HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-1007 Council Agenda PACKET
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Important: Any citizen may orally address the Council on non-agenda items during the Public Forum. Any citizen may submit written
comments to the Council on any item on the Agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing and the record is closed. Time permitting, the
Presiding Officer may allow oral testimony. If you wish to speak, please fill out the Speaker Request form located near the entrance to the Council
Chambers. The chair will recognize you and inform you as to the amount of time allotted to you, if any. The time granted will be dependent to
some extent on the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people who wish to speak, and the length of the agenda.
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
October 7, 2014
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
Note: Items on the Agenda not considered due to time constraints are automatically continued to the next regularly
scheduled Council meeting [AMC 2.04.030.E.]
7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Ill. ROLL CALL
IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Study Session of September 15, 2014
2. Executive Session of September 16, 2014
3. Business Meeting of September 16, 2014
VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
1. Proclamation of October 5 - 11, 2014, as Fire Prevention Week
VII. 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]
VIII. CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of commission, committee, and board minutes
2. Approval of contract-specific procurement for construction phase inspections
and project management of Ashland Creek Park construction
3. Approval of contract-specific procurement for architectural and engineering
services of Ashland Creek Park construction
4. Liquor License Application for Erika Lowe dba Mystic Treats
COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9. STARTING APRIL 15, 2014,
CHARTER CABLE WILL BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 180.
VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US
IX. 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})
None
X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Discussion of an ordinance replacing Title 18 Land Use of the Ashland
Municipal Code with a reformatted and amended Land Use Ordinance
XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
None
XII. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution supporting the Rogue Valley
Transportation District's five-year serial levy"
XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL
LIAISONS
XIV. ADJOURNMENT OF BUSINESS MEETING
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. STARTING APRIL 15, 2014,
CHARTER CABLE WILL BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 180.
VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US
Minutes for the City Council Study Session
September 15, 2014
Page 1 of 2
MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
Monday, September 15, 2014
Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way
Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room.
Councilor Morris, Rosenthal, Marsh, Voisin, and Lemhouse were present. Councilor Slattery was absent.
1. Look Ahead review
City Administrator Dave Kanner reviewed items on the Look Ahead.
2. Public Input (15 minutes maximum)
Winston Friedman/935 Oak Street/Thanked the Council for considering the resolution supporting fossil
fuel divestment. Southern Oregon Climate Action Now (SOCAN) was a group that strongly supported
divestment and were concerned with the bigger picture of climate change. fie read from a document
submitted into record on the impacts of climate change, fossil fuel extraction and how major corporations
negatively affected sustainability efforts.
Ken Deveney/206 Terrace Street/Spoke in support of the Conservation Commission's Community
Sustainability Framework proposal and explained mental health was a major component of climate -
change preparedness. Many people will experience stress that could result in an increase of domestic
abuse and crime due to the heat. The climate change will affect illness, food prices, changes in
employment, and acute trauma from extreme weather events. The National Wildlife Federation
collaborated on a report regarding the psychological effects of climate change that stated the affects of
global warming will require a large-scale mental health care response and no one was prepared.
3. Discussion of a Resolution in support of fossil fuel divestment
City Recorder Barbara Christensen explained the resolution would not change the City's investment
policy and only support the position Southern Oregon Climate Action Now (SOCAN) was taking on
fossil fuel divestment. SOCAN was asking Council to move the resolution to a regular Council meeting
for approval. If approved, the resolution would go to the Oregon Short Term Board and the Public
Employee Retirement System (PERS). Ms. Christensen used the City of Eugene's resolution on
divestment as a template for the one before Council.
Council noted an opinion editorial from State Treasurer Ted Wheeler that concluded divestment was not
in the best interest of the state. That made the resolution more of a symbolic gesture. However, an earlier
conversation with Mr. Wheeler and the governor revealed they needed the support of municipalities in
order to give the resolution power. The Mayor expressed concern regarding unintended results due to
divestment.
Council supported putting the resolution on a formal agenda.
4. Community Sustainability Framework proposal from the Conservation Commission
Management Analyst Adam Hanks provided history on the Conservation Commission's interest and
efforts regarding sustainability. With the approval of the Operational Sustainability Plan Framework,
Plan Format, and Process Outline November 2012, the Commission shifted focus to a community
sustainability plan using the STAR Framework.
Conservation Commission Vice Chair Roxane Beigel-Coryell defined sustainable as something able to be
Minutes for the City Council Study Session
September 15, 2014
Page 2 of 2
used without being completely used up or destroyed involving methods that did not completely use up or
destroy natural resources or able to last or continue for a long time. A sustainable community included
common elements that were healthy environment, strong economy, and the well-being of the people
living in the community. She shared several guiding principles of sustainable communities.
Conservation Commissioner Jim McGinnis provided an overview of the STAR Framework that consisted
of Guiding Principles, Goals, Objectives, Measures, and Actions. STAR was Sustainability Tools for
Assessing and Rating communities.
The STAR Framework was a current and comprehensive way to track and assess sustainability. The
STAR approach represented a multiyear process and was not a plan. The Guiding Principles served as a
reference point when planning or taking actions. The STAR Framework was based on the following
goals:
• Built Environment
• Climate & Energy
• Education, Arts & Community
• Economy & Jobs
• Equity & Empowerment
• Health & Safety
• Natural Systems
Each goal contained several objectives with measurable items and best practices.
Vice Chair Beigel-Coryell reviewed a matrix of goals and actions taken by the City and Southern Oregon
University (SOU) and submitted an example of Climate & Energy and Health & Safety into the record.
Commissioner McGinnis further explained the Conservation Commission had followed through on the
2011-2012 City Goal of developing a concise sustainability plan for city operations and community. The
city operation was underway and the next step was the community portion.
The STAR Framework created a network with other communities. The Conservation Commission was
asking Council to adopt the framework as a successor to the Valdez Principles, instruct staff to provide
regular reporting within the STAR Framework, and allocate adequate resources to administer the
program. Resource allocation would start with half of a Full Time Equivalent (FTE) employee for the
2015-2017 budget and grow to a FTE in the 2017-2019 budget.
Council comments thought the STAR Framework was too broad and complex, wanted the focus on
Climate and Energy only while other comments noted STAR could serve as a good resource.
Council directed the Conservation Commission to bring back a proposal on what steps they would take to
develop a Climate and Energy Plan.
Meeting adjourned at 7:18 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dana Smith
Assistant to the City Recorder
Regular City Council Meeting
September 16, 2014
Page 1 of 8
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
September 16, 2014
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilor Slattery, Morris, Lemhouse, Voisin, Rosenthal, and Marsh were present.
MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Stromberg announced vacancies on the Wildfire Mitigation, Forest Lands, Historic, Public Arts,
and Tree Commissions.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Business Meeting of September 2, 2014 were approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
1. Annual presentation by the Airport Commission
Engineering Services Manager Scott Fleury and Airport Commission Chair David Wolske presented the
annual report on the Airport Commission. Chair Wolske noted the recent passing of Commission
member Richard Hendrickson and shared some of his accomplishments and contributions to the
Commission. He went on to describe the role the Ashland Airport played in the community and valley,
listed projects, and explained how the Commission handled complaints.
The Mayor's proclamations of September 21, 2014 as International Day of Peace and October as Mayors
United to Help Fight Hunger Month were read aloud.
PUBLIC FORUM
Polly Hodges/33 Morse Avenue/Addressed the road work currently underway on East Main Street
between Morse and Alida. This was the third time this summer excavation occurred in that area.
Neighbors did not receive any notice regarding the project and did not know the purpose or the length of
project. Sleep was difficult with cars speeding over the metal plates. She tried to call Public Works
office and Avista with no response from either. She asked Council to institute a policy of notifying
residents when road construction work would occur, the reason why, duration, and find ways to slow
down traffic around the metal plates during the night. Residents needed some consideration. It was
disruptive to daily life.
City Administrator Dave Kanner would follow up and get back to Ms. Hodges.
Brent Thompson/582 Allison Street/Spoke on relocating the City Hall building, shared history on
previous attempts, the controversy and public opposition that occurred. He thought the Community
Development building on Winburn Way was a disaster and should have been two stories. He urged
Council to look at alternatives and not move from the downtown area. He went on to address the changes
in Commission size.
Amy Felmley/187 Gresham Street/Shared her experience surviving a deer attack in her backyard and
asked Council to increase public awareness by posting information on the website.
Regular City Council Meeting
September 16, 2014
Page 2 of 8
Councilor Lemhouse/Rosenthal m/s to add to the end of the agenda a discussion about education on
interfacing with wildlife. Voice Vote All AYES. Motion passed.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of commission, committee, and board minutes
2. Procurement for tires and related services
3. Fire Prevention and Safety Grant application 2013
4. Liquor License Application for Michael Leslie dba Vinyl Club
5. Contract with KOGAP Enterprises, Inc. for the Mountain Avenue Overlay Project
6. Approval of recommendation from the Public Art Commission for painting electrical utility
boxes on the corner of A Street and Oak Street and on Pioneer Street near A Street
Staff removed Consent Agenda Item #5. Councilor Lemhouse and Rosenthal pulled Consent Agenda
Item #4 regarding the Liquor License for the Vinyl Club for further discussion. Councilor Rosenthal
expressed concern the club had 56 case numbers assigned over the past three years and wanted to know
the process for analyzing data for liquor license approvals.
Deputy Police Chief Tighe O'Meara explained issues with the Vinyl Club had decreased over time. It was
the only dance club in Ashland and common for dance clubs to have issues. City Administrator Dave
Kanner explained the City's role regarding liquor licenses was advisory to the Oregon Liquor Control
Commission (OLCC). The City did not have the power to prevent someone from getting his or her liquor
license unless the City had unmitigated evidence of crime involving the venue and that was not the case
with the Vinyl Club. It was common practice throughout Oregon that the governing body provide advice
to OLCC regarding liquor license applications. City Attorney Dave Lohman added the City Recorder
circulated liquor license applications including change of ownership to specific departments for feedback
prior to placing it on the Consent Agenda.
Brent Thompson/LL Consent #4/582 Allison Street/Thought the new owners of the Vinyl Club should
address whether they had a clean and inviting bathroom since often patrons used the alleyway as a
restroom outside of the club. He suggested the last employee leaving the Vinyl Club police the alley
when to ensure there was not any vomit, trash, or urine in the alleyway. This had been a problem for 30-
years and the new owners needed to be vigilant.
Deputy Chief O'Meara explained the midnight shift sergeant contacted the owner and staff of a new bar
and let them know of any problems that existed in the past. That conversation could include discussions
regarding cleanliness.
Council comments wanted to know background policy implications, a possible Study Session, and
possibly postponing the approval of the liquor license. Other Council comments noted OLCC vetted the
applicant, the police approved moving forward, the City Recorder indicated the application met the
standards, and there was no reason to delay approving the application.
Councilor Lemhouse/Marsh m/s Liquor License Application for Michael Leslie dba Vinyl Club at
130 Will Dodge Way. DISCUSSION: Councilor Lemhouse did not think Council should punish the
new owner. Council had made the concerns regarding the club known. He suggested adding a reference
section from the Police Department on the Council Communication. Councilor Marsh thought the police
review was implicit in the fact that it came before Council from the City Recorder and supported the
motion. Councilor Voisin wanted the owner to prevent patrons from using the alley as a bathroom.
Councilor Slattery would support the motion, and wanted information on what happened if Council
denied an approval. Mr. Kanner commented in the last jurisdiction where he was administrator, liquor
Regular City Council Meeting
September 16, 2014
Page 3 of 8
licenses were approved administratively unless the sheriff's office wanted to make a recommendation to
OLCC not to approve. Mayor Stromberg thought the main thing was making the business owner aware
of the concerns. Councilor Morris would support the motion and noted the lack of a visible standard to
deny an application and that was something he wanted to review in the future. Councilor Voisin wanted a
Study Session to review the liquor license process and to learn the City Recorder's responsibilities in the
process. She would support the motion.
Councilor Marsh thought Council was overreacting to a system that worked fine. The City Recorder
ensured approving departments had the opportunity to respond and did not think it needed further
discussion. Mayor Stromberg was dubious regarding a Study Session but was interested hearing more
about the process. Councilor Slattery suggested the City Recorder send an email that outlined the liquor
license process and Council could decide whether to have Study Session for further discussion.
Councilor Voisin wanted the public to know more about the process. Mr. Kanner clarified the OLCC was
required by state law to solicit a recommendation from local jurisdictions and not required to act on
recommendations. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Councilor Slattery/Morris m/s to approve Consent Agenda items except for Consent Agenda Item
95. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS None
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Designation of voting delegate to LOC annual meeting
City Administrator Dave Kanner explained no one from the City was attending the League of Oregon
Cities conference.
2. Recommendation from the ad hoc Downtown Improvement and Beautification Committee for
the use of TOT funds for "other City projects that qualify"
Management Analyst Ann Seltzer introduced Brent Thompson, Stefani Seffinger, Sandy Friend, and
Michael Dawkins from the Downtown Beautification Committee. Council had approved Committee
project recommendations for the current biennium and recommended the following projects for the 2015-
2017 budget:
• Historical Markers
The Historical Commission identified fifteen historic locations where markers would be appropriate and
had applied for a grant. The Downtown Beautification Committee allocated $11,000 towards the project
to supplement potential grant funds.
Downtown sidewalk repair
Sidewalk repair was the responsibility of property owners. The Committee took into consideration that
business owners often did not own the property and could not afford to repair the sidewalks. Alternately,
the property owner would most likely pass the cost to the business tenant. The Committee allocated
$11,000 towards the project with the understanding the Downtown Transportation Committee would
possibly recommend more extensive sidewalk improvements in the downtown area.
Tree wells
The project would fix potential trip hazards caused by tree roots or loose bricks. The Committee would
allocate $10,000 for the project with the understanding the Downtown Transportation Committee would
possibly recommend more improvements in the future.
Regular City Council Meeting
September 16, 2014
Page 4 of 8
• Replacement of downtown pedestrian lights to accommodate hanging baskets of flowers
The project would replace pedestrian lights with LED and HPS lights that were tall enough to
accommodate hanging baskets, irrigation lines, and holiday decorations. The Committee recommended
replacing 10-15 lampposts each budget cycle and allocated $49,000 to the project.
Unidentified Beautification Projects
The Committee thought it was important to have funds available for unanticipated projects and allocated
$25,000 for that purpose.
The Downtown Beautification Committee did not think public restrooms or recycling were in their
purview but received concerns from the public regarding both.
Council suggested a local improvement district (LID) of the downtown for sidewalk improvement. City
Administrator Dave Kanner explained Street Funds could pay for the sidewalk improvements although
that fund was short and confirmed the City could create a local improvement district (LID) for downtown
sidewalk improvements.
Council was not comfortable with the rationale supporting the sidewalk repairs. Downtown
Beautification Committee member Brent Thompson explained the Committee thought the City had some
culpability regarding sidewalk repair due to the City's tree requirement for sidewalks.
Ms. Seltzer further clarified pedestrian lampposts had plates that the existing footing would accommodate
eliminating extensive concrete work. The irrigation would take years because the lines ran down the
center of the sidewalks and would not happen until project work involving the sidewalks occurred.
