HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-1104 Study Session PACKET
CITY OF
ASHLAND
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
AGENDA
Monday, November 4, 2013
Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way
5: 30 p.m. Study Session
1. Look Ahead review
2. Discussion of short-term rentals in R-1 (single family residential) zones
3. Discussion of whether and how to consider additional improvements to the
downtown plaza
4. Discussion of City position on ODOT application to amend conditions of approval
for the Siskiyou Rest Stop project
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 1).
COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9
VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT W W W.ASHLAND.OR.US
• City of Ashland cil Meeting Look Ahead •
`**""THIS IS A DRAFwc SUBJECT TO CHANGE'
Departments
Responsible 11118 11119 12/2 1213 12M6 120 7 116 117 1120 1121 213 214 2117 2118 313 314 3/17 3118
Ufa] ~S u Sess on IZSrI ou Room tea)
1 Discussion of the "bring your own bag" proposal from the Admin
Conservation Commission Adam SS
2 Discussion of the Housing and Human Services Commission's Admin SS
role in social service rant reviews Dave K.
W1122 -R uuladC'ouncillMeetin I L1i3a]
3 Quarteri u tlate on Economic Development Adam Admin CONS
4 Approval of Mayors appointments to the new Housing and Recorder NEW
Human Services Commission (Mayor/ Barbara
5 Discussion of regular reporting to Council by boards and Admin NEW
commissions Dave
e Discussion of potential water capital projects fund financing PW Finance NEW
o lions Mike/Lee
7 Approval of members for ad hoc committee studying the recycle Admin NEW
center Adam
8 Approval of council liaisons for SDC working group (Mike/Mayor) PW Mayor NEW
9 Resolution tidatin the Financial Management Policy Lee Finance RES
12n Stud Session InTSliili ou Room' - ® W2-/211
10 Council discussion of ordinance updates Dave L. Atlmin SS
11 Discussion of Normal Master Plan and upcoming Unified Land CD ss
Use Ordinance Bill
I[12i3]-Re uladCou'ncillMeetin jj2is
12 First quarter financial report for biennium Lee Finance NEW
13 Council decision on keeping or removing the Road Diet Mike PW NEW
14 Council discussion of potential future planning initiatives Bill Admin CD NEW
[yR,l Stu ISesalon IZSIgE ou Roo'm' III [z e]
15 Discussion of Electric Cost of Service Stud Mark Electric NEW
G2 T7j ~Re uul rTCou'ncillMeeLn g)■ ®tillillillillit ■®iiiiiiiiiiiiif [172Tn
16 System development charges update for water, sewer, and PW PH
transportation Mike
17 Acceptance of FY13 CAFR Lee Finance NEW
18 Approval of Budget Committee Appointments Barbara Recorder NEW
19 Review of Medford Water Commission's recommendation on PW NEW
SDC's Mike
20 Discussion of TOT capital and beautification projects list Admin NEW
Ann/Adam
Orel siu 'SSession IZSIV ou Room' C's]
21 Discussion of Electric User Tax (request of Councilor Voisin Admin as
22 Discussion of Utility Subsidy Programs (request of Councilor Atlmin SS
Marsh
rJ -Re uulnr CouncilIMeetin ® Ki'-f7A
23 Proclamation re: Christmas Tree Recycle Da Diana Admin PROC
24 Unified Land Use Ordinance (ULUO) update (Bill) CD PH
_ ORD-1 OR0.2
Stu Session Caucele'd MLKtJr~Da o
U1t fe ularCouncliTMa'etinn''-~~5~~~~~~ 1n1
25 Unified Land Use Ordinance ULUO update Bill CD ORD-2
Page 1 of 2 1013112013
City of Ashland Council Meeting Look Ahead
*****THIS IS A DRAFT AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE*****
De
Responsible 11118 11/19 1212 1213 12116 12117 116 117 1120 1121 213 214 V17 2118 313 314 3117 3118
[2~~s session IZSlsfc' ouRoom~~~~~~~~~~~~[z(37
Discussion of conservation easement on Imperatrice Property Admin
26 SS
(request of Councilor Lemhouse
27 Discussion of potential ordinance to ban the carrying of loaded Admin SS
weapons (request of Councilor Voisin
[v7-Re uula'rlCounculMeeti~ng [271
28 Discussion of possible ordinance related to seismic requirements CD NEW
In new construction Bill
F219 ~StU ZSession Cancele'dI PMiitentsyDa ' [2TT
(9181-F uulaZCouncillMeeun F2711
I K13J ~Stud'IsessionT iZSiii&' ou Room 1(3757
314 -Re uularlCouncillMeeti~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 314
[3`117 ~Stud'ISession inlSisfi ou Room I~ [3nT
3/18 -Re uularCOunclllMeetin 301881
Lon Term,Proeots~
Telecom Franchise Agreements B Rgnt of Way Usage
gUcussion of repultling the growing of inedlul maintains in residential shoes
Day use t.mtty for homeless
Discussion of dlradion to staff for study of waiter rate stromm then rewads conservation nd fair
for low-Income hdNiduals win waiter this
RepM on preparations made toramogd years
Updefa on City budding sustainaibi4ry mroa
• •ge 2 of 2 00/3112013
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
November 4, 2013, Study Session
Discussion of short-term rentals in R-1 (single-family residential) zones
FROM:
Dave Kanner, city administrator, dave.kanner@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
The City of Ashland does not allow non-owner occupied houses to be rented for periods of less than 30
days in any of its residential zoning districts. These zones are referred to as R-1 (single family), R-2
(low-density multi-family) and R-3 (high-density multi-family). The City does, however, allow the
short-term rental of individual rooms in a house or short-term rental of an accessory dwelling unit next
to a house in R-2 and R-3 zones if the owner is living in the house or on the property. These rentals
are called "traveler's accommodations" in the Ashland Municipal Code. Traveler's accommodations
are not permitted in R-1 zones. The City Council has requested a study session discussion of whether
to amend the land use code to allow for these or other types of short-term rentals in R-1 zones.
In addition, at its September 17 meeting, the Council requested additional information about a
provision in the City's R-2 and R-3 zoning code that requires traveler's accommodations to be located
within 200 feet of an arterial or major street. Staff will present its findings at this study session.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
A brie history of the short-term rental issue
Ashland's municipal code allows for lodging facilities ("traveler's accommodations") in R-2 and R-3
residential zones only if the property or business owner is on-site. These lodging facilities typically
take the form of a bed & breakfast, in which the homeowner rents out individual rooms in his/her
house for short-term stays, and vacation cottages, which are accessory structures to a house in which
the owner lives. These lodging facilities are not permitted in R-1 (single-family) zones.
The City has had an ongoing problem with illegal lodging facilities in all of its residential zones.
These facilities, which operate without conditional use permits or business licenses and without paying
transient occupancy tax, will often advertise on web sites such as VRBO.com or AirBnB.com, making
them relatively easy to find for code enforcement purposes. Since May of 2012, when the City began
more vigorous code enforcement efforts with regard to illegal lodging facilities, about 70% of the code
enforcement actions have been targeted at facilities in R-1 zones.
In August of 2012, the City launched what became a more-than-year-long process to examine the
existing traveler's accommodation ordinance with a focus on whether to allow non-owner occupied
short-term rentals in R-2 and R-3 zones and whether to allow short-term rentals of any kind in R-I
zones. In February 2013, the Planning Commission, after studying the issue, recommended that
Council "continue to prohibit short-term rentals in the single family (R-1) zoning district." The
Page 1 of 4
pl,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Planning Commission then developed and sent to the City Council ordinances that would have allowed
for non-owner occupied short term rentals in R-2 and R-3 zones. With these ordinances came a
unanimous Planning Commission vote to "inform the Council that we feel this is an issue that should
be explored and areas for the R-1 seasonal short-term home rentals within the R-1 single-family
residential be considered with: time constraints, geographic constraints, and economic constraints."
The Council considered these ordinances at its July 16 business meeting and again at its August 19
study session, ultimately deciding not to remove the owner-occupancy requirement from the R-2 and
R-3 zoning code. At the August 19 study session, Council requested another study session to discuss
whether to allow short-term rentals in R-I zones. In addition, when the Council adopted the
ordinances amending the land use code with regard to R-2 and R-3 zones at its September 17 business
meeting, the Council directed staff to provide an analysis of the rationale of the requirement that
traveler's accommodations be located within 200 feet of an arterial or major street, the ramifications of
expanding and eliminating that restriction and the traffic impacts thereof.
Impacts of allowing traveler's accommodations in R-1 zoning districts
It's difficult to say with any certainty what the impacts of allowing traveler's accommodations in R=1
zones would be. Impacts include traffic, loss of neighborhood character and loss of long-term rental
units. If the Council requires business owner occupancy to operate a traveler's accommodation in an
R-1 zone, then the loss of long-term rental housing is largely moot.
There are currently 5,305 parcels in R-1 zones. If we assume that the number of traveler's
accommodations that would be offered, if legal, would be equal to the number of illegal units that have
received code enforcement letters since May of 2012, that would be 50 units, or less than 1% of the
parcels in R-1. However, that number is likely to be smaller if the Council requires a conditional use
permit, since many homeowners will probably not go through the effort and expense of obtaining a
CUP. There are currently 2,710 parcels in R-1 zones located within 206 feet of an arterial or major
street. If the same percentage offers traveler's accommodations, that would be 26 units. Again,
however, the number could be smaller if a CUP is required.
