay areas, shall be processed under this Chapter of the Land Use Ordinance. The minimum number of dwelling units for a Performance Standards Subdivision within residential zonlna districts shall be three. C. In a P-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 P-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, Gf R-3. or eM. 144 Ch. 18.92 Off-Street Parking Section 18.92.020 Automobile Parking Spaces Required C. Industrial Uses. For industrial uses the following automobile parking spaces are required. 1.-ifldustrlal uses. except warel1eusma. --One-spaGe-per two employees on the largest shift or for each 700 square feet of gross floor area, whiehever Is less, plue one spaee per GompanY'Jehlele. 2.-lndustrial and Warehousing ~ One space per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or for each two employees, whichever is greater less, plus one space per company vehicle. 3.b 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. Ch. 18.96 Sign Regulations SECTION 18.96.090 Commercial, Industrial and Employment Districts. Signs in commercial, industrial... -aml-employment, and Croman Mill districts, excepting the Downtown-Commercial Overlay District and the Freeway Overlay District, shall conform to the following regulations: [remainder of 18.96 left unaltered} 18.104 Conditional Use Permits SECTION 18.104.020 Definitions. The following are definitions for use in this chapter. A. "Impact Area" - That area which is immediately surrounding a use, and which may be impacted by it. All land which is within the applicable notice area for a use is included in the impact area. In addition, any lot beyond the notice area, if the hearing authority finds that it may be materially affected by the proposed use, is also included in the impact area. B. "Target Use" - The basic permitted use in the zone, as defined below. 1. WR (Weedlafld Residential) aREl RR (Rural Residential) zenes: 1. WR (Woodland Residential) and RR (Rural Residential) zones: Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by Section 18.88.040. 2. R-1 (Single Family Residential) zones: Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by Section 18.88.040. 3. R-2 and R-3 Zones: Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by the zone. 4. C-1. The general retail commercial uses listed in 18.32.020 B., developed at an intensity of .35 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. 145 5. C-1 D. The general retail commercial uses listed in 18.32.020 B., developed at an intensity qf 1.00 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. 6. E-1. The general office uses' listed' in 18.40.020 A., developed at an intensity of .35 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. 7. M-1. The general light industrial uses listed in 18.40.020 E., complying with all ordinance requirements. 8. SO. Educational uses at the college level, complying with all ordinance requirements. 9. CM-CI. The qeneral liqht industrial uses listed in 18.53.050 A.. develooed at an intensity of .35 qross floor to area ratio, comolvinq with all ordinance requirements. 10. CM-OE. The qeneral office uses listed in 18.53.050 A.. develooed at an Intensity of .50 qross floor to area, comolyinq with all ordinance requirements. 11.CM-MU. The qeneral office uses listed in 18.53.050 A.. deyelooed at an intensity of .50 qross floor to area, comolvlnq with all ordinance requirements. 12. CM-NC. The retail commercial uses listed in 18.53.050 A.. develooed at an Intensitv of .50 qross floor to area ratio, comolylnq with all ordinance requirements. . ' Ch. 18.106 Annexations 18.106.030 Approval Standards H. One or more of the following standards are mel: 1. The proposed area for annexation is to be residentially zoned, and there is less than a five-year supply of vacant and redevelopable land in the proposed land use classification within the current city limits. "Redevelopable land" means land zoned for residential use on which development has already occurred but on which, due to present or expected market forces, there exists the likelihood that existing development will be converted to more intensive residential uses during the planning period. The five-year supply shall be determined from vacant and redevelopable land inventories and by the methodology for land need projections from the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan; or 2. The proposed lot or lots will be zoned CM, E-1 or C-1 under the Comprehensive Plan, and that the applicant will obtain Site Review approval for an outright permitted use, or special permitted use concurrent with the annexation request; or 3. A current or probable public health hazard exists due to lack of full City sanitary sewer or water services; or 4. Existing development in the proposed annexation has inadequate water or sanitary sewer service; or the service will become inadequate within one year; or 146 5. The area proposed for annexation has existing City of Ashland water or sanitary sewer service extended, connected, and in use, and a signed "consent to annexation" agreement has been filed'and accepted by the City of Ashland; or 6. The lot or lots proposed for annexation are an "island" completely surrounded by lands within the city limits. "'~~_"-"~"~""'~""-'_.~"'-~-"'~_._~-"'-'---'._'~~----,..>,~~~~"~."",._,,....,-,.,.,........----------..._---...,~. Ch. 18.108 Procedures SECTION 18.108.017 Applications C. Priority plannina action processlna for LEED@ certified buildinas. 1. New buildinas and existlna bulldlnas whose repair. alteration or rehabilitation costs exceed fifty percent of their replacement costs. that will be pursuina certification under the Leadership in Eneray and Environmental Deslan Green Buildlna Ratlna System ILEED@) of the United States Green Buildlna Council shall received top priority In the processina of plannina actions. 2. Applicants wishlna to receive priority plannlna action processina shall provide the followina documentation with the application demonstratina the completion of the followina steps in the workina towards LEED@ certification. a. Hirina and retalnlna a LEED@Accredited Professional as part of the prolect team throuahout desian and construction of the project. b. The LEED@ checklist indicatina the credits that will be. pursued. 3. The City Council may establish. bv resolution. a fine to be imposed on prolects that fall to achieve LEED@ certification for any project that received priority plannlna action processina pursuant to this Section. I i I I I I , , I I i I , I I I I I ! i 147 Croman Mill District East-West Alternative Option Map 148 :{"L,---J ... "', L Croman Mill District ~ ~; -- LandUse Framework j~A~i,'~ ,:, ,:,~,.,'_ East-West Orientation Alternative ~,':>~~ 0 CM-CI i 1.J- -1.-1-'" I,' ~':.~ I l :r,', '-'t_:Lie- ij iii ',( 1 ~ i CM-MU ho-f2: l.! :,( ~ ;~: ",,~.'. ! ' " . ... "''eFT ll_)~,. ' ',', J'. )/" _ ,t~' \~ ',/,,'.,~,';,>N"~,.;'::'~; . ~c [, ::; '::11:;" h , L,,",,'-:'~. '1\ '/"ifll..}ij;'-lrtf;;~ i ',' J 'JL-I_, ',\t::;' ,/, - --,",;r." '1\; _ I \\ ~'~r ) ; 1''':;- ':';2) G:-:': ,....;;"~ ~! "" ',] .1 ,~~ ~ L.;". .._ , . , ,',., ;',., "'.,. [~j \ ~\ ,..:(~\\, ""';,~ ~~';,,~n o~:? :; r- " ; {~~ \ ~\,'~\\~ II""'" 'r"1 -:el ',' ~~ [gJJ \ ,.:', i i~\iil;\~'<'~ \ \:~~~1 ~ ,: , L ~[',\I"S 11']V' i ',", 'I' ,,''h'-; ~ \" ~ .I.r,.-J ,"," ~ 1:1 I \j'''':'<: >^ ' -. ," iT":;'~ ,i ','- :L;~j"'l[?l";~~~,,I",-i =,h, rr )1 \;: / // " \'.~ i ,-j '-'.: Co.! :;J 1:.1 :'1 D ~::J~~! I ~ . "~'~." " ~ \ " 'i) f+-i \:Y1 ~ r i , I'~ :, . "RJil :___ //~"-,/ r \, ___ ~ ,.' \ -,' n,::J":'1 I :',,~"_ C::" t . " '_____, \, ", \ ,_" ::___._ '\ '-,., \ ' , J i;;.::::-~::..~~ ,--=~ L~ F:F~ n . I \ \ ( \___ _ l____ \ \ ,'" r> ' ., ~ '\ \ ....1. \- ,~-"\ ., \ \\ ~;::'::---""~\ \. 'i\\-'~i-~d)" ~ -J \ , ~\v,,/, ,___- ~! f';-,L_ ] 'J r' ,---) t.-C) f ;; U ~/c., ~'0 ".'" " ~, rr-'::::::' \ '\ .J '-- /", , ~ --..J'--- l' - "',, '\ ~, (..\~e'\":\<\ ~ '..; u ~. r'i] " ~ > '" \ ' ~ G'l1' \~' .. '-;.\~;\\\\ . ;,: iJo ~ ,..'l,D IZ~~ ,r-- I> _\ r \ \ I' . " 'v,': .; " /'" ::.;;~~~<) -4 - 1 t r-''' t::! I 1 ._-\ \:.-:::::..--) \V ,) \<" ~ ~~21;.; /~~ ~!L r \ \ ___: \ ~~'./'> tj,(, I." - ....'", # ~~ I ,~--///\> ,v " " ">", ~ / / \, ~ ~ "-",.1.;) ~ 'ftj, ~ / ' / \ A,\~ Pll n, 1- '''{f ;J 0'-'6>/,,0''-'" / / ,..// "",. S'\.W ,,-. "f' "'. " I /., \ I' A ' . ,/ . ,.'."" /./ Ii\- ~ , 1'"'; i.J li 'I -. ! i \,,' p~ d ~, ~, 1 \\\ \ '," ~~s' ;~~ ~'Hl, :J.o / "I /.~'+ jCJt--:ri~mf II (I~ ,< \~'{ / P. \h .~II~ \ ~,Feet \" ~ I~r L> ,I I 0 260 520 1491,046 1,560 r 2,08Q '..... )\.\ , ! CM-NC CJ CM-OS j CM-OE I I Croman_District ~~"~' I ~ \!(~ ;~~ ~ ~--s~ ~~ C,;:,[.l:'I.11'~~I-" ,~~o ~.'J"-~l", ",G~ ~'J"~l W i~i~-hJc~~.,:.::J~}~:'~: i j n .; -'I... 1 ' ...;:::-;; IL...4CJl: .' Ire _ 0' IOJ U1laJtl~ kL ! (j /J.,JilJbl~ c::,r'} D ::?r D .,LiC-1 ~io- 0 I '0, ~n [] 1"- IJ'e::' ,'-:'. ~ '[f\ 01 ,'10.1= Q I C? Cl 0 S.) , c:.:' ~ ['j aq",L i,';;In.,t1.LI,I G I ~OCJD~fr ~I 1;- ~~::r~, ~~ ~~ ,rn~~,?~W 7~ i//~ i OOS ~ ~~~, V( I ~ d p'!..~ C::J' ,~~~ ~ ~~'q~d' ~ ? "'I~I~~J, ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ 5LJI~, Lr\J r-.. "~ \'is :: P'6~~1 '.... ~<::, ')/'DO <.)~ =~ ~I ' g7f fQ ! r, Q" L." ) '~'" ::= ! f'-.... " r'r ~ '..1..-. .- ~ c::::J ~.~ n ilJ/WklO:JblO c:';l ~- J f'.. 0 ~"i]i 13 lJ 0' ~ - ......... ~ 0."[1.,. ~ I - "l."...... o r.:, DJ o2lfJ.D:1 Q -IIS.f~ov ~ ~!~l~.:~ oJ ' s/v~ 1-\:.Jh~:JD 0,'" i J I~ .0 to [j Il~, [ ,",",I rh/f'-, illlllIJ 0 · ,----> :'J1Ilr" l...@UlbJ: ~i JiftI::lF': 'J1.. 13lt'J [] il . , rE?" , (:,~b 1}--; CJ 0 ~ITi:' t"" 0, "'-- 0 250 I 500 Croman Mill District. Street Framework East-West Orientation Alternative 1m Accessways II Local Commercial Streets' _ Central Blvd. 1\ ~ ~flfr?~ \' ~~ ,;~ ~ ~ "->>~ ~.. ~,~'\'~. ~: ::- !! '\ ~~ \\?~ ~ o ~I ,~ ~ \\\ni5' . I\j~ I, , " \ ;-\ , ;' , "" o C ~ k\ . " ~ ~ J \ ~ II,~~ ..E 16 ;}f1IiJf/ ~ ~~~~~ , ~5:~~~~~ , - ,'>;' o '. '~ i 1;) {, v " ~ \ v' 1,000 150 .~~. VJ ~~(h A.', ) .\ (. ' Feet 1,500 I f 2,000 \ I I / RECEIVED _JAtU.1. 2010 From: M Knox (mailto:knox@mlnd.net) Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 11:36 AM To:Md Cc: mark@cltyoftalent.org Subject: Croman City 0' Ashland Community Development Mark, Please forward or incorporate as you see fit. I wish I had more time to spend on this. Ashland Planning Commission and Staff: Unfortunately, I'm out of town this evening and will not be able to make the meeting regarding the Croman Mill Master Plan. I appreciate everyone's time and effort on this subject and wanted to pass on a few comments for the Commission and staff to consider: Unfortunately, I think the underlying foundation of this plan has been crafted by a Planning firm more interested In promotional advertising then end results which will not likely be understood for 20/30 years when everyone now Involved will be far removed. Of course there are a number of creative elements of the plan that are valuable, but overall the plan is lacking substance and shouldn't be forwarded to the Council until some of the issues are dlscussed, understood and hopefully resolved. My primary Issues involve the property at 700 Mistletoe Road as I've worked on the property, designed various site plans for the property, and have.dlscussed lease and purchase agreements for the property with business owners looking to start or relocate their businesses In Ashland. This has given me the opportunity to appreciate the dynamics of a buslneses operational characteristics such as loading and unloading, assembly space demands, grading and ADA conflicts, etc. Since I've worked on site and know the area very well, I also have a pretty decent understanding of the Croman area and Its positive and negative components. As such, my list of comments and questions, in random order, are as follows: 1) Why would the rear of 700 Mistletoe Road be zoned industrial when Ihe existing buildings could be removedlconverted into other uses fitting with the overall plan? 2) Why Is the front of the properly at 700 Mlslletoe Road zoned Office-Employment (OE) Instead of Mixed-Use (MU)? 3) More importantly, why isn't manufacturing a permitted use In the OE zone? A significant amount of effort has gone into the marketing of this property as well as the site planning In an aUempt to persuade at least two manufacturing type of companies. One has gone as far as completing engineering plans and receiving Site Review approval from the City. This Is on record and should have been recognized throughout the development of the master planning efforts. Regardless, not permlUlng manufacturing In the OE zone does not make sense. Is this also an oversight? . 4) It appears the code language of CM 18.53 addresses "manufacturing" In the text, but it's not listed In the table as a permitted use. 5) Why would the code language only permit 50% of the ground floor to be manufacturing? Not only is this an arbitrary number, I thought the purpose of the plan was to create jobs. How is this area to achieve 60 jobs per acre if manufacturing Is not permilled or is limited? 6) The plan Is overwhelmingly full of red flags that are going to be a deterrent for small and large companies looking to "start" or relocate their businesses. Although I'm not a "hands off' skeptic, I do believe when someone evaluates a particular piece of property and completes their due diligence, there will be "sticker shock" based on the numerous regulations as well as its punillve 151 language, that they will Instead consider another area. For example, the language regarding LEED certification is overwhelmingly punllive where bonding is required prior to building and If the certification is not granted, despite the efforts of the developer, the entire bonding amount Is forfeited? Has anyone from the consulting agency or staff obtained bonds before?? First, you "pay" to the bonding enllty (bank) 10% to 15% of the total amount just to bond. This is money lost "up front" ($30,OOO.to $45,000 for a $300,000 third fioor). Furthermore, the bond Is forfeiled to the City and more penalties are assessed if the certification does not pass... The mere thought of revoking someone's Certificate of Occupancy after three years of occupancy is a telling sign that this section of the ordinance Is unacceptably punitive. Is someone really going to revoke occupancy and remove all of the people Gobs) from the property because the LEED certification Isn't passed? Really? We should be PROMOTING Innovative and conservation minded Individuals and companies, but this section of the ordinance eliminates these opportunities before they can even get started. 7) Although laudable, the landscaping coverage has gone up from 10% to 15% which sounds great, but because buildings are now to be built at the front setback line, the landscaping is not going to be seen. Is thIs correct? 8) The minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, minimum width of 100' and .60 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is purely arbitrary. This should be explained as to how these amountsldlmensions were derived? Has someone put pencil to paper and attempted to design such a building. At a minimum, this would require someone to build a 12,000 square foot building... What .happens to start-up businesses or smaller existing businesses that only need 3,000 square feet? Can they locate here? Do they have to ask for an "exception" before they even get started? Do they have to complete a phased plan with significant engineering costs, planning costs, etc. and will they be subject to a time frame? Additional penalties? Why are these standards even being considered? Why have minimums? Why not just have maximums? 9) My previous comments from 9/29/09 remain a concern. Primarily, the new road and bridge to be extended over Hamilton Creek is a major funding Issue and an environmental concern. Not only wlli the reatignment go through existing businesses, but It will require significant Oak trees to be removed and fill to be added. Furthermore, the new road does nothing to correct the approximate 90 degree corner that now exists, but Instead adds a "second" approximate 90 degree corner. In fact, the second is probably more dangerous because of the multiple street and driveway Intersections currently present. I understand the purpose of the new street and believe it's planning at Tolman Creek Is a great Idea, but as It approached Hamilton Creek, it needs further consideration. 10) Although the Croman area appears "fiat" It does have slopes ranging from 3 to 5% that when designing a 12,000 square foot building (let alone 3,000 square foot building), ADA, functional, drainage, and design issues become very problematic. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide input. If there is an opportunity to re-evaluate the plan and "tweak" certain elements of it, I sincerely believe the planning committee should include property owners, contractors and design professionals that have experience In land use designing and development. Mark Knox RECEIVED JIIN I 2 2010 City or /I~;il!ilnd ComrnUt!ily ucvL;10pmelit 152 A Step Toward Ashland's Sustainability: Bringing the Triple Bottom Line to the Croman Mill Site and Redevelopment Plan In Mayor Stromberg's recent State of the City 2010 address he stated several velY important points about Ashland's current and future sustainability. Among them are: . "I believe we are a seed community for where the world needs to go if the human race'is to survive on this planet" · "...we are tending'a flame of community and culture that is life giving and life affirming. I believe such a community is at the core of creating a snstainable future in all associations and aspects of the term." . "... I would argue we, as a community, are pursuing the following strategy: ... use this time to develoD a new communitv and new culture that is in harmony with the world in which we live.", Toward these ends, I recommend that Ashland incorporate a growing bulwark of business sustainability, the Triple Bottom Line, as a framework for development at the Croman Mill Site, and perhaps eventually for all of Ashland's developments. This is an imp0l1ant element in creating a Culture of Sustainability. What are the three bottom lines? PI'Oft! - Your established traditional measures of financial perfollllance People - COImnitment to your employees, customers, suppliers, and cOlmnunity Plalle! - Reduction of your carbon footprint, reso\U'ce consumption and pollution The triple bottom line, a tenn used since 1994, expands the traditional definition of business success to include the well-being of all stakeholders. I believe this a key pal1 of Mayor Stromberg's message, and what most members of our conullunity want. The core idea is that a business pays attention to all Ihree bOIlOIl1/illes, and especially ItOll' Ihey injluence each o/he/', as the key to enhanced prosperity and lasting sustainability. This framework can provide a guideline to all businesses and organizations that break ground and conduct business in the Croman Mill Site. The mayor also said, "The City Council has set goals for the next 12 to 24 months to continue Ashland's histOlY as a communif)' that focuses on sustaining Itself and its people. To us, sustainability means using, developing and protecting resources at a rate and in a maimer that enables people to meet their cUIl'ent needs and also provides that future generations can meet their own needs. The City of Ashland has a responsibility towards sustainability in six prim8lY areas: o Economy o Envirorunent o Social Equity" RECEIVED JAN 1 2 2010 Thus demonstrating that you are already engaged in Triple Bottom Line thinking! City of ^s~land Communlly Development 153 The Triple Bottom Line (TBL) fi'amework has practical applications and metlics that can assist a business to develop and implement action plans to reduce its carbon footprint, to develop greener products and services, and altract sustainability minded customers and clients. It can also assist a company to have a positive green influence on it's supply chain. TBL can also become an integral pmt of a city's assessment, planning, and decision making process. Please see the following two pages with examples. Said differently, those businesses that aI/end to the three bottom lines, and their interactions, will have a competitive edge, a survivability edge and a culture of sustainability that the others will not. In the Rogue Valley, Ihe non-profit organization TBL 21 has been a leader in working with local businesses to help them engage in the Triple Bottom Line and thus help pioneer pathways to a Culture of Sustain ability. You can learn more about the Triple Bottom Line at www.TBL2J.com. Again I turn to Mayor Stromberg, "Because we are a plac.e people like to visit, sharing our eff01ts to become a more sustainable community can also be good for our economy." With a focus on the Triple Bottom Line the Croman Mill Site can be an attractor for green businesses and tow-ists alike. I will happily discuss this fiuther if desired. "Let's do something extraordinary!" Sincerely, David Wick Managing Director . TBL 21 - Triple Bottom Line for the 21st CentulY 541-552-1061 dwick(altbI21.com www.tbl2l.com 1/12/2010 RECEIVED JAN 1 2 2010 City of Ashland Community Development 154 Using the Triple Bottom Line in City Management - Three Examples - 1. City of Hamilton, Ontario, Canada - Planning & Economic Development Triple Bottom Line fJP""... "\ ~ ~UV 1 p;~'..,^~~ Hamilton, Anstralia & Calgary Triple Bottom line reporting was established to facilitate the implementation of the Growth-Related Integrated Development Strategy (GRIDS). Essentially, GRIDS is a long-range planning process that will identify a broad range of land use structures, associated infrastructure, economic development strategy, and the financial implications of growth options in Hamilton over the next 30 years. Critical to the GRIDS process is the development of a tool that can assess the social, environmental, and economic impacts associated with each development option that may emerge. . As municipal corporations struggle to provide a widening array of services in the social/health, environmental, and economic sectors, the"necessity of jointly considering outcomes has become apparent. For communities committed to sustainable development, TBL reporting is a logical way to do integrated decision making. Ultimately, TBL will be applied as a filtering mechanism to ensure that strategic development and budgeting directions will improve social, economic, and environmental performance. Over time future uses for TBL will be developed in an effort to'make VISION 2020 a reality. . TBL Hamilton Info . Hamilton TBL Proiects . TBL Brochure .., J C"L^E." I ICLEI is a membership association of local gove1'llments and national " . . . and regional local govermllent associations that have made a unique l 1.,,,,11 cOlllluitment to sustainable development. More than 475 local Gowrllll1.:'lll!'\. . . . . fI', ~1I,'I.lill.'I'iIily gove1'llments, representmg nearly 300 mllhon people worldWIde, make up ICLEI. Hamilton is one of the first Canadian citics to utilize TBL as a framework for maldn!! choiccs in nn intc!!l'ntcd manncr. RECEIVED GRIDS Intcr!!ratcd Infrastructure Mastel' Plans 2. The Triple Bottom Line for Pittsblll'l!h Posted by Kayla on Tuesday, July 28, 2009 at 6:44 AM I Read the comment JAN 1 2. 2010 City of Ashland Community DOlJulopmont 155 t the City Council Public Hearing yesterday aftemoon, Councilman Bill Peduto once again spoke out for a revised economic development policy for the City of Pittsburgh. "It is essential that subsidies that tlus government gives out for development do not simply go into the pockets of out-ot~town developers, but benefit the entire community," said Councilman Peduto. ' With over $1 billion dollars of development in his district tlu'oughout the past 8 years, Councilman Peduto has worked to ensure that all of these developments have created . good paying jobs, generated new tax revenue for the City, and catalyzed other neighborhood development. Now he is calling for the same triple bottom line development to be enforced throughout the City of Pittsburgh, which would ensure that any new development would: . maximized economic impact . milulllized environmental impact and improvement of the surrounding neighborhood . provided the oppOltunity for good jobs for all residents "Each and cvery development pl'OJlosal in the Clt)' ofPlttsbnrgh shonld lIIeet the triple bottom line or clsc )'on mnst qncstlon whether 01' not this Is trne economtc developmcnt that benefits the Ctty OJ' simply real estate development tfiat benefits a select few," From web site: hltll:/lbilllledlllO.com/tal!/lriole-boltolll-lincl 3. City ofCalgal'Y, Canada City Council TBL policy - w\\'\\' .calgary .ca/doc~allerylbll/citvclerks/counci I llol icies/lup003 .pd f Triple Bottom Line Policy Framework w\\'\\'.call!arl'.ca/docl!allely/bll/environlllcntal managementltbl llolicv framework.lldf BECEIVEO JAN I 2 2010 Gi!y 01 Asl1\!.md Community DClvGloprnGnt 156 RICHARD A. STARK LARRY C. HAMMACK ERIC R. STARK STARK AND HAMMACK, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 201 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 16 MEDFORD, OREGON 97501 (541) 773-2213 (541)779-2133 FJtX(541) 773-2084 leh@star1<hammack.eom January 8, 2010 RECEIVED Sent Via Reau(ar Mail Ashland Planning Commission Pam Marsh, Chairman & Members 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 JAN 1 1 201) City of "shls"" Community Development RE: Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan with Proposed Amendments Planning Action #2009-01292 Applicant: City of Ashland Hearing: January 12, 2010 Dear Chairman Marsh and Members: This firm represents the partners comprising Ashland Warehouse Partnership, who are the owners of two separate tax lots, as hereinafter identified, and the buildings thereon. This property and the improvements are located within the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan (Plan), which will be before this commission for hearing on January 12th, 2010. The street a~dresses and tax lots are as follows: 1. 695 Mistletoe Road, Ashland, Oregon, tax lot 1900; and 2. 697 Mistletoe Road, Ashland, Oregon, tax lot 402. The purpose of this communication is to inform you that our client has significant concerns regarding approval and subsequent implementation of this Plan. It appears that the Plan is presently conceptual, and subject to further specifications and perhaps amendments and modifications. Notwithstanding, our clients do object to the approval and/or implementation of this Plan, as it would have a serious detrimental and negative impact to our client's property. Our client's objection would pertain to any and all approvals of the Plan as presented and any and all future adopted modifications and amendments which directly effect our client's property as identified herein. Our client's objections, among other things, include the follOWing: A. It would appear that either presently, or at the time Phase II of the plan is adopted and/or instituted, that a MiRing will occur as it pertains to one or both Page - 2 Ashland Planning Commission January 8, 2010 - of our client's tax lots. This is based upon the fact that Central Drive Boulevard is presently designated, in its' entirety, to be constructed as a ninety (90) foot thoroughfare, and as such it would be constructed upon or through one or both of our client's tax lots. That would constitute a taking, and necessitate eminent domain proceedings; B. In addition to the foregoing, our client's property would be, or may be impacted by parking and/or traffic concerns presented by the Plan presently before the commission and/or by any specifications or amendments or modifications that may be made to the Plan; and . C. We reserve our right to respond more definitely and to provide further objections to the extent of specifications or modifications or amendments to the redevelopment Plan. We would ask that we be notified of all future hearings pertaining to this Plan. Very truly yours, STARK AND HAMMACK, P.C. ~ Eric R. Stark ERS:rb cc: clients 158 GERALD.R. AND SUZANNE C. KNECHT FAMILY TRUST 114 CALUMET AVENUE SAN ANSELMO, CA 94960 415-457-8447 FAX: 415-457-8440 EMAIL: glmecht{alcomcast.net January 10, 2010 City of Ashland Planning Commission and Staff RE: CROMAN MILL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Gentlemen: We are the owners of Tax Lots 4300 and 4000 (portion thereof) situated on the Westerly side of Mistletoe Road, and encompassed within the study and planning areas for the Croman Mill Site presently under consideration. We have reviewed the proposed planning for our parcels, and note that an MU ("Multiple Use") designation has been tentatively assigned in the most recent plan as described on the City website. The permitted uses for this zoning align well with our planned development of the property, which is live/work units for small businesses. We therefore endorse the planned zone designation and urge its inclusion in the final plan. We are unable to attend the upcoming study session but hope to be at some of the future ones. Very Sincerely. Gerald R. Knecht cc: Alex Knecht ~ RECEIVED JAW 11 288 City 01 As\1hnd Community Development 159 WLL1/'2f}1()) ~?iilll:l<lrrl~:_~i~t2r.I<i:9:~I""qslollbls_ql,is!!Q'lQftr.5lfl1<l_Il.H~;:Ilag~ NllrnP i .Is'f_ ., _F'~ge1J From: To: Date: Subject: Derek Severson Maria Harris 1/7/20108:33 AM Historic Commission Discussion of Croman Heritage Name List Marla, At last nlghrs Historic Commission meeting, Keith Swink from the CAC discussed ways to recognize the history of the Croman site through the naming of features such as the streets and park and/or potential themes In public art. The Commission was generally In agreement with the Idea of trying to renect the site heritage by recognizing the Importance of Native Americans, the railroad and particularly the Chinese railroad workers, and the more recent mill operation by creating a heritage name list for the project. Keith and Heniy Baker were both Interested In working on this further. " . - Derek Derek Severson, Associate Planner City of Ashland, Department of Community Development 20 East Main Street, Ashland OR 97520 (541)552-2040 or (541)488-5305, TTY: 1-800-735-2900 FAX: (541) 552-2050 This emall transmission Is official business of the City of Ashland, and It Is subject to Oregon Public Records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message In error, please contact me at (541)552-2040. Thank you. . 160 CITY OF ASHLAND January 6,2010 Pam Marsh Chair, Ashland Planning Commission 20 East Main Street Ashland OR 97520 RE: REVIEW OF THE CROMAN MILL DISTRICT MASTER PLAN Dear Pam: On December 17, 2009, the Ashland Transportation Commission received an update on the Croman Mill District Master Plan from Brandon Goldman. At that meeting, the Commission expressed a strong desire to review the transportation elements of the plan in greater detail at its next meeting. Unfortunately, the Transportation Commission will not be able to review the plan until January 21, 2010 - after the Planning Commission's January meeting. Therefore, the Commission respectfully requests that the Planning Commission not close the record until the comments of the Transportation Commission are received (immediately following their January 21,2010 meeting). We sincerely hope the Planning Commission can accommodate this request. S;"~I"~ Colin Swales Transportation Commission Chair cc: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Mike Faught, Public Works Director Jim Olson, Transportation Commission Staff Liaison Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Larry Blake, Planning Commission Liaison to Transportation Commission Engineering 20 E. Main Sltee! Ashland, Oregon 97520 V:.'"'.::!Y!,,~!,~! 1 ,1,;,!!,\d.~9Ll!!:} Tel: 541/488-5347 Fax: 541-/488-6008 ITY: S00/735-2900 r~' C:\Documents and Settings\Colin\My Documents\Downloads\Croman PH Itr to PI~n Comm Marsh 1 610.doc 161 " ._0. kl,.t,i:~;I!.lEQ~Ipmi~I~4EeH~r<&~ PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing on the following item with respect to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance will be held before the Ashland Planning Commission. At such Public Hearing any person is entitled to be heard. On January 12,2010 the Ashland Planning Commission will hold a public hearing regarding PA-2009- 01292, a proposal to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) creating a new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill, to amend multiple chapters of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to provide consistency with the new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill (ALUO 18.08, 18.12.020, 18.61.042, 18.68.050, 18.68.050, 18.70.040, 18.72.030, 18.72.080, 18.72.110, 18.72.120, 18.72.140, 18.72.180, 18.84.100, 18.84.100, 18.88.070, 18.106), to amend the Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map to include the Croman Mill District, and to adopt the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan as a supporting document to the City's Comprehensive Plan. As a result of the completion of a redevelopment plan for the former Croman Mill site and it's immediate vicinity, the City of Ashland has proposed a new chapter .of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill, and a new section of Ashland's Site Design and Use Standards, Section VIII - Croman Mill District Standards. The Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council on the adoption of the new chapter of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill, and a new section of Ashland's Site Design and Use Standards, Section VIII - Croman Mill District Standards. The public hearing will be held at 7:00. p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center Council Chambers located at 1175 E. Main St., Ashland, OR. The purpose of the hearing is to take public testimony and for the Planning Commission to discuss and deliberate the proposed ordinance and map revisions. The proposed ordinance, standards and Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan are available for review online at www.ashland.or.us/croman. and on file at the City of Ashland Department of Community Development located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Copies of the ordinance and file information are available for purchase if requested. For additional information conceming this ordinance, call the Ashland Planning Department at 541-488-5305. . Oral and written public testimony, regarding this matter will be accepted at the public hearing on January 12, 20 I O. Written statements are encouraged and may be submitted prior to the hearing date. Mail written comments to Maria Harris, Planning Manager, City of Ashland Department of Community Development, 20 E. Main S1., Ashland OR 97520, via FAX at 541-552-2050, or via E-mail at hanism@ashland.or.us. Failure to raise an issue in person or in writing prior to the close of the public hearing with sufficient specificity to provide the reviewing bodies opportunity to respond to the issue may preclude your opportunity for appeal on that issue. By the order of Bill Molnar, Community Development Director In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if yQu need special assistance to partidpate In this meeting, please contact the aty AdmlnistralD~s office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the dty to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Titie I). Puilf1Slf:SViliolo ~~~iil,~1l~1~&9~ Rifrchaseotder.i87401 ''"''~'.__-__''~_~__'''~''-<~'''~'_''''''''':''--7......:'...~...;_. 162 I n 2008, a planning process including a series of public workshops were held which resulted in the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan. Subsequently, the City Council initiated the creation of Land Use regulations to guide the redevelopment of the former Croman Mill Site. Throughout 2009, the City Planning Commission and the Croman Advisory Committee have worked to refine the Redevelopment Plan to achieve the identified project goals including maximizing opportunities for business development and employment growth, analyzing potential transportation connections from within the area to the city wide transportation system, determining appropriate land uses for the area, and incorporating sustainable and energy efficient development practices. A Planning Commission Public Hearing IS scheduled for 7:00pm, Tuesday January Ii" 2010 at the Ashland Civic located at 1175 East Main Street. The public is invited to attend. The draft design standards and ordinances, and all previous meeting materials, are available on the City of Ashland website at www.ashland.or.us/Croman. Questions or comments? Contact Bill Molnar, Community Development Director, at 541.552.2042 / ll1olnarb@ashland.or.us or Maria Harris, Planning Manager, at 541.552.2045 / harrism@ashland.or.us This proJect Is sponsored by the Oregon Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) Program and th~ G~ of Ashland Communlly Development Department. PLANNING ACTION: #2009-01292 APPLICANT: City of Ashland DESCRIPTION: A request to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) creating a new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill, to amend multiple chapters of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to provide consistency with the new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill (ALUO 18.08,18.12.020, 18.61.042, 18.68.050, 18.68.050, 18.70.040, 18.72.030, 18.72.080, 18.72.110, 18.72.120, 18.72.140, 18.72.180, 18.84.100, 18.84.100, 18.88.070, 18.106), to amend the Ashland Comprehensive plan Map and Zoning Map to include the Croman Mill District, and to adopt the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan as a supporting document to the City's Comprehensive Plan. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: January 1ih, 2010. 