Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-01-26 Planning PACKET Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, Qive your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is not allowed after the Public Hearing is closed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 26,2010 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. PUBLIC FORUM IV. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTIONS: #2009-01610 (Part 1) APPLICANT: City of Ashland DESCRIPTION: Public Hearing regarding amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) chapters 18.108.070 and 18.112 concerning timetable tolling. B. PLANNING ACTIONS: #2009-01610 (Part 2) APPLICANT: City of Ashland DESCRIPTION: Public Hearing regarding amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) chapters 18.108.070 and 18.112 concerning timetable extensions. V. UPDA TE A. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Modernization VI. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF ASHLAND r., In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1 ). ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT January 26, 2010 PLANNING ACTION: 2009-01610 (Pmi 1) APPLICANT: City of Ashland LEGISLATIVE ACTION: Ordinance Amendment Concerning Timetable Tolling (Appeal Tolling Extension) ORDINANCE REFERENCE: Chapter 18.112 Enforcement; 18.108 Procedures. REQUEST: To amend Chapters 18.112 and Chapter 18.108 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) to provide for timetable tolling during pending appeals and court proceedings. I. Relevant Facts A. Background. History of Application Planning Action 2009-01610 involves various amendments Chapters 18.112 and 18.108 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO). These amendments address two separate objectives. · allowing for tolling of actions pending appeals (Part 1) · allowing a one-time extension for projects delayed due to the national recession (Pmi 2). To simplify the review process, and assist in an independent evaluation of proposed amendments, Staff is presenting two separate ordinances for consideration by the Planning Commission and Council. Further, two separate staff reports are also provided to better delineate the provisions that relate to each objective. This report addresses the proposed ordinance that addresses the appeal tolling provisions. On October 20th, 2009 the City Council initiated an ordinance amendment directing staff to modify the ALUO to enable suspension of the "clock" until all appeals have been concluded. On December 8th 2009, the Planning Commission reviewed draft ordinance language at a study session and scheduled a public hearing. Planning Action 2009-0] 61 0 (Pati I) Applicant: City of Ashland Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report bg Page 1 of 5 B. Detailed Description Proposal The proposal involves additions and revisions to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance so that the timetable for approved Planning Actions would be suspended, or tolled, for appeals outside the local approval process, as is the case with appeals to LUBA or the Circuit Court. Appeals of approved Plmming Actions to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), Oregon Circuit Court, or Oregon Supreme Court, may exhaust the 12 month allowance for an applicant to get building permits and begin construction following the final decision of the City. For projects appealed beyond the local approval process, this limitation has the potential to nullifY a projects approval should comi reviews extend beyond the first year and a subsequent 18 month extention. The proposed ordinance amends 18.108.070 (Effective Date of Decision and Appeals) and 18.112 (Enforcement) to allow an applicant to apply for a timetable suspension to essentially stop the clock during the appeal period. The tolling period would be limited to the exact number of days the project is under appeal, but not to exceed a maximum of two years. In the event that the proposed maximum 24 month appeal tolling period expired without resolution through the courts, the applications Oliginal12 month timetable would provide additional time for resolution. Additionally an applicant could apply for a regular 18 month extension provided the conditions for an extension are met per Chapter 18.112.035 as proposed. II. Proiect Impact A. Approval Process and Noticing A Public Hearing shall be held before the Planning Commission for Legislative Amendments to the Land Use Ordinance. The Planning Commission shall forward its recommendations to the City Council. Upon receipt of the Planning Commission's recommendations the City Council will hold a Public Hearing, scheduled for Februmy 16th, 2010, and the Council may approve, approve with conditions or deny the application. A notice adveliising a public hearing was published in the newspaper as required by Chapter 18.108.080, as well as a meeting announcement and an electronic copy of the draft ordinance was posted on the project web page www.ashlal1d.or.us/tolling. A Notice of Proposed Amendment was submitted to the Department of Land Conservation and development was submitted per the requirements of ORS 197.610, OAR Chapter 660, Division 18. Planning Action 2009-01610 (Part I) Applicant: City of Ashland Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report bg Page 2 of 5 B. Proposal Impact CUlTently Ashland's Land Use Ordinance does not toll or suspend local approval dates when that the City approval is appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), Circuit Comi, or the Supreme Court. Without a tolling provision, an applicant's approval can effetely expire even if the Court upholds the City's approval. The proposed ordinance amendments would allow a final detennination by LUBA or the courts to occur without invalidating the original approval due to expiration of our local period of approval. The majority of such appeals to LUBA and Circuit Court are resolved in less than two years. To establish a point of review for an extension request beyond that period, the proposed ordinance limits the appeal tolling period to a maximum of two years. The addition of a tolling period extension provision will ensure an applicant need not go through the land use approval process again for the identical application request. If the applicant chooses to modify the previous approval, the tolling extension would not apply and they would be directed back through the existing land use application and review process. C. Discussion Items Latest Revisions The attached Chapter 18.108 and Chapter 18.112 amendments include revisions the City Council and Plamling Commission have discussed over the past several months. A summary of the most recent changes are as follows. o The proposed ordinance establishes an appeal tolling period shall be equal to the exact number of days a project is under appeal, not to exceed 24 months. o The proposed ordinance requires that to obtain a tolling period extension, an application shall be filed. o The proposed ordinance clarifies under which conditions an application for extension can be approved concerning Land Use Ordinance requirements that may have changed between to original application date and the date the extension is requested. Presently the ordinance stipulates within 18.112.30 that extensions may only be granted if the Staff Advisor determines that the following three conditions are met: 1. One time extension no longer than eighteen (18) months is allowed. 2. The Staff Advisor shall find that a change of conditions for which the applicant was not responsible prevented the applicant from completed the development within the original time limitation. Planning Action 2009-01610 (Pm11) Applicant: City of Ashland Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report bg Page 3 of 5 3. Land Use Ordinance requirements applicable to the development have not changed since the original approval. An extension may be granted, however, if requirements have changed and the applicant agrees to comply with any such changes. In the proposed ordinance Conditions 1 and 2 remain identical to those above. Currently Condition 3 above provides the Staff Advisor with the ability to evaluate the original application and potentially accept substantive modifications to the originally approved plan necessary to comply with new regulations. Staff is concemed that such discretion may not effectively limit such changes to only minor alterations consistent with the original approval. Staff has therefore proposed an amendment to this provision in the draft ordinance to remove that degree of discretion as follows: "Land Use Ordinance requirements applicable to the development have not changed since the original approval. An extension may be granted, however, if requirements have changed and there is no material effect upon the original approval, and the applicant agrees to comply with any new requirements, as a condition the extension. " o Clarifies Section 18.112.030 to note that revocation of a permit shall not occur if an extension