The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991-0219 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 wt,ich 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 aoenda. AGENDA POR TIIB REGULAR OETING ASJILAHD CJ:TY COUHCJ:L FEBRUARY 19, 1991 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 7:30 P.M., Civic Center Council Chambers II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Reqular Meeting of February 5, 1991. IV. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions & Committees. 2. Departmental Reports - January 1991. 3. Endorsement of application for special assessment of historic property at 1023 E. Main street (Robert J. Ellis, Appl icant) . 4. Memo from Public Works Director regarding snow report for 1991. V. PUBLIC HEARING: (to conclude by 9:30 P.M.) 1. Request for revisions to the Ashland Municipal Code Land- use Ordinance regarding Sections 18.20.030 (Conditional Use for Accessory Residential Units); 18.92.020 (Parking Standards); 18.24.020, 18.24.030, 18.28.020, and 18.28.030 (Condominiums); 18.88 (Performance Standards Option); 18.24.040 (Base Density of R-2 Zone and Outdoor Recreation Space requirement); and 18.72.100 C. (delete Open Space requirement of site Design and Use Standards). VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Reconsideration of decision on appeal by David Shaw for variance at 673 Siskiyou Blvd. ' 2. Adoption of Findings, Conclusions & Orders - Houghton. 3. Adoption of Findings, Conclusions & Orders - Cox. VII. NEW & MISCELLANEOUS BUSI~SS: 1. Annual Report on first year of operation of Ashland Cable Access Channel by Pete Belcastro, Director. 2. Letter from Steve Zenos, 355 Grant street, regarding bicycle safety on Siskiyou Blvd.bikepath. 3. Letter from Jill lIes requesting waiver of banner fee for Earth Day banner. 4. Request from Medford Growers Market to use on-street parking on Water Street from N. Main to Parking lot (one side). VIII. PUBLIC FORUM: Business from 'the audience not ~ncluded on the agenda. (Limited to 15 minutes) IX. {i/J, cZ/ / fPtQI.dt/~ /),~t1 d2~L3 ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS & CONTRACTS: ~. Second reading by title only of an ordinance amending the rules of the Council with respect to public hearings. y' 2. va- · /4. (J~cI c:l.~/y ~ 'l1-tlV 10. 5. Second reading by title only of an ordinance amending the Land-use Title of the A.M.C. relative to manufactured housing. (C9pies furnished in accord with Charter.) Second reading by title only of an ordinance amending the Land-use Title of the A.M.C. relative to traveller's accommodations. (Copies furnished ~n accord with Charter) Second reading by title only of an ordinance amending the Land-use Title of the A.M.C. concerninq bicycle parking and street standards. (Copies" furnished in accord with Charter) First reading by title only of an ordinance annexing a contiguous area to the City of Ashland, Oregon and providing for an effective date. (Crowson Road Annexation) (Copies furnished in accord with the Charter) 6. First reading by title only of an ordinance withdrawing recently annexed real property from Jackson Co. Fire District No.5. (Crowson Road Annexation) (Copies furnished in accord with the Charter) First reading by title only of an ordinance re-zoning certain property from RR-5 to R-1-10-P. (Crowson Road Annexation) (Copies furnished in accord with the Charter) 7. 8. First reading by title only of an ordinance amending Chapter 4.26 of the Ashland Municipal Code concerning Transportation Utility Fees. (Copies furnished in accord with the Charter) 9. First reading by title only of an ordinance annexing a contiguous area to the City of Ashland, Oregon and providing for an effective date. (Secure Storage) First reading by title only of an ordinance withdrawing recently annexed real property from Jackson Co. Fire District No.5. (Secure Storaqe) First reading by title only of an ordinance re-zoning certain property from RR-5 to E-1. (Secure Storage) 12. Resolution setting affordable housing "income levels and rental and purchased cost levels. 11. 13. Contractual Services Agreement with E.R. Bashaw for City Attorney services (interim City Attorney). 14. Approval of Earnest Money receipt for purchase of landa:t Second and E. Main for public parking lot. x. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS XI. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 5,1991 CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Catherine Golden called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance at 7:38 PM on the above date in the Council Chambers. Laws, Reid, Acklin, Winthrop and Arnold were present. Williams was absent. CONSENT AGENDA - Mayor Golden noted that a letter from David & Carolyn Shaw was on the table requesting reconsideration of appeal for a variance on property located at 673 Siskiyou Blvd. (Item 5 on the Consent Agenda). Reid asked that Item 7, Confirmation of, appointment of Keith E. Woodley as Fire Chief, and authorization to, sign employment agreement be pulled for discussion. Mayor asked if Item 5 would be pulled as well and Acklin moved to' approved Items 1 through 4 and 6 and Arnold seconded. All ayes. Item 5 was postponed until later in the meeting and regarding Item 7, Reid asked how Woodley's salary range was determined. Almquist said a survey of 10 other cities showed an average salary of $53,394, Ashland's range was 46,788 to 54,864 so it.was agreed to pay Woodley $52,752. Reid moved to approve Item #5 and Winthrop seconded, all ayes on roll call vote. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Laws moved to accept the Minutes as presented and Arnold seconded. All ayes on voice vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS A proposal to close S. Pioneer St. to motor vehicle traffic from the Park & Recreation' Dept. offices to the first house. Ken Mickelsen, Director of Park and Rec. 'summarized the request stating approval of the Planning, Bicycle, Traffic Safety Commissions. Slides were shown of the hazards of S. Pioneer. The public hearing was opened. Barbara Wight, 180 Vista, knows of only one accident in the 30 years she's lived there. She said she was never notified even after protesting at the very onset of the proposal. She reminded Council that this is an access to the park for people who do not have any choice but to drive. It is also the route people take to avoid the' congestion downtown, which will get even.worse when the Plaza is renovated. She said Fork St. also becomes a dirt road and is far more dangerous than S. Pioneer but people will use it if S. Pioneer is closed. A resident on S. Pioneer suggested S. Pioneer be made one way so that joggers, bikers and walkers can be accommodated. She never saw a problem like shown in the slides where a car is forced into the ditch. Claudia Everett, 138-140 S. Pioneer, has agreed to work with city regarding an easem'ent' for a cul-de-sac but didn't. want to feel forced into a decision. Winthrop asked if .she is in favor of closing the street and, 'after some hesitation, she said yes but was unsure of the repercussions. Lee Howard, Parks Commissioner, made it clear that this was to be a temporary measure, for two years. The public hearing was closed. Reid asked if other needs arose, could the street be' opened and Mickelsen said yes. The reason the Park Commission recommended a temporary closure was so that the street can remain a dedicated street. The. street will not be vacated. Winthrop asked for a ball park figure for the proposed cul-de':'sac and questioned if it was being considered in Park's budget? Mickelsen said Engineering would have to work up cost proposal and the source has not been determined. Reid felt the road would be safer if closed but was concerned with pedestrian/biking accidents. She urged staff not to neglect this issue when determining the proposed turnaround so as not to create a hazard. The Mayor liked the suggestion of the Regular Meeting - Ashland City Council .~ February 5, 1991 - P. 1 street being one way because it was more predictable and suggested doing it on a trial, basis. Planning Director Fregonese said a one way street usually allows a return couplet but would be inappropriate in this case. Howard noted if the street was made one way, it should be paved and that would be costly. Acklin said she drove around S. Pioneer and felt she was the only car using that street and she and she also had budget concerns and she felt a two year trial was too ambitious and suggested a 3-6 month trial while budget items are considered by Park ,Commission. Arnold said closing the street won't work without providing a cul-de-sac, and he sympathized with people who are forced to drive. Mickelsen suggested that it be considered in next year's budget as a Council goal. The Park Commission looked at the one way option but didn't feel it would be feasible. Reid said it's dangerous to drive and more dangerous to walk with blind curves, and felt a one way situation still jeopardized users. Acklin moved to make S. Pioneer temporarily one way into Granite Street for 6 months and look into future plans to accomplish closure after researching costs. Laws. seconded. Laws said walkers and joggers don't seem too intimidated and felt one way would be much safer than the existing situation. The motion failed with Reid" Winthrop and Arnold voting no and Laws and Acklin voting yes. Arnold moved to postpone the issue and request that the Park Commission come up with a full proposal for a budget before presenting it to Council again. All ayes on roll call vote. Appeal of PA No. 90-218 for final plan approval on Logan Drive, Appellants Steve and Crissy Barnett. The Mayor asked the public to address the criteria only, any variance from that may be stricken from the record. She noted the huge volume of information in the packet and was sure all issues had been addressed already. Reid asked Fregonese what opportunity does person have to appeal the outline plan? Fregonese said outline plan is planning action in its own right and can be appealed following the procedures for appeal as outlined in the land use ordinance. Winthrop said he visited the site for the third time with Public Works Director Steve Hall. Arnold visited site and received material from Barnetts not included in the packet, Reid visited site and got material, Laws got material, Acklin drove by but didn't get material, Mayor drove by the site. Fregonese summarized substantial conformance of comp plan referencing page 16 of the Outline Plan record. Erosion control and street grade bear on this decision. Council needs to determine if these two issues are in substantial, conformance with the Outline Plan. He said issues of safety are superfluous at this point because they were dealt with in the Outline Plan. The public hearing was opened. D'WAYNE SCHULTZ, Attorney for ~he applicant, asked that all documents be included in the record. The proposal determined at least two plausible locations for the proposed subdivision, and was sent back to the Planning Commission for a decision. Two public hearings were held and they ,did establish the location of the intersection and determined the present location was, in fact, in substantial conformance with outline plan. Planning Commission refused to allow certain documents in the file saying they didn't seem necessary. Appellant doesn't specify what data would have been/relevant for the decision. The Applicant did what was asked and was approved. TOM HOWSER, Appellant's Attorney, asked that maps be made part of the record. He said the requirements of the original outline plan have not been met. The 'location of the road was moved without notification. At least two portions exceed the maxim~m 15% grade and proposal does not meet standards. The material delivered by the Barnetts is included in the record. ROBERT BLANTON, Consulting Engineer in Medford, was asked to review the proposal for conformance of original conditions of approval. He said they do not conform, that the approach exceeds the minimum required 15% by one full 6th or 7th. It is not safe. Mr. Hall's comments require 200-300 feet, applicant has 90. It does not have proper site distances but said changes were possible to make it work. ROGER KAUBLE, Engineer, 173 E. Hersey, Regular Meeting - Ashland City Council - February 5, 1991 - P. 2 admitted to' making an error in his calculations but his intention was to meet full criteria. When road is finally built, he guarantees it will be no greater than 15%. ED HOUGHTON, 185 Scenic, referenced the blown up photos and said the stop sign is temporary. JOANNE HOUGHTON, 185 Scenic, said this is the seventh public hearing on this matter. She felt they did what they were supposed to do and received Planning Commission approval. She recommended that Council uphold the Planning Commission decision and give endorsement to this project. JOHN BARTON, 300 Kent St., noted that City takes steps to insure that standards are met and the application went through all the hoops and was approved by staff, the Planning Commission and Public Works Director. TIM CUSICK, 167 Church, 300' from proposed street, felt application is in substantial compliance. JONATHAN LANG said the applicants have continued to satisfy requests of the PJanning Commission during the democratic process while the appellants have shifted. D'WA YNE SHULTZ, rebuttle, said it was'.not Council's job to try to resolve technical data. Almquist noted four letters and a petition be made part of the record. Fregonese said street standard is 125 feet for distances between intersections of streets and the Planning Commission's direction to move the street was not part of the outline plan. Also, that 35 feet and 6% grade are not standards, but was , advice given to Planning Commission from Asst. City Engineer. The difference is 6.SOk as opposed to 6%, and is a condition of approval but not a standard from the municipal code. The public hearing was closed. The Mayor entertained a motion. Winthrop felt the application was not in conformance. No one has stated the road exceeds 15% from center line. Fregonese said there is some latitude to interpret the information, and that the difference between SOA>> and 6.6% is just a matter of inches.' Certainly changes can be made but City Attorney needs to made the call. Salter interpreted that it implied "not strict but substantial conformance". Winthrop moved to reject the appeal, and approve PA 90-218 and adopt findings and Acklin seconded. Arnold asked how Winthrop came to that conclusion when Kauble and Blanton admitted it does not conform? Winthrop supported Salter's response. Reid said subdivision has been controversial from the very beginning and Council needs to look at overall hillside zoning. The Houghtons acted in good faith through the whole process and she intended to support the motion. Arnold wants the same result but felt this was a touchy matter and recommended a condition that if appealed to LUBA, the City does not spend any money on it. Salt~r felt it would not go to LU BA but rather to the Circuit Court. Fregonese directed Council to ask applicant to amend the findings and resubmit them. Winthrop amended his motion and Acklin seconded. Arnold voted no and the rest ayes on roll call vote. After a break, Mayor said there might be a misunderstanding and. j~~~nted to clarify that the previous motion was to approve plan without conditions!~(fsaltt it would improve Council's record if someone moved to reconsider bringing in another drawing that met the 15% grade requirement. Winthrop felt it was benign according to Salter's comments and decided not to reconsider. Laws moved to suspend the rule for public hearings and Winthrop seconded. Arnold thought 'it was not suspendable, but after discussion, the vote was unanimous to suspend on voice vote. Appeal of PA No. 90-182, final plan approval on Roca St., Appellants O.K. and Lois Pischel. Mayor read the criteria for Final Plan Approval and insisted any testimony departing that would be stricken from the record. Fregonese again said final plan approval depends on substantial conformance with outline plan. Reason for appeal is that the Planning Regular Meeting - Ashland City Council - February 5, 1991 - P. 3 Commission failed to comply with the density standards, Section 18.88.040 of the Municipal Code, "...minimum lot size for one unit shall be same as in parent zone." Planning Commission recommended approval and the staff report includes the conditions. If Council agrees to uphold the Planning Commission's decision, Fregonese asked they consider the conditions in Addendum 2 and allow staff time to prepare the findings. The public hearing was opened. JOHN HASSEN, Applicant's Attorney, 129 Oakdale, Medford, asked that all exhibits be made part of the record. Record shows applicant is in substantial conformance .with Outline Plan and the Appellant's argument regarding Chapter 18.88.080(b) is clear. The intent of the whole PUD concept is that developers would have incentives to provide for open space, Le., density bonuses. The developer planned 17 units but was allowed 20. If the lot had to be same size, bonus points could not be achieved. Lot 9 and Lot 12 are both over minimum lot size' of parent zone. Appellant interpreted the Chapter literally. GARY PETERSON, Attorney for Appellants, said final plan approval is, in fact, in conformance with the outline plan. The basis for the appeal was a discrepancy in the lot size allowed. Laws felt this matter should be appealed to CQurt,not Council. Chapter reads that developments only in the P-overlay zone should be processed in this chapter. The argument is only "one" must comply with same size as parent zone. HARVEY DAVIS, 950 Morton, representing Alan Sandler who doesn't want 17 homes because more growth puts a hardship on Ashland's limited resources. He read a letter from Fire Chief Lee Roy King, addressing fire safety, access, and the narrow, steep terrain, and slope leading to this development, stating 15% should be maximum. King thought it may cause serious problems in the winter. Neighbors are concerned and want to reduce the density of the subdivision. JOHN HASSEN's rebuttle was that all matters were covered originally and don't relate to conformance with final plan approval. He said Mr. Peterson wants a literal interpretation of Chapter but also wants to change "oneil to "each". The public hearing was closed. Laws moved to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision including conditions of approval in Addendum 2, and follow process for staff to prepare findings. Arnold seconded. Laws . commented that he was on Council when this ordinance was written. The legislative intent was to allow smaller lots in exchange for density points. The motion carried, all ayes on roll call vote. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Crowson Road Annexation, adoption of findings. Laws moved to adopt the findings and Arnold seconded, all ayes on roll call vote. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS Election of Budget Committee Members - 4 vacancies, two 3-year, one 2-year and one 1- year. For first 3-yearterm: Winthrop nominated Lois Wenker, no other nominees, all ayes on voice vote. Second 3-year term: Golden nominated John Riordan, Laws nominated Glenda Galaba, Acklin nominated Gene Morris. Acklin moved to close nominations, Laws seconded, aU ayes. Glenda Galaba w~s voted in by Laws, Reid, Golden and Winthrop. Two-year term: Golden nominated John Riordan, Acklin nominated Mary Lowrance-Dennison, Arnold nominated Jim Hibbert.. It was found that Dennison lives outside of city limits and cannot serve. Golden noted she plans to appoint Jim Hibbert to the Planning Commission. John Riordan won the vote by Reid, Winthrop, Golden and Acklin. One-year term: Reid nominated Anne Meredith, Laws nominated Dan Ralls. Winthrop nominated Gene Morris. Reid and Golden voted for Meredith, Laws and Arnold voted for Dan Ralls, and Acklin and Winthrop voted for Morris which tied the all votes. A second vote was taken and Reid and Mayor voted for Meredith an~ Laws,. Acklin and Arnold voted for Ralls, who, was elected. Regular Meeting - Ashland City Council - February 5, 1991 - P. 4 Intergovernmental Agreement with Phoenix and Talent for building inspection services. Almquist read a memo dated Jan. 28 to Council from John Fregonese and said basically Ashland would break even and not get involved in any enforcement. Almquist feels we can handle the increase. Winthrop moved to approve, Arnold seconded, all ayes on roll call vote. Authorization to sign letter of understanding for construction of Mountain Avenue Substation. Almquist talked generically saying no specific location has been determined. Residents on A Street felt they should have been notified. BPA will return on Monday, February 11th, for the third and final public information session between 5:00-6:30. He encouraged Council to attend. Residents on Mountain Ave. out to the freeway as well as A St. and homes adjacent to other locations will be notified. Dave Sebrell, Mountain Ave., spoke against the proposed site on Mountain Avenue. He talked with Almquist ,on the phone and got the impression that the location site had been chosen and there was nothing Sebrell could do about it. He was told Council had not seen the environmental, assessment from BPA yet. Sebrell called Southern Pacific who said offer has been made by City for the property next to his house. BP A got perinission from SP to go onto property to do soil testing. SP said City began condemnation procedures to obtain soil samples and pursue the matter. Sebrell reiterated that no one was against building a substation, but did not agree with the location choices. He was told no selection of the site would be made until environmental assessments have been made. Reid recalled that condemnation could be used to get rights to the site to do soil samples but that did not commit the location. The site on Mountain is zoned, correctly. Winthrop said no one is rushing the health issue regarding implications of EMF. BPA has to favor the site and the utility company (Council) needs to approve it. A copy of EPA's report will be included in the record. Winthrop said no one is going to be acting before the environmental assessment but the agreement before them tonight was to approve equipment that.would be suitable for any site. Winthrop moved to continue the meeting, Acklin seconded, all ayes. Laws wanted to postpone the signing of the authorization, but Almquist assured him that signing had nothing to do with committing any location. AI Williams, Electric Utilities Director, said the reason for the agreement was to get the material ordered because it takes 6-9 months to receive. Laws asked who has final say and Williams said BPA does but City can withdraw. Ann Bass, 270 A St., asked if equipment requirements were good for any location and Williams confirmed. Betty Camner, 868 A St., agreed we needed a new substation but didn't like the choice of sites. Betsy Anderson, 854 A St., lives 300' within site and has concerns. Acklin encouraged everyone to attend the meeting on the 11 th and moved to authorize signature of agreement, Winthrop seconded, all ayes on voice vote. ' PUBLIC FORUM - No comments. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS & CONTRACTS Second reading by title only of ordinance amending Section 2.48.010. Acklin moved to approve and Winthrop seconded, all ayes on roll call vote. 'First reading by title only of ordinance amending manufactured housing chapter. Winthrop moved to second reading and Arnold seConded, all ayes on roll call vote. First reading by title only of ordinance amending Traveller's Accommodations Chapter. Arnold moved to second reading, Acklin second. Reid said even through she voted for it last time, she thought it was a compromise and would vote against this time. Motion carried with Reid dissenting. Regular Meeting - Ashland City Council - February 5, 1991 - P. 5 First reading of ordinance amending rules of Council with respect to public hearings. Almquist read the ordinance and Acklin moved to second reading, Winthrop seconded, all ayes on roll call vote. First reading by title only amending chapter concerning bicycle parking and street standards. Acklin moved to second reading, Winthrop seconded, and all ayes of.roll call vote. Resolution authorizing an amendment to power sales contract with BPA. Acklin moved to adopt, Winthrop seconded, all ayes on roll call vote. (Reso.91-o2) Resolution expressing support for continuation of Martin' Luther King, Jr. Holiday activities. Laws asked why this was necessary and Mayor said Dr. Daggett requested that the City make it official. Arnold moved to adopt, Winthrop seconded, all ayes on roll call vote. (Rasa. 91-03) OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS - Arnold noted that Council needed to discuss the Shaw letter. Winthrop moved to put it on the agenda, Reid seconded, all ayes of voice vote. Reid thought it was worth taking another look. Mayor said it does not address paving of alley. Winthrop didn't want the issue of affordable housing to become an excuse to side step planning procedures. Reid said she wasn't interested in punishing the applicant, that she reconsidered the application and decided she would like to see the unit come on to Ashland's market. Laws moved to adjourn, Acklin seconded, all ayes on voice, vote. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting adjourned at 11:30 P.M. Nan E. Franklin City Recorder Catherine M. Golden Mayor Regular Meeting - Ashland City Council - February 5, 1991 - P. 6 CITY OF ASHLAND PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEE.TING MINUTES December 12, 1990 Chair Pyle called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at 340 S. Pioneer Street. ATTENDANCE: Present: Absent: Pyle, Adams, Crawford, Reynolds, Mickelsen, Reid Commissioner Howard arrived late. None I. ADlHTIONS OH DELETIONS TO TIlE AGP.NDA None I I . APPROVAL OP MINlITES Commissioner Adams made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 28, 1990 Regular Meeting. Commissioner Crawford seconded. In discussion, Commissioner Pyle indicated that during the public input section of the meeting on t}~ Marketplace, John Clancy should read John Glancy. The vote was: 3 yes - 0 no Commissioner Reynolds abstained-. III. BILLS AND PINANCES A. Approval of previous month's disbursements Commissioner Crawford made a motion to approve the disbursements for the previous month as indicated by Payroll checks 4~4184-t..243 in the amount of $32,401.78 and Payables checks #4586-4665 in the amount of $41,519.82. Commissioner Adams seconded. The vote was: 4 yes - 0 no IV. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION ON ,THE AGENDA None V. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION NOT ON THE AGENDA None Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Regular Meeting - December 12, 1990 Page 2 VI. OLD BUSINESS A. Policy for use of Calle Guanaluato by restaurants Steve Armentrout, owner of Rebels Country Restaurant, 29 N. Main, was present in the audience to request use of the deck behind the restaurant on the creek side of Calle Guanajuato. He indicated that he would be willing to have Marketplace booths set up on the building side of the creek in exchange for use of the deck. He said that they much preferred to use the deck because he could theJuse the area seven a days a week. He said that he believed that he could ~lt25 - 30 chairs on the deck which, based on last years fees by the department, would raise more revenue for the city than using the space for the Marketplace. In discussion, Commissioner Howard indicated that the Commission had already approved an agreement with Judie Bunch for the Marketplace which included using the deck for market purposes. He said that he would not be opposed to Rebels and the Marketplace working out a swAp for the space if they chose to do so and if park restrictions such as the 12' fire lane were adhered to. Mr. Armentrout said that he felt it would be much more, practical and conducive to park use for people to be able to use the deck and enjoy the creekside during meals than to have booths sitting there and blocking the creek. He also indicated that it would not be pra~tical to rent whatever space is available if they could only use it five days a week. They would have no space to store the tables or get them out of the way when they were not in use. The Commission re-stated its commitment to Judie Bunch. for use of both sides of Calle Guanajuato in that area for 1991. Chair Pyle said that due' to the Commission's previous agreement with the Marketplace, that the- Commission could only consider renting space behind Rebels to the restaurant on a Monday through Friday ,basis. He said that if Rebels wanted to use the space on weeketlds it could possibly work out an agreement with Judie. Mr. Armentrout indicated that he would not be interested in renting the space just Monday through Friday; that it would make no sense to him' from a business standpoint. Commissioner Howard said that he understood that the letter received by the restaurants was unclear in that it ~id not stipulate that in the areas which the Commission had already committed for Marketplace purposes that the Commission was only offering space Monday through Friday. In reviewing the sp<lces which would be <lvailable for restaurant use, the Commission decided that .the sp.:tce used last year by Munchies was inappropri.qte to continue to rent because of the narrowness of the area. It indicated that for 1991, the space it would have available for rent would be the alcove directly bellind Greenleaf seven days a ~eek and the alcove below the deck five days a week. It was determined that any restaurant on the plaza cOtlld apply for use of the areas, that all plaza restaurants would be notified that the areas were available. The Commission decided to take applications through January 10, 1991. Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Regular Meeting - December 12. 1990 Page 3 Policy for use of Calle Guanaiualo by restaurants - con't. MOTION In discussion of fees for use of the area, the Commission considered a range between the $12.00 per chair, as charged in 1990, up to $15.00 for 1991. Co~nissioners IIoward and Pyle spoke against raising the fees. Following the discussion, Commissioner Crawford made a motion to set the fees for $13.50 per chair for calendar year 1991. Commissioner Adams seconded. The vote was: 3 yes - 2 no (Howard, Pyle) MOTION Co~nissioner Howard made a motion to notify the restaurants on the plaza of the two spaces available for rent [or calendar year 1991 and that applications must be made by January 10, 1991. Commissioner Crawford seconded. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no B. Presentation by John Fregonese on plaza design Planning Director John Fregonese made a presentation to the Commission on the final plan for the new design for the plaza. He initially showed pictures which presented the plaza's evolution over the decades. At the conclusion of the presentation, a particular concern expressed by the Commission was the lack of a plaza restroom. Mr. Fregonese indicated that a new restroom on the plaza 'vas' rejected by the various committees involved and that the Calle Guanajuato restroom would serve in that area. He indicated that signing would be used to more readily indicate the location of the Guanajllato restroom. Commissioner Adams expressed her opinion that Ashland does not offer sufficient amenities, such as restrooms,to pedestrian traffic whereas other towns of comparable or smaller size offer more. She also stressed that the Calle Guanajuato restroom does not have the capacity to serve the pedestrian traffic on the plaza. Mr. Fregonese indicated that considering budget limitations he felt that adding the one bathroom on Will Dodge \'lay, which would be comparable in size to the one on Calle Guanajuato, was appropriate. Commissioner Pyle said that he was a strong supporter of nego~iating for the use of private property for public use, such as the Varsity The'atre. The Commission thanked Mr. Fregonese for his presentation. Commissioner Adams indicated that the overall design looked very good. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Lease agreement concerning Oddfellows building Director Mickelsen presented a memorandum to the Commission explaining that the ten year lease agreement with Lance Pugh for entrance into the basement of the Oddfellows building on Calle Guanajuato wOllld be expiring on March l7, 1991. After brief discussion, Commissioner Howard volunteered to work wi th Mr. Pugh I to discuss a renewal of the lease and to bring a" proposal back to the Commission at its January meeting. General consensus among Commissioners was that a more realistic rental rate should be established. Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Regular Meeting - December 12. 1990 Page 4 NEW BUSINESS - continued MOTION B. Authorization to advertise for bids on new lawn aerator Director Mickelsen asked for authorization from the Commission to advertise for the new lawn aerator which is included in the 1990-91 budget. Commissioner Crawford so moved. Commissioner Adams seconded. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no C. Discussion of dogs in neighborhood parks Chair Pyle indicated that complaints were being expressed by users of the neighborhood parks, particularly Garden Way park, that dogs were interfering with their enjoyment of the parks. Commissioner Adams indicated that she felt that appropriate signing should be placed in the parks. Commissioner Crawford indicated that she was opposed to the idea of signs. She felt that signs were visual pollution and that they wouldn't solve the problem. She preferred to work on the educational angle. Commissioner Adams felt that signing would assist park users in speaking up to point out that dogs were not allowed in the park if the occasion rose to do so. She also agreed that public awareness was important and that perhaps the utilities newsletter could be used to better inform the public. Commissioner Howard suggested that staff bring an appropriate sign design to the Commission whi(~h would address the fact that dogs are not allowed in Ashland parks. Director Mickelsen suggested that the standard sign used in Lithia Park be used since it explains all the various park ordinances. Commissioner Howard said that the other ordin.ances were not an issue and that he preferred to just address the dog issue at this time. Chair Pyle indicated that the Commission would like to look at some "anti- dog" sign designs. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE, COMMlJNICATIONS, DIRECTOR'S REPORT A. Letter from Fire Chief King The Commission reviewed a If:'tter from Fire Chief King in which he stated that he believed that a 12' fire lane along Calle Guanajuato was adequate at this time. B. . Letter from Pacific Institute of Natural Sciences . The Commission revieNed a letter from PINS which outlined its "park walk" program during 1990 and indicated that it was looking forward to continuing the program in 1991. B. Closure of South Pioneer Street Director Mickelsen indicated that the Commission's recommendation to close So. Pioneer Street would probably not be addressed by the City Council until February because of numerous other items already on the Council agenda. He indicated that Mr. Almquist did believe that a public hearing would be in order and that residents on or near So. Pioneer Street would be notified of th'e date of the hearing. -' Ashland Parks and Recreation Connoi ssion Regular Meeting - December 12. 1990 Page 5 IX. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS Conunissioner Howard suggested that the Conunission set a goal setting session which would be separate from upcoming budget study sessions. The idea was to discuss ideas and goals which might not necessarily be included 1n a budget for the upcoming year. Consensus among Commissioners was that they would meet Saturday, January 5, 1991. Commissioner Adams reported that she, Commissioner Pyle, Councilors Acklin and Winthrop had met informally with the Mayor to discuss Open Space funding. She s~id that tile Mayor was considering conducting an opinion poll of Ashland residents on a variety of topics, one of which would be finding an appropriate source for Open Space funding. She said that it was just an idea at this stage but felt that it might have some merit. She said that she felt it was a positive step and something the Commission should look at. Results of sucl, a poll might be useful to citizens who would be working on an initiative effort. Commissioner Julie Reynolds said that she had enjoyed serving on the Commission for the past three years and that she very much appreciated Director Mickelsen's leadership and positive attitude during some frustrating situations. She also said that she had appreciated working with the other Commissioners who were always problem solvers and that the time which she spent on Par~ Commission business was always well spent. Conunissioner Crawford seconded Julie's sentiments. X. NEXT MONTH'S AGENDA The next Regular Meeting was set for Wednesday, January 30, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. Budget Study Sessions w(!re set for Wednesday, January 23rd, and 24th if necessary, at 5:30 p.m. A goal setting session was scheduled for January. 5th at a site to be determined. XI. ADJOURNMENT \oH th no further business, Chair Pyl.e adjourned the meeting. Respectfully submitted, Ann Benedict, Management Assistant Ashland Parks and Recreation Department ASHLUD POLIC. DBPUIftID'l Monthly Activitie. for January, 1991 11IV.8~la&"10II. J~uary b.gan wit~ the d.ath inve.tigatiOD of a motor veblcl. acol..ot. Ia "bland Jouth had fallen fraa the b.d of a ,ick up. Bi. h.ad was struck OD the .tc..t. B. was tCaD.ported br private vehicle to a looal ho.,ital, tr...le~~ed to Rogu. Valley Medical Ho.pital and .ub..~u.Dtlr di.d from tbe injuri.. .uatain.d. .0 cri~nal negligence wa. t~d. Oa the 15tb an 18 r..r old ..1. wa. arre.ted for 3 count. of ~urglary, I count. of Fo~..rr I, .trong a~d ~obb.ry, co.rcion, t.-p.ring wit~ witn....., and t-.p.riDg witb evideDc.. Hor. charg.. ar. anticipated a. tb. inv..tigation continu... A d.tective a..i.t.a a former .ortland Polic. offic.r in .erving 15 warrant., all ..x cri.. r.lat.d. Conc.aled ..apons were found at the ti.e of aC'r.st. A d.tective ba. ..80 a..lgned to iay..ti.ate . burglar, at a local r.tail .tor. wbere a .afe va. att...t.d to b. remov.d. ~h. ca.. i. atill und.c inv..tigation. Det.otive 'rror attend.d . 2 da, training...inarin 'ortland on Offic.r Survival and Drug Interdiction and Captain Barnard attended a 3 der ..nag...nt .-.dnar for Cbi.f'. , .b.