7:00 pm Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East main Street ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING: March 2" 2010. 7:00 pm Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East main Street Notice is hereby given thet PUBLIC HEARINGS on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION and the ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL on the meeting dates shown above. The meetings will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to thts application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the Issue, predudes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that Issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection Is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other Issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages In circuit court. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the appllcent and applicable criteria are available for inspecllon at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the heering and will ba provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available al the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. During the Public Hearing,.the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the appliceble criteria. Unless there Is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. . In compliance with the American with Disabllllles Act, If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please conlact the City Administrator's office at 541.488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735.2900). Notincation 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 Tille I). If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division. 541.488-5305. lS.10S.060 (S) Standards for Type III Planning Actions. 1. Zone changes, zoning map amendments and comprehensive plan map changes subject to the Type IIJ procedure as described in subsectfon 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 provl,lon of sffordable hou,lng. supported by the Comprehensive Plan; or b. A substantial change in clrcumslances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan deslgnatlon 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 resulllng from a change from one zoning dIstrict to another zoning district, will provide 25% of the proposed base density as affordable housing consl'lenl wllh the approval standards set forth in 18.106.030(G):or e. Increases In residential zoning denslly of four units or greater on commercial. employment or Industrial zoned lands (I.e. Residential Overlay), will not negatively Impacllha Cily of Ashland's commerclsl 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 16.108.030(G) The total number of affordable units described In secUons D or E shall be detennlned by rounding down fr8c1l0nal answers to (he nearest whole unIt. A deed restriction, or simIlar legal Instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not lass than 60 years. Sections 0 and E do not apply to councillnlliated actions. 164 CITY OF ASHLAND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING This is to notify you that the City of Ashland has proposed a land use regulation that may affect the permissible uses of your property and other properties. As a result of the completion of a redevelopment plan for the former Croman Mill site and it's immediate vicinity, the City of Ashland has proposed a new chapter of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill , and a new section of Ashland's Site Design and Use Standards, Section VIII - Croman Mill District Standards. The City has determined that adoption of this proposed ordinance and Site Design and Use Standards may affect the permissible uses of your property, and may change the value of your property. This notice, including the above statements, is required by Oregon state law. January 12. 2010 Plannina Commission Public Hearina: The purpose of the hearing is to take public testimony and for the Planning Commission to discuss and deliberate on the proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan and zoning maps, and to the land use ordinance including establishment of new land use designations and development standards for the Croman Mill zoning district (Planning Action #2009-01292). The Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council on the adoption of the new chapter of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill, and a new section of Ashland's Site Design and Use Standards, Section VIII - Croman Mill District Standards. The public hearing will be held at 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center Council Chambers located at 1175 E. Main St., Ashland, OR. March 2. 2010 City Council Public Hearina: The purpose of the hearing is to take public testimony and for the City Council to discuss and deliberate on the proposed amendments. The City Council makes the final decision on the adoption of the new chapter of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill, and a new section of Ashland's Site Design and Use Standards, Section VIII - Croman Mill District Standards. The public hearing will be held at 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center Council Chambers located at 1175 E. Main St., Ashland, OR. The proposed ordinance, standards and Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan are available for review online at www.ashland.or.us/croman. and on file at the City of Ashland Department of Community Development located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Copies of the ordinance and file information are available for purchase if requested. For additional information concerning this ordinance, call the Ashland Planning Department at 541-488- 5305. Oral and written public testimony, regarding this matter will be accepted at the public hearing on January 12, 2010 and March 2, 2010. Written statements are encouraged and may be submitted prior to the hearing date. Mail written comments to Maria Harris, Planning Manager, City of Ashland Department of Community Development, 20 E. Main St., Ashland OR 97520, via FAX at 541-552- 2050, or via E-mail atharrism@ashland.or.us. Failure to raise an issue in person or in writing prior to the close of the public hearing with sufficient specificity to provide the reviewing bodies opportunity to respond to the issue may preclude your opportunity for appeal on that issue. In compliance with the Americans wllh Disabililies Act, if you need special assistance to participate In this msetlng, please contaclthe Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone number is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 houl'll prior 10 the meeting will enable the City 10 make reasonable arranaemenls to ensure accessibllitv 10 the meellna 128 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1\. (turn over for summary page 2) 165 Summary of Proposed Croman Mill District Ordinance The Croman Mill District Redevelopment Plan, implementing land use ordinances and standards have been drafted to address the future development of Ashland's largest, unused parcel of'land within the city limits. Located on Mistletoe Road east of Tolman Creek Road, the site is bounded by the Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad, Siskiyou Boulevard, Mistletoe Road, and Interstate 1-5. This approximately 55-acre site is currently zoned to allow a wide range of business and industries and to provide a variety of employment opportunities. In January, March, June and August of 2008, a series of Public Workshops and Study Sessions were conducted as part of the master plan development. The first workshop in January 2008 focused on identification of issues and concerns, as well as the development of guiding principles for the redevelopment plan. The Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan was completed at the end of December 2008 as is available online at www.ashland.or.us/croman. The City Council initiated the process for adopting the plan into the Ashland's Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Ordinance on February 17, 2009. Implementation of the plan requires revisions to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps, and to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance such as the creation of new zoning overlay designations for the Croman Mill planning area, including specific design standards to guide and direct both public and private improvements. The Croman Mill (CM) zoning district is established with the purpose of promoting family-wage jobs, professional office and manufacturing commerce, neighborhoods- oriented businesses, mixed-use projects and community services in a manner that enhances property values by providing transportation options, preserving significant open spaces and natural features while minimizing the impact on natural resources through site planning and building design. The proposed ordinance delineates appropriate land uses and development standards for the CM zone. The proposed ordinance, Croman Mill District Site Design and Use Standards, maps, and other related information are available for review online at www.ashland.or.us/croman and on file at the City of Ashland Department of Community Development located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Copies of the ordinance and file information are available for purchase if requested. For additional information concerning. this ordinance, call the Ashland Planning Department at 541-488-5305. 166 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON County of Jackson The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On December 23, 2009 I caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of tha attached planning action notice to each person listed on the bottom of this page at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action #2009-01292, Croman Mill District Master Plan and Measure 56 Notice. {i/vd/I-nJ ~,LMY(dhz,,;,v SignaUfre of Employee OrEi'gon Department of Transportation Right of Way Section - Property Mgmt. Unit 355 Capitol Street NE - Rm 411 Salem, OR 97301-3781 Art Anderson White City I District 8 100 Antelope Road White City, OR 97503 Comm.Oov\Plannlng\ Templates 167 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON County of Jackson The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1 . I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street. Ashland, Oregon 97520. in the Community Development Department. 2. On December 21. 2009 I caused to be mailed, by regular mail. in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action #PA-2009-01292, Croman Mill District Master Plan. al~ ~hl/}!/Y}d?m'iV Signat e of Employee Comm-Oev\Plannlno\ Templates 168 391 E23704 277 r; 10TH STREET ASSOCCIA T 1725 RAINBOW 1-191 LAS VEGAS, NV 89146391E23704 277 E 391EI4AC700 ASHLAND PROPERTY INVESTORS 670 SUPERIOR CT STE 110 MEDFORD, OR 97504 391EI4ACI900 · ASHLAND WAREHOUSE PARTNRSHP PO BOX 43 MEDFORD, OR 9750 I 391EI41lD4514 BAGSHAW JON E TRUSTEE ET AL 776 CAPELLA CIR ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4BD4200 IlAXTER JOliN IUWEISHEIPL KEL 595 RAY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4CA3600 IlELLVIEW GRANGE 759 1'0 BOX 385 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4CD700 BERNARD VICKI 1154 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI41lDI300 BLOUNT MARLO DEAN 2970 BARBARA ST ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4CAI08 1l0NETrI ERIC F 175 PIEDMONT DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4D200 BRAMSCHER CRAIG ET AL 1525 BUENA VISTA SAN CLEMENTE. CA 92672 3911l1lDJ209 .\NIJERSON ANDRE L PO flOX 3577 ASHLMID, OR 97529 391E14D2100 fl. ASIILAND SCI 1001. DISTRICT #5 885 SISKIYOU ilL VD ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E 14D500 ASPEN ASH LLC 425 10'1'11 AVE 306 PORTLAND. DR 97209 391EI4CA2400 IlALLEW DON TRUSTEE ET AL 9722 ARANT RD KLAMATH FALLS, OR 97603 391EI4D4900 IlELLlNSON BENJAMIN AlLINDA 2760 SISKIYOU BLVD ASHLAND. OR 97520 391E14D4700 IlERGERSEN MARTIN L 2815 SISKIYOU BLVD ASHLAND. OR 97520 ". 391E14D2401 BLACK CRAIG W/MICHELLE 1'0 BOX 969 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI41lD6oo BOGUE JOHN TRUSTEE ET AL 2512 OLD MILL WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4CD600 1l0UNDS REX Il/JERALIlINE R 1150 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E231lA 100 BROMBACHER ZACHAR Y TRUSTEE 1370 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 169 391EI4AB2000ARO PARTNERS 1015 CHESTNUT AVE sm A3 CARLSIlAD. CJ\ 92008 391E14CAI700 ASIILAND STOllE.A.WIIILE LLC 3325 DARRELL DR MEDFORD, OR 9750 I 391EI4CD302 ASSOCIATION OF LOT OWNERSI I 122 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASIILAND, OR 97520 391EI4CD900 IlAITAILE CONNIE TRUSTEE ET 1216 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14CA2100 BELL VIEW CHURCH OF CHRIST 1033 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E23300 BERNARD JEFFREY PIIlERNARD D 2900 S HWY 99 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4D2402 BLACK STEVE 762 6TH ST GRANTS PASS. OR 97526 .. 391EI41lD4904 BONDlNELL CARL DA VIIl/RUTH A 2995 GRIZZLY DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4ACI01 IlRAMMO INC 695 MISTLETOE RD A ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI41lD2700 IlROWN MICHAEL D/REBEKAfI A 3000 DIANE ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4BD4510 BULLOCK KATHLEEN M 795 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4CAI09 BUNNELL COLIN 961 SPRING WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14D400 BUSTAMANTE CODY AlLAUREL E PO BOX 3431. ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4D4800 BYNUM lACK E IRlMARGARET E PO BOX 3357 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4BA2000 CAMPBELL PAMELA LEA 2741 TAKELMA IVY ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14D201 CAPSTONE ASSET MGNT CORP 1390 fRANK HILL RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI41lD4801 CEDAR fACE MARY lANE M 3005 NOVA DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4BD4505 CHENG PEGGY G I' 761 TOLMAN CR RD ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4BA2003 CLA Y CRK GARDENS OIVNRS ASSO 289 GRANITE ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI41l208 CLEAR CREEK INVESTMENTS LLC 1030 BENSON WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14BD4800 CLEPHANE ELLEN 13951 GREENHORN RD GRASS V ALLEY, CA 95945 391EI4BD701 COCHRAN BEN A 942 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4BD608 COMTE DONN 3 TRUSTEE ET AL 1751'IEDMONT DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4CAI00 COOK JEANETIE 990 SPRING II' A Y ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4BD2500 COOK RICHARD GOODYEAR PO BOX 692 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI41lD3000 COUNCIL BARBARA N 2970 DIANE ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4CA900 CROSS WILLIAM/PAULA GRElST 715 GRANDVIEIV DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 39IEfoIIlD800 CULLOM PRANCES W TRUSTEE ET 2515 SPRING HILL DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E 14CD2000 DAVID HARRY I ET AL 4550 UTILE APPLEGATE RD JACKSONVILLE. OR 97530 391EI4BD803 DA Y JAMES H1PAULA S MABRY 590 LONE OAKS LOOP SIL VERTON, OR 97381 391EI4CA3100 DE IlIlY DENNIS S 2475 SISKIYOU BLVD ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4D204 DIERKS STEVEN C TRUSTEE ET 815 POMPADOUR DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4D205 DIERKS STEVEN CIBARIlARA I S 1050 BENSON WAY ASIILAND, OR 97520 391EI4BD4501 DIETZ JAMES TRUSTEE ET AL 815 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4D215 DODDS STEPHEN T/REBEKAH K 1575 NEVADAST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4B04910 DRAPEAU DAVID P/SANDEE L 2145 RAVEN RD PLEASANTON, CA 94566 il91EI401100 DW.\I}I &, IP.'D llC YOI "\1g~II11! C WU1Tr1 ('ITY OR 97SO:l 391EI4CDI400 DYSSEGARO SUSAN S/ERIC A 1330 TOLEMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E 14CA200 ELLENSON FRANKLlN/KRISTY 950 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4CAII0 ELLIS WILLIAM H TRUSTEE ET 992 SPRING WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 170 391EI4BD4513 ESKENAZI VICTOR J/CARRIE B 798 CAPELLA CIR IISHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4CA2900 FLECK GERALD JlJOAN E 2445 SISKIYOU BLVD ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4BD4902 GAIlRlEL MARY . 677 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4CD800 GERSCHLER JAMES IV/HELEN M 1168 TOLMAN CR RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14CD1200. GOOD ROBERT IV/FREED LORI G 1272 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14CA5000 GREENIVOOD HOLLIS TRUSTEE ET 442 HOLLY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4CAII5 HAMILTON CREEK HOMEOIVNERS PO BOX 3209 ASHLAND, OR 97520 3911;;1 m2309 Ili.RRIS Ef.Rb TRUSTEE ET P.b 35 '"STbETUE 110 .'.SlIbf.NI:). 01\ 9~529 391EI4BD802 HERNANDEZ ANTHONY/ROBYN 2535 SPRING HILL DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI41lD602 HILL MICHELLE L TRUSTEE ETA 2522 OLD MILL IV A Y ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4BI)2.100 EXEL VOLKER 2977 BARBARA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4CAI05 FENSTER ELLEN S FAMILY TRST 4100 DEERIVOOD TRAIL MELBOURNE, FL32934 391E14CA3300 FRANTZ LAURA 1051 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4BD806 FRIRES LAURENCE C 948 SPRING IVAY ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4BD4909 GALLI DOROTHY B TRUSTEE ET 572 ADAMS RD FAYETTEVILLE, GA30214 391EI4CA8200 GENTIS CHRISTINE H E PO BOX 688 MEDPORD, OR 9750 I 39!E14CA4600 GERSCHLER JEFFREY S/LlNDA D 2520 EAGLE CREEK LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 391"1 mllOO CESSbER IIAZEb ET . '.b 295 MISTbETOE liD ,I~IILMID, Oil 97529 391EI41lD807 GRA Y JOHN RICHARD TRSTE FBO 408 FRIENDSIIIP ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4BD4925 GIIEEN ANDIIEIV IUGREEN KA nlER 125 130TH DR SOUTH BEACH, OR 97366 391 E 14D6oo GRIMES FLOYD IV/JULIA A 647 CROIVSON RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI41lD901 HAIlERFELD EVA 2530 SPRING IIILL DR ASIILAND, OR 97520 391EI4BD606 HAMILTON PLACE I.LC 175 PIEDMONT DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI41lDI000 HARDING PENNY IImDINE 3000 IlARBARA ST ASHLAND. OR 97520 391E14CA4500 HEBERT CLIFTON ET AI. 2540 EAGLE CREEK RD ASIILAND, OR 97520 391EI4CAI02 IIELLER JOEL A 2326 GREENMEADOIVS ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI41lD401 HEYERMAN ROIlERTIIlARBARA 555 CAROL ST ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI41lD403 HEYERMAN RYLANfTAISIA 770 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASIILAND, OR 97520 391E14D700 . HMC THREE LLC 87 MACREADY DR MERCED, CA 95340 391EI4BD4700 I.IOLGEN MARY A 2995 NOVA DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 171 391E14CAI04 HOLSTEIN SANDRAJIMICIIAEL E 228 WEST ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4BD604 HOLTZMAN JENNIFER M 2200 S OLD HWY 99 ASIILAND, OR 97520 391E23BAI02 HOPFINGER CARL M TRUSTEE ET 1340 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4BD4300 HOYE DAVID 70 SUNCREST RD TALENT, OR 97540 391EI4CD303 HUGGINS JENA 1122 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND. OR 97520 . 391EI4CAI12 HUGGINS KEVIN A 959 DREW LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E 14BD4903 IIUNTER HOWARDJ 3005 GRIZZLY DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4CA5200 HUTCHINGS PHILIP Il 2408 SISKIYOU BLVD ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4BA700 WCO DEVELOPMENT CORP 640 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4BD2600 JAMES JACK E TRUSTEE 2999 BARBARA ST ,ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI41lA2101 JAYNE ROBERT A TRUSTEE ET A 274 MOUNTAIN AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14D4600 JENKINS ALVIN IUPATSY K 672 CROWSON RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4CA3000 JOHNSON KRISTA 1348 PROSPECT ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14CA4400 KAIIRENE TRUSTEE ET AL 2560 EAGLE CREEK LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4CA300 KAUFMAN DA VIDIJAMIE D 2305-C ASHLAND ST PMIl 420 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4CDIOO , KENNEDY KATHERINE M TRUSTEE 132 GREENWAY CIR MEDFORD, OR 97504 3911i1 1ll23l>> K~~lnIHR HI[lHA J I' 0 \lOX 2677 COST.'. W;SA, Co'. 92628 391EI41lD2800 KINNAMON TED CILORR^,NE 29 LONE PINE AVE FREEDOM. CA 95019 391EI4CAI13 KNECHT ALEXANDER CIKONNY L PO BOX 3209 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 II IIC:\ 1399 KNIlCHT GEIlALD R TIIlJ8TIiE 111 CpUJM~T '''R SAJl-1 .A.~ISgLM9, C l 919l'iG 391EI4ACI000 KNOX MARK I. ET AI. 700 MISTLETOE RD 106 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4BD405 LA WIlENCE 1\lIONDA I. 136 MOUNTAIN AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 39 IE 14BD4504 LA WTON IlANDALIINES DIEZ 775 TOLMAN CIlEEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4AD7500 LE ROY PATRICK NIANN YVElTE 450 TIMIlEIlLAKE DR ASIILAND, OR 97520 391EI4D209 LEFORS DAVID PI JAYNE M 4024 SIERIlA DR HONOLULU, III 96816 391EI4D2601 LESLEY NOEL A TRUSTEE FBO 2630 SISKIYOU BLVD ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4D2701 LESLEY NOEL NMAR Y C 2630 SISKIYOU BLVD ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14BD404 I.INSDA Y PHILLlPISIIELLEY 357 ALTA AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4CAI800 L1VNIINVESTMENTCOMPANY LL 2532 OLD MILL WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E14CA4900 LOFTUS ELLEN L 1131 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND, Oil 97520 172 391EI4BAI906 LOVETJ' RICIIARD PAUL TRUSTEE 1'0 BOX 42i ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4AC400 MACLELLAN ROBERT 3126STATEST200 MEDFORD, OR 97504 391E14CA5600 MARTIN MARGARET METAL 930 BELL VIEW AVE ASHLAND. OR 97520 391E14D210 MB TERMINAL COMPANY PO BOX 3595 ASHLAND. OR 97520 391E14CA4100 MCDONALD TREVOR 13240 POONKINNEY RD DOS RIOS, CA 95429 391 E 14CA 106 MILDBRANDT DA VID/BILLEE 972 SPRING WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14CDI300 MORRIS ROBERT GENE TRUSTEE 1300 TOLMAN CR RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4AB2100 NEUMAN PROPERTIES & DEVELOP 735 JEFFERSON AVE ASHLAND. OR 97520 391 E 14A1J7200 OCHOA MATTHEW ET AL 660 WASHINGTON ST ASIILAND. OR 97520 391EI4D4500 PARSONS LORIN E 628 CROWSON RD ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4BD4900 LUNDQUIST MITCHELL D 678 CUll CIRCLE ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14BD2300 MACFARLANE HELEN 118 HILLTOP RD TALENT. OR 97540 391EI4BD4901 MANNION DORIS E 673 TOLMAN CR RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4CA3400 MANZONE RUSSELL V/JOANN VIO 249 HILLCREST RD ASHLAND. OR 97520 391 E23702 MARTINAITIS LOUIS TRUSTEE E 1725 RAINBOW 16-191 LAS VEGAS, NV 89146 391E23101 MAY KENNETH LlDARLENE 2946 SISKIYOU BLVD ASHLANIJ. OR 97520 391E14DI02 MBZ I.LC 311 HOLLYST MEDFORD, OR 97501 391EI4CAI900 MC KELVEY KEVIN K1D1ANE 0 1'0 BOX 3451 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14BD4927 MCQUOID KIM AILEEN TRUSTEE 673 CUB CIR ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14BD4926 MERCER MARGARET J 670 CUB CIRCLE ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14BD4908 MILLER FREDRICK FIDONNA M 2990 GRIZZLY DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4AC600 MORRIS ROBERT GENE TRUSTEE PO BOX 850 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14BD200 MOUNTAINS AND RIVERS WAY LL 740 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4CA2000 MUROKI VALERIE ET AL 1001 TOI.MAN CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 EI4BD2900 NGUYEN-DUY PIPO/E GO/vlllART 2978 IJIANE ST fISIILAND, OR 97520 391EI4BA700 NSPIRED NATURAL FOODS 710 JEFFERSON AVE ASHLAND. OR 97520 391"IIB9199 OREGml n.'.TE OF UNKNO'i.'N \!NK@WN-() 391EI4D207 OWENS THOMAS P 495 FERNWOOD DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E141l2500 PATRIDGE WILLIAM C/BARBARA 295 MAIN ST I ASIII.AND. OR 97520 391EI4BD4506 PAUL DON/RITA J 752 CAPELLA CIR ASHLAND, OR 97520 173 391EI4BD804 PECK JOSEPH W/SUSAN G 936 SPRING WAY ASHLAND. OR 97520 39IEI4CAII I PERKINS EDWARD L/ELEANORE B I' 0 BOX 8 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14BD4400 I'P1STER DANIEL/MARIA 2999 DIANE ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4CDlI00 PHILHOWER MARK EILEFA Y SHAN 1244 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4CDJ06 PHILLlPS JAMES JOSEI'll TRUST 1130 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4B0300 POPE CHARLOTIE L 750 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4BD4100 POSTON JEANETIE M 283 HIGH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4CA4200 POWELl. GERALD F TRUSTEE ET 2565 EAGLE CREEK LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4BD4712 POWELL MARK W/SUSANNE H 2974 NOVA DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4CD500 391EI4CA3800 391EI4BD400 ... PULSIPHER NANCY S RAMOS ROBERTO/MARIA RA YNOLDS DAVID ALLAN FERNAN 1148 S TOLMAN CREEK RD 1002 TOLMAN CREEK RD 1136 ANDERSON CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 TALENT, OR 97540 I I i I 391E14BD4714 391EI4CDI602 391E14AC200 . , REECE-SULLIVAN MARII.YN/M A RETlZ TONY TRUSTEE ET AL REZEK RONALD ! 1997 TOLMAN CR RD 2695 MICKELSON WAY 709 WASHINGTON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND. OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 , I I 391EI4CDI500 391EI411D500 39 1E14D2 II I RICIIARDS PATRICIA NPAUL RICKERSON PAUL/OSTOV AR GOLY ROOKLYN DALE THOMAS TRUSTEE i 1345 ROMEO DR 502 FAIRVIEW 137 SEVENTH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4CA4800 391EI4CA3900 391E14BD4701 ROTH JAMES A TRUSTEE RUFI LAURA SALTER ERNEST K TRUSTEE 3231 TOLMAN CREEK RD 2525 EAGLE CREEK LN 2971 NOVA DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND. OR 97520 ASHLAND. OR 97520 391.:llDI5QO S;\.V:\GE S.\l'IDR:\ M 277 MIHU;WH Rg .\~HL.\}ID, OR 97520 391 E 14CA3500 SA YBLE ALLEN ERIC 821 HILLVIEW DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14DI800 . SB DEVELOPMENT LLC I' 0 BOX 609 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14C1\4700 SCIIOOL DIST#5 885 SISKIYOU BLVD ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4CA700 SCHWEIGER JOHN C TRUSTEE ET PO BOX 3520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4BDlI00 SCOTI M LEE/SANDRA A 2990 BARBARA ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E 14CA8000 SEVERSON MARK D/I'EGGY I. 2500 SISKIYOU BLVD ASIILAND. OR 97520 391EI4CD304 SHADLE STANLEY FfCORNELlA I. 1126 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4CAI14 SHAPERO RICHARD I'TRUSTEE 216 EDGEHILL DR SAN CARLOS, CA 94070 174 391EI4CDI000 SHOSTROM DALE 1240 TOLMAN CREEK IUJ ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E 14CD400 SISKIYOU TOWNHOUSES LLC 515 E MAIN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4CAI03 SMITH IDA L 25j I EAGLE CREEK LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 39 IE 14CA3700 SMUCKER LEONARD L TRUSTEE E 1004 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4CDJ08 SNYDER DENNIS C/HARRIET IV 1330 ASHLAND MINE RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI41lD900 STILES K G PO BOX 1124 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4CA5100 STORM ERIC/BENEDlKTE 698 ASHLAND LN ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4BD4713 SUDEROV ANALlSA G 2990 NOVA DR ASIILAND, OR 97520 391EI4D216 SOPER lOR PROPERTIES LLC 6581 GRIFFIN CREEK RD MEDFORD, OR 9750 I 391 E23404 THOMAS CON~'T ANCE M 2305 ASHLAND ST C 213 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI41J212 THOMAS DANIEL JET AI. 897 OAK KNOLL ASIILAND. OR 97520 391EI4BD4905 TOLMAN CREEK MEADOWS INC 670 CUB CIR ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4BDI200 391E14CAI07 391EI4CA2700 TOPPO UGO J/LAUREN E VIDMAR JOSEPH A TROSTEE ET VINEYARD JESSICA ET AI. 2978 BARBARA ST 953 SPRING WA Y 1509 TALENT AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND. OR 97520 TALENT, OR 97540 391 E 14CA5500 391EI4BD805 391EI4AD7300 VOGEL CARL E TRUSTEE WilT LAWRENCE EIMARIE R WOLFF DONALD H 924 BELL VIEW AVE POBOX 6429 760 WASHINGTON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 BROOKINGS, OR 97415 ASIILAND, OR 97520 391EI4AB2200 391EI4BD4502 391E23701 YERBA PRIMA INC ZANE SUSAN ZEVE LlNCOLN/DENEICE 740 JEFFERSON AVE 759 TOLMAN CREEK RD 2710 SISKIYOU BLVD I ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND. OR 97520 I i Paul Steinle I DAVIS BRUCE MICHELSON MARY KAY i 4120 DOUGLAS BLVD. #306-123 2810 DIANE Provost's Office, SOU , GRANITE BAY, CA 95746 ASHLAND. OR 97520 1250 Siskiyou Blvd I Ashland, OR 97520 I Richard Ilendrickson Eric Navickas Russ Chapman I i 444 Monte Vista Dr 363 II, Iowa SI [700akSt I Ashlnnd, OR 97520 Ashland. OR 97520 Ashland, OR 97520 , I Keith Swink 1655 Peachc)' Rd Ashland, OR 97520 Graham I.ewis 152 N Pioneer Rd Ashland, OR 97520 Jim Lewis 640 A Street Ashland, OR 97520 175 Lnrry Blnke 411 Briscoe PI Ashlnnd, OR 97520 David Wilkerson 1120 Barrington Circle Ashlnnd, OR 97520 Matt Warshawsky 821 Indlnnn St Ashlnnd, OR 97520 Kerry KenCairn 545 A Street Ashlnnd, OR 97520 Pam llammond 632 Wnlnut SI Ashlnnd, OR 97520 CRAFFr PAUL 45 WIMER ST. ASIILAND, OR 97520 AUFERIIEIDE 321 N MOUNTAIN AVE. APT. A ASHLAND, OR 97520 .. 176 Crandall Armbula 520 SW Yamhill, Roof Suite 4 POItland, OR 97204 Larry Ksionzyk Dept. Land Conservation & Development 635 Capitol SI. NE, Suite 150 Salem, OR 97301-2564 Paige Townsend 3200 Crater Lake Ave. Medford, OR 97504 Ma.'( Rosenberg Oregon Department of Environmentnl Quality 725 SE Main Roseburg. OR 97470 in Christman "20 . nber Lake Dr. Ashland, 97520 RETURNED Jeff Gerschler 2520 Eagle Creek Lane Ashland, OR 97520 Mary ay Michelson 2810Di Ie Ashland, 97520 Mike Montero ~ 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 150 Medford, OR 97504 Ashland Warehouse Partnership 0 PO Box 43 Medford, OR 97501 John RCIIZ Dept. Land Conservation & Development 155 N firstS!. PO Box 3275 Centmt Poinl, OR 97502 David Pyles ODOT, Region 3 100 Antelope Road White City, OR 97503 Steve Maluk TDM Planner 3200 Crater Lake Ave. Medford, OR 97504 Bob Melbo ODOT Rail Division 555 13m Street NE, Suite 3 Salem, OR 97301-4179 Bruce Davis ... 4120 Douglas Blvd. #306-123 Granite Bay, CA 95746 Rylan Taisia Heyerman 770 Toh n Creek Rd. Ashland,O 97520 Ashland Chamber of Commerce Sandra Slattery PO Box 1360 Ashland, OR 97520 Chris Galpin . 744 Cardley Avenue Medford, OR 97505 Alex 'Konny Knecht PO Bo~ 209 Ash land, R 97520 177 Matt Crall Dept. Land Conservation & Development 635 Capitol St. NE, Suite 150 Salem, OR 97301-2564 John McDonald Oregon Department of Transportation 3500 NW Stewart Parkway . Roseburg, OR 97470 Juli DiChiro Superintendent 885 Siskiyou Blvd. Ashland, OR 97520 John Becker 221 Stewart Ave. Suite 201 Medford, OR 97501 Del is Debay 2475 . kiyou Blvd. Ashland, 97520 Larry Holzgang OEDD 317 Soulh 7'h Street Room #231 Klamath Falls, OR 9760 I Kaufimmll Group Dwaill Cross I Bud Kaufmann Owain & Bud LLC 801 Avenue C. White Cit)', OR 97503 .; Urban Development Services Mark Dirienzo t\'lnrk Knox 550 Mistleloe Rd. Suile 201 Ashland, OR 97520 Charles Keltenring ODOT Rail Division - Crossing Manager 555 13'" Street NE, Suite 3 Salem, OR 9730 1-4179 Jeff Griffin Economic Revitalization Team PO Box 3275 Central Point, OR 97502 Earl Han'is Trustee 35 Mistletoe Road Ashland, OR 97520 . Sandra Savage 277 Mistletoe Road Ashland, OR 97520 . Donn J Comte Trustee . 175 Piedmont Drive Ashland, OR 97520 Colleen Padilla SORED! 673 Market Street Medford, OR 97504 Southern Oregon University Liz Shelby Governmental Relntions 1250 Siskiyou Illvd. Ashland, OR 97520 Thomas Hogue Economic Development Planning DLCD 635 Capitol Street NE Suite 150 Salem, Oregon 97301-2540 Debbie Price Oregon Housing and Community Services 725 SE Main Sl. Roseburg, OR 97470 Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad 333 SE Mosher Rosebnrg, OR 97470 . Wilma Kentner PO Box 2677 Costa Mesa CA, 92628 Hazel Gessler ET AL 295 Mistletoe Road Aslmlnd, OR 97520 . Op Heyerman 760 T lan Creek Rd. Ashland, 97520 LA WRENCE 790 TOLMAN CREEK RD. ASHLAND, OR 97520 Plexis Heallhcare Systems Jorge Yant, CEO 385 Williamson Way Ashland, OR 97520 178 Pam Lucas Business Manager 885 Siskiyou Blvd. Ashland, OR 97520 Craig and Michelle Black . PO Box 969 Ashland OR, 97520 Andre L. Anderson PO Box 3577 Ashland, OR 97520 . Gerald Knecht Trustee · 114 Calumet Ave. San Anselmo, CA 94960 Adroit Construction . Steve Lawrence I Bob Mayers 185 Mistletoe Road Ashland, OR 97520 KRUESI JOHN · 148 GREENWAY CIRCLE MEDFORD, OR 97504 Thrive Wendy Seporen 340 A Street, Suite205 Ashland, OR 97520 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON County of Jackson The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On December 21, 2009 I caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action #2009-01292, Measure 56 notice for the Croman Mill District Master Plan. C1~) J;1;1/~dlh2~ Sign at. e of Employee Comm-Oev\Plannlng\Templates 179 · deSl~nctf~s 391E23104 217 E 10TH STREET ASSOCCIA T 1725 RAINBOW 1-191 LAS VEGAS, NV 89146391E23704 217 E 391EI4AC700 ASHLAND PROPERTY INVESTORS' 670 SUPERIOR CT STE 110 MEDFORD. OR 97504 391EI4ACI900 · ASHLAND WAREHOUSE PARTNRSHP 1'0 BOX 43 MEDFORD. OR 97501 391EI4BD4514 IlAGSHA W JON E TRUSTEE ET AL 176 CAPELLA CIR ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4BD4200 BAXTER JOHN R/WEISHElPL KEL 595 RAY LN ASHLAND. OR 97520 391 E 14CA3600 BELLVIEW GRANGE 759 POBOX385 ASHLAND. OR 97520 391 EI4CD700 BERNARD VICKI 1154 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI41lDI300 BLOUNT MARLO DEAN 2970 BARBARA ST ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4CAI08 BONE'ITI ERIC I' 175 PIEDMONT DR ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI40200 BRAMSCHER CRAIG ET AI. 1525 BUENA VISTA SAN CLEMENTE. CA 92672 -t-J,t1$(I!. {nwl rt'.c~;ve.J Me..e?6ure 56 n()-!-/ 391EII02200 f.NDERSON ,'.NDRIH, PO flOX 3517 ASHLAND. OR 97520 .. 391EI4D2100 ASHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT #5 885 SISKIYOU BLVD ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4D500 ASPEN ASH LLC 425 10TH AVE 306 PORTLAND. OR 97209 391 EI4CA2400 BALLEW DON TRUSTEE ET AI. 9722 ARANT RD KLAMATH FALLS. OR 976tl3 ( 391EI4D4900 BELLIN SON BENJAMIN NLlNDA 2760 SISKIYOU BLVD ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4D4100 BERGERSEN MARTIN I. 2815 SISKIYOU BLVD ASHLAND. OR 97520 ... 391E14D2401 BLACK CRAIG W/MICHELLE PO BOX 969 ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4BD600 BOGUE JOHN TRUSTEE ET AL 2512 OLD MILL WAY ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4CD600 BOUNDS REX B/JERALDINE R 1150 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND. OR 97520 391E23BAI00 BROMBAClIER lACllARY TRUSTEE 1370 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND. OR 97520 180 -rh e. Cb 391EI4AB2000 ARO PARTNERS 10 I 5 CHESTNUT AVE 8TE A3 CARLSBAD. CA 92008 391EI4CAI700 ASHLAND STORE-A-WHILE LLC 3325 DARRELL DR MEDFORD. OR 97501 391EI4CD302 ASSOCIATION OF LOT OWNERSI 1122 TOLMAN CREEK RD . ASHLAND. OR 97520 391E14CD900 BAnAILE CONNIE TRUSTEE ET 1216 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4CA2100 IlELLVIEW CHURCH OF CHRIST 1033 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E23300 BERNARD JEFFREY P/BERNARD D 2900 S HWY 99 ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4D2402 BLACK STEVE 762 6TH ST GRANTS PASS. OR 97526 .. 391EI41lD4904 BONDINELL CARL DA VID/RUTII A 2995 GRlllL Y DR ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4ACI01 BRAMMO INC 695 MISTLETOE RIJ A ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4B02700 BROWN MICHAEL D/REIlEK/\11 A 3000 mANE ST ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4BD4510 BULLOCK KATHLEEN M 795 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4CAI09 BUNNELL COLIN 96J,SPRING WAY ASHLAND. OR 97520 391E14D400 BUSTAMANTE CODY A/LAUREL E PO BOX 3431 ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4D4800 BYNUM JACK E JRlMARGARET E 1'0 BOX 3357 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14BA2000 CAMPBELL PAMELA LEA 2741 TAKELMA IVY IISHLAND. OR 97520 391[;14D201 CAPSTONE ASSET MGNT CORP 1390 FRANK HILL RD ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4BD4801 CEDAR FACE MARY JANE M 3005 NOVA DR ASIILAND. OR 97520 391 E 14BD4505 CHENG PEGGY G P 761 TOLMAN CR RD ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4BA2003 CLAY CRK GARDENS OWNRS ASSO 289 GRANITE ST ASHLAND. OR 97520 391E14D208 CLEAR CREEK INVESTMENTS LLC 1030 BENSON WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4BD4800 . CLEPHANE ELLEN 13951 GREENHORN RD GRASS V ALLEY, CA 95945 391EI4BD701 COCHRAN BEN A 942 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E 14BD608 COMTE DONN J TRUSTEE ET AL 175 I'IEDMONT DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4CAI00 COOK JEANETrE 990 SPRING IV A Y ASHLAND. OR 97520 39 IE 14BD2500 COOK RICHARD GOODYEAR PO BOX 692 ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4BD3000 COUNCil. BARBARA N 2970 DIANE ST ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4CA900 CROSS WILLIAM/PAULA GRElST 715 GRANDVIEW DR ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4BD800 CULLOM FRANCES IV TRUSTEE ET 2515 SPRING HILL DR ASIILAND. OR 97520 391EI4CD2000 DAVID HARRY I ET AI. 4550 L1TrLE APPLEGATE RD JACKSONVILLE. OR 97530 391 E 14BD803 DA Y JAMES II/PAULA S MABRY 590 LONE OAKS LOOP SII. VERTON. OR 97381 391EI4CA3100 DE BEY DENNIS S 2475 SISKIYOU BLVD ASHLAND. OR 97520 391 E 140204 IJIERKS STEVEN C TRUSTEE ET 8151'0MPADOURDR ASHLAND. OR 97520 391E14D205 DIERKS STEVEN CIBARIlARA J S 1050 BENSON WAY ASIILAND, OR 97520 391EI4BD4501 DIETZ JAMES TRUSTEE ET AI. 815 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND. OR 97520 391E14D215 DODDS STEPHEN T/REIlEKAH K 1575 NEV ADA ST ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI41lD4910 DRAPEAUDA VID F/SANDEE L 2145 RAVEN RD PLEASANTON. CA 94566 .;glP:ldnllnn DW.