The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2011-0517 Council Mtg PACKETC 1 T Y O F �SHLAND �fllpOf[BO►: Any citizen may orally address the Council on non-agenda items during the Public Forum. My ci�izen may submi� wrinen commrnts to ihe Council on any item on the Agenda, unless il is 1he subjea of a public hearing and ihe record is closed. Time permilting, the Vresiding Offirer may allow oral testimony. If you wish to speak, please 611 out Ihe Speaker Requesl (orm loca�ed near the emrance to �he Council Chambers. The chair will recognize you and inform you as to �he amounl of Iime alloned lo you, if any. The time gramed will be dependent to some exlem on the nature of the item under discussioq the number o(people who wish to speak and the length o(�he a�enda. AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL May 17, 2011 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street Note: Items on the Agenda nol considered due to time constraints are automatically continued to the nexl regularly scheduled Council meeting [AMC 2.04.030.E.] 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS V. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS? (5 minutesJ 1. Regular Meeting oi May 3, 2011 2. Continued Meeting of May 4, 2011 VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 8 AWARDS 1. Mayor's Proclamation regarding National Police Week and Peace Officer's Memorial Day 2. Mayor's Proclamation regarding National Historic Preservation Week 3. Presentation regarding Wildfire Zone VII. CONSENT AGENDA /5 minutesJ 1. Will Council approve the minutes of City Boards, Commissions, and Committees? 2. Does Council wish to confirm the Mayor's appointments of Ron Bolstad, Kelly Gustafson, James Hardt, Kathleen Kane, Eric Olson, Ron Parker and Peter Norvell to the Firewise Commission with terms to expire April 30, 2014? 3. Will Council authorize the solicitation of formal bids and proposals for three public works projects? 4. Will Council, acting as the local contract review board, accept a proposal and award a contract for architectural services to Straus 7 Seibert Architects in an amount not to exceed $94,020 for architectural services related to remodeling the Grove to serve as a police station? Does Council wish to confirm the appointment of the City Attorney? Will Council approve the attached proposals for submittal to the ad hoc Homelessness Steering Committee? Does Council wish to endorse a letter from the Conservation Commission to the t)I I�'C;1( iA.1EEi:llV�(.iti ARF� BROADC_ �\ST 1_..I\%I O1�' C:l{:A\\6,1.,9 V I� I I ll II:. C:I'I'Y l'�P :�1I iI „11�D ti 1'�'I=.IS tiI I Ii ;11� �V'.�1tiI 11,1'�l,�.OtZ.l�ti Depariment of Environmental Quality supporting minimal financial impact in the permitting process of Grey Water Systems? 8. Should the Police Department apply for a grant from the United States Department of Justice Ofiice of Community Oriented Policing for one additional o�cer to engage in community policing activities? VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Persons wishing to speak are to submit a"speaker request form" prior to the commencement of the public hearing. Ail hearings must conclude by 9:00 p.m., be continued to a subsequent meeting, or be extended to 9:30 p.m. by a two-thirds vote of council {AMC §2.04.050}) 1. Will Council approve and authorize the Mayor to sign a quitclaim deed to terminate a portion of a public pedestrian access easement located at Lot 9 of the Oaks oi Ashland Planned Community? [20 Minutes) 2. Should Council approve a resolution adopting a supplemental budget establishing appropriations tor an inter-fund loan within the 2010-2011 Budget? [15 Minules] 3. Does the City Council wish to affirm, reverse, modify or remand back to the Planning Commission the decision to approve a Modification ot the Performance Standards Options Subdivision Final Plan Approval (PA#2003-020) for the Strawberry Meadows Subdivision? [60 Minutes] IX. PUBLIC FORUM Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. The Mayor will set time limits to enable all people wishing to speak to complete iheir testimony.) (15 mrnutes maximum] Please note: Comments or questions irom the public that are of a defamatory nature, such as statements directed at individual Councilors' character, intentions, etc., are out ol order because they interlere with the work o( the Council. The Council will not answer questions posed during public lorum but may direct stafl to answer such questions later. X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Will Council approve an agreemenl with Standing Stone Brewing Co., for the lease of 265 acres of the Imperatrice Ranch property? [30 Minutesj XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Will Council approve a lease agreement with Colwell Chiropractic for use of the Cily owned lot at 430 N. Main Street for parking purposes? [15 Minutes] 2. Will Council authorize staff to develop a new Special Events Permit ordinance and approve recommended interim special event fees? [10 Minutes] XII. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS None. XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS XIV. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Acl, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Adminis�ra(or's oKce at (541) 488-6002 (T7l' phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Ciry to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35. f 02-35. f 04 ADA TiUe I). C'UI'�'(;II l�tlil=; I iV'(�S ;VZI. 13RC),4DC Ati'l I_IV'(, (ll� C'I�IAVNI;f, 9 l�ISI'f �I'II15 C.1'I�Y i)I':151�IL:�A'Dti \��F:13 �I'1 F ;�"I� ��'\�'V�'.;A�FIL:ANI).OR.i!S AJHLANU (:lTY CUUNI:/L Mtt //NCi May 3, 2011 Pagc l aj9 MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL May 3, 2011 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilor Slattery, Morris, Lemhouse, Voisin, Silbiger, and Chapman were present. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor S[romberg noted the passing of Don Mackin who was admired and appreciated by many in the community and honored him with a moment of silence. He wen[ on to move agenda i[em #3 under the Consent Agenda [o the next Council meeting. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS? The Regular Meeting minutes of Apri] 9, 2011 were approved as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS AWARDS Mayor Stromberg presented the Ragland Award in memoriam to the late Steve Hauck and described Mr. Hauck's many accomplishments. Mr. Hauck's family accepted the award on his behalf. Mayor S[romberg announced vacancies on the Conserva[ion Commission, the Forest Lands Commission, and the Tree Commission. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Will Council approve t6e minutes of City Boards, Commissions, and Committees? 2. Will Council approve a four month extension to the RVTD/City of Ashland Reduced Fare Program Agreement? 3. Will Council, acting as t6e local contract review board, accept a proposal and award a contract for architectural services to Straus Seibert Architects in an amount not to exceed $94,020 for architectural services related to remodeling of the Grove to serve as a police station? 4. Should Council accept the quarterly report as presented? 5. Does Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application from Peter Bolton dba "The Playwright" at 258 A Street, #3? 6. Does Council wish to approve the Ambulance Operator's License renewal for Ashland Fire and Reswe? 7. Will Council direct staff to finalize a Quick Response Project with the Transportation and Growth Management Program to fund the preparation of a redevelopment plan for the area southwest of the intersection of Ashland Street and Tolman Creek Road? 8. Will Council approve Parks Department staff's request to submit a grant application to Oregon State Parks for a playground equipment upgrade in Lithia Park in 2011? Will Council grant a hvo-year approval to allow Parks staff to apply for a 2012 grant if 2011 grant fuuds are not secured? Councilor Slattery requested that item #4 be pulled, Councilor Chapman requested that item #2 be pulled, AJHLANU (;l7Y (:UUNC/L Mtt.77NU May 3, 2011 Puge 2 oj9 and Councilor Silbiger requested that item #7 be pulled for diswssion. Councilor Slattery/Voisin m/s to approve Consent Agenda items #1 and #5, #6 and #8. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motioo passed. Council expressed concem on extending the Rogue Valley Transit District (RVTD) contract and wanted assurances there would be a plan at the end of the four-month ex[ension. Public Works Director Mike Faught explained the Planning Commission and Transportation Commission and others would meet May 24, 2011 regarding the Transportation System Plan (TSP) with focus directed on the RVTD contract. He was confident they would have an altemative by the September 201 1 extension dead]ine. Councilor Chapman/Voisin m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #2. Voice Vote: Councilor Voisin, Chapman, Morris, Slattery and Lemhouse, YES; Councilor Silbiger, NO. Motion passed 5-1. Councilor Silbiger requested clarification on City investments on the Summary of Cash and Inveslments. City Recorder Barbara Christensen explained there was no change in the current inves[ment policy. The interest rate in the Local Govemment Poo1 was .5% and there was nothing she could purchase currently that was within the law, met the investment policy, and protected City money correctly. Council expressed concem the Quarterly Financia] Report was on the Consent Agenda. Staf£ explained why and would have the reports in a different section of the agenda for future meetings to allow time for a presentation and discussion. Community Development Director Bill Molnar addressed the Quick Response Project and described transportation and access issues to the site and the impact on potential projects. The grant would help alleviate those issues by providing a development plan that would identify private development and future access when they occur. The project intended to look at access to the other side of the street but it would be challenging. Councilor Voisin/Morris m/s to approve Consent Agenda items #4 and #7. Voice Vote: all AYES. PUBLIC HEAIt1NGS 1. Does Council wish to waive the Land Use application fee of $1878.0 for a variance to construct an eight-foot high wall, rather than six-feet as required in the Land Use Ordinance? Does the Council wish to refund/waive the Community Development and Engineering fees for the 11 owners of homes damaged by the Oak Knoll Fire? Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained [he neighbors rebuilding from the fire requested a land use variance to increase the wall height between residences and I-5 from six-feet to eight-£eet, have it made from non-combustible surface ma[erial, and waive the $1,878 fee. Staff recommended Council waive the fee. Nine of the eleven residences had building permits. Typically, building applications require a series of fees that include System Development Charges (SDCs) and range from $]3,000- $14,000. Since SDCs were already in p]ace for these homes, the building permit fee was approximately $5,900. Part of [he fee included a Community Development and Engineering fee assessed on all building permi[s wi[hin [he City. These fees paid for building permit reviews, on-site inspections and were in place to offset a potential drain on the General Fund. The amount waived estimated at $35,000. Staff did not recommend waiving [hese fees. City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified if Counci] waived the Community Development and Engineering fees the $35,000 would come from the General Fund. Mr. Molnar confirmed staff would conduct a building inspection on the fence and the variance applied to adding 1.5-feet of height to the fence for sound attenuation. AJHLANU 1.Y7 �Y I,�UUNC:/L Mtt /NU May 3, 2017 Puge 3 oj9 Public Hearing Open: 7:55 p.m. Richard Ogier/835 Oak Knoll Drive/Thanked the Police and Fire Department for their assistance during the fire and Ciry staff after the fire. He went on to share what he and his neighbor's experienced dealing with insurance companies and the high cost ro rebuild and encouraged Council to waive the fees. Dan Thomas/897 Oak Knoll Drive/Did not agree with paying development fees for homes that previously existed. He explained the difficulties homeowners were having with the insurance companies and [hat some were not receSving enough funds to rebuild their homes or cover landscaping and fences. He reques[ed Council waive the fees [o help offset the costs with rebuilding the neighborhood. Public Hearing Closed: 8:03 p.m. Councilor Voisin/Slattery m/s to approve waiving the land use application fee for a variance to wall height. DISCUSSION: Councilor Voisin though[ [he public [estimony and neighbor's involvement in the comprehensive plan provided a good basis for waiving ihe fee. Councilor Silbiger would support the motion with the caution that it se[ precedence for similar situations in the fu[ure. Councilor Chapman would support waving the fees because the amount was $170 per home but with concem. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Slattery, Morris, Lemhouse, Silbiger and Chapman, YES. Motion passed. Councilor Lemhouse/Slattery m/s to approve a refund/waiver of Community Development and Engineering fees for property owners in the eleven structures damaged by the Oak Knoll fre of August 2010. DISCUSSION: Councilor Lemhouse noted the economic times and how this situa[ion was different and did not think it would affect the budget. Waiving the fees for these types of situations was [he right thing to do and what Council should do in the future. They could update the code [o reflect waived fees for homes damaged in fire and o[her disasters. Councilor Sla[tery [hough[ it was the right thing to do and referenced how the Fire Department had [o allow several houses to burn in order to set a strong enough fire line to s[op the fire. The homes were sacrificed and it was correct to waive fees. Councilor Chapman opposed waiving the fees and noted an earlier discussion wi[h Council where other fees for the fire were waived. It was a fair price for providing City services. Councilor Silbiger explained in 2000 Council established the fees because for years the City was not charging correctly. This was a hit to the budget and if Council changed the municipal code to waive fees for specific situations, it would have an even larger affect on the budget. Councilor Morris agreed with Councilor Silbiger and Gouncilor Chapman and was not comFortable setting policy by individual actions or events. Councilor Voisin thought the Oak Knoll fire was an exception, commented on the duress the survivors experienced and this was the time for the City to assist by waiving fees. Mayor Stromberg noted the concern of setting precedence was legitimate and it was important to have fair applications of the law. He would support the motion if [he Councilors who wanted to waive the fees would participate in the process of changing the legislation. Councilor Lemhouse, Councilor Voisin, and Councibr Slattery agreed to add amending the code on a future City Council meeting agenda. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Slattery, and Lemhouse, YES; Councilor Morris, Silbiger and Chapman, NO. Mayor Stromberg brought the tie with a YES vote. Motion passed 4-3. 2. Should Council approve a resolution adopting a supplemental budget establishing appropriations for an inter-fund loan within the 2010-2011 Budget? Item delayed to next Council meeting. ASHLANUClY�Y l.'UUN(,7L Mtt77/VC�� May 3, 2011 Page 4 oj9 3. Does the City Council wish to affirm, reverse, modify or remand back to the Planning Commission the decision to approve Planning Action #2010-01239 a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment, Site Review, Tree Removal Permit, and Physical Environmental Constraints Review Permit to construct a 10,632 square foot building at 85 Winburn Way? and Does the City Council wish to approve the Development Agreement proposed by the applicants, make chaages to the Development Agreement prior to approval, or reject the Development Agreement? City AdminisVator MaRha Bennett explained re-opening the Public Hearing [o discuss and address parking and impacts and proposed and futures uses of [he building would allow public testimony on these [wo items. ABSTENTIONS, CONFLICTS, EX PARTE CONTACTS Councilor Slattery had no substantial Ex Parte other then emailed letters he opened by mistake but was not influenced. Councilor Morris, Councibr Lemhouse, Councilor Voisin, and Mayor Stromberg declared no Ex Parte. They also received the same emailed letters, but did not read them. Councilor Silbiger disclosed he read the email from staff and had an encounter with a citizen that told him the Public Hearing was goi�g to be reopened. He did not diswss anything further with the citizen other than surprise the Public Hearing was going to re-opened. Councilor Chapman declared no Ex parte or conflict of interest. Associate Planner Derek Severson s[a[ed [he Public Hearing should pertain to the following: 1. Parking impacts and how to address them 2. Proposed and future uses of the building Councilor SlatteryNoisin m/s to re-open the Public Hearing. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery, Morris, Lemhouse, Voisin and Chapman, YES; Councilor Silbiger, NO. Motion passed 5-1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Stromberg called the re-opening of the Public Hearing for Planning Action No. 2010-01239 to order at 829 p.m. and explained testimony was limited to the following issues: 1. Parking impacts and how to address them 2. Proposed and future uses of the building He went on to sta[e the rules for the conduct of the hearing were in the Public Hearing Format for Land Use Hearings A Guide for Participants and Citizens and available on [he wall in the back of Council Chambers. CHALLENGES Mayor Stromberg read the rules on challenges and the legal description. There were no challenges presented. STAFF REPORT Planning Manager Maria Harris provided a presentation on issues Council might focus on to assist in the decision making process: Building: Is [he proposed size, scale and design of the building appropriate? Parking: Should mitigation for the impacts to the shared public parking system serving the down[own be required? o No requirements o TDM measures (PC recommendation) o Signing in favor of LID (Applicant's proposal) o In-lieu of parking fee AJNLANU (:/7�Y l.'VUN(.YL MGC/7Nli Muy 3, 20/1 Page 5 oj9 Staff Exhibit A: Example of In-Lieu of Parking Fee Table Uses: Should the allowed building uses be modified to be a better fit across from Lithia Park, and in the transitional area between downtown and [he residential neighborhood? PC Recommendation on Uses o Nightclub and bars removed Council did not discuss o Hotels and motels removed Council seemed to concur o Medical offices moved to condi[ional use Council did not diswss Uses Yet to be Discussed o S[ores and shops o Public parking o Medical offices o Churches or similar religious institutions o Nightc]ubs and bars Ms. Bennelt explained [he City traded $500,000 for thirteen spaces in the Lithia lo[ or $31,250 per space. Ms. Harris added the amounts in the In-Lieu of parking fee table were pulled from the record. The average price range for parking spaces was 5,000-$2Q000 and staff chose $16,350 based on Hargadine parking space prices from 2003. Mr. Severson confirmed the calwlation of 47.25 spaces based on 189- seat restaurant had not changed. Councilor SlatteryNoisin m/s to extend Public Hearing until 9:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Melanie Mularz/1101 Village Square Drive/Explained she was the Project Manager for Storyville Coffee and provided a presentation that included: ProposaPs Due Diligence Development Agreement Timeline Appropriate Site Uses Ms. Mulaa explained the Development Agreement (DA) would prohibit medical use for ten years then move i[ back as an approved use. She noted the applicant gave up 55% of potential uses and were not open to further negotiation and would consider it a denial if Council imposed further restrictions on uses. Development Soft Costs o Quantifying public benefit o Site improvements and cons[ruction of Zamboni/skate rental building with ba[hrooms $475,000-$600,00 o System Development Charges $220,000 o Initial planning and preliminary design $300,000 o Total expenses prior to construction on 85 Winburn Way =$1,670,000-$1,72Q000 Wi[hout a comprehensive parking plan, the applicant would not pay an In-Lieu of parking fee. The applicant would consider an In-Lieu of parking fee a denial. This was a C-1 value on a C-1-D property. Owen RoncLelli/Ricks Williams Consulting/Portland, OR/Continued the presentation: Parking Background Parking existing conditions o The goals of Ashland's downtown vision (and the objective of the CI-D zone) ro achieve a dense, retail and entertainment-centric, walk able downtown is succeeding o Parking congestion is a byproduct of an active downtown an a{�firtnation of vilality o People do not come downtown to park o Parking best practices say to update parking management plan every 3-5 years AJHLANU U7Y�(.'VUN(:/L MGG77/V(�� May 3. 20/1 Page 6 oj9 Parking fee in lieu o A parking fee in lieu can be an effective tool when applied properly o Fee in lieu are most commonly used where built off-street parking is required (parking minimums) o Elements of successful fee in lieu policies: establish pazking fund, identify future ]ots, prioritize access improvements, establish fee basis, manage expectalions, council codifies in lieu policy Parking fee in lieu conclusions o Fee in ]ieu is premature o No precedent for fee in lieu withou[ comprehensive parking policy in place o Shows lack of confidence in C-]-D Retail Commercial District regulations o Contradicts goals/vision for downtown o Future pursuit of fee in lieu should be part of existing Parking Management Plan Parking mitigation strategies for existing conditions and recommended changes on the east side of Winburn way that would change turn over times on ]OS parking spaces THOSE WISHING TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY Sidney DeBoer/234 Vista Street/Thought the project was a historic opportunily to continue the progress Ashland needed to move forward. The parking issue was overstated, ihe res[aurant would not generate new people coming to Ashland, and it was more a trade off in uses. The parking issues would not exceed 24 spaces over the current use in the down[own area and he supported [he project. Jeff Benton/263 North 2"" Street/Noted the Planning Commission did address parking and the decision was that since Ashland did not have a parking plan in place they were unable [o vote for an In-Lieu of parking fee. He thought it was too late in the process to change the rules. He did not want parking lots or the subsequent congestion from cars parking. He ques[ioned why medical use was considered a negative. Shannon Deckwar/343 Neil Creek Road/City Recorder Barbara Christensen read comments into the record supporting [he project Thomas Beam/400 Liberty StreeUExplained a document from the Department of Land Conservalion that building depanments submit to the State with 19 criteria was not in the record for the Storyville projecL There were items in the record regazding parking not submi[ted to the Sta[e. A Southem Oregon representative of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) stated that Jackson County required 82 parking spaces for a project the size of Storyville. If the use changed to medical, it would require Medicare pazking. Additionally, the parking use extended to the entire block, not just 85 Winburn Way. He asked that Council remand [he project back to the Planning Commission without prejudice for further review and a proper transportation parking study. Other than the parking concems, it was a wonderful addition to the City. Todd Parks/]011 Village Square Drive/'Chought adding In-Lieu of parking fees after two years of deliberation, withou[ a comprehensive plan and four days beforehand was punitive. He no[ed [he City's Community Development building had little to no resViction in use or pazking requirements when that zone changed to C-1-D. It seemed like a generous offer at 85 Winburn was being seen as a financial windfal l. Laurie MacGraw/423 Lit Way/Urged Council to be open to the great opportunity the projec[ afforded the community. She noted earlier concems with parking when North Mountain Park was conslructed that never came to fruition. She thought the use as a restaurarrt and coffee house was appropriate. Mike Walker/Oak StreeUCity Recorder Barbara Christensen read comments into the record regarding a ASHLA/VU C/ Y C.'UUIV(:/L Mtt /7/V(i May 3, 20I1 Puge 7 oj9 loca] business owner considered an opponent to the project. Thomas Sager/217 4'" StreetlCity Recorder Barbara Christensen read comments into the record supporting the project. REBUTTAL BY THE APPLICANT Attomey Chris Hearn expla�ned the applicant complied with all [he zoning and planning criteria in effect at the time the application was submitted. The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) has a 45-day notice to respond to applicants and is considered an approval if the DLCD does not contact the applicant during that period. He did no[ think any procedutal impropriety occurred there was a full Planning Commission Hearing. He also doubted FEMA issues were applicable, their concern with uses were mostly residential focused and in this case moving it from residential to commercial was pruden[. Finally, it was unusua] to have an In-Lieu of fee policy without passing an ordinance first. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Public Hearing closed 9:23 p.m. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Should Council approve Second Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordiaance Annexing Property and Withdrawing an Annexed Area from Jackson County Fire District No. 5"? In[erim City Attorney Doug McGeary read the ordinance title aloud. Councilor Lemhouse/Slattery m/s to approve Ordinance tJ3048. Roll Call Vote: Councibr Voisin, Chapman, Silbiger, Slattery, Morris, and Lemhouse, YES. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED 3. Does the City Council wish to affirm, reverse, modify or remand back to the Planning Commission the decision to approve Planning Action #2010-01239 a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment, Site Review, Tree Removal Permit, and Physical Environmental Constraints Review Permit to construct a]0,632 square foot building at 85 Winburn Way? and Does the City Council wish to approve the Development Agreement proposed by the applicants, make changes to the Development Agreement prior to approval, or reject the Development Agreement? ADVICE FROM LEGAL AND STAFF Ms. Harris clarified the applicant sent DLCD the required information 45 days prior to the first Planning Commission Hearing. COUNCIL DELIBERATION City Administrator Martha Bennett explained at staff level the issue with medical offices was parking. The applicanYs rebuttal s[ated prohibiting medical uses diminished [he mazket for future propositions. The Planning Commission removed hoteUmotel use and Ihe applicant requested reinstating it in the Development Agreement as a conditional use. In hotel/motel uses, the City required parking in C-1-D and thSs further concerned the applican[ with the future viability of lhe project. CouncSl commented this was a major zone change that should be in the best in[erest of [he public and based on what was right for the propeRy. Alternately, it was a business investment, not a gift from the developers. Staff clarified the Development Agreement allowed Council to tailor uses to the property. AJHLA/VU U/�Y L�UU/Vl:/L Mttl7/Vli May 3, 101 Page 8 oj9 Councilor Chapman/Lemhouse m/s to modify the decision by the Planning Commission to limit the zone cAange to G1-D solely to 85 Winburn Way and to require an In-Lieu-of-Parking Fee ot $16,350 for 25 parking spaces and direct staff to make appropriate cha�ges to the Development Agreement reflecting these changes and bring back ordinance for First Reading. DISCUSSION: Councilor Chapman was in favor of the projecL Instead oT the zone change, he suggested Council have a park overlay with clear space requirements. He agreed with stafFs recommendation of only changing 85 Winbum Way to C-1-D. The mitigation for potential parking requirements was insufficient for the impac[ and there should be financia] offset for granting the space. He preferred using the Planning Commission's use suggestions. The applicant providing a building for the Zamboni gave the perception of an exchange and he suggested removing it from Ihe agreemenl. Councilor Lemhouse agreed parking was a priority but [hough[ it superseded economic development. The project had the potential of bringing economic developmen[ [o the community. Having Conditional uses would provide flexibility in the fu[ure and for the Council. Councilor Sla[tery recognized the economic potential bu[ did not support adding the In-Lieu of fee this ]ate in the process. Councilor Morris supported the building, was comfortable with the conditional uses, but did not want residential zoning in the building. He clarified that Council was no� levying parking at the last minute and parking was an issue since the project's inception. He had concems changing the zone from R-I to C-1-D because of the property's proximity [o Lithia Park. He would support an In-Lieu of fee bu[ ques[ioned why staff chose Hargadine parking instead of the typical street level parking. Councilor Silbiger commented it was not just parking bu[ transportation flow. Medical use was intense and even more so in that area. Jobs would increase during construction but afterwards would only move jobs around, nol create new ones. The zone change would increase the value of the property dramatically and have an impact. Even if there was not an ordinance, there was the Development Agreemen[. Councilor Voisin supported the projec[ but sWggled with the proposed uses particularly medical use. It was not Council's responsibility to ensure the property was viable in terms of selling it in ten years. However, Council was responsible for determining wha[ wou]d work best within that location. She would suppori an In-Lieu of fee at 10% ins[ead of 20%. Mayor Stromberg noted the park was a national treasure and a pivotal piece of the community. Council was entrusted by community wi[h [he park's s[ewardship. He voiced concerns with the zone change and fu[ure uses as well as the precedent it would seL Parking needed [o be addressed accurately as it would set the pace for the future situations. The project was a flagship for a coffee-restaurant chain outside [he community. I Ie listed ways the building could be compatible with the park. The development agreement only allowed additional restrictions and the C-1 required even more parking. The best option was changing the zone [o C-I-D that had no restrictions and then build in requirements. Ms. Harris clarified if the ice rink lot was not zoned Gl-D, the proposal would have a problem meeting the side yard setback. If [hat property remained R-1, [here was a]0-foot requirement between the property line and building. The building would need to be redesigned. Ms. Bennett added the City purchased the ice rink propeny with Federal Land and Water Funds. The property was restricted to recrea[ional purposes only as long as the City retained ownership. Councilor Lemhouse/Slattery m/s called for the question. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Lemhouse and Slattery, YES; Councilor Voisin, Morris, and Silbiger, NO. Councilor Morris shared a possible amendment to the motion that would make the parking lot C-1-D, remove medical office uses, not address the Zamboni, and set 24.75 parking spaces at $10,000 per space. ASNLANU C//�Y I.�VUNC/L Mtb77/VC�� May 3, 1011 Page 9 oj9 Councilor Voisin/Lemhouse m/s continue meeting to May 4, 2011 in Council Chambers at 4:00 p.m. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery, Morris, Lemhouse, Voisin, Silbiger and Chapman, YES. Motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS 1. Will Council approve a resolution requested by Mayor Stroroberg in support of the senior tax deferral program? I[em delayed due to time consVaints. ADJOURNMENT Meeting endel3 at 1030 to be continued May 4, 20ll at 4:00 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John Stromberg, Mayor ASHLANU (,Y7 Y CUUNl.7L MBt77/V(i May 4, 2011 Page l oj9 MINUTES FOR THE CONTINUED REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL May 4, 2011 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. in the Civic Cen[er Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilor Slauery, Morris, Lemhouse, Voisin, Silbiger, and Chapman were present. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED 3. Does the City Council wish to affirm, reverse, modify or remand back to the� Planning Commission the decision to approve Planning Action #2010-01239 a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment, Site Review, Tree Removal Permit, and Physical Environmental Constraints Review Permit to construct a]0,632 square foot building at 85 Winburn Way? and Does the City Council wish to approve the Development Agreement proposed by the applicants, make changes to the Development Agreement prior to approval, or reject the Development Agreement? ABSTENTIONS. CONFLICTS, EX PARTE CONTACTS Councibr Slattery, Morris, Lemhouse, Voisin, Silbiger, Chapman, and Mayor Stromberg declared no Ex Parte or conl7ic�s of in[erest. Motion Councilor Chapman made May 3, 2011 regarding 85 Winburn Way: Councilor Chapman/Lemhouse m/s to modify the decision by the Planning Commission to limit the zone change to C-1-D solely to 85 Winburn Way and to require an In-Lieu-of-Parking Fee of $16,350 for 25 parking spaces and direct staff to make appropriate changes to the Development Agreement reflecting these changes and bring back ordinance for First Reading. Councilor MorrisNoisin m/s to amend the motion to change the City owned parking lot from i[s current zoning to C-1-D, to revise the In-Lieu of parking fee to $10,000 per space for the 24.75 spaces, to restrict the use with no medical off'ice uses and also restrict it to no residential uses. Mayor Stromberg ruled the amendment out,of order withou[ prejudice. Council discussed how the different zones on the adjacent properties would require a 10-foot setback and cause a redesign for the project. Planning Manager Maria Harris and Associate Planner Derek Severson described how the 0-foot se[back would cu[ off the base for [he arch and part of the viewing deck for [he Ice Rink. Council had concems the C-1-D zone pushed buildings to the ]ot-line and wanted to retain the transition and setbacks the current buildings on Winbum Way afforded. Other comments preferred a C-] zone for [he parking lot with a park overlay. Interim City Attorney Doug McGeary addressed Councilor Morris' earlier amendment and clarified an amendment could be inconsistent with another one already adopted, and also be in direct conflict wi[h the spirit of the original motion but it must have direct bearing on the subjec[ of the original motion. The AJHLANU C/7 �Y I,�UU/V /L Mt t//Nli May 4, 101 Puge 2 oj4 amended motion was reactivated. Council requested Councilor Morris withdraw his amended motion and make separate motions for each amendment instead. Councilor Morris withdrew his amended mo6on with Councilor Voisids consent. Councilor Morris/C6apman m/s to amend the motion and eliminate residential uses on the site. DISCUSSION: Councilor Morris did not think the location was a good place for residential use without parking and was concemed with the proximity to Lithia Park. Councilor Voisin motioned to amend the amended motion to make residential uses found in the Development Agreement under B. Additional Conditions Approved by Council and SITP as Part of Development Agreement for Winburo Way) 12. Special Permitted Uses (revised from AMC 18.32.025) B. Residential Uses, be deleted and added to B. (14) Prohibited Uses. Motion died for lack of a second. Staff explained that the C-1-D zone allowed residen[ia] on 35 of the ground floor and then the upper floors. The requirement was 60 dwelling units per acre. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Chapman, Silbiger, and Morris, YES; Councilor Lemhouse, and Slattery, NO. Motion passed 4-2. Councilor MorrisNoisin m/s to amend the motion to prohibit the use of inedical building uses in this facility. DISCUSSION: Councilor Morris explained the location was a secondary use and a medica] facility was a des[ination place that would cause traffic and parking issues. Councilor Voisin noted medical uses appeared twice in the Development Agreement and wanted to ensure both were removed. Councilor Lemhouse would not support the motion and preferred medical be a conditional use. Councilor Slattery did not suppori the motion and suggested adding language to the Development Agreemrnt requiring parking if used for medical. Councilor Silbiger confirmed a future developer could ask the City to change the Development Agreement. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Chapman, Silbiger, and Morris, YES; Councilor Lemhouse, and Slattery, NO. Motion passed 4-2. Councilor Morris/Chapman m/s to amend the motion to revise the In-Lieu of parking fee from $16,350 per space to $10,000 per space. DISCUSSION: Councilor Morris was concemed surface parking amoums were not used to determine cost per space and $16,350 per space was too much. Altemately, the Ciry should receive something in retum to assist future parking issues. Councilor Silbiger clarified surface parking was $30,000 per space. Councilor Lemhouse would not support the amendment and wanted a better method for determining cost per space. Councilor Slattery thought the process was planning by piece meal and it made him uncomfortable. He would not support the amendment. Councilor Silbiger responded the process was difficult because it was ordinarily not executed with a Development Agreement. He thought it was better to have a specific number and be arbitrary on the credits Council would provide when it came to future requests to additions to the down[own. Councilor Chapman would have required 48 spaces at a much lower number per space. Councilor Voisin had difficulty with the applicant finding the In-Lieu of parking fee unaccep[able and was concemed about the applicant's financial viability. Council was basing their decisions on what wou]d enhance Li[hia Park and she supported the amendmen[. Councilor Morris agreed the Development Agreemen[ did no[ fi[ the land use process. He noted Ihe parking space for [he Zamboni valued a[ $300,000-$600,000 and did not think the In-Lieu oT parking fees were out of line. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Silbiger, Voisin, and Morris, YES; Councilor Slattery and Lem6ouse, NO. Motion passed 42. ASHLANU C/7�Y L�UUIVI;/L Mtt /7NCi May 4, 101 Page 3 oj4 Councilor MorrisNoisin m/s to amend the motion to rezone the City of Ashland parking lot to a C-1-D as in the initial agreement. DISCUSSION: Councilor Morris preferred a C-1 zone change on the City owned lo[. He did no[ support retaining the property as residential and imposing the 0-foot setback on the side yard. It was not worth having the applicant redesign the building or have to apply for a setback variance. Councilor Chapman responded applying for a setback variance was the normal procedure for [his si[uation and would not support the amendment. He had additiona] concerns that changing the City owned lot to C-1-D opened the ]ocation to uses that should not be [here. Staff confirmed the development agreement would extend to the City lot as far as prohibiting medical uses. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Morris, Slattery, Silbiger, and Voisin, YES; Councilor Chapman, NO. MoNon passed 5-1. City Recorder Barbara Chris[ensen read the amended motion aloud: "...to modify the decision by the Planning Commission to limit the zone change to C-1-D to 85 Winburo Way and the City owned parking lot with no residential uses allowed, prohibits medical uses in tLis facility and to require an lu-Lieu of parking fee of $10,000 for 25 parking spaces and direct staft to make appropriate changes ro the Development Agreement reflecting these changes and bring back ordinance for First Reading." Councilor SilbigerNoisin m/s to amend the motion to remove the non-compeNtion clause prohibiting the City from selling food or beverages on City o�+�ned property. DISCUSSION: Councilor Silbiger explained the Parks and Recreation Department owned the property the clause affected and it wou]d encumber their ability to make decisions on that site. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Lemhouse, Chapman, Silbiger, Slattery, and Morris, YES. Motion passed. Staff listed the uses: Permitted Uses A. Professional, 5nancial, business offices, personal services establishment such as beauty and barbershops B. Stores, shops and office supplying commodities or performing services such as antique shops, artists supply stores, or non-chain department stores C. Restaurants D. Theaters but not including a drive-in E. Manufacture or assembly of items sold in a permitted use, provided such manufacturing or assembly occupies 600 square-feet (s� or less and is contiguous to the permitted retail outlet F. Printing publishing, lithography, xerography, and copy centers G. Temporary trees sales from November January 1 H. Public and quasi-public utility and service buildings and parking lots, bu[ excluding elec[rical substations Special Permitted Uses A. E3owling alleys, auditoriums, skating rinks, and miniature golf courses B. Residential removed per Council Conditional Uses A. Medical uses removed per Council Temporary Uses A. Outdoor storage of commodities associated with a permitted, special permitted or conditional use B. Churches or similar religious institutions Prohibited Uses A. Formula Stores or Restaurants added per applicant B. Medical added per Council C. Residential added per Council AJHLANU (,Y Y (.�UUNUL Mtt7 /NU May 4. 1011 Pa a �ja Council retained the Zamboni swcture as sta[ed in the Development Agreement. Counci] and Staff discussed the proposed timelines for obtaining building permit approvals, the first approved building inspection, and constroction. Under current codes, a standard land use action has 12 months to design the project, obtain the building permits and first building inspection approval on the proposal. The code provides an 18-month extension in addition to the 2 months for a tota] of 30 months. The applicant was asking for 42 months to commence conswction, then 36 months to complete construction. Staff recommended approving the proposed timelines. Councilor Silbiger/Slattery m/s to amend the motion and accept the staff recommendatiou on the timelines. DISCUSSION: Councilor Morris confirmed that curb and sidewalk was included in the timeline. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Lemhouse, Chapman, Silbiger, Slattery, and Morris. Motion passed. Council went on to discuss Right of First Offer. Staff explained they put a time limit on the right offirst offer of 20 years to protect [he applicant's heirs and preserve the living memory of the dowment. It did not bind either party. Staff went on to explain the heSght limit recommendation was irrelevant because Counci] was not changing the lots to a C-1-D zone. Councilor Voisin/Morris m/s to amend the motion and remove the heig6t restrictions on other properties. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Lemhouse, Chapman, Silbiger, Slattery, and Morris, YES. Motion passed. Council agreed to have City Utilities pay the System Development Charges (SDCs) on the Zamboni building. Councilor Slattery/Lemhouse m/s to amend motion and have the City UtiliNes pay the system development charges on the Zamboni building. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Lemhouse, Chapman, Silbiger, Slattery, and Morris. Motion passed. Roll Call Vote on the main amended motion: Councilor Voisin, Lemhouse, Chapman, Silbiger, Slattery, and Morris, YES. Motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS 1. Will Council approve a resolution requested by Mayor Stromberg in support of the senior tax deferral program? Council approved sending a letter in support of renewing the senior tax deferral program. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjoumed at 5:1 1 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John S[romberg, Mayor PROCLAMATION There are approximately 900,000 law enforcement officers serving in communities across the United States, including twenty-seven swom members of the Ashland Police Department. Some 16,000 assaults against law enforcement officers are reported each year, resulting in approximately 6Q000 injuries. Since the first recorded death in 1791, neazly 19,000 law enforcement officers in the United States have made the ultimate sacrifice and been killed in the line of duty. The names of ihese dedicated public servants are engraved on the walls of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memoria] in Washington, D.C. with 316 new names being added to the Memoria] this spring. May 15th is designated as Peace Officers' Memorial Day, with federal law (P.L. 03-322) directing that all flags be flown at half-staff on that date in honoi of fallen officers and their families. The safety of our citizenry greatly depends on the services of the Ashland Police Department, as well as the many ]ocal, state, and federal agencies that make up the ]aw enforcement community of the Rogue Valley. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council and Mayor, on behalf of the citizens of Ashland, herby proclaim May 15 21, 2011 as "National Police Week" And also proclaim May 15, 201 as "Peace Officer's Memorial Day" in the City of Ashland and urge all citizens to thank our dedicated law enforcement professionals. Dated this 17th day of May, 2011 John Stromberg, Mayor Barbaza Christensen, City Recorder C 1 T Y O F �SHLAND ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION MINUTES Sapternber9,2010 p�tah�- "7 'w1 U CALL TO ORDER —Ashland Tree Commission meeting was called to order at 6:10 p.m. on September 9, 2010, in the Siskiyou Room in the Community Development and Engineering Services Building localed at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 9, 2010 Tree Commission Minutes Townsend motioned/NeFf seconded to approve [he minu[es of the September 9, 2010 regular meeting minutes Voice vote: all AYES, Motion passed. The minutes were approved as submitted. WELCOME GUESTS Hieland Hoff, Architect PUBLIC FORUM None TYPE I PLANNING REVIEW PLANNING ACTION: 2010-00993 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 400 Allison Street APPLICANT: Heiland Hoff, Architect for owner Robin Biermann DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) within an Historic District by 17 percent or 315 square feet. The project consists of demolishing the existing 1,144 square foot non-historic/non-contributing duplex buiiding and constructing a new two-story 2,183 square foot dwelling with a daylight basement and two-car garage. (The Building Division has tentatively approved the demolition proposal subject to this land use approval.) The application also includes a request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove efght trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or greater. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP 39 1 E 09 BD; TAX LOT: 14200 The Tree Commission has recommended the following for the above planning action: 1) When working wi[hin the tree protection areas, tunnel under [he roots rather than trenching when placing u[ilities and infrastructure. 2) Add one or two native trees to the planting list 3) Plant a hardier, thick-trunked species on [he Gresham side of the parcel to ensure longevity and health. 4) Commission has reviewed and is supportive of the removal of 10 trees, protecting 7, planting 6 mitigation trees, and paying in lieu of mitigation ptantings for 4 trees as modified by the applicant. This includes removal of a Maple and Plum at the intersection of Allison and Gresham Streets, which are not identified on the Vee removaUprotection plan as submitted. Mitiga[ion to be addressed ei[her Ihrough mitigation planting on-site, planting off-site, or payment into the Tree Fund in lieu of mitigation planting for the trees being removed in accordance with AMC 18.61.084. PLANNING ACTION: 2010-01191 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 90 Pioneer St N/110 Lithia Way APPLICANT: Robert Seibert, agent for owner Sunny Singh DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to make an exterior change to a primary contributing property within the Ashland Downtown Historic District. The exterior changes proposed involve the replacement of the doors on the Lithia Way entrance to the J.P. Dodge 8 Sons Funeral Home building to meet 2010 Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC)� and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. The project also includes the replacement of a section of private sidewalk and the addition of stairs and handrails for ADA compliance. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial Downtown ZONING: C-1-D; ASSESSOR'S MAP 39 1 E 098A; TAX LOT: 11400 The Tree Commission has recommended the fo!lowing for the above planning action: 1) Staple wire mesh to wood 2 x 4s and wrap the tree trunks during construction work 2) Be mindfu] of root zones when staking forms for the sidewalk ACTION ITEMS DISCUSSION ITEMS Staff Pina said that the Tree of the Year Ballots have been posted on our City's website and in this months Sneak Preview. A cost of $150 for the Sneak Preview ad will need to come out of the tree fund, as approved by the Tree Commission. Staff also spoke with the Public Works Department to be[ter coordinate communication for projects that may have an impact on street trees. Public Works agrees that this is needed and will work on the issue. The Commission would like to have an official resignation letter from Kerry KenCann stating why she can no longer fulfill her commitment to the Tree Commission. Staff said they would contact Ms. KenCarin for a letter. Neff noticed that the required street trees along Ashland St, in fron[ of the Miller Paint store, appear to be unheal[hy and should be replaced. Staff inen[ioned that there is a provision in the code that allows staff to require [he replanting/mitiga[ion of the trees as a condition of approval on their building permit. Liaison Reports None New Items Current Balance $GET BALLANCE ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjoumed at 6:53 PM. Respectfully submitted by Michael Pina, Assistant Planner �r, C 1 T Y O F �SHLAND ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION MINUTES November 4, 2010 CALL TO ORDER —Ashland Tree Commission meeting was called to order at 6:25 p.m. on November 4, 2010, in the Siskiyou Room in the Community Development and Engineering Services Building loca[ed at 5] Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 9' 2010 Tree Commission Minutes Townsend motioned/Roland seconded to approve the October 9, 2010 regular meeting minutes Voice vo[e: all AYES, Motion passed. The minutes were approved as submitted. WELCOME GUESTS Mark Knox, Urban Development Services Greg Covey Landscape Architect Don Sever, Designer Melanie Mularz, Project Manager PUBLIC FORUM None TYPE 1 PLANNING REVIEW PLANNING ACTION: 2010-01335 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 555 Siskiyou Bivd. APPLICANT: Josh Hamik/StraHord Inn DESCRIPTION: A request for a Tree Removal parking lot behind the Stratford Inn Hotel. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial; ZONING: C-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP 39 1 E 09AC; TAX LOT: permit to remove a dead Pine tree �ocated in the 14400, 14500, 14600 The Tree Commission has recommended the following for the above p/anning action: 1) Applicant to choose an appropriate tree from ihe tree planting list and will do well in a parking lot. 2) A tree that will be the same stature once mature as the one removed. 3) Preferably not a Maple, Cottonwoods or Ash TYPE 11 PLANNING REVIEW PLANNING ACTION: 2010-01239 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 59-85 Winburn Way APPLICANT: Urban Development Services, LLC agents for Jonathan Esther Phelps DESCRIPTION: A request for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change from Single Family Residential (R-1-7.5) to Commercial Downtown (C-1-D), Physical Environmental Constraints Review Permit, Tree Removal Permit to remove five trees, Site Review approval to construct a new 10,632 square foot cafe/restaurant, and a Development Agreement for the four properties located at 59-85 Winburn Way. EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial Downtown EXISTING ZONING: R-1-7.5, PROPOSED ZONING: C-1-D; ASSESSOR'S MAP 39 1 E 09 BC TAX LOTS: 2500, 2501, 3000 part of #39 1 E 09 TL 100 The Tree Commission has recommended the following for the above planning action: 1) The Commission is pleased with the thought and care that went into the plan for Vee protection and plan[ing, especially when it comes to saving existing trees where possible and altering the basement floor plan for root protection. ACTION ITEMS DISCUSSION ITEMS The Parks Department and Tree Commission will decide where to transplant the two existing Maple trees from 85 Winburn Way. Staff no[ed lhat the Planning Action for 85 Winbum Way will take at leas[ another month to complete its process, so Pazks and lhe Tree Commission has ample time ro finalize a location. Ideas thus far are the dog park and perhaps schools. Criteria for transplan[ing is that the location should be close as possible The Tree Commission discussed [he Goal setting parameters as the City Counci] prepares to lay out their goals for the next coming year. Slaff could not locate the previous year's goal setting document, but will verify with Amy to what was discussed and agreed upon. Pina stated that the Council will likely have a few months before they are required to finalize their goals, so the Tree Commission has [ime to think about poten[ial projects and direction that the Tree Commission will like to take. One concern that Meyers had with Water Sustainable/Conservation goals is tha[ he has noticed when curtailment years are in effect, people s[opped watering [heir trees, and some (Eastem) varieties have suffered. He would ]ike to find a heal[hy balance between the benefi[s of vees in our community, choosing appropriate species that do well in our region, and sustainable practices. One idea was to reduce the amount of lawn area in the city's parks and replace with boulders, trees, xeriscape landscaping, and fumiture. Another concern raised is sidewalk ins[allation in relation to trees. Ideally a goa] would be to work with the various city departments in getting the sidewalks installed and keeping the mature Vees. Liaison Reports None New ]tems Current Balance ADJOURNMENT— The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 PM. Respectlully submitted by Michael Pina, Assistant Planner G 1 T Y O F �SHLAND ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION MINUTES December 9, 2010 CALL TO ORDER —Ashland Tree Commission mee[ing was called to order at 6:03 p.m. on December 9, 20] 0, in the Siskiyou Room in the Community Development and Engineering Services Building located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 4' 2010 Tree Commission Minutes Roland motioned/Meyers seconded to approve the November 4` 2010 regular meeting minu[es Voice vote: all AYES, Motion passed. The minutes were approved as submitted. WELCOME GUESTS No guests PUBLIC FORUM None TYPE I PLANNING REVIEW PLANNING ACTION: 2010-01364 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 495 S. Mountain/351 Walker Ave. APPLICANT: SOU/State of Oregon DESCRIPTION: A request for a Hazard Tree Removal Permit to remove 2 trees located on SOU property. One is a half-dead Maple tree is located in parking lot #36, at the intersection of S. Mountain Avenue and Ashland Street; and the other is a Deodara Cedar located on the athletic fields, north of the Facilities Maintenance and Planning building, west of Walker Street. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: SOU; ZONING: SO; ASSESSOR'S MAP 39 1 E 09DD/10CD; TAX LOT: 7400/100 The Tree Commission has recommended the fallowing for the abave planning actron: 1) Applicant to choose an appropriate tree from [he tree plan[ing list tha[ will do well in a,parking lot for the removal of the diseased Maple in parking lot #36. And a tree [hat will be the same stature once mature as Ihe one removed. 2) The Tree Commission recommends denial of removal of the Cedar adjacent to the FMP building off Walker Ave. If removal is approved, then chosen replacement is a poor choice and Commission recommends that the applicant chose another Vee suitable for that area. PLANNING ACTION: 2010-01596 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 585 Clay Street APPLICANT: Slratford Apartments DESCRIPTION: A request for a Tree Removal permit to remove 5 damaged or diseased trees located in the common open space within property boundaries of the apartment complex. The trees have been evaluated by a certified arborist. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP 39 1 E 1486; TAX LOTs: 800 900 The Tree Commission has recommended the jollowing for the above planning action: 1) The Commission recommends removal of trees as shown on the submitted plans. 2) The Commission also recommends that the Cnmson King and Autumn Blaze Maples not be planted near sidewalks or other walking surfaces. Perhaps a Cori�thian or American Linden. PLANNING ACTION: 2010-01605 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 546 Scenic Dr. APPLICANT: Lowell Susan Masters DESCRIPTION: A request for a Tree Removal permit to remove 1 damaged Mulberry Tree located in the front yard at 546 Scenic Drive. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP 39 1 E OSDA; TAX LOTs: 5302 The Tree Commissian has recommended the following for the above p[anning action: 1} Applicant to choose an appropriate tree from the tree planting list that wil] do well under power lines. 