Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-0516 Council Mtg Packet Important: Any citizen attending council meetings may speak on any item on the agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing, which has been closed. The Public Forum is the time to speak on any subject not on the printed agenda. 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. The time granted will be dependent to some extent on the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people who wish to be heard, and the length of the agenda. AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL May 16, 2006 Civic Center Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES [5 minutes ] 1. Regular Council meeting minutes of May 2, 2006 V. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS 1. Mayor’s Proclamation of May 21-27, 2006 as “National Historic Preservation Week” [5 Minutes] VI. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes] 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees 2. Liquor License Application – Helena Darling Catering 3. Appointment to Audit Committee 4. Appointment to Ashland Community Healthcare Services Board of Directors 5. Approval of Public Contract Greater than $75,000 – 1/10 Primary Aluminum Wire 6. Report on Plaza repairs 7. Confirmation of Mayor’s appointment of Ronald Goodpaster as Interim Police Chief VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (unless it is the subject of a Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker, Land Use Appeal . 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 §2.04.040}) 1. Public Hearing and First Reading of a Resolution Authorizing and Ordering Improvements [20 Minutes] to Plaza Avenue Under the Plaza Avenue Local Improvement District No. 85 2. Public Hearing Regarding Planning Action 2006-00366 – Annexation, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map change from Jackson County zoning RR-5 (Rural Residential) to City of Ashland zoning M-1 (Industrial) and E-1 (Employment for an approximately 8.43 acre parcel located at the southern terminus of Jefferson Avenue, immediately north of [2 hours] the railroad tracks and west of Interstate 5 COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9 VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US VIII. PUBLIC FORUM Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. Speakers are limited to 5 minutes or less, depending [15 minutes maximum] on the number of individuals wishing to speak.) IX. UNFINISHED BUSINESS X. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS [30 Minutes] 1. ALUO 18.68.050 Interpretation [20 Minutes] 2. Downtown Plan – Phase 1 Council Update [15 Minutes] 3. Authorization to Dispose of Surplus Property in Excess of $10,000 4. Adoption of Findings for Planning Action 2006-00069 – Rear Yard Variance for the [15 Minutes] Property Located at 758 B Street XI. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Reading by title only of, “An Ordinance Amending the Ashland Municipal Code Relating to Business Licenses Amending Chapter 6.04 Sections 6.04.080, 6.04.090, 6.04.120 and 6.04.130” 2. Reading by title only of, “A Resolution Authorizing the Amendment of the Fire Protection Plans Review and Inspection Fee Schedule Adopted by Resolution 05-30” XII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS 1. Request from Councilor Hartzell to discuss proposal for Park maintenance of School District Playgrounds XIII. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735- 2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9 VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING MA Y 2. 2006 PAGE I of7 MINUTES FOR TIlE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL May 2, 2006 Civic Center Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 7 :00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilors Hardesty, Hartzell, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman were present. Councilor Amarotico was absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the Regular Council meeting of April 18, 2006 were approved as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS Mayor's Proclamation of May 7 - 11, 2006 as "Building Safety Week" was read aloud. The National Arbor Day foundation and its sponsor, the Oregon Department of Forestry, recognized the City of Ashland as a "Tree City USA" for the 21 5t consecutive year. Tree Commissioner Bryan Holley presented five types of trees that the Commission is asking the community to vote on to replace the "Tree of Heaven" which was recently removed. He also noted the need for two additional members on this Commission. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees. 2. Liquor License Application - Miguel's Family Mexican Restaurant. 3. Liquor License Application - Hong Kong Bar. 4. Annual Appointment to Commissions/Committees. 5. Ratification of Separation Agreement - Mike Bianca. Councilor Hartzell requested Items #1, #4 and #5 be pulled from the Consent Agenda. Councilor HartzeWChapman m/s to approve Consent Agenda Items #2 and #3. Voice Vote: aU AYES. Motion passed. Councilor Hartzell requested that staff submit minutes from the Committee and Commission meetings in a more timely manner. Regarding Item #4, she requested that: 1) the packet information list how long re- appointed members have served on the commission, and 2) that the Mayor discuss the appointments with the Council Liaison and Staff Liaison prior to making his recommendations, which was the process used in the past. Councilor Chapman/HartzeU m/s to approve Consent Agenda Items #1 and #4. Voice Vote: aU AYES. Motion passed. Councilor Hartzell requested that Mike Bianca be given the opportunity to comment on Item #5. Police Chief Mike Bianca addressed the Council, thanked the citizens for their support, and suggested that the Council be clear with their expectations with the next Police Chief. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING MA Y 2. 2006 PAGE 2017 Councilor Jackson/Hardesty m/s to approve Consent Agenda Item #5. Voice Vote: Councilor Hardesty, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman, YES. Councilor Hartzell, NO. Motion passed 4-1. PUBLIC HEARINGS (None) PUBLIC FORUM Colin Swales/461 Allison Street/Commented on prescriptive easements that he believes exist on the railroad property and requested that Council instruct the Legal Dept. to look into this matter. He stated that the Council should make use of every legal avenue available to ensure that the City and citizens' rights for public use of that space are fully protected. Eric Navickas1711 Faith Avenue/Spoke regarding the Downtown Planning process and voiced his support for Crandall & Arambula. He stated the City should be protective of current land use prescriptions, especially the Big Box Ordinance, and was encouraged by the attitude of the development community. He commented on the downtown business community's attack on the less fortune, and encouraged the City to look at sponsoring forums on tolerance. Brent Thompson/582 Allison Street/Spoke regarding the sign code revision forwarded to the Council in the summer of 2005 by the Planning Commission. He suggested an additional language revision that would ensure business frontages in excess of two would not be as prominently "signed" as the two primary frontages. Mr. Thompson submitted the proposed language to the Council for their consideration. Councilor Hardesty requested that staff review the proposed language and forward it to Council for consideration. Councilor Hartzell stated that at the time this issue was originally presented, several concerns were raised by the Council and does not feel that the information presented by Mr. Thompson addresses those issues and questions. She offered to meet with Mr. Thompson to discuss this issue further and Mayor Morrison noted that this would come before Council in the future. Ambuja Rosen/Spoke regarding her desire to see our community adopt a tethering law that would better protect animals and noted other cities that have adopted tethering laws. Neal Kinzie/35 Wightman Street/Commented on a project he is involved with on 180 Clear Creek Drive. He stated that he intends to use this site for the expansion of his business, West Vista Communications, and feels that this project would be an improvement to the neighborhood. He noted the Hearings Board has approved his application, but had seen an email that indicated this project might come before the Council as an appeal. Council questioned whether they should be hearing Mr. Kinzie's testimony. City Attorney Mike Franell stated that unfortunately the Council has already received email.s in regards to this, and therefore hearing the testimony is fair. . Mary Margaret & Bill ModesiW540 South Mountain A venue/Submitted into the record a statement regarding the appointment of former Police Chief Scott Fleuter to fill the position of Interim Police Chief. The City Recorded stated that copies of the statement would be given to the Council for their review. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Appeal of Planning Action 2006-0069 - Request for a Variance to the rear yard setback requirement for a second story addition to the garage located at the rear of the property for the property located at 758 B St. City Attorney Mike Franell clarified the Findings for the East Main project are included in the record; ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING MA Y 2, 2006 PAGE 3 of7 however there are additional Findings referred to in the memorandum by Beth Lori Assistant City Attorney, that are not part of the record. Given this situation, Mr. Franell reviewed the minutes from the previous council meeting and Mr. Lang was the only one to testify during the public hearing. Mr. Franell stated it would be prudent to grant Mr. Lang five minutes to address the memorandum prepared by the Assistant City Attorney, since she did bring in some information that was not in the record. Mayor Morrison asked if Mr. Lang would like to rebuttal this information. Mr. Lang declined due to the meeting not being noticed as a public hearing. Council discussed whether there were any legal issues with this not being listed as a public hearing and whether this item should be re-noticed and scheduled for a special meeting. Mr. Franell stated that the Council has provided Mr. Lang the opportunity to speak and he has chosen not to, therefore he would have difficulty showing prejudice before LUBA. He added that there would be insufficient time within the 120-day rule to re-notice and differ this to a special meeting. Mr. Franell clarified that Mr. Lang has been given the opportunity to review the memorandum and he has also met with the Legal Dept. to discuss it. Mr. Franell stated his opinion that it is prudent for Council to continue its deliberations and come to a conclusion. Interim Planning Director Bill Molnar provided a recap of Council's actions at the prior Council Meeting. He noted that there was some indication raised that the previous City Attorney, Paul Nolte, had possibly made an interpretation that could impact this application. Mr. Molnar stated that staff reviewed the files and found there was no written interpretation made regarding the DeLuca application on East Main St. He stated that staff's opinion is the language in 18.68.110 (Front Yard General Exceptions) only applies to front yards. He added there is language in the code that allows for flexibility for rear and side yards if the following three criteria are met: 1) the building is less than 15 ft. in height, 2) it is separated by no more than 10ft. from the primary structure, and 3) it is 50 ft. from a public street. ill this case, the applicant could not take advantage of the rear and side yard exception because it does not meet the first two criteria. Staff's conclusion is that Council should judge the merits of this request based on the variance approval criteria. Mr. Franell clarified the Council needs to address two separate questions: 1) does 18.68.110 apply to front yards only, or does it apply to any yard as suggested by the Applicant, and 2) does the application meet for criteria for the variance. If the Council determines that 18.68.110 applies to all yards, then the variance request is not necessary; however, it is the Legal Depts. opinion that 18.68.110 has not been applied to anything other than front yards in the past and the Planning Dept. has cautioned that the consequences for interpreting the language this way are unknown. Mr. Franell stated staff's recommendation is for Council to state that 18.68.110 applies to front yard setbacks, and then go back and determine whether this application meets the criteria for the variance. Mr. Franell explained that the Applicant stated the Council previously determined the unique charter of the Historic District in general satisfies the unique or unusual variance criteria. The Legal department has looked into this and found that the same reasoning could be applied in this instance to meet the criteria, however Council's previous action does not bind them to make the same decision. Mr. Molnar clarified that 18.68.110, the Front Yard General Exception, is the only section that allows for the averaging of yard areas. Mr. Franell stated the Applicant's contention is that since sections A and B of 18.68.110 do not specifically state these exceptions only apply to determine front yard setback, that Council could take this language and apply it for determining a side or rear yard setback. Councilor Chapman and Jackson stated that section 18.68.110 does not apply to this application. Jackson further clarified this would not apply because front yards are treated differently and there is an existing set of setbacks for rear yards and an option for dealing with side yards. Councilor Jackson/Chapman m/s that 18.68.110 does not apply to this application. DISCUSSION: ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING MA Y 2. 2006 PAGE 4 of7 Mr. Franell clarified for Council that section 18.68.110 is located in the General Regulation section of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, and 18.68.110 is the "Front Yard--General Exception". Mr. Franell read section 18.68.110 aloud in its entirety. Councilor Hartzell commented that the context in which this language lies specifically delineates that it is meant to deal with front yards. Councilor Chapman stated he could expand his motion by saying"... because it is not a front yard." Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hartzell, Jackson, Silbiger, and Chapman, YES. Councilor Hardesty, NO. Motion passed 4-1. Council discussed whether this application meets the variance criteria. Councilor Jackson disagreed that the entire Historic District meets the unique or unusual circumstance criteria, and stated there is already a different set of setbacks that applies to the Historic District that are different to what is applied to the rest of town. Mayor Morrison agreed and does not think that just because the parcel lies within the Historic District is satisfies this criteria. He stated the purpose of the criteria is to look at the individual parcel and determine whether there is something that makes it unique or unusual. Councilor Chapman/Jackson m/s to deny the appeal on the grounds that the criteria was not met. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Jackson, Silbiger, Hardesty and Hartzell, YES. Motion passed. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Update on the City's Water Conservation Activities Electric Director Dick Wanderscheid and Conservation staff Robbin Pearce presented the update on the City's water conservation activities. Mr. Wanderscheid commented on the two tables included in the packet materials and stated the Annual Use per Capita table is accurate, however the Conservation Program Savings table is only a projection. He noted that since 1999, Ashland has grown from 7,000 water accounts to 8,000 accounts, but water usage has remained the same. He commented on the Carollo Plan, which projects the summer daily water demand in 2050 to be 20% less due to conservation programs and stated they are working towards that goal. Mr. Wanderscheid briefly commented on the showerhead projection and program. Ms. Pearce addressed weather-based irrigation systems and explained the majority of households do not have the space needed for catchment systems. Mr. Wanderscheid noted the Conservation Element ofthe Comprehensive Plan is 15 years old and an update is not in progress at this time. He stated that staff would need direction from Council in order to update this element of the Compo Plan. Councilor HartzeWChapman m/s to ask Director Wanderscheid to come back to Council in the near future with a schedule for updating the Conservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. DISCUSSION: Councilor Hartzell noted this would not have a budgetary impact on the department. Mr. Wanderscheid stated they could begin this project during the next fiscal year, deliver a first draft, and start the commission process. He explained this would need to go through the Conservation Commission and Planning Commission before it came to Council. Mayor Morrison stated there are a number of elements in the Compo Plan that are not up to date and expressed concern with singling this one out. Councilor Silbiger stated this was just asking for an outline of a plan and there are no time constraints. Councilor Jackson suggested there be further discussion and stated she would like to see the Electric Dept. complete the Photovoltaic Solar Project. Mr. Wanderscheid clarified that this is in the budget for next year, staffhas applied for funds, and are just waiting for a response from the IRS. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hartzell, Hardesty and Silbiger, YES. Councilor Jackson and Chapman, NO. Motion passed 3-2. Finance Director Lee Tuneberg advised the Council on the items left on the agenda and the time allowed. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING MA Y 2. 2006 PAGE 5 of7 2. ALUO 18.68.050 Interpretation. Item delayed due to time constraints. 3. Authorization to Dispose of Surplus Property in Excess of $10,000. Finance Director Lee Tuneberg explained the disposal of surplus property in excess of $10,000 requires Council's approval, and noted that the property list and pictures are provided in the packet materials. Councilor JacksonlSilbiger m/s to approve authorization to dispose of surplus property in excess of $10,000. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 4. AFN Discussion. Information Technology Director Joe Franell stated that staff's recommendation is to pursue Option I, which is outlined in the May I, 2006 Council Communication. He clarified he had not had the opportunity to meet with Ron Kramer of JPRF and was open to this possibility, but asked that the Council approve his recommendation to move forward with Option 1. Paul Collins/1257 Tolman Creek Road/Read aloud a letter from Lenny Neimark which urged the Council to adopt Option 1. The letter stated Option 1 would preserve the infrastructure and is the only option that has a hope of contributing more than 1/3 to the debt, which is the most JPRF will contribute. Mr. Collins also voiced his own support for Option 1. Alan Oppenheimer/110 S. Laurel Street/Commented on the Common Carrier Option and the transition to the Open Carrier Model. He stated that Mr. Franell affirmed the key concepts of the Common/Open Carrier Options, including the importance of maintaining internet access as a City service, eliminating the money losing high risk TV service, and including an open system on which others could provide service. He stated that Mr. Franell was hired to run AFN and the Council should let him do it. Paul Westhelle/2668 Takelma Way/JPRF Associate Director/Stated that JPRF is still interested in further developing its proposal to operate AFN if invited to do so by the Council. He clarified that the initial proposal was a general outline submitted as a starting point, and they were never given the opportunity to develop it with Council. Ron Roth/6950 Old Hwy 99 S/Commented on the JFRF Option and voiced his disappointment that there was almost no discussion of this option by the Council. He stated that JPRF is very successful and suggested that the City engage in discussion with thern before selecting a different option. Art Bullock/791 Glendower/Expressed the following concerns with Option I: 1) the cost model overstates the savings; canceling cable TV saves some direct cost but it is unlikely that it will reach the figures listed in the model, 2) the guessed savings need to be weighed against the risk oflosing internet customers as a result of a Charter packaging deal, 3) the central service charges are not eliminated, and have not been dealt with adequately, and 4) this option would shift the costs from the City to the community. Mr. Bullock requested that Council not make a decision on the AFN Debt issue tonight. Paul Mace/345 Clinton Street/Noted the spreadsheet he submitted to the Council at the Study Session meeting. M. Mace stated the JPRF Option would save the individual households 50% more than Option 1, and claimed that eliminating cable television would shift the cost burden directly to the households. He stated that if the JPRF offer were selected, the community would retain public control, retain community television and retain a competitive entity. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING MA Y 2. 2006 PAGE 6 of7 Councilor Chapman/Hartzell m/s to affirm that funding for the obligation of the existing AFN debt must be separated from the continuing operation of AFN. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hartzell, Hardesty, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman, YES. Motion passed. Councilor Chapman/Hartzell m/s to adopt staffrecommendation to pursue Option 1. DISCUSSION: Councilor Jackson commented that this is the most prudent way to go. Councilor Silbiger stated that the internet product is the utility and is what they need to concentrate on, and commented on the success and reliability of the internet product. Mayor Morrison commented on why AFN was initiated and stated that Option I allows the City to take advantage of the infrastructure, provide the business development, and move ahead with the operational efficiencies. He added that Option I would also address the need for ongoing investments with the internet product. Councilor Hardesty voiced his support for Option 1, but suggested that. some of the profits from the internet service be used to pay down the debt. Councilor HartzeWChapman m/s to continue meeting until 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Jackson, Hardesty, Chapman, Silbiger, and Hartzell, YES. Motion passed. Councilor Chapman/Hartzell m/s for Council to work with the IT Director to write and adopt a set of department goals to guide the direction of the IT Department. DISCUSSION: Councilor Hartzell suggested they discuss this issue and provide direction to staff at the Special Meeting scheduled for June 8. Councilor Jackson noted the AFN Options Committee concern of the Council continuing to interfere with how the department and system in operated and would rather charge the IT Director with informing the Council of how he is going to accomplish this. Hartzell clarified her suggestion and stated that it is responsible for Council to work with staff, validate the goals and direction, and then trust that process; but not to be completely hands off from the beginning. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Jackson, Silbiger, Chapman, Hartzell and Hardesty, YES. Motion passed. 5. AFN Debt Services Alternatives for the City. Councilor Hardesty voiced his concern with moving forward on this item and requested additional time for public input. Councilor Hartzell stated they should move forward, even if they do not get through all of it, in order to give staff some guidance. Councilor Jackson and Silbiger agreed that they should move forward with the discussion and provide guidance to staff. Finance Director Lee Director addressed the Council and noted the AFN Debt Service Alternatives listed in the Council Communication. He noted the budget concerns and asked what the Council would like to do for next year. Mr. Tuneberg stated that staffhas looked at various scenarios that would generate revenue, but this would not happen immediately. He suggested that Council have a discussion on levying a property tax to pick up a portion of next years $866,000 debt service, or implementing a surcharge. He stated that Council could choose to use part of the property tax, place a surcharge on accounts, and/or use some or the entire BP A surcharge and shift it to the Telecommunications Fund. Mr. Tuneberg noted the figures listed on the last past of the staff report and suggested there be a discount for low-income families. Council discussed the options provided by staff. Comment was made supporting AFN's debt being addressed through property taxes in the long run. With this option, the property owners could deduct this from their income taxes. It was questioned if the Council could reduce the City's overall budget and then use the savings to address the debt. Mr. Tuneberg stated that the idea is good, however logistically it may not work. Interest was expressed in the property tax option, but also implementing an entertainment tax and reducing internal . charges. Comment was made voicing support for a property tax for this year and then looking at other options for future debt payments. ASHLAND CITY COUNCiL MEETiNG MA Y 2, 2006 PAGE 70f7 Mr. Tuneberg clarified how AFN's debt payment is listed in the budget and explained that Council needs to identify a revenue stream. He stated that tomorrow nights AFN budget discussion could be cancelled in order for this issue to be worked out and suggested the Council continue this discussion at the Study Session. Council reached consensus to continue the AFN Debt Alternative discussion at the May 11, 2006 Study Session and to reschedule tomorrow nights Budget Committee Meeting to May 24, 2006. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Reading by title only of, "A Resolution to Support the Inclusion of the City of Ashland in a Public Vote and Formation of the Jackson County Library District" Item pulled from agenda. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS 1. Request from Councilor Jackson and Mayor Morrison to discuss letter of support for a grant for Community Works. Item delayed due to time constraints. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John W. Morrison, Mayor CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION May J, 2006 PAGE J of3 MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCn. Monday, May 1,2006 at 5:15 p.m. Civic Center Council Chambers 1175 East Main Street Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. Councilors Hardesty, Amarotico, Silbiger and Chapman were present. Councilor Jackson arrived at 5:20 p.m. Councilor Hartzell was absent. I. Railroad Property Discussion Management Analyst Ann Seltzer explained the Union Pacific Railroad Company is planning to begin the cleanup of the railroad property in Ashland. The yard was operated as a locomotive maintenance, service, and railcar repair facility between 1887 and 1986 which resulted in contamination of the site. Ms. Seltzer explained that the cleanup will be done to the residential standards and staff is working with DEQ to develop the public involvement plan. Ms. Seltzer introduced Greg Aitken with the DEQ, who explained the history ofthis project. He noted that this would be a highly visible project with over 100,000 cubic yards of soil needing to be removed. Mr. Aitken stated that the cleanup would be done to the highest possible standards and there would be no restrictions on the site after the cleanup is complete. Construction is likely to start in mid-July and will proceed for up to three months. It was noted that a specific work plan from the railroad has not yet been approved; however DEQ has approved the clean-up decision and approach. Mr. Aitken clarified that DEQ will be the main implementer of the public improvement plan; however they will be working closely with city staff. He also clarified that the concentrations of the contaminated materials exceed safe levels and dust and particulate matter is going to be a concern. He added that they will be looking very closely at Union Pacific's plans to monitor for exposure. Ms. Seltzer noted that staff stressed to Union Pacific that they remove the contaminated material by rail; however this method is significantly more expensive and will likely be done by trucks. Councilor Hardesty expressed his concern regarding the damage the trucks will cause to the city streets. Councilor Chapman agreed with Hardesty and expressed his preference for the railroad to use the tracks for both the removal of the contaminated soil and the delivery of the new soil. Mr. Aitken stated he would take another look at DEQ' s decision to see how detailed it is regarding how the waste will be removed and discuss this further with Union Pacific. It was clarified that the public information meeting will be held in June and a fact sheet will be distributed to the residents at the end of May. II. Ashland Fiber Network Open Carrier Discussion IT Director Joe Franell addressed the Council and distributed Attachment F. He requested that the Council come to agreement on the following items: 1) that the debt service needs to be treated as a separate issue, 2) that the City cannot break-even on the video as a stand alone product, and 3) that any decision to stop operating video needs to include a transition plan for the residents. -- 1~------ i I CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION May I, 2006 PAGE 2 of3 Mr. Franell requested a correction to the Council Communication. The first sentence under Background should read "Why certain aspects of the Open Carrier Model are not viable". He explained that tying a mandatory fee to a service is problematic and could be perceived as illegal. As a result, staff had to take another look at the Council's recommendation. He stated the first question the Council must address is whether they want to keep video, the second is whether they want to continue to wholesale the internet product or become the sole provider. He noted the attachments included in the packet materials and pointed out that the Council Communication outlines the four options. Mr. Franell commented on the two Spin-Off Options. He stated spinning-off AFN to JPRF would provide advantages to them that the City does not have, however programming costs would continue to be an issue and he expressed his concern with some of the language contained in the proposed contract. Mr. Franell commented on the pure Spin-Off option, which would involve the City seeking out an entrepreneurial board and finding the right person to run it. He stated that the risk involved with this option is high and if it didn't work or something unforeseen happened, it would be difficult for the City to repossess AFN and start over agam. Mr. Franell explained his reasoning for suggesting that the video product be removed. He stated that this was not his original stance and he would have been content with just breaking even on the video. But as he started evaluating the operational expense, he found that the programming costs are costing the City $900,000 a year and have been steadily increasing. He explained that the actual physical expense, even with a rate increase, could not get the video anywhere close to breaking even as a stand alone product. Council questioned whether Option 1 would enable the City to make the needed investments into the internet product. Mr. Franell stated that this option would allow the City to get where they want to go with the internet and noted that the Finance Department spent time with him validating the numbers. He explained that there are some immediate needs that need to be addressed, such as the bandwidth; however the investment in routers and CMTS' s could be done in a year or so after the internet product has proven it can stand on its own. Comment was made that market pressure seems to be driving the internet prices down. Mr. Franell explained he would address this with a tiered approach. He stated that having an inexpensive option is important, and the City could offer different download speeds to best meet the customers' needs. Mr. Franell discussed the issue of whether AFN should become the sole ISP. He stated that the ISPs have been good partners with the city and this internet concept has been embraced by the city since AFN's inception. He noted that if AFN become the sole ISP, AFN would gain more margin per customer; however he noted the 25% erosion of customer base and stated that AFN might lose too many customers to make this option worthwhile. Mr. Franell explained that if the City retained the internet product and ISP relationships and became an ISP, the City could offer basic support and if a customer wanted more they could go through a different ISP. Mr. Franell briefly addressed the "two wire" issue and stated that it is common in this business to run separate wires for video and internet to a house. Mr. Franell commented on the idea of providing limited video and stated that the concept of a community antenna has a lot of appeal. He noted that he is still actively pursuing this option with outside legal counsel and commented on the litigation going on in other communities and an upcoming decision from the FCC Council questioned whether the City could lease to a community antenna group to broadcast over the city's wire. Mr. Franell stated that partnering with a satellite provider would be a great solution if it were structured CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION May I, 2006 PAGE 3 of3 so there was a clean break. He added that at this point he does not believe the city could do this without significant risk. Council questioned how long the transition period would be. Mr. Franell stated that it depends on whether they have something else to offer. The quickest would be 6 months, but if they are just getting out of the business it would take longer. Council requested that Paul Mace come forward and explain Attachment F. Mr. Mace commented on possible scenarios if AFN abandons its cable television service. He stated that Charter Communications would raise rates, have a sole monopoly, and would likely engage in an aggressive customer acquisition during the transition period. He stated that by AFN saving money, it is immediately transferring an expense to the bottom line of citizens. He commented on the JPRF Spin-Off Option and stated that this was the best case scenario; it had the least risk, provided the City with income, and retained competition in the valley. Mr. Mace briefly commented on Attachment F and stated that this spreadsheet provides a breakdown of the annual net per household for each of the options, and stated that the JPRF Spin-Off option was the best. Councilor Chapman suggested the following actions to resolve this situation: I) affirm that funding for the obligation of the AFN debt be separated from the continuing operation of AFN, 2) work with the IT Director to write and adopt a set of department goals to guide the operation of the AFN department, 3) adopt the staff recommendation Option I, and 4) suggest that the IT Director work with Paul Mace and Councilor Silbiger to identify conditions within the city organization that hinder the effective management of this enterprise and propose possible remedies for adoption by the Council. Council questioned whether JPRF's offer is firm or ifthey could do better than what is being offered. Mr. Franell stated that he has not had the opportunity to meet with JPRF. In order to answer this question he would need to open back up negotiations with JPRF and stated that this could not be completed in time for Council's decision at tomorrow nights council meeting. Meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Assistant to City Recorder --- T- -- Minutes AFN Programming Committee Minutes 03/23/06 These Minutes are preliminary were approved by AFN Programming Committee at the April 27, 2006, AFN Programming Committee Meeting. MINUTES FOR AFN PROGRAMMING COMMITTEE March 23, 2006 Electric Conference Room 90 North Mountain Ave. Ashland, OR CALL TO ORDER Chairperson, Ed Perkins, called the meeting to order at 5:37 p.m. in the Electric Conference Room, located at the Electric Department, City of Ashland. ROLL CALL Attendees: Ed Perkins, James Olney, Budd Gottlieb, and Gary Simms were present. Pamela Garrett, and Candice Chapman were not present. City Council Liaison: Russ Silbiger, not present Staff Liaison: Lee Tunebuerg, Mike Ainsworth APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairperson Perkins asked for approval of the February 23, 2006 minutes. Committee member Gottlieb made a motion to approve the February 23, 2006 minutes and Committee member Olney seconded the motion. Voice vote: all Ayes. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. PUBLIC FORUM No one present. OLD BUSINESS Leased Access Channel Chairperson Perkins reminded the Committee that at the last meeting, the Committee asked staff to report back within 30-60 days regarding the technical and financial position to have a leased access channel before the Committee would vote. Mr. Ainsworth reported channel 93 was available and was adjacent to Guthrie Ranker TV, AFN's national leased channel. There would a one time capitol cost to purchase equipment and modulators, and this proposal would provide this, eliminating the cost to AFN. Committee member Simms wondered if decisions this Committee made would effect AFN if redesigned. Mr. Tuneberg discussed the prospective aspects for additional requests of the same nature, leased access channels and would present this present contract to the City Attorney for review. The members discussed with Penny Nelson the different uncertainties and she assured the Committee that her proposal would fit any scenario. She presented the Committee with an updated Power Point presentation of what the channel would look like and also mentioned that she would not Afn Min 3 23 D6.doc Page 1 of 2 r- I I ___.--L . require a long term contract. Committee member Simms made a motion: In light of what we know thus far, the Committee approve the addition of this channel to AFN subject to the legal department being able to work out a mutually agreeable contract with the provider, with quality photos ads. Committee member Gottlieb seconded the motion. The members discussed different points brought up by staff regarding other requests, legal review, the new director input, conflict of interest and other persons of interests, copyright, and content. Committee member Simms modified the motion: Moved that AFN Committee approves the concept based on the information we have thus far, refer it to the Legal Department for their clearance in drafting and execution of an agreement with Penny, Quality Photo Ads Channel, and we would not at this point specify the name of the channel. That would be up to the contract and the Legal working of that. Committee member Gottlieb seconded the motion. Voice vote: all Ayes. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. Chairperson Perkins reported to the Committee that there was a request to add a European soccer channel. The Committee members discussed entering into new contracts. NEW BUSINESS A. Contract Renewals/Expirations Committee member Simms requested the Committee review item B first. B. Status Report on AFN Mr. Tuneberg reported to the Committee on the Council voting on an "open Carrier" idea and staff is reviewing and researching information to present back to the Council. The Committee discussed wiring, ownership, technical aspects, property legalities, and schedule of meetings for the AFN Programming Committee. A. Chairperson Perkins asked for a status of ChannelS, and Mr. Tuneberg reported although they agreed the decision to continue their coverage belonged to the AFN Programming Committee, the negotiation of their contract was not public information. ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Committee member Simms needed to leave, which resulted in a loss of a quorum. NEXT MEETING DATE April 27, 2006 Location: 90 North Mountain Ave, in the Electric Conference Room. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson made an announcement to adjourn, due to lack of quorum. Meeting adjourned at 6:18pm. Respectfully submitted by, Mary McClary, Assistant to Electric/IT Department Atn Min 3 23 06.doc Page 2 ot 2 CITY OF ASHLAND Minutes Conservation Commission 03/22/06 These Minutes were approved by Conservation Commission at the April 26, 2006 Conservation Commission Meeting. March 22, 2005- 7:00 pm Community Development Building 51 Winburn Way Ashland CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Amarotico called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Development Building. ROLL CALL Attendees: Russ Chapman, Ross Finney, Jim Hartman, and Paige Prewett. Charles Bennett, Carol Carlson, Stuart Corns, and Joanne Krippaehne were absent. City Council Liaison: Alex Amarotico Staff Liaison: Robbin Pearce APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairperson Amarotico asked for an approval of the February 22, 2006 minutes. Commissioner Chapman corrected balance of the grant to Ashland Sanitary was $679.00, not $685.00. Commissioner Chapman made a motion to approve the minutes of February 22, 2006 with stated corrections and Commissioner Finney seconded the motion. Voice vote: all Ayes. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. The minutes of the Conservation Commission Meeting of February 22, 2006 were approved with stated corrections. PUBLIC FORUM Chairperson Amarotico asked the Commission to introduce themselves to the guests present, Dave Wilkerson, Risa Buck, Katheryn Hauser and Huelz Gutcheon. Huelz Gutcheon spoke to the Commission regarding his goals of teaching and ongoing zero net energy, solar home design class and to be sponsored by the Conservation. His hope is that there will be other people available to teach other related subjects. He also spoke of zero net energy, 100% self efficient, not just the earth advantage density bonus of 15%. He also spoke of portable air quality monitors that are now on the market for 3-5,000 dollars. Risa Buck spoke to the Commission regarding the upcoming SOU event, May 17, 2006 in the SOU arena beginning at 7:30pm featuring Elizabeth Rote the author of Garbage Land on the Secret Trail of Trash. The members discussed the recent field trip to Dry Creek, Bio Mass and the transfer station. CC Minutes 03 22 06 doc.doc Page 1 of 4 - T----p- _.u. __L~ Commissioner Finney made a motion to support the Garbage Land Event at SOU union, Friday May 19th with a donation of $250.00. Commission Hartman seconded the motion. Voice vote: all Ayes. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. Ms. Buck reported to the Commission, Elizabeth Rote will be at 3 events during May: May 18, reading at Bloomsbury Books May 19, 9-10 am Jefferson daily at Jefferson Public Radio May 19, 7:30pm at the SOU arena Ms. Buck also offered the Conservation Commission a table at the event. Ms. Buck asked about recycling computer, telephones/cell phones and other electronic equipment. The Commissioners listed www.roauesmart.ora , www.Jcrecvcle.ora and American appliance Recyclers as resources for recycling this type of equipment. ASHLAND SANITARY & RECYCLING UPDATE: Commissioner Chapman was going to report on the Bio Mass tour that was already discussed and offered to move ahead to the guest speaker, Dave Wilkerson. LEED DISCUSSION Dave Wilkerson, an accredited Leadership and Energy Environmental Design (LEED) architect, spoke to the Commission about his goal to receive a recommendation from the Commission regarding City sponsored development meeting LEED standards. He gave the Commission background information about the LEED design becoming a universal tooVguideline for design beginning with LEED NC (LEED new construction). He explained one of the newest pilot programs was LEED for Homes, which has some comparisons to Earth Advantage. He believes it would be possible to do both single family as well as commercial productions. The Commission discussed the different standards for different programs including the state and federal, and the practicality of implementation. They also discussed the different markets such as home builders and commercial projects and different cities who participate such as Portland and Seattle. Mr. Wilkerson also pointed out when considering a recommendation the different levels of LEED Certification, Silver, Gold, and Platinum. He explained Silver certification would add 5-15% to the cost of the project. OLD BUSINESS Density Bonus No report Goal Setting The Commission discussed the wording the last goal for supporting the Climate Protection Initiative. NEW BUSINESS Budaet $1,088.74 CC Minutes 03 22 06 doc.doc Page 2 of 4 SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS 1. Historic Conservation No report. 2. Education/Events No report. 3. Green Business No report. Commissioner Prewett addressed the Commission to review the Subcommittees report section of the meeting, since there have not been any reports for months. Commissioner Finney made a motion to adopt the draft goals for the Conservation Commission with the change of wording for the first goal to read: · , Research and recommend ways for the City to expand the City's commitment to purchasing or encouraging green resources as a part of the City's power mix. Commissioner Prewett seconded the motion. Voice vote: aI/ Ayes. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. Commissioner Prewett asked the Commission to support the purchase of a new banner for the Renewable Pioneers. Commissioner Finney moved to spend $150.00 to make the banner for the Renewable Pioneer, seconded by Commission Hartman. Voice vote: aI/ Ayes. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. Commission Prewett abstained from voting. COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA The Commissioners discussed their need to arrange scheduling for attending Earth Day through email. ANNOUNCEMENTS Four Commissioners plan not to renew their term at the end of April, 2006: Charles Bennett, Carol Carlson, Paige Prewett and Joanne Krippaehne. Next meeting scheduled for April 26, 2006 at the Community Development Building. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:05 pm. CC Minutes 03 22 06 doc.doc Page 3 of 4 .I~ -. I I _~__l Respectfully submitted, Mary McClary, Assistant to Electric Department CC Minutes 03 22 06 doc.doc Page 4 of 4 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD APRIL 11, 2006 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Commissioner Russ Chapman called the meeting to order at 1 :35 p.rn. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR. Commissioners Present: John Fields, Chair Russ Chapman Olena Black Council Liaison: Kate Jackson (Council Liaison does not attend Planning Commission meetings in order to avoid conflict of interest.) Absent Members: None Staff Present: Maria Harris, Senior Planner Derek Severson, Assistant Planner Amy Anderson, Assistant Planner Sue Yates, Executive Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Black/Chapman m/s to approve the minutes of the March 14, 2006 Hearings Board meeting. Voice Vote: Approved. Fields arrived at 1:40 p.m. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 2006-00403 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONVERT THREE EXISTING MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS INTO THREE CONDOMINIUMS. 146 S. MOUNTAIN AVE. APPLICANT: ANTHONY HENTHORN & WENDY S. FULLERTON This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2006-00448 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A 499 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT ABOVE A REMODELED GARAGE.THE APPLICATION INCLUDES A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO MODIFY AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE; THE EXISTING HOME IS THREE FEET FROM THE WEST SIDE PROPERTY LINE WHERE A SIX-FOOT SETBACK IS REQUIRED. THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIRED YARD SETBACKS. 1530 OREGON STREET APPLICANT: M. CARMEN FERGUSON This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2006-00223 REQUEST FOR A MODIFICATION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE REVIEW AND ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE DETAIL SITE REVIEW ZONE. THE ORIGINAL APPROVALS WERE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-STORY MIXED-USE BUILDiNG WITH A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR). UNDER PLANNING ACTION 2003-023, A 0.60 FAR WAS APPROVED WHERE THE MAXIMUM LIMIT IS TYPICALLY 0.50. THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION IS TO ACCOMMODATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN UNDERGROUND PARKING AREA BENEATH THE APPROVED BUILDING, AND INVOLVES A FURTHER INCREASE IN THE FAR TO 0.66. IF THE MODIFICATION IS NOT APPROVED, THE APPLICATION INCLUDES A SECOND ALTERNATIVE THAT WOULD BE RE-APPROV AL OF THE ORIGINAL SITE REVIEW AND ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE APPLICATION PLANNING ACTION 2003-023. 180 CLEAR CREEK DR. APPLICANT: SANTO COMINOS -T-- John Fields recused himself and stepped out of the room. The Commission dealt with the request from Colin Swales requesting a hearing before the full Planning Commission. The Hearings Board by a majority vote can move this action to a regularly scheduled commission meeting. Chapman is comfortable with the Administrative Variance and he believes the Variance is justified. Harris explained an issue was raised concerning where the notice was posted. The Ordinance requires the notice be posted in clear view to the public right-of-way. Failure of the notice to stay on the property will not invalidate the public hearing. The notice was in full view when it was first posted (Staff had a photograph). Staff believes the noticing meets the requirements and there is no reason to invalidate the proceedings. Black is concerned about justifying a change in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in this application. Black moved to call this action up for a public hearing before the full Planning Commission. There was no second to the motion, therefore the motion failed. This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2006-00452 REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION TO CREATE TWO PARCELS. A PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT IS REQUESTED TO CREATE TWO PARCELS WITH SLOPES 25% AND GREATER ON HILLSIDE LANDS. 331 WIMER STREET APPLICANT: KENNETH & MARGARET WELLS This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2006-00286 REQUEST FOR A PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT FOR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ON SEVERE CONSTRAINT LANDS TO CONSTRUCT A HOME. A VARIANCE FOR THE DRIVEWAY GRADE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM OF 15% SLOPE BY A SECTION OF THE DRIVEWAY BEING 18% FORA DISTANCE OF 107 FEET IS INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION. ADDITIONALLY, AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE FOR HILLSIDES LANDS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IS REQUESTED TO CONSTRUCT A DOWNHILL BUILDING WALL THAT IS GREATER THAN 20-FEET IN VERTICAL HEIGHT, TO CREATE A CONTINUOUS HORIZONTAL WALL THAT IS GREATER THAN 36 FEET IN LENGTH, AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY LENGTH ON HILLSIDE LANDS EXCEEDING 35% SLOPE. A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IS INCLUDED TO REMOVE ONE TREE 18 INCHES DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT OR GREATER IS INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSAL. 700 ASHLAND CREEK DRIVE APPLICANT: CARLOS REICHENSHAMMER This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2006-00453 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW APPROVAL TO MODIFY THE EXISTING CHURCH CAMPUS BY REMOVING TWO ADDITIONS AND CONSTRUCTING A NEW NARTHEX, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, CLASSROOM WING AND ADDITION TO WESLEY HALL. THE PROJECT IS PROPOSED IN TWO PHASES AND WOULD INCLUDE DEMOLITION OF APPROXIMATELY 5,500 SQUARE FEET OF EXISTING BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTING APPROXIMATELY 7,100 SQUARE FEET OF NEW BUILDING. THE APPLICATION INCLUDES A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO REMOVE FOUR TREES SIX INCHES DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT OR GREATER IN SIZE. 175 NORTH MAIN STREET APPLICANT: FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH OF ASHLAND This action was called up for a public hearing. TYPE" PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 2006-0028 REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION TO CREATE TWO PARCELS. THE APPLICATION INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION TO THE STREET STANDARDS FOR A REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED 24-FOOT DISTANCE BETWEEN DRIVEWAY CURB CUTS ON ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD APRIL 11, 2006 MINUTES 2 OLD WILLOW LANE. A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IS REQUESTED TO REMOVE TWO WILLOW TREES SIZED 18 INCHES DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT OR GREATER FROM THE PROPOSED NEW VACANT LOT. 521 FORDYCE ST. APPLICANT: ROBERT & CYNTHIA MUNROE Site Visits or Ex Parte Contacts - Site visits were made by all. STAFF REPORT Severson said this action was preliminarily approved by Staff and was subsequently called up for a public hearing by the neighbors. He reviewed the request as outlined in the Staff Report. The Exception to Street Standards proposed is to allow placement of the driveway for the proposed Lot B nearer to the driveway on the adjacent parcel to the west than normally allowed under the City's Street Standards. They are proposing a seven and one-halffoot separation. Staff had some concerns regarding two of the trees. In keeping with the arborist's recommendations, a Condition has been added that any utility lines installed should be installed outside the driplines of the two trees or if they have to go through the driplines and tree protection zones that they be directionally bored under the tree root system. The Tree Commission reviewed this action last week and made three recommendations. A Condition has been added that their recommendations be made Conditions of approval. One recommendation is that the Pinus contorta tree be mitigated. The Pinus contorta on the plans does not require a street tree removal permit so mitigation cannot be required. Severson suggested modifying the Condition to require the applicants to only meet two of the recommendations. Staff is recommending approval of the application with 25 Conditions. Amend Condition 19 to address the Tree Commission recommendations. No wetlands have been identified on this property. PUBLIC HEARING CYNTHIA MUNROE, 560 Fairview, said the property was always flood irrigated until the subdivision went in. They plan to replace the trees that will be removed. ALEX KNECHT, 955 Drew Lane, representing the applicant, discussed the neighbor's issues. It is an oversized lot and the owners want to create another lot. In response to the neighbor's letter from Old Willows Subdivision, Knecht noted these items Loss of parking. They will be taking away one and one-half spaces. They wish to put the curb cut closer to the canopy and keep as much parking as they can. The idea of accessing the lot from Fordyce doesn't make any sense. Trees. The tree in the front is a hazard. They will replace them with healthy trees. Munroe said she talked to a member of Old Willows Subdivision Homeowner's Association. They pay dues to maintain the parkrow. She was asked to be a part of the homeowner's association and is not interested. Old Willow Subdivision put in sidewalks and parkrows and the homeowner's association is required to maintain those areas. SCOTT KURTZ, 831 Liberty Street, stated he is one of the original developers of the Old Willow Subdivision. They worked hard to minimize the impervious surfaces and ended with large parkrows and large open spaces but it allowed for parking only on the north side. He will be surprised and dismayed if this application is approved because of the reduction in on-street parking. He feels it is inappropriate to cut into the street. He believes it is not safe to use Old Willow Lane as the ingress and egress. It's been contentious because there is nothing written in the ordinances requiring this owner and others in similar situations to join the homeowner's association, It would be helpful if the Munroes could participate in the maintenance of the parkrows and open space and participate in the Conditions, Covenants and Conditions (CC&R's). He requested the partition has access from Fordyce Street. CHARLES SCHINCK, 1212 Old Willow Lane, is representing the homeowner's association. There will be congestion if the curb cut comes out where proposed. There is an alley across the street that serves six families and this will cause conflict. Also, the mailboxes are near the driveways for all of Willow Lane. Currently, there is barely enough parking for the families that live there. He too would like the Munroe's to participate in the homeowner's association. He would propose they access both homes from Fordyce. All of the Old Willow houses were specifically designed with the garages in the rear. This property won't match. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 HEARINGS BOARD APRIL 11,2006 MINUTES JOSH HAMIK, 1239 Old Willow Lane, stated there are already congestion and parking problems. There are a lot of children in the neighborhood. He doesn't like the fact they are not interested in being a part ofthe homeowner's association. The driveway is long enough off Fordyce to have parking along it. KATIE GOMEZ, 1249 Old Willow Lane, took pictures on Sunday of cars parked on Old Willow Lane. There were very few vacant places to park. There is considerable street congestion. Fields read comments from CLEO COPO, 1269 Old Willow Lane, in opposition to the application, MARK ALLEN, 1222 Old Willow Lane, gave some history of the subdivision. He does not support another curb cut on Old Willow Lane. The street is narrow and there is minimal parking. They can't afford to lose any parking. The garage in front of the house is 100 percent contrary to how he built his home. He concurs with what has been said by everyone else in opposition. Staff Comments. Severson said the applicant chose not to take advantage of the common driveway. The criteria in the Partition chapter could require the applicants to consolidate if that was necessary to address the neighbors' concern. Chapman asked if they could condition this requiring someone to become a part of the homeowner's association. Harris said you can assign conditions but is it a proportional request for dividing off one lot? Harris suggested it might be a cleaner solution to require the applicants to require them to take over maintenance of their section ofparkrow. Rebuttal- Munroe offered to take over maintenance of the parkrow. The house was there long before the subdivision. They gave a temporary easement to the property owner behind them. The easement is no longer there. She can't see having a curb cut is any more dangerous to their subdivision than having four cars parked there. Knecht said utilities run along the south property line. Severson noted the alley is somewhat offset from the proposed driveway. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION The Commissioners questioned whether a second access would be necessary. Chapman thought it seemed only right that the back house participate in the homeowner's association. He believes they should use Fordyce by way of a consolidated driveway. Fields said he'd like both parcels to share the same egress. The public easement that can't be built on can be the access for the house with no street cut on Willow. Harris said the Exception is now out of the discussion. She mentioned when Staff was originally looking at the proposal, the reason they thought access off Old Willow Lane would work better is because Fordyce is a higher order street. Old Willow has about 150 vehicle trips per day off it. Fordyce from East Main to Rose Street in 2001 was 1445 vehicle trips per day. From Romeo to Munson the numbers reduced to 406 vehicle trips per day. Additionally, Staff always looks at a scenario that will provide the most potential for a rear yard area open space as well as reducing impervious surface. Fields thought Fordyce can better handle the vehicle trips. Chapman/Black m/s to approve the Partition for P A2006-00282 requiring there be consolidated access off Fordyce Street. Deny the Exception to Street Standards, approve the Tree Removal Permit for the two willows and adjust Condition 19 to require two replacement trees and a revised tree plan before the signature of the plat. The existing street tree could then remain where it is ifthere is no driveway. Roll Call: The motion carried unanimously. PLANNING ACTION 2005.02257 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO USE A PORTION OF A NEW HOME AS AN ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT. 655 LIT WAY APPLICANT: BRIAN MAGEL HOMES Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Black and Chapman had a site visit. STAFF REPORT ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD APRIL 11, 2006 MINUTESn 4 Anderson said this action was administratively approved by Staff and called up for a public hearing by a neighbor. She explained the request as outlined in the Staff Report. The application was lacking some detail but with applying Conditions and a new landscaping and tree protection plan, the plans can be resubmitted and reviewed by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Tree Commission reviewed the application and found the submitted information insufficient for review. They would like the application continued or conditioned in a manner that allows for new plans to be reviewed and commented on by the full commission at next month's meeting. Staff believes the proposal meets the criteria and is recommending approval with the attached 21 Conditions. There is about a five percent drop in grade from the upper part of the lot to Lit Way. MARK GALLAGHER, 364 White Oak Circle, Medford, said he is standing in for Brian Magel. The applicant's submittal addresses the criteria. The house complies with all the requirements of the R-l zone as demonstrated in their submittals. It is one block from a transit station. The accessory residential unit will provide needed affordable housing. The on-street parking does qualify for a credit. One of the spaces would be located on the street. The walkway will provide a more direct route the transit stop on Siskiyou. The applicant concurs with the Conditions. He requested approval of the application. They do not have any problem meeting the landscaping requests. DEBRA HARRIS, 1691 Harmony Circle, stated she is against parking on the street. She read a letter she had written. She discussed parking on the street, traffic impact, noise, lights, glare from the cars, and access to Ashland Shopping Center. She wants the house set back as much as possible from the road. She also wants the unit to look like a home and doesn't want the property used for commercial use (parking lot, outbuildings for restaurant use). She is concerned about the traffic in the Lit Way area. The blind comer is very dangerous. She would like to see the driveway down Lit Way further down the street. Cars run over all the street comer curbs in the area. She is requesting in the interest of safety that they put in a sidewalk at the blind curve. D. Harris submitted a letter from her neighbors. Maria Harris said by asking the neighbors to install a sidewalk might be a question of proportionality. Rebuttal - Gallagher reiterated that the off-street parking section is not a discretionary requirement. It was probably put in place in order to minimize the amount of impervious surface on projects like this so on-street parking can be utilized. Black asked ifhe could put a footpath along the driveway and add a public sidewalk. Gallagher didn't think the applicant would object to putting in a sidewalk. It might affect the cost of the affordable unit. Staff Response - Anderson said Condition 14 deals with vision clearance. She suggested adding a Condition 22: That all driveways shall meet the driveway grade requirement of the maximum 20 percent in accordance with 18. 68.160. That the finished driveway grade shall be delineated on the building permit submittals. Correct Condition 21 where it should say ...and shall not "directly" illuminate... Amend Condition 9 to read: Use Condition 2 of the Tree Commission recommendations regarding street trees, but not Condition 1 and Staff will work with the landscape requirements. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Chaprnan/Fields m/s to approve P A2005-002257 with the attached 22 Conditions and amended and added above. Roll Call: The motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 3:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Sue Yates, Executive Secretary ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD APRIL 11, 2006 MINUTES 5 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 11, 2006 CALL TO ORDER - Chair John Fields called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.rn. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR. Commissioners Present: John Fields, Chair Michael Dawkins Olena Black Allen Douma John Stromberg Pam Marsh Dave Dotterrer Mike Morris Russ Chapman Absent Members: None Council Liaison: Kate Jackson, Council Liaison, present Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Interim Planning Director Maria Harris, Senior Planner Sue Yates, Executive Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS - Planning Action 2006-00078 has been postponed and will be re-noticed for next month's meeting. Molnar introduced the new Assistant City Attorney, Beth Lori. On Tuesday, April 25th, the Planning Commission Study Session will be held at the Ashland Springs Ballroom from 7 to 9 p.m. The consultants, Crandall Arambula will be there. They will be in Ashland on Wednesday as well. There will be a wrap-up on Wednesday the 26th summarizing the information the consultants gathered from the community. The public is invited to attend. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS March 14, 2006 and March 28, 2006 Minutes - Marsh said on page 5, paragraph 4, .change "non-school sponsored" to "school sponsored." Stromberg/Dotterrer m/s to approve the minutes as amended. Voice Vote: Approved. PUBLIC FORUM ART BULLOCK, 791 Glendower Street, handed out Suggested Guidelines and Issues in Defining a Development's Access Street and discussed the items on the handout. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION 2006.00366 REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING MAP CHANGE FROM JACKSON COUNTY ZONING RR.5 (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) TO CITY OF ASHLAND ZONING M.1 (INDUSTRIAL) AND E.1 (EMPLOYMENT) FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 8.43.ACRE PARCEL LOCATED ON JEFFERSON AVE. THE APPLICATION IS TO DEVELOP A SPECIALTY AUTOMOBILE DESIGN, RESEARCH AND FABRICATION AND ASSEMBLY CAMPUS IN PHASES. THE APPLICATION INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR THE SITE REVIEW APPROVAL OF THE FIRST PHASE OF THE PROJECT INCLUDING AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING APPROXIMATELY 41,000 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE, PARKING AREAS AND LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION. THE COMPLETION OF JEFFERSON AVENUE IS REQUIRED TO SERVE THE SITE, AND A PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR THE DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF THE JEFFERSON AVE. CROSSING OF THE EXISTING CREEK RUNNING SOUTH TO NORTH THROUGH THE PROPERTY. AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE TO THE SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS IS REQUESTED TO NOT INCLUDE A FRONT ENTRANCE DIRECTLY FACING JEFFERSON AVENUE. A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IS REQUESTED TO REMOVE FIVE TREES GREATER THAN SIX INCHES DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT OR GREATER IN THE BUILDING LOCATIONS. APPLICANT: CRAIG BRAMSCHER Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Chapman has driven by the site numerous times. Morris has had numerous site visits. His family business is to the east of this project. He declared a potential conflict but believes he can be impartial. Stromberg had a site visit and also went by Science Works, the applicant's current facility, but didn't see much. Fields, Black, Marsh, Dawkins and Dotterrer had site visits. Douma had no ex parte contact. STAFF REPORT Molnar described the project as outlined in the Staff Report. The property is roughly 8.5 acres inside the Urban Growth Boundary, contiguous with the City Limits, but outside the City Limits. The project is proposed in multiple phases. Phase I will involve the construction ofa 41,000 square foot facility with 69 parking spaces. It will involve the completion of Jefferson Avenue through the property, crossing a seasonal creek. Staff has suggested a condition to defer removal of the trees in future phases until the time of site review for each phase. The creek crossing will require a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit. The bridge design or box culvert design will be designed to accommodate a 100 year flood flow and consider a design that is the least invasive on the natural area. There is a bioswale identified adjacent to the parking spaces. There is a chipped pathway to allow pedestrians to walk along the top of the bank for the length of the project along with a small outdoor seating area for employees or visitors. The building is a large utilitarian warehouse type space as well as office and showroom space. The materials consist of metal roofmg and siding with a concrete base. There is a series of larger 4 x 6 windows along both sides of the two-story gabled central spine that goes through the center of the building. There are two smaller volumes on either side of the central gable feature. In order to allow for light into the building, there is a five foot wide translucent band along the building. There are two entrances to either side of the two-story gable. The application could be found to require an Administrative Variance from the Site Review Standard that states: "That the primary orientation of the new building face the City street." It could be found that the side facing Jefferson Avenue has no entrance and thus fails to meet the standard and therefore requires a Variance. Or, it could be found that the prominent gable feature with glazing on both sides with landscaping in front (with a series of pathways) is the entrance feature and does meet the standard. Staff felt the Annexation, Site Review, Physical Constraints Permit and Tree Removal were straight forward and the criteria have been met and they have recommended approval of the application. Molnar said they are proposing to zone the portion to the south of Jefferson as M-l and the north portion as E-l. He is unclear about the timing of future phases. The City's largest inventory ofE-lland is currently the railroad property. There are not many parcels of this size in the City Limits to accommodate a structure of this size. Molnar noted there is quite a significant change in elevation from the rear of the property to Jefferson Avenue. The applicant has not yet provided a fmal grading plan. There will most likely be a significant retaining wall constructed independently at the back of the building. Staff suggested a Condition that if there are TID facilities that they be identified and Till will review the fmal engineering to accommodate those facilities. PUBLIC HEARING CRAIG BRAMSCHER, Brammo Motor Sports, LLC, 7118 Hwy. 66, Ashland, confirmed they do have Till irrigation and they plan on using it to water some of the landscaping. The railroad right-of-way width varies. They have a 50 foot setback from the center of the railroad tracks or 100 feet for the total easement. They have checked with the railroad and they did not have a problem with the setback and are happy to have their right-of-way landscaped. GARY CAPERNA, Senior Designer, Batzer, Inc., N. Ross Lane, Medford, 97501, is representing Mark McKechnie, architect and Craig Bramscher. They have also set the building back an additional eleven feet from the property line. They do not have a completed civil plan. They are trying to keep the building up as high as possible to eliminate the need for any significant retaining walls or any significant cut. They understand they will have to develop some landscape retaining walls but want to do that in a more terraced way. The fmished floor height of the building and the topography affected the way they dealt with then entry to the building. They wanted the architectural spine that bisects the two halves of the building to look like a monolithic piece. They would not be averse to having an entry at the front, but it tends to detract from the monolithic solidity of that element. In developing the ADA access, it flows better by way of a circuitous route to the front entrance as it has been designed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 11, 2006 MINUTES 2 LAURIE SAGER, KenCairn Sager Landscape Architects, is representing Craig Bramscher. There are eight trees recommended for removal, three of which have been recommended for removal because ofthe extension of Jefferson Avenue. The remaining five have been recommended to be removed at a later date. The applicant is agreeable to that. There is approximately 60 linear feet of impacted bank where Jefferson A venue crosses the creek. They propose to put together a landscape plan showing planting, a circuitous path on both sides of Jefferson Avenue and on both sides of Knoll Creek and attach it to all three phases of the development as it develops so there is passive recreation for those that work there and access for anybody in the neighborhood or anyone coming over Jefferson Avenue. They intend to have seating in order to enjoy the natural riparian area. Approximately nine trees will be needed for Phase I and a total of about 30 trees along Jefferson Avenue. They have just done a preliminary landscape plan for the other phases of the project. They have shown vegetative bioswales that treat the storm water off the parking lot and also to retain some of the water off some of the roof structure. The intention is to get everything they can back into the creek after cleaning it up through the vegetative bioswales and then filtering it back into Knoll Creek in a sustainable way. They will be using TID water where possible. Bramscher said they will be providing a large number of jobs at all levels. Caperna wondered if there could be more flexibility with Condition 8. They want to keep all parts of this project moving ahead. They would rather not have to have Jefferson Street fully improved before obtaining their building permits. Sager said the elevations of the front fa9ade don't show any landscaping. They envision some larger trees in that area to soften the front. Molnar said they could consider additional wording on Condition 8. Also, as the application finds its way to the Council, they can address it. The re-wording would state at the end ofthe first sentence in Condition 8: "prior to issuance of a building permit..." or "costs associated with the final construction drawings and improvements be guaranteed through the posting of a bond or similar instruments acceptable to the City Legal Department." Molnar said they are pleased with the improvements associated with the creek area. It is identified as an intermittent creek and under our current standards requires a ten foot buffer from the top of bank. Under the proposed riparian ordinance (currently on hold) they would be required to increase the buffer to 20 feet and not allow any continuous culverts. The applicants have been willing to meet the new proposed standards. Fields read a letter supporting the project from Graham Lewis, President of Ashland Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors and Jac Nickels, Economic Sustainability Committee, 110 East Main Street, P. O. Box 1360. DANA GREAVES, 900 Strawberry Lane, CEO of Vortex, stated they are the largest custom technology firm in the region. They employ about 25 people in Ashland. He spoke in favor ofBramscher's plan. It is a clean industry and will provide jobs for Brarnmo Motors and the surrounding subsidiary businesses that will add quality to the demographic of Ashland. RICHARD EATHERL V, 740 Jefferson Avenue, Verba Prima, Inc., is an adjoining property owner. He is neutral on the project. He supports a diverse economy. He is concerned about transportation. With the increase in development in that area, there has been an increase in traffic. What are the repercussions of adding 100 employees to the area? What is the impact of traffic at Ashland and Washington Streets? He is concerned he might be included in a Local Improvement District (LID). He had to participate in the LID at Tolman Creek and Ashland Street. They have problems with their own trucks getting in and out of the street. How many trucks would this new business add? The wetlands might be impacted from a leak in TID. He does not want to be involved in the Jefferson Avenue extension. Molnar said they have evaluated the traffic and ODOT has discussed it. There is ample street capacity. ODOT has identified some of the turning movements coming on and off Ashland Street. Staff has identified a condition that the applicant agrees to participate in a future LID for possibly a signal at the Washington and Hwy. 66 intersection or perhaps another type of change as the vehicle trips increase. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 11, 2006 MINUTES 3 Staff Response. Staff suggested adding a Condition 27 that Talent Irrigation District (TID) facilities be identified and changes be reviewed by the district and approved by the Staff Advisor. Fields would like to see some glazing on the front of the building to allow transparency so passersby can see activity to create a sense of connection. Black was interested in clear story windows up higher on the building. Rebuttal. Brarnscher said there is a tremendous amount of glass on either side of the gable. The sides of the building are mainly what are seen as one approaches the building. In addition, they do not want direct sunlight in their showroom. With regard to the Jefferson Street extension, if the State gives them the grant money, they do not want to do the street one- third at a time, so they agreed to do the project all at once. He thought it would be better for the City too. The issue for him is not the bond, but getting the building built as soon as possible. Caperna noted this is not a high truck traffic business. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Black/Dawkins m/s to approve the Site Review, Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit, Tree Removal Permit, and not the Administrative Variance for the front entrance for PA2006.00366. The Commissioners discussed the Administrative Variance and some points made to include the approval of an Administrative Variance were: The entry does not have to be the physical door facing the street and landscaping will soften the fa9ade. By granting approval with the Administrative Variance, when another development comes along for approval, the burden of proof will be on that applicant, not the City. There is not as much pedestrian traffic. There are unusual aspects regarding the site that support a Variance. . Dotterrer/Dawkins m/s to amend the motion to include approving the Administrative Variance for the entryway [that was the only change in the motion]. Add Condition 27 that Talent Irrigation District (lID) facilities be identified and changes be reviewed by the district and approved by the Staff Advisor. Stromberg wondered if the City's Land Use Ordinance applies to this property or will it only apply once the property is annexed. Could we add a Condition that this approval will become effective, if and when or at such time as the City actually annexes the property? Molnar said the annexation standards says concurrent Site Review approval has to be sought, but since the Planning Commission is the final decision maker for Site Review, that approval is technically coming before the Commission. The Site Review approval doesn't hold weight until the ordinance adopting and annexing this property is final. Roll Call for the amendment: The motion carried unanimously. Roll Call for the original motion: The motion carried unanimously. Stromberg/Black m/s to do a finding that this project meets all the approval criteria of the annexation section of the Land Use Ordinance. Stromberg would like to see the Council clearly distinguish between annexations and planning applications. It is a promising project but he doesn't believe there has been careful analysis of the annexation because that belongs at the Council. He would like the Planning Commission to do fmdings that this application meets all the criteria to become eligible so the Council could legitimately annex it if they see fit. Let the Council decide if it should be annexed for the good of the community. Molnar said the Procedures Chapter says the Commission shall make a report of its fmdings and recommendations on the proposed action. He believes Stromberg is stating the Commission will make a report of their findings but base those on how this proposal meets the annexation approval standards as outlined. The City Attorney, in the past, has directed the City Council that annexations fall under a different category in land use and the Council has some other discretionary options that even if they find all the approval criteria have been met, that they can consider other information. Fields believes the Commission has enough information to make a recommendation to the Council for annexation. Roll Call: The motion carried with Dotterrer, Douma, Stromberg, Dawkins, Morris, Marsh, Black and Chapman voting "yes." Fields voted "no." ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 11, 2006 MINUTES 4 TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 2006.00278 IS A REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW AND OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS CHAPTER 18.88 OF AN ELEVEN.UNIT, ELEVEN LOT MULTI.FAMILY DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 31 N. MOUNTAIN AVE. A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IS REQUESTED TO REMOVE FOUR TREES ON THE SITE. APPLICANT: ARCHERD & DRESNER, LLC Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Site visits were made by all. Fields and Morris each said they were doing work for Evan Archerd, declaring a potential conflict of interest. (Below is further discussion of the potential conflict of interest.) STAFF REPORT Harris gave a description of the site and project. The Tree Commission's two recommendations are included in the packet. The main access to the property is by way of a public alley right-of-way. From the alleyway, it is proposed to construct an L-shaped driveway that would access seven of the double car garages. The remaining four would be accessed off the alley. There are two issues that have been raised by Staff. 1. The public alley is 15 feet wide and connects North Mountain Avenue with Emerick Street. The standard is 12 feet of driving surface and 16 feet of right-of-way. On the eastern end, it appears some or all of the existing parking spaces (belonging to the art school) are intruding into that width required for the alley. What is on the ground appears to be different that what was shown in the art school redevelopment plan in 2002. Staff is suggesting two possible ways to correct the situation. a) Reconfigure the existing spaces to get them out of the alley right-of-way or b) dedicate a greater area of alley right-of-way along that section of the alley so the full 16 feet of alley width is available. Staff believes this can be addressed at Final Plan. 2. The parking bay on North Mountain Avenue is showing the equivalent offour parking spaces set in a bay. Parking is not required but a proposal of the applicant. It does provide guest parking in close proximity to the site, however, they lose the parkrow that would provide a buffer for pedestrians to the street. They will lose the opportunity for street trees to provide a traffic calming benefit. Staffhas suggested the Planning Commission might want to consider reducing the size of the parking bay to two spaces. Staff has recommended approval of this application with 25 Conditions of approval. There is a change to Condition 7, after the third sentence, insert a sentence: Any encroachments in that alley right-of-way shall be identified in the Final Plan submittals and encroachments shall not be located in the minimum paved width of 12 feet and minimum clear width of 16 feet. The Commissioners discussed the following items: . What is the back-up and turnaround room into and out of garages? How far is the face of the garage to the alley? Harris said it is 11 feet, 3 inches. She did not believe there were any vision clearance issues, but a Condition has been added, just in case. . The Engineering Department felt the highest priority for the overall traffic flow of the entire neighborhood is to maintain a two-way travel lane. . It appears the art school parking is heavily used. Molnar suggested Commissioners Fields and Morris disclose the nature of their business relationship with Evan Archerd. Fields said his current business relationship is on another project and he has no intention of becoming involved in a business relationship on this project. Morris has a separate business relationship with Archerd. He does not have any problem being impartial, nor does Fields. Morris said he discussed this potential conflict of interest with the City Attorney. Black is willing to proceed but she is not comfortable with their relationship with the applicant. The other Commissioners felt Morris and Fields could be impartial. PUBLIC HEARING EVAN ARCHERD, 550 E. Main Street, believes this project meets the approval criteria in the findings presented. a. They have no particular preference with regard to the parking bays along Mountain Avenue. They proposed them because it seemed some parking would be beneficial. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 11,2006 MINUTES 5 b. Between now and Final Plan they will work out the parking encroachment into the alley. c. Most of the units have a back-up or maneuvering area of about 22 to 26 feet. MIKE THORNTON, Thornton Engineering, 1236 Disk Drive, Suite 1, Medford, OR 97501 said they will provide at Final Plan more maneuvering room for the one difficult unit. Marsh said the residents won't be able to park anyplace else but in their garages. Guests will be forced to park outside the project. Archerd noted that there are many items that are required to meet minimum density. This project is at minimum density. Archerd indicated they would plant trees at the top and bottom of the parking bays. Staff Response. Harris said the backup requirement is 22 feet. All of the garages meet the standard. The L-shaped access is driveway; not a private drive. It is required to be 20 feet in width. Rebuttal- None. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Dotterrer/Chapman mls to approve PA2006.00078 including the four parking bay spaces on North Mountain Avenue. Dawkins stated he is not in favor of any parking bays. The spaces will be used by the art school, during football games and events at the Havarah. This is a major, gnarly intersection that anything we can do to eliminate more congestion and have just the two lanes is something he would rather see. Chapman said for the reasons Dawkins mentioned is why there is a need for as many parking spaces as we can safely grant. Marsh said this project is going to have a terrible parking problem. The trade-off is having a little curbside parking instead of a planting strip, however, she would like to see trees at the bumpouts, giving people a little feeling of safety. Dotterrer/Chapman mls to amend the motion to add a sentence to Condition 7 that would read as follows: The preliminary engineering for proposed street and alley improvements shall be provided at Final Plan application. Street and alley improvements shall be consistent with City of Ashland Street Standards. The alley shall be improved to city standards for N. Mountain Avenue to Emerick Street. Delete the last sentence and add this wording: Any encroachments in the alley right.of.way shall be identified in the Final Plan submittals and encroachment shall not be located in the minimum paved width of 12 feet and minimum clear width of 16 feet. Add Condition 27 that trees shall be added to the available parkrow areas. Roll Call: Unanimous. Roll Call on original motion: Unanimous. PLANNING ACTION 2006.00454 IS A REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS CHAPTER 18.88 OF AN ELEVEN.UNIT, ELEVEN LOT MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED 829. 857 N. MAIN ST. THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION CREATES AN INDIVIDUAL LOT FOR EACH OF THE EXISTING TOWN HOMES APPLICANT: JERRY TONEY & URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Marsh, Morris, Fields, Stromberg, Dawkins, Douma and Dotterrer had a site visit. STAFF REPORT Harris gave a brief Staff Report as outlined in the packet. There are two issues - 1) The density of the project (14 units) is higher than the current standard (not quite 11). The applicant has agreed to do an affordable housing unit as covered in Condition 6, and 2) the lot has a flag pole that connects to Sheridan that is not a vehicular access. When it was originally approved the flag pole had a pedestrian connection from Sheridan Street and was counted as open space. The area is undeveloped but does not appear to go through. It is not landscaped or ftnished off. There appears to be a driveway access to the lot that may be partially located in the flag pole. Condition 3 states this application would have to go to Final Plan. A design for the path to be submitted with the Final Plan application as well as landscaping for that area and the improvement shall be installed prior to signature of the ftnal plat. 3) Remove the stumps and plant material with trees. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 6 REGULAR MEETING APRIL 11, 2006 MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING MARK DIRIENZO, Urban Development Services, LLC, 320 East Main, Suite 202, stated they are agreeable to the Conditions as they are written. They will come back with the landscape plan adding the trees and planters. The affordable unit is acceptable. The units are all being rented. The owner has been approached from some of the renters requesting to purchase their units. The pathway was improved to a decomposed granite pathway in 1990. It is not being utilized by the existing residents. They will bring a new plan back. DiRienzo wondered if the Commission would be open to an easement on the driveway encroachment that has occurred or does it have to strictly remain as it is today? Harris said the Commission has the ability to adjust it. DiRienzo said when they come back at Final Plan, whatever it is then, is how it will be forever. The path needs to be a minimum of ten feet. Black said the larger issue is the conversion of apartments to townhomes and the concern of losing rental stock. DiRienzo said the homes are all under 1000 square feet. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Black wondered if the new homeowner's association could develop the flag pole as an alley. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS RE-OPENED. DiRienzo said the flag pole is an area that will be dedicated as open space to the homeowner's association. It would be a pretty steep access point, if paved. There are homes to the right and left of the flag. He doubts they would be happy to have a flag. The public hearing was closed. Dawkins/Dotterrer m/s to approve PA2006-00454 with the addition to Condition 3 that a driveway easement for the adjacent driveway may be permitted with a minimum of ten feet preserved for the pedestrian path connection. Twenty feet in width shall be maintained for the property's flag pole connection to Sheridan. Roll Call: Unanimously approved. OTHER There was a short discussion regarding the Housing Needs Analysis and the conversion of apartments to condominiums. They would like to see the Housing Commission decipher this. Bring the Communications Guide back to the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.rn. Respectfully submitted by Sue Yates, Executive Secretary ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 11,2006 MINUTES 7 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Liquor License Application Meeting Date: Department: Approval: May 16,2006 City Recorder ..~ Lee Tuneberg pu u Primary Staff Conta : Barbara Christensen 488-5307 christeb@ashland.or.us Estimated time: Consent Agenda Statement: Liquor License Application from Helena Darling dba Helena Darling Catering at 280 East Hersey Street #6. Background: Application for liquor license is for a new license. The City has determined that the license application review by the city is set forth in AMC Chapter 6.32 which requires that a determination be made to determine if the applicant complies with the city's land use, business license and restaurant registration requirements (AMC Chapter 6.32). In May 1999, the council decided it would make the above recommendation on all liquor license applications. Council Options: Approve or disapprove Liquor License application. Staff Recommendation: Endorse the application with the following: The city has determined that the location ofthis 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 processing of this application. Potential Motions: Motion to approve Liquor License application. Attachments: None r4.1 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Appointment to Audit Committee ~j ........, Meeting Date: Department: Approval: May 16, 2006 City Recorder Lee Tuneberg ~. Primary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen 488-5307 christeb@ashland.or.us Estiinated time: Consent Agenda Statement: Confirmation by Council of the Mayor's appointment of Greg Lemhouse to the Audit Committee for a term to expire April 30, 2009. Background: This is an annual confirmation by the City Council on the Mayor's appointment for the Audit Committee on an application received after the noticed deadline. There are still openings on the Historic Commission and Tree Commission. Council Options: Approve or disapprove Mayor's appointment. Staff Recommendation: None Potential Motions: Motion to approve appointment of Greg Lemhouse to the Audit Committee for a term to expire April 30, 2009. Attachments: Applications received r., RECE\VED CITY OF ASHLAND APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at City Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email christeb@ashland.or.us. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Name Gree: Alan Lemhouse Requesting to serve on: Audit Commitee (Commission/Committee) Address 2850 Wede:ewood Ln. Ashland. OR Occupation Police Officer Phone: Home 482-2507 Work 941-2438 Email glemhouse@vahoo.com Fax 1. Education Backe:round What schools have you attended? What degrees do you hold? Oregon State Universitv Bachelor of Science - Sociol02v What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this position? I currentlv hold an Advanced and Supervisorv Police Certification. I also hold 8 state and/or nationallv certified instructor certifications. 2. Related EXDerience What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to this position? I have worked for the Citv of Ashland from 1995 - 1997 as a police officer and have since worked for the City of Medford in the same capacity and as a supervisor from 1997 to the present time. Since that time, I have also served on numerous strategic plannin2 committees and currently chair the Awards and Rec02nition Committee for the department. In addition, I am the Program Manager and Supervisor of the Use of ForcelDefensive Tactics Pro2fam and the Honor Guard for the Medford Police Department and serve as a Lead Instructor at the state police academy,where my duties include auditin2 and analyzing the survival skills curriculum and Pfovidin2 feedback. In my roles as a committee head and program manager of the above listed areas, I have been responsible for mana2ing several bud2ets, work hours and man-power, to accomplish set goals. Proper management of resources is crucial to success of any ~overment. orgnaization or committee. For the past several years. I have taken! on this responsibility in various forms and feel I have the requisite ability and experience to serve on the Audit Committee. Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field, such as attending conferences or seminars? Why? Learning is a never ending process and I would invite any oPpOrtunity to become more educated in this field and able to better serve the community in my capacity as an Audit Committee 'member. ~., 3. Interests Why are you applying for this position? It is my intense desire to contribute my time and energy to the city in a productive fashion in effort to create a more productive. efficient and accountable government. which instills confidence in the citizenry by thoughtfully and prudentlv managing their money. 4. Availabilitv Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings? My schedule is flexible and ooen to whatever best serves the committee. 5. Additional Information How long have you lived in this community? I moved to Ashland in 1995 upon graduating from Oregon State University. Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this position My personal philosophy is that the government serves at the will of the people and in their best interests. As such. the govenrment and specifically those who work within the goverment should always see themselves as caretakers of the people's property. safety and money. For the past 11 years. I have dedicated my life to this belief through actions and personal sacrafice. As a person in a leadership position both at the local and state levels of government. I have experienced the pressure and seriousness of achieving goals in an efficient and responsible manner in the most stressful environments. while working with and empowering varied groups of people. It is crucial for any leader to understand that they alone should be willing to shoulder the responsibility of failure. while deflecting their success and be keenly aware that the only road to sucess while working within a group can be traveled by performing in concert with others. In the end. the only true glory Ii! es in the quality of the results produced by the group. As a member of the Audit Committee. I would strive to instill this same belief among anyone within Ashland's government. who are entrusted by the people to be their caretakers. At this crucial time in our city. we need people who are willing donate their time are creative energy for the good of everyone and to stand up and take action. I wish to be one of those chosen to do so. April 25. 2006 Date Greg A. Lemhouse Signature rA' CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Meeting Date: Department: Approval: Appointment to Ashland Community Healthcare Services Board of Directors ~ Primary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen 488-5307 christeb@ashland.or.us Estimated time: Consent Agenda May 16, 2006 City Recorder Lee Tuneberg F Statement: Ashland Community Hospital Board is requesting annual appointments of Carol Christlieb, Anne Golden and Steve Miner to four year terms, July 1,2006 through June 30, 2010. This recommendation was approved by the Board of Directors at its regular meeting on April 24, 2006. Background: Ashland Community Healthcare Services Articles of Incorporation Article VIII (B) gives the authority and responsibility to the City of Ashland (Member) to appoint the Corporation's Directors based on the criteria set forth in Articles IX. The Bylaws of Ashland Community Healthcare Services Section 4.4 state that the Board shall consider potential candidates and forward such recommendations to the Member for its consideration when appointing persons to fill vacancies on the Board of Directors. The Council approved the request by Ashland Community Hospital to amend the Articles of Incorporation for the Ashland Community Healthcare Services to permit a full 12 directors plus retain the past Chair of the Board for an additional year on the Board of Directors. Council Options: Approve or disapprove Ashland Community Healthcare Services recommended appointments. Staff Recommendation: None Potential Motions: Motion to approve annual appointments of Carol Christlieb, Anne Golden and Steve Miner to the Ashland Community Healthcare Services Board of Directors for terms ending June 2010. Attachments: Letter of recommendation rj.1 /mJ ASHLAND COMMUNITY HOSPITAL --~nnovation:.. Technology.~. Compassion - - Experience the Difference April 26, 2006 Ashland City Council c/o Barbara Christensen, City Recorder 20 E. Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Barbara: In accordance with Section 4.4 of the Bylaws of Ashland Community Healthcare Services, the Board of Directors is pleased to recommend the following for appointment and reappointment to the Board. Carol Christlieb, appointment to a four year term, July 1, 2006 thru June 30, 2010 Anne Golden, appointment to a four year term, July 1, 2006 thru June 30,2010 Steve Miner, reappointment to a four year term, July 1,2006 thru June 30,2010 These recommendations were approved by the Board of Directors at its regular meeting of April 25, 2006. Thank you for your careful consideration of these appointments and for your continued support of AshlauqCommunity Hospital. . With Warmest Regards, Dave Bernard Chair, Board of Directors Ashland Community Hospital cc: John Morrison, Mayor 280 Maple Street - PO Box 98, Ashland, Oregon 97520 . (541) 482-2441 . www.ashlandhospita1.org ,- CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Approval of Public Contract Greater than $75,000 - 1/0 PRIMARY ALUMINUM WIRE Meeting Date: May 16, 2006 Department: Administrative Services Contributing Departments: NA Approval: Lee Tuneberg ~ Primary Staff Contact: E-mail: Secondary Staff Contact: E-mail: Estimated Time: Lee Tuneberg tuneberl~ashland.or.us Dick Wanderscheid wandersd~ashland.or.us Consent Agenda Sourcing Method: Under the Ashland Municipal Code, if there are no exemptions or special circumstances, a formal competitive selection process is required to enter into a public contract for goods and services greater than $50,000. A Competitive Sealed Bid (Invitation to Bid) is the sourcing method for this public contract. Initially a quote request was processed and one written quote was received. Another supplier who failed to respond to the quote request provided additional information about the current market on aluminum and copper. The quotes we received were substantially higher than the maximum threshold of $50,000 allowing (3) written quotes; therefore, a formal solicitation process is required. Under the Attorney General Public Contracting rules the closing date for an Invitation to Bid shall not be less than fourteen (14) days unless the Contracting Agency determines that a shorter interval is in the public's interest, and that a shorter interval will not substantially affect competition. However, in no event shall the interval between the first date of the public notice of the Solicitation Document and closing be less then seven (7) days. 137-047-0300(2)(c) This Invitation to Bid for 50,000 feet of 1/0 Primary Aluminum Wire includes the same exact wire specifications that were included with the informal quote request and the ITB has been mailed to the same number of potential suppliers; therefore, the shorter turn around time for this Invitation to Bid is highly unlikely to diminish competition. The closing due date and time of 2:00pm, Friday, May 19, 2006 for the bid is also (7) days after the first date of the public notice that is required for an Invitation to Bid. It has also been determined due to the fluctuating prices for aluminum and copper and the informal quote that was only guaranteed for 24-hours, that it is in the City's best interest to request pre- approval from Council to award a public contract to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder upon receipt of the bids on May 19, 2006. rA' Statement: This action is to request pre-approval from the City Council, as the Local Contract Review Board, to enter into a public contract for 50,000 feet of 1/0 Primary Aluminum Wire with the lowest responsible and responsive bidder upon receipt of the bids on May 19, 2006. Background: The Electric Department has requested 50,000 feet of 1/0 Primary Aluminum Wire - 20 reels @ 2,500 feet per reel. The underground electric service from Terrace Street to the Water Treatment Plant and then up to Reeder Reservoir will require 30,000 feet (12 reels). The remaining 20,000 feet (8 reels) will be kept in stock for ongoing projects. The informal quote received for the 1/0 Primary Aluminum Wire was $2,292.00/M for a total cost of $114,600.00. Even though, we only received one quote from the informal process, the Electric Department has pre- approved the 1/0 Primary Aluminum Wire manufactured by Okonite, Kerite, and BICC; therefore, this type of wire is not a sole source and more than one supplier has the ability to provide the City with a bid. The metals market is fluctuating on a daily basis. Aluminum 4/7/06 $1.20 5/9/06 $1.36 to $1.42 (2 Yrs ago - $0.65) Copper 417/06 $2.67 5/9/06 $3.70 The Invitation to Bid was sent to eight (8) potential suppliers, and the closing date and time for the bids is 2:00pm, Friday, May 19, 2006. Related City Policies: AMC Chapter 2.50.060 (2) The Purchasing Agent is authorized to recommend that the Local Contract Review Board approve or disapprove contract awards in excess of $75,000, or to change orders or amendments to contracts of more than $75,000. Council Options: Local Contract Review Board can approve to award the public contract to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder upon receipt of the bids on May 19, 2006. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the public contract be awarded to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder upon receipt of the bids on May 19, 2006. ,., Potential Motions: Local Contract Review Board moves to award the Public Contract to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder upon receipt of the bids on May 19, 2006. Attachments: 1/0 Primary Aluminum Wire Specifications Written Findings - Provided by Dick Wanderscheid r~' Memo DATE: 5/10/06 TO: Kari Olson ~ FROM: Dick Wandersch id SUBJECT: Bids for Electn onductor BACKGROUND The City ~ill need to request bids for 50,000 feet of Electrical Conductor. 30,000 feet is needed to extend underground electric service from Terrace Street to the City Water Treatment Plant and then up to Reeder Reservoir. We need delivery of this product by June 30, 2006. The remainder is for ongoing projects that the City will be working on during the next few months. This wire is needed within 30 days. Please give me a call if you have questions or need further assistance in this matter. Invitation to Bid 2006-102 1/0 PRIMARY ALUMINUM WIRE May 9, 2006 SPECIFICATIONS Description: Stock # QUANTITY 1/0 Primary Aluminum Wire, *Jacketed*, Underground, 220 Mil, EPR, 15 kV, Full concentric neutral, 20 Reels @ 2,500 feet per reel, Okonite Product Code #161-23-3072, Kerite, or BleC, Per City of Ashland, Specifying Standards, No Substitution 2-3019 50,000 Feet Specifying Standards This specification covers single conductor, 15000 through 35000 volt shielded power cable insulated with an ozone and discharge resistant flexible, rubber-like thermosetting dielectric. The cable is suited for primary underground residential distribution, for installation in underground ducts, conduits and direct burial in wet location. Industry Standards Cable shall meet or exceed the latest editions of the following industry specifications; 1) ICEA S-68-516 2) AEIC CS-6 3) ASTM B-8, B-231 4) REA Bulletin Technical Requirements Conductor shall be stranded, Class B aluminum conductor, covered with an extruded semiconducting ERP strand screen or compatible material ethylene-propylene EPR insulation, extruded EPR compatible material semiconducting insulation screen, concentric wrap of neutral wires with an encapsulating insulating jacket. The cable shall have a 900 C normal operating temperature. Cable shall have full concentric neutral, 133% insulation level. Tests Furnish certified test reports of all applicable tests per AEIC CS-6 to the purchaser at the time of delivery. The AEIC qualification report shall be required as part of the technical proposal. Corona Test: The completed cable must be tested for corona discharge and shall comply with AEIC requirements. A COpy of the oriqinal X-V plot, showinq discharqe levels for the cable shipped, shall be submitted at time of delivery. Quality Passed accelerated life test (ACL T), such as EPRI CPI protocol for 1400 days or utility approved independent testing. Reference a minimum of (5) electric utility users with the same exact insulating material in service for a minimum of 15 or more years. Warranty Cable shall carry a forty-year warranty after shipment. Firm price required. Delivery requirements: A minimum of eight (8) reels at 2,500 feet per reel shall be delivered within 30-days after receipt of order, and the balance of the order shall be delivered prior to June 30,2006. FIRM PRICE ONLY - FOB ASLAND Price / M $ TOTAL COST $ FIRM PRICE GUARANTEED UNTIL Date AVAILABILITY (Lead time ARO - Number of Weeks) ITB, 1/0 Primary Aluminum Wire SPECIFICATIONS, 5/10/2006, Page 1 of 1 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Report on Plaza Repairs Meeting Date: May 16, 2006 Department: Administrative Services Contributing Departments: None ft,./') Approval: Lee Tuneberg JI7}" Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg E-mail: tuneberl@ashland.or.us Secondary Staff Contact: E-mail: Estimated Time: Consent Agenda Statement: This is an update on the repairs to benches and Lithia Fountains being done in the Plaza as requested by several Council members. Background: The Parks and Public Works departments have been working on repairing damaged benches and water fountains in the Plaza. The Parks department indicated the repaired benches will be back in place by May 17th. The benches were refurbished requiring little in the way of materials and limited staff time. We have received both positive and negative comments regarding location of the benches around the fountains. Now is a good time if changes in location are desired. Unless otherwise directed by Council the benches will be returned to the same positions. Fountain repairs are being managed by Public Works and are more time consuming. A Request for Proposals for architectural options to replace or refurbish the fountain is in process with a proposal due date of June 1, 2006. A long lead time and wide distribution was used to generate sufficient proposals and ideas. The magnitude and timeline for the project will be determined after proposals are received. At that time more information can be provided to Council on scope and timing. Related City Policies: None Council Options: This is a report so no action is required. Staff Recommendation: N/A Potential Motions: N/A Attachments: None ~A' CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Meeting Date: May 16, 2006 Department: Public Works/Engineering Contributing Departments: Legal/ Recorder Approval: Lee Tuneberg ~ Public Hearing and Resolution Authorizing and Ordering Improvements to Plaza Avenue Under the Plaza Avenue Local Improvement District No. 85 Primary Staff Contact: James H. Olson, 552-2412 9fJ E-mail: olsonj@ashland.or.us Secondary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen, 552-2084 E-mail: christenb@ashland.or.us Estimated Time: 20 Minutes Statement: In accordance with AMC Section 13.20.050 a public hearing is required prior to formation of a Local Improvement District. The hearing shall consider testimony, both oral and written, regarding the improvement. At the conclusion of the public hearing the Council may approve the proposed construction and create the LID by resolution. At the April 4th regular meeting, Council set a public hearing date for May 16, 2006, and in accordance with Section 13.20.040 public hearing notices were mailed to all owners within the proposed district and the notice was posted in the Daily Tidings. Section 13.20.020 states that LID's may be initiated by either of the following methods: A. By the Council, at its own initiation, or B. By written petition requesting the local improvement signed by the owners of property that would benefit specifically from the local improvement and that would have at least 50% of the anticipated assessment as estimated by the City Engineer. All of the most recent LID's have been formed by the Council at its' own initiative. This method seems to be more and more common as we begin to address those more challenging or controversial projects where a clear majority is generally not possible. Some of the more recent LID's formed by the Council include: 1. Nevada Street Traffic Calming LID 2. Strawberry Lane LID 3. Tolman Creek Road LID 4. Helman Street Sidewalk LID A small core of citizens on Plaza Ave. representing 37.5% of the total assessable units is requesting that the Plaza Ave. LID be formed at the Council's own initiative. Page 1 of5 G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-adminlJ..lD\Plaza Ave LID CC PH 5 06.doc rj.' Background: Although the Council has the option of initiating a LID at its' sole discretion, if deemed to be in the City's best interest, that authority has not been exercised before a significant property owner effort to gain a majority petition response has been attempted. The formation of the LID is always a result of the efforts of a substantial number of property owners. The City's most recent report indicates that there are 10.42 miles of unpaved streets within the City limits. In 1960 there were 17.70 miles of unpaved streets which represented 30 percent of our total street mileage. Through the LID program the City has made great strides in reducing the number of unpaved streets which now represents only 10% of the total 1 01 miles of the City's street network. Following is a list of streets which lack full City street improvements including curbs, paving sidewalks and storm drains and which ultimately will be improved: ~""""" LENGTH SURFACE TYPE Alleys (various locations) 12,260 ft. Decomposed Granite Alaska St. 160 ft. Decomposed Granite Almond St. 1560 ft. Decomposed Granite Alta Ave. 600 ft. Decomposed Granite Ashland Loop Rd. 1200 ft. Decomposed Granite Beach St. 550 ft. Decomposed Granite Black Oak Wav 900 ft. Decomposed Granite Clay St. (middle section) 3500 ft. Oil Mat Elkader St. 300 ft. Decomposed Granite Eureka St.. 420 ft. Decomposed Granite Fielder St. 320 ft. Decomposed Granite Fork St. 1750 ft. Decomposed Granite Fox St. 550 ft. Decomposed Granite Glenview Dr. 6400 ft. Decomposed Granite Grandview Dr. 2150 ft. Oil Mat Granite St. 1500 ft. Decomposed Granite Grover St. 200 ft. Decomposed Granite JaQuelyn St. 1350 ft. Decomposed Granite Larkin Ln. 160 ft. Oil Mat Libertv St. 420 ft. Decomposed Granite Mae St. 290 ft. Decomposed Granite Mary Jane Ave. 140 ft. Decomposed Granite Meade St. 470 ft. Decomposed Granite Mohawk St. 265 ft. Decomposed Granite Monte Vista St. 640 ft. Decomposed Granite Nevada St. 600 ft. Decomposed Granite Ohio St. 310 ft. Decomposed Granite Paradise Ln. 580 ft. Decomposed Granite Peachey Rd. 1150 ft. Decomposed Granite Pine St. 200 ft. Decomposed Granite Pinecrest Terrace 1300 ft. Decomposed Granite Pioneer st.TSf 2330 ft. Decomposed Granite Plaza Ave. 700 ft. Decomposed Granite Prim St. 200 ft. Unopened Ridae Rd. 520 ft. Decomposed Granite Schofield St. 760 ft. Decomposed Granite UNPAVED STREET Page 2 of 5 G:lpub-wrks\eng\dept-adminlLlD\Plaza Ave LID CC PH 5 06.doc r., I~-.--- Summit St. 160 ft. Decomposed Granite Sunrise St. 470 ft. Decomposed Granite Tamarack PI. 460 ft. Decomposed Granite Terrace St. 760 ft. Decomposed Granite Tolman Creek Rd. (S) 2900 ft. Oil Mat Tucker St. 170 ft. Decomposed Granite Walnut St. 1 020 ft. Decomposed Granite Waterline Rd. 830 ft. Decomoosed Granite West St. 400 ft. Decomoosed Granite Wildwood Way 325 ft. Decomposed Granite Total Feet 54,200 ft Total Miles 10.42 miles Some of these streets with decomposed granite surfaces, higher traffic volumes, steeper grades and/or close proximity to creeks represent significant environmental concerns. The streets within this category include: Ashland Loop Road Beach St. Fork St. Glenview Dr.. Granite St. Liberty St. Pinecrest Terrace Plaza Ave. Ridge Rd. Schofield St./Monte Vista St Terrace St. Walnut St. Waterline Rd. Because of these environmental concerns, these streets require more maintenance than usual. Other streets such as Clay St. and Tolman Creek Rd. are collector streets and carry substantial amounts of traffic which also require additional attention. Some streets, such as Plaza Ave. represent the sole unpaved street in the area and bear additional runoff from upstream paved streets. Although most of the unimproved streets are scheduled for improvement only when there is a significant citizen interest to do so, most of the streets within the above priority list are included on the current and extended capital improvement project list. Those streets currently listed on the current CIP plan include Beach St., Liberty St., Walnut St., Schofield/Monte Vista Sts., Plaza Ave., and Waterline Rd. Those streets not on the current LID plan are placed on an extended plan and receive additional attention and effort to move them into the current list. Unfortunately, nearly all of the "easy' LID's have been completed leaving those projects which are physically constrained or have had strong opposition voiced by the adjacent ownership. One of the most common sources of opposition results where lots have frontage on multiple streets. Approximately half of the lots on Plaza Avenue fall into this category with the lots on the west side of Plaza having a front yard on Park Street and rear frontage on Plaza Avenue. Most of the residents with rear yard frontage have little interest in improving Plaza Avenue while those on the east side of the street have tried for years to form the Plaza Avenue LID. In reviewing our records it appears that petitions were prepared and circulated in 1975, 1977, 1981, 1989, 1991, 1999 and 2005. Resolution No. 99-09 which set specific limits on LID assessments and provided for City participation on LID's has spurred additional interest in improving the street and staff has received several requests to form this LID. A neighborhood meeting was held in August of this year with twelve persons in attendance representing seven of the sixteen lots within the proposed assessment district. A petition (copy attached) was also presented with signatures representing six lots or 37.5 percent of the total assessment base. Given the history of this street and the numerous past attempts to gain a majority percentage on the petitions it is suggested that the Council initiate the LID process. Page 3 of 5 G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept.admin\LID\Plaza Ave LID CC PH 5 06.doc r r~' It is estimated that under current construction costs, the improvement of Plaza Avenue would cost $181,000. Under Resolution No. 99-09 the assessment rates and credits would be as follows: I. ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST Proposed Fundina: II. ENGINEERING & ADMINISTRATION III. PROJECT TOTAL Contingency $ TOTAL $ $ $ IV. CREDITS Sidewalk Storm Drain Paving Engineering 60% of $ 20,200.00 $ 75% of $ 5,625.00 $ 20% of $ 129,175.00 $ 50% of $ 26,000.00 $ SUBTOTAL $ $ V. TOTAL ASSESSABLE COST VI. TOTAL ASSESSABLE UNITS VII. COMPUTED COST PER UNIT VIII. MAX COST PER UNIT IX. ADDITIONAL CITY PARTICIPATION RESULTING FROM CAP EXCEEDENCE X. AMOUNT PAID BY OWNERS XI. AMOUNT PAID BY CITY $ 148,225.00 6,775.00 155,000.00 26,000.00 181,000.00 12,120.00 4,218.75 25,835.00 13,000.00 55,173.75 125,826.25 16 $ $ $ 7,864.14 4,911.00 47,250.25 $ $ 78,576.00 43.4% 102,424.00 56.6% Related City Policies: AMC Chapter 13.20 sets forth the requirements regulations of Local Improvement Districts. A summary of Section 13.20 follows: 13.20 Local Improvements and Special Assessments 13.20.010 Definitions 13.20.050 Hearing on Improvement Resolution 13.20.060 Method of Assessment 13.20.070 Notice of Assessment 13.20.020 Initiation of Local Improvements 13.20.080 Address To Which Notices Should Be Sent 13.20.030 Content of Improvement Resolution 13.20.040 Notice of Hearing Regarding Improvement Resolution 13.20.090 Deficit Assessments or Refunds 13.20.100 Rebates and Credits Page 4 of 5 G:\pub-wrl<s\eng\dept-adminILID\Plaza Ave LID CC PH 5 06.doc T - ~.t. 1 13.20.110 Description of Real Property; Effect of Error In Name of Owner 13.20.160 Manner of Doing Work 13.20.170 Curative Provisions 13.20.120 Lien Records and Foreclosure Proceedings 13.20.130 Errors in Assessment Calculations 13.20.140 Installment Payments of Assessments 13.20.145 Deferral of Assessment Payments 13.20.150 Abandonment of Proceedings Council Options: Following the public hearing the Council may: A. Direct any modification to the improvement that it deems necessary and approve the LID by approval of the attached resolution (Resolution to be read by title only) OR B. Approve the LID as presented by staff by approval of the attached resolution. OR C. Delay or deny entirely the formation of the Plaza Ave. LID. 13.20.180 Construction of Improvement: Bids 13.20.190 Reassessments 13.20.200 Apportionment of Liens Upon Partition 13.20.210 Remedies 13.20.220 Severability Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the resolution authorizing and ordering the improvement of Plaza Ave. under the Plaza Ave. LID No. 85. Potential Motions: Council may move to approve the attached resolution authorizing and ordering improvements to Plaza Ave. for the Plaza Ave. LID No. 85. OR Council may move to delay or deny the approval of the attached resolution. Attachments: Resolution wi Exhibit A Vicinity Map LID Boundary Map Petition Letters from Property Owners Proposed Assessment List Page 5 of 5 G:'4:!ub-wrks\eng\depl-admin\LID\Plaza Ave LID CC PH 5 06.doc T" r., RESOLUTION NO 06 - A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS TO PLAZA AVE. CONSISTING OF CURBS, PAVING, SIDEWALKS, DRAINAGE AND ASSOCIATED WORK BY FORMATION OF THE PLAZA AVE. LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 85 AND AUTHORIZING THE ASSESSMENT OF THE COST OF THE IMPROVEMENT AGAINST PROPERTY TO BE BENEFITED AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO BORROW MONEY AND ISSUE AND SELL NOTES FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING INTERIM FINANCING FOR THE ACTUAL COST OF THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT. RECITALS: A. The Council has declared by resolution its intention to develop the improvements described in the above title and to assess upon each lot or part of lot benefited by the improvement its proportional share of the cost of the improvement; and B. Notice of such intention was duly given, a public hearing was held and the Council finds that such improvements are of benefit to the City and all property to be assessed will be benefited to the extent of the probable amount of the respective assessments to be levied for the costs. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES: SECTION 1. A local improvement district is created and shall consist of all the tax lots described in the attached Exhibit A. The district shall be called the Plaza Ave. Local Improvement District No. 85. SECTION 2. The Council intends to make local improvements to provide the improvements described in the above title. Such improvements will be in accordance with costs estimated to be $181,000.00, of which $78,576.00 will be paid by special assessments on benefited properties. Costs will be allocated based on $4,911.00 per unit or potential unit of assessment. Lots will be assessed as specified on the attached Exhibit A. SECTION 3. The City of Ashland is authorized to borrow money and issue and sell notes for the purpose of providing interim financing for the actual cost of the local improvement. The notes may be payable from the proceeds of any bonds, issuance of additional notes or from any other sources from which the bonds are payable. This borrowing shall be issued according to the terms of ORS 223.235.(7). Page 1 of 2 G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\L1D\L1D Resolution No. 06 Plaza Ave 506.doc T SECTION 4. The City of Ashland expects to make expenditures from its available funds to pay for the costs of the improvement project. The City reasonably expects to issue bonds or other obligations (the "Reimbursement Bonds") and to use the proceeds of the Reimbursement Bonds to reimburse the City for the expenditures it makes from its available funds for the improvement project. To permit interest on the Reimbursement Bonds to be excludable from gross income, the Internal Revenue Code of the United States requires that the City declare its intent to reimburse itself from Reimbursement Bond proceeds with 60 days after the expenditures are made. SECTION 5. The assessment imposed upon benefited properties is characterized as an assessment for local improvement pursuant to ORS 305.583(4). SECTION 6. The City Recorder is directed to prepare the estimated assessment of the respective lots within the local improvement district and file it in the lien records of the City. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code 2.04.090 and duly PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of ,2006 John Morrison, Mayor Approved as to form: Mike Franell, City Attorney Page 2 of 2 G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\L1D\L1D Resolution No. 06 Plaza Ave 506.doc <( c co J: X W LL o I-- Z W ~ I--WW U)>:J OOZ UO::W 00..> W~< ~W~ ~J: -I-- 1--0:: ~OD.. LL I-- o ...J 0:: W 0.. coooooooooooooooo MNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN NIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIO co ,.... ,.... ....... ,.... ,.... ....... ....... ....... ...... ....... ...... ...... ,.... ...... ...... (J)o>o>o>o>O)mmcnmmmmQ)mm ~a:a:a:a:a:a:a:a:a:a:a:a:a:a:a: >000000000000000 "'0"0"0"0-0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0"'0"0"0 C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C o m m m m m m m m m CO m m m m m :5:i::E:E:C:C:C:C:C:E:E:i::E:E:C:C C3~~~~~~~~~~~~~.:2.:2 Ql Ql Ql Ql -cQlQl ::J::J::J::J m ::::J:J C c: c c. w 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~ "Ol~~~~~~~ ~--'iiii~1[1[1[~ V alcovo ;;;~~oo~bR ......0l0ln. .......__0) Ql Ql iii 2 4it:. Qj~~ a: ~ e> :>..~ co ~Ql ~~~ '" ~~ Jl~cri -g~ 2.~~;:~ a:~c5lijt:."'G> c'<: .E ~-E.5l ~~::i~~ .5lzs.e 4i~~ f"<"-E" ~E~E-g.~~ ;f~t5~~~~ AI j t:. -E"..: ::J (; ::c::c 4lClJ\;Q)iiQ) ~~~~~~ (jj(jjrnrnrnrn ~~~~~~ t'O m m m m m 0.0.0.0.0.0. oovovo COlOvMNO 000000 ....... ....... ,.... 'II"""" 'II"""" Ql Ql ::J ::J C C Ql Ql > > ~ ~ '" '" N N '" '" 1[1[ CD~ '" '" -; 4i Qj 0. ~ 3: C ~ ::: c E Ql 0 .<:.<: 0."-- .! c~ rn Ql fi.;g :c ::::J '" C w:.:: m....; ~e e -c o lij rn Ql 2 ui ~ '" ::J .0 rn .C :0 m ~ 0. '" lli --. Cl oi '" o c 2 .~ U~ - ~ ?:- '" >- tV .C 0 C>.Q--' C C> ~ ~ ~.c :S ~ :.:: c.c1: ::J 0 0> ::crn:::i 0000000000000000 C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C! 'I(""""'I(""""~""""""""""""""""-T"""""""""""''''''''''''''''''' 0; 0;0;0;0; 0;0;0;0;0; 0; mO; 0; 0;0; ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .c => Iii ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ;EOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C! ~,.....,.....,.....,.....,.....,.....,.....,.....,.....,.....,.....,.....,.....,.....,.....,..... 0.,.....,.....,.....,.....,.....,.....,.....,.....,.....,.....,.....,.....,.....,.....,.....,..... mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ U~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I o~~ ~I~~I~~ 'I("""",.....,.....,.-..-,.....'I(""""..-'I(""""......'I(""""......,......,.....~ w l/) ~ "0 "0 <( -<t-<t -<t-<t-<t-<tNN-<t NNNN.><:.><:N ~~~~mm~ aHll al al . . al .. .NC'). "<t1O a:>~ m 15150001515 ...J...J...J...J...J...J ...J CCCCCCC o 0 0 0 000 .in.in.in.in.in.in .in .S; .S; .S; .S; .S; .S; .S; '0'0'0'0'0'0'0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 ~ :J ~ ~ ~ :J ~ U)U)U)U)U)U)U) 11l 11l 11l 11l 11l 11l 11l "0 "0 "0 1:l 1:l 1:l 1:l N.~.~.~.~.~.~.~ co...J...J...J...J...J...J...J ~~~~~~~~ I '- '- '- '- '- '- L.. mQlQlQ)Q)Q)Q)Q) ml--I--I--I-I--I--I-- 1010 1'-...... ...... ...... I'-m ......<;-' ,J,...... a:> 0 -<tmo-<tcoC') Nm~Noa:> coma:> 10 CO 10 NI'--<tmIOO o C')C') OC')C') I I . . I I IO~IO~I'-N I'-ool'-mo 1'-0 0 OONOOOOOO 0 ooomoooooooooooo -<tCOCOCOIOCOl'-coC')-<tlOcol'-a:>mo ~IC')C')C')C')~~"""~NNNNNNNC') xOOOO~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~@@@@@@@@@@@@ ,.....,......,.-,.....,...........,.....,.......-,.-..-,.......................'1("""" WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW mcnmmma;(J)O>OlmmmmmQ)a; C')C')C')C')C')C')C')C')C')C')C')C')C')C')C')C') N M ~ ~ w ~ 00 m 0 ~ ~ M ~ ~ w " )( on o .... OJ w ?:- co co :~ f Q. ~ <( ~ co a: o ::; c E " '1' Q '" "9 Cl co .!! i " 9- c:; o o cO I'- ." tti I'- (j Q) "e 0- Q) ~ c o 1:l ~ .... ~ o .~ Ul iii o o ro ~ (3 11l E o .... - 1:l Q) > .i: Q) 1:l Q) .0 .~ c Q) E Ul Ul Q) Ul W 11l ro c -.= Q) ~ I-- :>. c o Ul Q) ro E ~ Q) ~ 11l C ~ o ~ Ul Ul iii o o Q) ~ I-- W I-- o Z ~. /"-.. .~~. "", ",,- , '~ ~, , "L ---.........- . ---...-- -~ I ~ ----! [ ,..: I UJ --~-_1 ~ I ~ I r-________._______~' ~.:.... ---..=;'- --=' ~ ~--~l i ~._..----.__._-_... CITY OF ASHLAND ~A' J 1~~P. HIT ............. ............. ............. .............. ............. ............. ............... ................ ............ ............ :~:~.u I!!.~r :I1111j111~ ::::::::::: ...................... .................... .................... .................... ...... : :::: :::: ::aElP-El: ::: :: ::::::.: .:: t5Dj\:::::::::::: ..................... ............ ............. ........... ........... . .................... ............ . ............ ........... . ..................... ........... . ..................... ..................... ...................... ...................... ..................... .............. ...................... ............. ::::::::::::::::2&)0: .............. ...................... ....................... :1:WA:: ............ ...................... ........... ..................... ................. ................... ...................... ::: ::: :::::::: :2:7.00 ...................... ..................... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . ............. ............ ............ ...................... ............. ............. ............ : : : : : : : : : ; : : ~61l~: ............. ~5iiA;;;::: ..................... ..................... . ........... :::2Mij ............. ........................ 150A;;;......... ::2400: .............. 