\ltl I. QUg bl.C YO! A"Ii:~!lI~ C' WMlT(..' ('ITV OR Q7'iOl 391EI4CDI400 DYSSEGARD SUSAN S/ERIC A 1330 TOLEMAN CREEK 1m ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4CA200 ELLENSUN FRANKLlNIKRISTY 950 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND. OR 97520 . 391EI4CAI 10 ELLIS IVILI.IAM H TRUSTEE ET 992 SPRING WAY ASHLAND. OR 97520 181 391EI41lD4513 ESKENAZI VICTOR J/CARRIE Il 798 CAPELLA CIR ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4CA2900 FLECK GERALD J/JOAN E 2445 SISKIYOU IJLVD ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4IJD4902 GABRIEL MARY 677 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4CD800 GERSCIII.ER JAMES W/HELEN M 1168 TOLMAN CR RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4CDI200 GOOD ROBERT W/FREED LORI G 1272 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14CA5000 GREENWOOD HOLLIS TRUSTEE ET 442 HOLL Y ST ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4CAI15 HAMILTON CREEK HOMEOIVNERS PO BOX 3209 ASHLAND. OR 97520 .l91HIIIJ2.l09 II,^,RRIS HAIII. TRUSTEE liT AL 35 MIHLETOE RD ASIILf.ND. OR 97520 391 E I4BD802 HERNANDEZ ANTfIONYIIlOBYN 2535 SPRING HILI. DR ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4IJD602 1111.1. MICHELLE L TRUSTEE ETA 2522 OLD MILL WAY ASIILAND. OIl 97520 391EI4BD2400 EXEL VOLKER 2977 BARIJARA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4CAI05 FENSTER ELLEN S FAMILY TRST 4100 DEERWOODTRAIL MELlJOURNE. FL 32934 391EI4CA3300 FRANTZ LAURA 1051 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASIILAND. OR 97520 391E14BD806 miRES LAURENCE C 948 SPRING WAY ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI41l1H909 GALLI DOROTHY IJ TRUSTEE ET 572 ADAMS RD FAYETTEVILLE. GA 30214 391E14C/\8200 GENTlS CHRISTINE II E PO Il0X 688 MEDFORD. OR 97501 391E14CA4600 GERSCHLER JEFFREY S/LlNDA D 2520 EAGLE CREEK LN ASHLAND. OR 97520 391.1191100 GHSSU!:R II A Z~b. eT '\1. J9~ MIETl.liTOIl RD ASIIL.^,~ID. OR 91520 391EI4IJD807 GRA Y JOliN RICHARD TRSTE FIlO 408 FRIENDSHIP ST ASHLAND. OR 97520 391E141lD4925 GREEN ANDREW R1GREEN KA TIlER 125 130TH DR SOUTH IJEACH. OR 97366 391EI4D600 GRIMES FLOYD W/JULlA A 647 CROWSON RD ASIILAND, OR 97520 391EI41lD901 HAIlERFELD EVA 2530 SPRING IIILL DR ASIILAND. OR 97520 391EI4BD606 HAMILTON PLACE LLC 175 PIEDMONT DR ASHLAND. OR 97520 391E14BD1000. HARDING PENNY MODINE 3000 BARBARA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4CM500 HEIlERT CLIFTON ET AL 2540 EAGLE CREEK RD ASIII.AND. OR 97520 391EI4CAI02 HELLER JOEL A 2326 GREENMEADOWS ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4BD401 IIEYERMAN ROBERTIIJARBARA 555 CAROL ST ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4IJD403 HEYERMAN R YI.ANrrAISIA 770 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASIILAND. OR 97520 391E14D700 . HMC HIREE LLC 87 MAC READY DR MERCED. CA ')5340 391EI4IJD4700 HOLGEN MAR Y A 2995 NOVA DR ASIILAND. OR 97520 182 391EI4CAI04 1I0l.STElN SANDRA J/MIGIAEL E 228 WEST ST ASHl.AND. OR 97j20 391EI4BD4300 1I0YE DAVID 70 SUN CREST RD l' Al.ENT, OR 97j40 391EI4BD4903 HUNTER HOWARDJ 300j GRIZZl. Y DR ASHl.AND. OR 97j20 391EI4BD2600 JAMES JACK E TRUSTEE 2999 BARBARA ST ASIll.AND. OR 97j20 3'IIE14CA3000 JOHNSON KRISTA 1348 PROSPECT ST ASIIl.AND. OR 97520 391EI4CDl00 KENNEDY KATHERINE M TRUSTEE 132 GREENWAYCIR MEDFORD, OR 97j04 391EI4CAI13 KNECIIT ALEXANDER C/KONNY l. PO BOX 3209 ASHl.AND. OR 97520 391E14BD40j LA WRENCE RIIONDA l. 136 MOUNTAIN AVE ASHl.AND. OR 97520 391EI4D209 LEFORS DA VID PI JA YNE M 4024 SIERRA DR 1I0NOLUl.lJ. III 96816 391EI4BD404 I.INSDAY I'HILl.II'/SIJEl.LEY 357 Al.TA AVE ASIIl.AND. OR 97520 391 E 14BD604 HOl. TZMAN JENNIFER M 2200 S Ol.D IIWY 99 ASHl.AND. OR 9n20 391 E23BA 1 02 IIOI'FINGER CARL M TRUSTEE ET 1340 TOl.MAN CREEK RD ASIILAND. OR 97520 . 39 IE 14CD303 HUGGINS lENA 1122 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4CAI12 HUGGINS KEVIN A 959 DREW I.N ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4CA5200 IIUTCIIINGS 1'1111.11' B 2408 SISKIYOU Bl. VD ASHLAND. OR 97520 391E14BA700 IPCO DEVELOPMENT CORP 640 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASIlLAND. OR 97520 391EI4BA2101 JAYNE ROBERT A TRUSTEE ET A 274 MOUNTAIN AVE ASHLAND. OR 97j20 391EI4D4600 JENKINS Al.VIN IUI'ATSY K 672 CROWSON RD ASHLAND, OR 97j20 391EI4CA4400 KAIIRENF. TRUSTEE ET AL 2560 EAOl.E CREEK l.N ASHl.AND. OR 97j20 391EI4CA300 KAUFMAN DA VIDIJAMIE D 230j.C ASHLAND ST PMB 420 ASIIl.AND. OR 97j20 391EI m2301 KENTNER WIL1>.4:\ J I' 0 BOX 2.77 COST J. M~SJ.. C.'. 92.28 391E14BD2800 KINNAMON TED C/l.ORRAINE 29 l.ONE PINE AVE FREEDOM. CA 95019 39IEIIC.',1309 K~IECHT GHR.~Ul R TRlJSTEE +!4-(;AWMJl+.A.l,tI; S.'.~I MISlll.1>.40. ('i. 9'1980 391EI4ACIOOO KNOX MARK l. ET Al. 700 MISTl.ETOE RD 106 ASHl.AND, OR 97520 391EI4BD4504 LA WTON RANDAl.IINES DIEZ 775 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASIILAND. OR 97520 391EI4AD7jOO l.E ROY PATRICK NIANN YVETm 450 TIMBERLAKE DR ASHl.AND. OR 97520 391EI4D2601 I.ESLEY NOEL A TRUSTEE I'[JO 2630 SISKIYOU Bl.VD ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4D2701 LESLEY NOEL NMAR Y (' 2630 SISKIYOU BLVD ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4CAI800 . L1VNIINVESTMENT COMPANY LL 2532 OLD MILL WAY ASHLAND. OR 97520 391E14CA4900 l.OFTUS ELLEN l. 1131 TOl.MAN CREEK RD ASHLAND. OR 97j20 183 391EI4BAI906 LOVETI' RICHARD PAUL TRUSTEE 1'0 BOX 427 ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4BD4900 LUNDQUIST MITCHELL D 678 CUB CIRCLE ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14BD2300 MACFARLANE HELEN 118111LLTOl'RD TALENT. OR 97540 39 1 EI4AC400 MACLELl.AN ROBERT 3126 STATE ST 200 MEDFORD. OR 97504 39ml4BD4901 MANNION DORIS E 673 TOLMAN CR RD ASHl.AND. OR 97520 391EI4CA3400 MANZONE RUSSELL V/JOANN VIO 249 HILLCREST RD ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4CA5600 MARTIN MARGARET M ET AL 930 BELl.VIEW AVE ASHLAND. OR 97520 39 I E23702 MARTINAITIS LOUIS TRUSTEE E 1725 RAINBOW 16.191 LAS VEGAS, NV 89146 391E23101 MA Y KENNETH L1DARLENE 2946 SISKIYOU BLVD ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4D21O Mn TERMINAL COMPANY 1'0 BOX 3595 ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4DI02 MBZ LLC 311 HOLLYST MEDFORD, OR 97501 391EI4CAI900 Me: KELVEY KEVIN KID lANE D 1'0 BOX 3451 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4CMI00 MCDONALD TREVOR 13240 I'OONKINNEY RD DOS RIDS. CA 95429 391E14BD4927 MCQUOID KIM AILEEN TRUSTEE 673 CUB CIR ASHLAND. OR 97520 391E14BD4926 MERCER MARGARET J 670 CUB CIRCLE ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4CAI06 MILDBRANDT DA VIDIIlILLEE 972 SPRING WAY ASHLAND. OR 97520 391 EI4BD4908 MILLER FREDRICK F/DONNA M 2990 GRIZZLY DR ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4AC600 MORRIS ROBERT GENE TRUSTEE PO BOX 850 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14CD1300 MORRIS ROBERT GENE TRUSTEE 1300 TOLMAN CR RD ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4BD200 MOUNTAINS AND RIVERS WAY LL 740 TOLMAN CREEK 1m ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4CA2000 MUROKI VALERIE ET AL 1001 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND. OR 97520 391E14AB2100 NEUMAN PROPERTIES & DEVELOP 735 JEFFERSON AVE ASHLAND. OR 97520 , 391EI4BD2900 NGUYEN.DUY I'II'O/E GOMBART 2978 DIANE ST ASHLAND. Oil 97520 391EI4BA700 NSPIRED NATURAL FOODS 71OJEFFEIlSON AVE ASHLAND. Oil 97520 391E14AD7200 OCHOA MATTIIEW ET AL (,{,O WASHINGTON ST ASIILAND.OIl97520 J91J<IIQ9IQQ ORBGO~I ST;\TB OF UNKNOWN UNKNOWN Q 391E14D207 OWENS THOMAS I' 495 FEIlNWOOD DR ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4D4500 I'ARSONS LORIN E 628 CROWSON IlD ASIILAND. Oil 97520 391EI41l2500 PATRIDGE WILl.IAM CIIJARBAIlA 295 MAIN ST I ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4BD4506 PAUL DON/RITA J 752 CAPELLA CIIl ASHLAND. OR 97520 184 391EI413D804 PECK JOSEPH W/SUSAN G 936 SPRING WAY ASHLAND. OR 97520 391 EI4CDII00 PfIILHOWER MARK E/LEFA Y SHAN 1244 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASIILAND. OR 97520 391EI413D4100 I'OSTON JEANElTE M 283 HIGII ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14CD500 PULSIPflER NANCY S 1148 S TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI413D4714 REECE-SULLIVAN MARIL YNlM A 1997 TOLMAN CR RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4CDI500 RICHARDS PATRICIA NPAUL 1345 ROMEO DR ASHLAND. OR 97520 391E14CA4800 ROTH JAMES A TRUSTEE 3231 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND. OR 97520 3911':1101500 >::'.Vf.G~ >:A~lDR.\ r1 277 ~lIHlIlTOE R9 "SIILAND. OR 97520 391E14CA4700 SCHOOL D1ST #5 885 SISKIYOU BLVD ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4CA8000 SEVERSON MARK D/PEGGY L 2500 SISKIYOU BLVD ASIILAND. OR 97520 .391E14CAIII PERKINS EDWARD L/ELEANORE 13 I' 0 BOX 8 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4CDJ06 PHILLIPS JAMES JOSEI'll TRUST 1130 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND. OR 97520 391E14CA4200 POWELL GERALD F TRUSTEE ET 2565 EAGLE CREEK LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4CA3800 RAMOS ROBERTO/MARIA 1002 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4CDI602 RETIZ TONY TRUSTEE ET AL 2695 MICKELSON WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4BD5oo RICKERSON PAUL/OSTOVAR GOLY 502 FAIRVIEW ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4CA3900 RUFI LAURA 2525 EAGLE CREEK LN ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4CA3500 SA YI3LE ALLEN ERIC 821 HILLVIEW DR ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4CA700 SCHWEIGER JOliN C TRUSTEE ET 1'0 BOX 3520 ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4CD304 SHADLE STANI.EY F/CORNEI.IA L 1126 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND. OR 97520 185 391EI413D4400 PFISTER DANIEL/MARIA 2999 DIANE ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI413D3OO POPE CHARLOTTE L 750 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4BD4712 POWELL MARK W/SUSANNE H 2974 NOVA DR ASIILAND, OR 97520 391EI4BD400 ... RA YNOLDS DA VIO ALLAN FERNAN 1136 ANDERSON CREEK RD TALENT, OR 97540 391EI4AC200 REZEK RONALD 709 WASIIINGTON ST ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4D211 ROOKL YN DALE TIIOMAS TRUSTEE 137 SEVENTH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E 14BD470 I SALTER ERNEST K TRUSTEE 2971 NOVA DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4DI800 ... S8 DEVELOPMENT LLC I' 0 BOX 609 ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4BDII00 SCOlT M LEE/SANDRA A. 2990 BARI3ARA ASIIl.AND. OR 97520 391EI4CAII4 SHAPERO RICHARD I' TRUSTEE 216 EDGEll ILL DR SAN CARLOS. CA 94070 391EI4CDI000 SHOSTROM DALE 1240 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4CA3700 SMUCKER LEONARD L TRUSTEE E 1004 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4CA5100 STORM ERIC/BENEDlKTE 698 ASHLAND LN ASHLAND. OR 97520 391 E23404 TlIOMAS CONSTANCE M 2305 ASHLAND ST C 213 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4BDI200 TOppO uao J/LAUREN E 2978 BARBARA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E 14CA5500 VOGEL CARL E TRUSTEE 924 BELLVIEW AVE ASIILAND. OR 97520 391EI4AB2200 YERBA PRIMA INC 740 JEFFERSON AVE ASHLAND. OR 97520 DAVIS IlRUCE 4120 DOUGLAS BLVD. #306.123 GRANITE llA Y. CA 95746 Richllru I kndrickson 444 Monte V is'a Dr Ashland. OR 97520 Keilh Swink 1655 Peachey Rd ,\,hland. OR 97520 391 E 14CD4oo SISKIYOU TOWNHOUSES LLC 51SE MAIN ST ASIILAND. OR 97520 391EI4CAI03 SMITH IDA L 2531 EAGLE CREEK LN ASHLAND. OR 97520 391E14('D308 SNYDER DENNIS C/HARRIET W 1330 ASIILAND MINE RD ASHLAND. OR 97520 391EI4BD900 STILES K G PO BOX 1124 ASIILAND. OR 97520 391EI4llD4713 SUDEROV ANAI.ISA a 2990 NOV A DR ASHLAND. OR 97520 391E14D216 SUPERIOR PROPERTIES LLC , 6581 GRIFFIN CREEK RD MEDFORD, OR 97501 3911;14D212 THOMAS DANIEL J ET AL 897 OAK KNOLL ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14BD4905 TOLMAN CREEK MEADOWS INC 670 CUll CIR ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4CAI07 VIDMAR JOSEPH A TRUSTEE ET 953 SPRING WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 391EI4CA2700 VINEY ARD JESSICA ET AL 1509 TALENT AVE TALENT. OR 97540 391EI41l1l805 WIlT LA WRENCE E/MARIE R POBOX 6429 IlROOKINaS, OR 97415 391 E 14AD7300 WOLFF DONALD H 760 WASHINGTON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E 14llD4502 ZANE SUSAN 759 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 \ 391E23701 ZEVE L1NCOLNIDENEICE 2710SlSKIYOU BLVD ASHLAND, OR 97520 MICIIELSON MARY KAY 2810 DIANE ASIILAND. OR 97520 Paul Steinle Provost's alTIce. SOU. 1250 Siskiyoulllvd A,hlaud, OR 97520 Eric Navickas 363 VI lown St Ashland. OR 97520 Russ Chnpman 1700akSt Ashland. OR 97520 Gmhnm Lewis 152 N Pioneer Rd Ashlnnd. OR 97520 Jim I.ewis 640 A Slreet A,hlnnd. OR 97520 186 Larry Blake 4" Briscoe PI Ashland, OR 97520 David Wilkt:rson 1120 Barrington Circle Ashland, OR 97520 Matt Warshawsky 821 Indiana SI Ashland. OR 97520 Kerr}' KenCllim 545 A SlrCc! Ashland. OR 97520 Pam Hammond 632 Walnul 51 Ashland. OR 97520 CRAFFT I'AUL 45 WIMER ST. ASIlLAND. OR 97520 AUFERIlEIDE 321 N MOUNTAIN AVE. AI'T. A ASHLAND. OR 97520 187 Crandall Annbula 520 SW Yamhill, Roof Suite 4 Portland, OR 97204 Larry Ksionzyk Depl. Land Conservation & Development 635 Capitol St. NE, Suite ISO Salem, OR 97301-2564 Paige Townsend 3200 Crater Lake Ave. Medford, OR 97504 Max Rosenberg Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 725 SE Main Roseburg, OR 97470 in Christman 1120 ' nber Lake Dr. Ashland, 97520 RETURNED Jeff Gerschler 2520 Eagle Creek Lane Ashland, OR 97520 MarY~MiChelson 2810 Di e Ashland, 97520 Mike Montero - 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 150 Medford, OR 97504 Ashland Warehouse Partnership 0 PO Box 43 Medford, OR 9750 I John Rcnz Dept. Land Conservation & Development 155 N First SI. 1'0 Box 3275 Central Point, OR 97502 David Pyles ODOT, Region 3 100 Antelope Road White City, OR 97503 SIeve Maluk TDM Planner 3200 Crater Lake Ave. Medford, OR 97504 Bob Melbo ODOT Rail Division 555 13'" Street NE, Suite 3 Salem, OR 97301-4179 Bruce Davis .. 4120 Douglas Blvd. #306-123 Granite Bay, CA 95746 Rylan Taisia Heyennan 770 Toln n Creek Rd. Ashland, 0 97520 Ashland Chamber ofComll1erce Sandra Slattery PO Box 1360 Ashland, OR 97520 Chris Galpin - 744 Card ley A venue Medford, OR 97505 Alex Konny Knecht PO Bo. 209 Ashland, R 97520 188 Mall Crall Depl. Land Conservation & Development 635 Capitol Sl. NE, Suite 150 . Salem, OR 97301-2564 John McDonald Oregon Department of Transportation 3500 NW Stewart Parkway Roseburg, OR 97470 JuliDiChiro Superintendent 885 Siskiyou Blvd, Ashland, OR 97520 John Becker 221 Stewart Ave. Suite 201 Medford, OR 9750 I Der is Debay 2475 . kiyou Blvd. Ashland, 97520 Larry Holzgang OEDD 3 17 South 7'" Street Room #231 .Klamath Falls, OR 9760 I Kau linnnn Group Dwain Cross I Bud Kaufmann Dwain & Bud LLC 801 Menuee While City, OR 97503 .' Urban Development Services Murk Dirienzo Ml1rk Knox 550 Mistletoe R~. Suile 20 I Ashlnnd, OR 97520 Charles Keltenring ODOT Rail Division - Crossing Manager 555 13th Street NE, Suite 3 Salem, OR 97301-4179 Jeff Griffin Economic Revitalization Team PO Box 3275 Central Point, OR 97502 Earl Harris Trustee 35 Mistletoe Road Ashland, OR 97520 . Sandra Savage 277 Mistletoe Road Ashland, OR 97520 . Donn J Comte Trustee . 175 Piedmont Drive Ashland, OR 97520 Colleen Padilla SOREDI 673 Market Street Medford, OR 97504 Southern Oregon University Liz Shelby Governmental Relations 1250 Siskiyou Blvd. Ashltlnd, OR 97520 Thomas Hogue Economic Development Planning DLCD 635 Capitol Street NE Suite I SO Sale Ill, Oregon 97301-2540 Debbie Price Oregon Housing and Community.Services 725 SE Main St. Roseburg, OR 97470 Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad 333 SE Mosher Roseburg, OR 97470 . Wilma Kentner PO Box 2677 Costa Mesa CA, 92628 Hazel Gessler ET AL 295 Mistletoe Road Ashalnd, OR 97520 . Op Heyerman 760 T lan Creek Rd. Ashland, 97520 LA WRENCE 790 TOLMAN CREEK RD, ASHLAND, OR 97520 Plexis Healthcare Systems Jorge Yant, CEO 385 Williamson Way Ashland, OR 97520 189 Pam Lucas Business Manager 885 Siskiyou Blvd. Ashland, OR 97520 Craig and Michelle Black . PO Box 969 Ashland OR, 97520 Andre L. Anderson PO Box 3577 Ashland, OR 97520 . Gerald Knecht Trustee · 114 Calumet Ave, San Anselmo, CA 94960 Adroit Constmction . Steve Lawrence I Bob Mayers 1 85 Mistletoe Road Ashland, OR 97520 KRUESI JOHN · 148 GREENWAY CIRCLE MEDFORD, OR 97504 Thrive Wendy Seporen 340 A Street, Suite205 Ashland, OR 97520 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Ordinance Amending Chapter 9 Concerning Weed Abatement Meeting Date: April 6, 20 I 0 Primary Staff Contact: Richard Appicello Department: Legal E-Mail: appicelr@ashland.or.us Secondary Depl.: None Secondary Contact: Megan'Thornton Approval: Martha Benne Estimated Time: 10 Minutes Question: Should the Council approve First Reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 9 concerning weed abatement and move the ordinance on to Second Reading? Staff Recommendation: Staffrecommends Council approve the First Reading of this ordinance and set Second Reading for April 20, 2010. Background: On March 16, 2010 this item was automatically continued to April 6, 20 I 0 by operation of AMC 2.04.030.E. The 1951 weed abatement chapter is updated to make a number of beneficial changes. The weed abatement and noxious growth sections (9.04 and 9.08) are combined into one chapter. A definition for "weed" is added and the code is amended to provide greater flexibility to Code Compliance Staff, including Ashland Fire and Rescue, to evaluate and mitigate the risk of fire, The abatement, removal, and lien process is updated and made uniform for all city nuisance code violations. (Separate ordinance advertised for 3-16-2010). The noxious weed list is located at the following address: hltp:/ /www,oregon.gov/ODNPLANT/WEEDS/statelist2.shtml Related City Policies: Ashland City Charter Article X, Ordinance Adoption Procedures Council Options: (I) Move to approve First Reading of the ordinance and set second reading for April 20, 2010. (2) Postpone First Reading to a date certain. Potential Motions: Staff: Conduct First Reading: Council: Move to approve First Reading of the ordinance and set second reading for April 20, 2010. Attachments: (1) Existing Code sections (2) Draft Weed / Noxious plant abatement ordinance Page i of I ...,. r_~ Existing Code: 9.04 Weed Abatement 9.04.010 Weeds Declared Nuisance The growth of grass, weeds, shrubbery, and vegetation upon vacant and other lots and parcels of land, and the streets and alleys abutting thereon, in the City, during the summer season constitutes a fire menace, and greatly increases the fire hazard in the City, and is declared to be a nuisance, (Ord. 1141 SI, 1951) 9.04,020 Removal - Responsibility The owner, agent of owner and/or occupant of any lot or parcel of land within the limits of the City of Ashland shall cut and remove the weeds, grass, bushes and shrubbery, except ornamental bushes and shrubbery, growing thereon, or on adjacent and abutting streets, avenues, and alleys, between May 15th and June 15th of each year and shall, where the same grows a second growth, cut the same a second time during the summer and in case of failure to do so, said person or persons shall be subject to fine and/or imprisonment and the City may cause such vegetation to be cut and removed and the expense incurred on account thereof shall be chargeable as a lien upon said lot or parcel as aforesaid. (Ord. 1141 S2, 1951) 9.04.030 Violation - Penalty Any owner, agent of the owner, or occupant of any premises violating any of the provisions of this chapter is punishable as prescribed in Section 1.08.020, (Ord. 1810 (part), 1974; Ord. 1141 S3, 1951; Ord, 1956, 1978) 9.04.040 Notice to Abate - Contents In case of failure or neglect of any such agent, owner or occupant to cut weeds and grass and shrubbery as herein provided, the City Recorder shall cause to be served on such agent, owner, and/or occupant a notice, describing the property with convenient certainty by its legal description or by the street number ofthe house, requiring such owner or agent and/or occupant to cut said weeds, grass, and shrubbery within ten (10) days from the service thereof, or that the City will require the same to be done, and the cost thereof charged as a lien against said property. (Ord. 1141 S4, 1951). 9.04.050 Notice to Abate-Service-Removal by City-Lien Such notice shall be served upon such owner, agent, and/or occupant in person if found upon said premises or within the City, and in case said owner, agent, and/or occupant cannot be found in person within the City after reasonable diligence and inquiry, such notice shall be posted in a conspicuous place upon said premises, and a copy thereof mailed to the last known post office address of such owner, agent, or occupant, if any such address is known, and return of service shall be filed with the Recorder; and ifat the end often (10) days from the giving of such notice, such owner, agent, and/or occupant, has failed and neglected to cut and remove such vegetation, the Fire Chief shall cause the same to be done and shall file with the Council a verified itemized statement of the expenditure occasioned thereby, and the Recorder shall cause notice to be served upon the owner, agent, or occupant in the manner hereinbefore described, such statement will be considered and determined by the Council and a lien declared upon the property involved, the time of which meeting shall be specified in the notice, more than ten (10) days from the giving of the same, and the Council shall at such meeting hear any objections to such statement, and by ordinance determine the correctness of the same, and declare such corrected amount a lien upon the property benefitted and instruct the Recorder to enter the same upon the City docket ofliens in the same manner and with the same effect that street improvement liens and sewer liens are entered, and said lien shall have the same force and effect as such street improvement and sewer liens, and shall be certified to the county assessor in the same manner. (Ord. 1141 S5, 1951). . ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO WEED ABATEMENT, NOXIOUS VEGETATION, AMENDING AMC CHAPTER 9.04, AMC 13.02.050 AND REPEALING AMC 9.08.100 Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold" ... .L .L and additions are bold underlined. 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 Firefiohters. Local 1660, Beaverton Shop, 20 Or. App, 293, 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); WHEREAS, weeds and noxious vegetation constitute a fire hazard to persons and' property within the city; and ' WHEREAS, the weed abatement ordinance was originally adopted in 1951 and revisions to the code are necessary to facilitate the removal of weeds and noxious vegetation; THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 9.04.002 [Purpose] is hereby added to read as follows: 9.04 Weeds and Noxious Veaetation AbatemeAt 9,04,002 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to reduce the risk of damaae to property and persons by fire due to weeds, and to reduce hazards to public health, aariculture, recreation. and wildlife by controllina the arowth of weeds and noxious veoetation. Ashland Fire and Rescue and the city's Code Compliance Officers intend to prioritize enforcement and abatement under this chapter based upon the deoree of fire risk or other hazard caused by the violation and the availability of resources. SECTION 2. Section 9.04.005 [Definitions] is hereby added to read as follows: Ordinance No. Page 1 of5 9,04.005 Definitions, A. Code Compliance Officer: all individuals desicmated as such pursuant to AMC 1.08.005, includinCl specifically the Fire Chief. B. Fire Chief: the City of Ashland Fire Chief or his/her authorized desiClnee. C. Fire hazard: a written determination from the Fire Chief that the Cluality, condition. and/or location of veCletation creates a risk of fire. D, Noxious veCletation: all veCletation listed on the noxious weed list promulClated by the OreClon Department of AClriculture's Plant Division. E. Owner: owner of real property, aClent of the owner. and/or occupant of any lot or parcel of land. F. Summer season: between May 15 and September 30 of any year, or the end of fire season as declared by the OreClon Department of Forestry, which ever is later, G. Weed: (1) VeCletation, Clrass, shrubbery, and round wood that is less than 1/4 inch in diameter and more than four inches (4") high. and (2) VeCletation that is a: (a) Health hazard. such as providinCl harboraCle for vermin; (b) Fire hazard due to the Cluantity and/or location; or (c) Traffic hazard because it impairs the view of a public' thorouClhfare or otherwise makes use of the thorouClhfare hazardous. SECTION 3. Section 9.04.010 [Weeds Declared Nuisance] is hereby amended to read as follows: 9.04.010 Weeds Declared Nuisance The Clrowth or maintenance of weeds upon lots and parcels of land, and abuttinCl riClhts-of-way in the City durinCl the summer season, or at any other time of year when deemed a fire, health or traffic hazard, is declared to be a nuisance. The growth of grass, weeds, shrubbery, and vegetation upon vacant and other lots and parcels of land, and the streets and alleys abutting thereon, in the City, during the summer season, constitutes a fire menace and greatly increases the fire hazard in the City, and is declared to be a nuisance. SECTION 4. Sections 9.04.012 [Noxious Vegetation Declared Nuisance] through 9.04.015 [Exemptions to Nuisance] are hereby added to read as follows: Ordinance No, Page 2 of5 9,04,012 Noxious VeCletation Declared Nuisance The Clrowth or maintenance of noxious veCletation upon lots and parcels of land, and abuttinCl riqhts-of-way in the City at any time is declared to be a nuisance, 9.04,015 Exemptions to Nuisance A. The term "weed" does not include veCletation that constitutes an aqriculturaJ crop or decorative residentiallandscapinCl, unless that veCletation is a fire. health, or traffic hazard. 8, It shall not be a violation of this chapter for property owners to maintain wetland or upland native veCletation in its natural state either on their property or in common areas when reCluired to do so pursuant to the reCluirements of state law, citv ordinance or land use approval. NothinCl herein prohibits a property owner from preservinCl native veCletation in its natural state in excess of the reCluirements of state law or city ordinance, provided the owner prepares and implements a manaClement plan for maintenance of the natural area and said plan is approved and on file with the communitv development department. SECTION 5. Sections 9,04,020 [Removal - Responsibility] and 9,04.030 [Violation] are hereby amended, and sections 9.04,024 [Responsibility of Owner -Removal of Noxious Vegetation] and 9.04.028 [Abatement Process] are hereby added to read as follows: 9.04.020 Responsibility of Owner - Removal of Weeds Responsibility The owner of any lot or parcel of land within the limits of the City of Ashland shall cut and/or remove weeds ClrowinCl thereon, and on adiacent and abuttinCl riClhts-of-way, between May 15th and June 15th of each year. It shall be the duty of an owner to continue to cut and remove the weeds throuClhout-the summer season, or any other time of year when deemed a fire, health, or traffic hazard. The owner, agent of owner ami/or occupant of any lot or parcel of land within the limits of the City of Ashland shall cut and r.emove the weeds, grass, bushes and shrubbery, except ornamental bushes and shrubbery, growing thereon, or on adjacent and abutting streets, avenues, and alleys, between May 15th and June 15th of each year and shall, where the same gr9'J:s a second gro'fJth, cut the same a second time during the summer and in case of failur.e to do so, said person or persons shall be subject to fine and/or imprisonment and the City may cause such vegetation to be cut and removed and the expense incurred on account thereof shall be chargeable as a lien upon said lot or parcel as aforesaid. 9.04.024 Responsibility of Owner - Removal of Noxious VeCletation Ordinance No. Page 3 of5 The owner of any lot or parcel of land within the limits of the City of Ashland shall not permit noxious yeaetation to Qrow upon their property and on adiacent and abuttina riahts-of-way. It shall be the duty of an owner to cut down or to destroy and remove all noxious veaetation as otten as needed to prevent it from becomina a fire, health or traffic hazard, from becomina unsiahtly, or maturina. spreadina, and aoina to seed. 9.04,028 Abatement Process The Uniform Abatement Process set forth in chapter AMC 2.31 shall apply to nuisances identified in this Chapter and may be used to abate continuina violations. Notwithstandina any other AMC provisions, a code compliance officer may order the minimum abatement necessary to abate a fire, health or traffic hazard, (e,a, creation of an adeauate fire break to protect adiacent property from fire exposure), Abatement of the nuisance shall not prohibit the city from seekina any other remedy or sanction provided by law, 9.04.030 Violation Penalty Any violation owner, agent of the owner, or OGGllpant of any premises violating any of the provisions of this chapter, includina creatina or maintainina a nuisance, shall be is punishable as a Class A violation and each day the nuisance is maintained shall constitute a separate offenses. presGribed in SeGtion 1.08.020. SECTION 6. AMC 13,02,050 [Obligations of City] is hereby amended to read as follows: 13.02.050 Obligations of City The exercise of jurisdiction and regulatory control over a public right-of-way by the city is not official acceptance of the right-of-way for public access and does not obligate the city to open or improve any part of the right-of-way, Upon improvement of any public right-of-way to city street standards, the city shall accept the improvement and maintain and repair such improvement to the standard to which it has been improved, For purposes of weed abatement and similar nuisance-type ordinances imposing obligations upon property owners. (e,a. snow removal, weeds and noxious veaetation, sidewalk maintenance) the city shall be responsible for compliance with such ordinances in public rights- of-way adiacent to or abuttina city-owned or controlled real property, SECTION 7. Repeal. Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 9,08,100 [Noxious Growth] is hereby repealed in its entirety. Any municipal code provisions in conflict with the provisions contained herein are also hereby repealed. Ordinance No. Page 4 of5 SECTION 8. 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 9. SavinQs. 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 ordinance(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 10. 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-Iettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 7-10) 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 , 2010, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ,2010. Barbara M, Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of ,2010. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney Ordinance No. Page 5 of5 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Ordinance adding a Uniform Violation Abatement Procedure Meeting Date: April 6, 2010 Primary Staff Contact: Richard Appicello Department: Legal E-Mail: appicelr@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: Megan Thornton Approval: Martha Benn Estimated Time: 15 minutes Question: Should the Council approve First Reading of an ordinance adding a uniform violation abatement procedure to the Ashland Municipal Code and move the ordinance on to Second Reading? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council approve the First Reading of this ordinance and set Second Reading for April 20, 2010. Background: On March 16,2010 this item was automatically continued to April 6, 2010 by operation of AMC 2.04.030.E. The Ashland Municipal Code contains violation abatement procedures and related provisions dispersed in several sections, (See AMC 6.40.160, AMC 9.04.040, AMC 9.04.050, AMC 9.08.240, AMC 9.08.260, AMC 9.12.050). Violation abatement includes but is not limited to abatement of nuisances, such as weeds, noxious growth, junk and debris, described in Chapter 9 ofthe Ashland Municipal Code. In conjunction with the revision to the weed abatement ordinance requested by Ashland Fire and Rescue, the City Attorney's Office standardized the procedures for abatement of violations by creating a new chapter. This abatement process does not result in a fine. The offender is directed to correct the violation and if the offender does not do so the City is empowered to enter and abate the violation. If the offender does not pay the cost of abatement a city lien can be imposed. This process is in addition to, and not in lieu of, the citation procedures available to cite offenders into Municipal Court as well as the administrative imposition of fines by the Building Official pursuant to the Ashland Building Code. Related City Policies: Ashland City Charter Article X, Ordinance Adoption Procedures Council Options: (I) Move to approve First Reading of the ordinance and set second reading for April 20, 2010. (2) Postpone First Reading to a certain date. Potential Motions: Staff: Conduct First Reading: . Page I of2 r~' CITY OF ASHLAND Council: Move to approve First Reading of the ordinance and set second readingfor April 20. 2010. Attachments: Proposed ordinance Page20f2 r.l1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE CREATING A NEW CHAPTER 2.31, RELATING TO UNIFORM ABATEMENT PROCESS FOR VIOLATIONS, AMENDING AMC 13.03.115, AMC 6.40.160, AND REPEALING AMC 9.08,240, AMC 9.08.260 AND AMC 9.12.050 Annotated to show deletion~ and additions to the code sections being modified, Deletions are bold' ...- and additions are bold underlined. 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 above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. Citv of Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefiahters. Local 1660, Beaverton Shop, 20 Or. App. 293, 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); WHEREAS, a standardized abatement process would make it easier to abate various violations of the Ashland Municipal Code; THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Sections 2,31.010 [Abatement Notice] through 2.31,080 [Additional Remedies] 'ilre hereby added to read as follows: 2.31 Uniform Violation Abatement Process 2,31.010 Abatement Notice. A. Upon determination by the Code Compliance Officer that a violation of the Ashland Municipal Code exists that can be remedied by abatement. a Code Compliance Officer shall cause a notice of abatement to be served on the owner or person in charqe of the' property where the violation exists in accordance with 1.08.005.E [Service, Service by mail, etc.l, directina the owner or person in charae of the property to abate the violation. C. The notice to abate shall contain: 1. a description of the real property by street address or otherwise, on which the violation exists: 2. a direction to abate the violation within ten (10) days from the date of Ordinance No. Page 1 of 11 postinQ: 3. a description of the violation and a reference to the ordinance or Code section number involved: 4. a statement that. unless the violation is removed, the City may abate the violation and the cost of abatement shall be charqed to the person responsible, assessed aqainst the property, or both: 5, a statement that the person responsible may protest the order to abate by QivinQ written notice to the recorder within ten (10) days from the date of service in accordance with AMC 2,30,020 [Administrative Appeals Process]: 6. a statement that failure to abate a violation may result in abatement by the City and may also result in issuance of a civil violation citation: 7. if the person responsible is not the owner, an additional notice shall be sent to the owner, statinQ that all or part of the abatement costs not paid by the person responsible will be assessed to and become a lien on the property. D. On completion of service, the persons responsible for service shall execute and file certificates statinq the date and place of service, E, An error in the notice mailed shall not make the notice void. F, The Citv is not required to post the property but may always provide postinQ at its discretion to facilitate notice with the responsible parties. 2.31.020 Abatement by a Person Responsible, A. Within ten (10) days after service of the notice as provided in AMC 1.08.005.E [Service, Service by mail, etc,], a person responsible shall remove the violation or show that no violation exists by protestinQ the violation as provided herein. B. A person responsible, protestinQ the existence of a violation, shall, within ten (10) days after service, file with the city recorder a written notice of appeal specifyinQ the basis for protestinq in accordance with AMC 2.30.020 [Administrative Appeals Process], Failure to file a written notice of appeal constitutes a waiver to any obiection that the person may have to the findinQ that a violation exists or to the abatement of the violation bv the City, C, After hearinq the matter, the hearinQs officer may determine that no violation exists, determine that a violation exists and order its abatement. impose conditions on the person responsible, or delav the time for abatement of the violation, The hearinqs officer shall make written findinQs in support of its decision when a violation is determined to exist. and its decision shall be final. D. If the hearinQs officer determines that a violation does in fact exist, a person responsible shall abate the violation within ten (10) days after the hearinQ officer's determination, unless the hearinQs officer has delayed the time for abatement pursuant to subsection C. 2.31.030 Abatement by the City. Ordinance No. Page 2 of 11 A. If the violation has not been completely abated by a person responsible within the time allowed, the Code Compliance Officer may abate the violation or cause it to be abated. B. The Code Compliance Officer shall have the riQht at reasonable times to enter into or upon property in accordance with all laws, includina search and seizure laws, to investiQate or cause the removal of a violation, The City shall have the authority to dispose of all seized property in any lawful manner and shall, if practical, attempt to obtain salvaae value for material that has a fair market value in excess of $25.00 per item. C. The Code Compliance Officer shall keep an accurate record of the costs incurred by the City in physically abatinQ the violation. 