The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPA 2007-01283 CITY OF ASHLAND Memo DATE: 12/7/2007 TO: FROM: Honorable Mayor and City Council Bill Molnar, Community Development Direct~ Upcoming December 18th Council meeting and public hearing concerning Land Use Ordinance Amendments - AMC Chapter 18 RE: On the evening of December 18th, 2007, a public hearing will be held to evaluate possible amendments to Ashland's Land Use Ordinance. Given the nature and content of the information, Staff has prepared a packet in advance in order to enable Council members an earlier opportunity to review the proposed changes. This latest draft (Planning Commission Draft 3) includes some additional technical corrections added after the Planning Commission review. In Staffs opinion, these changes do not alter the substantive recommendation of the Planning Commission, but are important for clarity. These changes are identified in the document by the comments in the right margin. A more in depth Council Communication and staff report will be provided to the Mayor and Council next week. I would encourage anyone with questions regarding the proposed changes to feel free to contact or meet with me to discuss the amendments. DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 m: 800-735-2900 r.l' CITY OF .,l\SHLAND PLANNING ACTION 2007-01283 TABLE OF CONTENTS PLANNING ACTION: #2007-01283 SUBJECT PROPERTY: Citywide APPLICANT: City of Ashland DESCRIPTION: Proposed amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance implementing portions of the recommendations in the Land Use Ordinance Review prepared by Siegel Planning Services. In addition other recommendations of the City Planning Director concerning land use decision making procedures will be considered. Proposed changes affect the following chapters of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Title 18): Definitions, Districts and Zoning Map, Woodland Residential District, Rural Residential District, Single-Family Residential District, Suburban Residential District, Low Density Multiple Family Residential District, High Density Multiple Family, North Mountain Neighborhood, Retail Commercial District, Employment District, Health Care Services Zone, Tree Preservation and Protection, Physical and Environmental Constraints, Southern Oregon University District, General Regulations, Site Design Review, Partitions, Parking, Sign Regulations, Procedures and Enforcement. . J2il! J!!m Paae # 12/18/2007 Proposed land Use Code Revisions 1-45 12/18/2007 MaDs 46-49 10/23/2007 Plannina Commission Meeting 10/23/2007 Plannina Commission Minutes 50-52 10/15/2007 Plannina Commission land Use Ordinance Committee 10/15/2007 Memo to Planning Commission from Land Use Ordinance Committee with Final Recommendations 53 10/15/2007 City Council Studv Session 10/15/2007 Council Minutes 54-56 Land Use Ordinance 2007 Amendments -PowerPoint Presentation 57-65 10/412007 Plannina Commission Special Meetina & Presentation 10/4/2007 Plannina Commission Minutes 66-75 10/4/2007 ALUO Amendments - PowerPoint Presentation 76-80 Written Comments 10/26/2007 Letter from Brent Thomoson 81-83 Plannina Commission Chair. John Strombera 84-90 9/11/2007 Plannina Commission Meeting Measure 56 Notice of Public Hearing mailed 8/6/07 91 9/11/2007 Plannina Commission Minutes 92-95 9/11/2007 Plannina Deoartment Staff Reoort 96-116 Written Comments 9/10/2007 Memo from Bonnie Brodersen 117-118 9/9/2007 E-mail from John Schwendender 119 9/10/2007 E-mail from Dennis Goldstein 120-121 9/7/2007 E-mail from David Stalheim to Dennis Goldstein 122 9/7/2007 Letter from Dennis Goldstein 123-125 9/7/2007 Letter from Michael H. and Jacquelyn Young 126 8/31/2007 E-mail from Brandon Goldman, HousinQ Specialist 127-128 8/30/2007 E-mail from Mark Knox 129-130 8/28/2007 E-mail from Colin Swales 131 8/23/2007 E-mail from Colin Swales 132-135 8/17/2007 E-mail from Mark Knox 137-140 8/8/2007 E-mail from Maraueritte Hickman, Division Chief/Fire Marshal 141-143 8/5/2007 E-mail from John Fields 144-147 8/2/2007 E-mail from Amy Anderson, Assistant Planner 148-150 8/1/2007 E-mail from Pam Marsh, PlanninQ Commissioner 151 8/1/2007 E-mail from David Stalheim to Planning Commission 152 8/1/2007 E-mail from David Stalheim to Bryan Holley 153-154 7/31/2007 Planning Commission Special Study Session 7/31/2007 Planning Commission Minutes (Draft) 155-158 Land Use Ordinance 2007 Amendments-PowerPoint Presentation 159-166 7/24/2007 Memo from David Stalheim to Planning Commission & Interested 167-177 Parties re: Proposed Amendments to Ashland Land Use Ordinance Written Comments 7/31/2007 Exhibit presented bv Art Bullock - "Of the People" 178 7/30/2007 E-mail from Colin Swales 179 PROPOSED LAND USE CODE REVISIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT 3 (With corrections identified by margin comments) DECEMBER 18, 2007 PROPOSED LAND USE CODE REVISIONS Planning Commission Draft 3 (with technical corrections) December 18, 2007 (Proposed deletions are 5ffi:tek through and proposed additions are underlined.) TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1, Amend Chapter 18.08, DEFINmONS...........................................................2 Section 2, Amend Chapter 18.12, DISTRICTS AND ZONING MAP. ...................................6 Section 3, Amend Chapter 18.14, W-R WOODLAND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ....................6 Section 4, Amend Chapter 18.16, R-R RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.............................7 Section 5, Amend Chapter 18.20, R-l SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ................7 Section 6, Amend Chapter 18.22, R-1-3.5 SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.................7 Section 7, Amend Chapter 18.24, R-2 LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT............................................................................................. 8 Section 8, Amend Chapter 18.28, R-3 HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT........................................................................................... 10 Section 9, Amend Chapter 18.30, NM NORTH MOUNTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD ....................11 Section 10, Amend Chapter 18.32, C-l RETAIL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT ........................13 Section 11, Amend Chapter 18.40, E-l EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT ...................................13 Section 12, Amend Chapter 18.52, M-l INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT ....................................14 Section 13, Amend Chapter 18.54, HC HEALTH CARE SERVICES ZONE ..........................14 Section 14, Amend Chapter 18.61, TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION................... 14 Section 15, Amend Chapter 18.62, PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS........ 16 Section 16, Amend Chapter 18.64, SO-SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY (SOU) DISTRICT ........................................................................................................18 Section 17, Amend Chapter 18.68, GENERAL REGULATIONS ........................................ 19 Section 18, Amend Chapter 18.72, SITE DESIGN REVIEW........................................... 21 Section 19, Amend Chapter 18.76, PARTITIONS........................................................ 27 Section 20, Amend Chapter 18.88, PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS...................... 28 Section 21, Amend Chapter 18.92, PARKING............................................................. 28 Section 22, Amend Chapter 18.96, SIGN REGULATIONS.............................................. 29 Section 23, Amend Chapter 18.108, PROCEDURES..................................................... 29 Section 24, Amend Chapter 18.112, ENFORCEMENT ................................................... 45 December 18, 2007 Draft - 1 - / Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 Section 1, Amend Chapter 18.08, DEFINITIONS Amend Section 18.08.090. Boardlna--roomina house A dwelling or part thereof, other than a hotel or motel, where lodging with or without meals is provided, for compensation, for three (3) or more persons. for a minimum period of thirtv (30) davs. Amend Section 18.08.160. Coveraae. lot or site Total area of all stftlettlre3buildinas, oarkina areas. ~riveways, or other solid surfaces seil sisttlrl3aREes that will not allow normal water infiltration to the around. Uo to five ~:~~~~ta~~O/;~m~ia~hs~~:c:~~~:~~ ~~u~I:II~~:~~I:~:~~e~~ ~~~h 8~:ti~:~~ ~=i from lot coveraae requirements. The coverage is expressed as a percentage of such area in relation to the total gross area of the lot or site. Landscaping which does not negatively impact the natural water retention and soil characteristics of the site shall not be deemed part of the lot or site coverage. APflE:flfI (Reeefli~) Seetiefl 18.98.J89. Let f1epth The herizefltal sistaRE:e fl'aPfl the Pflisl'eiRt af thE: rear af lat liRe te the PfliflseiRt ef the waRt ~. .... ...... .. Amend Section 18.08.485. Mechanical eauioment Equipment or devices installed for a use appurtenant to the primary use. Such equipment shall include heating and air conditioning equipment, solar collectors, parabolic antennas, disc antenna, radio or lV receiving or transmitting antennas, and any power generating devices. The fella... iRg eEltlil'PfleRt er se'/iE:es are e:Ke""I't: A. Private, ReR ee""PflerE:iell'8sie eRs tde\"i3ie" a"teRRa3 "et exe:eesiAg a height ef se\"eRty (79) fed aBave grese ar thipty (39) fed aBave: aR exi3tiRg strtlettlre, "'ihithe\"er height is greater. He I'art af stlth aRteRRa shell Be v;ithiR the yal'ss reEltlifeS "'Y this Chal'ter. 1\ "tlilsiRg I'erPflit shall "e I'eEltllres fer eR'; aRteRAa Pfla:;t, er taHer e'ier fj~ (59) fed a"eve gl'8se ar thiRy (39) fed e"eve aR existiAg stl'tlettll'e ...heR the ~""e is ee"stl'tletes e,. the reet et the stl'tlettlfe. g, Pel'a"alle: aRteRRas tlRSer thfee (3) feet iA siaPfleter. Amend Section 18.05.530. Parking Soac;e A soace desianed and desianated to orovlde oarkina for a motor vehicle. See Chaoter 18.92 tor oarkina standards. A reeta"gle Rat less tha" e:ighteeR (18) ket laRg aRs Ai"e (9) ket wise tegdher with aeee3S eRs PflaRE:tl".eri"g 31'aee stlfiFieie"t te I'erPflit a BRsaM atltePfle"i1e te "e I'arltes vlithi" the reeftlAgle withatlt the Reeessity at PfleViRg ether ";ehleles, sals reetaRgle ta "e laEates aff af the street fight ef 'na';. Amend Section 18.08.595. Plannina aoollcation: olannina action. A olannina aoollcation Is an aoollcation. other than an aoollcatlon for leaislatlve amendment. filed pursuant to the requirements of this ordinance. A olanning action Is a proceeding pursuant to this ordinance in which the legal rights, duties or privileges of specific parties are determined, and any appeal or review of such proceeding, pursuant to the provisions ot this ordinance. A planning action does not include a ministerial action or a legislative amendment. December 18, 2007 Draft - 2 - ~ Can..._(__~, 1n<:~detlnItkm InItIelly used in AlOO"a~ftt cIocument - exlsti119 deflnltlon Is. sufflclenlt. .. Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 Amend Section 18.08.650. Setback The horizontal Deroendicular distance from a lot line to the closest Dart of a buildina or structure that is subiect to a setback or vard reauirement. Architectural Droiections mav intrude Into reaulred setbacks as set forth in Section 18.68.040. When multl-storv setbacks are sDecified. the setback for a stOry above the around floor is measured horizontallv from the lot line to the Diane of the nearest wall of the UDDer storv. "Fhe ~lstaPlee BdONeePl the eePlter IlPle af a stl'€tt aPl~ the sl'eelal Base IiPle sdBael( wa", 'Nhleh '/ar~ "'eastlre"'ePlt3 are ",aee, "'eastlre~ herizePlNlIl, !!IPI~ !!It right !!IPlgles we", sai~ eePltu IiPle. Amend Section 18.08.740. Story That portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the top story shall be that portion of a building Included between the upper surface of the top floor and the ceiling above. A basement shall not be considered a storv. If the fiPlIshe~ fleaI' level ~lreetl'Y aBa'Je a BaSe"'ePlt ar edlar i3 ",are thaPl sit< (6) feet aBa'le gFaee HII' ",are thaPl fi~; BefSePlt (59qb) af the BeFI"'der af the Bl:lilEliPlO, the "ase",ePlt ar edlar shall Be eaPlsieere~ a star.,.. If the wall face of the UDDer most floor at the rear or side vard setback line is more than three (3) feet above the floor level below. the UDDer floor shall be considered a storY for Durooses of setbacks. Unenclosed decks. Dorches. balconies and similar features are not considered stories. Amend Section 18.08.750. Structure or buildlnl;l That which Is built or constructed; an edifice or building of any kind or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner and which requires location on, In, or above the ground or which Is attached to something having a location on, In or above the ground. Structures elghtuPl thlrtv (30) f!6t-inches in height or less. includina entrY stairs. uncovered Dorches. Datios and similar structures. are exempt from the side and rear yard setback requirements and from half (1/2) the yard requirements for the front yard and side yard abutting a public street. Amend Section 18.08.795. Traveler's Accommodations Any establishment in a residential zone having rooms or dwellings rented or kept for rent to travelers or transients for a charge or fee paid or to be paid for rE!ntal or use of such facilities for a period of less than thirty (30) days. Amend Section 18 08 830. Yard An open space on a lot which is unobstructed by a structure wa", the gfatlPl~ tll'war~. ADD the following definitions: Accessory residential unit A second dwellina unit either attached to a single familv dwellina or located on the same lot with a slnale famllv dwellina and havlna an indeDendent means of access. Basement That Dortlon of a buildlna with a f1oor-to-ceilina heiaht of not less than six and a half (6.5) feet and where fifty Dercent (50%) or more of Its Derlmeter walls are less than six (6) feet above natural arade and does not exceed twelve (12) feet above finished arade at any J2.QiD1. RIAId ... lia" ~:=7:~ ~~~ :;=i1:i~SI~r::~~;: :h::. u~eri_~eter 'A81l ",ere _th~PI _. December 18, 2007 Draft - 3 - .3 Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 Floor area, gross habitable The total area of all floors in a dwelling measured to Its outside surfaces that are under the horizontal proiection of the roof or floor above with at least 7' of head room. excluding uninhabitable SDaces accessed solely by an exterior door. Floor area, gross The total area of all floors in a building measured to the outside surfaces that are under the horizontal prQjection of the roof or floor above. Ground Floor The first floor of a buildina other than a cellar or basement. Historic District A district identified as historically sianificant under the Citv of Ashland ComDrehensive Plan and its imolementing reaulations (e.g. overlav zones). Porch, enclosedl unenclosed Covered Dorches. exterior balconies. or other similar areas attached to a building and havin9 dimensions of not less than six (6) feet in deDth by eight (8) feet in lenath. "Enclosed" means the Dorch contains wall(s) that are more than fortv-two (42) inches in height measured from finished floor level. for fifty Dercent (50%) or more of the porch Derimeter. "Unenclosed" means the porch contains no such walls. but it may be covered. Porous Solid Surface Porous solid surface is a permeable surface built with an underlyina stone reservoir that temporarily stores surface runoff before it infiltrates into the subsoil. Porous solid surfaces include pervious asphalt. pervious concrete. grass or permeable pavers. or decks that allow runoff to infiltrate the subsoil beneath the deck. Reconstruct To re-create or re-assemble a structure or building with a new or replacement structure that re-creates or reDroduces its form. shape and location as originallv built. Setback, Special The distance between the center line of a street and the special base line setback from which yard measurements are made. measured horizontallv and at right angles from said center line. December 18, 2007 Draft - 4- If Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 Story, half A half stON is ,ither ~ E18.1i~t1t h8~C"'~At ~r q so~~e I.U'Ule( " slQQillQ [Qof tb~t h~~ t;be line Qf intersection of the roof and exterior wall face not more than three (3) feet above the floor level below and in which soace the floor area with head room of five (5) feet or more occuoies no more than fiftv oercent (50%) of the total floor area of the stON directly beneath. --.,.- ~,.q',,-.) f 4Toc..,.. 1 ""-Ie. ....~ .._ Slnnina Roof Half StorY If Floor ArP~ "A" is no more than 500/0 of Floor Area "B" - then "A" i~ a half staN If the wall face i~ more than three (3) feet above the floor level helow at the rear or side vard s~tbac:k line then it shall he considered a full stON for nlJ~nos@s of sethar:k measurements December 18, 2007 Draft - 5 - s rIft9~. hlJIN!tCli1 i$ '.. . . Wltttthe~ <ft~1ori. .Clf;'.~'or.. wItK.~ re~~Ion.ofa b<lSemenb Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft: Amendments December 18, 2007 Amend Section 18.12.020. Classification of districts Section 2, Amend Chapter 18.12, DISTRICTS AND ZONING MAP. For the purpose of this Title, the City is divided into zoning districts designated as follows: Zoning Districts and Overlavs Map Symbol and Abbreviated Designation Airport Overlay Residential - Rural Residential - Single Family Residential - Low Density Multiple Family Residential - High Density Multiple Family Commercial Commercial - Downtown Employment Industrial Woodland Residential SOU - Southern Oregon State CellegeUniversitv ~~~Am:::;t~~~~:~" ~~:r::VleW Zone Health Care Services Zone North Mountain Neiahborhood ResidentialOverlav Freewav SiQn Overlav A RR R-1 R-2 R-3 C-1 C-1-D E-1 M-1 WR SOU p DSR HC NM Amend Section 18.12.030, Zoning and Land Use Control MaDS A. The location and boundaries of the zonina districts designated in Section 18.12.020.. Dhvsical and environmental constraints desianated in Section 18.62.060. Site Desian zones desiQnated in ChaDter 18.72 are established as shown on the map entitled "Zoning and Land Use Control Maps of the City of Ashland," dated with the effective date of the ordinance codified herein, and signed by the Mayor and City Recorder and I hereafter referred to as the "%Zoning and Land Use Control fflMaps." B. The signed copy of said Z~oning and Land Use Control fflMaps shall be maintained on file in the office of the City Recorder and is made a part of this Title. Section 3, Amend Chapter 18.14, W-R WOODLAND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Amend Section 18,14.030. W-R. add the following Conditional Uses H. .'f1Y re",e'lal ef three (J) er ",ere Ii. il'l~ tree, ef ever sil( (6) iflehe3 ifl e1ia"'der tre", afl,. tax let e1t1riflg aflY efle (1) ealeflelar year, er afl'l fer", ef ee"''''ereialleggiflg. Stith tlse shall "e !!Ier"'itteel efll,. 'Imefl, ifl aelelitiefl te the Ceflelltieflal Use Per"'it Flflelifl~S, the fellewifl~ Flflelifl~s ha'/e "eefl e1derflllil'leel: 1. TFaflS!!IeFt:atiefl I:e sflEl we", the site fafl "e aefe"'!!I1i5heel 5afel'; aflEl ..".Ithetlt Eli5ttlrhaflee 1:e resiEleflts. 2. That aElet!ltlal:e !!Ire.i,iefls have "eefl ",aEle fer el'e,iefl eel'ltrel. 3. That aElet!ltla1:e !!Ire\'isiefls have "eefl "'i!IEle fer rereresl:etiefl. 4. That a !!I !!Irevi!I I has "eefl ehti!lifleEl we", all 81'!!Irel'riate Cetlflty, State aflEl reEleFaI a~efleies. December 18, 2007 Draft: - 6- G. ~~t.F()r COI!I$l!ltenty .tflro~tM I~ e?ClStinV' . .... Petail SIte RtVlCW ZWlu!lt tie used fOl'" the overlay name. . Ashland land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft: Amendments December 18, 2007 5, That there is Ae 13rebable daAger et 'NUdAI'(:. 6, That theFe is adeqtlate StlFety beAd lAg 13re'..ided te the City te eAStlFe that aA'! reql;lired reteFt:statieA aAd eFesieA ceAtrel '/till be acceFl'll3lished. J:L. Disc antenna for commercial use. I. Nonconformina use or structure changes reauired by Section 18.68.090. J. Temoorary uses. K. Wireless Communication Facilities when attached to existina structures and authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180. Section 4, Amend Chapter 18.16, R-R RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Amend Section 18.16,030. R-R. add the followina Conditional Uses K.. Disc antenna for commercial use. L. Nonconforming use or structure changes reauired by Section 18.68.090. M. Temoorary uses. N. Wireless Communication Facilities when attached to existing structures and authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180. Amend Section 18.16.040. R-R. General Reaulations F, Minimum side yard: There shall be a minimum side yard of fWe-six..J65) feet, except ten (10) feet along the side yard facing the street on a corner lot. G. Minimum rear yard: There shall be a minimum rear yard of ten (10) feet olus ten (10) feet for each story in excess of one (1) story. Section 5, Amend Chapter 18.20, R-l SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Amend Section 18.20.030. R-1. Conditional Uses J.. Disc antenna for commercial use. K. Dwellinas in the Historic District exceedina the maximum permitted floor area oursuant to Section 18.20.040. L. Nonconforming use or structure changes required by Section 18.68.090. M. Temoorarv uses. N. Wireless Communication Facilities when attached to existina structures and authorized oursuant to Section 18.72.180. Section 6, Amend Chapter 18.22, R-1-3.5 SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Amend Section 18.22.030. R-1-3.5. Conditional Uses .Ii.. Disc antenna for commercial use. I. Nonconformina use or structure chanaes reauired by Section 18.68.090. J. Temporarv uses. K. Wireless Communication Facilities when attached to existina structures and authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180, December 18, 2007 Draft: .. 7 .. 7 Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 Amend Section 18.22.040. R-1-3.5. General Reaulations A. Minimum Lot Area. The minimum lot area shall be five thousand (5,000) square feet.. fer the first Elwelliflg t:lfllt aflEl except that a lot three thousand five hundred (3,500) square feet or larger mav be created far eaeh aElElitiaflal when the lot ~an existing single-family residence which meets-efl--itt bath the existiflg aflEl fie',. strt:letl:lres FfIl:Jst: FfIeet the setback, density, amllot coverage aflEllat size requirements.. aflEl criteria af Chal'ter 18. 76,the ~1iflar LaflEl Paftitiafl f:eetiafl af the OrEliflaflee, jl:lst as if each strl:lctl:lre "/\lal:JIEI be lacatcEl afl its a',VfI lat, regardless af whether a fle'N I'areel is beiflg createEl ar flat. IfI the AshlaflEl Histarie Distriet, all resiElefltial strl:Jetl:Jres shall alse be subjeet ta these reEll:JireFfleflts. Variances under this Section are subject to Type I procedures. Section 7, Amend Chapter 18.24, R-2 LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Amend Section 18.24.030. R-2. Conditional Uses I. Retail commercial uses located in a dwelling unit, within the Railroad Historic District as iElefltitieEl by the AshlaflEl Histeric CeFflFflissiafl aflEl approved by the City Council. Such business shall be no greater than six hundred (600) sq. ft. in total area, including all storage and accessory uses, and shall be operated only by the occupant of the dwelling unit uses, and the equivalent of one (1) half (Y2) time employee (up to twenty-five (25) hours per week). Such use shall be designed to serve primarily pedestrian traffic, and shall be located on a street having a fully improved sidewalk on at least the side occupied by the business. The street shall be a fully improved street of residential City standards or greater. K. Traveler's accommodations, subject to the following: 6. Transfer of business-ownership of a traveler's accommodation shall be subject to all requirements of this section, aflEl sl:J&jeet ta CaflElitiaflal Use PerFflit al'I'reval and conformance with the criteria of this section. All traveler's accommodations receiving their initial approvals prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall be considered as approved, conforming uses, with all previous approvals, conditions and requirements remaining in effect upon change of business-ownership. Any further modifications beyond the existing approvals shall be in conformance with all requirements of this section. L. Hostels, I'reviEleEl that the facility be sl:J&jeet ta afl aflfll:lal T"I'e I review far at least the first: three (3) '(ears, after which tiFfle the Plaflfliflg CeFflFflissiafl FfIa.t" al'I'rave, I:If1E1er a TYI'e II I'reeeEll:Jre, a I'erFflafleflt I'erFflit fer the faeility. M. Disc antenna for commercial use. N. Nonconforming use or structure changes reauired bv Section 18.68.090. O. New structures and additions to existing structures within a design~ted ~i~~~~~ ~istrict which exceeds the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA). subject to th_ ____ a re9ulations set forth in Section 18.24.040. P. Temporary uses. O. Wireless Communication Facilities when attached to existing structures and authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180. December 18, 2007 Draft - 8 - g Ashland land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 Amend Section 18.24.040. R-2. General Reoulations A. Permitted Density and Minimum Lot Dimensions. 1. Base Densities and Minimum Lot Dimensions. The density of the development, including the density gained through bonus points, shall not exceed the density established by this section. The density shall be computed by dividing the total number of dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the public. The minimum density shall be 80% of the calculated base density. Fractional portions of the answer shall not apply towards the total density. Base density for the R-2 zone shall be 13.5 dwelling units per acre, in addition to the followina standards and exceptiQns: a. An accessory residential unit is not required to meet density or minimum lot area requirements. orovided the unit is not areater than fiftv percent (500~) ~f ~h~ gross habitable floor area of the sinale familv residence on the lot an_ d_e_ --9t exceed 500 sauare feet of aross habitable floor area. Lhewever, uUnits not considered as an accessory residential unit and ef-Iess than 500 square feet of gross habitable area shall count as 0.75 units for the purposes of density calculations, with the felle',viAg restrietieAS. ~a. Minimum lot area for less than 2 units t:tftiH:-shall be 5000 sq. ft. with a minimum width of 50' and minimum depth of 80'. .cIe. Minimum lot area for 2 units shall be 7,000 sq. ft. with a minimum width of 50' and a minimum depth of 80'. ee. Developments of 3 units or greater shall have minimum lot area in excess of 9000 sq. ft. ~as determined by the base density and allowable bonus point calculations, and shall have a minimum width of 50' and a minimum depth of 80'. I. Maximum Permitted Floor Area for single family dwellings on individual lots within the Historic District. The maximum permitted floor area for single family primary dwellings on individual lots within tfle-an...Historic District shall be determined by the follOWing: 1. The maximum permitted floor area shall include the total floor space of all floors (gross floor area) of the primary dwelling measured to the outside surfaces of the building, including but not limited to exterior walls, potential living spaces within the structure with at least 7' of head room and attached garages. The floor area shall not include basements, detached garages, detached accessory structures, or detached accessory residential units. Detached garages, accessory structures, or accessory residential units shall be separated from other structures by a minimum of 6', except that unenclosed breezeways or similar open structures may connect the structures. J. Maximum Permitted Floor Area for multiple dwellings on a single lot :~~ ~~~ residential construction in Performance Standards ODtions land _:_ 's:_ s created within Hte-~Historic District. The MPFA fer ml:lltiple El'NelliAgs eA a siAgle let v/ithiA the Histefie Distflct shall be determined by the following: 1. The MPFA shall include the total floor space of all floors (gross floor area) of the primary dwelling...un.its measured to the outside surfaces of the building!.s}, including but not limited to exterior walls, potential living spaces within the structure with at least 7' of head room and attached garages. The floor area shall not include basements, detached garages, detached accessory structures, or detached accessory residential units. Detached garages, accessory structures, or accessory residential units shall be separated from other structures by a minimum of 6', except that unenclosed breezeways or similar open structures may connect the structures. December 18, 2007 Draft - 9 - <1 Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 Section 8, Amend Chapter 18.28, R-3 HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Amend Section 18.28.030. R-3. Conditional Uses J. Travelers accommodations, subject to the following: 6. Transfer of business-ownership of a travelers accommodation shall be subject to all requirements of this section, aAE! sl:Ibject ta CaAE!itiaAal Use Permit al3l3f6val and conformance with the criteria of this section. All travelers accommodations receiving their initial approvals prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall be conSidered as approved, conforming uses, with all previous approvals, conditions and requirements remaining in effect upon change of business-ownership. Any further modifications beyond the existing approvals shall be in conformance with all requirements of this section. L. Hostels, I3raviE!eE! that the facility be sl:Ibject ta aA aAAl:Ial TYl3e I reviev; far at least Ule first three (3) years, after whith time the PlaAAiAg CammissiaA ma'i al3l3r6ve, l:IAE!er a TYl3e I1l3receE!l:Ire, a l3ermaAeAt l3efmit far the facilit'f. M. Disc antenna for commercial use. N. Enlargement. extension. reconstruction. substitution. structural alteration or reactivation of nonconforming uses and structures pursuant to Section 18.68.090. O. New structures and additions to existing structures within a desianated Historic District which exceeds the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA). subject to the general reaulations set forth in Section 18.28.040. P. Temoorarv uses. O. Wireless Communication Facilities when attached to existina structures and authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180. Amend Section 18.28.040. R-3. General Regulations A. Permitted Density and Minimum Lot Dimensions 1. Base Densities and Minimum Lot Dimensions. The density of the development, including the density gained through bonus points, shall not exceed the density established by this section. The density shall be computed by dividing the total number of dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the public. The minimum density shall be 80% of the calculated base density. Fractional portions of the answer shall not apply towards the total density. Base density for the R-3 zone shall be 20.0 dwelling units per acre, in addition to the following standards and exceptions: a. An accessorv residential unit is not required to meet density or minimum lot area requirements orovided the unit is not greater than fifty percent (50%) of the gross habitable floor area of the single family residence on the lot and does not exceed 500 square feet of gross habitable floor area. ~ha'Never, l:I:U.nits not considered as an accessorv residential unit and eHess than 500 square feet of gross habitable area shall count as 0.75 units for the purposes of density calculations, 'A'ith the falla"..iAg restrictiaAS, tit. Minimum lot area for less than two (2) units -i--shall be 5000 sq. ft. with a minimum width of 50' and minimum depth of 80' .db. Minimum lot area for 2 units shall be 6,500 sq. ft. with a minimum width of 50' and a minimum depth of 80'. ee. Developments of 3 units or greater shall have minimum lot area in excess of 8000 sq. ft. ~as determined by the base density and allowable bonus point calculations, and shall have a minimum width of 50' and a minimum depth of 80'. December 18, 2007 Draft - 10 - It) Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 I. Maximum Permitted Floor Area for single family dwellings on individual lots within the Historic District. The maximum permitted floor area for single family primary dwellings on individual lots within N=te-~Historic District shall be determined by the following: I. The maximum permitted floor area shall include the total floor space of all floors (gross floor area) of the primary dwelling measured to the outside surfaces of the building, including but not limited to exterior walls, potential living spaces within the structure with at least 7' of head room and attached garages. The floor area shall not include basements, detached garages, detached accessory structures, or detached accessory residential units. Detached garages, accessory structures, or accessory residential units shall be separated from other structures by a minimum of 6', except that unenclosed breezeways or similar open structures may connect the structures. ]. Maximum Permitted Floor Area for multiple dwellings on a single lot and new residential construction in Performance Standards ODtions land divisions created within the-m..Historic District. The MPFA far "'tlltiple dwelliFt~s aft a siFt~le lat withiFt the Histeric District shall be determined by the following: 1. The MPFA shall include the total floor space of all floors (gross floor area) of the ",rimary dwelling .u.nits....measured to the outside surfaces of the buildingW, including but not limited to exterior walls, potential living spaces within the structure with at least 7' of head room and attached garages. The floor area shall not include basements, detached garages, detached accessory structures, or detached accessory residential units. Detached garages, accessory structures, or accessory residential units shall be separated from other structures by a minimum of 6', except that unenclosed breezeways or similar open structures may connect the structures. Section 9, Amend Chapter 18.30, NM NORTH MOUNTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD Amend Section 18.30.020. NM General Regulations A. Conformance with North Mountain Neighborhood Plan. Land uses, streets, alleys and pedestrian/bicycle access ways shall be located in accordance with those shown on the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan adopted by Ordinance No. 2800. 2.d. The proposed modification is necessary to adjust to physical constraints evident on the property, or to protect significant natural features such as trees, rock outcroppings, wetlands, etE=or similar natural features, or to adjust to existing property lines between project boundaries. E. Density Transfer. Density transfer within a project from one overlay to another may be approved if it can be shown that the proposed density transfer furthers the design and access concepts advocated by the neighborhood plan, and provides for a variety of residential unit sizes. types and architectural styles.a diversity iFt size aFtd style af "'ausiFt~ types. Amend Section 18.30.030. NM-C Neighborhood Central Overlay G. Lot Coverage: Maximum lot coveraae shall be seventy-five (75) oercent. December 18, 2007 Draft - 11 - II Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 Amend Section 18.30.040. NM-MF Neighborhood Core Overlay C. 1. Front Yards. Front yard setbacks sShall be a minimum of ~10} feet and a maximum of twentv-five (2s} feet, excluding garages. Front yards may be reduced to frltis} feet for unenclosed porches with a minimum depth of six L6l..feet~ minimum width of eight (8) feet. Garages shall be setback a minimum of fifteen (ls} feet from the front building facade and twenty (20} feet from the sidewalk. No greater than SO percent ~of the total lineal building facade facing the street shall consist of garage, carport or other covered parking space. 2. Side Yards-:-. Side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of fFive !Sl..feet ~~ fir&..story, excluding half-stories and upper floor dormer space. five (5) feet for each additional story. and~ ten UID.Jeet when abutting a public street. Single story, detached garages and accessory structures shall have a minimum three ffifoot side yard, except that no side yard is required for accessory buildings sharing a common wall. Amend Section 18.30.050. NM-R-l-s Neighborhood General Overlay C. 1. Front Yards. Front vard setbacks sShall be a minimum of ~10} feet and a maximum of twenty-five (2s} feet, excluding garages. Front yards may be reduced to fuliL(s} feet for .u.nenclosed porches with a minimum depth of six L6l..feet~ minimum width of eight (8) feet. Garages shall be setback a minimum of fifteen (ls} feet from the front building facade and twenty (20} feet from the sidewalk. No greater than SO percent ~of the total lineal building facade facing the street shall consist of garage, carport or other covered parking space. 2. Side Yards-:-. Side vard setbacks shall be a minimum of fFive !Sl..feet ~~ fu:&.story, excluding half-stories and upper floor dormer space. five (5) feet for each additional storv. and~ ten UQLfeet when abutting a public street. Single story, detached garages and accessory structures shall have a minimum three ffifoot side yard, except that no side yard is required for accessory buildings sharing a common wall. F. Lot Coveraae: Maximum lot coveraae shall be fiftv oercent (50%). Amend Section 18.30.060. NM-R-1-7.s Nei9hborhood Edge Overlay C. 1. Front Yards. Front vard setbacks sShall be a minimum of ~10} feet and a maximum of twenty-five (2s} feet, excluding garages. Front yards may be reduced to frltis} feet for unenclosed porches with a minimum depth of six L6l..feet~ minimum width of eiaht (8) feet. Garages shall be setback a minimum of fifteen (ls} feet from the front building facade and twentv (20} feet from the sidewalk. No greater than SO percent ~of the total lineal building facade facing the street shall consist of garage, carport or other covered parking space. 2. Side Yards-:-. Side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of fFive !Sl..feet ~~ fir&..story, excluding half-stories and upper floor dormer space. five (5) feet for each additional story. and~ ten UOl.feet when abutting a public street. Single story, detached garages and accessory structures shall have a minimum three Ql.foot side yard, except that no side yard is required for accessory buildings sharing a common wall. G. Lot Coverage: Maximum lot coverage shall be forty-five oercent (45%). December 18, 2007 Draft - 12 - I~ Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 Section 10, Amend Chapter 18.32, C-l RETAIL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Amend Section 18.32.025. C-1 Soecial Permitted Uses 2. Residential densities shall not exceed 30 dwelling units per acre in the C-1 District, and 60 dwelling units per acre in the C-1-D District. For the purpose of density calculations. units of less than 500 square feet of gross habitable floor ~re~ sh~II count as 0.75 of a unit. E. Drive-up uses as defined and regulated as follows: 1. Drive-up uses may be approved in the C-1 District only. and onl~ in th~ ~r~~ e~:,~~f a line drawn oeroendicular to Ashland Street at the intersectio_ of ~_!11L_ _ r_ t and Siskivou Boulevard. 2. Drive-up uses are prohibited in Ashland's Historic Interest Area as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Drive I:II'l I:Ises ff1ay aAI.,. be allaweEl iA the C 1 Elistricts east af a IiAe ElFawA l3erl'leAEliel:llar ta AshiaAEl Street, at the iAtersectiaA af AshlaAEl Street aAEl Siskiyal:l Bal:lle'iarEl. 4.3. Drive-up uses are subject to the following criteria: Amend Section 18.32.030. C-1 Conditional Uses J. Wireless Communication Facilities not permitted outright and authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180. K. Structures which are creater than forty (40) feet in height, but less than fifty-five (55) feet. in the "D" Downtown Overlay District. Section 11, Amend Chapter 18.40, E-l EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT Amend Section 18.40.020. E-1 Permitted Uses O. Wireless Communication Facilities permitted outricht pursuant to Section 18.72.180. Amend Section 18.40.030. E-1 Soecial Permitted Uses E. Residential uses. 2. Resi~ential den~ities sh~II not exceed 15 dwelling units per acre. :~~ ~~~ pu~~~s~:: density calculations. Units of less than 500 square feet of cross h__lt__ e f1___ a __ shall count as 0.75 of a unit. Amend Section 18.40.040. E-1 Conditional Uses O. Temporary uses. P. Wireless Communication Facilities not permitted outright and authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180. December 18, 2007 Draft - 13- /3 Ashland land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft: Amendments December 18, 2007 Section 12, Amend Chapter 18.52, M-l INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT Amend Section 18.52.030. M-l Conditional Uses E. Temporarv uses. P. Wireless Communication Facilities not permitted outriaht and authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180. Section 13, Amend Chapter 18.54, HC HEALTH CARE SERVICES ZONE Amend Section 18.54.030. HC Conditional Uses E. Wireless Communication Facilities authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180. Section 14, Amend Chapter 18.61, TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION Amend Section 18.61.020. Definitions A. Arborist means a person licensed by the State of Oregon State landscaoe Contractors Board or Construction Contractors Board who has Fl'let the criteria fer .is...certified...Eatieft as an arborist from the International Society of Arboriculture or American Society of Consulting Arborists, aRa Fl'laiRtaiRs his er her acercaitatieR or a landscape architect licensed by the State of Oregon. I D. Diameter at breast height or DBH means the diameter of the ~, at its maximum cross section, measured 54 inches (4 1/2 feet) above ffleaA-ground level at the base of the trunk. On sloped lands. the measurement shall be taken on the uphill side of tree, Amend Section 18.61.035. Exempt Tree Removal Activities The following activities are exempt from the requirement for tree removal permits: E. Removal of trees less than 18" DBH on any public school lands, Southern Oregon University, and other public land..-:--bttt excluding Heritage trees aRa street trees withiR the I'l;/olic right ef v;a'f. I. Removal of street trees within the public right-of-wav subject to street tree removal oermits in AMC 13.16. Amend Section 18.61.042. Aoproval and Permit Required B. TREE REMOVAL - VERIFICATION PERMIT: 2. Verification permits shall be required prior to the issuance of an excavation permit or building permit and prior to anv site disturbance and/or storage of materials on fef the subject property. I D. TREE REMOVAL - s:FArF-PERMIT: 1. Tree Removal-5aff Permits are required for the following activities: a. Removal of trees greater than 6" DBH on any private lands zoned C-I, E-I, M-I, or He. December 18, 2007 Draft: - 14- /+ Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft: Amendments December 18, 2007 b. Removal of trees greater than 6" DBH on multi-family residentially zoned lots (R- 2, R-3, and R-1-3.5) not occupied solely by a single family detached dwelling. c. Removal of significant trees on vacant property zoned for residential purposes including but not limited to R-I, RR, WR, and NM zones. d. Removal of significant trees on lands zoned SOU, on lands under the control of the Ashland School District, or on lands under the control of the City of Ashland. 2. Applications for Tree Removal - Staff-Permlts shall be reviewed and approved by the Staff Advisor pursuant to AMC 18.61.080 (Approval Criteria) and 18.108.~0 (Netiee ReEjl:liFeR'leRtsTyoe I Procedure). If the tree removal is part of another planning action involving development activities, the tree removal application, if timely filed, shall be processed concurrently with the other planning action. Amend Section 18.61.050. Pfafts-SubmittaI Reauirementse A. An application for all Tree Removal and Tree Topping Permits shall be R'lase I:1l3eR ferR'ls prescribes b'f the City. The al3l3licatieR fer a Tree ReR'le'ial PerR'lits include: a. Plans drawn to scale sha#-containing7 ir.-t=Fhe number, size, species and location of the trees proposed to be removed or topped on a site plan of the property. b. The anticipated date of removal or topping. c. A statement of the reason for removal or topping. d. Information concerning proposed landscaping or planting of new trees to replace the trees to be removed, and e. Evidence that the trees proposed for removal or toppingee have been clearly identified on the property for visual inspection. f. A Tree Protection Plan that includes trees located on the subject site that are not proposed for removal. and any off-site trees where drip lines extend i~~O P~~~~~d landscaoed areas on the subject site. Such clans shall conform to t__ pr ____ ~_n requirements under Section 18.61.200. 9...-Any other information reasonably required by the City. Amend Section 18.61.080. Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal Staff Permit An applicant for a Tree Removal-5taff-_Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit. B. 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards.. including but not limited to . (e.g. ether al3l3lieable Site Design and Use Standards and Physical and EnVironmental Constraints,. The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and Amend Section 18.61.084, Mitiaation Reauired An applicant ~be required to provide mitigation for any tree approved for removal. The mitigation requirement shall be satisfied by one or more of the following: A. Replanting on site. The applicant shall plant either a minimum 1 Y2-inch caliper healthy and well-branched deciduous tree or a 5-6 foot tall evergreen tree for each tree removed. The replanted tree shall be of a species that will eventually equal or exceed the removed tree in size if appropriate for the new location. Larger trees may be December 18, 2007 Draft: - 15 - IS' Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft: Amendments December 18, 2007 I D. reQuired where the mitigation is intended. in part. to replace a visual s~~~e b~:een land uses. "Suitable" soecies means the tree's growth habits and ;~vi~ n reauirements are conducive to the site. aiven the existina tooograohy. soils. other veaetation. exposure to wind and sun. nearbv structures. overhead wires. et~. The tree shall be planted and maintained according to the specifications in the City Tree Planting and Maintenance Guidelines as approved by the City Council. An aoproved mitigation olan shall be fullv imolemented within one year of a tree b~ng removed unless otherwise set forth in a tree removal application and appr~v~d in t e tree removal permit. Amend Section 18.61.092. Exoiration of Tree Removal Permits Tree removal permits shall remain valid for a period of 180 Ela'fsone year from the date of issuance or date of final decision by a hearing body, if applicable. A 30 day extension shall be automatically granted by the Staff Advisor if requested in writing before the expiration of the permit. Permits that have lapsed are void. Trees removed after a tree removal permit has expired shall be considered a violation of this Chapter, Section 15, Amend Chapter 18.62, PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS Amend Section 18.62.040. Approval and Permit ReQuired H. Plans Required. The following plans shall be required for any development requiring a Physical Constraints Review: 1. The plans shall contain the following: a. Project name. b. Vicinity map. c. Scale (the scale shall be at least one inch equals 50 feet or larger) utilizing the largest scale that fits on 22" x 34" paper. Multiple plans or layers shall be prepared at the same scale, excluding detail drawings. The Staff Advisor may authorize different scales and plan sheet sizes for projects. provided the plan~ provide sufficient information to clearly identify and evaluate the application reQuest. Amend Section 18.62.050. Land Classifications The following factors shall be used to determine the classifications of various lands and their constraints to building and development on them: A. Flood plain Corridor Lands - Lands with potential stream flow and flood hazard. The following lands are classified as Flood plain Corridor lands: 1. All land contained within the 100 year Flood plain as defined by the Federal EFl'lCrgcflcy ~~aflagCFl'leflt AgcflcyFlood Insurance Program, gruLin maps adopted by Chapter 15.10 of the Ashland Municipal Code. Amend Section 18.62.070. Develooment Standards for Flood olain Corridor Lands For all land use actions which could result in development of the Flood plain Corridor, the following is required in addition to any requirements of Chapter 15.10: A. Standards for fill in Flood plain Corridor lands: 1. Fill shall be designed as required by the UfliferFl'l International Building Code....anQ International Residential Code, Cha~tcr 70, where applicable. December 18, 2007 Draft: - 16 - )t::, Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18. 2007 G. New non-residential uses may be located on that portion of Flood plain Corridor lands that equal to or above the flood elevations on the official maps adopted in section 18.62.060. Second story construction may be cantilevered or sueeorted bv elllars that will have minimallmeact on the flow of floodwaters -over the Flood plain corridor for a distance of 20 feet if it does not imeact rioarian veaetatlon. and the clearance from finished grade is at least ten feet In height, and is stl!,!,el"l:ed by !,illars that will have minimal impact on the flow of floodwaters. The finished floor elevation may not be more than two feet below the flood corridor elevations. Amend Section 18.62.080. Develoement Standards for Hillside Lands B. Hillside Grading and Erosion Control. All development on lands classified as hillside shall provide plans conforming with the following items: 1. All grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans for development on Hillside Lands shall be designed by a geotechnical expert. All cuts, grading or fills shall conform to Cha!'te:r 79 ef the UAifer", International Building Code and be consistent with the erovisions of this Title. Erosion control measures on the development site shall be required to minimize the solids in runoff from disturbed areas. D. Tree Conservation, Protection and Removal. All development on Hillside Lands shall conform to the following requirements: 4. Tree Protection. On all properties where trees are required to be preserved during the course of development, the developer shall follow the following tree protection standards: a. All trees designated for conservation shall be clearly marked on the project site. Prior to the start of any clearing, stripping, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation, the applicant shall install fencing at the drip line of all trees to be preserved adjacent to or in the area to be altered. Temporary fencing shall be established at the perimeter of the dripline. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits, the fences may be inspected and their location approved by the Staff Advisor. (see ~18.61.200) December 18, 2007 Draft - 17 - 11 ~I"'~: <;iraPhic will I>e revised ttj reflect reQtilremenlS of 18.61.200. Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft: Amendments December 18, 2007 b. Construction site activities, including but not limited to parking, material storage, soil compaction and concrete washout, shall be arranged so as to prevent disturbances within tree protection areas. , - ----,Dripline TreeCa~8/ "/ . I , I , , , , , / ...---..... To prOllide minimum prO! eel ia'l I 0 I he root area, I ake I he greal esl radius from I runk I 0 dripline and creal e a regular circle, using I he la'lQIlSI radius, ral her I hen I o follow an irrag.Jlar, abol.e ground, easl ing I rea dripline. Section 16, Amend Chapter 18.~4, SO-SOUTHERN OREGON STATE C9LLEG[ UNIVERSITY (SOU) DISTRICT Amend Section 18.64.010. Purpose This district is designed to provide for the unique needs of 5e5€-SQ!Las a State educational institution functioning within the planning framework of the City. It can be applied to all areas now or hereinafter owned by the State of Oregon acting by and through the State Board of Higher Education and Southern Oregon State: College University and located within the 5e5€-SQ!Lboundary, as shown on the 5e5€-SQ!LComprehensive Plan, adopted by 5e5€-SQ!Land approved by the City. Amend Section 18.64.020. Permitted Uses A. Uses permitted outright are all those which are directly related to the educational functions of 5e5€SQ.U., provided that such uses are indicated and located in conformance with the adopted and City approved 5e5€-SQ!LComprehensive Plan, and are greater than fifty (50) feet from privately owned property. B. Wireless Communication Facilities authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180. Amend Section 18.64.010. Conditional Uses A. Any use, site design, or construction or alteration of same not agreed upon in advance by the City and 5e5€-SQ!Lin the 5e5€-SQ!LPlan. B. Any use, site design, or construction within fifty (50) feet of privately-owned property. C. Any construction over forty (40) feet in height. D. Wireless Communication Facilities not permitted outright and authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180. Amend Section 18.64.010. General Reaulations This Chapter, together with the Site Review, Sign and Off-Street Parking Chapters of this Title, are the only portions of the Title to be effective within the 5e5€-SQ!Lzone, except for areas within fifty (50) feet of privately-owned land, which are subject to the Chapter on Conditional Use Permits. In addition, the creation or vacation of public streets or public December 18, 2007 Draft: - 18 - IS Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18. 2007 ways shall be subject to mutual agreement between the City and SGSE-SQU..and all other applicable laws. Section 17, Amend Chapter 18.68, GENERAL REGULATIONS Amend Section 18.68.040. Yard Requirements All yard measurements to and between buildings or structures or for the purpose of computing coverage or similar requirements shall be made to the building or nearest projection... tl=lereef aFlEl sl=lall ~e l:IF1e~strl:leteEl tram tl=le greI:lFlEll:ll3v;arEl, cxcel3t tl=lat Aarchitectural projections may intrude eighteen (18) inches into the-reQuired yards.. reql:liremeFlt. Amend Section 18.68.090. Nonconforming Uses and Structures A. A non-conforming use or structure may not be enlarged, extended, reconstructed, substituted, or structurally altered, except as follows: 1. When authorized in accordance with the same procedure as provided in Conditional Use Chapter 18.104 and the criteria of Section 18.104.050(B and C), a nonconforming use may be changed to one of the same or a more restricted nature... exceDt that a Conditional Use Permit need not be obtained when the use is chanaed to a permitted use within the zoning district. 2. When authorized in accordance with the same procedure as provided in Conditional Use Chapter 18.104 and the criteria of Section 18.104.050(6 and C), aft existiFlg nonconforming structure may be enlarged, extended, reconstructed or the footprint modified, er strtletl:lrall'{ alocreEl, except that a Conditional Use Permit need not be obtained te eFllar!!)e er exteFlEl a siFlgle tamil'; l=Ieme iFl tl=le resiEleFltial Elistriet, I3re,..iEleEl tl=latYillim the addition or extension meets all requirements of this Title. 3. A non-conforming structure may be_ cFllargeEl, reeeFlstrl:leteEl restored or rehabilitated er strl:lettlrall'; altercEl if its f'8etl3riFlt is not changed in size or shape... provided that the use of the structure is not changed exceDt if in conformance with the procedures of Section 18.68.090.A.1 above. 4. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent the normal maintenance and repair of a non-conforming structure or its restoration to a safe condition when declared to be unsafe by anv official charged with Drotecting Dublic safety. 