application is filed and deemed complete prior to the date of expiration, pending application review and decision. o Provisions specifically relating to the "recession" extension as previously discussed are proposed under a separate ordinance III. Procedural - Reauired Burden of Proof 18.108.170 Legislative Amendments A. It may be necessary from time to time to amend the text of the Land Use Ordinance or make other legislative amendments in order to conform with the comprehensive plan or to meet other changes in circumstances and conditions. A legislative amendment is a legislative act solely within the authority of the Council. B. A legislative amendment may be initiated by the Council, by the Commission, or by application of a property owner or resident of the City. The Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed amendment at its earliest practicable meeting after it is submitted, and within thirty days after the hearing, recommend to the Council, approval, disapproval, or modification of the proposed amendment. Planning Action 2009-01610 (Pmt I) Applicant: City of Ashland Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report bg Page 4 of 5 C. An application for amendment by a property owner or resident shall be filed with the Planning Department thirty days prior to the Commission meeting at which the proposal is to be first considered. The application shall be accompanied by the required fee. D. Before taking final action on a proposed amendment, the Commission shall hold a public hearing. After receipt of the report on the amendment from the Commission, the Council shall hold a public hearing on the amendment. Notice of time and place of the public hearings and a brief description of the proposed amendment shall be given notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the City not less than ten days prior to the date of hearing. E. No application of a property owner or resident for a legislative amendment shall be considered by the Commission within the twelve month period immediately following a previous denial of such request, except the Commission may permit a new application if, in the opinion of the Commission, new evidence or a change of circumstances warrant it. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance amendments to Chapter 18.108 and Chapter 18.112 conceming timetable tolling for appeals. Staff believes that the proposed amendments provide necessary allowances to enable appellants to pursue legal challenges to local Planning Approvals, while the validity of Planning Approvals is retained pending the outcome of court proceedings. Following a public hearing on the proposed ordinance and in consideration of the testimony received and information presented in this report, the Planning Commission shall forward a recommendation to the City Council for consideration. Planning Action 2009-01610 (Pall 1) Applicant: City of Ashland Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report bg Page 5 of 5 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC 18.108.070 AND AMC 18.112 , CONCERNING TIMETABLE TOLLING Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold . and additions are bold underlined. WHEREAS, Article 9. Section 1, of the Ashland City Charter provides: Violation of Charter. Ordinance and Laws The Council, at any regular or adjourned meeting, shall have the power within the limits of the City of Ashland to enact laws, ordinances and pass resolutions not in conflict or inconsistent with the laws of the United States, the State of Oregon, or the provisions of this Charter; and to provide for punishment of any person or persons found guilty by a competent tribunal of the violation of any such laws, ordinances, or any of the provisions of this Charter, by fine or imprisonment of such offender, until such fine and costs are paid; and WHEREAS, Artiele 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefighters. Local 1660, Beaverton Shop, 20 Or. App. 293, 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and WHEREAS, the Ashland Municipal Code does not expressly toll or suspend development timetables in the event the project is subject to a LUBA or Circuit Court proceeding; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland, acting by and through the City Council, desires to expressly provide for timetable tolling during pending appeals and proceedings; and THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2: Amendment. AMC 18.108.070 [Effective Date of Decision and Appeals] is hereby amended to add a new subsection D: 18.108.070 Effective Date of Decision and Appeals A. Ministerial actions are effective on the date of the decision of the Staff Advisor and are not subject to appeal. B. Actions subject to appeal: Ordinance No. Draft 1-26-2010 1. Expedited Land Divisions. Unless appealed .within 14 days of mailing a notice of decision, the Staff Advisor decision becomes final on the 15th day. Appeals shall be considered as set forth in ALUO 18.108.030(C) and ORS 197.375. 2. Type I Planning Actions. a. Effective Date of Decision. The final decision of the City for planning actions resulting from the Type I Planning Procedure shall be the Staff Advisor decision, effective on the 13th day after notice of the decision is mailed unless reconsideration of the action is approved by the Staff Advisor or appealed to the Commission as provided in section 18.108.070(B)(2)(C). b. Reconsideration. The Staff Advisor may reconsider Type I planning actions as set forth below. i. Any party entitled to notice of the planning action, or any City Agency may requestJeconsideration of the action after the decision has been made by providing evidence to the Staff Advisor that a factual error occurred through no fault of the party asking for reconsideration, which in the opinion of the staff advisor, might affect the decision. Reconsideration requests are limited to factual errors and not the failure of an issue to be raised by letter or evidence during the opportunity to provide public input on the application sufficient to afford the Staff Advisor an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to making a decision. 11. Reconsideration requests shall be received within five (5) days of mailing. The Staff Advisor shall decide within three (3) days whether to reconsider the matter. Ill. If the Planning Staff Advisor is satisfied that an error occurred crucial to the decision, the Staff Advisor shall withdraw the decision for purposes of reconsideration. The Staff Advisor shall decide within ten (lO) days to affirm, modify, or reverse the original decision. The Staff Advisor shall send notice of the reconsideration decision to affirm, modify, or reverse to any party entitled to notice of the planning action. IV. If the Staff Advisor is not satisfied that an error occurred crucial to the decision, the Staff Advisor shall deny the reconsideration request. Notice of denial shall be sent to those parties that requested reconsideration. c. Appeal. i. Within twelve (12) days of the date of the mailing of the Staff Advisor's final decision, including any approved reconsideration request, the decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission by any party entitled to receive notice of the planning action. The appeal shall be submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary on a form approved by the City Administrator, be accompanied by a fee established pursuant to City Council action, and be received by the city no later than 4:30 p.m. on the 12th day after the notice of decision is mailed. 11. If an appellant prevails at the hearing or upon subsequent appeal, the fee for the initial hearing shall be refunded. The fee required in this section shall not apply to appeals made by neighborhood or community organizations recognized by the city and whose boundaries include the site. 111. The appeal shall be considered at the next regular Planning Commission or Hearings Board meeting. The appeal shall be a de novo hearing and shall be considered the initial evidentiary hearing required under ALUO 18.lO8.050 and ORS 197.763 as the basis for an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals. The Planning Commission or Hearings Board decision on appeal Ordinance No. Draft 1-26-2010 shall be effective 13 days after the findings adopted by the Commission or Board are signed by the Chair of the Commission or Board and mailed to the parties, IV. The appeal requirements of this section must be fully met or the appeal will be considered by the city as a jurisdictional defect and will not be heard or considered. d. Final Decision of City. The decision of the Commission shall be the final decision of the City on appeals heard by the Commission on Type I Planning actions, effective the day the findings adopted by the Commission are signed by the Chair and mailed to the parties. 