Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-0917 Regular Meeting rm;~Jz1a~ : c .~ Any c..U-i.zen a.ttencUng COWIc.il. meetingl.> may I.>pea.i, " any dem on the agenda., Ull{.eM it .i6 the <lLlbjec..t 06 a pubuc. heaM.ng wlU.c.h 11M been c1.ol.>ed. r 6 you w.i6h to I.> pear.. , pe.e.a. we and a6teJL you have been ftec.ogrUzed by the ChiUft, give YOUlL name and addte.H. Tit Cha..iJt will then a..Uow you to I.>pe.a.r.. and a.L60 -tn60ron you a6 to the amown 0 S .t.<me a..Uo.t.ted to you. The.t.<me gftan.ted will be dependen.t to Mine euen.t on the na-tUlLe 0 S .the dem undeJL fuc.uM-ton, the nwnbeJL 06 peope.e who w.u.,h to be heMd, and ~_e.e,;lgth 06 the agenda.. ~ .} AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL September 17, 1985 I. EXECUTIVE SESSION: 7:00 PoM., Council Conference Room II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 7:30 P.M., Civic Center Council Chambers III. ROLL CALL IV. "PRESENTATION OF GREETINGS FROM ENGLISH LORD MAYORS _ and COUNTY COUNCIL CHAIRHEN" by Councilor Smith. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Adjourned Heeting of August 29, 1985 and Regular Heeting of September 3, 19850 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Proposed improvement of Ridge Road from Terrace Street Northwesterly 2132 feet with ,curb and gutter (partial) and 18 feet of pavingo 2. Proposed Annexation, Withdrawal from Jackson County Fire District Noo 5 and Rezoning for 67.12 acres of land located West of Wightman Street and Northerly of the S. P. Railroad. VII. COHMUNICATIONS, PETITIONS & REMONSTRANCES: 10 Liquor license application for Gayla's Pancake, Steak and Seafood, 1823 Siskiyou BJ VIII. NEW & MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: 1. Election of Budget Committee Member for term ending December 31, 1986. 2. Downtown Parking Facility Committee Report IX. PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda. X. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS & CONTRACTS: 1. Employment contract extension with City Administrator for 3 year period to September 1, 1988. 2. Authorization for Mayor and City Recorder to sign Contract with Oregon State Highway Division (Garfield Street). ' XI. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS XII. PRESS CONFERENCE XIII. ADJOURNMENT: (Reminder: Study Session on Public Safety Plan, Tuesday, September 24 at 7:30 P.H., Council Chambers and ,Supplemental Budget Hearing on September 26 at 7:30 PoMo, Council Chambers.) Attachments: 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions & Committees 20 Monthly Departmental Reports - August 1985 r . '. .. ROLL CALL AC'J. REFUNDING WATER BONDS - AI-lARD BID FORDYCE STREET ANNEXATION REZONE AND COMPo PLAN AMENDMENT BARD'S INN RESOLUTIONS HATER & SE\.JER DEV. FEES IMPROVENENT RIDGE ROAD MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL August 29, 1985 The meeting came to order at 9:03 A.M. on the above date, in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center. Present were Mayor Medaris, Councilors Bennett, Acklin, and Laws. Absent were Reid, Elerath and Smith. A resolution entitled "A Resolution Awarding the Sale of the City of Ashland Oregon General Obligation Water Refunding Bonds, Series 1985, and Specifying Adjust- ments to the Maturity Schedule Thereof and Providing for the Appointment of an Escrow Agent" was read in full by the City Attorney. Councilor Acklin moved for passage of the Resolution, seconded bX Councilor Bennett and upon a roll call vote, all voted 'Aye". Second reading by title only was given ordinance setting a public hearing on an annexation and withdrawal from Fire District No.5 (Fordyce Annexation). Laws moved to adopt, Acklin seconded the motion which passed unani- mously on roll call vote. City Attorney asked to have continued to next meeting. Second reading by title only was given ordinance relative to the reading of resolutions by title only. Acklin moved to adopt, Bennett seconded and motion passed unanimously on roll call vote. Second reading by title only was given ordinance regard- ing reimbursement for water and sewer facilities installed by developers. Laws moved to adopt, Bennett seconded motion which passed with a unanimous vote on roll call. A resolution was read setting a public hearing on the improvement of Ridge Road. Acklin moved to adopt, Bennett seconded, On roll call vote, all AYES. Medaris questioned why some property owners did not vote on petition. Acklin noted that only part of the property Ashland City Council ~ l ;" IMPROVEMENT RIDGE ROAD (Con t inued) ADJOURNMENT August 29. 19t15 Page THO olmers were in favor of 'curbs and gutters. Salter reported that the public notice included paving, curbs and gutters. He noted that certain improvements can be deleted but not added at a public hearing. Laws said he felt the estimated cost per front footage seemed low and asked that it be checked. The meeting adjourned at 9:20 A.M. L. Gordon Medaris Mayor Nan E. Franklin City Recorder NFjdp ._ '''-:~ft'''':'.' ~J._ _~ August 29, 1985 Page Two .~~;-",?,~r_ ~:~~.;.~,__ r, > .. ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINlITES PARK PROPOSAL LIQUOR LICENSES STREET FUNDING MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL September 3, 1985 The regular meeting of the Council was called to order by Mayor Medaris who led the Pledge of Allegiance at 7:30 P,M. on the above date. Present were Elerath, Reid, Bennett, Acklin, Laws and Smith. Bennett moved for approval of minutes of the regular meeting of Aug- ust 20, 1985: Laws seconded the motion which passed unanimously on voice vote" A letter from Brent Thompson was read urging that Council consider acquisition of a hilltop park site called for in the Comprehensive Plan, Almquist said he had no particular comments on the matter but alerted Council to the possibility of a land trade for future reser- voir site on nine acres at the top of Strawberry Lane owned by Red Gentry and having the balance of the land for park use, Almquist noted the land being suggested is comprised of five of the best view lots in the City and there is land further to the North which would serve the purpose, Smith noted that there are many ways of acquiring property for park purposes other than paying cash and suggested the Parks Commission identify park sites and then come to the Council with ideas, Acklin suggested Council work with Parks & Recreation for recommendation of sites. Smith moved to ask P & R for recommendation of sites; Acklin seconded the motion which passed unanimously on voice vote. Almquist noted that the Police Department had recommended approval for liquor license application from Robert Comfort, Michael Bingham and Stephen Sacks dba Ashland Bakery & Cafe and Smith moved to approve; Elerath seconded the motion which passed unanimously on voice vote. Almquist reported the Police Department had completed background check on applicants Paul and Charlotte Niestrath dba Sandwich Shack and Laws moved to ,approve; Bennett seconded the motion which passed with- out opposition on voice vote. The Director of Public Works reviewed the history of street resur- facing and maintenance of streets and recommended that a new mainten- ance concept be adopted whereby the streets are maintained to give them a longer life as opposed to repairing deteriorating streets. Alsing listed options as 1) do nothing, 2) do what we do now, and 3) rehabilitate and prework. Alsing said that a seal coat could be applied every, six years and that resurfacing could be done every 30 years and said the cost for sealing would be $99000 and resurfac- ing $89,000 and patching $1,000 for a total cost of $189,000 per year. On question of Elerath as to whether this amount would cover labor, Alsing said it would be for materials only. Elerath asked what the employees would do should monies not be available for materials and Alsing said they would continue to sweep streets, install and paint signs etc. Almquist reviewed the Revenue Sharing negative impact and said that the street program this year would not be much with funds available. 9/3/85 Po 1 legular Meeting S~REET FUNDING cont. WINBURN WAY CLOSURE POLICY PUBLIC FORUM Ashland City Council 9/3/85 P. 2 Almquist noted that two revenue measures were discussed, one being 5% user's tax on natural gas and the other a 5% transfer in lieu of franchise tax for water quality. Almquist said that at one time a l~ per gallon tax was proposed for automobile fuel and a 2~ tax on aircraft fuel was proposed and was defeated on a serial levy with 3 to 1 voting against the proposal. Laws noted there have been several public forums on the revenue ideas and they were not acceptable. Reid said with education program the people may understand and the gas tax principal would lend to sharing by the tourists in the cost of maintenance of the streets they use. Almquist said one of the reasons the gas tax idea didn't take hold was that the monies could have been transferred to another account and agreed that the education idea saying that the gasoline tax to support street maintenance would be an acceptable rationale. Laws recommended that Almquist and Director of Finance Nelson study and come up with alternatives for Council con- sideration. Elerath expressed concern for property taxes and asked what would result in cutting personnel. Acklin reviewed results of a Citizens Revenue Committee which studied each department's work and came up with recommendations which did not include cutting person- nel. Acklin said the staff is already honed down and that people she has spoken with are interested in having the vital City services at an appropriate level. Reid said that in her election work she learned that the condition of the streets was a number one concern with the citizens and noted the need for public parking to accommodate local people and tourists to justify the gasoline tax proposal. Acklin moved to ask staff to set date for a special meeting at which time a public hearing could be held to discuss street funding, and after that meeting ask for an ordinance to be brought back; Smith seconded the motion. Almquist noted that October 8, 1985 would be a good date to try for. On voice vote the motion passed unanimously. The City Administrator reported on a meeting with Parks & Recreation Director Mickelson regarding suggested policy for closure of Winburn Way noting the circumstances under which the Administrator has been authorized to close the street now. In addition the policy would authorize the Administrator to close Winburn when crowd size would pose a hazard to those attending events. Any decision the Adminis- trator should make disapproving an application would automatically be referred to City Council for consideration at their next regular meet- ing and the last criteria called for no selling or soliciting on any public street within Lithia Park (Winburn Way from Guanajuato Way to Granite Street). Smith objected to the criteria which would not allow selling in the case of non-profit organizations in particular who fund their programs etc. by this means. Laws moved to adopt policy as proposed; Reid seconded the motion. Smith moved to amend motion to delete no. 4 which called for no selling in the Park or on street in Park and the motion died for lack of a second. On motion to adopt Elerath, Reid, Bennett, Acklin and Laws voted YES. Smith opposed and the motion carried. Jeff Golden told Council he continues to be interested in serving on the Budget Committee and noted he first applied when Phil Arnold was appointed and he now understands there has been another vacancy. Mayor Medaris said he has been full Council to consider them The Public Forum was closed. waiting for more applications and a at the September 17 meeting. 9/3/85 P. 2 ular Meeting . . Ashland City Council 9/3/85 P. 3 RESOLUTIONS A resolution transferring appropriations within funds was read and Council discussed a $7,200 transfer in Public Safety and Public Safety Transfer of Approp. Director Lively noted that Civil Defense and Community Service Volunt- eers have been combined with Frank D'Entremant as Director with over 100 volunteers. Acklin moved to adopt; Reid seconded the motion which passed unanimously on roll call vote. ORDINANCES, & CONTRACTS Low-income Energy Assistance OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCILORS "BAG-IT DAYS 85" EVALUATIONS ACLU CO~~ICATION PARKING FACILITY MTG. LOC MEETING NORTH INTERCHANGE LIGHTING ADJOURNMENT The City Administrator reviewed the program and Smith moved to author- ize Mayor to sign; Acklin seconded the motion which passed unanimously on roll call vote. Bennett reviewed the statement by Governor Vic Atiyeh relative to a proclamation of "Bag-It Days 85" calling for cleanup of litter from roads, streams and shores etc, Bennett asked for a commitment from any or all of the members of the Council for participating in the planned cleanup of Bear Creek so that she can advise Eric Dittmer who heads ,up the effort every year on behalf of RVCOG. Council generally agreed to participateo Smith expressed concern that the evaluations of the City Administrator and City Attorney have not been done for last year. The Mayor said he is waiting until he receives them as all of them have not been received. A letter was reviewed by City Attorney Salter from ACLU challenging the City's Occult Arts Ordinance and Salter advised Council that the matter should go to court because of the uncertainty of:the.City's position. Council asked about costs and Salter said he wouldn't charge fees. The City Attorney was asked to advise ACLU of Council's position that they should go to court. Laws noted there will be a meeting of the Parking Facility Committee at 4:00 P.M. Wednesday to consider the final draft of the Committee Report and invited Council to attend the meeting at the Civic Center. The City Administrator reported there will be a meeting of of Oregon Cities for a Legislative briefing in Grants Pass 12 and asked that they notify the Secretary of intentions. added that a car pool can be arranged, the League on September Almquist Salter informed Council he had heard from the County relative to the lighting contract for North Interchange approach and area and said it should be discussed upon his return from Salem, The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 P.M. Nan E. Franklin City Recorder Lo Gordon Medaris Mayor 9/3/85 Po 3 c:fJI ~m n r a udum September 11, 1985 . 