5. A leaal nonconformin(;l structure or nonconformina use that is damaged to an extent of 50% or more of its replacement cost may be restored only if the damage was not intentionallv caused by the proDerty owner and the nonconformity is not increased. Any residential structure(s). includin(;l multiple-familv. in a residential zone damaaed beyond 50% of its reDlacement cost bv a catastrophe. such as fire that is not intentionally caused by the owner. may be reconstructed at the original density provided the reconstruction is commenced within 2 years after the catastrophe. B. Discontinuance. If the nonconforming use of a building structure, or premises ceases for a period of ~~(6.l2) months or more, said use shall be considered abandoned; and said building, structure, or premises shall thereafter be used only for uses permitted in the district in which it is located. Discontinuance shall not include a period of active reconstruction following a fire or other result of natural hazard; and the Planning Commission may extend the discontinuance period in the event of special unique unforeseen circumstances. December 18, 2007 Draft - 19 - /'1 Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 I C. Reactivation. A non-conforming use, which has been abandoned for a period of fl'Iel'e ~than six (6) months may be reactivated to an equivalent or more restricted use through the Conditional Use and Site Review process. In evaluating whether or not to permit the reactivation of a non-conforming use, the Planning Commission, in addition to using the criteria required for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review, shall also use the following additional criteria: 1. That any improvements for the reactivation of the non-conforming use te aFl existiFlg FleFl ceFlferfAiFlg strl:lctl:lre on the site shall be less than fifty (50%) percent of the value of the structure. The value of th'e structure shall be determined by either the assessee! vall:le aeeeFEliFlg te the JackseFl CeuFlty Assesser er by an independent real estate appraiser licensed in the State of Oregon. The value of the imorovement shall be determined based upon copies of the contractor's bid for said improvements. which shall be required with the Conditional Use permit aoolication. Personal property necessary for the operation of the business or site improvements not included in the structure shall not be counted as improvements under this criteriathi.s criterion. Amend Section 18.68.110. Front Yard-General Exception A. If there are dwellings or accessory buildings on both abutting lots (even if separated by an alley or private way) with front or side yards abutting a oublic street with ef-less than the required det*h-setback for the district, the ~yard for the lot need not exceed the average yard of the abutting structures. B. If there is a dwelling or accessory building on one (1) abutting lot with a fr2nLyard of less than the required depth for the district, the ~yard need not exceed a depth one- half (V2) way between the depth of the abutting lot and the required ~yard depth. C. The front yard may be reduced to ten (10) feet on hillside lots where the terrain has an average steepness equal to, or exceeding a one (1) foot rise or fall in twe-fQuL(~) feet of horizontal distance within the entire required yard, said vertical rise or fall to be measured from the natural ground level at the property line. Amend Section 18.68.140. Accessory Buildings. afld-Structures and Mechanical Equipment Accessory buildings and structures shall comply with all requirements for the principal use except where specifically modified by this Title and shall comply with the following limitations: C. Mechanical equipment shall be subject te the pre'lisieFlS ef this $eetieFl. Such cl'luipfAeFlt shall not be located between the main structure on the site and any street adjacent to a front or side yard, and every attempt shall be made to place such equipment so that it is not visible from adjacent public streets. Mechanical eauioment and associated enclosures. no taller than allowed fence heights. may be located within required side or rear yards. provided such installation and operation is consistent with other provisions of this Title or the Ashland Municipal Code. including but not limited to noise attenuation. Any installation of mechanical equipment shall require a building permit. D. Regardless of the side and rear yard requirements of the district, in a residential district, a side or rear yard may be reduced to three (3) feet for an accessory structure erected more than fifty (50) feet from any street, other than alleys, provided the structure is detached and separated from other buildings and structures by ten (10) feet or more, and is no more than fifteen (15) feet in height. Any conversion of such accessory structure to an accessory residential unit shall conform to other requirements of this Title for accessory residential units. including any required olannina action and/or site ~ December 18, 2007 Draft - 20 - ~o Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft: Amendments December 18, 2007 Amend Section 18.68.160. Drivewav Grades. Grades for new driveways In all zones shall not exceed a grade of 20% for any portion of the driveway. All driveways shall be designed in accord with the eriterla af the~ Ashland Ptlhlie ':/el'l(s Elel'8l'tPfleRtstandards and 81'1'1'e,'e~ Installed prior to Issuance of a certificate of occupancy for new construction. If required by the City, the developer or owner shall provide certification of driveway grade by a licensed land surveyor. All vision clearance standards associated with driveway entrances onto public streets shall not be subject to the Variance section of this title. Section 18, Amend Chapter 18.72, SITE DESIGN ANB YSE I5iQNBARB& REVIEW Amend Section 18.72.030. ApolicabilitvtiMt Site design aR~ t1se standards shall apply to all zones of the city aR~ shell al'l'l) ta all aevelal'ff1eRt iAaieat:ea iR this Chal'ter, eKeel't far thase aevelel'ff1eR5 '{,hieh are regl:lIal:ea h'/ the ~t1hEll,..isieRs (18.89), the PaptitieRiRg (18.76), '~aRtlfeet:t1rea HetlsiRg (18.81) aAa PeFferffleRee ~taRElel'aS (18.88).as outlined below. A. ADDlicabilitv. The followina develQoment is subiect to Site Desian Review: 1. Commercial. Industrial. ~Non-Residential and Mixed use~: ~ a. All new structures. additions or expansions in C-1. E-1. HC and M zones. b. All new nOI"'1-residential structures or additions (e.a. public buildinas. schools. churches. kite!. ). ~ ~ ~ __ __ ~ __ _ _~ ~ __ _ ___ _. ___ .. .. ___ _ _. __ __ __ __ ___ . __ __ __ ._ _ Be. Exoansion of imoervious surface area in excess of 10% of the area of the site or 1.000 sauare feet. whichever is less. ed. Exoansion of oarklna lots relocation of oarking spaces on a site. or other chanaes which affect circulation. de. Anv change of occuoancv from a less intensive to a more intensive occupancy. as defined in the City bulldina code. or anv chanae in use which reauires a areater number of oarkina soaces. fe. Anv chanae in use of a lot from one aeneral use cateaorv to another aeneral use cateaorv. e.g.. from residential to commercial. as defined bv the zoning reaulations of this Code. of. Any exterior chanae to a structure which requires a buildina oermit and is listed on the National Reaister of Historic Places or to a contributing orooertv within an Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places. ~. Mechanical eQuioment not otherwise exempt from site desil;.m review oer Section 18.72.030(8). 2. Residential uses: a. Two or more residential units on a sinale lot. h. ::~:::~3:=~1::=5~ ~r~ElEliti~~s.8~her t~8R5iR8Ie_ ~BfflIIV_ ha~es er be. Construction of attached sinale-familv housina (e.a. town homes. condominiums. ceo ~~~i~:~~:~~l~rJl~~~~::~~tre~t oar~ina Qr lan~scaoinQ. in cOl)junctiQO .. .. _ with an aooroved Performance Standards Subdivision reauired bv ordinance and not located within the boundaries of the Individual unit Darcel (e.a. shared parking). December 18, 2007 Draft - 21 - ~I ~-[u7J: ~sidentl4tf ~ a,.. ~ Iff ~j\:Jnctk)nwlth non,reslclE!ntlattrses In - commertl4tf :&Ones. - -- -- - ~(_)l ~'resl<Ie~' uses sU(b as J)Ub1i( ~iJdings, scbQ(lls anctchurthe$.... ~ appropriate iI1 the non- reslde~" seqk>>'i " pteviOu$ly II$tH lII'Id<< the fOtfowlng. restdentl<tt uses sectIOn. ~ [ut):~'rtl$Identl<tl uses meved to prtylous section. ~(_)s~~re",,~ ~iS_1lelt t() theentlte de~.nd IS n9t 11nl~ to tt.e--"t parltirlQand- Iail_ep!nt. Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 de. Any exterior change to a structure which requires a building permit and Is individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places. ef. Mechanical eQuioment not otherwise exempt from site design review per Section 18.72.030(B). B. ExemDtions. The following develooment is exemot from Site Desian Review aoolication and procedure requirements provided that the develooment comolies with applicable standards as set forth by this Chapter. 1. Detached single familv dwelllnas and associated accessory structures and uses. 2. Land divisions regulated bv the following chaoters: Partitionina (18.76). Subdivisions (18.80). Manufactured Houslna (18.84) and Performance Standards (18.88). 3. The following mecl':janlcal equipment: a. Private. non-commercial radio and television antennas not exceedlna a height of seventy (70) feet above arade or thirty (30) feet above an existina structure. whichever height Is greater and provided no part of such antenna shall be within the yards reaulred by this Title. A building permit shall be required for any antenna mast. or tower over fiftv (50) feet above grade or thlrtv (30) feet above an existing structure when the same is constructed on the roof of the structure. b. Not more than three (3) parabolic disc antennas. each under one (1) meter in diameter. on anyone lot or dwelling unit. c. Roof-mounted solar collection devices in all zoning districts. with the exceotlon of Employment and Commercial zoned properties located within designated historic districts. The devices shall complv with solar setback standards described in 18.70 and helaht requirements of the resoective zoning district. d. Installation of mechanical eQuioment not exempted bv (a. b. c) above or (e) below. and which is not visible from a public right-of-way or adjacent residentially zoned propertv and consistent with other orovlslons of this Title. including solar access. noise. and setback requirements of Section 18.68.140(c). e. Routine maintenance and reolacement of existing mechanical eauipment In all ~ Amend Section 18.72.040. Approval Process Development subiect to site design review shall be reviewed In accordance with the procedures set forth In Chaoter 18.108. A. Stefl PerMit. The fallawiFlg tyl'es af Elevelal'FfleFlts shall be stlbjcct ta al'I'Faval uFlEler the Staff PerFflit PreeeEltlre. AFl'j Staff PerFflit Fflay be I'reeesseEl as a T"I'e I I'crFflit at the EliseretieFl ef the Staff Adviser. 1. AFl"l ehaFlge ef eeetll'aFley freFfl a less IFlteFlslve te a Fflere iFlteFlsive eeetll'aFlC)', as ElefiFleEl iFl the City bl:lilElIFlg eeEle, er aFl'; ehaFlgc iFl tlSC 'Nhleh reEll:llres a gFeater Fll:lFflber af I'arkiFlg sl'aecs. 2. AFl'i aElElitleFl less thaFl 2,599 sEluarc feet ar teFl I'ereeFlt af the builElIFlg'S sEltlare feetage, 'lJhlehever is less, te a builElIFlg. 3. AFl'f tlse v;hleh restllts iFl three er less ElwelliFlg l:IFllts I'er let, ether thaFl siFlgle faFflily heFfles eFl IFlElI'Y'IEll:lal lets. 4. All IFlstallatlaFls ef FflcehaFlieal CEll:IlI'FfleFlt iFl aFl'f zeFlC. IFlstallatlaFl ef Elise aFltcFlFlas shall bc sl:lbject te the FCEll:lireFfleFlts af SeetleFl 18.72.169. AFl'( Elise aFlteFlFla fer eeFflFflCreiall:lse iFl a resiEleFltial 'zeFlc shall alse be stlbjeet te a CeFlElitieFlal Use PeFFflit (18.104). (OrEl. 2289 $5, 1984; OrEl. 2457 $4, 1988). December 18, 2007 Draft - 22 - ~d... Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Drall: Amendments December 18, 2007 5. All iFlstallatlaFl af '.vlrele:ss cammuFllcatiaFl st'stems shall be sul3jeet ta the reEjuircmeFlts af 5;eetiaFl 18.n.180, iFl additlaFl ta all a~~lieable Site DeslgFl aFld Usc StaFldarEls aFld arc subjeet ta the fellawiFlg a~~raval ~raec:ss: Zeninl Besilnetiens Attached ta AlterFlativc FreestaFldiAg ExlstiFlg StructufCs Su~~art StruetufCs Strueturcs ResidcFltia I ZaFlcs#-H EYP Prehibited Prahibitcd E4 EYP EYP Prehibitcd C 1 D (Ds.....Flta...IFl) EYP Prahibitcd Prahibited C 1 Freeway aOierlar Site Review Sitc Re'Jic'N EYP E-1 Site Re';ie'.'/ Site Re'.icv; EYP M-l Site Review Site Re'/ie..... EYP sa Site Re';ic'A' EYP EYP N~~ (Nafth ~1al:lFltaiFl) Prahibited Prahibited Prahibited Histaric District EYP Prahibited Prahibited A 1 (Air~art O...erla',) EYP EYP EYP HC (Health Care) EYP Prehibited Prahibited fit-ofll, aliened efl e)(i'tlfl~ 3trlletllfEl' ~rt:atl:r thafl 'IS feet ifl hei~ht. rer the 1l11l'l'e3e3 Elf this 3eetiefl 11'1 rt:3idential ~~~O ~i~~~~. e)(i'tifl~ 'tl'UetllfE3 ,hall iflelllde the felllaeemeflt ef e)(iMifl~ Ilele, fIlallt, ef t"..er stflletllrt:3 (311eh all M~dlllfll light te..ef3) fer the e6mbined ll11fl'63eS ef their Ilre, jell3 113e afld nireles, eefllfllllflieatleA faeilitiE3. ~ Pefflljtted efl IlfEl e)(j3tifl~ Mflletllrt:3 ..it'" a height gfElater thal'l 59 fElEt 11'1 the Denflt"..fl Cefllfllereial di!!ltriet. Pr.,hibited ifl all ether di3trieb nithifl the llistel'ie Di3trict, all defifled ifl the CSfIlllrehefl!!li,e Plafl. 6. AFl'" exterier chaFlge te aFl'; structure listed aFl the NatiaFlal Register af Histaric Places." (ORD 2892, 5;2 1997) (Ord 2852 $3,2099; Ord 2858 5;6,2990) B. 1)l'e I Preeeeltlre. The fallawiFlg ty~es af devela~meFlt:s shall be sl:lbject te a~~ra\'al uFlder the Ty~e I ~rseedufC: 1. AFl'" ehaFlge iFl l:Ise af a lat ff'6m aFle geFleral l:Ise categary ta aFlsther geFleral use eategary, e.g., ff'6m resideFltial te cemmerieal as defiFledb'; the zeFliFlg regulatiaFls af this Cade. 2. AFl'" resideFltialuse which re:sults IFl feur dwelliFlg l:IFlit:s ar mefC aFl a lat. 3. All Flew strl:lctufCs ar additiaAs greater thaFl 2,599 sEjl:lafC feet, e*ee~t far dcvela~meFlts iAeluded iFl $ectiaFl 18.n,9~9(A). Amend Section 18. n,050. Detail Site Review Zone A. The Detail Site Review Zone is that area defined in the Site Design Standards adopted pursuant to Section 18.n.080. B. AFl'" devela~meFlt iFl the Detail Site Re'/iew ZaFle as defiFled iFl the Site Review StaFldards ada~ted ~ursuaFlt ta this cha~ter, which exceeds 19,909 sEjl:lare feet ar is laFlger thaFl 100 feet iFl leFlgth ar width, shall be revie'A'ed aeeardlFlg ta the T.,.~e 2 ~reeedl:lre. ' December 18, 2007 Drall: - 23 - ~3 Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 E,6.0utside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone shall conform ~the following standards: ~la. Buildings sharing a common wall or having walls touching at or above grade shall be considered as one building. 82. Buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 square feet as measured outside the exterior walls and including all interior courtyards. For the purpose of this section an interior courtyard means a space bounded on three or more sides by walls but not a roof. Je. Buildings shall not exceed a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet, including all interior floor space, roof top parking, and outdoor retail and storage areas, with the following exception: Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint and in the basement shall not count toward the total gross floor area. Fer the I't1rl'e:;e ef thi:; :~~:' ha:;e",eAt ",eaA:; aA1 fleer le';el hele',J the fip'Jt :;tety iA a htlilEliAg. nr:;t :;te II ha';e the saffle "'eaAiFlg a:; I're';iEleEl iFl the htlilEliFlg eeEle. ~. Buildings shall not exceed a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. ,~. Inside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 sq. ft. or a gross floor area of 45,000 sq. ft., including roof top parking, with the following exception: Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint and in the basement shall not count toward the total gross floor area. Fer the I't1rl'e:;e ef thi3 :;eetieFl, hase",eAt ",eaA:; 8A'/ fleer level here.. the fiP'3t :;tery iA a htlilEliAg. nl':;t :;tety :;hall have the saffle ",eaAiAg 85 I'3reviEleEl iA the htlilEliAg eeEle. Amend Section 18.72.060 Plans Reauired The following submittals shall be required in order to determine the project's compliance with this Chapter: A site plan containing the following: C. Scale (the scale shall be at least one (1) inch equals fifty (50) feet or larger.) T~;r~~ Advisor m~v authori~e di!ferent scales and olan .she~~I~~s fC: ~ro~~e~j,:r~~i~ic~ .~~ clans orovlde sufficient information to clearlv Ide~-,_ __d _v Ju __ ___ ___teLn reauest. Amend Section 18.72.080. Site Deslan Standards C. The Site Desian and Use Standards adooted bv Ordinance No's. 2690. 2800. 2825 and 2900. shall be aoolied as follows: 1. The Multi-familv. Residential Dev~looment ~tanda~ds in S~~~~ I~~~~~all be apolied to the construction of attached slnale-famllv houslna (e~~:,- ___n _____. condominiums. row houses. etc.). 2. TI1. Comme'd.'. Emol.ym~nt. ond ID~"""" Devel.p::'i'~. f.~..~.i:n~.a.r.d..s. in se.,.~ction II.'C' ~~~~C~:s~~~~~ :~=-~:~~~~~~ d:~~~~~~te~:;:' :~~.Idina~" ~!:QQQ!~... _.. December 18, 2007 Draft - 24- ~4 Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 4'cAdd Section 18.72.105. Expiration of Site Deslon Review Approval Site design review approval oranted under this Chapter shall expire if no building permit or public improvement olan for the project has been aooroved by the City within twelve (12) months of site desion review approval. Amend Section 18.72,120. Controlled access A. Priar ta aAny partitioning or subdivision of property located in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1 or M-1 zone shall meet 7~ controlled access standards set forth in section (B) below. shaH be applieEl aREI, if Reeessary, If applicable. cross ~easements shall be required so that access to all properties created by the partitiaRiRg land division can be made from one or more points. I B. Street and driveway A.a.ccess points in an R-2. R-3. C-1. E-1 or M-1 zone shall be limited to the following: 1. Distance between driveways. On arterial streets - 100 feet; on collector streets - 75 feet; on residential streets - 50 feet. 2. Distance from intersections. On arterial streets - 100 feet; on collector streets - 50 feet; on residential streets - 35 feet. C. VisiaR Cleal'aRee staRElarEls. 1. Na abstrtletiaRs greater thaR twa aREI aRe half f-eet high, Rar aRY laRElseapiRg v.hich '/I'iII gra'/I' greater thaR twa aREI aRe half feet high, 'Nith the exceptiaR af trees whase eaRapy heights are at all tiFl'les greater thaR eight feet, Fl'Ia', be placeEl iR a "isiaR clearaRee area EleterFl'liReEl as rellaws: The "isiaR clearaRee area at the iRtersectiaR af twa streets is the triaRgle farFl'leEl b'f a liRe caRRectiRg paiRts 25 feet fraFl'l the iRterseetiaR af preperty liRes. IR the ease af aR iRtersediaR iR'..alviRg aR alley aREI a street, the triaRgle is farFl'leEl by a liRe eaRRectiRg paiRts teR feet alaRg the alley aREI 25 feet alaRg the street. WheR the aRgle af iRtersectiaR betweeR the street aREI the alley is less thaR 39 Elegrees, the ElistaRee shall be 25 feet. Na structure ar paRiaR thereaf shall be erecteEl ....ithiR teR feet af the Elri'.-ewa';s. 2. State af Ori:gaR "lsiaR ClearaRee StaRElarEls. The fallawiRg stappiRg site ElistaRees shall apply ta all State High'A'ays withiR the City ',vith the preseribeEl speeEl Ii Fl'Iits. '1ertieal stappiRg sight ElistaRce ta be baseEl aR ElistaRee fraFl'l three aREI aRe half feet abave paVeFl'leRt ta a paiRt six feet abave the paVeFl'leRt. (OrEl.2544 Sl, 1989) 39 Fl'Iph200 feet 35 Fl'Iph22S feet 40 Fl'Iph275 feet 45 Fl'Iph32S feet 5S Fl'Iph450 feet 3. The visiaR c1earaRee staRElarEls esti3blisheEl by this seetiaR are Rat sub-ject ta the ';ariaRce sediaR af this title. (OrEl. 2605 S2, 1990) I S.c. Access ReqUirements for Multi-family Developments. December 18, 2007 Draft - 25 - ~s Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 1. All multi-family developments which will have automobile trip generation In excess of 250 vehicle trips per day shall provide at least two driveway access points to the development. Trip generation shall be determined by the methods established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2. Creating an obstructed street, as defined in 18.88.020.G, is prohibited. Amend Section 18.72.170. Development Standards for Disc Antennas B. Development Standards. All disc antennas shall be located, designed, constructed, treated and maintained in accordance with the following standards: 2. Disc antennas exceeding 36 iAehes one (1) meter in diameter shall not be permitted on the roof, except where there is no other location on the lot which provides access to receiving or transmitting signals. In no case shall any part of any antenna be located more than ten feet above the apex of the roof surface. Antennas mounted on the roof shall be located in the least visible location as viewed from adjacent right-of-ways, and residential structures in residential zones. Amend Section 18.72.180. Develooment Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities D. All installation of wireless communication systems shall be suPject to the requirements of this section in addition to all applicable Site Design and Use Standards and are sub1ect to the following approval process: Attached to Alternative Freestanding Zoning Designations Existing Structures Support Structures Structures Residential Zones1 QJE Prohibited Prohibited .c.:.l. QJE QJE Prohibited C-1-D (Downtown)IZJ QJE Prohibited Prohibited C-1 - Freewav overlay Site Review Site Review QJf f:1 Site Review Site Review QJE M:1 Site Review Site Review QJE SQ.U. Site Review QJf QJE NM (North Mountain) Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Historic District2 QJf Prohibited Prohibited A-1 (Airoort Overlay) QJE QJf QJE HC (Health Care) QJf Prohibited Prohibited 1 Onlv allowed on existin9 structures oreater than 45 feet in heiQht. For the ourooses of this section in residential zonino districts. existinQ structures shall include the reDlacement of existino Dole mast. or tower structures (such as stadium Iioht towers) for the combined Durooses of their previous use and wireless communication facilities. 2 Permitted on Dre-existino structures with a heioht areater than 50 feet in the Downtown Commercial district Prohibited in all other districts within the Historic District. as defined in the ComDrehensive Plan December 18, 2007 Draft - 26 - ~, Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 Section 19, Amend Chapter 18.76, PARTITIONS Delete Section 18.76.040. Administrative Prelimlnarv Aporoval PreliA'linary a~~Feval fer all A'Iiner lanEl ~aFtitiens whieh req~i~ AS T.,~e II -/aFial'l€:es shall be I3FeeesseEll;lnEler the T'i~e I ~reeeEll;lFe. Amend Section 18.76.050. Preliminary Aporoval by the Plannina CeA'lA'lissien If the ~Fe~eseEl ~aFtitien Elees net a~~ear te eeA'l~I'f 'N~h the ~eqtri~;;e;;b ~i~r reutine aElA'linistrati'le a~~Feval, the ~re~esal shall be sl;lbA'litteEl te the Planning CeA'lA'lissien anEl An application for a orelimlnarv partition shall be approved when the following conditions exist: Amend Section 18.76.060. Preliminarv Aooroval of Flag Partitions Partitions involving the creation of flag lots shall be approved by the Planning Commission if the following conditions are satisfied: B. Except as provided in subsection 18.76.060.K, the flag drive for one flag lot shall have a minimum width of 15 feet, and a 12 foot paved driving surface. For drives serving two lots, the flag drive shall be 20 feet wide, with 15 feet of driving surface to the back of the first lot, and 12 feet, respectively, for the rear lot. Drives shared by adjacent properties shall have a width of 20 feet, with a 15 foot paved driving surface. Flag drives shall be constructed so as to prevent surface drainage from flowing over sidewalks or other public ways. Flag drives shall be in the same ownership as the flag lots served. Where two or more lots are served by the same flag drive, the flag drive shall be owned by one of the lots and an easement for access shall be granted to the other lot or lots. There shall be no parking 10 feet on either side of the flag drive entrance. Flag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15%. Variances may be granted for flag drives for grades in excess of 15% but no greater than 18% for no more than 200'. Such variances shall be required to meet all of the criteria for approval as found in 18.100. Flag drives serving structures greater than 24 feet in height, as defined in 18.08.290, shall provide a Fire Work Area of 20 feet by 40 feet within 50 feet of the structure. The Fire Work Area requirement shall be waived if the structure served by the drive has an approved automatic sprinkler system Installed. Flag drives and fire work areas shall be deemed Fire Apparatus Access Roads under the Oregon UnlferA'l Fire Code and subject to all requirements thereof. When required bv the Oregon Fire Code. Fflag drives greater than ~~feet in length shall provide a turnaround as defined in the Performance Standards GUid~lines in 18.88.090. _ The Staff Advisor. in coor~inatio~ ~~t~o ~h~~~e ~~e OffiCIal. may extend the distance of the turnaround reaUlremen _ _ ____m!J__f 250 feet in lenath when taking the followina factors into consid~r.rtio~: 1. OreQon Fire Code access exemptions. 2. Physical constraints such as slooe. siQnificant trees. cuts and fills. 3. Transoortation layout and traffic impacts. 4. Number of units served bv the f1aa drive. December 18, 2007 Draft - 27 - ~7 Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 Add Section 18.76.075. Exoiration of Preliminarv Partition Plan Preliminary partition olans approved under this Chapter shall expire if a final oartition plat has not been aooroved by the City within eighteen (18) months of preliminary plan approval. Section 20, Amend Chapter 18.88, PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS Amend Section 18.88.050. Street Standards E. street Grade. Street grades measured at the street centerline for dedicated streets and flag drives shall be as follows: 1. Street and private drive grades in Performance Standards Developments shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15%. No variance may be granted to this section for public streets. Variances may be granted for private drives for grades in excess of 15% but not greater than 18% for no more than 200'. Such variances shall be required to meet all of the criteria for approval as found in 18.100. Private drives serving structures greater than 24' in height, as defined in 18.08.290, shall provide a Fire Work Area of 20' by 40' within 50' of the structure. The Fire Work Area requirement shall be waived if the structure served by the drive has an approved automatic sprinkler system installed. Private drives and work areas shall be deemed Fire Lanes and subject to all requirements thereof. When required by the Oregon Fire Code. pprivate drives greater than ~150 feet in length shall provide a turnaround as defined in the Performance Standards Guidelines as provided in 18.88.090. The Staff Advisor. in coordination with the Fire Code Official. may extend the distance of the turnaround reauirement up to a maximum of 250 feet in length when taking the following factors into consideration: 1. Oregon Fire Code access exemptions. 2. Physical constraints such as slope. significant trees. cuts and fills. 3. Transportation lavout and traffic imoacts. 4. Number of units served by the flag drive. Section 21, Amend Chapter 18.92, PARKING Amend Section 18.92.070. Parking I I D. A. Size and Access. All required parking areas shall be designed in accordance with the parking layout chart at the end of this Chapter. Parking spaces shall be a minimum of 9 x 18 feet, except that 50% of the spaces may be compact spaces in accord with 18.92.050. Parking spaces aAEl-shall have a 22 faat back-up maneuverina space no less than twenty-two (22) feet. except where parking is angled. and which does not necessitate moving of other vehicles. Vision Clearance. No obstructions may be placed in the vision clearance area except as set forth in Section 18.68.020. Na SigFlS, stftldufeS af vegetatisFl iFl excess af twa BFld December 18, 2007 Draft - 28 - ~8' Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 eRe half feet iR height shall Be !,Iaeed iR the ',isieR elesl'Elflee area. The '."isiefl eleal'ElflCe area is the trial'lgle far",ed B'f 8 Iil'le eal'll'leftiRg !,aiflts 25 feet wa", the il'lter3eetial'l af !,re!,erty IiRes. Ifl the case ef 8fl iflterseetial'l il'l'/alviRg al'l slIe, afld a street, the ~riaflgle is fer",ed b'; a Iifle eSl'lfleftiAg !,SiAtS ~eA (HI) feet aleflg ~he aile', aAd 25 feet aleflg ~he street. 'Nhefl ~he sl'Igle af il'lterseftisl'I "eh.-eefl the street al'ld ~he aile'; is less thal'l J9 degrees, the ttistal'lee shall Be 25 feet. PJe SigflS, strl:tetl:tres er vegel:atiafl er !,eRiel'l thereaf shall Be ereeted 'AlithiR tefl (19) feet ef dri'.e~..a'/3 l:tAless the si!I",e is less thaA twe aRd afle half feet Ifl height. "Fhe '/lsiaA eleal'ElAe:e stefldards eSl:a"lished 13'1 this seftiaR are Rat sl:te:;eet ta the Verlaflee seetlaR ef this title. Section 22, Amend Chapter 18.96, SIGN REGULATIONS Amend Section 18,96.070. Residential and North Mountain Sian Re9ulations Signs in the...resldentlal (R) and North Mountain (NM) districts ~hall conform to the following regulations: B. Type of Signs Permitted. ) 4. ~~~~:~cU:~:i~~i~i~~~ z~~~s ~~~d O:~~I~~~d~~~a~~~nsd ~Ii~~n~~e NM- ... u u exceedlna an overall heiQht of five feet and an area of fifteen sauare ~e:~ ~~t ~a~~~t least ten feet from prooertv lines: or one wall or awnlna sign in Iie~ 0_ __r n i _' Said slans shall not use olastlc as Dart of the exterior visual effect and shall ~~t b~ internallv illuminated. Amend Section 18.96.150, Governmental Sians. Governmental agencies may apply for a Conditional Use to place a sign that does not conform to this Code when the: Ce"''''13siaR iUs...determlneds that, in addition to the criteria for a conditional use, the sign Is necessary to further that agency's public purpose. Section 23, Amend Chapter 18.108, PROCEDURES Amend Section 18.108.015. Pre-Aoolication Conference An applicant shall request a pre-application conference prior to submitting an application for a Type I, II or III planning action or an Exoedlted land Division. The purpose of the conference shall be to acquaint the applicant with the substantive and procedural requirements of the Land Use Ordinance, provide for an exchange of information regarding applicable elements of the comprehensive plan and development requirements and to identify policies and regulations that create opportunities or pose significant constraints for the proposed development. The Staff advisor is authorized to waive ore-a~~~~a~~~n conference requirements and to create orocedures which allow for electro~' er alternative forms of conferences. Amend Section 18.108.017. Aoollcatlons A. In order to Initiate a planning action, three e:al'les ef a complete application shall be submitted to the Planning Department as set forth below. 1. Complete applications shall Include: a. All of the required Information for the specific action requested, December 18, 2007 Draft - 29 - ~9 -t ~~UJttloou. CO~. Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft: Amendments December 18, 2007 b. Written findings of fact, c. Complete and signed application form. The application must be signed by one or more property owners of the property for which the planning action is requested, or their authorized agents. The application shall not be considered complete unless it is accompanied by the appropriate application fee. 2. Incomplete applications are subject to delay in accordance with ORS 227.178. The City will inform the applicant of deficiencies within 30 days of application. The applicant then has 31 days in which to provide a complete application. The City will begin the appropriate application procedure when the application is deemed complete, or at the end of the 31 day period. 3. The Staff Advisor is authorized to set standards and procedures for aoolication submittal requirements. including the number and type of applications required (e.g. hard and/or electronic cooies). size and format of applications (e.g. paper size and electronic format). and dates when applications can be received. The Staff Advisor shall make the requirements for application submittals readily available to the public to review. B. All applicants for Types I, II and III planning actions shall have completed a pre- application conference for the project within a 6-month time period preceding the filing of the application. This requirement may be waived by the Staff Advisor if in the Staff Advisor's opinion the information to be gathered in a pre-application conference already exists in the final application. Amend Section 18.108.020. Types of Procedures. There are three aeneral tvoes of orocedures: 1) ministerial actions: 2) planning actions. and 3) legislative amendments. When a oroject proposal involves more than one application and more than one type of procedure. the applications shall be reviewed together by the same decision body and follow the hiahest level procedure aoplying to any one of the aoolications. A. Ministerial Actions. The Staff Advisor shall have the authority to review and approve or deny the following matters which shall be ministerial actions: 1. Final subdivision plat approval. (18.80.050) 2. Final partition map approval. (18.76.120) 4. Minor amendments to subdivisions and partitions. 5. Boundary line adjustments. (18.76.140) 6. Zoning permits. (18.112.010) 7. Sign permits. (18.96.050) 8. Home occupation permits. (18.94.130) 9. Extension of time limits for approved planning actions (18.112.030). 10. Mechanical equipment exempt from Site Review. 11. Conversion of existing multi-family dwelling units into for-purchase housing. B. Planning Actions. All planning actions shall be subject to processing by one of the four following procedures: 1. Staff PerA'lit PreeeEltlre 1~. Type I Procedure 23. Type II Procedure 34. Type III Procedure 4. Expedited Land Divisions C. Legislative Amendments. Legislative amendments shall be subject to the procedures established in section 18.108.170. December 18. 2007 Draft - 30 - jl; Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft: Amendments December 18, 2007 ADD Section 18.108.025. Consolidated Review Procedures An apolicant may applv at one time for all oermlts or zone chanaes needed for a dev~lopment orotect. The consol!dated procedure shall b; s~~~~l~:f~~:~::i~~~n~~:: out In ORS 227.178. The consolidated procedure shall folio;:' e Ire in the develooment orotect. Amend Section 18.108.030. Staff Permits Expedited Land Divisions A. Apolicability. 1. An expedited land division is an action that: a. Includes land that is zoned for residential uses. b. Is solely for the ourposes of residential use. includina recreational or ooen space uses accessory to residential use. c. Does not provide for dwellinas or accessory buildings to be loca~~d ~n '~~d that is specifically mapped and designated for full or partial protection __ n tu_a features that orotect ooen spaces. phvsical and environmental c~~~tr~n~ per Chapter 18.62. riparian corridors. wetlands. desianated historic _Lri s J structures. d. Meets -minimum standards in the Street Standards Handbook and Section 18.88.050. e. Creates enouah lots or oar~els to allow b~i1dina r~sidential uni;~~,~:o ~:~c~;~ (80%) or more of the maximum net density permitted by the __ 1__ d_ L__ton of the site. 2. A land division that creates three or fewer parcels under ORS 92.010 and ALUO ~ 3. An expedited land division as described in this section is not ~~a~~ u~~ de~~~n or a limited land use decision under ORS 197.015 or a oermit un!:!__ S 7.1 __ 4. All requirements outlined in Chaoter 18.76 aoolv to expedited la~d dl~iSi~~; except for those provisions modified within this section. B. Procedure and Notice Requirements. 1. Application Comoleteness. a. If the apolication for exoedited land division is incomplete. the ~t~~ ~::~s~r shall notify the applicant of exactlv what information is missing with i_ __ ___ _f receiot of the application and allow the apolicant to submit the missing information. For purooses of computation of time under this section. the aoolication shall be deemed complete on the date the apolicant submits the requested information or refuses in writing to submit it. b. If the apolication was complete when first submitted or the applicant submits the reauested additional information within 180 days of the date the ao~~~~ti~h: w~~ first submitted. aoproval or denial of the apolication shall be based standards and criteria that were applicable at the time the applicati~~ ;a~ first submitted. 2. The city shall orovide written notice of the receipt of the comPlete~:~:i~~~on for an exoedited land division to any state aaencv. local government or ~_ i__ . rict responsible for providing public facilities or services to the development a~d et~ owners of oroperty within 100 feet of the entire contiQuous site for which th_ apolication is made. The notification list shall be comoiled from the most rec:~t oroperty tax assessment roll. For purooses of aooeal to the referee ~~~:r ~~~ 197.375. this requirement shall be deemed met when the local gove n n provide,an affidavit or. other certification that. such nO~ice ~~~~,i;:t~' N~~~~ ~~~l~ al~o be prOVided to any neighborhood or communrty olannrng 0___ 1__Jon ____ aJ __ b_ the aoverning body and whose boundaries include the site. December 18, 2007 Draft: - 31 - .3/ Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 3. The notice required under subsection (2) of this section shall: a. State: i. The deadline for submitting written comments: ii. That issues that may provide the basis for an apoeal to the referee must be raised in writing orior to the expiration of the comment period: and iii. That issues must be raised with sufficient specificity to enable the local government to respond to the Issue. b. Set forth. by commonly used citation. the applicable criteria for the decision. c. Set forth the street address or other easily understood aeographical reference to the subject oroperty. d. State the place. date and time that comments are due. e. State a time and place where copies of all evidence submitted by the applicant will be available for review. f. Include the name and teleohone number of a local government contact person. g. Briefly summarize the local decision-making process for the expedited land division decision being made. 4. After notice under subsections (2) and (3) of this section. the city shall: a. Provide a 14-dav period for submission of written comments orior to the decision. b. Make a decision to aoorove or deny the application within 63 days of receiving a comoleted application. based on whether it satisfies the substantive reauirements of the local aovernment's land use reaulations. An aporoval may include conditions to ensure that the application meets the applicable land use reQulatlons. For applications subject to this section. the city: i. Shall not hold a hearing on the aoplication: and ii. Shall issue a written determination of comoliance or noncompliance with aoolicable land use reaulations that includes a summary statement exolaining the determination. The summary statement may be in any form reasonably intended to communicate the local aovernment's basis for the determination. c. Provide notice of the decision to the applicant and to those who received notice under subsection (2) of this section within 63 davs of the date of a completed application. The notice of decision shall include: i. The summary statement described in oaraaraph (b)(ii) of this subsection: and ii. An explanation of appeal rights under ORS 197.375 C. Aooeals 1. An appeal of a decision made under ORS 197.360 and 197.365 shall be made as follows: a. An apoeal must be filed with the local government within 14 days of mailing of the notice of the decision under ORS 197.365 (4). and shall be accompanied by a $300 deposit for costs. b. A decision may be appealed by: i. The applicant: or ii. Any person or organization who files written comments in the time period established under ORS 197.365. c. An aooeal shall be based solely on alleaations: i. Of violation of the substantive orovisions of the aoplicable land use regulations: ii. Of unconstitutionality of the decision: iii. That the aoolication is not eligible for review under ORS 197.360 to 197.380 and should be reviewed as a land use decision or limited land use decision: or iv. That the parties' substantive rights have been substantially pr~udiced by an error in procedure bv the local government. 2. The city shall apooint a referee to decide the appeal of a decision made under ORS 197.360 and 197.365. The referee shall not be an employee or official of the local December 18, 2007 Draft - 32 - J.:< Ashland Land Use Ordinance. Proposed Draft: Amendments December 18, 2007 government. The City Administrator is authorized to hire. under contract on an as needed basis. a referee to decide such apoeals. If the city has designated a hearinQs officer under ORS 227.165. the City Administrator mav desianate the hearinas officer as the referee for aooeals of a decision made under ORS 197.360 and 197.365. 3. Within seven days of beinQ appointed to decide the appeal. the referee shall notify the apolicant. the local government. the aopellant if other than the aoolicant. any oerson or oraanization entitled to notice under ORS 197.365 (2) that provided written comments to the local government and all providers of public facilities and services entitled to notice under ORS 197.365 (2) and advise them of the manner in which thev mav oarticioate in the aooeal. A person or organization that orovided written comments to the local aovernment but did not file an aopeal under subsection (1) of this section may participate only with respect to the issues raised in the written comments submitted bv that oerson or oraanization. The referee may use any procedure for decision-makina consistent with the interests of the oarties to ensure a fair ooportunity to oresent information and argument. The referee shall provide the local government an opportunity to explain its decision. but is not limited to reviewina the local aovernment decision and mav consider information not presented to the local government. 4. Referee Decision. a. The referee shall apolv the substantive reauirements of the local government/s land use regulations and ORS 197.360. If the referee determines that the application does not Qualify as an expedited land division as described in ORS 197.360. the referee shall remand the application for consideration as a land use decision or limited land use decision. In all other cases. the referee shall seek to identify means by which the aoplication can satisfy the applicable requirements. b. The referee may not reduce the density of the land division application. The referee shall make a written decision approving or denying the application or approvina it with conditions designed to ensure that the application satisfies the land use regulations. within 42 days of the filina of an aopeal. The referee may not remand the aoolication to the local aovernment for any reason other than as set forth in this subsection. 5 Unless the Qovernin9 bodv of the local government finds exigent circumstances. a referee who fails to issue a written decision within 42 days of the filina of an appeal shall receive no comoensation for service as referee in the appeal. 6. Notwithstandina any other provision of law. the referee shall order the city to refund the deooslt for costs to an apoellant who materiallv improves his or her oosition from the decision of the local government. The referee shall assess the cost of the apoeal in excess of the deposit for costs. up to a maximum of $500. including the deposit paid under subsection (1) of this section. against an appellant who does not materially imorove his or her oosition from the decision of the local government. The local government shall oay the oortion of the costs of the aopeal not assessed against the appellant. The costs of the appeal include the compensation paid the referee and costs incurred by the local government. but not the costs of other oarties. D. Effective Date of Decision. Unless aooealed within 14 davs of mailina a notice of decision. the Staff Advisor decision becomes final on the 15th day. Appeals shall be considered as set forth in ALUO 18.108.030(C) and ORS 197.375. A. AetieAs IAeh:lded. The felle'IIiAg plaAAiAg aetieAS shall be subjeet te the Staff Pen",it PreeedufC: 1. Site Re'.'iew fer toNe er three resideAtialuAits eA a siAgle let. 2. Ph';sieal aAd EA'/ireAmeAtal CeAstraiAts Reviev; Permits as alle'Ned iA Chapter 18.62. 3. VilriaAees described iA SettieA 18.70.969. December 18, 2007 Draft: - 33 - ~3 Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 4. Site Reviews iR C 1, E 1, HC aRd ~~ zeRes fer ex~aRsieRs ef aR existiRg I:Ise that de Ret reEjl:lire Rev.. bl:lildiRg aFea iR excess ef 2,500 SEjl:lare feet, er medificatieR ef mere thaR 10% ef the area ef the site. S. ExteRsieR ef time limits fer a~~Feved ~laRRiRg aetieRS. T'Ne exteRsieRS ef 1I~ te 12 meRths eaeh ma'; be a~~re'Jed l:IRder the fellewiRg ceRditieRs: a. A chaRge ef ceRditieRs, tel' ",vhich the a~~lieaRt was Ret res~eRsible, ~FeveRted the a~~licaRt ff'em eem~letiRg the dcvele~meRt withiR the erigiRal time limitatieR, afld b. LaRd Use OrdiRaRee FeEjl:liFemeRts a~~licable te the devele~meRt have Ret chaRged siRee the erlgiRal a~~Feval. AR exteRsieR may be gFaRted, hewe'ler, If reEjl:liFemeRts ha';e ehaRged aREI the a~~licaRt agrees te eem~l,. 'Nith aRY sl:lch chaRges. 6. The tellewlRg de"ele~meRts sub:ieet te the Site DesigR aREI Use StaRElards iR seetleR 18.72.040.A: a. AR'! chaRge ef eccl:I~aRcy trem a less iRteAsi.te te a meFe iAteAsive eCCl:l~aAey, as E1efiAed iR the City buildiRg ceEle, er aR'" chaAge iR l:Ise which reEjl:lires a greater Al:Imber ef ~arkiRg s~aces. b. AR'" aElditieR less thaR 2,500 SEjl:lare feet er teR ~erceRt ef the buildiRg's sEjl:lare teetage, whiche'Jer is less, te a bl:lildiAg. c. All iAstallatieRs ef mechaRical eEjl:li~meRt iA aR'( zeRe, d. IRstallatleR ef Elise aRteRRas sl:lbjeet te the reEjl:liremeRts ef SeetleR 18.72.160. AR'f Elise aRteRRa fer eemmercial l:Ise iR a resiEleRtial zeRe shall alse be sub:ieet te a CeRdltieRal Use Permit (18.104). e. AR'" exterier chaRge te a stfuetl:lfC Iistcd eR the NatleRal Register ef llisteric f1IaEes-: 7. AR'f ether ~laRRIRg artieR E1esigRateEl as sl:lb:iert te the Staff Permit PreeeEll:lre. 8. Other ~laRRiRg aetleRS Ret etherwise listeEl er E1csigRateEl as a T'I~e I, II er III ~recedl:lre, B. Time limits, Hetice aREI lieafiRg ReEjl:liremcRts. A~~licatleRs sl:lb:ieet te the Staff Pefmlt PreceEll:lre shall be ~recessed as felle'....s: 1. 'NithiR 14 E1ays after reeei~t ef a eem~lete a~~licatieR the Staff Adviser shall a~~re'..e, a~~reve with ceRditieRs er E1eRY the a~~lieatieR I:IRless sl:lch time IimitatieR is exteREleEl with the eeRseRt ef the a~~licaRt. The Staff AElviser shall eRter fiREliRgs aREI eeRclusleRs te jl:lstlfy the decisleR. 2, Hetlce ef the E1eeisleR shall be maileEl 'A'ithiR seveR da'"s ef the decisieR. The Retice shall ceRtaiR the fellewiRg iRfermatieR: a. The E1ecisleR ef the Staff AElviser aRd the date ef the E1ecisieR. b. That Re ~l:Iblic heafiRg will be helEll:lRless s~eeifically reEjl:lested. c. That a reEjl:lest fer a ~l:Iblie heariRg must be maEle by the date IRdicated eR the Retiee iR erEler fer a ~l:Iblie heariRg te be seheEll:lleEl. E1. That a reEjl:lest fer a ~l:Iblie hearlRg shall iRcll:IEle the Rame aREI aElElress ef the ~erseR reEjl:lestiRg the ~ublic hearlRg, the file Rl:Imber ef the ~laRRiRg artieR aRd the s~eeifle grel:lREls fer 'Nhieh the decisieR shel:llEl be re..'ersed er meElified, baseEl eR the a~~lieable erlteria er ~receEll:lFaI irregl:llafity. 3. Hetice shall be mailed te the fellewiRg ~erseRs: a. The a~~licaRt, er autherizeEl ageRt. b. The sl:lbjert ~Fe~eFty e'A'Rer. c. All eWRers ef reeerd ef ~fe~eft}. eR the mest feeeRt ~re~eft}. tax assessmeRt Fell ....ithlA the Retice area E1efiReEl as that area ',vithiR 199 teet ef the sub:ieet ~re~eFty . 4. PerseRs te whem the Ratite is maileEl shall have 10 days trem the Elate ef mailiRg iR 'A'hleh te reEjl:lest a ~l:Iblie hearlRg. RCEjl:lests fer a ~l:Iblie hearlRg shall meet the felle'NiRg reEjuiremeRts: December 18, 2007 Draft - 34- 8'1 Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 a. The reE)uest shall be fileEl by the Elate Sl'eelfieElIA the Aetlee ef E1eelsieA. b. The reE)uest shall be iA writiAg aAEI iAeluEle the al'I'ellaAt's Aame, aElElress, the file Aumber ef the I"aAAiAg aetieA aAEI the sl'eeific greuAEls f'Sr which the E1ecisieA shel:J1E1 be reverseEl er meEllfieEl, baseEl eA the al'I'licable eriteria er I'receElural irregularity . S. If a reE)uest fer a I'ublie heariAg is timely reeelveEl, a I'ublic heariAg shall be scheEluleEl fer the Aext regular CemmissieA er HeariAgs BearEl meetiAg alle'NiAg aEleE)uate time te meet the Aetiee reE)lfiremeAts ef seetleA 18.108.980. The I'ublic heariAg shall be iA accerd ',\"ith the reE)lfiremeAts ef seetleA 18.198.100. Amend Section 18.108.040. Tvoe I Procedure. A. Actions Included. The following planning actions shall be subject to the Type I Procedure: 1. Site Desion Review. The followlna develooments that are subject to the Site Design Review Standards outlined in 18.72 shall follow the Type I permit procedures. a. Downtown Design Standards Zone. Any development which Is less than 2.500 sauare feet or ten percent of the building's square footage. whichever is less. b. Detail Site Review. Anv development in the Detail Site Review Zone. as defined in the Site Review Standards adopted pursuant Chapter 18.72. which is less than 10.000 square feet in aross floor area. c. Commercial. Industrial and Non-residential Uses i. All new structures. additions or expansions in C-1. E-1. HC and M zones. not within the Downtown Design Standards zone. that do not reauire new building area in excess of 20% of an existing buildina's sauare footage or 10.000 square feet of gross floor area. whichever is less. ii. Expansion of impervious surface area in excess of 10% of the area of the site or 1.000 square feet. whichever is less iii. Expansion of parking lots. relocation of oarking soaces on a site. or other changes which alters circulation affectina adjacent oroperty or public riaht-of- wa:t.. iv. Any chanae of occupancv from a less intensive to a more intensive occupancy. as defined in the City buildina code. or any change in use which requires a areater number of parking soaces. v. Anv change in use of a lot from one aeneral use cateQorv to another Qeneral use categorY. e.a.. from residential to commercial. as defined by the zoning reQulations of this Code. vi. Any exterior change to a structure which requires a building permit and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places or to a contributing property within an Historic District on the National Reaister of Historic Places. d. Residential i. Two or more residential units on a single lot. ii. All new structures or additions less than 10.000 square feet of gross floor area. other than single-familv homes or accessory uses on individual lots iii. Construction of attached slngle-familv housinQ (e.g. town homes. condominiums. row houses. etc.) in all zoning districts. iv. Off-street oarklng or landscapina. in conjunction with an approved Performance Standards Subdivision required by ordinance and not located within the boundaries of the individual unit parcel (e.g. shared parking). v. Any exterior change to a structure which requires a building permit and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 2. Miscellaneaus Actions. 1. FiAal Pia A AI'I'I'6'1al far PerfermaAce StaAElarEls SubEli...isieAs. December 18, 2007 Draft - 35 - ~-;- Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft: Amendments December 18, 2007 2. Site Re./ie....s ather thaR thase sl:J1ijed ta a Staff Perfflit PFaeedure ar T',pe II I'raeedure. 3. PaftitiaRS 'Nhieh require Ra '/aFiaRees ar aRI'; ..'ariaRees subjed ta Type I praeedures. .a.4. Amendments or modification to conditions of approval for Tvpe I planninQ ~. S. CreatiaR af a private wa'" as allawed iR sediaR 18.81:)'030.B. b. Amendment or' modification to conditions of approval for Type II actions where the modification involves only changes to tree removal and/or buildina envelope. c. Phvsical and Environmental Constraints Review Permits as allowed in Chaoter .lB...2.2.... d. Tree removal permits as required by Section 18.61.042(D). 3.6. Conditional Use Permits. The followina conditional use oermits are subiect to Tvoe I review procedures: a. Conditional use permits involving existing structures or additions to existing structures, and not involving more than tbr.eti31 residential dwelling units~ L -tIemporary uses. c. Enlargement. exoansion. etc. of nonconforminl;J structures in accordance with 18.68.090(2). d. Government signs per Section 18.96.150. e. The following uses in Residential zones: i. Accessorv residential units ii. Daycare centers. iii. Public and oublic utilitv buildings. structures and uses less than 2.500 square feet in building footprint and disturbs less than 7.500 square feet of land. iv. Structures in excess of 35 feet in R-3 zone. v. All new structures. additions or expansions that exceed MPFA in historic district up to 25%. but the addition is no larger than 300 s.f. or 10% of the existinQ floor area. whichever is less. vi. Hostels. vii. Public Parking Lots in the NM-C zone. viii.Communitv Services in the NM-R15 zone. f. The followina uses in Commercial or Industrial zones: i. Electrical substations ii. Outdoor storage of commodities. g. The following uses in the Health Care Services Zone: i. Limited personal service providers in the home. such as beauticians and masseurs. ii. Professional offices for an accountant. architect. attorney. designer. engineer. insurance agent or adjuster. investment or management counselor or surveyor. iii. Any medically-related use. located on City-owned property that is not specifically allowed by the Ashland Community Hospital Master Facility Plan. h. Conditional uses in the Southern Oreaon University District. 9. Variances for: a. Sign placement. b. Non-conforming signs, when bringing them into conformance as described in section 18.96.130.D. c. Up to 50% reduction of standard yard requirements. d. Parking in setback areas. e. Up to 10% reduction in the number of required parking spaces. f. Up to 10% reduction in the required minimum lot area. g. Up to 10% increase in the maximum lot coverage percentage. December 18, 2007 Draft: - 36 - .3~ Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft: Amendments December 18, 2007 h. Up to 20% reduction In lot width or lot depth requirements. i. Up to 50% reduction for parking requirements in Ashland's Historic District as described In section 18.92.055. j. Up to 10% 'variance on height, width, depth, length or other dimension not otherWise listed in this section. k. Site Design and Use Standards as provided In section 18.72.090. 5. Partitions and Land Divisions. a. Partitions which require no variances or on Iv variances subject to Type I procedures. b. Creation of a private way. as allowed in section 18.80.030.B. c. Final Plan Approval for Performance Standards Subdivisions. 8. The fellewlFlg deveiepmeFlts stlbjeet te the Site DeslgFl aFld Usc StaFldards iFl sedieFl 18.72.940.8: a. AFI', chaFlge IFI use ef a let frem eFle geFleFaI t1SC eateger}" loe aFlether geFleFaI t1SC categery, e.g., frem resideFltial te cemmefeial, as defiFleel by the zeFliFlg regtllatieFls ef this Cede. b. AFI'; resldeFltlal t1se '"hieh resl:llts iFl rel:lr dweiliFlg t1F1lts er merc eFl a let. c. All Flew strtlctl:lres er addltieFls greater thaFl 2,599 sEjl:larc fect, except fer develepmeFlts IFlell:lded iFl seetleFl 18.108.939.A.6. 29. Any other planning action designated as subject to the Type I Procedure. 7. Prior to the Staff Advisor provldinQ notice of apolicatlon and makino a decision. apolicants or the Staff Advisor may request plan nino actions subject to a Type I procedure be heard by the Commission or Hearings Board. In such case. the Staff Advisor shall not make a decision and shall schedule a hearing before the Commission or HearlnQs Board to be heard as orovlded in section 18.108.050. B. Notice of Aoplication. Time Limits, Netlee aFld HearlFlg ReEjl:llremeFlts. AppliealoieFls subject te the T'/pe I Preeedufe shall be preeessed as rellews: 1. Within 10 davs of the city's determination that an aoplication Is comolete. but no less than 20 davs before the Staff Advisor makes a decision. written notice of the apolicatlon shall be mailed to all of the following: a. Applicant. b. Owners of the sublect property. c. Owners of prooerties located within 200 feet of the oerimeter of the subject property . d. Neighborhood grouo or community orQanizatlon officially recognized bv the city council that includes the area of the sublect oroperty. e. For final partitions. final subdivisions. and final Outline Plans. to Interested parties of record from the tentative decision. f. For modification applications. to persons who requested notice of the original application that Is belno modified. 2. The written notice shall include all of the following: a. The street address or other easily understood geographical reference to the subject property. b. The aoplicable criteria for the decision. listed by commonly used citation. c. The place. date. and time that comments are due. d. A statement that copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for review. and can be obtained at cost. e. A statement that Issues that may provide the basis for an apoeal to the Land Use Board of Aopeals must be raised In wl"ltino and with sufficient specificity to enable the decision maker to respond to the Issue. f. The name and ohone number of a city contact person. o. A brief summary of the local decision making orocess for the decision being mad.e... December 18, 2007 Draft: - 37 - ~7 Ashland land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 3. Posted Notice. A notice shall be posted on the sublect orooerty In such a manner as to be c1earlv visible from a oubllc riaht-of-wav. Postina shall occur no later than the date of mailina notice of aoollcation. 3. Notices shall allow a 14-dav oerlod for the submission of written comments. startlno from the date of maillna. All comments must be received bv the city within that 14- day oerlod. C. Decision. Within 45 days of the city's determination that an aoollcation is comolete. unless the aopllcant aorees to a lonoer time oeriod. the Staff Advisor shall approve. condltlonallv aoorove. or deny a Tvoe I aoollcatlon. D. Notice of Decision. 1 Within 5 days after the Staff Advisor renders a decision. the city shall mail notice of the decision to the following: a. Aoollcant. b. Owner and occuoants of the sublect orooerty. c. Nelahborhood arouo or community orQanlzation officiallv recoanlzed bv the cltv that includes the area of the sublect prooerty. d. Anv arouo or Individual who submitted written comments durina the comment ~ e. Those arouos or individuals who reauested notice of the decision. f. Prooertv owners and occuoants of orooertv located within 200 feet of the oerimeter of the sublect orooerty. 2. The notice shall include all of the followina: a. A description of the nature of the decision of the Staff Advisor. b. An exolanation of the nature of the aoollcation and the orooosed use or uses which could be authorized. c. The street address or other easilv understood aeoaraohical reference to the subject oropertv. d. The name of a city reoresentative to contact and the teleohone number where additional information may be obtained. e. A statement that a coov of the aoollcation. all documents and evidence submitted bv or on behalf of the apollcant and aoollcable criteria are available for insoection at no cost and will be orovided at reasonable cost. f. A statement that any oerson whe is Hetvel'!'i~l.. l!lfif~eteet HI' 888rieveet e, whO Y'{~ _ . mailed a written notice of the Staff Advisor's decision may reauest reconsideration or aooeal as orovided in ALUO 18.108.070(B)(2). Q. A statement that the Staff Advisor's decision will not become final until the oeriod for filina a local aooeal has exoired. h. An exolanation that a person who is mailed written notice of the Staff Advisor's decision cannot aooeal directlv to LUBA. 3. Unless the decision is reconsidered or aooealed accordina to the orocedures in ALUO 18.108.070(B)(2). the Staff Advisor's decision Is effective on the 13th day after notice of the decision is mailed. 1. Ce"'I'lete al'"lie:atiefls shall "e I'eviewell!l at the fj,x regtllal'l', sthell!ltllell!l Ce"''''issieFl "'eetiflg !..;hith is helet at leax 39 eta,s after the stl"",issieFl ef the ee"'I'I~te al'"lieatieFl. 2. 'liithifl 11 etay:! after reeeil't ef a te",,,ltte al'I'lieatiefl, the Staff Aevise, shall al'I'l'eve, a"I'reve .. ith tefletitiefls e, etefl'f the a""lieatieFl tlflle:!s Stith tifl'le Ii"'itetiefl is exteflll!lell!l with the eeflseflt ef the al'I'IIe8flt. The Staff Mvise, shall eflter fjflll!liflgs aflll!l eefleltlsieflS te jtlstify the lI!IetisieFl. 3. Netiee ef the lI!Ieeisiefl shall "e ",allell!l ...;ithifl suefl eta'/:! ef the lI!Ietislefl te the I'usefls lI!Iesefl"ell!l iFl s~etlefl 18.198.939.8.3. "Fhe fletlee shall tefltalfl the iflfer"'atlefl reEltlll'ell!l Ifl seetieFl 18.198.939.8.2 I'ltlS a state"'eflt that tlFlless a I'tI"lIt hearlflg is l'eEltlestell!l, the aetieFl 'AI II I "e feviewell!l "y the Ce"'fFlissiefl. Pe,sefls te whefFl the December 18, 2007 Draft - 38- ~g -=11........ ~J: DOfl$ not need to be' CClri't!efjd because a person does not hau fj) bit ac:tversely alfected or ~to "Ie a reconstderatlOn reqUest. Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 Aetiee is Maile~ :;hall ha.e 19 ~a)"3 trSM the ~al:e sf MaillAg IA 'A'hleh te re~tlest a I'tlhlie hearlAg hdere the CS",,,,1:;5IsA. Re~tleM3 fsr a I'tlhlle heariAg shall tSAterM ts the re~tlil'eMeAI:3 sf seetlsA 18.198.939.8.4. 1. If a re~tlest fer a I'tlhlie heariAg i:; tiMely reeei\'e~, a I'tlhlie heaFIAg shall he sehe~tlle~ tel' the AeKt regtllar CS"''''i:;:;isA sr IleariAgs Bear~ MeetiAg alls~. iAg a~e~tlate tiMe ts ee"'I'ly with the AMlee re~tlil'eMeAt3 ef seetisA 18.198.989. The I'tlhlie hearlAg :;hall he iA aeeeF~ '",ith the re~tlireMeAt:; ef seetieA 18.198.199. S, If AS re~tle:;t fsr a I'tlhlie heariAg is tlMeI', reeeive~, the ~eelsisPI shall he rE:lie';'e~ h'f the CSMMissisPI sr I lea flAgS 8saft:! at 11:3 first regl:llarl',. :;eheEltlle~ MeetiAg 39 ~a"ls after :;tlh"'issisA af the a"I'lieatisA. The CSM",issisPI er Beal'd Ma'/: a. ^MeA~ the ~eei5IaA) IA sl:leh ease, the aelieA shall he re Aatiee~ as a T"I'e I ~eeisisA, with a 7 E1ay I'el'ie~ withiA ,...hieh te re~l:Iest a I'tlhlie heariAg, exeel't that the CS"'MIssieA shall AM refie.v the E1eei:;ieA agaiA :;hetllEl therE: he Ae :;tleh re~tlest fileEl. h. IAitiate a I'tlhlit heariAg ef the ~etisieA, thretlgh a Majerl!:,; vel:e ef these iA atteA~aAe:e, ta he hear~ at the felle...;iAg "'sAth':; regl:llarl) :;ehe~l:Ile~ CeMMi:;sieA er 8ear~ MeetiAg. e. Take Ae aetieA at the MeetiAg ,.heA the ~eeisleA is sehe~tlle~ eA the ageA~a. IA sl:lth ease I:he ~eeisieA is fiAal the Aext ~a'l. 6, Prier te the &taH' ^~\'iser MaltiAg a ~ee:isieA, al'I'litaAts er the &taH' A~viser Ma', re~l:Ie:;t I'laAAiAg aetlsAS :;tlh;eet ts a T"I'e I I'ree:e~tlre he hearEl h'" the CeM"'is:;ieA er 8ear~. IA Stith ease, I:he &taH' AEI'/iser :;hall Aet Make a ~ee:isieA aPl~ shall sehe~l:Ile a hearlAg betere the CeMMI:;sisA er Beal'd te be hear~ as I'f8"i~e~ iA :;eetisA 18.198.949.B,4. Amend Section 18.108.050, Tvoe II Procedure. A. Actions Included. The following planning actions shall be subject to the Type II Procedure: 1. All Conditional Use Permits not subject to a Type I procedure. 2. All variances not subject to the Type I procedure. 3, Outline Plan for subdivisions under the Performance Standard Options (AMC Chapter 18.88). 4. Preliminary Plat for subdivisions under the standard subdivision code (AMC Chapter 18.80). 5. Final Plan approval for all subdivision requests under the Performance Standard Options not requiring Outline Plan approval. 6. Any aooeal I'l:Iblie: heariAg of a Staff Advisor decision. Includina a Tvoe I Plannina Action or Interoretation of the Ashland Land Use Code. rE::;l:IltIPlg We", the GteH' Pu",lt Pree:e~tll'e. 7. Any other planning action OQl.designated as subject to the Type...l..w: bJjPrQcedure. _ _ B. Time Limits, Notice and Hearing Requirements. Applications subject to the Type II Procedure shall be processed as follows: 1. The Staff Advisor. actina under the authority of ORS 227.165, may hold an initial evidentiarY hearina on Tvoe II aoolicatlons once thev are deemed comolete. The Staff Advisor shall transmit cooles of the record develooed at the hearina to the Commission for additional public hearina. deliberation and decision. The Staff Advisor is not authorized to make decisions on Tvoe II aoolications. 2.-!. Complete applications shall be heard at a..the first regularly scheduled Commission meeting which is held at least 30 days after the submission of the complete application. ~. Notice of the hearing mailed as provided in section 18.108.080. ~. Public hearingW shall be held before the Commission and/or Staff Advisor In accord with the requirements of section 18.108.100. December 18, 2007 Draft - 39 - :51 TV.- I. Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 Amend Section 18.108.060. Type III Procedures A. The following planning actions shall be subject to the Type III Procedure: 1. Zone Changes or Amendments to the Zoning Map or other official maps, except for legislative amendments. 2. Comprehensive Plan Map Changes or changes to other official maps, except for legislative amendments. 3. Annexations. 4. Urban Growth Boundary Amendments C. Type III Procedure. 1. Applications subject to the Type III Procedure shall be process.e.Q as follows: a. Complete applications shall be heard at the first regularly scheduled Commission meeting which is held at least 45 days after the submission of the application. b. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed as provided in section 18.108.080. c. A public hearing shall be held before the Commission as provided in 18.108.100. 2. Far plaAAiAg attiaAs eese:ribee iA settiaA lS.10S.060.A. 1 aAe 2, Ule: CaffiffiissiaA sAallAave tAe al:ltAari1:y 1:a take Sl:le:A attiaA as is Aeeessary 10a ffial(e tAe affieAeffieAts ta ffiaps aAe zaAes as a l'esl:llt af tAe eeeisiaA witAal:lt further attiaA fraffi the Cal:lAcil l:lAless the eeeisiaA is appealee. The eecisiaA af the CaffiffiissiaA ffia'j be appealee ta the Cal:lAe:i1 as pravieee iA settiaA 18.10S.110. 32. Far plaAAiAg attiaAs eese:ribee iA settiaA lS.HIS.060.A. 3 aAe 2, tIhe Commission shall make a report of its findings and recommendations on the proposed action. Such report shall be forwarded to the City Council within 45 days of the public hearing. a. Upon receipt of the report, or within 60 days of the Commission hearing, the Council shall hold a public hearing as provided in 18.108.100. Public notice of such hearing shall be sent as provided in section 18.108.080. b. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. Amend Section 18.108.070. Effective Date of Decision and Apoeals. A. Ministerial actions are effective on the date of the decision of the Staff Advisor and are not subject to appeal. B. Actions subject to appeal: 1. Steff PerMit BeeisiensExDedited Land Divisions. Unless aooealed within 14 days of mailing a notice of decision. the Staff Advisor decision becomes final on the 15th day. Appeals shall be considered as set forth in ALUO 18.108.030(C) and ORS 197.375. UAle:ss a I'eEjl:lest fer a ptlblie: heariAg is ffiaee, the fiAal eee:isiaA af the City far plaAAiAg attiaAS restlltiAg fraffi the 5:taW Perffiit praeeel:lre shall be the StaW Ae'/isar eee:lsiaA, '.vhie:h shall be effeetive teA eays after the eate af eee:isiaA. If heare b'f the CaffiffiissiaA ar Baare, the CaffiffiissiaA ar Baare eee:isiaA shall be the fiAal eee:isiaA af the City aA stle:h ffialters, eWeeti'.'e lS ea'is after the fiAeiAgs aeaptee b'j the CaffiffiissiaA are sigAee b'l the Chair af the CaffiffiissiaA aAe ffiailee ta the parties. 2. Type I Planning Actions. a. Effective Date of Decision. UAless a reEjl:lest far a ptlblie: heariAg is ffiaee, tIhe final decision of the City for planning actions resulting from the Type I Planning Procedure shall be the Staff Advisor decision, effective on the ~day after notice of the decision is mailed se:he:etllee ta be reviev;ee b'j the CaffiffiissiaA ar Baard. If a ptlblie: heariAg is hele by the CaffiffiissiaA ar Baare, the eee:isiaA af the CaffiffiissiaA ar Baard shall be the fiAal eee:isiaA af the City, unless December 18, 2007 Draft - 40- 4~ Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft: Amendments December 18, 2007 reconsideration of the action is approved by the Staff Advisor or appealed to the Cal:lFlcll ~ommi"sslon as provided i~ section 18.108..~~0~)~~)~C~i~ . b. Reconsideration. The Staff AdVisor may reconsl_J V __ _ __annln9 actIons as set forth below. i. Any DartY entitled to notice of the plannina action. or any City Agency may requ~~t reco~sideration of the a~ion ~fter th~ ~~cision ~~; :~~~ ~~~ ~~ provIding eVidence to the Plannln9 Director _h a fact I~. U 'o!:rr~ through ~o fault of .the party asking fo~ ~ec~nsid:~~ti~~ ~~~~ i~ ~h: ~~;n~u~ of the director. mlaht affect the deCISion. R__ n-:-~b~'" r~~~b ~r_ limited to factual errors and not the fallu~e of an i~su __ rais_ . Ie er or ev!dence during the ooportunl~ to orovide ou~~~no~~ ~~ ~~ ;~~Iic~~~n suffiCient to afford the Staff AdVisor an opp~rtu!J__ _0 _ s__!L _0 _ e ~__e orior to makina a decision. ii. Reconsideration requests shall be received within fiV: (5~ d~y~ of m~i1i~~. The Plannina Director shall decide within three (3) day_ wtLth r 0 reco_si_J the matter. iii. If the Plannina Director is satisfied that an err;: ~~~urre~ cr~~~1 ~~ the decision. the Director shall withdraw the ~Lci i fo P ~s of reconsldera~ion. The Plannina ~i~ector s.h~1I d~i~e ~~~~ ~n (l~i~~~.f~ affirm. modify: or r~verse t~~ orlOlnal deCISion. .1]_ ~!:....~ : ;:a~~s~,,~ .;;;~ of the reconsideratIon deCISion to affirm. modify. J r_vJ __ __n_ ___ entitled to notice of the plannina action. iv. If the. Director is not satisfied tha~ an ~rror ~~~;;ed ~~~~a~ t~:h~ d:~~SiO~~ the Director shall deny the reconsideration rEL___. Njl__ _f __n_1 ___" __ sent to those parties that requested reconsideration. c. ADDeal. LIf a 131:113lic heari.Fl~ is h~la, tWithin twelve (~~) day~ ~ ~~~ ~at~~: th: ;~Ii~~ of the Plannlna DIrector's final decIsion. In 1 In _'--" ~oJuv~ reconsideration request. the decision may be aope~l~d to the PI:nnin~ Commission bv any party. entitled to receiv~ no~~~~~ ~~~ ;~~~~~~~~~~n. The appeal shall be subml~ed to t~e. Planning ;- ~~~~~Q~ ~~~. ~b~~ UI; : form aporoved bv the City Administrator. b_ _ _-I1.ed _ a .e~ established oursuant to City Council action. an~ ~e ~~~~v~~ bi th~ ~'ty ~ later than 4:30 p.m. on the 12th day after the no ic of is: n i ma:le . ii. If a~ ?~oellant. orevalls at the hearina or uoon s:~:~~~~~~~i:~: ~h: ~e ~~~ the inItial hearing shall be refunde~. The fee re_ I ~~ I ~ .J:~__~'~~~~;".~ u_ aooly to aopeals made by neighborhood or _m un!_ _L____tl_ns recognized by the city and whose boundaries include the site. iii. The appeal shall be considered at the next regula~ Pi~n~i~g CO~~i~~~~ ~~ Hearinas Board meeting. The appeal shall be a de novo hea;ina ~ . _ considered the initial eVidentia~ hearing reauir~~ ~~~et ~~u~ ;8. ~~~~o~o and ORS 197.763 as the baSIS for an appeal _ _h_ _a___s_ ~___ _f Appeals. The Planning Commission or Hearings Board fiFtaklecision on apoeal shall be effective 135 days after the findings adopted by the Commission or Board are signed by the Chair of the Commission or Board and mailed to the parties. iv. The ao~eal reauiremen~ of this. s~cti?n. must be ~'~ ;;~. ~r ~~e =p~::~ w~1I be considered by the City as a JUrisdictIonal defe_ _n_ _!I_n__ b_ ___ d J considered. d. Final Decision of City. The decision of the Cel:lFlcil Commission shall be the final decision of the City on appeals heard by the CeuFlcilCommission on Tvpe I Planning actions, effective the day the findings adopted by the €etffleH Commission are signed by the ~and mailed to the parties. December 18, 2007 Draft: - 41 - ~I Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 3. Type II Planning Actions. a. Effective Date of ~n. The decision of the Commission is the final decision of the City resulting from the Ty-pe II Planning Procedure, effective 135 days after the findings adopted by the Commission are signed by the Chair of the Commission and mailed to the parties, unless reconsideration of the action is authorized as orovided in Section (b) below or appealed to the Council as provided in section 18.108.1l0.A. b. Reconsideration. i. Anv oartv entitled to notice of the olannina action. or anv Citv Aaencv may reauest reconsideration of the action after the Plannina cO~i~~~~~~t ~~al decision has been made bv oravidina evidence to the Plannina' h a factual error occurred throu9h no fault of the partv askin9 i~ r~~~f;i~:~~::~~: which in the ooinion of the director. miaht affL t . . Reconsideration reauests are limited to factual errors and not the fa~~~r~ ~~ ~~ issue to be raised bv letter or evidence durinQ the oooortun~ Ad ~~~. i;~ public Inout on the apolication sufficient to afford the St~_ __V!__ __ oooortunitv to resoond to the issue orior to makina a decision. ii. Reconsideration reauests shall be received within five (5) ~~v~ 0: ~~~:~~~ The Plannina Director shall deCide within three (3) davs "";h~t_ r _0 e____:___ the matter. iii. If the Plannina Director is satisfied that an error occurre~ ~uc~a~ ~~ t~e decision. the Director shall schedule reconsideration _it _ __ ti_ 0 oarticioants of the matter before the Plannina Commission. R~~:s~~~r~~~~ shall be scheduled before the Plannina Commission at the _ u_ scheduled meetina. Reconsideration shall be limited to t~~ ~o~~~~ ~ :~; decision affected bv the facts not raised durina the ooen ~__IL __ iD_ __d ~ iv. Reaardless of who files the reauest for reconsideration. if the aoolica~~ : not consented to an extension of the time limits (120 dav rule) as ne~~I~ b; to render a decision on the reconsideration. the reconsideration ~______ denied bv the director. v. The Plannina Commission shall deCide to affirm. moditv. or reverse the oriainal decision. The Plannina Commission SecretarY shall send notic~ ~~ ~e reconsideration decision to anv oartv entitled to notice of the olannina a--,,:o_. c. Final Decision of City. The decision of the Council shall be the final decision of the City on appeals heard by the CetlRe:iICouncil on Tvoe II Plannina lactions,. effective the day the findings adopted by the Council are signed by the Mayor and mailed to the parties. 4. Type III Planning Actions. For planning actions described in section 18.108.060.A.1 and 2, the decision of the Commission shall be the final decision of the City resulting from the Type III Planning Procedure, unless appealed to the Council as provided in section 18.108.1l0.A. The final decision shall be effective 135 days after the findings adopted by the Commission are signed by the Chair of the Commission and mailed to the parties. The decision of the Council shall be the final decision of the City on appeals heard by the Council, effective the day the findings adopted by the Council are signed by the Mayor and mailed to the parties. For planning actions described in section 18.108.060.A.3 and 4, the decision of the Council shall be the final decision of the City, effective the day the findings adopted by the Council are signed by the Mayor and mailed to the parties. 5. The City Council may call up any planning action for a I'tIltlie: heariRg aRa decision upon motion and majority vote, provided such vote takes place in the required ~~pe~iod, a~ 8t1tliRes ~e;le'l". U~less.the olannina a~ion~~~~o~a:~.:e~d a oubhc heanna IS reaUlred. the Cltv Council review of the Plannln9 ____ _ __1___ to December 18, 2007 Draft - 42 - J.j~ t:o~rt4$J: "',cOllS/St.~y In headtilg$ and format WIth Type 1 Planning Ac:tlon section. ~[u.t.]: ~ conSiStency with 1afl9Q8~ In type 1 PIaI'ltIing Action S41ction. Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 the record and public testimony is not allowed. The City Council may ~~~~~ ;;:I~ or reverse the decision of the Plannina Commission. or mav r;;';'~~d t-, ~ i~' the Plannin9 Commission for additional considerati~:~f ~~~~:~t ~m: i~ i~~~~~~ for makina a final decision of the citv. The Ci~ __ n iI II m k fin: .g conclusions and cause cooles of a final order to be sent t~ all partie; ~f th; PI~~ni~~ ~ C. No building or zoning permit shall be issued for any action under this Title until the decision is final, as defined in this section. Amend Section 18.108.080. Public Hearing Notice Public notice for hearings before the Staff Advisor. Hearings Board or Commission for planning actions shall be given as follows: A. Notices shall be mailed at least 10 days prior to the hearing to: 1. The applicant or authorized agent, 2. The subject property owner, and 3. All owners of record of property on the most recent property tax assessment roll within 200 feet of the subject property. uAless the heariAg has BeeA requested uRder the Staff PerFflit fJfeeedl:lre. IR such case the Retice shall Be FfIailed eAI, te eWAtfS withiA 109 feet ef the su!3:iect fJl'efJerty. C. Posted Notice. ExcefJt fer Staff PerFflit I'reCedl:lfe fJlaAAiAg aetieAs, aA notice, as described in this subsection, shall be posted on the subject property by the afJfJlieaAt ~ in such a manner as to be clearly visible from a public right-of-way at least 10 days prior to the date of the CeFflFflissieA FfIeetiAgpublic hearing. Failure by the afJfJlieaAt Qtr.to post a notice, or post in clear view from a public right-of-way shall be considered an incomplete application. The afJfJlieaAt Qtr.shall certify, for the record of the hearing, that the posting was accomplished. The failure of the posted notice to remain on the property shall not invalidate the proceedings. The posted notice shall only contain the following information: planning action number, brief description of the proposal, phone number and address for contact at Ashland Planning Department. F. Whenever it is demonstrated to the Staff Advisor that: 1. The city did not mail the notice required in ~ 18.108~; Amend Section 18.108.110. Apoeal to Council A. Appeals of T't'fJe I decisieAs fer which a heariAg has Bee A held, ef Type II decisions or of Type III decisions described in s,Section 18.108.0GO.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 te fJa'f the AfJfJcal fee at the tlFflc !the appeal requirements of Section 18.108.110 must be fullv met or the aooeal will be considered bv the city as is filed is a jurisdictional defect and will not be heard or considered. 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 ef the hcariAg eAto consider the appeal by the Council shall be mailed to the parties at least 20 days prior to the hcariAgmeeting. 4. The appeal shall be based solely "on the record" established before the Planning Co.mmission. The a~o~al shall not ~e ~ubiect to a. OUbli~.h~~r~~ ati~ a~f:~~f eVidence. However. If In the determination of the City Ad_In s r _J ___t _____, December 18, 2007 Draft - 43 - J./~ Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft: Amendments December 18, 2007 error occurred or additional substantive information ~l~~~ ~~: t~~ ~u:~~~a~f :~~ decision. the City Council mav acceot additional t~~ti____ ____ d h __ _ information as s~t forth in a n~tice of aopeal. T~: C~U~~lt ~--.. t~u~~~; : 1~: absence of Council rules. ffiaY-wJlI set forth the oro__duc___ JL ~~____f "__ ___ record" apoeals. a Ele Aeve eviEleAtiaFy heaFiAg. 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. 3. The Cel:lAeil, BY ffiajeFit,' '1ete. 34. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to error. Amend Section 18.108.160. Ordinance Interpretations A. When in the administration of the Land Use Ordinance there is ~doubt regarding its intent, the suitability of uses not specified or the meaning of a word or phrase, the olanning director is authorized to interpret this land use code and de~~i~~~ i~~~~d pursuant to this land use code. Any person may request an interpretati~~ _ m": 9 such reauest on a written form aooroved by the citv ad~i~~~ra~or :~~ ~C~~~~~i~~~Y a fee established by the city council. Within twenty (2_) __s f r U. th wri __n request. the olannina director shall make a written interoretati~n a~d ;;:;aii or deliv~r a copy ~o the party reQues~ing the i~terpretation. the Plan~~~g ;~~~i~~O~ ~~~ ~i~~ CouncIl. Apoeals of these Interoretatlons shall be heard by ___ PI___I___ _ _!!1___0_ _ the manner set out in ALUO 18.108.050. B. The Planning Director staff AElviser may iAterl3ret the I3revisieA iA 'NfitiAg er refer the pfevisieA interoretation reauest directly to the Commission for interpretation. The Commission shall issue an interpretation in writing to resolve the doubt. LNeither the st-aff AEI'Iiser'sPlannina Director's interpretation nor the Commission's shall have the effect of amending the provisions of the Land Use Ordinance. Any interpretation of the Land Use Ordinance shall be based on the following considerations: 1. The comprehensive plan; 2. The purpose and intent of the Land Use Ordinance as applied to the particular section in question; and 3. The opinion of the City Attorney. .QB. Unless the Plannina Commission by maiority vote chooses to review the ~ interpretation of the Staff AElviser Planning Director. or the interoretati~~ i~:~~::~~ pursuant to Section 18.108.160(A). or the City Council directs the Planni__ !::__---L_:__ to review the interpretation. the interoretation decision is final: shall Be ferwaFEleEl te the Uoon review. the Planning Commission wfle-shall have the authority to modify the interpretation. The interpretation of the Commission shall be forwarded to the Council who shall have the authority to modify the interpretation. Whenever such an interpretation is of general public interest, copies of such interpretation shall be made available for public distribution. December 18, 2007 Draft: - 44- 4'1- Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft: Amendments December 18, 2007 Section 24, Amend Chapter 18.112, ENFORCEMENT Amend Section 18.112.030. Revocation--oermit exoiration Any zoning permit or olannina Iactlorl , 13181'!Ae~ ~Ait ~E: Jelal3A'le~t l3er",it, site E1e:jiil!lA re\ ier.", eeRElitieRal t1se fJerA'lit, er 'I8r;8A(e granted In accordance with the terms of this Title shall be deemed revoked if not used within one year from date of approval. unless another time oeriod is soecified in another section of this ~, Satd~ per_l1!it stlaUn r1otl!e c1E:!elTleC! lJ!;ed n. n until the permittee has actually obtained a building permit, and commenced construction thereunder, or has actually commenced the permitted use of the premises. The Staff Aadvisor te the PI8RAiR~ CaA'lA'lissieR may grant an extension te this tiA'le fJerieEl stlB;ieet te the T"lfJe 1 fJreeeEltlre sd ferth iA Ch81'ter 18.198 af this Title of the aooroval under the followina conditions: 1. One time extension no lonaer than eiahteen (18) months is allowed. 2. The Staff A~visor shall find that a ~hanae of conditio~~ f~~ whi~~f:~~~~~i':..~~.~~s not resoonslble prevented the aoohcant from comoleted the de~________ I_,__he oriainal time limitation. 3. L~nd Use O~d~nance requirements aop~icable to the develoD:~r: ~~v~ ~~~~i~:~aed since the orlOlnal aooroval.. An extension mav be a~ant:~~ ~~~ -~h~~~~ __ 1___ ents have chanaed and the aoohcant aarees to comolv with ___ ___h ______s. Amend Section 18.112.040. Revocation-conditions violated Any zoning permit..w:..:, olannina Iadiori . I3I~ARe~t1RI~ ~E::/elal3....eAt l3er~it:::.i:: ::r:'- _ ~ ~~ ~~€ BeFfsfMBRE:e st<afu~aM~ set.eRs, Sl:fh~I."'SI8f1 BBBfevaL site I ~aL C()..ditieRaI t1se I'erA'lit, ar ','8I'i8A((; granted in accordance with the terms of this Title may be revoked if any of the conditions or terms of such permit or variance are violated or if any law or ordinance is violated in connection therewith. December 18, 2007 Draft: - 45 - ~.s- ~(ut.1Jt To mJke this ~ \TI(lrt'tlITIetea SQ< that It 4oe$n't need to be updated as p1tMlpCII"OVals Jre deleted o. Othe~. ~~~ few plann~ . apflr()v.. Nve d~erent time . perkl4s (e.9I< OlItllne Plan IS 18 months). . <:omment(~~To IJUlke this section more timel_ so that It doun't need to be uPdated as planning approvals are deleted or ackted to the cOde. OFFICIAL CITY MAPS DECEMBER 18, 2007 A larger version of the maps can be viewed on our website: .bnp:/ /www.ashland.or.us/Page .asp ?Navl D= 10373 ~ ~ ~ . ..... :: ~ ~ 1[... /7 / / /' "1 '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i g l ~ -I I ~ <;> ~ ~~~~iLi: lJl ~I c " l \ \ -('- // 'v~ '- r-":;:;;'- 1-.. //\.>:: "- ...J ~r ' (-, --/' ',,', ,,' " / l -.L, .: ":' / _ -,If' ~',J / \ '".1 / :" ',J-' r( '" !L../ ======1 / ~ ~ /! ; ~ i ; i i! ~ ; e "" ~ & ]! :5~-21::~11Il ~€~a;~~ u :> ~ :i. u.. c.t: t! rlrlm'D~ -l~.m~ t] rji 'it r .! ~ ! I; nIl ~ Ii' i hi . j' I.! I r I I /-----.J '<I. 0 ,---. ,~ I b I J 11-1 I 1- ft L_~,r/ / / / r---j r J f r'l --1 I j VI ", ~ rJ\.JJ '''1 ( ~r-~ -- > I I I ~r-J c:,~~ ~\\~ ~:'\~j r<\\~ 'r;.'-i'~\':\:1 , ;--(\\~ ~:'~'\~ ~.. ~-;.""'~I ~\~~\\~ ;~\;~\~ f\~:;\'~'" ' ,~~~ [\\ '\. ~\\ '\. ~\\ ~~~\~~~\~~~\;:;~\;: t\~:'\~:'\~:'\~:'\~:'\~\~ ->~~k.'2.~'<A~\~~~.u.~ ~r- r- . "pi I. r I , I 1 r~1 I~M ( ~.J _J I I I L.--._ 4t 'A;;,.,/:i?' ~_J.;;.'''~~:: '; . ,:,.,,:,t.. ~ . :~t~'~ . ~ 1m r/- (/,' // / - _J / "r i/ I I (j I I I ;' ------ - ---- -___I / / I / / . I ! 'I '" z "'r~,-w ; I ./ ~ '" z / / ~.~~.. '.! "1,.~ -~.>o1o.jjj~ "lllOO~ !:O ~ z , l I ';t ~ z .-- '" ~ i ; i i IIIII L!&, C :! _€Ce= lo6c:I !z:E~c! ~ ... ... ..... ~ ~ ~ :::: a ~~ :::: :::: ~ ~ ..... s ~ :::: .~ ~ ~ ..... ~= ~~ ~ ~'" -, / / / I / ./ ~ . J~:4.~ J"'~ -'-'--r::""'\ );~/ ~ ',/ .t-----, \ ., /<. <; <-E.. \. ^"~ \ I -.., '\ /' ", ,. ." .,:,,~ ,./ - · ',<" ./0 ''lr-i , '-"~,.~',r. >: ". '..- J';'; /'...-/"\ "'e ( /' -:,eo-,r-"~{r,.>:','''' t'//',< -v~,..,,' .r;/;/ , / Ii .\ ~'~""i+~_;// I;. \ //\.< \ //,xf' 7 ~T11-/j [-=~,.J ~;/ /--';/ rJ L:J~-'/~K." :J / . .,J. }/...;"... - .?,r-.7j' /;~~~/~ " j' '.. ," ,.," I ..;~, ~'""'L .' "./ T"'"-"'l~ "c ", ; ...... b'l , I, ~/.,.,.........- "...... ~.., .,~, ',) i l r I ..,~., ", (, -' I ,/~. ',' .. " ' " T....~..--. J-jJ1/-----;-...~ ,.,c', ,I'=.' "'v / _~~..:r" 'J. .-"-,,,.) ~.. ~-~,.,' . I /""7 ' r .. r]J / .... J' ~ Ir-~---../ .. , , .:.~... I ,~ .:' -_:.:::--_:-L<,,{..~~, c!-=:!~' ,,' ,,~~l r~" r--~::-..- \,' ,',,", -i ) ,~ ,J ,...., ."" ~ I -1--; ".........;;... ~ ,!) ~.~ . -:, - '. -~]) , '. \' , \ J . -. """, l' .:" "; r5Ej~ ~", i'" ~,~ ~ i ,. .. ''h_ "~,,_,<, 1.1 ~Ili)j (;...., , ". t!;~. '"'~ .~ ~ r Fe J. <,~ \ '. .\ .< <' ----'.~__( ~v~"-i ~, / .,~~:;J' j ~.'. ' " (..r <. II,'" f. .. 11 ~i;~:~: i' ,_,~j , J /'/- .... . "~<'-~_'C~___""~ /1 // Ii i' .~'-'-----~~..:L-F~' ,,", I / .. ,,<C'~,r'--' ~ -4 v If I .~..__ /1/ ... I -- , f - -,~--_......_-~-\-......~-- ~ '0; ii: ." o o u: 11 g. ." " 11 "2 ~ i i ~ ~ ...J U g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i: ~ ~DDI ~ g o <D } .~ .3 :::i c: "" € U :::J ".--, LJ i ~ ~ ~ - ; J ~ i c: i .~ ~ ~ J I 1 'iij .~ Q: 0:: 0:: Ii ~ g [ ~ u: oc I ! ~--J r- / I / / / / & ~ ~ ~ c. o 1ii ~ + ~ ." ~ ~ -' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ci) J: ~ ~ ~ } + .5 <J) ~ ~ ! ~; ~ ~ ^ J: ;: 101 c I I rji . ri m lH III ~ Hi '" {If ~ IH ... . it ~ Hi i7 .-~,_..,;"...i<'~-~ .~ ~ :;::.. ~~ -! ." .', , . t . "-" ~~~ I~a. Iii (, y " .~ " ~:~.. -.~-.l --- '"" Ljf ,/i r~ ,---"-I I I I I v' I I I I I I I I ~ "I I ?~~c ...,...~:', ", ) u ~ ''r d ,_".,,' I I l! ' r~-----~~j I I. ~ I j " ',,~ 1 I i / "'....;:)1':;.,'.; ,'"'~ .. I t "'r-~ J f~~~:-'~20-"--L~--'.r-~=--.L~TJ; . '\ , --.-J ------------- //,7 lid. ,r I I I I I I , ,.J, ;i-Lr=J] i [_J I ;','...., f )::::- ' ,_. >"'j.:,~ I I I I__-,,-_-,''''~ ,: ,I :i.,;,<~iI~ ~, : ~ i /~~~-;~-~ --, , r-' ICf!:l I {,'j I 1'---' f, ;: , ,,' ;: ----~ / I 'j ;/ ;/ r-----~I 1 I I rlr;--,--r;;;::: . "'''''- I s,}'r-L {i, ~~'''''1 7 Jt ',- I -/ /.~-~'""' >0 's ..-->"1 I 'r--T"';/ I I ~7---,_____1 l. / // I '\ ~ " "'~ '}<../ \.,' \ ,loy>,\ , ~J " '.,," ':\', /<. t ' ,?",;;..\. ;//~//</ \ . ~ ' <<;\,.~,:;?--.~,;:;:~v",~ ~ );--/ -r.-J::7; c:....l:Jy;./. J .::(/;';'\j\ / \ //' I r---u/ -..., ;,it / '" I' '- ; -'--"7 I I : _\ /1 .J \;;,' '.=.', /1 /// Y' , v/~" ;/c r-:/ ;; ~ U (I / ' I.'~-c---- II. --'----=---- ---:j 'I, f I j 'f> ~ -~,.; '.1 i 2~~S'i/,\ I ,< I V 'I , J 91 I::;_JI . r" ~m'l : ",,;~'. ? , ,'~ I -,- ," ~ f r:'~1 (< '.. I I I I j t I j. '1 J" r jt ~l II U J I, 1 q ,. '. V t t ! III II ~ ~ :: I'll ~ '" 'E " i!f III ~ " c: Hi :: c: 0 III III N " U5 ~ !i~ .~ c: ::I c: " 0 'S; j ,1 ~ a:> Ol " 'in Hi ~ .::: " a:: ~ j c .J!! ~ e c: Cii ~Uf E C) ~ ~ 0 " ::J c: ~ .J!! ~ 'j ...... ~ III '0; q.i ~ € 0 OJ U ::J C C ~ rill 0 I ul_, C ~. " " /1 ;,If ~'~-F:'''' f":;-/ I i l...-..' ,,-': ;~ ;'~ '\';'" "... ~<...'..;.; 'J. .>:+:.<;-.-...... /,:; '~11::(~ ~_. )',"';" " ._:.,,-.-.-.:.........--- -- -- ~.~----'- OCTOBER 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF -ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 23, 2007 MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair John Stromberg at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR Commissioners Present: John Stromberg, Chair Michael Dawkins Mike Morris Tom Dimitre John Fields Pam Marsh Dave Dotterrer Melanie Mindlin Absent Members: Olena Black, excused Council Liaison: Cate Hartzell, Council Liaison, present Staff Present: David Stalheim, Community Development Director Bill Molnar, Planning Manager Sue Yates, Executive Secretary II. ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Council Items - On November 27,2007, there will be a possible report on the Wetland & Riparian Ordinance and the Croman Master Plan. The arterial setback ordinance will be brought to a regularly scheduled meeting. B. Roles and Responsibilities - Stromberg reported that the City Administrator is reviewing newly drafted language. She will decide if it is ready to move onto the Council for their review. Recessed to honor David Stalheim. Tonight is his last meeting. The meeting reconvened at 7:15 p.m. Stromberg thanked Stalheim for his service, his hard work and willingness to push things forward, for bringing an outside perspective to planning along with his dedication and commitment to planning. Stromberg noted how Stalheim has had an appreciation for his staff and their abilities. Dotterrer added his appreciation for Stalheim' s unique organizational ability to listen to lots of people and issues and put it all together into a coherent form. III. PUBLIC FORUM BRENT THOMPSON, 582 Allison Street, discussed the Safe Routes to School program. The state has $3.7 million in grant money for improving safety on any of the pathways and walkways to school. The program allows for planning of anything within two miles of school to increase the probability of children walking to school. Whoever gets their request in first, gets the cash. He encouraged the Commission to put this item on their list of goals by moving it forward and contacting the program administrator, Julie Yip, 503-986-4196, to find out what we need to do to make this ha~. Dotterrer said Traffic Safety has been working on planning for safe sidewalks. Molnar said Derek Severson, Associate Planner, has been working on this too. IV. APPROVE AGENDA - DotterrerlDimitre m/s to approve the agenda. Voice Vote: The agenda was approved. V. TYPE III PLANNINy AC'{IONS A. PL.~AC1'1Oft PA2D07~283 AfII..ICMJ: ., ofMIMd D!ICIlI't fOH: PropoIedamendmentt_ ....~dLand Ute Ordlnalaimpllllllnttng porttons of the I'ICOIIHItIndIt In the lind Ute 0rdtnMc:e RtvIIw PAl'" "Y......Pflnnlng SeMcts. In addition other recommendations of the City Planning Director concerning land use decision-making procedures wfll be considered. Proposed changes affect the following chapters of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Title 18): DefInitions, Districts and Zoning Map, Woodland Residential District, Rural Residential District, Single Family Residential District, Suburban Residential District, Low Density Multiple Family Residential District, High Density Multiple Family, North Mountain NeighbortJood, Retail Commercial District, Employment District, Health Care Services Zone, Tree Preservation and Protection, Physical and Environmental Constraints, Southern Oregon University District, General Regulations, SIte Design Review, Partitions, Parking, Sign Regulations, Procedures and Enforcement Note: The public htlring .nd record h.ve been closed. Sa Stalheim reviewed his memo dated October IS, 2007 memo outlining the work of the subcommittee. In summary, if there any items on the list that the Commission would like to continue discussing, he suggested tabling those items tonight to a specific time and date. This will allow the items to be continued without requiring re-noticing. Be clear what is being left on the table and what is approved. Dotterrer/Dimitre m/s to table I) the proposed changes to residential ground floor in C-I and E-I zones, and 2) the proposed changes to Vision Clearance. These items will be discussed at the February 26, 2008 Planning Commission Study Session, 7:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers. Roll Call: The motion carried unanimously. With regard to the Procedures revisions, Stromberg noted at the last meeting the sense of the Commission was that the Procedures were acceptable, except they added a recommendation to the Council that the appeal fee should be set at zero. And, wait to see if there are any problems concerning misuse of the appeals process before adding a charge. Marsh clarified it is the appeals process for Staff approval to the Planning Commission and not a recommendation to change the appeal fee for a Planning Commission decision to the City Council. Accessorv Residential Units - Marsh questioned the Accessory Residential Unit (ARU) in R-2 and R-3. It does not make sense to her to allow for an accessory residential unit up to 1000 square feet on a 5000 square foot R-Ilot, and yet in the R-2 (7500 square foot lot minimum) and R-3 zones (5000 square foot lot minimum) not be allowed an accessory residential unit. Morris responded that the committee looked back at what the ARU was intended to do and at the Housing Needs Analysis. We are looking at getting smaller units. R-2 and R-3 are higher density multi-family zones. If apartments are not going to be built on R-2 and R-3 then should 1000 square foot units be built? Marsh argued that it can only be up to 1000 square foot. It could include units less than 1000 square feet. It is clearly secondary to the primary unit on the lot. Morris said parking becomes an issue as two parking spaces are needed for anything more than 500 square feet. He looks at R-2 and R-3 not in density, but in number of units. He believes it's better to have more units at a smaller size. Marsh believes there is more diversity with varying square footages. Units over 500 square feet can be more flexible in size to accommodate more than one person. Dawkins said instead of needing larger spaces, he believes we will be moving to smaller spaces. Molnar agreed it should be lowered to 500 square feet. Historically, most of the accessory residential units that have been built in R-I have been on lots between 7000 and 8000 square feet. The ordinance was set up to allow R-Ilots that are oversized- not big enough to split - to have a second unit. In R-2, once you go over 500 square feet, lot coverage requirements and parking will become an issue. Under a Conditional Use Pennit, issues like scale, bulk and coverage can be addressed. In R-2 and R-3 they would be subject to Site Review. Fire Truck Turnaround - Stalheim said the Oregon Fire Code Standard is 150 feet, however, to allow flexibility, wording was added to extend the turnaround to a distance of250 feet in length (bottom of page 27 of Draft 3 - strikeout version) ADDUI Fee .18.108.070.B.2.c.i. - DaGe 41 of Draft 3 - strikeout version - Dimitre noted the appeal fee language is still there. He recalled the motion at the last meeting, was that the Planning Commission recommended that there be no fee. It seems the Council should add the language back in if that is what they want. Stalheim said no fees have been established because they are set by separate resolution or ordinance of the Council. It does, however, allow for a placeholder. Dimitre's concern is that someone could read into it that there is a fee. His intention was that the language would not be there. Dotterrer reads it that it authorizes the Council at a later date to establish a fee. It would be better to leave the wording in if we think the Council may want to establish a fee. DlmltrelDawkJns mls to delete the last part of 18.1 08.070.B.2.c.l- ""be accompanied by a fee established pursuant to City Council action..." and c.li. Roll Call: Dimltre, Dawkins, Stromberg and Mindlin voted "yes" and Morris, Fields, Marsh and Dotterrervoted "no." The motion failed. FleldsIDawkins mls to recommend to the Council passage of this package of ordinance revisions. DISCUSSION Dotterrer referred to page 2 and 4, DefInitions. The definition "Porous Solid Surfaces" should be changed to match the wording in "Coveraae. lot or site" to "solid porous surfaces." Dotterrer asked for an explanation of 18.08.74. Storv (page 3, Draft 3 - strikeout version). Stalheim said sometimes dormers will come out to the setback lines, but if the dormer is taken out all the way to the edge so it is part of the wall, and if there is a requirement for an increased setback for multiple stories, then that should be considered a story for pwposes of setback. He ASHLAND PLANNING COIMSSION OCTOBER 23, 2007 _UTES 2 SI said they are trying to make it clear that they canuot take advantage of the half-story definition and create a huge wall face along the setback line. TemDorarv Uses. Molnar explained there has always had a CUP for temporary uses in an E-l and C-l. Often, proposals for temporary uses in other zoning districts have come up; a use incidental, seasonal or subordinate to the permitted use. This revision would allow some flexibility in the other zones to review a temporary use under a CUP process. Retail Commercial District. Saeclal Permitted Uses In C.1.18.32.025 (Dlae13. Draft 3 - strikeout version) _ Units ofIess than 500 square feet shall count as .75 of a unit is language that was already in the multi-family zoning districts. Some of the proposals in the Downtown and E-l zones, applicants have been interested in providing smaller units because there was a need, but under our current ordinance, they would get docked for a full unit even ifit was a full unit. This won't penalize someone for doing smaller units. ADDeal-18.108.070.B.2.c.lI- This language is out of state law. It is Stalheim's understanding organizations exempted from the fee would have to be bona fide non-profit associations and recognized by the City. EvidentiarvHearlna - The purpose is to collect evidence by way of public input to find out what the neighborhood issues are. The issues can get into the record and it allows Staff to respond. It is not a mandated process, but an optional tool. An alternative is a neighborhood meeting. De novo or on the record aDDUI to Councll- Stalheim said sometimes a de novo hearing is selected because with the political process, the elected officials feel citizens can come before the Council unencumbered - they can come before them with no restrictions. On the record, there will be restrictions. De novo hearings can cure any procedural issues that occur at lower hearings. In the proposed revisions there is wording to allow an "out" for the City Ad,ministrator if there are any procedural issues so they could do a limited de novo process. The Procedures are written so the mayor or the council can set rules ahead of time regarding how an appeal would be done. Most on the record appeals allow the parties to file written arguments and then allow the parties to the action. Other people do not get to testify. It would limit the action to what is in the record rather than allowing new evidence. Stromberg said if an appeal is on the record, it makes the Planning Commission's decision more important. Dotterrer suggested amending 18.108.110A.4. by substituting the word "may" with the word "will." Roll Call: The motion carried unanimously. VI. HEARINGS OFFICER DISCUSSION Stalheim gave a Power Point presentation reviewing the pros and cons and why he is recommending a hearings officer. Stalheim said the Commission needs to prioritize their work. He reiterated that if the Commission wants to do aggressive long- range planning, they need the time to spend on it. It does not have to be permanent. He believes a Design Review Board would be a positive option. The officer usually charges a flat fee. Dawkins said it's been asserted that if the Commission did not hear all the actions, there would have more time to work on other things. A couple of years ago, at the direction of Council, three members of the Planning Commission worked for over a year on developing a Downtown Plan that was rejected by the Council. There seems to be a fundamental problem with visioning and he's not so sure it's directly related to the fact the Commissioners are reviewing planning actions. By going through the cross-section of projects that come to them, they get the pulse of the community. Planning is an art. However, until we somehow have a clear vision from the Council, he would just rather not have a hearings officer. Marsh lived in a community that had a Hearings Officer, an Architectural Review Board, and a Planning Commission. The hearings officer, a planner (not an attorney), worked very well for their city and she could support that. The recommendations passed tonight regarding Procedures is a baby step. If the commissioners can let go of Hearings Board and put more decisions in the hands of Staff, over time, we will find out how comfortable we are with that. Dotterrer agreed and will also wait and see what the Council does with the Planning Commission's Roles and Responsibilities. Dawkins concurred. VII. MEASURE 37IMEASURE 49 Stalheim put the Measure 49 language in the packet for informational purposes only. ASHLAND PLANNltG COIMSSION OCTOBER 23, 2007 _UTES 3 !5~ OCTOBER 15, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING LAND USE ORDINANCE COMMITTEE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS CITY 0' ASHLAND October 15, 2007 TO: FROM: RE: Planning Commission David Stalheim Land Use Ordinance Amendments, Draft 3 Please find attached Draft 3 of the proposed changes to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. This draft reflects the review and recommendations of the "Siegel" committee composed of John Stromberg, John Fields and Mike Morris. Staff was represented by David Stalheim, Bill Molnar and Adam Hanks. The committee made the following changes from the August 28, 2007 draft. Definitions: lot coverage, setback, story, structure or building, accessory residential unit, basement, basement/daylight, floor area (gross habitable and gross), historic district, porous solid surface, reconstruct, story/half. We DELETED proposed changes for hotel, motel and vision clearance area. Standards and Procedures: · Changed the ARU to 500 sq. ft in R-2 and R-3 zones. · Dropped reference to Basement in the Detail Site Review zone (because we have now defined basement) · Provide clarification as to what a jurisdictional defect is for appeals (108.070 and 108.110) · Added new language regarding fire turnaround Deleted from Ordinance: · Deleted proposed additions for Temporary Storage · Deleted proposed changes on Vision Clearance · Deleted proposed changes on residential ground floor in C-l and E-l zones M.w2s: Changed Detail Site Review map to &dd the ComDev and library and take out the two lots by Safeway and Mountain View Retirement. From the Desk of: David Stalheim, Director Department of Community Development 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OIegon 97520 stalheid@ashland.or.us www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541-552-2043 Fax: 541-552-2050 m: 800-735-2900 F.' 5':3 OCTOBER 15, 2007 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION LAND USE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS PRESENTATION qty of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes Page 2 of4 was adopted in December 2006. Council requested boundaries on discussion in regards to Mt. Ashland Association (MAA). Councilor Hartzell clarified that her request is to further discuss the direction that should be given to staff about the implementation of the 2005 Resolution. Mayor Morrison stated the Council should decide at that time if this is an item they want to discuss. Council requested staff provide the language in the resolution relating to the lease with MAA. Councilor Chapman requested direction on the inquiry of investigating potential permit violations as brought forward by Councilor Navickas. Councilor Navickas explained his concern and was curious about an update from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). 3. Discussion of adoption of 2007 Oregon Fire Code with Ashland Amendments Fire Division Chief Margueritte Hickman presented the proposed amendments to the 2007 Fire Code and stated that this is the beginning of the normal cycle for adopting the new code. She noted there are some minor changes and that most of the amendments are housekeeping. Ms. Hickman reviewed the following sections: . 15.28.050 Explained that the proposal is based on what is in the current fire code and that there would be no changes based on what is currently happening. . 15.28.060 Noted references adopting the section of the current fire code. . 15.28.070 (a) Deleted -This amends the Fire Code so that it is more restrictive and requires turnaround. Explained that this section was brought to the Planning Commission for their review and noted staff was requested to provide variances for the 150 ft. turn around. Chief Keith Woodley explained that the primary concern by the Planning Commission was that geological barriers could make it difficult to meet the code. The Planning Commission requested staff come back with other alternatives. . 15.28.070 (c) New section that addresses fireworks. . 15.28.070 (d) Modifies appendix and Section 15.28.080, which creates an Appeals Board. lr;- Land Use Amendment Ordinance , ~~mmunity Development Director David Stalheim, Planning Commissioner Chair John Stromberg and Senior Planner Bill Molnar presented the proposed Land Use amended ordinance. t Mr. Stalheim presented the third draft of the ordinance and noted it will go before the Planning Commission for approval. He reviewed the process of this proposal and the timeline of how it was brought forward since February 2006. He stated the scope of the amendments include the following: 1) \ Readability, 2) interpretation or internal consistency in application of the code, 3) minor policy issues, usually in concert with interpretation or consistency issues and 4) permit procedures. \ \ 1\ Interpretation and Internal Consistency Issues · Lot Coverage · Gross Floor Area Readability Improvements . Conditional Use Permits identified by zone, rather than scattered throughout code . Distinction made between what development triggers Site Design Review (18.72) from procedure or permitting process (918.108) . Definitions amended and added for clarity ( t t ol15lcXo~7 (' ~ 1<- n t'// I 5 fu~ ~ SJ./ S~SSlcOf.[ http://ashland.or.us/ Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=3188&Print=True 12/6/2007 · Site Design Standards . Permit Expiration Date · Maps City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes Page 3 of4 Standards Addressed · Accessory Residential Units, Density and MPFA in multi-family rooms · Non-conforming uses and structures , · Mechanical equipment · Tree protection · Setbacks and Yards · Permit expiration · North Mountain zones · Residential Ground Floor in C-l and E-l zones · Vision Clearance · Temporary storage Procedure Amendments Proposed - 1) New Expedited Land Division procedures, 2) Amended Type I, II and III Permit procedures, 3) Ordinance Interpretations and 4) Application Requirements. Expedited Land Divisions · Required by ORS 197.360 · Land zone residential · Creates enough lots or parcels to allow building residential units at 80% or more of the maximum net density permitted by the zoning designation of the site Amended Type I Permits · Staff Permits - This permit eliminated and integrated into Type I permits with the same basic procedures associated with Type 1, except the notice area is now expanded from 100 to 200 feet. · Notice Requirements and Decision Process · Proposed process - Two notices, 14-day period to submit written comments during the Notice of Application stage and staff decision final, subject to reconsideration or appeal. No review by Hearings Board. · Reconsideration and Appeals - Adds ability for someone to identify a "factual" error in the decision, reconsideration can be granted; stays appeal period and new notices must be provided. Type I Appeal Process · Appeals would be heard by Planning Commission or Planning Commission Hearings Board · "De Novo" public hearing required with new notice · Planning Commission recommended NOT to have appeal fees for public hearing - Planning Commission felt it was important to try the new procedures out, appeal fees could be added later if necessary - If the council wanted to institute appeal fees, they would be limited by ORS to $250 which must be refunded if the appellant prevails at the hearing or upon subsequent appeal - fees cannot be assessed to any neighborhood or community organization recognized by the City whose boundaries include the site Noted there are costs for simple hearings and provided an example. Type II Permit Procedures · Movement of some Type II permits to Type I permits - Buildings 100 feet in width or length in Detailed Site Review would not automatically be Type II · Add an Initial Evidentiary Hearing - Staff could hold an initial hearing to collect evidence which then becomes part of the record and is transmitted to the Planning Commission ~s http://ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=3188&Print=True 12/6/2007 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes Page 4 of 4 · Add a Reconsideration Process - Allows the Planning Director to approve reconsideration when a factual error is made (purpose is to avoid appeals when clear errors are made that were not previously discovered) · Change the Appeal to Council Procedures Type II Proposed Appeal Procedures · Council Initiated - Appeal could be "on the record", City Administrator can determine if a limited public hearing is necessary to correct a factual error or address new substantive information · Citizen or Applicant initiated · De-politicizes land use decisions - encourages input to happen through citizen groups - Encourages input to happen through citizen groups · Procedural errors can still be corrected by this process Mr. Stalheim stated that there are many options and variables that could include a Hearings Officer. Mr. Stromberg explained that the Planning Commission will be hearing this proposal and once they have ,heard the proposal it will come back again to the council. He explained that there is a small core group made up of staff and citizens that are working on pieces of this proposal to help answer questions to either the Planning Commissioners or City Councilors. He suggested that they submit written questions to this core group. Councilor Hartzell requested that these recommendations are done in steps and to try not to place poliCY changes into the document but to stick with procedural changes. Mr. Stalheim noted that some of the questions brought forward by the council were not addressed by the Planning Commission because it did not relate to them. He clarified that the proposal does include allowing the City Administrator to contract for a Hearings Officer if necessary. Ordinance Interpretations · Current Procedures - current ordinance ahs all interpretations having to be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council, there is uncertainty about what constitutes an interpretation, there are no mechanisms for formalizing request for interpretations, including appeal of such decision · Proposed Procedures - Makes Planning Director decision final, but all decisions are still forwarded to Planning Commission and City Council, Planning Commission and City Council could choose to review, but if not, then the decision is final and a formal request for interpretation process is added, which gives the ability to then appeal that interpretation to the Planning Commission. Meeting was adjourned at 7:04 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John W. Morrison, Mayor End of Document - Back to Top 5b http://ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=3188&Print=True 12/6/2007 City Council Presentation October 15th, 2007 Study Session Ashland Land Use Ordinance 2007 Amendments 57 1 Evolution of Proposal . Zucker Report (February 2006) . Siegel Report (April 2006) . Planning Commission Siegel Subcommittee (June 2006 -- February 2007) . Community Development Director Report (February 8, 2007) . Planning Commission Study Session (April 4, 2007) . Planning Commission Retreat (June 2, 2007) . City Council Study Session (June 4, 2007) . Planning Commission Study Session (June 26, 2007) . First Draft Released (July 24, 2007) . Planning Commission Meeting - agreed to start public hearing process (July 31, 2007) . Second Draft Released (August 28, 2007) . Public Hearing before Planning Commission (September 11, 2007) . Planning Commission Deliberations (October 4th and 23rd) · Planning Commission Recommendation to Council - Vote of 8 to 0 to approve Scope of Amendments . Readability . Interpretation or internal consistency in application of the code . Minor policy issues, usually in concert with interpretation or consistency issues . Permit procedures ,58 2 Readability Improvements · Conditional Use Permits identified by zone, rather than scattered throughout code · Distinction made between what development triggers Site Design Review (18.72) from procedure or permitting process (18.108) · Definitions amended and added for clarity Interpretation and Internal Consistency Issues . Lot Coverage . Clarifies what is included and provides some exemptions . Gross Floor Area . Adds definition to answer many code requirements . Site Design Standards · Clarifies what standards to apply for attached single family and non- residential development . Permit Expiration Dates · Sets limit on site design review approval to one year; extends tree removal permits from 6 months to 1 year . Maps . Re-adopts maps based on electronic format · No changes in zoning or designations, but old paper maps had to be interpreted as to where the bOundaries actually exist. sq 3 Standards Addressed: · Accessorv Residential Units Densitvand MPFA in multi-familv zones (makes more cons/srenr w/en f<{-7 zones) · Non-conformina uses and structures (addresses inconsistencies and provides clarity) . Mechanical eauiDment (provides standards and clarity) . Tree Protection (adds protection to adjoining trees and mitigation) · Setbacks and Yards (defines and clarifies !HlJ!!..to measure - standards not changed) · Permit eXDiration (Moves extension of permit expiration to ministerial while reducing it from 24 months to 18 months) . North Mountain Zones (lot coverage and signs) ------ .. ------ --------------- -------- -----------..------------..------- Items Tabled by Planning Commission subcommittee: · Residential Ground Floor in C-1 and E-1 zones (prohibits ground floor residential. limits on upper flOOrs) . Vision Clearance (sets standard from curb line rather than property line) . TemDorarv storaae (provides standards for "PODS" Procedure Amendments Proposed . New Expedited Land Division procedures . Amended Type I Permit procedures . Amended Type II Permit procedures . Amended Type III Permit procedures . Ordinance Interpretations 4 ~o Expedited Land Divisions . Required by ORS 197.360 . Land zoned residential . Creates enough lots or parcels to allow building residential units at 80% or more of the maximum net density permitted by the zoning designation of the site . Creates three or fewer parcels and complies with street and other standards of the city . Not authorized in historic districts or on lands designated by Physical and Environmental Constraints Amended Type I Permits . Staff Permits . This permit type eliminated and integrated into Type I permits . Same basic procedures with Type I, except notice area now expanded from 100 to 200 feet . Notice Requirements and Decision Process . Reconsideration and Appeals ~I 5 Revised Type I Notice Process . Current process: . Staff makes "tentative" decision . Notice sent after tentative decision . Planning Commission Hearings Board reviews the decision, but cannot take any testimony unless they call the item up to hearing and re- notice the hearing . There is not a notice of application and ability to provide comments prior to decisions being made Revised Type I Notice Process, con't. . Proposed Process . Two notices: . Notice of "application" sent out, posted on site and web . Notice of decision sent out to affected parties . 14-day period to submit written comments during the Notice of Application stage . Staff decision final, subject to reconsideration or appeal; No review by Hearings Board . Reconsideration Process . Adds ability for someone to identify a "factual" error in the decision . Reconsideration can be granted; stays appeal period . New notices must be provided ,~ 6 Type I Appeal Process · Appeals would be heard by Planning Commission or Planning Commission Hearings Board · "De novo" public hearing required with new notice · Planning Commission recommended NOT to have appeal fees for public hearing · Planning Commission felt it was important to try the new procedures out; appeal fees could be added later if necessary. · If the Council wanted to institute appeal fees, they would be . limited by ORS to $250 which must be refunded if the appellant prevails at the hearing or upon subsequent appeal · fees cannot be assessed to any neighborhood or community organization recognized by city whose boundaries include the site Costs for Simple Hearing (Recent case of247 OtIs that was called up to public hearing) Staff Time 11 hours $40/hour Mailing CODvina 245 Daaes x 14 sets @10 cents TOTAL $ 440.00 10.50 343.00 $ 793.50 Notes: Actual costs exceed this amount because full staff costs are higher than $40 per hour and copying charges are 20 cents per page. ORS would limit the amount charged for initial evidentiary hearing to $250. "3 7 Type II Permit Procedures . Movement of some Type II permits to Type I permits . Buildings 100 feet in width or length in Detailed Site Review would not be automatically Type II . Adding an Initial Evidentiary Hearing . Staff could hold initial hearing to collect evidence . Evidence becomes part of the record and is transmitted to Planning Commission . Add a Reconsideration Process . Allows the Planning Director to approve reconsideration when a factual error was made . Purpose is to avoid appeals when clear errors are made that were not previously discovered . Change the Appeal to Council Procedures Type II Proposed Appeal Procedures . Council Initiated . Can "call up" Planning Commission decision for review but not appeal . Avoids bias and prejudgment by not having to state reasons for appeal . Call ups, if not appealed by others, would be limited to on the record and no public testimony taken fcq 8 Type II Appeal Procedures, con't. . Citizen or Applicant initiated · Appeal could be "on the record" · City Administrator can determine if a limited public hearing is necessary to correct a factual error or address new substantive information. · De-politicizes land use decisions · Encourages input to happen through citizen groups, such as Historic, Tree, Bike and Planning Commission · Procedural errors can still be corrected by this process Ordinance Interpretations . Current Procedures: · Current ordinance has all interpretations having to be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council · There is uncertainty about what constitutes an interpretation; hinges on the word "doubt" · There are no mechanisms for formalizing request for interpretations, including appeal of such decisions . Proposed Procedures: · Makes Planning Director decision final, but all decisions are still forwarded to Planning Commission and City Council · Planning Commission and City Council could choose to review, but if not, then the decision is final · A formal request for interpretation process is added, which gives the ability to then appeal that interpretation to the Planning Commission. ~~ 9 OCTOBER 4, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING & PRESENTATION CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING October 4, 2007 MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair John Stromberg at the AsWand Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street, AsWand, OR Commissioners Present: John Stromberg, Chair Michael Dawkins Tom Dimitre John Fields Pam Marsh Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris Council Liaison: Cate HartzelI, Council Liaison, absent due to quasi-judicial agenda items. Absent Members: Olena Black Dave Dotterrer Staff Present: David Stalheim, Community Development Director Bill Molnar, Planner Adam Hanks, Permit Manager Diana Shiplet, Executive Secretary II. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Stromberg stated Mike Morris will be late, Olena Black and Dave Dotterrer have previous commitments and so have excused absences. Mr. Stromberg stated that Planet Citizen, an organization listed in the most recent Planning magazine, has on-line training programs for Planning Commissioners. There is some money in the budget for PC training. He would encourage commissioner who is interested in participating in the training to talk to Susan Yates in Community Development to get registered. III. APPROVE AGENDA Marsh/Dawkins m/s to approve the agenda. Voice Vote: Approved. IV. TYPE III PLANNING ACTIONS A. PLANNING ACTION: PA2007-01283 APPLICANT: City of Ashland DESCRIPTION: Proposed amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance implementing portions of the recommendations in the Land Use Ordinance Review prepared by Siegel Planning Services. In addition, other recommendations of the City Planning Director concerning land use decision-making procedures will be considered. Mr. Stromberg stated that this is the kind of project where you can easily get caught up in the specific issues but in the big picture we have a very large collection of detailed changes in the land use ordinance. He stated that due to the size of this project often some of the details are not captured in the summary. Staff is much more familiar with all the details than the commission. They are looking at the practical use, efficiency, and customer service. The Planning Commission is more focused on the balance between community interests and private interests. With that in mind, he, John Fields, Mike Morris, David Stalheim, Bill Molnar, and Adam Hanks met for about two and a half hours going over all the non-policy, non- procedural portions of the proposed changes. During that meeting he realized how challenging this task is and how many questions arise from these changes. He stated that to the extent that it is possible to dig into the details tonight will mean the Planning Commission is doing their part more effectively. He reminded the commission that they have until October 12th to make any suggestions or alterations to the ordinance so that staff can make changes in time for the October 23rd Planning Commission meeting. On October 23rd, it is hoped that the Planning Commission will bring this process to completion. Also, on the 23rd he would like to bring back the revised Planning Commission Goals and talk about the strategy for getting everything approved by the City Council. '" David Stalheim, Community Development Director, stated this process started with the Zucker report and the Seigel report in February and April of 2006. Following that, John Stromberg, John Fields, and Mike Morris met between June 2006 and February 2007 and went through the Seigel report. Mr. Stalheim prepared recommendations based on the reports and the meetings in February of 2007. Planning Commission did a study session in April of2007, a retreat in June of2007, another study session and the end of June 2007, and the first draft of the ordinance was released in July of 2007. Planning Commission agreed to start the public hearing process at the end of July 2007 and the second draft, based on public comments, staff review and Planning Commission input, was released in August of 2007. That second draft is the version we are working from tonight. Mr. Stalheim reminded the Commission that they did have a public hearing on this topic which started on September 11 th and was continued to tonight. He stated that the Commission needs to see if there was any public input tonight and then close the public hearing. Mr. Stalheim reminded the Commission that at tonight's meeting they need accomplish 4 things tonight; 1) address any new public input, 2) to discuss the procedure changes in the ordinance, 3) discuss any policy issues identified in the ordinance and 4) determine what the next steps might be in the process. Mr. Stalheim stated he would like to highlight some of the issues he thinks the Planning Commission should focus on during their discussions tonight. The first is the procedures issue. He stated that the real issue is whether or not they should be packaged together for passing on to the Council for approval or if they should be separated. The proposed changes in the site design chapter require changes in the procedures chapter, so they can't really be separated. If the Planning Commission determines they would like the procedures separated out, they much also separate out the site design chapter. Mr. Stalheim stated he went through the ordinance and attempted to identify other sections that would be affected. The first is that in every zoning district there is a reference regarding wireless communication facilities that refers to a specific section in the revised site design chapter. It is the same standard as before but they moved things around and so there is a reference to that section and that would get lost if they didn't update the site design chapter. The second is a small reference to procedures in the tree preservation chapter which needs to be updated in the site design chapter. Mr. Stalheim stated that by not doing the site design chapter there are some things in the site design chapter that are standards improvements in the chapter and staff feels that these improvements will be valuable and last for a long period of time without needed additional updates. Mike Morris arrived at 7:13 pm. Mr. Stalheim stated that he met with planning staff last week to make sure that they are really comfortable with the procedures changes. Staff stated that they believe winter is the best time to implement any procedure changes, due to lower planning permit activity levels. One staff member also recommended a longer timeframe for implementing the procedure changes. Mr. Stromberg stated he also recommends the winter as a good time to implement this, not only with us but also with the City Council as they have fewer things on their agenda during that time as well. He stated that the important thing is that this is very valuable and there is a lot of potential for success with these changes. Mr. Stromberg stated that the group who had met including himself, John Fields, Mike Morris, Bill Molnar, and Adam Hanks would like to become an official committee of the commission in order to continue working on this project and complete looking at all the changes. Mr. Molnar stated that because there already is a land-use committee (Morris, Fields, Stromberg) that had been working on the Siegel report there is no need for a motion to approve this committee. Mr. Stalheim stated that one of the other procedure issues which needs to be discussed is the appeal fees. The ordinance does not prescribe fees, but states that if they are set, need to be paid and notes the ORS requirement to reimburse fees if the appeal is successful. So the question to the Planning Commission is do you wish to recommend to Council appeal fees? The second issue is whether or not the appeals to Council will continue to be de novo or will become on the record appeals. Mr. Stalheim stated that the first policy issues which needs to be discussed includes that the Commission can review the options - including no action. The other "top six" options that need to be discussed include: Residential Ground Floor in C-l and E-I zonings The options regarding this were outlined in the September 11, 2007 staff report. The first option was No Action. This does not address the problems of interpretation regarding lot area. He reminded the Commission that it currently states that 65% of the ground floor if there is one building, but if there are multiple buildings it calls for 50% of the lot area. The problem PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 2 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 2007 ~ 1 is that they don't really know what is the lot area when measuring buildings and square footage. Option two is what is in the current draft of the ordinance and that is to allow one small unit or approximately 500 square feet on the ground floor. Option three is the original draft which prohibited residential units on ground floor. Additional Dwelling units in R-2 and R-3 zonings The options for this were also outlined in the September II, 2007 staff report. The first option is to take no action. The result of that would be that you could have more density in the R-l zone than in the multi-family zones. The second option is in the August 28th draft which would allow units of up to 1,000 square feet. Option three is what was in the original draft of the ordinance which would allow units of up to 500 square feet. And option four has not been drafted but there were some discussions about "splitting the difference" and allowing units of up to 750 square feet. HotellMotel defmition The options for this were, again, outlined in the September II, 2007 staff report. The first option is to take no action. Option two has a new definition that would require a lobby and on-site staff. The intention of this is to avoid timeshare residential units which were really not hotels or motels. Option three is a new definition without any of the limits on the lobby or on-site staff Temporary Storage This relates to units like the PODS, which we are starting to see around the city. Again, the options for this were outlined in the September 11, 2007 staff report. The first option is to take no action so there would be no regulation of these within the city. The second option, which is in the current draft, places limits on these facilities. Option three would allow for some longer time periods for active building projects. The fourth option is to set standards that consider size of the sign on the storage building in order to make a distinction between these temporary storage units, because some might have signs that are not that obvious and others have quite a bit of advertising on the sides of them. Vision Clearance Option one is no action. This option does not address the problems with the current standards. However, the details of a replacement standard have not been resolved with Engineering. Option two would be for the commission to direct staff to continue to work on this issue. Fire Turnaround on Flag Partitions Option one is no action. This does not address the Council directive to make the Land Use Ordinance consistent with the Fire Code. The Commission can table this for a later discussion. The second option is to adopt the update as drafted in the ordinance. Mr. Stalheim reiterated that the idea is to come out of this discussion with a clear set of directions on procedure and policy issues. Also, it is hoped that the group will review details and make recommendations for the full Planning Commission action at the October 23,2007 meeting. Also, to perhaps identify which of these issues need to be tabled for discussion at a later time and should not be included in this round of amendments. PUBLIC HEARING No members of the public were present. Dimitre/Morris m/s to close the public hearing. Voice Vote: aU ayes. Motion passes. Fire Turnaround Mr. Stalheim asked Fire Division Chief, Margueritte Hickman, to discuss with the Commission the Fire Department's concerns regarding the fire turnaround on flag lots issue. Ms. Hickman stated the new 2007 Oregon Fire Code, which was adopted by the City Council, does not match with our current Land use code. In order to get those two aligned they need to amend the Land Use Code. Currently the Ashland City Code states that you don't need a turn around on a dead-end street until 250 feet. However, the Oregon Fire Code requires a turn around after 150 feet. The Council requested that the two codes match. Ms. Hickman stated that the Fire Department did some research and found that in the last 7 months of building permits there were 5 projects that required a turn around and if the 150 foot requirement were in place, an additional 2 turnarounds would have been required. She stated that it is her understanding that, historically, the land use code originally adopted the 250 foot requirement based on the Fire Code. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 2007 3 ~g Ms. Hickman stated that the Council requested that Fire staff change the fire code and to bring to them a different amendment so that Ashland did not amend the fire code in a less restrictive fashion. The reason this is less restrictive is that we are allowing people to have a longer driveway or a longer dead-end before they have a turn around. Rather than requiring it at a shorter length which would be more restrictive. The numbers are bigger but it is less restrictive. The Council wanted this change to be made to the Ashland Fire Code. She stated that the concern they brought to the Council was that this change would be in conflict with the State Fire Code. After bringing this to the Council, the Council decided that they would like the Land Use Code updated to reflect the State requirements. Ms. Mindlin questioned if there were other alternatives in place of the turn around requirement, such as requiring fire sprinklers instead of a turnaround. Ms. Hickman stated that currently the Fire Code does not give such an alternative as an option. That is something they could consider, if necessary. Typically, the requirement for sprinklers is to mitigate a longer response time and the purpose of the update really has more to do with being able to turn the equipment around and not have to back the equipment out. Backing equipment has been proven to be more risky than moving forward. Mr. Stromberg asked if there were any comments from builders regarding this requirement. A comment was made that on a single flag lot, the amount of paving for a turn around is huge. Mr. Stalheim read a previously submitted comment from Mark Knoxs which stated, "... that staff should re-evaluate the standard primarily due to the amount of asphalt associated with the turn around standard as illustrated in the multitude of in-fill parcels this is going to effect. He would hope 250 feet would still remain as long as fire sprinklers were added which are probably far more important than the turn around. This seems to be a better compromise and one he is sure Fire could agree upon. For many years the Fire Department touted sprinklers as the primary safety measure, minimizing fire hazard and the spread of fire." Mr. Stromberg stated fire prevention isn't really the issue here, it is the difficulty of backing out the extra 100 feet and he assumes that could mean slower response time if they have to back out prior to heading to the next call. Ms. Hickman agreed that it certainly could decrease the response time. Mr. Stromberg questioned if there are any insurance issues with the City not adhering to the State Fire Code. Ms. Hickman stated it was researched and determined that City Land Use Code could supersede State Code, as it relates to access. Mr. Molnar also pointed out that the 250 foot requirement is also identified in the performance standards under street standards. We would want to make that consistent with the other parts of the code. He stated that one of the issues over the years has been that often private driveways or flag-lot drives are in areas of slope. This becomes an issue of design in terms of how do you construct these taking into consideration treed areas, cuts, and fill. The issue the Commission needs to look at is if there is some flexibility when determining location of the turnaround. For example, if the turn around could be moved 15 feet in either direction this may preserve trees, etc. In discussions with Fire over the years, they have been flexible and it doesn't seem like this new requirement will be even more restrictive. Ms. Hickman clarified that this does not mean there has to be a turn around every 150 feet. It is one turn around required for any driveway over 150 feet. At the same time, they have interpreted the code to mean that if a driveway is, for example, over 750 feet and a turn around is not possible at the end of that 750 feet Fire will accept a turn around within 150 feet of the end of the driveway. As Mr. Molnar stated, the Fire Department can be flexible as to where the actual turn around is located. Ms. Mindlin stated that she has issues with this, because, having just installed one, it is a lot of lot coverage, especially when you add in the 5 foot clearance for under 18" plants requirement. Mr. Stromberg asked if this code is subject to administrative variance. Mr. Molnar stated that anything in the ordinance, unless it has been specified as not, is subject to a variance. Ms. Hickman stated that she would need to re-read that section of the code, however, there has been discussion in the code that if it is impractical due to physical land features, existing buildings, etc... the Fire code official can make some adjustments. Mr. Morris stated that he prefers the flexibility of working with the Fire Department to determine what is acceptable to them. He does not like seeing rigid numbers in the code. He also questioned why Council would go to the Fire Department and require them to get the land use ordinance changed without directing the Planning Commission to change it. Ms. Marsh asked how much square footage is required to install a turn around. Ms. Hickman stated it was approximately 1500 square feet. Ms. Marsh questioned if the added turn around will significantly effect the lot coverage requirements. Mr. Hanks stated, yes, with smaller rural residential lots those issues do come quicker, however there are many options such as moving the garage closer to the street to limit the driveway length. Ms. Marsh stated that it might be interesting to take a look at the two which would have fallen under this rule and see how this rule would have effected what was developed there. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 2007 4 ,q Mr. Stalheim stated that another option, based on Ms. Marsh's comments, is that the Commission could look at exemptions to lot coverage for those smaller lots which require a turn around. Mr. Dimitre asked, since we are currently requiring turnarounds for driveways over 250 feet are we currently having issues regarding lot coverage? Mr. Stalheim stated that recently there have been some variance requests regarding lot coverage in flag lots. Mostly this is due to people not taking into consideration the shared drive when planning the lot coverage. Mr. Molnar stated the most effected areas like lower Clay Street or Tolman Creek, where it is an R-5 zoning, 5000 square foot lot size, and there are some very long, skinny lots with very small total lot size. Mr. Stromberg stated that he doesn't have a clear sense of what direction the commission would like to head in, and asked if anyone wanted to make a motion on this topic. Mr. Dawkins asked for clarification as to what option one (no action) would mean. Does it mean that essentially staff would continue to work with the Fire department to determine when turnarounds were necessary? Mr. Stalheim stated it means that the 250 foot requirement would still be in place and the city code would not match the state code. He stated that we could write an option three which changed it to the 150 foot requirement but grant exemptions for lot coverage and could also write as part of the code that 150 feet is the requirement but that with the Fire Marshall's approval a variance on that requirement could be given. Ms. Mindlin stated that she doesn't think we should make our exemption related to lot coverage. She sees the point in shortening it if there is flexibility and a variance. If we leave it at 250 feet, there is no way to require anyone to put one in at any shorter distance. If we go with the shorter distance and have some flexibility depending upon each individual situation she much prefers that option. Mr. Fields stated that by changing the requirement where it becomes an issue is steepness. If it is a wide open area it is different than a heavily treed area. If it is one house versus 22 houses it can be an issue. He wanted clarification on where a driveway technically ends. Is it where a garage begins? Does it start at the back of sidewalk? If so, his driveway would be more than 150 feet, and he can't imagine a fire engine ever needing to go down his driveway and if they do, he can't imagine them having a hard time backing out. He suggested we table this issue, as there are too many unknown issues. Mr. Dimitre asked if Mr. Fields was interested in recommending any parts of this issue tonight, or if he would prefer that staff take it and re-work the whole thing. Mr. Fields stated that 250 feet is a long distance if it is multiple units, if it is on a steep hillside. There are conditions in which 250 feet is too far and other times where it isn't worth the cost to do a turn around on a shorter distance. He thinks we need to take a look at the real safety issue. We need to take this issue out of this current process or we will never get finished with any other items. Ms. Hickman stated that, in response to Mr. Fields question as to where does a driveway end it ends at the point where the Fire Department can reach within 150 feet of the furthest point of the house. Mr. Stromberg suggested we send it back to staff to bring back to the Commission as part of the October 23rd meeting with something that goes for 150 feet, per Council request, but gives staff and Fire Department the Flexibility to lengthen that per the special conditions of any given situation. Fields/Dimitre m/s that staff foUow up and present the Commission with exceptions and conditions for ways to not restrict the requirement to 150 feet but to make something that is a little more balanced. Voice Vote: aU ayes. Motion passes. Procedures Mr. Stalheim stated that the two issues the Commission needs to discuss are the appeal fee and the appeal to Council. Mr. Stromberg stated he also has several other issues he would like to discuss, but he will wait until after other have discussed these two appeal topics. He asked if any other members of the commission have any other procedural issues they would like to have discussed. Ms. Mindlin stated she did have a question from page 6 regarding notice requirements. She asked, regarding the staff permits versus Type I permits if anything anyone applies for anything if it meant they would have to wait a month before getting their permit? Mr. Stalheim stated, no there is a tier of permits and some of them are ministerial actions, such as fence permits, home occupations, sign permits, etc... those have no noticing requirements and therefore have no delay in processing. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 2007 5 ,~ Mr. Stromberg asked that the commission take a look at the staff report and refresh their memory as to what the major changes are that they are going through tonight. The first is the Expedited Land Divisions. Mr. Stalheim stated that the State requires a "referee" for handling appeals who is not a city employee or official and so in the updated land use ordinance it states that the City Administrator has the authority to hire a "referee" if that issue ever came up. The other choice as with may jurisdictions in Oregon we could adopt no procedures, but if someone asked for that type of application that procedure could be available. So the Commission could adopt no procedure but refer to the ORS. Mr. Fields requested clarification on the maximum densities - how is this different than a minor land partition and how you could do incrementally every 12 months to create more? Mr. Stalheim stated that this is a minor land partition and you couldn't create more because you have to put in that density. The intention of the statute was that you couldn't come in and divide up a parcel and do it expedited and then come back in 12 months. Mr. Stromberg stated that the next change is to staff permit and type I planning actions. He stated that the main thing with this modification is a consolidation of these two types of permits into one style - a Type I permit. He asked if the change to Type I permits is being made because it simplifies the noticing requirements. Mr. Hanks stated, yes, the change helps staff because it keeps all permits tracking on the same timeline. Otherwise staff has to notify individual actions which each have different expiration and approval deadlines but all the Type I, II, and III actions have the same deadline regarding notifications. Mr. Fields asked if there were any Type II permits being turned into Type I permits? Mr. Stalheim stated, yes, there are and that this will be discussed further later in the meeting. He stated that in order to increase efficiencies it is important that the Type I permit final action be by the staff. Mr. Stromberg asked if there is a downside for citizens or developers in doing this? Mr. Stalheim stated that the downside would be that with staff permits people can apply at any time. They did write into the procedures the ability for staff to adopt application deadlines so there is the ability for staff to say certain types of applications could be accepted more often than the larger applications. That way staff can still proceed in a timely fashion. Ms. Marsh asked if we have any idea of how many times in the last five years a Type I permit has been pulled by the hearings board for review by the full Planning Commission? Mr. Stalheim stated that there have been two in the last nine months. Mr. Molnar stated that prior to those two there have been fairly few. Ms. Marsh stated that the point is that these are fairly routine kinds of actions. Mr. Dimitre stated the other question is did any of those that came to the Planning Commission get over turned. Mr. Morris asked for confIrmation on whether or not staff has taken Type I permits and turned them into Type II. Mr. S talheim stated that has been done on a lot of occasions over the years. Mostly this is because some of the Type I permits are on the edge of public interest and concern and so staffhas bumped those up to a Type II. Both the current and proposed ordinances allow staff to change Type I permits to Type II in order to have a public hearing. It also allows the applicant to request this change. Mr. Stromberg asked if the ordinance allows any Planning Commissioners to request the change. Mr. Stalheim stated the Commissioners need to be cautions with that sort of action because they will run into conflict of interest and ex-parte contact before the action came before the Commission for review. Mr Stromberg questioned if the hearings board sending items to the Planning Commission created ex-parte or conflict of interest problems. Mr. Stalheim stated that as there is no contact because it is not a public hearing and so it doesn't create an e-parte contact. Mr. Dimitre asked for clarification as to whether or not the public can ask for a public hearing on Type I permits. Mr. Stalheim stated that right now they can and with the update to the ordinance they could only by appeal to the Planning Commission. Mr. Molnar stated that one of the key issues is that items which are called up now are often due to property owners who don't have a whole lot of information but with the changes we are making in regard to the notification many of those issues will be cleared up because property owners will have the opportunity to discuss there issues with staff prior to a decision being made. Mr. Morris stated as long as we have the process for reconsideration it is good, because the Commission can focus on factual errors and not be dealing with policy issues. Ms. Mindlin stated the concern she has is lack of public access to even having an initial public hearing without paying a lot of money. She would feel more comfortable with this process if it cost a lot less to call up an item. Ms. Marsh said there are two questions which need to be answered; 1) is the process a better process for getting public input and moving the item along and 2) for the piece of it that includes an appeal, should there be a fee. These two questions should remain separate. Mr. Dimitre stated that he believes there is a fundamental change as currently people can ask for a hearing in front of the Commission and it doesn't cost them anything but with the change the only time you can get in front of the Commission is when you pay $250 for an appeal. This is a fundamental shift in how we handle items. Particularly for those folks who don't have a lot of money. Mr. Fields stated that if you look at the net saving of time and paperwork we probably could have no appeal fee and still see a savings in the department. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 2007 6 71 Mr. Stromberg reiterated his earlier question of what is the downside of this process for the citizen. Mr. Stalheim stated that he can't see any downside other than the issue of appeal fees. In his opinion the improved notification process is nothing but beneficial. Mr. Stromberg asked if staff included anything in the new Type I permits that wasn't in there already or wasn't part of the lower level items which have been brought up? Mr. Stalheim stated, yes, and this has been discussed on several different occasions. He gave a list of those permits. He reiterated that it still is under staff discretion to change some Type I permits to Type II. Mr. Molnar stated that typically all permits in the downtown area are bumped up to Type II, due to the higher levels of public interest. Mr. Stromberg stated he would like to diSCuss the appeal fee issue. He stated that if the Commission passes this ordinance the way it is structured then the City Council will be the ones who will decide on the appeal fee. The Commission is not required to take a position regarding the fees, however, they can make a recommendation. Mr. Fields would like to recommend that they not add an appeal fee, with the understanding that Council can add a fee later if they need to. Ms. Marsh would like to recommend a Fifty-dollar fee just to make sure the people who are asking for things to be brought forth for a full hearing are serious about it. Mr. Dimitre stated that it seems like the best way to deal with this is to get the process in place, see how it works, and if we are getting too many appeals, the fee could be reconsidered. Mr. Morris stated he would go along with the fifty dollar fee because the reconsideration should be looked at first, which has no fee. If that falls through then an appeal happen but there should be a fee associated with the appeal, even if it is a minor fee. Mr. Stromberg stated that he would prefer to have no fee, see if we have a problem and then the Council could make the decision to have a fee. He believes that for many people fifty dollars is not a small amount. Dimitre/Fields m/s that they recommend to Council that there be no appeal fees. Voice Vote: 5 ayes. 1 no. Motion passes. Mr. Stromberg read the summary of the Type II Planning Action procedural modifications from the Staff Report. Mr. Stromberg stated this was the only Type II procedural modification. He reminded the Commission that they did this process with the Verde Village permit. Mr. Stalheim stated that they did start this process but were unable to complete it because they ran out of time. Mr. Stromberg asked Mr. Stalheim if he had any additional comments regarding this change. Mr. Stalheim stated that he thinks it is a tool that could be used it is not a requirement it is an option. He thinks it will increase the ability to have a different type of hearing which might allow a little bit more participation and might allow the Commission to have more information when they begin their deliberations. The record would be more complete. Mr. Stromberg asked how this would affect the 120 day rule. Mr. Stalheim stated it shouldn't affect the rule because the process gives staff some flexibility on when the hearings take place. Mr. Dawkins asked for some simple examples of the process. For example, with the Northlight permit which is just starting through the process, would the Commission be the ones doing the hearing? Mr. Stalheim stated no, that the initial, evidentiary hearing would be conducted by staff for information gathering only - no decision making. Ms. Mindlin stated she has a concern about requiring the applicant and the public to come to two meetings to do the same thing. Mr. Stalheim stated that they are not required to attend both meetings. Mr. Fields said in public hearings where the public is heard in a more informal setting (rather than in front of the Commission) it allows people to articulate their ideas and concerns without it being such a formal, rigorous setting. Mr. Stalheim stated that additionally, with the informal hearings you have much more time to discuss issues, whereas in the formal public hearings you are limited by the agenda and the constraints of time of the meeting. Additionally, there is the possibility to stop the hearing and allow the parties to work out issues before they go on the record in a formal public hearing. Mr. Morris stated that he likes the idea of an evidentiary hearing to allow all parties the opportunity to work out all the details without wasting time in front of the Commission attempting to do so. All agreed that it would be useful to use this method and see how it works. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 2007 7 7~ Mr. Stromberg read the summary of Type II Planning Actions Reconsideration and Appeal from the Staff Report. He stated that the reconsideration portion seems to be fairly straight-forward it is just that the Planning Director can do it and it is only for factual errors. Mr. Stromberg asked for clarification regarding the appeal changes as to why this allows for a greater public comment period. Mr. Stalheim stated that it has been his experience that for appeals which go to Council as de novo we see entirely new information presented in front of the Council which never was brought in front of the citizen commissions. In some projects it comes before quite a few commissions; historic, tree, planning, etc. and so when you have a de novo process suddenly this whole new body of evidence can be presented to Council so rather than it becoming an appeal it really becomes a whole new public hearing process. On the record appeals really encourage the public to get involved early in the process so that they present all their information in front of the citizen commissions. Mr. Stromberg also noted that the other part of this process is that the City Administrator would be authorized to selectively allow new information in. He questioned how that would work and if the State rules allow this. Mr. Stalheim stated that the State rules state each city has to adopt its own procedures. One of the things that came up was that sometimes there is new information which comes to light, which may not have been available at the original hearing process so it is necessary for those exemptions to be made. The reason for involving the City Administrator is to avoid any pre-judgment on the part of the Council. This also takes away the Council's ability to appeal to themselves but not their ability to call an item up. Ms. Marsh asked what is contained in the public notice for a Type II or Type III permit. Mr. Stalheim stated that they send a notice of application and a notice of public hearing which has all the dates for all the meetings for all commissions the item will be sent to. FieldslMarsh m/s to recommend that appeals to Council be on the record rather than de novo. DISCUSSION: Ms. Mindlin questioned why Mr. Fields think on the record is a good idea. Mr. Fields stated that we go through all the effort to develop a record and then no matter what is decided people can introduce new evidence at the last minute which causes these cases to drag on for months and months and finally a decision is made based on information that the Commission didn't even have the chance to hear or consider. It seems the process, rather than being extended longer and longer, needs to be compressed and clear. The obligation is to make the case, have the hearing, and if the decision is faulty then you appeal that decision but that is different than saying, well we didn't like the decision so we want to do it all over again. At a certain point a decision just has to be made. Mr. Stalheim stated that part of the reason to have a de novo hearing is to cure any procedural problems which occurred during the earlier process but that is why, if we make this change, we need to give the City Administrator authority to review these things to cure any procedural issues. Voice Vote: all ayes. Motion passes. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VI. Other A. Regional Problem Solving: Discussion and overview of population and urban reserve issues Mr. Stalheim gave an overview of the current Regional Problem Solving (RPS) population and urban reserves issues. In 2003 the City of Ashland decided to notify the RPS process that they did not intend to propose and new urban reserves. Mr. Stromberg asked for a definition of urban reserves. Mr. Stalheim stated urban reserves are land that the City identifies in the comprehensive plan as areas which will be urbanized in the future but which are not currently within the urban growth boundary. Mr. Stromberg asked if it were true the City of Ashland can not expand the urban grown boundary unless the City first got approval from the State based on the urban reserves. Mr. Stalheim stated that the RPS regional plan will start affecting that, and he will discuss this more later in the presentation. Mr. Stalheim gave information on the population allocation. In 2006 the County did a population allocation for cities in the county. The consulting firm of ECONorthwest assisted them and sent population allocation information to the cities. They identified that by 2026 the city would have 5,177 more people than currently and 12,260 by the year 2056. Three weeks later they sent responses to the allocations, and noted that Mr. Molnar had sent a memo stating that the figures allocated to Ashland are reasonable. With this response they also re-sent out the population allocation numbers which were still the same as before. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 2007 8 7~ Less than 9 days later ECONorthwest sent out preliminary population allocations with no explanation as to why Ashland's figures had changed to 1,439 by 2026 and 2,176 by 2056. As a side note, Ashland population has consumed nearly 50% of the total population allocation we were given for then next 20 years in the last two years. Mr. Stromberg asked for clarification on allocation versus prediction and if it means that, for example, Central Point took some of our growth. Mr. Stalheim stated this is exactly what happened. The total population allocation for Jackson County did not change between the two letters only Ashland's portion of that population. After ECONorthwest's work, the County went through a process to amend their comprehensive plan. They adopted the same population allocation as the later ECONorthwest figures. Ms. Mindlin asked if the lower numbers were the numbers presented to the Commission. Mr. Stalheim stated that the numbers were in the Economic Opportunity Analysis and it was that presentation which first got Planning Staff to start questioning the figures. They particularly questioned why population and employment numbers didn't seem to match up. The Regional Plan is only reviewed every 10 years, with 2012 as the first year of review. There currently is no process in place for review of the population allocation and the county allocations (based on the lower numbers) has now been ratified by the State. If the Regional Plan needs to be amended because there is a new unallocated population the State says Jackson County has grown by more than previously estimated then all the other signatories need to consider the amendment. Basically, Ashland and all the other cities will have to sit down together and agree on the allocation numbers. Mr. Stalheim also reminded the group that the Regional Plan has no specific population allocations - they only have population for the entire region, not specifio cities - the only place that does have these figures is the County comprehensive plan. The effect, though, is that the Regional Plan sets aside urban reserves and Ashland has requested none. In order to, in the future, ask for urban reserves to expand the urban growth boundary the population allocation issues then comes back into question. Cities who choose to expand the urban growth boundary into land not designated in the urban reserves will be required to go through the RPS plan amendment process. Since Ashland had no urban reserves if we needed to expand, the City could not make that decision, we would need to go to RPS for approval. This change can only happen during the 10-year periodic review and, of course, at that time there will be a question of population allocation numbers. Ms. Marsh asked for clarification on if we had said before that we could handle the 5,177 population growth within our existing UGB. If so, then what is our argument? Even if we get the 5,177 in population increase, we are still on the record as saying we could accommodate that increase. Mr. Stalheim stated that the difference is that Ashland has a higher density standards and he believes RPS is trying to aim for those standards. He thinks that our buildable lands inventory needs to be updated to ensure we still are accurate with our assumptions. Mr. Stromberg asked if, when we do the inventory, we would be using the allocated figures? Mr. Molnar stated that when the County adopted their new population element they did put in a provision that they will review the coordinated population estimates every five years. This was the only concession they could make to us. They didn't say they would change anything, but that they would be willing to look at the numbers in 2012. To answer Ms. Marsh's question, when Mr. Molnar went and spoke to the RPS policy committee months ago, to give updates and to re-affIrm the City's position, the one concern RPS had was that almost 3 Y2 years had gone by since the City gave their initial suggestion not to do any urban reserves and two items had come out which could affect that original position. These were, 1) we conducted our wetland inventories and one of the chief in-fill areas turned out to be a wetland (south of east main) and 2) Measure 37 was approved, which brings up many impacts on a community that weren't even considered in 2003. The question now is if there is more of a tool to the City to have identified urban reserves to accommodate growth within the style of the City rather than be at the unknown hands of Measure 37? Mr. Stromberg asked if the State has other agencies who have told RPS that this draft of their plan is not acceptable and RPS has decided to push ahead anyway? Is there a chance RPS will have to re-work their plan? Mr. Stalheim stated the State submitted a letter to RPS policy group and RPS has reviewed that and has gone to Salem to talk to the State agency. He thinks there have been some adjustments so a change might not be necessary. Mr. Stalheim stated that his recommendations are: 1) Regional Plan should review the population allocation prior to concluding that there should not be any more urban reserves for Ashland. Mr. Stalheim sent a letter to the RPS technical and policy group but has not been put in place. He believes Ashland should have first opportunity to add urban reserves, if Ashland so wishes. 2) Ashland should review the decision about urban reserves perhaps holding those areas while the Comprehensive Plan is reviewed and updated. The 5 or 10 year review in the Regional Plan will greatly limit Ashland's opportunities to consider PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 2007 9 1if adding to the Urban Growth Boundary. 3) An alternative would have the Regional Plan formally recognize that Ashland could come forward to add urban reserves, if it wishes after our public process, without having to wait for the periodic review of the Regional Plan in 2012. Notes for future meetings: Mr. Morris will be out of town for hearings board, Mr. Dawkins agreed to take his place. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Diana Ship let, Executive Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 2007 10 7~ ALUO Amendments October 4, 2007 Evolution of Proposal · ZUcI<er Repot\ (Februery 2006) · SIegel Repot\ (Aprtl2006) · Plannina Comm_ SieaeI Subc:omml_ (June 2llo6 - Febru8ry 2ilo7) · Community DlMlIopment ~ Repot\ (February 8, 2007) · r~~mIs8lon Sludy Seseion · Planting Comm_ ReInlat (June 2, 2007) · PIannina Comm_ Study Seseion (June 26.2007) · First llr'IIfl ReIe8sed (July 24. 2007) · Plannina Comm_ Meeting - agreed III 8lIIrt public hearing process (July 31'; 2007) · Second Draft R....ed (Aug..t 28. 2007) · Nllic Hearing -.. Planning Comm_ (September 11. 2007) Tonight's Agenda . Public Hearing, con't. . Deliberation · Address any new public input · Procedures . Policy Issues . Next steps " 1 Procedures . Should they be packaged together for passing on to council. or separated?'" . E'roPosed ctlanges in SIte ~ Chapter requI,. chanaes in ProCedure ChePler. If Procedl.ie cheriges lII'll separatecffrom the ,.t d the 1IlIIisions. the SIte Design ch8nges must accompany them. . There are some other sections d the OIlIinance th8t need amendment If ordinance is segregated (wireless COITIIIlU'lication reference and a section in ch8pter 61) . Improvements to SIte Design chapter, such as new standards tor mechanical equiplT!!lflt and solar dllllices, would not be implemented unlillhe Proc:edurws life adopted . Planning staff believe th8t winter is the best time to implement procedure changes Procedure Issues . Appeal Fees . Ordinance does not prescribe fees, but states that if set, they need to be paid, and notes the ORS requirement to reimburse flies If the appeal is successful . Does the Planning Commission wish to recommend to Council that they have, or don't have. appeal flies? (Would be separate ordinance or resolution of Council) . Appeal to Council . De novo or Record Appeals Policy Issues to Discuss . Review options. including no action . Topics from input and discussion: . Residential Ground Floor in C-1 and E-1 . ADU's In R-2 and R-3 . HotellMotel definition . Temporary Storage . Vision Clearance . Fire Turnaround on Flag Partitions 77 2 Residential Ground Floor in C-I and E-I · Options outlined in September 11" staff report · Option 1 - No Action · Does not address problems of 1/llerpr8tation regarding "lot area" and doesn't address policy issue of primary use · Option 2 - Small Unit (500 sq. ft.) on Ground Floor · Option 3 - Prohibition of residential on Ground Floor Accessory Dwelling Units in R-2 and R-3 · Options outlined in September 11111 staff report · Option 1 - No Action · This would allow more density in R-1 than the multi-family zones · Option 2 - allow up to 1,000 sq. ft. ADUs · Option 3 - Allow up to 500 sq. ft. ADUs · Option 4 - not drafted 750 sq. ft. HotellMotel Defmition · Options outlined in September 11111 staff report · Option 1 - No Action · Option 2 - New definition that requires lobby and on-site staff · Option 3 - New definition without limits on lobby and on-site staff 7~ 3 Temporary Storage . Options ouUined in September 11 III staff report . Option 1 - No Action . There wouldn't be any regulation of "PODS" . Option 2 - place limits on storage . Option 3 - allow for longer time periods for active building projects . Option 4 - set standards that consider size of sign on storage building Vision Clearance . Option 1 - No Action . Doesn't address problems with aJrrent standards; however, the details of a replacement standard have not been resolved with engineering . Option 2 - Continue to work on issue Fire Turnaround on Flag Partitions . Option 1 - No Action . Does not address council directive to make consistent with Fire Code . Could table for later diSaJssion . Option 2 - Adopt as drafted 71 4 Next Steps · Clear Direction on Procedure and Policy Issues · Convene committee to review details and make recommendations for full Planning Commission action at 10/23 meeting · Identify what issues are tabled for discussion at a later time and not included in this round of amendments 111 5 . WRITTEN COMMENTS 26 September 2007 To: Ashland Planning Commission and Staff Re: Planning Code revisions: Sections 18.08 thru 18.108 Procedure.. Brent Thompson P.O. Box 201 Ashland, Or 87520 IUIUIrf~.llIO~ puINIIW pAID /1X1l, 9 ~ cBS 03AI303H Please see suggested Inclusions or revisions with suggested wording for recommendations 18.08.380 or appropriate section under 18.08. Visioning statement- Ashland has committed to absorbing most growth within the existing city limit ( Infill). Thus, there may be Incidences with minor land partitions Involving one lot only where to fulfill this vision It Is necessary to create lots with a wider dimension In width that depth. For new subdMsIons, the requirement should remain the same. 18.22.040, R-1-3.5, General Regulations In this zone appflcatlons for lots above 3500 sq. ft should be approved. Lots In R-1 5, R-1-7.5 and R-1-10 should have provisions for .substandard In size minor land partitions. where the partition Is allowed for example In a 9000 square foot lot If the new 4000 square foot lot has a coverage restriction or building envelope restriction that shrinks equal to the amount of deficiency of the new lot For example If a lot Is 1000 sq. feet below standard then the coverage allowed should shrink 1000 sq. ft from 2000 square feet of coverage to 1000 square feet so the ensured landscaped area remains what It would have been If the lot wee full size. WIth the extra requirements both the goals of Inflll and relative affordablllty would be attained. because we would have more partitions In Close In lots and with extra conditions options are reduced and reducing options reduces market value. Of course no one would be required to create a substandard In size lot but If they did apply they would have to agree to the value reducing restrictions. Estimated amount of relatively affordable lots created as a consequence of this alteration - 75-150. 18.24.030, R-2 Conditional Uses The restriction to 600 sq. ft. of commercial uses Is desirable In that It will preserve the RR district for housing while It allows people to conduct business In a centrally located area where here Is a higher probability of non automobile traffic to and from the business. 18.24.040 R-2 General Regulations A. Permitted Density and Minimum Lot Dimensions In 19~1 or so after the new ( at that time Affordable Housing CommIttee met for two years or so the PC and Council adopted a few measures one of which was the successful Accessory Dwelling Ordinance. But at the same time the PC and Council 1/ voted to drop R-2 and R-3 densities down from 20 and 30 units per acre respectively to 13.5 and 20 units. Additional units could be permitted providing there were affordable units or energy saving features ( which are now standard) andl or recreational amenities. Mostly what happened with this change is that developers stopped building apartment buildings because the economy of scale was lost. We now have only condominium projects. But if you calculate what can be done on an acre of 43,500 sq. ft the first unit takes 5000 sq. ft leaving 38,500 sq. ft. Dividing that by 2000 sq. ft yields 19 additional units for a total of 20. Similarly the math for Section 18.28.030 R-3 lots calculates out to 38500/1500= 25 units for a total of 26. If the PC and Council find that some retention of density bonuses is advisable, a partial restoration of density could be given due to the fact that all units now meet the energy conservation goals that were bonuses before. Thus, there is a case for automatically giving all projects on R-2 of R-3 lands the density bonus for energy conservation. But it might be just as advisable to scrap all former bonuses and return to former densities. of 20 and 26. This would be an anti sprawl measure. Sprawl is the continual use of more land than is necessary to achieve given development goals. Our low allowable densities in R-2 and R-3 zones contribute to sprawl. Coupled with any increase in allowable densities could be a lessening of lot coverage allowed which would push building heights up a 1/2 story or so while still permitting more density. 18.32.025,C-1 Retail Commercial District Yes, it should be ok to have some residential on the ground floor. The target density is good. It is as it used to be. for the R-3 before 1991. Section 18.40.020 E-1 Permitted Uses Add theaters and performing venues as a Permitted Use and delete as a Conditional Use. We all want to support tourism and performing arts. Thus we should out right permit theaters and assembly venues In more than Just commercial zones. . The residential density allowed in an E-1 should be restricted perhaps by a percentage of the parcel or a percentage of the square footage of a project or building. 18.68.090 Non Conforming Uses and Structures The longer period of 12 months before discontinuance is advisable. It often does take time before new occupants can be found or until financing can be procured to continue an existing non conforming use. 18.72.050 Detail Site Review Buildings with a footprint of less than 25,000 sq. feet may be 2,3,4? stories. As I remember the intent of the limitation of size was to reduce footprint not necessarily total square footage. Thus we have Mtn View Retirement Center which exceeds the square footage but perhaps not the footprint size of 45,000 sq. ft. ~~ 18.76 Partitions Chapter 18.96 Sigh Regulations Eliminate Sign prohibitions for more than two sides of a building. In other words allow signs on any side of a building where there are public entrances. 18.108.020 What Is wrong with retaining Staff Permit Procedures? Staff should be able to approve by means of a Ministerial Action with Historic Commission Review new door ways, new windows, wooden awnings without it being a planning action. 18.108.025 Consolidated Review Procedures Can pathways through partitions be included as a condition of approval? Does the pathway need to be part of a transportation plan first? Appeals--The cost is likely to be at least $300, but what is the degree of subsidy we want in an appeal, if any? Type I hearings are still just called up for a public hearing if there is an objection? Do we want the planning commission to hear Type I appeals and the Council to hear Type II and Type III appeals? 18.108.040 Type I Procedure Some things should be staff permits wi Historic Commission Review such as new doors, windows, arbors, bay windows, trash enclosures, stairways. We don't need staff approval, Historic Commission review, and a Planning Commission review. Thank you for considering the above. <~~ Brent Thompson 488-0407 g3 Hi, Dave Well, trying to be helpful, I have worked through the first seven pages of your latest draft. I had a lot of would-be 'improvements' to suggest for the definitions. We may, or may not, agree on these but I thought I'd send them to you asap. It's just the first seven pages. Ignore the rest; I stopped at page eight. Cheers! John Stromberg Planning Commissioner "Remember: All emaH sent to this address is in the public domain" Amend Section 18.08.160. Coveraae. lot or site Total area of all structurcsbuildings,Jt:f!d. paved driveways, or other soil disturbaRces~ surfaces that will not allow normal water infiltration to the ground. PROV~DED. how~ver, that. Permeable sl:Jl'faces up .to ten percen~ (10%) of t~e .Iot area wi~h :Ii~ ~~r~~s s;rfa~;; such as paths. patios. decks. driveways or similar surfaces.(R fI dl ~ driVeYIa.,:s) arc is -exempt from lot coverage requirements. The coverage is expressed as a percentage of such area in relation to the total gross area of the lot or site. Landscaping which does not negatively impact the natural water retention and soil characteristics of the site shall not be deemed part of the lot or site coverage. Alternative 2nd sentence: "Up to ten percent of the lot area having solid porous surfaces is exempt from lot coverage calculations. Examples include: oaths. patios. decks. driveways and similar surfaces provided they allow water inflitration to the ground. Amend Section 18.08.320. Hotel or Motel A facility offering transient lodging accommodations to the gener:1 pubiC an~ which may include additional facilities and services. such as restaurants. me_ting room:;; entertainment.. personal services. and recreational fa~i1itie:. :n~ W~~h i.n~'~~~s a ~~~Ii~ lobby an~ ~n-s~~ s~~. At least 60% of the rooms s all h v 0 cu nCled: ~o ~=~ 0 ~building iR wAicA lodgiflg is pF6\:ided ta guests f~r ce~;~-;;f!;; . "Ai 0 provisiaf!s arc made far eaakiAg if! tAe ladgif!g F6oms. Changing these definitions would have significant policy implications for mixed use housing and should not be included in this collection of ordinance revisions. Amend (Recodifv) Section 18.08.380. Lot depth The horizontal distance from the midpoint of the rear [of} lot line to the midpoint of the front lot line, Extra "of": see above. Amend Section 18.08.485. Mechanical eauioment Equipment or devices installed for a use appurtenant to the primary use. Such equipment shall include heating and air conditioning equipment, solar collectors, parabolic antennas, disc antenna, radio or TV receiving or transmitting antennas, and any power generating devices. T/:le follewiAg eql:Jipmcf!t or dC'/ices arc cxcmpt: gtf John Stromberg Comments A. rrivate, flOR cOfflfflercial radio afld televisiofl aRteflflas Rot exceediflg a height of seveflt., (70) fed above grade or thirty (30) fed above afl existiflg structure, whiehc',.er height is greater. No part of such afltcflfla shall be within the yards rcquircd by this Chaptcr. A buildiflg permit shall bc required for afl'( afltcnRa fflast, or to\...er ovcr fifty (SO) feet abovc grade or thirty (30) fect abovc Clfl cxistiflg structure whefl the safflC is cOflstructed Ofl the roof of the structure. B. rarabolic Clfltel'lflaS UflGer threc (3) feet in diamctcr. "Disc antenna" should read "Disc attenas". Delete Section 18.08.510r~~etel. A building or group of buildiRgs on thc saffle lot cOfltaiRiflg guest units far rental to tf'ilnSicflts. with separate efltraflces directly exterior aRd ceRsistiRg of iRGividual slecping quarters. dctached or ifl caflflccted rows. with or without cookiflg facilities. This definition should be retained because of the policy implications of combining it into a revised definition with "hotel" - see your changes above, Amend Section 18.08.595. Planning application: planning action. A planning application is an application. other than an application for legislative amendment. filed pursuant to the requirements of this ordinance. A planning action is a proceeding pursuant to this ordinance in which the legal rights, duties or privileges of specific parties are determined, and any appeal or review of such proceeding, pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance. A planning action does not include a ministerial action or a legislative amendment. Suggest having separate definitions for these two. Similar-sounding terms that are frequently confused. "Planning application - An application for any official action specified by this Chapter except for legislative ammendments (see section 18.108.170," "Planning action - Any proceeding prescribed in this Chapter. in which the legal rights. duties or privileges of specific parties are determined. Ministerial decisions and legislative amendments are excluded but appeals or reviews of the original action are included provided they are also prescribed in this Chapter. Amend Section 18.08.650. Setback The distance between the building and the lot line. Where increased setbacks are required for multiple stories. the setback is measured for each story as set forth in the zoning district standards. For example. if the setback is (10) ten feet plus (10) ten feet for each story in excess of (1) one storyr a (2) two story building would have a (10) ten foot setback for the first floor and the second floor must be setback (20) twenty feet from the lot line measured horizontally. Architectural projections may intrude into required setbacks as set forth in Section 18.68.040. ceflter liflc of a street afld the special base liRe setback fl'affl '.