Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-1016 Council Mtg PACKET Important: Any citizen attending Council meetings may speak on any item on the agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing which has been closed. If you wish to speak, please rise and after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and address. The Chair will then allow you to speak and also inform you as to the amount of time allotted to you. The time granted will be dependent to some extent on the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people who wish to be heard, and the length of the agenda. ! lLtr_AJ t AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 16, 1990 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 7:30 P.M., civic Center Council Chambers II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Meeting of October 2, 1990. IV. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS: 1. certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting from Government Finance Officers Association. V. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions & Committees. 2. Water quality status report from RVCOG Water Coordinator Eric Dittmer. 3. Endorsement of nominations to the National Register of Historic Places for Ashland Masonic Lodge, and Ashland Depot Hotel. 4. Designation of Mayor as voting delegate and Council Chair as alternate at the League of Oregon cities Conference, Nov. 10-12, 1990. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (To be concluded by 9:30 P.M.) 1. Planning Action No. 90-178, request for Zone Change and Comprehensive Plan map amendment for property located at 2300 Siskiyou Blvd. (Anderson/Diamond, Applicants) VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Adoption of Findings, Conclusions & Orders: Proposed subdivision on Granite Street near pioneer Street (Diane seitz, Applicant) 2. Adoption of Findings, Conclusions & Orders: Proposed annexation, withdrawal from Fire Dist. No. 5 and zone change for mini storage warehouse facilities on Hwy. 66 near Oak Knoll Dr. (Secure Storage, Applicant) t VIII. NEW & MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: ~ ~. 4., \f "h.~L) ...J ^. I tYY~. '.. >' /~'- ~ ~:<"..' 1. Memo from Director of Public Works requesting that the Mayor be authorized to sign amendment to contract with Brown & Caldwell for Nqtrient Study. 2. Request by Mayor to join the National Conservation Act Coalition. 3. Request from Bernard Windt, 1033 Clay street connect property outside of city limits to city water and sewer systems. Request by John Hassen, attorney for Michael Mahar, to set public hearing on remand from LUBA regarding project on Hersey street. Memorandum from City Administrator concerning participation in Urban Services Study Contract with Portland State University. IX. PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Limited to 15 minutes) X. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS & CONTRACTS: 1. First reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 11.28 of the Mqnicipal Code concerning parking limits and parking zones in the Downtown Parking District. )J' <: , Kt:So[,LLT/oAJ ~ d' / ~. First readinry nf an ord;n~n~e providing for the issuance of , {~~! eneral Obligation Improvement Bonds. ~^~.{~ . .. Resolution opposing proposed DEQ rules for illegal drug lab ~f, , '~,,: C. clean-up program. :> p.. f i. 1.. _,,)~/~ :;;}/' 4. Resolution regarding membership in the City/County insurance service trust property self-insurance pool. XI. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS XII. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 1990 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Golden led the Pledge of Allegiance and called the'meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. on the above date in the Council Chambers. Laws, Reid, Williams, ACklin, Winthrop, and Arnold were present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the Executive Session and Regular Meeting of September 18, 1990 were accepted as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS Proclamations were read as follows: a) Declaring October as "Disability Employment Awareness Month"; b) "Fire Prevention Week" - October 7-13, 1990; c) "Recycling Awareness Week" - October 6-13, 1990. CONSENT AGENDA Laws asked to discuss item three and Reid, item two. Williams moved to approve item 1) Minutes of Boards, Commissions & Committees. Reid seconded and the motion carried on voice vote. 2) Letter of resiqnation from Fire Chief effective January 1, 1991. Mayor read same and Fire Chief Lee Roy King expressed appreciation for the opportunity to work as Ashland's Fire Chief, and also thanked his wife Jo Anne for always standing by him. 3) Memo from Finance Director adjustinq assessments. Laws expressed concerns about errors in notices and asked that the City Administrator look into clerical errors which cost the city money. Acklin said that even if Mr. Bills had received his alley assessment notice in a timely manner, the amount was incorr~ct, which was due to a decision made by the City Council. Laws moved to approve items 2 and 3 of the Consent Agenda, Reid seconded, all AYES on voice vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS P.A. 90-172 - Senior Planner McLaughlin gave the background of the planning action which is a request to not allow variances to vision clearance requirements. Arnold said the Traffic Safety Commission favors the amendments. The public hearing was opened, no comment from the audience. Acklin moved to direct Staff to bring back implementing ordinances, Arnold seconded, all YES on roll call vote. PeA. 90-175 - McLaughlin explained the request to limit all new driveways to a maximum grade of 20%; and limiting flag drive and private drive grades to those allowed for public streets under the Regular Meeting - Ashland City Council - October 2, 1990- P. 1 P~A. 90-175 (Continued) Performance Standards. The Fire Department also requested limitations on grades. The public hearing was opened, no comment from the audience. Laws moved to direct Staff to bring back ordinances implementing the amendments proposed by the Planning commission, William~ seconded, and the motion passed as follows on roll call vote: Laws, Williams, Acklin, Winthrop, and Arnold, YES; Reid, NO. ADDeal of P.A. 90-168 - Loaan Drive Relocation Reauest - Houahton - .Mayor Golden read the statement concerning conditions for appealing to LUBA. winthrop made a site visit and received letters from Mark & cici Brown and Steve & crissy Barnett. Reid made a site visit and received same letters, as did Williams and Laws. Acklin made a site visit, received same letters and talked briefly with Houghton's attorney but learned nothing new. Arnold made site visit, talked with Dr. Barnett, and received letter from Tom Howser, attorney-at-law. Golden made a site visit and had a meeting with the Barnetts. McLaughlin gave the history of planning actions for this parcel, and noted a recommendation from Asst. city Engineer Jim Olson that the road be moved slightly to the West, toward the Grandview/Scenic intersection, which Staff believes is the best location. The Planning commission voted to deny the request to leave the road as it is being constructed at the intersection, and Council's charge is to decide the safest location. The criteria for final plan approval was read and McLaughlin said the Planning and Engineering staff believe that the approved construction drawings best meet the criteria. Public Works Dir. Steve Hall strongly urged Council to approve staff's recommenda- tion of leaving the road at the intersection. The public hearing was opened. Duane Schultz, 245 Northwest B Street, Grants Pass, Attorney for the applicants, reminded Council that this is a "de novo" hearing and they are not bound by the Planning Commission's decision. He said the present location is the best possible balance of all considerations, both public and private. He then reviewed the history of the planning action. Ed Houghton, 185 scenic, applicant for the project, said the road was redesigned to Staff recommendations 'at considerable cost to him and would cost even more to relocate. Steve Barnett, 182 Scenic, saiq the present intersection is dangerous and Logan Drive would make it more so. He raised no objections to the plan in 1988 because the road was further east, and asked Council to think of the safety issue and deny the appeal. Crissy Barnett, 182 Scenic, said the neighbors were not notified of the change in location of Logan Drive, and urged denial. Jerry Hirschfeld, 361 Scenic, feels the original location (further east, or towards the Plaza) is better from a vision clearance standpoint. Mark Brown, 171 Church st., showed a video of City Street crews cleaning up debris after a rainstorm, and he feels the location closer to town is better. Tom Burnham,. 451 Thornton Way, said Grandview is heavily travelled and spoke against the present location. Winthrop moved to continue the hearing, Reid seconded, all AYES on Regular Meeting - Ashland City Council - October 2, 1990 - P. 2 P.A. 90-168 Aooeal (Continued) voice vote. Paula Sohl, 283 Scenic, is against the present location. David Kirkpatrick, 101 Scenic, is against the present location and urged denial. John Mayben, 160 Scenic, said original location is better. David Sugar, 177 Westwood, said the road should be located further towards town. Annie Paup, 125 scenic, wants a decision made soon because of the unstable hillside, and is concerned with who will pay for relocation. Dennis DeBey, 2475 siskiyou Blvd., asked how moving the road further east would create a safety hazard, and Hall said its not an ideal intersection but will function better if the streets are closer together, and the grade on Logan Drive will be steeper if its moved. Steve Koskella, 215 Scenic, asked that the stop sign be moved back to Scenic. Joanne Houghton, 185 Scenic, applicant, said the dangerous intersection should be addressed by the City i.e., more stop signs, widening and paving Grandview. The present location offers a wider area to maneuver vehicles in hazardous conditions. Mike Mirsky, 290 Skycrest, is against present location. Isabel sickels, 170 Church, feels the city should bear some of the cost to move the street. Attorney Schultz encouraged Council to heed advice of the city's professional staff. There being no further comment from the audience, the public hearing was closed. Reid would like to see city funds spent on improving the intersection. Acklin said the applicants have done what the Planning Commission and Engineers requested. Arnold asked if the appeal is denied, should moving the road 60' east from its present location be approved. Winthrop noted problems of vision clearance and congestion at the present location and will vote to deny the appeal. Laws feels safety should outweigh other concerns and moved to deny the appeal. Winthrop seconded the motion. Reid reiterated her position but will vote to deny the appeal. Arnold agrees with the neighbors because of the uniqueness of the intersection. Williams agrees with Arnold. Acklin said the subdivision has been approved and asked where the road will be located. On roll call vote the motion passed as follows: Williams, Winthrop, Arnold, Laws, and Reid, YES; Acklin, NO. Acklin explained that her NO vote was due to the fact that the road location question has not been answered. Winthrop said applicants will need to submit a new proposal for the location. Arnold said there is no evidence before Council to enable making a decision on the location. Acklin asked that the neighbors, applicants, and city engineers meet -to try and work out a solution. She moved to waive the Type I filing fee and Reid seconded the motion, which carried on voice vote. On a question from Reid, Hall said the intent is to make the intersection an all-way stop. It was agreed that Staff will bring back Findings. PUBLIC FORUM Halloween - Roger Hawkins, 546 Fairmount st., Medford, asked that Council not discourage the ,Halloween festivities. He feels that leaving East Main street open to traffic will be dangerous and people will wander - Regular Meeting - Ashland City Council - October 2, 1990 - P. 3 Halloween (Continued) outside of the downtown area. He asked why the street was opened at 11:00 P.M. last year and Laws said experience shows this to be when the trouble starts. Winthrop moved to continue the meeting for one- half hour, Reid seconded, and the motion carried on voice vote with Arnold dissenting. Reid said various establishments will be open and people are welcome to dress in costumes and patronize them. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS , CONTRACTS Noise Standards - City Attorney Salter asked that this be delayed so he can research it further. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS concerning the Logan Drive issue, Winthrop asked that mediation between the parties be expedited, Laws asked staff to look at the costs involved in relocation, and Arnold asked that the liability issue be addressed. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting adjourned at 11:20 P.M., to Executive Session on October 11, 1990 at 6:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers. Nan E. Franklin City Recorder Catherine M. Golden Mayor Regular Meeting - Ashland city council - October 2, 1990 - P. 4 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 1 :35 p.m. by Dan Harris. Larry Morgan was also present. Staff present were McLaughlin, Molnar, Cochran, and Yates. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 90-169 REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW A DECK TO BE CONSTRUCTED UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE LOT AT 438 GUTHRIE STREET. APPLICANT: NANCY TAIT STAFF REPORT This is a triangular shaped piece of property with steep slopes and the applicant is requesting a variance in order to place multiple decks around the house. Staff would ordinarily be concerned with the neighbors' privacy, however, in this case, there are two 25 foot flag drives buffering the decks. The neighbors do not objects, the impact is minimal and Staff is recommending approval. PUBLIC HEARING JEFF MAYFIELD, 1050 Crater Lake Avenue, Suite 0, Medford, OR, stated that because of the steepness of the property, the applicant did not have easy access to her yard and requested the proposed decks. There is a buffer zone with the two 25 foot flag drives. An approval would not create a negative impact on adjacent uses and also the applicant did not create this unusual circumstance. Mayfield stated that he would be building a skirt or curtain wall so the under portion of the deck would not be visible. The applicant is also planning to plant this area in order to screen it. Morgan wondered why the applicant wanted a six foot passageway rather than three foot. Mayfield said it was more for convenient and that the applicant would be placing planters to make the area more attractive. NANCY TAIT, property owner, stated that useable outdoor space is minimal. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Morgan moved to approve 90-169 with attached conditions, The motion was seconded by Harris. PLANNING ACTION 90-179 REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK ALONG LEONARD STREET FROM TEN FEET TO TWO FEET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CARPORT LOCATED AT 1280 MADRONE STREET APPLICANT: ALPeR/COONEY Site visits were made by all. STAFF REPORT (See staff report for details of proposal.) Staff recommended approval of this application as it would cause much less impact than construction of a garage within the approved setback area. PUBLIC HEARING DARRYL BOLDT, 1950 Tamarack Place, representing the applicant, showed how the lap siding would be used on the front, the portion facing Madrone, KEVIN COONEY, said the madrone tree died and it created an eyesore and that is why he is wishing to build a carport. RAY TUMBLESON, 655 Leonard, thought it would be an improvement. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Morgan asked the contractor to choose his roof color carefully. Morgan moved to approve 90-179 with attached conditions. Harris seconded the motion and it was carried. PLANNING ACTION 90-149 448 TUCKER STREET APPLICANT: JOHN PERN WILL RECONVENE TONIGHT FOR 7:00 P.M. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 2 TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 90-166 REQUEST FOR A MINOR LAND PARTITION AND MODIFICATION OF A FINAL PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY AT 540 FORDYCE STREET. MINOR LAND PARTITION TO SPLIT THE EXISTING RESIDENCE OFF ONTO IS OWN LOT AND MODIFICATION OF THE FINAL PLAN FOR THE SUBDIVISION FROM TEN TO NINE LOTS. APPLICANT: COTA/BOHN This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 90-170 REQUEST FOR A MINOR LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE THE EXISTING PARCEL AT 337 OAK STREET INTO TWO PARCELS. REAR PARCEL TO ACCESS ONTO VAN NESS AVENUE. APPLICANT: MICHAEL VAN AUSDALL This application was approved. . PLANNING ACTION 90-173 REQUEST FOR A MINOR LAND PARTITION AND BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT TO DIVIDE THE TWO PARCELS AT 479 WILLOW AND 332 OTIS INTO THREE LOTS, WITH THE NEW LOT BEING A FLAG LOT ACCESSED FROM WILLOW STREET. APPLICANT: PREM DHANESH This application was approved. PLANNING ACTION 90-176 REQUEST FOR A MINOR LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE THE EXISTING 3.41 ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE LOTS, WITH THE REAR LOT BEING A FLAG PARCEL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3155 EAST MAIN STREET APPLICANT: WAYNE CAHILL This application was approved. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 3 PLANNING ACTION 90-180 REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN CONDITIONS OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1034 CANYON PARK DRIVE. CHANGE TO ALLOW FOR A TWO-STORY HOME ON A LOT REQUIRED TO ONLY HAVE ONE STORY CONSTRUCTION. APPLICANT: JACK MOLDEN This application was approved. PLANNING ACTION 90-180 REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR PHASE I (18 UNITS) OF AN 80- LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON CLAY STREET, NORTH AND ADJACENT TO THE WINGSPREAD MOBILE HOME PARK. APPLICANT: HANK ALBERTSON This application was approved. PLANNING ACTION 90-182 766 ROCA STREET APPLICANT: FRED COX CONSTRUCTION This action was called up for a public hearing. PLANNING ACTION 90-183 REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 17-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION LOCATED AT 340 LORI LANE. APPLICANT: LLOYD HAINES This application was approved. PLANNING ACTION 90-184 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE AT 134 HIGH STREET. EXPANSION INVOLVES FIVE FEET EXPANSION OFF THE SIDE FOR ENLARGING KITCHEN. APPLICANT: LARRY MEDINGER This application was approved. Commissioners said this structure could have another roof design, not necessarily a gable, but perhaps a dormer, Harris and Morgan moved and approved. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 4 three lot split. Pern did not think that most of the neighbors had objections. Pern said it was not yet decided where the curb cut for parcel two would be located. DAN HARRIS, 440 Tucker Street, had only one concern and showed the Commissioners on a map the alleyway access to his house. He requested that access to parcel 2 not be given off the alleyway because it would require paving to a 15 foot wide surface and would require either moving a retaining wall, fill and removal of four or five trees, and a fence. He requested that access be granted off Tucker. COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION AND MOTION Morgan felt this was a fairly level piece of land and did not see any major problems with a split. Bingham was having trouble with the variance criteria, although Morgan thought is was necessary for the preservation of property rights because there is enough land for three lots. Morgan did not want any lots accessed off the alleyway. Pern stated that he did purchase the house but bought it already built. Bingham did not believe the circumstances had been wilfully imposed and did not believe this would create a negative impact. Morgan moved to approve P A90-149 with the attached 7 conditions. Add condition 8 that would require access to parcel two to be off Tucker Street. Bingham seconded the motion and it was carried. ADJOURNMENT The Hearings Board was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 6 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Neil Benson. Other Commissioners present were Morgan, Powell, Carr, Jarvis, Harris, and Bingham. Staff present were Fregonese, McLaughlin, Molnar and Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS The Minutes and Findings of the August 14, 1990 Regular Meeting were approved. The Minutes and Findings of the August 14, 1990 Hearings Board were approved. Benson noted that there was a change to the order of the agenda. Under the Type III Planning Actions the order was changed to A, C, 0, B, and E. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION 90-160 REQUEST FOR A THREE UNIT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 320 WIMER STREET APPLICANT: ERNA AND FLORIAN SZVMANIAK Site visits were made by all. Benson though not present at the last meeting, reviewed the Minutes and spoke with Staff regarding what transpired at the meeting. Morgan reviewed the Minutes but had not spoken to Staff. Benson explained that Staff had informed him that all the information presented at last month's meeting was in the Staff Report and Minutes. STAFF REPORT The applicants have supplied addition information that is included in this packet from their surveyor. Staff believes that their concern regarding the cut for the street, erosion control measures for the cuts, and street complying with grade requirements, have been adequately addressed, particularly for a private drive. Staff recommended approval of the application with the attached conditions. Bingham wondered if it was Staff's position that it was preferable to have cuts that would achieve 18 percent grade versus the cuts for 22 percent grade and McLaughlin affirmed. PUBLIC HEARING Jarvis asked MRS. SZYMAN IAK if she would be willing to build on less than 35 percent slope. HAROLD CENTER, surveyor, answered that on the lots to the east it should be no problem, however lot one could be marginal if restricted to 35 percent. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Carr was concerned with drainage and erosion on this soil. Benson felt that was covered by Condition 3. Bingham moved to approve PA90-160, Powell seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION 90-178 REQUEST FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM R-3 AND R-1-7.5 TO R-2 AND A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT FROM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED 2300 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD. APPLICANT: ANDERSON/DIAMOND Site visits were made by all. STAFF REPORT This property was partitioned in December of 1989 and is split zoned. The applicant is proposing to change the entire piece to R-2. The main impact would be taking the rear parcel which is single family and converting it to a multi-family zoning. However, if the zoning did not change, it would be likely the property would become a blended development under the Performance Standards Option and this change would have little affect. McLaughlin read the criteria for approval. Staff felt that generally this zone change is appropriate for this area and recommended approval. PUBLIC HEARING CURT WEAVER, 2480 Nieto Way, Medford, OR 97504, representing Diamond and Anderson, stated that they believe this property is one of the few in Ashland that has large number of trees with riparian habitat and other natural features to preserve as well as the barn that could be used for a common area in the future. The applicant does not wish to develop the property to the maximum of the R-3 zone, In the rear parcel, the applicant is proposing 15 units that should be more compatible with the neighborhood than R-3. The only area of impact would b~ abutting R-2 with single family residences on Bellview but this could be mitigated by careful site planning. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 2 ,---.- Jarvis questioned Weaver regarding public need. Do we need more public land for diversified housing within the city? McLaughlin said the city was short on multi-family zoned land. Jarvis also noted that the criteria for a Type III amendment is the need to adjust to new conditions. McLaughlin responded that the R-3 zone is not really developable to the maximum densities. Since the adoption of the site design guidelines, the flood plain corridors, retention of natural features of the land, there is not the opportunity to develop to maximum density. The ordinances in the city have changed over time, making R-3 zoning very difficult to develop R-3 standards. Weaver felt their findings were based on criteria 4, adjusting to the circumstances of the general public welfare in the area of Siskiyou and Bellview. They are trying to develop a use that is compatible with the neighborhood. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Jarvis believes this application meets the burden of proof under Criteria C and recommended approval of this application. Carr seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously. PLANNING ACTION 90-172 REQUEST FOR AN ORDINANCE CHANGE TO 18.68.020 - VISION CLEARANCE - NOT ALLOWING ANY VARIANCES TO THIS SECTION. APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND STAFF REPORT It should not be a land use issue as to whether or not to grant a variance for vision clearance. This falls under public safety and the City could be placed in a position regarding liability, CP AC reviewed and recommended approval. Morgan wondered how this would affect applications and vision clearance on streets, alleys, and flag drives. McLaughlin said, at this time, the ordinance applies to street and alley intersections, Morgan thought flag drives should be considered. PUBLIC HEARING No one came forth to speak. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 3 COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Commissioners were in agreement that flag drives should be included. McLaughlin reminded the Commissioners that parking was not allowed within 10 feet on either side of a flag drive entrance. Morgan moved to approve PA90-172 and add a revision - 18.76.060(C) that the vision clearance standards established by this section are not subject to the Variance section of this title. Carr seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously. PLANNING ACTION 90-175 REQUEST FOR AN ORDINANCE CHANGE TO 18.72 RESTRICTING FLAG DRIVE GRADES NO GREATER THAN THOSE ALLOWED UNDER THE PUBLIC STREET STANDARDS AS OUTLINED IN 18.88 RESTRICTING DRIVEWAY GRADES FOR NEW SUBDIVISION LOTS NO GREATER THAN 20 PERCENT. APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND STAFF REPORT At present, there are limitations on driveway grades and steepness other than placed by the Commission under subdivision approval. Staff is proposing limitations under general requirements - 18.68.150 (driveway grades), A revision could also be added to the vision clearance requirements stating that no variances be allowed to driveways, Staff has recommended revisions to partitions on flag drives and performance standards as worded in the Staff Report. Carr wanted to include under Partitions, at the end of the sentence, "Flag drives shall be constructed so as to prevent surface drainage from flowing over sidewalks or other public ways or adjoining properties. II Harris suggested wording to 18.88.050 by combining 1 and 2, "Street shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15%, unless the topography requires a greater grade than 15% in which case, a grade of no greater than 18% may be permitted for no more than 200 feet. II Morgan could not find a definition for driveway. He is concerned about a grade of 20% for a very long driveway. Fregonese said if a driveway is over 150 feet long, it has to meet certain standards set by the fire department. He thought it might be a good idea to include that any driveway over 150 feet in length needs to meet the standards of a private road, ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 4 There was a consensus to include a definition of a driveway. A driveway is a road serving a single unit of less than 150 feet in length except when it is a flag drive. PUBLIC HEARING MARIE MOREHEAD, CPAC, wondered if 20% grade was too steep for a north side driveway. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Fregonese responded to Morehead by stating that if a driveway is snowy and icy, that the homeowner does not drive he but waits until the snow melts; it is different than a public road. Morgan is not convinced that a grade of 18% for 200 feet is reasonable as it adds to the difficulty of the road. It is not so much of a problem if it is privately owned rather than publicly owned. He would be more comfortable with 125 to 150 feet. Staff could only recall one instance where a street has had 200 feet at 18% grade. (Seitz) Harris reminded the Commission that the grade is controlled by the topography in every case. Two hundred feet gives enough flexibility to make it work in most cases. Jarvis moved to approve the ordinance changes P A90-175 and include under 18.08 (Definitions) Driveway - a driveway serves only one house or parcel of land and is no greater than 150 feet (or similar language). Add to 18.68.150: The vision clearance standards established by this section are not subject to the Variance section of this title. Add to 18.76.060(C) lito prevent surface drainage from flowing over sidewalks or other public ways or adjoining properties. II Adopt the language by Harris under 18.88.050(8) by combining 1 and 2, as stated above. Powell seconded the motion. Morgan will vote no because of the 200 feet. He would like 150 feet. Jarvis was more concerned about cuts if the road was only 150 feet and this would give more flexibility and would allow the Commission to rely on engineering reports if a road could be made less than 150 feet. The motion carried with Bingham and Morgan voting "no". ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 5 PLANNING ACTION 90-165 REQUEST FOR CHANGES TO THE ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARDS TO IMPLEMENTING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN. SECTIONS OF THE ORDINANCE TO BE MODIFIED INCLUDE: CONDITIONAL USE CHAPTER (18.104), ANNEXATIONS (18.108), PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS (18.88), E-1 ZONE (18.40), SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE (18.20, AND C-1) (18.32.) Fregonese said this was a legislative hearing so exparte contacts are not necessary to report. STAFF REPORT Fregonese explained that the reason for the modification of certain ordinances has been prompted by implementation of the Affordable Housing document which involves making provisions and incentives for affordable housing in Ashland. The Affordable Housing document is viewed as part of the periodic review system. The ordinances need to come into compliance with State laws that exist. In the letter sent from the State over two years ago, Ashland's housing standards for needed housing types are required to be clear and objective. In addition to the above-mentioned items, in recent experiences with LUBA, reviewing findings and remands, experiences of other cities with LU BA that have been similar to Ashland, and listening to LUBA referees and what instructions they give planners on how to write criteria for approval, Ashland's criteria are indefinite, not objective, not measurable, not standards in any way that are clear and objective. He reiterated further that the present wording of Ashland's criteria for any land use action make it difficult to sustain a decision. It should be clear, just by reading the criteria, whether or not the criteria have been met. Fregonese said Staff would like to eliminate the unclear portions of the code and propose adoption of P A90-165. Let the Council review and approve and set this aside. At that point, look at the Comprehensive Plan policies. Two policies are heavily influenced by these documents: housing and economy. Make sure the policies are implemented by the ordinances. Next, rezone the City; make sure the zoning meets the Commission's expectations. Live with the consequences of those decisions, Make clear decisions about where we are going and what we are doing with our land use ordinance and that the Commission set policies and criteria that will accurately judge our concerns in a clear and objective manner so that when during a hearing it will not be necessary to judge things such as "livability" but other standards that are more easily measured. In looking at the Comprehensive Plan, there seem to be only three items that need a Conditional Use: quarries, non-conforming uses and commercial uses in a residential zone. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 6 Fregonese read from ORS 197.303 "Needed housing II defined. If the Comprehensive Plan document is to be consistent with the Affordable Housing document, it will say "we need affordable housing, II thus making it an affordable housing type. The items noted in the ORS 197.303 (a) through (d) are items that Ashland must provide by law, Fregonese explained that it is advisable in the Performance Standards in providing for condominiums, and Conditional Uses to have clear and objective standards because it makes the decision-making process more clear-cut. Staff believes that II livability" , "compatibility with the neighborhood", and "compliance with the Comprehensive Plan" should be removed. When the Comprehensive Plan is correctly written, it is implemented through the ordinances and much better to do it through ordinances than to go through policy documents that should be guiding the development of ordinances. When an ordinance is re-written, look to the Comprehensive Plan, when making a day-to-day decision, look to the ordinances and standards of criteria that have been established. Molnar reported that CPAC reviewed this planning action but made it to page 8. They felt there was so much information that it required review next month. PROPOSED CHANGES 18.104 Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria (See Staff Report) Jarvis proposed a language change to Staff's change as follows: A. The proposal is similar to permitted uses in the zone City-wide with respect to the following. Bingham wanted 0 to remain. He remembered that the reason it was added was an attempt to make sure Conditional Use Permits were not used to re-zone large parcels of land. Fregonese said that areas should be zoned appropriately beforehand to save the Council time and if people are unhappy, it could be appealed. Molnar reported that CPAC had comments on A 4. They did not mind removing aesthetic compatibility but there was some need for judging architectural compatibility. It would bolster through site design as well. They wished to include public schools in B, Under adequate transportation, include bike and pedestrian. With regard to C, CPAC did not feel altogether comfortable deleting at this time, They would consider deleting if a more comprehensive look were taken at policies in the Comprehensive Plan and the policies could be formed into implementing ordinances, CP AC wanted 0 to remain. Benson brought up the case with Beaverton where they wanted to stop a development because of inadequate capacity of the schools, The decision was that under ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 7 Beaverton's ordinance and plans, they had tied it directly to specific standard in the school. Fregonese said it did not have to tie to public school capacity. There is no option by the City if there is a school capacity problem. It puts growth questions in the hands of the school board. The school board and City need to cooperate on growth issues. Does the Commission want a specific finding made every time there is a Conditional Use on school capacity. Benson wondered if time will be taken up discussing something the Commission has no control over. Fregonese was concerned about that also and thus wanted "public schoolsll deleted. Fregonese did not think public schools should be an approval criteria for a Conditional Use, Accessory Apartments Staff does not like 5. Possibly consider that the primary residence on the lot be owner-occupied for the first year. CPAC wanted to retain 5, however, they did not discuss the one-year limitation. Conditional Uses in E-1 and C-1 zones Molnar said CP AC spent a great deal of time on pages 6 and 7. Site design guidelines would be an appropriate place to address mixed uses. Under F.2 on page 6, "...at least 40% of the total lot area planned for the site be designated for permitted uses... ", CPAC felt 40% was too low and that the dominate use should be a permitted use. There was not a clear consensus on this point, but 50% to 60% was discussed. Fregonese said in this area, that flexibility was important. Performance Standards Development Page 9, f) should be deleted because it is not measurable, Page 12, B 3) a) should read: "...maximum 15%, b) 10%, c) 10%, d) 25%". Page 15, b) 1. should not be lined out. PUBLIC HEARING Benson read letters from COSTER, MILLER AND MURPHEY. LARRY MEDINGER, CPAC member, felt that much discussion needed to happen regarding Affordable Housing and did not think everything could be decided this evening. He wondered about bringing up more salient issues during a study session. MARK MURPHEY, 492 Linn Street, submitted his written comments for the record, ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 8 HARRIS lEFT THE MEETING. Jarvis told Murphey that the words "livability and compatibility" are too abstract with things that mean different things to different people making it difficult to make a decision. Murphey believes that "livability" is quantifiable by using harmony, density, bulk, coverage and scale. MARY WASMUND, 439 E. Hersey, objected to many of the changes for so-called affordable housing goals. She did not want "livability and compatibility" struck from the land use ordinance. Perhaps set guidelines and define "livability", but don't throw it out. Economic development should be encouraged. The changes outlined, encourage developers to profit from E-1 and Commercial land. Affordability should have to be guaranteed, hassle or not. Why only 25% to be affordable -- this means if 100 affordable units are needed, then 300 expensive units are built. DEBBIE MillER, 160 Normal Street, changing these ordinances does not positively effect implementation of the Affordable Housing report. She also agreed that these changes should be viewed after revision of the Comprehensive Plan. She did not see the recommendation put forth by Staff this evening outlined in the Affordable Housing report. She said that she felt that neighborhoods needed to be considered. Aesthetic and architectural compatibility should remain to maintain neighborhood rights to a voice in their future. Livability is a criteria to the neighborhood, not City-wide. Miller talked about accessory structures and the whole intent was to provide housing for one to two people (mother-in-law unit, college student or assistance for existing homeowners who may need an adult nearby), not to introduce two houses per lot in an R-1 zone, NIKOS MIKALlS, 394 E. Hersey Street, wanted livability and compatibility to remain. MARA MIKALlS, 394 E. Hersey, wanted livability and compatibility to remain, DAVID SEBREll, 271 N. Mountain Avenue, did not appreciate Murphey's treatment. LISA SEBREll, 271 N. Mountain Avenue, felt livability and compatibility is of grave concern. DENNIS DEBEY, 2475 Siskiyou Boulevard, wondered if the City wishes to have affordable house, allow two units in an R-1 zone, keep the owner there, he will take better care of it, creating a pride in the environment and ownership and the owner won't be just a speculator and absent from the property and will make two units affordable, ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 9 JILL MURPHEY, 492 Linn Street, requested the hearing be continued because there was not 30 days prior noticing of the CP AC meeting. She said she received over the period of about a week, three different staff reports. She suggested there be an R-3 zone that does not impact single family neighborhoods. Annex R-3 land. If C-1 or E-1 zoning is to be partially residential, make it the same density as the adjacent neighborhood. Murphey felt that by increasing density in the middle of town, it will increase traffic. It is wishful thinking that people will not use their cars. MARIE MOREHEAD, 310 N. Mountain, recalled that at a joint study session there was an idea to implement a plan to have small neighborhood area plans to have some way to measure livability. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Fregonese stated noticing was appropriate. Carr moved to continue Planning Action 90-165. Powell seconded the motion. Morgan thought a time should be set aside to discuss only guidelines for livability, An agenda was suggested and the following items should be included so they will not be forgotten in the future. Livability and compatibility. Architectural and aesthetics. Give people an opportunity to speak on adverse effects in their neighborhood. Public schools - should the need for public schools and land use planning be mixed. Density - make the public aware of the different things the Commission has talked about with regard to density. Powell felt it necessary to make the kinds of modifications brought forth in P A90-165 with respect to the affordable housing document. Fregonese said the Conditional Uses need to be streamlined with perhaps two different kinds, Accessory apartments cannot be subject to the same criteria as large projects such as museums, Carr believed the ordinance is not very well defined, She is against the deletion of the primary residence not being owner occupied. Carr thought that having a Conditional Use in anyone site as more important than the permitted use is absurd, ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 10 She believed that public schools (wording) should be deleted. CARR MOVED TO CONTINUE THE MEETING UNTIL 11:30 P.M. JARVIS SECONDED THE MOTION AND IT WAS CARRIED. Jarvis wanted to add to the agenda the following: Should compliance with the Comprehensive Plan be left in or omitted. 40% gross floor area for permitted use. Noise generation. Should the R overlay be eliminated. Owner-occupied accessory structure. R-3 zoning should be annexed. Make E-1 and C-1 same density as adjacent land. Under criteria on Page 1 - new wording - leave in harmony, coverage, etc. should remain. Bingham wanted to discuss Conditional Use Permit involving the development of five or more acres of land or 100,000 square feet of gross floor area. Morgan wondered at this point how these agenda items would be used. Benson stated they would be used to continue the public hearing next month. Fregonese reminded the Commission that we are entering the third year of periodic review. Environmental resources, affordable housing, economic element, wetlands, traveler's accommodations, housing element, rezoning and UGB changes are waiting to be approved. It might be time to cut out controversial items at this time and get some things adopted. Pick up the controversial parts at the end of the review such as the Conditional Use. Fregonese suggested dropping the changes to the Conditional Use criteria, stay with the existing criteria, drop the E-1 and C-1 changes, leaving us with accessory apartments, condominiums and performance standards. There seemed to be less controversy over these items. The motion was carried to continue with Morgan and Jarvis voting "no". PLANNING ACTIN 90-146 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES CHAPTER OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CPAC did not discuss this at last night's meeting. Many issues have already been ironed out, however, the committee still wants to meet to formally to adopt the element. Minor changes that were requested: second line from the bottom on the first page should read "poor exposure of rock units." ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 11 Page 4-6 will have the tables that exist in the present Camp Plan. #3 on the right hand side - should read "prohibie not Ilprevenf'. Bingham moved to recommend approval of PA90-146 with the proposed minor changes above and inclusion of the changes from CP AC and the letter from Fish and Wildlife. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously. OTHER Mobile Home Changes Jarvis moved to direct Staff to prepare mobile home ordinance changes in order to comply with the Oregon Statutes. Bingham seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously. September Retreat The September retreat was cancelled. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11 :30 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 12 ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Minutes October 3, 1990 CALL TO ORDER . The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Jim Lewis at 7:35 p.m. Members present were Jim Lewis, Terry Skibby, Deane Bradshaw, Thomas Hunt, .lean MacKenzie, Susan Reynolds, Lorraine Whitten and Keith Chambers. Also present were Senior Planner John McLaughlin and Secretary Sonja Akerman~ Commission member Mark Reitinger was absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Bradshaw moved and Hunt seconded to approve tbe Minutes of the September 5, 1990 meeting as mailed. Motion passed unanimously. GUESTS .Jim Sims As owner of a bed and breakfast establishment, Sims is concerned about proposed changes in the traveller's accommodation ordinance. He invited the Commission to tour some of the bed and breakfasts in the Historic District on October 29th form 5 :00-7 :00 p.m. He stated it is important to have the opinion of the Historic Commission so as to not damage the historic character and integrity of the District. Gordon Medaris Medaris said he came to speak about the Golden Spike Memorial Park, however, he had just received a letter from Mayor Golden regarding the establishment of a committee to look into this. The committee will include members from Jackson County Commissioners, Southern Oregon Historical Society, Ashland Heritage Committee, etc. Because of his schedule, he will have to bow out. He thinks it is a wonderful idea, however, and definitely feels it is very appropriate. He also thanked and commended the Commission for its fine work. Edmund Dews, member of the Ashland Heritage Committee and board member of Southern Oregon Historical Society, stated he was very interested in the Railroad District. He stressed the importance of the last spike, statingit was significant for the entire Pacific Northwest, as it was the event that transformed the economy. He added it would be appropriate to involve Jackson County, the State of Oregon and Southern Pacific also, since important officials from SP, the Governors of California and Oregon, mayors and reporters were among the dignitaries present at the dedication. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes October 3, 1990 Kay Atwood Atwood officially announced the Cultural Resources Inventory is now complete. There are 886 sites on the list which she researched. She wanted to call attention to the context statements summarizing the contents of the districts, especially the Skidmore-Academy and Siskiyou-Hargardine Districts. SHPO will be observing these goals in the future. She also stated the next step will be to request the City Council to adopt this final list, and assured the Commission she will be available to answer any questions at the Council meeting. Support of the inventory will fall on the shoulders or the Historic Commission. McLaughlin said he thought the interim list expires January 1, 1991. ,He will make certain the inventory will be on the Council agenda in November. Edmund Dews stated that although he is very much in support of the survey, he IS concerned about the timing. He feels it is i~portant to allow for public input. STAFF REPORTS PA 90-186 Conditional Use Permit, Site Review and Variance 673 and 673V2 Siskiyou Boulevard David Shaw McLaughlin explained this application involves a Conditional Use Permir because of non- conforming structure alterations. Work was taking place on the back cottages without the owner obtaining the proper permits. Notices were sent out as a Type I application, however a neighbor called it up for a public hearing because an illegal dwelling unit was created last year without approval. Since parking is required for each dwelling unit (and there are currently three units on the property), more spaces need to be provided in order to bring this to code. Shaw has since furnished one parking space but is requesting a Variance in order to keep the yard between the two back cottages. Staff believes two dwelling units should be retained and the illegally created one be converted back to a storage unit with the kitchen removed. David Shaw explained the circumstances which led to the illegal rental and added he was embarrassed to be in this type of situation. He feels the cottages are affordable housing, as both rent for less than $400/month (330 square feet and 400 square feet). Bradshaw questioned where the tenants currently park. Shaw answered he has provided one space, but mostly it is on Morton Street. Bradshaw lives on Morton Street and feels there is adequate parking on the street. 2 Ashland Historic Commission Minutes October 3, 1990 McLaughlin added the alley is heavily travelled and it will be recommended the alley be paved from Morton Street to the end of the property. Whitten stated that when an alley gets paved, most motorists speed up. Unpaved alleys are part of the Historic District charm. The Commission agreed. Lewis said that although there may be adequate parking on Morton Street, a saturation point would be reached if all parking variances are approved. McLaughlin stated that Staff is faced with a difficulty in this case - approving an illegal unit versus preserving affordable housing and open space. Whitten moved to recommend approval of this request to the Planning Commission for the three units to be retained, that the additional parking be waived to retain open space, with the recommendation that paving of the alley be delayed until the review process on alleyways for the Comp Plan revision be completed. Bradshaw seconded the motion and it was unanimously passed. PA 90-188 Conditional Use Permit 386 "Bit Street Susan DeMarinas McLaughlin stated this request is to remodel an outbuilding (which is basically a "shack") into a living area. This would be a complete remodel and almost a demolition as to what is there now. The building is approximately one foot off the alley. The additional living space would be similar in bulk and size with a little different roof pitch, siding and trim will match the house and vinyl double hung windows will be used. When questioned about a separate dwelling unit, McLaughlin explained that "kitchen" is the key word. Before a building permit is issued, the owner is usually required to sign an Agreement verifying there will be no kitchen appliances in the unit, especially a stove. DeMarinas assured the Commission there will be no stove, she just wants extra living space, as her clinic takes up almost the entire main structure. The Commission agreed the remodeled building should be more in character of the house than like the existing shed, that it is an appropriate use of the space, and that it is an improvement of the alleyscape. Hunt moved to recommend approval of this design as presented with the exception of the rounded window of the door (East elevation). MacKenzie seconded the motion and it was unanimously passed. 3 Ashland Historic Commission Minutes October 3, 1990 PA 90-192 Conditional Use Permit Corner of 6th and ,East Main Streets Patterson, Snider and Ritchey . McLaughlin explained US West Direct needs to install an air conditioning unit for cooling the digital equipment inside. Staff agrees that it seems more reasonable to see a ten foot high block fence than a chain link fence as was originally proposed. Zelpha Hutton submitted a letter stating she had no problem with the addition, but wanted the noise issue addressed. Doug Snider, architect for the project, stated that a permit was issued for interior remodel, but it turned into a larger project because of the equipment involved. There are three different options to consider: change the chain link fence to a masonry acoustical screen, relocate the equipment to the roof, or move equipment inside (which would necessitate the change from air cooled to water cooled and would also replace office space). The last option would require a cooling tower and would use city water. They are in the process of having an acoustical study made now so there are no drawings yet. After a discussion on landscaping and noise standards, Reynolds moved to recommend approval of this application with the advice a masonry wall be built with landscaping to help screen equipment from Sixth Street and absorb noise. Following a discussion on the plans, it was decided. a subcommittee would review the final plans. Skibby then seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. PA 90-197 Conditional Use Permit 447 Rock Street Michele Smirl McLaughlin stated this house does not comply with setbacks and that the proposed addition is within 20 feet of the front property line. Staff is recommending approval. The Commission had concerns with the windows on the proposed addition, especially the East and North elevations. The windows should duplicate the existing windows. Concerns were also voiced about converting the garage into a separate guest room. No elevations or plans have been submitted for the garage. Whitten moved to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit with provisions that the windows match the existing windows, the roof line of the addition match the existing roof line, that the siding and shingles match with the existing house and that a subcommittee review the final plans. The Commission cannot approve the garage concept 4 Ashland Historic .Commission Minutes October 3, 1990 until full plans and elevations are submitted. Reynolds seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. PA 90-190 StatT Permit 137 North Main Street Brad Parker/Bobbi Williams Brad Parker briefly described the restoration work he has been doing on his house for the past two and one-half years, including the fact that he intends to recreate the original porch. When the Craftsman porch was added in 1928, the beams for the porch roof were structurally incorporated into the house. If he were to replace the porch as it stood initially, he would have to tear off a portion of the front of the house. J ames Hamrick, Acting Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, is aware of the lower porch and is supportive of Parker's request as long as he follows the photograph of spacing and dimensions of the balusters. Skibby noted the differences between the old phtographs and the drawings that Parker had submitted and stated one and one-half feet in the height of the posts will be lost. The Commission agreed with Hamrick's letter in support of Parker's efforts, but needs accurate, detailed drawings of what the porch will actually look like. A sub co Inmi ttee will review the plans as soon as they are submitted. BUILDING PERMITS Permits reviewed by members of the Historic Commission and issued during the month of September follow: ' LBI & Friends David Kirkpatrick G.K.jDoric Schrock Richard Broch Ray Stringer Bob ,Martindale U .S. West Direct 248 Van Ness Ave. 101 Scenic Dr. 34 Union St. 881 E. Main St. 155 7th St. 90 4th S1. 6th & E. Main S1. 4- Plex Stairwell Garage jStudio / Carport Foundation Shed Demolition* Remodel Remodel * Denotes Historic Commission disapproval. 5 Ashland Historic Commission Minutes October 3, 1990 OLD BUSINESS Alley Pavin2 Alternatives - Dick McKinney McKinney stated he is part of a group of people who want to save alleys. He displayed a topo map of the Historic District depicting which alleys have been walked, which have already been paved and which need preserving as is. Paving causes motorists to speed up, increases heat in the summer months and causes, more water runoff. 'Gravel or 3/4 minus has been suggested as an alternative. Alley vacations were also discussed. McLaughlin stated the City has recently retained pedestrian easements even though a vacation was granted. He added that the Council is sensitive to such circumstances now. The Commission directed Staff to write a memo regarding concerns about alley vacations and paving. Lewis stated that a good example of an alley with no dust problem and no potholes is located between 7th and 8th Streets, and between "B" and "C" Streets. That particular alley is graveled. McKinney added that his committee does not feel it is appropriate to require an alley which divides residential and employment or commercial zones to be paved. Historic Si2n Code Ordinance McLaughlin stated the Sign Code revisions were adopted by the Council with a few changes in criteria. He commended the Commission on its .efforts Review Board Following is the schedule (until the next meeting) for the Review Board, which meets every Thursday from 3:00 to 3:30 p.m. in the Planning Department: October 4 October 11 October 18 October 25 November 1 Skibby, Lewis and Hunt Skibby, Hunt, Lewis and Whitten Bradshaw, Reynolds, Skibby and Hunt MacKenzie, Skibby and Hunt Bradshaw, Skibby and Hunt 6 Ashland Historic Commission Minutes October 3, 1990 NEW BUSINESS National Re&ister Nomination - Ashland Masonic Lod2e Vince Claflin, who researched and prepared the nomination for the Ashland Masonic Lodge Building, explained the request is not made on architectural merits of the building, but for the social merits because of the many architectural changes which have occurred over the years. The Lodge is non-profit so it will not apply for a tax freeze if placed on the National Register. If funds become available, he assured the Commission the glass bricks will be removed and the building will be restored to the pre-1900 era. The Commission commended Mr. Claflin on his research. (Skibby moved and Reynolds seconded to extend the lneeting past 10:30 p.m. The motion was unanimously approved.) Whitten moved and Skibby seconded to recommend approval of the Masonic Lodge to the National Register of Historic Places, and it was unanimously passed. National Re2ister Nomination - South Wina:, Ashland Depot Hotel Lewis declared a conflict of interest. With a motion by Reynolds and second by Whitten, recommendation of approval to place the South Wing of the Ashland Depot Hotel on the National Register of Historic Places was unanimously approved. Lewis abstained from voting. Bikeway Proposals The Commission voiced its concerns about altering the width of the median strip on Siskiyou Boulevard, stating the historic context will be greatly altered. It would have a. major impact on the Boulevard if five feet were cut out on each side and the ends. It was recommended the City Attorney research the deed restrictions, as MacKenzie stated that orchardists deeded the strip to the City to be used as a median strip. McLaughlin said the strip uses treated water for the sod, which should be replaced with more drought resistance vegetation. The Commission agreed. It also agreed that the two- way bicycle and pedestrian traffic on the five foot sidewalks is dangerous. The Commissioners will make every attempt to attend the public hearing on October 11th. 7 Ashland Historic Commission Minutes October 3, 1990 115 Sherman Street Skibby briefly explained the situation regarding the windows on this house, and reminded the Commission the owner wrote a letter stating she would replace them last spring. Lewis will write a letter from the Commission reminding her of this commitment. ADJOURNMENT With a motion by Skibby and second by Chambers, it was the unanimous decision of the Historic Commission to adjourn the meeting at 11:10 p.m. 8 ~emnrattdum ~~ Honorable Mayor and City Council ~tOtn: ~~~ ~ Al Williams, Director of Electric utilities Electric Department Activities for SEP~EHBER 1990 The following is-a condensed report of the Electric Department activities for SEPTEMBER 1990. The department rebuilt the powerline along Hersy street, reconductoring to 14/0 AAC for added capacity and to allow street project. We installed thirteen new underground services and no new overhead services. Three existing services were upgraded due to an altered service.One temporary service was discontinued. We responded to seventy-one request for cable locations..Repaired eleven street lights. Six transformers were installed for a total of 427 KVA and three were removed for a gain of 252 KVA on the syatem. We installed 2,520' of conduit and 3,937' of conductor this month. There were 217 delinquent account notices worked, and 64 delinquent accounts were disconnected. We had 385 connect orders and 219 disconnect orders for a total of 604 orders. One 50', one 30' and three 45' poles were set for the Hersey street project. Employees attended monthly safety meeting. ~emnrandum September 28, 1990 mo: Brian Almquist, City Administrator ~ rom: Steven Hall, Public Works Director._ 1.)\1\ :~ ~ubjed: Water Quality Status Report ACTION REQUESTED None, informational item for City Council. BACKGROUND Each .year Eric Dittmer produces an annual report on water quality in Bear Creek. That report is attached for your reference. The fact that Bear Creek has met fecal coliform standards for water contact is a major achievement! cc: Eric Dittmer, RVCOG encl: WQ Report ,.~ -. if ,<....... ~" ~ 1" <,' W"\ r_~O {.j" /J.. ,\ 1" .. ~- r-C[l\ ,roO I ,;~... .. l f)- n.t. Li V "- DATE SEP 2 0 1990 ROGUE: VALLey COUNCIL OF GOVE:RNMeNTS ~'" WATER QUALITY STATUS REPORT I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to provide a status report on the broad range of RVCOG Water Quality Program activities .currently underway. In addition to being informative, this paper should also provide the opportunity for public comment and feedback o~ our overall effort. II. WATER QUALITY A. Bear Creek Water Quality The RVCOG Annual Water Quality Data report is now availa];)le and .a I-page summary is attached. For the first time, all monitored Bear Creek stations met fecal coliform water contact standards (less than 200 col./ 100 ml) on an annual lOR mean averaRe. While I consider this a major accomplishment, I must caution that this does not mean our water ~ontact goals are "hereby met". Annual log mean averages are different from individual .monitoring results. Bear Creek still occasionally violates the ~tandard, especially in mid and late summer during low flow periods when water use demands are highest.. I believe it is premature to state Bear Creek is now open for public contact. It is clear, however, that continued progress is being made on the bacteria front. Sediment levels remain basically unchanged. Temperatures are still too high (this is also related to low flows.) The major problem remaining is excessive nutrients. The DEQ approach to reduce nutrient loading requires that anyone who discharges significantly to Bear Creek must prepare a program plan. The plan should describe 1) how they will determine the nature and extent of their nutrient contribution, 2) if significant, what alternatives are available to reduce their loading to assigned DEQ levels, 3) how a viable alternative will be selected, funded, and 4) the timing for implementation and confirmation of goal achievement. The program planning process will officially start this fall when the Environmental Quality Commission approves Ashland's program plan and when DEQ distributes "management letters" to other contributing agencies such as small cities, agriculture and log pond owners. RVCOG is the liaison between the local affected agencies and DEQ on this critical issue and is coordinating the program planning for agriculture and _small cities. B. Water Quality Activities 1. Bear Creek Enhancement/Jackson Street Dam Modification Project -- see attached status report and illustration. 2. Passive Treatment -- RVCOG is continuing the work on Ashland Pond with a SOSC graduate recently completing a detailed nutrient study described in the Annual Water Quality Report. RVCOG is also funding a detailed nutrient analysis of-industrial waters enter~ng. and leaving a marsh near Central Point to determine the potential for this natural treatment method and area. 3. Storm Drains - The City of Medford has strongly supported RVCOG efforts to reduce fecal coliform levels in city storm drains, both financially and in repairing broken sewer lines or misconnects when found. In fact, the attached Annual Report Summary credits the city with the major water quali~y improvement activity along Bear Creek for 1989-90. However, a new aspect of the problem is now under investigation. RACCOONS appear to be a-significant part of the problem. The storm drain is an excellent artificial habitat for raccoons because it provides transportation, protection, water, and. access to backyard cat food at night. . After talking with Animal Control and Fish and Wildlife officials, it appears futile to trap or physically remove them since it.would be difficult to keep replacements out without blocking the entrances and th~refore the.water from the system. Treating the water such as done now above the Bear Creek Park playground could be expensive and awkward. Interestingly, staff at Wildlife Images in Grants Pass note that rock music is effective in driving away nuisance animals under houses. I can see it now . . . Seriously, this avenue is under investigation along with an ultrasonic approach which may drive out the raccoons without being audible to humans. 2 4. Water Resources Conferences Medford-Grants Pass A two-county two-day water resources conference even is planned October 12 and 13 by the Rogue Valley Council of Governments and tbe Grants Pass Branch of the American Association of University . Women. On Friday. October 12. RVCOG is facilitating interagency communication from 8:30 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. at the S~ullin C,nter on Barnett Road. Medford. ley local speakers will highlight status and priority concerns relating to: o Agriculture and irrigation o Urban water needs and population growth o Recreation and fish habitat . o Ground water o Population growth; climate trends A round table discussion of the varied concerns will follow the morning presentations. The'Saturday portion of the conference, scheduled at the Rogue Community College. emphasizes public awar~ness and outreach (see attached brochure). I would like to encourage anyone reading this to attend either the Friday or Saturday' sessions (or both). *Please RSVP to RVCOG for the Friday session to. help us plan the lunch logistics. 5. ~ong Range Plann~ng - Water Quality ,. The relatively unstable budgets supporting the RVCOG water quality program over the years has inhibited long-term planning needed to address certain local issues. Attached is a preliminary list of projects which could be.accomplished over the ne~t 5 years. Your comments and input on th~se would be appreciated. Are these logical? Is the program moving in the right direction? Please let us know. These items will be discussed at the next RVCOG Water Quality Advisory Committee meeting. Dittmer Sept. 1990 attach (WQll) STATUS.WQ 3 Council of Government SUMMARY . RVCOG!NNtJAL .WATER QUALITY-REPORT 1989-90 Th~ Rogue Valley 90uncil of Governments coordinates water quality monitoring of se :cte~ streams 1n the Bear Creek Valley. The Annual Report summarizing the ~on1tor1ng of fecal bacteria. sediment and temperature.from April 1989 to March 1990 1S now available and is summarized below. . FECAL COLIFORM BEAR CREEK STATIONS Annual Fecal Coliform Averages o L +J C CD U -f- 1983-84 -e- 1984-85 --*- 1985-86 ~ 1986-87 --.- 1987.-88 ~ 1988-89 ~ 1 ~8~CJO ,-... r.. X +' -0 \.. ..c -c c c c U +' +J ~. V 0 CD 0 +J "-" ~ 0 0 ..c c '--f ..c I- (J) 0 -0 Q.. ~ L L 0 "0 Ol . L Z . ~ ' 'to- 0 E. -0 'to- (l) -0 W 2 v. STATIONI '2 5000 4000 E 3000 o. . ~ 2000 " \ 0 1 000 ;U o -0 0:: -0 C o +' '- ~ +, Q.. SUMMARY ANALYSES .:!,:... ,: '. . o..'The 2l5~ colonies per lOOml overall average recorded .for all Bear Creek ,stations is down over 85% from 1983.;1evels. and ?O% f.rom last year. ~. . . . '. ,. ' . ' I o Fecal bacteria levels for. 1989-90 (heavy line) dropped at almost all stations but most dramatically in Medford where the city<completed a major . _rehabilitation of the 4th St. storm drain system. , ~ o Using annual log mean calculations, Bear Creek actually ,~ water contact standards at all monitored stations for the first time. o .;:!}ear Creek tributaries meeting water quality contact activity standards (log .mean 200 col/lOOml) include Emigrant, Ashland, Wagner, Griffin and Baby Bear Creeks. . . o Lazy, Payne. and Larson Creeks showed the highest bacteria levels. Tributaries showing improvement in addition to Medford storm drains were Emigrant. Lazy and Jackson Creeks. ROGUE-VALLEY Council of Governments 155 S. Second Street P.O. Box 3275 . Central Point, OR 97502 ~'~~'1. war- MEMORANDUM 503-664-6674 Date: June 20., 199Q. To: Parties Interested in Bear Creek Enhancement (Jackson Street Dam) Project -. Eric Dittmer, Water' Quality Coordinator ~ Status Report, Project/Developments From: . Sub j e ct.: This project is still al!ve and well but proceed~ng more slowly than I would like. The latest approach, you may remember, is to lower the dam app~oximately 5' b~ taki~gout a 50~ wide:section of concrete starting at the east bank. Lowering more than 5' of th~ dam could expose thePNB phone line under Jackson Street.. Relocating the phone line would cost an additional $350,000. The channel would be narrowed with increased slope from 4th Str~et using rip rap or ~mal1 steps to and below the m9dified dam. A _separate channel along the east bank ~ould provide the Rogue River Valley Irrigation District with their needed irrigation supplies. We .would hope that theae modifications could be done using natural or naturally appearing material~ .to maximize the aestheti~s as well as the water quality and.fish passage benefits. Narrowing the channel below 4th Str~et will also tend to narrow the channel upstream with the possible opportunity to encourage attractive riparian plants which can also help in passive treatment of urban storm drain water~. I am still concerned about low summer flows in Bear Creek especially during these last five .dry years. Of course, a narrowed flowing main channel would still be an improvement over the existing wide stagnating.. area. The Medford Urban Renewal Agency (URA) has just allocated $5,000.to allow for a more precise feasibility analysis of this approach. We -also hope to refine cost estimates which are now about $250 - .$300,000. A financing plan needs to be done once the feasibility is verified. I would hope that there could be many varied financing participants. It is conceivable that these would be considered phase I step; phase 2 would occur whenever PNB needs to move the phone line and would extend the same concept further upstream. I hope to have the project progress to the final design stage by the end of 1990. I would appreciate any ideas you might have as this project develops. ro JA-ST-DAM/WQ# lOB ~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER. . I . ~ .\3 ~ J. -I- """ (," J o p t . .' ,. . ",,-. .. .. .' . ~ '-~ ~!?:~+- ~Ult:S ' ~~~ E ~ ., ~ / ~~ --- ~ ~/ f J ~~~t, f"~~ / \1\1U__ / / /. " y q QI o .. e'\ ..... o ~. v ~ r ( ~ ,< u .., <::> ~ ~ ~ > ~ qJ ~ ~ ~ to -1 /, " .. : .'. i'. ' 1990 ---r * * * * * * * * * * * WATER QUALITY PROJECTS - 90'S Comprehensive.Water Resources Forum (Oct.) Mingus Marsh/Elk Creek Passive Treatment (July) Medford 6th Street Sanitary Repair (July) Medford Oil Catch Basin Study (Fall) Draft Program Plans (Agriculture, Urban) (Fall) MEDCO pond investigation (Fall) Jacksonville lagoon implementation (July) . RRVID dam modification feasibility (Aug.) Implement water quality monitoring refinements (Aug.) Bear Creek. cleanup (Sept.) Storm drain protection painting (July) Begin Water Quality Comprehensive Plan Concept (Nov.) 1991 . ---r Griffin Pond Passive Treatment Rehab * RRVID Dam Final. Design * Begin Water Quality Comprehensive Plan (10 year) * MEDCO pond regulatin.g res.ervoir implement~d * Bear Creek Rehab project (to be determined) 1992 ---.-- * * * Completion Phase I RRVID Dam Modification Completion Bear Creek Overlook Interpretive Area RRVID Preliminary investigation Lynn Hewbry Passive Treatment Investigation of Pilot Study Ashland/TID Exchange (Spring 1992) 1993 ---.-- Completion investigation of Ashland/TIC exchange (Fall '93) * Log pond nutrient solution implementation started * Agriculture BMP adoption/evaluation 1994 I ---.-- Completion of a passive treatment opp~rtunity (yet to be determined) 1995 ---r Completion, DEQ. Nutrient Implementation - industry, small cities * Adoption of nutrient reduction practices - agriculture, septic systems, small farms * Review minimum stream flow initial formulation equity of water beneficial uses (WQ IIOA) WQPROJ.90 em 0; JIf rom: %ubjed: ~tmnrandum October 9, 1990 Mayor and City Council Ashland Historic Commission NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATIONS At its regularly scheduled meeting of October 3, 1990, the Historic Commission unanimously agreed to recommend favorable approval of the nomination of the Ashland Masonic Lodge and the South Wing of the Ashland. Depot Hotel to the National Register of Historic Places per attached letter and minutes. Copies of the nominations are available for review in the Planning Department. NEIL GOLDSCHMIDT GOVERNOR /' ~:) C(V'i~-O,_-, Parks and Recreation Department STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE 525 TRADE STREET SE, SALEM, OREGON 97310 PHONE (503) 378-5001 FAX (503) 378-6447 August 24, 1990 The Honorable catherine Golden Mayor of Ashland 20 East Main st. Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Mayor Golden: This is to notify you that the following properties have been proposed f.or nomination to the National .Register of Historic Places and will be reviewed by the state Advisory committee on Historic Preservation on October 25, 1990. Ashland Depot Hotel, South wing (1888) 624 A Street Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon Ashland Masonic Lodge Building (1879-1880) 25 North Main st. Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon The National Register is the Federal government's official list of historic properties worthy of preservation. Listing in the National Register provides recognition and assists in preserving our Nation's heritage. This is to make certain that you are aware of: (1) the effects of listing a property in the National Register of Historic Places, and (2) your opportunity to comment on the proposed nomination. Listing of property in the National Register not only provides recognition of the property's historic importance in the community. It assures protective review of Federal projects that. might adversely affect the character of the property. If the property ~is listed in the National ~egister, certain Federal investment tax credits for rehabilitation and other provisions may apply, as well as state property tax benefits. Please see the enclosures which explain in greater detail the results of listing in the National Register and the rights and procedures by which an owner may comment on or object to listing in the National Register. ----. --- The Honorable Catherine Golden August 24, 1990 Page 2 Listing in the National Register does not mean that limitations will be placed on the property by the Federal government. Public visitation rights are not required of owners expecting those nominal requirements stipulated in consideration of special assessment status under Oregon law. The Federal government will not attach restrictive covenants to the property or seek to acquire the property. In accordance with Federal rule (36 CFR 61),. political subdivisions which have been officially recognized as certified Local Governments under provisions of the Federally-assisted National Register program are required to review nomination applications relating to their jurisdictions. Evidence of local evaluation by a professionally qualified historical landmarks commission in the form of discussion minutes or written comments must be supplied to the state Historic Preservation Office in advance of the state's review date. You are invited to attend the forthcoming meeting of the state Advisory committee to discuss the proposed nomination. The date and location of the meeting are given on the agenda enclosed. We hope this information is helpful to you. If questions concerning the National Register nomination process arise, I can be reached at the following number: (503) 378-5001. sincerely, /~.h/~~nr- ~ Elisabeth Walton Potter, Coordinator National Register Nomination EWP: j n 17J.LTR Enclosures cc: Ashland Historic Commission Glossary 0017 (w) RESULTS OF LISTING IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES Eli. ibilit for Federal tax rovisions: If q property is listed in the a 10na eglster, certaln. e era tax provisions may apply. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 revises the historic preservation tax incentives authorized by Congress in the Tax Reform Act of 1976, the Revenue Act of 1978, the Tax Treatment Extension Act of 1980, the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, and Tax Reform Act of 1984, and as of January 1, 1987, provides for a 20 percent investment tax credit with a full adjustment to basis for rehabilitating historic commercial, industrial, and rental residential buildings. The former 15 percent and 20 percent Investment Tax Credits (ITCs) for rehabilitations of older commercial huildings are combined into a single 10 percent ITC for commercial or industrial buildings built before 1936. The Tax Treatment Extension Act of 1980 provides Federal tax deductions for charitable contributions for conservation purposes of partial interests in historically important land areas or structures. Whether. these provisions are advantageous to a property owner is dependent upon the particular circumstances of the property anrl the owner. Because tax aspects outlined above are complex, individuals should consult legal counselor the appropriate local Internal Revenue Service office for assistance in determining the tax consequences of the above provisions. For further infonmation on certification requirements, please refer to 3n CFR 67. Consideration in ; ssui n a surface coa 1mi ni n Qualification for Federal rants for historic reservation when funds are aval ab e: Fundlng 1S not ava1 ab e at thlS tlme. S ecial Assessment for Historic Pro ert: Under ORS 358.475 to 358.565, owners 0 regon propertles entered lnto the National Register of Historic Places, including those properties which have been designated as contributing features of historic districts, may apply for special assessment status--a II freeze" of the true cash value for a 15-year peri od. I n return for thi s benefit, which is a temporary freeze on increases in assessment, the property owner agrees to maintain his property in such a way that it does not deteriorate and is encouraged to submit plans and specifications for alteration, rehabilitation or restoration for review and approval hy the State Historic Preservation Office. Under Rights of Owners to Comment and/or to Object to list;n in the National egl s er Owners of private properties nominated to the National Register have an opportunity to concur with or object to listing in accord with the National Historic Preservation Act and 36 CFR 60. Any owner or partial owner of . private property who chooses to object to listing may submit, to the State Historic Preservation Officer, a notarized statement certifying that the party is the sole or partial owner of the prlvate property and objects to the listing. Each owner or partial owner of private property has one vote regardless of the portion of the property that the party owns. If a majority of private property owners object, a property will not be listed. However, the State Historic Preservation Officer shall submit the nomination to the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places for a detenmination of eligibility of the property for listing in the National Register. If the property is then determined eligible for listing, although not formally listed, Federal agencies will he required to allow for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to have an opportunity to comment before the agency may fund, license, or assist a project which will affect the property. If you choose to object to the listing of your property, the notarized objection must be submitted to the State Histori.c Preservation Office, 525 Trade Street SE, Salem, OR 97310, by the announced date of review of the .proposed nomination. I f you wi sh to corrment" on the nomi nati on of the property to the Nati ona 1 Register, please send your corrments to the State Historic Preservation Office before the forthcoming meeting of the State Advisory Committee on Preservation. A copy of the nomination and information on the National Register and the Federal tax provisions are available from the above address upon request. ~.-- Ashland Historic Commission Minutes October 3, 1990 NEW BUSINESS National Reeister Nomination - Ashland Masonic Lod2e Vince Claflin, who researched . and prepared the nomination for the Ashland Masonic Lodge Building, explained the request is not made on architectural merits of the building, but for the social merits because of the many architectural changes which have occurred over the years. The Lodge is non-profit so it will not apply for a tax freeze if placed on the National Register. If funds become available, he assured the Commission the glass bricks will be removed and the building will be restored to the pre-1900 era. The Commission commended Mr. Claflin on his research. (Skibby moved and Reynolds seconded to extend the meeting past 10:30 p.m. The motion was unanimously approved.) Whitten moved and Skibby seconded to recommend approval of the Masonic Lodge to the National Register of Historic Places, and it was unanimously passed. National Re2ister Nomination - South Winl:.. Ashland Depot Hotel Lewis declared a conflict of interest. With a motion by Reynolds and second by Whitten, recommendation of approval to place the South Wing of the Ashland Depot Hotel on the National Register of Historic Places was unanimously approved. Lewis abstained from voting. Bikeway Proposals The Commission voiced its concerns about altering the width of the median strip on Siskiyou Boulevard, stating the historic context will be greatly altered. It would have a major impact on the Boulevard if five feet were cut out on each side and the ends. It was recommended the City Attorney research the deed restrictions, as MacKenzie stated that orchardists deeded the strip to the City to be used as a median strip. McLaughlin said the. strip uses treated water for the sod, which should be replaced with more drought resistance vegetation. The Commission agreed. It also agreed that the two- way bicycle and pedestrian traffic on the five foot sidewalks is dangerous. The Commissioners will make every attempt to attend the public hearing on October 11th. 7 I"-~.'------ LEAGUE OF OREGON CITIES 1990 ANNUAL CONFERENCE AND BUSINESS MEETING Designation of Voting Delegate At Annual Business Meeting The annual business meeting will be held Monday, November 12, at 7:30 am. Each city is entitled to cast ~ vote at the business meeting; all city offICials are encouraged to attend. Use this form to indicate those persons who will represent your city as a voting. delegate and alternate delegate. The voting delegate or alternate should pick up a voting card at the Conference Registration . Desk on Monday morning prior to the business meeting. NOTE: Oeleoates maY not vote without a votine card. and votine cards will. be issued onlY to a oerson indicated on this form. Votine bv oroxv will not be oermitted. VOTING DELEGATE Name Title ALTERNATE Name Title Submitted by: (Signature) Name (Print) Title City Telephone Return. bv October 31 to: .~ S League of Oregon Cities j P.O. Box 928 l~~lem, OR 97308 TABLE OF CONTENTS OF RECORD FOR PLANNING ACTION 90-178 ZONE CHANGE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT ANDERSON/DIAMOND . ITEM PAGE Notice of Public Hearing before CitY Council, October 16, 1990 1 Planning Commission's recommended Findings, Conclusions, and Orders - September 11, 1990 2 Ashland Planning Commission. Regular Meeting Minutes .- September 11, 5 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report - September 11, 1990 7 . Findings of Fact submitted by the applicant's agent, Southern Oregon Planning SerVice 10 Letter from Bernie Conklin, 3M, to C.D. Anderson 5/24/90 18 Notice Map of Planning Commission Hearing September 11, 1990 i9 Letter from Talent Irrigation District 20 Topographic Map 21 Application form, dated 8-9-90 22 Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL on the 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1990 AT 7:30 P.M. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford . the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Failure to specify which ordinance criteria the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal. A copy of the appli<;ation, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the staff report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at thc Ashland . Planning Department, City Hall, 20 East Main, Ashland, OR 97520. During the Public Hearing, the Mayorshall allow testimony from-the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Mayor shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. If you have any questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, City Hall, at 488- 5305. . C 0~...w"" -u>tJuJ <-1. I {?001J OAfL..f se~(U"'ll> <.J , i<-~ .~ ~-1-7.) ~I ~ ill .:1 - .., ~<.."" .::.....~~~....~I 5<X> r.n"--..... BELLVIEW ELEMENTAR SCHOOL; . (DISTRICT 5) PLANNING ACTION 90-178 is a request for.a Zone Change from R-3 and R-1-7.5 to R- 2 and a Comprehensive Plan map amendment from High Density Residential and Single Family Residential to Multi-Family Residential for the property located at 2300 Siskiyou Boulevard. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential and I-ligh Density Residential; Zoning: R-1-7.5 and R-3; Assessor's Map #: 14C; T::LX Lot 1900. APPLICANT: Anderson/Diamond BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 1.1, 1990 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #90-178, REQUEST FOR A ) ZONE CHANGE R-3 AND R-1-7.5 TO R-2, AND COMPREHENSIVE ) PLAN MAP AMENDMENT FROM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND ) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ) FOR. THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2300 SISKIYOU BLVD. ) APPLICANT: ANDERSON/DIAMOND ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS ---------------------------------------~---------------- RECITALS: .1) . Tax lot 1900 of 391E 14C is located at 2300 siskiyou Blvd. and is zoned R-3/R-1-7.5i High Density 2) The applicant is requesting a Zone Change from R-3 and R-1-7.5 to R-2 and comprehensive Plan map amendment from High Density Residential and Single Family Residential to Multi-Family Residential for the property located. at 2300 SiSkiyou Boulevard. A site plan is on file at the Department of Community Development. 3) ~he ~riteria for approval. of a zone change are found in 18.108.060 -and are as follows: Type III amendments may.be approved when one of the following conditlons exist: a) A public need, s~pported by the Comprehensive Plan; b) The need to correct mistakes; .c) The need to adjust to new conditions; d) Where compelling circumstances relating to the general public welfare require such an action. 4) The Planning commission, following proper public notice, held. a Public Hearing on september 11, 1990, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. the Planning Commission. recommended approval of the application. Now, therefore, The Planning commission of the .ci ty of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. staff Exhibits lettered with an liS" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "p" Opponent's Exhibits, lette.red with an "0" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" - SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a-decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2.2 The Planning commission finds that the request for Zone Change from R-3 and R-1-7. 5 t-o R-2 and Comprehensive. Plan map amendment from High Density Residential and single Fami~y Residential to Multi-Family Residential for the. property located at.2300 Siskiyou Boulevard meets the applicable criterion outlined .in 18.108.060 (c) . The Commission believes that the zone change is there exists a need to .adjust to new conditions. Ashland's site Design Guidelines, Floodplain Performance. Standards options has impacted the developing this property to its .maximum density... appropriate as Th~ adoption of Corridor, and feasibility of Based on information in the record, the Commission .finds that the overall allowable density will be reduced by this change, however the final number of units will be dependent upon future development applications, and conformance with site Review, Performance Standards, and/or zoning.density requirements. The.Commission further finds that this change will allow for a more reasonabl~ transition between the zQnes than was. previously allowed. It opens up several development options for the rear area of the parcel th~t may not have been. available under the previous sing,le family zoning. The Commission believes that the R-3 zoning. has been very difficult to develop to maximum densities without the sacrifice of site amenities such as adequate parking or landscaping. The R-2 zoning al16ws much more realistic densities, and allows for greater opportunities for compatibility with the city's site Design and Use Guidelines. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on thi.s matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the request for Zone Change from R- 3 and R-1-7. 5 to R-2 and Comprehensive Plan map amendment from High Density Residential and single Family Residential to Multi-Family Residential is supported by evidence in the record. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being ~:?.l: -..! ~... subject to each of the following conditions, we recommend approval Planning Action #90-178. Date Planning commission Approval slope. HAROLD CENTER, surveyor, answered that on the lots to the east it should be no problem, however lot one could be marginal if restricted to 35 percent. . COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Carr was concerned with drainage. and erosion on this soil. Benson felt that was covered by Condition 3. Bingham moved to approve PA90-160. Powell seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously. TYPE III PUBLIC .HEARING PLANNING ACTION 90-178 REQUEST FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM R-3 AND R-1-7.5 TO R-2 AND A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT FROM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND SINGLE FAIVIIL Y RESIDENTIAL TO MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED 2300 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD. APPLICANT: ANDERSON/DIAMOND Site visits were made by all. STAFF REPORT This property was partitioned in December of 1989 and is split zoned. The applicant is proposing to change the entire piece to R-2. The main impact would be taking the rear parcel which is single family and converting it to a multi-family zoning. However, if the zoning did not change, it would be likely the property would become a blended development under the Performance Standards Option and this change would ha~e little affect. McLaughlin read the criteria for approval. Staff felt that generally this zone change is appropriate for this area and recommended approval. PUBLIC HEARING CURT WEAVER, 2480 Nieto Way, Medford, OR 97504, representing Diamond and Anderson, stated that they believe this property is one of the few in Ashland that.has large number of trees with riparian habitat and other natural features to preserve as well as the barn that could be used for a common area in the future. The applicant .does not wish to develop the property to the maximum of the R-3 zone. In the rear . parcel, the applicant is proposing 15 units that should be more compatible with the neighborhood than R-3. The only area of impact would be abutting R-2 with single family residences on Bellview but this could be mitigated by careful site planning. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES . SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 2 .".r" ~~~, -" . .....,:.\."...~ Jarvis questioned Weaver regarding public need. Do we need more public land for diversified housing within the city? McLaughlin said the city was short on multi-family zoned land. Jarvis also noted that the criteria. for a Type III amendment is the need to adjust to new conditions. McLaughlin responded that the B-3 zone is not really developable to the maximum densities. Since the adoption of the site design guidelines, the flood plain corridors, retention of natural features of the land, there is not the opportunity to develop to maximum density. The ordinances in the city have changed over time, making R-3 zoning.very difficult to develop R-3 standards. Weaver felt their findings were based on criteria 4, adjusting to the circumstances of the general public welfare in the area of Sis.kiyou and Bellview. They are trying to develop a use that is compatible with the neighborhood. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Jarvis believes this application me.ets the burden of proof under Criteria C and recommended approval of this application. Carr seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously. PLANNING.ACTION 90-172 REQUEST FOR AN ORDINANCE CHANGE TO 18.68.020 - VISION CLEARANCE - NOT ALLOWING ANY VARIANCES TO THIS SECTION. APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND STAFF REPORT It should not be a land use issue as to whether or not to grant a variance for vision clearance. This falls under public safety and the City could be placed in a position regarding liabitity. . CP AC reviewed and recommended approval. Morgan wondered how this would affect applications and vision clearance on streets, alleys, and flag drives. McLaughlin said, at this time, the ordinance applies to street and alley intersections. Morgan thought flag drives should be considered. PUBLIC HEARING No one came forth to speak. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 3 ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT September 11, 1990 PLANNING ACflON: 90-178 APPLICANT: Carol and Marge Anderson/Eliot Diamond LOCATION: 2300 Siskiyou Boulevard ZONE DESIGNATION: R-I-7.5 and R-3 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential and High Density Residential ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.108.060 REQUEST: ~ne Change from R-3 and R-1-7.5 to R-2 and Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment from High Density Residential and Single Family Residential to Multi- Family Residential. I. Relevant Facts 1) Background - History of Application: The parcel was divided into two lots as part of a minor land partition in December, 1989 (PA89-221). There are no other planning actions of record for this address. 2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal: The applicant's findings have provided a rather detailed description of the site on pages 1 and 2 of the submitted findings (Exhibit ItAIt). . Essentially, at present,. there are two parcels of approximately 2.75 acres in area located at the corner of Siskiyou Boulevard and. Bellview Avenue. The front portion of the property, adjacent to Siskiyou Boulevard, is presently zoned R-3, High Dep.sity Residential, with the rear portion, adjacent to Bellview Avenue, zoned R-1-7.5, Single Family Residential, 7500 sq. ft. minimum lot size. The area zoned R-3 is approximately 1.75 acres in size, with the R-1-7.5 zoned area approximately 1.00 acres in size. The applicant is requesting to rezone the entire 2.75 acres to R-2, Multi- Family Residential. II. Project Impact Probably the most significant impact of any zone. change is the ultimate impact on the total number of units. Assuming that the total 2.75 acres is developed under the Performance Standards Option, blending of the overall densities would be allowed. The overall density would be calculated as follows: R-3 R-1-7.5 1.75 acres 1.00 acres 20 du/acre 4JduJacre 35 units 4 units Total units allowed (base density) 39 units Under the proposed R-2 zoning: R-2 2.75 acres 13 duJ acre 35 units Total units allowed (base density) 35 units As shOWll; using the Performance Standards densities for comparison purposes, the total number of allowable units would be reduced as part of this zon~ change. The applicant's findings, on Page. 5, Housing Densi1y, using different, although equally plausible, assumptions about development, indicates the current zoning would allow for 64 units, while the rezoned land would have a maximum of 58 units. Again, the rezoning would result in fewer units allowed. Given the nature of most developments in Ashland, and the physical constraints on this property, we would estimate that the Performance Standards densities indicated, perhaps with a density bonus of 20% for energy efficiency, would be the IJ?ost likely. development level. The main potential negative effect will be the rezoning of the property previously . indicated as R-1-7.5 to a higher density, and the resulting impacts, if not properly mitigated, of the high~r density adjacent to the remaining single-family zoned land. However, Staff believes that the issues of density and impacts can be addressed during Site Review for future developments, and that much similar densities could be accomplished through density blending under the Pe.rformance Standards at present. III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The criteria for approval of a zone change are found in 18.108.060 and are as follows: Type III amendnlents may be approved when one of the following conditions exist: PA90-178 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report Carol and Marge Anderson/Eliot Diamond September 11, 1990 Page 2 ,;.' a) A public need, supported by the Comprehensive Plan; b) The need to correct mistakes; c) The need to adjust to new conditions; d) Where compelling circumstances relating to. the general public welfare require such an action. The applicant has submitted findings in support of this application. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations As the applicant's findings indicate on Page?, just prior to the Conclusion, "this application is somewhat unique when compared to a typical zone change. Most zone changes for new development are for purposes of increasing housing density , rather substantially. or for a dramatic change in land use." As .stated, the overall allowable density will be reduced by this change~ however the final number of units will be dependent upon future development applications, and conformance with Site Review, Performance Standards, and/or .zoning density requirements. But this change also allows for a more reasonable transition between the zones than was previously allowed. It also opens up several development options for the rear area of the parcel that may not have been available under the previous single family zoning. Also, the R-3 zoning has been very difficult to develop to maximum densities without the sacrifice of site amenities such as adequate parking or landscaping. The R~2 zoning allows much more realistic densities, and allows for greater opportunities for compatibility with the City's Site Design and Use Guidelines. Overall, Staff believes that this zone change is appropriate for this location and we recommend approval. PA90-1?8 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report Carol and Marge Anderson/Eliot Diamond . September 11, 1990 Page 3 ~.~li 'EXHIBIT "A" BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, STATE OF OREGON Application for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map for the City of Ashland from Single Family Residential R-l.75 and High Density Multiple Family Residential R-3to Low Density Multiple Family Residential R-2. Tax Lot 1900 & 1901 on Map No 39-IE-14C Street address: 2300 siskiyou Boulevard Ashland, Oregon 97520 Applicants: Carol and Marge Anderson 2300 Siskiyou Boulevard Ashland, Oregon 97520 Eliot Diamond c/o Diane Beemer Van Vleet Realty 375 Lithia Way Ashland, Oregon 97520 Agents: Southern Oregon Planning Service 2480 Niet:o Way Medford; Oregon 97504 Wagner Ward Giordano, Architects 349 East Main street Ashland, Oregon 97520 SECTION I, INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE: The subject property is 2.75 acres in size and is located south of Siskiyou Boulevard at the intersection of Bellview Avenue. The parcel is currently split zoned. -The front or approximate north one-half of the property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential and the south or rear portion Single Family Residential R-l.7.5. . The parent parcel was divided as part of a Minor Partition Applicatio.n, approved by the City in 1989. Ta.x Lot 1900 in the Partition is 1.16 acres in size and will be retained by. co- applicant Carol and Marge Anderson. Tax Lot 1901 in the Par- tition is 1.58 acres in size and is being purchased by co~appli- cant Eliot Diamond. Mr. and Mrs. Anderson reside on Tax Lot 1900 and any plans to further develop that property are dependent on the development schedule and economic factors related to project proposed .by Mr. Diamond on Tax lot 1901. Mr. Diamond purposes to develop 15 condominium units on Tax Lot 1901 subject to this zoning map amendment and other permits as required by the city of Ashland. SECTION II, MATERIAL FACTS: . The subject property is 2.75 acres in size and is l.egally divided into two tracts 1.16 acres and 1.58 acres in size. . The property has 258 feet of frontage on Siskiyou Boulevard and 382 feet of frontage on Bellview Avenue. Siskiyou Boulevard is also known as Highway #99 and is tained by the state of Oregon. Bellview Avenue is a maintained street. main- city The subject area is developed with one residence, with a drive- way to Siskiyou Boulevard, a storage shed located 50 feet e~st of the dwelling, a guest house 37 feet south of the. dwelling and a barn 100 feet south of the dwelling. Clay Creek bisects the south westerly portion of the tract. The City of Asnland Flood Hazard Corridor zoning Regulations apply to this area. According to information received at the pre-application conference on this matter, the area from the hazard boundary to the west property line must be left free of structures and similar floodflow impediments. . The remainder of the property outside of the Anderson yard area, has native forb and shrub vegetation and mixed conifer and hardwood trees. . Topography is level to moderate slope on 80% of the parcel. The slope direction is north - northw~st at 1% to 4%. The area along the creek .has a steep to moderate topographic break 1 r/ .~,. .f: generally following flood hazard corridor. . The. amount of land in the flood hazard corridor is approximate- ly 0.38 acres in size. . Immediately adjacent land uses are: South: Tax Lot 2000 391E14C is owned by Stan and BettySesar and is used for single family residential purposes. North: Siskiyou Boulevard. East: Bellview Avenue. West: Tax Lot lOIN 391El4CB is in the name Inc. and is an apartment complex. 39lE14CB is in student Housing, Inc. space area. of Ashlander, Tax Lot lOON and fs an open . Across Bellview Avenue from the subject property is the office of Dr. Joyce Patten that fronts on Siskiyou Boulevard and two ~ residential parcels that front on Bellview Avenue. . A fire hydrant exists on the corner of Bellview and Siskiyou Boulevard. . There are no sidewalks along Bellview Avenue. Bellview Avenue is a two lane AIC surface street with street parking allowed. . Across Siskiyou Boulevard from the Anderson property is an area zoned E-l that is developed with a mini-warehouse complex, custom Closets and Ashland Glass commercial businesses. West of the E-l area is R-2 zoned property developed as an a.partment complex . On the south side of Siskiyou boulevard and adjacent subject property is a 6 foot wide bike path and A/C. sidewalk. to the surface . A single phase overhead power line is located along Bellview Avenue and adjacent to the subject property. Overhead tele- phone lines are located across Bellview Avenue. A three phase overhead powerline is located across Siskiyou Boulevard. . A pre-application conference was held on May 29, 1990 for this application.. No negative comments were received from the affected city departments regarding the ability to provide services to the proposed project. . The Comprehensive Plan Map for the City indicates High Density Multiple Family Residential Use for a distance of about 450 feet south from Siskiyou Boulevard. 1. ,~.'-'" 2 SECTION III, DISCUSSION AND LEGAL REQUIREMENTS: This application has been prepared under the guidel'ines and provisions of the city of Ashland Comprehensive-Plan in effect as of July 1990. We are aware of the fact the City Staff and Planning Com- mission are well into a update of this document. However it is our understanding that this 'application must legally be reviewed under the Comprehensive plan and Ordinances in effect on the date of filing. The proposed policies and new background elements r~vised plan have not been used because at this point they are not matters of law. of in the time The City Staff has indicated this application is a Type 3 Amendment according to the Land Development Ordinance, (Section 18.108.080). Applicable criteria are: 1.) Public need or; 2.) The need to correct a mistake or; 3.) The need to adjust to new circumstances; 4.) Compelling circumstances relating to the general public welfare. There is ,no compe 11 ing evidence in this ~ase that a exists' to correct a mistake. The remaining three criteria addressed in Section V herein. need are Additional data reviewed for this application are those portions of the comprehensive Plan text that appear' to address issues or concerns relevant to the land use action. SECTION IV, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FACTORS: This section and the conclusions in support of the application are not the result of new studies or data gathering. The proposed zoning amendment was reviewed against the relevant data and policies in the Official City Comprehensive Plan adopted November 2, 1982 and acknowledged by LCDC October 7, 1983. A.) Comprehensive Plan Map. Fact: The Comprehensive plan Map indicates the subject proper- ty for high density multiple family residential use. ,~;,.:::;.,~ 3 ....~~....<". t ------------------- - - - Finding: ,The proposal. is not for a dramatic' land use change such as a change from residential to commercial. The proposed rezone is consistent with the existing land use pattern for the nearby area and the proposed land use pattern. The apartment complex across Siskiyou Boule- vard from the Anderson property is zoned R-2. B.) Citizen Involvement: Fact: The Comprehensive Plan indicates a permanent citizen involvement program will be established to review quasi- judicial land use actions~ Finding: This application will be reviewed by CPAC and a report and recommendation forwarded to the Planning Commission. e.) Environmental Resources: Fact: This Section of the plan Text identified two specific env ironmenta 1 concerns for the property. 1.) The wa ter = 'related habitat along Clay Creek and 2.) Stream flood- ing. Finding: The Flood Hazard Corridor Zoning Regulations address the above plan issues and 1.) prohibit structures within the water related habitat; 2.) regulate fill and/or ground disturbances in the floodway. No other site specific, environmental resources are iden- t~fied for the property. D.) Public Services: Fact: The Comprehensive Plan indicates all public services must be provided in an orderly and efficient manner. Finding: All necessary public $ervicesar~ provided to the nearby a~ea and those such as sewer, water, electric, telephone and storm drainage exist on the north and east side of the subject property. No major new services and utility extensions will result from this land use action. G.) Historic Resources: Fact: No historic resources have been identified for the subject property. F.) Scenic and Aesthetic Impact: Fact: The plan discourages new development where scenlC aesthetic values will be adversely impacted or the pearance of the nearby area is negatively affected. and ap- f i' F 4 Finding: The above policy appears directed at new development on hillside or viewshed areas or to development that is out of character in a neighborhood. This proposal is not on the fringe of the city and is not a outward expansion of multiple f'amily use. A mix of land use exists in the area similar'to what a R-2 zone will allow. The site is not an important scenic or viewshed area. Several apartment complexes exist within 300 feet of the proper- ty. G.) Housing Density: Fact: The property is split zoned. The front portion is zoned R-3 and the rear portion is zoned R-1-7.5. The zoning map does not indicate a distance or depth of the R-3 zone from the north property line. The scaled distance is about 300 feet. For purposes of this discussion we estimate the amount of land in the existing R-3 zone to be approximately 1.74 acres and the area zoned R-1-7.5 to be 1.00 acres in size. The existing allowable density in the R-1-7.9 area is 5 housing units. with the floodway exclusion the actual buildable density would be 3 housing units. In the R-3 zone the allowable density would be 61 housing units. The overall housing density under the' current zoning designation is 64 units, on 2.74 acres of land. ' Finding: The proposed zone change to R-2 would have a maximum allowable density of 58 units. with the floodway exclusion (if that area cannot be included in overall density calculations) the maximum density would be 50 units. The proposed zone change will allow for 6 or 14 less housing units then currently allowed. Thus, the rezone itself does not substantially change the current status of the Housing Plan for the city. The actual number of dwellings proposed herein is 15 units on the Eliot Diamond.property for a density of 4500 square feet p~r unit. The Anderson portion which is 1.18 acres in size could have a density of 24 units The planned maximum densi- ty of the applicants is 39 housing units. The rationale for constructing less units then by zoning regulations is based on site-specific teristics of the property. allowed charac- H.