The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12/02/1997 Council Mtg PACKET rj .J --~ , .....:z; ~r.l Po.lIl :z; tr>r.l l::E-t ..-400 p:: .....Hr.l · m gj fi! ::1:00 o ,:;:1:5[;1 . 0:< c:~>o ::I E-t o H O~O Important: Any citizen attending council meetings may speak on any item 9" the agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing which has been closed. If you wish to speak, please fill out the Speaker Request form located near the entrance to the Council Chambers. The chair will recognize you and Inform you as to the amount of time allotted to you. The time granted will be dependent to some extent on the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people who wish to be heard, and the length of the agenda. - AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL December 2,1997 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 7:00 p.m., CMc Center Council Chambers. II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular meeting minutes of November 18,1997. IV. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS 1. Presentation of Ahwahnee Award to the Community Development '. Department, for the newly adopted Transportation Element of the - Comprehensive Plan. V. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees. 2. Monthly Departmental Reports - October, 1997. - - '. , / Appointment of Paul Nolte as Judge Pro- Tem for December 20, 1997. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker. All hearings must conclude by 9:30 p.m. or be continued to a subsequent meeting). /' Appeal Hearing on a Planning Commission denial of a Variance to allow property at 1405 Tolman Creek Road to accommodate four llamas per acre rather than two. (Applicant Sherry Johnston). (CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 16, 1997 AT REQUEST OF APPLICANT) ~Citizen/Board and Commission Members input on 97-98 Council Goals, ~ ~ot previously submitted in writing. , / ~peal Hearing on a Planning Commission Denial of a Conditional Use , Permit to add additional unit (total of 5) to an existing 4-unit plus owner's quarters travelers accommodation located at 570 Siskiyou Blvd. (Applicant Laura Shrewsbury) :J ~ / Consideration of recommendation to reduce the Wastewater System Development Charges as recommended by the Systems Development Charge Committee. ~ PUBUC FORUM Business from the audience DQt included on the agenda. (Umited to 5 minutes per speaker and 15 minutes total.) VIII. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS ~~OrizatiOn by Council for Site Review for the construction of a 7800 square foot City office building located at 1175 E. Main Street (Planning ~ion 97-1(0). . Authorization by Council to set a Public Hearing Date for the Formation of Westwood Street UD. ' rlectiOn of Citizens' Budget Committee Members (2). IX. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS /' [Ysecond reading by title only of "An Ordinance Amending Chapter 18.62 of ,)<J tt,e Ashland Municipal Code - land Use Ordinance, Adopting New Hillside /% Development Standards and Adoption of Findings in Support." V ~ . Reading by title only of "A Resolution Repealing the Wastewater System Development Charges Methodology and Charges and Adopting a New Wastewater System Development Charges Methodology and Charges, Pursuant to Sections 4.20.050 and 4.20.040 of the Ashland Municipal / Code, and Amending Resolution 96-47." V 3. First readina of "An Ordinance Amerlding Section 11.54.050 of the Ashland Municipal Code to Reduce Criminal Penalties for Skateboard Violations in ;:x-the Downtown Area" ~ Reading by title only of "A Resolution Exempting from Competitive Bidding the Selection of a Financial Software System for the Department of Finance ~d a Records Software Program for the Police Department." . Reading by title only of "A Resolution of Intention to Provide for Improvements to Westwood Street Consisting of Curbs, Gutters, Sewers, Storm Drains, Paving and Sidewalks and Setting a Public Hearing." , X. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS XI. ADJOURNMENT City Council Agenda now available on the Internet. Internet Address: http://www.ashland.or.us ~ MINUTES FOR THE ADJOURNED MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL November 19, 1997 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Golden called the meeting to order at 12:38p,m"CivicCenter Council Chambers, IN ATIENDANCE: Councilors Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hagen, Wheeldon, and DeBoer were present, PUBLIC HEARINGS I. Extended Public Hearing on Consideration of revised Hillside Development Standards opened at 12:38 pm. Richard Ernst/97S Walker Ave.lClarified concerns he had with the proposed ordinance, Felt that staff had done well and doesn't oppose ordinance per se. He is concerned with the ridgeline portions as it affects his property , Larry Medinger/llS Fork St./Opposed due to the problems he sees with the ordinance, but also in favor of much of it. He prefers guideline ideas, rather than legislated requirements, Suggested a middle ground or a three month trial period in order to look at implementation, Did not feel that the process was adequately observed and that commit/ee members were in and out, with no minutes or votes taken, AIi Ross1734 Nob Hill/Submit/ed a statement in writing which was read by May~r Golden, She is concerned with creating an elitist environment of uniform, identical houses, Believes that citizens should be compensated due to down-wning and that this could be paid through open space funds, Kathie Kennedy1779 Twin Pines/Spoke on behalf of two property owners and tax payers. Gave example on how if one property owner subdivided their property, the second lot would be worthless because they would be unable to build due to the slope restriction of 35 %, Another property owner she spoke of, would be restricted due to the restrictions of building on ridgelines. Kennedy noted that the inability to build on these properties affects the ability to fund an expected retirement for these owners, Felt that affected property owners were not properly notified. Ed Houghton/219 Logan Drive/Questioned how this will affect approved lots, Felt that the city has been divided since 1982 and that realtors and builders can't be blamed for the flood. Felt that the comments made by city official were inflammatory. Commented that FOA "Friends of Ashland". really mean "Foes of Ashland", Suggested that there be flood plain standards, Councilors LawslDeBoer m/s to allow time accumulated, from those who chose to pass, to the person it is passed on to. DISCUSSION: Golden clarified how this has been handled in the past. It was noted that normally when time was passed to another speaker, it had to do with the possibility of running out of time, not the actual accumulation of additional time to a speaker, Councilor Hagen understood that when the speakers were giving time away, it was to get through by the 9:30 p.m, deadline, Councilor Reid stated that she thought longer times had been allowed in the past. Councilor Wheeldon felt this was an exceptional circumstance and council should allow an acceptable period of time for Wendie Kellington to speak, Discussion of amount of time that should be allowed and consideration of the number of speakers that hadegiven time over. Voice vote: All Ayes, Motion passed. Bob Strosser/2917 Bridgeport, Medford/Representing Coldwell Banker Real Estate, gave his time for Wendie Kellington to speak, City Council Meeting 11-19-97 1 Kyle Ahrberg/205 Florence Ave.,Medford/Noted nature of people who live in community, that a community is not a wildlife sanctuary or nature trail but a people habitat. Stated that there shouldn't be a limit on growth to appease a faction and you shouldn't be able to take away property rights, Feels there is a conflict with constitution and state land use ordinance, Urged council to vote against proposed ordinance. Larry Frank/Ul7 E. Jackson, Medford/Presented letter published in The Oregonian, Spoke on seeking a balance. Felt that the ordinance unfairly imposes burdens and urges the council to reject the ordinance. Frank questioned the variance wording of "minimum necessity" and felt that the aesthetics enforcement would be a nightmare, Stated that enforcement of this ordinance would need to be implemented fairly throughout the city, Urged council to notice, support and to stay in compliance with state laws, Rick Harris/2675 Quail Run, Talentl A former member of the Ashland Historic Commission. Presented a slide show to illustrate Ashland's diversity as reflected in the differences in various elements of the natural environment, the homes and the families living here, Feels that the "diverse quilt" making up the community of Ashland deserves better than having aesthetic features legislated for them, Also noted an Oregonian section featuring an article on "Cooperative Colors", wherein townhouse owners painted eight connected units different colors and were hailed nation wide for the unique quality of their community, Richard Stephens/336 W. Sixth, Medford/Representing Rogue Valley Association of Realtors, Read ORS 2197, dealing with land use needs with regard to growth over recent years, Questions existing lot splits, Felt that you couldn't build a modest home on this example lot under the proposed ordinance and that variances are difficult. Michael Kellington/381 S. Mountain/Presented map of slope demarcation which showed buildable lots under their interpretation of the ordinance versus the city Comprehensive Plan, He calculated that 643 acres would be lost. Using a GIS, map he showed that lots lost would be 1129 units and more than 500 acres, Robert L. Gantenbein/12U PacWest Ctr #1700, Portland/Senior Engineer with Talbott Associates 1nc.l Stated he had lived and worked 13 years in Ashland, Questioned slope and erosion issue, Clarified that a 35% slope is a 19.29 degree angle, Felt that you could safely build on 100% slope/45 degree angle, Commented that the uniform building code allows building and there is no requirement for engineering safety or other safety aspects, Don Rist/260 Joy Dr., Talent/Read a letter by Tracy McKan outlining the dangers of plain water and suggesting a ban on its use to illustrate that anything can be made to seem more dangerous than it is on paper. Felt that if people were aware of the existence of a current ordinance protecting the hillside they wouldn't have signed the petition submitted to council. Did not believe that you can dictate to neighbors and defended realtors. Wendie Kellington/12U PacWest Ctr, Portland/Attorney from Schwabe Williamson representing the Rogue Valley Association of RealtorslKellington allowed Robert Gantenbein to complete his presentation, _ Gantenbein reiterated that safety wasn't at issue, He spoke concerning erosion and explained that it can be controlled, if done properly, Concluded by saying that with the current ordinances, Ashland has the tools it needs to effectively deal with Hillside Development issues. Kellington asked council to read the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) letter, which she felt was in agreement with her prior memo to council. She identified legal problems she perceived in the ordinance, including removal of residential land from the buildable land inventory, and regulation of aesthetics. Felt that this did not meet the requirement for a "Goal 5 Process" in evaluating ecological, environmental, social and economic effects of the ordinance, Felt that this failed to comply with the State ordinance which would then require other municipalities to compensate. City Councit Meeting ll-t9-97 2 Kellington also indicated that the standards set in the ordinance were not objective and that the planning process should not become a "majority event", Urged council to deal with the culprits of flooding, identified in OT AK's final report, which did not include hillsides, Requested that council remember their fiduciary responsibilities, as mentioned earlier by Marie Donovan, Stated again that this ordinance removes buildable land from inventory and questioned the initial process as having limited input to emphasize an anti-growth sentiment. Discussed this process which began years ago as being conducted by the "Friends of Ashland" and not city-sponsored, Said that differing views weren't welcome, and that the process was designed to limit growth, Continued by stating that the ordinance is all aesthetics and does not really deal with safety, erosion or forest health, but rather limits density and lowers the buildable lands inventory within the urban growth boundary. Kellington concluded by stating that the variance process allowed within the ordinance is inadequate to allow building, That the requirements are impossible to meet, in particular to the potential ambiguity of "minimum necessity" needed for a variance, Commented on the myths concerning this ordinance and stated that the "45-dayrule" does not apply and there is no need to serve the hidden agenda of anti-growth elements. Emphasized that current rules are adequate, and that Ashland needs more enforcement of current rules, not more rules, Public hearing was closed at 1:52 pm. John Mclaughlin, Director of Community Development again noted the memo received from Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) and commented on having met with Jim Hinman, Field Representative to discuss suggestions noted in the memo. Stated that there was only one recommendation by DLCD, which Mclaughlin concurred with, and clarification of building envelopes was made. Mclaughlin clarified that the memo from D LCD did not say that everything in the ordinance was wrong and needed to be thrown out. DLCD stated that other concerns mentioned in the memo will likely be addressed in the City's findings, City Allorney Paul Nolte, agreed that DLCD had not asked that the ordinance be thrown out, or said that everything was wrong with it. Nolte gave example of using a Goal 5 process to justify aesthetics. Nolte brought attention to the portion of the memo from DLCD which requested that the city needs to either (1) relate standards cited above to a Goal 5 planning process under the "Goal 5 rule"; or (2) explain why the standards are not a Goal 5 program, Nolte explained to council that the city has never said this was a Goal 5 issue, and that the city has explained in many ways why the standards are not a Goal 5 program, Clarified that there is nothing that DLCD has indicated that would preclude the council from adopting any part or every part of the proposed ordinance, Nolte stated that the inventories are clearly supported through the memo from the Planning Director regarding the number of houses affected. Advised council to comply with Comprehensive Plan, Explained that clear and objective standards apply if needed housing is affected, Stated that there has been no evidence presented that proves needed housing, as defined by statute, is housing on the hillside, Agrees that some of the myths are just myths, and council does not need to address these. Clarified that no one, as yet, has stated to council that the process the council initiated was not sufficient, Noted there has been ample time allowed for public input 10 cure any defects that might have occurred prior to the council dealing with this issue. Mclaughlin agreed with Councilor Hauck that the inventory is based on the Urban Growth Boundary and population projection of twenty years and is "right on" according to our growth predictions, Mclaughlin explained that we are following our Comprehensive Plan adopted population element. City Council Meeting 11-19-97 3 McLaughlin believes that the differences in the inventory have to do with the methodology used for calculation, The opponents of the ordinance used a "gross methodology", by looking at large vacant parcels and assigning 1.5 units per acre to that. McLaughlin explained that when staff calculated our inventory, they looked at trying to get as accurate a number as possible by trying to determine "what are the buildable number of units wirhin rhe city limirs", They took into account street access and the ability to build new streets and develop to optimum density, under current codes. Explained that in many cases, those constraints that are already in place make it impossible to build to those ultimate densities, This is why the Planning Department estimates only 415 vacant units available in hillside areas. Stated that this number takes into account driveway standards already in place, and locations where public streets could not be built under current codes, These codes, which are already in place, set limits on partitioning or development of additional lots, separate from the proposed hillside ordinance. McLaughlin clarified for council that he does not believe there is a middle ground in calculating the number of units out of the inventory, Believes, as previously stated, that it is a matter of the methodology used, Confirmed for council that he would be comfortable to go before LUBA on an appeal and City Attorney Nolte concurred. Hauck confirmed that in the large lot zoning, there is in excess of 30-years inventory within the city limits for this type of housing supply. McLaughlin clarified that there are specific design standards in various zoning areas of the city. DeBoer noted a letter from Tom Ferrero where he states that "it is worth noting here that Larry Medinger, Pete Seda and myself, three members of the original hillside standards committee, are uncomfortable with the ordinance", McLaughlin feels that it is an issue of expectations, Explained that in this process a lot of adjustments and changes were made from the information received. What the council has before them is a joint effort of all involved and not anyone. Stated that consensus doesn't mean everyone agrees, it means there is not disagreement on every issue anymore. What the council is hearing now, regarding total unacceptance of ordinance, are things that did not come out during the Planning Commission meetings when reviewed and he does not believe it is grounds to send the ordinance back to the beginning. McLaughlin clarified how safety issues are handled in the planning process. Explained that in regards to slope and slope protection, there is a general understanding, and it is stated in our Comprehensive Plan, that the steeper the slope the more difficult the construction and the more opportunity for problems or failure. Stated that with the amount of knowledge we have regarding building on slopes, it is in our best interest to build at a lesser slope, McLaughlin clarified for council that he does not believe it is an aesthetic issue, but a safety issue, McLaughlin believes that it is safer for the community to build at a 35 % slope than it is at a 40% slope, McLaughlin clarified for council that section 18,140.040, regarding General Regulations, would not need to be revised because this is a determination of density for the WR zone, McLaughlin clarified for council that he had heard nothing during the recent testimony to change his mind regarding the support of the proposed ordinance. McLaughlin did feel that the recommendation by Larry Medinger, on height requirements, might merit an increase in the hillside building height from 30' to 35', Councilor Laws noted that there are several places in the Comprehensive Plan which speak of slopes and questioned whether the 35% is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. McLaughlin clarified that the proposed ordinance does not change the Comprehensive Plan and that the city has the right to have a stricter standard than a Comprehensive Plan policy, but not a lesser standard, City Council Meeting 11-19-97 4 City Anorney Nolte defined minimum necessity for council, or minimum necessary 10 comply with unique and unusual circumstances, Explained that this is common language used in variance provisions and it depends on what the difficulty is, Nolte clarified that "unique circumstan~es" apply to the property needs only, not the individual needs of the property owner, Councilor Reid, as liaison to Forest Commission, questioned keeping tree canopy when Forest Commission wants to thin canopy, Questioned if this is moving toward less fire safety. McLaughlin explained that with the proposed adjustment in the ordinance, it says that tree removal for the purposes of fuel reduction, independent of development, does not require the current permit. Explained that in terms of what relates to development, in the section for tree removal, it states "development will be designed to preserve the maximum number of trees on a site when balanced with other provisions of this chapter and recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction, if the development is located in wildfire lands", McLaughlin believes this creates a balance to stabilize slopes while reducing the fuel loading and fuel risk, Councilor Reid requested that council look at separating aesthetics from the proposed ordinance, Council reviewed proposed ordinance with discussion on a page-by-page basis, Page One: Councilor DeBoer pointed out that the formula indicated in section 18.62,030(B) should have the "A "directly under (L)(L); that the chapter 18.62,030 has duplicate (B) sections which staff should be directed to correct. ' Page Two: Noted changes made to chapter 18,62,030(0) regarding tree removal, It was suggested to add definition to chapter regarding "Design Professional", McLaughlin explained that this relates back to the confusion that started out in beginning of the ordinance when it included a statement that an architect is required to design any home on the hillside. The revised ordinance now states that what is required is a engineer architect to do the foundation work of the home, Felt that if council believed it would help equalize this by having this definition put into the ordinance, they could do that, Page Three: Noted changes made to chapter 18,62,030(L) regarding definition of Natural State. "Incidental brush removal for lot maintenance and ecosystem health is permitted," was added. Discussion regarding adding information to chapter 18.62.030(G) from the recent OT AK report and the Flood Plan published by FEMA, Councilor Hauck stated that the FEMA study as indicated in this section is the guide to be used and nothing is being changed in our floodplain ordinance, It was suggested to look at updating our floodplain study, given the OTAK model, or the most recent study available, Hauck clarified that until we change the ordinance that says we will use the new study and the new information from that, this is what is operative, but should be updated. Laws suggested that the definition of Floodway Chamrel should state "as defined by City Ordinance" as it is elsewhere. Pages Four and Five: Addition to chapter 18,62,030 regarding Tree Removal and chapter 18,62.040addition to Approval and Permit Required for physical constraints review permit requirement. Councilor DeBoer noted correction to formula on page 4, where "ARC" should be indicated over the word "TANGENT" in calculating the degree of slope, City Council Meeting 11-19-97 5 Question on whether the deletion of "No additional fee will be charged." to the end of chapter 18.62.040(E), was an error. McLaughlin explained that it was not added in the revised ordinance as it was considered redundant and not necessary. Page Thirteen: Changes were made to chapter 18.062.080(A) under General Requirements. Council was given options dealing with 35% slope, 20% to 40% slope, 35% with up to 40% with engineering and 40% slope. Council discussion regarding their position of slope requirement. Councilor DeBoer requested that council support a 40% slope, Councilors Hauck and Hagen would not support anything more than 35%, and Councilor Reid stated she had not heard anything that proved there is a physical need to move from 40% to 35% slope. Reid is more concerned with the aesthetic portions of this ordinance. DeBoer stated that he did not hear the engineer, who was part of the committee, recommend 35 % slope. DeBoer suggested changing maximum buildable slope to 40 % because we would only lose a few houses. Believes there is still a process that talks about what you would have to do to go to 40 % . Does not believe it is worth the battle for a 2 1/2 degree change and the possibility of legal challenges to the ordinance. Councilors Hauck/Hagen mls to make maximum buildable slope to 35% Roll call vote: Wheeldon, Hauck, Laws and Hagen, YES; DeBoer and Reid, NO. Motion passed, 4-2. Page 15: Changes made to chapter 18.062.080(B)(3) which added "involving partitions and subdivisions, and existing lots with an area greater than one-half acre." Page 17: Changes made to 18.062.080(B)(7)(b) which changed a date to January I, 1998. Page 20,22,23 and 24: Changes made to 18.062.080(D)(2) which changed definition of professional arborist to "landscape professional". Discussion regarding the necessity on requirement of "bonded" individuals. Page 25: Changes made to 18.062.080(E)(I)(c) regarding fuel reduction. Page 26: Changes made to 18.062.080(E)(2)(a) regarding the wording for reducing hillside disturbance through the use of slope responsive design techniques. Wheeldon requested an addition to chapter 18.062.080(E)(l)(d) regarding Building envelope locations. Suggested that if there is an existing ridgeline neighborhood, that the home be built within.the standard of that neighborhood. and that this be an exception and something that compliments the neighborhood. Laws suggested eliminating paragraph (d), he believes this becomes an aesthetic question and too much of a difference of opinion. Councilors ReidlDeBoer mls to delete section E, subsection 1, paragraph "d" from chapter 18.062.080. DISCUSSION: DeBoer concurs with this suggestion, but would like to make reference to the committee, that as things are deleted, a recommendation brochure be made available for hillside development that talks about ridgelines. Roll Call vote: Laws, DeBoer, Reid, YES; Hauck, Hagen and Wheeldon, NO. Mayor declares conflict of interest due to being a property owner on the.aill5lde. Motion failed due to tie vote. n~~ Laws suggested that the word of "shall"be changed to "should" in this section. City Council Meeting 11-19-97 6 Councilors DeBoerlReid mls to add, "Itis recommended..." to beginning of section E, subsection 1, paragraph "d" of chapter 18.062.080 and that "shall" be changed to "should". Roll Call vote: Hauck, Laws, DeBoer, Hagen, Reid and Wheeldon, YES. Motion passed. Councilor Reid declared that she owns property within the hillside and the effected area. McLaughlin suggested that in section 18.62.080(E)(2)(a) that 30' be changed to 35' as proposed. Councilors HaucklHagen mls to change section E, subsection 2, paragraph (a) in chapter 18.062.080 under mllside Building Height to 35'. DISCUSSION: McLaughlin clarified that the suggestion by Larry Medinger is to do the midpoint between the peak and the eave. Councilor Hauck'c1arified that his motion is only changing 30' to 35'. Laws withdrew his second to the motion. McLaughlin explained that using the average height between the eave and the peak is the way height is measured. Councilors ReidlLaws mls to change section E, subsection 2, paragraph (a) in chapter 18.062.080under Hillside Building Height. The section would read "The height of all structures shall be measured vertically from the midpoint of the roof edge and peak,...",and height would change to 35'.RolI Call vote: Laws, DeBoer, Reid, YES. Hauck, Hagen and Wheeldon, NO; Mayor Golden, NO. Motion deuied. Councilors WheeldonlHauck mls to change Maximum Hillside Building Height shall be "35 feet" in section E, subsection 2, paragraph (a) of chapter 18.062.080. Roll Call vote: Laws, Hauck, Hagen, DeBoer, Reid and Wheeldon, YES. Motion passed., Page 27: Changes to section 18.062.080 which deleted section (F). Wheeldon suggested in paragraphs (e),(1) and (g) that "shall" become "should" and is also covered in the guidelines. Laws suggested that "Ilis recommended...",be added to beginning of each of these sections. Councilors DeBoerlWheeldon mls to change chapter 18.062.080, section E, subsection 2, paragraphs (e), (I), and (g), so that "shall" becomes "should", and that "It is recommended...", be added to the beginning of each section. DISCUSSION: McLaughlin explained that the practical impact of this change would make people aware during the process, but would not be enforceable. DeBoer clarified that the second portion of paragraph (g) would be deleted if "shall" is changed to "should". Councilors LawslReid mls to amend motion striking paragraph (g) completely. Roll Call vote: DeBoer, Laws and Reid, YES; Hauck, Wheeldon and Hagen, NO; Mayor Golden, NO. Motion denied. Councilors WheeldonlLaws mls to change in chapter 18.062.080 section E, suhsection 2, paragraphs (e), (I), and (g) that "shall" become "should", that "Itis recommended...." be added to the beginning of each section and that the portion beginning with second sentence of paragraph (g) be deleted. DISCUSSION: McLaughlin clarified for council that it would be more troublesome to continue to include the portion of paragraph (g) beginning with second sentence. Roll Call vote: DeBoer, Laws, Reid, Hauck, Wheeldon and Hagen, YES. Motion passed. Page 28: Change to 18.062.080(2)(G) to include "and Design Professionals shall not include working drawings without having foundations designed by an engineer."; 18.062 .080(2)(H) portion of first sentence "of sufficient size to accommodate the uses permitted in the underlying zone." is deleted. City Council Meeting 11-19-97 '7 Councilors Hauck/Wheeldon mls to approve first reading of proposed ordinance with the amendments as proposed and place on agenda for second reading. DISCUSSION: Deboer voiced his continued concern of the potential impact on property owners by the slope change from 40% to 35%. Laws agrees that there will be impact on property owners, but not as badly as some people fear. City Attorney Paul Nolte, clarified for council that a variance can always be applied for. That the property owner would need to show that their property is unique, has unusual circumstances and comply with the rest of the variance criteria. Stated that variances are not easy, but not impossible and could be appealed to the council. DeBoer restated his position, that it is not worth the fight over 2 1/2 degrees. Mayor Golden commented on how some people see conflict and division within a community as a bad thing. Pointed out that some of the most important things that have happened in Ashland, happened under very controversial situations. Felt that there will continue to be important issues in this community where there is division, and that this division springs from the inherent importance of the issues themselves. Golden restated that she owns property on the hillside and that she will be affected by this proposed ordinance. She supports this ordinance even though it may cost her money and make it more difficult for her to develop. Laws noted the negative behavior during the process of this ordinance. He asked that "civility'be worked on in future debates. Used the name calling that happened during this process as an example. Roll Call vote: Hauck, Laws, Wheeldon, DeBoer, Hagen and Reid, YES. Motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS Councilor DeBoer requested and council agreed to extend the deadline period for application to the Budget Committee to December 1st. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 3:20p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder Catherine M. Golden, Mayor City Council Meeting 11-19-97 8 . MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL November 18, 1997 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Golden called the meeting to order at 7:00p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLLCALL Councilors Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hagen, Wheeldon and DeBoer were present. APPROV ALOF MINUTES The minutes of the Regular meeting of November 4, 1997 were accepted as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & A WARDS 1. Introduction and Presentation by Ashland Planning Commission. Barbara Jarvis, Chairperson of the Planning Commission, recognized other members of the Planning Commission (Steve Armitage, Christian Hearn, Michaef Morris, Anna Howe, Ron Bass, Mike Gardiner, and Marilyn Briggs). The duties and responsibilities of the commissioners were explained and recognition was made of the time and energy put in by Commissioners when dealing with issues which affect the city. Noted that commissioners are limited in what they can do and must follow criteria set by council. Councilor Hagen and Mayor Golden emphasized the important role of the Planning Commission. Mayor Golden also noted the decrease in planning action appeals under the current commission. Stated that the dedication and thoroughness of the Planning Commission makes the job of the Mayor and Councilors much easier, and recognized Jarvis's role in clarifying duties of the commission as a quasi-judicial body to enforce criteria established by city policy makers. 2. Presentation of Certificate of Achievement for Excellence In Financial Reporting from Government Finance Officers Association. Jon Jalali, City Manager pro lem of Medford, presented the Government Finance Officers Association's Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to the City of Ashland for the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ending June 30th, 1996. Jalali noted that of the roughly 84,000 governmental entities in the United States only three percent qualify to receive this honor and spoke of the expertise and cooperation required between accounting, department heads, council and mayor to produce an annual fmancial report which qualifies for this certificate. It was also noted that an award of this nature, serves as an excellent endorsement of Ashland for those considering buying bonds issued by the City. Finance Director Turner noted that this is the eighth or ninth consecutive year that the city has received this award. 3. Presentation by OT AK and acceptance of the Final Report for the Ashland Creek Flood . Restoration project. The OT AK, Inc. team consisting of Larry Magura of OT AK, Paul Fishman of Fishman Environmental Services and Clay Moorhead of the CDA Consulting Group presented their Final Report for the Ashland Creek Flood Restoration Project. Magura discussed the teams three part approach to this project which involved environmental assessments, an extensive public involvement program and the engineering phase consisting of hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of Ashland Creek Corridor. Presentation focused on the final report recommendations on pages 10-18 in the draft final report. \ Fishman spoke about the environmental assessment process which dealt with ecological and geoqrorphological considerations in the stream corridor to protect, rehabilitate and enhance the stream corrl'dor's habitat. Emphasized the strong community support for the environmental aspects of the project. Fishman identified some of the stream corridor features and problems along the stream's course including City Council Meeting 11-18-97 1 c areas along Calle Guanajuato where paving material had been poured on the stream bank. Noted items being built into the stream channel impeding flood flows and affecting habitat, confined areas near the Winburn Way crossing in need of habitat improvement, and potential problems for fish runs due to structures including culverts with paved, shallow bottoms. Moorhead discussed the comprehensive public involvement process, stating that the issues identified in the initial public meetings were so diverse, specialized and community-oriented that they shifted the project approach to create focus meetings. ,Five focus meetings were held to identify areas of public concern over topics including Winburn Way bridge design, hydro modeling and environmental interests. An additional meeting was scheduled to discuss the architectural design aspects of the Winburn Way bridge when strong public interest was shown. The public involvement process was particularly challenging due to the need to prepare an early action report, a short-term risk reduction and long-term management recommendations in a definite time frame. Also noted how the public was kept informed on progress through public meetings, newsletters, public notices and announcements. Notices were sent to property owners as well as information posted at the construction site and on the interpretive signs nearby. Magura explained the hydrologic and hydraulic analysis to establish a theoretical "Ioo-yearflood event" which would have a one percent average chance of occurring in any given year. Noted that the only available background was from a 1980 FEMA study which was crude by today' s standards. Explained that the bridges and culverts were undersized even by the FEMA study's findings. OT AK established a new hydrologic study based on modern methods, realizing that historically Ashland has had a flood approximately once every ten years back to the 1940'sand before which is an extraordinary number of flood events. Noted that urbanization along the creek has affected its ability to convey flood flows. Magura explained the Hydrologic Engineering Center River Aualysis System (HEC-RAS), which is a state-of-the-art hydraulic modeling system was used to generate a precise model based on 106 cross-sections taken in a 4200' section of the creek from Hersey St. to Butler Bandshell and then on to the Granite St. Reservoir. Based on this model, the OT AK Team was able to identify and prioritize deficiencies and how they could be addressed. Explained that the early action recommendations were made to identify things that could be done this summer to prepare for potential flooding this winter as a means of short term risk reduction. Chief among these recommendations was the replacement of the Winburn Way culvert with a modern ConSpan pre- fabricated bridge and a flood wall. The "Ioo-yearflood event" was defined as having a flow of 3100 cubic feet per second (cfs) in contraSt to the prior FEMA study that had defined this event as 2200 cfs. Explained that long term recommendations focused more on stream corridor management issues. Discussed the progress of the Winburn Way bridge construction including the placement of all utilities, a storm scepter to keep storm-carried pollutants out of the stream, a new hydrant, street and crosswalk. Noted the possibility of project completion by November 26 to allow the bridge to be open to vehicular traffic and qualifying the contractor for portion of contract incentives. It was explained that the crosswalk is in, railing and lights are scheduled to be in by mid-December, but that paving would need to wait until dry weather. Magura asked the council to accept the recommendations on pages 10-18 of the draft final report or provide input for modifications. The recommendations discussed methods of flood control, including the \mder- construction flood wall in Lithia Park for protection; setting minimum channel capacity of at least 1500 cfs and not allowing encroachment; removing and replacing gunite in channel or expect bank failure along Calle Guaftajuato; cantilever deck removed; adopting stream setback ordinance and consider designating existing structures as non-conforrning. City Council Meeting 11-18-97 2 " .' Moorhead discussed the need for a nood management plan in addition to the flood control measures. Suggested that an annual review of flood hazard conditions be conducted as part of Emergency Management Plan by city staff with consultants andlor community members to identify improvements and maintenance issues for the drainage basin which could reduce future risks of flooding. Moorhead identified removal of woody debris from floodplain similar to the City of Medford Public Works program for regular annual debris removal. This could involve coordinated effort by the City, Parks Dept. and the Forest Service. Also suggested conducting an annual tree assessment on creekside;. using removable or bolted-down concrete furniture to withstand flood conditions; designating a specific member of staff to undertake the flood plan; refining response plan in "greenbook" of emergency responses, including the stockpiling of sandbags, purchasing a sandbagging machine, and placing stations for sandbags at strategic points, including pedestrian walk near lower duck pond in park; and identifying and maintaining a list of at-risk-properties. Magura explained recommended nood design standards for improvements on new structures to meet the 3loocfsll00-year event standard. Noted that Water St. bridge should be the next focus of city's efforts and something similar to the Winburn Way bridge should be considered. Replacement of pedestrian bridges was also suggested. Fishman outlined some of the habitat and environment recommendations. Explained that bridges, stream bank protection or other projects in the stream corridor should follow guidelines and review procedures to protect habitat and hydraulic capacity for flood conveyance. Control of sediment and erosion watershed-wide is a major part of this issue due to sedimented granitic soils. Fishman is working with Parks staff to formulate a stream corridor management plan, and recommended that the city work with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and the National Marine Fisheries Service to determine fish production goals and develop a formal program to improve fish habitat and allow fish passage. Urged council to look at both short- and long-term improvements recommended in report, to review them carefully and develop an implementation plan. Noted that most of the short-\erm recommendations are in progress, so the long term recommendations should be looked at closely to develop a long-term plan. Fishman also discussed aesthetic considerations and community character, giving only one recommendation. That the community involvement should guide aesthetic decisions for future improvements in the stream corridor. Used the Winburn Way bridge design as an example, since it resulted largely from community input during the interactive process of public meetings. Magura summarized what had been requested of the OT AK team, including early action items, main report of recommendations and that the project be carried out in a very public atmosphere with extensive interaction between consultants, staff and concerned members of the public. Outlined how these items had been delivered, summarizing the presentation and mentioning the recent FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant for $150,000 which was prepared by Mr. Moorhead with no additional compensation from the city. Magura then discussed ideas about what needs to be done next. These included fixing Water St. bridge with one smaller ,than that on Winburn Way. Noting the utility conflicts and the "risky location" of the new condominiums on Water Street. Looked at what needs to be done on Calle Guanajuato, especially with regard to the existing pedestrian bridge (Ken Mickelsen of Parks Dept. and Brian McCarthy, Parks & Rec. Commission landscape architect have this project under way). And how to deal with the damaged gunite areas on the Calle. Concluded by expressing appreciation of city staff for their essential contributions to the overall effort, specifically mentioning Public Works DirectorlCity Engineer Paula Brown, Assistant Public Works Director Jim .olson, and Interim City Administrator Greg Scoles. ; City Council Meeting 11-18-97 3 Mayor Golden questioned the shallowness of the new Winburn Way bridge's flow and channel. Fishman explained geomorphologists had been looking into this and decided on the addition of hard elements to balance hydraulic capacity, habitat and water passage in the area where the retaining walls create the channel. Will also be dealing with the fish weirs under the bridge to address this issue. Councilor Reid questioned alternatives to gunite. Fishman suggests stone, rock and grouted stone walls; clarified walls could be used to stabilize steep banks. Clarified that structures referred to earlier had actually been constructed into the active creek channel as decking foundation, and that the grouted stone walls would not have a structural nature but rather would set the grade of the stream bed to direct the water flow. Mayor Golden noted that the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant was actually in the amount of $155,000, not , the $150,000 previously mentioned, due to the addition of $5,000 for administrative costs. Cate Hartzell/881 E. Main SUA member of Watershed Partnership speaking on her own behalf, asked that the report be accepted, but not adopted as the Watershed Partnership is still reviewing the recommendations with staff. Councilors DeBoerlLaws mls to accept final report. Voice vote, all A YES. Motion passed. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of boards, commissions and committees. 2. Monthly Departmental Reports - October, 1997. 3. Confirmation of appointment of Russ Chapman to the Planning Commission. Councilors Hauck/Reid mls to accept the consent agenda. Voice vote, all AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Summary of expenditures to be included in Flood Restoration Bond Issue. Public Hearing open: 8:05 pm. . Finance Director Jill Turner explained the proposed bond issue and recognized the contribution by city staff members Jim Olson and Karen Huckins who spent hours helping to prepare information for FEMA. Noted that despite the long process, the results are genuinely satisfactory and there has been very little disagreement with the FEMA office or the Office of Emergency Management. Turner explained that most of the work is completed or nearly completed. Presented graphs detailing breakdowns of the total expenditure of $3.6 million and the sources of repayment. Explained that FEMA will not pay for highway repairs and that bond proceeds could only be used for capital, not "emergency" cosis. Requested approval of bond issue for $1,080,000, which is less than the $1,250,000 expected. Noted that damage costs were nearly $1 million more than initial estimates, and requested the issuance of general obligation bonds for flood restoration. Turner noted that she intends to refinance the 1992 water bonds (due to the presence of a favorable interest market) by combining as one issue and reduce the cost of issuance. This would provide significant savings ($50-75,000) by refinancing now. Mayor Golden requested that the bond issuance be discussed under Ordinances, Resolutions and Contracts in order to complete the Public Hearing by 9:30 pm. Public hearing closed: 8:13 pm. ~ City Council Meeting 11-18-97 4 2. Consideration of revised Hillside Development Standards. Public hearing open: 8:20 pm. Mayor Golden explained that Ashland residents would be allowed to speak first, followed by non-residents, and that all speakers would be allowed three ntinutes. Noted that all non-resident speaker requests were in opposition to the ordinance and were in some way connected to real-estate or development. Director of Community Development, John McLaughlin explained that the ordinance was back before council after l'h months in ad hoc committee meetings. During that time, issues such as slope, building location, and design standards, had been dealt with. McLaughlin noted that a memo had been received from Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) Field Representative Jim Hinman explaining their review of the ordinance and giving some suggestions. After consideration of these suggestions, McLaughlin concurs and recommends a deletion of the line in 18.62.080(h) which states "of sufficient size 10 accomnwdale lhe uses permiued in lhe underlying zone". This was a clarification of building envelopes as suggested by DLCD as per their memo.' Stated that other concerns in the DLCD memo will likely be addressed in the City's findings. McLaughlin also discussed the 22 page memo received from Wendie Kellington on behalf of the Rogue Valley Association of Realtors. This memo included 29 specific recommendations, the first six of which refer to specific items from a previous memo and the remaining 23 raising questions with the original ordinance. McLaughlin stated that neither he nor City Attorney Paul Nolte felt these issues should be acted upon by the council. Disagreed that the ordinance resulted in noncompliance with statewide goals as suggested in the memo. Addressed specific issues in which the Rogue Valley Association of Realtors claims a loss of 1129 buildable units on vacant lands as a result of this ordinance. The Planning Department identified only 1600 available units in the entire city, and estimates that only 33 buildable lots would be lost. This is a loss of only two percent of the currently available building lots, rather than the 70% suggested by the Rogue Valley Association of Realtors, which McLaughlin stated, was "very misleading" . Councilor Reid questioned whether taking division of lots into account could affect the parties reaching these numbers. McLaughlin explained that currently there are requirements affecting development on all hillside lands, and a higher level of geotechnical analysis and plan requirements and more requirements for new street requirements. Councilor Reid asked whether certain requirements would apply only to splitting lots or creating new lots. McLaughlin stated that this was not the case. Also clarified that tree removal, when not part of development, as part of wildfire management in accord with the Fire Department, would not require a permit or involvement .of the Planning process. Steve Wood/460 Parkside Dr ./Currently building on hillside. Has moved his envelope to save a small tree, and will use indigenous plants. Stated that Planning Department is made up of intelligent, creative people who strictly enforce, to the letter of the law, all building codes for safe hillside construction. They protect the environment and create safe, secure homes. Feels that this ordinance is an intrusion into personal property rights that amounts to a shameless landgrab on the part of the no-growth lobby. Would like to see laws, which apply to all citizens, equal. Marilyn Briggs/590 Glenview DrlStated that the ordinance is well put together with a few minor problems, and that the Cooper property is evidence of the need for strong standards for hillside development. Willing to fqrget color requirements, and noted that 18.62.080(a) provides a variance procedure to satisfy those opposing the ordinance. Quoted Frank Lloyd Wright who recommended building up hills not on hills due to City Council Meeting 11-18-97 5 ., fire patterns. Noted her personal experience with fire in the 1960's, where fire moved up Glenview Dr. to Terrace St. John Billings/1l40 Jackson/Questioned number of available lots. Made note of his time in council beginning in 1953 and his 30 years of service on council and in the planning commission. Stated that problems arise due to the number of people wanting to live here and needing rules to balance desirability versus livability. Future will bring more people and we should plan to expand boundaries west out Ashland Mine Rd.. Feels that basic rules of construction would satisfy concerns over hillside development safety, but noted his concerns regarding runoff. Wants to keep Ashland liveable. Bill Emerson/90 5th StlAs a design professional, he likes the existence of guidelines but would like to have a definition of design professional added along with architect in 18.62.080(g). Pat Walden/l44 NutleylOwns an undeveloped lot on the hillside, and feels that while these restrictions affect her ability to build or sell she still favors the ordinance due to concerns over fire, flooding and aesthetics. Hillsides are important resource to the community and should be placed before property rights, and people sometimes need to give up individual rights to live together for a common good. Pete Seda/1257 Siskiyou/Thanked volunteers for work on ordinance and appreciates the professionalism of the Planning Department. Stressed the importance of relying on volunteers, with professional assistance when needed. Noted that the State Urban Forestry Board would be willing to help with a tree protection ordinance. Felt that relying on the volunteer process and then forwarding to committee, planners and councilors makes accomplishing initial goals difficult. Barbara Bean/510 Terrace/Concerned about unstable granite slopes. Ordinance goes a long way to protect slope. Council must look to best interest of vast majority of citizens and have courage. Original standards correct with 35 % limits. Questioned lots in watercourses. Claire Collins/315 High St.lQuestioned slope percentage and noted 35 % was a compromise as many wanted a 25 % limit. Noted difficulty in getting fire trucks up steep roads especially when icy. Ashland is a fireprone town and hillsides effect entire town. Roads on slope lead to erosion and run-off which contributed greatly to this year's flood event. Need planning and guidelines to reach the desirability level citizens want, and there are variances for special cases. Becky Lindgren/Granite St.lGranite St. property owner, born in Ashland. Concerned about her ability to build, divide or sell a two-acre lot she owns under this ordinance. Has similar concerns for grandmother's property. Gerald Cavanaugh/560 Oak/Spoke before in favor of strictest ordinance. Not an issue for science to decide but is up to the majority reflected through council's decision. 35 % in these hills appears too steep for building, but it is a standard that can be worked with. Aesthetics deal with more than color but shape, size, placement and as such must be considered and regulated. "Should" is acceptable in place of "shall"with regard to color. This issue touches a raw nerve, and council needs to consider the will of the majority in making a decision. Cate Hartzell/881 E. Main/Confirmed general support for safety aspects, stating that the issue should not be "keeping houses on the hill, but the hillsides on the hill". Ordinance could have tried to deal with other design options other than color, but the committee tried to mitigate key aspects of the appearance of the overall number of houses on the hill. Noted that the Comprehensive Plan might be interpreted to encourage restrictions even lower than 35 %, and that the city needs to balance keeping developers in business with City Council Meeting 11-18-97 6 " safety of hillside. Questioned subsidizing growth at the expense of all citizens, noting issues concerning property rights, costs of growth, traffic goals, fire and erosion risks. Steve Morjig/610 Chestnut/Considers it a mistake not to have involved realtors and builders earlier in this process. Opposed to some elements as the ordinance is primarily aesthetic and should not regulate aesthetics. Flood damage on Granite St. was due to natural erosion, and in the case of the Cooper property a city mistake in approving subdivision. Present regulations are adequate to handle hillside issues. Noted that wording should be suggestive and felt that "enforcement by committee" would be difficult and time consuming. Lynn Fergeson/1537 Lilac Cir/Noted that 1100 citizens had signed a petition asking for adoption of proposed ordinance and expressed concern with building to ridgeline. Expressed strong feelings that we are irreparably damaging community with current building practices, and that color concerns have been a diversion from important issues. Special interests seeking monetary benefit shouldn't be placed before the community at large, and we should diligently guard our irreplaceable natural resources for the benefit of future generations and carefully preserve the safety of our present citizens. Marie Oonovanl Ashland Homes/189 Logan Drl Against the ordinance, and disturbed by the "lack of process". Noted that city's interpretation of Oregon Administrative Rules, that no urban residential growth is expected to occur on hillside slopes greater than 25 %, is wrong by her understanding. Felt that the city's entire buildable lands inventory must remain available for residential development unless the Comprehensive Plan land inventory is amended before this ordinance is adopted. By not dealing with this or dealing with impact on city's remaining Goal 10 compliance, this ordinance removes a large amount of land from the city'savailable housing stock. Feels strongly that this is contrary to law, and bad policy placing undue pressure on urban growth boundary. Feels this is a disservice to agricultural lands, the urban growth boundary, sister cities and Jackson County. As a fiduciary of the city'sland use program and steward of the county and state land use programs the city should not adopt the proposed ordinance as written. Bill Robertson/2175 Tolman Cr/Chairman of the Forest Commission and President of the Board of Jackson County Fire District #5 for Rural Fire Service. Submitted lengthy letter concerning the ordinance relative to ecosystem health and fire safety. Stated that city needs to open forest canopy to provide less fuel for fires, allowing for healthier trees and making it easy and inexpensive for homeowners to take out trees to thin the canopy. Peggy Roberts/320 mgh StlHelped collect signatures on the petition to pass the ordinance. Citizens have shared concern about continued unrestricted development destroying hillsides. Hillsides are identified as a natural resource in statewide planning goals for the protection of natural features. Many hillside residents and property owners favor this ordinance. Council faces both an obligation and an opportunity to reach a "Sustainable Ashland" often spoken of. Must consider social wellbeing, financial results and environmental protection. Bill Tweedie/1537 Lilac Cir.lVolunteer who helped circulate petition. Expressed support of strong ordinance, with safety and aesthetic elements, noting that aesthetics cannot be separated. If restrictions not retained in ordinance, the natural beauty of the hillside will be gradually destroyed, affecting the desirability of the city. Noted that American Planning Association requested information from jurisdictions with hillside plans or ordinances. 190 cities and counties responded, and 75 % of those listed aesthetic purposes as the reason for the ordinances, and this was highest percent of all reasons given. Henry Kneebone/449 Orchard St./Disagreed with ordinance, noting original recommendation of Gov. McCall to build on hills in order to save farmland. City Council Meeting 11-18-97 7 , Bob Taber/97 Scenic Dr.lProgressive Citizens AlliancelRead November 13th letter from petition signed by 1100 petitioners regarding adoption of original ordinance, and urged council to pass the ordinance. Carlos Reischenshammer/600 Emigrant Cr. Rd.lNoted he was in favor of health and safety issues and opposed to aesthetic regulations, feeling that standards should be the same for all. Urged another look at the ordinance to separate safety from aesthetics. Also noted that after speaking to the fire department he was told that the deck height issue wasn't a safety issue on their part, as implied in previous discussion of ordinance. Steve Asher/l060 ElkaderlDiscussed a letter from John Chandler, Director of Government Affairs for the Oregon Building Industry Association. Opposed to the ordinance due to divisive nature and disparities it creates. Aesthetics change and an ordinance shouldn't dictate current conventions to future generations. Need to compromise. Dick Trout/830 Garden WaylSpoke for aesthetics, urging council to keep Oregon looking like Oregon. Rad Welles/359 Kearney/Concerned with Californians moving to Oregon and then dictating policy. Variance procedure is not available to all. Questioned how many lots are really affected by requirements of the ordinance, including those with houses. Noted concerns over the "invasive"requirement for a costly tree survey. Larry Medingerl1l5 Fork St./Presented photos, questioning elements of ordinance as they apply to the photographed houses, including ridge definitions, color requirements, and gables. Suggested guidelines as used in the Historic District. Richard Ernst/975 WalkerlConcerned that a 10,000 sq. ft. lot with 100 trees would be treated the same as a lot with only 5 trees. Public hearing adjourned at ,9:30 pm, as required in ordinance. Mayor Golden noted that the public hearing could continue to the scheduled time for the study session tomorrow. Clarified that city ordinance requires public hearings to be completed by 9:30 pm. Stated that only those that had signed up to speak this evening would be allowed to speak at the adjourned meeting. Councilors HaucklLaws mls to continue public hearing on Wednesday, November 19th at 12:30pm. DISCUSSION: Councilor Hagen noted that there had been ample opportunity for comment through the process. Councilor Hauck agreed with Hagen's comments, but noted ordinance that requires continuation if all speakers haven't been heard. City Attorney Nolte clarified that the continuation of the meeting would not be a study session, but a continued public hearing and decision making would be possible. Voice vote: Laws Reid, Hauck, Wheeldon, and DeBoer, AYE. Hagen, NO. Motion passed, 5-1. PUBLIC FORUM None NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Authorize Mayor and City Recorder to sign Quitclaim Deed to convey property off Tolman Creek Road to William P. Robertson. Councilor Reid requested a map to see the area to be quitclaimed. Councilor DeBoer clarified the situation, and ,.City Attorney Paul Nolte noted that two new owners are now involved. DeBoer stated that he could only' authorize signing, if the document was in hand, ready to be filed. City Council Meeting 11-18-97 8 . William P. Robertson, grantee in the deed, explained that he's jumped through all the city'shoops and arranged the agreement to connect city streets. Now he has sold pieces of his property, taken out loans, and doesn't have legal access to his property. Concerned that ifnot handled now, an agreement will not be possible later. Councilor Laws suggested that the Quitclaim Deed signing could be authorized now pending Friday's meeting between ,Robertson and Planning. Councilor DeBoer questioned conveying back this piece if city owns pieces of all three properties. Nolte explained that the situation was due to a city mistake, and since the origiual agreement wasn't recorded in a timely manner, the other pieces do not belong to the city. DeBoer made strong recommendation that city seek pre-signed agreements in the future from other property owners. Councilors Hauck/Hagen mls to authorize Mayor and City Recorder to sign Quitclaim Deed. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. 2. Authorize Mayor and City Recorder to sign Quitclaim Deed removing pedestrian easement at 137 Oak Meadows Place. Councilors DeBoerlReid mls to authorize Mayor and City Recorder to sign Quitclaim Deed. Discussion on how the survey was incorrect and that the easement is through a deck and part of a house. Discussed rules of adverse possession and City Attorney Nolte clarified that adverse possession cannot be claimed against government. Councilor Hauck clarified history. Discussion of the intent behind the original pedestrian easement and how this would affect eventual extension of the Bear Creek Greenway to Hersey St. Voice vote: Wheeldon, Reid, Laws, and DeBoer, AYE. Hauck and Hagen, NO. Motion passed, 4-2. Councilors HagenlReid mls to extend meeting past 10:00pm. Voice vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 3. Recommendation by Housing Commission for the creation of a Rental Assistance and Home Ownership pilot programs. Senior Planner Bill Molnar and Housing Commissioners Larry Medinger and Gerry Sea presented information on two proposed city-sponsored loan progratns to fund affordable housing in Ashland. The Ashland Rental Assistance program would provide $750 dollars to potential renters for assistance with up-front. costs, particularly for those who have a regular income but can't meet move in costs. Would be a short term, 15 month loan at 5 % interest. Home Ownership program would provide $2500 to help with downpayment and miscellaneous closing costs. Noted that the program would place a limit on asset, and require recipients to take ownership classes, as well as requiring residency or employment in Ashland for 6 months previous to application for both progratns. Both progratns would be administered by an outside agency. Similar progratns throughout the state are administered by H. U . D. and require no repayment. Repayment would be required under the proposed progratns here. The initial authorization request is $30,000 per program, to allow operation with an evaluation after I year. Councilor Reid questioned whether this assistance would be available for those receiving H.U.D. loans. Medinger clarified any loan would qualify as long as Affordable Housing guidelines were met. Molnar noted a p~sibility that H.U.D. matching funds could become available later. Councilor Reid questioned whether residency requirement could be changed to I year. Molnar noted that City Attorney Nolte had been consulted in arriving at the 6-month requirement. City Council Meeting 11-18-97 9 Councilor Hauck discussed similar programs elsewhere, explaining that recovery through electric bill payments would help greatly. Councilor Laws questioned bill recovery on electric bills for rentals and stated it will become a subsidy and gradually lose funds through repayment failure. Councilor Hauck noted success of others in the region. Councilor DeBoer questioned whether this funding was available to be used ,elsewhere, also noting that $2500 would be of little help with most closing costs. Councilor Hauck clarified that the funding was available to be used elsewhere. Councilor LawslHagen mls to authorize the program. Voice vote, all A YES. Motion passed. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Flood Restoration and Refunding Bond Issue Series 1997." Councilors Hauck/Laws mls to adopt Resolution #97-38. DISCUSSION: Mayor Golden spoke concerning Measure 50 issues, property tax value increases and the fact that funds may be available elsewhere. Suggested leaving electric rates as is, rather than decreasing them as had been discussed. Would like to see funds made available elsewhere without bond or tax increases. Questioned a way of retiring bonds without specifying retirement through property taxes. Finance Director, Jill Turner clarified that general obligation bonds could be paid as a lien against property taxes if not paid some other way. Noted that this would mean an average cost of $10.53 for a $100,000 home. It would be possible to decide on other sources to pay back bonds after issue, but it was noted that projects for Streets, Parks and Water Departments have little funding available frorn other sources. Councilors Laws and Hauck stated that they felt council could authorize the resolution and allow the budget committee to determine how bonds would be retired. Mayor Golden noted that she'd like a commitment to find other funding. Councilor DeBoer asked for clarification of previous issue's amount, rate and payment information from Turner. Councilor Hagen stated that he was open to looking at other options including tax reductions. Councilor Wheeldon questioned timeline to get best rates, and Turner noted that the current bond market is very favorable. Turner also noted that the issue was important now because of IRS calendar year limitations which require financing wastewater treatment plant and this bond issue in separate calendar years to get the best possible interest rate. Councilor DeBoer asked about combining Fordyce St. LID with this issue. Turner clarified that this was not possible. Cate Hartzell/881 East Main St./Stated that she would like to see public explanations of flood restoration costs related to this issue. Council members clarified that it had been explained earlier in the public hearing. Hartzell reiterated that she would like to see costs publicized, with estimates compared to actuals, and further questioned cost of restoration projects at the airport and the overall process. Roll call vote: Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hagen, Wheeldon, and DeBoer, YES. Motion passed. 2. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Changing the Name of Marklyn Drive to Ashland Creek Drive." Dis.!ussion concerning the similarity of "Ashland Creek" to "Ashland Street" noting the potential for confusion on 911 calls. There was confirmation that the Fire Department had signed off on the name change and City Council Meeting 11-18-97 10 , Director of Community Development John McLaughlin clarified related details of the street name ordinance. Councilors HaucklReid mls to adopt Resolution #97-39. Roll call vote Reid, Hauck, Hagen, Wheeldon, DeBoer, and Laws, YES. Motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at \0:30p.m. to continue at 12:30p.m. on Wednesday, November 19th. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder Catherine M. Golden, Mayor . ~ City Council Meeting 11-18-97 11 MEMORANDUM CITY OF ASHLAND Department of Community Development Planning Division DATE: November 25, 1997 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development RE: Ahwahnee Award, Transportation Element of Comprehensive Plan Attached to this memo is an award received by the City of Ashland for our recently completed Transportation Element. The award is from the Local Government Commission and the American Institute of Architects, California Council. The Local Government Commission is a 17-year old progressive organization composed of local elected officials and others which helps local governments address their difficult issues. They represent most of the western United States, and focus their efforts on creating more livable communities. A list of other communities receiving Ahwahnee Awards was provided. Those communities are as follows: CALIFORNIA Sacrarnento Alameda County San Diego Long Beach Oakland Santa Cruz San Francisco Los Angeles San Jose Lemon Grove W ASIDNGTON Seattle Olympia COLORADO Denver Aspen TEXAS Addison Ashland was the only community ,in Oregon to receive an award. It was also one of the smallest communities. NEVADA Reno LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION AND THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL PRESENT AHWAHNEE AWARD OF MERIT TO City of Ashland, Department of Community Development IN RECOGNITION OF ASHLAND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTA TJON ELEMENT ~1I;JgAMI_j/VA- The American Institute of Arrllitects. California Council 1\.)0.0. \+ I cr'" Date \ Creating livable Communities The 1997 Ahwahnee Cornmuniry Livabiliry Awards will be pre- sented by rhe Local Govern- ment Commission's Center for Livable Communities and The American Institute of Architects, California Council, to recognize exemplary projects thar further an evolution toward more livable, pedestrian- oriented and transir- based cornmuniries. Named in honor of the Ahwahnee Principles, these awards recognize communities whose plans and projects are creating a better qualiry of life for rheir residents and for their region as a whole. First presented to a gathering of elected officials in 199 I, at Yosemite's Ahwahnee Horel, the Ahwahnee Principles represent a set of planning concepts , and implementation measures that provide a blueprint for reducing automobile dependence and planning more livable communities: places thar are economically and socially vibtant with a healthy natural environrnent and a good qualiry of life for all residents. ... Among the previous recipients of the AIJlvalmee Awards are: (top) Holly Street Village, a mixed-use residential/commercial project near downtown Pasadena; (middle) Suisun City [California}; redeveloped downtown~ where residents gather on the green; and (bottom) downtown Port/and's trans- portation network and tree-lined, wide sidewalks. The Ahwahnee Principles for a "livable communiry" prescribe a diverse and balanced mix of housing, jobs, businesses and recreational activities - all of which are located within easy walking distance of each other. A livable communiry has a "center" and other inviting public places for civic and cultural uses ro help define irs character and establish its " f I " I sense 0 pace. ts streets, sidewalks, paths and public spaces are pedestrian- oriented and bike-friendly. I ts streets and paths- integrated with a transit sysrem-provide fully connected and interesting routes of access throughout the communiry. Irs natural resources, open spaces, and environmental features are preserved and used efficiently. Its urban design, including mixed- use, compact development, fosters economic vitaliry for the ciry's downtown and neighborhood districts. The Ahwahnee Principles are outlined inside. Fot more information on the Center for Livable Communities, call '8'(800) 290-8202. ,"."''''''';..,' ",1 for More Liva"'e Communities The Ahwahnee Principles identify a nexus of community design concepts for creating more livable communities. ' , All planning should be in the form of complete and integrated communi- ties containing housing, shops, work places, schools, parks and civic facilities essential to the daily life of rhe residents. .2 Community size should be designed so that housing, jobs, daily needs and other activities are within easy walking distance of each other. 3 As many activities as possible should be located within easy walking distance of transit Stops which are connected to a larger. regional transit network. 4 A communiry should contain a diversity of housing types to enable cit- izens from a wide range of economic levels and age groups to live within its boundaries. 5 Businesses within the com~uniry should provide a range of job types for community residents. 6 The community should have a center focus that combines commercial. civic, cultural and recreational uses. Public spaces should encourage rhe attention and presence of people at all hours of the day and night. ,7 Streets and bike/pedestrian paths should contribute to a system of fully connected, interesting routes to all ,destinations. Designs should encourage pedestrian and bicycle use by being small and spatially defined by buildings, trees and lighting; and by discouraging high speed traffic. S The community design should help conserve resources and minimize waste. Street orientations, buildings, place- ments and the use of shadin~ should contribute to the communitys energy efficiency. Efficient water use should be achieved through natural drainage, drought tolerant landscaping and recy- cling. 9 Wherever possible, the natural terrain, drainage and vegetation of the community should be preserved with superior examples contained within parks or greenbelts. '0 Each community or cluster of communities should have a well- defined edge, such as agricultural green- belts or wildlife corridors, permanently protected from development. " The community should have an ample supply of specialized open space in the form of squares, greens a,nd parks whose frequent use is encouraged rhrough placement and design. The Ahwahnee Principles include four imtJlementation tJrincitJles for creating more livable communities. ,.2 General plans should be updared to incorporate these principles. '3 Rather than allowing developer- ,iniriared, piecemeal development, communiries should take charge of the planning process. General plans should designate whete new growth, infill or redevelopment is to occur. '4 Prior to any development, a specific plaD' should be prepared based on the planning principles. 'S Plans should be developed through an open process. Participants in the process should be provided visual models of all planning proposals. The Ahwahnee Principles also identify four regional conct!J>ts for creating more livable communities. '6 The regional land-use planning structure should be integrated within a larger transportation network built around transit rather than freeways. '7 Regions should be bounded by and 'provide a continuous system of greenbelrlwildlife corridors to be deter- mined by natural conditions. 18 Regional institutions and services (government, stadiums, museums, etc.) should be located in the urban core. , 9 Materials and rnethods of consrruction should be specific to the region, exhibiting continuity of histoty and culrure and compatibility wirh rhe climate to encourage the development of local character and community identity. Examples of community projtcts lhat are implementing these various principles are featured in the Local Government Commission; monthly newsletter "Livable Places Update." ($12 for 12 issues). The 94-page guidebook, "Land Use Strategies for' More Livable Places," dis- cusses the Ahwahnee Principles and illus- trative model projects in greater tktail ($19.75) To order these or other Center publications, call'" (916) 448-1198. ',;~~~:!td:~1~;~~t~:i~~:~1:;t;7~~~::~:~~~l~ia~ibn: ;whi;$P~~~~~{..,~',:~^"o/!17~" ....'".;;.. Putting Our Communities Back on Their Feet: lIThe Road Less Traveled" November 14-15, 1997 * Los Angeles, CA 4th Annual western States Conference on Land Use Planning and More! - presented by the Local Government Commission/Center for Livable Communities- This conference is for leaders throughout the western United States and western Canada who want to improve their communities' vitality and quality of life for all residents. Wllo SlIou'd AHend Leaders involved in shaping land use and rcansponario.n decisions in their communities: elected officials, planning commissioners. government agency direcrocs and Staff. planners, builders. developers, lenders, educators, architects, realtors. nonprofit groups, and community activists. This confer- ence-cosponsored by oyec 150 state, ,regional. and national organizations and agencies-builds on the suCcess of Qur first three Western States confer-. cnees, each of which was attended by over 500 people responsible for what gets built in the Western United States. A f'radition of LivaIJ'e Communities This year's conference will showcase additional new approaches to creat~ ing more "livable" communities, while recognizing the potential impacts of recencly adopted "welfare reform" measures. It will.highlight suc- cessful efforts by local communities throughout the West and the nation to undertake environmentally sound economic development, land use and transportation planning; reduce auto dependence; create and revitalize safe, vibrant downtowns, Main Streets, and neighborhoods; improve social equi~ ty, housing, education, and public health; use water, energy. and natural resources efficiently; and involve the education and business communities, the public, and the media on livable community efforts. Allwallnee Community UvaIJi'ity Awards' The 1997 Ahwahnee Community Livability Awards Program is being held in conjuncrion wirh this conference, and is sponsored by the Local Government Commission and the American Institute of Architects, California Council. The Ahwahnee Awards, which recognize exemplary pro- jects that further an evolution toward more livable, pedestrian-oriented and transit.based communities, will be presented at Friday evening's optional dinner. (Sign up on ",vem) rile Loca' Government Commission The Loca!. Government Commission (LGC) is a 17 -year-old nonprofit, nonpanfsan membership organization, composed of local elected offi- cials and others, which helps local governments solve today's problems. The LGC's Center for Livable Communities, a U.S. EPA Transportation Partner, provides advicc, services, materials and resources to help local leaders nation- wide create more livable and re.source-efficient communities. Conference Sponsors Malor Funders California State Department ofTtansportation Southern California Association of Governments U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX U.S. .EPA Transportation Partners 8enefactors South Coast Air Quality Management District Southern California Gas Company Wells Fargo Bank Spon.ors Bank of America Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Supporters California Association of Realtors California Department of Health Services California Trade and Commerce Agency International Council of Shopping Centers Metropolitan Transportation Commission State Net I California Journal Invited Speakers I"lftorfty Egan, Nnu l'ork Times Pacific Northwest Bureau Chief. whose series of anides on the effecu of growth on the Western states has gained him national recognition. Myron Orfleld, a Minnesota State Legislator and national rising star on the subject of regionil collabora- tion is the author of MetropolitiN. Mlcllael . Freedman, . an internationally recog- nized urban designer from the San Francisco-based Grm of Freedman, Tung, and Bottomley and founder of the nonprofit training resource, Communities By Design. Other Conllrmed Speakers 'nelude... Carl Anthony,' Earth Island Institute Kate Beselme, Redefining Progress Ane Deisrer, Metropolitan Water District John Doan, City of Sumner, Washington Kent E:den, City of San Jose, California David Morris, Institute for Local Self- Reliance Michael Pyatok, Pyatok and Associates Brian Scott, Livable Oregon Doug Seiter, Austin, Texas, Green Builder Program T. K. Somanoth, Richmond Better Housing Coalition Joan Twiss, California Healthy Cities Project Kim Walesh, Collaborative Economics Plw local government, private sector, and community leaders from across the country. ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Minutes' November 5, 1997 . CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at the Community Center by Chairperson Jim Lewis at 7;35 p.m. Members present were Jim Lewis, Terry Skibby, Curt Anderson, Vava Bailey, Joyce Cowan and Joan Steele. Also present were City Council Liaison Steve Hauck and Secretary Sonja Akerman. Members Keith Chambers, Dale Shostrom and Carol Abrahamson were absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Anderson moved and Steele seconded tO'approve the October 8, 1997 Minutes as submitted. The motion was unanimously passed. STAFF REPORTS Planning Action 97-110 Site Review 265 Fourth Street Crissy Barnett Since this request is a Staff Permit only, it was not necessary to publicize its review. Lewis noted the application fs for the enclosure of the existing deck in order to have more indoor seating for the cafe. After reviewing the plans, Cowan moved and Skibby seconded to approve the Site Review. The motion passed unanimously. ~ -.' BUILDING PERMITS Permits reviewed by members of the Historic Commission and issued during the month of October follow: , ' 5.45 .. A" Street 565 "A" Street 265 Fourth Street 488 North Main Street 488 North Main Street 348 Pearl Street 84 pewey Street 40 North Main Street 136 North Second Street 116 Lithia Way 340 "A" Street BW Squared' McMullan/Shelton Tres Stars , Vie & Claudia Lively Vie & Claudia Lively Michael 'McKee ' Veronica Owen Chris McIntosh Mary Nelke Goodbean Coffee Rug Rats " Tenant Improvements Office Bldg/Apartments Remodel (2 permits) Remodel Garage Demolition Reroof Dormer Addition Remodel Accessory Residential Unit Sign Sign REVIEW BOARD " Following is the schedule (until the next meeting) for the Review Board, which meets every Thursday from 3:00 to at least 3:30 p.m. in the Planning Department:' . November 6 November 13 November 20 November 26 Anderson, Bailey and Skibby Cowan, Lewis and Skibby Cowan, Abrahamson and Skibby Steele and Skibby OLD BUSINESS Proiect Assil!l1I11ents for Planninl! Actions I PA # I Address I Person!s} Assigned I I 96-086 685 "A" Street Curt Anderson/Jim Lewis 96-11 0 499 Iowa Street Joyce Cowan 96-143/97 -030 136 North Second Street Terry Skibby 97-018 661 "B" Street " Jim Lewis 97-053 565 "A" Street Jim Lewis OLD, BUSINESS --,". . I,; Downtown Desilm Review Committee . Lewis reported the committee did not meet during the month of October. Goal Settinl!/Orientation Meetinl! The goal setting/orientation meeting 'will beheld on Wednesday, December 3rd prior to the regular meeting, which will'begin at 7:30 as usual. Members and Staff will meet at the Community Center at 4:00 p.m. The Commissioriers discussed the importance of establishing goals to work on during the coming year. . . Joint Public Meetinl! on Railroad District Nomination to National Rel!ister 'Lewis and"Steele relat~d they thought the study session went well. There were a lot of questions the property owners had' that got answered. Th~ c:o~ission then discussed the boundaries of the Railroad District, indicating there is one which was adopted with the Comprehensive Plan and a larger one that was drawn in 1979. The boundaries for the nomination still need to be determined. , ~'. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes , , November 5, 1997 ' Page 2 .. " ' Conference With Other Historic Commissions The joint conference with Historic Commissions from Ashland, Jacksonville, Medford, Talent and Jackson County was discussed. Hauck suggested contacting RVCOG to help organize the meeting. It was decided the best date would be on Saturday, February 21,1998 and it should last all day. Subjects the members would like to discuss include compatible infill, historic trail opportunities, self-guided historic walking tours, how to promote historic interest, utilizing the schools and teachers, and the cooperation and trading of information between the commissions. While addressing the format, the Commission agreed a keynote speaker would not be necessary. The members would like to see five or six work groups discussing various topics. Then all the groups should get together for a common meeting. There should be a facilitator for each table, a staff person should take minutes, and one commission member should be chosen to make a presentation at the common meeting. Minutes of all the work groups should be compiled into one set, then distributed to all the commission 'members. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. ADJOURNMENT It was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 p.m. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes November 5, 1997 Page 3 " City of Ashiand PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES October 16, 1997 AITENDANCE: Present: Absent: Bob Bennett, Teri Coppedge, JoAnne Eggers, Director Ken Mickelsen Commissioner Alsing I. REQUEST FOR USE OF L1THIA PARK - Horse Carriage Rides The Devons, owners of the horse carriage business which locates itself on the plaza, were present to request that the Commission authorize a temporary waiver of the ordinance and park policy which prohibit domestic animals from being in Lithia Park. Due to the construction of the Winburn Way bridge, the horse carriage cannot use its normal route which takes it from the plaza, down Winburn Way and up to the intersection with Granite Street. They explained that this disruption to the ride on Winburn Way would create a hardship for their business because of the popularity of that route. They also indicated that there was no alternative route which they could use to access Winburn Way because the other streets were too steep for the horse and carriage to negotiate. Therefore, they were asking that the carriage be able to use the main path through Lithia Park from the front entrance up to the "old shop" bridge just for the length of time that Winburn Way was closed due to construction. They indicated that the path was wide enough to accommodate the carriage. During discussion of the request, Commissioners reviewed several concerns among which were the safety of other park users, multiple use of the rnain path by the carriage, maintenance vehicles, and pedestrians, and, permitting a commercial venture in the park even on a ternporary basis. Commissioners also considered the additional pedestrian use which the path would receive because it is the only access to and from the plaza with Winburn Way closed. Although Commissioners expressed the desire to accommodate the request, consensus was that to make the exception would not be in the best interest of the park and park users. MOTION Commissioner Eggers made a motion to reject the request for the reasons previously discussed. Commissioner MacGraw seconded. The vote was: 4 yes - 0 no II. UPPER LITHIA PARK - Restoration Planning Paul Fislunan from Fislunan Environmental Services presented a follow-up report related to bridges, trails, and hillside erosion in upper Lithia Park as well as a second report which discussed stream improvements and enhancements as they pertained to Ashland Creek as it runs through the park. .' Special Meeting - October 16, 1997 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Page 2 FISHMAN ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS - CONTINUED Prior to reviewing the reports, Mr. Fishman gave a brief outline of the work which Otak, Inc., including Fishman Environmental, has been doing for the City. He also explained that the reports which would be presented this evening would be used as the cornerstones for an overall management plan which would be developed for the Parks and Recreation Dcpartment related to stream management from E. Main up to tile Rcscrvoir Area in upper Litllia Park. He said that he would wclcomc qucstions and discussion as he reviewed tile report. After presenting tile reports, Mr. Fishman indicated that they presented a "shopping list" for the Commission to consider when approaching flood restoration and re-iterated that the "shopping list" would be utilized to develop an on.going management plan for the Department. Following presentation of the reports, Chair Coppedge indicated that the Commission would be determining how it would like the consulting team to proceed. Both Commissioners Eggers and MacGraw expressed appreciation for the wide variety of information presented by the consulting firm to date and for all the comments and interest which has been shown by the public. However, both expressed the need to have a clearer understanding as to how to bring all the information together into a comprehensive picture from which to make decisions. Commissioner Eggers said that she would like to be able have a mechanism which would allow Commissioners to evaluate their choices; i.e. if the choice of a particular kind of trail is made, what would that mean related to habitat or erosion or recreational use. Mr. Fishman said that from his point of view they next step in the process would be the most important step. Indicating that to date the approach had been to break the information up into "chewable pieces" for the purpose of discussion, he said that it was time to put all that together. Referring to Conunissioner Eggers' comments, he said that he believed that this summary report would provide the kind of working tool and structure which the Commission will be able to use in its decision making process. In response to an inquiry from the audience, Mr. Fishman said that if anyone would like to make comments related to the report or to give him additional "food for thought", he would be able to take additional comment up the end of the month. Written comment could be sent to him directly or to the Department which would forward the comments to him and the Commission. After some general discussion, Commissioner MacGraw said she was getting the sense that everyone was feeling somewhat of a loss as to how to bring it all together. She suggested that the Commission accept the report as presented this evening as an overall, generalized comprehensive report and then advise the consultants to proceed with developing a more specific report which would bring all the elements together in a format which would facilitate the decision making process. Additional philosophical discussion related to making decisions en'sued. MOTION Commissioner MacGraw made a motion to autllOrize the consultants and Department staff to move forward on the trails and bridges and to clean.up major debris according to the guidelines set forth in the Fishman report presented this evening. Commissioner Bennett seconded. ,f Special Meeting. October 16, 1997 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Page 3 FISHMAN ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS - CONTINUED In discussion of the motion, Commissioner Eggers commented that tonight's report presented quite a few alternative treatments. She said that she believed choosing among those alternatives were policy decisions in which the Commission should participate. In discussion to clarify the motion, Commissioner MacGraw said that it was her intent to grant a general authorization to staff and the consultants to proceed with the work on the trails, bridges, and debris clean-up. However, she did not intend that the motion would prohibit additional comment from the Commission and public. Commissioner Eggers said that related to bridges, she still would like to see an overall picture of pedestrian traffic flow and how it relates to the proposed placement of bridges and trails. She also had a question about the kind of permit which might be needed to work in the stream channel. Concerning working in the creek, Mr. Fishman said that they were in the process of applying for the appropriate permit and he did not believe there would be a problem with receiving a general authorization which would have some conditions attached. Commissioner Bennett called the question. The vote was: 3 yes - I rio (Eggers) Indicating respect for Commissioner Eggers thoughts and questions, Commissioner Coppedge said that she also had some questions as to the best treatment of the trail through failure zones and traffic flow through the park. After brief discussion, Commissioners requested that the consulting team work with Department staff to develop a final report which would include specific recommendations related to bridge replacement and to trail restoration pertaining to failure zones. The report would include a diagram to illustrate pedestrian flow in relationship to bridges and trails as well as a timeline and cost considerations. Once this final report was reviewed and approved, with modifications if necessary, the Commission would then authorize work to begin. MOllON Commissioner Bennett made a motion to accept Fishman Environmental's draft, technical report as presented. Commissioner Eggers seconded. The vote was: 4 yes - 0 no Chair Coppedge said that she wanted to make certain that everyone understood that the Commission, Department staff, and the consultants remained interested in receiving comments and suggestions from the public. All communications sent to the Department Office would be forwarded to Commissioners, III. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, Chair Coppedge adjourned the meeting. Respectfully submitted, i/~ tJ4Lti~ Ann Benedict, Business Manager Ashland Parks and Recreation Department City of Ashland PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES October 20, 1997 ATTENDANCE: Present: Absent: Bob Bennett, Teri Coppedge, JoAnne Eggers, Laurie MacGraw, Director Mickelsen Commissioner Al Alsing I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Coppedge called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Civic Center, II75 E. Main Street II. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA None III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Rel!Ular Meeting - September 22. 1997 Cominissioner Eggers asked to correct the minutes by changing the phrase "riparian area" in the second paragraph on page 3 to "floodplain" indicating that she believed the broader term was more accurate. Commissioner Bennett made a motion to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting as corrected. Conunissioner Eggers seconded. The vote was: 4 yes - 0 no B. Special Meeting - October 9. 1997 Conunissioner Eggers indicated that, in the second to the last paragraph on page I, she would like the phrase "bridges downstream" corrected to "other structures downstream." Commissioner MacGraw made a motion to approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of October 9, 1997 as corrected. Commissioner Eggers seconded. The vote was: 3 yes. I no (Bennett) IV. REVIEW OF FINANCES A. ApDroval of Drevious month's disbursements Commissioner MacGraw made a motion to approve the previous month's disbursements as indicated by checks #17525 . #17946 in the amount of $144,837.07. Commissioner Bennett seconded. The vote was: 4 yes. 0 no B. Approval of June 30. 1997 Ouarterlv Financial Statement Commissioner MacGraw made a motion to approve the June 30, 1997 Quarterly Financial Statement as presented. Commissioner Eggers seconded. The vote was: 4 yes. 0 no Regular Meeting. October 20, 1997 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Page 2 V. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION A. Request by Phoenix High School to use bandshell for graduation Three student Co-Presidents from Phoenix High School were present to request the use of the Butler Bandshell for the school"s 1998 graduation ceremonies. Indicating that they believed that using tile bandshell worked well for all concerned in 1997, tiley said that Phoenix HS would like permission to utilize tile bandshell under the same guidelines that were set when permission was given in 1997. Commissioners reviewed a memorandum from stiff which indicated that the stipulations for last year's bandshell rental were that PHS coordinate its activities with Ashland High School, follow all rental rules and regulations pertaining to graduation ceremonies in the park, and pay a rental fee of $250. The memorandum also confirmed that neither Ashland High School nor Department staff had any difficulties with the arrangement last year. In discussion, Commissioner Eggers confirmed that current policy regarding graduation ceremonies indicates that only SOU and Ashland High School will be able to use the facility. She inquired as to whether or not it would be appropriate for the Commission to change that policy to accommodate Phoenix HS's requests in future years. Jeff Schlecht, PHS Principal, who was also present in the audience indicated that he would actually prefer that permission be given on a year to year basis which would allow for a clear review of how the previous year had gone. There was no further discussion on changing policy. MOTION Commissioner Bennett made a motion to grant PHS permission to use the Butler Bandshell for its graduation ceremony on June 6, 1997 for a fee of $250 with the stipulation that PHS stiff meet with Ashland High School stiff to coordinate activities. Commission MacGraw seconded. The vote was: 4 yes - 0 no B. Open Forum None VI. NEW BUSINESS None VII. OLD BUSINESS None VIII. COMMUNICATIONS and STAFF REPORT Director Mickelsen reported that staff has planned to open the ice skating rink on November 7th, weather permitting. He indicated that brochures and advertising for times and rates would be published shortly. Regular Meeting - October 20, 1997 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Page 3 IX. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS Youth Activities Levv: Referring to the passage of the Youth Activities Levy and the numerous opportunities it allows both the Commission and School District to offer, Commissioner MacGraw said that she would like to have the Commission, possibly in conjunction with the Ashland School Board, write a letter to the community expressing appreciation for its support of the levy. With the support of other Commissioners, Chair Coppedge authorized Commissioner MacGraw to move forward with writing such a letter on behalf of the Commission and to include the School Board if it would like to participate. N. Mountain Park: Commissioner Eggers asked for a brief update on N. Mountain Park. Director Mickelsen reported that work has begun on the paving of N. Mountain Avenue as well as the parking lots. He said that this year staff hopes to have utility lines and grading completed for the athletic field portion of the park. The goal is to have some of the fields planted in 1998 so that by spring/summer 1999 they would be able to be used. Skateboard facility: Commissioner Eggers also inquired as to the status of the skateboard facility at Water Street Park. Director Mickelsen said that Otak, Inc. will soon have its report prepared related to the impact which the location of the skateboard facility will have related to the floodplain. Commissioner Bennett inquired as to whether or not construction could still occur this winter if Otak comes back with a favorable report related to the floodplain. Director Mickelsen indicated that it depended on the weather. Signing of trees in Lithia Park: Commissioner Eggers mentioned that she had been hearing some very positive comments regarding the tree identification signs which have begun to be displayed in Lithia Park. Director Mickelsen indicated that the Lithia Springs Rotary Club deserves a thank-you for the signs which have been a special project of the club. Forest Commission: Commissioner Coppedge said that she also services on the Forest Commission which is currently working to develop a system and/or map of approved trails for Ashland's hillsides. This encompasses many jurisdictions including the City, Forest Service, Parks and Recreation, and private ownership. She said that she believed it was important work and that she personally hoped that some time this year a master plan would be developed, and, if possible, more trails developed. She said that she felt that better access to Siskiyou Mountain Park was important. Bear Creek Greenwav: Commissioner Coppedge inquired about progress on the Greenway. Director Mickelsen said that bids for the construction of Ashland's portion of the Greenway trail was let out for bid in September. He said that construction should start next year. Therefore, soon it would be an appropriate for the Commission to begin thinking about designs for the park nodes which have been discussed in general terms previously. .' - Regular Meeting - October 20, 1997 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Page 4 X. UPCOMING MEETING DA TE(S) and PROPOSED AGENDA ITEMS The next Regular Meeting was scheduled for Monday, November i7, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. at the Civic Center. A Special Meeting was confirmed for October 27, 1997 to begin discussion of flood restoration for the park area on Calle Guanajuato. A Study Session was confirmed for November 13, 1997 to review Golf Course operations. Commissioners also reviewed possible dates to meet in joint StUdy Session with the City Council to discuss budget items. Director Mickelsen would report back once a date could be set with the Council. XI. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, Chair Coppedge adjourned the meeting. Respectfully submitted, Ib~ Ann Benedict, Business Manager Ashland Parks and Recreation Department CITY OF ASHLAND Office of the City Attorney (541) 488-5350 20 East MaIn, Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 488-5311 - Fax MEMORANDUM Paul Nolte, City Attorney She...... P. Stephen.. L"lIal A..latant DATE: November 24, 1997 TO: Mayor Golden and City Councilors FROM: ~aul Notte RE: Request for Judge Pro Tem Appointment I would like to be appointed as a pro tem municipal judge for the date of Saturday, December 20,1997, so that I may perform a wedding ceremony on that day for Paula Brown and Pat Flannery. As you know, city ordinance requires such appointments to be made by the mayor and confirmed by council. (.:\councll\pro-tom6.roq) MAYORAL A P P Ql;N{l;.M"E N T . .;:,:::Yriri;"';~":"",,, . ..;,<016;1"" Ai'tJGiilb,\, ~'ilu!lft;;"1f:1;;1sfl/fjf;~" il:;:~:'i~H!I;lB~~'~~~~~k':;";:l;;;:',wf;I:li:,~:~ app '" .........., . r.]1, . 'K:f1",iiliJI .. tk ~r~_on ! <':" "<':',::';:':":::':':~., "..~:<:~:: .::: .'.. "<. '~", .....::::1k:.~;5mn:n:I: .. ...:.::.:...:..:.~:::.:.:::r:' :.:.; . ., ." .. '::;:..... ,".".; ,:;:::;:a;':~~~:::~:::::::;::r':;'"",:,:,:, ":;lt~..::.-:::~.:;;. .::~.~:.j:.:~.::.:~.::.:'.'.::'.".: '....'....:.... .... ".;.; ...:.:.;.:.:.:.:,:.:.:.,:.:.~: ."":':':' -:. ".;.:.:.:.;.;. "':':':".:.~. . .. ,." ....w~:.::.:::~::::::::~~::::;::::... .{/ "::::::}.:~,:~';:t?-.:, .." . .n. ':.~..t: .,: ::\:~.:'''~ ~ ~::::::~::/{:;-,,:::::: . ~::::v {... "'l .;;.~~;:\;,,\;~':~i~~II~i1~~::~~~en,~~~;> Confirmed by th~;~::~~~'it'J tfi~:~~:~lJ;~ldt;( a;egon, . at the regularly schedu&d'City,."c'dJi.hcililfflee#.Jfg,bii':/hicember 2, 1997. .7 . ....;.;,.:::::::::::::~:::*~:~::::2.:::8~:::::;:::::,:::;;::~~,::::<.:<...,,, '" ::'. ,," . . '.',~. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder MEMORANDUM CITY OF ASHLAND Administration Office of the City Administrator DATE: November 26, 1997 RE: Honorable Mayor and City Council Greg Scoles, Interim City Administrat01i PUBUC HEARING ON COMMUNITY GOALS TO: FROM: Attached is a Community Goal Setting Ust for 1998/1999. prepared from written input received from the community. This list and the input provided at the scheduled Public Hearing on December 2, 1997, should be considered by the Council at the annual goal setting session to be held in mid-January. A breakdown of the major issues is also included for your convenience. . COMMUNITY GOAL :SETlING LIST FOR 1998/1999 Marilvn Bri"". - LID revisions - Gut and add 3rd level to City Hall - Repair Upper Litbia Parle flood damage , Joan Dean - I:nfrastru.cture - streets, sewers, sidewalks, etc. - Low-income housing - SmaIl bus to serve PllwIIParle area JoAnne E""ers _ Hire full-time environmental coordinator to educate staff/community and review planning/projects. (Next step in implementing Valdez Principles). - MaIre bicycle routes safer. _ Continue implemP.fttation of Communications PIan, especially the forum recommP.ftdAtions. Joan Hertzben! - No more city-imposed LID'., a terrible system _ Clear recognition that the city'. fust responsibility is to its citizens, not to developers Pollv Houston - Get rid of city-imposed LID'. _ Building and mainlellance of streets should be city responsibility _ Review hillside building and development permits Mary Lou Lucas - Get rid of city-imposed LID'. - Adopt stringent hillside development guidelines _ Carty through votes at City Council meetings after special study committees have met. Alice Hardestv - Fairness in LID'. - Fire prevention (fuel reduction, etc.) - Pedestrian safety Jack Hardestv - Fair LID's - Implementation of Downtown Msster PIan - Strict enforcement of downtown speed limits Bob O'Harra - Do away with current LID policy _ Correct priorities to better serve the infrastructure problems (example $322,000 for bike path extension) Mariorie O'Harra _ Revise the LID process, imperative. The more controversy over LID'., the more residents alienated from city government. Ron Roth - Funding and COJISllUction of Siskiyou Blvd. bike path - Funding and CODBInJction of sidewalks on Tolman CrIlek Road and Oak Street - Seismic upgrade of City Hall Building Ben & Vanessa Scott - Limit hillside developDlllllt, save Ashland's beauty. - Protect hillside creek - Focus on economic priorities like tourism (fix the park). The community gains more from this than mega homes that benefit a few realtors/developers/individuals. - Encourage poop scooping (too much dog poop) Rich Whitall - Fuels management in the WalenIhed - Adopt Railroad District Management plan - Preserve open spsce Anonvmous 1 - Better way to pay for street improveDlllllts than city-forced IlDs'. - City Council to come up with solution for UIItelO---"le costs to few citizens as current system (LID's) demands. Anonvmous 2 - No more IlD's - Enforce sp-' limits downtown - City subsidy for public art Anonvmous 3 - Stop all IlD's Anonvmous 4 - Abolish IlD's - No truck doubl&-parl<ing downtown - No more overweight log trucks thiough downtown Anonvmous 5 - Establish IlD review committee - Stop sign at 1st Street and E. Main - Slop building variances Anonvmous 6 - Make builders pay for street paving - No more variances for new construction - Reduce E. Main downtown by one lane Anonvmous 7 - E1iminAM unfair LID's - Spruce up downtown area - Install stop at E. Main and Lithia Way Anonvmous 8 - Change LID process - Make East Main Street more pedestrian friendly - Replace or update the library Anonvmous 9 - Revise LID formula - Build Arts Center downtown - More public art Anonvmous 10 - No more LID's without resident spprovsl - New public library - No truck deliveries downtown after 10:00 a.m. Anonvmous II - City pay for all street improvements and sidewaIks - New master plan for downtown - Ban sidewalk sales Anonvmous 12 - Review LID process - Better traffic control downtown - Estsblish visual srts center downtown Anonvmous 13 - New funding mechanism for paving of streets - No more sidewalk sales - Slow traffic speeds downtown Anonvmous 14 _ EJiminAt"" LID's - Encourage sidewalk cafes downtown - More traffic control messures on E. Main Anonvmous IS - Lack of concern by city leaders over concerns of citizens - Need long-term plan dealing with traffic congestion - High cost of living in Ashland --'"" NOVEMBER 1998/1999 Breakdown of Issues FINANCING/FUNDING Revise liD processl2O POUCEIFIRE Fire fuel reducti0n/2 Enforce speed Iimits/S Enforce parl<ing limits/I Restrict truck: InIfficI2 TOURIST AMENITIES Clean up downtownll Build arts center/2 Repair Lithia Parkl2 PUBLIC WORKS Improve infrastructurel2 Street improvements city responsibility/2 Street improvements developers' responsibility/l MISCELLANEOUS Environmental coordinator/l Oean up after dogs/l Subsidize public artI2 High cost of living/l Replace libraryl2 Ban sidewalk sales12 Encourage sidewalk cafes/l PLANNING Limit variancesl2 Low-income housing/l Closer review of hillside developmenU3 Implement Downtown Master Plan12 Adopt Rai1road District Plan/I Preserve open spacell Long-term traffic congestion planll CITY HALUCOUNCIL Addition to City Hall/2 Implement Communication plan/I Recognize citizens over developersll Council follow-up on Committee recornrnP.J'ltlAtions/l More concern by Council of citizen issues/1 TRANSPORTATION Trolley system for downtown/I Improve bike routesl2 Improve pedestrian safety/2 Stop sign at 1st & E. Main/I Insta11 stop sign at E. Main & Lithia/l Make E. Main more pedestrian friendly/l Reduce E. Main by one lane/l ---- Community Goal Setting .,fJ.-"'......... ~WJ ~.(GO~ ....'. .~~.,.., The Ashland City Council would like to receive suggestions from the public on priorities for City spending and other community concerns prior to the Council's Annual Goal Setting Session to be held early in December. The City Council will hold a public forum to discuss these concerns during the Council meeting on December 2. Please use the space provided below to write your top 3 goals or concerns for the City of Ashland. Please mail it to City Hall, 20 East Main Street, or drop it by any City facility, prior to Monday, November 17. 1. 2. 3. Optional: Name Phone Address CITY HALL/COUNCIL Addition to City HaIl/I City Hall Space Needs, address issue/I Redesign Council Chambe", (too impersonal, better TV coverage)12 Explore Utilization of Recorderffreasurer 11 City of Ashland to pay workers living wagell Return Mt. Ashland, GC, Hospital to private sector/I Replace City Services w/County or Private Services/l City Dept. Budget Breakdownll Improve Communications by Council Members/S Council to stop relying on increased property/utility fees 13 Implement RecommAntl.tions of Ad Hoc Citizens Commun. Comm./I CONSERVATION Energy Incentives by City of AsbII Address Water issues/4 Monitor Night light Usage (too much)/l TRANSPORTATION/ BIKE/TRAmC Improve Traffic Congestion! Transportation Plan - Improve buses, bikeways and sidewalks/lO 6 Breakdown of Issues Provide Sidewalks around Schools/3 Bear CreeklBikepaths in General (need more)/8 In Favor of Busffransportation!S Routing of Traffic Around Ashland/I Stop Signs at MountainlMainll PLANNING Control GrowthlS Curbing and monitoring conditional use permits in RR Disl.ll TOURIST AMENITIES/ PEDESTRIAN/SIDEW ALKS Improve Pedestrian Amenities/Shade Trees, Benches, Fountains/2 Improve Public Restroom Facilitiesll Plam Area to be Pedestrian Only/l PARKING In Favor of More Parking downtownlS Eliminate Parking on one side of A Street/I Ashland Street - Take outlrees, do construction!3 Ashland Street - Save lrees/2 PLANNING Affordable Housing/2 ~/N. 111 & F.,.. "I"" I~& Develope", to pay for LID's/l Review SDC's annuallyl1 FINANCINGIFUNDING Increased Funding for City St. repair/l In Favor of Youth Center/2 In Favor of Skateboard Partel1 Shelter for Homeless Y outhll Parks and Roo Funding/2 Support Services for low income and elderly/l Continued Cable Access Funding/l Completion of Sewage Plant/2 BUDGET/SPENDING Keep public services affordable/I Spending PrioritiesIMeasure 47 13 ~ Develop Computer Rnster of Virtual Neighborhood Rep.ll Develop Long-Range Vision for Ashland/I Televised Parks Commission Mtgs/l POLICEIFIRE Fire Prevention/Watershed II ,f :r CITY OF ASHLAND Department of Community Development Planning Division November 25, 1997 Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Planning Staff Subject: Appeal of Planning Action 97-073 I,.aura Shrewsbury Please find attached the Planning Commission's findings. the criteria for a Conditional Use Permit, the applicant's findings of fact, and all relevant correspondence pertaining to this application. The issue is straightforward, and essentially limited to one item. The Planning Commission denied the request for expansion of the travelers accommodation, finding that the applicant did not meet the on-site residency requirements. The ordinance language regarding this requirement is found in 18.24.030.K.1.: "That all residences used for travelers accommodation be business-owner occupied. The business-owner shall be required to reside on the propertv occupied bv the accommodation. and occupancy shall be determined as the trayelers accommodation location bein!! the primary residence of the owner durin!! operation of the accommodation. ..." (underline added) During review of the application, it was noted that in order to create the new unit the owner's unit was being reduced in area. Staff was aware that the applicant was married and had children, and wondered where the family would live with the new arrangement. That essentially started the process that provided the information leading the Hearings Board to find that the accommodation was no longer the "primary residence of the owner." The applicant indicated to Staff that she and her husband were purchasing another home in Ashland to be closer to schools. In a letter to Paul Nolte on October 9, the applicant indicated that her family had moved as of August 30 to a different location. In a letter dated I ... f , July 22, the applicant indicated that she had children, ages 6 and 7, and that the family desired to have a private family home. Also in the July 22 letter, the applicant indicated her belief that the residency requirements of the ordinance were discriminatory and an unfair burden on travelers accommodation owners. It was the Hearings Board's decision that from the information presented regarding the applicant having another home where her husband and young children lived, the travelers accommodation was not her "primary residence" and that she failed to meet the criteria for approval outlined in 18.24.030.K. and the application was denied. There is no definition of "primary residence" in the land use ordinance, but Staff believes that the modifier "primary" before "residence" is a clear indication that the intent of the ordinance is to have the person responsible for the operation of the travelers accommodation have that site as their home. In this instance, the applicant is the owner of another property in Ashland where her husband and children live. That issue is not in dispute. Given that information, the Hearings Board denied the request. Staff's concern is that it remains clear that the residency requirements of the travelers accommodation are a key feature of the success of the ordinance. These are uses located in residential zones, and part of neighborhoods. They are clearly distinguished from other businesses by the residency requirement. We do not believe that that line should be blurred through an interpretation that this applicant puts forward. In this case, the applicant has two homes in Ashland. One of them must be defined as "primary." We would recommend that the Council find that the home where the applicant's family lives is the primary residence, and that the decision of the Planning Commission Hearings Board be upheld. '( ,1 ,.-a Contents of Record for Ashland Planning Action 97-073 Memorandum from Community Development Department 11/25/97 1-2 Contents of Record for Planning Action 97-073 3 Notice of Public Hearing before City Council 4 Criteria for a Conditional Use Permit 5 Criteria for a Traveler's Accommodation 6 Appellant's Supplemental Findings & Information 10/21/97 7-29 Appellant's Appeal Letter 10/21/97 30-32 Planning Commission's Hearings Board Minutes 10/14/97 33-35 Planning Commission's Adopted Findings 10/14/97 36-40 Planning Department's Staff Report 10/14/97 41-46 Appellant's Letter to Paul Nolte, Exhibits A-I, 10/9/97 47-67 Notice of Public Hearing before the Planning Commission 68 Appellant's Letter responding to 9/9/97 Staff Report 9/8/97 69-75 Planning Department's Staff Report 9/9/97 (superseded) 76-82 Historic Commission's Minutes 9/3/97 83-85 Notice of Public Hearing before the Planning Coriunission 86 Appellant's Supplemental Information 7/22/97 87-88 Appellant's Conditional Use Permit Findings 7/1/97 89-93 Cultural Resource Inventory Survey Form 94-96 3 Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL on December 2, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland. Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will bleprovidedrat reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report wilt be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, City Halt, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520. During the Public Hearing, the Mayor shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Mayor shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, City Hall, at 488- 5305. '" m ~""" ~1 ^ -"(,1r -<I D 1', , I- 1Il 1Il,. a:" .nro I- . . (J) _".JJ'-_ " a "00 " . .3500 ~ 2 /y , " ~ t: '" " ~ .t900' 1Il 1Il ; a: I- "" . III .i . "'" .uoo'''' .2400" '300 ~. ..' ""'" ,,~, ".. .: ..3<'00 . ~.~."o, ~ .2700 /....", z ~ ct ~ .~ a:: 1Il :I: (fJ ~ "'" . ~. ~= ,",' "",. , ~ , \ .""" . = ,"00 PLANNING ACTION 97-073 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to add one additional unit (total of five) to the already existing four unit plus owner's quarters traveller's accommodation located at 570 Siskiyou Boulevard. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Multi-Family Residential; Zoning: R-2; Assessor's Map #: 39 IE 9BD; Tax Lot: 4400. APPLICANT: Laura Shrewsbury 'I " ~ -' !,.,... ,. ~ "f! J~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 18.104.050 Approval criteria. A conditional use permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed use conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, with the following approval criteria. A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any city, state, or Federal law or program. B, That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property, C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: 1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. 2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. 3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. 4, Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. 5. Generation of noise, light, and glare. 6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. 5 C.l 1 I TRAVELLER'S ACCOMMODATIONS Traveller's Accommodations are subject to a Type I Conditional Use Permit in the R-2 and R-3 zones. (Ordinance 2613, 2/20/91) Travelers accommodations, provided that the facility be subject to an annual Type I review for at least the first three (3) years, after which time the Planning Commission may approve, under a type II procedure, a permanent permit for the facility, Travelers accommodations shall also be subject to the following: 1. That all residences used for travelers accommodation be business- owner occupied, The business-owner shall be required to reside on the property occupied by the accommodation, and occupancy shall be determined as the travellers accommodation location . being the primary residence of the owner during operation of the accommodation. "Business-owner" shall be defined as a person or persons who own the property and accommodation outright; or who have entered into a lease agreement with the property owner(s) allowing for the operation of the accommodation. Such lease agreement to specifically state that the property owner is not involved in the day to day operation or financial management of the accommodation, and that the business-owner is wholly responsible for all operations associated with the accommodation, and has actual ownership of the business. 2. That each accommodation unit shall have 1 off-street parking space, and the owners shall have 2 parking spaces, All spaces shall be in conformance with the requirements of the Off-Street Parking section of this Title, 3, That only one ground or wall sign, constructed of a non-plastic material, non-interior Illuminated of 6 sq, ft, maximum size be allowed, Any exterior Illumination of signage shall be installed such that it does not directly Illuminate any residential structures adjacent or nearby the traveller's accommodation in violation of 18,72,110. 4. That the number of accommodation units allowed shall be determined by the following criteria: a, That the total number of units, including the owner's unit, shall be determined by dividing the total square footage of the lot by 1800 sq. ft, Contiguous lots under the same ownership may be combined to increase lot area and the number of units, but not.!n excess of the maximum established by this ordinance. The maximum number of accommodation units shall not exceed 9 per approved t. travellers accommodation with primary lot frontage on arterial streets. The maximum number of units shall be 7 per approved travellers accommodation with primary lot frontage on designated collector streets; or for traveller's accommodations not having primary frontage on an arterial and within 200 feet of an arterial. Street designations shall be as determined by the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. Distances shall be measured via public street or alley access . to the site from the collector or arterial. b. Excluding the business-owner's unit and the area of the structure it will occupy, there must be at least 400 sq. ft. of gross interior floor space remaining per unit. 5. That the primary residence on the site be at least 20 years old. The primary residence may be altered and adapted for traveller's accommodation use, including expansion of floor area. Additional structures may be allowed to accommodate additional units, but must be in conformance with all setbacks and lot coverages of the underlying zone. 6. Transfer of business-ownership of a travellers accommodation shall be subject to all requirements of this section, and subject to Conditional Use Permit approval and conformance with the criteria . of this section. All traveller's accommodations receiving their initial approvals prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall be considered as approved, conforming uses, with all previous approvals, conditions and requirements remaining in effect upon change of business-ownership, Any further modifications beyond the existing approvals shall be In conformance with all requirements of this section. 7, An annual inspection by the Jackson County Health Department shall be required for all travellers accommodations regardless of the number of guest rooms, Proof of such inspections shall be provided by the owners to the City on an annual basis. 8. That the property on which the travellers accommodation is operated is located within 200 feet of a collector or arterial street as designated in the City's Comprehensive Plan, Distances shall be measured via public street or alley access to the site from the collector or arterial, lOrd, 2613 51, 1991). &A ,1 'W BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF ASHLAND. OREGON: IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING ) ) COMMISSION DECISION DENYING A CONDITIONAL ) ) USE PERMIT TO EXPAND AN EXISTING TRAVELERS ) ) ACCOMMODATION FROM FOUR UNITS TO FIVE: ) ) Laura Shrewsbury. Applicant & Appellant; ) ) The Richard Stevens Company, LLC, Agent ) ) FILE #97-073 I.' BACKGROUND INFORMATION: A. Applicant: Laura Shrewsbury 570 Siskiyou Boulevard Ashland. OR 97502 (541) 482-9214 B. Agent: THE RICHARD STEVENS COMPANY, LLC P.O. Box 4368 Medford, OR 97501 (541) 773-2646 C. Application: Conditional Use Permit to expand an existing Travelers Accommodation from four units to five, at the location noted above (570 Siskiyou Boulevard, Ashland. OR). D. Zoning: R-2 (LOW Density, Multiple Family) E. Compo Plan: Multi-Family Residential F. Public Facilities: The site has all, City of Ashland publiC facilities including water, sewer, power, etc. 1:-..... -"'.1 i'-iiJV 2 r.." 7 ;! .., t, G. Description of the Site, and the Proposal: The subject property is a parcel of 13,330 square feet located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Siskiyou Blvd. and Sherman Street. The site is occupied with two structures, a Bungalow-style structure facing Siskiyou Blvd, circa 1914, containing a guest room, owners quarters, and living/dining/common space, and a secondary structure facing Sherman Street that contains three guest rooms. Parking exists on site for seven spaces; two for the owner's quarters, and five for guest rooms. The existing paved area off the alley serves five spaces; the site has one off-street parking credit on Sherman, and is eligible for a second. There is 170 feet of uninterrupted curb along the Sherman Street frontage, providing adequate space for two on-street parking spaces should the application be approved, The expansion before the City essentially is a remodel of the existing 1914 primary dwelling that will allow for one additional guest room in that building. The application provides that the ki tchen is part of the owners quarters, which consists of 644 square feet. While small, the owners's quarters are consistent with the requirements of the City, as noted in the Staff Report dated October 14, 1997. H. Relevant Facts That Apply To The Appeal: In November of 1989, the City of Ashland Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit for a "Travelers Accommodation" on the subject site. The approval was for three units, plus a manager's unit (PA 89-181), In March of 1995, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit to expand the use from three to four units. Two additions to the primary structure were also approved at that time (PA 95-010). In August of 1997, the applicant submitted a request to expand the existing travelers accommodation from four to five units, via a remodel of the interior of the existing primary dwelling. This application was denied by the Planning Commission on October 14, 1997, with the following findings: 8 .1 ,.. "Section 2.2: The Planning Commission finds the proposal to expand an existing Travelers Accommodation from four to five units does not meet all applicable criteria for approval of a Conditional Use Permit found in Chapter 18.104. Specifically, the Planning Commission finds the applicant has failed to meet the standards established for Traveler Accommodation facilities." "Section 2.3:...the applicant has failed to meet the on- site residency and primary residency standards established for Traveler Accommodation facilities." "Section 2.4: The Commission finds the proposal will have a greater adverse impact upon the development of adjacent properties... .This is a residentially zoned neighborhood block having residential land uses....the applicant's proposal to operate on a periodic basis would cause the operation to function like a commercial hotel rather than a residential travelers accommodation. The Commission finds...the critical balance between land uses will be tipped toward a non-residential nature and.. .have a greater adverse impact on the liveability of the impact area." "The Commission finds the applicant has not met the on- site residency status due to the fact the subject site is not the applicant's primary residence. The Commission finds that a 'primary residence' is one where the applicant lives on-site, full-time, during the operation of the accommodation." The applicant has appealed this decision by filing of a letter of appeal with the City Administrator consistent with the requirements contained in Section 18.108.110 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO). Specifically, the applicant: 1. Filed a notice of appeal on October 21,1997 with the Office of the City Administrator, with the appropriate appeal fee. r .-, " 2. The notice of appeal contained the appellant's name, address, a reference to the decision requested for review, a statement of party status, the date of the decision being appealed, and the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based upon the applicable criteria or procedural irregularity. It should be noted that in the Planning Commission "findings", the primary concern expressed by the staff and the Planning Commission appears to be the on-site residency of the applicant (finding 2.3, finding 2.4 and finding 2.5). However, there is no substantial evidence in the record to demonstrate that the applicant is in violation of Chapter 18.24.030(K)(1). The information contained herein will demonstrate that the Planning Commission "findings" are simply conclusions, rather than findings of fact, are not based upon documented factual evidence in the record, and do not accurately reflect the request of the applicant, the operation of the business, and the requirements of the City of Ashland contained in the ALUO. II. APPLICABLE CRITERIA: The applicable criteria for review of this application and appeal are contained in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Chapter 18.24.010, the R-2 Zoning District standards, and specifically Section 18.24.030(K), which allows a travelers accommodation as a conditional use in the R-2 district, and provides for specific criteria. Additionally, the application must address the criteria for approval contained in Chapter 18.104, Conditional Use Permits. III. DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE: The information contained herein will demonstrate conclusively that the application for an amendment to the pre-existing travelers accommodation is, in fact, consistent with the requirements for such facilities contained in Chapter 18.24.030(K), and with the CUP provisions of Chapter 18.104. 10 ,I ., Chapter 18.24: R-2 Zoninq District: A review of Chapter 18.24.010, the "Purpose" statement for the R-2 Zoning District, indicates that the R-2 zone "...is designed to provide an environment suitable for urban living. The R-2 district is intended for residential uses and appurtenant communi tv services. The district is designed in such a manner that it can be applied to a wide range of areas due to the range of residential densities possible. In addition. .. . small home- oriented commercial activities...are allowed." (Emphasis added) DISCUSSION: The subject property is located on the south side of Siskiyou Boulevard, immediately across the Boulevard ( south) from the Safeway grocery store, the Inn Motel, and related commercial activities located in the C-l District in that vicinity. The subject property is located in an R-2 Zoning District, and in an area where a large number of "Travelers Accommodations" are in existence. Small, home-oriented commercial activities are allowed in this district to provide (1) additional guest housing for the summer season, and (2) additional low-impact economic development commensurate with the focus of the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan, which indicates that the tourist industry ".. .has ~een the basis for resiliency and historical expansion of the local economy during much of Ashland's history..... (Comprehensive Plan", Economic Element, P. VII-7) . Additionally, Policy 7 of the Economic Element indicates that the City "... shall not encourage economic growth, but rather economic development of local resources." The goal of the City of Ashland is not to create unrestrained economic growth, but simply to respond to economic activities".. .via the better utilization of local resources, both human and natural." 