2) Applicant should choose a species with a thicker bark that will do well wi[h southem sun exposure and street side impacts. ACTION ITEMS As part of 2011-2012 Goal setting agenda, the Tree Commission diswssed projects [hat the TC can attempt to accomplish in the coming years. The following list is the resul[ of a brainstorming session that the Tree Commission members had a[ their regular meeting. Produce a biannual report (at Arbor Day and Tree of the Year presentations) [o the City Council regarding projects and events. Create an educational pamphlet that speaks to water uses, hiring a contractor, proper pruning techniques, and other information that can go in [he utility bill. Also place ISA brochures in the utility bill. Work with Ihe Public Works Dept on developing Green Street standards as it relates to trees and planting the park row. Revisit an Urban Forestry program. Transfer older inventories (Lithia Park, Siskiyou Blvd, etc.) into digita] format and see if there are opportunities from the GIS dept to create a°Vee layer° to make inventories more workable in the future. Phase Two will be to have a city-wide tree inventory and develop a management plan. Tree plan[ing assistance program. Liaison Reports None New Items Roland mentioned [hat he has noticed several'outfits performing work on trees [hat are not licensed by either the CCB and/or LCB in Oregon. He wonders wha[ enforcement action the City can take to help reduce the number of illegal contractors working on trees in our community. Staff noted that this is a problem, but we don't have the resources to be out on the sireets at all times, and we wil] rely on the community to be our eyes and ears. One method for identifying the individuals is for citizens to fill out a code compliance complaint form with the offender's name and business so that we can send them a letter stating that they are in violation, and require they have a valid CCB license in addition to a City Business ]icense. Kate Jackson noted that a new protocol Tor approving city business license renewal is to have staff make sure that the applicants submit all of their required licenses and fees before renewing their business license and therefore permitting them to perform work within the city. ADJOURNMENT— The meeting was adjoumed at 7:30 PM. Respectfully submitted by Michael Pina, Assistant Planner C 1 T Y O F �SHLAIVD ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION MINUTES February 3, 2011 CALL TO ORDER —Ashland Tree Commission meeting was called to orcler at 6:00 p.m. on February 3, 2011, in the Siskiyou Room in the Community Development and Engineering Services Building located at 51 Winbum Way, Ashland, Oregon. Commissioners Present Council Liaison Russ Neff Russ Silbi er Casey Roland Tom Me ers Staff Present Amy Gunter, Assistant Planner Absent Anne Thayer, Parks Dept. Horticulturist Bobby Townsend, Tracy Peddicord APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 6, 2010 Tree Commission Minutes Roland motioned/Meyers seconded to approve the December 6` 2010 regular meeting minutes Voice vote: all AYES, Motion passed. The minutes were approved as submitted. WELCOME GUESTS Welcome—Russ Silbiger, new City Counci] Liaison David Wood, City of Ashland Electric Department Journeyman Tree Trimmer Dave provides the Annual Report to Tree Commission as required per 18.61.035.H. Dave bases the tree he trims on Public UtiliTy Commission requirements, voltage of ]ines, species, and distance to lines, and cycles of [rims. Less trees overall were w[ Ihis year due to budget constraints and Dave being unable to have an assistant. Secondary to the Vees was shrub and vegetation clearance around pad moun[ transformers. Transformers require three feet of clearance on the sides and eSght feet of clear space in front of the transformer. Dave would like to see the maximum height of trees under power lines reduced to 20 feet due to lack of maintenance that the larger stature trees require. Dave is looking at modifying some of the trees within the Recommended Street Tree Guide. Commissioners thanked Dave for the care that he has taken on the trees. They remember what it was like before he came. PUBLIC FORUM None TYPE 1 PLANNING REVIEW PLANNING ACTION: 201 I-00027 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 156 Seventh Street APPLICANT: Annie McIntyre DESCRIPTION: A request for a Site Review approva] to convert [he existing single family residential home and garage to three units. Two units will be located within the existing residence and the third unit will be located in the converted garage. A Condi[ional Use Pertni[ to convert the garage to habitable space is required because its side-yard setback is non-conforming. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low-Density Multi Family; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP 39 1 E 09AC; TAX LOT: 900 The Tree Commission has recammended ttie fol[owing for the above planning action: 1) The Tree Commission recommends that wood chips be placed within the roots zones of the Cedar and Redwood trees outside of the areas of Tree Protection fencing to reduce compaction. 2) That ]arger stature street trees shall be planted in ihe parkrow. The trees chosen should be sun tolerant for Ihe wes[ facing exposure. OISCUSSION ITEMS Adoption of Goals Produce a biannual report (at Arbor Day and Tree of [he Year presen[a[ions) to [he City Council regarding projects and events. Geate an educational pamphlet that speaks to water uses, hiring a contractor, proper pruning techniques, and other information that can go in the utility bill. Also place ISA brochures in the utility bill. Work wi[h the Public Works Dept on developing Green Street standards as it relates to trees and planting the park row. Revisit an Urban Forestry program. Transfer older inventories (Li[hia Park, Siskiyou Blvd, etc.) into digital forma[ and see if there are opportunities from the GIS dept to create a"tree layer" to make inventories more workable in the future. Phase Two will be to have a city-wide tree inventory and develop a management plan. Tree planting assistance program. The above goals that the Tree Commission developed have been passed along to the City Council. The City Council will be reviewing the goals as part of their goal setting sessions. Arbor Week Planning Apri13`" through 9' April 5, 2011 Arbor Day Proclamation Tree City USA presentation will be held at the Ashland City Council meeting 7PM at Council Chambers April 6, 2011 Ceremonial Tree Plan[ing with [he children from the Discovery Days Pre-School a[ [he Ashland Family YMCA. Anne and Casey will go to [he YMCA to determine a good location for a tree. April 8, 2011 Ashland Art Center anist renderings of Trees of the Year for Arbor Week First Friday Art Walk April 23, 2011 Earthday, planning will happen at April meeting. Caldera Brewing Annexation debrief Caldera Brewery project with Annexation was approved by the Ashland Planning Commission at the January Planning Commission meeting. The Tree Commission did not have a quorum for the meeting and was not able to comment on the landscaping plan. They proposed numerous plant and tree additions to the properly and will be removing a row of Cypresses along [he freeway side of the property. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS Liaison Reports Anne Thayer: Anne provided the Tree Commission with the Parks Department Annual Report regarding the tree removals on City of Ashland Parks Department maintained property. New Items ADJOURNMENT— The mceting was adjoumed at 7:58 PM. Respectlully submitted by Amy Gunter, Assistant Planner C 1 T Y O F �SH LAN D Council Communication Meeting Date: Department: Secondary Dept. Approval: May 17, 2011 City Recorder Mayor's Office Martha Bennety to Firewise Commission Primary StaffContact E-Mail: Secondary Contact: Estimated Time: Barbara Christensen christebna, ash]and.or.us Mayor Stromberg Consent Question: Does the City Council wish to confirm the Mayor's appointments of Ron Bolstad, Kelly Gustafson, James Hardt, Kathleen Kane, Eric Olson, Ron Parker and Peter Norvell to the Firewise Commission with terms to expire April 30, 2014? Staff Recommendation: None Background: This is confirmation by the City Council on the Mayor's appointments to the newly formed Firewise Commission on applications received. Related City Policies: Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 2.26.020 Council Options: Approve or disapprove Mayors appointments of Ron Bolstad, Kelly Gustafson, James Hardt, Kathleen Kane, Eric Olson, Ron Parker and Peter Norvell to the Firewise Commission. Potential Motions: Motion to approve appointments of Ron Bolstad, Kelly Gustafson, James Hardt, Kathleen Kane, Eric Olson, Ron Parker and Peter Norvell to the Firewise Commission with terms to expire April 30, 2014? Attachments: Applications received 1 of I �r, C 1 T Y O F �SHLAND APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO CI7'Y COMMISSION/COMMITTEE Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at City Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach addiHonal sheets if necessary. Name: Ronald Bolstad Requesting to serve on: Firewise Commission Address: 481 Thomton Way, Ashland,OR Occupation: Retired SOU Administrator Phone: Home 541-488-3593 Work n/a Email bolstad@mind.net Fax n/a 1. EducaHon Backeround What schools have you attended? Stanford University and University of California, Berkeley (also a few credits at San lose State and UC Davis) What degrees do you hold? BA in Economics; MBA in Higher Ed Administration What additional haining or education have you had that would apply to this position? As Southem Oregon Universiry's designated liaison to the Ciry of Ashland's emergency management center during annual drills, I was trained to participate in the command center and help guide the emergency prepazation and responses on the SOU campus. 2. Related Eaaerientt What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to Uus position? I possess forty yeazs' administrative experience in public higher education, which included significant planning leadership and teamwork roles t}vough numerous committees, task forces, work groups, etc. A1so, while employed at SOU (22 years), I had frequent communicatioas with the media, presented information to the Ashland City Council, and interacted with SOU's neighbors on long-range planning and property issues. For several years I served as an active participant on the City of Ashland's Transportation Task Force charged with reviewing and making recommendations regazding the Transportation element of the Ciry's Comprehensive Plan. Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field, such as attending conferences or seminazs? Yes. Why? It would be helpful to receive information conceming techniques to enlist citizen and neighborhood support of the Firewise goals. 3. Interests Why are you applying £or this position? I reside in a wildfire-prone neighborhood in NW Ashland that is subject to the provisions of the Oregon Forestland-Urban Interface Fire Protection Act. I wish to be more effective in enlisting the interesl and commitrnent of my neighbors (in the city and adjacent counry lands) in taking measures to reduce fire risks. I believe membership on this commission would be an appropriate way for me to give back to the community that has emiched my family's lives for many yeazs. I consider fire pcevention and a dependable water supply to be two of Ashland's critical issues. 4_ Availabilitv Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled meetings? Generally, yes. Do you prefer day or evening meetings? Daytime meetings, preferably not Wednesday aftemoons and Thursdays, noon to 130 p.m. 5. Additionallnformation How long have you lived in this community? 27 yeazs Please use the space below to s��mma��P any �ditional qualifications you have for this posilion When I first heard about the national Fuewise Cortummities piogram some montfis ago and perused its web site, I felt its program ideal for Ashland in general and my own neighborhood in particulaz. With respect to the latter, I concluded that the program could provide the context for promoting more attention to fuel reduction in my neighborhood. I have served in a volimtary capacity dwugh my chwch, Ashland Rotary Club, Boy Scouu of America, Ashland Community Hospital Foundation Board, Ashland Rotary Foundation Board, and providing entertainment to s6ut-ins through the local district of the Oregon Old-Time Fiddlers Association. February 18, 2011 ��x S Ronald S. Bolstad C 1 T Y O F �4SH LAN D APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO CITY COMMISSIONlCOMMII'TEE Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to thc City Rewrdei at City Hall, 20 E Main SVeet, or email ch_;s�t�;a�_=� If you have any questions, please Feel free to contact the Ciry Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional shee4s if necessary. Name: Kelly Gustafso� Requesting to serve on: Firewise (Commission/Committee) Address: 865 Henry Street Ocwpation: Landscape Designer Ce11:541-840-4360 Work:54]-488-1446 Email: kellygustafson@live.com 1. Education Back¢round What schools have you attended? What degrees do you hold? Vermilion Community College Ely, MN and SOU AAS Forestry and Wildlife Managcment BS Environmental Science: Biology 2. Related Experience What prior work experience have you had that would help you if'you were appointed to this position? 1 have volunteered on prescribed bums. 1 worked for the Forest Service years ago doing Old Growth Surveys. Do yuu feel it would be advantageous for you to have furtl�er training in 8vs field, such as attending conferences or seminars? Why? Of course, there is always more to leam. 3. Interests Why are you applying for this position? have wanted to apply for a City commission position for a long time and just havedt found lhe right fit. I have always been interested in fire management and feel that fire danger in Ashland is a real concem. I would like [o help address lhat concern and feel that my diverse background could benefit the commission. 4. Availabilitv Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled mee[ings? Do you prefer day or eveni�g meetings? I could do an occasional daytime mee[ing but prefer evenings (after Spm). 5. Additionallnformation How long have you lived in this communiry? 8 years Please use t6e space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this position. Through my education, personal experience, and my work in the field, I have developed Imowledge of how to manage ecosystems as a whole. 1 also have Imowledge of plant material, fire habits, and home construction. iS- I1 Date e p i L 1''- `Fr�. s�gr, e 4 U r�, CITY OF �SH LAN D APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the Ciry Recorder at City Hall, 20 E Main Sueet, or email chrisiebna ashland.or.us. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets if necessary. N�,e James R. Hardt tteyue��ng �o �erve o�: Firewise Commission naaress 451 Thornton Way o��patson Retired EducatorBusinessperson Pno�: Home 482-7798 Email jhardt(�a,opendoor.co Faz 482-0125 1. Education Backeround wnac �noo�s ha�e yo„ accenaea� University of California, Berkeley; Harvard University; University of Massachusetts; University of Colorado; Army Security Agency Cryptography School What degrees do you hold? Ph.D., Berkeley; Masters, Harvard; Bachelors, University of Massachusetts; Army Security Agency (NSA) Teacher Certificate What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this position? Harvard Management Certificate Program: Community College Leadership CERT Training (2002); Briscoe Team Leader (Five years); Advanced Training (201 Map Your Neighborhood, Thornton Way Leader: Hosted Meetings in my home. a 2. Related Exoerience What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to this position? Community Leadership: Thirty-year Community College career: CEO (l3 yeazs), VP, Dean, 500 FT/PT employees; worked with scores of community technical advisory committees and other constituents including women's groups, Hispanics, blacks, gays, chamber of commerce, pressure groups, etc. Temporary Employment Agency (5 years) 1900-plus employees in Ashland, Medford and Grants Pass Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further vaining in this field, such as attending conferences or seminars? Why? Yes. I shall be eager to attend conferences and seminars to improve my knowledge base and my ability to lead and otherwise serve. �r, 3. loterests Why are you applying for this position? Per a Chris Chambers CERT presentation I attended, Ashland is among the most vulnerable intra-foresdurban towns in the State, and my neighborhood is probably the penultimate most dangerous area in Ashland. 4. Availabilitv Are you available to attend special meetings, in additio� to the regularly scheduled meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings? Mornings, afternoon, evenings---whenever. Shall respond on short notice. 5. Additionallnformatioo How long have you lived in Uus community? Since 1996 Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this position A. My CERT (QUAKEWISE CERT) and Neighborhood Mapping experiences lead me to consider whether a FIREWISE CERT could be established to enlist and train members: one, to FIREWISE Map Neighborhoods and assess areas, such as fuel reduction, for improvement; and two, to train members to spot fues, evacuate neighbors, etc. B. Fuel Legislation Needed: Watching a small patch of flaming juniper come within fewer than---so said the fire chief---two minutes of destroying an adjacent large new two-story-masonry college science building, taught me that juniper and blackberry shrubs and other fuels that thrive within the Ashland-city limits and those adjacent to the city perimeter threaten our homes and families. Legislation to remove those fuels is critical. C. Experience with Elected Officials: I have had twenty-five years experience working with elected officials (College Boards of Trustees). Thirteen of those years, as CEO, I reported directly to the board and developed all of the agenda for each of the monthly meetings. D. Experience Serving on Councils/Task Forces/Commissions: I have served on a plethora of Councils, Task Forces, Commissions, Committees etc, including several major ones in Medford and Ashland. I James R. Hardt March 18, 2011 R pQ o 41 p�� C 1 T Y O F �ASH LAN D APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO CITY COMM1SSlON/COMMITTEE Please type or priN answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at Ciry Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email d,�„��bin:�,hi:�nd or �s. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact ihe City Recordcr at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets if necessary. a� /�-evt �.n e- Requesting �o servc on: �i /CuJi S e, (�miss n/Committee) Address IZIZ P St �IShland �le 97'SZ�� Occupation 5(ay af home p'lairl Phone: Home �y/ y�1-0�05 1A�orkcci� (0/9 Email Kal �hot»�a� /•��+�1 Fax 1. Education Backeround !l What schools have you attended? St'iv� 1/IP4 r SfnhC �in ✓��+i./ What degrees do you hold? A�pq�av�� En✓��anme,� akcl �a1u�aY �PSc�: c� 1d2��✓��fiQri 1 Q✓id T hAVC qraduQ lin �1S n�1G Sa.MC T�� What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this posilion? 2. Related Ezperience What prior work experience have you had ihat would help you if you were appointed to this position? �laf uc�d:usrd Yortsl5 ✓vot �a77 Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have funher training in [his field, such as attending conferences or seminars? Why? yc 5� (i v��y ASh lan� Waitr�hr� G11tdi�S MA�i'nq Sare 'fj�C Tv�e31` /S in 0. lJalane�- i/I Or�(r�'to aueic� Cafa5lrcQh�� +j rC3 I 3. lnteresis Why are you applying for Ihis position? J 1'Vt �!✓C ri4hf on"nt F�G! �l /NC. 4'/9�'1" (�4l MQGi i�n Q��C I S f� /��0 ✓1 /�'0 ��i �I� livcd (n )¢Y� DIC90 �LLY�rt4 ��O /Ll/ W'I �CS in �63 a+ 4 T— �G wC Saul 7ke 2�YX l�cmcs burn 4. Availabilitv Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled meetings? Doyoupreferdayoreveningmeetings7 y�5� �;�tr day or e�fn�nq, J 5. Additionallnformation How long have you lived in this community? YQGtY,S Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this position 77�5 h layi is S«� a��Jc✓�%l ('�mmun s cl, ru v�� rox.r UO dPGf 1 C I'�t� (V �'f'h `//3�// Date onS wildhrts �cut��r. c�.hd t 7 Si r y��,______ C 1 T Y O F �SHLAND APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE Please type or print answers [o Ihe following questions and submit [o the City Recorder at Ciry Hall, 20 E Main Street, or emai] chrisicM�+�ashlemd.or.us. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Name Eric Olson Requesting to serve on: Firewise Commission (Commission/Committee) Address 385 Strawberry Lane, Ashland, OR 97520 Occupation Grant Manager for Goodwill Industries Intemational, Rockville MD (I work from my home on Strawberry Lane) Phone: 240-676-1747 Email eric.olson(a�QOOdwill.oro I. Education Back¢round What schools have you attended? High School in Morgantown West Virginia, 1966-1969 West Virginia Universiry, 1969-1972 University of Utah, 1973-1976 What degrees do you ho]d? B.S. in Special Education, University of Utah, 1975 M.ED in Special Education, University of Utah, 1976 Wha[ additional training or education have you had that would apply to this posi[ion? I have many specialized in training in working with Boards and cunently hold positions on two Boards: -Pathways, Inc, Ashland OR— Vice Chair -International Association ofBusiness Industry and Rehabilitation, Washington DC— Past Chair 2. Related Exuerience What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to this position? I have owned and managed timberland iri West Virginia and currently own timberland in ]daho. 1 am a member of the Idaho Foresters Association, the Northwest Woodlands Association, and am an owner of a Certified Family Tree Farm in Idaho. 1 am very committed to creating safe living environments in the residential/forest interface of Ashland to protect both fire safety as well as wildlife habitat. 1 have worked directly with the Ashland Fire Department for over 8 years to create a defensible fire safe environment around my residence on upper Strawberry Lane and at the same time worked to maintain a natural habitat for wildlife. I am a member of the Strawberry Lane Meadows Homeowners Association and am the past Secretary of the association. My application for the Firewise Commission has been encouraged by the Strawberry Lane Homeowners Association Open Space Committee. Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field, such as attending conferences or seminars? Why? Yes I feel additional training would be of value and would be interested in participating. Our particular circumstances in creating a Firewise Community here in Ashland are not unique and we should ourselves of every opportunity to leam from other communities. 3. lnterests Why are you applying for this position? 1 believe in the concept of building strong communities and believe communiry and neighborhood involvement is the key to healthy community living. Given the nature of our natura] environment in Ashland with i[s proximity to vulnerable forest land it is critical to work jointly to lessen fire danger and preserve open space and a namral environment 4. Availabilitv Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled meetings? Do you prefer day or evening mee[ings? 1 prefer evening or late aftemoon meetings, but have flexibility in my schedu]e. I do have occasional out of town travel for work. 5. Additionallnformation How long have you lived in this community? 13 years in Ashland 23 years in the Rogue Valley Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this position 1 feel 1 am very well qualified for this position and as important; 1 am interested in achieving the same goals of creating a Firewise environment of invobed neighbors and community. April 3, 201 I �V�� Eric Olson CITY OF �SH LAN D APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at Ciry Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email chrisienr� ashland.or.us. If you have any questions, please feel free to cootact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach addi6onal sheets if necessary. Name (lou PA2v.E R Requesting to serve on: F� 2ew �sF Corn rni ssi oN (Commission/Commiriee) Address rj U S c M o F I E]--� S71_t� Occupation �LE�� Phone: Home(�1�4B�4—OS3Z Work Email .TR� Fa�c 1. Education Bsck�ound What schools have you attended? U N i VE7L5 i T r o F Si.L wl o i 5 What degrees do you hold? S- L��2icu �ru a-� E►-�i�EE,e�nfc What additional training or education have you had lhat would apply to this position? 2. Related Eioerience What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to this position? Plzo�uc,T MFtn1aGER /-�T WEliS �4�PGO 8�},uK. SIt�J ��9�1J�15co. i s I i�' d 1 it�.��/ Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have fu�ther training in this field, such as attending conferences or seminars? Why? PI�8Af3 L.�/ 3. loterests Why aze you applying for this position? I R-1i� G u�e2ENTLY P�s/ DE.�1T OF �o�Q, AvE 2Ec.�t1T�-v ��'Q�EI� cv rr7� Aii r�e-uE 7o NAr/F 1}C�ryE /}55ESS/lIEA/'f. A GD.►,rhNN�cksF4 St}�y /NFo T� N iGtf�3n,e��D 4. Availabiliri Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings? yFS /�/�FE7e �Ay ,�i r_ 5. Additionallnformation How long have you lived in this community? ��,eS Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this position l.i G 'L_ ►a ir: i'`,� 1. �J �r, CITY OF �SH LAN D APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO CI'TY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the Ciry Recorder at Ciry Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email chrisieb(a�ashland.or.us. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additiooal sheets if necessary. Name Peter K. Norvell Requesting to serve on: Firewise Commission (Commission/Committee) Address 921 Pinecrest Terrace, Ashland Occuparion Retired Phone: Home 541-482-7314 petemorvell@msn.com Work Same Email Fax N/A 1. Education Bsckeround What schools have you attended? Whittier High School and gaduated from Occidental College What degees do you hold? B.A. 2. Related Eaoerience What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to Uus position? Managerial positions in large cotporation for 33 years on East and West Coast Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have fwther traioing in this field, such as attending conferences or seminars? Why? Yes. I haven't been trained in fire abatement. �r, 3. Interests Why are you applying for this position? 1 was asked to apply by Chris Chambers. a. n�aasna;ri Are you available to attend special m�tings, in addition to the regularly scheduled meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings? Yes. Prefer days but evenings are ok. 5. Additionallnformabon How long have you lived in this community? 121/Z yeazs Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this position 1 have worked with Chris Chambers in making our property fve safe. 4//24/11 O�, K. �VQ�� Peter K. Norvell Date Signature �r, C 1 T Y O F �SH LAN D Council Communication Authorization to Solicit Proposals for Three Public Works Projects Meeting Date: May 17, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: James H. Olson DepartmenC Public Works Engineering E-Mail: olsonj@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Finance Secondary Contact: Pieter Smeenk Approval: Martha Benne�� Estimated Time: Consent Agenda Question: Will the Council authorize the solicitation of formal bids and proposals for three public works projects? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Council authorize the solicitation of formal bids and proposals for three public works projects. Background: Summary Ordinance No. 3013 which was approved on May 19, 2010 requires that the Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board (LCRB) authorize solicitations of competitive sealed bids and proposals for projects in excess of $100,000 for public improvements and $75,000 for persona] services. The engineering staff is currently preparing bidding documents for three public works projects and requests authorization to advertise the following projects: 1. Hosler Dam Stability Analysis: Project No. 2010-04 2. Schofield Monte Vista LID: Project No. 2005-08 3. 2011 Street Overlay: Project No. 2010-10 Each of the projects is briefly defined below. Hosler Dam Stability Analysis; Project No. 2010-04 Hosler Dam is located in Ashland Canyon near the confluence of the East and West Forks of Ashland Creek. The dam serves as the impoundment for Reeder Reservoir which is the City's main water supply source. Since the water piped from the reservoir also powers a small hydroelectric plant, the dam, reservoir, penstock (water pipeline) and electrical generating equipment all fall under the permitting jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Under the terms of the City's permit, FERC requires that Hosler Dam be subjected to numerous safety reviews, maintenance requirements, annual inspections, semi-annual deflection tests and structural analysis. The structural analysis is a comprehensive and specialized analysis of the dams ability to withstand all structural forces imparted on the 83 year old, 100 foot high concrete variable-arch dam. This analysis is extremely specific and only a small number of engineering firms are qualified by FERC to perform this work. I otz C 1 T Y O F �SHLAND The engineering staff is currently preparing a request for proposals (RFP) for engineering services for the preparation and submitta] to FERC of a complete structural analysis of Hosler Dam. This $250,000 project is included in the FYl capital improvement plan. Schofield Monte Vista L.I.D.; Project 2005-08 The Schofield Monte Vista Local Improvement District was formed by the Council on April 3, 2007. The project suffered several lengthy delays including an 18 month delay resulting from a suit filed by Art Bullock and a year long delay resulting from a funding short fall. The project is now back on track with construction scheduled to begin this July or August The project plans are being completed by Marquess and Associates and we anticipate a bid opening in early June 2011. This project will pave and improve all of Schofield Street from North Main Street to Blossom View Subdivision and all of Monte Vista between Schofield Street and Sheridan Street. The budget for this project is $367,000. 2010 Street Overlay Project No. 2010-]0 One element of the City's pavement maintenance program is the application of overlays over existing asphalt pavement surfaces. Overlays are applied to the surface of weathered asphalt streets to seal the surface and to improve the structural integrity of the street. This treatment adds many years of life to the pavement. This is an annual effort, with streets selected from a computer generated list. This project includes two streets from the FYl budget and two streets from the FY12 budget. The streets to be overlayed include: Allison Street from Gresham St. to Sherman St. N. Mountain Ave. from Hersey Street to 1-5 Taylor Street from Hol]y.St. Io Ashland St. Wightman Street from Siskiyou Blvd. to Quincy St. The total approved budget for this project is $975,000. Related City Policies: Ordinance 3013, enacted on May 19, 2010, establishes certain rules and guidelines pertaining to public contracting and personal service contracts. The ordinance also adopted the Oregon Public Contracting Code and Attomey General's Model Rules for public contracting. Council Options: The council may authorize the solicitation of bids and proposals for the three projects listed. The council may remove one or more of the three listed projects. Potential Motions: Move to authorize the solicitation of bids and proposals for the three listed public works projects Move to revise the list of projects to be authorized for solicitation of bids and proposals Attachments: Vicinity Map 2of2 �r, " -1.'- I ")if. Q..\ ~~ ,/:'<\H ", '~~'; ~ . . .#'(~""~ ~' ~ ./ /.! ~~ ~ ~ (/"'" . ' [([1/, . ; . . ~.~-T .q ~I L ~_aH'H"H~'N..nol . ajH..H~.N,wlal g. t~'Q, ~f~{9r~lll /. . U-~,'. .~ (Cill~. / -.c' .r I, /5 "'l . . '/ . r-' . .;; , . - T I J ~ .1 / L ./ _'::-i L1 " L H .'/ L ..1, )} : -LJ-.t...L, F =} L-; i \ ~ W~Jijl ~~H.HJ'M~;:::-f 5J ~7". -~v< I ['f t,-t-I"/ :i/' ~ I .~. ;&;; ..' ~l/1:1I ..:.1'...:.." ~7 r-.<$'.J 1 I'. .. . AXI~OWN ,- ~ .iJ. '~~~, ~. Ilfij t" .-,1111 ~~:;p' ?t:![,J ~ c- _ ~-f<?_~ - L-~" ..., 0 ~ Lr-~ If/I, - LL :::::t;:J. , ~ ' . r-~ ffl ~..., I ;/J' /. ~ jl;J \ w -r: 1:(/. %~ ' ~ ,s,~~~1;' ~ D ..i/=: ~. Y" .I' ~ -J@Yt1,Lr-f::=?l'/'.-..H . . I )-, ~Ik -= J ... '--_, ~ii · ..IT: ~ ~" . . ~~y q-~ j/ \il " ',"" .1 rJx.. t-r f- ~~!l1:r""It!J -.}.. IL- ' . ~ -i~ ,: t 7/(1 ~~~ 1 \~ ,,/ .' Cl :.r /' I ./ _~_,___ , I ~~ ~/ ~ ~ 3 (6..- \~ hJ t1 '-\ . -.l 1]'oJ - IN I I/) +' o Q) ..... o ~ a.. I/) ~>-..J O~:r: 3: ;j V) o ~ 1- :J a.. o ...z 0< '" Cl .~ ~ - ...J ~ ",E< >-..~ (; 0; > ... "'i: Q.) .a (I) _ u :> I': ::l 00t; O)~C/} (I) "0 E ... - - - (I) W C/}teCl o ... -"<::0) u- C/} ;g .::C N r') . > .... ~ z~ ~ ! : ~ ~ ~ .. , " ~s~~e I; I C 1 T Y O F �SHLAND Council Communication Approval of Architectural Design Services Contract in Excess of $50,000 Remodel of the Grove to Serve as the Police Department Meeting Date: Department: Secondary Dept. Approval: May 17,2011 Police Department Public Works Martha Bennet��1 Primary Staff Contact: E-Mail: Terry Holderness ho I dernet(u�ashl and.or.us Mike Faught Consent Secondary Contact: Estimated Time: Question: Will Council, acting as the local contract review board, accept a proposal and award a contract for architectural services to Straus Seibert Architects in an amount not to exceed $94,020.00 for architectural services related to remodeling the Grove to serve as a police station? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that council accept the proposal and award a contract for azchitectural services to Straus Seibert Architects. Background: 1� 2010 the Public Safety Bond Committee appointed by the Council found that the existing Police Department needed to be expanded or replaced and found that the most cost effective way to meet the space needs of the Police Department would be to remodel the Grove for use as a police facility. The Council accepted and adopted the Public Safety Bond Committee's recommendations during a council meeting on May 8, 2010. Council adopted a goal in February 2011 of examining the feasibility of moving Police into [he Grove. The funding for azchitectura] services for the project was approved by the Council as part of the CIP budget. As a reminder, the City has budget savings in FY2011 related to the consolidation of dispatch that will be used,to pay for this contract. Request for Proposals Staff developed a Request for Proposal for architectural services. These services included, design development, detailed construction documen[ation and cost estimates for the proposed remodel of the Grove into a full service police station. All proposals were received by April 21, 2011 at 2pm. Eight architectural firms responded with formal proposals. An appraisal team consisting of Scott Fleury, Engineering Technician; Terry Holderness Police Chief and Corey Falls Deputy Police Chief completed their review and scoring of the proposals on April 25, 2011. Scoring was conducted individually by each team member with the scores totaled to determine the top ranked firm. The result of the scoring is shown below in table 1: Table 1: CONSULTANT TOTAL RANK SCORE Straus Seibert Architects LLC 264 1 HSR LLC 249 2 Architectural Desi n Works 237.5 3 Page I uf 2 C 1 T Y O F �SHLAND O den Roemer Wilkerson 230 4 Mackenzie Grou 229 5 Steele Associates LLC 218 6 Ambient Architecture LLC 208.5 7 Loren Berr Architect 207 8 Related City Policies: Council has authority acting as the Local Contract Review Boazd to enter into contracts for professional services including architectural services. Council Options: Council can accept the proposal submitted by Straus Seibert Architects and authorize a contract not to exceed $94,020.00. Council may reject all proposals submitted for architectural services. Potential Motions: Move to accept the proposal submitted by Straus Seibert Architects and authorize a contract notto exceed $94,020.00. Move to reject all proposals received for architectural design services Attachments: None Page 2 of 2 From: Martha Bennett To: "Diana ShioleC' Subject: FW: Ques[ions AOOUt award of architerctual services mntrac[ for Grwe/ Police SWtlon Date: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 4:22:00 PM For packet. Martha Bennett, City Administrator City of Ashland 20 East Main Street, Ashland OR 97520 (541)552-2103 or(541)488-6002.TTY 500-735-2900 FAX:(541)'488-5311 This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disdosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please let me know. Thank you. From: Martha Bennett [mailto:bennettm@ashland.or.us] Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 2:31 PM To: Carol Voisin; David Chapman; Dennis Slattery; Greg Lemhouse; 'John Stromberg'; Michael Morris; Russ Silbiger Cc: Terry Holderness; Corey Falls; 'Lee Tuneberg' Subject: FW: Questions About award of architerctual services contract for Grove/ Police Station Council Last week Councilor Voisin asked me two questions related to the item that was moved from the May 3 to the May 17 City Council meeting about an award of a contract to do architectural work as part of implementing the Coundl's goal to look at the feasibility of implementing the Grove for the Police Station. Terry Holderness and I have put this information together for you in answer to these questions. In addition to sending it to you in this email, I will indude a copy in your packet for next week's meeting so you can see the answers. If you have any follow ups to item ttl, please let Terry or Corey Falls know. If you have follow up to tt2, please let me know. All the best, Martha u i. u u u •uu•�.. i• u .u. ANSWER: The firm is out of Medford. We had several other local firms apply and aiong with several from other parts of the state. The firm was chosen using a RFP scoring system devolved to be in compliance with state purchasing laws. They have a lot of experience with public facilities in the local area and are partnering with an out of state architect who has designed over 300 police facilities. 2. Where doe< <taff anticioate g tt�ing the fund< to actually renovate the Grove. assuminQ that the Council determines they want to do that after the architects complete their work� ANSWER: The architectural contract is the first step in figuring that out. When the Public Safety Facility Bond Committee met, Ken Ogden estimated that it would cost around $1 miliion to renovate the Grove, but this was without complete plans. After the plans are complete, we'll have a better idea of whether that lmillion estimate is about right or too low. We are concerned that it may be too low. In ANY case, staff will recommend that the City Council use as much Federal Asset Forfeiture money as possible to "buy down' the amount that has to be funded by the City. If the estimate is that construttion is $1 mil�ion, then we will likely recommend that the City borrow from itself to fund the remainder of the construction, just like we did to purchase the Clay Street property. If the "gap" between forfeiture money and total cost is higher though, we will likely need to discuss whether a General Obligation Bond, which requires voter approval, or some other dedicated revenue stream is what the City needs to pay for the project. Recent changes in forfeiture law allows us to save for up to 5 years for a specific capital project. While over the last 5 years we have averaged $86,000 there is a significant fluctuation in when the money comes in. Our best year was 2006 when we received $193,000 and our lowest was 2008 when we received $18,000. We have received only $12,000 so far this year but we have some fairly large seizures in progress at this time. It is always possible that we could get lutky and get a major seizure large enough to fund the entire building it is just not very likely. If the council follows the recommendation of the citizens committee and asks the voters to approve a bond then we would of reduce the amount of the bond by however much seizure money we have at that time. If we matched the last 5 years that would be 5430,000. We are not allowed to borrow against or encumber future seizure funds in any way. If at any time during that 5 year period we got lucky and received a seizure that was large enough to move forward with construction using seizure or a combination of seizure and other capital improvement funds we would go forward. If we cannot do anything within the 5 year period we could remodel a portion of the Grove to move one or more units or functions such as detectives, property storage or the EOC and do the rest of the remodel as additional fund become available. We are really need to get the detailed plans and cost estimate done before we will be able to decide on any long term plan. We are not in a position to even ask to council to go to the voters with a bond until we have a better tost estimate. We also need to know if it feasible or cost effective to do the remodel in stages. "1'erry Holdemess Police Chiet� Cih of Ashland. Police Dcpartment I I�5 E Main St, Ashl�nd Oregon 97520 (�41) 432-;? I 1 eat. 2133 (S41) >j2-21�4 fax T"I�Y 800-73�-2900 terry.holdernessra�ash land.or.us Martha Bennett, City Administrator City of Ashland 20 East Main Street, Ashland OR 97520 (5411 552-2103 or (5411488-6002 TTY $00-735-2900 FAX: (541�4$8-5311 This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please let me know. Thank you. C 1 T Y O F �SH LAN D Council Communication Confirmation of Mayoral Appointment of David Lohman as City Attorney Meeting Date: May 17, 20] 1 Primary Staff Contact: Mayor Stromberg Department: Administration E-MaiL john@council.ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: Martha Bennett Approval: Martha Benne Estimated Time: Consent Question: Does the Council wish to confirm the appointment of David Lohman as City Attomey? Recommendation: Mayor Stromberg recommends that Council confirm the Appointment David Lohman as City Attorney. Background: The City conducted an open and competitive selection process for City Attomey. The City elected not to utilize a recruitment firm for the search as our focus was narrowed by the necessity to have an Attorney with the ability to practice law in Oregon. Five finalists were invited to participate in an intensive two-day interview and selection process, and four attended. David Lohman was selected for the position because oFhis diverse legal background and knowledge of local issues. David has extensive experience in the Public sector including his work in Washington D.C. for the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee where he served as the minority staff on the Public Works and Energy Research Subcommittee. His work included research, drafting correspondence, and providing funding level recommendations for hearings mark-ups, floor actions and conference committees on the annual budget for various agencies including the Department of the ]nterior, the U.S. Forest Service and Bonneville Power Administration. After working in commercial and personal injury litigation and Public Utility Law, David worked as the Senior Deputy Director for the Oregon Economic Development Department for several years. Eventually his career progression would take him to the Port of Portland where he worked for 0 years. David supervised up to six attomeys with the Port, and he provided legal advice on complex government law matters. David retumed to the Rogue Valley where he grew up and attended Ashland High School. He has been practicing law as a partner in the firm of Huycke, O'Connor, Jarvis and Lohman, LLP. His work locally has involved complex business and real estate transactions, land use, litigation, transportation and water law—al] of which will be directly applicable to the position of City Attorney. David has been very active in the community and has served on numerous boards and commissions, including the Oregon Transportation Commission which he is currendy serving as a member. I of 2 �r, C 1 T Y O F �SH LAN D David is excited by the new opportunities and challenges of representing the City of Ashland's Legal interests. He plans to make the transition from his current position in a successful private law practice in Medford, and begin work with the City on Monday, June 6, 201 Related City Policies: None. Council Options: Council could confirm the appointment of David Lohman as City Attomey. Council could defer the appointment of City Attorney awaiting further information. Potential Motions: Move to appoint David Lohman City Attomey for the City of Ashland. Attachments: Employment Agreement for City Attomey. z or z �r, CITY OF ASHLAND Employment Agreement CITY ATTORNEY THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 17` day of May, 2011 by and between the City of Ashland ("City") and David Lohman ("Employee"). RECITALS: A. City desires to employ the services of Employee as City Attorney for the City of Ashland; and B. It is the desire of the City to establish certain conditions of employment for Employee; and C. It is the desire of the City to (1) secure and retain the services of Employee and to provide inducement for Employee to remain in such employment, (2) to make possible full work produdivity by assuring Employee's morale and peace of mind with resped to future security; (3) to act as a deterrent against malfeasance or dishonesty, for personal gain on the part of Employee; and (4) to provide a just means for terminating Employee's services at such time as Employee may be unable fully to discharge Employee's duties due to disabiGty or when City may otherwise desire to terminate Employee's services; and D. Employee desires to accept employment as City Attorney for the City of Ashland, and to begin his employment on June 6, 2011. City and Employee agree as follows: Section 1. Duties. The city hereby agrees to employ David Lohman as City Attorney, to perform the functions and dufies spec'rfied in the Cfty Charter, City ordinances, and the job description attached as Exhibit A and to perform such other legally and ethically permissible and proper duties and functions as the City Council shall from time to time assign. The City Attorney shall devote full time to the performance of his duties. Section 2. Term. A. Nothing in this agreement shall prevent, limit, or othervvise interfere with the right of the Mayor, with the consent of the City Council in accordance with the City Charter, from terminating the services of the City Attorney at any time, subject only to the provisions set forth in the section entitled "Severance pay" of this agreement. The Mayor and Counal are responsible for Employee's appointment, dismissal, and supervision. Except as specificaily provided in this Agreement, Employee shall serve at the pleasure of the City, without any requirement to demonstrate cause for dismissal. B. Employee agrees to remain in the employ of City until June 6, 2013, and neither to accept other employment nor to become employed by any other employer until this EMPLOYMENT CONTRAR—David Lohman, City Attorney Page 1 termination date, unless the termination date is affected as othervvise provided in this agreement. This provision shall not restrict Employee from using vacation or personal leave for teaching, consulting or other activities provided these activities do not conflict with the regular duties of the Employee and are approJed in writing by the City Administrator. The City also recognizes that the Employee wiil have duties related to his p�ivate practice as an attorney during the first few months of his employment with the City of Ashland. Employee may have to allocate time away from the City to complete active legal cases. Employee may use vacation or personal leave to for these responsibilities. C. Employee has notified the City that he will be taking a formal leave of absence from his law firm to accept employment with the City. D. In the event written notice is not given by either party to terminate this agreement at least ninety (90) days prior to the termination date, this agreement shall be extended for successive lwo-year periods on the same terms and conditions as provided herein. In the event Employee wishes to voluntarily resign the position during the term of this agreement, Employee shall be required to give the Cfty six weeks written notice of such intenbon, unless such notice is waived by the City Administrator with the approval of the Mayor and City Council. Employee will cooperate in every way with the smooth and normal transfer to the newly appointed individuat Section 3. Salary. Beginning June 6, 2011, City agrees to pay Employee a monthly salary at Step D of the salary schedule ($9,181) payable at the same time and in the same manner as other employees of the City are paid. Section 4. Performance Evaluation. The Mayor and City Council shall review and evaluate the performance of the employee at least once annualy. Section 5. Hours of Work. It is recognized that Employee must devote a great deal of time outside the normal office hours. to business of the City, and that flexibility in hours worked and work schedules benefit bot the City and the Employee. The Employee shall have discretion over his work schedule, so long as the business of the City is not adversely affected. Work in excess of an average of forty (40) hours per week is deemed part of the professional responsibifty for which the Employee shall not be paid overtime but for which he shall receive a minimum of five (5) days of administrative leave each year. Employee will receive additional administrative leave if granted by the City Coundl in the Management Resolution adopted each year. Section 6. Automobile. Employee's duties require that Employee shall have the use of a motor vehicle at all times during employment with the City. The City shall provide an automobile allowance of $350/month for the use of said automobile for travel. Employee shall be responsible for paying for insurance, operation; maintenance and repairs of the vehicle. EMPLOYMENT CONTRAR David Lohman, City Attorney Page 2 Section 7. Health, Welfare and Retirement. Except as modified by this agreement, Employee shall be entitled to receive the same retirement, vacation and sick leave benefits, holidays, and other fringe benefits and working conditions as they now exist or may be amended in the future, as apply to any other departrnent head, as spelled out in the City's Management Resolution in addition to any benefits enumerated spec�cally for the benefit of Employee as provided in this agreement. With respect to vacation benefits, the City will credit ten (10 days of vacation leave to the Employee's account upon employment, which shall be in addition to the vacation time he would otherwise accrue as a City employee. Also, Employee will initially accrue vacation leave with pay at the rate of ten (10) hours per month, and shall therefore accrue additional vacation hours at five year intervals, at the same rate as other City Department Heads. Section 8. Dues and Subscriptions. City agrees to budget and to pay for the professional dues and subscriptions of Employee necessary for the continuation and full participation in national, regional, state and local associations and organizations necessary and desirable for Employee's continued professional participation, growth and advancement, and for the good of the City. Section 9. Professional Development. A. The City hereby agrees to annually budget and allocate sufficient funds to pay the expenses of the City Attorney, necessary travel and living expenses to represent the City at conierences or meetings of national and state committees, or commissions upon which the City Attorney serves as a member. Except for as provided in paragraph C, said membership on said state commissions or committees being subject to the approval of the City Administrator, and for such other o�cial meetings or travel as are reasonably necessary for the professional advancement of the City Attorney as approved by the City Administrator. B. City also agrees to budget and to pay for the travel and subsistence expenses of Employee for required Continuing Legal Education (CLE), including short courses, institutes and seminars that are necessary for his professional development and for the good of the City. C. The City agrees that Employee may continue to serve as a member of the Oregon Transportation Commission as long as it does not unreasonably interfere with the regular business of the City. The City acknowledges that Employee will be eligible in 2014 to appointment to a second term, and Employee agrees to consult with the City Counal before accepting appointment to the second term. Section 10. Oregon State Bar License. The City Attomey shall maintain throughout the life of this agreement, a valid Oregon State Bar License as required by the State'of Oregon in order to practice law and appear before the courts of this State. The City shall pay the City Attorney's annual Bar dues and the annual Jackson County Bar Dues. Section 11. Professional Liability. The City agrees that it shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify the City Attomey from all demands, claims, suits, actions, errors, or other omissions in legal proceedings brought against the City Attorney in his individual capacity or in his official capacity, provided the incident arose EMPLOYMENT CON7RAtt Oavid Lohman, City Attorney Page 3 while the City Attorney was acting within the scope of his employment. If in the good faith opinion of the City Attorney, conflict exists as regards to the defense of any such claim between the legal position of the City and the City Attorney, the City Attorney may engage counsel, in which event, the City shall indemnity the City Attomey for the cost of legal counsel. Section 12. Severance Pay. A. In the event Employee is dismissed during the term of this Agreement, and Employee is not being dismissed for any reason set forth in paragraphs B or C of this Section, the City agrees to offer Employee a severance agreement. The amount of severance pay to be offered to Employee in the severance agreement shall be equal to the employee's monthly base salary at the time of dismissal; times the number of number of months that Employee has been employed, up to a maximum of six (6) months. In addition, the severance agreement offered to the employee will require the City to continue to pay the employer portion of the premium for medical and dental insurance coverage through the end of the month the Employee's severance pay is intended to cover or until the last day of the month in which Employee obtains employment with alternative insurance, whichever occurs earlier. As a condition of the severance offer, tJie Employee will be required to release the City, its officers, representatives, insurers and employees from claims arising from employment with the City and separation of employment. B. Employee will not be eligible to receive the severance offer described in Paragraph A of this Section if this Agreement is not renewed by the City, as provided in Section 2, above. Employee also will not be eligible to receive the severance agreement offer if Employee breaches any provision of this Agreement, or if Employee engages in any act of misconduct in the pertormance of duties on behalf of the City. The term "misconduct" includes misappropriatim, dishonesty, breach of trust, insubordination, neglect of duty, failure to perform duties in a manner that is consistent with applicable law, failure to correct performance deficiencies identiFied in writing by the Mayor or by the City Administrator with approval by the City Council, after a reasonable opportunity, as determined by the City, to correct the deficiencies; committing any violation of City policies or standards that the City deems a serious violation; or engaging in other action demonstrating a disregard for the interests of the City. The term "misconduct" also includes engaging in criminal acts or other off-duty behavior that the City views as impairing Employee's ability to effectively perform the Employee's duties or jeopardizes the reputation d the City. C. Employee will not be eligible to receive the severance offer described in Paragraph A of this Section if Employee is dismissed, in accordance with applicable law, due to a disability that prevents Employee from performing the duties of the position. Section 13. Conflicts of Interest The City recognizes that as an attorney in private practice in Southern Oregon, Employee may have from time to time actual conflids of interest under the rules of the Oregon State Bar. Employee agrees to comply with the Rules of the Oregon State Bar for these conflicts of interest. City may obtain alternate legal counsel if the Employee or the City believe a conflict of interest prevents Employee from acting on behalF of the City. EMPLOYMENT CONTRAR David Lohman, Ciry Attorney Page 4 Section 14. Other Terms and Conditions of Employment. Ciry shall, by amendmenCs to this agreement, fix such other terms and conditions of employment, from time to time, as it may determine, relating to the performance by Employee with the agreement of Employee, provided such terms and conditions are not inconsistent or in conflict wdh the provisions d this agreement. Section 15. Severability. If any part, term, or provision of this agreement is held by the courts to be illegal or in conflict with the laws of the State of Oregon, the validity of the remaining portions of the agreement shall not be affected and the rights and obligations of the parties shall be construed and enforced as if the agreement did not contain the particular part, term, or provision. Section 16. Other Terms and Conditions of Employment. Employee is subject to all personnel policies of the City and the City's Management Resolution except to the extent that they are inconsistent with an express term of this Agreement. Section 17. PERS Pick-up. Employee contributions to the Public Employees' Retirement system (PERS) shall be "picked up" by the City. Employee shall not have the option of receiving money designated for retirement contributions and directly making the contribution to PERS. Employee's reported salary for tax purposes shall be reduced by the amount of the employee's contribution to PERS. Section 18. Complete Agreement. This Agreement shall constitute the entire Agreement between the City and Employee and supersedes all prior agreements, representations and understandings between them. No supplement, modification or amendment of this Agreement shall be binding on the City unless it is set forth in a writing that is signed by the Mayor and approved by the City Council. Likewise, no waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be valid unless set forth in writing that is signed by the Mayor and approved by the City Council. Dated this 17 day of May, 2011. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John Stromberg, Mayor Accepted this 17'" day of May 2011. David Lohman EMPLOYMEM CONTRAR David Lohman, City Attorney Page 5 C I T Y O F �SH LAN D Council Communication Proposals for Submittal to the ad hoc Homelessness Steering Committee Meeting Date: May 17, 201 1 Primary Staff Contact Ann Seltzer Department: Administration E-Mail: ann@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: None Approval: Martha Secondary Contact: Linda Reid, Terry Holderness Estimated Time: Consent Question: Will the Council approve the attached proposals for submittal to the ad hoc Homelessness Steering Committee (HSC)? Staff Recommendation: None. Background: At the April 5, 20ll City Council meeting, the Council directed staff to forward strategies originally introduced at the January 31 study session to the Homelessness Steering Committee for evaluation and consideration. The HSC is accepting proposals through June 1, 101 l. They anticipate meeting over the next three months to review and evaluate the submitied proposals and report to the Council in September. The committee will invite a second round of proposals, which will be due in September and a third round due in January. Each round allows for a three-month review process and reporting to the Council. The attached proposals reflect both the short-term and long-term strategies presented at the January study session. In submitting these previously identified strategies to the HSC, City staff is neither making a recommendation nor providing a guarantee of the eventual implementation of any of the proposals. Related City Policies: Council Goals Council Options: Determine if any of the proposals should not be forwarded to the Homelessness Steering Committee. Determine what changes, if any, should be made to the proposals. Potential Motions: This report is on the Consent Agenda and can be approved with other items. If removed from the Consent Agenda for a separate discussion possible motions might be: Move to approve the proposals as presented and submit to the HSC. Move to remove the Following proposals and submit the remaining to the HSC. I of z �r, C 1 T Y O F �S H LA N D Move to approve the proposals with the following changes and submit to the HSC. Attachments: Cover ]etter to HSC Eight proposals Page 2 of 2 C 1 T Y O F �SHLAND May 17, 20] 1 Dear Members of the Homelessness Steering Committee: Homelessness has many dimensions. Some of the people who are homeless by definition are "invisible" in [he community. Many people who are homeless for a short time move in with relatives and friends, live in their cars, or "couch surP' [o get by. Additionally, the vast majority of people who are homeless for a very short period of time are only homeless once in their lives. The mos[ visible homeless people [end to be people who are chronically homeless, some of whom have lived in Ashland for many years and some of whom are transient. Finally, some of the homeless people are transient and travel back [o Ashland every year. The issue of homeless people who are transient is compounded by the fact that staff has been infortned by bo[h the members of the homeless community and homeless advocates that Ashland is a well known destination throughout the country as a good place to live if you are homeless. Further, most of the services available to assist the homeless in Jackson County are located in Medford. City staff has contacted several other agencies around the country with similar problems and has found several strategies that appear ro have been effective in assisting the homeless with services or reducing homelessness or addressing problems in Ihe community related to homelessness. The City of Ashland respectfully submits the eight attached proposals your review and considera[ion. These strategies were presented to the City Council at their January study session. Sincerely, City of Ashland Staff 20 East Main SVeet Ashland, OR 97520 (541(488-6002) C 1 T Y O F �S H LA N D May 17, 201 I To: Issue: Proposed Solution Members of the ad hoc Homelessness Steering Committee: Reducing homelessness Community outreach workers. A� the April 5. 