'fin: Mayor and City Council ., Jffrnm:~Allen A. Alsing, Director of Public Works j&ubjed: Ridge Road Paving Petition The following is set forth as background for the public hearing on a petition for the curb (partial) and paving on Ridge Road. Ridge Road runs between Terrace St. and Glenview Dr. generally along a north-south ridge. It is in an area zoned RR-.5 (low density resi- dential) with most of the lots, developed with high quality, high value homes~ The street right of way is twenty-five feet wide and the street surface is of decomposed granite which has had a dust oil surface treatment applied from time to time by the property owners. Four property owners at some time in the past have installed curb along their front property lines. These curbs can remain in place if the road is improved. One lot on the westerly side of the street is approximately 900 feet long and is owned jointly by five property owners who reside on other Ridge Road lots. Petitions for curb, gutter and paving have been circulated on this street a number of times over the past years without success. A neighborhood meeting was held recently to see if some solution could be found to the street improvement problem. Staff presented several alternatives inclu- ding 1) just paving; 2) paving and curb; 3) paving, curb, and gutter; 4) paving with curb only on the steep section near Terrace St.; and 5) paving with curb and a number of "duck-out" parking spaces. (If this option were chosen, property would have to be acquired.) There did not seem to be any unanimity at the meeting, but subsequently one of the property owners requested that we prepare a petition for paving with a short section of curb at Terrace St. This petition was returned to us with over 50% of the front footage signed in favor, and is the one now before the Council. The following is the staff's positive view of the proposal: 1) The paving of the street would serve the properties better than the existing granite surface. . Ridge Road Paving Petition September II, 1985 Page Two 2) Paving would eliminate the dust and pothole problem. . 3) There would be no further need for the property owners to oil the road every few years. 4) The lack of curb would allow parking on the shoulders of the road. 5) Installing paving without curb would cost less than if curb were installed. The following is the staff's negative view of the proposal: 1) Paving without curb leaves the City with future maintenance of the shoulders, a situation which should be avoided if possible. 2) Parking on shoulders tends to eventually break down the edge of the pavement. 3) The proposed design sends ,all surface water to the side of the street and onto private property. The present property owners requested this design system. Future property owners might not agree with this concept. 4) Pavement without curb can allow surface runoff to get into the street base under the pavement eventually deteriorating the pavement. 5) This is a high value residential area and meets all the criteria for full curb, gutter and paving, and the Council's policy of improving the streets to current standards to eliminate future street maintenance. If the Council decides to allow the improvement as petitioned, I would suggest that signatures be obtained for future curb in the event that future owners do not agree to the concept of the street runoff onto private property. If the Council decides to only accept full curb, gutter and paving, I would suggest that property be obtained for parking duckouts and that the street be posted for no parking on one or both sides. ~emnrattdum August 15, 1'985 'ij[ 0: Brian L. Almquist, City Administrator J , ':fir >> C'I rom. Allen A. Alsing, Director of Public Works ~ubjed: Petition for Street Improvements - Ridge Road Attached is a petition for street paving on a portion of Ridge Road. The petition covers a section of the street 2132 feet long, and 64% of the front footage has signed in favor. Would you please forward this to the Council for setting of a public hearing? Attachment/ tl e"'f'/ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING . NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Ashland will meet on the ]7th day of September. 1985, at 7:30 p.m. in the Counei 1 Chambers, 1175 East Main Street , to hold a public hearing to consider the formation of a Lbcal Improvement District as follows: Nature of Improvement: Construction of curb and gutter (partial) and 18 feet of paving. I3E'npfi nc,d Pr~?l:'.prty: Properties abutting both sidc's of Ridge Road from Terrace Street Northwesterly 2132 feet. Estimated Cost: Total estimated cost o( improvement is $64,926, or $15.50 per front foot of benefitted property, 100% of which will be paid by special assessments. Additional Information: Preliminary project design information and detailed estimates of project costs are available during business hours at the office of the Engineering Division, 276 N. Main Street (above the Dahlia Restaurant). NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that all affected property owners are hereby called upon to appear at the hearing, or to submit written comments prior to or at the hearing. as to why the aforementioned improve- ments should not be constructed. or why the benefitted properties should not be assessed for the construction thereof in the manner proposed herein, by order of the City Council (_---J ;..--/ ',. ---/""721~ t:.. ~"'-' u'.~.-/~-~ Nan E. Frfll1klin City Recorder/Treasurer PUBLISH: Daily Tidings September 6, 1985 CITY OF, ASHLAND ENGINEERING DIVISION DATA SHEET FOR PROPOSED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT STREET RIDGE ROAD DATE 9-6-85 LIMIT OF PROJECT Terrace St. northwesterly 2132 feet LENGTH OF PAVEMENT PROJECT 2132 feet DESIGN 4.5 in. full depth RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH 25 feet PAVEMENT,WIDTH 18 feet CONSTRUCTION DETAILS CHECKLIST Concrete curb and gutter, only near Terrace St. Concrete curb type C or C-l Curb and/or curb and gutter both sides, 380 L.F. Curb and/or curb and gutter on one side only Typical section - center .crown Typical section - offset crown Typical section - no crown Typical section - inverted crown Yes X No X X X X X X X PETITION RESULTS DATE PETITION WAS PREPARED DATE PETITION WAS RECEIVED TOTAL ASSESSABLE FRONTAGE FRONT FOOTAGE REPRESENTED BY AGREEMENT FRONT FOOTAGE SIGNED ON PETITION TOTAL FRONT FOOTAGE REPRESENTED PERCENTAGE OF FRONTAGE REPRESENTED PRELIMINARY ESTIMATED COST OF PROJECT PRELIMINARY ESTIMATED COST PER FRONT FOOT 6-3-85 8-12-85 4213.46' 0' 2703.38' 2703.38' 64.16% $65,308.63 $15.50 . RIDGE ROAD PAVING ESTIMATED COST PER LOT Based Upon An 18' Paved Surface . PERCENT OF PETITION COST PER TAX LOT NO. OWNER FRONTAGE TOTAL FRONTAGE RESPONSE FOOT TOTAL 9CB 200 Williams 150.25' 3.57% Yes $15.50 $2,328.88 " 300 Reynen 469.12' 11.13% NjR " 7,271.36 " 301 Laufer 219.96' 5.22% NjR " 3,409.38 " 400 Holmes 117.06 ' 2.78% NjR " 1,814.43 " 500 Goes 128.63' 3.05% No " 1,993.76 " 700 Osborne 122.50' 2.91% Yes " 1,898.75 " 1000 Fries 105.91' 2.51% Yes " 1,641. 60 " 1100 ' Hooper 127.98' 3.04% Yes " 1,983.69 " 1200 Maurer 160.38' 3.81% NjR " 2,485.89 " 1201 Akerill 112. 72 ' 2.67% Yes " 1,747.16 " 1600 Turner 205.10' 4.87% NjR " 3,179.05 " 1900 Skerry 149.56' 3.55% Yes " 2,318.18 " 2000 Lewis 135.08' 3.20% Yes " 2,093.74 " 2100 Busch 132.89' 3 .15/~ Yes " 2,059.80 " 2200 Skerry, 904.50 21.47% Yes* " 14,019.75 Busch,etal. 9CC 200 Ames 100.00' 2.37% NjR " 1.550.00 " 300 Roberts 177.92' 4.22% Yes " 2,757.76 " 400 Williams 357.54' 8.49% Yes " 5,541. 87 ,; 401 Clark 109.83' 2.61% NjR " 1,702.36 " 500 Bornet 176.53' 4.19% Yes " 2,736.22 " 600 Jewett 50,00' 1.19% Yes $15.50 77 5.00 4,213.46' 100.00% $65,308.63 *Indicates 3 out of 5 owners signed in favor. JlHemorandum August 15, 1985 Wo: Al Alsing, Director of Public Works ~ rom: Jim Roberts, Engineering Tech. II ~uhjtd: Ridge Road Paving Petition The percentage signed in favor of improvements on Ridge Road equals 64.16%.. This includes tax lot 9CB 2200 which has five owners of which only three have signed the petition. Not including this lot, the percent in favor equals 42.69%. PETITION Date: 6-3-85 TO THE MAYOR AND COMl10N COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON: WE, THE UNDERSIGNED owners of property in the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon, do hereby petition your body to cause Rid~e Road from Terrace Street Northwesterly 2132' to be improved with A.C. pavin~ and improvements, the cost thereof to be assessed against the abutting property in proportion to the respective benefits thereto. We request that said construction work be done by contract or by force account at an estimated cost of 5 $1~.50 per front foot. This estimate is valid for a period not to exceed 12 months from the above date. It shall be understood that the above unit price is an estimate only. The assessment shall be based upon the actual cost incurred. NA11E STREET NO. MAP NO. fTAX LOT IN FAVOR AGAINST M 4. IA vel' "\ 9C8 .;2.~ tJ() $k'err<-i ~ U~j"",,{)ro\l~d I' I' V ,It B ~ S'ct..vt:~ V<,olle.l--tu ',\0'\ V :( I' 't . 1M P ('. w'y\ er~k; ~ Le,.;~.s ," \0',,,,+ I' tf v" Tr.~Y'')1e,. J e+~ " It . . PETITION Date: 6-3-85 TO THE MAYOR AND C0M110N COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON; WE, THE UNDERSIGNED owners of property in the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon, do hereby'petition your body to cause RidQ:e Road from Terrace Street Northwesterly 2132' to be improved with A.C. paving and improvements, the cost thereof to be assessed against the abutting property in proportion to the respective benefits thereto. We request that said construction work be done by contract or by force account at an estimated cost of :1' foot. is valid for a pe,iod to exceed $1~. 50 per front This estimate not 12 months from the above date. It shall be understood that the above unit price is an estimate only. The assessment shall be based upon the, actual cost incurred. 3.Gs ~glld-.L ~~> t; --.:r.' ,~ ..... ,- --. IN FAVOR AGAiNST v/ ~ V STREET NO. MAP NO. I TAX LOT :.--;' " ~ ., .......- " (' __ / c:. ... .'~ : ,..,~ ~ PETI TION Da t e : 6 - 3 - 85 TO THE MAYOR AND COMl10N COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON: WE, THE UNDERSIGNED owners of property in the City of Ashland, Jackson ~ounty, Oregon, do hereby petition your body to cause Rid~e Road from Terrace Street Northwesterly 2132' to be improved with A.C. paving and improvements, the cost thereof to be assessed against the abutting property in proportion to the respective benefits thereto. We request that said construction work be done by contract or by force account at an estimated cost of $1~.50 per front foot. This estimate is valid for a period not to exceed 12 months from the above date. It shall be understood that the above unit price is an estimate only. The assessment shall be based upon the actual cost incurred. NA11E STREET NO. MAP NO. I TAX LOT, IN FAVOR AGAINST uJ tl rd q 0 f<. (O&C 9C-B 00 ~ I' 360 If ~oo U S t)0 V;J Ifd'e/ It 700 vK-O /' L Ill.-( er II 3~ If 1600 ~,~ I' If 00 Ma.w,.er f( /;; t)O Akeril (, tf--!. €R J. II / 01 fJI-~ ttr'1'1er II 1000 If 1 ~CJ I' .;( 0 () t) I" II t: ~ 7, ( II 300 ~ d ,( " at) ( t- uJ uJ 0: t- en 0:: W W Z o 0.. :I: .... ::> o en ..'c"",' '. ,...." '.\"'" .'"".~:':. '.' ..'" . :"."'~ """"'r""'-"'''''~__~'''''''__''~'''''_'''''_~' \" 5 -I ..t..' h GLENVIEW V 101 Po 'n-fO Y.UI '.411 I 'ORMERlY '''IIlK IT . 39 IE ge8,_ , , , ~~/ " I , I~ I . I; I . . I . I I ~ I . . :, 0 I . " u ~ I- w W 10:: :.... ..11 en .. ., ,. " ., DR, , G) r- '" ~ ~ ,- IlJ ~ I, ,~ " ... '-- MADRONA fI.,_, ."t! .. '- \ 300 \ t.U .. . I \ \ I P-58031 . t ,.,'-.- . d\ ~ ,\ ~:', (1\ 1\ .I '. ~ I I I , II" . : .," ,..... ... ,.~. -- -- ~ 900 . ... .,." --". , :; " ; , . "I! .;, ---- ,- !~ --- ~ ':I~tl' : :hlll .~fh :.:, -l, , 1'. . . ,: ~ 1000 ..~ .. 301 ..~ IP-5853 J .... .. IP- 50511 '.'.11 .,.." :...... ~(Jl tc:: ..~ ':.~ ~- 0-\ ... . 1100 ..'!..! -,..- "L_ ~l ... 1500 '.11 '.. 1300 ..~... ,"," '" ... -"j,. 1200 1! "., ... IP-45641 1401 ..~ , , , : i . , ... ...... ,- - !!.!- . . , 1201 ..~~ . 1400 ..Il.. & I P-56281 . . . . '.... \ \ .....' - , . . . ....u '" 1600 1700 I.ll ..1.' .. L1THIA PARK '~ . \ \ .. ~ \ ~ ; t 1701 : I.\.! . .. .. IIi 00 ..\!' . .. . " :; . j , '. '. r . . w . ,u : 'c:( 0:: 0:: \w ;1- . ; _ '''~!t ,- ..... .., \ 00 \ ~ \ \ \ 1900 ,u .. '1'-" \ If .. ... I'" ... : 2000 2001 \ , . ..~ ..~~ : ~ '" . . . ... 2100 I ." . Q ,\~~ , .. \ "'r ""'1 , . .~,.I.t ..', ST. _"'~ - -"~ , 'c-HOLLY '4~~ ........... 1 ."o,'~ , . zoo 't 140~ , . ,~~. tlI1 ~ o\~ . ! 401 .... ~.c ~ . ~ . Jl , I 0 .1"".'1.4- ~(j'l 400 t ~f1\ , ~ . . ~ (I"~"JI . ,391E gee RIDGE ROAD 300 ~ . N PLOT PLAN not to scale . ~ roo ~ ! ~ " " . , ' , 1, 9~ 0 ~ (I)' C i" ,; 0 ':1:1 ':1:1 >: OJ '0 ' 'r- 'c.. ' G> :rn Jlo I rn I ..... '~ m, . , C) cl ; Ii c z: i. ...... . -I 3:: \ 0 -I : ::j I 0 . rn I ((I) , , :1:1 ! - I,' . ,'ii" . ,i\ . . ~f' . -;t . \ .'", _... 'or-_"" ", "'" ,.."....T\.... ... .......- ........,~....-.. ". ',". ._.~..~-. .....",., m~ ~~ ~~~ ~emnrandum September 12, 1985 Mayor & Common Council Planning Commissioners Stout, Slattery:& Thompson Planning Action #85-063, Zoning for proposed annexation at Fordyce Street, East Main and Wightman Streets We present the minority view that the minimum lot size for development in the proposed annexation be 7500 square feet (R-1-7.5P) instead of 5000 (R-1-5P) for the follow- ing reasons: 1. According to the Planning Division, there is no appreciable vacant land in the City zoned R-1-7.5P. There is a considerable amount of land zoned R-1-5P that is available now and buildable. 2. The location of the parcels in question is fairly far from a freeway interchange. We believe that there are other areas currently zoned R-1-5P better located for this higher density zoning. We also believe that the railroad tracks at Fordyce and East Main Streets offer a barrier to the downtown area and higher density would result in higher congestion. (See Comp Plan X-9 Access) 3. We feel because of the location of Fordyce, East Main Street and the railroad tracks, the conges- tion created by additional housing would create a traffic problem in the future that Councils and Traffic Commissions would be strapped with. 4. There are two rather large riparian areas which we feel we need to protect. Although the area in question is relatively flat, the riparian area, we feel, would create some difficulty to build around, i.e., trying to squeeze more lots than would be practical. (See Comp Plan IV-la, Goal page and IV-II, Policies 17, 18, 19) It is in this vein that we, Michael Slattery, Carlyle Stout and Brent Thompson recommend zoning to be R-1-7.5P. '(lr 0: JIf rom: ~ubjed: ~emorandum August 15, 1985 Mayor & Common Council (9' { ! Planning Division ',\--L/. ; ., Planning Action #85-063, a request for annexation of approximately 67 acre" of property in the vicinity of Fordyce, East Main & Wight- man streets into the City Limits. On August 13, 1985, the Citizen's Planning Advisory Committee held a Public Hearing on the above referenced request. They voted unan- imously to recommend approval of the annexation request with a zon- ing designation of R-1-5P (Single-family Residential/Performance Overlay), with a 5,000 square foot minimum lot size for all but the property owned by SOSC. This property is recommended to be zoned SO (Southern Oregon State College). They adopted as their Findings the "Procedural" section of the Staff Report which is attached. On August 14, 1985, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on this request and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the annexation. They voted 5 to 3 to recommend R-1-5P zoning for the property, except that o'.'ned by SOSC, with Commi ss i oners Stout, Slattery and Thompson casting the "no" votes. They favored a R-1- 7.5P (7,500 square foot minimum lot size) zoning designation. They also are recommending that the property owned by the College be zoned SO. Please schedule a Public Hearing for September 3, 1985 to review this application. ,~ .Qll emornndum ~AI' 08 30 85 / 'ID 0; HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL ~ rpm: DA YMON BARNARD, CHIEF of POLICE ~ubject: LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION An application for New Ownership of an existing Liquor License has been received from GAYLA BRIGHT dba GAYLA'S PANCAKE, STEAK and SEAFOOD 1823 SiSkiyou Bv. Original License was under BRASS RAIL 1823 Siskiyou Bv. I recommend approval of this application. l...l ".......... , ' DA YMOt,; BARNARD Chief of Police DB: ar., L.