Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2010-0406 Council Mtg Packet
CITY OF -AS H LAN D IrflpOltBnt: Any cI zen.ma 0 2lly addiess IheCouncilon non- agenda rten'is during,tlie Public Forum Any citizen-may submit written comments to.ihe Council on any nem omthe Agenda unless tt ia the subject oPaip tilchearing and. the record is closed.. ExcepFINr public hearings, there is no absolute right tolorellyaddress t Co` ncinon,an agend Merm Time,pertni[nng, the PresidingVtBcer may allow oral testimony, however, public meetings law guarantees onlyppublice~all( ndance, notpub}ic participation. Ityou vnsh to speak, please fill outthe,Speaker Request form lMated near the entrance to the Council Chambers - I nalr wi11".ognize you and infortn:you as to the amountof time.allotted to you, if any. The time granted will be dependent [o some ext"entat the nature ofthe item; underdiscussion;.the n°umberaof people.who wish [o.beheard, and thelength of the agenda. ~•t, x 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 1. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Ill. 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' 1-1-IE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US 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 §2.04.050]) 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 MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS XIV. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). COUNCIL MEE`I INGS ARE SROADCAS7'LIVE ON CHANNEL 9 VISIT TI IE C9'YY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITB AT WWW.ASIILAND.OR.US CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION March 15, 2010 Page I of 3 MINUTES FOR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Monday, March 15, 2010 Siskiyou 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. 1. 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 Improvements/Works) 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. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION March 15, 2010 Page 2 of 3 • Does Council wish to use the small procurement exemption 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 Exemptions 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 Rules 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. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION March 15. 2010 Page 3 of 3 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. 1. 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 $50,0004100,000 and a formal RFP process for projects over $100,000. Council discussed changing the limitation to $75,000 instead of $100,000. 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 MEET/NC March 16, 2010 Page 1 of 7 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, 2010 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, 2010 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 1. 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 Volk 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 (AWAC) for the Water Master Plan update? Councilor Voisin requested Consent Agenda item #5 be pulled for discussion. Councilor Navickas/Voisin m/s to approve Consent Agenda items #144. Voice Vote: all AYES. 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 m/s 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. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 16, 2010 Page 2 of 7 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, 2010 and Wastewater rates June 1, 2010. The proposed summer irrigation surcharge would affect households exceeding 3,600 cubic feet (cf) (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 10% 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(cf) 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(cf) 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(cf). 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 Southfrhought Council should not approve the irrigation surcharge and instead use Talent Irrigation District (TID) water earlier. Using TID 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 Avenue/Expressed 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 Street/Disagreed 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 of 7 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 of living 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 Navickas/Voisin m/s to approve the Water Service Rate Resolution at.a 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 TID 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 Jackson/Silbiger m/s.to approve Resolution #2010-07 (Water Service Rate) as presented by staff. Councilor Navickas/Voisin m/s to amend the motion to allocate 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 Chapman/Voisin 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 TID 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: Councilor Silbiger, Jackson and Chapman, YES; Councilor Navickas ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 16, 2010 Page 4 of 7 and Voisin, NO; Motion passed 3-2. Councilor Jackson/Silbiger m/s to approve Resolution #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; Councilor Navickas and Voisin, NO; Motion passed 3-2. 2. Will Council 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 14? 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 I-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 I-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 Street/Explained 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 2010, three weeks November 2010 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 Jackson/Chapman m/s 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 of 7 UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. 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 • Roadway/Bridge 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 • I-5 Ramps • Traffic Signals - Ramps • Upcoming Public Involvement • Public Involvement • Construction 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 Jackson/Navickas m/s 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 of 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 new Siskiyou Mountains District Ranger. Councilor Navickas noted a conflict of interest regarding the topic and asked Council to excuse him from the discussion. Councilor Silbiger/Voisin 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 roadless 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, Silbigedand 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 Voisin/Navickas 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. Voice Vote: 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 1]. Councilor Jackson/Silbiger m/s 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 16, 2010 Page 7 of 7 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 Tree City USA Presentation Meeting Date: April 6, 2010 Primary Staff Contact: Amy Gunter Department: Community Development E-Mail: Puntera(@,ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Planning Depart ( Secondary Contact: Bill Molnar Approval: Martha Bennett 1►✓) Estimated Time: 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 25`h 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 Arbor 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 of the City's development review process, specifically, during subdivision, multi-family and commercial design review. Council Options: N/A Potential Motions: N/A Attachments: National Arbor Day Foundation - Award Letter National Arbor Day Foundation - Press Release Arbor Week Events - Press Release Page I of 1 Arbor Day Foundation 211 N. 12th St. • Lincoln, NE 66508.888-448-7337 • arborday.org We inspire people to plant, nurture, and 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 infrastructure in cities and towns, providing environmental, economical and health benefits for your citizens. In fact, trees are a rare component of a community's infrastructure 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 form, please email Mark Derowitsch, Public Relations Manager of the Foundation at mderowitsch(o)arbordav.oro. 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 for 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 iii impruviny 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 MAR 4 s 20?0 For more information, News from contact Mark Derowitsch, (DArbor Day Foundation's Public Relations s Manager, at mderowitsch(cDarborday.org 211 N. 12th St."Lincoln, NE 68508.888-448-7337• arborday.org or call 888-448-7337. We inspire people to plant, nurture, and celebrate trees. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Arbor Day Foundation Honors Ashland with Tree City USAO 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 everyday." More information about Tree City USA can be found at www.arbordav.orolTreeCityUSA. 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.arborday.org. A~FJn~~<WTG}SOYINN CITY OF -ASHLAND News Release FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, PLEASE DATE: March 31, 2010 CONTACT: Amy Gunter, Assistant Planner City of Ashland 541-552-2044 The State of Oregon celebrates Arbor Week during the first full week in April, April 4'h through the 10`h. National Arbor Day is April 30, 2010. The City of Ashland Tree Commission has a number of events planned in April to celebrate Arbor Week and Ashland's designation as a Tree City USA for the 25`h consecutive year. This year Ashland also received a Tree City USA Growth Award for demonstrating progress in its community forestry program. The prestigious Growth Award honors environmental improvement and higher levels of tree care in Tree City USA communities. Arbor Events Tuesday, April 6'h 7:00 PM - 2009 Tree City USA Presentation by Oregon Department of Forestry / 2010 Arbor Day Proclamation at the Ashland City Council Meeting. Wednesday, April 7th 11:00 AM - Ceremonial Tree planting at the Ashland Public Library in conjunction with the Children's Story time. Saturday, April 24" 11 AM to 4 PM - Tree Commission booth at the Earth Day Celebration. i Friday, May 14'h at 2:00 PM - 2009 Tree of the Year plaque installation for the Pink Dogwood located at 634 Iowa Street. For more information about the Arbor Week activities planned during the month of April to celebrate Arbor Week please visit the City of Ashland web page, www.ashland.or.us. Or contact Amy Gunter, Assistant Planner at xuntera- Pashland.or.us or 541.552.2044. (end) PROCLAMATION ■ J. Sterling Morton proposed to the Nebraska Board of Agriculture in 1872 that a special day be set aside for the planting of trees: ■ This holiday, called Arbor Day, was first observed with the planting of more than a million trees in Nebraska. D • Arbor Day is now observed throughout the nation and the world. ■ Trees can reduce the erosion of our precious topsoil by wind and water, reduce heating and cooling costs, moderate the temperature, clean the air, produce Q oxygen, and provide a habitat for wildlife. • Trees are a renewable resource giving us paper, wood for our homes, fuel for our fires, and countless other wood products; and trees in our city increase property values, enhance the economic vitality of business areas, and beautify our community; and trees are a source of joy and spiritual renewal. ■ Ashland has been recognized as a Tree City USA by the National Arbor Day Foundation for 24 years and desires to continue its tree-planting ways. OW, THEREFORE, the Mayor, on behalf of the citizens of Ashland, hereby proclaim April 4 to 10, 2010 as ARBOR WEEK IN ASHLAND d urge all citizens to support efforts to care for our trees and woodlands and to support our City's community forestry program. I further urge all citizens to plant trees to gladden the hearts and promote the well-being of present and future generations. Dated this 6th day of April, 2010 John Stromberg, Mayor a. q arbara Christensen, City Recorder mom, PROCLAMATION ti • Sexual assault affects women, children, and men of all racial, cultural and economic ® backgrounds. • It is estimated that I out of 6 adult women in Oregon has been the victim of forcible rape sometime in her lifetime. • It is important to recognize that sexual violence is preventable. • It is important to encourage healthy, non-violent interactions and diminish aspects of society that promote and support sexual violence. ® 0 • It is important to broaden the scope and increase the effectiveness of sexual violence prevention efforts through partnerships. • It is important to recognize the compassion and dedication of the individuals who provide services to survivors and work to prevent sexual violence. • Every individual in Ashland has the ability to help eliminate sexual violence by working together to promote social change. ® NOW THEREFORE, the City Council and Mayor, on behalf of the citizens of Ashland, herby proclaim April 2010 as: "Sexual Assault Awareness Month" Q And encourage all citizens of Ashland to join in this observance and to learn more about preventing sexual violence. Dated this 6th day of April, 2010. John Stromberg, Mayor 4 Barbara Christensen, City Recorder ® I ®@~ 4 'Row, Now 4 PROCLAMATION $ • A well-informed citizenry is a cornerstone of democracy. • An informed citizenry depends on an objective, responsible and a unrestrained press, which provides greater access to accurate ® information, more points of view and greater diversity of thought and r~a# fact. • The trend toward the consolidation of media ownership has resulted in • fewer media voices which can cause a homogenized message and a lack of variety in points of view. Democratic principles support the case for more independent media in ® this country, with many editorial points of view. c NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council and Mayor, on behalf of the citizens of Ashland, do hereby proclaim the week of April 18 - 24, 2010 as 4 ° INDEPENDENT MEDIA WEEK and encourage all Ashland citizens to seek out and explore the rich diversity of independent media available within, and to our community. s ® Dated this 6th day of April, 2010. 84+ John Stromberg, Mayor J® r~ Barbara Christensen, City Recorder ~q= CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Liquor License Application Meeting Date: April 6, 2010 Primary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen Department: City Recorder E-Mail: christeb(cDashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: None Approval: Martha Benne Estimated Time: 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 I Page I of 1 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Ordinance Relating to Storage of Vehicles Meeting Date: April 6, 2010 Primary Staff Contact: Richard Appicello Department: City Attorney's Office E-Mail: appicelr@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Police Department Secondary Contact: Terry Holdemess Approval: Martha Bennett 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: 1. Move to approve continuance of First Reading to May 4, 2010. 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 I IL, CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Ordinance Creating a New Chapter 13.30 - Relating to the Advance Financing of Public Improvements 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 Bennett Estimated Time: 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: 1. Move to approve continuance of First Reading to May 18`h, 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: April 6, 2010 Primary Staff Contact: James Olson Department: Public Works/Engineering E-Mail: olsonipashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Community Dc ~pment Secondary Contact: Michael R. Faught Approval: Martha Beim Estimated Time: Consent Agenda Question: 111 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 form 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 storm 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 l of 21 of 2 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: 1. 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: 1. 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 Page 2 of 2 Ir, i i I aa l °T-7 o o 0 z b ~ d, 0 ~ ii Z N O V r ~ U O ~ ¢ (j..` s .-4 - a Hasa Nrwitil i o ~ z f" 'n F A ui - ' dy '3Atl NIVItlI1pW I n •u aro - W ~ 3A o ti c is 15 S: g / n c u c_ C c v e a` c n I)~ a u ~ 0 N Y u y ~ = O U +a~ o i CITY OF March 17, 2010 ASHLAND Mike Kuntz PE Jackson County Engineer 200 Antelope Road White City OR 97503 RE: MAINTENANCE 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 Clay Street that will be improved under the Snowberry Brook Subdivision development. The improvement area includes the frontage along the following tax lots: 1. 39 1E 11CB Tax Lot 1100 2. 39 1 E 11 C Tax Lot 2500 3. 39 1 E 11 C Tax Lot 2501 4. 39 1 E 11 C Tax Lot 2502 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 Tel: 541/488-5347 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-/488-6006 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800/735-2900 www.ashland.or.us Wpub-wrks\eng109-10 Snowberry Brook DevelopmentlC_Constmction\Correspondance\contractor\Clay St Maintenance Accept Itr to Kuntz 3 17 10.doc , CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Renewal of Ashland Gun Club Lease Meeting Date: April 6, 2010 Primary Staff Contact: Michael R. Faught Department: Public Works E-Mail: faughtm@ashland:or.us Secondary Dept.: Community Devel ent Secondary Contact: James H. Olson Approval: Martha Benne Estimated Time: 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 to 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 of the site (Level III and/or Level IV) which could extend the time to complete the project through February or March of 2011. To allow adequate time for DEQ review and potential new study requirements, staff is recommending that Council authorize 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 April 5, 2010 City Council Study Session. A summary of the report is as follows: ■ Emigrant Creek - No chemicals were detected above ODEQ SLVs or above the upstream sample • Creek Sediment - No chemicals were detected above ODEQ SLVs or above the upstream sample ■ Groundwater - No complete exposure pathway was identified ■ Skeet Range Soil - Iron exceeded the ODEQ SLVs for invertebrates and plants Page 1 of 2 ~r, CITY OF ASHLAND • Range Berm Soils - Lead, arsenic, antimony, copper, iron, nickel, tin, and zinc were above default background levels and exceeded ODEQ SLVs. • 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: 1) 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, 2011. 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: 1) 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, 2011. 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 Ashland Gun Club and the City of Ashland. Page 2 of 2 ~r, 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 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 1965; 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'h1 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 of 2 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: 1) Adopt the attached rate resolutions 2) Decline to adopt the resolution I Potential Motions: Move to adopt the attached rate resolution that corrects the Bulk Water Rate in Exhibit A. Attachments: Resolution Page I of I It♦, I { p. IS 0 N V l l I A p ag i ~g LLI mz 5 M~ mW ~Jtif S 9 9 a f a a a ~ - _IL_~ L a B O ..y.1 t i H g W a a 5 t- a - r J m mo £ „ s a oz w w M-i a a n ~ g Z m z N J U w _ W N J a S ~ a R r a J 9 R J.. I a a " 14 s „ w J w NO C W S11W17A11O _ ONVIHSV 3amin0 U) m W Y N N y O W p 0K O m 3 0 c 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 or 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 day of April, 2010, and the effective date is May 1, 2010 upon signing by the Mayor. 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. OLD NEW 0.75 Inch Meter $12.49/month $13.49/month 1 Inch Meter $24.95/month $26.95/month 1.5 Inch Meter $35.57/month $38.42/month 2 Inch Meter $46.86/month $50.61/month 3 Inch Meter $97.97/month $105.81/month 4 Inch Meter $149.78/month $161.76/month 6 Inch Meter $280.84/month $303.31/month 8 Inch Meter $468.05/month $505.49/month B. WATER QUANTITY CHARGE: All customers will be charged the following rates per cubic feet of water used. Single Family Residential Consumption OLD NEW 0 to 300 cf per month $1.43/ccf $1.54/ccf 301 to 1000 cf per month $1.76/ccf $1.90/ccf 1001 to 2500 cf per month $2.34/ccf $2.53/ccf Over 2500 cf per month $3.03/ccf $3.27/ccf Multi-Family Residential Consumption OLD NEW 0 to 300 cf per month per unit $1.43/ccf $1.54/ccf 301 to 1000 cf per month per unit $1.76/ccf $1.90/ccf 1001 to 2500 cf per month per unit $2.34/ccf $2.53/ccf Over 2500 cf per month per unit $3.03/ccf $3.27/ccf EXHIBIT A - PAGE 1 - Effective May 1, 2010 Non-Residential Consumption OLD NEW 0 to 50,000 cf per month $2.01/ccf $2.17/ccf Over 50,000 cf per month $2.07/ccf $2.24/ccf C. TID IRRIGATION WATER RATES: Unmetered Service $99.31 /acre or portion of an acre - OLD $107.25/acre or portion of an acre -NEW Metered Service Base Service Charge Same as "A" above Water Consumption $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: OLD NEW Deposit* $1085.95 $1,172.83 Basic Fee $137.13 $148.10 Cost of Water 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. Single Family Residential Consumption OLD NEW 0 to 300 cf per month $1.43/ccf $1.54/ccf 301 to 1000 cf per month $1.76/ccf $1.90/ccf 1001 to 2500 cf per month $2.34/ccf $2.53/ccf 2501 to 3600 cf per month $3.03/ccf $3.27/ccf Over 3600 cf per month N/A $4.25/ccf Multi-Family Residential Consumption OLD NEW 0 to 300 cf per month per unit $1.43/ccf $1.54/ccf 301 to 1000 cf per month per unit $1.76/ccf $1.90/ccf 1001 to 2500 cf per month per unit $2.34/ccf $2.53/ccf 2501 to 3600 cf per month per unit $3.03/ccf $3.27/ccf Over 3600 cf per month per unit N/A $4.25/ccf EXHIBIT A - PAGE 3 - Effective May 1, 2010 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 Zoning Map Amendments Meeting Date: April 6, 2010 Primary Staff Contact: Bill Molnar Department: Community Development E-Mail: molnarbQashland.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: Staff recommends 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 of ten meetings from March through December 2009. Additionally, the Croman Advisory Commission (CAC) 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 of 2010 (January 12, February 9 and February 23) by holding a public hearing and making a formal recommendation. Potential Options 1. 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: 1) 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 of a 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. Additionally, an update on the Transportation Analysis Update is provided. Green Development Standards The Planning Commission recommendation included the following revision: "To strongly endorse the Green Development Standards VIII-C-8 through VIII-C-I 1 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-I 1 address potable water reduction for irrigation, solar orientation, building shading, and recycled content in infrastructure. East-West Street Alignment 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 Staff s 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 of land 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 alignment results in some reduced block sizes, and the reduction in minimum lot size will Page 2 of 6 11FAWA CITY OF ASHLAND allow the smallest blocks in the Cl overlay to be divided into two lots. These changes could be incorporated in the plan materials for second reading. Parking Management and Financing Strategy 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-13-3 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 Analysis 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 1, 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 of the 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), a joint 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 of the transportation analysis update is including the results in draft findings for a potential decision, and Page 3 of 6 ~r, CITY OF ASHLAND 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. • 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 of 6 ~r, 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-1, E-1, and R-1-5 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 • 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 brought back for second reading on May 4, 2010. (see list of ordinances above) Attachments: 1. Ordinance #1: An Ordinance amending the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan to add a new Croman Mill District designation to Chapter 11 [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.ndf Exhibit B: City of Ashland: Economic Opportunity Analysis can be found on-line at http://www.ashland.or.us/files/Ashland EOA 06 27 07.1)df 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, 18.72.110, 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 5 of 6 ~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 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 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 15 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 of 6 Imo, 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 Firefighters, 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: DI AN REVIEW /7 AA 1Rl CROMAN MILL PLAN (2.04.16) The designation is for an employment area that promotes family wage-iobs and includes industrial and office uses that are compatible and complimentary. The area also includes neighborhood-oriented businesses, mixed-uses, a variety of transportation options and open spaces to encourage services and leisure activities within walking distance of the employment center, as well as to encourage multi-modal trips within and to and from the area. While the area is primarily dedicated to lob creation and economic development purposes, areas on the perimeter of the plan area allow residential units in mixed-use buildings at densities ranging from 15 to 60 dwelling units per acre. This area implements the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan (2008), as amended. PLAN REVIEW (2.04.17) 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 8, 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 "bode", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (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 i E > c6 cu 3 _ v C c c a a 0 (L) cv (L) _ L O ti a o. Q _ 2g 0: C Y. M c N o v c L L O vi t C .co co !9 C u E -0 Q. cn E ° v p 2 p' O O uaox O z U~ U U z.0 >1W rnR3 ~vv a m2 rrrrT-r ~oo> H V c o c W (1) lo: W V cu. E. tL. co LL a~ L m c- J CA 2 (n (A 7" cc ' rp .t r O L 3 E U ~7 C O Nom-' O. : cc a O O E (1) U W c 2 ¢ U 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 City.The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v International Ass'n of Firefighters. Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland 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 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 ll, 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 (200512007) 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-lettered, 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 i I CHAPTER 18.53 CM CROMAN MILL SECTIONS: 18.53.010 Purpose 18.53.020 General Requirements 18.53.030 Croman Mill District Plan Development Standards 18.53.040 Use Regulations 18.53.050 Dimensional Regulations 18.53.060 Croman Mill District Open Space Overlay 18.53.070 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 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 numbera(Month Year). 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. 19.63 Draft 4.6.10 Page i (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. 18.53 Draft4l.10 Paget 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 Standards of the Site Design and Use Standards. 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. Croman Mill District Land Use NC MU OE Cl OS Re'sldentlal residential uses temporary employee housing 0 11 Commercial stores, restaurants, and shops less than 3,000 sq.ft., excluding fuel sales, automobile sales and repair limited stores, restaurants and shops 0 0 professional, financial, business and medical offices E 0 administrative or research and development establishments child or day care centers 0 0 fitness, recreational sports, gym or athletic club ancillary employee services (e.g. cafeteria, fitness area) 0 0 kennels (indoor) and veterinary clinics 0 motion picture, television or radio broadcasting studios temporary uses ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Industrial manufacturing, assembly, fabrication or packaging including manufacturing of food products limited manufacturing affiliated with a retail use ❑ rail freight loading dock facilities rail or rapid transit passenger facilities warehouse and similar storage facilities 0 0 0 limited outdoor storage 0 wireless communication facilities attached to an existing ❑ ❑ ■ ■ structure pursuant to 18.72.180 freestanding wireless communication support structures ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ pursuant to 18.72.180 Ch. 16.59 Craft 4.6. 10 Page 3 4 I I °Publlc8.lnstltutlonal • • public service or community buildings with office or space used ❑ ❑ ❑ directly by public public service or community buildings without office or space used directly by public El 11 11 11 1:1 public and quasi-public utility facilities enclosed in a building 0 0 0 0 0 Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) maintenance facility and yard Ell private school, college, trade school, technical school or similar ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ school electrical substations ❑ ❑ I ■ Permitted Use 0 Special Permitted Use ❑ Conditional Use NC = Neighborhood Center Cl = Compatible Industrial MU Mixed Use OS = Open space OE = Office/Employment 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 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, 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 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. 76.53 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 permitted use. 4. Professional, Financial, Business and Medical Offices in Cl Overlay. Developments in the Cl 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 floor 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 permitted or special permitted 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 permitted or special permitted 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 permit 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 permitted 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 permitted 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 Cl overlay, or 50 percent of the ground floor area of the building housing the associated permitted or special permitted 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 Draft 4,6.10 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 Ashland 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. Croman Mill District • • Lot Size minimum, square feet 20,000 40,000 Frontage minimum, feet 50 100 100 Lot Width minimum, feet 50 100 100 Yard Abutting a Street minimum yard, feet 2 2 2 2/10 maximum yard abutting a street, fee 10 10 10 10 Side Yard Abutting a Residential District minimum, feet 10 10 Read Yard Abutting a Residential District minimum per story, feet 10 10 - Landsca in Coverage minimum percentage coverage 15 15 15 16- Height _ minimum number of stories 2 2 2 2 maximum height without bonus, stories/feet 2.5/35 3/40 3/40 3140 1/20 maximum height with bonus, stories/feet 4/50 4/50 5/75 5/75 Solar Access The solar access setback in Chapter 18.70 Solar Access does not apply in the Croman Mill District. ' Minimum yard in Cl Overlay abutting an Active Edge Street is two feet, minimum yard in Cl Overlay not abutting an Active Edge Street is ten feet I Maximum yard requirements shall not apply to entry features such as alcoves, and to hardscape areas for pedestrian 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. a 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 4.8.10 Page 7 I I Frontage Build Out on Active Edge Street minimum, percent 65 65 65 65 Floor Area Ratio FAR minimum 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.50 Residential Density' i maximum units per acre without bonus 30 15 maximum units per 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. a Plazas and pedestrian areas shall count as floor area for the purposes of meeting the minimum Floor Area Ration (FAR). ' 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. 18.53 Draft 4.6.10 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 Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland 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 I i i i II 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-lettered, 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 Croman Mill District Standards Adopted by the Ashland City Council We Ordinance W# A. Street Standards 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 18.53.020.6. 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 Crom\anI Mill district, creating a positive first impression when entering the district. y•- Croman Mill District ran Rw. goy.~ye - Street Framework se..m raasm ua+awno rroiecroe seas I-WV ,t ~ > I ~ w sa zs A I---i I 1 ~1 Central Boulevard 2. Phased Street Plan Build-out of the Central Boulevard can be accommodated through a phased development plan. a. Phase 1 implementation will require: i. Maintain the existing Mistletoe Road alignment from 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 Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 1 DRAFT 4.6.10 i 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 comer of the district to Siskiyou Boulevard. 1 WN4 M YL~ inim n Ednbp rn,saaw R0. All9nmam ~rl .G,IRNp000T ■ a.a.,... r„n„~ e~ eta nn Y~~y It<Fy,L.. CMSRRRIRy CnnbnlBM. b. Phase II implementation will require: ~t 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. TamanCmFRefO ■ ~ ` iebun G'i,M ReM a amr on. .a o~y om. R ~ r 4r; I 'Z~- ~o.a~Raaen V~i e°~,° .tea. RnplRy 8 ac ~a 5 111 Phase II Conceptual Illustrations Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 2 DRAFT 4.6.10 ..z~ \~\TWmnCmMROaE-' 3. Tolman Creek Road Realignment ° RWgm.M 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 u through traffic in the Tolman Creek neighborhood I } r , I ; ~~b> and in the Bellview School area. The 3 . / modifications to the street network will preserve l `trl/~"\ 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 U 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. Ifi♦ ~ T, Tolman Creek Road Realignment ~ _ by CASW A1 4dq Neighborhood Center and Tolman Creek Road Realignment Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 3 DRAFT 4.6.10 4. Local Commercial Streets Local Commercial Streets provide district circulation to and from employment uses, the i Central Park and the neighborhood center. Sidewalk Travel Lane Tree well / Plonling Strip Croman Mill District o Street Framework Optional Optional 6'-S' Parallel Sidewalk Y~ Qtarm aon.neai PPa Parallel g ar king ra n9 Parkin I ++r _ ~t ! ' _ _ pie i [ /Fr r6 .<1 L mot... ( O O r 7 10'-11' 10'•1P-.~11'-13' 38' mmc.-,- curb-to-curb 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. ' ne..aa aum . . The design of the protected bike lane should include the following elements: a. A grade-separated two-way colored bicycle lane buffered from on-street parking by _ landscaping.' b. A sidewalk separated from the bicycle lane byr I , . 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. 7A 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. Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 4 DRAFT 4.6.10 S' Porkrow Required When 'Loading Zone Parlvow is Not Provided Sidewalk Optional Travel Optional Protected Sidewalk I Parallel Lane Parallel Bika Lane Parking Parking , 0 6' * il:' * 10' 4-10' 4 7' 7' * l v 4 6' 13' 34' Max. curb-to-curb 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 easttwest connection across the creek. OHO' 10' - ti.`Mul&Use Path T Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 5 t/ar DRAFT 4.6.70 i ' m(MYWM R.O.W. MuIt4USe Line Sidewalk Path J 6!4-l0' 201'1'_ Central Bike Path 1 ~ i \ 6' Par7ow Required When Sidewalk MultWm Leading Zone Path is Not Provltlatl Parkrow Sidewalk Optional SerNce Optional Parking or Lane Parking or Loading Loading Zone Zone 6'- 7' 7' * 10' 10' -,I'- 7' 7' 6' 13' 34' max. curb-to-curb 7' 217 62'-72' R.O.W. Central Bike Path at Accessway Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 6 DRAFT 4.6.10 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.~.umawkl 6bMP.anwvS O\~~ _anwq om MuL1U1■SO POII~ q SICVItle( 1 I b t rtt 41U~ r r \ / Gu 810 cor ode l ,~~Ly!~ © ~ I L.A000IBOI OfDlgll) T - \ Y5'to B-t 16'- 5' toe' NY to 3S Accessway: Multi-Use Path Option Sidewalk Optional Shared Bicycle Optional Tree Well / Parking or and Auto Parking or Planting Strip Loading Service Lane Loading with 6'sidewalk Zone Zone 3 I D 13 7 10 10 7 13 I 34 mcx. curb-to-curb Accessway: Full Street Option Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 7 DRAFT 4.6.10 i i i VIII-A-2 Limited Auto Access Streets Developments abutting the Central Boulevard and the ! c.n Minoimk~; Central Park shall not have curb cuts through the \ UmniE 2.f,CmaUi r 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 `A 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 rJ \ :a 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 Parking On-street parallel parking shall be provided along the Central Boulevard and local streets as indicated on the C Required On-Street Parking map. Angled parking and loading zones are prohibited on these streets. ' rr '7" ti 1 A ij Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 8 DRAFT 4.6. 10 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 18.53.020.8. 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 facade. 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. Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 9 DRAFT 4.6.10 b. For Buildings Adjacent to Active Edge Streets. At least 50% of the first-floor fagade is comprised of transparent openings (clear glass) L ~F between three and eight feet above grade. VIII-B-2 Parkins Areas and On-site Circulation 1. Primary parking areas shall be located behind 1 G _ ; buildings with limited parking on one side of the _ building. m I 2. Parking areas shall be shaded by deciduous trees, I, ~I buffered from adjacent non-residential uses and \ screened from non-residential uses. fit' \ 3. Parking areas shall meet the Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards of Section = ! 11-D of the Site Design and Use Standards. Additional Parking Area and On-site Circulation Standards for Developments Adjacent to Active Edge Streets, or Within NC, MU and OE Overlays: 4. Parking areas shall be located behind buildings. 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 Parkins 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-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 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. TDM Plan Credit: Through implementation of an individual Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan that demonstrates a reduction of long term parking demand by a percentage, equal to the credit requested. 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- Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 10 DRAFT 4.6.10 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 Streetscaoe 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 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. 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 C. MM mvk performance standard bonus. o'""" 1. Street Wall Height: Maximum street wall facade 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 + u facade of the street wall facing the street, alleyway, ~r} public park or open space. Y- 7 3. Residential Buffer Zone: All buildings in the Croman Mill District within the Residential Buffer Zone shall t\ meet the following height standards: Y a. Maximum Height: The maximum height allowance ` for all structures within the Residential Buffers' I 3 As, Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 11 DRAFT 4.6.10 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 facade 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 facade 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 I 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. 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 III - Water Conserving Landscaping Guidelines and Policies. 3. For developments in the Cl 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 Equipment 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. Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 12 DRAFT 4.6. 10 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 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. c~ Mal w.mn 1. All Large Scale development located on an existing t F°" ft or planned transit route shall accommodate a , transit stop and other associated transit facilities aP9- ° unless the Director of Community Development determines that adequate transit facilities already .°'c I1 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 T transit facilities at the time transit service is - - 3 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 IJ I.. Administrator. L,-~ n VIII-B41 Freight Rail Spur Easement- Compatible Industrial (Cl) 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 1 F and unloading. 3. Buildings adjacent to the reserve strip shall be designed and configured to permit loading and l unloading. I, Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 13 DRAFT 4.6.10 l VIII-B-12 Commuter Rail Platform Easement- Neiahborhood Commercial (NCI 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 Transit approximate location presented on the Croman Mill Center District Transit Plan Map. 2. No buildings or permanent structures can be e established within the platform easement so as not to preclude installation of a commuter rail platform or E 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 eiy 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%a 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). Pm Area wnn Ve Use LW Patlmfaan antl imge Canopy akway ~ rroei ~ ? Lawn antl ~ Open Spate r I Cenhal Galnenng Area i larahcoped Plartling Ship Surtountling AdNO lhei Central Park Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 14 DRAFT 4.6. 10 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. Cam ial lka r Commuter Station Vp _ PlaHam f r CBNraI like Paid 3r-' i Tram# Plam I 4 ~ > ! 4 Transit Plaza 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 15 DRAFT 4.6.10 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 18.53.020.6. 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. i 3. Create a long-term management plan for on-site wetlands, streams, associated habitats and their buffers. i Vlll-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 eaming 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. Vlll-" 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 Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 16 DRAFT 4.6. 10 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. ra mm~ Vii. o 0 - ~ ~ r ~ r n• v n' a ~ io r % Green Streets VIII-C4 Design 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 II-D 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 coloredthigh 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-CS Manacle 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. Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 17 DRAFT 4.6.10 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. i 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. I i 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. Vlll-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. Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 18 DRAFT 4.6.10 VIII-C$ Potable Water Reduction for Irrination 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 Buildina 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. i 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 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. Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 19 DRAFT 4.6.10 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 LEEDS 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 i. A building obtaining LEEDS Certification as meeting the LEED® Silver Standard may be increased in height by up to one story. ii. A building obtaining LEEDS Certification as meeting the LEEDS Gold Standard may be increased in height by up to two stories. iii. A building in the Residential Buffer overlay obtaining LEEDS Certification as meeting the LEEDS Silver or Gold Standard may be increased in height by 1/2 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. i 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 LEEDS certification. i. Hiring and retaining a LEED® 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 LEED® standard relating to the height bonus awarded. iii. A final report shall be prepared by the LEEDS Accredited Professional and presented to the City upon completion of the project verifying that the project has met, or exceeded, the LEEDS standard relating to the height bonus awarded. iv. The report shall produce a LEED® compliant energy model following the methodology outlined in the LEED® 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 Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 20 DRAFT 4.6.10 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. d. 20 employees per acre in the Neighborhood Center (NC) Overlay. Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 21 DRAFT 4.6.10 Additional Plan Maps I - , ~ -7J Croman Mill District Comprehensive Plan Designation ®Croman District u 1~ e7 J i is - , c ` i' 9 0 Z J9C ~ `Y n 1 1 T~- c I L_7 7 4 1 ~ red O i a 6 n 1 `a Er t] Q c~ N ° A Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 22 DRAFT 4.6. 10 Croman Mill District ~IP ®Croman MII Zone j/ a b E i J I 11-LIE] a. U. E; c~ \ a FLE OF/ ~ C = s~ Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 23 DRAFT 4.6. 10 y I -t ~ _ 1 1~ Croman Mill District y u Land Use Overlays compatible industrial (CM-CI) mixed use (CM-MU) - 5 - Eigneighborhood center (CM-NC) a i - ~ -office employment (CM-OE) openspacelconservation (CM-OS) g ' Detafi Site Review A i :7 C X 1 L J~ Y I ~ ® 2 L I it ~ rl ' L L~ C ~ U- 1 L !7 r r r~ (tc: s, "bo C> 41 it as lI (rJ L • N ~1 o p Q Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 24 DRAFT 4.6.10 ' y ❑ Croman Mill District Street Framework 1t1 ~ - local commercial street - `J n L- J _ central boulevard U accessway r _ ~v 41 n C ~t Lay Q C7 d ~`e~, ~ o ❑ 6a ^ G4 N\ Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 25 DRAFT 4.6.10 I i FTL Croman Mill District Pedestrian & Bicycle rr~ ' Framework J t bike/pedestrian accessway I +r ~c i 111111 central bike path , I ~~O ' ~ ■n■■■ multiuse path ' L protected pedestriantolke way 1 LT : O Croman_phase2_altl i r " • "1 n L f •p 1 1\ n r~ f _2 i 7 ~ © W~o~ n•nnnn•l~ N Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 26 DRAFT 4.6. 10 1 ~ ✓ \ Park and Ride p f / r r . E4 ~ Parking Structure I - =e Y L, F _ lr T~ f / u ~ I f 1-~ o _J r 12P IF a I' o0 a a~ a ~1, Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 27 DRAFT 4.6.10 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 City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefighters. Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland 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 zoning 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 LEED® Accredited Professional. A person who has earned a credential as a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEEDO) Accredited Professional from the U.S. Green Building Council, or Green Building Certification Institute, in accordance with their standards and requirements. 18.08.342 LEED® certification. A building registered with the U.S. Green Building Council which has satisfied all prerequisites and has earned a minimum number of points outlined in the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEEDO) Rating System under which it is registered. Levels of certification include Certified. Silver. Gold and Platinum. 18.08.343 LEED® Green Building Rating System" or "LEED® Rating System. The most recently published version of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEEDO) Green Building Rating Systems by the U.S. Green Building Council, or the version to be superseded for one year after the publication of a new applicable LEED® Rating System version. 18.08.845 Water Budget The amount of water a landscape needs taking 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. J 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: Zoning Districts and Overlays Map Symbol and Abbreviated Designation Airport Overlay A Residential - Rural RR Residential - Single Family R-1 Residential - Low Density Multiple Family R-2 Residential - High Density Multiple Family R-3 Commercial C-1 Commercial - Downtown C-1-D Employment E-1 Industrial M-1 Woodland Residential WR SOU - Southern Oregon University SOU Performance Standards P - Overlay P Detail Site Review Zone DSR Health Care Services Zone HC North Mountain Neighborhood NM Croman Mill District Zone CM Residential Overlay R Freeway Sign Overlay F SECTION 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-1a4W-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 ''/z) 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 Setback East Main Street, between limits and Lithia Way 35 feet Ashland Street (Highway 66) between City limits and Siskiyou Boulevard 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 districts. 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 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(8). 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: R-1 45% of total developed lot area R-2 - 35% of total developed lot area R-3 - 25% of total developed lot area C-1 - 156/o of total developed lot area C-1-D - None, except parking areas and service stations shall meet the landscaping and screening standards in Section II.D. of the Site Design and Use Standards. E-1 - 15% of total developed lot area M-1 10% of total developed lot area - - - - - CM-NC 15% of total developed lot area L CM-OE - 15% of total developed lot area LCM-CI _ 15% of total developed lot area CM-MU - 10% of total developed lot area 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 SGGOGR-(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 driveway access points in the CM zone are subject to the requirements of the of Croman Mill District Standards. G D. 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 CUP Prohibited Prohibited C-1 CUP CUP Prohibited C-1-D (Downtown) 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 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 zoning districts including 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 18.68 18.70 except within the C-1 -D and CM zoning 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 zoning 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-23 er R-3s or CM. SECTION 16. AMC Section 18.92.020.13. [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. Bowling Alleys. Three spaces per alley, plus additional spaces for auxiliary activities set forth in this section. 3. Business, general retail, person services. General - one space for 350 square feet of gross floor area. Furniture and appliances - one space per 750 square feet of gross floor area. 4. Chapels and mortuaries. One space per four fixed seats in the main chapel. 5. Offices. Medical and dental - one space per 350 square feet of gross floor area. General - one space per-450 500 square feet of gross floor area. 6. Restaurants, bars, ice cream parlors and similar uses. One space per four seats or one space per 100 sq. ft. of gross leasable floor area, whichever is less. 7. Skating rinks. One space per 350 sq. ft. of gross building area. 8. Theaters, auditoriums, stadiums, gymnasiums 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. ln&Stdal uses. ePiwvfertyy`~ One spare per two m square feet Of gFOSS floor whiGheVeF 05 less, plus one spaoe per rempany e vefi161e. Industrial and Warehousing uses. One space per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or for each two employees, whichever is gfeater 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, industrialL-andemployment, 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. Frontage. The number and use of signs allowed by virtue of a given business frontage shall be placed only upon such business frontage. 2. Aggregate number of signs. The aggregate number of signs for each business shall be two signs for each business frontage. 3. Aggregate area of signs. 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 hours Page 11 of 17 ii. The pedestrian entrance shall be accessed from a walkway connected to a public sidewalk. c. Projection. 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. Height. 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. Projection. 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. Height. Signs shall have a maximum face height of nine inches if attached to the marquee. e. Clearance above grade. The lowest portion of a sign attached to a marquee shall not be less than seven feet, six inches above grade. f. Signs 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. Height. 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. 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. W (Woodland Residential) and RR (Dural 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-1 D. 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 general light industrial uses listed in 18.53.050 A., developed at an intensity of .35 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. 10. CM-OE. The general office uses listed in 18.53.050 A., developed at an intensity of .50 gross floor to area, complying with all ordinance requirements. 11.CM-MU. The general office uses listed in 18.53.050 A., developed at an intensity of .50 gross floor to area, complying with all ordinance requirements. 12. CM-NC. The retail commercial uses listed in 18.53.050 A., developed at an intensity of .50 gross floor to area ratio, complying 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 18.108.017.C. [Procedures - Applications] is hereby added to read as follows: 18.108 Procedures 18.108.017 Applications C. Priority planning action processing for LEED® certified buildings. 1. New buildings and existing buildings whose repair, alteration or rehabilitation costs exceed fifty percent of their replacement costs, that will be pursuing certification under the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Green Building Rating System (LEED®) of the United States Green Building Council shall received top priority in the processing of planning actions. Page 16 of 17 2. Applicants wishing to receive priority planning action processing shall provide the following documentation with the application demonstrating the completion of the following steps in the working towards LEED® certification. a. Hiring and retaining a LEEDO Accredited Professional as part of the project team throughout design and construction of the rp oiect. b. The LEED® checklist indicating 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-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. 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-Cl, OFFICE EMPLOYMENT, CM-OE, MIXED USE, CM-MU, OPEN SPACE, CM-OS, AND NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER, CM-NC. 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 Firefighters Local 1660, Beaverton Shoo 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 this 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-lettered, and amendments - including map amendments, combined, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions and text descriptions of the map amendments (i.e. 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 1 20,10. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder Page 3 of 4 SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of , 2010. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney Page 4 of 4 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Designation Croman Mill District Vicinity Cit Limits , i i 00 ~j t oeya j Feet 0 170 340 660 1,020 1,360 Proposed Comprehensive Plan CITY OF Designation ASHLAND ® Croman Mill Plan CWN 4-6-10 Proposed Croman Mill District Zone ICM) Croman Mill District Vicinity r Ci Limits ~J T o a~ II j Feet 0 130 280 520 780 1,040 Proposed Zone CITY OF ® Croman Mill Zone (CM) ASHLAND C~\ 4610 Proposed Zoning Map Changes Croman Mill District vicinity T Ci Limits J i O d~ m{ ~ r-- City Limits ~ ~ i ~S \ i ~j Il Feet Proposed Zoning Overlay Designations o ,so 300 sop 900 1.200 ® compatable industrial (CM-CI) _ office employment (CM-OE) ® mixed-use (CM-MU) openspace (CM-OS) C I T Y O F Q neighborhood center (CM-NC) ® Detail Site Review (DSR) ASHLAND Note: Areas outside the City Limits would retain their current County zoning designations until annexation. 4s-2010 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE CITY OF ASHLAND DETAIL SITE REVIEW ZONE Annotated to show d 'mss and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold Uned4hfGugh and additions are in bold underline. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: 1 Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland 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-lettered, and amendments - including map amendments, combined, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions and text descriptions of the map amendments (i.e. 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 _ > 4 C?K [i~k1 °tl tr' Croman Mill District Detail Site Review Update 1 Ashlatld St Hvry66 ® Detail Site Review c J ~ v LY ~ j C 0 y ~ U ~j U c ~ t m _ y DSR Overlay Zone r t Proposed Addition C of I ~ ` ;J IF- tr- q r 9 n Lt f~ C1 ~ r~ r~ o f7 Feet Draft 4-6-2010 0 250 500 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 Firefighters, 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 Building Permits - LEED Certified Priority Plan Check 1.New buildings and existing buildings whose repair, alteration or rehabilitation costs exceed fifty percent of their replacement costs, that will be pursuing certification under the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Green Building Rating System (LEED) of the United States Green Building Council shall received top priority in the plan check processing. 2. Applicants wishing to receive priority plan check processing shall provide the following documentation with the building permit submittals demonstrating the completion of the following steps in the working towards LEED certification. Page 1 of 2 I a. Hiring and retaining a LEED Accredited Professional as part of the project team throughout design and construction of the project. b. The LEED checklist indicating the credits that will be pursued. Building permit submittals must clearly specify the materials, systems and strategies they will use to achieve the credits in the plans submitted to the City of plan check approval. 3. 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. 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. Savings. Notwithstanding this amend ment/repea1, 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-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. 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.uslcroman (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: Staff Present: Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Larry Blake Maria Harris, Planning Manager Tom Dimitre April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Dave Dotterrer Pam Marsh Deborah Miller Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris Absent Members: Council Liaison: None Eric Navickas ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director 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 Hams 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 (AAC) 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 Page 1 of 3 i 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 AAC is unsure about the amount of funding available for this project. Mr. Molnar stated after the AAC 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. i 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 conflict with the City's Sign Code. I 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 Planning 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 goal 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. i Suslainability Commissioner Mindlin provided an overview of the sustainability goal. She commented on the completion of the sustainability 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 Ashland 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 Redevelopment 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 concerns 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 land 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 adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant I Ashland Planning Commission March 10, 2009 Page 3 of 3 J .\kLtl4 1~1 "a i .,I j ~ .r;.d CITY OF -ASH LAN D 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: Staff Present: Michael Dawkins, Chair Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Larry Blake Maria Harris, Planning Manager Tom Dimitre April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Dave Dotterrer Pam Marsh Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Absent Members: Council Liaison: Mike Morris Eric Navickas, absent ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar noted Kimberly A., Gray would be speaking on sustainability and the "Modern 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 local 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 MarshlDotterrer mis to approve the Findings for Planning Action #2009.00314. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Commissioners DotterrerlDimitre m/s 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 of 3 i 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-t, 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 internal department review. Gerry Powell/Addressed 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, Southern 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 Plan 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 delay 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 I 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: Staff Present: Larry Blake Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Maria Harris, Planning Manager David Dotterrer Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Pam Marsh April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris Absent Members: Council Liaison: Tom Dimitre 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 1 of3 i The Commission questioned if walking times could be included in the table. 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 i 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 layout 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 layout 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 space 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 COOT has shown interest in possibly moving their location; the issue is finding a suitable replacement. He added COOT 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. Molnar 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 Panning Commission Study Session May 26, 2009 Page 3 of 3 i 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: Staff Present: Larry Blake Maria Harris, Planning Manager Michael Dawkins Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Tom Dimitre April Lucas, Administrative Assistant David Dofterrer Pam Marsh Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris John Rinaldi, Jr. Absent Members: Council Liaison: None 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 Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (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 of 6 i 2) Regional Transportation 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 Program (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 Organization. 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 Valley 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 Demand Study. Ms. Guarino explained a key piece in determining the feasibility of a commuter 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''/. 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 transportation 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 turn-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.rvmpo.org. 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 sustainabilily 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 commissioner's 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: Economy 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 3 of 6 i i 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 multimodal transportation system. 5) Develop a strategy to use conservation and local renewable sources to meet Tier 2 power demands. Social Equity Goals: 1) Complete the development of affordable housing on the Clay Street property. 2) Conduct a comprehensive study of Ashland's homeless. I Organization 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. Partnership 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 multimodal 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 regulations, 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 the 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 Planning Commission Study Session July 28, 2009 Page 5 of 6 I j 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. Commissioner Dimitre left the meeting at 9:30 p.m. I 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 particular, 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 I I Planning Commission Study Session July 28: 2009 Page 6 of 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: Staff Present: Larry Blake Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Maria Harris, Planning Manager David Dotterrer Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Pam Marsh April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Debbie Miller Mike Morris John Rinaldi, Jr. Absent Members: Council Liaison: Tom Dimitre Eric Navickas Melanie Mindlin JOINT DISCUSSION WITH ASHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION A. Commissioner Roles related to the. Transportation System Plan. Transportation Commissioners Present: Public Works Staff Present: Thomas Burnham Mike Faught, Public Works Director Julia Sommer Colin Swales Matt Warshawsky Absent Members: Council Liaison: John Gaffey David Chapman Eric Heesacker Brent Thompson David Young 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 1 of 5 I Mr. Faught reviewed the following elements of the draft RFP and received input from the commissioners: i • Pedestrian Node Alternatives Analysis Mr. Fau9ht 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 multimodal 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 commenteddhat driveways on collector streets create issues for all modes of transportation. He cited the l 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. I Councilor Chapman arrived at 730 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 multimodal 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 places within the City. Commissioner Sommer questioned if this plan would include 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 Study Session August 25, 2009 Page 3 of 5 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. Dawkins voiced his support for this concept. i Tom Burnham left the meeting at 8:10 p.m. i • 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. j Mr. Faught concluded his presentation and asked if the commissioners had any final 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 staled 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 29th 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 (Cont.) 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 of 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 r CITY OF ASHLAND 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: Staff Present: Larry Blake Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Tom Dimitre April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Dave Dotterrer Pam Marsh Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris John Rinaldi, Jr. Absent Members: Council Liaison: Debbie Miller Eric Navickas ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced Southern Oregon University will be holding a meeting on the Campus Master Plan Update on Monday, October 51h. 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 DotterrerlBlake m/s 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 September29, 2009 Page 1 of 5 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 ramifications 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. i i 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 employment 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 September29, 2009 Page 2 of 5 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 mis to eliminate the employment zone and revert the entire plan to a modified M•t zone that is meant to have flexibility, include employment uses, and exclude the heavier/dirtier 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 Rinaldl, NO. Motion failed 53. 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. I Ashland Planning Commission September2g, 2009 Page 3 of 5 1 I I 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. i 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. I 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. uestions: 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 commercial/industrial 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 industrial and employment buildings be elongated along an east-west access in order to limit the length of the west facing fagade. 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. S. 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 of 5 ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Ashland Planning Commission Septemher29, 2009 Page 5 of 5 I I i I I 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: Staff Present: Larry Blake Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Dave Dotterrer Derek Severson, Associate Planner Pam Marsh April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris John Rinaldi, Jr. Tom Dimitre Absent Members: Council Liaison: None 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 201 City Council Meeting. Commissioner Marsh reminded the group of their Annual Retreat scheduled for October 31st, and stated there is still time to submit agenda ideas. CONSENTAGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. September 15, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes 2. September 29, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes Commissioners DawkinslDotterrer mis 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 Page 1 of 6 23 square feet. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Woodland Residential; ZONING: WR; ASSESSOR'S I 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 Report 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. I Applicant'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 Testimony No one came forward to speak. 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 DawkinslDotterrer mis 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. Ashland Planning Commission October 13, 2009 Page 2 of 6 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 Commission 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 Commission 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 29th 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 i 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 (TAMP). 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 Octoher 13, 2009 Page 4 of 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 fagades 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 affordable 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 child/daycare 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 Qcfohor13, 2009 Page 5 of 6 i 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 type 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. I ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant 1 , Ashland Planning Commission October 13, 2009 Page 6 of 6 C I T Y 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: Staff Present: Larry Blake Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Maria Harris, Planning Manager Dave Dotterrer . Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Pam Marsh Derek Severson, Associate Planner Debbie Miller April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris . John Rinaldi, Jr. Absent Members: Council Liaison: None 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 DotterredBlake We 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 Zone/Freeway 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 Commission November 10, 2009 Page 1 of 6 l 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 Report 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 j 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. Applicant's Presentation Mark Knox/Applicant's Representative/Clarified 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 overlay 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 Testimony Robert Peffer/626 Sutton PlacelStated 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 2 of 6 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 Legal 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 applications 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 western 100' of Tax Lots #3200 (391E 14AB), #6600 and #6700 (391E 14AA) meets the criteria for a Zoning Map Amendment as described in the Ashland Municipal Code,, Section 18.106.060. B. 1.b as there has been substantial changes in the circumstances since the existing plan designation was adopted in 1973 (36 years) which necessitates the need to 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 visibility. The Planning Commission also finds that the proposal to only include the most westem 100' of Tax Lots #3200 (391E 14AB), #6600 and #6700 (391E 14AA) balances the signage needs of freeway-oriented businesses and mitigates against the aesthetic impacts on the rest of the community and specifically the adjacent residential neighbors to the east which are currently screened by fencing, vegetation, buildings, a lower topographic elevation (between 14' and 28), and approximately 400' of distance." Mr. Severson clarified the additional area to be included in the overlay zone is very specific and this proposal would not increase the size of the overlay "circle". Commissioner Marsh closed the record and the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. 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 DotterrerlDawkins mis 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. Dotterrer 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 of 6 I R 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 Standards 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 291h; 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 i 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 language 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 of 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 Industrial - 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 of 6 i 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-7 and put them into two separate paragraphs. Commissioners MindlinlRinaldi m/s to continue the meeting to 10:00 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 8.0. I 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 j could build currently; additionally, she noted the importance of balancing the goals of the plan in terms 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 6 of 6 CITY OF -ASH LAN D 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: Staff Present: Larry Blake Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Dave Dotterrer April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Pam Marsh Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris John Rinaldi, Jr. Absent Members: Council Liaison: None 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. CONSENTAGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. November 10, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes Commissioners Dotterrer/Miller mis 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 RinaldilMiller mis 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 of 5 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. i 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 15° 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 evaluated 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 ODOT'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 ODOT'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 Milwaukee 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 30th 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 Planning Commission December 8, 2009 Page 2 of 5 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 would 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 pencil 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 slates 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 sustainability 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 i 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. i i 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 Question: Who should be eligible? 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: What length is appropriate? No concern was expressed with the proposed 18-month extension length. Question What process and criteria should requests be evaluated against? 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 mils 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 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 District 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 Planning Commission Decemher$ 2009 Page 5 of 5 1 i CROMAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE i 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 Winburn Way. Committee Members Present: Staff Present: Alan DeBoer (attending for R. Hendrickson), Airport Commissioner Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Eric Navlckas, City Councilor Maria Harris, Planning Manager Russ Chapman, Conservation Commissioner Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner 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, Neighborhood Representative Paul Steinle, SOU Representative Absent Members: Richard Hendrickson, Airport Commissioner David Wilkerson, Public Arts Commissioner Ben Bellinson, Neighborhood Representative 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 / REVIEW OF LAND USE AND STREET FRAMEWORK REFINEMENTS Planning Manager Maria Harris explained the Plan Overview and Land Use/Street 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 i i 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 COOT 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. I 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. r i 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 Brandon 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 floor 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 briefly 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 Cromen Advisory Committee July 15; 2009 Page 2 of 3 , their operations due to some incompatibilities with the surrounding 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 changes 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. Concern 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 20th, and Russ Chapman stated the Conservation Commission meets on the 26th. 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 3 of 3 i i i i 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: Staff Present: Richard Hendrickson, Airport Commissioner Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Russ Chapman, Conservation Commissioner Maria Harris, Planning Manager Keith Swink, Historic Commissioner Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Graham Lewis, Housing Commissioner April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Jim Lewis, Parks & Recreation Commissioner Larry Blake, Planning Commissioner David Wilkerson, Public Arts Commissioner Matt Warshawsky, Transportation Commissioner Pam Hammond, Chamber of Commerce Representative Ben Bellinson, Neighborhood Representative Rylan Heyerman, Neighborhood Representative Paul Steinle, Sou Representative Absent Members: Eric Navickas, City Councilor Zane Jones, Tree Commissioner Mary Kay Michelsen, Neighborhood Representative 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 Committee 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 9, 2009 Page 1 of 3 i 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 hotels/motels 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 mortuaries/crematoriums, churches, public utilities, and service yards/building 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. i 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. 4 Hammond questioned the 10,000 sq. ft. size limit for stores, restaurants, and shops. Staff clarified this figure was taken from I( 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, If 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 or 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 clarified 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, Administrative Assistant Croman Advisory Committee September 9, 2009 Page 3 of 3 i i i I I 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: Staff Present: Richard Hendrickson, Airport Commissioner Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Eric Navickas, city Councilor Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Russ Chapman, Conservation Commissioner April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Keith Swink, Historic Commissioner Graham Lewis, Housing Commissioner Jim Lewis, Parks 8 Recreation Commissioner Larry Blake, Planning Commissioner Matt Warshawsky, Transportation Commissioner Kerry KenCairn, Tree Commissioner Pam Hammond, Chamber of Commerce Representative Paul Steinle, sou Representative Absent Members: David Wilkerson, Public Ads Commissioner Rylan Heyerman, Neighborhood Representative Mary Kay Michelsen, Neighborhood Representative Ben Bellinson, Neighborhood 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 briefly 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 291" 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 flexibility 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. Croman Advisory Committee October 21, 2009 Page 1 of 3 i I 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. i Staff continued their review of the last Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Goldman noted the Commission's discussion of whether the southern portion 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 floor 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 floors 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 i 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 briefly 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 181", 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 flow, 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 Ocioner 2t. 2009 Page 2 of 3 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 briefly on green streets, and stated this is not a new concept, but is relatively new to Ashland. He explained this will allow stormwater runoff to stay on the site to the greatest extend possible, instead of flowing 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. r Respectfully Submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Croman Advisory Committee October 21, 2009 Page 3 of 3 I i j .y 1 1 ' 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: Staff Present: Russ Chapman, conservation commissioner Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Keith Swink, Historic Commissioner Marla Harris, Planning Manager Graham Lewis, Housing Commissioner Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Jim Lewis, Parks & Recreation Commissioner April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Larry Blake, Planning Commissioner Pam Hammond, Chamber of Commerce Representative Mary Kay Michelsen, Neighborhood Representative Absent Members: Richard Hendrickson, Airport Commissioner Eric Navickas, City Councilor David Wilkerson, Public Arts Commissioner Matt Warshawsky, Transportation Commissioner Kerry KenCaim, 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 101 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, floor 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 clarified 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. Croman Advisory Committee November 18, 2009 Page 1 of 3 i i 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. I 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. j 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 i Impact Development Standards be required, and not just recommended. He slated 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 land intensive uses, i 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 i 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 Ncvemher 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 STEPSITIMELINE 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 November 18, 2009 Page 3 of 3 I I I i I I i 1 I t 1 - ~ Croman Mill District --11 East-West Alignment Alternative J - CM-CI - CM-OE CM-MU CM-OS CM-NC DSR s e~~a \ Y ~ F I ' u 1 1 _ o i Feet Draft 4 -10 0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 T 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. DATE ITEM PAGE 4/06/2010 City Council Public Hearing Notice (newspaper) 1 2/24/2010 Letter from Planning Commissioner Larry Blake 2-3 212312010 Planning Commission Meeting Meeting Minutes 4-9 Agenda & Packet Materials 10-25 2/23/2010 Letter from Mark DiRienzo 26 2122/2010 Letter from Marilyn Briggs 27 2109/2010 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 111212010 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 i I i 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 1/0212010 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 i I I I " I I I 1 I I~ ATTN: LEGAL PUBLICATIONS (NICK) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE On April 6, 2010 the Ashland City Council will hold a public hearing regarding PA-2009-01292, 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.ashIand.or.us/c roman 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(olashland.or.Lis. 