Staff believes traffic impacts would be de minimis. Lodging guests do not generate as much ancillary
traffic as a homeowner does (delivery trucks, visitors, etc.) and do not come and go during the day as
much as a resident does. What's more, these traveler's accommodations are unlikely to operate at
100% occupancy throughout the year. Occupancy rates are more likely to be in the same range as
those for traveler's accommodations and vacation cottages in R-2, R-3, E-1 and C-1 zones (11% Jan.-
Mar. 2013 and 61 % July - Sept. 2012), meaning the average daily traffic count of visitors in an R-1
zone, if spread over the course of an entire year, is arguably negligible. The Institute of Transportation
Engineers Trip Generation Manual does not provide an average daily traffic count for this kind of
facility, so staff instead asks: Will the proposed use generate more or less traffic than other types of
uses that might be allowed in the zone, such as a home occupation business? In this case, we believe
the answer is "less." The average daily traffic count from a short-term rental unit in a single family
home is likely to be similar to the ITE Manual count for a sleeping accommodation in a motel with no
restaurant: seven to nine trips per day, depending on the day of the week.
The impact on neighborhood character is not a measureable metric. That's a judgment call the Council
will have to make. Staff by and large agrees with the argument that the impact on neighborhood
Page 2 of 4
i`,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
character of a visitor to an owner-occupied traveler's accommodation is no greater than that created by
a visitor to a home occupation business that is a permitted use in an R-1 zone.
Though not a land-use consideration, Council may wish to consider the impact on existing, permitted
facilities of allowing additional lodging facilities in Ashland. Supporters of this change argue that
traveler's accommodations in R-1 zones fill a market niche that is not being met by existing traveler's
accommodations and that their customers are not choosing between facilities in R-1 zones and
elsewhere in the City; rather they are choosing between these facilities or not staying in Ashland at all.
On the other hand, operators of existing lodging facilities, during the recent debate over short-term
home rentals, repeatedly asked for proof that there is unmet demand in Ashland. Staff is unable to
identify such proof. This debate can be summarized as a question that staff is unable to answer, which
is: Do traveler's accommodations in R-1 "steal" customers from existing lodging facilities or do they
offer an alternative to a customer who would otherwise not stay in Ashland? It's not possible to
answer either question with the data available to us. We do know that the most recent occupancy
figures for Ashland would indicate that there is significant unused capacity at existing traveler's
accommodations, but it's impossible to know how much of that unused capacity is caused by the
presence of illegal, unpermitted lodging facilities.
The 200-foot requirement in R-2 and R-3 and the impacts ofchan iqg it.
Attached to this Council Communication is a memo from Community Development Director Bill
Molnar that offers the analysis requested by the Council.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
There is a fundamental question at play: Is the Council willing to consider amendments to the zoning
code in order to allow short-term rentals in R-1 zones? If the answer to that question is "no," then
there is no need for any further study session discussion, since there would be no need to work on an
ordinance the Council is not willing to consider. If the answer is "yes," then the Council should use
this study session time to discuss the parameters it wishes to place around short-term rentals in R-1
zones, with the understanding that, like all land-use ordinances, this must go back to the Planning
Commission for a recommendation. (The Council certainly has the option of letting the Planning
Commission develop that recommendation without any pre-determined parameters.) Questions the
Council might consider include:
1. Should the traveler's accommodation requirements and restrictions that apply to R-2 and R-3
zones simply be expanded to apply to R-1 zones? This would include requirements that,
a. R-1 traveler's accommodations be required to obtain a conditional use permit;
b. R-1 traveler's accommodations be located within 200 feet of an arterial or major street;
c. Homeowner must live on the property.
2. Should a traveler's accommodation in an R-1 zone be limited to a single unit/room in the house,
or could an owner rent out multiple rooms, like a bed & breakfast?
3. Should the traveler's accommodation be limited to a single unit/room or a separate, detached
building, such as a detached garage or other permitted accessory structure (e.g., a guest house)?
4. Should there be annual limitations placed on the length of operation for the traveler's
accommodation, either by season (perhaps June through September) or the total number of days
within a calendar year (e.g., 90 days)?
Page 3 of 4
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
SUGGESTED MOTION:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Planning Commission recommendation, February 27, 2013
Planning Commission meeting minutes, June 11, 2013
Memo from Bill Molnar with maps
Page 4 of 4
Sib +t~R st sA / p. e_ -
S T 4 ft, broU
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
DATE: 2/27/2013
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Ashland Planning Commission
RE: Preliminary feedback on potential code amendments related to vacation home rentals
Summary
The Planning Commission discussed zoning regulations for short term vacation rentals at two meetings
in January and February. All public comment received'was from owners of existing legal travellers
accommodations and emphasized the need for compliance with current regulations. Discussion
addressed the question of whether there was increased demand that warranted extending access to
travellers' accommodation permits to additional categories or areas and the potential impacts of
changing regulations.
The Commission concluded that they had not heard convincing evidence that there is more demand for
travellers' accommodations than can be met by current supply. However there is a type of demand that
is not being met within our current regulations, that is the desire for a short term rental of a single unit,
complete home without owners on the premises. These travellers are seeking greater privacy or a place
to host family-style events.
The Commission decided to recommend that Ashland expand our regulations to allow for some single
unit, non-owner occupied, short term home rentals with the following restrictions:
• must be located in a multi-family zoning district, and
• must be within walking distance of the downtown area
It was further suggested that Ashland may wish to set a limit on the total number of such units that are
available and can be given such permits, similar to the limit on drive-up window use permits.
The Commission also recommends adopting language that prohibits the advertising of non-permitted
short term rentals.
The Commission supports maintaining the existing requirement that a conditional use permit be
obtained in order to operate a Bed and Breakfast as well as an individual vacation home rental. The
Commission does not propose removing the current prohibition of operating short term, overnight
rentals in single family zoning districts (R-1).
Asid&W Waaniap Commhaioe
7DE NahSVd
AddV4 °egm 9752D
www.ashpnd anus
Ira
Pape 1
52
r
Backaroand
On August 6, 2012, the Council requested that the Commission evaluate the issue about the growth in
numbers of unlicensed vacation home rentals. The Housing Commission was also asked to weigh in on
the issue and forward their thoughts to the Council. The Planning Commission held a public meeting on
January 22, and again on February 12, 2013 to review and make refinements to their recommendation.
Additionally, the Community Development Director introduced the item at the Housing Commission's
meeting on October 24, 2012, with the Housing Commission again discussing the issue at their January
27, 2013 meeting where they provided a recommendation to the Commission and Council.
The Planning Commission discussed the appropriateness and potential implications of amending the
Land Use Code so that additional opportunities for short term home rentals could be increased. Overall,
there appears to be general consensus that the current standards regulating short term vacation rentals
have been effective in providing accommodations quite different from traditional hotel or motels, while
fitting in well with multi-family residential areas.
Recommendation
In order to facilitate our discussion on this matter, the Commission was provided with a few basic
options to consider. Our recommendation or suggestions for possible code amendments have been
described below.
1. Should changes to the Land Use Ordinance be considered that provide more opportunity
for property owners to operate vacation home rentals?
Since the initial adoption of Ashland's Travelers' Accommodation Ordinance in the early 80's,
the code has been amended as a way to adjust to new conditions and concerns. Given the
measurable increase in non-licensed, individual vacation home rentals, the Commission feels it is
timely to consider whether travellers' needs are being met by current permitted accommodations.
Testimony was given by operators of current permitted travellers accommodations that vacancy
rates indicate the ability to meet current demand, however travellers may be choosing non-
permitted offerings that are lower in price and close enough to the downtown area to walk
Testimony indicated the belief that non-compliant rentals can offer a lower price because they
are not burdened with the costs associated with maintaining compliance. Commissioners
concluded that Ashland should find ways to enforce compliance with regulations, but also
expand the types of accommodations to include some single units in the downtown area that are
non-owner-occupied.
2. 'Currently, vacation home rentals are permitted as a conditional use in multi-family zoning
districts (R-2 and R-3) on properties abutting or located within 200 feet of an arterial or
collector street. Should the area eligible for establishing a vacation home rental be
increased to include:
a. All land within Ashland's multi-family zoning districts? and
Astdand Phnnlog Comm) W on
20 E Atam street
A 97920
a
swx.ast.astdhid nd a
us
Pape 2
53
The Commission strongly considered allowing all properties within multi-family zoning
districts (R-2 & R-3) to be eligible to submit a land use application for short term
vacation rentals. Currently, only properties abutting or within 200 feet of a major street,
such as an arterial and collector, are eligible to request a conditional use permit. While
the intent of the 200-foot rule was likely to direct the additional traffic from vacation
rentals to a limited area adjacent to or within a block of streets designed and anticipated
to accommodated greater loads, this may not be a significant factor given the proximity
of much of the city's multi-family lands to major streets with our network. An evaluation
of this recommendation shows that this would result in 600 additional properties being
eligible to operate vacation recitals, an approximately 40 percent increase above the
current number of properties.
The Commission believes that this approach may draw the least neighborhood notice as
the city's multi-family zoning districts already allow a wide variety of uses. They noted
that the Comprehensive Plan supports economic uses in multi-family zoning where it
does not impact the primary residential use. This could also be the option, however, most
likely to impact more existing and future rental housing, since those are generally located
in the R-2 and R-3 zones.
b. Should a property owner/business-owner/manager be required to live on site in the
case of a property where only one vacation home rental is in operation?
The Commission believes that it would not create significantly greater impacts if we did
not require the property/business owner or site manager to reside on the property in cases
where the use of the site consists only of a single, individual vacation home rental in the
downtown area. If the Council chooses to make this change, it is recommended that the
code be amended to require that 24-hour contact information be posted in the home, as
well as made available to surrounding neighbors within a specified distance from the
property.
As part of the discussion, a commissioner expressed concern about the potential impacts
of having too many individual vacation homes without an on-site owner/manager
concentrated in a given area. "Could we run the possibility of certain neighborhoods
taking on a character more like Sunriver, Oregon?" Another commissioner expressed
concern for neighbors in the area and the need for them to readily contact the property
owner or property management should major problems arise. Another commissioner
proposed limiting the total number of units of this type that would be permitted.