-'- U'" . STATE OF OREGON OREGON L1aUOR CONTROL COMMISSION Return To: APPLIC;:ATION .' GENERAL INFORMATION This application form costs $5.00. A non-relundable processing lee is assessed when you submit this completed form to the Commission (except lor Druggist and Health Care Facility Licenses). The.filing of this application does not commillhe Commission to the granting of tbe license for which you are applying nor does it permit you to operate the business named below. No. 07774 {THIS SPACE 15 FOR Olee OFFICE USE) Application is, being made lor: o DISPENSER. CLASS A"PUCAT~ RlHWtiDner o DISPENSER. tLASS s1:lUO;: QD){TI<<IttiaoMMI~ge o DISPENSER. CLAS%C 0 Change Location o G STORE JU ~ C~~!:!.'ae Ownership RESTAURANT;/- L it] dW'SOe 01 Privilege RETAILMALTBEVERAGE 0 Greater Privilege SEASONAL DISPENSERI'J'N~nltftHjfr Privilege o WHOLESALE MALT "--r1n~'Outle, BEVERAGE & WINE JZc Other t -l o WINERY' ..., f5D OTHER' I ~1 c-C 0:.,llit t(,. u ' . ~?C Gfl{/;,/;-tbJi;U Y ~ .~f.yf~,('d-~~ (THIS SPACE IS FOA CITY OR COUNTY USE) NOTICE TO CITIES AND COUNTIES; Do not consider this applica- tion unless it has been stamped and signed at the left by an aLCC representative. THE CITY COUNCIL, COUNTY COMMISSION, OR COUNTY COURT OF (Name ot City or County) RECOMMENDS THAT THIS LICENSE BE: GRANTED OENIED DATE BY (Signatura) TITLE CAUTION: If your. ration 01 this business depends on your receiving a liquor license. OLCC cautions you not to purchase, remodel. or ,tart c6nstructjon until your license is granted. 1. Name of Corporation, Partnership. or Individual Applicanls: 1) Gayla Bright 21 3) 4) 51 61 (EACH PERSON lISTEO ABOVE MUST FILE AN INOIVIDuAL HISTORY AND A fiNANCIAL STATEMENT) Brass Rail Lounge/Orient Palace Restaurant 2. Present Trade Name 3. New Trade Name Gay!a's .pancake, Steak and Seafood/Brass Rail Loungeyearfiled 1985 wilh Co'pOfaliOll COmmiS$ionor 4, Premises address 1823 siskivou Blvd. Ashl;:md Jack!'ion Orecon 97520 (Numl;>ef. Street, Rural Route) (CitYI (Counly) (Slale) (Zip) 5 Busine~s mailing address18 2 3 5 iski you Blvd. Ashland Oreqon 97520 (P,O BOA. Number. Slroot. Rurat Aoute) iC,ly) (Stale) (Zip) 6. Was premises previously licensed by OLCC? Yes~ No_ 1985 Year 7. II yes, to whom: James W. Brodeur, Danny Chu, Chun Yee RMB Type of license: 8. Willyo~haveamanager: Yes_ NO~ Name (Mar\agor muSlli1l oullndividuel History) 9. Will anyone else noi signing lhis application share in the ownership (If receive a percentage of profits or bonus from the business? Yes_ No-1L- 10. What is the local governing body where your premises is located? Ci tv of Ashland (Name of City or County) 1,. OLCC representative making investigation may contact: Gavla Br iqh t <19' r.ollrtnev St. Ashland OR . (Aaar.S$) {Name) 97520 HM: 482-9889 Restaurant: 488 0797 (Tel. No hom". business. m~.) CAUTION: The Administrator of. the Oregon Liquor Control Commission must be notified if you are contacted by anybody Offering to intruence Ihe Commission on your behall. Applicant(s) Signature (In ease 01 corporation. duly authorized ollicer thereot) ~' ~ DATE ~A . (?'Jif- Julv 9. 1985 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) i6-il2) r I ..".'..1.jLl:......t ..>3. .:.. '.:-.f,S':) ~.::!.i; Cl=tl~. ,-..... "=".-- A~h1211d. OR g"752') Ml" 3rla~ Allnqulzt. Adnlill~=~rator t:_'-~:.'/ -:.."f }i.t:.hl.3.nd D(:El~ ~1r. :i,2.mc;l...!i.s.t. \1.-", :lta'/ r,,::c:;311 my a;?pe.3.t"ar.ce ::"i2:{orc' t.ft+2 City 1.-:oL!ncil l,'J.~;,t Mayas 1 valtJ!"!Lcsred to fill a vacallcy '~i1 ~nQ Bcdg(~~ C0nlmltte~. At ~hat time the Cou:lcil selected P~)il Arnold ~or tt:e posltion ana thanked nle for my application. t!!ldersca:ld ~11at di'lother 2Lldgl?t COm)~!ltt~c pos~tj.on has come ,-,'",.-:n. I v..'ould a.Pt:'!-'~Cl.5.i:,-,~ y.:,ur ..:~:..:.Si.s1.:.~l)C'~ .in makin'..~l cl,~..:tr te. L!:'_:: l:;ouncll :.h'::it. my intc'r"0~3t. in ~"~l-vin':J ()n t_t-I'.': C:ommitt€":f".:: ':"s ..:.':l:;~ stl"on'~l CIS l. t ..,.'as in !'16'j. I e:lc.!.oSE: a copy of my l'i.E:1Y ~. l~~~~*r il1 WhlCh I first as]~0d to be consid~red fo~ t,h~ i=,:).~::."it.":":'ll. !:H~C.:"l).!~>~:' it si.:.,:.ll 1.,.::-i.1.8C1:....:::,. my f~12.l::..nSls. ":-~ 1":C: 1: ~l:i r: ')'. '2,i,n.::'~l.t_~ ~<, 5"":'1-' l)a~-;~:,.:..r!u III ~/ nl';::~:.s.:::._:'.:: the: city. ,-"'In t t':' -r..:. ~l E' }: '':::':.'1": t .1, n ''''':(:;; t'_:1 lIC)P'2 :r()t- tt::,-: C':.I::":,.ir"~tll:l i ty t.er 8.';:'.:: v':,.. '.::'~'.J!l''::'':'':'' . Bc-::.., ~_ 1.>,' .~ :'J t:.. ~f'-/ ~--<-, '. "':':: t. ~-'eV i_~\:! '- .-!",.;") MdY 3. 1'985 Mr. Brian Allllq\Ji~t Administrator. City of Ashland Dear Mr. Almquist. A3 you may reme:nber frolll our recent telephone conversation. I would like to fill the cornirlg vacancy on the city's Budget Committee. Pleas~ accept the enclosed resume as my first effort at introduction. ~y interest in this J{ind of worJ{ isn't new. My college adviser~ James Q. Wilson. steered me towards his field of mUIlicipal organization and economics i~ my last ye~r at Harvard. I found various weys to apply one reIine what I'd le~rn8d. As ~ sm~ll-sc~le homebuilder. I could survive in the process of competitive bidding only by developing ~0ali5tic and efficient budgets. My work for the State Department took me to literally dozens of American cities in the company of urban pl.:1nners. officials. ecc1nomist2'.. .::Ind educators from other countries. HUGb~nding t,he Oregon Guides Associ~tion through a maze of litigation and certification procedures initiated me into hardball politics. But t.L,o.: finishing tOUC;1 in my e:~tend12d political economice curriculum. l~~G ~eerl my broadcasting career. PBS' woes have generated a pay-as- you-go system wherein public television producers are generally obliged to f~nd money for their own proJects. Writing convincing b~dqsts bec~me as necessary as operating d camera. so I le~rIled how to do both at about the same time. It was l~rgely the SUCC8G5 of my budgets l!l~t ~ed to the 0pportunity to he~d KSYS' operations. Now I frequencly find myself on the other end of the budget process. I h~ve to evaluate the co-production proposels of other stations and independent producers in order to select proJects worthy of KSYS~ involvement. I Iind myself ~ much more astute budget-reader by virtue of nl~ exoeriences ~s a budget-writer~ more resistont. I think, to fliccly ?ctc:~,~sed snow--Jobs. All 0= ~~llCh i~ secondary to my desire to serve this town. We've lived ~nd wor~ed here mLlch of the l,~st tetl years~ and ~5 we begin to raiZ8 (..)'1>"- fami.l:;. l~5hland feels very much like our long-term home. I'd co~sider it a privilege to lend a hand on behalf of its continued pro..'5;)e::..- i ty. I look forward to meeting you dnd others next 3udqet Committee member. who will be selecting the ~2!~~ ~~drl~S [O~ your cO:1sid0ratioll. ,_'''::'1:.: ::"-C:'/ '-:O.:.....:1C'<: .- September 3, 1985 The Honourable Gordon !'edaris, r'jayor City of Ashl and Dear Gordon, It has been called to my attention that there is a position vacant on the City of Ashl and Budget Committee. I ,'!oul d I ike to submit my name for nomination to that position. The following qualifications and experiences make me competent to fulfill the position, 1, I have lived in Ashland for forty two years and have the background to know the needs of the city. 2, I have seven years of college education. 3, I have worked in education for thirty seven years and am retired so I have the time to devote to the job. 4, I have been in private business in Ashland and know the needs of small business, -- 5,- I-have - served- as- bus i nes s- manager---for--Schoo I--Oistr i ct ---11-9-in'-Ea-gl e--Poi rit. - In that capacity I have had the responsibility of investing several million dollars in a manner to earn top interest, but also have an ade- quate cash flow available, 6. I have had the responsibility for developing with the cooperation of school principals and teachers school budgets, 7, I am presently a member of the Ashland School Budget Committee, 8, I have he I d top 1 eadershi p roles inState educ<lti on groups as v.le 11 as on a National level. 9, I have proven leadership experience, 10, I am a member of the Ashland Kiwanis, If you have any additional questions please feel free to contact me at home, Home address is 512 Herbert Street and the phone number is 482-3544, Thank you for considering this application. Yours truly, r/J ~ . / G~ill~~ Arthur T, Phillips 785 'Pa.i.MM 'Roc!. MJ..ni, O/l.~n 70 WIwm .u I~ CtJM:.etUI.: I 4h.cil <<PfX~CU.t.~ VOWl. M.v.uw ot 1M. uu:.lo-d~ ItU~ ~ VOWl. ClI.IIIl6Ii. ~V~ ~ :to b~OJme. a mentJM at ih.~ &4& C"rrmi.;ti.~~ C.i;b; at 1l4h.1mrI., 5/wulJ. VOu. ctln;t~~ ih.~ M~ {olt II ~n. ot ~ <;en.eA&1. b.cAr;;wunti., I am tl.~.u fait a ~a".l iJdMV.uw td VOWl. ~j~p CtJnv~~ ~.-~q?O?(j)~e~4-(~ al.nl. A. WU./wwon ew::l.o-dLI/IL ~, 'R{,5U,1'{, if (lJALIF fCN 10V5 Roland. A. Wi.i.~on 785 'i'alJT/eJt Road. Mtl.and., Oltel)On Phone: (50 J) 482-8790 (JJ:J{[J IVe.....A MAf>>M.i.h1.~ f>>~.i.f.i.gn on ih.e Ci.4 01 AdJ.a.rrL'~ Bu:It;e:i Com- mLt:t~e. 70 ch.o.JJ.eFIge ih.~ dut i 1M 01 f:JIW~ ih.~ /fbnev' 4 .in. ih.~ ~ C/lU.<I 4 Ci.i.v C;Ov~e.n:t. 'i'Rife55IOVAL SUtmVfRII..... 'P1t~eni4 c menlJMoI ih.~ CiliJeM 'P~ I/dVu,olllJ Corrmi.ti.~~ Ci.:b; 4 ~, .dA.i..v~ :to obj~c:ti.v~ .d.v.iA~ ih.~ Ci.:b; 'P~ CollfTli..ui..on crri. Sicl! .in. ih.~ 1IItUl1J cute&<! 01 L.nd. (f4~ 'Pl.anni.ru; /olt iA~ C i.:b; oIlWt1.turL. tfRCAlJOR. l.n. iAe Si&:U 01 Olt~n /olt ttpfYWxi.md~ 14 V~, ~pe.cittl.- i..Ji.n9. .in. U~i~ crri. 5.J.u 01 Re-d.uLe.n:t~ Co~ Bu4.in.Md, In.coman:l.' ACAU9-e-d, fTlentJeIt 01 O~n AMociftii.on 01 'i?f.AIJ(Jfl5 <<rd. Ntdi.on&L I/.uoriui.on 01 RCAtJOO. 'P1t~eni4 wil1r. IItlI1IpWn /lo./.mu Rw.. e4i4:t~, A Siai:~ O.iJu!cioii. .in. 00 IU!.ptte-d~ ANtl..rd'13oaAIi 4 'RfAiJ(~, A moIJeIt 01 ih.~ &dr;e:i Corrmi.ti.~~ /olt ~ ~ 4 'i?f.AfJ(Jfl5 ; ow-Kelt 01 Cqlll7l~~ ~ Aimi.ni.AiettiJu;., &dr;di.nJ; ..,.a OiA.~~ .LL [itMe-d 0{ ih.~ Clt.mhelt 01 Col1lflMC~, O~ve1OM,' end i.mp1.~ fUdOci.4tei fYWlJABW, coo~n. iM. mVu; di./-~ cciJ...v~ wil1r. bU4.in.ud ttni fYW{.Mdw-l. IfI6I. {f.Jott/wu; wil1r. iA~ Ci.4 01 MJ...nd ad 4 mut,M 4 tA~ O~vwpnen;t crri. ecoruJmi.c O~~pne.n:t COITmi.-MWM, . con.J.r.Jilli} trnd. co,,~n. iA~ d~~pmmt oIf>>ien:U..). bU4~e-d d~ :to, .wad~ .in. A.JtIAnd, L(lJR UNITeO STifleS NAVY' (RdUr.ei) comp1.di.nJ; iwW.J;-~~ven.vww4 tni..1.~ SMvi..c~ CI.4 c Nc-L OIf.li:.eIt.(Av.i.td.on.) wil1r. OVelt 16, CXXJ FJ.i.Id 1wU/UJ f4in9. rni.A4WM .1l. OVelt iA~ /JXJdd, .i.ni:1url.i.nt tV.f.J I I, Ko/lU' ttni V~.in. boiA ~~~ UIIJi.n.e ttni.iAarwpwd ~/:t. . Rt!AI.IIM.~ o! 'Ro.L.n!. A. W.i.l.kM<JOflo.... ~t!. 2 'PWIl. is u//jLL, i.n. UtUi..4 loll. th.~ tY"Mlit!/ln. Oi.v.iAwn o! th.~ I3cnIt. o! AmetW:c. 5Wr:tiJu; .., &'Me.~ to 7 ~Vl. to Locn at/i.wl." fPl(jf11Gf. . . . .7 M CMJJiil A,gfUW i.n. &di.nu-J ~n. It'ai.ni.etI6I/U:.~ ~. tY.-L 7~ C6I:t~ 5cn O~, CA 7.-i.ve CMJJiilIi.oUM i.n. 'Rul. C.d.:te, 'Ruf. c.d.td.e !..w, CC<lnom.iA. F ()oiA.i.l1 'Jun.i.I1ll. C ol.l.et}e, Lo4 A1to-J, CA Hi.Ir. 5dwo1. ~1I..t~ 'PCR5O\i'iL INF{JR/rJ'f1 IGf. . . . . .. tY!tvr.w...I..: Widoumi, f.oUlt ~ all. ITtIl/Uli..ei .."a ~ ~ ch.i.JJiA.M. Hobbw: r;o1.f., i.61Jt.iA wJ.4~ avr.pe.nhu;., /MJWu;. C1.uh4: 'R,,~ MJ.nd C.Luh. lrd.~ruU. 5uptW11t!. CouncU. OAdVl. 40e /Ib.J.cv., i.n.vut.ed wuA. th.~ HOTlJJItiJ O~e 01 Ch.evtzl.U",. ~e: 64 m~ ~~ ~~~ ~emorattdum September 12, 1985 Mayor & Common Council Don Laws, Parking Committee Chairman Downtown Parking Study The Parking Committee is pleased to forward to you the Downtown Parking Study Final Report which the Committee voted unanimously to approve at their meeting of Septem- ber 4, 1985. The Committee feels that the measures outlined in the Report are the most cost effective and will greatly improve the parking situation in the downtown area. DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY An Ad Hoc Parking Committee was formed by Mayor Gordon Medaris January 1985. The following Committee members were appointed: Laws, Chairman, Lois Wenker, Allen Drescher, Ben Tyran, Rassmussen, Ethel Hansen, Ken Silverman, Allan Abner and Nicholson. in Don Bob Paul The parking Committee was charged to study the overcrowded parking conditions in the Downtown District and make recommendations to alleviate the problem. The Planning Department was appointed as Staff to the parking Committee to do the necessary research and Ordinance development. The Parking Committee began by assigning the Planning Department to do the basic research to determine the actual deficiencies in the downtown parking situtation. There were two areas to be researched. The first area was to perform an attitude survey of the downtown business community regarding the perceived availability of parking and to obtain insight on the parking habits of downtown employees and employers. Second, was to get an estimate of how many additional spaces were needed and during what times of the year these spaces were required. The first phase of research was accomplished with the cooperation of students from the SOSC Department of Geography. The students conducted a survey of 100% of the businesses in the study area. A copy of the questionnaire and the results are attached as Exhibits 1 & 2. An interesting discovery was that downtown business owners perceived that there was a definite parking problem in the downtown district. It was also interesting that approximately 1/2 of the business owners request that their employees park in a specific off site area. The remainder do not. According to the survey approximate- ly 23% of the downtown employees park in public on-street parking spaces, the majority of which are two-hour spaces and are usually considered to be reserved for downtown shoppers. This indicates that there is a significant amount of parking by downtown employees in this area. Based