2011 Ciry Council meeting, the Co�mcil directed stuff to jorward the strutegies originn/ly introdirced at the Jaieunry 31 study session (with lhe exception of Exd��sionury Zones) to the Homeless Steering Committee for eva/uation and consideration. In submitting �hese previously identified solutions, City stuff is neither making a recommendation nor praviding u guururrtee of the eventual implementation of ull or uny of the strutegies. Santa Cruz, CA has full time employees that cons[antly pavol the streets of the city in an efTort [o try and assist the homeless find services which help them get off [he streets and become self supporting. While Santa Cruz is larger than Ashland they are very similar in that its economy is largely based on higher education and tourism. Santa Cruz claims to have seen a significant reduc[ion in the number of homelessness and related issues, such as panhandling, since implementing this program. This program was started conwrrent with a new city ordinance that limi[s panhandling on city streets and it is impossible to tell if [he community outreach program or the new ordinance is responsible for the change. Cost: Santa Cruz spends over $300,000 a year to support this program. San Francisco and Portland have similar programs. Most of that money is donated by the business community. Thank you in advance for your considera[ion of this proposal. City of Ashland Ashland City Council 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 541-488-2006 Contact Terry Holdemess, Police Chief 541-552-2138 C i T Y O F �SHLAND May 17, 2011 To: Issue: Proposed Solution Members of the ad hoc Homelessness Steering Committee: Reducing Homelessness Community Assistance Program (CAP) At the April S, 201 Ciry Cowici! meeting, the Council directed stuff to forward the strutegies origina(ly introduced ut the January 31st«dy session (with the exception ofExch�sionury Zones) to the Homeless Steering Committee for evuhmtion and consideration. In submitting these previous(y identified sa6�tions, Ciry stuff is nerther makn�g a recommendation nor providing a guarantee of the eventna! implementution of a/1 or any of the strutegies. Fontana, CA has partnered with a local church to hire a part [ime person to coordinate all public and private resources for anyone in town thal needs temporary assis[ance. This includes homeless people that are interested in getting off the streets and people that have homes bu[ are in danger of becoming homeless. Fontana is much larger and is a very different demography than Ashland but it is similar to Ashland in that most area homeless services are concentrated in [he county seat, which is ten miles from Fontana. This program does not have a street outreach component but does hold an annual event to bring service providers and potential clienu toge[her. The CAP program does not provide any long- term services to the homeless or anyone else. They only work with people who need temporary assistance to change or improve their situation. They will help people at risk of homelessness keep from losing their home or try to find a permanent housing solution for someone who is homeless. They do not supply any services to homeless people who remain homeless by choice. Cos[: The cost of [he program in approximately $4Q000 and year. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this proposal. Ciry of Ashland Ashland Ciry Council 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 541-488-2006 Contact Terry Holdemess, Chief of Police 541-552-2138 CIT �SH May 17, 2011 To: Issue: Proposed Solution: Y OF LAN D Members of the ad hoc Homelessness Steering Committee: lllegal camping Free legal camping areas At the April 5, 2011 Ciry Council meeang, the Council directed staff to forward the strategies originu!!y introduced a[ the January 31 study session (with (he exception of Exclusionury Zones) to the Homeless Steering Committeefor evaluation ond considerution. In submirling these previously identified solurions, City staff is neither muking u recommendalion nor providing u guurantee ojthe eventual implementution ojall or any ojrhe straregies. Several cities around the country have opened free camping areas for the homeless or stopped enforcing camping bans in certain areas. There is no evidence [ha[ opening a camping area will in anyway �educe homeless in an area. The purpose of a camping area is to give the homeless a legal place to camp. Campgrounds that are regulated tend to be underutilized. Campgrounds that are not regulated tend to have problems with crime and sanitation issues. Communities near the campgrounds are generally opposed to their presence. Albany and Corvallis are examples o£Oregon cities that have unsuccessfully tned camping areas for the homeless in the recent past. The most successful homeless camping area in the Oregon would appear to be Digniry Village near Portland. This program is differen[ in many ways from o[her homeless camping areas. Dignity Village is approxima�ely eight miles from downtown in a faidy isolated area and has a limited but apparently pertnanent population who are allowed to build structures on [he site. Dignity Village is controlled by a village council that makes [he rules that all residents have to follow and operates as a nonprofit organization. If the city decided to look at developing a Dignity Village type project or develop any free campground program we would need ro do additional research and address the problems that other communities have had with free campground areas. Staff recommends that if the Council decides ro move forward with this proposal that [he city should pariner with a community based organization to maintain and monitor Ihe camping area. We also recommend tha� the camping area be regula[ed to elimina[e or a[ least mi[igate lhe problems free camps areas have genera�ed in other ci[ies. Cost of any camping area would vary greatly depending on Council's direction. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this proposal. City of Ashland Ashland City Council 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Contact Terry Holderness, Police Chief 541-552-2138 C 1 T Y O F �SHLAND May 17, 2011 To: Issue: Proposed Solution: Members of the ad hoc Homelessness Steering Committee: Panhandling Collection Boxes At the Apri! 5, 201 City Cowicil meeting, the Council directed staff to forx�urd the strutegies origina/ly ii:troduced at the Junuary 3/ study session (with the exception of Exde�sionary Zones) to the Homeless Steering Committee for evaluation und consideration. /n si�bmitting these previous/y identified solutions, Ciry staff is neither making a recommendu�ion nor providing a guarantee of the eventual implementation of al! or any of the sfrategies. Panhandling is legally protected under the United States and Oregon Constitutions. While not all people who are homeless are involved in panhandling and similady, not all of the people who panhandle are homeless, over the last year the city has seen a dramatic increase in complaints from residents, visitors and business owners regarding the behavior of people who are panhandling in [he downtown or in [he parks. These complaints include aggressive pan handling, making lewd commen[s to people on [he stree[, blocking sidewalks and doorways, being ]oud, trespassing, using and being under the influence of drugs and alcohol in public places, urinating in public, li[[ering and leaving trash and various other forms of disorderly conduct. It is difficult to address issues related to homelessness without discussing the behaviors that generate complaints, such as panhandling. Similarly, the City cannot address the behaviors without looking for ways to address services and circumstances of homelessness. Additionally, both homelessness and the behaviors people experience downtown and in the parks have degrees ofseverity. Several ci[ies around the country have signi£cantly reduced panhandling and complaints related [o panhandling by putting donation boxes for homeless services in areas that are heavily impacted by panhandling. The donation boxes haves signs on them requesting people help [he homeless get off the stree[s by donating to rehabilita[ion services rather than encouraging them to remain homeless by direcdy giving [hem money. Cities partner wi[h homeless service providers who receive [he dona[ions and use the funds to enhance their work in the community. In the City of Laguna Beach, a community that provides donation boxes, the number of people parihandling and complaints about panhandling has been reduced 60% to 80% and almost eliminated in areas around the donation boxes. Each box would be [he same size or slightly larger than the existing yellow boxes where people can pay a parking ticket Each box with signage would cost approximately $200 or less. The total cost will depend on the number of donation boxes. The City would pay for the boxes and the identified partner will be responsible for collecting the money from the boxes. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this proposal. City of Ashland Ashland City Council 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 541-488-2006 Con[act Ann Sel[zer, Management Analyst 541-552-2106 C 1 T Y O F �SH LAND May 17, 2011 To: Members of the ad hoc Homelessness Steering Committee: ]ssue: Panhandling/Obstructing sidewalks Proposed Solution: Limits on sidewalk usage. At the Apri! 5, 20! 1 Ciry Corsncil meeting, the Counci( directed staff to fonvurd the strategies originully introduced u1 !he January 31 strtdy session (wilh the exception of Exc/usionary Zones) to the Homeless Steering Committee for evuhiation and consideration. In ei�bmitting these prevrously identified solutions, City staff is neither making a recommendutio�r nor providing a guaruntee of the eventuul implementation of a!! or any of the strategies. Ci[ies from around [he country have passed ordinances limi[ing people from sitting or lying on sidewalks in certain parts of the city. This has the effect of reducing loitering and panhandling in those areas. The ninth circuit court of appeals has upheld Seattle's ordinance as being constim[ional. Portland had a similar ordinance that was struck down by [he Oregon courts. Portland has revised that ordinance but it has not yet been challenged under Oregon law. The only direct cost would be to place signs in the down[own area but unti] the Portland law is challenged in court we could be at risk of expenses related to litigation of the ordinance. Some ci[ies have seen significant reductions in complaints related [o panhand]ing and loitering. Santa Cruz, CA claims that their ordinance placing ]imits on sidewalk usage is one of the strategies that they have used that has resulted in a significant reduction in complain[s related to panhandling and loitering. This strategy was included in the list of strategies presented by staff ro the council since it has proved effective in other cities in reducing the impact of homelessness on the community. Staff would not recommend moving forward with this type of ordinance until its legality under the Oregon constitution is clarified. This should occur when the revised ordinance in Portland is challenged in court. The city could oCcourse move forward before the Poriland ordinance is challenged but would be at risk of costly li[igation. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this proposal. City of Ashland Ashland.City Council 20 East Main SVeet Ashland, OR 97520 Contact Terry Holderness, Chief of Police 541-552-2138 G 1 T Y O F �SH LAN D May 17, 2011 To: Members of [he ad hoc Homelessness Steering Committee: Issue: Lack of Access to Health Care Proposed Solution: Periodic (annual?) Medical Screenings At the Aprr( S, 20/ 1 City Co�mcil meetrng, the Cowfcil directed staJf to forwurd the stru[egies originally introduced at !he Junuury 3/ study session (with the exceptior7 q(Exdusionary Zones) to the Homele�s Steering Committee jor evaluation and consideration. /n s�ibmitting these previously identified solutions, Ciry stuff is neither making a recommendution nor providing n guarantee of the eventual, implementution of all or any of the strategies. Homelessness inevitably causes or exacerbates bo[h minor and serious health problems. Illnesses that are closely associated with poverty including malnutrition, and denta] problems ofren have devastating effec[s on homeless popula[ions. While manageable heal[h problems such as diabetes or mental illness can escalate to dangerous proportions without the availability of basic preventative care, medication, and ongoing support. LasUy human beings without shelter fall prey to parasites, frostbite, infections and violence. Homelessness creates many barriers to getting basic health care. Most homeless people do not have heal[h insurance of any sort, or the cash [o pay for medical care, transporta[ion or a safe and stable place to heal. People who are homeless are more concerned with meeting immediate needs for shelter, food, clothing and safety than with seeking health care. Because homeless people often are uninsured and lack access to low-cost preventive health care, they go without care until relatively minor problems become urgent medica] emergencies. Ultimately, most homeless people do get treated, but it is treatrnent of the most expensive sort, delivered in hospital emergency rooms and acute care wards. Through taxpayer support of public institutions and Ihrough [he cost-shifring inherent ia the heal[h insurance sys[em, we all pay the high cos[s of care deferred. Undetected and untreated communicable diseases threaten the health of other homeless people in particular and of [he public in general. These infectious and communicable diseases quickly escalate from persona] trials to become cosdy and deadly public heal[h emergencies. In [he ]ong run, perhaps the greatest costs are the moral and social results of neglec[ing the needs of dispossessed, seriously ill peop]e in our midst. Currendy the City of Ashland participates in Project Homeless Connect, an annual regiona] event that connects homeless populations and those at risk of homelessness with community resources and services. Included in those services are medical screenings completed though a partnership of La Clinica Del Valle, and the Oregon Health Sciences University nursing smdents. The Dental van is also brought down for the event and staffed by volunteer dentists and dental assistance. The proposal would be to provide those same medicaVdental services locally on an annual basis or more often if possible. The City's proposal would be to partner with one or many non-pro6t groups to offer those resources that are wi[hin the City's purview to offer a venue for these services to local homeless population ei[her on an annual basis or more often if possible. This partnership could take the form of the Project Homeless Connect event where multiple social service organizations work together [o raise money, in-kind donations, and volunteer support to provide services, or a partnership with organizations already providing health care options [o homeless populations (like La Clinica and OHSU who wrrently provide medical screenings at St. Vincent De Paul on a monthly basis, or the Community Heaith Center) to provide regular ongoing medical outreach and screening. The City could look at providing incentives and support for the aforementioned endeavors through the prioritization of Socia] Service grant funds, through CDBG grant opportunities, through staff support, or by providing a space in which to hold the medical screenings/event free ofcharge. Costs: Costs will depend on the extent of the activity. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this proposai. City of Ashland Ashland City Council 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 541-488-2006 Contact Linda Reid, Housing Program Specialis[ 541-552-2043 C 1 T Y O F �SHLAND May 17, 2011 To: Issue: Proposed Solu[ion: Members of the ad hoc Homelessness Steering Committee: Lack of Access Rest Room Facilities after 4:00 P.M. Portable Toilets At the Apri15, 2011 City Counci( meeting, �he Council directed staff to forwurd the strategies origina!!y introduced at the January 31 shidy session (wirh the exception to Exch�sionary Zones) to the Hameless Steering Committee for evuh�ution und consrderation. In submitting these previously idwrtified sohuions, Ciry staff is neither muking a recommendation nor providing a gt�arantee of �he eventuul implementation of all or nny of the strategies. Lack of access to Rest Room Facilities in the evening: Public restroom in the downtown and in the parks close afler 4:00 P.M, and most businesses in the downrown area limit restroom use to paying customers. Consequently this leaves no legal sanitary facilities for homeless populations to use when they are in the downtown area afier 4:00 P. M. Portable roilets: A potentia] solution would be to provide portable toilets in the downtown area. The City's proposal would be to either grant funds [o a non-profit to rent and pay for the maintenance of the Portable toilets or for the City itself ro be point of contact. Costs: The costs will depend on the number of units and the extent of the use, but in general the mon[hly cost to rent a portable toilet would be between 80.00- 81.50 for the first unit and $42.50 for each additional unit. This cost includes weekly service. Costs could very slightly for added fuel surcharge due to the fluctuatio� i� fue] prices. Generally minor damage (such as graffiti) is covered, but an extra charge woold apply for cleaning beyond the extent of nortna] use and an added tnp for cleaning outside of the normal cleaning schedule would ment and extra charge of between $65.00- $80.00. Full replacement of a portable toilet unit could cost $350.00-$500.00. Miscellaneous: The number and placement of units would need to be decided. Cooks, Inc. recommends asking for a fiberglass uni[ which is easier to clean in instances of vandalism and are heavier units in general. Cooks also carries a pale green unit, which might blend in better with a park like environment. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this proposal. City of Ashland Ashland City Council 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Contacr. Linda Reid, Housing Program Specialist 541-552-2043 G 1 T Y O F �S H LA N D May 17, 2011 To: Issue: Proposed Solution: Members of the ad hoc Homelessness Steering Committee: Lack of affordable housing and support services for homeless populations Drop-in Center, Permanent Supportive Housing, Housing First, Transitional Housing, and Single Room Occupancy Program. At the April 5, 2011 Ciry Cow�cil meeting, �he Council directed staff to forwnrd the strategies originu(!y i�etroduced ut the Junuary 31 sri�dy session (with the exceplion oJExchrsionary Zones) to the Home/ess Steerirrg Committee for evaluution und consideration. In submitting these previously idenlified .solutions. Ciry staff is neither making a recommenda�ion nor providing a guarantee of the eventual implementation ojall or any of the strategies. The following proposa! incorporates seven strutegies introduced at the study session us long term solutions. The City of Ashland has a limited supply of affordable housing, and no transi[iona] or permanent supportive housing units are ]ocated within or near the City of Ashland. In 2007, ICCA, the agency that ran the local drop-in center, consolidated their programs to their Medford Location. Since that [ime no agency/organization has been able [o step in and fill that gap. The City does not have the capacity or the charge [o,develop and manage housing uni[s or run a drop-in center. However, the City would be willing to identify partnedpartners and work with those partners to facilitate the development of those resources. This proposal would be to recommend to council that staffworks to: Identify community partner(s) that have the capacity and desire to provide the above mentioned resources. Review City Land Use Ordinances in an effort [o identify and remove barriers to the identified needed housing types. (More specifically Single Room Occupancy Units in the multi-family zone) Re-orient [he General Fund Social Service grant program to priori[ize funding to activities that provide services to homeless or those at risk of homelessness or provide resources that preven[ homelessness. Review opportunities to incentivize the above identified activities. The City's proposal would be to either grant funds ro a non-profit to provide seed money or prioritize existing grant funds for that purpose. Costs: The cos[s will depend on the number of units, the extent of the ac[ivity and associated s[aff cos[s. Each year the City gran[s over $]00,000 in Social Service gran[ funds to Social Service providers The City also receives approximately $200,000 in CDBG funds, which it offers up to non-profi[ agencies to provide service to low and modera[e income populations. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this proposal. City of Ashland Ashland City Council 20 East Main Streel Ashland, OR 97520 541-488-2006 Contact Linda Reid, Housing Program Specialist 541-552-2043 C 1 T Y O F �SH LAN D Councii Communication Letter to DEQ regarding Grey Water Systems Meeting Date: May 17, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: Bill Molnar Department: Community Development E-Mail: molnarb(n�ashland.or.us Seconda De L: Conservation Div on Second Contact: Robbin Pearce Approvaly p Martha Bennet�� Estimat d Time: Consent Question: Does the Council wish to endorse a letter from the Conservation Commission ro the Department of Emironment Quality (DEQ) supporting minimal financial impact in the permitting process of Grey Water Systems? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Counci] approve the Conservation Commission's letter to DEQ. Staff and Conservation Commission members genera►ly support DEQ's permitting process but would recommend that they minimize permit and reporting costs in order to encourage the installation of such systems. Background: Greywater or use of wastewater from bathtubs, showers, bathroom sinks and washing machines has been desirable for years. Oregon law does not currently allow wastewater from kitchen sinks and dishwashers, which may contain high amounts of salts, fats, oils, gease, Food particles, and corrosive detergents, to be used in water conservation systems. Currently the use of greywater for landscaping requires a permit through DEQ. Non-potable use inside a swcture is controlled through the Oregon Plumbing Code. Because of the efforts in Oregon to conserve water both now and for the future, the Oregon Building Codes Division has approved the reuse of wastewater or "greywater" for flushing toilets as an altemate method to the state plumbing code. DEQ has established a Greywater Advisory Committee to review and make a recommendation as to how the rules and regulations will be used under the new law. The Advisory Committee has a minimum requirement of: Minimizing the burden of permit regulations on property owners; Prescribing regulations that allow for treatment of disposal and reuse; and Ensuring protection of public health, safety and welfare, the public water supplies and state waters. DEQ has held public hearings across the state asking for public input. The attached document outlines the category type and associated process including permits and fees. C I T Y O F �SHLAND Related City Policies: Ashland Comprehensive Plan Chapter XI Energy, Air Water Conservation. Additionally, AWAC (Ashland Water Advisory Committee) through CTAG (Conservation Technical Advisory Group) is reviewing the potential for a City greywater program and the development of additional supporting policies. Council Options: The Council may choose to approve the attached letter of suppori to DEQ, approve the letter with amendments or choose not to forward the attached letter to DEQ. Potential Motions: Move to approve sending the letter from the Ashland Conservation Commission to DEQ; Move to approve sending the ]etter from the Ashland Conservation Commission to DEQ with the following changes; or Move to not send a letter to DEQ from the City's Conservation Commission regarding the subject of the proposed greywater permitting process at this time. Attachments: DEQ Type and Fee Table Letter of support N d Q M 00 W O N r O C N Q c C u n N 9 F u m v m F C A q A a a 3 i w u« 2 s m v' E �'Z q c P m d w g y a o« o u u E d c r a a y �'rv s a a a g m x E F c v 27 n o E n E E E d g€� c c�i �E E 0 9 q 6 6 6 d M W N 9 6 N d Y S Y d O d C q�� F C��' S N y v E `o v �>'s �m'.� �n :5 L C Y� q O w p O w O q C C O d C C s c E E 3 d q E o m N q q d O b� q j 3 N d Y �m.. �i S O E n 01 w E �E °n �i Y j T T Y>>)) T)) Y)) Y Y Y y d G Y C F u v�i �S.' E °c 0 0 3 5 u w;: t n M N `u c F r� o�'n u E Y I I `o a a E A m E o'� m d a o `u �i m_ oy t c 'v v ''m E n c i� a f�cnm v E c C O 9 c E n Y Y r d q o y y o a 3 o d' i R s a v�i N a y E v E N F v p m. y q w u m �i Y p x 0[ Z 0 O W$ v q�� Q F c N> r r> s o a> 3 w�°' i u 3'a E y c .c�� o v �E m c E o d q�PTi p 6 1� V VI c 4 C D m y d� 3 0 C.O V Q a A d y V e E A u� n iC a o `u d d E a� L u y« 3> v� a x q tJ S� q m O u�i 4 N r G W E Y n V Y G q Q m C O Y O y Z V Y O O C O E p o� o f o q V m r N 9 �E e E y m o A R a O O Y m a c m a �C q S1 o e E o C 8 a Y Y u c O C y 9 O L C w� m m �`o, L' 'm E c �9 c 9 r, a c� E v_ c c r C o o E E E E Y+ '3 E 8 e 2 0`o L�` o n a S q m pp p E a E� g� E m C 9 E 3 S S' E� y m m C y'� !q y� C Y E tl Y CO A m C� 0 9� Y. O� A Q& u g u m r� l7 inf u�7 tif ¢��n O n �KwQ u =in�n in O� c A C R �C ;mg E o Y E w o E u a W o, E 5 n O f c C 1 T Y O F �SH LAN D Apdi z6, zo� i Greywater Advisory Committee Department of Environmental Quality State of Oregon 81 1 SW Sixth Avenue Portland, OR 97209 Dear Committee Members: We are wri[ing to support, in general, the statewide greywater guidelines thai [he Advisory Committee has been working on for the past 18 months. From reviewing the committee's December report and your March 3 staff presentation at Pioneer Hall in Ashland, we understand that you propose to allow�the use of greywater from showers, baths, ba[hroom sinks, kitchen sinks and ]aundries for subsurface irrigation and, with treatment, for spray irrigation, wash water and construction. There are numerous people in Ashland who want to install greywater use systems for irrigating their lawns and gardens once your proposals are adopted this summer. There is one area of concem that we share with several of the homeowners who testified at the Ashland hearing. That is, application and annual inspection fees which might apply. While the report does not address this subject, the possibility of a$50 annual fee was raised at the Ashland hearing. Your studies indicate a minimal savings in water bills for Ashland greywater users. While many those interested in putting in greywa[er systems are mo[ivated more by conserving water than in saving money, an annual fee wou]d be an additional hurdle. Consequendy, we support the recommended Tier 1 permit for the smaller greywater reuse systems that allow the average homeowner to obtain a simple registration. Tier 2 permits for medium flow systems, we believe, should also be issued at a minimal charge. We request that ALL fees be kept to a minimum to encourage sys[em installation and the realization for the greatest water savings with minimal impact. Sincerely, Ashland Conservation Commission COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541388-5305 51 Winbum Way Far: 547-08&600fi Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800.7352900 www.ashlantl.ocus C 1 T Y O F �SHLAN D Council Communication Police Grant Approval Meeting Date: May 17, 201 1 Primary Staff Contact: Terry Holderness Department: Police E-Mail: holdemet@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Finance Secondary Contact: Lee Tuneberg Approval: Martha Bennett� Estimated Time: Consent Question: Should the Police Department apply for a grant from the United States Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing for one additional officer to engage in community policing activities? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council direct the Police Department to apply for a COPS grant to fund one additiona] officer to engage in eommunity policing activities. Background: The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services has over $200 milliori available for FY 2011 COPS Hiring Program for hiring additional career law enforcement officers. The grants will pay 100% for approved entry-level salaries and fringe benefits of full-time officers for 36 months of grant funding. The money may be used to hire officers to fill unfunded, positions. The officer hired under this program will have to engage in community policing activities. If the criteria are similar to COPS granl programs in the past our most competitive option would most likely be to add an additional Central Area Patrol officer. The additional CAP officer would be able to engage in community policing activities in the downtown, parks and schools and still be available to respond to emergencies throughout the City. The grant program requires a commitment to maintain officer staffing levels for the term of the grant (36 months) and then to maintain the additional position when the grant funding ends for a minimum of 12 months. The Police Department is submitting a budget proposal that includes 27 full time officer positions for the 201 1 budget. If we were to accept a COPS grant for an additional officer we would need to maintain 28 or more full time officers through the 2014 budget year. Council appcoved applying for the same grant program with the same conditions in 2010 but the grant was not funded. Related City Policies: None. Council Options: The Council may either approve that the Police Department apply for the COPS grant or direct that the department not apply for the grant. Potential Motions: I move to direct the Police Department to apply for a COPS grant. I move to direct the Police Department not to apply for a COPS grant. �r, C 1 T Y O F �SHLAND Attachments: None. C 1 T Y O F �SH LAN D Council Communication Public Hearing and Approval of a Meeting Date: Department: Secondary Dept.: Approval: May 17, 2011 Public Works/Engineering Community Deve pment Martha Benne� Deed Primary Staff Contact: James H. Olson E-Mail: olsonj(c�ashland.or.us Secondary Contact: Michae] R. Faught Estimated Time: 20 Minutes Question: Wi11 the Council approve and authorize the Mayor to sign a quitclaim deed to terminate a portion of a public pedestrian access easement ]ocated on Lot 9 of the Oaks of Ashland Planned Community? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Council approve and authorize the Mayor to sign a quitclaim deed to terminate a portion of a public pedestrian access easement located on Lot 9 of the Oaks of Ashland Planned Community. Background: Summarv With the platting of the Oaks of Ashland Planned Community in 2002, several public pedestrian access easements (PPAE) were created to allow public sidewalks to be constructed around several mature oak trees. The PPAE created on Lot 9(578 Sutton Place) allows for the sidewalk to be routed behind or to the east of a 24" diameter oak tree. This routing would nearly surround the tree with sidewalk and have an adverse impact on its health. There is more than adequate space to construct the sidewalk in a more standard location on the street side of the tree while still maintaining a full parkrow or planter strip between the curb and the walk. Because of the slope of the property and the existence of other utility easements on the site, the PPAE severely restricts the buildable area of the lot and the property owner has requested that the easement be terminated. Easement Utilization The Oaks of Ashland is aptly named as the subdivision proper boasts numerous large oak trees, some over three feet in diameter. These trees were considered in the ]ayout of the streets, sidewalks and utilities in the original subdivision design. Where these trees might be jeopardized by sidewalk construction, additional pedestrian access easements were created to allow the sidewalks to leave the dedicated street rights of ways and meander around the tree thereby leaving it in place. At the southwest comer of Lot 9, a 24 foot diameter oak tree is situated 173 feet from the street curb and 2.0 feet north of the southerly property line. A 24.05 foot diameter PPAE was created so that the future sidewalk could be constructed around or to the east side of the tree. At the time the subdivision was being laid out, precise dimensions and locations were not known. It was assumed that there would be inadequate distance between the tree and the street curb to construct a standard wncrete sidewalk with the required parkrow or planting strip while still keeping an adequate buffer between the sidewalk and the tree. With the full street improvements (minus the sidewalk) installed it is obvious that there is adequate clearance between the tree and the curb to construct the sidewalk in the standard location �I r, C 1 T Y O F �SHLAND with a 6.5 foot wide parkrow, 5.0 foot wide sidewalk and a 5.8 foot buffer between the tree and the sidewalk. Sidewalk Construction Development approvals for most subdivisions require that sidewalks adjacent to common areas and open space areas be built with the initia) infrastructure construction. While sidewalks are generally required along all lot frontages within the subdivision, these sidewalks are not constructed until the residence is constructed to prevent damage from construction activities. Lot 8, located directly south of Lot 9 has been fully developed with a residence, driveway, landscaping and sidewalk. The sidewalk placement on this lot did not utilize the PPAE and did not direct the walk to the back or east side of the oak tree. The sidewalk which has been constructed to the south property line of Lot 9 has utilized the more standard design with a parkrow, sidewalk and buffer strip constructed on the west side of the tree. This placement offers much less impact to the tree and allows the sidewalk to continue parallel with the street and eliminates a large out-of-direction "detour" travel loop. Past experience has shown that most pedestrians will take the shortest path between two points of a sidewalk detour. A detour route around the tree would require a travel distance of approximately 95 feet while a sidewalk in a more norma] location would require one half that distance. Tree Preservation The preservation of the numerous oak trees within this subdivision was and is of major concern to the City. Planning approvals for this subdivision required that a tree preservation plan was to be strictly enforced during the construction of the improvements with specific instructions for work to be stopped if the plan were to be violated. The plan to nearly encircle the oak tree on Lot 9 with a concrete sidewalk is not the best method to preserve the health of the tree. The size of the PPAE requires that the five foot wide concrete sidewalk be placed less than five feet from the tree which is within the drip line. Sidewalk placed on three sides of the tree will negatively impact and within five feet of the tree its nutrient intake ability. Utilization of Lot 9 Lot 9 is encumbered by several easements including: 10 foot wide public utility easement ]ocated adjacent to the street right of way; 24.05 foot radius public pedestrian access easement located in the southwest corner of the lot; 0 foot wide private storm drain easement located 40 feet east of the center of the lot; 0 foot wide public sanitary sewer easement and sewer access easement located in the same position as the storm drain easement. The combination of these four easements restricts the build-ability of this lot. The PPAE encroaches into the lot by 30 feet requiring that the front yard setback for a future residence be increased to accommodate the easement. Related City Policies: The disposal of any publicly owned property or interest in properties such as an easement, is govemed under ORS section 221.725 which requires the following actions: �r, G 1 T Y O F �SHLAND (1) Except as provided in ORS 221.727, when a city counci] considers it necessary or convenient to sell real property or any interest therein, the city council shall publish a notice of the proposed sale in a newspaper of general circulation in the city, and shall hold a public hearing conceming the sale prior to the sale. (2) The notice required by subsection (1) of this section shall be published at least once during the week prior to the public hearing required under this section. The notice shall state the time and place of the public hearing, a description of the property or interest to be sold, the proposed uses for the property and the reasons why the city council considers it necessary or convenient to sell the property. Proof of publication of the notice may be made as provided by ORS 193.070. (3) Not earlier Ihan five days after publication of the notice, the public hearing conceming the sale shall be held at the time and place stated in the notice. Nothing in this section prevents a city council from holding the hearing at any regular or special meeting of the city council as part of its regular agenda. (4) The nature of the proposed sale and the general terms thereof, including an appraisal or other evidence of the market value of the property, shall be fully disclosed by the city council at the public hearing. Any resident of the city shall be given an oppoRunity to present written or oral testimony at the hearing. (5) As used in this section and ORS 221.727,"sale" includes a lease-option agreement under which the lessee has the right to buy the leased real property in accordance with the terms specified in the agreement. Council Options: Following the public hearing the Council may approve and authorize the Mayor to sign a quitclaim deed to relinquish a poRion of the public pedestrian access easement on Lot 9 of the Oaks of Ashland Planned Community; Following the public hearing, the Council may decline to approve the quitclaim deed. Consequences Failure to approve the quitclaim deed will affect the setback and future house placement on Lot 9. If the sidewalk utilized the PPAE and is constructed around the tree the health of the tree may be degraded. Potential Motions: Move to approve and authorize the Mayor to sign a quitclaim deed to terminate a portion of a public pedestrian access easement located on Lot 9 of the oaks of Ashland Planned Community; Move to deny approval of the quitclaim deed. Attachments: Quitclaim Deed Letter from Thomas Heumann Vicinity map and detail maps Photographs 3of3 ♦))r.q� M �l1 L�L' �HIS SPACE After recording return to: City of Ashland Barbara Christensen 20 E. Main Street Ashland OR 97520 Un01 a cham�e is requested all �ax statements shall be sent to the following atltlress: City of Ashland Barbare Christensen 20 E. Main Street Ashland OR 97520 File No.: 7162-1679942 (ja) Date: ��February 15, Z011 STATUTORY QUITCLAIM DEED The City of Ashland a Municpal Corporatlon, Grantor, releases and quitclaims to Thomas E. Heumann, individually and Mary Louise Burdick-Hartmann, Trustee of the Mary Loulse Burdick Hartmann Living Trust dated ]une 11 1997, as Trustees of the The 634 Sutton Place Trust, dated 7uly 21, 2008 alI righks and interest in and lo lhe following described real property: LE6AL DESCRIPTION: Real property in the County of )ackson, State of Oregon, described as follows: That easement shown as a Public Pedestrian Access Easement (PPAE) lying within lot number 9 of the Oaks of Ashland, a Planned Community dedicated to the City of Ashland on January 25, 2002 and recorded in Volume 26 of Plats on page 3 of the Records of )ackson County, Oregon. This document is being recorded to terminate said easement. The true consideratlon For this conveyance is $0.00. (Here rompy wim requi.emen�s ororts 53.oso) Page 1 of 2 AGN: 1-096583-9 Stntutnry Quitdaim Deed Pile No.: 7363-16799@ (ja) conrinued Date: Oi/15/2011 BEfORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON TRANSFERRING FEE TITLE SHOULD INQUIRE ABOUT THE PERSON'S RIGHTS, IF ANY, UNDER ORS 195300, 195.301 AND 195.305 TO 195336 AND SECTIONS 5 TO 11, OF CHAPTER 424, OREGON LAWS 2007, AND SECTIONS 2 TO 9 AND 17, CHAPTER 855, OREGON LAWS 2D09. THIS tNSTRUMENT DOES NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT 1N VIOLATTON OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TTTLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK W1TH �iHE APPROPRIATE CIlY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERiFY THAT THE UNIT OF LAND BEING TRANSFERRED IS A LAWFULLY ESTABUSHEO LOT OR PARCEL, AS DEFINED IN ORS 92.010 OR 215.010, TO VERIFY THE APPROVED USES OF THE l0T OR PARCEL, TO DETERMINE ANY UMITS ON LAWSUifS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES, AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930 AND TO INQUIRE ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, IF ANY, UNDER ORS 195.300, 195.301 AND 195.305 TO 195,336 AND SECT70N5 5 TO 11, OF CHAPTER 424, OREGON LAWS Z007, AND SECTIONS 2 TO 9 AND 17, CHAPIER 855, OREGON LAWS 2009. Dated [his day of ZO Mayor ]ohn Stromberg STATE OF Oregon )ss. Counry of Jackson This instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of 20_ by Mayor lohn Stromberg. Notary Public for Ore9on My commission expires: Page 2 0l 2 Jim Olsen- PPAE.rtf ��i�� e�1,�� 5�9-4�2�9334 e�il: �59-�41�-��A4 thosh @jeflnet. org January 26, 2011 Jim Olson Engineering Services Manager City of Ashland 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 Subject:: Lot 391E14AA-6015 --PPAE Dear Mr Olson, 1/27/11 8:29 AM :�F�i`I 2U11 We are in the process of acquiring ihe subject �ot at 578 Sutton Place in The Oaks of Ashland subdivision. We have until February 1 to finish our "due diligence". Our search has revealed that the water and drainage plan shows a sidewalk making a large loop around a tree in the northwest corner of the subject lot, identified as "LOT 9", and the survey plan has a Public Pedestrian Access Easement (PPAE) in that location, with a radius (E11) of 24.05ft. The actual physical condition is shown on the enclosed photos, showing that the actually existing sidewalk, ending at the property line, is taking a much more sensible course because there are 9.5 ft for the 4-foot sidewalk between the tree trunk and the existing hedge row. Continuing the sidewalk as already built renders the PPAE obsolete and outdated. Keeping the easement would unnecessarily limit the available building footprint. I request that the City vacate the PPAE in that corner. Respectfuliy, c— Thomas Heumann l�1��r �ry�L�.��,��._� Mary Cou Heumann _a cc: Barbara Allen team Windermere Real Estate Page 1 of 1 0_ - '-Z ~ o~ ~ >- ...1 ~ t-.,. !: -. z VV')g 't~ c 'c :::l O{6 ~ 6 o 0 o-lU ~ "'"" c: 0 o c: ";::; @ "'- c:1'l.. .~ -g o.;:l f-..c:: ~ '" c:<t: 04-; E 0 <l) '" "'". '" '" I.lJO o ..s m ..... o ...J r-~~~ . 7,tot--~. '. '\! ~6 !. ~ ! { i/ / z< ~~~ ~~~ ~;g : ! i! ." >- ~ ~ ~ ! ~S~~~ II ~ x E; 'E ~ E ~ ~ ~ J!' . 0, ~ " -, x d . E z! '0 '0 ., w " " ~ " o ~ o ~ N o o pl� �n 5� 527 535 s4 3 m, L07 19 0 LOT 20 s�9s 5o rr LOT 18 LOT 21 5 3 W 6169 SO FT 6896 SO FT e ,7£� �o e o, gsl N N T J J Z y 'r C94 C95 �9g @79 T SO FT C 2 J 'Y p r`3J g'S �0 2 p OO C87`\ J// 7p PVF �'s• OPfN SPACE 4 J �O 3�527 SO F7 o, P�� soi /�0`` �s� GA� f23 io e �,t2\ !0' PU£ C9 125.53 O 578 1 b N r m vi I li i�' N L 9 p h 1J433 SO FT .{et:F:i'r.� m G�. A' I ?3.5 'ii;i:;i::',' m 23.5 �m o I �I `�ti M ��r P�ts� I J S'SJS A 125.53 �O .0 V a�. J� I Q o o 5s�> •a 3 ��M v r LOT 8 es�e so rr o� O� ti A o p G p S JS o: G h� 6• a p 0 h Vt/ O 0 0 9 lY J� 594 e �v /G z G tor �7. C8� c86 2 100 G�� 49'St'09'W ,�s8 THE OAK �4SHLANI) A �o Loceted in the N.)I. 1/4 mLaity 0 ,o ia the GYty o1 Aahlend Jec 14' T.Sb�. R1E, �'r. ,zc .Faan County, O�gc�a 4i `a �3.t r .f :'W .Prt� a f 3 'kq {�d�� r +f- p�� b. i,� P 1�j1 W� y j t y- i 1 ��;�AL ��s �.4'Y y�+r� S' fi t 4 ,5� k !4 ��a..�^,� r �-b' ��s.s r.y�; �?l.�t ts�� t .r' q �r r E•."� j+ F ..j �'1h '4' qq k t ��g �L�"'-.x��+��F� d p J R S,a^Y� Y'��` I Y •��T.. d Sii �j t i�i If �Rn� Y� j ��J �$'x ir �-t ,�'t;� N rs F`...�� a'ts.W' `a.s'4at �Ki� �R i_ "J r 5 ry y( 4 f ,�s� r x, i y x 4 3"Y f }fi�}. r ...,r. p f ��L�o�� ,Mr��. z �6'w 'T'S' r T h jv r: r x' ��i ��?'`'�`'►�6 p 4 ,ai�►n1�Jll��i�� b�d�' ne 4� H lert�� 4 r+. D �G ^S A J -.a: n„„ F�fi ��,t� i ,r d p. J r. :r r r t�M;;� �"'a f r 2 f I' e l Y t- J"{ dtxLS' Yff `��.m �5 r I 'x ��i� x F fi r. +w� .i� ��;.i _.r ��y'�� .''f i��F`�� rx ��r r¢r 1 2. t �1..1 A �..r w j �1 Y id�� 4fi i;�' lr� �'I+ ,�^$aM�' -n._�`. x vT c� G Y e' r s Y H• 4�d ry �L #Y�...y..h.. f,�,{+�. `x ..�'N a r q.Y. Y k A �"s .•.4°' ^=fi'Y f y T ra �r �1S r I p r i..�' '�x r4 .P ..n ..0 v�' t;,'C:. r "i'�. s ,1 4 y.� .-y�:".�: r. ,L .ik. f .��^b... s ^Lli, �`•A 5 1 i ¢M1., �i6�.Fh'# �r�� ..z� s 1 1 •••q� m�"'"''°^" 0 g 7 W }..A e 7 '�'`-��r�� f �n `me 4 �4i�P #v� �i lfXti' g �f d w lf..+^ ,a�"i' :P p A r t �X 1 i� L K) Y Q.+�^ A'e°� i+ p�i p l' r t �t. .<.,P n 'e3" Z x �n p�� i z xu�a ��Sz'S?' 9^� v e�a�E'w�1� n C 1 T Y O F �SH LAN D Council Communication A Public Hearing and Resolution Adopting a Supplemental Budget Meeting Date: May 17, 201 Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg Department: Administrative Services E-Mail: tuneberl@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Public Works, Approval: Martha Benne Secondary Contact: None Estimated Time: 15 minutes Question: Should Council approve a resolution adopting a supplemental budget establishing appropriations for an inter-fund loan within the 2010-201 1 Budget? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution. Background: There are three ways in which to change appropriations afrer the Budget is adopted. 1. A transfer of appropriations decreases an appropriation and increases another. This is the simplest budget change allowed under Oregon Budget law. This does not increase the overall budget. This is approved by a City Council resolution. 2. A supplemental budget of less than 10 percent of total appropriations within an individua] fund follows a process similar to the transfer of appropriations. 3. A supplemental budget in excess of 0 percent of tota] appropriations requires a longer process. This process includes a notice in the paper and a public hearing. A supplemental budget (Item #3 above) is needed to adjust the FY 2010-201 1 budgeL Inter-fund loans are authorized by Oregon Budget Law in ORS 290.460. Operational loans are to be paid back in the year made or the ensuing yeaz. Capital loans can be repaid over a term not to exceed ten years. This is the THIRD supplemental budget of this fiscal year. It is for the items on Ihe attached resolution, described as follows: n To recognize an Interfund Loan of up to $1,000,000 ro the Water Fund from the Equipment Fund to provide needed cash flows to replace the shortfall in water sales�in the last two fiscal years. The loan is for cash flow purposes only and not intended to create additional spending authority. The loan includes $200,000 to cover operational needs and up to $800,000 for capital needs. Onlv the amount needed will be borrowed. The operational portion is to be repaid by FY 2011-2012 and the remaining portion ofthe loan is to be paid in no less than $200,000 increments per year from FY 2012-13 until repaid, with interest. The interest shall be calculated monthly using the Local Government Investment Pool monthly rate or a 2% annualized rate, whichever is greater. There is no penalty for early repayment buf all of it must be paid no later than June 30, 2016. To recognize $]0,000 (a portion ofthe $50,000 Firewise Communities Fue1s Reduction Grant) in FY 2010-2011 to pay for costs to be incurred in the current fiscal year. 1 of 2 �r, C I T Y O F �SH LAN D C. To recognize $70,000 in additiona] revenue from Bonneville Power Administration sponsoring conservation incentives beyond original estimates for FY 2010-2011. Attached is a resolution for your approval. Related City Policies: Compliance with Oregon Budget Law Council Options: Council may accept this supplemental budget request as presented, recommend modifications as discussed or defer acceptance (takes no action) awaiting furiher information or clarification. Potential Motions: I make a motion to approve the attached resolution adopting a supplemental budget for FY 2010-2011 or the purposes specified. Attachments: Resolution Admin Services memo dated May 3, 2011 Fire Department memo dated Mazch 10 2011 Community Development memo dated May 3, 2011 Legal notice 2 of 2 �r, RESOLUTION NO. 2011- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET ESTABLISHING APPROPRIATIONS WITHIN THE 2010-2011 BUDGET Recitals: ORS 294.480 permits the goveming body of a municipal corporation to make a supplemental budget for the fiscal year for which the regular budget has been prepared under one or more of the following reasons: a. An occurrence or condition which had not been ascertained at the time of the preparation of a budget for the current year which requires a change in financial planning. b. A pressing necessity which was not foreseen at the time of the preparation of the budget for ihe current year which requires prompt action. c. Funds were made available by another unit of federal, state or local govemment and the availability of such funds could not have been ascertained at the time of the preparation of the budget for the wrrent year. d. Other reasons identified per the statutes. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION l. Because of the circumstances stated below, the Mayor and City Council of the City of Ashland determine that it is necessary to adopt a supplemental budget, establishing the following additiona] appropriations: Water Fund Appropriation: Ending Fund Balance Public Works Forest Interface Resource: Interfund loan Intergovernmental $1,000,000 0,000 1 O10 ,000,000 10,000 1 1 0 To recognize an Interfund Loan ofup to $1,000,000 to the Water Fund from the Equipment Fund to cover a cash flow shortfall from reduced water sales in FY 2009-2010 and FY 2010- 2011. This is an operational loan of $200,000 that is intended to be repaid with interest by the end of FY 201 1-2012 and a capital project loan that is intended to be repaid with interest by the end of FY 2015-2016. The interest shall be calculated monthly using the Local Government Investment Pool monthly rate or a 2% annualized rate, whichever is greater. Only the amount needed will be loaned. To recognize in FY 2010-1 I a portion of the $SQ000 grant received for from American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for fuels removal project within the Firewise communities program to pay for current expenditures. Page 1 of 2 Electric Fund Appropriation: Electric Conservation 70 000 Resource: Intergovemmental To recognize additional revenue from BPA sponsored conservation incentives. Equipment Fund Appropriation: Interfund Loan Resource: Ending Fund Balance 1 111 1 111 $1,000,000 1 000 00 To recognize an Interfund Loan of $1,000,000 from the Equipment Fund to the Water Fund to cover a cash flow shortfall from reduced water sales in FY 2009-2010 and FY 2010-2011. This is an operational loan of $200,000 that is intended to be repaid with interest by the end of FY 2011-2012 and a capital project loan that is intended to be repaid with interest by the end of FY 2015-2016. The interest shall be calculated monthly using the Local Govemment Investment Pool monthly rate or a 2% annualized rate, whichever is greater. TOTAL ALL FUNDS 111 111 111 111 �1_I 111 1'l lll SECTION 2. All other provisions of the adopted 2010-2011 BUDGET not specifically amended or revised in this Supplemental Budget remain in full force and effect as stated therein. SECTION 3. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED Ihis and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of May, 2011. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Doug McGeary, Interim City Attomey day of May, 2011 Page 2 of 2 C 1 T Y O F �SH LAN D Memo DATE: TO: FROM DEPT: RE: May 3, 201 I Martha Bennett Lee Tuneberg Admin Services Interfund Loan Cash flow shortfall in the Water Fund In examining the cash position of the Water Fund we have noted that FY 2011 water sales are shaping up to fall short of projections due to the cool spring weather. This is the second year in a row and operational expenses, including debt service, continue while some necessary capital expendimres have also been done in the last 24 mon[hs. Despite the 8% rate increase in Spring 20 0 and 10% this year, this fund requires additiona] cash to fund operations and safeguard reserves. I propose an interfund loan from the Equipment Fund to the Water Fund to meet [his cash flow need since water sales are low enough to prohibit conven[ional borrowing. Staff would only borrow the amount needed, thought to be in the $800,000 range, but is requesting up to $1 million to provide additiona] amounts if warranted. When [he wea[her "normalizes" foc the region the recent approved increases and others steps being [aken should generate sufficient cash Flow to meet financing needs. Until that time, the interfund loan will be paid back over the next five years. ADMINISTRATNE SERVICES DEPARTMENT D. L Tuneberg, Director TeC 541388-5300 20 East Main Street Fax:541-552-2059 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 vnnv.ashlanEncus C 1 T Y O F �4SHLAND Memo DATE: March 10, 2011 TO: Lee Tuneberg, Cindy Hanks FROM: Ali True, Firewise Communities Coordinator RE: Firewise Communities Fuels Reduction Grant Budget Amendment The City of Ashland has received a 2 year grant totaling $50,000 for the purpose of supporting hazardous fuels removal by Firewise Communities. The funds are federal funds designated by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), given to Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), and then passed to the City of Ashland through a modification of the existing agreement between Ashland Parks and Recreation and ODF (see attached). We'd like to bring 10, 000 dollars of the total award into the current fiscal year. The funds are to be distributed among the 5 Firewise areas in the City to neighborhoods and Homeowners Associations (HOAs) that are participating in the Firewise Communities program. Funds can be used for a variety of fuels removal projects that are approved by the Fire Department as written in the Firewise Community Assessment for each community. Funds are to be distributed over two years to support the program's annual renewal process. Some example uses of the funds are for hazardous tree removal, brush removai, chipping of fuels on private and common property, blackberry removal and disposal, and other projects that reduce hazardous fuels around residential areas. Ashland Ffre 8 Restue Te1:541-482-2P0 455 Sisk'ryou Balevard Fax:541-08&5318 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-7352900 www.azhland.or.us C 1 T Y O F �ASH LAN D Memo DATE: May 3, 2011 FROM: Lee Tuneberg, Administrative Service and Finance Director Bill Molnar, Communiry Development Director Supplemental Budget Request Electric Conservation -$70,000.00 The puipose of this memorandum is to formally request a supplemental budget to support Conservation Division programs for the remainder of FY2011 at an approximate cost of $70,000.00. The monies would permit Conservation staff to continue to offer residential and commercial resource saving services through June 201 1 should we continue along the anticipated projections of local demand for these programs. Through April 30, 2001, 98% of [he budge[ for conserva[ion programs had been allocated. To date, revenues from the reimbursement of BPA sponsored conservation incentives are $22,000.00 greater than identified in the 2010/201 1 adopted budget. Additionally, the Conservation Division estimates the possibiliry of implementing up to an additional $40,000 in energy efficiency enhancement work, which through BPA incentives would be reimbursed at a cost oT approximately $48,000.00. COMMUNIN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TN:541-0BB-5305 20 E. Main Street Far: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 waw.ashland.or.us Public Notice of Supplemental Budget A resolution adopting a supplemental budget for the City of Ashland, Jackson County, State of Oregon, for the fiscal year July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011, will be considered at the Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon as part of the City's regular business on May 17, 2011, at 7:00 p.m. A copy of the supplemental budget document may be inspected or obtained on or after May 10, 2011 at the Administrative Services Department, 20 East Main, Ashland, Oregon 97520 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. A summary of the supplemental budget is presented below. Water Fund Ending Fund Balance Public Works-Forest Interface Intertund Loan Intergovernmental Resources Requirements 1,000,000 10,000 1,010,000 1,000,000 10,000 1,010,000 To recognize an Interfund Loan of up to $1,000,000 to the Water Fund from the Equipment Fund to cover a cash Flow shorttall from reduced water sales in FY 2009-2010 and FY 2010-2011. This is an operational loan ot $200,000 that is intended to be repaid with interest by the end of FY 2011-2012 and a capital project loan that is intended to be repaid with interes[ by the end of.FY 2015-2016. The interesl shall be calculated monthly using the Local Governmenl Investment Fool monthly rate or a 2% annualized rate, whichever is greater. Only the amount needed will be loaned. To recognize in FY 2010-11 a portion of the $50,000 grant received for irom American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for fuels removal project within the Firewise communities program lo pay for current expenditures. Elettrit Fund ElecMc Conservation Intergovemmental Resources Requirements 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 To recognize additional revenue from BPA sponsored conservation incenlives. Equipment Fund In�rfund Loan Ending Fund Balance Resources Requirements 1,000,000 1,000,000 TOTAL ALL FUNDS 2,080,000 2,080,000 To recognize an Interfund Loan ot $1,000,000 from the Equipment Fund lo the Water Fund to cover a cash flow shortfall from reduced water sales in FY 2009-2010 and FY 2010-2011. This is an operational loan of $200,000 that is intended to be repaid with interest by the end of FY 2011-2012 and a capital project loan that is intended to be repaid with interest bjr the end of FY 2015-2016. The interest shall be calculated monthly using the Local Government Investment Pool monthly rale or a 2% annualized rate, whichever is greater. C 1 T Y O F �SHLAND Council Communication Appeal of l63 Hitt Road Approval (PA #2010-01622) Meeting Date: May 17, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: Bill Molnar Department Community Development E-Mail: bill(i�ashland.or.us Seconda De t.: N/A Seconda Contact: Derek Severson ApprovalY p Martha Bennet�� Estimated Time: 60-90 Minutes Question: Does the City Council wish to affirm, reverse, modify or remand back to ihe Planning Commission the decision to approve a Modification of the Performance Standards Options Subdivision Final Plan Approval (PA#2003-020) for the Strawberry Meadows Subdivision? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Council affirm the Planning Commission's decision and deny the appeal. Background: The decision allowed an approximate 47.45 percent lot coverage consisting of 4,356 square feet of impervious surfaces on the subject property in addition to 1,433 square feet of shazed driveway coverage which is already in place. The Commission did not however support allowing 1,122 square feet of additional permeable coverage on the lot which the applicants had requested, and they have appealed seeking that additional 1,122 squaze feet of permeable coverage they had originally requested. (The total lot coveruge which would typically have been allowed for a l01 lhis size in rhe RR-.5 zoning district was 2,440 syuare feet.) The Application Decision At its March 8, 201 meeting, the Planning Commission approved a request for a Modification of the Performance Standards Options Subdivision Final Plan Approval (PA#2003-020) for the Strawberry Meadows Subdivision. The modifications requested included the relocation of the driveway entrance, changes to the approved building envelope, and the allocation of a portion of the lot coverage from the subdivision's approved "Open Space A to allow increased lot coverage for Lot #6, ]ocated at 163 Hitt Road. Complete details of the application are included in the application materials, staff report and supplementary memoranda found in the record which is available in its entirety on-line at: http://www.ashland.or.us/ 163hi tt. The Appeal An appeal request was timely received on March 22" 20ll from Christian E. Heam, attomey for the appellants/applicants Scott Dixon and Joan Cresse. The grounds identified in the appeal were: 1) The Planning Commission essentially applied the Performance Standards Options twice, once in connection with approving the Strawberry Meadows subdivision (50% open space); and a second time when analyzing the maximum lot coverage issues in connection with applicants' application. 2) The Planning Commission acknowledge not counting the area covered by a lot's driveway access as a component of lot coverage for neighboring lots under AMC 18.108.030, but arbitrarily declined to apply the same interpretation to applicants' application. 1 of 8 �r, C 1 T Y O F �SHLAND 3) The Planning Commission misconstrued the bt coverage statements made by the original developers' planner in response to some neighbors' objections. 4) The Planning Commission misconstrued the deTnition of `open space' found in AMC 18.88.020, confusing it with lot coverage requirements. The Appeal on the Record will be limited to these four grounds for appeal which have been clearly and distinctly identified in the appeal request. NOTES:' The appellants also proposed an additional appeal point, that "The Plunning Commission mrsconstrued and misupplied lhe criteria rn AMC 18.88.030 in a vuriery of ways in connection with consideration ofupplican�s' /ol coverage request, as de�ailed nn following Exhibits "B" and "C The exhibits referenced seem to take issue wilh a number of conditions and request that these be changed, however the materials provided, while lengthy, do not clearly identify either a basis for reversal in terms orcriteria or a specific procedura] error which merits reversal. They instead seem to restate arguments for the original request, and may include new evidence such as potential alternative lot designs for the Brown portion of the subdivision. This is not a sufficiently "cleur und,distinct identificalion" of the grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified based on identified applicable criteria or procedural irregularity as required in the code, and as such additional issues from the exhibits referenced have not been included as identified grounds for appeal. Consideration of the appeal should be limited to the four items which have been clearly and distinctly identified in the appeal requested, as listed above. The City Administrator is also advising the City Council to allow a limited re-opening of the record to allow the appellants to submit written materials in response to comments in a February 8, 20ll staff inemorandum to the Planning Commission which addressed the inclusion of driveway and parking areas in bt coverage considered in the original subdivision approval. Considering the Grounds for Appeal 1) The Planning Commission essentially applied the Performance Standards Options twice, once in connection with approving the Strawberry Meadows subdivision (50% open space); and a second time when analyzing the maximum lot coverage issues in connection with applicants' application. The subject property was originally created through a subdivision process under the Performance Standards Options Chapter of the L"and Use Ordinance. The development of individual lots within the subdivision remains subject to the original approval's conditions and to the underlying requirements of the Performance Standards Options Chapter. As such, modifications oF [he subject property's lot coverage must be considered as a modification of the original subdivision approval, and such modifications are reviewed according to the applicable Performance Standards Options criteria. Lot coverage for the subject property cannot be considered independently of the original approval, which the Commission found had not allocated additional lot coverage beyond the 20 percent allowed in the underlying zoning Paee 2 of 8 �r, C 1 T Y O F �SHLAND district to the individual lots, or outside of the Performarice Standards Options chapter where the underlying requirements of the zoning district would limit development of the subject property to no more than a 20 percent lot coverage. The Planning Commission did in fact consider the Performance Standards Options Chapter twice; the application before them was to modify a previously approved Performance Standards subdivision and they were required by the Land Use Ordinance to again consider the modification in ]ight of the applicable Performance Standards Options criteria. Based on those approval criteria, the Commission ultimately found that the request merited a substantial allocation of Iot coverage from the subdivision's open space to the subject property, they simply determined that the full magnitude of the coverage requested was not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Performance Standards Options chapter which ca]Is for reducing the impacts of development to both the environment and the neighborhood. 2) The Planning Commission acknowledged not counting the area covered by a lot's driveway access as a component of lot coverage for neighboring lots under AMC 18.108.030, but arbitrarily declined to apply the same interpretation to applicants' application. In their decision, the Planning Commission found: that allowing the 4,356 square feet of coverage proposed 6y /he app/icunts is meriled. This is the coverage which would 6e allowed for a one-half acre parcel, which is the minimum l01 size for Ihe zoning distric�, and the Commission finds il reasonable that this was seen as the minimum coveruge viewed as necessary �o develop a!ot wi�hin the district when the dis�ric! and rts coveruge reyuiremenls were es�ablished. The Commission further frnds tha� i� is appropriute, and in keeping with the intenl of lhe purpose and inlent of the Performance Slandards Opliotts Chupler, 10 ullow the subjec! properry 4,356 sguare feel of coverage rn addition l01he exisling 1, 433 squure feet of coverage already in place wilh �he shured privule driveway servrng the two adjacent parcels as an a(location from Ihe subdivision open space. This amoun/s to an approximale coverage of 47.45 percettt. In similur upplications in the recenl past invo/ving driveN�uys shared by adjacent proper�ies, the Planning Commission have been generully supporlive of /he exclusron of a shared driveway's coveruge from a lo('s overaA coveruge when �he driveway is required !o serve other properlies and the reduction or removal of the driveway to reduce cover is beyond an upplicanl's control because it would deprive udjacent property owners of legally-established rrghls of ingress und egress. In [his instance, the Commission finds that the exis�ing shared driveway serving Ihe adjucenl lols cannot be removed by �he applican�s �o reduce Iheir lot coverage wi�hout deprrving Ihe neighboring lots of �heir /egally-established uccess. The Commission further finds tha! the shared driveway coverage on the suhjecl property umounls ro more Ihan one-half of the standard permitted lot coverage for the property, und uccordingly finds �hat excluding i! from the lot coverage calculations for the subjecl property is appropriate lo allow a reasonable degree of developmen� on �he subject properry. 3 of 8 �r, C 1 T Y O F �SHLAND The Planning Commission allowed 4,356 square feet of coverage in addition to the existing shazed driveway which crosses the applicants' subject property. AMC 8.08.160 detines lot coverage as the "/otal urea of all buildings, parking areas, driveways, us N�ell as olher solid surfaces that wil! not allow normal water infiljra�ion �o the ground." Inclusion of ihe driveway as a component of lot coverage was not an arbitrary decision on the Commission's part as suggested by the applicants; it is an explicit requirement by definition within the land use code. However, by allowing the 4,356 square feet of coverage which the Commission found appropriate to develop the lot in addition to the existing coverage of the driveway, the Commission effectively excluded it from consideration as part of the 4,356 square feet of lot coverage they found appropriate for development of the ]ot. 3) The Planning Commission misconstrued the Iot coverage statements made by the original developers' planner in response to some neighbors' objections. The Planning Commission considered statements made in the record by the original developers' planner as context to the original approval which the applicants were requesting to modify. The consideration oFthe prior statements provided the contextual basis from which a decision could proceed, i.e. the Commission needed to determine how lot coverage was addressed in the record of the original subdivision approval before they could consider a request to modify the lot coverage for one of the subdivision's lots. The Commission's specific finding was that: The Commission frnds thut in !he original approval, the original upplicants' agent recognized in submr�tals in the record that �he allowed lo� coverage for the S�ruwberry Meadows developmenl was �o be limited to a maximum of 20 percenl, and that Ihe huilding envelopes shown delineated an area where a home could be buil� bw not the size qf u specrrc building footprint. Materiuls in the record of [he original subdivision upp/ication emphasrzed lhat new homes would no/ exceed !he 20 percent lo! coveruge restric�ron of the zoning district, und �his reslriction was lo have heen included in !he subdivision's CC&R's us well. (See page 40 ofLUBA record, copied in app/icanls' Appendix 5 on page 30 of the applicants' submittal.) While the sufidivisron developers' ugenl has provided the curren� applicanls with a letter indicaling Ihu� �he application of lot coveruge based on lhe indrvidual lots was never �heir intenJ and /hat had they known rhe coverage would be upplied lo the individual lots they would huve altered the open spuce confrguration lo rncrease individual lot sizes to allow additiona/ coverage, the Commission finds thal original application materials explicit/y recognized Ihu� building enve/opes did not identrfy building footprinls and /hat Ihe lot coverage was lo be /imited to 20 percent per lot. While the Commission found that the statements in the original record were intended to limit lot coverage on individual lots to no more than 20 percent, the Planning Commission ultimately decided to allocate substantial additional coverage to the applicants' property in a manner they found to be in keeping with the purpose and intent of the Performance Standazds Options Chapter. 4of8 �r, C 1 T Y O F �-1SH LAN D 4) The Planning Commission misconstrued the definition of `open space' found in AMC 18.88.020, confusing it with lot coverage requirements. The flexibility of the Performance Standards Options chapter was used to allow the allocation of additional lot coverage (beyond the 20 percent coverage typically allowed for a lot in this district) from the original developmenYs open space areas to the applicants' Lot #6. In utilizing that flexibility, the Planning Commission considered not only the amount of open space provided but the broader purpose and intent of the Performance Standazds Options chapter and the impact additional lot coverage might have in that context. The purpose und intent of this Chapter is lo allow an oplion for more flexib/e design than rs permissible under the convenrional zoning codes. The design should s�ress energy efficiency, archilec�ural creu�iviry und innovurion, use Ihe xatural fea�ures of the landscape to Iheir greatesr udvantage, provide a guuliry oflife eyuul to or grea�er than thut provided in developmenrs buill under ihe standurd zoning codes, be aesthetrcally pleasing, provide for more efficient land use, and reduce the impact of development on the natural environment und neighborhood. Staffbelieves that the applicants' suggestion that the Planning Commission misconstrued `9ot coverage" and "open space" may come from a limited understanding of the application of the Performance Standards chapter on the applicants' part. While the original subdivision provided substantially more open space than was required by code when the parent parcels' size was considered, the chapter also requires that significant natural features, which have previously been found Io include steeply sloped and heavily forested areas, be protected as unbuildable in common area, open space, or other unbuildable areas, and that in addition to reducing the environmental impacts of development the impacts to the neighborhood be considered as well. As such, while the applicant suggests that these areas could simply have been pazceled out to individual lots to increase their size and thus allow additional coverage, staff believe that this would not have been found to be consistent either with the requirement that these steeply sloped forested areas be protected or with the underlying purpose and intent of the chapter which includes reducing "the impact of development on the natural environment and neighborhood." The Procedural Handling of an "Appeal on the Record" Prior to 2008, appeals were processed through a de novo action, meaning that when wnsidering an appeal the Council could conduct a new hearing and review new information that was not previously included in the record on which the Planning Commission based their decision. The current appeal is the second under new procedures adopted by the Council in 2008 which require that appeals to Council be handled as "An Appeal on the Record." An "Appeal on the Record" is an appeal of a land use decision where the City Council must consider the same facts and information ("the record") that the Planning Commission saw. The City Council may not consider new facts or information. Once the Planning Commission makes a decision on a land use matter, a person ("the appellanP') can appeal that decision to the City Council. The appellant must identify, in writing, specific areas where they think the Planning Commission made a mistake. The mistake has to be an error in interpretation �r, C 1 T Y O F �SH LAN D of a fact, an interpretation of a rule or regulation, or in procedure. The City Council reviews only those specific issues raised as "errors." In considering "An Appeal on the Record" the Council must decide: 1) whether there is substantial evidence to support the decision of the Planning Commission; and 2) if the Planning Commission committed an error. In the course of the appeal, the City Council shall not re-examine issues of fact and shall limit its review to determining whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the Planning Commission, or to determining if errors in law were committed by the Commission. Review is to be limited to those issues clearly and distinctly set forth in the notice of appeal, and no issue may be raised on appeal to the Council that was not raised before the P]anning Commission with sufficient specificity to enable the Commission and the parties to respond. At the City Council meeting, the only people who will be allowed to talk directly to the Council will be the City staff the applicant, people who have filed the written appeal, and participants who provided oral or wriilen testimony during the original Planning Commission hearing and who have subsequendy submitted written arguments at least ten days in advance of the City Council meeting. The appellant will be allowed ten minutes and the applicant will be allowed ten minutes. Participants who have filed written arguments will be allowed three minutes to summarize their argument for the City Council. No one can inlroduce new information or facts. Ultimately, the Council may: Affirm the decision of the Planning Commission and reject the appea] or Reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and support the written appeal or Modify the decision of the Planning Commission or Send the decision back to the Planning Commission with instructions for further proceedings. Subsequent actions by the Planning Commission are to be the final decision of the City, subject to appeal by the Council pursuant to 18.108.070.B.5. However, the Counci] should be aware that under the "120-Day Rule" a final decision of the City is required no later than May 17, 2011. Request to Allow Limited Re-Opening of the Record to Submit New Evidence The Municipal Code provides that the "Council may reopen �he record and consider new evidence on a Ifmited basis, if such u request to reopen !he record ds made �o the Ciry Administralor together wilh the filing lhe notice of appeal and /he Ciry Adminislralor determines prior to the Ciry Council appeal heuring that the requesling parry has demonstraled: a) lhat the Plannrng Commission commil�ed u procedura! error, through no fuult of 1he reyuesting purry, Ihut prejudiced �he reguesting party's suhstuntiul righls und Ihat reopening the record before �he Council is the only meuns of correcting the error; or; b) Tha� a factual error occurred before the Plunning Commission through no faull of Ihe reguesling parry which is relevan/ to an approval criterion and maleriul !o Ihe decision; or; c) Thul new evrdence material to �he decision on appeal exisls which wus unavuilable, �hrough no faull of Ihe regues/ing party, when the record of the proceeding was open, and during Ihe period when the requesting parry could have requested reconsideration. A reguesting parry may only gualify for this exception if he or she demonstrates that the new evidence is re/evant �o an approvul cri�erion and material Io the decision. This exception shall be strret(y construed by the Council in order !o ensure /hal only relevant evidence and testimony is submi/ted !o the heuring body. Re-opening the record for 6of8 �r, C 1 T Y O F �SHLAND purposes oflhis section means �he submission ofadditional written testimony and evidence, no� oral leslimony or presentalion of evidence hefore �he Ciry Council. Each of these criteria is addressed below: a) That the Planning Commission committed a procedural error, through no Tault of the requesting party, that prejudiced the requesting party's substantial rights and that reopening the record before the Council is the only means of correcting the error; or; The appeal request notes that the applicants attempted to submit their `Exhibit 1' at the February 8` meeting in response ro what they believed to be new evidence contained in a staff memorandum provided to the Commission after the record had been closed. In response to the applicants' request, the Commission determined as follows: 2.6 The Planning Commission frnds Ihut ihe applrcanls' cha[lenge Ihul the memorandum prepared fiy stuff on February 8, 201 included new information and should be suhject Io rebu(!al has no meril. The Commission finds Ihul !he information provided by staff on February 8` was a summary of informulion received inro the record subsequent to the close of lhe heuring, contained no new information, and wus not subjec! to rebutlal. The applicants have again raised this issue, now as a basis for a limited reopening of the record. In reviewing the request in light of the Commission's decision, staff can see no clear demonstration either that a procedura] error occurred or that, if one had occurred, it in any way prejudiced the applicants' substantial rights. However, should the Council ultimately determine otherwise the applicants have requested to admit their `Exhibit 1' through a limited reopening of the record as a remedy. b) That a factual error occurred before the Planning Commission through no fault oT the requesting party which is relevant to an approval criterion and material to the decision; or In reviewing the request in light of the Commission's decision, staff can see no demonstration either that a factual error occurred or that, if one had ocwrred, that it is relevant to the approval criteria and material to the decision. As noted in the Planning Commission findings in 2.6, seen above, the Planning Commission reviewed the staff inemorandum in question during their deliberations and specifically found that it "wus a summary of information received inlo the record" and "contuined no new information." c) That new evidence material to the decision on appeal exists which was unavailable, through no fault of the requesting party, when the record of the proceeding was open, and during the period when the requesting party could have requested reconsideration. A requesting party may only qualify for this exception if he or she demonstrates that the new evidence is relevant to an approval criterion and material to the decision. This exception shall be strictly construed by the Council in order to ensure that only relevant evidence and testimony is submitted to the hearing body. Re-opening the record for 7of8 C 1 T Y O F �SHLAND purposes of this section means the submission of additional written testimony and evidence, not oral testimony or presentation of evidence before the City Council. The appeal request does not indicate that any new evidence material has become available. AMC 18.108.110.4.B.c notes that re-opening the record means the submission of additional written testimony and evidence, not oral testimony or presentation of evidence before the City Council. While staff concurs with the Planning Commissiods findings that the memorandum in question contained no new evidence that would have affected the decision and was thus not subject to rebuttal, we believed it best to allow the applicants to provide their written rebuttal as requested as the most expeditious means for the Council to address this procedural challenge. Related City Policies: Not applicable. Council Options: Affirm the decision of Ihe Planning Commission and reject the appeal. 2. Reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and support the written appeal. 3. Modify the decision of the Planning Commission. 4. Send the decision back to the Planning Commission with instructions for further proceedings. Subsequent actions by the Planning Commission will be the final decision of the City. Potential Motions: 1. Move to affirm the decision of the Planning Commission, reject the appeal and direct staff to prepare findings for adoption by Council. 2. Move to reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and support the written appeal, and direct staff to prepare findings for adoption by Council. 3. Move to modify the decision oFthe Planning Commission and direct staff to prepare fi�dings for adoption by CounciL 4. Move to send the decision back to the Planning Commission with the following instructions for further proceedings, with the understanding that subsequent actions by the Planning Commission will be the final decision of the City (include specific instruclions relating to further proceedings). Attachments: Adopted'findings for the March 8, 2011 decision of the Planning Commission February 8, 2011 s[aff inemorandum being challenged by the applicants/appellants Notice of Appeal submitted by Chris Heam for the applicants/appellants Argument Submittals from by Chris Hearn for the applicants/appellants The full record of Planning Action #2010-01622 is available on-line at: http://www.ashland.or.us/] 63hitt Page 8 of 8 13EFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION Mnrch 8 20l l IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACT[ON #2010-01622, A REQUEST FOR A MODIFICATION OF THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS SUB- DIVISION FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR PA #2003-020 FOR THE STRAW- BERRY MEADOWS SUI3DNISION. THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS INCLUllE RELOCATION OF THE DRNEWAY ENTRANCE, CHANGES TO THE APPROVED BUILDING ENVELOPE AND THE ALLOCATION OF' A PORT]ON OF'1'1iE LOT COVERAGE FROM THE SUBDIVISION'S "OPEN SPACE `A' TO ALLOW INCREASED LOT COVERAGE FOR LOT #6 LOCATED AT 163 HITT ROAD. APPLICANTS: R. Scott Dixon and Joan Cresse RECITALS: rINUINGS, )CONCLUSIONS ORDERS 1) Tax lot #506 of Map 39 ]E 08 AC is located at 163 Hitl Road, within the Str��vben�y Me�do�vs Subdivision, a�td is zoned Rurai Residential (RR-.S-P) with a Pcrfomiance Standards Overlay. 2) The applicants are requesting a Modilication of the Performance Standards Options Subdivision Final Plan Appiroval (PA#2003-020) foc the Strawbeiry Meadows Subdivision. The proposed modifications include relocalion of the driveway entrance, chai�ges to ihe �pproved building envelope, and the allocation of a portion of the lot coverage from the subdivision's �pproved "Open Spuce 'A'" to allow increased lot coverage for Lot #6, located at 163 Hitt Road. The proposal, including the design for the proposed home, is outlined on the plans on file at the Depaitment of Community Development. 3) The criteria for Final Plan approval are described in Chapter 18.88.030.B.5 as follows: Criteria for Final Plan Approval. Final plan approval shall be granted upon linding of substanlial conformance with the outline plan. Nothing in this provision shall limit reduciion in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided ihai, i( this is done for one phase, the numher of dwelling unils shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in ihe outline plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate lhe minor modifications Irom one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall.exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final plan shows that: a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten (10%) percent o( ihose shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall ihe number ot units exceed those permitted in the oulline plan. PA N2010-OIG22 March 8, 201 I Page I b. The yard deplhs and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten (10%) percent oi ihose shown on Ihe approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Tiile. c. The open spaces vary no more than ten (10%) percent of lhaf provided on the outline plan. d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the oulline plan by more lhan ten (10%) percent. e. The buiiding elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with ihe purpose and intent of this Tille and the approved outline plan. i. That the additional standards which resultetl in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in ihe oulline pian wiil be achieved. g. The tlevelopment complies with the Sireel Siandards. 4) The Pla�ming Commission, following p��oper public notice, held a public heaiing on January I I'�', 2011 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. Catherine Dimino, one of diose speaking at the hcariug, requcsted that Ihe record remain open for seven days to allo�v �he submittal of additional wiitlen comments, anJ the applicants requested an additional seven days to submit written arguments. The Plamiing Commission conti��ued the matter to their regular mecting on February 8' 201 t. While the reca'd was open for new suUmittals, Mrs. Dimino submiltcd new materials, as did the applicants aod the staff. During the seven days following the closing of the record to new submittals, the applicants also submitted argument in response to the materials submitled subsequent to the hcaring. At Q�c February 8' 2011 meeting, the applicants attcmpted to challenge a memorandum provided to the Cmmnission Uy staff summarizing the materials received since the close of the hearing, and asked far an opporlunity to rebut this memorandum. Tl�e Pfanniug Commission rejected this challenge, finding tliat ilie staff inemo was a swnma�y containing uo new infonnation. The Planning Commission approved Ilie application for a Modificatioii of the Perforniance Standards Options Subdivision Final Plan Approval (PAN2003- 020) for 81e Strawberry Meadows Subdivision to allow relocatiai of the driveway entrnnce, changes to the ppproved building envelope, and the allocation of a portion of die lot coverage fi�om the subdivisiods approved open space "A" to allow incrcased lot coverage for the subject prope�ty (Lot �16) subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. Now, therefore, the Planning Co�rvnission of the City of Asliland finds, conchides and recommends as fol lows: SECTION I. EXHIBITS Por the purposes of reference to diese Findings, Uie attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exl�ibits lettered with au "S" ProponenNs Exhibits, lettered with �"P" ]'A #2010-01622 Merch 8, 2011 Pnge 2 OpponenPs Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous ExhiUits lettercd with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINllINGS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the staff report, public hearing testimony and t6e exhibits received. 2.2 The Plamiing Commission finds ihat the Perfonnance Standards Options Chapter (AMC 18.88)•provides for more flexibility than is pennissible under the convenlionai zoning codes in order to reduce the impacts of developmenl upon the natural environmental and exisling neighborhoods through the preservation of natural features, ihe use of architeclm a( crcntivity and innovation, aud increased energy efficiency �vhile providing for greater aesthetics, improved. quality of life, and more cfficicnt land use. The Commission httther finds �hat a significan� element of ll�e review and approval of `Perfonnance Standards' subdivisions involves balancing the flexibility allowed versus conventional subdivision requirements in order to reach an ultimate configuration which can be found to beneft the applicants, the neighbors, and the commm�ity at large. In this instance, the overall lot area of the Strawbeny Meadows subdivision exceeds the minimum lot area required, tl�e open space provided �vas in excess of ihe minimum requiremenls of the chapter, and the application of flexibility under ihe Performance Standards Options Chapter allowed tlte clustering of lots around larger open space areas which protected thc large unbuildable areas of the parent parcels and allowed for smaller dcvclopablc lol areas than would be required for a'standard' subdivision in the RR-.5 zoning dis4icl. 23 The Plam�ing Commission finds that existing public facilities and utilities �e in place to service Ihc project, and have been identified on a site plan and discussed in the narrativc submitlals provided. Water, sewer, electric and storm drain utilities are available in Hitt Road and in thc private drive to seive the parcel. Ilitt Road provides access to the site. Hitt Road is a residential collector with very low traffic volmnes, and is gated at its present tenninus along the subject proper[y's frontage. Hitt Road leads to popular hiking irails which seasonally increase the amount of traffic and on-street parkin�. There are existing curbside sidewalks on one side of Hitt Road, opposite the subject property, whicli end at the last driveway before tl�e existing gate location. The sidewalks were recently extended to this location and the gate relocated as part of the requircd infrastructure for the "Fa!ling Acorns" subdivision at 500 Strawberry Lane. City street standards cxplicitly provide for exceptions to allow the installation of side�valks on only onc side of the sh•eet where natural features or topogaphic constraints limit their installation, and based on the slopes on the east side of Hitt Road it was previously determined that the current sidewalk configwation was appropriate for this seclion of Hitt Road. PA N2010-01622 Marcl� 8, 201 I Page 3 The Convnission finds that the applicants are proposing lo move Ihe approved access to the parcel from tlie shared driveway on the noitheast edge of the lot to Hitt Road. The gate 8iat crosses Hitt Road would be relocaled approximately 88-reet past its cu��'ent location to aceommocl�te the proposed new driveway placement. The applicants state tliat this will provide more convenient vehicular access to residents of the proposed liome as they would like ro have a main level garage. The applicants furtl�er note that the proposed driveway location woufd eliminate the need for large amounts of excavation for the retaining walls which would be required if the access remainecl in its cu�Tent location at the bottom of ihe subject properiy &om the existing shared private drive. The Commission finds that relocalion of the site's access will mduce the nmount of dishirbance on die steepest po�tions of the site by allowing the driveway entrance and garage to be constructed iii line �vith the site's topobn�aphy, and further finds this to be in keeping �vith the purpose and intent of the Perfoimance Standards Chapter as well as the requirements for the development of Hillside Lands. The Commission finds that when lots are created, as tliey were with tlie Stra�vbeny Meadows subdivision, a portion of the lot needs to front upon a street that complies with the minimum street standard. The Commission further finds U�at the minimum street standard c�n be as narro�v as 20 feet in hillside areas, and tl�at. the improved portion of Hitt Road, which fronts along portion of Uie subject property l�ere, meets the street standards. The Commission fur�her finds that lhe applicants propose to take access fiom the portion of Hitt Road which is beyond the extent of improvements installed with the subdivision, and that in this location Hitt Road beyond the full improvements will function not as a public street but as a private flag driveway �vhich can seive up to tiv�ee lots fi�om a 15-foot width witU a 20-foot clear width. The Commission fuither finds that retaining this portion of Hitt Road, at its cwrent width without Cull strect improvements by considering it under the flag drive standards, will minimize trec remov�l, cuts and fills, and the impacts of developing Ihe subject property on the swrounding area. 2.4 Tlie Plam�ing Commission finds that the applicants are proposing ro modify the approved Uuilding envelope by adding 666 square feet along the southwestern property line, moving the envelope closer to Hitt Road. The identification of a building envelope is a requiremcnt of subdivision approvals; the envelope identifies those areas of the subject property where development disturbance may occur. Areas with slopes in excess of 35 percent are considered to be unbuildable, and must be located entirely outside of approved building em�elopes. Building envelopes do not identify a specific building footprint or indicate the amount of allo�ved lol coverage, but rather depict the areas which have been approved for polential development disturbance, subject to other requirements including lot coverage and solar access. According to the applicants' findings the area of proposed building envelope modif cation has less steep slopes than the areas within flie building envelope adjacent to the existi��g sharcd privatc drive. The applicants state diat the proposed envelope modiGcations will reduce the amomit of area disturbed on the steepest portions of the lot, and the Commission finds that the em�clopc modification proposed poses uo concems. PA fl2010-01622 March 8, 201 I Pagc 4 The Cotnmission finds that in the original approval, the original applicants' agent recognized in submittals in the record that the allowed lot coverage for the Strawberry Meadows development w�s to be limited to a maximwn of 20 percent, and that the building envelopes shown delincated an area where a home could be Uuilt but not the size of a spccific building Materials in lhe record of the originnl subdivision application emphasized that ne�v homes �vould nol esceed the 20 percent lot coverage restriction of ilie zoning dish ict, and this restriction was to have been included in the subdivision's CC&R's as welL (See page 40 of LUBA reca•�f coyier! in npplicants' Appendix S on page 30 of the npplicnnts' subndttal.) While the subdivision developers' agent has provided the current applicants with a letter indic�ting that the application of lot coverage based on the ii�dividual lots was never their intent and Ihat hact they known the coverage would be applied to the individual lots they wolild have allered the open spacc configuration to increase individual lot sizes to allow additional coverage, the Commission tinds that original application materials expliciUy recognized that building envelopes did uot identify building footprints. The Comtnission further finds thal for the substantial pa of the origin�l parent parccls whicli have s]opes in excess of 35 percent, those areas are required to be protected as unbuildable both in te�ms of the Physical Environmental Caistraints Revie�v chapter, �vhich excludes ]ands with slopes in excess of 35 percent fi�om buildaUle areas in AMC 13.62.030.C, and U�e Perfonnance Standards Options chapter, which requires that significa�l natural fcahires be included in open space, common areas or w�buildable areas in AMC 18.88.030.A.4.c. 2.5 Tlie Planning Commission finds that the Perfonnance Standards Options Chapter AMC 18.88 providos for more flexibility than is pennissible under conventional zoning codes in order to reduce the impacts of development on the natural environment and lhe neighborhood. Thc Commission further finds that this flexibility has previously Ueen applied lo allo�v for Uie allocation of lot coverage at the subdivision level, looking at the coverage of the development as a whole rather than on a lot by lol basis in order to allocate some additional coverage fi�om opcn space or larger individual lots to smaller lots. Such allocations have l�istorically been considered in ligl�t of Ihe puipose and intent of the Perfonn�nce Standards Options Chapter and h�ve accordingly Ueen limited to the degree deemed appropriate to minimi2e impacts to the natural enviroume��l, as well as to keep development in character with surrounding neighborhoods. The Co�tunission 6nds that during the inilial subdivision approval process it was acknowledged that much of the Brown' pl�ase of the Strawbeiry Meadows suUdivision was proposed to Uc retained in private open space due to the severity of its slopes, a��d fuither finds that at the time of tl�e subdivision application, the oiiginal applicanCs representative stated that all new homes �vould not exceed the 20 percent lot coverage atlowed within the district The Convnission finds that thc cu�TCnt applicanls' proposal would result in a totul of 6,91 1 square fect of coverage, or approximately 56.7 percent lol coverage on Uie approximately 12,200 squme foot subject properiy. Of this proposed coverage, 1,433 square feet or 12 percent of the lot is the existing paved diiveway cun�ently intended to serve the subject property and the rivo parcels to the souUieasL The applicant is also requesting 4,356 square feet of coverage, or 35.7 percent of tl�c lot, PA t/2010-0 I622 Mnrcl� 8, 201 I Page 5 to accommodate a futm•e liome on the property, and an additional 1,122 square feet of coverage, or 9.2 perccnt of Ihe lot, to provide for pedestrian and vehicular circutation and parking �reas on thc site. The applicants have proposed that this last porlion of the coverage requested �vould be limited to pemieable paving or otl�er porous surfaces. The proposal amounts to a lot covcrage totaling approximately 56.7 percent in a zoiung district where the standard lot coverage allowed is limited l0 20 percent. The Coimnission fuithcr finds that the staudard peimitted lot coverage for the parcel would be approximately 2,440 square feet or 20 percent of the approximately 12,200 squarc foot ]ot. The applicant is proposing that the base lot coverage allowcd for the parcel Ue set at 20 percent of Ihe standard mininmm one-half acre parcel size allowed within the disuict, or 4,356 square feel. ln addition, the applicants propose 1,122 square fect of pc�vious swf�ce treatmenls to accommod�te patios, walk�vays, driveways and parking areas on the site. 'Che Land Use Ordinance does not have a provision lo allow the exclusion of porous paving materials fiom coverage; all p�ving is considered to be coverage by code and Ihus even with the proposed porous heatment these surf�ces are considered to be lot coverage. The Commission finds that allowing the 4,356 square feet of coverage proposcd by the applicants is merited. This is the coverage which would be allowed for a one-half acre parcel, which is Ihe minimum lot size for the zoning district, and the Conunission finds it rcason�ble that this ��as seen as the miuimam coverage viewed as necessary to develop a lot witliin the district when 8ie district and its coverage requirements were estaUlished. The Commission further finds that it is appropriate, and in keeping with the intent of the pwpose and intent of tlie Perfonnance Standards Options Chapler, to allow tlie subject property 4,356 square feet of coverage in addition to tl�c existing 1,433 square feet of coverage already in place wilh lhe shared private driveway serving the hvo adjacent parcels as an allocation from the subdivision open space. This amounts to an approximate coverage of 47.45 percent. L� similar applications in the recent past involving driveways shared by adjacent propedies, the Planning Co�runission have been generally supportive of the exclusion of a sliared drivew�y's coverage fiom a IoYs overall coverage when the d�iveway is requircd to servc other properties and the reduction or removal of the driveway to reduce cover is beyond an applicant's control becausc it would deprive adjacent property owners of legally-established rights of ingress anA egress. In this ins�ance, the Commission finds that the existing shared driveway serving the adjacent lots caiuiot bc removed by the applicants to reduce tl�eir lot coverage widiout depriving the neighboring lots of their legally-established access. The Commission further finds that the shared driveway covcrage on the subject prope�ty amounts to more than one-l�alf of the standard pennitted lot coverage for Ihe property, and accordin�ly finds U�at excluding it fi�om the lot coverage calculations for �he subject propeity is appropiiate to allow a reasonable degree of development on the subject property. The Co�mnission finds that the additional 1,122 square feet of penneable coverage proposed is not meiited. The Conunission finds tl�at there is no basis to reise thc IoYs covcrage to 56.7 perccnt, even with peimeable surfaces, wlien the request is considered in light of the purpose and inlent of PA i120 1 0-0 1 62 2 rlarch 8, 2011 Pagc 6 the Perfonnance Standards, the character of the district, or the additional impacts to the hillside lot. The Commission fuiiher finds that, while the application does not include a home design, the conceptual site plan provided shows guest parking spaces and walkways disturbing sloped arcas wheu the avoidance of disturbance in these areas provided a basis for the applicants lo jtrctily relocation of the diiveway. Tlie Commission finds that without a specific home design, it is unclear tl�al lhe conceptuTi sitc layout shown will satisfy die Hillside Design Requirements, which liroit the length of walls widiout ai� offset, require a demoustration that disturbance of the site has been minimized, and that as much of the site as possible be kept in a nahiral state. The Commission further Gnds th�t while we support the 47.45 coverage to allow 4,356 square feet of impervious surfaces on the subject property in addition to the existing 1,433 square feet of shared driveway, wc caimot support the proposed additional coverage of 1,122 square feet of additional coverage. [n addition, in ordcr to find the proposed coverage allocation consistent with the pmpose and intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapte�• 18.88, Ihe Commission finds that if construction ot a homc on the subject property involves disturbance fitting the de1'initions of development on hillside lands with slopes of 25 percent oi� greater, the home to be built with this coverage, and the associated site design, �vill be subject to all requirements'for Hillside Development'and no vlriances to Ihesc standards will be considered in tlte final home desigi. 2.6 The Pla�ming Commissiai finds that the applicants' challenge th�t the mcmorandwn prepared by staff on Februa�y 8'�', 2011 included new infoimation and should be subjcct to rebuttal has no merit. The Canmission finds that the informatio�� provided Uy staff on Februarp 8` was a swnmary of information received into the record suUsequent to the close of die hearing, contained no new infonnation, and �vas not subject to rebuttal. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Plam�ing Commission wnch�des that tlie proposal for a Modification of �he Performance Standards Options Subdivision Final Plnn Approval for. the Stra�vberry Meadows Subdivision (PA#2003-020) to iuclude relocation of tbe driveway entrancq changes to thc approved building envelope, and the allocation of a portion of the lot coverage from the subdivision's approved opcn spucc "A" to allow increascd lot covcrage for the subject property is supported by evidence contained within the whole record. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, aud upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #2010-01622. Further, if any one or more of the conclitions belo�v are fowid to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Plamiing Action #2010-01622 is denied. The following m�e the conditions and they are atlached to the approval: 1) Tl�at all proposals of the applicant, and all requirements of the original subdivision approval including the requirement for a�esidential fire sprinklers, sl�all be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified lierein. PA d2010-01622 March 8, 201 I Nage 7 2) That the lot coverage shall be ]imited (0 47 percent, consisting of the existing 1,433 square foot shared driveway and an additional 4,356 square feet of lot coverlge. 3) That a Plrysical and Enviromnental Constraints Review Pennit will be required for the home desigi� and development of the site if the finat proposal conslitutes development of hillside lands with slopes of 25 percent or greater. Development, including tree removal on lands with slopes of 25 percent or greater is subject to review under a Physical and Etrvironntental Coi�strlints Review Pennit as required in AMC 18.62. For the 47 perccnt lot coveragc allocation to be found to be in keepin� with the puipose and intent of the Perfonnance Standards Options Chapter, the l�ome design and all site developiuent musl demaisirate compliancc �vith all applicablc requirements for hillside development, and no administrative variances will be considered �vitli U»s additional allocation of lot coverage. 4) That no development is to occur on lands with slopes i�� excess of 35 percent. 5) That prior to combustible constr6ction, fire appara�us access, including relocation of the Hitt Road gate and any necessa�y improvements to city standards to accommodale fire apparatus access above tl�e existing gate location shall be provided to the proposed driveway localion. 6) Thet the applicants shall provide a sign below lhe gate placement indicating lhal there is no outlet. The sigus design and placemeut shall be approved by the Public Works and Street .Deparlment. The Engineering Division shatl revie�v and approve all Civil Improvement Plans for any improvements within the public �ight-of-way including, but not limited to utility installation, gate relocation, si�iage or street improvements to accommodale fire appar�tus acccss. Any right-of-way work will require a Public Works Dcpa�tment Pern�it, and inspcction and approval by the Pub]ic Works Department. Planning Commission Approval by Pam Marsh, Chuir Marcl� 8'�', 201 Date PA A2010-01622 March 8, 20ll Page R C 1 T Y O F �4SHLAND Memo DATE: February 8' 20ll TO: Ashland Planning Commission FROM: Derek Severson, Associate Planner RE: 163 Hitt Road PA 2010-01622 At the January 1]' Planning Commission meeting, Catherine Dimino, a neighbor and resident of the Hwoschinsky-portion of the Strawberry Meadows subdivision, asked that the record remain open for seven days for the submittal of additional written commen[s. The applicants indicated tha[ they also wished to request an additional seven days for their submittal of written arguments. The public hearing was closed, and the record was left open with the meeting continued to the Commission's regular February 8' meeting. O�en Record Submittals Catherine Dimino (January 18): While the record remained open for new submittals, Mrs. Dimino submitted a single-page letter and accompanying table which compares actual ]ot coverage based on the standard 20-percent coverage allowed for the RR-.5 zoning district to "virtual lot coverage.° "Virtua] lo[ coverage" is not a concep[ found within the Municipal Code's Land Use Ordinance; Mrs. Dimino explains that her depiction of `birtual lot coverage" treats all of the undersized lots in the subdivision as being the district-minimum'/:-acre in size and then arrives at a"virtual max coverage size" based on the application of 20-percent coverage to the "virtual" lot size, and a`birtual lot coverage percentage as built or proposed" which looks at coverages built or proposed based on the "virtual" lot size. Scott Dixon (January 19): While the record remained open for new submittals, Mr. Dixon submi[ted a 23-page document which includes comments with regards to questions asked of the applicants and s[aff during the January 1 I' hearing; comments about statements made by staff during [he hearing; comments about the staff report; and corrections to the original proposal submitted by the applicants. Staft (January 19): While the record remained open for new submittals, staff provided a single-page table which lists the lots in each of the three phases of the origina] subdivision (Brown, Hwoschinsky, and Neuman/Knecht) by lot number/address, along with areas of open space and right-of-way. The table provides the lot sizes listed on sheet Al in the subdivision submit[als, the area of the building envelopes as depicted in the subdivision submittals, and the envelope area to lot size in the original subdivision approval. Also included are the actual bt sizes from the recorded plat, and the modified envelopes and coverage allocations which were approved as part of Planning Action #2003-020 for the Knecht portion qf the subdivision. The bottom four lines of this table depict total subdivision coverage based on build-out to full envelope area in relation to ]ot sizes in the original configuration as depicted in sheet A1; 2) build-out to full original envelope area in relation to lot sizes in the adopted PLANNING DEPAftTMEHf Tel: 541-48&5305 S1 Wn6um Way Fax:541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 wvrx.ashtand.or.us plat; 3) build-out to full envelope area to lot sizes in the adopted plat taking into account the modified envelopes submitted by Knecht and approved in Planning Action #2003-020; and 4) build-out to full envelope area to lot sizes in [he adopted plat taking into account the specific coverage allocations submitted by Knecht and approved in Planning Action #2003-020. I[ should be noted here that these coverages do not take driveways or parking areas into account as the original approval did not dearly delineate specific driveway areas. As noted in [his table, it appears that the full build-out of the envelope for the subject property to the approved envelope would result in approximate]y 4,317 square feet of coverage. With the addi[ion of the 1,433 square feet of coverage from the existing driveway, the site would be at 5,750 square feet of coverage which is 39 square feet less than the staff recommenda[ion contained in the staff report. In addition, staff have provided three additional sheets which show 1) the subdivision with addresses assigned to the individual lots; 2) a copy of sheet A1 from the original subdivision file; and 3) a copy of the recorded subdivision plat for commissioner reference. Scott Dixon (January 26): Subsequent to the closing of the record for the submitta] of new materials, the applicants provided six pages of argument in response to the materials that had been submitted since the hearing. The above submittals are attached. Decision Points In staff's view, deliberations should focus on the three requests which make up the current application: following are decision points to be considered by the Commission during deliberations: o Driveway Location: Does the Commission support relocating the subject property's approved access from the existing shared drive to a private drive off of Hin Road, above the existing gate? o Building Euvelope: Does the Commission support the applicants' proposed modification of the building envelope? o Lot Coverage: Does the Commission support the requested allocation of lot coverage from the subdivision's open space to the subject property in order to allow a rotal coverage of 56.7 percent, including 4,356 square feet of coverage for a future home, 1,433 square feet for the existing shared driveway which also serves two adjacent properties, and 1,122 square feet of addi[ional coverage which would be installed in permeable surfaces, to provide driveways, walkways, parking areas and patios on the site? PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-48&5305 51Wn6umWay Fax:541-552-2050 Ashlana, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us �_r-.ck�.ivc� z 3 9 5 6 II 9 10 1 17_ 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ,%ni; z� 2��it BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2010-01622, A REQUEST FOR A MODIFICATION OF THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS SUBDIVISION FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR PA #2003-020 FOR THE STRAWBERRY MEADOWS SUBDIVISION. THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS INCLUDE RELOCATION OF THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE, CHANGES TO THE APPROVED BUILDING ENVELOPE AND THE ALLOCATION OF A PORTION OF THE LOT COVERAGE FROM THE SUBDIVISION'S "OPEN SPACE 'A"' TO ALLOW INCREASED LOT COVERAGE FOR LOT #6 �OCATED AT 163 HITT ROAD. APPLICANTS: R. Scott Dixon Joan Cresse Planning Action #2010-01622 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL AppiicantslAppellants R. Scott Dixon and Joan Cresse ("Applicants") respectfully provide the City of Ashland ("City") with this notice of their appeal to City's Council concerning the Findings, Conclusions Orders issued by the City's Planning Commission on March 8, 2011 in City's Planning Action 2010-01622 (the "Planning Commission's Decision"). AMC 18.108.110. Applicants respectfully request City's Council hold a public hearing, and reverse or modify the Planning Commission's Decision concerning denial of Applicants' requested allocation of lot coverage. Council's reversal/modification will allow Applicants to construct a lower-profile home on their property at 163 Hitt Road, thereby allowing Applicants' Notice of Appen! m Cilp Conuci! Nlmiiri�rg Actiou No. 2010-01 <22 Applrcn�ris: R. Scolf Di.ro�i Jom� Cresse �JT\'IS, I IEA0.1. t �leincrs A Praessionai Go�pxafon 5�5 EAST RWIN STREET hSM1AN0,OPEGON915]a (541) 482J1 t 1 F!J( (5<p 40B-4a55 Pnge -1- home to blend into the environment and minimizing the potential negative impact of Applicants' new home on City's "ridgeline viewshed". Information Reauired by AMC 18.108.110 (Appeai to Councill Applicants provide the following required information addressing the criteria established by the relevant provisions of City's Ashland Municipal Code ("AMC"). AMC 18.108.110 (Appeal to Council). AMC 18,108.110.A: `;4ppeals of Type 11 decisions -shall be initiated by a nofice of appeal filed with the City Administrator. The standard Appeal Fee shall be required as part of the notice. All the appeal requirements of Section 18.108.110, including the appeal fee, must be fully met or the appeal witl be considered by the cify as jurisdictionally defective and will not be heard or considered." 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Ap,plicants' Response: Applicants tender the appropriate appeal fee to the City Administrator's office concurrent with this Notice of Appeal in the form of Applicants' Check #1878. AMC 18.108.110.A.1: "The appeal shall be filed prior to the elfective date of the decision of fhe Commission." Ap�licants' Resaonse: Type II Planning Actions become effective "13 days aker the findings adopted by the Commission are signed by the Chair of the Commission and mailed to the parties, AMC 18.108.070.8.3.a (emphasis added). The Planning Commission's Decision was signed by its Chair on March 8, 2011; and thereafter mailed to the parties on March 9. 2011. This Notice of Appeal is timely filed under AMC 18.108.070.8.3.a. AMC 18.108.110.A.2.