3. Currently, vacation home rentals are prohibited as a use in single family zoning districts
(R-1). Should lands within Ashland's single family zoning districts be eligible for
establishing a vacation home rental through the conditional use procedure?
The Commission recommended that Council- continue to prohibit short term vacation rentals in
single family (R-1) zoning districts. In general, the Commission would prefer to make small
changes initially and evaluate the effectiveness of those changes, rather than opening up larger
areas of the city to be eligible when not fully understanding the potential impacts.
Akttmd Pkwnp cmaWon
20 E Main SUM
Ada Oregm or 97927
www.ashum 6ntl or us
Papa 3
54
1
4. In all cases above, should establishing a vacation home rental be subject to a land use
application, such as a conditional use permit, with public notice providing to surrounding
neighbors?
The Commission suggests that the decision of whether to permit short term vacation home
rentals should be handled through the conditional use permit process, as currently required. This
process allows for surrounding property owners to be notified and key impacts addressed
through conditions of approval.
Operation of a short term vacation rental in a residential zone represents a quasi-commercial use
in the form of providing an overnight accommodation for travelers and visitors. The Housing
Element of Ashland's Comprehensive Plan states that mixed uses often create a more interesting
neighborhood environment and should be considered wherever they will not disrupt existing
residential area. The Plan states this policy should be implemented through the list of
Conditional Uses in multi-family zones and the adopted approval procedures. We believe the
recommendation for maintaining the requirement that these operations, regardless of scale,
require a conditional use permit is consistent with existing Plan policies.
Other Considerations
1. Code Compliance
The Commission did not feel that concerns raised by citizens concerning the need for city staff to
be more diligent in their efforts to seek compliance with existing city codes was within their
scope of action. Historically, compliance with provisions related to travelers' accommodations in
the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) has been enforced on a case by case basis, initiated by
written neighbor complaints as well as owners of approved visitor accommodations. The
Commission wished to draw attention to the fact that noncompliant vacation rentals go beyond
being out of conformance with the ALUO, and are also not paying commercial utility rates,
transient occupancy taxes or business licensing fees.
It seems unlikely that simply expanding the number of properties eligible to request land use
approval for a vacation home rental will solve the compliance problem. Enforcement would
ultimately depend on more aggressive actions that may necessitate a new approach and very
likely additional resources. The Commission also believed that there are some proactive
alternatives to code compliance that should be explored. This would include making a list of
approved accommodations readily available to traveler's seeking to visit Ashland, as well as
evaluating a formal certification process that assists to clearly identify licensed and approved
overnight accommodations.
2. Limitation on Concentrations
Individual members expressed concerns over possible adverse impacts that a concentration of
legitimately approved vacation rentals may have upon a neighborhood. Other code provisions for
possible consideration might include a limitation on total number of vacation homes; a limitation
on new vacation homes to be added each year and/or a limitation on numbers of vacation homes
AMlard Planning CwnMedon
20 E Maui Street
Ashland, Cregar 97510
rnrw.ashtandor.us
Page 4
55
r,
within a certain distance of each other. While uncertain of the level of success, these represent
examples of requirements employed by other communities.
Ashland Fftnidng Commission
20 E Main Street
Ashland, OMon WWW 97520
MY/O e
SMaad IX a9
Paws
56
Commissioners KaplanlMiller motioned to recommend to City Council adoption of an Ordinance amending Chapter
18.08,18.24.030 and 18.28.030 of Ashland Land Use Ordinance relating to travelers accommodations and short-term
home rentals In multi-family residential districts with changes as follows:
Under Management, Item 9: owner shall provide written notice to all neighboring property owners within a 200 foot
distance from the parcel on which the short-term vacation home rental is located for the first 3 years after approval of
the Conditional Use Permit and whenever the local contact changes;
The 200- foot requirement be modified to Include 200 feet or within the boundaries of the Historic District
Roll call vote: Brown, opposed, Kaplan, Peddicord, Miller, Dawkins, ayes. Motion passed 1:4 In favor
Vacation Home Rentals Recommendations (R-1 Zoning Designation):
Molnar addressed the vacation home rental background. Discussions have ensued regarding properties in the single-family
zones requesting the ability to operate vacation rentals. Current enforcement numbers show that 70 prosperities are out of
compliance and 70% are in the R-1 zones. This shows an interest in operating establishments in this zone. The council directed
staff to provide an ordinance that addressed R-2 and R-3. Some discussion did take place at the council level. For discussion
purposes we looked at what type of change could be made to the R-1 zone to ease this type of use in. It was suggested using
CUPs and add a new conditional use for a seasonal short-tens rental or room rental that would be limited to operating for a
period not to exceed 90 days in a calendar year. Two reasons seem prevalent as to why this is desirable, residents refire and
want to leave for a few months out of the year and want house occupied, or there was an unexpected reduction in the number of
residents and need extra income. The limit of 90 calendar days could be limited to the summer season. It would be the primary
residence of the property owner avoiding the absentee notion. Requiring owner to reside on property still offers continuity to the
neighborhood. A suggested provision of not more than one dwelling or room allowed. On a lot with a home and ADU the owner
would chose one to use as rental. A limit on the occupancy should be less than R-2 or R-3 and we suggested 8 tenants
maximum. These are some ideas for discussion. If you feel this is a valid Issue for council to discuss this is an opportunity to
weigh in. If you want to leave single-family zone districts as is, then we offer no recommendation to council. The Finance
Department receives quarterly reports from rentals indicating how many days of operation with occupancy; a similar requirement
would be put in place.
Commission Discussion:
Miller asked if the process would be the same as for R-2 and R-3 except for the limitation of 90 days. Molnar clarified that yes,
all other requirements would be the same. What about commercial taxation on utilities? Molnar will need to talk to the Utility
Department. It is not the primary use, the residence is. There could be division of sorts. Staff started at 90 days and there was
no strict reason, it could be changed.
Peddicord questioned the 70 properties that are out of compliance. Molnar said those are properties that information has been
gathered on and of that 70, 50 have already received notification. Peddicord asked that if we expand into R-1 with these
restrictions, is that onerous in terms of enforcement. Is there an existing backlog or it is caught up? Molnar was unsure
whether compliance would be more onerous but some would voluntarily come in for compliance. Staff has not evaluated the
complete impacts but one nice part is that the owner is residing an the property and is invested in the neighborhood. Council
approved a new position for a code compliance officer. People do not always grasp how the compliance process works. These
are new land use issues. They are resource intensive but in most land use we receive voluntary compliance. When we start
the compliance there is a due process.
Miller feels renting the house offers less impact than the construction of accessory units. It affects your backyard usage and
traffic.
Kaplan is in favor of some limited aspect of vacation home rentals in R-1. It allows people who it works for to operate legally
and brings revenue to the city, offers inspections. This encourages people to try. It Is too restrictive to say because you are in
R-1 you cannot do it.
Dawkins initial feelings come from the intent of what we are looking at of balancing long-term rental market and consideration of
impact an established B&Bs. Not like to see Ashland turn into Sunriver. But understand the people who want to take off for a
few months and rent out their house. It is admirable and he understands the security issue. I would like to explore this a bit
more. We touched on historic districts and if we start expanding way out where we are having vacation rentals where people
Ashland Planning Commission
June 11, 2013
Page 7 of 10
10
i
have to drive in and exacerbate parking Issues then that is something we need to examine. With the R-2 and R-3 we have
brought in the historic districts I feel comfortable brining in R-1 rentals within the Historic District Molnar said the commission
could do a motion to have Council explore single family zones and add additional comments like limited durations and
geographic areas this would give some parameters. It may come back from Council with further recommendations.
Brown added to his comments that there is a need to explore but cannot do this without information. A seasonal mode will be
hard to identify. The exploration between do nothing or everything is still wavering. The council should explore with necessary
constraints by the fire department, city staff, and limited usage of a time frame or a seasonal frame.
Miller feels there are still grey areas to explore especially because of the primary resident living on site. Does this imply that if
someone is staying in the house that is not related, there needs to be special licensing?
Peddicord likes the time constraints and geographic constraints, because the idea of no time constraints starts pushing into a
long-term rental which could push the prices of long-term rentals in the downtown area higher and move the long-term rental
inventory further out in the community. She supports both constraints. Dawkins felt that was a goad observation and has
heard similar concerns. Dawkins supports the time constraints with a limited number of days. Summer time seems to be when
others want to be out of town.
Brown exploration should look into the potential of R-1 properties becoming more valuable if they become income-producing
properties. You start to drive up the cost of real estate. That is the switch off between long-term and short-term rentals.
Kaplan said by imposing time, geographically and other limits it becomes less enticing. If we are not directed by Council to
explore a desire to research this, than there will be no considerations for the R-1 zones.
Commissioner Brown/Kaplan We at approve a motion to Inform the Council that we feel this is an Issue that should be
explored and areas for the R-1 seasonal short-term home rentals within the R-1 single-family resident districts be
considered with: time constraints, geographic constraints, and economical constraints. Voice vote: Ayes, all in favor.
Motion passed 5:0.
Commissioner Mindlin rejoined the meeting in progress.
B. Planning Action #2013.00545
Applicant: City of Ashland
Description: Recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of an ordinance amending the City of
Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance to provide new standards for the keeping of micro-Iivestock and
bees.
I
Staff Report
Goldman presented modified changes to the ordinance:
• Chickens, Ducks and other Domestic Fowl - ordinance allows for 1 adult and 1 juvenile per 1000 sq feet of lot area, 2 adult
turkeys and 2 juveniles per 1000 sq feet of lot area, specifically prohibiting roosters, geese, and peacocks within the
residential zones.