1~P.A ~ ~ ~ ~ :::...... ................. ..... ....................... ..................... ................. ..... ...................... .............)~~~ :1:5DA::::: ............... . ,----- o 50 -- -- .............. ............... .............. ................ :::::~o:C: ................ ................ ............... ................. IsoJC ~ ~ ~ ~ ......... ........ ......... .......... . ........ ......... .......... ........... ........... ......... ......... ........ ........ ........... ......... ........ ......... ......... ........ ......... .......... ........ ......... .......... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........... ......... ........ ......... ........... ....... ........ ........ .......... ......... ....... .......... ........ ......... ........ ........ ......... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ........ ......... ........ ....... ....... ........ ....... I I CITY OF ASHLAND ENGINEERING DIVISION PROPOSED PLAZAAVE. LID ~ Proposed limit of ~ assessment district ~ Limit of improvements --...-. -'.__..._-~_--l VERDA ST. ..---- .................. ................... :::::3aQ(J. ........... ................ ................ ................. HHW~~~p ................ ................ ::::::360(;:::: .................. .................. ................... .................... HHi~~~~. I I :::::::::::::::.: , ................. I J~~~~~~~5A~ ~_ I !!:mm::m l > ~'m~~~ I ~ :> C( ~~~~~~~~~:.::::;:: - 1! ~ ;5: :YHHH1H ~--- Q: ~~ Hllli~~IH I ~ :::::::::::::::::: i .................... , ::::::::?~9:~ ----1 . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . ................. .. .......... ... i ::::::::::::::::. i ................ J ..... ........ ... i ::..j~9iV:: ................... :::::a60E:::: .............. . ................. ................. ~~~~~~~~~15i)A ............... -----.- .................. .................. ............... ............. ................ ................. .................. :::::m>:Q:::::: ............. .. ................. ................ :: ::: :::;t&!o.":.I.: :::::::::-:iI..~ NEZLAAVE. ...---..-..------..- r------.- , -"---r---___._ f-- -- l- i I k- I I I~- +- I I 1---.- - Legend r~..---~r..--. , r".---'l Taxlots I I 100 150 200 Feet 1 I I N A c._ I I o~ 0 ~ ~ "-z~ ~ O(~ < >-...l ~ < ~ .. ~ ...:t I-l s: uV)~ ~ ~;: CZ) 0 ~ ~ ~ ",,,\,t " - z~ 1/1 .!!! ~... ~!iic:gJ !i!OO~ 10 ~~o~ Q; ...... ...~~g .!! ci o~~~ 0 0 8~~~ 10 N 16 II "fi " - .5 ~ !!! Q) 'a ~ c: ~ 0:: ~ 0 10 ..: II. il N 0 ~ ci lII: U ~ i & t~I" I ~ ~' ,l I c:J , , PETITION FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT LOCATION: Plaza Avenue ASSESSOR MAP: 391E15AD 39IE15DA Received by City Engineer Date Received NOTION TO PETITIONERS: Person signing this petition must be legal owner(s) of record, or purchaser(s) in possession under a recorded land sale contract of real property abutting the proposed street improvement. If title to any parcel of property is in the name of two or more persons, all must sign. Petitioners should sign using their names as they appear on the records of ownership. TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND: . We, the undersigned owners of record of real property in the City of Ashland, Iackson County, Oregon, hereby petition Plaza A venue between Verda Street and NezJa A veune, in accordance with plans and specifications therefore as shall be adopted by the City of Ashland and the ~ost of such paving and improvements be assessed upon the real property benefitted thereby, and that we are the owners of the real property fronting (or benefitting) on said street. NAME (signature) ~ e [,4r/)/- ADDRESS .' t r&.N'/ /PIt nk2q ~e () 0 (c:\cngincer\lid\Plaza Petition. doc) TAX LOT '/50/ /E?(?~ 0:2- I #0 /7 a-o 36C! .3 boo. 3otJO 8-5-05 Dear James H. Olson, I received your letter regarding the possible formation of a Local Improvement District to improve Plaza Avenue, on which my property resides. My husband, Jared, and I reside at 1030 Park St. and are both out of town in August and unable to make the meeting on 8-8- 05. We would both like to express our strong opposition to paving Plaza Avenue. We feel that it would be entirely unnecessary and a waste of the city's time and resources. We very much enjoy living on an unpaved street and feel that it gives our neighborhood character and the feel of a slower pace and a quieter time. We will be back in Ashland on Sept, 1st and would welcome the opportunity to personally voice our overwhelming opposition to the paving of Plaza Ave. proposal if a future meeting is necessary. Sincerely, ~~ Suzanne Cruce August 8,2005 James H. Olson City Surveyorl Project Manager Dear Mr. Olson: I do not favor an L.ID. to improve Plaza Avenue. Ashland has a checkered past in this area and consequently I do not support such a measure for Plaza Avenue. Sincerely, Thomas W. Knudsell 1044 Park Street Ashland,Oregon97520 -r- CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Planning Action 2006-00366 - Annexation, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map change from Jackson County zoning RR-5 (Rural Residential) to City of Ashland zoning M-1 (Industrial) and E-1 (Employment) for an approximately 8.43-acre parcel located at the southern terminus of Jefferson Avenue, immediately north of the railroad tracks and west of Interstate 5. Meeting Date: May 16, 2006 Department: Community Development Contributing Departments: None Approval: Lee Tuneberg (jJf)- Primary Staff Contact: Bill Molnar, 552-2042~ ^"'-- bill@ashland.or.us Secondary Staff Contact: None Estimated Time: 2.0-hours Statement: This item includes a public hearing on the Annexation, Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change and withdrawal from Jackson County Rural Fire Protection District 5 of an approximately 8.43-acre parcel located at the southern terminus of Jefferson Avenue, immediately north ofthe railroad tracks and west of Interstate 5. At its meeting of April 11, 2006, the Planning Commission granted approval ofa Site Review, Physical Constraints Review Permit, Tree Removal Permit and an Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards for the construction of the first phase of the project, which include construction of an industrial building approximately 41,000 square feet in size, parking areas and landscape installation. The completion of Jefferson A venue is required to serve the site. Findings, Conclusions and Orders of that decision are contained in the record (pages 1-12). Additionally, the Commission found that the application complied with all relevant approval criteria for Annexations as described in the Annexation Chapter 18.108 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. Background: The application involves annexation and subsequent development of Phase 1 of a multi-phase light manufacturing business upon an 8.43-acre parcel located to the south side of the proposed extension of Jefferson Avenue. The property is located within Ashland's Urban Growth Boundary, but outside the existing City Limits. The Ashland Comprehensive Plan identifies the future zoning of the property as a mix of both Industrial (M-l) and Employment (E-l) districts. Jefferson Avenue, an existing fully improved City Street, abuts the east and northwest boundaries of the property. Public utilities are installed in both existing segments of street. As part of the annexation request, Jefferson A venue will be constructed through the project site and 1 r., r II -.'-.rr---r- thereby complete the final segment of the public street. The applicant intends to construct a 41,000 square foot light manufacturing facility specifically intended to provide a home base for Brammo Motor Sports LLC, an automobile design, research, fabrication and assembly operation. Staff Recommendation: The Planning Commission found, by an 8-to-1 vote, that the proposed Annexation complied with all relevant approval criteria for Annexations as described in the Annexation Chapter 18.108 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. Staff recommends the Council approve the request for Annexation. The Council may consider attaching other conditions, which they deem relevant to meet the criteria for approval. Potential Motions: Move to approve the request for Annexation, Zone Change and withdrawal from Jackson County Rural Fire Protection District 5 of an approximately 8.43-acre parcel located at the southern terminus of Jefferson Avenue, immediately north of the railroad tracks and west of Interstate 5. Move to approve the request for Annexation, Zone Change and withdrawal from Jackson County Rural Fire Protection District 5 of an approximately 8.43-acre parcel located at the southern terminus of Jefferson Avenue, immediately north of the railroad tracks and west of Interstate 5 with the attached following conditions. Move to deny the request for Annexation, Zone Change and withdrawal from Jackson County Rural Fire Protection District 5 of an approximately 8.43-acre parcel located at the southern terminus of Jefferson Avenue, immediately north of the railroad tracks and west ofInterstate 5. Attachments: The record of the application is attached. 2 T .1:- CITY Of ASHLAND RECORD FOR PLANNING ACTION 2006-00366 PLANNING ACTION: #2006-00366 SUBJECT PROPERTY: Jefferson Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Craig Bramscher DESCRIPTION: Request for Annexation, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map change from Jackson County zoning RR-5 (Rural Residential) to City of Ashland zoning M-1 (Industrial) and E-1 (Employment) for an approximately 8.43-acre parcel located on Jefferson A ve. The application is to develop a specialty automobile design, research, fabrication, and assembly campus in phases. The completion of Jefferson Avenue is required to serve the site. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNA TION: Industrial and Employment; PROPOSED ZONING: M-1, E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 1E 14 A; TAX LOT: 1104. Date 5-9-06 4-26-06 5-2-06 3-22-06 3-22-06 4-11-06 4-11-06 5-4-06 4-11-06 4-4-06 4-3-06 3-31-06 2-28-06 !!!m Findings, Conclusions and Orders for PA-2006-00366 dated 4-11-06 Mailed Notice of Public Hearing before Council (5-16-06), related criteria, mailing labels and newspaper Notice of Public Hearing Irrevocable Consent to Annexation Mailed Notice of Public Hearing before Planning Commission (4-11-06), related criteria, mailing labels and Affidavit of Mailing Newspaper Public Hearing Notices Planning Commission minutes Planning Department Staff Report Tree Commission Planning Application Review Letter from Ashland Chamber of Commerce in support of the application Letter from Talent Irrigation District Letter from Eric Niemeyer, Jackson County Roads E-mail from David Pyles, ODOT Applicant's Findings and Planning Application Paae # 1-12 13-16 17-19 20-24 25-26 27-30 31-45 46 47 48 49 50 51-92 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 2006 IN THE MA TIER OF PLANNING ACTION #2006-00366, a request for Annexation, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map change from Jackson County zoning RR-5 (Rural Residential) to City of Ashland zoning M-l (Industrial) and E-l (Employment) for an approximately 8.43-acre parcel located on Jefferson Ave. The application is to develop a specialty automobile design, research and fabrication and assembly campus in phases. The application includes a request for the Site Review Approval of the first phase of the project including an industrial building approximately 41 ,000 square feet in size, parking areas and landscape installation. The completion of J efferson Avenue is required to serve the site, and a Physical Constraints Review Permit is required for the design and installation of the Jefferson Ave. crossing ofthe existing creek running south to north through the property. An Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards is requested to not include a front entrance directly facing Jefferson A venue. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove five trees greater than six inches diameter at breast height or greater in the building locations. APPLICANT: Craig Bramscher -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECITALS: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS 1) Tax lot 1104 of391E 14A is located at the southern terminus of Jefferson Avenue, immediately north or and adjacent to the railroad track and west of Interstate 5. 2) The applicant is requesting Annexation, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map change from Jackson County zoning RR-5 (Rural Residential) to City of Ashland zoning M-l (Industrial) and E-l (Employment) for an approximately 8.43-acre parcel. The application is to develop a specialty automobile design, research and fabrication and assembly campus in phases. The application includes a request for the Site Review Approval of the first phase of the project including an industrial building approximately 41 ,000 square feet in size, parking areas and landscape installation. The completion of J efferson Avenue is required to serve the site, and a Physical Constraints Review Permit is required for the design and installation of the Jefferson Ave. crossing of the existing creek running south to north through the property. An Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards is requested to not include a front entrance directly facing Jefferson A venue. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove five trees greater than six inches diameter at breast height or greater in the building locations. 3) An annexation may be approved if the proposed request for annexation conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, with the following approval criteria described in 18.106.030- Approval Standards. Planning Action 2006-00366 Applicant: Craig Bramscher Planning Commission Findings, Conclusions and Orders Page 1 of 12 / A. The land is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. B. The proposed zoning for the annexed area is in conformance with the designation indicated on the Comprehensive Plan Map, and the project, if proposed concurrently with the annexation, is an allowed use within the proposed zoning. C. The land is currently contiguous with the present City limits. D. Adequate City facilities for the provision of water to the site as determined by the Public Works Department; the transport of sewage from the site to the waste water treatment plant as determined by the Public Works Department; the provision of electricity to the site as determined by the Electric Department; urban storm drainage as determined by the Public Works Department can and will be provided to and through the subject property. Unless the City has declared a moratorium based upon a shortage of water, sewer, or electricity, it is recognized that adequate capacity exists system-wide for these facilities. E. Adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. For the purposes of this section "adequate transportation" for annexations consists of vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian and transit transportation meeting the following standards: 1. For vehicular transportation a 2{)' wide paved access exists, or can and will be constructed, along the full frontage of the project site to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. All streets adjacent to the annexed area shall be improved, at a minimum, to a half-street standard with a minimum 20' driving surface. The City may, after assessing the impact of the development, require the full improvement of streets adjacent to the annexed area. All streets located within annexed areas shall be fully improved to city standards. Where future street dedications are indicated on the City's Street Dedication Map or required by the City, provisions shall be made for the dedication and improvement of these streets and included with the application for annexation. 2. For bicycle transportation safe and accessible bicycle facilities exist, or can and will be constructed. Should the annexation be adjacent to an arterial street, bike lanes shall be provided on or adjacent to the arterial street. Likely bicycle destinations from the project site shall be determined and safe and accessible bicycle facilities serving those destinations shall be indicated. 3. For pedestrian transportation safe and accessible pedestrian facilities exist, or can and will be constructed. Full sidewalk improvements shall be provided on one side adjacent to the annexation for all streets adjacent to the proposed annexed area. Sidewalks shall be provided as required by ordinance on all streets within the annexed area. Where the project site is within a quarter of a mile of an existing sidewalk system, the sidewalks from the project site shall be constructed to extend and connect to the existing system. Likely pedestrian destinations from the project site shall be determined and the safe and accessible pedestrian facilities serving those destinations shall be indicated. 4. For transit transportation, should transit service be available to the site, or be likely to be extended to the site in the future based on information from the local public transit provider, provisions shall be made for the construction of adequate transit facilities, such as bus shelters and bus turn-out lanes. All required transportation improvements shall be constructed and installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any new structures on the annexed property. Planning Action 2006-00366 Applicant: Craig Bramscher ~ Planning Commission Findings, Conclusions and Orders Page 2 of 12 F. For all residential annexations, a plan shall be provided demonstrating that the development of the entire property will ultimately occur at a minimum density of 90% of the base density for the zone, unless reductions in the total number of units is necessary to accommodate significant natural features, topography, access limitations, or similar physical constraints. The owner or owners of the property shall sign an agreement, to be recorded with the county clerk after approval of the annexation, ensuring that future development will occur in accord with the minimum density indicated in the development plan. For purposes of computing maximum density, portions of the annexed area containing undevelopable areas such as wetlands, floodplain corridor lands, or slopes greater than 35%, shall not be included. G. For all annexations with a density or potential density of four residential units or greater and involving residential zoned lands, or commercial, employment or industrial lands with a Residential Overlay (R-Overlay): 1. 35% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 120% of median income; or 2. 25% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below '100% of median income; or 3. 20% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 80% of median income; or 4. 15% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 60% of median income; or 5. Title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development is transferred to a non-profit (IRC 501 (3)(c)) affordable housing developer or comparable Development Corporation for the purpose of complying with subsection 2 above. The land shall be located within the project and all needed public facilities shall be extended to the area or areas proposed for transfer. Ownership of the land shall be transferred to the affordable housing developer or Development Corporation prior to commencement of the project. The total number of affordable units described in this section G shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. Properties providing affordable units as part of the annexation process shall qualify for a maximum density bonus of 25 percent. H. One or more of the following standards are met: 1. The proposed area for annexation is to be residentially zoned, and there is less than a five-year supply of vacant and redevelopable land in the proposed land use classification within the current city limits. "Redevelopable land" means land zoned for residential use on which development has already occurred but on which, due to present or expected market forces, there exists the likelihood that existing development will be converted to more intensive residential uses during the planning period. The five- year supply shall be determined from vacant and redevelopable land inventories and by the methodology for land need projections from the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan; or 2. The proposed lot or lots will be zoned E-1 or C-1 under the Comprehensive Plan, and that the applicant will obtain Site Review approval for an outright permitted use, or special permitted use concurrent with the annexation request; or 3. A current or probable public health hazard exists due to lack of full City sanitary sewer or water services; or 4. Existing development in the proposed annexation has inadequate water or sanitary sewer service; or the service will become inadequate within one year; or 5. The area proposed for annexation has existing City of Ashland water or sanitary sewer service extended, Planning Action 2006-00366 Applicant: Craig Bramscher 3 Planning Commission Findings. Conclusions and Orders Page 3 of 12 connected, and in use, and a signed "consent to annexation" agreement has been filed and accepted by the City of Ashland; or 6. The lot or lots proposed for annexation are an "island" completely surrounded by lands within the city limits. (ORD 2792,1997; ORD 2895,2003) The criteria for Site Review approval are described in 18.72.070 as follows: The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655, 1991; Ord 2836 S6, 1999) The following criteria for approval of a Physical Constraints Permit are described in 18.62.040 I. 1. 1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. 2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. 3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. (Ord 2834 S1, 1998) (Ord. 2834, Amended, 11/03/1998, Section 18.62.040 J "deleted"; Ord 2808, Added, 12/02/1997) . The following criteria for issuance of Tree Removal Permit are described in 18.61.080. An applicant for a Tree Removal-Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit. A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal. 1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public Planning Action 2006-00366 Applicant: Craig Bramscher t Planning Commission Findings, Conclusions and Orders Page 4 of 12 I I safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning. 2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and 2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.(ORD 2883 added 06/04/2002) An administrative variance to the requirements of this chapter may be granted with respect to the requirements of the Site Design Standards adopted under section 18.72.080 if, on the basis of the application, investigation and evidence submitted, all of the following circumstances are found to exist: A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of the proposed use of a site; B. Approval of the variance will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; C. Approval of the variance is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Chapter; and D. The variance requested is the minimum variance, which would alleviate the difficulty. 4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on April II, 2006, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission approved Planning Action 2006-00366 Applicant: Craig Bramscher 5 Planning Commission Findings, Conclusions and Orders Page 5 of 12 the application for Site Review, Physical Constraints Review Permit, Tree Removal Permit and Administrative Variance to Site Design and Use Standards subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. Through a motion, the Commission also made a finding to forward onto the City Council that the project meets all applicable approval criteria described in the annexation section of the Land Use Ordinance. Now, therefore, The Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS F or the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "0" Hearing Minutes, Notices, and Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the application to develop a specialty automobile design, research and fabrication and assembly campus in phases meets the criteria for Site Review approval described in 18.72.070. Specifically, this application involves Phase 1 of a potential multi-phase light industrial complex. The applicant intends to construct a 41,000 square foot light manufacturing facility specifically intended to provide a home base for Brammo Motor Sports LLC, an automobile design, research, fabrication and assembly business. Given the location ofthe property and the intended Industrial (M-l) zoning designation, the project is only subject to Ashland's Basic Site Review Standards, as well as additional requirements relating to the installation of street trees, parking lot landscaping, bicycle parking and the provision of refuse and recycling areas. Consistent with the aforementioned standards, the Commission finds that applicant has presented a project with a prominent street presence. Off-street parking spaces are situated to the side of the structure and will be landscaped in accordance with the City's landscaping standards for parking areas. Approximately 235 lineal feet of continuous landscaping will be installed along the west boundary of the parking area, adjacent to the small creek and adjoining riparian area. Additionally, landscaped Planning Action 2006-00366 Applicant: Craig Bramscher ~ Planning Commission Findings, Conclusions and Orders Page 6 of 12 I I medians are provided central to the parking area and along the southern boundary of the property. These areas will allow for the planting and establishment of taller shade trees, low-level shrubs and groundcovers. The Commission further finds that provisions have been made to adequately serve the project by public facilities. Such public facilities and utilities have been identified on a site plan and discussed in the application's written findings of fact. Specifically, water, sewer, electric and storm drain utilities are currently available in Jefferson Avenue and will be extended in conjunction with the improvements to Jefferson Avenue. Jefferson Avenue will be extended through the property and constructed to City Street Standards, ultimately linking the two existing, improved City Street sections abutting the east and west boundaries of the project site. Full street improvements are proposed, including two travel lanes, on-street parking, curb and gutter, storm drains and public sidewalks. Additionally, a bridge or box culvert will be constructed to span the seasonal creek that bisects to property. 2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the application to develop a specialty automobile design, research and fabrication and assembly campus in phases meets the criteria for approval of a Physical Constraints Permit described in 18.62. A Physical Constraints Review Permit is required for the installation of a crossing over the existing seasonal drainage. The final segment of Jefferson A venue will be constructed to City street standards and extended through the property. This represents the logical routing and completion of the street, ultimately providing a continuous link between its intersections with Washington Street both north and east of the project. The Commission finds that the preliminary bridge or box culvert crossing design will handle flows resulting from a 100-year flood event. Further, the crossing and roadway design will reduce disturbance to the creek and adjacent riparian areas through minimizing the need for large fill slopes normally associated with a standard culvert crossing. The road width at the crossing has been narrowed in order to minimize the overall area of disturbance to the riparian area. The proposed width will comprise two travel lanes and public sidewalks, but curbside, on-street parking will be omitted from this segment of street. The site plan identifies both the top of bank as well as a line demarcating areas 20-feet back from the top of bank. The unaltered creek channel and adjoining riparian immediately west ofthe parking area will range from 11O-feet to 140-feet in width. The Commission finds that the 20-foot wide swath adjacent to the top of bank will provide an area for the applicant to mitigate impactsofthe proposed crossing. This band will allow the installation of a variety of riparian trees and plants, including both evergreen and deciduous trees. Additionally, the application proposes to detain and filter run-off from the building's roof and other impervious surfaces through a series ofbio-swales situated along top of bank as well as adjacent to the rear property line. Appropriate shrubs, grasses and trees will be installed within the designated bio-swale areas. Storm water run-off will be collected by individual bio-swales, and directed to a dispersion French drain and overflow located within the riparian zone. 2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the application to develop a specialty automobile design, research and fabrication and assembly campus in phases meets the criteria for approval of a Tree Removal Permit described in 18.61. Planning Action 2006-00366 Applicant: Craig Bramscher 7 Planning Commission Findings, Conclusions and Orders Page 7 of 12 Of the 34 existing trees identified on site, eight are proposed for removal. The Commission finds that the removal of three of eight trees is justified, due to the need for the extension of J efferson Avenue in a fashion that logically links to already established sections of City roadway. The other five trees slated for removal are situated within the tentative building footprints associated with future development phases. The Commission has approved this request along with a condition that defers the evaluation of the removal of the additional five trees until Site Review applications are made for future project phases. 2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the application to develop a specialty automobile design, research and fabrication and assembly campus in phases meets the criteria for approval for an Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards as described in 18.72.080. As noted in the Staff Report, Basic Site Review Standard II-C-1a) Orientation and Scale states that: "Buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street rather than the parking area." Site Design and Use Chapter 18.72.020 specifically defines the "Primary Orientation" as the direction of the front of the building with the main entrance to the public. The Commission finds that the finished grade of the building envelope combined with the location of the building at the curvature in Jefferson Avenue, presents some unusual aspects associated with the site. Further, the Commission believes that the proposed use will not attract a large amount of pedestrian traffic, so that some flexibility with regards to the design of the front of the building is justified. The Commission finds that while the application requests relief from the noted building orientation standard, the proposed building design still incorporates a prominent front entrance element intended to provide an interior showroom area to display finished sports cars. The front showroom area, however, is accessed from two sets of double storefront doors located on the east and west sides of the building. Because of finished building grades and the location of the lot on the curve in Jefferson Avenue, the two entrances will be clearly visible from the roadway as well as the public sidewalk. Additionally, the applicant has intended to create a relationship between the front of the building and the public street by creating a "monumental entrance with direct pedestrian access from the street/sidewalk to the building interior." SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the application for the Site Review approval, a Physical Constraints Review Permit, Tree Removal Permit and an Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards to construct the first phase of a multi-phase project that includes an industrial building approximately 41,000 square feet in size, parking areas and associated landscape installation is supported by evidence contained within the record. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each ofthe following conditions, we approve Planning Action #2006-00366 with respect to the request for Site Review approval, a Physical Constraints Review Permit, Tree Removal Permit and an Administrative Variance. Further, if any Planning Action 2006-00366 Applioant: Craig Bramscher ~ Planning Commission Findings, Conclusions and Orders Page 8 of 12 one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2006-00366 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1. That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2. That the property owner sign in favor of a future local improvement district for improvements associated with the intersection of Washington Street and Highway 66. Such improvements may include but not be limited to the installation of a traffic signal and/or construction of a turn lane. 3. That all landscape medians within proposed off-street parking areas and along the south property line shall be a minimum of seven to eight feet in width. Such revisions shall be included on the final landscaping plan submitted for review and approval by the Staff Advisor prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. That the applicant shall submit an electric distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. Additionally, the placement of any portion of the structure in the public utility easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric Department. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department prior to building permit submittal. Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. 5. That all easements for sewer, water, electric, and streets shall be granted as required by the City of Ashland. The easements shall be recorded as required by Ashland Engineering prior to issuance of a building permit. 6. That the necessary area for street improvements shall be dedicated as public street right-of-way. The right-of-way dedication shall include the area necessary for bridge construction and retaining walls to be installed with the street improvements. That the right-of-way dedication shall be submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning and Engineering divisions prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. That a final utility plan for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division and Building Divisions prior to issuance of a building permit. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins. All services shall be installed prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for a building on the property. 8. That the engineered construction drawings for Jefferson Avenue shall comply with City of Ashland Street Standards including street lights, pavement width and the installation of public sidewalks. Engineered construction drawings for the Jefferson Avenue improvements shall be submitted for review and approval by Ashland Planning and Public Works Departments prior to issuance of a building permit. The proposed bridge or box culvert creek crossing shall be engineered and designed Planning Action 2006-00366 Applicant: Craig Bramscher " . Planning Commission Findings, Conclusions and Orders Page 9 of 12 to accommodate a 100-year flood flow. All street improvements shall be installed prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for a building on the property. 9. That a revised site, size and species specific landscaping plan incorporating the recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission consistent with Ashland's Site Design and Use Standards shall be submitted for review and approval by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of a building permit. 10. That an irrigation system plan shall be submitted with the building permit submittals for review and approval of the Staff Advisor. 11. Landscaping and irrigation systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. That at the time of planting and prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy, not less than two inches of mulch shall be added in all non-turf landscaped areas in the developed area after the installation of living plant materials. 12. That a Verification Permit in accordance with 18.61.042.B shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to removal of the approved trees on site and prior to site work, st-orage of materials and/or issuance of a building permit. The Verification Permit is to inspect the identifications of trees to be removed and the installation of tree protection fencing. The tree protection shall be installed according to the approved Tree Protection and Removal Plan prior to site work, storage of materials and/or issuance of a building permit. 13. That street trees, one per 30 feet of street frontage, shall be installed along the frontage of the development in accordance with the approved final landscaping plan and prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. All street trees shall be chosen from the adopted Street Tree List and shall be installed in accordance with the specifications noted in Section E of the Site Design and Use Standards. The street trees shall be irrigated. 14. That the color, texture, dimensions, shape and building materials for all exterior components of the project be included at the time of submission of building permit. The information shall be consistent with the colors, texture, dimensions and shape of materials and building details proposed and approved as part of the land use application. 15. That the buildings shall meet Solar Setback B in accordance with 18.70.040.B. The building permit submittals shall demonstrate compliance with Solar Setback B. 16. All exterior lighting in the interior of the site shall be appropriately shrouded so as not to permit direct illumination of any adjacent land. Lighting detail, including a scaled plan, shall be submitted to the Staff Advisor for review and approval with the building permit submittals. 17. That location of mechanical equipment shall be shown on the site plan and elevations in the building permit submittals. Mechanical equipment shall be minimally visible from a public street. Planning Action 2006-00366 Applicant: Craig Sramscher 10 Planning Commission Findings, Conclusions and Orders Page 10 of 12 18. That required bicycle parking spaces with a minimum of 50% sheltered from the weather shall be installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The inverted u-rack shall be used for the bicycle parking and shall be installed in accordance with design and rack standards in 18.92.040.1 and J prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The building permit submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking spacing and coverage requirements are met in accordance with 18.92.040.1. 19. That the opportunity-to- recycle and solid waste receptacles shall be shown on the building permit submittals, and shall be designed and screened in accordance with 18.72.115.A. 20. That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department, including the installation of required fire hydrants and fire apparatus access and turnaround requirements shall be complied with prior to issuance of the building permit or the use of combustible materials, whichever applicable. Fire Department requirements shall be included on the engineered construction documents for public facilities. 21. That if a fire protection vault is required, the vault shall not be located in the sidewalk. 22. That a sign permit shall be obtained prior to installation of new signage. Signage shall meet the requirements of Chapter 18.96. 23. That public utility easements on the property shall be shown on the building permit submittals. No portion of the structure shall intrude into a public utility easement without approval by the Ashland Engineering Division. 24. That sediment/silt fencing be installed approximately 20-feet back from the top of bank to prevent grade changes and the placement offill within the protective 20-foot wide riparian buffer strip. The fencing shall be installed prior to the issuance of a building permit and before any changes are made to the site's natural grades. 25. That the bridge or box culvert stream crossing shall be designed only after thorough consultation with City Planning and Engineering Staff The applicant shall demonstrate that the design and proposed installation employs the least invasive installation methods and complies with relevant standards for Floodplain Corridor Lands. 26. That the creek channel, adjoining riparian area and adjacent 20-foot buffer strip (approximately 110- feet to 140-feet in width) shall be protected in perpetuity by a conservation easement to the benefit if e City of Ashl:wd d recorded on the deed and survey plat (if applicable) prescribing the co diti s and e t . t ns set forth in the approv~d land use application. f)6 ( rff/ tYA Date. 1 "'y Planning Action 2006-00366 Applicant: Craig Bramscher II Planning Commission Findings, Conclusions and Orders Page 11 of 12 Planning Action 2006-00366 Applicant: Craig Bramscher 1;2- Planning Commission Findings, Conclusions and Orders Page 12 of 12 I I r~' Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 CITY OF ASHLAND PLANNING ACTION: #2006-00366 SUBJECT PROPERTY: Jefferson Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Craig Bramscher DESCRIPTION: Request for Annexation, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map change from Jackson County zoning RR-5 (Rural Residential) to City of Ashland zoning M-1 (Industrial) and E-1 (Employment) for an approximately 8.43-acre parcel located on Jefferson A ve. The application is to develop a specialty automobile design, research, fabrication, and assembly campus in phases. The completion of Jefferson A venue is required to serve the site. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGN A TION: Industrial and Employment; PROPOSED ZONING: M-1, E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP#: 391E 14A; TAX LOT: 1104. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING: May 16,2006, 7:00 PM, Ashland Civic Center ffJ 'B 1.- fJ I , --" Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's oIIce 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 Tide I). If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Department, at 541-488-5305. II I aunet :comm ANNEXATIONS-APPROVAL STANDARDS 18.106.030 Approval standards An annexation may be approved if the proposed request for annexation conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, with the following approval criteria: . A. The land is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. B. The proposed zoning for the annexed area is in conformance with the designation indicated on the Comprehensive Plan Map, and the project, i proposed concurrently with the annexation, is an allowed use within the proposed zoning. C. The land is currently contiguous with the present City limits. D. Adequate City facilities for the provision of water to the site as determined by the Public Works Department; the transport of sewage from the site to the waste water treatment plant as determined by the Public Works Department; the provision of electricity to the site as determined by the Electric Department; urban storm drainage as determined by the Public Works Department can and will be provided to and through the subject property. Unless the City has declared a moratorium based upon a shortage of water, sewer, or electricity, it is recognized that adequate capacity exists system-wide for these facilities. E. Adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. For the purposes of this section "adequate transportation" for annexations consists of vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian and transit transportation meeting the following standards: 1. For vehicular transportation a 20' wide paved access exists, or can and will be constructed, along the full frontage of the project site to the neares fully improved collector or arterial street. All streets adjacent to the annexed area shall be improved, at a minimum, to a half-street standard with a minimum 20' driving surface. The City may, after assessing the impact of the development, require the full improvement of streets adjacent to the annexed area. All streets located within annexed areas shall be fully improved to city standards. Where future street dedications are indicated on the City's Street Dedication Map or required by the City, provisions shall be made for the dedication and improvement of these streets and included with the application for annexation. 2. For bicycle transportation safe and accessible bicycle facilities exist, or can and will be constructed. Should the annexation be adjacent to an arterial street, bike lanes shall be provided on or adjacent to the arterial street. Likely bicycle destinations from the project site shall be determined and safe and accessible bicycle facilities serving those destinations shall be indicated. 3. For pedestrian transportation safe and accessible pedestrian facilities exist, or can and will be constructed. Full sidewalk improvements shall be provided on one side adjacent to the annexation for all streets adjacent to the proposed annexed area. Sidewalks shall be provided as required by ordinance on all streets within the annexed area. Where the project site is within a quarter of a mile of an existing sidewalk system, the sidewalks from the project site shall be constructed to extend and connect to the existing system. Likely pedestrian destinations from the project site shall be determined and the safe and accessible pedestrian facilities serving those destinations shall be indicated. 4. For transit transportation, should transit service be available to the site, or be likely to be extended to the site in the future based on information from the local publiC transit provider, provisions shall be made for the construction of adequate transit facilities, such as bus shelters and bus turn- out lanes. All required transportation improvements shall be constructed and installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any new structures on the annexed property. F. For all residential annexations, a plan shall be provided demonstrating that the development of the entire property will ultimately occur at a minimum density of 90% of the base density for the zone, unless reductions in the total number of units is necessary to accommodate significant natural features topography, access limitations, or similar physical constraints. The owner or owners of the property shall sign an agreement, to be recorded with the county clerk after approval of the annexation, ensuring that future development will occur in accord with the minimum density indicated in the development plan. For purposes of computing maximum density, portions of the annexed area containing undevelopable areas such as wetlands floodplain corridor lands, or slopes greater than 35%, shall not be included. G. For all annexations with a density or potential density of four residential units or greater and involving residential zoned lands, or commercial employment or industrial lands with a Residential Overlay (R-Overlay): 1. 35% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 120% of median income; or 2. 25% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below '100% of median income; or 3. 20% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 80% of median income; or 4. 15% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 60% of median income; or 5. Title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development is transferred to a non-profit (IRC 501(3)(c)) affordable housing developer or comparable Development Corporation for the purpose of complying with subsection 2 above. The land shall be located within the project and al needed public facilities shall be extended to the area or areas proposed for transfer. Ownership of the land shall be transferred to the affordable housing developer or Development Corporation prior to commencement of the project. The total number of affordable units described in this section G shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. Properties providing affordable units as part of the annexation process shall qualify for a maximum density bonus of 25 percent. H. One or more of the following standards are met: 1. The proposed area for annexation is to be residentially zoned, and there is less than a five-year supply of vacant and redevelopable land in the proposed land use classification within the current city limits. "Redevelopable land" means land zoned for residential use on which development has already occurred but on which, due to present or expected market forces, there exists the likelihood that existing development will be converted to more intensive residential uses during the planning period. The five- year supply shall be determined from vacant and redevelopable land inventories and by the methodology for land need projections from the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan; or 2. The proposed lot or lots will be zoned E-1 or C-1 under the Comprehensive Plan, and that the applicant will obtain Site Review approval for an outright permitted use, or special permitted use concurrent with the annexation request; or 3. A current or probable public health hazard exists due to lack of full City sanitary sewer or water services; or 4. Existing development in the proposed annexatio" has inadequate water or sanitary sewer service; or the service will become inadequate within one year; or 5. The area proposed for annexation has existing City of Ashland water or sanitary sewer service extended, connected, and in use, and a signed "consent to annexation" agreement has been filed and accepted by the City of Ashland; or 6. The lot or lots proposed for annexation are an "island" completely surrounded by lands within the city limits. (ORD 2792, 1997) /1- G:\comm-devlplanninglNotices Mailed\2006-OO366 Council Annex _ Brammo 5-16-06.OOc I I PA #2006 00366 391E11.^.2300 .^.SHL\ND CITY Of CITY H.^.LL .\SHLi\ND, OR 97520 PA #2006-00366 391E14A 2301 ASHLAND WAREHOUSE P ARTNRSHP PO BOX 43 MEDFORD, OR 97501 PA #2006-00366 391E14A 2302 BRIMBURLJJR 534 CROWSON RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA #200€J 00366 391E11.^.2301 CITY Of .^.SHL^.ND CITY H.^.LL ASHL\ND, OR 97520 PA#2006-00366 391E14A2303 DWAIN &BUDLLC 801 AVENUE C WHITE CITY, OR 97503 PA #2006-00366 391E14A 2400 HEALY DOUGLAS K/NINA M 3823 CALLE DE LAS FOCAS SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672 PA #2006-00366 391E14BA 700 IPCO DEVELOPMENT CORP 640 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA#2006-00366 391E14A2403 MORRIS RUTH GAYLE PO BOX 850 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA#200€i 00388 391E11BD 100 OREGON STf.TE Of -(f PA #2006-00366 391E14A 2402 REZEK RONALD J 701 MISTLETOE RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA #2006-00366 391E14A 2401 SCOTT TREG 95 SCENIC DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA #2006-00366 391E14AB 2200 YERBA PRIMA INC 740 JEFFERSON AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 P.^. #2006 003€i€i 391E11.\B 2800 ZIEMINSKI BERN:\RD PO BOX 552 TALENT, OR 97510 P A #2006-00366 MCKECHNIE MARK 190 NORTH ROSS LANE MEDFORD, OR 97501 P A #2006-00366 KENCARIN SAGER 545 A STREET AsWand, OR 97520 P A #2006-00366 ClOT A ENGINEERING 274 FOURTH STREET Ashland, OR 97520 P.^. #200€i 00366 BR.:\MSCHER CR.\IG 1500 E.^.ST M.\IN STREET Ashland, OR 97520 Returned /5 PA #2006-00366 39lE14A 1104 BRAMSCHER CRAIG A 7118 HWY 66 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA #2006-00366 39lE14AB 2300 DAVIS ROY/ANDREA D 5205 ROOSTER LN SOMERSET, CA 95684 P.^. #200€i 0036€i 391El1.\ 2101 HE.^.L Y DOUGL^.S K~nNA M 3823 C\LLE DE L\S fOC\S SAN CLEMENTE, C^.92672 RETURNED PA#2006-00366 391E14AB 2100 NEUMAN PROPERTIES & DEVELOPMENT 953 EMIGRANT CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA #2006-00366 391E14AB 2600 RICHARDS TIMOTHY R/GEORGIA 831 HARMONY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA#2006-00366 391E14A2500 ZIEMINSKI BERNARD PO BOX 552 TALENT, OR 97540 P A #2006-00366 BATZER INC 190 NORTH ROSS LANE MEDFORD, OR 97501 P A #2006-00366 POLARIS LAND SURVEYING 274 FOURTH STREET Ashland, OR 97520 Council Annexation Hearing Mailed 4/26/06 For Council Meeting 5/16/06 ATTN: ANDREA (CLASSIFIED) PUBLISH IN LEGAL ADVERTISING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HERBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing on the following with respect to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance will be held before the Ashland City Council on May 16,2006 at 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, OR. At such Public Hearing any person is entitled to be heard, unless the public hearing portion of the review has been closed during a previous meeting. Request for Annexation, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map change from Jackson County zoning RR-S (Rural Residential) to City of Ashland zoning M-1 (Industrial) and E-1 (Employment) for an approximately 8.43-acre parcel located on Jefferson Ave. The application is to develop a specialty automobile design, research and fabrication and assembly campus in phases. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Industrial and Employment; ZONING: M-1, E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 1E 14 A; TAX LOT: 1104. Barbara Christensen City Recorder Publish: 5/1/06 Date e-mailed: 4/14/06 P. O. # 70313 I' CITY OF ASHLAND ENGINEERING DMSION IRREVOCABLE CONSENT TO ANNEXATION The undersigned, referred to in this document as "Owner" whether singular or plural, owns or is the purchaser under a recorded land sale contract of real property in Jackson County, Oregon, described below and referred to in this ,document as "the property": See attached Exhibit "A" In consideration of the application for annexation and subsequent connections from the property to City of Ashland services, Owner declares and agrees that the property shall be held, sold, and conveyed subject to the following covenants, conditions, and restrictions which shall constitute covenants running with the land and shall be binding on all parties, their heirs, successors and assigns, having any right, title, or interest in the property or any part thereof: Whenever a proposal to annex the property is initiated by the City of Ashland or otherwise, Owner shall consent and does consent to the annexation of the property to the City of Ashland. OWner agrees this consent to annexation is irrevocable. Dated thisoL day of ~ , 2006. $~: ~ --.,... . Owner State of Oregon ) ) ss: County of Jackson ) Personally appeared the above named (!((.l+l 9 ~C!.~d acknowledged the foregoing instrum . . OFFICIAL _ IIELODr R DE KORT: , NCJIM'( PUBlIC -ORECC allUSION NO. 372720 tlYOOMMISSIOM EXPIAE8SEPTEMBER 17.2007 (c:\enai-'.doc) ,J:: i; \" [~ 17 MAY 3 ~O()6 City (.If t~shlfmd o Field 0 Dttrct.:. i_. I Coun I I ANNEXATION AGREEMENT , TO DEPOSIT AN AMOUNT SUFFICIENt TO RETIRE ANY OUTSTANDING INDEBTEDNESS OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS Between Craig Bramscher and CITY OF ASHLAND THIS AGREEMENT entered into by and between Crail!: Bramscher. hereinafter referred to as "APPLICANT" and the CITY OF ASHLAND, hereinafter referred to as "CITY", WI1NESSETH: WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.520(2)(b), the CITY elects to pay the bonds of the special districts when such property subject to special district indebtedness is annexed by the CITY. WHEREAS, Ashland Municipal Code, Sections 4.14.020, 14.08.030(F) and 18.106.020(B), require that an applicant for annexation must agree to deposit an amount sufficient to retire any outstanding indebtedness of special districts defined in ORS 222.510 as part of an annexation application. NOW, THEREFORE, as part of the annexation application for the property described in APPENDIX "A", APPLICANT agrees to deposit an amount sufficient to retire any outstanding indebtedness of special district defined in ORS 222.510. In the event that no special district requests from the CITY an amount to be paid to retire indebtedness within one (1) year from the date of annexation, the full amount deposited to the CITY shall be returned to the APPLICANT. In the event that a special district requires an amount less than the amount deposited, the CITY shall return the remainder to the APPLICANT. APPLICANT FOR ANNEXATION: Si~ ~ Date :5J;;;jDb CITY OF ASHLAND: Signed Date P F'C", ,,-"-'. ~,,' 'J ~ r"" [,""" ,"'." lr--"'- ~- ~ ,fi ",.. ~~ ~,.!', . ~ ~ . ~J:': . ~~ ,,:...,~... """'"~.< ",'~' r~ MAY 3 lon6 C:\Documents and Seuings\Kyleen\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKI6B\1etfcrson_Bramscher_Retire_lndebtedness'~;t f II, 'h' I d d v! Y 0 _ r\.S an ' I 6 0 Field 0 Offff-f) [1 Cour Page 2 of3 A parcel of land situated in the Northeast Quarter of Sec Range 1 East, of the Willamette Meridian in Jackson Count described as follows: Commencing at the northeast cornel the Northeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 39 South, F Willamette Meridian in Jackson County, Oregon; thence SOt record West), along the northerly boundary of that parceJ page 375, and Volume 335, page 321; Jackson County, Oregc to a S/BIr x 30" iron pin situated in the southwesterly rj Highway No.5, for the True Point of Beginning; thence cc West (deed record West), along said parcel set forth in' Deed Records, 311.72 feet to a 5/8" x 30" pin situated at thereof; thence South 0002'16" West (deed record South, c the westerly boundary line of those parcels set forth in Volume 335, page 321, and Volume 439, page 482, said Deec 5/8 ,. x 30" iron p'in sit.uated in the northeasterly right c Paciflc Railroad, as claimed by said railroad; thence cor (deed record South, and South 0017' West), 66.42 feet, tc northeasterly right of way of the Southern Pacific Railrc 245, page 480, and Volume 439, page 482, said Deed Recore record location of said railroad, the following courses: foot radius curve to the left, the radial bearings "in ar West and North 35042'56" East (the central angle is 0505~ po~nt of spiral curvature; thence along the arc of a Spil long chord bears North 54052'59" West, 90.79 feet), to a North 5501'04" West 601.29 feet; thence leaving said deec railroad right of way, North 60002'33" Bast, 55.27 feet, situated in the northeasterly right of way of the SoutheI claimed by said railroad; thence leaving said right of We 298.64 feet, to a 5/8" x 30" iron pin; thence East 159.24 pin; thence North 06050'20" East, 42.30 feet, to a 5/8" ~ the southwest corner of that parcel set forth in No. 75-] of Jackson County, Oregon; thence East, along the southeI referred to parcel, 622.96 feet to a 5/8" x 30" iron pin southwesterly right of way of Interstate Highway NO.5; t along said interstate highway right of way, 47.61 feet, t Beginning. EXCEPTING THEREFROM any portion of the hereir. situated within the right of way of the Southern Pacific (Code 5-08, Account #1-062312-0, Map #391E14A, Tax Lot #] HiBm, l'l file://C:\Documents and Settings\molnarb\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 4/27/2006 II r., Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 CITY OF ASHLAND PLANNING ACTION: #2006-00366 SUBJECT PROPERTY: Jefferson Ave. OWNER/APPLICANT: Craig Bramscher DESCRIPTION: Annexation, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map change from Jackson County zoning RR-5 (Rural Residential) to City of Ashland zoning M-1 (Industrial) and E-1 (Employment) for an approximately 8.43-acre parcel located on Jefferson A ve. The application is to develop a specialty automobile design, research and fabrication and assembly campus in phases. The application includes a request for the Site Review Approval of the first phase of the project including an industrial building approximately 41,000 square feet in size, parking areas and landscape installation. The completion of Jefferson A venue is required to serve the site, and a Physical Constraints Review Permit is required for the design and installation of the Jefferson A ve. crossing of the existing creek running south to north through the property. An Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards is requested to not include a front entrance directly facing Jefferson Avenue. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove five trees greater than six inches diameter at breast height or greater in the building locations. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Industrial and Employment; ZONING: M-1, E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 1E 14 A; TAX LOT: 1104 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: April 11, 7:00 PM, Ashland Civic Center r' [] ~- o Oil \~\ \ \ ~ ; tJ 'r!~ 1--- _________ _A__ I~":'n '/ ~ -J ------- cr o " Notice is hereby given that a PlI8L1C HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or ~e to provide sufficient speclficityto afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. A copy of the application, all docunents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the condusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's ofIce at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone nURlber 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title I). If you have questions concerniOQl1his request, please feel free to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, 541-488-5305. ~tJ II ANNEXATIONS - APPROVAL STA-NDARDS 18.106.030 Approval Standar- An annexation may be approved if the pre ~d request for annexation conforms, or can _ ~ made to conform through the imposition of conditions, with the following approval criteria: A. The land is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. B. The proposed zoning for the annexed area is in conformance with the designation indicated on the Comprehensive Plan Map, and the project, if proposed concurrently with the annexation, is an allowed use within the proposed zoning. C. The land is currently contiguous with the present City limits. D. Adequate City facilities for the provision of water to the site as determined by the Public Works Department; the transport of sewage from the site to the waste water treatment plant as determined by the Public Works Department; the provision of electricity to the site as determined by the Electric Department; urban storm drainage as determined by the Public Works Department can and will be provided to and through the subject property. Unless the City has declared a moratorium based upon a shortage of water, sewer, or electricity, it is recognized that adequate capacity exists system-wide for these facilities. E. Adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. For the purposes of this section "adequate transportation" for annexations consists of vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian and transit transportation meeting the following standards: 1. For vehicular transportation a 20' wide paved access exists, or can and will be constructed, along the full frontage of the project site to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. All streets adjacent to the annexed area shall be improved, at a minimum, to a half-street standard with a minimum 20' driving surface. The City may, after assessing the impact of the development, require the full improvement of streets adjacent to the annexed area. All streets located within annexed areas shall be fully improved to city standards. Where future street dedications are indicated on the City's Street Dedication Map or required by the City, proviSions shall be made for the dedication and improvement of these streets and included with the application for annexation. 2. For bicycle transportation safe and accessible bicycle facilities exist, or can and will be constructed. Should the annexation be adjacent to an arterial street, bike lanes shall be provided on or adjacent to the arterial street. Likely bicycle destinations from the project site shall be determined and safe and accessible bicycle facilities serving those destinations shall be indicated. 3. For pedestrian transportation safe and accessible pedestrian facilities exist, or can and will be constructed. Full sidewalk improvements shall be provided on one side adjacent to the annexation for all streets adjacent to the proposed annexed area. Sidewalks shall be provided as required by ordinance on all streets within the annexed area. Where the project site is within a quarter of a mile of an existing sidewalk system, the sidewalks from the project site shall be constructed to extend and connect to the existing system. Likely pedestrian destinations from the project site shall be determined and the safe and accessible pedestrian facilities serving those destinations shall be indicated. 4. For transit transportation, should transit service be available to the site, or be likely to be extended to the site in the future based on information from the local public transit provider, provisions shall be made for the construction of adequate transit facilities, such as bus shelters and bus turn-out lanes. All required transportation improvements shall be constructed and installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any new structures on the annexed property. F. For all residential annexations, a plan shall be proVided demonstrating that the development of the entire property will ultimately occur at a minimum density of 90% of the base density for the zone, unless reductions in the total number of units is necessary to accommodate significant natural features, topography, access limitations, or similar physical constraints. The owner or owners of the property shall sign an agreement, to be recorded with the county clerk after approval of the annexation, ensuring that future development will occur in accord with the minimum density indicated in the development plan. For purposes of computing maximum density, portions of the annexed area containing undevelopable areas such as wetlands, floodplain corridor lands, or slopes greater than 35%, shall not be included. G. For all annexations with a density or potential density of four residential units or greater and involving residential zoned lands, or commercial, employment or industrial lands with a Residential Overlay (R-Overlay): 1. 35% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 120% of median income; or 2. 25% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below '100% of median income; or 3. 20% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 80% of median income; or 4. 15% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 60% of median income; or 5. Title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development is transferred to a non-profit (IRC 501(3)(c)) affordable housing developer or comparable Development Corporation for the purpose of complying with subsection 2 above. The land shall be located within the project and all needed public facilities shall be extended to the area or areas proposed for transfer. Ownership of the land shall be transferred to the affordable housing developer or Development Corporation prior to commencement of the project. The total number of affordable units described in this section G shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. Properties providing affordable units as part of the annexation process shall qualify for a maximum density bonus of 25 percent. H. One or more of the following standards are met: 1. The proposed area for annexation is to be residentially zoned, and there is less than a five-year supply of vacant and redevelopable land in the proposed land use classification within the current city limits. "Redevelopable land" means land zoned for residential use on which development has already occurred but on which, due to present or expected market forces, there exists the likelihood that existing development will be converted to more intensive residential uses during the planning period. The five- year supply shall be determined from vacant and redevelopable land inventories and by the methodology for land need projections from the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan; or 2. The proposed lot or lots will be zoned E-1 or C-1 under the Comprehensive Plan, and that the applicant will obtain Site Review approval for an outright permitted use, or special permitted use concurrent with the annexation request; or 3. A current or probable public health hazard exists due to lack of full City sanitary sewer or water services; or 4. Existing development in the proposed annexation has inadequate water or sanitary sewer service; or the service will become inadequate within one year; or 5. The area proposed for annexation has existing City of Ashland water or sanitary sewer service extended, connected, and in use, and a signed "consent to annexation" agreement has been filed and accepted by the City of Ashland; or 6. The lot or lots proposed for annexation are an "island" completely surrounded by lands within the city limits. (ORD 2792, 1997) SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS 18.72.070 Criteria for Approval The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. IJ.I G:lcomm-dev1planningINoticcs Mailed\2006-00366.doc II C. The development complies with the SitP. Design Standards adopted by the City C ,cil for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilit 'or water, sewer, paved access to and tt. Jgh the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655, 1991; Ord 283656, 1999) PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS 18.62.040.1 I. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following: 1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. 2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. 3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the" surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. (Ord 2834 51, 1998) (Ord. 2834, Amended, 11/03/1998, Section 18.62.040 J "deleted"; Ord 2808, Added, 12/02/1997) ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE FROM SITE DESIGN & USE STANDARDS 18.72.090 Administrative Variance from Site Design and Use Standards An administrative variance to the requirements of this chapter may be granted with respect to the requirements of the Site Design Standards adopted under section 18.72.080 if, on the basis of the application, investigation and evidence submitted, all of the following circumstances are found to exist: A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of the proposed use of a site; B. Approval of the variance will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; C. Approval of the variance is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Chapter; and D. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the difficulty. TREE REMOVAL 18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal - Staff Permit An applicant for a Tree Removal-Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit. A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal. 1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning. 2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and 2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. (ORD 2883 added 06/04/2002) 1).;2... G:\comm-dev\planninglNotices Mailed\2006-00366.doc II P.A~ ~QQ" OQ3M 391E14.A~ 23QQ ASHLAND CITY OF CITY HALL l\SHL\ND, OR 97520 PA#2006-00366 39IE14A2302 BRIM BURL J JR 534 CROWSON RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 P A #2006-00366 391E14A 2303 DWAIN &BUDLLC 801 AVENUE C WHITE CITY, OR 97503 PA#2006-00366 39IE14BA 700 IPCO DEVELOPMENT CORP 640 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA #2QQ" OQ3M 391E14BD 100 ORECO~J ST.A~TE OF -G PA #2006-00366 39IE14A 2401 SCOTT TREG 95 SCENIC DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA #2QO" 003"" 391E14AB 2&00 ZIEMRJSKI BERNARD PO BQX 552 TALI;NT, OR 97540 P A #2006-00366 KENCARIN SAGER 545 A STREET Ashland, OR 97520 P A #2006-00366 BRAMSCHER CRAIG 1500 EAST MAIN STREET Ashland, OR 97520 P A #2006-00366 39IE14A 2301 ASHLAND WAREHOUSE P ARTNRSHP PO BOX 43 MEDFORD, OR 97501 P.A~ f:f200" Q03M 391E14.A~ 2304 CITY OF i\SHLAND CITY H. \LL ASHL,\}ID, OR 97520 PA #2006-00366 391E14A 2400 HEALY DOUGLAS KlNINA M 3823 CALLE DE LAS FOCAS SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672 P A #2006-00366 391E14A 2403 MORRIS RUTH GAYLE PO BOX 850 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA #2006-00366 391E14A 2402 REZEK RONALD J 701 MISTLETOE RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA #2006-00366 391El4AB 2200 YERBA PRIMA INC 740 JEFFERSON AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 P A #2006-00366 MCKECHNIE MARK 190 NORTH ROSS LANE MEDFORD, OR 97501 P A #2006-00366 ClOT A ENGINEERING 274 FOURTH STREET Ashland, OR 97520 @ :8 I! PA #2006-00366 391E14A 1104 BRAMSCHER CRAIG A 7118 HWY 66 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA #2006-00366 39IE14AB 2300 DAVIS ROY/ANDREAD 5205 ROOSTER LN . SOMERSET, CA 95684 PA #2006-00366 391E14A 2404 HEALY DOUGLAS KlNINA M 3823 CALLE DE LAS FOCAS SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672 PA#2006-00366 391EI4AB 2100 NEUMAN PROPERTIES & DEVELOPMENT 953 EMIGRANT CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA #2006-00366 391E14AB 2600 RICHARDS TIMOTHY R/GEORGIA 831 HARMONY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA #2006-00366 391E14A 2500 ZIEMINSKI BERNARD PO BOX 552 TALENT, OR 97540 P A #2006-00366 BATZER INC. 190 NORTH ROSS LANE MEDFORD, OR 97501 P A #2006-00366 POLARIS LAND SURVEYING 274 FOURTH STREET Ashland, OR 97520 lei\) \ II .,-------- AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON County of Jackson The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On March 22, 2006 I caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached Planning Action Notice to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action #2006-00366, Jefferson Ave. ~~ Signature of Employee SIGNED AND SWORN TO before me this 22nd day of March, 2006. _OFFICIAL SEAL . CAROLYN SCHWENDENER NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO 390825 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAR. 20, 2009 Nota ublic for State of Oregon My Commission Expires: cd- ~ -t9f/ Comm-Dev\Planning\ Templates :<'1 II ATTN: LEGAL PUBLICATIONS (ANDREA) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing on the following items with respect to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance will be held before the Ashland Planning Commission, April 11 , 2006 at 7:00 p.m. Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, OR. At such Public Hearing any person is entitled to be heard. Outline Plan approval under the Performance Standards Options Chapter 18.88 to subdivide the property into 21 lots including 19 lots for single-family homes and two lots for open space purposes for the property located at 247 Otis St. An Exception to Street Standards is requested to allow a meandering sidewalk along the Otis Street frontage to preserve existing mature trees. Seven trees on site are proposed for removal, and a Tree Removal Permit is required to remove two of those trees, sized 18 inches diameter at breast height or greater, on the property. Site Review and Outline Plan approval under the Performance Standards Options Chapter 18.88 of an eleven-unit, eleven lot mUlti-family development for the property located at 31 N. Mountain Ave. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove four trees on the site. Annexation, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map change from Jackson County zoning RR-S (Rural Residential) to City of Ashland zoning M-1 (Industrial) and E-1 (Employment) for an approximately 8.43-acre parcel located on Jefferson Ave. The application is to develop a specialty automobile design, research and fabrication and assembly campus in phases. The application includes a request for the Site Review Approval of the first phase of the project including an industrial building approximately 41,000 square feet in size, parking areas and landscape installation. The completion of Jefferson Avenue is required to serve the site, and a Physical Constraints Review Permit is required for the design and installation of the Jefferson Ave. crossing of the existing creek running south to north through the property. An Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards is requested to not include a front entrance directly facing Jefferson Avenue. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove five trees greater than six inches diameter at breast height or greater in the building locations. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to partidpate in this meeting, please contact the Oty Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (1lY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the dty to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). By order of the Planning Manager Bill Molnar Publish: 3/30/06 Date e-mailed: 3/23/06 Purchase Order: 71724 :<5' Ii ATTN: LEGAL PUBLICATIONS (ANDREA) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing on the following items with respect to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance will be held before the Tree Commission on March 9, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. at the office of Community Development and Engineering Services (Siskiyou Room) located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR. At such Pubic Hearing any person is entitled to be heard. Land Partition to create two parcels for the property located at 521 Fordyce St. The application includes a request for an Exception to the Street Standards for a reduction in the required 24-foot distance between driveway curb cuts on Old Willow Lane. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove two willow trees sized 18 inches diameter at breast height or greater from the proposed new vacant lot. Conditional Use Permit to use a portion of a new home as an Accessory Residential Unit for the property located at 655 Lit Way. Site Review and Outline Plan approval under the Performance Standards Options Chapter 18.88 of an eleven-unit, eleven lot multi-family development for the property located at 31 N. Mountain Ave. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove four trees on the site. Annexation, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map change from Jackson County zoning RR-5 (Rural Residential) to City of Ashland zoning M-l (Industrial) and E-l (Employment) for an approximately 8.43-acre parcel located on Jefferson Ave. The application is to develop a specialty automobile design, research and fabrication and assembly campus in phases. The application includes a request for the Site Review Approval of the first phase of the project including an industrial building approximately 41,000 square feet in size, parking areas and landscape installation. The completion of Jefferson Avenue is required to serve the site, and a Physical Constraints Review Permit is required for the design and installation of the Jefferson Ave. crossing of the existing creek running south to north through the property. An Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards is requested to not include a front entrance directly facing Jefferson Avenue. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove five trees greater than six inches diameter at breast height or greater in the building locations. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to partidpate in this meeting, please contact the Oty Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the dty to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). By order of the Planning Manager Bill Molnar Publish: 3/23/06 Date e-mailed: 3/22/06 Purchase Order: 71724 ~" II CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 11, 2006 CALL TO ORDER - Chair John Fields called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR. Commissioners Present: John Fields, Chair Michael Dawkins Olena Black Allen Douma John Stromberg Pam Marsh Dave Dotterrer Mike Morris Russ Chapman Absent Members: None Council Liaison: Kate Jackson, Council Liaison, present Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Interim Planning Director Maria Harris, Senior Planner Sue Yates, Executive Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS - Planning Action 2006-00078 has been postponed and will be re-noticed for next month's meeting. Molnar introduced the new Assistant City Attorney, Beth Lori. On Tuesday, Apri125th, the Planning Commission Study Session will be held at the Ashland Springs Ballroom from 7 to 9 p.m. The consultants, Crandall Arambula will be there. They will be in Ashland on Wednesday as well. There will be a wrap-up on Wednesday the 26th summarizing the information the consultants gathered from the community. The public is invited to attend. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS March 14, 2006 and March 28, 2006 Minutes - Marsh said on page 5, paragraph 4, .change "non-school sponsored" to "school sponsored." StrombergIDotterrer m/s to approve the minutes as amended. Voice Vote: Approved. PUBLIC FORUM ART BULLOCK, 791 Glendower Street, handed out Suggested Guidelines and Issues in Defining a Development's Access Street and discussed the items on the handout. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION 2006.00366 REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING MAP CHANGE FROM JACKSON COUNTY ZONING RR.5 (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) TO CITY OF ASHLAND ZONING M.1 (INDUSTRIAL) AND E.1 (EMPLOYMENT) FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 8.43.ACRE PARCEL LOCATED ON JEFFERSON AVE. THE APPLICATION IS TO DEVELOP A SPECIALTY AUTOMOBILE DESIGN, RESEARCH AND FABRICATION AND ASSEMBLY CAMPUS IN PHASES. THE APPLICATION INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR THE SITE REVIEW APPROVAL OF THE FIRST PHASE OF THE PROJECT INCLUDING AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING APPROXIMATELY 41,000 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE, PARKING AREAS AND LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION. THE COMPLETION OF JEFFERSON AVENUE IS REQUIRED TO SERVE THE SITE, AND A PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR THE DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF THE JEFFERSON AVE. CROSSING OF THE EXISTING CREEK RUNNING SOUTH TO NORTH THROUGH THE PROPERTY. AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE TO THE SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS IS REQUESTED TO NOT INCLUDE A FRONT ENTRANCE DIRECTLY FACING JEFFERSON AVENUE. A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IS REQUESTED TO REMOVE FIVE TREES GREATER THAN SIX INCHES DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT OR GREATER IN THE BUILDING LOCATIONS. APPLICANT: CRAIG BRAMSCHER Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Chapman has driven by the site numerous times. Morris has had numerous site visits. His family business is to the east of this project. He declared a potential conflict but believes he can be impartial. Stromberg had a site visit and also went by Science 11.7 Works, the applicant's current facility, but didn't see much. Fields, Black, Marsh, Dawkins and Dotterrer had site visits. Douma had no ex parte contact. STAFF REPORT Molnar described the project as outlined in the Staff Report. The property is roughly 8.5 acres inside the Urban Growth Boundary, contiguous with the City Limits, but outside the City Limits. The project is proposed in multiple phases. Phase I will involve the construction of a 41,000 square foot facility with 69 parking spaces. It will involve the completion of Jefferson Avenue through the property, crossing a seasonal creek. Staff has suggested a condition to defer removal of the trees in future phases until the time of site review for each phase. The creek crossing will require a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit. The bridge design or box culvert design will be designed to accommodate a 100 year flood flow and consider a design that is the least invasive on the natural area. There is a bioswale identified adjacent to the parking spaces. There is a chipped pathway to allow pedestrians to walk along the top of the bank for the length of the project along with a small outdoor seating area for employees or visitors. The building is a large utilitarian warehouse type space as well as office and showroom space. The materials consist of metal roofmg and siding with a concrete base. There is a series of larger 4 x 6 windows along both sides of the two-story gabled central spine that goes through the center of the building. There are two smaller volumes on either side of the central gable feature. In order to allow for light into the building, there is a five foot wide translucent band along the building. There are two entrances to either side of the two-story gable. The application could be found to require an Administrative Variance from the Site Review Standard that states: "That the primary orientation of the new building face the City street." It could be found that the side facing Jefferson Avenue has no entrance and thus fails to meet the standard and therefore requires a Variance. Or, it could be found that the prominent gable feature with glazing on both sides with landscaping in front (with a series of pathways) is the entrance feature and does meet the standard. Staff felt the Annexation, Site Review, Physical Constraints Permit and Tree Removal were straight forward and the criteria have been met and they have recommended approval of the application. Molnar said they are proposing to zone the portion to the south of Jefferson as M-I and the north portion as E-I. He is unclear about the timing of future phases. The City's largest inventory ofE-lland is currently the railroad property. There are not many parcels of this size in the City Limits to accommodate a structure of this size. Molnar noted there is quite a significant change in elevation from the rear of the property to Jefferson Avenue. The applicant has not yet provided a fmal grading plan. There will most likely be a significant retaining wall constructed independently at the back of the building. Staff suggested a Condition that if there are TID facilities that they be identified and TID will review the fmal engineering to accommodate those facilities. PUBLIC HEARING CRAIG BRAMSCHER, Brammo Motor Sports, LLC, 7118 Hwy. 66, Ashland, confirmed they do have TID irrigation and they plan on using it to water some of the landscaping. The railroad right-of-way width varies. They have a 50 foot setback from the center of the railroad tracks or 100 feet for the total easement. They have checked with the railroad and they did not have a problem with the setback and are happy to have their right-of-way landscaped. GARY CAPERNA, Senior Designer, Batzer, Inc., N. Ross Lane, Medford, 97501, is representing Mark McKechnie, architect and Craig Bramscher. They have also set the building back an additional eleven feet from the property line. They do not have a completed civil plan. They are trying to keep the building up as high as possible to eliminate the need for any significant retaining walls or any significant cut. They understand they will have to develop some landscape retaining walls but want to do that in a more terraced way. The fmished floor height of the building and the topography affected the way they dealt with then entry to the building. They wanted the architectural spine that bisects the two halves of the building to look like a monolithic piece. They would not be averse to having an entry at the front, but it tends to detract from the monolithic solidity of that element. In developing the ADA access, it flows better by way of a circuitous route to the front entrance as it has been designed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 11, 2006 MINUTES 2 :;,~ LAURIE SAGER, KenCaim Sager Landscape Architects, is representing Craig Bramscher. There are eight trees recommended for removal, three of which have been recommended for removal because of the extension of Jefferson Avenue. The remaining five have been recommended to be removed at a later date. The applicant is agreeable to that. There is approximately 60 linear feet of impacted bank where J efferson Avenue crosses the creek. They propose to put together a landscape plan showing planting, a circuitous path on both sides of Jefferson Avenue and on both sides of Knoll Creek and attach it to all three phases of the development as it develops so there is passive recreation for those that work there and access for anybody in the neighborhood or anyone coming over Jefferson Avenue. They intend to have seating in order to enjoy the natural riparian area. Approximately nine trees will be needed for Phase I and a total of about 30 trees along Jefferson Avenue. They have just done a preliminary landscape plan for the other phases of the project. They have shown vegetative bioswales that treat the storm water off the parking lot and also to retain some of the water off some of the roof structure. The intention is to get everything they can back into the creek after cleaning it up through the vegetative bioswales and then filtering it back into Knoll Creek in a sustainable way. They will be using TID water where possible. Bramscher said they will be providing a large number of jobs at all levels. Caperna wondered if there could be more flexibility with Condition 8. They want to keep all parts of this project moving ahead. They would rather not have to have Jefferson Street fully improved before obtaining their building permits. Sager said the elevations of the front fa~ade don't show any landscaping. They envision some larger trees in that area to soften the front. Molnar said they could consider additional wording on Condition 8. Also, as the application finds its way to the Council, they can address it. The re-wording would state at the end of the first sentence in Condition 8: "prior to issuance of a building permit..." or "costs associated with the final construction drawings and improvements be guaranteed through the posting of a bond or similar instruments acceptable to the City Legal Department." Molnar said they are pleased with the improvements associated with the creek area. It is identified as an intermittent creek and under our current standards requires a ten foot buffer from the top of bank. Under the proposed riparian ordinance (currently on hold) they would be required to increase the buffer to 20 feet and not allow any continuous culverts. The applicants have been willing to meet the new proposed standards. Fields read a letter supporting the project from Graham Lewis, President of Ashland Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors and Jac Nickels, Economic Sustainability Committee, 110 East Main Street, P. O. Box 1360. DANA GREAVES, 900 Strawberry Lane, CEO of Vortex, stated they are the largest custom technology frrm in the region. They employ about 25 people in Ashland. He spoke in favor ofBramscher's plan. It is a clean industry and will provide jobs for Brammo Motors and the surrounding subsidiary businesses that will add quality to the demographic of Ashland. RICHARD EATHERL V, 740 Jefferson Avenue, Verba Prima, Inc., is an adjoining property owner. He is neutral on the project. He supports a diverse economy. He is concerned about transportation. With the increase in development in that area, there has been an increase in traffic. What are the repercussions of adding 100 employees to the area? What is the impact of traffic at Ashland and Washington Streets? He is concerned he might be included in a Local Improvement District (LID). He had to participate in the LID at Tolman Creek and Ashland Street. They have problems with their own trucks getting in and out of the street. How many trucks would this new business add? The wetlands might be impacted from a leak in TID. He does not want to be involved in the Jefferson Avenue extension. Molnar said they have evaluated the traffic and ODOT has discussed it. There is ample street capacity. ODOT has identified some of the turning movements coming on and off Ashland Street. Staffhas identified a condition that the applicant agrees to participate in a future LID for possibly a signal at the Washington and Hwy. 66 intersection or perhaps another type of change as the vehicle trips increase. ASHLAND PlANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 11, 2006 MINUTES 3 ;1.1, Staff Response. Staff suggested adding a Condition 27 that Talent Irrigation District (Till) facilities be identified and changes be reviewed by the district and approved by the Staff Advisor. Fields would like to see some glazing on the front of the building to allow transparency so passersby can see activity to create a sense of connection. Black was interested in clear story windows up higher on the building. Rebuttal. Bramscher said there is a tremendous amount of glass on either side of the gable. The sides of the building are mainly what are seen as one approaches the building. In addition, they do not want direct sunlight in their showroom. With regard to the Jefferson Street extension, if the State gives them the grant money, they do not want to do the street one- third at a time, so they agreed to do the project all at once. He thought it would be better for the City too. The issue for him is not the bond, but getting the building built as soon as possible. Caperna noted this is not a high truck traffic business. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Black/Dawkins mls to approve the Site Review, Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit, Tree Removal Permit, and not the Administrative Variance for the front entrance for PA2006.00366. The Commissioners discussed the Administrative Variance and some points made to include the approval of an Administrative Variance were: The entry does not have to be the physical door facing the street and landscaping will soften the fa~ade. By granting approval with the Administrative Variance, when another development comes along for approval, the burden of proof will be on that applicant, not the City. There is not as much pedestrian traffic. There are unusual aspects regarding the site that support a Variance. Dotterrer/Dawkins mls to amend the motion to include approving the Administrative Variance for the entryway [that was the only change in the motion]. Add Condition 27 that Talent Irrigation District (lID) facilities be identified and changes be reviewed by the district and approved by the Staff Advisor. Stromberg wondered if the City's Land Use Ordinance applies to this property or will it only apply once the property is annexed. Could we add a Condition that this approval will become effective, if and when or at such time as the City actually annexes the property? Molnar said the annexation standards says concurrent Site Review approval has to be sought, but since the Planning Commission is the final decision maker for Site Review, that approval is technically coming before the Commission. The Site Review approval doesn't hold weight until the ordinance adopting and annexing this property is fmal. Roll Call for the amendment: The motion carried unanimously. Roll Call for the original motion: The motion carried unanimously. StromberglBlack mls to do a finding that this project meets all the approval criteria of the annexation section of the Land Use Ordinance. Stromberg would like to see the Council clearly distinguish between annexations and planning applications. It is a promising project but he doesn't believe there has been careful analysis of the annexation because that belongs at the Council. He would like the Planning Commission to do fmdings that this application meets all the criteria to become eligible so the Council could legitimately annex it if they see fit. Let the Council decide if it should be annexed for the good of the community. Molnar said the Procedures Chapter says the Commission shall make a report of its fmdings and recommendations on the proposed action. He believes Stromberg is stating the Commission will make a report of their findings but base those on how this proposal meets the annexation approval standards as outlined. The City Attorney, in the past, has directed the City Council that annexations fall under a different category in land use and the Council has some other discretionary options that even if they find all the approval criteria have been met, that they can consider other information. Fields believes the Commission has enough information to make a recommendation to the Council for annexation. Roll Call: The motion carried with Dotterrer, Douma, Stromberg, Dawkins, Morris, Marsh, Black and Chapman voting "yes." Fields voted "no." ASHLAND PlANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 11,2006 MINUTES 4 3D ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT April 11, 2006 PLANNING ACTION: 2006-00366 APPLICANT: Craig Bramscher LOCATION: Jefferson Avenue (Extension) ZONE DESIGNATION: Existing RR-5 (Jackson County); Proposed M-1 & E-1 (City of Ashland) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Industrial and Employment APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: April 4, 2006 120.DAY TIME LIMIT: August 2,2006 ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.40 E-l Employment District 18.52 M-l Industrial District 18.61 Tree Preservation and Protection 18.62 Physical & Environmental Constraints 18.72 Site Design and Use Standards 18.92 Off-Street Parking 18.106 Annexations REQUEST: Annexation, C.omprehensive Plan and Zoning Map change from Jackson County zoning RR-5 (Rural Residential) to City of Ashland zoning M-1 (Industrial) and E-1 (Employment) for an approximately 8.43-acre parcel located on Jefferson Ave. The application is to develop a specialty automobile design, research, fabrication and assembly campus in phases. The application includes a request for the construction of the first phase of the project including an industrial building approximately 41,000 square feet in size, parking areas and landscape installation. The completion of J efferson Avenue is required to serve the site, and a Physical Constraints Review Permit is required for the design and installation of the Jefferson Ave. crossing of the existing creek running south to north through the property. An Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards is requested to not include a front entrance directly facing Jefferson Avenue. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove five trees greater than six inches diameter at breast height or greater in the building locations. I. Relevant Facts A. Background. History of Application There are no other planning actions of record for this site. Planning Action 2006-00366 Applicant: Craig Brainscher EI Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 1 of 15 B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal The application involves annexation and subsequent development of an 8.43-acre parcel on the south side of the proposed extension of Jefferson Avenue. The property slopes gently to the north. A small creek including a well-defined channel and adjoining banks passes through the center of the site. Approximately 34 trees have been identified on the property and are shown on the Tree Removal and Protection Plan. The property is located within Ashland's Urban Growth Boundary, but outside the existing City Limits. The Ashland Comprehensive Plan identifies the future zoning of the property as a mix of both Industrial (M-I) and Employment (E-l) districts. 1. Annexation The application includes a request to annex the 8.43-acre parcel into the City Limits and construct Phase 1 of a multi-phase light manufacturing development. Jefferson Avenue, an existing fully improved City street, abuts the east and northwest boundaries of the property. Public utilities are installed in both existing segments of street. As part of the annexation request, J efferson Avenue will be constructed through the project site and thereby complete the final segment of the public street. 2. Site Review The application includes a request for Site Review approval of Phase 1. This involves the construction of approximately 41,000 square feet of combined light manufacturing, warehouse and office building space. The proposed building will be situated at the southeast comer of the property, south of Jefferson Avenue. A small intermittent drainage identified as Knoll Creek flows through the center of the property along the west border of Phase 1, while the existing business of Oak Street Tank and Steel adjoins the property's southeastern boundary. Sixty-nine off-street parking spaces are located to the side of the building. The parking area and driveway aisles have been designed to permit the circulation, maneuvering, loading and off-loading of large trucks: Additionally, a series of vegetated swales will be installed adjacent to the parking area to accommodate run-off from the building's roof and the project's impervious surfaces. Additionally, a sheltered bicycle parking area is located at the rear of the site, as well as a designated refuse and recycling area. Currently, Jefferson A venue terminates at both the east and west boundaries of the property. The project will construct the final segment of Jefferson Avenue, providing a continuous improved City Street from its current northerly intersection with Washington Street to the existing southeasterly intersection with Washington Street. Public facilities are located within the existing portions of Planning Action 2006-00366 Applicant: Craig Bramscher a~ Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 2 of 15 Jefferson Avenue and will be extended and linked up to one another. A bridge or box culvert will be constructed to support the roadbed where it spans the creek channel. The building has been divided into three distinct elements. The design consists. of two lean-to type side elements resting upon a larger, two-story gabled "spine" that bisects the center of the structure along its north-south axis. Primary building materials consist of pre- finished metal panel siding and roofing. A series of 4' x 6' storefront windows will be installed along the east and west building fa~ade of the taller center spine, while a continuous 5-foot high translucent panel will be incorporated along the shorter lean-to type side elements. The front of the building incorporates double door storefront entries on both the west and east side of the central spine. Each entry is surrounded by a continuous set of full height, storefront windows from ground level to eave height. 3. Physical Constraints Review Permit A Physical Constraints Review Permit is required for site alterations associated. with the installation of a crossing over the existing intermittent drainage. As noted earlier, a bridge or box culvert will be constructed to support the roadbed where it spans the creek channel. 4. Tree Removal Permit The Tree Removal and Protection Plans (L-l) included with the application identify 34 existing trees on the approximately 8A-acre site. Seven trees in excess of six-inches in diameter at breast height will be removed under the proposal. Consequently, the application includes a request for a Tree Removal Permit. II. Proiect ImDact The application includes a request for Annexation of 8 A-acres, with a Site Review, Physical Constraints and Tree Removal Permit to construct a 41,000 square foot manufacturing facility. While the property is not proposed for inclusion within the City of Ashland Detail Site Review Zone, the Annexation procedure establishes a public hearing before the Planning Commission, as well as the City Council. The Planning Commission has the authority to make the final decision with respect to the Site Review Approval, Physical Constraints and Tree Removal permits. A separate motion will be needed with respect to forwarding a recommendation onto the City Council with regards to the request for Annexation. A. Annexation In general, Staff believes the request for Annexation is relatively straightforward. The property is bounded by Ashland's City Limits on its west, east and south sides. The Planning Action 2006-00366 Applicant: Craig Bramscher a3 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 3 of 15 proposed zoning is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan Designations. Specifically, the portion of the property north of the railroad tracks and south of the Jefferson Avenue street extension will be included within the M-l, Industrial Zoning District, while the portion of the property north of Jefferson Avenue will be included within the E-l, Employment Zoning District. 1. Adequacy of Public Facilities Existing public facilities and utilities are in place to service the project and have been identified on a site plan and discussed in the application's written findings of fact. Water, sewer, electric and storm drain utilities are currently available in Jefferson Avenue and will be extended in conjunction with the improvements to Jefferson Avenue. Jefferson Avenue will be extended through the property and constructed to City Street Standards, ultimately linking the two existing, improved City Street sections abutting the east and west boundaries of the project site. Full street improvements are proposed, including two travel lanes, on-street parking, curb and gutter, storm drains and public sidewalks. Additionally, a bridge or box culvert will be constructed to span the seasonal creek that bisects to property. Since the project includes an annexation and zone change that may impact a State Highway (Le. Ashland Street), the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has been afforded the opportunity to comment on the proposal. ODOT Development Review Planner, David Pyles, has indicated via Email that the Oregon Department of Transportation has no comment on the proposal. Ashland Planning Staff, however, has suggested that the property agree to participate in the establishment of a local improvement district for future improvements associated with the intersection of Highway 66 and Washington Street. It is anticipated that prior to full build out ofthis southerly light industrial area, modifications to the intersection could be needed to accommodate the increase in turning movements to and from the State Highway. B. Site Review Approval This application involves Phase 1 of a potential multi-phase light industrial complex. The applicant intends to construct a 41,000 square foot light manufacturing facility specifically intended to provide a home base for Brammo Motor Sports LLC, an automobile design, research, fabrication and assembly operation known as Given the location of the property and the intended Industrial (M-l) zoning designation, the project is only subject to Ashland's Basic Site Review Standards, as well as additional requirements relating to the installation of street trees, parking lot landscaping, bicycle parking and the provision of refuse and recycling areas. Consistent with the aforementioned standards, the applicant has presented a project with a prominent street presence. Off-street parking spaces are situated to the side of the Planning Action 2006-00366 Applicant: Craig Bramscher 34 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 4 of 15 structure and will be landscaped in accordance with the City's landscaping standards for parking areas. Approximately 23Slineal feet of continuous landscaping will be installed along the west boundary of the parking area, adjacent to the small creek and adjoining riparian area. Additionally, landscaped medians are provided central to the parking area and along the southern boundary of the property. These areas will allow for the planting and establishment of taller shade trees, low-level shrubs and groundcovers. The site plan identifies both the top of bank as well as a line demarcating areas 20-feet back from the top of bank. With the exception of the Jefferson Avenue street crossing, impervious surfaces associated with the development will not be installed closer than 20- feet from the top of bank. Consequently, the unaltered creek channel and adjoining . riparian immediately west of the parking area will range from 110- feet to 140- feet in width. This liberal band will permit the applicant to enhance the area through the installation of a variety of riparian trees and plants, including both evergreen and deciduous trees. Additionally, the application proposes to detain and filter run-off from the building's roof and other impervious surfaces through a series ofbio-swales situated along top of bank as well as adjacent to the rear property line. Appropriate shrubs, grasses and trees will be installed within the designated bio-swale areas. Storm water run-off will be collected by individual bio-swales, and directed to a dispersion French drain and overflow located within the riparian zone. 1. Administrative Variance to Site Design and Use Standard n-C-1a) - Orientation and Scale Basic Site Review Standard II-C-la) Orientation and Scale states that: "Buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street rather than the parking area." Site Design and Use Chapter 18.72.020 specifically defines the "Primary Orientation" as the direction of the front of the building with the main entrance to the public. The proposed building design incorporates a prominent front entrance element intended to provide an interior showroom area to display finished sports cars. The front showroom area, however, is accessed from two sets of double storefront doors located on the east and west sides of the building, but not directly oriented toward Jefferson Avenue. Since the proposed building entrance feature could be seen as being inconsistent with the applicable standard, Staffhas included an administrative variance in the public notice. While the applicant's written findings do not specifically address the approval criteria, the application clearly acknowledges the intent of incorporating a "monumental entrance with direct pedestrian access from the street/sidewalk to the building interior." In Staff's opinion, the commission has a couple of choices. First, the Commission could find that the taller, two-story gabled element at the north end of the building constitutes a singular, prominent entry feature. If this is the case, the application would be found to comply with the applicable Site Design standard and an Planning Action 2006-00366 Applicant: Craig Bramscher 06" Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 5 of 15 administrative variance would be unnecessary. Second, based upon the unusual aspects associated with providing a central showroom area as well as the proposed alignment of the Jefferson Avenue extension, the Commission could make a finding that the variance to the standard, in this particular case, is justified. Lastly, the Commission could direct the applicant to modify the design so that a prominent front entry feature is incorporated on the large building fayade that directly faces Jefferson A venue. This last option could be done through a condition of approval and worked out between staff and the applicant's design team, or the proposed design modification could be brought back to the Commission for their review. C. Physical Constraints Review & Tree Removal Permit A Physical Constraints Review Permit is required for the installation of a crossing over the existing seasonal drainage. Additionally, eight trees in excess of six inches in diameter at breast height will be removed under the proposal. The final segment of Jefferson Avenue will be constructed to City street standards and extended through the property. This represents the completion of the street and will provide a continuous link between its intersections with Washington Street both north and east ofthe project. The Jefferson A venue crossing over Knoll Creek requires approval of a Physical Constraints Review Permit. In general, the crossing is required to be designed to handle flows resulting from a 100-year flood event, and the crossing should be designed to minimize disturbance to the creek and adjacent riparian areas. In addition t9 preserving the natural channel below, the bridge or box culvert design will easily accommodate a 100-year flood. The road width at the crossing has been narrowed to minimize the overall area of disturbance to the riparian area. The proposed width will comprise two travel lanes and public sidewalks, but curbside, on-street parking will be omitted from this segment of street. Of the 34 existing trees identified on site, eight are proposed for removal. The extension of Jefferson Avenue will necessitate the removal ofthree trees. The other five trees slated for removal are situated within the tentative building footprints associated with future development phases. Consequently, with the exception of the three trees associated with the extension of Jefferson A venue, staff suggests that the Commission withhold approval of the remaining five trees until the development of future phases. Since each phase will require a separate Site Review approval, the merits of the tree removal may be better evaluated at that time. In general, staff is supportive of the request for a Physical Constraints Review Permit and the Tree Removal Permit involving the three trees associated with the Jefferson Avenue extension. The applicant has made a concerted effort to reduce and minimize impacts to the natural environment surrounding the creek through appropriate street and bridge design. Additionally, the proposed alignment of Jefferson Avenue will result in the removal of the fewest number of trees. As noted above, staff recommends Planning Action 2006-00366 Applicant: Craig Bramscher BG, Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 6 of 15 that additional tree removal associated with future development phases be deferred and evaluated as part of the associated Site Review applications. III. Procedural - Reauired Burden of Proof An annexation may be approved if the proposed request for annexation conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, with the following approval criteria described in 18.106.030 - Approval Standards. A. The land is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. B. The proposed zoning for the annexed area is in conformance with the designation indicated on the Comprehensive Plan Map, and the project, if proposed concurrently with the annexation, is an allowed use within the proposed zoning. C. The land is currently contiguous with the present City limits. D. Adequate City facilities for the provision of water to the site as determined by the Public Works Department; the transport of sewage from the site to the waste water treatment plant as determined by the Public Works Department; the provision of electricity to the site as determined by the Electric Department; urban storm drainage as determined by the Public Works Department can and will be provided to and through the subject property. Unless the City has declared a moratorium based upon a shortage of water, sewer, or electricity, it is recognized that adequate capacity exists system-wide for these facilities. E. Adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. For the purposes of this section "adequate transportation" for annexations consists of vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian and transit transportation meeting the following standards: 1. For vehicular transportation a 20' wide paved access exists, or can and will be constructed, along the full frontage of the project site to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. All streets adjacent to the annexed area shall be improved, at a minimum, to a half-street standard with a minimum 20' driving surface. The City may, after assessing the impact of the development, require the full improvement of streets adjacent to the annexed area. All streets located within annexed areas shall be fully improved to city standards. Where future street dedications are indicated on the City's Street Dedication Map or required by the City, provisions shall be made for the dedication and improvement of these streets and included with the application for annexation. 2. For bicycle transportation safe and accessible bicycle facilities exist, or can and will be constructed. Should the annexation be adjacent to an arterial street, bike lanes shall be provided on or adjacent to the arterial street. Likely bicycle destinations from the project site shall be determined and safe and accessible bicycle facilities serving those destinations shall be indicated. 3. For pedestrian transportation safe and accessible pedestrian facilities exist, or can and will be constructed. Full sidewalk improvements shall be provided on one side adjacent to the annexation for all streets adjacent to the proposed annexed area. Sidewalks shall be provided as required by ordinance on all streets within the annexed area. Where the project site is within a quarter of a mile Planning Action 2006-00366 Applicant: Craig Bramscher 67 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 7 of 15 of an existing sidewalk system, the sidewalks from the project site shall be constructed to extend and connect to the existing system. Likely pedestrian destinations from the project site shall be determined and the safe and accessible pedestrian facilities serving those destinations shall be indicated. 4. For transit transportation, should transit service be available to the site, or be likely to be extended to the site in the future based on information from the local public transit provider, provisions shall be made for the construction of adequate transit facilities, such as bus shelters and bus tum-out lanes. All required transportation improvements shall be constructed and installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any new structures on the annexed property. F. For all residential annexations, a plan shall be provided demonstrating that the development of the entire property will ultimately occur at a minimum density of 90% of the base density for the zone, unless reductions in the total number of units is necessary to accommodate significant natural features, topography, access limitations, or similar physical constraints. The owner or owners of the property shall sign an agreement, to be recorded with the county clerk after approval of the annexation, ensuring that future development will oCcur in accord with the minimum density indicated in the development plan. For purposes of computing maximum density, portions of the annexed area containing undevelopable areas such as wetlands, floodplain corridor lands, or slopes greater than 35%, shall not be included. G. For all annexations with a density or potential density of four residential units or greater and involving residential zoned lands, or commercial, employment or industrial lands with a Residential Overlay (R-Overlay): 1. 35% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 120% of median income; or 2. 25% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below '100% of median income; or 3. 20% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 80% of median income; or 4. 15% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 60% of median income; or 5. Title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development is transferred to a non-profit (IRC "501 (3)(c)) affordable housing developer or comparable Development Corporation for the purpose of complying with subsection 2 above. The land shall be located within the project and all needed public facilities shall be extended to the area or areas proposed for transfer. Ownership of the land shall be transferred to the affordable housing developer or Development Corporation prior to commencement of the project. The total number of affordable units described in this section G shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. Properties providing affordable units as part of the annexation process shall qualify for a maximum density bonus of 25 percent. H. One or more of the following standards are met: Planning Action 2006-00366 Applicant: Craig Bramscher Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 8 of 15 3? 1. The proposed area for annexation is to be residentially zoned, and there is less than a five- year supply of vacant and redevelopable land in the proposed land use classification within the current city limits. "Redevelopable land" means land zoned for residential use on which development has already occurred but on which, due to present or expected market forces, there exists the likelihood that existing development will be converted to more intensive residential uses during the planning period. The five- year supply shall be determined from vacant and redevelopable land inventories and by the methodology for land need projections from the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan; or 2. The proposed lot or lots will be zoned E-1 or C-1 under the Comprehensive Plan, and that the applicant will obtain Site Review approval for an outright permitted use, or special permitted use concurrent with the annexation request; or 3. A current or probable public health hazard exists due to lack of full City sanitary sewer or water services; or 4. Existing development in the proposed annexation has inadequate water or sanitary sewer service; or the service will become inadequate within one year; or 5. The area proposed for annexation has existing City of Ashland water or sanitary sewer service extended, connected, and in use, and a signed "consent to annexation" agreement has been filed and accepted by the City of Ashland; or 6. The lot or lots proposed for annexation are an "island" completely surrounded by lands within the city limits. (ORD 2792, 1997; ORD 2895, 2003) The criteria for Site Review approval are described in 18.72.070 as follows: The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655, 1991; Ord 2836 S6, 1999) The following criteria for approval of a Physical Constraints Permit are described in 18.62.040 I. 1. 1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. 2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. 3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the Planning Action 2006-00366 Applicant: Craig Bramscher Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 9 of 15 3~ environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. (Ord 2834 S1,1998) (Ord. 2834, Amended, 11/03/1998, Section 18.62.040 J "deleted"; Ord 2808, Added, 12/02/1997) The following criteria for issuance of Tree Removal Permit are described in 18.61.080. An applicant for a Tree Removal-Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit. A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal. 1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning. 2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree remollal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and 2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. Planning Action 2006-00366 Applicant: Craig Bramscher Iff) Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 10 of 15 ---_.~----------- 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.(ORD 2883 added 06/04/2002) An administrative variance to the requirements of this chapter may be granted with respect to the requirements of the Site Design Standards adopted under section 18.72.080 if, on the basis of the application, investigation and evidence submitted, all of the following circumstances are found to exist: A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of the proposed use of a site; B. Approval of the variance will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; C. Approval of the variance is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Chapter; and D. The variance requested is the minimum variance, which would alleviate the difficulty. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations Overall, Staffis supportive of the application. Approval of the annexation appears consistent with the Economy Goal of the Comprehensive Plan which strives for a healthy economy, diverse in the number, size and types of businesses. Relevant City Plan policies place particular emphasis on attracting businesses that are locally-owned, employ five to 100 people and pay wages at or above the median County wage. Information obtained from the applicant, Brammo Motorsports LLC, states that the business currently employs approximately 50 individuals with an average annual salary of approximately $58,000. The total number of employees is expected to increase to approximately 88 by 2007, with an average annual salary of about $52,000. Staff believes the proposed building design is appropriate for the area's employment and light manufacturing designation and consistent with the City's Basic Site Review Standards. The interior use of the building necessitates a more utilitarian design comprised of metal roofing and siding. The generous number of windows provided will supply natural light to the showroom and interior work spaces, while adding needed variation to the exterior skin. The three distinct building forms including a taller two- story central mass, flanked by secondary single story sections add variety to building height while creating diversity within the structure's footprint. As noted earlier, Staff believes the application's site planning is sensitive to significant natural features associated with the property. The project not only provides a comfortable buffer around the seasonal creek channel (llO-feet to I 40-feet), but also incorporates bio- swale storm water detention basins to direct filtered run-off back toward the source of natural hydrology. While the extension of Jefferson Avenue will undoubtedly impact the existing creek environment, the proposed street design and supplemental landscaping plans try to minimize alterations to the natural landscape while providing mitigation for irreversible changes to the area. Additionally, tree removal has been minimized, while the Planning Action 2006-00366 Applicant: Craig Bramscher Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report '+1 Page 110f15 creek environment has been enhanced and made accessible through the provision of woodchip pathways and a sitting area along the riparian edge. Staff recommends approval of the application with the attached following conditions: 1. That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2. That the property owner sign in favor of a future local improvement district for improvements associated with the intersection of Washington Street and Highway 66. Such improvements may include but not be limited to the installation of a traffic signal and/or construction of a turn lane. 3. That all landscape medians within proposed off-street parking areas and along the south property line shall be a minimum of seven to eight feet in width. Such revisions shall be included on the final landscaping plan submitted for review and approval by the Staff Advisor prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. That the applicant shall submit an electric distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. Additionally, the placement of any portion of the structure in the public utility easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric Department. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department prior to building permit submittal. Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. 5. That all easements for sewer, water, electric, and streets shall be granted as required by the City of Ashland. The easements shall be recorded as required by Ashland Engineering prior to issuance of a building permit. 6. That the necessary area for street improvements shall be dedicated as public street right-of-way. The right-of-way dedication shall include the area necessary for bridge construction and retaining walls to be installed with the street improvements. That the right-of-way dedication shall be submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning and Engineering divisions prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. That a final utility plan for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division and Building Divisions prior to issuance of a building permit. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins. All services shall be installed prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for a building on the property. 8. That the engineered construction drawings for Jefferson A venue shall comply with City of Ashland Street Standards including street lights, pavement width and the Planning Action 2006-00366 Applicant: Craig Bramscher Jf~, Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 12 of 15 .. installation of public sidewalks. Engineered construction drawings for the Jefferson A venue improvements shall be submitted for review and approval by Ashland Planning and Public Works Departments prior to issuance of a building permit. The proposed bridge or box culvert creek crossing shall be engineered and designed to accommodate a 100-year flood flow. All street improvements shall be installed prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for a building on the property. 9. That a revised site, size and species specific landscaping plan incorporating the recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission consistent with Ashland's Site Design and Use Standards shall be submitted for review and approval by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of a building permit. 10. That an irrigation system plan shall be submitted with the building permit submittals for review and approval of the Staff Advisor. 11. Landscaping and irrigation systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. That at the time of planting and prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy, not less than two inches of mulch shall be added in all non-turf landscaped areas in the developed area after the installation of living plant materials. 12. That a Verification Permit in accordance with 18.61.042.B shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to removal of the approved trees on site and prior to site work, storage of materials and/or issuance of a building permit. The Verification Permit is to inspect the identifications of trees to be removed and the installation of tree protection fencing. The tree protection shall be installed according to the approved Tree Protection and Removal Plan prior to site work, storage of materials and/or issuance of a building permit. 13. That street trees, one per 30 feet of street frontage, shall be installed along the frontage of the development in accordance with the approved final landscaping plan and prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. All street trees shall be chosen from the adopted Street Tree List and shall be installed in accordance with the specifications noted in Section E of the Site Design and Use Standards. The street trees shall be irrigated. 14. That the color, texture, dimensions, shape and building materials for all exterior components of the project be included at the time of submission of building permit. The information shall be consistent with the colors, texture, dimensions and shape of materials and building details proposed and approved as part of the land use application. 15. That the buildings shall meet Solar Setback B in accordance with 18.70.040.B. The building permit submittals shall demonstrate compliance with Solar Setback B. 16. All exterior lighting in the interior of the site shall be appropriately shrouded so as not to permit direct illumination of any adjacent land. Lighting detail, including a scaled Planning Action 2006.OQ366 Applicant: Craig Bramscher Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 13 of 15 43 plan, shall be submitted to the Staff Advisor for review and approval with the building permit submittals. 