2,31.040 Assessment of Costs and Entrv of Lien, A, The Code Compliance Officer shall serve the owner and the person responsible with a notice statinQ: 1. The total cost of abatement. includina the administrative cost of abatement minus any salvaae value: 2, The total cost of abatement will be assessed to the property and become a lien aaainst the property unless it is paid within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the notice or a payment plan is confiaured to pay off the total amount owed and financial security is posted: 3. Until the 30-day notice has lapsed, the finance director shall temporarily enter the cost of abatement in the City's lien docket: 4. The finance director shall enter the cost of abatement in the City's lien docket if any aQreed upon payment plan is violated and execute on any security instrument provided: 5. That a written notice objectinQ to the cost of abatement may be filed with the finance director not more than ten days after the date the notice was mailed to the property owner or the person responsible, B. If an objection is received on or before the expiration of ten (10) days after the date the notice was served, the finance director, in the reaular course of business, shall hear any timely obiection and determine the costs to be assessed. The finance director's determination shall be by written order. C. The property owner or person responsible may appeal the finance director's decision pursuant to AMC 2,30,020 rAdministrative Appeals Process!. An assessment of the costs of abatement shall be entered into the City's permanent lien docket and shall become a final lien on the property from which the violation was abated if the costs of the abatement are: 1) not appealed in a timely manner, 2) not paid within thirty (30) days from the date the notice was mailed, 3) or if any payment plan is violated, In the event of a timely objection or appeal, the costs, if any, shall be entered upon conclusion of the objection or appeal process. D. The lien shall bear interest at nine percent (9%) per annum or such other rate as established by Council resolution. The interest shall beain to Ordinance No. Page 3 of 11 run from the date of the entry of the lien in the lien docket. E. The City may include in one foreclosure proceedinq as many accounts as the City may have aqainst separate properties for abatinq violations and may proceed to assess and collect sinqle lot assessments aqainst each property in a sinqle proceedinq. F. An error in the name of the person responsible for abatinQ the violation shall not void the assessment. nor will a failure to receive the notice of the total cost of abatement render the assessment void; the lien shall be a valid lien aqainst the property. 2,31.050 Abatement - Joint Responsibility. If more than one person is responsible for the violation, they shall be iointly and severally liable for abatinq the violation or for the costs incurred by the City in abatinq the violation, 2.31.060 Other Methods of Collectinq Abatement Costs The costs assessed for abatement of a violation may be collected pursuant to ORS 30.310 or 30.315. 2.31.070 Summary Abatement Process A. The city may summarily abate any violation or nuisance on any property or premises which a Code Compliance Officer, in the exercise of reasonable discretion, determines poses an imminent danQer or threat to the public's health, safety or welfare. In the event a Code Compliance Officer makes such a determination. it shall be set out in writinq and at a minimum include information on the followinq: 1, The location of the property where the violation constitutinq the imminent threat or danqer is located: 2. The nature of said violation or condition: and 3. The attempts, if any, to contact the owner of the property and the reason's) why said owner or responsible person did not abate the violation. B. In the event the code compliance officer makes the above written determination, the city need not provide pre-abatement notice consistent . with Section 2.31.010: however, the city shall provide notice to the owner of the property within ten (10) days after the city's abatement of the violation. Said notice shall include the followinq: 1. A copy of the written determination noted in 2.31.070.A: 2. A brief description of the action's) the city took to abate the violation: and 3. The costs, if known, incurred bv the city to abate the violation. C, The Code Compliance Officer shall have the riqht at reasonable times to enter into or upon property in accordance with all laws, includinq search and seizure laws, to investiqate or cause the removal of a violation. The City shall have the authority to dispose of all seized property in any lawful Ordinance No. Page 4 of 11 manner and shall, if practical, attempt to obtain salvaQe value for material that has a fair market value in excess of $25.00 per item. 2.31.080 Additional Remedies The requirement to abate a violation is not a penaltv for violatinQ the Ashland Municipal Code: it is an additional remedy. The imposition of a penaltv does not relieve a person of the duty to abate the violation. SECTION 2. Amendment. Ashland Municipal Code Section 13.03.115 [Summary Abatement] regarding sidewalk cafe, special event, and publication box regulations is hereby amended to read as follows: 13.03.115 Summary Abatement If the condition of any item in the City right of way, including any street or sidewalk is such that it creates a risk of serious injury to the persons or property, the Public Works Director is authorized to pursue summary abatement in accordance with Chapter 2,31 -t-.08 and to charge against the responsible owner/operator the full costs of such abatement. SECTION 3, Amendment. Ashland Municipal Code Section 6.40,150 [Revocation or Suspension of License] through 6.40,170 [Penalties] is hereby amended to read as follows: 6.40,150 Revocation or Suspension of License A. Except as provided in section 6.40.160.B,3, before any license is suspended or revoked, notice aRElhearing shall be provided in accordance with this section 1.08.005. An ambulance operator shall be afforded opportunity for hearing in accordance with the terms of AMC 2.30 after reasonable notice, served personally or by registered or certified mail, I'. hearing shall be held by the council if the operator requests a hearing within ten days of receipt of the notice. The notice shall include: 1. It. statement of the operator's right to hearing, or a statement of the time and place ofthehearing. 2. It. statement of the authority and jurisdiction under '....hich the hearing is to be held, J. .II,. reference to the particular sections of this chapter in\<ol'.<ed; and 4. .'\ short and plain statement of the matters asserted or charged. B. The HearinQ Officer council, if the matter is heard by the council, or the city administrator, if no hearing is held, may revoke or suspend a license Ordinance No. Page 5 of 11 upon finding that an ambulance operator fails to meet the requirements of this chapter or is doing business in violation of this chapter or applicable federal, state, or county laws, ordinances, rules or regulations. C, Any person whose license has been denied or revoked may, after thirty days from the date of denial or suspension, apply for a license upon payment of an application fee in the amount of the annual license fee, which shall not be credited to the applicant's annual license fee, D. Any person whose license has been denied or revoked for a total of two times within one year, or who has a combined total of four denials or revocations shall be disqualified from applying for a license for a period of two years from the date of the last revocation or denial. 6.40.160 Abatement of Violations A. Upon finding that a violation of this chapter, or applicable federal, state, city, or county laws, ordinances, rules or regulations has occurred, the city may utilize the uniform abatement process specified in AMC 2.31. In addition to the remedies specified therein. if administrator shall provide written notice to the ambulance operator of the violation and demand that the violation be corrected within a r.easonable time as specified in the notice. 8. In the event of a notice under subsection ,1\, of this section: 1. The ambulance operator shall notify the city when corrective action has been taken, and the city shall then cause an inspection to be made to determine compliance. 2.-U the ambulance operator fails to take corrective action within the time required, the city may also take action under section 6.40.150 to revoke or suspend the license, 3. If the city administrator finds that the violation constitutes an immediate danger to the public health and safety, the administrator may, by administrative order, and consistent with AMC 2.31.070, direct the immediate cessation of activities under the license pending a hearing. The hearing shall be held as provided in section 6.40.150. 6,40.180 Penalties A. In addition to any other procedures and remedies provided by law, any person violating any section within this chapter shall be guilty of a infraction Class A violation, subiect to the limitations of the Ashland Municipal Charter. as set forth in section 1,Qa.Q2Q except that the penalty shall be a fine not to exceed $1,QQQ. B. Each and every day during any portion of which a violation any section of this chapter is committed, continued or permitted by any such person, is a separate Ordinance No. Page 6 of 11 violation subject to a separate fine of $1,000 and such person shall be punished accordingly. SECTION 4. Repeal. Ashland Municipal Code Sections 9.08,200 [Abatement Notice] through 9.08.240 [Summary Abatement] regarding nuisance abatement are hereby repealed in their entirety. Any municipal code provisions in conflict with the provisions contained herein are also hereby repealed. . 9.08.200 Abatement Notice A. Upon determination by the Council that a nuisance as defined in this chapter or any ordinance of the City exists, the Council shall forth'....ith cause a notice to be posted on the premises where the nuisance exists, directing the O'.'mer or person in charge of the property to abate the nuisance. 8. !\t the time of posting, the City Recorder shall cause a copy of such notice to be fon.\'arded by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, to the owner or person in charge of the property at the last known address of the owner or other person. . C. The notice to abate shall contain: 1. A description of the real property, by street address or othen.'/ise, on which the nuisance exists; 2. A direction to abate the nuisance .....ithin ten (10) days from the date of the notice; 3. A description of the nuisance; 4. .11.. statement that, unless the nuisance is removed, the City may abate the nuisance and the cost of abatement shall be a lien against the property; 5. ,I\. statement that the o'.'Iner or other person in charge of the property may protest the abatement by giving notice to the City Recorder within ten (10) days from the date of the notice. D. Upon completion of the posting and mailing, the person posting and mailing the notice shall execute and file a certificate stating the date and place of the mailing and posting. E. An error in the name or addr-ess of the owner or person in charge of the property or the use of a name other than that of the O'Jmer or other person shall not make the notice void and in such a case the posted notice shall be sufficient. 9.08.210 Abatement 8y o.....ner A. 'Alithin ten (10) days after the posting and mailing of the notite as provided in Section 9,08.200, the o'....ner or person in charge of the property shall remove the nuisance or show that no nuisance exists. 8. The o...:ner or person in charge protesting that no nuisance exists shall file with the City Recorder a written statement which shall specify the basis for so protesting. Ordinance No. Page 7 ofl! C, The statement shall be referred to the Coum:il as a part of the Council's regular agenda at its next succeeding meeting. At the time set for consideration of the abatement, the owner or other person may appear and be heard by the Council, and the Council shall thereupon determine whether or not a nuisance in fact exists, and the determination shall be entered in the official minutes of the Council. Council determination shall be requir.ed only in those cases where a written statement has been filed as pro'.'ided. D. If the Council determines that a nuisance does in fact exist, the o'/mer or other person shall within ten (10) days after the Council detel"mination abate the nuisance. 9.08.210 Abatement By 9~'.ner A. '!\'ithin ten (10) days after the posting and mailing of the notice as pro':ided in Section 9.08.200, the owner or person in charge of the property shall remove the nuisance or show that no nuisance exists, 8, The owner or person in charge protesting that no nuisance exists shall file with the City Recorder a written statement which shall specify the basis fer so protesting. C. The statement shall be r.eferred to the Council as a part of the Council's regular agenda at its next succeeding meeting. M. the time set fer consideration of the abatement, the owner or other person may appear and be heard by the Council, and the Council shall thereupon detel"mine whether or not a nuisance in fact exists, and the determination shall be entered in the official minutes of the Council. Council determination shall be requif.ed OAly iA those cases where a written state meAt has been filed as provided. D, If the Council determines that a nuisance does iA fact exist, the OlJmer or other per-&oA shall withiA ten (10) days after the CouAcil determiAatioA abate the nuisance. 9,08,220 Abatement by City ft., If, within the time allowed, the Auisance has not beeA abated by the OWAer or person in charge of the property, the Council may cause the Auisance to be abated. 8, The officer charged with abatemeAt of the nuisance shall have the right at reasonable times to eAter into or UpOA property to in'Jestigate or cause the removal of a nuisance, C. The City Recorder shall keep an accur-ate record of the expense incurred by the City in abating the nuisance and shall include therein a charge of twenty percent (20%) of the expense fer administrati..'e overhead. 9.08,230 Cost assessment Ordinance No. Page 8 of 11 A. The City Recorder, by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, shall forward to the owner or person in charge of the property a notice stating: 1. The total cost of abatement including the administrati'.'e overhead; 2. That the cost as indicated will be assessed to and become a lien against the property unless paid within thirty (30) days from the date of this notice; 3. That if the owner or person in charge of the property abjects to the cast af the abatement as indicated, a notice af objection may be filed with the City Recorder not more than ten (10) days from the date af the natice. 8. Upon the expiration af ten (10) days after the date of the notice the Council, in the regular caurse af business, shall hear and determine the abjections to the costs to be assessed. C. If the costs of the abatement are Rat paid within thirty (30) days from the date af the natice, an assessment af the costs as stated ar as determined by the Caunc;1 shall be made by resolutian and shall thereupan be entered in the docket af City liens, and, upan such entry being made, shall constitute a lien upon the property fram 'Jthich the nuisance was remo'ted ar abated. D. The lien shall be enforced in the same manner as liens for street improvements are enforced and shall bear interest at the rate af six percent (6%) per year, The interest shall cammence to run from the date af entry af the lien in the lien docket. E. An error in the name af the awner ar persan in charge af the praperty shall Rat ..,aid the assessment nar will a failure to receive the natice af the proposed assessment render the assessment 'laid, but it shall remain a valid lien against the property. 9.08.240 Summary Abatement The pracedure pr.evided by this chapter is Rat exclusi'/e but is in additian to pracedures pravided by other ardinances, and the health afficer, the Fire Chief, ar the Palice Chief may praceed summarily ta abate a health ar other nuisance which unmistakably exists and which imminently endangers human life ar praperty. SECTION 5. Repeal. Ashland Municipal Code Section 9.08.260 [Separate Violations] regarding nuisance abatement is hereby repealed in its entirety, Any municipal code provisions in conflict with the provisions contained herein are also hereby repealed. 9.08,260 Separate Violatians 1\. Each day's violation of a pra'/ision of this chapter constitutes a separate offense. 8. The abatement of a nuisance is not a penalty for 'Jiolation of this chapter but is an additional remedy. The imposition of a penalty does not relieve a person of the duty to abate a nuisance. Ordinance No. Page 9 of 11 SECTION 6. Repeal. Ashland Municipal Code Section 9.12.050 [Violation - Notice to Abate] regarding junk abatement is hereby repealed in its entirety. Any municipal code provisions in conflict with the provisions contained herein are also hereby repealed, 9.12.050 Violation Notice to Abate In case of the violation of the provisions of this chapter, the polise department shall cause to be served on the owner, lessee, or occupant of any pri'/ate property upon which the junk is located and requiring said person or persons to remoye the junk or place the same in a building wholly or entirely enclosed except doors for use for ingress and egress. Said notice shall be gi'/en by personal service to said person or persons or the posting thereof in a conspicuous place on the property ..,,'here said junk is located. Said notice shall require compliance within ten (10).days after the date of service or posting of said notice, No notice need be gi\'en to any person violating this chapter by the keeping of junk on a street or other public property. 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. Savinas, Notwithstanding this amendment/repeal, the City ordinances in existence at the time any criminal or civil enforcement actions were comme'nced, shall remain valid and in full force and effect for purposes of all cases filed or commenced during the times said ordinance(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 9. 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-Iettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (Le. Sections 7- 9) 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 , 2010, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED, this day of ,2010, Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder Ordinance No. Page 10 of 11 SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney u Ordinance No. ,2010. John Stromberg, Mayor Page 11 of 11 CITY Of ASHLAND Council Communication Ordinance Amendin2 AMC Chapter 14.06 relatin2 to Water Curtailment Meeting Date: April 6, 2010 Primary Staff Contact: Michael R. Faught Department: Public Works E-Mail: faughtm@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: N/A Secondary Contact: Richard Appicello Approval: Martha Benne Estimated Time: 10 minutes Question: Will the Council approve First Reading of an ordinance amending AMC Chapter 14,06 relating to water curtailment and move the ordinance on to Second Reading? . Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council approve the First Reading.ofthis ordinance and set Second Reading for April 20, 2010, Background: At the December I, 2009 City Council meeting, staff presented an update on the Stage I Water Curtailment declared by the City Administrator and ratified by the City Council on August 25,2009. Staff discussed amending the existing curtailment ordinance. The recommended amendments included some house keeping items like changing the reference to Utility Billing Account Representative to Water Conservation Analyst, removing the column on the table that referenced Meter Type, and adding Multi-family to the table. In addition, staff recommended revisiting the water allocation tables to ensure that the amounts allocated during curtailment were correct, review the formulas for parks, schools, colleges and municipalities, and evaluate inequities in the allotments for residential and commercial accounts including Home Owner Associations (HOA), After that meeting staff researched the complexities of amending the current water tables, formulas for parks schools, colleges and municipalities and the potential inequities in the allotments for residential and commercial accounts. After that research staff recommends that, with the exception of the HOA's, these issues should be addressed with the Water Master Plan update, because they are complex, Therefore, the proposed water curtailment amendments address the following issues: I. Exhibit A referenced in AMC 14,06.010.1. is replaced and updated in 14.06.015. 2, Defines and Acknowledges Homeowner Associations as account holders. 3. Addresses residential gardens under exemptions "where reduction will result in; loss offood production" 4, Shifts some duties to Conservation Analyst (away from utility billing) 5. Removes Meter Type from the Water Allocation Table 6. Adds Multi-Family to the Water Allocation Table Page 1 of2 r., CITY OF ASHLAND Related City Policies: Ashland City Charter Article X, Ordinance Adoption Procedures Council Options: 1. Move to approve First Reading ofthe ordinance and set second reading for April 20, 2010. 2. Postpone First Reading to a date certain. Potential Motions: Staff: Conduct First Reading: Council: Move to approve First Reading of the ordinance and set second readingfor April 20, 2010, Attachments: ProP9sed ordinance December 15,2009 Stage I Water Curtailment Update City Council Communication PaRe20f2 rAl ORDINANCE NO, AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO WATER CURTAILMENT, DEFINITIONS, EXHIBITS, DETERMINATION OF WATER SHORTAGE, WATER CURTAILMENT STAGES, EXEMPTIONS AND APPEALS, AND AMENDING SECTIONS 14,06.010 THROUGH 14.06.060, Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold "---' .... ... and additions are bold underlined. 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 above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. Citv of Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefiqhters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop. 20 Or. App. 293, 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the water curtailment ordinance. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Sections 14,06.010 [Definitions] through 14.06.060 [Exemptions and Appeals] are hereby amended to read as follows: 14,06.010 Definitions. The following words and phrases whenever used. in this chapter shall be construed as defined in this section unless from the context a different meaning is intended. A "Billing period" means that period used by the City for the reading of water meters consisting of approximately 30 calendar days, B. "City water" means water sold or delivered by the City of Ashland and includes Talent Irrigation District water delivered through the City's water system. C, "cr' means cubic feet. . D, "Customer" means that person or persons designated in City records to receive bills for water service, E. "Multi-family dwelling" means a building containing two or more residential units. F, "Outside plants" means grass, lawns, ground-cover, shrubbery, gardens, crops, vegetation and trees not located within a fully enclosed building, G. "Permanent resident" means a person who resides at the dwelling at least five Page 1 of 7 days a week, nine months a year. H, "Temporary or Drop-In Guest" means a person who resides at the dwelling less than 3 consecutive months per year. I. ''Water Allocation Table" means that table of meter types and sizes and maximum volumes of water set forth in AMC 14.06.015. Exhibit ../..... attaGhed to this OrdinanGe.(See seGtion 14.06,010 Exhibits for water table) J, ''Waste'' means: 1. To use City water to irrigate outside plants: a. Between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. May through July or between 10:00 a.m. and 7:00 p,m, August through October, except that drip irrigation systems may be used during these times. b. in such a manner as to result in runoff on a street, sidewalk, alley or adjacent property for more than five minutes, 2. To use City water to wash sidewalks, walkways, streets, driveways, parking lots, open ground or other hard surfaced areas except where necessary for public health or safety. 3. To allow City water to escape from breaks within a plumbing system for more than 24 hours after the person who owns or is in control of the system is notified or discovers the break. 4. To use City water to wash cars, boats, trailers, aircraft, or other vehicles by hose without using a shutoff nozzle except to wash such vehicles at commercial or fleet vehicle washing facilities using water recycling equipment. 5. To serve City water for drinking at a restaurant, hotel, cafe, cafeteria or other public place where food is sold, served or offered for sale, to any person unless expressly requested by such person, 6. To use City water to clean, fill or maintain decorative fountains, lakes or ponds unless all such water is re-circulated. 7, Except for purposes of building construction, to use City water for construction, compaction, dust control, cleaning or wetting or for building washdown (except in preparation for painting), 8. To use City water for filling swimming pools or for filling toy, play or other pools with a capacity in excess of 100 gallons, provided, however, that water may be added to swimming pools to replace volume loss due to evaporation. K. "HOA" means Home Owners Association 14.06.015 14.06.010.'\ Water Allocation Table ~xhibits, The Water .'\lIoGation Table set forth below is substituted for the Water AlloGation Table adopted as ~xhibit A and defined in seGtion 14.06.010.1. WATER ALLOCATION TABLE (IN CUBIC FEET) CATEGORY METER METER STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3 STAGE 4 TYPE SIZE Res Irria A 0,75 1800 600 100 0 Res Irriq 8 1.00 1800 600 100 0 Res Irriq C 1.50 1800 600 100 0 Page 2 of 7 ~ Res Irriq I) 2.00 1800 600 100 0 Com Irria A 0.75 3200 1100 100 0 Com Irriq B 1,00 6100 2100 200 0 Com Irriq C 1,50 10400 3700 400 0 Com Irriq I) 2,00 15200 5300 500 0 Com Irriq E 3,00 30400 10600 1100 0 Gov Irriq A 0,75 3200 1100 100 0 Gov Irriq B 1.00 6100 2100 200 0 Gov Irrig C 1,50 1 0400 3700 400 0 Gov Irriq I) 2,00 15200 5300 500 0 Gov Irriq E 3.00 30400 10600 1100 0 Gov Irriq f: 4.00 48100 16800 1700 0 TID Irriq f: 4.00 48100 16800 1700 0 Comm-I A 0,75 6400 4800 3200 1600 CATEGORY METER METER STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3 STAGE 4 TYPE SIZE Comm-I B 1.00 12200 9200 6100 3100 Comm-I C 1.50 20900 15600 10400 5200 Comm=1 I) 2,00 30400 22800 15200 7600 Comm=1 E 3.00 60800 45600 30400 15200 Comm=1 f: 4.00 96200 72200 48100 24100 Comm=1 G 6,00 186400 139800 93200 46600 Comm=1 H 8.00 304400 228300 152200 76100 Condo/Multi AU All 2700 2000 1300 700 Familv , Resid=1 A 0.75 3600 2500 1800 900 Resid=1 B 1,00 3600 2500 1800 900 Resid-I C 1.50 3600 2500 1800 900 14.06,020 Determination of water shortage. A. The City Administrator is authorized to prohibit waste as defined in section 14.060.010 or implement water curtailment stages upon determination that a water shortage emergency conditions exists, Such determination shall be based on an analysis of the demand for water in the City, the volume of water in Reeder Reservoir, the standard drawdown curve for Reeder Reservoir, the projected curtailment date for Talent Irrigation District water and flows in the east and west Page 3 of 7 " forks of Ashland Creek. The determination of the City Administrator under this section shall be effective until the next council meeting following such determination at which time the council shall either ratify or invalidate the determination. B. The City Administrator is authorized to terminate waste prohibitions or 'water curtailment stages upon determination that a water shortage emergency condition no longer exists. Such determination shall be based l:Jpon factors listed in section 14.06.020 and the billinq cycle. The termination shall be effective until the next council meeting following the determination of the City Administrator at which time the council shall either ratify or invalidate the determination. 14.06.030 Water curtailment stages. Depending on the severity of the potential water shortage, the City Administrator may implement the following water curtailment stages. During any stage, no person shall waste City water. Stage1. The following restrictions are effective during water curtailment Stage 1: 1. No customer shall receive through the water meter assigned to such customer more than the maximum volume of water for such meter indicated for Stage 1 in the Water Allocation Table. 2. Government agencies and HOA's, including but not limited to parks, schools, colleges and municipalities may have separate account allotments combined into one "agency" allotment and are exempt from Stage 1 restrictions if their water consumption is otherwise reduced by 20% from the volume of water delivered in the same billing period for the first previous non-water curtailment year. Stage2.The following restrictions are effective during water curtailment Stage 2: 1. No customer shall receive through the water meter assigned to such customer more than the maximum volume of water for such meter indicated for Stage 2 in the Water Allocation Table. 2. Government agencies and HOA's, including but not limited to parks, schools, colleges and municipalities may have separate account allotments combined into one "agency" allotment and are exempt from Stage 2 restrictions if their water consumption is otherwise reduced by 30% from the volume of water determined under Stage 1. Stage3.The following restrictions are effective during water curtailment Stage 3: 1. No customer shall receive through the water meter assigned to such customer more than the maximum volume of water for such meter indicated for Stage 3 in the Water Allocation Table. 2. Government agencies and HOA's, including but not limited to parks, schools, colleges and municipalities may have separate account allotments combined into one "agency" allotment and are exempt from 3 restrictions if their water consumption is otherwise reduced by 40% Jrom the volume of water determined under Stage 2. Page 4 of 7 Stage4.The following restrictions are effective during water curtailment Stage 4: 1. No customer shall receive through the water meter assigned to such customer more than the maximum volume of water for such meter indicated for Stage 4 in the Water Allocation Table. 2. Government agencies and HOA's, including but not limited to parks, schools, colleges and municipalities may have separate account allotments combined into one "agency" allotment and are exempt from Stage 4 restrictions if their water consumption is otherwise reduced by 50% from the volume of water determined under Stage 3. 3. No City water shall be used to irrigate outside plants, except for trees, shrubs and food plants. If the customer has an irrigation meter, the irrigation meter shall not be used. The watering of trees, shrubs and food plants shall be through the non-irrigation meter and the total allocation shall not exceed the amount allowed for the non-irrigation meter. 14.06.060 Exemptions and Appeals. A. Any person who wishes to be exempted from a restriction imposed by any water curtailment stage shall request an exemption in writing on forms provided by the City and file the request for exemption in writing with the Utility Billing Office. B. Requests will be reviewed after a water audit is conducted by the City and a determination made by the utility billing aGGount representative Conservation Analyst as to the validity of the request for an exemption. No exemptions will be considered until the City has conducted a water audit. C. Exemptions may be granted for the following: 1. Any person with substantial medical requirements as prescribed in writing by a physician. Examples would be hydrotherapy pools or life support systems. 2. Residential connections with more than four permanent residents in a single family residence or three permanent residents per unit in a multi-family dwelling can receive up to 350 cf per month per additional permanent resident. A census may be conducted to determine the actual number of permanent residents per living unit. Temporary or drop-in guests will not be considered for additional allocations. 3. For commercial or industrial accounts where water supply reductions will result in unemployment or decrease production, after confirmation by the City that the account has instituted all applicable water efficiency improvements. 4. For any other reason upon showing of good cause and where necessary for public health or safety. 5. For commercial accounts where water meter is undersized (as determined under the Uniform Plumbing Code) for the current occupancy, the allocation for such accounts may be increased up to the allocation for the water meter size designated for such occupancy in the Uniform Plumbing Code. 6. For residential Qardens where water supply reductions will result in loss of food production crops. residential water curtailment rates identified in the Water Allocation Table can be increased UP to 25% after confirmation by Page 5 of 7 the Citv that the account has instituted all applicable water efficiency improvements. D. Exemptions will not be allowed for steam cleaning or similar uses of water. The amount allocated for any given customer will include such uses and no additional allocation will be allowed. E. The Iltilit~ billing aGGOllnt representative Conservation Analyst shall report to the Director of Public Works the findings and conclusions resulting from the review. The Director shall approve or deny the request for exemptions and may impose conditions. Such conditions may include the amount volume restrictions may be exceeded and that all applicable plumbing fixtures.or irrigation systems be replaced or modified for maximum water conservation. If the Director and the applicant are unable to reach accord on the exemption, or if the applicant is dissatisfied with the decision, the applicant may appeal to the City Administrator in writing who will make the final determination. F. Except for an exemption granted under section 14.06.060.C.1, C.2 and C.5, the water consumption surcharge specified in section 14.06.080 shall apply to all exemptions. SECTION 2. Section 14.06.090 [Penalties and enforcement] is hereby amended to read as follows: 14.06.090 Penalties and enforcement. The penalties for violations of this chapter shall be cumulative in that they may be in addition to, not in lieu of, other penalties, remedies or surcharges established by this chapter. A. A person shall not violate or procure, aid or abet in the violation of any provision of this chapter. A violation of any provision of this chapter is a Class B violation an infraGtion and shall be punished as set forth in section 1.08.020 of the Municipal Code. . B. If a customer exceeds the maximum volume for more than one billing period, the City may install a flow restricting device at the service meter which reduces water flow and pressure. For services up to one and one-half inch size the City may install a flow restricting device of two gallon-per-minute capacity, and for larger services, comparatively sized restricting devices for larger services, for a period of seven days. Before normal service will be restored, a flow restrictor installation and removal charge of $100 shall be paid by the person who subscribes for the water service. C. Service may be terminated to any customer who knowingly and willfully violates any provision of this chapter. Page 6 of 7 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. SavinQs. Notwithstanding this amendmenUrepeal, 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 ordinance(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. 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-Iettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (Le. Sections 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 , 2010, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ,2010. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of \ ,2010. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney Page 7 of 7 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Meeting Date: Department: Secondary Dept.: Approval: Stage 1 Water Curtailment Debriefing December 15, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: Public Works E-Mail: N/ A Secondary Contact: Martha Bennett Estimated Time: Michael R. Faught faughtm@ashland.or.us Terry Ellis 20 minutes Question: Does the Council have feedback on staff's Stage 1 Water Curtailment debriefing and will Council approve staff's request to amend the current water curtailment ordinance to address issues identified during curtailment in 2009? Staff Recommendation: Staffrecommends that Council hear a debriefing on the Stage 1 Curtailment declared by the City Administrator and ratified by the City Council August 25, 2009 and authorize staff to amend Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 14.06. Background: This memo highlights the effect of curtailment both operationally and financially. It also identifies proposed amendments to the AMC to improve implementation of the water curtailment ordinance in the future. On August 8, 2009 Reeder Reservoir levels dropped below the standard drawdown curve as a result of water demand exceeding water supply. In an effort to reduce the water demand the City implemented a voluntary 20% water usage reduction on August 11,2009. While Ashland residents responded and generally met the 20% water usage reduction targets, about 1 Million Gallons per Day (MGD), the Ashland Creek stream flows reduced at about the same rate. By August 23, 2009, the reservoir levels dropped to 58% and based on the water demand at that time staff was projecting that the reservoir levels would drop to the minimal3S% drawdown level by September 19, 2009, creating a water emergency. The City then took prudent emergency action and implemented Stage 1 Water Curtailment on August 25, 2009, in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 14.06. In addition to the water curtailment, staff began augmenting the raw water supply with Talent Irrigation District (Till) water on August 26, 2009. The combination of adding Till water and implementing Stage 1 Water Curtailment slowed the daily drawdown of the reservoir from .9% per day to a range between 0% and .5% per day. The reservoir drawdown hit 54.3% on September 26 and then the reservoir began to slowly refill from that point on. It started raining in early October and TID water was discontinued on October 14, 2009. The water emergency and Stage 1 water curtailment program was subsequently terminated on October 23, 2009. The following Standard Reservoir Drawdown Chart graphically illustrates the need for the curtailment action and the subsequent results of the program. Page I of6 ~~, CITY OF ASHLAND 2009-11.21] 100 90 90 70 l; ~ 60 ~ . u 0 60 . = . c . 40 " . ~ 30 20 10 Reeder Reservoir Orawdown / 812512009 Started Water Curtailment & TID supplemental supply started 1012312009 ended mandatory.water curtailment billing. 35% Min. 1D..lnlbl. Lewtl !~""'''"H'''~ I . 2001_200$Averago -Target ~""" -2001l.llStCun.ailmenl ~ o #~\A'b'4,1f>v<:-v<:- .... Ioj ..p(r ""..} "'~ t;:j'> !It'> ... 'V ...J 'j,' " 'V ~~~~##~~~##~~,,~,~## ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ G:\pub-wrI<s\eng\08-54 Right Walllf Right Usell:ngr\Backgroud\Supjlly\2009-tl-20 Reeder Drawdowuls Water Curtailment Debrief What went well? . 96.8 % Ashland residents responded and reduced water consumption for both the voluntary and mandatory stage 1 curtailment programs. . The Chamber and local Commercial businesses adapted quickly to the ordinance . Staff operating as a team (finance, utility billing, public works, conservation, electric and administration) set up the program quickly and efficiently. · There were no taste and odor issues once staff began augmenting TID water as an emergency raw water source. · In September the Till Board agreed to reschedule setting a date to terminate Till water to their October meeting. . The Till manager and ditch rider assisted City staff to ensure that there was an adequate supply of Till water to the Terrace Street Pump Station. What went Door/v? · The Till distribution system had not been pressurized from Terrace Street pump station to the water plant since it was last used in 2001. As a result staff had to quickly repair the following: o Terrace Street wet well depth probe o 18" actuator control valve Pagc20f6 ~~,. CITY OF ASHLAND o 24" TID pressure line on Glenview Drive created a crack in the road when staff began pumping water through the pipe. . Past Till water taste and odor issues influenced staff to delay augmenting the raw water supply with Till water. . The water plant required 24/7 staffing thru the entire curtailment event in order to insure timely chemical feed adjustments. . No standard operating policy and procedures (SOPP) were in place to implement stage 1 curtailment program or the operation of the Till system. . The Curtailment code language is out of date and created problems with billing cycles, processing waiver requests (gardens and home owners associations), and allocations. Financial Impact The FY 2009-10 adopted budgets did not anticipate the need to augment the drinking water supply and as such the following estimated costs will have to be funded by either reducing approved projects or contingency funds. The estimated costs are as follows: . Till water tests (20 different tests) $ 3,133.38 . System repairs (new starter) $ 2,100.00 I . Overtime (emergency 12 hours shi fts) $24,564.63 . Engineering Services $ 5,281.80 . Materials (door haJ)gers, tent cards) $ 784.50 . Till Pump Electricity Costs $ 7,343.84 . Additional Chemical Costs $ 3,000.00 Total $46,208.15 Recommended Plan of Action Staff is pleased to report that the 2009 water emergency and subsequent Stage 1 Curtailment program was a success. This is significant given that the last time Till water was used to augment the raw water drinking supply was in 2001. However, there is always room for improvement and as such staff's review of the event has lead to a recommendation to address the following action items: 1. Develop a strategy to add Till water as a secondary raw water supply earlier in the season 2. Develop Standard Operation Standards for both curtailment stages and TID water 3. Re-Adjust Water Treatment Plant schedules to reduce overtime impacts 4. Include Till system upgrades/automation in 2010111 fiscal budget 5. Amend the existing water curtailment code When to add TID Water? Developing a strategy to add Till water as a secondary raw water supply earlier in the season is complex as there are many variables that have to be considered. Those variables include the snow pack, snow melt, weather, summer rainfall, flows from Ashland Creek's east and west forks, water demand, TID projected curtailment date and Till water supply. Page) of 6 ~~, CITY OF ASHLAND As a follow up to the curtailment event, staff met with the Department of Human Services (DHS) (see attached DHS letter) to further discuss the impacts of using TID water as a raw water supply source. Based on the City's current use ofTID water (intermittent and unpredictable), the nD water is characterized as an emergency source of water. As such DHS has outlined the rules for use of an emergency water source in the attached letter. The City does have the option of using nD water annually as a seasonally water right however; there are additional testing reporting requirements. As the DHS letter indicates it is a simple process to convert the nD raw water drinking supply water right from an emergency water right to a seasonal water right. Staff's recommended strategy is to continue using the nD as an emergency raw water source in the short term and to further evaluate the long term nD water use in conjunction with the water master plan update. With that in mind, the Public Works Operations team is recommending that when Till water is used in the future that it should be added early in the season to ensure adequate supply and water quality. Develop Water Curtailment and Use ofTID Water SOPP 's Given there were no SOPP's for this event staff did a remarkable job implementing and processing the water curtailment program using 2001 data while concurrently developing new procedures. Even though this was a multi-departmental group, all members worked together as a team. This process is problematic in that these events are infrequent and as such there are likely to be staff or regulatory changes between events. To that end, staff will be developing specific SOPP's based on the 2009 water curtailment event. These SOPP will provide a step by step implementation process which will make it easier and more efficient to implement in the future. Assess Water Treatment Plant Work Schedules to reduce the Overtime Impacts When Usinf! TID Water Once Till water was introduced as an emergency raw water source at the Water Treatment Plant (WTP), the plant had to be staffed 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. At this point it is important to staff the plant 24/7 while using nD water because of the continual fluctuations in water quality. nD water is delivered through an open canal and as such the water quality fluctuates. In order to staff the plant 24/7, WTP schedules were adjusted from their regular 10 hours per day shifts to two 12 hours shifts, staffing the plant for 24 hours per day. This is currently a crew of four so the length of the event was very exhausting for staff. Staff's preliminary review of WTP staffing adjustments when using nD water is to use eight (8) hour shifts to cover the 24 hours staffing needs. This option is possible with the transfer of one Water Distribution employee to the WTP effective January 1, 2010 (as approved during the 2009 budget process). This additional employee will allow staff to adjust to three 8 hour-shifts per day reducing overtime costs and providing more flexibility in covering days off. Staff will continue to evaluate these options as the SOPP's that are being developed. TID Svstem Upf!rades and Automation There are two high priority projects/repairs (replace an 18" actuator /control valve and move electrical control panel above ground estimated to cost $118,000) that staff will be recommending to be included in the 20 I 0111 budget process. The actuator/control valve project is self explanatory; however, the Page 4 of6 ~~, CITY OF ASHLAND recommendation to move the existing Terrace Street pump station controls located in the dry well below ground to an above ground location. This is recommended by the Electric Department as the water in the dry well creates a safety issue for workers working in the confined space. The recommended automation projects (installing variable frequency drives, connecting pump station controls with the SCADA system, wet well level indicators, etc.) will also be recommended for funding in the 2010/11 budget process. These additional capital projects will increase operational efficiencies in the nD water delivery system. The recommended automation projects are especially important as staff evaluates whether or not nD water should be used on a seasonal basis rather than the current practice of using nD water as an emergency. The proposed water system improvement projects are as follows: . Replace weir depth probe . Install a new 1.5-2.5 MGD Pump . Install a new variable freq'uency drive on new pump . Upgrade SCADA between pump station and WTP . Till Canal Upgrades (increase water flows) . Pump station wet well level indicator . Replace 18" actuator/control valve . Move electrical control panels above ground Total cost $ 1,200 27,000 43,000 4,000 10,000 5,000 18,000 100.000 $208,200 Amend the existinl! Water Curtailment Code The multi departmental team that developed the Stage 1 Curtailment Implementation Plan also provided input on recommended code revisions. The team identified issues with the billing cycle, water allocation table, meter type, leak policy, year to year exemptions, etc. Some examples of potential code amendments are as follows: . Section 14.06.060 'B' and 'E': Since there is no longer a "Utility Billing Account Representative" the title should be changed to "Water Conservationist". It is the Water Conservationist who has examined the properties and determined if the customer is qualified for an exemption. . Section 14.06.010A Exhibits: Remove the column 'Meter Type' which is no longer used in utility billing. Under the 'Category' column 'Condo' it should also include Multi-family. To that end, staff is requesting authorization to revise the existing curtailment ordinance. . Section 14.06.090: o The water allocation table needs to be revisited to determine if the amounts of use allowed are correct. Staff would like to review the formulas for parks, schools, colleges and municipalities. These accounts are difficult to calculate because these accounts are in more than one cycle. , Page 5 of6 ~~, CITY OF ASHLAND o There are inequities in the allotments for residential and commercial accounts. All residential meters are allotted 3600 cubic feet (cf) and commercial allotments are based on meter size. Staff is proposing to amend AMC Chapter 14.06 Water Curtailment while the event is still fresh. If the Council agrees with this strategy, staff is requesting authorization to proceed. '. Related City Policies: AMC 14.06 Council Options: (1) The City Council could decide to authorize staff to begin drafting language to amend AMC 14.06 (2) The City Council could decide to modify ( ) staffs recommendation. (3) The City Council could decide not to authorize staff to draft language to amend AMC 14.06. Potential Motions: (1) Move to authorize staff to begin drafting language to amend AMC 14.06 (2) Move to modify ( ) staff recommendation. Attachments . AMC14.06 . Department of Human Resources Letter Dated November 17, 2009 Page 6 of6 ~~, CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 12, 2009 CALL TO ORDER Chair Michael Dawkins called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Michael Dawkins, Chair Larry Blake Tom Dimitre Dave Dotterrer Pam Marsh Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Maria Harris, Planning Manager April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Absent Members: Mike Morris Council Liaison: Eric Navickas, absent ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar noted Kimberly A. Gray would be speaking on sustainability and the "Modem American City" on Thursday, May 14 at the SOU Stevenson Union at 7:30 p.m. He also commented on the Sign Code Guide that was distributed to the commissioners at the beginning of the meeting and explained Planning Division staff is working to inform locai merchants of recent changes to the City's sign code and are helping them to come into compliance. He added the right of way portion of the Downtown Task Force recommendations is still working its way through the City Council and is scheduled to be reviewed at the June 16, 2009 Council meeting. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. April 14, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting B. Approval of Findings for PA #2009.00314, 500 Strawberry Lane Commissioners Marsh/Dotterrer rnls to approve the Findings for Planning Action #2009-00314. Yoice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Commissioners Dotterrer/Dimitre rnls to approve the April 14, 2009 Planning Commission minutes. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. OTHER BUSINESS A. Croman Mill Redevelopment Plan Planning Manager Maria Harris noted the site visit to the Croman Mills site that was conducted by the Planning Commission on April 28, 2009 and explained staff has taken the Draft Plan and have started working on the actual plan maps. She explained they have begun to identify areas, specifically in the proposed street and land use networks, which will likely need to be refined in order to conform to the topography of the site. Ashland Planning Commission May 12, 2009 Page 1 0,.3 Staff presented a digital elevation model and commented on some of the grade issues in relation to the street framework. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman stated the map illustrates well some of the difficulties that would exist with locating the streets as proposed in the Draft Plan. He explained significant issues exist at the riparian area located at the south end of the property. He stated as proposed, a number of crossings would be required, and he also commented on the additional grade issues on this section of the property. Mr. Goldman commented on the area at the north east of the property and stated there are some steep grade changes here as well that will affect the streets as proposed. Community Development Director Bill Molnar commented on the possibility of a residential overlay and explained a mixed use building design may be more compatible with the topography in these areas and with the adjacent uses that currently exist. Mr. Molnar also noted the railroad spur identified in the Draft Plan and suggested the Commission consider moving the light industrial area closer to the existing railroad. He clarified in order to create the connection with the railroad, staff is suggesting more of a north-south configuration of the industrial and office employment lands, rather than the east-west layout that was proposed in the Draft Plan. Comment was made noting the amount of fill on the portion of land to be used by Plexis and it was questioned if this material would need to be removed prior to construction. Mr Molnar explained the property owner and Plexis have reviewed this issue and have looked into engineering a building at the southern portion of the lot on the fill. He stated they could engineer a building to structurally deal with the fill issues; however Plexis has also indicated the desire for an outdoor campus for their employees. Mr. Molnar stated the Plexis development would likely need to be completed in phases, and the first phase would be to construct a building at the southerly end, which might require removing some fill, and then deal with the northern portion of the lot which houses the more significant fill issues. The Commission continued their discussion on the land use framework and shared their preferences as to where the office space and light industrial areas should be located. Mr. Molnar commented briefly on the 5-acre portion of land at the south end of the property. He explained this area has a Comprehensive Plan designation of E-1, but the land is currently occupied by a trailer park. He stated the Plan does include addressing the long term goals for this area since it is located within the City's urban growth area; however there have been no discussions with the property owner to annex this land at this point. Mr Molnar clarified this portion of property is controlled by the same property owners as the Croman Mill site. Mr Molnar noted that even after the final plan is approved, there may be instances where the plan needs to be adjusted slightly. He commented that once work begins you often find out things about a property that are unexpected and amendments to the concept plan may be needed. He explained any major amendments. such as removing a planned road or changing the land use designation, would need to come back to the Planning Commission for approval. While minor amendments, such as the adjustment of a street or circulation pattern of no more than 50 ft could be approved through intemal department review. Gerry PowelUAddressed the Commission and voiced his support for a residential overlay on the west side of the Croman property near Hamilton Creek. Aaron Benjamin/Asked the Commission to consider including workforce housing units to service the new jobs that will be created on the Croman site: He stated this area is going to become an important micro-neighborhood of the City and asked that the Commission take into consideration the housing, transportation, retail, shopping facilities, and educational facilities that will be needed to service this area. Mr Molnar announced the next step in this process is for staff to take the items discussed tonight and bring back options for the Commission to consider at their May 26, 2009 Study Session. He noted there is continuing interested in the community regarding this project and staff and Mayor Stromberg have discussed putting an advisory committee together to bring a different perspective to the planning process. He stated the advisory commission would be comprised of representatives from the various City commissions, and well as representatives from the neighborhood, Southem Oregon University, the Chamber of Commerce. and the City Council. Ashland Planning Commission May 12, 2009 Page 2 of 3 Commissioner Marsh asked if there would be a neighborhood meeting included in this process and commented on the importance of making sure the adjacent neighborhood is aware and involved in this process. Commissioner Miller added the residents of the trailer park will also be impacted by the development of the Croman property and should be included in any outreach efforts. . The Commissioners issued their final comments on the overall Plan. Mindlin asked if the 5-acre piece at the south end of the property could be preserved as a farm, or possibly zoned as a park or community garden. She also expressed concern that the Croman Pian did not fit into an economic development plan. Dawkins questioned if the Croman site is the best location for high density employment and felt in general, office oriented development should be centered toward downtown. Miller suggested they focus on economic health, not economic growth. Comment was made that the general concept of this Plan has already been determined and approved by the City Council. Mr. Molnar agreed and stated the Commission has some flexibility and can make minor adjustments to the Plan. but any major revisions will likely need to be approved by the City Council. Suggestion was made for staff to let the Commission know the major areas of discretion that are on the table. B. Planning Commission Annual Retreat Mr. Molnar noted the Commission's annual retreat is typically held in late May, early June and asked the Commission to select a date. Marsh questioned what would be on the retreat agenda and Mr. Molnar clarified this is their retreat and they can set the agenda. The Commission briefly discussed their schedules and preferences and it was decided the Commission would deiay the annual retreat for a few months. The Commission determined it would be beneficial to wait until the Council has adopted their annual goals, the results of the City's transportation grant application have been provided, and the ninth member of the Planning Commission has been appointed. Suggested topics for discussion at the retreat included commissioner communication with the City Council and a discussion on what a sustainable city looks like. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant " Ashland Planning Commission May 12, 2009 Page 3 of 3 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES MAY 26, 2009 CALL TO ORDER Chair Michael Dawkins called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Planning Commissioners Present: Larry Blake Michael Dawkins David Dotterrer Pam Marsh Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Community Deyelopment Director Maria Harris, Planning Manager Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner April Lucas. Administrative Assistant Absent Members: Tom Dimitre Council Liaison: Eric Navickas ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar noted that two Open Houses on the 1-5 Bridge Redesign project have been scheduled for May 28, 2009. He stated the meeting information has been posted on the City's website and the Oregon Department of Transportation will be leading the events. PRESENTATIONS A. SOU Pedestrian Mapping Project SOU Professor Pat Acklin explained she had previously met with City staff to develop a student project which would encourage people to walk by providing information on how far pedestrians have to travel to get to key locations within the City of Ashland. Ms. Acklin explained that tonight she is joined by the students from her class to present the information they have gathered. Students Matt Warnke, Alex Mattick, David Maynard, Serena Rittenhouse-Barry, Treasa Cordero, Helena Peterson, Chris Austin and Danny Fry addressed the Commission and provided their presentation titled "Encouraging Pedestrians: A Walking Distance Table of Ashland Destinations." The students presented a brief summary of their mission and the methods used to determine the points of interest and intersections identified in the Walking Distance Table. They explained GPS tracking systems, pedometers, Google Earth and Google Maps were used to gather the information and noted some of the issues that might affect the measurements include route choice, elevation changes, and physical abilities. The students presented the Walking Distance Table and issued the following recommendations to the Planning Commission: 1) Increase the number of water fountains, benches and shade trees. 2) Publish the Walking Distance Table on maps of bus routes, bicycle routes, and parks. 3) Post the Walking Distance Table on the City's website, the OSF website and the Chamber of Commerce website. 4) Make the Table available in hotels, motels, and as table tents in restaurants. 5) Post the Table at bus stops. 6) Continue to establish nodes of commercial development to serve dispersed neighborhoods. 7) Consider adding van routes connecting to bus lines to increase the use of buses. Planning Commission Study Session May 26, 2009 Page lof3 The Commission questioned if walking times could be included in the tabie. it was also suggested that the distance between bus stops be incorporated as well as putting the information into a map format. Professor Acklin and the SOU students were thanked for the work they did. Ms. Acklin 'noted the Distance Table was produced for the City and they are free to edit and distribute it as they see fit.. B. Planning for Public Health - Staff Presentations Senior Planner Brandon Goldman gave a presentation on the connection between land use planning and public health. Mr. Goldman provided several statistics on U.S. public health, including: . 30% of U.S. adults are obese, 65% of Americans weigh more than is healthful. and one in five children and one in three teens are overweight or at risk of becoming overweight. . Asthma affects 15 million Americans; 5 million of those are children. The number of asthma cases has more than doubled since 1990. Mr Goldman noted a recent study which indicates that tree lined streets may be healthier for children's lungs than streets without trees. . Between 1994 and 2004 the prevalence of diabetes increased more than 50%, and one of every ten health care dollars spent in the U.S. goes towards diabetes and its complications. . The leading cause of death for women and men in the U.S. is heart disease. In 2003, 685,089 people died of heart disease, accounting for 26% of all U.S. deaths. Mr. Goldman explained one of the strategies to combat these health issues is through land use planning. He commented on addressing environmental conditions, providing recreational opportunities, access to quality local food, and access to health care. He indicated they have the ability to influence individual health behaviors by planning for neighborhood walkability, planning complete streets for multi-modal transportation, providing neighborhood parks, providing affordable housing and healthy homes. Mr. Goldman commented on neighborhood connectivity and the benefits of a "traditional" neighborhood pattern (gridded street system). He explained that complete streets reduce injuries and residents are 65% more likely to walk. in a neighborhood if it has sidewalks. He added in Portland, Oregon, a complete streets approach resulted in a 74% increase in bicycle commuting from 1990 to 2000. Mr Goldman also commented the amount of population that does not drive and how reducing vehicle traveling speeds can have a significant impact on pedestrian fatalities. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. . Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan - Land Use & Street Framework Refinements Mr Molnar provided a brief introduction and emphasized that while this plan will iayout the conceptual ideas. as the area builds out they will need to factor in a degree of flexibility. He added the final ordinance will likely allow minor component shifts to be done administratively: however major changes to the plan will trigger a land use action and will come back to the Planning Commission and/or City Council. Planning Manager Maria Harris began her presentation by providing a recap of the process to date. She explained in 2006 the City received a grant to do an Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA). which is a required analysis that addresses Statewide Planning Goal 9. Ms. Harris stated the EOA requires the City to make employment projections for at least the next 20 years and identify the acreage needed to accomplish that projection. She stated the City's EOA was completed in April 2007 and it identified the Croman Mill site as an important resource to meet the City's future employment needs. Ms. Harris stated in December 2007 the City received a TGM grant to complete the draft master plan for the Croman site and she provided an overview of the 12 month publiC process that took place throughout 2008. In December of 2008, Ms. Harris stated the City received the Draft Master Plan from the consultants. Ms. Harris noted that during the public workshops, issues and concerns expressed by the community were incorporated into guiding principles that are included in the plan. In addition, several options were presented and voted on by the community until a refined hybrid option was finally selected. Ms Harris stated the preferred option identified both light industrial and office space to be included on the Croman site, as well as a neighborhood center Ms. Harris stated they are now in Phase II, which is developing the package of Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Code amendments that will implement the draft plan. Mr Harris provided two plans that identify the original layout of land uses and the proposed revisions by staff. She explained the original iayout in the draft plan has an east-west configuration, while the proposed plan adjusts the land uses to a north- Planning Commission StUdy Session May 26, 2009 Page 2 of 3 south layout and converts a couple of areas to a mixed-use designation. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman provided a further explanation of the potential redistribution of land uses. He commented on the potential to include mixed-use areas next to Hamilton Creek and the existing residential areas and noted this modification would include a slight increase of open sp~ce area. Mr. Goldman also provided a chart which outlined the proposed acreage by land use. Mr Goldman explained that a revised street framework plan has also been proposed to address grade, physical constraints, and rail access issues. He provided images of the possible framework and indicated where the adjustments are proposed. Ms. Harris concluded the presentation by reviewing the land Use Outline included in the Commission's packet materials. She asked if the commissioners had any questions or comments and asked for their feedback on the elements reviewed in tonight's presentation. Commissioner Dotterrer questioned if the adjustments proposed by staff would be acceptable to the Council. Council Liaison Eric Navickas voiced his support for what has been put forward and stated these are the types of revisions the Council was looking for. Several commissioners echoed Navickas' statement and voiced their support for the adjustments proposed by staff. Commissioner Mindlin shared her comments on preserving the railroad spur and asked about sustainability issues and received clarification regarding at what level these could be incorporated into the plan. Several other commissioners also voiced their preference to maintain access to the railroad spur Comment was made questioning if the industrial traffic would be kept separate from the other traffic. Staff clarified a truck route that could be added if they didn't want these vehicles to use the main boulevard; however it was noted the central boulevard has been planned to accommodate the industrial traffic. Comment was made questioning the feasibility of ODOT vacating their property. Mr Molnar clarified ODOT has shown interest in possibly moving their location; the issue is finding a suitable replacement. He added ODOT has indicated that long term their current location may not be the best option. Commissioner Mindlin expressed concern about certain types of industrial uses that are being precluded, specifically sorting yards. She asked that if this is not allowed at the Croman site that the City make sure there is a place in town that allows for this. Mr Moinar thanked the commissioners for their input and stated if they have any other concerns or comments to contact staff. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Planning Commission Study Session May 26, 2009 Page 3 of 3 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES JULY 28, 2009 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. Planning Commissioners Present: Larry Blake Michael Dawkins Tom Dimitre David Dotterrer Pam Marsh Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris John Rinaldi, Jr. Staff Present: Maria Harris, Planning Manager Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Absent Members: None Council Liaison: Eric Navickas ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Marsh announced John Rinaldi, Jr. was appointed to the Planning Commission and welcomed him to his first meeting. Planning Manager Maria Harris provided a brief update on the status of the SOU Campus Master Plan. She stated following the public hearing held at the last meeting, the University has decided to postpone this action in order to conduct further outreach with the community. Commissioner Blake noted a neighborhood meeting has been scheduled for October and the Master Plan Update will likely return to the Planning Commission later this fall. Ms. Harris announced due to the changes in the City Council's meeting schedule, the Planning Commission will meet on September 15 and September 29. PRESENTATIONS A. 2007 Commuter Rail Study and Update on Upcoming North-South Travel Demand Study Ms. Harris introduced Vicki Guarino with the Rogue Valley Council of Governments (RVCOG). She briefly commented on the location reserved in the Croman Master Plan for a commuter rail platform and explained RVCOG completed a rail study in 2007. She stated Ms. Guarino is here to provide information on that study and to provide follow up on what has occurred since then. Ms. Guarino provided a presentation to the Commission that addressed the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVMPO), the 2007 RVMPO Commuter Rail Study, and the RVMPO North-South Travel Study. 1) Roque Vallev Metrooolitan Planninq Orqanization (RVMPO). Ms. Guarino provided some background on the RVMPO as explained they are responsible for regional transportation planning as directed by Congress. She reviewed how the RVMPO was established and the jurisdictions that are included. She clarified federal legislation and regulation define the RVMPO's role, and they are responsible for maintaining certain documents, including the Unified Planning Work Program, the Regional Transportation Plan, and the Transportation Improvement Program. Planning Commission Study Session July 28. 2009 Page 1 016 2) Reqional TransDOrtation Plan (RTP). Ms. Guarino stated the RTP was recently updated and forecasts to the year 2034. She stated the RTP identifies $305 million in transportation funds and identifies the projects to be completed. She indicated that based on the information they have about transportation projects and forecasts for population and employment growth, the RTP also forecasts system performance and demonstrates conformity with the air quality regulations. 3) Transportation Improvement Proqram (TIP). Ms. Guarino stated the TIP is the short range catalogue of projects that are happening now. She stated the TIP identifies the funding for these projects and outlines the completion schedules. She noted this document is updated by the RVMPO every 4 years and the projects listed in this document must be fully funded. 4) RVMPO Orqanization. Ms. Guarino explained each jurisdiction is represented on the RVMPO's Policy Committee and the City of Ashland's representative is Councilor Chapman. She noted staff members from each jurisdiction are also represented on the RVMPO Technical Advisory Committee. She commented on how projects get into the RVMPO arena and explained it all starts with communities identifying local needs in their Transportation System Plans (TSPs). Regional projects identified in the TSPs are then forwarded to the RVMPO and once funding is received and the project is approved, it moves forward. 5) Roque Vallev Commuter Rail Proiect. Ms. Guarino stated this study was published in 2007 and evaluates the possibility of a commuter rail system from Ashland to Central Point (16 miles) and possibly extending to Grants Pass. She stated the study analyzed two different scenarios; 60 minute service intervals and 30 minute service intervals. It was determined a 30 minute interval would need to be the minimum, and would require 4 sets of trains with 180 seats per train. Ms. Guarino stated the costs would run approximately $10 million per rail car; however, there is a \. wide discrepancy to these costs. She noted track upgrades would be needed, plus the additional costs for parking, platforms, and maintenance. She stated the study identified a total capital cost of approximately $26 million, and annual operating costs of $3 million. Ms. Guarino commented on the potential benefits of a commuter rail system, and stated the next steps include researching alternative rail cars that might be less costly, tracking the changes in rail ownership, identifying and exploring alternatives, and quantifying future demand. 