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 participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the city to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). 1 i February 24, 2010 RECEIVED Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Community Development 51 Winburn Way Ashland,-OR 97520 City of Ashland Dear Bill: Community Development At last evening's Planning Commission meeting, I had difficulties reconciling the text.of VII-C-9) Solar . Orientation and VIII-C-10) Building Shading of the Croman Mill Design Guidelines with the proposed street orientation of the:Croman Mill Master Plan, in which the streets are oriented approximately 45' to the cardinal coordinates (North, South, East, West), Based on my experience in the design of the Student Services Building at Boise State University, the best practices for solar orientation are: • Orient the long side ofa building to the south because solar gain on south exposures'can be effectively controlled with horizontal exterior shading' devices. Horizontal.sha ding devices can be designed to shade 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 most difficult to control on east and west exposures because of loin summer sun angles in the mornings: and evenings-when heat gain is.most problematic. Solar gain is best controlled on the east and west sides ofa,building by reducing the amount of glazing on those. sides of the building'and providing deep overhangs at windows. I don't necessarily have any'objections to the wording of VII-C=9) Solar Orientation, except that orienting buildings with the long sides facing north and south'.may only be feasible on large parcels (such'as the proposed Pl6is site), as we discussed after the meeting. On smaller parcels, the street orientation will largely dictate the orientation of the building, which means.that few of the longsides of buildings will face north and south: Instead, they will facer northwest; southwest, southeast, and northeast, which may mean that all sides; of the.buildings.will have to deal with the solar gain issues associated with east and. west exposures. That's why I said there seemed to.be Inconsistencies between the proposed street orientation ^In,the Croman Mill Master Plan and the.Design Standards-. Solar orientation is likely a more important concern for residential and commercial land uses than it would be for industrial land uses because .of the greater amount of glazing typical on residential and commercial buildings. Where windows are included on industrial buildings, the same principles would apply. The orientation of roof joists Ion low-slope roofs) can also affect the orientation and efficiency, of solar photovoltaic installations-If the orientation of rack-mounted PV systems is dictated by the orientation of the!roof joists, as was the case on the. Higher Education Center in Medford. I have a similar concern regarding the.wording of the second sentence In VIII-C-10) Building; Shading. If buildings are oriented to the cardinal coordinates, vertical shading devices at east- and west-facing windows maybe effective at controlling solar gain. However, when sides ofa building are.oriented to the southwest and southeast, in particular, there will likely be periods of the day when solar gain is not effectively controlled byvertical shading devices. During those times, the sun's rays would be parallel to the vertical shading devices and render the vertical shading devices ineffective. To affectively'control 2 solar gain on southwest and. southeast exposures may require a combination of vertical shading,devices and deep overhangs: VIII-C-10).Building Shading might be revised as follows: VIII-C-10) Building Shading 1. Provide horizontal exterior shade shading'devices fer at south-facing windows to control solar gain during the peak cooling season. 2.. Provide vertical exterior shading devices against at east and west- facing windows to; control direct solar gain and glare due to low altitude sun angles fer'during the-peak; cooling seasons A combination of horizontal and vertical exterior shading devices maybe necessary-to control solar gain-on:soutfiwest- and.southeast- facing windows: For clarity, I would suggest the following, revisionrVlll=C-8) Potable Water Reduction for Irrigation: VIII-C-8) Potable Water Reduction for Irrigation Potable Water Reductlon..Provide water efficient landscape irrigation design that reduces by 50% the use of potable water over conventional means, heyond:after the initial requirements; periodlforplant installation and establishment. Calculations for the reduction shall be based onthe 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 bya water district or public, entity: If the Green Development Standards Vill-C-8 through VIII-C-11.9o forward to the City Council`as mandatory requirements, I would recommend the following revision to VIII-C-11) Recycled Materials:. VIII-C-11j,Recycled Materials Utilize recycled materials in the construction'of streets; driveways, parking lots„ sidewalks and curbs to the extent that is practical and feasible. Philosophically, I am.very much*in favor of making the Green Development Standards VIII-C-8 through VIII=C-11 mandatory. My only concerns with doing o 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. Sincerelyyours, Larry Blake 3 i i I 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: Staff Present: Larry Blake Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Maria Harris, Planning Manager Dave Dolterrer Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Pam Marsh Richard Appicello, City Attorney Debbie Miller April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris John Rinaldl, Jr. Absent Members: Council Liaison: None 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. 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 DotterrerlBiake mIs 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 MITI, to amend the multiple chapters of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to provide consistency with the new Chapter 18.53 Croman MITI (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 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 letter. No ex parte contact was reported by any of the other commissioners. Ashland Planning Commission February 23, 2010 Pago 1 of 6 4 Staff Report Planning Manager Maria Hams provided a brief summary of the Staff Report Addendum Included In the packet materials. She explained the report provides options to deal with the issues raised by ODOT, and stated staff is recommending making the ODOT maintenance yard a special permitted use. Ms. Hams 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 COOT 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 briefly on the Issues raised by Mr. DiRienzo and slated 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 to re- build them he could do so, but they would be subject to site review. Ms. Harris also clarified the plaza space requirements referenced by Mr. DiRienzo only apply to large scale developments (10,000 sq. ft 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. ft. of building. Commissioner Mindlin expressed concern that the plan provides preferential treatment for ODOT. Ms. Hams 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 i noted he met with ODOT and they assured him of their support for the plan and their desire to find a replacement location. 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. Hams 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. I 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 j listed. Item 2c) Clarified in the Detail Site Review zone, only structures over 10,000 sq. ft. would be a Type II 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 I damaged. I Ms. Harris explained staff believes the proposed distillery on Mr. DiRienzo's property could still be built if the property goes i 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 I 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. i 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 Industrial uses are still allowed; what has been removed is the land intensive, low employment uses (such as junk yards and concrete/asphalt 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 flows on Mistletoe. Ashland Planning Cormission Febmary 23, 2010 Page 2 of 0 5 i 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 Morrislikinaldl We to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map amendments to revise the Comprehensive Plan Map designations of Industrial, Employment and Single-Famlly Residential to the Croman Mill District, and revise the Zoning Map designations of M-1 Industrial, E-1 Employment and R-1 Single Family to CM Croman MITI Including the Compatible Industrial (CI), Mixed Use (MU), Neighborhood Center INC), 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-1 Industrial zoning for the properties at 650.750 Mistletoe Road, have the Comprehensive Plan designation amended from Industrial to Croman MITI, 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 UGS, with an underlying Mixed Use zoning designation should 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 Moms 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. Dolterrer 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) Mindiin 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 properly would come in as Croman Mill Mixed Use, which is very flexible 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 Rlnaldl, Miller, Dotterrer, Blake, Morris, and Marsh, YES. Commissioners Dawkins and Mindiin, NO, Motion passed 6.2. Commissioner Marsh noted the second sample motion put forward in the Staff Report and listed their options, i Commissioners DotterrerlMllier mis 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 of food products to be Included, Dolterrer also voiced his support and stated this will provide more options for people who want to develop in this area. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dotterrer, Blake, Marsh, Miller, Morris, and Rinaldi, YES. Commissioners Mindlin and Dawkins, NO. Motion passed 6.2. i Ashland Planning Commission Febwary 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 framework 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 flat roofs on the buildings this is bad planning. Rinaldt 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 too 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 3(b): Should an alternative location for the northern section of Phase Il of the central boulevard as shown in the East- West Alternative 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 II Is designed. Item 3 c : Should the onsite surface parking limitation be revised so that a higher percentage of the required off-street parking can be constructed as surface parking on the site until a parking management plan is established for the Croman Mill District, and retaining the 50% maximum once the management plan is in place? Commissioner Rinaldl 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'their 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(d): Should the Green Development Standards (VIII-C-8 through Vlll-C-11) be combined to provide a menu of items the applicant could choose from? i 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-south-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 requirements, 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. Moms 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 Febmary 23, 2010 Page 4 of a 7 Item 3(e : Should the Green Building Bonus standard be revised to reduce or delete the performance bond and penalty 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 DotterrerlMorris m/s to recommend approval of adding a new Section VIII - Croman MITI District Standards to the Slte Design and Use Standards, with amendments noted as follows: a) Strongly recommend the East-West street orientation 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-site 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 place; and for the management plan to consider multl-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 MorrlslDotterrer m/s 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 Rinaldl, YES. Commissioners Dawkins and Mindlin, NO. Motion passed 4.2. Commissioners DotterrerlRinaldl mis to recommend approval of adopting the Croman MITI 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. i I Commissioners DotterrertBlake mis to amend the Commission's recommendation to the Council for AMC 18,53,040.13 and Croman MITI 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 Drive 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. j Commissioner Marsh announced this item will go before the Council on April 6, 2010 and encouraged members of the public I 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. i Commissioner Dawkins shared his frustrations. He stated the primary issues he raised were never discussed and he believes the process was totally flawed. Ashland Planning Commission Febmary 23, 2010 Page 5 or G 8 The Commissioners commented briefly 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, Administrative Assistant Ashland Planning Commission February 23, 2010 Page 6 of 6 9 I Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give Your name and complete 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 SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2010 AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street i II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. February 9, 2010 Planning 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 (ALUO) creating a new Chapter 18.53 Croman MITI, 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 adapt the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan as a supporting document to the City's Comprehensive Plan. (Public Hearing Closed) VI. ADJOURNMENT I i CITY OF -ASHLAND In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, If you need 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). 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-1, E-1, R-1-5 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-1 Industrial District, Chapter 18.40 Employment District, Chapter 18.20 Single-Family Residential District, Chapter 18.108 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 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 V1I1- 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, 18.106), and to adopt the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan as a supporting document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. 1. Relevant Facts Please refer to the January 12, 2010 Staff Report for the project background, description of site and proposal, and discussion of project impact. A. Background 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 0200941292 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 1 of 15 11 i Plan by preparing the necessary accompanying Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) and Comprehensive Plan amendments. The Planning Commission worked on the development of the Croman Mill District 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 during 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, auto/truck 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 j 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" I II. Protect Impact A. NOT Revisions The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) submitted a letter on February 1, 2010 regarding the Croman Mill District Plan. The letter addresses several items from Planning Adon PA#2009-01292 Ashland Planning Division -Staff Report Applicant: CityofAshland Page 2of15 12 the perspective of ODOT 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 Maintenance Yard Buildings ODOT raised a concern regarding the ability of ODOT to rebuild structures on the 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 design standards in the case a destroyed maintenance yard structure needs to be rebuilt. Staff recommends the addition of "Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) facilities" as a special permitted use to the land use matrix in Chapter 18.53, and the addition of the following section to 18.53.040.13 Special Permitted Uses. 18.53.040.B Special Permitted Uses 12. Oregon Department of Transportation 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 Basle 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 of ODOT Maintenance Yard ODOT raised a concern regarding the implementation plan clearly stating the need for the maintenance yard to be purchased and relocated prior to the central boulevard being routed through the property. Staff recommends the following change be made to Croman Mill District Standard VIII-A-1.2 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 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. Planning Action PA #200901292 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Applicant: CityofAshland Page 3of15 13 b. Phase II Implementation will require: 1. The realignment of Tolman Creek Road and construction of the second phase of the central boulevard is contingent upon future acquisitlen of right of-way thredgh sale and relocation of the existing ODOT maintenance yards. 11. Realignment of Grizzly Drive and Tolman Creek Road. iii. Acquisition of right of way or negotiating dedicated easements. 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. 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 relocate their maintenance yard from the Tolman Creek Road~ocation. The City Council approved a contract-specific special procurement at the X0 16, 2010 meeting to have DKS Associates update the Croman transportation 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 d railroad crossing connecting the plan area to Washington Street and new findings requirements of the Transportation Planning Rule. Work on the transportation 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 Transportation 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 9h Planning Commission meeting, the Commission requested information on the following issues. • Allowing M-1 Uses in Compatible Industrial (CI) Zoning Overlay i The Compatible Industrial (Cl) zoning allows many of the uses permitted in the M-1 Industrial 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 permitted in the Cl overlay zone. 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-1 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 #200901292 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Applicant City of Ashland 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 small restaurants/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 Rather than the Proposed Croman Mill District Currently, the southern portion 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 Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). This area has an Employment designation on the Ashland Comprehensive Plan map, and is proposed to be amended to the Croman 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 Rural Residential (RR-5), and would remain under county zoning until the property is annexed. The Croman Mill Site Implementation Plan does not include the annexation of the southern area. The annexation of the properties would have to be initiated by the property owners. • Financing of Central Boulevard Improvements The issue of financing the central boulevard and related utilities was raised at the February 9 h Planning Commission meeting. For subdivision and site review approvals, adequate capacity of transportation, 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 of 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 larger facilities which serve a greater area beyond the development, developers can be awarded system development charge (SDC) credits for a portion of the cost of the qualifying facilities that they construct. For example, when North Mountain 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 improvements that serve the general public beyond the immediate area. As an Avenue (major collector), North Mountain collects and carries traffic in both a northerly and southerly direction from Ashland's neighborhoods to larger streets, Additionally, this Planning Action PA #2009-01292 Ashland Planning Divislon-Staff Repod Applicant: Clly of Ashland Page 5 of 15 15 function will expand further at some time in the future when the Nevada Street connection is made. In November 2009, the Public Works Department introduced 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 property owners. Examples of larger public facilities are construction of street extensions to provide required traffic flows, construction 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 o 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 an Immediate Opportunity 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 support 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 I 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 structured parking, Staff has developed a project description and preliminary scope of work for the r 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 report is available on the project web page at www.ashlartcl.or.us/croman. C. Comprehensive and Zoning Map Change Findings I The maps included in the January 12, 2010 Planning Commission packet materials show the current and proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations for the properties within the district. i Planning Action PA N009-01292 Ashland Planning Division-Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland _ Page 6 of 15 16 i The area within the boundary of the proposed Croman Mill District including the former 64-acre Croman Mill site is primarily zoned M-I Industrial, with some additional areas of E-1 Employment adjacent to the southern portion of Mistletoe Road and R-1 Single Family on the approximately six-acre ODOT 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 overlays. Again, the bulk of the district is the 64-acre Croman Mill site which would be divided between Cl Compatible Industrial an OE Office Employment. Office uses area focused in the northern 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 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 residential units. 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 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 portion 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 than the provision of affordable housing, supported by the Comprehensive Plan; or b. A substantial change In circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances; or c. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action; or d. Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one zoning district to another zoning district, will provide 25% of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in 18.106,030(G);or Planning Action PA 42009.01292 Ashland Planning Division- Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 7of15 17 i 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 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. 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 residential designation). Instead, the proposed map amendments are a redistribution of the uses allowed under 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 yards, and concrete or asphalt batch or mixing plants. In short, the M-1 Industrial zoning district includes the uses that are allowed in the C-1 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 provisions 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, i and allowed throughout 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 overlays, the uses included in the Croman Mill District are allowed under the current 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)l 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 current M-I Industrial and E-1 Employment zoning. Planning Action PA #2009-01292 Ashland Planning Division - Stag Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 8of15 18 In staff's 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 Croman 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 Croman 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 concern regarding the broad range of activities permitted in the M-1, and the compatibility with the site and surrounding 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 of the mill operations after six decades of use and the property being largely unused and vacant since that time have contributed to the efforts to re- examine the plan area. In 2001 there was an application to rezone the property for residential purposes,. which the City ultimately denied. Subsequent to the City's decision, the 2007 Economic Opportunity Analysis (EOA) identified a need to retain existing employment lands, including the Croman Mill site, within the city limits and UGB to accommodate the forecasted employment through 2027. In 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 environmental 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 support the goals and objectives established in the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan (see section LB above). Excerpts from the Economic Element goals and policies are listed below. Goal: To ensure that the local economy increases in its health, and diversifies in the number, type and size of businesses consistent with the local social needs, public service capabilities, and the retention of a high quality environment. Planning Action PA 42009.01292 Ashland Planning Division -Staff Report Applicant: CilyofAshland Page 9of15 19 Policy 1: The City shall zone and designate within the Plan Map sufcient quantity of lands for commercial and industrial uses to provide for the employment needs of its residents and a portion of rural residents consistent with the population for the urban area. Policy 2. The City shall design the Land Use Ordinance to provide for: e) Commercial or employment zones where business and residential uses are mixed. This is especially appropriate as buffers behveen residential and employment or commercial areas, and in the Downtown. Policy 3 - The City shall develop and implement an economic development program which will attempt to increase the mnrber, variety and size of retain, service, and light industrial activity employers in the urban area, with particular emphasis on employers who pay wages at or above the median County wage and employ from 5 to 100 people, or ivho are locally owned. The City shall work with regional economic development agencies or coordination regional economic development activities. Policy 4: In accordance with the policies VII-2 and VII-2 above, the City shall take such actions as are necessary to ensure that economic development can occur in at timely and efficient manner. Such actions nray include the following: b) Utilization of available grants and loans to finance the extension of public facilities to lands zoned or planned for commercial or industrial use. c) Inchuston within the Capital Improvement prograins facilities improvement which will help achieve long-range development goals and polices. Policy 7: The City is clearly unsuitable for the following types of businesses: a) Businesses which use large amounts of water, especially when Ashland's water needs peak. b) Businesses that emit significant amounts of air pollution. c) Businesses that create toxic wastes that require specialized disposal techniques not available locally. d) The City shall include in the Land Use Ordinance specific list of businesses that are prohibited form operations in the City Limits, or specific performance standards that would define uses that are unacceptable because they meet one or more of the above criteria. The master planning process 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 j percent manufacturing and office uses required on the ground floor, 7.5 acres of open j 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 Ashland Planning Division -Staff Raped Applicant: CityclAshland Page 100115 20 jobs, having a well-connected and multi-modal (i.e. pedestrian, bicycles, auto/truck, freight and transit) transportation system, preserving natural features, creating a built environment that respects Ashland's character, making desirable public spaces and incorporating green development standards. Croman MITI District Gross Acreages Existing Current Comprehensive Proposal Plan Industrial 64 33 Employment 25 31 Mixed Use 0 16 OpenSpace 0 7.5 Neighborhood Center 0 6 Residential (R-1-5) 7 0 D. Planning Commission Deliberations The Planning Commission makes a recommendation on the Croman Mill District Implementation 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 of the Croman Mill District Implementation Plan with separate motions. Sample motions for each implementation plan component are included below; as well as a list of the 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: 1) 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 of M-1 Industrial, E-1 Employment and R-1 Single-Family Residential to CM Croman Mill including the Compatible Industrial (CI), Mixed Use (MU), Neighborhood Center (NC), Office Employment (OE) and Open Space (OS) zoning overlays, with amendments noted as follows. a. Should the Mixed Use zoning overlay (CM-MU) be included in the Zoning Map amendment? b. Should the properties at 650-750 Mistletoe Road (mini-storage site): 1) retain the M-1 Industrial zoning, 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, or 2) be included in the Croman Mill District as show in January 12, 2010 draft, Planning Action PA #2009-01292 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 11 of 15 21 i 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,1 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 11 of the February 3, 2010 staff memo (see below)? Section 18.53.0203.1 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 eras with the 6rere~. (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. j (3) A change in the design of a street in a manner inconsistent with the Croman I Mill District Standards. i (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 MITI 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? I i I I I I Planning Action PA #2009.01292 Ashland Planning Division-Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 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, 2010 Planning Commission packet materials? b. Should an alternative location for the northern section of the Phase 11 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 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 percent maximum once the parking management plan is in place? d. Should the Green Development Standards VIII-C-8 through VIII-C-11 (i.e. potable water reduction 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 Green Building Bonus standard VIII-C-13.1 be revised to: 1). 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 January 12, 2010 draft of the Section VIII Croman Mill District Standards? 4. Revise Sections of Chapter 18 for Consistency with Chapter 18,53 Croman Mill Potential 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 Ashland Planning Division-Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 13 of 15 23 i I ' i 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 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 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 wilt 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 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 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 j 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. I 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 properly owner or resident for a legislative amendment shall be considered { Planning Action PA #2009-01292 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 14 of is 24 I ! 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. 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, 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 refined and improved the redevelopment plan, and are 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. I Planning Action PA 42009.002 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Applicant: CityotAshland Page is of is 25 i RECEIVED From: Mark D <markd(o)mind.net> Date: Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 10:27 AM FEB 2 3 2010 Subject: 650-750 Mistletoe To: Bill Molnar <molnarb0ashland.or.us> ' City of Ashland Cc: pam.marshCcilamail.com 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 Cl 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 91". 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 from 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 me 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. I 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 (Intl 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? I Mark DiRienzo t Mistletoe Road Business Park 700 Mistletoe Road #106 Ashland, OR 97520 541-621-8393 26 I February 20, 20 10 To: Planning Commission, Planning Staff, City Administrator, Mayor, & City Council The Cronnan Property proposal has the appearance of being a done-deal. It seeing public input was ignored and questions were not really answered during two years of public meetings. This current plan reverses many years of wise decisions regarding sprawl and iniill; 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: 1) In consideration of the State regulation to have a 20 year supply of each zone type within the urban growth boundray, why allow the "Mixed Use" zone change to reduce industrial use to 221/6 of Croman acreage when there is NO OTHER PLACE to create industrial land use within Ashland? Why zone away our fixture 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 Nortldight). Exactly how does the SUSTAINABLE goal of our Mayor and City Council dovetail with this proposal's explicit creation of SPRAWL and disregard for INFILL??? If your answer is to "promote jobs", isn't it obvious that developers have a plentifid supply of land already zoned to fit this specific need? 3) Why does the proposed "boulevard" configuration arrogantly cut through existing buildings, through existing farm land outside the City limits, and through ODOT property that may not belong to the City for 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 tlu iffy, as well as considerate, to design the proposed "boulevard" along the existing Mistletoe Road which would not impinge oil 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 infrastructure 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 property owners, will the Ashland taxpayers be responsible for paying for the infrastructure? (The architects did say that cost might be five million dollars). Marilyn Briggs RECEIVED 590 Glenview Drive Ashland, Oregon 97520 54t-482-0903 FEB Z C"n, 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: Staff Present: Larry Blake Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Maria Harris, Planning Manager Dave Dotterrer Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Pam Marsh Richard Appicello, City Attorney Debbie Miller April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Melanie Mindlin Mike Moms John Rinaldi, Jr. Absent Members: Council Lialson: None Eric Navickas, absent ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Marsh announced the vacancy on the Planning Commission and encouraged Interested citizens to submit applications to the Mayors Office. Commissioner Rinaidl provided a brief update on the Economic Development Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). He stated the TAC has completed the Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-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 mis to approve Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 8.0. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTIONS: #2009.00726 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 720 Grandview 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 located at 720 Grandview Drive, The original approval was for development In the Wrights Creek Fioodplaln and Riparian Preservation Lands for the Improvement of a portion of existing driveway, re-grading the transition of the driveway to Grandview Drive, the installation of a private storm drain and the extension of utilities to serve a new single-family residence. The proposed modification Involves alterations to the approval already in place in order to Ashland Planning Commission February 9, 2010 Page I of 4 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-1.10; 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 MITI, to amend the multiple chapters of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to provide consistency with the new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill (ALUO 189.08,18,12,020,18.61.042,18.68.050,18.70.040,18.72.030,18.72.080,16.72.110, 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 MITI District, and to adopt the Croman MITI 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 12th 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-1 industrial zoning, but changes the Comprehensive Plan designation to Croman Mill, 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 concerns 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 central 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. Hams stressed that as long as the property owner has a current approval, they can still 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 following areas: l) Manufacturing and retail uses, 2) On-site surface parking limitation, 3) Minimum number of stories, and 4) Minimum floor area ratio. Ms. Hams 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 until 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 bond and penally 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. Ashland Planning Commission Fenniary 9, 2010 Page 2 of 4 29 Mr. Goldman noted the suggestion for a menu of green standards options. He clarified in the current draft Standards VIII-C-8 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 letter the City received from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) that was included in the Commission's meeting materials. She explained the letter expressed concern with the proposed easement language for Phase II of the central boulevard and COOT 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 should 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 Mistletoe 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 clarification 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 Input Zach Brombacher1640 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 concerns 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 stated he does not want to pay for another Local Improvement District. 1 Mark DIRlenzo1700 Mistletoe Rd #10618tated he owns three tax lots 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 southern 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 j whether the angle is going to be safe. In regards to the bond issue for LEED, he voiced his concern that financial institutions will 1 not offer a bond to developers and suggested the City make building LEED buildings as simple as possible. Mr. DiRienzo clarified 1 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 Ashland Planning Commission February 9, 2010 Page 3 of 4 30 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 Kruesl1148 Greenway Circle, Medford/Ashland Warehouse PartnershlplStated they own the property at 695 and 697 Mistletoe Rd. and shared his concerns regarding the phasing of the central boulevard. Mr. Kruesi 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 Brlggsl590 Glenview 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 slated they should stay with the existing Mistletoe 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 questioned 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 Croman.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 Dotterrer 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 information 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 concerns 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 adjourned at 9:30p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Ashland Planning Commission February 9, 2010 Page 4 or 4 31 I Planning Commission Speaker Request Form 1) 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 front 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 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 contents 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 1C' C ~j~E© itk~~(~A Z`',(r (please print) t /-t Address (no P.O. Box) lto ~ y(MA't/l z(~l Phone >r mail Tonight's Meeting Date z / I 1 i Regular Meeting Agenda item number `'_'t .__OR Topic for public formn (non agenda item) Land Use Public Hearing For: Against: Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias if you are challenging a nientber (planning commissioner) 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 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 when you testify during the normal order of proceedings. I Written Comments/Challenge: It i I The public dleeting Lan, requires that all city meetings are open to the prtblic. Oregon lair does not altrnys regtrire.trat the public he permitted to speak The li shlaon! Plcuu7ing Commission generally l invites the public to speak on agenda items and daring public f trim on non-agenda items untess lime constraints limit public testimony. No person has an absolute right to speak a• participate in every pltave i of a proceeding. Please respect the orcler of proceediugs,for public frem•ings and strictly fallow the directions of the presiding o[ficer•. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disruptive are • disrespectftd, and may constitute disorderly conduct. Qjfenders 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. 32 Planning Commission Speaker Request Form 1) 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 for the record. d) Limit your continents 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. C) You may 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. Names ay :r l A51! yt. ,i/i1q 411-1 is, AAw/ (please print) Address (no P.O. Box) /~^/1 Phone s~ZL- 01-1( V Email' h l(W1111J('?1)Gl/ld}G, (DlL'fi - Tonight's Meeting Date Regular Meeting Agenda item number t7/, OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item) Land Use Public Hearing For: Against: Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias If you are challenging a member (planning commissioner) 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 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 when you testify during the normal order of proceedings. Written Comments/Challenge: The Public bdeethig Lcnv requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not always require that the public be permitted to .speak. The Ashland Planning Cornnission generally invites the public to speak on agenda items and during public fia•tint on non-agenda items toles time coesh•aiuts limit public testimony. Aro person has an absolute right to speak or participate in every phase of a proceeding. Please respect the order of proceecli» gs for public hearings cod strictly follow the directions of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disruptive are disrespeclfiul, 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. 