Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-0605 Council Mtg Packet CITY OF ASHLAND Important: Any citizen may orally address the Council on non-agenda items during the Public Forum. Any citizen may submit written comments to the Council on any item on the Agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing and the record is closed. Except for p\lblic hearings, there is no absolute right to orally address the Council on an agenda item. Time permitting, the Presiding Officer may allow oral testimony; however, public meetings law guarantees only public attendance, not public participation. 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, ifany. 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 June 5, 2007 Civic Center Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street 6:00 p.m. Executive Session to discuss pending litigation pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(h) and employment of a public officer per ORS 192.660(2)(a) 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL MA VOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES APPROVAL OF MINUTES [5 minutes} 1. Special Meeting minutes of May 9, 2007 2. Executive Session meeting minutes of May 15, 2007 3. Regular Council meeting minutes of May 15, 2007 ~~ I fU..'J \f-" SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes] 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees 2. liquor license Application - T's (303 E Main Street) 3. Request for Sewer Service to Commercial Property Located Outside the City limits at 2995 Highway 66 4. Certified Local Government Grant 5. Award of Contract in Excess of $75,000 - North Main Pump Station 6. Authorization for the Director of Public Works to Sign a Grant Agreement with Federal Aviation Administration PUBLIC HEARINGS (Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker, unless it is the subject of a 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 to Consider Acceptance of the Annual Budget COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAS'r LIVE ON CHANNEL 9 VISrr THE crrv OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASIIL.-\ND.OR.US IX. 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 on the number of individuals wishing to speak.) [15 minutes maximum] X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Adoption of findings for Planning Action 2006-02354, Kistler [15 Minutes] ;;.... Summer Library Services [15 Minutes] ~ Adoption of a Resolution Levying Special Benefit Assessments for the Nevada Street Local Improvement District No. 85 and Adoption of Findings (Please note: this item needs to be formally continued by the Council to the June 19, 2007 regular Council meeting.) XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Croman Master Planning [15 Minutes] 2. Discussion of RVTD Funding and Priorities [35 Minutes] XII. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Reading of a Resolution titled, "A Resolution Adopting the Annual Budget and Making Appropriations" 2. Reading of a Resolution titled, "A Resolution Certifying City Provides Sufficient Municipal Services to Qualify for State Subventions" 3. Reading of a Resolution titled, "A Resolution Declaring the City's Election to Receive State Revenues" 4. First Reading of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Levying Taxes for the Period of July 1, 2007 to and Including June 30, 2008, Such Taxes in the Sum of $11 ,286, 046 Upon All the Real and Personal Property Subject to Assessment and Levy Within the Corporate Limits of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon" 5. First Reading by title only of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending the Ashland Municipal Code, Chapter 2.12, City Planning Commission" 6. Second Reading by title only of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending AMC 3.08.020 To Apply Ethics Provisions to Employees, Appointed Officials and Elected Officials" XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS 1. First Reading of a Resolution titled, "A Resolution Supporting the Employee Free Choice Act" XIV. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735- 2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROA.DCAS'r LIVE ON CHANNEL 9 VISrr TllE CITY OF ASHLAND'S \\/E13 SITE: AT WWW.ASIILAND.OR.US CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL lvfEETlNG /'viA Y 9, 2007 PAGE] of6 MINUTES FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL May 9, 2007 Civic Center Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilor Hardesty, Navickas, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman were present. Councilor Hartzell arrived at 4:15 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS - continued from Mav 1. 2007 1. Council Appeal of P A2006-02354, Kistler Mayor Morrison called to order the continued Public Hearing for Planning Action No. 2006-02354. He noted the rules for the conduct of the hearing were available and explained the process for anyone who wanted to participate in the public hearing. He stated any written challenges would be addressed after the Council declares any conflict of interest or ex parte contacts. Mayor Morrison also noted that the list of applicable substantive criteria for this decision was announced at the May 1, 2007 meeting. ABSTENTIONS. CONFLICS. EX PARTE CONTACT Councilors Silbiger, Jackson and Chapman stated they had no ex parte contact since the initial hearing. Councilor Hardesty stated that she had no ex parte contact to report other than she drives past the site every day and that she has paid more attention to the type of buildings in this area, which she does not feel constitutes bias or ex parte contact. Councilor Navickas reported he had a conversation with Planning Commissioner Mike Morris regarding Mr. Morris' claim of bias reported at the May 1, 2007 meeting. He stated that Mr. Morris explained to him that his claim was not personal and brought up some issues of the land use appeal, but Councilor Navickas did not respond due to this being a de novo hearing. He stated that this would not bias his opinion on this hearing. Mayor Morrison noted that he drives by the site every day and that he read a handout provided at the May 1, 2007 meeting that was included into the record. Councilor Hardesty noted she had also read the materials provided at the May 1, 2007 meeting, which were included in the record. Assistant Richard Appicello stated that all exhibits submitted at the May 1, 2007 meeting had been added into the record. He requested further disclosure on the substance of the discussion between Councilor Navickas and Mr. Morris. Councilor Navickas clarified that the discussion involved procedure around ex parte contact and bias, and was not substantive to the criteria for the decision. Mayor Morrison explained that anyone had the right to rebut the substance of the evidence or information disclosed. City Recorder Barbara Christensen confirmed that no written challenges had been submitted. THOSE WISHING TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY (allowed 5 minutes each) Colin Swales/461 Allison Street/Submitted into the record two disks containing meetings of the Planning Commission. He also submitted into the record pictures and maps. Mr. Swales began his presentation by noting the application where it indicated that the unique and unusual circumstance of this site is the "historic nature" of this site. He explained that City Planner Maria Harris countered this in the minutes of January 9,2007 where she stated that the applicants reasoning for it being unique and unusual circumstance was not the same as the staff's opinion. She had stated that staff felt the CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL t'vIEETING MA Y 9, 2007 PAGE 20/6 unique and unusual circumstance had to do with the site itself, the slope, and that it was on a comer. Mr. Swales felt that this was inappropriate because of the advocacy of staff going against the reasoning of the applicant in its findings. He reminded all that the burden-of-proof is on the applicant, not on staff. Mr. Swales continued by noting the handouts he provided and the historic maps of 1949 that were included in this handout. He noted that 1949 was the last significant period for the designation of National Historic Districts. He indicated on these maps the 20-foot setback requirements, the historic fa~ade lines of the historic properties in the immediate area of the property, as well as the whole of the downtown, East Main and Siskiyou Boulevard that was discussed in the LUBA case. Mr. Swales noted the exhibit map entered into the record by Jerome White where he suggested a condition of approval by having a 7- foot arterial setback. He suggested the addition of a condition of approval, although he does not support approval, that the building conforms to the average of the historic setbacks from the 1949 maps. He stated the non-historic additions did not exist in 1949 and are non-historic and non-conforming. He gave several examples of these in the area and the setbacks of these buildings. He believes that the average historic setback is between 25-40 feet. This average is what he suggests be used as an additional condition of approval. Mr. Swales clarified his measurements of the setback and its relationship to the property line. He noted the conversation he had regarding the inaccuracy of the "Front Counter" program provided by the County when requesting maps. He continued to explain the difficulty of determining the actual property line location. Mr. Swales stated that he would provide all that was presented to the City Recorder in order for it to be included into the record. Philip Lang/758 B Street/Submitted his testimony into the record. Mr. Lang addressed his comments to Mr. Kistler, who was seated in the audience, and voiced his distress over the comments made by Mr. Kistler at the May 1, 2007 meeting. Mr. Lang noted Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.100.020 has the following three conditions for a variance: 1) Unique or unusual circumstances, 2) Proposal benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and 3) Circumstances have not been willfully imposed. In regards to these provisions, he noted that there are no standards that constitute a slope that justifies a variance, that the proposal benefits are no greater than if the project conformed to law, and that the circumstances have been willfully imposed. Mr. Lang noted that at the May 1, 2007 meeting, Bill Street had corrected the issue of historic fa~ades. He stated the issue of conflicting ordinances was only raised after the projected was opposed and that staff went through a long process in favor of the development in their addendum ofF ebruary 13, 2007. He stated that at the May 1, 2007 meeting, Planning Director David Stalheim made it clear that the 20- foot setback is primary and takes precedence over historic guidelines considerations. Mr. Lang stated that land use ordinances should not be abrogated through case-by-case demands or preferential treatment. He presented a video portion of the February 13, 2007 Planning Commission meeting on the rebuttal by Mr. Kistler and submitted the tape into the record. REBUTTAL BY THE APPLICANT (allowed 5 minutes) Applicant Ray Kistler brought forward the comments made regarding the front fa~ade line setbacks on buildings along North Main and stated that they do not count if they were not built before 1949. He the three other buildings on the comer are setback 10-feet or less from the sidewalk and stated this should count as CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL A4EETlNG MA Y 9, 2007 PAGE 30/6 much as any other building that was built prior to 1949. Mr. Kistler questioned the purpose of the "special setback" if Ashland never intends to widen North Main in this section and explained this is why he asked for the variance. He stated he does not understand why the 20- foot setback requirement remains since both the City of Ashland and the Oregon Department of Transportation have stated that this section will never be widened. He stated he does agree that the 20-foot setback is important in some areas, but stated it is not relevant here. Mr. Kistler stated there are too many buildings that already encroach on this and gave examples of these buildings. He stated that unless the Council believes that these buildings and trees that are in the setback will go away and that North Main would be widened, he does not see the need for the setback. In regards to the discussion on the property line placement, he stated that on this comer, according to his survey, it is about 30 inches off the back of the curb where his property adjoins the property to the south. He noted that he does have an alternate design and this was provided to show how this would fit. He stated this is the reason why he feels this property does not need a variance. Mr. Kistler stated he does not understand why the setback rule is relevant on this property and stated his property is not the problem with widening North Main. Mr. Appicello clarified that the request for continuance of the meeting of seven days has been sufficient time for further information to be submitted into the record. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing and record was closed at 4:37 p.m. REQUESTS TO SUBMIT FINAL WRITTEN ARGUMENT None ADVICE FROM LEGAL COUNSEL AND STAFF Community Development Director David Stalheim clarified the process in which items can be submitted into the record and clarified the information submitted by Mr. Swales at the May 1, 2007 meeting was incorporated into the record. Mr. Stalheim clarified that it is not a requirement of the development to provide bike lanes. He stated that North Main conforms to the curb-to-curb with four lanes and that there is sufficient width to do this. He clarified again that it is not a requirement ofthis development to widen North Main by taking out a sidewalk and put in a parkrow. It is only where there is no sidewalk and noted that there is an exception to Glenn Street because there is no sidewalk there. Councilor Hardesty voiced her concern with not having bike lanes on North Main and questioned if there would be any way that North Main could be widened to accommodate bike lanes. She questioned if this would have any bearing on this action. Mr. Stalheim explained that the record shows the curb-to-curb, which does not preclude putting a bike lane in and noted that in the communication provided to Council there was a condition proposing a 7-foot easement that would not only allow a bike lane, but a parkrow and a sidewalk. Mr. Appicello commented on the staff report and suggested a condition to require a 7-foot easement dedication to the City that is required to be propitiate to the impact of the proposed development and there would need to be findings in the record of this and he is not sure that this is in the record. He clarified that if this is a proposal from the applicant then it is not subject to the exaction standard. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL ,HEETlNG MA Y 9, 2007 PAGE 4 of6 Mr. Stalheim stated that because the standards speak to the future widening of the road, it is being allowed under the condition that we are not precluding the opportunity to widen the road in the future to City standards. He stated that there is a good relationship between these two and he is not aware if the applicant approves of this condition. Councilor Jackson requested further information on where the AMC defines the 20-foot setback compared to the historic map versus the current map. Mr. Stalheim explained the standard in the code, which is in the record from the Planning Commission, has the standard from the AMC Street Standards, which is as much definition available to the Council in the design guidelines. He stated that the National Register is based on the inventory of properties that are 45 years old or more and the standard is 50 years or more. He stated it does allow National Registered Districts to have both contributing and non-contributing properties. Mayor Morrison questioned that given the conflicting testimony concerning the fa9ade line, what is it based on and what is the substance? Mr. Stalheim stated that staff had taken the opinion of not drawing historic fa9ade lines based on the 50-year National Historic standard but rather on the historic pattern of this streetscape. He explained that this shows there is good reason for planning and gave several examples of different streetscapes. He stated that it gets to be a judgment call on what is appropriate for this area and that this was the difficulty that the Planning Commission had when making their decision. Mr. Stalheim clarified that this speaks to fa9ade lines not property lines and that the historic fa9ade is based on a whole block rather than one building. In this case, there are two different adjacent properties that are historic properties that show that the lines are significantly different. He explained that this is a difficult area because there is no pattern of historic buildings that are more than 50 years old for the entire block as there is in the downtown where there is a clear historic fa9ade. Councilor Hartzell asked if it is fair to say that on average the 20-foot setback is respected in the rest of Historic District and Mr. Stalheim agreed that this is a fair statement. He stated that in some of these areas, the street has been widened and that in this immediate area the street was widened for the Maple Street intersection. He clarified that the map provided by Mr. Swales is not a historic map and does not represent the setback from the historic right-of-way line. Councilor Hartzell requested further clarification from legal counsel as she is convinced through testimony, what the historic purpose was and that it weakens the argument that the historic standard trumps the setback. She questioned if the setback is in place, and the historic standard is weakened, what would the requirement be for following the setback law unless the Council can find compelling reasons according to the standards for granting the variance. Mr. Appicello stated that this is the standard under which this decision will be reviewed. He stated that the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) would make a case law not to overturn the Council's own interpretation and application of their own ordinance if it is not inconsistent with the expressed language purpose or policy of the ordinance. He stated LUBA would only overturn it ifit were inconsistent, but this does not mean that the Council could not have differing decisions that are both supported and proceeded to give examples where this has happened. Mr. Appicello continued to clarify that the Council is not being asked to make a legislative decision but rather a decision based on whether the three-variance criterion has been met. He proceeded by stating the required criteria for making the decision and where in the record this criteria had been met as stated by the Planning CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING lvlA Y 9, 2007 PAGE 5 of6 Commission findings. He stated that it is the Council who makes the interpretation in regards to balancing what is provided in the AMC when making their decision. Councilor Navickas noted that the Historic Commission recommended symmetry on the ground floor concerning vision clearance and questioned why this was not done. He noted the second proposal alleviates this problem and creates symmetry on the ground floor and pointed out where this is indicated in the record. Mr. Stalheim stated that the vision clearance is dealt with on this comer in the proposal that was reviewed and approved and that the side Councilor Navickas is speaking of will be brought forward as a condition and would need to be approved by the Historic Commission in the final design. He noted the balancing issue gets back the design characteristics of the building itself and stated the Historic Commission was trying to balance the design of the building to the historic character and this was one of the conditions required. Mr. Stalheim clarified that those that make a historic district are more than 50-years old. He believes that the site-design standards were established in the 1980's. He stated ifit was not a historic neighborhood, the only standard would be the 20-foot setback standard because it is an arterial. COUNCIL DELIBERATION AND DECISION Councilor Jackson commented on the information in the record, which indicates there is adequate width at this location for bike lanes and park rows. Councilor Jackson/Chapman mls to affirm the decision of the Planning Commission for P A #2006- 02354 as prepared by the Planning Commission. DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas voiced his opposition to the motion. He commented on destroying the City's opportunity to provide trees along City streets and stated he does not feel that the application has met the variance criteria. He commented on the setback requirements, and stated they need to look at the requirement for light, air, and vision from a whole community perspective. He noted that this is a difficult site to deal with and stated that an urban type design with a 20 ft. setback would be better for this site. Comment was made questioning if the motion includes staff's suggested condition for a 7 ft. easement. Councilor Jackson clarified the motion does not include this condition as she does not feel it is needed since there is already sufficient right-of-way to install park rows, bike lanes, and a sidewalk. Councilor Hartzell/Silbiger mls to amend motion to add the condition that a 7-foot bicycle and pedestrian easement be granted to the City of Ashland along N. Main Street that will allow the City, or designee, to construct, reconstruct, install, use, operate, inspect, repair, maintain, remove and replace access improvements, including but not limited to street, sidewalk, bike path and landscaping improvements. DISCUSSION: Councilor Hartzell briefly commented on why she believes this condition is necessary. Councilor Chapman questioned the appropriateness of including this as a condition. Mr. Stalheim clarified that the record before the Council does not include an offer from Mr. Kistler for such a condition, and stated that Mr. Kistler had voiced approval of such a requirement after the Planning Commission's decision during the meeting with himself and the Public Works staff. City Administrator Martha Bennett stated that it is acceptable for Council to ask Mr. Kistler ifhe approves of the condition. Mr. Kistler came forward and stated "yes", he is in agreement with the imposition of the easement. Councilor Jackson expressed concern about adding a condition that is not needed. Councilor Navickas encouraged the Council to not support this amendment. He stated it would destroy an opportunity to provide trees on N. Main Street and encouraged the Council to demand that the 20 ft. setback be maintained. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Hartzell, Chapman, and Hardesty, YES. Councilor Jackson and Navickas, NO. Motion passed 4-2. Continued Discussion on Original Motion as Amended: Councilor Jackson voiced support for the Planning Commission decision and stated this lot clearly appears to be unique in its shortness of depth. Councilor Navickas commented on page 27 of the record and voiced support for maintaining the historic CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL lvfEETlNG MA Y 9, 2007 PAGE 60f6 fa<;ade lines. Councilor Hartzell requested the video tape for this hearing be incorporated into the record. She also requested the findings for this action not include Mr. Stalheim's statement that the air, light and vision standard was not important in this situation because none of the neighbors complained. She also requested that those who vote in favor of the motion speak to which variance criteria they are using as the basis for approval. Councilor Hardesty voiced support for the applicant's design with the 20 ft. setback and stated she does not support granting a variance in this case. Councilor Silbiger noted the Historic Commission clearly favored the lOft. setback and stated they have received ample testimony that indicates this setback would allow for bike lanes, parking strips, and sidewalks. Councilor Chapman noted he is also concern with losing large trees along N. Main Street, but stated he does not believe they will ever want N. Main to look like Siskiyou Blvd. He stated that when they consider the other buildings in the vicinity, they should disregard the motel and Big AI's and noted the buildings nearby all have 10-12 ft. setbacks. He stated he is also concerned with bike lanes on N. Main, but does not believe they need extra width to accommodate bike lanes on this street. Roll Call Vote on Original Motion as Amended: Councilor Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman, YES. Councilor Hartzell, Navickas, and Hardesty, NO. Mayor Morrison, YES. Motion passed 4-3. Mayor Morrison commented on his reasons for approving the motion. He agreed that speed is a concern in this area, but does not believe they need to widen the street. He voiced support for keeping the street as tightly packed as they can and stated that the 10ft. setback was a good compromise. He noted the immediate area surrounding the property has not been consistent with the 20 ft. setback and stated this application meets his interpretation of the variance criteria. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 5:47 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John W. Morrison, Mayor ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING MA Y I5. :!007 PAGE I of9 MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL May 15, 2007 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 Councilor Hardesty, Navickas, Hartzell, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman were present. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES Mayor Morrison announced there are vacancies on a number of City commissions. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the Executive Session meeting and Regular Council meeting of May 1, 2007 were approved as presented. In regards to the Regular Meeting minutes, Councilor Hardesty clarified she also was in favor of the Imperatrice Property proposal. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS Mayor's Proclamation of National Emergency Medical Services Week was read aloud and members of the City's Fire & Rescue staffwere recognized. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees. 2. Approval of Public Contract for Legal Consultant Services Relating to the Mt. Ashland Association Ski Area Expansion. Councilor Jackson requested Item #2 be pulled for discussion. Councilor Jackson/Silbiger m/s to approve Consent Agenda Item #1 . Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Councilor Jackson noted that Mt. Ashland Association had withdrawn from the mediation efforts with the City, and clarified this item is on the agenda in order to give the City Administrator the authority to spend the money necessary to cover the City's legal services. Suzanne Frey/l042 Oak Knoll Drive/Commented on time management and fiscal responsibility and stated this is relevant to this issue. She noted Mt. Ashland Association may have withdrawn from mediation because of the expense, and questioned why the City was using taxpayer money for this purpose. Ms. Frey stated that if this issue goes onto further litigation, it could cost the City hundreds of thousands of dollars and questioned why the City wants to continue to fight against this valuable community resource. She commented on the benefits of the ski area and stated it costs the City nothing and the expansion would endanger nothing. Alan DeBoer/2260 Morada LanelRequested that the Council vote "no" on the proposed contract and that they needed to stop the legal issues with Ski Ashland. Mr. DeBoer noted the budget issues the City is currently facing and asked that the Council not waste legal fees on opposing the ski area expansion. He commented that the ski area is a resource and helps the City immensely in the winter and suggested the Council let the Mt. Ashland Association Board and the Forest Service be responsible for their duties, and let the City get back to what it should ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 15,2007 PAGE 2 of9 be doing. Councilor Hartzell/Hardesty m/s to approve Consent Agenda Item #2. DISCUSSION: Mayor Morrison noted the Council Communication states the amount for services is not to exceed $75,000; however, he could not find where this cap is listed in the contract itself. Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg clarified the cap was included in the engagement letter, but the contract can be amended to include this figure as well. Mayor Morrison voiced his preference for this to be included in the contract itself and Mr. Tuneberg confirmed that this would be done. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Navickas, Jackson, Hartzell, Hardesty, Silbiger and Chapman, YES .Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Public Hearing of Adoption of a Resolution Levying Special Benefit Assessments for the Nevada Street Local Improvement District No. 85 and Adoption of Findings. City Engineer Jim Olson explained there are three actions that need to be completed; however, it is not necessary that they all be completed this evening. The first action is the public hearing, the second is the approval of the resolution, and the third is the adoption of the findings. Mr. Olson clarified the resolution accepts the assessment rate and allows the City Recorder to begin the collection process and noted the findings are intended to reflect everything that has happened in regards to this process. Mayor Morrison called the public hearing to order at 7:22 p.m. He explained the process for participating in the hearing and stated any written challenges would be addressed after the Council declares conflict of interest and ex parte contact. Abstentions. Conflicts. Ex parte Contacts Councilor Chapman reported no conflicts or ex parte contact and stated anything that has happened in the past have already been disclosed in the record. Councilor Silbiger stated he has no ex parte contact to report, but noted that prior to his being on the Council, Mr. Bullock presented the conflict of interest issue to him. He added that he has driven down Nevada Street since the completion of the improvements. Councilor Silbiger stated he has not prejudged the application, is not prejudiced or biased from prior contacts, and will make a decision based solely on the application of the relevant criteria and the standards to the facts and evidence in the record for this proceeding. Councilor Hardesty stated she had spoken with her late husband Jack Hardesty and Art Bullock in the past about this. She stated she has not prejudged the application, is not prejudiced or biased from prior contacts, and will make a decision based solely on the application of the relevant criteria and the standards to the facts and evidence in the record for this proceeding. Councilor Hartzell indicated she performed a site visit a few weeks ago to view the completed improvements. She noted she had previously declared on the record prior contact with Mr. Bullocks and a group of the neighbors early on in the process regarding the design of the project and the conflict of interest issue. She added she had also met with Mr. Bullock, Mrs. Knox, and prior City Administrator Gino Grimaldi about the conflict of interest issue. Councilor Hartzell stated she does not believe anything she learned from that process would prejudge her decision and stated the assessment itself was not discussed. Councilor Jackson noted that she has participated in all of the previous public hearings and attended one or two of the neighborhood meetings early on in the process. She stated she has not had any ex parte contact regarding the assessment, has not prejudged this application, is not prejudiced or biased, and will make a decision based solely on the application of the relevant criteria and the standards to the facts. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEET/NG MAY 15.2007 PAGE 3 of9 Councilor Navickas stated he is an acquaintance of Art Bullock, however he does not have any ex parte contact to report. He has not prejudiced this application, is not prejudiced or biased by prior contacts or involvement, and will make a decision based solely on the application of the relevant criteria and the standards to the facts and evidence in the record for this proceeding. Mayor Morrison stated he has been involved in process since this issue began and stated he has not had any contact with anyone or received any materials relative to this phase in the process. He stated he has not prejudged this application, is not prejudiced or biased, and will make a decision based solely on the application of the relevant criteria and the standards to the facts and evidence in the record. Mayor Morrison explained any person has the right to rebut the substance of the evidence or information disclosed during the normal time allowed for testimony. He asked the City Recorder if any challenges had been received and it was reported that challenges had been submitted by Art Bullock pertaining to Mayor Morrison, Councilor Jackson, Councilor Chapman and Councilor Hartzell. The four challenges were entered into the record and Assistant City Attorney Richard Appicello provided a summary of the challenges. Mayor Morrison, Councilor Jackson, Councilor Chapman, and Councilor Hartzell all stated on the record that they did not prejudge the application, are not prejudiced or biased by prior contact or involvement, and would make a decision based solely on the application of the relevant criteria and standards to the facts and evidence in the record of this proceeding. Staff ReDort City Engineer Jim Olson explained the purpose of the public hearing is to hear objections to the assessments and noted that staff had not received any written objections or requests for adjustments to the assessment. Mr. Olson provided the background information for this project and briefly commented on the lawsuit filed by Mr. Bullock in Circuit Court. Mr. Olson summarized the assessment scenarios as the following: . The assessment rate as specified under Resolution 2004-31 is $575.20/unit. . The maximum increase of 10% results in a rate of $632.72. . If the formula specified under Resolution 1999-09 had been strictly adhered to, the rate would have been $7 1 6.48/unit, an increase of24.5%. . If the assessment were to be recomputed based upon the final project cost and at the correct participate rate as specified under Resolution 1999-09, the fmal assessment rate would be $1,347 .08/unit, an increase of 134.2%. Those Wishin2 to Provide Testimonv Art BuUock/V oiced his objection to the process and stated it is not possible to challenge ex parte contact in writing when it was disclosed just minutes ago. Mr. Bullock claimed that several councilors are personally biased against him and stated the Mayor and three of the councilors failed to disclose information received from the neighborhood meetings. He stated his prior request for copies of email correspondence went unanswered and stated that Mr. Olson was aware that the percentage Ms. Brown told him to use for the assessment was incorrect and did not disclose this to Council. Mr. Bullock commented that Ms. Brown did not properly disclose her conflict of interest and stated it is improper to proceed with this hearing until this has been remedied. Mr. Bullock submitted copies of CDs from previous Council Meetings into the record, and requested the full record from the Circuit Court case also be included in the record. Public Heario2 Closed Mayor Morrison closed the public hearing at 7:56 p.m. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY /5.2007 PAGE 4 of9 Advice from Le2al Counsel and Staff Assistant City Attorney Richard Appicello clarified anything that happened outside of the meetings would need to be disclosed as ex parte contact. He added if Council received any additional materials a declaration of the substance of those materials also needs to be incorporated into the record. Mr. Appicello briefly commented on the outcome of the Circuit Court case and noted the Court ruled in the City's favor on almost every allegation that was made, including the allegations of Ms. Brown having a conflict on interest. He clarified the Court was satisfied by the City's findings, but he recommended that the Council postpone the adoption of the findings until the next Council Meeting so that staff can specifically address some of the allegations made regarding bias, conflict of interest, and prejudgment. Mr. Appicello also recommended the Council consider leaving the record open if they feel there is any additional ex parte contact that needs to be disclosed. Councilor Jackson stated Mr. Bullock's request for emails was related to one of the earlier suits and clarified she had responded to his request. She added that all of the meetings she attended were public meetings and she has had no conversations with anyone regarding the assessment. Councilor Chapman noted he had disclosed his prior participation in the neighborhood design meetings at a previous hearing, and added that he was not on the Council when these meetings occurred. Mayor Morrison noted he also attended some of the design meetings, but did not participate. It was noted that Mr. Bullock has the minutes from the neighborhood meetings, and was the one who wrote the minutes. Councilor Navickas questioned Council's recourse to address the conflict of interest issue raised against Ms. Brown. Mr. Appicello clarified that this issue has already been addressed by the Court and in the findings that the Council adopted. Mayor Morrison added Ms. Brown came before Council two years ago and answered Council's question to their satisfaction, and all of this is included in the record. Council Deliberation and Decision Councilor Hardesty commented that the judge ruled that the City did err in its computation of the credits, however the City is not required to revise the formula. Mr. Appicello clarified this is correct and stated they could assess the increase often percent and utilize other City funds to pay the remainder of the project costs. Mr. Appicello commented on his suggestion to leave the record open and clarified this is only necessary if the Council feels there is anything that was not disclosed. Councilor Jackson stated she has nothing to add to the record and noted they could make a decision and have the findings come back for approval at the next Council Meeting. Councilor Hartzell commented that she has some emails on her home computer, but is unsure if they are related to the assessment. She voiced her preference to leave the record open and adopt the findings at the next council meeting. Mr. Appicello suggested if Council finds something that should have been disclosed, that they forward it to the City Recorder and staff will give notice to the interested party and give them the opportunity to rebut. He stated they do not need to leave the record open at this time unless they have something to add. . ASHLAND CITY COUNCiL MEETING MAY /5.2007 PAGE 5 of9 City Recorder Barbara Christensen clarified if a councilor received correspondence that was sent as a group email to the entire Council, this has already been incorporated into the record. She stated a councilor would only need to forward her an email if a person sent correspondence only to a particular councilor. Ms. Christensen also clarified all emails sent to the Council regarding the Nevada Local Improvement District have been made part of the record. Councilor Jackson/Chapman m/s to approve Resolution #2007-17. DISCUSSION: Councilor Jackson voiced her support for moving forward and noted staff received no complaints on the assessment. Councilor Hartzell received clarification from legal on the limits of adjusting the assessment. Councilor Silbiger stated at this point he does not support changing the assessment. He noted the residents do not object and suggested they accept the resolution and move on. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hartzell, Jackson, Navickas, Hardesty, Silbiger and Chapman, YES. Motion passed. Councilor HartzeWJackson m/s to continue the adoption of Findings for Nevada Street LID #85 to the next regular City Council Meeting. DISCUSSION: Mr. Appicello suggested the Council change the effective date of the resolution to the next meetings date to correspond with the adoption of the findings. Councilor Hartzell restated motion as "advance the adoption of the findings on the Nevada Street LID as well as the adoption of the resolution associated with it to the next regular meeting. "Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Silbiger, Jackson, Navickas, Hartzell and Hardesty, YES. Motion passed. 2. Public Hearing to Declare Real Property on Strawberry Lane as Surplus and Authorize Sale of Lot #103. Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg provided the staff report and recommended Council declare the residential property owned by the City as surplus, and authorize staff to dispose of Lot #103 to the high bid received on April 30, 2007. Mr. Tuneberg clarified the bid came in at $462,000 and noted staff would be bringing back the three remaining parcels individually. Comment was made noting that Council had discussed using the income from the sale of these lots for affordable housing, and questioned if there is anything that specifically limits the use of the funds for this purpose. Mr. Tuneberg clarified a portion of the funds has already been dedicated to payback the General Fund for the costs associated with removing the restrictions on The Grove. In addition, it was also identified that a portion would be used to help pay for the property the City purchased for affordable housing behind the Ashlander. He noted the Council had previously identified using the remainder of the funds for affordable housing; however, the Council has the authority to change how they want to use the remainder of the proceeds. Public Hearin2 ODen: 8:45 p.m. Catherine Dimino/423 Strawberry Lane/Stated when she purchased her property she had heard that these City lots would be used for a neighborhood park and noted the City's Comprehensive Plan talks of the need for parks. Ms. Dimino stated the lots are visible to many of the houses in her subdivision and recommended ifthey are used for residential homes that the structures adhere to the same design requirements of the subdivision. She stated some of her concerns include the character of the neighborhood, landscaping, and the requirement for a fire suppression system. She stated a lack of a fire suppression system places the other homes in the area in danger and suggested the City lots be made part of the Strawberry Meadows Subdivision. It was clarified that many of the subdivisions external requirements were incorporated into the provisions for these lots, and there is additional land on two sides of the lots that is designated as park land. It was noted that it is the decision of the Parks and Recreation Commission as to how and when to develop the designed park land, and Ms. Dimino should check with the City's Planning Department if she is interested on which requirements were incorporated into the property. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL A1EETlNG MAY 15.2007 PAGE 60f9 Public Hearin!! Closed: 8:55 p.m. Councilor Navickas/Jackson mls to declare the real property on Strawberry Lane, lot #103, as surplus property and authorize the sale of lot #103 to the successful bidder with any subsequent conversion of lots #104 and #102 to come before the Council for approval prior to sale or disposal and reiterate that this money is earmarked for affordable housing. DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas clarified his motion and stated any additional funds outside of what is owed for the Grove has been earmarked for affordable housing. Councilor Chapman voiced his concern with the Council's previous decision to circumvent the subdivision. It was restated that interested citizens can contact the Planning Department to find out what restrictions apply to the property. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hartzell, Jackson, Hardesty, Chapman, Silbiger and Navickas, YES. Motion passed. 3. An Appeal of Planning Action 2006-01784 - Request for a Physical Constraints Review Permit for development in the Wrights Creek Floodplain an Riparian Preservation Area to improve and widen a portion of an existing driveway, re-grade a portion of Grandview Drive and extend utilities to serve a single-family residence for the property located at 720 Grandview Drive. Public Hearin!! Open: 9:01 p.m. Councilor Hartzell/Jackson mls to continue the Public Hearing for the appeal of Planning Action 2006- 01784 to the June 19, 2007 Council Meeting. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Navickas, Jackson, Hartzell, Chapman, Silbiger and Hardesty, YES. Motion passed. PUBLIC FORUM Art Bullock/Spoke regarding the text of the charter ballot measures and claimed the final text was not entered into the record in such a way to be permanent. Mr. Bullock asked the Council to state for the record the location of the official final version of the ballot measure language and asked if there is any guarantee that the text will not change henceforth. City Recorder Barbara Christensen clarified there were some initial changes to the text of the ballot measures, but the information is posted to the City's web site and there have been no further changes. She stated this information is readily available on the website and has been for some time. City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified the original posted document was the earlier version that did not include the amendments that the Council adopted. She stated as soon as staff noticed this mistake, they posted the correct version and there have been no further changes. Ambuja Rosen/Commented on the proposed tethering ordinance. Ms. Rosen stated if children were chained up at their home she would not need to speak more than once to the Council to have this stopped, but she has been campaigning for 16 months for a chaining law for animals. She questioned what is so different about dogs and other animal family members and commented on discrimination of different species. Ms. Rosen cited examples of how animals are not that different from people, and requested the Council adopt a chaining law to protect them from abuse. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. City Attorney Recruitment. City Administrator Martha Bennett presented an alternative selection process for the City Attorney interviews. She explained her proposal for a two-step process. The first step would include a Council panel, a lawyer panel to include citizens and other individuals in the legal aspect, and a citizen/volunteer panel. She stated following the first step, two or three finalists would be selected to proceed to the second round of interviews, which would include a moderated discussion broadcast on RVTV, an informal opportunity to meet with department heads, ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETlNG MAY 15.2007 PAGE 70f9 and a second interview with the full Council. Mr. Bennett stressed that this is Council's process and they need to feel comfortable with what they do. Ralph Temple/I50 Myer Creek/V oiced his support for the process presented by the City Administrator and commented on community participation during the selection of the Police Chief. John Stromberg/252 Ridge Road/Stated the members and representatives of the Southern Oregon Community Coalition have been communicating with Ms. Bennett and the Mayor and are very pleased with their willingness to entertain new ideas. Mr. Stromberg stated this gives the public the sense that this Council is genuinely interest in citizen participation and voiced support for the proposed process. Art Bullock/Commented on the TV interviews and stated these are important to assess how a candidate speaks on camera and communicates to the Council and the public. Mr. Bullock encouraged the Council to consider a two hour televised interview and requested they include three candidates in this part of the process. Council voiced their support for the process outlined by the City Administrator. Ms. Bennett clarified herself and the Mayor are in the process of preparing a list of candidates to participate on the panels and they will be submitting this information to the Council once it is established. She noted the City always receives more offers from individuals wanting to participate than they can accommodate, and noted the need to keep the panel size manageable. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Update on Solar Project/Permission to Proceed. Electric Director Dick Wanderscheid provided the background information for the Solar Project and stated the three purposes of the project are to: 1) increase community's awareness of the role of solar energy in meeting the community's future energy needs, 2) allow Ashland citizens and businesses that have limited solar access or limited financial resources to invest in a solar electric system, and 3) overcome several hurdles to widespread adoption of solar electricity systems. Mr. Wanderscheid stated the City is at a major decision point and stated staff needs to know whether the Council wants to move forward, and if so, there are three areas where staff requires clarification: 1) Does the City want to limit the amount of equity shares that one citizen or business can purchase, 2) Does the City want to subsidize this project or should purchasers pay the entire costs, and 3) Should the City become a default purchaser of equity from a citizen or business that wants to sell its equity. In regards to Question #1, Mr. Wanderscheid explained staff is recommending the City initially limit the amount of equity shares. In regards to Question #2, Mr. Wanderscheid presented four scenarios and recommended the Council proceed with Scenario #1, which is to have the energy credit based on lOcents/kWh for 10 years, 15cents for 10 years, and an upfront solar rebate of $123,000. And in regards to Question #3, Mr. Wanderscheid recommended the City not assume the role of backup purchaser of equity shares, at least initially. Mr. Wanderscheid explained that staff would like to have a portion of the new system constructed by late summer, and noted that the City has already received two bids, however neither met the minimum criteria. He suggested that the problem with the lack of bids in number and quality is the timeline they laid out and that it was bid as a construction project. Mr. Wanderscheid proposed that they get an exemption from competitive bidding and use a point system to award; and stated this could come back to Council in June. Mr. Wanderscheid commented on a few of the hurdles associated with this project. He noted that the CREB bonds were suppose to take the place of the Federal Energy Tax Credit, however none of the banks will give the City a 0% interest rate and this is coming in at 1.2% to 1.6%. He stated that while the federal government envisioned that this would be at 0%, the banks are telling the City differently. Mr. Wanderscheid also clarified that ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING MA Y f 5. ]007 PAGE 8 019 if an individual can afford to place a 2kW system in their home on their own, it is a better investment for the individual to do that than to buy into the City's system. Mayor Morrison questioned whether the Council wants to move ahead with this, and if so what direction to take. Council listed their preferences and several councilors requested further information and discussion before a decision is made. In addition, concern was voiced with how this project would affect the utility rates of Ashland's citizens. Councilor Hartzell/Hardesty m/s to extend meeting until 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Councilor Navickas voiced his support for staff's recommendation and stated that sometimes it takes an investment on the part of the community to get a project like this going. He stated this is a good project and in this case, the minor rate increases are worth it. Comment was made questioning if staff needed a decision right away. Mr. Wanderscheid clarified the City will have to sell the bonds by December 31, 2007, but there is not rush to have this settled in the next few weeks. Councilor Chapman suggested structuring this to get rid of the bonds prior to the December deadline and to go to bid in the fall. He suggested a small group meet with staff to discuss this further and bring it back to the entire Council. A subcommittee of Councilors Chapman, Jackson, and Hardesty agreed to discuss this further with staff in order to bring back a proposal for Council discussion. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Ethics Ordinance. Colin Swales/461 Allison Street/Stated that this ordinance is long overdue, especially in its relation to the land use arena. Mr. Swales noted a number of planning actions have come up where these ethics problems have been occurring and reoccurring. He stated he has some reservations about the ordinance, but feels that it covers the main points and encouraged the Council to move this ahead. John Stromberg/252 Ridge Road/Commented on the prOVISIon that prohibits a commISSIoner from representing a client before any City commission or the City Council. Mr. Stromberg gave an example of a situation where a commissioner who has a project before the commission recuses themselve. He stated it would be a very awkward situation for the remaining commissioners to be critical of their fellow commissioners project and stated there is pressure to let things through or to be leanent. He stated another problem is that it becomes an asset to a professional to be a member of a City commission. Mr. Stromberg encouraged the Council to not allow this practice to occur. Art BullockIV oiced support that the ordinance would extend the ethics provisions to the Council and appointed commissioners and also voiced his support for the prohibition regarding commissioners representing a project in front of other commissions. Mr. Bullock stated this is particularly a problem for the Council, Planning, Tree and Historic Commissions because they act as quasi-judicial bodies. He commented on a lack of trust in the community with the planning process and recommended the Council include the proposed prohibition in the ordinance. Councilor Jackson voiced support for the proposed ordinance, but shared her concerns with the phrase that prohibits someone serving on a commission from representing a project to another commission. She commented ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEET/NG MAY /5.2007 PAGE 9 of9 that this may be too restrictive and does not want to damper the participation of professionals in our community any further. Councilor Jackson left the meeting at 10:15 p.m. Councilor Navickas voiced his support for the ordinance and the proposed prohibition. He stated this language would not stop professionals from participating on a City commission and noted the commissioner could have someone present a project on their behalf. He added that this provision would clean up the messiness that they have witnessed with the planning process. Councilor Hartzell also voiced her support for the prohibition and stated she does not believe this will damper an individials ability to volunteer. Councilor Hardesty noted the changes to Section H and voiced her support for the language that requires an official to apply to the Mayor for a determination if they have a question about the applicability of a code provision so long as the Council is immediately informed. Councilor Hardesty also voiced her support for the section regarding the prohibition and stated they should keep unfair advantages and potential conflict of interest to a mmlmum. Councilor Silbiger stated he agrees with the prohibition, but voiced concern with how this will affect the smaller consultant firms. He also commented on the language in Section D( 1) and questioned the use of the phrase "city service." City Adminstrator Martha Bennett clarified "city service" is not a volunteer public official, it is an employee. Councilor Silbiger suggested modifying the language in this section to read, "...except with reference to unpaid positions filled by appointment by the Mayor or Council." Councilor Chapman agreed with the concern on how this will affect the smaller consultants and noted that there are a lot of partnerships in town, and just because an individual does not represent a project before their own commission, having their partner do it could have the same effect. In regards to Councilor Hardesty's suggestion, Councilor Hartzell recommended modifying Section H to read, "... should apply to the Mayor for determination, and City Council will be informed of the inquiry. " Councilor Hardesty/Silbiger m1s to approve first reading with the noted amendments and place on agenda for second reading. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Chapman, Navickas, Hardesty, and Hartzell, YES. Motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John W. Morrison, Mayor CITY COUNCIL STUD Y SESSION APRIL 30. ]007 PAGE 10/2 MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL April 30, 2007 Civic Center Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Morrison called the Study Session to order at 5:20 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLLCALL Councilors Hardesty, Hartzell, Navickas, and Chapman were present. Councilor Jackson arrived at 5:30 p.m. Councilor Silbiger was absent. 1. Look Ahead Review. City Administrator Martha Bennett reviewed the items on the Look Ahead document. She announced it was not possible to move the Chamber of Commerce discussion to the May 14th Study Session, and stated they will be receiving the update on the Emergency Operation Center and having a discussion on the Ethics Ordinance instead. Ms. Bennett noted the items scheduled for the May 15th Regular Meeting include an appeal of the McDonald property planning action, utility rate increases, a public hearing on the sale of the Strawberry Lane lots, implementation of the City solar project, and the ethics ordinance. She added the Study Session on June 4th will focus on discussions of long range planning and the RVTD contract, and stated the Regular Council Meeting on June 5th will consist primarily of budget items. Ms. Bennett clarified the soonest the Chamber of Commerce is available for a Study Session is June 18th. 2. Discussion of Process for Establishinl! Council Goals. City Administrator Martha Bennett explained the staff memo poses possible questions and answers that need to be resolved by the Council prior to a formal goal setting session. Those questions include: 1) What constitutes a goal, 2) Should there be a facilitator, 3) What needs to be done prior to the goal setting session itself, and 4) Should they limit their priorities. Ms. Bennett stressed that this is Council's process and encouraged them to discuss what they want. Council discussed their opinions of prior goal setting sessions and their preferences for this next session. Mayor Morrison voiced his support for engaging in a more limited process, where the Council stipulates what the goal is and a timeframe for it to be accomplished. He stated they need to have finite goals and not something that gets carried forward year after year, and voiced support for having a facilitator. Councilor Hardesty commented on looking at the "big picture" and questioned how they would form goals without performing some visioning. Councilor Hartzell suggested they gather input from the City's commissions, committees, and boards to be used in this process. Comment was made that the facilitator would need to conduct pre-meetings with each councilor in order to reach consensus on what the goals are, whether they should include a brief visioning section at the meeting, and to establish the procedures and expectations for the session. Councilor Jackson voiced support for having a facilitator and commented on receiving input from staff on which projects are most important to them. Councilor Chapman voiced his disappointment with the process that was used last year. Mayor Morrison voiced his support for having actionable goals that are clearly delineated and to include a timeline for when they will be completed. He commented on establishing no more than ten goals that can be accomplished by the end of the calendar year. Councilor Navickas voiced support for having a facilitator and the outline proposed by Ms. Bennett. He agreed that they need to establish actionable goals, but added that they should not leave out the "big picture". Comment was made that it is up to the Council to prioritize what they want their top priorities to be within the coming year and if they want to do something, but are unable to CITY COUNCIL STUD Y SESSION APRIL 30. ::007 PAGE:: of2 dedicate resources, than it should not be on the list. Councilor Hardesty voiced her support for what was outlined by Ms. Bennett and agreed that they need to have a facilitator. Ms. Bennett commented on the need for Council to prioritize projects. She also stressed the importance of Council trusting the facilitator and the process. She questioned when the Council would like to hold the goal setting session and noted it will take a few weeks to obtain feedback from the various commissions and committees. She also noted that she is working under the assumption that department heads would be present at the goal setting in order to answer questions, but not participate. Council discussed their calendars and reached consensus that their first choice of meeting dates is July 14, and their second choice is July 21. 3. Review of Re2ular Meetin2 A2enda for Mav 1.2007. Mayor Morrison reminded the Council to be cautious in bringing up either of the public hearings. He explained that they could pose questions to staff and staff would provide answers at tomorrow's hearings. City Administrator Martha Bennett asked the Council to identify which agenda items they have questions on. Council Appeal of Planning Action 2006-02354, Kistler Councilor Hartzell questioned if the width of North Main Street and the existing infrastructure is included in the record and requested staff provide the setbacks measurements for all buildings within a 6-block radius of the project site. Community Development Director David Stalheim clarified there is some information on this included in the record and indicated that the GIS system is not able to provide the setback measurements. He added that if any councilor were to perform a site visit and attempt to measure the setbacks they would need to disclose this as ex parte contact at the hearing. Assistant City Attorney Richard Appicello provided an explanation of the memo he submitted to the Council regarding bias and prejudgment. He explained the process they will utilize tomorrow evening if individuals wish to make a challenge against a member of the Council and noted that the person challenging has the obligation to provide evidence. Comment was made questioning if the Council will be given an opportunity to vote after the Mayor reads the bias concerns. Mr. Appicello clarified the Mayor will read the written challenge into the record and then give the challenged member an opportunity to respond. If the Council is not satisfied that the member can remain unbiased, they can make a motion and by a majority vote remove that member from participating in the hearing. Mr. Appicello clarified the Mayor could summarize the written statement as long as he declares the substance of the allegation. He also clarified a written challenge is not an opportunity for the challenger to come forward and give verbal testimony, however the individual will still be given time to provide testimony during the public hearing. Nevada Street LID Assessment Hearing City Administrator Martha Bennett noted that revising Findings had been submitted. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Assistant to City Recorder CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MAY 14,2007 PAGE I of3 MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL May 14,2007 Civic Center Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Morrison called the Study Session to order at 5:20 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilors Hardesty, Hartzell, Navickas, Silbiger, Jackson and Chapman were present. City Administrator Martha Bennett noted the Land Use Appeal for P A 2006-01784 scheduled for tomorrow nights meeting has been postponed and requested the Council identify any agenda items they have questions on. Council requested staff address the Solar Project and the Ethics Ordinance. 1. Look Ahead Review. City Administrator Martha Bennett reviewed the items on the Look Ahead document. She stated the June 4, 2007 Study Session will include a presentation by Community Development Director David Stalheim regarding long range planning and also a discussion of the RVTD contract. Ms. Bennett stated the June 5, 2007 Council Meeting will include a rate increase for utilities, adoption of the budget, and a proposal for the Croman site masterplan. Comment was made suggesting that the contract signing for the police substation be held off until the Council has had the opportunity to discuss this. Ms. Bennett stated she was not under the impression that staff was ready to sign a contract and indicated she would check with staff. She added staff would not commit to the downtown substation without first communicating with the Council. Ms. Bennett continued the review of the Look Ahead and noted the June 19,2007 Council Meeting will include several budget items and the condominium conversion ordinance. Assistant City Attorney Richard Appicello briefly commented on the McDonald property appeal and stated the applicant has agreed to delay this matter until the June 19 meeting. Ms. Bennett noted the Planning Commission meeting regarding the ODOT interchange plans is scheduled for June 26,2007 and clarified staff is holding the June 27, 2007 date in case a special meeting is needed to complete the budget approval. She also noted the Council Goal Setting session is scheduled for July 14, 2007. 2. Discussion of Ashland Emer2encv Mana2ement Plan. Fire Chief Keith Woodley provided a presentation on the City's Emergency Operation Plan (EOC). Mr. Woodley's presentation included the following information: . The Emergency Operations Plan is activated anytime a Police, Fire, or Public Works employee responds to a request for emergency assistance. . The responding City employee assumes responsibility as the Incident Manager until relieved by a supefVlsor. . The City is notified of a request for emergency assistance by the Rogue Valley Central Communications 911 Center in Medford. . All potential emergencies are classified as Level 1, Level 2, or Level 3 incidents. . Level I incidents are classified as normal organization and procedures of City departments that will not require activation of the EOC. CiTr' COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MAY i4, 2007 PAGE 2 of3 . Level 2 incidents are classified as incidents that have special or unusual characteristics requiring a response by more than one City department, requires the acquisition of special resources, or which is beyond the scope of available resources. . Level 3 incidents are classified as incidents that require the coordinated response of all levels of government to save lives and protect property of a large portion of the population, . The City's Emergency Management Team consists of the: Mayor, City Administrator, City Recorder, City Councilors, City Attorney, and Department Directors. . The City's emergency management structure is based on the National Incident Management System (NIMS). . NIMS training is available online through the Emergency Management Institute. . The role of elected officials is to provide direction to the City Administrator regarding: I) Essential City services that will be maintained, 2) Imposition of any special conditions or regulations, 3) Setting geographical boundaries of emergency impact areas for cost recovery, 4) Redirect City funds to the emergency, 5) Suspend or modify purchasing requirements, 6) Establish curfews to maintain public safety, 7) Curtail or suspend commercial activity, 8) Close streets and order other actions necessary to ensure public health and safety, 9) Ratify the "Declaration of Emergency" issued by the City Administrator, 10) Enact emergency legislation, 11) Function as field observers for the planning section, 12) Assist with the coordination of community volunteers, and 13) Participate in media briefings. City Administrator Martha Bennett stated she would email the Council the web site address for the NIMS training, and stated she would also provide the password for the League of Oregon Cities website. She also noted that she would provide Council the current contact information for emergency situations. Mr. Woodley encouraged the Council to download the Emergency Plan to their laptops and explained the digital version is more reliable than a hard copy due to the constant updates. He also clarified that the Emergency Operations Center is located in the Council Chambers and the City performs EOC training drills twice a year. Comment was made questioning if any arrangements had been made to begin storing food for an emergency. Mr. Woodley clarified that this is a need, however they have not worked out the details and noted there are some barriers to overcome. Mr. Woodley clarified training principal staff and obtaining the necessary materials and supplies are their top two priorities. He explained the Fire and Police Departments regularly update their communications equipment, however the Public Works Department primarily relies on cellular phones and cell phone service could be affected during an emergency. Ms. Bennett stated if Council is interested in this, staff could provide information on bringing the Public Works equipment up to speed. 3. Review of Ree:ular Meetine: Ae:enda for Mav 15. 2007. Solar Project Electric Director Dick Wanderscheid provided clarification on Policy Question #3, which reads "Should the City become a default purchaser of equity from a citizen or business that wants to sell its equity?" He explained the delicate issue would be to set the value so that the citizen or business does not sell its shares ASHLAND AIRPORT COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2007 MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: RICHARD HENDRICKSON, PAUL WESTERMAN, TOM BRADLEY, LINCOLN ZEVE, BILL SKILLMAN, ALAN DEBOER, RUSS SILBIGER STAFF: DAWN LAMB MEMBERS ABSENT: BOB SKINNER, GOA LOBAUGH Visitors: Kyle Hopkins, Britney Wise 1. CALL TO ORDER: 9:30 AM 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 6,2007, minutes approved as written. 3. Public Forum: 4. OLD BUSINESS: A. Tree Trimming RFQ Results The Request for Quotes came in and there were several respondents, Hooper Springs Tree Service, Southern Oregon Tree Care and Tree M.D.. All responses were between $8,000 and $9,800 with Hooper Springs being the lowest responsive bidder. The engineering staff is researching their license and insurance for compliance. The proposal called for the project to be complete prior to June 1, 2007. As a safety precaution the V ASI lights have been turned off until the trees are within a safe height. This was a recommendation made by the NOT AM center and the City Attorney concurred with the recommendation. They will be turned on as soon as possible. The lights were officially turned off on March 12th. The commission agreed that tree trimming should be done on a more frequent basis. The schedule should run about every four years. Hooper Springs has been made aware of the urgency to have the trees trimmed down as soon as possible. B. Burl Brim Development No Report Action: C. Subcommittee Assignments DeBoer and Bradley talked over the Brim lease and will forward the suggestions to Lamb. Lamb will begin working with the legal department on finalizing the terms. A draft lease will then be forwarded to Brim for his attorney to review. Lamb asked if they had done any consideration of development phasing for the airport property . DeBoer asked if it would be beneficial to post that the airport has fill dirt if people need it. Most of the city crews are trying to get rid of fill dirt they accumulate on projects. There may be a need for someone to use it and if it is posted somewhere where people can come and remove what they need at their own expense it might be helpful. The largest hurdle for any development at the airport is the amount of excavation required to build. Wise commented that even the Burl Brim Excavation company has a hard time finding a place for fill dirt. The dirt removal needs to be supervised so as not to cause any erosion issues into the creeks. The NPDES permit is very stringent. The access should not be through the airport main entrance buy they should be instructed to use Airport Road to keep vehicles off the taxiways and runways. Hendirckson motioned for Lamb to pursue the advertising of the fill dirt to be advertised. Seconded by Skillman and passed unanimously. C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\May 1 2007 AC.doc 1 Draft Zoning Ordinance - Lamb continued to work on a draft document. 5. NEW BUSINESS: A. Taxiway Incursion Hopkins has concern over the vehicles traveling down from the upper T -hangar region entering the parking lot in front of the FBO office. The Sky Road and the intersection of this road meet at odd angles. Hopkins is concerned about the lack of visibility and the potential of an accident at this intersection. Hendrickson suggested doing a stop sign or yield sign. The addition of more signs could become problematic. A stop or yield sign with the low volume of traffic will quickly become ignored. The Engineering staff will be working on the repaving the parking lot this summer and it would be an opportune time to redesign the parking lot layout. Hendrickson thought a two lane direction would be helpful. Action: Hendrickson motioned to have engineering staff work on a parking layout to create a safer exiting pattern from the two roads leading off the south end of the parking lot. Seconded by Skillman and passed unanimously. B. Airport Day Discussion- Wise addressed the commission on the restating of Airport Day. Burl Brim Aviation would like to host an airport day within the next few months. Burl talked to Skinner about his thoughts and he felt that it would be a good thing to do, but because of the time commitment he would not be willing to put it together on his own. Skinner was open to working with Brim to organize. Hendrickson said the young eagles would be willing to do a pancake feed if they don't have any conflicts. Skillman suggested someone approach Clark Hamilton and see if he would like to be involved. The FAA requirements for the part 135 insurance will need to be researched. Ashland is one of the only airports that does not host an airport day. This is a chance for the community to visit the airport. This is excellent public relations for the airport. Pilots need to have 500 hours of flight time to be able to take passengers. The chance of having a company lose their Part 135 rating pulled will keep the businesses from taking any risks. Wise will work to coordinate a date and ask for Skinner, Sky and others to participate. Hopkins supported having an outlet for educating the public on the role of aviation. Any event that opens the youths eyes to see what opportunities exist is a good event. Lamb asked for dates to ensure the parking lot construction would not interrupt the event. 6. AIRPORT MANAGER REPORT/FBO REPORT/AIRPORT ASSOCIATION: A. Status of Airport. Financial Report. Review of Safety Reports Skinner did not attend the meeting. B. Maintenance Updates - 7. OTHER: 8. NEXT MEETING DATE: May 1, 2007, 2007, 9:30 AM ADJOURN: Meeting adjourned at 10:45 AM C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\May 1 2007 AC.doc 2 CITY OF ASHLAND Minutes Conservation Commission 04/25/07 These Minutes will be reviewed by Conservation Commission at the May 23, 2007 Conservation Commission Meeting. April 25, 2007 6:00 pm Community Development Building 51 Winburn Way Ashland CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Chapman called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm in the Siskiyou Room at the Community Development Building. ROLL CALL Attendees: Risa Buck, Russ Chapman, Lindsay Gerken, Ross Finney, Melissa Schweisguth (arrived 6:20). And Kathryn Houser. Stuart Corns and Jim Hartman were not present. City Council Liaison: Dave Chapman Staff Liaison: Dick Wanderscheid, Robbin Pearce APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Finney noted the motion presented by him concerning support for Councilor Chapman, incorrectly listed the wrong Commissioner for the second. Commissioner Buck questioned the section under Ashland Recycling Update, second paragraph, compact fluorescent tubes/bulbs instead of fluorescent tubes in the second paragraph under Ashland Recycling Update. Also, Commission Buck corrected the words "Trash-In" should be Trashion show. Commissioner Chapman made a motion to approve the minutes of March 21,2007 with the stated corrections and Commissioner Finney seconded the motion. Voice vote: all Ayes. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. GUEST SPEAKERS Donn Todt, the Director of the Ashland Parks and Recreation Department, spoke to the Commission regarding the operational usage of pesticides within the City park areas and schools. He also reviewed with the Commission the Park policy regarding treatments for parks and different aspects of landscaping they are responsible for maintaining. The Commission had an opportunity to address any concerns or ask any questions. Commissioner Chapman thanked Donn and his department for the work they do, providing our City with wonderful parks and Dick Wanderscheid complemented his department for their great policy in maintaining all of our areas. cc min 04 25 07 .doc Page 1 of 3 Chris Thomas, from SP Recycle Corp presented the Commission with a Power Point presentation regarding recycling once it leaves our area how items are recycled. The Commission was able to ask questions about recycling in our state and in the Northwest. The Commission thanked him for such an informative presentation. PUBLIC FORUM Diane Amarotico/265 Alta Ave spoke to the Commission regarding the elimination of plastic bags, and commented about the recent article in San Francisco supporting the elimination of plastic bags. She spoke about the different countries around the world that have already adopted policies in this area. The Commission discussed the policy concerning Styrofoam within the City. Commissioner Buck suggested forming a sub-committee to explore the idea further. Commissioner Buck, Diane Amarotico, Commissioner Schweisguth, and Susan Chapman agreed to form a subcommittee. Huelz Gutcheon spoke to the Commission regarding the renewable energy news broadcasts on television, encouraging them to view them and also mentioned the Commission should read the article in the Daily Tidings which reported that the Planning Commission was interested in assuming a larger role in effecting a sustainable future for Ashland. ASHLAND SANITARY & RECYCLING UPDATE: Set aside OLD BUSINESS A. Formation of sub-committee to support new goals Set aside, put on next agenda. B. Green Business Update, Robbin Pearce Robbin had sent out information with the packet that explained the new guidelines and procedures, and objective standards for becoming a Green Business. She had 3 businesses to ask the Commission to approve as Green Businesses, which would end the past phase: Dagoba, First Congressional Church and Ward Wager Architects. Commissioner Finney made a motion based on staff recommendation to certify the Dagoba, First Congressional Church and Ward Wagner Architects be approved and certified as Green Businesses. Commission Chapman seconded the motion. Voice vote: all Ayes. The motion passed with a majority vote. Commissioner Schweisguth voted for First Congressional Church and Wagner Architect, but did not vote for Dagoba because of a conflict of interest. C. Rainwater Collection-Risa Buck, Robbin Pearce Robbin Pearce asked for direction after updating the Commission regarding system development charges, monthly fees, how they are calculated, and the guidelines for rainwater collection. Commissioner Buck remarked this area has not been embraced yet by the Conservation Commission. Chairperson Chapman remarked about Paula Brown's report to the Council at the last Council session, and her team looking into issues of rainwater, greywater, irrigation water and these other issues. Susan Chapman remarked about a web site that would work with cities regarding rain barrel collection. Dick Wanderscheid explained to the Commission that his department would continue to work in this area. Councilor Hardesty spoke to the Commission regarding the Green Conservation Department brochure, acknowledging a great source of information for the public. She suggested updating the brochure design to be more appealing for the public. cc min 04 25 07 .doc Page 2 of 3 Commissioner Buck also mentioned Ashland Sanitary has asked Miles Murphy from the Ashland Daily Tidings, to allowed a section of the newspaper to be dedicated to "Reduce, Reuse Corner" which would be another outlet for getting information to the public. D. Earth Day Update The attendance at Earth Day was between 800- 2,000. This was Ashland's first attempt at a zero waste event, and there was only approximately 25 gallons of actual garbage. There were three collection banks with a middle school child representative on hand at each site. The compostable eat ware was a success and Commissioner Buck hopes to have an even more detailed process for next year for the community. NEW BUSINESS A. Solar Pioneer Update Dick Wanderscheid reported he would be asking for final approval from the City Council for the Solar Pioneer II Project on May 15, 2007. He briefly re-explained the project to the Commission and answered questions regarding time commitment, costs, and different aspects of the project. SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSIONS None COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA The Commission thanked Lindsay Gerken for her service to the Commission and wished her luck. Tracy Harding has applied for place on the Commission, pending approval from the Mayor. Dick Wanderscheid thanked the Commission on behalf of the Bonneville Environmental Foundation for their Green Tag purchases this year. BEF sold 330,000 green tags last year, which accounted for 110 megawatts of clean energy. ANNOUNCEMENTS Dick Wanderscheid asked the Commission to think about sub-committees to support the new goals adopted by the Commission and they referred it to the next meeting. Next meeting date, May 23, 2007 6pm Community Development Center ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:30 pm. Respectfully submitted, Mary McClary, Administrative Assistant to ElectriclTelecommunications Department cc min 04 25 07 .doc Page 3 of 3 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Special Session & Regular Meeting Minutes April 4, 2007 Community Development/Engineering Services Building - 51 Winburn Way - Siskiyou Room Historic Commissioners Present: Dale Shostrom, Tom Giordano, Alex Krach, Terry Skibby, Henry Baker, Keith Swink, Sam Whitford, Rob Saladoff, Absent Commission Members: none Council Liaison: Eric Navickas Hiah School Liaison: None Appointed SOU Liaison: None Appointed Staff Present: Maria Harris, Senior Planner; Billie Boswell, Administration CALL TO ORDER - SPECIAL SESSION At 6:05 pm, Chairman Dale Shostrom called the Historic Commission special session meeting to order. The Historic Commissioners reviewed the nominations for the Architectural Preservation Awards. The following winners were selected: Historically Compatible New Commercial: Historically Compatible Commercial Renovation: Historically Compatible New Multi-Family: Historically Compatible New Residential: Historically Compatible Residential Addition: Historically Compatible Residential Restoration: Organization Award: Individual Award: 96 North Main St 832 A Street 157 Sixth Street 385 Pearl Street & 150 Church Street 160 Church Street 695 B Street & 570 Fairview Street Friends of the Ashland Public Library Jay Leighton The Commissioners agreed to do a short descriptive write up due by May 1 , 2007 to Ms. Boswell. The Commissioners agreed to table the remaining Special Session agenda item until after the Public Hearing section of the regular meeting. CALL TO ORDER - REGULAR MEETING At 7:16 pm, Chairman Dale Shostrom called the Historic Commission meeting to order. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Krach made a motion to approve the minutes as presented and it was seconded by Mr. Swink. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC FORUM: No speakers NEW BUSINESS: The Commissioners agreed to delay discussion of the map until after the Public Hearings. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 6/1/2007 1 CITY OF ASHLAND PUBLIC HEARING Planning Action 2007-00398 237 Almond Street Site Review and Conditional Use permit to construct an Accessory Residential Unit (ARU) Applicant: Don Sever/Juli Teitlebaum Chairman Shostrom read the description of the proposed project. Mr. Krach said he had a personal friendship with the applicant and recused himself from the meeting and left the room. Chairman Shostrom confirmed there were no other conflicts of interest or exparte contacts. Ms. Harris explained the applicants want to build an Accessory Residential Unit in the back of the 12,000 square foot lot. She said the project meets all of the criteria except that the asian inspired architectural style is different than the main house. However there would be at least 60 feet of separation between the two homes and the ARU cannot be seen from Almond Street. The applicant, Don Sever of 174 Strawberry Lane, explained that there were also several large trees and shrubs that further obscure sight of the proposed structure from the main house. He said the roof material would be composition in earth tones and the house would be painted in light greens and browns. There being no one in the audience wishing to speak, Chairman Shostrom closed the public meeting. Mr. Giordano stated he liked the idea of it looking like two completely separate homes. Mr. Skibby agreed. With a motion by Mr. Skibby and a second by Mr. Baker, the Historic Commission unanimously recommended approval of the planning action for a Conditional Use Permit. (Mr. Krach returned to the meeting). OLD BUSINESS A. Planning Action 2006-00875 520 Fairview Street Review of Building Permit Applicant: Stewart Ward The applicant, Stewart Ward, explained that the building colors would be similar to the colors on the Chanticleer Inn. He passed out additional copies of the plans that showed the porch reduced in size, the siding changed from T-111 to Hardiplank horizontal siding. The window trim would match the window trim on the rest of the house. He also showed that they planned to remove a window on the east side and add a sliding glass door to the rear. They were proposing an exposed aggregate walkway and steps up from the sidewalk. Chairman Shostrom was concerned about the large expanse of wall without a window and also the large sliding door opening to only a 6-foot rear yard. Mr. Ward said there was a 1 a-foot rear wall covered in Ivy so the slider would not be visible. Mr. Whitford suggested landscaping or a trellis could soften the wall expanse. He felt the overall improvement to the look of the existing house would be so much better. Chairman Shostrom felt using a trowel-smoothed and exposed sand finish on the walkway and steps would be more compatible than the exposed aggregate suggested. With a motion by Mr. Whitford and a second by Mr. Swink, the Historic Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Building Permit. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 6/1/2007 2 CITY OF ASHLAND B. Review Board - C. PROJECT ASSIGNMENTS FOR PLANNING ACTIONS PA #2000-120 485 "A" Street Steve Hoxmeier PI'. #2004 102 " " PA #2004-138 PA-#2004-160 PL#2005-01226 PL#2005-0 1674 PL#2005-02105 PL#2005-01307 PL#2006-00057 P/\#200600441 PA#2006-00453 PA#2006-00875 PA#2006-00877 PA#2006-00612 PA#2006-01959 PA#2006-01999 PA#2007 -00398 lete Shostrom 8~:1I3dof.f Saladoff Swink Shostrom Skibb Giordano/Baker Shostrom Saladoff VVhitford Swink Swink Krach Shostrom/Giordano Whitford Krach Whitford D. National Historic Preservation Week 2007 - "Preservation Works!" - See Special Session minutes for Nomination information. Events for the Historic Preservation Week Calendar- Sunday, May 13th, Ashland Cemetery Walking Tour; May 14-18, Archaeological Features and Artifacts; Tuesday, May 15th, Downtown Historic Walking Tour; Wednesday, May 16th, Ashland Memorial Mausoleum Self-guided Tour; Thursday, May 1th, Ashland Historic Preservation Awards Ceremony. E. Ashland School District - Mr. Krach expressed concern that there was still no information from the School District regarding what is proposed for Bellview School and the other schools more than 50 years old slated for renovation or replacement. He said George Kramer has offered his assistance to the Historic Commission in working with the School District because this issue may be one of the most challenging over the next year. Councilor Navickas stated he had spoken to some School Board members and that they feel their plans are a "done deal" and they don't want anyone else having any word on what they can do. Chairman Shostrom said a letter from the Commission to the School Board could be written asking about specifics of each project including timelines. With a motion by Mr. Krach and a second by Mr. Whitford the Commission voted unanimously to informally contact George Kramer for consulting purposes. F. Lithia SprinQs National Reoister Nomination - No report G. Sinole Familv Residential Desion Standards - No report H. Co-Sponsorship with Conservation Commission for Fall Workshop - No report Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 6/1/2007 3 CITY OF ASHLAND NEW BUSINESS - Review of Map - "Age of Building in Ashland" Ms. Harris explained the map was a result of the Reconnaissance Survey and shows by color coding the concentration of older homes. The largest concentration of the oldest homes will help identify potential survey areas. DISCUSSION ITEMS - Ethics Ordinance - Ms. Harris said a decision on the Ethics Ordinance Amendment had not been finalized by Council and is on their agenda for the April 17, 2007 Council Meeting. Chairman Shostrom shared that he had testified at the last meeting. COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA - Unitarian Church sidewalk - Ms. Harris reviewed a proposed sidewalk replacement outside the Unitarian Church on C Street. The applicants wanted to retain the look of the old sidewalk instead of bringing it to current standards that would include a parkrow. Ms. Harris asked if this type of review should be brought to the full Commission meeting or to the Historic Review Board. The Commissioners felt these types of reviews could be done by the Historic Review Board. Rav Kistler's Glenn & North Main Street Proiect - Ms. Harris informed the Commissioners that this project had been appealed to the City Council. Rob Saladoff's Last Meetina - Chairman Shostrom and the Commissioners thanked Rob Saladoff for his contributions to the Historic Commission and he was presented with a Certificate of Appreciation and a framed historical picture of the Dodge Building. ANNOUNCEMENTS The next Historic Commission meeting will be on May 2, 2007 at 7:00 pm in the Siskiyou Room. ADJOURNMENT With a motion by Chairman Shostrom and a second by Mr. Whitford, it was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjoum the meeting at 8:50 p.m. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 6/1/2007 4 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26, 2007 CALL TO ORDER Chair Bill Street called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. at the Community Development and Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR. Other Commissioners present were: Commissioners Present: SOU Liaison: Sunny Lindley, Absent Bill Street, Chair Richard Billin Council Liaison: Alice Hardesty, Present Aaron Benjamin Steve Hauck Staff Present: Carol Voisin Brandon Goldman, Housinl!: Specialist Liz Peck Sue Yates, Executive Secretarv Bill Smith Absent Members: Regina Ayars Street introduced and welcomed Bill Smith, the newest Commissioner to the Housing Commission. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - There were no minutes to be approved. PUBLIC FORUM - No one came forth to speak. 2007 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ACTION PLAN Goldman explained the purpose of the Action Plan is to identify how CDBG funds are used each year. This year, there will be $152,000 in funds remaining for which no one applied. He recommended to the Council that those funds be retained by the City in this program year, possibly using them to purchase property for the development of affordable housing and to meet Goal 1 (see Action Plan). The award to Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation (R VCDC) of $31,190 is in support of the Youth Build program. Further, $2500 will go to City of Ashland Economic Development Grant. Goldman provided an addendum to the Action Plan that includes Goal 13 (barriers to affordable housing) - 2006 activities undertaken by the City. Activities for 2007 include: 1) Tenant's Rights Ordinance (approved at fIrst reading by the Council on April 17, 2007), 2) the Condominium Conversion Ordinance will be forthcoming, and 3) Education and Outreach (Housing Commission subcommittee) that works at getting information to the community. The public hearing on the Action Plan will be open until May 15th. Street asked for history of public input on the Action Plan. In the last fIve years, Goldman said he only knows of one person that happened to be at the meeting for another item and spoke on the Action Plan. Notice is published in the newspaper and on the website. With regard to Goal 9 (Education and Outreach), Goldman announced the fIrst in a series of Fair Housing training to be held on May 23rd. They want to do additional training in October of 2007 and 2008. Hardesty believes Goal 14 shows there is precedent for intergovernmental cooperation. She is thinking of the Tripartite Committee as a goal, but not a request for funding. Voisin/Hardesty mls to approve the Action Plan in draft form. Voice Vote: Unanimous. The comment period is still open and Goldman will forward any comments he receives to the Commissioners before the 15th of May. HOUSING TRUST FUND DEVELOPMENT SURVEY REVIEW (forwarded by Finance Committee) Goldman reported this data was gathered to fmd out how the stakeholders view how to best use the funds when a housing trust fund is developed. To date, 19 surveys (80 sent) have been returned from housing stakeholders in the community. There were 50 responses to the City's website survey. Goldman thinks that some of the 80 may have fIlled out the online survey. The results indicate most people would support use of the housing trust fund between "ownership" and "rental" housing as opposed to "special needs" or "homeless." "Land acquisition" and "non-profit assistance" were regarded as the highest priority. More detailed information is contained in the packet. Some of the Commission members were not certain of the credibility the online responses. They did not seem to be as well thought out as the written responses. Goldman said some respondents gave their names and some did not. Hauck said this was not intended to be a broad survey, but a data point. Voisin is interested there were 32 people who wanted to be contacted again. Hardesty thought it was interesting information but it needs to be taken with a big grain of salt. Smith thought it might be worthwhile asking for more detailed feedback from the 32 interested individuals. Voisin said this is just a snapshot and they will be gathering input and data all along the way and keeping up with those who want to stay informed. Goldman said with regard the chart entitled "Target Income Levels for application of housing trust funds" respondents consistently felt that it should be extremely low income, low income and moderate (80 percent AMI and below). The responses were not leaning in favor or funding workforce housing. MISSION STATEMENTS REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS Hauck reported that the committee got it down to three mission statements for the Housing Commission to review and decide upon. They used models from other trust funds. Comments & Suggestions: 1) #1 says it all. 2) Like the wording: "preservation of affordable housing throughout Ashland." (#1) 3) Keep community diverse (#2) 4) "Ways and means" (#2) says more than just "production and preservation" (#1) 5) Wording such as ".. .preservation of housing that all of its residents can afford." 6) How do we define "resident" or what do we mean by "resident." 7) Look at the concept of "burdened" because they are paying more than 30 percent for housing. 8) "...all of the residents of Ashland can afford." 9) Use #1 and amalgamate it with #2. 1 0) "Construction" instead of "production" 11) Leave in "providing the ways and mean for affordable housing" so that will include other things besides construction or production and preservation. REPORTS AND UPDATES Subcommittee Reports Education - Benjamin, Street and Goldman met and discussed their next Education Outreach. They are proposing another RVTV program and at their committee meeting wanted the members of the Tripartite Committee to present what they have been doing. However, as a result of a number of conversations that have taken place in the community and also among the Council members, City Administrator and David Stalheim, it is not clear what the role of the Tripartite Committee will be in the next few months and how it will be formed. The RVTV program has been put on hold until it is clear what that committee is doing. The Education Committee will meet next Wednesday from 4:30 to 5:30 p.m at the high school library. Hardesty suggested they discuss ways to approach the community to gain more support for affordable housing. May 23rd between 2 and 4:30 p.m. will be a live call-in show, simulcast Fair Housing Council of Oregon that will be held at the Council Chambers. Land Use - They did not meet. Members: Regina Ayars, Bill Smith and Alice Hardesty. It is the second Thursday of the month at noon. In the past, they have only met if there are land use items to discuss. Goldman said the Condo Conversion Ordinance would come back to the Planning Commission on June 12th and the City Council on June 19th. There is a Housing Commission meeting on May 24th. It may not be ready for the Land Use Committee on May lOth. Liaison Reports Tripartite - Hardesty provided the report. The various groups are fmdings ways to work together. They have been interested in studying publicly owned lands for the possible use for workforce or affordable housing. Thus far, the meetings have been informal. The identified three major goals: 1) Bring 200 new students to Ashland through the creation of workforce affordable housing, with the hope of re-opening an elementary school, 2) Bring additional families to ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26, 2007 2 Ashland to maintain the viability of our community hospital, 3) Inventory public lands to identify potential sites for workforce or affordable housing. David Stalheim, Community Development Director, spoke to the Commission concerning Goldman's time and role with the Tripartite Committee. There is an issue of time management. Goldman is involved in a lot of efforts - a busy Housing Commission and subcommittees. Stalheim has asked Goldman to start looking at a long-range work program. He has also been asked to work on the long-range planning with planners Molner and Harris with housing as an integral part. Street said that of all Goldman's roles outside this meeting, at this point in time, Goldman's attendance at the Tripartite committee is the most critical to the mission of the committee succeeding. Voisin left the meeting at 7:15 p.rn. Stalhiem noted that there is reference in the Tripartite report that will focus on land holdings and that is not Goldman's role. If the group could get focused and keep City properties out of it, then Brandon's involvement should be fine. Hardesty wondered if a subcommittee of the three bodies is not going to study the lands issue, then who is. Stalheim said he can't make that decision. He believes what they are doing is admirable, but he doesn't want Goldman to be the point person for figuring out, for example, whether the B Street should be used for housing. Street said he thinks he is aware of that. We have to encourage the type of brainstorming process coming from the Tripartite Committee and keep moving forward. Goldman's expertise is valuable to the group. Stalheim agreed that he is the right person to be there for many things, but don't make him the point person for the group. Benjamin said through the Tripartite Committee, it is the first time he has seen an informal exchange of ideas and he would hate to see that go away. It's been lacking for years and he doesn't want to kill it now. Stalheim said as long as it's a housing focus and there is long-range planning going on, it should be okay. Hartzell believes we have been able to maintain a separation from the Planning Department. What she's seeing is a challenge to maintain this position and all it needs to be doing. She would encourage this Commission to find out how many hours it means. She doesn't want to see this position eroded. Stalheim will come back to the Housing Commission with a work plan and talk about the priorities and his allocation of time. Stalheim also has extensive background with housing issues. Parks Commission Liaison - No report. Planning Commission - With Peck leaving, there will be a need for another liaison. Benjamin agreed. Street announced there will be a special School Board study session in May to discuss workforce housing for their employees in May. Staff Update - Goldman reported that the Tenant Rights Ordinance and the Building Code Provisions both passed with minor amendments at the Council. Second reading will be held on Tuesday, May 1 st. The Condo Conversion Ordinance has been sent back to Staff to make modifications, eliminating the issues of development agreements, define the goal of the target purpose of the ordinance. It will come back the Housing Commission on May 24th, to the Planning Commission on June 12th and the City Council on June 19th in a revised format. other Business from Housing Commission Members Street thanked Liz Peck on behalf the Housing Commission and the people of Ashland, for her years of service. FUTURE MEETING AGENDA Update on inclusionary zoning. Goldman will arrange a meeting regarding vulnerable properties (Stratford Apartments). ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.rn. Respectfully submitted by, Sue Yates, Executive Secretary ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26, 2007 3 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL STUDY SESSION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2007 I. CALL TO ORDER - Chair John Fields called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR. Commissioners Present: John Fields, Chair Michael Dawkins Olena Black Tom Dimitre John Stromberg Pam Marsh Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris Dave Dotterrer Absent Members: None Council Liaison: Cate Hartzell, Council Liaison, present Staff Present: David Stalheim, Community Development Director Bill Molnar, Planning Manager Richard Appicello, Assistant City Attorney Sue Yates, Executive Secretary II. PLANNING APPLICATION PROCESS Planning Process Efficiencies Stalheim introduced Adam Hanks, newly appointed Pennit Manager. Hanks explained the Planning Process Efficiencies - Day-to-Day Land Use Planning Efforts of the Current Planning Group. He reviewed changes to the following processes: 1) Preapplication Conferences, 2) Planning Applications, 3) Building Pennit Reviews, 4) General Tasks - Front Counter/Phones, etc. III. REVIEW OF LAND USE PROCEDURES AND PERMITTING PROCESS Stalheim gave a presentation of a revised potential planning framework and reviewed his handout dated March 2007 to the Planning Commission. Options for more efficiencies might include: Moving more land use actions to staff approvals Hearings Officer Design Review Board More Efficient Meetings More Meetings Move land use policy to different process, such as CP AC Stalheim reviewed his recommendations and their impact. Those items would include: Saving of staff time Still respecting public process and input Hearings Board could be cancelled Planning Commission items might be removed if some Type II pennits lowered to Type I Remaining Type II and all Type III pennits would remain with Planning Commission as it now exists. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS . Dotterrer is leery of having a Hearings Officer. Consider moving the less complicated Type II's to the Hearings Board and anything that would involve interpretation, policy, etc. to the Planning Commission. He would like to see additional discussion concerning the Hearings Officer and possibly revising the duties of the Hearings Board. . Dimitre asked that by implementing the changes suggested, how much Staff time does Stalheim anticipate saving. . Mindlin would not favor bypassing the Planning Commission and Council to take an action to LUBA. . Black is concerned with losing valued citizen input if we had a Hearings Officer. Possibly use a Hearings Officer temporarily. . Stromberg commented that to the extent we take decision-making out of the process, we have to be very thoughtful about what decisions we retain. Ifwe do that, perhaps we won't lose citizen input. Start involving the public in the process now so when the time comes for the public hearing to adopt these changes, the public will feel they are a part of the process. . Dotterrer suggested inviting a cross-section of recent applicants and get take their input. . Marsh would like to eliminate the Hearings Board. It seems to take a tremendous amount of staff time and she does not believe it is a good use ofthe Commissioner's personal volunteer time either. She lived in another city where a Hearings Officers worked very successfully. There was always an appeal process built in. . Dimitre was opposed to charging a fee to request a public hearing. NEXT STEP: Stalheim will work on more specific procedures and will start making recommendations to the Commission by the time of their retreat. His recommendation tonight would be to leave the Hearings Board in place, but not to use it. The Power Point presentation will be available on the website. IV. NEXT STUDY SESSION. April 24, 2007, 7:00 p.rn. V. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Sue Yates, Executive Secretary CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES APRIL 10, 2007 I. CALL TO ORDER - The meeting was called to order at 1 :35 p.m. by Chair John Fields at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 E. Man Street, Ashland, OR. Commissioners Present: John Fields, Chair Tom Dimitre Olena Black Absent Members: None Council Liaison: Cate Hartzell, absent Staff Present: Derek Severson, Associate Planner Sue Yates, Executive Secretary II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES BlacklDirnitre mls to approve the minutes of the March 13, 2007 Hearings Board. Voice Vote: Approved. III. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS A. PLANNING ACTION: 2007-00253 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1219 Iowa St. OWNER/APPLICANT: Loran Faudree DESCRIPTION: Request for Site Review approval to construct seven residential condominiums for the property located at 1219 Iowa Street. A Tree Removal Permit to remove one tree greater than six inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) is also requested. B. PLANNING ACTION: 2007-00398 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 237 Almond OWNER/APPLICANT: Don Sever/Juli Teitlelbaum DESCRIPTION: Request for Site Review and Conditional Use Permit to construct a 920 square foot Accessory Residential Unit for the property located at 237 Almond Street. The Staff Advisor has determined the proposed development of a 920 square foot Accessory Residential Unit does not require a Physical Constraints Permit for Development of Hillside Land in accordance with 18.62.040.A. of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance because the slope as based on the natural grade of the property is less than 25%. The Development Standards for Hillside Lands apply to land with slopes 25% and greater. The applicant has provided evidence from an Oregon-licensed surveyor establishing the natural grade of the property to be between 17.77 and 16.52% in the area of area of the proposed construction. C. PLANNING ACTION: 2007-00413 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 294 & 308 Avery St OWNER/APPLICANT: Gaylord Buck DESCRIPTION: Request for a Modification of previously approved conditions of approval from a previously approved Minor Land Partition and Tree Removal Permit. The request is to allow standard foundation construction rather than the previously approved post and pier foundation within the root zone of large stature trees which were to be protected as part of the original approval for the property located at 294 A very St. formerly part of 308 A very St. BlacklDirnitre mls to approve Items A, Band C. Voice Vote: Unanimous. The three actions stand approved. IV. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 1 :40 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Sue Yates, Executive Secretary DRAFT CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 10, 2007 I. CALL TO ORDER 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 Dave Dotterrer Tom Dimitre John Stromberg Pam Marsh Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris Absent Members: Olena Black Council Liaison: Cate Hartzell, Council Liaison, absent Staff Present: David Stalheim, Community Development Director Derek Severson, Associate Planner Brandon Goldman, Housing Specialist Sue Yates, Executive Secretary II. ANNOUNCEMENTS Dotterrer reported that he is attending the ODOT Exit 14 meetings not as an official representative of the Planning Commission, but rather a private citizen. The process will take a couple of years. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MorrislMarsh mls to approve the minutes of the March 13, 2007 meeting. Voice Vote: The minutes were approved. IV. PUBLIC FORUM COLIN SWALES, 461 Allison Street, spoke to the rule changes. He believes any substantives changes to the rules should go through Council approval. He'd like to see an annual report to the Council of planning business conducted in the past year, including attendance at the meetings as outlined in AMC 2.12. V. TYPE II PLANNING ACTION PLANNING ACTION: 2006-01787 (Continued from March 13, 2007) SUBJECT PROPERTY: 479 Russell Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Russ Dale & Darren LeComte DESCRIPTION: Request for Site Review approval for a two-story, mixed use building located at 479 Russell St., comprised of retail and office space on the ground floor and five residential units on the second floor. The proposed building is approximately 7,762 square feet in size. The property is located in the Detail Site Review Zone, and is also subject to the Large Scale Development Standards. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 1E 09 AA; TAX LOT: 2803 Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Stromberg had a site visit and saw some big painted 4x4's, some possible survey work that has been done, and plants with various colored markings on them. He looked at the property from the point of view of the downslope neighbors. Dotterrer missed last month's meeting but watched the video and had another site visit and will be participating tonight. Fields had another site visit today and noted the creek and riparian area. Dimitre had another site visit and looked at Lot 5 across the creek. Mindlin had a site visit and looked at the riparian area. Dawkins run~ through the area frequently. Marsh and Morris had nothing to report. STAFF REPORT Severson presented revised Findings for the Commissioners. The revisions start on Page 5 of the Staff Report. They are items he touched on in his Staff Report last month. He re-worded Conditions 12, 19,22,23,24 and added a new Condition 29 to allow for the agreements that have been made between the neighbors and the applicant. All the changes are highlighted and bolded. With regard to the riparian corridor, a lot of the materials installed on Lot 5 will be removed, replaced and/or relocated along the corridor or replaced off Lot 5. Severson felt that Gregorio's concerns have been addressed but there are still umesolved issues with the Tunebergs. Stromberg believes it is important to get a realistic cost estimate for bonding. Staff said they'd get an estimate from a licensed landscape contractor, obtain an independent review and add a cushion for administrative fees. 7:17 p.m. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Fields asked for clarification of the landscape plan. Severson said there is landscaping around the parking spaces. It appears a landscape plan that had been submitted by the applicant was not copied for the packet but is part of the record. There is one tree per seven spaces. Two maples are shown on the northeast comer of the building. Fields thought the riparian area is lacking trees and shade. There doesn't seem to be any planting on the other side from Lot 5 in the riparian area. There should be a tree canopy that will create shade for keeping the water temperature cool. Severson said there appear to be trees shown on the original landscape plan that have not been installed as well as some of the landscaping that has been put on Lot 5. There are a number oflarger stature trees shown. Fields' other areas of concern involve: Screening the parking lot, planting trees to soften the building, landscaping to cool the parking lot, and finding out what trees are being replaced. Mindlin wondered why the riparian area is not being considered. Severson said they are trying to address Lot 5 as it develops rather than trying to install something now before it is built. Stalheim said a Finding could be added that recognizes the original subdivision approval and the landscaping for the riparian corridor and insures its enforcement. Severson said that even though there is not a final landscaping plan, there are changes in the narrative reflecting the agreements that have been made with the neighbors. The Conditions have proposed an accelerated landscape coverage plan and the applicants are proposing a lot more fencing and that landscape coverage is met at the time of installation. Severson said the applicant has added more emphasis, interest and variety to the sense of entry and has gone beyond the standard, thus satisfying Staffs concerns. There will be a bay oflandscaping on the southeast comer in front of the windows and near the entrance on the left side. There is landscaping on the parking lot in the rear as well. The landscaping will meet the standard. There is an added Condition asking for a final revised landscape plan, incorporating all additions and changes. Staff has tried to address the Tuneberg's concerns through revised Conditions. 7:47 p.m. Severson said with regard to the 120-day rule, with the extension already filed by the applicant, the next deadline is June 29, 2007. Fields asked if this is approved, when will Staff see the revised landscape plan. Severson said it can be part of the permit process or beforehand. Dotterrer/Stromberg m/s to approve P A2006-0 1787 as presented tonight. Severson said the applicants have provided 19 percent landscape coverage for the whole site (Lot 4). The Commissioners hesitated to approve the action without having a complete landscape plan and addressing the riparian area. To re-state, the Commissioners have not seen a landscape plan for the front of the building, around the parking and narrative changes incorporated into an overall plan. 8:05 p.m. Stalheim stated the issues have been narrowed down to: 1) Issues of enforcement of existing Conditions along the riparian corridor that Staff can deal with, and 2) how much do the Commissioners want to state in their Conditions what their policy intent is for a revised landscape plan. The details of the landscape plan do not have to be hammered out at the Planning Commission meeting. He continued with the following amended Conditions: 1. That the revised landscape, irrigation and screening plan shall include assurance that the original landscape plan along the riparian corridor be implemented prior to the building permit application to insure that water quality along the corridor is protected. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR METING APRIL 10, 2007 MINUTES 2 2. That the revised landscape plan shall include revisions to the Russell Street entry to provide reduction in hardscape and an increase in the amount of landscaping in front of the building. He reiterated that the application meets the standards of the ordinance. Upon final review, Staff will make sure the application meets the standards of the ordinance. 8:10 p.m. Dotterrer withdrew his motion. Dotterrer/Dimitre m/s to continue, opening the public hearing so they can get a full landscape plan and see exactly what the new plan should be. Stalheim asked if the Commission wants this to come back, what do they want to see? Marsh spoke for several of the Commissioners when she said they are missing the landscaping as part of the comprehensive whole. Mindlin added her concerns about trapping the riparian area in a row of trees on each side to satisfy a particular neighbor. In addition, she would like to see more landscaping in the 70 feet ofhardscape along the front of the building to help soften the mass and scale. Morris believes the wording of the motion could be handled through Conditions. We need to ask the applicant to break up the fa9ade and go forward. In addition, Morris believes Lot 5 is going to be an issue over which we have no control. The Tuneberg's property is the biggest hurdle because it can't be buffered with this application. Thirdly, he would rather not choose the landscape detailing of the building entry because they've met the percentage of landscaping. Stromberg amended the motion to request the applicant provide a complete landscape plan, adding landscaping to the front of the building to soften the mass and scale and break up the hardscape. Pay attention to the riparian area to restore to the original planting plan and provide adequate canopy over the riparian if in fact the original plan did not show that. Dawkins seconded (Note: By the motion, the record will be left open to allow new testimony for a new landscape plan.) Voice Vote: The amendment carried with Morris casting the dissenting vote. Dimitre called for the question regarding the motion on the table. Roll Call: The motion carried with Morris voting "no." Fields changed the order of the agenda. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Adoption of Findings, Orders & Conclusions. PA 2006-01787 - 479 Russell Street - Russ Dale & Darren LeComte - This action was continued until next month, therefore, no findings are ready for adoption at this meeting. 8:30 p.m. VII. A. Condo Conversion Review Stalheim explained this is just a review of the ordinances before it goes to the Council on Tuesday. Staff only received the final ordinance revisions last Thursday. Originally, there was one ordinance and now there are three: I) tenant rights, 2) amendments to the building code, and 3) land use amendment. Staff is comfortable with land 2, but the land use ordinance is difficult to read and they will be working on an easier read. Goldman said both the Planning Commission and the Housing Commission voted on the draft before it went to the Legal Department. He reviewed the changes with the Commission. Marsh asked who had come up with the newer concepts. Goldman said Legal was looking at the ordinance to see if it met all the State requirements, specifically the question about inclusionary zoning. In doing so, it appears they made an effort to craft an ordinance that would resolve their concerns about mandating any affordability by creating a three-tier system (see handout titled "Conversion of Multi-Family Rentals into For-Purchase Housing"). The creation of the permitted use process with a negotiated development agreement and the concept of an allocation of the density bonus are the new pieces. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR METING APRIL 10, 2007 MINUTES 3 Mindlin wondered if an applicant took the Permitted Use option and did 50 percent for-purchase and 50 percent market rental, could they come back and do it again. Goldman said they could not come back. They would have to come back and apply for a CUP or a permitted use with a development agreement and they would be obligated to provide 25 percent of the total units as affordable. Stalheim said the CUP ties back to the new section 18.24.040.M that talks about development agreements, all,owing options to be chosen other than what is in the existing standards. Goldman explained another new section pertains to transfer of development rights. There can be a free-floating density bonus that can be used elsewhere. It's an incentive-based concept. Stalheim said we can't just grant a right to transfer property without notifying property owners and neighbors. It can't be implemented without receptor zones. 8:54 p.m. Stalheim said Staff is trying to formulate their recommendation to the Council. It is scheduled to be heard before the Council on April 17th, but it might have to be continued to another meeting depending on the number of changes that are made. Goldman and Stalheim believe they can convey the Planning Commission's concerns to the Council. The substance of the new ordinance is very much the same, but it is difficult to read. Stalheim wants a simpler, cleaner ordinance. Fields wondered if there is a definition in our Land Use Ordinance for a multi-family rental dwelling unit. The key to this ordinance is about regulating use. Condominiums are about ownership and this ordinance is about use. We are losing affordable units because ownership housing is so valuable. Weare guaranteeing that no one will dare build another apartment because a builder would give up 25 percent of everything one would build. He's concerned that at the end of this, what we get are no new apartments being built. Stromberg said he believes the problem goes back to two fundamental issues: I) we don't make rental housing an actual use in or our ordinance or the Comprehensive Plan, and 2) in the Comprehensive Plan we have this grand statement about providing housing for the different segments of the community, but then we say that the only way we are going to do it is through market forces. Ifmarket forces fail to provide housing for a particular complement of the community, then we need to consider creating a new Comp Plan policy that says we can use something besides market forces if the market forces are not being successful in providing, in this case, rental housing at a certain rate. But, we are trying to fix it with an ordinance and treating the symptoms. It creates all kinds of unintended complexities. Dawkins has been a renter of condominiums. A condominium is a piece of property the owner can sell or not and it leaves a renter in a position of being quickly displaced. An apartment is a rental. The renter has an agreement with a landlord and as long as the renter meets the agreement, then he/she can stay. Can you force the building of apartments? 9:12 p.m. Marsh noted this ordinance has come a long way from where it started and she applauded the Assistant City Attorney, Richard Appicello's creativity with this ordinance. She favors the use of incentives through development agreements and believes they could be applied in lots of different ways in the community. It means decisions can be negotiated with interesting, creative and useful benefits. She is also open to transfer of density bonuses. Marsh asked if our current or proposed ordinance exempts less than three units. She is concerned if we get down to one or two units, it could set up barriers for individual homeowners who would like to do simple lot development. With regard to the in-lieu payment (18.24.040.M.2), Dawkins said we'd be looking at a loss of apartments. The City of Aspen had a lot of money but no place to put it. Stalheim said part of the struggle with writing this ordinance is keeping it within Oregon State law. There are groups that are currently working on issues at the State level. The Commissioners generally agreed with the tenant rights ordinance and building code ordinance amendments. The Commissioners expressed concern that they had not had time to review the ordinances and they would like to have the opportunity to review any changes of the land use ordinance that has not come before them previously. There has been a lack of analysis of the outcomes this will have and will it achieve what was intended. B. Adoption of Planning Commission Rules Stalheim said he received written comments from Art Bullock and provided a written response that was handed out to the Commissioners. He incorporated Bullock's idea of how to amend the rules. Public Comment ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR METING APRIL 10, 2007 MINUTES 4 COLIN SWALES, 461Allison Street, said the rules shouldn't be too easy to change, particularly "reconsideration." We have a very circumscribed, quasi judicial process under the Ashland Municipal Code and that to introduce too easily any method of changing or reversing a Planning Commission decision by way of reconsideration, should be taken very seriously. He does not believe the Community Development Director should be the gatekeeper. The Council should make that determination. ART BULLOCK, 791 Glendower, said he agrees with Swales on reconsideration. He would support leaving the decision to the Chair of the Planning Commission. A reconsideration needs to be limited to new information. He would disagree with the requirement that it has to be "new facts" because the record would have to be closed. Bullock reviewed conflict of interest, bias, ex parte contacts as outlined in his e-mail to the Planning Commission dated April 9,2007. He recommended a new paragraph 10 "Conflict of Interest" in the Planning Commission Rules. Stalheim said the Planning Commission will be receiving training from an attorney at a May study session. Commissioners' Discussion and Motion 7. Procedure. Stromberg said the Planning Commission should not be willing to turn over their decision-making to the City Attorney (". ..as advised by the Ashland City Attorney."). Morris and Marsh believe the City Attorney is our source for legal information. Stalheim explained that the Public Hearing Format for Land Use Hearings is on the City's website and outlines the hearings procedure. Dotterrer agreed with Stromberg that the wording should be struck because what dictates our hearings are the Ashland Municipal Code and Oregon law. We always ask for legal interpretations from the City Attorney. Fields suggested omitting in 7. "...as advised by the Ashland City Attorney" and inserting "hearing procedures as adopted by the Planning Commission." Stalheim said he could bring the Public Hearing Format for Land Use Hearings to the Commission for adoption. Re-title 10. to read "Public Disclosure." Then add conflict of interest and bias wording. Stalheim will re-work the paragraph, including all the items Bullock mentioned. Dimitre believes the important point is that the procedures should be made clearly available to the public. DotterrerlDimitre mls to continue the meeting to 10:00 p.m. Voice Vote: Approved. 6.3 Reconsideration. The current procedure creates an ex parte contact. It forces the reconsideration decision to the Chair who is a voting member of the Commission, thus creating an ex parte contact in which he's received new information from Staff. As a result of the contact, the record has to be opened up. Sometimes there are valid reasons to have a reconsideration. Stalhiem said in a part of the code, it states the Community Development Director is ex-officio to the Planning Commission as secretary. Stromberg wondered why we don't use anything more than the reconsideration available through Robert's Rules of Order. Stalheim responded that the simple way of dealing with the ex parte contacts is to get rid of the reconsideration process other than Robert's Rules. Stromberg asked how that would limit us. Stalheim said it might force issues into appeals to be resolved that could have been resolved in front of the Planning Commission. Under 6.3, it will help expedite the process. Under Robert's Rules of Order, we would have to re-notice the reconsideration for the next meeting. It insures the parties time to appeal. Stromberg said the Community Development Director can propose a reconsideration that will then be voted on by the Planning Commission (in the scenario before adoption of the findings). 