1/ r, !, FINDING: This application is to add a single guest unit to the existing operation. The guest unit is a minimum of 400 square feet, consistent with the requirements of the Ordinance. The focus of this application is consistent' with the Comprehensive Plan elements that apply, since this use is permitted in the R-2 district, and since the property has been in this use since 1989. The extension is a reaction to continued and current levels of growth in the tourist industry, and the proposed use is geared specifically to providing tourist accommodation services during the Shakespearean season. The City of Ashland can find the application is consistent with the R-2 Zoning Designation, in scope and purpose. Section 18.24.030 (K): Travelers Accommodation Criteria': Under the provisions of Chapter lB.24.030(K), travelers accommodations are allowed in the R-2 District as a conditional use. This section also provides for the Additional Standards for travelers accommodations, to wit: "1. That all residences used for travelers accommodation be business-owner occupied. The business-owner shall be required to reside on the property occupied by the accommodation, and occupancy shall be determined as the travelers accommodation location being the primary residence of the owner durinq operation of the accommodation. Business owner shall be defined as a person or persons who own the property and accommodation outright, or who have entered into a lease agreement with the property owner(s) allowing for the operation of the accommodation." "Such lease agreement to specifically state that the property owner is not involved in the day-to-day operation or financial management of the accommodation, and that the business owner is wholly responsible for all operations associated with the accommodation, and has actual ownership of the business." fA " " "2. That each accommodation unit shall have 1 off-street parking space, and the owners have 2 parking spaces. All spaces shall be in conformance with the requirements of the Off-Street Parking section of this Title." "3. That only one ground or wall sign, constructed of a non-plastic material, non-interior illuminated of 6 sq. ft. maximum size be allowed..." "4. That the number of accommodation units shall be determined by the following criteria: a. That the total number of units, including the owner's unit, shall be determined by dividing the total square footage of the lot by 1800 sq. ft. Contiguous lots under the same ownership may be combined to increase lot area and the number of units, but not in excess of the maximum established by this ordinance. The maximum number of accommodation units shall not exceed 9 per approved travelers accommodation with primary lot frontage on arterial streets. The maximum number of units shall be 7 per approved travelers accommodation with primary lot frontage on designated collector streets; or for travellers accommodations not having primary frontage on an arterial and within 200 feet of an arterial." "b. Excluding the business-owners unit, and the area of the area of the structure it will occupy, there must be at least 400 square feet of gross interior floor space remaining per uni1:." "5. That the primary residence on site be at least 20 years old. "The primary residence may be altered and adapted for travellers accommodation use, including expansion of floor area. Additional structures may be allowed to accommodate additional units, but must be in conformance with all setbacks and lot coverages of the underlying zone." J3 I' I, "6. Transfer of business-ownership of a travelers accommodation shall be subject to all requirements of this section, and subject to Conditional Use Permit approval and conformance with the criteria of this section." "All travelers accommodations receiving their initial approvals prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall be considered as approved, conforming uses, with all previous approvals, conditions and requirements remaining in effect upon change of business ownership. Any further modifications beyond the existing approvals shall be in conformance with all requirements of this section. " "7. An annual inspection by the Jackson County Health Department shall be conducted as required by the laws of Jackson County or the State of Oregon (Ord. 2776 S1, 1996)." "8. That the property on which the travelers accommodation is operated is located within 200 feet of a collector or arterial street as designated on ,the City's Comprehensive Plan. Distances shall be measured via public street or alley access to the site from the collector or arterial." DISCUSSION: This application is a simple remodel of the interior of the existing dwelling to allow an additional guest room, There are no exterior modifications proposed, and no change in the way the business has been operated for the past several years. The applicant submits that the application is consistent with Section l8.24.030(K) in that: 1) The property is business-owner occupied. The property is owned by Laurence and Laura Shrewsbury, and operated by Laura Shrewsbury. The subject property is the residence of record for Laura Shrewsbury, and the telephone number in the most recent directory for the "Shrew's House" Bed and Breakfast is the same number as L. Shrewsbury.. Mail is addressed to L. Shrewsbury and the "Shrew's House" at 570 Siskiyou Boulevard. This is prima facie evidence that the property is the legal residence of record for Laura Shrewsbury, particularly in light of the language of the Ordinance. If( While the Shrewsburys own other properties in Ashland, occupancy of the 'Shrew' s House" is the primary residence of Laura Shrewsbury during operation of the accommodation. It should be noted that the "Shrew's House" does not accept "drop-in" guests, but operates strictly on a reservation basis. The Inn is often closed for days or weeks at a time during the off- season, since many off-season guests only come during the week- ends, and have confirmed reservations some time in advance. At any time there is a guest in the Inn, and the Inn is in operation, the owner is in residence, consistent with the provisions of Section 18.24.030(x) ( 1) . Parking currently required is six spaces; the expansion would require an additional space. Currently there are five spaces provided in the rear of the property, and two on-street parking spaces are available, consistent with the requirements of Section 18.24.030(x)(2) . The operation currently has one sign that is in conformance with Section 18.24.030(K) (3) . This sign is not proposed to be changed or amended with approval of this application. The property consists of a 13,330 square foot parcel, which, using the formula contained in Section 18.24.030(K) (4)(a), would allow a maximum of 7 units (6 travelers accommodation units and an owner's unit) . This request is a request to expand the facility from four to five units. This expansion, according to the staff report, (Page 2) is consistent with the "target use" that could be accommodated on the property in the R-2 zone. Further, the operation is consistent with the requirement of having frontage on an arterial street, and is consistent with this section. Section 18.24.030(K)(4)(b) requires that excluding the business-owner's unit, there be at least 400 square feet of gross interior floor space per unit. A review of the application indicates that the new unit will be 460 square feet, consistent with this requirement. Section 18.24.030(K) ( 5) requires that the primary residence on site be at least 20 years old. The primary structure on this property, the subject building, was erected in 1914, and as such is consistent with the provisions of this section. The residence and the accessory building are all consistent with the provisions of this section of the ordinance. /5 Section 18.24.030(K)( 6) requires a new Conditional Use Permit to be applied for if the business-ownership is transferred. The applicants have noted that the business is for sale, as are many businesses in the City, and stipulate to this requirement as a condition of sale of the property if and when it occurs. Section 18.24.030(K)(7 ) requires annual Health department inspections. This is a state law, and the applicant has complied with this application for over 8 years. Section 18.24.030(K) (8) requires that the property be located within 200 feet of a collector or arterial street. The site fronts Siskiyou Boulevard, a designated arterial street. The site is in conformance with this standard. FINDING• The applicant submits that the application is consistent with all of the applicable criteria contained in Section 18.24.030(K) . Of issue during the Planning Commission hearing was the residency requirement; the applicant notes the Planning Commission misconstrued the detailed wording of the Ordinance. Section 18.24.030(K) (1) notes very clearly that the facility be "the primary residence of the owner during operation of the accommodation." This provision has specifically been met by the applicant, and at considerable personal inconvenience. Despite the Staff concerns, the applicant has specifically noted in all correspondence with the City of Ashland that they have made a specific effort to comply with the requirements of the ordinance. Staff's interpretation that a primary residence "is one where the occupant sleeps on-site at all times" is not only not an accurate description of a legal residence, but it is nit-picking and smacks of excessive governmental intrusion into the day-to-day regulation of persons' lives. The City of Ashland certainly can require the operator to be on site during the operation of the facility. If the facility is closed, and not available for guests, not even President Clinton can dictate where the Shrewsburys sleep! /b The "Shrews. House" is operated within the scope of the Ordinance as a travelers accommodation, and Mrs. Shrewsbury lives in the home during operation of the facility. This is her primary and legal residence of record. As noted in the discussion above, the property is consistent with every other requirement of the City of Ashland pertaining to travelers accommodations. The City of Ashland can find that the application is consistent with the provisions of Section 18.24.030(K) . Chanter 18.104:050: Conditional Uses: Chapter 18.104.050 provides the applicable approval criteria for Conditional Uses in the City of Ashland. The section states, "18.104.050 Approval Criteria: A conditional use permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed use conforms, or can be made to conform, through the imposition of conditions, with the following approval criteria. " "A. That the use will be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive Plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: 1. Similarity in scale, bulk and coverage; 2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. increases in pedestrian, bicycle and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. 3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. 4. Air quality, including generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. 5. Generation of noise, light and glare. 6. Development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use." DISCUSSION• Travelers accommodations are a required conditional use in the R-2 zone. The R-2 zoning district contains specific and detailed criteria for review of travelers accommodations, which have been addressed above. A review of this site, its current use, and the proposed expansion by one unit indicates that the application is consistent with the approval criteria contained in Chapter 18.104.050. First, the use has been operated as a travelers accommodation for over 8 years, with no problems recorded. The use has been reviewed for consistency with the CUP process at least twice during the immediate past (November of 1989, and March, 1995) and has been found to be consistent with the Conditional Use criteria. Travelers accommodations are a necessary part of the tourist industry in Ashland. The Comprehensive Plan notes specifically that the tourist industry has "been the basis for resiliency and historical expansion" of the local economy (Comprehensive Plan, Page VII-7) . The Plan goes on to say, rg ". . .in the current recession, tourism in Ashland has been stronger than ever. in this light, then, it will be desirable for the tourist industry to stress the diverse recreational and cultural opportunities that Ashland and the rest of Jackson County possess." (Comprehensive Plan, Page VII-7) The policies contained in the Economic element of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan are also geared to supporting existing local businesses. Policy 7, for example, notes that the City shall not encourage economic growth, but rather economic development of local resources, with the better utilization of local resources, both human and natural. This application is completely consistent with this goal. The Bed and Breakfast community in Ashland is an important and vital part of not only the tourist industry, but a charming and unique part of the cultural aspects of the City. Adding one room to an existing facility, with no external modifications, and not changing the scope and orientation of the business, can be found to be in conformance with the standards of the zoning district .(R-2) . The existing development is currently connected to City water and sewer, takes access from Siskiyou Boulevard, Sherman Street and the alley behind the building. Electricity, storm drainage, etc. all exist to the site, and are. pre-existing. The addition of one 440 square foot unit by altering the interior of the structure will not significantly affect the ability of the City of Ashland to provide services to the community as a whole. . The Ashland Code also requires that the conditional use will have no greater material effect on the liveability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone (Multiple Family Dwellings, 13. 5 units per acre) . When evaluating the effect of the proposal, and comparing that to the target use of the zone, it appears evident that the site, which contains over 13,330 square feet, would have no greater effect on the liveability of the area, primarily due to the location of the site and the overall operational characteristics of the business. l� The factors noted in Section 18. 104.050 require that the site first be evaluated in terms of similarity in scale, bulk and coverage. The coverage, scale and bulk of the existing operation will not be altered, since the alteration is wholly contained within the structure, and there will be no change in scale, bulk or coverage by this proposal. Secondly, generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets must be evaluated. For example, staff noted that the target use of the site in the R-2 zoning district, a four-plex, would generate a minimum of 26 average daily trips in terms of traffic. The proposal, to add an additional room, has the potential to increase traffic by a factor of a maximum of 4.85 trips per day. However, due to the proximity of the facility to downtown, two parks, a library, and a major market (Safeway is across the street) it appears that the expansion will not have any material effect on traffic issues, and in fact pedestrian uses from this site tend to predominate due to location. in this case, additional pedestrian uses, which are encouraged by the owner, are considered beneficial under the provisions of Section 18. 104.050(C) (2) . Architectural compatibility must also be addressed. Again, the application will not create any modification to the external and architectural integrity of the 1914 Bungalow design, since all work is internal to the building. Air quality, including dust, odors or other environmental pollution must be reviewed. Again, the expansion of this operation by rearranging the internal space will not create any degradation of the air quality of the community. No additional dust or odors will result from this use. The site will not create any additional noise, light or glare, again since the revisions are all contained within the existing structure. The impact of 4.8 vehicle trips per day is minimal, given the existing traffic counts on Highway 99 (Siskiyou Blvd) . The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan has already developed. The site is currently developed in a mix of R-2 and single family uses on the south side of 'Siskiyou Boulevard, and Commercial uses on the north (Safeway, motel, etc. ) . The addition of one room inside the existing structure will have no effect whatsoever on the abutting sites. 26 The final criteria is an objective statement that the application must comply with "other factors" found to be relevant by the Hearings Authority. In this case, the other factors are not identified specifically by the Planning Commission. FINDING• The City Council can find that the application is consistent with the Approval Criteria contained in Section 18.104.050 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, in that the application is consistent with all standards in the R-2 Zone, has adequate public facilities, and that the conditional use will have no greater impact on the liveability of the impact area when compared to the development of the site as an R-2 development (four- plex) . IV. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ORDER: As noted in the letter of appeal to the City Council, dated October 15, 1997, the applicants noted that the Planning Commission denial was not consistent with the provisions of Chapter 18.104.050, Ashland Land Use Ordinance. The appeal is based upon several factors. The "Conclusory Findings" contained in the Planning Commission Order of October 14, 1997 stated that the applicant failed to meet the standards established for approval of a Conditional Use Permit, but then state that the applicant failed to meet the standards for a traveler accommodation facility. These are two separate issues, and are reviewed here separately. Chanter 18.24.030(x) : Travelers Accommodation: In Section 2.2, Section 2.3, and Section 2. 5 of the Planning Commission document, the Planning Commission discussed the on-site residency of the applicant, and stated that " . . .the applicant has failed to meet the on-site residency and primary residency standards established for Traveler Accommodation facilities. . . " and, " . . .the applicant has not met the on-site residency status due to the fact the subject site is not the applicant' s primary residence. The Commission finds that a "primary residence" is one where the applicant lives on-site full time during the operation of the accommodation. " However, there was no evidence presented or statements in the findings that support the contention that the site is not the primary residence of the applicant during the operation of the accommodation. This perception was only presented by the Staff in the staff report, page 3, where they maintain that the primary residence definition (which is not contained, by the way, in any part of the Ordinance) is one where the occupant sleeps on site at all times during the operation of the accommodation, regardless if the rental units are occupied on that particular night or not. Staff further says that " . . .How can a temporary office and an occasional sleep over rank higher in residential status over another residence where one' s husband reside, children reside and you reside? Staff knows of no other Traveller Accommodation within the city has having an arrangement as the one proposed by the applicant.." Conversely, we have supplied the City with documentation that the site is, in fact, the applicant's legal residence, and that she is in residence during the operation of the accommodation. The site is operated at all times consistent with the provisions of Chapter 18. 24.030(K), and has been for over eight years. The fact that the business is closed during the off season, which allows the owner to reside elsewhere during the closure, is not a violation of the Ordinance. Further, if the owner prefers to sleep in another dwelling unit occupied by her family when the rental units are unoccupied, (the accommodation thus not being in operation) , this is no business of the City of Ashland. Additionally, information presented to the City ( Letter to Paul Nolte, City Attorney, dated October 9, 1997) indicates that Inn owners in the R-2 zone where both members of a couple reside full time at the inn are an exception in Ashland. The letter noted, for example, that businesses where at least one partner has resided and worked away from the business include: as ( 1) Woods House, (2) Oak Hill, (3) Main Street, (4) Pedigrift House, (4) Fox House, ( 5) Oak Street Station, (6) Royal Carter, (7) Hersey House, (8 ) Coolidge House, (9) iris Inn, ( 10) Chanticleer and (11 ) Summer Place inn. These businesses are all run in a manner where only one family member is in residence for varying periods of time, and the owners of these businesses maintain other residences within the City. FINDING• For the record: A. The property located at 570 Siskiyou Boulevard, Ashland, Oregon, is the legal and primary residence of Laura Shrewsbury during the operation of the Shrew's House. B. The telephone number in the current directory for both the Shrew's House and L. Shrewsbury (482-9214) is addressed to that site. C. All mail addressed to Laura Shrewsbury and/or the Shrew's House is delivered to that site; it is not a temporary office as noted in the staff report. D. Mrs. Shrewsbury is in residence in the owner's unit during the operation of the accommodation, consistent with the provisions of Chapter 18.24.030(K) . In this context, Mrs. Shrewsbury is the primary resident of the property at all the times the Inn is open for business, and at any time there is a guest registered. Conditional Use Permit Criteria: We have addressed, above, the Conditional Use Permit Criteria contained in Chapter 18. 104 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. Even the Staff Report noted that the use of the property is consistent with the standards of the R-2 zone, and that the conditional use will have no greater material effect on the liveability of the impact area. 623 However, in Section 2.4 of the Conclusory Findings, the Planning Commission stated that " . . .the applicant's proposal to operate the Travelers Accommodation on a periodic basis would cause the operation to function like a commercial hotel rather than a residential travelers accommodation. " Again, there is no evidence in the record to support this allegation, save for a statement on page 6 of the Staff Report. It is clearly evident from that statement that the staff has absolutely no idea of what is involved in operation of a commercial hotel. For example, a hotel is defined by the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Chapter 18.08.320, as: "A building in which lodging is provided to guests for compensation in which no provisions are made for cooking ,in lodging rooms. " A review of the Shrew' s House indicates that each of the lodging rooms has its own food preparation area, a refrigerator and a microwave ( letter to Ashland Planning, July 22, 1997) . In this light, the use of the property is not a commercial hotel. Further, commercial hotels are open to the general public, both on a reservation and a walk-in basis, 365-days per year. In other words, if rooms are available, the hotels will generally rent to anyone, any time of day or night, reservation or drop-in, year round. The Shrew's House is operated as a travellers accommodation during the tourist season. Rooms are rented on a reservation basis only, and generally to a specific and limited clientele; in many cases, rooms are reserved year to year by the same guests. Walk-in or drop-in guests are not permitted. The operation is closed from November to March each year. Closure of a B&B operation in the off-season is not unusual, whereas closure of a commercial hotel for the off-season is generally financially damaging, due to the transitory nature of the guests. Due to the fact the Shrew' s House is closed four months of the year, the ultimate use of the facility is more closely consistent with single family uses than with any commercial activated such as a motel or hotel. ay The Planning Commission further noted that the "critical balance" between land uses is "tipped toward a non-residential nature" with the current operation. How can this be? The operation has been in existence on site since 1989, the operation has not changed significantly, and this critical balance has not been tipped in any way. The continued development and use of a motel, grocery store and other commercial entities directly across the street has had more adverse material effect on the neighborhood than a desire to make a travelers accommodation work more effectively. FINDING• There is no evidence in the record that substantiates that the expansion of this travelers accommodation by one unit will have any significant effect on the liveability of the impact area. The impact (target) area is an R-2 zoning district; the applicant could effectively remove the current building, and construct a four-plex on the site, eliminating a long-standing residence that adds considerably to the charm of the City of Ashland. To add a single unit within that building, consistent with the Land Use Ordinance, maintains the character of the area, adds to the potential available rooms during the season, and in a small way adds to the economic viability of the area. This utilization of the property is not a detriment, but an asset, to the character of the city as a whole. The property is not managed as a commercial hotel, but is in fact, due to the operational characteristics of the use (reservations only, no walk-in or drop-in guests) and the fact each room has small food preparation areas, cannot meet the Ordinance definition of a hotel. III. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS: The applicant submits for the record that the Shrew's House is operated as a travelers accommodation in full compliance with the provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, specifically the provisions of Chapter 18.24.030(x) . Staff determination notwithstanding, the owner of the business does reside in the dwelling during operation of the accommodation. as The information contained in this brief demonstrate clearly that the business is consistent with the criteria for a travelers accommodation, and meets the criteria for a Conditional Use Permit as contained in Chapter 18. 104. Based upon this information, and the attachments hereto, the applicant and appellant respectfully request the City of Ashland City Council reverse the determination of the Planning Commission, and approve a Conditional Use Permit for expansion of the Shrew' s House by one unit. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THIS 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997: Jl'Mi� LaNier THE RICHARD STEVENS COMPANY, LLC Agent for Applicant/Appellant 026 z m m a lO W'o' Oa' u'-lo' IYO' 00 E N ti � n z � 4 r i _ N � r O 2 E I I'u i IFK !li C � e ra• rs.loJ•:a• rJ•Y!J• rJ•.rJ• rr Yra 11.1 rJ•a..• rJ•:u• EXHIBIT H >it2 ; � =� �42EWS HOUSE �m �} �fso 5'O 0^!5<IYOU BLVD ASHLAND, OR o27 �F'm AURA SHREWSBURY 4B2 3214 Upper Limb-it Tree Service PO Box 881 Ashland, OR 97520 Phone 541-482-3667 November 20, 1997 Laura Shrewsbury 321 N. Main Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Laura Shrewsburry Upon inspecting the trees ._ the corner;of Siskiyou Blv. and Sherman, I have found all of the trees in the parking strip to be alive. If there are any other questions regarding theset[ees please fell free to calf me at:: 482-3667. s M rs Owner, Upper Limb it�V Certified Ait6k#pn-0398 428 C `3r I qq ^ r - a . i �1.-'y�i?u`r:''r:1?.i.w�rf'.'...*'" •Y1.�.�. 'z��X�..i.�`J`t_ .. _ u.- .. �3�� .•r .__. October 21, 1997 Mr. Brian Almquist, City Administrator City of Ashland City Hall, Ashland, OR 97502 RE: APPEAL OF HEARINGS BOARD DECISION PLANNING FILE 97-073 Dear Mr. Almquist: The purpose of this letter is to appeal a decision of the City of Ashland Hearings Board, made October 14, 1997. The effective date of the decision of the Hearings Board is October 29, 1997 (Section 18.108.070(3), City of Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO). The following information is submitted consistent with the requirements of Section 18.108.110(A)(2), ALUO: Appellant's Name: Laura Shrewsbury Appellant's Address: 570 Siskiyou Blvd, Ashland, OR 975020 Decision Being Appealed: A denial of a Conditional Use Permit, City Planning Action 97-073, to add one additional unit to an existing Bed and Breakfast facility. Party Status: The appellant in these matters, Laura Shrewsbury, was the applicant in the proceeding before the Hearings Board. Date of Decision: October 14, 1997 Grounds for Reversal: The Hearings Board denial was not consistent with the provisions of Section 18.104.050(approval of conditional use permits). 30 The action before the City Council is a "dc novo" hearing, and a set of findings will be submitted to the City Council in support of this application, and in opposition to the Hearings Board denial, within 10 days of the date of hearing, as proscribed by ORS 197.763. Sincerely, Laura Shrewsbury 3� I BEFORE THE CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON: Let it be known that the RICHARD STEVENS COMPANY, LLC, has been duly retained to perform as an agent to perform all acts in conjuction with filing applications, appeals, and other documentation relative to all land use applications, .zoning applications, conditional use permits and other land use activities on propety owned by the undersigned, and located at: A 7 1G (Addy or Road) and described in the records of Jackson County as: Township-?'I Range !&• Sections Tax Lots) �] OO Property Owner: Signature: ' Date i O i S -<(" Printed Name: Address: `( ) City/State/Zip: )C— Ct J ZC) Agent: THE RICHARD STEVENS COMPANY, LLC P.O. Box 4368 Medford, OR 97501 (541)7- 32 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1997 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Steve Armitage at 1:40 p.m.. Other Commissioners present were Barbara Jarvis and Marilyn Briggs. Staff present were Knox, Harris and Yates. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 97-073 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ADD ONE ADDITIONAL UNIT (TOTAL OF FIVE)TO THE ALREADY EXISTING FOUR UNIT PLUS OWNER'S QUARTERS TRAVELLER'S ACCOMMODATION. 570 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD APPLICANT: LAURA SHREWSBURY Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Site visits were made by all. STAFF REPORT Knox gave the history of the project as outlined in the Staff Report. The addition of the fifth unit appears to be minimal when compared to the R-2 target use. The target use would allow four rental units with an average trip generation of about 26 vehicle trips per day. Considering the proposal, the site, and close proximity to downtown, Staff believes the proposal would not be an Impact to the neighborhood. Even though Staff does not have a problem with the expansion proposal, Staff does have a problem with the way the applicant intends to operate the facility. Through written and verbal exchanges with the applicant and Knox, BIII Molnar and the Historic Commission, it is Staff's contention the applicant will not meet the standards for on-site residency. This will not be the applicant's primary residence as required by ordinance. The applicant stated that she and her husband put this property up for sale, purchased a residence on North Main Street and has moved her husband and two children into that residence. She has stated she will reside only on the property during nights of guest occupancy and she will be leaving weekday mornings to get her children ready for school and weekday afternoons and evenings to be with her family. The applicant is proposing a situation that not only skirts the ordinance requirements but also diminishes the tangible and intangible qualities of a residence. Staff believes it is imperative for the business owner to reside on-site and the site be the owner's primary residence. A primary residence is one in which the occupant resides/sleeps on-site at all times during the operation of the accommodation regardless if the rental units are occupied on a particular night or not. Staff has met with the City Attorney who confirmed the proposal would not meet the definition of a primary residence and, therefore, Staff is recommending denial of the application. After review, Jarvis said it appears the applicant is already violating the law. She is upset that Shrewsbury has decided to live in another house. Of course she would not live in a house where her kids are not living. This is the worst violation Jarvis has seen of the traveller's accommodation ordinance. Knox agreed a code enforcement issue exists even before the expansion. Briggs thought it was small and she could not see it would be appropriate for a family residence. 33 Armitage is concerned that by making the fifth unit so small that it could become a future problem but it meets the criteria for a fifth unit. He feels issues are being mixed. Why is staff bringing in the issue of conformance? Shrewsbury brought attention to the fact she is in violation. Knox said the impacts associated with a fifth unit (trip generation, noise level) would be comparable to a four-unit rental. The fifth unit does NOT meet the criteria. The application does not meet the standards established or the criteria as outlined under 18.104 (Conditional Use Permit) A. and C.(g). PUBLIC HEARING LAURA SHREWSBURY, 570 Siskiyou Boulevard, referenced Nolte's opinion in the Staff Report and believes it is critical. It contained the chronology of the application. Nolte raised the same issue Armitage did on the Staff denial as he felt Staff was not denying the fifth room just because she is not in conformance. The timelines on her alleged violation on residency is of major concern to Shrewsbury. She told Nolte that Staff's interpretation relative to her is harsher than the real world. She listed all of the innkeepers who have occupations or residences outside of Ashland. Shrewsbury is first and foremost an innkeeper and now functioning somewhat like a baby-sitter with her children. She has worked outside the inn on other jobs similar to what she is doing now. She resides at the inn out of necessity. She first spoke about her intentions on July 18th to Knox (floor plan). Knox said it didn't matter what she intended to do with the family and as long as the inn was for sale it just needed to be explained. She wrote a response on July 22nd. Her children wanted to be near their school. They own six other residences in town at the same time they have owned the inn. The issue was raised after they moved. She cannot put a business owner in the traveller's accommodation. This is an action about a fifth room. If she was in violation it should have been dealt with on July 22nd. Jarvis believes it is very clear in the ordinance (read aloud) that accommodation be business owner occupied and be the primary residence of the owner. She knows Shrewsbury knew that. When one takes up an occupation, one needs to be aware of what the rules are. Shrewsbury has to live on-site. Shrewsbury said she does live there. Jarvis said she could lease it to someone. Shrewsbury said she cannot because she does not have the income. Jarvis said to approve expansion to five units when Shrewsbury is not presently in conformance is something the Hearings Board needs to take into consideration. Shrewsbury said it is not reasonable she has to be there at ALL times. Armitage thought if people feel the ordinance is not written correctly, then those in the bed and breakfast industry need to get together and fine-tune for clarification and for their own protection of the ordinance. Staff Response Knox said there was no evidence Shrewsbury was going to move. If she said she was going to move she should have received her approval, sold the property, transferred ownership and then moved. He believes the applicant was well aware of that condition. He was only aware of one traveller's accommodation referenced by Shrewsbury to Nolte and that was Oak Hill B&B at the time owned by and Tracy Bass.Tracy resided on-site at all times while Ron did do business in Sacramento and other places. He does not see how in Shrewsbury's case, the traveller's accommodation can possibly be her primary residence when her family lives in another residence in town. If the property is leased, the business owner is wholly responsible for the residence and business. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 HEARINGS BOARD MINTUES OCTOBER 14, 1997 3y Rebuttal Shrewsbury thoroughly understands the business owner language in the ordinance. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Briggs thought when she looked at the floor plan that the space left for family living did not meet the criteria for a family owning a traveller's accommodation. On that basis, she would not approve. She felt it violated the spirit of the ordinance. Armitage said the traveller's accommodation could be owned by one person. He does not know how to address this if there is or isn't enough room for someone to live there. Jarvis agreed with Briggs. The Commission has more flexibility in granting a Conditional Use Permit. If there were a different situation that would be another matter, but it is apparent this is not the primary residence. The letters make it clear the primary residence is where Shrewsbury lives with her children. If this standard gets changed, Ashland will end up with small hotels around town; a whole different business. She believes that is not what is desired but instead older houses being used and rehabilitated and lived in by owners and being used as traveller's accommodations. Owners can use that money to pay for any rehabilitation they have done on the house. That is why the rules are so strict. Under the relevant criteria (g) she also finds all the requirements have not been met. Armitage finds this to be a code enforcement issue. He does not have a letter from Nolte saying it is or is not in compliance. The applicant is telling him she is in compliance. Staff is saying the fifth unit is acceptable as per the ordinance and it is an issue that they do not think she is in compliance. He would like an opinion from Nolte or an enforcement officer about whether she is or is not in compliance. Harris, in trying to clarify the issue, said this revolves around the definition of a primary residence. The applicant can say she is in compliance but that may be because she has a different definition of a primary residence. Staff is saying the application does not meet the criteria because it does not meet the definition of a primary residence through information Shrewsbury has shared in her letter. Jarvis moved to deny the PA97-073 based on it not being a primary residence. Briggs seconded the motion and it carried with Armitage voting "no". PLANNING ACTION 97-089 REQUEST FOR A MINOR LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE A PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS AT 374 HELMAN STREET. THE REAR LOT TO BE ACCESSED BY WAY OF A FLAG DRIVE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE LOT. APPLICANT: RICK LANDT Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Site visits were made by all. STAFF REPORT Harris reviewed the details of the application as outlined in the Staff Report. The proposal locates the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 HEARINGS BOARD MINTUES OCTOBER 14, 1997 35 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 14 , 1997 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #97-073 , REQUEST FOR A ) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXPAND AN EXISTING TRAVELERS ) FINDINGS, ACCOMMODATION FROM FOUR UNITS TO FIVE . ) CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS APPLICANT: LAURA SHREWSBURY ) -------------------------------------------------------- RECITALS : 1) Tax lot 4300 of 391E 9BD is located at 570 Siskiyou Boulevard and is zoned R-2 ; Low Density Multi-Family. 2) The applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit approval to expand an existing Travelers Accommodation from four units to five units. Site improvements are shown on the site plan on file at the Department of Community Development . 3) The criteria for approval of a Conditional Use are as follows : A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: a) Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. b) Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. c) Architectural compatibility with the impact area d) Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. e) Generation of noise, light, and glare. 3� f) The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. g) Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. Further, there are specific criteria for the approval of a travelers accommodation. These are found in 18 . 24 . 030 (K) and are as follows : Traveler's accommodations, provided that the facility be subject to the following: 1) That the property used for the Travelers Accommodation be business-owner occupied. The business-owner shall be required to reside on the property occupied by the accommodation, and occupancy shall be determined as the travellers accommodation location being the primary residence of the owner during operation of the accommodation. Business-owner shall be defined as a person or persons who own the property and accommodation outright; or who have entered into a lease agreement with the property owner(s) allowing for the operation of the accommodation. Such lease agreement to specifically state that the property owner is not involved in the day to day operation or financial management of the accommodation,' and that the business-owner is wholly responsible for all operations associated with the accommodation, and has actual ownership of the business. 2) That each accommodation unit shall have 1 off-street parking space, and the owners shall have 2 parking spaces. All spaces shall be in conformance with the requirements of the Off-Street Parking section of this Title. 3) That only one ground or wall sign, constructed of non-plastic material, non-interior illuminated of 6 sq. ft. maximum size be allowed. Any exterior illumination of signage shall be installed such that it does not directly illuminate any residential structures adjacent or nearby the traveler's accommodation in violation of 18. 72. 110. 4) That the number of accommodation units allowed shall be determined by the following criteria: a) That the total number of units, including the owner's unit, shall be determined by dividing the total square footage of the lot by . 1800 sq. ft. Contiguous lots under the same ownership may be combined to increase lot area and the number of units, but not in excess of the maximum established by this ordinance. The maximum number of accommodation units shall not exceed 9 per approved travellers accommodation with primary lot frontage on arterial streets. The maximum number of units shall be 7 per approved travellers accommodation with primary lot frontage on designated collector streets, or for 37 traveller's accommodation not having primary frontage on an arterial and within 200 feet of an arterial or collector. Street designations shall be as determined by the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. Distances shall be measured via public street or alley access to the site from the collector or arterial . b) Excluding the business-owner's unit, and the area of the structure it will occupy, there just be at least 400 sq. ft. of gross interior floor space remaining per unit. 5) That the primary residence on the site be at least 20 years old. The primary residence may be altered and adapted for traveler's accommodation use, including expansion of floor area. Additional structures may be allowed to accommodate additional units, but must be in conformance with all setbacks and lot coverage of the underlying zone. 6) Transfer of business-ownership of a travelers accommodation shall be subject to all requirements of this section, and subject. to Conditional Use Permit approval and conformance with the criteria of this section. All traveler's accommodations receiving their initial approvals prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall be considered as approved, conforming uses, with all previous approvals, conditions and requirements remaining in effect upon change of business-ownership. Any further modifications beyond the existing approvals shall be in conformance with all requirements of this section. . 7) An annual inspection by the Jackson County Health Department shall be required by the laws of the Jackson County or the State of Oregon. 8) That the property on which the travelers accommodation is operated is located within 200 feet of a collector or arterial street as designated in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Distances shall be measured via public street or alley access to the site from the collector or arterial . 4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on October 14 , 1997, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission denied the application, noting that the application failed to meet the required burden of proof . Now,. therefore, The Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows : SECTION 1 . EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index 38 of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent' s Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent' s Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an I'MI SECTION 2 . CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2 . 1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2 .2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal to expand an existing Travelers Accommodation from four units to five units does not meet all applicable criteria for approval of a Conditional Use Permit found in chapter 18 . 104 . Specifically, the Planning Commission finds that the applicant has failed to meet the standards established for Traveler Accommodation facilities . 2 .3 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal to expand an existing Travelers Accommodation from four units to five units does not meet all applicable Traveler Accommodation standards found in chapter 18 . 24 . 030 W . Specifically, the Planning Commission finds that the applicant has failed to meet the on-site residency and primary residency standards established for Traveler Accommodation facilities . 2 .4 The Commission finds that the proposal will have a greater adverse affect upon the development of adjacent properties, as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan, than the target use for the property. This is a residentially zoned neighborhood block having residential land uses . The Commission finds that the applicant' s proposal to operate the Travelers Accommodation on a periodic basis would cause the operation to function like a commercial hotel rather than a residential travelers accommodation. The Commission also finds that the critical balance between land uses will be tipped toward a non-residential nature and, as a consequence, have a greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area than the development of the subject lot with the target use. 2 . 5 The Commission finds that the applicant has not met the on- . site residency status due to the fact the subject site is not the applicant' s primary residence . The Commission finds that a "primary residence" is one where the applicant lives on-site full time during the operation of the accommodation. SECTION 3 . DECISION 37 3 . 1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposal to expand an existing Travelers Accommodation from four units to five units can not be supported by evidence in the record. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we deny Planning Action #97-073 . I- etlanriing CommissibIrIV e 7U ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT October 14, 1997 PLANNING ACTION: 97-073 APPLICANT:Laura Shrewsbury LOCATION: 570 Siskiyou Boulevard ZONE DESIGNATION: R-2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-Family Residential ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.104 Conditional Use Permits 18.24 Low Density Multiple-Family Residential 18.92.025 Credit for On-Street Automobile Parking REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit to expand an existing travelers' accommodation from four units to five units. I. Relevant Facts 1) Background - History of Application: In November 1989, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit for a three unit - plus manager's unit Travelers' Accommodation (PA-89-181). In March 1995, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit to expand the Travelers' Accommodation from three to four units. Two additions to the primary structure were also approved (PA-95-010). In August 1997, the applicant submitted a request to expand the existing travelers' accommodation from four units to five units. However, due to a noticing error, the application was renoticed for the October 14th Hearings Board meeting. The applicant has submitted revised plans since the August submittals were received. 2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal: This is an irregular shaped lot, 13,330 square feet in size and located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Sherman Street and Siskiyou Boulevard. The site is in the Historic Interest Area and the surrounding area is a mixture of traveler's accommodations and single-family residential units. Five parking spaces are located off of the alley in the rear and two on-street parking credits are available along Sherman Street. y1 There are two existing buildings located on the site. One sits adjacent to the alley facing Sherman Street and the other sits on the front of the lot facing Siskiyou Boulevard. The building facing Siskiyou Boulevard is a Bungalow style structure which was constructed in 1914 (est.). The building is the primary structure on the property and has a Secondary ranking on the City's Cultural Resource Inventory. Three guest rooms are located in the Sherman Street building. In the Siskiyou Boulevard building there is one guest room, a living room/dining room, a common area and owner's unit. The applicant is proposing to expand the existing Travelers' Accommodation from four to five units by converting 448 square feet of existing owner's quarters space. Five parking spaces are required for the guest units and two for the owner's quarters, for a total of seven spaces. The existing paved parking area accommodates five automobiles. Access is by way of the alley off of Sherman Street. The applicant has received approval for one, but is now asking for a second off-street parking credit on Sherman Street. 170 feet of uninterrupted curb along the Sherman Street frontage, leaving adequate space for the two on-street parking spaces. II. Project Impact Six accommodation units plus the owner's unit are permitted for the property based on the Travelers' Accommodation ordinance. The existing structure's comparable target use is a four unit multi-family residential structure. The comparable target use would generate approximately 26 vehicle trips per day based on an average daily trip of 6.47 per unit. Due to the proximity of this location to the downtown, two city parks, a library, a major supermarket (Safeway Store) and the public transit line, and to the nature of the tourist market in Ashland, five accommodation units plus the owner's unit are likely to generate the same or slightly more than the target use. Prior to last month's noticing error, staff had two concerns pertaining to this planning action. The first concern had to do with the applicant's floor plan and the second concern was the applicant's on-site residency status. It was staff's opinion the floor was designed in such a way that the facility would function more like a "commercial hotel" rather than a "residential traveller's accommodation". FLOOR PLAN: Staff originally had some concerns with the applicant's floor plan in that the owner's quarters were relocated in what staff considered "common area". However, after last month's meeting, the applicant has submitted a modified floor plan which now shows the owner's quarters being separate from PA97-073 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report Laura Shrewsbury October 14, 1997 Page 2 ya the common areas. Although the owner's quarters are fairly small, staff believes the modified floor plan is acceptable. ON-SITE RESIDENCY: Staff continues to have reservations regarding the applicant's on-site residency status. Staff has consulted with the City Attorney who agreed with staff that the applicant has yet to demonstrate she meets the City's Traveller Accommodation requirements. The first requirement of a Traveller's Accommodation facility states: That the property used for the Travellers Accommodation be business-owner occupied. The business-owner shall be required to reside on the property occupied by the accommodation, and occupancy shall be determined as the travellers accommodation location being the primary residence of the owner during operation of the accommodation. (emphasis added) Through written correspondence and verbal conversations with staff and the Historic Commission, the applicant has stated that she and her husband have recently put the subject property up for sale, have purchased a residence on North Main Street, and have moved her husband and her two children into the new residence. The applicant has also clarified her on-site residency status by noting that she "will reside on the property only on nights of guest occupancy", and that she will be "leaving on weekday mornings to get the children ready for school and on weekday afternoons/early evenings for family time". In addition, she has stated that the facility will be closed from November 1997 to March 1998, but that a house sitter will be left in place. It is staff's opinion the applicant is proposing a situation which not only skirts the ordinance requirement, but also diminishes the tangible and intangible qualities of a "residence" - a residence within a residentially zoned neighborhood. Staff believes it is imperative for.the business owner to reside on-site and that the site be the owner's "primary" residence. A primary residence to staff is one where the occupant sleeps on-site at all times "during" the operation of the accommodation - regardless if the rental units are occupied on that particular night or not. Secondly, staff considers a primary residence one of ranking. How can a temporary office and an occasional sleep over rank higher in "residential status" over another residence where one's husband reside, children reside and you reside? Staff knows of no other Traveller Accommodation within the City as having an arrangement as the one proposed by the applicant. III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The criteriafor approval of a Conditional Use Permit are found in Chapter 18.104 PA97-073 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report Laura Shrewsbury October 14, 1997 Page 3 y3 and are as follows: A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer,paved access to and through the development, electricity,urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. C. That the conditional use will have no greateradverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: a) Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. b) Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardlessof capacity of facilities. c) Architectural compatibility with the impact area d) Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. e) Generation of noise, light, and glare. f) The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. g) Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. Further, there are specific criteriafor the approval of a travelers'accommodation. These are found in 18.24.030(K) and are as follows: Traveller's accommodations, provided that the facility be subject to an annual Type I review for at least the first three years, after which time the Planning Commission may approve, under a Type II procedure, a permanent permit for the facility. Travellers accommodations shall also be subject to the following: PA97-073 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report Laura Shrewsbury October 14, 1997 Page 4 1) That the property used for the Travellers Accommodation be business- owner occupied. The business-owner shall be required to reside on the property occupied by the accommodation, and occupancy shall be determined as the travellers accommodation location being the primary residence of the owner during operation of the accommodation. Business-owner shall be defined as a person or persons who own the property and accommodation outright; or who have entered into a lease agreement with the property owner(s) allowing for the operation of the accommodation. Such lease agreement to specifically state that the property owner is not involved in the day to day operation or financial management of the accommodation, and that the business-owner is wholly responsible for all operations associated with the accommodation, and has actual ownership of the business. 2) That each accommodation unit shall have I off-street parking space, and the owners shall have 2 parking spaces. All spaces shall be in conformance with the requirements of the Off-Street Parking section of this Title. 3) That only one ground or wall sign, constructed of non plastic material, non-interior illuminated of 6 sq.ft. maximum size be allowed. Any exterior illumination of signage shall be installed such that it does not directly illuminate any residential structures adjacent or nearby the traveller's accommodation in violation of 18.72.110. 4) That the number of accommodation units allowed shall be determined by the following criteria: a) That the total number of units, including the owner's unit, shall be determined by dividing the total square footage of the lot by 1800 sq. ft. Contiguous lots under the same ownership may be combined to increase lot area and the number of units, but not in excess of the maximum established by this ordinance. The maximum number of accommodation units shall not exceed 9 per approved travellers accommodation with primary lot frontage on arterial streets. The maximum number of units shall be 7 per approved travellers accommodation with primary lot frontage on designated collector streets, or for traveller'saccommodation not having primary frontage on an arterial and within 200 feet of an arterial or collector. Street designations shall be as determined by the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. Distances shall be measured via public street or alley access to the site from the collector or arterial. PA97-073 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report Laura Shrewsbury October 14, 1997 Page 5 ys b) Excluding the business-owner's unit, and the area of the structure it will occupy, there just be at least 400 sq.ft. of gross interior floor space remaining per unit. 5) That the primary residence on the site be at least 20 years old. The primary residence may be altered and adapted for traveller'saccommodation use, including expansion of floor area. Additional structures may be allowed to accommodate additional units, but must be in conformance with all setbacks and lot coverage of the underlying zone. 6) Transfer of business-ownership of a travellers accommodation shall be subject to all requirements of this section, and subject to Conditional Use Permit approval and conformance with the criteria of this section. All traveller'saccommodations receiving their initial approvals prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall be considered as approved, conforming uses, with all previous approvals, conditions and requirements remaining in effect upon change of business-ownership. Any further modifications beyond the existing approvals shall be in conformance with all requirements of this section. 7) An annual inspection by the Jackson County Health Department shall be required by the laws of the Jackson County or the State of Oregon. 8) That the property on which the travellers accommodation is operated is located within 200 feet of a collector or arterial street as designated in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Distances shall be measured via public street or alley access to the site from the collector or arterial. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations Staff does not believe the application meets the applicable standards for "on-site residency" and therefore should not be approved by the Planning Commission. It is also staff's belief that all standards for a Traveler Accommodation should be met in such a way that there is no doubt the integrity of the ordinance will be degraded. The standard of having an owner reside on-site is to ensure the surrounding neighborhood and the community the Traveller's Accommodation will respect the tangible and intangible nuances of a residence. It is staff's opinion the applicant's unusual living arrangement will cause the home to be operated more like a commercial hotel rather than a residence. Therefore, Staff recommends denial of the application. PA97-073 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report Laura Shrewsbury October 14, 1997 Page 6 Y6 hreN v eF, hou6'e Bed and Breakfast October 9 , 1997 Paul. Nolte, City Attorney City of Ashland, Oregon Dear Paul, Attached is a chronology of the events surrounding our planning action #97-073 . I am sorry for the length but feel strongly that you need to know that the recently raised conflict of my 'residency ' at our bed and breakfast could have and should have been resolved back in July, when ?lark Knox and I first discussed the issue. At that time, Mark seemed unconcerned, as substantiated by his list of concerns , Exhibit D, which all relate to floor plan detail . At no time prior to September 3rd did any staff member communicate any problem with my remaining resident innkeeper while my family moved closer to school (a move which did not take place until August 30) . All of our frustration and a good deal of staff time could have been eliminated had staff either addressed the issue in a timely manner, July, or addressed the matter with a eye to the real world. Inn owners in R-2 zones where both members of a couple reside full-time at the inn are the exception in Ashland. Inns where at least one partner has resided and worked away from the business include Woods House , Oak Hill, Main Street, Pedigrift House, Fox House, Oak Street Station, Royal Carter, Hersey House, Coolidge House, Iris Inn, Chanticleer and Summer Place Inn. I am not referring to times when 'business owners ' were in place , I am talking about inns operating with only one family member in residence for varying periods of time and inns where owners maintained other 'principal ' residences . Why then are we being hammered by staff? Or have all of these other entities been persecuted as well? The intent of the ordinance to which staff keeps referring is that the business be maintained by a fiscally responsible party who resides at the inn during operating periods. That is what I am doing. How can staff argue fact? Our request for a fifth room meets all of the criteria of the ordinance . The fact that Mark Knox kept calling the application 'premature ' at the Historic Commission on September 3rd (because the inn had been listed for sale) completely baffles me -- there are inns that have been on the market in Ashland for more than five years . How is Mark defining 'premature ' ? And as I explained to Bill Molnar, we need the income from the fifth room should we ever desire to put in place a business owner, as provided by the ordinance . Currently the inn only provides me a living space ; 570 &8kiyou Blvd. Mhland. OR 97520 1-(800) -182-921.1 Shrewsbury to Nolte ~ October 9, 1997 Page 2 we have never taken a draw. There is no way to secure a business owner without adequate income. There is the added concern that I am suffering from osteo-srthritis and may not be able to continue the housekeeping labor; how can I pay a housekeeper in the future if, historically with four rooms, I could not? We have asked for your time because Mark Knox indicated on October 6 that it was your opinion that my residency did not meet the ordinance intent and because we have no desire to ' fight it out' in hearings as suggested by Mark. We pray for your consideration and a remedy that will make sense and allow to us to move on with the day-to-day business of running an inn of which we are, I believe, justifiably proud. Respectfully, Laura Shrewsbury enlc . LLS y� Chronology _e. Planning Action #97-07- Prepared by Laura Shrewsbury 10/9/97 Item 1 . September 24 , 1996 Submission of pre-application for a fifth room. Exhibit A. Item 2 . October 1 , 1996 Receipt of Staff Comments at pre-application conference. Exhibit B. Item 3 . October 10 , 1996 Phone call to Mark Knox explaining that we could not pursue application at that time due to constraints of time and money. Item 4 . January-February 1997 Inn closed due to flood and necessity to care for my father. Item 5 . March-June 1997 Inn operating, unable to continue with application due to work loads, family demands and care of father. Item 6 . July 1 , 1997 Submission of revised floor plan in response to pre-application comments noted in Item 2 . Exhibit C. Item 7 . July 18 , 1997 Meeting with Mark Knox for review of revised floor plan. No formal Staff Comments, simple a list of staff concerns , Exhibit D. Mark and I discussed the planned move of Laurence and the family and Mark felt ' it would be no problem' since we had listed the inn for sale. Requested a letter which was provided on July 22nd, along with a shaded/colored floor plan for clarity. Exhibit E. Item 8 . August 1 , 1997 Mark left a message on our recorder that that our application was being post- poned until September 9 because of a 'heavy agenda ' for the August meeting. I responded on Mark ' s voice mail that the change in date was acceptable and that I would appreciate a call if there were any staff concerns re. my letter of July 22 , Item 7 . Item 9 . August 14 , 1997 Received notice in mail of our applicati stating that "The Ashland Planning Department preliminarily approved this request on August 20 , 1997" Exhibit F. Item 10 . September 3 , 1997 Attended Historic Commission meeting September 3 during which Mark Knox expressed numerous staff concerns relative to the floor plan provided (none of which had been communicated prior to the meeting) , stated that staff was recommending denial of the request and briefly raised the issue of applicant residency. No staff ( 7 report was presented. Chronology #97-073 Page 2 Item 11 . September 4 , 1997 Placed two urgent voice mail messages to John MacLoughlin. Bill Molnar returned my calls late in the afternoon, stated that he was unaware of the notice indicating approval and further stated that in a meeting the previous afternoon 'Mac ' had felt that my residency did not meet ordinance intent. Bill indicated that he would mail me a copy of the Staff Report, which had just been prepared, (note report date of September 9) . Item 12 . September 6 , 1997 Received Staff Report. Exhibit G. Item 13. September 8 , 1997 Prepared response to Staff Report and hand delivered it to Mark Knox. Exhibit H. Item 14 . September 9 , 1997 Attended Hearings Board meeting at which Bill Molnar advised Laurence and I that due to the erroneous notice our application would be postponed. The Hearings Board Chair apologized and promised to adopt findings at the October 14th meeting so that we would not have to endure another delay. Item 15 . September 22 , 1997 Received a call from Mark Knox asking that I detail my residency. Item 16 . September 23 , 1997 Drafted letter requested in Item 15 . Exhibit I. Item 17 . October 6 , 1997 Received a phone call from Mark Knox stating that the 'City Attorney did not feel that my residency fulfilled the intent of the ordinance ' . Item 18 . October 6 , 1997 Placed call to Paul Nolte and scheduled meeting for October 10 , 1997 �O house Bed and Breakfast September 24 , 1996 City of Ashland Planning Department Pre-Application for CUP/Traveler ' s Accomodation/R-2. This pre-application is for the addition of a fifth guest room to the already existing conditional use for Shrew' s House Bed and Breakfast. There will be no changes to the site plan for this addition. As the attached floor plan shows, the new guest room would occupy the space currently serving as the owner ' s den, half-bath and exercise room. The square footage, approximately 392 square feet, would make this fifth suite our largest guest room. The only addition to the area, other than closing off existing hallways, would be a tub/shower combination to go with the already present half bath. The remainder of the house would serve as owner ' s quarters , as it always has. Since our children are older, we can now as a family make use of the living room -- an area rarely used by quests but available to them. Indeed, even the dining room is used only marginally for guests. In the summer we serve meals in the side yard and in the winter primarily serve to the quest rooms. Parking would be served by one on-street parking credit on Sherman Street. Hopefully the attached floor plan with notated changes will answer all questions at the pre-application stage . Respectfully, Laura Shrewsbury EXHIBIT A attch. 570 uAjYou Blvd \shland, OR 9T20 (503) 482-9214 w.l.• rral.rr.rr . ti Gue6r 6u1rE >* BEDROOM n rr i w 6EDROOM II FAMLY ROOM t r � w ro•..r rr � . 