on the data from the survey, we estimate this to be between 150 - 200 spaces out of the downtown area on a daily basis. The second phase of the survey determined how the downtown parking area was being used and what the parking demand was. The downtown parking demand was estimated using the same figures which are used for commercial shopping centers. The downtown area has approximately 215,000 square feet of ground level gross floor area and 140,000 square feet of second floor gross floor area and approximately 1000 employees. Based on the calculations which are provided by the Urban Land Institute, a service organization of shopping center developers, total parking demand for a shopping center of such proportions would be approximately i,459 spaces. In the downtQwn area, including "Bn PARKING COMMITTEE DRAFT 9/10/85 Street, Water Street, and Lithia Park, there are 1,001 spaces. This indicates a shortfall of approximately 450 spaces. It should be noted however, that these figures are to accommodate parking in a shopping center mall complex designed to accommodate parking on all but one or two days of the year. Actual downtown areas can operate with significantly less parking spaces/perhaps 200 to 300 less. Regardless, it appears that there is a definite shortage of parking between the 1,001 spaces available and the 1450 spaces which the ULI figures indicated that the City needed. Next, downtown parking occupancy was surveyed by the Geography students working with the Planning Staff. The downtown area was broken up into 41 regions and surveys were conducted from 8:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. April 27, 1985, a Saturday, May 9, 1985, a Thursday, and July 12, 1985, a Friday. The figures were then entered into the computer and various analyses were performed. Attached to this report is a map, graph, and the raw data for each of the parking surveys that were performed. The data indicates that in April and May there are isolated areas of overcrowding where occupancy exceeds 85% on a daily basis. If the area was over 85% occupancy on a daily average basis it was considered to be overcrowded. The areas which were overcrowded in April and May were limited to the Plaza area and some isolated areas along East Main Street, however, there was ample parking in areas which were a bit more remote, specifically, along "c" Street and Li thia Way. It was interesting to note the dif ferent parking patterns at opposite ends of the study area. The area around the Plaza seemed to be oriented toward typical demand curves that are caused by shoppers with a definite peak around 8:00 P.M.- the time that the Shakespeare Theatre operates. The east end of the downtown district around Second and Third Street appeared to be much more strongly oriented toward office type businesses with a 9:00 A.M. 5:00 P.M. weekday parking pattern, and showed very little occupancy during the weekend. Generally speaking, it was determined from these studies that the City's parking facilities are operating quite adequately for 8 months of the year. It appears that only when the outdoor Shakespearean Theatre operates that the parking demand exceeds parking supply. The parking survey for Friday July 12, 1985, indicates this quite well. All the areas around the Plaza and near Shakespeare are overcrowded on a daily basis. In addition, the downtown occupancy rate approaches 100%, at 8:00 P.M. The addition of 124 spaces would however, appear to solve overcrowding during the summer months. The study yielded two general observations. First, downtown employees should not park on street during the peak summer months as this takes away parking spaces from tourists and shoppers who are essential to the economy of the City. Therefore, an Ordinance should be developed to prevent this from occuring and a public relations campaign should be implemented with the aid of the Chamber of Commerce so that employee parking on-street is discouraged. Second- PARKING COMMITTEE DRAFT 9/10/85 ly, additional spaces must be provided around the Plaza to First Street to accommodate additional parking during the summer. However, this parking would also be useful throughout the year if conveniently loca ted. The Parking Committee recommends the following proposed actions: 1. Employee Parking Relocation Ordinance: Effect: This would free approximately 120 - IBO spaces. Cost: The costs should be minimal, but are unknown at this Costs would mainly be cost due to increase in enforcement. may be offset by increased fines by violators. time. Costs The proposed Parking Ordinance is attached to this report. The Parking Ordinance will make it illegal for an employee to park in' the downtown area during the peak summer months. Only the areas that are limited to hourly parking in the downtown area are affected. The employer is required to register with the City each year, prior to the peak season, the address, names, and vehicle license of each vehicle owned, operated and controlled by each employee which is commonly used for travel to and from the place of employment. This will be implemented with the business license registration. A first time violation of the Ordinance will carry a written warning, $25 for the second, $50 for the third, and $100 each violation thereafter. The Director of Public Safety, Vie Lively, has reviewed this and feels that the enforcement of the Ordinance would not be a problem. 2. In addition to the Ordinance, a public relations campaign needs to be conducted among the downtown employers and employees to convince them of the necessity of parking in areas other than on-street during the busy peak seasons. This will make the cost of enforcement significanly less as voluntary compliance is expected from a majority of businesses and employees. The public relations campaign should be a joint venture between the Chamber of Commerce and the City and should be implemented during March and April of 1986. The campaign should include window posters and buttons stressing the benefits to the downtown businesses of parking off-street so patrons will have a place to park and shop. 3. Improvement of Water Street Lots: Effect: This would add an additional net of 20 spaces. Improvement Cost: $33,000. The Water Street parking lots are inefficiently designed and poorly landscaped. Improvement to the Water Street parking lot PARKING COMMITTEE DRAFT 9/10/85 areas would provide an additional 20 spaces by improving layout, increasing the paved area, and landscaping would make the area more attractive. Improvement costs include: lighting, sidewalks, and a stairway to 'C' Street. the also also 4. Lease Parking Lot Space from the Elks: Effect: This would provide approximately 43 new spaces. Cost: $2,500 a year lease for the public parking lot which would also be available for use by downtown employees. 5. Change Oak Street between "B" and "C" Street from two hour to all-day parking. Effect: cost. This would net approximately 20 all-day spaces at no 6 . North pioneer between "A" and "B" Street. Effect: This would add 9 spaces at no cost. North pioneer is now limited to no parking because of intrusion of cars from the Sentry parking lot. possible 7. "C" Street between First and Second and Lithia Way between Second and Third. These are areas that the surveys indicated were being used very little, but however, are limited to 2 hour parking. These would be changed to 4 hour parking and would free up some additional areas for employee parking in other areas. Specific- ally, this applies to those spaces along the north side of Lithia Way between Second and Fourth Streets and along both sides of "C" Street between First and Second Streets. 8. It is recommended that Planning Staff perform additional studies during the upcoming Christmas Holiday Season and during the Summer of 1986 to monitor parking demand and the effectiveness of the Downtown parking Ordinance. Additionally, staff should circ- ulate a petition for the the creation of a local improvement district for the extension of Central Avenue to Water Street. The street extension would enhance traffic circulation, provide another access to Water Street lots and provide additional on- street parking. Summary: The above measures, would add approximately 100 spaces to the Downtown Parking District. 1) Total Costs: The total cost of the improvements for these 100 spaces would be approximately $33,000 for the Water Street lot improvements. The payment of the improvements if they are bancrofted would be approximately $3,620 a year, plus $2,500 a year lease for PARKING COMMITTEE DRAFT 9/10/85 the Elks and an additional $1,500 for maintenance. This gives a total of $7,620 in yearly costs for which revenue is required. 2) Revenue: means: The revenue is proposed to be raised by the following A. Increase parking fines by $1. This would yield approximately $5,000 - $6,000 a year. B. Add a surcharge to the business licenses for downtown employees at a rate of $5 per employee. The surcharge would also apply to City, Shakespeare, and non-profit institution employees but not to non-paid volunteers. The surcharge should generate between $3,000 - $4,500 per year. The total parking improvement revenues raised by these methods would generate between $8,000 - $10,500 per year which should exceed the costs incurred. Any surplus would go into the Down- town Parking Improvement Fund which would be used to improve the parking situation. As this fund grows and when the parking situation again becomes a problem, there will be a pool of money from which to use for further improvements to the Downtown Park- ing District. PARKING COMMITTEE DRAFT 9/10/85 Exibit 1 PARKING DEMAND QUESTIONNAIRE 1. Business Name Address 2. Type of Business or Use (Circle one) A. General Retail F. Restaurant B. Fast Food Service G. General Office C. Light Mfg. H. Bar/Night Club D. Theatre I. Residential/Apartment E. Other (explain) 3. Normal Hours of Operation 4. Peak Operation period: A. Time of Day B. Month 5. Total Number of Employees on Largest Shift: ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Do you feel that there is a parking problem in the Downtown District? ' A. Yes 82% B . No 1 3 % C. Don' t Know 4% 2. Do you request your employees to park in specific off-site areas? A. Yes53% B. No 4.7_% 3. In which of the following areas do your employees most frequently park? A. Public on-street 28% D. Private off-street 35% 25% B. Public off-street, no time limit E. Don't know 6% C. Public off-street, time limit 6% EXHIBIT 2 QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS - PART A 75 50. General Retail 218 23.4 4 2.7 Fast Food 26 2.8 2 1.3 Light Manufacturing 9 .9 3 2. Theatre 214 22.9 22 14.7 Restaurant 214 22.9 8 5.3 General Office (Includ. City Hall 70 7.5 7 4.7 Bar/Night Club 49 5.3 Non-Employees 28 Residential/Apartment N/A 1 29 19.3 Other (Mostly Service, Banks, etc. ) 133 14.3 150 * 100% ********** TOT A L S********** 933 100% % Resp. Type of Business Peak # of Employees Largest Shift % of Total Emp. Responses (Businesses) AREA BREAKDOWN Area A Area B Area C Area D % Business 41% 21% 26% 12% % Employees 55% 24% 13% 8% * Figure excludes downtown residents. , DOWNTOWN PARKING DATA (Preliminary) COMMERCIAL GROSS FLOOR AREA (GFA) Ground Floor Area Second Story Floor Area (assuming 65% two-story excludes: hotels, service stations, storage area, surface parking areas & Shakespeare) . 215,000 sq. ft. 140,000 sq. ft. TOTAL DOWNTOWN EMPLOYEES (including Shakespeare) = 1)33 EXISTING CITY OWNED SPACES Total on-street parking spaces: (including "B", & Water Streets & Lithia Park) = 850 Total City off-street parking spaces: (including Hargadine lot) total = 151 1001 SHAKESPEARE Total Seats Total Employees Maximum Emps/shift = 2086 300 200 = = DOWNTOWN PARKING REQUIREMENTS (Preliminary) Ground Floor (assuming 100% general retail use) = 716 Second Floor (est.) (assuming general office & apartment) = 200 Shakespeare assuming 200 employees & Elizabethan & Bowmer Theatres setaing total of 1774) = 543 TOTAL DEMAND 1459 en , ct CXl I&J U~ -, a:: ..: c( C/) -- - .-- 1'0 :.... )or , - : , -- ' - 0 1....- :::) t- en (!) z - ;;; ~ a:: i ~ !: Z , ~ , )..-1 , t- ....-1 I J -<( , Z uJ: ~ . ~ 0 - C/) c o .. ~ ~I " Q~ Ii: t \B ~ "" ..: 0 ::J (J) "" 0 + a: ,., c: ~ :if 0 CD ., .!!! CO (J) ct ~ . It) CO I CD CD .. ~ Q 1&1 0:: .: W (J) cr - It) It) Q. CO ::;) CD ~ 0) (,) I .... (,) CD ::;) ~ 0 ~ ~ "'" en N ~ C) - Z .- w z ... (,) - Q. ~ <C a: 0:: W f ~ Q. >- cu Z 1:' It) ... ~ ~ ::I I .... cu CD ~ en J N Z ~ 0 - 1 .,~. It) N I o ...,"',.... ......... ................ u c o E (]) O:€ Cl r-i lJ)~ C ell ._ rl -i:; ..:::i.l:'lt L-< o l;>o, o...~ E c~ 3: = o 0 ~ c 3: o o r-i I Cl o r ,,1/ /~~\ I :", I ij' / \ I / / \ , ~____,,~, EJ\ <1.." ~ ~, \I. \, ........... ,\ "'\ ..... I \ '. \ '--, \ \" 1 '-..~- \ . " I, ~~--l__ \ \__ \ ./f~.;n /)<J t .//- / / ,,/ / I ",..'X /; 1/ ,I ,,// / . I _" f /'./ /' .I .1 / ,'.' /(- I ...... (I /" I ~/+ / i i / I/'I / I .1/ I I 1 , / I 1,1 I ~-,-.,---, '\ \ '\ '--...... \ \ , \ \ ."'.... \ --.... \ . ~'-,_\ \q " \, \. \ " " ',- \, \ ........, \. \ '- \ , '\ \ \ ,~~ ~ -'~v \ r~__ \ /\ "- -....~., \ / \'\ --"<\~" ~ l"i 'G1 ~ ~~I , f'- o I tl:) o , co o N o ('j o Ii,) o ~ o r-i o p~!dn.:":)o 6~o1:ldSlU~O.t~d r3 t I , Ltl:) I I l~ .... o ~ N ~ , 1(11 r.-. I I I 1- co o co o .-. Q) Cl co .. Q) '> <C o c co Q) .. ~ <C o x o co Q) .. <C <3 lD co G) .. <C o <C co Q) .. <C + April 27, Saturday Time of Day Time of Day Parking # 8 10 12 2 4 6 B 10 12 Avragi. Dc INER? B 10 12 2 4 6 B 10 ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------ 2 11 9 5 5 3 7 4 3 3 o 4.87 56;~ 20B 131 103 65 59 67 100 93 100 3 9 B 7 4 6 4 6 7 7 o 6.12 3ZI. 3il. 501. 69'1. 7'lJ. 68'1. 5'lJ. 55'1. 5'lJ. 4 14 7 2 3 4 5 4 8 6 o 4.B7 65;{ Shakospoare 5 12 8 9 3 0 0 3 7 8 o 4.75 601. 183 161 83 80 2B 44 96 37 43 6 9 8 7 1 1 1 I 4 5 0 3.5 611. lZ~ 551. 561. 85'1. 761. 48:1. 801. 7il. 7 10 3 3 3 1 2 4 2 4 o 2.75 7Y. Mark An tony 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 o 0.12 941. . 131 65 78 65 54 66 87 65 78 9 11 5 5 3 3 1 5 0 3 o 3.12 7'lJ. 501. 401. 501. 59'1. 501. 341. 501. 401. 10 13 11 6 1 2 0 8 0 2 o 3.75 m East Main - Second,Third 11 27 10 0 2 0 1 3 0 4 0 2.5 911. . 80 63 55 53 51 52 57 54 50 12 11 0 5 1 2 1 1 1 0 o 1.37 8B1. + m 311. 341. 36;~ 35'1. 2~~ 3Y. 3B1. 13 5 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 o 0.62 88'1. . 14 4 4 0 2 2 1 0 0 1 o 1.25 69'1. 602 15 88 85 50 49 I 10 63 5 17 0 35 601. 16 16 9 3 1 1 2 8 4 3 o 3.87 76;~ Percent Increa5e 0% 17 33 10 23 22 12 18 27 16 21 o IB.6 441. 18 26 2 17 12 11 12 16 15 12 o 12.1 5rl. Percent Effective Occupancy 8~~ 19 24 19 15 10 10 10 15 7 14 o 12.5 48'1. 20 9 7 7 7 8 8 7 6 7 o 7.12 211. Number of spaces over 45 21 5 5 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 0 4 201. 22 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 o 0.37 811. 23 7 7 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 o 6.75 41. 