\lhich 't'ard measurefflcflts are made, measured horizeRtally afld at right aflgles frem said cCfltcr Iinc. Suggest: "The horizontal perpendicular distance from a lot line to the closest part of a building or structure that is subject to a setback requirement. Architectural projections may intrude into required setbacks as set forth in Section 18.68.040. When multi-story setbacks are specifiedr the setback for a story above the ground floor is measured from the lot line to the plane of the nearest wall of the upper story at its perpendicular intersection with the ground. " g5 Page 2 of 7 John Stromberg Comments Amend Section 18.08.740. Story That portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the top story shall be that portion of a building included between the upper surface of the top floor and the ceiling above. If the finished floor level directly above a basement or cellar is more than six (6) feet above grade.1Qr more than fifty percent (50%) of the perimeter of the building, the basement or cellar shall be considered a story. Those uYnenclosed decks. porchest ~Iconies an~ similar fea~ur~ (those without a roof] are not considered stories. A half s 0 shall be c nS~dered a _to . if the wall face at the rear or side yard setback line is more than three (3) fee above the floor level below. Suggestion: Revise the third sentence as follows: "Features without a roof. such as unenclosed decks. porches and balconies are shall not be considered stories. " And the fourth sentence is confusing because it introduces the concept of a "half story" without defining it and then says it counts as a full story if it has a wall facing the side or rear yards that is more than 3 feet high. Should this instead follow the second sentence and say something like. ".. .and if it is three feet or more above the floor level below on either side or the back of the building it shall also be considered a story."? Amend Section 18.08.750. Structure or building That which is built or constructed; an edifice or building of any kind or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner and which requires location on, in, or above the ground or which is attached to something having a location on, in or above the ground. Structures eighteen thirty (30) f1-8t-inches in height or less. including entry stairs. uncovered porches. patios and similar structures. are exempt from the side and rear yard requirements and from half (1/2) the yard requirements for the front yard and side yard abutting a public street. Shouldn't the term "requirements" be "setback reauirements"? Also this seems like an extraordinarily awkward definition that also defines "building" in terms of "building". Beaverton defines structure as follows: Structure. Anything which is constructed. erected or built and located on or under the ground. or attached to something fixed to the ground. And building as: Building. Any structure built for the support. shelter or enclosure of persons. animals, chattels. or prooerty of any kind. So...maybe separating the two definitions would be clearer. As for the last sentence. it isn't a definition. Shouldn't it be incorporated into the indivi~ual zone sections where setbacks are specified so people will have all the rules for se backs in one place (for each zone)? Amend Section 18.08.820. Vision clearance area A triangular area on a lot at the intersection of two (2) streets or a street and a railroad, two (2) sides of which are lot lines measured from the corner intersection of the curb lines ~~ Page 3 of 7 John Stromberg Comments extended. or edge of pavement if no curb exists. let liRes for a distance specified in these regulations. The third side of the triangle is a line across the corner of the lot joining the ends of the other two sides. Where the ~lines or intersections have rounded corners, the ~curb lines will be extended in a straight line to a point of intersection. First of all. if you're going to redefine how the vision clearance are is determined. in this way. but keep the same numerical specifications in the LUO then that's a policy issue because it's reducing the amount of land consumed by the vision clearance area. Secondly I can't understand what "...two sides of which are lot lines measured from the corner intersection of the curb lines...". Curb lines are generally parallel to lot lines/right of way lines and the lot/right of way lines may not pass through the intersection of the curb lines. Am I missing something? Thirdly. the primary concern re vision clearance areas is to deal with the safety issue and I don't know who determines that. Aren't there State standards? Once you figure out exactly what areas must be kept open then you figure out how to describe it clearly. That goes in the ordinance and can't be changed by variance because it has to do with safety. This feels like we've had complaints about being too strict with vision clearance definitions and are simply going to loosed them up as a 'clarification' of the LUO. I don't know what's right but the concern is safety and so we need some expert input. Aren't there potential legal issues if we arbitrarily redefine the VCAs? Accessory residential unit A second dwelling unit created on a lot with a single family dwelling which is not greater than 50% of the gross habitable floor area of the primary residence on the lot and does sfleH-not exceed 1.000 square feet of gross habitable floor area. This is not a definition. It's a regulation. I think we do need a definition but then should also put the limitations on accessory units in the zoning sections for which they are allowed. Basement That portion of a building with a floor-to-ceiling height of not less than 6.5 feet and where fifty percent (50%) or more of its perimeter walls are less than six (6) feet ab~v~ natural grade and does not exceed twelve (12) feet above grade at any point. How about: "That portion of a building with a floor-to-ceiling height of not less than 6.5 feet. with fifty percent (50%) or more of its perimeter walls less than six (6) feet above natural grade and not more than twelve (12) feet above grade at any point."? Floor area, gross habitable The total floor soace in a building for living. sleeping. eating or cooking measured to the outside surfaces of the building. including but not limited to ex~erior walls but exclusive of outside courts enclosed by walls. The floor area shall be the useable area under the horizontal projection of the roof or floor above with at least 7' of head room. No deductions of floor area for any space within the confines of the habitable area are allowed. such as for bathrooms. closets. halls. storage or utility spaces that are accessed from interior h~b~~ble spaces. This definition and the one that follows are too convulted and complex to be easily understood (especially the provision about exterior walls. which may be important but I don't comprehend). Also you introduce terms like "confines" and "useable". which ~7 Page 4 of 7 John Stromberg Comments themselves are undefined and subject to multiple interpretations. And you end up having to make lists of uses and types of rooms. which then creates an incentive for creative argument on the part of applicants. So...what about the following (see both defs below): "The total area of all floors in a building measured to its outside surfaces. that is under the horizontal projection of the roof or floor above with at least 7' of head room. excluding rooms and spaces accessed soley by an exterior door. " Floor area, gross The total floor space of all floors measured to the outside surfaces of the building. including but not limited to exterior walls but exclusive of outside courts enclosed by walls. The floor area shall be the useable area under the horizontal projection of the roof or floor above with at least 7' of head room. "The total area of all floors in a building measured to its outside surfaces. that is under the horizontal projection of the roof or floor above. " Ground Floor The first floor of a building other than a cellar or basement. Or "That floor of a building that is closest to. but above. grade. "? Historic District A district fccegRizcd identified as historically significant under the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan and its implementing regulations (e.g. overlay zones). Porch, enclosed/unenclosed Covered porches. exterior balconies. or other similar areas attached to a building and having dimensions of not less than six (6) feet in deDth by eight (8) feet in length. "Enclosed" means the porch contains wall(s) that are more than forty-two (42) inches in height measured from finished floor level. for fifty percent (50%) or more of the porch perimeter. "Unenclosed" means the porch contains no such walls. but can be covered. How about: "A porch shall be a platform structure attached to the front or back entrance of a building and external to the walls of the main building proper. An enclosed Dorch has a roof and walls that are at least 42" high above finished floor level and extend for 50% or more of the porch's perimeter. An unenclosed porch has no walls or walls less than 42" high: it mayor may not have a roof. "? I don't understand why it's necessary to specify either the depth or lenght of a porch. Porous Solid Surface Porous solid surface is a permeable surface built with an underlying stone reservoir that temporarily stores surface runoff before it infiltrates into the subsoil. Porous S~lid s~rf~ces include pervious asphalt! pervious concrete and grass or permeable pavers. P rvious asphalt pavement consists of an open-graded coarse aggre9ate. bonded together by asphalt cement. with sufficient interconnected voids to make it highly Dermeable to water. Pervious concrete tvpically consists of sDecially formulated mixtures of Portland cement. uniform. open-9raded coarse aggregate. and water. Pervious concrete has en~u~h ~o~~ s~~c~ ~ allow rapid percolation of liquids through the pavement. Grass or per e bl v r interlocking concrete blocks or synthetic fibrous grids with open areas that ~lIow g~a;s to grow within the voids. Some 9rid systems fill the voids with sand or gravel to allow i nfi Itration. ~8 Page 5 of 7 John Stromberg Comments You should refer to some official specification (State building code?) rather than get into a detailed list like this. There isn't enough room to be sufficiently specific. It's inconsistent . with the level of abstraction of other definitions and you introduce terms like. "highly permeable". that are sub1ect to different interpretations. Reconstruct To build anew bv re-creating and assembling a structure or building in the same form. shape and location as originally built. Or.u"To replace an existing or former building with a new one that reproduces its form. shape and location as originally built (see Section for details)."? You don't want to leave words like "form". "shape" and "location" underspecified but also don't want to put the details in this Definitions section. Setback, Special The distance between the center line of a street and the special base line setback from which yard measurements are made. measured horizontally and at right angles from said center line. Oru.i'The perpendicular distance. measured horizontally. from the centerline of a street to a parallel line that becomes the basis from which yard measurements are made (for example. see 18.68.050)."? GENERAL NOTE: I think it would be Good to eXDress definitions in a consistent way. either "rTerml shall be...." or "rTerml: a blah blah blah...". Story, half A half story is either: 1. A space under a slooina roof that a) has the line of intersection of the roof and wall face not more than three (3) feet above the floor level below: b) afld-in which space the pessible floor area with head room of five (5) feet or more occupies no more than fifty percent (50%) of the total floor area of the story directlv beneath: and ~ th: wall fa: at the rear or side yard setback line is three (3) feet or less above the fl or I vel bel w. Oru."A space under a sloping roof. whose exterior walls are no more than three feet high and whose floor area with at least five feet of head room does not exceed fifty percent of the floor area of the story immediately beneath. "? <69 Page 6 of 7 John Stromberg Comments 2. A basement where 50% or less of the perimeter walls are six (6) feet or more ab~v~ natural grade. as commonly found in davlight basem;~:. D~~;S ~r :nt;~~is Ie shan eiaht (8) feet in length would not qualify as a daylight __sem_nt or h_lf ____ , -r ~rrr-.) I .T'O~..,.. ~ Slooina Roof Half StOry. If Floor Area "A" is no more than 50% of Floor Area "B" - then "A" is a half story. If the wall face is more than three (3) feet above the floor level below at the rear or side vard setback line. then it shall be considered a full stOry. Or..."A basement whose perimeter walls do not exceed six feet above natural grade for fifty per cent or more of their length. Doorways or entrances less than eight feet in width when viewed facing the building do not satisfy the definition of Half Story. "? You can make an interpretation of "daylight basement' if necessary. or a separate definition. but it's not clear what differentiates it from a half-story basement and so invites confusion imho. 'fa Page 7 of 7 SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ()",. €J:'!1R .....0 :[:~ o "~ NonCE OF PUBUC HEARING This Is to notify you that the City of Ashland Planning Commission h.. proposed a land us. ..-gulatlon that may atrect the penn,.,bl. uses of your property and other properties. On September 11, 2007, the Ashland Planning Commission will hold a public hearing regarding the adoption of ordinance amendments proposed in PA2007-G1283. The City has determined that adoption of this ordinance may affect the permissible uses of your property, and other properties in the affected zone, and may change the value of your property. Public hearings are held at the Ashland Civic Center, Council Chambers, 1175 East Main, Ashland, Oregon and begin at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as set forth in the agenda. The amendments proposed in PA2oo7-Q1283 consist generally of the following: Proposed amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance implementing portions of the recommendations in the Land Use Ordinance Review prepared by Siegel Planning Services. In addition other recommendations of the City Planning Director concerning land use decision making procedures will be considered. Proposed changes affect the following Chapters of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (TItle 18): Definitions, Districts and Zoning Map, Woodland Residential District, Rural Residential District; Single-Family Residential District, Suburban Residential District, Low Density Multiple Family Residential District, High Density Multiple Family, North Mountain Neighborhood, Retail Commercial District, ,Employment District, Health Care Services Zone, Tree Preservation and Protection, Physical and Environmental Constraints, Southern Oregon University District, General Regulations, Site DesIgn Review, Partitions, Parking, Sign Regulations, Procedures and Enforcement. PA2007-Q1283Is available for inspection at the City of Ashland Department of Community Development located at 51 Wlnbum Way, Ashland, OR. Infonnation is also available online at htto:/lwww.ashland.or. us/Paoe.aso?NavID= 1 0373. Copies are also available for pUrchase at reasonable cost, If requested. For additional Information conceming these amendments, you may call the Department of Community Development at 541-488-5305. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, If you need special assistance to participate In this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541- 488-5305 (ITY phone Is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA TItle 1). ;tlo+( 'c' cL JIVtM{ ~ '6 1(, ('" I I:J J0w~ 9/ He has never heard any noise outside Mobius. Most of the events draw only 25 to 75 people and he does not see a parking problem. CHRIS BYRNE, 2345 Ranch Road, said before moving to Ashland, they visited Mobius and it heavily influenced their decision to move to Ashland. Culturally, it has enriched his life. He lives in town, works at Mobius, and rides his bike to and from work -Mobius helps One more family live and work in town. RICHARD BROWNE, 822 S. Mountain, said he frequents Mobius two to three times a month and he has never had a parking , problem when he drives, parking out in front about 90 percent of the time. This type of venue does not exist anyplace else in town. Fields read the comments from ORIANA SPRATT, 212 Patterson Street, into the record. She supports the project. JEFF FEINBERG, 211 Normal Avenue, said he has never had a parking problem at the Mobius. They are the only venue in town that brings national musicians to town. If anything, he is bothered Mobius has been here four years and they have received little community support. STEVE SCHEIN, 167 Church Street, reported Fourth Street is a ghost town at night. By doing a related study, he has been astonished at the far-reaching vision and implications this business has for such small town. He has asked entertainers that travel tbroughjust why they are willing to perform for only 20 people. The answer has been: "it's the room." He does not see a parking problem. The social impact enormously outweighs anything negative. . MARLA WELP, 78 North Mountain Avenue, agreed with all the previous comments in favor. The following persons submitted comments for the record in support of the application. CHRIS VANSCHAACK, 429 Morton Street GENE BURNETT,549 B Street, 13 SAMARRA BURNETT, 549 B Street, t3 STEVE LANUSSE, 320 Oak Street RUSS RODRIGUEZ, 530-B Maple Way SHANTI LOBAUGH, 205 Piedmont Drive STEVEN M. SIRIANNI, 558 Holly Street LEAH SCHRODT, 1040 East Main Street, Apt. B MITZI MILES-KUBOTA, 850 Beswick Way ERIC NOVISEDLAK, 309 Harrison Street ED MCGUIGAN, 6306 Adams Road, Talent, OR 97540 BETSY MCGUIGAN, 6306 Adams Road, Talent, OR 97540 CLAIRE KRULlKOWSKI, 228 Talent Avenue, 12, Talent, OR 97540 DEBRA THORNTON, 107 Second Street JEFF ALTEMUS, 204 Alicia Avenue ANNIE MCINTYRE, 204 Alicia Avenue MURIEL MORRISON, 849 Pavilion RON ROTH, 6950 Old Highway 99 South BIRGITTE FETTE, 896 Blackberry Lane Rebuttal- Glover emphasized that while the whole business structure isn't completely dependent on the events they hold, the decision, if granted, will very strongly affect their ability to continue what they are doing. Stromberg noted they have been operating without a CUP and asked how the Commission should factor that into the credibility of the other things the applicants have said tonight. Glover said they have spent a lot of time bringing in their media and internet component. They realized the events were valuable and it grew from that. Submitting the application and to get to this point has taken some time. Jacobson didn't realize what constituted a "theater." It has become clear through this process that they need a CUP for a theater and it has taken well over a year to get this point. Stromberg closed the public hearing and closed the record. VIII. TYPE. PU.NNIt(J ~IONS ASHLAND PLANNING C0f.t.4ISSlON REGUlAR teEETING MINUTES SEPTEM3ER 11, 2007 4 9~ A. ~ ACTION: PA2007.Q0250 APfILICMI': CJty of AthIMd DESCItIPr.oN: Proposed Mllndments to the AlhlandLlnd UIe~."_lIIIpfIDlI.~ porIIonI of the IWCOIIlIIIIIICIIn the lind Use Ordinance Review pNpIrId by Siegel Planning Servlcts. In Iddltlon, ..... rICOIIIIIIInCIa of the City PIIlIWIint onctor c:oncemlng land we decision-making procedures win be contIdncf. . Stalheim stated the first draft of the amendments was presented at the July 24,2007 Planning Commission Study Session and at the July 31st, Special Planning Commission meeting, the Commission moved to start the public hearing process on the proposed amendments and set the date for September 11, 2007. A second draft based on some public comments, Planning Commission review and Staffreview was prepared and has been included in this month's packet. Stalheim acknowledged Colin Swales and Mark Knox who each submitted detailed comments on the first draft. Their input was greatly appreciated. He also thanked those Planning Commission members who submitted comments that have been included in the record. He noted that comments have been received bye-mail in the last few days from: Dennis Goldstein (dated September 7th), Stalheim's response to Goldstein's, John Schwendener (dated September 9th), Michael Young and Jacquelyn Young, and drawings from the City's engineering staff for vision clearance. The Commissioners should have received an e-mail from Brandon Goldman with the Housing Commissioner's review, from Mark Knox (dated August 30th), Dennis Goldstein (dated September 10,2007), and Bonnie Brodersen (dated September lOth). PUBLIC HEARING DENNIS GOLDSTEIN, 766 Roca Street, said he is an attorney and has been involved in real estate and in that capacity has both drafted, revised and commented on legislation and ordinances relating to housing. After looking at the proposed revisions and the ordinance, he has found the ordinance is extremely difficult to navigate. Also, the language is not as clearly written as it could be. With regard to the policies behind the code, from what he has seen, he would agree with the pwposes, but the difficulty in reading the code undermines the pwpose of the code and wastes staff time and the public's time in locating information in the code. He has not had time to comment on everything but some of his comments are contained in his letter. He believes there is an improvement to the Type I planning actions by lengthening the comment period from ten to 14 days, making it a little earlier in the process, however, he thinks it should be even earlier. The sooner affected property owners can talk to applicant(s) at a time when fewer expenses will have been involved and they are less fixed in their position, the better. The ordinance should require that the notice state the timeframe and the requirements for appeal. He does not want the ordinance interpretation politicized. It is a matter for the City Attorney. Interpretations should be included on the website and their location cited in the ordinance. Dawkins/Black m/s to stay untilJO p.m. Voice Vote: Approved. EVAN ARCHERD, 550 E. Main Street, has found most of the amendments to be positive changes. He has two issues: 1. Residential in C-l and E-I zones. He liked the original revision much better than the second revision. By prohibiting residential in the E-I and C-I is a good idea. If we want to allow them in any way, he would suggest they make them a Conditional Use. Allowing only 500 square foot units is like a band-aid. It should either be allowed or not allowed at all. He suggested eliminating the residential except with a Conditional Use Permit. 2. Changing the motellhotel criteria. He thought Option 2 was simple and direct. If you want to outlaw timeshares and fractional uses, we should write a code that outlaws them. To put it in a definition is misplaced and misguided. Hotels and motels are already a Conditional Use in the CI and E-l zones. The other language unnecessarily complicates the process. BRENT THOMPSON, 582 Allison, suggested passing the simple items and come back and struggle with the more difficult issues. He will pick up a revised draft, review it and submit written comments. Stromberg closed this public hearing, but the record will stay open to be discussed at a Special Planning Commission meeting scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on October 4,2007. At that meeting, the integrated changes will be discussed. Stalheim said some of the changes in the new draft will include: Stromberg's edits to the Definitions Marsh's suggestion to redefine the gross floor area ASHLAND PlANNING C0M\4ISSION REGULAR M:ETING MINUTES SEPTeMBER 11, 2007 5 93 Half-story daylight basement Vision clearance Maps Stalheim will get the revisions out in the next week. Fields/Dawkins mls to continue keeping the record open for further discussion on October 4, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center. Voice Vote: Unanimously approved. VIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. ADOPTION OF FINDINGS - PA2006-01663, 87 W. Nevada & 811 Helman, Ashland Flowershop & Greenhouse Ine/Greg & Valr! Williams Ex parte contacts - There were none. Morris had a discussion with his ex-neighbor, but nothing of substance. DotterrerlMorrls mls to approve the abov.noted Findings. Roll Call: Unanimously approved. VI. B. (Continuation of PA2oo7-OO250, 281 Fourth Street, Aaron Glover) COMMIMSSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Stalheim read "Joint Use of Facilities" to the Commissioners. The Commissioners discussed several ways they could work up conditions so this application could be approved. Some argued the applicants did not provide enough information and there is confusion over specifically what the applicants are requesting. The number of parking spaces the applicants have available is still unclear. DawlcinslB/ack m/s to continue the meeting until 10:30 p.m. Marsh said she cannot vote for this project tonight. The driving question is the CUP. Can the application satisfy the criteria for a CUP? The applicants have come up with a list of things for crowd control measures but she has not seen any of this in writing until tonight. The specifics are very relevant for the Commissioners to know the applicants can control the impact of 120 people leaving the venue at midnight. She would like to see their plan to know they meet the criteria of minimizing the impact of the target area. She would agree to a continuation with the details ironed out along with a parking plan and a crowd control plan. Dawkins said he walks through this neighborhood all the time and with or without the venue, parking is not a problem. Weare making everything too complicated. There are other things happening in the neighborhood that are not restricted. He would like to make a motion and work out the conditions. DawklnsIMindlin mls to approve PA2oo7-OO250. Mindlin said part of what makes this project special is it is a low-cost venue. We have to look at how our planning process interacts with the public. She agrees with Dawkins that the parking is there and to focus on a rejection of this proposed business activity on the basis there is a parking problem, feels legalistic and spurious. Dimitre, Morris and Dotterrer don't believe we have a complete application and it has not met the burden of proof. They are willing to continue it so they can come back with something they can support. Black would like to see the comments they made tonight in writing with the following and then the Commission can move forward. Commit events to a specific time and specify the number of people allowed. Request a Variance based on exceeding the 200 feet. Address bike parking. Come back to the Commission in a year and review. No idling of vehicles in the alley. If the venue is a certain size, they will take care of clean-up. Make sure the building isn't going to be a problem with occupancy and fire. State their plan. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEJ.eER 11, 2007 6 9if Fields remembered 25 years ago when people in town were asking how we could create a traffic problem in the Railroad District. The parking reductions implemented then was to encourage that level of density. It's rare that Mobius can get a big draw of people. Maybe we can give them another month to work these things out, but he is looking at the level of complexity of what we are creating. It is making it difficult to do anything. In this case, he does not see the neighborhood rising up. Stromberg thought a continuation would be advisable and he doesn't want to compromise our process. Marsh called for the question. Dlmltre seconded. The motion failed with Fields, Black, Mindlin, Dawkins and Morris voting 'no" and Dlmltre, Stromberg, Dotterrer and Marsh voting "yes." Roll Call on Dawkins' motion - Dawkins, Black and Mindlin voted "yes" and Dotterrer, Marsh, Morris, Fields, Stromberg and Dlmltre voted "no." The motion failed. MorrisIDlmltre mls to continue the meeting to the October 9, 2007 Planning Commission meeting at 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street. MorrisIBlack mls amended the motion to leave the record open for two weeks. Roll Call: The motion was unanimously approved. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Sue Yates, Executive Secretary ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGUlAR M:ETING MINUTES SEPTEt.eER 11, 2007 7 '13 ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT September 11, 2007 PLANNING ACTION: 2007-01283 APPLICANT: City of Ashland ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.08 18.12 18.14 18.16 18.20 18.22 18.24 18.28 18.30 18.32 18.40 18.52 18.54 18.61 18.62 18.64 18.68 18.72 18.76 18.92 18.96 18.108 18.112 REQUEST: Definitions Districts and Zoning Map W-R Woodland Residential District R-R Rural Residential District R-l Single Family Residential District R-I-3.5 Suburban Residential District R-2 Low Density Multiple-Family Residential District R-3 High Density Multiple-Family Residential District NM North Mountain Neighborhood C-I Retail Commercial District E-l Employment District M-l Industrial District HC Health Care Services Zone Tree Preservation and Protection Physical and Environmental Constraints SO - Southern Oregon University (SOU) District General Regulations Site Design Review Partitions Parking Sign Regulations Procedures Enforcement Adoption of code amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. Planning Action 2007'{)1283 Applbnt: City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada Page 1 of 21 9~ I. Relevant Facts A. Background. History of Application In 2005, two reports were commissioned to address concerns raised by the Council and community regarding conflicting and unclear portions of the land use ordinance and the planning process. The Community Development and Planning Division Operational and Organizational Review by Zucker Systems was completed in February 2006. This Review focused on the planning process and had a short reference to procedural issues. The other report, known as the Siegel Planning Report, was completed in April 2006. The Siegel Report focused specifically on the Land Use Ordinance. From June 2006 until February 2007 a subcommittee comprised of members of the Planning Commission, a City Councilor and a member of the Planning Department staff reviewed the recommendations of the Siegel Report. This subcommittee identified issues within the Land Use Code that needed clarification and could be accomplished. From January through June 2007, the Community Development Director worked with the Planning Commission to review the planning program in Ashland, including land use procedures. This review also included an analysis of Oregon statutes and the application of procedures in Ashland. The Director provided the Planning Commission with alternatives and recommendations on procedures to consider. On June 12, 2007, the Ashland Planning Commission made a motion to move fOlward on proposed amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance regarding proposed procedural changes. On July 24, 2007, Community Development staff completed a proposed draft amendment to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance that included both procedural changes and substantive amendments partially based on the Siegel report. This draft was presented to and reviewed by the Ashland Planning Commission on July 31, 2007. The Planning Commission made a motion that a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance be scheduled on September 11, 2007. B. Summary of the Proposed Ordinance Amendments The proposed amendments can be broken into two areas: 1. Amendments to address interpretation issues or minor policy issues in application of the code. 2. Changes to permit procedures. Code Chan2es The following are the main areas proposed for amendment in the code. · Lot Coverage - amends definition to make clear what is exempt. · Gross Floor Area - adds definition to implement code standards · Site Design Standards - provides clarity to what triggers site design review. Planning Action 2007~1283 Appllclnt City of Ashland 97 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada Page 2 of 21 · Maps - Re-adopts all land use maps into an electronic (GIS) mapping system. · Setbacks and Yards - adds definition that provides for how to measure multi- story setbacks. · North Mountain Zones -- Adopts standards for lot coverage or signs. · Accessory Residential Units, Density and MPFA in Multi-Family Zones - Allows for the same standards in the R-2 and R-3 zones as allowed in R-I. · Residential Ground Floor in C-l and E-l zones - proposes standards to prohibit ground floor residential. · Tree Protection - requires more information and mitigation. · Vision Clearance - changes standards to measure from curb lines rather than property. · Nonconforming Uses and Structures - amends standards to provide clarity. · Mechanical Equipment -- Provides standards and exemptions for mechanical equipment, including solar panels. · Temporary Storage - proposes standards for temporary storage containers. · Permit Expiration - allows for just one extension for planning permits of 18 months, and this extension'can be approved ministerial by staff Procedure Amendments The changes can be grouped into the following functional areas: · New Expedited Land Division procedures - new land division procedure required by ORS for 3 or fewer parcels. No hearing can be held, but cannot be in historic district or on lands considered as Physical and Environmental Constraints. · Amended Type I Permit procedures - these are minor planning actions handled by staff and not subject to public hearing. Amendments would add a notice of application procedure and eliminates Planning Commission Hearings Board review of staff decisions, instead making the staff decision final subject to appeal to the Planning Commission. · Amended Type II Permit procedures - these are larger projects subject to hearings before Planning Commission. Changes would amend the appeal procedures to City Council. · Amended Type III Permit procedures - decisions of the Planning Commission on legislative amendments, such as zoning and comprehensive plan map changes, would be recommendations to the City Council, rather than final changes. Planning Action 2007 '{)1283 Applicant: City of Ashland 98 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada Page 3 of 21 C. OetIiled Description of Proposed Procedural Amendments 1. Expedited Land Divisions One of the amendments to the Land Use Ordinance is the addition of the Expedited Land Division procedure required under Oregon statutes. This procedure is required under Oregon statute, but has not been written into the city's code. An expedited land division under ORS 197.360 is an action for land zoned residential in an urban growth boundary that creates enough lots or parcels to allow the building of residential units at 80% or more of the maximum net density permitted by the zoning designation of the site. The Expedited Land Division allows for the creation of three or fewer parcels and requires compliance with street and other standards of the city. Expedited Land Divisions would not be authorized in historic districts or on lands subject to the Physical and Environmental Constraints review chapter of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (18.62). According to State statute, if an Expedited Land Division is appealed, a "referee" who is not a city employee or official (including Planning Commission members) is required to decide the appeal. Under this proposal, the 'referee' could be hired under contract by the City Administrator. The Expedited Land Division section from ORS 197.360 has been taken basically verbatim from the statute with the exception of authorizing the City Administrator to hire the referee. 2. Staff Permit & Type I Planning Action Procedural Modifications The current procedure for Staff Permits is removed from the proposed ordinance. The Staff Permits are currently processed in a manner similar to the Type I Planning Actions but they are on a different timeline and have a smaller notice area. Their incorporation into the Type I process would allow staff to follow common timelines and notice procedures, expand the neighborhood notice area and would allow for the decisions to be reconsidered or appealed. As proposed, Staff permit applications would proceed as Type I permit. 3. Staff Decisions Final- Type I The current ordinance has staff approve all Type I permit applications, subject to "review" by the Planning Commission Hearings Board before they become final. This review is done without a public hearing. The proposed changes would make the staff decision final, subject to either a reconsideration process or appeal to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. Planning Action 2007 '{)1283 Appllc8nt City of Ashland 9cJ Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada Page 40f21 4. Type I Planning Actions - Reconsideration and Appeal A reconsideration process proposal is being added to the procedures. This reconsideration process is an effort to avoid appeal when a factual error has occurred in the decision making process. The Planning Director would review the request and, if reconsideration is granted, the appeal process is stopped until a revised decision is sent out to all concerned parties of the action. An appeal of the Planning Director's decision on Type I planning actions will be to the Planning Commission. The appeal, in accordance with ORS 227.175, would be a de novo hearing. The amendments propose that the Planning Commission would be the city's fmal hearing authority and further appeals could be made to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). 5. Type II Planning Action Procedural Modifications To afford the decision makers with ample opportunity for review, study and preparation of questions, an initial evidentiary hearing is authorized in the new procedures. This allows for information that aids the decision makers to be submitted early in the process and allows for the incolpOration of the information into the final analysis and recommendations of the planning staff. The initial evidentiary hearing could be likened to a neighborhood meeting, but, the input would be recorded and transmitted to the Planning Commission for inclusion in the public record and their review and deliberation. 6. Type II Planning Actions - Reconsideration and Appeal Similar to the reconsideration process outlined for Type I Planning Actions, a reconsideration process is also proposed to be added to the Type II Planning Action procedures. When a factual error has occurred in the decision making process at the Planning Commission, a reconsideration request can be made to the Planning Director. The reconsideration request would be limited to factual errors and would not include the failure to raise an issue during the public input portion of the application. The Planning Commission then will affirm, modifY or reverse the original decision. Notice of the reconsideration decision would then be noticed to any party entitled to notice of the planning action. An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision will be to the City Council. The appeal would be on the record of the Planning Commission. This would allow for a greater public comment period before the decision has been made, and would allow for the public's concerns to be addressed early in the process. The City Administrator would be authorized to review appeals to determine whether additional testimony and evidence could be provided at the appeal before City Council. Planning Action 2007~1283 Applicant City of Ashland lOt) Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ads Page 50f21 7. Notice Requirements Under current procedures for Staff Permits and Type I Planning Actions, the Staff Advisor shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application within 14 days after receipt of a complete application. The Staff Advisor writes findings and conclusions to justify the decision. Then, a notice of the decision is mailed within seven days of the decision to all property owners compiled from the most recent property tax assessment roll within 100 feet of the subject site for Staff Permits and 200 feet of the subject site for Type I Planning Actions. A sign noticing the decision is also placed on the subject site. Persons to whom the notice is mailed then have 10 days from the date of mailing in which to request a public hearing. A hearing is then scheduled for the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission or Hearings Board meeting. The decisions for Type I Planning Actions become final when reviewed by the Planning Commission Hearings Board. According to state law (ORS 197.195), the city shall provide written notice to owners of property within 100 feet of the entire contiguous site for which a complete application is made. A . 14-day period for submission of written comments prior to the decision is required. Following the 14-day comment period, the city shall provide notice of the decision to the applicant and any person who submits comments. The notice of decision must include an explanation of appeal rights and briefly summarize the local decision making process for the land use decision being made. The proposed amendments are to incorporate the state law providing for notice of application fllYl notice of decision. The change would eliminate the 100 foot noticing distance currently used for staff permits and would standardize all notice distances at 200 feet. A sign noticing the land use application would be posted on the site and the application would be available for review on the city's website. The proposed notice of application will provide a better opportunity for the public to comment on applications prior to decisions being made. 8. Type HI Planning Actions The current ordinance authorizes the Planning Commission to make fmal decisions on Zone Changes or Amendments to the Zoning Map or other official maps, except for legislative amendments and Comprehensive Plan Map Changes or changes to other official maps, except for legislative amendments. However, these types of amendments can only be adopted by ordinance, which is a power reserved to the Mayor and City Council. The amendment would state that the Planning Commission decision would be a recommendation to the Mayor and Council for these type of amendments. 9. Appeal Fees Currently no fees are prescribed in the ordinance though the collection of appeal fees could be authorized by resolution of the City Council. According to state law (ORS Planning Action 2007-01283 Appllc:lnt City of Ashland /CJ/ Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada Page 6 of 21 227.175) fees may be set for appeals. The maximum fee that can be charged is $250 when there has not been a public hearing on a land use application. If an appellant prevails at the hearing or in subsequent hearings, the fee for the initial hearing must be refunded. The fee would not apply to appeals made by neighborhood or community organizations recognized by the governing body and whose boundaries include the site. D. Detailed Description of Proposed Code Amendments Easier to Read · Conditional use permits. The current code has requirements for conditional use permits scattered throughout. The proposed amendments list the conditional use permits by zone, so a reader knows all the potential conditional use permits allowed in each zone. · Site Design versus Procedures. The Site Design chapter (18.72) is currently a blend of both standards and procedures. The procedures are removed from this chapter and put into the Procedures (18.108) chapter. At the same time, an attempt is made to make clear what development is subject to Site Design Review and what is exempt. · Definitions. Definitions are amended and new ones added that were not previously included in the code but are necessary in the application of the code. Interoretation and Internal Consistency Issues Every day, planning staff and customers struggle with the meaning or requirements of certain sections of the code. In some circumstances, the intent is clear and a staff decision can be made. In other cases, either the intent is not known or is in question. There are also circumstances where the code can be written to provide better direction. The following are the primary examples of these code amendments: · Lot Coverage. The current defInition of Lot Coverage uses words that do not get to the intent of the requirement. Words such as structure (could include dog houses, bird houses, etc.), soil disturbances and normal water infIltration (no definitions). Customers often argue that gravel driveways should be exempt from the requirement. Staffhas exempted decks with spacing that allows water infIltration, but not solid decks like concrete patios. Technically, the ordinance would require staff to measure walkways in gardens. The proposed definition provides an exemption for some solid porous surfaces and makes the definition much easier to administer. · Gross Floor Area. There are several standards in the code based on gross floor area or gross habitable floor area. New defInitions are added that are easy to administer and consistent with each other. The definitions measure to outside surfaces of the building(s). · Site Design Standards. Some development triggers Site Design Review, but what standards should be applied is not always clear. Examples of this include Planning Action 2007.Q1283 Applicant City of Ashland /()~ Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada Page 7 of 21 attached single family housing (e.g. townhouses) and non-residential development (e.g. schools) in residential zones. The proposed amendments identify how these sections should be applied. In addition, the applicability of the Site Design standards to other tyPes of development is made clear, including the expansion of impervious surface, alterations which affect circulation, and alterations to historic buildings. · Expiration Dates. Site Design Review approvals were never set to expire if not acted upon. A one year limit is proposed. Tree removal permits are the only planning action that had six month permits; these are proposed to change to 1 year permits. Partitions are proposed for 18 months. · Maps. Many of the maps that set standards and regulations are hand drawn maps within booklets. As such, these maps were never in an electronic database or applied to parcels. The city's GIS staff has worked to apply these old maps to current technology. Finally, there is not an official zoning map that can be found by the City Recorder. As a result, the amendments would readopt the maps in a new electronic format, which will then be available by the City Recorder within the new ordinance. Amendment to Standards · Setbacks and Yards. It is standard practice to have building setbacks. The code uses the word "yard", as in a required 15' front yard. The ordinance also did not provide clarity on how setbacks or yards were determined for multi-story buildings. While it would be advantageous to go through the entire ordinance and address this issue, a simpler route was taken by revising the definition of setback (and adding a new defInition of Setback, Special) and by providing clarity as to how setbacks are measured in multi-story buildings. There are also standards for "half-stories", but no defInition; a proposed definition for half-story was added. · North Mountain Zones. When the North Mountain zones were adopted, standards for lot coverage or signs in the commercial areas were not included. Standards consistent with the plan are proposed. · Accessory Residential Units, Density and MPF A in Multi-Family Zones. Under the current standards, it is possible to have more density and Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) in the R-I single family district than in the R-2 or R-3 multi-family districts. This is due to the fact that in multi-family zones, there isn't any such use as an "accessory residential use" since multi-family is allowed and not considered "accessory". In the R-I district, accessory residential units that are detached from the house are exempt from MPF A. · Residential Ground Floor in C-l and E-l zones. The current standards for residential uses are not clear when there are multiple buildings in these zones. The existing standard reads ".. .65% of the total gross floor area of the ground floor, or at least 50% of the total lot area if there are multiple buildings..." The fIrst part is clear (except that gross floor area is not defIned), but how do you calculate 50% of the total lot area when applied to multiple buildings? In addition, the recent Economic Opportunities Analysis points out concerns with Planning Action 2007-01283 AppIlc:lnt City of Ashland /63 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada Page 8 of 21 allowing residential uses in our commercial and employment zones. The standards address the multiple floors by placing an overall limit on how much residential can be allowed for a 2-story building (50%) or multiple story buildings (66%). Thus, a two story building would have one floor of commercial and the second floor could be residential. A three story building could have one story of commercial and two floors of residential. Four or more stories would be required to have upper floors be partly used for commercial or employment purposes. · Tree Protection. The current ordinance does not offer protection for trees on adjacent properties that might have driplines overhanging the site of proposed development. A requirement to identify those trees is added (18.61.050). The ability to require larger trees when replacing a visual screen that is removed is added (18.61.084). · Vision Clearance. The current ordinance measures vision clearance from property lines. This is a disincentive to wide sidewalks and does not address the purpose of the vision clearance area: for pedestrian and vehicular safety. The proposed changes measure setbacks from curb lines. As a result, an exemption for street utilities is necessary for items such as traffic signs, street lights, etc. The amendments were reviewed by the Public Works Director and City Engineer. The State of Oregon standards are dropped from the code as they are within state law and are stopping distances, not vision clearance. · Nonconforming Uses and Structures. The existing standards have contradictions and do not properly reference criteria. A nonconforming use may be changed or a nonconforming Structure enlarged when authorized in accordance with the "procedure" in the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) chapter. It has been argued that the procedures for Conditional Use permit are notice requirements, and not criteria. A reference to two of the three conditional use permit criteria is added. The second problem with this section is that it appears to require a CUP when reconstructing or structurally altering a nonconforming structure. However, there are no definitions as to what reconstruction or structural alteration means, and the third point allows this to occur as ,long as the footprint is not changed in size or shape. The changes proposed would require a CUP only when the structure is enlarged or extended. A nonconforming structure could be structurally altered (enlarged is stricken) without a CUP; however, the use cannot change without a CUP. For example, if a garage had a nonconforming setback, it could be structurally altered unless the use changed, such as to a residential unit. Then, a conditional use permit would be required. . · Mechanical Equipment. The existing code does not appear to provide any clear exemption from Site Design Review, nor does it provide exemptions for placement into yards, etc. There are several amendments proposed that address this issue. o Definitions. Removes the exemptions from the definition and puts these exemptions into the Site Design Chapter. o Setback Exception. Mechanical equipment and associated housing that is not taller than allowed fence heights is proposed to be allowed within Planning Action 2007-01283 Applicant: City of Ashland lo~ Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada Page 9 of 21 required side or rear yards. If this equipment is installed, it must conform to other provisions of the Ashland Code, including noise attenuation. (See 18.68.140) o Site Design Review Exemptions. Three exemptions are provided in Section 18.72.030(B). The first is an exemption for roof-mounted solar collection devices unless within the Employment and Commercial zoned properties in an historic district. The second is the installation of mechanical equipment not visible from the street or adjacent residential property. The third is for the routine maintenance and replacement of existing mechanical equipment. The other exemptions are required by federal law for amateur radios and satellite dishes. · Temporary Storage. We are starting to see an increase in the usage of temporary storage containers throughout the city. These storage containers include signage that is incompatible with city standards, and there are currently no limits on how long these can be kept in place. Proposed standards would allow these units on a temporary basis. Anything longer would require a Conditional Use Permit. (See 18.68.170) · Permit Expiration. The current ordinance allows two extensions of one year each for planning actions. These extensions must be approved with a Staff Permit procedure requiring notice, etc. The permit approval can only be extended when the ordinance has not changed, or the applicant agrees to abide by any changes in the ordinance. The proposed amendment would allow for just one extension of 18 months, and this extension can be approved ministerial by staff with the same requirement that the code has not changed or the applicant agrees to abide by any code changes. (See 18.112.030) E. Cbanges from July 24 draft to August 28'" draft Limited pubic input has been provided at this point in the review of the proposed changes to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. The review that has been received from citizens, Planning Commission members and city staff has helped draft changes to the ordinance to address issues in the fIrst draft. The following are the changes that are included: · Lot Coverage. Revised defInition that proposes allowing solid surface porous driveways as part of an exemption from lot coverage. Review of the original proposal indicated concerns regarding whether driveways were included or not in the exemption. The defInition of solid porous surface is taken from stormwater manuals of Portland and the EP A. · Hotel or Motel. The fIrst draft meant to combine these defInitions. There were concerns expressed that this could open the door for timeshare or more fractional ownership opportunities in the downtown. The defInition has been modifIed to make it a requirement that hotels or motels include a lobby, and that the majority of rooms are not long-term accommodations. · Story and Half Story. Review of the amendments by the Historic Commission raised concerns that buildings would be allowed that are taller than intended at the Planning Action 2007 '{)1283 Appllclnt City of Ashland /0.5 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada Page 10 of 21 setback line, or with respect to MPF A. Together with the addition of a definition for basement, the revised defInitions provide clarity and protection for the intent of the land use standards. The definition of half-story is also amended to make it clear that some daylight basements would be considered a half-story. · Non-conforming. The intent of the fIrst draft was to allow renovation or rehabilitation of existing structures. The use of the word "reconstIUct" was inserted as something that would be allowed without review. Reviewing the dictionary definition of reconstruct identifIed that this would allow a structure to be tom down and replaced. Staff believes if that is allowed, then a conditional use permit and public review should occur. Thus, a new definition of reconstruct is added and the non-conforming section modifIed to require a CUP for reconstruction as is currently required in the ordinance. · Accessory Dwelling Unit. Some public testimony and Planning Commission input requested that we set the same standards for accessory dwelling units in the R-2 and R-3 zones as in the R-l zone. In the R-l zone, you can have an Accessory Dwelling Unit that is 50% of the principal dwelling size, up to 1,000 square feet. The proposed standards would make the ADU standards the same in the R-2 and R-3 zones. · Ground Floor Residential in C-l and E-l. We heard and received public input that requested allowing some limited ground floor residential in these zones. One argument was that ADA might require a unit to be accessible. So, if all residential units are required on the upper floors, an elevator would be required. The change would allow a small ground floor unit (500 sq. feet limit), provided that it meets ADA accessibility requirements. One other comment we heard about this section is to allow lobbies and staircases on the fIrst floor to access the residential use. The new changes