} population and Growth: Fact: The comprehensive 1 8 I 00 0 per son s . Plan projected al990 population The estimated 1990 population of lS 5 Finding: The proposal does not redirect growth to the portion of the city. The actual change in density between the existing zones and the rezone is minimal. subject maximum proposed The planned density is substantially less then currently permitted. The rationale for this is an issue that is more properly discussed with the Conditional Use Permit Application for the 15 condominium units. Briefly, however the primary reason is two-fold. 1.) To maintain a open space character within the development by making maximum use of existing mature trees and the renovation of the barn as common use area, along with protection of the water-related resource land and 2.} Create a project that is compatible with single family residential use along Bellview Avenue. SECTION V, COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 18.108.080, OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE: A.) Public Need: The public need for this amendment is based on the following factors: 1.) A need for diversified housing within the city. 2.) The obvious need to create a project that is more suitable and would have less adverse impact then allowed' by the current R-3 zone. 3.) The fact that no vacant land zoned for R-2 uses exists in the nearby area along Siskiyou Boulevard. 'B.) The need to adjust to new conditions: The split zoning of the property in 1982 created a problem for overall development of the parcel. site review clearly indicates that many factors that will heavily influence develop- ment., These are the floodway area noted previously, the re- tention of as many'mature trees, as possible, screening and buffering of nearby ~ingle family zoned areas and access within the property itself. To develop the portion of the property currently zoned R-3 would adversely affect all of the items mentioned above. Allowing a decrease in zoning density, and spreading the housing units out on the entire property creates a development that is more compatible with the existing land use pattern. A maximum R-3 development would destroy the character of the property that the applicants are attempting to preserve. //~. 6 This application is somewhat unique when compared to a typical 'zone change. Most zone changes for new development are for purposes of increasing housing density rather substantially or for a dramatic change in land use. The public need finding in these cases generally requires a market analysis and an altern- ative sites study. For this case such information would not be relevant because we are not asking for an increase in density based on specific market trends', population increase or employ- ment opportunities. The emphasis behind the application is site and development design. CONCLUSION: ~here is substantial evidence to support approval of application to rezone 2.75 acres of property to a R-2 Density Multiple Family Residential Zone. this LOW submitted this ~ ~~ day of August 1990; for applicants Carol and Marge Anderson and Eliot Diamond. <:)w By: C tis b. ~\Teaver Sou hern Oregon Planning 248 Nieto Way Medford, Oregon 97504 7 .tf ;' National Advertising Company 1000 Obie Street Eugene. OR 97402-3054 503/683-3838 3IVI Nay 24, 1990 Mr. C.D. Anderson 253 East Main Ashland, Oregon 97520 RE: Lease Il 338 Dear Mr. Anderson, This letter. is written to memorialize our phone conversation of today with regards to the questions raised in your letter of May, 4,1990. This letter serves as notice to us of your desire to cancel the lease upon the anniversary date of September 1, 1990. You mentioned that it ~ould not be likely that you would really be developing .the property for another year and with this consideration I have indicated that we would vacate the property within thirty days of notice from you of your scheduled ground-breaking. We will also check with you near September 1, 1990 to see if there have been any changes. Thank you for your business. 06-07-90 Sincerely, 13l:!:RNIE. . L'Lii:A;.j.E HA VB II'HE S IGI DO ~Jl'I BY OCrl'OBEH l~"IR~S 1990. 'llHAJH\:j3y1CDA Bernie Conklin Real Estate Representative c ,~()-, a1-dl.rZt-eCl~ , t(~f:), Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the , ' ' ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will beheld before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on the 11 TH, DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1990 AT 7:00 P.M. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. 'OlC ordinance critcria applicable to this application arc auached to this noticc, Oregon law states that failure to'raise an objection concerning this application, either in person orby letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to aCford the decision makeran opportunityto respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUDA). Failure to specify which ordinance criteria the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal. A copy of the application; all documents and' evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria arc available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested, A copy of the stafr report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the Jlearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested, All materials arc available at the Ashland I'lanning Department, City I Iall, 20 East Main, Ashland, 0 R 97520, During the Public lIearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in aUendance concerning this request. The Chairshall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restrictcd to the applicable criteria. If you have any qucstions orcoml\lents concerning this request, please feci free to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, City Hall, at 488- 5305, 'C0~~'" ~rJltJ l1 I goo,., DA(bl ~~pPr~.,..t \.J <.J ~ ;<._~ .~~-1-7.~ ~ ~I " ,4i' I ~ ')......., .:1 ~~-~r.r~..u BELLVIEW ELEMENTAR SCHOOL; , (DISTRICT 5) :\ C PLANNING ACTION 90-178 is a request for a Zone Change from R-3 and R-1-7.5 to R- 2 and a Comprehensive Plan map amendment from High Density Residential and Single Family Residential to Multi.Family Residential for the property located at 2300 Siskiyou Boulevard. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential and High Density Residential; Zoning: R-1-7.5 and R-3; Assessor's Map #: 14C; Tax Lot 1900, APPLI CANT: AndersonjDiamond Jt.' .~:lj~/.-:-~,,: J~~".!'~' ~,:,.~~" " ' T aknI \04 VALLEY VIEW AVE. I~ D idAid AREA CODe 503 - 535.\529 P.O. BOX 467 TALENT, OREGON 97540 September 11, 1990 Ashland Planning Commission 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 To the Planning Commission, After review of your agenda we find that Action 190-178, Assessor's Map I:' 14C; Tax Lot 11900, will have a potential affect upon the Talent Irrigation District. If the type of,use of property is being changed toa use other than agriculture, or the property is being developed for uses where the water rights can not be used beneficially (as the Oregon Water Resource~ Department would define beneficial use) then it is the policy of the Board of Directors of the Talent Irrigation District, for the protection of the District, to require that the water right be bought out. As per ORS 545.611, the water rights must be bought out if the subdivision has three or more tracts on each acre of land within the subdivision. We respectfully request that this application either b~ denied or approved with the stipulation that the water rights be bought out of Talent Irrigation District. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, ----\'\/ \ - \' ('. \ \ , \lc(_~'-'~~).\. \,_ Michelle Irwin Secreta ry :JtJ' ~. ;-< u<Y6 _YPE:~~ ... Date received 8~'1- 90 File No, 9u -/78 Filing Fee 97~ Land Use: Zoning Comprehensive Plan designation . ~~. ,******************************************************************************** PLANNING APPLICATION APPLICATION IS FOR ( ) Land Partition ( ) Zone Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Boundary Line Adjustment Application pertains to ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Subdivision 4/ of un, its_ ~_ P.U.D. # of units ~ Site Review ( ) Annexation Zone Change Compo Plan Change Staff Permit of the Ashland Muncipal ,Code. chapter, section, subpart ----.-:- '\ APPLICANT ,Name C ~(T_O\- ~~~-J:) ~'" ~~\::,~ (4 ~c b~_\ ~0 Address f"L~O~ 'C;'$~\'-'\" ,..) ~~(,,-E:.u ('...~ 0 ^ PROPERTY OWNER Name c:: .f.:'.\ 'N' tC Address \ Phone \\s \M.....A~O \ O~ (.~'\~~Q to\. <'~ ~'\Su~~ Phone -------- I have notified the mortgage holder, which is' N \ ~ ~ SURVEYOR, ENGINEER, ARCHITECT (if appropriate) Name c"::"o" "...... <;,<_u O<~ ,,'-' " '..,) ? """" \oJ t-J ,\J\:> Phon e "" <., - (, r.)', <; Address (""",-6,.~i~ \-.J\~~ \J.J ~, . N""'bC)\-"O~~ o {,- C,,\ "S ~ (,~ ADESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (attach legal description) Street Address "Z:~0 () <;,$"=\.~v .~o",,-\;:"-J A-c_-S.:. . ~$ \-I.\...^~~ . 0"- ",\\~'L<$li Assessor's Map No. 2L ~ ,.6..c. Tax Lot(s) '",\00 ,~-lJt) '''\0\ - -- Above described property was acquired by owner on ~ .4.- \ "\\ ~ month--' day year List'any covenants, conditions or restrictions concerning use of property, of i~provements contemplated; as well as yard ~et-back and.area or height r~qu~rements.that we:e ~laced on the property by subdivision tract developers. G~ve date sa~d restr~ct~ons expire. FINDINGS OF FA~I - crf1-4ckecl Type your response to the appropriate zoning requirements on another sheet(s) of paper and attach it to this form. Keep in mind that your responses must be in the form of factual statements or findings of fact and supported by evidence List the'finding criteria and. then the evidence which supports it, p'".~, -Ii''''. .::--:.~;:, BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ASHLAND JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON IN THE MATfER OF PLANNING ) ACTION 90-057, APPLICATION FOR ) OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A ) FIVE-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE ) PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION) LOCATED OFF GRANITE STREET ) NEAR IT'S INTERSECTION WITH ) SOUTH PIONEER STREET ) ) Gary and Diane Seitz: Ownerl Applicants ) FINAL ORDER RECITALS: 1. Tax Lot 900 (39-1E-8DD) and Tax Lot 400 (39-1E-8DC) are located on Granite Street, near it's intersection with South Pioneer Street The property is zoned R-I-I0 (Single Family Residential), RR-.5-P (Rural Residential), and WR (Woodland Residential). 2. The application seeks outline plan approval for a five-lot residential performance standards subdivision. ' 3. The criteria for outline plan approval are in ALUO Section 18.88.030(4). Findings supporting compliarice of the subject application with the criteria are contained in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, attached hereto as Exhibit 'A.' The criteria are: a. That the development is consistent with city plans and with the stated pwpose of this chapter of the Land Use Development Ordinance. b. That the existing and natural features of the land have been considered in the plan of the development and important features utilized for open space and common areas. c. That the development design minimizes any adverse effect on the areas beyond the project site and that the character of the neighborhood be considered in the design of the development ' d. That adequate public facilities can be provided, including, but not limited to, water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, and urban storm drainage. e. That the development of the land and provision of services will not cause FINAL ORDER Page 1 Planning Action 90-057 shortages of a necessary public facility in the surrounding area, nor will the potential development of adjacent lands be impeded. /. That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, that if developments are' done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire. g. That the total energy needs of the development have been considered and are as efficient as is economically feasible, and the maximwn use is. made of renewable energy sources, including solar, where practical. h. That all other applicable city ordinances will be met by the proposal. 4. Followifig proper public notice, the planning commission conducted public hearings to consider the application. The hearings were on May 8, 1990, June 12, 1990, and July 10, 1990. By unanimous vote, the planning commission approved the application on July 10, 1990. The planning commission adopted findings of fact in support of their favorable decision on August 14, 1990. (Exhibit S-l). 5. Following proper" public notice, the city council conducted a public hearing on September 4, 1990 to consider an appeal of the planning commission's decision on the matter. Following closure of the public hearing, the city council on September 4, 1990 acted to grant approval of the application. SECTION 1.EXHI~ITS For the purpose of reference to the fmdings of the city, the attached index of exhibits will be used. Staff Exhibits are labeled with an'S' Proponent's Exhibits are labeled with a 'P' Opponent's Exhibits are labeled with a '0' Hearings Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits labeled with a 'M.' SECTION 2. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of the city council supporting approval of the land use application are contained in Exhibit 'A', attached hereto and made a part hereof. NOW, TIIEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Ashland finds and concludes as follows: SECTION 3. DECISION AND CONDITIONS By majority vote on September 4, 1990, the city council acted to approve the application. Based on the public hearing, the city council concludes that the proposed outline plan application is supported by evidence contained in the whole record. Therefore, based on the attached Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, (Exhibit' A'), and upon the FINAL ORDER Page 2 Planning Action 90-057 proposal being subject to each of the conditions in Exhibit S- 1, and the additional condition hereinbelow set forth, Planning Action 90-057 stands approved. Further, if anyone or more of the conditions are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action 90-057 is denied. The following is the additional condition imposed by the city council, and, in additio~ to the conditions imposed by the planning commission which are set forth in Exhibit S-1, they are all attached to and ~ a part of the approval: 1. The finished street grade shall be consistent with the requirements of ALUO Subsection 18.88.05O(B). The Ashland Public Works Department shall examine the engineering construction plans for the project to determine that finished street grades are consistent with the cited standards. The grades will also be checked and certified by the department on the site following rough grading of the road. Costs incurred by the city to check street grades shall be paid by the applicant. Dated this day of October, 1990. - Catherine M. Golden Mayor Nan Franklin City Recorder FINAL ORDER Page 3 Planning Action 90-057 . LIST OF EXHIBITS FOR PLANNING ACTION #90-057 APPLICANT: GARY AND DIANE SEI~Z Proponent's Exhibits P-2 -;... Facts of Finding submitted by the applicant's engineer Dale Hofer - February 2, 1990. Lettersununarizing various supplemental "data submitted in addition to the initial Facts of Finding - Apr~l 26, 1990. P-1 P-3 -- Tentative Plat - Outline Plan - Includes typical road cross sections and typical elevation of a proposed structure (April 1990 and also map revised to 5 lots June 25, 1990) P-4 -- Tentative Plat - outline Plan - approved lot layout (April "1990) . P-5 Diane's Hill Street Profile (April 1990). P-6 Overall site Plan showing total acreage dedicated by seitz to city of Ashland for parks - resource lands (5-8-90). Opponent's Exhibits 0-1 Issue Paper - I - Length of Cul-De-Sac (9-4-90). 0-2 Issue Paper - II - Street Grade (9-4-90). 0-3 Issue Paper - III - Percent Slope In Building Envelopes (9-4-90) . 0-4 Issue Paper - IV - Neighborhood compatibility (9-4-90) "0-5 Issue Paper - V - Alternative (9-4-90) ~ 0-6 Summation of Appeal (9-4-90). 0-7 Alternative 0-8 Statement of Concerns and Request for Rejection of PA90-057 (July 3, 1990). 0-9 -- Letter from Daniel C. Thorndike and Joan E. Th.orndike (May 2, 1990). 0-10 - 0-11 .- 0-12 - 0-13 - Supplementary statement of Concerns and a Request for the Rejection of PA90-057 (May 1, 1990). 'supplementary statement of Concerns and a Request for the Rejection of PA90-057 (April 3, 1990). Letter from Carl C. Oates, Rosalie c. Oates, Dennis K. Friend, and Linda s. Friend (April 2, 1990). Letter from Carl C. Oates and Rosalie C, Oat~s (March 31, '1990). staff Exhibits S-1 - S-2 - S-3 - S-4 - S-5 - S-6 - Planning commission Findings,' Conclusions and Orders (July 10, 1990) Ashland planning Department staff Report Addendum II (July 1'0, 1990). Letter From steven.M. Hall, Public Works Director, to Dale Hofer, Applicant's Engineer, regarding sewer and water service along Granite street (May 11, 1990). Ashland Planning Department staff Report Addendum (May 8, 1990). Letter from Al williams, Director Electric utilities, to Dale Hofer (April 30, 1990) Ashland planning Department staff Report (April 10, 1990) . Miscellaneous Exhibits M-1 - M-2 - M-3 - M-4 - l'-~-5 - Minutes of Ashland city council Regular Meeting (September 4, 1990). Minutes of Ashland Planning Commission Regular Meeting (July 10, 1990). Notice Map announcing hearing before the city council (September 4~ 1990) Minutes of Ashland Planning commission Regular Meeting (May 8, 1990). Letter from Jim Lenile M-6 - M-7 - planning Application city Topographic Map of site EXHIBIT' A' FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW In addition to the following findings of fact and conclusions, the facts and conclusions contained in Exhibits P-l, P-2, P-3, P-4, P-S, P-6, 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, S-4, S-S, S-6, M-1, M-2, M-3, M-4, M-6, and M-7 are herewith cited and incorporated by reference. Quotations in these findings attributable to "applicant's agent," refers to Dale Hofer, a civil engineer and land surveyor licensed and registered in Oregon. Hofer's professional engineer seal appears on Exhibit P-1. NATURE OF THE APPLICATION The .application concerns a five-lot residential subdivision under the Performance Standards Option of ALUO Chapter 18.88. Originally proposed with six or seven lots, the number of lots was reduced to five during the public hearing process. The project involves the creation of a street to be dedicated for public use. ALUO Section 18.88.100 specifies the design flexibility afforded through the Performance Standards Option, indicating flexibility in terms of minimum lot size, lot . width, depth and setback requirements. The subject project is essentially a cluster housing planned development; the allowable housing is clustered on the most suitable portions of the property with the balance of the property left in open space. The .land use action approved as Planning Action 90-0S7 consists of outline plan approval for a residential subdivision under ALUO Chapter 18.88. APPUCABLE SUBSTANTIVE CRITERIA The applicable criteria are in ALUO 18.88.030(4), consisting of 8 separate criteria enumerated as 'a' through 'h.' The applicable criteria are cited, with findings of fact and conclusions of law pertaining to each of the individual criteria. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CRITERIA a. That the development is consistent with City plans and with the stated purpose of this chapter of the Land Use Development Ordinance. Findings of Fact: The subject property presently exists as a flag lot lying within three different zoning districts: R-1-10, RR-.5-P, and WR. The flag pole portion of the lot is in the R~1-10 zone. The portion approved for five residential lots is in the RR-.5-P zone: Theportion consisting of common area and land to be dedicated to the city is within the WR zone. The corresponding comprehensive plan map designations are Single Family Residential, Low Density Residential, and Woodland respectively. The plan designations follow and correspond to the zoning district boundaries in the subject area. The zoning districts all allow the division of land and construction of single family housing under ALUO Chapter 18.88. The allowable density of development can be determined by computing" EXHIBIT' A' FINDINGS Page 1 Planning Action 90-057 the number of housing units allowed on the acreage lying within each zone and adding them together. The development may be clustered on any physically appropriate portion of the property. Consistency exists in all respects between present zoning . and the comprehensive plan. Subdivisions utilizing the performance standards option are permitted outright in the RR-.5-P zone under ALUO Subsection 18.88.080(C). ALUO Subsection 18.88.080(0) allows the performance standards option on portions of the subject property lying within the R-l-10 and WR zones. ALUO Section 18.88.100 provides flexibility as to lot size sufficient to allow the cluster housing project. The Exhibit S-6 staff report, and Exhibit P-4 plans provide calculations of the allowable density for the 3.54 acres proposed for development, indicating the property will support a total of six development lots. Five development lots were approved by the city. The allowable density is calculated by the methods set forth in ALUO Subsection 18.88.040 for projects using the performance standards option. The property will support greater numbers of housing than was approved by the city if the allowable density for the entire subject property was used to compute the yield. The stated purpose of the Performance Standards Options Chapter as set forth in ALUO Section 18.88.010 is: "The purpose and intent of this Chapter is to allow an option for more flexible design than is permissible under the conventional zoning codes. The design should. stress energy efficiency, architectural creativity and innovation, use the natural features of the landscape to their greatest advantage, provide a quality of life equal to or greater than that provided in developments built under the standard zoning codes, be aesthetically pleasing, provide for more efficient land use, and reduce the impact of development on the natural environment and neighborhood." Applicant's agent testified in Exhibit P-l to the following: That most forested portions of the property are above the development area. The lots have been designed to place the building sites on the least steep portions, leaving.the steep slopes and drainage ways in a natural condition. The homes will be constructed to incorporate" good cents" construction practices. The home sites meet the city's solar setback requirements, ensuring there will be no solar shading of south-facing solar collectors. To the extent possible, the building envelopes have been located to maintain pri vacy and protect views. The planning .commission concluded in Exhibit S-1 that: " * * * the placement of buildings and the installation of public improvements (i.e., streets) on the least sensitive areas of the parcel. Building envelopes have. been placed on areas with less than a 40 percent EXHIBIT' A' FINDINGS Page 2 Planning Action 90-057 slope and which require removal of a minimwn amount of mature trees, while still ensuring the applicant's development rights under the existing zoning. " ''The proposed street will follow existing topography in order to minimize cuts and fills on the natural slope of the land. Lots have been oriented so as to build on areas 'of least slope and to leave the steeper slopes and drainage ways in a natural state. Building envelopes have been located so as to minimize the removal of trees greater than 6" 'in diameter at breast height, while still permitting the applicant to develop at the base density of the zone. Further, a detailed Tree Management Plan indicating trees to be removed will be submitted at the time of Final Plan approval to be reviewed and approved by the Staff Advisor and Tree Commission." Cul-de-sac Street Length: The proposed street, Diane's Hill Street, is a dead-end, cul-de-sac road proposed as a "lane" serving five lots under the Ashland Land Development Ordinance. ALUO Subsection 18.88.0S0(A)(6), states: "Only lanes may be dead end roads. No dead end road shall exceed 500 feet in length. Dead end roads must terminate in an improved turnaround as defined in the Performance Standards guidelines as provided in Section 18.88.090. ALUO Subsection 18.80.020(11), states: "Cul-de-sacs: A cul-de-sac shall be as short as possible and shall have a maximwn length of five hundred feet. All cul-de-sacs shall terminate with a circular turn-around unless alternate designs for turning and reversing direction are approved by the Planning Commission." Opponents testified that the street exceeds 500 feet in length, requiring a variance which was not sought or ~ted. (Exhibit 0-1) . The applicant's agent testified that the street measures exactly 494.92 feet. (Exhibit M-1) City Planning Director Fregonese testified that the street does not exceed SOO feet in length based on a October 4, 1989 written opinion from the city attorney interpreting how the length of cul-de-sac or dead-end streets must be measured under the city's standards. The opinion is that the street is measured up to the point where the cul-de-sac turn-around. begins. The city attorney's opinion has been consistently used by the city to determine the length of such streets. The length of the street as measured and testified to by the applicant's agent is consistent with the city attorney's opinion. Street Grade: ALUO Subsection 18.88.050(B) states: "Street Grade. Street grades for dedicated streets shall be as follows: 1. Streets shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15%. EXHIBIT' A' FINDINGS Page 3 Planning Action 90-057 2. Where topography requires a grade greater than 15%, a grade of no greater than 18% may be permitted for no more than 200 feet. 3. No street grade shall exceed 18%. streets requiring grades exceeding 18% shall be considered unacceptable. No variances may be granted which permit a road grade greater than 18%." Opponents testified that street grades calculated from the Exhibit P-4 plans indicate a street grade of 18.37% for a distance of213 feet. (ExhibitO-2) Condition 13 of the Exhibit S-l final Order of the planning commission requires that no driveway exceed a slope of 20 percent, or a more restrictive building code requirement. Opponents testified that Condition 13 of the Exhibit S-l. final Order of the planning commission violates the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. Condition 13 states: 'That no driveway eXceed a slope of 20%' or that stipulated by the building code, whichever is more restrictive." The Exhibit P4 plan indicates: "Basic street grade is 15% with 18% for a maximwn of200 feet." . The applicant's agent testified in that the street can and will be constructed consistent with the ordinance requirements, acknowledging a need for the street to be 18% for a shott distance not to exceed 200 feet . Condition 1 established by the City Council as a part of this final Order requires verification of finished street grades during engineering and construction. During construction the road grade will be checked following rough grading of the road. The applicant's agent testified that he had measured the grades of several streets in the city which were functioning well in providing city services, and found thirteen to have grades ranging from 17% to 20%. Slope within Building Envelopes: ALUO Section 18.62.030(B), states: "Buildable area. "For the purpose of this ordinance, a buildable area cannot contain' * * * ' any land that is greater than 40% slope ~" Opponents testified that according to their own calculations, which were based on spot elevations shown on the Exhibit P-3 and P-4 plans, the slopes within three of the five building envelopes exceed 40%. The Exhibit S-4 staff report states: "The revised plan shows all building envelopes to be located outside areas which exceed a 40% slope. The applicant's engineer states that he has walked the site and measured the grade and believes the slope calculations to be accurate. Slope c.alculations using the spot elevations depicted on the EXHIBIT 'A' FINDINGS Page 4 Planning Action 90-057 plan seem to support this conclusion." The applicants agent, a licensed civil engineer, testified that the slope within all building envelopes is 40% or less based on his own on-site measurements, stating during the city . council public hearing that building envelope slopes were very carefully and accurately measured with survey instruments, and are as follows: "Lot 1: 38%" "Lot 2: 35%" "Lot 3" 36%" "Lot 4: 31.7%" "Lot 5: 26%" Conclusions of Law: The city council finds and concludes as follows: 1. The question whether to preserve certain land as open space is a function of comprehensive planning and zoning. The proposed development area has an allowable density greater than the level actually approved. The flexibility to cluster the actual housing on the most suitable portions of the property on smaller lots. while leaving the balance in open space is allowed by ALUO Section 18.88.100. The application is found to be consistent with city plans, and portions of the purpose statement for ALUO Chapter 18.88 dealing with the concept of flexibility. 2. With respect to the purpose statement of ALUO Chapter 18.88, as contained in ALUO Section 18.88.010, it is found and concluded that the language of the purpose statement couches all of its objectives in terms of "should," making them desirable but not mandatory, and, thus providing for tradeoffs and conflict resolution. 3. As to the concept of energy efficiency referenced in the purpose statement of ALUO Chapter 18.88, refer to finding~ of fact and conclusions of law with respect to criteria' g' in ALUO Subsection 18.88.030(4), conu,ined herein. 4. As to the concept of "architectural creativity and innovation" referred to in the purpose statement of ALUO Chapter 18.88, the Exhibit P-4 plans indicate that all homes will be custom designed and built to fit each lot While a tYPical elevation was provided, as required by the ordinance, the city council believes it is custoIIl8!Y and desirable for individual lots to be custom designed to fit each lot, and the individual tastes of people who will later own the lots. Unlike attached multiple family housing projects under the performance standards option where the structures are built and sold as a package~ it is .customary for only the lots to be individually sold for custom home construction by the buyers. 5. As to the concept of using natural features of the landscape and reducing the impact of development on the natural environment referred to in the purpose statement of 'ALUO Chapter 18.88, refer to fmdings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to criteria 'b' ~ ALUO Subsection 18.88.030(4) contained herein. 6. As to the concepts of "quality of lifell and "aesthetically pleasing" as referred to in the , purpose statement of ALUO Chapter 18.88, the city council believes the clustering of homes as proposed and approved in the application will result in a reduced level of tree removal, and. other environmental impacts than would be possible through strict EXHIBIT' A' FINDINGS Page 5 Planning Action 90-057 application of the normal subdivision regulations. The basis for this conclusion is . contained in findings under criteria 'b' and 'f' in ALUQ Subsection 18.88.030(4). The . city council believes the that the future occupants of the subject property will be principal beneficiaries of reduced levels of environmental impact, and this in turn will afford a higher quality of life and result in a more aesthetically pleasing overall project 7. The city council believes the concept of "more efficient land use," referred to in the purpose statement of ALUO Chapter 18.88, is well served by the cluster housing concept in general and as carried out in the subject project The concept serves to allow near-maximum housing densities placed in a smaller area than would otherwise be , allowed, while preserving the gene~y unbuildable balance of the land in large blocks of open space for use by future residents and the general public. The cluster housing concept. also serves to shorten public facility extensions needed to serve an equal number of homes which could be accommodated through conventional subdivision practices. The subject project is a good example of the cluster housing concept 8. As to the concept of reducing' the impact of the development on the neighborhood as referred to in the purpose statement of ALUO Chapter 18.88, refer to findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to criteria 'c' in ALUO Subsection 18.88.030(4) contained herein. 9. Regarding the length of the approved dead-end cul-de-sac street, opponents argued that it exceeded the SOO feet maximum length under ALUO Subsections 18.88.0S0((A)6) and 18.80.020(11). The city council fmds and concludes that the measurement of length of a cul-de-sac street does not include the turn-around portion at the end of the street The council further finds that the street is 494.92 feet in length as measured properly by the applicant's agent The method to measure the length of the cul-de-sac street is consistent with, and based on the opinion of the city attorney which is that the turn-around area is not included in the measurement.' The city attorney's interpretation has been consistently applied by the city. The city counc~ further believes that the length of the street, in this case, is critical to minimizing the magnitude of environmental impacts. Shortening the street under an interpretation contrary to that of the city attorney would serve to place the turn-around area on steeper terrain, in turn substantially increasing the size of cuts and fills needed to construct the turn-around. 10. Regarding the grade of the new street in relation to the requirements of ALUO Subsection 18.88.0S0(B), the city council finds and concludes that the grade of the proposed street can and is compelled to meet the above cited ordinance requirements. Based on the evidence presented by applicant's agent, a licensed civil engineer land surveyor, and a requirement that the road grade be examined and certified by the Ashland Public Works Department as a condition of approval, (Condition 1 of Exhibit , A'), the city council finds the approval to be. consistent with the cited ordinance standard. With regard to the Exhibit 'A' condition, the city council believes it is most appropriate to check grades at the rough grading stage of construction for the following reasons: First, it is not possible to precisely determine road grades from the rough topography, although the council believes the road can be constructed to meet the standard. Second, a street does not become a street until it is built, at least to the extent it is graded. Third, if it is determined that the maximum grade can not be observed, construction can be halted before the more expensive construction begins. The grade will not change from rough grading through the final road construction st~ges. The testimony of some opponents indicated confusion regar~ing application of the 180/0 EXHIBIT' A' FINDINGS Page 6 Planning Action 90-057 maximum grade standard. The standard applies only to city streets dedicated for public use, IW1 to private driveways. Condition 13 in Exhibit S-l requires all driveways to have a grade of 20% or less. There are no ordinance provisions for the grades of private driveways. The condition was applied at the discretion of the city. 11. Regarding the slope of terrain within the approved building envelopes with respect to ALUO Section 18.62.030(B), the city council finds and concludes, based on the testimony of the applicant's agent, a licensed civil engineer, that the slopes within the envelopes are all less than 40%. Opponents in presenting their own slope calculations used spot elevations included on the proposed plans, using the points to compute slope percentages. The opponents' method of measurement is inaccurate because the spot elevations occur both within and outside the envelopes. More accurate and reliable are the elevations determined by the applicant's agent using survey instruments. Unlike the issue of road grade which relates to the slope of the finished road, (and which may be different from the slope of the natural terrain over which the road passes), building envelopes are based strictly on the slope of the natural terrain. For this reason, the city council accepts as fact the testimony of the applicant's agent as an expert, and city staff that the envelopes contain no land exceeding a slope of 40%. 