~iff'. iD .end. 80th Det,ctive Pryor and 'arlette att.nded OregOD stat. Police Crime Lab, traiDiD~ on ~he 25th of the month. ~he confidential .ecretary a..1IDed to inv..tigations .a. te~Dated fo~ probationary r.a.ona. An elderly Aabland .an wa. .truck by a vebicle a. be cro..ed Siskiyou loul.vard near 8b.~n 8t~..t. ~b. d.c....d .a. out.id. a cro.a.alk and .tepped in front of an approaching vehicle for unknown re..on8. A 24 r.ar old Asbland man drove hi. 4x4 piak up into tb. n.. ..c~ied bou8ing campi.. on C.lifornia Street. ~b. d~iver lost control of tbe vehicle and .truek tb. apact..at cauaing an .att..t.d total d...g. of $20,000. a. ... aUb..,uentlr arr..ted for DUll, reckl...ly endang.ring and reckle.. driving. 1 S.veral rallie. and d..oaatration. w.r. h.ld during tbe month a. a ~esult of -..rica'. involv..ent in tbe Kiddl. Sast. Approximately 30 giddl. .cbool stud.nt w.lk.d out of cl..... in prote.t and marched to the 'l..a fo~ . .bort d..on.tr.tion. oth.r r.lli.. were held of a pe.ceful nature witb no major incident. to report. A .id. line of tbe d.monstration. b.. r.sulted in criminal .ischief to sever.l buildings in Asbl.nd being damaged br paint. . CRIIIB PItBV....IOII ~b. flnal youtb and law cl..... for tb. fic.t ...e.ter concluded this montb. In allover a third of the A.hland lIiddle School .eventh grader. bav. atteaded this cour.e ao far this ye.r. ~he Crime 'fevention ..aoci.tion of OregoD (C'&O) annual oonference ia coming ~oHedford in April. Officer Bianca ia on the C~ittee for planning the annual conference. A theater and entert.i~nt schedule for A.hland vl11 be prepar.d to gen.rate .ome inter..t in the confere.. o~.ing to this end of the valle,. Officer Bianc. attend.d 8 ...ting. this .onth and..de . pre.entation to Dunn hou.e and a pre.entation to Bel... Scbool Scout troop 131, .. well a. g.ve 1 tour of the dep.rt.ent to another Scout troop. POLIC2 RlUlaVB '. . ~he Ashland Police Reaerves donated 221.75 hour. on behalf of the city of Ashlanel. 143.50 hours on patrol 65.00 hour. aD tr.ining 5.25 bour. in ..etiDVs 8.00 hour. on .pecial ...ig~nt pPLO.U8 'lhe Ashland .olice Bxplorer. don.ted 113 hour. lD the aontb of Januarr. 'l'wo Dew explor.r. completed their ba.ic eKaIIl and will .oon be .tarting their ride-along time. COIIIIUIIIft 8BRVICB VOLmrr~A Co.-Unity Service volunt.ers numbered 44 this month. ~b.y worked · tot.l of 361 dara and donated 1121 bours to the Citr of Asbl.nd. As alway., tbeir dedioation and effort. are greatl! appreciated by every dep.rt.ent of the eit! that benefit. fro. their time. IIIJIIICIPAL COUR~ 'there were 1011 citation. filed in the Municipal Court, which includes 301 traffic violations, 31 fo~l complalnta, and 661 parking citation.. 2 c.... clo..d totaled 612 which include. 95 traffic violation., 47 formal complaint., 11 fin.s su.p.nded, 94 citation. di.mi.s.d · ~here were 351 parking oitation. clo.ed, 182 of the.e were i.sued in the Downtown Parking Di.trict. 80 parking cit.tion. were di.~...d. ~here were 380 app.arances, 237 before the violation. Bur.au and 143 before the Court. Th.re were 21 trial. held, and 0 no .how; 9. p.raona were placed on diver.ion and 47 placed on probation. CQI8I1JIIlc&"I~8JaJlCOIU)S A probationary employee wa. discharged from service after failing to complete her probationary period within tbi. diviaion. Her vacancy i.' temporarily being filled by a.signed overti.. of other emplor.... A ..l.ction proc... ha. b.gun to hire a new clerk/di.patcher. Cl.rk Dispatcher Tarry Hyers and Barb Ban.son received th.ir first aid and CPR training. This training will be ext.nd.d to all cl.rk/dispatchers. communioation./aecords per.onnel handled 519 Police ca... and dispatched 91 fire/medical runs. 'he division took 3707 tel.phone calls, 435 of which w.r. 911 call., with a total of 9,664 for the entire d.partment. CO.. ~LIAII(2 OftICD th.re w.re 25 inspections perfo~ed this month, 0 warnings and 2 citation issued. JACKB'! JACHB., activiti.. in December included: CASKS OPBItBD 11 I.~ELLIO"CB CASES 43 1 o 9 1 PERSOBS ARRBS~BD (address given) 2 o 3 o SRC'l'OR Ashland Central Point M.dford Jack.on County CASES .,here .ere 4 s..rch warrant. obtain.d, 1 .erved and 5 per.ona arr..ted or oit.d. Officers ..i.ed 6 grams of Methamphetamine, 1 gr.. 3 of tar heroin, and 0 gr.. of psilocybin mushrooms. 2 weapODS and 0 vehicl.. were ..i..4. c.sh ..i..d tot.led $0. 4 ASHLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT Monthly Activities for December, 1990 Due to the harsh weather conditions that began on the 18th the month of December proved to be a hectic one not only for patrol but for the department as a whole and for other City dep~rtments. During the height of the problems with the City electricity out and the Natural gas system being down, the Police Department took approximately 5,000 calls from citizens. The department put into effect a new General Order for personnel Identification. Each member was issued an identification badge to be worn when on the premises if not in uniform. There are also identifying badges to be used by "visitors", "volunteers", "observers" and other "law enforcement" personnel who are not in uniform. INVESTIGATIONS On the 7th two Ashland juveniles were cited for reckless burning. The two young men had been camping in a hay barn on Hersey Street and apparently had left a candle burning when they left. The barn was destroyed in the blaze. On the 24th a case of continuing mail thefts in the Quiet Village area of Ashland was solved. Ashland detectives and patrol staked out the area on Helman street and were able to witness a possible mail theft. Questioning of that Ashland Middle School student resulted in a full confession and led to the apprehension of another suspect. A U.S postal service investigator came to Ashland from Portland to assist in the investigation and to attempt to recover some of the stolen mail'. The postal service mailed out a letter to Ashland residents informing them of the thefts. The juvenile was cited and released on 18 counts of Theft III and 18 counts of Criminal Mischief II. Detectives assisted Jacnet in the investigation and subsequent arrest of an EI Salvadoran immigrant who had been a suspected drug dealer. Detective in Ashland first became aware of the man last June through an informant. An undercover buy was made with the assistance of Jacnet detectives and two I.N.S. investigators. The man was charged with Delivery of a Controlled substance, marijuana. PATROL Patrol officers investigated an incident on the SOSC campus involving two brothers who were allegedly making pipe bombs. A Search warrant was served on a dorm room and a pipe bomb found. The students were suspended from school and each was charged with making explosives. There was a People for Peace Rally on the Plaza on the 8th of December. 1 Q~IME_PREVENTION Officer Bianca attended a three day training in Eugene. This was a state funded, federally funded project to develope a model of community planning for adoleBcent drug abuse prev~ntion. fIe attended meetings with DSNT, sase Security, Greenway Security Project, AleC, Bikeway Commission and the Ashland School District "Center" review. He also gave a tour of the facilities at the Police Department to a Middle School 7th grade class. PQLICE RESERVE The monthly reserve meeting was held on December 8th. Topics covered were drug procedures involving JACNET, 'chain of custody on evidence, the new Identification badges, and future training topics. The reserves put in 220 hours in during December. E~PLQREB~ The E:tpJorer post lost one m~mbpr this month with the resignation of Angela Allen. After three years ~lith the post she has resigned to enter thp armed forces. The post held their annual chr]~tmas Party t'lhere awards were prp.8pntcrl to Angela Allen as "Explorer of the Year" and to f'.1ike Biondi for a "Shoot j ng a""ard". CQMMUNITY SERVICE VOLUNTEERS r:ommuni ty Service Volunteer's pnt jn 805 hours for the Ci ty this month. Over 40 volunteers put in 262 days. MQ~IQ!_~~~-.90URT T!lere were 715 citatjons filed in the Muriicjpal Court, which jncludes 249 traffic violations, 22 formal complaints, and 444 parking citations. r:~ses c]osp.d totaled 1136 \>Thich jncllld~s 90 traffic violation~, 4A formal complaints, 41 ~ines suspended, 189 citations dismissed (including 110 completed rljve~sions). There were 448 parking citations closed, 273 of these were issued in the Downtown Parking District. 243 parking citations were dismissed. (Dismissals ~epresent registered owners that live outside of Jackson r:ounty and are done approximately once every 3 to 4 months) \ There were 380 appearances, 258 before the Violations Bureau and'122 before the Court. There were 40 trials held, and 0 no show; 113 persons were placed on diversion and 47 placed on probation. 2 COMMUNICATIONS/RECORDS Communications/Records personnel handled 546 Police cases and dispatched 132 fire/medical runs. The Communications Division handled 6072 calls with 678 being 911 calls. The large increase in calls was due primarily to the freezing conditions of December 21st and 22 and the power outage to City customers or natural gas customers. Dispatchers Palafox and Henry attended a demonstration and training session on the Roarks Computer Aided Dispatch system. This program is currently being considered for usage by members of the SOJIC system. CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER There were 18 inspections performed this month, 1 warnings and 5 citation issued. JACNET JACNET activities in December included: CASES OPENED INTELLIGENCE CASES 10 39 SECTOR CASES PERSONS ARRESTED {address given} Ashland 2 0 Central Point 0 0 Medford 4 2 Jackson County 4 2 There were 4 search warrants obtained, 2 served and 4 persons arrested or cited. Officers seized 543 grams of Methamphetamine, 0 gram of tar heroin, and 21 gram of psilocybin mushrooms. 7 weapons and 2 vehicles were seized. Cash seized totaled $84,195. 3 ~emnrnndum February 4, 1991 ~~ ~ronr. Steve Hall, Director of Public ~ The Mayor and City Council $~~ Public Works Monthly Report January, 1991 The following is a condensed report of the activities of the Public Works Department for the month of 'January, 1991: ENGINEERING: 1. Issued 7 street excavation permits. 2. Prepared year end permit report and submitted bill for excavation permits. 3. Checked and reviewed 6 partition and subdivision plats. 4. Prepared a preliminary budget for the Engineering Div. 5. Drafted details for a brass survey marker and distributed to manufacturers with request for quotation. ~ 6. Layed-out preliminary plans for construction of a survey control network and secured an estimate for same. 7. Preformed the following work regarding computerization of information: a. completed storm drain maps b. prepared index of subdivisions showing location, develope, file no., surveyor, date for each subdivision. c. mailing list for all Jackson County land surveyors. 8. Completed plans for an irrigation gate to be ~nstalled on Randy St. Received quotes for materials and prepared purchase orders. 9. Prepared description for dedication of right of way on Ross Lane. 10. Acquired county and state permits for 'the following locations: a. Fordyce Street b. Tolman Creek Rd. c. Crowson road d. North Main Street 11. Performed the following work on the Hersey St. project: a. completed labor compliance certificate. b. prepared price agreement no. 3 c. compiled project documentation including: 1. daily progress reports 2. weekly progress reports 3. project managers report 4. summary of quantities Public Works Monthly Report January 1991 Page 2 5. material test summaries 6. project narrative 7. field inspection reports 12. Performed the following work on the pump station addition at the Waste Water Treatment Plans: a. prepared plans for construction of a masonry block addition to house a generator. b. prepared specifications and contract documents. c. prepared bid advertisements and distributed to newspapers and contractors d. prepared cost estimates 13. Maintained traffic counters at several locations. 14. Prepared traffic studies for various intersections. 15. Compiled traffic accident data reports. 16. Inspected work performed on the following construction projects: a. Ashland Meadows subdivision b. Thomas subdivision 17. Reviewed plans for Clay Creek Subdivision, Ph. II and for the Loop Road improvement. 18. Prepared map of survey for the parks property at Garfield and California Streets. 19. Prepared list of all City owned water rights on Ashland Creek. 20. Advertised, interviewed and hired an engineering Technician to replace same. 21. One staff member attended a land law workshop in Corvallis. 22. Responded to several vision clearance complaints. 23. Set out control stakes and checked grades on the 30-inch pipe line installation at Reeder Reservoir. 24. Help pre-construction conference for Oak Creek Subdivision. 25. Prepared contract award, contract and miscellaneous _documents for the Bear Creek Truckline sewer and Ann Street Storm Sewer Project. 26. Updated street paving moratorium list. 27. Prepared annual street mileage report to the State Highway Division. 28. Completed annual report to the O.S. Census concerning annexations. 29. Updated the State Highway Division map of Ashland. 30. Prepared standard drawing for monument installation and mailed to all surveyors. WATER QUALITY DIVISION MONTHLY REPORT January 1991 Water Repaired three (3) water leaks in City owned mains. Repaired seven (7) water leaks in customer lines and/or meters. Repaired two (2) Lithia leaks. Changed out seventeen (17) 3/4" meters. Installed nine (9) new 3/4" customer hand valves. Changed over nine (9) water services to new 12" main at Siskiyou Blvd. and Crowson Rd. Tied in two (2) 2" water mains to 12" mainline. Took old 4" main along Siskiyou and old 2" main down Crowson Rd. out of service. Repaired three (3) fire hydrants. Installed eight (8) new 3/4" water services. Installed one (1) new 1" water service. Installed meter riser at Homes St. Repaired one (1) Lithia fountain and one (1) regular fountain. Set boxes in new Clay St. subdivision. Installed 54 feet of 3D" pipe in the Reeder Reservoir canyon. Sewer Replaced one (1) 4" sewer lateral at Fi'rst St. Installed thirty seven (37) new 4" sewer laterals. Rodded 30,454 feet of City sewer lines. Misc. Responded to 64 utility locates. There was 83.35 million gallons of water treated at the water treatment plant. There was 56.5 million gallons of water treated at the waste water treatment plant. Hauled 25 yds. of 3/4-0 rock to job sites. City of Ashland Fleet Maintenance January 1991 Report 3 mechanics completed work on 84 work orders for various types of city equipment and vehicles. The divisions and departments involved are as follows: Admin istr-ation: o Building: 1 CeiHC-? t\'=2 t'-y : 1 -'- Electric: 14 Energy: 1 Engineering: 3 Fire: "T --' Police: 24 P.W.*~l: ..::. Senior Van: 1 Shop: 1 ~;t.r'eet : 15 Warehouse: 1 Water: 16- Airport 1 The emergenc)' generators at City Hall and the Civic Center were fueled -......'.---and manually tested weekly. - 'H_______.Ch_~__'____".,___ --,-..,.'--,---.--,------,,----- I- and M certi f icates issued for--the--month:' Ashland School District: 3 City of Ashland Str-eet Division January 1991 Report SWEEPEF<: Swept 680 miles. 2 sweepers. Collected 511 yards of debris. Responded to 86 utility location requests. Graded several streets and alleys. Patched pot holes and sunken servites. SIGNS: Moved 2 R/R X-ARM signs on Hersey St. Replaced faded IINO PARKING" sign on the So. side of Lee St. at Wightman St. Replaced 2 vandalized signs and removed paint from 7 others. Installed 2 limited parking signs on Homes Ave. by Walker School. ,lnstalled ,1I0NEWAY"~, lINOSTOPPING_'_'J.and_._~DO__NOI___ENTER~!..signs on Will Dodge Way between Pioneer and 1st. Streets. Installed 2 "2-WAY" signs under stop signs on both sides of Helman at Hersey St. Replaced street sign and post at Sheridan and Grover Sts.. Repaired 3 crooked signs on So. 1st. St.. Replaced, _~faded, ,II,NO PARKING".,signs.,on_E..__Main,__________ Replaced missing -street sign at Morton and Blaine Sts.. STORM DRAINS: Flushed and/or rodded several storm drain systems. Cleaned off catch basins. MIse. : Con't sanding and removing ice. ~,-,---.,"Con't raising and patching manholes and, valves. Installed posts at both ends of bike path between California and Wightman Sts. to keep out cars. ..",...-------,-Hau~ ed--O:f-f--520.-v-ar-d s -.of--sweeper--de.br:.is . Hauled 228 yards of cindersfrom>pit.to est. yard. Con't cleaning up granite pit from logging operation;. =--~. Removed. 9 r a ff i t if rom severa 1, - -a rea s -.a r.oung -,-the.~C i ty.",-~.c.._._----._-~-___" Loaded and hauled wheel from generator at Filter Plant to Service Center for shipment. -..Painted curb yellow on the Westside,-ef--.ldaho--St....--above---Iowa. St.. for "NO PARI<INGII per Traffic Regulation # 1-1991. Painted stop bars on new paved section of Hersey St.. Painted concrete R/R structure on No. Main St.. Placed granite berm along new fence at old pipe yard on Granite St.. fOt" Par-ks Dept.. ~-Hauled.---.tO-yard6--o,f-cemen-t--.g.r-a.v.e..l.....,..m.i x .. f rOm..-UM .,.to .B=:S-t--y__r-d-----..-------__._ Made and installed safety grates at large storm 'drain pipe openings on Wightman St. at R/R tracks. 2._.. Pruned trees hanging into street on ,Park-St.--fof'::"c,elderly--lady..---._- Helped in shop when needed. Held monthly safety meeting. NEIL GOLDSCHMIDT GOVERNOR Parks and Recreation Department STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE 525 TRADE STREET SE, SALEM, OREGON 97310 PHONE (503) 378-5001 FAX (503) 378-6447 February 5, 1991 The Honorable Catherine Golden City of Ashland 20 E Main Ashland OR 97520 Dear Mayor Golden: Enclosed are copies of- applications, for special assessment of historic property pursuant to ORS 358.475-358.565 and OAR 736-50-100 through 736-50-145, for property (ies) in Ashland. The Legislative Assembly declared that it is in the best interest of the state to maintain and preserve historic properties in Oregon which are listed in the National Register of Historic Places. For that purpose, and to insure local participation in the application process OAR 736-50-115(3) states that: "Governing bodies will review applications for matters relating to public benefit and will make recommendations regarding classifications for special assessment to the state Historic Preservation Office." Your comments or recommendations must be received within forty-five calendar days of the date postmarked on this. submittal letter, and will be considered with those of the county assessor, and state Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation, during the final review of the application. If approved, special assessment of the enclosed property (ies) would begin on January I, 1991. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Please contact me at 378-6508 if you have any questions. Sincerely, ~.~t~ Susan Q. ~ayiOCk Preservation Assistant SQH: j n 10Y.LTR Enclosure S TAT E 0 FOR EGO N Application for SPECIAL ASSESSMENT A$ HISTORIC PROPERTY Pursuant to ORS 358.505 Historic' Name of Property Rar'c~ -(C( a.~ HLX.lse (Name of the property as it 1S l1sted 1n the Nat10nal Reg1ster of Historic Places. If the property is within the boundaries of a Register-listed historic district, enter the name of the district above, and the name of the property here: ) Date of Construction: /?~ Property Address: (Street) /0:;" 3 ti. ha,f\. 'St.. (citv A5Jdtlhd (Countv) .::r~c.k.Sot'\ Code & AC90unt Number (s) : Or;}.tl (From computer printout available from County Current True Cash Value of property: Land. Improvements . TOTAL Assessed Value (from property tax computer printout) Application Fee (assessed value x .001 PFoperty Owner:' Name Mail.ing Address ci ty .A-~A./a"t\.d Day J.frJ.-t{IU{ , State ()R. , Zip 97S~ Evening .iftJ-Jl/OJ7 Telephone Owner I s Statement: ; I certify that I have read and understand the Oregor Administrative Rule.. which pertains to special assessment of historic.. property I that this'application and the attachments accurately'represent the'propertY,.,tc be specially 'assessed, and that the property ,'c::urrently,'is'-,:;subject' to.no'...,A~her spec1al, assessment under Oregon statute. "I<agree'~ to grant access :.:for:;::,:the viewing' ,of the. property by the State Historic :~'Preserva1lionuOfficer, .the;: State Historic Preservation Office 1 s staff,. and'the, State,:AdvisoryCommittee.,~:,.or Historic Preservation . . I declare __ under the ,penal tiesfor':'falseswearing':;,7a~ contained':'ln ORs",~i62~' 085:that-:,':I:have ..'examined :::,:t:his ";applicatioli;" and< ,to~t.~~_~-:.:p'~st _ .p".::-:~.::,/;i::~~':i.,( ).::,:~A ':~certJ.f J.ed:i cheCK:,' or':mon'ey,-":order~;:for~~_the-?appl':l.catl.on' ;::fee,=;jnadE . .~6C~~~~F~a~~~~O:1feJf;a~r~k~~riJ~e~it~}:zJcfrlffltfg~~~~~t~r~p..:~~~c . . ... " ,'., slides) which ,show.. each exterior~,.elevation.";-of_~;eClch- bl1ilding~or .".;.:.,.......-..';....;..... - , - .. " . lifj it"':::t~e :ai:;sor1::d P::;:er::i~~hD~i~iioen.. t/:~j=;~pq /8.;/~~~2~~:~ 525 Trade st. SE~.>;> !/tC/i;:-'1}1rt p 1990 Salem, OR 97310 , "-"'ftOIVi:!IrSAIVD' - 'fPAliJj -J ., '~':"c. ~ <:~~~;;....,,:.;;;,~.~:f:':. " "-..., ':':"";,,~'f:, Send'to: JMH: j n/APP~ICA3 . DOC . .~. .;-, ....... '.' .:!.~.... '. :-';" ~:..':." :. ~' f'" _. ~. . .~.:...~.~: ~ .~~~:t~~~- & "t.:_. ',_,- ..:,'T.' . ..-..-; "':. r~""""'; ...:(~:.~'" . ' ~:-t.~ "'f~~;'..e~~~~~~)~f.,it:i.;.h,~~~~~~~~~~.\;." .~'';'d-:,'.,''''>CJ~~;.Jt'''''''';[t' ""~..e~':~.'~.@~~r-.t:;-;:;:;:.;~~.~r:~'f":~!~,i$~~J.~~I~~l~:'j~~~T .);;;:)i.;;,i~-ii~~~~i~;;;::i;;i;1f~;;;i;f~;~t~~W';~;~:i~~~?~~Wl~~~:@~~~K~~~t~ffTt~~JJ:?~';D\JJ~;:f~t~S~~~~~~0\'r~1 "," ~;'i-'."'>., ,"t::,:'~ .. ,.; . ~ " . ....... '. c:fJJlemnrandum February 7, 1991 ~n: Brian Almquist, Mayor and city council ~rn~: steven Hall, Public Works Director .~~ ~ubjtd: Snow Report ACTION REOUESTED - None, information item. BACKGROUND - I have received the January, 1991 snow report from the US Forest Service. It looks like we are slightly below last year. I have attached a graph and the figures for your reference. At this point in time it is too early to predict this summer although the outlook is a little bleak "right now"! Hollie Cannon has indicated that they may stop irrigation water flowing by the end of August. This would be one month ahead of normal schedules. He said Howard prairie is at 20% full and that all reserves have been expended last year. Emigrant Lake is at 8% of capacity. We have to make a decision on whether to sluice by February 15 and unless the snowman magically appears with large amounts of wet snow, sluicing will not happen this year. We have cleaned the two small dams located on the upper forks of Ashland Creek and there was not much sediment which gives us an optimistic outlook on how much sediment might be behind Hosler Dam. In fact, we have starting refilling Reeder Reservoir and are currently at about 70%. We drew down to a low of 50% pending a decision on sluicing. I will keep you informed of the outlook for the "Summer of 191" as we receive more information or as we continue to monitor the situation. You will be receiving a draft ordinance which expands on the current "water curtailment" ordinance. I am suggesting changes and additional stages of curtailment depending on our situation. cc: Dennis Barnts, Water Quality Superintendent Jim Olson, Assistant City Engineer Pam Barlow, Administrative Assistant John Fregonese, Planning Director encl: History History-Graph CITY CJF ASHL~i!\ID DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SNOW DEPTH/DENSITY --_._--_._-_.__.._-_._-------~--_._--_._----~._-._------.-.-. .--...-.---...------.-------------------.-..----_....___.___._0____0__. JAN CALABAN II SWITCHBACK SKI BOWL SNOW WATER SNOW WATER SNOW WATER 19~72 ~------~-------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- 25. c;} 197::::; C) --.1 /1 1 97~:j 1 ci -7 fl., :L c/'/7 1. 9')'8 1979 1980 1981 198::: 1983 1984- 1985 1986 1 Cl;:3-;' 1. i:?8U 19f.39 1990 1991 11.::=:2 61.. 6 :-t-...>.. .... 1 () u :-2 <S8 II 2 51..0 ~)ti II () ....\1:::- .-. L...J"I.) 80..u 103.0 54"0 64.0 it!::'; n 1.+ 4-.... II t:) ~~j~5 n 0 66..5 31.. <) 23"0 1 O~5 .. 2 63..5 ..="1. ::0: 1: t..J oj () Fl a 8 1. i . 8 55" .4 1..... u l::.; i~'~~::a... Cl '1 "'j _.al.-l .tLr._ 2:~ &I L~ i 6. Cj 18..4, 57..0 2n..u 70..0 9..0 32..0 29..0 85..0 27.0 114..0 21..0 63..0 24.._ 75.0 l~i" Af 57. () 1 ":'.. ~:.. ~j3. 0 1 u t:.. 1_..1 "a:.. II (J 24..8 70.0 6..5 35..0 6..:2 22..0 29.. 1.f:Jr./ i:~ 0 r. 0 17.. _ 1. .::'" .., ., .a:.. II .t:_ .,n LLj. .. 19..0 2i.0 10..0 27.0 25..0 23.0 27.3 1S.0 14 n ._ 1 ,"-; .. L~. 2:5.9 -, -, I . l 6.0 SL'I- r. 6 49..8 }..{{ ):1 () ~il .. '.,.' .... ..'::t .. I i ".1. J. IJ ..' 64u8 4Ll. n t II ..... 5 1 1& () 22..0 74..0 102..0 57..0 62..0 46.. .. ;1. - '-r l = ... :~)(. .. U 62..u 32" () 18..0 1 n '""\ ,I. Lj... L ,""'-;' l;J..u 10 .&:_ u '" 20..8 14..8 1 \..-* ft t) 7..0 2~).. 0 28..0 21.. 0 '":1 1 0 ..:.. J. 1& W Ii ..? ... -1' II' ..:... "f 0.. "-.i .!. "_ a "':_ ,.. I::;' .!. "'-j... .... ::~ ~~; u :".: 6..9 4..::- ----------~------~----------------_._--_._----- ._~-----_._--------------------------------_.--- AVG 47u5 15::7 60uO 1.8u4 L~9~8 15n4 --._......__.__.__...._n.._...._..___.__.___._____..________.__._________..__._____..__.._._ -_._-_._-..__._._-_.__.__._---_._--_.~----_._----._--------- f-.:""'l ! .,.~..~ r-... i t ._,.._~ (1) '7 -= i .~ ...... -l:_ --... n fil ii ~ ~ [T1 ..I:r i;!l '- :0 m r-::ll ....0; tj , I .' I i /1 ::;: 1c.:::JL. -p .r;::-~ ~(.:::.. =; fT1 c) ::= .r:: ~-' .J.-- ~ m ....... L --j C_) i.._) ...1 \} I I -1 j I I i -l j i I i I I I j i I i ", I. ..>1,> ". i ". ')1 .) ~~'" I :.... '...~,l ~"'" ,/!A i I ! i j I I i .k )1'> .' j'" ! I .... I.... .... I ..... ~I .... \...... .... I .~ I 1 i I f '._ I (.;..1 . I ......j .;:. I i .-.... I ,..) I I 1~ , .~ i ") I ". I " i i i i . W ! i '_. ,_. ".. i.. I \ -'I j '.. ) I " I:: <I: ~ 11:....1 . '~'" .,....I.~., .....,: ....., j ..) f); ".) /1: - II' ~ II,' :. I ~ . ~ . .. II ...) .,'.) II' ....) .'....11' .~.... ,or'" /' ,,/' .../, I........) >...\............ "0 I~ i./ .."1i r I ' . I .'... ! '~" ... I'~.. I ) )1 ,) ,)!) I"" / ;/" /" 1/ I i _. .. I .. I ~ <I:~ ~I:~ ~ / f I"" ,..... Ii J" .. 1" .. i j -, " 1 "'_. -'. i"\a.,_. j .:......) ...}i ....) : i : I ! " i' ...'". .; ...,... , I ! I '--,,_ .......... 1 '-...... .....,... 1-............. (Jl ......j cr:, ...,. f . i --..j Ct) . I ---.I u) Co c-::. OJ r-~-, ....'-... t.,] r-", ......... (.I.J 0:, ~ (D ()1 CD (Ti (:0 "'-.1 ('11 oj OJ l.D Ii) C~ Ii> ....1 ~"'l."" ". r'\i .1../ J . t~,J o I i I i I i I k I.... I ,.1 t'.... k i ~ i I .....~ t....... ! i I i ! f .......... :. .roo" .......... t j ""'" I . " l' '" j \.. k "'1'" I i I I ") I ~ ", /- ii It ..,..... ;""1.. i ., :1 I .... ........ ~ ~ ..... I I ~ t '~"'" j ........~. ! ! ............... t.,. C..j L__) t--., ! :at }--"'l j i ..... "t I"~ ..... r. i t i I i i .... 1...... ! I .. I ! i I i I j ! t j 'i'.. I " '", :. ....r... .....-.,. -....... " "'...... ... C;IEF~TH \ r'.,! I r'" ! t..... !--l j:"'-=; t t '<if : ~ "! ",_:'!. i L-"_~ ..1::... .l.... L.j in "$-.,. t__..~ i i i j j ! i I I i I -~ "'~- i t t...,. j I k I I I i i }.... ~ .~ I i ; ~"'o ':I;'~ .: J i i I .. '..i.. "".j, ......." 1',\ .... ....... , ''''_''' i', l'~ i t'> i~.... ..,..... -.t..... i i -..1 .......... ';... " j'" I I '-t..~ 1 I i ~ .......... ., '~""- '......... .'.... ... i ! { r..... ..! 1 ..,. "'k ,.......... to.... ! j i ! j I -{. ;..... -.., -,.... i -........... .....{ i' f!~ 'L' r:._) i ! i "I I t. i I" I ! i i ! 'l. i I I i i I I i I i I I I I ! j 1 j -, .\ j "". ".{ "'. " .'..... ",,-t "-'. j 1 I I t ~ 1 --_ i 1.._) ; i I i ! I i i j I i , I ...,j 1 i I ! i I I i i ! i ! i I I ! '.. ~ .......... " Q.:! "-j j I i I i i i I I I i I I I ! i ..........1 ~ ~ .......~ -......... I i I ! i i i ~ ! c) "" j I I ! i ; ! i I ; i i I I i I i ,..,~ ....,. ........I~ f i i I I l \ I i ~ L- ..~ .... c:._) I I I i f i I ; -'. I ',_ ! i i i i I I I I j I i._) I I i i I I I ; i i ! ~-. ! j .....1 I t i I I I i I I I i 1 j fy (-) (... -) l~) .:.... c) .....- ..;::r '--:::.. ; ) -J::..... "'--. ~) I i .....- ..;::r -~ =--! rri ~ .^.' @ p- l.l ""y.:... r- ..,.... fn e L (_il ) T r-- j ~r--_ --~-- --:F L ...---. I.,___J ASHLAND PLANNING ,DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT February 19, 1991 PLANNING ACTION: 90-165 APPLICANT: Oty of Ashland ORDINANCE REFERENCE: REQUEST: General Land Use Ordinance modifications with respect to the affordable housing goals. Accessory Apartments. This is a change that permits a second unit in single family zones as a Type I Conditional Use. This is one of the primary recommendations of the AtTordable Housing report for increasing the amount of atTordable units within the City. We have not included atTordabllity guarantees as we believe that policing this, type of apartment would not be worth the trouble, and the majority of these apartments would be relatively atTordable anyway. ' 18.20.030 Conditional Uses (R-1 zone) , Delete H - Duplexes on comer lots. Additional units will be accommodated by the following section. J. Accessory Residential Units, subject to the Type I procedure and criteria, and the following additional development cri~eria: 1) , The proposal must conform with the overall maximum lot coverage and setback requirements of the underlying zone. 2) The maximum number of dwelling units shall not exceed 2 per lot. 3) The maximum gross habitable floor area.(GHFA) of the accessory .residential structure shall not exceed 50% of the GHF A of the primary resi~ence on the lot, and shall not exceed 1000 sq. ft. GHFA 4) Additional parking shall be in conformance with, the Off-Street Parking provisions for Single-Family Dwellings of this Title. 5) That the primary residence on the lot shall be owner-occupied. The following would be changes to the Parking CQde to address studio apartments and accessory units in Single Family a:reas, as well as addressing congregate care and apartment housing for seniors. .. 18.92.020 Spaces Required A Residential Uses 1) Single Family Dwellings 2 spaces for the primary dwelling and the following for accessory residential units: Studio units or I-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft. -- 1 space/unit I-bedroom units 500 sq. ft. or larger - 1.50 spaces/unit 2-bedroom units - 1.75 spaces/unit 3-bedroom or greater units - 2.00 spaces/unit 2) Multi-Family Dwellings Studio units or I-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft. - 1 space/unit I-bedroom units 500 sq. ft. or larger - '1.50 spaces/unit 2-bedroom units -- 1.75 spaces/unit 3-bedroom or greater units - 2.00 spaces/unit Retirement complexes for seniors 55-years or greater - (low-income) - 1 space/unit. 18.92.020 D. 6) 'Rest Homes or Homes for the A&ed One space per two patient beds or 1 space per apartment unit. PA90-165 City of Ashland ' Ashland Planning' Department - Staff Report February 19, 1991 Page 2 This section would make condominium conversions in a R-2 zone subject to the atTordability criteria. However, it would make'the construction of new condominium units a permitted use, subject to the revised densities allowed within the zone. It removes the current test that a showing of no adverse impact on the rental market be made. 18.24.020 R-2 Permitted Uses (assuming density roll-backs and affordable incentives) I. Construction of new Condominiums 18.24.030 R-2 Conditional Uses J. Condominium conversion of existing rental units subject to a Type I procedure and demonstration that at least 25% of the residential units are affordable for moderate income persons in accord to the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council through procedures contained in said resolution. Current residents of rental units proposed for conversion to condomininums shall have first right of refusal to purchase the unit. Do same thing for R-3 zone (18.28.020 and 18.28.030 I.) until R-3 zone is eliminated and replaced, as suggested later on in this report. PA9o-165 City of Ashland AShland Planning Department - Staff Report February 19, 1991 Page 3 The following are our suggested changes to the approval criteria for the Performance Standard Developments. We have attempted to make them more objective and ' measurable. In addition, we have included density rollbacks and. the affordable housing criteria. 18.88.030 A. 4. a) That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland. b) That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, 'sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a key City facility to operate beyond capacity. c) That the existing and natural f~atures of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock. outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features utilized for open space and common areas. d) That the development of the land will not impede the appropriate development of adjacent lands that is envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. e) That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of ainenities as proposed in the entire project. i) That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established. under this Chapter. PA90-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning. Department - Staff' Report February 19, 1991 Pa.ge 4 Density Bonuses under Performance Standards 18.88.040 A Base Densities . The density of the development shall not exceed the density established by this section. The density shall be computed by the dividing the total number of dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the public. Fractional portions of the final answer, after bonus point calculations, shall not apply towards the total density. Base density for zoning densities within the City of Ashland shall be as follows: WR and RR zone -- 1 divided by the minimum lot size expressed in acres, times 0.60 determines the dwelling units per acre. WR-2 = WR-2.5 = WR-5 = WR-10 = WR-20 = RR-1 = RR-.5 = Single Family Zones R-1-10 = R-1-7.5 = R-1-5 = R-1-3.5 = R-2 = R-3 = 0.30 dul acre 0.24 dul acre 0.12 du/acre. 0.06 du/acre 0.03 du/acre 0.60 dul acre 1.2 dul acre 2.40 dul acre 3.20 du/acre 4.00 dul acre 6.4 dul acre 12 dul acre 18 dul acre PA90-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report February 19, 1991 Page 5 B. Bonus Point Calculations 1) The permitted base, density shall be increased by the percentage gained through bonus points. In no case shall the density exceed that allowed under the Comprehensive Plan. 2) The maximum bonus permitted shall be 60%. 3) The following bonuses shall be awarded: a) Conservation Housing - all home or residential units on the site meet the energy usage, water lisage, and air quality requirements adopted in the Guidelines referred to in 18.88.090 -- maximum 15% bonus b) Provision of Common Open Space (same as in current ordinance, except that all projects of a base density of 10 units or greater shall be required to provide a minimum of 5% of the total lot area in Open Space that is not subject to bonus calculations. Bonus shall be, awarded only to that open space area in excess of the 5% required for developments of 10 units or greater.) maximuin 10% bonus c) Provision of Major Recreational Facilities (same) maximum bonus 10% d) Affordable Housing - for every percent of units that are affordable, an equivalent percentage of density bonus shall be allowed. Maximum bonus of 25%. Affordable Housing bonus shall be for residential units, that are affordable for moderate income persons in accord with the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council and guaranteed affordable through procedures contained in said resolution. PA9Q.165 City of Ashland Ashland 'Planning Department - Staff Report February 19, 1991 Page 6 The following is an additional change in the Performan~e Standards ordinance to clarify a recently discovered ambiguity of the ordinance: 18.88.080 B. All developments, other than partitionings, which involve the division of land, or development of individual living units, in the P-overlay areas, shall be processed under this Chapter of the Land Use Ordinance. The minimum number of dwelling units for a Performance Standards Subdivision shall be three. PA9Q-165 . City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report . February 19, 1,991 Page 7 The following are density roll, backs and affordable housing density boJluses in the R-2 zone. The R-3 zone is proposed to be ellminated and replaced with anRe zone (residential/commercial) which would aDow high density residential (30 units/acre) along with neighborhood commercial uses, travellers accommodations, and simllar impact uses. This new zone, with descriptions and the locations, will be presented at a later time. Until then, a proposed roll-back for the R-3 zone is also proposed here. 18.24.040 General R~~lations R-2 Zone A Permitted Density 1) Base Densities The density of the development shall not exceed the density established by this section. The density shall be computed by the dividing the total number of dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the public. Fractional portions of the answer shall not apply towards the total density. Base density for the R-2 zone shall be 12 dwelling units per acre, however, units of less than 500 square feet shall count as 0.75 units for the purposes of density calculations, with the , following restrictions: Minimum lot area for 1 unit. shall be 5000 sq. ft. with a minimum' width of 50' and minimum depth of 80'. Minimum lot area for 2 units shall be 7000 sq. ft. with a minimum width of 50' and a minimum depth of 80'. Developments of 3 units or greater shall have minimum lot area in excess of 9000 sq. ft. and as determined by the base density and allowable bonus point calculations, and shall have a minimum width of 50' and minimum depth of 80'. B. Bonus Point Calculations 1) The permitte~ base density shall be increased by the per~ntage gained' through bonus points., In no case shall the density exceed that allowed under the Comprehensive Plan. ' 2) The maximum bonus permitted shall be 60%. 3) The following bonuses shall be awarded: a} Conservation Housing - all home or residential units on the site meet the energy usage, water usage, and air quality 'PA90-165' City of Ashland Ashland ,Planning Department - Staff' Report , February 19, 1991 PageS requirements adopted in the Guidelines referred to in 18.88.090 - maximum 15% bonus ' b) Provision of outdoor recreation space above minimum requirement established by this Title. 2 percent increased bonus for each percent of the project site dedicated to outdoor recreation space. maximum 10% bonus c) Provision of Major Recreational Facilities (same as Performance Standards) maximum bonus. 10% d) Affordable Housing - for every percent of units that are affordable, an equivalent percentage of density bonus shall be allowed. Maximum bonus of 25%. Affordable Housing bonus shall be for residential units that are affordable for moderate income persons in accord With the standards established by resolution of the Ashland Qty Council and guaranteed affordable through procedures. contained in said resolution. Delete ~ent 18.24.040 A, B. & C. The following section would replace the current standard in Site Design & Use Guidelines that 25% of the gross Door area be used for outdoor recreation space. 