• Rabbits - allowed when setback 75 feet from nearest street within a residential zone with maximum number of 6 adults and
nursing offspring and kept within a hutch or fence enclosure.
• Pygmy goats - 2 adults and nursing offspring allowed on less than 1 acre, more allowed if more than an acre. Pygmy
goats were specifically identified as no larger than 95 Ibs and males to be neutered.
• Bees - 3 hives on less than an acre, 5 hives on lots greater than an acre. Ordinance addresses flyaway barriers of 6 feet In
height be supplied when hives are within 25 feet of property line in order to change trajectory of the bees when leaving the
property. Onsite water Is provided within 15 feet of hive.
There are also maintenance requirements addressed in the ordinance.
Ashland Planning Commission
June 11, 2013
Page 8 of 10
11
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
DATE: November 4, 2013
RE: Travelers Accommodations -Analysis of 200-foot standard (18.24.030 & 18.28.030)
Background
The current traveler's accommodation ordinance dates back to the late 1970's. The original language of
the Municipal Code specified that location of a traveler's accommodation must be within 200 feet of a
major street, either an arterial or collector. While the rationale for the 200-foot requirement could not be
confirmed through a review of the code's legislative history, it is believed that the objective was to direct
non-local, visitor traffic to major streets in order to minimize impacts up local neighborhood streets.
Under the standard, arriving guests can expect to find their destination within approximately a half block
after turning off a higher order city street, and can conveniently retrace the same route upon departure.
At the September 17, 2013 meeting, Council directed staff to provide an analysis of the existing
traveler's accommodation standard that limits the location of traveler's accommodations to within 200-
feet of a boulevard, avenue or neighborhood collector. This memorandum highlights the findings
resulting from potential changes to the standard, including scenarios that increase the standard to 300
and 400 feet, as well as eliminating the requirement. The summary with accompanying maps identify all
properties zoned R-2 and R-3 and within 200 feet ofa major street, thereby making the property eligible
to make application for a conditional use permit. Additionally, staff has shown how the number of
potentially eligible properties increases, as the distance allowance from a major street increases or is
eliminated.
Summary of Findings
A. Changes in the total number of eligible properties
NOTE: There are 2,126 properties zoned R-2 and R-3.
1. Within 200 feet ofa boulevard, avenue or neighborhood collector (attachment 1)
• 1,507 eligible properties
2. Within 300 feet of a boulevard, avenue or neighborhood collector (attachment 2)
Bill Molnar, Director
Community Development Department
molnarbnashland.or.us
541.552.2042
• 1,868 eligible properties
• 361 increase (24%) in the number of eligible properties
3. Within 400 feet of a boulevard, avenue or neighborhood collector (attachment 3)
• 2,026 eligible properties
• 519 increase (34%) in the number of eligible properties
4. Elimination of standard - no restriction on location (attachment 4)
• 2,126 eligible properties
• 619 increase (41%) in the number of eligible properties
B. Potential changes in geographic distribution of TAs
Using the information above, staff estimated the number of new traveler's accommodations that could
potentially be established under each scenario. Out of the existing 1,507 properties within 200 feet of a
boulevard, avenue or neighborhood collector, 39 (2.6%) of the properties have a conditional use permit
to operate a traveler's accommodation. Additionally, 34 of the 39 (88%) are located within one of
Ashland's four National Historic Districts. Applying these percentages to the three additional scenarios
yields the following results.
Table - R-2 and R-3 zoned properties
D# of properttes # of traveler's .#tof travla S p ` # of traveler's
ajor 9 s taccommodation taccommodation accommodations w/in
I:' r.z+A^z"':tH+'fi47a3 T+ &tx?"L K+A~' ,ms
establishments, units/rooms,., HtstoricDistrict
200' 1507 39 (existing) 122 units/rooms (existing) 34 (existing)
300' 1861 48 (projected) 150 units/rooms estimate 42 estimate
400' 2026 53 (projected) 166 units//rooms estimate 47 estimate
no restriction 2126 56 (projected) 175 units/room estimate 49 estimate
Conclusions
The number of approved traveler's accommodation establishments (39) in R-2 and R-3 zoning districts
represents 2.6% of the total number of properties within 200 feet of a boulevard, avenue or
neighborhood collector. Applying the same percentage, staff has projected potential increases in the
number of traveler's accommodations under three different scenarios, 300 feet, 400 feet and elimination
of the standard. If the standard is eliminated, the number of traveler's accommodation establishments
could be assumed to increase by 17 (44%), from 39 to 56, adding an additional 53 units/rooms. Also, 15
of the 17 new traveler's accommodations can be expected to locate within an approximately 10 to 15
minute walk of the downtown, in one of four historic districts. This is merely an assumption based upon
Bill Molnar, Director
Community Development Department
molnarb n ashland.ocus ~AR
541.552.2042
the number and location of existing traveler's accommodations. Clearly there are other factors that have
a greater influence on an increase or decline in the total number of establishments.
The city's Comprehensive Plan describes a variety of uses that, under different conditions, can be
appropriate within R-2 and R-3 zones, including multi-family and single family residences, home
occupations, professional offices, and home-oriented retail businesses in the historic Railroad District.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends the conditional use permit process for evaluating a variety of
non-residential uses and as a way of supporting a more "interesting and exciting" neighborhood, as long
as the number and location do not disrupt the residential character. The information provided may be an
indication to some that relaxation or removal of the 200-foot standard would not lead to significant
growth in owner-occupied traveler's accommodations. Such a conclusion, however, should be balanced
by considering the entire list of conditional uses permitted in the R-2 and R-3 zone, impacts on existing
neighborhood character based upon the number and concentration of conditional uses and the potential
reduction in long term rental housing, especially within walking distance to routine services and public
transit.
Attachments:
• R-2 and R-3 properties with 200-feet of a boulevard, avenue or neighborhood collector (map)
• R-2 and R-3 properties with 300-feet of a boulevard, avenue or neighborhood collector (map)
• R-2 and R-3 properties with 400-feet of a boulevard, avenue or neighborhood collector (map)
• All R-2 and R-3 properties (map)
Bill Molnar, Director
Community Development Department
m o 1 narbn, ash I and.or. us
541.552.2042
~ Taxlots zoned R2-R3 within 200' of a
Boulevard, Avenue or Neighborhood Collector
❑
_w Sr
z
W NEVAD 5
Z ~
N
= J
N uJ
Q
7 ~
a
APL Z
pRq
Fq~
WINTER
'Y 3j
p E HERSEY ST
H
m L
G~5 \ V RD
R
0 Mti~
p
F
ST 0 \
LL
~QO
r Q
Z ~
~2 Y
-iJ
`IOWAST
. 1'
W S -
0 _W Z a
Q
F 0 O 0
ASHLAND ST N
F
U)N
r° Q w
LU
Z
Y o
>J 0
> ❑ ' l j i
Zc~
_J I- q
2 (n 7
ss
Legend
11Q Y p~
Future Street Classifications - Taxlots zoned R2-R3 within 200'(1507 Properties)
a
BOULEVARD (Arterial) All other taxlots N G
AVENUE (Major Collector)
- Neighborhood Collector
Historic District Boundary
112 City Limit 0 CITY OF
-ASHLAND
Taxlots zoned R2-R3 within 300' of a
Boulevard, Avenue or Neighborhood Collector
p
w ST
Z
p W NEVAD S
Z H
5 CO
S J
N W
Q
J
Q
J
AFLFZ
~~k; o~ Fay
WIMER
RS,:~ ~r ST ti
P~ E HERSEY 5T
F
N
0 G~5 U) ` L RD
F ~
ST
r „ w ~Po
'11♦ °
lb i 1 o
N >
Q
Z ~
< Y
EMgiti
t~' ,i F 4i I TO WA ST
iJ
~ N HOLLY 5i _
w _O
U w Z
Q
N _ w Q _
Z J yy
(7 0 0
ASHLAND ST ~E F
U I
m
F Q J r ° Ss
, Y
~G a w
LLJ
>
~ Z
J 00
Q 0~ q
° p~2
W_ O'lP
>
~ S6
Legend N
Y
Future Street Classifications ® Taxlots zoned R2-R3 within 300' (1668 Properties) o~
a
BOULEVARD (Arterial) All other taxlots N G
- AVENUE (Major Collector)
- Neighborhood Collector
Historic District Boundary
a 1
1:22,000 0
110 City Limit CITY OF
° ` -ASHLAND
Taxlots zoned R2-R3 within 400' of a
Boulevard, Avenue or Neighborhood Collector
W SI'
Z
W NEVAD S
Z
z ~
U)
= J
N W
Q
7
Q
J
APL Z
0R9
Fqb
WIMER
r
10
pP~ E HERSEY ST
A,.