6) North-South Travel Dernand Studv. Ms. Guarino explained a key 'piece in determining the feasibility of a cornmuter rail is identifying future demand. She stated a North-South Travel Demand Study is being developed and is scheduled for completion this fiscal year. She stated the study will include the Croman property south of Ashland and will extend to the Seven Oaks interchange to the north. Ms. Guarino stated the study will evaluate future growth (residential dwelling units and employment opportunities) within Y. mile of the railroad track and Hwy 99, and explained the purpose of the study is as follows: . To develop a long-term multimodal concept plan for the Hwy 99 corridor area as an alternative to 1-5 north- south travel. . The study will focus on the role land use and multimodal transp'ortation can play to improve peak-hour travel. . The plan will include strategies that reduce vehicular traffic congestions, greenhouse gases, and support economic development along the north-south corridor and beyond the study area. . A major focus of the study will be to determine the appropriate population density and land use patterns necessary to support transit alternatives such as enhanced commuter transit, bus rapid transit, and commuter rail. . The study will identify transportation options and strategies to reduce vehicle trips and improvements needed to improve bicycle and pedestrian connectivity. . The project will use and build on preliminary work by the RVMPO on the feasibility of commuter rail on existing rail paralleling Hwy 99 through the study area. Ms. Guarino concluded her presentation and explained while the commuter rail system is a hugely popular concept with people, currently the region falls short in terms of density. She stated if communities want to see this happen in the future, they will need to meet certain density and employee numbers within that Y. mile radius of the rail line and Hwy 99. She Planning Commission Study Session July 28, 2009 Page 2 of 6 noted the RVMPO is currently working on identifying what the various comprehensive plans outline for developing these corridors, but until the region meets the necessary figures, they can only talk about this concept. The commissioners shared their input and questions regarding the commuter rail concept and the North-South Travel Demand study. Commissioner Dawkins noted he worked on a Transportation Committee in Colorado and suggested the RVMPO research other communities who have tried to do a commuter rail. Commissioner Miller questioned where the money to pay the operating expenses would come from and asked how much public outreach has been done. Ms. Guarino noted the neighborhood meetings and open house sessions that were held, but had no answer as to where the operational funds would come from. She noted with the new Obama administration, there may be new funding opportunities that become available. Ms. Guarino clarified it is possible for a commuter rail system and a freight line to utilize the same tracks. She also clarified the rail cars they looked at would be able to move either forward or reverse and no tum-a-rounds would not be needed (however the study did identify several locations were bypasses would be needed). When asked whether the RVMPO is coordinating with other MPO's in the state, Ms. Guarino answered No, since our valley is mostly self contained. She added the MPO's in the northern part of the state are working hard to become a high speed rail corridor and are working with other jurisdictions to the north. Ms. Guarino clarified Planning Manager Maria Harris is a member of RVMPO and will receive up to date information as this study moves through the process. She also noted information will be posted on their website at www.rvmoo.orq. Commissioner Marsh noted the City's commitment to multimodal transportation and asked that the Planning Commission be kept informed by staff and our Council representative. B. City Council Goals, Values and Vision Commissioner Marsh briefly reviewed the four goals the Planning Commission had provided to the Council and stated she is interested to see if and how these were incorporated. Marsh summarized the four goals provided to the Council: 1) Strategic vision and visioning, and the Commission's offer to be involved in the City Council's process; 2) Transportation planning, incorporating a planning vision, and active participation in the transportation planning process; 3) Continue with the Croman planning process and incorporate such issues as solar orientation and water infiltration design standards; 4) Look at sustainability and research what other public entities have done. Council Liaison Eric Navickas presented the Council Goals, Values, and Vision presentation. He noted feedback sheets were included in the commissioners meeting packets and asked that they complete these and return to staff by the deadline indicated. Councilor Navickas noted the primary theme of the goals is sustainability and stated the goals are separated into six categories: Economy, Environment, Social Equity, Municipal Organization, Public Facilities, and Partnerships. The goals presented to the Commission are as follows: Economv Goals: 1) Develop and implement a comprehensive economic development strategy. 2) Complete the Croman Mill Master Plan and develop an implementation strategy for funding and infrastructure. 3) Increase the clarity, responsiveness, and certainty of the development process. Environment Goals: 1) Develop an integrated land use and transportation plan to increase the viability of transit, bicycles, walking, and other alternative modes of transportation. 2) Adopt an integrated Water Master Plan that addresses long-term water supply. Planning Commission Study Session July 28, 2009 PAge 30f6 3) Implement specific capital projects and operation programs to ensure City facilities and operations are a model of efficient use of water, energy, land, and other key resources. 4) Adopt land use codes, building codes, and fee structures that create strong incentives for new development that is energy, water, and land efficient, and supports a multi modal transportation system. 5) Develop a strategy to use conservation and local renewable sources to meet Tier 2 power demands. Social Eauitv Goals: 1) Complete the development of affordable housing on the Clay Street property. 2) Conduct a comprehensive study of Ashland's homeless. Oraanization Goals: 1) Develop a plan for fiscal stability, manage costs, prioritize services, and insure key revenue streams for the City Parks & Recreation. 2) Address the issues regarding the stability of the organization. Public Facilities Goals: 1) Develop a plan to replace Fire Station #2. 2) Refine a long term strategy for the Ashland Fiber Network that improves its financial viability, provides high quality services to residents, and promotes healthy economic development. Partnershio Goals: 1) Foster strong collaboration of the local community, City, State, and Federal leaders in efforts to improve the health of the Ashland watershed through reducing fire hazards and restoring forest health. 2) Restore rail service to and through Ashland. Councilor Navickas next addressed the proposed Council Values. The key elements of the values were identified as the following: 1) good government, 2) natural environment, 3) responsible land use. 4) free expression, 5) diversity, 6) economy, 7) independence, 8) personal well being, and 9) sense of community. Navickas asked the commissioners to respond on their feedback sheets as to which values should be added or changed. He also welcomed their feedback on any portion of the presentation given so far. Commissioner Blake noted the Economy Goal that states "Increase the clarity, responsiveness, and certainty of the development process" and questioned how property development fits into this. Navickas stated his interest is in doing more outreach to the development community to ensure they are educated on what our code requirements are: however there may be conflicting opinions on how to address this goal from the rest of the Council. Commissioner Marsh questioned what happens after the Council adopts these goals. Navickas clarified in the past, the Council has held Study Sessions and undertaken further discussions in order to reach an agreement on how to actually implement the goals. Commissioner Blake commented on the goal that states" Adopt land use codes, building codes, and fee structures that create strong incentives for new development that is energy, water, and land efficient, and supports a multi modal transportation system" and asked what kind of incentives the Council has envisioned. Navickas stated his personal opinion is to be more conservative when it comes to giving incentives that loosen reguiations, but he does support density bonus incentives in certain situations. Commissioner Mindlin stated she was looking for the sustainability element in the values statement and found it hard to find. She commented that there should be a way for the Council to articulate their sustainability values and define what it really means to conserve resources for future generations. Mindlin voiced disappointment that rainwater infiltration was not listed as a goal and requested the City adopt a prescriptive path for rainwater infiltration so anyone can do this. She also commented on incentives versus requirements and asked if the City could require people to do the things they find valuable. Planning Manager Maria Harris provided some clarification and stated there are potential legal problems with requiring people to go above and beyond what is required by the State Building Code. Planning Commission Study Session July 28, 2009 Page 4 of 6 In regards to the Economy Goals, Miller recommended the Council work with SOU to determine who the underemployed in the community really are. Commissioner Dimitre voiced disappointment with the level of sustainability in the goals and stated he does not feel sustainability has been adequately addressed. He added the legislature may be a road block now, but it might not be a year or two from now and suggested they could solicit their local representatives serving in the legislature. Commissioner Morris questioned why there is no Economy Goal about keeping families in Ashland and drawing back kids who leave for college. Marsh added there should also be a value that addresses the role of children and families in our community. Councilor Navickas resumed his presentation and read aloud the Draft Vision statement. He asked if the commissioners had any final comments regarding the information presented. Marsh commented on the "lack of people" from th~ vision statement and stated there is nothing that says Ashland addresses the needs of vulnerable residents, families. children, and senior citizens. Dawkins commented on the loss of community, voiced his frustrations with the Croman plan, and stated the draft plan takes energy and focus away from the downtown core. Mindlin stated the vision statement is very pretty and safe and recommended the Council get serious about what the future is really going to look like and what they need to do to prepare. Commissioner Marsh requested Councilor Navickas keep them up to date as this item moves forward. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan Senior Planner Brandon Goldman and Planning Manager Maria Harris addressed the Commission. Ms. Harris presented an update on the first Croman Advisory Committee meeting and explained staff presented the latest refinements to the Croman plan and received input from the group. She stated questions came up about the parking garage and suggestions were made to keep the location flexible, as well as possibly put the structure partially below grade. She stated the area between Mistletoe Rd. and Hamilton Creek also came up and whether this area could be open space. Councilor Navickas shared his perspective of the meeting and noted that Alan DeBoer, who attended as the Airport Commission representative, had advocated for larger parcels with minimal oversight. It was noted that Commissioner Blake also attended the meeting and he commented on the interest expressed regarding extending the industrial area along the rail way. Staff presented a brief presentation that reviewed the timeline, draft AMC 18.53 Croman Mill zoning district, and proposed land use table. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman commented on the maps that were included in the packet materials and noted the differences from the previous draft. He explained on the Land Use Designations map, the light industrial area is now on both sides of the main boulevard, and the roads were shifted slightly to create even block lengths. Mr. Goldman reviewed the Pedestrian and Bicycle Framework map and the Transit Framework map as well. He noted the rail connectivity through the site and the inclusion of a placeholder for a future rail spur. He also noted the potential bus stops on the maps, and the proposed location for a rapid transit system should it ever manifest. Ms. Harris briefly reviewed the outline of the Development and Performance Standards and asked if they had any questions or comments on what has been presented. ( . Commissioner Marsh asked if the Commission wanted to make changes to the land use map, when would that happen. Ms. Harris answered if the change is significant, staff would likely have to take it back to the City Council and get direction. Marsh questioned if extending the industrial area to the north would be considered a major change. Ms. Harris explained the property owners have been clear that they have an entity interested in a specific location on the Croman site and this type of change would impact that. She added this entity (Plexis) would prefer similar buildings and uses surrounding the location they have chosen. Ms. Harris noted Mike Montero, who is the representative for the Croman property owners, is here tonight and he may want to speak to this. Mike Montero came forward and stated the Croman property owners are his clients. He explained the Plexis group has expressed interested in four parcels at the northwest end of the property. He stated their concern is that they want assurance that what will be constructed adjacent to them will be compatible. Mr. Montero stated his clients support this conceptual master plan and they are sensitive to the Commission's concerns about preserving the character of the community while Pfanning Commission Study Session July 28, 2009 Page 5 of 6 providing for new and sustainable employment. He stated they are quite pleased with what the City has come up with to this point and believes this plan will provide opportunities for local firms to grow and expand. CommissionerDimitre left the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Commissioner Rinaldi asked about the residential component and asked where these workers will live. Staff noted the mixed use and neighborhood commercial areas identified on the land use map. The Clay Street housing project was also noted and Senior Planner Brandon Goldman commented on the remaining undeveloped housing areas within the Urban Growth Boundary and stated there is a significant supply of single family land available. Mr. Montero was asked how the property owners feel about giving up developable lands for the park and parking structure. Mr. Montero stated for property developers, one of the ways they recognize their value is the rate at which the property absorbs. He stated constructing urban amenities into employment complexes helps this to occur and accelerates the absorption of the project. Mr. Montero was asked how Plexis would feel about changing the two office employment blocks to the south of the park to industrial land. He stated he cannot answer for Plexis, but through the discussions they have had he believes Plexis' concern is not as much of a specific use being adjacent, but rather visual continuation and compatible design standards. He indicated even if the adjacent uses are similar, Plexis would want to ensure the architectural standards are compatible as well. He added he would be happy to forward this question to Plexis. Commission Dotterrer noted this type of change could be made later through the major amendment process. Ms. Harris agreed, but noted this type of change deviates from the guiding principles of the plan in regards to splitting the acreage evenly between the two types of uses. Commissioner Mindlin commented briefly on the meeting she and Commissioner Marsh had with Mr. Molnar in regards to how sustainability could be incorporated into the Croman Master Plan. She noted City staff is looking at the LEED Neighborhood Program and possibly incorporating these elements into the Croman plan. She stated would like to see a more detailed explanation of what the LEED Neighborhood Program is and how we are working with it. In particuiar, she is interested in incorporating solar orientation and green streets standards. Commissioner Marsh requested staff continue this discussion to the next reasonable agenda. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Planning Commission Study Session July 28, 2009 Page 6 01"6 CITY OF .ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES AUGUST 25, 2009 '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. Planning Commissioners Present: Larry Blake Michael Dawkins David Dotterrer Pam Marsh Debbie Miller Mike Morris John Rinaldi, Jr. Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Maria Harris. Planning Manager Brandon Goldman. Senior Planner April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Absent Members: Tom Dimitre Melanie Mindlin Council Liaison: Eric Navickas JOINT DISCUSSION WITH ASHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION A. Commissioner Roles related to the Transportation System Plan. Transportation Commissioners Present: Thomas Burnham Julia Sommer Colin Swales Matt Warshawsky Public Works Staff Present: Mike Faught. Public Works Director Absent Members: John Gaffey Eric Heesacker Brent Thompson David Young Council Liaison: David Chapman Following brief introductions by the Planning and Transportation commissioners. Marsh explained the two commissions would be working together on the upcoming Transportation System Plan (TSP) update and the purpose of this joint meeting is to receive input on where they are at in the process and to talk about how the two commissions will work together. Public Works Director Mike Faught provided an update on the TSP process. He explained the City has been awarded a $150,000 grant (which is less than the $350.000 applied for) to update the City's Transportation System Plan. He stated the next step is for the City to finalize the Request for Proposals (RFP) with the State, and then the State will issue the RFP and provide the City with a list of consultants to choose from. He stated this is a TGM or Transportation Growth Management grant and the project will span the next two years. Mr. Faught stated the Transportation Commission will be the primary commission to process the TSP update; however, staff has proposed 8 joint meetings with the Transportation Commission, the Planning Commission and the project consultant. Mr. Faught clarified that while the City only received a portion of the grant amount requested. this project is a priority for the City and was funded 100% in the current year's budget. He stated the remaining $200,000 needed to complete the project will be paid for through the City's Transportation SDCs. Planning Commission Study Session August 25. 2009 Page lof5 , Mr. Faught reviewed the following elements of the draft RFP and received input from the commissioners: . Pedestrian Node Alternatives Analysis Mr. Faught noted this element was originally prepared as a separate TGM grant proposal by the Planning Staff and was later incorporated into the current grant request. Planning Manager Maria Harris stated the three nodes identified for analysis are: 1) Bridge,St. and Siskiyou Blvd., 2) Walker Ave. and Ashland St., and 3) East Main and North Mountain Ave. She explained that in Ashland, the historic sections of the streets tend to be more multi modal and pedestrian oriented, and these three intersections represent where these "complete streets" meet the more auto-oriented streets. She stated the idea is to look at these locations and determine how to make them more pedestrian oriented as a way to set the tone for the rest of the development in the area. She added all three of these intersections were identified because of the large amount of redevelopment potential in the surrounding areas. Commissioner Marsh requested the Tolman Creek/Ashland Ave. intersection also be addressed in terms of pedestrian access and movement. . Access Management and Spacing Mr. Faught explained the focus on access management will apply primarily to the arterials and arterial collectors, but they will also evaluate the entire City. When asked whether this item would just address the access management of vehicles, Mr. Faught commentedothat driveways on collector streets create issues for all modes of transportation. He cited the issues on North Main St. and stated the numerous driveways create hazards for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists; and stated he would like to minimize the number of these access points. Commissioner Sommer noted the intersection of N. Main/Hersey/Wimer is one of the City's worst intersections for accidents. Councilor Chapman arrived at 7:30 p.m: . Parking Plan Mr. Faught stated this element will focus primarily on the downtown area and the results will be incorporated into the larger parking plan, which is a separate project. Commissioner Sommer suggested this element be done towards the end of the update process so that it can incorporate any transportation ideas that come up (mass transit, street cars, etc). She added if the other elements move forward, parking may become less of an issue. Commissioner Dotterrer noted the issues the Planning Commission has had with parking in the Railroad District and asked that this area be included in the analysis. Commissioner Swales questioned why the Park and Ride is not mentioned in the draft RFP. He also cited previous studies that addressed downtown parking that were never adopted by the City. Mr. Faught clarified these documents are referenced in the RFP and the consultants will be required to pull that information together. . Passenger Rail System . Mr. Faught stated the City has a rail line that is not currently in use and the idea is to evaluate whether a passenger rail system is a possibility. Commissioner Burnham asked the consultant to determine whether this is a viable option for a community of our size. He added he does not support the consultant spending time on this item if it is not viable. Sommer stated this element, as well as the freight element, are regional issues and it would be a waste of the consultant's time to look into this if the scope is limited to Ashland. Mr. Faught clarified the City's TSP will have to fit in with the regional plan, and if the City truly wants to be multi modal they need to evaluate all modes of transportation. Swales commented that researching these items provides the possibility for them in the future, and urged the commissioners to not foreclose on these options now. Planning Commission Study Session August 25, 2009 Page 2 of 5 Dotterrer agreed and stated even if the consultant determines these are not viable, the study will tell them what needs to happen for them to become viable. He added this is good information to have. Community Development Director Bill Molnar commented that as land use planners, they have the opportunity to create placeholders for these types of systems, even if they don't occur until well into the future. . Bike Routes/Boulevards . Mr. Faught stated they want the consultant to look system wide and would like to see a comprehensive bike system for Ashland. Commissioner Burnham noted the need to provide bicycle access to important piaces within the City. Commissioner Sommer questioned if this plan would inciude ODOT territory (North Main Street and Siskiyou). Mr Faught clarified that it would, and stated the City will need to partner with ODOT and share the input that is gathered. Commissioner Dawkins questioned whether skateboards are allowed on bikepaths. Warshawsky stated skateboarders are allowed on the bikepaths if they are wearing helmets, but they do not have to wear helmets if they are on the sidewalk. Councilor Chapman stated the bigger problem is downtown because skateboarders are not allowed anywhere. Warshawsky added they are also not allowed on streets with speed limits over 25 mph. Dawkins stated it is counterproductive for the City to have laws that discourage skateboarders from using the bikepaths. Mr Faught stated the City will ask the consultant to read through the Municipal Code and look for these types of conflicts. . Multi.Use Trails Mr Faught clarified this item will evaluate multi-use trails for the entire City, not just Parks property. He added he believes this plan should include the Parks Trail Master Plan. Mr Molnar voiced his support for incorporating the Parks Trail Master Plan. Councilor Chapman noted they may need to address equestrian if they incorporate the Parks Trail plan because it allows for this. Commissioner Marsh noted the importance of having connections through developments to the existing paths for pedestrians and bicyclists. . Green Street Standard Specifications Mr Faught stated this is an important component of the TSP and explained this is a storm water design that treats the water through the use of bioswales. Mr. Molnar noted the housing project on Clay Street that incorporates a bioswale and voiced his support for the City to have a standard that can be applied to developments. . Freight Commissioner Burnham questioned how involved they want to get into freight rail if there is no benefit to the City. Warshawsky commented that Ashland has an obligation to their neighbors to not block this off. Council Chapman added the freight study will not just evaluate trains. . Safe Routes to Schools Commissioner Burnham suggested the consultant meet with RVTD on this element, since they are already working on this. Sommer commented that if they accomplish some of the other elements already mentioned this will create safer routes to schools. . Capital Improvement Project List Mr. Faught clarified the final product will include a capital improvement project list with all the costs identified and separated out. . Shared Roads Commissioner Swales shared his experience with shared roads in the UK. He stated this concept has been proven to reduce the amount of conflicts and accidents and stated there are parts of Ashland where he thinks this could be very Planning Commission Stwiy Session August 25, 2009 Page 3 af5 useful, including the downtown core and some of the more rural streets. He encouraged any of the commissioners to contact him if they are interested in obtaining more information. Daw~ins voiced his support for this concept. Tom Burnham left the meeting at 8:10 p.m. . Road Diet Mr. Faught clarified this concept involves reducing the number of lanes. Marsh questioned if this concept is broad enough to include general arterial design. Sommer questioned if street landscaping comes into play in this element. Mr. Faught clarified ultimately the street design will include a landscaping element. . Off-Set Intersection Realignment Plan Mr. Faught stated there are several of these intersections in town and the goal is to come up with a plan so when development proposals come forward these areas can be fixed. He cited Hersey/Laurel, HerseylWimer, and Orange/Laurel as examples of off-set intersection. He stated the final plan will identify the realignment issues and protect the right of ways. Mr. Faught concluded his presentation and asked if the commissioners had any finai questions or comments. Commissioner Dotterrer stated he did not see land use coordination listed in the RFP and urged them to select a consultant team that has this experience. Commissioner Marsh commented on how the two commissions will work together throughout this process and suggested each commission select a formal liaison in order to keep each group aware of what the other is doing. She suggested the liaisons receive the other Commission's agendas and minutes, and attend meetings as needed. Councilor Navickas voiced concern that the draft RFP does not have enough integration with planning, and stated he would like to see one of the main points listed in the document focused on land use planning. Mr. Faught thanked the group for their comments and stated if they have further input to email it to him within the next few days so it can be incorporated into the RFP narrative. OTHER BUSINESS Commissioner Marsh stated she would like to add the following items to the meeting agenda: 1) Selection of Transportation Commission liaison. and 2) Update on the Mayor's Brown Bag Meetings with Commission Chairs. A. Selection of Transportation Commission Liaison It was noted that Commissioner Blake has been attending the Transportation Commission meetings as an ex officio member for Southern Oregon University. The Planning Commission voiced approval for Blake to serve as the Planning Commission Liaison to the Transportation Commission. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan Commissioner Marsh noted this item was presented at the last meeting, but the group did not have time for discussion. She noted the September 29~ Study Session will be devoted to discussing the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan and asked the commissioners to share what items they want discussed at that meeting. Mr. Molnar provided a brief overview of the draft AMC 18.53 language that was included in the meeting packet. He commented on how the Croman Master Plan would be added to the City's Site Design and Use Standards, and explained the AMC language would be more succinct, while the Site Design and Use Standards would be a more user-friendly guide with graphics, maps, etc. Planning Manager Maria Harris commented on the draft Land Uses matrix and explained this was developed from the draft Plan prepared by Crandall and Arambula. She stated there were some uses identified in the consultant's draft that staff did not Planning Commission Study Session August 25, 2009 Page 4 of 5 include in the matrix, including: theaters, nightclubs and bars, and hotels and motels. Mr. Harris stated staff did not believe these uses were appropriate for this end of town, and noted the concerns raised previously by Dawkins about uses that compete with the downtown core. Ms. Harris continued that crematoriums, public utility yards, churches, and broadcasting and radio stations were also left off the permitted uses list. Dotterrer questioned the reasoning behind leaving radio stations off and. stated a production studio could be compatible in an area like this. Ms. Harris added the' manufacture of food products in the office zone was not included, since this is allowed in the industrial zone. She stated building material sale yards were also not included, and recycling centers/sorting yards were also omitted. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman explained that he had conducted some research into sorting yards and contacted six other recycling centers throughout the state to determine approximate job densities. He stated there was a mix of both indoor and outdoor facilities and explained the average number of employees per acre was 4, and the majority of the facilities had outdoor storage of materials which is avoided in the current plan. Ms. Harris added because of the low employment densities, this use is not included in the Plan at this point. She noted the target in the Plan is 25 jobs per acre for the industrial area. Marsh requested staff provide a brief review of available industrial lands within the City at the September meeting. Commissioner Marsh asked the commissioners to share the issues they would like discussed at the September Study Session. Commissioner Rinaldi stated the Plan will need to be flexible, adaptable, and seem friendly to developers and potential buyers in terms of conveying some certainty. He asked that the issue of how the amendment procedure is laid out be added to their list of discussion items. Commissioner Miller voiced her concerns with the road layout where the new road meets Tolman Creek Rd. She stated this is not a smooth flow and in order to continue on Tolman Creek you will have to turn in and then turn back out. She added the current layout seems to isolate the subdivisions and asked that this be added to their discussion list. Commissioner Marsh requested the issue of street orientation for solar, and the balance of uses be discussed. Miller questioned if the existing trailer park could be maintained as rural and not annexed. Rinaldi commented on possibly including uses that would utilize this area in the evenings. but not detract from the downtown. Marsh asked the commissioners to email staff if any other issues come up'that they would like discussed at the Study Session. OTHER BUSINESS ICon!.1 B. Update on Mayor's Brown Bag Meetings with Commission Chairs Commissioner Marsh explained Mayor Stromberg has been holding monthly brown bag meetings with the various commission chairs. She stated this is an opportunity for the chairs to get together and hear what the other commissions are working on. Marsh noted some of the information shared at the last meeting, including the Airport Commission's concerns with the Croman Master Plan and the FAA approvals of development on that site, and that the Conservation Commission is looking at green buildings. Marsh noted they may want to talk during their retreat about possibly having formal liaisons to some of these commissions since there is a lot of overlap on what the groups are working on. She stated if the Commission has any issues they want shared during these meeting to let her know, and added if she is not able to attend one of these meetings she may call on one 01 them to serve in her absence. In response to a concern expressed by Councilor Navickas, Mr. Molnar commented briefly on the purpose of the Croman Advisory Committee. He stated the idea is to keep the other advisory commissions apprised of what is happening. to be open to their input, and to provide a mechanism for those who were interested in the beginning to stay involved. Overall, he hopes this will lead to a better plan. Ms. Harris noted the first meeting of the Croman Advisory Committee was more of a briefing. She stated the group is scheduled to meet again before the Planning Commission's September Study Session, so the Commission will be able to hear their input when they discuss this issue next. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Planning Commission Study Session August 25, 2009 Page 5 of 5 CITY OF A.SHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 29, 2009 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: Larry Blake Michael Dawkins Tom Dimitre Dave Dotterrer Pam Marsh Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris John Rinaldi, Jr. Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Absent Members: Debbie Miller Council Liaison: Eric Navickas ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced Southern Oregon University will be hoiding a meeting on the Campus Master Plan Update on Monday, October 5~, He stated if the commissioners want to attend, they are free to do so but will have to declare it as ex parte contact. He added commissioners can go and observe, but they should not participate in the actual discussions, . Commissioner Marsh noted the Commission's annual retreat is scheduled for Saturday, October 31. It was noted that Commissioner Dotterrer will not be able to attend. Marsh stated they are still developing the agenda and encouraged the commissioners to submit their ideas to staff. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA #2009.00784,615 Washington Street. Commissioners Morris and Dimitre stated they would abstain from voting since they did not participate in the hearing. No ex parte contact was declared by any of the commissioners. Commissioners Dotterrer/Blake mls to approve the Findings for PA #2009.00784. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Blake, Dawkins, Dotterrer, Marsh, Mindlin and Rinaldi, YES. Motion passed 6-0. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Croman Mill District Plan. Commissioner Marsh provided a brief summary of Croman process thus far. She stated two years ago the City was awarded a state grant for the Croman Mill site and engaged with consultants Crandall & Arambula to develop the draft plan. The scope of work for the project included several goals, including: 1) to involve owners, residents, government, and others interested in the area in the process of developing a master plan, 2) to develop an identity and vision for the area, and 3) to maximize opportunities for business development and employment consistent with the Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA). Marsh noted the public meetings that occurred during the plan development process and stated in February, 2008 the final draft was Ashland Planning Commission September 29, 2009 Page 1 015 submitted to the City. She noted the final draft included goals that were based on input that had been gathered throughout the process and included: 1) to provide for a large number of family wage jobs, 2) to allow for light industrial and manufacturing uses, 3) to create parcels with a flexibility to support local new businesses, business expansions, and large employers,"and 4) to consider a range of housing options. Marsh stated this package went before the Council in February, 2009 and at that point Council directed staff to begin the process of adopting the Croman Mill Redevelopment Plan. Commissioner Marsh stated tonight's meeting has been reserved for the Commission to put forward issues they feel warrant more discussion and her hope is for the Commission to get a clear sense of direction on the master plan elements. She stated as they work through the discussion outline they need to determine whether the Commission as a whole is supportive, whether they wish to make minor modifications, or whether they will recommend major changes that require City Council approval. Mr. Molnar clarified at the end of this meeting, staff will distribute the draft AMC language and draft Site Design & Use Standards. He noted these two documents touch on some of the items to be discussed tonight and if necessary can be adjusted based on the outcome of tonight's discussion. Commissioner Marsh clarified what tonight's deliberations will include and how they will proceed. Commissioner Dawkins expressed his frustrations and questioned the ral"(1ifications of moving forward with the Croman Plan. He submitted an outline of his questions and concerns to the Commission and stated economic development should occur within the downtown area. Comment was made that if Dawkins wants to propose major changes to the plan he should make a motion and let the group vote on it. Mr. Molnar clarified if their interest is to ensure a certain amount of land will develop as manufacturing, a master plan is the only tool to ensure that occurs. He added right now there is no guarantee on what will occur on that land and two of the last three developments in that M-1 zone have been for professional offices. Commissioner Marsh referred to the Discussion Outline that was included in the packet and 'suggested they begin with the Land Use issues. . Question: Are the CMD land use designations of "Office Employment" and "Compatible Industrial" appropriately located? Commissioners Dotterrer and Rinaldi voiced their support for the proposed layout of uses. Blake quoted sections from the EOA and noted it says that the Croman site should be retained in an industrial designation. Mr. Molnar clarified the purpose of the EOA was to create a standardization for communities to look at their long term employment needs and ensure they have a 20-year supply of land within their UGB to accommodate this. He added this document talks about trends and where the community might have competitive advantages in certain industries, however it is up to the community to decide which direction they want to go. Mr. Molnar added the EOA and State Goal 9 are not suppose to be prescriptive to the community, but rather the EOA provides information and allows communities to make their own decision. Council Liaison Navickas noted that the City Council unanimously approved the draft plan and suggested the Commission discuss the specifics within the plan and not these big picture items. Marsh agreed, but stated in order for the group to move forward they need to tackle this question and come to an agreement. Commissioner Mindlin stated she has a lot of questions about whether this plan meets the goals of the EOA and presented a summary of her issues. She voiced her disagreement with the assumptions that rezoning from industrial to employment will create more jobs, that office jobs will be higher paying than industrial jobs, and that the new jobs would be held by Ashland residents. Mindlin also commented on the job sectors identified in the EOA for potential growth and recommended the City complete an economic development plan to guide this master plan. Comment was made that most of the uses Mindlin is recommending are currently located in E-1 zones, and disagreeing that the Croman site needs to be an industrial zone for these uses to occur. Commissioner Morris shared his concerns with not having enough empioyment options available and stated when Ashland kids leave here and go to college, there is no place for them to work when they return. He stated Ashland needs this sector of employment and manufacturing jobs will not fill this void. Marsh agreed and voiced her support for office employment. She Ashland Planning Commission September 29, 2009 Page 2 015 stated the EOA was predicated on existing uses and it did not set out a vision for what kind of community we want and what we want to build. She voiced her support for providing family wage jobs that will allow more families to live in Ashland and stated she is comfortable with the layout of uses. Dotterrer agreed with Marsh and commented on keeping the plan flexible. He added there are a lot of industrial opportunities that would be allowed on the Croman site. Dimitre stated he agrees with the issues mentioned by Mindlin and stated he is concerned with the arrangement of uses and Plexis picking the site they want. Mindlin restated her position that this plan ignores the EOA and what it says are going to be Ashland's growth sectors. Morris disagreed and stated this plan would not preclude those activities from happening. Dawkins commented that the strict. design standards would likely discourage these types of uses. Mr. Molnar noted that they will be discussing the design standards at an upcoming meeting and the Commission can determine how flexible they want them to be. Commissioner Marsh asked if there are members who are unable to move forward with the layout of uses plan as presented. She stated if they want to change the land use designation to all industrial this is a major shift and will need to be taken back to the City Council for approval. Councilor Navickas expressed his disappointment that there are commissioners who seem unwilling to compromise and stated there are still a lot of opportunities for adjustments. Comment was made that this land could be purchased today and almost anything could be built there, and then the City would have no choice but to build around what's there. Suggestion was made for someone to make a motion so they can move forward. Commissioners MindlinlDawkins m/s to eliminate the employment zone and revert the entire plan to a modified M.1 zone that is meant to have flexibility, include employment uses, and exclude the heavierldirtier manufacturing uses to be yet determined. DISCUSSION: Marsh clarified if this motion passes the plan will need to go back to the City Council because this is in direct conflict with what they were instructed to do. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Dimitre, and Mindlin, YES. Commissioners Blake, Dotterrer, Marsh, Morris and Rinaldi, NO. Motion failed 5-3. Commissioner Blake noted a suggestion made by the Croman Advisory Committee to possibly rezone the two blocks southwest of the park to industrial land and make the two blocks closest to the residential area office employment land. He stated this would create the potential for a larger industrial lot and might be a good compromise. Hearing no real support for this suggestion, Marsh stated the Commission will move forward with the current layout while keeping in mind that they will stay flexible and adjustments may be made as they move forward with the public hearing process. . .- Questions: Is the addition of "Mixed" land use designation that requires ground floor employment use while permitting some upper floor residential appropriately located? Should any limitations for upper story uses be considered? Is too much or too little area allocated to the "Mixed Use" designation? Staff briefly reviewed the areas on the Croman site that have been allocated for mixed use. It was clarified the ground floor . would be for an employment use, and the upper floors could be either residential or employment use. Mindlin stated she is hesitant about designating the area outside the city limits at the south end of the property for mixed use. Marsh stated they have yet to decide whether this area will. be included in the master plan, and asked that Mindlin set aside this concern until they reach that point in the discussion. Dotterrer voiced his support for the mixed use area along the creek and stated it makes a lot of sense to allow for this flexibility. Question: Should the most southerly portion of the CMD Plan area be annexed as part of the CMD Plan adoption process? Mr. Molar clarified including this area in the Croman master plan may facilitate changes in this area quicker than they might like. Mindlin stated this area was not on the table for discussion during the plan development process with Crandall & Arambula. She recommended this area remain as is and not be included in the master plan. Several commissioners expressed agreement with Mindlin. Morris stated he supports including the portion that has the central boulevard passing through it. Marsh questioned the implications of having a city street pass through county land. Mr. Molnar clarified the street could still be constructed to City standards. He added the applicants are currently looking at grant opportunities to build this central boulevard and if they receive a grant, the road would likely be built all at once. Several comments were made about the farm currently located on that piece of property and expressing desire for it to remain. Marsh stated there does not seem to be support from the Commission to pursue annexation of this area as part of the master plan. Ashland Planning Commission September 29, 2009 Page 3015 Questions: What type, if any, night-time or evening uses should be allowed? Should land uses that are typically land are intensive and accommodate a relatively low number of employees per acre, such as lumber yards, sorting yards and recycling centers, be permitted within the CMD? Commissioner Marsh stated these issues would be pushed to their next meeting when they will be talking about kinds of uses and refinements. Question: How does the CMD Plan protect opportunities for utilizing future rail freight? Mr. Molnar noted the design standards, which will be addressed at their next meeting, includes a map and language that speaks to this issue and ensures land is reserved and this option remains viable. Question: Are the CMD's Plan assumptions related to "parking" appropriate? Mr. Molnar clarified the plan includes the City's standard parking requirements but also includes the ability for shared and mixed parking. He stated certain areas like the neighborhood commercial might have reductions in parking beyond the current parking standards and there is also a placeholder for a parking structure. Marsh asked for the Commission's general direction on the parking issue. Blake noted the LEED neighborhood program and commented on providing less than ample parking in hopes of encouraging people to use public and alternative transportation. Mindlin agreed with this and voiced support for looking at some of the suggestions in the LEED standards. Marsh agreed with the comments made and stated they should do everything they can to move in this direction. Questions: How will solar access be provided in the CMD Plan? What types of green building or sustainable development standards should be incorporated within the adopted plan implementation package? Mr. Molnar stated staff has been working under the assumption that this project will be subject to the City's solar setback standards and have also conducted research and held discussions with architects out of Portland that have a lot of experience in solar orientation. He explained what they have found is in terms of street orientation, there is a big distinction between residential and commerciallindustrial developments. Mr. Molnar stated for industrial and employment buildings, street orientation is not so much of a consideration for passive heat gain, but is a major consideration for rooftop solar photovoltaic systems. He stated architects are often recommending industriai and employment buildings be elongated along an east-west access in order to limit the length of the west facing fa9ade. He added the primary issue for these buildings is the energy costs to keep them cool, and the second major energy cost is lighting. Mr. Molnar explained staff is not looking at relocating the proposed streets, but rather are looking to protect access to rooftop solar collection systems and enacting standards that minimize west facing building facades. Mr. Molnar commented on sustainable standards and listed possible methods that could be used to encourage green building. He commented on providing incentives for buildings built to LEED standards, or they could consider a "menu" of options and require developments to perform a certain number that would increase the effiCiency of the building. Mr. Molnar added some communities are exploring fee reductions or an expedited permitting process for projects that meet a green standard. Mr. Goldman noted the draft plan also outlines several options for incorporating sustainability. Rinaldi suggested certain green attributes (such as rainwater catchment and solar orientation) be required, and then have a menu of options for applicants to choose from in order to qualify for incentives. Commissioner Marsh questioned how green streets fit into this. Mr. Molnar explained the plan will show which streets are going to be designed as green streets, and clarified they are working with the Public Works Director to develop a green streets standard. Dawkins expressed concern with taking the cement on the site and grinding it up for road base, and stated he does not believe this meets the definition of sustainable. Mindlin commented that she is torn between requiring high standards and offering incentives. She explained she also feels they are doing a disservice with the proposed street orientation and feels they are making a major mistake by not pursuing an east-west layout. Dotterrer questioned if it is possible in the Site Design & Use Standards to give applicants more flexibility in terms of setbacks to allow them to orient their building differently. Rinaldi voiced his support for this suggestion. Mr. Molnar stated if there is consensus from the Commission, staff can look into these issues further and bring back possible adjustments. B. Comments on Proposed Council Rules Ordinance and Uniform Policies and Operating Procedures Ordinance. Postponed to next meeting due to time constraints. Ashland Planning Commission September 29, 2009 Page 4 of5 ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Ashland Planning Commission September 29, 2009 Page 5 of 5 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 2009 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: Larry Blake Michael Dawkins Dave Dotterrer Pam Marsh Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris John Rinaldi, Jr. Tom Dimitre Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Derek Severson, Associate Planner April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Absent Members: None Council Liaison: Eric Navickas ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar noted the City Council has asked for an update on the Planning Commission's discussion of the tolling and extension ordinances. He stated this update is currently scheduled for the October 20lh City Council Meeting. Commissioner Marsh reminded the group of their Annual Retreat scheduled for October 31sl, and stated there is still time to submit agenda ideas. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. September 15, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes 2. September 29, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes Commissioners Dawkins/Dotterrer m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: All AYES (Commissioners Dimitre and Miller abstained). Motion passed 7-0. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: #2009-01051 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 514 Granite Street APPLICANT: Ron Rusnak & Lisa Zingarelli-Rusnak DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to reconstruct an existing non-conforming structure for the property located at 514 Granite Street. A Conditional Use Permit is required because the existing lot coverage (impervious surfaces of the existing home, driveway and sidewalks) exceeds the seven percent coverage allowed in the zoning district. With the proposal, overall lot coverage on the site is to be reduced by Ashland Planning Commission October 13. 2009 Pagelof6 23 square feet. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Woodland Residential; ZONING: WR; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391E 17AA; TAX LOT: 1105. Commissioner Marsh read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Declaration of Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Miller, Dotterrer, and Dawkins declared site visits; no ex parte contact was reported by any of the commissioners. Staff ReDort Associate Planner Derek Severson presented the staff report and clarified this planning application is required to come before the Planning Commission because it involves a conditional use permit for a new structure. Mr. Severson reviewed the property location and stated it is on the west side of Granite Street between Ashland Creek Dr. and Lantern Hill and is zoned Woodland Residential, which has a minimum lot size of 2-acres and an allowed lot coverage of 7%. He stated the existing lot is much smaller than the 2-acre minimum and is only .61 acres in size, and roughly 1,695 sq. ft. of the property (or 90% of the allowed lot coverage) is occupied by a shared driveway that serves seven properties. Mr. Severson explained the proposal before the Commission is to demolish the existing home due to mold infestation (a demolition permit has already been approved by the Building Division) and to construct a new home. Mr. Severson clarified while the new home will have a larger footprint than the current structure, because the proposal includes removing the shed and reducing the area of the existing driveway, patio and sidewalk, the overall lot coverage is reduced by 23 sq. ft. Mr. Severson noted the Applicant's have provided some conceptual building elevations which are fairly contemporary; however staff does not believe this is out of character with the surroundings. He clarified staff is recommending approval of the application with the noted conditions, and clarified there were no recommendations from the Tree Commission. ADDlicant's Presentation Mark Knox/Applicant's Representative and Carlos Delgado/Project Architect came forward and addressed the Commission. Mr. Knox explained the current structure is proposed for removal because it has a sever amount of poisonous mold, and the reports obtained by the property owner clearly indicate this issue. He commented on the site and clarified this lot was created prior to the adoption of the Woodland Residential Zone and this is a classic case where the lot is too small for the zoning designation. He stated this is a simple case and they have worked hard to create a proposal that lessens the impact and reduces the lot coverage of the site. He stated a good portion of the new house will be located on the existing driveway and impervious surface areas and noted the substandard size of the lot makes it difficult to put any kind of house here without going through the City's conditional use process. Mr. Delgado commented briefly on the conceptual design of the proposed house and stated they had to really work around the site considerations to lessen the lot coverage. Commissioner Miller expressed her concern about architectural compatibility. Mr. Knox clarified in this area the housing style is a mixed bag and if you go up into that area you will find houses that are contemporary. Public Testimonv No one' came forward to speak. j Commissioner Marsh closed the public hearing and the record at 7:23 p.m. Deliberations & Decision Commissioner Rinaldi asked if staff would follow up and make sure the final building design is compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Severson clarified staff will review the building plans for consistency with what has been proposed and will look for changes that might significantly alter the plan in how it relates to neighboring properties. Commissioners Dawkins/Dotterrer m/s to approve Planning Action #2009-01051 and approve the Findings (omitting Condition #3 as requested by staff), Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Morris, Mindlin, Miller, Rinaldi, Dawkins, Dimitre, Dotterrer, Blake and Marsh, YES. Motion passed 9-0. Ash/and Planning Commission October 13, 2009 Page 2 016 UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Comments on Proposed Council Rules Ordinance and Uniform Policies and Operating Procedures Ordinance. Council Liaison Eric Navickas explained the Council has begun discussing this issue, but have not yet made a final decision on the two proposed ordinances. Council Rules Ordinance The Commissioners shared their opinions on whether the Council Liaison to the Planning Commission should be an ex officio member or a non-member. Mr. Molnar clarified non-members cannot participate in the meeting, while ex officio members are generally allowed to sit and the table and participate in discussions, but not vote. Comment was made that in the past they have had liaisons that participated too energetically and at times their opinions influenced the Commission's decisions. Marsh noted the proposed language in Section 2.01.100.C which states "under no circumstance is a liaison to a City advisory body to attempt to direct debate, lobby or otherwise influence the direction or decisions of the body,' and stated whatever you call the position this section addresses those concerns. Navickas commented that the Planning Commission and the City Council have a dual relationship and there are times where he believes it is appropriate for the liaison to speak up and provide guidance. He cited a recent discussion on the Croman Mill Redevelopment Plan as an example where he interjected when he felt the Cgmmission was straying from what the Council had asked them to do. Opinion was given that classifying the liaison as an ex officio member and allowing this person to sit at the table tends to influence their decisions. Comment was made that the liaison should not be allowed to provide comment except in those circumstances where the Commission is getting off track from the Council's direction. City Attorney Richard Appicello commented on the direction he was given following the City Council's initial discussion. He noted their desire to make sure no councilor is using their position as a liaison to try to move the debate in a direction contrary to what the full Council wants. The Council also requested staff clarify that for the Planning Commission, the liaison will be an ex officio member of the body except for quasi-judicial matters. Commissioner Mindlin noted that there seems to be differing opinions amongst the group as to whether the liaison should be an ex officio member. Mr. Appicello stated the Council consensus was for all Council Liaisons to be ex officio members, except on the Planning Commission where the liaison would not be an ex officio member during quasi-judicial matters. General support was voiced for this clarification. Commissioner Marsh noted the language in Section 2.04.100.G which states "Each advisory body should be invited to give a short annual presentation to the Council' and stated she would like to take advantage of this provision and schedule a joint session with the City Council. Comment was made questioning if the language should read "shall' instead of "should'. The Commission voiced agreement that they should meet with the Council at least annually. Uniform Policies and Operating Procedures Ordinance Commissioner Marsh reviewed the following Ordinance sections that would impact the current procedures of the Planning Commission: 1) The election of officers would be changed to the first meeting of the year, 2) Chairs and Vice Chairs could not serve as officers for more than two years, and 3) Commissioner terms would be limited to 5 terms (20 years). Mr. Appicello clarified the restriction on term limits may be removed from the final ordinance and instead it would include softer language that the Mayor should give preference to new qualified individuals. Comment was made voicing opposition to the term limit provision since this does not seem to be a problem on the City's commissions and committees. Comment was made questioning why the chair and vice chair would be selected in January, when new members aren't appointed until the end of April. Commissioner Dawkins noted they have had this discussion before and the Planning Commission decided it was better to have the new members on board before they elect their officers. Marsh agreed that the selection of the chairs should happen after the new members are appointed. Mr. Molnar asked if the Commission had any input on the provision that limits the chair and vice chair to two years. Comment was made questioning why this needs to be in the ordinance and indicating the commission should be allowed to decide. Additional comment was made that if you have a really good chair, why shouldn't they be allowed to remain in that position; and that commissions should be allowed to govern their own proceedings to a certain extent. Ashland Planning ComriJission October 13, 2009 PAge 3 of 6 Mr. Appicello provided some clarification on why the Council is proposing these two ordinances and the benefits of having some standardization. Councilor Navickas questioned where the Commission would prefer him to sit during quasi-judicial hearings. Mr. Appicello clarified if the liaison is a non-member during these types of proceedings, it is probably appropriate for the liaison not to sit at the table. He stated the main question is whether the liaison should leave the room in order to avoid the possibility of non- verbal communication. Several commissioners voiced their opinion for the liaison to not be in the Council Chambers during quasi-judicial hearings. Suggestion was made for the Chair to announce why the Council Liaison is leaving the room when these situations occur. B. Croman Mill District Plan Commissioner Marsh clarified they will be continuing their discussions of the Outline of Issues document from the September 29~ meeting and asked Councilor Navickas to comment on how they are doing with communicating with the Council. Navickas encouraged the Commission to schedule an update with the Council in the near future, and explained the time for liaisons to give updates to the entire Council comes at the very end of their meetings and they often run out of time before this occurs. Community Development Director Bill Molnar suggested they schedule a Study Session with the Council before the Planning Commission holds its public hearing. Navickas and the Planning Commissioners voiced their support for this suggestion. Request was made for a representative of the Croman Advisory Committee to also be invited to attend the Study Session. Transportation Issues Senior Planner Brandon Goldman noted that some members have raised concerns regarding the alignment of Tolman Creek Road and the new central boulevard. He explained the idea is the for majority of traffic to be directed to the Croman site, and those who want to continue down Tolman Creek Rd would have to make a right hand turn to connect back onto Tolman Creek. Mr. Molnar commented since this alignment would happen at a future phase, and is contingent on a lot of things happening (including the exchange with ODOT), he suggested they may want to wait on making a final decision on this element of the plan. He added the City is in the process of updating its Transportation System Plan and it may be beneficial to wait until this plan is complete before they make a decision since the TSP will likely address this area and may propose suggestions for how this area should be addressed. Commissioner Miller suggested they create two lanes going south toward Siskiyou Blvd; the left lane could go into the Croman site and the right lane could continue along Tolman Creek Rd to the residential areas. She questioned how long it will take for the Croman site to generate a lot of traffic and until that buildup occurs she supports a left hand turn off Tolman Creek Rd. into the Croman site. Dotterrer noted the concept was to direct the arterial traffic to the new boulevard and turn Tolman Creek Rd., which passes right by an elementary school, back into a residential street. Miller commented that the proposed layout seems awkward. Dimitre gave his opinion that it is doubtful the new street will become a new boulevard and he believes people will continue to use Tolman Creek Rd. Mr. Goldman noted that Tolman Creek Rd. is part of the bus loop, and once a certain amount of buildup occurs on the Croman site, they may want to move the bus stops to the main boulevard. He noted there are pedestrian crossings included in the plan that would enable people to get from the residential neighborhood to the new bus routes. Comment was made that taking the bus service away from a dense residential area and diverting it to the Croman site might be a mistake. Additional comment was made that people use the bus throughout the day in the residential areas, while at the Croman site it may only be utilized in the morning and evening when people and coming and leaving work. Mr. Molnar commented briefly on the possibility of a future connection from Washington Street over to Tolman Creek Road that is identified in the Interchange Area Management Plan (lAMP). He clarified this may come up as part of the TSP update, but any future connection would not pass through the Croman site. Mindlin stated she is worried about displacing uses from the Croman site over to Washington Street and is concerned with this areas access issues. Mr. Molnar explained Washington St. is an existing problem and ODOT is aware that this is part of the TSP update and that changes will need to occur. He noted there were some discussions to vent both areas by crossing the railroad tracks with a roadway, but the grade issues . and costs involved created limitations to this option. Marsh stated it is important for them to look at pedestrian and bicycle access on both sides of the tracks so that people can move from one side to the other. Mr. Molnar voiced his support for tracking the land use proposals for the Washington Street area and providing this type of input during the TSP process. Ashland Planning Commission October 13, 2009 Page 4 a/'6 Commissioner Dotterrer voiced his support for postponing a decision on the future alignment of Tolman Creek Rd. He stated the Commission should come to an agreement on the idea of a central boulevard and leave the issue of the future alignment to the Transportation Commission. Marsh voiced her opinion that they do not need to decide how this intersection will work at the master planning level. Rinaldi suggested if they want to leave this intersection to be determined, it should be more generic in the plan and not specified as it is currently. The Commission reached general consensus on the central boulevard concept. Mr. Molnar suggested they consider adding wording to the Design Standards that acknowledges the master plan concept for the central boulevard, but notes this is a future phase and the details will need to be evaluated at a later date. Support was voiced for injecting some ambiguity into the Design Standards language. Commissioner Rinaldi questioned if they are getting too precise with the grid layout in terms of the minor streets and access ways, and whether this would limit the size and variety of the parcels. He stated buyers may have concerns with this and he suggested they dash the streets in order to show them as being more conceptual. Mr. Molnar stated the local streets and the central boulevard are fairly set, but there could be opportunity to consider other options for the access ways, such as a multi- use path system. Commissioner Blake expressed concern with the proposed active zones that require building fa,ades to be within 25 ft. of the property line and how this would affect solar access. Mr. Molnar clarified staff has starting working on possible adjustments to the street configuration to more of an east-west layout and can bring this forward if the Commission is interested in exploring different options. Commissioner Marsh indicated the Commission's support for staff to research alternate options to the street configuration. Land Use Mix Mr. Molnar provided an introduction to the matrix and briefly reviewed the difference between special permitted uses and conditional uses. The Commission reviewed the matrix and the uses that are outlined. Residential Uses Mr. Goldman clarified a definition will need to be added for short term employee housing, but this definition will likely indicate the unit could only be occupied by someone employed by the permitted use on site. He added this type of housing would typically be an apartment located within an office building. Dotterrer voiced his support for this concept, but requested staff make sure the definition is consistent with the concept. Dimitre commented that he is not in favor of the short term employee housing idea and stated he would like this reworked to support more affordable housing. Mr. Molnar clarified under State law, the City cannot mandate affordabie housing and can only provide incentives. Councilor Navickas suggested re-zoning the existing industrial as mixed-use employment as a means to get an additional amount of housing. Miller voiced her support for the Croman site to be primarily employment, with the opportunity for mixed-use near the other residential areas along the creek. Dimitre commented on the need to provide adequate housing on the site and suggested residential use be permitted without being in conjunction with commercial. Comment was made suggesting the proposed neighborhood center be used for high density housing. Mr. Goldman clarified in the neighborhood center, 100% of the second or third story could be residential, but 100% of the ground floor needs to be commercial. Comment was made that the whole idea behind this plan was to create employment and industrial opportunities and what has been presented is a nice compromise. Several opinions were given on whether high density housing should be permitted in the neighborhood center, and Marsh clarified it does not appear they have a consensus on this issue. She added they will reach a point in the process where they will need to vote on these items and they may want to consider including minority reports along with the package that goes before the City Council. Commercial Uses Mr. Molnar suggested 1,500 sq. ft. be the maximum square footage for stores, restaurants and shops in the Office Employment and Compatible industrial areas and asked for the Commission's feedback. Mindlin voiced her support for allowing stores and restaurants in these areas and stated she would even support it being more flexible. Dotterrer agreed and stated most office areas have places on the ground floor where employees can get a sandwich or a quiCk bite to eat. Several other comments were made voicing support for this provision. Commissioner Marsh questioned the childldaycare center and fitness club provision and whether these would be open to the general public. She asked why they would allow the general public to visit the restaurants, but not allow them to use the daycare facilities. Mindlin agreed with Marsh and stated this feels exclusionary to not allow businesses to provide services to Ashland Planning Commission October 13. 2009 Page 5 of 6 the general public. Mr. Goldman clarified the way it is currently drafted, a Gold's Gym or a daycare center open to the general public could only be located in the neighborhood center. For businesses located in the Office Employment or Compatible Industrial area, you can only provide this use if it is for your employees. Comment was made questioning what would happen if a business wants to offer a daycare service to its employees, but due to a limited number of children, they need to open it up to the public in order to make it viable. Mr. Goldman clarified the language currently states "services generally intended to support", so there may be some allowance for this ty'pe of situation.- Industrial Uses , Mr. Goldman clarified he has made a note to insert a line for "Retail in conjunction with a manufactured use of less than 600 ft" to be permitted outright in the Compatible Industrial zone. Dimitre suggested the "manufacture or assembly contiguous to a retail outlet" be removed from the Neighborhood Center and stated he does not believe this is an appropriate use in that zone. Mindlin commented on the provision for "warehouse and similar storage facilities in conjunction with permitted use and . enclosed in building" and recommended they allow for storage outside of buildings. Several commissioners voiced support for storage outside of buildings to be a conditional use so that appropriate screening could be required. Public & Institutional Uses Comment was made voicing concern with not allowing private schools (adult education) as a permitted use. Mr. Goldman noted there are employee targets they are trying to hit and based on floor area, schools typically don't have a high number of employees. Dotterrer questioned why there are different standards for public service and community buildings with and stated whatever they decide for private use, they should allow the same for public use. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Ashland Planning Commission October 13. 2009 Page 60f6 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2009 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: Larry Blake Michael Dawkins Dave DoUerrer Pam Marsh Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris John Rinaldi, Jr. Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Maria Harris, Planning Manager Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Derek Severson, Associate Planner April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Absent Members: None Council Liaison: Eric Navickas ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Marsh announced there is currently a vacant position on the Commission and encouraged anyone who is interested to submit an application. Community Development Director Bill Molnar stated due to the upcoming holidays, the Commission will only hold one Study Session. He stated staff will contact them via email to determine whether a November or December Study Session is preferred. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. October 13, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes Commissioners Dotterrer/Blake m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 8-0. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: #2009-01151 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 545.555.565 Clover Lane APPLICANT: Clover Lane LLCIHoliday Inn Express DESCRIPTION: A request for a zoning map amendment to extend the "Freeway Sign ZonelFreeway Overlay District" from its current 700.foot radius to include two additional properties along the west side of Clover Lane. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391E 14AA; TAX LOTS: 3200, 6700 & 6800. Commissioner Marsh read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Ashland Planning Comniission November 10, 2009 Page 1 016 Declaration of Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Blake; Miller and Dotterrer participated in the site visit; Commissioners Morris, Dawkins, Mindlin and Marsh drove past the site; Commissioners Dawkins and Rinaldi noted their involvement with the Freeway Interchange Design Committee; Commissioner Dotterrer noted he lives in the nearby neighborhood, but stated he has no bias. Staff ReDort Associate Planner Derek Severson presented the staff report for the planning application. He reviewed the current boundaries of the Freeway Sign Zone/Freeway Overlay District and clarified within this radius there is an allowance for signs to be placed . up to 2,028 ft. above the mean sea level. He clarified the proposal before the Commission is to extend the current overlay zone to encompass the remainder of the Miguel's property at 545 Clover Lane, the adjacent parking lot at 555 Clover Lane, and the Holiday Inn Express property at 565 Clover Lane. He stated if approved, this proposal would allow for the installation of two additional freeway signs in this area. Mr. Severson reviewed the visibility problems associated with the Holiday Inn Express at the end Clover Lane. He noted the Applicant's application points out that Clover Lane used to extend straight down, but back in the 1990's the area was reconfigured and the street realigned, which affects the line of sight when traveling down Clover Lane. Mr. Severson stated in looking at the application, staff was not only concerned with the visibility problem, but also wanted to ensure impacts to the adjacent residential area were considered. He displayed photos of the views taken from the residential area and clarified the distance between the subject area and the neighborhood ranges from over 400 ft. to 215 ft. He added there is also a substantial elevation change buffering the two areas. Mr. Severson clarified the Holiday Inn Express does have existing signage that is focused on the freeway frontage; and with recent Sign Ordinance changes, there are opportunities for them to gain signage on the other frontages as well. Mr. Severson concluded his presentation and stated staff believes there is a change in circumstance that could justify a change in the overlay, and it does not appear amending the overlay district would create significant impacts to the residential area. ADDlicant's Presentation Mark KnoxlApplicant's RepresentativelClarified the Applicant could not be present because he is receiving an award for the improvements he has made to this property. Mr. Knox stated the Sign Code is unique to Ashland and changes should not be taken lightly; however the Applicant has raised valid concerns. He stated Clover Lane is very narrow, there are Dead End signs posted, and you can't see the hotel because of the bend in the road. He added there is also heavy vegetation and the overall impact gives this street an uncomfortable feeling for someone who may be unfamiliar with the area. Mr. Knox stated the residents in the residential area will not be able to see the signage because of the fencing, vegetation and grade change. He added there is also a distance of 400-450 ft. between the two areas that mitigates this concern. Mr. Knox submitted . suggested language for the Commission to consider which would only allow the map change to occur along this boundary. He stated when the overiay was first created they formed an indiscriminate circle, and this change would focus on the properties most in need and solve their problems. Mr. Knox stated the Holiday Inn Express caters to out-of-towners and he believes the sign overlay was developed with this in mind and was meant to help capture that business. Mr. Knox provided some clarification of his suggested language. He stated this would expand the overlay zone to include the most western 100 ft. of the three identified tax lots and addresses any precedence argument that may come forward in the future. Public Testimonv Robert Peffer/626 Sutton Place/Stated he has spoken with his neighbors and feels extending the zone overlay will set precedence. Mr. Peffer voiced his opposition to the Applicant's proposal and stated approval would not only allow the Holiday Inn Express to erect a large sign, but also Pacific Western Oregon and possibly a new sign for Miguel's. He stated the requested action seems like overkill for a solely Holiday Inn problem and voiced concern that if approved, this would set a precedent making it difficult to reject similar requests from properties on the east side of Clover Lane. He stated the way to solve this problem is to grant the Holiday Inn a variance and allow them to have a taller sign. Ashland Planning Commission November 10, 2009 Page 2016 Applicant's Rebuttal Mr. Knox clarified you can not ask for a variance to the Sign Ordinance, and this was the only avenue one can take. He added going through the map amendment process is a difficult task and he does not believe this is a precedence setting situation. Advice from Lellal Counsel & Staff . Mr. Severson explained that in terms of the potential issue of setting a precedent for further expansion of the overlay, it should be noted that the Applicant's had initially proposed an increase in the overlay's radius at the pre-application stage. At that time, staff made it clear than an application of this nature must first demonstrate compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and that staff had fairly significant concerns that an expansion of the overlay would encourage more freeway-oriented businesses that may not meet the job-creation targets of the Comprehensive Plan (at least 10 family wage jobs per acre). Mr. Severson stated the current proposal was significantly modified based on these concerns and is now limited to the subject properties, where freeway-oriented businesses are for the most part already established and therefore there is little concern with job creation. Mr. Severson emphasized that if the proposal is approved, future 'lPplications to expand the overlay will still need to address not only aesthetic impacts and the proximity to the residential neighborhoods, but also the Comprehensive Plan issues of job creation: therefore staff does not believe that the setting of a specific precedent should be a concern. Mr. Severson read aloud the suggested approval statement provided by Mr. Knox: "The Planning Commission finds the proposal to amend the Freeway Sign Zone to include the most westem 100' of Tax Lofs #3200 (391E 14AB), #6600 and #6700 (391E 14AA) meets the criteria for a Zoning Map Amendment as described in fhe Ashland Municipal Code,. Section 18. 106.060.B.l.b as there has been substantial changes in the circumstances since the existing plan designation was adopted in 1973 (36 years) which necessffafes the need fo adjust to the changed circumstances relating to the re-alignment of the southern end of Clover Lane which has created the existence of freeway-oriented businesses that do not have freeway signage visibilffy. The Planning Commission also finds that the proposal fo only include the most western 100' of Tax Lots #3200 (391E 14AB), #6600 and #6700 (391E 14AA) balances the signage needs offreeway-oriented businesses and mitigates against the aesthetic impacts on the rest of the communify and specifically the adjacent residential neighbors to the east which are currently screened by fencing, vegetation, buildings, a lower topographic elevation (between 14' and 28J, and approximately 400' of distance. " Mr. Severson clarified the additional area to be included in the overlay zone is very specific and this proposal wouid not increase the size of the overlay "circle". Commissioner Marsh closed the record and the public hearing at 7:50 p.rn. Deliberations & Decision Commissioner Miller spoke in favor of not expanding the overlay radius and questioned if the issues the hotel is having could be solved by better signage on Clover Lane instead. Commissioners Dotterrer/Dawkins m/s to approve Planning Action #2009-01151 with the amended language read aloud by staff. DISCUSSION: Dawkins agreed that Clover Lane has issues and stated he would feel uncomfortable too if he wasn't familiar with it. He added as long as they are looking at directing signs specifically along the freeway, he is comfortable with the Ordinance change. Blake stated he does not support the proliferation of signs along 1-5; however in this case he feels this is a reasonable request given the situation. Dawkins commented briefly on development history for this area and noted this was essentially a rural interchange when the off-ramp went in. DotterTer stated he does not believe this approval will set precedence and stated someone would have a lot of difficultly challenging the wording that is proposed. Rinaldi stated this is not a freeway signage issue, but a local streets signage issue; and questioned if they should recommend the new signs be placed at a lower height. Staff clarified a change in the height limit would need to be approved by the City Council. Additional comment was made that in order for the sign to be effective, it will likely have to rise to the allowed limit. Marsh stated if you have freeway businesses you need freeway signs, and voiced her support for this application. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Rinaldi, Blake, Dawkins, Mindlin, Morris, Dotterrer and Marsh, YES. Commissioner Miller, NO. Motion passed 7-1. Ashland Planning Commission November 10, 2009 Page 3 016 OTHER BUSINESS A. Croman Mill District Plan. Planning Manager Maria Harris provided a brief review of the public hearing package and the project timeline. She explained the public hearing package will include: 1) a new AMC chapter titled '18.53 Croman Mill", 2) the Croman Mill District Standar~s which will be integrated into the Site Design & Use Standards, 3) miscellaneous revisions to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, 4) amendments to the Comprehensive Plan map and Zoning map, and 5) will adopt the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan as a supporting document. In regards to the project timeline, Ms. Harris explained the Croman Advisory Committee will hold their final meeting on November 18, 2009; on November 30, staff will provide an update to the City Council, and in December the Commission will hold their public hearing on the Croman implementation package. She added the Planning Commission's recommendation from their December meeting will be forwarded to the City Council, who are scheduled to hold a public hearing in January. Ms. Harris requested the Commission focus tonight's discussion on the Croman Mill District Standards, which are comprised of the following sections: 1) Street Standards, 2) Development Standards, and 3) Sustainable Development Standards. Ms.. Harris clarified the draft Standards document handed out at the beginning of the meeting has not been changed since their last discussion on September 29~; and clarified the highlighted sections mark the new language that is not a carry-over from the existing Site Design & Use Standards. Ms. Harris noted the 'Dimensional Standards Matrix" that will be inserted at the end of AMC 18.53, and clarified this chart addresses lot size, yard requirements, landscaping coverage, height, solar access, floor area ratio, residential density, and employment density. Street Standards Ms. Harris briefly reviewed the central boulevard, local commercial streets, accessways, and multi-use paths. She clarified the accessways are somewhat flexible and are intended primarily for pedestrian and bike access. Ms. Harris reviewed where the multi-use paths would be located and clarified the path adjacent to the railroad will be wider in anticipation of higher volumes of bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Design Standards Ms. Harris explained about half of the language in this section was pulled over from the current Site Design & Use Standards document. She stated the existing standards cover orientation and scale, parking and on-site circulation, streetscape, building materials, architectural standards for large-scale building, landscaping, and lighting. She stated the new ianguage was taken from the Crandall Arambula plan and address: active edge streets, street wall height, residential buffer zones, transit facility, freight rail spur easement, commuter rail platform easement, open space, and compact development. Sustainable Development Ms. Harris stated this section is essentially all new material that was suggested in the Crandall Arambula plan, and addresses green streets, stormwater management, and green surface parking. Additional sustainable standards that are included in this section speak to: conserving natural areas, creating diverse neighborhoods, minimizing construction impacts, practicing low- impact site development, and sustainable development bonuses. Staff put forward the following questions to the Commission: 1) Are the land uses in the land use matrix consistent with the goals and objectives of the redevelopment plan? 2) Do the design standards seem consistent with the employment center . envisioned in the redevelopment plan? 3) Do the sustainable design standards go too far, not far enough, or seem just about right? Commissioner Mindlin asked if they are done discussing the land use distribution. She noted she had made a motion at a previous meeting that did not pass, however no other motion was approved. Commission Marsh clarified the Commission has not made any final decisions, and the times they reached consensus it was merely agreement to include those items in the implementation package that goes to the pUblic hearing. She stated the input they gain from the public may necessitate further changes, and at the conclusion of the public hearing the Commission will issue their final recommendation to the City Council. Staff clarified Crandall Arambula has been asked to provide input on a possible revision of the proposed street alignment. Mr. Molnar clarified staff has been working on this internally, and have forwarded this onto the consultant team who prepared the Ashland Planning Commission November 10, 2009 Page 4 01 6 original Croman Mill Redevelopment Plan to review the changes and provide feedback on what the tradeoffs might be. He stated staff is working with them to get this back as quickly as possible. Commissioner Marsh asked if staff would be holding a neighborhood meeting prior to the public hearing. Mr. Molnar stated there are several neighbors who have been following the plan and staff will offer their attendance if the neighborhood wants to put something together. Ms. Harris noted staff is gearing up to notice the public hearing and the notice area will be quite large at 200 ft. from the boundaries of the entire Croman study area. Mr. Molnar added staff has also collected a fairly extensive email mailing list and notices could be sent to these individuals as well. Commission Dotterrer requested clarification on the active edge concept. Ms. Harris explained the idea is to have these along the central boulevard and around the central park. She stated these areas should have a strong pedestrian orientation since it is the Croman District's "front door", and buildings in this area will be closer to the sidewalk in order to create a boulevard space. Staff provided some clarification on the building height possibilities. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman explained the height bonus is based on the LEED Certification Program, and will allow additional stories for each level of LEED Certification achieved. However even with a LEED height bonus, each zone has a maximum height limit that all structures must adhere to. (Height Maximums: Neighborhood Commercial- 4 stories, Mixed Use ~ 4 stories, Compatible lndustrial- 6 stories, Office Employment- 7 stories). In terms of height, Commission Marsh asked what the FAA has said about this plan. Mr. Molnar clarified as the buildings get taller, there will likely be restrictions added. He added staff has requested a FAA representative come to Ashland and review the Croman plan before it goes through the public hearing process. Commissioner Mindlin asked why the height limit for the Neighborhood Commercial zone was so low, and stated she had imaged something a little more dense. Staff clarified 2.5 stories is what is allowed now, so they kept this figure as the base; and while the Crandall Arambula plan suggested 4-6 stories, staff has proposed a 4 story limit out of respect for the abutting area and to provide an appropriate transition to the district. Mr. Goldman noted the residential buffer area encompasses much of the Neighborhood Commercial area and under the LEED standards, the height bonus is not applicable to areas within the residential buffer. He added if the Commission wants taller buildings in this area, the buffer will need to be reduced in size. Comment was made questioning if staff had considered other incentives for LEED development within the residential buffer area. Additional statement was made asking if the residential buffer area would be able to accommodate 60-units per acre if buildings are only 2.5 stories tall. Staff cited the Lithia Lot proposal as an example, and it was noted the 60-unit per acre figure will compel builders to provide smaller units, which is the intent. It was also clarified that 60-units per acre is currently the allowed density in the downtown area as well. Staff clarified the employment density numbers are guidelines and came straight from the Crandall Arambula plan. Mr. Molnar noted staff has been researching other communities to see if they provide anything besides guidelines for enforcement purposes, but since projects are often phased out over a period of time, employment density numbers likely won't be met during the initial phases. He stated this needs to be taken into consideration and the guideline approach may be best. Commission Dotterrer commented that it would be difficult to ask applicants to give a firm number, since business activity and employee numbers fluctuate. Commissioner Mindlin voiced concern that the employee targets will prohibit local businesses from moving to the Croman site. Ms. Harris noted staff did review local industrial employee numbers and cited Blackstone Audio and Dreamsacks as two local businesses who would meet the proposed targets. Commissioner Morris commented that the only way to pay for all the infrastructure is to have a higher number of employees per acre. Councilor Navickas commented that the minimum square foot lot size seems to be pushing toward a model that precludes small, locally grown industrial businesses. Ms. Harris clarified the intent was to accommodate existing local businesses that are growing and are in need of a larger space, as well as accommodating new businesses coming to town. Commissioner Marsh suggested they turn their discussion to the Sustainability Standards. Commission Dawkins commented that these should be called "Environmental Development Standards" instead, and stated he does not see anything in this Ashland Planning Commission November 10, 2009 Page 5'016 section that is sustainable and they seem to be more environmentally oriented. Comment was made that the term sustainable development is the standard term that is being used within the industry. Mr. Goldman provided a brief summary of the Croman Advisory Committee's discussion of the rainwater catchment issue. He noted at that meeting Commissioner KenCairn voiced concern with requiring 25% of the irrigation to come from rainwater, since there is no rainwater during certain months of the year. She had also recommended instead of making rainwater catchment a recommendation, to have a requirement for a certain percentage to be retained on the site for either graywater or irrigation use. Several comments were made voicing support for KenCairn's recommendation and to make rainwater catchment a requirement. Suggestion was made for staff to' consider separating the recommendations from the requirements in Section VII-C-? and put them into two separate paragraphs. Commissioners Mindlin/Rinaldi m/s to continue the meeting to 10:00 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed S-O. Commissioner Mindlin asked about the parking standards and questioned why all of the zones don't have the opportunity to reduce their parking through the implementation of alternative parking management strategies. Mr. Molnar stated this was a good question and staff will look into it. Comment was made questioning if they could roll back the height limit in order to persuade people to build LEED certified structures and get the height bonus. Ms. Harris indicated there may be some legal issues with rolling back what someone could build currently; additionally, she noted the Importance of balancing the goals of the plan in tenms of employment generation and environmentally sensitive development. Commissioner Marsh suggested they continue to brainstorm to come up with other incentives for building LEED structures in addition to the height bonus. FARs, height and lot coverage, and. parking requirements were all mentioned as possible options for staff to consider. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Ashland Planning Commission November 10, 2009 Page 60f6 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 8, 2009 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: Larry Blake Michael Dawkins Dave DotteITer Pam Marsh Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris John Rinaldi, Jr. Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Absent Members: None Council Liaison: Eric Navickas ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Marsh announced the vacancy on the Planning Commission and encouraged interested citizens to submit applications. She also requested they add review of the Planning Commission Goals to tonight's agenda. Staff clarified the December 22"" Study Session will likely be canceled, unless pressing matters arise at tonight's meeting. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. November 10, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes Commissioners Dotterrer/Miller m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion Passed 8-0. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Adoption of Findings for PA #2009-01151, Clover Lane. Declaration of Ex Parte Contact No ex parte contact was reported. Commissioners Rinaldi/Miller m/s to approve the Findings for Planning Action #2009-01151. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion Passed 8-0. . DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Croman Mill District Plan. Commissioner Marsh provided a brief summary of the update that was given to the City Council on November 30th. During the update, she noted the Council raised questions about employee density and enforcement, the location of office and industrial land, and urban renewal districts. Council Liaison Navickas stated in general, the Council seemed positive and supportive of Ashland Planning Commission December 8. 2009 Page 1 015 what the Commission has done. Marsh stated there are still a few issues that are dangling and these will be addressed tonight; with the public hearing scheduled for their first meeting in January. Planning Manager Maria Harris provided a short presentation to the Commission. She displayed images of the current plan and of a possible revision to the street alignment, which adjusts the streets to within 150 of a true east-west axis. She stated the revised alignment will allow for more long and narrow buildings with more southern exposure, which will minimize heat gain in the summer. She added at this point staff does not see any major red flags with moving towards this revision: however the block sizes will need to be evaiuated and they will also need to look at possible impacts on existing structures. Staff clarified topographical issues will also need to be evaluated. Community Development Director Bill Molnar noted staff just received this revised version and will be better prepared to provide further analysis at their next meeting. He added as the Commission prepares their recommendation to the City Council, they could consider including a recommendation for the Council to adopt the revised street layout. Commissioner Dotterrer requested an update on the status of the ODOT property and asked if someone is going to have to purchase that property or if they are considering a swap. Mr. Molnar clarified staff has not discussed this with ODOT; however ODOr's property is fairly valuable, and if they sold it they could purchase property at a different location. He added the Croman plan will still work even if this property stays under ODOr's control. In regards to the Tolman Creek Rd realignment, suggestion was made for the Commission to make it clear that a decision has not yet been made and to solicit the public's input on this at the public hearing. Staff provided clarification on the process from here on out. Mr. Molnar stated the most appropriate way to proceed is to make a recommendation on the package that the Council has already seen, and if the Commission feels strongly that the revised street layout should be considered, to issue this as a separate recommendation. He added the revised street layout is a significant change, and before staff makes all the necessary map changes, they need to get direction/approval from the City Council. Commissioner Marsh thanked staff for presenting the revised street layout, and several commissioners voiced their support for the revision. Mr. Molnar provided a summary of the solar setback issues. He stated as soon as they started planning for this site, staff realized there would be conflicts with the Solar Setback Ordinance. Based on the current plan, the buildings would need to be 54 ft. apart to comply with the ordinance, and any additional heights obtained through LEED bonuses would further exacerbate the problem. Mr. Molnar clarified the January meeting materials will include suggestions on how to adapt the package to accommodate the solar ordinance. He added downtown Ashland is currently exempt from the Solar Ordinance provisions, and exempting the Croman site might be an option to consider. Ms. Harris noted she has spoken with the City's Conservation staff regarding this issue, and believes there will still be opportunities for solar even if the ordinance does not apply. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman commented on the plan's employee density goals and provided input from other communities who have tried to enforce employment numbers. He explained the cities of Canby and Milwaukie both tried to apply employee density numbers in their industrial areas and have faced many problems with this concept. The City of Canby is looking at removing this standard completely, and the City of Milwaukie cited several procedural issues they have faced in terms of enforcement. Mr. Goldman stated some of the issues expressed by these two municipalities are: how to handle phased developments, how to allocate employees per acre, how to accommodate for open space, difficulty in making an assessment for new businesses, the definition of employee, and most notably they expressed difficultly in data collection and reporting over time. Mr. Molnar noted there was quite a bit of discussion by the Council at their November 30~ meeting and staff has not found a strong way to deal with this. Comment was made suggesting they learn from what other cities have done, and focus on uses that will achieve their employee density goals, rather than specifying employee numbers in the plan. Staff was asked to comment on whether there might be any future liability against the City if the Croman property owners receive the grant for the central boulevard, but are unable to meet the job creation numbers identified in the application. Ms. Harris clarified the Croman plan is designed around fairly intense uses and the grant application was consistent with this. It was noted the grant is highly competitive and is evaluated on job creation, and if the Croman owners were to receive it, the Ashland Pfanning Commission December 8, 2009 Page 2 015 City would not take on any liability. Mr. Molnar commented briefly on the agreement that was reached with Brammo, and stated the agreement allows the City to acquire and sell off property if any penalties are levied because of grant incompliance. Comment was made questioning who will be responsible for paying for the infrastructure. Staff stated the infrastructure will likely be put in by either the developer or the person who buys a particular lot. both ways are common. Mr. Molnar noted the current property owners wouid like to build the central boulevard all at once, but phasing the installation is also an option. He noted city standards state that adequate transportation must be provided, so this will need to occur before a building is constructed. Mr. Molnar noted the City Council has also discussed the possibility of a finance district. Commissioner Dotterrer asked if the City had an estimate of the infrastructure costs and questioned if the costs would make development economically viable. Commissioner Blake noted this issue came up at the Croman Advisory Committee meeting and concern was raised about whether this would pencii out. Comment was made that if the infrastructure costs are too high, businesses might need to cut back on the number of jobs they can provide. Commissioner Marsh cited the November 30~ Council Study Session minutes and clarified a lot of thought is. going into how this will be financed and does not believe this is under their purview. Dotterrer disagreed and stated recommending a pan that may not be economically viable is something the Commission needs to consider. Mr. Goldman provided clarification on the residential buffer area and how this impacts heights in the neighborhood center. He stated a residential buffer area was established that includes much of the neighborhood center; and one of the standards for the residential buffer states the maximum height is equal to the height of the current underlying zone (which is 35 ft). He stated the idea of the residential buffer cap on height is to create a transition from the adjoining residential districts outside the plan area. Mr. Goldman stated if the Commission wants to encourage higher density housing in this area (above 35 ft), they may want to consider adjusting the residential buffer area. He stated one option may be to keep the buffer in the areas adjacent to the neighborhoods, but narrow it down to allow taller buildings in the center of the neighborhood center. Comment was made that taller buildings may be needed to accommodate the transit facilities and this is closer to what was originally envisioned for this area. Request was made for staff to clarify whether the FAA has provided input on the proposed building heights. Staff clarified they are going through the formal process of submitting potential heights to find out what the FAA's mitigation requirement will be. Commissioner Miller expressed her concern with residential density. She stated 60-units per acre are very small units and asked if this is the type of housing that is wanted and needed in Ashland. Mr. Molnar noted the needs analysis did show a substantial need for smaller units, and while 60-units per acre is the maximum, someone could develop a lesser number of units per acre. He stated the goal is to encourage smaller units, but clarified 60 is not the requirement, only the maximum. Commissioner Blake commented briefly on the sustain ability standards and suggested they provide potential developers a range of options and let them choose which ones they want to incorporate (such as 6 out of 10). Commissioner Marsh stated their next meeting on this topic will be the public hearing scheduled for January 12, 2010 and noted the importance of getting the public's input on these issues. B. Update on Timetable Extension and Timetable Tolling Ordinances. Commissioner Rinaldi recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Molnar provided some background on the two issues. He stated this started with the City Council and they forwarded it to the Planning Commission to get their feedback. The issues then went back to Council where they voted to send both items back to the Planning Commission to draft an ordinance and take it through the standard process. Mr. Molnar stated the Planning Commission's hearing on this ordinance will likely be in late January or at their first meeting in February. In terms of the recession extension, Mr. Molnar explained three other communities in Oregon have adopted similar provisions. The direction from the City Council was for the Planning Commission to consider an extension, but to apply criteria to it. Ashland Planning Commission December 8, 2009 Page 3 of 5 Mr. Goldman commented on the recession extension provision and listed the following questions that need to be answered before staff can draft an ordinance: 1) Who is eligible (all projects that have not allowed approval to lapse or all projects during a specific timeframe regardless of whether approval has expired), 2) How long should the extension be for (it was noted 18- months has been suggested), and 3) What process should they use to evaluate requests. Mr. Goldman noted Council felt applications should be subject to a review process that is consistent with the current 18-month extension process. Mr. Goldman stated the provision on appeal tolling is a separate issue and deals with applications that are approved by the City, but are then appealed to a higher court. After an application Is approved, the applicant has 12-months to commence construction. The question before the Commission is whether that 12-month period should be put on hold until a decision is made on the appeal. Philip Lang/758 B Street/Stated this is a bad proposal and should be disregarded. Mr. Lang questioned if the applications would be reviewed again to ensure compliance with current codes, and if so, what type of review will be done and who will pay . for the costs. He also commented on who would benefit from this relief and stated this is essentially a subsidy to speculative developers. Mr. Lang stated this proposal would cost taxpayer money and feels it is bad public policy. Commissioner Marsh requested they separate their discussions on the two provisions and asked for the commission's input on the questions posed by staff. Appeal Tolling Question: Should a maximum period be established? Comment was made that an appeal is out of the applicant's control and it does not serve any purpose to apply a maximum period. It was added the odds of an appeal taking several years are pretty small. Opposing comment was made that the extension should not be open ended. Comment was made that the application should be exempted for the full length of the appeal, or else there is no point in passing this provision. Timetable (Recession) Extension Quesfion: Who should be eliaible? Comment was made that reaching back to 2006 is going too far, and they should start from when the economy really started to turn bad in mid-2007 (possible start date of 7/1/07). Additional suggestion was made for them to include applications from this date up until mid-2009. Comment was made that applicants should have been aware that the bubble was about to burst and voicing opposition to this provision. Commissioner Marsh stated it is clear they are not going to have a consensus and asked if there are speCific pieces of input they have for staff in preparing the ordinance. Opinion was given that only applications that are active or at least communicating with staff should be eligible. Question: Whaf lenath is appropriate? No concern was expressed with the proposed 18-month extension length. Question: What process and criteria should reauests be evaluated aaainst? Comment was made voicing support for keeping the process the same as the current 18-month extension. Additional comment was made supporting the current process and to not require applicants to provide proof that financing had been denied. Commission Marsh clarified these two provisions will come back to the Commission for further discussion and a formal public hearing. Commissioners Dawkins/Dotterrer m/s to extend meeting past 9:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 7-0. C. Planning Commission Goals Commissioner Marsh noted the City Council will be holding their annual goal setting on January 24,2010 and stated unless the Commission has any changes, the goals that were drafted at their annual retreat will be forwarded to the Council: Ashland Planning Commission December 8, 2009 Page 4 of 5