18.24.040 H. Outdoor Recreation, Space 1) At least 8% of the lot area shall be dedicated to outdoor recreational space and shall be part of the overall landscaping requirements. Delete 18.72.100 C. (open spaces from site design) PA90-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report February 19, 1991 Page 9 18.28.040 General Reilllations R-3 Zone A Permitted Density 1) Base Densities The density of the development shall not exceed the density established by this section. The density shall be computed by the dividing the total number of dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the public. Fractional portions of the' answer shall not apply towards the total density. Base density for the R-3 zone shall be 18 'dwelling units per acre, however, units of less than 500 square feet shall count as 0.75 units for the purposes of density calculations, with the following restrictions:' Minimum lot area for 1 unit shall be 5000 sq. ft. with a minimum width of 50' and minimum depth of 80'. Minimum lot area for 2 units shall be 6500 sq. ft. with a'minimum width of 50' and a minimum depth of 80'. Developments of 3 units or greater shall have minimum'lot area in excess of 8000 sq. ft. and as determined by the base density and allowable bonus point calculations, and shall have a minimum width of 50' and minimum depth of 80'. B. Bonus Point Calculations 1) The permitted base density shall be increased by the percentage gained through bonus points. In no case shall the density exceed that allowed under the Comprehensive Plan. 2) The maximum bonus permitted shall be 60%. 3) The following bonuses shall be awarded: a) , Conservation Housing - all home or residential units on the site meet the energy usage, water usage, and air quality requirements adopted in the Guidelines referred to in 18.88.090 _ maximum ,15% bonus b) Provision of outdoor recreation space above minimum requirement established by this Title. 2 percent increased bonus for each percent of the project site dedicated to outdoor recreation space. ,maximum 10% bonus PA9Q-165 City of Ashland , Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report February 19, 1991 Page 10 c) Provision of Major Recreational Facilities (same as Performance Standards) maximum bonus 10% d) Affordable Housing - for every percent of units that are affordable, an equivalent percentage of density bonus shall be allowed. Maximum bonus of 25%. Affordable Housing bonus shall be for residential units that are affordable for moderate income persons in accord with the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council and guaranteed affordable through procedures contained in said resolution. Delete current 18.28.040 A, B. & C. The following section would replace the current standard in Site Design & Use Guidelines that 25% of the gross floor area be used for outdoor recreation space. 18.28.040 H. Outdoor Recreation Space 1) At least 8% of the lot area shall be dedicated to outdoor recreational space and shall be part of the overall landscaping requirements. Delete 18.72.100 C. (open spaces from site design) . PA9o-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report February 19, 1991 Page 11 . January 28, 1991 P.o. Box 201 Ashland, Or 97520 Mayor and City Council City of Ashland East Main Ashland, Oregon 97520 Re: Affordable Housing Ordinance Dear Mayor and City Council, Regarding the affordable housing ordinance which has been in the works for some time, I believe that some alterations need to be made to ensure that it does what it is intended to do. It is supposed to provide incentives for the creation of af- fordable housing where it is possible to do so. After talking with Don Greene , Duane Smith, and other builders, property owners and real estate people I think part of what is proposed will do the job we want and part will not. Please alter the following parts of the proposed for the stated reasons. ** 1. Regarding density rollbacks on pages 15 and 16, delete the density rollbacks in RI-I0 and RI-7.5 zones because realistically we are not going to obtain affordable housing on single family dwelling lots of 7500 and 10000 square feet. These zones should be left alone. For example, a 5000 sqare foot lot sells for $30,000+, a 7500 sq ft lot sells for $45,000+ and a 10000 sq ft lot sells for $55,000+, so right off the cost of a house on the larger lots is $1~000 higher so how can that compute out to affordable? It ~ realistic to try to get some affordable housing on small par- cels,however. The density rollback on larger lots will also con- tribute to sprawl, but that is another issue. 2. Regarding MUlti-family zones on pages 16 and 17, reduce the base density 20% instead of 40% in MF zones and retain the R-3 zone. This would give us 16 dwelling units per acre in R-2 zones and 24 units per acre in R-3 zones. The continual tendency to lessen density is not what will give us livabl~ cities. It is possible to develop R-3 lots to the current density,but it probably means underground parking and elevators,which is not necessarily bad. If we really wartt to add affordable housing,let the concept of "economy of scale" enter into the picture. It is not possible to get something for nothing which is what we would be asking for if we don't allow builders to exceed current density by at least a little bit. with the proposed "Credit for On Street Parking Ordinance" the extra units will be more feasible. If the project is of any size we should be sure that there is adequate common open space so the effects of density are mitigated. I cannot emphasize enough that density is not the chief enemy of "livability", sprawl is. It is true that there is not much un- built upon R-3 land (I own one of the last vacant pieces), but there is the potential of redevelopment on R~3 parcels. ** Page numbers are of the Affordable Housing Committee Report. 3. Count apartments or condominiums under 500 square feet as 2/3 of a unit. Because of all the plumbing and appliance costs that must be figured into any studio or one bedroom unit as well as two bedroom units, the incentive to build the smaller units will not be there unless theycount as merely 2/3 of a unit. I rent out a building where ,all 12 units are approximately 475 square feet, except for one which is a larger 2 bedroom unit. I have 19 parking spaces. Currently there are 12 cars and one motor scooter on site. Four residents have no cars, one has three cars, and the rest have one or two cars. I mention this as an example of the fact that the ordinance reducing parking for small apartments is feasible, and to illustrate that while apartments under 500 sq ft shOuld11ount as only 2/3 unit for density purposes, they should b~~co~nted in determining parking requirements,for the present. I hope to be at the public hearing on this matter, but if I am no~please implement these changes. The important thing is to get some affordable housing. Be lenient at first which is what I am advocating. If suddenly there proves to be too many incentives, which I doubt, then do something to lessen the incentives, The best part of the whole affordable housing proposal is the Accessory Dwelling Section. That will provide the most affordable housing providing the units that are added are not too big. If the Council is totally confused, I suggest adopting the accessory dwelling section right now and delaying the remaining sections for 12 months after the date the accessory dwelling section takes affect to assess how that is going. Good luck. Sincerely, ~ Brent Thompson P.S. Remember- Sprawl is "bad" and Density is"good~ providing there is enough common open space. February 15, 1991 To: Mayor and City Council Subj: Rob Winthrop r~ Shaw land-use appeal (PA #90-186) 673 Siskiyou Blvd. From: At our last meeting we discussed modifying our decision, but then took no action. On reflection, and after the stupefying- effect of 700+ pages of other land-use material had worn off, I, think some changes are needed. As you recall, we denied the variance for extra parking which Mr. Shaw requested, and therefore necessarily the site. review approval for an extra dwelling unit. The sole approval was a conditional use permit to allow structural repairs to foundations 'and similar work on the two small buildings along the alley. (Note that a CUP was required only because the structures intrude on the alley set-back area.) Five conditions were' imposed: (1) remove kitchen/cooking facilities from structure denied site review approval: (2) add three parking places, with approved paving: (3) pave alley: (4) all building modification and wiring he inspected and approved: (5) require all proposals of applicant to be met, unless modified by this decision. In retrospect, had Mr. Shaw merely applied to do certain structural repairs, I don't believe conditions (2) or (3) would have been imposed. They appear excessive. As Ron Salter's memo of 1/21 noted, enforcement, should the applicant not wish to pave the alley, etc., would require the City to have him tear out these repairs (possibly tearing down the structures). I suggest that we modify our decision to delete condition (2) requiring parking; and modify (3') regarding alley paving to require instead that the applicant sign in favor of future improvements to the alley. BEFORE THE ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL February 5, 1991 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #90-218, REQUEST FOR ) FINAL PLAN MODIFICATION TO MODIFY THE STREET LOCATION ) AND LOT LAYOUT FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 18-LOT ) SUBDIVISION. MODIFICATION INVOLVES THE RELOCATION OF ) THE INTERSECTION OF THE PROPOSED LOGAN DRIVE AND SCENIC ) DRIVE AWAY FROM THE SCENIC/GRANDVIEW INTERSECTION, AND ) THE ASSOCIATED MODIFICATIONS OF LOT LINES. ) APPLICANT: ED HOUGHTON ) ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS RECITALS: 1) Tax lot 6900 of 391E08AA is located at near the intersection of Scenic and Grandview Drives at 185 Scenic Drive and is zoned R-1-10P, Single Family Residential. 2) The applicant is requesting modification of a,previously approved Final Plan regarding street location ,for an 18-lot subdivision. 3) The criteria for final plan approval are found in 18.88.030 B. and are as follows: Final Plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the outline plan. Nothing in this provision shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor tbe open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the ainor aodifications froa one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when coaparison of the outline plan with the final plan shows that: a) The number of dwelling units vary no aore than 10% of those shown on the approved outline 'plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed,those permitted in the outline plan. b) Th. yard depths. and distances between ..in buildings'vary no more than 10% of- those .hown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Title. c) " The open spaces vary no aore than 10% of that provided on the outline plan. d) The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by aore than 10%. e) The building ,elevations and exterior ..terial are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this Title and the approved outline plan. f) - ~hat the additional standards which resulted in the awardinq of bonU8 points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. q) Any ..en4JDent to an approved final plan shall follow a Type I procedure. 4} The Ashland Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on November 13,1990 and December 11, 1990, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. S} The action was appealed to the City Council in a timely manner by steve and Chrissy Barnett, 182 Scenic Drive Ashland, OR, following the procedures in 18.108 of the Ashland Municipal Code. The appeal was filed on their behalf by their attorney, Mr. Thoma's C. Howser, of the firm Howser & Munsell', Ashland, OR. 6} The Ashl~nd City Council, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on February 5, 1991 at which time testimony was received and exhibits presented. The City Council approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. Now, therefore, the City Council of the City of Ashland concludes and recommends as follows: finds, 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 "5" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "PIt 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 proposal' for modification of a previously appr,oved Final Plan, allowing for the modification of the stre,et location and modifications of lot 'lines, meets all J- criteria outlined in 18.88.030 B. 2.3 The City Council makes the following findings addressing the criteria for Final Plan approval: Final Plan approval shall ~e granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the outline plan. Nothing in this provision shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not ~e transferred to another phase, nor the open' space reduced ~elow that permitted in the outline plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final plan shows that: a) The number of dwelling units vary no more than 10% of those shown on the approved outline plan, ~ut in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. No change in the number of dwelling units has been proposed by the applicant as part of this application, and the submitted plans of the applicant do not indicate any changes in the number of dwelling units. The Council finds that the number of dwel~ing units has not varied more than 10%'of those shown on the approved outline plan. ~) The yard depths and distances ~etween main ~uildinqs vary no more than 10% of those shown on the approved outline plan, ~ut in no case shall these distances ~e reduced ~elow the minimum established within this Title. The modifications proposed and indicated on the submitted materials have not modified the yard depths and distances between main buildings. The Council finds that this criterion has been met. c) The open spaces vary no more than 10% of that provided on the outline plan. The modifications proposed and indicated on the submitted materials indicate that the proposed open spaces areas have not varied more than 10% from that provided on the outline plan. d) The ~uilding si.. does not exceed the ~uilding size shown on the outline plan ~y more than 10%. The modifications proposed and indicated on the submitted materials indicate that the proposed building sizes will not be modified by this action. e) The ~uildinq elevations and exterior material are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this Title and the approved outline plan. The modifications proposed and indicated on the submitted materials indicate that no changes have been proposed regarding this criterion and from the approval granted during Outline Plan. ~ f) That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the p.rformance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. All standards included with the previous outline and final plan approvals shall remain in effect, and the applicant has not reque~ted any changes to these previous approvals as part of this modification. The Council finds that, this criterion has been met. g) ,Any aaendaent to an approved final plan shall follow a Type I procedure. 'Any future amendments to this subdivision shall be processed under this procedure. 2.4 The Coun~il finds that the intersection location presented by the applicant, and indicated on the submitted materials, is in substantial conformance with the original location as submitted on the Outline Plan. The centerline location of Logan Drive, 90.00' southeast down Scenic Drive from an existing street monument, as proposed on the applicant's ~ubmitted materials, provides the intersection location farthest away from the Scenic/Grandview intersection while maintaining the allowable grades established by ordinance and the Public Works Department. Evidence was submitted by Professional Engineer Robert S. Blanton regarding street grades, and stating that the design did not meet requirements. Additional engineering information regarding street grades and design was submitted, by Professional Engineer Roger Kauble' for the applicant, indicating that all grade and design requirements of the City of Ashland would be met. This information of both engineers was reviewed by Public Works Director steve Hall, Professional Engineer, who stated in the memo dated December 5, 1990 that he recommended approval of the street design proposal presented by Kauble. The information presented by Kauble and Hall was further rebutted by Engineer Blanton in a letter dated December 11, 1990. Engineer Kauble presented additional information to the City, further explaining the slopes associated with the street construction. This information was received by the City of Ashland January 25,1991. Engineer Blanton presented testimony during the public hearing on February 5, 1991, concluding that after review of the submitted information 'presented by Kauble, that the street grade on the inside radius of the proposed street would be greater than'15%, approaching a maximum of 17,.99%. He also stated that the plans 1ndicated that the landing area before entrance onto -Scenic Drive was not 6% for 35' as required but 6.6% for the last 5'. He submitted further testimony regarding location and safety. L{ Engineer Kauble presented oral testimony during the public hearing on February 5, 1991, stating that the design was based on a centerline grade for the street being 15%. Planning Director John Fregonese presented information during the public hearing stating that the intent of the ordinance regarding street grades was to measure those grades from the centerline and that that had been the historic interpretation by both the Planning Department and Public Works. He also stated that the area that is indicated as 6.6% for the landing area actually only results .in a difference of a few inches in grade and is not substantially different from 6%. Fregonese also presented testimony regarding the criteria for approval of a Final Plan, in that issues of safety are not a part of these criteria, but rather were discussed during the Outline Plan approval and considered safe at that time. Therefdre, the safety issues raised by the appellants in their appeal letter dated December 24, 1990 are not germane to this decision. City Attorney Salter stated during the meeting that Final Plan criteria doe's not state "strict conformance" but "substantial conformance" with the outline plan approval, therefore allowing the Council latitude in its acceptance of engineering information. The Council finds that items 2,3,4,5,6 and 10 of the appellants appeal letter dated December 24, 1990 related to safety issues which were fully addressed during outline plan for this development and do not relate to ,the criteria for approval of a Final Plan. The Council finds that item 1 of the appeal letter has been remedied through the de ,novo evidentiary hearing held before the City Council on February 5, 1991. The Council finds that item 7 of the appeal letter involves a completely separate planning action which has not reached final approval of the Planning Commission and is therefore not an issue to be addressed as part of this action The Council finds that items 8 and 9 of the appeal letter were not raised with sufficient specificity to allow the Council an opportunity ,to respond and was therefore not an issue addressed during the hearing. The Council finds that based on the evidence submitted by Kauble and its recommended approval by city Engineer Hall, that the differences between the plans and requirements of the conditions are de minimus, and that the street grades and'location are in substantial conformance with the conditions of approval of Outline Plan for the construction of the Logan Drive/Scenic Drive intersection. ~ SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the City Council concludes that the request for modification of a previously approved' Final Plan for an 18-lot subdivision under the Performance Standards Option is supported by the evidence contained in the whole record. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #90-218. Further, if anyone or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #90-218 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That all relevant conditions of PA88-0133 and PA88-070 shall remain in effect. 3) That the landscape plan for the filled open area of the former street location include trees (8'-10' ht.) on 30' center spacing, ground cover to provide 50% coverage in one year, trees (8'-10' ht.) in drilled planters on the terraced area of the cut slope with additional ground cover, and a full irrigation plan for all planted areas. The remaining area of this larger cut slope area to have a dry rock masonry wall on the upper slope. All other cut and fill banks associated with the street construction to be treated as indicated on the previous street construction plans, with rock wall facing on street cuts aftd erosion control netting and appropriate plantings on fill slopes, with adequate irrigation. All plans to be reviewed by the Tree Commission and approved under the Type I procedure, with notice to surrounding property owners. Mayor Date Attest - City Recorder -0 BEFORE THE ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL February 5, 1991 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #90-182, REQUEST FOR ) FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 17-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE ) PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT) 766 ROCA STREET. ) APPLICANT: FRED COX CONSTRUCTION ) ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS RECITALS: 1) Tax lot 1200 of 391E15BC is located at 766 Roca Street and is zoned R-1-10-P, single family residential. 2) The applicant is requesting approval of a 17 lot subdivision under the Performance Standard$ Option. Outline and final plans are on file at the'Department of Community Development, City Hall, Ashland, OR. 3) The criteria for final plan approval are found in 18.88.030 B. and are as follow,s: Final Plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the outline plan. Nothing in this provision sh.ll limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final plan shows that: a) The number of dwelling units vary no more than,10% of those shown on the approved outline pl.n, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. b) The yard depths and distances between Ilain buildings vary no more than 10% of ,those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Title. c) The open spaces vary no more than 10% of that provided on the outline plan. d) The building si.. does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than 10%. e) The building elevations and exterior Ilaterial are in conformance with t~e purpose and.intent of this Title and the approved outline plan. f) That the additional ,standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in,th. outline plan approval have been included in the final plan vith substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan vill be aChieved. q) Any amen4llent to an approved final plan shall follow a Type I procedure. . 4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held Public Hearings on October 9 and November 14, 199'0, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. The Planning Commission findings and Planning Department Staff Report are adopted and incorporated here. 5) This action is an appeal to the City Council from the decision of the Planning Commission, dated December 11, 1990. The Appellants are Dohrmann K. Pischel and Lois Pischel. The only issue raised on appeal is the interpretation and application of ALUO lS.SS.0S0 (B). Appellants contend that that provision requires all lots developed in a P-overlay zone to have the same minimum lot size as the parent zone, in this case 10,000 square feet. The'City Council approved the application subject to conditions, pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. 6) Ashland Land Use Ordinance lS.SS.0S0(B) provides as follows: "B. All developments, other than partitionings, which involve the division of land, or development of individual living units, in the P-overlay areas, shall be processed under this Chapter of the Land Use Ordinance. The minimum lot size for one unit shall be the same as in the parent zone." Ashland Land use Ordinance lS.SS.100 provides as follows: "ADDlicabilitv of Other sections of the Land Use DeveloDment Ordinance. Developments exercising the Performance Standards option shall be required to meet all other applicable sections of the Land Use Development Ordinance except for minimum lot size, lot width, lot depth and setback requirements, and except as otherwise provided in this Chapter. All public improvements and commonly owned areas in a Performance Standards development shall follow the same procedure as a subdivision for bonding. (Ord. 2356, 19S5)." 7) The issue raised by Appellants was addressed by John Fregonese, Ashla!ld Planning Director, in a Memorandum dated October 22, 190, to the ,City Attorney, Ronald L. Salter ,and by a Memorandum, dated November 7, 1990, trom Mr. Salter to Mr. Fregonese. Both Memoranda are a part of the record in these proceedings. Now, therefore, City Council of the City of Ashland and recommends as follows: findS, concludes SECTION 1. EXHIBITS :J- For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an ItS" 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 proposal for Final Plan approval for a 17-lot subdivision under the Performance Standards Option meets all criteria outlined in 18.88.030 B. 2.3 The, City Council adopts by reference the findings submitted by the applicant, and makes the following additional findings addressing the criteria for, Final Plan approval: The Council finds that the application conforms with the applicable criteria of 18.88.030 B. 5. a)-g) in the following way: a) no change in the number of units, b) these have remained consistent except for the modifications of yards as per the conditions of approval of the Outline Plan. c) the open space has remained essentially the same, except for the modification required as part of the conditions of approval of the Outline Plan. d) building and envelope sizes have remained consistent, except for modifications required as part of the conditions of approval of the Outline Plan. e) the materials submitted during outlined plan have remained the same for final plan. f) the applicant has indicated that all homes will be built to meet the city's energy efficiency standards. Also, the open space has been indicated on the Final Plan maps in sufficient detail to ensure the adequate development of this area. g) amendments to the approved final plan will be processed 3 as a separate planning action. 2.4 The Council finds that the Conditions of Approval attached during Outline Plan approval are met or addressed by this application as follows: 1) That all disputes concerninq the lot boundaries be settled prior to application for Pinal Plan approval. Proof of clear title for the parcel shall be required at the time of application. The applicant has presented information in the form of a clear title to the property to the City as part of their application materials conforming with this condition. 2) That a sidewalk be located on the eastern side of the new street, from Roca street around the end of the cul-de-sac to the proposed open space path, and that it be constructed to a 4' width. The applicant's site plan indicates this sidewalk. 3) That street trees, 1 per 30' of frontaqe, be provided a10nq both sides of the new street, and alonq the Roca street frontaqe. Trees to be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any new structure. street trees located in the open space shall be installed prior to acceptance of the subdivision by the City of Ashland. This requirement is tied to Certificate of Occupancy requirements for individual residences, or to final approval and acceptance of the subdivision. The open space trees, along with the open space landscaping requirements, .may be fully bonded prior to installation, allowing acceptance of the subdivision by the city. 4) That a half-street improvement be done on Roca street, includinq curb, qutter, and sidewalk. The applicant's plans indicate the Roca street improvements, and must be installed prior to acceptance of the subdivision by the City of Ashland and the issuance of building permits. 5) That the buildinq envelopes be modified such that no envelopes contain slopinq areas in excess of 40%. Also, all lots shall contain at least one 20' private yard, either at the rear or side of the property and indicated on the final plan. ' The applicant has provided a map indicating that all building envelopes are located on lands less than 40% slope. 6) That a hydroloqic study be performed includinq l{ enqineerinq information concerninq adequacy of water and flood impact reqar4inq the pon4s an4 waterfalls propose4 for the open space area at the time of Pinal Plan. The study should also a44ress the issue of removal of the culvert alonq Roca Drainaqe. The Planninq Commission reserves the riqht to remove the culvert at the time of Pinal Plan. The applicant's engineer has presented a study indicating that the proposed channel design for the open space area will be capable of handling a 100-year storm. Also, the culvert for the new street is also designed to handle a 100-year storm. Ponds and spillways have also been designed to meet this standard. The report has been completed' and stamped by Registered Professional Engineer John Hardey. Regarding the existing culvert, the plans are designed such that the culvert is not used for flood control. The water is all routed on the surface. The grading and erosion control plan indicates that the existing 18" culvert will be abandoned. Previous discussions ~ith the engineer has indicated that the culvert will remain where possible, but that the construction of the channel for the surface flow may require the removal of some sections of the culvert. The opponents have presented information submitted by Professional Engineer Robert s. Blanton, rebutting the information presented by Engineer Hardy, and providing alternate calculations, in a letter dated Oct. 1, 1990, and further rebutted in a "memorandum of opposition" presented by Karen Allen, Attorney for the opponents. The calculations were reviewed by Public Works Director steven Hall, Professional Engineer. Hall also performed independent calculations as reported in his memo dated November 5, 1990. Hall found that the calculations presented by Hardy were accurate and that the culvert as designed was appropriate for this location. Engineer Hardy also submitted a response to Engineer Blanton's letter, supporting,thecalculations presented originally. Engineer Blanton provided further rebuttal to the letters submitted by Hall and Hardy in a letter dated November 14, 1990. The Council finds that engineering information submitted in support of the condition by Engineer Hardy meets the ,requirements of the condition,' and that the evidence submitted in support of the calculations by Public Works Director Hall provides a factual basis for support of the information. The Council finds that the requirements for this condition have been met by the applicant and is supported by facts within the record. s 7) That solar envelopes be provided for all lots and indicated on the final plan and final survey plat. A plan indicating these envelopes has been provided by the applicant. 8) That buildinq envelopes, be provided for all lots and indicated on-the final plan and final survey plat. A plan indicating these envelopes has been provided by the applicant. g) That the rear yard setbacks for the parcels abuttinq the eastern property line be a minimum of 20'. All lots abutting the eastern line have a minimum 20' setback indicated. 10) That detailed information concerninq 'street desiqn, relatinq to cuts and fills and street qrade, be present at the tille of Pinal Plan. Plans to be site specific and not "typical. " 110 stre.t qrades shall exceed 15% . Also, information on culvert sizinq, as per the Physical and BnviroDllental Constraints ordinance, shall be required as part of the street desiqn. Plans of the street grades and profiles, indicating the required information, has been submitted by the applicant. Calculations on culvert sizing for the street crossing have also been submitted as part of the hydrologic study. No street grades, or private drive grades, exceed 15%. 11) That the open space on the eastern side of the new street be deleted and that this area become part of the lots on this side. The submitted plans indicate this change. 12) That a development/landscapinqplan be presented for the open space, includinq the cul-de-sac island. The applicant has submitted ,the requested landscaping plans, and they have been reviewed by the Tree Commission. 13) That draft CC'R's be presented at Final Plan approval, indicatinq maintenance of common open space and common drives and that the Ce'R's be reviewed by the City Attorney. The applicant submitted a draft copy of the CC&R's with review by the City Attorney. with the conditions established by the Planning Commission at their public hearing, the Council finds that the CC&R's are adequate and comply with the requirements established by this condition. to 14) -That .11 ......nt. for ..w.r, wat.r, .l.ctric, and .tr..ts b. provid.d .s r.quir.d by the city of A.hland. An initial indicatincj condition. plat of 'the subdivision public utility easements, has been submitted complyinq with the 15) Th.t . dr.inaq.way .a...ent be provided for ,Roca Drainaq.. This has been indicated on the preliminary subdivision_plat. 16) That the Planninq Commi.sion r..erye the riqht to remove the culv.rt .lonq Roca drainaq. and can do .0 at the time of Pinal Plan. ' Given the information submitted by the applicant's enqineer, The Council finds that the culvert should not be removed from the channel, but rather allow the applicant to construct the drainaqe channel in the Open Space as submitted, with the removal of any culvert as necessary. 17) That a public p.d..trian acc.s. ea...ent be qrant.d to the City of A.hl.nd for the p.thway. throuqh the op.n .pace. This easement has been indicated on the preliminary subdivision plat. 18) Th.t an int.ria con.truction .ro.ion control pl.n, and p.raan.nt erosion control plan b. .ubmitt.d . p.rt of Pinal Plan. Such plan. to .ddr... the .treet cuts .nd fill., and po..ible .ro.ion control mea.ures to be taken durinq residence con.truction. str.et cut. in excess of l' in heiqht should b. mad. near vertical and b. surfac.dwith a dry masonry rock fac. or the functional .quivalent. pill slopes should be maintained with .n erosion control nettinq and .ee4ed with an .ro.ion control vaqat.tion. xrriqation .hould ba provided to en.ure veqat.tion qrovth. Bro.ion control plans to include detail of all such .ea.ure.. An erosion control plan has been submitted by the applicant's enqineer. The plan indicates the required rock walls for cut slopes, and letter from the enqineer states that "fill slopes shall be 'maintained with an erosion control nettinq similar to CUrlex Blankets as manufactured by the American Excelsior Company. The Master Landscape plan also indicated that an automatic sprinkler system will be installed to ensure veqetation qrowth. II Interim erosion control is addressed throuqh the use of hay bales. 19) That .oil. t..tinq of the site b. done to determine the quality .nd stability of the soils, witJ;l the intent of discov.rinq wh.tthe soil is comprised of .nd the potential ~ for any future problems. A detailed soils analysis was performed in April,1990 by Certified Engineering Geologist Tom Ferrero. The report indicates that there is a "relatively insignificant" amount of toxics in the $oi1, with no apparent health hazards. The report also addresses the specific needs for foundations and cuts. 20) ~hat the slopes on driveways be liaited to 15% or less, which parallels the present street standards. The plans indicate that the private drives are all 15% or less, and the remainder of the driveways will be approved for compliance with this standard at the time of building permit issuance. The Council finds that the approval of the driveway grades at the time of building permits provides compliance with this criteria. Further, they find that the information presented by Richard stevens, regarding driveway grades in a letter dated October 9, 1990, does not accurately represent the grades of the driveways as they will be constructed, but represents the topography as it presently exists. The Council finds that excavation or filling or bridging as necessary for construction will assure compliance with this condition at the time of residence construction. 21) That Phase I include the development of the open space/common areas and improvements on Roca street. The final plan approval is for the entire subdivision, but the applicant is aware of this requirement and has proposed to complete improvements to both the open space area and Roca street. 22) That for lots were the building envelopes include slopes between 30-40%, that the lot coverage be reduced by 10 percent, making it 36 percent lot coverage. The applicant has provided a table indicating lot coverages for all lots, with all lots being in accord with the above condition. 