17. That location of mechanical equipment shall be shown on the site plan and elevations in the building permit submittals. Mechanical equipment shall be minimally visible from a public street. 18. That required bicycle parking spaces with a minimum of 50% sheltered from the weather shall be installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The inverted u-rack shall be used for the bicycle parking and shall be installed in accordance with design and rack standards in 18.92.040.1 and J prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The building permit submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking spacing and coverage requirements are met in accordance with 18.92.040.1. 19. That the opportunity-to- recycle and solid waste receptacles shall be shown on the building permit submittals, and shall be designed and screened in accordance with 18.72.115.A. 20. That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department, including the installation of required fire hydrants and fire apparatus access and turnaround requirements shall be complied with prior to issuance of the building permit or the use of combustible materials, whichever applicable. Fire Department requirements shall be included on the engineered construction documents for public facilities. 21. That if a fire protection vault is required, the vault shall not be located in the sidewalk. 22: That a sign permit shall be obtained prior to installation of new signage. Signage shall meet the requirements of Chapter 18.96. 23. That public utility easements on the property shall be shown on the building permit submittals. No portion of the structure shall intrude into a public utility easement without approval by the Ashland Engineering Division. 24. That sediment/silt fencing be installed approximately 20-feet back from the top of bank to prevent grade changes and the placement offill within the protective 20-foot wide riparian buffer strip. The fencing shall be installed prior to the issuance of a building permit and before any changes are made to the site's natural grades. 25. That the bridge or box culvert stream crossing shall be designed only after thorough consultation with City Planning and Engineering Staff The applicant shall demonstrate that the design and proposed installation employs the least invasive installation methods and complies with relevant standards for Floodplain Corridor Lands. 26. That the creek channel, adjoining riparian area and adjacent 20-foot buffer strip (approximately 11O-feet to 140-feet in width) shall be protected in perpetuity by a Planning Action 2006-00366 Applicant: Craig Bramscher 4-4 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 14 of 15 conservation easement to the benefit if the City of Ashland and recorded on the deed and survey plat (if applicable) prescribing the conditions and restrictions set forth in the approved land use application. Planning Action 2006-00366 Applicant: Craig Bramscher 1ft" Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 15 of 15 ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW May 4, 2006 PLANNING ACTION 2006-00366 is a request for Annexation, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map change from Jackson County zoning RR-S (Rural Residential) to City of Ashland zoning M-1 (Industrial) and E-1 (Employment) for an approximately 8.43-acre parcel located on Jefferson Ave. The application is to develop a specialty automobile design, research and fabrication and assembly campus in phases. The application includes a request for the Site Review Approval of the first phase of the project including an industrial building approximately 41,000 square feet in size, parking areas and landscape installation. The completion of Jefferson Avenue is required to serve the site, and a Physical Constraints Review Permit is required for the design and installation of the Jefferson Ave. crossing of the existing creek running south to north through the property. An Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards is requested to not include a front entrance directly facing Jefferson Avenue. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove five trees greater than six inches diameter at breast height or greater in the building locations. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Industrial and Employment; ZONING: M-l, E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 1E 14 A; TAX LOT: 1104. APPLICANT: Craig Bramscher Recommendation: 1) When planning for the future development of the E-l zoned building the Tree Commission suggests a review of the health of the Black Oaks and the potential for re-designing the lot layou~ to preserve the Black Oak trees. Department of Community Development 51 Winburn Way Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541-488-5350 Fax: 541-552-2050 TTY: 800-735-2900 J-j" CITY OF ASHLAND --~ AshLmJ Chamber of Commerce Date: RE: Ashland Planning Commission President Graham Lewis, Ashland Chamber Board of Directors lac Nickels, Chair, Economic Sustainability Committee April 11, 2006 Brammo Motorsports To: From: This letter is to give support for the expansion plans as submitted by Craig Bramscher, owner of Brammo Motorsports. Craig joined the Chamber to be involved and supportive of the efforts to promote and enhance the community of Ashland. His company is the type of clean industry we want in Ashland. He has plans to increase employment in the very near future providing needed jobs. We encourage your support of their request to annex in the necessary acreage and approve their building size requirements. 110 East Main Street . P.O. Box 1360 . Ashland, Oregon 97520-0046 (541) 482-3486, ext 15 . (541) 482-2350, fax www.ashlandchamber.com Jf 7 : ,!~ I~ AREA CODE 541 - 535-1529 D i6Aid P.O. BOX 467 TALENT. OREGON 97540 April 4, 2006 City of Ashland Attn: Planning Commission 20 E. Main Ashland, OR 97520 To the Planning Commission, After review of your PLANNING ACTION 2006-00366, better described as, Township 39 South, Range 1 East, Section 14A Tax Lot 1104 we find that it will have a potential affect upon the Talent Irrigation District (TID). It is the request of the District that the following conditions be considered: 1) That the developer upgrade the TID line to a 10" Class 125 IPS PVC line so that it can hook up to the existing pipe. 2) The developer provide a blow-off valve in the bottom of the draw. 3) That the pipe and blow-off be installed to TID's specifications. 4) That the landowner, either remove or make provisions to retain the water rights on this property. In accordance with ORS 92.090(6) the City of Ashland Planning Commission must receive a Certification form from the Talent Irrigation District stating that the partition has been removed from the District or is included within the District for purposes of receiving services. It is further requested by the Talent Irrigation District that the Planning Commission require that the landowner/developer present to the Planning Commission a letter from TID stating that these recommendations have been satisfied prior to the Planning Commission's final approval of said development. We respectfully request that if this application is approved that the above stipulations be made conditions of that approval. Thank you for your time and consideration. 1; I, -rr-r-- --- APR/12/2006/WED 08:53 JACKSON COUNTY ROADS FAX No. 541 774 6295 P,001/001 , I ~ ~ j ~ } Iii I ~ Jlli~~1 'i ~ I a15iE.1 l!! i i JB'~i. e l: III .. ~ dEi".I i .. ~ 1'1" It,!:.. ~ -'i ~ .c. ~ J!l :B ~ l: 'iiI \'II ~ E ~ . Z ii' 'r:: \'j~ ~ III m:: Q. 8 -1I1S .l!Z =~ ~ )( ~ Q) q;~ o ~ l:~ ~8 I U o~ o,LlI Eo I .~.... E C ~I ~~ .z Z ~~ I =~ :e-~ .~ 0 Ot<) I: ~ I ~9 ::Ill. ... i i~ III CJ'} IV E;l;g ,~ 0..00 0.. III C) :t: -io Orb .. .~ 1:: l: ~ "l m ~.~ CD" l.LI tD go oS ~" 1: ~ U 00 a" ,err; l.LI~ g C N -..!!1: .~ 10 8ii: :::IH ! r.... a.Q. < C) 1igJ ~l5 ~d i ~ ~c 8 ~ a: ~'2 1lI J:;D. ~ I ii: 0 cl: m~ f ~~ ~ s:~ -c=-C' c(a.. ~!!l M 1::1lIl: Q) ~~u 1 Ill::!: m "Q 1" 'i:" :; ~ii i 0- w ~ I::: -~:s <( c(cc( a:: c tI) " Ill,!:: ~ III . I ~ 4-1 I, ODOT notice acknowledgment: P A 2006-00366 (Brammo Motorsports nfoject) Page 1 of 1 Susan Yates - ODOT notice acknowledgment: P A 2006-00366 (Brammo Motorsports project) From: To: Date: Subject: CC: "PYLES David" <David.PYLES@odot.state.or.us> "Bill Molnar" <bill@ashland.or.us> 3/31/2006 11 :49 AM ODOT notice acknowledgment: P A 2006-00366 (Brammo Motorsports project) "Susan Yates" <sue@ashland.or.us>, "DORRELL Dan WIt <Dan.W.DORRELL@odot.state.or.us>, "RANDLEMAN Jayne A" <Jayne.A.RANDLEMAN@odot.state.or.us> Bill: The Oregon Department of Transportation appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the City of Ashland project notice for Planning Action 2006-0036. The application is a request for Annexation, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map amendment from Jackson County zoning RR-5 (Rural Residential) to City zoning M-1 (Industrial) and E-1 (Employment) for an approximate 8.43 acre parcel located west of Jefferson Avenue. The subject property is described as Jackson County Assessor's Map 39-1 E-14A, Tax Lot 1104. The application proposes phased development of a specialty automobile design, research and fabrication and assembly campus. ODOT Development Review and ODOT Rail Division have reviewed the proposed phase one (1) project and land use amendments. We have no comment. Thank you for noticing ODOT. We look forward to providing Development Review service to the City of Ashland on future projects. Thank you, David David]. Pyles, Development Review Planner ODOT Region 3 / District 8 Rogue Valley Area Office 100 Antelope Road White City, OR 97503 (541) 774-6399 phone (541) 774-6349 fax .;,. 5't:J file://C:\Documents and Settings\yatess\Local Settings\Temp\GW}OOOO1.HTM 3/31/2006 II -------- ~~ ~~ <;... ,~ ~/1T"11(~.'.........._,.r BRaMMOTM Ashland South Site Plan Brammo MotorspQrts · W.md HQ ."clI:manufadUring tam . ~ ~ 2/23/2006 RECEIVED FEB 2 8 2006 City of Ashland o Field 0 Office 0 County Community Development 51 Winburn Way Ashland, Oregon 97520 RE: Project narrative and Findings of Fact for a proposed Annexation and industrial development for Brammo Motorsports on Jefferson Avenue. SITE DESCRIPTION Land Use: The 8.43 acre parcel is located west of the intersection of Jefferson Avenue and Washington Street. The subject property is currently located in the jurisdiction of Jackson County but within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and abuts the City Limits of Ashland, (See the Vicinity/Zone Map). The current County Zoning designation is RR-5, which limits development to the construction of a Single Family Residence on a 5 acre parcel. The City's comprehensive Plan Map shows this property to be a mix ofM-l and E-l zoning. Generally, the M-l district will apply to the portion of the property south of the proposed Jefferson A venue extension. The balance of the property to the north, will be annexed under the E-l designation. The M-l District (Chapter 18.52.010) "...is designed to encourage sound industrial development in the City by providing a protective environment exclusively for such development." Conversely, the E-l District (Chapter 18.40.010) "...is designed to provide for a variety of uses such as office, retail, or manufacturing in an aesthetic environment and having a minimal impact on surrounding uses. " Generally, the subject property is bounded to the southwest by the Central Oregon Pacific Railroad Corridor and Mistletoe Road beyond. The property beyond Mistletoe is zoned M-l. Washington Street and the 1-5 corridor lie beyond several adjacent E-I parcels to the east. To the north and northwest lie a vacant parcel and a variety of light industrial developments. A summary of the uses within the vicinity of the subject property (see Aerial Photograph) is as follows: South: The Central Oregon Pacific Railroad Corridor, Mistletoe and M -I. North: Vacant county parcel zoned RR-5 East: Fabrication shop zoned E-I, Washington Street and the 1-5 corridor West: Multiple medium footprint E-I light industrial facilities 5~ I! Phvsical Characteristics: The subject property is generally a triangle that is bisected from north to south by a seasonal drainage that is formally identified as Knoll Creek. The logical completion of Jefferson A venue further divides the property along the east west axis and results in the division of the property into three distinct development areas. Along the creek there are a few 34 existing trees, (see the Tree Removal and Protection Plan) . Although delineated wetlands do not exist on this site, all proposed development is expected to respond sympathetically to this seasonal watercourse. (See Physical and Environmental Constraints Section of the findings and attached preliminary wetlands assessment drawing by Northwest Biological Consulting) Access to the site: Presently, the site is accessed via the dead-end spurs of Jefferson Avenue from the East and the Northwest. As well, there exists a "pan handle" access that begins at Washington Street to the East and extending to the middle third of the property along the northerly property boundary. > . The appropriate development and subsequent integration of this annexation into the city structure necessitates the completion of Jefferson Avenue, and the required public infrastructure. This connection will serve to provide the access to the areas described above. The applicant anticipates that the street and infrastructure improvements required for the completion and connection of Jefferson Avenue will be constructed as a part of this project. As well, it is anticipated that all construction will conform to the City of Ashland's standards and as shown on the Site Plan. Utilities and Services: City underground services and utilities exist within the dead-end spur ROW's of Jefferson Avenue at both locations. Presently the subject property is without significant public services. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request: The applicant wishes to provide a low impact specialty automobile design, research, fabrication and assembly campus on the subject property. It is the intent of the applicant to develop the facility in phases that will loosely correspond to the three areas referenced above and noted on the proposed Site Plan. The initial phase is well defined and, as submitted, has been configured to meet the foreseeable needs of this growing enterprise. At this time, however, future phases have been articulated to the extent only to demonstrate feasibility in terms of conformance to the City of Ashland's development standards. At such time that the future phases are to be developed, the applicant expects that the master plan and its approval to remain intact and that variations from the Master plan and the specifics of each phase will be reviewed separately and in accordance with the prescribed process. Concurrent with this application for annexation of the applicant has completed the preapplication process for the Phase I developments and has submitted the necessary materials that depict a development that has been revised to meet the recommendation of the preapplication staff findings. To accomplish the development plan, the subject property must be annexed into the City. As noted in the Site Description above, the City's comprehensive plan has designated this area to be a mix ofM-1 and E-I zoning. The development proposed by the applicant falls within the parameters of permitted use in these zoning districts. Additionally, the proposed development is within the UGB and borders the city limits along two boundaries. The building, related sitework, and landscaping proposed for Phase I meets or exceeds the development standards of the City of Ashland and the interpretation of those standards as recommended by staff as a result of the preapplication process. The "Type I" 6"'1 RECEIVED FEB 2 8 2006 ~itv of Ashland review of the Phase I development is being processed concurrently with the request. The detailed application materials for the "Type I" review have been attached for reference. Landscape Strateeies: Landscape areas will be used throughout the site to: Meet permeable surface requirements; Mitigate impermeable surfaces and stormwater treatment; Provide screening to adjacent properties; Provide shade for the parking areas; Provide scale and texture for the proposed buildings; Establish a riparian buffer for the designated creek drainage. In addition, all landscape design as submitted for the "Type I" review will reflect the City's Design Standards. The development will require the removal of eight trees. All efforts will be made to save all other trees. (See the Tree Removal and Protection Plan) Utilities: The applicant proposes this annexation with the expectation that the infrastructure improvements required for the completion of Jefferson A venue will be completed. Civil engineering plans and specifications required for the development of the public right of way as well as the private development will be submitted for review prior to the issuance of building permits. Architecture: The architectural styling of the proposed building will be similar to the utilitarian light industrial building to the northwest on Jefferson Avenue. The massing of the proposed building, however, endeavors to mitigate the potential overwhelming scale of the structure. The mass has been subdivided into thirds, both in plan and in section which serves to present a "collection" of comprehendible geometries. The effect of the massing strategy has been further articulated through the careful use of material and color. Essentially the building is rooted on a 4 foot concrete base. From the base springs two lean-to structures clad in a colored metal wall panel which terminates at the eave with a 4 foot translucent polycarbonate wall panel. The lean-to structures rest against a taller, two story, gabled "spine" that bisects the building along its long axis. The roof of this element rotated 90 degrees downward at the building entry, creating a powerful, but simple sculptural statement appropriate to the use of the facility. This central spine exhibits a 55 RECEIVED FEB 2 8 2006 Citv of Ashland regular pattern of fenestration placed high along the east and west walls. The roof and walls are clad in a galvanized metal panel. Generally, the building will be an appropriate compliment to the existing context. FINDINGS: ANNEXATIONS (CHAPTER 18.106) 18.106.030 Approval standards An annexation may be approved if the proposed request for annexation conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, with the following approval criteria: A. The land is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. As shown on the County Parcel Map and the Vicinity Map, the subject property is within the Urban Growth Boundary B. The proposed zoning for the annexed area is in conformance with the designation indicated on the Comprehensive Plan Map, and the project, if proposed concurrently with the annexation, is an allowed use within the proposed zoning. The applicant is proposing an industrial use that is consistent with the City's designation indicated on the Comprehensive Plan Map which shows M-l and E-l zoning. C. The land is currently contiguous with the present City limits. As shown on the County Parcel Map and the Vicinity Map, the subject property abuts the city limits along its northwest boundary and along the Southwest boundary. D. Adequate City facilities for the provision of water to the site as determined by the Public Works Department; the transport of sewage from the site to the waste water treatment plant as determined by the Public Works Department; the provision of electricity to the site as determined by the Electric Department; urban storm drainage as determined by the Public Works Department can and will be provided to and through the subject property. Unless the City has declared a moratorium based upon a shortage of water, sewer, or electricity, it is recognized that adequate capacity exists system-wide for these facilities. RECEI\l ~;""'1> ~ \l., f' ,,..,.1J 5(. FEB 2 8 2006 City of Ashlard n Field n Office n Co~.n~v Compliance with this finding will be achieved by the extension and completion of Jefferson Avenue and the related infrastructure. E. Adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. For the purposes of this section "adequate transportation"for annexations consists of vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian and transit transportation meeting the following standards: 1. For vehicular transportation a 20' wide paved access exists, or can and will be constructed, along the full frontage of the project site to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. All streets adjacent to the annexed area shall be improved, at a minimum, to a half-street standard with a minimum 20' driving surface. The City may, after assessing the impact of the development, require the full improvement of streets adjacent to the annexed area. All streets located within annexed areas shall be fully improved to city standards. Where future street dedications are indicated on the City's Street Dedication Map or required by the City, provisions shall be made for the dedication and improvement of these streets and included with the application for annexation. 2. For bicycle transportation safe and accessible bicycle facilities exist, or can and will be constructed Should the annexation be adjacent to an arterial street, bike lanes shall be provided on or adjacent to the arterial street. Likely bicycle destinations from the project site shall be determined and safe and accessible bicycle facilities serving those destinations shall be indicated 3. For pedestrian transportation safe and accessible pedestrian facilities exist, or can and will be constructed Full sidewalk improvements shall be provided on one side adjacent to the annexation for all streets adjacent to the proposed annexed area. Sidewalks shall be provided as required by ordinance on all streets within the annexed area. Where the project site is within a quarter of a mile of an existing sidewalk system, the sidewalks from the project site shall be constructed to extend and connect to the existing system. Likely pedestrian destinations from the project site shall be determined and the safe and accessible pedestrian facilities serving those destinations shall be indicated 4. For transit transportation, should transit service be available to the site, or be likely to be extended to the site in the future based on information from the local public transit provider, provisions shall be made for the construction of adequate transit facilities, such as bus shelters and bus turn-out lanes. All required transportation improvements shall be constructed and installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any new structures on the annexed property. As discussed in the Project and Site Description sections of this narrative and as shown on the Site Plan, the applicant proposes this annexation with the expectation that compliance with this finding will be achieved through the public improvements required for the completion of Jefferson Avenue. On 57 RECEI ~~=D FEB 2 8 2006 City of Ashland I""-"'t-_.. 1___ _..... .. February 2, 2006, the Ashland City Counsel approved an action allowing the City to apply for an OECDD grant guaranteed by the applicant for the construction of the road, sidewalks and utilities necessary to complete Jefferson Avenue. In addition to the pedestrian facilities normally developed in the public right of way, the applicant has proposed a pedestrian path within the riparian setback established along the creek drainage. F For all residential annexations, a plan shall be provided demonstrating that the development of the entire property will ultimately occur at a minimum density of90% of the base density for the zone, unless reductions in the total number of units is necessary to accommodate significant natural features, topography, access limitations, or similar physical constraints. The owner or owners of the property shall sign an agreement, to be recorded with the county clerk after approval of the annexation, ensuring that future development will occur in accord with the minimum density indicated in the development plan. For purposes of computing maximum density, portions of the annexed area containing undevelopable areas such as wetlands, floodplain corridor lands, or slopes greater than 35%, shall not be included Not applicable, as this is not a residential project. G. For all annexations with a density or potential density offour residential units or greater and involving residential zoned lands, or commercial, employment or industrial lands with a Residential Overlay (R-Overlay): 1. 35% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 120% of median income; or 2. 25% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below '100% of median income; or 3. 20% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 80% of median income; or 4. 15% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 60% of median income; or 5. Title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development is transferred to a non-profit (IRC 501 (3)(c)) affordable housing developer or comparable Development Corporation for the purpose of complying with subsection 2 above. The land shall be located within the project and all needed public facilities shall be extended to the area or areas proposed for transfer. Ownership of the land shall be transferred to the affordable housing developer or Development Corporation prior to commencement of the project. The total number of affordable units described in this section G shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria 5~ RECEIVED FEB 2 8 Z006 City of Ashland o Field 0 Office 0 County for a period of not less than 60 years. Properties providing affordable units as part of the annexation process shall qualify for a maximum density bonus of 25 percent. Not applicable, as this is not a residential project. H One or more of the following standards are met: 1. The proposed area for annexation is to be residentially zoned, and there is less than a five-year supply of vacant and redevelopable land in the proposed land use classification within the current city limits. "Redevelopable land" means land zoned for residential use on which development has already occurred but on which, due to present or expected market forces, there exists the likelihood that existing development will be converted to more intensive residential uses during the planning period. The five- year supply shall be determinedfrom vacant and redevelopable land inventories and by the methodology for land need projections from the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan; or 2. The proposed lot or lots will be zoned E-1 or C-1 under the Comprehensive Plan, and that the applicant will obtain Site Review approval for an outright permitted use, or special permitted use concurrent with the annexation request; or 3. A current or probable public health hazard exists due to lack of full City sanitary sewer or water services; or 4. Existing development in the proposed annexation has inadequate water or sanitary sewer service; or the service will become inadequate within one year; or 5. The area proposed for annexation has existing City of Ashland water or sanitary sewer service extended, connected, and in use, and a signed "consent to annexation" agreement has been filed and accepted by the City of Ashland; or 6. The lot or lots proposed for annexation are an "island" completely surrounded by lands within the city limits. (ORD 2792, 1997; ORD 2895, 2003) As mentioned in Finding B, above, the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning for this property is M-l and E-l. Additionally, the applicant is also requesting Site Review Approval (Type I) for an outright permitted use and has included those submitted documents, drawings and findings for review and need not be reiterated within this narrative. Gary Caperna Senior Designer Batzer Inc. 51 CE~'. :r-D R E . ~,l ~..... . .....".. ~ '\'" ~,,- . FEB 2 8 2006 City of Ashland o Field 0 Office [] County ..i--l......._._ '.~.'-?' . Brammo Motorsport LLC 39.E114A Lot 1104 Ashland, Or 2/23/2006 ~>~....,', ~> ' Ii .~ Community Development 51 Winburn Way Ashland, Oregon 97520 FEB 2 4 7006 c o FI8!C: u; , ). '....... , ' ; RE: Project narrative and Findings of Fact for a proposed annexation and industrial development for Brammo Motorsports on Jefferson Avenue. Prepared by Gary Caperna, Sr. Designer, Batzer Inc. Brammo Motorsports Proiect Scope This is the proposed construction of a 41,024 square foot warehouse and automobile fabrication facility for Brammo Motorsports. The project site is located at the Jefferson Avenue extension to Washington Street. Presently the subject property (3ge14A lot 1104) is located in Jackson County and abuts the City of Ashland limits. The zoning of the parcel, upon annexation into the city limits will be a mix of M-l and E-l districts. The building will be a mixed occupancy structure with un-separated uses. The large building footprint is made possible due the fire sprinkler system and yard setbacks. The building shall have an eave height of approximately twenty feet and a roof slope of 1: 12. The skin of the proposed building will be combination of colored and galvanized steel wall panels and a 48" concrete base wainscot. Construction of the project will occur in phases and will include the public improvements required to extend Jefferson Avenue. The initial phase will occur in the southeast portion of the 8 plus acre parcel. The building site is immediately north of the railroad right-of-way and to the east of a natural drainage course, Knoll Creek, which will require riparian protection. Additionally, bio-swales and a pedestrian path will be developed along the banks of the drainage. Future phases will incorporate features to protect the integrity of the drainage as they are constructed. Where the extension of Jefferson Avenue crosses the drainage, a bridge or box culvert will be constructed to support the road bed. The future phases will remain undeveloped and will require approval prior to development. The first Phase of construction is located at the southeast portion of the project site. The public improvements along Jefferson Avenue will conform to the City of Ashland development requirements. FINDINGS BASED ON REQUIREMENTS OF MUNICIPLE CODE Chapter 18.52.010 M-l Industrial District 18.40.010 Purpose This district is designed to encourage sound industrial development in the City by providing a protective environment exclusively for such development. . Complies, as this project is an industrial/manufacturing use. Revised 10/27/05 - 1 - ~o P.rammo Motorsport LLC 39.E114A Lot 1104 Ashland, Or 18.52.020 Permitted Uses The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright: A. Any manufacturing, processing, assembling, research, wholesale or storage use. · Complies, as this is a facility for the assembly, development, and warehousing required for the activities related to the manufacturing of automobiles. 18.52.030 Conditional Uses · Not applicable as the use is permitted in the M-l zoning. 18.52.040 General Rel!ulations A. Minimum Lot Area, Width, Depth. There is no minimum lot area, lot width, or lot depth. · These requirements have been met with the proposed building placement. B. Minimum Front Yard. The minimum front yard shall be 25 feet. · The proposed site plan depicts the building setback (25) feet from the front yard property line. C. Minimum Side Yard. There is no minimum side yard requirement, except twenty (20) feet where adjoining a residential district. · The project does not abut a residential district. The minimum proposed side yard is 11'- 0" at the east property boundary. D. Minimum Rear Yard. There is no minimum rear yard requirement, except twenty (20) feet where adjoining a residential district. . Not applicable as there are no adjoining residential districts. E. Maximum Building Height. No building shall be greater than forty (40) feet in height. · The proposed building is less than (40) feet high at the ridge. F. Solar Setback. The solar setback shall apply in this district. (Ord. 2228, 1982) . The requirement of the solar setback have been met. (See 18.70 below). R<' l II'.~:,. ".""" .~ ~ .. "," FEB 2 4 2006 Revised 10/27/05 -2- 6/ C~;ty /"~1::';~ ;, ~ O FI'elrl r-, (' " ,", I\"'1 LJ ...-.~:,,~v,-; t~,,~ Brammo Motorsport LLC 39.E114A Lot 1104 Ashland, Or :::"". '~, ':' Chapter 18.61 Tree Preservation and Protection FEB 2 4 2006 18.61.050 Plans Required C:'h! ;'-'"f ..J ~ ;/ "'" I ,,' Ci o Field [] C,iiC() [J untv This application includes Sheet L-l, Tree Removal and Protection Plan, that identifies all of the trees over 6" D BH on the site and the trees within 15 feet on neighboring properties. A. An application for all Tree Removal and Tree Topping Permits shall be made upon forms prescribed by the City. The application for a Tree Removal Permits shall contain: a. The number, size, species and location of the trees proposed to be removed or topped on a site plan of the property. There are 8 trees proposed for removal. Trees over 6" DBH proposed for removal are indicated on Sheet L-l and listed below: Tree # 9, Black Oak, Forked 10"& 14" DBH Tree #10, Black Oak, Forked 7" & 9" DBH Tree # 18, Black Oak, 21" DBH Tree #19, Black Oak, 18" DBH Tree #20, Black Oak, 18" DBH Tree #21, Black Oak, 18" DBH Tree #31, Cottonwood, 14" DBH Tree #34, Cottonwood, 6" DBH b. The anticipated date of removal or topping The anticipated date of removal is pre-mature, and will depend upon the Phasing schedule of the project. Tree removal will most likely occur as necessary during construction. c. A statement of the reason for removal or topping. Tree #9, proposed for removal to allow for the Jefferson Avenue connection. Tree #10, proposed for removal to allow for the Jefferson Avenue connection. Tree #18, proposed for removal because it lies within the proposed building footprint of Phase 2 building. Tree #19, proposed for removal because it lies within the proposed building footprint of Phase 2 building. Tree #20 proposed for removal because it lies within the proposed building footprint of Phase 2 building. Tree #21, proposed for removal because it lies within the proposed building footprint of Phase 2 building. Tree #22, proposed for removal because it lies within the proposed building footprint of Phase 3 building. Tree #34, proposed for removal to allow for the Jefferson Avenue connection. Revised 10/27/05 - 3 - (f:, ~ .. Brammo Motorsport LLC 39.E114A Lot 1104 Ashland, Or d. Information concerning proposed landscaping or planting of new trees to replace the trees to be removed. Tree planting for Phase 1 is shown on Sheet L-2, 'Preliminary Landscaping Plan'. The applicant is anticipating the planting of at least 30 street trees along Jefferson Avenue. There will also be numerous trees planted as part of the proposed riparian restoration planting and around the buildings and parking lots to conform with the Site Design and Use Standards of the City of Ashland. These proposed plantings will more than mitigate for those trees proposed for removal. e. Evidence that the trees proposed for removal or topped will be clearly identified on the property for visual inspection prior to start of construction. The trees to be removed will be tagged with their associated number prior to start of construction. f Any other information reasonably required by the City. B. The applicant shall have the burden of proving that the application complies with the criteria for approval of the applicable class of permit. If the application is for a Tree Removal-Staff Permit, the applicant shall submit specific written findings and evidence addressing the criteria in section 18.61.080 for issuance of a Tree Removal-Staff Permit. See the attached Tree Removal-Staff Permit for additional information regarding requested tree removal and below for additional criteria for issuance of Tree Removal- Staff Permit 18.61.080. C. Misrepresentation of any fact necessary for the City's determinationfor granting a tree removal permit shall invalidate the permit. The City may at any time, including after a removal has occurred, independently verify facts related to a tree removal request and, if found to be false or misleading, may invalidate the permit and process the removal as a violation. Such misrepresentation may relate to matters including, without limitation, tree size, location, health or hazard condition, justification for issuance of permit, or owner's authorized signature. SECTION 18.61.080 Criteria for issuance of Tree Removal- Staff Permit. An applicant for a Tree Removal-Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit. A. Hazard Tree: Not applicable B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: F1\ E ,,'em I] ,<. <~~) Revised 10/27/05 -4- ~3 FEB 2 4 2006 C'hl ryf /\ ~ " } '!oJ' . O F' Id 1-" -",'" "lei' LJ U,fice o County Brammo Motorsport LLC 39.E114A Lot 1104 Ashland, Or 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. The Staff Advisor my require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and The tree removals are consistent with all other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance Requirements and Standards. 2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and The proposed tree removals will not have significant negative impact on any of the above issues. There are two trees proposed for removal within the riparian corridor, to accommodate the connection of Jefferson Avenue, per the preliminary alignment designed by the City Public Works Department. 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The removal of the proposed trees will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property, except for the four large oaks in the Phase 2 building footprint zone. These trees stand in a grove by themselves in the NE corner of the property. Based on recommendations from staff, the applicant has been directed to locate parking, not buildings adjacent to the riparian corridor to allow for more public access to that amenity. If the City will allow the Phase 2 building to be transposed with its associated parking area, the 4 large oaks proposed for removal, could potentially be saved and the parking could be designed around them, retaining the proposed trail along the creek. 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. Tree planting for Phase 1 is shown on Sheet L-2, Preliminary Landscaping Plan. The applicant is anticipating the planting of at least 30 street trees along Jefferson Avenue. There will also be numerous trees planted as part of the proposed riparian restoration planting and around the buildings and parking lots which will be planted as mitigation for the tree removals.. ,:,~ ~ 1'\ I D "'; N ., Chapter 18.70 Solar Access FEB 2 4 2006 18.70.040 Solar Setbacks ".: -"~~ :": :.~ ~ '":l n d r--' .- ..' B. Solar Setback Standard 'B'. This setback is designed to insure that shadows are'hltgr~dteP County than sixteen (16) feet at the north property line. Buildingfor lots, which are classified as Standard 'B', or for any lot zoned C-1, E-1, or M-1, or for any lot not abutting a residential zone to the north, shall be set back from the northern lot line as set forth in the following formula: Revised 10/27/05 - 5 - ~Lf Brammo Motorsport LLC 39.E114A Lot 1104 Ashland, Or "',n,_ "."""'. D : :,' ?, . ",.: ~ ' FEB 2 4 2006 SSB=H-16' 0.445 +S C~ty J:, :;;nd . Complies as the tallest point of the building is approximaWj%~O'4k C6~liiit Q~'i.~~ 25'-0" from the proposed north property line (38'-0" - 16'-0"= 22'-0" setback required). According to these calculations the proposed building meets the required solar setbacks. Chapter 18.72 Site Design and Use Standards 18.72.040 Aooroval Process . This application requires a Type I permit procedure. 18.72.050 Detail Site Review Zone . Not applicable as this project is not located within the Detail Site Review Zone. 18.72.055 Downtown Desisln Standard Zone . Not applicable as this project is not located within the Downtown Design Standard Zone. 18.72.060 Plans Reauired . Complies; see plans submitted with this application. 18.72.070 Criteria for Aooroval The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. . Complies as the proposed development meets or exceeds the requirements of the M-l zoning district. See f"mdings for Chapter 18.52 M-l Industrial District included in these f"mdings. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. . Complies as all applicable requirements of the Site Review Chapter have or will be met. See f"mdings for Site Design and Use Standards that follow. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. . The proposed development complies with applicable Site Design Standards outlined in Chapter 18.72 Site Design and Use Standards; see f"mdings that follow. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655, 1991,; Ord. 2836-S6, 1999) Revised 10/27/05 -6- 6 b Brammo Motorsport LLC 39.E114A Lot 1104 Ashland, Or C:N .1 1. Water: The existing water main at each end of Jefferson Avenue will be extended in and the loop completed. The construction, materials, and placement will conform to the requirements of the City of Ashland standards. 2. Sanitary Sewer: The existing sanitary sewer main at each end of Jefferson Avenue will be extended in and the loop completed. The construction, materials, and placement will conform to the requirements of the City of Ashland standards. A 6" PVC schedule 40 lateral will be provided to serve the proposed building. 3. Electric: Primary power and the required apparatus for the proposed development shall be provided. All power will be distributed via underground conduit as required. The developer agrees to conform to the requirements of the City of Ashland standards. 4. Urban Storm Drainage: The storm drainage for the proposed addition shall be accomplished with catch basins that shall tie into an existing 12" storm drain line on the adjacent site. R.iF l..?.,o:j'.> FEB 2 4 2006 o Field 0,.. ,. . As discussed in the Project and Site Description sections of this narrative and as shown on the Site Plan, the applicant proposes this annexation with the expectation that compliance with this rmding will be achieved through the public improvements required for the completion of Jefferson Avenue. 18.72.080 Site Desifw Standards A. The Council may adopt standards by ordinance for site design and use. These standards may contain: 1. Additional approval criteria for development s affected by this Chapter. 2. Information and recommendations regarding project and unit design and layout, landscaping, energy use and conservation, and other considerations regarding the site design. 3. Interpretations of the intent and purpose of this Chapter applied to specific examples. 4. Other information or educational materials the Council deems advisable. B. Before the Council may adopt or amend the guidelines, a public hearing must be held by the Planning Commission and a recommendation and summary of the hearingforwarded to the Council for its consideration. 18.72.110 LandscaDinf! Standards (The findings below also satisfy requirements of Section IL (C-I b and Ie; and E-I-E-3) of Site Design and Use Standards) A. Area Required. Thefollowing area shall be required to be landscaped in the following zones: E-I: 15% of total lot area. . The total landscaping area proposed on this submittal is 15.60%. B. Location. Landscaping shall be located so that it is visible from public right-of -way or provide bufferingfrom adjacent uses. Landscaping shall be distributed in those areas where Revised 10/27/05 - 7 - " Brammo Motorsport LLC 39.E114A Lot 1104 Ashland, Or it provides for visual and acoustical buffering, open space uses, shading, and wind buffering, and aesthetic qualities. · Approximately 235 lineal feet of continuous parking lot landscaping is proposed along the west boundary of the parking area. Additional parking lot landscaping is proposed along the south easement with 170 lineal feet along the parking area. All of the proposed landscaping meets or exceeds City standards and will serve to provide shading and wind buffering as well as being aesthetically pleasing. See Preliminary Landscape Plan sheet L-2. C. Irrigation. All landscaping plans shall either be irrigated or shall be certified that they can be maintained and survive without artificial irrigation. If the plantings fail to survive, the property owner shall replace them · Complies, as the proposed landscaping along the riparian areas shall be designed as drip irrigation system. The landscaped areas along Jefferson Avenue and adjacent to the building and parking area shall be designed using automated spray irrigation. An irrigation plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permit. (The findings below also satisfy requirements of Section Il,(A) of Site Design and Use Standards} D. Parking Lots. Seven percent of all the parking lot area shall be landscaped. Such landscaping shall consist of the proper mixture of deciduous trees and shrubs so that all of the landscaped areas shall be covered within five years by a spreading evergreen ground cover or by shrubs, and shaded by trees. · Complies, as there are 27,495 square feet of parking lot paving and 5,330 square feet of parking lot landscaping for a total of 19%. E. One street tree per 30 feet offrontage shall be required on all projects · Complies, as there are proposed street trees every 30 feet along the Jefferson Avenue frontage for a total of 9 trees proposed for Phase 1. 18.72.115 Recvclinf Reauirements All commercial and multi-family developments, requiring a site review as indicated in 18.72.040, shall provide an opportunity-to-recycle site for use of the project occupants. A. Commercial. Commercial developments having a solid waste receptacle shall provide a site, of equal or greater size, adjacent to or with access comparable to the solid waste receptacle to accommodate materials collected by the local solid waste franchisee under its on-route- collection program for purposes of recycling. · Complies, as solid waste and recycling receptacles are shown near the truck dock area. ..-~~:-:-:;: _~,.<:-~''.>. !~--'''''''''~l ';-, H "'''' ,,~ 'II ,~"'~ ",J Revised 10/27/05 -8- ~ '7 FEB 2 4 2006 .!\':;h:3.nd o Fi81d D O;'ilce 0 County .. . Brammo Motorsport LLC 39.E114A Lot 1104 Ashland, Or 18.72.120 Controlled Access A. Prior to any partitioning of property located in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1, or M-1 zone, controlled access standards shall be applied and, if necessary, cross easements shall be required so that access to all properties created by the portioning can be made from one or more points. · Requirements that require the protection of the drainage to the west preclude access to the residual property to the west. Similarly, the anticipated grade change between the sidewalk at Jefferson Avenue and the building front will necessitate a cross slope unsuitable for vehicular access. Access to adjoining properties to the south is precluded by the railway. B. Access Points shall be limited to the following: 1. Distance between driveways on collector streets = 75'-0" · Complies, as no driveways are being proposed that do not conform to this constraint. 2. Distance from intersections on collector streets = 50'-0" · Jefferson Avenue is designated as a neighborhood collector. The proposed site access is substantially more than 50'-0" C. Vision clearance standards. 1. No obstructions greater than two and one halffeet (2 '-6") high, nor any landscaping which will grow greater than two and one half feet (2'-6'') high, with the exception of trees whose canopy heights are at all times greater than eight feet (8'-0 ''), may be placed in a vision clearance area determined asfollows: · Complies as all site access/egress and adjacent landscaping and lor obstructions have been located to conform to these requirements. 18.72.140 LiVht and Glare Performance Standards There shall be no direct illumination of any residential zone from a lighting standard in any other residential lot, C-1, E-1, or M-1, SO, or HC lot. (The findings below also satisfy requirements of Section IL(C-1j) of Site Design and Use Standards) · Complies, as all proposed exterior lighting shall be wall mounted, Wal-Pak light f"Ixtures, which primarily cast the light downward on the building and shall be compliant with the Dark Sky Association. R r-'-2~'"'' '" FEB 2 4 2006 Revised 10/27/05 -9- G~ C;i,'V Ir;f j ...~" o Field 0 Oti;ce 0 County Brammo Motorsport LLC 39.E114A Lot 1104 Ashland, Or Chapter 18.92 Off-Street Parking [";. r"' "'" r' ~~.:. r\":.."~.J!: 18.92.020 Automobile Parkin!! Soaces Required Uses and standards are asfollows: A. Residential Uses. FEB 2 4 2006 c ~ t'~l County D Field 0 · Not applicable as this is not a submittal for a residential use development. B. Commercial Uses. 1. Offices. General: one space per 450 square feet offloor area. · Complies, as there is 8,000 square feet of Office + 450 = 18 spaces C. Industrial Uses. 1. Industrial uses, except warehousing: One space per 700 square feet of floor area. · Complies, as there are 20,024 square feet of Industrial + 700 = 29 spaces. 2. Warehousing: One space per 1,000 square feet offloor area. · Complies, as there 21,000 square feet of Warehouse + 1000 = 21 spaces. F. Maximum Allowable Number of Automobile Parking Spaces. The number of spaces provided by any particular use, in ground surface lots, shall not exceed the required number of spaces provided by this ordinance by more than 10%. Spaces provided on-street, or within the buildingfootprint of structures, such as in rooftop parking, or under-structure parking, or in multi-level parking above or below surface lots, shall not apply towards the maximum number of allowable. . Complies, as all parking (68 spaces required; 69 spaces provided) are provided on ground surface lots. 18.92.030 Disabled Persons Parkinf! Places The total number of disabled person parking spaces shall comply with the following: Total in Parking Lot Required Minimum Number of Accessible Spaces 50 to 75 spaces = 3 disabled person parking spaces required. . Complies, as there are three spaces provided for this development. 18.92.040 Bicvcle Parkinv A. All uses, with the exception for detached single-family residences and uses in the C-I-D zone, shall provide a minimum of two sheltered bike parking spaces. . Complies, as all required/provided bicycle parking proposed for this development shall be sheltered. Revised 10/27/05 -10- ~'1 Brammo Motorsport LLC 39.E114A Lot 1104 Ashland, Or B. In addition, all uses which required off-street parking, except as specifically noted, shall provide one bicycle parking space for every jive (5) required auto parking spaces. Fractional spaces shall be rounded up to the next whole space. Fifty percent (50%) of the bicycle parking spaces required shall be sheltered from the weather. All spaces shall be located in proximity to the uses they are intended to serve. (Ord. 2697 S1, 1993) · Complies, as the required number of bicycle parking spaces required is 14 (69 -;- 5 = 14) and the number of spaces provided is fourteen (14). All spaces are within twenty feet of the main employee entrance, and all spaces shall be sheltered. 18.92.050 Comoact Car Parkin!! Up to 50% of the total automobile parking spaces in a parking lot may be designatedfor compact cars. Minimum dimensions for compact spaces shall be 8 feet x 16 feet. Such spaces shall be signed or the space painted with the words "Compact Car Only. " · Complies, as (9) compact spaces have been shown resulting in 13% compact spaces. 18.92.060 Limitations. Location. Use of Facilities A. Location. Except for single and two-family dwellings, required automobile parking facilities may be located on another parcel of land, provided said parcel is within 200 feet of the use it is intended to serve. The distance from the parking lot to the use shall be measured in walking distance from the nearest parking space to an access to the building housing the use, along a sidewalk or other pedestrian path separated from street traffic. Such right to use the off-site parking must be evidenced by a deed, lease, easement, or similar written instrument establishing such use, for the duration of the use. · Not applicable, as no parking facilities have been shown on adjacent properties. B. Except as allowed in 18.92.060 F., and except in the M-Industrial District, required automobile parking shall not be located in a required front and side yard setback area abutting a public street, except alleys. · Complies, as no parking is proposed in the front setback, or in the side yard abutting a street. C. Mixed Uses. In the event that several users occupy a single structure or parcel of land, the total requirements for off-street automobile parking shall be the sum of the requirements for the several uses computed separately unless it can be shown that the peak parking demands are offset. In such case the Staff Advisor may reduce the total requirement accordingly, but not by more than 35%. · Complies, as the total structure (existing and proposed) does house several different uses and the parking calculations have been computed as such. See fmdings for 18.92.020 above for actual breakdown of parking space requirements for each use. r::: ~ ""'''' <" f' ~" r.".. '''.". " . '. .. ~- ",," ~ ~,. " Revised 10/27/05 - 11 - 70 '''''I!!') , ,~ I _,w m;; FEB 2 4 Z006 ChI ".' o Field r-I O-ifiGf: 11 r.rll m,t\f. Brammo Motorsport LLC 39.E114A Lot 1104 Ashland, Or D. Joint Use Facilities. Required parkingfacilities of two or more uses, structures, or parcels of land may be satisfied by the same parking facilities used jointly, to the extent that it can be shown by the owners or operators that the need for the facilities does not materially overlap (e.g., uses primarily of a daytime v. nighttime nature) and provided that such right of joint use is evidenced by a deed, lease, easement, or similar written instrument establishing such joint use. · Not applicable, as all parking provided is required by Brammo Motorsports and shall be used exclusively by Brammo. E. Availability of Facilities. All automobile and bicycle parking shall be available for parking of residents, customers, and employees only and shall not be used for the storage or display of vehicles or materials. · Complies, all parking shall be available and shall not be used for the storage or display of vehicles or materials. 18.92.070 Automobile Parkin!! Desi!!n Requirements A. Size and Access. All required parking areas shall be designed in accordance with the parking layout chart at the end of this Chapter. Parking spaces shall be a minimum of 9 feet x 18 feet, except that 50% of the spaces may be compact spaces in accord with 18.92.050 and shall have a 22 foot back-up space except where parking is angled. · Complies, as all parking spaces are 9 feet x 18 feet and have a minimum 22 foot back-up. (9) compact spaces are proposed and comply with the applicable requirements. B. Driveways and Turn-arounds. Driveways and turn-arounds providing access to parking areas shall conform to the following provisions: 1. A driveway for a single swelling shall have a minimum width of 9 feet, and a shared driveway serving two units shall have a width of 12 feet. . Not applicable, as the use is not residential. 3. Parking of more than seven parking spaces per lot shall be provided with adequate isle turn- around areas so that all vehicles may enter the street in a forward manner. · Complies, as all parking spaces have a minimum back-up area of 22 feet. 4. Shared Use of Driveways and Curb Cuts. a. Developments subject to a planning action or divisions of property, either by minor land partition or by subdivision, shall minimize the number of driveway intersections with streets by the use of shared driveways with adjoining lots where feasible. In no case shall driveways be closer that 24 feet measured from the bottom of the existing or proposed apron wings of the driveway approach. R ty ,"'--- · Complies, as the proposed driveways are more that 24 feet apart. FEB 2 4 2006 Revised 10/27/05 - 12 - 71 (,';!';I rrf i""::hl;,'\nd '. "j "'". . ~ .....,! . ~ ,,,.\ ; D Field 0 O;;:co 0 County Brammo Motorsport LLC 39.E114A Lot 1104 AsWand, Or r:. '.". '''''''''M " 'r ~ '::;": "~.,~.~.s}.i , , ,,; ~,... ~:- ,~;.,l' ~ ~.'~' r--;"':'I':Ir ~""'-~ " ;, i! "', ~ II , ~: A, ".:"\!!eiL.~ FEB 2 4 2006 b. Plans for property being partitioned or subdiVi~i5l&~: t!ii~?~~1t:;j~eloRments shall indicate how driveway intersection with streetSlz~~e been minimizeJ-Jzro9t~711 the use of shared driveways and shall indicate all necessary access easements. · Not applicable, as the property is occupied by a single user. c. Developments subject to a planning action shall remove all curb cuts and driveway approaches not shown to be necessary for existing improvements or the proposed development. Cuts and approaches shall be replaced with standard curb, gutter, or sidewalk as appropriate. All replacement shall be done under permit of the Engineering Division. · Not applicable, as no street improvements presently exist. A. Vertical Clearance. Driveways, aisles, turn-around areas, and ramps shall have a minimum vertical clearance of 13 '-6" for their entire length and width. · Complies, as there are no obstructions over parking or circulation areas. B. Vision Clearance. No signs, structures, or vegetation in excess of two and one halffeet (2 '- 6 '') in height shall be placed in the vision clearance area. The vision clearance area is the triangle formed by a line connection points 25 feet from the intersection of the property lines. In the case of an intersection involving an alley, and a street, the triangle is formed by a line connecting points tenfeet along the alley and 25 feet along the street. When the angle of the intersection between the street and the alley is less than 30 degrees, the distance shall be 25 feet. No signs, structures, or vegetation or portion thereof shall be erected with 10 feet of driveways unless the same is less than two and one halffeet (2'-6'') in height. The vision clearance standards established by this section are not subject to the Variance section of this title. · Complies, as no signs, structures, or vegetation in excess of 2'-6" in height are within 10 feet of any driveway. C. Development and Maintenance. The development and maintenance as provided below, shall apply in all cases except single-family dwellings. 1. Paving. All required parking areas, aisles, turn-arounds and driveways shall be paved with concrete, asphaltic or comparable surfacing, constructed to standards on file in the office of the City Engineer. · Complies, as all required parking areas, aisles and turn-arounds are or shall be paved with asphaltic, and all driveways are concrete. 3. Drainage. All required parking areas, aisles and turn-arounds shall have provisions made for on site collection of drainage waters to eliminate sheet flow of such waters onto sidewalks, public right-of -ways, and abutting private property. · Complies, as the collection of site drainage waters shall be accomplished with catch- basins then piped to the storm-drainage vegetated bio-swale fIltration system. The site Revised 10/27/05 - 13 - ? ~ Brammo Motorsport LLC 39.E114A Lot 1104 Ashland, Or drainage system is currently under design by a licensed Civil Engineer and will be submitted for permitting. 4. Marking. Parking lots with more than seven spaces shall have all spaces permanently and clearly marked. · Complies, as all 69 proposed parking spaces shall be permanently and clearly marked with 3" wide painted striping on the asphalt surface. 5. Wheel stops. Wheel stops shall be a minimum of 4 inches in height and width and 6 feet in length. They shall be firmly attached to the ground and so constructed as to withstand normal wear, wheel stops shall be provided where appropriate for all spaces abutting property lines, landscaping, and no vehicle shall overhang the public right-of-way · Complies, as wheel stops shall be provided where appropriate. 6. Walls and Hedges. · Not applicable, as no wall or hedges are proposed for this submittal. 7. Landscaping. In all zones, all parkingfacilities shall include landscaping to cover not less than 7% of the area devoted to outdoor parking facilities, including the landscaping required in subdivision 6(a) above. Said landscaping shall be uniformly distributed throughout the parking area, be provided with irrigation facilities and protective curbs or raised wood headers. It may consist of trees, plus shrubs, ground cover or related material. A minimum of one tree per seven parking spaces is required. (The findings below also satisfy requirements of Section IL(D-3) of Site Design and Use Standards) · Complies, as all parking areas are propose have a minimum of one tree per seven parking spaces (69 parking spaces = 10 trees), landscaping at the outdoor parking facilities equals 19% of the area of the outdoor parking facilities has been. See Preliminary Landscape Plan L-2. 8. Lighting of parking areas within 100 feet of property in residential zones shall be directed into or on the site and away from property lines such that the light element shall not be directly visible from abutting residential property. · Complies, as lighting of the parking areas shall be accomplished with wall mounted light f"Ixtures on the building that are designed to shed light down. "" " ~". ,c.':"~':~"") """ ;,,,,,J FEB 2 4 2006 Revised 10/27/05 - 14- 13 O r. 'd ~--I ,',,"" DC '18,' Li tJ;'I:C8 ounty II Brammo Motorsport LLC 39.E114A Lot 1104 Ashland, Or .r~""..Y".':':: '. ''f'';'''.'''~ Chapter 18.96 Sign Regulations FEB 2 4 2006 18.96.050 Si1!n Permits C:l/ ": . D Fie;lri 0 D. Not applicable, as there are no signs being proposed at this time. v,.... [J County FINDINGS BASED ON REQUIREMENTS OF THE SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS (Where not covered by the findings based on the Municipal Code) Section II Approval Standards and Policies II-C-1. Basic Site Review Standards 1a. Orientation and Scale 1) Buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street rather than the parking area. Building entrances shall be orientated toward the street and shall be accessed from a public sidewalk. Public sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to a public street along the street frontage. . The design of the proposed addition has elongated the building mass along in the north/south axis. Access to the building is from the proposed sidewalk along Jefferson Avenue. 2) Buildings that are within 30 feet of the street shall have an entrance for pedestrians directly from the street to the building interior. This entrance shall be designed to be attractive and functional, and shall be open to the public during all business hours. . The proposed building will have limited public traffic, However, it is located within 30 feet of Jefferson Avenue, the design proposes a monumental entrance with direct pedestrian access from the street/sidewalk to the building interior. 3) These requirements may be waived if the building is not accessed by pedestrians, such as warehouses and industrial buildings without attached offices, and automotive service uses such as service stations and tire stores. . Not applicable, as the building is accessed by pedestrians. 1d Parkin!! 1) Parking areas shall be located behind buildings or on one or both sides. Revised 10/27/05 - 15 - 1'1 Brammo Motorsport LLC 39.E114A Lot 1104 Ashland, Or . Complies as all parking is located behind the building and on one side. 2) Parking areas shall be shaded by deciduous trees, buffered from adjacent non- residential uses and screened from non-residential uses. . Complies, deciduous trees are proposed for shading and buffering of the parking areas. . The proposed new parking has been located to the west the building, and, because of the significant slope across the property, will be significantly screened from street view. . The landscape plan indicates deciduous trees along the west boundary of the parking area, which will provide summer shade in the afternoon. The parking has been located immediately adjacent to the 18' high west wall of the building. The height of the wall will provide significant shade to the parking area. The continuous planter area along the south edge of the parking area will provide buffering from the adjacent non-residential use. Planters with trees are proposed within the parking area to increase the shading of the asphalt surface. 1 e Desil!nated Creek Protection . All site improvements have been setback (20) feet from top of the designated creek bank, in accordance with draft Wetland and Riparian Area Protection Ordinance. Additionally, the (20) foot riparian area will be utilized for storm water nItration and passive outdoor areas as indicated on the submitted landscape plans. StreetscaDe: 1) Street trees have been proposed on the landscape plan along Jefferson Avenue in accordance with the City of Ashland development standards. The proposed trees have been selected from the approved street tree list. LandscaDinf!: 1) The plant materials specified on the proposed landscaping plan have been selected so that 500.10 coverage will achieved after one year and that 90% coverage will occur after 5 years. 2) The plant materials specified on the proposed landscaping plan include a pleasing variety of low water use trees, shrubs and flowering specimens. 3) The landscape plan shows the appropriate 20 feet wide riparian area on the drainage developed with a pedestrian path and bio-swales for the detention and nItration of storm water run off from the new impervious surface. "':"~."',c:: " Revised 10/27/05 - 16- 16 FEB 2 4 2006 c",/ (' '" :'\ O ric;cJ ["::-1 c: .J '...... i o County [)- ~ 1\ r, "'I 11,..'" ,.. ~"~ ~~1!S Brammo Motorsport LLC 39.E114A Lot 1104 Ashland, Or 4) Automatic drip and spray irrigation system shall be designed and submitted prior to issuance of the building permit that will assure the health of the plant material. 