City Attorney Dave Lohman confirmed the City would potentially be liable if one of the hanging baskets
fell and hurt someone. Ms. Seltzer added the City would work with the Parks and Recreation staff
regarding maintenance for the hanging baskets.
Kristina Lefever/2359 Blue Sky Lane/Explained she was a member of the Pollinator Project of Rogue
Valley (PPRV). She spoke at the July 15, 2014 meeting on Ashland becoming a Bee City USA.
PPRV suggested Council use the $25,000 designated for unanticipated projects to plant pollinator friendly
plants in areas the City maintained, including hanging baskets and submitted documents into the record.
Council could offer some of the funds to local businesses in the form of a matching grant to encourage
pollinator friendly and drought tolerant plants. PPRV could meet with the City and bring suggestions.
She invited everyone to attend a PPRV presentation More Butterflies, More Bees, More Flowers, Please
at the Bellview Grange September 22, 2014 starting at 6:30 p.m.
Councilor Rosenthal/Slattery m/s to approve the replacement of downtown pedestrian lights to
accommodate decorations. DISCUSSION: Councilor Slattery would support the motion. Councilor
Lemhouse supported the motion and wanted to make sure the pedestrian lights had the brackets included.
Councilor Voisin would support the motion and had concern using annuals in the baskets.
Ms. Seltzer explained staff would order the lights, arms, and irrigation lines. Installation of the irrigation
lines would occur in the future. Mr. Kanner clarified TOT funds could not be used for hanging baskets or
paying someone to hand water plants. The streetlights, arms, and irrigation would qualify for TOT funds
since they were improvements to real property.
Councilor Rosenthal explained he supported the lights and was uncomfortable with the hanging baskets
being mutually exclusive with the lights. He withdrew the motion with the knowledge the project would
return to Council for approval regarding implementation.
Regular City Council Meeting
September 16, 2014
Page 5 of 8
Councilor Marsh/Slattery m/s to approve the recommendation of the Downtown Beautification
Improvement ad hoc Committee and direct staff to come back to Council with plans to implement
the projects, subject to approval of appropriate budget cycle authority in that for projects to be
undertaken in the 2015-17 budget cycle. DISCUSSION: Councilor Marsh noted there was time for
implementation questions since the projects would not start until the 2015-17 budget.
Councilor Lemhouse/Marsh m/s to amend the motion and allocate the remaining portion of $25,000
towards developing a master plan for future Plaza improvements.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Lemhouse explained the Plaza was an ongoing improvement effort and
having a master plan as a base would be helpful. Councilor Marsh agreed on having a coherent plan
moving forward. It was the right direction but she wanted more discussion prior to allocating the
$25,000. Councilor Slattery agreed on having a long-term plan and had some hesitancy waiting to start a
plan in the 2015-2017 budget cycle. Councilor Morris questioned whether a master plan was an
improvement that qualified for TOT funds. Mr. Kanner thought it was questionable and could be
challenged unless Council worked with the opposition, and gained support. Councilor Marsh suggested
scheduling the master plan for a Study Session. Councilor Lemhouse responded if approved, it would
come back to Council for implementation approval and further discussion. Councilor Rosenthal would
vote against the amendment. The $25,000 might be needed to cover the other projects. Councilor Morris
would not support the amendment and thought Council should use other funds for a master plan.
Councilor Voisin would vote against the amendment. It was a good idea that might cost more than
$25,000. She preferred holding the money in reserve for other projects. Roll Call Vote: Councilor
Lemhouse, YES; Councilor Rosenthal, Morris, Voisin, Slattery, and Marsh, NO. Motion failed 1-5.
Roll Call Vote on main motion: Councilor Morris, Rosenthal, Marsh, Slattery, Lemhouse, and
Voisin, YES. Motion passed.
Councilor Marsh requested adding the Plaza master plan to a future Study Session with Council
consensus.
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. First reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance repealing AMC Chapter 6.36,
Film and Television Productions and enacting replacement AMC Chapter 6.36 Film
Productions"
Management Analyst Ann Seltzer explained regulating film production would:
1. Ensure the safety of participants, spectators and the general public
2. Minimize the inconvenience and disruptive impacts to citizens, businesses and City services
3. Minimize the liability risk to the City, the general public and public property
Significant changes included exempting filming on private property, requiring film companies to notify
neighbors, exempting permit requirements for personal film or video productions using personal devices,
and allowing the City Administrator to waive permit requirements, fees, and liability. Staff worked with
Southern Oregon University (SOU) and created a list that would trigger a permit. SOU would determine
the assessment of safety, impact, and liability and whether a permit was required. City Attorney Dave
Lohman added another significant change was adopting general requirements that did not require a permit
under Section 6.36.020 General Filming Regulations. He went on to address an email from Erik Palmer
with language from New York City that explicitly stated who did not need permits. Mr. Lohman thought
normal light users were covered by the personal filming exemption in the ordinance. Council questioned
how light commercial users factored into exemptions. City Administrator Dave Kanner noted in Section
6.36.030 Required Permits - Applications (D)(2) an exemption from permit and fee requirements for
someone holding a camera or making a personal film. That did not mean someone could obstruct a
Regular City Council Meeting
September 16, 2014
Page 6 of 8
sidewalk.
Bob Ayers/302 West Nevada Street/Spoke on behalf of the Public Access Advisory Board of Rogue
Valley Community Television (RVTV). RVTV was concerned by the of lack of input from the public
television access community and appreciated Council listening to Erik Palmer, Brandon Givens, and
Howard Schreiber and supported the revised ordinance before Council. RVTV suggested additional
language that would strengthen first amendment rights and suggested language from the New York City
ordinance.
Biome Michael Erickson/Ashland/The motion to repeal and replace the existing film and television
production ordinance came from City staff and not the citizens. He cited staff introduced the amendment
during the February 4 Council with language that assaulted first amendment rights. Staff also had not
adequately demonstrated why the current ordinance needed to be repealed. Certain City staff members
had declared themselves enemies of the community, intent on violating rights based solely on their
February 4 performance. If he had sufficient evidence, he would arrest them and deliver them to a peace
officer per Oregon Revised Statutes 1.33.225.
Brandon Givens/Phoenix OR/Supported updating the ordinance. It would provide good learning
experience for SOU students. He endorsed the document Erik Palmer sent and wanted more clarification
regarding personal devices and infringing on public space. Most students did not engage in elaborate set
ups and were low impact. He also wanted further definition regarding personal devices and public
property.
Gary Kout/425 Clinton Street/Explained he was the executive director of Southern Oregon Film and
Television (SOFAT). The new ordinance had moved forward in a good direction. Student productions
did not rise to a big level in filmmaking. Many members of their productions were amateur and non-
commercial. Section 6.36.030(D) listed exemptions and (F) permit requirements that were a step in the
right direction.
Erik Palmer/111 Willamette Avenue Medford, OR/Explained he was an assistant professor in the
Communication Department at SOU and coordinator of the Southern Oregon Digital Media Center. If
enforced, the ordinance would cause many citizens to check in with the city staff or complete significant
bureaucracy before making videos with portable cameras like cell phones. The ordinance included
exemptions for personal productions that specifically encompassed for profit productions no matter how
trivial. The City's intent to require individual review of every instance of academic production by SOU
students in Ashland no matter the low impact was a bureaucratic overstep for the 242 film students at
SOU.
Councilor Lemhouse/Slattery m/s to suspend Council rules to ask questions of Gary Kout, Brandon
Givens and Erik Palmer and Bob Ayers. Voice Vote YES.
Council discussed the possibility of an umbrella permit for SOU that Mr. Palmer was not sure would
work since advanced film students should experience the permit process. Also discussed was the need to
better define low impact users and expanding language to include commercial low impact and
professional. Council expressed concern the ordinance was overcomplicated and questioned whether the
focus should be on equipment, activity, or behavior. Mr. Kout suggested an interface with specific
questions that scored an applicant on whether they needed a permit or needed to talk to the City.
Mr. Lohman clarified under general requirements there was a requirement that stated film activities may
not inhibit pedestrian access on sidewalks. Low impact filming would not require a permit and the
filmmaker would have to abide City regulations.
Regular City Council Meeting
September 16, 2014
Page 7 of 8
Councilor Voisin/Marsh m/s to reinstate Council rules, Voice Vote: all AYES.
Councilor Lemhouse/Rosenthal m/s to approve First Reading by title only of an ordinance titled,
"An ordinance Repealing AMC Chapter 6.36 Film and Television Productions and Enacting
Replacement AMC Chapter 6.36 Film Productions."
Councilor Voisin/Marsh m/s amend the motion and add under 6.36.010(IT) the definition of low
impact filming means filming which uses hand-held cameras and no other equipment or vehicles;
which does not necessitate exclusive use of City property or right of way; and which otherwise
Complies with section 6.36.020 and also related to 6.36.030 (D)(6) adding low impact filming.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Voisin explained establishing a definition for low impact filming and
exempting it from the permit process would work well for SOU and professional filmmakers. Councilor
Lemhouse thought Council was overcomplicating the ordinance, mired with defining low impact filming
and getting away from the original mission to protect safety and the public.
Councilor Marsh/Slattery m/s amend the amendment to read low impact filming means a film
production excludes the use of a vehicle and does not necessitate exclusive use of City property or
right of way and which otherwise Complies with section 6.36.020.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Marsh explained the amendment would satisfy student questions, address
small professional productions, and narrow who would require a permit. Councilor Slattery would not
support the amendment. He agreed with Councilor Lemhouse and thought Council should focus on who
was expected to obtain a permit instead of who was not. Councilor Lemhouse thought the ordinance
should be simple, if a filmmaker was not obstructing a right of way, not violating laws or needed
exclusive use of City property, they should not require a permit. Councilor Voisin responded if Council
wanted a simplified ordinance, they should retain the current one. Council had directed staff to develop a
detailed ordinance that identified what the City meant regarding filming and videotaping. She would not
support the amendment but would support the original amendment. Councilor Morris noted earlier
testimony that the ordinance would confuse people and agreed with Councilor Slattery.
Mr. Kanner suggested Council repeal the old ordinance, not adopt the proposed ordinance, and rely on
code provisions that took place in the public right of way instead. Councilor Slattery noted the
information could go on the website. Ms. Seltzer explained the Special Event Permit covered exclusive
use of City owned property.
Councilor Lemhouse/Marsh m/s to suspend Council Rules. Voice Vote ALL AYES. Motion
passed.
Council agreed to add the discussion regarding the deer attack to a subsequent Council meeting.
Ms. Seltzer explained staff could revise the Film and Video Production Guidelines and Policies to serve
as a guide for someone interested in filming in Ashland and put it on the city website with links to the
Chamber of Commerce and other pertinent sites. The film production of the movie Wild was a Special
Event Permit that involved multiple departments, closures, multiple uses, days, and parking.
Mr. Lohman clarified with or without the ordinance, anyone conducting business in Ashland was required
to get a business license. Liability insurance was required for special events. Street closures typically
occurred for construction and did not require insurance. Pyrotechnics fell under the Fire Code and
required a permit through that department. Mr. Kanner further clarified the $2,000,000 liability insurance
requirement pertained to large-scale productions.
Regular City Council Meeting
September 16, 2014
Page 8 of 8
Councilor Slattery/ Voisin m/s to reinstate Council Rules. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Councilor Marsh withdrew the amendment she made. Councilor Voisin withdrew her amendment.
Councilor Lemhouse withdrew the motion.
Councilor Marsh/Slattery m/s ask staff to examine the direction they suggested and come back to
Council with a proposal to handle filmmaking in the future.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Marsh noted the need for further examination of how the process would work
in the future. Councilor Lemhouse commented on the process and appreciated the work done. Councilor
Rosenthal would support the motion but was not sure the process did not need some form of regulation.
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Voisin, Marsh, Slattery, Morris, and Rosenthal. YES.
Motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
Councilor Lemhouse congratulated Councilor Slattery on his upcoming confirmation by the Oregon State
Senate to be a part of the Oregon State University (OSU) Board of Trustees.
Councilor Voisin reminded everyone of the More Butterflies, More Bees, More Flowers Please
Presentation at the Bellview Grange September 22, 2014 starting at 6:30 p.m. Additionally, Uncle Foods
Diner would host dog vaccinations soon. Finally, the Healthcare Coalition of Southern Oregon Jackson
County Health and Human Services Prevention Program was sponsoring the formation of a youth council
for ages 13-19.
ADJOURNMENT OF BUSINESS MEETING
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Dana Smith, Assistant to the City Recorder John Stromberg, Mayor
N, J13
Proclamation
i -a
• The city of Ashland, Oregon, is committed to ensuring the safety and security of all
those living in and visiting Ashland. ° t
ra
'o
• Fire is a serious public safety concern both locally and nationally, and homes are the ➢
° locations where people are at greatest risk from fire. ° • Home fires killed more than 2,700 people in the United States in 2013, according to
➢ the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and fire departments in the United
° States responded to 369,500 home fires.
c~o°
~ - °°b • Working smoke alarms cut the risk of dying in reported home fires in half.
• Three out of five home fire deaths result from fires in properties without working L 6
smoke alarms. In one-fifth of all homes with smoke alarms, none were working and °o
when smoke alarms should have operated but did not do so it was usually because ➢
b batteries were missing, disconnected, or dead.
a • Residents should install- smoke alarms in every sleeping room, outside each separate
sleeping area, and on every level of the home and should install smoke alarms and
° alert devices that meet the needs of people who are deaf or hard of hearing. °
' • The 2014 Fire Prevention Week theme, "Working Smoke Alarms Save Lives: Test
Yours Every Month!" effectively serves to remind us that we need working smoke
alarms to give us the time to get out safely.
7~ Q THEREFORE, the City Council and Mayor, on behalf of the citizens of Ashland, do ➢
0 hereby proclaim October 5-11, 2014, as: l
Q
-71
Fire Prevention Week
and I urge all the people of Ashland to test their smoke alarms at least eve month b
pushing the test button, and to support the many public safety activities and efforts of
Ashland Fire & Rescue during Fire Prevention Week 2014.
Dated this 7th day of October, 2014
00
^Oo
John Stromberg, Mayor Barbara Christensen, City Recorder _
%O~ 8 tY °a E!G°ad ~vG OrJ L^/GtilJ 8 ^~GCKS Q Ga~^ L^l Fq~ t^.f FY h~LJ lll""
i V
° O
O O O ~ O 1) O Cv
Ashland Housing and Human Services Commission
Minutes June 26, 2014
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Joshua Boettiger called the meeting to order at 4:34 in the Siskiyou Room at the Community Development and
Engineering Offices located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520.
Commissioners Present: Council Liaison
Joshua Boettiger Pam Marsh, arrived at 5 pm
Heidi Parker
Sue Crader SOU Liaison
Michael Gutman Andrew Enss►in
Regina Ayars
Rich Rohde Staff Present:
Coriann Matthews Brandon Goldman, Housing Specialist
Gina DuQuenne, left at 5:30 Carolyn Schwendener, Admin Clerk
Commissioners Absent
Connie Saldana
Approval of Minutes
Rohde/Parker m/s to approve the minutes of the May 22, 2014 Housing and Human Services Commission with a
meeting date correction. Voice Vote: All Ayes, minutes were approved with correction.