3. Type II Planning Actions. a. Effective Date of Decision. The decision of the Commission is the final decision of the City resulting from the Type II Planning Procedure, effective 13 days after the findings adopted by the Commission are signed by the Chair of the Commission and mailed to the parties, unless reconsideration of the action is authorized as provided in Section (b) below or appealed to the Council as provided in section 18.108.110.A. b. Reconsideration. i. The Staff Advisor on his/her own motion, or any party entitled to notice of the planning action may request reconsideration of the action after the Planning Commission final decision has been made by providing evidence to the Staff Advisor addressing one or more of the follovving: (1) new evidence material to the decision exists which was unavailable, through no fault of the requesting party, when the record of the proceeding was open; (2) a factual error occurred through no fault of the requesting party which is relevant to an approval criterion and material to the decision; (3) a procedural error occurred, through no fault of the requesting party, that prejudiced the requesting party's substantial rights and remanding the matter will correct the error. Reconsideration requests are limited to errors identified above and_not the failure of an issue to be raised by letter or evidence during the opportunity to provide public input on the application sufficient to afford the Staff Advisor an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to making a decision. n. Reconsideration requests shall be received within seven (7) days of mailing. The Staff Advisor shall promptly decide whether to reconsider the matter. Ill. If the Staff Advisor is satisfied that an error occurred as identified above and is crucial to the decision, the Staff Advisor shall schedule reconsideration with notice to participants of the matter before the Planning Commission. Reconsideration shall be scheduled before the Planning Commission at the next regularly scheduled meeting, Reconsideration shall be limited to the portion of the decision affected by the alleged errors identified in paragraph 3.b.i above. IV. The Planning Commission shall decide to affirm, modify, or reverse the original decision. The Planning Commission Secretary shall send notice of the reconsideration decision to any party entitled to notice of the planning action. c, Final Decision of City. Unless the decision is remanded to the Planning Commission, the decision of the City Council shall be the final decision of the City on appeals heard by the Council, on Type II Planning actions, effective the day the findings adopted by the Council are signed by the Mayor and mailed to the parties. Ordinance No. Draft 1-26-2010 4. Type III Planning Actions. For planning actions described in section 18.108.060.A.1 thru 4, the decision of the Council shall be the final decision of the City, effective the day the findings adopted by the Council are signed by the Mayor and mailed to the parties. 5. Council Call Up. The City Council may call up any planning action for a decision upon motion and majority vote, provided such vote takes place in the required appeaLperiod. Unless the planning action is appealed and a public hearing is required, the City Council review of the Planning Action is limited to the record and public testimony is not allowed. The City Council may affirm, modify or reverse the decision of the Planning Commission, or may remand the decision to the Planning Commission for additional consideration if sufficient time is permitted for making a final decision of the city. The City Council shall make findings and con elusions and cause copies of a final order to be sent to all parties of the planning action. C. No building or zoning permit shall be issued for any action under this Title until the decision is final, as defined in this section. D. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Chapter, in the event a LUBA appeal or a Circuit Court proceeding is filed concerning a final land use decision of the City, the timetable of development is deemed tolled or suspended from the date of the final decision of the City until final resolution of all appeals or final action on remand, whichever is later, not to exceed 24 months. After resolution of all such appeals or remands, timetables shall be adiusted in writing by the Staff Advisor to reflect this automatic tolling, regardless of the approval authority. SECTION 3: Amendment. Section 18.112.030 [Revocation- permit expiration] is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.112.030 Revocation--permit expiration Any zoning permit, or planning action granted in accordance with the terms of this Title shall be deemed revoked if not used within one year from date of approval, unless another time period is specified in another section of this Title. Said permit shall not be deemed used until the permittee has actually obtained a building permit, and commenced construction thereunder, or has actually commenced the permitted use of the premises. If an application for extension is deemed complete for processing prior to the timetable expiration date, the permit or action shall not expire by operation of this section unless the application is abandoned or not approved or denied within QO days. Thc Staff Ad'v1.sor may grant an cxtcnsion of thc approval undcr thc folluvving conditions: 1. Onc timc cxtcnsion no longcr than cightccn (18) months is allO\ycd. 2. Thc Staff },.d',,1.sor shall find that a changc of conditions for 'shich thc applicant was not rcsponsiblc prc'/cntcd thc applicant from completcd thc dcvelopmcnt 'Nithin thc original timc limitation. 3. Land Usc Ordinancc rcquircmcnts applicable to thc dcvelopmcnt havc not changcd sincc thc original approval. fJ} cxtcnsion may bc grantcd, howcvcr, if rcquircmcnts ha'v'c changcd and thc applicant agrccs to complY'vdth any such changcs. SECTION 4: Amendment. A new Section 18.112.035 [Timetable Extension] is hereby added to read as follows: Ordinance No. Draft 1-26-2010 18.112.035 Timetable Extension A. The Staff Advisor shall grant a timetable extension of any zoning permit or planning action approval under demonstrated compliance with the following conditions: 1. One time extension no longer than eighteen (18) months is allowed. 2. The Staff Advisor shall find that a change of conditions for which the applicant was not responsible prevented the applicant from completing the development within the original time limitation. :l. Land Use Ordinance requirements applicable to the development have not changed since the original approval. An extension may be granted, however, if requirements have changed and there is no material effect upon the original approval, and the applicant agrees to comply with any new requirements, as a condition the extension. B. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Chapter, the Staff Advisor shall grant a timetable extension to any zoning permit or planning action final City decision which approval was subiected to delay associated with a LUBA appeal or a Circuit Court proceeding. Upon application, an extension shall be granted to any existing valid approval consistent with the tolling period in AMC 18.108.070, for the exact number of days the project was under appeal, calculated from the date of the final decision of the City until final resolution of the appeal or final action on remand, whichever is later. No extension under this provision shall extend beyond 24 months. SECTION 5. Amendment. Section 18.112.090 is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.112.090 Penalties Any person, firm or corporation, whether as principal, agent employee, or otherwise, violating or causing the violation of any of the provisions of this Title has committed a Class A violation offense, an infraction, and upon conviction thereof is punish-able as prescribed in Section 1.08.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code, subiect to the limitations of the AsWand City Charter. Such person, firm, or corporation is guilty of a separate violation for each and every day during any portion of which any violation of this Title is committed or continued by such person, firm or corporation. SECTION 6. Amendment. Section 18.112.100 is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.112.100 Complaints. Complaints concerning violations to this Title can be initiated only as provided in AMC Chapter 1.08. by: (1) v.Tittcn complaint filed by an affected citizen; (2) any City departmental official responsible for the enforcement of this code; or (3) the City Administrator or City .L'\ttorney. Ordinance No. Draft 1-26-2010 SECTION 7. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 8. Savings. Notwithstanding this amendment/repeal, the City ordinances in existence at the time any criminal or civil enforcement actions were commenced shall remain valid and in full force and effect for purposes of all cases filed or commenced during the time said ordinances(s) or portions thereof were operative. This section simply clarifies the existing situation that nothing in this Ordinance affects the validity of prosecutions commenced and continued under the laws in effect at the time the matters were originally filed. SECTION 9. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 1, 7-9) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors, and to combine in the codification multiple ordinances amending the same section. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance vvith Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of , 2010 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ,2010. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of ,2010 John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney Ordinance No. Draft 1-26-2010 ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT January 26, 2010 PLANNING ACTION: 2009-01610 (Part 2) APPLICANT: City of Ashland LEGISLATIVE ACTION: Ordinance Amendment conceming Timetable Extensions (Recession Extension) ORDINANCE REFERENCE: Chapter 18.122 Enforcement; 18.108 Procedures. REQUEST: To amend Chapters 18.122 and Chapter 18.108 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) to provide for a timetable extension for land development and building activity delayed due to the economic recession. I. Relevant Facts A. Background. History of Application Planning Action 2009-01610 involves various amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO). These amendments address two separate objectives. . allowing for tolling of actions pending appeals (Part 1) · allowing a one-time extension for projects delayed due to the national recession (Part 2). To simplifY the review process, and assist in an independent evaluation of proposed amendments, Staff is presenting two separate ordinances for consideration by the Planning Commission and Council. Further, two separate staff reports are also provided to better delineate the provisions that relate to each objective. This report addresses the proposed ordinance amendments that address what has been refelTed to as the 'Recession Extension'. On October 20th, 2009 the City Council directed staff to develop an amendment to the ALUO for a one additional 18-month extension on land use plmming actions to respond to the change in conditions associated with the economic recession. On December 8th 2009, the Planning Commission reviewed draft ordinance language at a study session and scheduled a public hearing. B. Detailed Description Proposal The proposed ordinance amends 18.108.070 (Effective Date of Decision and Appeals) Planning Action 2009-01610 (Part 2) Applicant: City of Ashland Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report bg Page 1 of 5 and 18.112 (Enforcement) to allow an an additional 18 month extension to their timetable, provided the conditions for an extension are met per Chapter 18.112.035 as proposed. II. Proiect Impact A. Approval Process and Noticing A Public Hearing shall be held before the Planning Commission for Legislative Amendments to the Land Use Ordinance. The Planning Commission shall forward its recommendations to the City Council. Upon receipt of the Planning Commission's recommendations the City Council will hold a Public Hearing, scheduled for February 16t\ 2010, and the Council may approve, approve with conditions or deny the application. A notice advertising a public hearing was published in the newspaper as required by Chapter 18.1 08.080, as well as a meeting announcement and an electronic copy of the draft ordinance was posted on the project web page www.ashland.oy.us/tolling. A Notice of Proposed Amendment was submitted to the Department of Land Conservation and development was submitted per the requirements ofORS 197.610, OAR Chapter 660, Division 18. B. Proposal Impact This 'recession extension' would be limited to projects that are currently valid as of the effective date of the proposed ordinance. As such, only projects that are within their initial 12 months following approval, or those that obtained a prior 18 month extension would be eligible to apply. Therefore only projects that received approval within the last 30 months would be eligible to receive the one-time 18 month extension. C. Discussion Items The attached Chapter 18.108 and Chapter 18.112 amendments include revisions the City Council and Planning Commission have discussed over the past several months. A summary of the most recent changes are as follows. o The proposed ordinance establishes an additional 18-month recession extension period for projects delayed as a result of the recent national receSSIOn. o The proposed ordinance requires an application shall be filed to obtain the one-time recession extension. o The proposed ordinance stipulates that to be eligible for a one-time Planning Action 2009-01610 (Part 2) Applicant: City of Ashland Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report bg Page 2 of 5 recession extension, an application shall be currently valid. The Commission, and ultimately Council, should consider whether all currently valid Planning Actions, even those approved as recently as this month, should be eligible for a "recession extension" (option 1), or rather if eligibility should be limited to currently valid approvals that were initiated prior to a specific date (option 2). Option 1 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Chapter, any zoning permit or planning action approval current as of the effective date of this ordinance shall be granted an additional eighteen (18)-month extension of time, after a finding by the Staff Advisor that the requirements of 18.112.035A (2) and (3) have been met. This extension is in addition to any other time extension previously granted or that may be granted. The Staff Advisor shall make the timetable adjustment and notation of conditions, if any, in the extension approval. Option 2 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Chapter, any zoning permit or planning action approval having received approval prior to July 1, 2009, and current as of the effective date of this ordinance, shall be granted an additional eighteen (18)- month extension of time, after a finding by the Staff Advisor that the requirements of 18.112.035A (2) and (3) have been met. This extension is in addition to any other time extension previously granted or that may be granted. The Staff Advisor shall make the timetable adjustment and notation of conditions, if any, in the extension approval. ) o The proposed ordinance c1mifies under which conditions an application for extension can be approved concerning Land Use Ordinance requirements that may have changed between to Oliginal application date and the date the extension is requested. Presently the ordinance stipulates within 18.112.30 that extensions may only be granted if the Staff Advisor detennines that the following three conditions are met: 1. One time extension no longer than eighteen (18) months is allowed. 2. The Staff Advisor shall find that a change of conditions for which the applicant was not responsible prevented the applicant from completed the development within the original time limitation. 3. Land Use Ordinance requirements applicable to the development have not changed since the original approval. An extension may be granted, however, if requirements have changed and the applicant agrees to comply with any such changes. In the proposed ordinance Conditions 1 and 2 remain identical to those above. Planning Action 2009-01610 (Part 2) Applicant: City of Ashland Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report bg Page 3 of 5 Currently Condition 3 above provides the Staff Advisor with the ability to evaluate the original application and potentially accept substantive modifications to the originally approved plan necessary to comply with new regulations. Staff is concemed that such discretion may not effectively limit such changes to only minor alterations consistent with the original approval. Staff has therefore proposed an amendment to this provision in the draft ordinance to remove that degree of discretion as follows: "Land Use Ordinance requirements applicable to the development have not changed since the original approval. An extension may be granted, however, if requirements have changed and there is no material effect upon the original approval, and the applicant agrees to comply with any new requirements, as a condition the extension." o Clarifies Section 18.112.030 to note that revocation of a permit shall not occur if an extension application is filed and deemed complete prior to the date of expiration, pending application review and decision. o Provisions relating to the "appeal tolling extension" as previously discussed are proposed under a separate ordinance amendment and outlined within separate staff report. III. Procedural - Reauired Burden of Proof 18.108.170 Legislative Amendments A It may be necessary from time to time to amend the text of the Land Use Ordinance or make other legislative amendments in order to conform with the comprehensive plan or to meet other changes in circumstances and conditions. A legislative amendment is a legislative act solely within the authority of the Council. B. A legislative amendment may be initiated by the Council, by the Commission, or by application of a property