33 I THIS FORM IS A PUBLIC RECORD ALL INFORM! )N PROVIDED WILL BE MADE AVAIL :E TO THE PUBLIC 1) Complete this form and return it to the City Recorder prior to the discussion of the item You wish to speak 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) j 7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement. {mL~'.§3t9i's 4•. ER .cL. WN"l- ir '[`LLE -~~}ppyxCUL tlr, x... jffr t- ~L r.~r.~~'~i _ •~i{}'ilis ~'R~^}^ 'Rs.'y eaSCsc•na ~Lr9.. LE~•~ L:_.Y'~x~..~ ~tiY~n..ia3i3'L ~ ~L xr i }IE..L~L 3 E ~ s"'_i.....~'y~~y~_-}~Ly`i~ y .°j . rle- "a"te-®a'~- u'Tr.ksv •5 Krz'at'~YfP `5''rs(pp(~~r, ;-a fy, y~2 RUN ,rr L x 1t • r i7t'f`~cFiNtij c..~a?[y.3 Fr~,11 t>~~r•' ~r~i111L.::1 3L~~ • a" '.~•.-s.. =.L~`+mz,},` sc:-~~~ ~'t~A Retnilar Meetinl? Agenda topic/item number ~rQ n OR. Topic for public foram (non agenda item) Land Use Public Hearin i? Please indicate the following: For. Against: ✓ Challenge for Conflict of Interest or-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 and deliver it to the clerk immediately. The Presiding Officer will address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the procee'didg and do not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testify during the normal order of proceedings. Written Comments/Challenge: I 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 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 j proceeding. Please respect the order ofproceedings for public hearings and strictly follow the directions I 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 room. i Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council, City Officers or ` employees or the City of Ashland. 34 THIS FORM IS A PUBLIC RECORD ALL INFORM/ ')N PROVIDED WILL BE MADE AVAIL iX TO THE PUBLIC 1) Complete this form and return it to the City Recorder prior to the discussion of the item you wish to speak about. 2) Speak to the City Council from the table podium microphone. 3) State your name and addre_ss.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 content of their public statement. • y It W~' , 'r ,ML 6'i~U`[p3Ar R+. r~t ~t~ • u a s' r ¢ ,Y ~.pB} u r _ V " na~ -I Tfd Y av ! en Qrn~~s F { 3 r Fs~{~a ~I~p: R' n rti^rr': aq .ea~ttlgF i' ! sr i',-k¢+ez_,uAs '~'^Wf'-P rx ^r `:L,,w'o3n."xdrr•aacx3-r.ifl~ats.✓r#RV 1~5^~saAE'+~.4xa'"issta! r t>SK•.ys'.~arr+.`£erlifaSz`'a dSi Regtilar Meeting Agenda topiclitem number OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item) Land Use Public Hearing Please indicate the following: For: Against: Challenge for Conflict of Interest or 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 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 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 speak The Ashland City Council generally invites the public to speak on agenda items and diming 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 disruptive 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. 35 I Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting Is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete 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. i 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 Ill. CONSENTAGENDA 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 Grandview Drive APPLICANT: McDonald, Lynn & BIII 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 located at 720 Grandview Drive. The original approval was for development in the Wrights Creek Floodplaln and Riparian Preservation Lands for the improvement of a portion of an existing driveway, re-grading the transition of the driveway to Grandview Drive, the installation a private storm drain and the extension of utilities to serve a new 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-1-10; ASSESSOR'S MAP 39 1E 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 16.53 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 I CITY OF i ASHLAND In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need 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, 2010 TO: Ashland Planning Commission FROM: Maria Harris, Planning Manager Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner RE: Issues from January 12, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan At the January 12'h Planning Commission meeting, the Commission requested information on the following issues. In addition, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) submitted a comment letter which is included in the packet. The items in the letter are briefly addressed at the end of this memo. I Inclusion of 650 - 750 Mistletoe Road (Mini-Storage Site) in Croman Mill District At the January 12 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission requested information about the rationale for including the street frontage of the properties located at 650 - 750 Mistletoe Road in the Croman Mill District (see map below). The properties at 650 - 750 Mistletoe Road are also known as the mini-storage 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 area and designated in the Office Employment (OE) zoning overlay. C III \ i~ rv I J1 r p1' ` I \ I 37 i f I I I The idea to include the properties 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 ncighborhood 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 travel 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-1 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 property 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 of the 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 District Green Development Standards. i Options • Retain the M-1 Industrial zoning for 650 - 750 Mistletoe Road, change the Comprehensive Plan designation to Croman Mill, and include the portion of the 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. i Review of Approvals for 650 and 700 Mistletoe Road Mark DiRienzo testified at the January 12'6 Planning Commission meeting regarding perceived conflicts between the approved projects on 650 and 700 Mistletoe Road and the proposed zoning and design I standards. Additionally, a written comment from Mark Knox was submitted regarding the same 1 properties. I I 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 i 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: 1) the development of a 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 of a 10,100 square foot building with a partial second story that is comprised of light industrial and office uses DEPT- OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 641-488.5305 20 E. Mai Street Fa: 641-552-2050 As Ashland, Oregon 97610 TTY: 8000--735735-2900 ' www.ashland.ows 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 half of the 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 of the parking and access to the sides of the buildings. Additionally, the mini-storage site is somewhat physically isolated because a lack of side streets adjacent to the property. 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 shared accesses 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. Staffs 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 Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan. Based on Staffs analysis, the existing planning approvals for 650 and 700 Mistletoe Road largely meet the proposed requirements for the Croman Mill District including the use and dimensional standards included in Chapter 18.53 as well as the Croman Mill District Standards. Staff identified four areas of inconsistencies between the approved plans and the Croman Mill District requirements including limitations on manufacturing 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). i 1. Manufacturing and Retail Uses: The approved industrial/office building at 650 Mistletoe Road (includes organic distillery) world 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 manufacturing. The distillery component of the application would not meet the use requirements for the OE zoning DEPT, OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 6414885395 20 E. Main Street Fax: 641.552.2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735.2900 w .eshland.ows 39 -4- overlay because manufacture of food products is not permitted. In contrast, the Compatible Industrial (Cl) 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 OE is 50 percent of the ground floor area). Again, the area dedicated to manufacturing would meet the requirements of the C1 zoning overlay. i 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-storage site is included in the Office Employment (OE) zoning overlay or the Compatible Industrial (Cl) 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 Croman 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, or 1,500 square j feet, whichever is less), I! Staff recommends retaining size limitations for limited stores, restaurants and shops in the OE, Cl 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 E manufacturing and not creating uses that compete with downtown. With a little over 30 acres s dedicated to each of the OE and Cl overlays, and 16 acres dedicated to the MU overlay, increasing the square footage for stores, restaurants and shops will decrease the available land E 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. I 2, On-Site Surface Parking Limitation: j The approved buildings at 650 and 700 Mistletoe Road would potentially have difficulties III meeting the Croman Mill District requirement which limits the number of surface lot parking spaces provided on site to 50 percent 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 Tel: 541.488.5305 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 Wmashland.orms 40 - 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 forjob 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 part 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 parking structures and constructing oft-site parking at designated shared parking. Staff recommends revising the automobile parking standard VIII-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 construction of public surface parking lots and/or a parking structure in lieu of required parking spaces. I Optlons • Revise automobile parking standard VIII-B-3.2 so that a higher percentage of the required off-street parking can be constructed as surface parking until a parking i 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 (lie 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 area of the approved building. The approved second office building at 700 Mistletoe Road is two stories and would meet the minimum two-story requirement. Staff recommends retaining the requirements for the minimum number of stories as proposed for the OE and Cl zoning overlays. The distillery building and use is more consistent with the Cl zoning overlay. 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 DEVELOPMENT - Tel: 5414883305 20 M, regent Fax: 541-552-2650 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 8047352900 wmashland,or.us 41 i i i. I is approved at .36 FAR, and the office buildings at 700 Mistletoe are approved at.51 FAR. The minimum FAR for the Cl overlay is .50, and for the OE zoning overlay is .60. For comparison, the FAR for the recently approved Modern Fan expansion, a light manufacturing use on Washington Street is .45 FAR. Additionally, along the main streets in Ashland (North Main, Siskiyou Boulevard and Ashland Street), the Site Design and Use Standards currently 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 Staff's opinion, a reduction of the 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 effort 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 Driveway Locations The installation of the 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 portion of an existing building. This is identified as Phase If of the plan. In the January 12a' Public Hearing before the Planning Commission Mark DiRienzo and Mark Knox raised questions as to whether this r 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 I,`` ! ! maintained in their current locations. The existing northern driveway I 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 'k I s points the final engineering for this improvement would identify any visibility or maneuvering issues and design the street to incorporate rJ (1 1 , 1 any needed mitigation measures. "`i a yu S ,n - I Regarding the property in the southeast comer of the map, it is evident l the access would be directly onto the Central Blvd or through an easement on the developed DiRienzo property. Additionally the ! property shown in the southwest of the 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 j to allow for future curb cuts. fl DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541488-5305 54 "52-2050 20 E. Male Street fax: 800-735-2900 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: %w .ashland.orxs 42 .7- 295 Mistletoe Road and Hamilton Creek Multi-Use Path At the Jan 12d' Public Hearing a concern was raised by an adjacent 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 casement 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 property. The property at 295 Misltletoe Rd is currently 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 Td: 541.488.5305 20 E. Main Sheet Fa 50 As Ashland, Oregon regon 97520 TTY: 800.735.2 800.7354900 wwmashland.a.us 43 Buildable Employment Lands The Industrial zone (M-1) presently allows a variety of uses including offices, restaurants, retail (all uses permitted in E-1) 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, combine with market demand, visibility, land cost, and workforce 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-1 zone. The primary distinction is in regulating their distribution to specific areas of the site. Some opportunity for non-industrial activities such as small employee serving restaurants and minimal retail opportunities 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 predominate use of the lands in this overlay is light industrial and manufacturing. In recognition that some industrial lands are irreplaceable given their size, topography and access to transportation and freight facilities, such considerations were incorporated 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 existing Rail line, and including frontage on the Central Blvd i • 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 industrial uses These limitations do not exist in M-I zones and as such 100% of a 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 or partially vacant that has an Industrial designation within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. Of this total, 64 gross acres are currently zoned M-I within the Croman Mill District Plan area as shown in the I table below, Croman MITI District Gross Acreages i Existing Original Croman Mill East-Weal Comprehensive District Plan Current Street I Plan (Crandall-Arambula) Proposal Alignment 1 Alternative Industrial 64 42 33 31 Employment 25 40 31' 31" DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 641-488.5305 20 E. Main Sheet Fa: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregm 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us 44 i .9. Mixed Use 0 0 16 16 OpenSpace 0 8 7.5" 7.5" Neighborhood Center 0 6 6 6 Residential (R-1-6) 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) , 'Does not Include 2 acres of E-1 land Identified In the original Plan but unchanged by the current proposal (Blackstone Audio properties); 11 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 area in the vicinity of the pond along Slsklyou Blvd). Croman MITI District Vicinity ,I.J 1 I .11 -1 r l a R 9 Xt r J r Z. +t ps ~F u L ' d ~t ~ vi, '4i t, •D .i - I xtq sg 1 al-} Id p .1 iat :r o Il`w13 a :1111 a n. >~x1~52 n 7 - 5 < -1 N50 11,,55'x' n •r ~ i ~1 ''J~Fn F T' I n 1 ~ b ~ 4 i'~ rn - t u jv s' i I T V Voonl Colnlmrxlal Lards (Buildable Land Iawalory) . ( n b'•I 101 anpb,mrnl I>, -.I-, mnwardal • Approximately I 1 acres of vacant developable Industrial land are outside of the Croman Mill District plan area. These properties are primarily adjacent to the district east of the railroad tracts and are unaffected by the Croman Mill District Plan. • Approximately 16 gross acres currently located outside the City Limits along Siskiyou Blvd are presently designated to be annexed to the City as Employment (E-1) per the City's Comprehensive Plan map. • 33 gross acres within the district would be retained as Industrial, and per 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 Tat: 641-4885305 20 E. Mein Street Fax: 541-552.2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800.735.2800 waw.ashland.w.us 45 lo- g Four acres adjacent to Hamilton Creek currently zoned industrial (M-1) would be within the proposed Mixed Use Overlay (CM-MU), I e In total 31 of 64 gross acres presently zoned M-1 would be located within the CM-OE overlay. e 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. e The block areas 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 1 acre. (note the 2007 EOA stated "The Cro)nan site is approximately 70 acres; it is unlikely that any individual user would require more than five acres. Many will need less than one acre" pg5-12) 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 (Net Buildable Acres) iG.0~ or Plan Designation 40.25 0,25.0,49 0.60-0.99 1.00.1.99 2.00.4.98 6.00.9,98 larger Total Acres Commercial 0.6 1.1 2.1 119 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 2.8 5.4 6.1 20.4 32.2 9.8 16.9 92.4 Health Care 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Industrial 0.3 1.6 1.9 6.3 16.7 0.0 31.0 66.7 Total Acres 3.7 8.1 10.1 27.6 49.0 9.8 4e.9 165.1 Number of Tax Lots Commercial 4 3 3 1 0 0 0 11 Downtown 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Employment 18 17 9 16 10 1 1 71 Health Care 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Industrial 4 4 2 3 4 0 2 19 Total Tax Lob 28 24 14 19 14 1 3 103 Percent of Acres 2.4% 6.2°% 6.5% 17.8% 31.6% 6.3% 30.2% 100.0% Percent of Tax Lob 27.2% 23.3% 13.6% 18.4% 13.8% 1.0% 2.9% 100.0% 1 Source: Ashland buildable lands Inventory update, 2005; analysis by ECONorthmst t Minor and Malor Amendment Distinction for Street Layout Modifications l 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 j 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 Tel: 641.468.5305 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800.735-2900 waw .ashiand.or.us 46 n B. Major and minor amendments to the Croman MITI 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 eNenalled In s, manner Innonstletent with Dlstrlet-Flan. (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. 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 circulation for pedestrians and bicycles throughout the site and to preserve a grid network that shapes the form of land uses, Staff believes the accessways and the completion of the grid street network are critical in making the built form, scale 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. j Green Building Bonus At the January 12th Planning Commission meeting, a concern was raised regarding the bonding and penalty sections of the Green Building Bonus. The Green Building Bonus is a voluntary performance 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 property owners can construct 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-1 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 feet. However, if an applicant chooses to construct a LEED certified building in the Cl overlay, the i DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-4885305 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541552.2050 ! Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800735-2900 wxw.ashland.or.us ' I 47 I 1 .12- height can be increased by up to two stories, depending on the level of LEED certification (i.e. silver, . gold). The bonding section of the ordinance requires the applicant who has an approved building with A 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 granted 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 or 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 or 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 performance 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 from the Green Building Bonus and had failed to achieve the necessary energy efficiency objectives as demonstrated through LEED certification. Options • No change to the Green Building Bonus performance bond and penalty sections. • Reduce the Green Building Bonus performance bond and or penalty amounts. • Delete the Green Building Bonus performance bond and or penalty sections. Menu for Green Standards At the January 12 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 chose from. Specifically, standards VIII-C-8 through VIII-C-12 (p 26) were originally part of list of standards that were 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 f project objectives was to "develop standards for `dark skies"'. As a result, Staff believes standard VIII- ` C-12 regarding down-shielded light fixtures should be retained as a stand alone requirement for 1 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) are somewhat unrelated, and therefore included standards VIII-C-8 through VIII-C-I 1 as separate requirements. However, the alternative of creating an option of allowing applicants to choose one or two of the four items could be easily I accommodated. ! ODOT Comments The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) submitted a written conment on February 1, 2010 1 regarding the Croman Mill District Plan. The letter addresses several items from the perspective of ODOT as the property owner of the maintenance yard located on Tolman Creek Road, and comments ! DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel; 541-488.5305 i 1 20 E. Mein Street Fax: 541-552.2050 - i i Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 8OD-735-2900 i vrv sshlsndmxs I 1 48 i I 1 I -13- regarding 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 structures. Additionally, a concern 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 concerns raised by ODOT as the property 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. Staff is 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 1. Approved Site Plan for 650 Mistletoe Road 2. Approved Site Plan for 700 Mistletoe Road DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541.488-5305 20 E. Main Slreel Fax: 541.552.2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 wwmashland.or.us 49 1 I II ~II za 3N1V1N3S3dd32J'OZN3RIIO MM III a t= - om'SONIOIOH HJIJOS (INV-IHSV 21Od M g C) e g OZ9L6 EO'ONVIHSV / OVO2i 3O1311SM 001 s W c m `JNIO InS M3N H1NON 3013llSIW S NOLLLL2iVd ONVl 230NIW 10-n WR W 2 q c41111 a n ~s ~ a 8 ~ F SK, ag=e e ~sgga°~~$t ..~~=e$~~ s ~ fee $ g° Y 9 5W a 6os$'soo jg #`sss plc a_ _ N n 3 e n I i jpa.% z ~ a ) U`J< i i i 0 I i § o 1 OZ92 INVIHSV as 6 aO' A OVOa 3O1311SIW OS8 03'o m ~a wlaa iana and ~ oet 3SVHd 103fOad 3Sn O3XIW 3 w ° M31A39 31JS b e ` Q s ~4 I I e ~g s ~ kp °w PC~ I ~ ~ WW C q~ z el a W~~ T1~HJ 5 o g ~Kp ~~~~~8$e SSA&fi~~g89t. c Iua~q BBSBB al °I N L/ Y/ LUj " l / ~ a $ o t A K } I / ~ . • o m sl s~k$4 i- / y' t , d I Aa g y ~ ~ z x i t (2)9/2010) April Lucas _.hold off.... _ ---._Page 1 I From: wendy eppmger <wendye@mind.net> To: <lucasa@ashland.or.us> RECEIVE? Date: 2/9/2010 2:48 PM Subject: hold off..... please don't make any decisions about the Croman property until it F i.0 9 2010 works for everyonel We need jobs for our town,.. so spend some more time; listen to the objections and make it work) I i i 52 Page 1 of 2 RECEIVED April Lucas - Traffic - PA 2009-01292 9 2010 From: Colin Swales <colinswales@gmail.com> To: Mike Faught <faughtm@ashland.or.us> CiN Of AsMand Date: 219/2010 10:33 AM community Development Subject: Traffic - PA 2009-01292 CC: Bill Molnar <bill@ashland.or.us>, Nancy Slocum <nancy@ash[and,or.us>, April Lucas <lucasa@ashland.or.us> 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 last month's PC minutes and the PC meeting packet for tonight's meeting and apart from some suggestions in a memo from ODOT [ pages 11415 ] regarding the TIA, I cannot see any other information provided for the Planning Commissioners regarding the overall traffic analysis and the various mitigation elements required, as was provided to the TC Will you be briefing the PC tonight on the TIA? At the Transportation Workshop recently held by Dr. Mcjte Takallou Ph.D., P.E., some of the ODOT reps there suggested that once a property is re-zoned it is considered that the surrounding infrastructure is then deemed sufficient for all permitted development. ( Makes me think of the ongoing Wal-Mart debacle in Medford ) As the applicant for this re-zone etc. is not in fact the Croman property owner but is instead the City itself, will the Ashland taxpayers be responsible for paying for all the infrastructure mitigation? I only mention this as the consultants Crandall Arembula 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 will be going to the private landowners, what is their share of the infrastructurelmaster planning costs? I note that the Council in Nov 2009 had it as one of their Goals ".develop an Implementation strategy for funding and Infrastructure for Croman..." [ www.ashland.or.us/Files/Goal Setting 2010 Atch.pdf- 2009-11-25 1. 1 have heard of possible things such as an urban renewal zone, but so far nothing concrete. Seems like the cart is before the horse.... Does Staff have any 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 various 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 Swales Jalisco, MX 53 fite://C:\Documents and Settings\lucasa\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4B713AOEAshDo... 2/9/2010 Pagel of 2 April Lucas - Fwd: comments on Croman Mill planning From: Brandon Goldman To: April Lucas RECEIVED Date: 2/3/2010 4:22 PM Subject: Fwd: comments on Croman Mill planning FEB - 3 2010 CC: Bill Molnar; Maria Harris Cty of Astland Letter from Neil Smith (Airspace) for the Commissioner packet & record. Community Devoic, On 02/01/2010 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. Although I understand that as the chairman of the City of Ashland Planning 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 1 not Ashland is the business friendly city that I previously envisioned. You may be thinking business ll friendly -"what's he thinking". To illuminate that point, be aware that I moved up here to create a i new business, and have been doing business here for about 2 years. Business friendly to me, does not mean inexpensive, dirty, or ugly. In fact, business friendly, to my mind, means a town that is pleasant to live and work in, allows me to 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 an overlay of "green°. I I strongly encourage you to NOT require Lead certification. This is a proprietary system and although it attempts to provide environmental guidance, government should use open standards. There is a better way. C I would encourage you take the perspective of the type of entrepreneur who will potentially relocate to Ashland. You should respect the cost constraints of business, and also be aware that past E successes are almost certainly not to be repeated. Just as the timber and house building Industries I 54 fileWC:\Documents and Settings\lucasa\Local Scttings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4B69A2BEAshDo... 2/3/2010 Page 2 of 2 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 AirScape Inc. www.airscapefans.com i I I I i I r 55 fileWCADocuments and Settings\hicasaTocal Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4B69A2BEAsliDo.., 2/3/2010 i Page I of 2 April Lucas - Re: Fwd: DiRienzo'- Additional input on Croman m ~ &F-G&IVEQ. From: April Lucas To: Maria Harris FEB 2 Subject: Re: Fwd: DIRlenzo - Additional Input on Croman - - --------------cny_otn~ta~nd_ Cormnuniiy Uavclopmrnt "Mark D" <markd@mind,net> 02/02/10 3:48 PM Hi Bill, I write to re-iterate my serious concerns about two things. A. The status of the Croman MITI plan overall and B. The sudden inclusion of Mistletoe Road Business Park (my 6 acre property Including the completed office building and storage space) and it's proposed downzbning to O/E. 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 cost prohibitive and complicated to move ones business here. o 2. Creating impractical buildings that may not meet the dimensional needs of potential users or the reality of E every day use required by businesses. f` 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. I4 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. ft to any project being I 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 ft 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 property into this plan and the proposal by staff to downzone this 6 acre property 4 from M-1 to the new OIE 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 built a 7,500 sq ft office building and a 70,000 sq ft 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. ft. building that has uses that will no longer be allowed within the "new" O/E zone. I urge you to remove my property from the proposed masterplan. Some reason include but are not limited to: 1. You are removing 6 acres of M-1 from the city industrial land inventories. M-1 zoning is a flexible zone, it C allows office and employment uses as well as assembly and fabrication in % that business can 114 realistically use), why downzone my property to restrict it's use, aren't we trying to attract businesses by offering flexible zoning. I 2. The most successful businesses in Ashland tend to require mixed activities. Blackstone, Modern Fan, Dream Saks, Massiff, Adroit, OSF, Hakatai, all of these businesses require high level office for professionals combined with warehousing/fabdcation/assembly spaces. The proposed zones O/E 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 property. This is bad for businesses, bad j for the City, and bad for my property. 3. 1 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 comply with M-1 zone, for donating land to the city of Ashland to widen Mistletoe Road, paying to improve Mistletoe Road, gifting the City a 10' wide bike easement along our north property line, and building everything on that site in compliance with the M-1 56 about:blank 2/3/2010 , , Page 2 of 2 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 my Input. Regards, Mark DIRlenzo 700 Mistletoe Road #106 Ashland, OR 97520 541-621-8393 I i I I I i i i i 57 about:blank 2/3/2010 DiRienzo, 700 Mistletoe Road January 12, 2010 Planning Commission Comments I own Mistletoe Road Business Park, a 6 acre M-1 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 every 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 projects 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 our 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 interpret and one that creates 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. 1 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 problem areas. EXAMPLES: 1. The Majority of parking must be in the rear 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 problems: a. Grade change. The properties 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 or be built up on the downhill side. b. Access into the building: parking in the rear and walking clear around a building to get inside is impractical. The buildings will be wide so the front door will be % way around the building just to walk inside. ! I don't have time to go through all of this since there is a personal element to my comments tonight. In phase 1 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. i distillery building for Organic Nation Vodka on our north vacant % acre (the company is l~ I i 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 of this fits perfectly with our plans to develop a world class business park on our M 1 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-l. After all these public meetings, walking the Mill site with commissioners and staff, and being told that my property was not part of the master plan, I feel blindsided. • 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 property 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 corner directly in front of our office building. • 1 also have to tell my New Zealand business partner on this project that this new zoning will make our property 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 of M-1 zoning which gives its 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 partially in the Mill district and partially out of it, will our lender approve this, will this be practical for the MI industrial zone behind my office buildings when industrial users drive through my office area? T cannot accept this short notice inclusion of my property 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 or two to get it right this time? Mark DiRienzo 700 Mistletoe Road #106 Ashland, OR 97520 541-621-8393 59 U regon (Vegon Department of Transportation nih Districts t' Theodore R. Kulongwld, Govemor 100 Antelope Road RECEIVED White City, OR 97503 February 1, 2010 Telephone (541) 774.6299 FAX (541) 774-6349 Bill Molnar FEB -2 2010 File Code: Community Development Director City of Ashland 20 East Main Street Cityof Ashland Ashland, OR 97520 Communlty 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 revitalize this area. Redevelopment is expected to increase employment and provide needed housing options for city residents. We also appreciate your willingness to work with us in relation to the Ashland Maintenance Yard located within the proposed Croman Mill District. As we discussed on the phone, we would like to share some of our comments as they relate to State transportation facilities. First, the redevelopment plan indicates development of a "signature street" referenced in the document as Central Boulevard. As currently written, the plan assumes that this road will traverse through the Maintenance Yard via an easement. We understand that the plan is being revised to remove any reference to easements through the property, and will instead add language indicating the need to purchase the property for planned development to occur. We were also concerned that with our ability to reconstruct the maintenance 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 language that will allow replacement of these buildings should a catastrophic event occur. With these two changes (purchase of property and allowing building replacement), ODOT is satisfied; but would like to review actual language before final adoption. Alternately, one solution perhaps not considered that would allow building replacement and increase the likelihood of redevelopment would be the "down zoning" of our property. As currently proposed, the maintenance yard zoning will change to allow cmmnercial development. This is expected to greatly increase the value of the properly. Instead, the city might consider changing our zoning to public reserve and making the property leas costly to redevelop. Secondly, we understand the city will be updating the tragic analysis completed for the Crmman Mill District. One suggestion would be to phase the traffic analysis consistent with expected redevelopment. For example, the current traffic analysis relies upon the new Centel Boulevard to distribute traffic both north and south of the site to Ashland Street and Siskiyou Boulevard. Since it is unknown when ODOT will be able to relocate, the traffic analysis should indicate impacts to Siskiyou Boulevard as opposed to diverting some of the traffic northward. As DLCD pointed out in their November letter, the traffic analysis will be important to make findings consistent with the transportation-planning rule. We would be happy to offer our assistance as you develop these findings. Findings will need to identify planned improvements as well as their funding. We look forward to working with you further as this plan moves forward. Please enter this letter into the record, If you have any questions, I can be reached'at 541-957-3658. Sincerely, Michael Baker ODOT Principal Planner Attachment: DKS Traffic Impact Analysis (Crornan Mill) Review 60 I STATE Or 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 Manager FROM: Wei "Michael" Wang, P.E. & M.S. Development Review Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: Review of Croman Mill Transportation Report Dated January 2, 2009 1 4 Figure 2 The peak flour volumes are not balanced in Figure 2. There is no information about truck percentage, peak hour factor, pedestrian, bike volume, and bus ercenta a in this analysis. 2 6,14,16, Table 1,7, 8, Please provide 95 percentile queue length for all the intersections. Region 17,18,19 9, 10, 11, 3 Traffic would like to review the related Synchro files and default settings 20,21 12,13 for these intersections, 3 12,16 On page 12, the TIA indicates that the realignment of Tolman Road has the potential to divert 24 % or between 50-100 peak hour trips due to a less direct north/south route to connect to/from OR 99 and Hwy 66. Please provide detailed analysis to allow the fact that the 50-100 diverted trips are included in the new Signature Street & OR 99 intersection v/c calculation. On page 16, the TIA discusses changing the peak hour factor from 0.81 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 detailed information and verify this mitigation measurement. 4 17 Paragraph 3 Based on Figure 6 mitigation, there will be an EB left turn and a WB right turn mitigation at the intersection of Hwy 66 & f5 NB Alternative B. Change the phrase "In addition, a separate westbound right turn pocket would be..." to "In addition, a separate eastbound left and a westbound right turn pocket would be..." 5 21 Paragraph 3 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 the phrase "This consisted of signalization and adding a separate westbound right turn pocket," to "This consisted of signalization and adding a separate eastbound left and a westbound right turn pocket." 61 i 1 , i , 6 General Mitigation ODOT is planning to rebuild the Exit 14 interchange. The proposed interchange will have a four lane cross road with ramps in a diamond configuration. The intersections of Hwy 66 & 1-5 NB, Hwy 66 & I-5 SB will be signalized. Please coordinate with ODOT for the 2030 Croman Mill mitigation at these two intersections. 7 General Mitigation At the intersection of Hwy 66 & Washington Street, Region 3 Traffic is not willing to support the signalization of this intersection due to its proximity to the Hwy 66 & I-5 SB intersection, which will be signalized with the interchange reconstruction project. A non-traversable median will be installed along the west side of the interchange from the ramp terminals to Tolman Creek Road as outlined in the I-5 interchange 14 LAMP. 8 General Mitigation There is not enough sight distance for turning movement from OR 99 to Mistletoe Road and from Mistletoe to OR 99. Region 3 Traffic would like to seek the opportunity 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 proposed Signature Street. 9 General Mitigation The mitigation for the intersection of Tolman Creek & Mistletoe is proposed to be a signalized intersection with the lane configuration changed to a tee intersection. Please notify the ODOT Rail department of , these proposed changes and etapproval with this mitigation. 10 General Mitigation The Signature Street proposal indicates the street will go through the existing ODOT maintenance facility. Is the developer proposing to i purchase ODOT's property for the new street? Please indicate any additional mitigation if this connection is not completed. If you have any questions regarding my comments, please call me at (541) 774-6316. i cc: Shyam Sharma, Region 3 Ron Hughes, Region 3 . Jerry Marmon, Region 3 , f j i 62 f RECEIVED February 1, 2010 ~B j 2010 To: April Lucasa CiryofAshland Community uevoic„ 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 hear 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 all the 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 meetings 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 property. 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 zoned land in town and with Ashland Planners 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 industry 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 r 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 I I 1 f creating jobs, training employees, expanding our own business and slowly developing our 13 acres of employment property keeping much needed service and manufacturing jobs in Ashland. This has been done without grants or special taatment from any government entities. Quite to the contrary, we have payed dearly for fees and assessments along with a major L.I.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 leeuy of my city developing my neighbor's property to compete with mine, I am most concerned about the in-fill and if it will cost me monetarily 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, 1. 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. I 2. A guarantee should be made that citizens will not have to pay any 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 infrastnucture adequate to handle the biggest possible standards and development at Croman. 4. Hamilton Creek tuns through our property and others below Croman. Most people do not realize our city pipes untreated street storm water from developments not even attached to these waterways and uses them as storm drains. To build on my land, I have had to produce 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 Hamilton Creek. i 5. When infrastructure is being analyzed, make sure that those of us that may develop afler 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, bringing 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 of traffic all day. Before 1 go any further, please note I will not give up any property frontage and will never pay another L.I.D. charge on that road. 64 There is a simple solution that no one in charge of this project will consider. That is to create a complete ingress/egress interchange on Siskiyou Blvd. and I-5. After I was ignored by City Planners, I called O,D.O.T. and the gentleman I plioned 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 ruin any movement along Tolman, but once traffic finally gets to I-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 rural 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 truly hope this idea causes no grief for any land owners in that area, but until this traffic issue is resolved, the Croman development should be put on hold. I That's my "feedback". I wish someone would consider my concerns. 