PUBLIC FORUM
Judy Kerstetter/1354 Quincy Street spoke regarding the dangers of using Roundup as a weed killer. Ms.
Kerstetter told the Commission about three weeks ago she realized that her property owner was spraying
glyphosate, which in her opinion is extremely toxic. Ms Kerstetter is an artist who paints with her door open and
has become sick due to the frequent spraying within twelve feet of her door.
The Commissioners encouraged Ms Kerstetter to attend the Conservation Commission meeting as well as speak
with the property owners and neighbors. Ms. Kerstetter had the idea to start a program offering meals to the
homeless in exchange for them whacking down weeds. She would like to see the use of glyphosates banned within
the City. She will give an update to the Commission at a future meeting.
Keith Haxton and Christy Wright from SOU Student Fair Housing campaign were present for the Student Fair
Housing agenda topic.
Paul Shoemaker, communications and government affairs liaison with the Rogue Valley Association of Realtors was
present to observe the meeting.
STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE AND NEXT STEPS
Commissioner Saldana and Reid presented the Strategic Plan to the City Council at their June 3, 2014 meeting. The
Council was very receptive and gave them the go ahead to move forward and draft the Strategic Plan. Reid
conveyed the next step in the time line is to do a Community Outreach Event.
It was determined that sub-committees would be in order. The following topics were suggested for the sub
committees.
• Brief history background
• Public outreach to stakeholders
• Outline of the goals
• Quantification of the goals and methodology for that.
At this time with Commissioners agreed to start with one sub-committee and then see what comes out of that
meeting. The Commissioners who volunteered for the sub-committee are Parker, Rohde, Matthews and Boettiger.
The deadline goal for the Strategic Plan is November of 2014 in order be completed before the RFP is issued for the
social service grant money in January or February of 2015.
DISCUSSION: COMMUNITY OUTREACH MEETING FOR THE STRATEGIC PLAN
The Community outreach event is scheduled for July 24 from 4:30pm to 6:30pm in the Community Center located
at 59 Winburn Way. Refreshments will be served.
Reid created a postcard mailer invitation. With the help of the Commissioners compiling names and addresses
Reid will take responsibility to complete the mailing. Those invited will be grantees from past awards, community
volunteer members, faith based communities, budget members; agencies who applied but have not received
awards, etc. After the mailing Commissioner DuQuenne will follow up with a phone call.
Brandon Goldman will participate in the outreach event because Reid will be out of town during that time. It was
determined that each Commissioner would be responsible for a round table in which the participants would have a
list of specific questions in order to gather information. There will be two Commissioners at each table and focus
will be on gaps and goal settings. Once the tables have completed their discussions then there will be a common
presentation reviewing the information gathered.
Some suggested questions were;
• What was the application process like for you?
• What improvements would you make in the application process?
• How as the public presentation process?
• Fairness of the process?
• What are our community needs, where are the gaps? Where is there excess?
Ayars and Gina along with Reid will work together creating the lists of questions for the tables.
STUDENT FAIR HOUSING - NEXT STEPS
SOU Liaison Ensslin explained that at the last Commission meeting they discussed ways in which to get feedback
from landlords as was requested by City Council. It was proposed that an alternative to hosting a public forum was to
put together questions to bring forward to the landlords. When the questions are compiled they will take the survey to
the Southern Oregon Rental Association as well as other groups.
The Commissioners reviewed and discussed Ensslin's questions he and Christy Wright had prepared.
Some of the recommendations to Ensslin were;
• Make the survey anonymous
• Change the title, don't use Fair Housing it implies they aren't providing fair housing
• Make the survey as short as possible so the applicant will complete it
• Don't use fill in the blank questions but check boxes which is easier to fill out
• Make the questions simple and specific
• Include more of an introduction to explain why they are taking the survey
Ensslin and Wright will complete the survey using the suggestions that the Commissioners made and bring it to the
Housing and Human Services Goal Setting meeting on August 28th
RENTAL REGISTRY UPDATE
Reid explained that it was recommended in a 2007 Rental Needs Analysis that the City have a rental registry in
order to better track the rental stock in Ashland. Two years ago the City business license registry ordinance was
updated to change the language around rentals. Previously landlords were only required to get a business license if
they had six or more units. That ordinance has changed to read two or more units giving the City the opportunity to
collect the information they were interested in gathering through a rental registry. Information regarding, how many
bedrooms were available, were utilities included in the rent, vacancy rates, emergency contact information etc.
Reid acknowledged that at this time the City is not collecting any information but staff is working on making this
happen. It would be beneficial to track that information year after year.
It was recognized that most landlords don't even realize they need to register or purchase a business license. Staff
is looking at ways to notify the public. The Commissioners discussed ways in which to incentivize the landlords to
purchase their business license and fill out the registry. A monetary discount was suggested.
LIAISON REPORTS DISCUSSION
Council - Marsh announced that at the next Council meeting they will be looking at Traveler's Accommodations in
R-1 zones.
General Announcements - La Clinica mobile health van is now offering morning hours from 9:00 am to 12:00 pm
and then 1:00 pm to 5:00pm on Tuesdays. They are really looking for more places for the summertime.
Commissioner Matthews announced she is no longer working at Community Works and will be starting employment
with Southern Oregon Goodwill as a program specialist; she has a new email contact.
JULY 24. 2014 AGENDA ITEMS
Outreach Event - The Community outreach event is scheduled for July 24th from 4:30pm to 6:30pm in the Community
Center located at 59 Winburn Way. Refreshments will be served.
Quorum Check - All Commissioners confirmed they will be present at the next meeting.
UPCOMING EVENTS AND MEETINGS
Housing and Human Services Commission Goal Setting meeting - August 28, 2014, from 4:00pm to 7:00pm in the
Siskiyou Room of the Community Development Building located at 51 Winburn Way. Pizza and salad will be
served.
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 6:35p.m.
Respectfully submitted by Carolyn Schwendener
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Ashland Housing and Human Services Commission Goal Setting Retreat
Minutes August 28, 2014
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Joshua Boettiger called the meeting to order at 4:15 in the Siskiyou Room at the Community Development and
Engineering Offices located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520.
Commissioners Present: Council Liaison
Joshua Boettiger Pam Marsh
Heidi Parker
Connie Saldana SOU Liaison
Michael Gutman Andrew Ensslin
Regina Ayars, absent
Rich Rohde Staff Present:
Coriann Matthews Linda Reid,
Sue Crader
Gina DuQuenne
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the June 26, 2014 Housing and Human Services Commission meeting were approved unanimously.
PUBLIC FORUM
Stefani Seffinger
Judy Kersteader
SOCIAL SERVICE MEETING DEBRIEF
• Good Turnout
• Consistent topics: Affordable Housing; Mental Health Services: Lack of funding
• Small funding helps
• Address the biggest issues in the best way (most efficient) possible
• Need to be more clear about priorities and have a good process
• If the goals are strong then the funding will be more targeted
• Harder for the grantors to evaluate the applications without clear goal
STRATEGIC PLAN NEXT STEPS
Recommendations:
• Maybe the H&HS Commission makes the initial recommendations?
• Think creatively about measurement of need; Measure a waitlist of those in need; measurement should
correlate to grant size.
• Is there another way to show leverage?
• What % of the budget is the award
• Key informant interviews: those who did not make it to the outreach event; police chief?
• Gather measurements; ASD Demographers report; CCO's
• The subcommittee will come up with a couple of simple questions in broad topic areas to post on open city
hall to gain further feedback about goals and priorities.
• The subcommittee will generate a list of key informants to interview regarding goals and priorities
COUNCIL GOAL REVEW AND DISCUSSION
Marsh provided an overview of the draft council goals as they stand currently. The goals that are articulated
currently which most pertain to the mission and duties of the Housing and Human Services Commission are;
• Seek opportunities to help people meet basic needs
• Make Ashland more family friendly
• Provide support for Aging in Ashland
Marsh cautioned that these goals have not been adopted and may change. The Goals were discussed and the
commissioners held a brainstorming and goal prioritization session. The Commissioners identified eleven general
goals to be further discussed and refined at the next regular meeting.
• Jobs
• Manufactured Home Park owned by occupants
• Affordable Housing/Inclusionary Zones
• Transitions/temporary housing
• Affordable housing (land costs reductions/tiny house model/zoning changes?)
• Streamlining development process (incentives for not-for-profits, special needs housing, align with council
goals)
• Case management/life skills training
• Supporting Winter shelter efforts
• Family Friendly involvement/ re-open schools
• Research housing first model
• Revive "land trust"
STUDENT FAIR HOUSING-QUESTION REVIEW AND NEXT STEPS
Ensslin presented the revised questions as requested. The commissioners made a few minor word choice
changes.
Rohde/Duquenne m/s to approve the questions with changes. Voice Vote. All ayes motion passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 7:00p.m.
respectfully submitted by Linda Reid
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
August 12, 2014
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Richard Kaplan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main
Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Troy J. Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Michael Dawkins Derek Severson, Associate Planner
Richard Kaplan Amy Gunter, Assistant Planner
Debbie Miller April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Tracy Peddicord
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris, absent
Lynn Thompson
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the City Council public hearing for the Unified Land Use
Ordinance is scheduled for Tuesday, August 19. He also noted the upcoming Planning Commissioner training and
directed interested members to contact staff.
AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES
Downtown Beautification Committee: Commissioner Dawkins announced all of the improvements discussed at
their last meeting have been approved.
SDC Review Committee: Commissioner Brown stated the committee completed their review of the water and
wastewater SDCs and are moving on to streets and traffic. He added their next meeting will be in October.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. June 24, 2014 Study Session.
2. July 8, 2014 Regular Meeting.
3. July 22, 2014 Special Meeting.
Commissioners Dawkins/Brown mis to approve the Consent Agenda with a correction to the July 8 minutes:
Page 3, the date listed in the first paragraph should read j"l 22. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed
unanimously.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
Ashland Planning Commission
August 12, 2014
Page 1 of 4
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: #2014-00710
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 143 Nutley Street
APPLICANT: Robert Baldwin
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to exceed maximum permitted
floor area (MPFA) in the Skidmore Academy Historic District for the addition to the existing 896 square
foot residence on the property at 143 Nutley Street. The request is to exceed the allowed MPFA by 17.9
percent or 392 square feet.
Commissioner Kaplan read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Brown, Dawkins, Kaplan, Miller and Peddicord declared site visits. No ex parte contact was reported.
Staff Report
Assistant Planner Amy Gunter provided a description of the property location and stated similar to other residential
lots on this block, this property was created prior to current zoning regulations and is smaller than the minimum lot
size of 7,500 sq. ft. As a result, the property is considered a legal, non-conforming lot. Ms. Gunter explained the
applicant requests to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area which is 2,292 sq. ft. and add 1,695 sq. ft. to the
existing 896 sq. ft. home for a total of 2,591 sq. ft. She stated the applicant has proposed a two-story addition at the
rear of the existing residence and the existing front fagade will remain. Ms. Gunter noted the Historic Commission
reviewed this proposal at their August meeting and found the proposed addition is compatible with the other
residences in the vicinity, both in massing and scale, and recommended approval of the proposal.
Ms. Gunter called attention to the concerns raised by neighbors regarding lack of on-site parking and the impacts of
the proposed relocated driveway to the two trees. Regarding parking, she stated this parcel has historically had a
single parking space, although there is room to stack vehicles in the long driveway. She stated the proposal is not
inconsistent with what has historically been happening in the neighborhood and noted the applicant is prepared to
address this concern during their presentation. Ms. Gunter recited the current parking requirements for the
Commission but noted because this is a conditional use permit the Commission does have discretion on this issue.
Ms. Gunter commented on the concerns raised regarding tree impacts and stated the relocated driveway appears to
require the removal of the maple tree and have impacts to the root zone of the cedar tree, both of which are on the
adjacent property which is also going through a land use approval. She noted because the trees are not on this
parcel, potential impacts will need to be addressed in the adjacent property's arborist report.
Applicant's Presentation
Gary Caperna12908 Hillcrest, Medford/Mr. Caperna acknowledged the neighbors concerns and stated they have
done their best to address their issues. He stated they have worked within the constraints of these two adjacent lots
and stated this application goes hand in hand with the application for 135 Nutley. Mr. Caperna stated they wanted to
reduce the impacts of garages on the street and have realigned the driveway to straddle the property line which will
allow the garages for both homes to be placed at the rear of the properties. He stated the back out space will be
utilized by both properties and will reduce impervious surfaces. Mr. Caperna stated they have worked closely with the
Historic Commission to mitigate the mass of the home and noted the addition is at the back of the current structure.
He pointed out that both lots are smaller than normal and stated 1/3 of the lots are undevelopable because of the
slope. Mr. Caperna explained there are currently two curb cuts on Nutley and stated they are proposing a single
driveway access for both properties which will provide more space to park on the street. Mr. Caperna suggested
possible modifications that would increase the on-site parking, including retaining the location of the existing driveway
(although this would exceed the maximum site coverage requirements), and shifting the location of the garage for
135 Nutley to create another parking space. Regarding the trees at 135 Nutley, Mr. Caperna clarified they are doing
everything they can to preserve the cedar tree, however the maple tree is problematic and will likely not remain.
Questions of Staff
Ms. Gunter clarified the removal of the maple tree at 135 Nutley would not require a tree removal permit and is
outright permitted in the code.
Ashland Planning Commission
August 12, 2014
Page 2 of 4
Public Testimony
No one came forward to speak. Staff noted the letter in the record submitted by Mr. Phil Cooper, which raised
concerns with parking and trees, and the Commission confirmed that they had read this letter.
Commissioner Kaplan closed the record and the public hearing at 7:45 p. m.
Deliberations & Decision
Commissioners Brown/Dawkins m/s to approve the application as presented with the conditions of approval
recommended by staff. DISUCSSION: Commissioner Brown commented that while it would be convenient to have
two parking spots on each site, this is not what the code requires. Ms. Gunter stated Condition 2(d) needs to be
corrected to read "no more than the 45% allowed in the R-1-7.5". She also pointed out Condition 3 will address the
tree protection and preservation at 135 Nutley, and Condition 5 will extend the curbside sidewalk to the west property
line. Commissioner Brown asked if the term "substantial" could be removed from Condition 2(a) and Ms. Gunter
agreed to make this change. Commissioner Dawkins indicated he will vote in favor of this motion but expressed his
disappointment that entry level housing continues to be gentrified to make it bigger, and feels the City needs to do a
better job of retaining smaller houses. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Brown, Dawkins, Miller, Peddicord and
Kaplan, YES. Motion passed unanimously.
B. PLANNING ACTION: #2014-00967
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 572-582 Fair Oaks Avenue
APPLICANT: Ayala Properties, LLC
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to construct a three-story mixed-use 10,748 square
foot building at the corner of Fair Oaks Avenue and Plum Ridge Drive. The building will consist of six
residential units on the upper two floors and one commercial space, with the option for interim
residential use on the ground floor along with five parking spaces. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: North Mountain, Neighborhood Central Overlay; ZONING: NM-C; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39
1 E 04 AD TAX LOTS: 5900.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Brown, Dawkins, Kaplan and Peddicord declared site visits. No ex parte contact was reported.