• The Notice of Appeal shall include the appellant's name, address, a reference to the decision sought fo be reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant quali/ies as a paRy, the date of the decision being appealed, and a clear and distinct identification of the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on idenfifred applicable criteria or procedural irregularity. Nolrce ofAppenl lo City Coimci! Plnnniirg Action No. 20l D-01622 Applicnirts: R. Scott Di.ron Jon�i Cresse Pnge -2- Davis, Henar+ BRIDGFS A Prdestbnel Cwporelion 515 EA51 IAAIN STREEt ASMLAND, OREGON 9I5�0 (591)<B�-3111 FA%I�11408�9455 •1 2 3 9 5 6 7 a 9 lo 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Response: Applicants Appellants: R. Scott Dixon Joan Cresse 638 Blackberry Lane Ashland, Oregon 97520 ("Applicants") Apolicants' Attorney for Appeal: Christian E. Hearn, OSB #911829 Davis, Hearn Bridges, PC 515 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Phone:541-482-3111 Fax:541-488-4455 Email: chearn@davishearn.com Decision Appealed: "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order" dated March 8, 2011, and issued by the City's Planning Commission in connection with Planning Action #2010-01622 ("Planning Commission's Decision"). Appellants/A�plicants' Standing as Parties: Appellants/Applicants are the owners of the vacant residential lot located at 163 Hitt Road, where Applicants plan to build their home. Applicants filed the application and then participated in the "Type II" Planning Commission hearings process in Planning Action #2010-01622. Applicants now have standing to pursue this appeal. AMC 18.108.110. Nolice oJAppenl to Crty Counci! Plmining Aclrou No. 2010-01622 Applicnnis: R. Scoll Dixo�i Jonrt Cresse DAVIS. HEARN P �RIDGES APmPoSSbrcalCwppalbn 516 EAST MNN SIREET ASNIAND, OREGON 8]SIO (601) 403.]N 1 FAX 1�1/ dB8.i055 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 il 12 13 19 15 16 i� 18 19 20 21 Applicants are adversely affected and aggrieved by the Planning Commission Decision, which would effectively force Applicants to negatively impact City's ridgeline viewshed by constructing a taller home with a smaller footprint. Applicants appeared at the public hearing before City's Planning Commission, and presented both written evidence and oral testimony for the Record. AMC 18.108.110.4.E. Date of Planning Commission's Decision: Date Decision signed by Chair: March 8, 2011; Date Decision mailed to Parties by City staff: March 9, 2011. C/ear and distinct identification of the specific qrounds for which the Decision should be reversed or modified by City's Council. based on identified applicable criteria or procedural inteqritv: See attached Exhibits "A", "B" and "C". Attached Exhibits "A", "B" and "C" are fully incorporated herein by reference as though set forth here verbatim. Nofice ofAppen/ to City Council Plnui�irig Aclion No. 2010-01622 Applicnuts: R. Scotl Dixon Jonn Cresse DAYIS, HEARN �woaes A Prdesa"rordl Carporeiion fi15 FAST hWN STREET ASHIAND, OREGON W SZO (5�114B]-]itt FA%1`+�I)/BB�4C55 Page -4- 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 le 19 20 AMC 18.108.110.A.4: Except upon the election to re-open the record as set forth in subparagraph 4.8. below, the review of a decision of the Planning Commission by the City Council shall be confined to the record of the proceeding before the Planning Commission. The record shal! consisf of the application and all materials submitted with it documentary evidence, exhibits and materials submitted during the hearing or at other times when the record before the Planning Commission was open; recorded festimony (including DVDs when available); and the executed decision of the Planning Commission, including the findings and conclusions. In addition, for purposes o/ City Council review, the notice of appeal, and fhe wriften arguments submitted by fhe pa�ties to the appeal, and the oral arguments, if any, shall become parl of fhe record of the appeal proceeding. Response: Appellant designates the Planning Commission's Record in Planning Action 2010-00162 in its entirety, including the application and all materials submitted by Applicants before and during the Planning Commission public hearing process (including materials offered by Applicants which the Planning Commission refused to accept on February 21 Nofice ojAppen! to City Counci! Plm�niiig Action No. 2010-01622 Applicnnls: R. Scott Dixoie Jom� Cresse DAVIS, HEARN BRI�('iE5 A Prda�ibnal CaparYion 516 EASi MNN STPEET ASHUND, OREGON 9)5411 �s��l aezai n F,vc �s�u aea��ss Pnge -5- 1 2 3 9 5 6 7. B 9 l0 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 8, 2011); all recorded testimony (including DVDs) from the Planning Commission public hearing process; the executed Decision of the Planning Commission, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Order in Planning Action #2010-0622; this Notice of Appeal with its attached Exhibits "A", "B" and "C", any written arguments later submitted by ApplicantslAppellant in advance of the public hearing before Council on this Appeal; and any oral arguments submitted by Applicants and their attorney. Applicants request the Record be reopened to allow them to submit the additional materials they tendered in advance of the Planning Commission public hearing on February 8, 2010 (which the Planning Commission refused to accept). AMC 18.108.110.6: The Council may reopen the record and consider new evidence on a limited basis, if such a �equest to reopen the record rs made to the City Administrator togefher with the filing of the nofice of appeal and the City Adminisfrator determines prior to the City Council appeal hearing that the requesting party has demonstrated: 21 Nolice ofAppenl lo City Council Plnnning Action Nn. 2010-01622 ApplicmNS: R. Scolt Dixon Jon�i Cresse DAVrs,HeARN BPIDOES A Molevlanel Caporh0on fi15 EA3T ANIN STHEET ASHLRNO, ORE60N 87510 (541�4BT.9111 FA%(5011<BB.<955 Pnge -6- 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 lo 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 le 19 20 21 AMC 18.108.110.4.B.a: That the Planning Commission committed a procedural error, through no fault of the requesting party, fhat prejudiced the requesting party's substantial rights and that reopening the record be%re the Council is the only means of correcting the error,� or, AMC 18.108.110.4.B,b.: That a factual error occurred before the Planning Commission through no fault of the requesting parfy which is relevant to an approvaf criterion and material to the decision; or, AMC 18.108.110.4.B.c.: That new evidence material to the decision on appeal exists which was unavailable, through no (ault of the requesting party, when the record ol the proceeding was open, and during the period when fhe requesting party could have requesfed reconsideration. A requesting party may only qualify for this exception if he or she demonstrates that the new evidence is relevant to an approval criterion and material to the decision. This exception shall be strictly construed by fhe Council in order to ensure that only relevant evidence and testimony is submitted to the hearing body. Nolice ojil ppenl lo City Counci! Plnnning Ac(ion Nn. 2010-01622 fipplicnr�ls: R. Scotl Dixon Jonn Cresse DAV�S, HennnN BRIDOES A Prde�fimel Caporelim 515EASTMAINSTHEET NSHUN�.ONEGON BT520 (511) /B2-JI11 FN(1`+�1) <BB�K55 Page -7- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 l0 11 12 13 19 15 16' 17 18 19 20 21 Re-opening the record for purposes of this section means the su6mission of addifional written testimony and evidence, not oral testimony or presentation of evidence before the City Council, Appllcants' Response: Appellants tendered additional materials prior to the commencement of the Planning Commission's contlnued public hearing on thefr application on February 8, 2011. This was based on new evidence tendered by City Staff in a Memorandum to the Planning Commission issued in connection with the February 8, 2011 continued Planning Commission hearing. The Planning Commission, however, refused to accept the additlonal evidence and argument presented to them in written form by Applicants. Applicants attach the additional submittaf and request that it be considered. See: Concurrently filed Request. AMC 18.108.110.C: Oral argument on the appeal shall be permitfed before the Council. Oral argument shall be limited to ten (10) minutes for the applicant, ten (10) for the appellant, if different, and three (3) minutes for any other Party who participated below. A party shall not be permitfed oral argument if Notice of Appen! to Cify Counci! Plnn�rii�g Action No. 2010-01622 Applicnnis: R. Scott Dixoii R Jonn Cresse DAVIS, HEARN BRIDGFS A Pmfe�slorel Caporetmn 515 EAST MAIN STREET ASILLAND, OREGON 9]520 (511)�BT�7111FF%1511)/88<455 Pnge -8- 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9�� 10� 11I 12I 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 writfen arguments have not been timely submitted. Wriften arguments sha// be submitted no /ess than ten (10) days prior to the Council consideration of the appeal. Written and oral arguments on the appeal shall be limited to those issues clearly and distinctly set forth in the Notice of Appeal,• similarly, oral argument shall be coniined to the substance of the written argument. Response: Applicants request a public hearing on this appeal before City's Council in conformity with the above criteria. Applicants intend to submit written argument in support of their appeal no less than ten (10) days before the public hearing before City's Council on this Appeal. AMC 18.108.110.E: The Council may affirm, reverse, modify or remand the decision and may approve or deny the request, or grant approval with conditions. The Council shall make findings and conclusions, and make a decision based on the record before it as justification for its action. The Council shall cause copies of a final order to be sent to all pariies participafing in the appeal. Upon recommendation of the Administrator, the Counci! may elect to summarily remand the matter to the Planning Commission. I( the City Council elects to remand a No/ice ofAppen/ lo City Council Plnn�:ieagAclioi� No. 2010-01622 Applicmrts: R. Scotl Dixon Jonir Cresse Dnvis, Henwu pnge -9- Q BRIDGES A P�olmsimel Caporelwn 615 EAST M41N SIREET ASHLW D. OREGON 915X1 (511) �B].]f 11 FNI( I64111869�55 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 e 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 211 decrsion to the Plannrng Commission, either summarily or ofherwise, the Planning Commission decision shall be the frnal decision of the City, unless the Council calls the matter up pursuant to Section 18.108.070.8:5 Resaonse: Appellant respectfully requests that City's Council reverse or modify the Planning Commission's Decision on the grounds reflected in attached Exhibit "A", or on any other grounds which City's Council finds appropriate following the public hearing on this appeal. AMC 18.108.110.F: Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be defined as the following.• 1. The applicant; 2. Persons who participated in the public hearing, eitherorally orin writing. Failure to participate in the public hearing, either orally or in writing, preciudes the righf of appeal to the Council; 3. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to error. Response: Applicants qualify as "Parties" entitled to appeal the Decision based on AMC 18.108.110.F.1, above. They are the applicants in Planning Action #2010-01622. They participated in the public hearing before City's Planning Commission. Notice of Appenl 10 City Council Plnuning Action No. 1010-01622 Applicnnls: R. Sco!l Dixon Jom� Cresse D,�v�s, He,�ari DRIDGES A Pmiasslonel Caporelim 515 EAST MAIN STftEEi ASHL4N0, OREOON 8]5]0 �54f1<B1.3111 FA%1�7)IBB<455 Pnge -10- 1 2 3 9 s 6 7 8 9 lo 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 lII 19 20 21 AMC 18.108.160.B: Applicants respecttully point out that: "The Council has the aufhority to modify any interpretation of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance made by the Planning Commission." AMC 18.108.160.6. Applicants respectfully request that City's Council review the evidence, testimony, and arguments of Applicants, and exercise its inherent power to modify the Planning Commissio�'s interpretation of the relevant criteria and the evidence presented. AMC 18.108.160.8. DATED: March`�2011 Respectfully submitted, DAVIS, HEARN BR/DGES, Pc CHRISTIAN E. HEARN, OSB #911829 chearn@davishearn. com Attorneys for Applicants Appellants R. Scott Dixon Joan Cresse Nolice ofANpenl to City Cowrcil Plnnning Aclion No. 2010-01622 Applirnnls: R. Sco!( Dixon Jonn G•esse DnviS, H�RN Pnge -ll- BwoGES P PlWaeelm9l Co�po/Mim fit5 EAST MFIN STPEET ASM WiD, OREGON 8)5P0 (5�1)<81J111 FA%�511)CBB�M55 City of Ashland Planning Action 2010-01622 Applicants 1 Appellants: R. Scott Dixon Joan Cresse March 22, 2011 EXHIBIT "A" TO NOTICE OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL fIl'Al PLdNkFPR�'�Al '?.@�ll'11�t�G'i?•�' Fnzi�:r FInaL`+Sr• 3(�ro'i2 shat ,S�aniEd aG^i �rc inc af ;u1sL•:nlia :cr;�c,manr�t��sl� I%e ��r,ir� c!a? lic�'rna �n ilti pfi�d:irp c`;3I �@I� f�;,�USiCi� f11fe AJmh'.I �7� III]!P.IS Clll::'Ciii'j iQ;l >��3:: ��'G'!i'.0: ��Ii 7 �Illi li ��f"�5'!1? c<o� 7�?l'1?!9� ;ig��lsiy �ni ��tzll �ol i� I��ofrr�Ed aGihrrGr.;�:,��a� �ape� s�a�� H:i�r;,: tEia�, �il �tr�,�A;i� Ir� :r,d;rF ^I� fis :n.l��y�ial :xi�rm:n� �a,s�:r s r!�a �i :del+ L� r^ic :F� r.�e �a��`.31r<< (ra�n a1^ n4 s��p I: zrclh�. SJ�q•`s1}�� D)A�9iA!t!![° S�s� a�lS'hOSfi i7'0?�1S110' ;h? �]Ufl9= ��'S �ti ��f E� ��31 r;J; e!�Ir ��J 6�' i' �dF�l l� -:'�IS :'81� 1 A.Il�.lr �'I�fl!e �..�.:r':9�a 7.P .�t+1e1:f .1? :tY: ��„9��ly d��il tU�. f 1� �:CSL' S1N� ��C A1I111fUf 4' UYi$!`iDii �7'i}:qg �:f(�I.'iEi II �'I; :i.�'I!t �:�14. D. The ��t�3 �cr�iis �t:Gsc�s :EI;tG:c m�i� t�.iliris ra'� rc 'm�e la��i'.e'� �iUl� �Cit��l �il Ii:r.�F ;hr,tsi cii '1; ;�,�rn�zd��ttlre Fla7, bui n aa �a»c s�z �hrs�d�firce� tc r;�u�;i t�� c:,�;>> romm�m t31?hlss's� �.+il4crhsT�ll:. c. lhe cF4r! sE2�:_ t9 03 ��f� i13� �?1 �'t�r;i �:f�Yf:`. �hi� (t0il�"� C� �!E C9'ill', p�B d. ThetuiV�ogs�ad€sv�=s7:.€� IIr��I�If,:�rgry7aFl�P112L`Il�k�ji,ft++ffCf?17B�f�llU;�r'�'li c '•hCf+d3n�rr 'i�If✓tCfCQ��Efllli t �fl:� 1 !'il1 i i'Oi3!�t��i e:ifire Fl�n Th�fIF6�iilli}13i13��aG5c�11(�i'GSU ID irE �Ifi3� :i�';' SVbi L�:� �f�cl :i: n 1:�f? l2� �1? J''�:ll �'st'.' f,��IlRili'.: ��'JiIIFIC �Ia.J 5'�I tC tf h`i dti g. Th�tEVe�S`s%c:it�r�l!t:e,tlhllE'olrr?it::5;3!�S. if�R� 7,a1"u, sSu! Exhibit "A" to Notice of Appeal to City Council City of Ashland Planning Action 2010-01622 Applicants Appellants: R. Scott Dixon Joan Cresse e Exhlblt �'��e.� o� Page 1 BACKGROUND: Applicants Appellants R. Scott Dixon Joan Cresse are a �etired couple who paid market price for a buildable residential lot at 163 Hitt Road, on which to build their "dream home". In order to build the low-profile single story home they envision to blend subtly into the IoYs hillside, they filed their Planning Application 2010-01622. The Planning Commission's decision to deny them a slightly enlarged building footprint for their home based on its interpretation of AMC 18.88.030.B.5 risks the unintended consequence of jeopardizing the integrity of Ashland's precious "ridgeline viewshed", since a higher profile home will be more visible from the downtown area. The Planning Commission misinterpretated the City code sections in denying Applicants a mere It is City's elected Council, however, which retains authority to properly interpret City's ordinance provisions for the benefit of the community. 18.108.160.8. Applicant's lot at 163 Hitt Road is Lot 6 in the Strawberry Meadows subdivision, which has a long and complex history. The Strawberry Meadows subdivision originally approved in 1998 as a 25-lot subdivision on 25 acres. This was modified in 2000 to be a 21-lot subdivision on 21 acres. The 8-acre portion of the Strawberry Meadows subdivision originally owned by Meg Brown was designed with an existing, occupied lot and 7 smaller, clustered lots adjacent to 4 acres of open space. In connection with approval of the subdivision, the Brown parcel dedicated 50% of its area to open space. In short, this parcel has 50% open space in a subdivision with a minimum requirement of 5% open space. Applicants' Project Descripfion, pg. 4. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ESSENTIALLY APPLIED THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION$ TWICE, ONCE IN CONNECTION WITH APPROVING THE STRAWBERRY MEADOWS SUBDIVISON (50% OPEN SPACE); AND A SECOND TIME WHEN ANALYZING THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE ISSUES IN CONNECTION WITH APPLICANJS' APPLICATION. Applicants believe this interpretation was arbitrary and unfair under the circumstances, and should be reversed or modified by the Council on that basis. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACKNOWLEDGED NOT COUNTING THE AREA COVERED BY A LOT'S DRIVEWAY ACCESS AS A COMPONENT OF LOT COVERAGE FOR NEIGHBORING LOTS UNDER AMC 18.108.030, BUT ARBITRARILY DECLINED TO APPLY THE SAME INTERPRETATION TO APPLICANTS' APPLICATION. Planning Commission Findings, Conclusions, and Orders, pgs. 6-7. Applicants guaranteed that any lot coverage in excess of 4,356 square feet would be used for surface treatments and built with permeable materials and meet the City's standards. The record provides more specific detail in support of the specific grounds for appeal, concerning how the Planning Commissinn misinterpreted the appiicable criteria established by AMC 18.88.03i THE PLANNING COMMISSION MISCONSTRUED THE LOT COVERAGE STATEMENTS MADE BY THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPERS' PLANNER IN RESPONSE TO SOME NEIGHBORS' OBJECTIONS. Specific grounds for this assignment of error are lengthy, and are set forth in detaii in the Record. Applicants' Project Descriptron and Findings, pg. 22-26. THE PLANNING COMMISSION MISCONSTRUED THE DEFINITION OF OPEN SPACE FOUND IN AMC 18.88.020, CONFUSING IT WITH LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS. THE PLANNING COMMISSION MISCONSTRUED AND MISAPPLIED THE CRITERIA IN AMC 18.88.030 IN A VARIETY OF WAYS IN CONNECTION WITH CONSIDERATION OF APPLICANTS' LOT COVERAGE REQUEST, AS DETAILED ON FOLLOWING EXHIBITS "B" AND "C". The Planning Commission's decision concerning Applicants' lot coverage request is not supported by substantial evidence in light of the record as a whole. See attached Exhibit "B" and "C" for furiher specific grounds upon which grounds upon which the Planning Commission's Decision should be reversed or modified by the Council upon consideration of the record as a whole. Exhibit "A" to Notice of Appeat to City Council City of Ashland Planning Action 2010-01622 Applicants Appellants: R. Sco[t Dixon Joan Cresse Page 3 0 0 o 0 o �a Q U Q O>� U 0 U 0 M c� N a a N N U O c� 0 0 0 U Q .o ��b�t Page� of M N V V Q Q Q 0 O N Q (6 N O U O p O (6 0 o cv Q- E Q Q �o V O N L Q.. L •W W v W O (4 N U U z �+Q"� N i v Q M Q c� r' O M C ct' (D O o a N cl7 N ca L O 00 (B ti d U C O W (6 O L L C Q O L C N O U 'C Q� L Q ta�� (a tn c� QE W y O L L aj N O Z O E N M L� W L U Q OI O O U O O L U p O U o O U c a U a� �U O U N j Q Q a r, �U Q V V 0 0 r�y d� 4�- 0 V N 'L� W V V- O N U X o L U U Q O O C N (0 Q O N c o c� C O C �U 0 L -F-i N Q 1 1 't7 .a W w� a--� C U L V J U N t6 ta L N O V U C (B C A �L L /�1 `V 0 M a Q U fd 0 o M n Q o N O r C 2 Q O U N C C tn N Q o c (B C� C O m O dj p O i V O N c� N C Q c� N Q Q� O O U U =p ..0 t0 c0 f— C a 'L .0 O Q a x �s�: 9 t �+s� f 1 n�� 4 b :.r 0 t i:. y a z �n.��f. i +Y n', �'i. 1 ��t� y i•.: P W d../ e� v Y aii Q �i C .Q �a.� ,ti�°'�' �e i O ryp5 c �o t�` G° N c d c t U i� i i i� Y fn .fl A g�i ,'L A 60 ry i� i i i i� i i d i� i C i i i U i r i i i �i 0 C �L O U� W L L Q ��}O tA U U V N L.L J �t N C N V/ U N Ca C cn N O C p� (Q N U�O 0 i� p6 ryp 10 i 1 i i i i i 1 W W C U O Q� CB O i;� �"U� �'N� tU t�s r., O .Q L O N i In m m y V A..L.J i C LL (6 a c 0 U N C O Q C O N �L c� O cB U� N -Q N O o� Q� C O N U C ca L c�a a� J 1 N C N C C Z O O U O 2 U W c O c Q O N a� �O Q -C O p R[ ��N Q� nl O N.�� O �NO�' (B N L -�NN U (CS QN C� W��c�n 8 x 1 0 J Y p y/ �VY W M Q L O ie� e�� e� W Q O M/ e� m N V Q O O C W W Q 'Q N Q- N H 0 0 W Q 0 W W V v v Q� C Q Y O r� L Q W t' Q O W "Q O U U O J A N C L M '�t r r F-- s a a a W 0 l 1 1 O 0 1 i 0 0 C (II c 0 `F �t i z, t, p-. C O CJ C O r W E��b�t �f L (CS N C N II O O N O �3 L -1-+ J N E 0 N c L.1� O n O N C N (Cf O C O Q O U C (TS O o� M Q. W W c� S rn V J W IV e� �i U U a C C O O Q C L T t y L V U Q C O U y-. c ca o o 0 C L v J M v�� VI W W G a c� M M rn �n rn �n N I`+ O d o '�i' O O co �n d� N�- N O� O CO I� M M O M N C (�'j N M ch V' L a d y O o 0 0 0 0 0 o �n o o cv r. J �n v v c� I\ O Q 0 J Q 'C N C6 U N .Q Q W -1-� L U (6 O (C� a--� U \V L a Q V♦ O LL Q 1_ W .v uS o c�v v o U d T O N Q L O N o 'n L ti �i i i O N Ex��b` �'a�;�, 3 a O W W O U (6 X 0 VI O a� 0 O u��x Q v rn� o� o� n O O n m� a r w S� M M lV tM Md1[7M d 0 M <o N d 0 t� N d N 2 N N O d N �xhnb�t �ag�.� of 1 O x 0 c a e 0 0 N m rn v a a� re L 0 .Q V a� c. �n c L 0 o t w N O C d 0 0 0 0 M d N N N N .Q 0 K O n 6 W 0 -i�-,+ e� C Q c N ca a� U C O U 'v= O G a� .n O 1 C N Q. C� O C Q O L co N N W L U f� Y L O c o� 2� �ts o �n U� (L� C O m p i L c O EZ O N tCJ d' 0 Q c 0 .n C c� M A V O C ca m J 0 N Q. a ca c C O Q Q O .n Y C co a c� U (0 m J ti N L y^ Q W F� Q W O C N�Ya �a O }'NCa Z c��'� �o�,� �o�� o a�i� C° �°o� Q N CO L Q_ O p^ N.�.�� Q"'D �O�c6� ca V��L U?i� c� "O��c-� �z�c� ti N O� O� v e O O N Q tB c� L a c c� (B Q C ti3 0 a 0 L Q O c c� cv c c 0 .Q O G a� .n L c� O M c� c c 0 .Q O G Q� .Q th O 0 a Ex��b�$ Page of Q Z 4 z N y 1 e� Q C C O N N .Q Q. O O o L LL- tF� L d C N N N O� N O (0 N J d d Q-M N �O U N QO 0 0 N o i� O M O X Q O C �-C-� O VN +�-�(0� L QC N O�cn t_Q O I O� O C O C C O N Yoo 0 C p„ .Q (CS O N C 7 (Cf N O (CS O .Q N� L a L Q C Q L O L... O Z� 0 �o L L O C O L O� U� U (0 Q. tn tn C p O Q� Q� 'O �CN� cp O N .c v- O c� 0 Q C� N t� J L N� N U� C O L L O O N '0 tQ N �N rn o 0 0 0 0 t O O N N e a i 0 N N T ti C C O O a ln m mo C C o 'o m m� ti ti N 7 .-i yi N ei N 'O e� 0 0 V V �a J a�� lra��1PR7//��ra�nfe.yS M N d' n� I� A Y.-. C d .0 C) U V N a r O 2 a ��fl�9��. V� cn 3 o ma� 00 i v 0 N M y O J a N 1 M r (titi r n� N V a�i �n.� Z Y c� M t0 r .m. J m K 1. ��'i N C d a.+ L Q Q N a y L C Q� Q 0 Q� N 0 N y ,O Q� L d C q N t� J Q O tB .4. L Q C dI Q� o 0 ��bi� ��,��'.of N C O N N V O c c N d ,N N C Y o za 9 v� V f C� W U U L O m U Q C Q. W N i� U C N O L 0 N U U Q c a 0 O Q U c t0 O U N Q c O O L i O a O W O L C C I..L� L Q W Q 0 o U�) U N Q o 0 0 N (0 U (0 o N c U Q Q c� O o U Q e �3��flfl�1 ca C 4- C O co N Q 0 Q c J W O 0 a� C O O c N l�l U c c0 m m ai O Y U cd a� O L N c N W d� C N .o U ,Q N p J U -C O �o O Q c Q a--+ m J L U a �n z K E I 1 1 W W ��'�i I�\ V/ W O W O L a� N i �t-� Q U O Q I 0 0 a O a a C O N m m C� 0 o a o 0 C c0 N O 4 O 6L L Q� vJ N Q U O O N N a N N.�U N L p Q O U e o e O U -i-� W U Q N s Y O N C c m C O Q Y (D N 0 C� C� a o 0 0 0 W 1 W 1�1� n O N C U O 4= C U O U p�q� VJ U N N O i U O N N� c Q o f1'4 Q �v Q a--' N N N O o N ��H I W -1-- a--� N c� (a C �L O E a �c��oo o`�a� .r_n V -p N N C U �Z O n. a� O N C C Q� �O N ��0 ln N -F-a N U� N� c O 0 N O Q 3 O N c� N C o U O U �Q..� N v�i N O N L O N U �O Q O j 4- O� U N O N O j N j N 'p L Q L i� (i3 c c� U C Q Q �O L N C N c L Q Q O Q O O Q- N 0 h- s a O e� t� i Q e� v W L 0 I..L m U N �O N iV W O U N ca N O \I J i 0 Q U 0 0 N O N 0 O W �I� J N Q L L 0 W W 1 N c� ta W V J O O "e� C� .[�,x�� W W -F \V d a� Y W o�� W V �i� tl� a� C �4 i m �7 N N LL O y O o O a� o �.o y.+ O 7 m s C�• C �S t Q �5�. N w N C d O s u� o� U a e� M N O N N d'•� U�� CD �O �a�� C O L C L W •1� N N a� V U O O O O N U� N��- a r�, O V C Q� o� L U i N Y y"' O O� (�f Q" c� U O O 'L N �>c6 O 0 �I Q. U c 0 U N c c� U U (0 Q '1-� Q. o� �c C� iL L c o o a� rn o a O o cn c� :oi ;�i �L N O t U C Y O �I O a� �n E �I N O L v/ O W ��o a a� N� U -a L U c� W O �I U L C i i i r'X��R�fl�: piF� f G N a O N W 00 m� N N ti C C O O V V ln N C C° o m m 'a 'a o N tY .-i .ti v' N �X�kflbl� k d 0 O J 0 0 N P d' N A �a d L t Li. S M M N N 3 c a� O C L co� t�'n ca r �I. C' 0 0 cc W f''' �J VJ O N �L t� a--� O O O O �F+ O a� Y r,�,, 3 N z LL a N O t d a� ca i O r L,L a M O O Q. L�L N M L O O O LI N M O O d L c� LL O N V Q. N i O O KI c� E LL d� ti �a`1 Jg M D a �e 5 -Q c U• )�c `�n C o Z w O �3 C U ro K .n a� d y ro ds A� 0 N N O L C U c O O O Q L W L L N (6 c N L (0 Z A L U n �U c�i O c L L �i n, L iv O O N N d U r.+ 0 s N N r d' N i� L N 'i. d R �s N r N 3 N O CC c0 Q �3 C y O p, Y L t Q C9 s O ti W N O 0 N c� a�i N L) V d U L Q. Q Y 3 N N O O N d V d N O L L Q. a N r C c o 3 Y G V X s ar w m L 0 0 Q Q .a O a' N N N 0 N�. O O .G LL N r L Q 0 i R r LL a' N N a� V Q. L O N�. �I a LL CS' N T r� N Q m Q 'O tn �U A Y o j tn C p� O C (Cf (6 X a� o X (6 Y v, O C fn L F N N N N 'o 0 J �a a� t0 C1 Q N ti N c� d O c� L LL 0 Q 0 L N d�+ O y 3 C C d O L a� a a� N C� L U ll. LL N o O� I� t ��'i U U 0 U (T� v C Q. 0 dj C N (tf r a� t L O a 0 �o Q. m d N LL N 0 O ti 3 c 0 C j tG V a x �o cn z w C �L a O w N 0 t a� N Q' N oc� N M L O O a 0 0 cc M N O Q O O .Q lL Q 0 0 N r Y d V V m N N O O w LL N M O LL a 0 a M ya" 8� .o e f 1 a Q t N C a �n a d v a� d n' O c N X .0 tD N �N O f— Z 1 o N J 6ti M N r a W V dl— O O O W e� Y I L L 4� Q. O �.1. fa N d' DO L Q Q. LL 0 c� M N L .Q r N L a 0 0 N L L N ti N O p Q� V Q. L W W a cD M V Q. L .I�i �.i. N N N v co Q. L 0 0 u. a w m ti C} N �i 1 1 v✓ e� I /y' v i M Q i i �i I Q N O T W ev (6 U O Z �i W W U O U O C o O N U 1 T U c c� C6 C �C 0 lV O CCS ca 0 U /'1 L W W C C O Q C N O W L W Q O Q O N �U QU O e i__ i 1� i U L 47 N a a s K v 3 m N O v O C OC ao �n N 3 Q tx N M C K i^� N 1 I 1 v✓ L W W �I i� a a� cB N O •F•• �U C (Lf L N c C O •y�/ L N C N m A O a� a a� U C m O 3 U N W c L Q Q c""v c O C O L Q C Q a� O (i5 O U C y_ O (6 �I O O t U W �1�+ Y c U O cO a N O N L Z U O O A, L C '�i, C L u j N N N Q- ca �I N N U O Q. Q C (CS co O L Q -t� -F-+ 0 Q L L V W 0 C LL J o p N O o o U V W }i 0 o C �i U O O 0 O O 0 O O �,��?l�fl ��C�� i W W Q u, 3 Y N c 3 0 y o 0 '�O a N 3� rv w v a w 0 v Y N C E w a 0 n L Y Y JJ Y L L J.i C N d N N L W Q a N L L C W L N T N Qi O L Y E v n 0 n t N O Y O y ��o c c 0 a 0� di o o N �l N 0 0 a �X 0 �a N e� G V! W o� N V W o L T Q N U o o C6 Y O U Rf t0 o 0 a �S I a� L c Y C O A C ca o U I U a c c Y C O 0 O 2 L I c �d,f�t;;.�,_ W i C� W+ LL L O i� t N W L U�� N N U E N C ��a�� tn Q C N N a ��'L�'� U N (6 UL m Q (6 N N N�> �'U Q(n CC3 N N Q N N N O>.s- O O U N Q Q Q Q f Q� O u c� 0 3 2 x s �--e V V� c6 C c0 N 0 c� O t0 O O U a� c� O U a� c� d� �../J O V N N L Q� a� c� a a� O N a� c� O O U O N a ca c 9 J�� `�.?1�A�� .�ir��D�.__. L O W W O N 0 N O c c� a� W lV fi fl 2 a V i W O 0 .v O W (C3 e� V 0 V 4� L O W O t� I O O O u� 4 W M f` O O V/ I O V J Sr i O O I` N o a V/ \V W V/ W �'I�i L C'7 d' i� r o� N 6 K b I I I 1 e� V✓ o� O `-J n n w O O U Q C C (Cf 6L a�--+ N C ;n O W C6 O C O O (C3 O Q t�s c c� .n a� c N o O t� O p ca U c C S (6 O C O 0 0 e o a� c� Q- cn L 0 rn o��Qo N �a'g�N I (CS N N a Q ti ti c o L a� ��>o Q� 6� m� Qo M N O CO N Z N o N R7 N L -i-� N O Q V Q cn c'7 N "6 C A �'V O N N c i ��E �c��c tC5 Q O �M C� m� I— co ta N I I ��R�� a M V s� Y O C6 1 T �U N V c: O o U Q� O v 4� "4 n!' W O O O O a 0 �1�� e 0 O O 1 i V O U ��x; O N U J T U O I C� 9 a N M J e� 1 O U Q U y-+ O c c N L vJ C C LL. 0 �1—+ O U N l� N U N c� y-+ L N ,N O M Q W U fd L c a�i 3 ry W O a=' U C U O U Q 1 C L Q N O a� n cn c W W U W U N RS �..QL O 0 O W W N O O I.I� V U td Q Q' N.� "C O U N +J Y Q. O N O O N O E a�i W N C W W Q C ?i O 0 W N C O O N O N 'Q O N C 0 (6 C U O L W O L O C O U O w N N C O L W W C U U H a� C O N O N N O L Q O Q O 0 O .I��R �1 O N C N rn 3 L Q N O .Q C O O C Q Q .O Q I-- c�" (B 0 N �U 4J C Q O O O U Q U N Q O A O �"C O .�i-. 0 M M o V V, e� O e� V L� W 0 o� 1� L (0 L a c f0 c N m N c f(S N N 0 N 3 m L 0 a a� O N f/l T C'�' N N "ONO N ..c..r�NN p7 'O m C .Q N� O 'U t6 F- V@ U N O f/1 m�Y L N O M >'m.Sm c� 3�>,°��nY� m °�a ��tq �CYO. N� C>OpCp N C 'a 2Ul �Ul p.0� n N (0 .n,� ?a� a� �a� �a °°�`�E cu.c.. ��Nm �O ��L��la'L+�p 3oa �So yu�i�� a� v�:.a�imwa�o maN o c0 pl L QI N�' y t O m 7� N C N.0 O Cf- (p w p-.0 cc m�mc a� o�o�o-o'°ai3 0-o�Y N.O c @'al� C N@� C N N�(0 c vmN @�o a�.>_� E mo�a �a '��a 3 i� �.o c°��°3>.ca`�a� n'ha`�i rn @�n>E N=� o L>,rn .T� m�� L ol� �C N N� n� �,Ea�� 3 0 �rm� m �a EO l9�YC NL Nr' N �.Lm N C N C f6 N �p T @w N m Na•_ >a��m �o ��mma�.�°c E c� �a�mn. �-o mw�o N C V 3 C C N� C ,�,16 4_ TEy_ OC E' N N L U ,c a�is �a� aa� o N C N C O N O �N V1 0 O E.� N� 3mo a��t>a�� 3,�o,m�cm._ o> o u�� a�rn �t°�m,��o u c a�: ca��@ o�am�o I a -o-=��?•�'3��a�i L@°cmv'u��i� c�yo.� 9 .c w �'c o N m .fl C a=� >a a� V p 'N O p a i �Q3 y ��o�ca� a�� E,S.—n c`�ov,.o ��L�a� om au,i�`--�u�,�>a�� m.v� oo;N O C C pL C N�'C in (O. ��-�L fA V�j N T- �o�.��°�a� m�o mL��,°'>r cE n.�rn> ��o ma oo° o:�o°£c��°- �c Qo.LE u i 3� o�m°��mc� no cm od C a l9 N, C Q' a 4/L/ 7 N Q C �p TL �N nU�U C-- C�-'C(p�� T(6 �p.V U]� O �C�N�WN' N N ��N�+'N�., �N p-�UN O U C N' C .fl m- N N t� N Q-�� >>•m oo�c-�o�� N�aNr E N t�' N' N U f0 �-°o a�N� o `•�°Ea`��v�.c °m m L (p O y ��I� i- y O C�LL (Q N� Q m._ �oY3�� io.. mw.U�� s �o�� od•��a c-� u rn�- a� c 3 rn rna .5 a� m:a'rn m a f a� :a�x.�i c�E c cc �-.�-`oc 07 T�37�a@3 lD fOU N�� DN'<6 �Om�u. Uc�a�rnnmv,tq�Ec�wa�mmmv�a�oUu�yo 0 C'.r N NV y2 Q N �C O y .l m m ai s rn �Nw C j U U O L_ Y 3 a N o NQ m 3 Ks.c c�nU� U ca �QNw 'TJ� wT a ma� �E L Y,+ N._ a�,flT N C\ O �O C Up N� r a� H��w Nro '�m 3 y o (0 �C N� +�'N O� C -p N C o r9o� N N� m._ L �E..+U ,m� N j 6 L O cp N �.0 �m 3 m Y'v U� C �.L N 0 3 m �'.c Up.CN' L C =f/7 ��N 0 N L rny o 3 c rn�' �.ro crna�i NC i�C._ I-� fn@C ��A�� J' M eV 0 �J o� �V e� 1 i� W O 1�1� N C N d C c� s O a�i N N s c O N L O L 0 O y O C N co N t0 7 N C N L N v co c c o u� L w O c N �p f0 O N L t� �p O y O r C C N o O (0 V c U 0 O O ,tn (0 N L 0 N O N O U N L Q O 0 c�a c�a o 0 0 v a a� a� �•-Lo F-��3 Q� y N -a C tn +J o C a �E� u�i c� �n T N J�F� �J V �N N =I U 0 N (If L .ftf t �3 ,0 3 �a�� y �.�no L W ..0 Q' C L Q C C a� c. ro N (U N t� V V 0 O L\ tn O V �o Co L2 V O 0 fII .N M C t�,� NM C �0 N •N O O t0 .a N- U O >Q+• C`�' C Q O 7 X N�� i ro t� Q�O Q' C CO"O N C N <C "O O N V 'a C N C 0 C.. T� N v o c_�o .,r 3 co 'c p m _c o a-. �o� G> >_c a��c Q-�ro> I-��L�o�c� Q �(n cU I— O m N� Q M fn fA O a g �n ih o� V 0 \V C (C� W U Ct3 a N O �i W W �1� 0 L W O O y- O V y J W VJ L -i-✓ O W L v N O �'J W LJ� ii a a 3 V e� X t.L6 6.. �H i 0 N U U Q c� U O (U Q Q J U Q �i o o N O o> N 3 m �ro eo 00 c c/� O O M O p L Q U O O U r r C N O C cn Q� U O O� C N J (A Q C7 Op N N�00� �Q'a CQ� O� p� .C _l O� c TS 00 CO n` �tA O vJ V/ L ��L U LL 1 I W I N M �O CO _I O N N p� J� 0 O O� E E� N� Oti �ii-a1 c cn o 0 0� a .o 3 a�i U U> o c c� 3 0 0 o o a Q.� a a�i o a aU Q.� ca c� �o �QQo Q-� a�pp� a� Q�'� �o a�i o v O ca� ��JQ�� a�� `°0-0-c° o U Z'�'c��.�s �,c a� a� n a L o c.� c a� a� a� a�� n. a� N co N .n a c c .c rn rn c�a:� c�u co c�cn o o� 3 cu O O O C L L M N fl. Q. U O>> C� cn C� cn O m cn c� u.. Q Q�r I— 1— J c� W _�i7 t� fD f0 s 2 a x 3 �i t I i i t i �.r f^l i I fi Q �XYRfl�S�� c�a��.� w`:�� a 6 t4 5 p ti `a x 9 t b N M F��m z a 6 „n;�; S� �i s 5 rc a�`�u 3 0 6 fi n��8 i 3 `�1 s�=a �„e s�g��„ `c o eo: ae8� �$��s� �',6a�4 3�0 ��a� �.3v E s,a�s 9�3 0� '��oEs c��Z��G. 0'8 �a5 S "e�'Y �S 6mO� 3 -��k oE.� x''>_ 3�' n c r J 9�� xq a"� C3�� 6 y 3 g €s c.e x o ya��e >a An woa"h 9'� q 5 5 �o��_�°� `��g�aga� �s� ��04� b a a a ss-E'` ao�i.po f 3 z E O c S2 .-1.^.�� 3 3 U 8� d ��`c °��ge` E[�o� sa ntr.s 9 �oS�yQO$ C �OSyO}j�� ,�aF Ee ._ti5x.=_ t e��,�� _€$�z q fi a p 5 G a gs; a=�a g800' 9�� `�3< �.,g F x i �3 9 6 G Q. y o$. 6 �5 @�g� nL�iQ�u.S c� 9 9 V o `f^� 0 5 `n.o�8`J e�_� e�sG�SB e��5� d 0 p c C ��rg�i.d��e a��N��b��td �R k d a Q$ E�A a 3 �3 a`� 3gS W�0 �8 az i. y V F �i/ �1 ��3�� Vi a� N �AO� �U O J o �e w T ��tl 4+ '°y"� p '�d c� «S U N U �n ai 3 �'i `�t o o o J a� N 3 'Li 3 cd O ti +"C bp o 3 w �-b.� a o y U a o p N v .b b o i- Q� Q Q 4'I Q O 4� V� y j7 v> v� w o o ��b v`r O pA p v� J� 0 c� .A U p ,b r.. r+ �r Q G 4- G s�.� v M �Id r� f�1 N�� s s�� Ao �tl� N t s�� z�� o� �s�6 �y'�§ E,� $6 s 9 g s�� e$ o `y o s�'sa i i -�o,; ��g�� Se'oc$V ��o� �a E Esra� q=� E2 W o H G 5._ $y�gl! 3a�� 9 1 C C ai�g�< S y ��w E°=?�E� ��°e a g3�� Y m 1 i, i `^bo E 5 cAY B�S�S 0 0 5 o w a x ��.o a ��6 b� o 3 R ��a ��Xfi 3 �a�$ a 3 E y, ��a .c-_ ;�i S 3 O S .F o ��mo�� s� ,�z� 98" 3 `o q S U i `q a o F.J A �S b BBt� ��.s�` r o 5 6 F �b v�. �b<o L j 3 O s x 6 ��§��'��3 °��2 AA�:s"_�` l. ��o�� a.�s��z�e�°�c� 0 o o� -�8�� Eo BeE�"�� v;�E3'.9�v n �5 5 ,�t'�� o a ,o, hs9�;: o¢ o O& �5.��t$�o� V V `�l0� ,-.c A �Q, �c`�.�� .�`_"gt�o�x n��$��$ 3 q�q�bsE� ��9ae�� o �S� Qa" xs° �g r,� tls 3 y�� q T O� N Y R1 N •a .nv� v v, 3 o'� v cd O X H GY� O"CS 0 0 Q) d C1, u Q. �H��o�' �v� p U .ti ti 3 tA a o O v� O N O C. O�.v V] C� .y' Q v 0 3 o�ry�°' O T U C��.D Ci O O o�' 3�� o� 2s o o x C 0 N t+ 0 U Fi O C O.+-'. a CC'" c� h ti O G �n :S N N U U tr Y N� V y tn 7 a� j..�.� CS O. cd G C O i ''J ,w�. w v� C�, c�i �'[7 m Ct 'CS O� p p, F�., O p� N�' a� 0>' F1. v' O�` U O 'L3 .b ^7 cd U rn N P. W c7 c� P. ,b CS .S N i" N� R. O s' a a O n�i O� O v� U 0 U O S p ,p o o a�i 3 y o a V y� y C� �'p a� v� d -cs 3 .c �s r,� o W� O U N y.. U� U q ,n o a a o q o— a o �c p 'd O v �O O N N N ti O. p a. CL M N O f1, R�, ^D O 3 g..� .�'c� R. o o cs fr 3 a O g .o y ,f �i V c Q. X N O .0 cv N O Z L a� 0 U O 0 O N O U c E `C Q (TS C a co U N U c O .j i C O Q 0 0 N c ��sg �.=_EE �LL�� g.s ��68 T. N 2 s�' Q i V W A u ��D� «a o u y Y F mPo �T g i�E a�o8 a� u O d a s� a a� LL q `�'�V a�� .5 �8� Y 2p4 �u o�.� a as 8 c w A N C p b o m a' t N �m b N s� `ss �v� a� d €9g ��,a E °'gz f H�B� �_gm�� oE�� 8� ��a�=` o�� g� n N E n u ��g�� a��gs� �°d S �u��o g �¢a�� m �F J Q o� L h a d o P� ��Q� g s ��a� d S En� �9IF� s��z F�`zu t c a��„g G G2�S �s"v�9�i E r� N A �j�� Fl q ��W Ec O N E o H V p `�t �v� E u�q o P vL S FWN G? W N J o�a�i ��'�c .c a�i o`�a� virn"'u�� N v �3 3 a o 1 '�L� �tr Q CT N a ,tn C �.NQ.0 N .Q L RS n- c v�.o�o C GI.= U w W �"n N�� X O N c� ��c�i� a� o U p vi N U N ��pU .c o `n�� C �n aj N C O j L E o c 3 o d N a�roc`�� V/ T O C V T O�� W V y/ V a��•�NE� F-�CvI—L.S J a A- 4',.'i� ,r fi 9 tt I.i tl �•i 0� o� i i�`�o9 W�� g u� o�° ��a�� "«9 e W N 1� V �xof� x o'� as ��ca 08"�5 5 Y OUMYw E 9 F o H e oq� 9.9' 3 VG6�V� .i6� y 0Y �w °2 0. ti�<a p M y p M tl �I 5��..og �aa�,�g 4_�J t F.�. F rv Q P b�g �r� 3 c U 9 N 3 Y u9 YVA �'b$3� M M q SoS V O U 2�`��a �^��30 a g a �yw� a�� Y M O A< 0 MOyNM 9 L B V r 1 M 4 q O tI y V �o°o�.. 5 r�'. B��s� 9 pOtlAY O �1 N :g2B9� �5 UMO�tl� S9��b.�" o Ss�:eb� m yy i O L C �l V C g ��09 S u u 5 s w�g VYMU� ��MOM yp 998 oU ewB 73��a8 0 9�L�Y�" Ai�r�y� aVV O O N O Y r•°FX� 5��9 <9 yyp p y �)+y p� MM VN.�� q� §4��„� ��3�� a<eoi5 t �oE�o., V 4�'I��w�! MOy�� w N H Y tl Y �1t5�: S� Y �k�� u90O�Y u�wo�9 599 >gniSe C9Op Y S e 89� 8�3SF'^ we9�a2 NY N H p bU 0�1<MQ� y e 9 �n�� sx�� H U r N E d d a Y w� wE GC o M 0 uo J u u O Y ne O S� Y ti O O X ti 9 O W a F G< o� a a� Y OV 8Wo n YI Y Y e _r A "o��S V W tl u Y I �a 4 �>u y a n M Y UqM b&° r�a �9 Nti0 u�nq� Nw� VH�<q� i 3 a� w�wo Aw� a> �o VVVM� oCe�� 8 8.�839.9 ^s stlu �I V M V OO� °e5� Q M Y V W� VI CSo� f [{1 O �.�1 g J �u$a"oF9 5 5� p bow 4 G V V' O P y�� y �T Y yy p 9 M YUtl)EQ q �t �u3ioo u if s 'S B' »��3�y� I t Y U Y Y G �1 .:w S �°^<m eo� �1 L P9 �U�1O d �m�"v ti�wo ��s� ��E: 8 Y O Y y O M V q a U •�a�� ..5 ��a CV�R �ys"a b� �LLtiP TYJJtl w Yp a Y N �O os s� v u s^ EoE 8�U U�v aeo tll u w: ��8 y M RAY b W W �C U r� uoy a� ar W O 8 �N G�0 c a a v o u N 'c! H 61 Gl H Q.'Cf b Q.� W m�'aw a� c W O N 'V ,��i �v ba�+�o �vo� wc�uw G v b .�vv> V Q b W 1. rl W O w a �v a N R v N u �a�o u G Ul O T V �Y A W y Ry b 41 d U�1 rl G H O N��+da v N N H a u m o r. J'.�i .0 7�'i O C7 i� L� Q) �3� u A `r V �\yYV' V Cn� T'J a 3 g J c n n O O Y o u (R 9 `�"A �V qg O s a U (6 O Q V W V� O tA U �n Y�° GL �y O y L I a� Y (�0 8� Y .�I N g G..) Sa z Y U� Q� Y V/ a i�� e— E s v �g R z H r�� 4 a a� i U cY #a"� prvA �A B�� n yq 9 'v b t'� �za u g�£ 5 �g0 �dP o� e 4 LL q W Q Q� ��a�� U (Cf Q C W Q O 4-- L L L C C N .F.� Q� U A r c R 4 y �g��N��u fi�o5`"�'Em 5��$�bs8� �Qr o °o} `aoE� O 1$O_ A8� 3 Yl 6 a, o eo„e �.�v.��" S u�os�� y y €�gq r �a N i'� e LL S Y V N�eo� ��LObm °��8=�� i u 8 c�' o m r--�Ee�.00g q ofYlOOjN�H yd��£e q a o b c u �O"y rc o�� °a �g��asva A do m��+N.Q ��B�s=s� U C (0 N ..0 U s�� uN ��g p u �s� �aa _v�g� sg d�g d3iS�a ��s�� a�a� c S y g�e s s�.,� Srva 4 dp�a. 6`v �.tl u wofi` YC�" b Frcmrvi3 E� 3��E7� $�on�gm�l�� .�=��w�r� o� y �=s.sx�g� p.- q `d.�5. x''« $i9° Ee` m��v�;,�s m o�'�Qasa:��° oa�r�o,��$ E nA_ o00 p p� q 9 N N� y �S�wC� �g£ w; uL s<a�„a� ��uv �'oue. „��a�s�q�c �c� y S� o a gcs��"s��g� ��ss�� o��v�� og�� „'5,�� nN a E P=�g�g� N O C a 'soS!�,pw_ SE B& �soE�m$3_ �3�E�E°�$A� y N U j p_ U C N U O 3 U 'c t rn� c 'o m U C .L C ro C O a O m C f�0 U C N L c 0 w O a� N N c c n 7 p�,� L w C �l j CI "C p� (�p o <p N .0 U/ .L L c0 N U m u� O N L 0 ro a� w C N L Y N Q� O p 3 a (V r 0 Q�_a v,> 3rnc•� aa�i o.o o a o_ C co L N o m m U N tu a> ✓1 C U c �`o U m a C ui O N L 01 c �c N N L O q� w L C`�- N T rn C a 3 3 p.,' t N 2 (0 c� a cfl N C 0 C v N j a O 0 O U C b a��i a��i 0 0 N N N +'C-� N d U N N C N .0 a ot- o N 'a �j N �U�� m ro V- o m ��n.� 'u��a��`�co 7 G p v(��o�a-oa� ac p N.E.L N V �L y 00 (p• l9 a. a 1 p`` N o V fn N j� U p�j y C 3 `0 O v�i O a U1 C (0 �O N O 'p 'p �p 3 N u 2� c N N N M ��C .0 CD "O O. Q. F-�.-a�Em3v� N 7 a 'D .0 U (0 N U O d d L f0 oI u�i C i N o o� N C N a� rnw c U V o O N �3 L w C .�-f c 7 O -p f6 3 "U A` Y 'j 0 N L t 3 3 C N t N .n ro m o s O �U O TT1 vi W e rrt \V O O 4� 1 V W J C N o m y m rv iYp �bF z �r�� 5 E 2 g 8 O ��b ��5 g a q &a KN� 4 O 6 c y p� gs 0 o� N C Q O .a B y SS C q �s 0 Z O N b C DO$ a� g N N� 5 A '��;n �U o�� n L Q o ��o�g l° N ��'$g �a N N U y r�i a Ty A p Y° C 4 q �n$ ��ai�� N y� N� T� 8 ry N y f O A�a�S.�$ aam Z y O l7 W Q d L 3 i o ��ES vg N.$.g ��-.a &o �t �8 pro c O N q C li g N ��H �i m g��'rc rv� p� L C {0 Y� V 3 Q T 2 ym� z��' u o o �UUrvB N r A g a��s y c 5' H �o� O ,y t 9 Sv 1 p N T� U N d� e o C p O m. A c i vg�5 E e.� E g��q U U u �Q c� E o�s� t a m o D E o L 8my g 2� N �y 'U aA q �NV o E 'e^ �L Y s"g3� a s� �g� y aY� uy�c �og� =g �s" r m 3� c no ro'w a E 0 0 a c t a 1° �Sv �.y N 4 L O v �j x c m v� g�� T s�'� N d p WAa �d d N G� s5a x rc Q 7 M ii� VJ U V/ O 1..1� -r—+ J O v� 0 W S m C 9 YO o' A E 2 o a V c' a e `'o a Y b Qo 0 o p�fl o Q a U� N 5�"� o 0 ��0$" e��'°z 5 s' E V ��Fea� S 'y r'$' 'c �9� 3.�5 sa:F� =C3°�� i 35�'� 5_'�0 P �3 �P P ��'"op r��a �Y-3 ae ��s �w ��g �B�x�� 6s�E8�d r ��`V B�S� �ak ;�s 6 Y, e ��C <�x� �ry� 'oi E �w o e Y 8 y' S O b l.�'� r i58$ .o St E .E S• c c Yex.,yFY Q ba4 u'�° e q 3 y� g a y o� 5 �ns3 �°�v,A��,�3�'� F c" 5 L�CO� p s E� �B� FZf n v e c�� E'o',�"oc ��F� h E �„�3�9�E�v,a 3 5 3 E� V os U' E tlo„�� a gn�,oa c 'S 2 o�" 9 o 0 ��s�� a �I'o' �.K::O y o� i o E q y� o n" o x �i .5 °'ci o P+ o�,� o r� o E `o ��a�;jfi��a�� :5�� 3�$��z. ��.��5� 8�=� �E� c y �I�QSB��p g �Od.��'° a��s�c� a98�'�3�orv�' m 9.q ��m ��0._ q'c C�;} 5 �g ES ��'a e s� E.E�� 's' n Z m �a� X� `o �o�� 9 c _��a g 3 9 5 a� �'z CE o o F �"g z 8 }oC �Cp _°6 c�y Z ��s X.� 3 i• V a��'e fr •�gs .�K �e�°3":� g G -e' e��E a 2 b� a 9 C q n S§ s Ee e° 8 ��o�'��@.�.�Es F"L�= z'S� e- aF`-�e�9, g "S� i e �o� s .Y g� �'c v �8�a�` 3 8 v eS 3 �g�.�a-��2 00 3�� 3's��"��eE�F� �oo°�g��E�aan� ��9 x ��2�� E �3 �g; °f� y sa��a p ��6_.m 3 E 8'�. ��9 B 3� 5� O�� t e— p v �g8�� 6 seosau� o �o S N aa� a�� r� O R�� a��= t L ka ��z�e k 8 •g8'o ,'.�so� �v„�a s�� a,ssg� ��xl ��5�� 5 �'s^ &'e �o�� n O P �5 s 'i e �E�at N 6 S 9 o�� 8.3� �a Y o L a g ��y� :�p,�s �,��AR� 9.�. a K 3 m� a i.. s I C'� '�g �i•-�ic�� O W «�a„�n�c�nnQ o co$jc�unrn�ioS N g c*i t+i m v ri v�! rci [D LL O O V Q O �m(D�1� �IA1� aD c� t7 f� US c7 QI ui N� I fD O tt r ��t�A IAt� N� 1!7 'J o �f i 7 In 00 lrJ (U r-I•- N (D h I �amv�nconmo�t�l �c� O tV H �i 3 �u ;I W a �z I F�Y ��°-��Q ��L7 N i l m m p �N I LL s �S q m 1 ry t I.�� 4 D ��N W Gi i o ��'oi! i Z g ��x �e�� o tim.- a�.�� Z a ��m o. 0 L d Z 6. N V Q O p a a� a� c a� O C L o �1-+ C .0 .0 tn t!f y i1 I `N tii938tlSSR8 i a19��d1e:�" i i o��m�n� a rieimdtb+dri 'm 0 .o ��s ��m��a��a�m io� bAMriv{ANrtw� IZ f ;$��°�m "';dR"�'�� J; �t ��Nmamm�m3 I �i�� g l �l�� i p �/i .i �r G a N Q C O y LL a K c ry d c W �a m N Q LL P O J e e e e e e}o �o 0 0 N N N N N N� 3 t 1 9 'A I y C O N OO l0 00 {D;N O CO O ';Z O N 00 M',�- M M l0 00 N�� O N N �p W M N d�N M a H M p 6 N Of O OD IA h OD J r�ocoo��ac� C e� N e- �-�NYIV V m t 1 c� M 00 00 M W a r o�o�� r o o M N O t0 M c0 N M M M a oD a0 N OO�MI� �O N M h a t` h{ N Ot t0 N N V tOjOIO N O r o0 a} N� N' �(f 1� M V�- e- N a�,� r f 0 0 0 0 o e��e e o 0 O N V t0 O MFIh�N N N e N M M Mf� V N O i F V O Ot O M t0 M��N N roomwo(�ma iu p LL �o o a�n v;�m�n N m N 1� f0 N R 1� i tO{ t0 tD N �H N C 3 O d o. L Q O LL a K C a` O N O h O OOIMj�} M N e OI O a0 N OD�h� V OD M o ao o at�too 7 M r N ��N�N e- a i O i� O 00 t0 N# t0 00 0p O 1� O O M IM�� N tA N O t0 M O:1�i A t0 tD N C) M t V h D m N j 01 O ��EE O N N C 0 8 LL M K c l7 j a N E M M1 Q M 0 N N onoaoiov>iroim N �y 1� o O M e-�Hi Q N O 10 M O,I�.Of Q �o�MM�EV�M Q LL P O J a 0 it O j J U :D w Q r Q 00 OD N OD i M! 00 M O�f_ l M^ V t O V e Op O W a N�NiN r Y1 M V�- r Ni��r N M i; r'mc� �nl ;v�a c ri ri v vi��3ti oo a N i ��{�e�� a v��ncnxxxsx n m �m� n ro M M M l�. A b Q Q O W N m n N 8 LL X N f O E 0 J N m V a c 7 rri :l 6. A�_y m o i0 �S N N J D o J C C y q N ry N b� O a J 9 N p y W a N `c v 3 E n m 4 C T y N �e� N N G �,P U a u�� c o a. u rn,^ (l o 4� T t O N o u c t Q N U c c w p T a v ro «a�Q� 0 y«` �d y u ,k rn q �$'s� p rn W o n 2 v rv c w v 5 E o N v N O u a N D N P C T t p O V U N F N N U K r c m ro M� m�.�� n c aNQav �o v ��o Q oa n o��8i O�(/J N 5 �=o�� ry W C� 3x"-�E£ v N y C V N O N O O O f C v r n m m W W W •e V N O L O V o W W i.f. L O 0 N O W L Yi L W �J L d� C C �O L a i �D v' a N i f LL Q 01 O n 0 m P LL c n OD M n O d N M N LL Q N N W l0 i� n n II LL N N O N `y �i a C M V F m O U U O p J J E v E m 'X '�p �L Q �'��.�R�' ��s.�. 0 J LL M V O lD V N V a� N ni�oico J W o N A m N L d ri�¢ O N p o J 1J O °�ua o a o 0 0 0 0 0 i� M fD Of O f0 t0 t+f 00 (D fV l'� t� r T 0 0 10 O O r c y n wa` om:. W l Q N V O J N L� Q LL O J L 4a 0 J U O O r b�' O n O N� M l0 t0 N M O N N N M N N'- N 0 1� O O M MI� NI N O t0 M O h� 1� tD tt uS rS r>' ic v rS v ti m �n oo �o 00 �n uf o 00 e' N O N OO M QI h M l0 00 N�f O N� M lD 00 M N V N M tl O �n vooroN 00 N t N V l O O�f r 00 O 00 �J N N�(> h M V'- N a- N O I-- N M sF N lD 1� 00 T m N j v m a N J J J 0_' R' c.�. fn fA fn 2 2 O O O M M t f0 h� N V' O V) M M M r a- i� N a 3 C C N p .O y d 'a 'O p1 C O V N 'O i d r N 'D a�+ U1 �a�i o Y c 3 v�i O iy 16 A N v Ql O 'N N a N a+ 0 �p J 'v oo a Z U m N M LL LL v o y co n J J C G O O LL T 10 N u� 3 N 0 W 9 L r �C L O Y U N a E C j Y a f0 O a rn m C 'O �n W N O t'U a O r� L O N N r� de+ O V 4— 4� U C V �N Q O N C Q fn Q..� N vj 8 tt z 3 i o� i1' vi U N Q J m w P�( rA y p p p ��.�8 W �(aNf� 01 MOO �air��DVOivmvi m �I p V OD W C7 V� n! �-`��vadmdr>�ri.=a I I� I I(� I I ��Ng uI OO�tO�-�� N 7 N r N a t� i i`� o f i� j�> y o 1 �-i�NC�v�n��wa W N W �h OOSr ao<oomnt�m 3 m U N N o� N Q H Q U W Z d J a N O yU c a a� a� C L LL O' L r�i A o W O 8 N M N f0 0 F- o aO p� r N a�a'o aa�o o N ".��i�`�'i,o�' �i 1n V 00 CO V M V o� O O O O O O O C rn E� v O r M �tA�� V N N NO n O?� N �00> �OD(O N N M M p m p C N t� V�n <O 1� 1- n- fn (A F i/ �x�°��' v U w J H H� U a� U o �r o w �d O a r v Y °D Zg LL d O m S f% o� J Q V1 W N� �O a� z UW Q NQ W� o N W O t� m� 00 C11f1 tM N a} 1A m�`��ii N a� 0 0 o'"�pjO�r�� "�I!,I .I o� N N y NNM NN� OOY �f c; a {(�ijl� o I I I t> c ��a�ne�n�a 8 V W O 0 0 a� OA Y A�a� w A aQ•d 4 a v� a� �Q z �'►rr n,. c+7 W S�- C 0 d s Q CL� r r t� O .y Q J N O 3 .L N y L C L c c� n a�i �o�> tA N V O C Y ti H g� �Y.��;_ L A. t s �e 3 t y d ��3 ��8 g 6 �8�� s �8 ag a�� a�� 8 �m n�� d�� mio 0 a o� y y w y v/ C 'C c o �i v��, a '�8 og� c g� E�� 3 0. 8�� W �,C.= C N i L C O N Q H b� C� N O v' W t� L O t�.� d a r�, i ti, o d A T S�� y p W tl y .Y 4 E Q �Gy �5�9�� ea� a- y 8'^�` 9 9 e x o 4 i ri.'� u 'O q a> a d b u d b w 0 M a a a a O W y O o d a� .b F� z 8 s 9 C 9 y 6� M 9��7 SPu o�� xB�� .��d�� 5 'a 9 5 N O J� 0 0 �5 R b tl A� 8 `e 9 �a� o� b s V ya1= p ��J e S e �^p,�.v _8 S 1 0 F F� k 0 a N b �1 O b� n a o 0 .OJI��)l¢JA�, Q ��''�i�e��... �3:�_ M O 4 N N N1 N P. N N a s Q q e Z L Q L V a 0 r V .Q' .V C G N cd O .r C o w� 'CS bA a� cei 'n 3 R� U O C cei cd t°" U tC d y N O N U U O 3 O M O G �o r 'C a� s-, N U O u.' a� U U cd O bA 'I� U Cr" c� w �I O M 0 00 ti G C 0 U d' C 3 bq C�i O U 3 o c�"i� j U �1., Cd U i cCi O N b1) O U U O 'b c�d N U N O O 0 i--� A 6, Ji" G� a�-+ �3 N 4-i O 0 O U N 3 N a a U a CC O U 44� Cd w V .G: r--� O C C� R� d 0 a� G". O .Q N N N U N C N o o ,--i O b O H ^Cf ,.fl n 3 2 s p d C N i a 0 r 1-- b ,r, U O U 3 U b U S�, 'd tti L� .�r �i N .ti U N Q" O U -d a"' N 4-i U O p 3 a� O �p o U N cd a-' N o cd N c�i� V .e.+ C O a� N N 0 V L t O A .i.r .Q V fl. Q 0 O r V i--� 0 ,N O -d U O 'b r-+ K N 0 b b �"a U N cd o a o `n rn ,—i r..� 'V O cd N cd o r" o N fti cn Q i 'O O M �D 0 5 i�, i i� .'i r i r V 7 I 0 �z o� u� s a 5 y.73' ry aao N G�� s 'g s py y 9 5=� s�� a g 8 �TO ie 6 Sg m 5 A 5 o b� 0 .a$s 6:�- �o s_ e. a� e,� s -.8 7�ps ��SA �6 IL O �O 'w J G" t0 a+ v� '3 v �N �O y O O h cd O N V W O W a�.� �v w. a o y� �3� y O .�oo w o /1 Vl 7 y Q oD a.� �'�M� O O u 'x9s� �.E� n x C� o� 1 N N �A jpq i �Y•'L N 7 q a V7h 1� QG�F J L o MIU Q� u. 'n U M O J s �s 8 �a l��_x N L g y 41'nmNt�M N. W a��i� �a Y'I MdMPI�` �ro'f vi P g F �P��'I O O 8 �=��Re,�� ?_F 8'- �m� l�R4�$ Q. j i :z: c W S y m u o v� L s,- W V C N W m� H 1 ��bi i i� 'f V' N�O T N M �O 1� N `�'I ��o� cdnno�m�w�r 0 ti ut ��'fa� p N� _NMV��o�H ,r. .T i. ..l G=: O s ~..'.. v ill .f> Lt)Q. o CO CD:E :!: c: Lt') 0 B_ ... ... J: ca (.) (.) CI) 0 t:= ~<C I I " I' , \ \ I i z o iij 2: Ow <O(!) ~ ~. 0: :g Z~~_ lil8U)~ (gb~;g <O-'~ < o ~ a n < ~ Ii > u ~ " i @ i�� e i A .��i ry O 1� i e ,�a� ti""� o �Q�� A 50 n �p G .tia�� 6O 1 i r r i A 6h i i r 1 i i� i i ti r i� i i i N i� i Y •I c ro a� rn i M1A �B N i i U� r i� i i i i i i,, i i P i i i i i t i I 1 i i w- O Q) j 7 p y X Q1 itl �n 4-� Q C x tU ro J 3 0 i r�, 1 1� �i c 1, f.n'al N/�!I/�u�qna¢qS 1 M �F N tl' f hl�n .X N N C d t V U U c� `�a� 3 T `S U U L Q ma� o u� �5 u N M ry r �t p t v) �v cr� ��2.� w a M c d O c J 7 O (n N r 1 M I In�� tin r I_� r E a�i ao Y �n� M r J fi s a L i�, iV N 0 L Q' N o� d' N a C N C a O O W LL N N O y d y N N N O O v- a 0 C N E O v R m L d N 7 O L R N N N 16 N N E O a a m z 0 O (0 N m v Q a� c 0 X 0 a b a m vv a� w C C o ,o X K N N c cR O O a a O �a m �o V M W� O O V t0 �O (O (O M W V O O m U x W y h M a (O N N N N 1� N W O O ln 0 0�'000 p o 0 0 LL Q� li� l� li N N m l0 O m (7 p Q N rn N O Y U 7 a E 0 v w t0 rn c N 9 U v O n N tD ��X��fl� LL C b 4 a� c o a a�i o y a F p� N 4- N Q C C 0 O O O m m m W W N N V c d y p o a N N N N m c o��'� E E m �k `o o t0 0 0 N rn' .c rn m� E E o a� am m p rn�O aa '�p C m .f] O 0 ul N V- N N w m O N m� O v o o p� N V N� L t.L S� (p 10 a a a 'm mv �a m' 0 0 N m �o rn 0 c m o C D v g a� 3 o rn� a� c o o o A V N d x d m N O O E rn rn N m o la O� (0 D O a O m d ab� E E o, E E o 0 a a w 0 0 0 m m m N m m m c c 0 0 0 7 1 N N N N N N a a 3 0 0 0 rn o� rn'K v a 'o c d (p d m p o m v O N N N rnrnv�n� N N f m ro �o E c 0 N 0 O a 0 N t0 V(O O(O W V N o O O (O O I� N M[T N M�- M N N N N l!] ln tn N. ln (O 1� N�� v_vv_vva V N N N N N N N N N 0 a 1 o_ i e/ r o V V+ o� V a¢ N� C N w ca z O N f IL N W rn n. m N 5 Q! �y�{ a' K !j O Z W a h� U Z 0 0 z z N a C u C u u 0 C y--� c N O a a C O N N c6 V O L a'o� Z.� c o L a� v 0 O N a� Q a� a� -Q ai 3 Y �a U v c�'n �p�. F m a�-- �F�� g� Q o r LL a g �y W 0 U U.:. w m y� Z p' h W a E�E� J c m m �._s ��a� wm�`�� o W �o �o:� �gao Wov�f,. r` ?�.�1��7� �1�.��' V• ;m ��i mNa W �Z N w'�'��Y �i: D a tt City of Ashland Planning Action 2010-01622 Applicants Appel►ants: R. Scott Dixon Joan Cresse March 22, 2011 �XHIBIT "C" TO NOTICE OF APP�AL TO CITY COUNCII, (Applicants' Primary Goals on Appeal) 1. FINllINGS ON APPEAL: A. Make all changes permenent i. Notice of Decision states: "Approval is valid for a period of one year." ii. Applicant desires permanent modification of building envelope, driveway entrance, and lot coverage allowance. Our understanding was that subdivision modifications were inherently pennanent. Varia�ces, on the other hand, are usually valid for only a short time. We don't know if this condition was lefi over from a variance boilerplate decision, or tivhetl�er this was a new attempt by the Planning Department lo frushate out efforts. A one year validity was not mentioned in any of the Planning Commission meetings. B. lncrease Lot Coverage i. [ncrease coverage by ],122 sq ft fi�om 4,356 sq ft(as approved) to 5,478 sq fi ii. The shared driveway (as approved) is 1n additional 1,433 sq ft. iii. Note: in Ihe original proposal (as requested by during meeting on Ocl 7, 2010), Applicants offered to use penneable materials for d�e extra 1,122 sq fl. The Staff Reporl for Proposal then stated that permeable materials have no basis in Ashland code and dismissed our offer. iv. Planning Commission failed to ask Applicants the crucial question, `9f we grant you only 4,356 sq ft of coverage, can you build your house on this lot?" We know that 5,478 sq ft is sufficient for our needs and probably has a few hundred sq ft of wiggle room. Architect Carlos Delgado noted ihat it would be very hard to remove 1,122 sq fr from the house design we were considering. v. If the City would examine the coverage given to ihe lots in the 500 Strawberry Lane subdivision, they would see the following facts: I. 500 Sh�awberry was originally parl of Ihe same subdivision as Applicants' lot 2. 500 Strawben•y is across the street from Applicants' lol Gxhibit "C" to Notice of Appeal to City Council Page 1 Planning Action 2010-01622 Applieants: R. Scott Dixon Joan Cresse 1 Pa�e- l of Lot iJi: 26%(.50 acre size) 5,662 sq. lo� coverage (foo�prinl, driveway, sidewalks, Mc.)• Lot q2: 26% (.50 ecre size) 5,662 sq. fl. lot rnvcroge Lot #J: 28°/. (.50 ncre size) 6,098 sq. fl. lot covctage Lot p4: 20% (1.40 eae Size) 12.196 sq. fl. lot coverege Lot NS: 20%(1 acre size) 8,712 sq. R. lot mvttagc Lot t16: 0% (common open space) (.50 acre size) Menimum Totel AvtteRC Lo1 Covaakc: 20% 3. This 5-l0[ subdivision has 4.4 acres (0.9 acres/IoQ and dedicates only 1 I% of it to open space, while our parcel dedicates 50% to open space and has 1.0 acres/lot. 4. In ihe above subdivision open space is afso on >35% land, but thcy were still allowed ro allocate cover�ge to the other lots. The Planning Department im lied that you can't allocate coverage from steep hillside land. 5. The Planning Commission allocated coverage of 5,662 sq ft to 12,196 sq 1t to every lot in Ihc subdivision, while I am only asking for 5,478 sy ft. 6. The biggest difference betwecn Applicants' lot and the bts in the 500 Strawberry Lane subdivision is that the Brown parcel put more land into open space and clustered the lots into a smaller space. Applicants are being penfllized because my developer was more environmentally sensitive. C. Alter restrictions from Findings Alter Decision #3: "and no adminishative variances lo lo� cover.� will,be considered with this allocation of lot coverage." Lot coverage allowance shoiddn't affect other areas of Ashland code. This condition was never mentioned in the Planning Commission meetings. In fae�, the Planning Commission did state that they thought it reasonable for us to �et additional coverage if we got agreement from all the lot owners in the Brown parccl. ii. Alter Decision If4: "That no development is lo occur outsidc of the buildiu env elope on lands with natur�l slopes in excess of 35 percent." The driveway entrance must cross either man-made ditch or a cut slope with slopes 35%. 2. Both the original building envelope and the (approved) modified building envelopes include —150 sq ft of>35% slope land that is adjacent to lhe man-madc cut for tl�e shared driveway. 7'his area appears to be mnn-made, but Applicants don't have a confirming professional opinion. Exhibit "C" to Notice of Appeal to City Council Planning Action 20] 0-01622 Applicants: R. Scott llixon Joan Cresse Exhib°t Fa��,�, Of Page 2, 3. Applicants original proposal did nol seek to avoid the hillside ordinance. The Planning Department clouded the coverage issue with the Hillside m•dinance issues. D. Resolve any a�nbiguities.about fhe Building Gm�elope i. The Oudine Plan has a lot table that shows Applicants' lot (t16) as having an area of 4,317 sq fi. ii. Applicanis' smveyor measured the building envelope that was drawn on the approved Outline Plan. His mcasw�ement was 4,738 sq ft. We hTVe used this measured building envelope in all of our calculations. Wc believe that Ihe discrepancy is due to a clerical error by Tom Giordano when he drafted the table. We have found several other clerical en�ors and inconsistencies made by Tom. iii. The memo of Feb 8, 201 I from the Planning Department to the Planning Commission mentions the 4,317 sq fi building envelope. Applicanis asked for the chance to rebut this memo, but the Plaro�ing Commission wouldn'i consider by reyuest even though they didn't know specifically whal Applicants objected to. Regards, Scott Dixon, Applicant Exhibit "C' to Notice of Appeal to Ciry Council y,' Page 3 Plaiming Action 2010-01622 L Xtdlbit Applicants: R. Scott Dixon Joan Cresse 1•�� RECLIVED i 2 3 9 5 6 8 9I io. 11 72 13 14 �s 16 17 lII 19 20 21 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL t�nr; z z ;�r�i CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2010-01622, A REQUEST FOR A MODIFICATION OF THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS SUBDIVISION FINAL PLAN APPROVA� FOR PA #2003-020 FOR THE STRAWBERRY MEADOWS SUBDIVISION. THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS INCLUDE RELOCATION OF THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE, CHANGES TO THE APPROVED BUILDING ENVELOPE AND THE ALLOCATION OF A PORTION OF THE LOT COVERAGE FROM THE SUBDIVISION'S "OPEN SPACE 'A"' TO ALLOW INCREASF_D LOT COVERAGE FOR LOT #6 LOCATED A�f 183 HITT ROAD. Planning Action #2010-01622 APPLICANTS: R. Scott Dixon Joan Cresse (AMC 18.108.110.A.4.8) Applicants tendered the additional evidence attached as Exhibit "1" at the continued public hearing before the Planning Commission on February S, 2011. Applicants prepared and submitted attached Exhibit "1" based on new evidence provided to the Planning Commission in Staff's February 8, 2011 Memorandum to the Planning Commission. Applicants should have been permiited to respond io this new Reques! !o Reopen !He Record In A!loiv Applicnnls' Snbn�issiar of �ddiliourd Evidence Plnn��iiig Acliar No. 2010-01G22 Applicm�ls: R. Scon Dixa� Jonr: Cre�Tes. HE,,H� Pnge -l- 13k�oc;es APmleasianalCwpwelian 515 EASi I.W N S1R![T ASNWND.OREGON W520 (SIt)JB13111 Frl%(5d1�A88�4455 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 lo 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 evidence, but the Planning Commission nevertheless refused to accept attached Exhibit "1" into the Record. Applicants request that attached Exhibit "1" be considered by Council. DATED: March �2011 Respectfully submitted, DAVIS, HEARN BRIDGES, PC CHRISTIAN E. HEARN, OSB #911829 chearn@davishearn.com Attorneys for Applicants Appellants R. Scott Dixon Joan Cresse Request to Reopen tl�e Record lo Allow Applicnnts' Siibmission ofAdditionrd Evi�Jence Pfnn�ri�ig Action No. 2010-01611 Applic�nls: R. Seott Dixon Jonn Cred HenRH p°ge BRIDGES A Probsciaul Carporclmn 515 EAST hWN STREET ASHIAND, OREOON 9]510 �54114B2.]t t t FAl(1'�1I48B49S5 COMMENTS ON STAFF MEMO OF FEB S, 2011 TO PLANNING COMMISSION ON OPEN RECORD SUBMITTALS CONCERNING PA 2010-00162 163 HITT ROAD, ASHLAND, OR 97520 SUBMITTED TO: CITY OF ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION ASHLAND,OREGON SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANTS (OWNERS OF 163 HITT ROAD): R. SCOTT DIXON ANll JOAN CRESSE 83H BLACKBERRY LANF, ASHLAND, OR 97520 FEBRUARY 8, 2011 Exhibit Page I of 4 Page �f Derek Severson of the Planning Department Staff on Feb 8, 20] submitted a memo to the Planning Commission stunmarizing the additional submittals and canments co�ceming PA #2010-00162. The applicants feel that this memo introduced new material and made several comments that are no¢4 accurate or are misleading. We feel that we should be granted the opportunity to respond to the following issues: 1. The Staff Memo included new analysis of thc charts and plats submiried �vhile the record was open. This should have been submitted by the January 18, 2011 deadiine. 2. The memo includes the statement regarding ihe subdivision spreadsheet that was timely submitted, "It should be noted here that these coverages do not take driveways or parking azeas in to account as the original approval did not cleazly delineate specific driveway areas." In the Merciam-Webster's online dictionary, the first definition of delineate is, "to indicate or represent by drawn or painted lines." The driveways and pazking spots ivere clearly drawn on the approved Outline Plan for each of the 7 newly- created lots in the Brown pazcel (see Figure 1). Furthermore, the pazking spots were specified in a table in the Findings for ihe Outline Plan (see Figure 2). Note that the Final Plan slighdy altered the parking spots to move them from a parallel pazking spot on the shazed driveway to 50% wider gazage apron. I have stayed with the Outline Plan definition siuce it shows the original intention of the developers a�id the parki�g areas are similar. Fig 1: rnlargement of Outline Plan showing guest parkiog spots for 163 and 173 Hitt Road Page 2 of 4 O� PARKING PROVIDED: 50 CoveteA (gatages) 2 Uncovered (ou sitc, for eech lot two homes shere one) I'7 Off Slle (in parking bays) DEC 2 3 19g7 Fig 2: Parking Descripfion from Project Narrative. LUBA submission, Page 117 (note the swapped numbers for "Uncovered" and "Off Site" spaces) I hand measured the size of the driveways and parking spots drawn on the Outline Plan and used those measurements to produce the allocation tables diat I previously submitled. These areas were not printed in the Findings, but they are ceriainly measurable. The following table shows an expansion of the formulas we used in creating Figure I of the Additional Conuncnt submittcd on January I 1, 201 L It shows the calculations of the area of the driveways and guest parking spots for the Brown parcel. Street Address Lot Area (sqFt) Aprons 178596 1433 370 StrwLn 390 StrwLn 123 Hitt Rd 143 Hitt Rd 163 Hit€Rd 173 Hitt Rd 183 Hitt Rd Totals 41538 18278 14442 22678 12073 15051 21488 (2o•2a� ��2a+� z►iz�•za 2�ao� 1000 (16*120} ((28*46)-128-195) 30"35 ((11 20)12)"((73+119)/2) .270'.+ 470 �/2)) (12"60) (22*(30+451/2) (((12+161/2)*1141+531/2)) =SUM(B10:B19) Fig 3: Expansion of Excel spreadsheet showing formulas for calculating areas 3. Under the Decision Points section, the memo states, "and 1,122 square feet of additional coverage which would be installed in permeable surFaces, to provide driveways, walkways, parking areas and patios on the site?" The applicants feel this is a slightly unclear description of our proposal and want to expand this statement so that there is no confusion. The casual reader might inteipret this to mean that all driveways, walkways, etc. must be built with permeable materials. Our proposal actually states that the ],122 square feet of additional requested coverage must be built with permeable materials and may only be used for N �1 Page 3 of 4 y3sL surface treatn�ents, such as driveways, walkways, parking areas and patios. We wani to preserve the flexibility of using any unused portion of our base.4,3-19square feet request to build walkways, patios, etc. out of imoermeable materials. Any coverage over the base request of�t'Tsquare feet would, of com�se, be restricted to permeable surface treatments. y356 4. The actual azea of the lot as drawn on the recorded plat is 2,073 square feet, not the 10,580 square sheet shown on Plan submitted by the Planning Department. Page 4 of 4 Page of �i1RN' dRi0GE5 .e�e McCOLWM .nSC1uRSARPNRAST EUGENFV.ANOEFSON Ilaoldrv��O 10 F�e[tin n CA A Pro/esslone(COrporetion Esfeblislred 1953 515 EAST MAIN STREET ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 (541) 482-3117 FAX (541) 488-4455 www.davishearn.com April 13, 2011 To: From: Subject: _�AV_rs ��v �xrDC�s A 7' T O 2 N E y S A T L A W i �'r!"6 6.�7 e S �"'3 Ashland Planning Department Christian E. Hearn (chearn@davishearn.com) Dawn Caldwell (dcaldwell@davishearn.com) Applicants: Scott Dixon and Joan Cresse Planning Action #2010-01622 SAM B. OAVIS Ra1vaE SIDNEY E RINSWORIH p81]-iOpJ� �ONa1.D M. PINNOCK Reurea �AVID V. GILSTRAP Reliretl SUSM' VOGEI SALq00ff Helnea Enclosure: Notice of Stipulation to Reschedule Council Appeal Hearing for May 17, 2011 For your information and files. Please contact our office with any questions or concerns. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This communicatim� may coNein in(bnnntion IhM is privilegcd nnNor confidenliel. 