owner or resident of the City. The Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed amendment at its earliest practicable meeting after it is submitted, and within thirty days after the hearing, recommend to the Council, approval, disapproval, or modification of the proposed amendment. C. An application for amendment by a property owner or resident shall be filed with the Planning Department thirty days prior to the Commission meeting at which the proposal is to be first considered. The application shall be accompanied by the required fee. D. Before taking final action on a proposed amendment, the Commission shaff hold a public hearing. After receipt of the report on the amendment from the Commission, the Council shaff hold a public hearing on the amendment. Notice of time and place of the public hearings and a brief description of the proposed amendment shall be given notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the City not less than ten days prior to the date of hearing. Planning Action 2009-01610 (Part 2) Applicant: City of Ashland Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report bg Page 4 of 5 E. No application of a property owner or resident for a legislative amendment shall be considered by the Commission within the twelve month period immediately following a previous denial of such request, except the Commission may permit a new application if, in the opinion of the Commission, new evidence or a change of circumstances warrant it. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations The cun'ent economic climate, specifically the commercial credit market, has constrained financing options for applicants with valid land use approvals. This constraint has in some cases precluded the commencement of construction as is necessary keep the approvals active. The intent of the granting of the additional 18 month extension is to provide applicants with existing development approvals additional time to secure funding to construct the projects. The additional extension would enable shovel ready projects that do secure financing to proceed in a timely manner without being required to go through the land use approval process again with an identical application request. If the applicant chooses to modifY the previous approval, or if land use requirements have changed that would alter the original approval, the extension does not apply and the applicant would be directed back through the existing land use application and review process. Staff believes the proposed ordinance amendments to provide for a one-time 'recession extension' are supported by Comprehensive Plan Goal 7.07.03, Policy VII-4: The City shall take such actions as are necessary to ensure that economic development can occur in a timely and efficient manner. Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance amendments to Chapter 18.108 and Chapter 18.112 concerning Timetable Extensions. Following a public hearing on the proposed ordinance, and in consideration of the provisions and options presented in this report, the Planning Commission shall forward a recommendation to the City Council for consideration. Planning Action 2009-01610 (Part 2) Applicant: City of Ashland Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report bg Page 5 of 5 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC 18.108.070 AND AMC 18.112 , CONCERNING TIMETABLE EXTENSIONS Annotated to show deletions and additions to the eode sections being modified. Deletions are bold . and additions are bold underlined. WHEREAS, Artiele 9. Section 1, of the Ashland City Charter provides: Violation of Charter. Ordinance and Laws The Council, at any regular or adjourned meeting, shall have the power vvithin the limits of the City of Ashland to enact laws, ordinances and pass resolutions not in conflict or inconsistent with the laws of the United States, the State of Oregon, or the provisions of this Charter; and to provide for punishment of any person or persons found guilty by a competent tribunal of the violation of any such laws, ordinances, or any of the provisions of this Charter, by fine or imprisonment of such offender, until such fine and costs are paid; and WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefighters. Local 1660. Beaverton Shop. 20 Or. App. 293, 531 P 2d 730,734 (1975); and WHEREAS, the Ashland Municipal Code does not expressly toll or suspend development timetables in the event the project is subject to a LUBA or Circuit Court proceeding; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland, acting by and through the City Council, desires to provide for timetable tolling during pending appeals as well as a uniform eighteen (18) month timetable extension for all development approvals due to the recent economic downturn; and WHEREAS, the economic downturn occurring since early 2006 has caused a severe slow down in all aspects of land development and building activity; and WHEREAS, while financing for new development and building activity is constrained, it is important to the continuing economic health of the community to extend the validity of existing development approvals so that such developments may more readily attain a shovel-ready status contributing to economic recovery: and THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. Ordinance No. Draft 1-12-2010 SECTION 2: Amendment. AMC 18.108.070 [Effective Date of Decision and Appeals] is hereby amended to add a new subsection D: 18.108.070 Effective Date of Decision and Appeals A. Ministerial actions are effective on the date of the decision of the Staff Advisor and are not subject to appeal. B. Actions subject to appeal: 1. Expedited Land Divisions. Unless appealed within 14 days of mailing a notice of decision, the Staff Advisor decision becomes final on the 15th day. Appeals shall be considered as set forth in ALUO 18.108.030(C) and ORS 197.375. 2. Type I Planning Actions. a. Effective Date of Decision. The final decision of the City for planning actions resulting from the Type I Planning Procedure shall be the Staff Advisor decision, effective on the 13th day after notice of the decision is mailed unless reconsideration of the action is approved by the Staff Advisor or appealed to the Commission as provided in section 18.108.070(B)(2)(C). b. Reconsideration. The Staff Advisor may reconsider Type I planning actions as set forth below. i. Any party entitled to notice of the planning action, or any City Agency may requestJeconsideration of the action after the decision has been made by providing evidence to the Staff Advisor that a factual error occurred through no fault of the party asking for reconsideration, which in the opinion of the staff advisor, might affect the decision. Reconsideration requests are limited to factual errors and not the failure of an issue to be raised by letter or evidence during the opportunity to provide public input on the application sufficient to afford the Staff Advisor an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to making a decision. 11. Reconsideration requests shall be received 'within five (5) days of mailing. The Staff Advisor shall decide within three (3) days whether to reconsider the matter. 111. If the Planning Staff Advisor is satisfied that an error occurred crucial to the decision, the Staff Advisor shall withdraw the decision for purposes of reconsideration. The Staff Advisor shall decide within ten (10) days to affirm, modify, or reverse the original decision. The Staff Advisor shall send notice of the reconsideration decision to affirm, modify, or reverse to any party entitled to notice of the planning action. IV. If the Staff Advisor is not satisfied that an error occurred crucial to the decision, the Staff Advisor shall deny the reconsideration request. Notice of denial shall be sent to those parties that requested reconsideration. c. Appeal. i. Within twelve (12) days of the date of the mailing of the Staff Advisor's final decision, including any approved reconsideration request, the decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission by any party entitled to receive notice of the planning action. The appeal shall be submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary on a form approved by the City Administrator, be accompanied by a fee established pursuant to City Council action, and be received by the city no later than 4:30 p.m, on the 12th day after the notice of decision is mailed. Ordinance No. Draft 1-12-2010 11. If an appellant prevails at the hearing or upon subsequent appeal, the fee for the initial hearing shall be refunded. The fee required in this section shall not apply to appeals made by neighborhood or community organizations recognized by the city and whose boundaries include the site. lll. The appeal shall be considered at the next regular Planning Commission or Hearings Board meeting. The appeal shall be a de novo hearing and shall be considered the initial evidentiary hearing required under ALUO 18.108.050 and ORS 197.763 as the basis for an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals. The Planning Commission or Hearings Board decision on appeal shall be effective 13 days after the findings adopted by the Commission or Board are signed by the Chair of the Commission or Board and mailed to the parties. IV. The appeal requirements of this section must be fully met or the appeal will be considered by the city as a jurisdictional defect and vvill not be heard or considered. d. Final Decision of City. The decision of the Commission shall be the final decision of the City on appeals heard by the Commission on Type I Planning actions, effective the day the findings adopted by the Commission are signed by the Chair and mailed to the parties. 