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 everyone else seems to be doing, Sincerely, Zach Brombacher IPCO Development 640 Tolman Creek Rd. Ashland, OR 97520 541-482-4711 I I I i i i 65 I I i I CITY OF Memo ASHLAND Date: January 25, 2010 From: Colin Swales, Transportation Cormnission Chair To: Planning Commission Re: Transportation Con urrents 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 Department, after having noted some of the Commission's previous concerns 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. Tile Commission was in favor of these revisions and looked forward to reviewing the street design as pail of the upcoming TSP update process. After the presentation, discussion and deliberations were held, tine following motion was made: Commission recommends to the Planning Cotmnission and the City Council that the final design of Central Boulevard be reviewed by the Transportation Commission before it is finalized and constructed. The motion passed unanimously. i I I i REcelveD i 1 JAN 2 5 2010 City of Ashland C Community Davel„ pment 4 ENGINEERING DIVISION Tel: 5411488-5347 20 E. Main Street Fax: 5411488 6606 Ashland OR 97520 TTY:800173552900 V_ ff,y.ashiandoi.us G.IpubbwrkslengldeptadminlTlanspolta8on CominissimlCroman Nan Response to PC 12210.doc i 66 To: Mayor, City Council, Planning Commissioners and City Administrator From: Marilyn Briggs (Please enter as testimony) Regarding: Croman Property Proposal January 15, 2010 I urge the denial of the existing Croman Property Proposal for the following reasons: 1. It makes a mockery of all our touted efforts at "sustainabilit}?' and "infill". • It reverses an earlier Planning Commission decision that was unanimously for keeping ALL the Croman Property in a light industrial zone. About five 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 survey was 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"sustainability"; this proposal negates it. 2. It is not a "WELCOME TO OUR COMMUNITY" document. • It disrespects existing property owners/businesses by overlaying their properties with new regulations and running roads through existing buildings. • It negates our goal of establishing family-wagejobs---it contains ordinances that make it financially difficult for business to WANT to locate here 3. The Portland architectural consultants who devised this "IvRXED USE" concept, proceeded with blatant disregard for public input. Yes, there were public meetings, three - at the Hotel which showcased, repetitively, handsome projects they did in 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 to us, which our current Mayor and I tabulated ourselves. And during 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 this existing proposal because they sorely 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. I. 5. Suggestions: • ONE ZONE, light industrial. Apart from negating the "infill" goal, any commercial/living quarters could provoke conflicts about noise, odors or traffic that the industrial facilities might make They are totally incompatible with the goal of providing infrastructure for family-wage job opportunies. r SPkCe- JL A aA oa ~n,V- . RECEIVED JAN 1 9 20 City of Ashland community Development 67 C~*t i r~µ L i i • The existing firm and trailer park not.currently within the City Limits. Are these property owners willing participants in the overlay? It would be advantages to allow agricultural industry on this land for it would demonstrate the crux of being a "sustainable" entity! It also makes a coherenfmalch with the private properties across the road. that are well-manicured open space. As people enter Ashland from the south freeway exit, the open space look is preferable.by far to that of a "strip" of commercial buildings with living quarters above!! • The primary roadway as drawn cuts through existing properties at both ends. Find. another south entry; even if it means cutting-into the existing bank; don't destroy the farm.. As proposed,:too many secondary streets create too much impervious' surface. ! The.central "park" should be a functioning agricultural industry,. (vegetables or nurseries); albeit, with sonic pnauc tables The. riparian areas might have rows of windmills or solar collectors'to service the light' industrial buildings 6, Conclusion. Please deny theesPsting proposal aril `create one 'that conforms to our Ashland vision, our own stated "goals and needs. r I ~i113 " ~ iltiL 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: Staff Present: Larry Blake Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Maria Harris, Planning Manager Dave Dotterrer Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Pam Marsh Richard Appicello, City Attorney Debbie Miller April Lucas, Administra8ve Assistant Melanie Mindlin Mike Moms John Rinaldi, Jr. Absent Members: Council Llalson: None Eric Navickas ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Marsh announced the vacancy on the Planning Commission and encouraged interested citizens to submit applications to the Mayors Office. Community Development Director Bill Molnar indicated the Commission's March Study Session falls over spring break and if a Study Session is needed they will meet on March 301^ 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 DotterreriBlake We 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 (ALU018.08,18.12.020,18,61.042,18.68.050,18.70.040,18.72.030,18.72.080, 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 1 of 6 69 Commissioner Marsh read aloud the public hearing procedures and noted the commissioners have been asked to disclose ex parts 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, Declaratlon 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. I Commissioner Dotterrer slated 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 DiRlenzo 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. i 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 height limitations, and has also spoken with Mark Knox. i Commissioner Marsh noted that she will be discussing the issue of quasi-Judicial procedures for legislative items further with staff. II Staff Report j Planning Manager Maria Harris stated the Commission Is being asked to make a recommendation on the Croman Mill District I implementation plan, which: 1) creates the new CM zoning district, 2) establishes development standards for the CM district, j 3) revises existing Land Use Ordinance for consistency, and 4) adopts the 2008 Redevelopment Plan as a supporting I` 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. Hams noted the project webpage (www.ashland.or.uslcroman) and stated there is an extensive amount of I documentation posted if anyone is looking for more information. ! Ms. Harris explained the proposal before the Commission redistributes allowed uses in the district boundary, focuses on land efficientmigh employment uses, increases the residential density in the neighborhood center, and adds residential uses in mixed use areas. She stated most of the Croman MITI District is within the city limits and the bulk of it is comprised of the i former Croman Mill site. Ms. Harris stated the current M-1 industrial title Is somewhat misleading because this zoning district allows for a wide range of commercial and employment uses in addition to what most would consider typical Industrial uses. i She elaborated that retail, restaurants, offices, nightclubs/bars, and hotelslmotels 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 proposed Croman Mill District is really a redistribution of many of those uses. Ashland Planning Commission January 12, 2010 Page 2 of e 70 Ms. Hams 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 also 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 whole 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: l) inclusion of property outside the district boundary, 2) east-west orientation alternative, 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 Mistletoe 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 southern building exposure, but it would impact block lengths and would require staff to make slight modifications to the minimum lot size requirements. Lastly, 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 until they 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 9t^ Planning Commission meeting. Public Testimony David WIck12560 Eagle Creek Lane/Submitted information on bringing the "Triple Bottom Line° concept to the Croman plan. Mr. Wick stated 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 sustainabilily:1) Profit - your established traditional measures of financial performance, 2) People - commitment to your employees, customers, suppliers and community, and 3) Planet - reduction 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 Monterol4497 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 DlRlenzol700 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. ft distillery 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. ft. 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 stated the proposed road alignment would create a deadly comer 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 looking 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 stated he cannot accept this short notice Inclusion of his property into the Croman Mill District without adequate time to review its impacts and strongly urged the Commission to delay this plan's approval until a review of the 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 or e 71 i i Staff pointed out the location of Mr. DIRienzo'S property and clarified this is the property referenced in staff option 1. It was I noted that up until recently, this area was not included in the plan and staff has presented options to include either all of Mr. DiRlenzo's property, orjust the front portion. Mr. DiRienzo clarified he owns three tax lots along the Mistletoe Rd. frontage and including the frontage of his property 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 two 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 with 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 stated there is still time for the professionals in the field to submit their Input. Marilyn Briggs/590 Glenview Drive/Stated six years ago the Planning Commission voted to keep the Croman property 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 with the firm Crandall Arambula and felt they were not open to public Input, and asked that the Commission deny this proposal. John Weber/295 Mistletoe RoadiVoiced his concern with 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 Lialson Derek Severson, and Transportation Commission Chair Colin Swales. Commissioner Marsh 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 Legal Counsel and Staff City Attorney Richard Appicello recommended the Commission not begin their deliberations since the record is not closed. He M added the Commission is allowed to identify issues for staff. Commissioner Dawkins shared his concerns with 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 all the required infrastructure and stringent site review standards. Staff commented briefly on the proposed lot sizes and stated the intent was to give businesses room to grow. Ms. Harris j 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 I high of a standard. He commented on the LEED standards and asked if this would make the Croman plan economically f 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. i Commissioner Mindlin shared her concerns with 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 Ashland Planning Commission January 12, 2010 Page 4 or 6 72 NEW BUSINESS A. Selection of 2010 Hearings Board Members. A sfgn-up sheet was passed around the table. Commissioners Moms, Blake and Dotterrer will serve on the Hearings Board January through April; Commissioners Miller, Rinaidi and Dawkins will serve May through August; and Commissioners Marsh and Mindlin will serve along with the newly appointed member September through December. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant I i i i Ashland Planning Commission January 12, 2010 Page 6 of 6 73 I Planning Commission I / Speaker Request Form 1) 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 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) You may 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 ` C L (please print) Address (no P.O. Box).. 0-n 4' Phone Email Tonight's Meeting Date Regular Meeting Agenda item number \j / OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item) n C Land Use Public Hearing For: Against: Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias If you are challenging a member (planning commissioner) 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 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 when you testify during the normal order of proceedings. Written Comments/Challenge: The Public Aleeling Lmr recptires Ihctl all ciq, nteetittgs cure oltetr to the public. Oregon law does not always require Thai the public be permitted to speak. Tire Asldcutd Planning Conrutission generally invites the public to speak on agenda items and during public for•itnt on non-agenda itents unless lime coiistl'oinis limit piiblic testiittoiiy. 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 follmv the chrectiois of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which ore unreasonably loud or disruptive are i disrespectful, and story constiliee disorderly conduct OJfnders will be requested to leave llte room. I Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council, l City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland. 74 Planning Commission Speaker Request Form 1) 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 file 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 Chair, usually 5 minutes. 5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the Secretary for the record. G) You may 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 /1ZG/Cy~!}~tlTls~vs ~oM.toJ®.t li {Gsn/G (Please print) Address (no P.O. Box) 2497 8/1ouln//1 /EXC.. T L~r ezD~o~D b Phone sY! -'779 0 7:7 Email l 9 . Tonight's Meeting Date t /z Regular Meeting Agenda item number OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item) Land Use Public Hearing For: Against: Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias If you are challenging a member (planning commissioner) 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 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 when you testify during the normal order of proceedings. Written Conuuents/Challenge: The Public 1feeting Law requires that all city meetings are open to lire public. Oregon lain does not always require that the public he permilled to speak. The Ashland Planning Cotmnissiott generally invites the public to speak our agenda items and chiring public forum on non-agenda items unless tine consn•cdnty limit public ieslirttorty. Ato person has an absolute rigid to spectk a• patvicipate in evet7, phase q1'a proceeding. Please respecl the order of proceedings for public hearings cud strictly follotr the directions of lire presiding gfftcer. Behaviot• ot• Minns which are unreasonably load or disruptive are lisrespeclJul, and ntny constitute clisorrlerly conduct QJfenders aril! be requested to leave the roan. Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council, City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland. 75 Speaker Request Form THIS FORM IS A PUBLIC RECORD / ALL BVFORMATI~.4 PROVIDED WILL BE MADE AVAILAII..- TO THE PUBLIC IV// i i 1) Complete this form and return it to the City Recorder prior to the discussion of the item you wish to speak 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 content of their public statement. > 44.tht3seelt n 7?ate t t /l z y Pl~tlrte .Z ~~n J FCt~s("~ y a V S t i• _r n Address Zno O Box)t z J( f f! / q 7 1 5Jtll/E L _ . hhOfte~s cam, ~ - I Regular Meeting Agenda topic/item number-Vi -2 "'L-04,77j OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item) Clet)OAJ,lt-g) itflGC 66"9 a I Land Use Public Hearing Please indicate the following: For: Against: Challenge.for Conflict of Interest or 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-supperting-faets-en-this4,erm-and-deliver itdo 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 testify during the normal order of proceedings. Written Comments/Challenge: - - - - - i I 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 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 lire 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 room. Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council, City Officers or employeesf6 the City of Ashland. Planning Commission Speaker Request Form 1) 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 for the record. 4) Limit your continents 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 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 Ja (please Print Address (no P.O. Box) Phone I mad Tonight's Meeting Date • Regular Meeting Agenda item number OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item) Land Use Public Hearing For: Against: Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias If you are challenging a member (planning commissioner) 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 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 when you testify during the normal order of proceedings. • 140 Written Comments/Challenge: The Public AWeeling Lmr requires that all city nneetings are open to the public. Oregon lass does not always require that the public be permitted to speak. 7*lie dshlaucl Plcuuriug Commission geiterall3, invites the public to speak on agenda ileitis and during publie.forrun on non-agenda items unless time coustn•ainis limit public iestinunty. Aio person /sets rot absolute right m .speak or participate in ever-), phase of a proceeding. Please respect the order of proeeeclbtgs,for public hearings crud strictly follow the directions of the presiding officer. behavior or actions which are unreasonably load or disruptive are disrespeo(fttl, and rrnap constitute disorderly, conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the room. Comments and statensents by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council, City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland. 77 Speaker Request Form THIS FORM IS A PUBLIC RECORD / ALL INFORMATTI,.. PROVIDED WILL BE MADE A VAILAB'L_ TO THE PUBLIC V 1) Complete this form and return it to the City Recorder prior to the discussion of the item you wish to sneak 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 your 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. t ,v~.;< r ty L Y, ~ t+... xe a -e a 2x" 9 ~ T.. F r ' t si -r r uzt-R (P~e3};:~,Plt t) ~ a =3 w Ad`dt•ess (no~ O fax) 1~~ 1 s r~e~. 4~ : iF.! ~t ~N _ Regular Meeting Agenda topic/item number OR , Inn- , Topic for public forum (non agenda item) C, /-o Land Use Public Hearing Please indicate the following: For: Against: Challenge for Conflict of Interest or 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-eomplete-with supporting-faets-otrthis-€er-m-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 testify during the normal order of proceedings. Wiitien Commen s/Ciillibnge:-- - 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 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 eveny 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 clisruptive are disrespecod, 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 6 the City of Ashland. I , Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give Your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and nomially is not allowed after the Public Hearing is closed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 12, 2010 AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street if. 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. TLANNING.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. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Selection of 2010 Hearings Board Members VII. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF ASHLAND Incompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need 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). 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-1, E-I, R-1-5 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-1 Industrial District, Chapter 18.40 Employment District, Chapter 18.20 Single-Family Residential District, Chapter 18.108 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 Croman Mill 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 VI11-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. 1. Relevant Facts i 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 r construction are permitted as measures for carrying out Comprehensive Plans. Planning Action PA #2009-01292 Ashland Planning Division- Staff Report mh AppllcanC City of Ashland 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 adequate land supply for economic development and employment growth. Specifically, Oregon Administrative Rude (OAR) 660-009 requires cities to periodically conduct an Economic Opportunity Analysis (FOA). 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 for industrial and employment uses and identification of the number of sites needed to accommodate expected employment growth. In December 2001, the Ashland Planning Commission denied an application for the Croman 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-I to E-1, HC, R-2, R-1-3.5 and R-1-7.5 (PA 2001-103). The denial was based on findings 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 future 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 the redevelopment of the site. The EOA suggests exploring the concept of developing the Croman Mill site as an "eco-industrial park" to attract industries providing family wage jobs, that are non-polluting, that 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 proximity to the interstate and the railroad line, the ability to accommodate the needs of existing Ashland businesses that may wish to relocate within the city, and the ability to attract new businesses. In 2007, the Community. Development Department applied for a Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) grant to prepare a master plan for the Croman Mill site. The TGM program is a joint program of the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). The City of Ashland received the TGM grant and Crandall Arambula, an urban design and architecture firm, was selected to prepare the draft plan. Project 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 #2009-01292 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report mh Applicant: City of Ashland Page 2 of 12 81 I and numerous stakeholder meetings with property owners, nearby residents and i government agency representatives. 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 goals and objectives for the redevelopment plan. After the January workshop, four 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). 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 skiee 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 #2009-01292 Ashland Planning Oivision -Staff Report min Applicant: CityofAshland Page 3of12 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 the south. The bulk of the property is comprised 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 Mistletoe Road and the 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 V1117Croman 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 from 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 CM 2. Legislative Amendments o add anew Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill Planning Action PA #2009-01292 Ashland Planning Division-Staff Report mh Applicant: City of Ashland Page 4 of 12 83 i j o add a new Section VIII-Croman Mill District Standards o Misc. Chapter 18 Amendments o adopt Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan as supporting document to Ashland Comprehensive Plan H. Protect Impact I I I A. Approval Process and Noticing The proposal in Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map amendments, as well as additions and rervisions to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) in an effort to j implement the Croman 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 property owners in and surrounding the Croman Mill District boundary, as well as the participants from the Croatian 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 Chapter 18.108, as well as a meeting announcement is posted on the project web page www.ashland.or.us/croman. 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 until February, so that the Transportation Commission has an opportunity to submit comments. B. Proposal Impact I The attached maps show the current Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations and the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations for the properties within the district. The area within the boundary of the proposed Croman Mill District including the former Croman'Milt site is primarily zoned M-I Industrial, with some additional areas of E-I Employment and R-I Single Family. 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 Planning Action PA #2009-01292 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report mh Applicant: City of Ashland Page 5of 12 84 area is designated Employment in the Ashland Comprehensive Plan and is currently zoned Jackson County RR-5 Rural Residential. The title of the M-l 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 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-I 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 northern 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 serving 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 portion of the district. The primary impact of the comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments is the redistribution of allowed uses in the district boundary, 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 Cl Compatible Industrial zone, with provisions 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 throughout the OF Office Employment and CI Compatible Industrial zones 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-I Employment zoning. Planning Action PA #2009-01292 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report min Applicant: City of Ashland Page 6of 12 85 i The second significant area of change in land uses involves the ODO"r maintenance yard and the two MU Mixed Use areas. The ODOT maintenance yard is currently zoned R-1-5 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 per 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-I 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 Hamilton 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 require non-residential uses in the ground floor. 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 or 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, street furniture fencing 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 is relatively unchanged. Under the current E-I and M-I 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. I 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 construction in the E-l and M-1 zoning districts is subject to the Basic Site Review Standards. Basic II 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 CI Compatible Industrial will be subject to it similar level of review as Basic Site Review, and structures adjacent to the Active Edge Streets (i.e. central boulevard and surrounding 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 Detail 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 i 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). Additional Green Development Standards addressing items Planning Action PA 42009-01292 Ashland Planning Division - SlaflReporl mh Applicant: City of Ashland Page 7of12 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 transportation framework that is implemented by the Croman Mill District 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 commuter 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 well as off-road multi-use paths including the extension of the Central 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 southern 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 Cl Compatible Industrial zoning overlay. C. Discussion Items Latest Revisions The attached Chapter 18.53 and the Croman Mill District Standards have been 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 Boundary - The properties to the north of the OE Office Employment zone and to the east of the central boulevard (i.e. 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 Cl 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 Ashland Planning Divlsion - Staff Report mh Applicant: City of Ashland Page 8 of 12 87 i intersection with Tolman Creek Road was added to the Croman Mill District Standards Street Standards. o Accessway Cross Section Option - A narrower pedestrian and bicycle only option was added for the accessway street classification, o Relaxed Design Standards for CI Compatible Industrial -The design standards have been divided into to two categories - those that apply to the CI Compatible Industrial overlay, and those that apply to the Properties on the Active Edge Streets (i.e. 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 Cl Compatible Industrial properties, except those located on the Active Edge Streets, will be subject to standards comparable to Basic Site Review. 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 St., Jefferson Avenue 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 Structured Parking and Residential 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 affordable housing units. I On-going Discussion Items At the December 8 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed a revised east-west street 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 Alternative: In reviewing the east-west street orientation, staff identified three items for Planning Commission consideration - the acreage, building location conflicts and minimum lot sizes in the Cl Compatible Industrial zoning overlay. i 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). i Croman MITI District Acrea es b Zoning Overly Zoning Overlay 2008 Croman Mill Slte January 12, 2010 Draft East-West Alternative Redevelopment Plan Compatible Industrial CI 42.3 32.5 31.2 Planning Action PA 02009-01292 Ashland Planning Division -Staff Report mh Applicant: City of Ashland Page 9of12 88 Office Employment OE 40.2 33 33.8 Neighborhood Center NC 5.8 5.9 6 Mixed Use MU 0 16 16.5 Open Space/Conservation OS 8.3 9.2 8.9 Total 96.6 96.6 96.4 The streets in the east-west alternative, 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 former 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 alternative to the City Council, staff recommends reducing the minimum lot size in the Cl Compatible Industrial zoning overlay from 40,000 to 30,000 square feet. This will allow the smallest blocks in the Cl Compatible Industrial overlay to be divided into two lots. Location of the Central Boulevard: The northern section of the central boulevard has been redrawn in the East-West Street Alternative 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 larger 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 filly investigate the street design and location at this time. Staff suggests including the alternative location for the northern section of the central boulevard as a potential option in the Croman Mill District Standards. III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof 18.108.060 Standards for Type Ill 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 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 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 Planning Action PA #2009-01292 Ashland Planning Division- Staff Report mh Applicant City of Ashland Page 10 of 12 89 i will provide 259/o 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 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 i 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 i proposed amendment at its earliest practicable meeting after it is submitted, and within thirty days after the hearing, recommend to the Council, approval, disapproval, or modification of the proposed amendment. C. An application for amendment by a property owner or resident shall be filed with the Planning Department thirty days prior to the Commission meeting at which the proposal is to be first considered. The application shall be accompanied by the required fee. D. Before taking final action on a proposed amendment, the Commission shall hold a public hearing. After receipt of the report on the amendment from the Commission, the Council shall hold a public hearing on the amendment. Notice of time and place of the public hearings and a brief description of the proposed amendment shall be given notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the City not less than ten days prior to the date of hearing. E. No application of a property owner or resident for a legislative amendment shall be considered by the Commission within the twelve month period immediately following a previous denial of such request, except the Commission may permit a new application if, in the opinion of the Commission, new evidence or a change of circumstances warrant it. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations 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 period. 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. "fhe 2008 planning process which resulted in the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan I involved a wide variety of participants including the general public, property owners and I 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 Planning Action PA #2009-01292 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report mh Applicant City of Ashland 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 #2009-01292 Ashland Planning Division -Staff Report mh Applicant: City of Ashland Page 12of12 91 i Croman Mill District Implementation Plan o Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments j o Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill o Croman Mill District Standards o Misc. Chapter 18 Revisions i i 92 Proposed Zoning Map Changes Croman Mill District Vicinity Ij- _ Cit Llmits J r~~ I 1 _ ~ _ i Gtt L7m{ts r , 1 O r- Feet Proposed Zoning Overlay Designations 0 102.5325 550 975 1,300. compatable industrial (CM-CI) ® office employment (CM-OE) mixed-use (CM-MU) openspace (CM-OS) CITY Of neighborhood center (CM-NC) ASHLAND wi~i►, Note: Areas outside the City limits would retain their current County zoning designations until annexation. 1/12/2009 93 i Existing Zoning Map Croman Mill District Vicinity ~f , 11 r I I x Clt Llmits LL D i w ~ Gk iM1ts r a 1 yo` EEEEEZZZZ~ 1 Feet 0. 155310, 020 930 1-,240 Zoning Designtations C-1 M-1 R-1-5 C I T Y O F C 1-D G NM R-1-7.5ASHLAND 1 E-1' ® R-3 R-2 ~ir►, 1/12/2009 94 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Change Croman Mill District Vicinity Q v A m a 4til' Q Si a T Feet Ashland Comprehensive 0 155 310 020 930 1,240 Plan Designations Groman_District tow DensityRasidential North Mountain Plan CROMAN MILL Commercial Single Family Residential tVrpod DISTRICT PLAN (new designations) Downtown Multi-Family Residential Sotuhern Oregon University Employment High Density Residential i.~ Woodland Industrial Suburban Residential Health Care. Single Famiily Residential Reserve 1/12/2009 95 L i j Existing Comprehensive Plan Map Croman Mill District Vicinity I I ~ F f t I 1 ~ _ o I It U V t ~ z 100 Ell Feet, 0, 155310 620 930 1,240 Ashland Comprehensive Plan Designations Commercial C~`I Low Density Residential SingWFamiily Residential Reserve Downtown Single Family Residential . North.Mountain Plan =Employment Multi-Family Residential Airport, 'Industrial High,Density Residential r,A'If Sotuhern.Oregon University Health Care Suburban,Residential I woodland 1/12/2009 96 I I CHAPTER 18.53 CM CROMAN MILL SECTIONS: 18.53.010 Purpose 18.53.020 General Requirements 18,53.030 Croman Mill District Plan Development Standards 18.53.040 Use Regulations 18.53.050 Dimensional Regulations 18.53.060 Croman Mill District Open Space Overlay 18.53.070 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 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 sera shown on the Croman MITI District Plan maps adopted by ordinance numf'er (Month Yeah. B. Major and minor amendments to the Croman Mill District Plan shall comply with the following procedures: 1. Major acid 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 112.10 Page 1 97 I 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. I 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 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 I 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 i e. Central Bike Path I Ch. 18.53 Draft 1.12.10 Paget 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 Standards. 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. 1, a e 10 s go, Ilk 01440 residential uses 19 f1l temporary employee housing ® 71 stores, restaurants, and shops less than 3,000 sq.f excluding fuel sales, automobile sales and repair limited stores, restaurants, and shops ® ❑l professional, financial, business, and medical offices 91 administrative or research and development establishments office in conjunction with a permitted use child or day care centers A F1 A fitness, recreational sports, gym or athletic club ancillary employee services (e.g. cafeteria, fitness area) A kennels (indoor) and veterinary clinics _ r® 11 motion picture, television or radio broadcasting studios pa temporary uses ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ZIA ❑ a manufacturing, assembly, fabrication, or packaging Lis rig manufacture of food products without rendering fats or oils c 10 manufacture, assembly, fabrication or packaging in conjunction I I1 with permitted office employment use limited manufacturing affiliated with a retail use A rail freight loading dock facilities rail or rapid transit passenger facilities i warehouse and similar storage facilities ❑ ❑ 1-9 Ch. 18.53 DO 1.12.10 Page 3 99 i II i limited outdoor storage I A 1q, wireless communication facilities attached to an existing structure pursuant to 18 72.180 a -a freestanding wireless communication support structures ❑ ❑ 0 0 pursuant to 18.72.180 Public_& Ittstltulional _ a_r s7w WE i = public service or community buildings with office or space used directly by public 9 El El 11 A public service or community buildings without office or space n 0 C7 LJ L7 used directly by public public and quasi-public utility service buildings enclosed in building -0 A F1 F_ 7]] private school, college, trade school, technical school or similar school El C1 C1 0 electrical substations r M Permitted Use ® Special Permitted Use ❑ Conditional Use NC = Neighborhood Center Cl = Compatible Industrial MU = Mixed Use OS = Open space OE = Office/Employment 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 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 I 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. 1 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 the 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 met. 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/festaurant/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 facility 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 fallowing 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 ancillary 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 (DEQ) for air or water discharge, or similar environmentai concerns, shall be prohibited. Ch. 18.53 Draft 1.12.10 Page 5 101 I I I 8. Limited Manufacturing Affiliated with a Retail Use. Manufacturing, 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 outdoor storage 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. I 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 DraA 1.11.10 Page 8 102 I SECTION 18,53.050 Dimensional Regulations The lot and building design requirements are established in each zoning district regulation in the Dimensional Standards Table. ( ❑ s ~i r ~F 2 b4 ^f xY ''.r„( F 14 k' ,h' T~v -t ~>rtjC+lltltli>rl{~,4 ~~u~o~s~~ Lot Size minimum, s uare feet 20,000 40 000 Fionta e,; minimum, feet 50 100 100 minimum, feet 50 100 100 Yard Abutting a Street minimum yard, feet 2 2 2 2/101 maximum yard abutting a street, feet2 10 10 10 10 SldeYardAbuttiri a.Residentlal;Dlstrict = minimum, feet 10 10 Read Yard Abuttin :Residential 4istrict minimum per story, feet 10 10 Landsca In Covers e minimum percentage coverage 15 15 15 10 „ . Het ht - minimum number of stories 2 2 2 23 maximum height without bonus, stories/feet' 2.5135 3140 3140 3140 1120 ,=he, t ht with bonus, stories/feels 4150 4150 5175 5175 es The solar access setback in Chapter 18.70 Solar Access does not a I in the Croman Mill District. Fronts eiBuild Out on Active Ed a Strest minimum, percent 65 65 65 65 FloorArea Ratio FAR e - minimum 0.60 0.60 0..60 0.50 Residential Denal 7 maximum units per acre without bonus 30 15 maximum units per acre with bonus 60 30 r minimum yard in CI overlay abutting an Active Edge Street is two feel minimum yard In CI Overaly not abutting an Active Edge Street is ten feel 2 Maximum yard requirements shall not apply to entry features such as alcoves, and to hardscape areas for pedestrian ackUes such as plazas or outside eating areas. a Second story shall be a minimum of 200/o of the gross floor area. r Solar energy systems and parapets may be erected up to five feel above the calculated building height, and no greater than five feet above the height limited specified by the district 5 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 stied by the district. s Plazas and pedestrian areas shall count as floor area for the purposes of meeting the minimum Floor Area Ration (FAR). . 7Density 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. Minimum density shall be 80% of the calculated base density. Ch. 18.53 Draft 1.12.10 Page7 103 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 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. I i i Ch. 18.53 Draft 1.12.10 Page 8 104 SECTION VIII Croman Mill District Standards Adopted by the Ashland City Council dat Ordinance A. Street Standards 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. N Yi ~ Croman Mill .District r ri i Street Framework n, 41 ® CerrtraI Blvd l C -YR F gtti \ : fYl ' i I yr at ~.u Li A. L._ 7 Ri►, Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 1 DRAFT 1.12.10 105 i Wdiargum Law I Pmt Rpw Biarwale WOWCOC Pam" Trovol Lane Protected gdewck . PO" Me tale I ~ t i Q 8'+T 6 11-4-I7--4-11--~'-B T4-IQ-+9 f S 50' 25' i 90 Central Boulevard i 2. Phased Street Plan Build-out of the Central Boulevard can be accommodated through a phased j development plan. III 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. I ii. Realignment of Grizzly Drive and Tolman Creek Road. iii. Negotiating dedicated easements. i iv. Vacating a portion of City-owned property. I I I Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 2 DRAFT 1. 12.10 106 I , 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. +(„3O ®i Metoe mfl ~ , f Realign ®j( Mistletoe Rd, , All Alignment . ) by Td na n. Creek ROad ' ` 'r` ~f~e - {`yaD~ a GrizbeY Dave 6t mmexeran4ry Negoated ~~l ~ a a h ~ tl ~t ale ~ ~ a Dedicated pp Easements Vacate a Portbn ry ~ ~ of Cly-Ownea~ T^ Co nstto Beplnftln9 _o ~f -r- Property e~® u [j.+ Central Blvd. ®b-Na- t a ) N4 4 W l ♦ IYl~~ / 1 fr Phase l Phase II 3. Tolman Creek Road Realignment Additional traffic will be generated by the t redevelopment of the Croman Mill - " l Tolman Creek Road `Reanymn°"' district. The realignment of Tolman t L Creek Road with the Central Boulevard will discourage non-local through traffic- -y jtLg- in the Tolman Creek neighborhood and in the Bellview School area. The 1 r t modifications to the street network will 7~ f c preserve neighborhood character and address impacts to the neighborhood by directing traffic away from the neighborhood and Bellview School, and i7 l1 toward the Croman Mill district while ' Lt !w maintaining access to Tolman Creek ' FI Road for neighborhood-generated trips. Key elements of the realigned Tolman 1 '`III? hsfi~ Creek Road include: j~ a a. Two through traffic lanes and a northbound turn lane. - 1~-• b. New traffic signal. c. Bike lanes. d. Sidewalks separated from auto traffic by landscaping and canopy trees. e. Landscaped neighborhood gateway. Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 3 DRAFT 1.12.10 107 f. Evaluate the intersection alignment of local streets with Tolman Creek Road incljuding Takelma Way, Grizzly Drive and Nova Drive. t I T:k I I I Manlain ExWIn91n1eRKlbn i I 1 I 6ikKanu t I r nasbbc~ ooa Gxnruey 1Naw Sbnal _ ~~r Realign. GI~ ~ In1eRKlbn ' 4~1 RKIIgn Inlen•tlbn it l MaiMav . Exbtb9lMUwcllon d,l !I Tolman Creek Road Realignment I i Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 4 DRAFT 1.12.10 108 I Le'~Yae =~.i NunvC ibY k ~r'um - . hH.">. AI-0 tle Gn ,iq r„ bN } ovm sn 1' r wem LanurJVLWIn~ ~~'V bm,Y Mm A .f t ~ lYe ~ r MY r r YeaM1]natl SPeek , tiq,olu,e J Nei~buM1mtl fweel Gdmw IhipM1CgrM1On~f.n ler Neighborhood Center and Tolman Creek Road Realignment 4. Local Commercial Streets Local Commercial Streets provide district circulation to and from employment uses, the Central Parkland the neighborhood center. F a ~-.t ~ `Croman~M'I~Ilistrict# . sheet OMMIA ' wwl CEmmMa~nl' 1.. 9*~a 'l 1 vtC t I 141j _z I~bd' i 111 Ila 1 Y 1 _ _ l 7 ON Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 5 DRAFT 1.12.10 109 I I I Sidewalk Travellane Tree Well Planting. Strip ■1Optional Optional 6'-8' 1 Parallel Parallel Sidewalk Parking Parking 4• I .i I i ~ O O { 11'-13' T 8' * 10'-11+10'-1V+ 7-8" 11'-13' 38' max. curb-to-curb Local Commercial Street 5. Protected Bikeway and Pedestrian Path The Protected Bikeway and Pedestrian Path runs parallel to the Central Boulevard and t .t` a „ ,o,a~„, 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 t~ ~t 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 q i k ti s"~ j ` path by striping, bollard, grade separation of other treatments. c. Tabled intersections. d. Elimination of auto right turns on red at ' t ~ i , I intersections. e. Incorporate rumble strips along the bike path at the approaches to all ! I;~ intersections. I Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 6 DRAFT 1.12.10 110 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. S Porluow Required When Loading Lone . Parkrow is Not Provided Sidewalk Optional Travel Optional Protected Sidewalk Parallel Lane Parallel'. Bike Lane I Parking Parking 1 O tl~ 6. 4 z• - to, -4- to, r 7' -ta -s• '13' 34' max. curb-to-,curb 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 7 DRAFT 1.12.10 111 r cralw rmn of:mar ~ t ~'.•,y t, ~ cmman ram orsvrce f - ~nuuw~wn! 1~ :aQS manx. pem. 'ti`p r- V ti t n- 1 i - Multi-Use Line Sidewalk Path t I I 1 la10' 14' p' Multi-use Path Central Bike Path I I Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 8 DRAFT 1.12.10 112 a' Porkrow Required When Sidewalk Mulfl-Use Loading Zone Path is Not Provided Porlvow Sid evaIk Optional Service Optional Parking Of Lane Parking a Loading Loading Zone Zone 416 &f O 10' 10` 4 7' 7' - 10' - . 13' 34' max curb-to-curb 7' 20 62'-72' R.O.W. Central Bike Path at Accessway Accesssways it The a ccessways are intended to 0'. Fill eisuld T S1.1 FFlmswak balance circulation needs of ti Nk~ pedestrians, bicycles and V I- vehicular access, and to 3 preserve the grid that t J a~ j ~t encourages development of a form that is of human scale and proportion. The accessways f. t 131 f 1 _ i would connect the Central y(_ Boulevard to the Central Bike ~~r~ - ~i Path and allow for shared t l bicycle, travel lanes, optional on - street parking, and temporary loading zones as necessary to serve development sites. ,y _ r Ilk Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 9 DRAFT 1.12.10 113 I I i I Sidewalk: Optional Shared Bicycle Optional r'ree Well / et-U're<lional Planting Parking Of and Auto ParAirt or Planting Strip Level Mull4'USO Path Ship Loading Service Lone Loatlirg with b'sidewolk.ulaa ~y Zone Zone Alf A r I - ~ 4 I O O Concrete a comparable Naoce fool asphalt) 13' T 4-- 10' 10' T 13:' rs f 5' to 8'-'h- 16' -i It. to 8' - Xto 3S max. 34' mmc. cinb-to-curb Accessways: Full Street and Pedestrian/Bicycle Path Options VIII-A-2) Limited Auto Access Streets Developments abutting the Central Boulevard 1, -W cranedMln ols nU and local streets surrounding the Central Park, IimrtedAUto Access streets . shall not have curb cuts on the Limited Auto r c ' Access Streets as indicated on the Limited N,~ Access Streets map. A modification.of a o I driveway access location in manner inconsistent with the Croman Mill District ''td~~ h t ~ I r I 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 Rtn' (i to the following. a. Distance Between Driveways. On Collector Streets - 75 feet 4 ~I i '41, ~r On Local Streets and Accessways 1 50 feet rr I ~y b. Distance from Intersections I 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 10 DRAFT 1.12.10 114 I r 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. 'Aj r ~77 Cranan M71 District ' r;,y'+,,, on'soeh pxekf a Re4wa+' 941 1543 t_ L ❑ E-B i o I ,n ,1 N Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 11 DRAFT 1.12.10 115 i 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 along an Active Edge Street, or that are 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 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 facade. i 7. Buildings shall incorporate arcades, roofs, alcoves, porticoes, and r 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. I I 1 Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 12 DRAFT 1.12.10 116 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 fagade is comprised of transparent openings (clear glass) between three and eight feet above grade. n _Q14 7 Croman Mill i]ISIHCt Active Edge Streets ~ 6saNe Edges M 1. Wc" \ h ! st tp AQJ .S ' , , .i~^,u k, y w l~1 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 II-D 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. Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 13 DRAFT 1.12.10 117 i 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 11-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-lieu-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 WE of the 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. I Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 14 DRAFT 1.12.10 118 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-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 fagade 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 fapade 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 is Zone 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 fagade facing the street, alleyway, public park or open space. Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 15 ~a DRAFT 1.12.10 119 I 1 i I Croman MIII District K a w Residential Butter Overlay. v hl `y r 1~. F-F i u 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 fagade 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 I 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. Vlll-B-7) Landscaping 1. Efforts shall be made to save as many existing healthy trees and shrubs on the site as possible. I Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 16 DRAFT 1. 12.10 120 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 Cl 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 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 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. 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 18.72.030.8.3. 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 Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 17 DRAFT 1.12.10 121 I 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 Mill District. w I ~ ti7•,~~1, Transit Framework --t-: ~ ~ ~ro ~O~~l-.~ n navo~+r eus route O pa wbt bus slope d - J. 1 i. i r r I -1~ Uk Sr ~ if f YC'tkL_ ~F Jry i ~ ♦ ~ r r1 1 y 1 1 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 1, R*0 Rsi Spor , Croman Mill District Transit=" "08 Framework Map. 2. No buildings or permanent structures can be established within the spur easement so not to preclude installation of ai rail spur for freight loading and unloading. A~ Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 18 ram DRAFT 1.12.10 122 t 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 I or designated rail road right-of-way a~' Transit minimum of 400 feet in length and 25 Center feet in width shall be set aside at they approximate location presented on the \ r Croman Mill District Transit Plan Map. ~ 7_ 2. No buildings or permanent structures can be established within the platform easement so as not to preclude \Y installation of a planned bus rapid transit facility or commuter rail c~ platform for loading and unloading. 3. Buildings adjacent to the reserve strip ? Ir 1 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 19 DRAFT 1.12.10 123 1 i Passive Use Area with Pedestrian and large Canopy Bikeway ' frees l ~ti o La+vn and Open srp~ace t Y- J, _ZZ e y'r Central Gathering Area r.. f Landscaped Planting SMp Lv , ti ' V "~±t xl - Surroundings_ s Active Uses c 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. Commclal Uses Commuter Station Central Bike Path Transit Plaza Transit Plaza Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 20 DRAFT 1.12.10 124 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 21 DRAFT 1. 12.10 125 i i I 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.B. 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 i 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 i 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 i 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 22 DRAFT 1.12.10 126 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 1 ~j Croman M111DI latrkt f SiormwaMr ManaO eM Plan ~Cerltral Streot stow w t`"~sr ti~4 ~ "~a ~~^-.~-9vaal Bkawale } T 4X f":..h" ~!~oPamPace~COmervatbn awa ELI 1 ia~ f I~ J ~4`~f ~ Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 23 DRAFT 1.12.10 127 I &o wale. Pak Re. (size VCHies) Pmtected Side A 1 Parking Bike Lane Sldewdk Pamnel irmal Lata~ ~ i o '8' -+I'-7' 8'--11'--17-a''-II'B'. S 58 - 2S I Green Streets I 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-13 Croman 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. i Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 24 DRAFT 1.12.10 128 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. Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 25 DRAFT 1.12.10 129 i I VIII-C-B) 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 j 4. use of recycled water j 5. use of graywater 6. use of water treated for irrigation purposed and conveyed by a water district or public entity. i 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 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. j 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 II Dimensional Standards Table in Section 18.53.050. I j Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 26 DRAFT 1. 12.10 130 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 LEEDS 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® Certification as meeting the LEEDS Silver Standard may be increased in height by up to one story. ,ii. A building obtaining LEEDS Certification as meeting the LEEDS Gold Standard may be increased in height by up to two stories. iii. A building in the Residential Buffer overlay obtaining LEEDS Certification as meeting the LEEDS 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 LEEDS 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 LEEDS certification: i. Hiring and retaining a LEEDS 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 LEEDS standard relating to the height bonus awarded. iii. A final report shall be prepared by the LEEDS Accredited Professional and presented to the City upon completion of the project verifying that the project has met, or exceeded, the LEEDS standard relating to the height bonus awarded. iv. The report shall produce a LEEDS compliant energy model following the methodology outlined in the LEEDS rating system. The energy analysis done for the building Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 27 DRAFT 1.12.10 131 I i 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 LEED® Certification. c. Height Bonus Penalty Section If the project fails to attain LEED® 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 Lien/ 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 l standards established by resolution of the City Council and I guaranteed affordable through procedures contained in said i resolution. VIII-C-14) Employment Density To promote transit supportive development, efficient use of employment zoned lands, and local economic vitality, it is I recommended that developments within the Croman Mill District are i planned to accommodate employment densities as follows: I 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 f i Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 28 DRAFT 1.12.10 132 d. 20 employees per acre in the Neighborhood Center (NC) Overlay , Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 29 i~ DRAFT 1.12.10 133 Additional Plan Maps Croman Mill District / Land Use Overlays compatible industrial (CM-CI) \\\`M ! f ~1 mixed use (CM1hMU) 1 ) neighborhood center (CNFNC) J i ~ office employment (CNI-OE) openspace/conservation (CN1-OS} 5 t -2 is r I\ ` ~ O K 5 1 I~ l ~ ~ w _ :tea t, ~\W~ U S"z 'U ra"r IN Feet j 0 255 510 1,020 1.530 2,040 t Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 30 DRAFT 1.12.10 134 Street Framework ; t« local commercial street entraVhoulevartlz~ €a« .i , ®EaccesswaX { . 1 i MT ..;fig a ~ ~v --~.n~,.~ ULT. r„~"13. e,„~e ~l'~. , + x ri a co Q sue. _ lO4 ':r s'"q ~ ~ ate, r3 1 ( ~ ~ ~ 4t F ci r~ ~ Fe 250 500 1.000 f 1,500 J y2,000/ Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 31 DRAFT 1.12.10 135 i ~'•_--J ~ Croman Mill District. i ~ ~ ~ w i'•. f ` Pedestrian 8 Bicycle ~IJ Framework C_ F' y ,J..t c.~;~{ Ifi1 1 cP entraletikep thccessua ter: oe®■■ rnultiase path 1n protected pedeshian/hikeway 7 ~le _Ilk :'~t ~ ~ vJJ a i N N ~ r r r ' - X _.0 t~.I ~ •pp ~ r `2~ uc ~ I f ma~maenuaas°: ~l itr N) e 0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2.000 Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 32 DRAFT 1.12.10 136 1 - N~ IN ! \ r-j' to.: A _ f~ ~~-ry Park and Ride' I 'Iq t~F Parking e- 7 i n Structure r n 71' / C 4dr k M k3 ~v Sisk t ~ r~ r~ ~,.^•ji i Imp 1 L a J~ 66 Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 33 DRAFT 1.12.10 137 J ' 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 deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are be and additions are in bold underline. Ch. 18.08 Definitions SECTION 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 zoning district [Below To be inserted in alphabetical order] i 18.08.341 LEED® Accredited Professional. A person who has earned a credential as a Leadership in Energv and Environmental Design (LEEDO) Accredited Professional from the U.S._ Green Building Council, or Green Building Certification Institute, in accordance with their standards and reaulrements. 18.08.342 LEED® certification. A building registered with the U.S. Green Building Council which has i satisfied all prerequisites and has earned a minimum number of points i outlined in the Leadership In Energy and Environmental Design (LEED®) Rating System under which it is registered. Levels of certification include Certified. Silver, Gold and Platinum. i 18.08.343 LEED® Green Building Rating System" or "LEED® Rating System. The most recently published version of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED®) Green Building Rating Systems by the U.S. Green Building Council, or the version to be superseded for one year after the publication of a new applicable LEED® Rating System version. 18.08.845 Water Budget The amount of water a landscape needs taking into account the inputs and outputs of water to and from the root zone. Inputs, such as I; 138 f 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, 07/0112008) Map Symbol and,'. Zoning Districts and Overlays„ Abbreviated'Desi nation..,' Airport Overla A Residential - Rural RR Residential - Single Family R-1 Residential - Low Density Multiple Family R-2 Residential - High Density Multiple Family R-3 I Commercial C-1 j Commercial - Downtown C-1-D Employment E-1 Industrial M-1 Woodland Residential WR SOU - Southern Oregon University SOU Performance Standards P - Overlay P Detail Site Review Zone DSR Health Care Services Zone HC North Mountain Neighborhood NM Croman Mill District Zone CM Residential Overlay R Freeway Sign Overlay F 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. i 139 i 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 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. 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) feel. B. In all other districts except the C-land-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 '/z) 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 street. j j Street -Setback East Main Street, between City limits and Lithia Wad 35 feet i Ashland Street (Highway 66) between I City limits and Siskiyou Boulevard 65 feet 1 140 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 districts. 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. i b. Construction of attached single-family housing (e.g. town homes, j 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). j 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 i SECTION 18.72.110 Landscaping Standards. A. Area Required. The following areas shall be required to be landscaped in the following zones: R-1 - 45% of total developed lot area R-2 { 35% of total developed lot area j R-3 25% of total developed lot area C-1 15% of total developed lot area C-1-D - None, except parking areas and service stations shall meet the I landscaping and screening standards in Section II.D, of the Site Design and Use j Standards. E-1 j 15% of total developed lot area M-1 10% of total developed lot area I CM-NC X15% of total developed lot area ! CM-OE 15% of total developed lot area { CM-CI ; - 15% of total developed lot area rCM MU _ 10% of total developed lot area _ 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 in seebien (6) 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. e 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 subiect to the requirements of the of Croman MITI District Standards. C D. 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 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 a roval process: Zoning Designations Attached to Alternative Freestanding Existing Structures Support Structures Structures Residential Zones CUP Prohibited Prohibited C-1 CUP CUP Prohibited C-1-D Downtown CUP Prohibited Prohibited C-1 - Freeway overlay 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 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 i i 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 i I I 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. 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 i be required as the minimum width between buildings, except within non- i residential zonina districts includina C-1, C-1-D, E-1, CM, and M-1. R E. Solar Access Setback. Solar access shall be provided as required in Section 1818.70 except within the C-1 -D and CM zoning 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. j i i SECTION 18.88.080 P-Overlay Zone. i 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 f processed under this Chapter of the Land Use Ordinance. The minimum i[ number of dwelling units for a Performance Standards Subdivision within I residential zoning districts shall be three. C. In a P-overlay area, the granting of the application shall be considered an f 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 I may only be approved if one or more of the following conditions exist: 1 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, of R-3, or CM. f I a { 1aa i 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. e~sine 1. Industrial uses. excentwa two employees on the largest sh!" OF for Pao" 700 square feet of gross flOOF aFea, whiGhever is -sPase p less, tE+s ene space peg Gornpany vehiste: 3-Industrial and Warehousing uses. One space per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or for each two employees, whichever is greateF 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. Ch. 18.96 Sign Regulations SECTION 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: [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. WFE (Woodland Residential aRd RR (Rural 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. 145 i 5. C-1 D. 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 general light industrial uses listed in 18.53,050 A., developed at an intensity of .35 -gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. 10. CM-OE. The general office uses listed in 18.53.050 A., developed at an intensity of .50 gross floor to area, complying with all ordinance requirements. 11.CM-MU. The general office uses listed in 18.53.050 A., developed at an intensity of .50 gross 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 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. i Ch. 18.106 Annexations 18.106.030 Approval Standards H. One or more of the following standards are met: i 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 i 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 Ik 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 i water or sanitary sewer service; or the service will become inadequate i within one year; or 146 I 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 processing for LEED® certified buildings. 1. New buildings and existing buildings whose repair, alteration or rehabilitation costs exceed fifty percent of their replacement costs, that will be pursuina certification under the Leadership In Energy and Environmental Desian Green Building Ratina System (LEED®) of the United States Green Building Council shall received top priority in the processing of planning actions. 2. Applicants wishing to receive priority planning action processing shall provide the following documentation with the application demonstrating the completion of the following steps in the working towards LEED® certification. a. Hiring and retaining a LEED®Accredited Professional as part of the project team throughout design and construction of the protect. i b. The LEED® checklist indicatina the credits that will be. Pursued. 3. The City Council may establish, by resolution, a fine to to imposed on prolects that fall to achieve LEED® certification for any prolect that received priority planning action processing pursuant to this Section. I I i !I i I i i i 147 i I Croman Mill District East-West Alternative Option Map I l 148 - „ I Croman Mill District _ LandUse Framework . i East-West Orientation Alternative f . CM-C1 CM-NC CM-OS ? i f CM-MU CM'-OE Croman_ District t i -1 7 r rl ! 3~ ~ f I 1,. r , jj.~ t 1: I I j'~ j u alt _ 1tyt1 i ~ '1 / \ ~ ` i n } ✓ i / i _ l " ~I a ` r~~ 1 1 r~ O i C1 > > 1 Feet 0 260 520 1,040 1,560 r 2,080 149 Croman Mill District- Street Framework x= East-West Orientation Alternative Accessways IV 0 Local Commercial Streets a i ® Central Blvd. I F-L l J I ; n r i n i3 ❑~3 S.s 0 0 250 500 150,000 1,500 ( ( 2,000 et RECEIVED JANr! l_ 214 From: M Knox [mailto:knox@mind.net) Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 11:36 AM MY of Ashland To: Mid cornmunay UcvolopmerM Cc: mark@cityoftalent.org Subject: Croman 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 20130 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 discussed, 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 busineses 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 the existing buildings could be removed/converted into other uses fitting with the overall plan? 2) Why is the front of the property at 700 Mistletoe 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 attempt 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 permitting 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 permitted 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 punitive 151 i i I language, that they will instead consider another area. For example, the language regarding LEED certification is overwhelmingly punitive 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 entity (bank) 10% to 15% of the total amount just to bond. This is money,lost "up front" ($30,000'to $45,000 for a $300,000 third floor). Furthermore, the bond is forfeited 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 (jobs) 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 amounts/dimensions 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 will the realignment 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 l i 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 i 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 I further consideration. i 10) Although the Croman area appears "flat" 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. 3 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 s property owners, contractors and design professionals that have experience in land use designing and development. Mark Knox i f I I ~ i i RECEMED JAN i 2 ' City q'!sr;L;nd ' Communli 1 1 ~'«'JlGpnent 1 152 I 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 lie stated several very 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 commmunity is at the core of creating a sustainable 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 develop a new community 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 important element in creating a Culture of Sustainability. What are the three bottom lines? Profit -Your established traditional measures of financial performance . People - Conanitment to your employees, customers, suppliers, and commmunity Planet - Reduction of your carbon footprint, resource consumption and pollution The triple bottom line, a tern used since 1994, expands the traditional definition of business success to include the well-being of all stakeholders. I believe this a key part of Mayor Stromberg's message, and what most members of our community want. The core idea is that a business pays attention to all three bottom lines, and especially how ihey influence each other, 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 history as a community that focuses on sustaining Itself and its people. To us, sustainability means using, developing and protecting resources at a rate and in a manner that enables people to meet their current needs and also provides that future generations can meet their own needs. The City of Ashland has a responsibility towards sustainability in six primary areas: o Economy RECEIVED o Environment o Social Equity" JAN 12 2010 Thus demonstrating that you are already engaged in Triple Bottom Line thinking! City of AsMand Community Development 153 I The Triple Bottom Line (TBL) framework has practical applications and metrics that can assist a business to develop and implement action plans to reduce its carb6n footprint, to develop greener products and services, and attract 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 pail of a city's assessment, planning, and decisi6n making process. Please see the following two pages with examples. Said differently, those businesses that attend 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, the 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 Sustainability. You can learn more about the Triple Bottom Line at www.TBL2 Leon. Again I turn to Mayor Stromberg, "Because we are a place people like to visit, sharing our efforts to become a more sustainable community call also be good for our economy." With a focus on the Triple Bottom Line the Croman Mill Site can be an atti•actor for green businesses and tourists alike. 1 will happily discuss this further if desired. "Let's do something extraordinary!" Sincerely, David Wick Managing Director P TBL 21 - Triple Bottom Line for the 21" Century 541-552-1061 dwickL6tbl2l.com www.tb12 i.coni i 1/12/2010 f I RECEIVED ; ~ JAN 1 L 2010 City of Ashland i 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 1 .~L Ef~'fA9 Hamilton, Australia & 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 Hamillon Info • Hamilton TBL Projccts • TBL Brochure TT ICLEI is a membership association of local governments and national t and regional local government associations that have made a unique r-ti sar commitment to sustainable development. More than 475 local fnt';nstainaPlliq•governments representing nearly 300 million people worldwide > make up ICLEI. Hamilton is one of the first Canadian cities to utilize TBL as a framework for making choices in an integrated manner. RECEIVED GRIDS Integrated Infrastructure Master Plans 2. The Triple Bottom Line for Pittsbureh JAN 12 2010 Posted by Kayla on Tuesday, July 28, 2009 at 6:44 AM Read the comment Cirri of AsMand Community Development 155 u~ t the City Council Public Hearing yesterday afternoon, Councilman Bill Peduto once again spoke out for a revised economic development policy for the City of Pittsburgh. "it is essential that subsidies that this government gives out for development do not simply go into the pockets of out-of-town developers, but benefit the entire cotmnunity," said Councilman Peduto. With over $1 billion dollars of development in his district throughout 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 • minimized environmental impact and improvement of the surrounding neighborhood • provided the opportunity for good jobs for all residents "Each and every development proposal in the City of Pittsburgh should meet the ` triple bottom [tile or else you must question whether or not this is true economic development that benefits the City or simply real estate development that benefits a i select few." i From web site: http://billpeduto.com/t ig/triple-bottom-line/ I 3. City of Calgary, Canada I City Council TBL policy - www.calg<tt•y.ca/doe,,ai Very/lu/cityclerks/couuciI policies/lup001)d Triple Bottom Line Policy Framework www.calgary.ca/doc,awry/bit/eiivirouuteiital management/tbl policy framework.odf hEGOVED JAR 12 2010 Gily Of AsNa d Gommuniry Uevelopmc:rt 156 i STARK AND HAMMACK, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW (541)773-2213 RICHARD A. STARK 201 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 18 (541)773.2133 LARRY C. HAMMACK MEDFORD, OREGON 97501 FAX (541) 773-2084 ERIC R. STARK Ich@slarkhammack.com January8, 2010 RECEIVED Sent Via Regular Mail Ashland Planning Commission JAN I 1 Pam Marsh, Chairman & Members 20 E. Main Street City0A3hlon4 Ashland, Oregon 97520 CanmunlryDavalopmerR 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 121n, 2010. The street addresses 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 Wing will occur as it pertains to one or both i 1 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 i I} i I 158 GERALD.R. AND SUZANNE C. KNECHT FAMILY TRUST 114 CALUMET AVENUE SAN ANSELMO, CA 94960 415-457-8447 FAX: 415-457-8440 EMAIL: gknecht@comcast.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 I 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 i CC: Alex Knecht RECEIVED JAN11 City of Ashland Community Developmerd 159 1/11/2010 Maria Harris Historic Comroksion Discussion of Croman Herita a Name list Pa me f From: Derek Severson To: Maria Harris Date: 1/7/2010 8:33 AM Subject: Historic Commission Discussion of Croman Heritage Name List Marla, At last night's 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 reflect 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 Henry Baker were both Interested In working on this further. w -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 email 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. J I i i I 160 i 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. Sincerely, l L 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 Tel: 541/488-5347 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541--14/488006 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800/735-2900 ' 'ie~.ashlanA.ui.us C:1Documents and SetlingslCoUnNAy Documenls\Downloads\Croman PH Rr to Plan Comm Marsh 1 8 10.doo 161 i i AT,TN LEGAL PUBLICATIOh$ (NICI{} I ! 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. i 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. i 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 I 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. 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 at han ism anashland.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. i By the order of Bill Molnar, Community Development Director. ' In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate In this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the dry to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Tice I). Pubhsl 1/2/2010 E mailed12/29/2009 kPurch s_e,_Order~87401 162 I PON anng-.'.' V fie Croman Mill Sit Redevelopment Plan I n 2008, a planning process including a series of a 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 i 7 practices. A Planning Commission Public Hearing is Fr(e IT^, z 1 scheduled for 7:00pm, Tuesday January 12"' 2010 at - at I 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 S. of Ashland website at www.ashland.or.us/Croman. r ~t Questions or comments? Contact Bill Molnar, Community Development Director, at 541.552.2042 / mohiarb(2cashland.onus or Maria Harris, Planning Manager, at 541.552.2045 / harrism cr,ashland.onus This project is sponsored by the Oregon Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) Program and Ihel ek of Ashland Community Development Department. rublit earing N IlCv,,,~ I • , I I , 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 MITI (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 12th, 2010. 7:00 pm Ashland Civic Center, 1175 Eastmain Street ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING: March 2„ 2010. 7:00 pm Ashland Civic Center, 1175 Eastmain Street Notice is hereby given that 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 this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law stales that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages In circuit court. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. During the Public Hearing, the 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 applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, If you need special assistance to participate In this meeting, please contact the City Administrators office at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title 1). If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division, 541-488-5305. 18.108.060 (B) 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 Ills section may be approved if In compliance with the comprehensive plan and Ile application demonstrates that one or more of the following: a. The change Implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable housing, supported by the Comprehensive Plan; or b. A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances; or c. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action; or d. Proposed Increases In residential zoning density resulting from a change from one zoning district to another zoning district, will provide 25% of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in 18.106.030(G);or e. Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial, employment or Industrial zoned lands (i.e. Residential Overlay), will not negatively Impact the City of Ashland's commercial and Industrial land supply as required In the Comprehensive Plan, and will provide 25% of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth In 18.106.030(G) The total number of affordable units described In sections D of 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 Initialed actions. 64 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 Planning Commission Public Hearing: 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 Hearing: 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 at harrism (a)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 with Disabilities Act, If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone number 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). (turn over for summary page 2) 165 Summary of Proposed Croman MITI 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 ofland 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 65-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. i I 166 AFFIDAVIT OF NAILING 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 1 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 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. Signa re of Employee Oregon Department of Transportation Right of Way Section - Property Mgmt. Unit 355 Capitol Street NE - Rm 411 Salem, OR 97301-3781 Art Anderson White City / District 8 100 Antelope Road White City, OR 97503 Comm-Dav\Pla nninq%Templetea 167 i i I AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Jackson The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. 1 am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, I ! Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On December 21, 2009 1 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. I Signat a of Employee Com m•Dev%Plannin g%Templatee I6~ I 1 i 168 i - 391 E23704 277 E 39 i rb"13220 I OTI I S'T'REET ASSOCCIAT 391E14AB2000 ARO PARTNERS 1725 RAINBOW 1-191 n f3 BOX 357 1015 CHESTNU'T' AVE STE A3 LAS VEGAS, NV 89146391 E23704 277 E ASHLAND, no 97PO CARLSBAD, CA 92008 391E14AC700 391E14D2100 391E14CA1700 ASHLAND PROPERTY INVESTORS ASI [LAND SCI 1001, DISTRICT#5 ASI (LAND S'T'ORE-A-WHILE LLC 670 SUPERIOR C' STE 110 885 SISKIYOU BLVD 3325 DARRELL DR MEDFORD. Olt 97504 AS] ILAND, Olt 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97501 391ENAC1900 41 391EWD500 391E14CD302 ASHLAND WAREHOUSE PARTNRSHP ASPEN ASH LLC ASSOCIATION OF LOT OWNERS/ PO BOX 43 425 10TI I AV E 306 1 T 22'T'OLMAN CREEK RD MEDFORD, OR 97501 PORTLAND, Olt 97209 AS[ (LAND, OR 97520 391E141ID4514 39IE14CA2400 391E14CD900 - BAGSHAW JON E TRUSTEE ET AL BALLEW DON TRUSTEE ET AL BATFAILE CONNIE TRUSTEE ET 776 CAPELLA Cllt 9722 ARANT RD 1216 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND, Olt 97520 KLAMATI I FALLS, OR 97603 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14BD4200 391E14D4900 391E14CA2100 BAXTER JOI IN It/WEISHEIPL KEL BELLINSON BENJAMIN A/LTNDA BELLVIEW CHURCH OF CHRIST 595 RAY LN 2760 SISKIYOU BLVD 1033 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, Olt 97520 391E14CA3600 391E14D4700 391E23300 BELLVIEW ORANGE 759 BERGERSEN MARTIN 1, BERNARD JEFFREY PAIERNARD D P 0 BOX 385 2815 SISKIYOU BLVD 2900 S HWY 99 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14CD700 391F14D2401 ` 391E14D2402 BERNARD VICKI BLACK CRAIG W/MICHELLE BLACK STEVE 1154 TOLMAN CREEK RD PO BOX 969 762 GFH ST ASHLAND, Olt 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 GRANTS PASS, OR 97526 391 E I4BD 1300 391 F;141ID600 391 E 1413D4904 ,I BLOUNT MARLO DEAN BOGUE JOHN TRUSTEE ET AL BONDINELL CARL DAVID/RUTH A 2970 BARBARA ST 2512 OLD MILL WAY 2995 GRIZZLY DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 I 391E14CA108 391E14CD600 391E14ACIOT BONF,TTI ERIC F BOUNDS REX B/JERALDINE R BRAMMO INC 175 PIEDMONT DR 1150 TOLMAN CREEK RD 695 MISTLETOE RD A ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E1413200 391E23BA100 391E14BD2700 BRAMSCHER CRAIG ET AL BROMBACHER ZACHARY TRUSTEE BROWN MICHAEL D/REBEKAH A 1525 BUENA VISTA 1370TOLMAN CREEK RD 3000 DIANE ST SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 169 39IE14BD4510 391E14CA]09 391E14D400 BULLOCK KATHLEEN M BUNNELL COLIN BUSTAMANTE CODY AILAUREL E 795 TOLMAN CREEK RD 961 SPRING WAY PO 13OX 3431. ASHLAND, Olt 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASI ILAND, OR 97520 391F.14D4800 391E14BA2000 391E14D201 BYNUM JACK E 1R/MARGARET E CAMPBELL PAMELA LEA CAPSTONE ASSET MGNT CORP PO BOX 3357 2741 TAKFLMA IVY 1390 FRANK HILL RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14BD4801 391E14BD4505 391F:14BA2003 CEDAR FACE MARY JANE M CHENG PEGGY G P CLAY CRK GARDENS OWNRS ASSO 3005 NOVA DR 761 TOLMAN CR RD 289 GRANITE ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASI ILAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, Off 97520 391E14D208 - 391E14BD4800 391E14BD701 CLEAR CREEK INVESTMENTS LLC CLEPHANE ELLEN COCHRAN BEN A 1030 BENSON WAY 13951 GREENHORN RI) 942 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 GRASS VALLEY, CA 95945 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14BD608 391E14CA100 391E14BD2500 COMTE DONN J TRUSTEE ET AL COOK JEANETTE COOK RICHARD GOODYEAR 175 PIEDMONT DR 990 SPRING WAY PO BOX 692 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASI ILAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 I I I 391E14BD3000 39IE14CA900 391F:14BD800 COUNCIL BARBARA N CROSS WILLIAM/PAULA GREIST CULLOM FRANCES W TRUSTEE ET ~ 2970 DIANE ST 715 GRANDVIEW DR 2515 SPRING 1111.1, DR AS[ILAND, Olt 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASI [LAND, OR 97520 i i 391F14CD2000 391E14BD803 391ENCA3100 DAVID HARRY I ET AL DAY JAMES H/PAULA S MABRY DE BEY DENNIS S 4550 LITTLE APPLEGATE RD 590 LONE OAKS LOOP 2475 SISKIYOU BLVD JACKSONVILLE, OR 97530 SILVERTON, OR 97381 ASHLAND, OR 97520 r 391E14D204 391F,141)205 391E14BD4501 1 DIERKS STEVEN C TRUSTEE, ET DIERKS STEVEN C/BARBARA 1 S DIETZ JAMES TRUSTEE ET AL 815 POMPADOUR DR 1050 BENSON WAY 815 TOLMAN CREEK RD i ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASIILAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, Olt 97520 1 I I i 391E 14D2]5 391E 14BD4910 394F 14m I An 1 DODDS STEPHEN T/REBEKAH K DRAPEAU DAVID F/SANDEE L Bi14F4N46.9149-66C 1575 NEVADA ST 2145 RAVEN RD 944-~ ASI ILAND, Olt 97520 PLEASANTON, CA 94566 WuaE z1TV OR 975113 I 391E14CD1400 391El4CA200 391E14CAI10 ' DYSSEGARD SUSAN S/ERIC A ELLENSON FRANKLIN/KRISTY ELLIS WILLIAM HTRUSTEE ET 1330 TOLEMAN CREEK RD 950 TOLMAN CREEK RD 992 SPRING WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASI ILAND, OR 97520 170 I 39IE14BD4513 391E14131)2400 391EL4CA105 ESKFNAZI VICTOR JICARRIE B EXEL VOLKER FENSTER ELLEN S FAMILY TRST 798 CAPELLA CIR 2977 BARBARA ST 4100 DF,ERWOOD TRAIL ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 MELBOURNE, FL 32934 391E14CA2900 391E14CA3300 391E14BD806 FLECK GERALD RJOAN E F12AN12 LAURA FRIRES LAURENCE C 2445 SISKIYOU BLVD 1051 TOLMAN CREEK RD 948 SPRING WAY ASHLAND, Olt 97520 ASHLAND, Olt 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391F1481)4902 391E14BD4909 391F14CA8200 GABRIEL MARY GALLI DORO'T'HY B TRUSTEE HT GENTIS CHRISTINE H E 677 TOLMAN CREEK RD 572 ADAMS RD PO BOX 688 ASHLAND, OR 97520 FAYETTEVILLE, GA 30214 MEDFORD, OR 97501 391E14CU800 391E14CA,1600 iniuw nnnn GERSCHLER JAMES W/HELEN M GERSCHLER 1FFFREY S/LINDA U 1169 TOLMAN CR RD 2520 EAGLE CREEK LN 295 Mis'!'LETOB RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND' 01 7329 391E14CD1200 391F,14613807 391E14BD4925 GOOD ROBER'T' WIFREED LORI G GRAY JOHN RICHARD TRSTE FBO GREEN ANDREW RJOREEN KATIIER 1272 TOLMAN CREEK RD 408 FRIENDS[ [IF ST 125 130TH DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASIILAND, OIL 97520 SOUTH BEACH, OR 97366 391 E14CA5000 GREENWOOD HOLLIS 391EI4D600 391E14BD901 TRUSTEE HT GRIMES FLOYD W/JULIA A HABERFELD EVA 442 HOLLY ST 647 CROWSON RD 2530 SPRING I41LL DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391F14CA115 391E14BD606 391E14BD1000 HAMILTON CREEK HOMEOWNERS I IAMIL:I'ON PLACE I,I.C HARDING PENNY MODINE PO BOX 3209 175 PIEDMONT DR 3000 BARBARA ST ASIILAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASIILAND, Olt 97520 3916111)230 391 E 14GW 500 391E 14CA 102 HARRIS EARL TRUSTEE FT- A HEBERT CLIFTON ET AL I IPI,I,F,R JOEL A 33-k4l8:p6I;4:QR RA 2540 EAGLE. CREEK RU 2326 GREENMEADOWS AS!I AND, OR 975M OR ASHLAND, Olt 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14BDR02 391E14BD401 391E14BD403 HERNANDEZ, ANTHONY/ROBYN HEYERMAN ROBERT/BARBARA HEYERMAN RYLAN/FAISIA 2535 SPRING HILL DR 555 CAROL ST 770 TOLMAN CREEK 111) ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 AS[ ILAND, OR 97520 391El4BD602 391E14D700 a 391E14BD4700 HILL MICHELLE L TRUSTEE ETA HMC THREE LLC HOLDEN MARY A 2522 OLD MILL WAY 87 MACREADY DR 2995 NOVA DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 MERCED, CA 95340 ASHLAND, OR 97520 171 i I 1 391E14CA104 391E14BD604 391 E23BA102 HOLS'T'EIN SANDRA HMICIIAEL F HOLTZMAN JENNIFER M HOPFINGER CARL M TRUSTEE ET 228 WESTS'P 2200 S OLD I IWY 99 1340 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASIILAND, Olt 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391F14BD4300 391E14CD303 391F14CA112 HOYE DAVID HUGGINS JENA HUGGINS KEVIN A 70 SUNCREST RD 1122 T'OLMAN CREEK RD 959 DREW LN TALENT, OR 97540 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14BD4903 391F14CA5200 391E14BA700 IIUNTER HOWARDJ HUTCHINGS P141LIP B IPCO DEVFLOPMENTCORP - 3005 GRIZZLY DR 2408 SISKIYOU BLVD 640 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 i a 1 391E14BD2600 391P,14BA2101 3911314134600 i JAMES LACK E TRUSTEE JAYNE ROBERT A TRUSTEE ET A JENKINS ALVIN R/PATSY. K 2999 BARBARA ST 274 MOUNTAIN AVE 672 CROWSON RD .ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 j ii 391E14CA3000 391E14CA4400 391E14CA300 JOHNSON KRISTA KAI IRENE TRUSTEE ET AL KAUFMAN DAVID/JAMIE D 1348 PROSPECT ST 2560 EAGLE CREEK LN 2305-C ASI (LAND ST PMB 420 ' i ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 AS[ ILAND, OR 97520 I ~~rTOya04 39]F-14BD2800 " 391E14CU100 ln"c" KENNEDY KATHERINE M TRUSTEE KrsNT:".m wn M e i KINNAMON TED C/LORRAINE 132 GREFNWAY CIR BOX2677 29 LONE PINE AVE MEDFORD, Olt 97504 COSTA MESA, CA 92629 FREEDOM, CA 95019 ' 391F14CA113 3911i"GA4300 391E14AC1000 KNECHT ALEXANDER C/KONNY L K °"°T GERALD R TR S EB KNOX MARK L HT AL PO BOX 3209 n." C41 [IMPT 4V I; 700 MISTLETOE RD 106 ASHLAND, OR 97520 SAN ANSELM 60 ASHLAND, OR 97520 39JE14BD405 391R14BD4504 391E14AD7500 E LAWRENCE RHONDA 1, LAWTON RANDAL/INES DIEZ LE ROY PATRICK NIANN YVETTE 136 MOUNTAIN AVE 775 TOLMAN CREEK RD 450 T'IMBERLAKF DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 AS[ ILANU, OR 97520 I ~ j 391EI41)209 391E14D2601 391E14D2701 LEEORS DAVID P/ JAYNE M LESLEY NOEL A TRUSTEE FBO LESLEY NOEL A/NIARY C 4024 SIERRA DR 2630 SISKIYOU BLVD 2630 SISKIYOU BLVD - I IONOLULU, H196816 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 s i 391E14BD404 391E14CA1800 391F,14CA4900 LINSDAY PIIII.I.IP/SI4ELLEY LIVNI INVESTMENT COMPANY LL LOFTUS ELLEN L 357 ALTA AVE 2532 OLD MILL WAY 1131 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASIILAND, Olt 97520 I 172 I 391E14BA1906 391E14BD4900 3911;14111)2300 I.OVFT-1' RICIIARD PAUL TRUSTEL LUNDQUIST MITCHELL D MACFARLANE HELEN 130 BOX 427 678 CUB CIRCLE 118 HILLTOP RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 TALENT, OR 97540 391E14AC400 391F'14BD4901 391E14CA3400 MACLELLAN ROBERT MANNION DORIS E MANZONF RUSSELL V/JOANN VIO 3126 STATE ST 200 673 TOLMAN CR RD 249 HILLCREST RD MEDFORD, OR 97504 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391C14CA5600 391E23702 391E23101 MARTIN MARGARET bl ET AL MARTINAIT'IS LOUIS TRUSTEE F, MAY KENNETH L/DARLENE 930 BELLVIEW AVE 1725 RAINBOW 16-191 2946 SISKIYOU BLVD ASHLAND, OR 97520 LAS VEGAS, NV 89146 ASI [LAND, OR 97520 391E141)210 391E14DI02 391E14CA[900 MB TERMINAL COMPANY MBZ LLC MC KELVEY KEVIN K/DIANE D PO BOX 3595 311 HOLLY ST PO BOX 3451 ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97501 ASHLAND, Olt 97520 391E14CA4100 391FI4E134927 391E14BD4926 NICDONALD TREVOR MCQUOID KIM AILEEN TRUSTEE MERCER MARGARET J 13240 POONKINNEY RD 673 CU13 CIR 670 CUB CIRCLE DOS RIOS, CA 95429 AS[ ILAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ' 39JE14CA106 391EI41ID4908 391E14AC600 MILDBRANDT DAVID/BILLEE MILLER FREDRICK F/DONNA h1 MORRIS ROBF.R'I' GENE T'RUST'EE 972 SPRING WAY 2990 GRIZZLY DR PO BOX 850 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391RMCD1300 39IP14BD200 391E14CA2000 MORRIS ROBERT GENE TRUSTEE MOUNTAINS AND RIVERS WAY LL MUROKI VALERIE ET AL 1300 TOLMAN CR RD 740 TOLMAN CREEK RD 1001 TOLPIAN CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 I 391E14AB2100 391E14BD2900 3911314BA700 NEUMAN PROPERTIES & DEVELOP NGUYEN-DUY PIPO/E GOMBART NSPIRFD NATURAL FOODS 735 JEFFERSON AVE 2978 DIANE ST 710 JEFFERSON AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14AD7200 391E14D207 3911;1 19IN00 OREGON STATS OF OCHOA MATTHEW ET AL UNKNOWN OWENS THOMAS P 1 660 WASHING'T'ON ST 495 FERNWOOD DR ASI (LAND, OR 97520 UNKNOWN ASHLAND, Olt 97520 j 391E14D4500 391F,141)2500 391E14BD4506 PARSONS LORIN E PATRIDGE WILLIAM C/BARBARA PAUL DON/RITA 1 628 CROWSON RD 295 MAIN ST 1 752 CAPELLA CIR ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASFILAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 173 i 1 391EI481)804 391E14CAI I1 391E14BD4400 PECK JOSEPH W/SUSAN G PERKINS EDWARD L/ELEANORE B PFISTER DANIELIMARIA 936 SPRING WAY P O BOX 8 2999 DIANE S'1' ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASI-ILAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, Olt 97520 i 1 391E14CDI100 391E14CD306 391C14BD300 PHILHOWER MARK E/LEFAY SHAN PHILLIPS JAMES JOSEPI I T RUST POPE CHARLOTTE L 1244 TOLMAN CREEK RD 1130 TOLMAN CREEK RD 750 T'OLMAN CREEK RD AS] ILAND, Olt 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 AS) ILAND, OR 97520 391E14BD4100 391E14CA4200 39IE14B04712 POSTON JEANETTE M POWELL GERALD F TRUSTEE ET POWELL MARK W49USANNE I I 283 HIGH ST 2565 EAGLE CREEK LN 2974 NOVA DR ASHLAND, Olt 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14CD500 391F14CA3800 391E14BD400 PULSIPHER NANCY S RAMOS ROBERTO/MARIA RAYNOLDS DAVID ALLAN FERNAN 1148 S TOLMAN CREEK RD 1002 TOLMAN CREEK RD 1136 ANDERSON CREEK RD AS[ ILAND, Olt 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 TALENT, Olt 97540 391EI48D4714 391E14CDI602 391C14AC200 RECCE-SUI.I,IVAN.'vIARII.YN/A4 A RETIZ TONY TRUSTEE ET AL RF.ZEK RONALD { 1997 TOLMAN CR RD 2695 MICKELSON WAY 709 WASHINGTON ST i ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, Olt 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 i i 39IEI4CD1500 391EI413U500 391E14D211 ! RICI LARDS PA'I'RICIA A/PAUL RICKERSON PAUUOSTOVAR GOLY ROOKLYN DALE THOMAS TRUSTEE 1345 ROMEO DR 502 FAIRVIEW 137 SEVENTI I ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, Olt 97520 391E14CA4800 391E14CA3900 391HI4BD470I E ROTH JAMES A TRUSTEE RUM 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 i 341-E-L4L?1300 39IE14C\3500 391E14DI800 SAYBLE ALLEN ERIC SB DEVELOPMENT I.I.C I RD 821 HILLVIEIV DR P O BOX 609 I 2?•7--A4LS4:IA" )p AS' !!,AND, On m<N ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 i i 391E14CA4700 3911, 14CA700 391E14BDI 100 SCI 1001, DIST N5 SCH W EIGER JOHN C TRUSTF.E F.'1' SCOTT M LEE/SANDRA A 885 SISKIYOU BLVD PO BOX 3520 2990 BARBARA ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASI-ILAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, Olt 97520 391E14CA8000 39IE14CD304 391E14CAI14 SEVERSON MARK D/PEGGY L SHADLE STANLEY F/CORNELIA L SIIAPF:RO RICHARD P TRUSTEE 2500 SISKIYOU BLVD 1126 TOLMAN CREEK RD 216 EDGEHILL DR ASI ILAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 SAN CARLOS, CA 94070 1 I 174 I 391 E14CD 1000 391E14CD400 391EI4CAI03 SHOSTROM DALE SISKIYOU TOIVNHOUSES LLC SMITH IDA L 1240 TOLMAN CREEK RD 515 E MAIN ST 2531 EAGLE CREEK LN ASHLAND, Olt 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASIILAND, OR 97520 391E14CA3700 391E14CD308 391E1413D900 SMUCKER LEONARD L TRUSTEE E SNYDER DENNIS C/HARRIET W STILES K G 1004 TOLMAN CREEK RD 1330 ASIILAND MINE RD PO BOX 1124 ASHLAND, Olt 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 i 391E14CA5100 391EI4BD47I3 391E14D216 ! STORM ERIC/BGNEDIKTE SUDEROV ANALISA G SUPERIOR PROPERTIES LLC 698 ASIILAND LN 2990 NOVA DR 6581 GRIFFIN CREEK RD ASIILAND, Olt 97520 ASIILAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97501 I 391E23404 391E1410212 391E14BD4905 ' TI IOMAS CONSTANCE M THOMAS DANIEL J ET A1. TOLMAN CREEK MEADOWS INC 2305 ASHLAND ST C 213 897 OAK KNOLL 670 CUB CIR ASHLAND, OR 97520 AS[ [LAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14BDI200 391E14CA107 391E14CA2700 TOPPO UGO J/LAURF.N E VIDMAR JOSEPH A TRUSTEE ET VINEYARD JESSICA ET AI. 2978 BARBARA ST 953 SPRING NAY 15097ALENT AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 TALENT, OR 97540 391E14CA5500 391E14BD805 391HI4AD7300 VOGEL CARL E TRUSTEE Wll-r LAWRENCE E/MARIE It WOLFF DONALD II 924 BELLVIEN AVE P 0 BOX 6429 760 WASHINGTON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 BROOKINGS, OR 97415 AS[ (LAND, OR 97520 I 391E14AB2200 391EI4BD4502 391£23701 YERBA PRINIA INC ZANE SUSAN ZEVE LINCOLN/DENEICE 740 JEFFERSON AVE. 759 TOLAIAN CREEK RD 2710 SISKIYOU BLVD ~ ASHLAND, OR 97520 AS[ IL.AND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 DAVIS BRUCE _ MICHELSON MARY KAY Paul Steinle 4120 DOUGLAS BLVD. #306-123 2810 DIANE Provost's Office, SOU GRANITE BAY, Cat 95746 ASHLAND, Olt 97520 1250 Siskiyou Blvd Ashland, Olt 97520 I Richard Hendrickson Eric Nnvickas Russ Chapman 444 Monte Vista Or 3631/2 Iowa St 170 Oak St Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland, OR 97520 i Keith Swink Graham Lewis Jim Lewis 1655 Peachey Rd 152 N Pioneer Rd 640 A Street Ashland, Olt 97520 Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland, Olt 97520 175 i ' Larry Blake David Wilkerson Matt Narshawsky j All Briscoe PI 1120 Barrington Circle 821 Indiana St i Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland, Olt 97520 1 I ' Kerry KenCairn Pam I lammond CRAFFr PAUL SAS A Street 632 \Vnlnut St AS W1MER ST. Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland, OR 97520 ASHLAND, Olt 97520 AUFERI IEIDE - 321 N MOUNTAIN AVE. APT. A ASHLAND, OR 97520 i~ a - i I I ~a r If I I, i. n I f r 1 E 1 I. is 1 1 4 I i i I I ' 176 I i Crandall Annbula John Razz Matt Crall 520 SW Yamhill, Roof Suite 4 Dept. Land Conservation & Development Dept. Land Conservation & Development Portland, Olt 97204 155 N First St. PO Box 3275 635 Capitol St. NE, Suite 150 Central Point, OR 97502 Salem, OR 97301-2564 Larry Ksionzyk David Pyles John McDonald Dept. Land Conservation & Development ODOT, Region 3 Oregon Department of Transportation 635 Capitol St. NE, Suite ISO 100 Antelope Road 3500 NW Stewart Parkway Salem, OR 97301-2564 White City, OR 97503 Roseburg, OR 97470 Paige Townsend Steve Maluk Juli DiChiro 3200 Crater Lake Ave. TOM Planner Superintendent Medford, OR 97504 3200 Crater Lake Ave. 885 Siskiyou Blvd. Medford, OR 97504 Ashland, OR 97520 khm Rosenberg Bob Melbo John Becker Oregon Department of Environmental Quality ODOT Rail Division 221 Stewart Ave. Suite 201 725 SE Main 555 13'6 Street NE, Suite 3 Medford, OR 97501 Roseburg, OR 97470 Salem, OR 97301-4179 in Christman Bruce Davis • De is Delay 1120 ' Tiber Lake Dr. 4120 Douglas Blvd. 9306-123 2475 ' kiyou Blvd. Ashland, 97520 Granite Bay, CA 95746 Ashland, 97520 RETURNED Jeff Getschler Rylan Taisia Heyerman Larry Holzgang 2520 Eagle Creek Lane 770 Toh n Creek Rd. OEDD n Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland, O 97520 317 South 7'h Street Room #231 Klamath Falls, OR 97601 Maryay Michelson Ashland Chamber of Commerce Kaufmann Group e Dwain Cross / Bud Kaufmann 2810 DI a Sandra Slattery Ashland, 97520 PO Box 1360 Dwain & Bud LLC Ashland, OR 97520 sot Avenue C White City, OR 97503 i Mike Montero Chris Galpin ft Urbmi Development Services 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 150 744 Cardley Avenue Mork Dirienzo Medford, OR 97504 Medford, OR 97505 Mark Knox 550 Mistletoe Rd. Suite 201 Ashland, OR 97520 i Ashland Warehouse Partnership a Ale\IandR y Knecht Kerr) enCairn PO Box 43 PO 545 A S et, Suite 3 Medford, OR 97501 97520 Ashland, 0 7520 177 i I Charles Keltenring Debbie Price Pain Lucas ODOT Rail Division -Crossing Manager Oregon Housing and Community Services Business Manager 555 13" Street NE, Suite 3 725 SE Main St. 885 Siskiyou Blvd. Salem, OR 97301-4179 Roseburg, OR 97470 Ashland, OR 97520 Jeff Griffin - Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad Craig and Michelle Black Economic Revitalization Team PO Box 3275 333 SE Mosher PO Box 969 Central Point, OR 97502 Roseburg, OR 97470 Ashland OR, 97520 i Earl Harris Trustee • Wilma Kentner • Andre L. Anderson 35 Mistletoe Road PO Box 2677 PO Box 3577 Ashland, OR 97520 Costa Mesa CA, 92628 Ashland, OR 97520 C f { i • Hazel Gessler ET AL • Gerald Knecht Trustee • Sandra Savage 277 Mistletoe Road 295 Mistletoe Road 114 Calumet Ave. i Ashland, OR 97520 Ashllnd, OR 97520 San Anselmo, CA 94960 r Donn J Comte Trustee Adroit Construction • 175 Piedmont Drive Op Heyerntan Steve Lawrence / Bob Mayers 760 T Ian Creek Rd. 185 Mistletoe Road Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland, 97520 Ashland, OR 97520 Colleen Padilla . SOREDI LAWRENCE KRUESI JOHN 673 Market Street 790 TOLMAN CREEK RD. 148 GREENWAY CIRCLE Medford, OR 97504 ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97504 Southern Oregon University Plexis Healthcare Systems Thrive Liz Shelby Jorge Yant, CEO Wendy Seporen f Governmental Relations 385 Williamson Way 340 A Street, Suite205 1250 Siskiyou Blvd. Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland, OR 97520 Thomas Hogue Economic Development Planning DLCD 635 Capitol Street NE Suite 150 Salem, Oregon 97301-2540 r i 178 I ~ AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING i 'I STATE OF OREGON ) County of Jackson 1 i 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 1 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. Signat • e of Employee l I Comm-DeOPlenninglTemplates i 179 i • c~es,~nates ~`~ics~ thw/- i^~cG~ved t'h~ ' Measure 66 Doti' ~ 391E23704277fi ,nm~~om~nn IOTH STREET ASSOCCIAT 391EI4AI32000 ARO PARTNERS 1725 RAINBOW 1-191 n n ANDSRSON 1015 CHESTNUT AVE STE A3 LAS VEGAS, NV 8914639IE23704 277 E p O BO o 97520 CARLSBAD. CA 92008 1 ASHLAND. OR I 391E14AC700 391E14132100 r 391EI4CAI700 ASHLAND PROPERTY INVESTORS' ASHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT 45 ASHLAND STORF.-A-WHILE LLC 670 SUPERIOR CT STE 110 885 SISKIYOU BLVD 3325 DARRELL DR MEDFORD. OR 97504 ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, Olt 97501 391FI4ACI900 391FI413500 391EI4CD302 ASHLAND WAREHOUSE PARTNRSHP ASPEN ASH LLC ASSOCIATION OF LOT OWNERS/ PO BOX 43 425 IOTH AVE 306 1122 TOLMAN CREEK RD MEDFORD, OR 97501 PORTLAND. OR 97209 ASHLAND. OR 97520 i 391EI41ID4514 391 F.14CA2400 391E14CD900 13AGSHAW JON E TRUSTEE ET AL - BALLEW DON TRUSTEE ET AL BAT TAILE CONNIE TRUST'FE FT 776 CAPELLA CIR 9722 ARANT RD 1216 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASI [LAND, OR 97520 KLAMATII FALLS, OR 97603 ASHLAND, OR 97520 i 391E14BD4200 391E14D4900 391E14CA2100 BAXTER JOHN RIWEISHEIPL KEL BELLINSON BENJAMIN A/LINDA BELLV IF.W CI IURCl1 OF CHRIST 595 RAY LN 2760 SISKIYOU BLVD 1033 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND, Olt 97520 ASHLAND. OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14CA3600 391E14D4700 391E23300 BELLVIEW GRANGE 759 BERGERSEN MARTIN L BERNARD JEFFREY P/BERNARD D P O BOX 385 2815 SISKIYOU BLVD 2900 S HWY 99 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 AS[ ILAND, OR 97520 1 391E14CD700 391EI4D2401 ` 391F,14D2402 i BERNARD VICKI BLACK CRAIG W/MICHELLE BLACK STEVE 1 154 TOLMAN CREEK RD PO BOX 969 762 Gr11 ST ASI ILAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 GRANTS PASS. OR 97526 0 391 E 141301300 391E14BD600 391E14BD4904 j BLOUNT MARLO DEAN BOGUE JOHN TRUSTEE ET AL BONDINELL CARL DAVID/RU'I'N A f 2970 BARBARA ST 2512 OLD MILL WAY 2995 GRIZZLY DR i ASHLAND, Olt 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASIILAND. OR 97520 III 391E14CA108 391F.14CD600 391E14ACI0] BONE II'1'1 ERIC 1' BOUNDS RFX B/JERALDINI: It BRAMMO INC 175 PIFDMONIT DR 1150 TOLMAN CREEK RD 695 MISTLETOE RD A ASI ILAND. OR 97520 ASHLAND. OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ~ I ~391E14D200 391E23BA100 391E14HD2700 13ItAMSC'l1Elt CRAIG E 1' A1. BROMBAC'I IF.R ZACf I A R Y TRUM EF BROWN MICHAEL D/REBEKAH A 1525 BUENA VISTA 1370 TOLMAN CREEK RD 3000 DIANE ST SAN C'LEMENFE, CA 92672 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND. OR 97520 180 i 391E14BD4510 391E14CA109 391E14D400 BULLOCK KATHLEEN M BUNNELL COLIN BUSTAMANTE CODY A/LAUREL H 795 TOLMAN CREEK RD 961. SPRING WAY PO BOX 3431 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND. Olt 97520 391E14D4800 391 F.14BA2000 391E14D201 BYNUM JACK E JR/MARGARET E CAMPBELL PAMELA LEA CAPSTONE ASSET MGNT CORP PO BOX 3357 2741 TAKELMA WY 1390 FRANK HILL RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND. OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E I41ID4801 391E 14B D4505 391E 14BA2003 CEDAR FACE MARY JANE M CHENG PEGGY G P CLAY CRK GARDENS OWNRS ASSO 3005 NOVA DR 761 TOL.MAN CR RD 289 GRANITE ST ASI ILAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND. OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14D208 391E141ID4800 39IE14BD701 CLEAR CREEK INVESTMENTS LLC CLEPHANE ELLEN COCHRAN BEN A 1030 BENSON WAY 13951 GRF,ENIIORN RD 942 HARMONY LN ASI ILAND, OR 97520 GRASS VALLEY, CA 95945 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E i 4BD608 391E 14CA 100 391E 14BD2500 COMTE DONN 1 TRUSTEE ET AL COOK JEANF.TFE COOK RICHARD GOODYEAR 175 PIEDMONT DR 990 SPRING WAY PO BOX 692 AS] ILAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14BD3000 391E14CA900 391E14BD800 COUNCIL BARBARA N CROSS WILLIAM/PAULA GREIST CULLOM FRANCES W TRUSTEE li'T 2970 DIANE ST 715 GRANDVIEW DR 2515 SPRING HILL DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASIILAND, OR 97520 391E14CD2000 391E14BD803 391E14CA3100 DAVID I IARRY I ET AL DAY JAMES I I/PAULA S MABRY DE BEY DENNIS S 4550 LITTLE APPLEGATE RD 590 LONE OAKS LOOP 2475 SISKIYOU BLVD JACKSONVILLE, OR 97530 SILVERTON, OR 97381 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 14D204 391 F 14D205 391 F 1413D4501 D I ['It KS S774VEN CTRUSTEE ET DIERKS STEVEN C/BARBARAJS DIETZ JANIESTRUSTEE ET AL 815 POMPADOUR DR 1050 13ENSON WAY 815 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND. OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND. OR 97520 391E14D215 391E14BD4910 491P14D1 Inn DODDS STEM IEN RREBEKAH K DRAPEAU DAVID F/SANDER L HH4NN4e43HA4~6C 1575 NIiVADA ST 2145 RAVEN RD S8F,4Yrp;'1•f~C. ASHLAND. Olt 97520 PLEASANTON. CA 94566 W"WI LILY OR 975113 3911:140 D ]400 391 E I4CA200 39I E 14CA 110 DYSSEGARD SUSAN S/ERIC A ELLENSON FRANKLINIKRISTY ELLIS WILLIAM H TRUSTEE ET 1330 "I'OLEMAN CREEK RD 950 TOLMAN CREEK RD 992 SPRING WAY ASI ILAND. OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 181 391EI41ID4513 391E14BD2400 391E14CA105 ESKENAZI VICTOR 1/CARRIE B EXEL VOLKER FENSTER ELLEN S FAMILY TRST 798 CAPELLA CIR 297713ARBARA ST 4100 DEERWOOD TRAIL. I AS] ILAND. OR 97520 AS[ ILAND, OR 97520 MELBOURNE, FL 32934 ! 391E14CA2900 391E14CA3300 391E14BD806 FLECK GERALD 1/JOAN E FRANT7 LAURA FRIRES LAURENCE C 2445 SISKIYOU BLVD 1051 TOL.MAN CREEK RD 948 SPRING WAY ASHLAND. OR 97520 AS] ILAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 39I E 14BD4902 3911-'14111)4909 39I E 14CAS200 GABRIEL, MARY GALLI DOROTHY B TRUSTEE ET GENTIS CHRIS'EINF II F 677 TOLMAN CREEK RD 572 ADAMS RD PO BOX 688 ASH LAND, Olt 97520 FAYETTEVILLE. GA 30214 MEDFORD, OR 97501 391E 14CD800 391 E 14CA4600 341-6341) W00 GERSCI II.FR JAMES W/HELEN M GF.RSCHLER JEFFREY S/LINDA D 1168 TOLMAN CR ItD 2520 EAGLE CREEK LN - 295 A"Lr'R .r.ETOB it ASHLAND. OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ANIII.AND. Olt 9152 391E14CD1200 39IE14BD807 391E14BD4925 GOOD ROBERT 1WFREED LORI G GRAY JOHN RICIIARD TRSTE FBO GREEN ANDREW R/GREEN KATHER 1272 TOLMAN CREEK RD 408 FRIENDSHIP ST 125 130TH DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 SOUTH BEACH, OR 97366 391 E14CA5000 GREENWOOD HOLLIS 391E14D600 391 E14BD901 TRUSTEE ET GRIMES FLOYD W/JULIA A HABERFELD EVA ' 442 HOLLY ST 647 CROWSON RD 2530 SPRING I TILL DR ASI ILAND, OR 97520 AS] ILAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E 14CA 115 391 F.141313606 391 E l4BD 1000 HAMILTON CREEK HOMEOWNERS HAMILTON PLACE LLC HARDING PENNY MODINE PO 130X 3209 175 PIEDMONTDR 300013ARBARA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 AS[ ILAND, OR 97520 101~,H„~''^2'00 391 F.14CA4500 391F14CA102 ILARRIN EARL TRUSTEE RT AL HEBERT CLIFTON ETAL HELLER JOELA 35 N418'1.61;1106 RB 2540 EAGLE CREEK RD 2326 GRE•.ENMEADOWS A°Ln A`. OR 9720 ASHLAND. OR 97520 ASHLAND. OR 97520 391E14BD802 391P14BD401 391E14BD403 HERNANDEZ ANTHONYIROBYN I IEYERMAN ROBERT'/BARBARA HEYERMAN RYI.ANIrAISIA 2535 SPRING I III.1. DR 555 CAROL S3' 770 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND. OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASI ILAND. OR 97520 391F14BD602 3911:141)700 • 391 F.1411134700 HILT. MICHELLE L "ERUS'I'EL: ETA I IMC'I'HREE LLC HOLGEN MARY A 2522 OLD MILL. WAY 87 MACREADY DR 2995 NOVA DR ASI ILAND. OR 97520 iNIFRC'ED, CA 95340 ASI ILAND. OR 97520 182 391E14CA104 39IE14BD604 391E23BA102 HOLSTEIN SANDRA RMICIIAEL E HOLT'ZMAN JENNIFER M I IOPFINGER CARL M TRUSTEE ET 228 WESTST 2200 S OLD HWY 99 1340 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASI[LAND, OR 97520 391E14BD4300 39IE14CD303 391 F.14CA112 I IOYE DAVID IIUGGINS JENA HUGGINS KEVIN A 70 SUNCREST RD 1122 TOLMAN CREEK RD 959 DREW LN TALEN'T', OR 97540 ASHLAND. OR 97520 ASH LAND. OR 97520 391 E 141ID4903 391E14CA5200 391E14BA700 HUNTER HOWARDJ HUfCHINGS PHILIP B IPCO DEVF.LOPMENTCORP 3005 GRIZZLY DR 2408 SISKIYOU BLVD 640 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391F,14BD2600 391E14BA2101 391E14D4600 JAMES JACK E TRUSTEE JAYNE ROBERT A TRUSTEE ET A JENKINS ALVIN WPATSY K 2999 BARBARA ST 274 MOUNTAIN AVE 672 CROWSON RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14CA3000 39IE14CA4400 391E14CA300 JOHNSON KRISTA KAI IRENF.TRUSTEE ETAL KAUFMAN DAVID/JAMIE D 1348 PROSPECT ST 2560 EAGLE CREEK LN 2305•C ASHLAND ST PMB 420 ASIILAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASIILAND, OR 97520 391 E [ 4CD I00 '"'°~-,,,teP239' 391 E 14BD2800 KENNEDY KATHERINE M TRUSTEE KINNAMON T'ED C/LORRAINE: 132 GREENWAY CIR 11 -843E}X264 29 LONE PINE AVE MEDFORD, OR 97504 COSTA MRSA. CA-9a629 FREEDOM, CA 95019 391E14CA113 3911i"CA4300 391 E 14AC 1000 KNECI [TA [,I..XANDER C/KONNY L Nw41w:p PER 4 I -P o moi ST-RE KNOX MARK L ET AL PO BOX 3209 114 GAImUMFfF AVE 700 MISTLETOE RD 106 ASHLAND, OR 97520 SAN ANSE6MO, CA 9,196 ASHLAND, Olt 97520 391EI413D405 391E14BI)4504 391E14AD7500 LAWRENCE III IONDA I. LAWTON RANDAL/INES DIEZ LE ROY PATRICK N/ANN YVE'ITE 136 MOUNTAIN AVE 775 TOLMAN CREEK RD 450 T'IMBERLAKE DR ASIILAND. Olt 97520 - ASHLAND. OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391814D209 391E14D2601 391E14D2701 LEFORS DAVID P/ JAYNE M LESLEY NOEL A T'RUSTTE 1:130 LESLEY NOlil. A/MARY C 4024 SIERRA DR 2630 SISKIYOU BLVD 2630 SISKIYOU BLVD HONOLULU. 111 96816 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14BD404 391814CA1800 3911i14CA4900 LINSDAY PHILLIP/SHELLEY LIVNI INVESTMENTCOMPANY LL LOFTUS ELLEN I. 357 ALTA AVE: 2532 OLD MILL WAY 1131 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND. Olt 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND. OR 97520 183 ! 391F14BA1906 391E14BD4900 391E14BD2300 LOVETI' RICHARD PAUL T'RUST'EE LUNDQUIST MITCHELL D MACFARLANE HELEN PO BOX 427 678 CUB CIRCLE 118 HILLTOP RD ASHLAND. OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 TALENT, OR 97540 391E14AC400 391F,14BD4901 391E14CA3400 MACLELLAN ROBERT MANNION DORIS F•. MANZONE RUSSELL VOOANN VIO 3126 ST'AT'E S'1.200 673 TOLMAN CR RD 249 HILLCREST RD MEDFORD, OR 97504 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASI[LAND. OR 97520 I 391E14CA5600 391E23702 391E:23101 MAR'T'IN MARGARET M ET AL MARTINAITIS LOUIS TRUSTEE E MAY KENNETH LJDARLENE 930 BELLVIEW AVE 1725 RAINBOW 16-191 2946 SISKIYOU BLVD I ASHLAND. OR 97520 LAS VEGAS, NV 89146 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E1413210 391EI4DI02 391E14CA1900 MB TRRMINAL COMPANY MBZ LLC MC KELVEY KEVIN K/DIANE D PO BOX 3595 311 HOLLY ST PO BOX 3451 ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD. OR 97501 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E14CA4100 391E14BD4927 391E14BD4926 MCDONALD TREVOR MCQUOID KIM AILEEN TRUSTEE MERCER MARGARET 1 13240 POONKINNEY RD 673 CUB CIR 670 CUB CIRCLE. i DOS RIOS, CA 95429 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14CA106 391E14BD4908 391E14AC600 MILDBRANDT DAVIDJBILLEF MILLER FREDRICK F/DONNA M MORRIS ROBERT GENE TRUSTEE 972 SPRING WAY 2990 GRIZZLY DR PO BOX 850 ASHLAND. OR 97520 ASHLAND, OIL 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14CDI300 391E14BD200 391E14CA2000 1 MORRIS ROBERT GENE TRUSTEE MOUNTAINS AND RIVERS WAY LL MUROKI VALERIE ET AL 1 1300 TOLMAN CR RD 740 TOLMAN CREEK RD 1001 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND, Olt 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14AB2100 391EI4BD2900 39111314BA700 ` NEUMAN PROPERTIES & DEVELOP NOUYEN-DUY PIPO!E GOMBART NSPIRF.DNATURAL FOODS 1735 JITVE.RSON AVE 2978 DIANE ST 710 JEFFERSON AVE ASHLAND, OIL 97520 ASHLAND, Olt 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E 14AD7200 39191.m inn OR PGON ST A"'c) 391 END207 OC HOA MA'ITI IE W HT AL O W ENS THOMAS P 660 WASHINGTON ST UNKNOWN 495 FERNWOOD DR AS] (LAND. OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E 14134500 391 F 14D2500 391 F W BD4506 PARSONS LORIN F PATRIDGE WILLIAM C'/BARBARA PAUL DON/RITA 1 628 C'ROWSON RD 295 MAIN ST 1 752 CAPELLA CIR ASI ILAND. OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 184 i I 391E14BD804 '391E14CA1I1 391E14BD4400 PECK JOSEPH W/SUSAN G PERKINS EDWARD L/ELEANORE B PFISTER DANIELIMARIA 936 SPRING WAY P O BOX 8 2999 DIANE ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391B14CDI100 391E14CD306 391E14BD300 PHILHOWER MARK E/LEFAY SHAN PHILLIPS JAMES JOSEPH TRUST POPE CHARLOTTE L 1244 TOLMAN CREEK RD 1130 TOLMAN CREEK RD 750 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND. OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND. OR 97520 391E1413134100 391EI4CA4200 391614BD4712 POSTON JEANETTE M POWELL GERALD FTRUSTEE ET ]'DWELL MARK W/SUSANNE H 283 HIGH ST 2565 EAGLE CREEK LN 2974 NOVA DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 AS[ (LAND, OR 97520 391E14CD500 391E14CA3800 391E14BD400 PULSIPHER NANCY S RAMOS ROBERTO/MARIA RAYNOLDS DAVID ALLAN FERNAN 1148 S TOLMAN CREEK RD 1002 TOLMAN CREEK RD 1136 ANDERSON CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 TALENT, Olt 97540 391E14BD4714 391E14CD1602 391E14AC200 REECE-SULLIVAN MARILYN/M A RETIZ TONY TRUSTEE ET AL RRZEK RONALD 1997 TOLMAN CR RD 2695 MICKELSON WAY 709 WASIIINGI'ON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14CD1500 391E14BD500 391EI4D2II RICHARDS PA TRICIA A/PAUL RICKERSON PAUUOSTOVAR GOLY ROOKLYN DALE'TI IOMAS TRUSTEE 1345 ROMEO DR 502 FAIRVIEW 137 SEVENTH ST ASHLAND. OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14CA4800 391E14CA3900 391E14BD4701 ROTH JAMES A TRUSTEE RUFI LAURA SALTER ERNESf K TRUSTEE 3231 TOLMAN CREEK RD 2525 EAGLE CREEK LN 2971 NOVA DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 384644D4300 391E14CA3500 391E14D1800 SAYBLE ALLEN ERIC SB DEVELOPMENT LLC o» MIar nr. r^Q 821 HILLVIEW DR PO BOX 609 AS' ILAND. OR 974N ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E14CA4700 391F14CA700 391E14BD1100 SCHOOL DIS'T N5 SCHWEIGER 101 IN C TRUSTEE ET SCOTT M LEE/SANDRA A 885 SISKIYOU BLVD 110 BOX 3520 2990 13ARBARA ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASI I LAND, Olt 97520 391E14CA8000 391E14CD304 391E14CA114 SEVERSON MARK D/PEGGY L SHADLE STANLEY F/CORNELIA L SHAPERO RICHARD P TRUSI•F-E 2500 SISKIYOU BLVD 1126 TOLMAN CREEK RD 216 F.DGEHILL DR ASI ILAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 SAN CARLOS, CA 94070 185 391EI4CD1000 391E14CD400 391E14CAI03 SHOSTROM DALE SISKIYOU TOWNHOUSES LLC SMITH IDA L 1240 TOLMAN CREEK RD 515 E MAIN ST 2531 EAGLE CREEK LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ' 391E14CA3700 391E14CD308 391E14BD900 SMUCKER LEONARD L TRUSTEE E SNYDER DENNIS C/HARRIET W STILES K G 1004 TOLMAN CREEK RD 1330 ASI ILAND MINE RD PO BOX 1124 ASHLAND. OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, 012 97520 391E14CA5100 391E14BD4713 391E14D216 STORM I:RICIBENEDIKTE SUDEROV ANALISA G SUPERIOR PROPERTIES LLC 698 ASHLAND LN 2990 NOVA DR 6581 GRIFFIN CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97501 391 F,23404 3911? 14D212 391E 14BD4905 17IOMAS CONSTANCE M THOMAS DANIEL J ET AL TOLMAN CREEK MEADOWS INC 2305 ASHLAND ST C 213 897 OAK KNOLL 670 CUB CIR ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND. OR 97520 i 391E14BDI200 391E14CA107 391E14CA2700 TOPPO UGO J/LAUREN E VIDMAR JOSEPH A1 RUSTEE ET VINEYARD JESSICA ET AL 2978 BARBARA ST 953 SPRING WAY 1509 TALENT AVE. ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 TALENT, OR 97540 1 391E14CA5500 391EI4BD805 391E14AD7300 VOGEL CARL E TRUSTEE WITT LAWRENCE E/MARIF. R WOLFF DONALD H ' 924 BELLVIEW AVE P O BOX 6429 760 WASHINGTON ST ASI ILAND, OR 97520 BROOKINGS, OR 97415 ASHLAND, OR 97520 3911?14AB2200 391FI4BD4502 391E23701 1 YERBA PRIMA INC ZANE SUSAN ZEVE LINCOLN/DENEICE 740 JEFFERSON AVE 759 TOLMAN CREEK RD 2710 SISKIYOU BLVD ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND- OR 97520 I ~ - DAVIS BRUCE. MICHE SON MARY KAY Paul Steinlc 4120 DOUGLAS BLVD. M306.123 2810 DIANE Provost's Office. SOU . GRANITE BAY. CA 95746 ASI [LAND. OR 97520 1250 Siskiyou Blvd Ashland, OR 97520 I Richard Hendrickson Eric Navickas Russ Chapman 444 Monte Vista Dr 363 'h Iowa St 170 Oak St Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland. OR 97520 - Ashland, OR 97520 Keith Swink Graham Lewis Jim Lewis 1655 Peachey Rd 152 N Pioneer Rd 640 A Street Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland. OR 97520 Ashland, OR 97520 I 186 Larry Blake David Wilkerson Matt 1Varshawsky 411 Briscoe PI 1120 Barrington Circle 821 Indiana St Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland. OR 97520 Kerry KenCairn Parn Hammond CRAI'FT PAUL 545 A Street 632 Walnut St 45 WIMER ST. Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland, OR 97520 ASHLAND. OR 97520 AUFERHEIDE 321 N MOUNTAIN AVE. APT. A ASHLAND. OR 97520 187 i Crandall Armbula John Rcnz Matt Crall f 520 SW Yamhill, Roof Suite 4 Dept. Laid Conservation & Development Dept. Land Conservation & Development Portland, OR 97204 155 N First St. PO Box 3275 635 Capitol Sr. NE, Suite 150 Central Point, OR 97502 Salem, OR 97301-2564 Larry" Ksionzyk David Pyles John McDonald Dept. Land Conservation & Development ODOT, Region 3 Oregon Department of Transportation 635 Capitol St. NE, Suite 150 100 Antelope Road 3500 NW Stewart Parkway Salem, OR 97301-2564 White City, OR 97503 Roseburg, OR 97470 Paige Townsend Steve Maluk luli DiChiro 3200 Crater Lake Ave. TDM Planner Superintendent Medford, OR 97504 3200 Crater Lake Ave. 885 Siskiyou Blvd. Medford, OR 97504 Ashland, OR 97520 Max Rosenberg Bob Melba John Becker Oregon Department of Environmental Quality ODOT Rail Division 221 Stewart Ave. Suite 201 725 SE Main 555 13" Street NE, Suite 3 Medford, OR 97501 Roseburg, OR 97470 Salem, OR 97301-4179 kbo4in Christman Bruce Davis e' Del is Debay 1120 ' nber Lake Dr. 4120 Douglas Blvd. 0306-123 2475 ' kiyou Blvd. Ashland, 7Nk 97520 Granite Bay, CA 95746 Ashland, 97520 i RETURNED Jeff Gerschler Rylan Taisia Heyerman Larry Holzgang 2520 Eagle Creek Lane 770 Toln n Creek Rd. OEDD Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland, O 97520 317 South 7 Street Room #231 Klamath Falls, OR 97601 7601 Mary y Michelson Ashland Chamber of Commerce Kaurtnann Group E 2810 Di to Sandra Slattery Dwain Cross /Bud Kaufmann Ashland, 97520 PO Box 1360 Dwain & Bud LLC Ashland, OR 97520 801 Avenue C White City, OR 97503 Mike Montero • Chris Galpin Urban Development Services nox zo Mark 4497 Mown, idge Terrace, Suite 150 744 Cardley Avenue Mark Knox Medford, OR 97504 Medford, OR 97505 550 Mistletoe Rd. Suite 201 Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland Warehouse Partnership a Alex Komy Knecht Ker enCalm PO Box 43 PO Bo 209 545 A S et, Suite 3 19 R 97520 Ashland, O 7520 Medford, OR 97501 Ashland, 188 Charles Kettenring Debbie Price Pam Lucas ODOT Rail Division - Crossing Manager Oregon Housing and Community. Services Business Manager 555 1316 Street NF, Suite 3 725 SE Main St. 885 Siskiyou Blvd. Salem, OR 97301-4179 Roseburg, OR 97470 Ashland, OR 97520 Jeff Griffin Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad Craig and Michelle Black Economic Revitalization Team PO Box 3275 333 SE Mosher PO Box 969 Central Point, OR 97502 Roseburg, OR 97470 Ashland OR, 97520 Earl Harris Trustee • Wilma Kentner Andre L. Anderson • 35 Mistletoe Road PO Box 2677 PO Box 3577 Ashland, OR 97520 Costa Mesa CA, 92628 Ashland, OR 97520 • Hazel Gessler ET AL • Gerald Knecht Trustee • Sandra Savage 277 Mistletoe Road 295 Mistletoe Road 114 Calumet Ave. Ashland, OR 97520 Ashalnd, OR 97520 San Anselmo, CA 94960 Adroit J Comte Trustee Construction • 175 Piedmont Drive Op Heyerman Steve Lawrence /Bob Mayers Ashland, OR 97520 760 T tan Creek Rd. 185 Mistletoe Road Ashland, 97520 Ashland, OR 97520 Colleen Padilla SOREDI LAWRENCE KRUESI JOHN 673 Market Street 790 TOLMAN CREEK RD. 148 GREENWAY CIRCLE Medford, OR 97504 ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97504 Southern Oregon University Plexis Healthcare Systems Thrive Liz Shelby Jorge Yant, CEO Wendy Seporen Governmental Relations 385 Williamson Way 340 A Street, Suite205 1250 Siskiyou Blvd. Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland. OR 97520 Thomas Hogue Economic Development Planning DLCD 635 Capitol Street NE Suite 150 Salem, Oregon 97301-2540 189 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Ordinance Amending Chapter 9 Concerning Weed Abatement 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 Bennet 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: 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 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: http://www.oregon.pov/ODA/PLANTIWEEDS/statelist2.shtmi Related City Policies: Ashland City Charter Article X, Ordinance Adoption Procedures Council Options: (1) 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 1 of 1 Imo, 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 S1, 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 of the 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 if at the end of ten (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 of liens 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 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 Firefighters, Local 1660. Beaverton Shoo 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 Vegetation ^h^teme.n 9.04.002 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to reduce the risk of damage to property and persons by fire due to weeds, and to reduce hazards to public health, agriculture, recreation, and wildlife by controlling the growth of weeds and noxious vegetation. Ashland Fire and Rescue and the city's Code Compliance Officers intend to prioritize enforcement and abatement under this chapter based upon the degree 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 I of 5 9.04.005 Definitions. A. Code Compliance Officer: all individuals designated as such pursuant to AMC 1.08.005, including specifically the Fire Chief. B. Fire Chief: the City of Ashland Fire Chief or his/her authorized designee. C. Fire hazard: a written determination from the Fire Chief that the quality, condition, and/or location of vegetation creates a risk of fire. D. Noxious vegetation: all vegetation listed on the noxious weed list promulgated by the Oregon Department of Agriculture's Plant Division. E. Owner: owner of real property, agent 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 Oregon Department of Forestry, which ever is later. G. Weed: Vegetation, grass, shrubbery, and round wood that is less than 1/4 inch in diameter and more than four inches (4") high, and (2) Vegetation that is a: (a) Health hazard; such as providing harborage for vermin; (b) Fire hazard due to the quantity and/or location; or (c) Traffic hazard because it impairs the view of a public thoroughfare or otherwise makes use of the thoroughfare hazardous. SECTION 3. Section 9.04.010 [Weeds Declared Nuisance] is hereby amended to read as follows: 9.04.010 Weeds Declared Nuisance The growth or maintenance of weeds upon lots and parcels of land, and abutting rights-of-way in the City during 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 gFass, weeds, shFubbery, and vegetation upon YaGant and other lots and reels of land and the StFeets and alleys abutting ♦he i the City, during the summer on nn.::stitutes a fi:e m n are and greatly in s the fire hea-r-a."a in the City, and i de..l.+red to be in the nu sanre: 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 of 5 9.04.012 Noxious Vegetation Declared Nuisance The growth or maintenance of noxious vegetation upon lots and parcels of land, and abutting rights-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 vegetation that constitutes an agricultural crop or decorative residential landscaping, unless that vegetation is a fire, health, or traffic hazard. B. It shall not be a violation of this chapter for property owners to maintain wetland or upland native vegetation in its natural state either on their property or in common areas when required to do so pursuant to the requirements of state law, city ordinance or land use approval. Nothing herein prohibits a property owner from preserving native vegetation in its natural state in excess of the requirements of state law or city ordinance, provided the owner prepares and implements a management plan for maintenance of the natural area and said plan is approved and on file with the community 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 - Respensibilety The owner of any lot or parcel of land within the limits of the City of Ashland shall cut and/or remove weeds growing thereon, and on adjacent and abutting rights-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 throughout-the summer season, or any other time of year when deemed a fire, health, or traffic hazard. The owner, agent of owneF aAdler eGGupant of any 18t OF paFGel of land within the limits of the City of Ashland shall rut and remove the weed g FaCS bushes and shrubbery, a pt a ntel bushes and shFubbeFy, e.V.\. ;ng theFeen, OF GA adi..eent and abutting stmets, avenues, and alleys, between May 16th and Lune I5th of e..eh yeaF and shall where the same i and in rase of failure to do so, said per-son OF persons shall be subjert to fine andlor and the Gity may rause SUGh vegetation to be GU and r oyed and the expense i ed a e,.nt thereof hall h GhaFgeab'e as a Hen upon said let OF paFGel as aforesaid. 9.04.024 Responsibility of Owner - Removal of Noxious Vegetation Ordinance No. _ Page 3 of 5 The owner of any lot or parcel of land within the limits of the City of Ashland shall not permit noxious vegetation to prow upon their propert y and on adjacent and abutting rights-of-way. It shall be the duty of an owner to cut down or to destroy and remove all noxious vegetation as often as needed to prevent it from becoming a fire, health or traffic hazard, from becoming unsightly, or maturing, spreading, and going 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 continuing violations. Notwithstanding any other AMC provisions, a code compliance officer may order the minimum abatement necessary to abate a fire, health or traffic hazard. (e.g. creation of an adequate fire break to protect adjacent property from fire exposure). Abatement of the nuisance shall not prohibit the city from seeking any other remedy or sanction provided by law. 9.04.030 Violation Penalty Any violation owneF, agent of the , or eGeupant of any premises violating any of the of this chapter, including creating or maintaining a nuisance, shall be is punishable as a Class A violation and each day the nuisance is maintained shall constitute a separate offenses. pr,eSGribed 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 simNaf nuisance-type ordinances imposing obligations upon property owners, (e.g. snow removal, weeds and noxious vegetation, sidewalk maintenance) the city shall be responsible for compliance with such ordinances in public rights- of-way adjacent to or abutting city-owned or controlled real propert y. 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 of 5 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. Savings. Notwithstanding this amendment/repeal, the City ordinances in existence at the time any criminal or civil enforcement actions were commenced, shall remain valid and in full force and effect for purposes of all cases filed or commenced during the times said 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-lettered, 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 of 5 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 Benne 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 of the 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: (1) 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 reading for April 20, 2010. Attachments: Proposed ordinance Page 2 of 2 ~r, 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 deletieas 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 Firefighters, 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] are 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 charge of the property where the violation exists in accordance with 1.08.005.E [Service, Service by mail, etc.l, directing the owner or person in charge 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 posting; 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 charged to the person responsible, assessed against the property, or both; 5. a statement that the person responsible may protest the order to abate by giving written notice to the recorder within ten (10) days from the date of service in accordance with AMC 2.30.020 rAdministrative 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, stating 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 stating the date and place of service. E. An error in the notice mailed shall not make the notice void. F. The City is not required to post the property but may always provide posting 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.l. a person responsible shall remove the violation or show that no violation exists by protesting the violation as provided herein. B. A person responsible, protesting the existence of a violation, shall, within ten (10) days after service, file with the city recorder a written notice of appeal specifying the basis for protesting in accordance with AMC 2.30.020 [Administrative Appeals Processl. Failure to file a written notice of appeal constitutes a waiver to any objection that the person may have to the finding that a violation exists or to the abatement of the violation by the City. C. After hearing the matter, the hearings officer may determine that no violation exists, determine that a violation exists and order its abatement, impose conditions on the person responsible, or delay the time for abatement of the violation. The hearings officer shall make written findings in support of its decision when a violation is determined to exist, and its decision shall be final. D. If the hearings officer determines that a violation does in fact exist, a person responsible shall abate the violation within ten (10) days after the hearing officer's determination, unless the hearings 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 right at reasonable times to enter into or upon property in accordance with all laws, including search and seizure laws, to investigate 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 salvage 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 abating the violation. 