23) That specific plans relating to the recommendations of the geologic report concerning foundations, retaining walls, streets and other facilities be presented at thetiae of Pinal Plan. The geologic report of April, 1990 includes specific information regarding cut and fills for the construction within the subdivision. Similarly, the street construction and erosion control plans further address this information. Specific engineering requirements, in accord with the geologic report, will be enforced as part of the building permit process for individual residences. q 2.5 The Council finds that the only issue raised by Appellants on appeal is the interpretation and application of ALUO 18.88.080 (B) to the Roca Canyon Homes Planned Development at Final Plan Approval. Appellants have raised what has been termed a "density" issue. In fact, the issue raised by Appellants relates to minimum lot size. Appellants contend that 18.88.080(B) is ambiguous and requires that every lot in the development must have the same minimum size as required by the parent zone, or 10,000 square feet. The Memoranda of Mr. Fregonese and Mr. Salter discuss the legislative history and the historical application of the subject ordinance provision and suggest that the strict interpretation urged by Appellants has never been followed by the City and would be unwarranted in this case. Applicants' attorney, John R. Hassen, has made the following points: A. If the ordinance prOV1S1on was meant to be applied as urged by Appellants, it should specify that "each" unit shall have the same minimum lot size as the parent zone, not just "one" unit. B. If a strict interpretation of the ordinance provision is to be followed, Roca Canyon Homes qualifies because two units in the development exceed 10,000 square feet in size. C. Applicants have argued for strict application of the ordinance provision, but they want to change the word "one" to "each". D. The general structure of Chapter 18.88 is, to allow flexibility. ALUO 18.88.100 provides that developments subject to the Performance Standards option must meet all other requirements of the Land Use Development Ordinance, except for minimum lot size. The Council finds that the legislative history and arguments of Mr. Hassen show that the provision of ALUO 18.88.080(B) are ambiguous as written. The arguments of ,Applicant are more reasonable as to the interpretation and application of the ordinance. Planned developments have historically been, and are generally, approved with lot sizes smaller than the minimum lot size required in the parent zone as an incentive to the developer to provide ,open space and other amenities that might otherwise be left out of the project. Therefore, ALUO 18.88.080(B) does not require all lots in the Roca Canyon Homes Planned Development to have a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. ' SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the City Council concludes that the request for Final Plan approval of a 17-lot subdivision under the Performance Standards Option is supported by the evidence contained in the whole record. 0; Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #90~182. Further, if anyone or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #90-182 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That a final copy of the CC&R's be presented for review and approval by the City Attorney and Staff Advisor prior to the signature of the final survey plat by the City of Ashland, and include the following modifications: a) That section 7.3 regarding the association's right to sell or encumber the open space be deleted. b), That the following disclaimer be attached to the CC&R's as number 16: "16. DISC~IKER STA~EMBII'1' ~hese covenants constitute a private agreement among the owners of lots within Roca Canyon Homes, A Planned Community, an4 will not be enforced by the City of Ashland except as allowed in 13.9. ~hese covenants have not been approved or 4isapprove4 by the cityan4 40 not restrict the city's authority to a40pt or ..en4 its 4evelopment regulations. ~here aay be conflictinq requirements between these covenants an4 the city's regulations. The City will limit its review of a 4evelopment applica~ion an4 the issuance of permits to the requirements of its regulations and any conditions of approval. It is the 4uty of every person engaged in 4evelopment within Roca Canyon Homes to know the requirements of these covenants. In the event there is a conflict between a City regulation an4 these covenants, any question reqarding these 4ee4 restrictions' shall be 4irecte4 to the Board of Directors of the Roca Canyon Homes Homeowner's Association. ~he City will not be liable for any approvals or permits which are grante4 in compliance with City regulations, but which ar not in compliance with these covenants~ c) That a provision be added to the CC&R's to include that the initial fee to the Homeowner's Association be paid at time of escrow in the amount of $250 per lot and a month SUbscription amount of $25 be required to cover open space maintenance based upon a budget submitted by the applicant. This amount could be modified in April of 1992. d) That the words "and thereafter" be deleted from Section 11.2 Paragraph 3 of the CC&R's. (0 3) That all relevant conditions of Outline Plan approval (PA89-168) shall remain valid. 4) That the culvert size under the new proposed street be increased to 48" as stipulated and agreed upon by the applicant. 5) That the street name not include the word "oak" and that the name be distinguishable from other street names within the City, with the final approval for the street name to be granted by the Public Works Department as part of Final Plat approval. Mayor Date City Recorder {( SOUTHERN OREGON STATE COLLEGE ASHLAND. OREGON 97520 MEOlA CENTER 482-6393 February 12, 199: TO: Ashland Citv Council FROM: Pete Belc~st:ro&- ~ Director RE: Ashland Cable Access Channel Report On February 20, 1991 Ashland Cable Access celebrates its first an- niversary of service to the citizens of Ashland and the Rogue Valley. ACA is owned by the City of Ashland and operated by the Media Cen- ter at Southern Oregon State COllege. Ashland Community Hospital is a charter member and receives programming time each week. Community Access television is conducted on Fridays and is open to any local citizen who wishes to make their own television program. I have prepared a report which breaks down the total number of hours played on the channel during its initial year. Please take a few minutes and glance over it. The report does not include the fact that more than 300 programs were produced by snldents fea~2ring the three partners in the channel as well as more than 100 community access productions made in our facility. It has been an extremely busy first year. You are all invited to our open house on Feb. 20 from 6-9pm at th~ ACA studio located on the top floor of the SOSC Library. If you have never seen the facility I encourage you to do so. In closing, I wish to publicly thank Brian Almquist for his support of Ashland Cable Access. He has been extremely supportive of our ef- forts and has gone out of his way to ensure the long term stability of community television in Southern Oregon. There are many other people who also deserve to be recognized for their contributions to ACA. . Students and staff are looking forward to the challenges that lie ahead as we begin our second year. While I often tell people I1this is not CBS, nor is it intended to be" we will always strive to improve and make community television at Ashland Cable Access an important vehicle of communication with one another in the Rogue Valley. ASHLAND CABLE ACCESS CHANNEL Program Report: Feb. 20, 1990 - Feb. 1, 1991 1) CITY OF ASHLAND - City Council, Planning Commission, Ashland Town Hall, Downtown Plaza, Water Conservation, Bicycle Plan, Ashland City Band. 2) SOUTHERN OREGON STATE COLLEGE - Lectures, performances, other in- stitutional programs. 3) ASHLAND COMMUNITY HOSPITAL - ACH Notebooks, ACH Health Quest. 4l COMMUNITY ACCESS TELEVISION - ACA service area, Non-ACA service area produced programs. 5) * LIVE - live ACA programs including City Council, Planning Commission, Political Forums, Town Hall, Gulf Crisis, Peoples Law School, etc. 6) AEROBICS - Workout with Suzy, Morning Star Aerobics. 7) TELECOURSES - SOSC telecourses, Programming for the Gifted, Vietnam, People's Law Schqol. 8) POLTICIAL - Live and taped political forum programs 9) OTHER - Programs not associated with any of the above including The Constitution, Against All Odds, Mechanical Universe, Congress: We the People, Crime File, Mediation Series, A Look at Africa, Deep Dish Satellite Network, Everyone's Channel, AG-USA. CITY OF ASHLAND...............- 8,839 minutes/ 147 Hours 00 Min. SOUTHERN OREGON STATE COLLEGE.- 19,441 minutes/ 326 Hours 33 Min. ASHLAND COMMUNITY HOSPITAL....- 4,820 minutes/ 63 Hours 40 Min. COMMUNITY ACCESS TELEVISION: ACA Service Area Non-ACA Service Area 9,471 minutes/ 158 Hours 40 Min. 3,666 minutes/ 61 Hours 53 Min. LIVE..........................- 7,281 minutes -122 Hours 05 Min. AEROBICS......................- 6,227 minutes -120 Hours 40 Min. TELECOURSE....................- 952 minutes - 20 Hours 20 Min. POLITICAL.....................- 1,350 minutes - 27 Hours 15 Min. OTHER.........................- 9,005 minutes -190 Hours 15 Min. TOTAL HOURS...................- 64,962 minutes -1,083 Hours 10 Mi Not including promotions, public service and ACA short clips * Live program totals included in appropriate categories. 1 ... SOUTHERN OREGON STATE COLLEGE ASHLAND. OREGON 97520 MEDIA CENTER 482.6393 NEWS RELEASE Ashland Cable Access Channel February 11, 1991 FIRST ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION PLANNED Highlights of various programs shown during 1990 will be featured during the Ashland Cable Access Channel's "First Anniversary Special." The television special will be carried on Ter Cablevision throughout Jackson County on Wednesday; February 20 from 7-9pm. Cable Access Director Pete Belcastro says, "it is hard to believe that one year has passed since the birth of community access television in Southern Oregon." What a year it has been! According to ACA records, the channel has cablecast one-thousand 83 hours as of February 1, 1991. Broken down further the City of Ashland has received 147 hours of live city council, planning commission and town hall programs. Southern Oregon State College has aired 326 hours of programs ranging from lectures to performing arts. Ashland Community Hospital has received 64 hours of programs featuring tours of hospital facili ties and programs designed to help you lead a healthier life. Community access programming has totaled 219 hours. Most of that has come from locally made programs by Jackson County community producers. During the "First Anniversary Special" cable viewers will get a chance to meet representatives from the City, SOSC, Ashland Community Hospital, TCI Cablevision and local community producers. Each person will share their experiences about ACA's first year. A telephone call-in is also scheduled for citizens to ask questions of program participants. Staff and students have poured over hundreds of hours of video tapes looking for -ACA favorites to include on the highlight tape. These include excerpts from the SOSC 3azz Concerts, International Week Variety Show, IRC Talent Show, and many others. The public is invited to visit the studios of ACA from 6 to 9pm. Cake and refreshments will be served. Visitors will be able to talk with students of SOSC who will conduct tours of the facility which is located on the third floor of the SOSC Library. Ashland Cable Access is Southern Oregon's only community televi- sion channel. It is a joint partnership between the City, College and Hospital and is the only such channel of its kind in the country. For more information please call 552-6395. #### November 1990 TO: Those Interested in Ashland Cable Access FROM: Pete Belcastro, Director Ashland Cable Access Channel (ACAC) was born on February 20, 1990 when the signal was first placed on the TCI cable system. The channel is a joint parntership between the City of Ashland, Southern Oregon State College and Ashland Community Hospital. The partners are responbile for funding the operation and in return are al- located air time for programming. While the City owns the channel, it is operated by an agreement with the Media Center of Southern Oregon State College. SOSC students act as camera operators, editors, producers etc. for many of the locally produced programs featuring the three partners. In addition, Friday has been designated as community access night. The studio is open for local productions and editing is also available. A copy of "Rules, Policies and Procedures" of ACA is available free of charge. An application form for community access programs is included. Ashland Cable Access can be seen on the Tcr Cablevision system throughout Jackson County, Oregon. TCI cable penetration in the market is 50,000 homes. Coverage includes the cities of Medford, Ashland, Central Point, Eagle Point, Phoenix, Talent, White City and .Jacksonville. ACA operates from 5pm to midnight Monday through Friday. On weekends the channel plays a "Welcome to Ashland" program featuring tourism in- formation about Ashland and Southern Oregon. ACAC is currently sharing channel space with the Jackson Education Service District on channels 61-99-1. In December of 1992, under con- tract with the City of Ashland, TCI will provide three low-band channels. These channels will include a full-time community access channel, a full- time government channel, and' a full-time education channel. Currently the channel serves in all three capacities. ACAC is the only existing cable access channel in Southern Oregon. Its purpose is to provide a variety of programs from its parnters and the public. ACA encourages the expression of diverse opinions. The ACAC is governed by the Ashland Cable Access Commission which is ap- pointed by the mayor and meets on a regular basis to set guidelines and policies. For more information please call: (503) 552-6395 or toll free 1-800- 552-7672. ### 1 " r;6l-1/ ~ S7J/~ ~kAltJS 3.:r..r GA",,!.#T S T A~///.A'#~ CJ~ '17t710 11;2-/7"'/ 117A. 3Ut44 Apu-lu- wi piuJ dkMld. IT'K- ~ ~" d.- .~ .AAA-~.J-o 'f1-~ d fo &U--t~, r;Ja. w~ ~ ~ . " . ~ 3() ~ tc'y ILM ~,J~{} (TJ'- '-!-tv- ;.Juij""v . ~'-Z- Po.AM.- (aa- r &t~'-CG ) ~1-&t~ ff ~ ". .,1 P -~ ~' ~ /7~~~~ ~.#I__ - {1 ~ ~u{T)J~~__"..... ,.~ ,__, CL, ___.~~__r-I' ~ h~."~, ".. t:8I e mn r a rt durn February 14, 1991 ijIo: Honorable Mayor & City Council JIf rom: Brian L. Almquist, City Administrator ~ubject: Request for Banner Fee Waiver Jill lIes requested a waiver of the fee required for the hanging of a street banner for "Earth Day". I denied that request on the basis that we have not waived the fee for any other community organization. We have waived the fee for the Ashland Community Hospital, and for Dr. Martin Luther King Day which is sponsored by the City. Ms. lIes has appealed my decision to the City Council. If the Council chooses to waive the fee, I need to know what guideline to apply to other such organizations which have also requested waivers in the past. Attached is a copy of Ms. Iles letter of appeal and a copy of our street banner policy. Enclosures (2) ., \~ February 8, 1990 Printed on born-again paperl 100% recycled fiber Brian L. Almquist, city Administrator City of Ashland city Hall A3HLAND Ort 97520 Attn: Donna Hello, I would like to be on the agenda of the city Council for Tuesday, Februay 19. My item for the 'agenda is city fee waiver for rental costs of hanging the Earth Day Banner for'one week on April 22, 1991. Earth Day is an important'event;raising peoples awareness that we arB part of/and not master o~ this planet we live on. and tha t for us to be heal t_hy, the pl anet must be heal thy., This is especially relevant in these times of environmental and human tragedies. The City of Ashland could show its support of this conciousness and recognize its import by sponsoring the hanging of the Happy Earth Day Banner. It definitely fits the criterium of being a "community-wide eventtf as Earth Day is nationally and internationally recognized and has been in effect for 21 years. I would also like to propose that the City of Ashland accept the joyful responsibility of hanging the Happy Earth Day banner each year on April 22 and, if it chooses to do so, I wi1l'be'happy to present the banner to the City as its own. Given the above, I would appreciate being placed on the agenda and await your early confirmation. Thank you. sincerely, 2r~c n" ::l.te.J Jill A. lles PO Box 442 ASHLAND OR 97520 . , .... STREET BANNER POLICY Eliai~ility: All non-profit, charitable, and educational institutions based in Ashland, sponsoring events. of City-wide interest and which are held within the Ashland community. Time L1mits: Seven calendar days Placements: Banners will be installed and removed by City electric crews at the convenience of the City. Construction: Banners must meet the specifications set forth by the Electric Department for size, material strength, wind vents, and metal grommets. Freauencv: No more than one banner in any six (6) month period per organization. Charae: $125.00 Approval :, Permits for banners will be issued by the City Administrator under the above regulations. Appeals may be made to the City Council. 5/25/82 ~emn"randutn February 14, 1991 ~o: Honorable Mayor & city council ~rntn: Brian L. Almquist, City Administrator ~~eti: Use of Water street Parking Space for Growers Market Public Works Director Hall and I have reviewed the request of the Medford Growers Market to use on-street parking spaces on Water street from N. Main to the parking lot. They have requested permission to block off parking'on one side of the street for vendors'trucks. We currently allow them to use one row of off-street parking in the parking lot closest to the entrance to the Back Porch BBQ'- . , We do not recommend granting this request due to the limited parking in the Downtown, Area, and the issue of safety of pedestrians in the street and'between vehicles. c:'Remnrandum February 15, 1991 ~o: Qty Council Jff rom: Planning Staff ~ubject: Plannine Action 91-017 - Growers Market on Water Street The Planning Commission has approved a Conditional Use Permit for a Growers Market under the viaduct adjacent to the Oty parking lot and for the parking spaces along the creek side of Water Street, from North Main Street down to the parking lot. The market operated last year only in the area under the viaduct. The market would be limited only to the 8' wide parking spaces on the creek side of Water Street. The other side would remain as public parking, and the travel lanes would remain open as currently configured. The Type I findings for approval are attached to this memo. The use of these on-street parking spaces requires the approval of the Oty -Council prior to any operation of the market. We request your consideration of this matter and thank you for your efforts. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS & ORDERS February 12, 1991 PLANNING ACIlON 91-017 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a temporary use to allow for the operation of a Grower's Market from mid-April through mid- November. Use to be located under the viaduct on Water Street and a portion of Water Street, adjacent to the Oty parking lot. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial Downtown Overlay; Zoning: C-1-D; Assessor's Map #: 9BB; Tax Lot #: lithia Way and Water Street right-of-way. APPLICANT: Medford Growers and Crafters Association On Wednesday, January 23, 1991, an admlnl~trative hearing was held in the Planning Office to review this application. In attendance were Bill Molnar, Associate Planner and Senior Planner John McLaughlin'serving as Hearings Officer. McLaughlin reviewed the application, noting that the Grower's Market had been in operation under the viaduct on Water Street during the last spring and summer and was perceived as a positive use in the downtown. Other than some initial concerns regarding parking when the Market started, there have been no complaints received regarding the operation of the Market. The applicants are requesting a change in the area used for their market this year. . In addition to the area under the viaduct, the applicants are requesting that Water Street, between the base of the beaver slide" and the entrance to the parking lots be closed off for their market. The Public Works and Fire Departments have reviewed the request, and expressed concerns regarding the closing of the street. The concerns involved an intermittent change in traffic patterns, perhaps confusing motorists; creating an unsafe. situation in that there is no turn- around area should cars turn off of North Main Street and go north on Water Street; and that emergency access would be severely limited. ' In response to these concerns, it has been accepted by the Public Works Department that only the 8' parking spaces on the west side of Water Street, ,from the parking lot to North Main Street, be made available for market use, that the parking on the east side remain for visitors, and that the travel lane area remain open for traffic. It was also determined that a portion of the sidewalk could be used for the booths, as long as adequate area was maintained for pedestrian passage. This will allow for a continuation of the pedestrian movements from the viaduct to the plaza, or the reverse. Given the relatively low traffic flows on Water Street, and the limited duration of the market, conflicts should be minim17.ed by this configuration. The criteria for approval of a Conditional Use Permit 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 SU"ounding neighborhQod. 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 compatibility with the su"ounding area. McLaughlin said that the findings made by the Commission for the original approval.(P A90- 050) are still valid and are incorporated by reference here~ Based on our overall conclusions and on the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve .Planning Action 91-017. Further, if anyone or more of the following conditions are found to be invalid for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action 91-017 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1) That the area used for the market place be limited to the area under the viaduct and the adjacent parking spaces in the lot, and the parking spaces on the west side of Water Street between North Main Street and the entrance to the parking lots on Water Street. 2) That only the 8' wide areas of the parking space on the west side of Water Street be used, and that some form of visible barrier, such as a rope or bright ribbon, be used to indicate the travel lanes and restrict inadvertent p.edestrian movements out into the travel lane. 3) That a portion of the sidewalk be available for market use, but that a minimum of 3' of clear pedestrian space remain for pedestrian travel. 4) That the market only operate between the hours of 7 a.In. and 1:30 p.m. and that the area be left clean and maintained after closure. 5) That, to safeguard the grower's market idea, no less than 50% of any individual vendor's wares shall be agricultural in nature. 6) That the applicant participate in any programs to regulate and control garbage and refuse in the Viaduct area. H no' appeal is filed, this request will become final when reviewed by the Ashland Planning, Commission on February 12, 1991. ' John Fregonese; Planning Director Date ) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND ANNEXING A CONTIGUOUS AREA TO THE CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (CROWSON ROAD ANNEXATION) THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The land described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof is contiguous to the City of Ashland and is located in Jackson County, Oregon, and is hereby annexed to the City of Ashland as provided .in Section 2 of this ordinance. SECTION 2. Upon the effective date of this ordinance, the City Recorder, in accordance with ORS 222.177, is hereby authorized and 'directed to make and submit to the Secretary of the State of Oregon, a copy of this ordinance, a copy of the Statement of Consent from the electorate of the tract annexed, and a copy of the ordinance dispensing with the election on the proposed annexation, and also upon the effective date hereof, the City Recorder is authorized and directed to submit a copy of this ordinance to the County Assessor and County Surveyor of Jackson County, Oregon. The foregoing Ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the 19th day of February, 1991, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , ,1991. Nan E. Franklin City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 1991. Catherine M. Golden Mayor ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND WITHDRAWING CERTAIN RECENTLY ANNEXED REAL PROPERTY FROM JACKSON COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT NO. 5 (CROWSON ROAD ANNEXATION) THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The land described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, situated in the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon is hereby withdrawn from Jackson County Fire District No. 5 pursuant to the provisions of ORS 222.524. SECTION 2. The City of Ashland elects to pay the bonds of the Special Taxing Districts pursuant to the provisions of ORS 222.520 (2) (b) . The foregoing Ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the ~ day of February, 1991, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this ____ day of , 1991. Nan E. Franklin City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of I 1991. Catherine M. Golden Mayor ORDINANCE NO ~ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND RE-ZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM RR-5 TO R-1-10-P (CROWSON ROAD ANNEXATION) THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The property described as Tax Lot 39-1E-13C-2300 and shown as that property located at 209 Crowson Road is hereby rezoned ,from Jackson County RR-5 to City of Ashland R-1-10-P (Single Family Residential). The foregoing Ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City.Chart~r on the 19th day of February, 199,1, and duly PASSED ,and ADOPTED this ____ day of , 1991. Nan E. Franklin City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED' this day of , 1991. Catherine M. Golden Mayor ~emllrandum February 14, 1991 ~o: Honorable Mayor & City Council ~ro~: Brian L. Almquist, City Administrator ~ubject: Transportation Fee Ordinance Changes , As the Council is aware, the Attorney General in an op1n1on issued September 7, 1990 determined that based on the wording of our Transportation utility Fee, it would be included in the definition of a "property tax" under ballot measure 5. Although the ordinance was not intended to be based on property ownership, there are a number of references to "property owner". The ordinance also uses terms like "assessment", and provides that unpaid amounts can be collected from an "owner" in an action at law. The attached ordinance removes all references to property owners, and will henceforth refer to occupants and/or tenants. It also removes all references to assessments. Attachment (1) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4.26 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING TRANSPORTATION UTILITY FEES. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 4.26.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "4.26.020 Establishment of TransDortation Utility Fee. The City Council may establish by resolution a transportation utility fee to be paid by the users or occupants of structures within the corporate limits of the City. Such fee shall be established in such amounts which will provide sufficient funds to properly maintain local streets and to provide for bikeways throughout the City. Fees charged to individual structures and uses shall be based upon a flat fee for single and multiple family dwellings and based upon the number of parking spaces required by Chapter 18.92 of this Code for all non-residential uses. Said fees shall also apply to the Downtown Overlay District defined in Section 18.32.050 as if off-street parking were required. The' City Council may, by resolution, establish such amount dependent upon the use of the structure under existing zoning as such use relates to the v~hicular traffic which will be generated by the use. Collection of the fee against each occupant shall be made by a monthly charge to be added to the utility bill for such occupant. The City Council may from time to time by resolution, change the fee based upon revised estimates of the cost of properly maintaining local streets and constructing bikeways, revised categories of developed use, revised traffic generation factors, and other factors." SECTION 2. Section 4.26.030 of the Ashland Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "4.26.030 TransDortation Utility Fee--Dedicated. All fees collected by the City and such other monies as might be available to the City for the purposes of this chapter shall be paid into the Street Fund (Fund). Such revenues shall be used for the purposes of the operation, administration, and maintenance of the local street network of the City and for'the construction of bikeways. It shall not be necessary that the operations, administration, and maintenance expenditures from the Fund specifically relate to any particular use from which the fees for said purposes were collected. To the extent that the fees collected are insufficient to properly maintain local streets, the cost of the same may be paid from such other city funds as may be determined by the City Council, but the City Council may order the reimbursement to such fund if additional fees are thereafter collected. All funds collected pursuant to the provisions of this chapter for operation, administration, maintenance of streets, and for bikeway construction shall be separately-designated as such and shall be used solely for- those purposes, except that not,more than one-sixth (1/6) of such funds may be used for bikeway construction." SECTION 3. Section 4.'26.050 of the Ashland Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "4.26.050 Billina For Fee. The fee shall be billed and collected with the monthly utility bill. All such bills shall be rendered monthly by the Department of Finance and shall become due and payable in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Department of Finance pertaining to the collection of utility fees, and the Director of Finance shall place all such fees so collected into the Fund to be deposited and separately kept to be used only for the purposes provided herein." SECTION 4. Subsection A. of Section 4.26.070 of the Ashland Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "4.26.070 Administrative Review--ADDeals. A. Any user or occupant who disputes the amount of the fee, or disputes any determination made by or on behalf of the City pursuant to and by the authority of this chapter may petition the City Council for a hearing on a revision or modification of such-fee or determination. Such petitions may be filed only once in connection with any fee or determination, except upon a showing of changed circumstances sufficient to justify the filing of such additional petition." The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article x, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on" the 1991, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of day of , 1991. Nan E. Franklin City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 1991. Catherine M. Golden _ Mayor ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND ANNEXING A CONTIGUOUS AREA TO THE CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (SECURE STORAGE ANNEXATION) THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The land described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof is contiguous to the City of Ashland and is located in Jackson County, Oregon, and is hereby annexed to the City of Ashland as provided in Section 2 of this ordinance~ SECTION 2. Upon the effective date of this ordinance, the City Recorder, in accordance with ORS 222.177, is hereby authorized and directed to make and submit to the Secretary of the State of Oregon, a copy of this ordinance, a copy of the Statement of Consent from the electorate of the tract annexed, and a copy of the ordinance dispensing with the election on the proposed annexation, and also upon the effective date hereof, the City Recorder is authorized and directed to submit a copy of this ordinance to the County Assessor and County Survey~r of Jackson County, Oregon. The foregoing ordinance was first read on the 19th day of February, 1991, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 5th day of March, 1991. Nan E. Franklin City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of March, 1991. Catherine Golden Mayor ORDl:NANCB NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND WITHDRAWING CERTAIN RECENTLY ANNEXED REAL PROPERTY FROM JACKSON COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT NO. 5 (SECURE STORAGE ANNEXATION) THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The land described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, situated in the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon is hereby withdrawn from Jackson County Fire District No. 5 pursuant to the provisions of ORB 222.524. SECTION 2. The City of Ashland elects to pay the bonds of the Special Taxing Districts pursuant to the provisions of ORB 222.520(2) (b). The foregoing ordinance was first read on the 19th day of February, 1991, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 5th day of March, 1991. Nan E. Franklin City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 1991. Catherine M. Golden Mayor '^" ORDJ:NANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND RE-ZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM RR-5 TO E-1 (SECURE STORAGE ANNEXATION) THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The property described as Tax Lot 39-1E-12-320 and shown as that property located at the intersection of Highway 66 and East Main street, across from Oak Hill Circle, is hereby rezoned from Jackson County RR-5 to City of Ashland E-1 (Employment). The foreqoing ordinance was first read on the ~ day of February, 1991, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 5th day of March, 1991. Nan E. Franklin City Recorder, SIGNED and APPROVED this day of March, 1991. Catherine Golden Mayor Description for property being annexed to the City of Ashland Commencing at the Section corner common to sections 11,12, 13 and 14, Township 39 South, Range 1 last of the Willamette Meridian,Jackson County, Oregon; thence last 203.59 feet; thence South 38- 44' E.st 395.52 feet to a S/S" iron pin located on the Northeasterly risht of way of Green, Springs Highway (Rishway No. 66) for the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence North SO- 28' East 414.17 feet (Record 474.33 feet) to a 5/S11 iron pin located on the Southwesterly boundary of the Ashland Airport; thence North 39- 32' West along said Southwe.terly Airport boundary, 574.96 feet (aeeord 574.8.9 feet) to a S/8" iron pin marking the intersection of a fence line which originally vas the ,phyaical boundary between the Bayle.. and Owen propertie.; thence alons .aid fence line,. _South 46- IS' 30" West ,446.76 feet to . 5/8" iron pin located on the Easterly right of vay of East HainStr..t a. d..cribed in Document No. 88-12676 of the-Offieial Record. of Jaekaon County, Oregon; thence along .aid Ea.ter1y right of way a. follow, , , South 42- 13' 24" East 80.24 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; thence along the are ofa 254.69 foot radius eurve to the right (the lo~ chord bears South 30- 01' 09" East 107.68 feet) 108.50 feet to a 5/8t. iron pin; thence along the are of . 194.69 foot radius curve to the left (the lOll' chord bears South 23- 03' 17" East 35.56 feet)- 35.61 feet to a S/8" iron pin located on the Northeasterly right of way of Green Springs Hi~hway; thence along .aid Northea8ter~y right of way, South 38- 44' E, 321.76 feet to the ~oint of beginning. Contains: 5.92 Acre. For: Donald Walker 2/11/91 REGfSTFREn PROFESSION.^ l LAND SURVEYO ~~~ OREGON JUL" 10. 1964 GEORGE R. SURREL L 638 ~o: ~rnrn: ~ubject: ~emnrandum February 14, 1991 Mayor and City Council John Fregonese c\ 9/J 1 Affordable Housing Income and Affordability Resolution As part of the proposed changes to the City's Land Use Ordinance, an increased density of 25 percent is allowed for providing housing that is affordable for moderate income persons. These standards are to be established by resolution of the Ashland City Council. The attached resolution establishes both rental and purchase housing income levels and housing cost levels which would satisfy this requirement. Rental income levels are based on 80 percent of county median and affordable rent levels are based on 28 percent of the monthly income for each income category. Purchased housing income levels are based on 1.3 times median income, and monthly payments are based on a 10 percent down payment, a 30 year, 9.0 percent interest loan, and also include tax and insurance costs. The Affordable Housing Report states that rental housing units will require a 20 year affordability guarantee tied to the property. Purchased housing affordability will be protected by a .sleeping second. mortgage which should keep the property in the affordability pool. Both of these requirements are contained in the draft resolution attached to this memo. Please give me a call at 488-5305 if you have questions about these items. RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON SE1TING AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCOME LEVELS AND RENTAL AND PURCHASED COST LEVELS. WHEREAS, the City of Ashland desires to provide affordable ho~sing for its citizens; and WHEREAS, the City's Land Use Ordinance has been amended to provide density bonuses for providing affordable housing; and WHEREAS, the City's Land Use Ordinance requires the City Council to adopt a resolution to establish affordability standards to implement the affordable housing density bonuses. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Ashland, Oregon as follows: SECTION 1. Rental Housing. In order to qualify for the density bonuses allowed in Chapter 18.88.040 B.3.d. of the- City Land Use Ordinance, the affordable units must be rented to families which meet the following income levels: :# of People 1 2 3 4 5 ~ 7 8 Annual Income Level (80% of Median Income) $16,400 18,750 21,100 23,450 24,900 26,400 27,850 29,300 In addition, rent levels for the affordable units must be: Maximum Rent Level, Apt. Type Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom $383/month 438/month 492/month 547/month 580/month Also, the developer will agree to sign a 20 year rental agreement which guarantees these rent levels will be maintained (with inflation factors) and agree to rent only to families that meet the income guidelines. This rental agreement will travel with the property deed to bind Mure owners who purchase the property during this 20 year period. The agreement will also require the owner to rent to HUD Section 8 qualified applicants and agree to accept rent vouchers for all of the affordable rental units where applicable. SECTION 2. Purchased Housing. In order to qualify for the density bonuses allowed in Chapter 18.88.040 B.3.d. of the. City's land Use Ordinance, the affordable units must be sold to families which meet the following income levels: :/I of People 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Annual Income Level (1.3 x Median Income) $27,060. 