5) Although several trees are slated for removal, every reasonable effort will be made to ensure the health of the existing trees to remain. Noise and Glare: 1) The landscape screening along the south property line will mitigate any glare that might occur in the parking area. Potential glare from the windows along Siskiyou will be mitigated by the proposed street trees. The proposed warehouse activity is not expected to generate any significant noise. All of the proposed windows are oriented perpendicular to Jefferson A venue which will tend to mitigate any glare issues. The building to the west and the landscape area along the drainage will also serve to reduce any potential glare that might be anticipated at the parking areas. EXDansions of Existinl! Sites and Buildinl!s: 1) The proposed development will maximize the development potential of this portion of the site. Conformance to the development standards has been based on 100% development. 18.62 Physical & Environmental Constraints <-0 = = ('o.J As part of this project, the applicant is proposing to enhance Knoll Creek, an existing creek that has been historically terminated by the Central Oregon Pacific railroad crossing. Knoll Creek is currently in a degraded condition, with very little native riparian vegetation and functionally disrupted storm water inputs. As part of this project, we are proposing to enhance the existing riparian vegetation and function by the addition of riparian plantings, a controlled continuous input of storm water from the surrounding site. In the areas where we cross the creek, and the bridge/road abutments will interfere with the existing riparian form and function, we are proposing a one to one mitigation by creating enhanced riparian characteristics at other points on the site. Weare proposing the restoration of a degraded stream system and the additional restoration of a degraded area that was created when the railroad grading was done (see Sheet L- 3). ~ IN CD lJJ l.L As currently designed, the new road crossing interferes with 4,730 square feet of riparian vegetation. The function of the creek will be altered in that the banks of the creek are covered by roadway infrastructure, and no longer allow for sheet flow to enter the creek for this section, which is approximately 60 feet long on either bank. The actual channel of Knoll Creek will not be altered. The flow will continue to move between the lower banks with its current gradient and capacity. o Revised 10/27/05 - 17 - 7" Brammo Motorsport LLC 39.E114A Lot 1104 AsWand, Or r:." .- itJ '~\ "1',::.. FES 2 4 2006 18.62.010 Puroose and Intent 0"" . C.;{. ';: r i'~'r! 1-..../ ,-"..., L' rJ--' ,~. J L l..OUj]tv The purpose of this Chapter is to provide for safe, orderly and beneficial development OJ dtstricts characterized by diversity of physiographic conditions and significant natural features; to limit alteration of topography and reduce encroachment upon, or alteration oj any natural environment and; to provide for sensitive development in areas that are constrained by various natural features. Physiographic conditions and significant natural features can be considered to include, but are not limited to: slope of the land, natural drainage ways, wetlands, soil characteristics, potential landslide areas, natural and wildlife habitats, forested areas, significant trees, and significant natural vegetation. (Ord 2808, Added, 12/02/1997) 18.62.020 Rel!ulations The type of regulation applicable to the land depends upon the classification in which the land is placed, as provided in Section 18.62.050. If those regulations conflict with other regulations of the City of Ashland's Municipal Code, the more stringent of the two regulations shall govern. (Ord 2808, Added, 12/02/1997) This property has a Riparian Land Drainage that divides the overall site. A road is being proposed to pass though the property that requires a bridge or box culvert over the drainage way. The applicant is proposing to mitigate the riparian area that is disturbed by the placement of the crossing with a one to one mitigation. The mitigation will consist of the creation of expanded riparian areas on the site. The applicant is also proposing to enhance the drainage way throughout the property. The creek is currently degraded and overgrown with blackberries. 18.62.040 Aooroval and Permit ReQuired A Physical Constraints Review Permit is required for the following activities: A. Development, as defined in 18.62. 030.D, in areas identified as Flood plain Corridor Land, Riparian Preserve, Hillside Land, or Severe Constraint land. This project requires disturbance of land within the Riparian Preserve or 'Riparain Land Drainage' . B. Tree removal, as defined in 18.62. 030.RT., in areas identified as Flood plain Corridor Land and Riparian Preserve. There are trees proposed for removal but there are two trees proposed for removal within the Riparian Preserve area. C. Commercial logging, in areas identified as Flood plain Corridor Land, Riparian Preserve, Hillside Land, or Severe Constraint Land. Not Applicable. D. Tree removal, in areas identified as Hillside Land and Severe Constraint Land, except that a permit need not be obtained for tree removal that is not associated with development, and done for Revised 10/27/05 - 18 - 17 II Brammo Motorsport LLC 39.E114A Lot 1104 Ashland, Or the purposes of wildfire management and carried out in accord with a Fire Prevention and Control Plan approved by the Fire Chief Not Applicable. E. If a development is part of a Site Review, Performance Standards Development, Conditional Use Permit, Subdivision, Partition, or other Planning Action, then the Review shall be conducted simultaneously with the Planning Action. This project requires a Site Review, Partition and Annexation, the Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit is required as part of the approval process. F. If a development is exclusive of any other Planning Action, as noted in Subsection B, then the Physical Constraints Review shall be processed as a Staff Permit. Not Applicable. G. Where it appears that the proposal is part of a more extensive development that would require a master site plan, or other planning action, the Staff Advisor shall require that all necessary applications be filed simultaneously. Not Applicable. H. Plans Required. The following plans shall be required for any development requiring a Physical Constraints Review: See the plan set submitted with this application. 1. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following: 1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. When designing the new Jefferson Avenue connection and creek crossing, the following potential impacts were taken into consideration: Loss of Riparian habitat Loss of Riparian vegetation and specifically large mature trees Disruption of Riparian hydrologic function We have minimized the above concerns by locating the crossing within the path of the existing road extensions to either side, and by making sure that the crossing is of minimum road width. The crossing occurs where the least number of trees would have to be removed. As stated earlier in this application, other than mature trees and willows, the riparian corridor is degraded, we are proposing to enhance this area with riparian plantings and to mitigate the loss of riparian area in other hydrologically appropriate areas on the site. The function of the F-: .~=~' Revised 10/27/05 - 19 - '7G; FEB 2 4 2006 C'" cr O ";,,!~I [' i r~_'li,-,~ J o County Brammo Motorsport LLC 39.E114A Lot 1104 Ashland, Or creek will be altered, in that the banks of the creek will be covered by the street crossing. This proposed construction will no longer allow for sheet flow to enter the creek for a section that is approximately 60 feet long on either side of the creek. The actual channel of Knoll Creek will not be altered. The flow will continue to move between the lower banks with its current gradient and capacity. 2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. The primary potential hazards that development may create on this site have to do with alteration of the hydrology through the creation of impervious surfaces. The applicant has proposed an extensive storm-water management scheme that meters roof water back to Knoll Creek as sheet flow, and that treats the parking lot runoff in bio-swales prior to metering it back into Knoll Creek. The riparian mitigation strategy creates more riparian function and habitat while mitigating for the loss created by the crossing. 3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. (Ord 2834 Sl, 1998) (Ord. 2834, Amended, 11/03/1998, Section 18.62.040J "deleted"; Ord 2808, Added, 12/02/1997) When designing the new Jefferson A venue connection and creek crossing, the following potential impacts were taken into consideration: Loss of Riparian habitat Loss of Riparian vegetation and specifically large mature trees Disruption of Riparian hydrologic function We have minimized the above concerns by locating the crossing within the path of the existing road extensions to either side, and by making sure that the crossing is of minimum road width. The crossing occurs where the least number of trees would have to be removed. As stated earlier in this application, other than mature trees there is very little riparian vegetation or habitat existing on the site. We are proposing to enhance the existing riparian corridor and mitigate the loss of riparian area in other appropriate hydrological areas on the site. The function of the creek is altered in that the banks of the creek are covered and no longer allow for sheet flow to enter the creek for a section that is approximately 60 feet long on either side of the creek. The actual channel of Knoll Creek will not be altered. The flow will continue to move between the lower banks with its current gradient and capacity. The primary potential hazards that development may create on this site have to do with alteration of the hydrology through the creation of impervious surfaces. The applicant has proposed an extensive storm-water management scheme that meters roof water back to Knoll Creek as sheet flow, and that treats the parking lot runoff in bio-swales prior to metering it back into Knoll Creek. The riparian mitigation strategy creates mf~ riRa):j~~ f~ncti~n ~~~ habitat while mitigating for the loss created by the crossing. r'" . '; r ~ .. , ~:.J FEB 2 4 2006 Revised 10/27/05 - 20- 7'1 (", \.., 0,-' " I' ,'(',J' -,. .~. t...,: [J County II . Brammo Motorsport LLC 39.E114A Lot 1104 Ashland, Or 18.62.050 Land Classifications Thefollowingfactors shall be used to determine the classifications of various lands and their constraints to building and development on them: This property has been designated as Riparian Preserve by the City of Ashland. 18.62.060 Official Maps A. The City Council shall adopt official maps denoting the above identified areas. Substantial amendments of these maps shall be a Type 3 procedure. B. Minor amendments of the maps to correct mapping errors when the amendments are intended to more accurately reflect the mapping criteria contained in this chapter or in the findings of the Council in adopting an official map may be processed as a Type 1 procedure. (Ord 2808, Added, 12/02/1997) 18.62.070 Development Standards for Flood plain Corridor Lands This project does not fall within designated flood plain lands. 18.62.075 Development Standards for Riparian Preservation lands A. All development in areas indicatedfor Riparian Preservation, as defined in section 18.62.050(B), shall comply with the following standards: 1. Development shall be subject to all Development Standards for Flood plain Corridor Lands (18.62.070) . 2. Any tree over six inches d.b.h. shall be retained to the greatest extent feasible. 3. Fill and Culverting shall be permitted only for streets, access, or utilities. The crossing shall be at right angles to the creek channel to the greatest extent possible. Fill shall be kept to a minimum. 4. The general topography of Riparian Preservation lands shall be retained. (Ord 2808, Added, 12/02/1997) 18.62.080 Development Standards for Hillside Lands This project does not fall within designated hillside lands. 18.62.090 Development Standards for Wildfire Lands This project does not fall within designated Wildrrre lands. 18.62.100 Development Standards for Severe Constraint Lands This project does not fall within designated severe constraints lands. 18.62.110 Densitv Transfer ~~' '. "C';" ~''',. ~ ~i" Not Applicable for this application. FEB 2 4 2006 C: / ,d Revised 10/27/05 - 21 - ~t) O !'"'l'".l..; 'L"-',', ~ '0:.; ~ t,,~ u_J [] County ea;" i)~ 'f; ",,~; ~ ~1 ,~ ;:\\ }~ .. ~ t - ~,~ jd}.4 .."" ., .. , , .. ~ .. < ... "'~ -\. "' '- -- ~ . ("I r , f ""''l ~ ., , N Knoll Creek N Irrigation Ditches o Potential Wetlands o Taxlots o r:- \1 l~' l JV- - i I ~-\o '. ^:.- -w N~ 200 Feet -. t, - -- --I . i))~o"Project ".- !l't~_ -~ ~ ~. f ~ ~ 4,: .-., , \. ","" ~ .. '-"e' - '" . , E'" '>0'1.." 't ~,~ -.. ,~~.i ~'t-:""l~- ~--' --~ . "'.' c;. . . . ,~:.t ' "" -" fo. .: '~~) r!}\"! ....~k'~~ ". "~~ '>t .. ~ _ ..,,~, 'f~ ie<(. ..."""~ T .~ _ __ -- ;... ~ ~ " .. )or ""-Jr .!Ii._;~' ,~ ~ -".,. ~ ~ :~'~. ."", roo ,: I ....-.. ~- t ,~> '" r I '>yC , I I I w. LI Ij (r- tI ~ ~ . 'l I~ ~ . -t ... ~ "'" .... .. 7~~}~ .. ... tt ....~. ~~ . L .....~.. " ~ ~., '.~ . ",..;" ;i>,; ~ I k~( I , l .~ ,~ to l' ", u ....'. /"" "I .t'irlg ,i<,Llf_~ , ~"E91'520 4" . ., ~1 ~ ~~ ~~~ Nort~JVe~t" Biol<:~~1 ,0 324 TeJra~~St. Ashlari"~ (541 )'488~ 061 ~, :.;{~.".;~;'~ ~+ 'J ~ Feprliary 2006, -~I J:\2006 Projects\3301.06 Brammo Motorsports \3605.06 Brammo AIl.O Cover Sheetdwg. 2/24120061:45:55 PM. Jordan. \ \llulijoet-[]7aB56 \J1p OeskJet t220C Printer . !il~:;! HFOi:: ~~ijrn~ l!:mm I '"'m i=...l Q ~a~ ~~l::rJ .-- ~ffi ~ ~ !_ a: i i ~ ~ ~ 1t I = ~ ~ 5 ;;0 ~); -la.c "I~-h)> ",..Gl ~~ ~!~i~ i~~~~-i~ 8~~ ~ I/O ~ ail: 0 ~ i l pt Gl ~ m 0 ~en i.~"O hH~-:;:': i'~~ G) .: g .it. I ~ t[ n · ii 0 1\ .. c: ~z ;f&"l.l'!:;:O ~a....",.~z:(jj rn:::l)> =", ~~~q2 ~~hij~ Cl;ii~ ~ ~z ~~1~~ j;;d.i - ~:l!m ~ 'fICIJ i~Oi'~O -Iti-.fw ij)~ 8 ~c ~iH~ Hiig;rt:> ;;....Iii ~);:~ii-;->O ;l.!a~:-'"I~-t ~~ Ha~ Hill'::: ~ ~8 ~ ~~~~.~f~~ fljl-~ ~n1 ~~ '~.H~ ..ql:- ~ ~ i~ i~8" ~!i~i ~ ~ ~> ~~; ~Ji!-if~'" i ~ r- ~ Q Ill" li::.![ i ~-l r"" ~en E:~ H~"," 12 .. 1l~~ 1lil;;l' ti ~ ~l!:; -58.~~l ~ i h! HIll ~ fj ~ .., li.lt ~ ~ ; ~! hJH ~ ~ .. S' Ii'" i ~ ~ ill ~ 0 '" <{ "f ~ i!l i5~ f :i~ <' 5' ~ ~ 0 .. Ii If I" c '" 0: z =l ~ g g ~r ;ii .. ,. ~5 , i!; ~ J! 0 - 0 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ i H i F pi!: l:1 i Ii ~ .!!: dE :i' ill'" . ~I -~ II ii ~i '" ,?l!!.. ~s ~ Sf H! i .. ""~ i 1 ~i! ~ ;~ ll: ~ ~Il ~ Ii! ~ ~ i ~iI ~~ :i' . " 1 ~ ~ jf ~ H~ II ~ ! "'~il . i~ [ f i~ .. '" 5 ~ ~'" ~i .! 1\ rr1 co ~ ""'"' r--.> = = 0"') .-- )>)>)>)> r;-r;-r;- )> I ~:-":-":-'" "''''~ 0 orv......o 0 W(flml> :;o-o-u--i 00 ~iil~1!l ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ :;uccrn ~m I >~~ill 2;U Q~mm ;;tt~ Glen m~O~ I "((.Ie rn~~;; zm ~en:::;~ ~-~ )> m~ b~~;: g ~~ - " ~O~z "';u ,,0 2 )>~ :::!~eno o.L I (J) 2m 000" )>m "0 Z:;u~;U III 0 ';;~ ")>mQ lll~ ;UO 2m ';;z"m m)> o~ 2)>';;0 ~);! mO ~" X1Z6 )>- )>s: ~ ;=m )> 2 5 en2 2 " 2 ~ 0 ';; en " 2 ';; 2 ~';:;';;~ c.. ~~~~z<:> UH i" ~~:t~I!~ ~i~~~ x ~:~~;~~ Q i~~C::;;~~~~~~~:;:~;;:~~ .... E~;~~~~~~~3;m m :~~;;~~~~:i <:> B~~:3~~~~~~~5~~~~~; n ~~~ffij~~~~~~ ~ :>O"'"')>~"'''''''''>>)>''''''' ,.. ~~-"gC~~~:::E';O'..:c,'" i~;:r~~i Q;iiii , I PHHi~PU' 0" ,n i.to_' t 'l~.n '., . i ii!!iii """'Ii i "! . ! . I ~i~ai:g~~asi~~i~a ~~f~a~~~~ I ~~ii~ !"~H< :; ~i." . ~ . ,~ i i iijiji!~.:[~iE! 9 ! 'I ~ s 11 ~ ~ ~iiqHm ,a i! ij"!!l~ 9' i l~~lil~l~ll~l~g~lig ii~. ~2i~ii~~ iiIli , ~ . !i!i~Jfi!l! '. i It~!iii~i!~E~~ "h.i.i~I,.ol- ri 11:1 ~ ~ ~J a · ~ J . , . . I ~ ~ ~~~~:~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~ 0 ~~;~~:~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~; 0 ~~~~~~ z ~~~~~~f~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~E ~ ;~~~~.~ ~ ~~~~:~< < ~~~ C ~~~~j~~~~ ~ ~~~;;~:~~~~;~~~~~m w IIDOIII! ~~D~i!!~' ~ ~~ ~ ~ · 1311 ~IU~III r!, I~ ~s~/-~~ ~ ~ Is i, n n n iii, i ~~~ IHI ~~~ lit :~~ ~~ !':i' U III ~"::S~! g{~ ~ t' P t ~ t ~ I ~ &Ii 11~ ~~~ i ,,~,; i~ d .- Ii i~ ~~~~ M ~ a ii I; I I I. I ~~~ U 8~~ il ~ii i "hI ~i I i~:~~dn I ~DODnl! Ii I I I iC 'l!l! Ii " II 'II. 0 ,>, "I' BII~~II! Ilillll Ii II ' DDI~Dlm! .........."'-lE it~~ai!J p i m~p · it HH~f~~Hm a" !.ijiii;!~lii ! cu." ~l i:i~! ~JS!,j~-i j~~ =~'Hi j 1 . ---<-<'1--"'-< ~:t~ "l'tH iii~ ~r 11 ------~---_.------ li~ii(il!l~l~i~i~~ .~;; - rl ~;' i, i ~ii~ftl~~~!if i! i'1 j <LoJ t If i:t HfHH'W~ un H ~. ! J' H i H.' pH HH'i i..a i ~!II. , ~' 11 ~ ~ ~ ~ E1)~ ttf$~ I ; Ii GIJ PI~ Pit ;UI I I J <>iF~~@ ~Ig ~IIIIG nu iIO pppi!11 ~ (1 0" r -t.- 4 HII I 111111 ~ 1:11 a I "U ~I; . ~ ~ ~ ~~i ~~i Z JTI ~ ~ JTI -i )> r m c r o Z (j) 'TJ o ;0 ~J j!- . ~ ~~~ o !~ ~ ~~ ~ I~~ li!~ r;i; Jo ie li' i ~ CT i iF (It (It .,. :: i · ~ ~ r .e.. - 1 1 ... ... ~ f ... J t .. Ii 'tI .. ::L 'tI i i iF ... . iF S: .! ,.. . ,.. ~ ~\i I ! !!!!l [f II 1I1. . ~Ifiil! ~ !fif " i il-=t f 0 ~ i jlri! ~ : ~ .!~ ~ 0 ilI--1 -l 2 ~..~i ~;l! .5.01 " il i- ~i ~ ~ a I i II i i i ~g~\ :;Ii ai~!1 ~~g ~ i ~i ~ + ~ ~g~i OlQ :;: ~ ~\ ~ ~ 0 Pl"~1 gZ ~ ~l - = ~ il n ~ ~l = I ~ I I lI! ! I U1 o o -IITI ~ ~ >< m r-i ~~ z~ CZ ~Ul m -i 1'1 ;D ;DI'I .. 1'1 w-i IO~ ~m ITII ~~ .jI.Z }>~ rO o ;D -il'l ~Iil ~D OZ .jI.1O -J U1 tIl o ~ .... .... o ~ ~ OJ .... m OJ S 12 IZ ~C) ~~ ~::u m ~ en ~ o ::u ~ en Z m m -f ~ OJ 0 :D -t 0 ;0 OJ U1 1] ~ 0 ;0 -t U1 ~ r r 0 ('J -I I: ~ ... ~ lor ~ I ~ UI .... c::> ... ... ... :8 :8 ~ J ;o''.:l -a;m;o''.:l ; ~':. ;o'~ ~ ;o''8~ I (i".I:>. C (D"l>- i (DO'! mO (i)!1.O 'O"i '0" '0)> '02 '002 ~g g-g 5(J) 6~ 6~3. i5~ ~5= i~ ;:T ;O::J" ;;. (J) ;;. ~ 1:1:1 o.~ ;;. ~ ;;. ~ SJ -l>-~ .Ilo....., Z.llo.)> l>-f,I) ""~fft !'J)> t;::S ~> ~f>> ~:J ~ :J 0'" I?t' 0" wa.I.....!'> n e ..... !'> ~I i ~. I ~ ~~ i~. ~ ~I ~ ~ 0 ~s ~s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~j ~ j ~~ l?J~ ~i 1:5 ~;;!~ ~ ~ s :- ~l:! ~l:! I ~!!l 81 !!ll: ~ "'?1 ~ ?1 r ~ I I I if ~I ~ SI II 81 }>'- .. ." '" .. -u r m z en ,.. U) N ~ '" n i x~ Gg~~d~e ~~H "'0 r- "'0 0 m 0 " r~ Qcl ~ ~ ~ m ;;!II r ;g Z Z CD z m ." ~ m 0 --l ::;;: ~i~~ 'I s": '\; z~ p;j ~!~~~;1;~ lii~hI ti o <fI ,;j OJ ~ n ~ ~ D~ mr >- n L <; .. .. ale .. ~ ~ ~ ~ m m m ill N C . Z qU ;;u ~ ~ 'I n ~ ,.c m ii ~ D) r'" 'I Z ~ .. < m !; ~ 2 (;"; ~~ ~ ~ ill m z ~ .. ~ " ~ .. ~ {tJ)~ Qz 'I 'I ,. m DC i~ '" z. m f?J .....Nc.>mmN...... N",m U) ~~~;~ ~lIg?rii~~~~: g 2D ! ~~~~i~~ '" <0...... Ul Q) 0......0 m ~ " ~ agg m :g g ~ '::: Ill'" g '" ~ili;:: (ll ~ ~ .. ....0(1') ""0 c, _ pm ,r..",m0 to < (1')(1')"'11 > . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~"" ~ ~ ~ .; 9~ ~9~~ I D ,. ~~~ Z m m I ~ '0 o ~ ~ ~ ~ :r "' ,oz g:o:{~ 0000 "'II ~ !> ~g~ ~ " ~ t ~ ~~ <n~~2 ~~: ~ > ~ i" .; ~ !( m ~ Q 0 'I ~ ~~ ~ ~~ '" .. r S ~ :YJ> ~ ~ ill ~~ > hlQL 0 !! :r '" z " 0 ~ (1Jtf) g 0 i z (~~ iii ~ ~ I m ^ \J/ ~ rn 0 :n -i 0 ~ OJ Ul 1] ~ 0 ~ -i Ul ~ r r 0 [] c O~P OFOOOJl/ENTS. lHS OOa.IMENT 11-E IDEAS AND ll-E DESIGNS ItCORPORA.1EDI-EREtN IS AN INSTRl..IENT OF PROfESSIONAL SERVICE IN 11-E PROPERTY OF BAlZER INC AtvlS NOT TO BE USEDINWiOlE ORIN PART FORAN'( OTrERPROJECT W1n<<>UTltE VI.fiITlENAUTHORIZAl1ON OF BAlZER IN: COPYRlGHT2006 ~ o~'" ~ 'I '" 'I . Proposed Metal Building Foe I ~~u~~~1 ~ iIi g ~ 'il ,. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! Mark McKechnie AlA enO :. OJ BRBMMOro . A ffi (C lBI II '1r IE (C '1r . ii ~ ~ <D -. }> W [Q)~~[]@b~ . lID 1:1D [] I:ko [Q) 0 lll" .. MOTORSPORTS LLC P.O. Box 44811) N. Ross Lane 190 North Ross lane, Medford, Oregon or ~ .. '" Project Location: iIi ~ WI Medford. Oregon 97501 WWWBATZERINCCOM Post Office Box 4460 97501 a \:l \^Jashmgton Street, Ashland, Oregen 97520 Ashland. Oregen 97520 Tax Lot Numbee 39 1E 14A. Let 1104 Telephone: (541) 773-7553 Fax: (541 ) 77~523 Telephone: (541) 773-7553 Fax: 773-6523 ~'REQ ~ ~ ~~. ~ ~G. s:: ~ ~~ ~. ~ %.. ~ ~ ~~. v~'.w~~' ;U ~ (j) 5 2 en ~ J:\2006 Projects\3301.06 Brammo Motorsports\3301.06 Brammo AI.O Siteplan 2-20-06.dwg. 2/24/20061:46:2B PM. Jordan. \ \Multinet-ITIaB56\HP DeskJet 122DC Printer 11 fT1 OJ t-:I ,.j::o.. 1'0 = = en ~ ~ ~ ~ @ ~ R l c4 w o F ~, ;o"!':o...~.i_!_o__.: iii!!jl '", ~ H !_; {2- _~ ll" ~i ;~ H ~~ ~i i~ ~ ~0 )\ / \L- ---:j;/ / (\ / / , I .- '-------------;r-:l~ /1/ //(/ /iY? / /)/. o //'/ /'/" ~ \.J/ \~ / / / / / / / / / / / - I /"':;-'\ " ,/\ \ , \ ,\ / \ '\ , /1'-\. \ \ I 'I ~ I' '...... I II \............ \. "1 \...... \\ "1 \ '>\ '/1 \/..~,\ ~ , I \1 't.~v I l 'I \. . '?l~ " ""'" I /1 ~ \......;." / /_1 I /1 ~ II \"'...... "i '\ \::.'-/ ~ ~"'<I t , '1 I-' \ ......~\ \' ./ ~ ~ I' /1 \ ......~'" ", )./(\-~ ~~~ II / I J ~ \ '>-, \.'" ~ / ~ c. ~ ~ ...:---:;: , /. - ... I!I. '1/ 'V / ~ " //~' I illS i;_i.... lVv/ // \ ~~. / ~~~' y ~.... li! . lli/ / \./. " ~/ 1... ., 1;;//- ,Y/ " .~1,,' ...... . // - I I. I' -$'" ,~,,~ " ~. / / / , ~"'/' I~I /',:.,::, 1;/ ,:" ) /~I '/ II I ,/, ,',' ,'...,......... '... ..........' \~ / ~~ I' /,' ., , / , '"...... I ',' "...... I, . / '/ " ~;;( // /-? ..' ,I>>': <=:- ' ..~~/ 1/ /I()I/ I II'/,'~ (>;<~>> r" :,j ~~~~5~1l~//!J/ ~/ ~ j I J '11'1..,' 1/1/ ~ '/- /,'. !/ / / / . / ~_-:__J , . ,__ ~ A~~/ r; ~ -! /',--.1'1.../ I " " I / . . . .. .. .. \ \ \ 1"fj,(i'J1j ~ I" / . .-:l..../.....J....I..' I " 1'\ ; ; \ \ \ \ ~_~,J.~\.o,.) ~'".. . ". \ it-, 't / '-..... '. ..J....l.. j \ \ \ \"',,\._\.o.J- i'., . . ta.~ /' \' ;"'1 ~/y>: -:~z'::.;-:~~~.~~~;iII'F l,- 'f .t,:~~-+ _).. - - - - - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I. ~ I 42.30' ". / -------- ------- "'~"j ----- I / ,. ,,------- ): -. / '---- I I --- ________ _____ I I .I i~ 1 1~r;f.l-rTI-r'-rl-I-T-1._T_r'_r._T_r-' "I : , ~'V, / ! ( /, 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I : : : : : : : : \ I , }'/' ~ ! ~ / J..-1-1-1-1-1_1_lololoU., , , , , , , ";--'1 l I~' , ;' { /1 // /,-I-I-n-,... 1-,-,-1, ===~II~' 4P I ' .... I I I I I ... I I I I I I ... ----I I I ',' /, I r..J.rL.,L,J+J l+l,.JrL,.1,..1 \ ___~ J ~ I _ I J(: I : : : : : : : : : : : :.J ---~ I I II " 1,-i Wi U., , , , , v., , , ,~- II t~_.J i : , / r / , . T', 'S~I~I~I.' , , , , , , , , , () .w. :--~ I , , 1~7:'" - I \ : : : : : : : : : : : 11 : I j I , '. I l_ - - _L~_L.J_.L_L~_LJ_.L_LJ I I I " ..J. , . I r--------------~ ,-1 I I' .(;(/ /' ~,I L.J I, I , '~ ;; I II I / I'd . ..' ,I,..J - Ii II I , 'I'",~ I \,.) I I . / //9' '/ ! I I ~ II I ,i' " / / - --- ---- i il':.,.-=lCI~ - I' ! r/ J I~"'!: :1 : " / ;: I II' . r I ~~~i~IS ,-, 118 I / ' " ',= I!: I;:! i1t1 ~ ~ II~ I : L/' I' . I,' /, /~-___~_:_____________J1~ I ~-----------------------'~2:wLlJt2JL----l .,..,' -------=r--------~ :f:l I ///.~~~~=~ = '-,,'--:.~,,-:.~,,-:.:: :-:~ \ ~ - ~ ~ l- ::::::/ ~ r .,.: T :::::'1 :: -1- - ,~~_:'~,~ 1- - - r'~ ~:/' II I ~ I l_\ (0 I : 61 :1 '-.. I I-' 10\ I : l,' j ! ~ I I! L_-1 !: I /! i ~ i' I I /J i! :,1 ,I I : I I ~: f I~ A/ o 61 \: '~ / I~ "" I ::.?:: I I \ \ I // I' " I \ ' / / '-----------------1 ~ I I \ \ i// I ~ I I \ \, ,// I ~ I I '\" \! /1.,1--/ \ \ I " : I ~ ~"9't S I " \~P"'? \ \ /~ "'",A ;,0 -...=--------------~' I / / / / " / / I ;' / ;I / / / / / T / / / / I ,'f / / / / '" / ~ I I-' :-_J ::::; -- ~ / if / / ~ \ \\ \, \ U I' I / / / / "- / /.! / I / / / / *' / / ;/ f / / / / I ! ! ! / f i / / ; / / l j / / / / ;' / / ;' / -jI" / / / // / / / / *' / / / / / ,;/ / ,/ / /, / / /.1 / ,-+ / ~ I ""'" "- "" ~~;~f:!~:~~:t,~! ~ i ill~ ~ l~ ~:a; ;~'~li I ~I :.~~~;: ~l ~;l;flI;~~~;~~:~:~ ~~~rR~~gil~~~~~J~.~~~ii~~~t~-~I!~~~a~j~'~i~2&~~~~li.~JI~n!g.~= ,~ <2> <S-<S> ,. I ~~ i I "" " ~~ " ~ J' .. ,,~ ~ ~ "'= ,. ~~ - ~ G ;o.L f , !;~ N N () r Oi () i'i :t Oi ~ ffi " ~ ~ )> OVvNERSHIP OF DOrUMENTC:: THIS DOCUMENT THE DEAsmDTHE DESIGNS INrORPORf>.TED HEREIN !SAN INSTRUMENT OF PROFESC::IONAl SERVICE IN THE PROPERTY OF BATZER INC AND IS NOT TO BE USED IN IM-iOLE OR IN PART FOR ANY OTHER PRO lEel WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION ()F BATZER IN' cnpYRlGHT 2006 "" Z 3 " , ~ ;; ii~g iH i a~~~~~ h@h~ ~..~~~~ ~p~d ut..g%g"; ~"~ffi~() G-"Il' p~~~~~ ~iUti~ '-~ ~ [ I - ~ 0 ~ " w>",C u h " > Proposed Metal Builang For: I ~~l:F~@~1 ~ ct rn ~ ~ ,. n ,. ~ ,~ l? ' 0 ~ m i BRaMlVIon Mark McKechnie AlA !~ ~ ~ . .A\ IRUC IHI II 'lr 1E (C 'lr . ~ [i2)~~[]~~ . [ID QdJ [] [b [i2) 3. .. .. :. ~ MOTORSPORTS LLC ~O p~ ~ P.O. Box 44BID N, Ross Lane 190 North Ross Lane, Medford, Oregon on Project Locatiar Post Office Box 4460 I l) -f ;1 Medford. Oregon 97501 WNWBATZERINC COM 97501 " m ~ IJ Washington StreeI, Asolano, CXegoo 9752u Telephone: (541) 773-7553 Fax: 773-6523 Ashland. Oregon 97520 Tax Lot Number: 391E 14A. Lot 1104 Telephone' (541) 773-7553 Fax: (541) 773-B523 Si>' REQ ;J ~ ~~. Sii ~.2 ~ ~ ~.o ~ if; ~'n~~J ;0 ~ (jj 5 z w I ,ClJ -< J:\2006 Projects\3301.06 Brammo Motorsports \3301.06 Brammo AI.O Siteplan 2-20-06.dwg. 2/24/20061:46:57 PM. Jordan. \ \Multinet-01a856\11P OeskJet 1220C Prinlllr ~ () " J 5LOFE Y." PER FT ~ l':cn ~a: ~ CD m <i ~ II o ~ ~ "ill ~iil I ".. ill'; ~" () " " Iv 14 \ " \ .. " /=- <; / '" ;. " Iv ~I ~ I! ~.~ .!J~ ill~ ~~ ~~ ~2 ",.. ~ 'I ~ ~ ~~ ffi m i c i "'U ii' ~ J 10'-8" ~ '1., / .~ '\.0...1=- ~ / //~~ ~ ~~ ~ ----- "~- ~ ~I -----------.. ...--------- '~ / ----------L / ~ ~ ~. / / ~ ~ ~- ----------- ~ -~ / , / -X-" / / /' /" / / / / / \ ---------------------------------~------------ I I I I I I I I f"-----J ~; I ~- III , '01: IL- I - ~ ~ x ) ) ~) ) I ~ ~ XT' )~X~X~x~X~X~)(-)(-X~X-X-)-X-X-x-x x_x~x-J(-X-)l-X-X-X-ll-X-X- I xr!6' >< lC )l- )l-)t- 16'-6" ;- II <'JJ~%>%> %> ~%>%>W ~<0>~ ~ ~<0> <B> ~ <8>0 ~ (}; <2><,0> <~<0 0<2> ~ ! -" i ~~ ~9 ~ ~ m ~~ " '!; !~ r-" '" ~i n r~'" I ~I U n ~ I I U I ~ " " ~~ ~ u: '!; :< :> ~",ii\ " f,..q .. ~ ~ ~ g >-~~ :> ~ ~~ ij: '!; ~ "':> ~~ " :>ili <5" Ti 8 ~ 16 l'i l'i E li~ ~ ~ ;1l;'l ~ iJi:t ;1l"- " ~" "" " G " m ~ "Ill ':1" ;'lrn ~ ~ ;'l~ ~;1l li~ ;'ld ~ "'I" z'" Zr '" ~ I1l z'" <5 i'i ~~ ~ ~ ~ a~ m \11m o~ "" 6~ ili" C)~ ~ m" iiI -" OJ ~ " \II ~. OJ: ~~ ~ ~~ :>~'" ~~ l"=i <:> ~ '" ~ l"'j -" m" 'i\z 'i\ 'i\ " m iji ~~~ G~ ~=' m ~ ~r .. " j ~~ l" m" " rr ~ ili i"1 ~ ~ III '!; ~ S!=l NI 'Ie ~ '" '> '" ;= S~ ;= ~ ~ ~~ 3: ~ ~ ~ !il . " ~lll ~ a ~ ili~ p: ~ :> ~ ~ ~~ lil!1!~ :> C4 " z " ~ ~ l"< ~ ;;. ~ ~ '" ~ I ~ .. '" ~ Zg ~h G~ ~ 0;: ~ Ii ~ " ~ lli " m i =l ~-t::: ~ '" - .. " ~ ili~ " r--..) ~ .. " ~ -" i Il ~ \1 "'l! > ~ = ~ Q '" ~ ~ il' ~ ~ ~ 3: i ~ .~ \1 = lS ~ ~ Ill" ,Il ~ f en .. " m:> ~ ~ " O'M'lERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS THIS DOCUMENT THE IDeAS AND THE DESIGNS INCORPORATED HEREIN I':; AN IN<:.TPIJMENT OF PROFESSIONAl SERVlrE IN THE PROPERTY OF BATZER IN, AND 1<:; N0T TO BE 1lSED IN I,/\,t-IOLE OR IN PART FOR ANY OTHER ppe: JECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHOPlLATION "F BATZER INI (OPYPlGHT 2006 . \; ~g>>3' ~ 0 (J) 0 }:- Proposed Metal Blilding Foc I ~~u~~[Rl1 o ~ ~ ~ ~ (1)- m rn " \,." Mark McKechnie AlA l>> m 5 ~ Fn m! ~ca -; BRBMMO" ~~t-l ro . .A\.1RUC IBI IT '1r IE <C '1r . ~ ~ "'>l! ~ [g)~~[]~!A!] . J:ID DdJ [] [h, [g) ar. '" <II " '" . MOTORSPORTS LLC ~t-l P '" ~ P.O. Box 448ID N. Ross Lane 190 North Ross Lane, Medford, Oregon "' (j ~ Project Location: I ~ " ... (, e'l Medford. Oregon 97501 WNWBATZERINC COM Post Office Box 4460 97501 '" .. rn .. v-vashlOgton Street, Ashland, CXegm 97520 ~ <l " Telephone: (541) n3-7553 Fax: 773-6523 Ashland. Oregon 97520 Tax Lot Number 391E 14A. Lol1104 Telephone' (541) 773 7553 Fax: (541) 773-S523 ~.REQ ~ ~ ~~~, ~ &;~ ~ ~ :5;0 i;'h ~m "- ~ ~ SO: ~. , '.J.:f~-:Ve '" -< J:\200G Projects\33010G Brammo Motorsports\3G05.0G Brammo AI.2 Site Oetails.dwg. 2/24/200G 1:47:5B PM. Jordan. Konica 7022/IP-422 (pel) i1 '" ,... =ftf i ~~ ~i~ J II~ i!~ JO: I :Ilil If' il iil ' g ~~ ~! I; ~ illl'llllllli Il If' ~ !J> ~ - ~~ It ~..~.. ~ "II o~ iii! ; Il ~lo If' ~ ~a ~a r I I a~ i ~a 'a i:~ a-<~i~~ ~ a ~! I~ !l 11"I!li!I!~1 Ii i i ~ ~. ~ If' Ii I i, Ii' II g z' J "IX:o oS ~-t Ii I; !i 0~1~ J "i~ 0 !t i Iii ~ o ~ i ft- ~'-O" .... ..... 2'-e" I~ CII I I'.;~ "lit" 2~~1 II lI!",liI !~~ n1ia ~I Iha I~'l ~Slll !I ;~ I::! ::II.! <w ~I~UI -~. I~~ i1j ;Ill ~~ h~ ii1;i ~ ~I$ ~~ ~ f ~o ~~ ii! ~ x i~nu ~,~ :~ P i I! ~ i ~li a~ ~~ i~ I~ IR~ ~ m Ii ~~ I ai IS i~ ~ <~ i nU;~1 h '" .:.. ~ Ii b ~ IG g ~ Z' J j I~ ~ ; lill. OJ i . J : !l511T ~o ; ~ .~ . ~ 0 ~ ~ I~~ ~ ill ~I~R~ I ~iU 1 '>><T W ..& CF\._NIt-..~ .... Pat ~11Y I ~ ~h ~~I .....y Ill! clIleA~ i ~uu ~ i'!t 4[~ Ii !I ~ I Q ~~~ ~ ~tzJ i ;I~~~ " "'~e h ii Ii ~!J i I ~ E~: ill \\ !: II 'I II I I ! I ~ ~~ I bIn ;~il ij 1 ~ ~~ ~ 11 r ~ .. I I .,. 11 III OJ t-:;l ~ f"-.-) = = en .. III ~ e" IS IS ~ I ! i I ~ ~ lO I~; i 1~;li eu ;~i ~i I i!h ~~ !; ! - ~ II ~ q ~ I~ ~h ~ I~ I. i! ~ U 111 ~.) ~i IT x. ~ If-- I ~ '1_, x" A ~ J~T":'I*: : " i & II....'.....; ; ;.........:2 ~ ~;~~~ii!. 4" , ~ ~ II I : i ~ ff I t-J UI ~ q il ~~ I~ }II!!j OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS THIS DOCUMENT THE IDEAS AND THE DESIGNS INCORPORATED HEREIN IS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE IN THE PROPERTY OF BATZER INC AND IS NOT TO BE USED IN WHOLE OR IN PART FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE VVRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF BATZER INC. COPYRIGHT 2006 \'i > '" g 0 ~ ~t Proposed Metal Building For: I I '" l? B AT Z E R ffi z ~ Mark McKechnie AlA p '" ~ B Ra M M OT. AIR{ C I8I II 'll' E ~'ll' ... ~ : - . . . ~ ~ll!:_D<m!J~ . IlI3 tl.D D [b, ~ ~ I ~ ~ ';' i M C T C R S P C RTS L L C P.O. Box 44BID N. Ross Lane 190 North Ross Lane, Medford, Oregon ~ ~ g> ~ Proiect Location: Medford, Oregon 97501 WWW.BATZERINC.COM Post Office Box 4460 97501 ~ 0 ~I Washington Street. Ashland. Oregon 97520 Telephone: (541) 773-7553 Fax: 773-6523 Ashland. Oregon 97520 Tax Lot Number: 391E 14A. Lot 1104 Telephone: (541) 773-7553 Fax: (541) 773-6523 #i~ ~ i~ i ~ %..i fl ~".tYi\1 " ~ (j; 0 z en !II -< 1 I J: \2006 Projects \3301.06 Brammo Motorsports \3301.06 Brammo A3.0 Exterior E1evations.dwg. 2/24/2006 1:48:16 PM. Jordan. \ \Multinet-D7a956\HP DeskJet 1220C Printer J}'~10. r ~ r ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '! '! ~ ~ q ~ ~ ~ r r r I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 11' 10" 3110' :l ill CD t-.::> ...... 1'--) = = en ~00 <0 ^ /, <~0<S> 0 ~~ m ~ '" ~~ ~~ '" ~! () ~ ~4 q ^' ~ ~ :;; " i ~ I I; ~iIi " " " I i q ~~ ;;; ~ ! ~ if ~ ~ ~ ,. ~ ill z ~ " ~ " $ ~ '" ~ ~ g ~ ~ i ~ ~ " F " ~ i lri ~ ~ < ~ Ii: m " " ~ " m ~ f'j g m ~ <; ~ ~ ,. <; Ii: '" " 15 ~ ~ >; m ~ m ~ " ~ '" Ii: 6 f;; ~ TH'S DO'UMENT THE IDEAS AND THE DE516N$ INCORPORATED HERElt' 1<; AN 11\I'STRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVIlE IN THE PROPERTY OF BAPER INC AND 1$ NOT TO BE U"ED IN VIIHOlE QR IN PART FOR ANY OTHER PR' 'JEC'" W'TliOUT THE \i\lRlTTENAlJTHORlZATION OF BATZER fl'Jf" t(JPYRI'~HT "'006 .. - -.- L 0 ~ m~ffi . 0 '" 0> Proposed Metal Building For. I I ~ ~ o " !j~ ~~LF~@~ ro ,. ~ Mark McKechnie AlA ~ m 1; ~ m ~ _ 4 Q ro a BRaMMO" . A ~ (c IBI IT 'lr IE (C 'lr . m ~ ~ ~ @~~I1~J:1'8 . J:ID 1JdJ I1 Ib@ ~. "''' )> .., . MOTORSPORTS LLC ~O & f= Q) ,:, if P.O. Box 44BID N. Ross Lane 190 North Ross Lane, Medford, Oregon '" ffi (') (5 ~ ~I Project Location: Post Office Box 4460 I Medford. Oregon 97501 VVWWBATZERINC COM 97501 m '" iil ~. \;l Washington Street, Ashland, Greger! 97520 ffi Ashland. Oregon 97520 Tax Lot Number 391E 14A, LoI1104 Telephone. (541) 773--7553 Fax: (541) 773~23 Telephone: (541) 773-7553 Fax: 773-6523 ~.REQ ;j ~ ~~\ c ....2. ~ ~ ~~ ~:i ~:w~~. j , ;>J ~ (jj (5 z (J) ,~ \ , \ ',Ii!)! \ \ ! i ! I I ( / I ! \ \ I / / I / / // / / / (/ /-/ / / / // f , \ I ! I \ ", 1 \ "\ \ \\ \ ) , \ / / \ / ! / I I I ! / / / / / ;' ( rr1 I / ~. \ \ ~ ~~~~~- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;~;;;;~r~!ffi Ilj!lll"":~:~:~:::::;::;;;;:;!l~ i ~"l-"'''loi'' .""" '''''"",,,,~a _ " ~ "l"~~~~~ili~~"i ''5'1;:;'''' ~' t;;'l ~ ;;j . ili~~" ~~ "'~ ' "'~~ '" ~~ -I AI m m AI m :s: o < )> r- go ""CI AI o -I m (') -I (5 Z<"'(j ""CI--..! r- )> Z '1 rrl CD ~ ~ ~ ~C)I(),~C;'C;'<;l~(), ~ ~~~ ~~.......'~.I~I~111 i IWHiiummlmmiHhhhn ' !iillilllitltJiii ~~ (! liil!!!! II :0; f'J = = CD , - " ~/ r--"" ~__ ______'____ ~ ~ V' :>>.w.<<~~ ~.7'~ ,-._ -' ~ :: .-/- " J:>, / -,,/ - ----------;-' -- -~: , '. )""'"" ""'. '~ \ \ , ! \\.." \.". ~ :::r; -I ;0 'TIm ;o"tl "tl;o \ :co \\ 6i rri mO ~:::j o Z '"tl -<s; Z ,-\) rr1 I '~' i '., 'co "', \, ~~ ~\, ~~\' j ;-.1" /' / .. ~ ., ~ ~ i ~ ~~~ii~~~!i I~ ~li!b~~O!~n~ ~~~~~~~~U ~~~~~~ ~;!'" b~~~~2 ~~~ :!1, ~~i~~ !~m ~ii1~~h I!Iq~ ~~I~U I i i~:\1Il~ 2 ~ ~ o~1lI .. .. III ~q8 ~ b ~ ~ ~~~ ~ i ~~ " "ll~ :;; ~ r fii "l~~ m ~ ~~ i< ~"l", ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~'" ~ ~ ill " 'ill>:; !l ~ ~ ~ ll~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1lI~;:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ill ;; :!i ~~!jj~~ ~ ~ ; ~ 0 ; li '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ;;I i'j ffi ~" fl~;t. ~ ~Ii J ~ ~ ,gL !l,1I : il~[ lU ~H H~ Ul " ~ I " " 1 ~ 1 " .;: I ! . " i 1. ~ i ~ OC t:H~~g.tl:J~ ~~ ~ ~~-~~~8~ ~~~~~~~ ! ~~~~~t-~~~~~~~~~~~~ g fli.~ ~~~i'g~i~~~~ ~ 8~. ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~i ~ tl~ ~~~~l~i~~~ii!~ j ~~~ ~~l~~tSI~~~i!~ [ ~a~ ~ ?~.~~!i!~ai~ 5" I iill!III~!;1 I~~. I lilr~llli.liri ~.. I ~1~i3r~I~.JI ~.~~ i [it[~~~~~~l~ ~!~ ? 1'.~.1311~!li ~~~ ~ ~HQ,~it~~"!>ii ,~~! ~~~~~s~~~~~ ~18 is "',. r~Ol ~,~,,;; . ~ i ~~t~~~~~~~I~ l i ~ ~ ~ ~[ ~~~~~ 8~ ~ Q ~,~~ ..~~i3 .~" ~ g ~~q Hflh I t ~ 1 ~~II .~.IJ I Ii! 1~lr 1111_ a ~ VI ""'a"",~ 5=",,~'tI~ 01 ~.'~ gs~!]:g 'b-s.a;-", ~ ~ ~-~~~ ~~~~.~ I. ~ '" ?;;;,,'" ~s~~" . [ , ""1! ~ 3 ~ <Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r~~~ .i~~~ a I I II;~ ii It ~ & ~ ~Qkij a~ ~~ m ~ ~ i al g ~ g ~ lIi: Q ~ ~ (t j[ ~ ~, Iii =-- g ~~ B- ~~ ~~ ~ 'g. h~ ~~ &- ~. ~ "" · l r- . ~ ." ~ .. -< N .... ~ KenCairn Sager Lanrlsc.ape Architects, Inc. D OW:GON 97520 ITE 3 ASHLAN, ~ 545 'A' STREET, Su A; (541) 552-9512 (541) 488-3194, F PH, BRAMMO MOTORS PORTS CAMPUS Jefferson Avenue Ashland, Oregon en !t !'! z ;;l " I -l :;0 "U m loo~oo ;lJ m i'J "'0 ;: r Z )> I~ " f '" " ~ :P ;lJ Z a ~ ~ -< ~." ~ ~ ~ ~ ,a "U -l -ii ~ ~~ .- ~ Z 2 , ~ i i G) .:r~ i i -< ~g: ,... m 0 i ~ Gl m m . . z ' .- -l i~ ~ f '" 0 ." Ir 0 )> ~ ~ a . . ~ ~ r= ~ " I " u ~ , " z ~. ~. " . ~ ii '" .- ~ ~ g 0: ~ ~ i ;; ~ ~ tl ! ~ ~ '2 ~ ~ . " ! ~a ~ i ~ " '''' " f J'~ l ,~ c ~~ ~~~ ~ '" ~, ! I '" ~ ~ . v [ ~ 2 ~ ~ ~'" .. ~ !!l Uii! ;S~ e ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ t ~ "r g ~i g " ~ :r ~ ~ ~ ~! o,"~ ~ ~ 1\ 0 . I .- :IX l': L i 5' i ~ 1\ 0 ~ ~." ~!o ~ ~ ~ . fT1 % ~~ ~ ~ g. ~ ~ '< ~ ~ ;!l, ~ ~ ~ '" ..~ ~ '" " CO .. ~ ~ ~i ~ l ~ ~~~ ." " % F 0 ! ~g ! I ~ to.:l ~ ~ ~ " O&;t: ~ Jt i 0+-.. 0 >( ~r '" ~ I I ! ",!Ii ~ ~ !~ ~ I: II ~ '" f'-) ill . ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ ' ~ m ~ ~~ ~ - - - - l~ 0 ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ f f ~ ;;\ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ , ! ~ ;~"'-.. ~ 3 f c ~ 0 F ~ \ \ " ~",,--,~,,' ~)~ '. . . .-','r, \.,.,', ' " .~,. \ Wrr~'\'ll r'T '-~~L i i ! 1 r ;\\ I i .J U. / 'I, u. " -, ~ "'tl ::0 m !: 3: z )> ::0 -< r )> Z c en (') )> 3! z (j') "'tl r )> Z s;: I ...."., i ! i i i I i I I I I I ) / J ! i / 1 / I / / f / / // / / ( ( ,I 0...;::\ C<\ / / r . i'.,) 'T1 [ ~ ~ Lanclscapo AI'chitects, Inc, 545 'A' STREET, SUITE 3, ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 PH, (541) 488-3194, FAX (541) 552-9512 KenCairn Sager BRAMMO MOTORS PORTS CAMPUS Jefferson Avenue Ashland, Oregon '" n .. .. ~ '" ~ C;;' 0' ::l :? [ ~ .' I ~~~ ~WW ~ N . ~ '" e :!:~~O[!'J ~ 0 (5 :rg, ~ !:1 ~~ ~m~ 0 ~~ j; ~ -. !"'[!H'" i~g.(5~;:tl ~, ~ ..... =". 0 ,..~ ~~! ~Q: ;0 0 o . ~[!F50gg-< i~l!.~!~ p;~i!:~ '" 3~ <11;:. o ~ ~ < . 0 .. (i,..;Sa~~~i ~~~~~ SO .~ ; -~ ~ W.a ~~ z N m ... . ~'~ ~~ ~~ " ~ :" il"g ~ "'''' a:ag ~~ ~~~~.:~ . . , 'B ;2~ 5~ ~. ~hg. ~ ~ ' . ~,~ '" o ~ ~ ~ ~.il.-..".~ ~~H., 'ga.s- ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I'" I!' !il; c:; ~~ [. d '" [ ~ [~. 0 .In · . . g )> o"tl ~-l 5.!:go ~il.gg",.... iSfii .:;" ~ ~ ~ -< a"" III Vi ~ ~5 '" ~;;;i ~~ < ~~;i ~.~~g~'i ~g- ~ ~~ifH ill . ~, ~~~ ~! u' ~ < ~ ~."~r. m ~:i ~~ 5' !~~ ~~- iilJ-g H '" m ""~!;~~~!F g~ s:t 3'~ 9!. ~ Q~ ~ is m -< <"-< "" 0 ~ ~ ~'.s' 0" ~'<g ii m '/ so > [rii z G) 1Il~~m ~~r;;'Ki~ 0 ~~;1 ~~ G) m , 8 !!~"'~~i ~i~h ~ qll *j m ~ i! g 5r ~@[ N 8-~,';S'g~ .... '-!!!~ Z , @ ~ .. g;:ffi ~93 m ,. ~Sii'~_~ ~ il.. 3 ~~. ~i m Rh r~~"~ . ~ r= ~~. ~ ~ ~ -< ~ ~mo ~ [ -l ~"i ~ ~ Z ?-5. -l ~B.~.~s~ ^:i~ 8a en i: ~~~:o~~~ ~~~~~ ~ W ~~ ~~il" [[~ z -< ~ ",~o..i! .fi!,;p ~ ~ 'i~~~; ~ ~ ... z5~ ~iit m '< g CI. ~ 0 AI' ~~5.~'~ ~ ~ ~ :f: $"<5 2~ u; w () i" ~ g ...., ~ ~,~ * a.q~ '" 3 '" il. i' .. -< ilI:lifi{ !:1~ m .... hn8~1 .'~ ~ ~ BJ~U . n' ~~ m hh i 0 t~15& '" H~ ~~g U'" ~!5 0 z r ' ::~f' ::l..fft~ 3- , ~~] ~. . " o N 0 "'" ~::t~ g en ~'iglh ~'~~oi z il" ~ ~ i H =g ;;;m~ - ~ ~5' 6' . c = " . ~p- . (J) r- ~~~ (J) ~f~ ~~ 0 -j " P &~<"~ ~ ~::;' ~; ~ ~ .... ~g@ l!.!~ il" ~5nl ~~~ p z_ Y! ~ U a:\lL i Il /! 0 .... I'~ " ~g ~'g .,.. m ~~ m ~~:"~3~ rhii!: ~p. ~ ~~ii: '<'" r 0 ~." . =", a" i.l~ 1, 1>-~ ~ ~ ~ n ~, r ~~ g ~:aa~$ 2 01 ~ !F . 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ m <l ~ < < m 0 ill H o.~ . - . . ~ . il." i% m~ i\"~1i- '~ , ~.8; :il. 0 V ~ .:~ i I ~ o.i.f ~ ~a 'i ~ ~ 3 m c ~~ ~~i i~~I ~ ~r ~~ o . ~,~ ' , -l ::u i!: 1. i ,,~ g~ )> OJ c. ~ ~ ~ !g I <t'< r= 0 i~ . I ~ ~io ~~ il.~ . e ~' m ~: g. - 'g .~ "l ~ Sa ~' I :E " Ei r f m 0 m .... ~ -n m so r- rrl m e ~ CD ~ '", 0> "# 0 , ~. l ~ z en , S r- >+;0. 0 v' ~ =I ~ r---:> m ~ 0 = () = c en ill ::tl"O m::tl cnm -ir- 0- ~~ -i)> -::0 0-( Zen "O-i ~o z~ c ~ Z )> G) m 2:! ~~ ::0 )> Z ~ li; :~} s: I Pl I ( .. 1...." I I i I f f ! J , I I I i i -',\ , z " c ~ '" c ~ I i I I I / / / / I I / ! :1 I " ~ I I I ) / / / / / / / I / r- . W l anc;,-;cape ;\v;hitects, Inc. ," . KenCairn Sager 'T1 .. <:r 2 .. -< ~ ... g en ~ .. :!j en BRAMMO MOTORSPORTS CAMPUS Jefferson Avenue Ashland. Oregon 545 'A' STREET, SUITE 3, ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 PH. (541) 488-3194, FAX (541) 552-9512 ". - -, ''. "." ~ " -~:~-w... . '72~-+~~' 4/0A~'<\~" \ --=~~--~-f1 Jf cO U"" rH~:' ,0: . 'i . /cHI'" . .~'.. '. ...............~'~V6,z(\O o___~______, <:J: '.' ' ". ;;:.~ '", \ ' .... ~",:" i !' i ," i'l :i; . bY, :i COI . "" ."~,\ . - 6Y57021~.. 1/'.........: ..,..~...'....:.~\2.. ~5.~... _...._. _____~~~~c,~.i : \,~. \\ /67.J,t_1 I'. =~~---, ---'--...-cz~, '\ , ....""".""~~., t=====,-- / T:, . , \ \ = II-tL.t" I~ /10__ I..'. , , \ = II apt I' I, , , 11'1" )::' \ III. 111'11 T 572 7 ~ " \\ \ I, II 50. " ~\-:;..n '" l:1 , , lilt I" ::1 - . 60S " \ 'es ~\ \\ \\ : I ~t ./liI! vii I..", Ii "'- f) , \ \ II /:11. II.i! F 126 (' "-1,~4W+ E" hlb. ~ \ Hil/I! i G i ~ " ,~\ B II i',', I ill:: " AI \\ IWl H Ii i .1, , I .: / if/ \\ \ 14iBlt029, I I. 1111: I ,/ Of V Dr", 1>JN ~\ 1 ffiF) S I I, I "I I I ,i, I' ' , '\(il' \ i.L Ii d 'i, \h5752 I LL . \\1 \ \, \ ~\'r.~2;:~' I 1,'3'';57 <\~ I \ \ \ ".'" ", ". ". _. _. ) -, 75'1~, "~%'iAPE' I,f,ij 'I "" "I - -- --_...:: ~~J~ ~0.- ~\\":i,~---~---::7 / ~ - 20ft LAI'\~~f'~\~\~\ \ /.'" I 11 \~\"f)\\\ "~\\\\~'\,\<"""" ../ Vi \\ \\ '\ '\ "". ~--"" \\ \\\ ~")( ',' ! \\\, ~""/ \\ \" "" . \\~);~\''-_F . '\" 'v ",,"" \.>-' "" . "" "" "" "" "" "" gr . / "" ..- "" "" "" ",,/,// "" --- '" " '-, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ '\\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \. \\ \ \ \ \ , \ \ \ . \ E6775~ '- \" b15 ~ \ :\, . " ~.~.'\i: '.-'" :\t\ \\. \\ i, ~ \\ i'l ~i. .\\i, V'k, , , \ k' "- iii i! " ",]~ 'I' '<,~ XI-_ 'I I "",>~ -1 Ii k'!Q5.~:z..-., ':-=--=-~ : \~ -~-.:::~, \ \ ....\i ~--- ""~',w T5675 'I I " ,~ /50. E ,If)L 'o.~~ , k E3 '" ~...,/ . \ - - 'v I '0 ! . ?S I \ ~ \~\ I' . \ii\ \\~ ,lIT , :::; ill \ ~l\ \ ' t\l:i I I \ i :'it 1. : I \ :H \ , . , VV " F ri cr'-'- -." -- .. . .... . '4Ac 'l"'~.' "I,... ..... .... . .. _...... '. ""..' ..~_.. _'. . .... '._ __~.~. _,_ 1I5PS'~~'-~~5:~if ~~7;:~~~ - ---.:-..~ c . - --V,I.'F ...-.. IN Frl 14AC-1 14/\C-017 115P' lbF'SI 790 7e9 ( -"'-,. , J I -'" '''-, " '''-.'' \~\ 1"_ I (~;> .' ,0 "'" " cb " .'..\.I>< , . ~' /'~) . ~, /00 " f5? ../c6 / J: / , , / , , / , I ~ , , 4 '. /~ , , ........ / .~ -n :rJ m , ~9 CD m 0 ~g, " m Oil:' ~ ~ ~;t ~ ~i g ".,J - ...,. / / " , '......... , ~"'::::~~T5575 , , ~ r., PI~~mt C I T Y 0 r 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 ASHLAND 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006 PLANNING APPLICATION File # P/l- ~O()~ - aJ3d,d Date Received ;(. ~ '1-CJ ~ Type --rzr Filing Fee $ /3 33t, OP . Zoning Comp Plan Designation Minor Land Partition Variance Conditional Use Permit Boundary Line APPLICATION IS FOR: Outline Plan (# Units) Final Plan Zone Change Comp Plan Change Staff Permit Solar Waiver Application pertains to (chapter, section, subpart) of the Ashland Municipal Code. APPLICANT Name ~,_ ~PAM~ E-Mail (for e-malling Staff Report) . Phone ~1. t\~Z; ~ 41t; City ~ Zip~O Address PROPERTY OWNER Name ~~ ~ ~~ Phone Address City Zip SUVEYO~ ENGINEE~ ARCIDTECT4 LANDSCAPE ARCIDTECT Name 'Phone t?S-lS'S~ AddressJD.~'i~ City~ ZipL/,q:jl DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Street Address Assessor's Map No. 39 IE \4A. Tax Lot(s) \J04 On a separate sheet of paper, list any covenants, conditions or restrictions concerning use of the property or improvements contemplated, as well as yard set-back and area or height requirements that were placed on the property by subdivision tract developers. Give date said restrictions expire. OVER >> Cj ( G:\comm-dev\planninglForms k Handouts\Planning Application Form.doc FINDINGS OF FACT Type your response to the appropriate zoning requirements on another sheet(s) of paper and enclose it with this form. Keep in mind your responses must be in the form of factual statements or findings of fact and supported by evidence. List the findings criteria and the evidence that SUDDortS it. I hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in all respects, true and correct. I understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to establish: 1) that I produced suffi~ient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request; 2) that the findings offact fumishedjustifies the granting of the request; 3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further 4) that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground. . Failure in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but .also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to be removed at my expense. If I have any doubts, I am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance. Applicant's Signature Date As owner of the property involved in this request, I have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property owner. . Owner' s "Signature Date NOTICE: Section 15.04.240 of the Ashland Municipal Code prohibits the occupancy of a building or a release of utilities prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the Building Division AND the completion of all zoning requirements and conditions imposed by the Planning Commission UNLESS a satisfactory performance bond has been posted to ensure completion. VIOLATIONS may result in prosecution and/or disconnection of utilities. G:\comm-<lcvlplanninglForms & HandoutsIPIanning Application Fonn.doc 02/24/2006 FRI 15:33 FAX 5414886006 City of Ashland COm! Dev ~OO1l001 , .. . rJ:. =~: ....: :,.... . .tINDINGS OF FAct ' Type your response to the appropriate zOning requirements. on anothe~ sheet(s) of paper and enclose it with this fonn. Keep in mind your responses must be in the form of facOJal. statements or findings of fact and supported by evidence. lAst the findin2S criteria and the evidence that suuoorts'it. ., I hereby certify that the statem~nts and information Oont$ed in this application, incl~ding the enclo~ed drawings and the required findings of fa~ are in all respects~ true and C01Tect. t, understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings .and visible upon the site inspection. . In the event ~e pins are not shown or their location found to be incorrect. the owner ~e?s full responsibility6 . '. ' . . I fUrther understand that if this request is SQbsequen~y contestecl the burden will'};)e on me to -" establish: -1) ~ I produecd suffi~ient factual evidence lit the Iiearing to s.uppo~ ~ request; " 2) tbat:thc'findings of fact fumishedjustifieS th~ granting of the request;. : ; 3) that the find~ o~fw;t furnished by mc ate adequate; and ~' . . . 4) . that'all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground. ,Fait~ in this rePro wilt result most "likely in .not only the request ~n8 set aside,' but ,also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to be ~ved at my , ~.'ex. peIISC..' .. J.f.. _1 ~e any doubts, ~ am advised to ~ competent p~fessional 8;dvice. and -' ~ '2-./2-4/00 . , 1 ~guaturo ~ , & owner Oftl\C'~ involved in this request, I have'read and undemood'the complete "P!'llciltion and its ~"'C<l$ to me 88 · ~ owner.. ) y;; ~~ -7 ; Z- U Or; . --::::> Date "I . P NOTiCE: SectiOtl. IS. 04.2010 qfthe bhlqnJ Municip4l Ctxk prohIbits the occUpancy of Q brdldlng 01' Q .releta. of vtilitia prior to.1hc U6IIiCI1la qf" CerlifiC4te of Oce&qJ4IICy by t/Je Building /)jvl8fon AND ~ complet~n of all ztmltlg-requlr.fJInenU lUUI co1idttlons lmptJsed by tI&e p~ CommwilJn"UNLE$S 0. satJsfactol'J' ~1'mIln~ bond Iuu bun po$lt!J 1(1 e1InUYl completion. YlOLA.TlONSmay re.su1t In prwilCUliDn and/or di!connection ofut//ttiG. It' V lIWfL. 't.......~~"-- 9~ CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Confirmation of Mayoral Appointment of the Interim Police Chief Meeting Date: May 16, 2006 Department: Administration Contributing Departments: Approval: JPtt J..-.. Primary Staff Contact: E-mail: Secondary Staff Contact: E-mail: Estimated Time: Lee Tuneberg tuneberl@ashland.or.us Consent Agenda Statement: The appointment of Ronald Goodpastor as Interim Police Chief for the City of Ashland. Background: The city advertised for parties interested in acting as Interim Police Chief and interviewed three candidates. A thorough background check was done on the top candidate and resulted in a strong recommendation. Ron Goodpastor has worked for Milwaukie, Lake Oswego, Central Point and Tigard and has lived in or around those cities. He formally retired from the City of Tigard Chief of Police position in 2003 and is a PERS retiree. This means that he can work full time for six months assisting the city in this transition without complications with his retirement program. Ron indicated he could start immediately upon ratification of his appointment and is anxious to represent the city. Related City Policies: None Council Options: Confirm or defer confirmation of appointment awaiting further information. Staff Recommendation: Confirm Appointment of the Interim Police Chief. Potential Motions: Council moves to confirm appointment of an Interim Police Chief. Attachments: Draft employment agreement ~~, T CITY OF ASHLAND Employment Agreement Interim Police Chief THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this _ th day of May, 2006, by and between the City of Ashland ("City") and Ronald D. Goodpaster ("Employee"). R E C I TAL S: A. City desires to employ the services of Employee as Interim Police Chief of the City of Ashland; and B. It is the desire of the Mayor and City Council to establish certain conditions of employment for Employee; and C. It is the desire of the Council to (1) secure and retain the services of Employee and to provide inducement for Employee to remain in such employment for a period of up to 6 months, (2) to make possible full work productivity by assuring Employee's morale and peace of mind with respect to financial security; (3) to act as a deterrent against malfeasance or dishonesty for personal gain on the part of Employee; and (4) to provide a just means for terminating Employee's services at such time as Employee may be unable fully to discharge Employee's duties due to disability or when City may otherwise desire to terminate Employee's services; and D. Employee desires to accept employment as Interim Police Chief of Ashland. City and Employee agree as follows: Section 1. Duties. The city hereby agrees to employ Ronald Goodpaster as the Interim Police Chief of the City to perform the functions and duties specified in the job description for the position, and to perform such other legally permissible and proper duties and functions as the City Administrator and/or City Council shall from time to time assign. The Interim Police Chief shall devote full time to the performance of his duties for the duration of interim appointment. Section 2. Term. A. Nothing in this agreement shall prevent, limit, or otherwise interfere with the right of the City to terminate the services of the Interim Police Chief at any time, subject only to the provisions set forth in this agreement. Page - 1 T B. Employee is a PERS retiree and as such is limited to working no more than 1039 hours in a PERS eligible position. Employee agrees to remain in the employ of City until a successor Police Chief is appointed into the regular FIT position or for six months, whichever occurs first, and neither to accept other employment nor to become employed by any other employer until this termination date, unless the termination date is affected as otherwise provided in this agreement. C. In the event written notice is not given by the City to terminate this agreement at least thirty (30) days prior to the termination date, the City agrees to pay the balance of employee's rental housing costs for the month in which employment terminates to a maximum of $2,000. Employee shall not be entitled to the rent under this provision if termination of this agreement is because Employee has worked for six months or if termination is because of Employee's willful misconduct or conviction of a felony or conviction of a misdemeanor involving theft, dishonesty, moral turpitude, harassment or an offense resulting in the revocation of Employee's driver's license. D. In the event Employee wishes to voluntarily resign the position during the term of this agreement, Employee shall be required to give the City three weeks written notice of such intention, unless such notice is waived by the City Administrator with the approval of the Mayor and City Council. Employee will cooperate in every way with the smooth and normal transfer to the newly appointed individual. Section 3. Salary. Employee is a retiree in the PERS system and therefore will not be eligible for retirement contribution. City agrees to pay Employee a total monthly salary of $8,553/month which equates to the first step in the salary range for Police Chief ($6,843/month), plus a cash payment of 25% ($1,710) added to salary in lieu of health benefits and retirement contributions. Salary is being paid based upon a 160 hour work month. Salary shall be pro-rated for any partial month worked. Employee would be afforded the same Cost of Living Adjustment as may be accorded other Department Heads on July 1, 2006. Section 4. Automobile Allowance. Employee's duties require that Employee shall have the exclusive use at all times during employment with the City of an automobile to carry out the business of the City. The City shall provide a vehicle or an automobile allowance of $350/month if the employee chooses to use his own personal vehicle for City business. Employee shall be responsible for paying for insurance, operation, maintenance and repairs of his personal vehicle. Section 5. Tools and Equipment. City agrees to provide the tools and equipment necessary for the Interim Police Chief to efficiently perform his duties. Uniforms, radio equipment, computer and protective equipment will be provided and maintained by the City. Page - 2 T-- Section 6. Severability. If any part, term, or provision of this agreement is held by the courts to be illegal or in conflict with the laws of the State of Oregon, the validity of the remaining portions of the agreement shall not be affected and the rights and obligations of the parties shall be construed and enforced as if the agreement did not contain the particular part, term, or provision. Dated this of ,2006. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John Morrison, Mayor Accepted this _ day of , 2006. Ronald D. Goodpaster Page - 3 r CITY Of ASHLAND Council Communication Adoption of Findings for Planning Action 2006-00069 - Rear Yard Variance for the property located at 758 B Street Meeting Date: May 16, 2006 Department: Community Development Contributing Departments: None Approval: Lee Tuneberg oro-- Statement: At the May 2, 2006 meeting, the Council denied a request for a variance to the rear yard setback requirement for a second story addition to the garage located at the rear of the property. The required rear yard setback for the second story is 20 feet from the rear property line, and the proposal was to locate the second story 14 feet from the rear property line. Attached are the findings supporting that decision, for adoption by the City Council. Primary Staff Contact: Bill Molnar, 552-204q[ L bill@ashland.or.us 't:> "- Secondary Staff Contact: None Estimated Time: 15 minute Background: The application for a Variance was originally denied by the Planning Commission Hearings Board, and subsequently appealed in a timely manner to the City Council. The City Council held a public hearing on April 18, 2006, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The City Council continued their deliberations to May 2nd, 2006. The City Council denied the application, noting that the application had failed to meet the burden of proof for approval of the Variance. Related City Policies none. Council Options: The Council may adopt the findings as presented or modify the findings and adopt the modification. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Council adopt the findings as presented. Potential Motions: Move adoption of the findings for the denial of Planning Action 2006-00069. Attachments: Findings Notice Map Council Minutes from May 2, 2006. 1 'A' -r- BEFORE THE ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON May 2nd, 2006 IN THE MA TIER OF PLANNING ACTION #2006-00069, REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO THE GARAGE FROM THE REQUIRED 20 FEET TO 14 FEET FROM THE SECOND STORY TO THE REAR PROPRETY LINE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 758 B STREET. APPLICANT: Philip Lang ) ) FINDINGS, ) CONCLUSIONS ) AND ORDERS ) ) ) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECITALS: I) Tax lot 2000 of 39 IE 09AC is located at 758 B Street and is zoned R-2; Low Density Multi-Family Residential. 2) The applicant is requesting a variance to the rear yard setback requirement for a second story addition to the garage located at the rear of the property. The required rear yard setback for the second story is 20 feet from the rear property line, and the proposal is to locate the second story 14 feet from the rear property line. The site improvements are outlined on the plans on file at the Department of Community Development. 3) The criteria for a Variance are described in Chapter 18.100 as follows: A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development ofthe adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. 4) The City Council, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on April 18, 2006, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The City Council continued their deliberations to May 2nd, 2006. The City Council denied the application, noting that the application had failed to meet the burden of proof for approval of the Variance. Now, therefore, the City Council of the City of AsWand finds, concludes and recommends as follows: -r-" SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "0" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The City Council finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2.2 The City Council finds that the Front Yard General Exception from AMC 18.68.110 does not apply to this application because the setback or yard area involved is not a front yard, but rather is a rear yard. The Council finds that general exceptions allowed by this section are specifically described as applying front yards as there exists another code section that speaks to flexibility for side and rear yards. The Council finds that the application fails to meet the provisions allowing for reduced side and rear yards for accessory structures and buildings from AMC 18.68.140 D. as the proposed structure is greater than 15 feet in height and is less than ten feet from a building already on the property. 2.3 The City Council finds that the proposal does not establish a unique or unusual circumstance which applies to the subject site which does not typically apply elsewhere that necessitates a Variance to the rear yard setback. Therefore, the City Council finds the application does not satisfy the approval criteria for a Variance. The City Council finds that the non-conforming, varied setback pattern on the alley that is adjacent to the subject property is not unique to this section of alley. Accessory buildings which do not meet rear yard setbacks and are adjacent to alleys are found throughout the Railroad District. The City Council finds that the Railroad District includes a variety of "non- conforming" structures which do not meet current setback requirements, and the non-conforming setbacks are a result of a neighborhood that was largely developed prior to land use ordinances were put in place in Ashland. 2.4 The application asserts that the site is unique or unusual because a previous decision by the City Council for a project located at 916 E. Main St., P A 2002-106, established the Railroad Addition Historic District in whole as unique or unusual. The City Council finds that the previous decision did not and was not intended to establish the Railroad Addition Historic District in whole as unique or unusual. The findings document for the City Council's decision for 916 E. Main, P A 2002-106, describes the unique or unusual circumstance as being a side yard development pattern in the surrounding area based on an averaging of the side yards in an area within 100 feet of the site. In . T------------ contrast to the applicants' argument in the subject application, the side yard condition in the 916 E. Main findings document is described in a site specific way, and is not described as being one of the entire Railroad Addition Historic District but rather an area within 100 feet of the site. Furthermore, the Variance granted in the 916 E. Main St. application pertained to the distance between the sides of the buildings in the interior of the site rather than a standard rear yard setback at an exterior property boundary. As a result, the City Council's previous decision does not establish a unique or unusual circumstance for the purpose of a rear yard setback variance for all properties in the Railroad Addition Historic District. Therefore, the City Council finds that it is not obligated to find the subject property has a unique or unusual circumstance on the basis of the previous decision. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on evidence contained within the whole record on this matter, the City Council concludes that the proposed Variance to reduce the rear yard setback for a second story addition to the garage from the required 20 feet to 14 feet from the second story to the rear property line is not supported by evidence contained within the record. 3.2 Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, Planning Action #2006-00069 is denied. CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON By: John Morrison, Mayor Date T ~., Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-8~735-2900 CITY OF ASHLAND PLANNING ACTION: #2006-00069 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 758 B Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Philip Lang DESCRIPTION: Request for a Variance to the rear yard setback requirement for a second story addition to the garage located at the rear of the property located at 758 B Street. The required rear yard . setback for the second story is 20 feet from the rear property line, and the proposal is to locate the second story 14 feet from the rear property line. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGN A TION: Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 1E 09 AC; TAX LOT: 2000. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING: April 18, 2006, 7:00 PM, Ashland Civic Center Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the Issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient spectficity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages In circuit court. A copy of the application. all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable COSt, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the condusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's otIlce at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title I). If you have questions or comments conceming this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Department, at 541-488-5305. E' G.\comm-devlplanningINolices Mailed\2006-00069 Council Appeal.doc . -r---- City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes Page 1 of6 City Council - Minutes Tuesday, May 02, 2006 These Minutes are preliminary pending approval by Council at the May 16, 2006 City Council Meeting. MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL May 2, 2006 Civic Center Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORD9 Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilors Hardesty, Hartzell, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman were present. Councilor Amarotico was absent. Af>>PROVAL Of MINUTES The minutes of the Regular Council meeting of April 18, 2006 were approved as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS AAWARDS Mayor's Proclamation of May 7 - 11, 2006 as "Building Safety Week" was read aloud. The National Arbor Day foundation and its sponsor, the Oregon Department of Forestry, recognized the City of Ashland as a "Tree City USA" for the 21st consecutive year. Tree Commissioner Bryan Holley presented five types of trees that the Commission is asking the community to vote on to replace the "Tree of Heaven" which was recently removed. He also noted the need for two additional members on this Commission. CONSENT_AGENDA 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees. 2. Liquor License Application - Miguel's Family Mexican Restaurant. 3. Liquor License Application - Hong Kong Bar. 4. Annual Appointment to Commissions/Committees. 5. Ratification of Separation Agreement - Mike Bianca. Councilor Hartzell requested Items #1, #4 and #5 be pulled from the Consent Agenda. Councilor Hartzell/Chapman m/s to approve Consent Agenda Items #2 and #3. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Councilor Hartzell requested that staff submit minutes from the Committee and Commission meetings in a more timely manner. Regarding Item #4, she requested that: 1) the packet information list how long re- appointed members have served on the commission, and 2) that the Mayor discuss the appointments with the Council Liaison and Staff Liaison prior to making his recommendations, which was the process used in the past. Councilor Chapman/Hartzell m/s to approve Consent Agenda Items #1 and #4. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Councilor Hartzell requested that Mike Bianca be given the opportunity to comment on Item #5. Police Chief Mike Bianca addressed the Council, thanked the citizens for their support, and suggested that the Council be clear with their expectations with the next Police Chief. http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=2617 &Print=True 5/1112006 -r--' City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes Page 2 of6 Councilor Jackson/Hardesty m/s to approve Consent Agenda Item #5. Voice Vote: Councilor Hardesty, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman, YES. Councilor Hartzell, NO. Motion passed 4-1. PUBLIC HEARINGS (None) PUBLIC FORUM Colin Swales/461 Allison Street/Commented on prescriptive easements that he believes exist on the railroad property and requested that Council instruct the Legal Dept. to look into this matter. He stated that the Council should make use of every legal avenue available to ensure that the City and citizens' rights for public use of that space are fully protected. Eric Navickas/711 Faith Avenue/Spoke regarding the Downtown Planning process and voiced his support for Crandall & Arambula. He stated the City should be protective of current land use prescriptions, especially the Big Box Ordinance, and was encouraged by the attitude of the development community. He commented on the downtown business community's attack on the less fortune, and encouraged the City to look at sponsoring forums on tolerance. Brent Thompson/582 Allison Street/Spoke regarding the sign code revision forwarded to the Council in the summer of 2005 by the Planning Commission. He suggested an additional language revision that would ensure business frontages in excess of two would not be as prominently "signed" as the two primary frontages. Mr. Thompson submitted the prOPQse~Jan9-u~eto the Council for their consldergtion. Councilor Hardesty requested that staff review the proposed language and forward it to Council for consideration. Councilor Hartzell stated that at the time this issue was originally presented, several concerns were raised by the Council and does not feel that the information presented by Mr. Thompson addresses those issues and questions. She offered to meet with Mr. Thompson to discuss this issue further and Mayor Morrison noted that this would come before Council in the future. Ambuja Rosen/Spoke regarding her desire to see our community adopt a tethering law that would better protect animals and noted other cities that have adopted tethering laws. Neal Kinzie/35 Wightman Street/Commented on a project he is involved with on 180 Clear Creek Drive. He stated that he intends to use this site for the expansion of his business, West Vista Communications, and feels that this project would be an improvement to the neighborhood. He noted the Hearings Board has approved his application, but had seen an email that indicated this project might come before the Council as an appeal. Council questioned whether they should be hearing Mr. Kinzie's testimony. City Attorney Mike Franell stated that unfortunately the Council has already received emails in regards to this, and therefore hearing the testimony is fair. Mary Margaret a. Bill Modesitt/540 South Mountain Avenue/Submitted intQtherecord a statement regardln9.