3. Type II Planning Actions. a. Effective Date of Decision. The decision of the Commission is the final decision of the City resulting from the Type II Planning Procedure, effective 13 days after the findings adopted by the Commission are signed by the Chair of the Commission and mailed to the parties, unless reconsideration of the action is authorized as provided in Section (b) below or appealed to the Council as provided in section 18.108.11O.A. b. Reconsideration. i. The Staff Advisor on his/her own motion, or any party entitled to notice of the planning action may request reconsideration of the action after the Planning Commission final decision has been made by providing evidence to the Staff Advisor addressing one or more of the following: (1) new evidence material to the decision exists which was unavailable, through no fault of the requesting party, when the record of the proceeding was open; (2) a factual error occurred through no fault of the requesting party which is relevant to an approval criterion and material to the decision; (3) a procedural error occurred, through no fault of the requesting party, that prejudiced the requesting party's substantial rights and remanding the matter will correct the error. Reconsideration requests are limited to errors identified above and_not the failure of an issue to be raised by letter or evidence during the opportunity to provide public input on the application sufficient to afford the Staff Advisor an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to making a decision. 11. Reconsideration requests shall be received within seven (7) days of mailing. The Staff Advisor shall promptly decide whether to reconsider the matter. 111. If the Staff Advisor is satisfied that an error occurred as identified above and is crucial to the decision, the Staff Advisor shall schedule reconsideration with notice to participants of the matter before the Planning Commission. Reconsideration shall be scheduled before the Planning Commission at the next regularly scheduled meeting. Reconsideration shall be limited to the Ordinance No. Draft 1-12-2010 portion of the decision affected by the alleged errors identified in paragraph 3.b.i above. IV. The Planning Commission shall decide to affirm, modifY, or reverse the original decision. The Planning Commission Secretary shall send notice of the reconsideration decision to any party entitled to notice of the planning action. c. Final Decision of City. Unless the decision is remanded to the Planning Commission, the decision of the City Council shall be the final decision of the City on appeals heard by the Council, on Type II Planning actions, effective the day the findings adopted by the Council are signed by the Mayor and mailed to the parties. 4. Type III Planning Actions. For planning actions described in section 18.108.o60.A.l thru 4, the decision of the Council shall be the final decision of the City, effective the day the findings adopted by the Council are signed by the Mayor and mailed to the parties. 5. Council Call Up. The City Council may call up any planning action for a decision upon motion and majority vote, provided such vote takes place in the required appeaLperiod. Unless the planning action is appealed and a public hearing is required, the City Council review of the Planning Action is limited to the record and public testimony is not allowed. The City Council may affirm, modifY or reverse the decision of the Planning Commission, or may remand the decision to the Planning Commission for additional consideration if sufficient time is permitted for making a final decision of the city. The City Council shall make findings and conclusions and cause copies of a final order to be sent to all parties of the planning action. C. No building or zoning permit shall be issued for any action under this Title until the decision is final, as defined in this section. SECTION 3: Amendment. Section 18.112.030 [Revocation- permit expiration] is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.112.030 Revocation--permit expiration Any zoning permit, or planning action granted in accordance vvith the terms of this Title shall be deemed revoked if not used within one year from date of approval, unless another time period is specified in another section of this Title. Said permit shall not be deemed used until the permittee has actually obtained a building permit, and commenced construction thereunder, or has actually commenced the permitted use of the premises. If an application for extension is deemed complete for processing prior to the timetable expiration date, the permit or action shall not expire by operation of this section unless the application is abandoned or not approved or denied within 90 days. Thc Staff /...d',isor may grant an cxtcnsion of thc approval undcr thc follmving conditions: 1. Onc timc cxtcnsion no longcr than cightccn (18) months is alloTNcd. 2. Thc Staff /...dT,isor shall find that a changc of conditions for which thc applicant ',vas not rcsponsible prcvcnted thc applicant from eompletcd thc dcw~lopmcnt ',\1.thin thc original timc limitation. 3. Land Usc Ordinancc requircmcnts applicable to thc dc',xclopmcnt havc not changed sinec thc original approval. /...n cxtcnsion may bc grantcd, hO'Ncvcr, if requircmcnts havc changed and thc applicant agrecs to comply v,ith any such changcs. Ordinance No. Draft 1-12-2010 SECTION 4: Amendment. A new Section 18.112.035 [Timetable Extension] is hereby added to read as follows: 18.112.035 Timetable Extension A. The Staff Advisor shall grant a timetable extension of any zoning permit or planning action approval under demonstrated compliance with the following conditions: 1. One time extension no longer than eighteen (18) months is allowed. 2. The Staff Advisor shall find that a change of conditions for which the applicant was not responsible prevented the applicant from completing the development within the original time limitation. 3. Land Use Ordinance requirements applicable to the development have not changed since the original approval. An extension may be granted, however, if requirements have changed and there is no material effect upon the original approval, and the applicant agrees to comply with any new requirements, as a condition the extension. B. [Reserved] C. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Chapter, any zoning permit or planning action approval current as of the effective date of this ordinance shall be granted an additional eighteen (8)-month extension of time, after a finding by the Staff Advisor that the requirements of 18.112.03sA (2) and (3) have been met. This extension is in addition to any other time extension previously granted or that may be granted. The Staff Advisor shall make the timetable adiustment and notation of conditions, if any, in the extension approval. SECTION 5. Amendment. Section 18.112.090 is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.112.090 Penalties Any person, firm or corporation, whether as principal, agent employee, or otherwise, violating or causing the violation of any of the provisions of this Title has committed a Class A violation offense, an infraction, and upon conviction thereof is punish-able as prescribed in Section 1.08.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code, subiect to the limitations of the Ashland City Charter. Such person, firm, or corporation is guilty of a separate violation for each and every day during any portion of which any violation of this Title is committed or continued by such person, firm or corporation. SECTION 6. Amendment. Section 18.112.100 is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.112.100 Complaints. Complaints concerning violations to this Title can be initiated only as provided in AMC Chapter 1.08. by: (1) l\Titlen complaint filed by an affected Ordinance No. Draft 1-12-2010 citizen; (2) any City departmental official responsible for the enforcement of this code; or (3) the City Administrator or City Attorney. SECTION 7. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 8. Savings. Notwithstanding this amendment/repeal, the City ordinances in existence at the time any criminal or civil enforcement actions were commenced shall remain valid and in full force and effect for purposes of all cases filed or commenced during the time said ordinances(s) or portions thereof were operative. This section simply clarifies the existing situation that nothing in this Ordinance affects the validity of prosecutions commenced and continued under the laws in effect at the time the matters were originally filed. SECTION 9. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-Iettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 1, 7-9) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors and to combine in the codification multiple ordinances amending the same section. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance "'lith Article X, Section 2( C) of the City Charter on the day of , 2010 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ,2010. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of ,2010 John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney Ordinance No. Draft 1-12-2010 PUBLIC INPUT PIULIP CLANG, AC&W, LC&W ORE. LC&W1141 .. CAL. LC&W-5500 ~'~iP:J~' r-.r""r'-,-.o-,\\ ' ncl"i.:::/ liED 758 B Slreet .. Ashland. Orec;on 97520 Residence 541 " 482-8659 Office/f'ax 541 " 482-5387 e-mail: Philip@imind.net DEe 8 2009 City of A;hland Community DevoicpmGnt December 8, 2009 To: Planning Commission Re.: Proposed "tolling" extension of time on initiating projects for speculative developers This proposal initiated by the planning staff (!) should be put to sleep quickly and ~etlY for reasons to follow. At the outset it is strange that neither the Planning Commission nor the City Council took umbrage at having planning staff, apparently with time on their hands on and.perhaps at the urging oL.,paL"ties who stand to benefit from this proposal, took it upon rhemselves, without either request or direction by the Commission or the C~tincil to do so. Then too, City jobs are at stake, for as the staff report notes: "the economic downturn has resulted in a significant slowdown in the submission of developmentcapplications and general building activity." This is a very bad proposal for the following reasons: 1) The staff report raises the questions of ordinance changes during the extended period, but does not deaLwith how this would be handled. Indeed there may be significant changes, not only locally - but state and federally mandated Q~aling with electrical, fire, earthquake safety etc. Will the proposals be reviewed? And if so - who will pay for the cost? And what of the review? Since this will not be a public hearing we can anticipate that this "review" will be a 2-step process: (1) a wink, and (2) a nod. 2) '..How about changed needs? a) We are once again talking about "long range plaij.ning". Such pl,~ntling which may mandate other strtuctures than those' "tolled" will belj~t~: meaningless if there is a commitment to projects whose utility&~ value has vanished. b) :rn~!1.t:ic!p_ati11.g these irr~vit~bleand rapidly '" aPl'roac~ing lleeds for change, one "citycounciIoE.~ . "put it verywell:=J'We--nee<Y-:applj:cat::i.onEf- more congruent with the current (and future-added) economic situation. It would be better for the community to let these projects lapse". (See your Council Minutes) 3) Another councilor m2de another excellent point: "the developers who took the risk of borrowing money and are now unable to get funding due to the recession should suffer tlVe consequences like everyone else. Banks are not giving long extensions to those losing their homes". (Idem). Planning Commission - December 8, 2009, re: "ifIolling" - p. 2 4) Those who whould benefit from this relief - essentially a subsidy, are called "developers". Well, anyone of us who builds can be called a l1developer" - including myself. But these are a special kind of '!developer" - they are speculative. developers. They are not building based on a perceived need or demand. Rather they are speculating that they will be able to sell or, lease their structures when completed. These speculators, as clever as they are, seem to have suddenly forgotten about the nature of capitalisn, of "free enterprise" and the"!ree market" and now want you - which means we, the taxpayers to socialize their risk! What are we doing here - aping our "betters" in the federal government? 5) This ordinance changes is a subsidy. You are not giving them money directly, but you are subsidizing them by protecting their investment until such time as building their speculative developments becomes lucrative again. The staff report repeatedly refers to "the difficulty of getting loans" as the reason for developments not proceding. Say something long enough and people will begin to believe it. I would suggest that that is not the case. The problem is as stated in the preceding: the developers want to wait until their profit is assured by an expanding market for their developments. 6) Before we go about rewarding those who simply gambled and lost because of the predictable business cycle downturn - collapse, situations that have been recurring for two hundred years and more and are forseeable, let's look at one major project and its status. We alL;/:H~e_ilt daily at the center of our downtown - the failed development on Lithia War between Pioneer and N. 1st. a) The site is an eye:s15re and dangerous to pedestrians. It creates enormous liabilities~ch could include the City. When asked why the developer does not erect a protectnve fence, planning's reply was: "it~s only necessary whenunder- ..construction". This is; absurd. There is a "public nuisance ordinance." b) There are 16 unpiliantedetireeegrates on Lithia Way and N. 1st. Why ar.e there no trees? Pihanning's response: "they're only required on completion and final". Also eyesores - also llazailOdous;;: 5'0 much for the developer's interest in a ~M.!l-p- Ashland - "Tree City USA". c) A review of the county tax collector's records is ei~roghnening. These aots,involved in this project are are(~for the years 2007, 2008; ~009!.The delinquent taxes total $42,000.00 as of the date I researched them (11/28/09). Surely these desperate, suffering speculative developers need and d~~~e what is essntially an indirect Bailout for the good of the entire community! In Summary The proposed ordinance is unconscionable.If~;is discriminatory and unfair. It hides from publif view the delayed/deferred initmat'Ion-of these proj ects. It costs the taxpayers money when the City is strapped. It undermines long- range planning. It is bad public policy. ~ PHILIP C. LANG <::)i-t-~r>hTT'laT"\rC' 1i:lWJ 13tl1H /If ~~ .~ H1ifJ\f ~300G t21HH.f ua{J-!1 t2.100 {1 12000 t2.1'iJ!J 12200 11900; 11300 t2.6iI'i.f tl400 'I Hf(tl) llS,OO 11-500 11101 1~1 10000 70002 10800 11000 80011 aiJoo.2 ' , 10900 >~{,~~ ~j, ~1 ,l ....,- :';/ ; ,.,,~ ' 1(JJ(tt 1 i(j'iYi1~ 1 {J,,~"~J\J 3'~HNl ~'i';,. >."", ,~ ~ ~;"., i: {J-5'iHJ t1!j{Hj 44.0'::1 2.a-~J .":'0. JACKSON COUNTY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 5eMliJ Map Maker Application Front Counter Legend C Hightighled Feature Tax Lol Outlines Tax LolNumbers ~ Sl00 100.00 g'!JOO '9100 ,'0000 JACKSON COUNTY (1 f l' :1 U II " =-: .)'-^;.."=.. .iI~Hlii This map is based on a digital database compiled by Jackson County From a variely of sources. Jackson County cannot accept respons!bilv for errors, omissions, or F.iStclt~ro~l1tQfJ~~iAqcQlI..l'1t......--n JACKSON COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR JACKSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE MEDFORD, OR 97501 (541) 774-6541 11/28/20093:40:16 PM Pav onHne nov'./ vvith credit card or chec~ NORTHLlGHT COMMUNITY BUILDERS LLC 585 ALLISON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 Tax Account # Account Status Roll Type Situs Address 10065305 Active Real Property 123 FIRST ST N. ASHLAND, OR Lender Loan # Property 10 0501 391EO~-BA-15000 Interest To Nov 28, 200~,_ .J. """"',.. Tax Summary Tax Tax Year Type 2009 ADVALOREM 2002 ADVALOREM Total Total Current Interest Discount Original Due Due Due Due Available Due Date 10,670.52 10.623.31 47.21 0.00 10,623.31 Nov 15, 2009 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Nov 15, 2002 10,670.52 10,623.31 47.21 0.00 Tax Notations I N~=n BAD ADDRESS Date Added 11 f02l2009 Description 09-10 statement returned "insufficient address" resent to 230 wilson rd kwm Page 1 of 1 n-....~t~.t~m~o.~.....9fT.~~iAQc()UI'l~.........-l JACKSON COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR JACKSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE MEDFORD, OR 97501 (541) 774-6541 11/28/20093:43:04 PM .E,SD/ onHne now with credit card or check NORTH LIGHT COMMUNITY BUILDERS LLC 550 MAIN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 Tax Account # Account Status Roll Type Situs Address 10796131 Active Real Property PIONEER ST N, ASHLAND, OR Lender Loan # Property 10 Interest To 0501 391E~9.-....B.. A-n~"/"""i) Nov 28. 20~.. . .