30,938 34,815 38,693 41,085 43,560 45,952 48,345 In order to qualify for the density bonus, the purchase price of the affordable units will' not exceed the, following amounts: Type of Unit Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom Purchase Price Estimated Monthly Payment $64,312 73,528 82,743 91,958 97,645 $574 656 739 821 872 In addition, .sleeping second. mortgages will be recorded on the deeds of all units used to qualify for the affordable housing density bonus if the selling price is 10 percent greater than the appraised value. " The foregoing resolution was READ and DULY ADOPTED at the regular meeting of the Ashland City Council on the day of , 1991. Nan Franklin City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 1991. Catherine Golden Mayor CONTRACTUAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this ____ day of Februarv, 1991, by and between the CITY OF ASHLAND, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, hereinafter called "City", and E.R. BASHAW, Attorney-at- Law, hereinafter called "Bashaw", both of whom understand as follows: RECITALS City desires to secure the services of Bashaw as City Attorney of the City of Ashland as provided by Charter and Municipal Code of said City; and Bashaw consents to accept engagement as City Attorney of the City of Ashland. AGREEMENT 1. General. City hereby engages Bashaw as City Attorney of the City to perform the functions and duties specified 'in the City Charter and Sections 2.28.220-2.28.270 of the Municipal Code of said City. 2. Compensation. City agrees to pay Bashaw at the rate of $2578 monthly as compensation for the rendition of the above-mentioned services. In addition, the following are deemed as special services when authorized by the City Councilor City Administrator, and shall be compensated at the rate of $67.50 per hour, as follows: a. Services related to litigation and court appearances in other than the Ashland Municipal Court. b. Preparation of legal documents in connection with bond issues, elections, special assessments. c. Condemnation and eminent domain proceedings. d. Special projects authorized by the City Council. Before voluntarily resigning his position, Bashaw agrees to give the City Council at least thirty (30) days notice in writing of his intention to resign. 3. Supportive Functions. The City agrees to provide Bashaw with the use of office space, a four-drawer filing cabinet, secretarial services, and access to a set of the Oregon Revised Statutes and McQuillans on Municipal Corporations, during his tenure. 4. state and Federal Taxes and Workers ComDensation. As an independent 'contractor, Bashaw shall be responsible for,payment of all state and Federal taxes, Social Security taxes, and Workers Compensation coverage. 5. Term. This agreement shall be effective upon its execution by the parties but not sooner than March 1, 1991. It is recognized by the parties that the present City Attorney is retiring on March 31, 1991, but will be on vacation from March 1-31, and thus Bashaw's duties will begin on March 1. pated this day of February, 1991. CITY OF ASHLAND ATTEST: by: Catherine M. Golden Mayor Nan E. Franklin City Recorder ACCEPTED this day of Februarv, 1991. E.R. Bashaw Contractor ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT February 19, 1991 PLANNING ACTION: 90-165 APPLICANT: City of Ashland ORDINANCE REFERENCE: REQUEST: General Land Use Ordinance modifications with respect to the affordable housing goals. Accessory Apartments. This is a change that permits a second unit in single family zones as a Type I Conditional Use. This is one of the primary recommendations of the AtTordable Housing report for increasing the amount of atTordable units within the City. We have not included atTordability guarantees as we believe that policing this, type of apartment, would not be worth the trouble, and the majority of these apartments would be relatively atTordable anyway. 18.20.030 Conditional Uses (R-1 zone) Delete H - Duplexes on comer lots. Additional units will be accommodated by the following section. J. Accessory Residential Units, subject to the Type I procedure and criteria, and the following additional development criteria: 1) The proposal must conform with the overall maximum lot coverage and setback requirements of the underlying zone. 2) The maximum number of dwelling units shall not exceed 2 per lot. 3) The maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory ,residential structure shall not exceed 50% of the GHFA of the primary residence on the lot, and shall not exceed 1000 sq. ft. GHFA 4) Additional parking shall be in conformance with the Off-Street Parking provisions for Single-Family Dwellings of this Title. 5) That the primary residence on the lot shall be owner-occupied. The following would be changes to the Parking Code to address studio apartments and accessory units in Single Family a;reas, as well as addressing congregate care and apartment housing for seniors. 18.92.020 Spaces Required A. Residential Uses 1) Single Family Dwellings 2 spaces for the primary dwelling and the following for accessory residential units: Studio units or 1-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft. -- 1 space/unit 1-bedroom units 500 sq. ft. or larger -- 1.50 spaces/unit 2-bedroom units -- 1.75 spaces/unit 3-bedroom or greater units - 2.00 spaces/unit 2) Multi-Family Dwellings Studio units or 1-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft. -- 1 space/unit 1-bedroom units 500 sq. ft. or larger -- 1.50 spaces/unit 2-bedroom units -- 1.75 spaces/unit 3-bedroom or greater units - 2.00 spaces/unit Retirement complexes for seniors 55-years or gre'ater - (low-income) - 1 space/unit. 18.92.020 D. 6) Rest Homes or Homes for the Aied One space per two patient beds or 1 space per apartment unit. PA9Q-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report February 19, 1991 Page 2 This section would make condominium conversions in a R-2 zone subject to the atTordability criteria. However, it would make the construction of new condominium units a permitted use, subject to the revised densities allowed within the zone. It removes the current test that a showing of no adverse impact on the rental market be made. 18.24.020 R-2 Permitted Uses (assuming density roll-backs and affordable incentives) I. Construction of new Condominiums 18.24.030 R-2 Conditional Uses J. Condominium conversion of existing rental units subject to a Type I procedure and demonstration that at least 25 % of the residential units are affordable for moderate income persons in accord to the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council through procedures contained in said resolution. Current residents of rental units proposed for conversion to condomininums shall have first right of refusal to purchase the unit. Do same thing for R-3 zone (18.28.020 and 18.28.030 I.) until R-3 zone is eliminated and replaced, as suggested later on in this report. PA90-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report February 19, 1991 Page 3 The following are our suggested changes to the approval criteria for the Performance Standard Developments. We have attempted to make them more objective and measurable. In addition, we have included density rollbacks and the atTordable housing criteria. 18.88.030 A. 4. a) That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland. b) That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a key City facility to operate beyond capacity. c) That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features utilized for open space and common areas. d) That the development of the land will not impede the appropriate development of adjacent lands that is envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. e) That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f) That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter. PA9Q-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report February 19, 1991 Page 4 Density Bonuses under Performance Standards 18.88.040 A Base Densities ' The density of the development shall not exceed the density established by this section. The density shall be computed by the dividing the total number of dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the public. Fractional portions of the final answer, after bonus point calculations, shall not apply towards the total density. Base density for zoning densities within the City of Ashland shall be as follows: WR and RR zone -- 1 divided by the minimum lot size expressed in acres, times 0.60 determines the dwelling units per acre. WR-2 = WR-2.5 = WR-5 = WR-10 = WR-20 = RR-1 = RR-.5 = Single Family Zones R-1-10 = R-1-7.5 = R-1-5 = R-1-3.5 = R-2 = R-3 = 0.30 duf acre 0.24 duf acre 0.12 dufacre, 0.06 dufacre 0.03 dufacre 0.60 duf acre 1.2 dufacre 2.40 duf acre 3.20 dufacre 4.00 dufacre 6.4 duf acre 12 dufacre 18 duf acre PA9Q-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report February 19, 1991 Page 5 B. Bonus Point Calculations 1) The permitted base density shall be increased by the percentage gained through bonus points. In no case shall the density exceed that allowed under the Comprehensive Plan. 2) The maximum bonus permitted shall be 60%. 3) The following bonuses shall be awarded: a) Conservation Housing - all.home or residential units on the, site meet the energy usage, water lisage, and air quality requirements adopted in the Guidelines referred to in 18.88.090 -- maximum 15% bonus b) Provision of Common Open Space (same as in current ordinance, except that all projects of a base density of 10 units or greater shall be required to provide a minimum of 5% of the total lot area in Open Space that is not subject to bonus calculations. Bonus shall be. awarded only to that open space area in excess of the 5% required for developments of 10 units or greater.) maximum 10% bonus c) Provision of Major Recreational Facilities (same) maximum bonus 10% d) Affordable Housing - for every percent of units that are affordable, an equivalent percentage of density bonus shall be allowed. Maximum bonus of 25%. Affordable Housing bonus shall be for residential units that are affordable for moderate income persons in accord with the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council and guaranteed affordable through procedures contained in said resolution. PA9Q-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report February 19, 1991 Page 6 The following is an additional change in the Performance Standards ordinance to clarify a recently discovered ambiguity of the ordinance: 18.88.080 B. All developments, other than partitionings, which involve the division of land, or development of individual living units, in the P-overlay areas, shall be processed under this Chapter of the Land Use Ordinance. The minimum number of dwelling units for a Performance Standards Subdivision shall be three. PA9o-165 . City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ' February 19, 1991 Page 7 The following are density roll. backs and atYordable housing density bonuses in the R-2 zone. The R-3 zone is proposed to be eliminated and replaced with an RC zone (residential/commercial) which would allow high density residential (30 units/acre) along with neighborhood commercial uses, travellers accommodations, and similar impact uses. This new zone, with descriptions and the locations, will be presented at a later time. Until then, a proposed roll-back for the R-3 zone is also proposed here. 18.24.040 General Re~lations R-2 Zone A. Permitted Density 1) Base Densities The density of the development shall not exceed the density established by this section. The density shall be computed by the dividing the total number of dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the public. Fractional portions of the answer shall not apply towards the total density. Base density for the R-2 zone shall be 12 dwelling units per acre, however, units of less than 500 square feet shall count as 0.75 units for the purposes of density calculations, with the following restrictions: Minimum lot area for 1 unit shall be 5000 sq. ft. with a minimum width of 50' and minimum depth of 80'. Minimum lot area for 2 units shall be 7000 sq. ft. with a minimum width of 50' and a minimum depth of 80'. Developments of 3 units or greater shall have minimum lot area in excess of 9000 sq. ft. and as determined by the base density and allowable bonus point calculations, and shall have a minimum width of 50' and minimum depth of 80'. B. Bonus Point Calculations 1) The permitted base density shall be increased by the percentage gained through bonus points. In no case shall the density exceed that allowed under the Comprehensive Plan. 2) The maximum bonus permitted shall be 60%. 3) The following bonuses shall be awarded: a} Conservation Housing - all home or residential units on the site meet the energy usage, water usage, and air quality PA90-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report February 19, 1991 Page 8 requirements adopted in the Guidelines referred to in 18.88.090 -- maximum 15% bonus b) Provision of outdoor recreation space above minimum requirement established by this Title. 2 percent increased bonus for each percent of the project site dedicated to outdoor recreation space. maximum 10% bonus c) Provision of Major Recreational Facilities (same as Performance Standards) maximum bonus 10% d) Affordable Housing - for every percent of units that are affordable, an equivalent percentage of density bonus shall be allowed. Maximum bonus of 25%. Affordable Housing bonus shall be for residential units that are affordable for moderate income persons in accord With the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council and guaranteed affordable through procedures. contained in said resolution. Delete current 18.24.040 A, B. & C. The following section would replace the current standard in Site Design & Use Guidelines that 25% of the gross Door area be used for outdoor recreation space. 18.24.040 H. Outdoor Recreation Space 1) At least 8% of the lot area shall be dedicated to outdoor recreational space and shall be part of the overall landscaping requirements. Delete 18.72.100 C. (open spaces from site design) PA9Q-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report February 19, 1991 Page 9 18.28.040 General Reilllations R-3 Zone A Permitted Density 1) Base Densities The density of the development shall not exceed the density established by this section. The density shall be computed by the dividing the total number of dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the public. Fractional portions of the answer shall not apply towards the total density. Base density for the R-3 zone shall be 18 dwelling units per acre, however, units of less than 500 square feet shall count as 0.75 units for the purposes of density calculations, with the following restrictions:' Minimum lot area for 1 unit shall be 5000 sq. ft. with a minimum width of 50' and minimum depth of 80'. Minimum lot area for 2 units shall be 6500 sq. ft. with a 'minimum width of 50' and a minimum depth of 80'. Developments of 3 units or greater shall have minimum lot area in excess of 8000 sq. ft. and as determined by the base density and allowable bonus point calculations, and shall have a minimum width of 50' and minimum depth of 80'. B. Bonus Point Calculations 1) The permitted base density shall be increased by the percentage gained through bonus points. In no case shall the density exceed that allowed under the Comprehensive Plan. 2) The maximum bonus permitted shall be 60%. 3) The following bonuses shall be awarded: a) Conservation Housing - all home or residential units on the site meet the energy usage, water usage, and air quality requirements adopted in the Guidelines referred to in 18.88.090 -- maximum 15% bonus b) Provision of outdoor recreation space above minimum requirement established by this Title. 2 percent increased bonus for each percent of the project site dedicated to outdoor recreation space. ,maximum 10% bonus PA9G-165 City of Ashland , AShland Planning Department - Staff Report February 19, 1991 Page 10 c) Provision of Major Recreational Facilities (same as Performance Standards) maximum bonus 10% d) Affordable Housing - for every percent of units that are affordable, an equivalent percentage of density bonus shall be allowed. Maximum bonus of 25%. Affordable Housing bonus shall be fOJ residential units that are affordable for moderate income persons in accord with the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council and guaranteed affordable through procedures contained in said resolution. Delete current 18.28.040 A, B. & C. The following section would replace the current standard in Site Design & Use Guidelines that 25% of the gross Door area be used for outdoor recreation space. 18.28.040 H. Outdoor Recreation Space 1) At least 8% of the lot area shall be dedicated to outdoor recreational space and shall be part of the overall landscaping requirements. Delete 18.72.100 C. (open spaces from site design) , PA9o-165 City of Ashland AShland Planning Department - Staff Report February 19, 1991 Page 11 January 28, 1991 P.o. Box 201 Ashland, Or 97520 Mayor and City Council City of Ashland East Main Ashland, Oregon 97520 Re: Affordable Housing Ordinance Dear Mayor and City Council, Regarding the affordable housing ordinance which has been in the works for some time, I believe that some alterations need to be made to ensure that it does what it is intended to do. It is supposed to provide incentives for the creation of af- fordable housing where it is possible to do so. After talking with Don Greene, Duane Smith, and other builders, property owners and real estate people I think part of what is proposed will do the job we want and part will not. Please alter the following parts of the proposed for the stated reasons. ** 1. Regarding density rollbacks on pages 15 and 16, delete the density rollbacks in R1-10 and Rl-7.5 zones because realistically we are not going to obtain affordable housing on single family dwelling lots of 7500 and 10000 square feet. These zones should be left alone. For example, a 5000 sqare foot lot sells for $30,000+, a 7500 sq ft lot sells for $45,000+ and a 10000 sq ft lot sells for $55,000+, so right off the cost of a house on the larger lots is $1~000 higher so how can that compute out to affordable? It ~ realistic to try to get some affordable housing on small par- cels,however. The density rollback on larger lots will also con- tribute to sprawl, but that is another issue. 2. Regarding "ulti-family zones on pages 16 and 17, reduce the base density 20% instead of 40% in MF zones and retain the R-3 zone. This would give us 16 dwelling units per acre in R-2 zones and 24 units per acre in R-3 zones. The continual tendency to lessen density is not what will give us livabl~ cities. It is possible to develop R-3 lots to the current density,but it probably means underground parking and elevators,which is not necessarily bad. If we really want to add affordable housing,let the concept of "economy of scale" enter into the picture. It is not possible to get something for nothing which is what we would be asking for if we don't allow builders to exceed current density by at least a little bit. with the proposed "Credit for On Street Parking Ordinance" the extra units will be more feasible. If the project is of any size we should be sure that there is adequate common open space so the effects of density are mitigated. I cannot emphasize enough that density is not the chief enemy of "livability", sprawl is. It is true that there is not much un- built upon R-3 land (I own one of the last vacant pieces), but there is the potential of redevelopment on R-3 parcels. ** Page numbers are of the Affordable Housing Committee Report. 3. Count apartments or condominiums under 500 square feet as 2/3 of a unit. Because of all the plumbing and appliance costs that must be figured into any studio or one bedroom unit as well as two bedroom units, the incentive to build the smaller units will not be there unless theycount as merely 2/3 of a unit. I rent out a building where all 12 units are approximately 475 square feet, except for one which is a larger 2 bedroom unit. I have 19 parking spaces. Currently there are 12 cars and one motor scooter on site. Four residents have no cars, one has three cars, and the rest have one or two cars. I mention this as an example of the fact that the ordinance reducing parking for small apartments is feasible, and to illustrate that while apartments under 500 sq ft shou!dl1ount as only 2/3 unit for density purposes, they should be~co~nted in determining parking requirements,for the present. I hope to be at the public hearing on this matter, but if I am no~please implement these changes. The important thing is to get some affordable housing. Be lenient at first which is what I am advocating. If suddenly there proves to be too many incentives, which I doubt, then do something to lessen the incentives" The best part of the whole affordable housing proposal is the Accessory Dwelling section. That will provide the most affordable housing providing the units that are added are not too big. If the Council is totally confused, I suggest adopting the accessory dwelling section right now and delaying the remaining sections for 12 months after the date the accessory dwelling section takes affect to assess how that is going. Good luck. Sincerely, ~ . Brent Thompson P.S. Remember- Sprawl is "bad" and Density is"good'; providing there is enough common open space. TABLE OF CONTENTS OF RECORD PLANNING ACfION 90-165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING ORDI.NANCE MODIFICATIONS ITEM PAGE ., . Memo. from Planning StatT to City Council 1 CPAC Minutes 12/10/90. 3 Ashland Planning Commission Minutes 11/27/90 5 Ashland Planning Commission Minutes 11/14/90 6 Letter from Hal Cloer to Planning StatT 11/16/90 10 Ashland Planning Department StatT Report 11/13/90 11 Oregon Revised Statutes 23 Letter from Jill Murphey 11/13/90 25 Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 11/7/90 26 Memo from R. Salter, City Attorney to J. Fregonese 11/7/90 27 Memo from J. Fregonese to R. Salter 10/22/90 28 CPAC Minutes 10/8/90 32 CPAC recommended ordinance 10/8/90 34 Ashland Planning Department REVISED StatT Report 9/26/90 38 Ashland Planning ,Commission Minutes 9/11/90 53 Ashland Planning Department original StatT Report 9/11/90 60 Various letters regarding original statT report 75 ~tmnrandum December 28, 1990 ijI n: City Council . ~ rom: . Planning Staff ~ubjed: .- Planning Action 90-165 -- Affordable Housing Ordinance The following changes to the Staff recommendations were suggested and approved by the Planning Commission during their review of this action: Accessory Apartments 18.20.030 Conditional Uses (R-l Zone) J. 5) This section n~t be deleted as suggested by Staff. Condominium' Conversions 18.24.030 (R-2 'Conditional Uses) J. CondominiUm conversion of existing rental units with additional demonstration that at least 25%' of the residential units are affordable for moderate income persons in accord with the standards established by. resolution of the Ashland City Council through procedures contained in said resolution. Current residents of rental units proposed for conversion to condominiums shall have first right of refusal to purchase the unit. . Performance Standards subdivision criteria 181188.030 A. 4. e) That there are adequate provisions. for the maintenance of open space and common areas, and that if developm~nts are done in phases that the early phases have the ,same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. 1 18.88.040 A. Base Densities , add R-3 zone R-3 = 18 dul acre 18.88.080 B. ' All developments, other than partitionings, which involve the division of land, P.J development of individual living units, in p- overlay areas, shall"be processed under this Chapter of the Land ,Use Ordinance. ~e minimum number of dwelling units for a Performance Standards Subdivision. shall be three. 18.24.040 General Regulations R-2 Zone Au 1) Base Densities . The density of the development shall not exceed the , density established by this section. The density shall be computed by dividing the total number of. dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the public. Fractional portions of the answer shall not apply towards the, total density. Base density for the R~2 zone shall be 12 dwelling units p,er acre, however, units of less than 500 square feet Will count, as 0.75 units for the purposes of density calculations, along with the following restrictions: Include similar wording fo~ R -,3 zone. '~ CITIZENS PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE DECEMBER 10, 1990 MINUTES between the traditional or "true" Bed and Breakfast and larger or new traveller's accommodations in the Bed and Breakfast " industry. " In further discussion the need for different .~rules for different types ,of structures was highlighted. Although most members agreed with the need for new definiti~ns and rules, there was concern that taxes and other overhead make it difficult to run the old-fashioned type Bed and Breakfast in Ashland. A~ter further discussion Rick Landt proposed that Chris Wood, draft a letter to submit first to CPAC's executive committee and then to city council regarding CPAC's position on the need for new definitions for different types of traveller's accommodations. The proposal was seconded by Sara Walker. The proposal was passed unanimously in a voice vote. Tom Giordano then changed the order of the agenda to discuss Manufactured homes next. B. PA '90-194 Manufactured Homes Staff report was given by Associate Planner Bill Molnar who ,reviewed findings and action taken-by the Planning 'commission. The action was adopted with few changes by the Planning commission. In section ,3 the wording was changed from "roof pitch ,of a minimum of 3 feet in height for each '12 feet in width" to "three foot and 12 foot run of roof." The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed with respect to this planning action. Discussion among members ensued. Rick Landt proposed that"we adopt this section as it appears in the pc packet. Other members wanted to adopt 'the CPAC recommended amendments report of October 8, 1990. Landt then motioned that the CPAC draft with the wording "no less than 28 feet in width" deleted from section 3. Sara Wc;llker seconded. The motion passed unanimously on, 'a voice vote. c. PA '90-165 Affordable Housing-Accessory Housing staff report was given by Associate Planner Bill Molnar who reviewed findings and action taken by the Planning Commission. On the recommendation of CPAC th~ Planning Commission voted to 3 3 CITIZENS PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE DECEMBER 10, 1990 MINUTES keep #5 of section 18.20.030. The Planning ,commission also amended section 18.24.030 J. to give existing renters the first right of refusal. The Commission also voted not to includ~ public schools as a key facility and to give a density break for studio apartments. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed with respect to ~his planning action. Discussion among members ensued. ' An extensive discussion was initiated when Carole Wheeldon suggeste~ that retaining public schools as a key facility would provided needed objective site criteria. Wheeldon motioned that we keep public schools in the list as~ key public facility. Kay Leybold seconded. The motion carried unanim9usly on a voice vote. The next discussion centered around the issues of view and privacy when building accessory structures, particularly structures built above an existing garage. After discussion of the problems connected with regulating view and privacy,' David Lane move that these concerns be tabled to be discussed in the near future as an issue separate from this accessory housing planning action. Sara Walker seconded. The motion,carried unanimously. Lane then moved to approve what CPAC previously agreed upon (blue sheet concerning affordable housing). Kay Leybold seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Lane further moved that staff investigate ways to maintain-the continued affordability of condominium conversions (section J) upon resale. Sara Walker seconded. The motion carried unanimously. At the close of the meeting Hal Cloer addressed his handout concerning the appearance of CPAC at the Mahar hearing. ' Cloer moved that someone from the Economy committee go to the hearing and draw to the attention of the hearing that getting developed E-1 property is the issue in Ashland (not whether the sloping land is good for that or not). Sara Walker seconded the motion. Discussion followed. Concerns were raised over support for the project altogether simply for the aspect of the economic element. 4 ~ Bernard moved to continue this action to the January regular meeting and to allow the applicant to come back with adequate findings and for the City Attorney to make a decision with regard to school capacity. The public hearing will re-open at that time. Carr seconded the motion. The motion was carried unanimously. This action will be continued to January 8, 1991, 7:00 p.m. There wilt be no need to re-notice. ' . TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 90-165 REQUEST FOR REVISIONS TO THE ASHLAND MUNICIPA~ CODE - LAND USE' . ORDINANCE - REGARDING 18.20.030 (CONQITIONAL USE FOR -ACCESSORY. RESIDENTIAL UNITS); 18.92.020 (PARKING STANDAR,DS); 18.24.020, 18.24 030, 18.28.020, AND 18.28.030 (CONOOMINIUMS);,18 88.(PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION);<18.24.040 (BASE DENSITY OF R-2Z0NE AND OUTDOOR RECREATION SPACE REQUIREMENTS);,AND 18.72.100 C. (DELETE OPEN SPACE,REQUIREMENT OF SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS). STAFF REPORT 'See attached memos. PUBUC HEARING No one came forth to speak. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION . Powell wondered why there would ,ever be' a one-unit PUD. The wording was changed' to: ~ The mfnimum number of dwelling units for a Performance Standard Subdivision shall be three. II Change living units. to dwelling units in the preceding sentence. Jarvis moved to approve PA90-165, Carr seconded the ,motion and it was carried unanimously. . ' ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING .- NOVEMBER ZI, 1990 MINUTES 6 's looking for in a, traveller's accommodation. Fregonese explained originally it was the intent to convert homes from already existing residences to trayeller's ' accommodations. Thompson mentioned that in 1986, there wasc6nsiderable . discussion with Planning Commissioners about not want~ng R-2~land going to traveller's accom-modations, but wanted the land to provide apartments for residents of Ashland. Commissioners were in agreement to grandfather the appropriate traveller's 4, . accommodations. " ' Jarvis moved to recommend approval to the City Council of PI~ning Action 90-171 as' presented by Staff in modified and corrected form.. Under lighting, that Staff be instructed to add language under. Section 3 that would preclude any intrusive light reflection into the neighbors homes or businesses. Under Section 6 that the grandfather clause be added and th~t the date of November 1,1990 be changed to the date of the enactment of this ordinance. Thompson seconded the motion. This includes the verbal alteration made by Staff during their presentation - seven units-per approved traveller's accommodation with primary lot frontage on or within 200 feet of a . designated collector. The motion was carried unanimoysly. ' PLANNING ACTION 90-165 REQUEST FOR REVISIONS TO -THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE - LAND USE, ORDINANCE -' REGARDING 18.20.030 (CONDITIONAL USE FOR ACCESSORY RES I DENTI!-\L UNITS); 18.92.020 (PARKING' STANDARDS); 18.24.020, 18.24.030, 18.28.020, AND 18.28.030 (CONDOMINIUMS); 18.88 ,(PE~FORMANCE ' STANDARDS OPTION); 18.24.040 (BASE DENSITY OF R-2 ZONE AND OUTDOOR RECREATION SPACE REQUIREMENT); AND 18.72.100 C. {DELETE OPEN " ' SPACE REQUIREMENT OF SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARD STAFF REPORT This is. the pared down version of what was presented.a couple of months ago. The Conditional Use Permit criteria have been dropped as well a 'mixed zoning of miXed, use in E-1 and residential zoning. and annexation crite~ia. . These will be reviewed at a later date. Mclaughlin reviewed the Staff Report. . , ' Jarvis felt it would be, inappropriate to discuss 18.88.080 B at this meeting because the Roca Canyon application would'be heard tomorrow, night (November 14, 1~O). All other 'Commissioners wanted to proceed. . . . , Carr did not agree with Staff on 18.20.030 (Conditional Uses R-1. Zones) #5. She explained that the Affordable Housing Committee adopted a r~port requesting that the one unit be owner-occupied. 3 ASHlAND PlANNING COMMISSION REGUlAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 1990 b Carr. requested that under 18.24.030 (J) (Conditional Uses R-2 Zones) that existing renters would have the first right of refusal on converted units. Carr. wondered if Staff was going to be more specific under Bonus Point Calculations, 3d, as to what constitutes various income levels? Fregonese assured Carr these would be included but specifics have not yet been developed. Thompson commented,that under 18.20.030 (3) (Conditional Uses R-1 Zones)'no matter how it is done, ,when a place is rented, the amount of. money received is in direct correlation to the 'size of a unit. A 1000 sq'uare foot unit is big. ,In Thompson's experience, he has noticed a shortage of one-bedroom and studio apartments with square footages, of 500-800 square feet. Ashland lacks small apartments for siflgle or young couples. Jarvis pointed out that the unit could not exceed 50 percent of gross habitable floor area (GHFA) and the unit would not have to be 1000 square feet. Bingham thought 500 square feet was too small and 1000 square feet was too big. Thompson wanted to either raise the base density to ,14 or add to (e) additional bonus, points by providing for one-bedroom apartments or studio apartments. Jarvis did not . agree that densities, should be changed according to the economy. PUBLIC HEARING Mclaughlin read the letter into record from Jill Murphey. MARK MURPHEY, 492 Unn Street, seconded the letter from Jill Murphey. He did not believe it advisable to delete schools as a key facility since state courts have recognized schools as key public facilities. He agreed that apartments should be should be affordable. He asked for consideration of 1000. square foot maximum. DUANE SMITH, 435 Fernwood, conveyed that the only way you can actually have low- cost housing is to have mother-in-law filpartments. Students, do not feel it is necessary to live in something as large as a 1000 square 'foot apartment. Smith. believed we will lose the lifeblood of Ashland if rents are not affordable. ' DON GREENE, 375 Normal Avenue, stated no .one is building small units presently because of the density problem. A builder can put the same number of studio apartments as three-bedroom apartments on a lot. Economics are not there. Greene felt Thomp~on's idea of increasing density for smaller units deserves consideration. There is no incentive. to build smaller, units even though there is, a demand.. Greene, who serves .on the State Housing Council, said the Council has 'learned that affordable housing for low and moderate income people cannot be provided .by private ASHlAND PlANNING COMMISSION REGUlAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 1990 4 7 --- developers in today's market. The density rollback is trying to force developers to provide this housing. The Housing Council has found, however, that the only way to g~t the desired results is to create partnerships, tax credits, leasing land, dropping systems development charges, dropping property taxes, etc. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Jarvis maved to approve and Harris seconded the matian. The motian was carried unanimausly. 18.24.020 Permitted Uses '18..24.030 R-2 Conditianal Uses , ,Carr maved to. apprave with the 'additian af language to accommodate the, existing tenants of condominiumized units be given the first right of refusal. Powell seconded thematian and it was carried' unanimausly. 18.88.030 A. 4. Carr wanted to. include schaals as a key facility. Medinger did nat' believe it is th~ Cammissian's job to. assess where students are distributed and whether schaals are at capacity. ' ASHLAND PlANNING COMM.ISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 1990 5 8 Harris moved to recommend to approve as set forth in 18.88.030 with the addition of the word "project" or something like project at the end of A. 4. (e). Thompson seconded the motion and. it was carried with Carr casting the dissenting vote. 18.88.040 Thompson does not believe that builders understand that density rollbacks are being considered for 10,000 square foot lots and nothing can be achieved in the larger lots by knocking density down and then giving it back if for some reason an affordable housing unit can be gained. -- Bingham agreed with Fregonese that there has to be some kind of mix between the densities so if any kind of density rollbacks are going to be applied, it see.ms logical to apply on all. . Medinger said the idea of achieving density in higher priced subdivisions, density bonus points or affordable housing, was for the developer to make a contribution.or trade or fund transfer. Jarvis moved to approve 18.88.040. Bingham seconded the. motion and it was carried with Thompson casting the dissenting vote. . 