11 is inirnded only for �hc indiridunl or cn�ily namcd abovc If you mm �either Ihe imcnd<d r<cipicnl wr an ngenl or empla}xc res�nsible (or dclivrring �h<documem ro the intendrd cecipirnt, pou may nm reaJ, disseminatq copy or dishibmc Ihis inTrmalion. Ifyou rcceive ihis commnnication in error. plcue notify us immediately to errpnge for rtmm uf�he onginal daumenis. TRANSMITTED VIA EMAIL ON: 2Q�� BY: BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON l0 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 le 19 20 21 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2010-01622, A REQUEST FOR A MODIFICATION OF THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS SUBDIVISION FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR PA #2003-020 FOR THE STRAWBERRY MEADOWS SUBDIVISION. THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS INCLUDE RELOCATIUN OF THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE, CHANGES TO THE APPROVED BUILDING ENVELOPE AND THE ALLOCATION OF A PORTION OF THE LOT COVERAGE FROM THE SUBDIVISION'S "OPEN SPACE 'A"' TO ALLOW INCREASED LOT COVERAGE FOR LOT #6 LOCATED AT 163 HITT ROAD. APPLICANTS: Scott Dixon and Joan Cresse Planning Action #2010•01622 NOTICE OF STIPULATION TO RESCHEDULE COUNGIL APPEAL HEARING FOR MAY 17, 2011 On or about March 31, 2011, City mailed notice reflecting that the Council hearing on Applicants' appeal wouid proceed before Council at Council's meeting on April 19, 2011. 2. Pursuant to communication between the�undersigned and City Attorney Douglas M. McGeary on April 7 and 8, 2011, the parties reached a stipulation that the hearing on Applicants'/Appellants' appeal to Council will now be rescheduled for the Council's meeting on May 17, 2011. NOTICE OFSTIPULATION TO RESCHEDULE COUNCIL APPEAL HEARING Planning Acfion No. 2010-01622 UA\'IS, HFaRN BFIDGES A Pmle�timal Cwpaatqn 515 EAST MAIN STREET ASHLqNp, ORE60N WS]0 (51p<B2-]III iA%1$�f�<BB.�G55 Page -I- 3. Applicants/Appellants also stipulated to extend the relevani "120-day Rule" for a period of 30 (thirty) days, in order to accommodate the reschedufing of the appeal hearing before Council to May 17, 2011. 4. Applicants now intend to file "written argumenY' in support of their appeal at least ten (10) days before the May 17, 2011, Council hearing date. 5. Applicants also request that copies of any future notices, correspondence, and other communication from the City concerning Planning Action 2010-01622 and directed to Applicants also be copied to Applicants' attorneys at the following address: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 in is 16 17 18 19 20 21 Christian E. Hearn Davis, Hearn B�idges, PC 515 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Phone: 541-482-3111 Fax: 541-488-4455 Email: chearn davishearn.com Dated: April 8, 2011 Davis, Hearn Bridges, PC —'C��--= Christian E. Hearn, OSB 911829 Attorneys for Applicants/Appellants R. Scott Dixon and Joan Cresse CERTIfICATE OF SERVICE BY EMAIL AND FAX: On April 8, 2011, I transmitted a copy of this Notice of Stipulation to City Attorney Douglas M. McGeary via both email (doug(c�douqlasmmcgeary.com) and fax (541- 734-7269). f Dated: April 8, 2011 NOTICE Of STIPULATIOh "PO RESCIiF,DULE COUNCIL APPGAL HfiARINC Planning Action No. 2010-01522 UA\'IS.IIEAR\• f��gC -Z- R BkiIX:ES R Pmlessiw�a� Cwpaa�ron 5f 5 EAST MAIN STREET ASHIAND, OqEGON 9P520 IS�1 N81JI n FA% 1148B.+a55 Pagc 1 of l Tonya Anderson F�om: Tonya Anderson Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 2:40 PM To: 'dougQdouglasmmcgeary.com' Cc: Chris Hearn SubJect: City of Ashland Planning Action #2010-01622 Scotl Dixon and Joan Cresse Attachments: DIXON NOTICE TO RESCHEDULE.pdf Mr. McGeary Attached please find a Notice of Stipulation to Reschedule Council Appeal Hearing for May 17, 2011 from Christian E. Hearn. Thank you. Tonya Anderson Assistant to Jeifrey K. McCollum and Eugene V. Anderson Davis, Heam Bridges, P.C. 515 East Main Street Ashland OR 97520 (541)482-3111 (541) 488-0455 fax tandersonna.davishearn.com Please wnsider Ihe environment 6elore priniiny tl�is email CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This email may wntain intormallon which is confidenllal or suDjec[ to t�e attomey-client privile0e. �t is intendetl only br use by tha Individual to whom It Is aaAressea. It you are not Ihe intenaed reclplent, you are hereby noUfied Ihal the forviarding, tlissemfnallon, dis�ribu�ion, or copyinp of ihis communicalion, or lhe usa ol lhis information for any puryose, is slricity pmhibiled by s�ate antl Federal privacy laws. If you hava receivetl ihis communicalion in ertor, please immeAlately lelep�one our law frm al (591J 482-3171 antl delele Ihis messaBe Gom your syslam. 04/OS/2011 JACI( DAY�S CHRIS�LW E NEARM JENMFER A. BRIOGES JEFfREV K McGOILUAI Y�SCNAR SARPAMST EVGENE 4. MDERSON noe eemn.e m oi.nx. c♦ AVrs �;��kiv Jy.LJl\11JGL' S SAM 8. MNS-R�O�N SIDNEY E AINSWORTM (192)�]003) A T T O IL N 1�: Y 5 A 7' 1. A\C� uo�nio v�HUOCK. q,u,ee �RNIEL L HA0.RI5 RetireE Oav�OV GILSIPAP ;HplireE, A Prolessional Corpoiafian 't �i�' i1 �suSnN ��sr.taooc'F R•�".a M... t a., L� Eslab/lsAed 1953 ?v:.=z.a t �a 3 ��!+�^r.� �A� 515 EAST MAIN S7REET ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 (547)482-3111 FAX(541)d�8�4455 vnvw.daNsheam.com May 9, 2011 M�Y 9 2011 il�S� )f n:iE�I��lii(.� {"iUiti .,C}ific�^.,._,�_t.;0utity.__.,..� Vla Emal! Transmisslon (molnarb�ashland.or.us• lucasa@ashland.or.us Ashland City Council c/o Bill Molnar, Planning Director City of Ashland Planning Department 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Applicants' Submittal 1-"Written ArgumenY' for Appeal to Council Planning Action 2010-01622 Owners Applicanis Appellants Subject Property: 163 Hitt Road Dear Council: Scott Dixon and Joan Cresse First, thank you for taking the time to review this planning action for Scott Dixon Joan Cresse ("Applicants") concerning their Iot at 163 Hitl Road ("Applicants'IoY� (Planning Action 2010-01622). Second, the primary issue in Applicants' appeal is the inequitabie and unintended consequences of a recent reinterpretation of City policies perlaining to "maximum lot coverage" as they apply to the residential lot purchased by Applicants in 2005 and upon Appiicants plan to build their home (Strawberry Meadows Lot 6) ("Applicants' lot"). Secondary issues involve requested modifications to a couple of conditions oi approval appended to the Planning Commission's approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY First, since Applicants' lot is in the City's "ridgeline viewshed" (i.e. visible from downtown), Applicants' goai is to design their home to less obtrusively blend in with the surrounding hillside. Working with local architecl Carlos Delgado, Applicanis hope to achieve an environmenlally sensitive design which both meets their needs and minimizes the impact of their home on the Cily's critical ridgeline viewshed. Page -1- Asbland Clty CouncB Appllcants' Submlffal i(Wrtften Argument /orAppeal fo Council) Scott Dlxon 8 Joan Cresse (Planning Axn. 2010-016Y2J May 9, 2011 764 sqFtflooYSpace 2,q21 ,yFttloor space 3,560 sqFtfloor space za The slide above demonstrates the unintended consequences Applicants hope to avoid through Council's interpretation of the City's maximum lot coverage standards as it applies to the circumstances of Applicants' unique lot. As demonstrated above, an appropriate modification of ihe maximum lot coverage interpretation, as it applies to Applicants' unique lot, achieves the design alternative depicted in the lower right corner of the slide above. Again, the objective is to build a less obtrusive home stepped into ihe hillside. Ironically, the use stepped foundations (as illustrated in right-most exampie above) requires more lot coverage in order to design a visually less intrusive house. DAVIS, HEANN S(BRIDGES %ole�pmel CwpneEOn 615 FA51 AWx STPEEf /SHlANO, ONEOON 915P0 (SHHOtJ111 fAX (`+<II IEE-1155 382 sqFttop floor 432 sqFttopfloor 382 sqFt bottom fioor $66 sqFt mlddle floor 855 sqFt bottom floor 2,360 sqFt top floor 0 sqFt garage floor 279 SqFt garage floor 1,200 sqFt bottom floor Page -3- Ashland Cify Councll Appllcants' Submlttal 1(Writfen Argument /or Appeal to CouncllJ Scotf Dlxon 6 Joan Cresse (Plannfng Axn. 2010-01622) May 8, 2011 Second, Applicants' primary request is that Council review and modify one aspect of the Planning Commission's interpretation of a City ordinance provision as the applied to the unique circumstances of Applicants' lot. More specifically, Applicants request the Council review and modify the Planning Commission's interpretation that the City's 20% maximum lot coverage requirement generally applicable to .5-acre lots in City's Rural Residential ("RR") zone aiso applies to Applicants' .28-acre lot. (AMC 18.16.040.6.1.) Appficants request the Council specifically find that the maximum lot coverage is 4,356 sq. ft., plus up to an additional 1,122 sq. ft. o( surface treatments (total: 5,478 sq. ft. maximum lot coverage, not counting the shared driveway), meets the purpose and intent of the relevant City ordinance provisions as they apply to Applicants' lot. Third, Applicants request some modification of the conditions appended to the Planning Commission's approval. BACKGROUND Applicants' application before the Planning Commission reflected three (3) requests: A. Modification of the driveway location on Applicants' lot; B. Modification of the building envelope on Applicants' lot; and, C. Appropriate interpretation of City's maximum lot coverage requirements, allowing Applicants' lot coverage to be a maximum of 5,478 sq. ft. (4,356 sq. ft. of unrestricted lot coverage, plus an additional 1,122 sq. ft. of surface treatments (total: 5,478 sq. ft. maximum lot coverage, not counting the shared driveway). Applicants do not appeal, nor do they seek to modify or reverse the portions of the Planning Commission's decision granting Applicants' request for: A. Modification of the driveway location on Applicants' lot; or B. Modification o( Applicants' building envelope on Appiicants' lot. This appeal is primarily focused on Ihe third point, namely: C. Appropriate interpretation of City's maximum lot coverage requirements, aliowing Applicants' maximum lot coverage at 163 Hitt road to be 5,478 sq. ft. (4,356 sq. ft. of unrestricted lot coverage, plus an additional 1,122 sq. ft. of surface treatments (total: 5,478 sq. ft. maximum lot coverage, DAVIS� HEARN B0.1OGE5 Rofesflanel CorpdaUOn 515 EAST MNN STREEI /SMANU, OREGON 9)S)0 (511)�B]3111 FAX�5�1118l�I55 Pege -4- Ashiand C/ty Councll Appllcents' Su6miftal f(Wrlften Argument /or Appeal to Councll) Scott Ofxon 6 Joan Cresse (Plenning Axn. 2010-016YZ) May 9, 201 f not counting the shared driveway).] BRIEF SUBDIVISION HISTORY The Strawberry Meadows subdivision was approved by the City in 1998, and included parcels owned by Meg Brown, Paul Hwoschinsky, and Doug Neuman. The Meg Brown parcel consisted of 8 acres, with the lots clustered on 4 acres (50%) and the remaining 4 acres (50%) being private open space. At the time Strawberry Meadows subdivision was approved, the City's internal policy under the performance standards options (AMC 18.88) routinely allowed individual lot owners to "borrow" from excess open space within the subdivision in order to meet maximum lot coverage requirements on individual lots. See: written submissions by Margaret "Meg" Brown O/son, Paul Hwoschinsky, Sandy Kuykendall, and Mark Knox. ADDITIONAL WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS PROVIDED Applicant Submittal 2.In addition to this Applicant submittal, a supplementary submittal argument is provided ref�ecling Applicants' PowerPoint slides presented at the Pianning Commission hearing, and briefly summarizing Applicants' arguments as portrayed by those slides. Applicants' Submittal 2-"Written Argument" for Appeal to Council is submitted concurrently with this letter. Meq Brown Submittal. Margaret "Meg" Brown Olson was the original long-lime property owner whose property was part of the Strawberry Meadows subdivision. Sandv Kuykendall Submittai. Sandra "Sandy" Kuykendall was the real estate broker who listed the property for Meg Brown in 2004, and soltl the lot to Applicants in 2005. Paul Hwoschinskv Submittal. Paul Hwoschinsky was one of the three property owners who received City approval for the Strawberry Meadows subdivision (with Meg Brown) in 1998. Mark Knox Submittal. Mark Knox is a planning consultant who was previously with the City Planning Department. He aiso was involved with similar issues concerning Robert and Laura McLellan's property across the street from Applicants' Lot (500 Strawberry Lane). Mark Knox and the DAVIS� NE�RN U�uOGES A Prolet[imM Caporaum 515 EAST M4N STPEEi ASHIAND, OftEGON 9IST0 INIII82-]111 FAl(1+�1H88.1165 Paqe •5- Ashland Clty Councll Appllcants' Submlttal 1(Wrlffen Argumenf /oiAppeel to Counci/) Scoff Dlxon 8 Joan Cresse (Planntng Axn. 2010-0182YJ May 9, 2011 McLellans were required lo work through similar issues in connection with Planning Action 2008-00182 in 2008. MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE IN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR- 5) ZONE. AMC 18.16.040 states, in relevant part: "1816.040 Gencral Reeulations (RR-.5) "A. Minimum lo[ area: Minimum lot areas in the Rlt zone may be one-half (%z), one and hvo and one-halF(2 acres, depending on ihe topographic namre, service availability and surrounding land uses, and other relevant characteristics of the area. "B. Maximum lot coveraee: "1. One-half acre lots (RR-.5): twentv (20% percent maximum. "2. One (1) acre lots (RR-1): tw�elve (12%) percent maximum. "3. Two and one-half (2 acre lots (RR-2.5): seven (7%) percent maximum." AA�C 18J4.090 (emph��srs adde�l). Note that AMC 18.14.040 does not reflect a provision for lot coverage applicable to a lot less than the minimum .5 acre lot size. Note also, that maximum lot coverage area is reduced proportionately as lot sizes increase. Half acre lots are permitted 20% lot coverage; 1 acre lots 12% coverage; and 2.5 acre lots are only allowed 7% maximum coverage. The ordinance provision does not appear to contemplate 28-acre lots in the RR-.5 zone, yet ApplicanYs lot was approved by City in 1998. Applicants respectfuily submit that application of the 20% maximum lot coverage provision to Applicants' lot is inappropriate under the circumstances. DAVIS� HEA0.N L[ DR�DGES A G�o/uUOnal Lrcppe4m 6/5 EA9T ALVN STREET ASHIANp, OREOON B15t0 �511)�84.31H fAX(6{Q�BB��55 Page -6- Ashfand Clty Councll App�(cants' Submlttal p 1(WrRfAn Argument for Appea/ fo Councll) Scoff Olxon d Joan Cresse (P/anning Axn. 20f0-01622J May 9, 2011 A�plicants' Lot Is Onlv about a Quarter-Acre in Size Well Below the One-Half Acre Minimum Size Required for Citv's RR 5 Zone. The stated purpose of City's RR (Rural Residential) district is to stabilize and protect the rural residential character of areas which, because of topography, level of service or other natural or developmental factors are best served by a large lot designation. AMC 18.16.010 Purpose. The original developer of the portion of this Strawberry Meadows subdivision including Applicants' lot was Meg Brown. Meg Brown testified before lhe Planning Commission in favor of Applicants at the public hearing on January 11, 2011 (hr. marker 2:54). She also provides a submittal to the Council in connection with this appeal. Meg Brown's testimony at the Planning Commission hearing can essentially be summarized to state that her understanding was that maximum lot coverage for each lot was depicted by the building envelope, the driveways, and the guest parking spots, as drawn on the approved Outline Plan. She provided 50% private open space for the subdivision, with the understanding that the 50% open space (4 acres of her 8-acre parcel) would be altocated to satisfy the maximum lot coverage criteria for the individual lots. Applicants' lot #6 (.028 acres in size) was one of several created from her parcel which were approved al below the .5 acre minimum lot size for the zone. Meg Brown's portion of the subdivision included the components of 50% private open space and 50% residential lots. in this case, the City essentially seeks to enforce the second half of AMC 18.16.040.B.1 (20% maximum lot coverage), while admitting that Applicants' lot does not compiy with the first part of AMC 18.16.040.B.1 (one-half acre lot size). In short, the interpretation picks and chooses bits and pieces of the relevant code section. Applicants believe it is appropriate for the Council, under the unique circumstances presented, to modify the Planning Commission's decision to find that the appropriate interpretation of the maximum lot coverage criterion reflected in AMC 18.16.040.B.2, should allow Applicants' lot maximum coverage of 5,478 sq. ft. (4,356 unrestricted and up to 1,122 sq. ft. surface treatments) because the 20% maximum lot coverage standard is expressly applicable to "one-half (YZ) acre lots°, while Applicants' lot is only .28 acres in size). DAVIS, H¢ARN BRIDGES h Profeaaonei Capore4on 515 EPST MNN STREE! ASMIAND, OREGON 9)620 (511)IB231H FA%(511)�BB�I�SS Page -T- Ashland Clty Councll Appllcanfs' Submiftal 1(Written Argument forAppeal to Councll) Scott Dixon d Joan Cresse (PfannJng Axn. p 2070-01B22) May B, 2011 To avoid "double dipping", the 20% maximum lot coverage should be applied to the entire site, and not the individual lots. Provided that the maximum coverage is not exceeded, the coverage can then be allocated to the individual lots. This implies that a single lot could have significantly more than 20% lot coverage, because the purpose and intent of the maximum lot coverage provisions have already been satistied. Ch Mark Knox, who was a City Planner during the period when the Strawberry Meadows subdivision was approved, testified that the Planning Department's interpretation of lot coverage requirements with regard to Strawberry Meadows subdivision (500 Strawberry Lane) changed sometime between 2005 and 2008. See: Mark Knox testimony to Planning Commission on January 11, 2011 (meeting hr. 3:01). The unintended consequence is that the original developers created private open space for the subdivision with the understanding that the lot coverage could be allocated to the individual lots to achieve the "maximum coverage" as depicted by the building envelopes, driveways, and guest parking spots drawn for each lot on ihe approved Outline Plan. Mark Knox testified that several years ago, at the lime the Strawberry Meadows subdivision was approved by the City, it was assumed thai individual lot owners and developers could transfer coverage allocation from the subdivision's private open space to meet individual lot coverage requirements. The only restriction was that ihe coverage for the entire site could not exceed the 20% limit. The Applicants' request for increased lot coverage will cause the parcel's overall coverage to increase only marginally above 10%. In fact, applying the same coverage methodology to all the lots in the Meg Brown parcel increases the parcel overall coverage to only 15% significantly less than the 20% maximum lot coverage allowed in City's Rural Residential zone. .Mr. Knox' testimony was that ihis allocation was done at the administrative Planning staff level, in the form of a simple letter to the file. The testimony before the Planning Commission was that, up through about 2005, coverage was routinely trans(erred from the private open space to the individual lots. Testimony before Planning Commission on January 11, 2011; hr. marker 3:07. An informal system was created in which 20% coverage aliocation could be transferred from the huge private open space to achieve the relevant lot coverage standards and goals, to achieve the stated purpose of ihe RR-.5 district. AMC 18.16.010. Lot Coveraqe Allocation from the Knecht Portion of the Strawberry Meadows DA\'I5� HEA0.N B0.1DOE5 R Pmleasbnel LarpoeY�m 515 EAST MNN SiREET A4HlAHD, OftEGON B)St0 (Satj <pY3t11 FAX (5�1) �B8�I55 Page -8- Ashland C(ty Councll Appflcants' Submlttal p 1(Writfen Aigument /orAppeal fo Councll) Scott Dlxon B Joan Cresse (Planning Axn. p 20f0-016Y2J May 9, 2011 Subdivision Following approval of the Strawberry Meadows subdivision in 1998, developer Alex Knecht acquired the former Neuman portion of the subdivision. He approached Planning Staft in 2005 and reallocated all the open space coverage from the former "Neuman" portion of the subdivision to the individual lots within that portion of the subdivision. The process required at that time consisted of a simple letter to lhe file from planning staff. Applicants also submit, along with this letter, their Submittal 2-"Written ArgumenY' for Appeal to Council which also addresses the arguments outlined above, as well as several other important aspects of their appeal, in more detail. See Applicants' Submittal 2. Conciusion Based on those facts and arguments outlined above, in addition to those reilected in Applicanls' Submittal #2 Written Argument for Council Land Use Appeal, (along with the additional written argument submittals of Brown, Kuykendall, Hwoschinsky, and Knox), Applicants respectfully request the Council modify or reverse the Findings, Conclusion, and Orders issued by the Planning Commission in connection with Applicants' Planning Action 2010-01622. Respectfully submitted, DAVIS, HEARN BRIDGES, PC ��+w3 Christian E. Hearn, OSB 911829 chearn(c�davishearn.com Enclosu�es/Attachments: as stafed above cc: Doug McGeary Dnva,HSnaN oc�oces A Roro:9on.l coryaauon 515 FAST MP1N STREEI ASMIAND, OREOON Bi510 �5{I) IBt�31H FA%(5�1) �BB��SS JACKDPVIS ��vjs L 7 �T LV SAfd 0. Ol.Vi$ RelireC GHRISTIANEHEAflN' SI�NEYEAINSWORTH�19]bYWJ� JENWFERF BRIDGES 1\,IDGLS DONALOId PINNOCK-Rellmtl JEFFHEYK McCOlW1.1 YASCMM SnRPMAS! DnME� nnftRiS nei'�,ree A"I" T O R N L Y S A'1' L A onviov.cns�nnv-aecrea EUGENEV,�N�ERSON Plso �OmItlPC b P�if:<! in U A Pro/essiorral Corporetion ,r p �ax3 +i� 'r' Sl �j� �7�� li M li t._ t�it t� �.A 5... E EsfablisM1ed 1953 515 EAST MAIN STREET ASHLAND,OREGON97520 (547) 482-3717 FAX (541) 488-A455 May 9, 2011 Via Email Transmission and Hand Delivery Ashland City Council c/o Bill Molnar, Planning Director City of Ashland Planning Department 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 ��Y J 2�� till} C7i r hS`l�i.[l`..% l�i�it%..-,_.,C�Siif :r�,_. t:c711i1t;!,,,._�-s RE: Applicants' •Submittal 2—"Wriiten ArgumenY' for Appeal to Council Planning Action 2010-01622 Owners Applicants Appellants: Scott Dixon and Joan Cresse Subject Property: 163 Hitt Road Dear Council: Thank you for considering Appiicants' "Wriiten Argument" Submiltal 2, summarizing in more delail Applicants' arguments in connection with their Iand use appeal. Applicants respectfully request the Councii modify or reverse the Planning Commission's decision concerning several aspects of their application, based on the written arguments set forth below. City Council Appeal Issues and Argument The main issue which Applicants desire to be resolved by Council in connection with this appeal is: Increase the allowable lot coverage from 4,356 sq ft to 5,478 sq ft and NOT count the shared driveway. The Planning Commission already agreed to not include the shared driveway, so the only issue remaining is the allowable lot coverage. The minor issues the Applicants desire to be resolved by the City Council are: Page -2- Ash/and Clty Councll Appllcants' Submlttal 2 Wrltten Argument for Councll Land Use Appeal Appl/cants: Scott Dlxon and Joan Cresse May 9, 2011 Waive the condition that the Planning Commission approval expires i� one year. The Planning Commission decision contains a one year expiration. Obviously, once Applicants move the Hitt Road gate and move the lot entrance, it would be impractical to move it back. The lot coverage should rellect a permanent right of usage that runs with the title fo the Applicants' lot, since Applicants may need to delay consfruction. Remove unnecessary coniiitions from the Planning Commission fi�dings. The Planning Department added some conditions which weren't drscussed during the Planning Commission hearing. Resolve any ambiguities aboul the building envelope. The Planning Department mav have a dif/erent interpretafion of the size or shape of the building envelope. The building envelope must be agreed upon before Applicant can move /orvvard with a house design. ARGUMENTS FOR APPEAL TO COUNCIL: 1. Increase Lot Coverage to 5,478 sq ft A. Applicanis desire an increase in lot coverage of 1,122 sq ft from the approved 4,356 sq ft to 5,478 sq ft. B. The ApplicanPs request for 5,478 sq ft of coverage is based on their projected need for building a stepped-foundation house of an average size for the neighborhood (�3,400 sq ft). Applicant has considered enough possible designs to know that 5,478 sq ft of coverage is sufficient for their needs. However, at 5,000 sq ft of coverage it mav be possible to design the intended house, but it may also require significant design compromises (e.g. not using a stepped foundation). Applicant's architect, Carlos Delgado, has confirmed that it is doubtful that the intended house can be built with only 4,356 sq ft. Without sufficient lot coverage, Applicant may be forced to build a more obtrusive home, causing a negative impact on City's ridgeline viewshed (which Applicants want to avoid). C. The Planning Commission based its decision for allowable maximum lot coverage on the maximum coverage that a% acre lot would be permitted. At Page -3- Ashland Clty Councll Appllcants' Submtttal 2 Wiitten Aigument for Councll Land Use Appeal App/lcants: Scott Dlxon and Joan Cresse May 9, 2011 least four (4) problems accompany this approach. 163 Hitt Road (Applicants' lot) is one of 8 lots in an 8-acre parcel. Applying the standard technique for allocating coverage from private subdivision open space to the individual lots to satisfy the maximum lot coverage requirements, the Applicant would receive the 8,712 sq. ft. lot coverage associated with 1 acre of land. When the Pianning Commission granted the coverage for only a'/z acre lot, however, it ignored the significant amount of extra open space created in the subdivision and essentially penalized the original developers for being environmentally sensitive. Applicants are requesting only 5,478 sq ft. Applicants' lot is required to include at least one guest parking spot (since there is minimal on-street parking on Hitt Road). The guest parking spot is described in the subdivision narrative and is drawn on the subdivision's approved Outline Plan. This is not a requirement for most subdivision lots, which would typically have adjacent on-street parking. One guest parking spot requires approximately 250 sq. ft. more lot coverage than is needed for the typical lot. Applicants' lot is a corner lot with a curved boundary abutting Hitt Road. Hitt Road and the lot are both sloped greater than the slope allowed for a driveway. Applicants desire a driveway that is level from Hitt Road to the main floor of the house, forcing the lot entrance to be ai a particular point on Hitt Ftoad. This desired lot entrance requires a longer driveway than needed for the typical level lot. The longer driveway requires approximately 250 sq. ft. more lot coverage than is needed for a typical level lot. Applicants intend to build their home using a"stepped foundation", regardless of whether or not they are required to meet the Hillside Ordinance standards (ALUO 18.62.080.E.2.b.(1)). Stepped foundations reduce the "visual bulk" of a house and make it blend into the hillside when viewed from the downtown area. Ashland has a number of hillside houses ihat do not have stepped foundations, and they are perceived to be visually intrusive. The stepped foundation design that makes the Applicants' home less noticeable requires approximately 600 sq. ft. more lot coverage than would be needed on a level lot. Page -4- Ashland City Counci/ Applicants' Submittal 2 Written Argument /or Counci! Land Use Appeal Applicants: Scott Dixon and Joan Cresse May 9, 2011 The sum of these additional requirements is 1,100 sq. ft., which is approximately equal to the 1,122 sq. ft. of additional coverage which Applicants are requesting the Council to approve. D. The Planning Commission essentially agreed with Applicants' asserlion that the 1,433 sq. (t. shared driveway running through Applicants' lot should be considered a subdivision resource, and should not be counted or applied in the maximum lot coverage formula for Applicants' lot. No change is required to this aspect of the Planning Commission decision. The Council recently approved the 500 Strawberry Lane subdivision (Planning Action #2009-00314). This subdivision was originally part of the Applicants` subdivision (Strawberry Meadows Subdivision). The 500 Strawberry Lane subdivision is across the street from Applicants' lot and its project narrative includes the following lot coverage allocation table. Lot t�l: 26% (.50 ecre size) 5,662 sq. fl. lot coverage (footprint, driveway, sidewalks, etc.)' Lot if2: 26%(.SO ecre size) 5,662 sq. R. lot coverage Lot �l3: 28% (.50 ecre size) 6,098 sq. fl. lot coverege Lot N4: 20% (1.40 aae size) 12,196 sq. ft. lot coverage Lo� N5: 20% (I acre size) 8,712 aq. ft. lo� wverage Lot H6: 0% (common open spacc) (.50 acre size) Maximum Totel AvereRe Lut CoveraRe: 20% Lane subdivislon coverage allocatlon table If Councii examines the above table for that subdivision the following facts become evident: 500 5trawberry Lane subdivision, approved by Council in 2009, has an average of 0.9 acres per lot and allocates 11% to private open space. In comparison: Applicants' portion of the Sirawberry Meadows subdivision (Meg Brown parcel) has an average of 1.0 acres per lot and dedicates 50% to private open space. Page -5- Ashland City Councll Appllcants' Submlttal 2 Written Argument for Councll Land Use Appeal App/lcants: Scott Dlxon and Joan Cresse May 9, 2011 While the 500 Strawberry Lane subdivision private open space contains land with slopes from 35% to 49%, it still fully allocated coverage from those unbuildable areas to the lots in the subdivision. The Council should note that: The Planning Commission's decision on coverage for Applicants' lot implied that coverage could not be allocated from unbuildable open space land (e.g. with slopes over 35%). However, nothing in City's Land Development Ordinance prevents allocating coverage from unbuildable areas. In fact, the 500 Strawberry Lane subdivision coverage allocation table does not exclude any unbuiidable land (slope 35%) on either individual lots or the open space. Applicants request that they be given the same consideration. The 500 Strawberry Lane subdivision allocated coverage of 5,660 sq. ft. or more (up to a maximum of 12,196 sq ft) to everv lot in the subdivision, while Applicants are only requesling 5,478 sq it. The most obvious difference between the Applicants' subdivision and the 500 Strawberry Lane subdivision is that the Meg Brown parcel of the Appiicants' subdivision clustered smaller lots around a larger open space. Applicants are being penalized because Meg Brown was environmentally sensitive and created a large, visualiy-appealing open space. 2. Make the modification of the subdivision permanent A. The Notice of Decision for PA 2010-001622 states: "Approval is valid for a period of one year." B. Applicants believe that subdivision modifications are inherently permanent. Appiicants believe the above condition is unfair. Applicants desire qermanent modification of lot coverage allowance, driveway entrance, and the building envelope. The 1 year expiration period is inappropriate under these circumstances. Applicant believes that imposing a one year period may have been uninteritional. C. Applicant is prepared to immediately move the qate on Hitt Road and Page -6- Ashland City Councll App/lcants' Submlttal 2 Wrltten Argument for Council Land Use Appeal Applicants: Scott Dlxon and Joan Cresse May 9, 2011 establish the new lot entrance approved by the Planning Commission. Because of financial and scheduling difficulties, however, the design and construction of Applicants' home may not be abie to start within one year. Furthermore, if the Applicants are unable to get full approval of this appeal, then the Applicants may be forced to completely redesign their home, or even sell their lot and abandon their dream. It would be untenable for Applicants to move the gate and the entrance to Applicants' lot and then be forced to move them back to their original positions at a later date. This is not oniy a burdensome requirement, but may require a second subdivision moditication to implement. 3. Alter several Conditfons from Planning Commission Findings A. In the findings of the Planning Commission, Condition #3 states, "and no administrative variances wili be considered with this allocation of lot coverage." This appears to be an unintentional restriction that could prevent the design ot any house on this lot. There was no discussion of this condition in any part of the public hearing. Condition #3, as written, appears to require Applicants to be denied all customary administrative relief for issue regarding their lot. This is a very restrictive condition which could potentially render it extremely difficult for Applicants to get a home design approved. Most home designs on sloping lots in Performance Standards Option subdivisions have minor discrepancies with the code that are routinely handled by the Planning Department. For instance, a driveway may be 6" too short or an eave may intrude into a setback by several inches or a building may be 4" too high. The Planning Department has a long history of granting administrative waivers oi minor variations. Condition #3, as worded, seems to prevent even the smallest variation in meeting the code requirements. Applicant requests that the phrase, "and no administrative variances will be considered with this allocation of lot coverage" be removed from Condition #3. B. The Planning Commission's Condition #4 states, "That no development is to occur on lands with slopes in excess of 35 percent." This restriction could be narrowly interpreted to prevent the use of this lot and should be altered to say, "That no development is to occur on lands outside the buildins� envelone with natural slopes in excess of 35 percent." The driveway entrance of Applicants' lot must cross either a man-made Page -7- Ashland Cfty Councll Appllcants' Submittal it 2 Written Argument for Council Land Use Appeal Appllcants: Scott Dlxon and Joan Cresse May 9, 2011 ditch with siope 35% or a cut slope with slope 35%. Without the proposed change, the building envelope is inaccessible from the street, producing an unbuildable lot. Both the original building envelope and the (newly approved) modified building envelopes include �150 sq ft of >35% slope land that is adjacent to the man-made cut for the shared driveway. This area appears to be man-made. Withoul ApplicanYs proposed changes to Condition #3, the full building envelope cannot be used. The building envelope was approved in 1998 with full knowledge of these small included areas with 35% slope. While the Applicants believe their lot has an average slope less than 25%, the Applicant is not seeking to avoid the appropriate application of the Hillside Lands ordinance. Applicants feel that the applicability of that ordinance was not part of their proposed planning action and that it should be considered separately. 4. Resolve ambiguities about the Building Envelope A. The Outline Plan has a lot table that shows the building envelope area of 163 Hitt Road as 4,317 sq ft, but Applicants' surveyor measured the envelope and came up with a slightly larger area 4,738 sq ft. The size and locaiion of the building envelope are crucial because Planning Action 2010-01622 defines the new building envelope as an alteration of the existing envelope namely: Extending the 15 foot public utility easement along Hitt Road to the western edge of the building envelope; thereby, Adding 666 sq ft to the envefope (see illustration on page 9). B. Appiicants hired TerraSurvey to measure the building envelope, as drawn on the Outline Plan. The measurement was 4,738 sq ft. Applicants have used this measurement in all the calculations in their proposal, and this measurement has not been questioned by the Planning Department. Applicants are concerned that there is a discrepancy between the Outline Plan table area and the measured area. This may possibly be due to a clerical error when the table was not updated after some change in the subdivision. Applicants have observed other errors in this table, such as the Page -8- Ashland Clty Councll Applicants' Subm/ttal 2 Written Argument /or Councll Land Use Appeal Applicants: Scott Olxon and Joan Cresse May 9, 2011 sums of the various areas do not equal the listed totals. Applicants believe that this table was not updated during the various changes to the design that occurred prior to submitting the Outline Plan for approval. The Applicants are unable to commence the design of their home until the exact size and location of the building envelope are agreed upon. C. The memo of February 8, 2011 from the Planning Department to the Planning Commission summarizes the additional submittals for PA 2010-01622. This Planning Department memo uses the 4,317 sq ft building envelope measurement from the table in the subdivision Outline Plan. The Applicants described in PA 2010-01622 that TerraSurvey measured the envelope as 4,738 sq ft, and this measurement was not challenged by the Planning Department. The Applicants have used the 4,738 sq ft measurement throughout their proposed planning action. The Planning DepartmenPs February 8, 2011 memo not only summarized the additional submittals, but also went on to analyze their own table, which they had timely subrriitted. In this memo, they not only used the incorrect envelope area for Appiicants' lot, but they also claimed that the guest parking spots and driveways were not delineated and iherefore weren't included in their tabie. On February 8, 2011, Applicants asked the Planning Commission for a chance to comment on the new information included in this memo and to correct the errors. Applicants stated that the Planning Commission procedural rules were designed to allow Applicant to comment on submittals and the memo constituted a submittal. The Planning Commission, however, denied Applicants' request to rebut the memo and forbade the Applicants from speaking. This critical issue, therefore, remains unresolved. The City Council has ruled that Applicants are now allowed to reopen the record. Page -9- Ashland Gty Council Applicants' Submittal 2 Wrltten Argument for Councfl Land Use Appeal Applicants: Scott D(xon and Joan Cresse May 9, 2011 D. Applicants request the Council resolve any building envelope discrepancies by accepting the surveyed areas of the old building envelope as 4,738 sq. ft. and the new building envelope as 5,404 sq ft(666 sq. ft. greater). Hitt Rd N 15 feet Public °MK° eM<.q Utility easement side setback new 5,404 sq ft building envelope 39 feet rear setback lot boundary r 10 feet side setback Furthermore, Applicants request the City Council accept that: The northern and western edges of the building envelope are defined by the existing 15 foot public utility easement setback. The southern edge of the building envelope is a 10 foot setback from the southern edge of the lot. The eastern edge of the building envelope is perpendicular to the southern lot line and starts at a point 39 feet from the vertex of the two eastern edges of the lot. Page -10- Ashland City Council Appllcants' Submittal 2 W�itten Argument for Council Land Use Appeal Applicants: Scott Dlxon and Joan Cresse May 9, 2011 Applicants' argument in connection with this appeal to council is set forth in more detail below. This material is a portion of the materiai presented to the Ptanning Commission at the meeting on January 11, 2011. This material was distributed to the members at the meeting. The above slide shows Applicants' lot at 163 Hitt Road. The Hitt Road gate is visible in the bottom right picture. Page -11- Ashland City Councll App/lcants' Submlttal 2 Written Argument for Counclf Land Use Appeal Applicants: Scott Dixon and Joan Cresse May 9, 2011 Move the gate �88 ft ��R.�, New entrance on western edge l Expand building envelope to reflect new street entrance (continue the 15' PUE setback) Note that survey results show the building,envelope.' has an.average slope 25°/v 1 v N Hitt Rd R �MD ve�na �Y' s��av eanks The Applicants requested permission to move the lot entrance from the shared driveway to Hitt Road, permitting a level entrance to the lot and eliminating the visually intrusive 614 cubic yards of excavation. The Planning Commission approved this move, so ihis issue is resolved. Page -12- Ash/and City Council Applicants' Submittal 2 Written Argument tor Council Land Use Appeal Applicants: Scott Dixon and Joan Cresse May 9, 2011 Move driveway_entrance to top of lot Move gate �88 feet Modify building envelope, continuing the 15' PUE setback along Hitt Road Allocate lot coverage from open space Total 5,478 sqFt (as originally approved) 4,356 sqFt 20% of'/z acre lot, PLUS 1,122 sqFt surface treatment The lower shared driveway is covered by separate open space coverage allocation The Applicants are requesting 5,478 sq ft of lot coverage, of which 1,122 sq ft is reserved for surface treatments. The Commission granted 4,356 sq ft and agreed to not include the shared driveway. Applicants are appealing ihe granting of only 4,356 sq ft of coverage, instead of the requested 5,478 sq ft. Page -13- Ashland Clty Council Applicants' Submittaf 2 Written Argument /or Counc!/ Land Use Appeal Applicants: Scott Dixon and Joan Cresse May 9, 2011 RR-.S-P Rural Residential 0.5 acres minimum We have a'/4 acre lot in a'/2 acre zone Performance standards.: option Lot coverage, without the performance option, is only 20% x 12,073 sqFt 2,415 sqFt With the performance option, the lot was designed to have 5,478 sqFt of coverage plus a shared driveway The source of Applicants' coverage problem is that their lot was created small (0.28 acre) in a 0.5 acre minimum zone. The Applicants' share of the total parcel was 1.0 acres with the remainder of their share put into open space. Page-14- Ashland Clfy Counci/ Appflcants' Submittal 2 Wrltten Argument (or Council Land Use Appeal Applicants: Scoff Dixon and Joan Cresse May 9, 2011 423 Strawberry allocation 12/9/04 Different parcel in the same subdivision Applicant offered to use permeable material Planning department said there was no need, they would aliocate coverage from open space Doesn't require guest parking Allocated 6,544 sq ft "Knecht" parcel allocation 5/16/05 Different parcei (on Birdsong) in the same subdivision Doesn't require guest parking or long driveways Allocated coverage up to 6,356 sq ft for a lot Other lots within the same subdivision were allocated coverage from open space, producing lot coverages greater than Applicants' request of 5,478 sq ft.. Applicants' lot is being penalized for having a much larger open space. Page -15- Ashland City Counci! Applicants' Su6mittal 2 Written Argument /or Council Land Use Appeal Applicants: Scott Dixon and Joan Cresse May 9, 2011 500 Strawberry Lane subdivision Was formerly part of our subdivision Is across the street from 163 Hitt Road 4.6 acre parcel: 5 lots and 0.5 acre open space Allocated coverage from open space with slopes up to 50% Every lot allocated 5,662 sqFt or more! Many other subdivisions use open space coverage allocation Eastfietd Clay Creek Gardens Etc., etc. Lots within other subdivisions were allocated coverage from open space. Page -16- Ashland C!ty Council Applicants' Su6mittal 2 Written Argument loiCouncil Land Use Appeal Applicants: Scott Dixon and Joan Cresse May 9, 2011 Applicant is:asking; `for 5,478.sqFt Lot tf l: 26% (.50 acre size) 5,662 sq. fl. lot coverage (foolprint, driveway, sidewalks, etc.j� Lot p2: 26% (.50 acre size) 5,662 sq. fl, lot coverage Lot #3: 28%(.50 acre size) 6,098 sq. ft. lot coveragc L.ot N4: 20% (1.40 acre size) 12,196 sq. ft. lot wverage Lo� as: 20% (1 acre size) 8,712 sq. R. lot coverage Includes slopes up Lot N6: 0% (common open space) (.50 acre size) o- `:.t042/o Maximum 7otx1 AveraRe Lot CoveraRe: 20% Includes slopes up to 49% This lot coverage allocation table is from the project narrative for the 500 Strawberry Lane subdivision. It fully allocates 20% of the subdivision area to individual lots. This subdivision was allowed to include unbuildable land (?35% siopes) in all coverage allocation calculations. Everv lot was given more coverage than we are asking for. This subdivision is across the street from Applicants' lot and was originally part of Appiicants' subdivision. Applicants request equal treatment. Page -17- Ash/and Clty Counc// Applicants' Submittal 2 Written Argument for Councfl Land Use Appeal Applicants: Scott Dlxon and Joan Cresse May 9, 2011 A�plicailts don't want extra coverage to build a massive house J Strawberry /Meadows f HOA 1 Avorope Slzo ot Homee �n tho Strewberry Lane Moadows HOA (sq ft) 7,56D Applicants want to build a smaller house than the neighborhood average. Best estimate is 3,200 3,400 sq ft floor space Applicants' requested lot coverage will allow them to build a house that is smaller than the average of the neighboring homes. If Applicants just wanted a massive house, they already have enough lot coverage to do that. Size of 22 Houses Ciosest to 163 Hitt Road Page -18- Ashland City Council Applicants' Submittal 2 Written Argument for Council Land Use Appeal Appllcants: ScoK Dlxon and Joan Cresse May 9, 2011 Driveways and guest parking spots are clearly drawn on the Outline Plan. Page -19- Ashland City Council Applicants' Submittal �t 2 Written Argument for Council Land Use Appeaf Applicants: Scott Dlxon and Joan Cresse May 9, T011 PARKING PROVIDED: 50 Covered (garages) 2 Uncovered (on site, for each lot two homes sharc one) 17 Off Site (in parking bays) nlPoc should I�avi. na ieerc 2 otf sib (in (LI �arkt!�9 bays) and Sh 7 uncmrered_ n� DEC 2 3 1997 �e Plan 7 Pa9e 11,� guest uired, _as Hitt d.for"No Guest parking spots are specifically addressed in the project narrative of the Ouiline Plan. Page -20- Ashland City Counc!l Appllcants' Submittal 2 Wrltten Argument for Council Land Use Appeal Applicants: Scott Dixon and Joan Cresse May 9, 2011 Christian E. Hearn, OSB 911829 chearn a(�davishearn.com EnclosureslAttachments: as stated cc: Doug McGeary Martha Bennett Bill Molnar Margaret J. Brown Olson 385 Strawberry Lane Ashland, OR 97520 May 5, 2011 Ashland City Council Ashland, Oregon ri j 1 4 t f x. ._w Y.w_. �.ti �l•� 1� ,.a�'.x9' Mt�" 201' t; oi I�^1iIc�CIC� FI.l f 4 .I......._..5.}��I'v� m �1U�1�fI)l.n-�ta Re: "Written ArgumenY' submitted in advance of the City Council Land Use Appeal Plam�ing Action #2010-01622 Owner/Applicants: Scott Dixon and Joan Cresse Property Address: l 63 Hitt Road I appeared at the Planning Cotrunission meeting on January 11, 2011, and pi•esented evidence and testimony in support of the planning application of Scott Dixon and Joan Cresse. I specifically addressed my experience as a developer of the Scrawberry Meadows subdivision and the City's incorrect interpretation of a statement made by my agent, Tom Giordano, in response to an appeal by opponents of the subdivision, I also addressed the City's "new" interpretation of the "maximum lot coverage" requirements as they apply to Lot 6 of the Strawberry Meadows subdivision (163 Hitt Road). 2. The Ashland municipal code section for land use appeals requires the submission of a"written argumenP' in advance of the Council appeal hearing. The following "written argumenP' is given in compliance with this requirement, even though I already spoke and offered documents for the record at the Planning Commission meeting on January I 1. My "written argumenY' concerns the application submitted by Scott Dixon and Joan Cresse, and specifically concerns the issue of "maximum lot coverage" as it applies to the unique situation associated with 163 Hitt Road. 3. I submitted the following letter to the Planning Co�rvnission on January 1], 2011, along with my oral testimony at the meeting: Page 1 of 1 Marperet J. Brown Olson 365 Straw6erry Lane Ashland, OR 97520 January i1, 2011 To Members of ihe Ashland Planning Commisslon RE: Planning Adion 1070-01822 Sub�ed Prope�ty: 183 Hitt Road OwnedApplicant Dison 8 Cresse I support the Dixon-Cresse requast, desaibed In Planning Adlon 2070-01822, in totalily. As orre of the devebpera of tAe Strawberry Meadows Subdivision and the lormer owner of thla percel, I want to express the following poinls: i. 1 planned small bts surtounding a ceMrai, large open spece in order to contaln butlding�eraes arM keep a larga land erea undislurbed. In this case, there is epproximalety 4.2 aaes oi p�ivate common open speee. Tha planning of thls davelopment, whMh was a cooperative eHorl hy Ihe developera, Ihe City, ard the nelphborhood, took yeara and waa davoted to ueating e dasign Ihat was ernlronmentalty end aeslhelicaly sound. 2. The IMent was lhet t�e entlro huBding envelope (es described In the Dizon- Cresse epptiea6on, page 15, Figure 8) coula be used 1w Ihe building, ezGusive of driveway, pe�kirg area, aldawaiks, antl patioe. 1 intentled that coverapa ba allocated irom the 4,2 aue open space to Ihe frdividual lots to meet the 20h lot coverage nile lor e RR-.5 zone. 3. The Gty Planning DepaAment haa chosen to relro-adively resliiq ihe s(ze of any homa bulit on thase IWs by Wilizing a retio of lol coverage (huilding Motprim+ driveway, perking erea, sbewelks, patfo, etc.) lo bt square footage, withoul Iha allvcatlon o( covarage Irom Iha open space. The resutl severety Inhibits bui�ng on the lots. 4. Had I been aWe to foresee the implementation of Ihis rule, I xrouid hava designed the bts differentty. I vrould not have deslgnated 4.2 acran as private common epaca, bul would have inUuded mosl of Ihe open apar» in Ihe indivitlual lots, thereby Inaeasing ihe coverage area Oer lot. In shorl, during Ihe plannfng process, the CNy required the density lo be approximately one �ome per eae. Thet remains the case. I urge the Planning Canmfssion not to penalize qootl planning al ihe expenea of'one-size fne aIP regulations. Respeclfully submitted, Mergeret J. Brown Olson BacltQround. In 1998, I was the resident and owner of an 8 acre parcel that was combined with two other adjoining parcels to create the Strawberry Meadows subdivision. My parcel was split into 8 lots plus a large, 4.2 acre open space. I currently live on one of the 8 lots. 5. In 1998, in conjunction with my subdivision agent, Tom Giordanq I split my 8.2 acre parcel into 8 separate lots clustered around a large Page 2 of 2 4.2 acre open space. While the Ashland land use code only required me to create a 0.42 acre open space, I wanted to minimize the visual impact of any newly built houses. My parcel was visible from town and I was trying to be sensitive to the concerns of the citizens of Ashland. Eight large lots would have been highly visible from town since some lot owners clear their lots, while some fence their lots, and some others let their lots grow uncontrolled_ Eight large lots would have also prevented the free movement of wildlife in the area, since some owners would fence their property. I and the other developers wanted to create a sense of community in the area where we live. We chose to make a subdivision which would crcate a common sense of purpose and would be aesthetically pleasing. 6. The Appellants are requesting 5,478 sq ft of lot coverage. This is less than the 8,712 sq ft they would have gotten if I had created eight 1 acre lots. Their request is reasonable and should be approved. If their proposed methodology of allocating lot coverage was applied to all eight lots in my parcel, the entire parcel would have only 15% coverage, dramatically less than the 20% limit for the RR-0.5 zone. 7. If the Planning Department had stated in 1998 that my lots would be limited to 20% coverage with no allocation from the open space, I would have created larger lots and a smaller open space (as was recently done in the abutting 500 Strawberry subdivision). In fact, the Planning Department had no such restriction on lot coverage allocation in 1998 and still has no such restriction. The Planning Department even certified, in writing, that the subdivision with my small lots (as small as 0.28 acre for Lot #6) met all the requirements for the RR-0.5 zone. The problem is that the Planning Department is now retroactively applying a new documentation standard to a subdivision approved many years earlier. 8. In its response to PA 2010-01622, the Planning Department has repeatedly emphasized that my open space is too steep to be buildable. It has implied that unbuildable land can't be included in lot coverage calculations. While my open space area is steep and is mostly unbuildable, there is nothing in the land use code that excludes unbuildable areas in lot or site coverage calculations. A one acre lot that is only 50% buildable is given the identical lot coverage as a one acre lot that is 100% buildable. The 500 Strawberry subdivision, Page 3 of 3 which abuts 163 Hit Road, fully allocates coverage from open space that is up to 50% in slope. It also gives full lot coverage credit to their Lot #5, which includes areas with slope as great as 42%. 9. In 1998, my agent, Tom Giordano, wrote a letter to the Planning Department that was in response to an appeal of the Planning Commission approval of our subdivision. The appeal cited a generai lack of details in our Outline Plan, but didn't specifically mention lot coverage. In Tom Giordano's letter, he stated that the lots would meet all applicable standards, including the 20% lot coverage requirement of the RR-0.5 zone. He failed to specify that he would, of course, allocate coverage from the large open spaces to meet this requirement. The Planning Department allowed this allocation in two instances in 2004 and 2005 for 8 other lots of the same subdivision. Starting sometime after 2005, however, the Planning Department seized on the letter's lack of specificity and inferred that allocation of open space coverage to the individual lots was not allowed and was never intended to be allowed. This retroactive application of a new documentation standard has made 3 of my lots (including 163 Hitt Road) unusable and unsellable. It is unimaginable that I or Tan Giordano would have willingly destroyed the value of 3 of my lots after the subdivision was approved by the Planning Commission. The Planning Department, in response to PA 2010-01622, has insisted that they can infer a meaning in Tom Giordano's letter, even though Tom has denied this meaning in writing and the Appellants have shown that such an interpretation is economically nonsensical. 10. I urge the City Council to rectify this situation and approve the additional lot coverage that is requested by the Appeilants. It is a reasonable amount of lot coverage and will allow the Appellants to build a house in character with the other houses in the neighborhood. Denying the Appellants the use of their land for 3 and'/2 years is not in character with the ideals of our city. Respectfully submitted, /��wx. �/s� Margaret J. Brown Olson Page 4 of 4 Paul Hwoschinsky 443 Stra�vbeny Lane Ashland, OR 97520 May 5, 20] 1 Ashland City Council Ashland, Oregon �i j' j� 1� E ti:.�� h;1AY 9't: G i l t;ii} l ..e (l(Iit:N.-__- f i Re: "Written Argwnent" submitied in advance of the City Council Land Use Appeal Plainiing Action #2010-01622 Owner/Applicants: Scott Dixon and Joan Cresse Property Address: 163 Hitt Road The Ashland mw�icipal code section for ]and use appeals requires the submission of a"�vritten argument" in advance of the Council appeal hearing. This "written argumeuY' is given in compliancc with this requirement. My "written argument" concerns the application submitted by Scott Dixon and Joan Cresse, and s}�ecifically concerns the issue of "maximmn lot coverage" as it applies to 163 Hitt Road. Put simply, the issue in this matter brought bc1'ore you is one of lot coverage. This matter has dragged on. for tliree and a half years at a high cost of time and money to the applicants who bought a lot with a clear understanding of lot coverage...a�� understanding clearly laid out in tlie agreement with tl�e City to subdivide in 1997. As one of die three subdividers of the Strawbeny Meadows subdivision, I want to reduce the issues to a few veiy simple facts. 1) A�ter 8 years of many approval cycles that finally ended in a successful liearing at LUBA, the subdivision was approved. What we had done, �vas strike a deal with the City: Page I of 4 In return for the right to subdivide, we agreed to pave roads, bring in utilities et al. In fact, we were also required to pay for improvements of Lower Strawbeiry Lane that was NOT even a part of our subdivision! In effect we had agreed to more than what is typically required. We had a contract with the City. 2) A part of that contract was the right to allocate privately created open space to lot coverage. This was occasioned by the terrain. At the time, 40% slopes for building sites was allowed. No one within the City or private citizens commenting for or against the subdivision, ever challenged that parameter. 3) This equality Was shattered after 2005 when the Dixon/Cresse application to build a home was declined on unequal te�ms...the lot allocation parameters were unfairly shifted...probably to reflect current �vles. What was missed was the conU•act st�vck in ]997. Those agreements were tlie ones that govern. The core issue is simply one of fairness in the light of the original deal. The City should not be able to shift its agreement 14 years after the fact despite new regulations adopted to succeeding subdivisions. Retroactive judgments of this sort are unfair and most probab(y illegal. I expect our City to honor its agreements. As subdividers we did our part. If the City fails to do its part in this case, how can any subdivider in the future strike any agreement with the City? Accordingly, the City will want to honor the agreements made in 1997 when appi•oval was granted. Otherwise it will have lost any sense of inte�rity. I submitted the following two page letter to the Plaruiing Commission on Januaiy l0, 2011: Stalemen[ for consideratim� by Ihe Ashland Planning Commission regarding Planning Action H PA 2010-00162, 163 Hitt Road, Ashland, OR To whom it may concem: Januery 10, 201 I As one of the three principal developers of the SVewberq• Meadox•s Snbdivision. I want ro mnke se�eral commenis regerding PA 2010-00162 for 167 Nilt Roed. 7'he epplicams wTm to relocnte thc dri�•ewny cnlrence to thcir lot, modify the building envelope �o accommodate the new drivew-ay entrance, and ro define the lot coverege for their lot. Aeloceled Drivcwav F�trao� and Modified D�ildin Fnvelooc 1 agree wuh the applicant and �he Plunning Dzpar�nent ihat moving the driveway entrance and moAifying the building envelope wi11 enhance IIu usebiliry and esthetic appenrnnce of the loi. Moving ihc Jrivmvay cnlrantt fmm Ihe shared drive�vay lo Hitt Road will ellow for u level emry from ihc street io ihc housa and will significanliy reduce �he emounl of excavalion necessary to bnild a garage. II's interesting ro nole ihm the proposed new gate location is where Ihe gate was originaUy to be Incu�ed in the OuUinc Plan approved by ihe ciry in 1997. Lol Covcraee Regarding the lot coverege for Ihis lot, hmvever, I take cxceplion lo some oFihe siatemenls in Ihc Sta1T RepwL 7he Staff Report menlions thnt'fom Giordwio, our land use consultam, H�ote n IeUer lo the city that speciticelly sfetcd that the building envclope was NOT the seme os a building fomprim and ihat the Int} would mect the 20% lut coveroge requiremenl for e RR-.5 zone. The slnf3� report says tha� Ihis shows tliat we never intended for the owners of the tots to be ablc io fully build out the lots. This inmrprein�ion is wmpletely wrtong and flies in ihe face of common sense. Tom Ginrdano hns wripen a ktter io ihe ciq• cortecting their interpretation, but �he S�nfCReport conlinues to make this (alse rending of wha� �ve wrote. While we stated �hal fhe lols would meet thc 20%coverage requiremem, we did not stnte how �ve would meet iha� requirement. We nssumed Ihat we �vauld, as ��•ns communly Jone in 1997 and is slill done now, meet the individuei lot coverage requirement bp nllocal{ng covern�e frmn Ihe open spnee to the lots. 163 Hilt Roed wna in a percel thnt hxd nn exceptionnlly Inrgc open spTCC 50% ihui wax lU times the minimwn requircJ by ihe zone. Nhile much of Ihis oycn space was slecp, Ashlnnd Municipal Code does nol disiinguish between sleep end Oa� arcas in regard to coverugo. Coverage is 20% of Ihe arez, regardlcss of how 11at or sleep the land is. Tho epplicent went fo build a house ihai is in keeping wi�h the size of houses in ihis area and is consisient with our intentions in developing the Sirewberry Meadows subdivision. I support Ihe applicants reques� to set their allowed lot coverege at 4,35G sq fl�ri1h nn edditional I,122 sq ft of permeable surface. 