24 3 3 3 I 2 3 2 1 3 o 2.25 25'1. 25 18 10 3 8 5 8 7 10 7 o 7.25 601. 26 12 12 10 10 9 5 10 12 12 0 10 17:( 27 11 II 10 10 11 11 10 II 10 o 10.5 5'1. 28 22 20 11 11 11 14 17 12 15 o 13.8 37,~ 29 9 9 8 8 9 8 8 9 9 0 8.5 61. 30 9 7 6 2 4 4 6 3 3 o 4.37 511. 31 29 26 17 15 14 14 16 18 10 o 16.2 441. 32 11 8 2 2 1 4 0 0 0 o 2.12 81t. 33 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 2 o 3.37 I6/. 34 10 9 6 3 2 2 5 3 1 o 3.87 611. 35 14 8 10 B 7 11 12 13 11 0 10 29'1. 36 17 14 13 9 13 12 15 16 16 o 13.5 211. 37 13 10 10 8 6 7 9 9 12 o 8.87 3'lJ. 38 16 15 10 7 6 9 15 16 16 o 11.7 2il. 39 26 22 5 9 5 9 3 7 9 o 8.62 6il. 40 17 5 4 2 1 4 4 6 _ 7 o 4.12 76t. 41 13 8 12 7 6 5 9 2 0 o 6.12 5Y. 42 ERR ERR Total 602 420 319 263 192 229 340 249 271 o 285. 5rl. ------------------------------------------------------- 30t. 4il. 56/. 6B1. 6'lJ. 44t. 59'1. 551. lOOt. Time of Day Parking I 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 12 ---.--------------------------------------------------- Ii ~ ~ l&I ..: 0 (I) " + l&I -0 lr >. c: (I) ii: :0: 0 "' .~ CO (I) <( . U) ct l&J a: ct > II) 0 CO J 0) I- ,... U) ft 0) C) >- Z l'll - ::!is ~ a: ft ~ >- l'll 'tI Z I/) ~ .. ::I .c l- I- J z ~ 0 .: (I) - I c w - a. J (,) (,) o I- Z W (,) a: w a. II) CO I (I) (I) . II) (I) I (I) 'It II) 'It I (I) C\I .:I!I'~I ,'",_.:k....,.;, -}::{::::};~ II) C\I I o ................. ............. J111 lJ C o E CD o C) (J) 1>, c~ .- .:::L~ L'tl o ~ 0...] E-< c @ 3: o -+- C ....~ '> o o ..... C) Q II / ,/ II // ! ' / d.,.. 11(\ ~. II '-', \\ \ ! '''-''--''__ '0 ,{ -, ,\ 1\ -"-" \'\ / \ "~r>- ~ ",/"/ II ,- / _joy / / > / // l / / I) ~ / I ;/ l / 4J i I I \/ lJ (. ~,\ i \1 j\ \1 \ ~-, ~L "~ ---'-\8::, \\ \-':--'" \,:<.:~ '\ " ....................~...... \\ \;::.~:<---....... , ...... co Q 1'- Q iO Q "" Q C'? CII Q Q (0 . Q -p~!dnooo !;:~o~dSlU~OX~d ..... Q o r-l Q) C'l tV ~ co Q) > <C o 1(0 C III Q) ~ <C ~ ~ x c .... o '" ;:l (,) o C'J ::c ~ ~ <C <J N r-l Q r-l m III Q) ~ <C <> co <C III Q) ~ <C + Q Mal 9, Thursday Time of Dal T imp of Day Parking ~ 8 10 12 2 4 6 S 10 12 Avragl. Dc OVER? 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------ 2 11 7 B 4 2 4 3 10 9 o 5.87 40~ 20S 107 77 61 62 64 116 SS 122 3 9 S S S S 9 9 S S o S.25 S'/. 49'/. 63"/. 71Y. 70Y. 69'/. 44;~ 5SY. 41Y. 4 14 S 2 2 2 4 7 S 9 o 5.25 63% Shakespeare 5 12 12 10 2 4 3 4 0 6 o 5.12 5:0~ IS3 136 56 54 57 57 104 36 51 6 9 4 I 1 I 2 2 0 2 o 1.62 S1'l. 26% 69'1, 70Y. 69'1, 69'/. 4X~ SOi: 71'l. 7 10 0 3 2 0 0 1 0 6 0 1.5 S5I. Mark Antony 8 2 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 o 0.12 94Y. t 131 S7 49 57 53 71 S6 79 100 9 11 6 0 3 3 2 5 0 3 o 2.75 75:1, 34Y. 6X( 56;( 60Y. 46Y. 34:1, 40Y. 24'/. 10 13 13 5 1 5 S 5 4 4 o 5.62 57/. East Main - Second,Third 11 27 14 1 1 0 0 23 0 9 0 6 7S'/. SO 46 37 32 39 41 45 54 59 12 11 3 5 2 1 5 I 0 1 o 2.25 SOY. 43"/. 54:1, 60Y. 5fl, 49'/. 44Y. 33% ,26% 13 5 1 3 I 2 2 I 2 2 o 1.75 6SY. 14 4 3 2 1 2 1 0 0 1 o 1.25 69'/. 602 15 SS 7S 21 19 lS 32 6S 2 6 o 30.5 651. 16 16 7 3 2 4 4 S 0 4 0 4 75'/. Percent Increafe OY. 17 33 25 12 16 12 22 31 27 30 o 21.8 34Y. 18 26 18 15 IS 15 16 17 15 17 o 16.3 37/. Percent Efjective Occupancy SS;( 19 24 16 9 5 7 9 16 17 17 0 12 50:~ 20 9 6 7 4 6 7 S 6 6 o 6.25 31Y. Number oj spaces over 13 21 5 -2 1 3 2 2 3 3 3 o 2.37 53% 22 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 o 0.37 81Y. 23 7 7 6 7 6 4 7 7 7 o 6.37 ~~ 24 3 2 1 2 2 0 2 3 3 o I.S7 38:( 25 lS 10 7 0 1 3 4 12 15 0 6.5 64Y. 26 12 9 7 7 7 8 S 10 12 0 S.5 29'1. 27 11 9 S 9 S 10 1J 11 II o 9.62 13;~ 28 22 16 5 7 12 13 10 5 14 o 10.2 53% 29 9 7 8. 7 6 6 9 9 9 o 7.62 ISY. 30 9 8 6 4 7 3 5 5 7 o 5.62 3S'/. 31 29 21 17 21 13 9 19 22 20 o 17.7 39'/. 32 11 5 1 1 1 3 0 0 I 0 1.5 S6Y. t 33 4 2 4 2 2 1 3 4 4 o 2.75 31;~ 34 10 5 3 4 2 5 3 3 4 o 3.62 64Y. 35 14 6 8 10 10 9 12 13 13 o 10.1 2S'/. 36 17 9 13 12 14 4 12 7 14 o 10.6 3S'/. 37 13 6 3 2 4 4 11 13 13 0 7 46i: 38 16 3 0 3 2 2 14 16 15 o 6.S7 57/. 39 26 14 6 6 12 5 4 7 12 o 8.25 6S'/. 40 17 5 0 4 1 5 3 6 13 o 4.62 73"/. 41 13 1 0 0 7 7 1 1 1 o 2.25 8X~ 42 ERR ERR Total 602 376 219 204 211 233 351 257 332 o 272. 5S;~ ------------------------------------------------------- 3S'/. 64Y. 66Y. 65'/. 61Y. 41'l. 57/. 45Y. 100Y. Time oj Day Parking 8 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 12 ------------------------------------------------------- II) a) I CD CD . U) 4 C I&J a: UJ 4 - II) 0- :) CD )0- Il) CJ I 0 a) CJ CD ;:) Q) 0 'It ~ U) 'P" ~ ft Z (!) ('II UJ Z 'P" CJ - >- X - a: a: ~ UJ if ~ 0- ft >- II) Z CU 'It ~ 'tI I .- .. CD ~ u. J ~ ('II Z ~ 0 \B t :;.; ILl - 0 " U) + ILl 0 0: ,., c: ii.: :;: 0 CD III III a) U) ct . - 1 ~i ~J II) ('II I o 1--.','--,'-- ................. I r,l /f 1/ / // i,l / i I II l I , I / //.ri \':,~~, ... ........" \\ -"~, \ .:-., \. -...:, \ ."....... , '.........._~" --1lJ --~ I t.-' ./ /' I/! r,/" / .;1/ /111 \ ! / /;1 I / /l / l /' Iii ~' \ \\ \ \ \ ~+ \\ \, \ I, \ __/ \ '\,.\ \ -,/ \\1, \ // \. ''\ \ _/ -" \ &~ ,/ '>-........_. - ~'..._ x:._., -...._- "- ....... .... ----~:;;~:::;> \, :& " ~........~ " ---..:;:~- ------- "\"",=.. i;:-.. ---------.... '--,-- --"., -------- I ! (0 -0 -od4 M o 0 0 0 lJ C o E CD 0'0 o::l Q)~ CN ._ r-l .:::L~ L ;:l .... o . Q..~ -L: C~ d 3: 0 o +- C 3: o o r-l C) o o::l o >< .I / i (/ / /' ./ t l 1'- o "\. '. "- ...... " '.', , '-,- " '\. X t / / / / .//./ -- f ( "- '-'. "''"', '-. -, ". ')< p~,dnooo s~oudS ~U~OX~d o r-l I I~ L(O I "" ~ c I .... C I ... I I CoJ :I c r ::t:: I I (\1 rr-l o r-l cc ct Cll CoJ r-l 0 G) .. 0 0 ct + G) Cl Cll .. G) > < o Q Cll G) .. ct X (,) Cll G) .. ct <l a:I Cll G) .. < o July 12, Friday 1985 Time of Day Time Df Day Parking" 2 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 12 Avrag;, Dc OVER? 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 ------------------------------------------------------------ --------.--------------------------------------- 2 II 10 3 I 2 4 0 0 3 o 2.87 741. 208 99 63 29 24 34 33 2 12 3 9 7 9 8 7 6 4 5 5 o 6.37 29;~ 52!. 70;~ B6~~ 8S'1. 841. 841. 9rl. 941. 4 14 9 1 0 0 0 4 5 6 o 3.12 7B'1. Shakespeare 5 12 10 9 0 2 0 5 0 2 0 3.5 711. 183 142 32 18 17 32 76 -I 6 6 9 3 7 1 0 1 1 0 2 o 1.87 79;~ 22!. 83'1. 90;~ 9):, 83'1. 5a;, lOll. 97'1. 7 10 3 1 5 3 4 1 0 0 o 2.12 7r!. Nark Antony 8 2 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0.12 941. + 131 81 42 33 23 34 52 3 15 9 11 4 4 0 1 2 3 0 0 o 1.75 B4X 38'1. 6~1, 75'1. BLI, 74;' 601. 98% 8rl. 10 13 8 6 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 3 Tl~ Easl Main - Second.ihird II 27 15 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 o 2.37 911. + 80 48 30 50 34 33 47 31 41 12 11 0 4 3 2 1 1 -I -I o 1.12 901. + 401. 63'1. 38'1. 5B'1. 5r1. 411. 611. 4rl. 13 5 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 o 0.37 93'1. t 14 4 4 0 -I -1 -I -1 -I 0 o -0.1 103'1. + 602 15 88 75 18 2 1 11 59 0 3 o 21.1 761. 16 16 5 0 0 0 2 6 0 0 o J.62 90~{ + Percenl Increase OX 17 33 19 12 4 4 8 15 0 7 o 8.62 741. 18 26 13 9 6 -3 -1 14 -2 -I o 4.37 83'1. Percenl Effec!ive Occupancy 8S;( 19 24 15 8 8 5 10 II 0 0 o 7.12 70;( 20 9 6 6 6 1 2 3 I 2 o 3.37 63:( Number of spaces over 124 21 5 1 1 2 2 3 0 2 0 1.5 701. 22 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 o 0.12 94;~ + 23 7 6 4 5 3 4 7 6 7 o 5.25 25'1. 24 3 3 0 1 0 0 3 1 3 o I. 37 541. 25 18 14 2 12 5 6 6 6 8 o 7.37 5rl. 26 12 9 7 10 5 6 11 8 9 o 8.12 32!. 27 11 B 8 9 11 9 11 9 8 o 9.12 17:( 28 22 19 5 7 11 12 2 0 5 o 7.62 6S;~ 29 9 6 6 7 6 4 6 5 4 0 5.5 3rl. 30 9 8 4 1 2 2 0 0 0 o 2.12 701. 31 29 18 5 10 7 12 4 0 3 o 7.37 7S;~ 32 11 9 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 o 1.62 851. + 33 4 2 0 2 1 2 2 0 0 o 1.12 72!. 34 10 3 2 2 2 1 3 2 0 o 1.87 811. 35 14 6 8 7 7 10 7 0 3 0 6 57'1. 36 17 6 10 2 4 6 -1 -1 0 o 3.25 81% 37 13 5 -2 -3 -3 -2 -3 -4 -4 0 -2 115'1. + 38 16 6 -2 -3 -4 -2 -2 -4 -4 o -1.8 112!. + 39 26 23 5 5 7 5 7 0 0 0 6.5 75'1. 40 17 9 2 1 0 1 4 0 0 o 2.12 8B'1. t 41 13 I 2 5 7 5 3 0 1 0 3 7/1. 42 ERR ERR Total 602 370 167 130 98 133 208 35 74 o 151. 75% ------------------------------------------------------- 3rl. 72!. 7B'1. 84% 78'1. 65% 94% 8B'1. 100% i ime of Day Parking # 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 12 ------------------------------------------------------- DOWNTOw~ PARKING ORDINANCE 11.29.100 Downtown Parking District. There is hereby established a Downtown Parking District which shall encompass the following areas: A. Lithia Way between Second and Forth Street; 'c' Street between Helman and Second; East Main Street between Winburn Way and Gresham Street; North Main Street and the Plaza between Winburn Way and Church Street; and Oak, Pioneer, First, Second, and Third Streets between Hargadine, Lithia Way, and 'c' Street. B. All on-street timed parking spaces and public timed parking facilities within the Downtown Commercial District, ZoneJC-I-D. 11.29.110 Duration and Effect. No person shall, while at his or her place of employment, educational or non-profit institution cause any motor vehicle owned operated or controlled by that person to be parked in anyone or more parking spaces upon a public street or timed off-street parking facility within the Downtown Parking District described in Section 11.29.100 between the dates of June 1 and September 30, and between the hours of 8:30 A.M. and 5:30P.M. on any day except Sunday and legal holidays. Motorcycles parked in designated motorcycle parking spaces shall be exempt from this Title. This Title shall be in effect through September 30, 1986. 11.29.120 Registration required. A. Every employer who employs one or more persons who work in, or have as their primary place of employment, a location within the Downtown Parking District described in Section 11.29.100 shall provide to the City of Ashland the employers and employees names, residence addresses and vehicle license number of each vehicle owned, operated or controlled by each employer and employee which is commonly used for travel to and from their place of employment. B. Every owner or operator of an educational or non-profit institution located within the Downtown Parking District described in Section 11.29.100, shall provide to the City of Ashland, the vehicle license number of each vehicle owned, operated or controlled by each student, employee or volunteer, which is commonly used for travel to and from the educational, or non-profit institution. C. Every employer, owner, or operator whose business, educational, or non-profit organization is located in the Downtown Parking District described herein, shall be responsible for the PARKING COMMITTEE DRAFT -'Revised 9/05/85 collection and submission of all required vehicle registration forms to the City. D. The information required by subsections A-C, above, shall be sworn to and submitted by May 1st of each year in the manner perscribed and on the forms provided by the City of Ashland. Such submitted forms shall be updated and revised by each affected person, institution, or party whenever a change occurs in employer or employee, residence or vehicle license or owner- ship address occurs. 11.29.030 Loading, Unloading and Delivery. Loading and unloading of vehicles shall be permitted as provided in Chapter 11.24.030 of the Ashland Municipal Code. A Delivery Vehicle Permit may be granted by the City Administer when substan- tial evidence is submitted that shows that the permit is necessary for frequent delivery and pick-up which is vital to the normal operation of the business, educational or non-profit institution. 11.29.140 Violation Penalties. Any person parking in violation of the provisions of this Chapter shall receive a written warning for the first violation. Each violation and conviction thereafter, shall carry a fine of not more than $25 dollars for the first conviction, not more than $50 dollars for the second conviction, and not more than $100 dollars for the third conviction and every conviction thereafter of a violation of this Chapter. Any person, business, or institution affected by this Chapter who fails to comply with the requirements herein, shall be guilty of an infraction and punished as provided in Chapter 1.08 of the Ashland Municipal Code. 11.29.150 Parking Improvement Fund. All revenue generated by violation penalties of this Title shall be dedicated to the Parking Improvement Fund to provide revenue for future parking improvements. PARKING COMMITTEE DRAFT - Revised 9/05/85 \ .' , . cP ]\ ,,",,, rJ c ' .\ " ~ '{;~ \ "\ 1ft z X.';i \ .'. . en : ,\ '"'" 1....\ \- , " . FIRST STREET ----... . _ .' _ ....._... ---r," '~ \~ " \ \ 3:-1'< \ \ ~"" \ '---v'" ~. ~ ~ \' , \ .. ....' . ".., " ..". ."' ," '. '. . ,"...". . .' . .... . .' . . ________._._'__ .____.__n.~ ___. _ _ _______ f' . II . z o ::u -I :z:: 1 h ~ !>: " ~ <'Ot-1pA<,r \g\ '0 I, .' "\ . \ ~o""-""'T ~ (jJ In .Ill 111 Z " '" CD .. CD .....CD ~- W: .'. "CD II) Q. - -c::r ...: ..... n -. .. ..: ,f\ ~ ~~ t;; oo(~ l........ 0 ) ~c;> ~. elks parking ~ "m ~ )>r- 'n~ II -0 ~ r- o -." , -4)> <:u ~. - Z G) '\ \ \ \ \ \ -\.. . ' \ ,\ \,.. . . zr- \ R;j !;l . ~~ '" 9~ p:vi'J'lQ Oy{.,.//oLJ ~a.. -.. r ...... Vllllllp,,,,lvt:d J ' ;} ( .. U> n ?J ADD END U M That certain AGREEMENT OF EMPLOYMENT dated the 10th day of March, 1971, by and between the CITY OF ASHLAND and BRIAN L. ALMQUIST, is hereby extended for a period of three (3) years to September 1, 1988, subject to the same terms and conditions of such agreement, as amended. By action of the City Council this' day of September, 1985. Nan E. Franklin City Recorder L. Gordon Medaris Mayor Brian L. Almquist City Administrator ~emoraudum September 11, 1985 'mo: Mayor and City Council ~ Jtf rOm:,LtAllen A. Alsing, Director of Public Works ~uhjert: Siskiyou Boulevard Left-Turn Refuge at Garfield Street Last December Southern Oregon State College requested that the cent.er island on Siskiyou at Garfield be modified to allow a westerly access to Britt Hall. The Traffic Commission endorsed the plan at its meeting of January 23, 1985; and the Council approved the concept at its meeting of February 5, 1985. The State Highway Division agreed to participate if both the City and the College would also share in the costs. We have proposed that each pay one-third of the costs although since the City will be doing the work, its share will be in labor and equipment. If this meets with your approval, you will need to authorize the Mayor and Dire~tor of Public Works to sign the attached agreement. Attachment/ ~. ~~~~'\:'~~. ,.'.'~"'~,'" ..'-~';..\--;- ~}~: <;<;:~:Y/ ,~ VICTOR A.TIYEH GOVEAhlOIl -:'J~.