9 C,IIEBT LIVING ROOM GIlE6T 6111TE SQGHEN w w .o•.rr � O w Q N LIVING ROOM DINING ROOM Q Y /• ':3 F CIO Y\ O Tr NOTE EXISTING WALLS NEW WALLS COVERED PORCN ' N Q cq � ❑ ❑ ❑ O r Q C, MAIN FLOOR PLAN design EXHIBIT A DAIE- BNEET• 5� The comments of this pre-app are preliminary in nature and subject to change based upon the submittal of additional or different information. The Planning Commission or City Council are the final decision making authority of the City, and are not bound by the comments made by the Staff as part of this pre-application. ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT SITE: 570 Siskiyou Blvd. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE APPLICANT: Laura Shrewsbury COMMENT SHEET REQUEST: Traveller's Accommodations October 1, 1996 - addition of 1 unit ZONING: R-2 - Low Density Multi-Family LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS: Existing. However, I went by the house this morning and noticed that a street tree appeared to be dead. If so, the tree needs to be replaced. In addition, the park row on the Sherman Street side is not landscaped. The area appears to have been dug up without any formal completion. Each of these issues should be resolved immediately. PARKING, ACCESS, AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION: 7 off-street parking spaces are required; 2 for the owner's unit and 1 per guest unit. 5 spaces are provided in the rear and two on-street parking spaces are available. Please identify on final application plan each parking space and "request" the necessary on-street parking credit. LOT COVERAGE: 65 percent (existing - no exterior modifications are proposed). SETBACKS: 20' front yard, 10' rear yard, 6' interior side yard, 10' street side yard (existing - no exterior modifications are proposed) SIGNS: existing NOTES: Staff does have two related concerns with this proposal. The Travellers Accommodation Ordinance requires 400 sq. ft. of "gross floor area per unit" - excluding owner's quarters. From a cursory look, it appears that this will need to be shown on a plan in order for staff to make sure this condition is being met. The other concern is how the quests access these areas. Looking at the floor plan provided, how do the guest get to the living room, dining room, etc.? Without access to these areas staff will not support this application. NOTE: Staff will not consider the accessory building on Sherman Street in the "gross floor area" calculation. Also, it appears that the existing guest suite in the rear has no direct access through the house to the unit. It should have, but it appears this issue'was missed during its approval stage and is now considered "approved". EXHIBIT B 53 July 1 , 1997 City of Ashland Planning Department Conditional Use Permit One Guest Room Addition , Shrew ' s House Bed and Breakfast Comments in response to the Pre-Application Conference: 1 . Landscaping requirements . It should be noted that all street trees are alive and well and that the landscaping park row on Sherman is completed and, we think, vastly improved. 2 . Notes . We have changed the location of the new guest rooms from that noted in the pre-application . The new rooms would be adjacent to the existing unit on the back of the house, with access to both the balance of the building through a door to the hallway as well as an exterior entrance (shown on the attached elevation) which would match the existing two doorways on the left elevation. The new two-room suite would be 448 square feet in size . Additionally , we would open up the smaller guest room in the back to become, also, a two-room suite with a total square footage of 372 . The common areas of the living and dining room, at 480 square feet provides for an excess well above the required 400 square feet of 'gross floor area per unit ' . CUP Criteria: A. The use requested is in conformance i .e . the property is owner occupied, there is adequate parking (noting the two on-street parking credits) , the sign is in place and in conformance , the units allowed per lot size and location would be seven and this request would total six, the residence is well over 20 years old, the location is on a main street, and the guest rooms plus common area are well over 400 square feet of gross interior floor space. B. That adequate capacity of City facilities is available? The use requested is adequately supplied by all City facilities . C. That the conditional use will be compatible? The additional guest room will have no adverse effect on the surrounding area and will have little impact on the existing exterior of the structure . In fact, utilization of the additional on-street parking could positively impact the current car lot appearance of Sherman street due to the large number of 'For Sale ' vehicles clogging the intersection. EXHIBIT C sy k Page 2 CUP Shrew' s House July 1 , 1997 Site Review Criteria: The proposed additonal room results in no changes to the site or exterior of the structure except for the changing of one double window on the left elevation to a double door which would match the two existing exterior doors on that side of the house (see elevation attached) . Notes: The Fire Department requested a smoke detector in any new guest rooms. There are hard wired smoke detectors in each of the back four bedrooms and one in the hallway. EXHIBIT C JS zo 'aNdIrtsd CIA�G noll>sls .,_s F 1) 4J 1) JJ N W W W W W 1W tT N m N N O' a] N N � N co C N l0 M M d' kO M 00 )-I • 0 r W a I Q, m � � 1 �fl r I --�-- ,I QI ill �m �; 4': z ` - ! w z w a) ro E N N N .p o s4 a s4 ro >w (1) a) o W LL (1) a) U N N 4JZ0W0M 4-) E a41 m a) iJ x c a) H O (1) N x c c G -14 a) E 3 O N a) U o +J -i E a) �:$ O E O (1) c b+ 04-H ro -O .0 O w O -H N 41 C xCw >4wro o +1 >4 -H v ro o w rn >a -. i m Sa O N tT C ro 7 I ro 4-) >. » u a -4 x ro E Ol 113 Q) • v •.i > +J (0 o ro a N 3 r i N 4J 1) —4 C O N a) )i Sa ri r E >a N E N sa �4 a) 0 �4 ro o ro - 1 rno v w .i~ O ro E o �J x 0 c o .r- 04 E ro .0 N N CS 0 +) -.-i W +) (1) C 4J in (1) EUE .H 3 c E U] X a C O W W 2 H U E O 2 EXHIBIT C �S6 Shrewsbury 400 sq. ft . per unit - please identify by room size, house size, etc (deliniate by chart) . NOTE : The detached building will not be considered in the Gross Floor Area requirement . - access to living room, dining etc. , - how? (clearify - try via door openings, elevations, etc . ) - the owner' s quarters (livable area) appears to be too vague/questionable . Please clarify where the owner' s private areas will be located and operated. - Any exterior changes will require an elevation. 7/18/97 EXHIBIT D S,7 hrfeNV6-' house Bed and Brcakfast July 22 , 1997 City of Ashland Planning Department Atten: Mark Knox 20 E. Main Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Mark: As you requested I am enclosing a more detailed/graphic floor plan for our fifth room, along with notated square footages . The owner's private area will be essentially the center of the house, including kitchen, at 644 square feet. (Our kitchen is not guest accessed -- each room has it ' s own food prep area and refrigerator. ) We have listed our property for sale, only because our children, now six and seven years of age, desire closer proximity to their school and a private 'family ' home. You were not with the City when we originally applied for our bed and breakfast conditional use but at that time our children were honed-for additions to our family -- we had no idea that we would be so fortunate in having our daughter in our first year of operation and our son the year following. We would ideally like to retain Shrew' s House for them but the ordinance prohibits that retention if we wish, also, to provide them the privacy they deserve . It has long been my contention that the ordinance requiring that an owner/innkeeper reside on an R-2 zoned property is discriminatory at best. Certainly the Planning Department and 5 members of the Planning Commission consider that provision defensible but I do not. We receive no break in utility charges or property tax because we have to dedicate certain square footages to innkeeper living quarters . In other words , our fixed overhead is equal to that of a commercially zoned bed and breakfast. The ordinance provision ignores the need to maximize income per square foot and handicaps the R-2 bed and breakfast in a way that no retail or other revenue based enterprise would tolerate. we will , however, comply with the resident requirements until our inn sells . I know we are present on our property more than most any other innkeeper, even with Laurence working outside at SOU full time and my having several outside employers . Hopefully I answered your questions . Please contact me if you need further information . Laura Shrewsbury 570 &Aivou Blvd. Vhlanndd, OR 97520 1 48001 482-921-1 �o EXHIBIT E - III 0 O tJ (D X H b7 x o (D v r t r G (D rt H : 0• :31 Q '(D ' O O X G O W a 0 a m o w w a � (D owo m (D 0 r rtrtu, rE m m a � ax w : n nK rt 0) 7 4 N O " a i r• n w 1-10 w (D Fl- n rro art " MG x p rt N r- O n O :3' O p. N-10 W (D O O G (D 5 r• rt O N N m O £ N (D O W (D (D P. G G (D Y rt, (D 9 rt O a Z N 0 1 r(D t U) (D 7 A. n X' (D N O (D (D 'O M a o (D (D n m (D(D En n O. (D K z m�z E x O rx mn L DO y i r r e p rt eo w m a w w -_I X, A J W O) N- ,A co N G (n V N N (n r• rf M M M M M !n rt rt rt rt rt m EXHIBIT E S S!S<IYOJ BLVD ASNLAND, OR ,. . sue/ The Ashland Planning Department preliminarily approved this If a hearing is requested, it will be scheduled for the following request on August 20, 1997. This actior 'II be reviewed by the month. Unless ther a continuance, if a participant so requests Ashland Planning Commission Hearings ,ard at 1:30 p.m. on before the conclusio.. of the hearing, the record shall remain open September 9, 1997,at the Ashland Civic Center, 1 175 East Main for at least seven days after the hearing. Street, Ashland, Oregon. No public testimony is allowed at this review. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application,either in person or by letter,or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision Any affected property Owner or resident has a right t0 request, maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the AT NO CHARGE, a public hearing before the Ashland Planning Land Use Board of Appeals ILUBAI on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance Commission on this action. criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. To exercise this right, a WRITTEN request must be received in the A copy of the application,all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant j Planning Department, 20 East Main Street, prior to 3:00 p.m. on and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at September 2, 1997. If you do not SPECIFICALLY REQUEST A reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Repon will be available for PUBLIC HEARING by the time and date stated above, there will inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost,if be no public te5 timony permitted. requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department,City Hall, 20 East Main Street,Ashland. Oregon 97520. If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department. City Hall, at 488-5305. 41�V 3 �� r? / trP��y 1 / a Fxisting Traveller's Accommodatio\ 44 JOh br?.tk,•'' ,r� J W, At N �l J� "§ w / �> .... Fr a Al r / , • " s wp I >`/ /�k' @ •/ "Al. T aaoo W .I m i 2xJ rice tap Z /• zsao : W aam; y W noo ^I I a»o mm = Sow auoo NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Historic Commission on September 3, 1997 in the Ashland Community Center located at 59 Winbum Way at 7:30 p.m. PLANNING ACTION 97-073 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to add one additional unit (total of 5) to the already existing four unit plus owner's quarters traveller's accommodation located at 570 Siskiyou Boulevard. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Multi-Family Residential; Zoning: R-2; Assessor's Map #: 39 lE 9BD; Tax Lot: 4400. APPLICANT: Laura Shrewsbury EXHIBIT F ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT S 5 STAFF REPORT n �1? . ` September 9, 1997 PLANNING ACTION: 97-073 � ��yu'L J� APPLICANT:Laura Shrewsbury !^ LOCATION: 570 Siskiyou Boulevard ZONE DESIGNATION: R-2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-Family Residential ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.104 Conditional Use Permits 18.24 Low Density Multiple-Family Residential 18.92.025 Credit for On-Street Automobile Parking REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit to expand an existing travelers' accommodation from four units to five units. I. Relevant Facts 1) Background - History of Application: In November 1989, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit for a three unit - plus manager's unit Travelers' Accommodation (PA-89-181). In March 1995, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit to expand the Travelers' Accommodation from three to four units. Two additions to the primary structure were also approved (PA-95-010). 2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal: This is an irregular shaped lot,' 13,330 square feet in size and located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Sherman Street and Siskiyou Boulevard. The site is in the Historic Interest Area and the surrounding area is a mixture of traveler's accommodations and single-family residential units. Five parking spaces are located off of the alley in the rear and two on-street parking credits are available along Sherman Street. There are two existing buildings located on the site. One sits adjacent to the alley facing Sherman Street and the other sits on the front of the lot facing Siskiyou Boulevard. The building facing Siskiyou Boulevard is a Bungalow style structure which was constructed in 1914 (est.). The building is the primary structure on the �� EXHIBIT G property and has a Secondary ranking on the City's Cultural Resource Inventory. Three guest rooms are located in the Sherman Street building. In the Siskiyou Boulevard building there is one guest room, a living room/dining room, a common area and owner's unit. The applicant is proposing to expand the existing Travelers' Accommodation from four to five units by converting 448 square feet of existing owner's quarters space. Five parking spaces are required for the guest units and two for the owner's quarters, for a total of seven spaces. The existing paved parking area accommodates five automobiles. Access is by way of the alley off of Sherman Street. The applicant has received approval for one, but is now asking for a second off-street parking credit on Sherman Street. 170 feet of uninterrupted curb along the Sherman Street frontage, leaving adequate space for the two on-street parking spaces. H. Project Impact Six accommodation units plus the owner's unit are permitted for the property based on the Travelers' Accommodation ordinance. The existing structure's comparable target use is a four unit multi-family residential structure. The comparable target use would generate approximately 26 vehicle trips per day based on an average daily trip of 6.47 per unit. Due to the proximity of this location to the downtown, two city parks, a library, a major supermarket (Safeway Store) and the public transit line, and to the nature of the tourist market in Ashland, five accommodation units plus the owner's unit are likely to generate the same or slightly more than the target use. However, staff's opinion of the proposal is that the facility will function more like a hotel rather than a residentially based Traveler's Accommodation. Hotels differ from Traveler Accommodation facilities in that hotels are limited to "commercially zoned" property and Traveler Accommodations are limited to "residentially zoned" property. Considering that Traveler Accommodations are located in residentially zoned areas, they are subject to a lot more neighborhood scrutiny than hotels. Hotels typically have no relationship with residential areas, but Traveler Accommodation facilities do. Traveler Accommodations must meet a number of restrictions such as having to locate in an existing residence which is at least 20 years old and that the residence must be owner occupied. Finally, due to the sensitive nature of residential neighborhoods, a "new"Conditional Use Permit must be obtained in order for a prospective owner being able to "transfer" their name in order to operate the Traveler's Accommodation facility. Hotels have no PA97-073 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report Laura Shrewsbury September 9, 1997 // Page 2 �O 2 EXHIBIT G such regulations. The Travelers' Accommodation ordinance requires that there must be at least 400 sq. ft. of gross interior floor space per rental unit - excluding the owner's unit. The purpose behind this requirement and the other requirements listed in the Traveller's Accommodation Ordinance is to insure that the facility functions more like a "residential" inn rather than a hotel/motel. This particular section of the ordinance is included because it attempts to create common areas such as living rooms, dining rooms, kitchens, etc. These areas typically provide space to guests who wish to socialize, dine, read, etc. with not only other guests, but also with the proprietor and his/her family. It is staff's contention the floor plan is setup in such a way the occupants of the units, existing and proposed, would have to either access the common area by passing through the owner's unit or walking out to the public sidewalk on Sherman Street - down the sidewalk along Siskiyou Boulevard and through the front door. Access to the common area becomes so circuitous or uncomfortable for guest use, that it is likely never to be used by the guests. Secondly, the applicant has stated in her application letter the kitchen area is not guest accessed because each unit has a food prep area and refrigerator. This aspect of the applicant's operation does nothing to encourage a guest to utilize the common dining room. Thirdly, the floor plan for each of the units shows exterior entrance/exit doors leading to the outside rather than to the interior of the house. Although the new unit does have interior access, it is staff's opinion that walking through the "owner's bedroom" in order to get to the common area is uncomfortable and unlikely. Finally, the floor plan shows the applicant's unit consisting of a one bedroom/family room, kitchen, 1/2 bath (no shower or tub) and basement. The applicant and her family total four people. The applicant has stated to staff and the Historic Commission that she and her family have already purchased another home in town and that this property is up for sale. If this is the case, staff has difficulty understanding how the applicants intend to operate the Travelers Accommodation when it is required to reside on the property. Do to the fact the floor plan shows limited living space and no shower facilities, staff is concerned if the applicant meets the "owner occupied" requirement. III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof EXHIBIT G PA97-073 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report Laura Shrewsbury September 9, 1997 Page 3 63 hrevv er, house Bed and Breakfast September 8 , 1997 Ashland Planning Department RE: Planning Action 97-073 In response to the Staff Report received by mail on Saturday, I am submitting a revised floor plan for our proposed fifth room which answers, I believe, all of staff ' s concerns relative to access. This is , indeed, my original floor plan submitted in September of 1996 and addressed in a Staff Report dated October 1 , 1996 . This plan attached herein addresses the staff concerns of last October i .e. ingress and egress for guests between common areas and their room-- existing french doors to the living/dining areas . I have also moved the guest room shower to be adjacent to the existing half bath. Square footages for the fifth room would be 460 square feet and for the newly enlarged fourth room (and it is beautiful! ) 372 square feet. I am a little cor.ceined that staff excludes the kitchen in calculating gross interior square feet. While it does not impact this application, it seems important to note that the kitchen is a licensed and inspected integral part of our business . As I indicated to staff , we have prepared over 9 , 000 guest meals over the years with pleasure . Additionally, although the City may not concern itself with this fact, it is the kitchen that moves the business to an active status in the eyes of the Internal Revenue Service, a rather significant point since it entails self-employment taxation. I realize that staff is concerned on the residency issue and I repeat that I am residing on the property during any nights of guest occupancy. I stayed with my family overnight the first night of their move and, sure enough, a guest smoke detector started chirping at 3 : 30 AM. We timed our move so that we would escape the heaviest demands of guests -- there are only about 30 more days until year end that I would be required to live at the inn full-time . We were closed this past January and February due to flooding and a family emergency and we will probably close again the first two months of 1998 . But in March, if the inn hasn't sold, I will once agair. reside there. It is really not awkward for anyone except that the guests now chide me about having ' lost ' my family . N EXHIBIT H � l Page 2 Planning Action 97-073 I do pray that you do not postpone this action. This is not a floor plan that is new to staff . I am admittedly baffled about why staff didn ' t just request that I return to this original plan. I am also baffled about why notice went out (copy attached) saying this action was staff approved. But we have been bumped once already and while the new room will not be rented in this calendar year it is essential that we know our status for 1998 bookings . We are a going concern, we have several full dates already in 1998 and we traditionally book at about 608 for the following year before December 31 . The action of the Historic Commission was one based on as much confusion as I feel and is now a moot point -- I only regret the waste of time for the members . Please call immediately if there are any questions or concerns . Respectfully, Laura Shrewsbury EXHIBIT H 570 &Avou blvd. Ashland. OR 97520 l-(800) 482-9214 69 c En m a l0 W E X Ld Til � 4 N i n YO L p � L Y ----=_=_=__--� —1 EXHIBIT H mg e2 � 5 R E U: CJ P 0 U 6 E 6710 S15KIYOU BLVD ASHLAND, OR �F'm _At-RA SHREWSBURY 452-9214 September 23 , 1997 Ashland Planning Department Ashland, OR Re: Planning Action 97-073 In response to staff concern relative to my residency at Shrew' s House Bed and Breakfast I will attempt to elaborate on my daily routine. It is indeed the very same as it has been for the past two years, since our children started school, with the difference being that family time is not necessarily spent at the bed and breakfast. On the weekends we are often all at Shrew' s House just as often as we are all away -- a pattern which has always been in place . On weekdays , I reside at Shrew' s House, leaving in the mornings to accompany the children to school and in the afternoons/early evenings to share the end of the day with the whole family. My time at the inn averages about sixteen hours daily, including those hours devoted to errand running for the business. We will close the inn, leaving a house sitter in place, for November 1997-February 1998 . Should the property not have sold by June of 1998 , the family will return to reside for the summer. The months of March through May I will return my residency to the inn. We may pursue the business manager option but that would be a major change for us -- we have never had housekeeping, kitchen or maintenance help (except for one summer of lawn mow and blow) . Please let me know if you need further elaboration or detail . I would rather not endure any more surprises at hearing level and would appreciate hearing from you if you have any concerns . Respectfully , Laura Shrewsbury EXHIBIT I Notice Is hereby given that a PUBLIC HF 'NG on the following A copy of the application iocuments and evidence relied upon by the applicant request with respect to the ASHLAND L-413 USE ORDINANCE . and applicable criteria are .cable for inspection at no cost and will be brovided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost,if HEARINGS BOARD on October 14, 1997 at 1:30 p.m. at the requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department,City Hall, ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, 20 East Main Street,Ashland, Oregon 97520. Oregon. During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application,either in person or by letter,or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing,the record shall remain open for at least seven days after maker an opportunity to respond to the issue,precludes your right of appeal to the the hearing. If you have questions or comments concerning this request,please feel Land Use Board of Appeals(LUBA)on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance free to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department,City Hall,at 488- criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on 5305. that criterion. 5 r ,,• '''� ~,'wnn - isting Traveller's Accommodatio\ \/ A69 pNt /sJ w / ?a w� 6 . fi y a ' \ � dq3 -W�l .. •J�O/ � .S1N f� /,,fib ee Iqb _,. .., . Q, n.w"' .zaoo" , I— � moo" y/ 4Fk ` / '' awo w 0, r w . a w .zma zam; 7600 Z if �I 11000 RNo 11 � "• s eLP I � , PLANNING ACTION 97-073 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to add one additional unit (total of five) to the already existing four unit plus owner's quarters traveller's accommodation located at 570 Siskiyou Boulevard. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Multi-Family Residential; Zoning: R-2; Assessor's Map M: 39 1E 9BD; Tax Lot: 4400. APPLICANT: Laura Shrewsbury BICT��'� houst Bcd and Brcakfaet September 8 , 1997 Ashland Planning Department RE: Planning Action 97-073 In response to the Staff Report received by mail on Saturday, I am submitting a revised floor plan for our proposed fifth room which answers , I believe, all of staff 's concerns relative to access . This is, indeed, my original floor plan submitted in September of 1996 and addressed in a Staff Report dated October 1 , 1996 . This plan attached herein addresses the staff concerns of last October i .e . ingress and egress for guests between common areas and their room -- existing french doors to the living/dining areas . I have also moved the guest room shower to be adjacent to the existing half bath. Square footages for the fifth room would be 460 square feet and for the newly enlarged fourth room (and it is beautiful ! ) 372 square feet. I am a little corcex'ned that staff excludes the kitchen in calculating gross interior square feet. While it does not impact this application, it seems important to note that the kitchen is a licensed and inspected integral part of our business. As I indicated to staff, we have prepared over 9 ,000 guest meals over the years with pleasure. Additionally, although the City may not concern itself with this fact, it is the kitchen that moves the business to an active status in the eyes of the Internal Revenue Service, a rather significant point since it entails self-employment taxation. I realize that staff is concerned on the residency. issue and I repeat that I am residing on the property during any nights of guest occupancy. I stayed with my family overnight the first night of their move and, sure enough, a guest smoke detector started chirping at 3 : 30 AM. We timed our move so that we would escape the heaviest demands of guests -- there are only about 3a more days until year end that I would be required to live at the inn full-time . We were closed this past January and February due to flooding and a family emergency and we will probably close again the first two months of 1998 . But in March, if the inn hasn 't sold, I will once again reside there . It is really not awkward for anyone except that the guests now chide me about having ' lost ' my family. 67 Page 2 Planning Action 97-073 I do pray that you do not postpone this action. This is not a floor plan that is new to staff. I am admittedly baffled about why staff didn ' t just request that I return to this original plan. I am also baffled about why notice went out (copy attached) saying this action was staff approved. But we have been bumped once already and while the new room .will not be rented in this. calendar year it is essential that we know our status for 1998 bookings. We are a going concern, we have several full dates already in 1998 and we traditionally book at about 60% for the following year before December 31 . The action of the Historic Commission was one based on as much confusion as I feel and is now a moot point -- I only regret the waste of time for the members . Please call immediately if there are any questions or concerns . Respectfully, Laura Shrewsbury 70 570 c5iakryou Blvd. Ashland. OR 97520 1=(800) 482-9214 x m e r• En m a V ED \ m X OD E N \ E � r Lv J N E I e D " 4 _ rrvro rrvr.' = rr vro rrvrr � k _ ❑ r u ; T ❑ t rr a•.r.rrua q•.rr ro.rr rose ro.rr rrwrr r.•vro pi ; R 7l0 SISKIYOU BLVD ASHLAND, OR LAURA SHREWSBURY 482-9214 7/ II' The Ashland Planning Department pr' nnarily approved this If a hearing is rem led, it will be scheduled for the following request on August 20, 1997. This acti, Mill be reviewed by the month. Unless the. ; a continuance, if a participant 3o requests Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board at 1 :30 p.m. on before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open September 9, 1997,at the Ashland Civic Center, 11 75 East Main for at least seven days after the hearing. Street, Ashland, Oregon. No public testimony is allowed at this 1 review. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application,either in person or by letter,or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision Any affected property owner or resident has a right IO request, maker an opportunity to respond to the issue. Precludes your right of appeal to the AT NO CHARGE, a public hearing before the Ashland Planning Land Use Board of Appeals ILUBAI on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance Commission On this action. criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. To exercise this right, a WRITTEN request must be received in the A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant Planning Department, 20 East Main Street, prior to 3:00 p.m. on and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at September 2, 1997. If you d0 not SPECIFICALLY REQUEST A reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for j PUBLIC HEARING by the time and date stated above, there will inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost,it i be no public testimony permitted. requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department,City Hall, i 20 East Main Street, Ashland,Oregon 97520. I If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to I contact Susan Votes at the Ashland Planning Department City Hall, at 488-5305. A, q yO Existing Traveller's Accommodotriun r/ \ A. 7 n a ark 4t;k?'bkq r. a W s /O '�iQ' S P,,'ol / r` Al a l n . tU W M 1Y/ S' po CC npo — \ .,�., a W r //`/ Z 7 � N •` .gyp Q .�o'_ ::roo it rfr z rm a. W xmo ran• , aM0 +em = eon y y N01'E: 1'his Planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Historic Commission on September 3, 1997 in the Ashland Community Center located at 59 Winburu Way at 7:30 p.m. PLANNING ACTION 97-073 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to add one additional unit (total of 5) to the already existing four unit plus owner's quarters traveller's accommodation located at 570 Siskiyou Boulevard. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Multi-Family Residential; Zoning: R-2; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 9BD; Tax Lot: 4400. APPLICANT: Laura Shrewsbury li 7� I r j I i is I III I �lillr � 4� IIIIIY }\ I; Jlfj yil 1i1� •. .._.... 1 I {1 I :P •j�� I I �: IIIi ,r !IIIi�� I IIplIlk�l I � _ . . 1 I Mir � II III I, II i l (I II rj� •� � h I 11 II III ', � I `__ _ - . :'l 11f IIIl I I I _ III 1iI !_I It ,j lllj dI!�1 II �Ii I - _ - V IIII II 111��••I II I�I{:i I I I±j C ..-._...... _ ...._.- 73 .f�W�OE Ge1.IL� �/pUL I , \ A I t- \ T ' 6u�r use III \ OIIrJi�J4� Liy}Yy J 0��+ ••\ 'IV o \\. I / I �. / 3r, c HoU�5 t \ I oil ILE i Cxisrn.IG �JdL r � � I,✓F�1'•��F�IC7 I 7y - -_ a �0 CNV IHSd 0 11>a,i ✓_C j��u9� 6!I I n d 1J 11 -P H +J dJ U) W +• W i W kA W d W i! 0 r N �•i N' a d U) w U) l U) a 0 N X OJ CI- M T m m M Ul -I (1-- d' O m M M d' 1 l0 N 0 of O I II``JQ I r I � i J 0 o \ l wl �w z s4 w ro in w EQ r o s4 a $4 + ro W R. N N O U) LI (3) x >a ro a) m vZ °u -1 rA Q)a4 a) o i A O a)O � 1 O Q) E O C m W-•-I ro O .0 O 14 O •rl N 4.) G x I~ W u +J ro o 41 >a -H v ro ow rn u •.I I ro >ao U) va ro o ) ro +I >i s4 u a •H ro E rr (a a) • a) •.; > l) ro O ro uu � H � PNH EPuP ooHmom -1I o+ o a) ro toror; oox0 aoca H10 U) u VG) 4J -.I u 4 v a 4-J Ln a) 0 U) cn x a) ao w w zHv H O y � 6 -75 t ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT September 9, 1997 PLANNING ACTION: 97-073 APPLICANT:Laura Shrewsbury LOCATION: 570 Siskiyou Boulevard ZONE DESIGNATION: R-2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-Family Residential ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.104 Conditional Use Permits 18.24 Low Density Multiple-Family Residential 18.92.025 Credit for On-Street Automobile Parking REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit to expand an existing travelers' accommodation from four units to five units. I. Relevant Facts 1) Background - History of Application: In November 1989, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit for a three unit - plus manager's unit Travelers' Accommodation (PA-89-181). In March 1995, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit to expand the Travelers' Accommodation from three to four units. Two additions to the primary structure were also approved (PA-95-010). 2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal: This is an irregular shaped lot, 13,330 square feet in size and located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Sherman Street and Siskiyou Boulevard. The site is in the Historic Interest Area and the surrounding area is a mixture of traveler's accommodations and single-family residential units. Five parking spaces are located off of the alley in the rear and two on-street parking credits are available along Sherman Street. There are two existing buildings located on the site. One sits adjacent to the alley facing Sherman Street and the other sits on the front of the lot facing Siskiyou Boulevard. The building facing Siskiyou Boulevard is a Bungalow style structure which was constructed in 1914 (est.). The building is the primary structure on the 76 property and has a Secondary ranking on the City's Cultural Resource Inventory. Three guest rooms are located in the Sherman Street building. In the Siskiyou Boulevard building there is one guest room, a living room/dining room, a common area and owner's unit. The applicant is proposing to expand the existing Travelers' Accommodation from four to five units by converting 448 square feet of existing owner's quarters space. Five parking spaces are required for the guest units and two for the owner's quarters, for a total of seven spaces. The existing paved parking area accommodates five automobiles. Access is by way of the alley off of Sherman Street. The applicant has received approval for one, but is now asking for a second off-street parking credit on Sherman Street. 170 feet of uninterrupted curb along the Sherman Street frontage, leaving adequate space for the two on-street parking spaces. II. Project Impact Six accommodation units plus the owner's unit are permitted for the property based on the Travelers' Accommodation ordinance. The existing structure's comparable target use is a four unit multi-family residential structure. The comparable target use would generate approximately 26 vehicle trips per day based on an average daily trip of 6.47 per unit. Due to the proximity of this location to the downtown, two city parks, a library, a.major supermarket (Safeway Store) and the public transit line, and to the nature of the tourist market in Ashland, five accommodation units plus the owner's unit are likely to generate the same or slightly more than the target use. However, staff's opinion of the proposal is that the facility will function more like a hotel rather than a residentially based Traveler's Accommodation. Hotels differ from Traveler Accommodation facilities in that hotels are limited to "commercially zoned" property and Traveler Accommodations are limited to "residentially zoned" property. Considering that Traveler Accommodations are located in residentially zoned areas, they are subject to a lot more neighborhood scrutiny than hotels. Hotels typically have no relationship with residential areas, but Traveler Accommodation facilities do. Traveler Accommodations must meet a number of restrictions such as having to locate in an existing residence which is at least 20 years old and that the residence must be owner occupied. Finally, due to the sensitive nature of residential neighborhoods, a "new"Conditional Use Permit must be obtained in order for a prospective owner being able to "transfer" their name in order to operate the Traveler's Accommodation facility. Hotels have no PA97-073 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report Laura Shrewsbury September 9, 1997 Page 2 77 such regulations. The Travelers' Accommodation ordinance requires that there must be at least 400 sq. ft. of gross interior floor space per rental unit - excluding the owner's unit. The purpose behind this requirement and the other requirements listed in the Traveller's Accommodation Ordinance is to insure that the facility functions more like a "residential" inn rather than a hotel/motel. This particular section of the ordinance is included because it attempts to create common areas such as living rooms, dining rooms, kitchens, etc. These areas typically provide space to guests who wish to socialize, dine, read, etc. with not only other guests, but also with the proprietor and his/her family. It is staff's contention the floor plan is setup in such a way the occupants of the units, existing and proposed, would have to either access the common area by passing through the owner's unit or walking out to the public sidewalk on Sherman Street - down the sidewalk along Siskiyou Boulevard and through the front door. Access to the common area becomes so circuitous or uncomfortable for guest use, that it is likely never to be used by the guests. Secondly, the applicant has stated in her application letter the kitchen area is not guest accessed because each unit has a food prep area and refrigerator. This aspect of the applicant's operation does nothing to encourage a guest to utilize the common dining room. Thirdly, the floor plan for each of the units shows exterior entrance/exit doors leading to the outside rather than to the interior of the house. Although the new unit does have interior access, it is staff's opinion that walking through the "owner's bedroom" in order to get to the common area is uncomfortable and unlikely. Finally, the floor plan shows the applicant's unit consisting of a one bedroom/family room, kitchen, 1/2 bath (no shower or tub) and basement. The applicant and her family total four people. The applicant has stated to staff and the Historic Commission that she and her family have already purchased another home in town and that this property is up for sale. If this is the case, staff has difficulty understanding how the applicants intend to operate the Travelers Accommodation when it is required to reside on the property. Do to the fact the floor plan shows limited living space and no shower facilities, staff is concerned if the applicant meets the "owner occupied" requirement. III. . Procedural - Required Burden of Proof PA97-073 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report Laura Shrewsbury September 9, 1997 Page 3 -76 1 The criteria for approval of a Conditional Use Permit are found in Chapter 18.104 and are as follows: A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the Zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer,paved access to and through the development, electricity,urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. C. That the conditional use will have no greateradverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: a) Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. b) Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardlessof capacity of facilities. c) Architectural compatibility with the impact area d) Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. e) Generation of noise, light, and glare. f) The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. g) Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. Further, there are specific criteriafor the approval of a travelers' accommodation. These are found in 18.24.030(K) and are as follows: Traveller's accommodations, provided that the facility be subject to an annual Type I review for at least the first three years, after which time the Planning PA97-073 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report Laura Shrewsbury September 9, 1997 Page 4 7� Commission may approve, under a Type II procedure, a permanent permit for the facility. Travellers accommodations shall also be subject to the following: 1) That the property used for the Travellers Accommodation be business- owner occupied. The business-owner shall be required to reside on the property occupied by the accommodation, and occupancy shall be determined as the travellers accommodation location being the primary residence of the owner during operation of the accommodation. Business-owner shall be defined as a person or persons who own the property and accommodation outright; or who have entered into a lease agreement with the property owner(s) allowing for the operation of the accommodation. Such lease agreement to specifically state that the property owner is not involved in the day to day operation or[tnanciaL ��nPm_nt of the accommo ation, and that the business-owner is wholly responsible for all operations associated with the accommodation, and has actual ownership of the business. 2) That each accommodation unit shall have I off-street parking space, and the owners shall have 2 parking spaces. All spaces shall be in conformance with the requirements of the Off-Street Parking section of this Title. 3) That only one ground or wall sign, constructed of non-plastic material, non-interior illuminated of 6 sq.ft. maximum size be allowed. Any exterior illumination of signage shall be installed such that it does not directly illuminate any residential structures adjacent or nearby the traveller's accommodation in violation of 18.72.110. 4) That the number of accommodation units allowed shall be determined by the following criteria: a) That the total number of units, including the owner's unit, shall be determined by dividing the total square footage of the lot by 1800 sq. ft. Contiguous lots under the same ownership may be combined to increase lot area and the number of units, but not in excess of the maximum established by this ordinance. The maximum number of accommodation units shall not exceed 9 per approved travellers accommodation with primary lot frontage on arterial streets. The maximum number of units shall be 7 per approved travellers accommodation with primary lot frontage on designated collector streets, or for traveller'saccommodation not having primary frontage on an arterial and within 200 feet of an arterial or collector. Street PA97-073 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report Laura Shrewsbury September 9, 1997 Page 5 90 designations shall be as determined by the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. Distances shall be measured via public street or alley access to the site from the collector or arterial. b) Excluding the business-owner's unit, and the area of the structure it will occupy, there just be at least 400 sq.ft. of gross interior floor space remaining per unit. S) That the primary residence on the site be at least 20 years old. The primary residence may be altered and adapted for traveller'saccommodation use, including expansion of floor area. Additional structures may be allowed to accommodate additional units, but must be in conformance with all setbacks and lot coverage of the underlying zone. 6) Transfer of business-ownership of a travellers accommodation shall be subject to all requirements of this section, and subject to Conditional Use Permit approval and conformance with the criteria of this section. All traveller'saccommodations receiving their initial approvals prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall be considered as approved, conforming uses, with all previous approvals, conditions and requirements remaining in effect upon change of business-ownership. Any further modifications beyond the existing approvals shall be in conformance with all requirements of this section. 7) An annual inspection by the Jackson County Health Department shall be required by the laws of the Jackson County or the State of Oregon. 8) That the property on which the travellers accommodation is operated is located within 200 feet of a collector or arterial street as designated in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Distances shall be measured via public street or alley access to the site from the collector or arterial. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations Overall, staff sees little impact by adding a fifth unit. Public facilities for the unit are available to the site and have the capacity to accommodate the new unit. The impact of a new unit to the neighborhood will likely not be noticed. However, staff does believe that all standards for Traveler Accommodation units should be met and/or clarified in such a way that there is no doubt the integrity of ordinance will be degraded. Staff believes there is enough issues raised in the PA97-073 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report Laura Shrewsbury September 9, 1997 Page 6 g/ application that caution is appropriate. The square footage of the Sherman Street house (1,066) and the square footage of the Siskiyou Boulevard house (1,192 - excluding owner's quarters) average 451 square feet of gross interior floor space per rental unit. Unfortunately, staff believes the common area identified in the applicant's floor plan should not be included. For all of the reasons noted, these amenities become difficult to utilize when access and/ore use is impeded. As such, staff believes the Living Room and the Dining Room area should not be considered as "common area" and its square footage removed from the required area. In this case, the average area requirement would be below the 400 square foot minimum (377 square feet). At this particular time, staff does not believe this application meets the applicable standards and should not be approved by the Planning Commission at this time. Furthermore, the Historic Commission also voiced concerned and unanimously recommended the application be denied or continued in order to give the applicant additional time to work these matters out with staff. PA97-073 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report Laura Shrewsbury September 9, 1997 Page 7 82 ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Minutes September 3, 1997 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at the Ashland Community Center by Chairperson Jim Lewis at 7:40 p.m. Members present were Jim Lewis, Terry Skibby, Dale Shostrom, Keith Chambers, Curt Anderson, Vava Bailey, Joyce Cowan and Carol Abrahamson. Also present were City Council Liaison Steve Hauck, Associate Planner Mark Knox and Secretary Sonja Akerman. No members were absent. Cardinale has resigned, and a new member will be appointed September 16th. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chambers moved and Abrahamson seconded to approve the August 6, 1997 Minutes as submitted. The motion was unanimously passed. STAFF REPORTS Planning Action 97-073 Conditional Use Permit 570 Siskiyou Boulevard Laura Shrewsbury Knox explained this application is to expand the existing traveller's accommodation from four units to five. Overall, the application would meet all the regulations. The only exterior change proposed is an exterior door for the new unit. The primary concern of Staff has to do with the applicant's floor plan. The new unit will be created from existing owner's unit space. According to the findings submitted by the applicant, the kitchen area is not accessible by guests. This does not make the common area (living/dining rooms) accessible from the inside. Guests would need to walk outside and to the front of the house. Each unit has a kitchen area. Staff sees this more as a hotel than a traveller's accommodation. Knox added it seems unlikely the guests would use the common area. He also stated he understands the owner/applicant has the property for sale and is moving. Staff feels it would be premature to approve this application. The owner's living area is getting smaller and it soon would not fit the needs of a family, but only one or two people operating the business. For these reasons, Staff is recommending denial or a continuance in order to work out these issues. Laura Shrewsbury debated Staff's reasons for denial or continuation. She said all they were changing is the existing double set of windows to an exterior door. She emphasized the common area is for the guests and they are served breakfast there or outside in the enclave, which is covered and opens to the pool. She also said they have a full basement under the house. They don't live there but they could. They will have three sets of doors opening onto a beautifully landscaped area that guests like to use. 0 3 e � Chambers asked where the new units were derived and Knox answered from the owner's bedrooms. Chambers said his understanding of the B & B ordinance is that it allows people with larger homes to live there, serve the needs of the community and earn money. This application seems more like a hotel. Knox said the intent of the ordinance is also to allow people to fix up older homes. He related it is important to remember the B & B is in a residential zone. A new owner would also have the same application requirements to ensure the residential areas and the home itself are respected. Skibby said he sees all the exterior doors and it seems obvious this is a change from residential use to a hotel. Lewis related it is also important to know this is in a multi-residential zone and it is necessary to look at how easy the B & B can revert back to residential use. He said he feels it would not take much to do this. He also said to change from four to five units would not be a big impact. Bailey said if you keep adding units, parking, etc., it soon won't feel like a residential area. It will be more like a commercial area. Skibby agreed and said if it reverts back, the units could be used as rentals. Chambers maintained this application is pushing the envelope of what the ordinance envisioned. He said he tends to agree with Staff and this application is nearing the point in which the neighborhood area stops feeling residential. Anderson asked for clarification of the status of the house. Shrewsbury said the house is for sale. She is living in the house but the rest of her family is not. Her family would like to keep the property, but her children do not want to live there. Shostrom said this seems to be a planning issue versus a historic issue. Visually and architecturally, he does not see a problem. He feels, however, it could have an impact on the area. Knox said the increase in the number of units probably would not be noticeable in the neighborhood. He asked how usable the common area is. If it can't be used, it doesn't meet the intent of the ordinance. Staff doesn't think it will be used. Shrewsbury countered by stating she serves guests all winter in the living/dining area. Bailey said she would rather see it worked out where the guest suites are more accessible to the common area rather than see all the exterior doors. .Skibby agreed and added he would rather see it remain more as a residence. The use, he repeated, seems to be changing. Chambers said the issue is about houses converting to B & Bs. They need to retain a residential feel. This is pushing the ordinance because the way neighborhoods function is Ashland Historic Commission Minutes September 3, 1997 8 U Page 2 part of the purview. By decreasing the size of the owner's quarters, it will be less livable for a family. Chambers then moved to recommend denial of this application to the Hearings Board with the suggestion the owner rethink the interior design of the house in order to keep it more residential. Anderson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. PI ning Action 97-082 Varl ce 872 " 'Street Dan He r/Mary Beth Burton Anderson s led he knows the applicants and owns a rental home not far away. said he does not bell ve it will affect his ability to make a fair decision. Knox explained the applicants are requesting a Variance to allow th existing rock wall to remain at five fe t in height rather than cutting it down to three f t six inches as required by ordinance. Ab ut seven years ago, Heller stated he came to e City Hall and asked the Building Official if a needed a permit for the wall. He said was told by Everett Murrell (who was the Buildi Official at the time) he did not. K x noted the applicant is a stone mason and the design actor of the wall and expense to Iler should be considered unusual circumstances. There f e, Staff is recommending ap roval. Dan Heller said he built wall in 1990 to repla an old five foot wooden fence. He then read the letter he had sub 'tted with his app i ation. Darrell Pearce, 107 Fifth Stree testified lives in the neighborhood and walks frequently. He sees many fences that prob ly do t meet the code. There are different styles and approaches. This is all part of th c racter of the Railroad District. Heller didn't intend to build an illegal wall, and to try cut it back 18 inches would be horrible. It ties in with his new house. He encouraged a ommission to consider approving the Variance. Linda Datz, 156 Eighth Sir t, stated s walks by the rock wall every day and thinks it is a beautiful piece of art. She loves the ighborhood. A large part of the charm of the Railroad District is th diversity of the pro rty. This makes it a real neighborhood and the wall adds to it. Sh said she feels the wal has been there for seven years and that it is more of a benefit han a detriment. She wo Id like to see it stay. Mary Beth rton related she went around the eighborhood and talked to people to find out if they upported keeping the wall. There wa an overwhelming support and she found no com ints. She then submitted a petition sig d by neighbors to keep the wall. Skib asked if a gate would be installed in the cut ut. Heller said he didn't plan to put in a gate, that he thought it would be more friendly to eep it open. He will be creating a return in the opening going toward the new house, ho ver. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes September 3, 1997 85 Page The Ashland Planning Department pre tardy approved this If a hearing is requl J, it will be scheduled for the following request on August 20, 1997. This action will be reviewed by the month. Unless there Is a continuance, if a participant so 1•equeste Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board at 1:30 p.m. on before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open September 9, 1997,at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main for at least seven days after the hearing. Street, Ashland, Oregon. No public testimony is allowed at this review. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application,either in person or by letter,or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision Any affected property owner Or resident has a right t0 request, maker an opportunity to respond to the issue,precludes your right of appeal to the AT NO CHARGE, a public hearing before the Ashland Planning Land Use Board of Appeals ILUBAI on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance Commission on this action. criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. To exercise this right, a WRITTEN request must be received In the A copy of the application,all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant Planning Department, 20 East Main Street, prior to 3:00 p.m. on and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at September 2, 1997. If you do not SPECIFICALLY REQUEST A reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for PUBLIC HEARING by the time and date stated above, there will inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost,if be no public testimony permitted. requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department,City Hall, 20 East Main Street,Ashland, Oregon 97520. If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, City Hell, at 488-5305. mmodation / r i6.lz±aa Existing Traveller's ACCO \ t Z W W^s - . °�6� / •s'o' 3500 6r1 : / / 6 . t] \ I Fk AV InO2 4a. ,zsoo W I w `~1 /I a" x75m n //, 7600 Z rr i W k sago zem• - e000 Mao = 3om flee I NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Historic Commission on September 3, 1997 in the Ashland Community Center located at 59 Winbum Way at 7:30 p.m. PLANNING ACTION 97-073 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to add one additional unit (total of 5) to the already existing four unit plus owner's quarters traveller's accommodation located at 570 Siskiyou Boulevard. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Multi-Family Residential; Zoning: R-2; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 9BD; Tax Lot: 4400. APPLICANT: Laura Shrewsbury 86 *hreXVF_1 house 2 3 1991 Bed and Breakfast July 22 , 1997 City of Ashland Planning Department Atten: Mark Knox 20 E. Main Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Mark: As you requested I am enclo.-Ang a more detailed/graphic floor plan for our fifth room, along with notated square footages . The owner's private area will be essentially the center of the house, including kitchen, at 644 square feet. (Our kitchen is not guest accessed -- each room has it ' s own food prep area and refrigerator. ) We have listed our property for sale, only because our children , now six and seven years of age, desire closer proximity to their school and a private ' family' home. You were not with the City when we originally applied for our bed and breakfast conditional use but at that time our children were hoped-for additions to our family -- we had no idea that we would be so fortunate in having our daughter in our first year of operation and our son the year following. We would ideally like to retain Shrew' s House for them but the ordinance prohibits that retention if we wish, also, to provide them the privacy they deserve. It has long been my contention that the ordinance requiring that an owner/innkeeper reside on an R-2 zoned property is discriminatory at best. Certainly the Planning Department and members of the Planning Commission consider that provision defensible but I do not. We receive no break in utility charges or property tax because we have to dedicate certain square footages to innkeeper living quarters . In other words , our fixed overhead is equal to that of a commercially zoned bed and breakfast. The ordinance provision ignores the need to maximize income per square foot and handicaps the R-2 bed and breakfast in a way that no retail or other revenue based enterprise would tolerate. 144e will, however, comply with the resident requirements until our inn sells. I know we are present on our property more than most any other innkeeper, even with Laurence working outside at SOU full time and my having several outside employers . Hopefully I answered your questj,ons . Please contact me if you need further information. ,*'cx Laura Shrewsbury 570 &6kryou Blvd. Ashlanc61.�13�3520 1-(800) 482-9214 O 7 }I z O �3 O !:1 (zD x 9 � (n £ r• x r m omv, rt 7 (D rr fl r• rt (D 4 tS (n �V a H ro xo z o x c o a w o x w (D O W r• w O w r 0 (D rS h H 3 r to H F1 r r r5 r; mmo Fl. rt, rt (nr £ mm w o ve rt c r' (D - (D a I C A. 'A N O I� w 1 r- n w m o w m Fl- ti rt o a. rt n ro �:l x O rt N r' o ri 0 �:• o Rl H_10 �A �l (D O ti O C (D B r• rt O C x• " rt =s o 0, " Z wO O ro (D O H. (D p ;IV rt (D (D F1 m o (D (D ra rn D) N' o ro h o p rt m (D m 0, (D r1 - 6� n X� E ti i E � L IJ r � i ' it -:,•: �I it T-----�I J t � i - • �° �j!' � III - _--_____-::--- -- -- ? Lrr :� � � .: Oc I II m I � ♦' ImI O h co W m •P W W J P P J W m N .P, pp N I✓ N En UI w In r' M rt M rt rt (n m rt r+ cc rt rt rt IYOU BLVD ASNLAND, OR 88 r July 1 , 1997 City of Ashland Planning Department Conditional Use Permit One Guest Room Addition, Shrew ' s House Bed and Breakfast Comments in response to the Pre-Application Conference: 1 . Landscaping requirements . It should be noted that all street trees are alive and well and that the landscaping park row on Sherman is completed and, we think, vastly improved. 2 . Notes. We have changed the location of the new guest rooms from that noted in the pre-application. The new rooms would be adjacent to the existing unit on the back of the house, with access to both the balance of the building through a door to the hallway as well as an exterior entrance (shown on the attached elevation) which would match the existing two doorways on the left elevation. The new two-room suite would be 448 square feet in size. Additionally, we would open up the smaller guest room in the back to become, also, a two-room suite with a total square footage of 372 . The common areas of the living and dining room, at 480 square feet provides for an excess well above the required 400 square feet of 'gross floor area per unit ' . CUP Criteria: A. The use requested is in conformance i.e. the property is owner occupied, there is adequate parking (noting the two on-street parking credits) , the sign is in place and in conformance, the units allowed per lot size and location would be seven and this request would total six, the residence is well over 20 years old, the location is on a main street, and the guest rooms plus common area are well over 400 square feet of gross interior floor space. B. That adequate capacity of City facilities is available? The use requested is adequately supplied by all City facilities . C. That the conditional use will be compatible? The additional guest room will have no adverse effect on the surrounding area and will have little impact on the existing exterior of the structure. In fact, utilization of the additional on-street parking could positively impact the current car lot appearance of Sherman street due to the large number of 'For Sale ' vehicles clogging the intersection. cc G/ • w Page 2 CUP Shrew's House July 1, 1997 Site Review Criteria: The proposed additonal room results in no changes to the site or exterior of the structure except for the changing of one double window on the left elevation to a double door which would match the two existing exterior doors on that side of the house (see elevation attached) . Notes: The Fire Department requested a smoke detector in any new guest rooms. There are hard wired smoke detectors in each of the back four bedrooms and one in the hallway. 90 m 7 :/ ; } ] Lc� c'/ U :K11 ulrl, R E 6 5 G S U 5 E 5� sse>ciBLvD =SULANp OR] :a:R4 5A9.55uR Y 4@224 . :i I.I., r . i. :Iii I I ai' / J U\ J I 11 I VIII i � I I i Ii Iq - l'I I II 'd I li ii II I ;Fl I� 111 11111 1 loll 111 11n1 ; 411 1 I 1 II 11 i�. IIpNp'M1 1. 1 uryry 4'wloEC�� ua-� I I \\ r tlse / vIIJIrJ�� LIVINr� e 3'w PWAp 6 ILI I / I Iis IXISrII�C>� — I } R- Q t�l•o" .I �i OI' I ' 2 / m e' i LxKrn.l� �4ED r _ '� � � .