18.88.080 B. Harris felt it would more appropriate procedurally to make the recommendation after dealing with the specific problem tomorrow night. There wiu be arguments made tomorrow night by lawyers on the merits of how this ordinance is interpreted. Harris moved to postpone dealing with 18.88.080 B. until November 14, 1990 after the . Roca Canyon action has been heard. Carr seconded the motion and it carried with Powell, Carr, Jarvis, Thompson. and Harris voting ')es" and Benson, Bernard, Bingham and Medinger voting "noli. 18.24.040 General Regulations R-2 Zone HarriS moved to adopt the recommendation of 18..24.040 as setforth on pages 9, 10, 11 & 12 of the Staff Report with the insertion A. (1) "Base del')sity for the R-2 zone shall be 12 dwelling units per acre, however, units of less than 500 square feet will count as .75 units, with the following restrictiqns:...... Carr seconded the motion and it was carried with Bernard casting the dissenting vote. 6 ASHLAND PlANNING COMMISSION REGUlAR MEETING MINUTES . NOVEMBER 13, 1990 7 November 16, 1990 · /~ b -7~ -- ~ To: Planning Staff From: Ral Cloer Re: Nature of tenants of "accessory apartments" . Staff comments on the nature of expected tenants of accessory housing (5, p.2, PA90-165i and at study session) is so much at variance with my experience that I think a serious response is called for. (We've had two rental houses in Aptos, California,' a house and 3 apartments in Ashland). TWO'questions of fact: how permanent are renters in Ashland, and how well do they keep up their yards? My own experience has been that these questions have nothing to do with economic class; it's point of agreement among landlords that profession~l people are often the worst tenants. Sense of stewardship or "ownership" of one's rented home does not correlate with socioeconomic status. Nor does interest in gardening, concern for plant life, dr destructiveness. -- To get some experienced opinion on the above questions, I talked today by phone with' 4 property managers in Ashland: Rob Stevens at Landmart, Kay Abbott at' Ashland Property Management, Chis RaId, and a lady at Shafke Realty whose name I forgot to get. There was rather complete agreement among these people and their experience is congruent with my 14 years of landlordship in Ashland. How permanent are apartment renters in Ashland: average tenancy 6 months to 1 year. A very transient group with few' possessions that are easily moved. What percentage of renters do a good job of keeping up a yard in detached units? Less than 40%. "Most renters are' not interested in gardening" (Shafke); "Only is someone is watching; I push it all the time, leaving forms and messages: their rental ,agreement calls' for it, if they don"t do it I hire it done and add that to the rent. (Kay Abbott). IIEven if you provide all the yard care equipment they often won't use it; my rental agreements say if they'll keep bills for water, I'll give them a rebate on summer watering; it usually isn't more than $30-$40, but otherwise they won't do it.1I (Chris Rald) . . (Rob Stevens). Should the primary residence be owner-occupied? II,Defini tely yes, otherwise you're creating a duplex. Maybe that's OK for R-2 zones. I say this ev~n though I own a house on Glenwood .that h~s a mother-in-law garage apartment." (Kay Abbott~) "Definitely yes. , I want to help people to live in town, but. people who ,invest in R-l property do not want to' b . ~ e ln a rental area. ,*_~aJ ~ 1L~(~)1O ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT November 13, 1990 PLANNING ACTION: 90-165 APPLICANT: City of Ashland -- ORDINANCE'REFERENCE: REQUEST: General Land Use Ordinance modifications with respect to the affordable housing goals. I. Relevant Facts '1), Background' - History of Application: The City Council adopted the "Affordable Housing in Ashland" report of the Committee on Affordable Housing in M~y, 1990. That document containS many of the concepts that have resulted in the following recommended ordinance modifications. 2) Detailed Description of the Proposal: . The following are the proposed ordinance modifications - in no particular order. They include reCommendations made during the June CP AC/PlaQD.ing Commission study session, along with additional Staff cortnnents and explanations. \ l Accessory Apartments. This is. a chaJ}ge that permits a second unit in single family zones as a' Type I Conditional uSe. This is one of the primary recommendations of the AtTordable Housing report for increasing the amount of affordable units within the City. We have not included affordability guarantees as we believe that policing this type o~ apartment would not be worth the trouble, and the majority of these apartments \vould be relatively affordable anyway. 18.20.030 Conditional Uses (R-l zone) Delete H. _ Duplexes on comer lots. Additional units will be accommodated by the following section. ,/ J. Accessory Residential Units, subject to the Type I procedure and criteria, and the following' additional development criteria: 1) The proposal must conform . with the overall maximum lot coverage and setback requirements of the underlying, zone. 2) The maximum number of dwelling units shaH not exceed 2 per lot. 3) The maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory residential structure shall not exceed 50% of the GHF A of the primary residence on the lot, and shall not exceed 1000 sq. ft. GHFA 4) Additional parking shall be in conformance with the Off-Street Parking provisions for Single-Family' Dwellings of this Title. '5) TI14t tbe pl!niCU'y Iesidcl1CG on the lot shc1li be, owueI-oCGupied. 5) above was added at the recent Study Session. Staff does not beUeve that this ,requirement is necessary, nor that it furthers the opportunities to provide -affordable ,housing. ,We believe that it is only included due to the perceived fear of. '~oo many renters" and the lack of control over property if only renters are present ,We do not believe that the addition of ''olimer-ocqlpied'' for properties with accessory apartments will ensure compatibility, etc... any more than "renter-occupied'~ In, both cases, the occupants will be the permanent residents of the neighborhood,' and will be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the . property. We believe that to generalize that the renters occupying accessory apartments need to be watched by the property owners from the primary residence on the site is to stifle the development of the accessory units. We believe that the concerns raised that have r~lted in t~e placement of this criterion as part of the approval are a prejudicial fear based on ' economic class distinctions and should not be promulgated in our land use ordinance. Staff recommends deletion of ''5)'' above. CP AC has recommended that the owner-occupied requirement remain as part of this proposal Another option that has arisen is to require owner-occupancy for the first year after CUP approvaL. . PA9Q-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning 'Department- Staff Report . November 13, 1990 Page 2 l~ The following would be changes to the Parking Code to address studio apartments and accessory units in Single Family areas, as well as addressing congregate care and apartment housing for seniors. 18.92.020 Spaces Required A Residential Uses 1) Single Family Dwellings -- 2 spaces for the primary dwelling and the following for accessory residential units: Studio units or I-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft. -- 1 space/unit I-bedroom units 500 sq. ft. or larger ..- 1.50 ~paces/unit 2-bedroom units -- 1.75 spaces/unit 3-bedroom or greater units ... 2.00 spaces/unit 2) Multi-Family Dwellings 'Studio units or I-bedroom'units less than 500 sq. ft. -- 1 space/unit I-bedroom units 500 sq. ft~ or larger -- 1.50 spaces/unit 2-bedroom' units -- 1.75 spaces/unit 3-bedroom ,or greater units - 2.00 spaces/unit Retirement complexes for seniors 55-years or greater - (low-income) .. 1 space funit. - , 18.92.020 D. 6) Rest Homes or Homes for the Aged One space per two patient beds or 1 space per apartment unit. PA9Q-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report November 13, 1990 Page 3 J3 This section would make condominium conversions in a R-2 zone subject to the atTordability criteria.' However, it would make the construction of new condominium units a permitted use, subject to the revised densities allowed within the zone. It removes the current test that a showing of no adverse impact on the rental market be made. 18.24.020 R-2 Permitted Uses (assuming density roll-backs and affordable. incel!!ives) I. ' Construction of new Condominiums 18.24.030 R-2 Conditional Uses J. Condominium conversion of existing rental units subject to a Type I procedure and demonstration that at least 25% of the residential ~nits are affordable for moderate income persons in accord to the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council through procedures contained in said resolution. ' ' Do same thing for R-3 zone (18.28.020 and 18.28.030 I.) until R-3 zone is eliminated and replaced, as suggested later on in this report. PA90-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report N~vember 13, 1990 Page 4 I~( . . . The following are our suggested changes to the approval criteria for the Performance Standard Developments. We have attempted to make them more objective and measurable. In addition, we have included density rollbacks and the atTordable housing criteria. 18.88.030 A. 4. a) That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the Oty of Ashland. . b) That adequate key Oty facilities can be -'provided including water, sewer, paved access. to and through- the development, ele.ctricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate' transportation; and that the development will not cause a key Oty facility to operate beyond capacity. c) That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified' in the plan of the development and significant features utilized for open space 'and common areas. d) That the development of the land will not impede the appropriate development of adjacent lands that is envisioned in the Comprehensive. Plan. _ e) That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and . common ar~as, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire. . f) 'That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standard.s . . established under this Chapter. . PA9o-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report November .13, 1990 Page 5 /5 Density Bonuses under Performance Standards 18.88.040 A Base Densities The density of the development shall not exceed the density established by this section. The density shall be computed" by the dividing the total number of dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the public. Fractional portions of the final answer, after bonus point calculations, shall not apply towards the total density. Base density for zoning densities within the City of Ashland shall be as follows: WR . and RR zone -- 1 divicled by the minimum lot size expressed in acres, times 0.60 determines the dwelling units per acre. . WR-2 = WR-2.5 = WR-5 = WR-10 = WR-20 = RR-1 = RR-.5 = Single Family Zones R-1-10 = R-1-7.5 = R-1-5 = R-1-3.5 = R-2 = 0.30 duJacre 0.24 duJacre 0.12 duJ acre 0.06 duJ acre 0.03 duJacre 0.60 duJacre 1.2 duJacre 2.40 dul acre 3.20 duJ acre 4.00 duJacre 6.4 duJacre 12 duJacre PA9o-165 City. of Ashland Ashland Planning Department ~ Staff Report · November 13, 1990 fro Page 6 B. Bonus Point Calculations 1) The permitted base density shall be increased by the percentage gained through bonus points. In no case shall the density exceed that allowed under the Comprehensive Plan. 2) 3) The maximum bonus permitted shall be 60%. The following bonuses shall be awarded: a) Conservation Housing - all home or residential units on the site meet the energy usage, water usage, and air quality requirements adopted in the Guidelines referred to in 18.88.090 -- maximum 15% bonus b)' Provision of Common Open Space (same as in current ordinance, except that all projects of 10 units or greater shall.be required to provide a minimum of 5% of the total lot are~ in Open Space that is not subject to bonus calculations. Bonus shall be awarded only to that open space area in excess of the 5% required for developments of 10 units or greater.) maximum 10% bonus c) Provision of Major Recreational Facilities (same) maximum bonus 10% d) Affordable Housing - for every percent ,of units that are . affordable, an equivalent percentage of density bonus shall be allowed. Maximum bonus of 25%. Affordable Housing bonus shall be for residential units that are affordable for moderate income persons in accord with the standards esta~lished by resolution of the. Ashland City Council and guaranteed' affordable through procedures contained in said resolution. . . PA90-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff' R~port . November. 13, 1990 Page 7 /7 The following is an additional change in the Performance Standards ordinance to clarify a recently discovered ambiguity of the ordinance: 18.88.080 B. All deveJopments, other than partitionings, which involve the division of land, or development of individual living. units, in the P-overlay areas, shall be p~9cessed under this Chapter of the Land Use Ordinance. The minimum lot' size for an application involving only a one-unit development shall be the same as in the parent zone. PA90-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report November 13, 1990 Page 8 18 The following are density roll backs and affordable housing density bonuses in the R-2 zone. The R-3. zone is proposed to be eliminated and replaced with an RC zone (residential/commercial) which would allow high density residential (30 units/acre) along with neighborhood commercial uses, travellers accommodations, and similar impact uses. This new zone, with. descriptions and the locations, will be presented at a later time. Until then, a proposed roll-back for the R-3 zone is also proposed here. 18.24.040 General Re~lations .R-2 Zone A Permitted Density.. 1) . Base Densities The density of the development shall not exceed the density established by this section. The density ~hall be computed by the dividing the total number of dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the public. Fractional portions of the answer shall not -apply towards the total density. Base density for the R-2zone shall be 12 dwelling units per acre, with the following restrictions: Minimum lot area for 1 unit shall be 5000 s'q. ft. with a minimum Width of 50' and minimum depth of 80'. Minimum lot area for 2 units shall be 7000 sq. ft. with a minimum width of 50' and a minimum depth of 80'. Developments of 3 units or greater shall have minimum lot area in excess. of 9000 sq. ft. and as determined by the base density and allowable bonus point calculations, and shall have a minimum width of 50' and minimum depth of 80'. B. Bonus Point Calculations 1) The permitted base density shall be increased by the percentage gained through bonus points. In no case shall the density exceed that allowed under the Comprehensive Plan. 2) The maximum bonus permitted shall be 60%. 3) The. following bonuses shall be awarded: a) Conservation Housing - ali home or residential units on the site meet the energy usage, water usage, and air quality requirements adopted in the Guidelines referred to in 18.88.090 -- maximum 15% bonus PA90-165 City of Ashland Ashland' Planning Department -Staff Report November 13, 1990 Page 9 19 b) Provision of outdoor recreation'space above mInImum requirement established by this Title. 2 percent increased bonus for each percent of the project site dedicated to outdoor recreation space. maximum 10% bonus c) Provision of Major Recreational Facilities (same as... Performance Standards) maximum bonus 10% d) Affot=dable Housing - for every percent of units that are affordable, an equivalent percentage of density bonus shall be allowed. Maximum bonus of 25%. Affordable Housing bonus shall be for residential units that are affordable for moderate income persons in accord with the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council and guaranteed affordable through procedures contained in said -resolution. . Delete current 18.24.040 A., B. & C. The following section would replace the. current standard in Site Design & Use Guidelines that 25% of the gross floor area be used for outdoor recreation space. 18.24.040 H. Outdoor Recreation Space 1) At least 8% of the lot area shall be dedicated to outdoor recreational spa~e and shall be part of the Qveralllaridscaping requirements. . Delete 18.72.100 C. . (open spaces from site design) PA90-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report November 13, 1990 Page 10 ;b 18.28.040 General Regulations R-3 Zone A Permitted Density 1) Base Densities The density of the development shall not exceed the density established by this section. The density shall be computed by the' dividing the total number of dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the public. Fractional portions of the answer shall not apply towards the total density. Base density for the R-3 zone shall be 18 dwelling unitS per acre, with the following restrictions: Minimum lot area for 1 unit shall be 5000 sq. ft. with a minimum width of 50' and minimum depth of 80'. Minimum lot area for 2 units shall b~ 6500 sq. ft. with a minimum width of 50' and a. minimum depth of 80'. Developments of 3 units or greater shall have minimum lot area in excess of 8000 sq. ft. and as determined by the base density and allowable bonus point calculations, and shall have a minimum width of 50' and minimum depth of 80'. B. Bonus Point Calculations 1) The .permitted base density shall be increased by the percentage gained through bonus P9ints. In no case shall the density exceed that all~wed under the Comprehensive Plan. . - 2) The maximum bonus permitted shall Qe 60%. 3) The following bonuses shall be awarded: a) Conservation Housing - all home or residential units on the site meet the energy usage, water usage, and air quality requirements adopted in the Guidelines referred to in .18.88.090 -- maximum 15% bonus b) Provision of outdoor recreation space above minimum requirement established by this Title. 2 percent increased bonus for each . percent of the project site dedicated to outdoQr recreation space. maximum 10%. bonus PA9o-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report . November 13, 1'990 Page 11 ;2.( c) Provision of Major Recreational Facilities (same as Performance Standards) maximum bonus 10% d)' Affordable Housing - for every percent of units that are affordable, an equivalent percentage of density bonus shall be allowed. Maximum bonus of 25%. Affordable Housing bonus shall be for residential units that are affordable for moderate income persons in accord with the standards established by' resolution of the Ashland City Council and guaranteed affordable through proeedures contained in said resolution. Delete current 18.28.040 A, B. & C. The following section would replace the current standard in Site Design & Use Guidelines that 25% of the gross floor area be used for outdoor recreation space. 18.28.040 H. . Outdoor Recreation Space 1) At least 8% of the lot area shall be dedicated to outdoor recreational space and shall be part of the overall landscaping requirements. Delete 18.72.100 C. (open spaces from site design) PA9Q-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report November 13, 1990 Page 12 ;2;2 ;j 197.303 l\lISCELLANEQUS MATTERS rented .ori leased for occupancy by nomor.e than one, manufactured dwelling. per lot if thc..subdivision was approved by the.local government unit having jurisdiction under an ordin~nce adopted pursuant to ORS 92.010 to. 92.190~" . . ,\ '. ". ..... , , I . . . " .f .. ! ii I fl ' L r. ~ " ". . "'.1" :~, . i, .t,:.{ . ' ." :. " '. f: ~: : ", t ',. j': , j'. ;. r. ~. ; 'Ii': . ,.,,; '. 1.... . L' H, . r ,t. '. .! ~~ ~' . "." . ~ "" . . . ;'~ ',;' : .!:,. 19-1J~ . ~~; ~ '~> ;; : ~::. ; d3 . '., ,; ," ~~""",~,__"_~_,;,,;..,,:,,,:,;';_~......, . .j!,-, " !~1';;:;.Pi~~~~"\i.W~I'~".~(~\t<A'i~::-#fq,~~~~':J"tf:t~~~~1~:.::.s~~ : l' . ~~.~~ . i .J j : ~ . : ~:.:i~ COIYIPREIIENSIVE LAND USE,PLANNINGCOORDINATION 197~319 ;'.; i' .' ':'(b): Impose special conditions upon a:p~ couraging 'needg4J:LOJ!.sing:.1hr.oJJgh; unr'~ason..J pr~val of a specific development proposal; or.:' ~ ~ost or; delay_ (1981 c.884. ~5; 1983 c.795 ~~3; '1989i: . ~ (c) Establish .approval procedure~..', . ~,O-~2;-19S!h::9G.r~61-. i~;'~:;, Ai' . . . ........ .. .'. "";" ~:I 191.310 11973 c.BO ~53; 1977 c.GG4 ~24; rcpcalcd~ by; . (5) ..In the areas Identified by. .the' need~:: 1979 c.772 fi2GI '.; . ,~;:~...! r \'.~:;.o~." analYSIS conducted under subsectIon (3) of; i '1~97 312 L' . t t' 't d: i "t" l' th" t' . . . d' t" ; 'd t ..'. lInl a Ion on CI y an coun y \ IS sec lOn, a JUrIS lC Ion may a op any or. "th"t f' I 'b't . t' 'k' a.:.' f all ,of the! following. placeillent standards', or'~ h~' ?r1 !(I)N pr~ 11 I certain'. Ib~":~h1r;L any less restrictive standard, for"the a:pprov'al':: t ~,~~l~"'h' t fro CI Y'llr C9~ >'t .mi! !.~y~ i~' lr:~: of '~a~ufact~red 'dYfellings locat~d 10\ft$i~~:i'i' erc' pro.l1 ,.1 om a .resl .en I~ Izon~~ :a.~:!: mobIle 'home or', "manufactured': dwelling i ~a)l~~ 01. ~~t~ched. slngl.e.(aml~Y: d)OHStIJ~g"i parks: ".:r: t, .' ~',: . . :. , . .:.. :;: ,; ;:. ~i m~ltlpJ~-fa!ll~ly. lIOUSI!lg for.'. both ?w~e.f:::~~~J:. ;'- .'. ;' ':.. . :. ....;, . d!;' rert~~;: oc~up'ancy or ma!luf~ctur~dJ ~~l1?-~~:.:-' ; (~) ~e .m~nuf~ctur:d dw~lhng sh,\11 b~.':1 N'?". ~~~y: or <:ou.nty may .~y cha~ter, 'pr;~hl~.l.~~:::. multlsectlOnal ,md 1I1close. a space of not ~ess. ; gqvernrnent assisted hOltSll~g or Impo~e; .ad~I,; "~.': . t~u~~ 1,~00 s~uare feet. ..'..... .',: :.' ti~~id ,'approval standards 'on govern~q:i1,t:1 as'':'l . '. . (b) .The mam,lfactured dwelling' shall b'~ : ~i~~.e,d )lOllsing that al'e not'applidl to'~s~mg~f> pla'c~d . on an' excav~ted . arid back-filled foun~~ i: ~~,t '.~h.a~sist€fd. housing. '. .; \ '::. ~.. '.:~~f:' :~';" dation'h.nd' inclosed at tl;e p.eri~~eter .,'s~cJl' ;' (/;Gi)No ~ity qr c'ounty' ~ay;: .imp'ris~~j ~~y.:: t~at, . th.e .ma~ufac.tured ~wellll~g' lslo~~ted ;' approval standards, special conditi9n~~:'Qr.~:.. not more tha1112 Inc.hes above grade.. ~:', . :: '. p'r~cedures on'seasonal anq year-rou~ld'far~- ;"- ~: . :<c) The ~anufactured ~welli~'g .sh~ll h~y~~ : \~~~k~( hO~lsi~g that ":are ~ot cl~ar a~~ ~bj~Cf;.; i a pItched roof, ~xcept tha.t no standard. shall; ; tl'{~ ?~" ha~e the eff:ct, elth~r In. ~h~.~selv~s ,. require"a slope of greater than a nominar, ~r; ~lfmulabvely, of dIscouragl.ng se~sonal ,a~df ~ thr~'e feet in height for each 12 fee~ in \vidth. : year-round. farm-worker hQusmg. th~~u,gh. '~n-i . . . , .. ,; . .;. .; . .: '.. reasonable cost or delay or by dlscrm:nnatIng': . (~) Th~ !"1anufact\lred dwelh~g ~~all have -: against such housing. (I983c.795 ~5; 1989 c.9.64 ~7J : . exterIor SidIng and roofing wh~ch In color, ';;,: ..~. . .:' .' . .:;, ., :',\ .~; ..;' :. ! . :mater:i~l 8:n~' appearance:)s: similar: 't<;> the; :..., !:.1~7.~1.3 Interpretatio~ o~ ~RSJ91~~12~ ;.. exterI-or' sldmg' and roofing materIal' com-' ; ~qlh~ng In ORS .197.312 or In th.e; jamen~-. ; rnonly used on residential dwellings. within:' '. n;ten~ : to ORS 197.295, 197.303, .19l-.30~ Pl.l ~ . the' community or which is comparable to' the: se~tIons 1, .2 and 3, chapter. 795, Oreg9n :Laws' . predominant materials used on surrounding: . 19S~,' shall b~ construed to require. ri. c~~y .9r. . dwellings as determined by the local permit -: county ~ to contribute to . the . final1cihg~ a'd-';) approval ,authority. ': . .,: ministration or sponsorship of go'verriment. i ~: (ef The' ~anufactured dwelling sha1.1 )j~:' : ~~~~,sted housing. (1:83 C.7:5 ,~GJ. ' : .':~':~'~ L ;:>~ i certified by the manufacturer to' have' an ex.. . . '.197.315 11973 c.SO ~~4; 19,7 c.664 ~25; repealed by' , '. . . h. 1 l' .' l'. . 1979 c 772 fi26/ : , : ~ I. :: I.. I.. " . terlor..t e~ma enve ope meeting perlormance " .'1"".. i.....:'~., ; . standards"which' r~duce levelsequiyalent to' ..' . "1 :.' '" <. ':' - ~. . ~.~.. < ; tl1e ;. pe~formance . standards required.: of' ENfO~CEMENT OF PLANNING GC;~LS: ~'" singl~:fa~il~ 4w~lling~ co.nstructed .u!1~~~ the:. , ~rj:;i~7.319r,l~.9c~~~r~s pi~i~r to' ~eq~~:~f~.~~:l.; state. .b~)1dlng coqe as; .defined . i 1n 1 p~;. ~a~' ellforcement. order.. (1) Before ,a ..p..f~rsQn..; ~. . 455.910,;,; "" .: ' : :: . may. request adoption' of an: enforcemen~ '9r..~ . :.' '(f) 'TJie manufactured d\vellingsh~ll h~ve: ;der;{~n4er O~; 197.320, ~h~ person ~~~ll~~ .,): ~~ 1. a'&arag~ or. c~rp?r~ ':const.r\~cte,~ <?f h~e: ~a~i' ~I:"{~l :~~esent' the rcasons;..in writ!pg,'; f.or;: :. terI3ls., . A . JU~ls~lctIon may r~qul~c..\~ at.; ~uc;h. ~n .~rdqr,.. to U~e. aff~ct<rd loca~.~oyenl" ; tached or. detached garage In heu of. ~ ment. and . ". . ;' ..'." ....) . carport .}vhere such is consistent with. the . ':-'.l""'; . ..... .': .... :':',':;<':';11H,.;. Pl'edominant- :, construction of immediately; ::.:! ~b)..:~equest revIsIons to the 10c.a:I'!c~l!1-~ ' : surrounding dwellings. .... . .":,: pre~<:nsIve ~lan, land use. reg.ulatlons.::.<?r, :. ., ~ - 0" .. .' _ ...... ..~ ., ;.dcclslon.maklng process \VlllCh IS tll~. basIs... ; .' . (g) I~ :addltIon to .the provI~lons In. para;; for~the;order.!'" .' .. I .' ~ I';', .~;; ,~< I graph~. (a)' to {O of thIS subsectIOn, a city or: :;;'" '. . . . ,.: ....: . courity"may.subject a manufactured dwelling; ,': (2)(~)The: local governm~nt shall. IS~':le'a ~ and the IQt upon which it is sited to anyde';~ :wr~ttenl.:respon~e to the request..wlthl~6~.;. velopment I; standard, . architectural require':: ~~y~ of!the date .the reques~. IS mallTd ,t6 jth,e I ; ment. and"minimum' size. requir'erricnt: to. loc~l g~vernll1e!.lt. ~i '>~~?J.~;" . which a'~onventional single-family rcsi~en'- ;:' ~(b)fl'he requestor and the local Igovern- tial dwePing on the same lot would be: sub.. .\.rnent may enter into' media.tion to resolve -is- - ject.<; .. ,.' . 4,. ;. . sues. in', the' request. The :department .shalL :). :~~).~ approval" stand~rds, sp~cialcon-' provide. mediation services :v~en joint1yr~e...:'. dlbons 'and the pIocedures tor.. aPE.roval.. q~es~ed.b~ . tl~e . local gov~~ nment ..:a~~~.<t!~~ ~o ted by a local government shall be ~. 'J;'~quest9r. . . ,::;~ ; .~ 0 ~ective a!1<!.~_~~_I.1..,~ot h~.v~ t~~flc~~; ~:!:.. ;(~)l If th? lo~al government doe~(?ot !a,~~: . :~lt er 1n themselves" or cumulatIvely, Or-:als-:ln a manner which the requestor. behevE!s .1S'-: _._-'--~-----~--'''__4_'___ ; l:i. I" !: ~:.d; -, (:i 19-137': . ,f '; . , i ".' : . .,', ! .. '. $:;'. . : ~ "j 1 ~. . :.' . ". I. , f\ I ( . l: I: i ~ 'r ! : ~ .:. . FL ! ; ., ' J. .~ ;.~ ;. : :;f .' ~ ~ ~ -( >1' 1 f {' i ~:.; . .. ~~ 1: ::: ~ ~ : ~.; 1 ~ ~ . . f } ;- i . . , ~ .' : ,: : I' ; I , I ~ f.' "i I ! l.l 1'- I j : ! ~ t I , I I I I . .; 1'; ~ j .'. I ...; : i, :. i ~. ! '. '~L ;i' ~ : -~ I .. i ,I .~ ' . \ .. ~. : gl' //-/3- Yo fL&/fS E ~EA()lIll/tJ 'EIUTeK //tIr(J /fECO(2fJ R II, 90-/65' 1r-tk. ~. Con~ .. .$r ~ An II~~.~ (Pitl~. ~ ~;,t k I'~ "- ci ~ wAJ u ~ ~ ? ft ~ z:: /jn( Z; t.e.. AA ~ ~'1~~~~1/~ ~..'I j,-~-rkt;;t~kt#-~~ n.~ ~~ ~~ ~t:X-~ cJAA ~~~~.<Ur~~. . . ~~~/~~~~ ~~~AA tk~.tJ~~~7k~ ~~~.~?7 h1a~~f~ .'7t2u ~tf7a~~~~~.tft.. ~ '1-~ ed4 ~.~ au. ~~. Jf ~ I#A-t~ . t; ~. I~~{#( ~~~~ ~~ ~.A4~~~~ ~~~~/~ ~4-~~? ~~dY~7~ ~'7d.G~ . . . ~13 ~. tl/M~~~ ~~ .~tkt,~~~tJk~ ~ I'J.~~. ~~ tve_ a-u ~~ ~1~,,~~ eJ1~? .' / _ ~ 1AA.~~t;~~~tnt~~ ~6SC~~~~/~d~~. / ~~~~~h,~.~~~ ~ti-~. S~ C);d ~ (~ .. - -,.yr -,'-y- ...-------.. -------- Ashland Historic Commission Minu tes November 7, 1990 McLaughlin said staff feels this location is feasible because it appears the farthest downhill, visibility and slope are addressed, 'and it was discussed at the Planning Commissiol1.meeting and City Council meeting. There would be stop signs lQcated'on Scenic Drive, Logan Drive and Grandview Drive. Traffic Safety is looking at this issue also. Joanne Houghton stated efforts have been made to address the Historic Commission concerns expressed at the August meeting >) livability, traffic safety jsignage, and aesthetics.' Commission members agreed that a good faith effort has been made and there is definitely an improvement in this modification. . Reitinger moved to approve the landscaping concept as addressing the aesthetic and .visual impact concerns the Commission had earlieL Skibby amended the motion to withhold comment. on the actual location of the Logan Drive intersection. Whitten seconded the motion as ameIidedand it was unanimously passed. PA 90-165 Ashland Municipal Code Revisions Affordable Housing City of Ashland McLaughlin explained the main affect in the Historic District will be the. allowance of accessory apartments in R-l zones if certain criteria' is met. Discussion ensued regarding size of units with regard to. single college students and families' who. would need two to three bedroom units, and infilling of residential districts. No action was taken. PA 90-171 Ashland Municipal Code Revisions Traveller's Accommodations City of Ashland McLaughlin explained the progression of events and concerns that led to the revisions. The final Staff Report addresses concerns voiced not only by the Planning Commission and Historic Commission, bu~ also those received' from traveller's accommodation owners. The Commission agreed with the ordinance revisions. 5 ;2." November 7, 1990 MEMORANDUM TO: John Fregonese, Planning Director FROM: Ronald L. Salter, City Attorney SUBJECT: ROca Canyon~ AMC 18.88.080 (B) The question presented is whether the above referenced section of the Code, which states "the minimum lot size for one unit shall be the same as in the parent zone" does require that each lot in the development be of that size or wh~ther chapter 88 allows a lesser density? My opinion based in large part on your Memo of October 22, 1990 is that the quoted section is ambig'uous and that in light of the whole chapter, a greater density is allowed. When a provision of law is ambiguous, Courts then look to the legislative intent and also to the'historical application of toe law by the' governing body. According to your Memorandum, both the intent and application are consistent with' the above conclusion. The ambiguity is found not alone in the sentence quoted but from a reading of the entire chapter. R~tfUIIY RL~D\. . City Attorney RLS/as cc: John Hassen Karen Allan RONALD L. SALTER ATTORNEY AT LAW 94 THtRO STREET ~7 - <(if 0: ~rom: ~ubjtd: ~emoranduut October 22, 1990 Ron Salter John Fregonese (f)) Legislative History of AMC 18.88.080 (B) I have read the record of the hearing held at the Planning commission, specifically the part of the record where some members of the neighborhood have called to question the City's interpretation of section 18.88.080 (B). The allegation is that this section requires all single family detached units to meet the parent zone minimum lot size. . I am very familiar with the Performance Standards ordinance. I was the principa~ author of both the ordinance and the guidelines, and introduced the concept of performance standards to Ashland shortly after I came to work for the City in 1979. The ordinance was adopted by the city in 1980, and has been the major vehicle for development in Ashland in the last decade. Most new developments have been in the "P" overlay zone, so I am both familiar with the legislative history of the ordinance, and how it has been applied.historically in the last ten years. I should point out that the entire concept of performance standards is to free subdivision design from the minimum lot size constraints, and rather regulate the density of developments by using a unit per acre standard; At the time these were developed, Ashland had a very conventional approach to sUbdivisions, where the only criteria for approval was ~hether the minimum standards of the ,subdivision were met,' such as lot size, lot dimensions, and street width. The result was either "cookie cutter" developments on flat land, with no common space, or developments on hillsides that destroyed small natural features, especially creeks, gullies, and forested areas. section 18.88.040 regulates the allowable density in a development, using a density per acre standard, rather than a minimum lot size. The lack of a minimum lot size 'allows for the creation of common open spaces, one of the main goals of the c?-8 performance standards approach. This is so sensitive areas, such as the creek in this development, are preserved and left relatively natural and in a common area, with the amount of land in private ownership correspondingly smaller. The "P" overlay zone was created to define areas that were either relatively undeveloped, or to plac~ environmentally sensitive areas under the protection of the Performance Standards ordinance. In these areas, the develQper could not choose to file a simple subdivision, they had to use the performance standards. The density limits, coupled with the lack of a minimum lot size, allows the flexibility for developments to achieve the Comprehensive Plan densities without resorting to large scale environmental modifications. The specific ambiguity in question arises in section oOu 18.88 080 (B). The last sentence of this paragraph was appended during the later stages of the development of the ordinance to .prevent one unit developments from using the Performance standards as a way to create single lots of 2,500 square feet with a single unit on them~ The loophole that this was meant to plug develops in the following way: First, in the "P" overlay zone, development under these standards is an outright permitted use (AMC 18.88 080 (C)), as it is in the. R-2 and R-3 zone (AMC 18~88 080 (D) (3)). In the R- 2 zone, development at the base density of a one unit 'development would allow a unit to be built on a lot of 3,350 square feet, in the R-3 zone, on 2,178 square feet. While these lot sizes have been approved as part of larger developments with common - open space, the Council wanted protection-that this ordinance would not be used to create single units on very small lots in R-2 and R-3 zones.' Therefore, the sentence was appended to read "The minimum lot size for one unit shall be the same as in the parent zone.1I In retrospect, this would be much clearer. if we were to have said "one unit developments" rather than simply lIone'unitll. It even more clearly shows that this was the intent in that ,this appears in a section that discusses developments, rather than dwellings, and is not concerned with lot sizes, but.how to process whole developments. However it is clear from the Guidelines adopted at the same time as the ordinance that there was to be no minimum lot size. The Guidelines state, on page 2, J!l ."The allowable density times the number of acres in the parcel will determine the numb~r of dwelling units to be permitted in the development. These dwelling units may be located within the project without respect to lot sizes or minimum setbacks (except at the perimeter of the project), and thus a high degree of clustering may occur. (emphasis added) - 'The parenthetical statement refers to minimum setbacks required at the perimeter of a project under AMC 18.88.070 (B). The city's comprehensive Plan also refers to the flexibility allowed under. the Performance Standards. Policy VI-1 (b) states that small lots and common open space shall be used where possible to moderate cost and preserve Ashland's character. Because this was so clearly the intent, almost all subdivisions processed in the last 10 years have been under performance standards, as most developable land in the City is zoned IIp'' overlay. In almost every case, some or all lots were smaller than the parent zone minimum lot size, depending on the amount of open ~pace dedicated. Some specific examples are: Jessica Lane, smallest lot is approximately 2,500 square feet, parent zone minimum is 5;000 square feet. Oak Knoll, most lots are 7,500 square feet, while the parent zone minimum is 10,000 square- feet. Millpond Subdivision, smallest lot 4,300 square feet, parent zone minimum is 5,000 squar.e feet. All were in the "P" overlay. Many more examples could be quoted. . Therefore, by the stated intent, by the Comprehensive Plan, by the legislative history, and by the history of how this ordinance has been applied, it should be clear that there was no intent to establish a minimum lot size in the Performance Standards. Mr. Stevens in his letter reads additional words into thi's prohibition. He reads "one unit" as eqUivalent to "single family detached home", and that each single family 'detached h9me would need a '0 fit!' lot of the minimum lot size of the parent zone. The ordinance definitions, the Performance Standards Guidelines, and the cityts Comprehensive Plan all clearly distinguish a single fam~ly, detached structure as a type of dwelling unit, but not the~ only type. The term "unit" means all types, and it, is inaccurate to imply that "one unit" means ~ingle family, detached.' Therefore, in my opinion, the project in question is a 17 unit development, r~ther than a one unit development, therefore the section quoted does not apply. cc: John Hassen Karen Allan 3f CITIZENS PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE OCTOBER 8, 1990 MINUTES General discussion followed including the differences between a Bed and Breakfast and a business, the density of 1:;:ravellerls accommodations in a particular neighborhood, the need to retain .the residential character of the residential zone, and off:-street parking issues. PROPOSAL #1 -- Tom Garson proposed that- the phrase "up to a maximum of a 100% increase" be added t.o section 5 on page 3 of the Staff report. There was no second and the motion failed. PROPOSAL #2 Chris Wood motioned that Bed and Breakfast permits be allotted for only one unit per 50-foot radius. Carole Wheeldon seconded. The motion failed on a re-counted hand vote with only-5 in favor'ofthe proposal. PROPOSAL #3 David Lane propo~'ed that CPAC reinforce staff needs to somehow limit the number of Bed and Breakfast establishments. The motion carried unanimously. PROPOSAL #4 Chris Wood motioned that the city require off-street parking to be screened.- John Yeamans-s~conded. The motion carried with 5 in favor, 3 opposed and 2 abstentions. C. AFFORDABLE HOUSING staff report was given by Associate Planner -Bill .Molnar~ Due to time constraints, .several sections of this amendment have been tabled for future review. CPAC and the Planning commiss~on had consensus to keep section 5 on page 4 of the Staff Repor~ and to change 1.5 and 1.75 parking spac~s to 2 parking.spaces in section 1 on page 5. Discussion included owner Qccupancy of accessoryp,ousing, the legality of requiring public schools as part of the_performance standards, offering bonus points for alternative energy sources, and the wording of base density measures. . "3 3r;2 CITIZENS PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE OCTOBER 8, 1990 MINUTES PROPOSAL #1 David Lane proposed to substitute the phrase "one of' the residences" for "primary residence" in'the accessory l:].ousing section. . Kay Leybold seconded. The motion carried on a voice vote with Chris Wood alone voicing opposition. :: PROPOS~L #2 John Yeamans proposed that the phrase "or 100,000 square. feet or greater" follow ~the words "10 units" on page 1'1, section 3 (b) of the staff report. He gave the example of having 9 units.with one unit being extremely large to avoid giving the city any land. . Hal Cloer' seconded the motion. Rick Landt amended the phrase "100,000 square feet or greater" to' read' "100,000 square feet for the R-1-10,OOO zone and proportional for other zones." The motion passed unanimously. D. . WETLANDS It was decided to ~iscussthis section at a later date. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:59 P.M. -- 4 33 aPAC ~c.oIllIlr4tJ."''ov- c~ AFFORDABLE HOUSING Accessory Apartments. This is a change that permits a second unit in single family zones as a Type I Conditional Use. This is one of the primary recommendations of the Affordable Housing report for increasing the amount of affordable units within the City. We have not included affordability guarantees as we believe that policing this type of apartment would not be worth the trouble, and the majority of these apartmenfs'would be relatively affordable anyway. 