Staff Report
Associate Planner Derek Severson explained this application is for a three-story mixed use building at the corner of
Fair Oaks and Plum Ridge Drive, and noted the Planning Commission issued site review approval for this area back
in August 2013. Mr. Severson briefly reviewed the proposal and stated the building will consist of six residential units
on the upper two floors, one commercial space on the first floor with the option for interim residential use, and five on-
site parking spaces. Mr. Severson stated staff has no issues with the design as proposed, but feels there are some
small fine tuning elements that could be considered, including: 1) continuous awning coverage of the sidewalk, 2) for
the store front windows to not be tinted, 3) a stronger sense of entry for the upstairs residential units, 4) a reduction in
the landscape buffer in order to maintain a 5 foot sidewalk between the landscaping and the tree wells, 5) enhanced
landscaping to soften the expanse of the garage wall, and 6) screening for the parking garage. Mr. Severson stated
staff is recommending approval with the conditions as presented.
Questions of Staff
Commissioner Miller expressed concern with the increased traffic onto North Mountain and stated this will impact an
already dangerous intersection. Mr. Severson clarified the previous approval included a condition for the applicant to
meet with the Transportation Commission to discuss this issue. He stated these meetings did occur, although he
does not have the outcomes.
Applicant's Presentation
Mark Knox/485 W Nevada, Rob Saladoff1508 Clinton, Tom Madaral2994 Wells Fargo Rd, Central Point.
Mr. Knox stated they are very excited about this project and noted this is part of the North Mountain Master Plan. He
stated this parcel is planned for six units with the ground floor space to be flexible, and stated the ground floor will
Ashland Planning Commission
August 12, 2014
Page 3 of 4
convert to commercial once the neighborhood density can support commercial uses. Regarding the enhancements
recommended by staff, Mr. Knox stated staff has been very supportive of this project and they welcome working with
staff on further improvements. Mr. Knox stated the sidewalk modification is not an issue and clarified they never
intended to tint the windows.
Mr. Saladoff voiced support for staff's suggestions to screen the garage and to enhance the residential entry and
provided a few suggestions on how this could be accomplished, including: changing the ground lever door and
windows, using different surface texture on the sidewalk, and potentially creating a lobby space.
Mr. Knox commented on the continuous awning recommendation from staff and stated they understood this to mean
creating places of refuge for pedestrians and they continue to walk, not a full awning wrapping around the entire
building. He added you do not see this in downtown and there is not a continuous awning at Julian Square.
Public Testimony
No one came forward to speak.
Questions of Staff
Mr. Molnar read the awning standard aloud and agreed that the intention is not for a singular awning, but questioned
if the plan put forward by the applicants provides adequate pedestrian refuge. Mr. Severson added there are
opportunities to combine different treatments to provide increased refuge and believes this can be done without
impacting the character of the buildings.
Mr. Knox acknowledged the awnings could extend more over the sidewalk, but noted they did not know staff was
going to interpret this standard this way until the staff report was released last week.
Comment was made that there is a difference between continuous and contiguous and would like the condition to
give this some flexibility. Mr. Severson recommended the language in Condition 70) be revised to read "revised
treatments to provide continuous sidewalk coverage." He also clarified he would remove the term "substantial" from
Condition 3 and would add trash enclosures to Condition 7(I).
Commissioner Kaplan dosed the record and the public hearing at 8:40 p.m.
Deliberations & Decision
Commissioners DawkinslPeddicord m/s to approve PA-2014-00967 with the conditions as stated by staff.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Miller indicated she is still concerned with traffic. Mr. Molnar noted when this
subdivision was approved there was a traffic analysis completed and it met the standards. He added the Public
Works Department is aware of this location in terms of potential future safety improvements and staff will follow up on
the results of the meeting with the Transportation Commission. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Brown, Dawkins,
Miller, Peddicord and Kaplan, YES. Motion passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Submitted by, April Lucas
Administrative Supervisor
Ashland Planning Commission
August 12, 2014
Page 4 of 4
CITY OF
ASHLAND
TREE COMMISSION MINUTES
August 4, 2014
CALL TO ORDER - Ashland Tree Commission meeting was called to order at 6:06 p.m. on
August 4, 2014 in the Siskiyou Room in the Community Development and Engineering Services
Building located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon.
Commissioners Present Council Liaison
Ken Schmidt Carol Voisin
Gregg Trunnell - Absent Staff
Russ Neff Michael Pina, Planning liaison
Case Roland - Absent
Christopher John
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Neff motioned, and John seconded the motion, to approve the July 7,
2014 regular meeting minutes and the motion carried unanimously.
WELCOME GUESTS & PUBLIC FORUM
No guests
PLANNING ACTION REVIEW
PLANNING ACTION: PA-2014-00967
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 572-582 Fair Oaks Avenue
APPLICANT: Ayala Properties, LLC
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to construct a three-story
mixed-use 10,748 square foot building at the corner of Fair Oaks Avenue and Plum Ridge Drive.
The building will consist of six residential units on the upper two floors and one commercial
space, with the option for interim residential use, on the ground floor along with five parking
spaces.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: North Mountain Central Overlay;
ZONING: NM-C; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 IE 04 AD TAX LOTS: 5900
No ex parte contacts declared. Pina gave a brief staff report, noting that the proposal is for a new,
mixed-use building within the North Mountain Central (NM-C) overlay zone. Knox provided
context of the area, and pointed out that the building proposes a two-phase approach with the
bottom floor having the ability to convert from temporarily residential to commercial. In doing
so, the application proposes a two-phase mix of plantings around the bottom floor. In considering
the request, the Commission noted that the proposal provides a good mix of street trees and
ground cover plantings that are drought-tolerant and appropriate for the site.
John motioned, Neff seconded, to approve the application as presented. The motion carried
unanimously.
PLANNING ACTION: PA-2014-01075
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 163-175 N. Pioneer St.
APPLICANT: Christian Senf
~r'
OWNER: Joan Yates
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval for the properties located at
163-175 N. Pioneer St. This would modify the previous Site Review approvals granted in PA #
2009-01520 and PA 42010-00069 to allow the restoration/renovation of the existing structure at
175 North Pioneer Street into a local delicatessen, serving regional artisan food and beverages.
The application also includes a request for an Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards to
reduce the required parking lot landscaping and landscape buffer between the proposed parking
area and the property line.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial; ZONING: C-1; ASSESSOR'S
MAP: 39 lE 09 BB; TAX LOTS: 12500 and 12600
No ex parte contacts declared. Pina gave a brief staff report, noting that the proposal is for the
current Ruby's owners to take over the adjacent building for a new/expanded restaurant use. As
the building is to remain primarily unchanged, the application focuses on parking and site
improvements consistent with the Site Design and Use Standards in terms of orientation and
landscaping. The application shows tree protection on the north side, and implementation of new
landscaped areas in front and on the side of the building. In reviewing the request, the
Commission noted that the proposed plan does not indicate size of proposed planting, nor does it
show irrigation to the side or rear of the lot.
Therefore, the Neff motioned, John seconded, that the application be approved as
submitted, with the condition that a revised landscape and irrigation plan be submitted
indicating the size of the proposed plantings and irrigation to the rear and side of the
property. The motion carried unanimously.
PLANNING ACTION: PA-2014-01286
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 680 Normal
APPLICANT: Nancy McLeod
DESCRIPTION: A Tree Removal Permit request to remove an approximate 10-inch
DBH Maple tree from the side yard of the property located at 680 Normal.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low-Density Multi-Family; ZONING: R-2;
ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 15AA TAX LOT: 6803
All commissioners visited the site. No ex parte contacts declared. Pina gave a brief staff report
outlining the application request to remove a single 10-inch DBH Maple Tree from the front yard
of the common area, just south of the applicant's unit. Although the volunteer tree is vigorous
and healthy, it has grown around power lines for the adjacent property, and rubbing on a
homeowner's fence. Furthermore, the applicant is requesting not to mitigate the tree as this
particular tree was not identified or proposed on the 1989 landscape plan, therefore not a
required tree. In deliberating the request, the commission found that not mitigating the removed
tree seems is appropriate, as there are numerous trees within the immediate vicinity, including a
significant Douglas Fir approximately 30 feet to the west.
Neff motioned, Schmidt seconded, to approve the application as presented. The motion
carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Pina spoke to the issue of the dead Plaza tree, and if the Commission wishes to make a
recommendation on a replacement tree in its place. Vice Chair Schmidt brought up additional
~r,
2
issues of if the Commission wishes to discuss whether the plaza constructions / modifications
assist in the demise of the tree, and if the Commission wishes to have the City pay for a
professional arborist opinion to make a formal determination. Moreover, if the Commission
wishes to write a formal recommendation to the City as to how to best proceed with future
construction projects to ensure that this does not happen again? Pina responded that City
departments are having internal conversations on this particular issue, and tree protection
measures on civic projects in general. Councilwomen Voisin stated that she had been contacted
by a citizen who was concerned over the city's practices as it relates to city projects. The
commission then discussed what had occurred on-site, and what they suspect to be the
cumulative effects of construction, lack of water, trenching, and pre-existing tree health in
resulting in the eventual demise of the tree. In discussing the questions raised, the commission
felt it would not be productive to recommend a formal retroactive investigation to determine this
particular tree's death, but best to place efforts to ensure that the City follows the same, if not
greater, tree protection measures on future projects. In the end, the Commission recommended
that the replacement tree shall be a minimum four- to six-inches DBH, preferably a Burr or Red
Oak; contain an appropriate amended soil mixture; planted in the fall according to City
specifications.
Neff motioned, Schmidt seconded, that replacement tree shall be a minimum four- to six-
inches DBH, preferably a Burr or Red Oak; contain an appropriate amended soil mixture;
planted in the fall according to City specifications. The motion carried unanimously.
LIAISON REPORTS
Carol Voisin, City Council Liaison - Voisin updated the Commission on recent items the
Council has been working on, including passing the medical marijuana ordinance, city
beautification committee, and transportation issues through downtown. Voisin noted that a few
of these items would come before the Tree Commission at a future date for their review.
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
Neff inquired about the three hazardous Elm trees that have died along North Main Street. Pina
noted that the property owner has come into the city offices to request removal and subsequent
lane closure permits. Although staff is unaware when removal is scheduled.
Meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
Respectively submitted by Assistant Planner Michael Pina
~r,
3
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
October 7, 2014, Business Meeting
Approval of Contract-Specific Procurement for Construction Phase Inspections
and Project Management of Ashland Creek Park Construction
FROM
Michael A. Black, Parks and Recreation Director
SUMMARY
This is a request for City Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, to approve an
exemption from the competitive bid process and directly award a contract to Steve Ennis for project
management for Ashland Creek Park Construction. Additional duties would include inspection and
construction activities, design and consultation during construction, review of shop drawings and
submittals, preparation of monthly progress reports and payment estimates.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Ashland Parks and Recreation has been working on the Ashland Creek Park project since July 29,
2014. On December 3, 2013, Ashland Parks and Recreation received approval from Council for
construction coordination with the assistance of Steve Ennis.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
The original contract amount of $24,600.00 was approved by Council. Based on unforeseen
complications, additional requirements have increased the scope of work by $5,334.00, for a total
contract amount of $29,934.00
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of the Special Procurement to award Contract.
SUGGESTED MOTION
I move that Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, adopt the findings set forth in the
attached Special Procurement Request for Approval and approve the Special Procurement described
therein.
ATTACHMENTS
Special Procurement-Request for Approval (Written Findings)
Page I of I
,ii,
SPECIAL PROCUREMENT
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL
To: City Council, Local Contract Review Board
From: Michael Black
Date: September 17, 2014
Subject: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL PROCUREMENT
In accordance with ORS279B.085, this request for approval of a Special Procurement is being
presented to the City Council for approval. This written request for approval describes the
proposed contracting procedure and the goods or services or the class of goods or services to be
acquired through the special procurement and the circumstances that justify the use of a special
procurement under the standards set forth ORS 279B.085(4).
1. Requesting Department Name: Ashland Parks and Recreation
2. Department Contact Name: Bruce Dickens
3. Type of Request: Class Special Procurement X Contract-specific Special Procurement
4. Time Period Requested: From: September 3, 2014 To: December 31, 2014
5. Total Estimated Cost: $5,334.00
6. Short title of the Procurement: Contract-Sepcific Procurement for Construction
Inspection and Project Management of Ashland Creek Park.
Supplies and/or Services or class of Supplies and/or Services to be acquired:
Construction project management and construction inspection, design consultation during
construction. The Parks and Recreation Department, along with Roxy Ann Rock
Construction, is in the second month of construction on Ashland Creek Park which was
approved by City Council on July 15, 2014. The Parks and Recreation Department worked
with Steve Ennis on all phases of the project, including bid documents, design consulting,
engineer coordination, project management and construction inspections. The project has had
various delays due to unexpected constraints such as archeology findings, storm water
mitigation in the flood plain, planning issues related to the demolition of the barn and
asbestos removal during construction.
7. Background and Proposed Contracting Procedure: Provide a description of what has
been done in the past and the proposed procedure. The Agency may, but is not required to,
also include the following types of documents: Notice/Advertising, Solicitation(s),
Bid/Proposal Forms(s), Contract Form(s), and any other documents or forms to be used in
the proposed contracting procedure. Attach additional sheets as needed.
Background: Utilization of project management is a practice for bigger projects within the
department that staff does not have the expertise to manage.
Proposed procedure: Directly award public contract to Steve Ennis as the proiect is at
approximatel a completion level, with Steve Ennis serving as the project manager and
contract inspector.
8. Justification for use of Special Procurement: Describe the circumstances that justify
the use of a Special Procurement. Attach relevant documentation. All phases of contracts
were awarded by direct appointment. Seeking an exemption for the competitive bid process
because Steve Ennis has seen the project through all stages of construction.
9. Findings to Satisfy the Required Standards: This proposed special procurement:
X_ (a) will be unlikely to encourage favoritism in the awarding of public contracts or
to substantially diminish competition for public contracts because:
(Please provide specific information that demonstrates how the proposed Special Procurement meets this
requirement.); and
_X (b)(i) will result in substantial cost savings to the contracting agency or to the
public because:
(Please provide the total estimate cost savings to be gained and the rationale for determining the cost savings); or
(b)(ii) will otherwise substantially promote the public interest in a manner that
could not practicably be realized by complying with the requirements of ORS 279B.055,
279B.060, 279B.065, or 279B.070, or any rules adopted thereunder because:
(Please provide specific information that demonstrates how the proposed Special Procurement meets this
requirement.)
Public Notice:
Pursuant to ORS 279B.085(5) and OAR 137-047-0285(2), a Contracting Agency shall give
public notice of the Contract Review Authority's approval of a Special Procurement in the
same manner as a public notice of competitive sealed Bids under ORS 279B.055(4) and
OAR 137-047-0300. The public notice shall describe the Goods or Services or class of
Goods or Services to be acquired through the Special Procurement and shall give such public
notice of the approval of a Special Procurement at least seven (7) Days before Award of the
Contract.