- the appointment of former PoUceChief Scott Fleuter to filUbeposltiQn of Interim Police Chief. The City Recorded stated that copies of the statement would be given to the Council for their review. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Appeal of Planning Action 2006-0069 - Request for a Variance to the rear yard setback requirement for a second story addition to the garage located at the rear of the property for th4i! property located at 758 B St. City Attorney Mike Franell clarified the Findings for the East Main project are included in the record; however there are additional Findings referred to in the memorandum by Beth Lori Assistant City Attorney, that are not part of the record. Given this situation, Mr. Franell reviewed the minutes from the previous council meeting and Mr. Lang was the only one to testify during the public hearing. Mr. Franell stated it would be prudent to grant Mr. Lang five minutes to address the memorandum prepared by the Assistant City Attorney, since she did bring in some information that was not in the record. Mayor Morrison asked if Mr. Lang would like to rebuttal this information. Mr. Lang declined due to the meeting not being noticed as a public hearing. Council discussed whether there were any legal issues with this not being listed as a public hearing and whether this item should be re-noticed and scheduled for a special meeting. Mr. Franell stated that the Council has provided Mr. Lang the opportunity to speak and he has chosen not to, therefore he would http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=2617 &Print=True 5/11/2006 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes Page 3 of6 have difficulty showing prejudice before lUBA. He added that there would be insufficient time within the 120-day rule to re-notice and differ this to a special meeting. Mr. Franell clarified that Mr. Lang has been given the opportunity to review the memorandum and he has also met with the legal Dept. to discuss it. Mr. Franell stated his opinion that it is prudent for Council to continue its deliberations and come to a conclusion. Interim Planning Director Bill Molnar provided a recap of Council's actions at the prior Council Meeting. He noted that there was some indication raised that the previous City Attorney, Paul Nolte, had possibly made an interpretation that could impact this application. Mr. Molnar stated that staff reviewed the files and found there was no written interpretation made regarding the Deluca application on East Main St. He stated that staff's opinion is the language in 18.68.110 (Front Yard General Exceptions) only applies to front yards. He added there is language in the code that allows for flexibility for rear and side yards if the following three criteria are met: 1) the building is less than 15 ft. in height, 2) it is separated by no more than 10 ft. from the primary structure, and 3) it is 50 ft. from a public street. In this case, the applicant could not take advantage of the rear and side yard exception because it does not meet the first two criteria. Staff's conclusion is that Council should judge the merits of this request based on the variance approval criteria. Mr. Franell clarified the Council needs to address two separate questions: 1) does 18.68.110 apply to front yards only, or does it apply to any yard as suggested by the Applicant, and 2) does the application meet for criteria for the variance. If the Council determines that 18.68.110 applies to all yards, then the variance request is not necessary; however, it is the legal Depts. opinion that 18.68.110 has not been applied to anything other than front yards in the past and the Planning Dept. has cautioned that the consequences for interpreting the language this way are unknown. Mr. Franell stated staff's recommendation is for Council to state that 18.68.110 applies to front yard setbacks, and then go back and determine whether this application meets the criteria for the variance. Mr. Franell explained that the Applicant stated the Council previously determined the unique charter of the Historic District in general satisfies the unique or unusual variance criteria. The legal department has looked into this and found that the same reasoning could be applied in this instance to meet the criteria, however Council's previous action does not bind them to make the same decision. Mr. Molnar clarified that 18.68.110, the Front Yard General Exception, is the only section that allows for the averaging of yard areas. Mr. Franell stated the Applicant's contention is that since sections A and B of 18.68.110 do not specifically state these exceptions only apply to determine front yard setback, that Council could take this language and apply it for determining a side or rear yard setback. Councilor Chapman and Jackson stated that section 18.68.110 does not apply to this application. Jackson further clarified this would not a-pply because front yards are treated differently and there is an existing set of setbacks for rear yards and an option for dealing with side yards. Councilor Jackson/Chapman m/s that 18.68.110 does not apply to this application. DISCUSSION: Mr. Franell clarified for Council that section 18.68.110 is located in the General Regulation section of the Ashland land Use Ordinance, and 18.68.110 is the "Front Yard--General Exception". Mr. Franell read section 18.68.110 aloud in its entirety. Councilor Hartzell commented that the context in which this language lies specifically delineates that it is meant to deal with front yards. Councilor Chapman stated he could expand his motion by saying "...because it is not a front yard." Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hartzell, Jackson, Silbiger, and Chapman, YES. Councilor Hardesty, NO. Motion passed 4-1. Council discussed whether this application meets the variance criteria. Councilor Jackson disagreed that the entire Historic District meets the unique or unusual circumstance criteria, and stated there is already a different set of setbacks that applies to the Historic District that are different to what is applied to the rest of town. Mayor Morrison agreed and does not think that just because the parcel lies within the Historic District is satisfies this criteria. He stated the purpose of the criteria is to look at the individual parcel and determine whether there is something that makes it unique or unusual. Councilor Chapman/Jackson m/s to deny the appeal on the grounds that the criteria was not met. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Jackson, Silbiger, Hardesty and Hartzell, YES. Motion passed. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=2617 &Print=True 5/11/2006 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes Page 1 of6 City Council - Minutes Tuesday, April 18, 2006 These Minutes are preliminary pending approval by Council at the May 2, 2006 City Council Meeting. MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL April 18, 2006 Civic Center Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilors Hardesty, Hartzell, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman were present. Councilor Amarotico arrived at 8 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the Regular Council meeting of April 4, 2006 and Executive Session minutes of April 6, 2006 were approved as presented. It was noted that the Executive Session minutes had been corrected to eliminate the noted presentation by City Administrator Gino Grimaldi, which had been incorrectly included in the minutes. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS" AWARDS Mayor's Proclamation of April 17-23 as "Respite Care Awareness Week" and Proclamation of April 30 - May 5 as "Municipal Clerks Week" were read aloud. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees. 2. Liquor License Application - Liquid Assets Wine Bar. 3. Liquor License Application - Water Street Cafe. 4. Appointment to Ashland Community Healthcare Services Board of Directors. 5. Approval of Public Contract Greater than $75, 000 - WWTP Chemicals. Mayor Morrison requested that Consent Agenda item #5 be pulled for discussion. Councilor JaCkson/Hardesty m/s to approve Consent Agenda items #1-#4. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. A typographical error was noted on the Council Communication for Consent Agenda item #5. The Staff Recommendation should read, "Staff recommends that the Public Contract for chemicals #2 and #6 be awarded to Columbia Cascade, and chemicals #1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 be awarded to Univar, USA." Councilor Jackson/Chapman m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #5. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. PUBUC HEARINGS 1. Public Hearing on an Appeal of Planning Action 2006-00069 - Request for a Variance to the rear yard setback requirement for a second story addition to the garage located at the rear of the property for the property located at 758 B St. Mayor Morrison read aloud the Public Hearing procedure for Land Use Hearings. Public Hearing Open: 7:13 p.m. Abstentions" Conflicts of Interest. Ex Parte Contact http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=2594&Print=True 5/11/2006 T.- City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes Page 2 of6 Councilor Chapman and Hartzell reported site visits. Staff Report Senior Planner Maria Harris presented a detail map of the area, which indicated the location of the lot and structures on the property. She noted that the property and the surrounding area is zoned R-2 Multi-Family Residential, it is located in the Railroad Historic District, and explained that this application involves a garage structure located in the southeast corner of the property. Ms. Harris stated that the Hearings Board held a public hearing on February 14, 2006 and determined that the first approval criteria which states that unique or unusual circumstances are present had not been met and denied the variance request. The Hearings Board found that the non-conforming setback pattern on the alley was not unique to just that section of the alley and found that it was reflective of the entire Historic area. The Historic Commission also reviewed the application and felt that the unique or unusual circumstance criteria had not been met. In addition, the Historic Commission questioned the bulk and scale of the second story addition and felt that this was not compatible with the alleyway architecture. Staff's recommendation is to uphold the decision of the Hearings Board, and it was noted that this item is time sensitive with the 120-day time limitation ending on May 25, 2006. It was clarified that the Applicant is requesting an additional 6-foot setback. Interim Community Development Director Bill Molnar commented on the process and why this request was brought before the Hearings Board. Ms. Harris provided an explanation of the Type I variance approvals listed in the Applicant's Summary and Appeal Narrative dated March 21, 2005. Councilor Hartzell questioned whether the Council could place a restriction that the 90 sq. feet would never be enclosed with anything other than glass. Mr. Molnar stated that if the Council felt this was the only way the application would comply with the approval criteria then they could place such a condition. Councilor Jackson noted that the Ashland Municipal Code states that the staff advisor clearly has the ability to decide to have a hearing on a Type I action. APPUCANT Phillip Lang and Ruth Miller/758 B Street/Clarified that they are asking for a 6 ft. variance to the 20 ft. rear setback requirement for a 90 sq. ft. enclosure as part of an accessory unit at the back of their residential property. Mr. Lang commented on the procedural issues regarding this application and stated that: 1) Reduction up to 50% of the standard yard requirement can be approved administratively when it is reviewed under the Type I process and noted that they are asking for a 30% reduction, and 2) Such variances and far more extensive ones are ro'tJtinely granted, yet staff exercised its discretionary right to schedule this application for a hearing by the Hearings Board. Mr. Lang questioned staff's justification for calling this up, commented on the seven Type I variance applications in 2005 that were all approved administratively, and expressed his concern that he was being treated unfairly. He commented on the three approval criteria and provided an explanation of why this application meets those requirements. He noted previous Council action regarding a project on East Main St. that supports his request, stated that the variance has no negative impact and would provide privacy for his neighbors backyard, stated that the request conforms to the Comprehensive Plan, and that the Railroad District presents many unique and unusual circumstances. Mr. Lang concluded by stating that: 1) the variance request is minor and falls under the Type I variance, 2) the record shows that such variances are customarily granted administratively, 3) the Planning Department exercising its discretion in bringing this request to the Hearings Board is unusual and lacks specific justification, 4) the variance request meets the requirements of AMC based on a) the unique and unusual circumstances of the site and the adjOining alley neighbors, b) its conformity of the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinances with no negative impact and a positive impact on the adjacent property, and c) based on the need for the variance is not willfully or purposefully self-imposed. Councilor Amarotico arrived at 8:00 p.m. and stated he had no ex parte contact. Mr. Lang stated that the Council had previously made a reasonable interpretation regarding side yards that he agrees with and is applicable in this situation. Council commented that Mr. Lang is referring to writing by the former City Attorney Paul Nolte and noted that this is not included in the record. City Attorney Mike Franell clarified that the Applicant has made a reference to the previous City Attorney and that oral representation is now in the record. If Council wished to consider the opinion of the previous attorney, staff could provide the written opinion that has been referenced by Mr. Lang to the http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=2594&Print=True 5/11/2006 _ . .,-n_ . City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes Page 3 of6 Council. Mr. Lang commented again on the seven Type I variance requests that were approved administratively and expressed his concerns that this application was handled differently. He stated that staff has the discretion to call up applications, but it needs to be exercised fairly, and noted the derogatory remarks contained in a Memo prepared by the previous Assistant City Attorney. Those Wishing to Provide Testimony (None) Staff Response Mr. Molnar commented on the application process and stated that there were a number of factors involved that led staff to determine it was best to discuss those issues with the appointed body. He noted the letter of opposition included in the record from Mr. Don Green and commented on the written comments from the Historic Commission, including their concern regarding the appropriateness of a two- story structure on the alley. Comment was made questioning why the Historic Commission's comments were not included in the record. Mr. Molnar stated this is part of the pre-application process and is generally not included in the record. City Attorney Mike Franell commented on the Applicant's concern with fairness and stated that the procedure code gives the staff advisor the discretion to move it up to the Hearings Board if they so choose. He stated that based on the issues raised regarding this request, the staff advisor felt it would be best to move it to the Hearings Board, and stated that there is no evidence that the Hearings Board did not give this request a fair hearing. Ms. Harris clarified that this is an accessory unit, but not an accessory residential unit, as it does not have kitchen /cooking facilities. She stated that accessory buildings are generally an outright permitted use if they meet the setback and lot coverage criteria. The majority of these are handled through building permits and do not require any kind of planning approval. Ms. Harris explained that the structure in question was built in the early 1990's and is not a historic non-conforming structure. She added that what is on the ground now meets the setback requirements. Mr. Franell commented on the Memo from the previous Assistant City Attorney and agreed that the personal slap contained in it was inappropriate. He stated that he has apologized to Mr. Lang, however he does agree with the legal analysis contained in that Memo. Applicant's Rebuttal Mr. Lang stated that it is unusual to ask for a rear yard variance and noted that this has the least impact. He stated that in the Historic District variability is encouraged and noted the Council's approval of a similar request on East Main St. He stated that he does not understand what was different with this application compared to the seven other Type I variances that were approved and stated that he did not receive the comments made by the Historic Commission. Public Hearing Closed: 8:48 p.m. Council Deliberation Councilor Hartzell commented on the issue of precedence set by the East Main project and noted page 65 of the record, which reads, "The general exception provides that if there are dwellings on both abutting lots with yards less than the required depth, the yard need not exceed the average of the abutting lots". She stated that taking an average can allow for a gradual increase in the size of buildings and is not supportive of this idea. She also stated that the City should not apply the rule differently to one person when not too long ago it was applied to another project on East Main St. and felt that the opinion offered by the former City Attorney that was referred to by the Applicant should be included in the record. Councilor Jackson stated that she was not going to base her decision on what was done with a different site-specific appeal and believes this is a setback question regarding a second story of which there are not any other non-conforming second stories on that alley. She noted the criteria and how the report explains why staff believes that the criteria has not been met and stated her preference is to uphold the denial. - http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=2594&Print=True 5/11/2006 - T- ---- City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes Page 4 of6 Councilor Hartzell questioned the legal liability the Council has for applying an interpretation differently on one project than another with the same variance request. Mr. Franell explained that if the facts are exactly the same, then they should apply the same interpretation unless they explain why they are reinterpreting. If the facts are not exactly the same, the Council needs to make distinguishments as to why a prior interpretation may not be applicable to the existing variance request. Mr. Franell offered his opinion that the two requests are not exactly the same. Councilor Chapman concurred with Councilor Jackson and stated he would recommend denying the request because it does not meet the unique or unusual circumstance criteria. Councilor Silbiger questioned if any of the adjacent properties have a second story and it was noted that this information is listed on page 21 of the record. Ms. Harris clarified that 164 Sixth St. and 156 Sixth St. are two-story single-family residential structures and Mr. Franell stated that by definition, both of these residences would be considered abutting properties. Mr. Franell cited 18.68.110 which reads "If there are dwellings or accessory buildings on both abutting lots (even if separated by an alley or private way) with yards of less than the required depth for the district, the yard for the lot need not exceed the average yard of the abutting structures". He stated that there is an interpretation issue involved with section because it anticipates there being two abutting lots since it says both. In this instance, 758 B St. has four abutting lots: 724 B St., 762 B St., 164 Sixth St., and 156 Sixth St. Based on the staff report, two of those abutting properties have two-story structures that might not meet the code requirement for the required yard space. Ms. Harris pointed out that this provision of the ordinance was not considered in the staff report or by the Hearings Board. She stated that historically this section has been applied to front yards as it is a front yard general exception and this variance request pertains to a rear yard. Ms. Harris explained that on the East Main decision there were two elements that concerned yards, one was a variance for internal side yards and the other was the front yard general exception and it was not a variance issue. Mr. Franell suggested that if Council feels this is an issue, they could continue this decision to the next Council meeting which would allow staff time to research the record and provide an analysis to the C;ouncil for further consideration. He added that in order to submit the opinion by the previous City Attorney the hearing would need to be reopened. It was clarified that this could be continued to the May 2, 2006 Council Meeting and still meet the 120- day deadline. Councilor Hartzell/Hardesty m/s to continue discussion on this appeal to the May 2,2006 Council Meeting for further legal clarification. DISCUSSION: Councilor Amarotico requested that he be allowed to abstain from voting as he was absent for most of the discussion on this hearing. Councilor HartzellIJackson m/s to allow Councilor Amarotico to abstain. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hartzell, Hardesty, Silbiger, Chapman, YES. Councilor Jackson, NO. Motion passed 4-1. PUBUC FORUM Eric Navickas/711 Faith Street/Commented on the homeless issue in the downtown and stated that the isolated and random instances of vandalism are being exploited to promote police crackdown. Mr. Navickas stated that a police crackdown would not solve the problem and suggested the City provide services and outreach to the homeless and disenfranchised youth as well as generously fund the downtown planning process in order to bring the citizens back into the downtown area. Tracy Harding/334 Bridge Street/Member of the Bicycle'" Pedestrian Commission/ Announced that the Bike Swap will take place on May 13th from 12 p.m. - 4 p.m. at The Grove. There will be a raffle, demonstrations, and activities for the children. If anyone is interested in volunteering, they should contact the Parks & Recreation Department. Ambuja Rosen/Spoke regarding her request for a tethering ordinance. Ms. Rosen commented on the number of people who endorse this campaign, including: 5 animal protection groups, 35 people who have written to the Council, and 88 citizens that have signed a form letter asking the Council to heavily restrict http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=2594&Print=True 5/1112006 --,-- --- CITY Of ASHLAND Council Communication An Ordinance Amending the AMC code relating to Business License Chapter 6.04 Meeting Date: May 16, 2006 Department: Administrative Services Contributing Departments: NA Approval: Lee Tuneberg ~ Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg E-mail: tuneberl@ashland.or.us Secondary Staff Contact: None E-mail: Estimated Time: 30 Minutes Statement: An ordinance is needed to adjust the fee schedule for business license applications and renewals. Background: The City of Ashland imposes a business license tax on all those who conduct business activity within the city limits of Ashland. This applies to businesses physically located within Ashland, as well as those that travel into Ashland to conduct business. The current fee schedule includes a base fee of $60, with a per employee fee of $10 for each employee beyond two and makes no distinction between the initial application and the yearly renewal. The proposed fee schedule addresses two issues that have come about during staff analysis. One is the cost difference between processing a business license renewal and a license application. New license applications have a more involved review process that includes a review for land use and building code compliance, as well as additional data entry and verification. The second issue is the use of employee counts for the establishment of the fee. For economic development purposes, it is important that employee counts are as accurate as possible and it is clear in conducting unofficial audits of employee count records that the counts are not as accurate as we would like. The attached ordinance provides two different fee schedules, with the new business license fee charged at a higher rate than renewals. Along with that change, the new license fee formula reduces the emphasis on the number of employees in determining the total license fee. The goal is to lessen the incentive to under report the true employee count for the business. Related City Policies: None Council Options: Council may accept this rate increase as presented, recommend modifications as discussed or defer acceptance (take no action) awaiting further information or clarification. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached ordinance and move to the second reading. ~.l' Potential Motions: I move that the proposed ordinance change to AMC 6.04.080, 6.04.090, 6.04.120 and 6.04.130 regarding business license tax schedule and penalties be approved and moved to second reading. Attachments: Ordinance change to increase the business license rates. ,., ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDNINANCE AMENDING THE ASHLAND MUNICP AL CODE RELATING TO BUSIINESS LICENSES AMENDING CHAPTER 6.04 SECTIONS 6.04.080, 6.04.090,6.04.120 AND 6.04.130. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOllOWS: Title 6, Chapter 4 of the Ashland Municipal Code shall be amended as follows: 6.04.080. License Tax Schedule. A person licensed under this chapter shall pay an annual license tax in the following amount: A. If the easi1'1ess is earned 01'1 by 1'1ot more tI.:1al'l two (2) i1'1di';idtiws, the lieeFlse fee is $60.00 An application fee (first time licensee) of $10 per month (up to 11 months) this includes the first two employees. Additionally, $5.00 will be charged for each additional individual. The number of employees should be counted based at the start of the business. Each employee will be counted as one regardless of their status as part time, full time or temporary. B. A renewal fee of $75.00 includes the first two employees and for each individual in excess of two, add $10.00 for each individual. The number of employees should be counted based on the anticipated number of employees on the payroll as of July. Each employee will be counted as one regardless of their status as part time, full time or temporary. B. For eaeh individaal i1'1 exeess oftwo, add $10.00 for eaeh individual. 1. In arriving at the number of individuals carrying on a business, the Finance Department shall count the proprietors, officers, partners and associates actively engaged in such business and the individuals employed regularly or on a part-time basis. Individuals employed by an owner or proprietor of a business who work entirely outside the corporate limits of the City shall not be counted. Trade apprentices receiving no compensation shall not be counted. 2. The m01'1thly average 1'1liftlber of saeh i1'1dividaals shan be the 1'1lHIlber e01'1sidered ea:rryl1'1g OR saeR easi1'1ess. SaeR momhly average shall be eOlBf'1:lted from t.ae 12 momh period prior to J1:ifte 1 preeedi1'1g the lieeRse year, or saeh portio1'1, thereof, as saeh basifless has eKisted. .'\. new easifless shaH deelare the nU1l'lber of indi'/idaals to ee aetively engaged or employed ey the easiness. Fraetio1'1al mtmbers of O1'1e half or o';er shall be eOBsidered as the next higher whole lHHHber. 3. .i\.R-y elBf'loyee or proprietor, partl'ler or assoeiate who works less thal'l 20 ao\:H"s per week fer mare than one month is a part time em.ployee or proprietor. To determiBe the mtmeer of part time employees for wham the lieensee shall pay a t82(, the total mHRber of hams worked oon1'1g the 12 molNhs prior to Jaly 1 preeediRg the lieeRse year shaH ee added. The total of these hams shall be di'liaed by 2,000. The 'ltietieflt resukiftg from this di'lisioR shaH be iRcll:laea iR that tetal Rl:lIBber ef iftdiyiffi:lals OR wliieh tlie licoose tax is computed. 6.04.090. Term. The business license term shall be for a fiscal year, beginning July 1 and ending June 30 of the next year, and business license taxes are due annually on or before July. 1, ofthe fiscal year for which the license is required. If, after Janl:lary 1, a persoR begiRs a btisiRess reqaired to be lieeBsea l:lflder tms OrdiRallce, the {lrigiRalliceRse tax shall be eRe half {lfthe anooal rate. 6.04.120 Temporary License. If a business licensed under this chapter is for a limited duration of not more than -00-30 days theR the erigiRallicense shall by \~ of the fee as outlined iB sectioB 6.04.080. the fee will be $25, regardless of the numbers of the employees. 6.04.130 Delinquent Penalty. There shall be a penalty often percent (10%) with a minimum of $25 added to all business license taxes paid later than 30 days after they are due. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2 (C) ofthe City Charter on the _ day of , 2006 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of ,2006. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of ,2006: John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Michael W. Franell, City Attorney CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE AMENDMENT OF THE FIRE PROTECTION PLANS REVIEW AND INSPECTION FEE SCHEDULE ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION 05-30 Meeting Date: May 16, 2006 Department: Ashland Fire & Rescue Contributing Departments: Legal, Fire Approval: Lee Tuneberg p"" r Primary Staff Contact: Margueritte Hickman, Fire E-mail: hickmanm@ashland.or.us Secondary Staff Contact: Beth Lori, Legal E-mail: lorib@ashland.or.us Estimated Time: 15 minutes Statement: In July 2005 the City Council adopted Resolution Number 05-30, which provides for cost recovery of fire protection plans review services provided by the City of Ashland. During the implementation of the fee schedule it was determined that there was a need to amend the language of the resolution regarding the application of the partition plat and subdivision review fees. The Legal Department has reviewed this issue and recommended that the language in the resolution be amended. Background: The current fire protection plans review and inspection fee schedule was implemented in 2005. During implementation it was determined that when an applicant is partitioning land, they are not necessarily subdividing that land. The permit cost for a partition plat fee review is less than a subdivision review fee. This means that those applicants seeking only a land partition will be charged more than the service they are actually receiving from the City under the current resolution. This can be corrected by amending the rate schedule to add a provision for fees for new land partitions where subdivisions are not proposed. Related City Policies: Resolution 2005-30, Fire Protection Plan Review and Inspection Fees Schedule ) Council Options: Accept or reject staff recommendation to amend fire protection plans review fee schedule. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of amendment to fire protection plans review fee schedule. Potential Motions: Motion to adopt resolution amending the fire protection plan review fee schedule. Attachments: Draft resolution amending fire protection plan review fee schedule. r.l' RESOLUTION NO. 06- A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE AMENDMENT OF THE FIRE PROTECTION PLANS REVIEW AND INSPECTION FEE SCHEDULE ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION 05-30. Recital: The council being fully informed regarding the advisability of establishing a fire protection plans review and inspection fee schedule as recommended by Margueritte Hickman, City of Ashland Fire Marshal, in her memorandum to the council dated May 8, 2006, deems it in the public interest to amend the fire protection plans review and inspection fee schedule. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOllOWS: SECTION 1. Pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code Section 15.28.150 and 15.28.160, the attached fire protection plans review and inspection fee schedule is hereby adopted. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code 92.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ,2006. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of ,2006. John Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: ~Jfk,A Beth lori, lCity Attorney PAGE 1-RESOlUTION FIRE PROTECTION PLANS REVIEW PERMIT FEES Fire protection plans review fees will be applied to any building permit that is routed by, or requires interaction with, the fire department. This includes fire suppression and fire alarm systems. These fees will also be applied to subdivision / plat check reviews which are initiated by Public Works Engineering Division. These fees are in addition to and separate from the Building Permit. These fees will be paid following existing city policies. (Prior to issuance of the Building Permit, when Plat Check is submitted for review, or when Subdivision Engineering Service Fees memo is paid.) These fees address those fire protection issues and features, which are not addressed by the Oregon Structural Specialty Code. (Ex: fire apparatus access, fire hydrants and required fire hydrant flows, the specified locations for fire department pumper connections, fire alarm panels and access key boxes) The fee structure is: ITEM FEE Any Building Permit 24% of the Building Permit Fee and Plan Check fees. New Subdivision 24% of the Engineering Subdivision Plat Check Fee New Land Partition 24% of the Land Partition Pla,t Check Fee Fire Hydrant Flow Tests required for new installations $100 per flow test. Any review required by the Oregon Fire Code, and which does not involve a building permit, $50.00 per hour. A minimum charge of $25.00 will be assessed to these reviews. When the Building Division assesses additional fees for plan reviews and/or field inspections, any fire department staff time associated with that activity will be included in their fees at their specified rate. PAGE 2-RESOLUTION CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Authorization to Dispose of Surplus Property Meeting Date: Department: Contributing Departments: Approval: May 16, 2006 Administrative Services NA Lee Tuneberg .LJ1-1-- Primary Staff Contact: Email: Secondary Staff Contact: Email: Estimated Time: Lee Tuneberg tuneberl@ashland.or.us NA 15 Minutes Statement: This Council action authorizes the Purchasing Agent (Finance Director) to dispose of in an appropriate fashion, personal property owned by the City and deemed surplus by the custodial department(s). Background: Section 2.50.090 of the AMC authorizes the Purchasing Agent to dispose of surplus personal property by any means determined to be in the best interests of the City. If such property has a residual value greater than $10,000, City Council authorization will be obtained prior to disposal. This is in addition to the surplus requests approved by Council on May 2, 2006. Attached is a list of personal property purchased or acquired through normal city operations that has been considered surplus by the custodial department. The custodial department( s) has already checked with other departments to ensure no other part of the agency has a bona fide need for the items listed. The proposed Manner of Disposal is a sealed bid auction. The auction will be scheduled pending the approval of the City Council. There are advertising requirements for the sealed bid auction process; the auction will be scheduled for a date in Mayor June of 2006 that allows the City to meet those advertising requirements. A follow-up report to this request will be prepared when the listed items are gone. Related City Policies None. Council Options: 1. Approve the disposal in the manner deemed best by the Finance Director. 2. Approve the disposal but by some other means. 3. Deny disposal until some future date. Staff Recommendation: Authorize the Finance Director to dispose of the surplus property. 1 r.l' Potential Motions: The Council move to authorize the Finance Director to dispose of the surplus property included in the communication in accordance with AMC Section 2.50.090. Attachments: May 2006 Surplus Equipment List 2 City of Ashland May 2006 Surplus Equipment Sealed Bid Auction Surplus Equipment Identification Number Estimated Value Stihl Cut off Saw 261A $ 100.00 Speed Air Compressor (1 HP) Model 324060 35.00 Speed Air Compressor (1 HP) Model 324060 25.00 industrial Battery Charger 3ph 480 Volt Model A 11 B-25-48V-C3 50.00 Onan Commercial 4500 Generator ModeI4-5-BAOFB30502M 400.00 Street Light Poles (25) NA 200.00 Miscellaneous Computer Equipment Pallet 1 Miscellaneous Computer Equipment Pallet 2 Miscellaneous Computer Equipment Pallet 3 Scanners and Printers Pallet 4 Miscellaneous Computer Equipment Pallet 5 Miscellaneous Computer Equipment Pallet 6 McLaughlin MCL 16 Boring Machine 243A 8,000.00 Old Style Street Construction Zone Signs NA . 20.00 King Bros. 18 Gallon Pressure Tank, rated to 125 PSI NB2206 100.00 Metal Shelving units (2) NA 20.00 Mueller 6" MJ High Pressure Gate Valves, rated at 250 PSI (2) NA 300.00 Emerson VCR 872 Serial Number 102-6812673 20.00 Emerson ECT 1900 19" Color TV Serial Number 63360306 30.00 Sharp EL 11975 Printing Calculator Serial Number 52089556 10.00 Full Roll Barbed Wire, 1,320 feet NA 45.00 30" Tyton Joint 01 Pipe Gaskets (100) NA 50.00 Various Pipe Saddles (40) NA 200.00 Brake Bleeder NA 5.00 Battery Tester NA 25.00 Tire Chains (7) NA 10.00 Voltage Leak Tester NA 10.00 E2500 Honda Generator NA 100.00 $ 9,755.00 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication ALUO 18.68.050 Interpretation Meeting Date: May 16, 2006 Department: Legal Contributing Departments: Approval: Gino Grimaldi Primary Staff Contact: Michael W. Franell E-mail: franellm@ashland.or.us Secondary Staff Contact: E-mail: Estimated Time: 30 minutes Statement: At the City Council meeting on March 21, 2006, the City Council considered issues around the interpretation or ALUO 18.68.050. The legal department had issued an opinion that in regards to the 20 feet front yard setback set forth in ALUO 18.68.050, there is not any interpretation to be made as the language in the ordinance is clear and unambiguous. However, at the March 21st Council meeting, legal did indicate that there may be an ambiguity in ALUO 18.08.420 that requires an interpretation that could bear on the outcome of the application of ALUO 18.68.050. Action was delayed on that discussion to permit a more informed discussion. Background: In connection with the proposed Northlight project on the old Copeland Lumber site, the legal department was asked to review and give an opinion on the application of ALUO 18.68.050 to that particular project. ALUO 18.68.050 reads: To permit or afford better light, air and vision on more heavily traveled streets and on streets of substandard width, to protect arterial streets, and to permit the eventual widening of hereinafter named streets, every yard abutting a street, or portion thereof, shall be measured from the special base line setbacks listed below instead of the lot line separating the lot from the street. Street East Main Street, between City limits and Lithia Way Ashland Street (Highway 66) between City limits and Siskiyou Boulevard Setback 35 feet 65 feet Also, front yards for properties abutting all arterial streets shall be no less than twenty (20) feet, with the exception of the C-1-D district. Attached is a copy of the legal analysis provided to the planning commission in August 2005, outlining the issue and the relevant sections of the code that support that analysis. Since the ordinance specifically refers to front yards, and "front yards" are defined in our code, we are bound to apply the 20 feet front yard only to those properties which have front yards along arterials. However, the potential ambiguity comes from the definition of front lot line. ALUO 18.08.420 defines front lot line as: In the case of an interior lot, the lot line separating the lot from the street other than an alley. A corner lot shall have one (1) street line considered the front lot line. The narrower street frontage shall be the r6' front lot line except when the Staff Advisor determines topographical or access problems make such a designation impractical. The ambiguity relates to a staff advisor determination that "access" problems made the normal designation of the narrower frontage for a comer lot as the front lot line impractical. The code does not give any indication as to what access it is referring. If it is referring to vehicular access, the transportation system plan encourages vehicular access to be from the lesser traveled street for comer lots and would be consistent with the designation of the First Street frontage as the front lot line and front yard for the purposes of applying the ALVa 18.68.050 special set back. However, if the access being referred to is pedestrian access, the downtown design standards encourage the building front for pedestrian access to situated toward the busier street and would be consistent with a front yard designation along Lithia way. Because there is an ambiguity, the Council needs to determine which access is being referred to. Related City Policies: Transportation System Plan Downtown Design Standards Council Options: If the Council determines that the access referred to in ALUO 18.08.420 is referring to vehicular access and the Council is satisfied with the resulting application of ALUO 18.68.050, the Council should indicate its interpretation of ALUO 18.08.420 and need not take any additional action. If the Council determines that the access referred to in ALUO 18.08.420 is referring to vehicular access, and the Council is unhappy with the resulting application of ALUO 18.68.050, the Council should indicate direct staff to prepare an ordinance amendment changing the code to be more in line with Council intent. If the Council determines the access referred to in ALUO 18.08.420 is referring to pedestrian access, the Council should indicate that interpretation and could also indicate that for properties (commercial or residential or both) with one frontage along an arterial the front lot line should be along the arterial. Staff Recommendation: After considering input from the Planning Department in regards to how planning practices will be affected, render the interpretation that most closely accomplishes desired Council policy. Potential Motions: I move the Council interpret ALUO 18.08.420 is referring to vehicular access. I move the Council direct staff to submit the issue regarding special setbacks to the Planning Commission for their recommendation on an ordinance change applying the 20 feet minimum yard requirement to all yards fronting along arterial streets, with the exception of the C1-D zone. I move the Council interpret ALUO 18.08.420 is referring to pedestrian access for (commercial properties/residential properties/all properties) when the property is on a comer lot with one street being an arterial and that consistent with downtown design standards all comer lots in the downtown overlay area which sit adjacent to an arterial street shall have the front lot line along the arterial street. Attachments: Legal Memorandum dated August 23, 2005. r&, CITY OF ASHLAND Memo DATE: TO: FROM: RE: May 27, 2005 Planning Commission Mike Reeder, Assistant City Attorney Northlight Site Review Approval (pA 2oo5-00084)-Legal Issue Regarding Section 18.68.050, 20-foot Special Setback Requirement This memorandum is the Legal Department's official opinion regarding the applicability of Ashland Municipal Code Section (ALVa) 18.68.050. Issue: Does the 20-foot setback reauirement of Section 18.68.050 Applv to this Application? It is the Legal Department's opinion that ALVa 18.68.050 "Special Setbacks Requirements" require this application to have a 20-foot front yard setback. ALVO 18.68.050 reads: To permit or afford better light, air and vision on more heavily traveled streets and on streets of substandard width, to protect arterial streets, and to permit the eventual widening of hereinafter named streets, every yard abutting a street, or portion thereof, shall be measured from the special base line setbacks listed below instead of the lot Une separating the lot from the street. Street Setback East Main Street, between City limits and Lithia Way 35 feet Ashland Street (Highway 66) between City limits and Siskiyou Boulevard 65 feet Also, front yards for properties abutting aU arterial streets shall be no less than twenty (20) feet, with the exception of the C-I-D district. ALVa 18.32.040.A states: There shall be no lot area, width, coverage, front yard, side yard, or rear yard, except as required under the Off-Street Parking and Solar Access Chapters; where required or increased for conditional uses; where required by the Site Review Chapter or where abutting a residential district, where such setback shall be maintained at ten feet per story for rear yards and ten feet for side yards. CITY OF ASHLAND Legal DepIItment 20 East Mail Street Ashland, OR 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541-488-5360 Fax: 541-552.2092 TTY: 800-735-2900 Michael W. Frane., City Attorney Micheal M. Reeder, Assistant City AtIomey Sharlene P. Stephens, Legal AssistantlClaims Manager Nancy SIlllW. Legal Secretary ~.l' ,.------'-~ ------"- There is no conflict between ALUO 18.68.050 and ALVO 18.32.040.A. ALVO 18.32.040.A does not Drohibit front (or side or rear) yard setbacks as it may appear on first reading. Rather, this section should be properly read to mean that there shall be not any setback reauirements in the C-l zoning district except as specifically required (i.e. Off-Street Parking, Solar Access, etc.). This code section is poorly drafted, but must be read to Deuuit rather than reauire yard setbacks. Therefore, the fact that development in C-l zones generally are not required to have yard setbacks, does not therefore make the Special Setbacks requirements of ALUO 18.68.050 inapplicable. Furthermore, since both C-l and C-l- D have identical yard setback requirements, it is evident that the drafters specifically intended to exclude only C-I-D from the Special Setback requirements of ALUO 18.68.050. Case law clearly limits the Planning Commission's ability to interpret ALUO 18.32.040.A to prohibit yard setbacks (thereby producing a conflict between ALUO 18.68.050 and ALUO 18.32.040.A. The rules of statutory construction, established by the Oregon Supreme Court and followed by LUBA roouire us to assume that the drafters of the seemingly conflicting ordinances did not intend for such provisions to conflict. PG&E v. BOll, 317 Or 606, 611 (1993). LUBA has also held that where code provisions may, but do not necessarily conflict with one another, depending on how broadly the provisions are interpreted or applied, the local government should interpret the two provisions, if possible, to harmonize and give effect to each. Hough v. City of Redmond, 34 Or LUBA 478 (1997). These two ordinances can be, and therefore must be, read harmoniously. If, and only if, the seemingly conflicting ordinances cannot be read harmoniously, then we look at how to resolve conflicting ordinances. See PG&E, 317 Or at 611-612. The Oregon Court of Appeals also held that local governments may not interpret their ordinances to create a conflict where none exist. Goose Hol/ow Foothills League v. City of Portland, 117 Or App 211, 216 (1992). If the ordinances can be read in harmony, there is no room for interpretation by the Planning Commission. Lithia Way is an arterial street. The subject property is within a C-l zoning district. Front yards for properties abutting al/ arterial streets shall be no less than 20 feet, with the exception ofC-I-D. Although front yards are not required in C-l zones, they are also not prohibited. When abutting an arterial street, the special setback requirements of 18.68.050 apply (excepting C-I-D). The fact that the ordinance specifically excludes C-I-D is an important factor to consider in understanding that the special setback requirements of 18.68.050 apply to all properties abutting all arterials, except for C-I-D. We cannot read more into the ordinance than already exists. We must assume that omitting C-l from the special setbacks requirements was purposeful. PG&E, 317 Or at 611 (quoting Emerald PUD v. PP&L, 302 Or 256,269). Since the drafters of the ordinance knew to exempt C-I-D from the special setbacks requirements, we must assume that they intended not to include C-l (or any other district). See Church v. Grant County, 187 Or App 518, 526 (2003). We must look at the special setback requirements of 18.68.050 like an "overlay" ordinance that applies to every zoning district except C-l- D. The genera. policy of 18.32 is that front yard setbacks in C-l are not required. The specific policy of 18.68.050 is that at least 20-foot setbacks for all arterials throughout the City, except in C-I-D are needed to protect other more important city interests. Therefore, since front yards are not prohibited in C-l, there is no conflict between Section 18.68.050 and Section 18.32.040. We must assume that the drafters of the ordinance intended Section 18.68.050 to be applicable to every part of the city, except for, and only except for, the C-I-D zoning district. Therefore, there is no room for interpreting each ordinance as conflicting. 2 CITY OF ASHLAND Legal Department 20 East Main Street AsIUnd, OR 91520 WWW.ashland.or.us Tel: 541-488-5350 Fax: 541-552-2092 TTY: 800-735-2900 Michael W. FraneH, City Attomey Micheal M. Reeder, Assistant City Attomey Sharlene P. Stephens, Legal AssisIantlClaims Manager Nancy Snow, Legal Secretary 'rA' CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Downtown Plan - Phase 1 Council Update Meeting Date: May 16, 2006 Department: Community Development Contributing Departments: None Approval: Lee Tuneberg iJ'd'd- Primary Staff Contact: Bill Molnar, 552-204~ "\. bill@ashland.or.us D Secondary Staff Contact: None Estimated Time: 20 minutes Statement: The revision of the Downtown Plan was identified in the 2005-2006 Council Goals. The planning process for the Downtown Plan has been structured to take place in two steps. The initial effort, Phase 1, involves defining the process and creating a work program for the production of a revised Downtown Plan. The work program will identify the public process used to develop the Plan, as well as propose a variety of planning alternatives with a cost estimate for each alternative. Phase 2, identified in the Request for Qualifications (RFQ), will culminate in contracting with the successful consultant chosen for Phase 1 to perform the task of implementing the work program and selected alternative, ultimately producing a document to be used as the City's Downtown Plan. A more formal and detailed scope of work and contract for Phase 2 will be negotiated with the successful consultant chosen for Phase 1. At that time, if it wishes, the City still reserves the right to solicit other consultants to implement Phase 2. This item is intended to provide an informal update on the consultant's efforts to date with respect to defining the process and creating a work program for the production of a revised Downtown Plan. Background: At the December 6th, 2005 meeting, the City Council accepted the recommendation of the Downtown Selection Committee and entered into a contract with Crandall Arambula PC for planning services involving the preparation of Ashland's Downtown Plan - Phase 1. Phase 1 is limited to defining the process and creating a work program for the production of a revised Downtown Plan On January 26th, 2006, a public workshop was conducted by George Crandall and Don Arambula in the "Grove" gymnasium, located adjacent to the Civic Center on East Main Street. The meeting agenda for that workshop is attached. After that meeting, Crandall-Arambula provided Staff and the Downtown Planning Committee with a preliminary Schedule, Scope of Work and Budget for Phase II of the Downtown Planning Process. These documents are attached. On April 25th and April 26th, George Crandall and Don Arambula hosted a series of public meetings to clarify and explain the downtown planning process, as well as describe those elements commonly included within a new Downtown Plan document. Community members attending the meetings were given Response Sheets requesting them to identify on a map specific areas in the downtown that present special design opportunities, as well as identify areas of concern. Additionally, community members were asked to listtheir three top issues and concerns. The consultants have provided a map and a table summarizing the comments obtained through the various public meetings. rj.' Related City Policies: None Fiscal Impact: Approximately $15,000 was approved for carrying out Phase 1 of the Downtown Plan process. Currently, no funding has been identified for Phase 2 of the Downtown planning process. Phase 2 would include implementing an adopted work program and producing the Plan document, as well as implementing ordinances, downtown design guidelines and standards. Council Options: No action is requested from the Council. This item is for Council discussion only. Staff Recommendation: The information provided in the packet is for discussion purposes only. Staff does not have a recommendation at this time. Potential Motions: No action is requested on this item at this time. Attachments: . Response Summary from Ashland Meetings of April 25th and April 26th. . April 25th and April 26th public meeting flyers . Agenda for January 26th Phase I Workshop . Preliminary Schedule, Scope of Work and Budget for Phase 2 - Downtown Plan r.t. , Ashland Meetings Response Summary City of Ashland April 25th & 26th, 2006 DRAFT Summary Public meetingss were held in downtown Ashland on April 25th and 26th, 2006. Community members were given Response Sheets (shown at right) requesting the following information: Special Areas Please note areas (on the map) you believe: · Present special design opponunities · Are areas of concern Issues and Concerns . Ust your three top issues and concerns A total of 110 response sheets were submitted. The follow- ing page includes a summary of the Special Areas and a tally of the top three Issues and Concerns. II Ashland Meetings c:a, <II_lid AplII2Il _. _ . v..... ~~ "'+. ~~':,. ....., . 1:. .,;:, \.,. ": ~~\.g, c.,.1~"()~~;.. ~.... c.... D. .. .'.j,'" ii" "''%.... . . I. i "'",. . ..<!!) . __. - , ,.'fi... . ." .{f~. I; D_ ~.~-", .,l$-f}'l ... '. I ,I Jf:., '. '. ':.$)o~Ashl~ _c..;. NoIeylt, '.' 4;' I ,..,.. . .. . .. , ."". . . ............. f ~ . .0/- r._ttlt'~~""ii,lI/~m D C~I~S' : ~ ~ -i., I ,w..c . NeIllYSt .... .t I' ;~ On...."-_. .--noIe.......you_ . -spoc:IaIldoslgn_.'-, . ,.,. c:weas oIconcem - Llo1yowtlnelopiloM.__c 1. _____ ________ ______~___________________________ .. 2. 3. -- l<lPIlonaII: --- ;,'C'-)r.~,j~-,.j,...:...::t""'04""9!-PC"<l.C~"1'...;...,c...:-~.""".....,"'t.,. -- ................. --- _..,...........".,.. Response Sheet Special Areas/Issues & Concerns Design Opportunities and Areas of Concern Comments regarding special design opponunities and areas of concern are mapped belovv. Top Three Issues and Concerns The table below summarizes the top issues and concerns mentioned in the 110 response sheets submitted at the workshops. The issues and concerns were grouped under overarching categories that suggest specific community goals. Categories nmes Mentioned CharacterlPublic Gathering Places 61 Pum~ 50 Retail-Economy .... Housing-Affordable Housing 39 Public Safety 26 Pedestrian Realm 25 Traffic 25 Railroad District 12 Public Involvement 11 Arts-related 6 Sustainability 6 Grower's Market Downtown .. Study Area Boundary 3 Restrict Dev't Redesign Parking Structure Special ARas Map SUIIUII4J)I II CITY OF ?\.SHLAN D Downtown Plan Outreach - Meetings Schedule - April 25 and 26 Prospective Downtown planning consultants, George Crandall and Don Arambuila, are coming to town on April 25th and 26th to do outreach for the Downtown planning process. They will be conducting focus groups for various stakeholders including Downtown developers and property owners, the Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee and others. They will also put on four meetings that will be open to the public. And they will arrange meetings upon request with individuals and groups who feel their interests are not covered in the sessions listed below. The public sessions will be: Tuesday, April 25th, 7 to 9PM - This is a Study Session of the Planning Commission especially for individuals who speak, occasionally or often, on behalf of the public interest on Planning Actions before the Commission or Council. Wednesday, April 26th, lOAM to Noon - This session is aimed at Downtown business owners and merchants but open to the public as well. Wednesday, April 26th, I to 3 PM - This session is for "architects and land use professionals" but also open to the public. Wednesday, April 26th, 7 to 9:00 PM - This session is for the general public, wrapping up the two days' activities and presenting the consultants' specific recommendations for how to move ahead with the planning process. ALL SESSIONS ARE IN THE BALLROOM AT THE ASHLAND SPRINGS HOTEL To arrange a separate stakeholder session contact Bill Molnar at: 552 2042. For those who can't attend or want to further discuss what they learn in the sessions on April 25 and 26 there will be a follow up meeting by the Downtown Plan Committee, which will be publicly announced. Community Development Tel: 541/488-5305 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-/488-6006 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 8OO1735-2~ www.ashland.or.us rA1 CITY OF ASHLAND Meet the Experts On April 25th and 26th George Crandall, F AlA and Don Arambula, ASLA, principals of the nationally-known urban consulting finn, Crandall Arambula, will be in town for briefings with stakeholders and a general public meeting. The consultants were chosen by the City Council to produce a scope of work that clearly identified the sequence of steps involved to produce a new Downtown Master Plan. The purpose of their visit is to explain the finn's planning methods and the positive effects a new Downtown Plan will have on the Downtown economy, circulation, housing, urban design and community facilities. Examples will be presented from revitalization projects Crandall Arambula has conducted in other cities (such as Santa Fe, Racine, Knoxville, Oak Park, Whitefish, etc.) as well as ideas that could apply to Ashland itself. According to Planning Commission Chairman, John Fields, '''This planning effort is absolutely critical to the rational development of Downtown." Creating a Downtown Plan requires commitment and effort by both the City and stakeholders to make our downtown "everything it could be". This is the opportunity for those who are most affected and most interested to get a good idea of the coming process before it gets underway and an occasion for the citizens of Ashland to see a hands on presentation by the consultants. Public Meeting - April 26th - 7:00 to 9:30 PM Grand Ballroom - The Ashland Springs Hotel These outreach activities are sponsored by the Downtown Planning Committee that is comprised of both elected and appointed officials plUi citizen volunteers: . City Councilors Dave Chapman and Jack Hardesty; Planning Commissioners John Fields, Michael Dawkins and John Stromberg; Citizens at Large Tracy Harding and Susan Powell. More information: www.ashland.or.us. downtownplan~oriendoor.com Susan Yates, Ashland Planning Division 552-2041 Crandall Arambula's work may be vieWed at: www.ea-city.com. Community o.wlopment 20 E. MaIn StrMt Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541/488-5305 Fax: 541-1488-8006 TTY: 800f735..2900 CRANDALL ARAMBULA REYITAUZlNG AMERICA'S CITIES ASHLAND JANUARY 26 PHASE I WOKSBOP FORMAT (Draft) Workshop Purpose 1) To discuss and establish an outline work program for the Phase II work 2) To discuss and identify an outline public participation program for the Phase II work Workshop Agenda Who Time 1) Introductions and workshop purpose City 5 min 2) Presentation CA 30 min The presentation will be in PowerPoint format. A large screen or white wall will be needed for the projection surface. Slides will illustrate: · The typical work process (steps and purpose of each step) · Typical work products · Public participation options (basic and expanded programs) · A typical schedule 3) Workshop George and Don will lead a discussion based on the presentation. One slide illustrating the discussion topic will be left upon the screen while workshop members discuss the topic. Participants would respond to questions for each topic. Questions could include: Work Process 20 min · What are your thoughts about the illustrated outline work process and its application in Ashland? · Do you have suggestions on how the outline might be modified to be most responsive to your needs? Work Products 30 min · Typical work products are illustrated on the screen. Will these products need to be produced as part of your project? · Are there other products that may be required? Public Participation 30 min · Public workshops will be required at the completion of major work phases. Will additional public workshops be required? · Small meetings with stakeholders and interest groups will be required. When should those occur? Schedule 10 min · The typical schedule, allowing enough time for development of alternatives, and public involvement is illustrated. How should this basic schedule be adjusted to fit your needs? During the workshop, Don will record the discussion responses. After the workshop, Crandall Arambula would provide a draft work program, schedule and fee estimate for review. CRANDAlLARAMBUlAI'C. S20SWYAMHIlL. ROOFSUlIE4. 