add the word "dwelling" as part of th,e prohibition. Thus, staff believes that only the dwelling unit would be prohibited on the ground floor (except the one unit talked about above), with access to upper floors, etc. allowed on the ground floor because it isn't considered part of the "dwelling unit." · Tree Mitigation. One public comment letter requested that tree replacement mitigation be allowed up to a year to allow for constIUction, etc. Staff agrees that where there is signifIcant constIUction occurring, a longer period of time is warranted to replace trees. However, there should be authority to require less or more depending on the situation, so the changes set the standard at one year with the ability to modify that standard as needed. · Cantilever into Floodplain. A Planning Commission member pointed out that the standards in 18.62.070{G) refer to cantilever and pillars. StIUctures that are cantilevered do not have pillars. The intent of the section appears to indicate that either would be acceptable because it refers to a distance of 20 feet, a very long distance for most stIUctures to cantilever. · Vision Clearance. Because the vision clearance standards are currently found in three different places, the ordinance combines these standards into just one place under General Regulations. Because that section exempted the C-I and E-I district from the standards, this would have been a signifIcant change in the ord~ce. The exemption is stricken in this draft. A Planning Commission Planning Action 2007 ~1283 Applicant City of Ashland /0' Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada Page 11of21 member also identified that it wasn't clear that upper stories that are cantilevered over the vision clearance area would be exempt from the requirement. Thus, an exemption is proposed in this draft. · Site Design Applicability. While we provided some exemptions from site design review for mechanical equipment, we didn't make it clear that what isn't exempt is subject to review. · Street and Driveway Access Points. The first draft proposed to change the distance between driveways on residential streets to 24 feet to be consistent with Street Design Standards. However, review of this section again led staff to believe that the intent was for multi-family and commercial development where more traffic and separation of driveways is warranted. Thus, the standards are proposed to be applicable to the same zones as identified in part A of Section 18.72.120. · Flag Drive Turnarounds. The Fire Department provided planning staff with correspondence that indicated that the City Council directed staff to bring an actionable item to them amending the requirement for a fire apparatus turn-around at the end of 150' dead ends rather than 250' dead ends. This change would make the Ashland Land Use Code consistent with the Oregon Fire Code. · Type III Planning Actions. The current ordinance allows the Planning Commission to make final decisions on zoning and comprehensive plan map changes. However, these amendments are to city ordinances, which can only be done under the authority of the Mayor and Council. · Type I Appeals. There is some concern that appeal of staff decisions of Type I pennits might cause an overloading of agenda items before the Planning Commission. The changes would allow the Planning Commission Hearings Board to hear some appeals under the authority granted to them in this code and Title 2 of the Municipal Code. F. Input on Proposed Amendments The proposed amendments were sent to and reviewed by the city's Historic Commission, Tree Commission and Housing Commission. The Historic Commission focused on the definition of half-story and non-conforming structures. Changes to both sections were made as a result of their input. The Tree Commission did not have a quorum, but the amendments were sent to all current members. Only one member sent staff questions, which were resolved in staff responses. The Housing Commission's Land Use Subcommittee and the full commission reviewed the proposal. The Land Use Subcommittee did not raise any specific issues with the proposed amendments. The full commission did support the ordinance provisions applicable to housing, with the following adjustment: Planning Action 2007 ~1283 Applicant City of Ashland 107 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada Page 12of21 · Allow Accessory Residential Units less than 500 square feet to be a pennitted use in the single family zones (they are currently a conditional use). Although notices were sent out to all property owners within the city, and although staff received a considerable volume of phone calls, only two citizens provided written comments to the draft ordinance: Mark Knox and Colin Swales. Both had detailed comments, questions and suggestions in their review, which is attached to this report. Several of their issues have been incOlporated into the second draft of this proposal. G. Options or Alternatives to Consider Options or alternatives that the Planning Commission can consider on some amendments are outlined below. Amend Section 18.08.160. Coveral!e.lot or site. Staff Recommendation: (this ontion nrovides an exemntion for oorous drivewavs) Total area of all st11:leturesbuildings, ana pWiea driveways, or other soil aisturoaflees solid surfaces that will not allow normal water infiltration to the ground. PROVIDED. however. that. Peffile8ble serfa€les UP to ten percent (10%) of the lot area with solid porous surfaces. such as paths. patios. decks. drivewavs or similar surfaces.ffiet iB€lhu:IiBf: anVeYfllYs) are is -exempt from lot coverage requirements. The coverage is expressed as a percentage of such area in relation to the total gross area of the lot or site. Landscaping which does not negatively impact the natural water retention and soil characteristics of the site shall not be deemed part of the lot or site coverage. Staff Recommendlltion without strikeQJlts: Total area of all buildings, driveways, or other solid surfaces that will not allow water infiltration to the ground, PROVIDED, however, that up to ten percent (10%) of the lot area with solid porous surfaces, such as paths, patios, decks, driveways or similar surfaces, is exempt from lot coverage requirements. The coverage is expressed as a percentage of such area in relation to the total gross area of the lot or site. Landscaping which does not negatively impact the natural water retention and soil characteristics of the site shall not be deemed part of the lot or site coverage. Qption 2: (this ontion does not nrovide an exemntion for oorous surface driveways) Total area of all st11:lemresbuildings, and ~veways, or other soil dis1:ureaflees solid surfaces that will not allow fleffiial water infiltration to the ground. PROVIDED. however. that. peffiieaele s1:Hfaees up to ten percent (10%) of the lot area with solid porous surfaces. except buildinl!s and drivewavs.. saM as ea!hs. J'laties~ seeks er similar s1:Hfaees (Bet iBelasiBf: sflvewa'/s) are is exempt from lot coverage re uirements. The coverage is expressed as a percentage of such area in relation to the total gross area of the lot or site. Landscaping which does not negatively impact the natural water retention and soil characteristics of the site shall not be deemed part of the lot or site coverage. Ootion 2 wit/fout strikeouts: Total area of all buildings and driveways, or other solid surfaces that will not allow water infiltration to the ground, PROVIDED, however, that up to ten percent (10%) of Planning Action 2007-01283 App!lcInt City of Ashland /0'6 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada Page 13 of21 the lot area with solid porous surfaces, except buildings and driveways, is exempt from lot coverage requirem~ts. The coverage is expressed as a percentage of such area in relation to the total gross area of the lot or site. Landscaping which does not negatively impact the natural water retention and soil characteristics of the site shall not be deemed part of the lot or site coverage. Amend Section 18.08.320. Hotel or Motel Staff Recommendation: (definition that would limit "timeshare residential" ) A facility offering transient lodging accommodations to the general pubic and which mav include additional facilities and services. such as restaurants. meeting rooms. entertainment. personal services. and recreational facilities. and which includes a public lobby and on-site staff. At least 60% of the rooms shall have occupancies of 30 days or less. buildiRg iR vAiich 10dgiRg is provided to guests for compeRsation and in viflieh RD provisioRs are maee for e0elciRg iR the loagiRg rooms. ODtion 2: (definition as orilrinaIlv drafted) A facility offering transient lodging accommodations to the general pubic and which may include additional facilities and services. such as restaurants. meeting rooms. entertainment. personal services. and recreational facilities. buildiRg iR v/hieh lodging is pro'/ided to guests for cOffipefl:sation liftd in 'lIhich ao provisions are made for €looking in the loagiRg rooms. ODtion 3: (do nothing) Eliminate definition change of hotel or motel from ordinance. R-2 and R-3. General ReguJations Staff Recommendation: (allows ADD exemption from density and MPF A UP to 1.000 SQ. ft. as allowed in R-l) A. Permitted Density. 1. Base Densities and Minimum Lot Dimensions. The density of the development, including the density gained through bonus points, shall not exceed the density established by this section. The density shall be computed by dividing the total number of dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the public. The minimum density shall be 80% of the calculated base density. Fractional portions of the answer shall not apply towards the total density. Base density for the R-2 zone shall be 13.5 dwelling units per acre, in addition to the following standards and exceptions: a. An accessory residential unit is not required to meet density or minimum lot area requirements. be. hO':i€Wer, l:i!lnits. not considered as an accessory residential unit and ~ less than 500 square feet of gross habitable area shall count as 0.75 units for the purposes of density calculations, .....ith the follo'l;iag restrictiofts. b. An aeeessery resieeRtial tiftit is Bet rec:ltiiftle ta Hieet seRsitv feal:iifelBeJKs. Bfe'/ises the 1:lfiit is less tkaR SQQ satifH'e fetlt iR ff0SS floer area. Qa. Minimum lot area for less than 2 units ttffiH-shall be 5000 sq. ft. with a Planning Action 2007-01283 Applicant City of Ashland lor Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada Page 14 of 21 minimum width of 50' and minimum depth of 80'. gB. Minimum lot area for 2 units shall be 7,000 sq. ft. with a minimum width of 50' and a minimum depth of80'. ~. Developments of 3 units or greater shall have minimum lot area in excess of9ooo sq. ft. aM-exceot as determined by the base density and allowable bonus point calculations, and shall have a minimum width of 50' and a minimum depth of 80'. I. Maximum Permitted Floor Area for single family dwellings on individual lots within the Historic District. The maximum pennitted floor area for single family primary dwellings on individual lots within the-.illLHistoric District shall be determined by the following: 1. The maximum pennitted floor area shall include the total floor space of all floors (gross floor area) of the primary dwelling measured to the outside surfaces of the building, including but not limited to .exterior walls, potential living spaces within the structure with at least 7' of head room and attached garages. The floor area shall not include basements, detached garages, detached accessory structures, or detached accessory a se6eHd residential units OR eHe lot that is less thaH 500 SStlllf'e feet ill. eress fleer area. Detached garages, accessory structures, or accessory residential units shall be separated from other structures by a minimum of 6', except that unenclosed breezeways or similar open structures may connect the structures. J. Maximum Permitted Floor Area for multiple dwellings on a single lot and new residential construction in Performance Standards Options land divisions created within fhe-an Historic District. The MPF A fer lEl:dtiple Ek'lellings on a single lot '.vi thin the Historic District shall be determined by the following: 1. The MPF A shall include the total floor space of all floors (gross floor area) of the priRiftry dwelling units measured to the outside surfaces of the building([), including but not limited to exterior walls, potential living spaces within the structure with at least 7' of head room and attached garages. The floor area shall not include basertlents, detached garages, detached accessory structures, or !tdetached accessory se68Rd residential units on eRe let that is less t8aH 500 s~l:iare feet ill. eress fleer area. Detached garages, accessory structures, or accessory residential units shall be separated from other structures by a minimum of 6' , except that unenclosed breezeways or similar open structures may connect the structures. ODtion 2: (first oroDOsal which allows ADD exemntion from density MPF A un to 500 sa. ft. only) A. Permitted Density. 1. Base Densities and Minimum Lot Dimensions. The density of the development, including the density gained through bonus points, shall not exceed the density established by this section. The density shall be computed by dividing the total number of dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the public. The minimum density shall be 80% of the calculated base density. Fractional portions of the answer shall not apply Planning Action 2007-01283 Applicant City of Ashland //0 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada Page 15 of21 I towards the total density. Base density for the R-2 zone shall be 13.5 dwelling units per acre, in addition to the following standards: ~however, aUnits of less than 500 square feet of gross habitable area shall count as 0.75 units for the purposes of density calculations, v.'ith the followiag restrietions. b. An accessory residential unit is not required to meet density requirements. provided the unit is less than 500 square feet in grOSS floor area. fa. Minimum lot area for less than 2 units tttHt+shall be 5000 sq. ft. with a minimum width of 50' and minimum depth of 80'. ge. Minimum lot area for 2 units shall be 7,000 sq. ft. with a minimum width of 50' and a minimum depth of 80'. ~. Developments of 3 units or greater shall have minimum lot area in excess of 9000 sq. ft. ftfl6-except as determined by the base density and allowable bonus point calculations, and shall have a minimum width of 50' and a minimum depth of 80'. I. Maximum Permitted Floor Area for single famHy dwellings on individual lots within the mstoric District. The maximum permitted floor area for single family primary dwellings on individual lots within tfte-QILHistoric District shall be determined by the following: I. The maximum permitted floor area shall include the total floor space of all floors (gross floor area) of the primary dwelling measured to the outside surfaces of the building, including but not limited to exterior walls, potential living spaces within the structure with at least 7' of head room and attached garages. The floor area shall not include basements, detached garages, detached accessory structures, or ~detached accessory residential units on one lot that is less than 500 square feet in grOSS floor area. Detached garages, accessory structures, or aecessory residential units shall be separated from other structures by a minimum of 6', except that unenclosed breezeways or similar open structures may connect the structures. J. Maximum Permitted Floor Area for multiple dwellings on a single lot and new residential construction in Performance Standards Options land divisions created within the-an Historic District. The MPF A for ffil:lltiple dwelIiags OR a siagle lot withia the Histerie Distriet shall be determined by the following: 1. The MPF A shall include the total floor space of all floors (gross floor area) of the flrimary dwelling units measured to the outside surfaces of the buildingW, including but not limited to exterior walls, potential living spaces within the structure with at least 7' of head room and attached garages. The floor area shall not include basements, detached garages, detached accessory structures, or ~detached aeeessory second residential units on one lot that is less than 500 square feet in grOSS floor area. Detached garages, accessory structures, or aeeessery residential units shall be separated from other structures by a minimum of 6', except that unenclosed breezeways or similar open structures may connect the structures. SDeCial Permitted Uses Planning Action 2007-01283 Applicant City of Ashland III Ashland Planning Deparbnent - Staff Report ada Page 16 of 21 Staff Recommendation: (This oDtion allows small residential unit on lY'Ound floor with /i!!JiJIl. D. Residential uses. 1. Residential dwelling units. and their associated parking or storage. are prohibited on the ground floor. except as allowed below. Multi-story or multi- unit buildings on a lot. including habitable basement areas. shall not have more than fifty percent (SO%) of the entire grOSS floor area of the building(s) in residential use for ~o story buildings and sixty-six percent (66%) for three or more stOry buildings. .^.t least 6S~(, of the total gross floor area of the ground floor, or at least SO~<' of the total lot area ifthcre arc multiple bliildiHgs shall be designated f-or permitted or speoial permitted uses, CJwllidiHg residootial. a. A residential dwelling unit mav be allowed on the ground floor if gross floor area of the dwelling unit is less than five hundred (SOO) sauare feet and no more than twenty percent (20%) of the gross floor area of the ground floor. b. Residential dwelling units on the ground floor must meet accessibility (ADA) reauirements. c. Residential dwelling units on the ground floor may not be located along street frontage. except allevs. Ootion 2: (This oodon maintains Drohibition of residential on lY'Ound floor) D. Residential uses. 1. Residential dwelling units. and their associated parking or storage. are prohibited on the ground floor. Multi-story or multi-unit buildings on a lot. including habitable basement areas. shall not have more than fifty percent (SO%) of the entire grOSS floor area of the building( s) in residential use for two stOry buildings and sixty-six percent (66%) for three or more story buildings. .\t least 6S~(' of the total gross floor area of the grOliHd floor, or at least SO% of the total lot area if there are multiple bliildiHgs shall be desigHatcd for pertHitted or speoial pOffiiitted lises, e~wludiHg resideHtial. Amend Section 18.61.084. Mitie:ation Reauired Staff Recommendation: (This oDtion reiluires mitil!ation within one 1letl1' or lIS set forth in aDDroved Dlan) An applicant ~shall be required to provide mitigation for any tree approved for removal. The mitigation requirement shall be satisfied by one or more of the following: A. Replanting on site. The applicant shall plant either a minimum 1 ~-inch caliper healthy and well-branched deciduous tree or a 5-6 foot tall evergreen tree for each tree removed. The replanted tree shall be of a species that will eventually equal or exceed the removed tree in size if appropriate for the new location. Larger trees may be required where the mitigation is intended. in part. to replace a visual screen between land uses. "Suitable" species means the tree's growth habits and environmental requirements are conducive to the site. given the Planning Action 2007-01283 Applicant City of Ashland II~ Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada Page 17 of 21 existing topographv. soils. other vegetation. exposure to wind and sun. nearby structures. overhead wires. etc. The tree shall be planted and maintained according to the specifications in the City Tree Planting and Maintenance Guidelines as approved by the City Council. D. An approved mitigation olan shall be fullv implemented within onc Bl:ia81'ea eigfity (180) aa'ls year of a tree being removed unless otherwise set forth in a tree removal application and approved in the tree removal oermit. Ootion 2: (This oDtion reauires miti~ation within 180 davs as ori~inallv DrODosed) An applicant fftaY-:shall be required to provide mitigation for any tree approved for removal. The mitigation requirement shall be satisfied by one or more of the following: A. Replanting on site. The applicant shall plant either a minimum I 'is-inch caliper healthy and well-branched deciduous tree or a 5-6 foot tall evergreen tree for each tree removed. The replanted tree shall be of a species that will eventually equal or exceed the removed tree in size if appropriate for the new location. Larger trees mav be required where the mitigation is intended. in part. to replace a visual screen between land uses. "Suitable" species means the tree's growth habits and environmental requirements are conducive to the site. given the existing topographv. soils. other vegetation. exposure to wind and sun. nearby structures. overhead wires. etc. The tree shall be planted and maintained according to the specifications in the City Tree Planting and Maintenance Guidelines as approved by the City Council. D. An approved mitigation plan shall be fullv implemented within one hundred eighty (180) days of a tree being removed. Amend Section 18.62.070. Develo,pment Standards for Flood plain Corridor Lands Staff Recommendation: (this option allows pillars for 2nd stOry construction) G. New non-residential uses may be located on that portion of Flood plain Corridor lands that equal to or above the flood elevations on the official maps adopted in section 18.62.060. Second story construction may be cantilevered or supported bv pillars that will have minimal impact on the flow of floodwaters over the Flood plain corridor for a distance of 20 feet if it does not impact riparian vegetation. and the clearance from finished grade is at least ten feet in height, and is s~arte6 BY l'illaFB tBat will have minitpal impact on the flow of floodwaters. The finished floor elevation may not be more than two feet below the flood corridor elevations. Ootion 2: (this option allows cantilever. but no pillars for 2nd stOry construction) G. New non-residential uses may be located on that portion of Flood plain Corridor. lands that equal to or above the flood elevations on the official maps adopted in section 18.62.060. Second story construction may be cantilevered over the Flood plain corridor for a distance of 20 feet if it does not impact riparian vegetation. and the clearance from finished grade is at least ten feet in height;--aBtHs B~ef'te8 BY I'illars that will Btl'/e miaimal. ilflt3aet eft the fle'.v ef fleec:hvat0fG. The finished floor elevation may not be more than two feet below the flood corridor elevations. Planning Action 2007-01283 Applicant City of Ashland 11-3 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada Page 18 of 21 Add Section 18.68.170. Temporarv Storage. Staff Recommendation: (this option as ori2inally drafted with limits on stora~e) A. Leased or rented temporary storage containers and structures greater than 90 square feet is ~ess fleer area are permitted in Residential. Health Care Services. North Mountain Neighborhood and SOU zoning districts for a period not to exceed 30-days in anyone year period provided the storage container or structure is associated with moving. building construction. renovation or demolition. The Staff Advisor mav grant a 30-day extension upon finding extenuating circumstances in which the property owner was not responsible. B. Temporary. leased storage containers and structures greater than 90 square feet ift ~ess fleer area and visible from a public right-of-way. open space or parkland are permitted in Commercial. Emplovment and Industrial zoning districts for a period not to exceed 90-days in anyone year period provided the leased storage container or structure is associated with moving. building construction. renovation or demolition. The Staff Advisor may grant a 30-day extension upon finding extenuating circumstances in which the property owner or leaseholder was not responsible. Ootion 2: (this option Provides for lon~er periods for active buildin~ oroiects) A. Leased or rented temporary storage containers and structures greater than 90 square feet is f'feSS fleer area are permitted in Residential. Health Care Services. North Mountain Neighborhood and SOU zoning districts for a period not to exceed six (6) months 30 EIa'ls in anyone year period provided the storage container or structure is associated with moviftlZ. building construction. renovation or demolition. or for a period of up to 30-days if associated with moving. The Staff Advisor may grant a ();o-day extension upon finding extenuating circumstances in which the property owner was not responsible. B. Temporarv. leased storage containers and structures greater than 90 square feet is gress fleer area and visible from a public right-of-way. open space or parkland are permitted in Commercial. Emplovment and Industrial zoning districts for a period not to eK6eOO 90 Elays nine months in any efle two year period provided the leased storage container or structure is associated with moving. building: construction. renovation or demolition. The Staff Advisor may grant a ';90-day extension upon finding extenuating circumstances in which the property owner or leaseholder was not responsible. Ootion 3: (this option is a hybrid ofOotion I and 2 based on visibility ofsima~e) A. Leased or rented temporary storage containers and structures greater than 90 square feet is eress :Heer area are permitted in Residential. Health Care Services. North Mountain Neighborhood and SOU zonin!!: districts for a period not to exceed 30-days in anyone year period provided the storage container or structure is associated with moving. building construction. renovation or demolition. The Staff Advisor may grant a 30-day extension upon findin~ extenuating circumstances in which the property owner was not responsible. Planning Action 2007-01283 Applicant City of Ashland /1'1 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada Page 19of21 B. Leased or rented temoorarv storage containers and structures greater than 90 square feet if!. ~ss fleer &rea are oennitted in Residential. Health Care Services. North Mountain Neighborhood and SOU zoning districts for a period not to exceed six (6) months 30 clays in anv one year oeriod provided the storage container or structure is associated with moviRI!. building construction. renovation or demolition. provided that anv sign on the storage container is less than one (]) sauare feet in sign area. The Staff Advisor mav grant a 6:3D-dav extension uoon finding extenuating circumstances in which the prooertv owner was not resoonsible. CB. Temporarv. leased storage containers and structures greater than 90 square feet if!. ~ss fleer area and visible from a public right-of-way. open space or parkland are permitted in Commercial. Emplovment and Industrial zoning districts for a period not to exceed 90-davs in anyone year period provided the leased storage container or structure is associated with moving. building construction. renovation or demolition. The Staff Advisor may grant a 30-day extension upon finding extenuating circumstances in which the prooertv owner or leaseholder was not responsible. D. Temporary. leased storage containers and structures greater than 90 square feet if!. lffess fleer area and visible from a public right-of-way. open space or parkland are permitted in Commercial. Emplovment and Industrial zoning districts for a period not to l*€Ieea 99 clavs nine months in any efte two vear oeriod provided the leased storage container or structure is associated with moving. building construction. renovation or demolition. provided that anv sign on the storage container is less than one (l ) square feet in sign area. The Staff Advisor may grant a ".90-day extension upon finding extenuating circumstances in which the property owner or leaseholder was not responsible. Ootion 4: (do nothin2 - don't add anv orovisions) II. Procedural - Reauired Burden of Proof The Ashland Planning Commission initiated amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan in accordance with Ashland Land Use Ordinance 18.1 08.170. The state Department of Land Conservation and Development (OLCD) was noticed of the proposed amendments in accordance with ORS 197.610. In accordance with Oregon State Law, a Measure 56 notice to property owners regarding any change in land use law that "adopts or amends an ordinance in a manner that limits or prohibits land uses previously allowed in the affected zone" was sent to every property owner of record within the city limits. Over 9,000 properties received notice. According to ORS 227.186, all legislative acts relating to comprehensive plans, land use planning or zoning adopted by a city shall be by ordinance. Before taking final action on a proposed amendment, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment on September 11,2007. After receipt of the report on the amendment from the Commission, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on the amendment. Planning Action 2007 ~1283 Appliclnt: City of Ashland 1/5 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ads Page 20 of 21 IV. Conclusions and Recommendations These changes are in response to several initiatives, including Council Goals, Planning Commission Goals, the Planning Department Audit by Zucker Systems, the Land Use Ordinance Review prepared by Siegel Planning Services, and the review of the city's land use procedures by the Community Development Director and the Planning Department staff. Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance modifications, including changes deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Planning Action 2007-01283 Applicant City of Ashland 116 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada Page 21 of 21 WRITTEN COMMENTS To: Ashland Planning Commission From: Bonnie Brodersen, 635 Wrights Creek, Ashland, OR Date: September 10, 2007 Re: Comments Concerning Amendments to the ALVa's (Chapter 18, et al) Response to Ashland Land Use Ordinances, Proposed Draft Amendments. Section: 18.08.160 Coverage By removing the word "nonnal" a surface that allows even 1 % water infiltration would not be included in the definition of "coverage." Why is a deck or patio considered a porous surface? Driveways, even permeable driveways do not allow for normal infiltration. Permeable driveways, which are relatively new and untested, get clogged with dirt, but even if they aren't clogged, they do not allow for normal infiltration. If there is not normal infihration, there will be runoff into our streams and creeks. Runoff, which carries oil, sediment, pesticides, etc. pollute our wetlands, creeks and streams and causes bank erosion. All surfaces on a lot which cause runoff should be included in the definition of "coverage. " The definition of coverage as revised, will contribute to flooding and pollution of our waterways and increased destruction of the natural flora on a lot. The proposed revisions violate Ashland's Comprehensive Plan which has as two of its Goals: to "[p ]rotect the quality of riparian resource lands... " and "[t]o preserve and protect significant wetlands, and to mitigate potential impacts on these areas due to development and conflicting uses." (CP page IV-ll & 13) 18.12.020 The changes and addition of new "overlays" makes the ALVa's difficuh to interpret. For example, are site design and use standards now only applicable to construction in the DSR overlay? And is the DSR a zoning district? Is the Freeway Sign Overlay a zoning district, because 18.12.030A implies that these are zoning districts. What is a Residential overlay zoning district? It's unclear. Change/addition of a zoning district requires precise, explicit notice to affected property owners. The general notice sent to owners is not sufficient. 18.20.030 What is the defmition for a "wireless communication facility"? Would a wireless communication facility include tall cell poles, lattice towers, steahh structures? Has the excess radiowaves, EMF's etc. emanating onto the property of city residents been considered? What is a disc antenna for commercial use? Placing cell towers, disc antennas, etc. in residential districts violates the Valdez Principles, to which Ashland is a subscriber (via City Council endorsement in the 1990's) and violates the Comprehensive Plan (CP). II 7 18.22.040 R-I-3.5 Variances should be subject to a Type II procedure because a Variance is a discretionary decision. Several Sections Enlargement of nonconforming uses should not be permitted anywhere. 18.61.035 I Why should the City be exempted from meeting Code requirement for tree removal on public land or in ROW's? City controlled property should be held to the same standards as privately owned property. 18.68.020 The proposed additions to Exception (1) and Exception (2) should be eliminated. Applying Exception 1 will require that most trees on comers will have to be trimmed up to 14 feet from the base which will affect the beauty of our city streets. Unless it can be shown that many accidents are caused by tree branches extending below 8 feet, this is an unnecessary proposal, will be difficuh to enforce and will affect the natural beauty of our city. Exception (2) appears to allow public and private utilities in a vision clearance area - part of which will be on a private lot. The City can not place public utilities or permit private utilities (other than those utilities of the lot owner) to be placed on a private lot unless there is an easement for same. 18.108.030 The City does not have to enact local implementation provisions for an "Expedited Land Division" because the expedited land division is available (locally) by state Statute. (The local government will have to enact a fee schedule). Why clutter the Code by adding an ordinance whose provisions are already available under state statute? 18.108.040 Type I Procedure The proposed ALUO removes new structures greater than 2,500 square feet. from a Type I procedure review. In recent years very large homes have been the choice of developers in Ashland. Many of these homes house only two persons. For ecological reasons and for getting the most benefit from the land available for development in Ashland, the City should discourage the construction of large homes. Furthermore, the larger the home, the more impact it has on a neighborhood (greater impact during construction, more impervious surfaces, disturbance of natural area, etc.). More aggressive oversight by the Planning Dept. by way of a Type I review is one means of discouraging larger homes. And it is prudent to allow neighbors to have their say when a home in excess of2500 square feet is built nearby. The Type I procedure offers neighbors an opportunity for notice and to be heard. II g ( ..'.- .J .....# c) Page 1 of 1 David Stalheim - Proposed Land Use Ordinance amendments ..!1l1Uil! ,..... r I1lIDI' l1 -, _l - . -q in. I La..l "I TI r h. From: To: Date: Subject: "JOHN SCHWENDENER" <jpschwen@msn.com> < Sta Iheid@ashland.or.us> 9/9/20076:16 PM Proposed Land Use Ordinance amendments .-.---------- .__._-~--~_..__.__._._._--- ------.-----.--------------.-- _._----_._--------_._~.__._-_..._.-._--~-,._---_. ----.-.----.--. David Stalheim/Planning Dept. I'm writing to express my concern over the proposed changes to the Employment Zone (E-1) with a residential overlay. The proposed changes are significant and would effect the use and value of our property. I have some concerns, suggestions and questions. One concern would be not allowing garages or storage on the ground level for residential units. Perhaps limiting the allowed garage area to (1) single car garage per residential unit with a maximum of 3 on the ground level would eliminate the concern over having garage space take up a lot of employment property. Building underground parking on a small project would be cost prohibitive. Another thought might be to allow (3) garages on the ground level instead of a 500 square foot ground level ADA unit. Another concern would be only allowing 50% residential on two story buildings. If a 500 square foot residential unit is allowed on the ground floor at a maximum of 20% coverage, this would be a minimum 2500 sq. ft. foot print. The second floor could have two 1250 sq. ft. units making a nice symmetrical aesthetically pleasing building with 60% of the building being residential. Having the ability to build residential units help make the economics work to build an employment type building. The above proposal regarding garages would also allow for 66% residential on 2 story buildings. Please consider something more that 50% residential on 2 story buildings. Would these proposed changes lead to measure 37 claims? It seems that the changes would reduce the value of the effected properties. In addition is would reduce the existing options that are in the current zoning permitted uses. The current E-1 zoning permitted uses make good sense for small single building projects. There are some wording clarifications that would be helpful but a blanket change to the allowable uses in E-1 may have undesired unintended consequences. Please take the time to make sure this is well thought out before changes are made. Thank you for your thoughts and considerations. John Schwendener E-1 property owner 119 file://C:\Documents and Settings\stalheid\Local Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOI.HTM 9/10/2007 From: To: Date: Subject: Dennis Goldstein <dgoldstein_alas@yahoo.com> David Stalheim <stalheid@ashland.or.us> 9/10/20073:32:47 PM Re: land Use Ordinance changes Thanks for your quick response. I still have the following concerns. If the Planning Commission decides at this time not to revise the Ordinance more comprehensively, I hope that it will quickly act to overhaul it. In my opinion, the difficulties in navigating and reading the Ordinance are undercutting its laudable purposes and wasting the staff and public's time. The fourteen day response time following a Type I notice is insufficient, given the difficulties with the Ordinance. Also, an affected property owner may need time to arrange for a lawyer or other expert to interpret the Ordinance and determine if its requirements have been met. The Type I decision notices should inform affected property owners about the appeal and reconsideration requirements, including fees and deadlines. This will save time in having to search the Ordinance for these requirements. -- David Stalheim <stalheid@ashland.or.us>wrote: > Dennis, > > Thanks for your review of the Ashland land Use > Ordinance. I just finished reading your letter and > wanted to respond briefly to your comments. > > As I mentioned in our conversation today, these > amendments were largely intended to be a "finger in > the dike" to address obvious problems in the > existing ordinance. It is clear that the ordinance > has been pieced together over the years, resulting > in chapters that are out of sequence and definitions > in many different places. The Planning Commission > and staff chose to not do the full rewrite of the > ordinance at this time because we felt that the city > should focus on some policy issues first, which > would likely necessitate changes in the land use > code. So, some of the reorganization that you > suggest to make it easier to read is something we > think should be held off to another time. > > Your comments about official city maps, etc. is > something that I need to look at. Again, at times I~O > in the past, maps were "adopted" that had some > official regulatory power, but references to them > were not broadly identified in the ordinance. I > took a quick stab at trying to do that, but know > that we should clean that up. > > The Solar Access Chapter is not proposed for > revision at this time. It is overly complex and can > be simplified. It is a topic that we think should > be addressed in the near future. > > The comment about appeal to council and being a > jurisdictional defect is a legal standard > recommended by our attorney to be included. Perhaps > there is another sentence that can be added to make > it clear to the lay person what that means. > > There are several terms in this ordinance that > cannot be easily separated without a total review of > their applicability in the ordinance. Gross floor > area is one of those terms. I'm not sure that we > can make that change without a ripple effect, but I > will take a look at that as an option. > > Thanks for the comment about parking. I will look > and see if that needs change. > > The Type I notice period is the state standards. > While I probably agree that more time is needed for > notice, the state sets a requirement that we 1) send > out notice AFTER we deem the application is complete > and 2) that we make final decisions, including any > appeals, within 120 days. We have put this out into > a timeline and we are extremely tight on our > timelines to comply with the statute. If we sent > out a notice at the time of application, we would > have to send out another notice when we deemed it > complete. This causes a large workload on our > staff. We do post pre-application conferences on > our web site, so people could peruse that if they > were interested in monitoring what applications are > being looked at. > > The final ordinance before city council would > include the effective date and other standards that > legal would put into the ordinance. The draft is > meant as the review of substantive terms that the > Planning Commission is concerned about. > > Again, thanks for your review. I will send the > Planning Commission your letter and this response. > Please feel free to get in touch with me if you have > any questions regarding my response. > > > David Stalheim, Director 1 ~I () \.J Page 1 of2 David Stalheim - Land Use Ordinance changes .- IUT _Vi nr H From: To: Date: Subject: David 5talheim dgoldstein_alas@yahoo.com 9/7/20075:08 PM Land Use Ordinance changes .<--- ~---"._,-_.,-_._--- -_._-- ___._.____u_.__..___~___~.,_..__._,.. _.. ._'_._____.________~____'"_ .----.--.----.~--,.__._____._,.___._d_._._,....__H_"______ Dennis, Thanks for your review of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. I just finished . reading your letter and wanted to respond briefly to your comments. As I mentioned in our conversation today, these amendments were largely intended to be a "finger in the dike" to address obvious problems in the existing ordinance. It is clear that the ordinance has been pieced together over the years, resulting in chapters that are out of sequence and definitions in many different places. The Planning Commission and staff chose to not do the full rewrite of the ordinance at this time because we felt that the city should focus on some policy issues first, which would likely necessitate changes in the land use code. So, some of the reorganization that you suggest to make it easier to read is something we think should be held off to another time. Your comments about official city maps, etc. is something that I need to look at. Again, at times in the past, maps were "adopted" that had some official regulatory power, but references to them were not broadly identified in the ordinance. I took a quick stab at trying to do that, but know that we should clean that up. The Solar Access Chapter is not proposed for revision at this time. It is overly complex and can be simplified. It is a topic that we think should be addressed in the near future. The comment about appeal to council and being a jurisdictional defect is a legal standard recommended by our attorney to be included. Perhaps there is another sentence that can be added to make it clear to the lay person what that means. There are several terms in this ordinance that cannot be easily separated without a total review of their applicability in the ordinance. Gross floor area is one of those terms. I'm not sure that we can make that change without a ripple effect, but I will take a look at that as an option. Thanks for the comment about parking. I will look and see if that needs change. The Type I notice period is the state standards. While I probably agree that more time is needed for notice, the state sets a requirement that we 1) send out notice AFTER we deem the application is complete and 2) that we make final decisions, including any appeals, within 120 days. We have put this out into a timeline and we are extremely tight on our timelines to comply with the statute. If we sent out a notice at the time of application, we would have to send out another notice when we deemed it complete. This causes a large workload on our staff. We do post pre-application conferences on our web site, so people could peruse that if they were interested in monitoring what applications are being looked at. The final ordinance before city council would include the effective date and other standards that legal would put into the ordinance. The draft is meant as the review of substantive terms that the Planning Commission is concerned about. Again, thanks for your review. I will send the Planning Commission your letter and this response. Please feel free to get in touch with me if you have any questions regarding my response. I)~ file://C:\Documents and Settings\stalheid\Local Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOl.HTM 9/1 0/2007 (~1 .47 () Fl:'C:.\~'~_~J September 7, 2007 ' , dj City of Ashland Planning Commission c/o Community Development Department 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 G;ty of A'lrland Commuflity Development RE: 2007 Proposed Land Use Amendments Dear Planning Commission Members: This responds to the City of Ashland's request for public comments about the proposed amendments to the Land Use Ordinance. After reviewing the amendments and ordinance, I have the following comments. I support the general objectives of the ordinance and commend David Stalheim's goal to make the ordinance easier to read and to resolve its internal inconsistencies. In reviewing the ordinance, I often found it difficult to navigate and understand despite having thirty years experience in drafting and using real estate codes. While the proposed amendments improve the ordinance, it still needs a makeover. Many aspects of the makeover would not take a lot oftime. To make the ordinance easier to navigate and read, I suggest the following: REORGANIZE THE LIST OF CHAPTERS. Group the Chapters by topic. For example, place the SOU District Chapter with the other districts. Group together the chapters about requirements for individual properties and lump together the chapters on major changes, such as partitions, annexations, etc. PROVIDE A CLEARER DESCRIPTION IN THE CHAPTER HEADINGS. For example, change the Chapter on General Regulations to "Requirements for Yards, Excavations, Utilities, Driveways and Grades". Also, more clearly describe other key terms such as the Type I, Type IT and Type ill applications. For example, Type ill procedures would be Zoning Changes, Annexations and Urban Growth Boundary Amendments. These change~ will enable readers unfamiliar with the ordinance more easily to access pertinent parts of the ordinance. PLACE EACH TOPIC UNDER ONE CHAPTER OR HEADING. For example, place the tree protection sections of Chapter 62 under Chapter 61 and cross-reference them. DEFINE ALL KEY TERMS AND PLACE THEM IN THE DEFINITION CHAPTER. Many key terms, such as "official City maps", "ORS" and "overlay", are not defmed. The Ordinance contains six locations with definitions, resulting in much duplication and extra searching for terms. USE UNIFORM CITATIONS OF THE ORDINANCE. The ordinance and proposed amendments use several different cite captions, including section, Section and ALUO., Sometimes, no caption is used. Use a uniform caption to avoid confusion. Chapters are also not 1~3 '~~\ (,; () uniformly cited. ELIMINATE THE LEGALESE, OVERTECHNICAL TERMS AND OTHERWISE CONFUSING LANGUAGE. For example, parts of the Solar Access Chapter are too technical or obtuse and are unintelligible to the average person. The proposed amendment to Section 18.108.110, Appeal to Council, states that "Failure to adhere to the procedural requirements ... is a jurisdictional defect." Lay people will not understand the meaning of jurisdictional defect. ELIMINATE THE REPETITNE LANGUAGE. For example, the proposed amendments add a definition for "gross floor area" but retain language in the definition in other parts of the code, including the amended sections of 18.28.040 I. Eliminating the duplication will shorten the ordinance and minimize inconsistencies. FILL IN THE GAPS IN THE ORDINANCE. The Classifications Chapter omits the RI _ 3.5 zoning classification, which is described in a later Chapter. The Classifications Chapter lists P, R, FS and DSR overlays, which are not further described in the Ordinance. Perhaps, like the Airport overlay, these other overlays should each have a Chapter description. Also, I have the following substantive comments about the proposed amendments: MAPS. The amendment to Section 18.12.030 is confusing, referring both to a Zoning and Land Use Control map and maps. Section 108.060 refers to changes to the "Comprehensive Plan Map" and to "other official maps". These terms are not defined in the Definitions Chapter, so I would define them. If there are other pertinent City maps that identify hillside lands, flood plains, and other areas with physical and environmental constraints, I suggest identifying them in Chapter 18.12 and indicating where online and hard copy versions of all official maps can be viewed. PARKING. The amended provision on Size and Access, Section 18.92.070, fails to indicate how much back-up maneuvering space is required where the parking spaces are angled. The section refers to a parking layout chart at the end of the Chapter that I did not see online. NOTICE OF TYPE I APPLICATIONS. The proposed notice revisions are an improvement over the current procedure. Still, they may not be soon enough or provide sufficient time for affected persons to comment. Thus, I recommend that the notice be sent at the time of the pre-application conference or when the application is filed. Due to the complexity ofthe ordinance's requirements, the comment period should be at least thirty days. The notice should inform people of the specific comment requirements, including deadlines. NOTICE OF DECISIONS. These notices should inform affected persons of the specific appeal rights and procedures, including deadlines and fees. ORDINANCE INTERPRETATIONS. The City Attorney, who would have to defend any interpretation in court, can interpret the ordinance and obtain guidance from the planning director when necessary. Eliminating the planning commission and council from the process will be more efficient and less political. The ordinance should indicate the interpretation does not have the I:J, 1- /-r~:~ \~iI () effect of a law and point out where people can view copies of the interpretations. EFFECTNE DATE. The revised ordinance should indicate when it takes effect and the extent to which pending matters are subject to the revisions. Thanks for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed ordinance. I would be glad to answer any questions about the comments. My address, phone number and email address are respectively 766 Roca Street, 482-2135 and dlZoldstein alas@vahoo.com. Sincerely, ~ 91di~ Dennis Goldstein I~S , ; .~~ Michael H. Young Jacquelyn 1. Young 930 Beverly Way Jacksonville, OR 97530 Sept. 7, 2007 City of Ashland Dept. of Community Development 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Amend Section 18.40.030 E-1 Special Permitted Uses As an E-1 property owner in the City of Ashland, we are writing to state the concerns we have in regard to the City's above referenced proposal. It seems to us that the proposed changes would have a greater impact on smaller property owners, such as ourselves. The current E-1 permitted uses are workable the way theyare. By limiting the residential usage to a maximum of only 50% would create an economic challenge. Being able to have more residential space helps to offset the cost of development of the commercial/employment space. By reducing the residential percentage, you are also reducing the value of the property. Another major concern is the residential parking/storage issue. If not allowed on the ground floor, where else would it be? Parking underground is not a good option because it is definitely not cost effective, nor is it very practical if residences are not allowed on the ground level. If Ashland wants more business/employment opportunities in the area, then development costs must be kept in check or the purchase/lease prices will not be marketable. We purchased our E-1 property under the current permitted uses with the intention of developing it thereby. To change this now would have a severe impact on its development. Could these proposed changes end up in Measure 37 claims? Please don't make it so difficult for the small property owner. A "one size fits all" approach doesn't seem to work here. Thank you for your consideration to our concerns. Sincerely, -L". Michael H. Young J. I /1 V_'-_Y' - .L'l~- ,/ ,/ /' ~~' 1acquelyn Young (, ; >, - .{ , ~~ ~!I .., " I~" (""\ 'j _,."".r< ('; ,,;J Page 1 of2 David Stalheim - Ordinance review - Housing Commission From: Brandon Goldman David Stalheim 8/31/2007 9:59 AM Ordinance review - Housing Commission To: Date: Subject: David At last nights Housing Commission the proposed changes to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance were reviewed. The Housing Commission essentially isolated their discussion to three of the proposed sections: · Accessory Residential Units in Multifamily zones · Maximum Permitted Floor area exemptions for detached second units less than 500sq ft. · Commercial ground floor residential Accessory Residential Units in Multifamily zones Regarding Accessory Residential Units in Multifamily zones the Housing Commission moved to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance changes that allow for accessory units of less than 1000sq.ft. to be permitted outright (subject to site review). All commissioners were in favor of allowing ARUs in multifamily zones. Discussion on this topic included whether it was better to promote smaller unit sizes by limiting its application to 500 sq.ft. but ultimately the majority of the commission (4-1) were in favor of using the definition of ARUs (50% the size of the primary house not to exceed 10oosq.ft.). The discussion did also compare how ARUs are conditionally allowed in SFR zones and would be permitted outright in MFR. In this discussion the Housing Commission felt that small ARU's of less than 500 square feet are consistent with small accessory structures in SFR zones and should also be permitted out right. The commission did distinguish that ARUs larger than this in SFR zones should still be subject to the Conditional Use Permit process due to scale and impact (household size). The Housing Commission requested that their recommendation to allow ARUs less than 500sq.ft. as a permitted use in Single Family zones be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council as part of this ordinance review process. Maximum Permitted Floor Area exemptions for detached second units less than 500sq ft. The Housing Commission unanimously recommend approval of the proposed ordinance changes that allow for detached second residential units of less than 500sq.ft. to be exempted from the MPFA calculations. Commercial ground floor residential The Housing Commission unanimously recommend approval of the proposed ordinance changes that limit allowable residential use in commercial zones to 50% gross floor area if the building is two stories, and 66% for three stories including the potential for a 500sq.ft. ADA accessible residential unit on the ground floor. Prior to reaching the above recommendation commissioners discussed whether the 50% limit should apply to both two and three story buildings, citing the need for commercial development consistent with the zones and voicing concern that at 66% gross floor area the building becomes primarily residential. Commissioners also raised the potential of allowing 66% residential only in cases where certain unit types were provided including affordable units, smaller units, and rental units but did not explore this possibility further. Lastly one commission member questioned the need to allow any residential on the ground floor, but ultimately concurred with the recommendation believing such small accessible units on the ground floor would be rare but as an option it may be reasonable and the requirement to locate it away from the street frontage preserved commercial emphasis. 1J.7 file:IIC:\Documents and Settings\stalheid\Local Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOI.HTM 8/31/2007 I:,:) \..... (:{, - Brandon Goldman City of Ashland Planning Dept. 20 East Main St. Ashland, OR 97520 Goldmanb(ii)ashland.or .us 541-552-2076 TTY#: 800-735-2900 This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at (541)552-2076. Thank you. I~ <j file://C:\Documents and Settings\stalheid\Local Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOI.HTM Page 2 of2 8/31/2007 () Page 1 of2 Susan Yates - Land Use Code Amendments - 2 From: To: Date: Subject: "M Knox" <knox@mind.net> "'David Stalheim'" <stalheid@ashland.or.us> 8/30/2007 9:20 AM Land Use Code Amendments - 2 David, I couldn't sleep last night so I read the latest proposed amendments to Chapter 18 and have the following comments: Definitions -Story. Half 2. A basement where 50% or less of the perimeter walls are six (6) feet or more above natural grade, as commonly found in daylight basements. Doors or entrances less than eight (8) feet in length would not qualify as a daylight basement or half story. There appears to be a typo in the first sentence where it should state - (6) feet or more BELOW natural grade (?). It seems like this is a definition of a "first" floor Also, in the second sentence, I'm not understanding the relationship with a door or its width in regards to the definition of a basement. Definitions - Basement That portion of a building with a floor-to-ceiling height of not less than 6.5 feet and where fifty percent (50%) or more of its perimeter walls are less than six (6) feet above natural grade and does not exceed twelve (12) feet above grade at any point. I'm gomg to verify this sometime this afternoon, but what is the typical height of an underground garage floor? Is It greater than 12? It seems like the access openings are always around 8'. but the Internal ceiling heights (mechanical equipment, etc ) are higher Section 10 D.1.c. Residential dwelling units on the ground floor may not be located along street frontage, except alleys. What about "stairwells" similar to the ones you see In the downtown (RexalljColumbia Hotel, Knox Building, ete.). r agree, r don't want to see someone sitting in their living room on Main Street, but a stairwell directly off the sidewalk seems not only to be traditional in appearance, but also practical, A direct link to the sidewalk allows reSidents to have a more sQcial and Integrating opportunity (more eyes on the street) with the typical commercial action. [ would suggest a swap in exceptions for both c-l and E-l zones allowing "just" stairwells or elevators and eliminate the SOO sq.. ft. residential area exception completely. r can't think of any positive examples where anyone needs more than an access area on the ground floor. Section 11: 18.68.020 B. General Regulations B. In all other districts, the minimum vision clearance area distance SllqlLb~ILfte.enillliee1nQ[~_at intersections, including an alley, ten (10) feet. When the angle of intersection between streets, other than an alley, is less than thirty (30) degrees, the distance shall be twenty-five (25) feet. 1 Ill;-' ftftpen ] ')) feet rnl:?d-,urernent In the above reyuirltlon (-IdS never nldch.' ",~nse in this conted tl( '/III',t "ther 'line "'''lldd tJw; app'y t)esich~s V,'ithlil d '/1"ion c1eaL.lnu" di':d' ";hcuirj it ht-' d,dl'I.l':tj7 Section 18.72.120, Controlled access B. Street and driveway Access points in an R-2, R-3, C-l, E-l or M-l zone shall be limited to the following: 1. Distance between driveways. On arterial streets - 100 feet; 1~'1 file:/ /C:\Documents and Settings\yatess\Local Settings\Temp\GW1 0000 1.HTM 8/31/2007 ()~ ,. {'~j~ \_._~~J' Page 2 of2 orl~QHe.c.tQr streets_.