12. The city council construes ALUO Subsections 18.88.080(C) and (0) to allow a performance standards option development to proceed on the subject property given the fact that the property is within three different zones, two of which are not within a "P" overlay because: 1) The property is larger than 2 acres and is greater than 200 feet in average width; and, 2) the development under the performance standards option is necessary to protect the qualities enumerated in ALUO Subsection 18.88.080(0)(2). Based on' the above findings of fact and conclusions of law the city council fmds the proposal to be consistent with the cited criteria 'a' of ALUO Subsection 18.88.030(4). CRITERIA b. That the existing and natural features of the land have been considered In the plan of the development and important features utilized for open space and common areas. Findings of Fact: Dedication: The applicant offered and the city requires through Condition 10 of the Exhibit S-I. final Order, that approximately 13 acres be dedicated to the city for public park and open space purposes. Wildlife: Planning Director Fregonese testified that the upper nine acres, proposed to be held as perpetual open space, have been identified as the major wildlife area. (Exhibit . M- 4). Opponents testified that the property is on the interface of an "ecotone", and that the property supports deer, foxes, raccoons, rabbits, bear, and many bird species, including three species of woodpecker. (Exhibit 0-4). Opponents testified that the carrying capacity of the area is finite, and that habitat reduction due to human disturbance is the main cause for elimination of species. (Exhibit 0-4). EXHIBIT' A' FINDINGS Page 7 Planning Action 90-057 Erosion: An opponent testified the land use ordinance does not provide sufficient protection from erosion. (Exhibit M-l) . The site plan provides, and the applicant's agent testified that cut slopes over 3 feet will have rock retaining walls to provide erosion control An illustration of a typical retaining wall is also provided on the site plan. (Exhibit P-4)~ Conditions 4, 5, and 9 in the Exhibit S-l final Order of the planning commission requires a final erosion control plan, tree management plan, and drainage plan to be submitted with the final plan. The site plan provides, and the applicant's agent testified that fill banks will be protected with ~ (Exhibit P-4). The S-4 staff report states: "Details describing seed mixture and stone type, (for retaining walls), as well as the procedure for application will need to be presented at the time of Final Plan approval. II The P-4 plan indicates cut banks along the road will be 6 feet in height, with a 10' cut bank around the pe$leter of the cul-de-sac, (turn-around). (Exhibit S-4). Opponents testified that granitic soils on the subject property will make erosion inevitable, and will result in flooding and mud slides on the downhill properties. Applicant's agent testified in Exhibit P-l that most of the forested area of the property is above the development area, and that the lots have been designed to place the buildable areas on the least steep portions, leaving the steep slopes and drainage ways in a natural condition. The Exhibit M-7 topographic map indicates that land immediately above the development area is the steepest portion of the entire subject property. Constructing roads through this area would require traversing slopes of substantially steeper grade than those crossed by the approved roadway. Conclusions of Law: The city council believes that the existing natural features of the land are most prominently its slopes, drainages, trees and vegetation. The areas the council believes are most important to protect are the steeply sloped and more heavily wooded areas above the development area, and the drainages which also exist in the upper area. The. existence of wildlife, in itself is not a persuasive consideration because no identified species have been identified as either threatened or endangered, and the land has not been planned or set aside for wildlife protection purposes in the comprehensive plan. The essence of Oregon's land use planning progtam is to preserve and protect resource lands outside urban growth boundaries, (UGB), and to facilitate logical and planned growth and development within the UGBs. The subject property is within an area planned and zoned to accommodate the comparatively low density of one dwelling per each one-half acre. The project approved is consistent with that density. The existence of granitic soils on relatively steep terrain is common in Ashland, and mitigation of problems is a frequently topic with which the city has extensive experience. The city council believes the erosion control measures required by Conditions 4, 5, and 9 in Exhibit S-1 are sufficient to deal with soils occurring on the property. Therefore, the city council finds and concludes that the existing and natural features of the land have been appropriately considered, and the important features have been set aside for open space and common area. EXHIBIT' A' FINDINGS Page 8 Planning Action 90-057 CRITERIA c. That the development design minimizes any adverse effect on the areas beyond the project site and that the character of the neighborhood be considered in the design of the development. Findings of Fact: Declaration of Trade-Oft': The city council .declares the existence of a trade-off inherent in the urbanization of the subject property consistent with the comprehensive' plan and land development regulations of the city, and the actual and imagined adverse impacts experienced by the resi~nts in the surrounding area. Views: The applicant's agent testified that, to the extent possible, building envelopes were located to maintain privacy and protect views. (Exhibit P-1). The agent also testified during a pu~lic hearing that the building envelope on Lot 5 was changed and located to protect exis~g vegetation that presently serves as a screen between the future homesite and an adjacent dwelling immediately to the east The Lot 5 envelope affords a 30 minimum feet setback in this area. The' agent also testified it was the applicants intention to plant additional vegetation within the above described Lot 5 interface area. LitbiaPark: The subject property is located across Granite Street from the John C. Cotton Memorial Picnic Area in Lithia Park. Lithia Park is. on the National Register of IDstoric Places. The applicant testified that no building envelopes are within 100 feet of Lithia Park. (Exhibit M-1). . Opponents testified that Granite Street, between Winburn Way and the upper limits of . Lithia Park presently has no interseCting streets to cause congestion for. park users. (Exhibit 0-4). South Pioneer.Street intersects Granite Street within approximately 250 feet from the point at which the new street is proposed to intersect Granite. Opponents testified the proposed project would alter Lithia Park's "tranquility", "view shed" , and "rural atmosphere" by the installation of a new street, with curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lights, 6-10 feet cuts, cul-de-sac, and five new homes. (Exhibit 0-4). . Opponents testified that the site plan failed to illustrate the location of Lithi~ Park. (Exhibit 0-6) The Exhibit P-4 plan has a vicinity map . showing the subject property in relation to the ~arger surrounding area. The location of Lithia Park across Granite Street from the subject property is depicted on the city's zoning and comprehensive plan maps, and is a matter of common knowledge. Erosion: An opponent testified the land use ordinance does not provide sufficient protection from erosion. (Exhibit M -1) The site plan provides, and the applicant's agent testified that cut slopes over 3 feet will have rock retaining walls to provide erosion control. An illustration of a typical wall is also provided on the site plan. (Exhibit P-4). . The site plan provides, and the applicant's agent testified that fill banks will be protected with seed. (Exhibit P-4). The S-4 staff report states: "Details describing seed miXture and stone type, (for retaining walls), as well as the procedure for application will need to EXHIBIT 'A' FINDINGS Page 9 Planning Action 90-057 be presented at the time of Final Plan approval." . The P-4 plan indicates cut banks along the road will be 6 feet in height, with a 10' cut bank on the uphill side of the' cul-de-sac, (turn-around). (Exhibit S-4). Conditions 4, 5, and 9 in the Exhibit S-1 fmal Order of the planning commission requires a final erosion control plan, tree management plan, ;md drainage plan to be submitted with the final plan. Opponents testified that granitic soils on the subj~t property will make erosion inevitable, and will result in flooding and mud slides on the downhill properties. Slick and Unsafe Streets during Winter Conditions: Opponents testified that on the shortest day of the year, (December 21st) none of the street will receive direct sunlight, and that there will exist a build-up of ice and snow, as occurs on the driveways of opponents properties, in turn requiring snow removal at public expense. (Exhibit 0-2). The applicant's agent testified during a public hearing that the street orientation does not obstruct solar melting of the snow, except in the "cul-de-sac," (turn-around), area, where shading would. be a function of home location and tree removal; that the street will receive a good penetration of sun during morning hours. Many streets in Ashland, due to the elevation of the city and climate, become icy and slick during certain winter periods. Opponents Alternative Proposal: During the public hearing some opponents presented what they deemed to be an acceptable alternative. The essential elements of the alternative as outlined in Exhibit 0-5 are: 1. Three rather than five lots having one h~me each to be located on 3.14 acres. 2. The access street would be privately owned by the lot owners. 3. No trees over I-inch in diameter in the east interface area to be removed. 4. Removal of trees over 6 inches in diameter must rust be approved by the city. 5. The city would construct the new private street and extend public facilities in exchange for the dedication of land for open space. Traffic Impacts: Opponents testified, based on their own analysis, that the larger, but undefined area which could be served for future development if the subject street were ever extended, currently generates a total of 460 'vehicle trips onto Granite Street, but that future maximum development in the undefmed area beyond will produce a combined total of 1,760 trips using as a basis 10 trips per day per' housing unit, and not including other sources of traffic. (Exhibit 0-8). On the basis of 10 trips per each dwelling, the subject project having five homes will produce a total of 50 average daily vehicle trips. Fire Protection: Opponents testified that access to the "upper canyon" in case of summer rITe would be restricted. (Exhibit 0-8). EXHIBIT' A' FINDINGS Page 10 Planning Action 90-057 The applicant's agent testified that fire protection vehicles. regularly access road grades of 20%. The applicant testified that the requirements of ALUO Section 18.62.090 will be incorporated into the restrictive covenants of the project. (Exhibit P-1). The cited requirements are items which must be dealt with by the home builder or owner at the time actual housing construction occurs on the property. The applicant specified that all roofmg will be frre resistant shingles. (Exhibit P..4). Condition 6 in the Exhibit S-1 final Order requires that the structures have non-combustible roofing material and comply with the wildfire requirements of ALUO Section 18.62.090, and that such requirements be included in the restrictive covenants. Miscellaneous Considerations:. Opponents testified that there are no sidewalks on Granite Street. (Exhibit 0-4). Many Ashland streets lack sidewalks. Condition 12 of the Exhibit S-l fmal Order' of the planning commission requires a street plug along the north side of the new street where it abuts private property. Opponents expressed their fears that the cul-de-sac street could be further extended, opening. other areas to development, and that city requirements for a street plug at the planned terminus would not offer sufficient protection froI!1 further development. (Exhibit 0- 4). Opponents testified that the existing homes along Granite Street presently enjoy a rural atmosphere. (Exhibit 0-4). Opponents testified that existing homes on either side of the proposed street's intersection with Granite Street will be impacted by noise, dust, and fumes which can not be mitigated. (Exhibit 0- 4). The' applicant's agent testified that the existing homes at the new street's intersection with . Granite Street are separated by 69 feet, and that the new street will be centered within the existing SO-feet right-of-way to maximize the distance to each adjacent residenCe. (Exhibit P-2). The applicant's agent also testified that the home on the north side of the proposed street intersection was built nearer the property line than the standard 10-feet side yard setback for homes on comer lots. The home is setback only 6 feet, but that the 10-feet standard can be observed functionally through provision of a 49 feet right-of-way rather than the minimum 41 feet required by the ordinance. (In fact, the ordinance requires only a 36 feet wide right-of-way.) The additional 8 feet, having four feet on. either side of the right-of-way, affords a 10 feet setback. (Exhibit P-l). ALUO Subsection 18.20.040(D) establishes a 10 feet side yard setback for comer lots abutting a public street. One opponent testified that their parents home at the intersection of the streets would be impacted less by centering the road within the right-of-way, and that it would preserve existing trees. . An opponent owning land adjacent to the proposed new roadway testified they was aware a driveway would one day be constructed on the subject property adjacent to their own property. (Exhibit 0- 13). EXHIBIT' A' FINDINGS Page 11 Planning Action 90-057 Opponents objected that the location of trees were not shown on the outline plan. The location of tree cover on the generally heavily wooded parcel are depicted on Exhibit M~ 7. Earlier versions of the Exhibit P-4 outline plan, (Exhibit P-3), illustrated tree cover in relation to the subject property . boundaries and the planned development areas. The applicant proposes to retain as undisturbed common area and to dedicate to the city for perpetual open space a total of approximately 13.3 acres in Tax Lots 400, (39-1E-8DC) and 900, (39-1E-8DD). (Exhibit P-6). The areas proposed to remain as undisturbed open space are the most heavily wooded portions of the property. Conclusions of Law: The city council finds and concludes as follows: 1. The city council believes that the design of the development and conditions of approval in the Exhibit S-l final Order of the planning commission minimi7es adverse effects on adjacent and nearby' areas to a reasonable extent. The allowable total number of housing has been reduced substantially below levels available if the allowable numbers were computed using all portions of the subject property. 2. It was argued that the street and housing will be visible from Lithia Park, and that, in itself, causes an unreasonable impact. On this point the council disagrees. The alternative and tradeoff is placement of housing further west on the upper slopes of the property. While. this would serve to better hide the housing from Lithia Park views, it would necessitate impacts which the council finds to be greater in magnitude than those produced by the approved plan. Greater potential impacts would be attributable to the road traversing significantly steeper and more heavily wooded terrain. This in turn would necessitate the removal of more trees and vegetation, and require substantially. deeper cuts and fills for road construction, carrying with them a potential for higher levels of erosion. Extension of the road a substantially longer distance would also be required to reach homesite locations which could maintain slopes of 40% or less, and this would also serve to reduce the projects land use efficiency. Alternatively, there would be requirements for variance relief to allow the construction of homes on greater than 40% slopes. There would also be a requirement for variance relief to allow the road itself to exceed the grade requirements of ALUO Subsection 18.88.050(B). The substantiative criteria for granting variance relief could not be met because the need for relief is alleviated through the design of the development as it has been approved. 3. The design of the project serves to minimize the potential for erosion 'to the maximum extent possible. The council also believes that the erosion potential is further minimized by Conditions 4, 5, and 9 in the Exhibit S-l final Order of the planning commission, . requiring a final erosion control plan, tree management plan, and drainage plan, all to be submitted with the fmal plan. 4. As to the new street intersection with Granite Street causing congestion for park users, the city council finds that the additional traffic attributable to five new homes would be slight and insignificant. Based on findings of fact submitted by opponents, each dwelling would produce ten vehicle trips per day for a total of 50 trips. Most of the trips would likely oc<;:ur during times when the park is not in peak use, but even if all trips occurred during the park's peak use periods, the effect of the additional traffic would be of a slight and insignificant magnitude. 5. It was argued by opponents that the greater concern was the extension of the new EXHIBIT' A' FINDINGS Page 12 Planning Action 90-057 street to serve other areas, and the development of these areas would produce substantial traffic impacts~ On this point the council finds and concludes that the street can not be extended because: 1) Physical limitations of the terrain prevent a. street extension meeting the road grade standards of ALUO Subsection 18.88.0S0(B). 2) Condition 12 of the Exhibit 8-1 final Order of the planning commission requires a street plug where the street adjoins private lands. 3) Condition 10 of the Exhibit S-l final Order of the planning commission requires the dedication to the city of 13.3 acres west of the development area through which the road would have to be extended to serve the "other areas. It The enumerated constraints serve to limit traffic impacts exclusively to those produced by the subject project. 6. It was argued that the project would alter Lithia Parks viewshed, tranquility, and rural atmosphere. The city council disagrees. The character of the area consists of the park, and existing residential housing on lots of approximately one-half acre. The subject property is planned and zoned for residential housing densities ranging from approximately 1-2 housing units per acre. In fact, the.development, as approved, has housing at substantially less than could have been sought by the applicant if the density of the entire subject property were to have be used to compute the total Yield of housing units. Yields aside, the actual density of the development area is equivalent to the density of existing housing along Granite Street in the immediate vicinity. To the extent the tranquility of the park would be adversely affected, a point which the council does not concede, its tranquility has already been adversely affected by existing housing. The location of housing on the wooded fringe of the property will minimize its visual presence and impact to the "tranquility" of the surrounding area. The city council . believes the. present character of the neighborhood was carefully considered by the applicant in designing the project, and by the city in our review of the project, and this is eVidenced by the placement of housing envelopes, the size of lots~ and location of the roadway. While it would be nice. if all land surrounding the park could be prevented from any further development, that is not an objective of the city as expressed in the comprehensive plan. Instead, the plan seeks to rnaintain residential housing at very low densities, and the density of this project is consistent with the plan. 7. As to the project having a street and driveways which will be slick during some winter periods, the city council acknowledges that this may be the case. However, many if not all portions of Ashland experience slick road conditions periodically, and the subject property is neither unique or unusual in this regard. The city council believes it would be arbitrary and capricious to single out this application and deny it solely on the . basis that the property may periodically have slick road conditions. 8. To the extent it was argued that the mere presence of a sidewalk on the new street causes it to conflict with the character of the neighborhood, the council disagrees. Many Ashland streets lack sidewalks, especially those constructed before sidewalks were required. The fact that the subject project is required to have a sidewalk is a matter of law. ALUO Subsection 18.88.050(A)(3) requires streets classified as "lanes" to have a sidewalk on one side of the street. Alleviation of the sidewalk requirement would require variance relief, requiring compliance with substantiative criteria would be difficult or impossible to meet The city council believes it is important to hold fmn on municipal requirements for sidewalks for all new streets in the hope that sidewalks will be installed for all older streets in the future to afford a complete pedestrian network in the community. In conclusion, the council finds and concludes that the mere presence of a sidewalk along the new street does not pose an adverse effect on areas beyond the project site. EXHIBIT' A' FINDINGS Page 13 Planning Action 90-057 9. Regarding noise, dust, and impact from fumes asserted by opponents to affect the two homes adjacent to the new street, the city council finds and concludes that the fact of the case demonstrate the dwellings will be located no closer to the right-of-way than is permissible under the 10-feet side yard setback standards of the R-I-10 zone. The fact that traffic attributable to the five new homes will produce traffic related noise, dust, and fumes are normal, permissible, common, and customary impacts which occur in an urban environment. The subject property has only one alternative for access, and that is to extend a new street as proposed. and approved. The council believes the approved street has a design consistent in all respects with the requirements of the ordinance. The ordinance requirements were designed to protect the health,safety, and general welfare of the community. Compliance with the ordinance requirements serves to protect properties beyond the project site experiencing more than minimal adverse effects. Centering the roadway within the right-of-way, as proposed and approved will serve to maximize setback distances to existing residences, and avoid to the maximum extent the removal of trees. This in turn will help respect and preserve the character of the neighh9rhood. 10. Regarding the issue of frre safety, the city council fmds and concludes that the requirements of Condition 6 in the Exhibit S-l final Order, requiring future structures .have non-combustible roofing material and comply with the wildfire requirements of ALUO Section 18.62.090, and is the most appropriate method to deal with the issue of fire safety. OpPonents argued that large additional volumes of traffic from the development of other lands beyond the subject property would so heavily congest the area so as to prevent frre suppression equipment from serving the upper canyon area. As earlier found, the development of other lands by virtue of the future extension of the subject new street is not possible, and is specifically prohibited by the approval. The new street and development will not influence, positively or negatively, an ability of rITe response to the "upper canyon II area. 11. Regarding the alternative development proposal presented by opponents in Exhibit O-S, the city council believes: . A. The project densities do not need to be reduced further to achieve compliance with the ordinance. B. Ownership of the street, whether public or private is irrelevant. C. The approved development plan serves to protect existing vegetation within the 30 feet setback afforded by the location of the Lot S building envelope. D. The approved plan, be reserving as common area and dedicating the upper area for open spaces serves the same tree protection function. E. The city of Ashland is not and does not want to be in the development or home construction business. Additionally, it would be inappropriate for the city to do other than to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a properly filed development permit application. In this case, the city believes the application is appropriate and h.as met its burden of proof under the applicable substantiative criteria. 12. Regarding opponents objection that trees were not properly shown on the outline EXHIBIT 'A' FINDINGS Page 14 Planning Action 90-057 CRITERIA d. That adequate public facilities can be provided, Including, but not limited to, water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, and urban storm drainage. Findings of Fact: Public Facilities in General: The applicant's agent testified tbat personnel at city departments dealing with water, electric power, and sewer have provided assurances that there is an ample supply of each for the subject area. (Exhibit M-4). Opponents testified that water, sewer, storm drainage,. and electricity systems are antiquated. (Exhibit 0-12). Granite street is a paved city street. Water Facilities: An opponent testified that the city has an acute water shortage. (Exhibit M-4). Opponents testified that the Granite Street water main and city water supply in general have problems related to capacity. (Exhibit 0- 11). Public Works Director Hall testified that, "the Granite Street water line is more than adequate for the area and the proposed subdivision.tl(Exhibit M-1)., The applicant's agent testified in Exhibit P-2 and orally that there is plenty of water to serve the project, but the pressure is too low to adequately serve the upper portion of the project, and that adequate water pressure will be accomplished by the installation of a pumping station. (Exhibit P-2). Public Works Director Hall testified in Exhibit S-3 that the city has systematically upgraded the city's water system to reduce losses in the system from 651 gallons in 1970 to 281 million gallons in 1988, and that: , EXHIBIT' A' FINDINGS . Page 15 Planning Action 90-057 " * * * This systematic upgrade of our water system has found a "source" of water equal to the lowered losses, or abut 370 million gallons per year. The 1989 Beck Water Supply Report notes that a second source of water should be on line by 1996. Later population projections extend that time by another 5 years and water'conservation could extend the time evenfurther. Beck estimates 2 years.for a water conservation program. * * * ." Regarding the water service main in Granite Street, Public Works Director Hall testified in Exhibit S-3, that: 'The last section of old and undersized line from Nutley to Nonh Main was replaced in J 989. The remainder of the system is a 12" line which is more than adequate for the entire area and proposed subdivision. There will be no effect on other users of that system. Sewerage Disposal, and Treatment: Opponents testified that the city's sewer treatment plant, and sewer lines serving the subject area are presently at capacity. (Exhibit 0-11). Public Works Director Hall testified in Exhibit 8-3, that: " * * * the sewage treatment plant is, not near capacity. The spills and capacity problem relate to a sewage pump station located immediately nonh of the treatment plant that pumps sewage from the Bear C,reek Sewer Interceptor line to the headworks of the sewage treatment plant. The pump station .is at its' capacity and a new pump will be installed this year to boost the capacity. Also, standby power .(a diesel generator) will be installed at the station to eliminate the problem with power failures." . " * * * the sewer lines in Granite Street do not need to be replaced as soon as possible. The writer may be referring to the ~ drain system which did need to be replaced and has been replaced in 1989-1990." Electrical Power: Opponents testified that periodic power outages along Granite Street now occur about 3-5 times per month. The outages are caused by overloading switching facilities. The new homes will not improve the situation. 'In Exhibit S-5, a letter from Ashland Electric Utilities Director AI Williams, states': "1. I don't believe there are three to five outages along Granite Street per month" "2 . We' will not have a problem serving these lots. There is. not an overload problem on this line and if there was, we would replace it with a larger line , or install another phase to this area." , "3. The City's switching facilities are not overloaded, and we are working with Bonneville Power to have a new substation installed so we will not have a problem in the future. " Conclusions of Law: In drawing conclusions, the city council relies primarily on the testimony of the Ashland Public Works and Electrical Utility Departments. The city EXHIBIT' A' FINDINGS Page 16 Planning Action 90-057 council fmds and concludes that the public facilities enumerated in the cited criteria are available or will be made available to the project site prior to or concurrent with actual development " CRITERIA e. That the development of the land and provision of services will not cause shortages of a necessary public facility in the surrounding area, nor will the potential development of adjacent lands be impeded. Findings of Fact: ~efer to the Findings of Fact under the previously cited and addressed criteria. Conctusions of Law: Again the city council relies primarily on the testimony of the AshUmd Public Works and Electrical Utility Departments to find and conclude that the provision of services, will not cause shortages of any necessary. facility in the surrounding area. The council believes the facilities which are ttnecessary" are those enumerated in Criteria 'd.' Regarding whether the approved project has a potential to impede the development of adjacent lands, the council fmds and concludes that based on the reasons given earlier why the new street can not be extended serves to establish here why this project will not impede the development of adjacent land. The council also agrees with the planning commission that the availability of facilities in the area are such that their use by the subject project will not impede an ability for other vacant lands in the area to develop consistent with the comprehensive plan. In short, the development of other adjacent lands may be difficult or impossible due to steep terrain, but that approval for development of the subject property does not, in itself, serve to impede the development of adjacent' lands. The city council in summary conclusion finds that the approval is consistent in all respects with the requirements of the cited criteria. CRITERIA 1. That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire. . Findings of Fact: The applicant proposes to retain as undisturbed common area and to dedicate to the city for perpetual open space a total of approximately 13.3 acres in Tax Lots 400, (39-1E-8DC) and 900, (39-1E-8DD). (Exhibit P-6). The areas proposed to remain as undisturbed open space are the most heavily wooded portions of the property. The applicant testified that the common area would be held in common by the future owners of the five lots to be created by the development. The Exhibit S-l final Order of the planning commission states the applicants intention to leave the common area "essentially in a natural state", and to form a homeowners association, the form for which will be reviewed by the city attorney prior to approval of the final plan. EXHIBIT 'A' FINDINGS Page 17 Planning Action 90-057 It was stated by the planning department staff during the staff report portion May 8, 1990 public hearing that the, common area proposed for dedication would be maintained by the homeowners. , The applicant's agent testified that the project is not planned to be constructed in stages. Conclusions of Law: The terrain of the common area prevents its utilization for other. than a natural buffer, and the city council believes it is the applicant's intention to leave the common area in a natural and undisturbed state. As such, little or no maintenance will be required. The city council further believes it is the applicants intention to form a homeowners association to deal with ,use and enjoyment of the common area. As such, the city council finds and concludes that the planned existence of a homeowners association will be adequate to deal with what ever maintenance is required. The city council further concludes that the project will not be constructed in phases, but that it will be build all at the same time. On these bases, the city council finds for consistency with the cited criteria. CRITERIA g. That the total, energy needs of the development have been considered and ate as efficient as is economically feasible, and the maximum use Is made of renewable energy sources, Including solar, where practical. Findings of Fact: The applicant's agent testified'in Exhibit P-l that the homes will be constructed to incorporate "good cents" construction practices, and that the home sites meet the city's solar setback requirements" ensuring there will be no shading of south-facing solar collectors. The Exhibit S-1 final Order of the planning commission indicates applicants agreement to construct all of the homes in such a manner as to meet the city's energy efficient standards. Bicycle and pedestrian transportation networks exist within adjacent Lithia Park, and these facilities connect to downtown Ashland. Downtown Ashland contains a full range of retail and governmental services. The Exhibit S-6 staff report, and Exhibit P-4 plan indicate a calculation for a 20% density bonus for energy efficient design. A sidewalk is required on the new street serving the subject project. The sidewalk terminates at Granite Street Across Granite Street is Lithia Park wherein there are bicycle and pedestrian transportation facilities. Conclusions of Law: The city council finds and concludes that the total energy needs of the project relate to space heating and transportation related energy consumption. The space heating needs were dealt with through consideration of solar access, and energy efficient construction practices. The transportation related energy considerations were weighed by the location of the subject property in relation to the location of alternative transportation networks and proximity to the location of retail goods and EXHIBIT' A' FINDINGS Page 18 Planning Action 90-057 governmental services. On these bases, the council finds for consistency with the cited criteria~ CRITERIA h. That all other applicable City Ordinances will be met by the proposal. Findings of Fact: No facts or argumentation was presented by any party to suggest noncompliance with city ordinances other than applicable portions of the Ashland Land Development Ordinance, and these were dealt with herein under Criteria 'a' of ALUO 18~88.030(4). Conclusions of Law: the city council finds and concludes that the project complies with all other applicable city ordinances. Summary Conclusions of Law: Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein, and upon the record of the public heariIig on the matter, it is found and concluded thai the subject application is consistent with all of the applicable criteria. EXHIBIT' A' FINDINGS Page 19 Planning Action 90-057 BEFORE THE ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL September 18, 1990 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #90-120, REQUEST FOR ) ANNEXATION, WITHDRAWAL FROM JACKSON CO.. FIRE DISTRICT ) NO.5, SITE REVIEW, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ) CONSTRUCT MINI-STORAGE UNITS WITH ASSOCIATED MANAGER'S ) APARTMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT EAST MAIN STREET ) IN THE VICINITY OF OAK KNOLL DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 66. ) APPLICANT: SECURE STORAGE ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS -----------------------------------~-------------------- RECITALS: 1) Tax lot 320 of 391E 12 is located at East Main Street in the vicinity of Oak Knoll Drive and Highway 66 and is zoned RR-5; Rural Residential. - Jackson County. 2) The applicant is requesting Annexation, site Review and a Conditional Use Permit to construct mini-storage units with associated manager's unit. site improvements are outlined on the site plan on file at the Department of Community Development. 3) The criteria for approval of an Annexation are found in 18.108.190 and are as follows: A. That the land is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. B. That the proposed zoning and project are in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. C. That the land is currently contiguous with the present City limits. D. That public services are available or can be made available to the site. E. That a public need for additional land" as defined in the City's Comprehensive Plan, can be demonstrated. criteria for approval of a, site Review are found in Chapter 18.72 and are as follows: ' A. All applicable City ordinances have been met and will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the site Review chapter have been met. C. The site design complies with the guidelines adopted by the City Council for implementation of this chapter. Further, the criteria for approval of a Conditional Use Permit are found in Chapter 18.104 and are as follows: A. The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. B. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed development are such that the development will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal impact on' the livability and appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood. C. In determining the above, consideration shall be given to the .following: 1) Harmony in scale~ bulk, coverage and density. 2) The availability and capacity of public facilities and utilities. 3) The generation of traffic and the capacity of surrounding streets. 4) Public safety and protection. 5) Architectural and aesthetic compatibil i ty with the surrounding area. 4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on June 12, 1990, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. . The Planning Commission recommended approval of the application subject to conditions, pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. ' The City Council, following proper pUblic notice,held a Public Hearing on August 21, 1990, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Council's motion resulted in a tie vote, and a tabling of the action until September 4, 1990, at which time the Mayor would be present to consider the action and vote. At the September 4, meeting, the action was delayed to the September 18, 1990. At this meeting the City Council granted approval of the annexation and conditional use requests, and continued the request regarding the site Review. Now, therefore, The Ashland City Council finds, concludes and orders as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "0" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The City Council finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. ' 2.2 The City Council finds that the request to construct mini- storage units with associated manager's unit meets all criteria outlined in the Annexations Chapter 18.108.190 and conditional Use Chapter 18.104. The Commission, however I finds that site' Review approval should be deferred to a later date until all issues regarding the wetland have been addressed by the appropriate state Agency, and the issues regarding on-site circulation have been addressed. The Ashland City Council makes the following findings concerning the request for Annexation: A. That the land is within the City'S Urban Growth Boundary. The property is within the UGB. B. That the proposed zoning and project are in conformance with the city's comprehensive Plan. The proposed zoning is E-1 in conformance with the Comp Plan, and the use is listed as a Conditional Use for the E-1 zone. c. That the land is currently contiguous with the present city limits. The City limits border this, property on three sides. D. That public services are available or can be made available to the site. Sewer and water ,are available from mains in Highway 66, and all other city services are readily available to the site. E. That a public need for additional land, as defined in the city's Comprehensive Plan, can be,demonstrated. Although the current inventory of vacant lands has yet to be field checked, the Commission believes annexation of additional E-l zoned land is appropriate. The Comprehensive Plan states that the City shall strive to maintain at least (emphasis added) a five year supply of land for any particular need in the City limits (Comprehensive Plan Policy XII-I). Data supplied by staff indicates that there is approximately a 'five year supply at this time, therefore the commission does not find this annexation to conflict with the stated policy. In addition, based on the preliminary results of the vacant lands study, the Commission does not believe there exists within the City Limits a parcel of land of similar quality to the subject parcel which would accommodate the proposed use. This finding is in compliance with Policy XII-2 of the Comprehensive Plan. The City council makes the following findings in support of the Conditional Use Permit for Mini-storage Units in the E-l zone, and allowing for a manger's apartment on the site. A. The proposal is in conformance with the comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan, implemented through the Land Use Ordinance, states that mini-storage units are allowed in E-1 zone as a Conditional Use. Quoting from 18.104.010 of the Land Use Ordinance: "The purpose of conditional use approval is to allow the proper integration into the community of uses which may be suitable only on certain conditions and at appropriate locations." The Comprehensive Plan states that the employee per acre ratio should be approximately 10/acre for E-1 lands. However, this area is within the Primary Safety, Zone of the Ashland Airport as indicated in the "Ashland Municipal Airport Master Plan." As stated in the Transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan, "This (Airport Master) plan was completed and adopted by the Ashland city council on October 5, 1976. This plan is the ruling document concerning airport development and is hereby adopted by reference. The plan is currently being updated by Waddell to reflect changes that have occurred since 1975." . The Master Plan states that developments within the safety zone should be of a low intensity. While the City'S Comprehensive Plan has indicated this land as E-l when annexed, the Airport Master Plan suggests little development be allowed. In reviewing this application, the city council finds that mini- storage is an allowable use in the E-l zone, and that the safety concerns of the airport are a significant factor in determining that a low-employment use is the most appropriate for this location. Further, we find that the location within the Primary Safety Zone is abutting an area outside of safety zone constraints, and therefore constitutes the safest area within that zone. The location of the apartment on the property is nearest to Highway 66, again, locating at the fringe area of the primary safety zone, and abutting an area outside of the safety zone constraints. ' B. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed development are such that the development will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal impact on the livability and appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood. The council further finds that the submitted site plan and elevations, along with the applicant's project descript~on are such that the use will be less intensive than other permitted uses within the zone, such as commercial retail uses" and thereby compatible with the abutting properties. c. In determining the above, consideration shall be given to the following: 1) Harmony in scale, bulk, ooveraqe and density. 2) The availability and capaoity of public faoilities and utilities. 3) The generation of traffic and the capacity of surrounding streets. 4) Public Safety and Protection. S) Architectural and aesthetic compatibility with the surrounding area. The Cou'ncil finds that the single-story design of the structures, except for the low two-story apartment, maintain an appropriate scale for this area, while protecting views of the neighborhood to the southwest. The lot coverage and density are in conformance with the requirements of all uses within the E-l zone. All public facilities are available, or can be made available to the site, as indicated by the City of Ashland. The access to the site is from Highway 66, a state highway. Adequate capacity remains on this highway to accommodate the expected traffic flows for this use, which the applicant expressed to be less than 100 trips/day. This use will not increase any public safety or protection problems. An on-site manager will ensure the security and the site and appropriate fencing will inhibit trespassing. The structures are proposed to be constructed of a split face block with blue metal roofs. The Council finds that these materials are similar in nature to those generally used for commercial construction on other E-1 lands and is appropriate. Also, the area along Highway 66 is proposed to have the highest intensity of landscaping on the parcel, mitigating, impacts to surrounding properties. Further, the council makes the following findings regarding the site Review: A. All applicable city ordinances have been met and will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the site Review Chapter have been met. C. The site design complies with the guidelines adopted by the city counoil for implementation of this Chapter. , The Council finds that the information regarding on-site circulation presented on the site plan is not in conformance with the City's ordinance. Further we find that until all issues regarding the wetland are reconciled, that the site plan is subject to change from that presented, and therefore we find that the criteria for site Review have not been met. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of 'the Public Hearing on this matter, the City Council concludes that the request to Annex 'approximately 6.2 acres of land tp construct mini-storage units with associated manager's unit is supported by evidence contained within the record. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we recommend that Planning Action #90-120 be approved. Further, if anyone or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any whatsoever, then Planning Action #90-120 is denied. We recommend that the following conditions be attached to the approval: 1) That no development be allowed on the areas indicated as wetlands, until this area is reviewed and inventoried by the Division of state Lands. , . 2) That if the area is determined to be a wetland, the applicant would follow the process and procedures outlined by the Division of state Lands for obtaining a permit for altering the wetland, which includes the mitigation measures outlined in Senate Bill 3. 3) That the proposal be subject to a continuance of the Site Review, allowing the applicant to redesign the project to not include the wetland areas. Further conditioris regarding design, on-site vehicular circulation, landscaping, etc... will be addressed at that time. 4) That city services be made available to the site, including sewer, water, and electric, and that the required water lines and appurtenant devices be installed for fire hydrant installation as required by the Public Works Department.' 5) That all system development annexation. fees be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. 6) That ,a survey and legal' description of the property be prepared by a registered land surveyor prior to first reading of the annexation ordinance by the City Council. Also that the survey indicate the primary safety zone of the airport and horizoI:\tal and transitional safety surface regarding building height in the airport overlay zone. 7) That all fire hydrants be installed as required by the Ashland Fire. Department prior to the commencement of combustible ,construction on the site. 8) That the applicant grant an easement to the City of Ashland to allow for the trees penetrating the horizontal and transitional surface of the Airport Overlay Zone. 9) That all necessary easements for sewer, water, and electric be provided as required by the City of Ashland. 10) That the applicant obtain ingress/egress approval from the state Highway Division for access to the property. 11) That the applicant sign an agreement with the city, agreeing that airport noise is likely to increase in the future and that they waive all rights to complain about airport noise. ' .12) That the building height for the two~story ,office/residence not exceed 20' as required by the Airport Over~ay zone, or protrude through the transitional or horizontal surface of the Airport Overlay Zone. 13) That all cuts and fill be indicated on the building permits to be reviewed and approved by the Staff Advisor. 14) That no lights from the project be directed to interfere with airport operations. 15) That the City shall not adopt ordinances annexing the land until the following is completed: That the applicant enter into an agreement with the city of Ashland, . after site Review approval, agreeing to construct and develop the property in complete accord with the approved use and plan indicated by this Conditional Use Permit approval and subsequent site Review approval. Such agreement to be recorded as a deed restriction on the property and be effective for a period of not less than 25 years. Subsequent to the recording of the agreement, the City council shall adopt the appropriate ordinances ,annexing the land. Dated this day of October, 1990. Catherine M. Golden Mayor Nan E. Franklin City Recorder ~emnrandum October 10, 1990 ijIO: Brian Almquist, City Administrator Jlfrom: Steven Hall, Public Works Director JJ\vt~~ ~ubjed: Nutrient Study -- Brown & Caldwell Contract ACTION REQUESTED City Council authorize Mayor to sign the attached Amendment to the original contract for Tasks 2, 3 and 4 of the Facilities Plan. The costs are: Task 2: Task 3: Task 4: $ 71,800 $ 15,800 $ 79,500 Total: $167,100 BACKGROUND The Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) has adopted the City of Ashland Program Plan with the shortened time period of December 31, 1994 as proposed by Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) staff. The door is still slightly ajar for the City of Ashland to request a time extension if one of the selected alternatives involves stream flow and/or quality in Bear Creek. The next step is to begin the detailed evaluation of the alternatives recommended by the City and those added by the EQC. This involves Tasks 2, 3 and 4 of the Brown and Caldwell agreement approved by City Council at their September 20, 1988 meeting. As the Council is aware, the City added one option to the Proqram Plan to include the use of wetlands such as used by Arcata, CA. The EQC also added 3 options suggested during the public hearing in Ashland. These include diverting the effluent from the Sewage Treatment Plant above the TID diversion, pure oxygen treatment and ozonation for disinfection. Nutrient Study -- Brown & Caldwell Contract October 10, 1990 Page Two The EQC set a time frame of May 1991 for preliminary evaluation of alternatives and September 1, 1991 for a final facilities report. This compresses the time frame we had hoped for considerably. If the preliminary evaluation indicates an option which requires further evaluation of stream flow and/or quality in Bear Creek, we will request a time extension from the EQC when the preliminary analysis i~ presented in May 1991. Because of the added options, inflation and compressed time frame, it is necessary to revise the contract for Tasks 2 and 3 of our agreement with Brown and Caldwell and add Task 4 to allow the City to complete the requirements of EQC. The estimated costs contained in Amendment 1 dated October 6, '1989 were $60,910 for Task 2 and $12,350 for Task 3. Task 4 did not have a cost because the exact scope of work could not be defined. The revised cost for Task 2 is $71,800 and Task 3 is $15,800. ' Task 4 cost is $79,500., I have reviewed the proposal and find the costs reasonable based on the work to be performed. Because of the critical time frames involved, Brian signed an order to proceed on Task 2 not to exceed the budgeted $40,000 amount. The contingency in the Sewer Fund is currently $70,697 which will provide a total of $114,697 towards the project. Pam Barlow has applied to the DEQ for a planning grant for approximately $180,000. She is in the process of "fine tuning" the application and we will have approval within the next few months. Funding should be available shortly after City acceptance of the planning grant. Staff recommends approval of Amendment *2 to our current agreement with Brown and Caldwell. cc: Dennis Barnts, Water Quality Superintendent Jim Olson, Assistant City Engineer Pam Barlow, Administrative Assistant encl: Letter/Proposed Contract EQC Cover letter-Program Plan Approval Almquist letter BC Brown and Caldwell Consultants ~ ~~ . ~ . . . \.' , , ,. ,. 2300 Oakmont Way Suite 100 Eugene Oregon 97401-5556 (503) 686-9915 , FAX (503) 686-1417 /).lY) -~ 1~) , .. ~ , - ~'.'~) ~' ----:- OCT ~ :~,~.., ~ .' . . ..... October 5, 1990 Mr. Steven Hall Director of Public Works City of Ashland City Hall 20 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 13-2201 Subject: Amendment to Provide Tasks 2 ,3 and 4 to Ashland Facilities Plan Dear Mr. Hall: Enclosed for your review and signature are two original copies of Amendment NO.2 to our Engineering Services Agreement. This work has been structured to fit the schedule and phases of the facilities plan recently. proposed by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). The 'scope and cost of Task 2 has been modified to include a number of treatment alternatives such as wetlands, outfall relocation, pure oxygen activated sludge, and ozonation. In addition, we have added tasks for project management and a formal re~iew meeting. This meeting will be .held in Eugene prior to finalizing our initial alternative screening. In Task S, we have added a subtask for interim review of the' summer flow data as it is collected. This data may well be critical to our evaluations. Therefore we would like a preview before the monitoring period is complete. Another small subtask has been added which will help identify which in-stream studies will be useful in making final alternative selection decisions. Task 4 includes the development and evaluation of a number of exciting treatment and reuse alternatives. We are committed to giving full consideration to the alternatives which have been developed in the praft Program Plan. In addition, there are a some combinations of these alternatives which hold promise. Please note that the ' groundwater analysis mentioned by Mr. Richard Nichols of the DEQ in his September 25, 1990, letter is not included in ,our scope. If the recommended alternative selected in a subsequent task warrants such analysis, this analysis can be added. Mr. Steven Hall October 5, 1990 Page 2 As you are aware. the earliest that average summer flows can' be estimated is the summer of 1991. In the interim. we will proceed by assuming a range of summer flows from which we will develop two levels of required treatment, one for a high and one for a low assumed 7010 flow in Bear Creek. In Task 4. we will then develop two sizes and costs for each alternative which would discharge to Bear Creek based on the two 7010 flow assumptions. The alternatives which remain following the evaluation of alternatives will be refined under a future task. In this manner. we can make major progress with the alternative development and evaluation as the DEQ has directed. In the event that two summers of flow monitoring are required. the final alternative evaluation can be performed in the fall of 1992. Please 'review the enclosed amendment and call with your comments. Our team is looking forward to technical and creative challenges posed by this facility plan. Very truly yours, BROWN AND CALDWELL ~~~~ SJKlJEH :Iad: kid: cam Enclosures . Brown and Caldwell ConsultClnts AMENDMENT NO.2 TO AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASHLAND AND BROWN AND CALDWELL FOR PREPARATION OF TMDL PROGRAM PLAN AND DESIGNATED FOllOW-ON SERVICES The AGREEMENT, made and entered into on the 18th day of January 1989, by and between the City of Ashland, hereinafter referred to as "Owner," and Brown and Caldwell,' hereinafter referred to as "Engineer" is hereby amended as follows: 1. Delete Exhibit B entitled "Scope of Engineering Serviges" and substitute therefore the attached Exhibit B dated October 1, 1990. 2. Delete Exhibit Centitled "Compensation" and substitute therefore the attached Exhibit C dated October 1, 1990. The parties hereby reaffirm all other terms and conditions of the AGREEMENT. BROWN AND CALDWELL CIlY OF ASHLAND ~ Signature ~~ ~1: Printed Name !: ~ 1/ ~vP /~/~4:0 I / Signature Printed Name Title Title Date Date Amendment No. 2 October 3, 1990 Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT B SCOPE OF ENGINEERING SERVICES The Engineer will prepare a program plan which describes the,strategy and, time schedule for achieving compliance with the total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) and waste load allocations (WlAs) for the Ashland wastew~ter treatment plant. The Engineer will provide the following specific planned services to the Owner: Task 1 - Prepare Pro~ram Plan 1.1 Attend two strategy sessions with the Owner to brainstorm issues, alternatives, and strategies and review plan drafts. One session will be held in Ashland and the other in the Engineer's Eugene office. 1.2 Prepare the program plan which will include: a. Problem assessment - Describe existing conditions and effort required to achieve the WLAs under the seasonal time period requirements. b. Institutional description - Owner will describe the present agencies involved with alternatives and the agreement that may be required to achieve WLAs. This section will also describe the strategies and time period requirement for developing a financing plan and interagency agreements. Engineer will incorporate this section prepared by the Owner into the program plan. c. Available options - Define what options are potentially available for achieving the WLAs for the treatment plant. Prepare brief description of each. These options will include, but are not limited to: i. Discharge to irrigation canals ii. Irrigation on City-owned land Hi. Transport to Medford iv. Biological nutrient removal v. Combination of alternatives vi. 'High-lime treatment vii. Nitrification VIII. Denitrification 1 ix. Flow management ---- --, -~---, Exhibit B October 3, 1990 Page 1 of 7 d. Selection for review - Define criteria, or the time period for developing the criteria, used for the selection of options for review. This component will define when the available options' will be selected for further review. e. Options review - Describe the strategies that will be used and the time period necessary for evaluating the technical merit and cost-benefit of the reviewed options. This component should describe the strategies and methods for: i. Providing a cost-benefit analysis, including the design assumptions which relate to the cost-benefit analysis. ii. Selecting and describing evaluation criteria. iii. Collecting necessary additional in-stream data and , evaluating that data. iv. Conducting necessary pilot projects. , v. Evaluating the selecte~ methods. vi. Analyzing the potential of options as interim goals and the expected results. vii. Analyzing the alternatives for the expected 5 year, 20 year, and ultimate growth in the basin. viii. Developing the implementation time for each potential option including prerequisites for implementation. 1. Option selection - Describe the strategies that will be used and define the time at which the final selection of an option(s), and potential interim options, for the treatment plant will occur. g. Time schedule - Define key decision dates, the steps required to achieve these dates, and the time required to achieve regulatory agency approvals. The schedule will include dates when Owner will submit program report to DEQ. Decision dates will be included for, but are not limited to, the following points: Exhibit B October 3, 1990 Page 2 of 7 i. Defin'ing options for further review ii. Describing strategies for evaluating options Hi. Completing option evaluations iv. Completing pilot projects v. Completing technical analysis vi. Completing cost-benefit analysis vii. Option(s) selection viii. Achievement of interim limits if appropriate, ix. Submission of a comprehensive facilities plan , x. Initiating cooperative agreements with other agencies xi. Achievement of final compliance 1.3 Present draft program plan to DEQ, City Council, and Water Quality Advisory Committee. Obtain their comments and incorporate into plan at direction of Owner. Task 2 .. Develop Options and Select Criteria The purpose of this task is to 'determine which options will be evaluated in detail ' and to define the criteria which will be used to evaluate them.. Necessary background information will be collected including a description of the flows and 'loads and regulatory framework. Available options will be described and appropriate options selected for detailed evaluation. This task will include the following subtasks: 2.1 Project Management. Project management will consist of reviews by managerial level engineers, maintenance of scheduling and budget control, correspondence with Owner, and supervision of project staff. ,Project management also covers the procurement, supervision, and coordination of subcontractors providing specialized or supplemental ' engineering services and project closeout. 2.2 Develop available options. This will include the following subtasks: a. Describe study area characteristics. The sewerage study area will be defined and the physical and socioeconomic environment will be described. ' The de,scription of the physical environment will include topography, geology, soils, climate, and water resources. The socioeconomic environment will include population and land use based on the city's adopted comprehensive land use plan. The study area description will include information on potential irrigation areas surrounding Ashland. b. Project wastewater flows and loads. Existing wastewater data will be collated. Future flows and loads will be estimated using published population projections. Historical flow records will be Exhibit B October 3. 1990 Page 3 of 7 used to estimate infiltration and inflow (III). A more detailed 1/1 evaluation will be conducted as part of in-field flow investigation to be conducted under a later task. . c. Describe existing wastewater system. The description will include a history and status of the existing collection system and a detailed assessment of the existing wastewater treatment plant including expected life and performance. Describe the existing sludge handling practices. sludge treatment efficiencies, current disposal sites and available equipment. d. Summarize waste load allocations and regulatory requirements. The regulatory framework will include a description of the status of new wastewater effluent reuse regulations currently under revision by the DEQ. e. Define w,astewater treatment and reuse options. These options will include but not be limited to those options outlined in the Draft Program Plan plus wetland~ opportunities. General design criteria and process schematics will be prepared. The options will be developed in sufficient detail to identify features or components critical to the screening criteria developed in the following subtask. 2.3 Develop and apply screening criteria. These criteria will be selected , with Owner participation to be used in a pass/fail screening of possible options. The screening criteria will include, the technical, regulatory. institutional and legal concerns included in the Draft Program Plan. Capital and operation and maintenance costs will not be provided for each option at this stage. Costs from established cost curves which show order -of-magnitude estimates may be used for options which' cannot be adequately evaluated by application of the other screening criteria. A maximum of four options which pass the application of the criteria will be retained for detailed evaluation and comparison. 2.4 Conduct a meeting with City staff in the Broyvn and Caldwell Eugene office to present preliminary results of the screening procedure and solicit input. 2.5 Select and describe evaluation criteria. These criteria will be used for detailed comparison of the most promising alternatives. 2.6 Prepare draft Phase 1 facilities plan chapters. Draft chapters will be prepared on study area characteristics, existing wastewater system, wastewater flows and loads, regulatory requirements, and selection of alternatives. Other facilities plan chapters including the Exhibit B October 3, 1990 Page 4 of 7 introduction; summary and recommendations, evaluation of alternatives. and description of the recommended plan will be prepared in subsequent tasks of the project. 2.7 Present draft facilities plan chapters to city staff. city council. and DEQ. Obtain their comments and incorporate into the draft chapters. Task 3 - Collect Field Data and Perform Process Testing This task of the work is to coiled detailed environmental and wastewater process data which is currently unavailable but necessary for detailed sizing of the treatment processes. The full extent of this testing will be determined after completion of the preceding task where the availability of existing data is determined and the alternatives a~e selected for evaluation. The following subtasks can be defined at this time: . 3.1 Assist with the installation of Bear Creek flow monitor. Sizing of alternatives will depend on accurate flow data for Bear Creek at Ashland. This task assumes that the gaging station will be designed by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and installed by Owner and USGS. This task includes the following subtasks: a. Select flow monitoring site and method. The Engineer will work with the Owner and the USGS to select the monitoring site and method. Monitoring instrumentation will be' recommended which in the 'future can be used to control wastewater treatment ' plant discharge. b. Perform on-going preliminary analysis as flow data is generated to verify data is reasonable and will be useable at end of the monitoring period. c. Collect and collate flow data. At the end of one year. collect flow data from Owner and compare flow data at Ashland with weather data. flow data at Medford and irrigation flows to estimate statistical variation of flows in ~ear Creek at Ashland. 3.2 Infiltration and inflow investigation. Evaluate extent of current 1/1 problem using existing data. Use existing data to determine if 1/1 is "excessive" as de~ned by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Meet with the Owner and DEQ to define the scope of any required 1/1 field work. Exhibit B October 3. 1990 Page 5 of 7 3.3 Perform desk top analysis using existing data to provide recommendations regarding specific, in-stream studies. Options for in-stream study include, but are not limited to, those included in the Draft Program Plan. Task 4 - Develop and Evaluation of Alternatives In this, work task, alternatives which remain following the screening in Task 3 are developed and evaluated in, detail. Treatment of the liquid portion of the sewage flow is considered separately from the solids stream (sludge) for each combination of alternatives. Following the evaluation of, alternatives, at least two alternatives will be identified for. final selection in the next task. 4.1 Alternative Development. The alternatives remaining following the screening process are described in detail. Design data will be determined, preliminary layouts and facility sizes provided. Alternative sites available for the construction of treatment and disposal facilities will be identified. Elements common to a number of alternatives 'will be identified. 4.2 Uquid Stream Evaluation. ' Using the criteria defined in task 2.3, this task will evaluate treatment alternatives for the liquid portion of the sewage flows. ' Capital and O&M costs will be provided for , comparison. It is recognized that the required level of treatment for the alternatives discharging to Bear Creek Cannot be identified until summer flows are estimated in 1991. To be able to proceed with the analysis, the ,Bear Creek discharge alternatives will be evaluated assuming two summe~ 7Q10 flow levels - a low flow and a high flow assumption. Sizing of treatment facilities will be based upon the treatment levels required at these two flows. 4.3 Solids Stream Treatment. Solids treatment for the alternatives identified in Task 4.3 will be developed and evaluated in the following subtasks: a. Provide projections of the biological and chemical sludge quantities expected from the screened' treatment alternatives. For alternatives with disposal to Bear Creek, two levels of sludge production will be estimated assuming two levels of treatment. b. Evaluate sludge thickening, stabilization, dewatering and storage options. Design data will be determined" preliminary layouts and facility sizes provided. Specific sites available for Exhibit B October 3, 1990 Page 6 of 7 the construction of sludge treatment and storage facilities will be evaluated. Capital, and O&M costs will be provided for comparison. c. Evaluate future sludge utilization/disposal options including municipal and agricultural land application. 4.4 Summary of Viable Alternatives. Results of the development and evaluation of alternatives will be summarized. It is anticipated that two alternatives will remain to be further refined, if necessary, in Phase 2, following the completion of summer flow monitoring. One of, these two alternatives will then be selected as the recommended alternative. A meeting with CitY staff may be appropriate at,this point to discuss the evaluation process. If requested, such a meeting will be conducted as an extra scope item. 4.5 Prepare draft Phase 1 facility plan chapter on ~lternative Development and Evaluation. Other Phase 2 facility plan chapters including the introduction, summary and recommendations, environmental assessment and description of the recommended plan will be prepared in subsequent phases of the project. 4.6 Present draft facility plan chapter on Alternative Development and Evaluation to city staff, city council, and DEQ. Obtain their comments and incorporate into the draft chapter at the direction of the Owner. Task 5 - Select Recommended Plan Task 6 - Assist with Project Approach Task 7 - Provide Design, Construction, and Startup Services Exhibit B October 3, 1990 Page 7 of 7 EXHIBIT C COMPENSATION Compensation for services provided under Article II, "Scope of Engineering Services," and described in Exhibit B, shall be based on time-related charges plus direct expenses, as described in this exhibit. ' I. TIME-RELATED CHARGES Time-related charges are hourly salary rates plus fringe benefits, general and administrative overhead, and profit. Time-related charges shall be the total hours worked on Project by each employee, multiplied by the employee's hourly salary rate, multiplied by a fringe benefit, overhead, and profit factor of 3.28. Overhead includes general and administrative costs not identifiable as directly allocable to individual projects. Profit includes state and federal income taxes, plus profit. It DIRECT EXPENSES Direct expenses are charges, other than' those included in time-related charges, incurred directly for Project. Direct expenses incurred, by Engineer shall be billed at actual purchase price plus a service charge of 10 percent. Subcontracted services shall be billed at cost plus a service charge of 15 percent. Direct expenses include, but are not limited to: 1. Services and equipment use directly applicable to Project such as special accounting services, computer and electronic data processing, field testing, and laboratory analysis. 2. Reproduction services directly applicable to Project such as reproducing drawings, photocopying, printing, and binding. 3. Communication services directly applicable to Project such as telephone, telecopy, telegraph, cable, express delivery, and postage. 4. Subcontracted services directly applicable to Project. Exhibit C October 3, 1990 Page 1 of 3 5. Uving and traveling expenses of employees when away from home office on business directly applicable to Project. 6. Automobile mileage directly applicable to Project. III. ' LIMITATION OF COST AND TIME Engineer estimates that the cost for services described in Exhibit B shall not exceed the estimated cost as described in Section V of this Exhibit entitled Compensation Schedule and that the time for completion of Project shall be as stated in the Agreement. Estimated cost includes time-related charges and direct expenses as described in Sections I and II of this Exhibit. Engineer shall use its best efforts to perform the work specified in Exhibit B within the estimated cost and time. If at any time Engineer believes the cost shall be greater than estimated, Engineer shall notify Owner in writing. The notification shall state t~e revised cost estimate and, if applicab,le, the revised time for completion. Engineer shall submit such notification as early as possible, but no later than 10 days prior to scheduled completion of the work. Owner shall not be obligated to reimburse Engineer for costs incurred in excess of the estimated cost unless Owner agrees in writing to do so. Engineer shall not be obligated to continue performance under this Agreement or otherwise incur costs in excess of the original estimate unless and until Owner notifies Engineer in writing that the estimated cost has been increased. If additional funds and time adjustments are not allotted by the scheduled completion date, Owner shall, on written request by Engineer~ terminate this Agreement. The termination date shall be the originally scheduled completion date or other date agreed to by Owner and Engineer. IV. PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION Charges determined on the basis of this Exhibit shall be billed in accordance with Article V of this Agreement. V. COMPENSATION SCHEDULE For each task authorized under this Agreement, compensation shall be in accordance with the applicable portions of this Agr.eement and the following compensatiqn schedule. A portion of the estimate cost budgeted for any task may be used to complete any other task where a budget shortfall occurs, provided that the total estimated cost for all tasks is not exceeded. Exhibit C October 3, 1990 Page 2 of 3 COMPENSATION SCHEDULE Task description Estimated cost. dollars Task 1 - Prepare Program Plan Task 2' - Develop Options and Select Criteria Task 3 - Collect Field Data and Perform Process Testing Task 4 - Describe and Evaluate Alternatives Task 5 - Select Recommended Plan , Task 6 -' Assist with Project Approvals , Task 7 - Provide Design,Construction, and Startup Services 23,000 71,800 15 ,80d 79.500 To be negotiated To be negotiated To be negotiated Exhibit C October 3, 1990 Page 3 of 3 -.'