1. Meetings. The Commissioners said they want to try the 10:30 p.m. end time. 2. Quorum. This matches the enabling ordinance. The Commission could recommend to the Council that the enabling ordinance is changed to include the majority of the total members for the Commission 6. Rules of Order. This was discussed at length at another meeting, but was brought up again about removing the words "generally" and "strictly." Mindlin said the Commission is not that good at strictly following Robert's Rules of Order and the Commission can open themselves to a challenge based on making an error in some minor procedural point. Stromberg suggested we use the Robert's Rules of Order In Brief. The wording will be left as it is. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 REGULAR METING APRIL 10, 2007 MINUTES 10. Conflict ofInterest. Change excuse to reuse. Note: Any Commission member can request that an item be added to the agenda, however, the member will have to consult the Chair ahead of time or if the item comes up at the meeting, there would be a motion to amend the agenda. RecaD of Chanaes 4.2 and 4.3 Duties of Officers. Under First Vice-Chair and Second Vice-Chair. Delete "or at the request of the chair..." 6.3.a.iii. Reconsideration. Take out the words "During reconsideration" and begin the sentence, "The commission shall first decide, by motion, whether to reconsider and if so, the limits of reconsideration and testimony." 7. Procedure. Delete "as advised by the Ashland City Attorney" and insert "City of Ashland Public Hearing Format for Land Use Hearings, as adopted by the Planning Commission." Add that copies of the Hearings Procedures will be made available to the public. 10. Conflict of Interest. Change the title to "Public Disclosure." 14. Amendments. Re.word to read: These rules may be amended at any meeting of the planning commission by a majority of the commission, provided that the text of a proposed rule change and scheduled consideration date is announced at a Planning Commission meeting at least fourteen (14) days prior to the meeting where the rule change is to be considered, and provided further that notice of such proposed amendment is given each member in writing at least fourteen (14) days prior to the meeting. Stromberg/Dotterrer m/s to adopt the rules as modified in this discussion. Roll Call: The rules were unanimously adopted. VIII. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 11 :50 p.rn. Respectfully submitted by, Susan Yates, Executive Secretary ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR METING APRIL 10, 2007 MINUTES 6 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION MINUTES May 3, 2007 CALL TO ORDER -Chair Laurie Sager called the AsWand Tree Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.rn. on May 3,2007 in the Siskiyou Room in the Community Development and Engineering Services Building located at 51 Winburn Way, AsWand, OR. Commissioners Present Laurie Sa er Kell Cruser John Rinaldi Jr. Steve Siewert Colin Guile , absent Council Liaison Russ Silbi er, absent APPROVAL OF MINUTES Siewert/Cruser m/s to approve the minutes of April 5, 2007. Voice vote: all AYES, Motion passed. The minutes of April 5, 2007 were approved as presented. PUBLIC FORUM None present PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION: 2007-00578-Request for Site Review approval for an internal addition to add office space to an existing hangar building and the construction of a new building consisting of a commercial hangar and office space at the AsWand Municipal Airport at 443 and 455 Dead Indian Memorial Road. The request includes a Variance to the 20-foot height limitation within the Airport Overlay Zone in order to allow an approximate 24-foot building height, and an Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards' to allow the proposed construction without required landscaping, parking lot landscaping, or parking lot trees due to the proximity to operating aircraft. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Airport; ZONING: E-l/Airport Overlay Zone; ASSESSOR'S MAP & TAX LOT: 39 IE 12301,307,308,309,310,312 and 39 IE 13B 2001. Angela explained the Planning Action noting that the staff report states that the applicant shall install an equivalent amount of landscape material to that which would otherwise be required for the current proposal (or approximately 1,350 square feet of landscape material) elsewhere on the Airport property within twelve months of the date of this approval. Applicant Testimony - Joanne Krippaehne, Madrona Architecture was present to represent the applicant. Ms. Krippaehne explained that Mr. Brim has an aviation business at the airport occupying one hanger. Mr. Brim leases the ground but does not own the building, the City of AsWand does. Mr. Brim has plans to build another building 8 feet away from the one he currently occupies. There would be another 80 x 80 foot lease pad. In his proposal he will be developing 22 parking spaces. The reason they are asking for a variance from the parking lot standards is because the hanger faces onto aircraft taxi lanes and the notion is that putting any significant vegetation in the vicinity of operating aircraft presents a hazard to other aircraft and bystanders who might be on the ground in the vicinity. They do not feel that area is an appropriate area for vegetation. The Commissioners discussed the Planning Action. Sager suggested the applicant contribute to a fund to be used in the future for landscape installation and maintenance. Rinaldi commended that sometimes the lease structure is that they might be contributing already to the landscaping. Siewert suggested that in the future when the City landscapes and plants trees that a much larger canopy tree like a Zelkova or trees that would shade asphalt should be encouraged. Drought tolerant trees with a larger canopy that wouldn't get hurt by the aircraft should be planted. Angela said her understanding is that the Airport Commission is working on overall planning for the airport. Normally they would require landscaping so the potential to mitigate that requirement is appropriate. Recommendation: I) That the applicant should contribute to a fund to be used toward future landscaping and should not be required to install landscaping elsewhere on the site as required by condition #2. PLANNING ACTION: 2006-01787-Request for Site Review approval for a two-story, mixed-use building located at 479 Russell St., comprised of retail and office space on the ground floor and five residential units on the second floor. The proposed building is approximately 7,762 square feet in size. The property is located in the Detail Site Review Zone, and is also subject to the Large Scale Development Standards. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-l; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 IE 09 AA; TAX LOT: 2803. Sager recused herself because her company is working on the project at 479 Russell St. Siewert chaired the remainder of the meeting. This item was continued from the April 2007 meeting to allow submittal of additional landscape details by the applicants. The public hearing will be reopened to allow testimony in response to the newly submitted materials. Applicant Testimony - Kerry KenCairn said that the previous landscape plan was already approved by the Tree Commission over a year ago. The two revisions were landscaping to the parking lot area and added landscaping to the front along with revisions to the patio area. The Commissioners reviewed the changes and had no recommendations. ACTION ITEMS Type I Review Sign Up June - Rinaldi, Cruser, Siewert July - Siewert August - Cruser September - Cruser DISCUSSION ITEMS Heritage Tree Program -Siewert explained that the program is about identifying nice trees within the city and giving them a certain protection through the heritage tree program. Once a home owner has a tree on the heritage tree list they have a certain obligation to keep the tree healthy. The Commissioners felt the program should be more of an honor instead of an obligation. The Commissioners decided to work on a revision of the program and discuss it further next month when more of the Commissions are present. Back Page Articles -Topics discussed were Proper Planting and Care of Trees, Spring interest trees and Bark Beetle kill. Revision of Street Tree Guide - Angela confmned that the money for the revision of the Street Tree Guide comes out of the general fund. Robbin Pearce, City of Ashland Water Conservation Auditor, would like to be on the committee that works on the revisions. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS Liaison Reports - None New Business - Welcomed John Rinaldi Jr. to the Commission. Current Balance - $4.35 Education and Outreach - Siewert and Collin did a tree walk last Saturday. Only one person attended. Siewert recommended that the next tree walk should go back to the Railroad Park. Earth Day - Had a very good turn out in spite of the cold windy weather. ADJOURNMENT - Commissioner Siewert adjourned the meeting at 8:09 p.rn. Respectfully submitted by Carolyn Schwendener, Account Clerk 2 CITY Of ASHLAND Council Communication Liquor License Application Meeting Date: Department: Approval: Primary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen 488-5307 christeb@ashland.or.us Estimated time: Consent Agenda Statement: Liquor License Application from Tika Squires dba T's at 303 E Main Street. Background: Application for liquor license is for new application. 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 r., CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Meeting Date: Department: Approval: June 5, 200j Planning Martha Benne Certified Local Government Grant Primary Staff Contacts: Maria Harris, 552-2045, ~.~. harrism@ashland.or.us Secondary Staff Contact: David Stalheim, 552- V.'7 . 2043, stalheid@ashland.or.us Time Estimate: ~ HHBWt86 LortSCI'\+ Statement: The Community Development Department received a Certified Local Government grant of $11,800 from the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office for historic preservation activities. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Council accept the Certified Local Government grant, and authorize staff to sign the grant agreement. Background: The Community Development Department received a Certified Local Government grant of $11,800 from the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office for historic preservation activities. The majority of the grant funds are for an evaluation of the Ashland Historic Preservation program. Specifically, the existing program including processes, regulations and incentive programs will be analyzed to identify areas to improve effectiveness and efficiency. A smaller amount of the grant funds will be used for materials and supplies for the local promotion of National Historic Preservation Week. The Certified Local Government program is designed to promote historic preservation at the local level. It is a federal program of the National Park Service that is administered by the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office. Local governments must meet certain qualifications to become "certified" and thereby qualify to receive matching grants from Oregon State Historic Preservation Office. The City of Ashland is a Certified Local Government. Council Options: Authorize staff to sign the 2007 Oregon Certified Local Grant Government grant agreement, or decline the grant. Potential Motions: Move to authorize staff to sign the 2007 Oregon Certified Local Grant Government grant agreement. Attachments: None 1 r.t. , III CITY Of ASHLAND Council Communication Authorization for the Director of Public Works to Sign a Grant Agreement with Federal Aviation Administration Meeting Date: June 5,2007 Department: Public Works I Engi ering Contributing Departments: e Approval: Martha Benne Primary Staff Contact: Paula Brown, 488-5587 ~ E-mail: brownp@ashland.or.us rl' Secondary Staff Contact: James Olson, 552-2412 E-mail: olsonj@ashland.or.us Estimated Time: Consent Agenda '- Statement: The City has been awarded a grant for $227,939.00 for reconstruction of a parking lot and purchase of an automated weather observation system at the Ashland Municipal Airport. The grant has been offered through the Federal Aviation Administration from non-primary entitlement funds with a five percent required match. The match will be a soft match generated from City staff time expended in the administration of the contract. Background: The Ashland Municipal Airport construction has been funded almost entirely by grants. There are three separate and distinct grants that have been utilized in the past and continue to provide the necessary funding for the airport construction projects. First, the FAM (Federal Aid to Municipalities) grant is a $25,000 grant administered through the Oregon Department of Aviation. We are currently using this grant to trim trees and remove obstacles in the south runway approach zone. Second is AlP grants, the largest grants available and can easily exceed $1,000,000. These grants, which are administered through FAA, have funded all of the major construction activities (except tank replacements) at the Ashland Municipal Airport. The third grant, and the one being approved with this action, is a non-primary entitlement grant administered through FAA. This grant is an automatic allocation of funds in the amount of $150,000 each year depending upon continued congressional allocation of funds. The entitlement projects, while limited in size and scope by the funds available, are the most popular of the three grants because they provide more flexibility in the way the projects can be identified and administered. Under this grant FAA pays 95% of the costs up to the maximum allocation. The FAA non-primary entitlement grant has been available to the airport each year for the past ten years. The current $227,939.00 grant represents this year's allocation plus the remaining amount left from last year. The grant offer must be accepted by the City by June 16, 2007 and must be signed by an official authorized by the governing body to do so. Related City Policies: Ashland Municipal Code Section 2.50.015 provides the requirements by which contracts and by association grant agreements must be approved. Unless otherwise expressly authorized by these Rules or by ordinance or order of the Council, all contracts must be approved by the Council before they can be executed. The Council gives its approval through its Consent Agenda which authorized the Public Contracting Officer, his or her designee or the contracting Department to execute the contract. The Council may also execute contracts itself. Council Options: The Council may accept the grant offer of $227,939 and authorize the Public Works Director to sign the agreement or the Council may reject the grant offer entirely. G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\AIRP\Eng Airport\F AM 2007 Grant CC 6 07.doc ~~, Rejection of the grant may adversely affect the City's ability to receive future grants. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the grant offer and authorization for the Public Works Director to sign the attached grant agreement. Potential Motions: Council may move to approve this requested action under the consent agenda, or; Council may move to reject his grant for stated reasons. Attachments: Letter from F M Grant Agreement G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\AIRP\Eng Airport\FAM 2007 Grant CC 6 07.doc ~A' o U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Federal Aviation Administration Northwest Mountain Region Seattle Airports DIstrict Office 1601 Lind Avenue. S.W.. Suite 250 Renton. Washington 98057-3356 May 16, 2007 Ms. Paula Brown City Engineer/Public Works Director City of Ashland 20 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 RECEIVED MAY:"' J ~ fiu I City of Ashland Dear Ms. Brown: Grant Offer for Ashland Municipal-Sumner Parker Field Ashland, Oregon AlP Project Number 3-41-0002-007 Enclosed are two copies of the subject grant offer. Please note that: a. The grant offer must be accepted by the sponsor on or before June 16, 2007. b. The grant offer must be accepted by an official authorized by the governing agency to do so. c. The "Certification of Sponsor's Attorney" relates to the acceptance and, therefore, must be made after the Sponsor's acceptance. d. After execution is completed, please return an executed copy of the grant agreement to this office by mail. All applicable project-related requirements pertaining to environmental analysis and approval for this grant have been met in accordance with the guidelines contained in FAA Order 5050.4B, Airport Environmental Handbook. If you have any questions in regard to acceptance of the grant offer, please contact your project manager. Kin~0ab 4"1 ~ f Wade Bryant Manager, Seattle Airports District Office Enclosures cc: Oregon Department of Aviation t~ U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Page 1 of 4 pages Grant Agreement Part 1 - Offer Date of Offer: May 16, 2007 Ashland Municipal-Sumner Parker Field Ashland, Oregon Project Number: 3-41-0002-007 Contract Number: DOT-FA07NM-0011 To: City of Ashland, Oregon (herein called the "Sponsor") From: The United States of America (acting through the Federal Aviation Administration, herein called the "FAA") WHEREAS, the Sponsor has submitted to the FAA a Project Application dated March 21,2007, for a grant of Federal funds for a project at or associated with Ashland Municipal-Sumner Parker Field which Project Application, as approved by the FAA, is hereby incorporated herein and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the FAA has approved a project for the Airport (herein called the "Project") consisting of the following: Rehabilitate parking lot; Install automated weather observation system (AWOS); all as more particularly described in the Project Application. FAA Form 5100-37 PG 1 (10-89) Page 2 of 4 pages NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to and for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of Title 49, United States Code, and in consideration of (a) the Sponsor's adoption and ratification of the representations and assurances contained in said Project Application and its acceptance of this Offer as hereinafter provided, and (b) the benefits to accrue to the United States and the public from the accomplishment of the Project and compliance with the assurances and conditions as herein provided, THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES, HEREBY OFFERS AND AGREES to pay, as the United States share of the allowable costs incurred in accomplishing the Project, ninety-five (95) percentum of all allowable Project costs. This Offer is made on and subject to the following terms and conditions: Conditions 1. The maximum obligation of the United States payable under this Offer shall be $227,939.00. For the purposes of any future grant amendments which may increase the foregoing maximum obligation of the United States under the provisions of Section 47108(b) of the Act, the following amounts are being specified for this purpose: $ 0.00 $227,939.00 for planning for airport development or noise program implementation 2. The allowable costs of the project shall not include any costs determined by the FAA to be ineligible for consideration as to allowability under the provisions of the Act. 3. Payment of the United States' share of the allowable project costs will be made pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of such regulations and procedures as the Secretary shall prescribe. Final determination of the United States' share will be based upon the final audit of the total amount of allowable project costs and settlement will be made for any upward or downward adjustments to the Federal share of costs. 4. The Sponsor shall carry out and complete the Project without undue delays and in accordance with the terms hereof, and such regulations and procedures as the Secretary shall prescribe, and agrees to comply with the assurances which were made part of the project application. 5. The FAA reserves the right to amend or withdraw this Offer at any time prior to its acceptance by the Sponsor. 6. This Offer shall expire and the United States shall not be obligated to pay any part of the costs of the project unless this Offer has been accepted by the Sponsor on or before June 16,2007, or such subsequent date as may be prescribed in writing by the FAA. 7. The Sponsor shall take all steps, including litigation if necessary, to recover Federal funds spent fraudulently, wastefully, or in violation of Federal antitrust statutes, or misused in any other manner in any project upon which Federal funds have been expended. For the purposes of this grant agreement the term "Federal funds" means funds however used or disbursed by the Sponsor that were originally paid pursuant to this or any other Federal grant agreement. It shall obtain the approval of the Secretary as to any determination of the amount of the Federal share of such funds. It shall return the recovered Federal share, including funds recovered by settlement, order, or judgment to the Secretary. It shall furnish FAA Form 5100-37 PG 2 (10-89) Page 3 of 4 pages upon request, all documents and records pertaining to the determination of the amount of the Federal share or to any settlement, litigation, negotiation, or other efforts taken to recover such funds. All settlements or other final positions of the Sponsor, in court or otherwise, involving the recovery of such Federal share shall be approved in advance by the Secretary. 8. The 'United States shall not be responsible or liable for damage to property or injury to persons which may arise from, or be incident to, compliance with this grant agreement. Special Conditions 9. It is mutually understood and agreed that if, during the life of the project, the FAA determines that the maximum grant obligation of the United States exceeds the expected needs of the . Sponsor the maximum obligation of the United States can be unilaterally reduced by letter from the FAA advising of the budget change. Conversely, if there is an overfund in the total actual eligible and allowable project costs, FAA may increase the maximum grant obligation of the United States to cover the amount of the overrun not to exceed the statutory percent limitation and will advise the sponsor by letter of the increase. It is further understood and agreed that if, during the life of the project, the FAA determines that a change in the grant description is advantageous and in the best interests of the United States, the change in grant description will be unilaterally amended by letter from the FAA. Upon issuance of the aforementioned letter, either the grant obligation of the United States is adjusted to the amount specified or the grant description is amended to the description specified. 10. The Sponsor must provide for the continuous operation and maintenance of any navigational aid funded under the AlP during the useful life of the equipment and check the facility prior to its commissioning to assure it meets the operational standards. The Sponsor must also remove, relocate or lower each obstruction on the approach to provide for the adequate lighting or marking of the obstruction if any aeronautical study conducted under FAR Part 77 determines that to be acceptable, and mark and light the runway as appropriate. The FAA will not take over the ownership, operation, or maintenance of any Sponsor-acquired equipment. 11. Unless otherwise approved by the FAA, the Sponsor will not acquire or permit any contractor or subcontractor to acquire any steel or manufactured products produced outside the United States to be used for any projects for airport development or noise compatibility for which funds are provided under this grant. The Sponsor will include in every contract a provision implementing this special condition. FAA Form 5100-37 PG 3 (10-89) Page 4 of 4 pages The Sponsor's acceptance of this Offer and ratification and adoption of the Project Application incorporated herein shall be evidenced by execution of this instrument by the Sponsor, as hereinafter provided, and this Offer and Acceptance shall comprise a Grant Agreement, as provided by the Act constituting the contractual obligations and rights of the United States and the Sponsor with respect to the accomplishment of the Project and compliance with the assurances and conditions as provided herein. Such Grant Agreement shall become effective upon the Sponsor's acceptance of this Offer. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION By..ll.~.g/~. .t$~..... ..... ... J. ~ade Bryant, Manager, Se'atl~ Airports District Office .Part 11- Acceptance The Sponsor does hereby ratify and adopt all assurances, statements, representations, warranties, covenants, and agreements contained in the Project Application and incorporated materials referred to in the foregoing Offer and does hereby accept this Offer and by such acceptance agrees to comply with all of the terms and conditions in this Offer and in the Project Application. Executed this . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . day of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 2007. City of Ashland, Oregon (SEAL) By................................................. . Sponsor's Designated Official Representative Title: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . Attest: ......................... Title:. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . CERTIFICATE OF SPONSOR'S ATTORNEY I, . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , acting as Attorney for the Sponsor do hereby certify: That in my opinion the Sponsor is empowered to enter into the foregoing Grant Agreement under the laws of the State of Oregon. Further, I have examined the foregoing Grant Agreement and the actions taken by said Sponsor and Sponsor's official representative has been duly authorized and that the execution thereof is in all respects due and proper and in accordance with the laws of the said State and the Act. In addition, for grants involving projects to be carried out on property not owned by the Sponsor, there are no legal impediments that will prevent full performance by the Sponsor. Further, it is my opinion that the said Grant Agreement constitutes a legal and binding obligation of the Sponsor in accordance with the terms thereof. Dated at. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. this..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . day of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 2007 Signature of Sponsor's Attorney FAA Form 5100-37 PG 4 (10-89) CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Request for Sewer Service to Commercial Property Located Outside the City Limits at 2995 Highway 66 Meeting Date: June 5, 2007 Department: Public Works Contributing Departments: Legal Approval: Martha Benn Primary Staff Contact: Paula Brown, 552-2411 ~ E-mail: brownp@ashland.or.us/I1... Secondary Staff Contact: James Olson, 552-2412 E-mail: olsonj@ashland.or.us Estimated Time: consent Statement: Ms. Devian Aguirre, Principal, RENDEVCO LLC, owns the commercial property located at 2995 Highway 66 (391 E013B Tax Lots 2002 & 2004). She has requested authorization to connect to the City's sanitary sewer system. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends connection of the commercial property at 2995 Highway 66 to the City's sewer system. Such connection at this location protects the natural drainage way from the Oak Know Golf Course through the City's airport and ultimately helps protect Neil Creek from pollutants associated with malfunctioning septic systems and leaking holding tanks. Staff recommends connection as it is in the best interest of the City. This application meets the criteria of the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Section 14.08.030. Although the property is currently under consideration for redevelopment and .updated" facilities, the proposed changes meet AMC Section 14.08.030. B in that .... the use of the sewer system will not be increased as determined by the Director of Public Works." Staff recommends the monthly fees be based upon the standard commercial sewer services with the additional fees charged for services outside the City limits. The collection system and wastewater treatment facility have adequate capacity for additional services. Background: The property is located outside the City limits, but inside the urban growth boundary and currently is occupied with five separate buildings, three of which are mini-storage units, and two active commercial facilitates currently operating as .Country Comer". The two commercial office buildings are connected to two septic tanks that act as holding tanks, not a full septic system and both tanks are failing. The property owners estimate current use of the facilities at 10.5 full time employee (equivalents) and approximately 8-10 clients per day. Jackson County has estimated sewer volumes at 315.5 gallons per day. There are 9 bathroom facilities serving all of the buildings on site. Assuming both commercial office facilities are fully occupied at 25 full time employee (equivalents) plus clients, staff estimates the sewer use at no more than 700 gpd. In any case, the current sewage holding tanks are inadequate for the site. The commercial property at 2995 Highway 66 is located at the comer of Highway 66 and Dead Indian Memorial Highway. The drainage way from this commercial property exits at the north comer and enters the southern end of the Ashland Municipal Airport in a highly vegetated area full of blackberries, and ultimately flows to Neil Creek. The 2.36 acre property supports commercial activities constructed in the 1970s. The property is currently served by a water well at the southern edge of the property on Highway 66 and two 1500 gallon septic holding tanks, one on each of the tax lots that are interconnected but not operating correctly. G:\pub-wrks\admin\PB Council\SewecWater Connections\2995 HWY 66\CC 2995 Highway 66 Sewer Connection SJun07.doc ~.l' Future reconstruction or replacement of the septic system could be completed, but may not be the best long term environmental solution given the drainage from the Oak Knoll Golf Course, the visibly large amount of vegetation immediately adjacent to the site along the airport property and the proximity of Neil Creek. The Jackson County Environmental Health Development Services has recommended that the exiting septic tanks be connected to the City system if approved by the Council. Connection to the City system would require an ejector pump and service lateral on the property to lift the sewage to the elevation of Highway 66 to meet the City main. The property owner would connect into the City main with a 4 inch 60 foot sewer lateral across Highway 66. The owner must receive approval from ODOT to use the Highway 66 right of way for placement of the proposed sewer lateral. The septic tank holding system shows no signs of cracking or obvious failure, but as disclosed in the letter from Jackson County, the system is not operating properly and the county considers this a "failing system." County inspectors expect there is a leak in the northeast tank and that one or both of the tanks will require replacement. Council Options: Council may elect to approve or deny the request for connection of the commercial property at 2995 Highway 66 to the City sewer system. Potential Motions: Council may move to approve the request for sewer connection. Council may move to delay action on this issue pending further review. Council may move to deny the request for sewer connection. Attachments: Site Location Map Applicant's Letter of April 4, 2007 with attachments Jackson County Site Inspection and letter of March 5, 2007 G:'4>ub-wrksladmin\PB Council\Sewer_Water Connections\2995 HWY 66\CC 2995 Highway 66 Sewer Connection SJun07.doc 2 r., Related City Policies: Ashland Municioal Code Section 14.08.030. Connection - Outside City. Inside Urban Growth Boundary (Amended ORD 2767: October 3. 1995) An occupied dwelling or building located outside the City of Ashland and inside the urban growth boundary may be connected to the sewer system when such connection is determined by the Ashland City Council to be in the best interest of the City of Ashland and to not be detrimental to the City's sewage facilities. Such connection shall be made only upon the following conditions: A. The applicant for sewer service pays the sewer connection fee and the systems development charges established by the City Council. The applicant has been advised of the estimated costs for this connection and has indicated a willingness to pay these fees. B. In the event a dwelling or building connected to the sewer system is subsequently replaced for any reason, then the replacement dwelling or building may connected to the sewer system of the City as long as the use of the sewer system will not be increased as determined by the Director of Public Works. The applicant has been advised of this requirement and is in the process of redevelopment of the site, but states that there will be no appreciable change in water or sewer use. Staff recommends that the approval for sewer connection expressly state the allowable number of plumbing and sanitary sewer fixtures (not to exceed 10) for the revised site planning. C. The applicant shall be responsible for the full cost of extending the City of Ashland sewer main or line to the property for which sewer service is being requested. The applicant understands the responsibility to be responsible for the full cost of connecting to the main line. D. The applicant shall secure, in writing, statements from Jackson County that the existing sewage system has failed and that the provision of sewer by the City of Ashland does not conflict with the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan, support documents, rules, or regulations. Jackson County has inspected the site and indicates this is a failing system and suggests the best solution is to connect to the City's system. Because of the proximity of Neil Creek and the accompanying heavy riparian growth, a septic failure or holding tank failure may be difficult to detect. E. The applicant furnish to the City a consent to the annexation of the land, signed by the owners of record and notarized so that it may be recorded by the City and binding on future owners of the land. The applicant has indicated willingness to sign the consent to annexation. F. The applicant shall provide for the payment to the City by the owners, at the time of annexation, an amount equal to the current assessment for liabilities and indebtedness previously contracted by a publiC service district, such as Jackson County Fire District No.5, multiplied by the number of years remaining on such indebtedness, so that the land may be withdrawn from such publiC service districts in accord with ORS 222.520 and at no present or future expense to the City. The applicant has been advised of the requirement to contact Fire District 5. G. The owner shall execute a deed restriction preventing the partitioning or subdivision of the land prior to annexation to the City. The applicant has indicated willingness to sign a deed restriction. H. That the land is within the Urban Growth Boundary. The property is within the UGB. G:\pub-wrks\admin\PB Council\SewecWater Connections\2995 HWY 66\CC 2995 Highway 66 Sewer Connection SJun07.doc 3 ~~, ~r- d-=: I I l,/ City ~fll 00 ~ \ Ashland "~~J~ \ ~~ ~l ~f~/-' / ' ,..J rA' o 50 100 FT 200 Request for Sewer Service to Commercial Property Located outside the City Limits at 2995 Highway 66 RENDEVCO 2305 Ashland St. Ste. C-446 Ashland OR. 97520 541488-4114 * 541488-4566 Fax RECEIVED APR () [. . Uul April 4, 2007 City of Ashland Paula Brown Director of Public Works 20 East Main St. City of Ashland Ashland, OR. 97520 Re: Request for Sewer Service for commercial property located at 2995 Hwy 66, Ashland, OR. Dear Paula Brown: This is a formal request for consideration of connection of the above referenced property to the existing sewer system of the city of Ashland. The property is located at the comer of Hwy 66 and Dead Indian Rd. and consists of existing self storage and offices located on 2.5 acres. The existing buildings are almost 30 years old and not in good condition. The mix of the property is as follows: Use Office Self Storage # of Bathrooms 9 o Avg. # of Users 25 vanous Currendy the property is served by existing septic holding tanks that are in poor condition and failing. Attached is information from the Jackson County Development & Sanitation Services that describes the failure in detail. We have also attached documentation demonstrating compliance with the request to pump the tanks to explore alternatives and the results of that examination after the pumptng. Please note that it is our intention to upgrade the property and replace some of the outdated and functionally obsolete buildings and replace them with new office and self storage. We have attached a site plan with these property improvements for your use in considering this request. There will be no increased usage provided in the new plan should it move forward. We accept and agree to the conditions of the sewer connection approval contained in the Ashland Municipal Ordinance 14.08.030 in its entirety. Please contact our office if you require any added information to process this request. Thank you for your consideration, Sincerely, \'-. ~/$ C. Ren Kolar Managing Principal " (1;.. .;'.. -.. -~_.. _.. -'. -.. -.. -.. - -~_.. -.. - - '~~~a:-""~j.-- ~~f---f---f---f--->--->---f--->--->---f---~ ",,' , t.... _, ..._ If" ~~ \ ~ t, -1.-L------- avo!l~------\ "\. .~ ., --"'" ~ . . a:. ~_. ~-~-<< ~\ '<. Jt.~I.f4lo.,.i.I..~~.,..I:i"'.I. \ '\. '7. . ( \\. a \ 'v~^ \ ~I ~ f~ / . . ,; t '..., '" " , '/ .'( , / , , , , ~ ~ ~ " /~ , / ''.0 '" ~ "\',, ~ \,,, '" ,,\\, " I ->0, " . '" .~,~ ~ ~ ." ~ '", ~ ) "~\. "" " \, , \.." " \." " '." ", "'" " \,,, " "" i , . , , , , , '.,/ I la!i -' ~iii ~;n / / / / / / ----=;z..~_ 7 GI'___. I ~ i E, I i !~~ s~; ~ ~ ~ ~~;~a ~~ hi p~ i ~ ~~~~mH. ~~i' ~~~ .~,~ s i ~ ~~.,jiti~i::lI~Q:Q "'i I:! as- ill;~. tlI ~ ~ ~~~hi~H~U~h ~~!~~i~~I~u" ~ ~ ~ ~;~!i~~~III~;~~i~~~~~~~i~!~~; I ~ : \\1\\ \jl~l...'.l...:l.,'.. ~ ~ .. ~ / / / ~ ~ ~ >-. h ....... ;::l S 8j I ~ ~ a ~ Q ~ :::s CQ t5 ~ ..------... U1'" ~~ 01 :t~ Q:ll<) ",I 8 ~ll:l ~.!.. U 01 -.J >.is f->:::: ~~ :::>~ Q::L..; f2e -.JQ:: -.Jo ~Q: uQ.. ~e.4'r't'(.. f~\'-UK- \'L~ Development Services Kennetb D. Cote, R.E.B.S. Environmental Health Specialist 10 S. Oakdale Ave., Room 100 Medford. OR 97501 Phone: 541-n~930 Fax: 541-n~791 CoteKOOjacksoncoullty.org _.jacksoncounty.org JACKSON COUNTY oregon March 5, 2007 SAGE DEVELOPMENT DEVIAN AGUIRRE -c. 2305 J\""SHLANlfST SU1iEc~pr6 ASHLAND OR 97502 RE: 39-1E013B-2002/2004; Sewage Holding Tanks Dear Ms Aguirre: Based on the limited information provided regarding the occupancy and usage of the offices in this development and some assumptions regarding the use, the approximate system design sewage flows would be as follows. 5 employees, full time, assume one shift - @ 15 gpdIperson 2 employees, full time, assume one shift - @ 15 gpdIperson 3 part time employees, assume one shift! half time - @ 15/2 8 clients per week - assume limited time on site @ 5 gpdIperson = 40 gallons per week 10 clients + 2 employees for seminars @ 15 gpdIperson TOTAL = 75 gallons per day = 30 gallons per day = 22.5 gallons per day = 8 gallons per day = 180 gallons ner dav = 315.5 gallons per day _ __ A~ daily~~age flovys _~ ~~ to}~~J~s, at_appro~ately__~~e _~f of desigl!}l~w. It ___ __ __ _ ___ was determined during my on site consultation with you on February 5, 2007 that both buildings on tax lot 2004 are connected to the two 1500 gallon septic holding tanks on the north side of the buildings. These tanks are joined together for a total capacity of 3000 gallons. Based on the estimated flows, these two tanks should fill to the maximum allowed volume, requiring pumping, within one month's time. As you have stated, these two tanks have not been pumped in about one year. Inspection of the two tanks on February 5th found that the northeast tank was nearly empty, but the other tank was completely full and should have been flowing to the empty tank. We could not verify the flow between the tanks at that time. This suggests that there is a leak in the northeast tank which would allow untreated or partially treated sewage to be discharged into the area below the tank, possibly into the ground water at the site. If the alarm float is located in the northeast tank, it would explain why there has not been an alarm event indicating the tanks are full and in need of pumping. By definition OAR 340-071-100(66) "Failing System", this would be considered a failing system. Further investigation would be needed to verify the exact cause of the low volume in the northeast tank. We would require an application for a Minor Repair permit to proceed and likely replacement of one or both tanks. However, it is my understanding that the City of Ashland is willing to connect this property to the to the city sewage collection system thus eliminating the holding tanks. This is obviously the best solution for these properties. Should the city allow the connection to sewer, the existing holding tanks will require proper 'Decommissioning' (abandonment) and the completed abandonment forms must be submitted to this office. If you are not able to connect to the city sewer system, please make application to this office for a Minor Repair permit as soon as possible. In the meantime, please have the sewage holding tanks pumped as soon as possible. Also have the pumping service inspect the interiors of the two tanks and report their findings. Please submit a copy of their report to this office. Any repair work done to the holding tanks will require a Minor Repair permit from this office and inspection( s) to verify the work completed. _______~y~_u ~ve any q~~_~ti<?ns!..I.Jly_?~C~_~ours are 8:00 a.m. ~:OOa.