!F
F ~
N
0 5 U) V RD
0 ~GRG~ Lu
ME~pR~
iST }
Q W
T p~ E
7W -T~ib i
IOWA ST
N H~L! 1' Sl 7 i
U w U z
Q -
m 2 a J _
W t z Q
H (7 0 tt ' , 0
ASHLAND ST 2'
N 5
N Z - y
0= III 12
pI i W
L11
W o
Q F N,0
w 2eN
~ S
a' s
J s
Legend
440 N
Future Street Classifications. Taxlots zoned R2-R3 within 400'(2026 Properties) p~
d
BOULEVARD (Arterial) All other taxlots N G
AVENUE (Major Collector)
- Neighborhood Collector N
® Historic District Boundary
1:22,000 oG
City Limit 6y~ CITY OF
0 ASHLAND
Taxlots zoned R2-R3
0
W ST
Z
W NEVAD S
Z
z ~
a U)
= J
N W
Q
a
APL Z
WIh4ER
' OPT EH RS
EY 5T
N
0 5 m R°
p G~~RG~ r 0 MGM°R1P
F
ST
9/y®~ n T o P~
y I < w
E
t~7;I ~:f' 15i. - 1
IOWA ST
W E _ U)
N HULLY'ST _
w ~
U w Q Z
N w _ W Q
w 0 O 1`=1 O
F
ASHLAND ST
F- U) N
N S
= Q _ rr
(y
0 z Y
Q Ij W
Z Ir
LLtr g N~ CAF
[if
Y I: o F
w
J_ F
= N 7
Q 66
Legend
Future Street Classifications Taxlots zoned R2-R3 (2126 Properties)
a
BOULEVARD (Arterial) . Taxlots zoned R2-R3 (2126 Properties) N G
AVENUE (Major Collector) All other tax1ots
- Neighborhood Collector s
® Historic District Boundary ~r,
1:22,000
City Limit 0 B~ CITY Of
-ASHLAND
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
Council Communication
November 4, 2013, Study Session
Discussion of whether and how to consider additional improvements to the
downtown plaza
FROM:
Dave Kanner, city administrator, dave.kanner@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
Councilors Slattery and Lemhouse have requested a study session discussion to address two questions:
1. Does the Council want to make or to have a plan for making additional improvements to the plaza?
2. If the answer to the first question is yes, what process will the Council use for determining which
improvements to make to the plaza?
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
This past spring, the City dedicated the newly refurbished plaza in downtown Ashland. The design of
the new plaza, featuring pavers, seat walls with art work and new trees in tree grates, was the result of
an intensive public process that included input from the Planning, Historic, Tree and Public Art
Commissions, more than 80 citizens and, of course, the City Council. In July, the Council agreed to
accept a donation of hanging planters on the plaza but declined to make any other enhancements other
than to re-paint the information booth. Since then, many citizens have contacted the Council to request
that other enhancements be made. In response to that citizen input, Councilors Slattery and Lemhouse
have requested this study session discussion.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
N/A
SUGGESTED MOTION:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
Page 1 of 1
117114krall
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
November 4, 2013, Study Session
Discussion of City position on ODOT application to amend conditions of approval
for the Siskiyou Rest Stop project
FROM:
Dave Kanner, city administrator, dave.kanner@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has applied to Jackson County for an amendment
to conditions of approval for the Siskiyou Rest Stop project, a rest stop and visitor center that ODOT
would like to build alongside Interstate 5 just south of the City limits. When Jackson County approved
the project, it was with a condition that ODOT obtain water and sewer services from the City of
Ashland. However, Ashland agreed to provide water with the condition that it not be used for
irrigation purposes. ODOT has now reached an agreement with the Talent Irrigation District for
irrigation water and is seeking an amendment to its conditions of approval to reflect that new
agreement. Staff seeks direction on whether to submit testimony on ODOT's request to Jackson
County. A public hearing is scheduled for November 14.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
In 2009, the Oregon Department of Transportation received land use approval from Jackson County
for the development of a rest stop and welcome center on Interstate 5, just south of Crowson Road on
Ashland's southern border. One of the conditions of approval imposed by the County required ODOT
to connect to City of Ashland water and sewer services. In 2011, the Ashland City Council agreed to
provide sewer services and water for domestic use, but not water for irrigation purposes. ODOT has
now entered into an agreement with the Talent Irrigation District (TID) for irrigation water, and is
seeking an amendment to the County's conditions of approval to clarify that it will receive sewer and
water services from Ashland along with water for landscaping purposes from the TID. The TID water
will be piped from Howard Prairie Lake, so ODOT's irrigation will not affect groundwater supplies in
the area immediately around the rest stop.
In addition, ODOT is seeking an exemption from a provision in the Jackson County land development
ordinance that requires installation of an automatic watering system. While an automatic irrigation
system will be installed for most of the 6.7 acre property, ODOT proposes to use a slow-release water
storage bag system for arborvitae shrubs and 31 additional trees that will be planted as part of the
project. These shrubs and trees are drought-tolerant and will not require water once they're
established. ODOT proposes to replace any plant or tree that does not survive for three years after an
occupancy permit is issued.
A public hearing on ODOT's application is scheduled for November 14, 2013. Jackson County
Planning staff is recommending approval of the application.
Page] of 2
tPrEAM
CITY OF
ASHLAND
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff seeks direction from the Council as to whether to submit testimony to Jackson County on
ODOT's application. Staff believes ODOT is seeking to memorialize in the County conditions of
approval the conditions that were imposed by the City when the City agreed to provide water to the
project and can therefore see no reason to oppose this application. Staff suggests that the City should
either support the application or remain silent.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
MOT application to Jackson County
Page 2 of 2
~r,
s
Oregon Department of Transportation Application a
to Amend Condition 27 of Jackson County OrdinanceiNo. 2009-7 e
Approving Goal Exceptions for the
Siskiyou-Safety!.Rest Area and Welcome-,Center,' and o0
cv
Requesting an Exemption from the. Automatic Irrigation, Requirement W
in LDO-9:2.8 for Periphery Plantings' Along the Service: Road, together
with Supporting. Findings of Fact and Statement ofReasons m
co
E tt
1. Introduction.
]t
Pursuant to Jackson County. Land Development Ordinance (LDO) Section
2.6.7(D)(3), the. Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) requests. modification of
Condition of Approval 27 attached to Jackson County Ordinance No. 2009-7. Condition
27 currently provides: i
1 f
"Prior to the issuance of any permits or statements of land use compatibility by ;I
Jackson County, ODOT must obtain' final approval to connect the land uses that
are thesubject of this application to city water services and city sewer services 11
through the City Council of Ashland. The City-Council's approval shall be made jk
4
subsequent to the Board's approval of this application.,'
ODOT asks that Condition of Approval 27 be amended to read as follows:
1 }
Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for the Siskiyou Safety Rest Area &
Welcome Center, ODOT shall connectthose structures to City; of Ashland sewer
and water systems and demonstrate it has an adequate supply of water for
landscaping purposes from the Talent Irrigation District and other off-site sources.
Additionally, ODOT requests, an 'exemption pursuant to LDO Section 9.2.8,
which provides, that:- "All landscaping required for multi-family and non-residential a
development must have automatic systems installed unless otherwise exempted by the t.
Director." While ODOT proposes using al permanent automated system sized to
accommodate the peak water demand to water, those plantings on approximately 6.7 acres
around the Rest Area/Welcome Center site, ODOT wishes to use an altemative watering t
.system to watenthe following areas;
Y
fi
a) 48 Arborvitae shrubs: These are located. along the service. road connecting I
Crowson Road to the Rest Area site. For each of these shrubs, ODOT proposes
using a slow-release water storage bag system where each "individual plant is s
wrapped at the base-with a refillable 15-g6llon water bag. Each'-bag slow releases
the stored water directly onto the plant root system through aseries of holes on
the bag bottom. Each bag would be refilled-as required. ODOT intends to tank in
water to fill the bags.from ODOT's maintenance facility in Central Point. ODOT
r.
i
r a
75
i Z
Q
is willing to replace any plant that does not survive for three years after the U0
occupancy permit is issued. a
a
Q
b) 31. Additional trees: These are located in the•northern and southern.part of the
m
property. For each of these trees ODOT..also proposes the use of a. slow-release
water storage bag with each tree wrapped at the base witha refillable 20=gallon W
water. bag. Each bag Would be refilled as required,' from the same water source in
Central Point discussed above and any.-tree not surviving for the first three years
would be replaced. 00
co
Finally, to conform to decisions rendered in two appeals of previously adopted i
Jackson County ordinances approving land use applications for the Rest Area/Welcome
Center, ODOT has needed to make several revisions to its underlying land uset
application. Those changes, which relate to the requests contained in this current
application, are identified.inAppendix'I attached hereto. t
II. Background. 1r
On September 9, 2009, the Jackson County' Board of Commissioners (Board)
adopted Ordinance No. 2009-7, approving four actions to replace•the former Siskiyou.
Safety Rest Area/Welcome Center near Mt. Ashland with 'a'new Siskiyou Safety Rest
Area/Welcome Center south~of Crowson Road `on.the northbound side of Interstate 5 (I- :
5) outside of the City of Ashland's urban growth boundary (UGB). Those fouractions.:
included: dE
i
7
1. A reasons exception to Statewide Planning Goals 3 (Agricultural Lands),`
1I,(Public Facilities and Services) and 14 (Urbanization) to locate the proposed
Siskiyou Safety Rest Area/Welcome, Center on agricultural land zoned for }
exclusive farm use, with 27 .conditions of approval. ODOT( identified this as
"Exception 1" in its application for approval of the Rest Area/Welcome Center.
2. A reasons exception t6 Statewide Planning Goal 11 authorizing the Rest t
Area/Welcome Center in "Exception 1" to connect to an urban sanitary sewer
system already.located on ODOT's property outside Ashland's UGB. ODOT
identified this as "Exception 2" in its application. i
3. A permit to allow constiuction of, a. new access road to be used by persons 1S.
maintaining or staffing the Rest Area/Welcome Center. i.
,t
4. A limited use plan map and zoning designation for the Rest
Area/Welcome Center.
1 1
Following its adoption, Paul and Constance Foland and several others appealed
the first three actions approved in Ordinance 2009`-7 to the Land Use, Board of Appeals 3
(LUBA). In Foland v. Jackson County, 61 Or LUBA 264, aff'd 239 br App 60 (2010)
(Foland 1), LUBA upheld all, the actions' that the County had taken! but remanded the '
2
a:
ordinance on the ground that the-application required another Goal-11' exception to justify at
extending the City of Ashland water, system to ODOT's Rest Area property outside the V
UGB. J
o..
a
Q
On June 24, 2011, following public hearings on remand, the Board adopted
Ordinance No 2011-9, approving a Goal- I V reasons exception to allow the City of m
Ashland to extend a water line outside the UGB to the Rest Area/Weleome Center. As ~
W
part of its decision, the Board concluded that the application complied with LDO
3.7.3(C)(1), which requires:in,relevant part that "[a]dequate public safety, transportation, M
and futility facilities and services can be provided' to the subject property." Again, the
Folands appealed-this to LUBA. In Foland v. Jackson County, 64 Or LUBA 265 (2011).