. -. . " ~ . . . . . . '. ","' . . . . . . . .. . .. ........ ....... Department of Environmental Quality NEIL GOLDSCHMIDT GOVERNOR 811 SW SIXTH AVENUE, PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-1390 PHONE (503) 229-5696 September 25, 1990 ",,'C l'-r'J/, \) , . '_, . " I ..., . ... .:' 0~~~J,m:~{:) r , ) t.. ;".,,' , " . ~' i;.;": Department of Public Works City of Ashland ' Ashland, Oregon 97520 Attention: Mr. Steven M. Hall, Director r '.., ;- 1.1, . I Co Re: S - Ashland Jackson coun:ty' SE? 2 7 1990 On September 21, 1990, the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission approved the proposed program plan sqbmitted by the City of Ashland. The program plan was prepared pursuant to the Department's rules that established a Total'Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Bear Creek. The program plan was approved subject to the City of Ashland submitting a two-phase facilities plan report with the first-phase report due in May, 1991. The first-phase report will determine if another year will be needed to complete the facilities plan report and, perhaps, if an extension of the final compliance date for the TMDLs will be needed. If the first-phase report indicates that the more desirable alternatives for meeting the TMDL do not require extensive water quality data, the final facilities plan report would be due on September 1, 1991. PUblic testimony suggested three additional options be considered by the City of Ashland as it.proceeds with the facility planning process. These are: moving the outfall upstream to a point above the diversion point of the lower east Talent Irrigation Canal, pure oxygen treatment, and use of ozonation for disinfection. The Commissibn, requests that these options be added to the list of alternatives to be considered by the City. Enclosed with this letter is a copy of the Department's facilities plan report guidance. This should provide you some help in assuring that the Department's concerns are addressed in the facilities plan report. For land disposal options, the Department will have concerns about assuring that ground water resources are protected. If treated effluent would be applied at irrigation rates that exceed that needed by the crop being grown, a thorough groundwater analysis will be necessary. A groundwater analysis will also be necessary where large storage or treatment ponds are being considered. :JEQ-1 The other critical issue will be potential impact on surface waters. The facilities plan report must address impacts due to toxidity of the treated effluent as well as other water quality impacts. This would apply if the discharge point remains at its current location or if it is moved to another point. The Department believes it is critical that surface water monitoring be well-planned and well-executed to assure the data collected is reliable and useful. We are willing to pr~vide technical assistance on this matter and highly recommend that you contact Bob Baumgartner (229-5877) in this office in this regard. We know the City has concerns about the BOD-5 dilution rule. The facilities plan report must address how it will meet this requirement of our rules. The dilution rule does allow the Commission to grant an exception. An exception could be considered if the city could demonstrate that the exception would not result in water quality standards violations and that it is unreasonable and overly burdensome to provide facilities to meet the dilution rule. This demonstration should be part of the facilities plan report if the City intends to approach the Commission for an exception. Finally, also enclosed with this letter are Total Maximum Daily Load documents for Bear Creek. These documents contain proposed waste load allocations' for various parameters for Bear Creek for the city of Ashland sewage treatment plant. These waste load allocations should be used in the development of the facilities plan report. The documents also include proposed monitoring conditions and other suggested requirements that will be the basis for the next NPDES waste discharge permit to be issued to the city of Ashland. The Department, as much a's our limited resources will allow, will try to provide technical assistance to the City as you proceed through the facilities planning process. Except as it relates to water quality monitoring as noted above, your main contact should be Mr. Dennis Belsky in our Medford?ffice. If you have questions, please call me at 229-5323. Engineer Enclosures cc: Southwest Regional Office - DEQ Steve Krugel ~ Brown and Caldwell Engineers C I T Y o F ASHLAND C IT Y HAL L ASHLAND. OREGON 97520 telephone (code 503) 482-3211 September 6, t990 Steven J. Krugel Brown and Caldwell Consultants 2300 Oakmont Way suite 100 Eugene, O~egon 97401-5556 Re: TMDL Program Plan Contract -- Notice to Proceed -- Task 2 Dear Mr. Krugel: This letter is authorization for Brown and Caldwell to proceed with Task 2 of our contract as authorized by the City Council on October 3, 1989 in the estimated amount of $60,910. The City of Ashland and the Department of Environmental Quality have added options to the original proposal and realize this will require and amendment to the original contract and scope of work. Realizing the tight time frames, we assume the EQC will impose on the City of 'Ashland on september 21, 1990, Brown and Caldwell are authorized to proceed to a maximum of $40,000 on Task 2 until an amendment to the current contract can be r~tified by the City Council. If we can have a proposed amendment agreed upon after Steve Hall's return from business and vacation September 24, 1990, the proposed amendment can be presented to the City Council at the October 16, 1990 meeting for approval. As with Task 1, the City prefers the contract to be in the form of time and materia'ls cost with a "not to exceed" maximum dollar amount. ~ Steven M. Hall, P.E., Public Works Zt ~emorandum October 11, 1990 mn: Brian L. Almquist, City Administrator , I ~ rom: Steve Hall, Publ.ic Works Director 4 ' YL1- N ,. ~ltbjed: 1033 Clay Street - Sewer and Water Connect Request ACTION REQUESTED City Council authorize 1033 Clay Street to be connected to City sanitary sewer in accordance with Section 14.08.030 of the Ashland Municipal Code and connect to City water in accordance with Ordinance 1676 and Charter Article XVI, Section 1. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY Attached is a letter from Jackie Reid, real estate agent for Mr. Bernard Windt, owner of 1033 Clay Street, requesting connection to city sewer and water facilities. The property is outside the city limits but within the Urban Growth Boundary and will require application for annexation ~o the City of Ashland prior to allowing service to city sewers. City Council may allow connection to city sewers as per AMC 14.08.030 if: - There is adequate capacity within the sewer system and the treatment plant to serve the residence. - Requirements will be met by the property owner as listed in the attached section of the Ashland Municipal Code. - Applicant can meet all the requirements of the Municipal Code. - Staff recommends approval of application for sewer connection of 1033 Clay Street subject to meeting city requirements. City Council may allow connection to city water mains after annexation to the City as per Ordinance 1676 and the City Charter Article XVI Section 1 which state: - Ordinance 1676 "The City will furnish service.....to such other areas as in its sole discretion may be in the best interest of the City of Ashland to serve." 1033 Clay street October 11, 1990 Page TWo - City Charter .XVI.1 "The city of Ashland, a municipal corportation, shall have the power to provide the residents of said City with such services as water...for the purpose of supplying the inhabitants thereof with water...." The term "inhabitants" has been interpreted by the City Attorney as residents. - staff recommends approval of application "for water connection of 1033 Clay street subject to meeting city requirements of annexation which would make the owners "inhabitants" of Ashland. For Council reference, the property is not contiguous to the City Li.mits. cc: Ms. Jackie Reid, applicant representative "John Fregonese, Planning Director Jim Olson, Assistant City. Engineer Dennis Barnts, Water Quality Superintendent encls: Reid let"ter ASHLAND OFFICE 375 L1THIA WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 (503) 482-3786 (FAX) (503) 482-4273 %~~t- AND ASSOCIATES INC. REAL TORS MEDFORD OFFICE 510 CRATER LAKE AVE" MEDFORD, OR 97504 (503) 779-6520 (FAX) (503) 779-2268 COMPLETE REAL ESTATE SERVICE October 10, 1990 To: Mayor and City Council City of Ashland From: Jackie Reid, real estate agent for Mr. Bernard Windt Re: Request for water and sewer service at 1033 Clay Street Mr. Doyle Hirsch, purchaser of the property at 1033 Clay Street, Ashland, and I wish to appear before you at the next City Council meeting on October 16, 1990 to request city water and sewer ser- vice at this address. The Seller of this property, Mr. Bernard Windt, has been unable to provide Mr. Hirsch bacteria-free water from the well which is acceptable to state standards. The well has been tested three times in the past month, twice after chlorination. We believe it is affected by the seepage of the TID ditch above the property as was found to be true of an adjacent property belonging to Mr. Ross Coldwell. Mr. Coldwell's well required drilling out & casing to 40 feet to solve the problem. To do this to Mr. Windt's well would require both removal of the shop which houses the well and removal of the carport attached to his home to accomodate the well drilling equipment, both impractical measures for the potential gain. Another alternative for this well would be to put a chlorinator on the well which requires at least a 250 gallon holding tank. Again, the construction requirements--removal of one wall of the shop and rebuilding the floor to support the tank, as well as the cost of approximately $1400 for the chlorinating equipment, are impractical. The well would provide potable water, but would still suffer from extemely low capacity and low water pressure. During the chlorination procedures, the well ran dry several times, one requiring a new well pump, costing about $800. At some point it seems clear that continuing to pour money into a poor water source, such as this well, is not wise. In light of the fact that the property adjacent to the north has both city water and sewer, the property to the south has sewer, and the property to the west, sewer, it does seem wise to cap this well and connect to a water source that is safe, reliable and a step towards the future. The costs to "bandaid" the problems of this water source will be nearly the same as the cost to acquire a nevI one. Mr. Hirsch is requesting city sewer service at this time for two reasons: I} the septic system on this property has a history of frequent pumpings--at least once a year--and plugged drainfield lines; the lines were repaired for temporary use in 1987 and some new tiles were laid this spring. This septic is the oldest ~45+) of three adjacent systems and the other two have failed and gone to city sewer. 2) there is a considerable savings in having both the sewer and water lines put in at the same time and perhaps less effect to the dirt road (Clay Street) if the lines are ac- cessed at one time. Both water and sewer lines are in the street. When making your decision on this matter, please consider the above information about the property and feel free to ask me to elaborate or explain. Admittedly, this is not my field of exper- tise, although I have consulted well and water testers. plumbers, Rotorooter, the pump installer and a knowledgeable neighbor and relative to M~. Windt, Mr. Elmer Byrd, who has helped maintain the property over the years. Mr. Windt has not been well the past few years and is now living with his son in Salt Lake City since his wife's death in July. We thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request. Charter j\rt. XVI of the City, to conunit any such perso~l to jail ~)~~ admit him to bail pending trial, to it~sue subpocnd:5, to co::-.pel obedience to such subpoenas, to issue any process necessary to carry into effect the judgments of the Court, and to puni~h witnesses and others for--c.o'ntcmot of the Ccurt. rrhe Jud("!{~ shall make a monthly report of the" Court's p.roceedings in \.;i;i Ling to the City Council.. Sec~ion 2(A). Term. shall be four (4) years. . The term of the Municipal Judge (Charter amendment 5-23-78). Section 3.. Jury. A defendent may have a jury of six (6) members by demanding the Silrne. Any:j ury chosen. shall be governed by the laws of the State of Oregon relating to juries in the District Court, and shall" have the qualifica- tions of such jurors resident within the corporate limits of said City. Section 4. Fines, Fees, Costs cud Cash Bail. The City Council shall provIde for the collection of aJ~rC"ourt fines, fees, costs and cash bail which shall be turn~d over to the City Recorder. ARTICLE XVI - l'1iscellaneous Provisior~s Section 1. Public Utilities - Water Works. The City of Ashland, a municipar-corporation, shall hav~ the power .to provide the residents of said City with such services as ~ater, seHer, electric power, public transportation and such other public uti2itics as the people desire by majority vote; and to exact and collect compensation from the users of such public utility; provided, howevet, that any and all water and water works and water rights now owned or which may here- after be acquired by said City, for the purpose of supplyinG the inhabitants thereof with water shall never be rented, ~old or otherwise disposed of; nor shall the City ever grant any frahchise to any person or corporation for the purpose of supplying the inhabitants of said City with \'later. Section 2. Torts. The City's i~~unity or liability for torts shall be as determined by Stp.te law. . Section 3. Existing Ordinances., Acts, Proceedings. All existing ordinances in fo~ce when this act t~kes e.ffect and not inconsistent :herewith shall be and rem~in in full force after this act takes effect and thereafter until re- pealed by the Council. All actions and proceedings pending and all unfinished business whatsoever when this act takes effect shall thereafter be proceeded with ~ccording to the prQvisions of this. act or any City ordinance applicable thereto and continued in force by this act. No suit, action C-16 Revised October 1978 ~emorandum October 12, 1990 mn: Honorable Mayor & city council ~rn~: Brian L. Almquist, city Administrator ~ltbjed: Urban Services Study Over the past several months, the managers of Medford, Central Point, Jackson County and myself, have been meeting in an attempt to define areas of financial responsibility between the cities and County. The initial impetus for these discussions was the defeat of the tax measure proposed by the Sheriff at the May primary, and the disagreement with the cities over what level of police protection should be provided to the residents of the unincorporated area at the expense of all taxpayers both within and outside the cities. similar arguments and disagreements may be forthcoming concerning road construction and maintenance, planning, social services, and other overlapping service responsibilities. The need to define respective levels of financial responsibility may become even more important in the future if the County continues to see a radical decline in O&C revenues, and seeks either a tax base or special levies td support County services. Several Counties in the Portland metro area recently contracted with Portland state University to critically evaluate who is providing what services and who is receiving the benefit of those services. The results of those studies were very beneficial in resolving disputes between the County and the cities within those Counties in matters of property taxation. We have contacted P.S.U. and have requested that they prepare a contract proposal to complete a similar study for Jackson County and its cities. A copy of the proposed contract is attached. The cost for the participants would be .363 per capita with the county picking up the share for the smaller cities. Ashland's share would thus be about $5,900, about $3,000 of which would be paid out of this year's budget, and the balance due next year. RECOMMENDATION: I would recommend that the city agree to participate in the cost of the study along with Medford, Central Point and Jackson County. The cost would be provided through the General Fund Operating contingency. Attachment: (1) INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM - JACKSON COUNTY TO: Andy Anderson, Brian Almquist, Dave Kucera FROM: Burke M. Raymond, County Administra r DATE: October 3, 1990 SUBJECT: PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY URBAN SERVICES STUDY CONTRACT Attached is a copy of the contract as we discussed it with Sheldon Edner. The contract has been signed by the university and will come before the Board of Commissioners on October 17. As we discussed at our meeting, the contract will be between the county and the university; however, the.cities of Medford and Ashland will reimburse the county on a per capita share basis. The city of Central Point. may participate, but this will not be decided until after the November election. Based on an estimated population of 150,000, the per capita cost will be .3630. Actual per capita costs will be based upon 1990 U. S. Census Bureau figures. If you have any problems. with the contract or if you find that your council does not support the activity, please let me know before October 12 as that is the date on which the Board's agenda for October 17 will be finalized. Thank you. BMR/ cc A~tgcfiment Portland State University P. O. Box 751, Portland, OR 97207-0751 /~::-:.~ \i!iT~n-,; . . .1-' 1.- ~~/~ . .'.'- '\~ \. -'-/ \. :,'/ 0\ . -; '(" \ . , y, Y.! :~.) -t -!i'!Of'\ ~ t--~. , I, .~_.:\ -~ ;::;:..;0 ' j-'- \(;>>~~':~' "'J;~(~~:.,<F- . ~'j -.-- .-.--.. ,; v___L.~ .:'-.:. _:' '.~ September 25, 1990 Burke Raymond County Administrative Officer Jackson County f County Courthouse Medford, OR 97501 Dear Burke: Enclosed are two copies of the proposed contract to complete the urban services study for Jackson County and its cities. The contract is drawn between the University and the County with an expectation that the County would provide the necessary funds to support the contract. Typically, because of the benefit to the cities in the County, funding is a pooled arrangement with a per capita share bourne by the cities. This arrangement is achieved through mutual agreement among the cities and the County. - I have talked with Don Laws of Ashland and he has agreed to identify some Southern Oregon State College students to work with us on the project. We will be discussing this further after the contract is signed. If you have any questions concerning this matter~ please give me a call. Sincere~y, .-- (' I' -- ,t ' . \.. \ i ; - tl, l ~vJD Sheldon M. Edner, Chair Department of Public Administration School of lTrban and Public Affairs Department of Public Adminisuarion 503/725-3920 PSU No. 00910 CONTRACf FOR SERVICES This contract is entered into by and between Jackson County, hereinafter referred to as COUNTY, and the State of Oregon, Acting By and Through the State Board of Higher Education on behalf of Portland State University, hereinafter referred to as UNIVERSITY. . WHEREAS, employees of the UNIVERSITY possess expertise in the research and analysis of services provided by political subdivisions, including cities and counties; and WHEREAS, Jackson County is interested in having a study undertaken which will research and analyze the services currently provided by the cities of Ashland, Medford, and Central Point, and Jackson County to their residen ts; NOW, THEREFORE, BOTH PARTIES AGREE: I. TERM OF THIS CONTRACf The term of this agreement shall commence on November 1, 1990 and end with the submission of the Final Report on July 31,"1991, unless terminated sooner in accordance with the provisions contained herein. II. SCOPE OF THE WORK A research team directed by Drs. Sheldon Edner and Judy Davis, UNIVERSITY employees, will research and analyze the services currently provided by Ashland, Medford, Central Point and Jackson County to their residents, establish the cost of those services on a service by service basis and examine the incidence of Jackson County's service delivery in relation to the source of revenues (using the O&C revenue as a surrogate for a property tax). The base year for this analysis will be Fiscal Year 1989-90. The jurisdictional boundaries and population base will be as of July 1, 1989. A Final Report will be prepared by this research team which will: Document and analyze services delivered, cost of service on a per capita and per dollar of assessed value basis, and location of services delivered by the cities identified above and. Jackson County; Document and analyze for the COUNTY the location of services based on incorporated areas, and on unincorporated areas inside and outside the city urban growth boundaries; Document and analyze the extent to which the COUNTY provides services equitably in relation to sources of revenue; Document and present policy options available to the Jackson county jurisdictions. III. COMPENSATION A COmpensation for the Final Report is a fiXed price of $54,464.00. Payments shall be made in accordance with the following schedule: 50% due 6/1191 - $27,232.00 50% due 7131191 - $27,232.00 B. The UNIVERSITY is engaged hereby as an independent contractor and will be so deemed for the purposes of the following: 1. The UNIVERSITY will be solely responsible for payment of any Federal or State Taxes required as a result of this agreement. 2. This contract is not intended lo entitle the UNIVERSITY to any benefits generally granted to COUNfY employees. Without limitation, but by way of illustration, the benefits which are not intended to be extended by this contract to the UNIVERSn"Y are vacation, holiday and sick leave, other leaves with pay, tenure, medical and dental coverage, life and disability insurance, overtime, Social Security, Workers' Compensation, unemployment compensation, or retirement benefits (except insofar as benefits are otherwise required by law if the UNIVERSITY is presently a member of the Public Employees Retirement System). 3. The UNIVERSITY is a sole proprietor or a partner or is an insured employer for purposes of the Oregon Workers' Compensation Law (ORS 656) and is solely liable for any Workers' Compensation coverage under this contract. If the UNIVERSITY has the assistance of other persons in the performance of this contract, the UNIVERSITY agrees to qualify and remain qualified for the term of this contract as an insured employer under ORS 656.407. IV. CONSTRAINTS The CONTRACfOR agrees: A Pursuant to the requirements of ORS 279.310 through 279.320 and Article XI, Section 10, of the Oregon Constitution, the following terms and conditions are made a part of this agreement: 1. The UNIVERSITY shall: a. Make payments promptly, as due, to all persons supplying to UNIVERSITY labor or materials for the prosecution of the work provided in this agreement. b. Pay all contributions or amounts due the Industrial Accident Fund from such UNIVERSITY or subcontractor incurred in the performance of this agreement. c. Not permit any lien or claim to be filed or prosecuted against Jackson County on account of any labor or material furnished. PSU No. 00910 Page 3 of 4 d. Pay the Department of Revenue all sums withheld from employees pursuant to ORS 316.167. 2. If the UNIVERSITY fails, neglects or refuses to make prompt payment of any claim for labor or services furnished to the UNIVERSITY or a subcontractor by any person in connection with this agreement as such becomes due, the proper officer representing Jackson County may pay such claims to the person furnishing the labor services and charge the amount of the payment of funds due or to become due the UNIVERSITY by reason of this agreement. 3. No person shall be employed for more than eight (8) hours in anyone day, or more than forty (40) hours in anyone week, except in cases of necessity, emergency or where the public policy absolutely requires it, and in such cases, except in cases of contracts for personnel services as defined in ORS 279.051, the laborer shall be paid at least time and one-half pay for all overtime in excess of eight (8) hours a day and for work performed on Saturday and on any legal holiday specified in ORS 279.334. In the case of contracts for personal services as defined in ORS 279.051, laborers shall be paid at least time and one-half for all overtime worked in excess of 40 hours in anyone week, except for individuals who are excluded under ORS 653.010 to 653.261 or under 29 use Section 201 to 209 from receiving overtime. 4. The UNIVERSITY shall promptly, as due, make payment to any person or partnership, association or corporation furnishing medical, surgical and hospital care or other needed care and attention incident to sickness and injury to the employees of the UNIVERSITY, of all sums which the UNIVERSITY agrees to pay for such services and all monies which the UNIVERSITY collected or deducted from the wages of the UNIVERSITY's employees pursuant to any law, contract or agreement for the purposes of paying for such services. 5. All employers working under this contract are subject employers and are required to comply with ORS 656.017 (workers' compensation). 6. This agreement is expressly subject to the debt limitation of Oregon counties as set forth in Article XI, Section 10, of the Oregon Constitution, and is contingent upon funds being appropriated therefor. Any provisions herein which would conflict with law are deemed inoperative to that extent. B. To the extent permitted by ORS 30.260 through 30.300 and the Oregon Constitution, Article XI, Section 7, the UNIVERSITY shall indemnify, save harmless and defend the COUNTY, its officers, commissioners and employees from and against all claims and actions, and all expenses incidental to the investigation and defense thereof, arising out of or based upon damage or injuries to persons or property caused by the errors, omissions, fault or negligence of the UNIVERSITY or the UNIVERSITY's employees. V. TERMINATION A This contract may be terminated by either party upon at least ten (10) days written notice to the other. PSU No. 00910 Page 4 of 4 1. In the event of early termination, the COUNTY agrees to reimburse the UNIVERSITY a prorated share of the contracted amount to cover expenses incurred. The prorated amount will be agreed upon at the time of termination. VI. MERGER CLAUSE THIS AGREEMENT CONSTITUTES THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES. THERE ARE NO UNDERSTANDINGS, AGREEMENTS, OR REPRESENTATIONS, ORAL OR WRITIEN, NOT SPECIFIED HEREIN REGARDING THIS AGREEMENT. NO AMENDMENT, CONSENT, OR WAIVER OF TERMS OF1HIS AGREEMENT SHALL BIND EITHER PARTY UNLESS IN WRmNG AND SIGNED BY ALL PARTIES. ANY SUCH AMENDMENT, CONSENT, OR WAIVER SHALL BE EFFECTIVE ONLY IN THE SPECIFIC INSTANCE AND FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE GIVEN. CONTRACfOR, ay THE SIGNATURE BELOW OF ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, ACKNOWLEDGES HAVING READ AND UNDERSTOOD THE AGREEMENT AND THE CONTRAcroR AGREES TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Date: STATE OF OREGON ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE STATE BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION ::~J[j~~lliUNNERSITY Sheldon Edner, Chair Departmer of P'fliC Administration Date: 1 p~ ftro JACKSON COUNTY By: Burke Raymond Administrative Officer By: v/ , it/~ii. C. William Savery Vice Provost Date: j r } Y -. Y {i By: kL Date: c;2-'ZS--7D B. KENT BLACKHURST ERVIN B. HOGAN GREGORY T. HORN ECKER JOHN R. HASSEN DANIEL C. THORNDIKE BLACKHURST, HORNECKER, HASSEN & THORNDIKE & ERVIN B. HOGAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. O. BOX 670 SUITE 1 - 129 N. OAK DALE MEDFORD,OREGON97501 AREA CODE 503 TELEPHONE 779-8550 FAX (503) 773-2635 September 27, 1990 Mr. Brian Almquist Ashland City Administrator Ashland City Hall 20 East Main Ashland, OR 97520 Re: Mahar Conditional Use Permit Dear Brian: As you know, the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Land. Use Board of Appeals in connection with the Mahar Conditional Use Permit application. I am writing to request that this application be reset.for public hearing before the City Counsel on the two issues on which LUBA remanded the matter. Since LUBA affirmed the City's decision in all other respects, we do believe that the testimony and evidence at the remand hearing should be limited to issues for which the decision was remanded. Of course, you will want to consult with Ron Salter and John Fregonese concerning this. I think the .rules concerning remand require that the issues be limited as we request. We would.appreciate having this matter set for hearing some time during the latter part of November or early December. In addition, we will need to know as soon as possible the scope of the hearing. Thank you. ~~ yours, J~. Hassen JRH: jat cc: Ron Salter - City Attorney John Fregonese - Planning Director RONALD L. SALTER ATTORNEY AT LAW 94 THIRD STREET ASHLAND. OREGON 97520 (503) 482-4215 October 5, 1990 Mr. John MacLaughlin Planning Department city Hall Ashlandl OR 97520 R~: Mahar C.U.P Application Dear Mac: The question has been raised as to the scope of the public hearing on the above matter. It is my opinion that the council may limit the public. hearing to the two issues that were the subject of LUBA' s remand. This appears to be the general way remands are handled. However, if the council wishesl I believe it is arguably permissible for it to broaden the scope of review to include other issues or the entire C.U.P. application. If it broadens the scope of review and makes a different finding based upon new and/or different evidence I I believe that would be permissible. If it merely made a different finding without new facts and solely because of a change in judgment, then we would have a more difficult position at LUBA. The Council, in a land use decision, is acting in a quasi-judicial role. As judges, the same decision would be called for I however as legislators they would be more allowed to make a different judgment call. Of course the notice of the public hearing needs to clearly state the scope of that hearing. It is my suggestion that you prepare a notice limiting the hearing to the two issues on remand and send a copy of it to the members of the Council and also to the Mayor indicating that if any member wished to consider broadening the issues, that he or she could bring it up on the October 16, 1990, agenda. If it is brought up on the agenda for discussion of broadening the issues, it is my suggestion that public input not be allowed as otherwise we would need to really call a public hearing on the question of the scope of the public hearing. Mr. John MacLaughlin October 4, ~990 Page 2 . If you have any .questions or if I can be of further assistance, please let me know. RLS/kr cc: Mr. John Hassen Mr. Mark Murphey Very truly yours, ~ S/. RONALD L. SALTER City Attorney ____.__--L- Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL on the 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1990 AT 7:30P.M. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main S.treet, Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raiSe an objeCtion concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land U~ Board of Appeals (LUBA). Failure to specify which ordinance criteria the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal. A copy of the. application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the staff report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, City Hall, 20 East Main, Ashland. OR 97520. .- During the Public Hearing, the Mayor shall.allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Mayor shall have the right to limit the length of testimonyand require that comments be restlicted to the applicable'criteria. If you have any questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Susan Yates at the Ashlan~ Planning Department, City Hall, at 488- 5305. . PLANNING ACfION 89-071 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of 96 apartment units on land zoned E-1 and subdivision of property to create seven parcels. . Property located south of Hersey Street between the intersections of Hersey with Mountain Avenue and Williamson Way. Testimony and evidence .shall be limited to the following items identified on remand from the Land Use Board of Appeals: 1) . Evidentiary support for' findings of compliance with Comprehensive Plan Policy XII-I. This is in regard to. the Vacant Lands Study of E-I Lands within the City of Ashland~ and whether there is a 5-year supply of E-l zoned vacant lands. 2) Identification of the qualities constituting the livability and appropriate development of the abutting oroperties and the surrounding neighborhood, and determination whether the proposed use will have more thall a minimal impact on those identified qualities. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Employment~ Zoning: E-1; Assessor's Map #: 4DC; Tax Lots: 3501, 3502, and 3600 and Assessor's Map #: 9AB; Tax Lot: 6400. APPLICANT: Mike Mahar/Pacific Trend ~emorandum October 10, 1990 (REVISED) mn: Brian Almquist, City Administrator ~ rom: Steven Hall, Public Works Director ~ltbjed: Traffic Safety Commission Recommendation - Downtown Parking District ACTION REQUESTED City Council approve attached Ordinance deleting Chapter 11.28.010 and amending Chapter 11.28.050 of the Ashland Municipal Code. BACKGROUND The Traffic Safety Commission (TSC) has received numerous requests for special p~rking zones over the last several years, particularly in the Downtown Parking District. After a review of many requests, the TSC felt it would be wise to review the entire Downtown Parking District as it exists and then review that in a public forum. The Engineering Division prepared an "as .built" drawing of existing parking in the Downtown Parking Zone. TSC meetings were publicized in the local papers and participation was not on the "packed house" side, but spirited debate evolved during the discussion of options. After the discussions, the TSC came to the following conclusions: + The existing 2 hour parking (8:30am to 5:30pm except Sundays and holidays) works the best for the needs of downtown Ashland. + Loading zones were generally located for specific businesses and not necessarily ease of use by trucks and delivery vans. + There was need for 15 minute zones, general~y one per block to assist the "drop in" customers. Downtown Parking Recommendations - TSC October 10, 1990 Page Two + The commercial bus parking for Shakespeare buses on pioneer was causing a hazard with the vehicle parking, street width and sight distances at the corner of East Main Street and pioneer adjacent to the Black Swan Theater. Sight distance is also a concern at the crosswalk mid-block in Pioneer. + There was a need for additional handicap parking in the downtown.area. + There are some specialty parking zones which are not used because of a change of business. + There are some parking zones which do not match city ordinances. + There are some parking ~ones for which I can find no. record of how they were established. After a thorough review, the TSC wishes to make the following recommendations. The overall changes to the Downtown parking District are minimal in the proposal. The specific changes include: + add eleven and delete one 15 minute zone + add four handicap zones + change all four-hour zones to two-hour zones (exclusive of parking lots) + .remove two commercial bus zones on pioneer between East Main and Hargadine + transfer four parking stalls on pioneer south of East Main from west side to east side + add two commercial bus zone on Lithia Way adjacent to the new pioneer Parking Lot (Hours noon to midnight 2/28 to 11/1) + add one commercial bus zone adjacent to 149 and 151 pioneer street (Hours 5:30pm to midnight 2/28 to 11/1) + move several existing loading zones so that at least one end abuts an open or non-parking area for easier access + add one. loading zone on northeast corner of First and Hargadine + remove two loading zones, northeast corner pioneer and Hargadine, southwest corner East Main and First next to Mark Antony Hotel Downtown Parking Recommendations - TSC October 10, 1990 Page Three On May 24, 1990 the TSC held a special meeting which was publicized in the local newspapers to finalize the recommendations. A copy of the minutes of that meeting are attached for your reference. A staff recommendation is to change the limits to a "Traffic Regulation'" as attached to this memo. Chapter 11.12.020 of the Municipal Code allows the City Administrator to approve parking and traffic control. After discussing the issue with Brian Almquist, and with his approval, I am recommending that the City council approve the Ordinance. The City Administrator can then sign the attached."Traffic Regulation". This will allow administrative traffic and parking control decisions to made with the recommendation of th~ Traffic Safety Commission when required. SUMMARY + TSC recommends changes to downtown parking as per attached Traffic Regulation + Staff recommends approval of Ordinance removing parking regulations from the Municipal Code. cc: Jim Olson, Assistant City Engineer John Fregonese, Planning Director Pam Barlow, Administrative Assistant encl: Proposed Ordinance. Proposed Traffic Regulation & Map AMC 11.12.010 Staff memo 5/22/90 TSC minutes 5/24/90 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11.28 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING PARKING LIMITS AND PARKING ZONES IN THE DOWNTOWN PARKING DISTRICT. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. section 11.28.010 is hereby deleted and is to be replaced by a Traffic Regulation in substantial conformance with Exhibit A attached to this ordinance. SECTION 2. Section 11.28.050 is amended by striking the words "Section 11.28.010 and". The foregoing ordinance was first read on the day of day of October 1990 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this November 1990. Nan E. Franklin City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of October 1990. Catherine M. Golden Mayor CllY OF ASHLAND TRAFFIC REGULATION DOWNTOWN PARKING DISTRICT Approved October , 1990 Last Revision: ,1990 Ashland Munioipal Code Chapter 11.12.020 vests power in the city Administrator to establish parking zones and traffio oontrol signs on city streets. The deoision must be made on "Traffio engineering prinoiples and traffio investigations.1I The Traffic safety cODlDlission approved the proposal at the reqular meeting of May 24, 1990. The city Administrator has determined that restrioted parking in the Downtown Parking District as defined in the Ashland Munioipal code, Chapter 11.30 shall be: A) limi te.d to 2 hours from 8: 30. am to 5: 30 pm exoept Sunday and holidays exoept as noted in this Traffio Requlation. + Lithia Way from East Main street to Helman street + North Main street from Helman street to Water street + East Main street from Water street to Siskiyou Blvd. + Second Street from LithiaWay to alley south of East Main Street + east side of First Street from Lithia Way to alley south of East Main Street. + pioneer street from Lithia Way to East Main Street + Oak Street from Lithia Way to East Main Street + Water Street from Lithia Way to East Main Street + Gresham Street from East Main Street to Hargadine Street + east side of Third street between Lithia Way and East . Main Street + east side of pioneer between East Main Street and Hargadine Street except special limitations for commercial buses and. 15 minute zones listed below + first parking stall on the east side of pioneer street south of East Main street __~~__-.L- Downtown Park;ng Page 2 B) limited to 1 hour from 8:30 am to 5:30 pm except sunday and holidays. + all parking stalls on East and North Main streets surrounding the Plaza except: * handicap stalls noted below * "authorized parking only" stalls as noted below * loading z.ones as noted below . * 30 minute stalls as noted below + west side of Third street between Lithia Way and East Main street except 15 minute zone noted below C) limited to 30 minutes from 8:30 am to 5:30 pm except sunday and holidays. + five stalls located adjacent to the northerly and easterly side of the Plaza + east side of Oak street from Lithia Way north to the north property line of 170 Oak street + west side of North pioneer street adjacent to 149 and 151 pioneer street. D) limited to 15 minutes from 8:30 am to 5:30 pm except Sunday and holidays. + fifth stall east of Water street on the north side of East Main street + first stall east and west of pioneer street on north side of East Main street + first stall west of pioneer street on south side of East Main street + fourth stall west of First street on north side of East Main street + second stall west of First street on south side of East Main street + fifth stall west of Second $treet on the north side of East Main Street + third stall west of Second street on the south side of East Main Street + first stall south of Lithia Way on west side of Tpird street + first two stalls south of Lithia Way on west side of Oak street + the first stall on pioneer street north of Hargadine street and the first stall south of the crosswalk mid- block of pioneer north of Hargadine street Downtown Parking Page 3 + the first stall east of Calle Guanajuato on the north side of Winburn Way + first two stalls south of Lithia Way on west side of Oak street E} limited to 15 minutes from 8:30 am. to 5:30.pm except sunday and holidays for Chamber of Commerce Only + first stall east of pioneer street on south side of East Main street in front of Chamber of Commerce F} limited to 5 minutes from 8:30 am to 5:30 pm Monday through Friday. + first two stalls on East Main street on north side of City Hall . + first three stalls east of First street on north side of Lithia Way adjacent to u.s. Post Office G} handicap parking. + first stall on North Main street on north side of south crosswalk to Plaza + first stall on.East Main street on the south side of the crosswalk to Plaza + first stall on the northeast corner of Oak street and East Main street on pioneer street + first stall on the northeast corner of pioneer street and East Main street + first stall on the southeast corner of First street and East Main street on First street + first stall on the northwest corner of Second street and East Main street on Second street + four stalls designated in the Hargadine Parking Lot + two stalls designated in the Pioneer/Lithia Way Parking Lot + one stall designated in the west. side Water street Parking Lot H} loading zone, 15 minute limit 6:00 am to 5:30 pm except sundays and holidays. + 6th stall west of pioneer street on the south side of East Main Street + 3rd stall west of First Street on the south side of East Main street Downtown Parking Page 4 + 1st stall east of First street on the south side of East Main street + 1st stall west of Third street on the north side of East Main street + east side of North Main street from East Main street to Winburn Way + the stall on the northeast corner diagonal of pioneer street and Hargadine street I) loading zone, 15 minute 9:00 am to 9:00 pm. + 1st stall north of Hargadine street on east side of First street J) Authorized Vehicles only + from 8:30 am to 5:30 pm, from Winburn Way north on east side of East Main street adjacent to City Hall, 5 stalls + from 8:30 am to 11:00 pm, first stall north of crosswalk adjacent to Plaza on East Main street X) commercial bus parking (oregon Shakespeare Festival) February 28 through November 1 annually. + the third and fourth stalls on the east side of pioneer street south of East Main street + from noon to midnight, the stalls east of pioneer street to the entrance to the pioneer Parking Lot on the north side of Lithia Way + from 5:30 pm to midnight, the 30 minute parking zone adjacent to 149 and 151 pioneer street L) public transit bus stops + first area east of Gresham street on south side of East Main street in front of Public Library + first area west of Second Street on north side of Lithia Way + south side of North Main Street between Granite and Plaza + north side of LithiaWay east of Water Street bridge. + south side of East Main street immediately west of First street M) commercial bus parking + in front of bus depot, 91 Oak Street Downtown Parking Page 5 N) no parking zone + Water street from Lithia Way north to end of the Downtown Parking District + Lithia Way from east sideof.Water street Bridge west to end of the Downtown Parking District + North Main street from Church street west to end of Parking District + south side of North Main street and East Main street . between Water street and Oak street + west side of pioneer street between East Main street and Hargadine street + west side of First street between Lithia Way and East Main street + north side of Hargadine street between pioneer street and First street + southeasterly side of Hargadine street from Second Street to Gresham street + north and south side of East Main street between Third street and siskiY9U Blvd ' + all other areas marked by yellow curbs (Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 11.24.020.F) + first three stalls in front of the Varsity Theater, 166 East Main street The Public Works Director is directed to install the necessary signs and/or street markings as required as soon as feasible. The ~iolation of this Traffic Requlation shall be an infraction and shall be subject to the penalty in Chapter 1.08.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code. All requirements of Chapters 11.24, 11.28 and 11.30 of the Ashland Municipal Code apply to this Traffic Requlation. Approved ,1990 by: Brian Almquist, city Administrator cc: Public Works Director Police Chief Assistant City Engineer Street Superintendent Traffic Safety commission ~..~-J C!CT 16 .' 90 1 7 : 07 RA~.U< I t..l r1ER'3EREAU 8: =;HANr...l0r.i P.2 RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON PROVIDING FOR THE ISSOANCE AND SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS TO FINANCE CERTAIN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NO.T TO EXCEED $665, 000 A~O DECLARING AN EMERGENCY WHEREAS, the City of Ashland,. Oregon (the "City") has . caused certain improvements 1n the City to be constructed, each at the expense of the abutting property owners, an~ has duly assessed the costs of such improvements upon the lots, blocks and parts thereof, and parcels of real property being directly benefited by these local improvements in accordance with the provisions of lawI and WHEREAS, applications to pay the assessments in installments, as provided by Oregon Revised Statutes 223.205 to and including 223.295, have been duly filed by the owners of the benefited properties with additional applications expected to be filed prior to the issuance of any bonds (such applications already filed and those additional applications filed prior to the issuanoe of any bonds are collectively referred to herein as ~the Applications"), and WHEREAS, each of the Applications shall be for improvements in the sum of $25.00 or more, and the amount remaining unpaid upon each assessment for which Applications are filed, together with the unpaid balance of any previous assessments for improvements against the' same proper ty, shall not exceed twice the assessed value of the benefited real property as shown by the last county tax ro111 and WHEREAS, each Application provides that the property owner agrees to pay the assessment in equal semi-annual installments over a term of 10 years, together with interest at the rate prescribed by law, and each Applleation has stated that the applicant and property owner does waive all irregUlarities Or defect8~ juriSdictional or otherWise, in the proceedings to cause the improvements to be constructed for which the assessment is levied and in apportionment of the cos~ thereof, and RESOLUTION - ~age 1. OCT 16 '90 17:08 RANKIN MERSEREAU & SHANNON P.3 WHEREAS, the City now wishes to issue bonds pursuant to Oregon RevisedStaeutes 223.235 to and including 223.260, to finance the unpai4 assessments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Section 1. Authorization of ISSuance. The C1ty, a muniCipal corporatlon of the State of Oregon, does hereby authorize the issuance and sale of its negotiable general obligation improvem,ent bonds in the aggregate principal amount not to eX~eed Six Hundred Sixty Five Thousand Dollars ($665,000) for the purpose of funding costs incurred or to be incurred by the City in the making of local improvements (as defined in Oregon Revised Statutes 223.387) within the City. Assessments against the benefited properties for the cOlts of the improvements have been duly levied upon the real property directly benefited thereby and such assessments have been duly docketed in the lien docket of the City and are lien. against the several pieces of benefited pr6perty and the owners of several parcels of benefited property affected by such asseSBmente have heretofore file~, or will file prior to the issuance of any bon~B, in writing their Application to pay the assessments in installments as provided by law, all as more fully set forth in Section 2 of this Ordinance. Section 2. Projects Bein9 'inanced. That. the particular improvements to whieh the Applications apply and the date of the ordinanee assessing the same are as followe, to-witl Project Ord inance Da te Current Balance Mi stl etoe Road September 12, 1990 $137,440.40 Alley-Lincoln Street September 12, 1990 908. 97 Terrace Street September 12, 1990 190,257.48 Orchard , Sunnyv1ew Streets Sep.tember 12, 1990 58,195.27 Ashland Mine Road September 12, 1990 65,925.37 Hersey North Main & Hersey Water September 12, 1990 86,113.99 N ev ad a September 12, 1990 29,751.00 Wightman September 12, 1990 93 , 21 7 . 86 $661,810.34 Section 3. Maximum Interest Rate. The Bonds Shall be negotiable general obligation improvement bonds of the City and shall bear a maximum true effective tate of interest of not to exceed nine percent (9') per annum, payable semi-annually. The Bonds shall be payable in any coin or currency which at the time RESOLUTION - Page 2. OCT 16 ' 90 1 7 : 08 RAt'lK I N MERSEREAU 2.: SHAt'~NON P.4 o'f payment is le9al tender for the payment of publie and privat.e debts within the united States of America. Section 4. Terms of Bonds. The Bonds shall be entitled "City of Ashland, Jacklon County, Oregon General Obl19ation Improvement Bonde, Ser ies 1990" (the "BonCJs11) and shall bear the manual Or facsimile signature of the Mayor of the City and the manual or facsimile signat.ure of the City Recorder of the City. In addition, the City does hereby request and authorize the Bond Registrar to execute the Certificat.e of Authentication as of the date of delivery of the Bonds. The Bonde shall be issued in fully registered form, shall be in denominations of Five Thousan~ Dollars ($5,000) each, or integral multiples thereof, except for a single bond which may be in an odd amount, shall be dated November 1, 1990, shall be numbered sequent.ia1ly beq1nning with R-l, and shall mature in annual installments on the 1st day of November, approximately as follows: YEAR AMOUNT 1991 $ 95,000 1992 90,000 1993 60,000 1994 60,000 19.95 60,000 1996 60,000 1997 60,000 1998 60,000 1999 60,000 2000 60,000 $665,000 ~J;(1 The City Council hereby authorizes the City M~( or the Finance Direotor to modify the principal amount and maturities of the Bonc!8 to account for any Appl ications filed dur in9 the per iod after the enaetment of this Ord inanee and the publ ishing ot the Notice of Sale: provided, how,ver, that the maximum amount of Bond.s that may be issued pursuant to th1s Ordinance may not exceed $665,000. Section 5. Payment of Bonas. The principal of the Bonas shall be payable upon ~ellvery of the Bonds at maturity at the principal corporate trust office of the Paying Agent in Portland, Oregon. Payment of each installment of interest due on November 1 and May 1, of each year commencing May 1, 1991 shall be made by check or draft of the Paying Agent mailed to the regist.ered owner thereof whose name and ad4ress appears on the registration books of. .the City maintained by the Paying RESOLUTION - Page 3. OCT 16 ' 90 1 7 : 09 RANK I 1'1 f"lERSEREAU R SHAt~t'IOr.'l P.5 Agent as of the cl08e of business on the 15th day of the month next preceding the interest payment date. If such date is not a business day, then the business day immediately prece~in9 such 15th day of the month shall be utilized as the record date. Section 6. Optional Redemption. The Bonds of this issue maturing after November 1, 1997 are redeemable at the option of the City on November 1, 1997 and on a~y interest payment date theteafter at par together with accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption. Such Bonds are redeemable, in whole or in part, in integral multiples of $5,000 in inverse order of maturity and by lot within a maturity. Notice of r~demption shall be published as provided by law and shall be given by first class mail not lees than thirty (30) days prior to the date fixed for redemption to the registered owners of each Bond to be redeemed at the address shown on the registration books of the City. Bonds are redeemable at the office of the Paying Ag en t . Section 7. Form of Bon4s. The Bonds shall be issued substantially in the form set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this ~eference. Section 8. A~pointment of pa~ing Agent and Registrar. The City does appoint and des1gnate Unlted States National Bank of Oreqon, Portland, Oregon, as the paying Aqent and Registrar of the Bonds. The Finance Director ie authorized to negot1ate and execute on behalf of the City a Paying Agent and Registrar Agreement. The Agreement shall provide for compliance with Oregon Administrative Rule 170-61-010. Section 9. Transfer of Sonds. The Bonds are transferable, or subject to exchange, for fully registered Bonde in the denomination of $5,000, or integral multiples thereof, by the registered owne~ thereof in person, or by the owner's attorney duly autho r ized in wr i tine;, a t the office of the Bond Reg istr ar . The Paying Agent shall maintain a record of the names and addresses of the registered owners of the Bonde. The records of . registered bon~ ownership are not pUblic records within the meaning of Oregon Revised Statutes 1~2.410(4). All bonds issued upon transfer, or in exchange, for Bonde shall be valid general obligations of the City evidencing the lame debt and entitle~ to the same benefits as the Bonde 8urrendere~ for such exchange or transfer. All fees, expenses and charges of the Paying Agent and Registrar shall be payable by the City. The Registrar shall not be required to transfer or exchange any Bond called or being called for redemption or after: the close of business on the 15th day of the month next preceding any interest payment date. RESOLUTION - page 4. OCT 16 '90 17:10 RANKIN MERSEREAU & SHANNON P.6 Section 10. Printing of .Bon41. The rinance Director is authorized to contract for the printing of the Bonds. The ,inance Director may provi4e for the printing of, in ad4ition to the original issue of Bon~., additional bondl to be printed in blank form al to registration and to be designated by appropriate number for the Registrar for delivery to the registered owner upon transfer or exchange of Bondi. The additional bon~8 shall be dated as of,November 1, 1990, shall be signed by the facsimile signature of. the present Mayor of the City and the prelent City Recorder: of the City and the Registrar shall manually lign the Certificate of Authentication a. of the date of the transfer of the Bondi. Section 11. Secur it.I for Bonds. The Bonds are lecured in part by the payments rece v8d 5y' the City from the owners of the benefi ted property who have filed appl icatione to pay the amount of the a..elemente in installments, by the lien of the assessment upon the real property directly benefited al dockete~ in the records of the City and by the obligation of the City to levy unlimited ad valorem taxes upon all taxable property within the City in the event insufficient revenues from other legally available revenues are insufficient to pay the Bonds. The City each year shall levy a direct property tax in such amount as will be sufficient to pay in full the principal of and the interest upon the Bonds at the respective due dates thereof after first taking into consideration other aourees and revenues legally available for the payment thereof. Section 12. De8i nation .e t Obligation. The C y ere y e819n8 ee t e Bon B or purpoees of paragraph (3) of Section 265 (b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, (the "Code") as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" and covenants that the Bonds do not con8titute private activity bondl al ~efine~ in Section 141 of the Code, and that not more than $10,000,000 aggregate principal amount of obligations the interest on which is excludable under Section 103 (a) of the Code from grols income for fec!era1 income ta.x purposel (excluding, however, private activity bonds other than qualified 501(0)(3) bon~s) including the Bonde, have been or .hall be issued by the City, includinq al11ubordinate entities of the City, if any, during the calendar year 1990. Section 13. Covenant a8 to Arbitrage. The proceeds of the Bonds shall be u.e~ and lnve.te~ in such manner that the Bonde Shall not become Warbitrage bondsw within the meaning of Seotion 148 of the Code and the regulation, 18.ue~ the~eunder. The City covenants that, within itl lawful power., it will not do, and will refrain from. doing, anything in the issuance of the Bonds and in .the investment and expend'1ture of the proc..48 .thereof which woulc5 result in the interest on the Bonds becoming taxable lorfed.ral income tax purposes. RESOLUTION - page 5. OCT 16 ' 90 17: 11 RANKIN rvlERSEREAU & SHANNON P.? Section 14. Exception for Small Governmental Units. The City finds and determ1nes that the Bonds comply with the statutory requirements of Section 148(f)(4)(C) of the Code in that the City is a governmental unit having general taxing powers, the Bonda are not being issued for a private activity purpose, more than 95' of the net proceeds of the Bon4s will be u8e~ for local governmental activities of the City, and the aggregate face amount of all tax-exempt obligations which will be issued by the City during the calendar year 1990 is not reasonably expected to exceed $5,000,000. Section 15. Sale of Bonds. The Finance Director is authorized to establish a date of sale and to advertise the Bon~sfor public sale at a price not leS8 than 98t of par value thereof and accrued interest to date of delivery. The Notice of Sale shall be published as provided by law. The Notice of Sale shall specify that the City reserves the tight to reject any and all bide, and in other respects the Notice shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 287 of Oregon Revised Statutes, a8 amended. All ratea bid must be in integral multiples of one one-thousandth- of one percent (.OOlt). All Bonds of the same maturity must bear a single rate of interest from the date of issue to maturity. The interest rate for any single maturity may not exceed nine percent (9'). Section 16. Appointment of Bon~ Counsel. Messrs. Rankin Mersereau and Shannon of Portland, Oregon are hereby appointed Bond Counsel tor the issuance of the Bonds. Section 17. Appointment of Financial Advilor. Moore, Breithaupt & AssocIates 1s hereby appointed financial advisor to the City for the i8suance of the Bonds. Section 18. preliminar~ and Final Official Statement. The City shall prepare B preliminary official statement for the Bonds, which shall be available fO,r dlstr ibut10n to prospective bi~derl not later than the date on which the notice of bon~ sale is fir st published. When adv ised by staff tha t the final offioial statement does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary to make the statements contained in the official statement not misleading in the light of the circumstances under which they are made, the Finance Director is authorized to certify the accuracy of the official statement on behalf of the City. Section 19. Execution of Documents. The Finance Director iS8uthorized to execute theCertiflcate as to Arbitrage and any and all additional documents which may be reasonably requir.ed to issue, sell ah~ ~eliver ~he Bonds. RESOLUTION - Page 6. OCT 16 ' 90 17: 12 RANK I N f1ERSEREAU & SHANNON P.8 Passed by the City Council of the City of Ashland this 16th day of October, 1990. AYES NAYS ABSTAIN Signed and approved by the Mayor of the City of Ashland this ____ day of October, 19S0. Mayor ATTESTs CI ty Recorder RESOLUTION - Page 7. Number R- Dated: November I. 1990 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF OREGON CITY OF ASHLAND ~ACKSON COUNTY. OREGON GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BOND SERIES 1990 Rate of Interest: 7. Per Annum Maturity Date: CUSIP Refer to reverse side for Additional Provision Registered Owner ErJnciQ.al Amount DOLLARS City of Ashland. ~ackson Count'll Oregon (the "City"> for value received. acknowledges itself indebted and herl"by promises to pay to the registered owner. or registered assigns. on the maturity date. the principal amount and to pay interest thereon from the date of this Bond. or from the most recent interest payment ~ate to which interest has been paid. at the rate of interest per annum set forth above on the 1st day of November and the 1st day of May of each year commencing May I. 1991 until the principal amount is paid either at maturity or upon prior redemption. The principal of this Bond is payable in lawful money of the United State~ of America upon presentation at the princip~l corporate trust office of United states National Bank of Oregon in Portland. Oregon. as Pa~ing Agent and Bond Registrar. Payment of each installment o' interest shall be made to the registered owner hereof whose name appears on the registration books of the City maintained bll the Paying Agent as of the close of business on the 15th"day of the month next preceding any interest payment date. If such date is not a business day, then the business d~y prior to the 15th day of the month next preceding the interest payment date shall be the record date. Interest payments shall be paid by the check or draft of the P~ying Agent mailed by the Paying Agent on the interest payment date to the registered owner at the addresS as it appears on the registration books. The Bond Registrar shall not be required to transfer or exchange any Bond (1) after the close of business on the 15th day of th~ month next preceding any interest payment date. or (2) called or being called for redemption REFERENCE IS HEREBY MADE TO THE ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS OF THIS BOND SET FORTH ON THE REVERSE SIDE HEREOF, AND SUCH ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS S~ALL ~fAVE THE SAME EFFECT AS IF FULLV SET FORTH HERE. It is hereby certified. recited and declared that all acts, conditions and things required to exist. happen and be performed precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond do exist, have happened and have been performed in the ferm and manner required by the ConstitutiOn and statutes of the State of Oregon and that this Bond. together with all other indebtedne.. 0' the City. does not exceed any limitation prescribed by law. The full faith and credit of the City is hereby pledged for the payment of the principal of,' premium. if any. and interest on this Bond as the s.me respectively become due and payable. The Bonds are valid and legally binding obligation. of the City and are authorized and issued pursuant to the laws of the State of Oregon and Ordinance No. ---- passed by the Council of the City on October 16. 1990. This Bond shall not be valid or become obligatory until the Certificate of Authentication h~reon shall hav~ been signed by the Bond Registrar. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the Council of the City has caused this Bond to be ~xecuted by the facsimile signatuTP of its Mayor 3nd attested by the facsimile signature of its City Recorder. all as of the 1st day of November, 1990. Date of Authentication: CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICf\TlQ-'~!' This Bond is one of the Bonds described in the within-mentioned Ordin~nce and is one of the General Obligation Improvement Bonds. Series 1990. of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon. t1ayor Attest: UNITED STATES NATIONAL BANK OF OREGON as Bond Registrar City Recorder By ^utho~i7.ed Officer ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS This Bond is one of an authorized series of general obI igation improvement bonds aggregating $ in pr inc ipal amount and is authorized by the laws of the State of Oregon, particularly by Oregon Revised Statutes, Section 223.205 to 223.295, inclusive, and Ordinance No. enacted by the Council of the City on October 16, 1990. The Bonds maturing after November 1, 1997, are subject to call and redemption, at the option of the City, on November 1, 1997, and on any interest payment date thereafter at par value, together with interest accrued to the date of redemption. The Bonds shall be subject to redemption in whole or in part, in integral multiples of $5,000, in inverse order of maturity and by lot within a maturity. Notice of redemption shall be published as provided by law and shall be given by first class mail not less than thirty (30) days prior to the date fixed for redemption to the registered owner of each Bond to be redeemed at the address shown on the registration books of the City. Bonds called for redemption shall be payable at the office of the Paying Agent. This Bond is transferable by the registered owner hereof in person or by the owner's attorney duly authorized in writing at the principal corporate trust office of the Bond Registrar in Portland, Oregon, but only in the manner and subject 'to the limitations provided in the authorizing Ordinance and upon surrender and cancellation of this Bond. Upon such transfer, a new Bond or Bonds of authorized denominations of the same maturity and for the same aggregate principal amount will be issued to the transferee. The Bonds are issued in fully registered form in the denomination of $5,000 each or any integral multiple thereof, except for a single bond which may be in an odd amount. This Bond may be exchanged at the principal corporate trust office of the Bond Registrar for a like aggregate principal amount of Bonds of the same maturity of other authorized denominations, upon the terms set forth in the Ordinance. The City and the Bond Registrar may deem and treat the registered owner hereof as the absolute owner hereof for the purpose of receiving payment of the principal hereof and interest due hereon and for all other purposes and neither the City nor the Bond Registrar shall be affected by any notice to the contrary. The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of the within Bond, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according toappli~able laws or reg ul a tions. TEN COM - as tenants in common TEN ENT - as tenants by the entireties JT TEN - as joint tenants with eight of survivorship and not as tenants in common UNIF TRAN MIN ACT Custodian (Cus t) (Mino r) under Uniform Transfers to Minors Act ( S tate) Additional abbreviations may also be used though not set forth above. ASSIGNMENT FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned sells, assigns and tr ansfer s un to PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR QT'HER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE / / (Name and Address of Assignee) the within Bond and all rights thereunder, and hereby irrevocably constitutes and appoints as attorney to transfer the within Bond on the Bond Register kept for registration thereof, with full power of substitution in the premises. Da te d : Note: The signature(s) on this assignment must correspond with the name(s) as written on the face of the within registered Bond in every particular without alteration or enlargement or any change whatsoever. Signature Guaranteed: (Commercial bank, trust company or member of a national stock exchange) RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OPPOSING PROPOSED DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY RULES FOR ILLEGAL DRUG CLEAN-UP PROGRAM. WHEREAS, the Environmental Quality Commission has adopted temporary rules establishing procedures and policies for the illegal Drug Lab Clean-up Program; and WHEREAS, the Department of Environmental Quality has proposed these rules for adoption as permanent rules; and WHEREAS, illicit drug labs ~re a product of drug activities that are violations of State and Federal laws; and WHEREAS, the financial and personnel demands which will be incurred through this proposed clean-up program will reach far beyond our available resources; and WHEREAS, lab clean-up costs may be as high as $35,000 for a single lab. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF ASHLAND DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Mayor and City Council of the City of Ashland strongly opposes any cost-share program for illicit drug lab clean-ups and we urge the Environmental Quality Commission to reject ,the concept of passing State responsibility to local agencies. SECTION 2. That the Environmental Quality Commission work with the State Legislatur~ to establish a system whereby dedicated funds can be obtained for the cost of the Illegal Drug Lab Clean-up Program. The foregoing Resolution was READ and DULY ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Ashland City Council" on the day of 1990. Nan E. Franklin City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 1990. Catherine M. Golden Mayor ~emnrandum October 10, 1990 ij[ 0: Brian Almquist, city Administrator Jff rom: ~ubjed: Robert D. Nelson, Risk Management Analyst Opportunity to Reduce Insurance Premium Expense For purposes of funding liability claims, the City has for several years particIpated in the City- County Insurance Services risk pool. (The C.C.I.S. is co-sponsored by the League of Oregon cities and the Association of Oregon Counties).' This program has enabled the City to achieve not only "premium" stability, but substantial out-of-pocket savings as well. The C.C.I.S. now offers an improved program for funding property damage losses from fire, windstorm "and the like. . Basically, the program consists of risk pooling, plus commercial reinsurance for excess losses. The city would retain $10,000 annual aggregate as in the past. The new approach differs from the existing plan primarily because of the pooling feature. In earlier years, C.C.I.S. property loss coverage was essentially a mechanism whereby commercial insurance could be purchased wholesale. I have examined the new program and concluded that it, together with other cost-saving efforts on our part, will achieve an up-front saving of about $2.,800 per year, plus stability or even reduction of future years' "premium" costs. The risk is practically zero. Because of the switch from wholesale insurance purchasing to a pooling arrangement, the. C.C.I.S. requires adoption of a resolution (see attached) . Respectfully submitted, /Y3t,i~ Rober4:/D. Nelson Risk Management Analyst cc: Nan Franklin, city Recorder Jill Turner, Director of Finance RESOLUTION NUMBER 90- A RESOLUTION REGARDING MEMBERSHIP IN THE CITY/COUNTY INSURANCE SERVICE TRUST PROPERTY SELF-INSURANCE POOL WHEREAS, the city/County Insurance Services Trust (CIS) offers pooled self-insurance offering cost stability and the potential for long-term savings; and WHEREAS, CIS is sponsored by the League of Oregon cities and the Association of Oregon Counties as a service to Oregon cities and counties; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland finds that membership in CIS is of benefit in managing the risks involved in providing services to its citizens; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland has been provided with an opportunity to review the Trust agreement, Bylaws and Rules of CIS; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland has reviewed the Trust Agreement, Bylaws and Rules of CIS for compliance with the Charter and Ordinances of the City of Ashland; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Ashland, that the city of Ashland does hereby enter into a contract with CIS and becomes a member of the CIS Trust for Property. for a three-year period commencing' December 15, 1990, and agrees to abide by the terms of the Trust Agreement, Bylaws and Rules of CIS which, along with this Resolution, constitutes a contract between the City of Ashland and CIS. The City Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents as are necessary pursuant to this Resolution. The foregoing Resolution was READ and DULY ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Ashland on the day of , 1990. Nan E. Franklin City R~corder signed and approved this day of , 1990. Catherine M. Golden Mayor