After the Special Procurement has been approved by the City Council, the following public
notice will be posted on the City's website to allow for the seven (7) day protest period.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
October 7, 2014, Business Meeting
Approval of Contract-Specific Procurement for Architectural and Engineering
Services of Ashland Creek Park Construction
FROM
Michael A. Black, Parks and Recreation Director
SUMMARY
This is a request for City Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, to approve an
exemption from the competitive bid process and a directly award of an addendum to the contract of
Laurie Sager for Architectural and Engineering work associated with Ashland Creek Park
Construction. Additional duties to include future site inquiries for changes in the project as required.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Ashland Parks and Recreation has been working on the Ashland Creek Park project with Laurie Sager
and Associates since May 14, 2014. The initial Sager contract for personal professional services during
the construction period was $32,208.00. Unexpected delays as well as unforeseen issues within the
project have added additional work requirements.
City policy states that council approval is required for Personal Services exceeding $35,000.00.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
The original contract amount of $32,208.00 was the original estimate including a 10% contingency.
Given the unforeseen complications, additional requirements have increased the scope of work by
$7397.00, for a total contract amount of $32,208.00. Parks is requesting approval for a total of
$50,000.00 spending authority if needed to complete this project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of the Special Procurement to award Contract.
SUGGESTED MOTION
I move that Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, adopt the findings set forth in the
attached Special Procurement Request for Approval and approve the Special Procurement described
therein.
ATTACHMENTS
Special Procurement-Request for Approval (Written Findings)
Page 1 of 1
~r,
SPECIAL PROCUREMENT
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL
To: City Council, Local Contract Review Board
From: Michael Black, Director of Ashland Parks and Recreation
Date: September 22, 2014
Subject: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL PROCUREMENT
In accordance with ORS27913.085, this request for approval of a Special Procurement is being
presented to the City Council for approval. This written request for approval describes the
proposed contracting procedure and the goods or services or the class of goods or services to be
acquired through the special procurement and the circumstances that justify the use of a special
procurement under the standards set forth ORS 279B.085(4).
1. Requesting Department Name: Ashland Parks and Recreation
2. Department Contact Name: Bruce Dickens
3. Type of Request: Class Special Procurement X Contract-specific Special Procurement
4. Time Period Requested: From: October 7, 2014 To: December 31, 2014
5. Total Estimated Cost: $50,000.00
6. Short title of the Procurement: Contract-Specific Procurement for Architectural and
En ingi eerini of Ashland Creek Park.
Supplies and/or Services or class of Supplies and/or Services to be acquired:
Construction Architecture and Engineering services are still required in order to complete
Ashland Creek Park. The Parks and Recreation Department, along with Roxy Ann Rock
Construction, is in the second month of construction on Ashland Creek Park which was
approved by City Council on July 15, 2014. The Parks and Recreation Department worked
with Laurie Sager and Associates on all planning, design and engineering. The project has
had various delays due to unexpected constraints such as archeology findings, stormwater
mitigation in the floodplain, planning issues related to the demolition of the barn and asbestos
removal during construction.
7. Background and Proposed Contracting Procedure: Provide a description of what has
been done in the past and the proposed procedure. The Agency may, but is not required to,
also include the following types of documents: Notice/Advertising, Solicitation(s),
Bid/Proposal Forms(s), Contract Form(s), and any other documents or forms to be used in
the proposed contracting procedure. Attach additional sheets as needed.
Background: Utilization of an Architect and Engineer is a practice for bigger projects
within the department that staff does not have the expertise.
Proposed procedure: Directly award public contract to Laurie Sager requested funds that
exceed $35,000. in order to complete Ashland Creek Park.
8. Justification for use of Special Procurement: Describe the circumstances that justify
the use of a Special Procurement. Attach relevant documentation. Parks has been working;
with the contractor since 2014 and has all of the knowledge related directly to the design and
architecture of this project.
9. Findings to Satisfy the Required Standards: This proposed special procurement:
X_ (a) will be unlikely to encourage favoritism in the awarding of public contracts or
to substantially diminish competition for public contracts because:
(Please provide specific information that demonstrates how the proposed Special Procurement meets this
requirement.); and
_X (b)(i) will result in substantial cost savings to the contracting agency or to the
public because:
(Please provide the total estimate cost savings to be gained and the rationale for determining the cost savings); or
(b)(ii) will otherwise substantially promote the public interest in a manner that
could not practicably be realized by complying with the requirements of ORS 279B.055,
279B.060, 279B.065, or 279B.070, or any rules adopted thereunder because:
(Please provide specific information that demonstrates how the proposed Special Procurement meets this
requirement.)
Public Notice:
Pursuant to ORS 279B.085(5) and OAR 137-047-0285(2), a Contracting Agency shall give
public notice of the Contract Review Authority's approval of a Special Procurement in the
same manner as a public notice of competitive sealed Bids under ORS 279B.055(4) and
OAR 137-047-0300. The public notice shall describe the Goods or Services or class of
Goods or Services to be acquired through the Special Procurement and shall give such public
notice of the approval of a Special Procurement at least seven (7) Days before Award of the
Contract.
After the Special Procurement has been approved by the City Council, the following public
notice will be posted on the City's website to allow for the seven (7) day protest period.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
October 7, 2014, Business Meeting
Liquor License Application for Erika Lowe dba Mystic Treats
FROM:
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder, christeb@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
Approval of a Liquor License Application from Erika Lowe dba Mystic Treats at 2345 Ashland Street,
Suite 205
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Application is for change in privilege.
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).
In May 1999, the council decided it would make the above recommendations on all liquor license
applications.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
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.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
Under Consent agenda item, a motion to approve liquor license for Erika Lowe dba Mystic Treats
ATTACHMENTS:
None
Page 1 of 1
OW,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
October 7, 2014, Business Meeting
Discussion of an Ordinance Replacing Title 18 Land Use of the Ashland Municipal
Code with a Reformatted and Amended Land Use Ordinance
FROM:
Maria Harris, planning manager, harrism@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY:
The City Council held a public hearing on August 19, 2014 on an ordinance replacing Title 18 Land
Use of the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) with a reformatted and amended land use ordinance, also
referred to as the Unified Land Use Ordinance (ULUO). The Council continued the item to the
October 7 meeting for further discussion of key amendments.
The Council identified the following list of key amendments for discussion.
1. cottage housing
2. solar orientation standards
3. affordable housing density bonus
4. total density bonus
5. side yard setback abutting residential zones
building height in commercial zones
7. building separation in large-scale commercial development
8. accessory residential unit review process
9. threshold for public hearing for review of new buildings and additions in commercial and
employment zones
10. porous pavement exemption from lot coverage in residential zones
11. front porch setback in residential zones
12. building separation in residential zones
13. building street frontage requirement for development in commercial and employment zones
14. residential buildings in mixed-use development in commercial and employment zones
15. plaza/public space requirement for large-scale commercial development
16. definitions of hotel and motel
17. effective date of Type II decisions
18. conditional use permit approval criteria
BACKGROUND:
The revised land use ordinance combines the existing land use ordinance, site design and use
standards, and street design standards into one document with improved organization, wording,
formatting, and graphics. In addition, amendments are proposed to: address recommendations of the
2006 Land Use Ordinance Review, the planning application procedure evaluation, and green
development evaluations; improve standards and procedures; standardize chapters; and address
inconsistencies and clarify wording.
Page 1 of 8
r`,
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
The City Council requested that the Planning Commission identify the key land use ordinance
amendments that have the most significant impact on the community. The Planning Commission
discussed the proposed changes to the land use ordinance at the September 9, 2013 meeting and
identified nine key amendments.
The first nine key amendments identified by the City Council in the list above were also identified by
the Planning Commission, and are addressed in the attached Planning Commission report. The
remaining nine key amendments on the Council's list are addressed below.
A summary of each of the key amendments includes a code reference for the existing and proposed
land use ordinance requirements, a summary of the existing land use ordinance and proposed
amendment, the policy objective of the proposed change, and comments regarding the proposed
amendment.
10. Porous Pavement Exemption from Lot Coverage in Residential Zones
Existing: 18.08.160 Draft Land Use 18-2.5.030.A
Ordinance: 18-2.5.030.6
18-2.5.030.C
Existing: Proposed:
N/A - no exemptions are in currently in place. Two hundred square feet or five percent of lot coverage,
whichever is greater, developed in a porous solid surface
that allows storm water infiltration is exempt from the lot
coverage maximum. The porous solid surface exemption
does not a I to drivewa and arkin areas.
Policy Objectives: To provide options for meeting lot coverage requirement; and increase infiltration of water into
the round.
Comments: Under the existing land use ordinance, lot coverage includes everything except landscaping (e.g.,
buildings, parking areas, driveways, and other solid surfaces that do not allow normal water infiltration to the ground).
A maximum of seven to seventy-five percent of a site can be covered in the single and multi-family residential zones.
The focus group of design and development professionals recommended that driveways and parking areas be
excluded from the porous pavement exemption because of limited success with the long-term permeability of these
high traffic areas. Based on this input as well as concerns regarding long-term preservation of porous pavement in
driveways, the Planning Commission removed driveways and parking areas from the exemption. The Commission
felt the exemption could be used in other areas of paved surfaces such as walkways and patios.
11. Front Porch Setback in Residential Zones
Existing: 18.20.040.D Draft Land Use 18-2.5.030.A
18.24.040.D Ordinance:
18.28.040.D
Existing: Proposed:
• In single-family zones, ei ht feet or the width of an In the multi-family zones outside the Historic District
existing public utility easement, whichever is greater, overlay and single-family zones, eight feet or the width
is required between an unenclosed porch and the of existing public utility easement, whichever is greater,
front property line. is required between an unenclosed porch and front
• In the multi-family zones outside the Historic District property line.
overlay, ten feet or the width of an existing public
utility easement, whichever is greater, is required
Page 2 of 8
~r,
CITY OF
-AS H LA N D
between an unenclosed porch and the front property
line.
Policy Objectives: To provide consistency in front porch setbacks in single-family and multi-family residential zones.
Comments: In the current code, an unenclosed porch is required to be a minimum of six feet deep and eight feet
wide. If the front of the house is setback at the minimum of 15 feet, a porch six feet in depth would need to be located
nine feet from the front property line. As a result, the Planning Commission recommended using eight feet for the
minimum setback in the residential zones to provide an incentive for property owners to take advantage of the
minimum porch setbacks.
12. Building Separation in Residential Zones
Existing: 18.22.040.E Draft Land Use 18-2.5.030.A
18.24.040.E Ordinance: 18-3.9.070.13
18.28.040.E
18.88.070.D
Existing: Proposed:
In the multi-family zones: In the multi-family zones, minimum separation between
• Ten feet required between principal building and two primary buildings must be half of the height of the
accessory building tallest building, where building height is measured at
• Fifty percent of the sum of heights of both the two closest exterior walls, and the maximum
buildings heights, whichever is greater, required required separation is 12 feet.
between principal buildings.
• Twenty feet required between principal The single-family zone requirements are not changed.
buildings accessed by shared court.
In subdivisions developed under the performance
In the single-family zones, building separation standards option in Ch. 18.88, minimum separation
requirement limited to standard side yard setbacks of six between two rima buildings must be half of the height
feet. A separation between principal buildings and of the tallest building, where building height is measured
accessory buildings (e.g. house and detached garage) is at the two closest exterior walls, and the maximum
not required in the land use ordinance. required separation is 12 feet.
In subdivisions developed under the performance
standards option in Ch. 18.88, minimum separation
between two buildings must be half of the height of the
tallest building, where building height is measured at the
two closest exterior walls (see illustration on page 3-
-105).
Policy Objectives: To provide a separation between buildings that is proportional to the size of the buildings; provide
consistency between the building separation requirements in the single-family and multi-family zones; and provide
more flexibilit in building placement in the multi-family zones.
Comments: The proposed amendment would do three things. First, the proposed amendment would require the
same separation between primary buildings in the multi-family and single-family zones, and that separation would be
proportional to the size of the buildings. The building separation standard that is proposed has been in place for
developments using the performance standards option in Ch. 18.88 for over thirty years. The second change would
be the elimination of the requirement in multi-family zones to have a ten-foot separation between primary structures
and accessory buildings. Finally, the building separation standard would be amended to include a maximum
distance between building of 12 feet. Currently, twelve feet is the required side-yard setback between two buildings
on separate lots in the multi-family and single-family zones because the minimum side-yard setback is six feet.
Currently, the building separation standard in the land use ordinance requires an accessory building such as a
detached garage or accessory residential unit to be a minimum of ten feet from the primary residence in the multi-
Page 3 of 8
:'mi1
CITY OF
-ASH LAN D
family zones. In contrast, the land use ordinance requires no such separation between accessory buildings and
primary residence in the single-family zones. The proposed amendment would delete the building separation
requirement between accessory buildings and primary structures in the multi-family zones. The building code
regulates the separation of accessory buildings and primary residences.
The existing distance between buildings requirement in the multi-family zones was identified as a disincentive (i.e.,
variance application) to developments with separate buildings, such as cottage housing. At the same time, smaller
detached buildings are generally of a design and character that is considered more desirable as infill development in
existing neighborhoods.
13. Building Street Frontage Requirement for Development in Commercial and
Employment Zones
Existing: II-C-1d), Basic Site Review Draft Land Use 18-4.2.040.B.1.b
Standards, Section II Ordinance:
Approval Standards, Site
Design and Use Standards
Existing: Proposed:
Parking areas shall be located behind buildings or on Parking areas shall be located behind buildings or on
one or both sides. one or both sides.
New standard added: A building facade or multiple
building facades shall occupy a large majority of a
project's street frontage, and avoid site design that
incorporates extensive gaps between building frontages
created though a combination of driveway aprons,
parking areas, or vehicle aisles. This can be addressed
by positioning the wider side of the building, rather than
the narrow side, toward the street. In the case of a
corner lot, this standard applies to both street frontages.
Spaces between buildings shall consist of landscaping
and hard durable surface materials to highlight
pedestrian areas.
Policy Objectives: To locate buildings in new developments along the majority of the lot's street frontage; and
provide consistency between the adopted illustrative site plans found in the Site Design and Use Standards
document.
Comments: The illustrative site plans in the site design and use standards for commercial and employment
development were adopted as part of the land use ordinance in the early 1990's (see illustrations on pages 4-12 and
4-15 in draft land use ordinance). The illustrative site plans depict buildings in a new development taking up most of
the street frontage of the lot rather than parking areas and related vehicle maneuvering areas. However, the
standards in the same section do not clearly address this issue, and as currently written could result in sizable gaps
between buildings occupied by driveways, circulation, and parking areas.
The Planning Commission discussed this amendment in the context of Ashland St. because the Buildable Lands
Inventory shoes that the majority of the developable and re-developable land is located in the southeastern portion of
Ashland. As commercial properties develop and redevelop along Ashland St., the implications of this amendment is
that more building frontage will be located adjacent to the street, the uses will be located closer together, the area will
be more likely to support transit because the uses will be more concentrated, and the street will be more comfortable
and attractive to pedestrians because the will be looking at storefronts rather than driveways and parking lots.