(Foland 2), LUBA upheld the Goal 1l exception, but it remanded the ordinance to the
County to determine the meaning of LDO 3.7.3(C)(1) and whether the County had
properly excluded at its hearings testimony I regarding the service !level of water to
ODOT's site. Also. in Foland 2, LUBA rejected the Folands' argument . that all aspects of
the Rest Area/Welcome Center, including irrigated landscaping„must be viewed as urban
'
uses: and must be supplied with water from an urban source. LUBA held that nothing in }r
Goal 11 "mandates that an - urban use of rural' land pursuant to an exception to Goal 14
must be supplied, or supplied entirely, with urban levels or sourcescof water." 64 Or
LUBA at 274. Because Condition 27 required: City of Ashland.-water for all land uses at
the ODOT site, including irrigated landscaping, LUBA noted that ..a modification to 1.
Condition 27 might be required. Sj
On July 17, 2013, the Board heard, testimony regarding the meaning of LDO ~j
3.7.3(C)(1) and voted to accept:its staffs recommendation that the:standard refers only to 1
the existence and capacity of the service' infrastructure, and not to issues of any service
provider's willingness or-unwillingness to provide the service. On August 14, 2013, the
Board held its second and final-reading of the approval ordinance, Ordinance 2013-8. a.
III. Current Status of RestArea/Weleotne Center.
With approval of Ordinance No. 2013.-8, all issues pertainingj.to the legality of r
siting the Rest Area/Welcome Center on ODOT's property are resolved. Based on the
tr
above background, the current status of the Rest Area/Welcome Centerlis as follows:
T,
t All required Goal exceptions are,approved: I
• No further action is required on LDO 3.7.3(C)(1) because the Board has
concluded that adequate capacity exists to provide water service to the Rest Area 1
property.
• The irrigated landscaping atthe Rest Area/Welcome Center is not an urban-scale a
use, does not. require -Goal 11 or Goa1;14 exceptions, and doesnot require urban. 1
levels of water or the extension of an urban water system to thesite..See Foland 2,
64 Or LUBA at 274-275. LUBA's holding was not appealed further and is final
and controlling.
• Because Condition 27 requires the extension of an urban water system to the site
to serve all uses at the Rest Area/Welcome Center, including irrigated
r
3 4,
, s
.y
landscaping, and because that requirement is not consistent with Goal 11,
Condition 27 must be modified. I J
a
IV. Modification of Condition 27.
LDO 2.6.7(D)(3) provides: m
C
W
Modification of Conditions Previously Approved;
j ~
1) Following an applicant's written application, the County may modify or amend
one or more conditions of approval for an application previously approved and
i`
final.
2) Such an application shall be reviewed by the Director within 21 days of l;
submittal to determine whether the condition requested. to be modified or j
amended was imposed to assure compliance with a standard orin order to satisfy
the requirements of a criterion. Upon completion of that review; the Director shall
take the following actions:
a) If the condition being considered was imposed to assure compliance
with a standard or if it can bezmodified as an administrative`adjustment
under Section 3.12, the Director may determine whether to authorize the
modification or amendment that has been requested.
b) If the condition being, considered was imposed'in order to satisfy the
requirements of a criterion, the Director shall. refer the request to the
review authority having initial 'Jackson County,, Oregon Chapter 2, Page
11 jurisdiction over. the initial application using the same type of review
procedure as the original review. r.
3) No modification of a condition shall be approved if the Director determines
that the modification would render the permit, inconsistent with, changes in a state
goal, policy, statute or administrative rule, the Comprehensive Plan or this.
Ordinance-that has been.adopted after the date of the final decision approving the
permit. In that. event, a new applicatimrnust be.submitted for the permit.
ODOT believes Condition 27 was imposed based on an initial understanding,
which proved to be incorrect, that all of the water needs at the Rest Area/Welcome
Center, including landscape' irrigation, would=be provided through the City of Ashland. ~t
Also, through Condition 27 the Board could assure that development of the Rest
Area/Welcome Center would not adversely impact the water supply available to nearby y
farms. As was later discovered, the City of Ashland agreed to extend water for domestic
:use only, and then LUBA ruled in Foland 2, that requiring. an urban level of water and a
connection to an urban water system for landscape irrigation, purposes was inconsistent
with Goal 11.
Accordingly, ODOT now requests modification to Condition 27 to bring the
County's decision into compliance with Goal 11. Consistent -with 'LUBA's' opinion, E
ODOT's water needs for. irrigated landscapinican.be supplied without-an urban level of
water or.the extension orestablishment of an:urban water system at the Rest Area site. i
it
4
it
` i-
• • ' Vi
i
Z
Q
With this modification, the issue may reappear as to the :impacts of using V
alternative water sources to City of Ashland water on farms in the area surrounding the a
Rest Area/Welcome Center: Specifically, will the alternative water' source reduce or a
change- the availability of water for adjacent and nearby farms on resource lands Q_
surrounding the Rest Area. Because the Folands raised these kinds-of concerns in the m'
previous proceedings, ODOT anticipates they may raise this concern again here. WQ
Accordingly, ODO,T addresses this issue below.
A. Sources of Landscaping Water. o~F
When ODOT prepared its initial application resulting in the Board's adoption of
Ordinance 2009-7, ODOT relied on an earlier letter from the City of Ashland in which,
the City committed to•provide all water needed for the Rest Area/Welcome Center. See `
Exhibit A. Based.on this, communication and subsequent assurances from Ashland City.
staff, ODOT prepared an -application and landscape plan that assumed that all water
would be provided by the City. As earlier noted, that application did not take a Goal I I
exception to allow for the extension of an urban water system to the Rest Area/Welcome
Center to serve the proposed urban uses. At the time, based on language, in LCDC's
Public Facilities Rule, ODOT mistakenly believed that no Goal I1 exception was
required for that purpose. See Foland 1. s
It
On April 19, 2011, subsequent to adoption of Ordinance 2009-7 but prior to
hearings on remand from LUBA in Foland 1, the Ashland City Council held at hearing at
which it approved extending sewer service-to the Rest Area and Welcome Center and
extending water service for domestic use only. The result of this.action was.that ODOT r
could then. meet all of its needs for sewer and water except its need for water for r'
landscape irrigation. See Exhibit B. Water for landscaping plants in the 6.7 acre
landscaped area of the Rest Area/Welcome Center site through use of automated i'
irrigation systems is estimated to require, on average, approximatelly 21,734 gallons per
week between April 1 and September 30 of the initial calendar year. Water for irrigating
48 arborvitae shrubs along the service road connecting Crowson Road to the Rest Area ff
site and 31 additional trees located in the northern and southern parts of the property will
be provided via slow-release water..bags attached to the base of the plant. These bags will 1
provide 15 gallons per arborvitae shrub and 20 gallons per tree, and are estimated to
require approximately .1,340 gallons per week, during the initial .six month period to get
those plants established. After three years of watering, additional watering should not be
necessary. See Exhibit C..
To meet its need forwaterto irrigate plants at the Rest Area/Welcome Center site
through automated systems, ODOT has acquired an irrigation right from the Talent
Irrigation District. See Exhibit D. Previously, this water right belonged to the Arrowhead
t As, indicated below, ODOT's water right acquired from the Talent I Irrigation District
provides sufficient water to meet even-thisexireme need. Once established, the drought-
tolerant plants would require less water. j
5
Ranch. As described in correspondence from! the District,. the water right will supply
ODOT's property with water from the canal system of Howard Prairie and Hyatt Lake: It
The water will pass through the Green Springs Power Plant and be 1picked up by the ZQ
Ashland Canal. It will then be dumped down the Tolman Creek Wasteway. MOT will v
pickup the water out of Tolman Creek on the east side of the freeway into a pump station J
which will pump the water along .the freeway right=of--way to get the water to the Rest a
Area property. Before; when the water served Arrowhead Ranch, it too came from the 4
canal system of Howard Prairie and Hyatt Lake but instead of being picked up by the m
Ashland canal, that water went to Emigrant Lake. See Exhibit E. I p
H'
F_
B. Impacts on Farming Practices;
0
Exhibit E indicates-that the source of-ODOT's new irrigation-right is the canal t=n
system of Howard Prairie and Hyatt Lake. Because that source of wafer is not from the
area surrounding ODOT's.property, but rather'from a location more than 31 canal miles
away (see Exhibit FT), its removal from'that.area will.not impact resouree uses adjacent to l
the Rest Area/Welcome-Center or farming practices in the area surrounding the Rest
Area'.? ~
ORS 215.296 establishes standards for approval of certain uses in exclusive farm
use zones. It provides in relevant part: ,
(1) A, use allowed under ORS 215.213(2) or (11) or 215.283(2) or (4) may be s;
approved only where the local governing body or its designee finds that the use r
will not: t
(a) Force a significant change-in accepted farm or forest practices on
surrounding 'lands devoted to fami or forest use; or t
(b) Significantly increase the cost of accepted farm or forest practices on j"
surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use.