-• n ice. I i�Hr<Kl�ly j I 93 -- ASHLAi._ CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTO,.t 16 SURVEY FORM COUNTY: JACKSON IDENTIFICATION: Merrill, Edward T. Hist . Name House Date of Construction: 1914 (est. ) Common Name: _ Original Use: Residence Address : 570 Siskiyou Blvd. Present Use : Residence Ashland, Oregon Architect : Owner: Cicric , George Builder: 7326 S.E. 27th Ave Style: Bungalow Portland, Oregon x Bldg. Struc. _Dist . Obj . T/R/S: 39S RIE 9 Ranking: Secondary Map Na : 9DB Tax Lot : 4400 Addition : Pracht' s (1688) Block: Lot :20 , 21Quad: Ashland THEME: Statewide Inventory of Historic Properties Theme : 6d _Archaeology _Industry Mining _Agriculture _Military —Social/Education x Commerce _Politics/Government_Transportation Exploration and Settlement Religion Other DESCRIPTION: Plan Type/Shape : Rectangular No . of St-ories : One-and-a-half Foundation Material: Concrete block Basemen t ( Y/N ) : Crawl space Roof Form and Material: Gable, single ridge ; gable over porch; _composition shingle Wall. Construction: frame Structural Frame: Primary Window Type : One-over-one double hung sash Exterior Surfacing Materials : Horizontal 'double drop Decorative Features: Other: Condition: _Excellent x Good _Fair Poor --Moved(Date ) Exterior Alterations/Additions (Dated ) Noteworthy Landscape Features : _ Associated Structures : Detached garage Known Archaeological Features : Negative No: Roll 25-7 Recorded By: C) Atwood Slide No: Date: 1984/15 November 1989 SHPO Inventory No: C�/ 544 SETTING: This one story Bungalow Style dwelling stands on the southwest corner of Siskiyou Boulevard and Sherman Streets. SIGNIFICANCE: The original dwelling on this site was apparently constructed in 1898 by Edward A. Hildreth. The local newspaper noted that E. A. Hildreth had constructed a $500 house on the Boulevard in 1898. In June, 1899 the same paper reported that " . . . Hildreth ' s cot- tage on the Boulevard near J. P. Dodge' s is being painted. " The Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of 1898 indicates a modest squarish structure on the site. Hildreth, a native of New York , was born in July 1841 and worked in Ashland as a laborer . James H. and Gertie Doran purchased the property in March, 1907 and used it as a rental investment . In 1910 the house was occupied by J. E. Hosmer, a physician, and his wife. Edward T. Merrill and his wife, Mary, purchased the property from Gertie L. Doran on August 4 , 1913. Merrill , a native of Michigan, was born in 1880 to Frank and Ella Merrill . He worked as a young man in hardware store sales in Ashland and in 1914 was active in the lumber business. The Merrills may have remodelled the existing house extensively, or constructed a new dwelling on the property. SOURCES CONSULTED: Ashland Tidings, January 2 , 1899, 3 :2; June 22, 1899 . Jackson County Deed Records, Volume 40, Page 397 ; Volume 49, Page 495 ; Volume 124, Page 385 . U.S. Federal Census (Jackson County) 1910 . "1 95 A ASHLAND CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY SURVEY FORM Name : Merrill, Edward T. House T/R/S: 39S RIE 9 Address : 570 Siskiyou Blvd. Map No: 9DB Tax Lot : 4400 Ashland, Oregon Quadrangle- Ashland (I�53j x; 1 J{aC. Negative No.. : Roll 25-7 Slide No. : 07 s i 4> -_ � �• \ ,\ �\ �� Aft 6 �/, r°, S�f T / 2 40. ` 00 6 0N X25 Uj. s o s69 sso VJN Graphic and Photo Sources : City of Ashand 'Topograp is Map; Jackson County Assessor Map SHPO Inventory No. : 544 96 CITY OF ASHLAND ° °" °"' M1,{pF ASH °°''. Department of Community Development s Planning Division c MEMORANDUM ,81500 DATE: November 26, 1997 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development RE: Public Works Office Building - 1175 East Main BACKGROUND: An application was filed in September, 1997, for a site review for the construction of a new 7800 square foot office building at 1175 East Main Street. This application was filed by the City Administrator on behalf of the City after receiving input from a Council study session August 20, 1997. The application was reviewed by the Planning Staff under our Type I administrative process, and the application was approved. Notice was mailed to surrounding property owners stating that the application had been approved and should they wish to give public testimony, a request for a public hearing would need to be filed. A timely request for a hearing was filed by Richard Vezie. A public hearing was scheduled for action to be heard by Planning Commission on November 12, 1997. Prior to the hearing, it was brought to the Staff's attention that no formal action had been taken by the Council. Input was received during the study session, but no formal authorization was given. Review by the City Attorney indicated that the Procedures Chapter of the Land Use Ordinance requires a formal council action to initiate the process. Section 18.108.150 states: "The Commission or Council may initiate any Staff Permit,Type 1, Type II, or Type III planning action by motion duly adopted by the respective body designating the appropriate city department to complete and file the application." Included with this memo is the background information from the August 20, 1997, study session, the notice and staff report for the current application, and information from a recent meeting of the Progressive Citizens Alliance of Ashland. Should the Council wish to move forward with this application, a motion directing the staff to schedule the site review request for a public hearing before the Planning Commission would be in order. MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION August 20, 1997 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Golden called the meeting to order at 12:37 pm. In Attendance: Councilor Laws, Hauck, Hagen, Wheeldon and DeBoer(Reid was absent). Also present were staff members Brian Almquist, Greg Scoles, Paula Brown,John MacLaughlin, Dick Wanderscheid, Fran Berteau, Derek Severson, and Pete Lovrovich; architect Gary Afseth; Damon Fouts of The Ashland Daily Tidings; and Planning Commissioner Marilyn Briggs. A. Plan for Dealing with Space Needs at City Hall City Administrator Almquist began by mentioning the space needs study summary which was distributed to councilors at the August 19i1 council meeting. This summary detailed the possibilities of expanding city hall with a partial third story to allow current staffing there to continue while adding a new building at the Council Chambers site on East Main to accommodate Public Works, Engineering and Computers. This summary also dealt with means to finance this plan using available resources. Almquist then introduced Gary Afseth who has been working with the various city departments since 1993 to deal with the space needs issue. Almquist stated that Afseth's work had indicated that a third floor was necessary at city hall, and some of that project has begun with the addition of the elevator to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. The elevator will be installed in such a manner as to be ready to provide service for a third floor when one is added. Almquist also indicated that this will require the city offices to relocate out of city hall for approximately 9 months during construction,probably in 2003- 2004. Architect Gary Afseth discussed the space planning process and explained how questionnaires had been used with staff in 1993 to determine space requirements of 16,500-17,800 square feet. It was noted that this requirement included space needed for Public Works & Engineering staff. City hall is approximately 7300 square feet. Now in 1997, Afseth has again been asked to examine space needs but only for those departments currently housed in city hall. This time, no questionnaire was used; instead meetings were conducted with staff and department heads to review the 1993 report. Current space needs were now determined to be 10,900 square feet, meaning an additional 3600 square feet of space are needed to efficiently house the staff currently in city hall. Afseth felt that this much additional space was within the realm of possibility with the addition of a partial third floor. Afseth went on to show various elevations of the proposed renovation, explaining what could be done to bring the city hall building up to code,comply with ADA and stay within the requirements for maintaining the historical status of the building while expanding to gain the needed space. He noted that these elevations were only conceptual drawings and further meetings with department heads would be needed to get their input and work out complete details. His plan called for removal of both current stairways, reducing the number of entrances to the building to one (1) and making it more of a focal point; making a single "spine" corridor down the center of the building connected to one stairway at either end and all tied into the elevator. The ground floor would house Finance, Utilities and the City Recorder. The second floor would gain an additional 1000 square feet and contain Community Development. The third floor, approximately 2200 square feet, would have the Mayor's office and the Administrator and City Attorney. The roof structure, which is currently very deep (6'/i' of dead space) would be removed and replaced to better advantage of the space and allow for the third floor and shared elevator with OSF. Explanation continued, noting the need to maintain the integrity of the historic structure while subordinating the addition to the existing portion. Said the third floor would have a 5'h' setback and 42" railing with potential for some garden space. Also said first floor storefront windows would be replaced with some that were more in keeping with the second floor to give a consistent appearance and add some seismic/structural integrity. (Ashland City Council Study Session Minutes/Space Needs 8/20/97) 1 Mayor Golden made note of her concerns that the third floor views would be of a wall; she explained that, for her, the view was one of the great benefits of her office. Discussion continued concerning the entry as a small arcade with room for displays. Councilor Laws suggested that it not be presented in a way to encourage people to sit or loiter. Councilor Laws questioned why, if the added space was to increase efficiency, had the plan continued use of a 1.5 efficiency multiplier. Afseth explained that this multiplier was the relationship. of net area to gross area and provided an estimation of the efficient use of space by indicating how much of the overall space was consumed by walls, mechanical space or dead space. The 1993 study used a 1.35 multiplier. The current city hall is at 1.5 and this index was used as the basis for the proposed renovation. Afseth indicated that as a public building, the nature of the space assigns certain areas to the public, and the need to connect to the stairs and elevator also lead to the continued use of this index. Councilor Hagen noted that he was underwhelmed by the elevations. Mayor Golden indicated that the plans seemed more institutional than historic, and questioned making the windows smaller. Afseth responded that the drawings were only conceptual, and reiterated the need to subordinate the addition to the existing historic structure. Councilor Hagen questioned the entrance design and indicated that he was uncomfortable with the third floor elevator exiting into open space, exposing those exiting the elevator to the weather. He noted that the city hall is the heart of the city, and the appearance should be strengthened accordingly. Afseth suggested that the entry way could be opened more. Councilor Hagen suggested a clock tower at the comer, to be visible from the plaza. Planning Commissioner Marilyn Briggs suggested an entry at the comer near the current planning entrance, rather than near Ashland Bakery Cafe as indicated on the elevations. She felt a clock tower could be added to mimic the elevator and thus better balance the overall structure. Afseth indicated that this would be difficult as an entry other than off of the central corridor would require reorientation of the whole design and also might be difficult in light of requirements for maintaining historic status. Councilor Hagen indicated that the overall plan being presented was close to being acceptable, and suggested looking into what kind of leeway the state might allow in terms of requirements for historic buildings. Councilor DeBcer indicated that he disliked the idea of a third story, and suggested that he'd like a comparison of the cost of a full third story versus the partial and the cost for merely complying with ADA without adding a 3rd floor. Councilor Wheeldon suggested that a more distinct entry was needed; said that no attempt to imitate the current structure should be made. Here there was some discussion of"looking like a city hall", with Wheeldon indicating that the redesign could appear distinct and significantly important without copying a standard city hall style or being institutional. B. Plan for Dealing with Space Needs at the Council Chambers Site Afseth discussed this plan further as a marriage of his work in 1993 and 1997, noting that the 17,000 square feet was still needed to house the full staff; the 10000 additional feet will satisfy only the current staff at city hall; 7000 more is needed for Computers, Public Works and Engineering. As such, the plan includes an additional building at the East Main Street Council Chambers site. This would be of the same design as discussed in 1993, but the wing of offices previously proposed for city hall personnel has been removed. (Ashland City Council Study Session Minutes/Space Needs 8/20/97) 2 C. Discussion of Financing Space Needs Plan Here, available funds and cost were discussed by Almquist, and it was indicated that the new building at East Main could be constructed with available funds and leave the city in a position to perform the renovation of city hall in 2003-2004. The new building would cost approximately $592,000 and the complete city hall renovation would be approximately $1.25 million. Councilor Laws what projected staffing increases had been considered in preparing this plan, and it was indicated that staff increases would be minimal. Councilor Hauck noted that the amount saved by Public Works/Engineering on space rent for 271/2 N. Main should be included in calculations. Councilor Laws indicated that his response was generally positive. Councilor DeBoer suggested an "add. alternate" option be included when bids were sought to find the additional cost of constructing the new building with an office wing for anticipated later needs. Mayor Golden stated that she felt this wouldn't be seen as prudent as it would be preparing for continued increases in bureaucracy and trying to anticipate needs that are 40 years down the road. ADJOURNED Discussion ended. Councilors were reminded that a special study session had been called for next Tuesday, August 26th at 4pm to deal with the hiring of a new City Administrator. The meeting was adjourned at 1:50 pm. (Ashland City Council Study Session Minutes/Space Needs 8/20/97) 3 CITY OF ASHLAND Administration - c; "• e - a Office of the City Administrator MEMORANDUM ••OREGO?, '-, DATE: August 19, 1997 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Brian L. Almquist, City Administrator RE: SPACE NEEDS STUDY In November of 1996, following the termination of negotiations by the Hillah Temple leadership, the City Council directed the staff to: 1. Investigate whether all functions now being performed in City Hall could be accommodated through remodeling of the existing structure and/or the addition of a partial third story; and 2. Downsize the proposed building at the East Main site to accommodate only the Public Works/Engineering staff, with some additional space for Computer Services and Fire Administration; and 3. Prepare a financing plan to determine whether both projects could be funded over the next five to ten years as staffing needs dictate. At that time, I asked architect Gary Afseth, who prepared the original space needs study in January of 1993, to work with the affected city departments to see if our space needs could be achieved by the above strategies. Attached is a copy of the final report dated June 3, 1997 which indicates that it is indeed possible to meet all of the long-term space needs projected in the 1993 study, but that a partial third story will be necessary. In anticipation of that future project, the elevator now under construction at the rear of City Hall has been designed to allow for future access to the future third floor. I have asked Gary to update the Mayor and Council at the Wednesday study session on the methodology used to prepare the updated study, and to present the schematic floor plans and elevations of both buildings. I will therefore confine my presentation to the recommended plan for financing these two projects. Funds Available: At the present time we have $914,000 in the capital improvement fund for building construction. From that amount, we are committed to spend an additional $182,000 for the project now under construction at the rear of City Hall. During the year we expect$209,000 in revenue and transfers for the 1997-98 fiscal year, resulting in a net amount available of approximately $872,000. In addition, we have four other sources of revenue from three sales of city property, and from repayment of CBDG home rehabilitation loans, as follows: 1. Croman Corp Note No. 1. $72,500 note with annual payments of $7,250 for interest only. Collectible on 90 days written notice. 2. Croman Co_g Note No. 2. $206,645 balance as of 6/30/97 with monthly P&I payments of $4,081. Payment currently earmarked for repayment of Downtown Beautification LID bonds through 1997/98. 3. Comstock& Fields A Street Enterprise Note. $127,571 balance as of 6/30/97 with monthly P&I payment of $1,722. 4. CBDG Rehab Loans. Aggregate balance of $229,776 as of 6/30.97. Repayment due if property changes ownership, but often notes are repaid when current owner refinances. The annual amount from repayments have ranged from $15,000 to $30,000 per year. Estimated Construction Costs. Gary Afseth has provided us with estimated construction costs for each of the proposed projects as follows: 1. EM&ctA - East Main Addition-The estimated cost of the building is $615,000 plus $35,000 for engineering and inspection, and $30,000 for furnishings. 2. Project B - Cit r�Hall RemodelMird Floor - The estimated cost in 1997 dollars is $1,250,000. Long Range Budget for Both Protects - Attached is a long-range budget for both projects which indicate that both projects can be completed by 2004/05 using current revenues and interest earnings. It is not expected that the second project will be needed for 5-7 years, so this timing would be ideal. Recommendation - It is recommended that staff be authorized to proceed with a site review on Project A with bids to be scheduled between December 1, 1997 and January 31, 1998. For Project B, it is recommended that the C.I.P. be amended to include the foregoing schedule of revenue additions to the project amount for construction in 2004/05. Afseth&Associates architects ■ A.I.A. June 3, 1997 City of Ashland Attn: Brian Almquist 20 East Main Street Administrator Ashland, Oregon 97520 Dear Brian: Please find attached our summary of the schematic design for the Public Works Building and the Ashland City Hall, I would appreciate your review of this Information and any comments you may have, In closing, please call on me should you require any additional information. Y rs Cordially Gary Afseth Architect, A.I.A. 60 0 0' �� ■ (541)734-7707 29 South Grape Medford,OR 97501 CITY OF ASHLAND ADMINISTRATIVE SPACE STUDY SUMMARY MAY 28, 1997 A. ADMINISTRATIVE SPACE STUDY JANUARY 1993 The Administrative Space Study of January 1993 projected the space requirements for six city departments: Mayor,Administration, City Recorder, Finance, Community Development, and Public Works. 1. Findings: • The existing City Hall cannot support the projected space requirements. • The existing leased space at 27% North Main cannot support the projected space requirements. • The existing Municipal Court Building cannot support the projected space needs for Administrative Services. 2. Summary of Floor Area: DEPARTMENT EXISTING FLOOR AREA PROJECTED FLOOR AREA FACTOR NET GROSS NOTE NET FACTORIGROSSAREA AREA AREA AREA 1250 1.350 1. Mayor 1.506 151 227 250 313 338 2. Administration 1.506 829 1248 2220 2775 2997 3. City Recorder 1.524 216 329 o 700 875 945 4. Finance 1.524 781 1190 0 2130 2663 2876 1.506 838 1262 ' — 5. Community 1.524 1801 2745 o 4190 5238 5657 Development 1.543 304 469 0 - 6. Public Works 1.506 215 324 3745 4681 5056 1.321 1341 1771 ❑ — TOTALS 1.476 6,476 9565 — 13,235 16,545 17,869 Existing City Hall 1.516 4831 325 — 4831 ,325 ,325 ITOTALS 1.361 1,645 2,240 — 8,404 9,220 10,544 NOTES: _ o City Hall, First Floor City Hall, Second Floor ❑ Leased Floor Area(Engineering Div'isiori) 0 Municipal Building 3. RECOMMENDATIONS: • Construct a new structure at the Civic Center site to house the projected needs of the Community Development and Public Works Departments. • Retain and upgrade the existing City Hall structure to house the projected needs of the Mayor, Administration, City Recorder, and Finance Departments. B. ADMINISTRATIVE SPACE STUDY JANUARY 1997 The Administrative Space Study of January 1997 is a review and update of the 1993 study. The study was limited to five departments currently housed in the existing City Hall: Mayor, Administration, City Recorder, Finance, and Community Development. 1. Findings: ■ The existing City Hall will not support the projected space requirements. 2. Summary of Floor Area: DEPARTMENT EXISTING FLOOR AREA PROJECTED FLOOR AREA Factor Net Area Gross Net Area Factor/Gross Area Area 1.250 1.350 1.500 1. Mayor 1.506 151 227 250 313 338 375 2. Administration 1.506 997 1501 2120 2650 2862 3180 3. City Recorder 1.524 291 443 283 354 382 425 4. Finance 1.524 781 1190 1665 2081 2248 2498, 1.506 761 1146 5. Community 1.506 124 187 2980 3725 4023 4470 Development 1.524 1640 2499 6. Adjustment 86 134 TOTALS 1.516 4,831 7,327 7,298 9,123 9,853 10,948 PLUS AREA — — — — 1796 2526 3621 3. RECOMMENDATIONS: • Upgrade the existing City Hall structure to house the projected space requirements for the Mayor's Office, Administration, City Recorder, Finance, and Community Development. • Upgrade the existing City Hall to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). • Upgrade the existing City Hall to comply with the Seismic Provisions of the 1994 Edition of the UBC. C. CONCLUSIONS The 1993 Administrative Space Study projected a need of 16,545 s.f. to 17,869 s.f. to house six departments: Mayor, Administration, City Recorder, Finance, Community Development, and Public Works. The 1997 study, limited to departments currently within the existing City Hall—Mayor, Administration, City Recorder, Finance, and Community Development—projected a need of 10,948 s.f. This projection indicates an addition to the existing City Hall of approximately 3,621 s.f. (10,948-7,327 s.f.) will be necessary to support the existing functions currently housed in City Hall. In addition, the 10,948 s.f. projection for City Hall supports a need of 5,597 s.f. (16,545-10,948 s.f.) to 6,921 s.f. (17,869-10,948 s.f.) to house Public Works and other departments not included in the 1997 study: Fire and Computer Services. 1. Schematic Floor Plans: • Public Works Building Originally designed to house Public Works and Community Development on a ground floor area of 9,091 s.f. and a second floor of 920 s.f. for a total floor area of 10,011 s.f. Redesign to house Public Works, Fire, and Computer Services Departments. Estimated ground floor area of 6,869 s.f. plus second floor area of 920 s.f. for a total area of 7,789 s.f. (See attached floor plans.) • Renovate the existing City Hall of 7,327 s.f. and add approximately 1,021 s.f. at the second floor and 2,189 s.f. at the roof level for a total floor area of 10,537 s.f. to house five city departments: Mayor, Administration, City Recorder, Finance, and Community Development. .�. EB off« .o FWrM AO " M 3 orwen ' now OFRWh _-__-.- 1 u u nw1°�ionOM�urwo FORS? FLOCI U 6CALEe T 9 20' FFn SIECOOHD [FLOOR, k&L(E. 9• a ® L CRT - - FAMVFMM .°a A••. O 4 Y••M• wan L riuLr � • i•u w� L sr O w• un� n{in11CAL /L 6=WMM A. M IL M ML mu n +L •L RarAWMAT I&CAMM I r� anuc L 1011otM ®] Im big= Q.YCIM� LSD K K ALL•M6r•q 1. Nom. UrLT0111 m V. R001� SL•T••1 o ` 2L i A L [SOU UEcT FLOOR R SCALEB T 8 20' ...O.OII.W.a L." A:.� ` 7.Iseorl NW R COO.o04O•CIEW L Wool. IL !room IL r�1A...m1110°O O O I•....1..., a uu"r.T M.Secag`A01 n. T. .moo.M� OO WL y a It•tl OII�CT i- •i..COTTA" Sc P.TAtspwToa ri rtx lc Coumm M VA96T TO�iI SL S&ENTR� x 80. iul ` - • n Ic Qp_ • O IL x . w. • sa. a. O IL u SCECOOHD [FLOOR MALE. T a 20t t...•• L /pro 4.AOMMYRATCH L� AOMORBMTOR ® � ' " ®®rAm IL a°�' T s, p 00 IL M. . �..T•• IL A•TYICHAN CU L 6 L • I MIL x O o a • O Oo ® n +R Li A. 6 YNKno-113 IFLOOOOR. 6CALEe If s 20' N N n r. 1N. N 0 Oni N O N f! N m N N �V N r N 1Om O O p Op�� N r f� 0; Y {09 8 n N g 8 ^ S q 0 N M pN P O tq N N r r r r $ 88888 8 8 0 8 0 00 O 00 O 00 O O N 0 8 8 0 8 ' In d td A N N ci c; c; O N . 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 f 0 s 0 $ o $ 0 d N A M f� N M t0`l 0 N O Q N 3 N S � O O O O O O O 8 O O 0) co 0 0 0 N N 8 0 ONE m N N i Q I 0 N N - m , n N 0 V N N dl co 10 88850 o 888 � o 8 0 N r INp N �O N O' m 0 0 W C ! O m O o` T gm J O Y o. a a a 2 0 gg p m c LL m z s H a two a. f w U m pE 55far � os ° �� n� $$ Ego' mEm ° � E °< mao xa wp�7° n m f2 m rL r H Cmp $ $qmp " w0mmm0 o ° ° wmal R" sM w. ma 0,0 �m X' G H`° °'cy � C O �y C ° V1 egg apgbb � 8 $aQ E o s � m" � sss� � oG'' a. . n a 7'� ij g wp,tB �:RIMO'° a.d � moY <.G � � �w �• FE� c� �F� � oaf .., a,° 0 � mO . mmrx5'° aM5.8 " ` fads' c" $ ° 4y � ec ew °g� $ � g 5w� " � �rymw � 0,0 �a �scm5 a ga^ ° ° mRE0:4 F °�G25��i � ��mpwK'�t�' " �r 8 � w�'"' ..`8'` � S.o�-��O� °awa y8pD °p p�C( bb ��bCm � CC �^'R7 CLi rx,0 �mFyr7 fj � m�� ❑ c° w MPH '09 4mffi° n8'0 m�9§ D yy p _ t+ '40 IN $ fig -Ogg �� aS P.K q pls,:4as s H ° 1 ° N µ CD 9�7 p C¢J p w � c��g� �+ .�y�O R '��6G awn c�o��' ,'Y�„- N QQ EP hlw ° 9 4P CL � [�yp� �� G '�-±„��p pCO m�.[��j w�•mY �, JG fA r°j � c CD p8g bum° ro° o z qo q q U3 4b lmc� CL ar 1 �•px � b �x �� a8 FIS Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HE NG on the following A copy of the application locuments and evidence relied upon by the applicant request with respect to the ASHLAND L..oD USE ORDINANCE and applicable criteria are. ..table for inspection at no cost and will be provided at will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available tot inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost,it November 12, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. at the ASHLAND CIVIC requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department,City Hall, CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. 20 East retain Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and Oregon lawstates that failureto raise an objection concerning this application,either those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit in person or by letter,or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable maker an opportunity to respond to the issue,precludes your right of appeal to the criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the Land Use Board of Appeals(LUBA)on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance conclusion of the hearing,the record shall remain open for at least seven days after criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on the hearing. If you have questions or comments concerning this request,please feel that criterion. free to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department,City Hall,at 488- 5305. EXi Eruo�c ELEV/�TICNS —._.........—._ _ - l _ .. "67. L_C AT`04 NXY _^.CVP]IJK 4_ _ .. w, v, r. Ur ML Tiou se+Tier VtGiN�TX I�N+f coins",WE NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Tree Commission on October 9i 1997 in the Council Chambers located at 1175 East Main Street at 7:00 P.M. PLANNING ACTION 97-100 is a request for a Site Review for the construction of a 7800 square foot City office building located at 1175 E. Main Street. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Employment; Zoning: E-1; Assessor's Map #: 39 IE 10 BC; Tax Lot: 5302. APPLICANT: City of Ashland ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT November 12, 1997 PLANNING ACTION: 97-100 APPLICANT: City of Ashland LOCATION: 1175 East Main Street ZONE DESIGNATION: E-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Public Facilities ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.40 Employment Zone 18.72 Site Review REQUEST: Site Review for the construction of a 7800 square foot City office building. 1. Relevant Facts 1) Background - History of Application: In October, 1980, the Planning Commission approved a Site Review and Conditional Use Permit (PA80-78) for the construction of the Justice Center/Council Chambers at this location. In November, 1982, the Planning Commission approved a Site Review for the construction of a new public warehouse facility at this location (PA82-75). In October, 1993, the Commission approved a Site Review for the construction of a 10,000 square foot City office building to be located to the rear of the City Council Chambers (PA93-127). The findings were adopted on October 27, 1993. The City Council appealed the decision by motion. In November, 1993, the Council sustained the Planning Commission's decision and approved a Site Review for the construction of the new City office building. The findings for the Council's decision were never adopted. On December 2, 1993, the City Council withdrew the City's application for a site review for a new office building. The Council agreed by resolution to the formation of an ad hoc committee to study the space needs of the City, and to recommend how and when the solutions should be implemented. There are no other actions of record for this site. 2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal: The Planning Department administratively approved this request on September 24, 1997. A request for a public hearing before the Commission was filed and is included in the record. The site is the present location of the Council Chambers and the Police Station, as well as warehousing. The site was purchased by the City in the 1970's for the purpose of re-locating some city facilities, such as the Police Department, Council Chambers, Court functions, warehousing functions (moved from "A" Street), Electric Department, some Public Works functions, as well as provide yard storage for materials. In the previous approvals, the site plans have indicated this site as the location of "future offices." The Staff Report from the 1980 approval discusses the possibility of a future building being added to the Police/Council Chambers complex at a later time. This proposal involves a slightly scaled down version of the City office building originally proposed before the Commission in October 1993. This request involves the construction of a 7800 square foot office building to the rear of the Council Chambers for the relocation of the Departments of Public Works, Computer Services, and Fire Administration for the City of Ashland. The building is designed to match the materials and exterior details of the existing Council Chambers and Police Station, to provide a consistent campus design. It is essentially a single-story design, with a small interior loft area of approximately 1000 sq. ft. for mechanical equipment and some storage. No office space will be located in the loft area. The building's primary entrance is through a courtyard area behind the Council Chambers that can be reached either directly from East Main Street between the Police/Council Chambers buildings, or from the parking lot by walking behind the Council Chambers. Employee entrances will also be located at the rear of the building (north side) towards the warehouse buildings. The building is also proposed to be fully sprinklered, to aid in fire fighting should a structure fire occur. As stated earlier, this site is located in an E-1 zone, with a Comprehensive Plan designation of Public Facilities. This building is a permitted use in the E-1 zone, subject to Site Review approval. Section 18.40.020 E-1 Zone Permitted Uses lists the following: PA97-100 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report City of Ashland November 12, 1997 Page 2 A. Professional, financial, and business and medical offices, and personal service establishments. M. Public and quasi public utility and service buildings and yards, structures, and public parking lots, but excluding electrical substations. By design, this use is essentially a professional office, but it is also a public structure. Both of these uses are listed as permitted uses in the E-1 zone. II. Project Impact As described.earlier, the original Site Review application for the project was withdrawn by the Council back in December of 1993. Four years have transpired, and many meetings of the ad hoc space needs committee have been convened. Staff will be available to answer questions regarding that process, if requested by the Commission, at the November 12, 1997 public meeting. However, the Commission should confine their review of this action to the issues associated with Site Review, and limit discussions that go beyond the scope of criteria applicable to the proposal. The previous Staff Reports and Commission findings, adopted in October 1993, approving the original proposal for a 10,000 square foot building have been included in the record. It is Staff's opinion, that the scaled-down version of the building meets all applicable criteria for approval as noted in the Commission's earlier findings. The written request for a public hearing maintains the application fails to comply with applicable Site Review criteria. Staff has attempted to respond to those referenced sections below: Compliance with 18.72.060 Plans Required It is Staff's opinion that the application is complete and contains sufficient information, when accompanied by the recommended conditions, to find that the proposal meets applicable approval criteria. The submittal list referenced above is comprehensive with broad application to a variety of projects of different scales and sizes. Staff uses discretion in determining what information is necessary to determine consistency with ordinance criteria, and what information can be assumed based on common knowledge of the site and surrounding factors. Since this proposal represents an infill project on the existing civic center campus, public facility systems such as water, sewer, electricity storm drainage and catch basins are located on the campus and are available to serve the proposed office PA97-100 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report City of Ashland November 12, 1997 Page 3 building. Consequently, specific sizes and locations of these services, as well as points of connection to City systems have not been noted on the plans. Off-street parking The Commission findings dated October 27, 1993 stated that off-street parking "is being provided by the existing spaces...........The site is currently non-conforming by having too much (in excess of 10% over the minimum required), and this new building will end up bringing the site much closer into compliance." While the currently proposed building has been scaled-down to 7800 square feet, the Commission did approve the construction of the new "Community Works" building at the east end of the civic center campus this past year. Accordingly, Staff has re- evaluated the off-street parking available at the site as follows: Existing parking 1. Main Parking Area = 79 spaces 2. Behind Police Station = 19 spaces 3. Adjacent to Service Center = 36 spaces 4. Along North Side of Fence = 39 spaces 5. Unmarked Areas = 12 (minimum) Staff has restricted its review to the south half of the Civic Center Campus which incorporates the Police Station, Court/Civic Center, Future Youthworks Facility and the proposed office building. Consequently, parking areas 1 and 2 noted above, totalling 98 spaces, seem most appropriate for examining the impacts upon parking resulting from the proposal. Required narking 1. Proposed City Office Building = 18 spaces 2. Future Youthworks Building = 18 spaces (conservative) 3. Police Station = 25 spaces 4. Council Chambers = 25 spaces (peak evening demand) Total Required = 86 spaces Minimum Available = 98 spaces Lot coverage and landscaping The application does not provide a summary of the percentage of a lot area covered by impervious surfaces, buildings and landscaping. Given the civic center campus size PA97-100 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report City of Ashland November 12, 1997 Page 4 of 8.48 acres, it was assumed that the project was consistent with impervious surface and landscaping coverage allowances provided in the E-1 zoning district. However, given the large areas dedicated to outdoor storage and city vehicle parking, the following information has been generated: Total Civic Center Campus Area = 8.48 acres Coverage by buildings and impervious surfaces (i.e. concrete. asphalt) = 6.8 acres or 80 % Landscaping Coverage = 1.68 acres or 20 % The maximum lot coverage allowed for buildings and impervious surfaces in the E-1 zone is 85 percent. Accordingly, 15 percent of the site is required to be landscaped and consist of pervious surfaces. The percentages included above indicate that the project complies with these standards. Adequate Transportation To and Through the Subject Property The request for a public hearing indicates that the application fails to provide information as to the distances to the transit service nor is there any mention of the "significant uphill climb" from the East Main/Mountain intersection and Siskiyou Boulevard. It is Staff's opinion that the Commission's previous finding regarding the availability of adequate transportation to and from the site is sufficient. Specifically, regarding public transit, the nearest bus stop is located at Mountain and Siskiyou Boulevard, or Palm Ave. and Siskiyou Boulevard. Either stop is approximately 1/2 mile away. While the ideal transit stop is within 1/4 mile of the intended uses, Staff believes that 1/2 mile from mass transit still provides "adequate transportation" options. Further, the ordinance does not specify a maximum distance from which a project must be located from a transit stop. Note: The issue of adequate transportation is discussed further in the prior Staff Report - Addendum dated November 16, 1993. Staff suggests that addendum be included in the record. IH. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The criteria for Site Review approval are as follows: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed PA97-100 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report City of Ashland November 12, 1997 Page 5 development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations Staff believes that the project is consistent with all applicable requirements noted in the Site Review chapter 18.72. While other development has occurred in this general area since December of 1993, it is our opinion that the Findings, Conclusions and Orders adopted by the Commission in October 1993 still accurately reflect the project's overall compliance with City ordinance requirements. Staff recommends approval of the application with the following conditions: 1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That 4 covered bike parking spaces be provided at the rear of the building, near the employee entrance, and that 4 additional spaces be provided at the entrance/courtyard area for the new structure. 3) That a 3' wide sidewalk be provided along the west side of the driveway entrance from East Main Street to the rear of the immediate site, providing a pedestrian refuge adjacent to the parking area, and an alternate pedestrian access to the building from East Main Street. 4) That all landscaping be installed as per the approved plan prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the structure. 5) That all necessary easements for sewer, water, and electric be provided as required by the City Engineering Division. 6) That an opportunity to recycle site be available on the property as required in 18.72.115. PA97-100 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report City of Ashland November 12, 1997 Page 6 OCT 6 199? October 6, 1997 Ashland Planning Department City Hall 20 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 Re: PLANNING ACTION 97-100 Request for a Site Review for the construction of a 7800 square foot City office building located at 1175 E. Main Street. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Employment; Zoning E-1; Assessor's Map#: 39 1 E 10 BC; Tax Lot: 5302. APPLICANT: City of Ashland Planning Staff: This letter is to request a PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Action referenced above. On September 29, 1997 1 reviewed the application referenced above at the Ashland Planning Department. I am requesting a public hearing for this application for the following reasons: 1. 18.72.070 Criteria for Approval. The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. This application does not meet the requirements of 18.72.060 Plans Required. 2. 18.72.070 Criteria for Approval. The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. (Ord. 2655, 1991) The applicant states in SECTION 4. TESTIMONY, EVIDENCE, AND FINDINGS (paragraph 4.5) ....The nearest transit service is available at Siskiyou Boulevard, at Siskiyou and Mountain. 18.72.010 Purpose and Intent. states: The purpose and intent of this Chapter is to regulate the manner in which land in the City is used and developed, to reduce adverse effects on surrounding property owners and the general public, to create a business environment that is safe and comfortable, to further energy conservation efforts within the City, to enhance the environment for walking, cycling, and mass transit use, and ensure that high quality development is maintained throughout the City. Additionally, 18.72.070 Criteria for Approval. D above requires that adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property be provided. 1 This application does not provide adequate information as to the distances to the transit service nor is there any mention of the fact that travel from the intersection of East Main and Mountain to Siskiyou and Mountain involves a significant uphill climb. Richard Vezie 446 Walker Ave. Ashland, Oregon 97520 2 a H ST P THE �+ ' Jt . I E ON ,Y N 'N y jhe Cit s4 a buii o Ice space.o"t' t the Clvlc Center �l�cost o - mo ey. '" „ F ti kk a CI o b F ew o , spa staa� Iv c e nte ha ful the d town nd otar uaiRy o r q { s #� k I �s pla t o "I bf1t e E i�. V y ` .Ce ' er ma Imat a �i d o sines r h ew o Ices ace out at the:Civl a.+^rsO wti en d'r sla a dls, ory and h ntical Alsj leam � h to i into is a City of Ashlan a be a bad IdeJa,;. Sp ea, `�+ ' Rick of the Our Y'TI own omm free�t y :; L When Monday, ° ember 24, 1 7.00 PM V1�here: HEAD WA BUILDIN F rth!& C Streets, Ashland his meeting is free d open to the public. 4 'A Public disc on will follow ' L. ATTENDII ! 4 mk t Sponsored by GSSIVE'CITIZESALLIANCE OF AS ` x c �u&+l THE EROSION OF OUR DOWNTOWN By: Rick Vezie November 24, 1997 The City's plan to build new office space out at the Civic Center will cost you more than money. 1. Our quality of life in Ashland is directly related to our downtown. It is where we gather to celebrate our holidays and have our parades. It is where we celebrate who we are. 2. The planned movement of additional City employees to the East Main Civic Center encourages automobile traffic. This increase in automobile traffic is due to the fact that the Civic Center only offers City services. These, by the way, will be more fragmented (if you need to deal with Public Works or Engineering, you'll go to East Main. When you need to deal with Planning or Building, you'll go to City Hall). You won't be able to shop or go to a restaurant while conducting business with the City at East Main, so there won't be any combined functions for the trip out there. Additional traffic will be generated by City .� employees going to lunch etc. This does not speak well of a City that prides itself on supporting alternative means of transportation. The additional cost to you: a. Increased traffic. 1 b. Increased pollution. c. Increased energy usage (especially fossil fuels). d. Increased travel and time to conduct business with the City. e. The loss of approximately 9 employees from the downtown. 3. While we are discussing cost, it is important to point out that according to figures from the City, projected cost for the building on East Main are very close to cost to improve and enlarge the existing City Hall building. This is due to the fact that upgrades are necessary at the existing City Hall anyway to meet ADA and seismic requirements. This must take ''v' place even if the City builds out at East Main. When this fact is included the estimates were (1996): $134.35/sq. ft. East Main building $146.74/ sq. ft. Enlarged and improved City Hall It should be further noted that initially, the City neglected to include "other cost" such as the 'in-house"work City employees would perform on the East Main building project. This is deceptive when trying to make decisions based on cost. 4. The larger question is should the City "spend" our money to build a warehouse for City employees out in the backyard at East Main or "invest" our money in the downtown?An upgrade in our downtown benefits us all financially and otherwise. The City's plan to build new office space out at the Civic Center is harmful to the downtown and our quality of life. 1. The loss of City employees from the downtown will remove more than the employees. It will remove the daily interaction of citizens, businesses and others with those employees. This interaction is essential to the downtown as it keeps the various groups in touch with each other. This simple principle has been consistent with successful civilizations down through history. It has only been in the past fifty years that many towns in this country have 1 • departed from that principle and moved their City offices to remote locations. This breaks the connection between the downtown (the City's core) and the government and is ultimately harmful to both. 2. The City's proposed East Main building is poor planning. This proposed development ignores the intent of the Downtown Plan. While the Downtown Plan states "... as the City grows some functions will have to be relocated", it also states "... the continued presence of the municipal government ties it to the downtown, and therefore to the people." The Downtown Plan implies that while it allows some functions to leave the downtown core, it does so reluctantly as a result of growth. The fact is, the Ad Hoc Space Needs Study Committee made several recommendations to resolve City office space needs problems.removing any City functions or personnel None of those he downtown core. For the present and foreseeable future, City office space needs from and should be met in the downtown core. 3. The consistent incremental removal of City employees from the downtown is effectively abandoning our downtown to the tourist. The City's excuse of"consolidation of departments" leaves no other conclusion. Eventually, all departments will be "consolidated" out at East Main. I have yet to witness any "consolidation" in the other direction. This abandonment directly undermines our quality of life. The C t�'� Plan to build new office space out at the Civic Center may be ultimately bad for business. 1. While it is no secret that our locaIIeconomy is deeply,.rooted in the tourist industry, some of our officials don't quite get it. One of the primary attractions of this City is the downtown. People come here to see the plays and for other reasons, but what they fall in concept with is small the town itself. Beyond the nostalgia of Mayberry or some other long g one town America, people see a real working small town here. This is most evident in the downtown. We have an actual functioning City Hall with real City employees right in the middle of our downtown. You see them talking with each other or walking across the street in the Plaza. Making a museum of the City Hall building won't attract people. They want to see the real thing. As we incrementally move toward creating a museum out of City Hall we move away from the essence of what we offer visitors, a real functioning, small town. 2. Anything that adversely affects the downtown adversely affects us all. Whether it is property values, business income or job security, we are tied to the health of our downtown. The C�tv s plan to build new office space out at the Civic Center is blatantly • discriminatory and hypocrttical. 1. This City represents itself as a place that honors diversity.to for a project that a difficult to understand why the City itself would submit an app' against those citizens who are physically challenged. The Staff Report states that the nearest mass transit is 1/2 mile from the proposed development. Staff also states that 1/4 mile is ideal. This is twice as far as the ideal. How far is too far?This question can best be answered by trying to imagine someone in a wheelchair attempting to make the 1/2 mile steep uphill climb from the proposed development to the bus stop at North Mountain and Siskiyou Blvd. This effectively eliminates a portion of our population from accessing the proposed development and is discriminatory. 2 2. Among other things, Section 18.72.010 states the purpose of the SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS as follows: ... to enhance the environment for walking, cycling, and mass transit use, and ensure that high quality development is maintained throughout the City. This proposed development is not high quality. The building looks like a warehouse and is a poor reflection on our City government. Additionally, this proposed development does not enhance the environment for mass transit use. As stated above, the nearest-mass transit stop is 1/2 mile away. 3. The City of Ashland postures itself as a leader in Oregon planning. The City has sponsored and participated in various planning seminars and has constantly advocated "good planning". These seminars have consistently stressed the importance of keeping City functions in the downtown. The City of Ashland has advocated "good planning" for its citizens, but not for itself. I know of no current planning dogma stating that moving any City functions out of the downtown core is a good idea or even acceptable. This is hypocrisy. Entering into agreements with the City of Ashland may be a bad idea. 1. The City Council withdrew the original application for their East Main building in December . of 1993 as part of an agreement (contract) with Gayle and I. This agreement is documented by our letter to the City Recorded withdrawing our Ballot Initiative dated 12/1/93, Council Resolution 93-41 and the Ad Hoc Space Needs Study Committee Report To The City Council dated 4/13/94. Although Gayle and I fulfilled our part of the contract, after four years, the Council has not fulfilled its part of our contract and therefore; stands in violation of our contract. The City's application for their East Main building further demonstrates.the unwillingness of the Council to honor our agreement. 2. Some Council members have said they are not legally bound to abide by our agreement stating "one Council is not bound by the decisions of a previous council". I find it interesting that the three Council members who adhere to this thinking all were members of that "previous Council" and all three voted in favor of our agreement. Those Council members are: II�� Don Laws 482-1845 6t eta 1.46'&&t7 Susan Reid 482-5674 Steve Hauck 488-0622 3. These Council members have said they feel they have "substantially" fulfilled our agreement. They have of course, neglected to fulfill the most important part of our agreement, the money (the reallocation of funds from the proposed East Main building to office space in the downtown core). One wonders how the City would react if all of us citizens decided to "substantially" honor our agreements with the City. We could "substantially" pay our utility bills, "substantially" pay our property taxes etc. 4. Entering into agreements with the City of Ashland may be a bad idea because the City does not feel morally bound to honor its agreements. 3 What can you do?? I. Call the City Council members, especially the three listed above and let them know how you feel. 2. Attend the City Council meeting December 2, 1997 at 7:00 PM. The Council has scheduled a "discussion" on this subject. 3. If the City continues to push forward with their East Main building, attend the Planning Commission Public Hearing and let them know how you feel. 4. Require that our elected officials do what they say they will do. Hold them accountable. 1. If you are interested in further involvement regarding this issue or wish additional information, leave us your phone number. There is no obligation. ' y f THE CI'T'Y ON ASHLAND AD 11OC SPACE NEEDS STUDY COMMITTEE REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL April 13, 1.994 'the City of Ashland Ad Hoc Space Needs Study Comruittee has concluded that additional space is needed for certain downtown offices for the following reasons: 1. The Department of Community Development is currently working in overcrowded conditions in a substandard building. 2. The Engineering Department is currently housed in a rented space that is inadequate for it's needs. Additionally: A) The historic location of City Ball fmnctions are on the plaza. B) In our comprehensive plan we repeatedly emphasize the need to make the urban core of downtown more dense. In our transportation goals we are attempting to develop modal equity. The only way to reinforce this is to keep city services in the urban center. C) Establish an increased visibility in our civic buildings. We want our architecture to reflect our civic co n nitment. D) Public officials most be accountable to the public. It is symbolic to remove the public governing body to a remote location outside of the urban core. We want to increase the visibility of our government. Given these conclusions, this committee makes the following recommendations to the City Council: 1. All folds currently earmarked for the construction of the proposed city building at the East Main Civic Center be earmarked for a fmwd to acquire, maximize and improve space for city offices in the downtown core as defined in the Downtown Plan. WW' w a-5 FrOPOVA '"M5 ftW f Lo ax1j'.7,ai l As w-o- nth 7 spe.nUla," 4u.tr,rL`1"A--W+AtUlu eR.oZl.►-w�ua. 4A lord 2. That the City of Ashland cmmmil to a acquisition of the Hillah Temp a as soon as possrbl . Ae9oi iona vas was dc�� wJn o ague w�c► 73I (ot bul_n J�kj&V5 &f-fit 3. That the City of Ashland commit to the rehabilitation of the existing rty Ha binding as soon as possible. 11is rehabilitation to include as a minimum, complete compliance with all current applicable codes ordinances and energy conservation standards. 4. in the event the acquisition of the 1-lillah 'Temple is delayed, the rehabilitation of the existing City Hall building may include the addition of a third floor and expansion of the second floor to accommodate all current down��o city employees' with the possible exception gfthe Department of Public Works Administration.. �%� 6-r-- oLLaA mint, ✓ 2 6LAp --j 5. That the City of Ashlaud hire an engineer as outlined by OAR 137-35-00�0[through 137-35-080, Model Rules for Public Contracting Agency Screening and Selection of Persons to Perform Architectural and Engineering Personal Services Contracts, for the purpose of evaluating the existing City Hall building and making recommendations regarding cost and methods to accomplish recommendations 3. and 4. above. 6. The city council shall hold a special public hearing devoted solely to this issue. 11 cc WW N - ' 40 RESOLUTION NO. 93- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND ESTABLISHING AN AD HOC CITY SPACE NEEDS STUDY COMMITTEE. WHEREAS, the City Council believes there are present and future city government space needs; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes it is in the best interest of the City to secure widespread support for any proposal to meet these needs, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASHLAND AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City Council agrees to postpone any action on the proposed new city office building from the date of adoption of this resolution until such matter can be properly resolved through an ad hoc committee process as outlined below. SECTION Z . That the City Council authorizes the Mayor to appoint an ad hoc committee to examine the space needs of the City, propose the best feasible solutions to any space needs, and to recommend how and when the solutions should be implemented. In " addition to the Mayor the committee may consist of but not necessarily be limited to one or more individuals from the Planning Commission, Historic Commission, the Our Town Committee, Friends of Ashland, city employees, the City Council, and citizens at large. SECTION 3 . That if the City Council does not adopt the committee's report, the City Council will place on the ballot at the next election date authorized by state law the Our Town Committee's proposed initiative measure clarified to reflect that approval of a building subject to the initiative shall be by majority vote of the electors voting. _:+• , .5 SECTION ' 4': That 'the City, Council: withdraws the City's application;,f�or a site :review for, a . ," ;;,ng{ located at 117554East Main Street. ;, •1..: The foregoing tire'spluti on was READ' and DULY 'ADOPTED "at a+ -. meeting of the City Council of the City of Ashland on the 30th day of November, 1993 . _. . Nan E. Franklin, City Recorder .SIGNED, and APPROVED this day o 1J�0 , 1993 . Patricia J. Ac n, Acting Mayor viewed s to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney PAGE 1-AD HOC CITY SPACE NEEDS STUDY COMMITTEE. RESOLUTION (p:o,dbpecnad.me) December 1 . 1993 9 : 30 a .m. IV: Nan E. Franklin , City Recorder City hall Ashland, Oregon 97520 Re : Request for ballot Initiative filed by Chief Petitioners : Richard L. Vezie and Gayle E. Vezie . Dear Nan, We , Richard L. Vezie and Gayle E. Vezie . wish to withdraw our request for a ballot Initiative which was tiled at your office November 29 , 1993 . Thank you . 1 g I and Vezi — 1 Gay 7' E. Vezie DEC - 2) 1997 L. ,- 11/24/97 SPACE NL'I';DS—'I'lIE BIGGER PICTURE, Four years ago, the City of Ashland proposed building a 10,000 square foot office building to be located behind the existing Civic Center. Many citizens, myself included, questioned both the project and the process that surrounded it. On November 30, 1993, die City Council adopted a resolution to withdraw the City's application for a site review of the project, authorized the mayor to appoint an ad hoc committee to study space needs. I was honored to serve as a member of the Space Needs Committee, which met about a dozen times during the Winter and early Spring of 1993/94. The committee report was submitted the City Council on April 13, 1994. It is my understanding that the council "accepted" the rclx)rt which may not necessarily be the same as "adopting "the report. Copies of the Council Resolution and Committee Report are available at the City Recorders Office, 20 East Main. What hag happened in the ensuing four years? 1. Existing city hall has undergone some remodeling, including addition of an elevator that is currently under construction. 2. Existing public Works Department offices at 27 1/2 East Main Street has expanded office Space, including addition of a conference room that can comfortably accommodate 12-15 people. 3. Attempts were made to establish value and possible purchase of liillah Temple Building. Budding is currently advertised for sale in The Daily Tidings. 4. Within the last two months, the City has applied for and subsequently withdrawn application for a site review for a 7800 square foot office building to be constructed at 1175 East Maur Street, behind the existing Civic Center. Meanwhile other space needs/capital improvement projects and funding for said projects have become issues. Space for our Fire Department-Fire Department buildings are old and may tetu_l be in need of repair/replacement. �:-_7 Space for Bicycle Riders on Siskiyou Blvd--Bike path pmjcct has been studied and proposed At this time state funding for the project is unsure, because the State doesn't have the money to fund all proposed new projects. Governor Kitzhaber's commentary, which recently appeared in the Tidings, stated the funding problem quite clearly. Does the community want the bike path badly enough to shoulder a substantial portion of the costs? Space for citizens, especially young children, on 'Tolman Creek Road. Twenty years ago Tolman Creek Road was a narrow country lane. Most of the properties were large lots with big lawns and or Gardens, with a low density of homes and not a lot of vehicular traffic. Today there are probably five times as many homes on or close to Tolman Creek Road as there were twenty years ago. Pedestrian traffic, especially children walking to Bellview School has increased as has vehicular traffic. The road itself is still a narrow country lane, with only a painted white line separating a steady flow of vehicular traffic from young pedestrians. City government and neighborhood citizens are well aware of the situation, and the solutions arc relatively easy to envision. The problem is, who will pay for needed improvements? The LID solution, which has met with varying degrees of success elsewhere in the city, seems to be failing as a funding source for Tolman Creek Road. Space for a new Library. The existing Library building is a very nice, small older building on the edge of downtown. The Library building is owned by the City of Ashland and leased to the Jackson County Library System.. Perhaps another possible use of the building site at 1175 East Main could be a modem library building, conveniently located near the geographic center of town and very close to the high school, the middle school, the soon to be constructed teen center and hundreds of new homes. So, looking at the bigger picture, we the community need space for city offices, space for fire department growth, space for wheeled non-motorized transportation's devices on the boulevard, more public library space , space for children and others to walk safely on Tolman Creek Road space for ... Before we rush to build a new office building, I urge the City Council to take a fresh look at the Big Picture. NOV-27-97 THU 20 :23 B. THOMPSON 503+488 0407 P. 01 Brent Thompson P.O. Box 201 Ashland Oregon 97520 28 November 1997 Ashland City Council 20 East Main Ashland Or 97520 Re: Planning Action 97- Incremental Moving of City Hall to East Main To the City Council, This Planning action, now withdrawn, is in violation of the attached Council resolution dating from December 1993. You may be tempted to ignore the resolution of overturn it, but I advise against that. Twenty years ago the City Council believed they needed space for a vehicle and equipment storage and some city functions. The relocation of the "corporation yard" as they are called a mile from the downtown was likely not a problem for the future of the City. But the Council erred in approving the move of some city government functions also that were best left downtown. Rather than admit and correct this error of bad planning by moving the Meeting Hall and computer specialists and part of the Police Department back downtown, the tendency has been to compound the mistake by studies and plans to move more City functions from downtown to the East Main site. Fortunately In 1993 the application to build a 10,000 sq ft building for the 'Planning Department", as it was billed at the time, was not approved. However, the monster of abandoning the downtown to tourism and of government abandoning the people has arisen again In the form of a 7800 sq ft building for Public Works, the Fire Chief, and Computer Specialists. Although, I don't believe anything more should be built at the East Main location, these few people do not need 7800 square feet. This structure is larger than the existing City Hall. Plus, please notice the potential for expanding the building. Thus, again, I believe this application is an attempt to move by increments the City Hall from the downtown in violation'of the Transportation Plan, the Downtown Plan, and the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, this planning action should never be submitted. To be consistent with the Transportation Plan and the Downtown Plan, City government functions should move back downtown from the East Main location. Plus, there is no valid reason to locate the Fire Chief anywhere but in the Fire Station. The Public Works Director may need an office carved out of existing space. somewhere on East Main, but they should also have a presence in City Hall. The computer specialists clearly belong downtown. Transoortatiort plan There is no bus service on East Main St. The nearest bus stop is slightly more than 112 mile away on Siskiyou Blvd. Since everyone conceivably might need to go to government offices, siting more government functions at the East Main location violates the Transportation Plan. On page 59 of the Transportation Plan, 1/4 to 1/2 mile is given as the maximum distance acceptable from a bus stop for there to be 'adequate transportation to and through the project," I also believe that it is illegal for NOV-27-97 THU 20 :23 B. THOMPSON 503+4ee 0407 P. 02 the City to continue to maintain the Municipal Court and the Meeting Hall in that location because of "inadequate transportation to and through the site" based on our adopted standard. Government is something to which all people should,be able to have access. Therefore, the higher standard of 114 mile should be met here for there to be adequate transportation. Downtown Plan On page 44 of the Downtown Plan it does mention that some functions may have to be relocated from the existing City Hall. However, no license is given to move them from the traditional center of government in Ashland. The wording "the continued presence of the municipal government ties it to the downtown and therefore the people" infers that if government is not in the downtown, it is being removed from the people and that is against the public policy of Ashland. The rest of the paragraph at the top of page 44 strengthens this argument as it discusses tradition. Fortunately there still is no tradition of moving government functions one mile fra th@ NO of a city. Comprelhenajve Plan Both the Downtown Plan and the Transportation Plan have been adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. Since the now withdrawn application violates the two plans incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan, it violates the Comprehensive Plan also, it would have had to have been denied. Capital Budgeting Plan The capital budgeting plan calls for the replacement of both fire stations. There is no breakdown in the capital budget for 1996-97 but I seem to remember that at least $ 2.2 million was allocated for the downtown station. Since condemning the Blue Mountain cafe fortunately appears to be politically impractical, a new site is needed. I suggest that we take Keith Woodley's suggestion and work out a cooperative agreement with the Elks Club so their long term needs are met at that location or at another location, but 1 also suggest that we combine the Fire Department project with a new City Hall project and save on both land acquisition costs and construction costs. The fire station would front on Second St. and the City Hall on Lithia Way and First St. The building would be 3 1/2 stories with the top floor Incorporated into the roof line. As a Council your job Is to save money. A coordinated and combined effort to build the updated and additional space we need would do that, and we'd have $3,000,000 to get the job done. It is true that while we are forced to accommodate growth city government will need more space, but that can be done in the existing downtown. k will take creativity, but that also provides opportunity for excellence. Thank you for considering these arguments, p \ r � H ST PTHE O (Z .CoJN4t_ Y A\ L` i v Fo ER Oslo OF O t t¢ s t 4.R r ` ►yjhe Ci ce space" ' ft""t the Civic .CetaterW4l t mo ey. Ci ` 4 o b ew o ce spa t'.a , iv c to ha fuI the d , toz nd our 4 ua ity o e f hY 5 pla t wild vt Ce er ma im'a aid o smess , 11 r. hy; �e r. a ew o+fce s"ace ouFt,at1tne aivi Cen d'` IS la dis,, o and h tical ry ti Also learn h to into is a City{of As Ian a < � be a bad idea., Spea r"+ Rick of the Our To�wn ommit�eeL, ��(` }` When Monday, x " ember 24, 15 7:00 PM V1(here: ' HEADWA S-BUILDIN F rth�& C Streets, Ashland r , ? his meeting is free, d open to the public Val ' Public disc ion will foll •w . ' PL SE ATTEND!! a. -jf Sponsored by P yyG SSIV6�CITIZE • ALLIANCE OF AS THE EROSION OF OUR DOWNTOWN ' By: Rick Vezie November 24, 1997 • The City's plan to build new office space out at the Civic Center will cost you more than money. 