Page 4 of 8
~r,
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
14. Residential Buildings in Mixed-Use Development in Commercial and Employment
Zones
Existing: 18.32.025.D Draft Land Use 18-2.6.030
18.56.050.A Ordinance: 18-2.3.130
18-3.1.13.010.C.1
Existing: Proposed:
At least 65 percent of the total gross floor area of the A minimum of 65 percent of the gross floor area of the
ground floor, or at least 50 percent of the total lot area if ground floor for mixed-use buildings shall be reserved for
there are multiple buildings shall be designated for permitted or special permitted uses, excluding
permitted or special permitted uses, excluding residential. If there are multiple buildings on the same lot
residential. and any buildings have 100 percent residential
occupancy, than not more than 50 percent of the total lot
area, including accessory uses such as parking and
landscaping, shall be connected with or a requirement of
the residential use.
Policy Objectives: To maintain the commercial and employment use of land in the commercial and employment
zones; clarify the requirements for developments including multiple buildings and buildings that are entirely
residential uses.
Comments: The above proposed language is different than is included in the Council's draft land use ordinance.
Staffs understanding is that the language concerning 50 percent was intended to address situations where there are
multiple buildings on the site, and one or some of the proposed buildings would be comprised entirely of residential
units.
The language in the existing land use ordinance was identified as unclear in the 2006 Land Use Ordinance review.
15. Plaza/Public Space Requirement for Large-Scale Commercial Development
Existing: II-C-3b)l, Section II-C-3 Draft Land Use 18-4.2.040.D.2.a
Additional Standards for Ordinance:
Large Scale Projects, Site
Design and Use Standards
Existing: Proposed:
One square foot of plaza or public space shall be One square foot of plaza or public space shall be
required for every ten square feet of gross floor area. required for every ten square feet of gross floor area,
except for the fourth floor.
Policy Objectives: To support the proposed amendment allowing increased building height in commercial zones.
Comments: The proposed amendment is intended to go along with the proposed amendment to building height in
the commercial zones that would allow buildings located at least 100 feet from residential zones to increase from
three to four stones (item 5 on the Planning Commission report). If the City Council delays or removes the building
height amendment, this amendment should also be delayed or removed.
The focus group commented that the existing plaza requirement may impact the feasibility of increasing building
height from three to four stones.
The plaza/public space requirement applies to developments in the commercial and employment zones that are
greater than 10,000 square feet in size or 100 feet in length and located in the Detail Site Review overlay. The Detail
Site Review overlay includes the primary street corridors (e.g. N. Main St., downtown, Oak St., A St., Siskiyou Blvd.,
Ashland St. - see maps on pages 4-16 - 4-19 of the draft land use ordinance.
Page of 8
CITY OF
-AS H LA N D
16. Definitions of Hotel and Motel
Existing: 18.08.320 Draft Land Use 18-6.1.030
18.08.510 Ordinance:
Existing: Proposed:
Hotel - a building in which lodging is provided to guests Hotel/Motel - a building or portion thereof designed and
for compensation and in which no provisions are made used for occupancy of transient individuals for a period of
for cooking in the lodging rooms. less than 30 days, lodged with or without meals and
which may include additional facilities and services, such
Motel - A building or group of buildings on the same lot as restaurants, meeting rooms, entertainment, personal
containing guest units for rental to transients, with services, and recreational facilities.
separate entrances directly exterior and consisting of
individual sleeping quarters, detached or in connected
rows, with or without cooking facilities.
Policy Objectives: To update definition to reflect contemporary transient accommodations.
Comments: This amendment was identified as a substantive issue because it impacts the use of residential units in
mixed-use buildings as hotel/motel units.
The current definitions of hotel and motel, as interpreted by the City Council in 2005, prevent residential units in most
mixed-use buildings in commercial and employment zones from being used as hotel or motel units. If the proposed
amendment were approved, the physical building distinctions that were used in the past interpretation would be
eliminated. As a result, an owner of a residential condominium in a larger mixed-use building could apply for a
conditional use permit to use his/her unit as a hotel/ motel unit. Hotels and motels require a conditional use permit in
the commercial and employment zones.
In 2005, the City Council denied an application for a conditional use permit to use a third-floor residential unit in a
mixed-use building in the downtown as a hotel/motel unit. The denial was based on that the existing structure did not
meet the definition of a hotel or motel. Specifically, the Council found that: 1) the subject unit could not be considered
a hotel unit because the unit included a kitchen and provisions for cooking in the lodging room; and 2) the subject unit
could not be considered a motel because it was a single unit that didn't have an exit directly to the exterior. As a
result of the Council's decision in 2005, short-term rentals have not been approved since that time in mixed-use
buildings in the commercial and employment zones when the unit or buildings do not meet the current definitions of
motel or hotel.
The proposed amendment combines the definitions of hotel and motel to represent contemporary transient
accommodations in commercial and employment zones. The existing definitions of hotel and motel are based on
historical differences between the two types of buildings or facilities, but over time the distinctions have diminished.
The revised definition is based on the state model code.
The historical differences in hotels and motels are discussed in The Latest Illustrated Book of Development
Definitions by Harvey S. Moskowitz and Carl G Lindbloom as follows. "There is little distinction between hotels and
motels. Traditionally, the motel (motor-hotel) was a one or two-story, less- expensive accommodation catering to the
automobile traveling public, with a majority of all rooms having direct access to the outside without the necessity of
passing through the main lobby of the building. Today, rentals range across the entire economic spectrum, multistory
structures are common, and motels may offer a full range of services, including restaurants, meeting rooms,
entertainment and recreational facilities."
Page 6 of 8
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
17. Effective Date of Type II Decisions
Existing: 18.108.070.B.3.a Draft Land Use 18-5.1.0605
Ordinance:
Existing: Proposed:
Type II decision becomes final 13 days after the City Type II decision becomes final ten days after the City
mails the notice of decision (i.e., adopted and signed mails the notice of decision (i.e., adopted and signed
findings). findings).
Policy Objectives: To provide time) decisions; provide consistency with state requirements in ORS 197.763.
Comments: The time period between when the notice of decision is mailed and when it becomes effective is the time
period in which a participant can file an appeal. The evaluation of the planning application procedures recommended
adjusting the time period to provide a timely result for applicants.
The draft land use ordinance also includes new language on computing time periods in 18-5.1.090.C that involve the
effective date of Type II decisions. The new language on computing time periods specifies that: 1) the time period
does not include the date the notice of decision is mailed; and 2) if the time period ends on a weekend or legal
holiday the period runs until the end of the next day that is not on a weekend or legal holiday.
18. Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria
Existing: 18.104.050.C.7 Draft Land Use 18-5.4.050.A.3.f
Ordinance:
Existing: Proposed:
That the conditional use will have no greater adverse That the conditional use will have no greater adverse
material effect on the livability of the impact area when material effect on the livability of the impact area when
compared to the development of the subject lot with the compared to the development of the subject lot with the
target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the
proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of
livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation
to the target use of the zone: to the target use of the zone:
1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. 1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding 2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding
streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass
transit use are considered beneficial regardless of transit use are considered beneficial regardless of
capacity of facilities. capacity of facilities.
3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. 3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or 4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or
other environmental pollutants. other environmental pollutants.
5. Generation of noise, light, and glare. 5. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned 6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned
in the Comprehensive Plan. in the Comprehensive Plan.
7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing 7. The cumulative effect of the proposed conditional
Authority for review of the proposed use. use with other conditional uses in the vicinity of the
subject site. The cumulative effect is measured by
evaluating the concentration of conditional uses
within 500 feet of the subject site.
7-8.. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing
Authority for review of the proposed use.
Policy Objectives: To provide a measurable standard for evaluating the impact of a proposed conditional use on the
surrounding neighborhood considering the existing impacts imposed on the neighborhood by other conditional uses
that are already in lace.
Comments: The proposed amendment adds an eighth factor that the can be considered in evaluating a conditional
Page 7 of 8
Fr,
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
use application. Specifically, the new factor involves evaluating the impacts of adding a conditional use to a
neighborhood considering the existing conditional uses that are already in place in the neighborhood. Examples of
conditional uses in residential zones are professional offices and traveler's accommodations.
In the early 1990's, residents of the railroad district expressed concern regarding the number of houses being
converted to commercial conditional uses, and the resulting lack of a residential presence in the evening and on the
weekends. The issue was also recently discussed in the review of the short-term rental ordinance amendments with
concerns expressed specifically regarding the concentration of conditional uses and the potential impact on
neighborhood character.
PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED
Three written comments were received addressing the porous pavement exemption in residential
zones, accessory residential unit review process, building height in commercial zones, and parapet
exemption in the commercial and employment zones.
The draft land use ordinance includes an exemption for parapets to be erected up to three feet above
the maximum building height in the commercial and employment zones (see Table 18-2.6.030 on page
2-59). The proposed amendment is intended to encourage architectural variation, to screen mechanical
equipment, and to provide an option for meeting fire separation requirements in the building code. The
site design standards for the Croman Mill district allow parapets to be erected up to five feet above the
maximum buildings height. The letter submitted suggests including the parapet exemption up to five
feet above the maximum building height in commercial and employment zones. In staff's opinion,
allowing parapets to be five feet above the maximum building height is a reasonable approach and is
consistent with the intent of the proposed amendment.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
If there are proposed amendments that are of concern to the Council, staff recommends Council direct
staff to remove those items from the draft and bring back a revised draft for a continued public hearing
and first reading at a future meeting. Any amendments that are removed from the draft could then be
reviewed separately if the Council so wishes while the revised land use ordinance moves forward. If
there are amendments that are removed and the Council wants further review, any direction the
Council could provide the Planning Commission and staff about areas of concern would be helpful.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I move to direct staff to remove (or change) the following amendments from the draft land use
ordinance (list amendments to be pulled), and to bring back a revised draft for a continued public
hearing and first reading at a future meeting.
I move to direct the Planning Commission to continue the review of the following potential land use
ordinance amendments: (list amendments).
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Report, September 9, 2014
2. Public Comments Received
Page 8 of 8
~r,
CITY OF
-AS H LA N D
Planning Commission Report
DATE: September 9, 2014
TO: Ashland City Council
FROM: Ashland Planning Commission
RE: Identification of Key Amendments
Unified Land Use Ordinance (ULUO)
Summary
The City Council requested that the Planning Commission identify the key land use ordinance
amendments that have the most significant impact on the community. The Planning Commission
discussed the proposed changes to the land use ordinance at the September 9, 2013 meeting and
identified nine key amendments.
The key amendments identified by the Planning Commission include: 1) cottage housing; 2)
solar orientation standards; 3) affordable housing density bonus; 4) total density bonus; 5) side
yard setback abutting residential zones; 6) building height in the commercial zones; 7) building
separation in large-scale commercial development; 8) accessory residential unit review process;
and 9) threshold for public hearing for review of new buildings and additions in commercial and
employment zones.
Background
The Planning Commission respectfully submits nine key amendments for the City Council's
consideration. The Commission has done its best in proposing a revised land use ordinance that
is reformatted to be a more user-friendly document, and that includes amendments which balance
managing future population and employment growth with preserving the character of the
community. The Commission forwarded the reformatted and amended land use ordinance with
the expectation that this living document will need periodic fine tuning as well as future
amendments to adapt to trend and policy changes. The Commission recognizes that there are a
variety ways to implement the goals and policies of the community, and that land use decisions
that impact current and future residents and business owners can be some of the most
challenging issues to address.
A. Criteria for "most significant impact to the community"
The Planning Commission discussed how to define or identify the amendments with the most
significant impact to the community as directed by the City Council. The Commission agreed
that the intent was most likely to identify the amendments that will either create a tangible
-2-
physical change in the neighborhood or development pattern of the community, or
significantly impact the planning application procedures.
B. Framework for amendments
The Planning Commission used Council goals and the Regional Plan Element of the Ashland
Comprehensive Plan to guide the scope and intent of the proposed land use ordinance
amendments. Specifically, the 2011-2012 City Council goals included the following goals.
"Adopt land use codes, building codes, green building standards, and fee structures
that create strong incentives for development that is energy, water, and land efficient
and supports a multi-modal transportation system. "
"Increase the clarity, responsiveness, and certainty of the development process.
Develop a specific action plan to respond to the recommendation of the 2006 Zucker
and Siegel reports. "
The project included an evaluation of green development standards. The evaluation identified
strengths and weaknesses of the current ordinance and determined that the current code
addresses many elements of green development including items such as connected
neighborhoods, walkable streets, reduced parking footprint, tree-lined and shaded streets,
preservation and reuse of historic buildings, wetland and creek conservation, and
preservation of steep slopes to minimize erosion. The evaluation also included additional
code options for encouraging "development that is energy, water, and land efficient and
supports a multi-modal transportation system. "
After review and discussion of the evaluation, the Planning Commission decided to move
forward with the recommendations to incorporate provisions for cottage housing and solar
orientation standards. The amendments involving the accessory residential unit review
process, side yard setback abutting residential zones, and building height in the commercial
zones that were underway at the time also addressed green development. Specifically, the
evaluation looked at accommodating development in the city's existing boundaries as a
fundamental aspect of green development because this pattern conserves land, protects
farmland and wildlife habitat, and provides transportation options and efficiency.
The project also included an evaluation of the planning application procedures to addresses
the Council goal concerning the clarity, responsiveness, and certainty of the development
process. The Planning Commission also relied on the Economic Development Strategy (July
2011) that identifies improving the land use development process as one of seven top priority
actions. Specifically, the action says to "manage physical development process to ensure
understandable requirements with timely and predictable results while safeguarding and
improving the quality of the environment and the community."
The planning application evaluation determined the City's procedures meet the statutory
requirements and recommended amendments to improve to the timeliness and predictability
of the land use procedures. From the group of procedural amendments, the Planning
Ashland Planning Commission
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520 E
www.ashland.or.us ~
-3-
Commission believes the amendment concerning the change in the threshold for public
hearing for review of new buildings and additions in commercial and employment zones is
substantial in nature.
The Council goal referenced implementation of the Siegel report. To that end, the Planning
Commission reviewed and recommended amendments to address the list of policy issues
identified in the 2006 Land Use Ordinance Review. Five of the nine key amendments
identified by the Commission are identified in the 2006 report including affordable housing
density bonus, total density bonus in multi-family zones, side yard setback abutting
residential zones, building height in the commercial zones, and accessory residential unit
approval process.
Finally, the Planning Commission's work on the ULUO began at the same time the City
adopted the performance indicators from the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan into
the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. The City committed to evaluating innovative land use
strategies to accommodate future residential and employment growth within the City's
existing boundaries rather than identifying Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) expansion areas.
The following performance indicators were included in the new Regional Plan Element of
the Ashland Comprehensive Plan: 1) reaching residential densities in annexed land or
meeting the density requirements by increasing the residential densities within the city limits;
2) achieving targets for dwelling units and employment in mixed-use/pedestrian-friendly
areas; and 3) participating in a regional housing strategy that strongly encourages a range of
housing types.