1'OR1l.AND,0RI3l:J<:I'l97lO4 .1ELEPHONESQ3417.7879. FAXSQ3417.7904 WWW.CA<nY.OOM SCHEDULE - Ashland Downtown Plan 02/08/06 - Draft PHASE 2 3 1 STARTING 1) Establish Project Procedures 2) Establish Public Participation Program 3) Coiled & Review Existing Information 4) Establish Opportunities & Constraints 5) Public Meeting #1 6) Establish projed Objectives DESIGNING 1) Develop Alternative Plans 2) Public Meeting #2 3) Refine Best Plans 4) Public Meeting #3 5) Prepare Final Plan 6) Public Meeting #4 IMPLEMENTING 1) Prepare Action Plan 2) Identify Changes to Regulatory Documents 3) Public Meeting .5 5) Prepare Final Plan Document 4) Prepare Project Notebook KEY MEETINGS . Oversight Committee . General Public Exhibit A 1 2 Months 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 ~ SCOPE OF WORK - Ashland Downtown Plan 02/08/06 - Draft Exhibit B Phase Activities 1 STARTING 1. Establish Project Procedures 2. Establish Public Participation Program 3. Collect & Review Existing Information 4. Establish Opportunities & Constraints 5. Public Meeting #1 6. Establish Project Objectives 1.1 EstabUsh Project Procedures - Bill Molnar will manage the project for the City of Ashland. George Crandall will manage the Crandall Arambula consulting team. George will attend and lead presentations at all key meetings. Product: · A list of all key client contacts with mailing and contact information · A list of all consultants with mailing and contact information 1.2 Establish PubUc Participation Program - The program involves a process organized around 5 general public meetings. In general, key meetings and related community meetings will be held every 4 to 6 weeks and concentrated into one-day sessions. Crandall Arambula will meet with the Ashland Steering Committee prior to each public meeting to preview what will be covered at the meeting. The typical Steering Committee meeting will include: · A half-hour presentation by Crandall Arambula outlining potential alternatives responsive to the study objectives · A discussion of the presentation material A typical public meeting will include: . · A half-hour presentation by Crandall Arambula outlining potential alternatives · A 10- to I5-minute question period · A 6O-minute workshop. During the first 30 minutes of the workshop, groups of up to 8 people will discuss presentation alternatives. During the final 30 minutes, a spokesperson from each group will report back to the larger group with a summary ofhislher group's findings · A completion of a ballot by each person indicating hislher preferences Crandall Arambula will provide copy-ready public meeting announcement materials. Ashland planning staff will distribute notices to local newspapers, media and other neighborhood organizations. Ashland will also be responsible for organizing the meeting logistics, including location/room, large projector screen and tables that will seat 6 to 8 individuals. The room must be suitable for presentations, with a capacity of 150 and the ability to darken the room. If a Steering Committee and public meeting are scheduled for the same day, the Steering Committee meeting will be held in the morning, followed by the general public meeting in the early evening. Products: · Presentations · Ballots · Ballot and public meeting summaries . SCOPE OF WORK - Ashland Downtown Plan 02/08/06 - Draft exhibit 8 1.3 CoI1eet &: Review EDiting Information - All materials prepared in the previous planning studies will be collected and reviewed in detail by the project team. These materials will be used as appropriate in the preparation of the Ashland Downtown Plan. Prior to proceeding with the development of alternative framework plans, the project team will need the City to provide infonnation on: · Street and sidewalk dimensions on downtown streets · Building locations, lot lines, property ownership and contours in the planning area · Location of utility main lines · Location of historic buildings Products: · Base map of the downtown area 1.4 Establish Opportunities &: Constraints - Physical and market constraints to downtown revitalization will be identified along with strategies for revitalization. The purpose of the work will be to identify issues that need to be resolved as well as positive and unique features that should be utilized. The quality of the existing street environment on downtown streets will be evaluated using evaluation criteria developed by Crandall Arambula. The evaluation will identify where street frontage is pedestrian and retail friendly and where it is not. Products: · Opportunities and Constraints diagrams · Street frontage evaluation diagrams 1.5 Public Meeting #1 - Develop and review Phase 1 findings with the Steering Committee and public in Meeting #1. Ask the public to identify its top downtown issues and concerns. Results will be combined with infonnation from previous public meetings to establish project objectives (Task 1.6). Product: · PowerPoint presentation summarizing Phase 1 findings · Meeting # 1 1.6 EstabUsh Project Objectives - A list of project objectives will be identified. The objectives will be organized in a checklist fonnat and used to develop and evaluate plan possibilities during the planning process. Comments received from previous workshops will be combined with findings from Public Meeting #1 to produce a list of objectives. Product: · Project objectives checklist 2 SCOPE OF WORK - Ashland Downtown Plan 02/08/06 - Draft Exhibit B Phase Activities 2 DESIGNING 1. Develop Alternative Plans 2. Public Meeting #2 3. Refine Best Plans 4. Public Meeting #3 s. Prepare Final Plan 6. Public Meeting #4 During public meetings in 2005, Ashland residents identified a number of issues that a plan should address. Some of their preliminary issues are listed below: · Character- Maintain and enhance Ashland's special character · Public Realm - Expand and enhance the public realm (parks and open space) and connect to the natural environment · Transportation - Enhance bicycle and pedestrian circulation, develop public transit and reduce downtown traffic volumes · Economy and Employment - Promote economic development and vitality, create opportunities for living-wage jobs and mixed-use development · Sustainability - Develop opportunities for alternative energy sources - solar and wind · Housing - Create opportunities for affordable housing · Arts and Culture - Create a cultural Mecca for the Pacific Northwest and identify opportunities for city-owned performance and activity spaces · Retail- Keep healthy with opportunities for more locally-owned businesses · Parking - Manage parking, reduce number of parking lots and park underground · Other- (To be developed) These issues will be updated in Workshop # 1. A number of plan alternatives will be developed based on the updated issues to illustrate plan possibilities as they relate to the public's concerns. Alternatives may be illustrated in a number of different ways including: · Framework Plans - System plans covering a large area · Site Plans - Development plans for specific sites · Sketch Perspectives - lllustrations of development concepts · Aerial Photo Overlays 2.1 Develop Alternative Plans - Plans may include: · A Fundamental Concept Diagram illustrating key land use and circulation concepts · Land Use Framework Plans illustrating possible locations, types, densities and amount of: Housing Employment Retail Open space Cultural and Public Uses · Land use alternatives may illustrate additional detail for: A retail shopping district and "Main Street" Public open space or "Living Room" Government facilities 3 SCOPE OF WORK - Ashland Downtown Plan. 02/08/06 - Draft exhibit B Lodging facilities Core employment clusters such as office Regional gathering places such as cultural/institutional Potential.rail yard uses II Circulation Framework Plans illustrating potential systems and locations for: Transit Autos Bicycles Pedestrians Parking Alternatives will identify the actions needed to improve the downtown circulation system for pedestrians, bicycles, autos, transit and parking. Improvements will be suggested for key streets. In addition, the project team will examine and evaluate in general terms: II The possibilities for improving the entry experience into downtown Ashland II Connections to adjacent neighborhoods Products: II Sketch plans illustrating general land use and circulation alternatives II A PowerPoint presentation summarizing alternatives II A preference ballot for use at Public Meeting #2 2.2 PubUc Meeting #2 - Alternative plans will be presented to the Steering Committee and public for review and comment. The consultant team will evaluate the alternatives in terms of their response to the Project Objectives identified in the Starting Phase. Product: II Public Meeting #2 II A tabulation of ballots 2.3 Refine Best Plans - Public preference ballots from Meeting #2 will inform the consultant team about preferred land use/circulation plans. Refined plans will be developed to allow a thorough community review of proposals. Products: II Sketch plans illustrating refined land use and circulation alternatives II Sketch sections illustrating potential right-of-way improvements II PowerPoint presentations summarizing the refined alternatives II Preference ballots for use at Public Meeting #3 2.4 PubUc Meeting #3 - The.refined plans will be presented to the general public for review and comment. The consultant team will evaluate the alternatives in terms of their response to the Project Objectives. Product: II Public Meeting #3 II A tabulation of ballots 4 SCOPE OF WORK - Ashland Downtown Plan 02/08/06 - Draft Exhibit B 2.5 Prepare Final Plan - PUblic preference ballots from Meeting #3 will inform the consultant team about preferred land uselcirculation plans. Final plans will be developed to allow a thorough community review of proposals. Products: · Final framework plans, site plans and perspectives illustrating proposed limd use and circulation alternatives · Sketch sections illustrating potential right-of-way improvements · Briefing papers summarizing the final plan · PowerPoint presentations summarizing the final plan · Preference ballots for use at Public Meeting #4 2.6 Public Meeting #4 - The final plans will be presented to the general public for review and comment. 1he consultant team will evaluate the plans in terms of their response to the Project Objectives. Estimated public investment costs and the value of stimulated private investment will be discussed. Product: · Public Meeting #4 · Conceptual Cost Estimate · A tabulation of ballots 5 SCOPE OF WORK -"Ashland Downtown Plan 02/08/06 - Draft Exhibit B Phase Activities 3 IMPLEMENTING 1. Prepare Action Plan 2. Identify Changes to Regulatory Documents 3. Public Meeting #5 4. Prepare Final Plan Document 5. Prepare Project Notebook 3.1 Prepare Action Plan - The Action Plan identifies: Catalyst Projects Project Costs and Financial Strategies Implementation Priorities Responsibilities and Timelines for Implementation 3.1.1 Identify Catalyst Projects - Potential public and private catalyst projects will be identified. Catalyst projects should have the ability to: · Be responsive to the project objectives · Create development momentum in the downtown · Promote employment and increase the tax base 3.1.2 Identify Project Costs and Financial Strategies - Order of magnitude costs will be developed for both public and private catalyst projects. Costs and benefits will be central in discussions about project priorities. Public projects having the potential to stimulate substantial private investment will be given the highest priority. Potential financing mechanisms for proposed catalyst projects will be outlined. The ability to use these mechanisms will be explored. Financing methods may include: · Private sector financial resources · Tax increment financing (TIF) · Downtown business improvement district (BID) · Revolving loan fund · General fund · Community development block grant funds · Parking district funds · Section 108 · Capital improvement program funds · Other State and local government programs 3.1.3 Identify Implementation Priorities - Catalyst projects and cost information will be reviewed to establish potential project priorities. Projects with the potential to stimulate the most private investment will be given the highest priority. The list of projects will be reviewed with the Steering Committee and appropriate agencies 3.1.4 Identify Responsibilities and Timelines for Implementation - Agencies and individuals responsible for implementing the catalyst projects will be identified. A schedule for implementing the catalyst projects will be developed. The key schedule time periods will be for 120 days, I year and 3 years. 6 SCOPE OF WORK - Ashland Downtown Plan 02/08/06 - Draft Exhibit B Action Plan Products: The Action Plan will contain: · Concept cost estimates for catalyst pl,lblic and private projects · Potential financing sources · Graphic drawings illustrating the location and character of priority projects · Project priorities and the potential benefits · Responsibilities for implementation · Implementation schedule 3.2 Identify Changes to Regulatory Documents - The consultant will identify changes/additions to policies, codes and ordinances required to implement the downtown plan concepts. The City will be responsible for developing, finalizing and adopting code changes. Product: · Working paper identifying necessary changes to policies, codes and ordinances 3.3 Public Meeting #S - The Action Plan and proposed changes to regulatory documents will be presented to the general public for review and comment. Product: · Public Meeting #5 · Draft Action Plan and proposed changes to regulatory documents · A tabulation of ballots 3.4 Prepare Final Plan Document - The final plan will infonn the general public and developers about the Ashland Downtown Plan. It could be in and 8 W' by 11" report fonnat. Crandall Arambula will prepare a copy-ready/digital report suitable for printing by a separate contractor. The number of copies to be produced and the cost of production will be a client decision and expense. First Draft - A first-draft report will be produced after consultation with the Ashland Steering Committee about report content. The draft will be forwarded to the Steering Committee for review and comment. Product: · One first-draft report with draft text and graphics Second Draft - The report will be revised to include first-draft review comments. The draft will be forwarded to the Steering Committee for review and comment Product: · One second-daft report with text and graphics Final Draft - The report will be updated to include Steering Committee second-draft review comments. The materials will be forwarded to the Steering Committee for a final review. After receiving Steering Committee comments, the fonnat and graphic infonnation will be forwarded to the printing contractor for production. 7 SCOPE OF WORK - Ashland Downtown Plan 02/08/06 - Dr9ft exhibit B Product: · One final-draft copy-ready/digital report with text and graphics · Copy-ready/digital graphic materials for the printer Print & Distribute - Crandall Arambula will be available to consult with the printer on issues related to the production of the final report. Crandall Arambula will review the printer's proof. Distribution of the report will be the responsibility of the Steering Committee. Product: · Coordination with the printer on issues related to graphic content and color 3.5 Prepare Project Notebook - The notebook will provide a record of the materials produced during the planning process. The 8 W' by II" copy-ready notebook will be suitable for reproduction and use as a reference document by the client and public agencies responsible for implementing the plan. In addition, a CD-ROM will be provided with all of the products produced during the work process. Product: · One three-ring binder notebook · A CD-ROM with all final graphics and PowerPoint presentations 8 SCOPE OF WORK- Ashland Downtown Plan 02/08/06 - Draft exhibit B Phase Activities 4 ADDITIONAL SERVICES (OPTIONAL) 1. Design Guidelines 2. Public Improvement Standards 3. Additional Public Meetings 1) DESIGN GUIDELINES Prepare Design Guidelines - Design Guidelines establish the design framework for implementing the Ashland Downtown Plan. An effective design review process would also be identified. Public Meeting #1- Kick-OffI Educational · Prepare for and attend one meeting · Facilitate a workshop-style ~eeting with a designated Downtown Design Guidelines Oversight Committee (DGOC), property owners and other stakeholders · Discuss the project process, including objectives and schedule with the DGOC · Present framework concepts of the Ashland Downtown Plan · Discuss the fundamental components necessary to create effective design guidelines. Discuss how National Register historic buildings would be evaluated · Provide an opportunity for participants to express their view of "Ashland's Character" Product: · P()werPoint presentation and handout materials · Record of participants' comments on unique qualities and characteristics that should be fostered · A brief summary memorandum for distribution Prepare Draft Design Guidelines - Develop text, graphics, photographs and evaluation checklist materials that clearly describe fUndamental and project specific design guidelines. Design guideline elements should include, but are not limited to the following elements: fundamental "Ashland Character" guidelines and architectural, sign, lighting and historic building guidelines. Product: · One copy ready 8-112" by 11" or 8-1/2" by 14" draft document for review and comment by Agency Staff and DGOC. · A telephone conference call with DGOC and Agency staff to discuss comments and refinements to the draft document prior to Meeting #2 with the DGOC. Public Meeting # 2 - Draft Design Guidelines Presentation Present and lead a discussion of the draft guidelines. Record comments, changes and additions suggested by Committee members and the general public. Product: · PowerPoint presentation · Meeting handout materials · A record of both public and DGOC document comments · A brief summary memorandum of comments for distribution by Agency Staff. 9 ," SCOPE OF WORK - Ashland Downtown Plan 02/08/06 - Draft exhibit B Prepare Refined Design Guidelines - Refine the text, graphics, photographs and design review checklist materials based upon input from the DGOC and Agency staff. Product: · One copy ready 8-112" by 11" or 8-1/2" by 14" of the refined draft document for review and comment by Agency Staff and DGOC · A telephone conference call with Agency Staff to review document with the DGOC and Planning Commission prior to Meeting #3 Public Meeting #3 - Refined Design Guidelines Presentation Present and lead a discussion with DGOC and public on the refined guidelines Product: · PowerPoint presentation and one workshop meeting · Meeting comments in a brief memorandum · One telephone conference call with DGOC and Agency staff Prepare Final Design Guidelines Prepare final draft text, graphics, photographs and design review materials. Product: · One copy ready 8-112" by 1 I" final draft document/compact disc for distribution by Agency Staff · One telephone conference call with DGOC and Agency Staff to discuss final draft documents 2>" PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS Develop Public Improvement Standards - The design and quality of public improvements such as sidewalks, crosswalks, curb extensions, street furniture, lighting, signage and landscaping are important elements in downtown planning efforts. The Standards document will provide design details, standards, and requirements for all improvements within the public right-of-way. The standards would be developed with assistance from City staff only. Stakeholders and interest groups would be invited to provide comment on draft and final documents. Project Team Meeting #1 (Kick-Off/EducationaIIReview) · Prepare for and attend one meeting · Facilitate workshop with staff · Discuss process including objectives and schedule · Present/review plan circulation concepts · Discuss relevant issues including character, maintenance and public vs. private development responsibilities Product: · PowerPoint presentation · Workshop briefing summary memo · Record of comments Prepare Draft Improvement Standards Document - Develop text, streetscape graphics, product information, and design details 10 SCOPE OF WORK - Ashland Downtown Plan 02/08/06 - Draft exhibit B Product: · One copy ready 8 W' x II" draft document for review and comment · Workshop briefing summary memo · Product samples (ifnecessary) · Telephone conference call with City staff to discuss comments arid refinements prior to Meeting #2 Project Team Meeting #2 (Draft Standards Document Review) - Present and lead a discussion on the draft Improvement Standards Document. Record comments, changes, and additions suggested by staff, stakeholders or interest groups. Product: · PowerPoint presentation · Workshop handout summarizitig key issues · Record of staff stakeholder and interest group comments Prepare Refined Improvement Standards Document - Refine the text, graphics, and design details based on input from City staff. Product: · One copy ready 8 W' x II" refined draft document for review and comment by Staff · Workshop briefing summary memo · Telephone conference call with City staff to review document prior to Meeting # 3 Project Team Meeting #3 (Refined Improvements and Standards Presentation) - Present the refined Standards Document Product: · One copy ready 8 W' x II" refined draft document · One telephone conference call with City staff to discuss final draft document · Meeting comments summarized in a brief memo Prepare Final Improvement Standards Document - Prepare final text, graphics and design details. Product: · One copy ready 8 W' x II" final document/compact disc for distribution and use by the City · One telephone conference call with City staff to discuss final documents 3) ADDITIONAL PUBLIC MEETINGS Each additional meeting in Ashland requiring a separate visit to Ashland by the design team will be billed at hourly rates plus reimbursables. An estimate of the meeting cost will be provided to the Project Manager for approval prior to completing arrangements for the ~eeting. 11' au DGET . Ashland Downtown Plan Exhibit C 2/812006 - Draft Crandall Arambula Managing Project PrinciPllllI Principal Coordlnat. Staff Task PHASE $145 $130 $65 $55 Total TOTAL 1 STARTING 1) Establish Project Procedures 4 0 4 0 2) Establish Public Participation Program 1 0 0 0 3) Collect and Review Existing Information 2 8 40 40 4) Establish Opportunities and Constraints 0 8 8 8 5) Public Meeting #1 28 30 28 40 6) Establish Project Objectives 4 0 2 0 Hours Phase 1 39 46 82 88 Cost Phase 1 5,6l55 5,980 5,330 4,840 $21,805 2 DESIGNING 1) Develop Alternative Plens 40 80 120 160 2) Public Meeting #2 28 30 28 40 3) Refine Best Plans 24 40 120 160 4) Public Meeting #3 28 30 28 40 5) Prepare Final Plan 24 40 80 120 6) Public Meeting # 4 28 30 28 40 Hours Phase 2 172 250 404 560 Cost Phase 2 24,!MO 32,500 26,260 30,800 $114,500 3 IMPLEMENTING 1) Prepare Action Plan 20 16 40 80 2) identify Changes to Regulatory Documents 4 16 24 8 3) Public Meeting # 5 28 30 28 40 4) Prepare Final Plan Document 16 40 80 120 5) Prepare Project Notebook 2 4 40 80 Hours Phase 3 70 106 212 328 Cost Phase 3 10,150 13,780 13,780 18,040 $55,750 TOTAL CA LABOR (Ph..e 1,2 &3) $192,055 Relmburaabl.. CA Travel & Per Diem (5 trips at 1,500) $7,500 CA Printing, telephone and related expenses at 5% of labor $9,803 Reimbursable multioller at 10% $1,710 Total Relmburaables $18,813 TOTAL BASIC SERVICES (CA LABOR & REIMBURSABLES) $210,888 SUBCONSULTANT SERVICES (Estimated AHowance) InfrestructurelUtility Assessment 0 Economic Analysis & Implementetion Strategies $5,000 Cost Estimating $2,000 Transportation $8,500 Consultant Reimbursables at 10% of Labor $1,550 Total Subconsultant Services $17,050 ITotal Contract Amount $227,918 OPnoNALADDnlONALSERVlCES 1) Design Guidelines (Preliminary Estimate) $30,000 2) Public Improvements Standards (Preliminary Estimate) $30,000 3) Additional Public Meetings Timecard DOCUMENTS SUBMIITED AT THE MAY 16, 2006 COUNCIL MEETING 1 - _.._.~-. _...__u , I Brammo Motors Annexation Proposed Conditions: 1. That Talent Irrigation District (TID) facilities be identified on the final civil engineering documents and any changes shall be reviewed by the Talent Irrigation District and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to issuance of a Building Permit.. 2. That the engineered construction drawings for Jefferson Avenue shall comply with City of Ashland Street Standards including street lights, pavement width and the installation of public sidewalks. Engineered construction drawings for the Jefferson Avenue improvements shall be submitted for review and approval by Ashland Planning and Public Works Departments prior to issuance of a building permit. The costs associated with the design and installation of street improvements shall be guaranteed through a bond or other means acceptable to the City of Ashland Legal Department. The proposed bridge or box culvert creek crossing shall be engineered and designed to accommodate a 100-year flood flow. All street improvements shall be installed prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for a building on the property. That all required street improvements and public utility extensions shall be guaranteed through a bond or other means acceptable to the City of Ashland Legal Department prior to adoption of an ordinance annexing the property. (optional wording) 3. A boundary survey and a written description of the property boundaries shall be submitted for review and approval prior to completion of the annexation. 4. That the applicant agrees to construct the project in accordance with the approved plan and City ordinances and waives the right to file a claim under Oregon Statewide Measure 37. The signed waiver shall be submitted to the City of Ashland Legal Department for review and approval prior to adoption of a ordinance formally annexing the property. -Tl- CITY OF ASHLAND Employment Agreement Interim Police Chief THIS AGREEMENT made and'entered into this _th day of May, 2006, by and between the City of Ashland ("City") and Ronald D. Goodpaster ("Employee"). R E C I TAL S: A. City desires to employ the services of Employee as Interim Police Chief of the City of Ashland; and B. It is the desire of the Mayor and City Council to establish certain conditions of employment for Employee; and C. It is the desire of the Council to (1) secure and retain the services of Employee and to provide inducement for Employee to remain in such employment for a period of up to 6 months, (2) to make possible full work productivity by assuring Employee's morale and peace of mind with respect to financial security; (3) to act as a deterrent against malfeasance or dishonesty for personal gain on the part of Employee; and (4) to provide a just means for terminating Employee's services at such time as Employee may be unable fully to discharge Employee's duties due to disability or when City may otherwise desire to terminate Employee's services; and D. Employee desires to accept employment as Interim Police Chief of Ashland. City and Employee agree as follows: Section 1. Duties. The city hereby agrees to employ Ronald Goodpaster as the Interim Police Chief of the City to perform the functions and duties specified in the job description for the position, and to perform such other legally permissible and proper duties and functions as the City Administrator, Mayor and/or City Council by a majority vote shall from time to time assign. The Interim Police Chief shall devote full time to' the performance of his duties for the duration of interim appointment. Section 2. Term. A. Nothing in this agreement shall prevent, limit, or otherwise interfere with the right of the City to terminate the services of the Interim Police Chief at any time, subject only to the provisions set forth in this agreement. Page - 1 T"-' I I .1 B. Employee is a PERS retiree and as such is limited to working no more than 1039 hours in a PERS eligible position. Employee agrees to remain in the employ of City until a successor Police Chief is appointed into the regular FfT position or for six months, whichever occurs first, and neither to accept other employment nor. to become employed by any other employer until this termination date, unless the termination date is affected as otherwise provided in this agreement. C. In the event written notice is not given by the City to terminate this agreement at least thirty (30) days prior to the termination date, the City agrees to pay the balance of employee's rental housing costs for the month in which employment terminates to a maximum of $2,000. Employee shall not be entitled to the rent under this provision if termination of this agreement is because Employee has worked for six months or if termination is because of Employee's willful misconduct or conviction of a felony or conviction of a misdemeanor involving theft, dishonesty, moral turpitude, harassment or an offense resulting in the revocation of Employee's driver's license. D. In the event Employee wishes to voluntarily resign the position during the term of this agreement, Employee shall be required to give the City three weeks written notice of such intention, unless such notice is waived by the City Administrator with the approval of the Mayor and City Council. Employee will cooperate in every way with the smooth and normal transfer to the newly appointed individual. Section 3. Salary. Employee is a retiree in the PERS system and therefore will not be eligible for retirement contribution. City agrees to pay ~mployee a total monthly salary of $8,553/month which equates to the first step in the salary range for Police Chief ($6,843/month), plus a cash payment of 25% ($1,710) added to salary in lieu of health benefits and retirement contributions. Salary is being paid based upon a 160 hour work month. Salary shall be pro-rated for any partial month worked. Employee would be afforded the same Cost of Living Adjustment as may be accorded other Department Heads on July 1, 2006. Section 4. Automobiie Allowance. Employee's duties require that Employee shall have the exclusive use at all times during employment with the City of an automobile to carry out the business of the City. The City shall provide a vehicle or an automobile allowance of $350/month if the employee chooses to use his own personal vehicle for City business. Employee shall be responsible for paying for insurance, operation, maintenance and repairs of his personal vehicle. Section 5. Tools and Equipment. City agrees to provide ~he tools and equipment necessary for the Interim Police Chief to efficiently perform his duties. Uniforms, radio equipment, computer and protective equipment will be provided and maintained by the City. Page - 2 Section 6. Severability. If any part, term, or provision of this agreement is held by the courts to be illegal or in conflict with the laws of the State of Oregon, the validity of the remaining portions of the agreement shall not be affected and the rights and obligations of the parties shall be construed and enforced as if the agreement did not contain the particular part, term, or provision. Dated this of ,2006. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John Morrison, Mayor Accepted this _ day of ,2006. Ronald D. Goodpaster Page - 3 -., I I I am Inge Christ, I reside at 1016 Plaza Ave. The foremost concern for this LID is pollution. Air pollution and the resulting health issues. The dust storm that every car creates as it travels through is a great contributor to potential health problems to the residents of the general area, not only those on Plaza and Park St. The EPA Air Quality standards in this valley and City can only be met by continued efforts to eradicate the sources of the pollution. Dirt roads are probably the biggest cause of this problem. They also impact the quality of life and bear extra cost and work for additional upkeep on exterior and interioir of homes for the property owners. DUST In the past 15 years or more several property owners on Plaza only (not Park St.) have paid for dustabetment through a private Contractor, in order to get some relief from the dust. Dust abate- ment is expensive, messy, and only last until the first rain showers appear .The expenses we incurred over the many years could have been put towards a permanent solution. EROSION In the rainy months Plaza Ave. experiences quite a bit of soil erosion and I quote here from one of the City's own publication regarding LID's. "These unpaved streets on slopes can cause soil erosion and water pollution and cause damage to the draining system due to erosion. Eventually it becomes necessary to pave the unpaved streets." (end of quote). Plaza Avenue is one of those streets. TRAFFIC Though Plaza is not a main thoroughfare, traffic has and is ever increasing, due to neighbourhood avtivities and infill of the area. This is one of the reasons that Plaza Ave was recommended by the City Staff as a priority improvement project and therefore included in the City's budget. COSTS The Lid Amendment Resolution No. 99-09 dated 2/3/99 established at that time 1 a maximum cap of $4000.-- per assessment unit and has risen since to a maximum of $4,911.-- per unit. The potential figures and estimates for future road improvement projects will be unsustainable for the property owners and the City unless this LID is established now and no longer delayed. Maintenance of the existing street is an ongoing cost factor to the City as is staff time towards all these LID petitions. In summarizing: The imperative needs for these local improvements on Plaza Ave are: Elimination of the huge dust pollution, installments of all basic road and safety measures to improve both health and safety issues and at the same time reduce the maintenance costs of City and porperty owners. This petition is aimed towards the City's goal of paving all streets within the City of Ashland. Therefore the petitioners of this LID implore the City Council to use your authority and good judgment to approve this project. Thank you. ~s - Fwd: Plaza Ave. P From: To: Date: Subject: Inge, Kate Jackson <KateJackson@opendoor.com> Barbara Christensen <barbarac@ashland.or.us> 5/4/20064:32:19 PM Fwd: Plaza Ave. I am forwarding your message to the City Recorder to make sure your comment becomes part of the public record for the Plaza Ave LID hearing. I appreciate your communicating your view to us. Sincerely, Kate Kate Jackson Ashland City Council 20 East Main St. Ashland, OR 97520 541-482-2612 KateJackson@opendoor.com Begin forwarded message: > From: "John" <jhcvi@charter.net> > Date: May 3, 2006 4:30:55 PM PDT > To: <council@ashland.or.us> > Subject: [Council] Upcoming LID hearing for Plaza Ave. > > Dear Council Members: > > As you are aware, the hearing for the LID on Plaza Ave. is > scheduled for Tuesday, > May 16th. I encourage each of you to actually inspect the site > prior to the council meeting in order that you can visually see the > unhealthy dust pollution problem, assess the storm drain situation > and be more aware of the erosion factor. > > You will also readily recognize the reason why the neighborhood is > so polarized on this LID. To the owners on one side of the street, > Plaza Avenue is an alley which many of them frequently use. The > owners whose dwellings face the street naturally consider Plaza as > a regular city street that should be paved as are most streets in > Ashland. > > Plaza is the little street that the city forgot. It was easy to > ignore the little street way back when there was only a couple of > houses facing it. Now that the situation has completely changed, it > behooves the city to eradicate the pollution and resulting health > problems. > > Thank you for your efforts to directly assess Plaza Avenue. > > Sincerely, > Inge Christ > s - Fwd: Plaza Ave. > > PUBLIC RECORDS LAW DISCLOSURE > This is a public document. This email is subject to the State > Retention Schedule and will be made available to the Public. > > Council mailing list > Council@pine.ashland.or.us > http://pine.ashland.or.us/mailmanllistinfo/council cc: <jhcvi@charter.net> Dear Mr. Olson and City Council Members, My name is Suzanne Cruce and I live at 1030 Park Street. I vote to object to the proposed improvements of Plaza Avenue which borders my property for many reasons. First, I object on the principle that I do not think that paving and sidewalks and more concrete in my neighborhood is an improvement. I believe the exact opposite. My husband and I bought this property in 2000 in part because it was in an established neighborhood and because of the country feel which included the unpaved alley. Secondly, we do not use the alley but 3-4 times per year to remove yard waste from our yard. We do not drive or walk on Plaza Street and I do not believe that we should be charged $4911 plus our share of the taxpayer burden to pave a street that we do not use, just because it is behind my property . Next, I believe that there is no financial benefit to us for this Plaza Avenue LID. I do not believe that our property value will improve. In my belief, it will significantly decrease the quaintness and quietness of my neighborhood which I love. I believe that to many potential homebuyers, this "concrete improvement" would be a deterrent from buying my house if I were to sell it. Further, I believe that the paving of Plaza Ave will increase traffic and speeding on that street which is already a big problem on Park Street. I am strongly in favor of finding ways to decrease the dust for the Plaza Ave residents, but strongly against paving. I urge the City Council to complete the study of the LID process, which in your letter you stated that the Council was too busy to complete, and to find an alternative to the environmentally and fiscally costly concrete option that you are proposing, which will be a permanent fixture to our community. I ask council to reject the LID, until proper review of the LID process can be done. I ask the council to consider alternative less costly and environmentally damaging alternatives for dust control. Finally, I ask the council to not charge my property a financial assessment because: I do not have a driveway on Plaza Ave. I do not use Plaza Ave. I think that it will decrease my property value. I think that it will decrease safety. I am against the paving and sidewalk proposal as I believe it is bad for my neighborhood. Sincerely, Suzanne Cruce 1030 Park S1. Ashland, OR 97520 P From: To: Date: Subject: Suzanne Cruce <suzcruce@yahoo.com> <council@ashland.or.us> 5/15/200612:01:15 PM [Council] Plaza Avenue LID Dear Mr. Olson and City Council Members, My name is Suzanne Cruce and I live at 1030 Park Street. I vote to object to the proposed improvements of Plaza Avenue which borders my property for many reasons. First, I object on the principle that I do not think that paving and sidewalks and more concrete in my neighborhood is an improvement. I believe the exact opposite. My husband and I bought this property in 2000 in part because it was in an established neighborhood and because of the country feel which included the unpaved alley. Secondly, we do not use the alley but 3-4 times per year to remove yard waste from our yard. We do not drive or walk on Plaza Street and I do not believe that we should be charged $4911 plus our share of the taxpayer burden to pave a street that we do not use, just because it is behind my property. Next, I believe that there is no financial benefit to us for this Plaza Avenue LID. I do not believe that our property value will improve. In my belief, it will significantly decrease the quaintness and quietness of my neighborhood which I love. I believe that to many potential homebuyers, this "concrete improvement" would be a deterant from buying my house if I were to sell it. Further, I believe that the paving of Plaza Ave will increase traffic and speeding on that street which is already a big problem on Park Street. I am strongly in favor of finding ways to decrease the dust for the Plaza Ave residents, but stongly against paving. I urge the City Council to complete the study of the LID process, which in your letter you stated that the Council was too busy to complete, and to find an alternative to the environmentally and fiscally costly concrete option that you are proposing, which will be a perminant fixture to our community. I ask council to reject the LID, until proper review of the LID process can be done. I ask the coucil to consider alternative less costly and enviromentally damaging alteratives for dust control. Finally, I ask the council to not charge my property a financial assessment because: I do not have a driveway on Plaza Ave. I do not use Plaza Ave. I think that it will decrease my property value. I think that it will decrease safety. I am against the paving and sidewalk proposal as I believe it is bad for my neighborhood. Sincerely, Suzanne Cruce 1030 Park St. Ashland, OR 97520 Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2~/min or less. PUBLIC RECORDS LAW DISCLOSURE , Page 1 of 1 Steve From: To: Sent: Subject: "Steve" <sefly@mind.net> <council@ashland.or.us> Monday, May 15, 2006 5:44 PM Plaza LID Our names are Steve and Annie Eadie. We live at and own 1050 Park Avenue. We are writing to voice our opposition to the Plaza Avenue LID. We oppose the LID for the following reasons: One of the primary reasons we purchased this property was due to the feel ofthe neighborhood. Having the decomposed granite road gave us the feeling of having escaped the concrete and asphalt jungles we had lived in previously. We look forward to raising our twins without worry of speeding traffic or congested streets caused by concrete and asphalt. As accountants and financial analysts we have given the concept of the LID increasing our property value a lot of thought. First of all, as stated above, the dirt road adds to the quaint atmosphere of the neighborhood. A paved road would effectively eliminate the ambiance ofthe neighborhood. Secondly, the addition of a paved road would not improve the access to the back of our property. Without significant investment made to tie in the street to the back of our property there would be a reduction of functionality for this access point. Most importantly, property values are established by buyers and sellers. Since we have no intention of selling this property to argue that our property value has increased is irrelevant in our case. I was born in Montana where dirt roads were a way of life growing up. I have also lived the better part of my professional career in large cities. Having experienced both ways of life I feel very strongly that there is far too much concrete and asphalt in this world. In addition there are environmental concerns that should be considered. What is the impact to the water tables when we cover all of the dirt? What happens to the water temperature in the local streams when the runoff from paved roads enters the system? We understand that there are a minority of people who live on Plaza Avenue advocating the LID. Plaza Avenue was not paved when they purchased their homes so why should the majority be made to pay for the minorities convenience and benefit? If we felt that our family would benefit from the paving of Plaza Avenue we would vote in favor of the LID. We just don't see any benefit to our lives or our property. If the council votes against the majority on the Plaza Avenue LID we formally request to have the assessment waived in our case because we will not realize any benefit from the paving of Plaza Avenue. Thank you, Steve Eadie Annie Eadie 5/16/2006 r- Pa e 1 From: To: Date: Subject: "Steve" <sefly@mind.net> <council@ashland.or.us> 5/15/20065:44:54 PM [Council] Plaza LID Our names are Steve and Annie Eadie. We live at and own 1050 Park Avenue. We are writing to voice our opposition to the Plaza Avenue LID. We oppose the LID for the following reasons: One of the primary reasons we purchased this property was due to the feel of the neighborhood. Having the decomposed granite road gave us the feeling of having escaped the concrete and asphalt jungles we had lived in previously. We look forward to raising our twins without worry of speeding traffic or congested streets caused by concrete and asphalt. As accountants and financial analysts we have given the concept of the LID increasing our property value a lot of thought. First of all, as stated above, the dirt road adds to the quaint atmosphere of the neighborhood. A paved road would effectively eliminate the ambiance of the neighborhood. Secondly, the addition of a paved road would not improve the access to the back of our property. Without significant investment made to tie in the street to the back of our property there would be a reduction of functionality for this access point. Most importantly, property values are established by buyers and sellers. Since we have no intention of selling this property to argue that our property value has increased is irrelevant in our case. I was born in Montana where dirt roads were a way of life growing up. I have also lived the better part of my professional career in large cities. Having experienced both ways of life I feel very strongly that there is far too much concrete and asphalt in this world. In addition there are environmental concerns that should be considered. What is the impact to the water tables when we cover all of the dirt? What happens to the water temperature in the local streams when the runoff from paved roads enters the system? We understand that there are a minority of people who live on Plaza Avenue advocating the LID. Plaza Avenue was not paved when they purchased their homes so why should the majority be made to pay for the minorities convenience and benefit? If we felt that our family would benefit from the paving of Plaza Avenue we would vote in favor of the LID. We just don't see any benefit to our lives or our property. If the council votes against the majority on the Plaza Avenue LID we formally request to have the assessment waived in our case because we will not realize any benefit from the paving of Plaza Avenue. Thank you, Steve Eadie Annie Eadie PUBLIC RECORDS LAW DISCLOSURE This is a public document. This email is subject to the State Retention Schedule and will be made available to the Public. Council mailing list Council@pine.ashland.or.us http://pine.ashland.or.us/mailman/listinfo/council 1------. May 15, 2006 Peter Dragula & Patricia Aguinaga, Owners 1024 Park St. Ashland, OR C/O 4450 Chancery Lane Dublin, Ca 94568 (925) 683-8529 To Whom It May Concern: In regards to the proposed property lien for paving of the road behind our house, we would like it to be known that we are not in agreement with the proposal for the following reasons: 1. the paving of the road will not add any value to our property 2. the dirt road is not a main corridor and it is appealing in a rustic way to have the road as it is 3. Cost of proposal seems very expensive and money could be spent in better ways to benefit city 4. cost should have been added into the construction of new homes on that street who would actually use it 5. Concern over dust by neighbors who have homes on that side of the street number only seven. Traffic is limited and seasonal weather prevents dust from occurring at least 4- 5 months out of the year. Recommendations: Find alternative ways to cut down on dust, if that is the only reason for the paving of the road, and charge neighbors on the Park St. side a percentage that is reasonable with their actual usage of the street, which is only about 5-100/0 of the time to access back lots. Sincerely, Peter Dragula & Patricia Aguinaga Pa From: To: Date: Subject: "Peter Dragula" <DragulaPeter@dublin.k12.ca.us> <council@ashland.or.us> 5/15/200612:49:51 PM [Council] propsed lein May 15, 2006 Peter Dragula & Patricia Aguinaga, Owners 1024 Park St. Ashland, OR C/O 4450 Chancery Lane Dublin, Ca 94568 (925) 683-8529 To Whom It May Concern: In regards to the proposed property lien for paving of the road behind our house, we would like it to be known that we are not in agreement with the proposal for the following reasons: 1. the paving of the road will not add any value to our property 2. the dirt road is not a main corridor and it is appealing in a rustic way to have the road as it is 3. Cost of proposal seems very expensive and money could be spent in better ways to benefit city 4. cost should have been added into the construction of new homes on that street who would actually use it 5. Concern over dust by neighbors who have homes on that side of the street number only seven. Traffic is limited and seasonal weather prevents dust from occurring at least 4- 5 months out of the year. Recommendations: Find alternative ways to cut down on dust, if that is the only reason for the paving of the road, and charge neighbors on the Park St. side a percentage that is reasonable with their actual usage of the street, which is only about 5-10% of the time to access back lots. Sincerely, Peter Dragula & Patricia Aguinaga PUBLIC RECORDS LAW DISCLOSURE This is a public document. This email is subject to the State Retention Schedule and will be made available to the Public. Council mailing list Council@pine.ashland.or.us http://pine.ashland.or.us/mai I man/listinfo/cou nci I 1 Citizen Speaker Request Form Please complete this form and return to the City Recorder. THIS FORM IS A PUBLIC RECORD ALL INFORMATION PROVIDED WILL BE MADE A V AILABLE TO THE PUBLIC Meeting Date: May 16, 2006 SUBJECT: Plaza Avenue LID AGENDA NUMBER (if on tonight's agenda): I:AND USE HEARING (Please check one): FOR: AGAINST: f.;:, t~ ' " ", ,:'~;: ,J,:' ~ ..~~ /.. v'f ";::r: ....v; ~...t.." .~', ~ , ~ ,;<~ ^ ' ",:;. ~ ... ~ ""~~ .. ~ '., ~ ':" '.o/0'fD1e3Sepnnt\"'"I;\j.,);".:.,",.".--",,, ,~"'-; , "''':i',~~,~""" ~;-~. :~~:~;~~< .~::, ~ F,0~~~Yi.~~'~N'It:<,~~~l;..;t~',~~:'~~<~':. :/'p~'>''':~',~~ '~,; 21/;'l', y ~~~.:&r.>: ~ (' ->. ~ ~ '< l< '.( <~'l' > ....':\l < ;~ ~~i"" ~~<.,..~ ~ ~ < . "'~:$,,,, . < '.. ' ~ ~);' ,:~h,,"<, ,:s:{~~~~~:<~~~;:<<:,:<<<<~,'.:':16t~;rl'~::'iPAiK)~';;5';-,. < ':" '."~ ,;: ;'"', < " .;;<&{:~1L,~ ,~', ,,~'i;~;}J~ -:', ", ~, :,:i{: ~,...,~!':;::;;\:;;~ ~', .~ "': '.,' , ' ~ ',' ':"" ,:',,-, < 'P,H9N)tN:UM~)fR:' It<~(cg - 0 31'7 ' EMAIL" " < ':.:,<' , ::~+:,::;.;;,4{> >: c;, ,:, \;', " ,:~ ' ; : ; , .. '. "'>""~' , ;:" ?Y,:- :--'..,< " ,\:, , -, ". WRITTEN COMMENTS: O\(er ~t ti~ ~e.o....'"'S> &r <;0 1 ~6JG..t ~ts 4m~~ tfu~' L.I.n, l~ ~ tL~ I k1as. }u>VQ.r ~bih~~d ~t1fh;,~t\t ~~~ln. ~b~. 'nus ~t ~~S lLt a. ~ ~~uJ~ 1~~erlW'Q ~ I ~'" (~t. ~ &1\~Ja4 sh~) ,. IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL: 1. Please complete this form and return it to the City Recorder. 2. Address the City Council from the table podium microphone. 3. State your name and street address for the official record. 4. Please limit your comments to 5 minutes, unless otherwise instructed by Mayor. 5. If written documentation is presented, please furnish one copy to the City Recorder for the official record. ~IMQ~hr ~ ~ \ IF YOU WISH TO SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS TO THE CITY COUNCIL: 1. Please complete this form and return to the City Recorder. 2. Written comments will be part of the official record. T- : , - ! _m ~ r- - ~ ~e~l ~~. r-~~t ~. ~~. uf ~~ih u5~, 16 b~~ P~I~~~ ~ ~ ,kM,\ tkbt w-ltt& I tl rc\l.~h ,no hu}t ~{:\ L1; ewn I rt ~~s I t.t-._~t.d." Me.M.b.~ k:o.>fe ,C~$l~~~ ~\sU\.~ ~~~ ~ l:..-t!lt~ bJls./ q~\4l~, :-l~~ p~~~; ,~ ~$TN.c~~~ . ~!.~~~e.j-s ~ 0 ,h~~ &\ ~~~~<a.ls. ~J. ~ll.Q> (RG.~~ Lh tk 6hk~ p~)t lid~i ), l ~~U- e. s flM.~t..S 6 f ~ ~~t\.~~T. enlo2.. 9f ~~ J: -tle~ """~o..>~~ ~l.!),l ~.~. ~\(Ql'" -u.a.. ~~ e..~ ~ ib ~SCO,(jOC ~ 14-(Se~CiC~ ~~~. Ite.. ~(.J ~W-'S ~aln~t chOt~ Ch'\J ~ ki\cwla.~<:\e -meat tv)~ f\1.~ h f\)~~ ' , Now I lSb(\ ~ \t L; .L~~~ t h:l~S!L I'€.-<~n~ 64\J to Q.~~l~e wk~"e: pQ"$.$lblej 'u \$ <:tsW f6 ~ihen~e. (i. f\QW ~dd d1""al ~-~~Lt~ c,t $ is'o,<m?: ~ &. €f'e;ec.t: k!~u:h ~o ~ ~~S had ~t~ ~u\ir~ siJr~r &.~~ ~~l~a jLLi(~tttt~ i wkl~h h.0-~,- (\~ u...~ Q.t..~~ I ~o L~, \'\.iLU2.~> l~ I V\O ~Y\LYe5>~ J k.s trC.. ~ lll~ ',.-; , . ,~ ~6ul~(r~lI~ f'4<->ft'ns'l~'~ Q(tS~ 16 That l'e.~~::.1: h lB. S to ~ No, *- A S$v..P'\~\A.~ 1htl.t p~ w.~ b ~ ~:~t LVc.ljJ be. ~~ ~5ti(LkA~l\.ts 6v~ ~ V\lht^.k ~f ~~1-. Citizen Speaker Request Form Please complete this form and return to the City Recorder. THIS FORM IS A PUBLIC RECORD ALL INFORMATION PROVIDED WILL BE MADE A V AILABLE TO THE PUBLIC Meeting Date: May 16, 2006 SUBJECT: Plaza Avenue LID AGENDA NUMBER (if on tonight's agenda): LAND USE HEARING (Please check one): FOR: AGAINST: :~(}lleaS;rinlr l!~~,:~)~~';l' t~l<:$t:. Mffl.4fID I Ofl.E&5N. "tt5":2z>. ~~~~~~i~S~1t~o~iic'f EMAa WRITTENCOMMENTS:---.l Vot-~ N"6 OM. ~ M~LQfA:7AAcP LCI>. _Tk. CPstt$ War ~ /..uif. 2Jet~ -A-rk- I~ 4 '5 ~CQr lAritt.. f- ~ ~~~ s~I8'IJaro pa.v.,.~~ ~ s~ w\it rh~ -fJ;c T ~~~ t.ui-4 ~ Q. ~li t;- 11;;.. ~F ~ ~. ("l-tf I\&- f"'S~~:tda.uc"., IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL: ~~< - 'I. Please complete this form and return it to the City Recorder. 2. Address the City Council from the table podium microphone. 3. State your name and street address for the official record. 4. Please limit your comments to 5 minutes, unless otherwise instructed by Mayor. 5. If written documentation is presented, please furnish one copy to the City'Recorder for the official record. \ .xf! YOU WISH TO SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS TO THE CITY COUNCIL: vC Please complete this form and return to the City Recor~r. 2. Written comments will be part of the official record. ":-,,.;. ,<'. "'i~ :--- - ':, --.:-.; . .;-~ . . . ..-#~ r- - r-Iaza Avenue LIU :support/Remonstrance Decision I _s.ur:>port 0bject to the proposed Plaza Avenue LID. ~C Elaine Gilfnartin Tax Lot 391E15AD 1600 Optional: Plaza Avenue LID Survey My property _would ~OUld not benefit from Plaza Avenue LID. . Plaza Ave LID would _improve ~decrease _have no effect on my property's re~1 estate value',--1 .L~ ff Plaza Ave LID would _improve .1d[ecrease _have no effect on driving safety. WW~~ 5f'dtf f-ljY~(7( Plaza Ave LID would _improve ..t2<fecrease _have no effect on pedestrian safety. II j;:,. Plaza Ave LID would _improve --.Slecrease v1lave no effect on dust in the air. UUif'1VtLtJ/ ~rc.t/.l~~ Plaza Ave LID would _improve .lldecrease _have no effect on our slreefs appeara,nCl!". .1.. ~ Do you support paving Plaza Ave? _ Ye~ vNo . f/'uva.i 5~ Itbl/lLUL t/. Do you support installing sidewalks on Plaza Ave? _Yes.i,LNo Do you support installing drainage on Plaza Ave? -;-],es VNo vU.. /J ~ Do you support leaving Plaza Ave as it is today? ~Tes _No Is Plaza LID worth the estimated $181,000 costs? _Yes i2No Comments: Plaza Avenue LID Support/Remonstrance Decision I ~pport _object to the Proposed Plaza Avenue LID. ~~ Ariella Alandra Pieter Berney Tax Lot 391E15AD 1700 Tax Lot 391E15 Optional:~laza Avenue LID Survey My property ~OUld _would not benefit from j31aza Avenue LID. . Plaza Ave LID would _improve _decrease ~ave no effect on my property's real estate value. Plaza Ave LID would _improve _decrease 3ave no effect on driving safety. Plaza Ave LID would ~!J:nprove_decrease _have no effect on pedestrian safety. Plaza Ave LID would ~!JRProve decrease have no effect on dust in the air. Plaza Ave LID would J2improve decrease ha-re no effect on our street's appearance. Do you support paving Plaza Ave? ~ Yes _No / Do you support installing sidewalks on Plaza Ave? Yes .t.No Do you support installing drainage on Plaza AVe?~ Zs _~o Do you support leaving Plaza Ave as it is tOday? es LNo Is Plaza LID worth the estimated $181,000 costs? _Yes _No Comments: T"- ~ _.~---__._ __ ___ .__ ...L Plaza Avenue LID Support/Remonstrance Decision I ~upport _object to the proposed Plaza Avenue LID. Allen A Alsing (Trustee) Tax Lot 391E15AD 1802 Katherine M Alsing (Trustee) Tax Lot 391E15AD 1802 Optional: Plaza Avenue LID Survey My property ~ould would not benefit from Plaza Avenue LID. Plaza Ave LID would ~!Jnprove ~decrease _have no effect on my property's real estate value. Plaza Ave LID would LlJTlprove _decrease ~have no effect on driving safety. Plaza Ave LID would Lynprove ~decrease ~have no effect on pedestrian safety. ~ Plaza Ave LID would JL!mprove ~decrease _have no effect on dust ir) the air. Plaza Ave LID would ~mprove _decrease ~have no effect on our street's appearance. Do you support paving Plaza Ave? ~es _No Do you support installing sidewalks on Plaza Ave? _yes _No.lJ1, ~EP Do you support installing drainage on Plaza Ave? 0es No Do you support leaving Plaza Ave as it is today? _ Yps ZNo Is Plaza LID worth the estimated $181,000 costs? ...0es _No Comments: Plaza Avenue LID Support/Remonstrance Decision I _support ~bject to the proposed Plaza Avenue LID. jot S~ ~ Michael S. Gerrard Tax Lot 391 E15AD 2300 { Optional: Plaza Avenue LID Survey My property ~would ./ would notpenefit from Plaza Avenue LID. Plaza Ave LID would _improve ~ecrease ~have no effect on my property's real estate valye. \ Plaza Ave LID would _improve v"decrease _have no effect on driving safety. ( SkG.~ b<<S..ri.~ ) Plaza Ave LID would ~improve Zdectease ~have no effect on pedestrian satEny. Plaza Ave LID would :Limprove ~decrease ~have no effect on dust in the air. Plaza Ave LID would _improve V decrease ~have no effect on our street's appearance. Do you support paving Plaza Ave? _Yes v No Do you support installing sidewalks on Plaza Ave? ~Yes -/No Do you support installing drainage on Plaza Ave? ---7.,Yes v'No Do you support leaving Plaza Ave as it is today? ~ Yes No Is Plaza LID worth the'estimated $181,000 costs? _Yes VNo Comments: t11 l\tt~ Of~ S~k ))~~ ~t ~ t\l.,~\..r dllo(~ tte ~.? lI.. J~ {~ ~~l~~ ttr~ < . Plaza Avenue LID Support/Remonstrance Decision I---,..support LObject to ~ V-'L~ 21c~ Stephen Eadie Tax Lot 391E15AD 2400 the proposed Plaza Avenue LID. ~. ~ R./ Anne Eadie Tax Lot 391E15AD 2400 Optional: Plaza Avenue LID Survey My property _would -4woUld not benefit from Plaza Avenue LID. Plaza Ave LID would _improve _decrease _have no effect on my property's real estate value. Plaza Ave LID would _improve ~decrease ~have no effect on driving safety. Plaza Ave LID would _improveCSdecrease _have no effect on pedestrian safety. Plaza Ave LID would A,improve _decrease _have no effect on dust in the air. Plaza Ave LID would _improve4,decrease _have no effect on our street's appearance. Do you support paving Plaza Ave? _Yes ~No Do you support installing sidewalks on Plaza Ave? _Yes ~No Do you support installing drainage on Plaza Ave? "-~Yes.9-:No Do you support leaving Plaza Ave as it is today? x.Yes No Is Plaza LID worth the estimated $181,000 costs? _Yes ~No Comments: - 0" "_'___:--''''''''':,:\,';':~~'~''.' .. ,:.....''''-L~'-_. \ Plaza Avenue LID Support/Remonstrance Decision support 2x.object~ _the proposed Plaza Avenue LID. mas . Knu sen ~r Tax Lot 391E15AD 2500 ~ Optional: Plaza Avenue LID Survey My property _WOUld~wOUld not ben~fromm Plaza Avenue LID. Plaza Ave LID would _improve _decre~~have no effect on my property's real estate value. Plaza Ave LI would _improve _decr~"\; have no effect on driving safety. Plaza Ave LID d -.,;imptove _decreasQhave no effect on pedestrian safety. Plaza Ave LID woul _improve _decrease _~ve no effect on dust in the air. p. laza Ave LID would _improve _decrease _h ~ect on our street's appearance. Do you support paving Plaza Ave?' _Yes _ Do you support installing sidewalks on PlaZ~? Ye . No Do you support installing drainage on Plaza A _Yes No Do you support leaving Plaza Ave as it is today? Y~ _No Is Plaza LID worth the estimated $181,000 cost . YeS~No~ Comments: ?r-S fC< T W --- Plaza Avenue LID Support/Remonstrance Decision I_support ~ object to the proposed Plaza Avenue LID. Jared d~ C<.u-u.-su~ ~ Tax lot 391E15AD 2600 Tax lot 391E15AD 2600 Optional: Plaza Avenue LID Survey My property _would ~WOUld not benefit from Plaza Avenue LID. Plaza Ave LID would _improve _decrease ~have no effect on my property's real estate value. Plaza Ave LID would _improve ~dec~ease _have no effect on driving safety. 1'sp.u-c:l Plaza Ave LID would _improve 'I.. decrease _have no effect on pedestrian safety. Plaza Ave LID would _improve _decrease ::bhave no effect on dust in the air. . Plaza Ave LID would _improve ~decrease _have no effect on our street's appearance. Do you support paving Plaza Ave? _Yes ~No Do you support installing sidewalks on Plaza Ave? -.- Yes ~NO Do you support installing drainage on Plaza Ave? ~ Yes ~No Do you support leaving Plaza Ave as it is today? 1:... Yes No Is Plaza LID worth the estimated $181,000 costs? _Yes KNo' . Comments: Plaza Avenue LID Support/Remonstrance Decision I_support jlobject to ~.~/ Ga Huntin Tax lot 391E15AD 2800 the pron~L1D ---Sandra I Huntington Tax lot 391E15AD 2800 Optional: Plaza Avenue LID Survey My property _would -X.-would not benefit from Plaza Avenue LID. Plaza Ave LID would _improve _decrease ~.h have no effect on my property's real estate value. Plaza Ave LID would _improve _decr~ase Dave no effect on driving safety. Plaza Ave LID would _improve -Adecrease _have no effect on pedestrian safety. Plaza Ave LID would _improve _decrease ...x:have no effect on dust in the air. Plaza Ave LID would _improve _decrease ..x.have no effect on our street's ~ppearance. Do you support paving Plaza Ave? _Yes :&.No Do you support installing sidewalks on Plaza Ave? _Yes.!.No Do you support installing drainage on Plaza Ave? _Yes ANo ~o you support leaving Plaz;a Ave as it is tOday? YYes _No 'Plaza LID worth the estimated $181,000 costs? _Yes X-No .. mments: .\ \ \ \ \ \ \ Plaza Avenue LID Support/Remonstrance Decision I_support A-object to the proposed Plaza Avenue LID. I~. it - )1J- Kristin J .Li ht Tax Lot 391E15AD 3000 Optional: Plaza Avenue LID Survey My property _would -X-would not benefit from Plaza Avenue LID. Plaza Ave LID would _improve _decrease ~ave no effect on my property's real estate value. Plaza Ave LID would _improve _decrease _have no effect on driving safety. Plaza Ave LID would _improve _decrease _have no effect on pedestrian safety. Plaza Ave LID would _improve _decrease _have no effect on dust in the air. Plaza Ave LID would _improve _decrease _have no effect on our street's appearance. Do you support paving Plaza Ave? _Yes .2{No Do you support installing sidewalks on Plaza Ave? _Yes .2{No - '. f' Do you support installing drainage on Plaza Ave? _Yes _No - ~ ~~ J~ f I' ~ Do you support leaving Plaza Ave as it is today? XYes _No () Is Plaza LID worth the estimated $181,000 costs? _Yes ~No Comments:atH,::~~f1/L~iul1tu hrn_ f'e1n1MS4r_CL t1~ d db;J 1>____.u__ _______ ____ Plaza Avenue LID Support/Remonstrance Decision I JlfttPPOrl ~ to the proposed Plaza Avenue LID. aY~ Tax Lot 391E15AD 3407 )~/6~~ Optional: Plaza Avenue LID Survey My property _would ~ould not qenefit from Plaza Avenue LID. Plaza Ave LID would _improve ~ecrease _have no effect on my property's real estate value. Plaza Ave LID would _improve _decrease ~have no effect on driving safety. Plaza Ave LID would _improve _dec~ase ~ave no effect on pedestrian safety. Plaza Ave LID would _improve _~crease 2flave no effect on dust in the air. Plaza Ave LID wo. uld _improve ~decrease _have no e~ct on our street's appearance. Do you support paving Plaza Ave? _Yes ~o / Do you support installing sidewalks on Plaza Ave? _Yes ~~ Do you support installing drainage on Plaza Ave? _Yes ~o Do you support leaving Plaza Ave as it is today? 0es _No Is Plaza LID worth the estimated $181,000 costs? _Yes ~o Comments: 1Zu- cA..tLyG.cf-ev "1t..(~ 1""e-T ~ ~J k '?1 $J aft H>--}- 1'>\' P (J. c::f.eJ ~ # t) V> 0W OJ o.-f . ,-- ----- - ----- __ __..L Plaza Avenue LID Support/Remonstrance Decision the proposed Plaza Avenue LID. Tax AD 360 tf}~ I./..a Optional: Plaza Avenue UD Survey My property ~OUld would not benefit from Plaza Avenue LID. Plaza Ave LID would ~prove _decrease _have no effect on my property's real estate value. Plaza Ave LID WOUI_prove _decrease ~have no effect on driving safety. Plaza Ave LID woul~t.. mprove _decrease _have no effect on pedestrian safety. Plaza Ave LID wout .... . prove _decrease _have no effect on dust in the air. Plaza Ave LID woul -' Improve _decrease _h~ no effect on our street's appearanC"e. Do you support pavi 9 Plaza Ave? ~Yes _No / . Do you support installing sidewalks on Plaza Ave? _"tes ~o Do you support installing drainage on Plaza Ave? .:tYes Jo Do you support leaving Plaza Ave as it is today? _'jes ~No Is Plaza LID worth the estimated $181,000 costs? JLfes _No Comments: Plaza Avenue LID Support/Remonstrance Decision =~the proposed Plaza Avenue LID. Glenda Felnsmith Tax Lot 391 E15AD 3601 ~ Optional: Plaza Avenue LID Survey My property ~OUld would not benefit from Plaza Avenue LID. Plaza Ave LID would .6nprove _decrease _have no effect on my property's real estate value. Plaza Ave LID would .,0mprove _decrease _have no effect on driving safety. Plaza Ave LID would vimprove _decrease _have no effect on pedestrian safety. Plaza Ave LID would~prove _decrease _have no effect on dust in the air. Plaza Ave LID would Qimprove _decrease _h~e no effect on our street's appearance. Do you support paving Plaza Ave? y"Yes _No I Do you support installing sidewalks on Plaza Ave? ---'yes ~No Do you support installing drainage on Plaza Ave? ZYes _~o Do you support leaving Plaza Ave as it is today? Xes yNo Is Plaza LID worth the estimated $181,000 costs? ~Yes _No Comments: To: "Art Bullock" <nevadalid@yahoo.com> From: "John Riha" <jriha@mchsLcom> LJ View Contact Details ~ Add Mobile Alert Subject: 991 Plaza/LID Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 08:24:29 -0500 We own property in Plaza LID and object to this project as it stands. John & Deb Riha 991 Plaza Avenue Plaza Avenue LID Support/Remonstrance Decision 1..x1 support object to the proposed Plaza Avenue LID. 0;M{:(,~~~ :f ~Ol ~KM 112 V~ 81- Optional: Plaza Avenue LID Survey My property _would ~Id not benefit from ~za Avenue LID. Plaza Ave LID would _improve _decrease J:d1ave no effect on my property's real estate value. Ptaza Ave LID would _improve _decrease Vhave no effect on driving safety. Plaza Ave LID would _ilJlProve _decrease V11ave no effect on pedestrian safety. Plaza Ave LID would jd'mprove _decrease _have no effect on dust in the air. Plaza Ave LID would j,Limprove _decrease _ha~ no effect on our street's appearance. Do you support paving Plaza Ave? ~es _No / Do you support installing sidewalks on Plaza Ave? _Yes ~No Do you support installing drainage on Plaza Ave? _ ~s ..ILNo Do you support leaving Plaza Ave as it is today? ..0es _~ Is Plaza LID worth the estimated $181,000 costs? _Yes ~o Comments: ..,j' r-- Plaza Avenue LID Support/Remonstrance Decision I_support ~ect to the proposed Plaza Avenue LID. t Optional: Plaza Avenue LID Survey My property _would ~Uld not benefit fromPlaza Avenue LID. Plaza Ave LID would _improve _decrease ~j)ave no effect on my property's real estate value. Plaza Ave LID would _improve _decrease ~hSlve no effect on driving safety. Plaza Ave LID would _improve _decrease ~ve no effect on pedestrian safety. Plaza Ave LID would _improve _decrease ..&df3Ye no effect on dust in the air. Plaza Ave LID would _improve _decrease 0ave no effect on our street's appearance. Do you support paving Plaza Ave? _Yes ~ Do you support installing sidewalks on Plaza Ave? _Yes vNo Do you support installing drainage on Plaza Ave? _ ~ .....-No Do you support leaving Plaza Ave as it is today? ~es _~ Is Plaza LID worth the estimated $181,000 costs? _Yes ~o Comments: ~~ ~ ~,0f, -- ----l ~ ~~ .\ t ...... ))}A..~o-S~,~ If T MAY 14,2006 TO: JAMESS.OL"ON--CI1Y SURVEYOR/PROJECT MA.NAGER AND MEMRERSOFTHE ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL: ON AU(;UST 8, 2005 I WROTE A LKITER TO JAMES ()L~ON THAT" I DID NOT ~FA VOR AN UD" --TO iMPROVE PLAZA AVENUE. I STILL HOLD TO THIS VlliW. I FOLLOWED UP MY LInTER WITH A PHONE CONVERSATION W1TH ,MIt. OL~ON. I~INTS TO KEEP IN MIND: 1.IN MY VIE\V AS~~ HAS A CHECKERED PAST IN DEALlNC WITH "LID. ISSUE~." 2. THE CITY OF ASHLAND NEEDS TO IMPROVE ITS COMMUNICATIONS WImALL OF ITS cmZENS. 3.THE "COST FlCURFS" STATED IN YOUR LAST WRfITEN LEITER ARE EImER INA(~CURATE, MlSLEADINC, OR WORSE TAKE YOUR PICK. FOR EXAMPLE, IN AUCUST 2005 YOU STATED TIIAT INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS WOULD BE ASE."SED $48(K), NOW WITn YOUR LATEST YOU CIVE A FlCURE OF $4900-- PLUS 1 O%---SO NOW WE ARE COINC TO BE CIIARCED $ 5,390. WIIATIS Tim EXTRA 10% FOR AND WIlY? Tins DOESN'T LOOKlUCIIT AND SOUND lUCIIT TO ME. l AM PUITING TIllS lliTIER IN TIlli IlA"NDS O}l'MY NEIGIlBOR, STEVE EEDlE WHO HAS MY PERMISSION TO READ IT AT THE }l'ORTHCOMlNG HEARTNC IF HE CHOOSE~ TO 00 SO. lREPEAT I 00 NOT SUPPORT AN LID FOR PLAZA AVENUE, AND I DISLIKE VERY MUCH IN THE WAY IT HAS BEE~ HANDLED.p k ~( SINCERELY,_'.d-- ".,...__...._.'~L.--l. 17M ~~ , \ }!i;;?/}\~, '..'______...~.__ J'\i'(WtLL-.. " moMAS w. KNUDSEN ,l -. 1044 PARK STREET ASHLAND, OREGON