18.20.030 Conditional Uses (R-1 zone) Delete H. _ Duplexes on corner lots. Additional units will ,be accoll1modated by the following section. " J. Accessory Residential Units, subject to the Type I procedure and criteria, ,_ r.... and the following additional development criteria: . ~\\ I~; !~-; . \ (,) \_ J ,_ \b: -' /. '\ .'.' '. J_' , :..' C ~ . . . \ '.l ~" Dr., \ /j ,'...:.J ~ \ ~..' ~ '< , )c" . t C .' C' ~ .r;~ f'J' ~' I . 1) The proposal must conform with the overall maximum lot coverage and setback requirements of the underlying zone. 2) The maximum number of dwelling u~its shall not exceed 2 per lot. . 3) The maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory residential structure shall not exceed ~O% of the GHF A of the primary residence on the lot, and shall not exceed 1000 sq. ft. GHF A .4) Additional parking shall be in conformance with the Off-Street Parking provisions for Single-Fam~ly Dwellings of this Title. 5) That the primary residence on the lot shall be -owner-occupied. The following would be changes to the Parking Code to address studio apartments and accessory units in Single Family areas, as well as addressing congregate care and apartment housing for seniors. 18.92.020 Spaces Required ,A Residential Uses 1) Single Family Dwellings 2 spaces for the primary dwelling and the following for accessory residential units:' Studio units or 1-bedroomunits less than 500 sq. ft. ~- 1 space/unit 1-bedroom units 500 sq. ft. or larger -- 200spacesjunit 3~ 18.92.020 D. 2-bedroom u.nits -- 200 spaces/unit 3-bedroom or greater units - 200 spaces/unit 2) Multi-Family Dwellings Studio units or I-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft. -- 1 sp.~/unit I-bedroom units 500 sq. ft. or larger -- 1.50 spaces/unit .- 2-bedroom units -- 1.75 spaces/unit 3-bedroomor grea~er units - 2.00 spaces/u~t Retirement complexes for seniors 55-years or greater - (low-income) - 1 space/unit. 6) Rest Homes or Homes for the Aged One .space per two patient beds or 1 space per apartment unit. 35 This. section would make condominium conversions ina R-2 zone subject to the affordability criteria. However, it would make the construction of new condominium units a permitted u~e, subject to the revised densities allowed within the zone. It removes the current test that a showing of no adverse impact on the rental market be made. 18.24.070 R-2 Permitted Uses (assuming density roll-backs and affordable incentIves) , - ' I. Construction of ne!V~O>ndominiums 18.24.030 R-2 Conditional Uses J. Condominium conversion -~of existing rental uD:its subject to a Type I .procedUre and demonstration that at least2S% of the residential units are affordable for moderate income persons in accord to the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Co~ncil through procedures contained in sai~__.._ resolution. *~** Do same. thing for R-3 zone- (18.28.020 and 18.28.030 I.) unless R-3 zone is eliminated and replaced, as suggested on Page 12. 3b The following are our suggested changes to the approval criteria for the Performance Standard Dev~lopments. We have attempted to make them more objective' and measurable. In addition, we have included density rollbacks and the atTord:ab1e housing criteria. ' . . a) That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the dty of Ashland. ~ ~ b) ~That adequate key public fa<;llities can be provided including water, sewer, ~ \(1 paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, I J-' . 'i public schools, police and fire protection and adequate tranSportation; and that f'! d the d~elopment Will not cause a key public facility to operate beyond established / i/ capaCity. . . . c) That the existing and' natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been considered in the, plan of the development and unpoqant features utilized for open space and common areas. . ' d) That the development of the land will not impede the potential development of adjacent lands. . . . .e) 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.. f) That the tota.lenergy, water, air quality impacts of the development have . been cOnsidered and are as efficient as is ',economically feasibl~. g) That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density stanaards established under this Chapter. 37' ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT REVISED 9-26-9.0 September 11, 1990 pLANNING ACTION: 90-165-- APPLICANT: City of Ashland ORDINANCE REFERENCE: ,: REQUEST: General Land Use Ordinance modifications with respect to the affordable housing goals. I. Relevant Facts 1) Bac~und - History. of Application: The City Cotincil adopted the "Affordable HousiIig in Asb1and"~ report of the Committee on Affordable Housing in May; 1990. That document contains many of the concepts that have resulted in the following recommended ordinance modifications. 2) Detailed Description of the Proposal: The following are th~ proposed ordinance modifications .- in no particular order. They , include recommendations made during the June CP AC/planning Commission study session, along with additional Staff comments and explanations. I . 38 DELETE TillS SECTION -- 18.104 Conditional Use Pennit Approval Criteria. The goal here was to make th,e criteria more clear and objective, while leaving the City some latitude' in approvals. Please note that Type l planning actions do not have to address the Comprehensive Plan. In relation to AfTordable Housing, Accessory Apartments are proposed to be , allowed as Conditional Uses in,the R-l zone and it is believed that the criteria need to be more clear and objective to more easily allow for these accessory units, and their associated affordable rents. 18.104.040 Criteria A conditional use pe~t shan be granted when the hearings body finds that the proposal meets the following criteria: A The proposal is similar in impact on the surrounding area as the most common permitted uses in the zone City-wide. The impacts shall be judged by the location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed development. In judging the prQposal in relation to permitted uses in the zone, the hearings authority shall review the project with respect to the following: 1) Percentage of lot coverage by impervious sUrfaces. 2) The ratio of total gross floor area to total lot size. 3) Generation of traffic, using, where appropriate, traffic generation data produced by. the Institute of Traffic Engineers. , - 4) ArGmtcGtmal And A"'-Sthc.tic compatibility. 5) CGnGlation of noisc. 6) Emission of, dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants.- B. That adequate key public facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, . public schools, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that .the development will not cause a key public facility to operate beyond established capacity.. C. In addition to the. above. Gdte.ria, Conditional ~~~ ~~ ~ listed ~ tlm Title ~ sabjcct w a Typ{. n procc.torc mu3t li1Cc.t thcfoRo>'l~-~ritcrkJ11: .... . That the. proposal is in confOru1a11GG with the, ConlpI{,h{,mh" rlan. PA90-165. City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report september 11, 1990 Page 2 ~( DELETE THIS SECTION -- I ~. ~p~Sals r"quding Conditional US" p,,~t ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ :;~~~ ;I, e.b~ ~ 5 or more. ACl'~ of land, ~~o~ ~( 1~~ ~~. f~, o~ ~~~ ~o~r n OCG~{,d A3 a Type. ill pl~ acttons cmd sttb.JCGt to thG !fype. H critGria of Apprm al., - ... We recommend, that 4) and 5) from criterion A. above be deleted, due to the fact that it has been our experience that Architectural and Aesthetic Compatibility are ~ impossible to meet an unchallengeable b,urden of proof for, and that the Generation oj Noise is already 'covered by a separate section of the Municipal Code, and that those requirements are already in excess of ' the State noise requirements. In B. above, reference is made to Public Schools as a key public facility. The Commission should carefully consider the implications of this addition. The City, in general, has the power to increase the availability of services, whether it be extension of sewer or water lines, or requiring paved street, but that same power does not extend to the school distrid. They are. a separate entity that is essentially responsive to the growth patterns of the city and. surrounding areas. In other areas of these ordinance modifications, public schools will be highlighted, meaning that similar concerns as above are made in reference to these sections. We also recommend that the requirement of 90nformancewith the Comprehensive Plan for Type II conditional uses be dropped. Again. it has been our experience that this isa very difficult burden of proof to meet, since there are so many goals Qnd policies. We also believe that the Comp Plan should be a document guiding the development of Ashland, and' that it not be used as a "day-to~day" planniitg document. The zoning ordinance is the implementing document for the Comp pzan,and if there are problems with the approval process, these should be addressed through the ordinarice and not through attempting to comply with the Comp flan. . Staff does not concur with the comments mode at the study session 1IIhi.ch added "D" above. We believe that the Pla1ining Commission is the appropriate body to decide the 1an4 use decisions associated with large project, when they don't involve annexations, zone cJumies, etc... The City Council should remain as. the appeals body for these issues and should not replace the Planning Commission as the decision making body for these actions. We recommend deletion of "D" above., ' Overall, the Commission may wish to review thellst of Conditional Uses allowed in each zone, and attempt .to decide which are truly worthy of review under the CUP process, and which others are perhaps better allowed as permitted uses. Again, we believe that the Site Review requirements can handle many of the concerns raised, and that the Conditional Use ,process may not be appropriate in all, instances. PA90-165 City of Ashland A~hland Planning Department - Staff Report September 11, 1990 Page 3 ~, " . . -... t;. ~ RETAIN THIS SECTION -- Accessory Apartments. This is a change that pennits a second unit, in single family zones as a Type I Conditional Use. 'PUs' is one of the primary recommendations of the Affordable Housing report for increasing the amount of affordable units within the City. We have not included atTordability guarantees as we believe that policing this.,type of apartment would not be worth the trouble, and the majority of these apartments would be relatively affordable anyway._ _ 18.20.030 Conditional Uses (R-l zone) Delete H. ,_~ Duplexes on comer lots. Additional units will be accommodated by the following section. ' J. Accessory Residential Units, subject to the Type I procedure and criteria, and the following additional development criteria: 1) The proposal must conform with the overall maximum lot coverage and setback requirements of the underlying zone. 2) The maximum number of dwelling units shall not exceed 2 per lot. 3) The maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory residential structure, shall not exceed 50% of the GHF A of the primary residence on the lot, and shall not ex~eed 1000 sq. ft. GHFA 4) Additional parking shall be in conformance, with the Off-Street Parking provisions for Single-Family Dwellings of this Title. 5) That thG pr~y rc.~idGl"1G" on thc. lot shM! be, OwnGr-oGcupic.d. 5) above was added at the recent Study Session. Staff does not believe that this requirement 'is' necessary, nor that it furthers the opportUnities to provide affordable housing. We believe that it is only included due to the perceived fear of "too many renters" and the lack of control over property if only renters are present. We do not believe that the addition of "owner-occupied'" for properties with accessory apartments will ensure compatibility, etc... any more than "renter-occupied'~ In, both. cases, the occupants will be the permanent residents . of the neighborhood. and will be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the property. We believe that to generalize that the renters occupying accessory apartments need to be watched by the property owners from the primary residence on the site is to stifle the development of the accessory units. We believe that the concerns raised that have resulted in the placement of this criterion as part of the approval are a prejudicial fear based on economic class distinctions ,and should not' be promulgated in our land use ordinance. Staff recommends deletion of "5)" above. PA90-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report September 11,1990 Page 4 '-II RETAIN TIllS SECTION -- The following would be changes to the Parking Code to address studio apartments and accessory units in Single Fanilly areas, as well as addressing congregate care and apartment housing for seniors. ' ' 18.92.020 Spaces Required A Residential Uses~~ 1) Single Family Dwellings 2 spaces for the primary dwelling and the following for accessory residential units: Studio units or 1-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft. -- 1 space/unit . . 1-bedroom units 500 sq. ft. or larger - 1.50 spaces/unit 2-bedroom units - 1.75 spaces/unit 3-bedroom or greater ~ts - 2.00 spaces/unit 2) Multi-Family Dwellings Studio units or l-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft. - 1 space/unit I-bedroom units 500' .sq. ft. .or larger - 150 spaces/unit ~-bedroom units - 1.75 .sPaces/unit ' 3~bedroom or greater units - 2.00 spaces/unit Retirement complexes .for seniors 55-years or greater - (low-income) ~ 1 spacejuniL 18.92.020 D. 6) Rest Homes or'Homes for the Aged One space per two patient beds or 1 space per apartment unit. PA9o-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report September 11, 1990 Page 5 '1;(. DELETE THIS SECTION -- Conditional uses in E-l and C-l zones. Thi~ changes the criteria to do the following: 1) It requires a mixed use development; 2) Requires that 25% of the units be affordable; 3) Sets a high pennitted density and; 4) Removes the re'quirements for outdoor recreation areas. This is intended to allow urban densities to be achieved for housing in -largely commercial areas. ... . ~- 18.32.030 Conditional Uses F. Residential Uses, which also meet the following criteria: 1) At least 25 % of the residential units are affordable for moderate income persons in accord to the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council through procedures contained in said resolutio~ 2) At least 40% of the total gross floor area or at least 40% of tbe total 'lot area planned for the site be designated for' permitted uses as listed in 18.32.020. 3) Densities for these developments shall not exceed 30 dwelling units per acre. 4) Residential uses in this zone shall be subject to the same site design standards as for permitted uses in this zone~ 5) Uses that combine residential and commercial uses in the same structure must meet the greater of the residen.tial or commercial parking requirements, but not the cumul~tive total of both. PA90-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report September 11, 1990 Page ,6 '-(3 DELETE THIS SECTION -- An additional idea in the E-l zone is to have an overlay zone (R) that would indicate the areas where residential uses would be appropriate. As an example, the Washington. Street area would not have the overlay, while areas such as A street arid Hersey would. 18.40.040 Conditional Uses (delete N.) -- F. Residential uses (in areas designated with the (R) overlay zone) which also meet the following criteria: 1) At least 25% of the residential units are affordable for moderate income persons in accord to the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council through procedures contained in said resolution. 2) , At least 40% of the total gross floor area or at least 40% of the tota1lot area planned for the site be designated for permitted uses as listed in 18.40.020. 3) Densities for th~e developments shall not' exceed 30 dwelling units. per acre. 4) Residential uses in this zone shall be subject to the same site design standards as for permitted uses' in this zone. PA90-165 'City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report September 11, 1990 ' Page 7. Lf'1 RETAIN TIllS SECTION -- This section' would make condominium conversions in a R-2 zone subject to the atTordability criteria. However, it would make the construction of .new condominium units a permitted use,- subject to the revised densities allowed within the zone. It removes the current test .that a showing of no adverse impact on the rental market be made. 18.24.020 R-2 Permitted Uses (assuming density roll-backs and affordable incentives) I. ConStruction of new Condominiums 18.24.030 R-2 Conditional Uses J. Condominium conversio~ of existing rental units subject to a Type I procedure and demonstration. that at least 25% of the residential units are' affordable for moderate income persons in accord to the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council through procedures contained in said resolution. . Do same thing for R-3 zone (18.28.020 and 18.28.030 I.) unless R-3 zone is elimin,ated and'replaced, as suggested on Page 12. PA90-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report September 11, 1990 Page 8 Lf5 RETAIN THIS' SECTION -- The following are our suggested changes t9 the approval criteria 'for the Perfonnance Standard Developments. We have attempted to make them more objective and measurable. In addition, we have included density rollbac~ and the affordable housing criteria. . a) That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland. - b ) That adequate key public' facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and $ough the development, electricity, urban storin drainage, public schools, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the dev~lopment will not cause a key public facility to operate beyond established capacity.' . . . c) That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have' been . considered in the plan of the development ahd important features utilized for open space and 'common areas. . PA90-165 City of Ashland . Ashland Planning Department - .Staff ~eport September 11, 1990 Page 9 'f6 RETAIN TIllS SECTION -- Density Bonuses under Perfonnance Standards 18.88.040 ,A Base Densities The density of the development shall not exceed the density establis~ed oy this section. The density shall be Computed by the dividing the total number of dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated. to the public. Fractional portions of the final answer shall not apply towards the total density. Base density for zoning densities within the City of Ashland shall be as' follows: WR and RR zone - 1 divided by the minimum lot size expressed in acres, times 0.60 determines the dwelling units per acre. WR-2= WR-25 '= WR-5 = WR-10 = WR-20 = RR-1 = RR-5 == Single Family Zones R-1-10 = R-1-75 = R-t-5 = R-1-35 = R-2 = /' 0.30 du/ acre 0.24 du/acre 0.12 du/ acre 0.06 du/acre . 0.03 du/ acre 0~60 du/ acre . 1.2 du/ acre i. 2.40 du/acre 3.20 du/acre 4.00 du/acre '6.4 du/acre 12 du/acre . PA9Q-165 . City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report September 11, 1990 Pa.ge 10 '-(7 RETAIN THIS SECTION -- B. Bonus Point Calculations 1) The permitted base density shall be increased by the percentage gained through bonus points. In no case shall the densitY exceed that allowed under the Comprehensive Plan. ' 2) The maximum bonus permitted shall be 60%! 3) The. following bonuses shall be awarded: a) Conservation Housing - all home or residential units on the site meet the energy usage;'water usage, and air quality requirements adopted in the Guidelines referred to in 18.88.090 - maximum 15% bonus ' b) Provision of Common Open Space (same' as in current ordinance, except that all projects of 10 units or greater shall be required to provide a minimuin of 5% of the total lot area in Open Space that is not subject to bonus calculations. Bonus shall be awarded only to that open space area in excess of the 5% required for developments of 10 units or greater.) maximum 10% bonus cj Provision of Major Recreational Facilities (same) maximum bonus 10% d) Affordable Housing - for every percent of units that are affordable, an 'equivalent percentage of density bonus shall be allowed. Maximum bonus 'of, 25%. Affordable Housing bonus .shall be for residential units that are affordable for moderate income persons in accord with the standards established by' . resolution of the Ashland City Council and guaranteed affordable through procedures contained in said resolution. PA90-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report September .11, 1990 Page 11 '79 RETAIN TIllS SECTION -- .The following are density roll backs and atTordable housing density bonuses in the R-2 zone. The R-3 zone would be eliminated and replaced with an RC zone (residential/commercial) which would allows high density residential (30 units/acre) along with neighborhood commercial uses, travellers accommodations, and si~!lar impact uses. This new zone, with descriptions and th~ locations, will be presented as part of the Economic Element. ' 18.24.040 Gener~ Regulations R-2 Zone A Permitted Density 1) Base Densities The density of the development shall not exceed the density established by this section. The density shall be computed by the dividing the total. number of dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the public. Fractional portions of the answer shall not apply towards the total density. Base density for the R-2zone shall be 12 dwelling units per acre. B. Bonus Point Calculations 1) The 'permitted base density shall be increased by the percentage gained through bonus points. In no case shall the density exceed that allowed under the Comprehensive Plan. 2) . The maximum bonus pe~tted shall be 60%. 3) The following bonuses shall be awarded: a) Conservation Housing - all home or residential units on the site meet the energy usage, water usage, and air quality requirements adopted in the Guidelines referred to in 18.88.090 - maximum 20% bonus . b) - Provision of outdoor recreation space above minimum requirement establi~hed by this Title. 2 percent increased bonus for each percent of the project site dedicated to outdoor recreation space. maximum 15% bo~us . c) ProVision of Major Recreational Facilities (same as Performance Standards) maximum bonus 10% - PA90-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report September 11, 1990 Page 12 '-19 RETAIN TIllS SECTION -- d) Affordable. !-lousing - for every percent of units that are affordable, an equivalent percentage of density bonus shall be allowed. Maximum bonus of 25%. Affordable Housing bonus shall be for residential units that are affordable for moderate income persons in accord with the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council and guaranteed affordable through procedures contained in said resolution. . The following section would replace the current standard in Site. Design' & Use Guidelines that 25% of the gross floor area be used for outdoor recreation space. H. Outdoor Recreation Space 1) At least 8% of the lot area shall be dedicated to outdoor. recreational space and shall be part of the overalJ. landscaping . requiIements. . Delete 18.72.100 C. (open spaces from site design). PA9Q-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report September 11,1990 Page 13 ~ DELETE TIllS SECTION -- The following criteria are intended to be a clarifications of the existing annexation process, provide for'more reasons to annex lands that the current criteria, and provide for affordable housing guarantees where appropriate. ... 18.108.060 C) The following findings shall be required for approval of an annexation to the City of Ashland: 1) That the land is within the. City's Urban Growth Boundary. 2) Tha~ the proposed zoning is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 3) That the land is currently contiguous With the present City limits. 4) That adequate key public facilities can be provided including.water;sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, public schools, pblice and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the development of the land will not cause a key public facility to operate beyond established capacity. 5) That a need for additional land can be demonstrated. Need shall be . . demonstra~ed by the following means: a) Por, CoumtGrcial (C), Dmploymc.nt (TI), and In~trial (M) lands the rcqnG.!t must mGe,t oriG ofthG foHowing aite,ria. . 1.' that the, City lades a 5.., (,M stipply of 1 ACant land with MGquatG publiG faciiitiGS AlatlAbk, to support dGve,lopmcnt, . or;- 2. .that the, land md the, proposed project fttlfiH An economic nce,d of the. City 'ons~tGnt with thG Comprc.hGnsil G Plan and an most rGa30nably be. accoannodate,d by the, proposGd .mne.xat1on due. to its spGciflG loonion, prox:imity to othc.r de,le.lopme,nt, or speGific chcUacte.ristics of the, land such as - sizc. or shape" or, 3. that ownc.Iship pattc.ln3 that MC. inlpGding the, economic dc.vc.}opme.nt of th~ City. A monopoly or neAr monopoly in owne.rship of lacant and se.rvi:cc.d land ~ gronLltb for aM.c.xation of land which will provide. for compe,tition in the markc.tplace, for stich type, of land, or; PA9o-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff, Report September 11, 1990 Page 14 &( -- 4. that the, land is more, them 25% de,ve,lopcd in e,xisting . com:n'tGrcial or industIial tlses. b) For Residential lands, the request must meet one of the following criteria: . ..' 1. that thG Cn, laGks a. S..,C.M ,sl11'pl, of ~acant land with adc.qnatc. pnbliG fad:litic.s AlAilablc. to SUppOlt dGlc.lopmGnt, or;- 2. That the annexed land will provide a needed h9using type for the City as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. If the . need identified is for affordable housing, as defined by the - City Council, then the need shall be deemed met if 25% of the project housing is guaranteed affordable according.to the guidelines established by the Council. 3. the land is resi~entially developed to densities. greater than one dwelling unit per' acre. c) The annexation is necessary to provide an extension of public facilities such as sanitary .sewer and water that will eliminate a - existing or suspected health haZard for existing development. Staff recommends that. the criteria for "need" for the' annexation of Commercial, Employment, or Industrial lands be deleted. It is our belief tlwt burden of prooffor "need" is extremely difficult tQ meet, opens up many arguments regarding the types of businesses or uses proposed, and dOes little to further economic development. We believe that if the land is adequately serviced, as required in 4) above, then the land is appropriate for inclUsion in the City. .Annexation is more a juriSdictional issue than a land use ~ and if facilities are .adequately available, then it is in the best -interest of the City to have that land under its jurisdiction. PA90-165 City of Ashland . Ashland Planning Department- Staff R~port September 11, '1990 Page 15 6~-: 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 qside. 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. Uve 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 53 Fregonese read from GRS 197.303 IlNeeded housingll defined. If the Comprehensive Plan document is to be consistent with the Affordable Housing document, it will say Ilwe need affordable housing,1l thus making it an affordable housing type. The items noted in the GRS 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 Decause it makes the decision-making process more clear-cut. Staff believes that "livability", "compatibility with the neighborpoodll, and "compliance with the Comprehensive. Planll 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 CP AC 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 . 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 6Lf 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 schools" deleted. Fregorl'ese 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. CP AC 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...", .CP AC' 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 9,1) should be deleted because it is not measurable. Page 12, B 3) a) should read: "...maximum15%, b) 10%, c) 10%, d) 25%11. 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 ss HARRIS LEFT THE MEETING. Jarvis told Murphey that the words "Iivability and compatibilityll 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, bu'ik, coverage and scale. MARY WASMUND, 439 E. Hersey, objected to many of the changes for so-called affordable housing goals. She did not want "Iivability and compatibility" struck from the land us_e ordinance. Perhaps set guidelines and define II 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. Uvability 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 MIKALIS, 394 E. Hersey Street, wanted livability and compatibility to remain. MARA MIKALIS, 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 56 JILL MURPHEY, 492 Linn Street, requested the hearing be continued because there' was not 30 days prior noticing of the CPAC 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. MOl:.lntain, 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 school.s - should the need for public schools and land use planning be mixed. Density - make the public aware of the different things the Commission has tal Red 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 a~ large projects such as museums. , Carr be'lieved 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 s7 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 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. omitted. 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 .chaflges, 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 9n the first page should read "poor exposure of rock units." ASHLAND PlANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 11 68 Page 4-6 will have the tables that exist in the present Comp Plan. #3 on the right hand side - should read "prohibit" not "prevent". Bingham moved to recommend approval of P A90-146 with the proposed minor changes above and inclusion of the changes from CP AC and the tetter 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 unanimousty. September ,Retreat The September retreat was cancelled. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11 :30 p.m. 12 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 59 ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT - STAFF REPORT September .11, 1990 PLANNING Ac;rION; 90-165 APPLICANT: City of Ashland . - .. . ORDINANCE REFERENCE: REQUEST: General. Land Use Ordinance modifications with respect to the affordable housing goals. I. Relevant Facts 1) Background - History of Application: The City Council adopted the "Affordable Housing in. Ashland" report of the Committee on Affordable Housing in May, 1990. . That document contains many of the concepts that have resulted in the following recommended ordinance modifications. 2) Detailed Description of the Proposal: The following are the proposed ordinance niodifications - in no particular order. They include recommendationS made during the June CP AC/Planning Commission study session, along with additional Staff comments and explanations. 18.104 Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria. The goal here was to make the criteria more clear and objective, while leaving the City some latitude in approvals. Please note that Type I planning actions do not have to address the Comprehen'sive Plan.. In relation to Affordable Housing, Accessory Apartments are proposed to be allowed as Conditional Uses in the R-l zone and it isbelieved that the criteria need to be more clear and objective to more easily allow for these accessory units, and their associated affordable rents. 18.104.040 Criteria A conditional use permit.shall be granted when the hearings body finds that the proposal meets the following criteria: A The proposal is similar in impact on the surrounding area as the most common permitted uses in the zone City-wide. The impacts shall be judged by .the location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed development. In judging the proposal ii1 relation to permitted uses in the zone, , the hearings authority shall review the project with respect to the following: it 1) Percentage of lot coverage by impervious surfaces. 2) The ratio of total gross floor area to total lot size. 3) Generation of traffic, using, where appropriate, traffic generation data produced by the Institute of Traffic Engineers. 4) Architectural and aesthetic compatibility. 5) Generation of noise. 6) Emission of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. B. That adequate key public facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, public schools, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a key public facility to operate beyond established capacity.. C. In addition to the, above criteIia, Conditional Uses that Me listed in this Title, ~ subject to a Type IT procedme must mce,t the following cIiteIion. ThAt the proposal ~ in confOlmanCc, with the Comprehemive rlan. Appliatiom pro~ssc.d under the Type I plocedme and appealed to a Tjpe IT shall not be subject to th15 criterion. . D. TI14t proposals reqtri11ng Conditional lli~ Permit applO'\lal and. invohing the delelopmc.nt of 5 or more acres of IMd, and/or O'Ve,r 100,000 sq. ft. of gross floor Mea mAR be proCGs5cd as a Type ill plMming act1.om and subject to the Type IT cr iteria of apploval. We recommend that 4) and 5) from criterion A. above be. deleted, due to the fact tnat it has been our experience that Architectural. and Aesthetic Compatibili~ are nearly impossible to meet an unchallengeable burden of proof for, and that the Generation oj Noise is already covered by' a separate section of the Municipal Code, and that those requirements are already in excess of the State noise requirements. In B. above, reference is made to Public Schools ,as a key public facility. The Commission should. carefully consider the implications of this addition The City, in general, has the power to increase the dvailability of selVices, whether it be extension of sewer or water lines, or requiring paved street, but that same power does not extend to the school district. They are a separate entity that is essentially responsive to the growth patterns of the city and surrounding areas. In other areas of these ordinance modifications, public schools will be highlighted, meaning that similar concerns as above are made in reference to these sections. PA9o-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report September 11, 1990 Page 2 .'" '-47 We also recommend that the requirement of Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan for Type II conditional uses be dropped. Again, it has been our experience that this is a very difficult burden of proof to meet, since there are so many goals and policies, We also believe that the Comp Plan should be a document. guiding the development of Ashland, and that it not be used as a "day-to-day" planning document. The zoning ordinance is the implementing document for the Comp Plan, and if there are problems with the approval process, these should be addressed through the ordinance and not through attempting to comply with the Comp Plan. Staff does not concur with the comments made at the study session which added ''D'' above. We believe that the' Planning Commission is the appropriate body to decide the land uSe decisions associated with large project, when they don't involve annexations, zone changes, etc... The City Council should remain as the appeals body for these issues and should not replace. the Planning Commission as the decision making' body for these actions. We recommend deletion of ''D'' above. Overal~ the Commission may wish to review the list of Conditional Uses allowed in each zone, and attempt to decide which are tlUly worthy of review under the CUP process, and which others are perhaps better allowed as permitted uses. Again, we believe that the Site Review. requirements can handle many of the concerns raised, and that the Conditional Use process may not be appropriate in all instances. PA9Q-165 , City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report September 11, 1990 Page 3 .tJ Accessory Apartments. This is a change that permits a second unit in single family . zones as a Type I Conditional Use. This is one of the primary recommendations of the AtTordable Housing report for increasing the amount of affordable units within the City. We have not included atTordability guarantees as we believe that policing this type of apartment would not be worth the trouble, and the majority of these apartments would be relatively affordable anyway. 18.20.030 Conditional Uses (R-1 zone) Delete H. - Duplexes on GDmer lots. Additional units will be accommodated by the following section. J. .Accessory Residential Units, subject to the Type I procedure and criteria, and the following additional development criteria: 1) The proposal must conform with the overall maximum lot coverage and setback requirements of the underlying zone. 2) The maximum number of dwelling units shall not exceed 2 per lot. 3) The maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory residential structure shall not exceed 50% of the GHF A of the primary residence on the lot, and shall not exceed 1000 sq. ft. GHF A 4) Additional parking shall be in cOnformance with the Off-Street Parking provisions for Single-Family Dwellings of this Title. S) That the primary I esidence on the lot shall be ow neI -occupied. 5) above 'was added at the recent Study Session. Staff does not believe that this requirement is necessary, nor that it furthers the opportunities to provide affordable housing. We believe that it is only included due to the perceived fear of "too many renters" and the lac~ of control over property if only renters are present. We do 'not believe that the addition of "owner-occupied" for properties with accessory apartments will ensure compatibility, etc... any more than "renter-occupied". In both cases, the occupants will be the permanent residents of the neighborhood, and w!J.I be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the property. We believe thQ,t to generalize that the renters occupying accessory apartments need to be watched by the property owners from the primary residence on the site is to stifle the development of the accessory units. We believe that the concerns raised that have resulted in the placement of this criterion as part of the approval are a prejudicial fear based on economic class distinctions and should not be promulgated in our land use ordinance. Staff recommends deletion of "5)" above. PA9o-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report September 11, ,1990 Page 4 ts ~ The following would be changes to the Parking Code to address. studio apartments and accessory units in Single Family Breas, as well as addressing congregate care and apartment housing for seniors. 