2.31.040 Assessment of Costs and Entry of Lien. A. The Code Compliance Officer shall serve the owner and the person responsible with a notice stating: 1. The total cost of abatement, including the administrative cost of abatement minus any salvage value; 2. The total cost of abatement will be assessed to the property and become a lien against the property unless it is paid within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the notice or a payment plan is configured 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 agreed upon payment plan is violated and execute on any security instrument provided; 5. That a written notice objecting 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 regular 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 (Administrative Appeals Processl. 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 obiection 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 begin 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 proceeding as many accounts as the City may have against separate properties for abating violations and may proceed to assess and collect single lot assessments against each property in a single proceeding. F. An error in the name of the person responsible for abating 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 against the property. 2.31.050 Abatement - Joint Responsibility. If more than one person is responsible for the violation, they shall be jointly and severally liable for abating the violation or for the costs incurred by the City in abating the violation. 2.31.060 Other Methods of Collecting 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 danger 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 writing and at a minimum include information on the following: 1. The location of the property where the violation constituting the imminent threat or danger 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 following: 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 by the city to abate the violation. C. The Code Compliance Officer shall have the right at reasonable times to enter into or upon property in accordance with all laws, including search and seizure laws, to investigate 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 I 1 manner and shall, if practical, attempt to obtain salvage 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 penalty for violating the Ashland Municipal Code; it is an additional remedy. The imposition of a penalty 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 2.31448 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 and heaFing 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 netiGe, served peFSOnally eF! by r steFed or se"t:fied mail A hearing shall be he'd by the GGURGil if the GpeFater requests a heaFing within ten days of reGeipt of thee 1 A statement of the ner-ater's right to hearing statement of the time and plaGe of the hearing. 2 A statement of the authority and : sd:st:on under wh:eh the hearing to be held: A A shoF_t_and_plain statement of the matters asserted o charged B. The Hearing Officer GGUAG;l, if the matter Is heaFd by the , or the ^:t., adm:n:Strater, :if no hearing 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 the wm-bulanr--e eperatOF of the violation and demand that the Walatonn hp E2 In the a n• of a netise . nde• ubse..fien n ec this Ce^Fien• been taken, and the Gity shall then Gause an inspeGtien to be made to Bete Fn'ine r nlianre 2-.9 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 infrastien Class A violation, subiect to the limitations of the Ashland Municipal Charter. as set foFth In sen-ti on 1.02020 exGept that the penalty shall be a fine not to exGeed$ ,000. 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 I I 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 NatiGe A. Upon lpon deterp.ination by the Pa. unr_-il that a nuisanGe as def: n ed in this r•a..se a nn-five to be pGstead on the p where then exists, diFer.ting the owner OF peFSen iR GhaFg8 of the prepeFty to abate the rwfsanr-p B. At the time of posting, the City ReGordeF shall Gause a Gepy of suGh tl1e oi.vner Or other person. C. The net*ce to abate shall Gnntamn- 1. A deslaript*GR Of the alp .artys by StFeet address OF etheMiser o wh*r.h the nu*sanGe exists; 2. A. direction to abate the nuisanGe within teR (10) days fFem the date of the-netise; 1• A deSGription of the p e bapse is re the City May abate th A A statement that, unless th Moved, rvdsanee and the vest of abatement shall hp a lien against the p erty S A statement that the owner or ether peFSQR in Gharge of then earty Fn ay PFGtest the abatement by g; City ReGerdeF WithiR ten (10) days fFGM the date of the nefte-. Il Upon eempletion of the posting and mailine the nersen posting and mailing the notive shell evenute and file a ertifiGate stating the date and plaGe of the mailing and posting. am. An error in then address of the a eharge of the PFGpeFtY or the use of a name other than that of thpL mApnear er etheF person ghall not make the notice vei he n-fF.e'ont 08 2 10 Abatement _ By owner- A. Within ten (10days after the posting and mailing of the notibe pi!eYided in Sertion 9.08.200, the Gwner OF person in GhaFqe of the pFGpeFt shall emove the. nu:sanee a show that no nuu-sann-e t B. The owner or person in GhaFge pFotesting that no nuisanGe exists shall file with the City ReGGFder a written statement whiGh shall speGify the basis ffGF SO etest'n Ordinance No. Page 7 of 11 C. The statempni shall hp referred tG the CeunGll as a part of the Counnil's regUlaF agenda at its next c edino meeting. At the time set fo. re.nsiderntien of the abatement, owneF OF other person Fnay appear and be heaFd by the CounGil, and the CeunGll shall thereupon deteffnine whether or net n fast exists, and the determination shall he be^^Fe,,quQ~ired only in those Gases ..here Witten statement has been filed provides rl If the !`g.....sil determines that a nuisanGe does in fae.t exist, the owner a otheF person shall within ten (10) days afteF the Council determination abate the n .is_nse 9.08.210 Abatement - By ownef A Within ten (40) days after the posting and mailing of the notice as- provided shall r e then show that n nuisance a fists 13. The owner OF person in GhaFge protesting that no nu6sanGe ex*sts shall file with the City ReGGFder a Witten statement whiGh shall speG*fy the basis for etest'n v. The Q The s vtatement shall bexeferredte theCv~Eras a Pa~the CounG;rs ree...lar agenda at its next s eedine. meeting. At the time set fer udeFat*QR of the abatement, the owneF or otheF person May appear and r.ans be heard by thee CounGil, and the CGUnGil shall theFeupon deteFM*ne whether or not a nuisance in fast exists, and the determination shall b be . red only in those Gases ..here ritten statement has been filed Pr°~ D. if the Counn-ul alptprmunpl; that a nu;sanGe does in fact eAst, the owner o other person shall within ten (40) days after the CeunGil detemination abate the-nuosanGe. 9.09.220 Abatement _ by City A If within the time allowed the n..i Pe has ..et been abated by the , , owner oF person on GhaFge of the PFOperty, the Counewl May Gause the Q The effiire eharg.ed with abatement of then oe shall have the r g.ht at Feasenable Iffi-m-p-s- tn enter unto OF UPOR property to investigate or cause C. The City ReGGFder shall keep an aGGUrate FeGord of the expense IneurFed by the City in abating the nuisanGe and shall mnGlude theFewn a Gharge of twenty percent (20,04) of the expense for administrative n erhead 08 9411 Cost assessment Ordinance No. _ Page 8 of 11 A. The City Recr.rrle.r, by . steFed o ertified nail postage prepaid, shall fopafarrl to the o cl.aroe of the p erty a efice statiRg. The total ..ect of abatement i ..IudiRg the administrative a eFhead. , 4 That the cast a prlicated will be assessed to and be..eme a lie.... nst the PFGperty unless paid within thiFty (30) days fFoFn the date of this RetiGe; of the abatement as indiGated, a netiGe of objertion may be filed with the f :t.• Re..erder e! mere Thar. kop (10) da..c from the date of the notice 11 I Ipon the expiration of te.n Pi0) da• wwj.°. after the date e of the petivte !h 1 w. w. a.....~ra. vrz.~..va...-cr.r, Pounr.il in the regular n of business, shall hear and determine the "hiecfienc to the costs to be a pd !a If the c..ctc eL the abatement a not paid within thirt.. /411\ days frem !h date of the not:.c.° an assessment of the oat .r d ! d by the CeunGil shall be made by F860lutmen and shall theFeUPOR be enteFed M n the dGGket of City Iffiens, and, upon SUGh entFy being made, shall eFabated. D. The lien shall be .,.p.F,o......e...d in the same. .arms.: as lien s yr -qtr - a,aez improvements are errf.ar-ced and shall hear interest at the rate ei ! six perGen (6%) per year. The interest shall semme Ge !o Fun from the date L entry of the lien ip the lien deGke! E An effor in the name of the e.... . OF person in Ghar.. of the p ert e the noti..e of t Gh shall not Ye~P C.. 'd the assessment n..• v .v will r a failure to. revv . not w pro ed assessment r nder the assessment void, but it hall F .valid lien against the p erty 9.08.240 Summary Abatement The PFOGedure provided by this Ghapter is not exGlusive but Is in addffinn Chief-, OF the police Chief may PFGGeed summaFffily to abate a health eF othe nu*sanGe whmrh unmistakably exists -and whffirh imminently endangers human life OF propeFty. 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 Violations A. EaGh day's violation of a provision of this Ghapter Genstitutes a sepaFate offense. but is an additional remedy. The imposition of a penalty does net Feli0ve a- persen of the duty to abate a nuffisanGe. 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. department shall Gause to be served on the owneF, lessee, or eGGupant of ;ons to Femeve the junk or plaGe the same In a building Said notmre shall be given by personal seFViGe to said peFSGR OF per-sons or E s 'eGated. Sai- nebionp shall reqUiFe GomplianGe Within t8R (10) days afteF the dnip nf qPFViGe or- posting of said netiGe. No RGUGe need be given to an publie PFOpeFtT 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. Savings. Notwithstanding this amend ment/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 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-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. 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 l Ordinance No. Page 10 of 11 SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of , 2010. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney a Ordinance No. Page 11 of 11 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Ordinance Amending AMC Chapter 14.06 relating 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 Berm 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 of this ordinance and set Second Reading for April 20, 2010. Background: At the December 1, 2009 City Council meeting, staff presented an update on the Stage 1 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: 1. 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 of food 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 t of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND Related City Policies: Ashland City Charter Article X, Ordinance Adoption Procedures Council Options: 1. 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: Proposed ordinance December 15, 2009 Stage 1 Water Curtailment Update City Council Communication Page 2 of 2 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 deletiORs 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 Firefighters. 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. "Cf' 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. 1. '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 QrdinanGe.(See seGtion 14.06.010 Exhibits fGr 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 1406 QIGA Water Allocation Table r= . The Wate AlloGation Table set forth .~...low is substituted f •L. W • All U Table adopted as Exhibit A and defined in seGtlen 14.06.010.1. WATER ALLOCATION TABLE IN CUBIC FEET i CATEGORY METER METER STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3 STAGE 4 #R€ SIZE Res Irri A 0.75 1800 600 100 0 Res Irri 9 1.00 1800 600 100 0 Res Irri C 1.50 1800 600 100 0 Page 2 of 7 Res Irri D 2.00 1800 600 100 0 Corn Irri A 0.75 3200 1100 100 0 Corn Irri € 1.00 6100 2100 200 0 Conn Irri G 1.50 10400 3700 400 0 Com Irri D 2.00 15200 5300 500 0 Conn Irri € 3.00 30400 10600 1100 0 Gov Irri A 0.75 3200 1100 100 0 Gov Irri € 1.00 6100 2100 200 0 Gov Irri G 1.50 10400 3700 400 0 Gov Irri D 2.00 15200 5300 500 0 Gov Irri € 3.00 30400 10600 1100 0 Gov Irri F 4.00 48100 16800 1700 0 TO Irri 4.00 48100 16800 1700 0 Comm=1 A 0.75 6400 4800 3200 1600 CATEGORY AA€TEER METER STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3 STAGE 4 #R€ SIZE Comm=1 € 1.00 12200 9200 6100 3100 Comm=1 G 1.50 20900 15600 10400 5200 Comm=1 D 2.00 30400 22800 15200 7600 Comm=1 € 3.00 60800 45600 30400 15200 Comm=1 F 4.00 96200 72200 48100 24100 COMMA G 6.00 186400 139800 93200 46600 Comm=1 H 8.00 304400 228300 152200 76100 Condo/Multi AN All 2700 2000 1300 700 Family Resid=l A 0.75 3600 2500 1800 900 Resid=l Is 1.00 3600 2500 1800 900 Resid=l G 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 upon factors listed in section 14.06.020 and the billing 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%,from 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 aGrount 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 -gardens 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 City 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 utility billing aGGount 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 14.06.060.0.1, 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 inffactioR 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. Savings. Notwithstanding this amend ment/repea1, 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-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. 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 Stage 1 Water Curtailment Debriefing Meeting Date: December 15, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: Michael R. Faught Department: Public Works E-Mail: faughtm@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: N/A Secondary Contact: Terry Ellis Approval: Martha Bennett Estimated Time: 20 minutes Question: Does the Council have feedback on staffs 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: Staff recommends 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 minimal 35% 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 (TID) water on August 26, 2009. The combination of adding TID 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 of 6 ~r, CITY OF ASHLAND x009-11-20 Reader Reservoir Drawdown 1W 10I172W1 ended 90. - mandaNry.walar _ _ _ curteilmant. 60 70 i W/ W1 Started Water Curtailmerd 60 6/252009 Started Water Curtailment8 TID supplemental supply started 102320W entled 50 mandatory.water o curtailment Whn9. 40 e. 35% Min. Desirable Level W -•f-]W210-HW.L7 20 2001-3C09AVmepe - -Tamat 10 -e- 00a -2001 Lasl Cw ek,ar, ^P` , PQV '~PQV Td,~ ^z1'e1 ,0')~c A~~c ry y3 rYP'Q W V O'ZaQ ^ hVy ?0'1 vt 00 ~o~ lee Op 0' 'Y~s1 x`01 00 K ry M1 ry A ryvf W V H ,ytt A' A, G 1put~5ag`A63C RqM Wasr RqM UaeTWru1cgrnW ppW009-11-20R Her Oraxtlv xb 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 TID Board agreed to reschedule setting a date to terminate TID water to their October meeting. • The TID manager and ditch rider assisted City staff to ensure that there was an adequate supply of TID water to the Terrace Street Pump Station. What went Poorly? • The TID 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 Page 2 of 6 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 TID water taste and odor issues influenced staff to delay augmenting the raw water supply with TID 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 TID 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: • TID water tests (20 different tests) $ 3,133.38 • System repairs (new starter) $ 2,100.00 • Overtime (emergency 12 hours shifts) $24,564.63 • Engineering Services $ 5,281.80 • Materials (door hangers, tent cards) $ 784.50 • TID 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 TED 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: I. Develop a strategy to add TID 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 TID system upgrades/automation in 2010/11 fiscal budget 5. Amend the existing water curtailment code When to add TID Water? Developing a strategy to add TID 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 TID water supply. Page 3 of 6 11FALA 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 of TID water (intermittent and unpredictable), the TID 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 TID 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 TID 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 TID as an emergency raw water source in the short term and to further evaluate the long term TID water use in conjunction with the water master plan update. With that in mind, the Public Works Operations team is recommending that when TID 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 of TID 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 Using TID Water Once TID 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 TID water because of the continual fluctuations in water quality. TID 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. Staffs preliminary review of WTP staffing adjustments when using TID 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 System Upgrades 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 2010/11 budget process. The actuator/control valve project is self explanatory; however, the Page 4 of 6 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 TID water delivery system. The recommended automation projects are especially important as staff evaluates whether or not TID water should be used on a seasonal basis rather than the current practice of using TID water as an emergency. The proposed water system improvement projects are as follows: • Replace weir depth probe $ 1,200 • Install a new 1.5-2.5 MGD Pump 27,000 • Install a new variable frequency drive on new pump 43,000 • Upgrade SCADA between pump station and WTP 4,000 • TID Canal Upgrades (increase water flows) 10,000 • Pump station wet well level indicator 5,000 • Replace 18" actuator/control valve 18,000 • Move electrical control panels above ground 100,000 Total cost $208,200 Amend the existing 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 14.06.01 OA 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 of 6 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 O staff recommendation. Attachments ■ AMC 14.06 ■ Department of Human Resources Letter Dated November 17, 2009 Page 6 of 6 1A, PA#2009-01292 Exhibits: #2010-01 #2010-02 #2010-03 #2010-04 Submitted at Meeting Page 1 of 3 April Lucas - For the Record - Croman Mill Master Plan From: Colin Swales <colinswales@gmail.com> City jotASh,x d To: Barbara christensen <christeb@aashland.or.us> Punning Exhibit Date: 4/6/2010 7:22 AM Exhibit # Zola -0 1 Subject: For the Record - Croman Mill Master Plan I pAo~ ~2009-Z CC: April Lucas <lucasa@ashland.or.us> na[~6 to Sta--- ff Barbara, (cc April) I will be unable to attend the Council meeting in person tonight due to a prior engagement. Please could you ask the Mayor to read the following into the Record during the Public Hearing tonight -Agenda item VIII thanks. Mayor and Council, Having read the Economic Opportunities Analysis - EOA (extracted below), I am forced to come to the opinion that the Croman Plan, as presented, does not fulfill the city's industrial employment needs as outlined therein. The City, under similar "pressure from developers to convert the land to residential uses" now has a. major retirement center on the very outskirts of town (North Mountain) and permission has been granted, and land swapped, for a so-called "zero net energy" housing development (Verde Village) - also on the very outskirts. (The latter is, as yet, still unbuilt.) Neither of these dreams take into account the pressing need for adequate public transportation to serve the aging population of our town. This is almost impossible to provide to such outliers. I would prefer the city instead focus it's attention on discussing one day the Railroad Property Draft Master Plan 2001, The Downtown Draft Plan 112001, and the Draft Infill Study 1995 rather than upzone this Mill Site at the City's southerly limit for such "mixed uses". Such central locations would more easily provide the opportunities for easily-serviced office and retail uses in close proximity to established residential neighborhoods where transit is either near, or not needed due to already being within a short walking distance of existing amenities. respectfully Colin Swales The Economic Opportunities Analysis http://www.ashland.or.us/files/Ashland%20EOA%2006 27 07.pdf Page 6 ...The presence of the Croman Mill site will adequately meet the industrial. site needs of the community for the 20 year planning period. The remainder of site needs can be met through redevelopment and employment that does not require vacant land.... ...Demand for industrial land. The EOA clearly demonstrates a need for industrial land in the community. This is an identified change from past trends, but a logical one that takes advantage of a key community resource: the Croman Mill site. ECO recommends that Ashland retain the Croman Mill site in an file://CADocuments and Settings\lucasa\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4BBAE146AshDo... 4/6/2010 Page 2 of 3 industrial designation. If this site is converted to other uses, the City will no longer have an industrial land base. Adding new industrial land will be challenging. Plan for industrial uses that are compatible with the City's economic development objectives. The Croman site is presently zone M-1; the M-1 zone permits a broad range of industrial activities-some of which, in, our opinion, are not compatible with the site and surrounding uses. The City should consider preparing a master plan for the site that evaluates appropriate uses and incorporates sustainable development concepts, One option is to develop an "eco-industrial park. "I Page 9 ...For example, in 2006, the City of Ashland adopted a goal to prepare master plan for the Croman Mill site--a site that represents the majority of the City's industrial land base. The City was getting pressure from developers to convert the land to residential uses. Given the limited employment land base in the City, the conversion of the Croman site represents a major policy decision that has long-term implications. This document, the Ashland Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA), is intended to update the Economic Element of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, to respond to the requirements of Goal 9 and OAR 660-009, and to help inform policy decisions such as the Croman Mill site... Page 24 ...The map shows that all of the industrial land is in the Croman Mill Site. The City has three main areas of Employment land: areas on the northwest fringe, the railroad site, and areas north of the Croman Mill site. Page 29 ...The Croman Mill site is the City's only major industrial site. While it is technically available in the short-term, because it is a redevelopment site, it may take more than one year for the site to be ready for development. - Page 42 The City should designate at least one site for a master planned industrial park The Croman Mill Site is the largest industrial site in Ashland. The site is largely vacant and is getting pressure for housing and associated retail uses. The employment forecast, however, is far 600 to 700 industrial jobs. Most of these will be in specialty manufacturing and other light industries. Ashland will have difficulty accommodating this employment if it does not have an industrial land base. The Croman site is approximately 70 acres; it is unlikely that any individual user would require more than five acres. Many will needless than one acre. Page 46 The presence of the Croman Mill site will adequately meet the industrial site needs of the communityfor the 20 year planning period. The remainder of site needs can be met through redevelopment and employment that does not require vacant land. The data also suggest that Ashland could justify a small UGB expansion to add employment land if that is a desired policy direction. Demand for industrial land. The EOA clearly demonstrates a need for industrial land in the community. This is an identified change from past trends, but a logical one that takes advantage of a key community resource: the Croman Mill site. ECO recommends that Ashland retain the Croman Mill site in an industrial designation. If this site is converted to other uses, the City will no longer have an industrial land base. Adding new industrial land will be challenging. Plan for industrial uses that are compatible with the City's economic development objectives. The Croman site is presently zone M-1; the M-1 zone permits a broad range of industrial activities-some of file:M\Documents and Settings\lucasa\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4BBAE146AshDo... 4/6/2010 Page 3 of 3 which, in our opinion, are not compatible with the site and surrounding uses. The City should consider preparing a master plan for the site that evaluates appropriate uses and incorporates sustainable development concepts. One option is to develop an "eco-industrial park. " This probably underestimates overall employment capacity in the city for two reasons: (1) it does not consider capacity added through redevelopment; and (2) it does not address the fact that the City has considerable employment that is located in residential areas. Based on these considerations, the City has capacity for 700-800 additional employees on lands identified as redevelopable in the 2005 inventory update. file://C:\Documents and Settings\lucasaTocal Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4BBAE146AshDo... 4/6/2010 From: "Marilyn Briggs" <marllynlbriggs@yahoo.com> City ofAshla,r To: tldingsooin!on(oldailvtidings.com F anninn Exhibit Cc: john(alcouncil.ashland.or.us Exhiti # 2O(O-02' Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2010 3:08:45 PM Subject: Guest editorial Croman Property PA_T qn_ Da t0 Staff_C Croman Property: Why CHOOSE a seriously flawed proposal? The Irreversible consequences of approving the proposed Croman Property as mixed use Is absolutely contrary to all aspects of sustainability, the watchword of our current Mayor, City Council, and Planning Commission. Furthermore, the attempt to scuttle the Minority Opinion and Report written by Planning Commissioners, Michael Dawkins and Melanie Mindlin, is irresponsible and smacks of collusion. The minority report comprehensively targets the faults of the existing proposal. Specifically, the minority report states that the proposal promotes "competition with downtown land uses and [provides] Insufficient land for edge of town' activities requiring outdoor operations and larger parcels with less onerous development standards." This proposal allows for ONLY 22% for light Industrial uses, while plentiful existing commercial, residential and park uses fill. out the acreage. The proposal IGNORES the state regulation to maintain a 20 years' supply of each zone type within the urban growth boundary. Furthermore, it defies common sense In that it promotes sprawl and dismisses infill policies of big picture planning. Planning Commissioner Chairman, Pam Marsh, stated it was not the Planning Commission's responsibility to address the big picture. The contrary is true when it comes to designing a Master Plan! If any administrator Instructed otherwise, it is a distortion of purpose . Unfortunately, the big picture is the missing crux of this so-called Master Plan. The proposal Is a top-down plan from the Inception of the grant, from the Southern Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, to hiring the Portland architects, Crandall Arambula. Throughout the two-year planning process, a consistent dismissal of fundamental site spedfic questions and suggestions by the public have been Ignored. The appearance of sham hearings resembles "the erosion of transparency and accountability" addressed In the TIME magazine article, March 22nd 2010. The article highlights the absolute need to "marshal public consensus," that "institutions of all kinds need Input from below," and specifically that . "it's the job of citizens to save elites from themselves." This ties in with the minority report's last sentence that the proposed Croman master plan "is ultlmately self-defeating because it erodes community trust." The minority report Included an article from the Planning Commissioners Journal, (#77, Winter 2010); herein are three quotes which address this proposal: "When solutions are `pre-cooked' and then pushed through an approval process... they usually fall." "The temptation to rely heavily upon paid outside consultants, who often use a... one-size-fits-all approach, should be resisted." "Except in the case of purely technical issues, It Is a major mistake to turn a planning project over to a consultant in Its entirety. Not only does this add tremendous cost, it also reduces the likelihood of community support." City Council is scheduled to decide this Issue on Tuesday, April 6th. Please attend this meeting or write letters for the public record to address your concems. We are on the cusp of a colossally catastrophic decision. The Croman Property Proposal must be denied! Respectfully submitted, Marilyn Briggs, 590 Glenview Drive, Ashland, 541-482-0903 ICity ofAshla4 - s„ IF annina Exhibit C I T Y O F F Exhit # O/d _03 ~A5 -ASH LAND 5 r, alb !O Staff 8C_ i f4 l1 h1~HtvA TRAFOZTA tON°C~NIlVYTSSION C 7'rJY 'a'd'I Y City C~ounc 'Ape a rFb rs, La7$~F,astl~Iain Street Minutes Attendees: Tom Burnham, John Gaffey, Steve Hauck, Eric Heesacker, Julia Sommer, Colin Swales (Chair), Brent Thompson, Matt Warshawsky, David Young Absent: None. Ex Officio Members: David Chapman, Brandon Goldman, Lary Blake, Kat Smith, Steve MacLennan Staff Present: Mike Faught, Jim Olson, Nancy Slocum I. CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 PM H. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of December 21, 2009 were approved as presented. III. PUBLIC FORUM: Egon Dubois questioned the roll of the Transportation Commission Subcommittee and how meetings were publicized. Swales directed Dubois to the Transportation Commission formation ordinance (Ordinance No. 2975). The subcommittee meetings were open to the public. The agenda was set by both the Public Works Director and the Cliair of the Commission. Slocum was directed to publicize subcommittee meetings by sending agenda to the Daily Tidings and posting it on the website. Dubois thought there should be another mouthpiece for the public as two commissioners were combined into one. IV. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA: RVTD report was moved to follow Commission training so Smith did not have to wait until the end of the meeting. Setting a date for the Commission goal setting retreat was also added as well as a Transportation System Plan (TSP) update. V. ACTION ITEMS: A. Commission Training by Barbara Christensen. City Recorder Christensen's position as City Recorder was guided by Oregon state law. She reminded Commissioners that as volunteers they represented all citizens and not a single point of view. Meetings could be held electronically, but they must meet public meeting law i.e. they musthe noticed, have written minutes, be accessible as a public venue and be ADA accessible. With email the length of time between responses became a defacto chat room. She recommended against it and using a list serve, but ultimately it would be a Council decision. The public had the right to examine all public records and even notes were subject to a three year retention rule. Law violations void any decisions made and are subject to a $5,000 fine, removal from post and a $500 City fine. B. RVTD Briefing Kat Smith would be replacing Nathan Broom as the Ex-Officio member for RVTD. She summarized the December, 2009 Monthly Ridership Report. Ashland was down 13.6% over last C:\DOCUME-1\olsonjILOCALS-1\TempWgrpwise\I 21 10 TC Minutes.dm Page 1 of 3 year at the same time while countywide was down 12.1%. The Commission wondered how the county number would appear without Ashland. They would like to see a three year analysis. C. Croman Master Plan Update Commission discussed the need to review the.plan. Swales reminded them that the Planning Commission purposely left transportation issues out of their discussion so the Transportation Commission could discuss it. Goldman said that since the last meeting he made revisions to the amendment process (Section 18.53). Bike lanes and sidewalk widths would now be minor amendments. There was also an east / west solar orientation change! Phase I leaves Croman Road in place and adds Central Avenue. In Phase U, there would be a need to acquire ODOT property, vacate city-owned property and realign Tolman Creek Road. As long as the right-of-way was locked in place, bike lanes could be reconfigured, but not eliminated. Thompson was in favor of the plan revisions. Any applicant applying for a site review would have enough time for staff to interface with Transportation Commission before the Planning Commission made its final decision. Swales wondered who paid for infrastructure. Faught was drafting an Advanced Financing Ordinance for the City Council's review. The proposed ordinance was a financial mechanism to reimburse publicly or privately funded public improvement projects that have direct benefit to other property owners. It was similar to an LID as it distributed the cost of public improvement projects based on benefited use; the difference between the two was that Advanced Financing was due when the property owner ties into the pubic improvement. In addition, the City received a TGM grant to assist in the plan. Faught reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis (DA) that showed three land use alternatives plus a "no build" option bnd their projected effect on transportation circulation especially Highway 66 (Ashland Street), Highway 99 (Siskiyou Boulevard), Tolman Creek Road and Mistletoe Road. Any needed mitigation would be paid for by the developer. TIA looked only at vehicle mitigation, not multi-modal mitigation. _ Warshawsky was fine with the revised plan as long as it was amendable in the future. Goldman noted that plan language was also revised so that no access would be allowed on Central Avenue. This would reduce the number of vehicle / bicycle or pedestrian conflicts. He thought public discussion was needed on the pros and cons of separated bike lanes. Faught added that minor amendments could also be made through the TSP update. Burnham was concerned that the printed maps and standards, although alterable, would be construed as having been approved by the Commission. Motion: Thompson moved to recommend that staff pursue at, above and/or below grade railroad crossing easements for all forms of transportation. Motion died for lack of a second. Warshawsky moved that the Commission recommend to the Planning Commission and the City Council that the final design of Central Boulevard be reviewed by the Transportation Commission before it is finalized and constructed. Hauck seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. D. Transportation Commission Goal Setting Retreat Commission discussed whether or not to set goals at a separate meeting and how time sensitive the issue was. The Commission asked staff to chose several dates and email Commissioners. Burnham suggested using Traffic Safety Commission and Bicycle & Pedestrian Commission goals as a template. C:\D000ME-1\otsonjVACA l\T=P\}ffgpwise\121 10 TC HnutmAm Pqc 2 of 3 E. TSP Update Faught reported that Kittleson & Associates won the TSP Update contract in the amount of $416,000. The contract provided for an optional cost savings clause of $40,000 which would only be put into action upon approval of the Commission. Council approved the contract in a three to two vote. There would be a kick-off meeting with the consultants in mid March. He reminded the Commission that a TGM grant was awarded in the amount of $125,000 with another $66,000 possible this year. Thompson thought System Development Charge money should only be used for physical improvements. VI. NON ACTION ITEMS A. Planning Commission Update No discussion on this item. B. SOU Master Plan Update Item tabled until March meeting. VII. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS & COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Commission, by consensus, agreed to have RVTD communicate to the Commission via memorandum in the monthly packet in order to save time at the meeting. This policy would be for non-routine issues such as the monthly ridership report. VIII. ADJOURN: 8:10 PM Respectfully submitted, Nancy Slocum, Accounting Clerk I C:\DOCUME-1\olsonj'WCALS-I\Temp\XPgpwise\1 21 10 TC Mmutes.doc Page 3 of 3 SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY A C A D E M I C A F F A I R S City of Ashlaw ~Pianning Exhibit Exhitii# ZO O - April 6, 2010 PA 26 Staff 0 Honorable Ashland Mayor and City Council Members c/o Ashland Council Chambers at the Civic Center 1175 E. Main Street Ashland OR 97520 Ashland Mayor and City Council Members, My name is Jim Klein, and I am the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs at Southern Oregon University. I am also a member of the Ashland Economic Development Policy Committee. In my absence I have asked our Associate Provost, Paul Steinle, to read my statement. At Southern Oregon University we are very supportive of economic development initiatives that expand and diversify the employment opportunities in Ashland and southern Oregon. Upon graduation, many of our students must leave the area in order to pursue their careers. A variety of employers who offer well-paying jobs can provide more options for our graduates and ensure the future well-being of our communities. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jim Klein 12505iskiyou Boulevard • Ashland, Oregon 97520-5031 TEL 541-552-6114 FAX 541-552-6115 ~ooo ~o~~~o~~ Y„ s II ~ . a , ~ Q ~y'~~yy.~ l \~^V/!~" ~ ( z Jr ~4.~cb o~~ fit. ^ ~ t u, sf am 4- e ~ _ 0(~~f,~,~°~,~,,~.pe 0 ~~VY~n1I~JIJUU~1~ o ~iYnl41 1 oLP sq r of ~ '°a ti~ ~ \ ~ lie- dW.b 3 41~ ED ~ ~ ~ A JV it "4 eee tq E 6ROMAN MILL PLAN AREA ;5 pv 5 'rCa I~ .?'sp IVA r ybay_ 1 ,a0. .4 y~ D Co~o~o~g p~ooop0~o propoooo MmAw Mm rpgt ~ 4u ~ -i ~r c } Uoma^ me d , °o0 U oa0ET0R Mmue 'T r<~ tom- ~NS.t° ~ 1 I S [r opooooo0 00 C O W 0`wl V k-:.¢~. \ t. I~wreY.~ . ~ d wHn^d TOM U V /!~\`/~~~'1 fog _ V M1 kf"~~lA _ i i yam.} f i 1 Land uss prowo ° hr a #E o ° ouzo o ° r of hmddy mr QOOow #br Qqffl DodusNe0 and Manufto~c - ~ n rm po e~ , cad`-=.' qD r 6i. a we . ° 1 n 0 r1~0~ oe 'u q\Od~IC ~JO„(~ fo p ,..yam \l . o u 0 W., ,y r F + ~ .r c' n` `d'ry ~ o ~ t ° , ~j~ l ~I ~ r''(~~✓ 9 ••'14.i~c~ tom'? ' { v~~ I r i /Yr~'or1(0 1. t r Z~ Ot$1 E1~ c rl ~n ° i1 I,, r~ ! 1 -u`ra ~J~fA~i i„ r'_fi v it ~~V Lh ~Ilf4 d~ .nd S is a ~~(4~ sf ~~.I ~~;~„C Vw~ 1t€ r ° kf,.~', VM r r~ .R z / 1~ aC r I ylt Land Use/ ~r o• o 0 o a mix of t j s, e, s, N onsider a range of housing p °Do not create E uses that compete with downtown ~ ' Crom 1 1 1 O Land and ® landus L Uc - Industrial % of area < EI ~I Light U7 a i No residential r i _ ' Crom< Land Use, ~ Wnd I O Mai Office 3 . i Employment r 3, P 9 30% of area e ~ h E~ 4 * Professional office C No residential S6 ~ u Crom, Land Use O Land O Mixed Use L-f ' 20% of area T ~1 O • • floor o ` O EE ~ office or light industrial C J ~ C Upper • residential or employment u 90 Croms Lan ® S ~ Land 1 ~ Q nq i Nei° g 1b01 f10 od Center T~ % of area E O Neighborhood u serving shops and C services Upper story residential or commercial U ~ Croman Land Us Land Use 1:30pw Open Space --I-L--- Conservation 1 F L } - I *10% of area L4L U o~ O *Central Park 7 ~a u / Land Uss Croman MITI District Open Space Detail 1=J~ ,;,sS y /A'ol openspace U UVNJVIJ Vl°l ~JlSlll°JC°IUU(1 riparian buffer o 4 I. v Y J _ 1 I~ ` I - r _r 4 10 Land Ut(G PRI, samsAng Specs vz~ I z i L ~ - i P Cwm Clmu Oafflko U Stree rur lnlub Tmd~ 0 MUNLUZS - a pamwe p and Tmh )mil Him", U&M Yd'dbddfiy and odsn ° ~ J rt~ r - Q.nea u f Lr-~ r~ n CJ x .rr Qrculation Mitigate impacts v j~1 _ e 0010 Auto and dB All( ''rte. ~►,~1 C~o~a0~~oo~ ELLV1E1fJ EChG00 ~ i" f c o y ~ ,1 / O IIUVRW SCHOOL A C Y ~f~ _ ~t X -j 1 Clmu aloe py?m ° Ref Qom for te ° rro9 o wsn m and ftoghl CM-0E L \9~Olfi ~ ' •ij I j 0 0 ~I cm-cl js' r7 o000C~0@~ ~~d Rao C fall o'. 7 S Jill, -dl f ' 6 ~ r ~YY t Y~ ,n 4qV pdmms and R(Sgu alo ns Mandeb o ° °o 0 00 D° ° Oop@W o o w R° o mdoon off] p e~ x a ®a e Mir and c G . 3 e Wgr OH09T o . In x ~ or~,~_ C~CLD OHM e0. ~ y~ a lµa r'.r r-t,.'~"t DTI /C''Z 4~ rIr u ' J K~f C I u."r_ /i ! > \ L1TvC 1 u a MMMFFF -f ` ~ J !ZVI ri'~ e N Y~ A > cnr or ASHLAND ~,r$~1 lip cwuxtweovrcaun¢ V o a0 ~a iwrtES ~p.~ yr mrn.xm y d0~ lW,weM Wryb Rd4lf .RYnVq V- fr•'to,~!a! ."W derq lbv.Onrrnr4.dtm Orm ,,p. ,,.d~~,d dMn«reu.te.,rev Cd, ,s/y~Q~Sylr . ,!F' c,1 .d s Tor . s .o qp aP' od' vd' SZ vo!~ (lo, ~,pdF en,.r.mwvrw+ae~a. r: 4"`'s°,~,~ doae x S F~,~FA~ ~"0~ ~yMVnatA nvw4raE.i ,r t~ ~M"p~ ~go~toO~ yfI a ~'rR r. ww.M«:,.wen am W ~ f~a eaYM¢wa! Q+Ir `~~l4~r Y i _ o~ 'J Od~d'dpN a°c F i woo IV W%~de t y:<, r , 14 Q Dnd IMP, ®i OO~oO Cram ~ Land I s L e s ~.:r 1. i ~ ^ CMCI Legend CrOman Land U J ID / p b~, o o 0 m i.m eom na 0 100 ON 1,200 1,800 2100 Croma D Land l on Land Us I ,Y R i Mixed Use U physical constraints e O EI//^\\ transition from C residential flexibility for residential units u Land Uss RsTmsmsn s ,MmC mNEUon bra MWOL Chop, End M~Eumflh M(gymmg bF mmukdanng on OD mc(~ Cmm(gym M (Dwgfty Lgm(Nr d(mcOn COQ mdu% dgwMwmgM of od QmIM o (guhmud I Pha Maintain Existing ®7 q Q Mistletoe Rd. Alignme gExisting ODOT m Maintenance Facility q E a ao o ~ - b q Beg i n G I o ❑ `~1 _ Constructing C~ Q Central Blvd. o , ED] Phase 2 AternsUwaa for \\\\0 BoWn O~0 ~0 ~~0 \ 5 LL1 \ El 0 ~ 16 ~I O~ ASHCAN( NT d f~ Z ~y 4'^ i 7AKELM y ` a o. ~l ~'lf ~ ~ e 4 r' ' ~ ~r rq N Q' ° It T [P ammng c~c~co~~occ p~ o~g mgflggtmtM End Fh anc FEMM W Qm~ Aflonffl(s ap&( J r _ Croman Mill District Croman MITI District l LandUse Framework Land Use Overlays H'(7L L ~ J ~ , East-West Orientation r OtompaflWelnSUSbIaI ICMLI) \ Q CM-CI - CM-N ~~~y" J~ Q dice employmM (CM-0E) CM-MU ~ CM-C I I I ~ \ OcPensPace/conwmtbn lCA405) \ ~"t- ~'-1 T \ o L A' r O O ti I I" t-- ~ 1' ~ o O O ooh oo ooao Uo c o ~ ~ o o` tat 00 0 0 MO 520 1,010 1.550 a 0 000 500 1200 1.800 2100 Now Man dod'gindbn o~lc~~a zo~ong doafflod oCraWs dswWopmsM Mandard 1 Croman Mill District Land Use Overlays compatible industrial (CM-CI) mixed use (CM-MU) i N neighborhood center (CM-NC) _ office employment (C } openspace/conservatlon on(C (CM-OS) .-1 a Y' P p J+ yet V ~ 1 1 1, G ~ A V - e I ' u ~ I o