'Ihe shamd driveway is part of �he subdivision snd should be accounted for by allocuting coverege Prom ihe open spacc and should py{ be included in Iheir individual bt coverage. Aackeround on ot uverage Our fvst submission oF the Oulline Plnn tu the cily coniuincd n table showing ihe area oflhe lo�s und �hc building envelopes. It also contained e colwnn showing Ihe bnilding rnvelopes as a percentage of �he Iot sius. No�c tliol ihe ciry code slill requires n table in ihe Oulline Plnn showing the aree of eli improvemen�s and we wanted to meet thn� code requirement (we Inter realiud Ihat this reqnircment really only applied to Page 3 of 4 'subdivisions wilh spec houses built by (he developers). \Ve imended our iablc Io s6ow �hat tbe building envelopes could be compktely built out if the new lot owners wented io do so. N4 later realized th¢t Ihis was confusing, lt was elso inaccurute sinee the building f'uotprint could be smaller ihan lhe building emelope and that the lot coverege inciuded gazege eprons, sidcaalks, ctc. Ne therefore removed tha� wlumn [rom the nex� submission oC the OuUine Plan. Oue subdivision was challcnged at every level of approval by Ihe residents of lower Snawbcrry �vho didn't went an LIU and objecled ro the very idea of our subdivision in the first place. Atter our subdivision ��res approvcd by the Planning Commission, ihe opponenis wrote a shorl letler lo Ihc city challrnging Ihe general nature of ovr subdivision. There wns no specific mention of building envelopes or bt covernge. In response, Tom Giordano ��TO�e e lettcr to ihe ciry generally saying that we would meet all city wde requiremeNS. He mentioneA menv code rules Ihet �ee wrovld meet, including lot wvemge. Ne elso stateA that rve understood the fact ihn[ building envelope aress and building fomprinl arcas were differont meesuremen�s. He didn't expand our sta�anent to sey we would meet thc lot coverage rcyuirement by allocating wverage from tlie open space where npproprima This wes a common melhod used e� thal lime (particulady by Performance Op�ion subdivisions) and was rc ed for Meg Hrown's parcel io make wiy economic unse. We had ulready reccived Ou�line Plan approval Gom the Planning Uepartmenl and from �he Planning Commission for our subdivision. It just does no� make any sense �o imply �ha� we would h�ve willingly ruined Ihe value of some of the lots just to plecnte our opponen�s. ll seems unrcesonable �hat the city would epprove our Oulline Plan in 1997, let us spend our moncy devcloping Ihe IanA, and then try in 201 I(a full 14 ytars leterl) IO cripple the use of our lots wilh xrgumenis �hai m contra to whal we all agrecd ro. if the city wams �o prevrnt our use of our land, they shoulJ have done so in 1997 not now. Retroec�ive judgemcNS of this son damagt our rela�ionships wi�h one anoiher and aie probably mt even Iegal. The city needs to h000r thcir approval otour subdivision az of 997. To make changes in (he present moment that run contra to prior agreements is simply not right. The City of Ashland must ac� with intcgriry� or lose ell of its crcdibility. Page 4 of 4 ��a �i F r 'J �r' t� a k.,nS� �'+rsw. �,._4 S 7 Mark Knox 485 West Nevada St. Ashland, OR 97520. May 4, 2011 r��n�� 3 4 ;;:iiy C>i i3;:hi63C�ci y�:,, {'4iliti� n.lti,..,: Cliiicr�_...�..- RE: "Written Argument" submitted in advance of City Councii Land Use Appeal Planning Action #ZO10-01622 OwnerJApplicants: Scott Dixon and Joan Cresse Property: 163 Hitt Road I'happened to attend the Planning Commission meeting on January li, 2011, in connection with an entirely unrelated City Planning Action (Caldera Brewing). However, since I had a background involving prior planning actions concerning the "Strawberry Meadows" subdivision in which Scott Dixon/Joan Cresse own a vacant parcel in, I testified in favor of the above-referenced application at the public hearing. It's important for me to clarify that at the 7anuary 11, 2011 Planning Commission Hearing, I was not nor do I today represent Scott and Joan, but had in the past on this matter. Previousiy I had assisted Scott and Joan, approximately two years ago, on this subject issue, but excused myself because I felt that they understood the nuances of the various codes, history of the subdivision and history of the interpretations around lot coverage better than I did! They have poured hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars into this proposal in an attempt to obtain a lot coverage allocation that they shouid have already had. Nevertheless, since I did have prior experience with other planning actions involving the previously approved Strawberry Meadows subdivision, both as a City planner and, more recently, as a private planning consultant, I wanted to raise the foilowing points, which I previously raised at the Planning Commission hearing on ]anuary 11: Lot coverage allocations were done somewhat informally by the Planning In the years between 1998 (when the Strawberry Meadows subdivision was approved), through 2005. In 1998, when Scott and Joan's lot was approved as part of a Performance Standards Subdivision, if individual lot coverages were interpreted by City staff as it is today (excluding open space), the developers could have easily included an allocation table in their narrative associated with their Outiine Plan submissions similar to what I recently proposed for the McLelian Subdivision located off Strawberry and Hitt Road. At the time the Strawberry Meadows Outline Plan and Final Pian was approved, however, that was not the Planning Department's protocol because it was "understood" cluster housing in sensitive areas was a positive planning/environmental approach and that by restricting coverage to just the reduced/clustered size lot would be a disincentive to the Alternatively, in 1998, the developers could easily have changed the lot Iines to make larger lots and aliocate less area to the subdivision's prlvate open space. Meg Brown's 8 acre parcel contained 4 acres (50%) private open space allocation, at a time when the percentage of open space requfred by the City in the RR-.5 zone was only a minimum of something like 5%. IYs unfortunate that Scott and Joan, as a retired couple who purchased an approved residential lot for the purpose of building thefr home, have become wrapped up, through no fault of their own, in changing internal interpretations within the planning department. Sincerely, Mark Knox :Ii I' r Sandra L. Kuykendall 1436 Mill Pond Road Ashlond, OR 97520 May 4, 2011 Ashland City Council c/o f3ill Molnar, City Planning Director Ashland, Oregon 1 i i:::.� �i i 4 Mny zo�� iiL;� U� fi�i ii(zYI:.� ��?�f,l,_ ......�€(ii.'__._ Ci'il,i!'Il� Re: "Written Argument" submitted in advance of the City Council Land Use Appeal Planning Action f12010-01622 Owner/Applicants: Scott Dixon and Joan Cresse Property Address: 163 Hitt Road 1. I appeared at the Planning Commission meeting on January 11, 2011, and presented evidence and testimony in support of the planning application of Scott Dixon and Joan Cresse. I specifically addressed the City's "new' interpretation of the "maximum lot coverage" requirements as they apply to Scott and loan's Lot t� 6 of the Strawberry Meadows subdivision (163 Hitt Road). 2. The new Ashland code section for land use appeals seems to say that I need to submit a"written argumenY' in advance of the Council appeal hearing, even though I already spoke and offered documents for the record at the Planning Commission meeting on January 11. I am therefore offering the following "written argumenY' in order to comply with the City's new requirements for appeals. My "written argumenY' concerns the application submitted by Scott Dixon and Joan Cresse, and specifically concerns the issue of "maximum lot Page 1 of 5 vuza oFFice 5 florlh Main Ashland, OR 97520 (54])402-1040 coverage" as it applies to the unique situation associated with the Lot #6 of the Strawberry Meadows subdivision (Scott and Joan's lot at 163 Hitt Road). I submitted this letter to the Planning Commission on January 11, 2011, along with my oral testimony presented to the Planning Commission at the meeting: Jnnu;ny 12, 201 I 1'lanning Conuuission Cily of Ashland RG: StrawberryMcado�i�s5ubdivision i_ots u� us To Whotn il mny conccrn: �Cis';� i 'nzi��,m�;" 1'4ominG FsLibit t „�n l l .:�r��.:... P:. �r)�.:�t,'_= \��y�:l S�no 1.: Sl,n'ling 10-29-03, I lisled several Iois u�aned by Mw'g:�rel 13ru�vn Olsou. 1 also lisled more oftLese lots on G-26-04, incluJing Ihe )o� NG, which evenluallp sold lo Scott Uixa� and Jonn G�esse. \Nhen I IisleJ Ibe luts, 1 ebecked wilh �be plennas at thc city as to Ihe ��,�,�i; suitabilily Cor building ou Ilicsc lols and �vas told lh¢l b�ryers could Uuild anywliere inside ihe buildins envcloycs. 1 �VFIS flI50 IOI(I Ill.11 tO I'C�fll'(I f0 IOl NG 1IlTf (I1C SIO�)O WPS SUCII �Il'AI it ��•ould not be affected by the Hillside Ordiunnce. 1 reme�nber sitting nl �he eomputer as l6e plHnncr checkcd thc slopc of eacL of Ihc ]ots. Wlicn Mr. Dixon �a�ns looking x� loi N6, I told him lo chcck witl� Ilio city pinunm�s �o rcconfimi �vhnt 7 hnd tald bim since 1 wns nis� representing Ihe seller mid diA nnt wan� thm�c lo bc: nny misundersinnding. Everyone �vns on the snme pny,c. I nlso believe.d Ihi�l Ibe fi�rnu �he uvur eighl uurux ul'land Ih�d Mnrgtu'el Bi'uttin Olson hnJ, ahc ��•us a61� to hnve eight buildublc lols nppr��ved-- 8ie opun space �vas clesignnted 6�om hmd fi�om e�ich one of those luls. Si�nerely, ,,.._,,��r, v� S�ndy 14uykcudall, llroker Ga�eway Re�l Gslnle Page 2 of 5 4. Backeround. I am a licensed real estate broker with Gateway Real Estate in Ashland, and have been for many years. 5. In 2003, I listed several lots for the original owner/developer, Margaret ("Meg") Brown Olson. Meg lives at 385 Strawberry Lane, and was one of the original long-time property owners whose property was part of the larger Strawberry Meadows subdivision, approved by the City in 1998. 6. The "Meg Brown° portion of the Strawberry Meadows subdivision included 8 lots on Meg's 8 acres of land (one lot per acre). However, the 8 lots were "clustered" on 4 acres (50°/a of the parcel). The remaining 50% of the 8-acre parcel was contained in a 4 acre private "open space" lot. Meg believed that the lot coverage associated with the open space could be allocated to the lots in her portion of the subdivision. There was more than enough lot coverage available for allocation to allow all of the building footprints to completely fill their building envelopes and, additionally, account for all the guest parking spots and driveways drawn on the Outline Plan. 7. In 2004, I did my "due diligence" in connection with listing lot tt6 and Meg's other 6 lots that I listed for sale. i first met with City Planning Director John Mclaughlin, and discussed the lots I had listed for Meg Brown, including Lot q 6. John McLaughlin told me that the building footprints of the homes to be built on each of her lots could be as large as the entire building envelope as shown on the Outline Plan of the subdivision. According to John McLaughlin, this was possible because Meg erown had placed so much of her parcel area (4 of her 8 acres) into private open space for her portion of the Strawberry Meadows subdivision. 8. I then met with a City Planner (I believe it was Mark Knox), who used his computer to measure the slopes of the lots, confirming that Lot #6's slope was less than 25% and was, therefore, not subject to the provisions of the City's Hiliside Development Ordinance. Page 3 of 5 9. In 2005, when I sold Lot t# 6 to Scott and 1oan, I shared the above information with them prior to their purchase of Lot 6. 10. Here is the listing information I put together in 2004, showing that the Hillside Ordinance didn't apply to this lot: MLJ AgCDi Ueta� Agent Detail wlth Addl Plcs Report 6 LonC IneluJe Prop��ly 6ubyp� RaelCentlal Lo1� Rvev AaM1ISnJ 6trea! AtlJUU Wnw�Gerry 8dlut Soltl 4r�� bt�lerM Pilc�iwcre 6i,aeO,B06.36 TexACIID Lo15qR(spproa� 10505QOII�eQ) TRS 4G tC 8 Lol Acru (appma) OT93 Owupanl Vewnl Pl�oneto8how veoan4er�� Owne�Neme AlmpeielJ.B�wmOle00OOMIGDOM 3�1A)1 pe�1 of 1 OJ� ewNenBa. Asenael{on laea (3006) SNO/y�. CCF'S on file D�te OB/1810+ firoiretlon O�ro UBItiL06 Pentllnp OtN p629/p5 Ef\ImMaU Jalllnp U�1� Se111nB P��c� J55.000 B�IIInB Oa{a O)/'I VOS BP'F LP W.9] 6111inB AO��I Sently Hpykp�qe0 (10:'12W) P�me: 5CLE2Y�VlB �elllnp OHke Oslewey Reel E4e�e (ID: CihTE) Poc�e: 6it-9E2-10<O Selllnp Ce�l�yenl 8v11��0 Co-0fflc• Flnanvin 8e111n000mmenla Genvsl Inlo�metlon lax Yw�s OOroS 1ae�v 0a33.00 6u�aecllon AC T�zLatN O 4�gal�tl No f�CBR Yrtf Zoi11n8 (ifl .$P BIBn Y<e Elvmen�nry 6aM1OO1 JA Nelm�n Mitltll� Seheol Jp AS�ISM HIpM1SC„ool JAASM1IanO 911owlnp Votpnl ��.�.�auo�. V�eO�rtyNnho Nomncpe 9aws� PvbYC(Gty) \Vel�� Pudlo IClly) Ulllitles Avalle�le GeDlv� EbUdcly. Flbnr Oplim� Nelwal Ge�, TNepMne 6baM PBretl LOIO�sCllpllOn lIVal.3bpP-MOEOrBIB.\YOaEaO-VBitblly SIIeO�sc�ip�lm� 9ob0ivlalon Hem��lle App�we0 Te�m� Aaa�pbbb bM�, Conv�nXOne� Dacvm�nts on FII� See Rannrk� Vlsw N.WI11�In�,SeaRemelka �_�__�P/YSMINBy:$]ndyLNVyk!/IOC/I/OYlewnyRle/EatellP/pnp:691-O�l-IBIB V Nl lnb�mellon �ereb Iq91W� Uean verilled entl Is nol que�antaeU. COppIpM mS01t RepeFOnl Co�poieHen. All rlp�b uaarvea. U.S. Ptl�nl 8.4t0,09fi http::lsom Is.rnp�nis.com/sc�ipls/mgrqispi.dll /1 I /201 7 11. I didn't include the lot coverage information I received from Planning Director John McLaughlin in the actual listing because I believed it was an obvious Page 4 of 5 Olrocllon� Cr�nlblcNUllaY.vpNWeY.latlonA�nW1.R1.onSbe�vDeny.Le�tanM111. Na�kcUnp Remvk Bes� 10 �lew 101 Uom HIII RC. OeyOntl gab. BulMing gpvsppe h mptlly ysnlle abpe �rol eXecletl Ey Hl�bltle ONlnaoceq Yewf lo LMe ftotl� end Orizrly, qil yrMmg�aond uliYliq. Blook� b LII61� Perk. oHOI Hltl Imovph Dolbn ol prop��ly. CCLR'� on 54. point. I did, however, verbally convey to Scott and Joan the information conveyed to me concerning the building footprint for their future home could be as large as the entire building envelope. 12. I believe that the Planning Commission's new interpretation of lot coverage is unfair, because Meg Brown, Scott Dixon, Joan Cresse, and I all operated in good faith based upon the City's interpretation (in 2004) of the maximum lot coverage allowed for this lot. Their new interpretation is particularly unjust in light of the unique and unusual situation where Meg Brown set aside 50% of her 8-acre parcei (4 acres) for private open space. If the Planning Department had raised lot coverage as an issue in 1998, Meg Brown could have made the open space much smaller and each individual lot much larger. With 1 acre available per lot, Lot #6 would have more than enough lot coverage to completely build-out the building envelope and add the guest parking spots and driveways as drawn on the Outline Plan. Sincerely, �1�2� �/��''y�'�� Sandra L. Kuykendall Page5of5 C 1 T Y O F �SH LAN D Council Communication Approval of a Lease of the Imperatrice Property Meeting Date: May 17, 20] 1 Primary StaffContact James H. Olson Department: Public Works Eng. E-Mail: olsoni�ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Administration Secondary Contact: Michaei R. Faught Approval: Martha Bennet�� Estimated Time: 30 Minutes Question: Will Ihe Council approve an agreement with Standing Stone Brewing Co., for the lease of 265 acres of the Imperatrice Ranch property? Staft Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of an agreement with Standing Stone Brewing Co., for the lease of 265 acres of the Imperatrice Ranch property. Background: Standing Stone Brewing Company's (SSBC) proposal to lease 265 acres of the Imperatrice Ranch property was accepted by the Council on August 17, 2010. The proposal was submitted by SSBC as the result of a formal request for proposal process. At the August 17` meeting the Council moved to accept the SSBC proposal and directed staff to begin negotiations with SSBC for a two year lease. The Council further directed staff to access the fair market value of the property which has proved to be a difficult and time consuming process as there is litde published information on lease rates of unimproved nature grasslands which could apply specifically to the ]mperatrice property. After contacting numerous private land appraisers and govemmental agencies it was determined that a lease rate of $50 per acre was an equitable rate. The attached lease agreement addresses other concems which were voiced by the Council. Historv The 846 acre `9mperatrice Ranch" property was acquired in 1996 as a receiving site for effluent from the City's wastewater treatment plant. Using food and beverages tax proceeds, the City purchased the propeRy for $950,287.98. The plan to land apply the treatment plant effluent was ultimately rejected by the Council and the land was never developed nor utilized by the City. In an effoR to generate revenues that would cover the annual property costs (taxes, TID fees and ODF costs), the City entered into a lease agreement with Ron Anderson, an Eagle Point catde rancher, in 1998. This lease generated $1 1,000 in revenue for the first year. The original lease agreement with Mr. Anderson was for a one-year lease that expired on April 14, 1999. The lease was never renewed; however, Mr. Anderson continues to use the full 846 acres for cattle grazing on the same terms on a month-to-month basis paying $1,000 per month. The Council has elected to terminate Mr. Anderson's use of any portion of the property when the Standing Stone Brewing Co., (SSBC) lease becomes effective, even though SSBC will only be using 265 acres of land (that portion of the propeRy lying southerly of the TID East lateral). I of4 �r, C 1 T Y O F �SH LAN D The requirement that the lease incorporate a fair market value has been a difficult condition to satisfy. The�e is very little local information on lease rates of native unimproved grasslands, and few comparisons of very similar lands are available. There are basically two methods by which grass land lease rates are determined, either by the acre or by an animal unit month (AIUM). Even though SSBC's use of the propeRy will be for animal feeding and maintenance, the proposed mixed use includes not just cattle but chickens and possibly pigs. It would be less complicated to use a per acre cost. We experienced difficulty in finding an appraiser qualified to appraise fann values and especially lease rates of unimproved native grasslands. We contacted six private appraisers, from Klamath Falls to Salem who all stated that their schedules were full and their prices were high. The Salem appraiser, who was the only one with loca] experience had a 6 month backlog and estimated a fee of $6,500.00. In general appraisal fees ranged from $2,000.00 to $6,500.00. We also looked at information published by the Bureau of Land Management and by other states who commonly deal with large grassland lease. Rates varied from $9.80 per acre in Oklahoma to $86 per acres in Klamath Falls to $110 per acre in the Willamette Valley. The factors to be considered in per acre rates are how well managed the property is, how deep the soi1, whether it is pressure of flood irrigated, whether it is planted or native grass, if the land is hillside or bottom land and the•duration of the lease term. Generally hillside lands with native grasses, shallow or clayey soil and which aze minimally flood irrigated and unmanaged or maintained by the owner attract the lowest rates. The Imperatrice property fits all of the above categories of the least valuable lands. Mr. Randy White of the Jackson Soil and Water Conservation District was able ro provide additional information on lease rates for properties similar to the Imperatrice Ranch Properties. He indicated that $50 per acre for native grass, hillside properties with shallow soil depths was most likely the highest value obtainable. At $50 per acre, the lease would generate $13,250.00 annually which would more than cover the annual City expenses for the property. Following is a list of the costs associated with the entire 846 acres comprising the Impertafice Ranch Property: A. 2010 Taxes l. Lot 38 1 E27- 00 =$204.47 2. Lot 38 1 E28-500 =$130.05 3. Lot 38 1 E28-600 53.24 4. Lot 38 1 E28-700 I 21.70 5. Lot 38 1 E32-100 2.92 6. Lot 38 1 E32-200 52.67 7. Lot 38 1 E33-200 $311.29 TOTAL $876.84 B. Oregon Dept. of Forestry (ODF) Fire protection services=$1,075.67 C. Talent Irrigation District (TID) Imgation Services $8,365.00 TOTAL $10,317.51 C 1 T Y O F �SH LAN D The above costs are based upon 2010 payments received. Costs for 2011 and subsequent years are expected to be slightly higher. It is recommended that SSBC pay $13,250.00 per year for 265 acres. The City currently receives $12,000/per year from Ron Anderson for the use of 846 acres. Description of Leased Area The SSBC lease includes only that portion of the Imperatrice Property situated below the Talent Imgation District (TID) east lateral which includes approximately 265 acres. The actual description of the ]ease is as follows: All that portion of the following listed tax lots lying southerly and westerly of (or below) the Talent Irrigation District East Lateral: 38 1 E 32-100 (excepting property west of Butler Creek Rd.) 38 lE 32-200 38 1 E 33-200 Total acreage contains 265 acres more or less. Lease Conditions and Obligations Through the Request of Proposal (RFP) process, it was made clear that several special conditions would be attached to this lease. The following conditions are attached to the lease in the main body of the ]ease agreement or in the attached Exhibits C. I. Lessee shall use the land in accordance with a proposa] submitted to the City on June 29, 2010, (attached as Exhibit B). 2. Lessee will erect any and al) required fences and will thereafter keep and maintain all fences upon these premises in as good order, condition, and repair as they exist at the beginning of the Lease tertn, allowing for any reasonable deterioration from the elements or damage by natural causes. (Exhibit C). i.) Lessee will fence or otherwise protect using best management practices all riparian areas from damages by livestock. Riparian areas shall include the Hamby Spring, the TID canal, and the unnamed seasonal creek along the east boundary of Lot 38 1 E 33- 200 (Exhibit C). 3. Lessee will control and direct all irrigation water overflow so that no waters shall be directed onto adjacent properties or right-of-ways except at appropriate and approved facilities constructed for such purpose. (Exhibit C). 4. Lessee will irrigate the Property using water supplied by the TID and, when reasonably available, will accommodate the use of City wastewater effluent for all approved irrigation use. (Exhibit C). 5. Lessee will defend, indemnity and save City harmless from any all losses, claims actions etc., resulting from the use of the property (Section 13). 6. Lessee shall obtain and maintain continuously in effect at all times during the term of the lease, comprehensive liability and property insurance. (Section 12). 7. Lessee shall keep and maintain the premises and all improvements in good repair at all times. (Section 4). 8. All operations at lessee shall be in conformance with Jackson County Land Development Ordinances. (Section 0.4). 9. Lessee is not permitted to cultivate controlled substances. (Section 0.5).. C 1 T Y O F �SH LAN D The above list of terms and obligations is an outline only. The actual document is much more comprehensive and bears careful review. The Council may wish to modify these terms and obligations. Termination of Existin� Use of Property The entire 846 acres of property is currently being used by Ron Anderson an Eagle Point cattle rancher. The Council has elected to terminate his use of the property upon SSBC leased usage of the lower 265 acres. The 581 acres lying above the TID east lateral will be used and vacant. Terms of Lease The agreement states that the lease term shall commence on June 201 1 and end on June 2013. A renewal option is available, but the terms of the renewal are not set forih in this document and would be addressed near the end of this lease unless the Council would wish to set specific renewal terms. Related City Policies: The City has acted prudendy and openly to obtain the best possible terms for the use and maintenance of its lands. An invitation for the use of the property was legally advertised, and adequate time provided to prepare and submit proposals for the use of the property. The two proposals which were received were impartially reviewed and SSBC was selected as the proposal most fitting the City's needs and requirements. This lease will be the culmination of this process which began in June I 5, 2009. Council Options: Counci] may approve the attached ]ease to SSBC. Council may approve the attached lease to SSBC with additions or alterations Council may decline to approve the lease to SSBC. Potential Motions: Move to approve the attached lease to SSBC. Move to approve the attached lease to SSBC with additions or alterations Move to reject the lease in its entirely. Attachments: Lease Agreement (Exhibits A, B& C) Map 4of4 �r, IMPERATRICE RANCH GROUND LEASE AGREEMENT FOR RANCHING AND SUSTAINABLE FARMING THIS AGREEMENT (the "Lease") is entered into between the CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON, by and through the City Council, hereinafter referred to as City, and Standing Stone Brewing Company (SSBC�, hereinafter referred to as Lessee. RECITALS A. City owns property located at See, Exhibit A attached and incorporated. (the "Property"). B. Lessee desires to lease Property for purposes of operating a ranch and farm according to Lessee's proposal under City Request for Proposal (RFP) Project 2009-12, attached as Exhibit B and fully incorporated as terms of this Lease. C. City desires to lease Property to the Lessee under the circumstances set forth in this Lease. In consideration of the matters described above, and of the mutual benefits and obligations set forth in this Lease, the paRies agree as follows: Description of Leased Property. City agrees to lease to Lessee Property located at See, Exhibit A. Property has an area of approximately 265 acres. The lessee will use Property to operating a ranch and farm according to Lessee's proposal under City Request for Proposal (RFP) Project 2009-12 as attached and incorporated under this Lease. ("Property"). 2. Term. The term of this lease shall be for a maximum of two (2) years, commencing on June 1, 2017, and ending on June 1, 2013. 2.1. Option io Renew. The Lessee has an option to renew this lease for successive 2-year terms by providing City with written notice not less than 3 months before the expiration of the current term of this Lease. 2.2. Either party may terminate this lease at any time upon 90 days prior written notice to the other party. 2.2.1. Damages assessed to the terminating party for early termination will begin on the date of notice and will be the yearly rate divided by the remaining days on the term of the lease, plus, if Lessee terminates, any past due fees or accrued assessments on the property for which Lessee is otherwise obligated to pay under the Lease. 2.3. If Lessee is not in default, Lessee shall have the first right of refusal to lease the premises from the City at the rates and terms as established within the reasonable discretion of the City. In no event shall delay in obtaining permits from any city, state or federal agencies be deemed as automatically requiring an extension of the term of this Lease. Nor shall such delay be interpreted as requiring the City to approve an extension of this Lease. 3. Lease Fees. 3.1. Rental Rate. Lessee agrees to pay to City an annual rental of $50/acre, per year for the use of Property. Lessee agrees to pay to City, for the use of the Property, a rental rate of $13,250.00/year. The first year's rent will be payable on execution of the Lease, and the second year will be due one (1) month before the anniversary of the commencement of this Lease. 3.2. Citv Fee Obliqation. The City will pay the following fees and costs: 3.2.1. Talent Irrigation District (TID) Annual Assessment; Page 1 of 8—IMPERATRACE LEASE FOR RANCHING AND SUSTAINABLE FARMING 3.2.2. Oregon Department of Forestry Fire Protection Fee; and 3.2.3. Jackson County Property Tax. 3.3. Rent. Rent will become past due ten days past the due date and the City will charge interest of 1.5% per month on past due rent. 3.4. SecuriN Deposit. [Not Applicable]. 4. Maintenance. Lessee shall keep and maintain the premises and all improvements in good and substantial repair and condition, including the exterior condition. 4.1. Lessee shall make all necessary major repairs and alterations and shall maintain the premises and all improvements in compliance with all applicable building and zoning laws and all other laws, ordinances, orders and requirements of all authorities having or claiming jurisdiction. 4.2. Lessee shall keep and maintain all fences upon the premises, or which may be erected during the Lease term, in a sightly manner, and in good condition and repair to effectively serve their purpose. 4.3. Lessee shall provide proper containers for trash and garbage and shall keep the premises free and clear of weeds, rubbish, debris, and litter at all times. 4.4. City shall have the right to conduct reasonable inspections and investigations of the property and the operations conducted on the premises at any time, and from time to time with reasonable advance notice, and Lessee shall cooperate fully with City during such inspections and investigations. 5. Construction. Lessee shall have the right to erect, maintain, and alter such facilities as structures, fencing and irrigation systems upon the leased property provided such facilities conform to the applicable requirements of all federal, state, and local laws. All plans for such facilities or improvements shall be reviewed and approved in writing by the City prior to construction; such approval not being unreasonably withheld. Without the appropriate land use approvals all use of Property must cease and desist immediately. 6. Land Use Approvals Required_ This Lease is not a land use approval. Lessee is not the City's agent and City is not the Lessee's agent for purposes of any contracts or commitments made by either party. Lessee acknowledges and agrees that future preliminary and/or final approvals, including plans, plan amendments, plan modifications, civil plans (construction plan approval), construction permits and building permits are subject to compliance with all applicable approved plans, approval conditions and applicable land development regulations in effect at the time the approvals are sought. No rights to obtain preliminary and/or final approvals, including plans, plan amendments, plan modifications, or building permits nor any other rights to develop and/or construct on Property have been granted or implied simply by the City's approval of this Lease Lease. Lessee must fully comply with all approved plans, approval conditions and all applicable laws in effect at the time the final approvals are sought. Lessee, or its successors and assigns, may not attempt to force, coerce or intimidate the City to approve the final plan or grant other construction authorizations, including building permits, by asserting that the City has committed to such approvals for construction on any parcel at the Property based on the theory of vested rights, equitable estoppel, or any other legal theory based on the City's approval of this Lease or any associated agreement. This Lease does not grant Lessee the right to move or construct anything on any parcel other than the described Property. City approval of final plans and/or construction orders requires strict compliance with applicable planning procedures, approval conditions and the applicable criterion for approval. Page 2 of 8—IMPERATRACE LEASE FOR RANCHING AND SUSTAINABLE FARMING 7. Title to Improvements. Upon completion of construction, if any, and the final approved structural inspection, improvements included in the Planning Action, including any further improvements to the property approved by any other authority, shall become and remain property of Lessee. 8. Rights Reserved to the City. The City reserves the following rights: 8.1. Improve Propertv. The right to develop or improve the Property without interFerence or hindrance of the �essee. 8.2. Maintain Propertv. The right, but not the obligation, to maintain and keep the Property in good repair, together with the right to direct and control all activities of Lessee not in conformance with the Lease. 8.3. Protect Prooertv. The right to take any action considered necessary to protect the Property from waste or nuisance, together with the right to prevent Lessee from erecting, or permitting to be erected, any building or other structure on the Property which, in the opinion of the City, would limit the usefulness of the Property and constitute a hazard. 8.4. Temporary closures. The right to temporarily close or to restrict the use of the Property or any of the facilities for maintenance, improvement, or for the safety of the public. Lessee is entitled to full abatement of rent during such temporary closures. 9. Non-appropriations; No Agency. The City and Lessee are entering into this Lease voluntarily in the spirit of cooperation and coordination to facilitate Lessee's desire to lease Property for purposes set forth in Exhibit B. However, nothing in this Lease makes the City responsible for the contracts or commitments of Lessee regarding development to achieve Lessee's desired outcome. Lessee is not subject to public contracting rules and regulations and nothing herein makes Owner subject to such public agency requirements. 9.1. All City obligations pursuant to this Lease which require the expenditure of funds are contingent upon future appropriations by the City as part of the local budget process. Nothing in this Lease implies an obligation on the City to appropriate any such monies. City acknowledges that following the required review and approval of the coniract or Lessee's and sustainable farming operation on the Property is not an obligation that would require the expenditure of funds; therefore, Lessee's leasing the Property is not contingent upon future appropriations by the City. 10. Lessee Obligations 10.1. When commercial activities permitted. Lessee may conduct any related commercial activities upon obtaining a business license, as specified in the City of Ashland Ordinances. 10.2. Utilities. Lessee shall promptly pay any charges for electricity, water and sewer, and all other charges for utilities which may be furnished to the premises at Lessee's order or consent. 10.3. Liens, Taxes. Lessee shall pay all sums of money that become due for any labor, services, materials, supplies, utilities, furnishings, machinery or equipment which have been furnished or ordered by Lessee which may be secured by lien against the premises. Lessee shall pay all real and personal property taxes assessed against the premises, such payments to be made no later than November 15 of the year in which the taxes become due and payable, and will submit a copy of the receipt for the taxes to the City's Director of Finance. 10.4. Compliance with laws. Lessee shall comply with: 10.5. All federal, state, county, and city laws, orders and ordinances; Page 3 of 8—IMPERATRACE LEASE FOR RANCHING AND SUSTAINABLE FARMING 10.5.1. Local Laws. The terms, restrictions and requirements of approvals are set forth in the applicable County and State statutes and regulations, the preliminary and final approvals, and this Lease. All local development approvals and permits identified by local law or this Lease shall be obtaihed at the sole cost of lhe Lessee. The failure of this Lease to address a particular permit, condition, term or restriction shall not relieve Lessee of the duty to comply with any laws governing permitting requirements, conditions, terms or restrictions. 10.5.2. Fencinq. Lessee will act with City to install fencing in a manner that separates or divides the Property in a manner that protects canals and irrigation facilities from encroachment and damage by livestock. 10.6. Lessee is not permitted to grow or cultivate any forms of commonly used controlled substance as defined under Federal or State law such as, but not limited to, marijuana or industrial hemp as defined under ORS 571.300. 10.7. Lessee's Specific Compliance With Environmental Laws. As used in this paragraph, the term "hazardous material" means any hazardous or toxic substance, material, or waste, including, but not Iimited to, those substances, materials, and wastes listed in the United States Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Table (49 C.F.R. 172.101) or by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as hazardous substances (40 C.F.R. Part 302) and any amendments, ORS 466.567, 466.205, 466.640 and 468.790 and regulations of the Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality, petroleum products and their derivatives, and such other substances, materials and wastes as become regulated or subject to cleanup authority under any environmental laws. Environmental laws means any federal, state, or local statutes, regulations, or ordinances or any judicial or other governmental orders pertaining to the protection of health, safety, or the environment. 10.7.1. Lessee's compliance with laws and permits. Lessee shall cause the premises and all operations conducted on the premises (including operations by any subtenants) to comply with all environmental laws. 10.7.2. Flammables and explosives orohibited. Lessee shall not store any flammable or explosive liquids or solids within the premises without a permit. For the purpose of this rental agreement, "flammable or explosive liquids or solids" shall not apply to fuei or other flammables contained within any vehicle used or stored at the Property. Fueling of vehicles while in any enclosed storage facility is strictly prohibited. 10.7.3. Limitation on uses of hazardous materials. Lessee shall not use or allow any agents, contractors or subtenants to use the premises to generate, manufacture, refine, transport, treat, store, hand�e, recycle, release or dispose of any hazardous materials, other than as reasonably necessary for the operation of Lessee's activities as contemplated under this lease. 10.7.4. Disposal and contamination clean-up. Lessee shall be responsible for disposing of all hazardous materials in compliance with environmental laws, and Lessee shail be responsible for any environmenta� clean-up of the premises that is necessary due to Lessee's activities. Lessee shall not be responsible for any environmental cleanup of the premises resulting from activities not authorized by the Lessee such as trespass or pre- existing contamination. 10.8. Sqecific Obliqations. Lessee shall have the specific obligations: See, Attached Exhibit C and incorporated. 11. Damage or Destruction of Premises. Lessee shall be responsible for damage or destruction to the premises or any improvements resulting from Lessee's operations, or anything done or permitted by Lessee under this lease. If the premises or any improvements are damaged or Page 4 of 8—IMPERATRACE LEASE FOR RANCHING AND SUSTAINABLE FARMING destroyed by fire or other casualty as a result of activities by Lessee, 11.1. Lessee shall: 11.1.1. Promptly repair, rebuild or restore the property damaged or destroyed to substantially the same condition consistent with the applicable building codes; and 11.1.2. Apply for any net proceeds of insurance resulting from claims for such losses, as well as any additional money of Lessee necessary. 11.2. If the damage or destruction which occurs is such that the cost of repair, rebuilding or restoration of the property damaged or destroyed exceeds 50% of the fair market value of the improvements, Lessee shall have the option within 60 days from the date of damage or destruction, to notify City in writing whether or not Lessee elects to repair, rebuild, or restore in as provided in this section or to terminate this lease. Upon giving such notice to terminate, this lease shall terminate on the date specified in the notice and City shall be entitled to the net proceeds of insurance. 12. Insurance. Lessee shall obtain and maintain continuously in effect at all times during the term of this lease, at Lessee's sole expense, the following insurance: 12.1. Comprehensive insurance. Owner's, landlord and tenant or premises insurance protecting City and its o�cers, agents and employees against any and all liabilities that may allegedly in any way relate to the operation by Lessee, this insurance to be in the minimum amount of $[Enter Amount set by Risk], combined single limit coverage. Such limit shall automatically increase in the event of any change in the provisions of ORS 30.270, or in the event these limits are found to be not totally applicable to a city. 12.1.1. All policies shall include the City, its officers, commissions, elected officials, employees and agents as additional insured with respect to general liability and vehicle liability on a primary and non-contributory basis. 12.1.2. A certificate evidencing such insurance coverage shall be filed with the City pfiOf to the effective date of this lease, and such certificate shall provide that such insurance coverage may not be canceled or reduced or changed in any way adverse to the City without at least 30 days prior written notice to the City. The policy shall be continuous until canceled as stated above. If such insurance coverage is canceled or changed, Lessee shall, not later than 15 days prior to the termination or change in the insurance coverage, file with the City a certificate showing that the required insurance has been reinstated or provided through another insurance company or companies. Cancellation or termination of the policy shall terminate the lease. 12.1.3. In the event Lessee shall faii to furnish the City with the certificate of insurance required, City may secure the required insurance or self-insure at the sole cost and expense of Lessee, and Lessee agrees to reimburse City promptly for the cost, plus ten percent of the cost for City administration. 12.2. Propertv Insurance. Lessee shall bear the expense of any insurance insuring the personal property of Lessee on the premises against such risks, but Lessee shall not be required to insure his personal property. 12.2.1. City shall bear the expense of Oregon Department of Forestry fire protection fee. 13. Indemnification; Waiver of Subrogation. Lessee will defend, indemnify and save City, its officers, employees and agents harmless from any and aIl losses, claims, actions, costs, expenses, judgments, subrogations, or other damages resulting from injury to any person (including injury resulting in death,) or damage (including loss or destruction) to property, of whatsoever nature arising out of or incident to this lease or the activities that take place on leased property. Lessee waives the right of subrogation regarding the insurance policy as described in the Insurance Section in this Lease. Lessee will not be held responsible for damages caused by negligence of City. Page 5 of 8—IMPERATRACE LEASE FOR RANCHING AND SUSTAINABLE FARMING 14. Default 14.1. Events of Default. The following shall be events of default: 14.1.1. Default in Rent: Failure of Lessee to pay any rent or other charge within ten days after it is due. 14.1.2. Default in Other Covenants: Failure of Lessee to comply with any covenant, term or condition, or to fulfill any obligation of the lease (other than the payment of rent or other charges) within 30 days after written notice by City specifying the nature of the default. if the default is such that it cannot be completely remedied within the 30-day period, this provision shall be complied with if Lessee begins correction of the default within the 30- day period and proceeds in good faith to effect the remedy as soon as practicable. 14.1.3. Insolvencv: Insolvency of Lessee and assignment by Lessee for the benefit of creditors; the filing by Lessee of a voluntary petition in bankruptcy; an adjudication that Lessee is bankrupt or the appointment of a receiver of the properties of Lessee; the filing of an involuntary petition of bankruptcy and failure of the Lessee to secure a dismissal of the petition within 30 days after filing; attachment of or the levying of execution on the leasehold interest and failure of the Lessee to secure discharge of the attachment or release of the levy of execution within ten days. 14.2. Remedies on Default. In the event of a default, the City at its option may terminate the lease by notice in writing by certified or registered mail to Lessee. The notice may be given before or within thirty days after the running of the grace period for default and may be included in a notice of failure of compliance. If the property is abandoned by Lessee in connection with a default, termination shall be automatic and without notice. 14.3. Damaqes. In the event of termination by default, City shall be entitled to recover immediately the following amounts as damages: 14.3.1. The reasonable cost of re-entry and reletting including the cosl of any clean up, refurbishing, removal of Lessee`s property and fixtures, or any other expense occasioned by Lessee's failure to quit the premises upon termination and to leave the premises in the required condition, any remodeling costs, attorney fees, court costs, broker commissions and advertising cost. 14.3.2. The loss of reasonable lease fee value from the date of default until a new tenant has been or, with the exercise of reasonable efforts could have been secured. 14.4. Re-entry After Termination. If the lease is terminated for any reason, Lessee's liability to City for damages shall survive such termination, and the rights and obiigations of the parties shall be as follows: 14.4.1. Lessee shall vacate the premises immediately, and within thirty (30) days remove any property of Lessee including any fixtures which Lessee is required to remove at the end of the lease term, perform any cleanup, alterations or other work required to leave the property in the condition required at the end of the term. City may re-enter, take possession of the premises and remove any persons or property by legal action or by self- help with the use of reasonable force and without liability for damages. 14.5. Re-lettinq. Following re-entry or abandonment, City may re-let the premises and to that end the City may: 14.5.1. Make any suitable alterations or refurbish the premises, or both, or change the character or use of the premises, but City shall not be required to re-let for any use or purpose (other than that specified in the lease) which City may reasonably consider injurious to the premises, or to any tenant which City may reasonably consider objectionable. 14.5.2. Re-let all or part of the premises, alone or in conjunction with other propeRies, for a term longer or shorter than the term of this lease, upon any reasonable terms and Page 6 of 8—IMPERATRACE LEASE FOR RANCHING AND SUSTAINABLE FARMING conditions, including the granting of some lease fee-free occupancy or other lease fee concession. 15. Assignment of Interest or Rights. Without prior written approval, neither Lessee or any assignee or other successor of Lessee shall sublease, assign, transfer or encumber any of Lessee's rights in and to this lease or any interest, nor license or permit the use of the rights granted except as provided in this paragraph. Lessee shall not assign all or any part of its rights and interests under this lease to any successor through merger, consolidation, or voluntary sale or transfer of substantially all of its assets, without prior written approval of the City. Written approval of the City shall not be unreasonably withheld. 16. Condemnation. If any legally, constituted authority condemns the Property or such part thereof which shall make the Property unsuitable for leasing, this Lease shall cease when the public authority takes possession, and Landlord and Tenant shall account for rental as of that date. Lessee shall not have any rights in or to any award made to City by the condemning authority and further waives any action or remedy to recover compensation against the condemning authority for any loss or damage caused by the condemnation. 17. General Provisions. 17.1. No Partnershio or Joint Venture. Nbthing in this Lease shall be construed to render the City in any way or for any purpose a partner joint venture or associate in any relationship with Lessee other than that of City and Lessee nor shall this Lease be construed to authorize either party to act as agent for the other. 172. Nonwaiver. Waiver by either party of strict performance of any provision of this lease shall not be a waiver of or prejudice the party's right to require strict performance of the same provision in the future or of any other provision. 17.3. Consent of Citv. Whenever consent, approval or direction by the City is required, all such consent, approvai or direction shall be received in writing from the City Administrator. 17.4. Notices. All notices required under this lease shall be deemed to be properly served if sent by certiiied or registered mail to the last address previously furnished by the parties. Until changed by the parties by notice in writing, notices shall be sent to: C ITY: City of Ashland Attn: City Administrator 20 Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 LESSEE: Standing Stone Brewing Company Attn: Alex Amarotico 101 Oak Street Ashland, OR 97520 17.5. Governinq Law. This Lease and all matters relating to this Lease shall be governed by the laws of the State of Oregon in force at the time any need for interpretation of this Lease or any decision or holding concerning this Lease arises. 17.6. Extraterritorial Requlation. Nothing in this Lease shall interfere with the legislative authority of City under ORS 226.010 or any other provision of state law. 17.7. Bindinq on Successors. This Lease shall be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs executors administrators successors and assigns of the parties hereto. 17.8. Entrv for Insqection. City shall have the right to enter on the Property at any time to determine Lessee's compliance with this Lease or to make necessary repairs to the Property whether or not such inspection is made the duty of City to make repairs shall not mature until a reasonable time after City has received written notice from Lessee of the repairs that are required In addition City shall have the right at any time during the last twelve months of the Page 7 of 8—IMPERATRACE LEASE FOR RANCHING AND SUSTAINABLE FARMING term of this Lease to place and maintain on the Property notices for leasing or selling of the Property. 17.9. Holdover by Lessee. If the Lessee does not vacate the Property at the time required the City shall have the option to treat the Lessee as a Lessee from month to month subject to all provisions of this lease except the provision for term. 17.10. Severabilitv. If any provision of this Lease is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be either invalid void or unenforceable the remaining provisions of this Lease shall remain in full force and effect unimpaired by the holding. 17.11. Recordinp of Lease. City and Lessee may agree to execute a memorandum of this Lease which shall be recorded in Jackson County Oregon The Memorandum of Lease in the form of Exhibit D attached which sets forth a description of the Property, specify terms in the Lease and incorporate this Lease by reference. 17.12. Entire Aqreement. This Lease and its attachments constitute the sole and only agreement between City and Lessee respecting the leasing of the Property to Lessee. Any agreements or representations respecting the Property their leasing to Lessee by City or any other matter discussed in this Lease not expressly set forth or incorporated into this Lease are nuil and void. INTENDING TO BE BOUND, the parties have executed this Lease as of the date written below. LESSEE: Alex Amarotico, President, SSBC Date ORDER Pursuant to ORS 271.360 the governing body hereby approves and authorizes the terms of this lease as set forth above. CITY Mayor/Mayor's Designee, City of Ashland Date Page 8 of 8—IMPERATRACE LEASE FOR RANCHING AND SUSTAINABLE FARMING C I T Y O F �SHLAND EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE LEAS�D TO STANDING STONE BREWING COMNANY A tract of Land locatcd in Jackson County Oregon and more fully described as follows: All that portion of the following listed tax lots which ]ie southerly and westedy of the Talent Irrigatio� District easl lateral: 1. 38 1 E 32-lot 00 (exccpting property west of BuUer Creek Road) 2. 38 1 E 32-lot 200 3. 38 lE 33-lot 200 Containing 265 acres morc or less. City of Ashland to Standing Stone Brewing Co. Apri126, 2011 Engineering Te1:541l488-5347 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-/488-6006 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: BOM35-2900 www.ashland.or.us G;pub-wrks�rg\Fxhibit A SSBC Imperatrice Property 4 26 11.doc EXHIBIT B P[op�l to City of Ashland, Oregon, Ps�tLI��WOrks(Engineering_Division Beneficial Use of the Imperatrice Property Project zoo9-tz Prelude This proposal is hereby su6mitted by the Standing Stone Brewing Company (SSBC) in response to the City of Ashland RFP for the beneficial use of the Imperatrice Property, Project No. zoo9-iz distributed on May z8, zoio. The applicant has examinetl the subject RFP and hereby acknowledges alI details and provisions of the City's proposal process. Proposed �gi�ial Use of.ih�.lm�erat[ice Properry SSBC curcently owns and manages its own bevy of egg-laying hens and thereby putting its knowledge of sustainable farming into praUice. SSBC proposes to operate a sustainable farm (closed loop farm system) upon the subject Imperatrice property to produce healthy, delicious food locally to support its restaurant and brewing operetion here in Ashland, Oregon. More specifically, the farm operation would include raising chickens for meat and egg production with the use of mobile paddocks (chicken tractors). Additional livestock (beef, lamb and turkey) would eventually be added to the operation. .4 Su�tainability SSBC's proposed farm use would create a local source for a portion of the food that is required to operate the restaurant and brewing cornpany; the distance between the subject property and the Standing Stone is one mile. A key benefit of this proposal is the reduction of vehicle miles, part of a national goal to reduce carbon emissions. Another component of the SSBC Farm is recycling. The pre-consumption food scraps and spent grains generated by the SSBC restaurant and brewing operation are currently trensported to a variety of local farms. These materials would be used to support the livestock of the proposed farm use upon the Imperatrice property. This recyding SSBC Proposal for Beneficial Use of Imperatrice Property— Pro�ect zoo9-u Page t of 6 component of the operation would continually make its sustainabie loop in the system, all within a round-trip distance of two (z) miles between the Standing Stone and the farm. SSBC has factored two other benefits into the sustainability equation: Job creation and education. The proposed farm operation would, on various levels, employ a range of skills sets. People would be put to work to manage the farm operation, consult on sustainable farm practices, work the land, transport (albeit a short disYance), harvest food, manage property, apply for land use permits and coordinate with City agencies. The employment would sustain those individuals in the present and benefk the families of those individuals in future times. The consumption of these thriving workers would be economically linked to other parts of our local system and a part of our community's needs would be met now and in the future. Education is a key component of the SSBC Farm Operation as SSBC intends to provide a venue for Farm Education Programs. Education in itself is that essential human activity that enables society to meet its needs and express its greatest potential for meeting its needs in the future. We believe that education is an effective societal approach for achieving sustainability. g.z P�c Benefit VQhisle M�es: The essential purpose of the proposed SSB� farm use is to operete a sustainable system for producing local, healthy food. As has been affirmed in this proposal, a local food source helps in the reduction of vehicle miles. IYs a national goal to reduce VMT and the benefits reduce greenhouse gas generated from cars and help to reduce our dependency upon oil; hence, the first public be�efit of the proposed SSBC farm use is its design to reduce vehicle miles. E��ation: The Standing Stone Brewing Company (SSBC) likes to share and tell its story. Sharing is how we educate and how we learn. Our proposed farm use would Include public access to demonstrate how local food is produced sustainably for the restaurant. Sharing with the public how the farm system works is how sustainable practices become integrated into our culture. We submit to the City that our willingness and our plan to schedule tours is a public benetit. tJ9 ExtQ�al C�s tp�ublic: The proposed SSBC farm use would be operated such that no spillover or external costs will be borne by the public. For example, the operation will be developed such that the natural appearance of the property is preserved. The generation ot traffic will be minimal and limited to approximately 6 trips per day (total: 6 miles). Internal vehicle drives will be maintained during the summer months to abate dust. SSBC Proposai for Beneficial Use of Imperatrice Property Pro�ect xoo9-72 Page z of 6 4•3�sing��lan Attached to this proposal is the 4peratiQOS Plan for che SSBC Closed Loop farm System, dated May zo, zo�o. The research, analysis and preparation of the Qperat4ns Pl�r was completed by 7eam Grass Fed (TGF), a group of graduate students at Presfdio Graduate School in San Francisco, Califomia (lon Bevan, 7ane' Minnick, Eric Strongand Stocey Waldspurger}: The plan includes a detailed cost benefit analysis for the development of a local food production source for the Standing Stone Brewfng Company (SSBC). The objectives of the closed loop farm system dovetail seamlessly into the SSBC sustainability formula because meat production is a major coneributor to green house gases. The proposed local food source would further redu�e SSBCs continually-decreasing carbon footprint. g,.q_En vi rpntn e n�$tew�� h i p a) The proposed land use includes primarily animal husbandry and does not generate any particulate matter into the air. As stated in a previous section, SSBC will practice dust control on internal driveways as is necessary. b) The proposed farm use does not include any industrial noise whatsoever and will not generate continual noise that would impact adjacent property owners. From time to time there will be minor construction of fences and coops that w(II be conducted pursuant to the noise regulations set forth in the Jackson County Code. c) The acreage under Iease will be observed continually in order to determine ways to improve the health of the soil and to manage natural drainage patterns on the site. The proposed farm use itself will not generate any soil erosion. It is also noted that the proposed farm use will shift about the site with the use of mobile paddocks and wiil only utilize a small portion (estimated to be io acres, 3.8% of the site) of the z65 acros at any given time. d) As noted above the farm operation will be conducted upon a small percentage of the subject acreage and will have no effect upon wildlife. Our objective will be to separate local varmints from the livestock to reduce inventory shrinkage. SSBC affirms its intention to improve this land and its soil from its current condition and to continually maintain its health for future generatlons. Also key in this proposal is the reduction of vehide miles, part of our national goal to reduce carbon emissions. SSBC Proposal for Beneficial Use of Imperatrice Property- Project zoog-iz Page 3 of 6 4S�a�tewater EffluQ�� 1�,e SSBC acknowledges the primary purpose for the City acquiring the subject property. The applicanYs proposed farm use within the z-year time frame will only require a small port(on of the z65 acres; therefore, it is expected that the proposed use will not preclude the discharge of treated effluent from the City's wastewater treatment tacility should that occur within the timeframe of the short-term lease. 