~, Tu~sdal:'thro~ Frida~._ ___. Sincerely, Kenneth D. Cote, R.E.H.S. Environmental Health Specialist CITY Of ASH LAN D Council Communication Award of Contract in Excess of $75,000 - North Main Pump Station Meeting Date: June 5, 2007 Primary Staff Contact: Paula Brown, 488-5587, ~ Department: Public Works / Engineering E-mail: brownp@ashland.or.us I Contributing Departments: Fi nce Secondary Staff Contact: Jim Olson, 552-2412 Approval: Martha Benne E-mail: olsonj@ashland.or.us Estimated Time: Consent Agenda Statement: The Engineering Division has received a single bid for the replacement of the North Main Street Sanitary Sewer Pump Station. The bid of $367,375.00 submitted by Taylor Site Development of Medford is $72,125.00 over the consulting engineer's estimate of $295,250.00. It is unlikely that rebidding the project would result in any lower bids as there are few, if any, opportunities for cost savings in the station design (although some cost savings may be negotiated following contract approval). Additional funds could be made available within the wastewater division budget to accommodate the additional cost of this project. Background: The North Main Sanitary Sewer Pump Station was constructed in the early 1960's and serves the northwesterly area of Ashland including the Ashland Mine Road and Schofield Street areas. The pump station is rapidly deteriorating and has no capacity to provide for anticipated growth within its service area. This project has been identified as a priority project in the current Capital Improvement Plan. Construction of a sewer pump station is a specialty with few local firms having the expertise to perform the work. For that reason a .pre-packaged" pump station was specified and an extended bid calendar selected to help promote more interest among local firms. The bid advertisement was published locally and statewide beginning on April 9, 2007 with the bid opening held on May 22, 2007 providing a 43 calendar bid window. Additionally, bid advertisements and/or bid packages were mailed to eight plan centers and to seventeen prospective bidders. Even with an extended bid window and a saturation of advertising, only a single bid was received. Past practice has shown that unless dramatic changes are made to the design, a rebid of a project generally results in higher costs. Because of the existing site conditions, no significant design changes are possible for this project and value engineering would be minimally effective. Related City Policies: AMC Section 2.50 sets forth the requirements for public contracting for the City of Ashland. In addition, Council has specified that all public contracts in excess of $75,000 can be awarded only upon review and approval of the Council. Council Options: Council may accept the bid offered by Taylor Site Development Inc. and authorize the Public Works Director and Finance Director to sign the attached contract, or; Council may reject the bid and award no contract for this work. G:\pub-wrl<s\eng\dept-admin\ENGINEERIPROJECT\2004\04-07 CC for Taylor Site Contract Approval 6 07.doc r.l' Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached contract with Taylor Site Development, Inc. to construct the North Main Pump Station at a cost of $367,375.00. Potential Motions: Council may. move to approve a contract for the construction of the North Main Pump Station to Taylor Site Development, Inc., or; Council may move to reject the bid submitted by Taylor Site Development, Inc. Attachments: Proposal Proposed Contract G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-adminIENGINEERIPROJECn2004\04-o7 CC for Taylor Site Contract Approval 6 07.doc r.l' Page 10 PROPOSAL Mayor & City Council Ashland, Oregon The undersigned bidder declares that the bidder has received, read and understood all bid documents; received, read and understood all addenda; the bidder has taken no exceptions other than those clearly stated in this proposal; the bidder will be liable for increased costs (and attorney fees) for retaining a replacement bidder if the undersigned bidder is awarded the Contract but refuses to sign the contract; the bidder has examined the plans and specifications, has visited the site, and made such investigation as is necessary to determine the character of the materials and conditions to be encountered in the work and that if this Proposal is accepted, the bidder will contract with the City of Ashland, Oregon for the construction of the proposed improvement in a form of contract contained in the bid documents, will provide the,necessary equipment, materials, tools, apparatus, and labor, in accordance with the plans and specifications on file at the City Engineering Office, Ashland, Oregon, under the following conditions: . 1. It is understood that all the work will be performed under a lump sum or unit price basis and that for the lump sum or unit price all services, materials, labor, equipment, and all work necessary to complete the project in accordance with the plans and specifications shall be furnished for the said lump sum or unit price named. It is understood that the quantities stated in connection with the price schedule for the contract are approximate only and payment shall be made at the unit prices named for the actual quantities incorporated in the completed work. If there shall be an increase in the amount of work covered by the lump sum price, it shall be computed on a basis of "extra work" for which an increase in payment will have been earned and if there be a decrease in the lump sum payment, it shall be made only as a result of negotiation between the undersigned and the Owner. Furthermore, it is understood that any estimate with respeCt to time, materials, equipment, or service which may appear on the plans or in the specifications is for the sole purpose of assisting the undersigned in checking the undersigned's own independent calculations and that at no time shall the undersigned attempt to hold the Owner, the Engineer, or any other person, firm or corporation responsible for any errors or omissions that may appear in any estimate. 2. The ' undersigned will furnish the bonds required by the specifications and comply with all the laws of the FederalGovemment, State of Oregon, and the City of Ashland which are pertinent to construction contracts of this nature even though such laws or municipal ordinances may not have been quoted or referred to in these specifications. 3. All items for the contract for which forms are provided in the bid documents have been completed in full by the showing of a lump sum price or prices for each and every item and by the showing of other information indicated by the proposal form. The undersigned submits the unit prices set forth as those at which the bidder will perform the work involved. The extensions in the column headed "Total" are made up for the sole purpose of facilitating comparison of bids and if there are any discrepancies between the unit prices and the totals shown, the unit prices shall govern. G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\ENGINEER\PROJECT\2004\04-06 N Main Pump Station Bid 4 07.doc Page 11 4. The undersigned agrees that the "Time of Completion" shall be as defined in the specifications and that the bidder will complete the work within the number of consecutive calendar days stated for each schedule after "Notice to Proceed" has been issued by the Owner. Bidder furthermore agrees to pay as liquidated damages, for each calendar day thereafter, the amounts shown in Subsection 00 180.50 of the Special Provisions, for each day the project remains incomplete. 5. The undersigned, as bidder, acknowledges that addenda(s) numbered ..t2.- through ~ have been received by the bidder and have been examined as part of the contract documents. ~. 6. If the proposed bid price will exceed $50,000.00 the undersigned, as bidder, acknowledges that provisions of ORS 279C.800 - 279C.870 relating to workers on public works to be paid not less than prevailing rate of wage shall be included in the contract, or in the alternative, if the project is to be funded with federal funds and is subject to the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. ~276a) bidder agrees to comply with the Davis-Bacon Act requirements. 7. Instructions for First-Tier Subcontractors Disclosure. Bidders are required to disclose information about certain first-tier subcontractors (those subcontractors contracting directly with the bidder) when the contract price exceeds $75,000 (see ORS 279C.370). Specifically, when the contract amount of a first-tier subcontractor is greater than or equal to: (i) 5% of the project bid, but at least $15,000, or (ii) $350,000 regardless of the percentage, you must disclose the following information about that subcontract within two working hours of bid closing: 7.1 The subcontractor's name and address; 7.2 The subcontractor's Construction Contractor Board registration number, if one is required, and; , 7.3 The subcontract dollar value. If you will not be using any subcontractors that are subject to the above disclosure requirements, you are required to indicate "NONE" on the form. . All Contractors and subcontractors working on a public works project must file a $30,000 ''public works bond" with the Construction Contractor's Board. This bond is to be used exclusively for unpaid wages determined due by BOLl. Some exemptions from this requirement are to provided for certified disadvantaged, minority, women or emerging small business enterprises. General Contractors must verify that subcontractors have filed a public works bond. THE CITY MAY REJECT A BID IF THE BIDDER FAILS TO SUBMIT THE DISCLOSURE FORM WITH THIS INFORMATION WITHIN TWO HOURS OF BID CLOSING. To determine disclosure requirements, the City recommends that you disclose subcontract information for any subcontractor as follows: I) Determine the lowest possible contract price. That price will be the base bid amount less all alternate deductive bid amounts (exclusive of any options that can only be exercised after contract award). 2) Provide the required disclosure information for any first-tier subcontractor whose potential contract services (i.e., subcontractor's base bid amount plus all alternate additive bid G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\ENGINEER\PROJECl\2004\04-06 N Main Pump Station Bid 4 07.doc Page 12 amounts, exclusive of any options that can only be exercised after contract award) are greater than or equal to: (i) 5% of the lowest contract price, but at least $15,000, or (ii) $350,000 regardless of the percentage. Total all possible work for each subcontractor in making this determination (e.g., if a subcontractor will provide $15,000 worth of services on the base bid and $40,000 on an additive alternate, then the potential amoUnt of subcontractor's services is $55,000. Assuming that $55,000 exceeds 5% ofthe lowest contract price, provide the disclosUre for both the $15,000 services and the ($40,000 services). The disclosure should be submitted on the following form: G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\ENGINEER\PROJECT\2004\04-06 N Main Pump Station Bid 4 07.doc Page 13 City of Ashland FIRST-TIER SUBCONTRACTOR DISCLOSURE FORM (As Required by ORS 279C.370 and OAR 137-049-360) NORTH MAIN PUMP STATION PROJECT NO. 2004-06 Bid Closing Date: MAY 22,2007,1:30 PM CATEGORY OF WORK II DOLLAR VALUE I I NAME OF SUBCONTRACTOR I I 1. l2.bW\+~ c... u+;t;+i e..6 VU""'-f 5+ ~c........ . 1'-1". 'i<l~ . 2. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 * Attach additional pages if needed. G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\ENGINEER\PROJECl\2004\04-06 N Main Pump Station Bid 4 07.doc Page 14 roject o. 2004-06 ! ! i UNIT PRICE \ I NO DESCRIPTION I QTY. 1 UNIT AMOUNT i (FIGURES) -00200 Temporary Features and Appurtenances 00210 Mobilization 1 for '"Fo.I'~ i=.w -tlw....<,,(~ Dollars 1 LS $l/5, OC1/> $ i{5,Oan 00225 Work Zone TraffIC Control 2 for-rk>>.<.1y h've. 'TLtuu~a...v:l Dollars 1 LS $ '25, 00{) $ 25;1'00 Z2106C. 00280 Erosion and Sediment Control 7, ~Oll ~,6()C 3 for St>.._.^ ...,-k_~ h'u-(. I-#u...vll'\'.d Dollars 1 LS $~ $ 1], 5t:'>o 00290 Pollution Control Plan 4 for 1=ivc.. ~)\.>.&c...AA Dollars 1 LS $5,000 $ 5:000 BID SCHEDULE NORTH MAIN PUMP STATION p' N 11(nf ~,~ 00300 Roadwork 00310 Removal of Structures and Obstructions 5 for K~ -rlwusG.M.A Dollars $ /5 (> 00 00400 Drainage and Sewers 00490 Connection to Existing Gravity Sanitary Sewer, including Bypass Piping and/or Pumping 6 for - .. Dollars 00495 Trench Resurfacing 7 for \.v. Dollars 2 EA $5iOCO $ 10,000 SY $-2~O $L/ lEo. ~ If' 5 00500 Bridges 00510 Structure Excavation, Dewatering & Shoring $ 55, 000 8 _ for 't:":t.i... 'F.'" -rl .' , , Dollars 1 LS $55,000 00510 Rock Excavation 9 for ~....~ ~~r-d Dollars 20 CY $'&;0 $ ~/ODO 00800 Permanent Traffic Safety and Guidance Devices 00810 Metal Guardrail 10 for LS $+J,5e~~ $~q,Gco' .1 G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\ENGINEER\PROJECT\2004\04-06 N Main Pump Station Bid 4 07.doc Page 15 I NO I i . I . , . DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 01100 Water Supply Systems 01140 4w 0.1. Discharge Pipe - No Disinfection 11 for -rt,,"-'UI_ l4....~6.14J T..... x....:I-.. hl.>lL Dollars QTY. I UNIT PRICE I (FIGURES) I UNIT Pre-engineered Package Submersible Wastewater Lift Station 12 Wastewater Lift Station, Including Wetwell. Valve Vault, Pumping Equipment, Motors, Power Cables, Guide Bars and Brackets, Discharge Piping, Fittings, Valves, Controls, Control Panel, Installation, Startup, Maintenance Manual, and all 1~7. SCO, other Appurtenances and Services. for Wb -r Dollars 1 LS $ 20?; ~,) BASE BID TOTAL $ -379 /2.:5 G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\ENGINEER\PROJECl\2004\04-06 N Main Pump Station Bid 4 07.doc I q7, 5<X>. 0 D 'ji!!IJ. $ 2.0D... ODe . 3'-', 375.DO Page 16 The City reserves the right to reject any and all bids, waive formalities, or accept any bid which appears to serve the best interests of the City in accordance with ORS 279B.lOO. The foregoing prices shall include all labor, materials, equipment, overhead, profit, insurance, and all other incidental expenses to cover the finished work ofthe several kinds called for. Unit prices are to be shown in both words and figures. In case of discrepancy, the amounts shown in words will govern. . Upon receipt of written notice of the acceptance of this bid, Bidder shall execute the formal contract attached within ten days, deliver surety bond or bonds as required, and deliver required proof of ins~ance. The bid security attached in the sum of five percent of the total price for the bid or combination of bids is to become the property of the Owner in the event the contract and bond are not executed within the time above set forth as liquidated damages for the delay and additional expense to the Owner caused thereby. The Bidder is X' or is not :... a resident Bidder as defined in ORS 279A.120. ~fBd -;;;rfr .:5/fe lJ~lN~.n4&&1; kc... Firm ame of Bidder /V7ark ~<(hr Printed Name of Bidder ~'i/~ Official Title ~~O~ State of ncorporatIon /33oo/G. CCB Number Dated this 22 day of /"?'/a,/ , 2007. Name of Bidder --;-;;'11&.,-- C <;'".1-* /)puelo/1/VJePl-!: !"c.. Address 60/ Sa1~ /lei. .5."k.B /Y7e~. oJ?. 9750/ Telephone No. 6tJl- 771- 35h.5 G:\pub-wr1<s\eng\dept-admin\ENGINEER\PROJECT\2004\04-06 N Main Pump Station Bid 4 07.doc Paga 17 BID BOND We, the undersigned) TAYLOR SITE DEVELOPMENT, INC. as Principal, and NORTH AMERICAN SPECIALTY INSURAN'CE COMPANY as Surety, are heM and finnly bound to City of Ashland, Oregon as OWNER, in the {'enal sum of FIVE PERCENT OF TOTAL BID for the payment of which jointly and severally bind ourselves, our successors, and assigns. , Signed this 23RD day of APRIL, 20~. The condition of the above obligation is such that whereas the Principal has submitted to the City of ,.Ashland, Oregon. a certain BID, attached and made a part oflhis BOND, to enter into a contract in ~.writing. for the proposal ofNotUl Main P~p Station. :NOW. THEREFORE, (a) If this BID shall be r:ejectcd, or; (b) If this BID shalJ be accepted and the Principal shall execute and deliver a contract in the Form of Contract attached (properly completed in accordance with the BID) and furnish a BOND for the faithful pedonnance of the contract. and for the payment of all persons perfonning labor or furnishing materials in colUlcction with tbe contract, and shall in all respects perform the agreement created by the acceptance of the BID, then this obligation shall be void, otherwise the same shall remain in force and effect; it being expressly understood and agreed that the liability of the Surety for any and all Claims under this BOND shall, in no event, exceed the penal amount of this obligation as stated. The Surety, for value received, stipulates and agrees that the obligations of the Surety and its BOND shall be in no way impaired or affected by any extension of the time within which the OWNER may a~f such BID; and the Surety waives notice of any such extension. ~0J1~~' INC. ~~ .. Principal NORT AMERIC SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY By: BONNI RIDDLE. ATTORNEY-IN-FACT IMPORTANT - Surety companies executing BONDS must appear on the Treasury Department's most current list (Circular 570 BS amended) Bnd be authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon. . ~$\eng\depr-'drnln\ENGlNeER\PROJEC1\2004\04.oe N Mein Pump Slauon Bid 401.doe NAS SURETY GROUP NORTH AMERICAN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY WASHINGTON INTERN A TIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, THAT North American Specialty Insurance Company, a corporation duly organized and existing under laws of the State of New Hampshire, and having its principal office in the City of Manchester, New Hampshire, and Washington International Insurance Company, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Arizona and having its principal office in the City ofItasca, Illinois, each does hereby make, constitute and appoint: ROBERT LAGLER and BONNIE RIDDLE JOINTLY OR SEVERALLY Its true and lawful Attorney(s)-in-Fact, to make, execute, seal and deliver, for and on its behalfand as its act and deed, bonds or other writings obligatory in the nature of a bond on behalf of each of said Companies, as surety, on contracts of suretyship as are or may be required or pennitted by law, regulation, contract or otherwise, provided that no bond or undertaking or contract or suretyship executed under this authority shall exceed the amount of: TWENTY -FIVE MILLION ($25,000,000.00) DOLLARS This Power of Attomey is granted and is signed by facsimile under and by the authority of the following Resolutions adopted by the Boards of Directors of both North American Specialty Insurance Company and Washington International Insurance Company at meetings duly called and held on the 241h of March, 2000: "RESOLVED, that any two of the President, any Executive Vice President, any Vice President, any Assistant Vice President, the Secretary or any Assistant Secretary be, and each or any of them hereby is authorized to execute a Power of Attorney qualifying the attorney named in the given Power of Attorney to execute on behalf of the Company bonds, undertakings and all contracts of surety, and that each or any of them hereby is authorized to attest to the execution of any such Power of Attorney and to attach therein the seal of the Company; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that the signature of such officerS and the seal of the Company may be affixed to any such Power of Attorney or to any certificate relating thereto by facsimile, and any such Power of Attomey or certificate bearing such facsimile signatures or facsimile seal shall be binding upon the Company when so affixed and in the future with regard to any bond, undertaking or contract of surety to which it is attached." lQo\\",\IIII."'ItIt,~ ~ fA~.At""~' ,f~~~:~~ .. .. . ...... .~. _ S~..~ ~...~ - . .~. \ f dj SEAl in! _.. r. ~ PRoI4etlt" CIIief E....lIve ocr..... efWlIIIIiIopIIllIIenatioull_raKe C_pa.." ! .COIlPORA1E. = "il. ...... ' 50 "EAl ft. ;0 111 \~ 1m I/.! D' VIce PreoldelIIefN_ Ameriaa SpedoIty -- C-po.y - ~.., I?; \~~",~.~~ \,\....... ~$ ~.~~..~? A :. ~ '\'" * ~i' ~Itlttlltll~\\'l By .~~.".-..., ........".......... David M. uy_.. VIce r_t efWoi'lli..ct_I............ __ c_,..y" Vke r_t efNertlo A__ Spedalt)' 1_...... C__y IN WITNESS WHEREOF, North American Specialty Insurance Company and Washington International Insurance Company have caused their official seals to be hereunto affixed, and these presents to be signed by their authorized officers this 12th day of March . 20~. North American Specialty Insurance Company Washington International Insurance Company State of Illinois County of Du Page ss: On this 12th day of March. 20.QL, before me, a Notary Public personally appeared Steven P. Anderson , President and CEO of Washington International Insurance Company and Vice President of North American Specialty Insurance Company and David M. Layman, Vice President of Washington International Insurance Company and Vice President of North American Specialty Insurance Company, personally known to me, who being by me duly sworn, acknowledged that they signed the above Power of Attorney as officers of and acknowledged said instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of their respective companies. "'OfFlClAL $EAl" SUSHfPlS'el NiolatV"IAlf~S1.of""s UI'~&Ptes716ml8 J / ~-- t~ Susan Ansel, Notary Public ., ill- I, James A. Camenter , the duly elected Assistant ecretarv of North American Specialty Insurance Company and Washington International Insurance Company, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Power of Attorney given by said North American Specialty Insurance Company and Washington International Insurance Company, which is still in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand and affixed the seals of the Companies this 23R1lay of APRIL , 20.-01.. ~'hy6~ James A. Cupenfer, Vice 'residenl" Assislanl Secmary of Washington Inlernalionallnsurance Company lit. NOJ1h Americ:on Special!)' Insurance Company CITY OF ASHLAND CONTRACT FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION Contract made this day of , 2007 between the City of Ashland, ("City") and Taylor Site Development, Inc. "(Contractor"). City and Contractor agree: 1. Contract Documents: This contract is made as a result of an Advertisement for Bid issued by City for the North Main Pump Station. Contractor was awarded the bid as the lowest responsible bidder. In the event of any inconsistencies in the terms of this contract, the contract documents defined in the Advertisement for Bid and Contractor's bid, this contract shall take precedence over the contract documents, which shall take precedence over the bid. This contract and attached exhibits constitute the entire agreement between the parties. No waiver, consent, or modification or change of terms of this contract shall bind either party unless in writing and signed by both parties. Such waiver, consent, modification or change, if made, shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. There are no understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this contract. Contractor, by signature of its authorized representative, hereby acknowledges that he/she has read this contract, understands it, and agrees to be bound by its terms and conditions. 2. Scope: Contractor shall begin and complete the project described in the contract documents within the time prescribed in the contract documents. The following exceptions, alterations, or modifications to the contract documents are incorporated into this contract: 3. Price & Payment: City shall pay Contractor amounts earned under the contract. All payments will be made at the times and in the manner provided in the contract documents. 4. Performance and Payment Bonds: Contractor shall, within five days after execution of the contract and prior to doing any work under the contract, furnish bonds to the City of Ashland in a form and with a surety satisfactory to City in the penal sum of$367,375.00 conditioned upon the faithful payment and performance of this contract upon the part of the Contractor as required by ORS 279C.380. 5. Indemnification: Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify and save City, its officers, employees and agents harmless from any and all losses, claims, actions, costs, expenses, judgments, subrogations, or other damages resulting from injury to any person (including injury resulting in death,) or damage (including loss or destruction) to property, of whatsoever nature arising out of or incident to the performance of this contract by Contractor (including but not limited to, Contractor's employees, agents, and others designated by Contractor to perform work or services attendant to this contract.) Contractor shall not be held responsible for any losses, expenses, claims, subrogations, aCtions, costs, judgments, or other damages, directly, solely, and approximately caused by the negligence of City. 6. Insurance: Contractor shall, at its own expense, at all times during the term of this agreement, maintain in force: G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\ENGINEER\PROJECT\2004\04-06 Taylor Contract Document 6 07.doc 6.1 General Liability. A comprehensive general liability policy including coverage for contractual liability for obligations assumed under this Contract, blanket contractual liability, products and completed operations, owner's and contractor's protective insurance and comprehensive automobile liability including owned and non-owned automobiles. The liability under each policy shall be a minimum of $500,000 per occurrence (combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage claims) or $500,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and $100,000 per occurrence for property damage. Liability coverage shall be provided on an "occurrence" not "claims" basis. 6.2 Worker's Compensation. Worker's compensation insurance in compliance with ORS 656.017, which requires subject employers to provide Oregon workers' compensation' coverage for all their subject workers. 6.3 Automobile Liability. Automobile liability insurance with a combined single limit, or the equivalent, of not less than Enter one: $200,000, $500,000, $1,000,000, or Not Applicable for each accident for Bodily Injury and Property Damage, including coverage for owned, hired or non-owned vehicles, as applicable. The City of Ashland, its officers, employees and agents shall be named as additional insureds on each required insurance policy. Contractor shall submit certificates of insurance acceptable to the City with the signed contract prior to the commencement of any work under this agreement. These certificates shall contain provision that coverage afforded under the policies can not be canceled and restrictive modifications cannot be made until at least 30 days prior written notice has been given to City. Insuring companies or entities are subject to the City's acceptance. If requested, complete copies of insurance policies, trust agreements, etc. shall be provided to the City. The Contractor shall be financially responsible for all pertinent deductibles, self-insured retentions and/or self-insurance. 7. Compliance with Law: 7.1. This contract will be governed by and construed in accordance with laws of the State of Oregon. Consultant shall promptly observe and comply with all present and future laws, orders, regulations, rules and ordinances of federal, state, City and city governments with respect to the services including, but not limited to, provisions of ORS 279C.505, 279C.515, 279C.520 and 279C.530. 7.2. Pursuant to ORS 279C.520(2) any person employed by Consultant who performs work under this contract shall be paid at least time and a half pay for all overtime in excess of 40 hours in anyone week, except for persons who are excluded or exempt from overtime pay under ORS 653.010 to 653.261 or under 29 V.S.C. Sections 201 to 209. 7.3. Consultant is a "subject employer" as defined in ORS 656.005 and shall comply with ORS 656.017. Prior to commencing any work, Consultant shall certify to City that Consultant has workers' compensation coverage required by ORS Chapter 656. If Consultant is a carrier insured employer, Consultant shall provide City with a certificate of insurance. If Consultant is a self-insured employer, Consultant shall provide City with a certification from the Oregon Department of Insurance and Finance as evidence of Consultant's status. 7.4. Any claim, action, suit or proceeding (collectively, "the claim") between the City (and/or any other or department of the State of Oregon) and the Contractor that arises from or relates to this contract shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the Circuit Court of Jackson County for the State of Oregon. If, however, the claim must be brought in a G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\ENGINEER\PROJECT\2004\04-06 Taylor Contract Document 6 07.doc federal forum, then it shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the United States District Court for the District of Oregon filed in Jackson County, Oregon. Contractor, by signature herein of its authorized representative, hereby consents to the in personam jurisdiction of said courts. In no event shall this section be construed as a waiver by City of any form of defense or immunity, based on the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, or otherwise, from any claim or from the jurisdiction. 8. Default: A default shall occur under any of the following circumstances: 8.1 If the Contractor fails to begin the work under contract within the time specified, or fails to perform the work with sufficient workers or equipment or with sufficient materials to insure the prompt completion of the project, or shall neglect or refuse to remove materials or perform anew such work as shall be rejected as defective or unsuitable, or shall discontinue the prosecution of the work. 8.2 If the Contractor shall become insolvent or declared bankrupt, or commit any act of bankruptcy or insolvency, or allow any final judgment to stand against the Contractor unsatisfied for a period of forty-eight (48) hours, or shall make an assignment for the benefit of creditors. 8.3 From any other cause whatsoever, shall not carry on the work in an acceptable manner. 8.4 Contractor commits any material breach or default of any covenant, warranty, certification, or obligation it owes under the Contract; 8.5 Contractor loses its QRF status pursuant to the QRF Rules or loses any license, certificate or certification that it required to perform the Services or to qualify as a QRF; 8.6 Contractor attempts to assign rights in, or delegate duties under the Contract. 9. Remedies: In addition to the rights and remedies to which the City may be entitled by law for the enforcement of its rights under this contract, City shall have full power and authority, without violating this contract, to take prosecution of the work from the Contractor, and appropriate or use any or all of the materials and equipment on the ground that may be suitable and acceptable and may cause a contract for the completion of this contract according to its terms and provisions, or use such methods as required for the completion of the contract, in any acceptable manner. All costs and charges incurred by the City together with the costs of completing the work under the contract, shall be deducted from any money due or which shall become due the Contractor. In case the expense so incurred by the City shall be less than the sum which would have been payable under the contract if it had been completed by the Contractor, then the Contractor shall be entitled to received the difference less any damages for delay to which the City may be entitled. In case such expense shall exceed the sum which would have been payable under the contract, the Contractor and the surety shall be liable and agree to and shall pay the City the amount of the excess with damages for delay of performance, if any. 10. Termination:e10.1 Mutual consent. This contract may be terminated at any time by mutual consent of both parties. G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\ENGINEER\PROJECl\2004\04-06 Taylor Contract Document 6 07.doc 10.2 City's Convenience. This contract may be terminated at any time by City upon 30 days' notice in writing and delivered by certified mail or in person. 10.3 For Cause. City may terminate or modify this contract, in whole or in part, effective upon delivery of written notice to Contractor, or at such later date as may be established by City under any of the following conditions: a. If City funding from federal, state, county, or other sources is not obtained and continued at levels sufficient to allow for the purchase of the indicated quantity of servIces; b. Iffederal or state regulations or guidelines are modified, changed or interpreted in such a way that the services are no longer allowable or appropriate for purchase under this contract or are no longer eligible for the funding proposed for payments authorized by this contract; or c. If any license or certificate required by law or regulation to be held by Contractor to provide the services required by this contract for any reason denied, revoked, suspended, or not renewed. 10.4 For Default or Breach. a. Either City or Contractor may terminate this contract in the event of a breach of the contract by the other. Prior to such termination the party seeking termination shall give to the other party written notice of the breach and intent to terminate. If the party committing the breach has not entirely cured the breach within 15 days of the date of the notice, or within such other period as the party giving notice may authorize or require, then the contract may be terminated at any time thereafter by a written notice of termination by the party giving notice. b. Time is of the essence for Contractor's performance of each and every obligation and duty under this contract. City by written notice to Contractor of default or breach, may at any time terminate the whole or any part of this contract if Contractor fails to provide services called for by this contract within the time specified herein or in any extension thereof. c. The rights and remedies of City provided in this subsection (10.4) are not exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this contract. 10.5 Obligation/Liability of Parties: Termination or modification ofthis contract pursuant to subsections 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 and 10.4 above shall be without prejudice to any obligations or liabilities or either party already accrued prior to such termination or modification. However, upon receiving a notice of termination (regardless whether such notice is given pursuant to subsections 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 and 10.4 of this section, Contractor shall immediately ceased all activities under this contract, unless expressly directed otherwise by City in notice oftermination. Further, upon termination, Contractor shall deliver to City all contract documents, information, works-in-progress and other property that are or would be deliverables had the contract been completed. City shall pay Contractor for work performed prior to the termination date if such work was performed in accordance with the Contract. 11. Funds Available and Authorized: City has sufficient funds currently available and authorized for expenditure to finance the costs of this contract within the City's fiscal year budget. Contractor understands and agrees that City's payment of amounts under this contract G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\ENGINEER\PROJEC1\2004\04-06 Taylor Contract Document 6 07.doc attributable to work performed after the last day of the current fiscal year is contingent on City appropriations, or other expenditure authority sufficient to allow City in the exercise of its reasonable administrative discretion, to continue to make payments under this contract. In the event City has insufficient appropriations, limitations or other expenditure authority, City may terminate this contract without penalty or liability to City, effective upon the delivery of written notice to Contractor, with no further liability to Contractor. 12. Prevailing Wage Rates: The Contractor shall pay a fee equal to one-tenth of one percent (0.1 percent) of price of this Contract. The fee shall be paid on or before the first progress payment or 60 days from the date work first begins on the Contract, whichever comes first. The fee is payable to the Bureau of Labor & Industries and shall be mailed or otherwise delivered to the Bureau at the following address: Bureau of Labor & Industries Wage & Hour Division Prevailing Wage Unit 800 N.E. Oregon Street #32 Portland OR 97232 The Contractor shall fully comply with the provisions of ORS 279C.800 through 279C.870 pertaining to prevailing wage rates. All Contractors and subcontractors working on a public works project must file a $30,000 "public works bond" with the. Construction Contractor's Board. This bond is to be used exclusively for unpaid wages determined due by BOLL Some exemptions from this requirement are to provided for certified disadvantaged, minority, women or emerging small business enterprises. General Contractors must verify that subcontractors have filed a public works bond. 13. Living Wage Rates: If the amount of this contract is $15,964 or more, and Contractor is not paying prevailing wage for the work, Contractor must comply with Chapter 3.12 of the Ashland Municipal Code by paying a living wage, as defined in this chapter, to all employees performing work under this contract and to any subcontractor who performs 50% or more of the work under this contract. Contractor must post the attached Living Wage *- notice predominantly in areas where it will be seen by all employees. 14. Assignment and Subcontracts: Contractor shall not assign this contract without the written consent of City. Any attempted assignment without written consent of City shall be void. Contractor shall be fully responsible for the acts or omissions of any assigns or subcontractors . and of all persons employed by them, and the approval by City of any assignment or subcontract shall not create any contractual relation between the assignee or subcontractor and City. Contractor may not substitute any subcontractors from the submitted list of First-Tier Subcontractor Disclosure Form without written consent ofthe City, or by following the procedures ofORS 279C.585 and OAR 137-049-0360. 15. Governing Law: Jurisdiction: Venue: This contract shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon without resort to any jurisdiction's conflict of laws, rules or doctrines. Any claim, action, suit or proceeding (collectively, "the claim") between the City (and/or any other or department of the State of Oregon) and the Contractor that G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\ENGINEER\PROJECT\2004\04-Q6 Taylor Contract Document 6 07.doc arises from or relates to this contract shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the Circuit Court of Jackson County for the State of Oregon. If, however, the claim must be brought in a federal forum, then it shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the United States District Court for the District of Oregon filed in Jackson County, Oregon. Contractor, by the signature herein of its authorized representative, hereby consents to the in personam jurisdiction of said courts. In no event shall this section be construed as a waiver by City of any form of defense or immunity, based on the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, or otherwise, from any claim or from the jurisdiction. 16. MERGER CLAUSE: THIS CONTRACT AND ATTACHED EXHIBITS CONSTITUTE THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES. NO WAIVER, CONSENT, MODIFICATION OR CHANGE OF TERMS OF THIS CONTRACT SHALL BIND EITHER PARTY UNLESS IN WRITING AND SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES. SUCH WAIVER, CONSENT, MODIFICATION OR CHANGE, IF MADE, SHALL BE EFFECTIVE ONLY IN THE SPECIFIC INSTANCE AND FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE GIVEN. THERE ARE NO UNDERSTANDINGS, AGREEMENTS, OR REPRESENTATIONS, ORAL OR WRITTEN, NOT SPECIFIED HEREIN REGARDING THIS CONTRACT. CONTRACTOR, BY SIGNATURE OF ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE/SHE HAS READ THIS CONTRACT, UNDERSTANDS IT, AND AGREES TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS. 17. Prior Approval ReQuired: Approval of the City of Ashland Council or Public Contracting Officer is required before any work may begin under this contract. CONTRACTOR By: CITY OF ASHLAND By: Signature Lee Tuneberg Finance Director Printed Name Its: REVIEWED AS TO FORM: By: Legal Department Date: REVIEWED AS TO CONTENT: By: Date: Department Head Coding: (For City use only) G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\ENGINEER\PROJECT\2004\04-06 Taylor Contract Document 6 07.doc --,-,-,-- CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Public Hearing to Consider Adopting the Annual Budget Meeting Date: June 5, 2007 Department: Administrative Services Contributing Departments: NA Approval: Martha Benne Primary Staff Contact: E-mail: Secondary Staff Contact: E-mail: Estimated Time: Lee Tuneberg ~ tuneberl@ashland.or.us NA 15 Minutes Statement: The third phase of the annual budget process is the City Council holding a public hearing and adopting the budget as approved by the Budget Committee with or without further adjustments by Council. This hearing will result in Council action that establishes the budget, levies taxes and authorizes state subvention revenues to be received for FY 2007-08. Background: The Budget Committee and/or Budget Sub Committee met nine times this winter and spring and thoroughly reviewed this budget. On May 22,2007, the Budget Committee met and approved the budget and recommended it for adoption. The Committee also approved a new local option tax levy of up to $.58 per $1000 of valuation for interim library funding to be referred to the voters and included related appropriations of $1 ,005,000 in the budget, contingent upon electorate approval. The Council must take the actions listed below to establish the FY 2007-08 budget. Oregon Budget law allows the elected body to increase expenditures by $5,000 or 10% (whichever the greater) of any fund without further review and approval by the Committee. Council cannot increase the tax rate without republishing the amended budget and a second hearing before June 30. Total changes to a fund beyond 10% also would require re-publishing the amended budget and holding another public hearing prior to July 1. A summary memo is provided that identifies changes made to the proposed budget to create the approved budget. Enclosed within the packet are four actions requiring Council approval to complete this phase and "set" the budget for FY 2007-08: 1. A Resolution certifying Ashland qualifies for State Subventions. 2. A Resolution declaring the City's election to receive State Subvention revenue. 3. A Resolution adopting the annual budget and making appropriations. 4. An Ordinance Levying taxes for the period July 1, 2007 - June 30, 2008. Item #3 is tentative until certified to Jackson County in that it includes the local option levy that has not been voted upon. By July 15, 2007, the City will request an extension to certify property taxes until October 1 to provide time for the citizens to vote on the local option levy to provide interim funding for the library. The property tax levy tentatively approved by the Budget Committee will not be official until passed by the voters and certified to Jackson County by staff. If approved by the citizens on September 18, the above required forms to certify taxes will go to the County. If the measure is ~&, ~~-,,--,-- defeated, the City Council will hold a public hearing to reduce the tax revenue and related appropriations from the budget and certify the correct property taxes. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the accompanying three Resolutions and the reading in full of the Ordinance. Attachments: Memo to Council Fiscal Year 2007-2008 Summary of Changes 'A' _-~~-~ - - Tr T CITY OF ASHLAND Memo DATE: June 5, 2007 TO: FROM: RE: Mayor and Council Lee Tuneberg, Budget Officer Budget Process Summary of Changes We spent about 30 hours again this year as we reviewed budgets, projections and issues, yet had only a few changes. Some were corrections, some were additions and some were reductions. The Proposed Budget had already been reduced by internal review to arrive at the $91,099,660 amount that was submitted and the final amount approved is $92,018,831. The Committee brought up many interesting points for Council and the community to ponder over the next year but the "hard" changes from the Committee and a few late adjustments are as follows. 1. Ashland Library.: The Committee approved adding $1,005,000 in appropriations contingent upon the voters approving a local option levy of up to $.58/$1000 of valuation. A levy of $.5650 is estimated to generate enough tax revenue to fund the $1,005,000 appropriation. 2. Other General Fund revisions: a -In the Community Development Department, Building Division, the Committee restored $22,780 in personnel and benefit costs based upon a new revenue of that amount from an intergovernmental agreement with the State for inspection services outside the City limits. b _ Summer Library Activities were added utilizing $.01 of the permanent operating levy to generate approximately $17,800 in revenue. That amount of appropriation was added to Administration. c _ An additional increase in the proposed property tax rate of $.0450 was approved to fund a Master Planning study to be done in Community Development, Planning Division, for $80,000. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT D. L. Tuneberg, Director Tel: 541-488-5300 20 East Main Street Fax: 541-552-2059 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 W'INI.ashland.or.us ~A' .------- T1--T CITY OF A.SHLAND Memo d _ The Fire Department had $109,000 cut from the proposed budget including reductions in CERT, training and some overtime. This increases the ending fund balance by that amount. e _ Other adjustments to the ending fund balance in the General Fund included: . Corrections to FY 2007 Fire Department projected expenditures decreased the carry forward and FY 2008 ending fund balance by $313,449. . Selling only one lot on Strawberry Lane in FY 2007 and re-budgeting the sale of the remaining lots in FY 2008 had a net effect of increasing ending fund balance by $107,040. 3. The Parks and Recreation Fund: Parks Division was reduced $93,000 in favor of budgeted expenditures covered by the agreement with the schools that relates to sports field maintenance. Appropriations for this work are already included in the Youth Activity Levy. The reduction increased the ending fund balance for the Parks and Recreation fund by the $93,000. 4. Recommended adjustment to the Approved Budget: I am recommending revisions to the Electric Fund to budget for the solar panel project that will not be started in FY 2007. The Electric Fund already has approximately $455,000 budgeted for this project. The project now has an additional $300,000 funding potential from business energy tax credits and the anticipated expenditure in FY 2007 is likely to not happen. The FY 2008 Electric Fund approved amounts should have $300,000 in revenue added under Other Financing Sources and $345,000 added to Supply Division - Capital Outlay appropriations to reflect the project delay to the next year. The delay will cause a larger fund balance carry forward and a zero net effect between the two years. If items #1 _ #3 remain unchanged and item #4 is implemented the new amount of the budget would total $92,373,831. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT D. L. Tuneberg, Director Tel: 541-488-5300 20 East Main Street Fax: 541-552-2059 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us r., --,,---r City of Ashland Fiscal Year 2007-2008 Summary of Changes Tentatively 2008 Approved Outstanding 2008 Proposed Changes Revised Items Approved GENERAL FUND Administration Department 121,051 121,051 121,051 Administration Department - Library 1,022,800 1,022,800 Administrative Services - Municipal Court 427,360 427,360 427,360 Administrative Services - Social Services Grants 121,000 121,000 121,000 Administrative Services - Economic & Cultural Grants 527,519 527,519 527,519 Administrative Services - Miscellaneous 1,000 1,000 1,000 Administrative Services - Band 60,509 60,509 60,509 Police Department 5,458,208 5,458,208 5,458,208 Fire and Rescue Department 5,106,175 5,106,175 (109,000) 4,997,175 Public Works - Cemetery Division 339,165 339,165 339,165 Community Development - Planning Division 2,331,548 2,331,548 80,000 2,411 ,548 Community Development - Building Division 811,211 22,780 833,991 833,991 Transfers 500 500 500 Contingency 400,000 400,000 400,000 Ending Fund Balance 1,219,929 1,219,929 (97,409) 1,122,520 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 16,925,175 22,780 16,947,955 896,391 17,844,346 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND Personal Services 23,600 23,600 23,600 Materiais and Services 203,700 203,700 203,700 Other Financing Uses (Interfund Loans) TOTAL CDBG FUND 227,300 227,300 227,300 STREET FUND Public Works - Street Operations 3,327,919 3,327,919 3,327,919 Public Works - Storm Water Operations 834,957 834,957 834,957 Public Works - Transportation SDC's 188,800 188,800 188,800 Public Works - Storm Water SDC's 172,500 172,500 172,500 Public Works - Local Improvement Districts 685,998 685,998 685,998 New Debt 400,000 400,000 400,000 Transfers 200,000 200,000 200,000 Contingency 89,000 89,000 89,000 Ending Fund Balance 1,223,240 1,223,240 1,223,240 TOTAL STREET FUND 7,122,414 7,122,414 7,122,414 AIRPORT FUND Materials and Services 111,032 111,032 111,032 Capital Outlay 228,605 228,605 228,605 Debt Service 35,172 35,172 35,172 other Financing Uses (Interfund Loans) Contingency 5,000 5,000 5,000 Ending Fund Balance 2,942 2,942 2,942 TOTAL AIRPORT FUND 382.751 382.751 382,751 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND Personal Services 176,216 176,216 176,216 Materials and Services 489,275 489,275 489,275 Capital Outlay 300,000 300,000 300,000 Transfers 302,573 302,573 302,573 other Financing Uses (Interfund Loans) Contingency 50,000 50,000 50,000 Ending Fund Balance 807,222 807,222 807,222 TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 2,125,286 2,125,286 2,125,286 DEBT SERVICE FUND Debt Service 2,016,821 2,016,821 2,016,821 Ending Fund Balance 601,085 601,085 601,085 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUND 2,617,906 2,617,906 2,617,906 City of Ashland Fiscal Year 2007-2008 Summary of Changes Tentatively 2008 Approved Outstanding 2008 Proposed Changes Revised Items Approved WATER FUND Water- ConselVation Division 177,300 177,300 177,300 Public Works - Forest Lands Management Division 385,670 385,670 385,670 Public Works - Water Supply 448,819 448,819 448,819 Public Works - Water Treatment 1,137,338 1,137,338 1,137,338 Public Works - Water Distribution 3,802,816 3,802,816 3,802,816 Public Works - Reimbursement SDC's Public Works - Improvement SDC's 605,250 605,250 605,250 Public Works - Debt SDC's 124,850 124,850 124,850 Debt Services 785,704 785,704 785,704 Other Financing Uses (Interfund Loans) Contingency 144,000 144,000 144,000 Ending Fund Balance 2,804,328 2,804,328 2,804,328 TOTAL WATER FUND 10,416,075 10,416,075 10,416,075 WASTEWATER FUND Public Works - Wastewater Collection 2,479,706 2,479,706 2,479,706 Public Works - Wastewater Treatment 1,926.453 1,926,453 1,926,453 Public Works - Reimbursement SDC's 239,403 239,403 239,403 Public Works -Improvement SDC's 121,423 121,423 121,423 Debt Services 1.788,160 1.788,160 1,788,160 Contingency 140,000 140,000 140,000 Ending Fund Balance 5,539,312 5,539,312 5,539,312 TOTAL WASTEWATER FUND 12,234,457 12,234,457 12,234,457 ELECTRIC FUND Electric. Conservation Division 942,887 942,887 942,887 Electric - Supply 5,757,504 5,757,504 5.757,504 Electric - Distribution 5,459,671 5,459,671 5,459,671 Electric - Transmission 903,600 903,600 903,600 Technology Debt 252,000 252,000 252,000 Transfers Contingency 375,000 375,000 375,000 Ending Fund Balance 1,722,245 1,722,245 1,722,245 TOTAL ELECTRIC FUND 15,412,907 15,412,907 15,412,907 TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND IT - Intemet 1,228,233 1,228,233 1,228,233 IT - High Speed 488,607 468,607 468,607 Debt Services 356,000 356,000 356,000 Contingency 100,000 100,000 100,000 Ending Fund Balance 362.716 362.716 362,716 TOTAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND 2,515,556 2,515,556 2,515,556 CENTRALSER~CESFUND Administration Department 1,502,580 1,502,580 1,502,580 Administrative Services Department 1,575,530 1,575,530 1,575,530 IT - Computer Services Division 1,165,588 1,165,588 1 , 165,588 City Recorder Division 298,569 298,569 298,569 Public Works - Administration and Engineering 1,387,186 1,387,186 1,387,186 Contingency 150,000 150,000 150,000 Ending Fund Balance 82,987 82,987 82,987 TOTALCENTRALSER~CESFUND 6,162,440 6,162,440 6,162,440 City of Ashland Fiscal Year 2007-2008 Summary of Changes Tentatively 2008 Approved Outstanding 2008 Proposed Changes Revised Items Approved INSURANCE SERVICES FUND Personal Services 85,000 85,000 85,000 Materials and Services 700,000 700,000 700,000 Contingency 100,000 100,000 100,000 Ending Fund Balance 908,275 908,275 908,275 TOTAL INSURANCE SERVICES FUND 1,793,275 1,793,275 1,793,275 EQUIPMENT FUND Personal Services 268,701 268,701 268,701 Materials and Services 503,222 503,222 503,222 Capital Outlay 1,438,000 1,438,000 1,438,000 Contingency 43,000 43,000 43,000 Ending Fund Balance 508,357 508,357 508,357 TOTAL EQUIPMENT FUND 2,761,280 2,761,280 2,761,280 CEMETERY TRUST FUND Transfers 25,000 25,000 25,000 Ending Fund Balance 774,453 774,453 774,453 TOTAL CEMETERY TRUST FUND 799,453 799,453 799,453 PARKS AND RECREATION FUND Parks Division 4,048,076 (93,000) 3,955,076 3,955,076 Recreation Division 1,051,727 1,051,727 1,051,727 GoW Division 419,018 419,018 419,018 Debt Service 3,500 3,500 3,500 Transfers 110,000 110,000 110,000 Contingency 35,000 35,000 35,000 Ending Fund Balance 784,245 93,000 877,245 877,245 TOTAL PARKS AND RECREATION FUND 6,451,566 6,451,566 6,451,566 YOUTH ACTMTIES LEVY FUND Personal Services 196,000 196,000 196,000 Materials and Services 2,381,000 2,381,000 2,381,000 Ending Fund Balance 216,893 216,893 216,893 TOTAL YOUTH ACTMTIES LEVY FUND 2,793,893 2,793,893 2,793,893 PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND Capital Outlay 331,000 331,000 331,000 Ending Fund Balance 26,926 26,926 26,926 TOTAL PARKS CAPITAL IMP. FUND 357,926 357,926 357,926 TOTAL BUDGET 91,099,660 22,780 91,122,440 896,391 92,018,831 Less Ending Fund Balance 17,585,158 93,000 17,678,155 (97,409) 17,580,746 Total Appropriations 73,514,504 (70,220) 73,444,285 993,800 74,438,085 Council Communication Summer Library Services CITY OF ASHLAND Meeting Date: Department: Contributing De Approval: June 5, 2007 A . istration ts: Legal Primary Staff Contact: Martha Bennett bennettm@ashland.or.us, Secondary Staff Contact: Ann Seltzer ann@ashland.or.us Statement: The Budget Committee approved a $.01 property tax increase to fund a summer reading program in Ashland. The increase will generate approximately $17,800. Staff Recommendation: Council should discuss the options and determine the appropriate use of staff time and public dollars in order to pursue a summer library solution. Background The Ashland School District (ASD) intends to open each of the five school libraries one day per week per school. ASD is considering opening an elementary library on Monday, Wednesday and Friday and the Middle School and High School library on Tuesdays and Thursdays. ASD will cover the facility costs and school librarian/assistant costs to staff the library. City staff has had preliminary conversations with ASD offering to supplement those efforts using funds approved by the Budget Committee and to pay for a children's library assistant to conduct story time in the elementary school libraries, to pay for a reference librarian for the Middle School and High School, and to pay for extended hours on Tuesdays and Thursdays. In addition, staff has contacted the Library Foundation asking if they can assist by marketing the ASD efforts and possibly pay for additional books for checkout. ASD intends to begin this library program the week of June 18. The primary disadvantages of this option are that only students enrolled in the Ashland Public Schools will be able to check out materials and that it may be confusing to people as a different library will be open each weekday. Councilor Hartzell has contacted the County and is proposing the Carnegie library and the first floor of the main library be opened for seven hours each week from June through September. She proposes that the City's $17,800 in approved funds be supplemented by private fundraising of contributions and grants. It is unknown whether the county will agree to the proposal, or whether a contract could be negotiated quickly enough to open the library before August. The primary disadvantage of this option is the limited hours, which may not adequately meet community needs. Also, under this option, the proportion of costs and overhead are high. Both options will require an intergovernmental agreement (IGA), which will require both negotiation and Council adoption. The City is committed to using the budget approved funds in the best possible manner and to provide an interim Staff is looking for direction from the council as to which option to pursue. Attachments: . Summer Library Proposed Options 1 Summer Library Proposed Options Option #1 Partner with Ashland School District. What we know · ASD will open one library in each school one day per week. Currently they are committed to opening an elementary library on Mondays, Wednesday and Fridays and the Middle School and High School on Tuesdays and Thursdays. . They will begin this service on June 18 and operate from 9:00 a.m. to 3 :00 p.m. · Each library will be staffed by an ASD employee. . Book borrowing will be limited to students enrolled in that school. What can the City do to help? · Pay for a children's library assistant to conduct story time in the elementary libraries. 1 person @ $13/hour for six hours per week for nine weeks = approximately $700. This could be increased to add secondary library support if desired. . Pay for a reference librarian to assist adults using either the Middle School or High School libraries. 1 person @ $25/hour eight hours per week for nine weeks = approximately $1800. · Pay for extended hours, 3:00 p.m. -7:00 p.m. at the High School and Middle School enabling more adults to access materials. Cost requested from school district, and should be available by June 5, 2007 Council meeting. · Ask the Library Foundation to pay for additional books for check-out by non-enrolled students. . Ask the Library Foundation to pay for marketing materials to inform the community of the summer library program e.g. creating and mailing materials with the city's utility bills; purchasing display advertising space in local newspapers, etc. . Work jointly with ASD and the Library Foundation. What we don't know . Will ASD be agreeable to providing space for the Babies in the Library program which is currently funded through a grant? . Level of participation by the Library Foundation. Option #2 Open a portion of the Ashland Public Library (see attachments from Councilor Hartzell) What we know . The County is developing a template that can be used by all local communities who wish to reopen and finance their libraries. Until the template is developed, the county cannot sign any IGAs. . Ashland library staff recommends either opening the entire building or just the Carnegie portion. The Carnegie could be closed off to the main library but still have access to the basement and restrooms. They believe they could man the upper floor with one additional employee stationed upstairs. Current proposal calls for two to three employees. . Need someone to manage staff schedules, volunteer schedules. . Internet Access is staff time intensive. People need constant assistance logging on and off. Staff suggests not allowing access to Internet terminals but to turn on wireless access if library is opened with only three staff people. Librarians who worked at the branch report that daily they have as many as 20 people who bring their computers to the library. . Shelving books could be done by volunteers but will require training. Pulling and shelving books range in numbers from 150 - 700 per day. 2 What can the city do to help? . Use budget approved funds to offset the cost of opening the library. . Work with the County to develop an IGA for the proposed June - September library operation, in addition to the IGA should the September levy pass. What we don't know · Who will conduct fundraising to secure needed funds? Estimates of costs for this option exceed $17,800 funds. . Actual budget costs. . Will all Jackson County cardholders be allowed to check out materials? . Can the proposal be developed and implemented prior to August? 3 Memo to City Councilors From: Cate Hartzell May 31,2007 RE: Ashland Branch County Library In June, Council will decide, at minimum, how to spend the proposed .0111,000 for summer library services and how much to ask residents for via the levy. Given the value that most residents place on our library, I spent the past couple of weeks exploring options that would allow us to open the Ashland County branch this summer. The materials I sent you Friday describing some of those options and the beginnings of a budget were very preliminary, and meant to gauge interest in the concept. If there is interest, a budget can be drafted to match available money and a reasonable estimate of what could be raised in the community. Recognizing the limitations on staff and our time, I charted out the different aspects of this library issue to help me assess where the best use ofthe City's and my time is. While I think opening it this summer will increase the sense of community pride and confidence, it's equally important that we design and advocate for a levy that will pass. If accomplishing that won't leave us time to facilitate a summer opening, I would ask the Council to stay open to supporting community-based efforts to do so. I believe that there will be a push by citizens for a levy at or above the 58 cents authorized by the Budget Committee. While I respect and appreciate this group's values and initiative, the Council has the added responsibility of maintaining voter confidence in our commitment to present cost-efficient funding meas,ures. Since we expect to have to encourage voters to approve other important funding requests in the next 5 years, I trust that there is general support for setting the levy at a level that people see in the context of those other requests. The cost ofliving is affected one decision at a time. I respectfully submit the materials I have been working on as tools for us to think through the decisions that lay just ahead. I am reworking the budget and scenarios and will send those out this weekend. BASICS: What's Open? Carnegie and the main floor ofthe new building. Possibly rent meeting rooms. When is it open? June-September, 2 days / week, 3.5 hours /day. Could be more hours later if additional money is raised. Staff is paid 10 hrs/wk. How is it staffed? City of Ashland hires 2-3 people (recently laid off and previously retired) that are best equipped to know building, volunteers, system; also those who already have background checks, etc. Volunteers are coordinated and relied on heavily for whatever is appropriate. Who can use it? All ages. General public, but books retrieved and checked out only to Ashland residents. What services would there be? Children's program that is grant-based. Patrons order books online and from library computers; volunteers pull and shelve books from upstairs; patrons check their own books out; limited Internet use; access to Periodicals, fiction, and children's section. No reference assistance; no browsing in non-fiction and teens. FINANCIAL ISSUES: . Estimate is $29,554.00; City resources allocated are $17,800. . Assess potential for contributions from o Jackson County Library Foundation o Jackson County (through current or reduced facility costs) o Meeting room rental income o fundraisers o philanthropists. OPERATIONAL ISSUES: . Will Jackson County allow a temporary solution? . Have to create a way to close off access to top floor to general public; . Potential for increased workload/problems due to people coming from out of Ashland . Iflibrary is having trouble getting books back now, evaluate idea of no check-outs this summer. Cost of notifying people of overdues and risk of losing items may not be worth expense. BENEFITS: Opens the door for some services for all ages; creates place for youth for summer reading; Establishes success and goodwill with public; Models low-cost interim solution; Creates one place, rather than rotating schools Keeps general public off ASD campuses Tests possible efficiencies that can contribute to future cost-savings. Puts some librarians to work this summer. I' Q Q N ~; ~~ o g ~= ~~ 5= = 0= ~.s .... ~ CJ o = ~ = ooU ~>. """,",Q ~"Cl ~~ ~;1:: ~ e ~~ 0000 1:1 ~ .s oS ~ _..... 0 .< ~ -~~ .... 0 11) ~ ~ ... ... g B]~ U~.9;::l 'i.5Qd.D .... en "'I:l 5g~a ~.!:= 0 a ~Ou-a ~ .5 ..s:: l.+-; en ... o oS ~.~ 3 .~ ;.::: Q) ... ~ 8.. 11) .i I-< >. S SOI1)"'I:l o ~ ~ a uBcQen ... -..... ~ .5 ..... "E 0 ~ o g 11)'00 11) 0.. ;::l "'I:l..... N 0.. 0..... U'.;j -< u B .g 'u en ~ 11)..8 'E it ~:.E 11)"'I:l 'E ~ :.::::i3 o 11) o :> laE--O = U . . ~ 5 .5 e. e 11) enSe2oS~ "fi ~ 11) ... l:5 >.;::l~~~o :> S 11) ~ ~ ::::::._ ~ 0 ~ l=< - 11) 0 ~ '.;j ~ ~ "'I:l'Q):>"'oeno>. 11) 0.. 0 en ... .B ~ ... :>en~I-<]l1)en~5 ;;>Ol=<o..~S~I1)""" .9 D 8 ~E--'.;j ~ ~ 8 o ... ~en ~ ... I-< 0 .D :> ..... - en . >. ... I-< '2 c2 en S ~ S g ~ u 0- :9 ~ ~ ~ - en ::::. 11) ~ en 11) en ~ "'I:l '1: .... u - 0 ..... 11) ......... ..., 0.. :> ..s:: ~~~0..01d Oen~~~OJ) r.t.l = "" ~ . . . ~ C'-. l=< I-< ,.e. oS~ c2] ..... OJ) Qd >. ~ .5 '00' en "E I-<en -a8;::l ~11) .~~ ;::l ..... 0 "'I:l , u 0> Q.) = en~ ~~:B ~~ ~..s:: 0.5 ~~ C'-. 0",",* ...... ...... 00 >...... 1d vi' I-< '"' ~ "'I:l 0.. ;::l ~ ... ~ ;::l C'-~. 0 .E~;::l0 ..s:: :.::::uc2bhl-<S c8ccr9~ S a e!'2 ;:: S 0-.D;::l0~ ~~ci~g~ 2 ~ >. 0 ~ C'-. 's Cd.~ ~ l=< S 1:1 ..... 0 S ~ ~ 0 .s ~ ~ S ~ ~ ~ ~ 11) r---~ S . 00 o 8"~ 8.E . ...... . . l.+-; OoS ~.~ .;: ~ ~ ~ o 0 u... "E:;::: en ..... U ~ o ~ 11) 0.. ;::l N 0.. 0 '.;j -<U'u 11) 11) ..s:: -a :> OJ) 0 ~ ;::l 11) ..s::oo.. "'~I::l 011)0 ~ ..... >.B1d ~ en ~ S en I:: 11)8c2 ~ u ~ ;> ~..... . - ~ ~gvi'~ ~.g B ~ ~ ~ 11) 11) 0.. ';;' +:: _ ... :91:o~e o"'l:l .5 11) "'S 0 u 0.. I-< "'I:l ';;' en o....s:: 0.. I:::i 0.. ~ o ~ 11) go.5.~ 0 oS ~ ... ..... ~ en l:;:: "'I:l ........ ~ 0 -a ~ ... >. ~ 0 ~ -a ~ .~ .~ '.;j 0 en - ..... >. ~,..... >. en ';::: S ~ "'I:l..!. ~ (:) ... ,g "E ... ~ - 11) 11)';:::. 0 ~ ~ 11) 11) ~ 0 0 ... en ;::l ... 0 ;::l "'I:l -0 ;::l'.;j 11) c2 P':: ~ S g ~ 8.~ ~ 8 g. ~ .5 . >. :> ~.~ 11) ~ .~ ~ "'I:l u OJ)~ .5 "'I:l .5 a S en~ .B a 11)_ "'I:lo.. ~ OJ) o ~ ~ '.;j .sa e! "E 11) 11) 0.. ... 0 1d ...~ en S ;::l 0 & ~ N . . l.+-; o en 11) ti a N 8 .~ en :> gp ~'I: '.;j S 0.. e!.BB 11)~0J) o..en~ o ..... 11) >. "'I:l (,.) "E ...... ;::l ;::l g "'I:l0"'l:l e u >. o "'I:l ~ ;.ao ~"fi u ~ a 0 .t:l I-< ~ en.D :> 0.. "'I:l ..... oa1d 'Q)-a ~ ~ .B o-<-a ("') en l.+-; 11) ~ 0.D .sa ... B 1d ~ ~ ~ ~ 0.."E~'" o ..... 5 11) 11) ~ oS l1)'U ... :> \.i:l cE .E 5h~ . . . . en ~ o ..... ... 0.. o S 11) ... I OJ) d o - ~ o ~ o ~ -.:t CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication A Resolution Adopting the Annual Budget and Making Appropriations Meeting Date: June 5,2007 Department: Administrative Services Contributing Departments: NA Approval: Martha Ben Primary Staff Contact: E-mail: Secondary Staff Contact: E-mail: Estimated Time: Lee Tuneberg ~ tuneberl@ashland.or.us NA 15 Minutes Statement: The fiscal year 2007-08 budget is submitted to the City Council for adoption along with the required appropriations for the fiscal year. Background: The Budget Committee and/or Budget Sub Committee met numerous times this winter and spring and thoroughly reviewed this budget. On May 22,2007, the Budget Committee approved the budget and recommended it for adoption. The combined total appropriation for all funds is $74,438,085. This number does not include the unappropriated balance of $17,580,746. These amounts may be adjusted as determined by Council within the guidelines established by Oregon Budget Law. A summary is provided that identifies changes made to the proposed budget to create the approved budget. Council Options: Council may adopt this resolution as presented, recommend modifications as discussed or defer acceptance (takes no action) awaiting further information or clarification. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution with or without adjustment. Attachments: A Resolution Adopting the Annual Budget and Making Appropriations r~' SECTION 1. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-_ A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ANNUAL BUDGET AND MAKING APPROPRIATIONS The City of Ashland resolves as follows: The 2007-2008 Fiscal Year Budget, now on file in the office of the City Recorder is adopted. The amounts for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2007, and for the purposes shown below are hereby appropriated as follows: GENERAL FUND Administration Department Administrative Services - Municipal Court Administrative Services - Social Services Grants Administrative Services - Economic & Cultural Grants Administrative Services - Miscellaneous Administrative Services - Band Police Department Fire and Rescue Department Public Works - Cemetery Division Community Development - Planning Division Community Development - Building Division Transfers Contingency TOTAL GENERAL FUND $ 1,143,850 427,360 121,000 527,519 1,000 60,509 5,458,209 4,997,175 339,165 2,411,548 833,991 500 400,000 16,721,826 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND Personal Services Materials and Services TOTAL CDBG FUND 23,600 203,700 227,300 STREET FUND Public Works - Street Operations Public Works - Storm Water Operations Public Works - Transportation SDC's Public Works - Storm Water SDC's Public Works - Local Improvement Districts Transfers Debt Service Contingency TOTAL STREET FUND 3,327,919 834,957 188,800 172,500 685,998 200,000 400,000 89,000 5,899,174 AIRPORT FUND Materials and Services Capital Improvement Debt Service Contingency TOTAL AIRPORT FUND 111 ,032 228,605 35,172 5,000 379,809 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND Personal Services Materials and Services Capital Outlay Transfers Contingency TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 176,216 489,275 300,000 302,573 50,000 1,318,064 DEBT SERVICE FUND Debt Service TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUND 2.016,821 2,016,821 WATER FUND Electric - Conservation Division Public Works - Forest Lands Management Division Public Works - Water Supply Public Works - Water Treatment Public Works - Water Distribution Public Works - Improvement SDC's Public Works - Debt SDC's Debt Services Contingency TOTAL WATER FUND WASTEWATER FUND Public Works - Wastewater Collection Public Works - Wastewater Treatment Public Works - Reimbursement SDC's Public Works - Improvement SDC's Debt Service Contingency TOTAL WASTEWATER FUND ELECTRIC FUND Electric - Conservation Division Electric - Supply Electric - Distribution Electric - Transmission Contingency TOTAL ELECTRIC FUND TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND IT - Intemet IT - High Speed Debt Service Contingency TOTAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND CENTRALSER~CESFUND Administration Department Administrative Services Department IT - Computer Services Division City Recorder Division Public Works - Administration and Engineering Contingency TOTALCENTRALSER~CESFUND 177,300 385,670 448,819 1,137,338 3,802,816 605,250 124,850 785,704 144,000 7,611,747 2,479,706 1,926,453 239,403 121,423 1,788,160 140,000 6,695,145 942,887 5,757,504 5,711,671 903,600 375,000 13,690,662 1,228,233 468,607 356,000 100,000 2,152,840 1,502,580 1,575,530 1,165,588 298,569 1,387,186 150,000 6,079,453 INSURANCE SERVICES FUND Personal Services Materials and Services Contingency TOTAL INSURANCE SERVICES FUND 85,000 700,000 100,000 885,000 EQUIPMENT FUND Personal Services Materials and Services Capital Outlay Contingency TOTAL EQUIPMENT FUND 268,701 503,222 1,438,000 43,000 2,252,923 CEMETERY TRUST FUND Transfers TOTAL CEMETERY TRUST FUND 25,000 25,000 PARKS AND RECREATION FUND Parks Division Recreation Division Golf Division Transfers Debt Service Contingency TOTAL PARKS AND RECREATION FUND 3,948,075 1,051,727 419,019 110,000 10,500 35,000 5,574,321 YOUTH ACTIVITIES LEVY FUND Personal Services Materials and Services TOTAL YOUTH ACTIVITIES LEVY FUND 196,000 2,381,000 2,577,000 PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND Capital Outlay TOTAL PARKS CAPITAL IMP. FUND 331,000 331,000 TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS $ 74,438,085 SECTION 2. This Resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code ~ 2.04.090 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of ,2007. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder Signed and Approved on this _ day of June, 2007. John W. Morrison, Mayor Approved as to form: Richard Appicello, Assistant City Attorney CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Resolution Certifying City Provides Sufficient Municipal Services to Qualify for State Subventions Meeting Date: June 5, 2007 Department: Administrative Services Contributing Departments: NA Approval: Martha Benne Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg ~ E-mail: tuneberl@ashland.or.us Pv CT' Secondary Staff Contact: NA E-mail: Estimated Time: 5 Minutes Statement: The fiscal year 2007-2008 budget includes revenue and disbursements of funds from the State. In order to receive and disburse monies the City Council must certify to the State that it qualifies based upon the services rendered. Background: Council certifies this activity by resolution each year prior to adopting a second resolution that elects to receive state funds. This is a necessary step in the 2007-2008 budget process. Related City Policies: None Council Options: Council certifies that the City qualifies based upon the services rendered. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution. Attachments: Resolution Certifying City Provides Sufficient Municipal Services to Qualify for State Subventions ,., RESOLUTION 2007- RESOLUTION CERTIFYING CITY PROVIDES SUFFICIENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES TO QUALIFY FOR STATE SUBVENTIONS RECITALS: A. ORS 221.760 provides as follows: Section 1. The officer responsible for disbursing fund to cities under ORS 323.455, 366.785 to 366.820 and 471.805 shall, in the case of a city located within a county having more than 100,000 inhabitants according to the most recent federal decennial census, disburse such funds only if the city provides four or more of the following services: 1. Police Protection 2. Fire Protection 3. Street construction, maintenance, lighting 4. Sanitary Sewer 5. Storm Sewer 6. Planning, zoning and subdivision control 7. One or more utility services B. City officials recognize the desirability of assisting the state officer responsible for determining the eligibility of cities to receive such funds in accordance with 221.760. The City of Ashland Resolves as Follows: The City of Ashland certifies that it provides the following municipal services enumerated in ORS 221.760(1): 1. Police Protection 2. Fire Protection 3. Street construction, maintenance, lighting 4. Sanitary Sewer 5. Storm Sewer 6. Planning 7. Electric Distribution 8. Water This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code ~2.04.090 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 2007. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED AND APPROVED this _ day of June, 2007. Reviewed as to form: John W. Morrison, Mayor Richard Appicello, Assistant City Attorney CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication A Resolution Declaring the City's Election to Receive State Revenues Meeting Date: June 5, 2007 Department: Administrative Services Contributing Departments: NA Approval: Martha Benne Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg ;,...r).... E-mail: tuneberl@ashland.or.us f){) U Secondary Staff Contact: NA E-mail: Estimated Time: 5 Minutes Statement: The fiscal year 2007-2008 budget includes revenue and disbursements of funds from the State. In order to receive and disburse monies the City Council must elect to receive State revenue. Background: Council annually adopts a resolution electing to receive an apportionment of the Oregon Department of Administrative Services General Fund revenues derived from taxes imposed as part of State Revenue Sharing. Related City Policies: None Council Options: Council may elect to receive state shared revenues. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution. Attachments: A Resolution Declaring the City's Election to Receive State Revenues 'A' RESOLUTION 2007-_ A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CITY'S ELECTION TO RECEIVE STATE REVENUES RECITALS: The City must annually adopt a resolution electing to receive an apportionment of the Oregon Department of Administrative Services General Fund revenues derived from taxes imposed as part of State Revenue Sharing. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOllOWS: Pursuant to ORS 221.770, the City elects to receive state revenues for fiscal year 2007-2008. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code ~2.04.090 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ,2007. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED AND APPROVED this _ day of June, 2007. John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, Assistant City Attorney A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CITY'S ELECTION TO RECEIVE STATE REVENUES I certify that a public hearing before the Budget Committee was held on May 21, 2007 and a public hearing before the City Council was held on June 5,2007, giving citizens an opportunity to comment on use of State Revenue Sharing. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication An Ordinance Levying Taxes for the Period of July 1, 2007 to and including June 30, 2008, such taxes in the sum of $11,286,046 upon all the real and personal property subject to assessment and levy within the corporate limits of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon Meeting Date: June 5, 2007 Department: Administrative Services Contributing Departments: NA Approval: Martha Ben~ Primary Staff Contact: E-mail: Secondary Staff Contact: E-mail: Estimated Time: Lee Tuneberg Pid..... tuneberl@ashland.or.us NA 15 Minutes Statement: This action is for an ordinance levying taxes for the period of July 1, 2007 to and including June 30, 2008, in the sum of $11,286,046 upon all the real and personal property subject to assessment and levy within the corporate limits of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon. The levy consists of four parts: (1) a permanent rate supporting the General and Parks funds of $3.9447, totaling $7,310,000 (2) a local option levy supporting Ashland Youth Activities Fund at a rate of $1.3800, totaling $2,558,000, (3) a local option levy supporting the Ashland Library at a rate of up to $.5800, totaling $1,047,000, and (4) bonded debt levies totaling $371,046. Background: The operating property tax rate is calculated to decrease from $3.9747 to $3.9447. The net reduction of $.03 includes two increases (an added $.0100 for summer library programs and an additional $.0450 for a planning study) partially offsetting $.08500 in reductions from the prior year. The new rate continues to include a $.1750 rate to help pay for debt service requirements for the Ashland Fiber Network loan. The ordinance is consistent with the Budget Committee's approved tax rates and amounts. The local option levy for the Library has Committee approval up to $.58. A levy of $.5650 would generate $1,047,000 in taxes with an estimated net amount received after uncollectible of $1,005,700. If the $.5800 is levied the estimated net amount to be received would be $1,032,400. If the local option levy for the library is not approved by voters the associated rate will be excluded from the final certification to Jackson County. Related City Policies: None erA' Council Options: Council may approve the following tax rate to cover the City's debt service requirements. At this meeting Council may lower, but not increase, the approved tax rate and adjust its intended use. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council determine the rates and amounts to be levied if different than presented and approval of the attached ordinance as amended. This Ordinance has not been published thus it cannot be read bv title onlv. Potential Motions: Council moves to accept the tax rate as presented (or adjusted). Attachments: An Ordinance Levying Taxes for the Period of July 1, 2007 to and including June 30, 2008, such taxes in the sum of $11,286,046 upon all the real and personal property subject to assessment and levy within the corporate limits of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon r4.' ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE LEVYING TAXES FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2007 TO AND INCLUDING JUNE 30, 2008, SUCH TAXES IN THE SUM OF $11,286,046 UPON ALL THE REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO ASSESSMENT AND LEVY WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Ashland levies the taxes provided for in the adopted budget in the permanent rate of $3.9447 per thousand an amount estimated to be $7,310,000, voter authorized Local Option in the rate of $1.9600 per thousand an amount estimated to be $3,605,000 as well as $371,046 authorized for the repayment of General Obligation Debt and that these taxes are hereby levied upon the assessed value for the fiscal year starting July 1,2007, on all taxable property within the City. Section 2. The City Council declares that the taxes so levied are applicable to the following funds: Subject to General Excluded from General Government Limitation Government Limitation Rate Permanent Rate Local Option Bonded Debt Per $ 1,000 General Fund - Operations $ 3,107,000 1.6769 General Fund - Technology Fee 324,000 0.1750 Parks and Recreation Fund 3,879,000 2.0928 Youth Activities Levy $ 2,558,000 1.3800 Ashland Library Levy 1,047,000 0.5800 1997 Flood Restoration Bond Levy 85,030 2000 Flood and Fire Station Bonds 168,782 2005 Refinancing 117,234 $ 7,310,000 $ 3,605,000 $ 371 ,046 The foregoing ordinance was first READ on the _ day of June, 2007 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of June, 2007. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of June, 2007. John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, Assistant City Attorney CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Croman Master Planning Meeting Date: Department: Contributing Departments: Approval: June 5, 2007 Community Develo~ent Administra~~~~, Martha 80:/ f'1 Primary Staff Contact: E-mail: Secondary Staff Contact: Estimated Time: David Stalheim stalheid@ashland.or.us Bill Molnar 15 Minutes Statement: The city has been notified that state planning funds can be allocated to an effort to develop a master plan and land use standards for the former Croman Mill site. Staff is seeking council permission to move forward with this effort. Staff Recommendation: Staff believes that this is an important project for the city and allocation of staff time to this effort is warranted. Thus, staff recommends approval. Background: The former Croman Mill site has been identified as one of the primary pieces of land capable of supporting economic development in the city. In the past, the city has received requests to amend the land use designations to allow for more residential uses on the property. The need to retain this land for employment is highlighted in the draft economic opportunities analysis. The current industrial zoning of the property allows for some industrial uses which may be objectionable, and may not offer the best employment capacity for the city. For example, mini-storage is an allowed use in the industrial zone, but such use provides little employment. Recently, the property owner, Chamber and city have been approached by Plexis expressing their interest in eventually locating their corporate campus to a portion of the site. All parties share the same concern that the land use standards and circulation plan for the property need to be reviewed and potentially amended to ensure that the use of the property meets the best interests of the community. To assist with the master planning of this site, city staff contacted the State of Oregon about a Rapid Response Planning grant for assistance. This funding source is not a grant to the city, The State uses funds to assist the community in its planning effort. The state selects consultants from their approved consultant list following a Request for Proposal process. The state works with the city to ensure that the consultants will work well with the community. Because the state is going into a new fiscal biennium, we do not know at this time which firms will be on the list. If this work could have been accomplished in the current fiscal year, Crandall Arambula would have been the firm that would have worked on this project. The grant work and timeline for this effort is outlined below. It is noted that this effort will get the city through most of the planning and code development work. However, a significant portion of city staff time will still be needed to ,. , assist with this effort, including administrative tasks, review of work products, and adoption of amendments. I. The Budget Committee added $80,000 for consulting services for this project and for master planning the Union Pacific Railroad property. Staff will allocate those funds to ensure that these projects can both be accomplished in the upcoming year while still addressing other pressing long-range planning needs. The conceptual work plan for this project consists of the elements outlined below. All public workshops will be advertised. Staff will ask council to provide names and organizations for key participant meetings. ~ Initiation and Reconnaissance -- The first effort is for the consultant to obtain information from the community. This would occur through key participant meetings and a public workshop. Product: The consultants will prepare an Opportunities and Constraints Map and Report Timeline: August 2007 ~ Conceptual Plans - Based on the initial public input, the consultants will prepare three concepts for consideration. These concepts will include transportation analysis and projects, as well as land use elements. These concept plans will then go through the second round of participant meetings and public workshops to receive feedback. Product: Memorandum and conceptual plan posters; report on feedback Timeline: September 2007 )0> Concept Refinement - The consultants will take the input received and refine one or two of the concepts for further public input. A third round of public workshops would be held to receive feedback. Product: Memorandum and Conceptual Plan Posters Timeline: November 2007 ~ Additional Refinement - This is a contingency task if necessary to continue refinement of the concepts prior to proceeding with formal plan and ordinance writing and adoption. Timeline: December 2007 )0> Final Plan - Based on the public input, the consultants will prepare plan and code text for consideration. Product: Draft Plan and Code Text; Final Plan Timeline: January 2008 ~ Adoption - The city will begin the public hearing process for any plan and code amendments as necessary . Timeline: March 2008 Related City Policies: None Council Options: The council has the following options: 1. Proceed as recommended. 