18.92.020 Spaces Required A Residential ,Uses 1) Single Family Dwellings 2 spaces for the primary dwelling and the following for accessory residential units: Studio units or I-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft. - 1 space/unit I-bedroom units 500 sq. ft. or larger - 1.50 spaces/unit 2-bedroom units -- 1.75 spaces/unit 3-bedroom or greater units - 2.00 spaces/unit 2) Multi-Family Dwellings Studio units or I-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft. -- 1 space/unit I-bedroom units 500 sq. ft. or larger - 1.50 spaces/unit 2-bedroom units - 1.75 spaces/unit 3-bedroom or greater units - 2.00 spaces/unit Retirement complexes for seniors 55-years or greater ... (low-income) - 1 space/unit. 18.92.020 D. 6) Rest Homes or Homes for the A~ed One space per two patient beds or 1 space per apartment unit. PA9Q-165 City of Ashland . Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report September 11 , 1990 Page 5 '" ~ Conditional uses in E-1 and C-l zones. This changes the criteria to do the following: 1) It requires a mixed use development; 2) Requires that 25% of the units be affordable; 3) Sets a high permitted density and; 4) Removes the requirements for outdoor recreation areas. This is intended to allow urban densities to be achieved for housing. in largely commercial areas. . 18.32.030 Conditional Uses F. Residential Uses, which also meet the following criteria: - - 1) At least 25% of the residential units are affordable for moderate income persons in accord to the standards established. by resolution of the Ashland Oty Council through procedures contained in said resolution. . 2) At least 40% of the total gross floor area or at least 40% of the total lot area planned for the site be designated for permitted uses as listed in 18.32.020. 3) Densities for these developments shall not exceed 30 dwelling units per acre: 4) Residential uses in this zone shall be subject to the same site design standards as for permitted uses in this zone. 5) Uses that combine residential and commercial uses in the same structure must meet the greater of the residential or commercial parking requirements, but, not the cumulative total of both. PA9o-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report September 11, 1990 Page 6 c..S ~ An additional idea in the E-l zone is to have an overlay zone (R) that, would indicate the areas where residential uses would be appropriate. As an example, the Washington Street area would not have the overlay, while areas such as A street and Hersey would. 18.40.040 Conditio.nal Uses '(delete N.) ~. F. Residential uses (in areas designated with the (R) o.verlay zone) which also. meet the fo.llo.wing criteFia: 1) At least 25% o.f the residential units are affo.rdable for moderate income perso.ns in accord to. the standards established by resolutio.n o.f the Ashland City Council thro.ugh pro.cedures contained in said resolutio.n. 2) At least 40% o.f the to.tal gro.ss floor area o.r at least 40% o.f the to.tallo.t area planned fo.r the site be designated fo.r permitted uses as listed in 18.40.020. 3) Densities fo.r these develo.pments shall no.t exceed 30 dwelling units per acre. 4) Residential uses in this zone shall be subject to. the same site design standards' as fo.r penirltted uses in this zone. PA9o-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report September 11, 1990 Page 7 't ~ This section would make condominium conversions in a R-2 zone subject to the atTordability criteria. However, it. would make the construction of new condominium units a permitted use, subject to the revised densities allowed within the zone. It removes the current test that a showing of no adverse impact on the rental market be , made. 18.24.020 R-2 Permitted Uses (assuming de~ityroll-backs and affordable incentives) I. Construction of new Condominiums -~ 18.24.030 R-2 Conditional Uses J. Condominium conversion of existing rental units subject to a Type I procedure and demonstration that at least 25% of the residential units are affordable for moderate income persons in accord to the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council through procedures contained in said resolution. Do same thing for R-3 zone (18.28.020 and 18.28.030 I.) unless R-3 zone is eliminated and replaced, as suggested Qn Page 12. PA90-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report September 1.1, 1990 Page 8 ,., 7tH The following are our suggested changes to the approval criteria for the Performance Standard Developments. We have attempted to make them more objective and measurable. In addition, we have included density rollbacks and the affordable housing criteria. ' a) That the development meets all applicable. ordinance requirements~pf the City of Ashland. b) That adequate key public facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, public schools, police and fire protection and adequate. transportation; and that the development will not cause a key public facility to operate beyond established capacity. c ) That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, larg~ trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been.... . considered in the plan of the development and impo~ant features utiliZed for open space and common areas. d). That the development of the land' will not impede the potential development of adjacent lands. e). That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and cO,mmon 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. t) That the total energy, water, air quality impacts of the development have been considered and are as efficient as is economically feasible. g) That the proposed density meets the base and. bonus density standards established under this C~apter. . PA90-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report . September 11, 1990 Page 9 " 7. .# (... Density Bonuses under Performance Standards 18.88.040 A Base Densities The density of the development shall not exceed the density established by this section. The density shall be computed by the dividing the total number of dwelling units. by the acreage. of the project, including land dedicated to the public. Fra~tio:nal portions of the final answer shall not apply towards the total density. Base density for zoning densities within the City of Ashland shall be as follows: . WR and RR zone -- 1 divided by the minimum lot size expressed in acres, times 0.60 determines the dwelling units per acre. WR-2 = WR-2.5 = 'WR-5 = WR-10 = WR-20 = RR-1 = RR-.5 = Single Family Zones R-1-10 = R-1-7.5 = R-1-5 = R-1-3.5 = R-2 = 0.30 duJ acre 0.24 duJ acre 0.12 duJacre 0.06 duJacre 0.03 duJacre 0.60 duJ acre .1.2 duJ acre 2.40 duJacre 3.20 dul acre 4.00 duJacre . 6.4 duJ acre 12 duJacre . PA90-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department -Staff Report September 11, 1990 Page 10 '" JS B. Bonus Point Calculations 1) The permitted base density shall be increased by the percentage gained through bonus points. In no case shall the density exceed that allowed under the Comprehensive Plan. 2) . The maximum bonus permitted shall be 60%. 3) The. following bonuses shall be awarded: a) Conservation Housing - all home or residential units on the site meet the energy usage, water usage, and air quality requirements adopted in the Guidelines referred to in 18.88.090 -- maximum 15% bonus b) Provision of Common Open Space (same as in current,. ordinance, except that all projects of 10 units or greater shall be required to' provide a minimum of 5% of the total lot area in Open Space that is not subject to bonus calculations. Bonus shall be awarded only to that open space area in excess of the 5% required for developments of 10 units or greater.) maximum 10% bonus c) Provision of Major Recreational Facilities . (same) maximum bonus 10% d) Affordable Housing - for every . percent of units that are affordable, an equivalent percentage of. density bonus shall be allowed. Maximum bonus of 25%. Affordable Housing bonus shall be for residential units that are affordable for moderate income persons in accord with the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council and guaranteed affordable through procedures contained in said resolution. -. PA90-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report September '11, 1990 Page 11 7e 4ijif8. The following are density roll backs and affordable housing density bonuses in the R-2 zone. The R-3 zone would be eliminated and replaced with an Rezone (residential/commercial) which would allows high density residential (30 units/acre) along with neighborhood commercial uses, travellers accommodations, and similar impact uses. This new zone, with descriptions and the locations, will be presented as part of the Economic Element. 18.24.040 General Regulations R-2 Zone A Permitted Density-- 1) Base Densities The density of the development shall not exceed the density established by this section. The density shall be computed by the dividing the total number of dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the public. Fractional portions of the answer shall not. apply towards the total density. Base density for the R-2 zone shall be 12 dwelling. units per acre. B. Bonus Point Calculations 1) The permitted base density shall be increased by the percentage gained through bonus points. In no case shall the density exceed that allowed under the Comprehensive Plan. 2)' The maximum bonus permitted shall be 60%. 3) The. following bonuses shall be awarded: a) Conservation Housing - all home or residential units on the site meet the energy usage, water usage, and air quality _ requirements adopted in the Guidelines referred to in 18.88.090 -- maximum 20% bonus b) Provision of outdoor recreation space above minimum, requirement established by this Title. 2 percent increased bonus for each percent of the project site dedicated to outdoor recreation space. maximum 15% bonus c) Provision of Major Recreational Facilities (same as Performance Standards) maximum bonus 10% , d) Affordable Housing - for every percent of units that are affordable, an equivalent percentage of density bonus shall be allowed. Maximum bonus of 25%. Affordable Housing bonus PA90-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department -Staff Report. . September 11,1990 Page 12 ." lff shall be for residential units that are affordable for moderate income persons in accord with the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council and guaranteed affordable through procedures contained in said resolution. The following section would replace the current standard in Site Design & Use Guidelines that 25% of the gross floor area be used for outdoor recreation sp~~e. H. Outdoor Recreation Space 1) At least 8% of the lot area shall be dedicated to outdoor recreational space and shall be part of the overall landscaping requirements. Delete 18.72.100 C. (open spaces from site design) PA90-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report 'September 11, 1990 Page 13 7.1 ~7? ff - The following criteria are intended to be a clarifications of the existing annexation process, provide for more reasons to annex lands that the current criteria, and provide for affordable housing guarantees where appropriate. 18.108.060 C) The following findings shall be required for approval of an annexation to the City of Ashland: 1) That the land is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. 2) That the proposed- zoning is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 3) That the land is currently contiguous with the present City limits. 4) That adequate key public facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, public schools, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the development of the land will not cause a key public facility to operate beyond established capacity. 5) That a need for additiona1land can be demonstrated. Need shall be demonstrated by the 'following means: . A) Por ColnmefGial (C), nmpioJment (fl), and fu~trial (M) lanm the leqnest Ind!t meG! one of the foHowing GliteIiA. 1. thAt the, CitJ lacks a. 5..,(,41 supply of lAGAnt lAnd with a.deqnatG pnbliG fac.ilitics Alailable toSUppoI t delGlopment, . or;- 2. that the lcU1d. c11td the proposed pIoject falfiH an. econom:iG need of the, Citj consistGnt with the. Complehc.nslve Plan c11td an most re~onabl, be accommodated ,hj the. proposed anneXAtion due to its specific loca.tion, plo~tJ to other de\leloptlt(,nt, 01 specific chMa.cteIlsticsof the lAnd snch ~ 5m 01 map'-, or, J. that'Owne,I~hip patteIn5 that Me Impeding the economic de'\'elopmc..nt of the, City. A monopolJ 01 necU m6nopol, in O'Wnel~hip of vacant and selvlcGd land i~ ~tou.Uds for A1IDeX'ation of lAnd which wiD pHnide f~I competition in the, nlC111octplaoc fo! snch tJpe of land, or, 4. that the lAnd is more than 25% de'\'eloped in' existing conmlelcial ot indnstIial uses. PA9o-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff' Report September 11, 1990 Page 14 '73 )1: b) For Residential lands, the request must meet one of the following criteria: 1. that tbe City lacb a 5-,ec1I supply of \lc\Ga.11t lcU1d ~ith adequate, public facilitie5 c1\lailable to SUpPO! t developlnent, or;- 2. That the annexed land will provide a needed housiiig type for the City as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. ,If the neegJdentified is fot" affordable housing, as defined, by the City Council, then the need shall be deemed met if 25% of the project housing is guaranteed affordable according to the guidelines established by the Council. 3. the land is residentially developed to densities greater than one dwelling unit per acre. c) The annexation is necessary to provide an extension of public facilities such as sanitary sewer and water that will eliminate a existing or suspected health hazard for existing development. Staff recommends that the criteria for "need" for the annexation of Commercial, Employment, or Industrial lands be deleted. It is our belief that burden of proof for "need" is extremely difficult to meet, opens up many arguments regarding the types of businesses' or uses proposed, and does little to further economic development. We believe that if the land is adequately serviced, as required in 4) above, then the land is appropriate for inclusion in' the City. Annexation is more a jurisdictional issue than a land use issue, and if facilities are adequately available, then it is in the best interest of the City. to have that land under its jurisdiction. PA90-165 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report September 11, 1990 Page 15 .,., ~ M~ ~'KfHCfJ September 11, 1990 Members of the Planning Commission: It is my opinion that certain proposed changes to.~he ~omptehen~ive P1an:s impleme~ting ordiriances at~ illega~, I r d 1nappropr1ate and 1mproper. fI~."? 10 IJ t.kO IP./OP. 08'0 a. pu{,t'C. /tUff Utr /'f1S C~l ~~t ~1C;~1. . ~~ The State wide planning goals which govern Comprehensive planning adoption and ch~nges are very specific "about how they should be changed. Planningagoal 2 requires that a public neea be demonstrated before a change should take place. TO date thatere has been no public need demonstrated to support a change in. Land Use Ordinance 18.104.040 governing Conditional Use Permits. .Fi~ of all. this ordinance is being considered for change based on a need for affordable housing. ALUO 18.104.040 is an ordinance which cobers al.l zones, and as such, should not be related to affordable housing. 18.104.040 is not an implementing measure for any of the goals or policies of the housing element of the Comp. Plan. As it is not an implementing~:;ordinance of the housing element of the Comp. Plan it cannot be legally demonstrated that a public need to change it exisbs:~in relation to Affordable Housing. I would strongly urge the Planning Commission not to change this ordinance in any way. The only other possible public need demonstrated is to make the criteria more clear and objective. T.he land use ordinance as it is at pres~nt is more clear and objective than the pvoposed change, and there has .been no factual data given to demonstrate there is a public need to make this ordinance more clear and objective. State Planning Goal 2 is very clear on this issue. The public need must be established through special s1nidies and hard data. This technical information should include but not be limited to: "energy, natural ennvironmental, political, legal, economic and social data...etc".No such data has been forthcoming on why there is a pressing need to change this ordinance. Without demonstrating a public need for a change in 18.104.040, it would be improper and possibly illegal to do so. Secondly, the proposed changes do not make the ordinance more clear and objective, but less clear and objective than bef6~e. The present ordinance states under B. "The location; size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed develppment are such that the development will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal impact on the livability and appropriat~ development of abbutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood.. The proposed change eliminates liveability and compatibiloity and. .surrounging neighborhood".from the ordinance. Instead, it replaces it with the proposal is "similar in impact on the surrounding ar.e9:.:as:~t.he~;most common permi tted use in the zone Ci ty wide." If ever there was a vague criteria that one has to be it. How does one determine what the most common permitted use in the. E-1 zone is? '75 .. 2 All uses that are allowed in the E-1 zone are permitted uses. How could one be more commonly permitted thatn others? Does most common permitted use mean the most common existing use? If so, how is that to.be determined. For instanc~, it could be determined by such st~ndards that there are more auto parts places in the zone than any other uses, so the conditional use would'be judged by the standards of an auto parts store. But, it could be decided that according to land area used that the most common permitted uses.are storage warehouses or lumber yards. So, as a conditional use, you could have an ap~rtment complex or a private home that is judged by the standards of a lumber yard. Clearly this is a ridiculous proposition. The original land use ordinance was much clearer than this one. Thirdly, does anyone. at present know what the most common use in the B-1 zone or C-l zone is? There has been no study on this issue, no hard data, no technical information of any kind which the public has been given access to as is required by Statewide Planning Goal 1. Without knowing exactiy what the most common use is, it is impossible to tell what the clear and objective standards are. This change is not more objective or clear, but opens up vast areas of speculation, and'interpretation which are not factual or backed up by data. While it would make it easier to writedefenqable findings by these standards, that is not a public need. It is the very private need of the person who drafts those findings. I see no reason why the public needs of the people of Ashland to bow to that very private need. State Law 197.307 (6) is also not an adequate justification for changing this land use ordinance. This law is clearly concerned with approval standards which relate to housing permits which are allowed as outright uses in a housing zone. It is not concerned with conditional uses. Nor does the present. ordinance 18.104.040 cause unreasonable cost or delay for outright housing uses which are allowed in housing zones. This State law does not, and never did apply to conditional use permits, and it was never intended to. Finally, there has been demonstrated in the past 2 or 3 years in Ashland a pressing public need to keep livability and compatability in our land use ordinance on conditional use permits. Many. large and inappropriate developments. have be~n appealed because of their threat to the livability of surrounding neighborhoods. The citizens of Ashland almost on a weekly basis have cried out for the public need we have. to protect our neighborhoods with .such language as livability' and compatibility. The true p~blic need is to keep this ordinance unchanged. There is at present no institution of neighborhood plans to protect the livability of neighborhoods, and until such time as those safegaurds are in place this ordinace should not be changed or replaced by one that is less cl~ar and objective, and gives no avenue of protection or appeal. It is also imperative that conformance with the Comprehensive Plan:~not be deleted from this land use ordinance as staff suggests. It should remain. There are many Com~~~;Pian~Policies which are not implemented by any 'Land Use Ordinance such as:~',policy VII-6. If Compliance with the Comp. Plan is not kept as a criteria, then the Ci ty could not legally use th. .-. . ~ 1s}'Pol1cy to stop an inappropriate ~ 3 development. To allow any development which does not have to be in compliance with the Comp. Plan~undermines the need to have aComp. Plan in the first place. As state wide plannirig goal 2 states, "The plans shall be the basis f6r specific implementation measures~ These measures shall be consistent with and adequate to carry out the plans.", If we have an implementing ordinance which~110ws~a development to not be in compliance with that Comp. Plan; then the ordinance is not "consistent with and adequate to carry out t~~ plan~i because many policies do not have implementing measures. I strongly suggest that the Planning Commission vote to keep confromance with the Comp. Plan as a criteria in our conditional use permit ordinance. I also suggest that. generation of noise and arcitectural and aesthetic compatibility remain in the criteria. ~ On page 4 of the Staff report it is sugges~that primary residences be owner occupied"be stricken. I would protest-that and request it remain for the protection of the renter who would potentially live in the unit. If it is not owner occupied it could be that the upkeep of the apartment unit by the landlord would not be ongoing. 77 B~ ~~,~~:=*~~.:t4.~,~:~\!~..t~-:;:.. ..... 1-'<' ttev /i1a.yt( /l1wl J.f1cj ! (j ( 4~J.. IJ..~ !JF~f'Jw11{e.s:. J ~.(50 k?(i~ ~~~ ~ ~';U ~ /I~~ d tfeItJ,( ~,/.-,-(}, 5'~ {/-1 .Jk ~J ,~ ~. /I4l 1-7 ~ ~ pJp//lS ~ S "S *,i~ d.~. ASh f4 fa /.?:.~-, IP.:t ~ ~,*,:jd 10 ~~f- "'-.~.J~ ~ ~ . ,~~~~~S. k ~ ,Aeil/J:~ ph ~cy~1 (j !ii ~~ ~t~M~~ fJ; tk ~ fU ~ t'c JreuI ? IL C-,-(..~5 cJ/ Ih ~f ~ ,'U v~ A- ~"'IW#J-k /5 I4J .~ /7U.~~' . . IV I k J. I ~ /.-k 1 rk c.fta,... i~Y "v If!- 'A.. ~ /~ II d?.fI~ :5JJ' ~ I. t~ JUd f lAte ~. s7!P.< _ .f4i .&. ~ k f,1vt dfC6 J 1lJ Jk jff'~ . ~'i~ 6e'~ tknp/'~ I $~ ~. · ()fJ..MY deo:tlll#1~ot .fl r~ ~~ wt {I . ,)1. 5 uf. lid. cfh. .. II II f~_- fby1,..f ~J~ k~ (fl~ ~ .~.JleM~ IMJ~ ~~ ,It -st;!u:I,/ M ~! ,n>>e ,,~k tet4S0 :r be I.ve. Q }{!1 (.U~ diJ 14 fi-yI. t- k ~ $ ~b. . IV\.. +ise - k &U.t~ ;: .l'u/ ,-Is . . . ., (VILjJIV'tJ /r; ;ui{i ,II.J- I. ~ f / ~ -e)osf .7. ~ ~~~~~k~~~~~~""~.._' . /. ."Jt;.:., S' t/}'t sllJU-Lj -Ale /e> Is IYI liar c!17L,(s. ~)~( ..s e=tfl-l ,fl L r,<~ I /kft j r:/7 rJ v^.u-t Io-f s/~ /zPu-r be q I~ j:) 'eA" lei /Jf1 JJ,- f,a,,-d ~ ,f . -#.:t ~ ~ -It (1 *,lJ( Iv SQl/vtLf: /IlM- ~ ,-h -ft.'? j{sf,p/U ;t r #vI. Ijf;i, f l\ ~/;d I1"'J~ -Ib::z /~ l&u ~ ~ ~ ./? sloJI ~- "];-l1t1 10 ICbj€ . [ 01-4. ~fI ~ k ,S 6l f~a;Jd -b ~ ~ CkI-4rt M.k.. C!rl-f~ hy ~ c-( ~~ c- ( ~e' d,~ IfD/OseJ ;5 iFf oJ ., , &{)t:{t!r q .Ien-.-t 1<- / kl 10 eJM(JUu~. & ((- 3 ~.~ =~:a;:;;~ :;:~~)f fh 9~ of ~~5M' /~. :[.1' M. /lk.f2Gf ~ ~.. rkw de{Jt~.fk ~. ~ 10 ftW ./J uk-cd () 2:~. {if- ,-I: ~ . :{ e v, .Jf.~"7 v ,il,~, f~l</ to<- s~ ;uif'. 61l ~~-h'fJ.f!j ctJ5~ _'IJ C!ffl-ffd..'d; <<JiL .. If) 5t~4u r .;1\1). tIAR- ? aikII .;.4 f(;J,f O<J 111 .;4 tysf f/.'-ee J-. ~ tie h /a?fe' J.;4 ~ e~' ,-~ d ~i~, " * c tl-uk h- I ) 0<{ fJY- l I- okruL I- /1 Ctv; /I"~ IJuo AA. a~ cllvf ...?S%; III Il ~ ,l~ ~ dJ';;;;Uk, hi- ~ M 1& ~ ~ k {j( 0/ ..;If. /Jk2}~-C IJ~ -iv4 MI So';. tvf _oft I- . 5<' '%? 1k. /){U19t "-//IJ(I tv. & . --- tiJ,/flud ftV <".JMIs . a/~r fJ dlk.v~ /z,tl1.. /rJ 6u;lJ ,I{ Q ~ d<-/dt ,S e~ ~ ~~ ~ M 6t A/Utl!.~'..~ ~ /v;f jd ~ tl~t!t {~~Is4P . " /UcMk (2) t$ "l. ~ J ~,>UUt,j I!.t.:f 4'0% bf-.f4 ItJW 7/llS ./2uur ~ 4--- 101- ~ k k.J~ ~ 11!r~' t..d thPJ. tit,> k ~ ~ f.w .e!k:A ~ eM- ~"" {tl} I-f fwces Il-/ ~ E~/ 6~,k,JJ'~ tu ~..R){~+. ~fj6~.kf~ p.gI. ctJ :if. aQ~ ?- /l'0Jf~.J ~. ac~~ 10 ,h JAM k .. f ~-Q. -II J (/QL cJ.;.1e ~ 7"-'''''7. #J- kJJ ollie Q c~ ~ ;b adryM~.:en Ik. fmt ,'It s/iMHe_ jcJl,W kc.~ . stuLl ~,.e:ises /0 5e~ Jtl?,J fo ~. t!$lS .es,~/aJ. ((42s. 'SY p. h'r- 'I-~ . -rkI ,:) t( f~ ~tlM-kc-( I~+ . k ~ ya.ur ~/JlSJ ,t-l !ift!o.J, :r+ {I'{s 1M .:Jh... -ktLl? q{~kd(wr~ ~I '1 .6 ae ,~ ..~~.G.;.k......"':"'~'V'..-:>'-..~~":'';:'''~-~;'J'.;i'':'''''''''';;.'''''''-':''~~. ~~-'~'X~~~. .'~~~~. 7 e1tcawo-e <?C(-YcM/C Je tJbf~ ..in 5/tw/ tv<- ~S12gKr7 k .1'5 ~ /1. 1r /VIiPJ I;>>-S ~ /J4-H- a ffrd~f,~ .k '5 .IN .;/d< . tal Ik. 15 A). ~ .;/u. fI/l-fXe,/ ~ ~ vbv f:..- 4~ w/fI. k.S/1J dc/,!' ~MJf '*' oJ.;r/YM ,Ih/ MiLj j; .fit oIo~:t:~ k ~ 6<l-5/~ ~ M .;4 ft/nY1' ItJ ()J:Ayi/ /}V., XfM iAt. i jWl3j; ;;erCM k~ ,It ~/J/I.;xd ~ ,-( 6 f,.,,41 k Ii (r {:l1C4 .. of ca1ylf {,/AU' ~ a ~!r ;I~0:' dL f.QYIYl; IIJ ~. /I~ ..b .~. eM ;,dr;;iI- IW- cvIJlrJ) d- . k /{.(ta;.J i> -Iz1Ce r'O% dF..u-t-/ /~ k /)(Nl- E-/ .cWb.. m /is ..b GJ tkisAifS,. r CcM ~ ~ .f/,;f ~o . ~'-h ~IlC~ ~ ~sr1. ~ aJ/oJ'J' ~. . ,~ v 'k.,1 '7 (J.m. ~ ,j, ~ /. /It -I; {.14( .;4 jJfo/ur- nod Ax 05 fM!"xM1/Ie.' J~- ~ r ~ if /;107>-1 / . fw-f kcOlM. ~ ~ leU u'o ux:k .!.wJ /iAAJ~ 10 iff if. !-/c,< tf ~ ~ ~ if.? i&4 df E-I /."J. ()t'l/ 'nJj ~ /IL~ ~1II"(w(!>S,~IiJ ilL f.-rz; ~cJJt/{1 'J .i:.. k . L ^ ~ h.~ rid.fm,t Ib f IMf.; 10 102 ~.Is g, 'ffr ~~:,;:~*=~~~~~~~~~:t.:-~~" p lx:(oJLAj- ,f /v~S -to~. tts orlJ<&1LL turd! t[//~ k'<VL -h .' ~r. -}t)e -t,02 Clc~,s K h.s ~d~ Adp ,/ tv hu:i':l ;n (). f.h f '7 .JIvd- -I rn:r; :7t;iJ tu<-- is~ ~. JUt tl K .oJ-- W- ?- + ;)./ D , 'Pfp;r/~ q /iad ou-{V''Jh f ~'7 ft. t r ~ ~ 8~ #4R,. :Lit o:tL ~ k /'6uk/ 1e.f tIt>Ct~ k .& c/t;.kS;f ~ ~ flbw1 r;,1-U""JY~( or') 'r1 ", j{~R A- It> J ~ tlM.hr Jk Ol~ ckJ~ ~ mr /Jt-,]h k6 ~ I tw.Jtl vi Ie <<$k k frc!es-[/ ~p~ ~ /;u<~(,;/'-4 ~ /t-b ~w k {)(A ;rJuR.'.I ~ j;~ Ckf ~5~ ttit W. ~ /~;!.f ~ ~ ~ i:E ~tr:~';f , ~ ~ ~ ~M ~#.- ",1 Jli6/l- p../ .;4 ~f rl' 7/~ls / jb 5{ttf~ ~ rdI Jk' ~ dT -d /WM- ~~ 10 okoh-c ,,' ct,^-s,J.lS;./ ikPI'/7/YJ,/ ~-f is Jt Sr /11 Jl. ~(e., If;.) '..'/.64.f tM ~ tdj '~ ot ~ kef, cf,'"3indCu/ * Jk IJtOln~ ,kitJ v4. .2 ~,' ~~~;,~~~~~.- 7' C~r' tkdv (~) i+ I~ a/fav 't/k Ji!j--d.l~ .tAR-. .10 b..'5u5//~-I ~ )" E-; <v-c'-/ 6'-.-k' ~ S:;i1 f~ ~f- ~ ~~i';t.eo-l' ~vd .... IJ '9 ' f5 :;/0 14~ /h Jlvd- ~Ks~-I1.(f!..._OL WtWl MuJL I l.jD f Gef ilJlttv;/i. A ~~ ~r 1t,~{.p:.j:h9 ~-c4 311. I(Sf-ri~P1S M ~ M-r 4/ltwcf ,Y[ ,eS,-AJ.-d ~ ^ 1k fYl"Yl'- t C(ljJlt; c? 1..5 e. ~ de ".50 '1;J- (!CPI1.a?1,uJ4 ) SlJaa r~} ;Vf,- ~,~ ) J efl<.Jl~j .JlJ io /vs;f ~ _ ~~ d "~ d.~ ~on! ft:, ~ flrly ~ A!t(,/ eJ /1> jt-. S t;;.Js - ;.__..d{.~ ~.~ k4> ..P, (Ai':::s . It- i(,l-~ tfl<-f~ Jeu<<l7ut.. ~..~-;. hJJ 1'11<. ./4. Q),;/~ df. ~JI(). /U1.-f,~ .fk.'7 !ilf'lO{ f'1iltJ iJt ~.J4_Ib:.k;~h~. s~ . vJ....cA i'> ~~ It' (n .f4- Ii -~ <:. ~l 2u~. ' ~ (3d- ~- ~~ U 4n"Y'7 iJ.14. ,.' . . ~_ Iv.. ~ Io.~x ~ jL';~ oItt4A ~+ aJ1, ~~~.. 7? 14- jk IS 10 dtv ~rw-f-nu.Js 10 Ixe 6~,'/-1 lit .Jilt ~ ,6u,-j~ P:5 .s ..",. ~~~~~ )t. . C~'\t1~J N e - ( .~ /Iv- 50 lt1A J-/s ~ Q..He. . ~ t' ktess,~ ~ 7J .Ie/? h~l /1 cy.tA~ tI-<. a&cI~ b }:-( ~s )k/ IlK /5 CI. /~ IYI /4 K-I. tJA.e S~ /l1)ft--!- w/u-dt. M<J4fG.1J,~~H ,Ylt-M Ila:Io..4 r~fjtl.5()'~ ~-ca4 fkk~ dc. k bl.67 3 CJ f74/I , -15 I,r./ .;k,y iel'lft"'Js. JA;r sW .Jii~ ;;r! oky.. 13 .d- W idRaj dr.i:J /U-I- k'l uh I!~/.d tll/fC/~1t ~'~J ""'u~ ec~,z- ~t ()4>;;t uy/jjj 1'I7.fS'-.t I-e. . All. ;z.erA) .Jh i J.>t ~ ~ f!-"rkf,?/ h;:. of' L -I af 6-/ IJLUYljiYl~ ~.~ "ZA~ k . . t!/d~ !viII ~ cry ..~ jft,- J.r ~ d r!1 ()l11av5 ~ dd-;tu~~ of' iveilb;'f ~'J .;k . ~~ ~ / ff ~tJ .. Il ttt(, I,c ~ i{-/~ 10 I~ ~ ~..l sb ~ f/k~ Mf Jo ~f{au if~. . _ f ~_u~'/J -b /?t- "1 et .j{.. . . 5'11 r. ~ ,3 ~~. ~. k CUf'S. m fk e.--/ ~ at41 /.r J4. ~ ~ s 11:7 ... . a'v...e sW (.v;{'A 1'2.) aclclJ#t. '1'~-f /~ srJ .4 5'/J 4- (tJ ~ ~j /sdr:r L) '." rJ4 q{,lb~ -'o/~f,i /tw Xi. f.. :;ii/~ 8tI 4Q J/ 5tA /-1/J'-1 ~5.z:t,jJ ~ 16rr'kLds ;tv J I / ,,_ // ..L. '1 <" I ) '1 t12.....~'^-5 / J ;:::~ c;:;;;:~~ ~(r~;:~ ~ o/JJ~ ~4 ~- ,..,- I' " J i. . -.Vt ~ . ~~ ~ "l<.' ~~. ,,-,.., . ", I ) 1> l , J l I. . ~"""~7 ~.tJ . .Ot/l toy /l{ tJI- f?. dJj tpd-' ~ ,lP(1':"J *4-1 Ie R il ~vn ,M~ ~ Cr/ -Ier t ~ . S- C4? J / 2 3 0/ . J J J ~ '-I J (6J 4.< ry /1- 7- ()t/,.1 ;b <;I 5 u1f/. . ik e!nrz,MP.J, k ~ C.f'l'-feria. Qj!QUi6 ;;V' 14 tud ;c;,-/ If ttrbl"Vl ~rO-W/.. M,j ,5 ().J~ S IJvz dU/<<frw/:kfw- uk... a. cJ.~e , ~ 5tfuJ hi kd sktU hf dltu.d 10 k a.nn{?x~w;lr, A<ljJ lwT k c-/) E-(Jj1-/ >6i",!.';'"i$..,I~~"""""';''..'<'&&~';(!i,.,",'''"", {,IJe.5 i.f sfwJJ he ~}U../ ~~ uJ-t. lad a/~ ~ J Y/'Pr,-aA ,t. ~ fJ-4A- I5/tJI-' tiAflu/~'fe. ~i1f..;4 b~ ufrlOof ~ df;O ~ f/.,. ~'!cr'j k,d 1J11~-- 10. ~ ftl ?/yzai: t'Mnl~7dS:~'dc IH de Ir.~ 10 ;{ - C!1: :I +- ,4 ~ ~ h:J.tds ~ l'k. ~olt~ ill-2-' 1k Cf 5tJ1.'k~ V/l.{.J (~ Phfl af-kv- & skw-.7.f1J r,i.l.~- 1a..J.. of s>mJor ~-h-{f ~ f-c.j-f ~ t".<rS(-.V( . ~ C.-fir j,J.,.,j, t1V J (h~'<<t 13 M(U~7 10 q/w.-.t.-ilc. 85 ~ ,~;;;-'.t:;'~+'~~~~~~~=-~~~~;'~ )2 ~ ff"l> loa. U,< tpLl.-c ~Q.fA. (~2IJ.J,) I I~ fIOrd cby ~ in J.J.. .~' If~ Lit-o Itfjoj, at:, 0 () ~ cMlm-ci.J s/rd W)Je..f~ C4TZ-1 2 . tJ-Ikdt :;/rJ;-y cya,h .~: (/u.ie- fr1.IUi-~5"(74..,d;J #~~J ".s/..II k c;~ s is .U tvd-l,- aJ d"1iUe4 /0 a7 J tk jJkt.-zS, 'I (k'5 jkR5W ,tn<Ij ~ t( ~I--Ur a..<-5.J Id tVl-1ft /1tr ~. Ie tMJ J- . ;:0 h:{ YlI-~. Pi ,ac1 ;fCMtdcA,i /I-; a..; j4J ftv1- lc ,I'd k b." kt;J<J-h;t;;I ~ ~ J/J/ b.' ;e.~ J J<k fiU~ jJa'kc. JIt..td ktA ~ Chi( k~~ (It-I~ k. 4JW ~ ~ Cr.f~ ~. H?JJ. ~ ~ ~ l~ Iv, ~r~ 1'.eCOUJ(!v 5k~. ~ ~J.o._t1j~)f (.:>oo.-\.:t tic. +4.. (CO (, s~ GcJ.s. . -(0 CWt ckde I I tuuII '1< 'JfU../o- ,cuf? J,ve 4- ,.. /:7 vi Cluj ~ f,- (,; I} I k ~ W ~ h.J/~ J 10. ~. CPJ? (;QIVl v-dl... .f{ Car f~ EU 4{ 0/. ~.1< ~ (! ujJ;Sj . -to cmy;ibk1 rejJ -d. fl~ + k d.. C-( a{ E-/ ~4"lh4'liLl tLPJI) h ~J IJ~ ~ ~~~~~.~~~~~~"'AA~~;~","",:,~ . /3 .;k k,),)$1 u? d?..t.H2 t7l1Y"~ :ze,JJ. I v./ J>. IJ1 c 1& Ii cr/k"./~J ~"CA :Jk/'I- A '<-5 J fy-/ [ I~ ~1'1.1. t? .. ti I1l1lX ev-hwt . ~l~e ~.. __:-~. :u .;Jfh~)dJl/}l~ tILI.Jk ~ ~! ~I/ .J~'j'Y ()~~ r'/::,}Wi;t;;-/iJ :l + ~j /0 //Ie all Jk~ ~/S ~f~ . tf ;4/ ~4" /11 /b'~ tul IW C re<zj-~ &t iou'lL d,v:dt /to k-; I',r Jifl,j 4 . ;S'v:J1e J;"';/7 J1:;tI. ~I..t W Idlr 4 !c= /am;fr Af2-u~j (Je<?I iC-L 2./tAL J cvJ ~ jn;..t tJ U.JL ZonR vh,dt ,S A ~7 f~ -d ~~. d tM~5w;Jrl /l/,LU fb-kial cJ,S"5k:.s~ Iu .tuJu/J Jtv tr- ~ . ~ ~ gf 7t\ ~dt ,-.., S'Y1<fJ S"l-L) If :i7 1e:".A/,~ 1kr .j. ~ .~ ~ efk~1Je -~(j e~z e.d-~ ~ J ."""i'{ ~ fT"~ ~ m,uJ f.- 4 ~ · 1i<-.s /tiJ b4(fh({e &. I <t. ~ .{. .~ (II.{ -hut.. fulllC. ;uJ. I S 11<9+ -h. ~. ./k ck~* /.t/,La-GJr:h; -5 ~t3.St~ ~ .lie f:f./,{,L ~-6 In ~ jJ~ ~~'M~~ if-{ ';1y;f);:f. En ~ /.\~.:..' I~\f C".(,4b blQ i-/.t'll::;; I ~:..CY r.,c. c ?lG.0rH0 (CnH"I,J::":..!-fj ~~bJ~ MIler- /\ . ,-).J.<}:t.t (~^-(1 ? c. ~ Jh 1.9-) ~ 6Vt.JVLA. cc< -.f( CO"t CJ...A.'l. ~v... (A.i rlv:Lt: ~tv:t r~ -01. L'tL.-c-. &-\. dJ.. lULl U~ ... ; ~ I'fX, ~~...d~ u....f'/J tk. rJu: If'1\..{J-U/'ll.L..Llr....G.o-......; l} Uu- AT{ Ju.~t,. ~, '.b ~ ~ rpfV'cP ~v.Ld-.. J..Y- '-rIJ.~\.o..:.. .1J..d'aJ.. Q..J.:~.~ . .;)hJ..JJ.- ~ <.Of)\.. J-ru..IJ...~r...tJ J vI! \" \ I . ~J ~tv.. A~ 4- 1.h I~~L. ~ Dlt<. 6..d...d..\-<..J,-Y LCI)'lA .'}.fv.- o..jJ.c, 'fJ"L~ 1" tAA..J. ....fJJ..'t-f f/ AJ...'fl-(~\.t d-c~ UUt JL.-(('~i ~_Lha+v 'l~ (-OJ\-- i(:).;l.o..0 o.Lc^-C}' Q) At!l u... 0 u.. L Ct.,'"\!t /...LV- ~ u....L<..O N.J ~ (P 'f"- in. 0) 0..Dn-....f ;; UJJ\..... cgLl.,HU t.L/\..u~ "J t$JJU.ol.HfYl.L ,c~t' ~ rru. d..A.~ 4.1L 1<. f1e.. 0.. "\.O...Ct..(jA..." (7 -. ~o"-t.., ,y~ d..Q4 1lO~'. '1'\. Qv'f. -r~ /..~ 2-(~!J. a:. , V Uk ~~. 1 0" tu I1\OJl '-'- ~U/.... ~ L~ f:t~ V_A_AJ..j},- . A.. :.' ~') 6' tL (n'\.-. OJ....J..)A ou. .uJJ... dj ti..~ G..J/ (Lv tno~ ('.on\.JlLOtL ~"- n''L-t..fh. a u..--u... l..(\.. ao.'\J-: ~w ~~.o..j\..~~ d (hf-11 c.uJ~, IS G}~'-U. 0/ I t~ < (11.-u...t.. J) Q..(J~. 1U.J..8'hl; CA. A. 0 ()fY- , (pJ. J~ c 1re SC()~ J ~ u<pQ Q..J.j\;~ I ~ ,^- c<..uJ( ~o..t cJ..oJ... (j ~.(J) ~~l' {.out 0, !u. J ~ ~o... ..~ J.J:>dU (CJ..LQ.A.., Q.nJ. ()aK 0/d\.LA.-J) ,. ~ ~ do.A tW (dv;., J ~ 6. J:..p " 6. (l-^OP o.J.O.1.) ~Q.d..a. U-L j CJ.. 0'8.(.. J.. y-w.. Q. 0 Jv ~d--. . }fI.... it 4- liAP \5 f)-'1.tU-1, ~ Id{ OJ. ~ , P <U.--CI. <..U.t.tU...tr 'ff ~ J .tu1. u <<t. ~.d..l..LAL!. 6i- ..Iv- 1M'j1tr.YfL:'\X ~1ft ~f .1l,U~~ (. "'-<we fLvQ1~ ,1':- ~. fJ.A.<~ ~. ~ (;.\...t.~ ,^a...l.~ tl...t /f\...( i'UU:i.4. 'fJO.h "-.,G..a. ,~ MA< ,^ UJ Mf o.:.o...u ~ ~(tt ( [t..tAooU' (,or....4.J.. a.JJ.- f': Qi::ju..A.-- 16-,Jf\.4J tAA.,' a. a. ':L~ fI.-\ J;c~, cf.,-ftpu..jA.oo 6ft. LLl\.-t.t:~.. o{v' c.A~ oI-fL(TI..~ lXc d.. 0 0..JLo..f.t~ ^--i llU'~ ~~.,J.l. a.~c~ , l.l{, (i.r;/.'LU- ~o t (I G ~ /LLl(: lvv-t ft Ol:"<L <.4.. tJ-fU~. t U.,'\.O... (, "..../'-0' c.b- L)QJ..t.t.ct f '. . u. . J. ~(e~(i f'.lJ ~6-(ft.J~(-tj ~ 6..- ~.1uttA..la.. r (luO^-.&o.A...h ~od..1.J; na.t Ju.. ~ C4 C- UhoV-. .. (h.,ciIJX ~ 'f^D ~ do nQ.t ft:k ftvV..k' Qdw..,. t!.Ju' tvv...~ '1 ~ J:t el.l fLC.(A,(..0 .t!C"\.Or 'tu..~(J d-~ r..J.- w(J1,i4 -' l.:, WA(jJ::U._/ ~. 111. ~<L\..- u 6 ~'J clu.; ~<- Ojl.&.. ~AA..J.' ~ -:.f 6.( P.J (1-4';..J 65 r -ru~~ /"r\J.LI..U3. ~ t,J6....i. f) <:k CD r'Y'-/J o..JJ.v~ ~ ~ \1-<J.J\....\. DU NV...~ AMs dAA.. ()JIJll ~ L~tu.t.cLl ^9 livi4.J. -d-~ J,~ ~\.Of dk (;J6...L d.~ f~u& SiAl .JJ ~L (})..~. QA.a. I/lCUL..\..Ou../\.."O'..u., /J'-(j 1JlLl'1u..L.t t7J".~jv;". A-/UA.. '~1....-C IU.r . '1'\0 u..--J.ti. . ~. - 4'+- ,~. <..-) 'J\.( (,- t~ /'II.k..ud: NOr c ue. 6. (r.,v .<1\ ~ cCv tL \, C". Y.. ~1 0 (j ."_~l ~t ~ c \..}-?, ( .J..~ (..I.. Q, ( Cy fj rO~Yl'f ~Lo.,'-.' 0iu.<..,.... ~c~;-jj..(J.--'\O"oii A..DA..."<" ~ ~( l:t'-'.. ,,~. (i0((. t.l.\. QcJ c..Dl\.j. ~"l/)u (4 . (,. ,'y ,A..~ \.-X ,-......{ do,,;,, ~~,~t~ L.l"<'::~. O..J... 'It....L1..{.'t. ''-0 ("t....:,_ Ll~. E...t,-Q.L(, <./J..A-. . \.Jh..~.( ~,',-,rt."'A,^, \i~''--- {t\... (f'A...U (1..0:': '.1"'..:. rf_ (I ! l,J:. (0. .f" ifU, ((.;lA-I.. ~--.. :cf.; i"f.il:' (: (,;',,_ ~ .;~'~ Y L .."i y . l.,'_, ~ , ~. · eJ\.. . Ih,,{..... r .! '1 - J) I ':'.:..1 Jl..A [\1 : <.... c.(:>'L-\..,(. c l_ _ ,'.! l/ ~L l".h...A!.,-,..A' .l::.J':'. f:-' t".f f.r'iu..1 .l.. J, ,!,.,.. (>- I~)',' ~. j).L ....11\..;.. Gu~<,.:-<.:- "'1' I;,.-t:. 5J. (fu:.'" (('!'~!q\_l.' Ii"!........ lee' (rH...., i..t ;1.J..J.t>-J I:':' th..o..<.~A. t1u_ ,.', '-:'f - I"\..:..t ( (. t: ,-.'rpi o ) C;-'.' /\ij "..J'....' ( J V'.d, J, ;1., .., 0 '." ",,; ,r... I . I ......_: '/ J 1/..(-......1 j\nu...u......~ -t'--' -d f&-.(;pU- (,r1oc...tL1<L c'/"I. 1~ w";.J:., 6-:J. tfL-V C.l.:-.l"t,\...l__... 0...t1.i:Lo dJ.~(''l.<..L'cJ ,j6-\.(~ u..pK..l- tit. <_01 Cuj f:.-' .JeLl. ~U ,,-c) ~'1- (.u~CA. t....v !-fI"t Cv.: LA..L'i ~.9 '1\ Cy'JU...l..;,LI'(J,.W. /..~I'-!:' rn.6.-'-j t"L(\...c'_ <' hz., 'b...\..Q.JlC\...<.'- \. ~L '"d:}i'-7l~((j,L ~~~..:I,-t\- r-'u,It 11 c..... 1 (,,\. li.t1..J....LL.. <1h.'-. l(J.L{~ \....:6..<.. l'O( b 'I\..:(>ca....,( <...L ...J Ao..L",....__f.kc !.~. -?..." I <.:r~<'-'.'\.9' .J.c G lcc..t,\ .;; ~U:J....tCA (,. , h C?cw.("P Vo.c...l. /<.!.AJ.!.a.li.. t.JOu..L.a. ~_A...a~ i..A....u fOr........., ~ ~.u L..'i~ }c:uo p...c..t.a1. (,,'fu. c.i (,..k~..l) ... \l'{.~ ~~~ ~LCt...cIL' I) '- lM..\.:1 I\.Ci...L u\...t:L-u: l.Jjo...t.-' r1..- I (){) Co ~A 'to(: ~(") u...4U- ~ ,u 1f.x. -t...fJ\,0. (.<.d. (LU'-"- Q.lbLV~ ~..L(!..(.t<..t.i1U. 0... q ~.. rtUJ \ IJ I..uu.tJ ,,;! I .)U). (. \. t.. t..Q./._<.~ ~u.....J ~~ (I(.. () 0 c-f ~ (j IlC-0-. ; ~t 'p.U.../L .. p{, Q. ~Ct.a-i../ .,tL., Ct\.l d' ~t. tCIlu./J.r '1 f}t.(..~<<- /...L4JI..tl tJ 4.o.u..:U1- oJ t...1< ol!..u.... cr~ l<'(L~ \.J- ~ 'U- ~~~ ~ ,t.1'Ut::(lJt.u.. ~. ~ [3'1 ~/6..C,}lJ..J y1,.UIX..L 1l <IU.o-L' <--" ~ c "L~ ~ l.r~.. (.,I\" , u..'\..d...U.-. li.A~""" IUlJi\.c..., DfO-,,,- (:k....u 4 tD~..n...c. "-..!JlA..GJ::, I\.- c.J f~ 1-0 d...r.t. ~ tk .. '-'h...j, ~ ~ ~ .t o~~;"Jo (~ ~ WCJJ...tl#... "ho(J.L "tJL.v ~(I>'\....C..AA....{.U7t..OLLU '1 Opvv ~'U, - ~L tl.JLUI- ~ J\.Jrd-- 6 '-h..t.tjO \.L.L~"- Qu.-. W-\., '-^A. ~f.-6A....I cJlA.; ~~ . Q. cuJ.d. ~K.. 1L(i..(.,'(" 6. 0 (Yo.. L (If..l? u_ rj.1~. 0.(, Vk.pU./J. ~ Jlcu) frUJI-~ U ~kt.LO.J...... Lt r"';"u/ ~ ~ ~I\AJL4..l..0'~" crY\. 6... pCt.J\..Ucu..t~ -(1A"-Cl.(.:: (O("(\..L'<'/u"~ cj~ 6.d.d....t.G..cl\.CA.L Lt.L~. IJ (Ji, t" la.4" . . (j i\..~ ~C''L..~.)..AtA-L.^-r ((hi.; d-.tu.(iol"V t~ '1 h;.. "-I.. (u..~<"\.. r~ 0. ~d... ~.cui , '- u\.(.: t..,iLL~ 1 O""A..A.J....""1 !Y\<;lU l Q..:'\..cL ~ 0,(.( (,A~ tC\.(.~1 '1.J-\. (L/\'JLU.:'" ..~ ~. 7 n1o.Jv.. COol c",(a..r.Li. (PI) J , tClaU?j '-^- rLtlu..-. (lJ-t Q/~~.G...otJ.i \l1.j'cx..dJ:... tK. CQ.J..~/v...l LJ e..A'l..Lt<U.'--<.A. .s LtJ..Ao LJ !lot (.( c ru.L\.~~ L-~,il:::/ . ru...1l1J .~ O-u-t ( 1'V-~1C~'VI O-~(U...~, a.Li.Y ~~ l,.!C-\.Q. <U....U<-l~4-. W ~A!o.--U.olu..' <.t.."-<.:. d..d.LUeJ..a.tL. (1...-v:L Ml..ufi ~ FL>',(HUlCLL (tt.Ll. --J 4-.of\. ei'v.-- Ie. l.I.;...P. CPAG W, /,L . ((UL+4..~ e..<Y\...<1I..cU..A.J ~l. "lJh.o..< 1M. ct.(J\..,.D-A.0.. /r....o(tA.-1' u)..Ji.o/LV liA..J' n...UO-LA.. 1-0 I~ ()'U..~~ t'.\..L-.-' Af-4 /~-G.u:., j du:..,;J I ~t..t..c 'Liul~ J. 'if' 4..t\..tL ,:"'U:1..1.~l.~1 jv:....J,e.w du.. V~~-L..tA.., /u.fO""'Lt..."-1 k, {1Lc..., C)..J? 'f.{oc..~UI, L"^-t tu('~L.-9 ,., . Lh.o.l: u~"1 I~CL.-n.~ t.U.tl~~ V-f.<'Ln.Ju...t : // / /'1 /0/1.- 11./ It '-1' ~ v t.:.-/ ~ _U- <.--d..., , QlltLlLLarl d>, ()fC 47 ScZD uJ~~.L? /99CJ . J9~D~~~ ~~.. "tULU ~ J-Lil-L) -1:v "'~.J-JJ tJLuV ,.L~~ A--L"'f-f~ tj~~~ ~.-,,1iYLbd tf)~~~. d~ ,.-ewuJ 7- ~~.'-~-Ic0 ~ ~ ~--L~L.J~J~.. ll}? ~-LV~ cy --r~) -a<-k, ALd ~clu~~ tM.~). ~t.. ~ eLl J4.tL:l-Lt-,W ~.rk~/rcJ .;tt, ~~_:t .4-Bn-LU ~ ~ ~~ 1'1-- ~rr CU ~~~ aA..14V.A..b~ a.:.~ ~~1L~~ ~~~a!----, ~ il!-LJ ~ ~ ~4J ..uV~~ . W~~~~~~~" /uL~ t}.~?i ~ a:u ~dJ aLLd.4U tP-U-v ~. ~~u.-J~eL~~' ~~V~ A2.ll~LI-0:/~1U-'ft +1./ ..;CA..u ~J--[LJ ~t.t4Ztz~d.I(' f<;, ~ 5..LLlU~ . :;..91/ ~~.-tg.fd4)--blU (/!}..{.or...J ~u../ ~.h@-t ~.kL..Q) ~ !.Lv L~n.cJ.....L.t.u...' dO-~LdJ --no u d.J --Z-Zl~ a-U~w .. } LW. _,...:ulv d Lt.. &!...J..o ...L<.d...A... j iSl..L 4'--)U . ~.~ . I .' OflelA-,r~1--&. dlL.~4 --L.~~-~,~cL.Jc-L,/l&lL~_.'~~~<L.) . ~ ~ ~ ~~ 4J1a.JLu ~.:vL~U:&zL6.tf, +Ll~.). ... . d./u...u..;., ~ ~ de---c~d&.-.t-..LJ.rA.u ,. ~ /j(U c!. .1-) lL./ A> L. )A-IJUJt h AL {' /) L ) /it! a<x1 bn d.~ (e. J, r ~.~ v . 12jlcL'rl-'"-~-' .~Ac:l_,_LLlzu ~.iz:, /Ue'E-:'/JU.lU:.-/Ld_. /C-)u,.; /ld6-'/l-Lt {;7/...-) to- i .-TAL.;;-- t!) t cl-L ~ld. ;-u L), i-/ -JULU A-L l..t-!--f . --' (k-~o/ ;X:_uLata_) ((lCj,J itV IJ t ! 'II ~