(2) An applicant for a use allowed under ORS 215.293(2) or (11) or 215.283(2) or
(4) may demonstrate that.the standards1or approval set forth in; subsection (1) of `
this section will be satisfied through the imposition of conditions. Any conditions
so imposed shall be clear and objective.,
a
ORS ,215.296 does not apply to, lands, subject to Goal 3, 11 or 14 exceptions. `
However, if it did apply, it would be satisfied because the source of'the' water that ODOT
has acquired from the Talent Irrigation District does not come from an area near the Rest
Area/Welcome Center, but rather from a location many miles from the site. As such, use t
of this irrigation water will not affect the supply of water available,to serve farms like the
Folands' in the sunounding,area, and as such,,will not force a significant change, or for
that matter any change, in accepted farm practices or. their costs on lands surrounding the
Al
? Farm uses and accepted farming practices in the surrounding area were identified in !a
Exhibit 2.6 and Section IV.B of ODOT's application for exceptions to Goals 3, 11 and
34. Exhibit 2.6 and. the list of farm practices in Section IV.13 are attached hereto
respectively as Exhibits G and H.
,t
6 j:
a;
Rest•Area/Welcome Center that are devoted to farm or forest uses. Simply put, it will bt
have no effect on the water sources or agricultural practices in the area surrounding Q
ODOT's site. V
J
The water right acquired from the Talent Irrigation District will provide 272,881 Ca-
gallons of water every week. See Exhibit I. Because this quantity of water exceeds the Q
21,734 gallons of irrigation water needed weekly to supporhand.maintain.the landscape m
plantings in-the vicinity..of the Rest Area/Welcome Center'buildings,,,it is sufficient to
meet ODOT's needs for water for that purpose.. See Exhibit C.3 LLI
In addition to the water obtained from the Talent Irrigation District and in iM
.conjunction with its requested exemption under LDO 9.2.8, ODOT intends to tank in =2
water from its Central Point maintenance facility to provide water for other areas as listed -
below: These plantings are: r
1') The 48 arborvitae shrubs planted, along the service road connecting to 'the Rest
' Area site. The landscape plan identifies-48 shrubs' along the service road that need '
watering. ODOT intends to provide water through use of refillable 15-gallon
water bags attached to each tree trunk. Each bag slow releases the stored water
directly onto the plant root system through a series of holes-an the bag bottom.
3
Eachbag would be refilled ds.required., I
2) The 31 trees located. in the northern and-southern parts of the property. For each 3i
of these trees. ODOT also proposes the use of .a slow-release water storage bag 1
with each tree wrapped at the base with a refillable 20-gallon water bag. Each bag e i
would be refilled as required, which will be approximately once;pcr week..
n
ODOT will• need approximately 1,340 gallons per week or 34,840 gallons for the
six-month watering season, for the non-automated portion of the landscaping. This
calculation is, based upon a.total of 48 15-gallon bags and 31 20-gallon bags, refilled i-
approximately once per week. { y
The water needed for these areas located beyond the TID waterrprovision area are
covered in Exhibit C. ODOT can obtain sufficient water from. its Central Point
maintenance facility to meet. this need. See Exhibit J. Because the Central Point
maintenance facility is,located about 20 miles from the Rest Area: site, ODOT's use L
of this water will not adversely impact accepted farm practices on the adjoining or
nearby lands devoted to :farm uses for the same reasons that its use of Talent is
Irrigation District water will not, adversely impact surrounding farms.
3 The 272,881 gallons of.water available each week to ODOT from the Talent Irrigation
District water right it acquired would provide sufficient water for irrigation even if
ODOT experienced a full week of peak water demand in the first year; during the period
the plants were getting established. The 21,734.gallons of water needed for such a week
constitutes approximately 8%, of the amount.of water available to ODOT. The excess
water would remain in the stream.
t
7 I
`7. r _ _ 4
i Ft
r_
To avoid the possibility of any adverse impacts to adjoining or'nearby farm Z
properties-in terms of available water-supply, ODOT will not use ground water or Dunn :V
Ditch irrigation rights water atthe Rest Area/Welcome Center site. ODOT's decision not
to use ground water or Dunn Ditch irrigation rights.on. its property means that the water M
supply to adjacent land owners in the area isincreased over, what it might otherwise.be.
to
C. Conclusions with Respect to Condition 27 Modification. W
LU
In conclusion, Condition 27 requires modification because as currently written, it t-
requires ODOT to obtain water for landscape irrigation through an extension of an urban pip
water system to the site, which is not consistent with Goal 11. As LUBA held in Toland
2, landscaping on ODOT's property is not an.urban-use and it is inconsistent with Goal co
11 to require ODOT to obtain water for landscaping purposes only through extension of
Ashland's water-system to the site. '
The Talent Irrigation District has agreed to provide ODOT with an adequate
supply of water for an automated system at the Rest Area/Welcome Center. That water`
will have no adverse effect on adjacent farms-and other-farms-in the area surrounding -the
Rest Area/Welcome Center because the water comes from a. source: located about 31 5t
canal miles away and, as such, does not impact the water sources serving these n
surrounding properties. Also, ODOT's Central Point maintenance facility can provide
water in sufficient quantities to maintain the plantings that;are located beyond, the limits 1
'of ODOT's Talent Irrigation. District water rights. That, too, will have no adverse effect
on fauns in the area-surrounding the Rest Area/.Welcome Center.
;t
V. Exemption from Automatic Irrigation Requirement in LDO 9.2.8.
1
LDO 9.2.8 requires that all landscaping required for non-residential development t
must have automatic systems installed unless otherwise exempted by tfie Director. ODOT
seeks an exemption for the reasons that follow.
i
LDO 9.2.9 (Xeriscape Requirements) provides that developments subject to LDO I`
9.2.8 that cannot obtain required landscape irrigation water from a municipal or fi
community water system must incorporate the following additional- measures in any I4
landscape plan submitted for County review.
. 1.
A) Limited Turf Areas. The total amount of lawn (i.e., turf] may not exceed 25% t
of the total landscaped area. In addition, lawns should be separated from trees, a
flower beds and other ground covers that do not. have similar water needs as
lawn/turf. Lawns may not_be>planted in strips less than five (5) feet wide due to
the difficulty in controlling irrigation over spray and resulting water waste in such r
areas.
B) Efficient Irrigation.. In order to reduce the amount of water required to
maintain established vegetation, automatic or drip irrigation systems designed to iE
supply adequate water to each planted area are required. If an automatic system is t,
8 ;
~1.
Al
used, all watering must: be done between sundown. and sunrise to minimize
F-
evaporation.
C) Use of Drought Tolerant Plants. Only drought tolerant native and non- <
invasive exotic species may be used in xeriscape plantings. The User's Guide Aij
contains a list of plants recommended for their drought tolerance and fire d
resistance. Other drought tolerant plants recommended by a licensed landscape Q
architect may also be allowed. I m
D) Alternative Ground Cover. Whenever possible, mulched; planting beds and C
native plant communities should be used to meet landscaping requirements. Beds F
may be mulched with any suitable organic or inorganic ground cover, provided H
that no more than 25% of the total landscaped area is mulched with inorganic m
material. Preservation- and re-establishment of native plant communities as part of N
landscape design is encouraged.
E) Soil Improvements and Maintenance. Property owners must keep planted
areas free of debris-and continue to add mulch, mow lawns,'maintain planting
beds and. prune trees on a seasonal basis. When. preexisting native plant
communities are incorporated into- the landscape design, noxious weeds and s `
exotic plant species mu_ st.be eliminated annually from those areas. l `
Because ODOT does not have access to a municipal water system or a community ~t
water system for landscape irrigation purposes at the Rest Area/Welcome Center, ODOT
has applied the provisions in LDO 9.2.9 to its-landscape plan. To increase efficiency and
save, Water, ODOT seeks an exemption from, the requirement. to provide. an automated
irrigation system for the following'areas of plantings: .
1) Arborvitae shrubs* to be located along the service road. As noted, for these
plantings, ODOT proposes to use 15-gallon slow release watering bags that drip
water onto the tree roots until the plants are established.
2) Trees located in the northern and southern parts of the property. For these
plantings 20=gallon slow released.watering bags will be used. 7
The slow release watering bags will utilize water tanked -in from ODOT's
maintenance facility, in Central Point. Elsewhere, ODOT will provide automated ;
irrigation systems. See Exhibit C.
i
9
As clarified in Exhibit-C and as required by LDO 9.2.9, all of the landscape It
plantings at the site. are considered drought tolerant and the. area planted in grass (0.66
acres) does not exceed 25% of the total landscaped area of 6.7 acres.
ODOT is willing'to replace any plant that does not survive for three years after '
the occupancy -permit is issued. ODOT asks that this exemption be approved.
,
tiLt
9
s,
j
Appendix 1 Z
Q
Changes in Application to, Reflect Modifications in Landscaping and Provision of V
J
Water Services a
Q
1. Executive Summary, Page-2, last paragraph: Revise text to read as follows: m
The Rest Area would occupy approximately 18 acres and contain entrance and W
exit ramps, automobile and RV parking areas, restroom facilities, an interpretive
j area, kiosks, a Welcome Center displaying travel and tourist information,
walkways, drinking fountains,. and garbage receptacles. Developed portions of the co
site will be plantedwith ornamental landscaping served by an automated C0
underground irrigation system., The service road will be planted with drought
tolerant plants to screen. and buffer the road from. adjacent uses. Water will E
be manually applied to these plants'until they are established. ODOT
proposes-to connect the Rest Area.to an existing underground public sanitary
sewer line already extending through the property that ODOT built in 1975 to
serve the formec.Siskiyou Rest Area. The-Rest Area also would connect to public,
water via a line located near Crowson Road. A service road east-of Interstate 5
will provide access to the Rest Area for service vehicles, ODOT maintenance
personnel-and Welcome Center staff via a connection to Crowson-Road.
2. Executive Summary, :Page 2, footnote 4, add the following sentence at end of j
footnote 4: 1
,
r
On July 1, 1997, the Ashland City council approved ODOT's request to allow the !
new Rest Aica to.connect to the sewer. and water systems of the City of Ashland.