9=4—?�he�nce to Jackspn_CQunty Land Developrq�lL.QCS!(IIantes In reviewing the wrrent Jackson County Land Development Ordinance (LDO), the appiicant concludes that SSBC's proposed farm use described above is a Type use, permitted by right and only requiring non-discretionary staff review (pursuant to Section 4.z.z and Table 4.z-i for Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zoned Iand,lackson County LDO. Moreover, any permanent or temporary structures necessary to manage livestock are also permitted upon EFU-zoned property in accordance with uses listed as tlz and #4 on Table 4.z-i of the current Jackson County LDO. Depending upon the design and particular use, temporary structures used in coniunction with farm use may require a Type z dfscretionary review and an opportunity for a public hearing. 7he applicant is prepared to engage in preliminary meetings with the County Planning Staff and submit the necessary permit applications to operate the proposed farm use. y� Lease S�rms The applicant understands that a lease ag,reement will be designed to match the spec'rfic proposal that is awarded the property lease. If awarded the lease, SSBC will be available to participate in that process with the City. 5.2_Indemnificatio_n The lease agreement shall indemnify the City of Ashland from any and all actions of the leaseholder on the City-owned Imperatrice property. 5,31nsurance Through Travelers Insurance Company (Agent: United RiskSOlutions), SSBC shall provide general liability insurance coverage to the agreed upon Ifmits specified in the lease agreement for the subject property. The City ot Ashland, its elected officials, officers and employees shall 6e listed as additional insured on the poficy. SSBC Proposal for Beneficial Use of Imperatrice Property- Pro�ect zoo9-u Page 4 of 6 5 4_R..ental fee SSBC proposes to pay an annual rental fee to the City of �i.00 (one dollar). 5•5 TID Annual Charge As required by the City of Ashland, SSBC shall pay the annual Talent Irrigation District (TID) charge of $9000 for irrigation on the subject property. 5,6 OpF Fir� Prg��tiQ F� SSBC shall pay the annual Oregon Department of Forestry fee for fire protection services in the amount of S�o6i 5.�sp��SY—T�es Also under the terms of the lease agreement, SSBC shall pay the annual property taxes on the subject property an approximate amount of $A55� 1,2_A_C�C��n_d�.m5 Addendums No. i and No. z, issued on June to, zoio and June 16, 2oiD respectively, are acknowledged and attached hereto. Conclusiqn The statements in this proposal are correct and truthful representations. SSBC acknowledges all details and provisions of the City's proposal process (Project Zoo9-iz) and, if selected, will negotiate the lease agreement in good faith with the City of Ashland. To summarize, the Standing Stone Brewing Company (SSBC) is proposing a z-year lease with the City for the site known as the "Imperatrice Property", a z65-acre portion thereof. SSBC intends to develop and operate a sustainabie farm operation (closed loop farm system) to help support its restaurant and brewery; specifically livestock, beginning with chickens. To ledse the subject property, SSBC proposes to pay an annual rental fee of $i.00 and pay the annual fees Iisted in the RFP for Proiect �oo9-iz, a grand total. of $�o,9t7 In addition, the Standing Stone Brewing Company proposes a beneficial use of the Imperatrice Property as follows: Utilize sustainability practices to operate a farm for the local production of food for the Standing Stone Brewing Company. SSBC Proposal for Beneficfal Use of Imperatrice Property Projed xoo9-iz Page 5 of 6 Create a benefit to the public by reducing vehicle m(les traveled via local production of food. Create opportunities to educate the public about the sustainable farm practice. Maintain the natural appearance of the subject properly. Support the Cfty's discharge of treated effluent from the City's wastewater treatment facility as is necessary. Comply with the City's standards for env(ronmental stewardship relating to air quality, noise pollution, drainage and wildlife preservation. Comply with all applicable regulations of both Jackson County and State of Oregon and obtain all requisite permits from agencies. Indemnify the City within the lease agreement provisions and provide general liability insurance naming City of Ashland, its elected officials, officers and employees as additional insured on the polfcy. Submitted.by: r i i x �j l��;" Date• C:; z r I L ALEX AMAROTICO, President, Stonding Stane Brewing Company Cell: i.54i.84o.8494 Emd�l: qli�:Gii�:f79nilirq?;SluiiebiC�viri}�.tpm Consultanh George Rubaloff, EmaiL• �•;.nil:�:ilr�HGO�;ir�;iiLcoin Ce11:54�•$90•3273 ATTACHMENTS (not munted in the 6-page limit for proposaQ: Addendum No. �(Project N zo09-iz) issued on June io, 2oto z. Addendum No. z(Project �1 zoa9-iz) issued on June i6, zoio 3. Copy ot Proposal Registration Form received by City of Ashland on June 8, zoio 4. Business Plan entitled 4pera�ns_P� foJ�e S�C CI.p3ed LQOp.Farni 5_ysLem, dated May zo, zoio SSBC 7roposal for Beneficial Use of Imperatrice Property Project xooq-iz Page 6 of 6 C 1 T Y O F �S H LAN D EXHIBIT C This E�chibit details Section 10.6 Lessee Specific Obligation of the IMPERATRICE RANCH Ground Lease Agreement for Ranching and Sustainable Fanning. 1) Lessee's Specific Obligations. Lessee shall have the specific obligations: a) Lessee will erect any land all required fences and will thereafter keep and maintain all fences upon these premises in as good order, condition, and repair as they exist at the beginning of ihe Lease term, allowing for any reasonable deterioration from the elements or damage by natural causes. i) Lessee will fence or otherwise protect using best management practices all riparian areas from damages by livestock. Riparian azeas shall include the Hamby Spring, the TID canal and the unnamed seasonal creek along the east boundary of Lot 38 IE 33-200. b) Lessee will control and direct all irrigation water overflow so that no wastes shall be directed onto adjacen[ properties or right-of-ways except at appropriate and approved facilities constructed for such purpose. c) Lcssee will irrigate the Property using water supplied by the T1D and, when reasonably available, will accommodate the use of City wasiewater eftluent for all approved irrigation use. Engineering� Te1:541/488-5347 0 20 E. Main SUeet Fax: 541-/488-6006 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800/735-2900 www.ashland.ocus G;pubwrks�eng�Exhibit C SSBC Imperatnce Property 4 26 11.doc �'E�=: C 1 T Y O P �SH LAN D Council Communication Approval of a Lease of Property at 430 North Main Street Meeting Date: May 17, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: James H. Olson Department Public Works/Engineering E-Mail: olsonina ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Community Dev opment Secondary Contact: Michael R. Faught Approval: Martha Benne Estimated Time: I S minutes Question: Will the Council approve a lease agreement with Colwell Chiropractic for use of the City owned lot at 430 N. Main St. for parking purposes? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of a lease agreement with Colwell Chiropractic for use of the City owned lot at 430 North Main Street. Background: John Colwell of Colwell Chiropractic has requested that he be allowed to lease the City owned vacant lot just noRh of his office which is located at the corner of North Main and Hersey Streets. He intends to use the lot, which is partially paved, as an overflow parking area for employees and clients of his business. The two year lease agreement requires that he maintain the property including the paved and grassed areas. The property is to be kept free of litter and other debris. The lease further requires that the property not be used for any purpose other than for vehicle parking. The suggested lease rate is $225 per year which covers the cost of staff time for the lease preparation. Benefits to the Citv The 12,000 square foot lot has approximately 3800 square foot of asphalt surfacing with the remainder of the lot being native grass and weeds. In the past, the lot has been illegally used by unknown, persons as a dumping area and storage oFdiscarded building materials and even vehicles. Since this ]ot is clearly visible from North Main Street, the City has been required to expand a considerable effort in removing trash and debris and in mowing the grass and weeds. This lease would relieve the City of the responsibility of maintaining this lot for the duration of the agreement. The lessee would also be required to carry liability insurance on the property to protect the City from possible mishaps that might occur on the propeRy. Other than the paved surface there are no improvements or structures on the property and there are no utilities available. The use of the property will be solely for business related parking. Since the lot is adjacent to the Coldwell clinic and shares a] 00 foot ]ong common boundary it is comeniently situated to provide overFlow parking for the clinic. Historv of 430 Nbrth Main Street On March 1, 2005 the Council approved the purchase of the vacant lot @430 North Main Street (tax 1ot 39 1 E SOA -2700) for $270,000. 1 of 3 f.ITY OP �SH LAN D Although the lot has several potential uses, one of the primary considerations for its purchase was to provide possible off-street parking to compensate for the loss of parking for adjacent business that might result from the future re-alignment of Hersey Street. Hersey Wimer North Main Intersection The intersection of NoRh Main Hersey Wimer Streets has the highest crash rate and is the most problematic of any intersection in Ashland. The reconfiguration of this intersection has been included on the City's Capital Improvement Plan since 2007 and staff continues to work with ODOT to place this project on the states STIP list. The intersection is problematic in that Wimer Street and Hersey Street do not align through their centerlines and in fact are staggered by more than 20 feet. The stagger is of a magnitude that completely blocks opposing traffic left turn movements. When a north bound vehicle is in position to tum onto Wimer Street at the same time that a southbound vehicle is waiting to tum onto Hersey Street neither vehicle can move as each blocks the opposing vehicie's path. The resulting confusion and maneuvering of the vehicles around the stalled vehicles results in numerous crashes on a yearly basis. The resolution to this problem would be to align the centerlines of Wimer Street and Hersey Street by shifting Hersey Street west and Wimer Street east. The street shift for Wimer Street will require only minimal right-of-way acquisition and will only affect the ]andscaping of the corner lot. The needed right-of-way acquisition along Hersey Street is much more extensive and affects two commercial lots including the Colwell Chiropractic Clinic at 410 N. Main Street and the Hersey Office Condominiums at 400 W. Hersey Street. lt wil] be necessary to acquire at least 1,000 square feet of land from each lot which impacts the amount of off-street parking available to each loL The proposed acquisition would eliminate four of the thirteen parking spaces available to the Hersey Office Condominiums and three or possibly four of the twelve available spaces on the Colwell lot. To help mitigate the potential ]oss of parking on these two lots, the vacant lot at 430 N. Main St. could be developed as a parking area for 12 to 14 vehicles while stil] leaving a portion of the lot available for other uses. Related City Policies: The City is charged with ensuring that grounds care and maintenance are cost effective. Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 9.04 further requires that weed abatement effects be considered on all properties. The proposed lease will assist the City in meeting these requirements for the lot at 430 N. Main Street. Council Options: l. The Council may approve the lease of property at 430 N. Main Street 2. The Council may approve the lease with changes or additional conditions 3. The Council may decline to ]ease the property at 430 N. Main Street Potential Motions: Move to approve the lease of property at 430 N. Main Street Move to approve the lease of property at 430 N. Main Street with changes Move to reject the lease of the property at 430 N. Main Street Paae 2 of 3 �r, C 1 T Y O F �SHLAND Attachments: 1. Lease 2, Vicinity Map 3. Photos 3of3 �r, COLWELL CHIROPRACTIC OFFICE, PC GROUND LEASE AGREEMENT FOR PARKING LOT FACILITY THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between the CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON, by and through the City Council, hereinafter referred to as City, and COLWELL CHIROPRACTIC OFFICE, PC, hereinafter referred to as Lessee. RECITALS A. City owns and operates propeRy located at 430 N Main St., Ashland, Oregon (the "Property"). B. Lessee desires to lease Property for purposes of providing vehicle parking for Lessee office staff. C. City desires to lease Property to the Lessee under the circumstances set forth in this Agreement. In consideration of the matters described above, and of the mutual benefits and obligations set foRh in this Agreement, the parties agree as follows: 1. Recitals Incorporated. The recitals are hereby incorporated into this Agreement by this reference. 2. Description of Leased Property. City agrees to lease to Lessee Property located at 430 N. Main St, (tax lot 391E5DA-2700) Ashland, Oregon. Property has an area of approximately 12,023 square feet. The lessee will use Property to provide vehicle parking for Lessee office staff. ("parking"). Lease Fees. 3.1. Rental Rate. Lessee agrees to pay to City an annual rental of $225 per year for the use of Property. Lessee agrees to pay to City, for the use of the Property, a rental rate of �Not Anplicable, payable on execution of the lease. It is agreed that the rental rate here specified shall be subject to re-examination and readjustment pursuant to 3.2, provided that any readjuslment of the present rate, or amended rate, shall be reasonable. 3.2. Periodic rent increase. The rental fee is subject to adjustment on July 1 of each year at the option of the City and the difference between the annual rental rate under section 3.1, and the increased rate is due and payable September 1 following the rent increase. 3.3. Past due fees. Lease fees will become past due ten days past the due date and the City will charge interest of 1.5% per month on past due lease fees. 3.4. Securitv Deaosit. Lessee shall pay a deposit in the amount of one year's rent to secure Lessee's compliance with all terms of this agreement. The deposit shall be a debt from City to Lessee, refundable within 30 days after expiration of the lease term or other termination not caused by Lessee's default. City may commingle the deposit with its funds. Lessee shall not be entitled to interest on the deposit. City shall have the right to offset against the deposit any sums owing from Lessee to City and not paid when due, any damages caused by Lessee's default, the cost of curing any default by Lessee should City elect to do so, and the cost of performing any repair or cieanup that is Lessee's responsibility under this agreement. Offset against the deposit shall not be an exclusive remedy in any of the above cases, but may be invoked by City, at its option, in addition to any other remedy provided by law or this agreement for Lessee's nonperformance. City shall give notice to Lessee each time an offset is claimed against the deposit, and, unless the agreement is terminated, Lessee shall within 10 Page 1 of 6—GROUND LEASE FOR PARKING G:1pub-wrkslengklept-admin\ENGINEER�391EOSDA-2700 Colwell Lease.docx days after such notice deposit with City a sum equal to the amount of the offset so that the total deposit amount, net of offset, shall remain constant throughout the agreement term. 4. Term. The term of this lease shall be for a maximum of two (2) years, commencing on April 18, 2011, and ending on April 18, 2013. Either�party may terminate this lease at any time upon 30 days prior written notice to the other party. If Lessee is not in default Lessee shall have the first right of refusal to lease the premises from the City at the rates and terms then in effect as established by the City. in no event shall delay in obtaining permits from any city, state or federal agencies be deemed as automatically requiring an extension of the term of this Agreement. Nor shall such delay be interpreted as requiring the City to approve an extension of this Agreement. Use of Premises. Except as provided in this paragraph, the premises shall be used only for the parking of vehicles by Lessee staff. No commercial activities. includina but not limited to vehicle mechanical or maintenance work or reqair or service. are to be conducted on the aremises Items of personal property may not be stored on the property. 5.1 Flammables and exalosives prohibited. Lessee shall not store any flammable or explosive liquids or solids within the premises without a permit. For the purpose of this rental agreement, "flammable or explosive liquids or solids" shall not apply to fuel or other flammables contained within any vehicle used or stored at the Property. 5.2 Pets and animals urohibited. Lessee shall not, without the City's written consent keep any pets or animals on the premises. If allowed, Lessee agrees to be liable for damage to the premises or other persons caused by the pet or animal. 6. Maintenance. Lessee shall keep and maintain the premises and all improvements in good and substantial repair and condition. Lessee shall maintain the premises and all improvements in compliance with all applicable building and zoning laws and all other laws, ordinances, orders and requirements of all authorities having or claiming jurisdiction. Lessee shall keep the premises free and clear of weeds, rubbish, debris, and litter at all times. Lessee shall maintain the unpaved areas in a manner consistent with Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 9.04, "Weed AbatemenY' which requires that weeds and grasses shall be cut to no more than 4 inches in height no later than June 15. Lessee shall, at all times, maintain a clear and usable access way along the 15 foot wide private driveway easement located along the northerly property boundary. City shall have the right to conduct reasonable inspections and investigations of the property and the operations conducted on the premises at any time, and from time to time with reasonable advance notice, and Lessee shall cooperate fully with City during such inspections and investigations. Rights Reserved to the City. The City reserves the following rights: 7.1 Imorove Propertv. The right to develop or improve the Property without interference or hindrance of the Lessee. 72 Maintain Propertv. The right, but not the obligation, to maintain and keep in repair the Property, together with the right to direct and control all activities of Lessee. 7.3 Protect Proqerty. The right to take any action considered necessary to protect the Property from waste or nuisance, together with the right to prevent Lessee from erecting, or permitting to be erected, any building or other structure on the Property which, in the opinion of the City, would limit the usefulness of the Property and constitute a hazard. 7.4 Temporary closures. The right to temporarily close or to restrict the use of the Property or any of the facilities for maintenance, improvement, or for the safety of the public. Lessee is not entitled to any compensation or damages for such temporary closures. 8. Compliance with laws. Lessee shall comply with: 8.1 All federal, state, county, and city laws, orders and ordinances; Page 2 of 6—GROUND LEASE FOR PARKING G:�pub-wrks\engklept-admin\ENGINEER\397EDSDA-2700Colwell Lease.docx 8.2 Local Laws. The terms, restrictions and requirements of approvals are set forth in the applicabie City Ordinances, including the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, applicable State statutes and regulations, the preliminary and final approvals, and this Agreement. All local development approvals and permits identified by local law or this Agreement shall be obtained at the sole cost of the Lessee. The failure of this Agreement to address a particular permit, condition, term or restriction shall not relieve Lessee of the duty to comply with any laws governing permitting requirements, conditions, terms or restrictions. Any matter or action to be taken pursuant to the requirements of the ordinances of the City of Ashland shall not be otherwise amended, modified or waived unless such modification, amendment or waiver is expressly provided for in this Agreement with specific reference to the provisions so modified waived or amended. Lessee compliance with environmental laws. As used in this paragraph, the term "hazardous material" means any hazardous or toxic substance, material, or waste, including, but not limited to, those substances, materials, and wastes listed in the United States Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Table (49 C.F.R. 172.101) or by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as hazardous substances (40 C.F.R. Part 302) and any amendments, ORS 466.567, 466.205, 466.640 and 468.790 and regulations of the Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality, petroleum products and their derivatives, and such other substances, materials and wastes as become regulated or subject to cleanup authority under any environmental laws. Environmental laws means any federal, state, or local statutes, regulations, or ordinances or any judicial or other governmental orders pertaining to the protection of health, safety, or the environment. 9.1 Lessee's comaliance with laws and oermits. Lessee shall cause the premises and all operations conducted on the premises (including operations by any subtenants) to comply with all environmental laws. 9.2 Limitation on uses of hazardous materials. Lessee shall not use or allow any agents, contractors or subtenants to use the premises to generate, manufacture, refine, transport, treat, store, handle, recycle, release or dispose of any hazardous materials, other than as reasonably necessary for the operation of Lessee's activities as contemplated under this lease. 9.2.1 Disposal and contamination clean-up. Lessee shall be responsible for disposing of all hazardous materials in compliance with environmental laws, and Lessee shall be responsible for any environmental clean-up of the premises that is necessary due to Lessee's activities. 10. Utilities. There are no utilities available on the site. 11. Liens, Taxes. Lessee shall pay all sums of money that become due for any labor, services, materials, supplies, utilities, furnishings, machinery or equipment which have been furnished or ordered by Lessee which may be secured by lien against the premises. 12.Insurance. Lessee shall obtain and maintain continuously in effect at all times during the term of this lease, at Lessee's sole expense, the following insurance: 12.1 Comprehensive insurance. Owner's, landlord and tenant or premises insurance protecting City and its officers, agents and employees against any and all liabilities that may allegedly in any way relate to the operation by Lessee, this insurance to be in the minimum amount of $1,000,000, combined single limit coverage. Such limit shalf automatically increase in the event of any change in the provisions of ORS 30.270, or in the event these limits are found to be not totally applicable to a city. Page 3 of 6—GROUND LEASE FOR PARKING G:1pub-wrksleng�dept-atlmiMENGINEER\391E05�A-2700 CoNeell Lease.docz 12.1.1 All policies shall include the City, its officers, commissions, elected officials, employees and agents as additional insureds with respect to general liability and vehicle liability on a primary and non-contributory basis. 12.1.2 A certificate evidencing such insurance coverage shall be filed with the City rip of to the effective date of this lease, and such certificate shall provide that such insurance coverage may not be canceled or reduced or changed in any way adverse to the City without at least 30 days prior written notice to the City. The policy shall be continuous until canceled as stated above. If such insurance coverage is canceled or changed, Lessee shall, not later than 15 days prior to the termination or change in the insurance coverage, file with the City a certificate showing that the required insurance has been reinstated or provided through another insurance company or companies. Cancellation or termination of the policy shall terminate the lease. In the event Lessee shali fail to furnish the City with the certificate of insurance required, Ciiy may secure the required insurance or self-insure at the sole cost and expense of Lessee, and Lessee agrees to reimburse City promptly for the cost, plus ten percent of the cost for City administration. 122 Proaertv Insurance. Lessee shall bear the expense of any insurance insuring the personal property of Lessee on the premises against such risks, but Lessee shall not be required to insure his personal property. 13.Indemnification; Waiver of Subrogation. Lessee will defend, indemnify and save City, its officers, employees and agents harmless from any and all losses, claims, actions, costs, expenses, judgments, subrogations, or other damages resulting from injury to any person (including injury resulting in death,) or damage (including loss or destruction) to property, of whatsoever nature arising out of or incident to this lease or the activities that take place on leased property. Lessee waives the right of subrogation regarding the insurance policy listed in Section 16. Lessee will not be held responsible for damages caused by negligence of City. 14. Non-appropriations; No Agency. The City and Lessee are entering into this Agreement voluntarily in the spirit of cooperation and coordination to facilitate Lessee's desire to lease Property for parking purposes. However, nothing in this Agreement makes the City responsible for the contracts or commitments of Lessee regarding construction or development to achieve Lessee's desired outcome. Lessee is not subject to public contracting rules and regulations and nothing herein makes Owner subject to such public agency requirements. No City funds are provided by this agreement for City construction of public infrastructure effecting development of parking area or facility. All City obligations pursuant to this Agreement which require the expenditure of funds are contingent upon future appropriations by the City as part of the local budget process. Nothing in this Agreement implies an obligation on the City to appropriate any such monies. City acknowledges that following the required review and approval of Final Plan and Site Reviews, approvai of final civil plans (construction plan approval) and associated construction permits, and the determination for issuing building permits for the construction of a parking facility on the Property is not an obligation that would require the expenditure of funds; therefore, construction of any parking area or facility is not contingent upon future appropriations by the City. 15. Damage or Destruction of Premises. 15.1 If the premises or any improvements are damaged or destroyed by fire or other casualty, Lessee shall: 15.1.1 Promptly repair, rebuild or restore the property damaged or destroyed to substantially the same condition consistent with the applicable building codes; and Page 4 of 6—GROUND LEASE FOR PARKING G:�pub-wrks\engWepl-adminlENGWEER�391E05DA-2700 Cohvell Lease.docx 15.1.2 Apply for any net proceeds of insurance resulting from claims for such losses, as well as any additional money of Lessee necessary. If the damage or destruction which occurs is such that the cost of repair, rebuilding or restoration of the property damaged or destroyed exceeds 50% of the fair market value of the improvements, Lessee shall have the optiori within 60 days from the date of damage or destruction, to notify City in writing whether or not Lessee elects to repair, rebuild, or restore in accordance with paragraph 12.1 or to terminate this lease. Upon giving such notice to terminate, this lease shall terminate on the date specified in the notice and City shall be entitled to the net proceeds of insurance. 15.2 Lessee shall be responsible for damage or destruction to the premises or any improvements resulting from Lessee's operations, or anything done or permitted by Lessee under this lease. 16. Events of Default. The following shall be events of default: 16.1. Default in Rent: Failure of Lessee to pay any rent or other charge within ten days after it is due. 16.2. Default in Other Covenants: Failure of Lessee to comply with any covenant, term or condition, or to fulfill any obligation of the lease (other than the payment of rent or other charges) within 30 days after written notice by City specifying the nature of the default. If the default is such that it cannot be completely remedied within the 30-day period, this provision shall be complied with if Lessee begins correction of the default within the 30-day period and proceeds in good faith to effect the remedy as soon as practicable. 16.3. Insolvencv: Insolvency of Lessee and assignment by Lessee for the benefit of creditors; the filing by Lessee of a voluntary petition in bankruptcy; an adjudication that Lessee is bankrupt or the appointment of a receiver of the properties of Lessee; the filing of an involuntary petition of bankruptcy and failure of the Lessee to secure a dismissal of the petition within 30 days after filing; attachment of or the levying of execution on the leasehold interest and failure of the Lessee to secure discharge of the attachment or release of the levy of execution within ten days. 17. Remedies on Default. In the event of a default, the City at its option may terminate the lease by notice in writing by certified or registered mail to Lessee. The notice may be given before or within thirty days after the running of the grace period for default and may be included in a notice of failure of compliance. If the property is abandoned by Lessee in connection with a default, termination shall be automatic and without notice. 17.1. Damaqes. In the event of termination of default, City shall be entitled to recover immediately the following amounts as damages: 17.1.1. The reasonable cost of re-entry and reletting including the cost of any clean up, refurbishing, removal of Lessee's property and fixtures, or any other expense occasioned by Lessee's failure to quit the premises upon termination and to leave the premises in the required condition, any remodeling costs, attorney fees, court costs, broker commissions and advertising cost. 17.1.2. The loss of reasonable lease fee value from the date of default until a new tenant has been or, with the exercise of reasonable efforts could have been secured. 17.2. Re-entrv After Termination. If the lease is terminated for any reason, Lessee's liability to City for damages shall survive such termination. 18. Assignment of Interest or Rights. Neither Lessee or any assignee or other successor of Lessee shall sublease, assign, transfer or encumber any of Lessee's rights in and to this lease or any interest, nor license or permit the use of the rights granted except as provided in this paragraph. Lessee shall not assign all or any part of its rights and interests under this lease to any successor Page 5 of 6—GROUND LEASE FOR PARKING G:1pub-wrks\engklept-admin\ENGINEER1391E05DA-2700 Colwell Lease.docx through merger, consolidation, or voluntary sale or transfer of substantially all of its assets, without prior written approval of the City. Written approval of the City shall not be unreasonably withheld. 19. Nonwaiver. Waiver by either party of strict performance of any provision of this lease shall not be a waiver of or prejudice the party's right to require strict performance of the same provision in the future or of any other provision. 20. Consent of City. Whenever consent, approval or direction by the City is required, all such consent, approval or direction shall be received in writing from the City Administrator. 21. Not Applicable 22. Notices. All notices required under this lease shall be deemed to be properly served if sent by certified or registered mail to the last address previously furnished by the parties. Until changed by the parties by notice in writing, notices shall be sent to: CITY: City of Ashland Attn: City Administrator 20 E. Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 LESSEE: Colwell Chiropractic Office, PC 410 N. Main St Ashland, OR 97520 INTENDING TO BE BOUND, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date written below. LESSEE: John Colwell, DC President Date �:777�:7 Pursuant to ORS 271.360 the governing body hereby approves and authorizes the terms of this lease as set forth above. CITY: MayorlMayor's Designee, City of Ashland Date P2gB 6 of 6—GROUND LEASE FOR PARKING G: CoRvell Lease.docx 0_ ""z~ 0-< ~ ~~ ~ ~:r:~ U(/)O ~> ~ o ...J"; <...,Vl o <:: v .- VJ oj i'l~ ...J . -02 vO VJ '" 0"Ot 2'@ P-. ,,'(' ! J,.:. . . 1.1 :,./'! J ? r ------ u x E oj '" l\l Cll ;::, x <0 I n. l\l E fi- e '" 'S w Z~ " " "' .... 0 "' 0 .! ~ ! "' ~ " . N 0 I ; 0 0 " 0 j ; II , 0 i i �i 'J x r a* j A:. 3 f �4�� .1 +i f; a y�� 3 i �:��A i�\. �V'JiYV r �r r 4 'rv t �i`+...'r, i t� "=a`..�i�; (•t a 9 f ��1 i a q 9 S IR rp` t3 s .i:8 ..i,.: ��.x�.. x m,, w fi.t. ��,s .L ,,,'t �-n �,'sz.; �n ns G tY ?:*F t. a� a t 's 3 y 7 '3 p t t 4 ��t.. o j i f k 'f`h a: i .�f i r y •t f �f. i4 �:t'. t ..k� t. e i_ i' R. i S r t +f 1, ti w �z .?t y $e t x �Y �t4 w x �e f #j�C� i i r+ �Cw.. �1 '1 .�z- i47, i� ��5' 4 I '�,,�,�"�ti� 1 r.� S� i j� ry-� :a` r i f 3 ��E a �i •t �a.f Aa.... e r j S r I i a a w �n� k {i i I i. A 1 ^`e t r `T F: J Y� r. i s y y i� a +�F D s a>9«.•.,;<� r i I �i y� �4 C y �y ,r"�. l, �ry� Ar° r d w.sr.'a s a +t' '��.F:�L 3,,. r ya�.� t 4s n �K7d Jx yl z k �8 F r i f .4� j t f Y I TM Y i i. r' V S i t': r a t St i f �M� ,J �i`"r r�; E rv .3 E a 3• l.4 z y, f k I ��a�T- i� tJ� r .�.i s� r y`� rt! t s^�x u f F 4 4` '-"a:T��✓K'I�l� i4" t Y.a x `4. s T y�' x o-- �c i '3 r ju a i: t n .k�� d' r F r� t c j �4� s 'T ��x� �9. E. i r r� .;.�1 t i t n� f A k t j� i M ijT �i� �Ya,`,a ".1 X Y k k r ��I� .9�1t rF)J.` .f� 3 p Y =j t 1� i� �.hh �K�! 7 1 1 y t� x i Y�5'1 MYl v. .'r t C 1 T Y O F �1SH LAN D Council Communication Special Event Permit Fees Meeting Date: May 17, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: Department: Public Works Admin E-Mail: Secondary Dept.: Police Departm� Secondary Contact: Approval: Martha Benne Estimated Time: Michael R. Faught fauQhtm n ashland.or.us Nancy Slocum 10 minutes Question: Will the City Council authorize staff to develop a new Special Events Permit ordinance and approve recommended interim special event fees? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Council authorize staff to develop a new Special Events Permit ordinance and approve recommended interim special event fees. Background: Summarv The City has been approving special events for many years (parades, races, block parties, celebrations, etc.). Until recendy the permit approval process was straight forward as most of the special events were city sponsored and fees rarely applied. When an event was not city sponsored, staff simply charged the applicant actual city costs (staff overtime and equipment). ]n most cases the cost recovery method was very expensive for the event organizers. The number and types of special events Public Works Administration reviews is steadily increasing and the process has become wmplex. Events, in general, can have an impact to city services including: Police, Ashland Fire and Rescue, Parks and Public Works (Streets). Pirst time event organizers are often unfamiliar with the myriad of issues involved in holding an event. At times applicants ask staff to review permit just days before the applicant wants to begin advertising although their own event has not been finalized. There can sometimes be a significant impact to residents and/or businesses. Several events (including weddings) on the same day may cause conflicts for limited pazking. Other permits from Administration (amplified noise or plaza permits), ODOT, USFS, Parks ar Jackson County may be needed. The health department or Oregon Liquor Control may be involved. And of course the city's lega] liability must be considered. Examples of the types of Type of Sp� Basic Event Small Race Large Race Small Parade LarQe Parade a1 events are as follows: Event Current Mt Ashland Hill Climb Southern Ore Event 4' of Jul Paee I of 3 Run #2 nee Triathlon Pride Parade C I T Y O F �SH LAN D Staff is now recommending that the special event permit process be formalized and codified by the City Council. ln order to accomplish this with adequate consideration and community input, staff plans to invite a few of the past special event applicants (chamber of commerce, race sponsors, parade organizers, etc.) and impacted city depariments to participate in a Public Works' lead infonnal work group. The goal of this internal committee is to draft a new special events ordinance and fee schedule that the council and the community can support. Due to current workloads, staff will not have time to begin work on this project until December, 2011. Staff estimates it will take between eight and twelve months for the "special events committee" to draft the new ordinance and fee schedule so staff is requesting that the Council approve an interim special evenl permit fee schedule so that staff can continue to process special event permits. Fee Justification The variety of special events, the date it is held, combined with the differing needs for City staff to work overtime causes the permit fees to vary from event to event. For example, last years' Siskiyou Challenge (46 mile multi-sport relay race) cost the city $2,204 for overtime and equipment charge. In contrast, the Ashland Rotary Run cost the city $505. The Southern Oregon Pride Parade cost the City $2,049 (the event organizers paid $850) and Elks Club Building Centennial Photo $1,325 (the event organizers paid $850). Examples of City sponsored special events where the applicant does not pay for city overtime wsts include the 4` of July Parade (Street Crew costs $5,700), Halloween Parade (Sveet Crew costs $2,] 53) and Festival of Lights. The goal of staff's recommended interim special event permit fee is to balance the economic benefit to the community while recognizing the City's financial constraints. Staffproposes short term integration of these two important fac[ors to develop an average cost-per-type of event that essentially splits the cost between the economic benefit and the cities financial impacts. Staff is recommending the following interim special event fees: Event T e Interim Cost Basic Event (Basic road closure with minimum $130 Police and no Public Works ersonnel Large Race $1,000 Small Race $260 Large Parade $1,400 Small Parade $700 Filming (Arterial <4hrs) $500 Filming (Arterial >4hrs) $1,000 If the Council approves the interim special event permit fees, staff will formally recommend the interim fee through a public hearing at the June 7, 2011 City Council Meeting. z ot C 1 T Y O F �SHLAND Council Options: The City Council could decide to approve staff recommendatio� to authorize staff to develop a new Speciai Events Permit ordinance and approve interim specia] event fees. 2) The City Council could decide to modify staff's recommendation. 3) The City Council could decide ro deny staff s recommendation. Potential Motions: 1) Move to approve staff's recommendation authorize staffto develop a new Special Events Permit ordinance and approve staff's recommended interim special event fees. 2) Move to modify stafPs recommendation. 3) Move to deny staff's recommendation. Attachments: Special Events Application C 1 T Y O F �SH LAN D 20 East Main Street Ashland OR 97520 Office: (541) 488-5587 FAX (541) 488-6006 Web: www.ashland.or.us OFFICE USE ONLY: New evenc Retum evenc Route change: Date Received On time: Late: Previous Fees Paid: Street and Sidewalk Use (Special Event) Permit Application (Submit at least 60 days prior to first advertising date) Fill out completely and type or print legibly. Failure to do so could result in permit denial. APPLICANT AND SPONSORING ORGANIZATION INFORMATION (PERSON GROUP RESPONSIBLE) Sponsoring Orgarnzation Name. __7 Organi type: For-profit Nonprofit Tax Exempt Number: Organizatio Sl A j C ity, State, ZIP Cod f Organization Phone: I Organization FAX: ...._i; Primary Contac� from Sponsoring Organization: Contact Phone: (offce) (celq Email: ......_i Name of contac� person "on site" day of ihe event (cell required) Event coordinated ihrough an event promotion company? Yes No Name of Company: Contact Name Phone: Email: I EVENT INFORMATION i Event Type (check all that apply): Run Distance Walk Bike Race Parade Fair Party Filming DemonsUation ("First AmendmenC' Event) Other (Please specify briefly here) Street location: Sidewalk Only SUeet Only Streel and Sidewalk Street, Sidewalk and Park City Location(s) (check all that apply): Downtown Lithia Park Plaza N Main St Siskiyou Bv Ashland St Outer Park Other. Event Name I Requested Event Date(s) i Al�ema6ve Event Date(s) Event Hours Slart: I End: �I Set-up Location: Date: Time: .j Break-down Localion: I Date: Time. Are participants (inGuding Aoats, vehicles and bands) charged an enUy fee� Yes No Admission Cost and/or Entry Fee(s): Is this an annual event? Yes No I( annual, has the route changed hom the previous yeaR Yes No Medical Aid: 911 Response On S�andby- Name and phone number�of inedical aid: (911 Emergency response and transport serv_ices are provided by Jackson Co Am bulance Services Area)____,_ Attendance Partcipants 1 Spectators' Total: Basis on which attendance es�imate is made: Previous year's total attendance— if applicable: OVERALL EVENT DESCRIPTION BrieFly explain event and event details (attach additional sheets if needed): C:\DOCUments And Settings\Shipletd\Laal Settings\Temporary Internet Fles\Content.0utlook\63KU6145�pshland Special Event Application �STREET CLOSUREINFORMATION !(REQUIRED: A legible and detailed map that includes the start point, end point, direction of trevel, and street names) i Names of streets to be Gosed (attach furiher Gosures on a separate sheet if needed) Between And Between T i And Between And Between I And i Between And 1 Rou�e descnption (i.e., held on sidewalk and/or street, changes to route, where and how you wish to travel) i i I I i Ciry prefers to reopen streets as soon as tail end of event is in the Plaza a�ea (if applicable). Are you requesting a complete street dosure? Why? I i i Time of Street Closure Slart: End: Participant rype and number of entnes of each type (check all that apply): Participants/Spectators Animals ��I i vehiGes F�oats Bands sikes It you have vehiGes, animals, floats, fire-related entries and/or bands, please provide delails about �hese entries: I Parking'reslrictions requested: I i i Will your proposed route use N. Main, E. Main (Plaza 3 Lithia Way, (3 to N. Main), Siskiyou Bv (Walker to I-5), Ashland St (RR Overpass to I-5)? Yes No (If yes, this is ODOT's jurisdiction. For ODOT permits contact Adam Stallsworth at 541 774-6328 or adam.oslallswoAh(o�odoLState.or.us. To avoid revocation of pertni�, copy of permit MUST be received by Slafl 2 weeks before event) I Will your proposed route effect the bus route? Yes No Qf Yes, contact RVTD at 541-779-2877.) I Will you agree to alter your rou�e if ODOT and ihe Public Works DepaAmen� detertnine the proposed route will require significan� city services and/or severely limit lransit opportuniGes in high-volume areas? Yes No EVENT DETAILS Does your event involve the sale of alcoholic beverages? Yes No��(Oregon Liquor Control: 541-776-6191) i http'//www oreaon oovIOLCC/license intortnation shtmMfHOw to Get a Liquor License. If yes, will this activity occur on (or spill into) ciry I streets? Yes No If yes, please describe: I Will items or services be sold a� your event? Yes No Of food is being served wnt2ct Jackson County Health: 541-774-8206 or I htto7/vnvw.w.iacksoaor.us/paqe.asp?navid=712 If yes, will this activity occur on (or spill into) ciry s[reets? Yes No j I Pleasedescribe: i Will cooking faciliGes be used? Yes' No Qf yes, wntact Ashland Fire Marshall at 541-552-2229) Wtll you have booths? Yes No How many Will the event have amplifed sound? Yes No (I( Yes, fill out separate "Application for Noise Pertnit.") Is lhis a fundraising event? If yes, please describe: I C:\DOCUments And Settings\Shipletd\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.0utlook\63KU6145�Ashland Special Event Application Do you have a recyGing plan tor your event? Ves No Please describe your recycling and Gean-up plans for ihis evenC I I I i i �i SAF ETY/ S EC U RITYNOLUNTEERS Please descnbe your procedures for crowd coNrol and intemal secunry: I I i If fences/barriers vrill be used, include site plan. Are you expecting Ciry police services at intersections and/or for Conformation of Police services and associated fees are determined crowd con Yes No by the Ashland Police DepartmenPs Police Chief. I Do you plan on utilizing volunteers/monitors? Yes No (NOte: in most cases ihey are required) If yes in wha� capacity? Name and phone number of volunteer coordinator. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND PROMOTIONAL INFORMATION PLEASE NOTE. YOU ARE ADVISED NOT TO ANNOUNCE, ADVERTISE OR�PROMOTE YOUR EVENT UNTIL YOU HAVE A SIGNED i PERMIT. Please describe the marketing and promotional eNort planned for the event (advertising, flyers, etc.). Please also include strategies for nolifying affected neighborhoods and businesses (14 days prior). i I have read and agree to the notification requirements at the end of this application and understand that failure to notify the public will result in the revocation of my event pertnit. INSURANCE INFORMATION HOLD HARMLE55 AGREEMENT: IN CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND CLOSING ONE OR MORE PUBLIC STREETS FOR TME ACTIVIfY FOR WHICH THIS PERMIf WAS ISSUED, THE SPONSOR(S) OF THIS EVENT HEREBY AGREES TO SAVE THE CITY, ITS AGENTS, OFFICIALS, AND EMPLOYEES HARMLE55 FROM AND AGAINST ALL DAMAGES TO PERSONS OR PROPERTY, ALL EXPENSES, AND OTHER LIABILITY THAT MAY i RESUL7 FROM THIS ACTIVITY. (DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF AND SCOPE OF THE EVENT A"CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE" MAY BE RE QUIRED.) Signature of Sponsor or Aulho�ized Representa i Date LIABILITY AGREEMENT: SPONSORS OF SMALL PARADES, LARGE PARADES, SMALL ATHLETIC, LARGE ATHLETIC, EXTRA LARGE USES, AND POSSIBLY EXCEPTIONS SHALL HOLD HARMLESS, DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE CITY I AND THE CITY'S OFFICERS, AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES AGAINST ALL CLAIMS, DEMANDS, ACTIONS AND SUITS �(INCLUDING ALL ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS) BROUGHT AGAINST ANY OF THEM ARISING FROM SPONSOR'S ACTIVITIES AUTHORIZED BY A STREET AND SIDEWALK USE PERMIT. The sponsor shall maintain public liability and property damage insurance that protects the sponsor and the City and its I officers, agents and employees from any and all claims, demands, actions and suits for damage lo property or personal injury, including dealh, arising from the sponsor's streel and sidewalk use. The insurance shall provide coverage for not less I. than $1,000,000 for personal injury to each person, $1,000,000 for each occurrence, and $500,000 for each occurrence involving property damage; or a single limit policy of not less than $1,000,000 covering all claims per occurrence. 1 have read ihe hold harmless agreement and liability agreement. I agree lo maintain public liability and property damage insurance if the City Attorney determines a liability agreement will be required. &gnature of Sponsor or Authorized Representative Date C:\Dauments And Settings\Shipletd\Laal Settinqs\Temporary [nternet Files\Content.0utlook\63KU6145�AShland Special Event Appliwtlon PERMIT CONDITIONS If your permit is approved and issued the following conditions may apply: 1. Fees Fees for eventr are to be paid at least 30 days pnor to the evenL Failure to pay fees may resWt in [he revocation of the permi[. See attached sheet for permit fees. 2. Notifications Organizer will notiry affected neighborhoods and businesses and copies of notifications will be sent to Nancy Slocum at slocumnC�lashland.or.us at leas[ 14 days prior to the event and will indude a list of those notified. 3. Signage Parking signage is coordinated through the Police Department and traffic control signage by the Street Department. No signs may be posted on utility posts or regulatory sign posts. Event signs such as sandwich boards, pedestal signs, ground signs, etc are not allowed. Some signs are allowed for charitable events call Planning Departmen[ at 541 488-5305 for more information regarding signs. 4. Volunteers Organizer will adequately supply volun[eers [o s[aff positions along the route. Volun[eers will be instructed to assis[ in staging a safe and orderly event. Volunteers mus[ be easily identifiable through some form of badge, arm band, bib, shirt or cap. Volunteers will remain on pos[ until advised by Ashland 7olice Department that they are no longer required. Proof of adequate number of moni[ors shall be provided upon request of [he Permit Coordinator at leas[ 5 days prior to the event. 5. Insurance Sponsors of events shall provide coverage for not less than $1,000,000 for personal injury to each person. $1,000,000 for each acUrrence and $1,000,000 for each ocarrence involving property damages; or a single limit policy of not less that $1,000,000 covering all daims per occurrence. A mpy of the insurance certificafe must be received by the Permit Coordinator pnor to the event. 6. Pace Organizer will ensure that all participantr are aware they must maintain an overall pace of 12 minutes per mile. The Police supervisor may adjus[ the pace as necessary for the safery of runners. Participantr who fall behind will be required to move to the sidewalks upon request by the Ashland Police Department. 7. Route Routes tor events will nof be changed un/ess specific wnKen approval is given by fhe Permif Caordinato� The Police Superviwr may approve changes on the day of the event. 8. State Nighways Large eventr utilizing areas around ramps to sta[e highways will be required to apply for and coordinate closures with the State of Oregon Department of TransportaBon at 541-774-6328. 9. Other closures Permitr are issued with a set starting and ending time. These [imes will not be changed wi[hout permission of the Permit Coordinator or Police Supervisor on the day of the event. Resumption of normal traffc in these areas will occur at the end time spxified on the event permit. Any partcipant leR on the course will be required to move to the sidewalks. 10. Other permitr Organizers are responsible for ensuring all applicable permits are in place prior to the event. These indude, but are not limited [o: park use, o[her venues and noise pertnitr. Approval jurisdicUon is the ciry limi[s of Ashland. Pertnits outside city limitr are the sole responsibility of the applicant. 11. Spxial condi[ions I have read these conditions and agree to fulfill any requirements therein. By signing this applicatlon, sponsor, or sponsor's authorized representative on behalf of sponsor agrees to all terms and conditions set forth in Ashland Municipal Code and any special conditlons listed in the permit. As the sponsor or authorized representa[ive, I certiry that [he information provided is true to the best of my knowledge and agree to pay the pertnit fee for this as de[ertnined by the Gty Council,based upon the information provided in this application Name of Sponsor or Authonzed Signature of Sponsor or AutAorized ReoresenWt RETURN THIS Special Events c/o Public Works Administration COMPLETED 20 East Main St (Physical Address: 51 Winbum Way) APPLICAIION j Ashland Oregon 97201 AND ROUTE MAPS TO: Office: (541) a88-5587 FAX (541) 488-6006 Email: SoecialEvenLSCalashland.or.us PUBLICITY AND PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF SPECIAL EVENTS Date Sponmrs are advised not to publicize proposed street and sidewaik uses until after receipt of [he permit from the Public Works Department to avoid publication of misinformation. Sponsors who disregard this prewution shall not receive special consid- eration in determining approval for the proposed street and sidewalk uses because of advance preparation or the expenditure of money. A precondition for receipt of a special even[ pertnit is public notifiwtion and signage. Sponsors of large athletic, large parades, eMra large uses, uses with a dosed course and possibly exceptions shall notiry residential complexes, neighborhood groups, businesses and churches which will be affected by the sGeet and sidewalk use (signature form endosed). The notification shall be made not less than fourteen (14) days before the street and sidewalk use date. The notification shall be in writing and shall include the name and telephone number of the appropriate City official to con[ac[ in case o( questions or concerns. A notifcation form is at the end of [his daument. A mpy of the adual form of notificatlon shall be sent to the Public Works Departrnent not less than fourteen (14) days before the street and sidewalk use date with a lis[ of those notified. C:\Dauments And Settings\Shiple[d\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\ContenLOutlook\63KU6195�Ashland Special Event Appliwtion ADDITIONAL PERMITS IF ANY OF THESE CONDITIONS EXIST YOU MAY NEED A ADDITIONAL PERMIT FROM ANOTHER AGENCY. PERTINENT QUESTIONS WHO TO CONTACT VHONE Will a park be used for the formation or ending j area or any where along the route7 If yes: i ark: Parks Recreadon 591-488-5340 Will a public address rystem or amplified music Public Works Department 541-488-5587 be used7 If y es: Will food be served at the event7 If yes: Jackson Counry Health Division i 541-774-8206 ..i i Will alcoholic beverages be sold? If yes: Oregon Liquor Control Commission 541-776-6191 i f..... Will your procession intertere with a bus route or schedule? If y RVTD, Field Operations Coordinator 541-779-2877 Will your event include a block party? If yes Public Works Department I 541-488-55 I j Will your event include a street closure that I does not include a procession or athletic Public Works Department 591-488-5587 activity7 If yes:, i r Will your event include a neighborhood street fair or community event with broad Public Works Departmen[ 541-488-5587 participation? If y es: Will your event include tenis, wnopies, booths fo Ar you an outdoo fair7If yes: Ashland Fire Department 591-482-2770 Will your event inciude open fires or cooking I equipment of any kind? If yes. l�shland Fire Department i 541-482-2770 C:\Daumentr And Settirgs\Shipletd\LOCaI Settings\Temporary Internet Files\COntent.0utlook\63KU6195�AShland Speaal Event Application G 1 T Y O F �SH LAN D 20 East Main Street Ashland OR 97520 Office: (541) 488-5587 FAX (541) 488-6006 Web: www.ashland.or.us Notification of Upcoming Street Closure for a Special Event Date: List name of the business or organization hosting the event: List the name of the beneficiary (non-profit organization) of the event: Approximate number of participants and spectators: Name and phone number of the contact person for the event: Name of the event: The above listed have received a street closure permit for a community event. Names of streeks to b cl osed (attac furt closures on a separate sheet if ne eded) j i Between i And j Between And i Between And j Between And i I I. Between I And Time of Street Closure Start: End Participant type and number of entries of each type (check all that apply): I❑ Participants/Spectators Animals Vehicles Floats I Bands Bikes The approved route is shown on the attached map. For event-specific questions please contact the event contact person listed above. For questions/concerns on the day of the event, please contad: the on-site contact for this event. C:\Documents And Settings\Shipletd\LOCaI Settings\Temporary Inteme[ Files\ContenLOutlook\63KU6145yshland Special Event Application C 1 7 Y O F �SHL,AND OFFICE USE ONLY: 20 East Main Street Date Received Ashland OR 97520 On time: Late: Office: (541) 488-5587 FAX (541) 488-6006 Web: www.ashland.or.us Notification Certification To be submitted to the Public Works Department by Event Organizer at least 14 days prior to the event. List name of the business or organizatiomhosting the event: Name and phone number of the contact person for the event: Name of the event: I certify that the entities listed below have been notified about my upcoming special event. Signature of Sponsor or T i Authorized Re present ative Date i Name/Business Address Phone Email Please submit this form to: Ashland Public Works Administration, 541-488-5587, specia levents@a shla n d. or. us. C:\DOCUmenLS And Settings\Shipletd\LOCaI Settings\Temporary In[ernet Files\Content.0utlook\63KU619S�Ashland Special Event Application C 1 T Y O F �SHLAND 20 East Main Street Ashland OR 97520 Office: (541) 488-5587 FAX (541) 488-6006 Web: www.ashland.or.us OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Received On time: Late: Signature Form for Notification of Upcoming Special Event Street Closure (if required by Public Works Department) List name of the business or organization hosting the event: List the name of the beneficiary (non-profit organization) of the event: Approximate number of participants and spectators: Name and phone number of the contact person for the event: Name of the event: The above listed are proposing a street closure for a community event. The closure of between and for street sVeel sbeel a community event will be held on from until Gare time tlme By signing below, we, the abutting residents and/or business representatives affected by the proposed closure, acknowledge notification of the above listed street closure. Printed Signature Address Phone Name/Business Please submit this form to: Ashland Public Works Administration, 541-488-5587, �ecialevents@ashland.or.us. C:\Documents And Settings\Shipletd\Local Settings\Temporery Internet Files\Content0utlook\63KU6145�AShland Special Event Application