~!'3~ Department of Transportation HIGHWAY DIVISION 2692 North Pacific Highway Medford, OR 97501 776-6004 tn Aep!y ReterlO FileNo: AGR September 6, 1985 Allen A. Alsing, P. E. City of Ashland City Hall Ashland, OR 97520 Re: Siskiyou Boulevard Left Turn Refuge Dear Allen: Attached is an agreement between the State Highway, City of Ashland and Southern Oregon State College for the construction of the left turn refuge at Garfield Street on Siskiyou Boulevard. Please review this agreement and sign three copies and return to this office or forward onto Southern Oregon State College for their review and signature and have them return it to this office. I have reviewed the project cost estimates and feel we need to add cost for preliminary engineering work and traffic control operations during construction. With thesE additions, I anticipate another couple of thousand dollars so I estimate about $10,000 for this project. If you have further questions, please feel free to call this office. Yours truly, ---L J/I/' /, ;2!' 7> tOiL ~/-??ta4"- Thomas Kuhlman Assistant District Maintenance Supervisor TK:f1k Enclosure SISKIYOU BOULEVARD AND GARFIELD STREET LEFT TURN REFUGE CONSTRUCTION AGREE}ffiNT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the STATE OF OREGON, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, Highway Division, hereinafter referred to as "State", the CITY OF ASHLAND, a municipal corporation within the State of Oregon, acting by and through its City Officials, hereinafter referred to as "City", and Southern Oregon State College, acting by and through its College Officials hereinafter referred to as "College". RECITALS: 1. For the purpose of furthering the development of a highway system adapted in all particulars to the needs of the people of the State of Oregon, State and College propose to widen and reconstruct a portion of the Rogue Valley Highway, State Primary No. 63 (Ore 99), within the City of Ashland. Said portion to be reconstructed is along Siskiyou Boulevard lying between Palm Avenue and Avery Street. Said portion is the construction of a left turn refuge opposite. ,Garfield Street-for the entrance -in.to the College Hereinafter, all acts necessary to effectively accomplish the design and construction of said section shall be referred to as "project". 2. By the authority granted in ORS 366.775 and ORS 373.030, State and City may enter into agreements for the construction, reconstruction, improvement, or repair of any street, highway or road; and State may, with the consent of City, change the grade of any street, highway or road over which state highway traffic is routed. 3. State, City and College pledge complete cooperation. each with the other, in order to accomplish effectively those things set forth and agreed to in this agreement. 4. State, City and College have determined actual total cost of project shall be shared on an equal basis, that is each shall bear 33.33% of the cost incurred. NOW, THEREFORE, the premises being in general as stated in the foregoing RECITALS, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: THINGS TO BE DONE BY CITY: 1. City, by execution of this agreement, approves the Recitals herein, things to be done by State, things to be done by College, and all other provisions set forth in this agreement. 2. City shall, prior to any work, obtain a Miscellaneous Permit to Perform Operations Upon a State Highway, and adhere to the specifications of the permit. 3. City shall, with City fDrces, perfDrm the preliminary engineering wDrk. This is tD include the field survey and design wDrk Df prDject. . 4. City shall, upDn cDmpletiDn Df the design, submit their prDpDsed design tD the State for their review and apprDval. 5. City shall upDn apprDval Df the design by the State CDnstruct stated prDject with City fDrces. 6. City shall, upDn tD the State and CDllege. brDken dDwn by materials, cDmpletiDn Df stated prDject, submit itemized billings These billings shall include all CDsts incurred, labDr and equipment. THINGS TO BE DONE BY STATE: 1. State by execution of this agreementJ approves the Recitals herein, things to be dDne by City, things tD be dDne by College, and all Dther prDvisiDns set fDrth in this agreement. 2. State shall issue a Miscellaneous Permit tD the City tD PerfDrm OperatiDns UpDn a State Highway. 3. State shall, upDn recelvlng the prDpDsed design, review prDpDsed design and, if acceptable, give apprDval. 4. State shall, upDn receipt of itemized billings frDm the City, review the billings and pay 33.33% of the itemized CDsts to the City. THINGS TO BE DONE BY COLLEGE: 1. College shall upDn receipt Df itemized billings frDm the City, review the billings and pay 33.33% Df the itemized CDsts to the City. Please indicate apprDval and acceptance Df the PrDject and Agreement by 'signatures in the spaces prDvided belDw. Return three signed cDpies tD the State Highway Maintenance Dffice at 2692 NDrth Pacific Highway, MedfDrd, OregDn 97501. STATE OF OREGON, by and through its Department of Transportation, Highway Division CITY OF ASHLAND, by and through its City Officials MaYDr DirectDr of Public WDrks SOUTHERN OREGON STATE COLLEGE, by and thrDugh its Dfficials Col1e2e President MINUTES ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 1985 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:37 p.m. by Chairperson Don Greene. In attendance were Carole Steinbrenner, Mike Slattery, Car- lyle Stout, Neil Benson, Rob Winthrop, Betty Lou Dunlop, Brent Thomp- son, Assistant Planner Steve Calfee, Associate Planner Steve Jan- nusch, Planning Director John Fregonese and Administrative Secretary Nancy Pes kind. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS AND ORDERS A correction was made to the Findings for Planning Action #85-054; Conclusory Findings 2.2, line 8, the word "working" was changed to "parking." A correction was made to the Minutes of the Regular meeting of July 10, 1985; at the bottom of page 6, the spelling of the word "further" as corrected. Other than these two changes, the Minutes and Findings and Orders of the Regular Meeting of July 10, 1985 were approved as written. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS PA #85-063 ANNEXATION & ZONE CHANGE FORDYCE/EAST MAIN/WIGHTMAN APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND PLANNING ACTION #85-063 is a request for annexation of approximately 67 acres of property in the vicinity of Fordyce, East Main & Wightman Streets into the city limits. Current County zoning of the property is RR-5. The property would be rezoned to R-1-5P (Single-family Residential/Performance Overlay) upon annexation. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single-family Residential. Zoning: RR-5 (Rural Resi- dential>. Assesso's Map #'s: 10B/10D. Tax Lot #'s: 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1100, 1200, 1300, 1400, 1500, 1600, 1700, 1800, 1900, 2100, 2200, 2300, 2400, 2500, 2600, 2700, 2800/1300. APPLICANT: City of Ashland STAFF REPORT Fregonese gave the Staff Report explaining that there methods of annexation; public election, triple majority, ation can be mandated to alleviate a health hazard. majority method would require the consent to annex of a are three or an annex- The triple ma jor ity of APC, 8-14-85, Page 1 the property owners, a majority of the property value and a majority of the property area. The Land Use Ordinance requires the following conditions for an annexation: a) that the land is within the Urban Growth Boundary, b) that the land is contiquous with the city limits, c) that public services are available or can be made available to the site, d) that the proposed zoning and development are in conformance with the comprehensive Plan, e) that a public need for additional land as defined in the Comprehensive Plan can be demonstrated, and f) that the proposal is a logical extension of the existing city limits. Of the 67 acres proposed for annexation, the property owners of 32 acres are requesting annexation. The City is proposing annexation of the additional 35 acres including 20 acres owned by SOSC, 5 of which will be the site of the new National Guard Armory. The City is proposing to include the additional acreage in the annexation at this time is to create a logical extension of the city limits and to alleviate a potential health hazard through the availability of sanitary sewer to the affected parcels. Relative to future develop- ment in the area, Fregonese stated that Wightman Street would probab- ly be extended with a cross-tie into Fordyce Street. Other than that, individual lots will probably develop with dead end streets. The area proposed for annexation has already been authorized for sewer service and is presently on City water. At this time, Fregon- ese read a letter from the Jackson County Planning Department expres- sing their views on the proposal. In response to the letter, Fregon- ese commented that tax lots 100 & 200 were not included in the proposed annexation because the letter from the County came too late to notice them for this meeting. Also, he didn't know if we would get a triple majority if they were included. Fregonese then read a memo from Public Works Director Al Alsing which also responded to the letter from the County. He stated that in the past the City has not assumed jurisdiction of County roads until they are brought up to City standards. He suggested that the annexation could be approved without dealing with the question of road maintenance. This could be solved at a later time by the Public works Department. The County's concerns regarding buffering of farm uses from new higher density residential uses should be mitigated by the City's PUD ordinance. Slattery asked for a clarification on the non-inclusion of tax lots 100 & 200. Fregonese responded that these lots are landlocked - not accessed by City streets - and are not readily avaiable to City services. They do not comprise a logical extension of the city limits and are not necessary as a part of this annexation. Winthrop asked how Staff came up with the figure of 135 as the estimated future development in the area. Fregonese responded that the esti- mate was based on the base density in the R-1-5P zone, typical de- velopment trends in the City, topography of the area including drain- ageways and existing dwellings in the area. He said that there could be as many as 200 new units if the area were fully developed. Thomp- son asked what the R-1-3.5 zoning designation meant. Fregonese replied that it typically was used for townhouse style or mobil home development. At this time, Fregonese reported that CPAC had a public hearing the previous night on this proposal and had voted unanimously APC, 8-14-85, Page 2 to recommend approval of,.the annexation to City Council and that they had also recommended a zoning designation of R-1-5P for all but the property owned by SOSC which they are recommending to be zoned SO. Stout asked what the R-1-5P development allowed. Fregonese replied that a 5,000 square foot minimum lot size was required or a Perform- ance Standards Subdivision with 5-6,units per acre being the typical design. Stout then asked about the R-1-7.5 zoning designation. Fregonese responded that it was a 50% increase in density with 4 6.4 units per acres, typically 4-5 units per acre on the average. Stout asked if Staff had computed out the projected development of the area based on the 7.5 zoning. Fregonese replied that it would probably decrease 10%-15%. Stout asked if the City had any plans to widen East Main Street and add bicycle paths. Fregonese responded that widening of the street was not justified but that the City may widen the shoulders and add curb and gutters. Thompson asked what modification was anticipated for the railroad crossing on East Main. Fregonese replied that none was planned. Winthrop asked for a fur- ther explanation of the costs to the property owners in the area. Fregonese explained that the property owners on Fordyce Street would pay a systems development fee and annexation fees on a front foot and square footage basis. They can pay this in cash or finance it through the City. Those in the area recommended for annexation by the City will not be charged annexation fees until they further develop their properties. Sewer hookup fees are paid at the time of hookup. If the sewer line runs within 100' of a person's property, they are required to hook up. Thompson asked what percentage of the septic systems in the area are failing. Fregonese responded that those statistics were not available. Thompson felt that the proposed zoning of the property meant more money for the property owners. Fregonese responded that many of the people in the area were not into subdividing their property. Slattery asked how the health hazard in the area was determined. Fregonese replied that the City had been made aware of the situation by Eric Dittmer of the Jackson County Health Department who had been working with the property owners in the area. Benson asked if the City could annex the area without accepting maintenance of the roads. Fregonese responded that we could and cited Tolman Creek Road and Clay Street as examples of this having been done. ' Benson then asked if a local improvement district could be formed for improving the streets. Fregonese responded that this was not needed at this time and that it would probably be 5-10 years before the improvements will be needed. At this time it was entered into the record that a field trip was made to the site by Steve Calfee, Betty Lou Dunlop, Neil Benson, Mike Slattery, Rob Winthrop, Brent Thompson, and John Garcia on Tuesday, August 13, 1985 at 3:30 P.M.. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING virginia Jackson, 955 "B" Street, stated that she didn't believe that Thompson asked her what size lots she owner of tax lot 2500 & 2600, her septic system was failing. would like to see in the area. APC, 8-14-85, Page 3 She responded that she would like them not to be too small the area is scenic and larger lots would attract higher cost Jim Johnston, owner of tax lot 1400, speaking for ,himself owner of lots 1200 & 1300, stated that the 5000 square foot was needed due to the topography of the area and the ditches and so that the lots can be divided and utilized proper manner. As there was no further testimony, the Public Hearing was closed. because housing. and the lot size drainage in the COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION Stout asked how many property owners were in the audience. A majority of the auduience raised their hands. He then asked how many were in favor of the larger lot size. Only two people raised their hands. Stout stated that he was in favor of larger .lots to maintain the rural nature of the area. Thompson stated that he was in favor of R-l-10 zoning for the area because of the agricultural nature of the surrounding area, the close proximity of the railroad tracks and crossing on East Main and the traffic in the area. He felt that an exception could be made for the creek area. Fregonese responded that under the P overlay units were not lost for the provision of open space. He compared urban lands to rural lands and stated that 2-1/2 acre lots with this topography are not allowed inside the Urban Growth Boundary. He stated that the City has to provide for the need for moderate cost housing and that this area is suitabele for such development in that the community can't afford larger lot housing. There is currently a shortage of smaller lots for development in Ashland. winthrop asked what the last R-1-5 development in Ashland was. Fregonese responded that Jessica Lane off of Oak Street was. Larry Medinger, 520 Terrace Street, spoke from the audience. He stated that he felt that the proposed area for annexation contained the perfect type of land for R-1-5 development because it is relatively flat and, therefore, room can be left between the houses. He predicts that 5,000 square foot lots would sell for approximately $13,000. Stout asked Medinger how much he felt 7,500 square foot lots would sell for. Medinger replied that they would cost 50% more. Winthrop then brought up the subject of public need. He felt that, per the Staff Report, a public need for land does not exist. There- fore, the public need is for sewers to alleviate the health hazared in the area. Since annexation is not required for the provision of sewer service, he could not see that a public need existed. Fregonese responded that the property owners in the area wanted the full gamut of City services to be available to them, not just sewer, and that they wanted to be a part of Ashland. He felt that the city would have nothing to lose by annexing this area. Slattery stated that he agreed with Thompson and Stout in favoring larger lots. He would rather not see a lot of flag lot development. Dunlop posed the question why cities annex land. Greene responded that in annexing APC, 8-14-85, Page 4 land wi thin an urban Growth Boundary, the land is ,determined to be urbanizable and can be provided with serivces so that it can be developed. Winthrop asked if the property in question had to be zoned R-l. Greene responded that is did, 'per the Comprehensive Plan designation. Fregonese stated that if the annexation did not take place the property owners would have to pay triple charges for sewer and that the property would remain subject to county development standards which are less stringent than the City's. This could result in development that the City would not want to have such as mobil homes in a residential area. The Comp plan limits the zoning for the area to R-l but it can be 5, 7.5 or 10. Greene explained that when the Comp Plan was written that this area was identified as not being rural land. The City's need is not for more 10,000 square foot lots but for rental units and low cost housing. therefore, he favors the 5,000 square foot zoning designation. Stout took a poll of the Commissioners as to how many favored the 7,500, square foot lot size. Slattery, Winthrop and Thompson, as well as Stout, were in favor. Greene reminded the Commissioners that since since the Per- formance Standards overlay would require performance standards subdi- visions, they could require buffering of the rural lands at the time of development. Slattery felt that denser development would cause congestion on Fordyce and East Main. Winthrop asked Fregonese to show the Commission on the map where R-1-7.5 zoning exists in the City. He showed that most of the 7,500 square foot lots in the City are above the boulevard between Tolman Creek Road and Wimer Street, all of which is already developed. Also, the last part of Quiet Village is zoned R-1-7.5., The rest of the residential land below the boulevard is zoned 5,000 square feet. Applewood is the only recent R-1-7.5 subdivision in the City. There is little flat land in the City zoned R-1-7.5. Winthrop reiterated that he felt congestion, traffic and density were the main issues. Greene stated that what the City needs in the way of land, what the City can provide services to, and what the roads can handle should be considered. Thompson asked how much R-l-10 land there was below the boulevard. Fregonese re- sponded that there was none. He stated that typically the slope of the land has determined the zoning in the case of most of the R-l-10 land in the City. Thompson then asked about parks in the area. Fregonese stated that the 3 acres across from the Justice Center on East Main is planned for park purposes. Also, a lot of College property in the area as well as the Walker School is in recreational facilities. Thompson felt that in light of this he would be willing to consider a higher density since open space will be nearby. After further discussion, Stout made a motion to approve the annexation, with Benson seconding. The,vote was unanimous to approve. Next, Slattery made a motion to zone the residential portion of the annexa- tion R-1-7.5P and the portion owned by SOSC be zoned SO. The vote was 5 to 3 to deny the motion with Stout, Thomp-son and Winthrop casting the only "yes" votes. A motion was then made and seconded to zone the residential property R-1-5P and the SOSC property SO. The vote was 5 to 3 to approve with Stout, Slattery and Withrop casting the "no" votes. Slattery stated that he and Stout and Thompson would APC, 8-14-85, Page 5 like to submit a minority'report to the Council. Commission took a break. At this time, the TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PA #85-069 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ROMEO INN APPLICANT: BRUCE & MARGARET HALVERSON PLANNING ACTION #85-069 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a change in ownership for the existing Traveler's Accommodation (Romeo Inn) at 295 Idaho Street. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Multi-family Residential. Zoning: R-2 (Multi-family Residential). Assessor's Map #: 9CA. Tax Lot #: 5301. APPLICANT: Bruce & Margaret Halverson Jannusch gave the Staff Report explaining that the request was for a change in ownership of the Romeo Inn. The present owners have fulfilled all conditions of their approval and have received no negative feedback from the surrounding neighborhood. The applicants are not proposing any changes to the use at this time. He stated that Staff is recommending approval of the application. Dunlop asked if the new owners would receive the permanent approval that had been granted to the use. Jannusch responded that the Commission could allow them have the permanent approval but that normally they would be subject to 3 annual reviews. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING Toney Romeo, 295 Idaho, was there representing the applicant. He stated that he was available for questions. As there was no further testimony, the Public Hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION Greene suggested that it would appropriate to require 3 annual reviews for the new owners. After further discussion, Slattery moved to approve the proposal with Stout seconding. The vote was unanimous to approve, on the condition that the facility receive annual review for the first 3 years of operation. PA #85-071 SITE REVIEW CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1662 SISKIYOU APPLICANT: RICHARD VARNEY APC, 8-14-85, Page 6 PLANNING ACTION #85-071 is a request for a Site Review and Conditional Use Permit for a proposed addition to the existing structure at 1662 Siskiyou Blvd. and for the expansion of Varney's Dry Cleaning facility. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial. Zoning: C-l (Commercial). Assessor's Map #: 15AB. Tax Lot #: 8200. APPLICANT: RICHARD VARNEY Jannusch gave the Staff Report stating that in September of 1983 the applicant received a Site Review and Conditional Use Permit to in- stall a dry cleaning facility in his already existing laundry facili- ty, which was a permitted use. He is now proposing an 800 square foot addition to the structure to allow him to expand the dry clean- ing facility. The addition will have no public access. Jannusch commended the applicant for installing exemplary retrofitted landscaping. He explained that the applicant plans to install one additional dry cleaning machine which will run through the existing recycling process. Jannusch then reviewed the conditions of approval for the Commission. Stout asked if the applicant could be required to get a type of machine that would hook into the recycling system. Jannusch responded that it could be made a condition of approval. Thompson asked if a condition could be added that the parking lot be resurfaced. Fregonese responded that the parking lot was old and some rocks were coming up but that it was not in a state of disrepair at the present time but may need to be resurfaced in 5 years. Winthrop asked about requiring trees or landscaping on the Clark Street frontage. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING Richard Varney, applicant, spoke in favor of the proposal. He stated that there is presently a an oak tree on the 31' frontage and that the only other place to put a tree would be on City property. He said that a backhoe would be clearing out the area behind the structure. Slattery asked if the new machine will recycle the solvent. Varney explained how the recycling system worked and that it was 98% efficient. He stated that it is a federal requirement. Helen Woodworth, owner of Richmaid Ice Cream, stated that she had just sold the property to her daughter, Carolyn Eidman. Regarding the filling behind Varney's property, she stated that she would like to see a fence between their properties if there was going to be parking in the rear because she didn't want people going to Varney's to use her property as a driveway. varney responded to her comments assuring her that this would not be the case. As there was no further testimony, the Public Hearing was closed. APC, 8-14-85, Page 7 COOMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION Stout felt that Woodworth's concerns had been adequately addressed by the applicant. After further discussion, "Stout moved to approve the proposal with Dunlop seconding the motion. The vote was unanimous to approve. PA #85-072 SITE REVIEW CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT LINDA VISTA CARE CENTER APPLICANT: DOUG & PAMELA FOGG PLANNING ACTION #85-072 is a request for a Site Review and Conditional Use Permit for the proposed expansion of the Linda Vista Care Center at 135 Maple Street. The existing facility will be replaced by an all new larger structure on the same site. Comprehen- sive Plan Designation: Multi-family Residential. Zoning: R-2 (Multi-family Residential). Assessor's Map #: 5DA. Tax Lot #'s: 4800, 4900, 5000. APPLICANT: Charles & Pamela Fogg STAFF REPORT Jannusch gave the Staff Report explaining that the new structure would be twice the size of the existing one. He explained the exist- ing parking situation and the proposed changes including changes to access to the site using the Scenic Avenue right of way which will be improved to half-street width. They have received approval from the council to do this. He stated that the plans had been reviewed by the Historic commission who had approved it. They felt it was compatible with surrounding uses and did not take issue with the metal roof. Fregonese explained that Staff had changed their opinion on the roof and were orginally going to recommend use of another type of roofing material. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING Kip Lombard, 622 Siskiyou Blvd., attorney for the applicant, was the first to speak. He described the community's need for housing for the elderly in need of care and continued by reviewing his submitted findings. Stout asked him he concurred with the proposed Conditions of Approval. Lombard replied that the architect has agreed to them all. winthrop asked Lombard how he would characterize the residents/patients of the Linda vista Care Center. He stated that they needed more care than normal but are not in need of hospitaliza- tion. Some are long term and some are short term residents. Win throp asked what the state approval was based on. Lombard suggested that he address his question to a person in the audience who was on the approval committee. Robert Losch, 22108 S. Central, Canby, architect for the applicant, APC, 8-14-85, Page 8 was next to speak. He characterized the project as a long term care facility which had to comply with state fire code requirements, Medicare & Medicaid requirements, Oregon state administrative rules as well as budgetary restrictions. He felt the facility would offer a good environment and quality of life for its residents and would be an asset to the community. He explained that the roof material was not corrugated metal but architectural panels and he showed a sample to the Commission. He felt it was an attractive alternative which he chose because of its durability. It is expected to last for 50 years. He said he is required to put a Class A roof on the facility and that tile would be too heavy and too expensive and asphalt or fiber glass shingles deteriorate too quickly. Fregonese asked if any mechanical equipment would be placed on the roof. Losch replied that the state requires a gas pack for emergency use in case of a power failure which would be placed in the court area and con sealed by a mansard and also a roof mounted fan. He concluded his testimony stating that the state requires the facility to be ready for occupancy within 12 months. At this time, Jannusch addressed a question to Lombard. He asked the outcome of the City Council decision on the opening of Scenic Drive, Lombard stated that it was approved to be improved to half-street with curb on one side or possibly a lighter paving with a berm. Jannusch then suggested to the Commission that Condition of Approval #8 be amended to read, "to standards established by the Public Works Director and the Council." Ina Eggert, 639 N, Main, was the next to speak. The property she owns is directly below the site of the proposal. She expressed concern that there not be any spillage of dirt or construction debris onto her property. She also stated that she did not wish to be expected to pay for the paving of the parking for the care facility. Losch assured that precautions will be taken to prevent any spillage onto her property. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION Regarding colors for the exterior of the structure, Fregonese suggested that Staff approval be added to Condition #2. Condition #8 was discussed and it was decided to add Jannusch's suggested change as well as signing in favor of future improvement to Scenic Drive. Withrop felt that the advantages of using a metal roof material were obvious and that a color should be chosen to minimize the impact of the building. The Commission concurred that the satin finish in the rust color, shown by the applicant's architect was acceptable. After further discussion, Slattery moved to approve the proposal with the above changes to Condition #2 and Condition #8. Winthrop seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous to approve. APC, 8-14-85, Page 9 PA #85-073 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT COACH HOUSE APPLICANT: GARY MITCHELL PLANNING ACTION #85-073 is a request, for a Conditional Use Permit for a change in ownership of the existing Traveler's Accommodation (Coach House) at 70 Coolidge Street. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Mul- ti-family Residential. Zoning: R-2 (Multi-family Residential). Assessor's Map #: 5DA, Tax Lot #: 8900. APPLICANT: Gary Mitchell Jannusch gave the Staff Report stating that this was a similar appli- cation to the on for the Romeo Inn. It is also a simple transfer of ownership with no proposed changes to the use at the present time. Staff is recommending approval and suggesting 3 annual reivews before permanent approval can be applied for. At this ti'me, the Public Hearing was opened, Gary Mitchell, applicant, stated that he was available for questions. Winthrop asked Mitchell about the structure to the southwest of the house. Mitchell replied that it was a garage and would be used as such. Jack Evans, 70 Coolidge, present owner of the Coach House, stated that he had enjoyed 5 years of operating the use. He felt that there had been no negative feedback from the surrounding neighborhood and he felt the use should be allowed to continue. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION After brief discussion, Slattery moved to approve the planning action with the added condition that 3 annual reviews be required before the applicant can apply for permanent approval. Stout seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous to approve. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION #85-060, request for a variance for the provision of 2 off-street parking stalls in lieu of 4, as required by Ordinance at 985 East Main Street. After some discussion the Commission voted to call this application up for a public hearing because they did not feel comfortable with the granting of this type of Variance in the Historic District and they wanted to hear futher testimony. APC, 8-14-85, Page 10 STAFF BUSINESS The first item under Staff Business "Interpretation of Sign Code re: neon" was tabled until the next meeting, Fregonese asked the Commission to vote to hold a public hearing on proposed changes to the Transportation plan and to the,Manufactured Housing Ordinance regarding storage of mobil homes on single-family residential lots. A motion was made to this effect, seconded and passed to hold a public hearing on these items at earliet possible time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 P.M, APC, 8-14-85, Page 11 ~ CITIZEN'S PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE * MINUTES * August 13, 1985 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:36 p.m. by Chairperson Molly Vedder. Those present were John Garcia, Roy Levy, Bud Wilkerson, Richard Sept, Kathie Kennedy, Assistant Planner Steve Calfee, Plan- ning Director John Fregonese, and Administrative Secretary Nancy Peskind. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of June 11, 1985 were approved with the addition of the word "original" to the last paragraph on page 2 in reference to signs on buildings that were more than 50 years old. PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION #85-063, request for annexation of approximately 67 acres of property in the vicinity of Fordyce, East Main and Wightman Streets into the City Limits. The property would be rezoned to R-1-5P (Single-family Residential/Performance Overlay) upon annexation. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single-family Residential. Zoning: RR-5 (Rural Residential). Assessor's Map #: 10B/10D. Tax Lot #'s: 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1100, 1200, 1300, 1400, 1500, 1600, 1700, 1800, 1900, 2100, 2200, 2300, 2400, 2500, 2600, 2700, 2800/1300.' APPLICANT: City of Ashland, et al. Calfee gave the Staff ,Report explaining that the property owners along Fordyce Street are requesting annexation due to failing septic systems. They wish to hook up to City sewer and to be eligible for other City services. In addition to the properties requesting annexation the City is proposing to include additional properties for boundary alignment purposes. He described the topo- graphy of the area and explained the triple majority rule for annexing without a public election. He explained that the potential health hazard in the area due to failing septic tanks and surface water had been pointed out by the County Health Department. After further discussion, the Public Hearing was opened, Virginia Jackson, 955 'B'Street, stated that she owned tax lots 2500 & 2600 on Fordyce Street. She had signed her Consent to Annex and wanted to turn it in. CPAC Min, 8-13-85, Page 1 '. The owner of tax lot 700 & 800 asked when the sewer for the Armory would be installed before consenting to annex. It was his feeling that he may be located closer to that sewer main than to the Fordyce Street sewer main. Fregonese responded that that informa- tion was not available at this time and that unless he was within 100' of the sewer main he would not be required to hook up. Rod Stevens, 872 Beswick, stated that the groundbreaking for the Armory is expected to happen in June of '86 depending on when financing can be obtained. The Armory has a renewable 5 year lease for the westerly 5 acres of the sasc property. He stated that sasc has no other plans for developing the rest of the acreage at this time. Vedder asked for a clarification regarding the proposed zoning. Fregonese replied that the area would be zoned R-1-5P except for the property owned by sasc which would be zoned SO. Sept asked if the annexation had to precede the installation of the sewer. Fre- gonese responded that it did not. Vedder stated that she was opposed to the 5,000 square foot lot size and felt that 7,500 was more logical. Fregonese responded that the purpose was not to create more inventor~ of land in the City but to provide a more logical zoning and to keep the housing costs lower. 7,500 square foot lots would increase the cost of the housing that could be built there. Sept asked how many houses could be built on lots 400 & 300. Fregonese responed that under 5,000 square foot zoning 50- 65 houses could be built and under 7,500 square foot zoning 40-50 houses could be built. Wilkerson asked where the increased traffic would go. Fregonese replied that a street would be installed to cross tie Wightman into Fordyce with the future street terminating in 2 cul-de-sacs. As the properties are subdivided they will be required to sign in favor of improvements, including widening and paving, of Wightman. Kennedy asked what the densities per acres would be. Fregonese explained that under 5,000 square foot zoning it would be 5-6 1/2 units per acre and under 7,500 square foot zoning it would be 4-6 1/2 units per acre, typically 5.4 units per acre. Vedder stated that she felt the City was already divided economically above and below the boulevard. Sept felt it was a historical trend and buying patterns can't be ignored. He felt that the topography of the area lent itself to lower cost housing. Vedder felt that the City will eventually run out of developable land above the boulevard and asked where else higher cost or middle cost housing can go. Levy felt that this was a good point in that Ashland is not an industrial town. Vedder felt that other than hillside property should be available for high and middle cost housing. Sept disagreed per the Comp plan's direction to provide for lower cost housing. Wilkerson felt that there are many lots available at all prices. Fregonese interjected that the property owners in the area had requeste4 the 5,000 square foot zoning. Kennedy asked CPAC Min, 8-13-85, Page 2 '. what the overall plan for the area was. Fregonese replied that the cross tie between Fordyce and Wightman was the oniy change planned at this time and that each individual development would probably be self-contained with dead end streets. Carolyn Eidman, a Fordyce Street property owner, stated that they had requested the 5,000 square foot lot si ze in light of .creeks in the area as well as existing lot sizes. After further discussion, Sept moved to recommend in favor of the annexation with the R-1-5P zoning designation for the residential property and the SO zoning designation for the property owned by SOSC and that the "Procedural" section of the Staff Report be adopted as Findings. Vedder felt that the SO zoning should be added to the front of the Staff Report. Wilkerson seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous to approve. ADJOURNMENR As there was no other business on the agenda, the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 P,M, CPAC Min, 8-13-85, Page 3 // -. v ~emnrandum September II, 1985 '(IT 0: Honorable Mayor and City Council '"" 0-0 Jlf rom: Al Williams, Director of Electric Utilities ~ubjert: Electric Department Activities for July 1985 The following is a condensed report of the activities of the Electric Department for the month of July 1985. The department installed one new underground service and two new overhead services. There were five temporary services installed and one removed. We responded to 25 requests for location of underground utilities and repaired 17 street lights. Three transformers were installed for a total of 225 KVA and one 50 KVA transformer was removed for a gain of 175 KVA to the system. The department installed 2,015 feet of wire and 890 feet of conduit this month. There were 19 meters replaced. We worked 656 delinquent account notices and 71 delinquent accounts were disconnected. There were 320 connects and 351 disconnects for a total of 671 orders. Employees held their monthly safety-meeting. ~emnrandum Septe",ber 12, 1985 mo: Honorable Mayor and Members of City [ounel i JIf rom: Vie Lively, Director ~ubjed: Department of Pub I I c Safety Monthly Reports tor AU9ust, 1985 Attached are the AU9ust 1985 monthly reports for the Divisions of the Department of Public Safety. )/ DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY MONTHLY REPORT - AUGUST, 1985 " FIRE DIVISION The Fire Division This Division has 9,67, Over 1984, responded to 79 a I arms and ca II s responded to 527 calls, to date, for assistance. an increase of Late In AU9ust it was discovered that the fue I tanks at the Un i On Oil Service Station at Siskiyou Blvd. and Hi9hway 66 were leakin9 fue I into the 9round, The Un i on Oi I Company was very cooperat i ve in workin9 with us, and the Department of Environmental Quality, to minimize -the damage .that hydrocarbons can cause to the environment. The fuel tanks were replaced with the Fire Division monitoring the process. Two of Our Student Firefi9hts left in August, one to ,"ork for a law firm in Port I and and the other has been accected into the R,O.T.C. program with the United States Marine Corps. Both youn9 men are graduated from Southern Oregon State Co liege. POLlCE DIVISION The Pol ic:e Division has fi led an appl ic:ation for ac:c:reditation with the Commission for Acc:reditation for Law Enforc:ement Agenc: i es. Th i s pr09ram is des i 9ned to upgrade law enforc:ement agencies nationwide to a national standard. The accreditation proc:ess will take from 12 to 1B months to comp I ete, there are c:urrently only 12 agenc:ies whic:h are ac:c:redited. Another month has passed with a Sergeant and a Patrol Offic:er off on SAIF. We are attempting to get them released to return to work on a I imited status basis for i ight duty. The Investigations Division has cleared several major cases, onE involving the diversion of approximately 45,000 capsules ot contra I I ed substances by a' woman work i ng in a I Dca I doctor J 5 offic:e. Investigation of an attempted theft involving the inflating of the amount of meat delivered to SOSC has resulted In the arrest of 2 men. The invest i 9at i on i nd i cates that severa I thousand dollars may be involved in this c:ase, Patrol officers have c:leared several burglaries of a local business and have cleve"loped suspects in another major theft case. On August 16 they provided sec:urity for the Sec:retary of the Interior when he stayed the night at the loc:al Youth Hostel, An offic:er On patrol spotted a fire burning in a slash pi Ie at the Corman Corp. mi II, COMMUNICATION/RECORDS DIVISION ~ :ne Commu~ication5 Division received 603 emergency cal)s and 303 n:ln-emergency ca Ii:. or. 'tn2 C7'-1-1 ::.mSlI'~2:!=Y i! n2S. D i spa:.c;.,ers :,andled 2,656 business calls c.nc t.h~ie wet"e d,289 1'-3d10 transm j 55 Ions recorded. Po Ii =2 cases ; r; i t i E.ted "tG:'2, i ed 6~:. 8:ld :=ire/Res:::ue 72. 7he Ccmpu~er Aidej Dispat:::~ personnel the system n2S ~een C i 5p3't.=h 5Y5"':.2;;: Li.:2S !=ut ill tne Center TO:' the tc wark Wlt~. 5ev'?1"a! Jbugs} were founo anG removed t.ef'!1pD~.ar; i>, tor UDgrad i n3. T~AI~nr\!G_ i=ire personnei received t.raini"9 in r-elay pumptng, firs: wit.h a =i25sroam session durin9 which the 3,[.;5 gave 2 iess=n on tM2 math of reI:?)" pumping ane, "then a S2SSiDn~ in t.;,e field. ,Ire o i str i ct ;;--5 2.55 i st.ed witI-. t(-,e i r t.anker. Ferson1'1e I a I so reel?! Ijec' EMS trainin~ on the subje=~ of Heat atr~k9. Lt. Jim Warren tram the Josephane County SneriffJs Department conduct.ed a class on How to handle Aircraft Incidents. The main emphasis of Lt.. Warrens class was how to safely open aircraft whi=n ;,sve been involved in an accident where forcible entry is required. We hope ~G have Lt. Warran back In October for a second session at. the airport. COMMUNITY SERVICE VOLUNTEER PROGRAM Fifty-two volunteers were active in August, contributing 84b hours of volunteer time, with One person contribut.ing 99 at those hours. Volunteers are workins in t.he CSV otficei st.afting the Senior Center Dft ice and prov i ding per sonne I for b I ODd pressure c Ii nics, flu clinics, toot clinicsJ assistins tl..iit(-, insurance fOrlL15J Loaves and Fishes, providing transpor~ation, arts and crafts, smoke detector maintenance; in the schools with the Block Home FiD~ram} b:cycie safety programsl adult crossin9 guard supervision and t r a ; 1'1 i n 9 and the Ad u I t Lea r n i n = C e n t e r j a't the Pub lie Lib r a r:.' a n c. Ashland Community Hospitai. T(-,e CSV office works cioseiy with Voiuntary Action, an arm of Ln2 !jniteci Way, and 851nt.aiii5 a sataiit.2 office Tor t.he Ret.ired Senior Voiunt.eer Program. These volun~eer grOups ~ooperat.e in combined aciver~isins and by referring Interes~2d volunt.eers 1.0 the agency wnere the i r" expert. i se Cen best 62 ut i i i zed. ,'1UNIC IPAL COURT There were 728 cases f i led in August wh i Ch i nc i uded 265 traft i c violations, 27 formal compiaints and 436 parkin: =itations. There were e tot.al of 7~a caS25 ciosed, these inCluded 128 traffic viDia~ionsJ 22 formal compiaint.s, 101 fines suspended, b cases ciismissea, 1 found not guilty, ,,0 one was piaced On city work detai [, 436 parKins ci~atiDns werE paid and 54 were dismissed. A total of 223 persons appeared betore the violations bureau and 35 appeared before the Court. Tnere werE 5 t.ri2IS.