See Exhibit 29, October. 24, 2000.1etter from Paula C. Brown, AshlandPublic
Works Director to Debbie Timms, ODOT Project Leader. In 2011, the City of
Ashland approved the extension-of potable water for the Rest Area/Welcome
Center. Water for the automatic irrigation- system will be obtained. from
Talent Irrigation District.
t!
3. 1 Executive Summary, Page 13, add the following bullet after Domestic Water:
• Water for. Landscape Irrigation:. Water to supply the~automatic irrigation
system will..be obtained from the- Talent Irrigation District. Talent
Irrigation District has authorized water for the landscaped areas of the i
Safety Rest Area/Welcome Center. The landscape plan estimates 21,734
gallons are needed each week to irrigate the landscape plants during the
growing season during the establishment period, and.lesser amounts will 't
f.
be required for weekly irrigation following plant establishment. The
water acquired from the Talent Irrigation district is adequate to supply
this quantity:,of irrigation water- to the site. ODOT can truck in water ;
from its Central Point,maintenance facility to establish drought-resistant
plant material in the northern-and southern parts of the property, which
l
10•
i. t.
f.
7
t
• tt
are located beyond the limits of-ODOT's Talent Irrigation District water
rights. An estimated 1,340 gallon's are needed each week to irrigate these F
areas during, the. establishment period. ODOT is proposing-a three-year Q
warranty on the establishmeint period. C>
4. Under VIII - Compliance with Applicable Statewide Planning Goals, Goal 11 a
(Public Facilities and Services);. Page 56: Revise second paragraph to read as Q
follows:
m
The extension of phone,' electrical service, and water for landscaping purposes
is consistent with Goal 11. Because the connection to public sanitary sewer and F-
public water for domestic purposesAis not consistent with Goal 11, exceptions
m
to Goal 11 have been taken and approved for these purposes. N
5. Under IX - Compliance with Jackson County Comprehensive Plan and
Transportation System Plan and the RVMPO rf
'Regional Transportation Plan, Public Facilities and Services Element, Policy 4, Page j .
63: Revise the 'first sentence and insert two. new sentences into the Findings and
Reasons to read as follows::
a
The Rest Area will receive domestic water from the City of Ashland municipal
water system. A goal exception for this extension of city water has been 1
approved., Water. for irrigation purposes will be from the Talent Irrigation
District and other off-site sources.
6. Under X - Compliance with Jackson County land Development Ordinance,
LDO Criteria 3.2.4 (B), Page 71, Paragraph..G. Change to read:
The proposed use will be fully landscaped consistent with Exhibit K. f
7. Under X - Compliance with Jackson County land Development Ordinance,
LDO Criteria 3.2.4(B), Page 71, Paragraph H. Change to read:
The proposed use will be served by: public sanitary sewer and water. The
automated irrigation system will be supplied by water from the Talent ~t
Irrigation District-The water to establish plantings located beyond the limit }
of ODOT's Talent'Irrigation District water rights can be tanked in from a
source in Central Point' during the period of establishment.. Therefore the use
will have no impact upon groundwater resources.
i
8. Under X Compliance: with, Jackson County land Development Ordinance, It
LDO Criteria 3.2.4 (B), Conclusions of Law,. Page 72, Paragraph 4: Add two .5.
sentences reading as follows:
The Board also concludes that utilization of public sanitary, sewer and water
service, contemplated in the site development plan will protect other property if
r
pi
f
c
h
from the potential adverse impact that might otherwise result if the proposed use Z
were served by on site sewerage disposal systems and/or wells used to supply Q
domestic water. Water' for landscape irrigation purposes will be obtained V
from off-site. sources to avoid any potential impact that could occur if served a
from on-site wells. Use of off-site water sources for this site will enhance
1, Qcc
.ground water availability to adjacent users. Y
ca
9. Under X - Compliancewith Jackson County land Development Ordinance, W
LDO Criteria 3.2.4(F), Finding and Conclusion of Law, Page 77, Paragraph (2), Add M
two sentences at the end, to read: e
to
Water for the-automated irrigation system will be provided by the Talent t=.
Irrigation District. The water needs of plants located beyond' the limit of !!i
ODOT's Talent Irrigation District water rights will be provided by tanker 1
from a source in Central Point.
10. Under Section C LDO 3.7.3 Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan or
Zoning maps, page 80, paragraph 4. After second sentence add:
Water for irrigation purposes will be provided by the- Talent Irrigation
District and other off-site sources. Existing, irrigation,. canals exist. for
transporting water.
k
11. Under X - Compliance with Jackson County land Development Ordinance,
LDO Criteria' 9.2.8, General Landscape Requirements, Page 88; Revise Findings and
Conclusions to.read as follows: S
L
t
Applicant has provided a conceptual landscape.plan that features the use of an f
automated irrigation system around. the Rest Area site using water from
Talent Irrigation District. The water needs of plantings' located beyond the y'
limit of ODOT',s Talent irrigation District water rights'•will' be met by water r
delivered by truck from a source in-Central Point. This concept is-consistent
with' provisions of LDO 9.2.9 that provides for xeriscape requirements when.
a community water system is not,available. The.plan proposes to incorporate ;
xeriscape,provisions of 9.2.9 to increase the efficiency of the irrigation system
and reduce water consumption. -This proposal :assumes an exemption from.
the director from the requirement for an automated system serving the
entire parcel. LDO 9.2:8. The plan can and will be changed to comply with the ' F
applicable landscape requirements as necessary. A final landscape plan will be ,
submitted prior to the issuance of building permits as provided for in Users Guide '
Section 5.3 Final Landscape Plans. The Board concludes that the Final
Landscape Plan can and will be prepared and stamped by a landscape architect t
registered with the State of Oregon pursuant to ORS 671.412 and will be fully
compliant with LDO 9.2.8. Therefore, the Board concludes. that LDO. 9.2.8 can e
and will be satisfied. Ile
i
' 12
~4..
• • it
~r
12. Under X - Compliance with Jackson County land Development. Ordinance, i4c
LDO Criteria 9:2.10, Mitigation Measure for Development Adjacent to Agricultural
Uses, Findings and Conclusions of-Law, Page 90, insert one sentence at top of page: a
Q
LDO 9.2.8 as :part of the Final Landscape Plan, is sufficient to minimize or
mitigate the potential impacts, associated with public use at the subject site. See 60
Section XI.. The use of off--site water sources, will avoid the possibility of W
potential adverse impacts to adjacent lands. As such, the application is F
consistent with LDO 9.2,10...
o~
13. Changes in Ordinance No. 2011-9 to Reflect Modifications in Landscaping
and Provision of Water Services, Section 2 - Legal Findings, Changes to paragraph i
2.6 at;bottom of page 3:
The:Board Hof Commissioners finds that the extension of an urban level of water.service
will not adversely :affeef farm. or forest practices and that using urban water for the j;
Siskiyou Safety Rest Area/Welcome Center domestic uses assures that no impact will j
occur to adjacent farm and forest practice's. The Board also finds that the provision of
water from the Talent irrigation, District (TIP) for the operation of the automated
irrigation system for landscaped areas on the property, in conjunction with the
provision of water via truck for plantings located-beyond the limit of ODOT's TID
water rights, will also assure that no impact will occur to adjacent farm and forest ;
,practices.
~i
14. ' Modification. of Condition of Approval 27 attached to Jackson County:
Ordinance No. 2009-7.
l..
The Board of Commissioners finds that given the findings listed above, it is appropriate l=
to grant approval of the request to amend Condition 27.to.read as follows:
"Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for the Siskiyou Safety Rest Area & Welcome try,
Center, ODOT shall connect those structures to City of Ashland sewer and water systems ? E
and demonstrate it has an adequate supply ofmater for landscaping.purposes from the is.
Talent, Irrigation. District and other off-Site sources:"
i.
"ef
3.
13
it
3
List of Exhibits jt
Z
Exhibit A - September 23, 1997 letter from Brian Almquist, Ashland City _V
Administrator, to Jack Walker, Chair; Jackson County' Board of Commissioners, and J
a
April 3, 2008 City of Ashlandtnemorandum_from James.H. Olson to Martha Bennett re a
City;Services to P.roposed.Siskiyou: Rest.Area.
m
Exhibit. B - City- of Ashland Order No 2011-June approving the extension of sewer
service and water service (for domestic uses only) to the Rest Area/Welcome Center
LU
Exhibit C - Memo from Mike Smyth, Landscape Architect, quantifying water. needs for m
the automated irrigation systems (Rest Area facilities) and for the planted areas of the-
y
property that lie beyond the automated system; with attached landscape;irrigation plan.
tC
r ~
Exhibit. D - Talent Irrigation District, Petition and Order for Inclusion of Lands by i
Transfer, plus attachments t
1
Exhibit E - August 5, 2013,email'from Wanda Derry, Talent Irrigation District, to Jayne
Randleman, ODOT I c
e.
Exhibit F - Maps showing location.of canal system of Howard Prairie and Hyatt Lake in E
relation to the Rest,Area/Wel'come Center•site and the route the water will take to reach
this site.
ji
Exhibit G - Exhibit 2.6 from original.application and related:findings. 1
Exhibit H - List of farm practices on.surrounding lands as set out in Section IV.B of the j'
original application t
Exhibit I -Memo from Tim,Fletcher explaining how much water is'available•from TID, `
by detailing how acre feet relate to gallons. 1
Exhibit J - Correspondence from ODOT District 8 Manager Jerry Marmon to Arthur t
Anderson verifying that ODOT has adequate water capacity to truck in the quantity of
water needed to irrigate plantings not covered by the automated, irrigation system. I
;f
Exhibit K -Memo from Mike Smyth, Landscape Architect, clarifying the Landscape
Plan's compliance with the applicable LDO,provisions and the Preliminary Landscape
Plan. it
t•
Ir
)
14
. q~