As a result of their work on the regional plan and the adoption in August 2012 by the City
Council, the Planning Commission considered many of the substantial amendments in the
context of the regional plan performance indicators. The intention was also to provide the
flexibility to create developments that promote a variety of transportation choices (e.g.,
walking, bicycling) and increase the concentration of employment opportunities and
residential units on transit corridors. The creation of smaller units, whether as part of a
mixed-use building in a commercial zone or a small home in a cottage housing development,
provides a different housing type. In addition smaller units are generally considered to be
more affordable, and if located properly, can generate walking, bicycling and transit trips.
C. Key Amendments
A summary of the key amendments identified by the Planning Commission follows and
includes a code reference for the existing and proposed land use ordinance requirements, a
summary of the existing land use ordinance and proposed amendments, the policy objective
of the proposed change, and comments regarding the proposed amendment.
Ashland Planning Commission
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
-4-
1. Cottage Housing
Existing: N/A Draft Land Use 18-2,2.030
Ordinance: 18-2.3.090
18-3.9.050.6.5
Existing: Proposed:
Density bonuses are currently in place for providing Subdivisions in the single-family zones (R-1-10, R-1-7.5,
additional open space, providing recreational facilities, R-1-5 and R-1-3.5) and developed under the
developing energy and water conserving units, and performance standards option in Ch. 18-3.9 have the
providing affordable housing. option to use a cottage housing density bonus. The
cottage housing density bonus allows two cottage units
in place of each single-family unit allowed if the
Subdivisions in the single-family zones are subject to the development meets a set of site and building design
following development and design requirements. standards in 18-2.3.090. Some of the key development
• Developments must include a minimum of three lots, standards area:
but are not subject to a limit on the maximum • Developments must include a minimum of four and a
number of homes outside of the density maximum of 16 cottages, and be at least 1,000 feet
requirements, from any other cottage housing developments.
• There is no maximum square footage for a home. • Maximum gross floor area for a cottage is 800
• Maximum building height is 2'h stories and 35 feet, square feet.
except that building height in the Historic Districts • Maximum building height is 1 '/z stories and 18 feet.
overlay is limited to a maximum of 30 feet. • Up to two cottages can be attached.
• Duplexes are limited to corner lots. • Lot coverage must meet the requirements of the
• Lot coverage must meet the requirements of the underlying zone.
underlying zone. • Each cottage requires 1.25 off-street parking
• Each home requires two off-street parking spaces. spaces.
• Parking is located on the individual lot with the • Parking is consolidated in a surface parking or
home. common structure.
• Subdivisions of four or more homes are required to • Unless a street connection is on the Street
install public streets, and at least one parking space Dedication Map or is determined to be essential for
per home is required on the street. the function of the transportation system, the
• A minimum of five percent of the total site area is approval authority may reduce or waive the
required as common open space for developments requirement to install public streets if the
over ten homes, but there isn't a minimum square development meets connectivity and block length
footage requirement for usable private yard space. standards by providing public access for pedestrians
• Specific building design and architectural elements and bicyclists connecting the pubic street to
are not required. adjoining properties.
• A minimum of 20 percent of the total lot area is
required as common open space, and each cottage
must have at least 300 square feet of usable private
cottage space.
• Units are required to have a covered main entry
porch, exterior trim elements consistent with
traditional cottage design, and a minimum of 12-inch
eaves.
• See 18-2.3.090 on pages 2-19 - 2-24 for complete
list of development standards.
Policy Objectives: To provide alternative types of housing for small households; provide high quality infill
development which maintains traditional cottage amenities and proportions and contribute to neighborhood
Ashland Planning Commission
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
-5-
character; efficiently use residential land supply; and meet regional plan commitment to accommodate future
population growth within the City's existing boundaries.
Comments: Cottage housing developments are a group of small homes oriented around an open space that are
pedestrian-oriented and minimize the visibility of off-street parking by providing a consolidated parking area (see
illustration on page 2-23 in draft land use ordinance).
Cottage housing is considered an innovative housing type that provides opportunities for creative, diverse, and high
quality infill development that preserves the scale and character of existing single-family neighborhoods. Cottage
housing offers a choice for those wanting to remain in a single-family neighborhood and desiring home ownership,
and the units are of a size and function suitable for a single person or small families. Cottage housing if generally
considered more affordable because of small unit and lot sizes.
The proposed amendment allows cottage housing in the single-family zones because the homes are designed to be
compatible with a single-family environment, the multi-family zones currently allow densities and design that allows
cottage housing, and the largest surplus of residentially zoned land in Ashland is in the single-family zones. The
2011 Buildable Land Inventory identified over ten times the acreage available in the city limits in the single-family
zones compared to the multi-family zones (144.3 acres vs. 13.2 Acres),
The maximum cottage size is based on the median size of 1,853 square feet of new single-family homes in Ashland
over the five-year period from July 2008 to June 2012. Since two cottages are allowed in place of every single-family
home, the rationale is that the cottages should be half the size or smaller than a typical single-family home. Cottage
housing development codes usually limit building mass to 1,000 square feet or less in order to ensure that the
cottages are a clear alternative to the larger single-family homes that are permitted under existing development
regulations.
2. Solar Orientation Standards
Existing: VIII-C-9, Section VIII Draft Land Use 18-4.8.050
Croman Mill District Ordinance:
Standards, Site Design
and Use Standards
Chapter 18.70 Solar
Access
Existing: Proposed:
In the Croman Mill district, buildings are required to be Land division in residential zones must meet the solar
oriented with the long sides facing north and south where orientation standards where site and location permit.
the site and location permit. Passive and active solar • Layout new streets as close to possible to a north-
strategies are incorporated in the design and orientation south and east-west axis so that lots and buildings
of buildings. within the development have south facing sides for
maximum solar access.
A solar access standard has been in place for several • Orient buildings so that the long sides face north
decades which protects the south side of buildings from and south.
shading by adjacent structures (also referred to as the . Design habitable structures so primary living spaces
solar setback). are located on south sides of buildings, rather than
less frequently used areas such as utility rooms,
closets, or garages.
• Design habitable structures so 30 percent of the roof
acre faces within 15 degrees of south in order to
provide surface area for solar collection.
Ashland Planning Commission
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.orms
-6-
Policy Objectives: To reduce energy consumption through protection of property owner's access to solar energy.
Comments: The Commission felt it was important to be clear that the proposed solar orientation standards impact
street, lot, and building orientation, as well as the design of individual homes.
3. Affordable Housing Density Bonus
Existing: 18.24.040.B.3.d Draft Land Use 18-2.5.080.F.3.d
18.28.040.B.3.d Ordinance: 18-3.9.050.B.4
Existing: Proposed:
The method for calculating the affordable housing The method for calculating the affordable housing
density bonus is for every affordable unit provided, a density bonus for any type of residential development is
density bonus of one market rate unit is allowed. amended so that for every affordable unit provided, a
density bonus of two market rate units are allowed.
Subdivisions in the single-family zones (WR, RR, and R-
1) developed under the performance standards option in Subdivisions in the single-family zones (WR, RR, and R-
Chapter 18.88 are allowed an affordable housing density 1) and developments in the multi-family zones (R-2 and
bonus of up to 35 percent. R-3) are allowed an affordable housing density bonus of
up to 35 percent.
Developments in the multi-family zones (R-2 and R-3)
are allowed an affordable housing density bonus of up to
25 percent.
Policy Objectives:
• For the method of calculating the affordable housing bonus: to promote the construction of affordable
housing by increasing the incentive to incorporate affordable housing in market rate projects.
• For the increase in maximum affordable housing bonus from 25 to 35 percent in the multi-family zones: to
provide consistency between the affordable housing density bonus allowed in the single-family and multi-
family zones.
Comments: Density bonuses are currently in place for: 1) providing additional open space (up to 10 percent bonus);
2) providing recreational facilities (up to 10 percent bonus); 3) developing energy and water conserving units (up to
15 percent bonus); and 4) providing affordable housing (up to 25 percent in multi-family zones and up to 35 percent
in single-family zones).
One concern expressed during the Planning Commission discussion and deliberation was whether the affordable and
total density bonuses were intentionally lower in the multi-family zones because of the higher base densities that are
allowed. In a review of the past ordinance amendment files, staff did not find information addressing the rationale or
reasoning behind the difference in the density bonuses in the single-family and multi-family zones.
4. Total Density Bonus
Existing: 18.24.040.B.2 Draft Land Use 18-2.5.080.F.2
18.28.040.B.2 Ordinance:
18.88.040.B.2
Existing: Proposed:
Subdivisions in the single-family zones (WR, RR, and R- Subdivisions in the single-family zones (WR, RR, and R-
1) developed under the performance standards option in 1) and developments in the multi-family zones (R-2 and
Chapter 18.88 are allowed a total density bonus of up to R-3) are allowed a total density bonus of up to 60%.
60%.
Developments in the multi-family zones (R-2 and R-3)
are allowed a total density bonus of u to 40%.
Ashland Planning Commission
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
-7-
Policy Objectives: To provide consistency between the total density bonus allowed in the single-family and multi-
family zones.
Comments: See comments in 3. Affordable Housing Density Bonus above.
5. Side Yard Setback Abutting Residential Zones
Existing: 18.32.040 Draft Land Use 18-2.6.030
18.40.050 Ordinance:
Existing: Proposed:
In the commercial zones (C-1 and C-1-D), buildings must The setback from abutting commercial zones in
be setback from abutting residential zones ten feet for commercial zones (C-1 and C-1-D) does not change.
side yards and ten feet per story for rear yards.
In the employment zone ( E-1), buildings must be
In the employment zone (E-1), buildings must be setback setback from abutting residential zones ten feet for side
from abutting residential zones ten feet per story for side yards and ten feet per story for rear yards.
and rear yards.
Policy Objectives: To provide the flexibility to increase the concentration of jobs and residential units on transit
corridors by increasing the allowable floor area; efficiently use employment land supply; meet regional plan
commitment to accommodate future population and employment growth within the City's existing boundaries; and
provide consistency in setbacks in the commercial and employment zones.
Comments: A single-family home in the residential zones can be up to 35 feet in height and is required to provide a
six-foot side yard. Under the existing and proposed land use ordinance, buildings in the commercial and employment
zones that are adjacent to residential zones can be up to 40 feet in height.
The areas that are zoned E-1 tend to be adjacent to commercially zoned lands or buffered from residential zones by
alleys or streets. In contrast, much of the area zoned C-1 and C-1 -D zone directly abuts residential zones because
the commercial areas are situated between the main streets and existing neighborhoods.
6. Building Height in the Commercial Zones
Existing: 18.24.040.B.3.d Draft Land Use 18-2.5.080.F.3.d
18.28.040.B.3.d Ordinance: 18-3.9.050.B.4
Existing: Proposed:
Maximum building height is 40 feet, except buildings in Maximum building height is 40 feet, except:
the downtown (C-1-D) may be up to 55 feet in height with • Buildings that are more than 100 feet from a
an approved conditional use permit, residential zone may be up to 55 feet in height.
• Buildings in the downtown (C-1-D) that are located
within 100 feet of a residential zone may be up to 55
feet in height with an approved conditional use
permit.
Policy Objectives: To provide the flexibility to increase the concentration of jobs and residential units on transit
corridors by increasing the allowable floor area; efficiently use commercial land supply; encourage structured parking;
and meet regional plan commitment to accommodate future population and employment growth within the City's
existing boundaries.
Comments: If the amendment is approved, buildings in the commercial zones (C-1 and C-1-D) that are more than
100 feet from residential zones could increase from the current limit of three stories to four stories in height. An
additional story could be used for permitted commercial uses or for residential units. While new commercial buildings
or additions require a planning application and approval (i.e., site design review), the building height increase would
be permitted outright and would not require additional approvals.
Ashland Planning Commission
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.orms
-8-
The proposed 100-foot buffer from residential zones is approximately the depth of a typical residential lot in the R-1-5
and R-1-7.5 single-family zones. Another example is the Siskiyou Boulevard street right-of-way is 100 feet in width.
Examples of buildings that are 40 feet in height are the new buildings on either side of Lithia Way between Pioneer
and First streets (e.g., 150 Lithia Way, 175 Lithia Way, 180 Lithia Way). An example of a 55-foot tall building in
Ashland is the Elks Lodge at 247 E. Main St. The amendment would potentially allow four-story buildings on sites
such as the vacant parcel across from the Wendy's restaurant on Ashland Street or the vacant lots fronting Lithia
Way across First St. from the post office.
7. Building Separation in Large-Scale Commercial Development
Existing: II-C-3a)3, Section II-C-3, Draft Land Use 18-4.2.040.D.1.b
Additional Standards for Ordinance:
Large Scale Projects, Site
Design and Use Standards
Existing: Proposed:
Buildings not connected by a common wall shall be Buildings located on the same parcel and not
separated by a distance equal to the height of the tallest connected by a common wall shall be separated by a
building. If buildings are more than 240 feet in length, the distance equal to the height of the tallest building. If
separation shall be 60 feet. buildings are more than 240 feet in length, the separation
shall be 60 feet.
Policy Objectives: To provide consistency between the building placement, orientation, and design standards; and
to efficient) use commercial land su I .
Comments: This standard applies to developments in the commercial and employment zones that are greater than
10,000 square feet in size or 100 feet in length and located in the Detail Site Review overlay. The Detail Site Review
overlay includes the primary street corridors (e.g., N. Main St., downtown, Oak St., A St., Siskiyou Blvd., Ashland St.)
- see maps on pages 4-16 - 4-19 of the draft land use ordinance. In the downtown, the building separation standard
will likely impact new development and redevelopment on Lithia Way.
The building separation standard can be problematic on narrower lots under different ownership (e.g., downtown).
Specifically, if buildings are constructed at different times by different parties, it can result in one lot absorbing the
entire amount of the required building separation. For example, the Swedenberg building at the northeast corner of E.
Main and Second is over 100 feet in length and approximately 18,000 square feet in size. If the building were
constructed today, it would be considered large scale development and required to meet the building separation
standard. The building is two and a half stories in height and therefore would need to be separated from the adjacent
building on Main St. by approximately 25 feet. If the entire amount of the required separation had to be absorbed by
the Swedenberg lot, this would result in a roughly 20 percent or 3,600 square foot reduction in the size of the
building. In addition, a sizable gap would be situated between the buildings.
In terms of design, large gaps between buildings in the downtown disrupt the historic development pattern where the
sides of buildings touch or are very close to the property line, interrupt the street wall and pedestrian environment,
can result in difficulties meeting minimum floor area ratio (FAR) requirement, and may result in the placement of
parking between buildings.
Ashland Planning Commission
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.orms
-9-
8. Accessory Residential Unit Review Process
Existing: 18.16.030.J Draft Land Use 18-2.2,030
18.20.030.H Ordinance: 18-2.3.040
18.24.040.A.1.a
18.28.040.A.1.a
Existing: Proposed:
• In single-family zones (RR and R-1), accessory In single-family and multi-family zones (RR, R-1, R-2,
residential units require a conditional use permit. and R-3), accessory residential units require a site
• In multi-family zones (R-2 and R-3), accessory design review.
residential units require site design review.