=: ZSnfeet; QnresLdential stre.eJ:s_-: 5.0 feel~ 2. Distance from intersections. On arterial streets - 100 feet; onC;;Qllector-.S.tree.~_5_Q feet~ on r,gsidential streets -::_liie.e.t~ J've never understood why distancing reqUirements vvere greater for driveways then they were intersections. The above underlined items should be swapped. (?) Section 18.76.060, Preliminary Approval of Flag Partitions Flag drives greater than (250) 150 feet in length shall provide a turnaround when required by the Oregon Fire Code as defined in the Performance Standards Guidelines in 18.88.090. This - is a major modification.. I really think staff should re.-evaluate this standard primarily due to the amount of asphalt associated with the turn around standard as illustrated In 1888090 and the multitude of "infill" parcels this is going to effect. I would think (hope) 250' could still remain as long as fire sprinklers were added which are probably far more important than the turn around. This seems to be a better compromise and one that I'm sure Fire could agree upon. For many years, the FD touted sprinklers as the primary safety measure minimizing the spread of a fire OTHER: 1) This may be resolved with the Master Planning efforts discussed publicly in June, but eventually some exception to the sign ordinance is going to be necessary for the Croman Mill area Currently, this area has no neighborhood Identification signs Unlike other employment centers around town, this area has little to no viSibility or interconnecting transportation routes but because of its industrial zoning, it has the most promise of providing future employment. It seems fair to allow some exception allowing a small "general" neighborhood sign at the intersections of Tolman Creek and Mistletoe & Mistletoe and HWY 99 and would be helpful to the current and future businesses in this neighborhood 2) Could there be a definition of "top of bank" for riparian setbacks An illustration would be very helpful That's it. Thanks again - Mark Knox 1.31J file:/ /C:\Documents and Settings\yatess\Local Settings\T emp\GW J OOOOl.HTM 8/31/2007 Page 1 of 1 David Stalhelm - R-213 MPF A ? From: To: Date: Subject: "Colin Swales" <colinswales@gmail.com> "David Stalheim" <stalheid@ashland.or.us> 8/28/2007 4:23 PM R-213 MPF A ? David, J was a member of the PC when the Max House size ordinance was approved - which I fully supported. Under your "omnibus" changes you have added" new residential construction in PSO land divisions" to the single lot MPF A. (para J pages 9 and 10) Surely such divisions (partitions and subdivsions) create "single lots" which should be bound by the same rules as existing "single lots". The p~fthe ordinance was to discourage huge "McMansions" and encourage more smaller detached homes (rather than large apartment blocks) and perhaps increased density in historic districts. Your added wording seems to fly in the face of this reasoning (if the intention is that the parent parcel should be so constrained by the MPF A) - or am J missing something? I would appreciate an explanation of your thinking on this, if possible. thank~ Colin 1.3/ file:/lC:\Docurnents and Settings\stalheid\Loca1 Settings\Temp\GW} 0000 1.HTM 9/4/2007 . Susan Yates - Fwd: Re: Omnibus () C) Page 1 From: To: Date: Subject: David Stalheim Susan Yates 8/23/2007 10:38:22 AM Fwd: Re: Omnibus >>> "Colin Swales" <colinswales@gmail.com> 8/23/200710:28:15 AM >>> David, (cc PC Chair, PC Council liaison) The following are some more observations referenced to the July 24 "Proposed land Use Code Revisions" : (feel free to share with others) Page 3 Setback definition Still we have no resolution to the effective ban on flag lots caused by the flawed Reeder opinion.. (per our previous discussion) This needs to be addressed to allow appropriate infill to continue. Page 4 Story-Half. ( Note that 1-1/2 story has been used to allow a 15 ft rear yard setback. Other definitions. Building Height was a problem with the DeBoer BigHouse. Backfilling a 12 ft basement on three sides resulted in a massive walk-out story that was not measured for height calcs.( or MPFA floor area) Perhaps their should be a ceiling ht limit for basements to be so excluded. Also the "gable" for ht. calcs was measured as halfway from eave to ridge. With a 5 ft. eaves overhang this artificially lowed the calculated ht. - yet not the bulk. Perhaps a graphic needs to be added to make sure height of gables, hips, (shed) dormers, mansards, parapets etc. are clearly defined. Page 7 (and others) the 25 % CUP to exceed MPFA should be a Variance, not CUP (especially as this can't be revoked - it is permanent) Extra bulk and scale is not a "use" and has always an easy "slam-dunk" to achieve using CUP. It becomes merely an annoying bureacratic necessity (Same with the 55ft. CUP in C1-D see Page 13) ). Make sure CUPs relate only to "Uses"- not physical changes. Page 8 ARUs in R-2 and 3 . I have mentioned this before and pleased to see it is on your list to perhaps increase this to match R-1. So much of our close-in multifamily zones are defacto single family historic. Yet that is precisly where we need extra density (and historic is also exempt from the 80% density reqirement) This carrot rather than the stick approach is good to get affordable units where they are best located. Minimum Lot dimensions at 50' x 80' would be better if not tied to width/depth - thereby allowing possible flag or alley-access lots behind some historic homes presently on large multi-family lots. Pages 12/ 13 C-1/E-1 Residential Uses. Glad to see the PC's unanimous vote to ban residential garages at last (sad about the 5 behind the Jasmine building). Special Permoitted Uses - Residential Good to see some limit per the EOA concerns. Note: some ground floor exemption will be needed to allow for residential access such as lobby, stairwell, garbage storage, etc. Would prefer to see 40% residential in 2 story and 50% in three story. Keep the condos small ( max 1000sf? - not 3,000 +sf per Bemis at Lithia hotel - these are not places for families with children, but for single persons, students, artists etc per our Comp Plan.) and encourage upper floor offices etc. l.a~ t.. . Susan Yates - Fwd: Re: Omnibus () (9 Page 2 Continue to be strict with limiting Drive-Up uses in spite of the lobbying from developers Page 18 Vision Clearance One of the vision/safety problems is the use of narrow downtown alleys for garbage/delivery trucks. With (historic) buildings being right adjacent to these alleys ( e.g alongside Ashland Springs hotel and the First Street coffee shop etc.) then pedestrians can get a nasty shock from exiting trucks who cannot see from their cab what is coming along the sidewalks until the front of already at the curb.. These alleys were not originally made for such large motorised vehicles. (The final stepback on the 11 First St. design ameliorated this problem). If the measurement is from the curb then perhaps the alley should also be 25 ft.? (as most commercial sidewalks are at least 10 ft.) But there could be a problem with historic compatibility with no varaince allowed.... Page 20 Front Yard exception I'm glad to see this clearly defined as intended (Le. no more "side-yard" work-arounds as with Deluca project on E. Main) Page 21 Temporary storage On-street storage of "vehicles" is the public ROW is already banned under AMC 11.24.020 Prohibited parking. for more than 72 hrs. Why should these bins be allowed longer on public streets? The same should appy to storage containers without permit. Also, "construction trailers" are often also used as a hideous billboard to advertise the contractor in violation of our sign ordiance. Page 22 Site Design required for 2+ residential units. This seems excessive for a corner duplex in R-1 or multi family. Isn't 4 units the current threshold for requiring Site Review? Why the need to change? Page 24 "BigBox" How do we deal with the "footprint" of a shared basement parking using common retaining walls (per Northlight, OSF New Theatre/Parking structure). Perhaps we need a footprint definition? Page 25 Multi Family DSUS Glad to see mixed use condos in commercial zones coming under this review standard ( per our previous discussion). to ensure livability. But no All those provisions need apply ( e.g. residentilallandscaping ) Perhaps there needs to be an exception possiblity ? Page 28 "Electronic" Pre-Apps - good idea Page 29 E-copies could be reqired for Application docs. . good idea to save Staff time scanning ( need to be read-only?) Need to make sure applicant waives "fair-use" copyright. Page 30 Expedited Land Use Given the high proportion of large-lot single family use of our historic multifamily zones, perhaps the "designated historic districts" should not be exempted for these minor partitions? Page 31 "...substantive rights have been substantially prejudiced...". How is this determined? By who? Page 32 " ...an appellant who materially improves his or her position.." 1~3 , Susan Yates - Fwd: Re: Omnibus C) ( '." .,j Page 3 Often an appellant will be working for the public good, not necessarily for their own benefit. Often an appeal will have the effect of aded "conditions of approval" * e.g. sidewalk easement given on appeal of recent Kistler project. Is this "material improvement"? Page 34 d.i Residential 2 units ( see previous) Page 35 3e. (v) 25% CUP MPFA in Historic Should be in 4, Variances ( see previous) Page 36 "...persons who requested notice..." Shouldn't this also have persons entitled to receive notice such as "Parties"? Also shouldn't include notice of the decsion (findings) as a Party, not just the application notice? Shouldn't "modification application" be defined ( e.g. time limit since last app?) Page 37 1.e "...requested notice of decision..." (see above) Page 38 B.1 Initial evidentiary hearing Good idea. But also need to formalize proceedures for such private "charettes" such as Norhtlight. e.g. Should decsion-makers attend? Page 39 ( and elsewhere) "Planning Director" - or Community Development Director? "...appellant prevails.." ( see above discussion of "improves position" ) Page 40 Commission = Final Decision of the City on Type 1 In the past the composition of the Pc, contrary to State Law, has been heavily weighted with members of the DevelopmenUConstruction.lArchitecture community. And they are appointed, NOT elected. Should Council ( who oversee our ALUO, be cut out of the decsion? Page 41 .. M ft. d'fy .. ... aya Irm, mo I , or reverse.. How about also the possibilty remanding back to PC if applicant waives 120-day rule? de-novo versus on-the-Record needs some serious discussion. We had this previously with Paul Nolte and it was decided to let de-novo remain... Page 42 "...on the record before the Planning Commission.." Could be better phrased as "..based solely on the Record established at the pior Planning Commission hearing on the action.." ? fee for interpretation - Should not be required or only nominal. There should be a databse established for recording legal "interpretations" to supplement the ALUO - so they do not become "abitrary and capricious". Page 43 Extensions - "change of conditions" Recently the hospital foundation was granted an automatic extension for their project on N. Main that included a variance to encroach into the 20 arterial setback. The reason given was that their prospective tenant ( for whom the building was designed) had simply backed out of the deal. This extension was granted immediately subsequent to Council calling up the neighboring Kistler project on the similar /3Jf Susan Yates - Fwd: Re: Omnibus () ("')'.. . . :~ "':';'..0." Page 4 Variance. Such extensions should not be granted so easily when the "change of conditions" are clearly the responsibility of the applicant. Perhaps this should be made more clear in the wording of this section. Generally Please keep the fee structure within the means of ordinary citizens. Nobody embarks on the contentious and time-consuming appeal process for fun. It is usually because of some genuine neighbor grievance or to protect the general public interest of the "commons". Fairness and equitable treatment under our ALUO should not just be limited to those with deep pockets. ******************* Richard, This is alii have for now. Hope it helps. I know you have had a busy start to your job with the City and I am pleased to see you tackling some of these issues. It is gratifying that so many of the problems brought to light by past citizen involvement (including some of my own) and also their input to Siegel and Zucker have are at last being addressed. But take heart that things are not always this turbulent. You have a good, hard-working Staff, a dedicated PC and an informed, concerned citizenry. Consensus can be achived toward the publiC good - which is what we all desire. *********************** All the best Colin On 8/22/07, David Stalheim <stalheid@ashland.or.us> wrote: I haven't had a chance to start working on l.Eo I ._~~ Susan Yates - Fwd: Re: Omnibus (:;> - Page 5 amendments, but will start doing that today through next Tuesday. Thus, the sooner the better. Attached is a list of issues we have already identified, so perhaps you might focus on that list or other issues you might see. David Stalheim, Director Department of Community Development City of Ashland 541-552-2043 email: stalheid@ashland.or.us This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please let me know. >>> "Colin Swales" < colinswales@gmail.com> 8/22/2007 9:52:50 AM >>> David, Like yo.u, I have just returned to Ashland after a vacation. I hope you had a restful break. I am going through all the omnibus changes but due to my absence will not be able to make your Aug 20 deadline for written comments to Staff. I will however try to get them to you ASAP and will send in electronic format for you to pass on the the PC. Colin /E~ (<) ;.z,.)I Page I of4 David Stalheim - Knox comments on Ordinance Ammendments From: To: Date: Subject: "M Knox" <knox@mind.net> "'David Stalheim'" <stalheid@ashland.or.us> 8/17/2007 12:28 PM Knox comments on Ordinance Ammendments AUGUST 16TH, 2007 David, Thank you for the opportunity to participate on this matter. I appreciate the Planning Staff's efforts in trying to eliminate the Land Use Code's many inconsistencies and contradictions. I'm positive the end product will be a healthier atmosphere and better conclusion. The fact that staff is proposing to notice applications submittals to neighbors illustrates how committed staff is to making sure potential "changes" and "impacts" are transparent to those most effected. In the following comments you will see I focused on the basic land use issues and have also spent a considerable amount of time on the procedural portion, but without much written response on the later. Primarily, because I agree with the procedural amendments as they appear to be either pre-regulated by Oregon Statutes anyway or help clarify the complex planning process where our citizen "moms and pops" can hopefully return to and participate in the land use process. Here are my comments, suggestions, questions and complaints: Section 1) Definitions: 18.08.160 Lot Coverage: The removal of the word "normal" is a great start, but I would prefer an overall reduced lot coverage in all zones, but then allow ALL permeable surfaces, including driveways, to be exempt as I believe it would lead to more groundwater recharging and a reduction in water velocity as it enters the waterways. There also seems to be an opportunity here where applying such conservation materials on an "everyday" basis, would then have compounding results (less expensive, more accepted, trained labor, etc). It remains unclear if someone proposes a gravel driveway - is 10% still exempt? I'm hoping "no" as it could be abused and later paved, but it just needs to be clearer. Also, the last sentence in this definition is odd - "not part of the lot". I've never noticed this before, but it probably should be deleted as it doesn't make sense. 18.08.650 Setback: Could we add an illustration for the one and two story option? 18.08.740 Story: Could we add an illustration? The U.B.C. Application Interpretation Manual has some helpful illustrations. 18.08.830 Yard: The removal of the portion "from the ground upward" seems to make the definition even more vague (i.e. - does the ground underneath a cantilevered structure count towards the yard?). file://C:\Documents and Settings\stalheid\Local SettingS~~~GW}00002.HTM 8/21/2007 r"';""'~ (j -'<.~:dk ( "', ..) Page 2 of 4 Floor area. gross habitable: What category does a "garage" fall into? My primary concern here is the potential to add an ADU and exempt the garage area creating the possibility of a very large mass within a SFR zone. Maybe this is tempered by the fact it's still a CUP? Porch, enclosed/unenclosed: What about railings and balusters? This may need an example, but we should encourage (if not require) open porches on all houses. Section 7) R-2: 18.24.030 I: Also delete "approved by the City Council" (1 st sentence). The Railroad Districts (Local and National Designation) have already been adopted by the Council and the added definition appears to cover this issue. It just adds unnecessary confusion. 18.24.040 Al c: I'm concerned with the result of 2 units on a 5,000 sq. ft. lot. I'm very "infill" supportive and believe this is a great idea as long as the required parking was either in the back off an alley or parallel to the curb line, but in no case within a front yard or along the side when vehicle access is from the front. My main concern here is its impact on the Historic District areas where no alleys exist. 18.24.0401.1:. First, an extra 500 sq. ft. on the MPF A appears to be excessive and beyond the intent of the code. If someone wants to add the extra 500 sq. ft. as an accessory residential unit, their option is to apply for a Conditional Use Permit and the design is then "managed" by the Ashland Historic Commission and then "adopted" by the Planning Commission (as you know, home proposals under the MPF A are not subject to discretion and therefore can look completely out of character from its neighbors). Secondly, this could end up being and "end around" where one applies for a maximum permitted house + 500 sq. ft., builds the home, but never installs the kitchen facilities in the accessory unit - or removes it later. What is the process for someone to remove an accessory residential unit? Well intended, but it just appears to be too confusing, labor intensive and questionable. Section 8) R-3: l8.28.040 Ale: Same as above (18.24.040 ALe.) 18.28.04011: Same as above (18.24.040 1.1.) 18.28.040 J.l: Same as above (18.24.040 1.1.) Section 10) C-l: 18.32.025 D.l: Honestly, I'm struggling with the wording on this one... I'm concerned as to what is determined "ground floor" as we may need a definition and illustration. Overall, I agree we do not want parking on the main floor (level of the sidewalk at the primary street grade floor). But, the level below the sidewalk for parking, applicant willing, should be heavily encouraged. I understand the pressure of market forces and the concern that residential uses are creeping into the E-l and C-l zones, but to exclude 100% of the ground floor is not good - especially when the topography of this town often warrants such conditions. Also, not too many businesses can thrive in a daylight basement type of environment, so underground parking in these scenarios should be preferred. In reality, many of these blue collar jobs we're hoping come to town, can't operate with such overhead cost ifit were not for some form of residential market opportunity allowing the property owner to build the office/manufacturing space. I believe underground parking is very important and a valuable tool regardless if it's for residential or commercial. /~K file://C:\Documents and Settings\stalheid\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 8/21/2007 ~'i'l'~ U () ~~" Page 3 of 4 Lastly, assuming some allowance is going to be permitted for residential on the "at street grade floor" (hopefully a 15% minimum), the allocation of percentages seem to be a step in the right direction. However, consideration is needed to make sure we do not unknowingly force a permitted use upstairs in order to allow a small percentage of residential downstairs. Section 11) E-l: 18.40.030 E.!. (Same as above) Section 14) Approval and Permit Required 18.61.042 B: - Could there be a definition of an Excavation Permit? 18.61.084 D: Replacing a tree six months after its removal seems very difficult when typically construction occurs between six months and a year. I would suggest a year. Section 15) Development Standards for Flood plain Corridor Lands 18.62.050 A.l: What is the definition of "top" of bank? Illustration? 18.62.08Q-.E.... 2.d: The strict interpretation is that this standard applies to all sides of a structure - including the uphill side. This standard was intended to be only for downhill sides similar to the vertical regulations. This was the practice used by staff because it was mistakenly written. Unfortunately, its strict application is causing unnecessary expenses and criticisms without really any public benefit. Section 17) 18.68.110 C; A 2:1 vs. a 4:1 slope is a significant difference. As written, it appears this will likely encourage many more on-street garages at 10' rather the~ 20'. On a hillside, like most of Ashland, this will be a prevalent problem. My suggestion is to keep the existing and proposed, but regulate "garages" so that they clearly have be on a 2:1 slope in order to get the front yard setback exception. 18.68.160: My experience is the general public does not know that after 50', a driveway is considered a "flag" driveway and subject to flag drive standards. This section would be helpful if it alluded to this fact. Section 18) 18.72.080 C.2. In my opinion, the 5,000 square foot public building threshold is too much and should be limited to 1,500 to 2,000 sq. ft. I'm remembering the process and discussions that occurred during the Briscoe Music Room expansion in the mid 90's (building facing Manzanita). Initially, the School District was pretty difficult to deal with and didn't want to deal with the City (Historic Commission). However, after realizing they were subject to a Site Review Permit, the discussions improved and the building is now a great asset to the streetscape and district. 18.72.120 B: This has always been confusing. Does Section "B" apply to other zones also? Section 22) 18.108.040: I would encourage staff to permit a small cafe or restaurant (900 sq. ft. +/-) within the M-l zones as a Type I application. These are great uses that compliment manufacturing and employment file://C:\Documents and Settings\stalheid\Local Setting~feZ\GW}00002.HTM 8/21/2007 Page 4 of 4 areas, by reducing dependency on vehicle miles traveled. Heck, I would even promote that at such a small amount of square footage, they should be "permitted" uses (subject to Site Review and a Type I). Great mixed-use planning! If you have any questions or need clarifications, please do not hesitate to call me. Good luck and thanks again. - Mark Knox / i.f /) file://C:\Documents and Settings\stalheid\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 8/21/2007 Susan Yates - Fwd: Land Use Code AmC:.jments ("> .-} Page 1 From: To: Date: Subject: David Stalheim Susan Yates 8/8/2007 3:34:49 PM Fwd: Land Use Code Amendments Please add to record as comments. >>> Margueritte Hickman 8/2/2007 2:05:28 PM >>> Bill & David - This is to follow up with the conversation I had with Bill earlier this week regarding the AMC revisions. In October 2006, the City Council adopted the Oregon Fire Code. During the adoption, the Council noted that there were two code provisions which Ashland had adopted that were less restrictive than the state, and they directed staff to bring forth amendments that would restore the state minimums. One has been addressed because it was only addressed by the fire code. The one which has not been addressed is the allowable length of a dead-end before a turn-around is required. Several years ago the City of Ashland ammended the Oregon Fire Code from 150 feet to 250 feet. In addition AMC 18 requires a turn-around on dead-ends greater than 250 feet. Fire researched 58 building permits that were processed over a 7 month period and found that there were 5 turn-arounds required under the current code. If a turn-around were imposed on dead-ends greater than 150 feet, then two additional turn-arounds would have been required. During the 2006 adoption, the council directed staff to bring an actionable item to them amending the requirement for a fire apparatus turn-around at the end of 150' dead ends rather than 250' dead ends. After a discussion with Bill at that time, he suggested that the change be brought forward with the AMC revisions that are currently taking place. In order to prevent conflicting requirements between the Oregon Fire Code and the Land Use Code, they directed us to proceed with an AMC Chapter 18 amendment and bring that forward at the same time as the fire code amendment. I am suggesting that this amendment be added to the current revision process. The next fire code adoption will take place this fall. If the intent of the AMC is to require this turn-around when it is required for fire apparatus access, then I would also suggest language in the AMC that reflects that. I raise this because of the Mt. Pines project. It is my recollection that public interpretation of this AMC section required a vehicular turn-around where a fire apparatus turn-around was not required. Please see the attached document for my suggested language. In 2004, Oregon changed from the Uniform Fire Code to the Oregon Fire Code, so I have also made two suggestions related to clean up of the AMC in the attached document. Please let me know if you have questions or want to discuss this further. Thanks. -m Margueritte LR Hickman Division Chief / Fire Marshal Ashland Fire & Rescue 455 Siskiyou Boulevard Ashland, OR 97520 541.552.2229 . /Jfl Ashland Municipal Code Suggested Revisions August 2, 2007 AMC 18.76.060 Partitions involving the creation of flag lots shall be approved by the Planning Commission if the following conditions are satisfied: B. Flag drives and fire work areas shall be deemed Fire Apparatus Access Roads under the Unirorm Oreeon Fire Code and subject to all requirements thereof. Flag drives greater than ~ 150 feet in length shall provide a turnaround when required by the Oregon Fire Code as defined in the Performance Standards Guidelines in 18.88.090. AMC 18.94.130 D. Issuance of a home occupation permit under this chapter shall not relieve the applicant from the duty and responsibility to comply with all other rules, regulations, ordinances or other laws governing the use of the premises and structures thereon, including, but not limited to, the specialty codes defined in chapter 15.04, the URifofffi Fire Coae ella Unirofffi Fire Code Stella8fdt~ Oreeon Fire Code defined in chapter 15.28, or any private restrictions relative to the property. l'f~ Susan Yates - Fwd: Land Use Code Am~qments !"j) www.ashland.or.us This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please notify me. I Jf..3 Page 2 ~ ~~ Yates - RE: Proposed ALUO ChC',s >,~.... () ...,....: ~ Page 1 From: "John Fields" <goIden-fIeIds@charter.net> To: "'David Stalheim'" <stalheld@ashland.or.us>, <pIan@aobtack.com>, "'Adam Hanks'" <adam@ashland.or.us>, "'Amy Anderson'" <andersona@ashland.or.us>, "'Richard Appicello'" <applcelr@ashland.or.us>, "'Angela Barry'" <barrya@ashland.or.us>, "'Martha Bennett'" <bennettm@ashland.or.us>. "'Bill Molnar'" <blll@ashland.or.us>, "'Derek Severson'" <dereks@ashland.or.us>. "'Brandon Goldman'" <GoIdmanb@ashland.or.us>, "'Maria Harris'" <maria@ashland.or.us>, "'John Morrison'" <morrisoj@ashland.or.us>, "'Susan Yates'" <sue@ashland.or.us>. "'David Chapman'" <davidchapman@ashlandhome.net>, <ahardesty88@Charter.net>, "'Pam Marsh'" <pam .marsh@gmall.com>, <Ericnavlckas@hotmall.com>, "'Cate Hartzell'" <cate@mlnd.net>, "'Tom Dimitre'" <dlmltre@mind.net>, "'Mike Morris'" <msquared@mind.net>, "'Melanie Mindlin'" <sassetta@mind.net>, "'Dave Dotterer'" <thedotts@mind.net>, "'Kate Jackson'" <katejackson@opendoor.com>. "'John Stromberg'" <pcstromberg@opendoor.com>, "'Michael Dawkins'" <michaeltdawkins@yahoo.com>, "'Russ Silblger''' <russclty@zlntech.org> Date: 8/5120079:57:19 PM Subject: RE: Proposed ALUO Changes To all the Revisionists, Here are some comments regarding proposed changes. I have provided some comments that will probabty require additional discussion to clarify what I mean. It is rather complicated and do to our time constraints, I did not want to go any more work writing this up. John Fields GoIden-Fields@charter.net 845 Oak Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-482-8442 Fax 482-3822 l"fi l) (-" ~) ALva update comments on revisions John Fields 8/5/2007 I wanted to share more details on problem areas of the ordinance revision. It takes a lot of work to comment in writing so hopefully I have can communicate my concerns in shorthand. 18.08.320 Hotels- The importance of this interpretation (clarification) lies in an appealed decision that denied a daily rental in the C-l D because it met neither motel or hotel definitions. The appeal was successful, although the interpretation before us is a clarification, the issue at point is what kinds of ancillary use of residential in a C or E-I zone is appropriate. We know we have limited commercial zoned inventory and there is high demand for residential (condo) in these zones. We are failing to create/encourage affordable rental units downtown. Intensive, high-end residential units may come into conflict with the target use. Competing interests of residential use may negatively affect commercial uses such as bars, nightclubs, parking demands, truck deliveries, etc.. We want to be careful in how we encourage residential and especially transient use. Apartments that have short term occupancy may be incompatible with full time residential use. And I would guess that affordable units will not fit in with this kind of hotel, short term rental. Do we have anything limiting time shares? The key to mitigating this ordinance change lies within the permitted OF A ratio of allowable and secondary-conditional uses. Clarifying the ratio and its purpose would help mitigate the concern in changing the hotel definition. We have seen buildings that are as low as 17% OF A of targeted use. We are concerned with this trend. We know it is appropriate to have the majority of the ground floor, accessible retail-public use. But 100% may box us into a comer. Brent Thompson was correct in saying that being able to put an accessible unit on the ground floor may allow a building to not require an elevator for accessibility. This can be an affordability factor in smaller infill buildings. I think the 50% for a two story building and 66% for three stories is a good idea. I think that they are pretty good numbers. Section 10, Amend Chapter 18.32, C-l RETAIL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT :\Illllld ~\.:l'tt"ll ; <,,32.\ I:"~'.. . I :--'p,-,-"d h:; I'lllted ['v D, l{l'sidcnlialuS('s. I. r\,-'~!\kntl:ll unit...,. iind tltell .j'~\lvi<lkd piU';dll!,: ill 'lur:'.l:l ,I''. PI\)!lll1ill.'!' ,'I: 1:" .i:,.rpund 11\$"1[" \lcllti-"t\\]\ ('I Jl1UltHilill huIJdli1g" un II lot. in.:l!ld:l\g Ildhilahk hil~Ul (I" ,1Il'il". ,1willh\11:i\\1' '11"1< ikm ;";:t\ 1'\:'1:"','!11 (5il"n) ,,(ill\.' "'lltjJ'~' ':'11)" ilI1$r :ir\'a ,,!,li huddjn:-:(~~ in ~\."'h,h..'IilL.ll U'>l' t'~}r t'.\ 'till"\ hl~~!\Lj1.:;:" ~lnd \'d\~: "'1\ ~\\.'!\.~Lr1T {(Inq!} t>J II \.~ , j ,. ,;j'llil)[t' ,tilr\ i)l[lld!lll.''-. No parking or storage would be allowed anywhere and maybe not be in a habitable basement. "Habitable basement" is a Building code term. If you build something for storage or garage it is it a non-habitable space? I guess we could stop someone from converting from habitable to non-habitable. But otherwise I think it is confusing. I t..f 5' The definition of "ground floor" is not in our ordinance. We have to be careful about introducing new regulation without defined tenns. We don't want any surface parking for residential in any of our C-I and E-I zones? Handicap and residential visitor parking is important. What about offset uses when parking could be shared? These are all important and complex factors in ensuring that our zoning is not eroded by ancillary uses. Porch enclosure/unenclosed. Is a screen window an enclosure? Ifit isn't enclosed why can't you winterize the space with glass so you can use your porch all year, swapping seasonally? How do you regulate this change? What is the difference if someone uses real windows instead, but does not heat the space- does it come down to the legal definition of habitability? Or is this visual/ architectural problem? ,-\1111 ~n:ti(lll 11\.(lS. ] ..,( i.fempuran ",turage. \. L.t'a~ed III rl'nted tl'!11p~)rJry :--.tllrage CUil!dlI1tT~ dlld >trUCI.Ull:~ glt;ltl..'r rkllllJlj"'\'lillt" f,,'d in gnbs tloor area are permitted in Rl'~idelltuL Health Care Services. '\\lrth \l\lullt;jlll Nelghhorhood and SOL l(lnillg districts lor a peri\ld nut III ex.eeed ,IHj;lJ~' ill an.' \lne year period provIded the \t(lr;l~t' cP!1rainer or :,trllcture IS ass\lciated \\ith Ill,ning. building constructIon. re11(1\ ati\)ll \ lr dellHdnioll. rhe Staff Ad\i\or may )!rant a ,O-day CAknslPn upun tinding C\tClluuling (',rt'umstclnces in \\ hich tilt' property \1\\ ner \\ as nl)t responsible. B. Temporary. !eased storage I..'ontainers and strueturt's greater than 9() "quart" ket 1I gT')SS floor area and \'isible tl.-om a puhlic right-of-wa:v. llpel1 space or parkland ,Ill.. permitted in CUl1lmerciaL Fmploynwilt ,1Ild Industrial /\)lling diStricts fnl a perilld Iild to exceed 90-days in anyone year period provided the ka\ed storage container ur .-;[rUclurc is d~suciated \\'ith 111m mg. building ulI1structinn. rCl1u\'ation or demcolltH'I The Staff Ad\isor ll1dY grant a )()-day extension Ujwn tinding extenuating t:ir':ulTlstances 111 which the pruperty n\\Ilt'r ~)r kaseholckr was not responsihk This gets confusing, 90 days is not enough time for construction projects. It should be concurrent with the building permit. 30 days is pretty worthless in the residential zones. Especially if you are remodeling and you want to store stuff on site. It is not clear that "and structures" excludes temporary offices and job shacks. 50 sq/ft is ridiculous. 90' is not even up to our unregulated size of storage buildings 8 x 12 is 96'. Useable storage needs to be at least 8' x 20' max. To be functional you need up to 9 months and maybe an extention after that. Can you have only I unit? It is not clear whether visible from the street. You could be Y2 mile away and be visible from the street.. Seems kind of a heavy response to the growing trend's visual blight. Why don't we prohibit advertising on the box if that is a complaint we trying to solve? We do not define "temporary storage". It seems that if you purchase the container (do not rent or lease) it would be exempt. This one needs a bunch of work. 18.62.070 Flood plain. The language talks about allowable cantilevers and then goes on to say support pillars are allowed if they do no impede the flood waters. If there are pillars it is not a catilever. Unless I am misunderstanding this, perhaps we should fix this I~~ r.~~'. ~ . <~i:.~; t 'i'~ ~/ CJ (: .( ;1-!l':--~,d,-,!1t!~d Lt'-," d'".i' ,\\.-' 't~~'\.lt,:\;. 11 i!l~il ptlr!j(1[1 dt l!l)(H11,L.~1l! <.. 'i\TitltH< ~ll!d~; \~\.lU,d :,1 tlI" :lh~)\\'~ the n(,,\ld ~_,jC'\ <,dj~,;.!.~ "In l!h,~ ,,;nill.d llLlj'S Jdoptcd In ,,",L'l.'!hiil 1 ".1.1; n(j( i. ...,:\..\~ \ -lh! ~tt l! > \,.'{ q1~\fl'u(..:tll)l) q~d.\ h\.' ,,";qjt1!\..'-' 1..:Tl"d ,'\ IT fhe' Flt,iI)d r'l:nll '-."\ ;nJ;.lt I' i.)l. di"ldIil..l' "f ~>; II:C! IT !t d()t'~, 1),)( :lilP,ict iij1<lrl;iil .. e~_:d;l[i')Il, .:nd the ..:k'ar~llllL' fl'>!l: :ill1"hl'd .:":1 <I,ll' 1:-- ell ka~! Il'll kL't il1 111..'1.:.:111. ,l!idJ.2-:Jill.J.252Itcd 1~J]lLL:}L> tiLl! \\ iii h:J\ e WiE]!\U] impad ,)[1 the fl,,\\ uf 11", "J\\ dllT~. I he ll"I"I1\....d tl. II:r ell" :liilll1 i11d~ 'lot hI.. ll\'lrC !klil !\\" k..:t he!p\v the tl,\,)d I..'(11Tid(1! ,k'\;ttj\\!J', I think that the changes we made regarding administration and hearing protica1 are pretty good. I can't tell until we get into actual case that there are any problems with it. I trust staff to make good decisions. Eliminating hearing's board input makes sense. The subsequent appeal rights requirements seem fair to me. $250 is a reasonable fee to call it up. If there is an omission in evidence or fact there is free review that can happen internally. Anyways if you are the prevailing party in the appeal you get your money back. The fee prevents frivolous appeals. I think: we had a good presentation of the general regulation changes and procedural amendments. I am hoping we captured a more efficient way of dealing with all of this paperwork. '''7 . ~my Anderson - Re: proposed ordinan~rnges ._-~~~-----_._._._----~--------~----_._.._- ~' '\ (J Page 1 From: <john@rinaldinet.com> To: "Amy Anderson" <andersona@ashland.or.us>, "Anne Rich" <richa@ashland.or.us>, "Laurie Sager" <Itsager@earthlink.net>, "Kelly Cruser" <cruser@mind.net> Date: 8/212007 9:38:53 AM Subject: Re: proposed ordinance changes That sounds great and well thought out. I appreciate the explanation. I just wanted to be sure that the tree protection standards apply to both hillside and non-hillside development. John .. sent via wireless device -Original Message- From: "Amy Anderson" <andersona@ashland.or.us> Subj: Re: proposed ordinance changes Date: Thu Aug 2,20079:19 am Size: 3K To: "Anne Rich" <richa@ashland.or.us>;"Laurie Sager" <ltsager@earthlink.net>;"Kelly Cruser" <cruser@mind.net>;"John Rinaldi Jr." <john@rinaldinet.com> cc: "Robbin Pearce" <robbin@ashland.or.us> Hello John, The proposal is that instead of having two tree protection sections of the code where the are two different standards, our suggestion is that there only be one Tree Protection requirement section. The Tree Protection requirements in 18.61.200 are more restrictive than those currently in 18.62.080.0.4. Also the Tree Conservation Guideline (showing the protection) shows a 4' fence, secured by metal stakes. The metal stakes are not allowed in 18.61.200 because they go right through the root zone - 18.61.200 requires 6' fencing to be installed at grade. Lastly, the graphic depicts a 3' protection area outside of the fencing. Since the ALUO is the law we need to have clear, objective, enforceable standards and having somewhat vague requirements that never could be monitored or enforced makes that near impossible. So, we are proposing to remove the graphic and going with the 18.61.200 standards. The other graphic of the driplines is also proposed to be removed because again, it is a somewhat arbitrary standard that cannot really be monitored or enforced so we are proposing to just use the language "drip/ine" that is defined in 18.61. I hope this clarifies things a bit. If not let me know. Thank you! Amy Amy D. Anderson, Assistant Planner City of Ashland Department of Community Development 51 Winburn Way 20 East Main St. (mailing only) Ashland, OR 97520 (541)552-2044 (541)552-2050 fax 1'f8 . ~mfAnderson - Re: proposedordin~ ---~--~--~- >>> "John Rinaldi Jr." <john@rinaldinet.com> 08102107 7:09 AM >>> Just a couple of questions: Shouldn't development under Sec. 18.62.080 (hillside development) be required to conform to 18.62.200 (tree protection)? Instead this section of the code simply makes a parenthetical reference: "(see 18.61.200)" The graphic included in Sec 18.62.080 should be included in 18.62.2oo? John - Original Message - From: "Amy Anderson" <andersona@ashland.or.us> To: "Laurie Sager" <Itsager@earthlink.net>; "Kelly Cruser" <cruser@mind.net>; "John Rinaldi" <john@rinaldinet.com> Cc: "Robbin Pearce" <robbin@ashland.or.us> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 11 :59 AM Subject: proposed ordinance changes Hello all, I have attached a link to the City website that contains the proposed Land Use Ordinance changes that will be going to a public hearing on September 11, 2007. There are a few changes that pertain to the Tree Ordinance 18.61. If you would like to comment on the proposed changes please feel free to do so. Comments should be made in writing to David Stalheim, Community Development Director by August 20 so as they may be incorporated into a second draft. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions. Please submit your comments on the proposed changes to stalheid@ashland.or.us. Even though we can't meet we can still do some 'business' that does not need action by the group taken. I was thinking we could begin our changes to the Recommended Street Tree Guide in this manner, if you would like to explore that option. Please send me your ideas for possible changes. This is the link to the proposed ordinance amendments. http://www.ashland.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=1 0373 Thank you! Amy D. Anderson, Assistant Planner City of Ashland Department of Community Development 51 Winburn Way 20 East Main St. (mailing only) Ashland, OR 97520 (541)552-2044 (541 )552-2050 fax lJ.fr (~} "",J" ._--~-~~-~--_._~_._~--- Page 2 . i Amy Anderson - Re: proposed ordinan~:~nges <"~,I cc: "Robbin Pearce" <robbin@ashland.or.us> 15" ("<'1. -.,,) Page 3 () () Page 1 of 1 David Stalheim - Re: Proposed Ordinance Changes From: To: Date: Subject: "Pam Marsh" <pam.marsh@gmail.com> "David Stalheim" <stalheid@ashland.or.us> 8/1/2007 12:42 PM Re: Proposed Ordinance Changes 1. No options needed. The targeted use should be on the ground floor. 2. Yes, please. 3. No, thank you. Proposal seems more than adequate. Thanks, Pam /5/ file://C:\Documents and Settings\stalheid\Local Settings\Temp\GW}OOOO1.HTM 8/1/2007 () () '--JtJ Page I of I David Stalheim - Proposed Ordinance Changes From: David Stalheim Planning Commission 8/1/2007 12:27 PM Proposed Ordinance Changes Planners To: Date: Subject: CC: Last night I had hoped that we might have had an opportunity to identify sections of the proposed ordinance where the Commission might request more information or options for consideration at the September 11th public hearing. Unfortunately, our conversation was taken a different direction. So, I'd ask that if the PC members in their review identify sections that they want staff to present options or alternatives, please let me know and perhaps share with the whole group so we get some consensus to be working on that topic. 1. For example, one public comment last night is that perhaps we shouldn't have a 100% ban on residential ground floor uses in C-1 and E-1. Does the Commission want us to bring some options on that topic? 2. Another input was about ADU's in the R2 and R3 zone, and a request that the size allowed be similar to R1. 00 you want us to explore that option? 3. We also started into a line of questions about interpretation. Do you want to see some options on that subject? You probably have other topics, but the more we can explore as a group and get those options laid out to the public for input, the better our public process will be. Thanks. David Stalhelm, Director Department of Community Development City of Ashland 541-552-2043 email: stalheid(ij)ashland.or JJ.S This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please let me know. 15~ file:/ Ie: \Documents and Settings\stalheid\Local Settings\ T emp\GW} 00002.HTM 8/1/2007 f" (~) ~w." o Page 1 of2 David Stalheim - Re: ALUO Revisions From: David Stalheim To: Bryan Holley SUbject: Re: ALUO Revisions ---~---_._- Bryan, Thanks for your email. I can't really speculate based on what the Tidings or Art Bullock says and your impressions, so it is best for you to look at the proposed ordinance and my transmittal memo that outlines the proposals and draw your own conclusions (or questions). You can find all this infonnation on the following web page. b1t1l.;LLwww.ashland.or.us/Page..aSp?NavIQ=:103Z3 I have also attached the PowerPoint I used last night to summarize the proposal. We are proposing changes in the Type I pennit procedures, which are outlined in the PowerPoint. We are actually increasing the amount of notice provided (notice of application AND notice of decision), and we are adding a recondiseration process. The difference is that staff currently make the final decision subject to review by the Planning Commission Hearings Board (without ability to have any testimony). We are dropping that review step because it doesn't proVide any added benefit to decisions or the process. Decisions and a public hearing can be held before the Planning Commission on appeal, after these other steps are achieved. As for our citizen commissions, the intent is still the same: all applications would be routed through our advisory commissions (Tree, Bike, Historic, etc.) for their comments prior to decision time. I do have a proposal that would make appeals of Planning Commission decisions (Type II penn its) to council be "on the record" so that people bring their testimony before the citizen advisory committees rather than provide entirely new testimony before the city council. I believe this will help "de-politicize" land use decisions by requiring the council to review the record and not allow new information to come forward. The proposed ordinance amendments do have some changes in the Tree chapter that proVides better protection. We added a requirement that the dripline of trees on adjoining property be included in site plans and we added a requirement that allows stronger mitigation for tree replacement when the tree served as a screen. We also added a standard for when the mitigation plan must be fully implemented. If you have questions after reading the proposal, please let me know and I will be glad to try and anwer them. >>> Bryan Holley <bholley@musiciansfriend.com> 8/1/2007 1:35:09 PM >>> Hello, Mr. Stalheim, In reading your memo to PC and citizens, I note that you used language that you and your staff had gone through all this work and were now sending it forward. Today's Tidings' article also mentions that you were angling to give planning staff more power, and Mr. Bullock last night used that one point as a warning to the citizenry. The Tree Commission spent considerable time on AMC code that referred to our mission, we worked with Maria Harris at one point to mark up much of 18.61 with our changes, and until the Tree Commission operated an entire year down one or two commissioners (one of the reasons for my departure), we were, individually and collectively, reviewing and making comments on the Siegel report. We all agreed that some of the "housekeeping, spelling" stuff was non- controversial, but I could easily point out to you several sections I~S about blank 8/1/2007 1. Page 2 of2 where a lot of controversy, ambiguity, etc. was present on planning actions that happened before you moved here. Your comment made it sound like any and all commission comments have been replaced by staff comments. Is that true? Or, as I hope, did you honor the work the various commissions might have done and incorporate their comments into the documents you have sent forward? Best, Bryan Holley mailto: holley@opendoor,com mailto: bholley@musiciansfriend.com , . , ' \ , ! I, ..._ Is-'i about blank 8/112007 JULY 31,2007 PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL STUDY SESSION ,.." DRAFT ,.." CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL STUDY SESSION MINUTES JULY 31, 2007 CALL TO ORDER - The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chair John Stromberg at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR. Dotterrer presented a revised agenda. Commissioners Present: John Stromberg, Chair Michael Dawkins Mike Morris John Fields Pam Marsh Olena Black Council Liaison: Cate Hartzell, Council Liaison, present Absent Members (excused): Melanie Mindlin Dave Dotterrer Tom Dimitre Staff Present: David Stalheim, Community Development Director Bill Molnar, Planning Manager Sue Yates, Executive Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS - There were no announcements LAND USE PROCEDUREs/SIEGEL AMENDMENTS Stalheim said the Planning staffhas been working on the ordinance amendments for quite some time. It is important to the Planning Staff because they have to deal with the procedures day in and day out at the front counter. Stalheim gave a PowerPoint presentation that has been entered into the record. He discussed: ~ Evolution of Proposal- How we got to where we are today. ~ Upcoming Process - Next Thursday, August 9th, there will be a public workshop in the Council Chambers to answer any questions from the public. Stalheim has asked the public to submit written comments to him by August 20th. Staff has a list of items they have identified, both internally and from the public. They anticipate having some recommendations for changes that will be at the public hearing. The Planning Commission is welcome to attend the meeting on August 9th and/or meet with Stalheim one-on-one to discuss the changes. The public hearing is scheduled for September 11 th. They will present the original draft with a list of the proposed changes Staff is recommending and perhaps some options for the Planning Commission to consider. ~ ScopeofAmendmen~ ~ How to Read Draft Ordinance ~ Readability ~ Interpretation and Internal Consistency Issues ~ Policy Issues ~ Procedure Amendmen~ ~ Expedited Land Division ~ Amended Type I Permi~ ~ Revised Type I Notice Process ~ Type I Appeal Process ~ Cos~ for Simple Hearing ~ Type II Permit Procedures ~ Type II Proposed Appeal Procedures ~ Ordinance Interpretations ~ Application Requiremen~ ~ Options - The Commission can choose not to address some of the policy issues. They could add other "trigger" mechanisms for Type II public hearings that were discussed at the June 26th Study Session. The Commission could request that Staff develop options for identified subjec~. ~ Action - At this time, it is recommended that we proceed to public input and hearing to get feedback before we deliberate, perhaps with direction to develop options for consideration at the public hearing. Motion requested: "Move to consider the proposed amendments to the Ashland Lane Use Ordinance and set a public hearing date on September 11,2007 at 7:00 p.m." 14G PUBLIC COMMENT ART BULLOCK, 791 Glendower, said tonight's packet is a classic example of how a small group of people control Ashland's planning process. The packet proposals are not a balanced set of changes nor are they in the public interest. Every substantive change he has reviewed so far has the potential of increasing developer's profits and government power at the expense of the public interest. The packet doesn't show the issues and options for changes to the code. He submitted for the record, Issue #4, "Of the People" which includes articles on the proposal to start charging $250 for public hearings. That has the affect of pushing away public speaking through the hearing process. The proposals, if implemented, would dramatically change the face of Ashland and not for the better. Public hearings on the ordinance changes have been scheduled after the decisions have been pre-made. He suggested rather than charging $1000 for appeals (copying charges), refer people to the web (no charge). Changes should be done based on an updated Comprehensive Plan done in the public interest. Stromberg restated that he thought Bullock was trying to say he would like to see for any given change, the issue articulated and then options for addressing the issue. EVAN ARCHERD, 550 E. Main Street, expressed his appreciation for the work that has gone into this. He has not had a chance to go through the changes in great detail. With regard to Section 10, Drive-Up Uses, he does not believe anyone is in favor of expanding drive-up uses in Ashland, particularly in the Historic District. He is aware of three drive-up uses currently in the Historic District. We will never get anything else on the Wells Fargo site, for example, if we don't allow that drive-up use to be transferred someplace else. The Commission might want to think about allowing for existing drive-up uses to be relocated. If we want to think about a more historic, useful structure being built on probably the most prominent site in Downtown Ashland (comer of Pioneer, Oak, Lithia Way and Main Street), then there may need to be some mechanism by which that drive-up use could be relocated. It would provide encouragement to those users to rebuild their structure that might be more useful to our community. Stalheim said this is a larger issue policy issue than what we are taking on now. Stromberg read the e-mail received from Colin Swales dated July 30,2007. BRENT THOMPSON, 582 Allison Street, encouraged the Commission to move forward and get done what they can get done - to do the best they can. He believes they have to make incremental changes. If they get majority vote, send it through for the Council to review. Thompson commented on the following: >> 18.40.020 - Permitted Uses - The Commission should discuss if they want to have residential on the first floor in an E-I zone. If there are more than three units above the ground floor, an elevator is required. . >> Percentage oflot coverage in PUD's - Example on the extension of Nevada Street where it seemed the square footage the developer wanted to include could have been achieved if they just kicked more upstairs and shrunk the building envelope. A common complaint he hears is that houses take up too much of the lot; there is no place kids to play. >> Minor Land Partitions in existing parcels - Current language states that no lot can be created that is wider than it is deep. Oftentimes the only way we are going to build a partition is if we end up with a little bit wider lot than it is deep. In general, the intent of the wording was to stop the wide, land-consuming sprawled out parcel. >> Signs - There are still instances where they can have signs on three sides of a building. >> Credit for on-street parking. Currently it is prohibited in an area where the street width is not up to a standard. Do we really care if the street is slightly narrower? The intent of the credit was to recognize that people are parking on the street and going into that building. Is the street an important criteria for excluding parking? COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION Fields commented on the comer curb setback. He said Stalheim had explained that by changing it, it will allow us to have a broader sidewalk. He thought the problem generally has been that often property lines are further back than the curb. Stalheim responded that they changed the measurement from the curb line rather than the property lines. By allowing for vision clearance of both pedestrians and cars, no one will be penalized for having a wide sidewalk. Stalheim met with the Public Works Director and City Engineers to review the change. He wanted to make sure when we move the line from the property line to the curb line that we have adequate sight distance. Fields is concerned we could be losing vision clearance that we may need in the future. Fields asked if the hotel/motel definition is in essence saying we are going to allow traveler's accommodations in C-l. Stalheim said they pulled a definition out of a development guide that allows for transient accommodations or hotel/motel by ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 SPECIAL STUDY SESSION MINUTES JULY 31, 2007 IS" Conditional Use Permit. The criteria will be whether or not it is compatible with the neighborhood, not whether it has an outside entrance or a stove. Fields referred to 18.24.048, Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPF A) and attached accessory structures with a six foot separation and added breezeway. If there is a breezeway, can the separation be less than six feet? Assistant Planner Amy Anderson responded that if structures are six feet away, they can be connected with an unenclosed breezeway, and it is still not counted in the MPF A. Fields will make a list of other comments for Stalheim and send it to him. For example, is it the Historic Railroad District or the Railroad Historic District? Stalheim said the proposal is nothing more than what is here. Marsh noted that she'd met with Stalheim about her list. She believes the biggest challenge is to contain ourselves to what is here and stick with these changes. Morris will meet with Stalheim. Black is confused about making the maps for the Comprehensive Plan official. Stalheim said all the maps are existing and adopted through existing ordinances. They are putting the maps on a parcel database. We want to make sure what is depicted is what was originally adopted. Black said when the Siegel report came back to us, she thought it was agreed it was time to clean up the code and do the housekeeping. What she is hearing tonight is that it is really a nuisance to do the housekeeping because it makes it so onerous. We are not even looking at the low-hanging fruit. We're not even making those nuisance petty changes and bringing in other changes, not even in the Siegel report. Stalheim said the Siegel report contained a lot of things within it. Many of the issues that we are looking at are housekeeping issues. Staff wrestles with these issues everyday at the counter. Siegel came in as an outsider, but he did not spend the amount of quality time that Staff does in dealing with these issues on a daily basis. You can't expect everything in the Siegel report to be the end of things. Most of things Stalheim has pulled out in the memo are the more substantive issues that require some discussion because many of them have options that require discussion. What about the typographic errors, punctuation, etc, Black asked. Stalheim said if we are going to get to that level, maybe we should start over with the code. Black referred to Stalheim's summary memo outlining the changes. She is concerned about R-2 and R-3 having accessory units. She is not sure whether the intent of some of the ordinance changes meets the Comp Plan goals. For example, she is concerned about the R-2 and R-3 having accessory units. These issues need further discussion. Dawkins had no questions or comments. Hartzell said in April of 2006 the Council asked for the Siegel report to come back to them and they had a discussion about whether to include policy changes. They specifically asked for housekeeping changes. If the Commission decides to tackle policy issues as part of this process, she would ask for a public forum first before the public hearing. She would like a forum where Staff/Commission articulates to the public what is being changed. Walk through the changes and give options, schedule meetings that will allow people to attend, and televise the meetings. She wants to make sure the public knows what is happening and trust is built. Stromberg followed up by saying the Commission could think of doing a more active outreach. He would like to do a really good job at the public hearing and clearly distinguish items that have policy implications. It's hard to get the public involved in this because it seems so bureaucratic. Fields said Staff is concretely trying to move forward. We have an existing ordinance that is not perfect, but semi-functional. The shear effort ofre-writing the ordinance would require a Comp Plan re-write, but we don't' have the money or the time for it. He sees the bigger picture - the political body has to struggle with defining how it is going to do business with what we have, without the privilege of going back and rebuilding the ideal thing. It requires checking in and reflecting to make sure transparency is there and is it fair. In his experience the process is quite fair in the community and there is a lot of access. The system seems to be harassed by limited people holding the whole process to its detail. The laws now on the books were made by people who were all good intentioned, using their best common sense and experience to solve growth issues. Is this list too ASHLAND PlANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL STUDY SESSION MINUTES JUL Y31, 2007 3 157 much to handle in a public hearing? He believes there are going to be about a half dozen people who have concerns and those can be addressed. If we throw this out, where will we go from here? Stromberg said we need to remember that we are the Planning Commission talking via our liaison to the Council. Whatever we do here is going to be wasted if it doesn't make sense at the Council level. Stalheim said the purpose of going to a public hearing is to get the public out first and find the hot spots. After discussions with the public, we can start filtering out. If the Commission wishes to push this to September 25th, that's an option too. Marsh agreed the public hearing is the right place to deal with these changes. When you start reading the document, there is very little in it other than clarification. This is about making it easier for people to understand the code - simplify it and clarify it. The majority of this is just about language. If there is a controversial part that deserves a little bit more focus, that discussion can occur during the public hearing process. She would focus any outreach we do on letting people understand we are talking about some changes to the public hearing process; that is where we will get the most interest from people. She would not support doing the broad kinds of public outreach. Those types of open-ended forums should be reserved for much larger issues such as planning design workshops or things that will really compel people to come and invest their time. Hartzell said she has looked at the section in the Staff memo concerning minor policy issues. The Commission can expedite the process and get through it pretty quickly if it is truly housekeeping. Once they start getting into the policy issues, they are getting into it for the long haul. Stromberg is inclined to move forward. He would like to see some kind of statement telling people what we are trying to do along with using examples. At the public hearing, we need to work hard to give the motivation for every change, and prepare the presentation so it is alive. We want the lay person to be able to understand this. He would like to see a tailored package that goes to the Council. MarshlFields mls to consider the proposed amendments to the Ashland Lane Use Ordinance and set a public hearing date on September 11, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call: The motion carried with Fields, Marsh, Dawkins, Stromberg and Morris voting "yes" and Black voting "no." Stalheim said there will be a second draft after August 28th that will be advertised on the City's website. PLANNING COMMISSION LOOK AHEAD Wetland and Riparian Inventory and Draft Ordinance - August 28th Study Session Economic Opportunities Analysis - Public Hearing Arterial Setbacks - September 25th Wetland and Riparian Ordinance - Public Hearing in October Stalheim mentioned the Planning Commission Goals are on the next Council agenda. He encouraged Planning Commissioners to attend the September 4th meeting at the Council to discuss the Planning Commission Goals. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Susan Yates, Executive Secretary ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL STUDY SESSION MINUTES JULY 31, 2007 4 ISg Ashland Land Use Ordinance 2007 Amendments Evolution of Proposal . Zucker Report (February 2006) . Siegel Report (April 2006) . Planning Commission Siegel Subcommittee (June 2006 -- February 2007) · Community Development Director Report (February 8, 2007) . Planning Commission Study Session (April 4, 2007) . Planning Commission Retreat (June 2, 2007) . Planning Commission StUdy Session (June 26, 2007) Upcoming Process July 24, 2007 July 31,2007 August 9, 2007 August 20, 2007 First Draft Released for Public Review and Comment Planning Commission - first chance to review and comment before Planning Commission (7 p.m.) 5 p.m., Chambers - Public Workshop to answer questions Written comments due to Planning Director for review and incorporation into Second Draft to be pres~nted to Planning Commission for public heanng Public hearing on Draft 2 before the Planning Commission Planning Commission deliberation on amendments City Council First Reading and Hearing on Ordinance September 11, 2007 September 25, 2007 October 16, 2007 15*' 1 Scope of Amendments . Readability . Interpretation or intemal consistency in application of the code . Minor pOlicy issues, usually in concert with interpretation or consistency issues . Permit procedures How to Read Draft Ordinance . (Proposed deletions are struck through and proposed additions are underlined.) Am". ,I .~ to, 1A OR 1~n c, ~M'A '" I,., " ,IA I I;:~;~~~~~,'~.:~~~~i::~i~:;,t~~~i:I~:~,:.:(~~t~J:i~.~Jri',:,~:<;:,li~>~";i~-~fir~ ~. ~ percent~. of ;urn ~...~ in rel.Me, 10 ,"- Iota! 9""" ;WU of th. lot nr site L...d<c;p'ng ...tllch 00.. nct n"'1~llvQIV 'mp~ct the nitural "'~t.r ,glenti.,., and oa,1 ~h~riCten.tlc' 01 th~ .ite sh" nOI b~ deemed Pi" of t~. lot Dr oili cover;oge Readability . Conditional Use Permits identified by zone, rather than scattered throughout code . Distinction made between what development triggers Site Design Review (18.72) from procedure or permitting process (18.108) . Definitions amended and added for clarity /6a 2 Interpretation and Internal Consistency Issues . Lot Coverage . Clarifies what is included and provides some exemptions . Gross Floor Area . Adds definition to answer many code requirements . Site Design Standards . Clarifies what standards to apply for attached single family and non- residential development . Permit Expiration Dates . Sets limit on site design review approval to one year; extends tree removal pennits from 6 months to 1 year . Maps . ~';;1:g~;:~J;~~~ G'I~ ~~)niC fonnat . Street and Driveway Access Points . Distance between driveways made consistent with Street Standards Handbook Policy Issues . ~:'~:n,,~ln:"c;::,~:;&~~ C-1 and E-1 zones (prohibits ground floor . North Mountain Zones (lot coverage and signs) . ~essorv l~'~>>" Units Densltv and MPFA in multl-famllv zqnes as canst n -1 zones) Vision Clearance (sets slanda-d from clXb line rather than property fine) ~~~~r;1:ij;Jlna uses and structures (addresses inconsistencies and . Mechanical eaulDment (provides standEf'ds and c/lrity) . TemDorarv sloraae (provides standBrds for "PODS") . Tree Protection (adds protection to adjoining trees and mitigation) . ~=s and Yards (defines and clarifies l1R:Il.to measure - standBFds not . fiY~~ 1f~:~~~~t~ ~1=~f permit expiration to ministerial while Procedure Amendments . New Expedited Land Division procedures . Amended Type I Permit procedures . Amended Type II Permit procedures Expedited Land Divisions . Required by ORS 197.360 . Land zoned residential . Creates enough lots or parcels to allow building residential units at 80% or more of the maximum net density permitted by the zoning designation of the site . Creates three or fewer parcels and complies with street and other standards of the city . Not authorized in historic districts or on lands designated by Physical and Environmental Constraints Amended Type I Permits . Staff Permits . This permit type eliminated and integrated into Type I permits . Same basic procedures, except notice area now expanded from 100 feet to 200 feet . Notice Requirements and Decision Process . Reconsideration and Appeals . Type II projects reclassified Revised Type I Notice Process . Current process: . Staff makes "tentative" decision . Notice sent after tentative decision . Planning Commission Hearings Board reviews the decision, but cannot take any testimony unless they call the item up to hearing and re- notice the hearing . There is no notice of application and ability to provide comments prior to decisions IG~ 4 Revised Type I Notice Process, con't. . Proposed Process . Notice of "application" sent out, posted on site and web . 14-day period to submit written comments . Staff decision final, subject to reconsideration or appeal; No review by Hearings Board . Second notice of decision sent out to affected parties . Reconsideration Process . Adds ability for someone to identify a "factuar error in the decision . Reconsideration can be granted; stays appeal period . New notices must be provided Type I Appeal Process . Appeals would be heard by Planning Commission . "De novo' public hearing required with new notice . Appeal fees for public hearing recommended by staff . limited by ORS to $250 which must be refunded if the appellant prevails at the hearing or upon subsequent appeal . fees cannot be assessed to any neighborhood or community organization recognized by city whose boundaries include the site . the number of public hearin!;!s has a direct impact on allocation of staff and Planning Commission time to other pressing planning issues Costs for Simple Hearing (Recent case of247 alts that was called up to public hearing) Staff Time 11 hours $40/hour Mailing CODvina 245 Daaes x 14 sets @1 0 cents TOTAL $ 440.00 10.50 343.00 $ 793.50 Notes: Actual costs exceed this amount because full staff costs are higher than $40 per hour and copying charges are 20 cents per page. ORS would limit the amount charged for initial evidentiary hearing to $250. 16! 5 Type II Permit Procedures . Movement of some Type II penn its to Type I penn its . Buildings 100 feet in width or length in Detailed Site Review would not be automatically Type II . Adding an Initial Evidentiary Hearing . Staff could hold initial hearing to collect evidence . Evidence becomes part of the record and is transmitted to Planning Commission . Add a Reconsideration Process . Allows the Planning Director to approve reconsideration when a factual error was made . Purpose is to avoid appeals when clear errors are made that were not previously discovered . Change the Appeal to Council Procedures Type II Proposed Appeal Procedures . Council Initiated . Can "call up" Planning Commission decision for review but not appeal . Avoids bias and prejudgment by not having to state reasons for appeal . Call ups, if not appealed by others, would be limited to on the record and no public testimony taken Type II Appeal Procedures, con'1. . Citizen or Applicant initiated . Appeal could be "on the record" . City Administrator can detennine if a limited public hearing is necessary to correct a factual error or address new substantive information. . De-politicizes land use decisions . Encourages input to happen through citizen groups, such as Historic, Tree, Bike and Planning Commission . Procedural errors can still be corrected by this process 1~4 6 Ordinance Interpretations . Current Procedures: . Current ordinance has all interpretations having to be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council . There is uncertainty about what constitutes an interpretation; hinges on the word "doubt" . There are no mechanisms for formalizing request for interpretations, including appeal of such decisions . Proposed Procedures: . Makes Planning Director decision final, but all decisions are still forwarded to Planning Commission and City Council . Planning Commission and City Council could choose to review, but if not, then the decision is final . A formal request for interpretation process is added, which gives the ability to then appeal that interpretation to the Planning Commission. Application Requirements . Staff can set application requirements with respect to number of copies, format (hard copy or electronic) and size of paper . Staff can set application deadlines . This is necessary to stage potential public hearings and to allow for an expedited procedure for some permits that were previously considered Staff Permits . Staff can waive some map scale and paper size requirements for small projects in physical constraints review and tree removal permits Options . Choose not to address some of the policy issues . Could add other "trigger" mechanisms for Type II public hearings that were discussed at June 26th study session . Commission could request that staff develop options for identified subjects 16~ 7 Action . At this time, it is recommended that we proceed to public input and hearing to get feedback before we deliberate, perhaps with direction to develop options for consideration at the public hearing. . Motion Requested: "Move to consider the proposed amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance and set a public hearing date on September 11, 2007 at 7:00 p.m." I" 8 () -/" );. o CITY OF ASHLAND July 24, 2007 ::., ~. L' " ; L: ,.:~. ~- t ~.;- i~l ,. '; ! \.. i) f') ! \..: _~ "._ TO: Planning Commission and Interested Citizens RE: Proposed Amendments to Ashland Land Use Ordinance CC: Mayor and City Council Please find attached proposed amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. Ashland planning staff has been working diligently over the past two months reviewing the code for inconsistencies, missing definitions, contradictory requirements, and minor policy issues. In addition, the proposed amendments address recommendations for revised permit procedures which staff has been discussing with the Planning Commission. These amendments are brought forward based on two initiatives: report from Siegel Planning Services in 2006 and the review of the city's land use procedures by the Planning staff. There is a considerable amount of information and change within these proposed ordinance amendments. I have been reluctant to separate these amendments into distinct packages because that is why the code is now internally inconsistent. It is important to ensure that references from one section to another be accurate. When the ordinance is amended in piecemeal fashion, you will find problems with internal consistency. The second reason that I believe that this package should be reviewed as one document is for customer service and public notice. Due to Measure 56 notice requirements, we are sending notice to over 9,000 property owners that proposed changes are being considered. We also do not want to create a "Code of the Month", so making sure we address all the issues in one package is valuable for customer service. The Planning Commission and City Council has choices in review of these amendments. In the following pages, I will attempt to identify the significant changes that are proposed in these amendments. If the Planning Commission and City Council are not interested in proceeding with some of these amendments, it is possible to set them aside and move forward with others. It is not an "all or nothing" ordinance, although making sure we address the internal references and consistencies remains a significant issue. The process for consideration of these amendments is as follows: July 24, 2007 July 31, 2007 First Draft Released for Public Review and Comment Planning Commission - first chance to review and comment before Planning Commission (7 p.m.) 5 p.m., Chambers - Public Workshop to answer questions Written comments due to Planning Director for review and incorporation into Second Draft to be presented to Planning Commission for public hearing Public hearing on Draft 2 before the Planning Commission Planning Commission deliberation on amendments City Council First Reading and Hearing on Ordinance August 9, 2007 August 20, 2007 September 11, 2007 September 25, 2007 October 16, 2007 From the Desk of: David Stalheim, Director Department of Community Development 51 Winburn Way Ashland, Oregon 97520 ~;talrleld(1iJashlando: ~~ !I>'Wwashland,OLUs Tel: 541-552-2043 Fax: 541-552-2050 TTY 800-735-2900 167 C) l '.. :~C.:.' ,'? .' The proposed amendments can be broken Into four functional areas: 1. Amendments to make the code easier to follow and read. 2. Amendments to address on going Interpretation Issues or Internal consistency In application of the code. 3. Amendments to address some minor policy Issues, usually In concert with interpretation or consistency Issues. 4. Changes to permit procedures. Easier to Read For planning staff, customers and citizens, It is very difficult to read the Ashland Land Use ordinance and be clear as to what Is required. Some examples of an attempt to make the code easier to read and review are as follows: · Conditional use permits. The current code has requirements for conditional use permits scattered throughout. The proposed amendments list the conditional use permits by zone, so a reader knows all the potential conditional use permits allowed In each zone. · Site Design versus Procedures. The Site Design chapter (18.72) Is currently a blend of both standards and procedures. The procedures are removed from this chapter and put Into the Procedures (18.108) chapter. At the same time, an attempt Is made to make clear what development Is subject to Site Design Review and what Is exempt. · Definitions. Definitions are amended and new ones added that were not previously Included in the code but are necessary In the application of the code. InterDretation and Internal Cons.stenev Issues Every day, planning staff and customers struggle with the meaning or requirements of certain sections of the code. In some circumstances" the Intent Is, clear and a staff decision can be made. In other cases, either the intent Is nofkriown 'oris In question. There are also circumstances where the code can be written to provl'dedbetter direction: 'The following are the primary examples of these code amendments: · Lot Coverage. The current definition of Lot Coverage uses words that do not get to the Intent of the requirement. Words such as structure (could Include dog houses, bird houses, etc.), soli disturbances and normal water Infiltration (no definitions). Customers often argue that gravel driveways should be exempt from the requirement. Staff has exempted decks with spacing that allows water Infiltration, but not solid decks like concrete patios. Technically, the ordinance would require staff to measure walkways In gardens. The proposed definition proVides an exemption for some permeable surfaces and makes the definition much easier to administer. In the long term, the city should consider two standards: one which addresses Impervious surfaces or landscaping/open space and a second which considers bulk and scale of buildings. Those types of changes, however, are considered beyond the scope of these amendments. From the Desk of: David Stalhelm. Director Department of Community Dtvtlopmtnt 51 Winburn Way AshIancI, Oregon 97520 stalheid(a)ashland. or. us wwwashiand.or.us Tel: 541-552-2043 Fax: 541-552-2050 TTY: 800-735-2900 ,., /6 f' Page2of11 () 0'.'.......... .. "'ir't ". · Gross Floor Area. There are several standards In the code based on gross floor area or gross habitable floor area. New definitions are added that are easy to administer and consistent with each other. The definitions measure to outside surfaces of the bulldlng(s). · Site Design Standards. Some development triggers Site Design Review, but what standards should be applied Is not always clear. Examples of this Include attached single family housing (e.g. townhouses) and non-residential development (e.g. schools) in residential zones. The proposed amendments identify how these sections should be applied. In addition, the applicability of the Site Design to other development Is made clear, including the expansion of Impervious surface, alterations which affect circulation, and alterations to historic buildings. · Expiration Dates. Site Design Review approvals were never set to expire If not acted upon. A one year limit Is proposed. Tree removal permits are the only planning action that had six month permits; these are proposed to change to 1 year permits. Partitions are proposed for 18 months. · Maps. Many of the maps that set standards and regulations are hand drawn maps within booklets. As such, these maps were never In an electronic database or applied to parcels. The city's GIS staff has worked to apply these old maps to current technology. Finally, there Is not an official zoning map that can be found by the City Recorder. As a result, we wish to readopt the maps In a new electronic format, which will then be available by the City Recorder within the new ordinance. · Street and driveway access points. The distance between driveways on residential streets Is 24 feet in the Street Standards Handbook, but SO feet In the Site Design Chapter. An Interestingly point also Is that you can place a driveway or another street 35 feet from the Intersection, but the driveway separation Is larger. Consistency between these two standards Is proposed. (See 18.72.120(8)) Minor PolleY Issues Usually in conjunction with a readability or Interpretation Issue, we have Identified some sections where we work to clarify both the wording and address some policy Issues. The following are examples of these In the proposed amendments. · Setbacks and Yards. It Is standard practice to have building setbacks. The code uses the word "yard", as In a required 15' front yard. The ordinance also did not proVide clarity on how setbacks or yards were determined for multi-story buildings. While It would be advantageous to go through the entire ordinance and address this Issue, a simpler route was taken by revising the definition of setback (and adding a new definition of Setback, Special) and by providing clarity as to how setbacks are measured In multi-story buildings. There are also standards for "half-stories", but no definition; a proposed definition for half- story was added. · North Mountain Zones. When the North Mountain zones were adopted, standards for lot coverage or signs In the commercial areas were not Included. Standards consistent with the plan are proposed. · Accessory Residential Units, Density and MPFA in Multi-Family Zones. Under the current standards, It Is pOSSible to have more density and Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) In the R-1 single family district than In the R-2 or R-3 multi-family districts. This Is due to the fact that In multi-family zones, there Isn't any such use as an "accessory From the Desk of: David Stalhelm. Director OepIrtmIlt 01 Community Dlvtlopmtllt 51 WInburn Wwt Ashland. OIIgon 97520 stalhe!dl1liashland. or. us www.ashland.Or.us Tel: 541-552-2043 FIX: 541-552-2050 TTY: 800-735-2900 rA1 Ib9 PlIlle3af11 (~i) '~fP' ,'C~ o residential use" since multi-family Is allowed and not considered "accessory". In the R-1 district, accessory residential units that are detached from the house are exempt from MPFA. The same allowance is proposed In R-2 and R-3, with a limit of just 500 square feet for the second unit. In addition, It Is made clear that the minimum lot area for this second unit can be placed on a 5,000 square foot lot. · Residential Ground Floor In C-l and E-l zones. The current standards for residential uses are not clear when there are multiple buildings in these zones. The existing standard reads "...65% of the total gross floor area of the ground floor, or at least 50% of the total lot area If there are multiple buildings..." The first part is clear (except that gross floor area Is not defined), but how do you calculate 50% of the total lot area when applied to multiple buildings? In addition, the recent Economic Opportunities Analysis pOints out concerns with allowing residential uses in our commercial and employment zones. The proposed standards would not allow residential uses on the ground floor, which Is a common zoning requirement In most cities. The standards address the multiple floors by placing an overall limit on how much residential can be allowed for a 2-story building (50%) or multiple story buildings (66%). Thus, a two story building would have one floor ,of commercial and the second floor could be residential. A three story building could have one story of commercial and two floors of residential. Four or more stories would be required to have upper floors be partly used for commercial or employment purposes. · Tree Protection. The current ordinance does not offer protection for trees on adjacent properties that might have drlpllnes overhanging the site of proposed development. A requirement to Identify those trees Is added (18.61.050). The ability to require larger trees when replacing a visual screen that Is removed lis added' (18.61.084).' · Vision Clearance. The current ordinance measures. vision dearance from property lines. - This Is a disincentive to wide sidewalks and does not address the purpose of the vision clearance area: for pedestrian and vehicular safety. The proposed changes measure setbacks from curb lines. As a result, an exemption for street utilities Is necessary for Items such as traffic signs, street lights, etc. The amendments were reviewed by the Public Works Director and City Engineer. The State of Oregon standards are dropped from the code as they are within state law and arestqpping distances, not vision clearance. · Nonconforming Uses and Structures. The existing standards have contradictions and do not properly reference criteria. A nonconforming use may be changed or a nonconforming structure enlarged when authorized In accordance with the "procedure" in the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) chapter. It has been argued that the procedures for Conditional Use permit are notice requirements, and not criteria. A reference to two of the three conditional use permit criteria Is added. The second problem with this section is that It appears to require a CUP when reconstructing or structurally altering a nonconforming structure. However, there are no definitions as to what reconstruction or structural alteration means, and the third point allows this to occur as long as the footprint Is not changed In size or shape. The changes proposed would require a CUP only when the structure Is enlarged or extended. A nonconforming structure could be reconstructed or structurally altered (enlarged Is stricken) without a CUP; however, the use cannot change without a CUP. For example, If a garage had a nonconforming setback, It could be structurally altered unless the use changed, such as to a residential unit. Then, a conditional use permit would be required. From the Desk of: David Stalheim, Director DtJllrlmtnt of Community Developmtl'lt 51 WIlburn Way Ashland. OIlllOll 97520 stalheld(!j)ashlandor us wwwashland.orus Tel: 541-552-2043 FIX: 541-552-2050 TTY: 800-735-2900 ~A' li~ Page 4 of 11 I, j · Mechanical Equipment. The existing code does not appear to provide any clear exemption from Site Design Review, nor does it provide exemptions for placement into yards, etc. There are several amendments proposed that address this issue. o Definitions. Removes the exemptions from the definition and puts these exemptions into the Site Design Chapter. o Setback Exception. Mechanical equipment and associated housing that is not taller than allowed fence heights is proposed to be allowed within required side or rear yards. If this equipment is installed, It must conform to other provisions of the Ashland Code, including noise attenuation. (See 18.68.140) o Site Design Review Exemptions. Three exemptions are provided in Section 18.72.030(6). The first is an exemption for roof-mounted solar collection devices unless within the Employment and Commercial zoned properties in an historic district. The second is the installation of mechanical equipment not visible from the street or adjacent residential property. The third is for the routine maintenance and replacement of existing mechanical equipment. The other exemptions are required by federal law for amateur radios and satellite dishes. · Temporary Storage. We are starting to see an Increase in the usage of temporary storage containers throughout the city. These storage containers include signage that Is incompatible with city standards, and there are currently no limits on how long these can be kept in place. Proposed standards would allow these units on a temporary basis. Anything longer would require a Conditional Use Permit. (See 18.68.170) · Permit Expiration. The current ordinance allows two extensions of one year each for planning actions. These extensions must be approved with a Staff Permit procedure requiring notice, etc. The permit approval can only be extended when the ordinance has not changed, or the applicant agrees to abide by any changes in the ordinance. The proposed amendment would allow for just one extension of 18 months, and this extension can be approved ministerial by staff with the same requirement that the code has not changed or the applicant agrees to abide by any code changes. (See 18.112.030) From the Desk of: David Stalheim, Director Department of Community Development 51 Winburn Way Ashland, Oregon 97520 Tel: 541-552-2043 Fax: 541-552-2050 TTY: 800-735-2900 rA1 WW~ 9~tts!!_lilJ'.f-,-_lJ~ / ~J/ Page5of11 ( i ( Procedure Amendments There are numerous changes proposed within the ordinance affecting procedures. The changes can be grouped into the following functional areas: 1. New Expedited Land Division procedures 2. Amended Type I Permit procedures 3. Amended Type II Permit procedures 4. Ordinance Interpretations 5. Application Requirements New Expedited land Division Procedures An expedited land division under ORS 197.360 is an action for '_and zoned residential in an urban growth boundary that creates enough lots or parcels to allow building residential units at 80% or more of the maximum net density permitted by the zoning designation of the site, creates three or fewer parcels and complies with street and other standards of the city. These procedures are required under Oregon statute, but have not been written into the city's code yet. The proposed procedures are taken baSically verbatim from the statute. The only deviation is that the City Administrator Is authorized to hire a "referee" under contract if an Expedited Land Division is appealed. (State law requires the referee to be someone other than a city employee or official, which would include the Planning Commission.) The expedited land division process would not be authorized in historic districts or on lands designated by Physical and Environmental Constraints. It is anticipated that few partitions would be eligible for this review process. Amended Type I Permit Procedures · Staff Permits. The current procedure for staff permits is removed from the proposed ordinance. These permits would now proceed as Type I permits. The change is not significant, provided that the proposed Type I procedures are adopted. Notice requirements are nearly identical between Type I and Staff Permits. The consolidation makes It easier to administer and should have little affect on customers. The current staff permits In the code are as follows: o Site Review for two or three residential units on a sinale lot. o Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permits as allowed in Chapter lac62. o Variances described in Section 18.7Q.060. (Solar waiver) o Site Reviews In C-1, E-1, HC and M zones for expansions of an existing use that do not require new building area In excess of 2.500 sauare feet, or modification of more than 10% of the area of the site. o Extension of time limits for approved planning actions. Two extensions of up to 12 months each may be approved under the following conditions: · A change of conditions, for which the applicant was not responsible, prevented the applicant from completing the development within the original time limitation, and From the Desk of: David Stalheim. Director Department of Community Development 51 Winburn Way Ashland, Oregon 97520 Tel: 541-552-2043 Fax: 541-552-2050 TTY: 600-735-2900 rA' , :~lil:/:J.(i{Q@~.blf1?2_~__'~ '1!..,.dj a~:-J:flnd Q! ,Y.~ Page6of11 I 7.~. ( · Land Use Ordinance requirements applicable to the development have not changed since the original approval. An extension may be granted, however, if requirements have changed and the applicant agrees to comply with any such changes. o The following developments subject to the Site Design and Use Standards in section 18.72.040.A: · Any change of occupancy from a less intensive to a more intensive occupancy, as defined in the City building code, or any change in use which requires a greater number of parking spaces. · Any addition less than 2,500 square feet or ten percent of the building's square footage, whichever is less, to a building. · All Installations of mechanical equipment in any zone. · Installation of disc antennas subject to the requirements of Section 18.72.160. Any disc antenna for commercial use In a residential zone shall also be subject to a Conditional Use Permit (18.104). o Any exterior chanae to a structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places. o Any other planning action designated as subject to the Staff Permit Procedure. o Other planning actions not otherwise listed or designated as a Type I, II or III procedure. · Notice Requirements. The current procedures require the city to send notice to adjacent property owners after a tentative decision has been made by staff. Oregon state law requires that we give Notice of Application. The city's current notice procedure might be allowed due to the fact that the notice is of a tentative decision that does not become final until reviewed by the Hearings Board. This procedure does not encourage public input at the appropriate stage of the process. The proposed notice procedure allows for a 14-day period to submit written comments. These permit applications will be sent to neighbors within 200 feet, sign posted on site, and the application will be made available for review on the city's web site. The proposed Notice of Application will provide a better opportunity to comment on the application prior to decisions being made. · Type II projects now proposed as Type I. There are some Type II planning actions that are proposed to be moved to Type I. Because the existing ordinance classifies conditional use permits Involving existing structures and not more than 3 dwelling units as Type I permits, It is not possible to accurately reflect how many of these changes would result In an actual move of Type II permits to Type I. Some of the known changes might include: o The requirement that projects that are more than 100 feet in length or width in the Detail Site Review zone. o Daycare centers, public and public utility buildings less than 2,500 square feet, hostels, and some uses in the Residential and North Mountain zones o Electrical substations, outdoor storage of commodities In the commercial zones o Limited personal service providers in the home, travelers' accommodations, and professional offices in the Health Care Services zone. · Staff Decision Final. The current ordinance has all Type I permit applications reviewed by the Planning Commission Hearings Board before they become final. The proposed changes would make the staff decision final, subject to either a reconsideration process or appeal to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. From the Desk of: David Stalheim, Director Department of Community Development 51 Winburn Way Ashland, Oregon 97520 I:Jl.nf:JHwashif3[!d .JL1d2 "!.w.w ;~.s_nt~n~LQiJJ.;) Tel: 541-552-2043 Fax: 541-552-2050 TTY: 800-735-2900 ,;., Page7of11 /7~ ( . * ~. ( ; j j ....... This procedure is projected to save considerable staff time that can be devoted to other issues, as well as saving the Hearings Board from additional meetings. In the past two years, there were 95 Type I decisions that were reviewed by the Hearings Board. For each application reviewed by the Hearings Board, staff must prepare a staff report, copies must be made, and presentations prepared. Conservatively, I would anticipate that this change would result in a savings of almost two hours of staff time per application. That is two weeks worth of staff time per year that could be allocated to other priorities. · Reconsideration and Appeals. In an effort to avoid appeals when a factual error occurred that is brought to the attention of the Staff Advisor, a reconsideration process is added to the procedures. The Planning Director would review the request, and if reconsideration is granted, then the appeal process is stopped until a revised decision is sent out to all parties of the action. The current procedures allow anyone to "call up" an item to publiC hearing at no cost. The proposed process for having a planning actioh considered at a public hearing would be an appeal of the final decision of the Planning Director. Appeals would be to the Planning Commission and would be a "de novo" hearing under Oregon land use statutes. Since the new process has both a Notice of Application and a Reconsideration process, it is hoped that issues are resolved before an appeal. The proposal would not allow any further appeals to City Council. Appeals of the Planning Commission decision could be made to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). State law is specific in that land use actions made without a public hearing can be appealed and fees set. The maximum fee that can be charged for the initial hearing is $250. If an appellant prevails at the hearing or upon subsequent appeal, the fee for the initial hearing must be refunded. Any fee required cannot apply to, appeals made by neighborhood or community organizations recognized by the city and whose boundaries include the site. While this ordinance does not set fees, it does authorize the collection of these appeal fees (up to state limit of $250). I am making a recommendation that such fees be established. In the most recent case of the "call up" of the Type I Final Outline Plan approval for Helman Baths without any fees paid, staff calculated the amount of time to transmit this issue to the Planning Commission. In this case, the Planning Commission upheld the staff decision. The following was the expense to the city in that review, which does not account at all for additional expenses to the applicant. Staff Time Mailing Coovina 11 hours $40/hour $ 440.00 10.50 343.00 $ 793.50 245 oaaes x 14 sets (CillO cents TOTAL From the Desk of: David Stalheim, Director Department of Community Development 51 Winbum Way Ash~d,O~on97520 J?l!ls'i 'J:W d~tllQ.!J.c.L m.ili ,^~,!:-:.~}.j l~iill'.L!:!f__-':-l_~ Tet: 541-552-2043 Fax: 541-552-2050 TTY: 800-735-2900 r~' Page 8 or 11 /7"'/ ("'..'..'..... ~,1 ('') "'".;;j'- Amended Type II Permit Procedures Only limited changes are proposed to the Type II procedures. · Initial Evidentiary Hearing. One of my experiences thus far is that information is not gathered early in the process in order to afford decision-makers with ample opportunity to review, study and prepare questions. Staff also is not provided the opportunity to review and incorporate information Into analysis or recommendations. Recently, staff held a neighborhood meeting on a project to gather some input and see if some issues could be resolved. The neighbors were very pleased with the process because it was less formal, there weren't limits on the length of time they could talk, etc. The proposal Is to be able to formalize these meetings through a public hearing process where the input is kept, recorded and then transmitted to the Planning Commission for their review and deliberation. The public hearing would not be closed at the staff level, so additional oral and written testimony could stili be received by the Planning Commission. · Reconsideration. Like the Type I procedures, at times there may have been a factual error made during the decision-making at the Planning Commission level that could be cured by the Planning Commission rather than through an appeal procedure before the City Council. An example in the past was advice provided by staff regarding standards for vision clearance. Upon review the next day, it was noticed that the advice was factually Incorrect, which could be cured by a reconsideration process. · Appeal to Council. There are two basic changes In the proposed changes to appeal to council procedures. o Council Ability to Review. In a recent case where the Council appealed a Planning Commission decision, It was unclear whether the Council appealed the decision or they wanted to call the decision up for review. The proposal eliminates the Council ability to be an appellant, but preserves their right to call up an action for review. When the council Is the appellant and the hearing body for the appeal, potential bias and prejudgment issues are created. The proposal would allow the Council to simply call up an Item for review without the requirement to state the reasons normally required in an appeal proceeding. The proposed procedures would also have any issue that is "called up" by the City Council to be a review of the record without any public testimony, unless an appeal is filed by another party. o Appeals could be "on the record". One of my experiences of appeals before the City Council is that new information is provided that never was provided to the Planning Commission or other advisory bodies, such as the Historic Commission or Tree Commission. In order to place an emphasis on citizen participation and citizen review of development applications, and de-politicize land use decisions, it is best that the record and Input be provided at the earliest stage in the process. The proposed amendments would state that appeals before City Council be "on the record" before the Planning Commission unless the City Administrator determines that a factual error occurred or additional substantive information is available that might affect the outcome of the decision. If the City Administrator finds that additional testimony is warranted, then the Council would limit the public testimony to those facts and issues only. From the Desk of: David Stalheim, Director Department of Community Development 51 Winburn Way Ashland, Oregon 97520 . @lheid@asniliI.d.'[ us "'~..i!sbLiJ.n..Q.Qi us Tel: 541-552-2043 Fax: 541-552-2050 TTY: 800-735-2900 r~' Page9of11 .J '''1 f ( ') Ordinance Interpretations One of the concerns expressed by some in the public is the process for interpretations. Every day, planning staff makes judgments on what the code appears or doesn't appear to say or require. Some call these interpretations, which under the current ordinance need to be reviewed by both the Planning Commission and City Council. If every judgment call we made was reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council, the proCess would quickly clog up. I believe that such process is only required when there is "doubt" about the provision. When there isn't doubt, we don't send it forward. The process as written is not necessarily fair to parties that don't agree with the decision. In every jurisdiction that I am familiar with, the Planning Director's decision on interpretation is final, but that decision can be appealed to some body for review. As such, the process that is proposed is a hybrid between the current system where the Planning Commission and City Council review that interpretation, and a system where the decision of the Planning Director is final, subject to potential review and/or appeal. The system maintains the relationship with the City Attorney providing his or her opinion on the interpretation. I have also faced considerable amount of work and effort answering questions from citizens about what the code appears or doesn't appear to require. Formalizing,the process for interpretation requests will benefit staff and others, and will provide .the city with the opportunity if desired to capture any fees for these services. Application Requirements Finally, the proposed ordinance provides some flexibility for staff to set application submittal requirements and deadlines (18.108.017(A)(3)), and to waive some map scale and paper sizes for physical constraints and tree removal permits (see 18.61.050 and 18.62.040). From the Desk of: David Stalheim, Director Department of Community Development 51 Winburn Way Ashland, Oregon 97520 ~;!r.:.~Jd (ev asn !dJ.l:J~.1!~ ~y.,{~~__sl0.li-lnq::;~ ~;}S Tel: 541-552-2043 Fax: 541-552-2050 TTY: 800-735-2900 rj.1 Page 10 of 11 I () r " ( ) 'I.~~iin h,ILla~ Ii ~ 1(.. .... "" .... CCl 01' If) 1111 I a:: .s JiI a:: 6 e'" 0 If) U) Iii! w 0::: en :::> .... - 0 en W .... U II B~ ~ 0 UitjRI 0::: a.. "'0 0 c: 100 to - W ~ Z - ...J ~IJ! w i~~ ~ - .... ~ . N.., N:g.... ~.l.~ .... - ..~ - ~ ..~ ~ ~ ~.! 0::: w H~n 1! a.. .I - w a.. iJ R, ~ 0 "-= In ,..:! o. .... c', u:' 0 iliA!! ,., i '" .-01-,1 ~ i ~ f i j ;! w )1 ." U) Z i . ~I ~ - > C)j .' .oSl j; ~ III ..I~!" W Ll..0 ." ()j3= 0::: 0 - I ,'J '1 /: ~/ WRITTEN COMMENTS . . . We HOJ1or Independence. ~ \lII 'l/. ~-4~~ .:: .., .::::. ,y~ q,'II~' Of The People Voice Of The Majority Ex h i hi +- Wednesday July 4, 2007 .f \~ cry, Democracy 2, Oligarchy 0 Majority Reject Council's Charter Model Charter: 77%NO City Manager: 62%NO Those whose actions concen- trate power in the hands of a few suffered a major setback in the May15 election. A wide majority of voters reJect- ed council"s 2 charter measures on the ballot. Both council pro- posals shifted power from the people to the government. Ballot Box Debacle .t was worse than a defeat. It was a debacle. By an extraordinary margin of 77%-23%. Ashland voters reject- ed council's proposed 'model charter'. Ashland's majority voted more than 3 to 1 against. The majority echoed their dis- pleasure with a landslide 62% rejection of council's proposal for a 'city manager' with unilateral decision power to choose depart- ments heads. High Voter Turnout-.62% Spring elections nonmally have a low turnout. Not this time. Of Ashland's 13,027 voters, 8,113 voted, a 62% turnout, high due in part to the county library levy. Opposition to council's charter was evenly distributed across the city. Ashland's 5 precincts ranged from 75-79% opposition. Opposition against a city man- ager with unilateral decision power ranged 58-69% across Ashland's 5 precincts. Tax Money Wasted City of Ashland wasted tens of thousands of tax dollars, and 3 years of work, in putting these 2 failed measures on the ballot. Neither measure remotely rep- resented the majority will of the people. AshlandConstitution.org had explained to council and City's charter committee and council that a survey showed a wide majority of Ashlanders opposed the model charter and city manager because the majori- ty viewed both as concentrating power in the hands of a few. Many people see City of Ashland as being run by insiders and wealthy developers, satisfy- ing special interests rather than public interests. Instead of run- ning local government by the majority will of the people, people saw proposed charter changes as making the insider problem worse. What's Wrong With Council? Something fundamental is wrong when tens of thousands of tax dollars produce a ballot measure opposed by a 77% majority. What's wrong with councii that they would put such measures on the ballot? The majority of councilors did NOT support these measures. Only half the councilors, Kate Jackson, Russ Silbiger. and David Chapman voted to put these measures on the ballot. The resultina 3-3 tie was broken forced the ill-fated charter measures onto the ballot. The other 3 coun- cilors voted against putting these meas- ures on the ballot: Eric Navickas, Alice Hardesty, and Cate Hartzell. Election I results show that i these 3 speak for . Ashland's majority, and that the approving foursome are llisconnected from what the majority want. Citizens' Voter Education A Success AshlandConstitu- tion.org, a Citizens group working on the charter. pre- pared and distrib- uted 1-sheet flyers educating voters about charter issues. The flyers caught the attention of many uninformed about the charter measures. The most common reaction to the fly- ers was "{ had no idea this was going on. ". The flyers awakened many to the harsh reality that the bid to concentrate power in the hands of the few was not limited to Washington, DC. People copied and distributed to friends and neighbors these Voter Education flyers, which multiplied like loaves and fishes. City employees said they received literally hundreds of calls about the flyers. Throwing Good Money After Bad City's response to these flyers became a classic case of dys- functional government. City staff hired an attorney to rebut the content of the flyers, contracting with attorney Paul Nolte for $7,800 to respond to charter election issues. It's a viol'ltion of Oregon law to use taxp'lyer money to support or oppose a ballot measure, even if city council put it on the b'lllat. Nolte, a former Ashland city 'Ittorney, now works for League Of Oregon Cities, which sells the model ch'lrter all 'Icross Oregon 'Ind thus h'ld 'In 'IlIeged financial interest in the vote outcome of Ashl'lnd's ch'lrter me'lsures. Nolte's response on City's web site was entitled "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQ), thaugh it contained no questions. it did. however, contain 'spin' and false inform'ltion. Public Hearing For Sale -- Only $250 Since the election, many h'lve 'Isked me skeptically, "What will they try next?" We didn't h'lve to wait long to find out. At the first regul'lr PC (Planning Commission) meeting 'Ifter the May 15 b'lllot, Planning Director David St'lhlheim proposed changes in Ashland's pl'ln- ning process. Like council's charter measures, his pro- I posals concentrate power Same Song, , Second Verse I On May15. the Ashland . majority rejected a city : manager proposai to con- . centrate power In the hands . of an uneiected staffer Now City wants to increase staff's power in planning decisions. Stahlheim proposed an additional layer of bureau- cracy in the planning process--an "evidentiary hearing" conducted by an unelected 'hearings officer'. The hearings officer wouldn.t be a Planning Commissioner, or even a looaj'attomeyaccustomed to court rules of evidence. Instead, Stahlheim pro- posed that he be the 'hear- City attorney Mike Franell, who ings afficer'. resigned in Jan2007 during the Stahlheim's proposal charter process. had urged coun- would give him direct power cil to make this and other over record evidence on changes. Franell said that corpo- developers' projects by giv: rations don't 'inhabit', only human Ing him control over the eVI- beings 'inhabit'. Corporations dentlaryheanng.. He has 'reside'. By specifying 'inhabi- already Inserted himself In tants', Ashland's charter had limit- public forum testimony to ed the use of Ashland's water for PC, allegedly Illegally, act- people, not corporations [some of ing as self-app~inted gate- whom want ta bottle it for resale]. keeper for what s spoken So Franell wanted the word and presented in writing "inhabitants' changed to "resi- during public forum. dents". Mayor and 3 councilors agreed. Hiding Removal Of The Majority's Right To Vote The other half ofthe water pro- tection sentence, which Nolte claimed was copied "verbatim", was removed entireiy. That por- tion reqUIred a majority vote of the people for water and all other utility services. By removing the majority vote requirement. the same 3 councilors and mayar were granting themselves the power to start new utility services without taxpayer approval. Nolte's FAQ generated contro- versy over its legal errors, like claiming state law protected Lithia Park from being sold to developers. Staff started chang- ing Nolte's FAQ without docu- menting who changed what or why. Council put it on their agen- da, and as usual, ran out of time without resolving it. Thus, when faced with major charter election problems, City compounded its errors by throw- ing more tax maney at the prob- lem, which only dug a deeper hole. Instead of resolving the issues. legally incorrect claims and partisan use of tax money further damaged City's credibility. This showed lack of integrity for something as fundamental as adopting a new charter, Ashland's constitution. Ashland shall have a new birth of freedom. Local government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from this corner of the earth. Human Beings 'Inhabit', Corporations 'Reside' For example, Nolte's FAQ false- ly claimed Ashland's current water protection language was copied "verbatim" into the pro- posed charter. A simple, 60-second comparl' son of current and proposed charters showed that was untrue. Council had altered Ashland's water language ta change the word "inhabitants" to "residents". Ii R Part 1. Add A Step- For "Efficiency" PC already holds an evi- dentiary hearing, the normal public hearing. At public hearings, peaple can speak or submit written evidence about issues and impacts of the proposed development on their neighborhood-- pedestrian safety, parking, water runoff. traffic conges- tion, solar access, creek flow, etc.. Stahlheim's proposal adds another evidentiary hearing before the regular hearing. By adding this new step, Planning Department staff would gain additional power by controlling much of the evidence brought to PC. It would also give staff time to prepare their spin on evi- dence when presenting the staff report to the PC. Controlling record evidence is like controlling the scoreboard in a basketball game. This procedural power is key. Oregon law requires that all planning commiS- sions make planning action decisions based strictly on evidence in the record. Controlling record evidence is like controlling the score- board in a basketball game. As with the charter com- mittee, who called their power shifts "housekeeping items", Stahlheim discount- ed the power shifts for plan- ning, calling them "minor adjustments" . Using the same wording as model charter propo- nents, Stahlheim's explana- tion for concentrating power in hiS hands was effiCien- cy', though his proposal added another formal leqal step In an already clogged process. "Efficiency" has become the standard word useel to justify concentrating power In the hands of a few, who argue they could make the decision faster. Part 2. Charge Citizens $250 For The Right To Have A Public Hearing As for the charter, this pro- posal to concentrate power in the hands of the few is accompanied by new barri- ers to publiC involvement. Stahlheim also proposed charging Citizens $250 to request a public hearing on Type 1 planning applications Currently, if someone requests such a pUblic hearing, it's held without charge, following First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution. Stahlheim's pro- posal affects your rights as a Citizen. To have a public hearing to speak freely, you'd have to pay $250. Under Stahlheim's pro- posed rule, the hearing would only be held if Citizens paid $250 for the right to have a hearing. Type 1 planning applica- tions include iarge projects On Jul10, PC has a hearing on the Final Plan for the Helman Springs project. an 18-house subdivision in Quiet Village. This is one of the most complex proj- ects tackled in years, with many underground hot springs, a large wetland, a hot-spring fed swimming pool that overflows onto the street, 100+-year property history, and wildlife habitat for neighborhood deer. This proposal means affected neighbors wauld have to pay $250 to have a hearing on the issues. Stahlheim's proposal affects your rights as a Citizen. Under his proposal. you'd still have the right to speak freely on a proposed devel- opment that affects you and your family. Though to have a public hearing to speak freely, you'd have to pay $250. Page 1 of 1 David Stalheim - ALVO changes From: To: Date: Subject: "Colin Swales" <colinswales@gmai1.com> "David Stalheim" <stalheid@ashland.or.us> 7/30/2007 1:14 AM ALVa changes David, I like most of the changes you have made to the R-2 and R-3 codes to allow (accessory) residential units on these lots (where there is presently a single home) although I think the 500 Sq. Ft. may be a bit on the small size and could perhaps be more like the less than 50% of the main dwelling with a max of 1000 sfper the new definition and in line with the R-l allowance. Also while you are reworking the N.Mountain side yard setbacks have you though of applying this kind of stepped setback to all other zones. It would certainly make the impact of flag-lot type infill less obtrusive in current single-story neighborhoods. And I still think it absurd that the rear yard (setback) should be the same for a property that backs on to a public alley as one which abuts the rear of a neighbor. This is recognized in the N.Mountain zones that allows only a 4 ft. setback when on an alley. Could this be adopted city-wide? Also it would be better if it was only 3 ft. per the requirements of ALVa 18.68.140 Accessory BuDdings and Structures and in line with the Building Regs regarding openings in Fire walls (esp. side yards) when adjacent to neighbors. It would also be more similar to existing historic rear facade setbacks along alleys. (often zero) I think the proposed fees to "call-up" a planning action for a public hearing unnecessarily limits the public's opportunity for a hearing before a group of their peers and is anti-democratic. Sorry I will not have time to respond more on these matters as I will be out of Internet range from Wednesday (at sea) until returning to Ashland on 20 Aug. best Colin ./ . / . <' ,',,/, , ( J' /. " I, _. .J ~. - t.. Vi r' ( / ( ( Ij /, "'....' /' I ~,.:, n r ./ ! ~~,/ f file://C:\Documents and Settings\stalheid\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 7/31/2007