// Tax Summary Tax Tax Total Current Interest Discount Original Due Year Type Due Due Due Available Due Date 2009 ADVALOREM 967.80 963.52 4.28 0.00 963.52 Nov 15, 2009 2008 ADVALOREM 1,039.26 916.99 122.27 0.00 916.99 Nov 15, 2008 2007 ADVALOREM 760.45 597.21 163.24 0.00 895.82 Nov 15, 2007 2006 ADVALOREM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 826.10 Nov 15, 2006 2005 ADVALOREM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 781.36 Nov 15, 2005 2004 ADVALOREM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 770.31 Nov 15, 2004 2003 ADVALOREM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 756.52 Nov 15, 2003 2002 ADVALOREM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 732.70 Nov 15, 2002 2001 ADVALOREM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 726.53 Nov 15, 2001 2000 ADVALOREM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 713.87 Nov 15, 2000 1999 ADVALOREM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 653.45 Nov 15,1999 1998 ADVALOREM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 635.79 Nov 15,1998 1997 ADVALOREM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 629.91 Dec 15,1997 1996 ADVALOREM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 810.64 Nov 15,1996 Total 2,767.51 2,477.72 289.79 0.00 Tax Notations Notation Date Code Added Description BAD ADDRESS 11/03/2009 09/10 statement returned, "attempted not known" kwm Page 1 of 1 rr;$t~t~m~ijtiQfi't~i../~~~~I..I.Q~i'.D JACKSON COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR JACKSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE MEDFORD, OR 97501 (541) 774-6541 11/28/20093:37:18 PM Pay online novv with credit card or chec~ NORTH LIGHT COMMUNITY BUILDERS LLC C/O DALE RUSS 230 WILSON RD ASHLAND. OR 97520 Tax Account # 10065290 Lender Account Status Active Loan # Roll Type Real Property Property 10 0501 391E09-f3A-10100 Situs Address 175 L1THIA WAY, ASHLAND, OR 97520 Interest To Nav 28. 2009 \., Tax Summary Tax Tax Total Current Interest Discount Original Due Year Type Due Due Due Available Due Date 2009 ADVALOREM 7,712.04 7.677.92 34.12 0.00 7,677.92 Nav 15, 2009 2008 ADVALOREM 10,318.24 9,104.32 1,213.92 0.00 9,104.32 Nav 15, 2008 2007 ADVALOREM 7,550.39 5.929.62 1,620.77 0.00 8,894.43 Nov 15, 2007 2006 ADVALOREM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8,200.63 Nav 15,2006 2005 ADVALOREM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7,756.73 Nav 15, 2005 2004 ADVALOREM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7,646.48 Nav 15, 2004 2003 ADVALOREM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7,508.97 Nav 15, 2003 2002 ADVALOREM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7,272.26 Nav 15. 2002 2001 ADVALOREM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7,209.85 Nav 15, 2001 2000 ADVALOREM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7,081.97 Nav 15, 2000 1999 ADVALOREM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,483.16 Nav 15,1999 1998 ADVALOREM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,307.36 Nav 15,1998 1997 ADVALOREM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,249.55 Dec 15,1997 1996 ADVALOREM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,487.89 Nav 15, 1996 Total 25,580.67 22,711.86 2.868.81 0.00 \. Page 1 of 1 CITY OF ASHLAND Memo DATE: January 19, 2010 TO: Planning Commissioners FROM: Amy Gunter, Assistant Planner RE: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Modernization. FEMA is preparing to make new Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panels for Jackson County, which are expected to become effective in approximately September 2010. The new panels will be created and maintained digitally (Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRMs)), replacing the previous paper panels. The FIRMs are currently used in the regulation of the floodplain corridors in Chapter 18.62 Physical and Environmental Constraints. As a result, the updated DFIRMs will come before the Planning Commission as a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment to update the Physical and Environmental Constraints Floodplain Conidor map in the upcoming months. This is an informational item on the January 26 Planning Commission meeting agenda in an effort to provide the Plmming Commission background material prior to the item moving forward through the formal adoption process. Background In 1968, Congress passed the National Flood Insurance Act and created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The act mandated that the nation's flood zones be established in order to define locations subject to higher probability of flooding. Paper maps were created to show areas that have a 1 % chance of flooding and a 0.2% chance of flooding in any given year (also known as the" I OO-year" and "500-year" flood plains). These maps are known as the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). Flood risk infonnation presented on FIRMs were prepared using now outdated road network infonnation and manual cartographic techniques which make the maps difficult for State and local customers to use and expensive for FEMA and the state to maintain. Ashland's maps were created in 1981. Periodically, FEMA issues new FIRMs and a new Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for a community. This is done to incorporate changes in political boundaries, Letters of Map Revision (LOMRs) and Letters of Map Amendment (LOMAs) that have been added to the existing FIRMs, including adding new information that is available. FEMA is preparing to make new FIRM panels effective for all of Jackson County. The new panels will be created and maintained digitally (Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRMs), replacing the previous paper panels. These preliminary DFIRMs incorporate a number of updates and corrections, namely: Department of Community Development 20 East Main St. Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541-488-5305 Fax: 541.552-2050 TTY: 800-735-2900 r.:. , .:. Most LOMRs that were attached to the previous FIRMs will be incorporated into the DFIRMs. The Summary of Map Actions (attached) tables show which map actions are being incorporated into the preliminary maps. .:. The vertical datum for elevation data has been updated from the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29) to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NA VD88). · Veltical Datum's and Elevations on DFRIMs: All Flood Insurance Studied (FIS) and FIRMs are referenced to a specific veltical datum. It provides a starting point against which flood, ground and structure elevations can be referenced and compared. Until recently, the standard vertical datum in use was the National Geodetic Veltical Daturm of 1929 (NGVD29). With the finalization of the North American Veltical Datum of 1988 (NA VD88), FIS and FIRMs are being prepared using NA VD88 as the referenced vertical datum. At any specific location, the NA VD88 elevation can be 1.72 to 2.39 feet higher than the old NGVD elevation. This does not mean that the ground surface or water surface elevation has physically changed; it just means that the baseline (mean sea level) has changed. FEMA predicts that the new DFIRMs will become effective September 2010. Many factors will affect this effective date; these include map appeals, map protests and Federal Register delays. Participation in the NFIP ensures that individuals and businesses in Ashland are able to purchase federally-backed flood insurance. In addition, participation in the NFIP addresses the requirements of statewide planning Goal 7 with respect to flood hazards. Because of that participation, Ashland must adopt and enforce floodplain management measures that meet minimum FEMA standards. One of those measures is maintaining pennit records and flood related materials and ensuring that these documents are available for public, state and FEMA inspection. Department of Community Development 20 East Main St. Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 TTY: 800-735-2900 ~$Ai.~ ,-.:-- .... When comparing two values, they have to be measured from the same datum. For example, do not compare the LFE of the structure measured using NAVD88 (110 feet) with a BFE measured using NGVD29 (109 feet). This would yield an incorrect difference in elevations. Using this example, the difference would be incorrectly calculated to be 1 foot (110 109), compared to the correct elevation difference of 2 feet (110 - 108). The difference between the two datums varies from location to location. FEMA provides guidelines regarding where conversion factors (offset values) should be calculated and the process for converting unrevised elevation data from old flood studies into new flood studies. The exact conversion factors an individual offset will be calculated and applied during the creation of the new DFIRM. Flood maps are changing, and so is the vertical datum being used. Floodplain managers, surveyors, engineers, builders, insurance agents and companies, and other users of elevation data from multiple sources (e.g., a FIRM and Elevation Certificate) must take care that the elevation values they use are based on the same vertical datum. If they are not the same, the values must result in improper design (e.g., building at the wrong elevation) or misrating the insurance premium. The property owners' risk is not affected by a vertical datum change because all elevations in the local area are changed by the same amount.