2. Proceed with changes as directed. 3. Not proceed with this as a priority. 4. Proceed, but without state assistance. Potential Motions: Motion to authorize staff to proceed with master planning of the former Croman Mill site as proposed. Attachments: None ~~, CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Adoption of Findings for Planning Action 2006-02354 Meeting Date: Department: Contributing Departments: Approval: June 5, 2007 community. DeV~IO ment Legal Martha ~ Primary Staff Contact: E-mail: Secondary Staff Contact: Estimated Time: Richard Appicello stalheid@ashland.or.us David Stalheim 15 Minutes Statement: At the May 9,2007 special meeting, the Council upheld the Planning Commission decision to approve Planning Action 2006-02354. Attached are the findings supporting the decision for adoption by the City Council. The item is time sensitive because the time limit expires on June 6, 2007. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of the findings Background: The attached proposed findings support the Council decision. Related City Policies: None Council Options: The Council may adopt the findings as presented, modify the findings and adopt the modification, or choose not to adopt the findings. Potential Motions: Move to adopt the findings for approval of Planning Action 2006-02354. Move to modify and adopt findings for approval of Planning Action 2006-02354. Attachments: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law supporting PA 2006-02354. ~;., BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON June 5, 2007 In the Matter of an Appeal of Planning Action 2006-02354, a Request for Site Review Approval to Construct a Two-story ) ) building for the property located at the southern corner of the ) intersection of North Main St. and Glenn Street. An exception to ) FINDINGS OF FACT the street standards is requested to install a curbside sidewalk ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW on the Glenn Street property frontage. A variance is requested ) AND ORDER to reduce the special setback requirement for front yards for ) properties abutting an arterial street from twenty to ten feet, ) within the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon. ) Applicant: Raymond J. Kistler, Architecture. I. NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS This matter comes before the City Council for the City of Ashland for a de novo appeal hearing. The appeal is from a March 13, 2007 decision of the City of Ashland Planning Commission approving inter alia a request for a site review approval, exception to street standards and variance to the special setback on the subject property located at the intersection of N. Main Street ad Glenn Street. After a mandatory pre-application conference was held, the subject applications for site review approval, street exceptions and a variance were filed by the applicant with the Planning Department on December 8, 2006. The application was deemed incomplete. Additional materials were submitted by the applicant and the application was deemed complete on January 2, 2007. Notification of the public hearing before the Planning Commission on January 9, 2007, was mailed, pursuant to Chapter 18, Ashland Land Use Ordinance to area property owners and affected public agencies. Notice of the January 9, 2007, hearing was also published in the Ashland Daily Tidings. On January 9, 2007, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and considered the oral and written testimony presented, the staff report and the record as a whole. The application was continued to the Planning Commission meeting on February 13, 2007. On February 13, 2007, after the close of the public hearing and process and the close of the record, the City's Planning Commission deliberated and approved the application, subject to conditions pertaining to appropriate development of the Property. On March 13,2007, the Findings, Conclusions, and Orders of City's Planning Commission were duly signed by the Chairperson of City's Planning Commission. The Planning Commission's findings are attached hereto as Exhibit "An and are specifically incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference. (In the event of conflict between the Planning Commission findings and Council findings, Council findings control). An effort was made to request of the Planning Commission Chair pursuant to Planning Commission rules to bring forth a motion for reconsideration but the Chair declined, citing no new material facts. On March 20, 2007, and on March 23, 2007, the Ashland City Council met at duly noticed public meetings and discussed calling up the Planning Commission's March 13, 2007 decision. Following discussion, by a vote of 3-1, the Council voted to call up the appeal. As stated by the City Attorney, the reason for the appeal would be to provide guidance to the Planning Commission on balancing between the special setback standards and the historic standards as they relate to the variance criteria. The Council finds and determines that this alone is the basis for the Council initiated appeal. Prior to the discussion, Councilors disclosed ex parte communications and made affirmative statements of impartiality. P A 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 1 Notification of the de novo public hearing before the City Council was mailed, pursuant to ALUO to area property owners and affected public agencies. Notice of the appeal hearing was also published in the Ashland Daily Tidings. On May 1, 2007, the City Council conducted a public hearing in the City Council chambers; during the public hearing before the Council, testimony and exhibits were offered and received, in addition to the exhibits and documents reflected in the record before Council. Pursuant to a request from a citizen the record was left open for seven days and the matter was continued to May 9, 2007. After the conclusion of testimony at the continued hearing, the hearing was closed and the record was closed. The applicant waived the right to submit final written argument. The Council deliberated and approved the application in file 2006-02354, with conditions, upholding the decision of the Planning Commission. The Council's action generally upheld the Findings, Conclusions, and Orders of the Planning Commission, with some modifications as set forth below. Based upon the evidence in the record, the Council makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: II. FINDINGS OF FACT 1) The Nature of Proceedings set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. 2) The subject of Planning Action # 2006-02354 is real property located within the City of Ashland ("City"), and described in the County Tax Assessor's maps as Tax lot 3600 of 39-1 E-05DA is located at the southern corner of the intersection of N. Main St. and Glenn St. 3) The zoning of the Property is E-1 (Employment). 4) The applicant in Planning Action # 2006-02354 is: Raymond J. Kistler, Architecture, ("Applicant). . III. JURISDICTION The May 1, 2007 Council Communication quotes the following ALUO procedural requirement: Appeal Proceedings (18.108.110): A. Appeals of Type I decisions for which a hearing has been held, of Type II decisions or of Type III decisions described in section 18.108.060.A.1 and 2 shall be initiated by a notice of appeal filed with the City Administrator. The standard Appeal Fee shall be required as part of the notice. Failure to pay the Appeal Fee at the time the appeal is filed is a jurisdictional defect. 1. The appeal shall be filed prior to the effective date of the decision of the Commission. 2. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a reference to the decision sought to be reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies as a party, the date of the decision being appealed, and the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on the applicable criteria or procedural irregularity. 3. The notice of appeal, together with notice of the date, time and place of the hearing on the appeal by the Council shall be mailed to the parties at least 20 days prior to the hearing. 4. The appeal shall be a de novo evidentiary hearing. 5. The Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision and may approve or deny the request, or grant approval with conditions. The Council shall make findings and conclusions, and make a decision based on the record before it as justification for its action. The Council shall cause copies of a final order to be sent to all parties participating in the appeal. B. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be defined as the following: 1. The applicant. 2. Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally or in writing. Failure to participate in the public hearing, either orally or in writing, precludes the right of appeal to the Council. P A 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 2 3. The Council, by majority vote. 4. PersonS who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to error. In addition to the appeal provisions provided above, ALUO 18.108.070 (5) provides: The City Council may "call up" any planning action for a public hearing and decision upon motion and majority vote, provided such vote takes place in the required time period, as outlined below. No appeal was filed by the applicant or by any other person who participated in the public hearing within the appeal period. The only basis for Council consideration of this action is the Council's own majority vote on March 23, 2007 to appeal the matter. The Council action on March 23, 2007 was as follows: Councilor Hartzell/Navickas m/s that Council appeal PA #2006-02354 for a hearing. DISCUSSION: Councilor Hardesty voiced support for calling this forward. Councilor Chapman shared his concern that they are getting dangerously close to prejudging this. Councilors Hartzell and Navickas clarified their general concerns are not with this specific proposal. Roll Call Vote: Councilors Hardesty, Navickas and Hartzell, YES. Councilor Chapman, NO. Motion passed 3-1. IV. FINDINGS APPLYING APPLICABLE CODE CRITERIA 1) The Council finds and determines that the relevant approval criteria are found in or referenced in the following provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinances. . The criteria for Site Review approval in 18.72.070 are as follows: 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. . The criteria for an Exception to the Street Standards are described in 18.88.090 as follows: A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity; C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter. . The criteria for a Variance in 18.100.020 are 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 of the 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. P A 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glemi St. Page 3 2) The 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, and the whole record. 3) The Council finds and determines that this request for a Site Review approval to construct a two-story building, the request for an Exception to the Street Standards to install a curbside sidewalk on the Glenn St. property frontage and the request for a variance to reduce the special setback requirement for front yards for properties abutting arterial streets from twenty to ten feet, meets all applicable criteria for approval described or referenced in the ALUO sections above. This finding is supported by the detailed findings set forth herein, the detailed findings of the Ashland Planning Commission, attached hereto and specifically incorporated herein by this reference, the detailed findings submitted by the applicant specifically incorporated herein by this reference, as well as by competent substantial evidence in the whole record. 4) Criteria: [ALUO 18.72.070] The criteria for Site Review approval are as follows: 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 The City Council finds and determines that the proposed development meets the approval criteria for Site Review approval. An office is a permitted use in the Employment (E-1) zoning district. The E-1 zoning district requires at least 65 percent of the gross floor area of the ground floor to be used for permitted or special permitted uses. In this case, all of the ground floor building square footage is designated as office use which is a permitted use in the E-1 zone. The site is located in the R-Overlay which allows residential units as a special permitted use. Residential units are permitted at 15 units per acre. The residential density of the site is two units (.136Ac x 15 = 2.04 units). The proposal is to use the second story for office spaces, two residential units, or a combination of office space and a residential unit. The E-1 zoning district does not require standard setbacks from property lines unless a parcel abuts a residential zoning district. The subject parcel abuts a residential district at the rear (east) of the site. A ten foot per story setback is required for a rear yard abutting a residential district. The proposed building is 50 feet from the rear (east) property line, and therefore exceeds the required 20-foot setback requirement for the two-story building. The building is angled at the northwest corner of the lot adjacent to the intersection of N. Main St. and Glenn St. so that the structure is located outside of the vision clearance area as required. The proposed building height is approximately 26 feet which is under the maximum building height of 40 feet in the E-1 zoning district. The proposal will result in 22% of landscaping on site which exceeds the 15 percent minimum for the E-1 zoning district. The City Council finds and determines that the proposed development meets the off-street automobile parking requirements of Chapter 18.92, Off-Street Parking with the attached condition of approval number 19. The original application required six off-street parking spaces for 2,700 square feet of general office (2,700 sq. ft./450 = 6 spaces). The off-street parking requirement is satisfied by providing five spaces on site and with one off-street parking credit available for the two spaces on the Glenn St. property frontage. The revised proposal, which is the approved submittal, increased the building square footage by approximately three percent or 89 square feet. As a result, the off-street parking requirement is increased from six to seven spaces (2,789 sq. ft./450 = 6.20). In addition, the applicant revised the second floor to have the flexibility to be used as office spaces, two residential units, or a combination of the two. Here again, the off-street parking requirement is slightly over six spaces increasing the required number of off-street spaces to seven. The Council finds that the building square footage and combination of uses on the second floor can be revised so that the required number of off-street spaces does not exceed the six spaces provided without a significant effect to the site or building design. This is addressed with the attached condition of approval number 19. Two bicycle parking spaces are required, and the site plan shows the two covered bicycle parking spaces located under the exterior stairs in the front P A 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 4 of the building. The City Council finds that the public utilities and transportation system have adequate capacity to serve the development. Public facilities and utilities are in place to service the project in the N. Main St. and Glenn St. rights-of-way. Water, sewer and storm drain services are available in Glenn St. N. Main St. and Glenn St. provide access to the site. N. Main St. is a state highway under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). N. Main St. is classified as a Boulevard (arterial) and Glenn St. is classified as a Neighborhood Street. Sidewalks are in place on the N. Main St. frontage and a portion of the Glenn St. frontage. The applicant will install a sidewalk on the Glenn St. property frontage connecting the existing sidewalk to the east of the property on Glenn St. to the existing sidewalk on N. Main St. The bicycle facilities are a shared lane on both streets. Bus service is provided on N. Main St. The City Council finds and determines that the project is in compliance with the Basic Site Review Standards for Commercial Development, Detail Site Review Standards and Historic District Design Standards. The project lies within the Detail Site Review Zone and the Skidmore Academy Historic District. The proposal meets the Basic Site Review Standards for Commercial Development. The primary orientation of the building is to North Main Street using a recessed entry feature. The front entrance is accessed by the public sidewalk as required. Parking is located behind the building as required. The proposal will result in 22% of landscaping on site which exceeds the 15 percent minimum for the E-1 zoning district. The parking area includes 19.4 percent of the area in landscaping which exceeds the minimum requirement of seven percent of the total parking area in landscaping. Additionally, one tree is required for each seven parking spaces to provide a canopy effect. Two trees are proposed on the north end of the parking area and the application states that the existing walnut in the southeast corner will also shade the parking area. Two street trees are proposed behind the sidewalk on the N. Main St. and three trees are proposed behind the sidewalk on Glenn St. The Council finds and determines that the proposed building satisfies the Detail Site Review requirements. The recessed entry is generously sized, and accented with structural steel columns. The front (west) wall ground floor includes 44 percent in glazing and the Glenn St. (north) wall includes 37 percent in glazing which exceeds a minimum of 20 percent of the wall are is required to be in display areas, windows and doorways. The front entrance to the building is emphasized by the entry alcove and awning. The Detail Site Review Standards prohibit bright or neon paint colors on the building exterior. The applicant provided exterior building materials and colors including Moss Green stucco for the second floor, Mountain Brown polished-face CMU block for the ground floor, Charcoal Black split-faced CMU block for the base and Vintage III (dark grey) Zincalume Roofing. The Council finds and determines that the proposed building meets the Historic District Design Standards. At an average height of 28.5 feet to the ridge of the roof, the proposed building is a similar height to the one and a half and two-story structures surrounding the subject property. The building is broken into two modules which creates a residential scale and reduces the mass. On the Glenn St. side of the building, the ground floor store front exterior treatment is wrapped around the corner of the building. In addition, an awning system has been added to the ground floor windows on the sides and rear of the building. The awnings and change in materials on the Glenn St. elevation serve to provide relief in the massing. The mass of the rear of the building is broken up the recess in the middle of the building. The proposed fa<;ade line is in the same plane as the facades of buildings in the vicinity, (See further discussion under variance criteria incorporated herein by this reference. The assertion by opponents that the Council is obligated to define the historic fa<;ade line as consisting only of buildings in existence for more than 45 years is expressly rejected. The Code does not define the line by reference to any specific map or date. The fa<;ade line encompasses all existing structures, not just those deemed historic by opponents. The Council identified the positive recommendation of the Historic Commission as one of the factors tending to support this interpretation. Similarly, the attempt to define the fa<;ade line solely by reference to building immediately adjacent to the subject property is expressly rejected. The reliance upon an interpretation of the word "adjacent" in other parts of the Code, in prior findings, is not binding in this section which requires a broader analysis. The Council incorporates the findings in the May 1, 2007 Council Communication authored by the Planning Director in support of this finding. The steep pitched gable roofs match the surrounding historic buildings. The windows have a vertical orientation which is compatible with the fa<;ade patterns of surrounding historic structures. The base of the building is differentiated by using a different material with a different color (Le. split-faced block in Charcoal Black). The two street facing volumes directed towards N. Main St. match the orientation to N. Main St. of buildings in the area. The ground floor PA 2006-02354 N. Main 81. & Glenn 81. Page 5 front doors are located in a generously-sized entry alcove which is connected to a plaza and walkway area to the public sidewalk on N. Main St. Finally, the proposed building design is a contemporary interpretation with different materials and architectural details. As required, the building is clearly not imitating the style of an older period. Based on the detailed findings set forth herein, the detailed findings of the Ashland Planning Commission, specifically incorporated herein by this reference, the findings presented by the applicant, as well as by competent substantial evidence in the whole record, the Council finds and determines that this criterion is met. 5) Criteria: [ALUO 18.88.090] The criteria for an Exception to the Street Standards are as follows: A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity; C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter. The City Council finds and determines that the proposed development meets the approval criteria for an Exception to the Street Standards to install a curbside sidewalk on the Glenn St. property frontage. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to the combination of several physical characteristics of the site and existing sidewalk system on Glenn St. - the length of the property frontage on Glenn St., the location of the driveway and the existing curbside sidewalk on Glenn St. adjacent to the property to the east. The unique or unusual aspects of the site, discussed below under variances, are incorporating herein by this reference. A curbside sidewalk is in place on the south side of Glenn St. from the eastern boundary of the subject property to Orange St. Additionally, a curbside sidewalk is in place on N. Main St. and the corner of N. Main St. and Glenn St. The opportunity for a parkrow on the Glenn St. frontage is limited to approximately 50 feet in length between the wheelchair ramp at the corner and the proposed driveway apron near the eastern property line. A transition from a curbside sidewalk to a sidewalk with a parkrow uses approximately ten lineal feet. One transition would need to be installed from the corner and another transition to the curbside before the driveway. The driveway is required to be in this location because the Site Design and Use Standards require the parking to be located behind the building. After the transitions to and from the curbside sidewalk would be installed, there would be a relatively short length of parkrow installed on the Glenn St. property frontage. The Exception to the Street Standards to allow a curbside sidewalk will result in a sidewalk that provides the equivalent pedestrian facility connection as would a sidewalk with a parkrow. The curb side sidewalk will provide a more direct route from the corner of N. Main St. and Glenn St. to the existing curb sidewalk adjacent to the property. The Exception to the Street Standards to allow a curbside sidewalk is the minimum variance to alleviate the difficulty by maintaining a sidewalk connection on the Glenn St. property frontage. The Exception to the Street Standards to allow a curbside sidewalk is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter 18.88 in that the chapter "is to allow an option for more flexible design that is permissible under the conventional zoning codes." Based on the detailed findings set forth herein, the detailed findings of the Ashland Planning Commission, specifically incorporated herein by this reference, the findings presented by the applicant, as well as by competent substantial evidence in the whole record, the Council finds and determines that this criterion is met. 6) Criteria: [ALUO 18.100.020] The criteria for a Variance are 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 of the 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. P A 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 6 The City Council finds and determines that the proposed development meets the approval criteria for a Variance to reduce the special setback requirement for front yards for properties abutting an arterial street from twenty to ten feet. The Special Setback requirement (18.68.050) is as follows: 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 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 all arterial streets shall be no less than twenty (20) feet, with the exception of the C-1-D district. . That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. The unique or unusual circumstances which apply to the site are the surrounding historic development pattern, the corner lot location, the bend in N. Main St., the configuration of the lot, (specifically the shallow depth) and access to the site. The proposed variance to permit a ten-foot setback from N. Main St. matches the fac;ade line in the vicinity. The average distance to the historic front fac;ade lines in this area is approximately ten feet. The subject property is a highly visible location on one of the main gateways in the City and the prominence is accentuated by the location on a corner lot and the bend in N. Main St. From the perspective of traveling south on N. Main St., the side of the building facing Glenn St. will be visible. The site has a short lot depth for a commercially zoned piece of property. There are commercial and employment zoned properties throughout Ashland (e.g. A St., Clear Creek Dr. and Russell Dr.) that allow similar mixed-use types of development, and these areas have been configured with adequate depth and area to accommodate parking on site. Additionally, alley systems and shared driveway systems are in place in these same commercial and employment zoned developments that provide vehicle access and back-up areas outside of the individual lots and building envelopes. There is 50 feet available between the back of the building and the rear (east) property line. The building footprint can not be moved closer to the back (east) property line because the parking area and landscape buffer are at the minimum dimensions. The parking is required to be behind or to the side of the building. Finally, the safest access to the site is from Glenn St. Glenn St. has lower traffic volumes and better visibility than N. Main St. . That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. In January 2007, LUBA stated: In Krishchenko /, we found inexplicable the city's apparent conclusion that petitioner's desire to partition the subject property is a "self-created" hardship. We observed that, "[i]f the mere desire to develop property at a density allowed under applicable zoning laws is a self-created hardship, then it is doubtful that any variance to development standards could ever be allowed under... or similar variance standards" In response Krischenko I, the City of Canby identified "a specific action by petitioner, [that created the hardship] not merely a general desire to develop property that all variance applicant's presumably share." LUBA stated: The City apparently understands a "self-created" hardship to exist for purposes of CMC ... when the applicant for a variance has taken an action in the past that is inconsistent with proposed development of the property that requires a variance. We cannot say that that view of CMC ... is inconsistent with the text, purpose or policy underlying that code provision, .... ... the city concluded, petitioner's choice in 2002 to consolidate the two lots to PA 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 7 enlarge his existing backyard was inconsistent with, and had the effect of abandoning any expectation under common law or the city's variance procedures to obtain future access... Similarly, the City Council finds and determines that the ALUO variance criteria require that the circumstances or conditions causing the hardship be willfully or purposely self-imposed. The mere general desire to develop the property that all applicants share, is not sufficient for willful self-imposition. An affirmative action by the applicant, (like the lot consolidation in Krishchenko) which occurred in the past, (Le. past tense) which is inconsistent with or creates the circumstances or conditions is required. In this case, the unusual characteristics of the site, being the surrounding historic development pattern, the corner location, the bend in N. Main St., the configuration of the lot (shallow depth) and access to the site have not been created by an affirmative action of the applicant. Therefore, the circumstances contributing to the request for a variance are not self-imposed. In addition, the ALUO variance criteria are more permissive than traditional, (Le. variance purposes reference "practical difficulties") as opposed to strict variance terms such as "necessary for the preservation of property rights." The City Council expressly disagrees with the interpretation of the variance criterion proffered by opponents as it relates to self-imposed hardships. The Council finds and determines a hardship is not self imposed merely because there may be an alternative way to build a development without the specific variance requested. In this case, the alternative plan would require an administrative variance to address compliance with historic standards. There is no requirement in Chapter 18.100, Variances, to pursue the lesser of competing variances, (e.g. a standard requiring the minimum variance necessary such as that used in the Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards, ALUO 18.72.0890.0, and Exception to the Street Standards, ALUO 18.88.090). The "minimum variance necessary" is simply not an approval standard. Similarly, the applicant's stated resignation to the fact that he could develop an alternative, less desirable plan, and therefore, does "not need this variance", for example, for the preservation of a property right, is not an approval criterion applicable to the decision. Neither the enthusiasm (or lack thereof) of the applicant nor the personal desires of the applicant to maximize use of the property in terms of density and intensity are approval criterion for a variance. Clearly, in this case, the difference in square footage (intensity) between the plans is inconsequential. This case is not so crude a choice between compliance with historic standards or compliance with the special setback; the Council strives to give meaning to each and every provision of the Code, reconciling conflicts between competing provisions when necessary. The City Council finds and determines that the hardship is not self created in this case. The Council further finds that when compliance with all the provisions of the City's Development Code creates essentially a no-win situation, the applicant has not created the hardship. See Sommer v. Josephine County (No self-created hardship when lot line adjustment approval condition required rezoning and new zoning district setback precluded proposed development necessitating variance). The City Council, like the City Planning Commission made an informed decision between variance alternatives based upon the peculiarities of the site and superior design. . That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The positive benefits of the proposal are maintaining the historic fal;ade line, streetscape and street enclosure of N. Main St. The Historic District Design Standards require historic fal;ade lines of streetscapes to be maintained by locating front walls of new buildings in the same plane as the facades of adjacent buildings. The front fal;ade line is an important component in creating a historic development pattern and historic streetscape. If the proposed building is setback 20 feet from the front property line, the building will be set back further from the street than the existing historic front fal;ade line on N. Main St. in the vicinity. As a result, the proposed building setback 20 feet from N. Main St. will stand out from the historic fal;ade line and will not be compatible with the historic development pattern. Another positive benefit of the proposed building location at ten feet from the front property line is maintaining the streetscape and street enclosure of N. Main St. The proposed building setback at the required 20-foot special setback for front yards abutting arterials is too far from the sidewalk to provide pedestrians visual interest from the front of the building or a sense of safety from moving vehicles. The streets that pedestrians find most comfortable and safe feeling are those where buildings front directly on or near the street. In contrast, when buildings are set farther from the street pedestrians P A 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 8 tend to feel isolated and unprotected. Additionally, the building setback at 20 feet will be further back from the street than most of the front facades on the east side of N. Main St. in the vicinity thereby making the street more open in this location. The building front fa<;ade should maintain the historic fa<;ade line because vertical surfaces such as building fronts close to the street encourage drivers to slow down. To discount the benefits of the variance, opponents of the variance argue that the historic fa<;ade line is better maintained without the variance; this argument is based on excluding construction any more recent than 45 years old. As noted above, the Council rejects this interpretation. Concerns were also raised that approval of the front yard variance may prevent the installation of bicycle lanes on N. Main St. at a future date. County and city maps provide general information about the N. Main St. corridor. Based on county assessor's maps, city aerial maps and the Ashland Street Standards, there appears to be adequate space between the proposed building and the building on the opposite side of the street at 493 N. Main St. for a future reconstruction of N. Main St. as a four-lane Boulevard including parkrows and bicycle lanes. Accordingly, this cannot be identified as a negative impact. Additionally, the street corridor is partially located in the Skidmore Academy Historic District (Le. from the downtown to Maple St.). The Skidmore Academy Historic District is on the National Historic Register, and the associated federal regulations could affect street widening projects in listed historic neighborhoods. The 20-foot setback intrudes into some of the building footprints on both sides of N. Main St. A street widening project could potentially impact the character of the historic district by reducing front yards and removing historic buildings, and thereby altering the historic development pattern . Accordingly, the benefits of the proposed variance will far outweigh any negative impacts on development of adjacent uses. Finally, the intent and purpose of the variance Chapter includes avoiding practical difficulties caused by strict application of the requirements of the Code. No use is allowed not in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan or Code for the subject property. Based on the detailed findings set forth herein, the detailed findings of the Ashland Planning Commission, specifically incorporated herein by this reference, the findings presented by the applicant, as well as by competent substantial evidence in the whole record, the Council finds and determines that this criterion is met. V. QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERS Alleged Bias and Prejudgment Two parties submitted written bias and prejudgement challenges to the qualifications of Council members and the Mayor. The speaker request provides that such challenges must be made in writing with supporting documentation. One challenge to Councilors Hartzell and Navickas was submitted by citizen Mike Morris, with supporting evidence, a DVD of the City Council's special meeting to consider the appeal. The other challenge was submitted by citizen Art Bullock against the Mayor and Councilor Kate Jackson and included. 17 points against the Mayor and 2 against Councilor Jackson. ChallenQes bv Mr. Bullock: Mr. Bullock's submittal identifies the following legal standard in his written submittal: Oregon Supreme Court: "The public interest in appearance of propriety over public interest in efficiency is so great in judicial proceedings that readjudication is required regardless of whether decisions were fair when appearance of impropriety is present" 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco County Court, 304 Or. 76, 742 P.2d 39 1987. The Council finds and determines that the standard identified by Mr. Bullock, the appearance of impropriety, is erroneous. This is a quasi-judicial decision, not a judicial decision. In a quasi-judicial decision, a local decision maker must follow the procedures applicable to the matter before it in a manner that does not prejudice the substantial rights' of the parties. The substantial rights of the parties include 'the rights to an adequate opportunity to prepare and submit their case and a full P A 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 9 and fair hearing.' Muller v. Polk County. 16 Or LUBA 771.775 (1988). An allegation of decision maker bias, accompanied bv evidence of that bias, may be the basis for a remand under ORS 197.835(9)(a)(B). Halvorson Mason Corp. v. City of Depoe Bay, 39 Or LUBA 702, 710 (2001) Bias as discussed herein includes both prejudgment and personal bias. In Oreaon Entertainment Corp. v. City of Beaverton. 38 Or LUBA 440. 445 (2000). affd 172 Or App 361. 19 P3d 918 (2001 ). LUBA set out the standard for establishing decision maker bias: "To demonstrate actual bias, 'petitioner has the burden of showing the decision maker was biased, or prejudged the application, and did not reach a decision by applying relevant standards based on the evidence and argument presented [during the quasi-judicial proceedings].'" (quoting Spierina v. Yamhill County. 25 Or LUBA 695. 702 (1993)). In addition, this burden is significant. That is: In order to succeed in a bias claim, petitioner must establish that the decision maker was incapable of making a decision based on the evidence and arguments of the parties. Sparks v. City of Bandon. 30 Or LUBA 69. 74 (1995). Further, bias must be demonstrated in a clear and unmistakable manner. Schneider v. Umatilla County. 13 Or LUBA 281. 284 (1985). See also Loveioy v. City of Depoe Bay. 17 Or LUBA 51.66 (1988). LUBA recently reviewed the impartiality expectations of quasi-judicial decision makers: As we have explained on many occasions, local quasi-judicial decision makers, who frequently are also elected officials, are not expected to be entirely free of any bias. Friends of Jacksonville v. City of Jacksonville, 42 Or LUBA 137, 141-44, affd 183 Or App 581,54 P3d 636 (2002); Halvorson-Mason Corp. v. City of Depoe Bay, 39 Or LUBA 702, 710 (2001); Oregon Entertainment Corp. v. City of Beaverton, 38 Or LUBA 440, 445-47 (2000), aff'd 172 Or App 361, 19 P3d 918 (2001). To the contrary, local officials frequently are elected or appointed in part because they favor or oppose certain types of development. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Co. Court, 304 Or 76, 82-83, 742 P2d 39 (1987); Eastgate Theatre v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 37 Or App 745, 750-52, 588 P2d 640 (1978). Local decision makers are only expected to (1) put whatever bias they may have to the side when deciding individual permit applications and (2) engage in the necessary fact finding and attempt to interpret and apply the law to the facts as they find them so that the ultimate decision is a reflection of their view of the facts and law rather than a product of any positive or negative bias the decision maker may bring to the process. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. City of Central Point, 49 Or LUBA 697, 709-10 (2005), appeal pending. Heiller v. Josephine County (LUBA 2005) Procedurally, after the enumerated bias challenges by Mr. Bullock were summarized, the Mayor and Council Jackson both made andlor agreed to the following statement of impartiality: "I have not prejudged this application and I am not prejudiced or biased by my prior contacts or involvement; I will make this decision based solely on the application of the relevant criteria and standards to the facts and evidence in the record of this proceeding." Other members of the Council were asked if they accepted the statement and all members did in fact accept the impartiality of the Mayor and Councilor Jackson. No member requested removal based on ALUO Section 18.108.1 OO(B). The Council finds and determines that the Mayor and Councilor Jackson are capable of making this decision and did make their decision based upon the application of the facts in the record as applied to the relevant standards in the Code. Any bias, if any exists at all, that the Mayor or Councilor Jackson may have had was placed to the side while the Mayor and Council performed the duties of their office as related to this quasi-judicial decision. Roberts v. Clatsop County (While alleged statements may indicate a certain predisposition, that is not enough to provide a basis for reversal or remand, in light of his assertions that decision maker would consider the application on its merits and vote with an open mind.) The Council finds and determines that Mr. Bullock has not demonstrated bias or prejudgement on the part of the Mayor of Councilor Jackson in a clear and unmistakable manner. The allegations were not individually addressed at the hearing but P A 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 10 the Mayor and Councilor Jackson both stated the allegations were false and misleading. Several other members of the Council noted the allegations were completely irrelevant and inappropriate to the proceedings. For the most part, the allegations submitted by Mr. Bullock are unsupported with reliable verifiable evidence, although certainly verifiable evidence in the form of City video or audio recordings, findings and minutes could have been submitted, it was not provided. For example: (1) Mr. Bullock asserts personal attacks against him during the hearing on the Schofield/Monte Vista LID. Mr. Bullock makes factual assertions and characterizations (e.g. "viciously attacked") in his challenge, but no record of the Schofield LID proceeding, a public meeting, was submitted. No official minutes or other official record was submitted. (2) Similarly, Mr. Bullock alleges that his bias challenge in the same proceeding was arbitrarily limited to three minutes, yet no evidence no support this allegation was submitted. (3) Mr. Bullock also alleges in the same hearing that he was denied a right to speak on the merits. Again, no evidence was submitted. (4) Again, Mr. Bullock alleges he was denied a right to make oral presentations of bias and denied his right to speak. No evidence supports this allegation. (5) Mr. Bullock attributes certain statements to the mayor, including public pressure to stop him from speaking and "shut him up". No verifiable evidence supports this allegation. (6) Again without verifiable evidence, Mr. Bullock asserts another personal attack by the Mayor after the close of the record in the Schofield LID project, and further (7) asserts he had no right to rebut the statements of the mayor made during deliberations in that proceeding. (8) Mr. Bullock alleged denial of an opportunity to make oral Conflict of Interest challenges from the floor during the Hellman Bath hearing before the City Council in 2006. No evidence to verify this allegation was submitted, despite the existence of written findings, minutes and DVD records of the unappealed decision. (9) Mr. Bullock alleges the Council and not the mayor has the authority to control his conduct at meetings in making oral challenges from the floor. (Despite the Council's adoption of Roberts Rules of Order and the clear authority of the Presiding Officer to control the conduct of non-members) (10) Mr. Bullock again asserts the Mayor denied his right to orally make a conflict of interest challenge in the Helman Baths project. (11) Mr. Bullock identifies an alleged error in the Helman Bath project related to his alleged right to point out alleged errors from the floor. (12) Mr. Bullock alleges inter alia the mayor conspired to violate the 120 day rule in the Park Street Condo case and blame him for the delay which led to the mandamus proceeding. These allegations are completely unsupported. (13) Mr. Bullock alleges he reported misconduct by City employees in 2004 and was subjected to verbal assaults. His allegations are unsupported by verifiable evidence. (14) Mr. Bullock alleges the Mayor prevented him from presenting audio-visual matters in a 2006 meeting. This allegation is not supported with verifiable evidenced. (15) Mr. Bullock asserts failure of the Mayor to supervise the Public Works Director. The allegation is irrelevant and unsubstantiated. (16) Mr. Bullock alleges the Mayor is responsible for opposition to Mr. Bullock's position on the proposed Charter amendment. This allegation is unsubstantiated. As regards Councilor Jackson, Mr. Bullock makes several allegations, without verifiable supporting evidence, that Councilor Jackson (1) yelled at him during an encounter while Mr. Bullock was campaigning against the proposed Charter amendment, a measure Councilor Jackson supported. Councilor Jackson acknowledged that they had contact and that she was concerned for her safety given Mr. Bullock's behavior. Mr. Bullock also alleges that Councilor Jackson is incapable of making the decision because she ignores the law and has prejudged this matter because she will ignore the 20 foot setback which is the subject of the variance. This allegation is unsubstantiated. Mr. Bullock was merely a participant in the proceedings below, and is not the applicant or appellant in this proceeding. His position in his challenge appears to be that because the Mayor and Councilor Jackson have taken or have political positions which are contrary to his positions, they should be disqualified from participation in any matter in which he chooses to participate. In the case of the Mayor, Mr. Bullock's disagreement appears to be primarily in the area of the proper manner for the conduct of quasi-judicial proceedings. The Council finds and determines that the Mayor and Councilor Jackson are expected to have political positions as elected public officers. That their positions may at times be contrary to political positions taken by Mr. Bullock, a citizen of the City of Ashland and that this fact does not demonstrate in a clear and unmistakable manner an inability on the part of these elected officials to apply the facts to the law in a quasi- judicial matter before the City Council. The Councilor and Mayor declared their intent to apply the law to the evidence in the record and performed their duty. As regards the conduct of public meetings, the Mayor, as presiding officer, has clear authority to control the conduct of non-members. Nonmembers who disrupt public meeting may be removed pursuant to Roberts Rules of Order or Criminal statutes. Mr. Bullock is not a member of the governing body, and must comply with the directions of the presiding officer. That Mr. Bullock feels he should have more opportunity to participate in quasi-judicial proceedings, specifically to orally making challenges to members or "points of order" from the floor, or question members of the Council, is not personal bias against Mr. Bullock but simply the normal conduct of a public meeting by the Presiding P A 2006-02354 N. Main 81. & Glenn 81. Page 11 Officer. Mr. Bullock, as a non-member, cannot assert bias and prejudice based on denial of the rights and powers to him of rights afforded duly elected members of the Council. The Council finds and determines that this challenge to the qualifications of Councilor Jackson and Mayor Morrison is not well founded. It is unfortunate that at times prejudicial or inflammatory material is introduced into the record of land use proceedings and other government proceedings. Quasi-judicial decision makers, being human may be tempted to react to such material or base the decision on improper matters. Accordingly, It is important that decision makers exercise discipline and set aside such inflammatory or prejudicial matters and exercise their quasi-judicial duties properly. This can be especially difficult to volunteer Council members in public service, when as in the challenge submitted by Mr. Bullock, is in the manner of a personal attack. Accordingly, the Council expressly finds and determines that although Mr. Bullocks written materials are inflammatory and prejudicial, the Council expressly rejects such improper considerations in applying the facts in the record to the applicable standards in the ALUO. ChallenQes by Mr. Morris: A prejudgment challenge was made against Councilor's Eric Navickas and Councilor Cate Hartzell by Mike Morris. Procedurally, after the challenges were summarized, both Councilor Navickas and Hartzell made and/or agreed to the following statement of impartiality: "l have not prejudged this application and I am not prejudiced or biased by my prior contacts or involvement; I will make this decision based solely on the application of the relevant criteria and standards to the facts and evidence in the record of this proceeding. II Other members of the Council were asked if they accepted the statement and all members did in fact accept the impartiality of the Councilors. No member requested removal based on ALUO Section 18.108.1 OO(B). The Council finds and determines that Councilor Hartzell and Councilor Navickas are capable of making this decision and did make their decision based upon the application of the facts in the record as applied to the relevant standards in the Code. Any bias, if any exists at all, that the Councilors may have had was placed to the side while the Councilors performed the duties of their office as related to this quasi-judicial decision. Roberts v. Clatsop County (While alleged statements may indicate a certain predisposition, that is not enough to provide a basis for reversal or remand, in light of his assertions that decision maker would consider the application on its merits and vote with an open mind.) The Council finds and determines that Mr. Morris has not demonstrated bias or prejudgement on the part of the Councilors in a clear and unmistakable manner, in light of the assertions of impartiality made by the members at the hearing. While the allegations were not individually addressed at the hearing, both Councilors specifically stated the they would make the decision based on the applicable law and the evidence before them. For the most part, the concise allegations of prejudgement submitted by Mr. Morris are well supported with reliable verifiable evidence, that being the DVD of the City Council's public meeting to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission. Mr. Morris identifies verifiable statements by time code made by Councilor Hartzell which indicate a pre- disposition based on public safety concerns to maintain the twenty foot special setback. Similarly, Mr. Morris identifies verifiable statements by time code made by Councilor Navickas which indicate a preference for the twenty foot setback over historic standards, an issue in the variance portion of the appeal. On the basis of the verifiable statements made at the public meeting to call up the appeal, the allegations of prejudgment on their face, without more, are substantial. However, in the context of the actual appeal hearing, and the direct question to the Councilors of whether the Councilors would set aside whatever predisposition or bias they had, and make the decision based upon the facts as applied to the law, the Council finds and determines that the challenged members are qualified to make the decision and have properly exercised their duties in quasi-judicial proceedings as required by law. VI. FINAL ORDER In sum, the City Council concludes that the proposal represented in Planning Action 2006-02354, an application for Site Review approval to an office building, an Exception to the Street Standards to install a curbside sidewalk on the Glenn S1. property PA 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 12 frontage, and a Variance to reduce the special setback requirement for front yards for properties abutting arterial streets has satisfied all relative substantive standards and criteria and is supported by evidence in the whole record. Accordingly, based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the incorporated findings of the Planning Commission and the findings provided by the applicant, and based upon the evidence in the whole record, the City Council hereby APPROVES Planning Action #2006-02354, subject to strict compliance with the conditions of approval, set forth herein. Further, if anyone or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2006-02354 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 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. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric Department prior to building permit submittal, and the approved plan submitted with the building permit application. Additionally, the placement of any portion of the structure in the public utility easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department. Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets and outside of vision clearance areas, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. 3) That the engineered construction drawings for the public sidewalk improvement shall comply with approved plans, and submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to issuance of a building or excavation permit. The concrete color and surface finish shall be the city standard in accordance with the Ashland Engineering Specifications. Additionally, evidence of approval of the Oregon Department of Transportation for any work in the jurisdiction of the state shall be submitted with the engineered construction drawings. 4) That the required pedestrian-scaled streetlight shall consist of the City of Ashland's commercial/historic streetlight standard, and shall be included in the utility plan and engineered construction drawings for the public sidewalk along Ashland Street. That the property owner shall install public pedestrian-scaled street lights to City specifications on the N. Main St. and Glenn St. street frontages. 5) 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 developme'nt, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins. 6) That if a fire protection vault is required, the vault shall not be located in the sidewalk. 7) That all public improvements including but not limited to the sidewalk, street trees and street lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 8) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this Site Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. 9) That a Tree Protection Plan in accordance with the requirements of 18.61.200 shall be submitted for review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the building permit submittals. The Tree Protection Plan shall include an analysis from the project landscape architect or certified arborist of the impact of the installation of the pervious paving on the walnut tree to be preserved. 10) That the recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission with final approval of the Staff Advisor shall P A 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 13 be addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit. The recommendations shall be included on a revised tree protection plan, landscaping plan and final irrigation plan at the time of submission of building permit. Landscaping and the irrigation system shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 11) That a Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to site work, building demolition, and/or storage of materials. The Verification Permit is to inspect the installation of tree protection fencing for the walnut tree in the southeast corner of the property. The tree protection shall be chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.61.200.B. 12) 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. 13) That the finished floor elevation (FFE) of the building shall be at a minimum, the same elevation as the public sidewalk in front of the building in the N. Main St. right-of-way. Verification of the FFE being at or above the elevation of the public sidewalk shall be submitted with the building permit for review and approval by the Staff Advisor. 14) That mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from N. Main St. Location and screening of mechanical equipment shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. 15) That the windows shall not be heavily tinted so as to prevent views from outside of the building into the interior of the building. 16) That the building materials and the exterior colors shall be identified in the building permit submittals. Bright or neon paint colors used extensively to attract attention to the building or use are prohibited in accordance with the Detail Site Review Standards. 17) That exterior lighting shall be shown on the building permit submittals and appropriately shrouded so there is no direct illumination of surrounding properties. 18) That a comprehensive sign program in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.96 shall be developed for the building and submitted for review and approval with the building permit submittals. That a sign permit shall be obtained prior to installation of new sign age. Signage shall meet the requirements of Chapter 18.96. . 19) That the building size and number of residential units shall be revised so that the total number of required off-street parking spaces does not exceed the six spaces provided (Le. five on-site spaces and one on- street parking credit). 20) That the recommendations of the Historic Commission with final approval of the Staff Advisor shall be incorporated into the building permit submittals. 21) That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department including fire apparatus access and fire hydrant flow requirements shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 22) That the new structure shall meet Solar Setback B in accordance with Chapter 18.70 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. Solar setback calculations shall be submitted with the building permit and include the required setback with the formula calculations, an elevation or cross-section clearly identifying the height of the solar producing point from natural grade and the solar setback in site plan view called out from the solar producing point to the north property line. 23) That a seven foot bicycle and pedestrian easement shall be granted to the City of Ashland along North PA 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 14 Main that will allow the city, or designee, to construct, reconstruct, install, use, operate, inspect, repair, maintain, remove and replace access improvements, including but not limited to street, sidewalk, bike path and landscaping improvements. (The Applicant agreed to this condition) Ashland City Council Approval Date: Mayor John W. Morrison Signature authorized and approved by the full Council this _ day of June, 2007 Approved as to form: Date: Ashland Interim City Attorney PA 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 15 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 13, 2007 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2006-02354, A REQUEST ) FOR SITE REVIEW APPROV AL TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY ) FINDINGS, BUILDING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERN CORNER ) CONCLUSIONS OF THE INTERSECTION OF N. MAIN ST. AND GLENN ST. AN EXCEPTION ) AND ORDERS TO THE STREET STANDARDS IS REQUESTED TO INSTALL A CURBSIDE ) SIDEWALK ON THE GLENN ST. PROPERTY FRONTAGE. A VARIANCE IS ) REQUESTED TO REDUCE THE SPECIAL SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR ) FRONT YARDS FOR PROPERTIES ABUTTING AN ARTERIAL STREET FROM ) TWENTY TO TEN FEET. ) ) APPLICANT: Raymond J. Kistler Architecture ) RECITALS: 1) Tax lot 3600 of391E05DA is located at the southern comer ofthe intersection ofN. Main St. and Glenn St. and is zoned E-l (Employment). 2) The applicant is requesting Site Review approval to construct a two-story building. An Exception to the Street Standards is requested to install a curbside sidewalk on the Glenn St. property frontage. A Variance is requested to reduce the special setback requirement for front yards for properties abutting arterial streets from twenty to ten feet. The site plan and building elevations are on file at the Department of Community Development. 3) The criteria for Site Review approval are as follows: 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. e. 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. 4) The criteria for an Exception to the Street Standards are described in 18.88.090 as follows: PA 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 1 EXHIBIT A A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements ofthis chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect ofthe site or proposed use of the site. B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity; C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent ofthe Performance Standards Options Chapter. 5) The criteria for a Variance are 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 of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent ofthis ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan ofthe City. C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. 6) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held Public Hearings on January 19, 2007, and February 13, 2007, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission approved the Site Review, Exception to the Street Standards and Variance to the Special Setback Requirement application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: 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 P A 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 2 EXHIBIT A 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 proposed development meets the approval criteria for Site Review approval. An office is a permitted use in the Employment (E-l) zoning district. The E-l zoning district requires at least 65 percent of the gross floor area of the ground floor to be used for permitted or special permitted uses. In this case, all of the ground floor building square footage is designated as office use which is a permitted use in the E-l zone. The site is located in the R-Overlay which allows residential units as a special permitted use. Residential units are permitted at 15 units per acre. The residential density of the site is two units (.136Ac x 15 = 2.04 units). The proposal is to use the second story for office spaces, two residential units, or a combination of office space and a residential unit. The E-l zoning district does not require standard setbacks from property lines unless a parcel abuts a residential zoning district. The subject parcel abuts a residential district at the rear (east) of the site. A ten foot per story setback is required for a rear yard abutting a residential district. The proposed building is 50 feet from the rear (east) property line, and therefore exceeds the required 20-foot setback requirement for the two-story building. The building is angled at the northwest comer of the lot adjacent to the intersection ofN. Main St. and Glenn St. so that the structure is located outside of the vision clearance area as required. The proposed building height is approximately 26 feet which is under the maximum building height of 40 feet in the E-l zoning district. The proposal will result in 22% of landscaping on site which exceeds the 15 percent minimum for the E-l zoning district. The Planning Commission finds the proposed development meets the off-street automobile parking requirements of Chapter 18.92, Off-Street Parking with the attached condition of approval number 19. The original application required six off-street parking spaces for 2,700 square feet of general office (2,700 sq. ft. /450 = 6 spaces). The off-street parking requirement is satisfied by providing five spaces on site and with one off-street parking credit available for the two spaces on the Glenn St. property frontage. The revised proposal, which is the approved submittal, increased the building square footage by approximately three percent or 89 square feet. As a result, the off-street parking requirement is increased from six to seven spaces (2,789 sq. ft. /450 = 6.20). In addition, the applicant revised the second floor to have the flexibility to be used as office spaces, two residential units, or a combination of the two. Here again, the off-street parking requirement is slightly over six spaces increasing the required number of off-street spaces to seven. The Commission finds that the building square footage and combination of uses on the second floor can be revised so that the required number of off-street spaces does not exceed the six spaces provided without a significant effect to the site or building design. This is addressed with the attached condition of approval number 19. Two bicycle parking spaces are PA 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 3 EXHIBIT A required, and the site plan shows the two covered bicycle parking spaces located under the exterior stairs in the front of the building. 2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the public utilities and transportation system have adequate capacity to serve the development. Public facilities and utilities are in place to service the project in the N. Main St. and Glenn St. rights-of-way. Water, sewer and storm drain services are available in Glenn St. N. Main St. and Glenn St. provide access to the site. N. Main St. is a state highway under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). N. Main St. is classified as a Boulevard (arterial) and Glenn St. is classified as a Neighborhood Street. Sidewalks are in place on the N. Main St. frontage and a portion ofthe Glenn St. frontage. The applicant will install a sidewalk on the Glenn St. property frontage connecting the existing sidewalk to the east of the property on Glenn St. to the existing sidewalk on N. Main St. The bicycle facilities are a shared lane on both streets. Bus service is provided on N. Main St. 2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the project is in compliance with the Basic Site Review Standards for Commercial Development, Detail Site Review Standards and Historic District Design Standards. The project lies within the Detail Site Review Zone and the Skidmore Academy Historic District. The proposal meets the Basic Site Review Standards for Commercial Development. The primary orientation of the building is to North Main Street using a recessed entry feature. The front entrance is accessed by the public sidewalk as required. Parking is located behind the building as required. The proposal will result in 22% of landscaping on site which exceeds the 15 percent minimum for the E-l zoning district. The parking area includes 19.4 percent of the area in landscaping which exceeds the minimum requirement of seven percent of the total parking area in landscaping. Additionally, one tree is required for each seven parking spaces to provide a canopy effect. Two trees are proposed on the north end of the parking area and the application states that the existing walnut in the southeast comer will also shade the parking area. Two street trees are proposed behind the sidewalk on the N. Main St. and three trees are proposed behind the sidewalk on Glenn St. The Commission finds the proposed building satisfies the Detail Site Review requirements. The recessed entry is generously sized, and accented with structural steel columns. The front (west) wall ground floor includes 44 percent in glazing and the Glenn St. (north) wall includes 37 percent in glazing which exceeds a minimum of20 percent of the wall are is required to be in display areas, windows and doorways. The front entrance to the building is emphasized by the entry alcove and awning. The Detail Site Review Standards prohibit bright or neon paint colors on the building exterior. The applicant provided exterior building materials and colors including Moss Green stucco for the second floor, Mountain Brown polished-face CMU block for the PA 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 4 EXHIBIT A ground floor, Charcoal Black split-faced CMU block for the base and Vintage III (dark grey) Zincalume Roofing. The Commission finds that the proposed building meets the Historic District Design Standards. At an average height of28.5 feet to the ridge ofthe roof, the proposed building is a similar height to the one and a half and two-story structures surrounding the subject property. The building is broken into two modules which creates a residential scale and reduces the mass. On the Glenn St. side of the building, the ground floor store front exterior treatment is wrapped around the comer of the building. In addition, an awning system has been added to the ground floor windows on the sides and rear of the building. The awnings and change in materials on the Glenn St. elevation serve to provide relief in the massing. The mass of the rear of the building is broken up the recess in the middle of the building. The proposed fac;ade line is in the same plane as the facades of buildings in the vicinity. The steep pitched gable roofs match the surrounding historic buildings. The windows have a vertical orientation which is compatible with the fac;ade patterns of surrounding historic structures. The base of the building is differentiated by using a different material with a different color (i.e. split-faced block in Charcoal Black). The two street facing volumes directed towards N. Main St. match the orientation to N. Main St. of buildings in the area. The ground floor front .doors are located in a generously-sized entry alcove which is connected to a plaza and walkway area to the public sidewalk on N. Main St. Finally, the proposed building design is a contemporary interpretation with different materials and architectural details. As required, the building is clearly not imitating the style of an older period. 2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the propose development meets the approval criteria for an Exception to the Street Standards to install a curbside sidewalk on the Glenn St. property frontage. A curbside sidewalk is in place on the south side of Glenn St. from the eastern boundary ofthe subject property to Orange St. Additionally, a curbside sidewalk is in place on N. Main St. and the comer ofN. Main St. and Glenn St. The opportunity for a parkrow on the Glenn St. frontage is limited to approximately 50 feet in length between the wheelchair ramp at the comer and the proposed driveway apron near the eastern property line. A transition from a curbside sidewalk to a sidewalk with a parkrow uses approximately ten lineal feet. One transition would need to be installed from the comer and another transition to the curbside before the driveway. After the transitions to and from the curbside sidewalk would be installed, there would be a relatively short length of parkrow installed on the Glenn St. property frontage. 2.6 The Planning Commission finds that the proposed development meets the approval criteria for a Variance to reduce the special setback requirement for front yards for properties abutting an arterial street from twenty to ten feet. The unusual circumstances which apply to the site are the surrounding historic development P A 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 5 EXHIBIT A pattern, the comer lot location, the bend in N. Main St., the configuration of the lot, and access to the site. The proposed ten-foot setback from N. Main St. matches the fayade line in the vicinity. The average distance to the historic front fayade lines in this area is approximately ten feet. The subject property is a highly visible location on one of the main gateways in the City and the prominence is accentuated by the location on a comer lot and the bend in N. Main St. From the perspective oftraveling south on N. Main St., the side ofthe building facing Glenn St. will be visible. The site has a short lot depth for a commercially zoned piece of property. There are commercial and employment zoned properties throughout Ashland (e.g. A St., Clear Creek Dr. and Russell Dr.) that allow similar mixed-use types of development, and these areas have been configured with adequate depth and area to accommodate parking on site. Additionally, alley systems and shared driveway systems are in place in these same commercial and employment zoned developments that provide vehicle access and back-up areas outside of the individual lots and building envelopes. There is 50 feet available between the back of the building and the rear (east) property line. The building footprint can not be moved closer to the back (east) property line because the parking area and landscape buffer are at the minimum dimensions. The parking is required to be behind or to the side of the building. Finally, the safest access to the site is from Glenn St. Glenn St. has lower traffic volumes and better visibility than N. Main St. The unusual characteristics of the site being the surrounding historic development pattern, the comer location, the bend in N. Main St., the configuration ofthe lot and access to the site have not been created by the applicant. Therefore, the circumstances contributing to the request for a variance are not self-imposed. The Planning Commission disagrees with the interpretation of the variance criterion proffered by opponents as it relates to self-imposed hardships. The Planning Commission finds and determines a hardship is not self imposed merely because there may be an alternative way to build a development without variance requested. In this case, the alternative proposed required an administrative variance to address compliance with historic standards. There is no requirement in Chapter 18.100 Variances to pursue the lesser of competing variances, (e.g. a standard requiring the minimum variance necessary such as that used in the Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards, ALUa 18.72.0890.D, and Exception to the Street Standards, ALUa 18.88.090). It is true that a hardship may be deemed self imposed because it is created by the personal desires of the applicant to maximize use ofthe property in terms of density and intensity. Clearly, in this case, the difference in square footage between the plans is inconsequential. This case is not so crude a choice; the Planning Commission strives to give meaning to each and every provision of the Code, reconciling conflicts between competing provisions when necessary. The Planning Commission finds and determines that a hardship is not self created when compliance with all the provisions of the City's Development Code creates essentially a no-win situation. The Planning Commission made an informed decision between variance alternatives based upon the peculiarities of the site and superior design. P A 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 6 EXHIBIT A The positive benefits of the proposal are maintaining the historic fac;ade line, streetscape and street enclosure ofN. Main St. The Historic District Design Standards require historic fac;ade lines of streetscapes to be maintained by locating front walls of new buildings in the same plane as the facades of adjacent buildings. The front fac;ade line is an important component in creating a historic development pattern and historic streetscape. If the proposed building is setback 20 feet from the front property line, the building will be set back further from the street than the existing historic front fac;ade line on N. Main St. in the vicinity. As a result, the proposed building setback 20 feet from N. Main St. will stand out from the historic fac;ade line and will not be compatible with the historic development pattern. Another positive benefit of the proposed building location at ten feet from the front property line is maintaining the streetscape and street enclosure ofN. Main St. The proposed building setback at the required 20- foot special setback for front yards abutting arterials is too far from the sidewalk to provide pedestrians visual interest from the front of the building or a sense of safety from moving vehicles. The streets that pedestrians find most comfortable and safe feeling are those where buildings front directly on or near the street. In contrast, when buildings are set farther from the street pedestrians tend to feel isolated and unprotected. Additionally, the building setback at 20 feet will be further back from the street than most of the front facades on the east side ofN. Main St. in the vicinity thereby making the street more open in this location. The building front fac;ade should maintain the historic fac;ade line because vertical surfaces such as building fronts close to the street encourage drivers to slow down. Concerns were raised at the January 9,2007 public hearing that approval ofthe front yard variance may prevent the installation of bicycle lanes on N. Main St. at a future date. County and city maps provide general information about the N. Main St. corridor. Based on county assessor's maps, city aerial maps and the Ashland Street Standards, there appears to be adequate space between the proposed building and the building on the opposite side of the street at 493 N. Main St. for a future reconstruction ofN. Main St. as a four-lane Boulevard including parkrows and bicycle lanes. Additionally, the street corridor is partially located in the Skidmore Academy Historic District (i.e. from the downtown to Maple St.). The Skidmore Academy Historic District is on the National Historic Register, and the associated federal regulations could affect street widening projects in listed historic neighborhoods. The 20-foot setback intrudes into some of the building footprints on both sides ofN. Main St. A street widening project could potentially impact the character of the historic district by reducing front yards and removing historic buildings, and thereby altering the historic development pattern. SECTION 3. DECISION PA 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 7 EXHIBIT A 3.1 Based on the record ofthe Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the application for Site Review approval to an office building, an Exception to the Street Standards to install a curbside sidewalk on the Glenn St. property frontage, and a Variance to reduce the special setback requirement for front yards for properties abutting arterial streets has satisfied all relative substantive standards and criteria and is supported by evidence in the record. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action # 2006-02354. Further, if anyone or more ofthe conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2006-02354 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 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. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric Department prior to building permit submittal, and the approved plan submitted with the building permit application. Additionally, the placement of any portion of the structure in the public utility easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department. Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets and outside of vision clearance areas, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. 3) That the engineered construction drawings for the public sidewalk improvement shall comply with approved plans, and submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to issuance of a building or excavation permit. The concrete color and surface finish shall be the city standard in accordance with the Ashland Engineering Specifications. Additionally, evidence of approval of the Oregon Department of Transportation for any work in the jurisdiction of the state shall be submitted with the engineered construction drawings. 4) That the required pedestrian-scaled streetlight shall consist of the City of Ashland's commerciallhistoric streetlight standard, and shall be included in the utility plan and engineered construction drawings for the public sidewalk along Ashland Street. That the property owner shall install public pedestrian-scaled street lights to City specifications on the N. Main St. and Glenn St. street frontages. 5) 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 PA 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 8 EXHIBIT A drainage pipes and catch basins. 6) That if a fire protection vault is required, the vault shall not be located in the sidewalk. 7) That all public improvements including but not limited to the sidewalk, street trees and street lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 8) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part ofthis application, an application to modify this Site Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. 9) That a Tree Protection Plan in accordance with the requirements of 18.61.200 shall be submitted for review and approval ofthe Staff Advisor with the building permit submittals. The Tree Protection Plan shall include an analysis from the project landscape architect or certified arborist ofthe impact of the installation of the pervious paving on the walnut tree to be preserved. 10) That the recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission with final approval of the Staff Advisor shall be addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit. The recommendations shall be included on a revised tree protection plan, landscaping plan and final irrigation plan at the time of submission of building permit. Landscaping and the irrigation system shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 11) That a Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to site work, building demolition, and/or storage of materials. The Verification Permit is to inspect the installation of tree protection fencing for the walnut tree in the southeast comer ofthe property. The tree protection shall be chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.61.200.B. 12) 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. 13) That the finished floor elevation (FFE) of the building shall be at a minimum, the same elevation as the public sidewalk in front of the building in the N. Main St. right-of-way. Verification of the FFE being at or above the elevation of the public sidewalk shall be submitted with the building permit for review and approval by the Staff Advisor. 14) That mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from N. Main St. Location and PA 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 9 EXHIBIT A screening of mechanical equipment shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. 15) That the windows shall not be heavily tinted so as to prevent views from outside of the building into the interior of the building. 16) That the building materials and the exterior colors shall be identified in the building permit submittals. Bright or neon paint colors used extensively to attract attention to the building or use are prohibited in accordance with the Detail Site Review Standards. 17) That exterior lighting shall be shown on the building permit submittals and appropriately shrouded so there is no direct illumination of surrounding properties. 18) That a comprehensive sign program in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.96 shall be developed for the building and submitted for review and approval with the building permit submittals. That a sign permit shall be obtained prior to installation of new signage. Signage shall meet the requirements of Chapter 18.96. 19) That the building size and number of residential units shall be revised so that the total number of required off-street parking spaces does not exceed the six spaces provided (i.e. five on-site spaces and one on-street parking credit). 20) That the recommendations of the Historic Commission with final approval of the Staff Advisor shall be incorporated into the building permit submittals. 21) That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department including fire apparatus access and fire hydrant flow requirements shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 22) That the new structure shall meet Solar Setback B in accordance with Chapter 18.70 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. Solar setback calculations shall be submitted with the building permit and include the required setback with the formula calculations, an elevation or cross- section clearly identifying the height of the solar producing point from natural grade and the solar setback in site plan view called out from the solar producing point to the north property line. PA 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 10 EXHIBIT A Planning Commission Approval Date PA 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page II EXHIBIT A