1. Our quality of life in Ashland is directly related to our downtown. It is where we gather to celebrate our holidays and have our parades. It is where we celebrate who we are. 2. The planned movement of additional City employees to the East Main Civic Center encourages automobile traffic. This increase In automobile traffic is due to the fact that the Civic Center only offers City services. These, by the way, will be more fragmented (if you need to deal with Public Works or Engineering, you'll go to East Main. When you need to deal with Planning or Building, you'll go to City Hall). You won't be able to shop or go to a restaurant while conducting business with the City at East Main, so there won't be any combined functions for the trip out there. Additional traffic will be generated by City .E' employees going to lunch etc. This does not speak well of a City that prides itself on supporting alternative means of transportation. The additional cost to you: a. Increased traffic. b. Increased pollution. c. Increased energy usage (especially fossil fuels). d. Increased travel and time to conduct business with the City. e. The loss of approximately 9 employees from the downtown. V 3. While we are discussing cost, it is important to point out that according to figures from the City, projected cost for the building on East Main are very close to cost to improve and enlarge the existing City Hall building. This is due to the fact that upgrades are necessary at the existing City Hall anyway to meet ADA and seismic requirements. This must take place even if the City.builds out at East Main. When this fact is included the estimates were (1996): $134.35/.sq. ft. East Main building $146.74/sq. ft. Enlarged and improved City Hall It should be further noted that initially, the City neglected to include "other cost" such as the"in-house"work City employees would perform on the East Main building project. This is deceptive when trying.to make decisions based on cost. 4. The larger question is should the City "spend" our money to build a warehouse for City employees out in the backyard at East Main or "invest" our money in the downtown?An upgrade in our downtown benefits us all financially and otherwise. The City's plan to build new office space out at the Civic Center is harmful to the downtown and our quality of life. 1. The loss of City employees from the downtown will remove more than the employees. It will remove the daily interaction of citizens, businesses and others with those employees. This interaction is essential to the downtown as it keeps the various groups in touch with each other. This simple principle has been consistent with successful civilizations down through history. It has only been in the past fifty years that many towns in this country have 1 departed from that principle and moved their City offices to remote locations. This breaks " the connection between the downtown (the City's core) and the government and is ultimately harmful to both. 2. The City's proposed East Main building is poor planning. This proposed development ignores the intent of the Downtown Plan. While the Downtown Plan states "... as the City grows some functions will have to be relocated", it also states "... the continued presence of the muhicipal government ties it to the downtown, and therefore to the people." The Downtown Plan implies that while it allows some,functions to leave the downtown core, it does so reluctantly as a result of growth. The fact is, the Ad Hoc Space Needs Study Committee made several recommendations to resolve City office space needs problems. None of those recommendations involved removing any City functions or personnel from the downtown core. For the present and foreseeable future, City office space needs can and should be met in the downtown core.. 3. The consistent incremental removal of City employees from the downtown is effectively abandoning our downtown to the tourist. The City's excuse of"consolidation of departments" leaves no other conclusion. Eventually, all departments will be "consolidated" out at East Main. I have yet to witness any "consolidation" in the other direction. This abandonment directly undermines our quality of life. The City's plan to build new office space out at the Civic Center may be ultimately bad for business. 1. While it is no secret that our local economy is dep7.rooted in the tourist industry, some of our officials don't quite get it. One of the primary attractions of this City is the downtown. People come here to see the plays and for other reasons, but what they fall in love with is the town itself. Beyond the nostalgia of Mayberry or some other long gone,concept of small town America, people see areal working small town here. This is most evident in the downtown. We have an actual functioning City Hall with real City employees right in the , middle of our downtown. You see them talking with each other or walking across the street in the Plaza. Making a museum of the City Hall building won't attract people. They want to see the real thing. As we incrementally move toward creating a museum out of City Hall we move away from the essence of what we offer visitors, a real functioning, small town. 2. Anything that adversely affects the downtown adversely affects us all. Whether it is property values, business income or job security, we are tied to the health of our downtown. The City's plan to build new office space out at the Civic Center is blatantly discriminatory and hypocritical. 1. This City represents itself as a place that honors diversity. It is therefore more difficult to understand why the City itself would submit an application for a project that discriminates against those citizens who are physically challenged. The Staff Report states that the . nearest mass transit is 1/2 mile from the proposed development. Staff also states that 1/4 mile is ideal. This is twice as far as the ideal. How far is too far?This question can best be answered by trying to imagine someone in a wheelchair attempting to make the 1/2 mile steep uphill climb from the proposed development to the bus stop at North Mountain and Siskiyou Blvd. This effectively eliminates a portion of our population from accessing the proposed development and is discriminatory. 2 ` f 2. Among other things, Section 18.72.010 states the purpose of the SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS as follows: ... to enhance the environment for walking, cycling, and mass transit use, and ensure that high quality development is maintained throughout the City. This proposed development is not high quality. The building looks like a warehouse and is a poor reflection on our City government. Additionally, this proposed development does not enhance the environment for mass transit use. As. stated above, the nearest-mass transit stop is 1/2 mile away. 3. The City of Ashland postures itself as a leader in Oregon planning. The City has sponsored and participated in various planning seminars and has constantly advocated "good planning". These seminars have consistently stressed the importance of keeping City functions in the downtown. The City of Ashland has advocated "good planning" for its citizens, but not for itself. I know of no current planning dogma stating that moving any City functions out of the downtown core is a good idea or even acceptable. This is hypocrisy. Enterinq into agreements with the City of Ashland may be a bad idea. 1. The City Council withdrew the original application for their East Main building in December . Of 1993 as part of an agreement(contract)with Gayle and I. This agreement is documented by our letter to the City Recorded withdrawing our Ballot Initiative dated 12/1/93, Council Resolution 93-41 and the Ad Hoc Space Needs Study Committee Report To The City Council dated 4/13/94. Although Gayle and I fulfilled our part of the contract, after four years, the Council has not fulfilled its part of our contract and therefore, stands in violation of our contract. The Cit)('s application for their East Main building further demonstrates.the tinwiilingness bf:the Council to honor our agreement. 2. Some Council members have said they are not legally bound to abide by our agreement stating "one Council is not bound by the decisions of a previous council". 1 find it interesting that the three Council members who adhere to this thinking all were members of that "previous Council" and all three voted in favor of our agreement. Those Council members are: ' . Don Laws 482-1845 ��1 Susan Reid 482-5674 Steve Hauck 488-0622 3. These Council members have said they feel they have "substantially"fulfilled our agreement. They have of course, neglected to fulfill the most important part of our agreement, the money (the reallocation of funds from the proposed East Main building to office space in the downtown core). One wonders how the City would react if all of us citizens decided to "substantially" honor our agreements with the City. We could .substantially" pay our utility bills, °substantially" pay our property taxes etc. 4. Entering into agreements with the City of Ashland may be a.bad idea because the City does not feel morally bound to honor its agreements. 3 What can you do?? 1. Call the City Council members, especially the three listed above and let them know how you feel. 2. Attend the City Council meeting December 2, 1997 at 7:00 PM. The Council has scheduled a °discussion" on this subject. 3. if the City continues to push forward with their East Main building, attend the Planning Commission Public Hearing and let them know how you feel. 4. Require that our elected officials do what they say they will do. Hold them accountable. 1. If you are interested in further involvement regarding this issue or wish additional 6 6inforrmation, leave us your phone number. There is no obligation. . . . �� f To: City Council LID Committee From: Dan & Kathleen McLeary 185 Granite St . Ashland, Or We are property owners on Granite St . and are concerned about the current LID policy. The following are points to consider when revising this policy. 1 —Property owners on corner lots have double responsibility in the current LID policy. If responsibility is allotted per square footage or running foot they could be charged twice or carry twice the responsibility as someone not on a corner lot . Living on a corner lot does not increase the amount of road usage. We have no access to Strawberry lane and seldom drive it . Granite St . is the road of access to our residence . 2 . The grade of Strawberry Lane is above the recommended grade in the city for a road to be paved. Strawberry Lane is also in a part of Ashland that stays icy late in the day during the cold season. The granite now acts to improve traction on this steep grade . We are concerned for a major accident occurring on Granite St . involving vehicles or pedestrians . The road (Granite St . ) bends at this juncture and visibility is reduced. There is also the possibility a vehicle could end up in Lithia Park. Paving Strawberry Lane could decrease the safety of Granite St . We think your policy should reflect the current standard for grade . 3 . Regarding dust : I spoke with Environmental Health at Jackson County Health and Human Services and did not get validation on its health hazards . As citizens working as a .Public Health Nurse and Building Inspector as well as property owners we feel these are important points to consider for the safety and fairness in the community. 11/26/1997 11:15 4822760 PAGE 01 11/26/97 Mayor Golden, City Hall , 20 E. Main St. Ashland OR 97520 Fax: 4885311 Joe Eckhardt 108 Bush St. Ashland OR 97520 Dear Madam Mayor, In regards to the selection process for City Administrator of Ashland, it is my belief that that the process should be as "open and inclusive,, of citizen participation as possible. I say this with full cognizance of (1 ) City Council Study Session, Oct. 26, 1997 , from recorded minutes of that meeting, and (2) Special Council work Session, Oct. 27, 1997, from recorded minutes of that meeting. In addition to those meetings, I have been in contact with Mr-Casey ' s office since the first part of October in reference to citizen' s news items I thought he should be cognizant of as search leader for this important position. You will see from enclosure ( 1 ) , that I attempted to proceed in the ,inclusive mode of the selection process, by prevailing on the ad hoc Citizens Communication Committee' s chair, Cate Hartzel , to call a meeting' for the express purpose of giving citizen input-Ms. Hartzel did not agree with me that this was an issue for the committee to consider , and said that she could not , due to other commitments call such a meeting or attend it. This was a disappointment to me as vice-Chair of the committee, since several members concurred with me as to the need to. meet, but declined to go forward with meeting without the chair in attendance. It was on this failure to be able to set . up ' such an official committee meeting , with Mr. Casey invited to attend , that I felt it incumbent upon me to contact him for a representative citizen group to meet and talk with him regarding the selection process. Now with that rather lengthy preamble, I get down to these facts regarding the Inclusion of interested citizens in this process: (1 ) Reference Work Session, 10/27/97; page 2, underII .no. 6: and I quote: "Voiced concern(was expressed ) that items or issues ( in this process)may be ' falling into a hole ' , THAT CITIZENS DON'T KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING. (my caps) Need to be especially attentive to the community." I couldn' t agree more! From all I can learn, since the CCC has not been convened on this aspect of the process, there is no published or formal committee of citizens appointed for the purpose of addressing item 8, II . of the study session.Therefore I have taken it upon myself, with the concurrence of several responsible citizens to request a meeting with Mr. Casey, for the very reason expressed in that study session. I believe it is of the utmost importance that we not confuse Mr. Casey by presenting "two fronts" to 11/26/1997 11:15 4822760 PAGE 02 •, him, of a community that in fact wants to present a solidarity of concern in this process ! Secondly Z prevail on you and the council to endorse a citizen meeting with this man, and if time permits to hold a public meeting to obtain suggestions and input , only as an adjunct to the selection of the kind of Administrator the public would like to have. This in no way would tie the hands of an official body to do' its work. Rather it would add an element of solidarity to the community image, as opposed o one of 'division in the community! 2 ask you tt Vt clear to Mr.Casey, that we are a community that respects the opinion of its council, as well as the advice of its citizens in making such important decisions as the selection of an Administrator for the future! Sincerely, ,/., Joe Eckhardt, vice-Chair Ad Hoc Citizens Communications Committee. Copies to: All Council Members, Cate Hartzel, Dick Wanderschied,Greg Scoles, Acting City Administrator. i '11/26/1997 11:15 4822760 PAGE 03 E Joa*w`t ( l CitComC97 To: Cate Hartzel, Chair of Ad Hoc citizens Communication Committee. 10/3/97 And to all members of this committee, I call on you to convene a special meeting of the committee to address our committee's attention to giving in-put to the process, now in progress through contract with David Griffith Associates, of selecting candidates for the position of City Administrator. Under the Council 's approval of our recommendations, specifically, 11 (4th.Recommendation) To monitor implementation of the Ad Hoc CCC recommendations" , and to offer suggestions as to how this might be accomplished, and so advising the Mayor and council of our deliberations; I think the time has arrived when we should act as an impaneled committee to do that. Mr. Mike Casey, from a conversation I had with Councilman Alan DeBoer on Oct. 2, has met with several council persons and asked questionsand discussed his progress in lining up candidates ' for this position. I am proposing to you. Cate, that we set up a meeting with Hr. Casey as citizen representatives appointed to this committee,for the specific purpose of exchanging ideas relevant to the selection process now well under way with the Mayor and council members. From our recommendations, accepted by the council in May 197, it appears to me that a discussion vith Mr.Casey would be fruitful in giving him citizen desires and opinions in this very important search for an appropriate candidate,as well as , give us information on which we could offer guidance and advice to the Mayor and Council in the selection of a candidate. To miss this signal opportunity to represent citizen/council exchange of information and ideas, and to offer citizen generated advice to the Mayor at this juncture, would. be to abrogate responsibility of our committee 's function. From what I 've said above I would suggest to you, Cates that (1 ) A meeting of the members be called, for the purposes stated above, as soon as possible. ' (2 ) That we arrange for a meeting with Mr-Casey , for the purposes stated above. (3) That , after the CCC membership has had time to digest information obtained from Mr. Casey, and has met subsequently for the purpose of comming to consensus on what advice or recommendations to make to the Mayor; (4) That we tail for a Citizen Town Hall meeting conducted under the auspices of our committee, to take suggestions and direction from the citizens regarding this selection process. 11/26/1997 11: 15 4822760 PAGE 04 . 2 To miss this opportunity to exercise our in-put to such a critical issue as faces this city, Mayor , and council , in this selection process, would leave the citizens once again, out of the process of democratic governance.By CO Lndl"s acceptance of the Ad hoe Citizens Communication Committee' s recommendation, it falls on us to see that their faith in our considered citizen opinions are accepted and incorporated in this most important decision. Sincerely, Joe Eckhardt, Vice-Chair Ad Hoc Citizens Communication Committee 10/3/97 CC: Mayor, Members of the Council, Dick Wanderschied, and Committee Members.' i MEMORANDUM ••�n�RFGO�,.••••• To: Mayor and City Council From: Jill Turner, Director of Finance Subject: Wastewater System Development Charges Date: November 26, 1997 Recommendation: Approve the attached Resolution amending the Wastewater System Development charges methodology and respective charges as recommended by the System Development Charge committee. Background: The Wastewater Treatment System Development Charge was updated based on the latest cost estimates for the Wastewater Treatment Plant upgrade. The prepared Food and Beverage tax is used as an offset to the total cost as with the Parks SDC. Since the anticipated cost of the plant upgrade has been reduced, so has the recommended System Development Charge. This methodology was presented at the September 8, 1997 System Development Charge committee and was approved without change at the October 15th the meeting. All interested persons were notified of these meetings. Minutes: The September 8th and October 15th minutes are attached. CC: System Development Charge Committee Members RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION REPEALING THE WASTEWATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES METHODOLOGY AND CHARGES AND ADOPTING A NEW WASTEWATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES METHODOLOGY AND CHARGES, PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 4.20.050 AND 4.20.040 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE, AND AMENDING RESOLUTION 96-47. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The wastewater portion of the "Report and Update of System Development Charges for the City of Ashland, Oregon," authored by Moore Breithaupt & Associates of Salem, and Wes L. Reynolds of Ashland, Oregon, and amended by the SDC committee is replaced with Exhibit "D" attachment to this Resolution. It is adopted as the methodology for calculating Wastewater Systems Development Charges. SECTION 2. The "Systems Development Charges Schedule," marked Exhibit "E" and attached to this Resolution is adopted as the systems development charges. The Engineering News Record 5860 June 9, 1997 value is 5860. - SECTION 3. Three copies of this Resolution and Exhibits "D" and "E" and shall be maintained in the office of the City Recorder and shall be available for public inspection during regular business hours. SECTION 4. The Methodology described in Exhibit "D" shall be effective January 1, 1997. The charges described in Exhibit "E" shall be effective January 1, 1998. SECTION 5. Resolutions 96-47 is amended upon the effective date of this resolution as follows. Exhibit A wastewater section is replaced with Exhibit D and Exhibit B and C is replaced with Exhibit E. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 1997. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of 1997. Catherine M. Golden, Mayor Rev awed t aul Nolte, City Attorney grill %&&\97=olu I v.q TABLE B1. Ashland Wastewater System Development Charge Contents: Section 1. Wastewater Treatment Plant Section 2. Sewer Collection System Section 3. Calculation of Wastewater Facilities SDC SECTION 1.WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT Improvement Fee Cost of WWTP Upgrade (ENR 6,100) 21,888,000 Food and Beverage Tax(Dec 98) 4,983,000 Net Costs 16,905,000 Cost associated with Growth(20.5%) 3,466,000 Converted to todays ENR 5860 3,330,000 Additional Current Design Capacity Flow MGD(Dry weather) 1.72 2.17 0.45 Single Family Residents 12,852 15,278 2,426 MultiFamlly Residents 5,508 6,722 1,214 Total Population 18,360 22,000 3,640 Single Family Units 5,588 6,643 1,055 MultiFamlly Units 3,060 3,734 674 Total Units 8,648 10,377 1,729 City Flow factors Residential Users 48.85% 1,626,726 Multi Family Users 19.71% 656,284 Non-Residential Users 31.44% 1,046,990 total 100.00% 3,330,000 Flow attributed to Residential 0.84 1.06 0.22 Flow attributed to Multi Family 0.34 0.43 0.09 Flow attributed to Non-Residential 0.54 0.68 0.14 Total 1.72 2.17 0.45 Per Capita Residential cost 671.00 Per Capita Multi Family 541.00 Single Family Unit Cost 1,542.00 Multi Family Unit Cost ' 974.00 Reimbursement Fee None calculated Exhibit D Page 1 SECTION 2. SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM Improvement Fee Projects: 1. Upgrade Bear Creek Trunk projects 2.Ashland Creek Pump Station-Phase III _ 3.Airport to E. Main + Pump Station PROJECTS AND PROJECT COSTS: Cost to Serve Cost to Serve Sewer Collection Projects Non Res.Growth Resid.Growth Upgrade Bear Cr Trunk Nevada-Carol-MT 37,000 63,000 Upgrade Bear Cr Trunk Mt to Walker 63,270 107,730 Ash Cr Pump Sta-pumps/bldg, Ph III 20,350 34,650 Upgrade Bear Cr Trunk Walker to Clay 137,640 234,360 Airport-Airport to E Main+Pump Station' - 48,100 81,900 68,820 117,180 Totals $375,180 $638,820 Growth Population: 4,015 design capiactiy Per Capita Residential Only Cost $159 63.00% Per Capita Multi Family Only Cost _ Per Capita Non-Residential Cost $93 37.00% Total Per Capita Collection System Cost _ $253 100.00% Reimbursement Fee None Calculated SECTION 3. CALCULATION OF WASTEWATER FACILITIES SDC Single Family Unit @ 2.3 persons per unit Treatment (Improvement Fee) 1,542 Collection (Improvement Fee) 581 Total Per Unit $2,123 Multi Family Unit @ 1.8 persons per unit adjusted to non-peak use Treatment (Improvement Fee) 974 Collectlon (Improvement Fee) 455 Total Per Unit $1,429 Tourist Accommodation Room(119%of S.F.per Capita) - 121% Treatment Qmprovement Fee) 811 .Collection - (Improvement Fee) 306 Total Per Unit- $1,117 Commercial/Industrial/Other Based on 16 Fixture Units per Equivalent Single Family Unit . Calculation per 16 Fixture Units (Single Family Treatment Fee + Non-residential Costs of SF Collection 'Fee) Treatment (Reimbursement Fee) 1,542 Collection (Improvement Fee) 215 Total Per 16 Fixture Units $1,757 Amount for one fixture unit - $109.81 Exhibit D Page 2 0 °(m. O N (°m N N Q m Q ' ° V Y (O N I I .c LL f 0 0 C 0 0 0 O O O 0 O 0 0 ¢ c6 c6 0 0 0 i a O c 0 O O ¢ O N r ^ N V (O N N O) I O ! C (O (O tV O N r I O D r` N co N E ! i pp I 0 0 0 o O O O O 0 O O j o rn rl o w m W a 0 of n 1 mi j o f C C LL I N N M 0 V V I I m ! 1 I Q t 2 Z m 1 r1 °o °° m n mio CO d C (m N m n OI (D (O N I E W o r m O m N I 1 N ;. m ¢ w w LL I ! V ! 0000 0 000 000 i• 0 r ! m ¢ o W `r v m .i° u1Di N n v Q N r N r N I I 0000 i I j m ! I m EE LL ¢ LL ! ? f _`o `o c E j c l m rn 5 � m m —° m � o a I n s CL Ti `m r'noor rci E ¢ i 0 i a E N ! 2 ¢ W U W cr m ¢ 111 tl1 � m W ¢ O m 3 3 a i I Q q , �7 �2�2 vtg Exhibit E . TRANSPORTATION Systems Development Charges Page 2 LAND USE ITE AVERAGE UNIT ADJUSTED % ADJUSTED NEW CONST COST DESCRIPTION CODE DAILY MEASUREMENT TRIP OF NEW TRIP LANE PER UNIT TRIPS LENGTH TRIPS RATE MILES 160,670.40 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- General Light Industrial 110 6.97 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 100.00 6.967 0.00120 193.35 General Heavy Industrial 120 1.50 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 100.00 1.496 0.00026 41.52 Manufacturing 140 3.85 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 100.00 3.846 0.00066 106.73 . Warehousing 150 4.88 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 100.00 4.882 0.00084 135.49 Mini-Warehouse 151 2.61 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 100.00 2.606 0.00045 72.32 Utilities 170 0.79 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 100.00 0.792 0.00014 21.98 Single Family Detached Re 210 10.06 per unit 2.09- 100.00 10.062 0.00191 306.88 Apartment/Attached Res.. 220 6.10 per unit 2.D9 100.00 6.103 0.00116 186.13 Residential Condominium 230 5.59 per unit 2.09 100.00 5.587 0.00106 170.40 Mobile Home Park 240 4.81 per unit 2.09 100.00 4.814 0.00091 146.82 Retirement Community 250 3.30 per unit 1.90 100.00 3.300 0.00057 91.58' Congregate Care Facility 252 2.15 per unit 1.90 100.00 2.145 0.00037 59.53 Hotel 310 8.70 per unit 1.90 75.00 6.528 0.00113 181.17 Motel 320 10.19 per unit 1.90 75.00 7.642 0.00132 212.08 Golf Course 430 8.33 per acre 1.90 100.00 8.325 0.00144 231.04 Theater 443 1.76 per seat 1.90 100.00 1.762 0.00030 48.90 Tennis Club 491 32.93 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 100.00 32.933 0.00569 913.96 Racquet Club 493 15.94 1-,000 sf gfa 1.90 100.00 15.939 0.00275 442.34 University/COLLege 550 2.41 per student 1.90 100.00 2.410 0.00042 66.88 Church/Synagogue 560 7.67 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 100.00 7.669 0.00132 212.83 Nursing Home .620 2.60 per bed 1.90 100.00 2.597 0.00045 72.07 Clinic 630 23.79 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 100.00 23.789 0.00411 660.20 General Office Building 710 Less than 50,000 sf gfe 24.39 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 25.00 6.098 0.00105 169.22 50,000 to 99,999 sf gfa 16.31 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 - 25.00 4.078 0.00070 113.16 100,000 to 149,999 sf gfa 13.72 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 25.00 3.430 0.00059 95.19 over 150,000 sf gfa 12.40 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 25.00 3.100 0.00054 86.03 Medical Office Building 720 34.17 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 25.00 8.543 0.00148 237.07 U.S. Post Office 732 86.78 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 100.00 86.780 0.01499 2,408.33 Building Materials and Lm 812 30.56 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 50.00 15.279 0.00264 424.01 Specialty Retail 814 40.68 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 50.00 20.338 0.00351 564.41 Discount Store 815 71.16 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 50.00 35.580 0.00615 . 987.42 Hardware/Paint Store 816 51.29 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 50.00 25.645 0.00443 711.69 Nursery or Garden Center 817 36.17 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 50.00 18.083 0.00312 501.83 Shopping Center 820 Less than 10,000 sf gfa 166.35 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 50.00 83.175 0.01437 2,308.29 10,000 to 49,999 sf gfa 94.71 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 50.00 47.355 0.00818 1,314.20 50,000 to 99,999 sf gfa 74.31 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 50.00 37.155 0.00642 1,031.13 100,000 to 199,999 sf gfe 58.93 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 50.00 29.465 0.00509 817.72 over 200,000 sf gfa 48.31 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 50.00 24.155 0.00417 670.35 Low Turnover Restaurant 831 95.62 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 50.00 47.810 0.00826 1,326.83 High Turnover Restaurant 832 200.90 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 50.00 100.448 0.01735 2,787.64 Car Sales 841 47.52 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 50.00 23.762 0.00410 659.43 Service Station 844 133.00 Pumps 1.90 50.00 66.500 0.01149 1,845.52 Car Wash 846 108.00 Wash Stalls 1.90 50.00 54.000 0.00933 11498.62 Supermarket 850 125.50 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 50.00 62.750 0.01084 1,741.45 Wholesale Market 860 6.73 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 50.00 3.364 0.00058 93.36 Furniture Store 890 4.35 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 50.00 2.173 0.00038 60.29 WaLk-In Bank,SBL,Credit U 911 189.95 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 50.00 94.976 0.01640 2,635.78 Drive-In Bank,SBL,Credit 912 291.11 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 50.00 145.554 0.02514 4,039.44 Insurance Building 930 11.45 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 50.00 _ 5.724 0.00099 158.85 sf gfa = square foot gross floor area + Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 4th Edition *• Trip Lengths are derived from national averages and then reduced by two-thirds to account for the compact geography of Ashland. ++' Trip Rates are adjusted by multiplying unadjusted national average Trip Rates time Percentage New Trips. +*++ [Adjusted Trip Rate x Trip Length]/[2 + 5,500 vehicles per lane mile per day] ++++* New Lane Miles x $160,670.40 per lane mile S ENR = 5550 Exhibit E Page 3 nn City of Ashland Department of Public Works Fees, CIP, ENR, CIP Information Fixture Units to be used for Water and Sanitary Sewer Calculations Description of Fixture Fixture Units Fixture Units Private Use Public Use Bar Sink 1 2 Bathtub w or w/o Shower 2 4 Bidet 2 4 Dental Unit or Cuspidor 1 Drink Fountain-Each head 1 2 Laundry Tub/Clotheswasher 2 4 (per pair of faucets) Lavatory 1 2 Lavatory (dental) 1 1 Shower (each head) 2 4 Sink (bar) 1 2 Sink or Dishwasher 2 4 Sink-Flushing Rim-Clinic 10 Sink-Washup,per set faucets 2 Sink-Washup,circular spray 4 Urinal (pedestal or similar) 10 Urinal (stall) 5 Urinal (wall) 5 Urinal (flush tank) 3 Water Closet-Flush Tank 3 5 Water Closet- 10 (flushometer valve) 0.375 inch, 9.5 millimeter 1 2 0.5 inch, 12.7 millimeter 2 4 0.75 inch, 19.1 millimeter 3 6 1.00 inch, 25.4 millimeter 6 10. All water and wastewater Systems Development Charges will be computed on the adjusted number of fixture units within the development. All single family homes are assumed to have a base number of fixture units equal to 16. Double bathroom sinks shall count as one sink for calculation purposes. Up to three outdoor hosebibs shall count for two hosebibs for calculation purposes. Should a home have fewer than 16 fixture units, 16 fixture units shall be used to calculate water and wastewater SDCs. For remodel permits, no water or wastewater SDCs shall be charged if the proposed increase in fixture units is two or less. Fixture units shall be calculated from the table included in the resolution adopting systems development charges which will be based upon the Uniform Plumbing Code fixture units. Multifamily, tourist accommodations and commercial buildings will be charged on total fixture units. City of Ashland L�ai- Example of SDC Charges Effective January 1, 1998 I Updated November 17, 1997 tIY ---------------------------- Water Sewer Storm Transp Parks Total ----------------------------------------- -- --------------- ----------------- -------------- -------------- --------------- ----------------- Single Family (ITE 210) Actual July 1, 95 2,306 377 252 250 1,236 4,421 Actual Jan 1, 97 2,511 1,316 301 270 1,220 5,618 Actual July 1, 97 2,876 2,255 370 324 1,199 7,024 Actual Jan 1, 98 2,876 2,123 370 324 1,199 6,892 Multi-Family (ITE 220) Per Unit Actual July 1, 95 1,319 295 100 151 967 2,832 Actual Jan 1, 97 1,308 902 119 164 954 3,447 Actual July 1, 97 1,386 1,429 147 197 938 4,097 Actual Jan 1, 98 1,386 1,429 147 197 938 4,097 Tourist Accomm (ITE 310) Per Unit Actual July 1, 95 1,294 223 51 137 1,268 2,973 Actual Jan 1, 97 1,167 692 61 159 744 2,823 Actual July 1, 97 1,238 1,117 75 191 748 3,369 Actual Jan 1, 98 1,238 1,117 75 191 748 3,369 Commercial\Retail (ITE 710) Actual July 1, 95 3,370 756 1,140 1,286 NW 6,552 Actual Jan 1, 97 3,934 2,285 1,363 1,489 NSA, 9,071 Actual July 1, 97 4,769 3,514 1,678 1,786 11,747 Actual Jan 1, 98 4,769 3,514 1,678 1,786 11,747 Notes: 1. Single Family Unit of 1,500 sq. ft,with garage, driveway &walk bringing total -impervious area to 2,650 sq.ft. 2. Multi-Family Unit is part of a 10-unit two story apartment building and impervious areas cover 70%of its 15,000 sq. ft. lot. 3. Tourist Accomodation Room is part of a 30-unit complex which, with its parking lot and other areas, covers 80% of its 20,000 sq.ft. site. 4. This 10,000 sq. ft., two story commercial building and its accompanying paved areas cover 80% of its 15,000 sq. ft. site. It contains 32"fixture units"as defined by the Uniform Plumbing Code or twice that of an equivalent single family unit. CITY OF ASHLAND Department of Public Works 0 Public Works Administration ; +� O MEMORANDUM EGO DATE: November 25, 1997 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Paula Brown, Public Works Director/City Engineer l�lJ RE: Set Public Hearing Date for the Proposed Formation of Westwood Street L.I.D. REQUEST: Staff recommends that City Council set a Public Hearing for the formation of 'a Local Improvement District for the improvement of Westwood Street from Orchard Street southerly 1,300 feet. It is recommended that the Public Hearing be set for January 6, 1998. BACKGROUND: Ms. Anna Hassell has for many years owned a large eight (8) acre parcel of land at the end of Westwood Street. In 1994, in response to a request by the Engineering Division, Ms. Hassell agreed to deed a right-of-way for the extension of Westwood Street. With the acceptance of this deed Westwood Street was legally connected from Orchard Street to Strawberry Lane. The right-of-way was essential not only to complete a much needed access corridor but also to allow connection of the newly built Fallon Water Reservoir to the Thornton/Prim/Skycrest area. With this connection completed, the long imposed Northwest Area Water Moratorium was lifted. The negotiation for this deed derived a somewhat unusual consideration. In exchange for the right-of-way and easements, Ms. Hassell was granted two water and sewer services as well as a deferment against future street improvement assessments for Westwood Street. Under this agreement no assessments could be collected from lots 901 and 902 until they are sold. With the completion of two (2) land partitions, Ms. Hassell's further development was limited by the required creation of a subdivision. Ms. Hassell has received subdivision outline approval with final plan approval pending. The improvement of Westwood Street was addressed with the usual options. The developer can form an assessment district for the improvement of the street or pay for the street improvement in full as part of the development cost. Ms. Hassell has elected to pursue the former option and has circulated improvement petitions amongst her neighbors. PAGE 1— (c:engineer\lid\westpubh.Mem) PETITION RESULTS: As currently arranged, the proposed assessment district is composed of 15 lots with two (2) lots (lots 901 & 902) to be further divided into seven (7) more lots; ultimately a 20 lot district with residents along Westwood and Nyla Lane participating. Of the 15 lots 10 are represented in favor of the improvements on the petitions, comprising sixty-seven percent (67%) of the total. The owners of the lots in the interior of the Gross Heights Subdivision, with frontage on Nyla Lane, have provided a letter (see attached) protesting the inclusion of these lots into the district. Several options for distribution of assessments are presented on page 3 in an effort to address the concerns of the four (4) owners of the five (5) lots fronting on Nyla Lane. ASSESSMENT POTENTIAL: The formation of assessment district boundaries is often a source of dispute as staff and owners weigh the benefits of the future street improvements to the various lots in the district. Westwood Street is no exception as several conditions combine to make this a very unique assessment district. In this instance the question of benefit is addressed not only in the formation of the district but also in the allocation of assessment costs. For example, much of the property on the east side of Westwood Street (lots 100 & 102) was not included in the district. Because of the extremely deep ravine, physical access would not be possible from Westwood Street, and benefit was considered negotiable. As with previous L.I.D.s the inclusion of lots that have no actual frontage on the street to be improved is a matter of discussion. Whether or not the interior lots of the Gross Heights Subdivision (Nyla Lane) should be included in the district or included at a reduced rate is a decision yet to be made and is further addressed with four (4) options to be considered. NATURE OF IMPROVEMENT It is proposed that the northerly 1,300 feet of Westwood Street be improved to full City standards including curbs, gutters, storm drains, paving and sidewalk. The street will be 22 feet wide with concrete curb and gutters on both sides. A single 4-foot wide sidewalk is proposed for the west side of the street. Additional 12-inch storm drain lines and curb inlets will also be included. It will also be necessary to construct approximately 580 feet of sanitary sewer pipeline to provide for future service connections and for a sewer extension to properties further to the south. The portion of the assessment pertaining to the sewer construction ($20,000+) will be allocated only to the Hassell properties (lots 901 & 902 only), since all other lots currently have sewer services. PAGE 2— (c:engineer\1id\vestpubh.Mem) ASSESSMENT RATES: In an effort to bear the heaviest burden of the development cost Ms. Hassell has devised, with assistance from her neighbors, a sliding scale method of assessment. The future subdivision (Lots 901 & 902) development would be assessed at over two thirds (2/3) of the total cost with the remaining assessment set according to the potential length of usage of Westwood Street. The lots at the extreme northerly end of the street, who's owners theoretically use a lesser portion of the street, would be assessed less. The lots at the southerly end who's owners must travel the full length of the street to Orchard Street would be assessed more. The Hassell Subdivision is at the extreme southerly end of the street and would receive the highest assessment. The owners who have signed petitions have indicated the amounts that they would be willing to pay. These rates would be fixed regardless of the actual final costs. Any difference would be made up from lots 901 & 902. The lots fronting on Nyla Lane provide the only variable to this formula. Since they have no actual frontage on the street the owners feel that they should be exempted from the district. However, since Nyla Lane exits onto Westwood Street, and all residents on Nyla must travel approximately one fourth (%) of the total Westwood Street length, it can be argued that some benefit has been derived. Following are some options that have been developed for Council consideration. All options were based upon an estimated improvement cost of $125,900. These options are presented in tabular form on the following pages. OPTION NO. 1. This option assumes that five (5) lots on Nyla Lane derive approximately one half('/z) of the benefit of those lots fronting on the street near the intersection of Nyla Lane and Westwood Street. These lots on Nyla Lane would pay $1,800. OPTION NO. 2. This option assumes that the five lots on Nyla Lane are exempted from the district entirely. The additional cost burden would bear upon lots 901 & 902. This method places an extremely heavy burden upon lots 901 & 902, at over seventy-seven percent (77%) of the total cost. This would increase the cost to these lots by $2,000 and $7,000 respectively. OPTION NO. 3. This option reduces the assessment for the five (5) lots on Nyla Lane to approximately twenty-five percent (25%) of those lots fronting on Westwood Street near the intersection of Nyla Lane. Again the additional costs are apportioned to lots 901 & 902. Nyla Lane lots pay $900 each. (ft,W S OPTION NO. 4. This option includes City participation in the assessment of the five (5) lots on Nyla Lane. In this option the $1,800 assessment rate for each lot would be split between the individual owner and the City, with each paying $900. The remaining lots would be assessed the same as Option No. 1. PAGE 3—(c:engineer\lid\wes[pubh.Mem) SUMMARY: The formation of this assessment district is a radical departure from classic methods of assessment used in the past. This is a good example of a developer working closely with the neighborhood to form an equitable and agreeable assessment rate. The rates established do not conform to any clear mathematical formula but instead are costs that have been agreed upon by the participants on a sliding scale based on practical benefit. Unfortunately 100% agreement was not possible in this instance and some decisions must be made in relation to the five (5) lots on Nyla Lane. All other home owners on Westwood and Pinewood have signed in favor. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council set a Public Hearing for this Local Improvement District for the sees+qd-City Council meeting to be held on January 6th, 1998. Staff further recommends that Council acknowledge the benefit to the Nyla Lane residents and authorize either Option No. 1 or Option No. 4 as the accepted assessment rate. Attached: Vicinity Map Map of Proposed Assessment District Petitions Letter From Nyla Lane Residents Proposed L.I.D. Costs, Options 1-4 Resolution Construction Estimate Ownership List Petition Summary PAGE 4- (c:engineer\lid\westpubh.Mem) RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO PROVIDE FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO WESTWOOD STREET CONSISTING OF CURBS, GUTTERS, SEWERS, STORM DRAINS, PAVING AND SIDEWALKS AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. It is the intention of the Council to undertake the improvement described as follows: Improvements to Westwood Street consisting of paving, curbs, gutters, sewers, storm drains and sidewalks. SECTION 2. The description of the boundaries of the local improvement district to be assessed for this improvement is: All those lots accessing off Westwood Street from Orchard Street southerly 1,300 feet as depicted on the map attached to Exhibit A. SECTION 3. The amount of the estimated cost of the improvement made by the city engineer and the proposed allocation of the cost among the owners of the properties to be specially benefitted is: $125,900.00 Such improvements will be in accordance with costs estimated to be $125,900.00 of which all will be paid by special assessments on benefited properties. Costs will be allocated as shown on attached Exhibit 'B'. SECTION 4. The council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers, Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street on January 6th, 1998, at 7:00 p.m., at which time and place the owners of the benefited properties may appear or submit written comments prior to or at the hearing as to why the improvement should not be constructed or why the benefited properties should not be assessed in the manner proposed. SECTION 5. The city recorder is directed to serve notice to the property owners by publishing a notice of the public hearing once in the Daily Tidings, not less than 30 days prior to the hearing, and by mailing copies of the notice by first class mail to the owners of each lot benefited by the proposed improvement as shown on the latest tax and assessment roll. The notice shall be in the form of Exhibit "A" attached to this resolution. PAGE 1-(cengineeed4westwodl.Res) This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 1997. Barbara C. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 1997. Catherine M. Golden, Mayor (piormsUidl.res) PAGE 2-(c:engineerVid\westwod1.Res) EXHIBIT "A" NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City Council of the City of Ashland will meet on January 6th, 1998 at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street, to hold a public hearing to consider the formation of a local improvement district as follows: NATURE OF THE IMPROVEMENT: To improve Westwood Street from Orchard Street southerly 1,300 feet with paving, curbs, gutters, sewer, storm drains and sidewalks. BENEFITED PROPERTY: All those lots accessing off Westwood Street from Orchard Street southerly 1,300 feet as depicted on the attached map. ESTIMATED COST: The estimated cost of these improvements is $125,900.00, all of which will be paid by special assessments on benefited properties. The specific proposed assessment for each lot is contained on the attached exhibit. Additional information regarding the proposed improvement or method of assessment may be obtained at the Engineering Division, 271h North Main, Ashland, OR, phone number 488-5347, weekdays during the hours of 8:00 am to 4:30 pm. All affected property owners may appear at the hearing or submit written comments prior to or at the hearing, as to why the street should not be improved or why the benefited properties should not be assessed in the manner proposed. If two-thirds of the property owners to be benefitted object to the improvement, the improvement will be suspended for six months. PAGE 3-(c:engineerVid\weshvod1.Res) Westwood Street Petition Summary Map & Tax Lot No. Address Petition Pre-paving Response Agreement 1 39-1 E-08BA TL 200 485 Orchard Street Yes No 2 39-1 E-08BA TL 204 189 Westwood Street Yes Yes 3 39-1 E-08BA TL 205 570 Nyla Lane No No 4 39-1 E-08BA TL 206 600 Nyla Lane No No 5 39-1 E-08BA TL 207 600 Nyla Lane No No 6 39-1E-08BA TL 208 585 Nyla Lane No No 7 39-1E-08BA TL 209 575 Nyla Lane No No 8 39-1 E-08BA TL 210 183 Westwood Street Yes Yes 9 39-1 E-08BA TL 211 177 Westwood Street Yes Yes 10 39-1 E-08BA TL 700 155 Westwood Street Yes No 11 39-1 E-08BA TL 800 145 Westwood Street Yes No 12 39-1 E-08BA TL 900 135 Westwood Street Yes No 13 39-1 E-08BA TL 901 130 Westwood Street Yes No 14 39-1 E-08BA TL 902 567 Pinewood Way Yes No 15 39-1 E-08BA TL 903 580 Pinewood Way Yes No Westwood Street Local Improvement District Property Owner List Map & Tax Lot No. Street Address Property Owner Name & Address 1 39-1 E-08 BA TL 200 485 Orchard Street Rodene G. Huggins 485 Orchard Street ASHLAND OR 97520 2 39-1 E-08BA TL 204 189 Westwood Street Paul C. & Darlyn Adams 189 Westwood Street ASHLAND OR 97520 3 39-1E-08 BA TL 205 570 Nyla Lane Robert & Sigrid Connard 570 Nyla Lane ASHLAND OR 97520 4 39-1 E-08BA TL 206 600 Nyla Lane Abe & Cynthia A. Mish 600 Nyla Lane ASHLAND OR 97520 5 39-1 E-08BA TL 207 600 Nyla Lane Abe & Cynthia A. Mish 600 Nyla Lane ASHLAND OR 97520 6 39-1 E-08BA TL 208 585 Nyla Lane Vernon J. & Nyla Gross 585 Nyla Lane ASHLAND OR 97520 7 39-1 E-08BA TL 209 575 Nyla Lane William Hershman Katharine Donner 575 Nyla Lane ASHLAND OR 97520 8 39-1 E-086A TL 210 183 Westwood Street Mary D. Fallon 183 Westwood Street ASHLAND OR 97520 9 39-1 E-08BA TL 211 177 Westwood Street David G. Sugar Skye Gunsolus Sugar 177 Westwood Street ASHLAND OR 97520 10 39-1 E-08BA TL 700 155 Westwood Street Mary W. Eaton 155 Westwood Street ASHLAND OR 97520 PAGE 1-(c:engineeNid\westwood.Own) 11 39-1 E-08 BA TL 800 145 Westwood Street Mark A. Barrcelli Kelly M. Zokis 145 Westwood Street ASHLAND OR 977520 12 39-1 E-08BA TL 900 135 Westwood Street Charles Schulman 135 Westwood Street ASHLAND OR 97520 13 39-1 E-08BA TL 901 130 Westwood Street Janos Markus Anna Hassell 25 Westwood Street ASHLAND OR 97520 14 39-1 E-08BA TL 902 567 Pinewood Way Janos Markus Anna Hassell 25 Westwood Street ASHLAND OR 97520 15 39-1 E-08 BA TL 903 580 Pinewood Way Gregory D. & Mariko O. Moore 1082 Belleview Avenue ASHLAND OR 97520 PAGE 2-(c:englneerVidNwestwood.0wn) S o O O o 0 o O o O O O O O o 0 0 0 o O o o O O o o O O O O O o o o G o 0 0 o O Z o 0 0 0 0 o O O o 6 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O J w u w w w w w � u w w O O rn o m z »N » eeof C ri C v < o v to- 64 n W eH eN Vi Hi " ww 6.3, H g O ? H 0 0 o O O o o O o O o O O O O o H O o 0 0 o O o O o 0 O o O O O o '. 0 O O 64 vi 64 d> b> di di Vi di di Ni 64 00 64 C 0 0 Q U 6 r V4 Q, � w Z W r � 3 N W O � U LL z OW i y H o 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 w, Z W m w m m m vq m w w w w w i°o w o cn U O m r v v v v, v r r r r o o r N r r r N N N N t 5 to M G C IL d - N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d a. o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD o O O O o o O O O o O O O O o w w w w w w LO m in u� o o m o m N M r r' M M m C' V OD O V N f9 fA to � M H M d3 V) E9 W rfn to {fl O ti p C V J T a 9 W _0 N C O R d m N � N M C) r O O O N M c m Q O O O O Co O Co O O O O O O O a J N N N N N N N N N r CO O m O O Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q m m m m ¢ v m m m m m m m m m m m w w w w w w w w w w w w w w osf o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O CL W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W Q ri q a o Z 0 m m a 61 C6 , w 0 9 > o m H Z a O_ O N ch V w d N M ar 'n t0 r w 0 1 1 1 1 P N h O O o 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 J �n m m m m m O 0 m 0 m N l'7 f'7 f'7 C6 f'7 R m '.7 ? W H to Vi Vi Vi ffi Vi NVi H v Q N O O O O O O O O O O O F- O O O O O O O O O O O r V> V! Vf ffl V) V) Vi 6 O H O O O O O U Vi Vi W U) a fq y O y U v LL OW V N F- P o 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ww rn m F- rZ aro m m cmo, o ►+ U O N N N N N fh l m M O O ,E a M a. d > y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d s. Ca 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q. 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u� O m m m m 0 0 0 0 m N M P7 M f7 C . O h V N U) Vi Vi Vi en rA Vi Vi " � to . 0 n n H d 0 U T gay W A Q W 0 y Z d r N O O O O � O O O O O 0 O � Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q of m m m m m m m m m m N « N m m m m m m m m m m y v m S otf o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o w ¢ $ O a w w w w w w w w w w ¢ � d Z C6 rn 6 6 6 rn rn rn rn rn Z m m r� M c� r> m c� co ►— C7 > z O 8 d N v n m r m rn O o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a O o 0 0 0 0 o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o S J mr9 OW m m � o o V' o m C4 C6 H H 6q MW � N W H V 0 2 9 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O F O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O } (n 69 69 64 t9 Vi Hi V9 69 f9 69 W f9 00 O O O O O O Q U 6% M W Z W N 772 W r y N O U ,., O w ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e O L Z W O O r r r r OD 00 OD °D 00 co M 00 O ++ Q W > rn r � � r r r r � n r r Oyj M c L) 0 N O O O O O N N N N M LLI Or O a a' o N � 7 - o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cn uO rn rn rn rn rn un in U) �n o o v a m N fh H'l C C (7 C7 V O C V' in- (n t9 Hi fA e9 t9 di t9 NtA y w L^ v U O � J T D a d m m � Q N C o m m � o O O O O O O O r O O O O O O c m ¢ J N N N N N N N N N r O W O O O w x J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J y c Q F H H F- H F- F- H F- H H F- H H F- F- Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q m Cl) m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m aD OD a0 a0 a0 aD a0 oD W a0 aD o0 eD o0 m y a m � otS o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O d W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W b a g Z a r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r 0 m C O /.A 01 OI Q1 m W W O O O M O C7 7 d Z C M M M M M M M M M M M M M M H O N M V u7 O CD r r r r N t 7 C) O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o g o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O o 0 0 0 J in to m m m w ao m m m m O O rn o m Q N M M M M M V ? R V N /H V) f9 fA fA M f9 VH IA f9 M IA NfA mfH O H 3 � 6 2 g 9 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O } 0 fA to Vi fH N4 69 fH fA Ni IA 64 fA 6 O H O aI O O Cl Q U co r N a/ to b Zw r U) 3: N w O N U " 0 ww N N F- o 0 0 0 o e o 0 0 0 o e e L Z w o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 o e0 p co 0 ♦+ Q m m M Cl) co Cl) Cl) m m m m m M M w > rn r v v v v v r n n � , o o N r r r N N N N M c M O o wa o E a � > N O o o O o o O o o O O O o 0 0 0 0 m L O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O G u� U� m w m m w LO w to in o O w O m N M M � m C6 'i C6 CT L6 UQY U a J N N N d a 3 C d � E ~ .- r N M :: m O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° °o 00 00 0 0 0 m J N N N N N N N N I- m m O E F- F- F- F- „ E Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q 4 4 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m y m m m m m m m 06 o 0 0 o 0 O O O 0 O 0 O O O O J v Q O d W W W w W w W W W w W W W W W Q m a = Z Q r F- C C� o6 d6 o6 d6 d> d> rn o� d� rn rn m o� rn > o Z C M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M F- O p O N M a- I N M V 1 O m I- m O 1 ;:,R- f7 O v v v r• I N I M I `d' I In ;I i :ar9 : ::6:::a:::i.; [:aal[ 2 l:le : 932:e2 1 ::4 1 1:i3:r:ai:a : • ::a�:a a : r : tie 9.na�S9; ° aa • r . . _. ,T! d c c} � 3° r c ° f r _ 1 � ° � ` T• .�! � tr . {ii • a 7 ila f . , q •T"}i7 .r,tii q •' efjTe ii i� ; [ !" lae/ is a eeecSS Cp tt t (r 1 { qpp yy Tili �1T1T3i ''ii :9�{! } {�i � �17i Ca Ja:�}}1� i1414fii7J� iitlia7iiiiiiYrifa2Tt11 Ti}! ES:ygc:55 _ I - -: iC: 33O 1 ar3 G Er a:V isC;l h 3a:::a 1 : 3ce sa :a :u 5 ♦ / ;' �, � � (`/a 1 _ r // -a .• 1'!. it `� � ip ! . d ?Bred}1s{6' f !3 ase¢ i'� s° geiii ! : , B 3 :ia 3 a a a 3 a3 1 W � W v: • i ^ • , ' • —L • i .i- r,I� l a {rr{ ai -. t � E...i � Ll°,aoV " ° �� o•, \-'J\ F 3i �_ f _ �3 f. • iiiilil4i$� i �l ' pp FF—• : 33raa a:3a aa:G:a LLJ { —a 1 1 ; I, r! •;• jt sed a{tid9*: � a li- — a — ! ! • .} mot• list$sil ! 1t��;; � • kt-' " • � • '~� '/ — of—i �lE �e!g7Siia��dii — v _„' f1 �.•a- � ! •, ' _111-'., • '� — — i 'f9 +a14�111iSj ! .3� \rt LL .f i 1 1 •'f ' .•� (_ 1 dr l _ . . -dsaf !—• It:G:: 3 : a :e: GSra: ,:: ::: :%ra:::ac s :3 i ♦ �"-- i p� •4tl_ C, . } � "d i ! a, d sil ::. •1T : 3 Q / \ ! \ I il:99i3 :}ll�SS9�siass� llSliT?i? -sts aaa 3co • f 1 , : a: :e 1 G 3::::a : ar;aes :a:rn 4 — i t : 3*t• pr _. •� } � gdiis3 9 _. 3� y99T: dy f -. 91 t, f{ci ' �— ! 1• � • sli . � 113211 llrtj { jf is a 1 N I M I V I N I cO 1 00 1 I 301 201 203 200 100 565 585 565 405 49-4 623 625 204 189 205 NJ 206 510 1 207 NYLA LN 600 209 210 103 j — 515 208 585 211 { ,1J i loo 155 so ,a5 y f 903 900 901 902 3w m ■ e A 0 a s I I Proposed Westwood oStreet Assessment District s I I ]Proposed District Boundary looms Lmmt of Impmveffients y I Street Construction Cost Estimate Westwood Streit From Orchard to 1,300 Feet South Item No. item . Units Unit Price Amount 1 Site Work I.S LS $10,125.00 2 General Excavation 675 CY $ 15.00 $10,125.00 &Grading 3 Curb&Gutter 2,700 LF $ 7.00 $18,900.00 4 4' Sidewalk 1,350 LF $ 12.00 $16,200.00 5 A.C. Paving 477 T $ 45.00 $21,465.00 6 3/4"•0 Crushed Rock 700 CY $ 15.00 $10,500.00 7 Curb Inlet 6 each $700.00 $ 4,200.00 8 12"Storm Drain Pipe 92 LF $ 18.00 $ 1,656.00 9 Adjust Water 6 each 5200.00 $ 1,200.00 Valve Boxes 10 Survey Centerline 4 each $250.00 1,000.00 Monument Boxes Subtotal: $95,371.00 20%Engr&Adm.: 519.074.00 Subtotal: 5114,445.00 10%Contingencies: $ 11.445.00 Estimated Total Project Cost: 5125,900,00 6/6/96 DBH Rev. 6/27/96 LU NOV 1 0 C i T Y CF L D Received ;bY City NOTICE TO PS77TI.ONERS: persons sinning this Petktictyn must be legal owners of record, or- ourchasers in n possession under a recorded land sale contract of real property abutting the proposed street improvement_ If title to any parcel of property is in the name of two or P all. must sign. Petitioners should ;q, more persons, 'Id S �- n using their names as *hey a--ea, on the records of ownership. TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE C 17 Y OF ASHLAND: We, the undersigned owners of record of real property in the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Orew9on, hereby petition that: Westwood Street, from the south boundary of Westwood SUbdi Vision north to Orchard Street, be improved with paving, curbs, gutters, storm drains and sidewalks (on one side•) in accordance with plans and specifications as shall be adopted by the City of Ashland, and the cost of such paving and improvements be assessed upon the real property benefitted thereby, and that we are the owners of the real property fronting (or benef ittiM9 on said street) ; and further petition that: ,.In the eve-it street improvements become a citywide responsibility, the neighbors in the Westwood Subdivision LID will be relieved of payments to the district. *' NAME Ss-N) .......... ....... ........ .......................... .................. ..................................... ..........- ...... ............ .......... ....... ----------- .................. ......... .................... ..................................... -...... ...... ------- LOCATION WESTWOOD STREET Receive 'City by ' ty En Date a.nevei-.......... ................... -------- NOTICE TO PSTITi'ONERS: Persons si-zlninq this Petition must be legal owners of r-ecord, or pur,chasters in possession under a recorded land sale Contract of real propertw abutting the proposed street improvement- If title to arty parcel of property is in the name of two or more persons, all (oust. s11.3n. Petitioners should sign using their- names aos they appear on tlhe• records of ownership. TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR A4ND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND: We, the undersigned owners of record of real property in the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Cre-gon, hereby petition that: Westwood Street, froa the south boundary of Westwood Subdivision north to Orchard Street, be improved with paving, curbs, gutters, storm drains and sidewalks (on one side) in accordance with plans and specifications as shall be adopted by the City of Ashland, and the cost of such paying and improvements be assessed upon the real property 0-aenefitted thereby, and that we are the owners of the real property fronting (or- benefitting on said street); and ftirther petition that: In t1he event Street improvements become a citywide responsibility, the neighbors in the Westwood Subdivision LIE) will be relieved of payments to the district- " N IE ADDRESS TAX LOT .................... ......... .. ......... ....... ------ ......................... ---------- ............... . ......... ........... .......... PETITION FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT LOCATION W1=I'W001)_:TREFT -- Rec=eived by City Engineer--- ----Dat'e NOTICE TO PETITIONERS: Persons signing this petition must be legal owners of record, or purchasers in possession Under a recorded lane sale- contract of real property abutting the proposed st.r-eet. improvement.. If title to any parcel of property is in the name of two or more persons, all must. sign. Petitioners should sign using their names as they appear- on the records of ownership. TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND: We, the undersigned owners of record of real property in the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon, hereby petition that: Westwood Street, from Strawberry Lane north to orchard St.reet., be improved with paving, curbs, gutters, storm drains and sidewalks Con one side) in actor-dance with plans and specifications as shall be adopted by the City of Ashland, and the cost of such paving and improvements be, assessed upon the real property benef ltted thereby, and that we are the owners of the real property fronting (or- benefit.t.ing on said street) ; NAME ADDRESS TAX LOT .� !J i�Y.._ _ •�sl/] //irEvi90D GJay J°y/ L 08BA - 70 �" -l�-1 Ye-- o r%Ytt!✓off yyrty 35/ 5z)j 07 9 AVAlTLWAN EOS'B!t 7-,4 90/-fio1 ;�� ' �%" ; " •�'�% .�� t.U�ST�.J�wo 'S"T 3`>��ya'.d� 7,c 9oy i NOV - 5 IN7 q N�_4,TITIQN FOR @TR99T 1HPRQV9Mf_'-;NT LOCATION WESTWOOD STREET y 0 C: AS H Lr,IN D Received by City Engineer —Date NOTICE TO PETITIONERS: Persons signing this petition must be legal owners of record, or purchasers in possession under a recorded land sale contract of real property abutting the proposed street improvement. If title to any parcel of property is in the name of two or more persons, all must sign. Petitioners should sign using their names as they appear on the records of ownership. TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND: We, the undersigned owners of record of real property in the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon, hereby petition that; Westwood Street, from the south boundary of Westwood Subdivision north to Orchard Street, be improved with paving, curbs, gutters, storm drains and sidewalks (on one side) in accordance with plans and specifications as shall be adopted by the City of Ashland, and the cost of such paving and improvements be assessed upon the real property benefitted thereby, and that we are the owners of the real property fronting (or benefitting on said street>; and further petition that: "In the event street improvements become a citywide responsibility, the neighbors in the Westwood Subdivision LID will be relieved of payments to the district. " NAME ADDRESS TAX LOT 464 3q EGS' 66 - 7 0 b_ November 9, 1997 O ( I! I The Honorable Cathy Golden n N 0 121997 Mayor of Ashland 20 E. Main St. -=- Ashland OR 97520 ------ -----°- -�^- Dear Mayor Golden: This is to inform you that we, the undersigned, owners of Lots 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in the Gross Heights Subdivision,will not participate in paying for the paving of Westwood Street. On August 12, 1980, subdivision owners, Vernon and Nyla Gross, signed planning action #79-80, dated July 11, 1979,which was based on discussion with and approval by the city council. This planning action binds only the owners of lots 1 and 2 on Orchard Street and lots 3, 9 and 10 on Westwood Street to participate in a propotionate payment of the costs associated with street improvements. We,the owners of subdivision lots 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 on Nyla Lane, have paid our full share of street improvement costs by paying the frill cost of street improvements on Nyla Lane. Please keep us informed of any discussions related to this issue. Thank you. Z$jy� ely v ufs, Robert and Sigrid Connard Verno andlDQyla 570 Nyl ane (Lot 4) 585_Nyl/a Lane(L(ot 7,,1G��--� Abe and Cynthia Mish William Hershman&Katharine Danner 600 Nyla Lane (Lots 5 & 6) 575 Nyla Lane, (Lot 8) cc: John McLaughlin,Planning Director Paula Brown,Public Works Director Anna Hassell&Janos Markus,25 Westwood St. CITY OF ASHLAND •{'of°"sy . Administration e ° Y Office of the City Adminishetoi. , MEMORANDUM ••'••°REGO�,.•'�•, DATE: November 26, 1997 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Greg Scoles, Interim City Administrator RE: ELECTION OF CITIZENS' BUDGET CO VIMITTEE MEMBERS At the last meeting, the Council extended the deadline for applicants to apply for the two position the Citizens' Budget Committee. Attached are applications tr m David Williams, Mi el Donovan and Michael Bingham. Should any applications b ate of this memo and prior to the closing date of December 1, 1997, they will be provided to you at the council meeting. Cate Hartzell has indicated she is interested in being reappointed to the commission, whereas Michael Gibbs is not. Attached are copies of their replies to the request for reappointment. Also enclosed are both copies of advertisements for the position. Attachments cc Barbara Christensen, City Recorder YOUR CITY NEEDS YOU Applications are being accepted for an open position on the Citizen s Budget Committee. This volunteer position has a three-year term expiring December 31, 2000. State law requires members to be city residents. The majority of the meetings for this committee are held Thursday evenings during the months of March and April. For more information, please contact City Recorder Barbara Christensen at City Hall, 488-5307. The deadline for applications is Friday, November 7. If you are interested in applying, please submit your letter of interest with your rdsumd to the City Recorder, City Hall, 20 East Main Street, Ashland. CITIZENS BUDGET COMMITTEE The deadline has been extended for applications to two open positions on the Citizens Budget Committee. These volunteer positions have a three-year.term expiring December 31,.2000. State law requires members to be city residents. The majority of the meetings for this committee are held Thursday evenings during the months of March and April. For more information, please contact City Recorder Barbara Christensen at City Hall, 488-5307. The new deadline for applying is Monday, December 1. If you have previously applied your application will remain current. If you are interested in applying,, please submit your letter of interest with your r6sum6 to the City Recorder, City . Hall, 20 East Main Street, Ashland. CITY . OF ASHLAND CITY HALL ✓ ASHLAND,OREGON 87540 October 13, 1997 Cate Hartzell . 881 E. Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Re: Request for Reappointment to Citizens' Budget Committee Dear Cate: Your position on the above-referenced commission expires December 31, 1997. Please indicate if you wish to be reappointed.by filling in the bottom of this letter and return it to me at City Hall by Monday, November 10, 1997. Positions will be advertised for applicants during November. Appointments or reappointments will be considered by the Council at their January 6, 1998 council meeting. If you are reappointed, you will be contacted after the,council meeting. Thank you for your assistance. Cordially, Fran Berteau Executive Secretary (541) 488-6002 Yes, I would like to be considered for reappointment. No, I am not interested in being reappointed. Signed: C I T Y OF AS H L A N D CITY H A L L ASHLAND,OREGON 97520 October 13, 1997 Michael Gibbs 35 So. Second Street Ashland, OR 97520 Re: Request for Reappointment to Citizens' Budget Committee Dear.Michael: Your position on the above-referenced commission expires December 31, 1997. Please indicate if you wish to be reappointed by filling in the bottom of this letter and return it to me at City Hall by Monday, November 10, 1997. Positions will be advertised for applicants during November. Appointments or reappointments will be considered by the Council at their January 6, 1998 council meeting. If you are reappointed, you will be contacted after the council meeting. Thank you for your assistance. Cordially, r Berteau Executive Secretary (541) 488-6002 Yes, I would like to be considered for reappointment. No, I am not interested in being reappointed. Signed: _2�� / 1023 Morton Street Ashland, OR 97520 NO November 5, 1997 v City Recorder s1 Ashland City Hall `99j 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 In response to the City's recent advertisement, I am interested in serving on the Citizen's Budget Committee. I am a 61 year old retiree from 36 years of service with Chevron Corporation in a variety of analytical, planning, administrative and supervisory positions. My wife and I moved to Ashland in December, 1995 from the San Francisco area, although I lived in Ashland many years ago and graduated from the High.School here (class of 1954).. My reasons for seeking this appointment include an interest in local government, a wish to learn more about Ashland as it is today, and a desire to be involved in productive activities in retirement. In my career with Chevron, I have had considerable experience in formulating and administering capital expenditure and operating expense budgets, as well as serving on and leading teams.for special studies and other purposes. As a matter of information, I met Mayor Golden and Councilman Deboer when they engaged in a discussion at a Newcomers' meeting at our home before last year's election. I am also acquainted with Councilman Laws from my days at Ashland High School. An informal resume is attached. Please let me know if there are any questions. Sincerely, David F. Williams Telephone 482-6395 Resume NOS David F. Williams, November 5, 1997 J^,9 A. Personal 9j Born in Alexandria, VA, 8/4/36. Moved with family to Rogue River, OR in 1948 and to Ashland in 1950. Graduated from Ashland High School and the University of Oregon; one year of post-graduate work with a major in Economics. After retirement, completed two years of Music studies at Diablo Valley College (Pleasant Hill, CA) and California State University. (Hayward, CA). Married 35 years to Janet, who graduated from Roseburg High School and the University of Oregon. Hobbies include bicycling, music, hiking, flying as a private pilot. Current community activities include Board of Directors, Park Estates Homeowners' Association in Ashland; President, Southern Oregon Chapter, Chevron Retirees' Association; Music Vice President of the Rogue Valley Harmonizers (a barbershop singing organization); Community Service Volunteer with the Ashland Police Department (downtown foot patrol, radar board service and training, watershed patrol); church choir and committees (Ashland United Methodist ,Church; and others. I also participated in a number of community activities during the more than 30 years that we lived in the San Francisco area. B. Work Experience Began 36 years with Chevron Corporation. in Medford in 1956. Before completing college work at the Universty of Oregon, 1 was a service station manager (Crater Lake National Park) and small bulk distributing plant manager (Monroe, OR). Transferred to San Francisco from Eugene, OR , in 1965. In San Francisco, I had a .variety of assignments in the Marketing Department, on the staff of the Senior Vice President- Downstream (refining, distribution and marketing) and in the Corporation Economics Department. My last assignment included supervision of a Distribution Technology staff involved in engineering, project analysis, budgeting, training, automation, and regulatory work. Memo To: Ashland City Council November 12, 1997 From: Michael Donovan Dear Council Members: I am writing to request appointment to the Ashland Citizen's Budget Committee. Thank you for your consideration. I would certainly look forward to the opportunity of working with you, city staff, and citizen members on the City of Ashland Budget. Sincerely, Michael Donovan 189 Logan Drive Ashland, Oregon 97520 November 12, 1997 To the members of The Ashland City Council: I would like to express my interest in serving on the Citizens Budget Committee. Thank you, Michael Bin 50 W. Nevada Ashland, Or. 97520 CITY OF ASHLAND Department of Community Development . .F Planning Division MEMORANDUM OREGON Mf, M lV 11151\ DATE: November 25, 1997 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development RE: Hillside Standards - Second Reading The attached version of the Hillside Standards (2.7) contains the changes made by the Council during first reading. The changes proposed by staff and the committee to the Council prior to first reading were incorporated into this draft and appear as regular text. The changes made by the Council are indicated in strikeeta and shatle4 t . Page 2: Item F. A new definition for "Designer" was added. This addresses the issue raised by Bill Emerson. The definition language was changed to reflect consistency between the building code and this ordinance. Item I. The definition for Floodway Channel was modified as requested. Page 3: The graphic for slope was changed - the bottom line was changed to read "DEGREE OF SLOPE = ARC TANGENT OF V/H". This is the accurate relationship between degree of slope and percent of slope. Page 24: Item d. near the top of the page regarding ridgeline exposures was changed from a mandatory standard to a recommendation. Item 2a. near the middle of the page regarding Hillside Building Height was changed from 30' to 35'. The graphics were changed accordingly. Page 25: Item e. regarding roof forms was changed from a mandatory standard to a recommendation. Item f. regarding decks was changed from a mandatory standard to a recommendation. Item g. regarding color selection was changed from a mandatory standard to a recommendation. Page 26: Item F. regarding foundations designed by an engineer or architect was clarified by adding the sentence regarding designers who may prepare house plans shall be required to use an engineer for the foundation design. Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance with the amendments. Hillside Ordinance Memo Second Reading November 25, 1997 Page 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18.62 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE - LAND USE ORDINANCE, ADOPTING NEW HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 18.62 of the Ashland Municipal Code - Land Use Ordinance is replaced in it's entirety by Exhibit "A". The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the 18th day of November, 1997, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of 19_. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 1997. Catherine M. Golden, Mayor Approved as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney Chapter 18.62 EXHIBIT PHY5ICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CON5TRAINT5 Sections: 18.62.010 Purpose and Intent. 18.62.020 Regulations. 18.62.030 Definitions. 18.62.040 Approval and Permit Required. 18.62.050 Land Classifications. 18.62.060 Official Maps. 18.62.070 Development Standards for Floodplain Corridor Lands. 18.62.075 Development Standards for Riparian Preserve Lands. 18.62.080 Development Standards for Hillside Lands. 18.62.090 Development 5tandardo for Wildfire Lando.(Ord 2747, 1994) 18.62.100 Development Standards for 5evere Constraint Lands. 18.62.010 Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this Chapter i5 to provide for safe, orderly and beneficial development of districts characterized by diversity of phyoiographic conditions and Significant natural features; to limit alteration of topography and reduce encroachment upon, or alteration of, any natural environment and; to provide for sensitive development in areas that are constrained by various natural features. Physiographic conditions and significant natural features can be considered to include, but are not limited to: Slope of the land, natural drainage ways, wetlands, soil characteristics, potential landslide areas, natural and wildlife habitats, forested areas, significant trees, and significant natural vegetation. 18.62.020 Reclulationo. The type of regulation applicable to he land depends upon the claooification in which the land is placed, as provided in Section 18.62.050. If those regulations conflict with other regulations of the City of Ashland's Municipal Code, the more Stringent of the two regulations Shall govern. 18.62.030 Definitions. The following terms are hereby defined aS they apply to this Chapter: A. Architect - An architect licensed by the 5tate of Oregon. B. Average slope - average olope for a parcel of land or for an entire project,for the purposes of determining the area to remain in a natural State shall be calculated before grading using the following formula: 5 — .00229(I)(L) A Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision Hillside Standards City Council Adopted Version — Second Reading (2.7) — December 2, 1997 Page 1 where "5" i5 the average percent of elope; ".00229" is the conversion factor for square feet; "I" is the contour interval in feet; "L" is the summation of length of the contour lines in scale feet; and "A" is the area of the parcel or project in acres. C. Buildable area - That portion of an existing or proposed lot that is free of building restrictions. For the purpose of this ordinance, a buildable area cannot contain any setback areas, easements, and similar building restrictions, and cannot contain any land that is identified as Floodplain Corridor Lands,or any land that is greater than 35% slope. D. Cohesive Soils - Residual or transported soils, usually originating from parent rock which contains significant quantities of minerals which weather to clay. Cohesive soils have a plasticity Index of ten or more, based on laboratory testing according to AASHTO methods, or a site-specific scientific analysis of a particular soil material. E. Development - Alteration of the land surface by: 1. Earth-moving activities such as grading, filling, stripping, or cutting involving more than 20 cubic yards on any lot, or earth-moving activity disturbing a surface area greater than 1000 sq. ft. on any lot; 2. Construction of a building, road, driveway, parking area, or other structure; except that additions to existing buildings of less than 300 sq. ft. to the existing building footprint shall not be considered development for section 18.62.080. 3. Culverting or diversion of any stream designated by this chapter. I~; ; i�cslg?1c; a ran regtred a�an ,�rr.�i1 �or i�glrr, ppraued tca pi�rt igrting� 1 rm3ly fir?f�?e3 and e thr bufeitng defined ay estes�t )Y the Eru3lding�x1e . G. Engineer - A registered professional engineer licensed by the 5tate of Oregon. H. Engineering Geologist - A registered professional engineering geologist licensed by the State of Oregon. I. Floodway Channel - The floodway channel as defined Alelgey 011 1-06,11 119_1 4, 1 orsiraance> J. Geotechnical Expert - An engineering geologist or an engineer with demonstrable expertise in geologic hazards evaluation and geotechnical engineering. Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision Hillside Standards City Council Adopted Version — Second Reading (2.7) — December 2, 1997 Page 2 K. Gully - A drainage incision, commonly caused by erosion,which does not experience regular or seasonal stream flow, but does act as a channel for runoff during periods of high rainfall. L. Landscape Professional - arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture, landscape architect licensed by the State of Oregon, or other expert with demonstrable expertise in tree and erosion control vegetation maintenance, and erosion control vegetation methods. M. Natural Grade - the elevation of the ground t"01 / level in its natural % NATU2AL e' SVD state, before. O ` FIN ISH6D 62AD6 cons CYT truction,filling, or O e excavation. (see graphic) I.�VP N. Natural 5tate - all land GUT IWD FILL CCOSS SECT ION and water that remains undeveloped and undisturbed. This means that grading, excavating, filling and/or the construction of roadways, driveways, parking areas, and structures are prohibited. Incidental minor grading for hiking trails, bicycle paths, picnic areas and planting and landscaping which is in addition to and enhances the natural environment is permitted. Incidental brush removal for lot maintenance and ecosystem health is permitted. Further, vegetation removal for the purposes of wildfire control in conjunction with an approved fire prevention and control plan shall also be permitted. 0. Non-cohesive Soils - Residual or transported soils containing no or very little clay, usually from crystalline granitic parent rock. Non-cohesive soils have a Plasticity Index of less than ten, based on laboratory testing according to AA5HTO methods, or a published scientific analysis of a particular soil type. F. Professional Arborist - arborist certified by the Lr- oe.. 5LO P;International 5ociety of ry 6��E'• �Arboriculture and licensed by .•� i Isar u�the 5tate of Oregon State 00 IvORP�E DISTANGS (v) Landscape Contractors Board or Construction Contractors �q Board, or landscape architect 4o FeBT r HO R.ILONTAL pISTANGG licensed by the State of CH) v Oregon. SLOPE CALCULATION = H DEGREE OF 5LOFE = ARC TANGENT OF V/H Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision Hillside Standards City Council Adopted Version — Second Reading (2.7) — December 2, 1997 Page 3 0. Riparian - That area associated with a natural water course including its wildlife and vegetation. R. Slope - The deviation of a surface from the horizontal, usually expressed in percent. (see graphic) S. Stripping - Any activity which significantly disturbs vegetated or otherwise stabilized soil surface, including clearing and grubbing operations. T. Tree Removal - the following activities are defined as tree removal: 1. The removal of three or more living trees of over six inches diameter at breast height (d.b.h.), or the removal of five percent of the total number of living (or dead trees) over six inches d.b.h., whichever is greater, on any lot within five year period, or any form of commercial logging; 2. The removal of one or more living conifers greater than two feet d.b.h., or living broadleaf trees greater than one foot d.b.h.; U. Wildfire - Fire caused by combustion of native vegetation, commonly referred to as forest fire or brush fire. 18.62.040 Approval and Permit Required. A Physical Constraints Review Permit is required for the following activities: A. Development, as defined in 18.62.030.1), in areas identified as Floodplain Corridor Land, Riparian Preserve, Hillside Land, or Severe Constraint land. B. Tree removal, as defined in 18.62:030.8., in areas identified as Floodplain Corridor Land and Riparian Preserve. C. Commercial logging, in areas identified as Floodplain Corridor Land, Riparian Preserve, Hillside Land, or Severe Constraint Land. D. Tree removal, in areas identified as Hillside Land and Severe Constraint Land, except that a permit need not be obtained for tree removal that is not associated with development, and done for the purposes of wildfire management and carried out in accord with a Fire Prevention and Control Plan approved by the Fire Chief. E. If a development is part of a Site Review, Performance Standards Development, Conditional Use Permit, Subdivision, Partition, or other Planning Action, then the Review shall be conducted simultaneously with the Planning Action. Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision Hillside Standards City Council Adopted Version — Second Reading (2.7) — December 2, 1997 Page 4 F. If a development is exclusive of any other Planning Action, a5 noted in Subsection B, then the Physical Constraints Review shall be processed a5 a Staff Permit. G. Where it appears that the proposal i5 part of a more extensive development that would require a master site plan,or other planning action,the Staff Advisor shall require that all necessary applications be filed simultaneously. H. Plans Required. The following plans shall be required for any development requiring a Physical Constraints Review: 1. The plans shall contain the following: a. Project name. b. Vicinity map. C. Scale (the scale shall be at least one inch equals 50 feet or larger) utilizing the largest scale that fits on 22" x 34" paper. Multiple plans or layers shall be prepared at the same scale, excluding detail drawings. d. North arrow. e. Date. f. Street names and locations of all existing and proposed streets within or on the boundary of the proposed development. g. Lot layout with dimensions for all lot lines. h. Location and use of all proposed and existing buildings,fences and structures within the proposed development. Indicate which buildings are to remain and which are to be removed. I. Location and size of all public utilities affected by the proposed development. j. Location of drainage ways or public utility easements in and adjacent to • the slope category areas are areas of uniform slope proposed (within 5%)of the maximum developmen na"area• t. Location of all other '"' 55 ," a I �a\ easements. k. A a '° topographic map of the site at a ,� M contour interval of Buildable Area--all 1 Slope Is measured not less areas less than or ual to 35X. perpendicular to contour Ilnes Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision Hillside Standards City Council Adopted Version — Second Reading (2.7) —December 2, 1997 Page 5 than two feet nor greater than five feet. The topographic map Shall also include a slope analysis, indicating buildable areas, as shown in the graphic. I. Location of all parking areas and spaces, ingress and egress on the site, and on-site circulation. M. Accurate locations of all existing natural features including, but not limited to, all trees as required in 18.62.060.D.1, including those of a caliper equal to or greater than six inches native shrub masses with a diameter of ten feet or greater, natural drainage, rwales, wetlands, ponds, springs,or creeks on the site, and outcroppings of rocks, boulders;etc. Natural features on adjacent properties potentially impacted by the proposed development shall also be included, such as trees with driplines extending across property lines. In forested areas, it is nece66ary to identify only those trees which will be affected or removed by the proposed development. Indicate any contemplated modifications to a natural feature. n. The proposed method of erosion control,water runoff control, and tree protection for the development as required by this chapter. o. Building envelopes for all existing and proposed new parcels that contain only buildable area, as defined by thi6 Chapter. P. Location of all irrigation canals and major irrigation lines. q. Location of all areas of land disturbance, including cuts, fills, driveways, building bites, and other construction area6. Indicate total area of disturbance, total percentage of project site proposed for disturbance, and maximum depths and heights of cuts and fill. r. Location for storage or disposal of all excess materials resulting from cuts associated with the proposed development. 6. Applicant name, firm preparing plans, person responsible for plan preparation, and plan preparation dater shall be indicated on all plans. t. Proposed timeline for development based on estimated date of approval, including completion dates for specific tacks. 2. Additional plans and rtudier ar required in Sections 18.62.070, 15.62.080, 18.62.090 and 18.62.100 of thin Chapter. 1. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following: Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision Hillside Standards City Council Adopted Version — Second Reading (2.7) — December 2, 1997 Page 6 1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. 2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. 3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The 5taff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. J. The 5tafF Advisor or Planning Commission has the power to amend plans to include any or all of the following conditions if it is deemed necessary to mitigate any potential negative impact caused by the development: 1. Require the retention of trees, rocks, ponds, wetlands, springs, water courses and other natural features. 2. Require plan revision or modification to mitigate possible negative or irreversible effect upon the topography or natural features that the proposed development may cause. 3. Require a performance guarantee as a condition of approval. 4. Require special evaluation by a recognized professional. A professional consultant may be hired to evaluate proposals and make recommendations if the hearing authority finds that outside expertise is needed. The professional will have expertise in the specific area or in the potential adverse impacts on the area. A fee for these services shall be charged to the applicant in addition to the application fee. 18.62.050 Land Classifications. The following factors shall be used to determine the classifications of various lands and their constraints to building and development on them: A. Floodplain Corridor Lands - Lands with potential stream flow and flood hazard. The following lands are classified as Floodplain Corridor lands: 1. All land contained within the 100 year floodplain as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, in maps adopted by Chapter 15.10 of the Ashland Municipal Code. 2. All land within the area defined as Floodplain Corridor land in maps adopted by the Council as provided for in section 18.62.060. Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision Hillside Standards City Council Adopted Version — Second Reading (2.7) — December 2, 1997 Page 7 3. All lands which have physical or historical evidence of flooding in the historical past. 4. All areas within 20 feet (horizontal distance) of any creek designated for Riparian Preservation in 18.62.050.5 and depicted as such on maps adopted by the Council as provided for in section 18.62.060. 5. All areas within ten feet (horizontal distance) of any drainage channel depicted on maps adopted by the Council but not designated as Riparian Preservation. B. Mparian Preservation - The following Floodplain Corridor Lands are also designated for Riparian Preservation for the purposes of this section and as listed on the Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay Maps: Tolman, Hamilton, Clay, Bear, Kitchen, Ashland, Neil and Wrights Creeks. C. Hillside Lands - Hillside Lands are lands which are subject to damage from erosion and slope failure, and include areas which are highly visible from other portions of the city. The following lands are classified as Hillside Lands: 1. All areas defined as Hillside Lands on the Physical Constraints Overlay map and which have a slope of 25 percent or greater. P. Wildfire Lands - Lands with potential of wildfire. The following lands are classified as Wildfire Lands: 1. All areas defined as wildfire lands on the Physical Constraints Overlay map. E. Severe Constraint Lands - Lands with severe development characteristics which generally limit normal development. The following lands are classified as 5evere Constraint Lands: 1. All areas which are within the floodway channels, as defined in Chapter 15.10. 2. All lands with a slope greater than 35 percent. F. Classifications Cumulative. The above classifications are cumulative in their effect and, if a parcel of land falls under two or more classifications, it shall be subject to the regulations of each classification. Those restrictions applied Shall pertain only to those portions of the land being developed and not necessarily to the whole parcel. 18.62.060 Official Mans. A. The City Council shall adopt official maps denoting the above identified areas. 5ubstantial amendments of these maps shall be a Type 3 procedure. B. Minor amendments of the maps to correct mapping errors when the amendments are intended to more accurately reflect the mapping criteria Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision Hillside Standards City Council Adopted Version — Second Reading (2.7) — December 2, 1997 Page 8 contained in this chapter or in the findingo of the Council in adopting an official map may be processed a5 a Type 1 procedure. 18.62.070 Development 5tandardo for Floodplain Corridor Lando. For all land use actions which could reoult in development of the Floodplain Corridor, the following 15 required in addition to any requiremento of Chapter 15.10: A. 5tandardo for fill in Floodplain Corridor lando: 1. Fill ohall be designed a5 required by the Uniform 5uilding Code, Chapter 70, where applicable. 2. The toe of the fill shall be kept at leant ten feet outside of floodway channelo, ao defined in section 15.10, and the fill ohall not exceed the angle of repooe of the material used for fill. 3. The amount of fill in the Floodplain Corridor ohall be kept to a minimum. Fill and other material imported from off the lot that could dioplace floodwater ohall be limited to the following: a. Poured concrete and other materials necessary to build permitted otructureo on the lot. b. Aggregate base and paving materials, and fill a000ciated with approved public and private street and driveway construction. G. Flanto and other landscaping and agricultural material. d. A total of 50 cubic yardo of other imported fill material. C. The above limits on fill Shall be measured from April 1989, and ohall not exceed the above amounts. Theoe amounto are the maximum cumulative fill that can be imported onto the cite, regardleos of the number of permits issued. 4. If additional fill is necessary beyond the permitted amounts in (3) above, then fill materialo muot be obtained on the lot from cutting or excavation only to the extent necessary to create an elevated Site for permitted development. All additional fill material Shall be obtained from the portion of the lot in the Floodplain Corridor. 5. Adequate drainage Shall be provided for the stability of the fill. 6. Fill to raise elevations for a building site Shall be located ao clooe to the outside edge of the Floodplain Corridor ao feaoible. B. Culverting or bridging of any waterway or creek identified on the official mapo adopted pursuant to oection 18.62.060 must be designed by an engineer. Stream cr000ingo ohall be designed to the otandardo of Chapter 15.10, or where no floodway hao been identified,to paco a one hundred (100) year flood without any increaoe in the upotream flood height elevation. The engineer ohall conoider in the deoign the probability that the culvert will be blocked by cicMo in a Severe flood, and accommodate expected overflow. Fill for culverting and bridging ohall be kept to the minimum necessary to achieve property acceo5, but io exempt from the limitationo in oection (A) above. Culverting or bridging of otreamo Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision Hillside Standards City Council Adopted Version — Second Reading (2.7) — December 2, 1997 Page 9 identified a5 Riparian Preservation are Subject to the requirements of 18.62.075. C. Non-residential Structures Shall be flood-proof to the standards in Chapter 15.10 to one foot above the elevation contained in the maps adopted by chapter 15.10, or up to the elevation contained in the official maps adopted by Section 18.62.060, whichever height is greater. Where no Specific elevations exist,then they must be floodproofed to an elevation of ten feet above the creek channel on Ashland, Bear or Neil Creek; to five feet above the creek channel on all other Riparian Preserve creeks defined in Section 18.62.050.8; and three feet above the Stream channel on all other drainage ways identified on the official maps. D. All residential Structures Shall be elevated so that the lowest habitable floor Shall be raised to one foot above the elevation contained in the maps adopted in chapter 15.10,or to the elevation contained in the official maps adopted by Section 18.62.060, whichever height is greater. Where no specific elevations exist, then they must be constructed at an elevation of ten feet above the creek channel on Ashland, Bear, or Neil Creek; to five feet above the creek channel on all other Riparian Preserve creeks defined in Section 18.62.050.8; and three feet above the stream channel on all other drainage ways identified on the official maps, or one foot above visible evidence of high flood water flow, whichever i5 greater. The elevation of the finished lowest habitable floor Shall be certified to the city by an engineer or Surveyor prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the structure. E. To the maximum extent feasible, structures shall be placed on other than Floodplain Corridor Lands. In the case where development i5 permitted in the Floodplain corridor area, then development shall be limited to that area which would have the Shallowest flooding. F. Existing lots with buildable land outside the Floodplain Corridor shall locate all residential Structures outside the Corridor land, unlcoo 50% or more of the lot is within the Floodplain Corridor. For residential uses proposed for existing lots that have more than 50% of the lot in Corridor land, Structures may be located on that portion of the floodplain corridor that is two feet or le55 below the flood elevations on the official maps, but in no case closer than 20 feet to the channel of a Riparian Preservation Creek. Construction Shall be Subject to the requirements in paragraph D above. G. New non-residential uoeS may be located on that portion of Floodplain Corridor lands that equal to or above the flood elevations on the official maps adopted in Section 18.62.060. Second Story construction may be cantilevered over the floodplain corridor for a distance of 20 feet if the clearance from finished grade iS at least ten feet in height, and is supported by pillars that will have minimal impact on the flow of floodwaters. The finished floor elevation may not be more than two feet below the flood corridor elevations. H. All lots modified by lot line adju5tment5, or new lots created from lots which contain Floodplain Corridor land must contain a building envelope on all lot(s) Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision Hillside Standards City Council Adopted Version — Second Reading (2.7) — December 2, 1997 Page 10 which contain(s) buildable area of a Sufficient size to accommodate the u5e5 permitted in the underling zone, unle55 the action i5 for open space or conservation purposes. This Section shall apply even if the effect i5 to prohibit further division of lots that are larger than the minimum Size permitted in the zoning ordinance. I. Basements. 1. Habitable basements are not permitted for new or existing Structures or additions located within the Floodplain Corridor. 2. Non-habitable basements, used for storage, parking, and Similar uses are permitted for residential structures but must be flood-proofed to the Standards of Chapter 15.10. J. 5torage of petroleum products, pesticides, or other hazardous or toxic chemicals iS not permitted in Floodplain Corridor lands. K. Fences constructed within 20 feet of any Riparian Preservation Creek designated by this chapter shall be limited to wire or electric fence,or similar fence that will not collect debris or obstruct flood waters, but not including wire mesh or chain link fencing. Fences Shall not be constructed across any identified riparian drainage or riparian.preoervation creek. Fences shall not be constructed within any designated floodway. L. Decks and Structures other than buildings, if constructed on Floodplain Corridor Lands and at or below the levels Specified in section 18.62.070.0 and D, shall be flood-proofed to the Standards contained in Chapter 15.10. M. Local streets and utility connections to developments in and adjacent to the Floodplain Corridor Shall be located outside of the Floodplain Corridor, except for cro55ing the Corridor, and except in the Bear Creek floodplain corridor 35 outlined below: 1. Public Street construction may be allowed within the Bear Creek floodplain corridor aS part of development following the adopted North Mountain Neighborhood Plan. This exception Shall only be permitted for that Section of the Bear Creek floodplain corridor between North Mountain Avenue and the Nevada 5treet right-of-way. The new street Shall be constructed in the general location as indicated on the neighborhood plan map, and in the area generally described as having the Shallowest potential for flooding within the corridor. 2. Proposed development that is not in accord with the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan Shall not be permitted to utilize this exception. 1862.075 Development 5tandardo for Riparian Preservation lands. A. All development in areas indicated for Riparian Preservation, as defined in section 15.62.050(5), Shall comply with the following Standards: Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision Hillside Standards City Council Adopted Version — Second Reading (2.7) — December 2, 1947 Page 11 1. Development shall be subject to all Development Standards for Floodplain Corridor Lands (18.62.070) 2. Any tree over six inches d.b.h. shall be retained to the greatest extent feasible. 3. Fill and Culverting shall be permitted only for streets, access, or utilities. The crossing shall be at right angles to the creek channel to the greatest extent possible. Fill shall be kept to a minimum. 4. The general topography of Riparian Preservation lands shall be retained. 18.62.080 Development Standards for Hillside Lands. It is the purpose of the Development Standards for Hillside Lands to provide supplementary development regulations to underlying zones to ensure that development occurs in such a manner as to protect the natural and topographic character and identity of these areas, environmental resources,the aesthetic qualities and restorative value of lands, and the public health; safety,and general welfare by insuring that development does not create soil erosion, sedimentation of lower slopes, slide damage, flooding problems, and severe cutting or scarring. It is the intent of these development standards to encourage a sensitive form of development and to allow for a reasonable use that complements the natural and visual character of the city. A. General Requirements. The following general requirements shall apply in Hillside Lands: 1. All development shall occur on lands defined as having buildable area. Slopes greater than 35% shall be considered unbuildable except as allowed below. Variances may be granted to this requirement only as provided in section 18.62.060.H. a. Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35% shall be considered buildable for one unit. b. Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35% cannot be subdivided or partitioned. 2. All newly created lots either by subdivision or partition shall contain a building envelope with a slope of 35% or less. 3. New streets, flag drives, and driveways shall be constructed on lands of less than or equal to 35% slope with the following exceptions: a. The street is indicated on the City's Transportation Plan Map - Street Dedications. b. The portion of the street,flag drive,or driveway on land greater than 35% slope does not exceed a length of 100 feet. Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision Hillside Standards City Council Adopted Version — Second Reading (2.7) — December 2, 1997 Page 12 4. Geotechnical 5tudies. For all applications on Hillside Lando involving subdivisions or partitions,the following additional information is required: A geotechnical study prepared by a geotechnical expert indicating that the site is stable for the proposed use and development. The study shall include the following information: a. Index map. b. Project description to include location, topography, drainage, vegetation, discussion of previous work and discussion of field exploration methods. C. Site geology, based on a surficial survey,to include site geologic maps, description of bedrock and surficial materials, including artificial fill, locations of any faults,folds, etc..., and structural data including bedding,jointing and shear zones, soil depth and soil structure. d. Discussion of any off-site geologic conditions that may pose a potential hazard to the site, or that may be affected by on-site development. e. 5uitability of site for proposed development from a geologic standpoint. f. Specific recommendations for cut and fill slope stability, seepage and drainage control or other design criteria to mitigate geologic hazards. g. If deemed necessary by the engineer or geologist to establish whether an area to be affected by the proposed development is stable, additional studies and supportive data shall include cross-sections showing subsurface structure, graphic logs with subsurface exploration, results of laboratory test and references. In. Signature and registration number of the engineer and/or geologist. I. Additional information or analyses as necessary to evaluate the site. j. Inspection Schedule for the project as required in 18.62.080.13.9. k. Location of all irrigation canals and major irrigation pipelines. B. Hillside Grading and Erosion Control. All development on lands classified as hillside shall provide plans conforming with the following items: 1. All grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans for development on Hillside Lands shall be designed by a geotechnical expert. All cuts, grading or fills shall conform to Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision Hillside Standards City Council Adopted Version — Second Reading (2.7) — December 2, 1997 Page 13 Erosion control measures on the development Site shall be required to minimize the solids in runoff from disturbed areas. 2. For development other than single family homes on individual lots, all grading, drainage improvements,or other land disturbances shall only occur from May 1 to October 31. Excavation shall not occur during the remaining wet months of the year. Erosion control measures shall be installed and functional by October 31. Up to 30 day modifications to the October 31 date, and 45 day modification to the May 1 date may be made by the Planning Director, based upon weather conditions and in consultation with the project geotechnical expert. The modification of dates shall be the minimum necessary, based upon evidence provided by the applicant, to accomplish the necessary project goals. 3. Retention in natural state. On all projects on Hillside Lands involving partitions and subdivisions, and existing lots with an area greater than one-half acre, an area equal to 25% of the total project area, plus the percentage figure of the average slope of the total project area, shall be retained in a natural state. Lands to be retained in a natural state shall be protected from damage through the use of temporary construction fencing or the functional equivalent. For example, on a 25,000 eq. ft. lot with an average elope of 29%, 25%+29%=54% of the total lot area shall be retained in a natural State. The retention in a natural state of areas greater than the minimum percentage required here is encouraged. 4. Grading - cuts. On all cut slopes on l Hillside lance,Pt s he .�°�• { ' Cut Slope and 15, �e � 1 Stacked Rod following tandards i - or mnsmvg g Fill 5lo e "'°"""m i = - Wall shall apply: p Cut Slope i " 1= Requirements Height 3'mhdi T.,ros. a. Cut 0 1 M�� Widlh Slope angles meximem �. S'Moximum shall be Fill Slope Term* Height _ " H.IgM determined in '_l-, R.gWrod relationship to Erosion Conbel the type of N.11hg Not to Scale materials of For Illustration Only which they are composed. Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision Hillside Standards City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.7) - December 2, 1997 Page 14 Where the soil permits, limit the total area exposed to precipitation and erosion. Steep cut slopes shall be retained with stacked rock, retaining walls, or functional equivalent to control erosion and provide slope stability when necessary. Where out slopes are required to be laid back (1:1 or less steep), the slope shall be protected with erosion control netting or structural equivalent installed per manufacturers specifications, and revegetated. b. Exposed cut slopes, such as those for streets,driveway accesses, or yard areas, greater than seven feet in height shall be terraced. Cut faces on a terraced section shall not exceed a maximum height of five feet. Terrace widths shall be a minimum of three feet to allow for the introduction of vegetation for erosion control. Total cut slopes shall not exceed a maximum vertical height of 15 feet. (5ee Graphic) The top of cut Slopes not utilizing structural retaining walls shall be located a minimum setback of one-half the height of the cut slope from the nearest property line. Cut slopes for structure foundations encouraging the reduction of effective visual bulk, ouch a5 5pllt Reduce Effective Vieual pad or stepped footings Bulk by Utilizing shall be exempted from the 5tepped Foundations ° u height limitations of this section. (5ee Graphic) i G. Revegetation of cut 1l of slope terraces shall include —�- the provision of a planting , rr plan, introduction of top _ soil where necessary, and the use of irrigation if necessary. The vegetation used for these areas shall be native or species similar in resource value which will Survive, help reduce the visual impact of the cut 51ope, and assist in providing long term slope Stabilization. Trees, bush-type plantings and cascading vine-type plantings may be appropriate. 5. Grading - fills. On all fill Slopes on lands claooified a5 Hillside Lands, the following 5tandardo Shall apply: Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision Hillside Standards City Council Adopted Version — Second Reading (2.7) — December 2, 1997 Page 15 a. Fill slope angles shall be determined in relationship to the type of materials of which they are composed. Fill olopee shall not exceed a total vertical height of 20 feet. The toe of the fill slope area not utilizing otructural retaining ohall be a minimum of six feet from the nearest property line. b. Fill slopes shall be protected with an erosion control netting, blanket or functional equivalent. Netting or blanketo shall only be used in conjunction with an organic mulch such as straw or wood fiber. The blanket must be applied oo that it is in complete contact with the ooil so that erosion doeo not occur beneath it. Erosion netting or blanketo shall be securely anchored to the olope in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. G. Utilitieo. Whenever possible, utilitieo shall not be located or installed on or in fill olopeo. When determined that it necesoary to inotall utilities on fill olopeo, all plano shall be deoigned by a geotechnical expert. J. Revegetation of fill olopeo shall utilize native vegetation or vegetation similar in resource value and which will ourvive and stabilize the ourface. Irrigation may be provided to ensure growth if neceooary. Evidence ohall be required indicating long-term viability of the proposed vegetation for the purpooeo of erosion control on dioturbed areao. 6. Kevegetation requirements. Where required by thio chapter, all required revegetation of cut and fill olopeo shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, signature of a required survey plat,or other time as determined by the hearing authority. Vegetation shall be installed in ouch a manner.ao to be substantially eotabliohed within one year of inotallation. 7. Maintenance, Security, and Penaltieo for Erosion Control Meaoureo. a. Maintenance. All measures installed for the purpooeo of long-term erosion control, including but not limited to vegetative cover, rock walls, and landocaping, ohall be maintained in perpetuity on all areao which have been dioturbed, including public riehto-of-way. The applicant ohall provide evidence indicating the mechanisms in place to ensure maintenance of meaoureo. b. Security. Except for individual loto existing prior to January 1, 1998, after an Erosion Control Plan io,approved by the hearing authority and prior to construction,the applicant shall provide a performance bond or Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision Hillside Standards City Council Adopted Version — Second Reading (2.7) — December 2, 1997 Page 16 other financial guarantees in the amount of 120% of the value of the erosion control measures necessary to stabilize the site. Any financial guarantee instrument proposed other than a performance bond Shall be approved by the City Attorney. The financial guarantee instrument shall be in effect for a period of at least one year, and shall be released when the Planning Director and Public Works Director determine,jointly,that the site has been stabilized. All or a portion of the security retained by the City may be withheld for a period up to five years beyond the one year maintenance period if it has been determined by the City that the site has not been sufficiently stabilized against erosion. 8. Site Grading. The grading of a Site on Hillside Lands shall consider the sensitive nature of there areas. Grading plans shall be reviewed considering the following factory: a. Terracing should be designed with small incremental rtepo, avoiding wide step terracing and large areas of flat pads. b. Retain existing grader to the greaten extent porrible. Avoid an artificial appearance by creating smooth flowing contours of varying gradients. Avoid sharp cuts and filly and long, linear oloper that have uniform grade. G. Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the rite. d. Building pads should be of minimum size to accommodate the structure and a reasonable amount of yard space. Pads for tennis courts, swimming pools and large lawns are discouraged. As much of the remaining lot area ao porrible should be kept in the natural state of the original slope. 9. Inopectionr and Final Report. Prior to the acceptance of a subdivision by the City, signature of the final survey plat on partitions, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy for individual structures,the project geotechnical expert shall provide a final report indicating that the approved grading, drainage, and erosion control measurer were installed ao per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections, as per 18.62.080.A.4.j were conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project. C. Surface and Groundwater Drainage. All development on Hillside Lando shall conform to the following standards: Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision Hillside Standards City Council Adopted Version -- Second Reading (2.7) — December 2, 1997 Page 17 1. All facilities for the collection of stormwater runoff shall be required to be constructed on the site and according to the following rec(uiremento: a. Stormwater facilities shall include storm drain systems associated with street construction, facilities for accommodating drainage from driveways, parking areas and other impervious Surfaces, and roof drainage systems. b. Stormwater facilities, when part of the overall site improvements, shall be,to the greatest extent feasible, the first improvements constructed on the development site. G. Stormwater facilities shall be designed to divert surface water away from cut faces or sloping surfaces of a fill. J. Existing natural drainage systems shall be utilized, as much as possible, in their natural state, recognizing the erosion potential from increased storm drainage.. C. Flow-retarding devices, such as detention ponds and recharge berms, shall be used where practical to minimize increases in runoff volume and peak flow rate due to development. Each facility shall consider the needs for an emergency overflow system to safely carry any overflow water to an acceptable disposal point. f. Stormwater facilities shall be designed, constructed and maintained in a manner that will avoid erosion on-site and to adjacent and downstream properties. g. Alternate stormwater systems, such as dry well systems, detention ponds, and leachfields, shall be designed by a registered engineer or geotechnical expert and approved by the City's Public Worko Department or City Building Official. D. Tree Conservation, Protection and Removal. All development on Hillside Lands ohall conform to the following requirements: 1. Inventory of Existing Trees. A tree survey at the same scale as the project site plan shall be prepared, which locates all trees greater than six inches d.b.h., identified by d.b.h., species, approximate extent of tree canopy. In addition,for areas proposed to be disturbed, existing tree base elevations shall be provided. Dead or diseased trees shall be identified. Groups of trees in close proximity (i.e. those within five feet of each other) may be designated as a Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision Hillside Standards City Council Adopted Version — Second Reading (2.7) —December 2, 1997 Page 18 clump of trees, with the predominant 5pecie5, estimated number and average diameter indicated. All tree 5urveyo Shall have an accuracy of plus or minus two feet. The name, Signature, and address of the Site surveyor responsible for the accuracy of the survey shall be provided on the tree Survey. Portions of the lot or project area not proposed to be disturbed by development need not be included in the inventory. 2. Evaluation of Suitability for Conservation. All trees indicated on the inventory of existing trees Shall also be identified a5 to their Suitability for conservation. When required by the hearing authority, the evaluation shall be conducted by a landscape profe55ional. Factors included in this determination Shall include: a. Tree health. Healthy trees can better withstand the rigors of development than non-vigorous trees. b. Tree Structure. Trees with severe decay or substantial defects are more likely to result in damage to people and property. G. 5pecie5. Species vary in their ability to tolerate impacts and damage to their environment. d. Potential longevity. C. Variety. A variety of native tree species and ages. f. Size. Large trees provide a greater protection for erosion and shade than Smaller trees. 3. Tree Conservation in Project Design. Significant trees (2' d.b.h. or greater conifero and 1' d.b.h. or greater broadleaf) Shall be protected and incorporated into the project design whenever po55ible. a. 5treeto, _ Site Planning driveways, Responsive to buildings, utilities, Tree Locations parking areas, Existing Site and other site with oignificant CAM-U,bances I. trees Shall be 5ensitive develoment option for property Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision Hillside Standards City Council Adopted Version — Second Reading (2.7) — December 2, 1997 Page 19 located such that the maximum number of existing trees on the Site are preserved, while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. b. Building envelopes shall be located and sized to preserve the maximum number of trees on site while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. G. Layout of the project site utility and grading plan shall avoid disturbance of tree protection areas. 2 o Tree Conoervatlon 4. Tree Protection. On all properties where I Guideline trees are required to be preserved during the S course of development, Protective Fencing A should be secured by the developer shall follow metal stakes or equivalent the following tree protection standards: Flagging Tape ;pd�R To Hi li t Drlpline P A�reat' a. All trees e. .r 4'minimum fence height designated for conservation A tional 3'Protection shall be clearly ,Ara—Hance Excavate Only-No Heavy marked on the Driph a Fence Diameter Equipment or Parking project site. Prior to the start of any clearing, stripping, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation,the applicant shall install fencing at the drip line of all trees to be preserved adjacent to or in the area to be altered. Temporary fencing shall be established at the perimeter of the Tree Canopy ' Dri�ne dripline. Prior to grading or issuance of any \ permits; the fences may be inspected and " their location approved by the Staff Advisor. (see graphic) To provide minimum protection to the root area,take the greatest radlus b. Construction olte activitleo, including from trunk to dripline and create a but not limited to parking, material storage, regular circle;using the longest Witte. bathe than tofoll soil compaction and concrete washout, shall ow iregular, p above ground,edsU tr ng tree dripline. Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision Hillside Standards City Council Adopted Version — Second Reading (2.7) — December 2, 1997 Page 20 be arranged so as to prevent disturbances within tree protection areas. G. No grading, stripping, compaction, or significant change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the drip line of trees designated for conservation unless indicated on the grading plans, as approved by the City, and landscape professional. If grading or construction is approved within the dripline, a landscape professional may be required to be present during grading operations, and shall have authority to require protective measures to protect the roots. d. Changes in soil hydrology and site drainage within tree protection areas shall be minimized. Excessive site run-off shall be directed to appropriate storm drain facilities and away from trees designated for conservation. e. Should encroachment into a tree protection area occur which causes irreparable damage, as determined by a landscape professional, to trees,the project plan shall be revised to compensate for the loss. Under no circumstances shall the developer be relieved of responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this chapter. 5. Tree Removal. Development shall be designed to preserve the maximum number of trees on a site, when balanced with other provisions of this chapter and recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in MiIdfire Lands. When justified by findings of fact, the hearing authority may approve the removal of trees for one or more of the following conditions: a. The tree is located within the building envelope. b. The tree is located within a proposed street, driveway, or parking area. G. The tree is located within a water, sewer, or other public utility easement. d. The tree is determined by a landscape professional to be dead or diseased, or it constitutes an unacceptable hazard to life or property when evaluated by the standards in 18.62.080.D.2. C. The tree is located within or adjacent to areas of cuts or fills that are deemed threatening to the life of the tree, as determined by a landscape professional. Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision Hillside Standards City Council Adopted Version — Second Reading (2.7) — December 2, 1997 Page 21 6. Tree Replacement. Trees approved for removal, with the exception of trees removed because they were determined to be diseased, dead, or a hazard, shall be replaced in compliance with the following standards: a. Replacement trees shall be Tree Planting indicated on a tree Guideline replanting plan. Replacement trees shall be of similar 3"mold,kept resource value as the FfromA k trees removed. The 5uke Mn'N Use b".bk replanting plan shall and a�take "puaawle include all locations "fth"°-met.m stake. .F— Cu W&W planVN area should be 33 for replacement I Gmeath,e fth°roatM.*Wo* trees, and shall also adl Mould be uxd fo fl0. k k1ouN sAghGy to c°rKaln xatc. indicate tree planting I l details. r r Set top of rvat All A oroud LM. FM buiap from t k,and b. Replacement ; �' 4,. keep beb grade trees shall be set � dgd planted such that _ the trees will in time ° result in canopy equal to or greater than the tree canopy present prior to development of the property. The canopy shall be designed to mitigate of the impact of paved and developed areas, reduce surface erosion and increase slope stability.. Replacement tree locations shall consider impact on the wildfire prevention and control plan. The hearing authority shall have the discretion to adjust the proposed replacement tree canopy based upon site-specific evidence and testimony. C. The hearing authority may, instead of requiring replacement trees, require implementation of a revegetation plan. Thie plan may be substituted in heavily forested areas or in areas determined to be appropriate as determined by a[landscape professional and 'approved by the hearing authority. The developer shall be required to enter into a written agreement with the City obligating the developer to comply with the requirements of the revegetation program. A security deposit, not exceeding the cost of the revegetation plan implementation, may be required to ensure that the agreement is fulfilled. Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision Hillside Standards City Council Adopted Version — Second Reading (2.7) —December 2, 1997 Page 22 d. Maintenance of replacement trees shall be the responsibility of the property owner. Required replacement trees shall be continuously maintained in a healthy manner. Trees that die within the first five years after initial planting must be replaced in kind, after which a new five year replacement period Shall begin. Replanting must occur within 30 days of notification unless otherwise noted. 7. Enforcement. a. All tree removal shall be done in accord with the approved tree removal and replacement plan. No trees designated for conservation shall be removed without prior approval of the City of Ashland. b. Should the developer or developers agent remove or destroy any tree that has been designated for conservation, the developer may be fined up to three times the current appraised value of the replacement trees and cost of replacement or up to three times the current market value, as established by a professional arbori5t, whichever is greater. c. Should the developer or developer's agent damage any tree that has been designated for protection and conservation,the developer shall be penalized $50.00 per scar. If necessary, a professional arborist's report, prepared at the developer's expense, may be required to determine the extent of the damage. Should the damage result in loss of appraised value greater than determined above, the higher of the two values shall be used. E. Building Location and Design' 5tandard5. All buildings and buildable �LOr ONES areas proposed for 1-11115ide Lands shall be BAR Y aD 1-1087 designed and constructed in compliance Rei.R. BUILO��LC with the following 5tandard5: YA¢D (; � 1—r5auxap CSRT I r d� YARD 1. Building Envelopes. All newly I created lots, either by subdivision or &ULDING partition, shall contain building (ovEw.se envelopes conforming to the following 5tandard5: I` �6UILDIN6�LIN2\/ FRONT a. The building envelope YARD I \YAeD UNey shall contain a buildable area �iGTdKK) (SL BKK LINO I R�1Rm I FRONT YARD with a 510 e of 35% or less. FwNr e* uNa'W STR- BET F. D.W. Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision Hillside Standards City Council Adopted Version — Second Reading (2.7) — December 2, 1997 Page 23 % b. Building envelopes and lot; design Shall address the retention of a percentage of the lot in a natural state ao required in 18.62.05013.3. G. Building envelopes shall be cleoionecl and located to maximize tree conservation as required in 18.62.050.0.3. While recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development 15 located in Wildfire Lando 61. aftli t'.0,guilding envelope locations j U'la4---H4 be located to avoid ridgeliric exposures, and 61esigmccl such Retention of hillside that the roofline of a building character within the envelope does not slope project above the ridgellne. dgcline locations 2. Building Design. To reduce hillside disturbance through the use of slope responsive cleolon techniques, buildings on Hillside Lando, excepting those lands within the designated Historic District, shall incorporate the following into the building design and indicate features on required building permits: 1q. Hillside Building Height. The *00 height of all structures shall be W � � "e measured vertically from the natural Permitted --tIA1114 Oracle to the uppermost point of the roof edge or peak, wall, parapet, mansard, or r"O' other feature perpendicular to that oracle. M a ximum.Hilloide Building Height W shall be �59 feet. (see graphics) b. Cut buildings into hillsides to reduce effective visual bulk. (1). Split pad or stepped footings shall be incorporated into building design to allow the structure to more clo6ely follow the slope. Not w&o\" (2). Reduce building mass by utilizing below oracle rooms cut; Permitted into the natural slope. �1 0. A building 6telp1back shall be 35' required on all downhill building walls Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision Hillside Standards City Council Adopted Version — Second Reading (2.7) — December 2, 1997 Page 24 I . greater than 20 feet in height, ay measured above natural grade. 5tepbacks shall be a minimum of six feet. No vertical walls on the downhill elevations of new buildings shall exceed a maximum height of 20 feet above natural grade. (see graphic) J. Continuous horizontal i a building planer shall not exceed a maximum length of 36 feet. Planes 16' Minim longer than 36 feet shall include a ( °fffe`t Mazlmum —I minimum offset of ON feet. See graphic) e It: y recrsrtttrtend that:woof forms and roof lines for new structures be broken into a series of smaller building components to reflect the �Ao irregular forms of the surrounding hillside. Long, linear unbroken roof lines orient Roof are discouraged. Large / F 51ope with the to,60 gable ends on downhill / Hillside elevations sltouldskaN be avoided, however smaller / MAX gables may be permitted. Ht. 35 20' Minimum (see graphic) 5tepback 6' f ft is rcrre3end € th l 5;,P ofs of lower floor ................ ................ ................ ................ levels rraq be used to provide deck or outdoor space for upper floor levels. The use of overhanging decks with vertical supports in excess of 12 feet on downhill .................. .................. elevations 60,61d'skall be avoided. g t`ig rec©rrirnerru[M tKi cC-olor selection for new structures be coordinated with the predominant colors of the surrounding landscape to minimize contrast between the structure and the natural environment. Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision Hillside Standards City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.7) - December 2, 1997 Page 25 I F. All structures on Hillside Lando shall have foundations which have been deoigned by an engineer or architect with demonotrable geotechnical deoign experience A deJgner,a <rdf€n €,9hal{ n6t,GarrtpteY vprk€ng €raw€rEg w%thou 'WQ4 fRt3ndat io deal rted (zy tgineer -XX G. All newly created lots or loto modified by a lot line adjustment muot include a building envelope on all lots that containo a buildable area leoo than 35% olope Of sufficient size to accommodate the uoeo permitted in the underlying zone, unless the divioion or lot line adjustment io for open space or conoervation purposes. H. Administrative Variance From Development Standardo for Hillside Lando - 16.62.080. A variance under this oection is not oubject to the variance requirements of section 18.100 and may be granted with reopect to the development otandards for Hillside Lando if all of the following circumotanceo are found to exiot: 1. There io demonotrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of thin chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the cite or propooed use of the cite, 2. The variance will reoult in equal or greater protection of the re5ourceo protected under thin chapter; 3. The variance i5 the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty, and 4. The variance io con5iotent with the otated Purpose and Intent of the Physical and Environmental Constrainto Chapter and oection 18.62.080. Appealo of decioiono involving adminiotrative varianceo ohall be proceo5ed ao outlined in 18.108.070. 18.62.090 Development Standards for Wildfire Lando. A. Requiremento for 5ubdivi5iono, Performance 5tandardo Developments, or Partitions. 1. A Fire Prevention and Control Plan ohall be required with the submiooion of any application for an outline plan approval of a Performance Standards Development, preliminary plat of a subdivicion,or application to partition land which contained areao deoignated Wildfire Hazard areas. 2. The Staff Advioor shall forward the Fire Prevention and Control Plan to the Fire Chief within 3 dayo of the receipt of a completed application. The Fire Chief Shall review the Fire Prevention and Control Plan, and Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision Hillside Standards City Council Adopted Version — Second Reading (2.7) — December 2, 1997 Page 26 Submit a written report to the Staff Advisor no less than 7 days before the scheduled hearing. The Fire Chief's report shall be a part of the record of the Planning Action. 3. The Fire Prevention and Control Plan, prepared at the same scale ao the development piano, shall include the following items: a. An analysis of the fire hazards on the site from wildfire, ao influenced by existing vegetation and topography. b. A map showing the areas that are to be cleared of dead, dying, or severely diseased vegetation. G. A map of the areas that are to be thinned to reduce the interlocking canopy of trees. J. A tree management plan showing the location of all trees that are to be preserved and removed on each lot. In the case of heavily forested parcels,only trees scheduled for removal shall be shown. e. The areas of Primary and Secondary Fuel Breaks that are required to be installed around each structure, ao required by 18.62.090 B. f. Roads and driveways sufficient for emergency vehicle access and fire suppression activities, including the slope of all roads and driveways within the Wildfire Lands area. 4. Criterion for Approval. The hearing authority shall approve the Fire Prevention and Control Plan when, in addition to the findings required by this chapter,the additional finding io made that the wildfire hazards present on the property have been reduced to a reasonable degree, balanced with the need to preserve and/or plant a sufficient number of trees and plants for erosion prevention,wildlife habitat, and aesthetics. 5. The hearing authority may require, through the imposition of conditions attached to the approval, the following requirements ao deemed appropriate for the development of the property: a. Delineation of areas of heavy vegetation to be thinned and a formal plan for such thinning. b. Clearing of sufficient vegetation to reduce fuel load. G. Removal of all dead and dying trees. d. Relocation of structures and roads to reduce the risks of wildfire and improve the chances of successful fire suppression. 6. The Fire Prevention and Control Plan shall be implemented during the public improvements required of a subdivision or Performance 5tanclards Development, and shall be considered part of the subdividers obligations for land development. The Plan shall be implemented prior to the issuance of any building permit for structures to be located on lots created by partitions and for subdivisions or Performance Standards Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision Hillside Standards City Council Adopted Version — Second Reading (2.7) — December 2, 1997 Page 27 developments not requiring public improvements. The Fire Chief, or designee, shall inspect and approve the implementation of the Fire Prevention and Control Plan, and the Plan shall not be considered fully implemented until the Fire Chief has given written notice to the Staff Advisor that the Plan was completed as approved by the hearing authority. 7. In subdivisions or Performance Standards Developments, provisions for the maintenance of the Fire Prevention and Control Plan shall be included in the covenants, conditions and restrictions for the development, and the City of Ashland shall be named as a beneficiary of such covenants, restrictions, and conditions. 8. On lots created by partitions, the property owner shall be responsible for maintaining the property in accord with the requirements of the Fire Prevention and Control Plan approved by the hearing authority. B. Requirements for construction of all structures. 1. All new construction and any construction expanding the size of an existing structure, shall have a "fuel break" as defined below. 2. A "fuel break" is defined ac an area which is free of dead or dying vegetation, and has native, fast-burning species sufficiently thinned so that there is no interlocking canopy of this type of vegetation. Where necessary for erosion control or aesthetic purposes, the fuel break may be planted in slow-burning species. Establishment of a fuel break does not involve stripping the ground of all native vegetation. "Fuel Breaks' may include structures, and shall not limit distance between structures and residences beyond that required by other sections of this title. 3. Primary Fuel Break - A primary fuel break will be installed, maintained and shall extend a minimum of 30 feet, or to the property line, whichever is less, in all directions around structures, excluding fences,on the property. The goal within this area is to remove ground cover that will produce flame lengths in excess of one foot. Such a fuel break shall be increased by ten feet for each 10% increase in slope over 10%. Adjacent property owners are encouraged to cooperate on the development of primary fuel breaks. 4. Secondary Fuel Break - A secondary fuel break will be installed, maintained and shall extend a minimum of 100 feet beyond the primary fuel break where surrounding landscape is owned and under the control of the property owner during construction. The goal of the secondary fuel break is to reduce fuels so that the overall intensity of any wildfire is reduced through fuels control. 