Policy Objectives: To encourage affordable housing units; efficiently use residential land supply; meet regional plan
commitment to accommodate future population growth within the City's existing boundaries; eliminate discretionary
approval criteria that can be difficult to justify; and provide consistency in planning application process in single-
family and multi-family zones.
Comments: The Housing and Planning Commissions have discussed simplifying the approval process for accessory
residential units as an infill and affordable housing strategy.
Currently, the planning application process for accessory residential units is different in the single-family and multi-
family zones. Accessory residential units in the single-family zones require a conditional use permit and in the multi-
family zones require a site design review approval. In addition, accessory residential units must meet an additional
set of special use standards (e.g., size limitation, parking requirements) regardless of the zone. Both types of
applications are a Type 1 administrative decision, require the same application fee, are noticed, and can be called up
to a public hearing.
The primary difference between the review processes are the approval criteria because the conditional use permit
are more discretionary. Accessory residential units in the single-family zones must meet the conditional use permit
criteria which evaluate whether a development is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood compared with the
"target use" of the property (see page 5-45). Accessory residential units in the multi-family zones must meet the site
design review criteria which evaluate the site layout, landscaping, building orientation, and building materials. Both
approval processes consider meeting the basic requirements of the zone such as setbacks and lot coverage.
If the proposed amendment is approved, the ability to evaluate the architectural compatibility of the proposed unit
with the surrounding area would be eliminated, except that accessory residential units in the Historic District overlay
would have to continue to meet the Historic District Design Standards. The Historic District Design Standards
address a variety of building design elements such as scale, massing, roof shape, rhythm of openings, and
entrances.
If the proposed amendment is approved, accessory residential units in the single-family zones would be permitted on
any size lot in the single-family zones. Currently, accessory residential units in the single-family zones can have
difficulty meeting the "target use" comparison requirement because the target use is tied to the allowed density of the
lot. As a result, applicants typically justify adding an accessory residential unit on lots that are larger than the
minimum lot size for the zone. In contrast, the existing ordinance allows accessory residential units in the multi-family
zones on undersized lots that are not large enough to accommodate a second unit or to divide into separate lots.
In the past 23 years, 140 accessory residential units have been approved and constructed. In 1991, accessory
residential units were added as a conditional use in the R-1 zones as part of the land use ordinance changes to
implement the "Affordable Housing in Ashland" report. Subsequently, accessory residential units were added as a
conditional use in the RR zone in 2002, and as a permitted use in the R-2 and R-3 zones in 2008.
Ashland Planning Commission
20 E. Main Street
As ~`m
Ashl land, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.orms
-to-
9. Change in Threshold for Public Hearing for Review of New Buildings and Additions
in Commercial and Employment Zones
Existing: 18.108.040.A.1 Draft Land Use 18-5.2.030.13
Ordinance:
Existing: Proposed:
For basic site design review, a public hearing is required For basic site design review, a public hearing is required
for structures larger than 10,000 square feet or additions for structures larger than 15,000 square feet or additions
of more than 20 percent to the existing building's square of more than 50 percent to the existing building's square
footage. footage.
Policy Objectives: To provide more expedited and less resource intensive procedure for economic development
projects in the employment areas of Ashland that typically see basic light manufacturing and assembly business with
general offices ace.
Comments: The planning application procedures evaluation recommended considering processing economic
development projects currently subject to a public hearing (Type II) through an administrative an administrative
review (Type 1). The evaluation considered the objectives and actions concerning the planning application process
indentified in the Economic Development Strategy. Specifically, the strategy identifies improving the land use
development process, creating incentives for development applications that meet pre-defined economic development
eligibility criteria, and consider changes to the land use ordinance that may inhibit redevelopment or new
construction.
The Planning Commission reviewed past commercial and employment projects, and felt the types of businesses that
require the Basic Site Review approval, such as Modern Fan, Oak Street Tank and Steel, and Darex, were more
likely to create family-wage jobs and be considered economic development projects. In contrast, the Commission felt
the hearing thresholds should be retained for properties in the Detail Site Review and Downtown overlays because of
the locations on primary street corridors and the proximity to residential neighborhoods. As a result, the proposed
amendment impacts those properties subject to Basic Site Review which includes the areas on Hersey St., at N.
Mountain Ave. and E. Main St., at the airport, at Washington St. and Jefferson Ave., on Benson Way, and on Tolman
Creek Road.
Prior to the 2008 land use ordinance revisions, all site design reviews were processed through an administrative
review (Type 1) except for large-scale development in the Detail Site Review overlay. The 2008 land use ordinance
revisions added public hearin rocedures to each design review overlay as outlined in the table below.
Type of Site Review Pre-2008 Threshold Post-2008 Thresholds
for Type II Public Hearing for Type II Public Hearing
Detail Site Review Exceeds 10,000 sq. ft., or longer than 100' 10,000 sq. ft. and larger
in len th or width
Downtown Design Standards NA 2,500 sq. ft. and larger, or 10% and greater
Zone of buildin square footage
Basic Commercial Site Review NA Larger than 10,000 sq. ft., or more than
20% of existing building's square footage
Croman Mill Site Review NA (Croman Mill district wasn't in place at New structures or additions 15,000 sq. ft.
this time and larger
Residential Site Review NA New structures or additions 10,000 sq. ft.
and larger, other than single famil
The type of planning applications requiring a public hearing is the decision of the local jurisdiction. The Oregon
Revised Statutes (ORS) outline the required elements of the planning application review process for an
administrative review (Type 1) and a public hearing (Type II) in chapters 197 and 227, but do not dictate in which
situations the articular process must be used.
Ashland Planning Commission
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Maria Harris
From: Keith Baldwin [kbzray@netscape.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 6:08 PM
To: harrism@ashland.or.us
Cc: mebaldw@yahoo.com
Subject: Impervious lot coverage in RR-0.5 zoning
Hi Maria -
Judging from my own building experience and that of some of my neightbors, I'm sure the Planning Department
hears a lot on the subject of the Ashland Municipal Code's limit of no more than 20% impervious lot coverage
in RR-0.5 zoned areas such as where I live at 419 Strawberry Lane. Considering the sizes of the houses built in
this area that limit seems to me to be unreasonably low, so I'm requesting that the city raise the impervious
coverage limit, subject to appropriate conditions.
Allow me to explain my reasoning. My understanding is that the primary reason for limiting impervious lot
coverage is to limit erosion and prevent storm water runoff from unduly taxing the city's drainage system. The
concept is that by preserving enough undisturbed soil around improvements, storm water will mostly (or
completely) be absorbed by the surrounding ground rather than running off into the storm drains.
While house roofs are truly impervious, that's not the case where pavers or paving of various permeable,
pervious, or porous types are concerned. Those surfaces, if installed over a suitable underlayment and detention
basin, will actually retain storm water in the detention basin and cause it to flow off to the surrounding ground
more slowly than the storm water would on undisturbed ground. That would certainly be the case where I live.
My house is built on top of decomposed granite, which absorbs moisture very slowly. Since the average annual
rainfall in Ashland is only about 19", it wouldn't take a particularly deep detention basin to hold the water from
any conceivable string of rain/snow storms and drain it more slowly to the surrounding soil.
With a suitable underlayment, permeable surfaces (particularly in low traffic/low load areas like walks and
patios) should retain their permeability indefinitely while slowing storm water runoff even more effectively than
undisturbed soil - and certainly more effectively than the decks that might be the only viable patio surface
available if the homeowner's 20% "impermeable" lot coverage limit has been reached.
For these reasons, I ask that the city revise the Ashland Municipal Code to increase the percentage impermeable
lot coverage allowed in RR-0.5 zoned land, subject to reasonable conditions.
Thanks for your attention,
Keith Baldwin
419 Strawberry Lane
Ashland, OR 97520
i
Maria Harris
From: Amy Gunter [guntera@ashland.or.us]
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 9:11 AM
To: 'Maria Harris'
Subject: FW: Additional Residential Units
From: jason eaton [maiIto: jason@designbuildashland com]
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 7:35 AM
To: mike (~council.ashland.or.us; rich@council.ashland.or.us; dennis@council.ashland.or.us; greg@council.ashland.or.us;
carol@council.ashland.or.us; pam@council.ashland.or.us; amy gunter (city of ashland planner);
john@council.ashland.or.us
Subject: Additional Residential Units
9/18/2014
Ashland City Council,
I am writing to encourage you to consider making "Additional Residential Units" an "Outright Permitted Use"
in the city of Ashland.
I believe these additional units offer many benefits to the community and individual homeowners.
- ARUs offer additional housing stock to an already tight rental market.
-The typically small footprint of an ARU is inherently energy efficient, sustainable and green.
-As our population continues to grow, encouraging homeowners to build an ARU could help us avoid
expanding the urban growth boundary.
-Legally constructed ARUs that conform to off-street parking regulations will help limit the illegal rental unit
market that often forces tenants to use limited on-street parking spots.
1
-Income from renting an ARU could offer lower-income families an opportunity to purchase a home in Ashland
they could otherwise not afford. This could help alleviate the need for controversial, subsidized, "low-income
housing".
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Jason Eaton
865 Henry St.
Ashland, Ore.
541-973-8889
2
/,U R BAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
LAND USE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
y
September 291h, 2014
Ashland City Council
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Subject: Proposed Unified Land Use Ordinance
I appreciate the City Council's goal to unify the City's Land Use Codes by uniting years
of amendments, re-amendments and various new code additions that have resulted in
numerous inconsistencies and confusion for citizens, staff and decision makers. This is a
monumental task that every City eventually needs to address, but rarely does as it's
extremely time consuming and expensive.
In light of the proposed changes, I do have a two observations and recommendations as
someone who has worked with the code for over 20 years on both the public and private
sides of its administration. I've also been lucky enough to work on numerous projects in
the City's of Ashland, Talent and the rest of the Rogue Valley including many years
participating in the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Plan (RPS).
That said, I believe "we" as a community and society need to encourage, regulate and
shape future development in a more vertical pattern as it's by far the most
environmentally friendly and sustainable solution to growth and its impacts on our planet
(besides the Zero Population Growth alternative).
As such, I would encourage the City Council to adopt the Unified Land Use Code with
some form of the following language included:
1) Structures greater than 40 feet in height, but less than 55 feet, may be permitted
within the C-1, C-1-D, E-1 and M-1 zones with a Conditional Use Permit, as long as they
are greater than 100' from a residential zone. (underlined text is for emphasis)
A similar provision is currently applied in the C-1-D (Downtown) zone already and the
Ashland Planning Commission had recommended as expansion of this provision to other
commercial zones as it is sound and environmentally conscious land use planning (See
previous code language in Section 18-2.6.030). However, the language was proposed as
an "outright" permitted use. Because of this, it was later suggested by a minority to be
485 W. Nevada Street I Ashland, OR 97520 1 phone 541.821.3752
"too controversial" and needing additional public vetting. In fairness, without the
Conditional Use Permit provision as I'm suggesting, this probably is an issue needing
additional education and public input. However, with the "Conditional Use Permit"
provision added, the code is actually strengthened providing more public input and likely
better outcomes than if it was an outright permitted use.
Secondly, adopt code language allowing for:
2) Parapet heights in the C-1, C-1-D and E-1 zones to extend up to 5' above the
zone's maximum building height.
In my opinion, the current code definition is unintentionally creating too much
conformity with new buildings, particularly in the Downtown area, where applicants are
building three story buildings and bumping into the height cap, leaving little to no room
for fluctuation and architectural character. The end result is too similar of a mass along
the street where as the historic pattern is varying roof volumes which help define
Ashland's "Main Street" appearance. With the adoption of the suggested language, the
building's actual height would NOT increase, but its parapet could.
Beside's allowing for a varying staggered building heights, this provision would also
allow for additional architectural creativity, help hide mechanical equipment and in
fairness, address an odd inconsistency with the height definition (see "Height of Building
or Structure" graphic on Page 6-14).
As such, I encourage the Mayor and City Council to be proactive on these issues and
adopt language that allows for additional heights to buildings that support important infill
opportunities aligning with Ashland's various Comprehensive Plan Policies such as the
adopted 2013 Regional Problem Solving Element, Population Projections, Housing,
Public Services, Infrastructure, Transportation and Urbanization, but only with the
Conditional Use Permit provision attached. The Comprehensive Plan's policies embody
years of community dialogue, Planning Commission and City Council input on how
Ashland should manage its growth.
Finally, I appreciate the efforts put forth by the Planning Commission, Citizen
Involvement Committee and the Planning Department staff, specifically Maria Harris,
who no doubt has worked many evening hours and lost lots of sleep in this immense and
tedious endeavor. Thank you for your time, understanding and leadership on this
important issue.
Sincerely,
Mark Knox
485 W. Nevada Street I Ashland, OR 97520 1 phone 541.821.3752
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
October 7, 2014, Business Meeting
A Resolution Supporting the Rogue Valley Transportation
District's Five-Year Levy
FROM:
Dave Kanner, city administrator, dave.kanner@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
Councilor Voisin requested that the Council consider "A Resolution Supporting the Rogue Valley
Transportation District's Five-Year Serial Levy." Per AMC 2.04.030(5)(B), Councilor Voisin
submitted this resolution, thus involving no staff time in its preparation, and notified the City
Administrator by noon of the Wednesday prior to the October 7 Council meeting of her request that it
be placed on the agenda for that meeting.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The Rogue Valley Transportation District has placed on the November ballot a five-year local option
levy in the amount of 13 cents per $1,000 of assessed valuation to pay for enhanced transit services in
areas currently not served or underserved by the District. The levy will also pay for continued
Saturday service, which is currently funded by a CMAQ grant that is about to expire. Councilor
Voisin proposes to have the Council formally endorse the RVTD levy request.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:_
N/A
SUGGESTED MOTION
I move approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution supporting the Rogue Valley Transportation
District's five-year serial levy."
ATTACHMENTS:
None
Page Iof I
WME,
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE ROGUE VALLEY
TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT'S FIVE-YEAR SERIAL LEVY
RECITALS:
A. The City of Ashland's Transportation System Plan and Comprehensive Plan are premised
in part on continuation and expansion of public transportation in the Rogue Valley;
B. The Regional Transportation Plan and the State Transportation Plan have public
transportation elements to mitigate traffic congestion and air pollution;
C. Continuing Rogue Valley Transportation District's Saturday and weekday evening
service and improving and expanding service generally are necessary to meet current and
anticipated demands for public transportation; and
D. The Rogue Valley Transportation District has developed a long-term plan in accordance
with the State, Regional and Ashland transportation plans to mitigate air pollution and
traffic congestion.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City of Ashland supports the efforts of the Rogue Valley Transportation
District to secure voter approval of a five-year property tax levy in the amount of 13 cents per
$1000.00 of assessed value to generate approximately $1,685,000 annually for maintaining and
expanding public transportation service in the Rogue Valley.
This resolution is effective upon signing by the Mayor.
PASSED and ADOPTED this day of October, 2014.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of October, 2014.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
David Lohman, City Attorney
Resolution No. 2014- Page 1 of 1