5. All structures shall be constructed or re-roofed with Class B or better non-wood roof coverings, as determined by the Oregon Structural Specialty Code. All reroofing of existing structures in the Wildfire Lands area for which at least 50% of the roofing area requires re-roofing shall Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision Hillside Standards City Council Adopted Version -- Second Reading (2.7) — December 2, 1997 Page 28 be done under approval of a zoning permit. No structure shall be constructed or re-roofed with wooden shingles, shakes, wood-product material or other combustible roofing material, a5 defined in the City15 building code. C. Fuel breaks in areas which are also Erosive or Slope Failure Lands shall be included in the erosion control measures outlined in section 18.62.080. D. Implementation. 1. For land which have been subdivided and required to comply with A. (6) above, all requirements of the Plan shall be complied with prior to the commencement of construction with combustible materials. 2. For all other structures,the vegetation control requirements of section (5) above Shall be complied with before the commencement of construction with combustible materials on the lot. (Ord. 2657, 1991) 3. As of November 1, 1994, existing residences in subdivisions developed outside of the Wildfire Lands one, but later included due to amendments to the zone boundaries shall be exempt from the requirements of this zone, with the exception of section 18.62.090 8.5. above. All new residences shall comply with all standards for new construction in section 18.62.090 B. 4. Subdivisions developed outside of the wildfire lands zone prior to November 1, 1994, but later included a5 part of the zone boundary amendment, shall not be required to prepare or implement Fire Prevention and Control Plans outlined in Section 18.62.090 A. (Ord 2747, 1994) 18 62100 Development Standards for Severe Constraint Lands. A. Severe Constraint Lands are extremely sensitive to development, grading, filling, or vegetation removal and, whenever possible, alternative development should be considered. B. Development of floodways 15 not permitted except for bridges and road crossings. Such crossings shall be designed to pass the 100 year flood without raising the upstream flood height more than six inches. C. Development on lands greater than 35% 51ope shall meet all requirements of section 18.62.080 in addition to the requirements of this section. D. Development of land or approval for a planning action Shall be allowed only when the following study has been accomplished. An engineering geologic Study approved by the Gig's Public Works Director and Planning Director e5tabli5he5 that the Site is Stable for the proposed use and development. The Study Shall include the following: 1. Index map. 2. Project description to include location, topography, drainage,vegetation, discussion of previous work and discussion of field exploration methods. Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision Hillside Standards City Council Adopted Version — Second Reading (2.7) — December 2, 1997 Page 29 3. Site geology, based on a surfcial survey, to include Site geologic maps, description of bedrock and curficial materials, including artificial fill, locations of any faults, folds, etc., and structural data including bedding, jointing and shear zones, soil depth and soil structure. 4. Discussion of any off-site geologic conditions that may pose a potential hazard to the site, or that may be affected by on-site development. 5. Suitability of site for proposed development from a geologic standpoint. 6. Specific recommendations for cut slope stability, seepage and drainage control or other design criteria to mitigate geologic hazards. 7. If deemed necessary by the engineer or geologist to establish whether an area to be affected by the proposed development is stable, additional studies and supportive data shall include cross-sections showing subsurface structure, graphic logs with subsurface exploration, results of laboratory test and references. 8. Signature and registration number of the engineer and/or geologist. 9. Additional information or analyses as necessary to evaluate the site. 18.62.110 Density Transfer. Density may be transferred out of unbuildable areas to buildable areas of a lot provided the following standards are met: A. Partitions and subdivisions involving density transfer shall be processed under Performance 5tandards, Chapter 18.88 of the Ashland Municipal Code. B. A map shall be submitted showing the net buildable area to which the density will be transferred. C. A covenant shall be recorded limiting development on the area from which density is transferred. D. Density may not be transferred from one ownership to another but only within the lot(o) owned by the same person. E. Density may be transferred only on contiguous lots under common ownership. F. The density of the buildable area may not be increased to more than two (2) times the permitted density of the underlying zone. Fractional units are to be rounded down to the next whole number. (Ord. 2528, 1969) 18.62.130 Penalties. The following sections are in addition to the enforcement actions that may be taken and penalties which may be imposed in chapter 18.112 for a violation of this chapter: A. Whenever any work is being done contrary to the provisions of this chapter or whenever erosion control measures, tree protection measures, wildfire control measures, or floodplain corridor development measures are not being properly maintained or are not functioning properly due to faulty installation or neglect,the director of community development or the director's designee, may order the work stopped by notice in writing served on any persons engaged in the doing or causing of Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision Hillside Standards City Council Adopted Version — Second Reading (2.7) —December 2, 1997 Page 30 ouch work to be done, and any ouch per5on5 shall immediately Stop work until authorized by the director or designee.to proceed with the work. B. All development under thin chapter and all work or construction for which a permit lo required under thin chapter ohall be Subject to inspection by the director of community development or the director'o designee. When an inspection is made under thin oection or when it io neceooary to make an inspection to enforce this code, or when the director or designee has reaoonable cause to believe that there existo upon Hilloide Lands a condition which is contrary to or in violation of thin chapter which makeo the premioeo unsafe,dangerous or hazardous, the director or designee may enter the premises at reaoonable times to inspect or to perform the dutieo impooed by thin chapter. The director or designee shall firot make a reaoonable effort to locate the owner or other person having charge of the premises and requeot entry. C. The City may refuse to accept any development permit application, may revoke or ouopend any development or building permit, or may deny occupancy on the property until erosion control measures,tree protection meaoureo, wildfire control meaoureo,or floodplain corridor development measures have been installed properly and are maintained in accordance with the rec(uiremento of this chapter. D. The owner of the property from which erosion occurs due to failure or neglect of erosion control meaoureo,together with any person or parties who cause such erosion ohall be reoponoible to mitigate the impacto of the erosion and prevent future erosion. Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision Hillside Standards City Council Adopted Version — Second Reading (2.7) — December 2, 1997 Page 31 BEFORE THE ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL December 2, 1997 Amendments to Chapter 18.62 of the ) Ashland Municipal Code to Adopt ) Findings in Support of Hillside Development Standards ) Legislative Adoption of (Planning Action 97-044) ) Ordinance 97-2807 RECITALS: A. The procedure for the adoption of legislative amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) (Title 18 of the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC)) is set forth in AMC Ch. 18.108.170. B. The planning commission held a public hearing on June 10, 1997, at which time persons appeared and statements were given and exhibits were presented regarding the proposed amendments to AMC Ch. 18.62. The planning commission approved the amendments and recommended approval to this council as provided in AMC § 18.108.170. C. This council held a public hearing on August 5, 1997, after first publishing notice in the newspaper and meeting the requirements of AMC § 18.108.170. Subsequently, for the reasons explained below, the council held another public hearing on November 18 and 19, 1997, after notice meeting the requirements of § 18.108.170. D. No specific criteria exist in the ALUO or the Ashland Comprehensive Plan for the adoption of legislative amendments. By statute, however, such amendments may be reversed or remanded by the Land Use Board of Appeals pursuant to ORS 197.835(7) °(a) The regulation is not in compliance with the comprehensive plan; or (b) The comprehensive plan does not contain specific policies or other provisions which provide the basis for the regulation, and the regulation is not in compliance with the statewide planning goals." The adoption of legislative amendments to the ALUO must comply with the comprehensive plan (ORS 197.175, ORS 197.835). The following specific policies of the comprehensive plan apply to the hillside development standards amendments to ALUO Ch. 18.62 (Ordinance 97-2708): 1. The Environmental Resources Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan (Chapter IV contains numerous specific policies and provisions which this ordinance implements and is in compliance with. 1.1. This plan chapter recognizes that development on the steeper slopes within the city is fraught with problems: PAGE 1-FINDINGS FOR LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS TO AMC CH. 18.82 -Future development on steeper slopes and on granitic terrain should be planned with the contours of the terrain In mind, rather than following a rectangular grid. In many areas of the city, streets are Impassable during Icy conditions due to steep grades. Rain showers often tend to be short and Intense, favoring a high surface runoff. Deeply weathered, easily eroded plutonic terrain commonly silts local storm drains, and diverts volumes of water down the north-trending streets, occasionally flooding streets and private property. These negative effects could be diminished jzy Mxict development controls on areas over 20% sloq.' (Plan p. IVA, emphasis added.) We find that the area subject to the hillside standards ordinance is on steeper slopes and on granitic terrain. Further we interpret the phrase 'steeper slopes' as used in this provision to include slopes of 35% or greater. 1.2. Mother provision of the plan specifically addresses the problems with cuts and excavations in granitic soils and steep slopes: The Ashland planning area has a moderate to high landslide potential, especially where granitic terrains and steep slopes exist. * * * * * To prevent activating potential slides, deep cuts and excavations should be forbidden without extensive engineering and geologic study, surface runoff should be directed toward existing natural drainage, and clearing vegetation on especially steep slopes should be prohibfted.' (Plan p. IVA.) We find that the area to which this ordinance will be applied has a moderate to high landslide potential with granitic terrains and steep slopes. Further, we interpret slopes exceeding 35% to be especially steep slopes to which this provision applies. 1.3. Limiting development on steep slopes and granitic soils complies with the following specific policy: -Areas of steep slope on highly erosive granitic soils are very sensitive to development activities. The best control to erasion Is to limit development in areas that are sensitive.' (Plan p IV-8) We find that the slopes to which this ordinance applies to be areas of highly erosive granitic soils. r inance support the goal within the 2. Many of the requirements of this o d ppo g Environmental Resources Chapter addressing the importance of erosion control. The goal set forth on Plan page IV-8 states: "Have sound soil conservation and erosion control practices in and around Ashland.' PAGE 2-FINDINGS FOR LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS TO AMC CH. 18.62 \W"\m1*94 2.1. While the goal itself Is not very specific, we interpret several policies under the goal to be quite specific. Policy IV-5 requires 'that development be accommodated to natural topography, drainage, and soils and make maximum use of existing vegetation to minimize Bros/on.' (Plan p. IV- 8.) We interpret this to mean that development may occur on slopes but to the extent that lots can be left in their natural state, they should be. Amendments to ALUO Ch. 18.62 accommodate development in such a manner. See § 18.62.080.E. - Building Location and Design Standards regarding accommodating natural topography, § 18.62.080.C. - Surface and Groundwater Drainage regarding drainage, § 18.62.080.6. - Hillside Grading and Erosion Control regarding soils and § 18.62.080.B. and D regarding erosion control and vegetation. 2.2. Another specific policy implemented by this ordinance is Policy IV-6 at Plan page IV-8: 'Prevent development and land management practices which result In rapid runoff and accelerated erosion.' We interpret this section to especially Impact slopes of 35%. The steeper the slope the more rapid the runoff where development occurs and the more accelerated the erosion. Sections 18.62.080.C. - Surface and Groundwater Drainage and 18.62.080.8. - Hillside Grading and Erosion Control are in compliance with this policy and provide the controls necessary to implement it. 2.3. Policy IV-7 specifically recognizes the role construction activities play in erosion: 'Require site-preparation procedures and construction practices which minimize erosion and sedimentation.' (Plan p. IV-8) Ordinance § 18.62.080.13 - Hillside Grading and Erosion Control complies with this section by implementing the necessary controls. 2.4. Adequate drainage is recognized as essential in managing runoff to prevent erosion and is addressed in plan policy IV-8: 'Protect essential hillside drainage areas for absorption of storm runoff, and other areas sub/ect to severe soil erosion, unless control can be established. We interpret slopes 35% and above as areas subject to severe soil erosion and therefor should be protected under this policy. ALUO section 18.62.080.6. - Hillside Grading and Erosion Control implements and is in compliance with this policy. The ordinance is also in compliance with plan policy IV-9: 'Incorporate site drainage practices that reduce runoff velocity and volume, by utilizing the natural properties of PAGE 3-FINDINGS FOR LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS TO AMC CH. 18-62 "k."\wrw\nea94 the soils and vegetation in conjunction with sound engineering practices'which is implemented through section 18.62.080.C. - Surface and Groundwater Drainage. 2.5. Probably the most controversial part of this ordinance is its application to slopes 35% or greater as opposed to 40%. We find that the reduction in slope percentage is in compliance with the following policies: "Policy N-10. Insure that areas of general slope over 30% are zoned for two dwelling units per acre or less, and permit total lot coverage to be no more than 20%. "Policy N-11. Restrict any new partitioning or subdivision of land on slopes greater than 40%.° These policies are implemented by section 18.62.O80.A. - General Requirements. Policy IV-11 does not preclude this council from being more restrictive on partitions and subdivisions by relegating such development to slopes less than 35%. We interpret this policy as allowing greater restrictions. We also interpret our comprehensive plan to permit implementation of the plan through ordinances more restrictive than that which the plan may allow. In addition, we note that the comprehensive plan goal at plan page IV-20 specifically allows development to be directed to slopes less than 40%: "Goal: Direct development to areas that are less than 40% slope. Allow only low density development at less than two dwelling units per acre on areas of greater than 30% slope. Permit only low intensity development of steep lands, with strict erosion control and slope stability measures.' We find that directing development to slopes of 35% or less and consequently restricting development above 35% complies with this goal. We interpret this goal as permitting restrictions on development as long as the slopes are less than 40%. We do not interpret this goal as requiring development on all slopes up to 40%. In the same light, we Interpret policy IV-35 in the same manner. This policy reads: °Restrict creation of new lots on land that is greater than 40% slope, unless a buildable area of less than 40% slope Is available on each lot" We do not interpret this policy as requiring us to permit new lots on all slopes up to . and including 40%. We are required by this policy to restrict development above 40% but we are not precluded from also restricting development below 40%. We find the restrictions in this ordinance limiting development to slopes 35% or less to be in compliance with the goal and policy quoted above. We recognize, as argued by some opponents of this ordinance, that houses appropriately engineered may be safety constructed on steeper slopes. That argument misses the point, however. Continued development on these steeper slopes inevitably . PAGE 4-FINDINGS FOR LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS TO AMC CH. 18.62 oa.•+�a� •\��wx means more streets, more driveways, more cuts, more fills, more soil disturbance. The cumulative impact of the construction necessary to provide access to such homes increases the chance, and perhaps ensures, that slope failures will occur. By restricting such development, we lessen the odds that such failures will occur. Lowering the odds also complies with the following specific housing element plan policy 'Slope protection and lot coverage performance standards shall be used to fit development to topography, generally following the concept that density should decrease with an increase in slope to avoid excessive erosion and hillside cuts. This objective shall be used consistent with the desire to preserve land by using the smallest lot coverage possible' Policy 3(a) at plan p. VIA 1. We find by reducing the slope percentage to 35% also complies with the following specific plan policies: 'Zone all lands which have a slope generally greater than 30% for development that will have no more than 2 dwelling units per acre or 20% lot coverage by impervious surfaces.' Policy IV-36 at plan p. IV-20. 'Forbid any new development or cuts and tills on slopes greater than 50% unless absolutely necessary and scientific and geologic evidence is available showing that it may be done safely. Policy IV-12 at plan p. IV-8. These policies are implemented by ordinance sections 18.62.080.A. - General Requirements and 18.62.100 - Development Standards for Severe Constraint Lands. 3. By limiting the amount of soil disturbance through the requirement of leaving as much land in its natural state as possible (short of precluding all development), other specific plan goals and policies are complied with and implemented by this ordinance: -Use development performance standards based on the natural topography, drainage, soils, lot coverage, and densities in place of arbitrary subdivision standards to ensure that natural features area an Integral part of the design phase of future developments. Policy IV-13 at plan p. 8. "Preserve forest areas within and around the city for their visual, environmental, wildlife habitat, and water quality values.' Plan goal at page IV-19. 'Emphasize the preservation of forest vegetation to the extent feasible as forested areas of the City are converted to urban uses.' Policy IV-37 at plan p. IV-19. This goal and these policies are implemented by ordinance section 18.62.08O.D. - Tree Conservation, Protection and Removal and we find this section to be In compliance with them. See also policy IV-38 at page IV-19: "Use low-density zoning to ensure that PAGE &FINDINGS FOR LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS TO AMC CH. 18.62 "wv*v\ho"waroo development of the forested hillsides Is kept at a level that maintains the forested Integrity of the areas.' 4. Th e ordinance meets all comprehensive plan polices for housing. The goal of the comprehensive plan is to 'ensure a variety of dwelling types and provide housing opportunities for the total cross-section of ashland's population, consistent with preserving the character and appearance of the city.' Plan goal at page VI-11. During the course of the many public hearings, committee meetings, phone calls and conversations we have observed or been involved with, many persons raised the issue of the affect of this ordinance on affordable or needed housing and on buildable lands. 4.1. There is no comprehensive plan policy that requires affordable, moderate or low income housing to be located on the hillsides. In the words of the Community Development Director: 'It has not been the City's policy to meet affordable housing needs through new development on hillside lands. It is recognized that hillside development generally Involves higher cost property, greater construction costs, and additional economic obstacles that make.the provision of truly affordable housing (affordable to households at median Income or below) unrealistic. As an example, the City defines moderate cost housing (affordable to households at 125% of median income for Jackson County) to be $113,000. The average sales price of single family homes in Ashland in 1996 was $163,110, or approximately $50,000 above moderate lost housing. The average assessed value of single family homes within the hillside area of Ashland is approximately $207,152, or approximately $94,000 above moderate cost housing and $44,000 above the average sales price of Ashland homes. "Recognizing that the $207,152 value is for existing homes, and that newly constructed homes tend to be higher In value than existing homes, it is very unlikely that any truly affordable housing would be created on existing hillside properties, with or without this ordinance.' Memorandum to Ad Hoc Hillside Ordinance Committee from John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development dated November 3, 1997. We find persuasive and credible the information supplied by the Director of Community Development and adopt this information as a finding. We also find that in determining the impact the new development standards for hillside lands would have on the City's buildable lands Inventory, the planning department utilized the existing vacant lands inventory prepared by the city. This inventory was prepared and presented to the City Council In January, 1996. The vacant lands inventory was prepared by doing a site inspection of all vacant parcels within the city limits of Ashland. The site inspection information was combined with tax lot information to accurately determine size and zoning of the parcel. The PAGE 6-FINDINGS FOR LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS TO AMC CH. 18.62 �rraHn�ro�l • planning department assigned a potential development number to each parcel, indicating the likely number of dwelling units that would be developed. This portion of the analysis took into account several factors, including slope, street access, and utility availability. A conservative approach was taken in determining the developability of each parcel. The purpose was to not unrealistically inflate the total number of potential dwelling units available within the city when utilizing the information in growth management analysis. For the buildable lands analysis of the hillside ordinance, the planning department utilized the vacant lands inventory, identifying all vacant parcels within the Hillside Lands overlay. From that identification, 415 potential dwelling units were determined to be in the new overlay area. Each of the parcels were then further reviewed for development potential. 38 parcels were identified as having development potential beyond one unit. 219 parcels were identified as having a development potential of one unit, and no further analysis was performed on these parcels. Of the 38 parcels identified as having further development potential, each lot was then examined for slope utilizing the city's topographic maps. The city has a topographic survey of lands within the city limits at 1"=100' scale, with a contour interval of 5'. Of the lots reviewed, nine were determined to have potential limited developability due to the new hillside standards. Those lots and the estimated impact are as follows: Map_ID Inventory After 35% limit Zone 39-1E-16AB 1900 8 6 (-2) R-1-7.5 39-1E-16AB 2001 4 3 (-1) R-1-7.5 39-1E-05BA 1700 8 13 (-2) R-1-7.51P 39-1 E-OBAC 101 10 6 (-4) RR-.S-P* 39-1 E-08AC 200 10 6 (-4) RR-.S-P* 39-1 E-08AC 201 8 4 (-4) RR-.S-P* 39-1 E-08AC 500 10 3 (-7) RR-.S-P 39-1 E-16AC 300 10 3 (-7) RR-.S-P 39-1E-16BC 100 5 3 (-2) WR TOTALS 73 40 (-33) * These three properties are part of a proposal at the top of Strawberry Lane In an area identified as Hillside Lends. The reductions are proposed by the applicants as part of their subdivision request, and may not necessarily be due to slope limitations from the new hillside ordinance. The total impact is a potential reduction in the inventory of buildable units of 33 dwellings. Again, the planning staff took a conservative approach in determining the impact. Other opportunities are available in the ordinance for maintaining the developability of the parcel, specifically through the density transfer option. In summary, the city identified a potential of 415 new dwelling units possible in the Hillside Lands overlay. Of that total, 33 units may be not be built due to slope constraints. From the city's vacant lands inventory, there were 1674 potential units PAGE 7-FINDINGS FOR LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS TO AMC CH. 18.62 imw ft�mkw*\e a vo within the entire city limits, and the reduction of 33 units only results in less than a 2% ' loss of total buildable units. Further, from the vacant lands inventory of the city, there is a 36 year inventory of buildable units in large lot zoning within the city limits. With the estimated potential reduction (28 units in these zones) as a result of the ordinance, the inventory is reduced to a 33 year supply, still well in excess of a 20-year inventory for this housing type. Within the R-1 zone, the inventory indicates a 10-year supply of buildable units. With the estimated potential reduction (5 units in these zones), the inventory remains at approximately 10-years, in excess of the 5-year supply indicated by Policy XII-1 of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. We find information supplied through the Medford planning consultant and others retained by the Rogue Valley Association of Realtors to be less credible. Admittedly they did not utilize the reports and information available to them in their projection of the impact this ordinance would have on buildable lands. From the information submitted in the record by the Rogue Valley Association of Realtors, through their agent Richard Stevens, of the Richard Stevens Company, it was stated that 1129.31 dwelling units would be lost due to the ordinance. There is a great discrepancy between this estimate and that of the Planning Department - 33 units. It appears that Mr. Stevens used a very broad-brush approach in arriving at this estimate. From a generalized slope map of the City prepared at a 1'=800' scale, Mr. Stevens estimated lands greater than 25 and 35 percent slope. He then utilized the zoning map to generalize the area of different zoning districts within these slopes. It appears that he then assigned a density factor to each zone classification, resulting in the total number of units that would be determined to be unbuildable. The difficulty with Mr. Stevens approach is that he assumed that already developed parcels would be unbuildable, that existing streets and right-of-way had development potential that would unbuildable, and that city-owned parks and open space had development potential that would be unbuildable. By not utilizing a parcel by parcel analysis, with accurate slope information, Mr. Stevens has grossly over-estimated the impact of the ordinance. We find that the methodology utilized by the planning department accurately indicates the impact of the proposed hillside ordinance on the City's buildable lands inventory. 5. Late objections to this ordinance were first raised by the Rogue Valley Association of Realtors two months after the August 5 public hearing held by this council. The objection to the citizen participation process raised by this group deserves some response. The two and one-half year citizen involvement process in the development of this legislation was one of the most involved and comprehensive efforts undertaken by the city. The applicable goal and policies of the plan read for citizen involvement as follows: PAGE 8-FINDINGS FOR LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS TO AMC CH. 18.62 pyi.wn�wxa.�muroq To maintain a citizen Involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved In all phases of the planning process. Plan Goal at page III-2. z Policies. 1) Continue the existing Ashland Citizens' Planning Advisory Committee to assist the Ashland Planning Commission and Ashland City Council on significant planning issues, Implementing ordinances, and all LCDC and Comprehensive Plan goals. 2) Ensure, as much as possible, that the 16-member Citizens' Planning Advisory Committee represents a geographic, occupational and Ideological cross-section of the citizenship of Ashland. All future selections to the Committee should be with the ideal of representing a cross-section of Ashland's population. 3) Ensure In the future that all citizens are given the opportunity to contribute their views to planning issues through the public hearing process. 4) The City shall sponsor Informal workshops during the development of significant elements of the Plan or Implementing ordinances, so that complex Issues may be better understood by the public.' Plan policies are located at page III-2. The process started in June 1995 in a planning commission study session for which public notice was given. Eventually the process involved many concerned citizens, affected owners, builders, real estate brokers, elected and appointed city officials all of whom participated in numerous meetings, study sessions including Joint city council and planning commission sessions and several public hearings. The process included the following: Initial PC Study Session 6/27/95 Legal notice in newspaper. Concerned Citizens Meeting 3/11/96 Article in paper, notices mailed. Concerned Citizens Meeting 3/16/96 Article In paper, notices mailed. Sub-committee - Architecture 3/18/96 Article in paper Sub-committee-Land Integrity 3/20/96 Article in paper Sub-committee- Fire/Traffic 4/3/96 Article in paper Concerned Citizens Meeting 4/8/96 Article in paper, mailed notice Concerned Citizens Meeting 4/29/96 Article in paper, previous meeting notice First Draft by Planning Staff and PC/Concerned Citizens Review Meeting 6/17/96 Mailed notice Concerned Citizens Meeting 7/8/96 Mailed notice + article in paper Planning Commission Study Session 7/30/96 Mailed notice + newspaper Concerned Citizens Meeting 10/2/96 Notice by Concerned Citizens PAGE 9-FINDINGS FOR LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS TO AMC CH. 18.62 ovwd*v\hmtld.� rpy Technical Committee Review 11/21/96 Mailed notice to committee members PC/City Council Study Sess. 11/26/96 Mailed notice + newspaper notice Technical Committee Review 4/9/97 Mailed notice to committee members Technical Committee Review 4/16/97 Mailed notice to committee members PC/City Council Study Sess. 4/29/97 Newspaper notice Concerned Citizens Meeting 6/2/97 Notice by Concerned Citizens Planning Commission Public Hearing 6/10/97 Newspaper notice City Council Public Hearing 8/5/97 Newspaper notice City Council/First Reading 9/2/97 . Newspaper, published agenda City Council/Second Reading 9/16/97 Newspaper City Council/Second Reading 10/7/97 Newspaper First Ad hoc committee meeting': 10/20/97 Newspaperad Second Ad hoc committee meeting 11/3/97 announced at previous meeting City Council Public Hearing 11/18/97 Newspaper notice 11/19/97 The objections to this process essentially revolve around the lack of involvement by the Citizen's Planning Advisory Committee described in the plan policy noted above. We find, however, that the process used in the adoption of this ordinance complies with the comprehensive plan goal and policies related to citizen participation. The goal of maintaining 'a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process' has been met by the numerous meetings, study sessions and public hearings described above. The policies for citizen involvement have also been met. Policy 1 quoted above requires the CPAC to assist the planning commission and city council on ordinances implementing the comprehensive plan. We do not interpret this provision, however, as requiring CPAC to meet and assist on every ordinance. The prefatory language on plan page 111-1 explains: This committee will shoulder the byJA of the ongoing citizens' Involvement in the planning process. All mayor changes In Plan direction or implementation will be reviewed by the committee, and the committee will be responsible to assist In increasing communication between the City and the government decision-makers.° (Emphasis added.) Created by the council with members appointed by the mayor for further review of the ordinance and addItional public Input PAGE 10-FINDINGS FOR LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS TO AMC CH. 18.62 We interpret this language to mean that not all ordinance adoptions are required to be processed through CPAC. In addition we do not interpret this ordinance to be a major change in the implementation of the plan. We find the amendments to be of significant importance to the city and those directly and indirectly affected by the ordinance, but matters of significant importance do not signal a major change in the manner the plan has been and is being implemented. We also find that the any perceived imperfection in the process by not utilizing CPAC was more than cured by the 'geographic, occupational and ideological cross-section of the citizenship" appointments by the mayor to the ad hoc committee who met, conducting public hearings and made recommendations to the council prior to the final public hearing held by the council. This committee was made up of two engineers, a residential building contractor, a realtor, two council members who are otherwise employed by or owners of private businesses and one citizen activist who is employed by the Rogue Institute for Ecology and Economy. The committee members live in all sections of the city including the hillside areas. Similarly the planning commission members, who held at least five study sessions and meetings on the ordinance plus one public hearing, represent a geographical, occupational and ideological cross-section of the community. We also find that policy 3 was complied with as there was notice and opportunity for public input in the three public hearings conducted by the planning commission and council regarding this ordinance. DECISION We find that ordinance 97-2708 is in compliance with the comprehensive plan and that the comprehensive plan contains specific policies and provisions which provide the basis for this ordinance. PAGE 11-FINDINGS FOR LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS TO AMC CH. 18.62 CITY OF ASHLAND of°% �► , Administration a ° Office of the City Administrator 5 �... MEMORANDUM ••.°REoo�.. DATE: November 26, 1997 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Greg Scoles, Interim City Administrator RE: MODIFICATION OF SKATEBOARD REGULATIONS Background As the Council will recall, at the meeting on November 4, 1997, Reuben Davis made a presentation requesting modification of the skateboard regulations. At the meeting the Council asked that the Police Department meet with Mr. Davis and return to the next meeting with any proposed revisions. Due to scheduling difficulties this matter was not placed on the November 18, 1997, Council Agenda but held over to this meeting to allow an opportunity for the Police Chief and interested individuals to meet Attached is a memorandum from the Police Chief addressing the issues raised regarding the enforcement of Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 11.54 (Skateboards). Recommendation It is recommended the Council adopt the attached ordinance which amends Section 11.54.050.0 by eliminating imprisonment as a possible penalty for violation of the skateboard regulations. Attachments: Memo from Scott Reuter, Police Chief dated 11/17/97 Chapter 11.54 of the Ashland Municipal Code Council Minutes 11/4/97 Draft ordinance MEMORANDUM TO: Greg Scoles, City Administrator FROM: Scott Fleuter, Chief of Police SUBJECT: SKATEBOARD ORDINANCE DATE: November 17, 1997 I have held two meetings with local skateboarders, their parents, and other interested parties. The main issues revolved around the severity of the penalty (incarceration) and the wearing of helmets under certain conditions. Listed below are several comments and concerns that were voiced by individuals attending the meetings: ❑ The jail penalty for the third conviction is too harsh (imprisonment in jail not to exceed ninety days), and the fines are too high (two hundred to one thousand dollars on the third conviction). ❑ Helmets are fine for skating on the streets, but they should not be required while skateboarding on the sidewalks and crosswalks. ❑ The helmet portion of the ordinance should coincide with the state law for bicycles (sixteen years old and over should not have to wear helmets at all). ❑ Helmets obstruct vision and hearing. ❑ Skateboarding should be allowed on the back alleys in the downtown area so skaters can get through the downtown while in route to other destinations (i.e. the new skateboard park). ❑ APD Officers are unfairly applying the law to skaters and are taking no enforcement with bicyclists. ❑ Some APD Officers do not apply the law the same way. For example, department policy states that each individual receives one documented warning before being cited. The ordinance does not require a warning. Also, the judge has requested officers take the skateboard on the first offense, while the ordinance states to take the skateboard on the second offense. At this time, I recommend that we remove the portion of the ordinance that allows for imprisonment injail not to exceed ninety days (11.54.050, page 5, paragraph C.). I would replace that language with a "fine only" thus deleting any incarceration. I do not believe the intent of the ordinance was to place anyone in jail and I feel confiscating the skateboards is much more effective as a deterrent. If the City Council is interested in any of the other changes mentioned above, I recommend that we reconvene the ordinance committee and review the intent of the skateboard ordinance. I have attached a copy of the ordinance with the jail penalty section highlighted. I also forwarded a copy of this memo to Paul Nolte. Chapter 11.54 Ord. 2804, S1, 1997 SKATEBOARDS Sections: 11.54.010 Definitions 11.54.020 Areas Permitted; Areas Prohibited 11.54.030 Skateboard Regulations 11.54.040 Penalties 11.54.050 Enhanced Penalties in Downtown Area 11.54.010 Definitions. The following words and phrases; when used in this Chapter, shall, for the purpose of this Chapter have the following meanings: A. Operating is the act of having one or more feet on the board of a skateboard or other portion designed for a foot to propel the skateboard. B. Riding is the act of propelling a skateboard by means other than carrying it. C. Skateboard - includes roller skates, in-line roller skates, blades, scooters, coasters, roller skis or any similar device. 11.54.020 Areas Permitted: Areas Prohibited. A. Where Riding Permitted. Riding or operating a skateboard is permitted in the following areas: 1. 25 Mph Streets. Streets where the designated speed for vehicles is 25 miles per hour or less unless prohibited in section 11.54.020.B. 2. Private Property Where Consent. Private property where the owner or person in charge has consented. 3. Areas Defined Within City Parks. In city parks, or a designated area within a city park, specifically approved by the Ashland Park Commission for skateboard use. 4. Sidewalks. On city. sidewalks unless otherwise prohibited by this ordinance. B. Where Riding Prohibited. No person shall ride or operate a skateboard in the following areas: 1. Streets or Sidewalks in the Downtown Area. Sidewalks or streets in the downtown area described in this subsection as delineated on the attached map marked Exhibit A. The downtown area is described as that area included within and inclusive of the following described boundaries: a: The!north boundbry'shall be Lithia Way including sidewalks on both sides to the intersections of Water Street and Fourth Street and including the public parking lot and Revised September 1997 Title 11 Page 42 �i adjoining sidewalk at the corner of Pioneer Street and Lithia Way; b. The west boundary shall be Water Street from the Lithia Way overpass to North Main Street then North Main Street to its intersections with Church Street and including sidewalks on both sides of Water Street and North Main Street, then south along Ashland Creek from the North Main Street Bridge including the park area between the creek and Granite Street but no sidewalks on Granite Street, to Winburn Way, then Winburn Way and its sidewalks through Lithia Park. C. The south boundary shall be the northern sidewalk of Hargadine-Street to the intersections of Pioneer Street and Gresham Street and shall include the western sidewalk of Pioneer Street north from its intersection with Hargadine Street. d. The east boundary shall be Third-Street including the sidewalks on both sides to the intersections of Lithia Way and Hargadine Street. 2. City Parks. Within any city park including streets within the boundaries of a park unless the park, or a designated area within a park, has been specifically approved by the Ashland Park Commission for skateboard use. 3. Certain Streets: On any street where the designated speed is greater than 25 miles per hour. 4. Private Property Unless Consent. On private property. It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution on any charge under this subsection that the property owner or person in charge of the property consented to such use of the property. 5. Other Property Which is Posted. On any other public or private property where signs on the property indicate that skateboard use is prohibited. 11.54.030 Skateboard Regulations. The following regulations apply to the operation of a skateboard on a public street, sidewalk or public property: A. Protective Headgear. Any person operating a skateboard shall wear protective headgear of a type approved under ORS 815.052 for bicycle helmets. Revised September 1997 Title 11 Page 43 (1 B. Yield Right-of-Way. Any person operating a skateboard shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle, such as a motor vehicle or bicycle, or pedestrian including yielding the right of way to any vehicle when approaching or crossing a driveway. C. Standing Position. Any person operating a skateboard shall operate the skateboard in a standing position unless operated in conformance with rules established by the Ashland Park Commission within a city park designated for skateboard use under section 11.54.020. D. Operating on Right-hand Side. While on a street, a person shall ride a skateboard as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway. E. Single File. No person shall ride a skateboard on any street along side another person riding a skateboard, bicycle or motor vehicle unless overtaking and passing such skateboard, bicycle or motor vehicle. F. Equipment. No skateboard shall be operated on any public street or sidewalk between 30 minutes after sunset and 30 minutes before sunrise unless the skateboard or rider is equipped with lighting equipment that meets the following requirements: - 1. The lighting equipment must show a white light visible from a distance of at least 500 feet to the front of the skateboard. 2. The lighting equipment must have a red reflector or lighting device or material of such size or characteristic and so mounted as to be visible from all distances up to 600 feet to the rear when directly in front of lawful lower beams of headlights on a motor vehicle. G. Traffic Control Devices. Any person operating a skateboard shall obey the instructions of official traffic control signals, signs and other control devices applicable to vehicles. H. Traffic Regulations. The operation of a skateboard on a street shall be subject to all of the provisions or laws of the State and the laws of the City, including those applicable to the drivers of vehicles, except as to the latter, those provisions that by their very nature have no application. I. Operation on Sidewalks. No person shall operate a skateboard on a sidewalk: 1. So as to suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and move into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. Revised September 1997 Title 11 Page 44. 2. Without giving an audible warning before overtaking and passing a pedestrian. 3. At a speed greater than an ordinary walk when approaching or entering a crosswalk, approaching or crossing a driveway or crossing a curb cut or pedestrian ramp and a vehicle is approaching the crosswalk, driveway, curb cut or pedestrian ramp. This paragraph does not require reduced speeds for skateboards either: a. At places on sidewalks or other pedestrian ways other than places where the path for pedestrians or bicycle traffic approaches or crosses that for motor vehicle traffic; or b. When motor vehicles are not present. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, an operator of a skateboard on a sidewalk or in a crosswalk has the same rights and duties as a pedestrian on a sidewalk or in a crosswalk. J. Racing. No person shall engage in, or cause others to engage in, a skateboard race. upon the streets, sidewalks or any other public property. Provided, however, that it shall not.be a violation of this subsection if racing occurs in conformance with rules established by the Ashland Park Commission within a city park designated for skateboard use under section 11.54:020. - K. Hitching on Vehicles. No person while operating a skateboard shall in any way attach themselves or the skateboard to any moving motor vehicle. L. Careless Riding. No person shall ride a skateboard in a careless manner. Riding in a careless manner means the person rides a skateboard in a manner that endangers or would be likely to endanger any person or property. 11.54.040 Penalties. Except as provided in section 11.54.050: A. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this chapter is, upon conviction, punishable as prescribed in Section 1.08.020. B. Upon conviction, the court may, in addition to any other penalty, order that the skateboard that was used at the time of the offense be impounded until such time as may appear just and reasonable. 11.5 4.050 Enhanced Penalties in Downtown Area. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this chapter in the downtown area defined in section 11.52.020.B.1 is, upon conviction, punishable as follows: Revised September 1997 Title 11 Page 45 A. First offense. Upon the first conviction for a violation under this chapter, the person shall be punished by a.fine of $50.00 (to include all costs and assessments). This fine shall not be suspended or deferred, but the court may authorize community a in lieu of all or_part of this fine. B. Second offense. Every pers who is convicted o violation of this chapter for a second ti within a five-year p 'od shall be punished by a fine not less than $1 nor more than $5 One hundred dollars of the fine shall not be spended or deferr , but the court may authorize community service in lieu of all or part of this fine. In addition, the court may order forfeiture of a skateboard which was ridden in violation of this chapter, unless it is proven to the court by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is not the owner of the skateboard and the owner did not or could not have reasonably known that.the skateboard would be ridden in violation of this chapter. C. Third or subsequent offense. Every person who violates this chapter a thud or more times within a' five-year period,sha �guilty of M :a„ , misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not less-th4�kvyp up�r ioilars eb�anStet "artt��d"o5lacsardi�lrtprisonmerit to iail;not�o°: rair+ety days Two'huridred dollars`of the fine shall not be 'suspended or deferred, but the court may authorize community service: in lieu of all or part of the fine. Upon conviction of a third or subsequent .violation of this chapter within a five-year period, the court may order forfeiture of a skateboard which was ridden in violation of this chapter, unless it is proven to the court by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is not the owner of the skateboard and the owner did not . or could not have reasonably known that the skateboard would be ridden in violation of this chapter. Exhibit A DETACH THIS PAGE AND ATTACH EXHIBIT A, THE MAP REFERRED TO IN SECTION 11.54.030.A: ". . . the downtown area delineated on the attached map marked Exhibit A." Revised September 1997 Title 11 Page 46 t UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Authorization for Mayor and,City Recorder to sign Quitclaim Deed for 20 foot easement on Ashland Street. Councilor Reid questioned structures built on the Guthrie Street-s' a of the right-of-way and noted that she would like a pedestria",n,easement. Interim City'Administrator les explained that there would be pedestrian access. Councilor Reid also suggested looking at the deed' of other properties to ensure other access was properly obtained. City Attorney Nolte stated that Engi ring was checking on the deeding. Councilor Reid expressed concern with moving t uickly, would prefer to look at whole picture. Discussion concerning how other property in right-of-way obtained, and discussion of access. Councilor Wheeldon suggested placing signage to clearly identify o n space area access. Further discussion about need for open space in this area as a neighborhood park. Councilor DeEoer questioned if the pr erty's closing was waiting far council action and whether the easement from Herbert St. would need modifi tion because of this. City Attorney Nolte clarified that the transaction relating to this property had clos and that the city's Herbert_St. easement has been modified and re-recorded with changes. Councilors Hauck/DeBoer Is to authorize Mayor and City Recorder to sign quitclaim deed for 20 foot easement on Ashland Street. Roll call vote: Laws Red n Li. AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS Request by Rueben Davis to present petition recommending changes to the Skateboarding Ordinance. Rueben Davis, owner of a local skateboard shop, feels that the ordinance is preposterous; where it intended to treat skaters fairly it has backfired and created a hostile environment. Noted that other forms of transportation are not ticketed for riding without helmets, while skateboarders routinely receive such tickets. Questioned selective enforcement, confiscation of skateboards and fines. Presented a petition with signatures from 180-200 community members asking that the skateboard ordinance be rewritten and enforced with an eye for equality with other modes of transportation. Noted head injuries are uncommon in skateboarding and requiring helmets at all times goes too far. Also discussed skating in the downtown areas, questioning the extreme penalty for skating downtown. Read portion of a letter from a mother who'd taken her son to Juvenile Justice Department in Medford due to skateboarding citations where she noted that the Juvenile Justice Department had commented to her that they'd never been made aware of the ordinance and were unprepared to deal with the increase in cases. Police Captain Mel Clements and Police Chief Scott Fleuters presented background on the ordinance since its taking effect on September 5. Noted that 19 citations had been issued and that 16 of those were for helmet violations. In addition, there have been 31 warnings given. Clements noted that he had met with Juvenile Department in Medford, to workout a process for handling these citations prior to the ordinance's passage. Explained that the cases were handled by the APD Youth Diversion Officer until the fourth offense, or when other crimes are involved. Clements also informed the public that approximately 30 bicycle helmets are available through APD and the 911 program. The helmets are for those who cannot afford to purchase helmets elsewhere, and are $7 each. Explained reasoning behind helmet requirement for all ages, stating that skaters typically don't carry identification which makes enforcement of a helmet requirement for those "16 and under" very difficult. Discussion of the state helmet law for bicyclists which pre-empts requiring all bicyclist to wear helmets. Clarification that there were few repeat offenses within the 19 citations issued, and that compliance has been generally very good. City Council Meeting 11-04-97 2 Councilor Hauck questioned whether enforcement of helmet requirements for bicyclists is different, and Clements explained that statistics haven't been kept for bicycle helmet citations. Also noted that downtown statistics aren't tracked. Clarification that bicyclists are allowed downtown, but not on sidewalks, and that the ordinance doesn't apply to skateboarding on private property. Noted that enforcement is primarily complaint driven. Councilor DeBoer noted that he hadn't seen as many complaints as he expected, but stated that he'd like the council to look at the penalties again. Donna Wonder/1348 Prospect/Noted that she'd seen the ordinance explained in the City Source newspaper and. was upset by the penalties. She believes that if skateboarding is a form of transportation, they should be allowed downtown along with the other modes of transportation. Discussion of the ordinance in tetras of allowing street skating, requiring helmets, and providing enhanced penalties downtown. Kathleen Borovac/131 Helman St./Opposes the ordinance. Disturbed when she received information in City Source, and felt the committee process leading to the revised ordinance wasn't made public enough. She believes that the ordinance goes overboard and that it shouldn't make skateboarding into a criminal offense. Dave LeFors/6810 Hwy 66/Questioned helmet law when there is none at state level. Why are skaters being singled out in Ashland? Acknowledges safety concerns, but feels that helmets should be a personal decision and that kids skating feel they are being mistreated. Mayor Golden clarified the purpose of the ordinance to provide more freedom for skateboarders in allowing them to use the streets. Joanna Pecoraro/494 Holly St./Was a parent on original committee, but feels that perception in the community is that the current situation is worse than.before. Concerned about discrimination, and notes that she'd been told there were no bicycle citations during August, September and October, which upsets her. Concerned that the committee she served on didn't help the situation. Also noted that imposing jail time in the ordinance as a penalty, when she understands there is no way to require jail time in actual enforcement, isn't right. Councilor Laws noted role of ordinance in calling attention to the law, and supported the need to look at the enhanced penalty section of the ordinance. Emphasized that the helmet requirement was due to concerns for safety when street skating, and that helmets need lobe worn because of the potential for collisions with cars. Councilor DeBoer asked that Mel Clements and Jan Janssen look into revising the wording of this section and bring their proposed revisions to the next council meeting. Councilor Laws suggests dialogue between skaters .and Police Chief. Councilor Wheeldon noted that helmets are a signal that skaters are doing their part to establish themselves as responsible users of the street. Mayor Golden noted that calls to her office were 6 to 1 against opening the streets to skateboards, but that in passing this ordinance the City wanted to confirm its view of skateboarding as a viable mode of transportation. Dave LeFors/6810 Hwy 66/Again questioned passage of the helmet requirement when the state has no such requirement. Councilor Hauck and Mayor Golden explained the council's role in making laws. QRDINANC& RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Reading"lat title only of "A Resolution Granting Irrevocable Limited Power of Attorney for the Local Gove ment Investment Pool." Councilors Law=ie s to approve Resolution #97-37. Roll Call vote: Deboer, Wheeldon, Hauck, Reid and Laws, YES. Mo n passed. OTHER.BUSUgESS FROM CO CIL MEMBERS Councilor Reid mentioned the letter g en to councilors by Anna Hassell concerning Westwood Subdivision and Darlyn Adams. Stated that she hopes it ' 1 be able to move forward. Councilor Wheeldon gave information on the A atives to Growth Conference she and Councilor Hagen attended. First conference of its type, looked at ch ages facing cities with regard to carrying capacities. Discussed real costs of growth, SbC's and the contrast tween mature cities versus developing cities and questioned which category Ashland fits into. City Council Meeting.11-04-97 3 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 11.54.050 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE TO REDUCE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR SKATEBOARD VIOLATIONS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. ANNOTATED TO SHOW DELETIONS AND ADDITIONS. DELETIONS ARE 61N€D-THROUG14 AND ADDITIONS ARE THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 11.54.050.0 of Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: C. Third or subsequent offense. Every person who violates this chapter a third or more times within a five-year period shall be punishable by a fine of not less than two hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars " 9 MPF'Senment on jail net to emeeed ninety days. Two hundred dollars of the fine shall not be suspended or deferred, but the court may authorize community service in lieu of all or part of the fine. Upon conviction of a third or subsequent violation of this chapter within a five-year period, the court may order forfeiture of a skateboard which was ridden in violation of this chapter, unless it is proven to the court by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is not the owner of the skateboard and the owner did not or could not have reasonably known that the skateboard would be ridden in violation of this chapter. The foregoing ordinance was first READ on the day of . 1997, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 1997. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 11997. Catherine M. Golden, Mayor Approved as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney PAGE 1-ORDINANCE (o:.k&t.nd..md) RESOLUTION NO. 97- BEFORE THE CITY OF ASHLAND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION EXEMPTING FROM COMPETITIVE BIDDING THE SELECTION OF A FINANCIAL LCRB RESOLUTION SOFTWARE SYSTEM FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND A RECORDS SOFTWARE PROGRAM FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT . Recitals: A. AMC § 2.50.030.6 permits the Ashland City Council sitting as the Local Contract Review Board to exempt contracts from competitive bidding if it finds: 1. The lack of bids will not result in favoritism or substantially diminish competition in awarding the contract; and 2. The exemption will result in substantial cost savings. B. This ordinance provides that in making such findings, the Board may consider the type, cost, amount of the contract, number of persons available to bid, and such other factors as the Board may deem appropriate. Where appropriate, the Board shall direct the use of alternate contracting and purchasing practices that take account of market realities and modem or innovative contracting and purchasing methods, which are also consistent with the public policy of encouraging competition. C. In order to exempt a public contract from competitive bidding, the Board shall adopt written findings that support the awarding of a particular public contract or a class of public contracts without competitive bidding. The findings must show that the exemption of a contract or class of contracts complies with the requirements of AMC § 2.50.030.6. The Board adopts the information contained in the memorandum from Barb Brown, administrative secretary, Ashland Police Department, to the Mayor and City Council dated November 26, 1997, and the memorandum from Jill Turner, finance director, to the Mayor and Council dated November 24, 1997, as findings justifying the exemption. The Board finds that these exemptions will not result in favoritism or substantially diminish competition in awarding the contracts and the exemptions will result in substantial cost savings. The Board resolves that these exemptions be granted as follows: SELECTION OF A FINANCIAL SOFTWARE SYSTEM FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. This contract is exempted from competitive bidding. Responses to the Request For Information will be used as a basis to invite three to four vendors PAGE 1-LCRB EXEMPTION wadymb on to demonstrate their software programs. Vendor software demonstrations, background checks, and price evaluations will be the basis for the selection. SELECTION OF A RECORDS SOFTWARE PROGRAM FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. This contract is exempted from competitive bidding. Vendors already identified through the process outlined on the attached memorandum as well as additional vendors who have shown an Interest since that process will be requested to provide demonstrations. The selection process will follow the steps outlined in the attached memorandum. Cost shall be a evaluated as a factor but shall not be the sole determining factor in the purchasing of this software. This resolution was read.by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of December, 1997. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 1997. Catherine M. Golden, Mayor viewed as fo for aul No e, City Attorney PAGE 2-LCRB EXEMPTION a:«au&ta7j ASHLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT 1 MEMORANDUM November 26, 1997 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Barb Brown RE: RFP Process It is my understanding that the Finance Department is submitting a request to Council to waive the normal RFP process for purchase of computer equipment for accounting. Because of the circumstances listed below regarding the purchase of a records system software package for APD, we would also like to be included in that request. Background In 1991 the City of Ashland joined a county-wide committee project interested in formulating a formal RFP for the proposed county-wide CAD/RMS (Computer Aided Dispatch/Records Management System) package that would be utilized by all participating agencies. The process was guided by a hired consultant, Mr. Glenn Merin of Schema Systems out of California. June, 1995 an RFP was distributed to interested vendors. (documentation attached). Proposals were received, reviewed by the committee members and demonstrations were held and evaluated. Additionally, on site visits were made to evaluate the systems in operation. This process, from beginning to and through the evaluation process took 5 years. Just as the committee was selecting a finalist, the Flood of '97 struck the City. As a result of the flood impact upon the City in conjunction with concerns over the impact of Measure 47, the City withdrew from the County CAD project. At the time of withdrawal the Police Department was directed to continue an independent search for a records program (and ultimately CAD) with the understanding that it would mesh with the product ultimately purchased by the CAD Committee (Medford and Jackson County). At this time, having been through the 5 year long process, a need to go back out to RPF would unnecessarily delay the procurement of a records program and encumber the Police Department's collection of vital statistical information often requested by various departments. RECOMMENDATION: I would like to request that Council waive the requirement for RFP process with respect to selection of a Records Software Program. We have identified through the above mentioned process vendors interested in supplying our needs as well as additional vendors who have come forward since that process was established. If waived, we will proceed with vendor demonstrations and complete the selection process. I \ , INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE IN REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR A COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH SYSTEM, RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND JAIL INFORMATION & MANAGEMENT SYSTEM REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 5-6-006IS INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE Sealed proposals for a computer aided dispatch system, records management system and jail information and management system serving the public safety agencies of Jackson County, Oregon, will be received by the City of Medford, Oregon, by Kathy Ameral, Purchasing Agent, City of Medford, 411 W. 8th Street, Room 253, City Hall, Medford, Oregon 97501, until 2:00 p.m. local time, on OCTOBER 5, 1995. A mandatory proposer's conference is scheduled for AUGUST 7, 1995, AT 2:00 p.m. in the City of Medford Council Chambers. The proposer's conference must be attended in order to be considered for this proposal offering. As soon thereafter as possible, the bids will be opened publicly. DESCRIPTION: Provide a computer aided dispatch system, records management system and jail information and management system serving the public safety agencies of Jackson County, Oregon. A set of proposal documents may be obtained from the PURCHASING OFFICE, City of Medford, 411 West 8th, Room 253, Medford, Oregon 97501. Or by calling (503) 770-4492 . The Owner may reject any proposal not in compliance with all prescribed bidding procedures and requirements, and may reject for good cause, any or all proposals upon a finding it is in the public interest to do so. The City also reserves the right to waive any informalities in any proposal and to delete certain items listed in the bid as set forth therein. Proposals received after the time established for receiving proposals will not be considered. Proposers on this work must comply with Federal Construction Labor Standards and with all other applicable federal governmental requirements including, but not limited to equal employment opportunity actions as specified. State of Oregon BOLI Wage Rates (current prevailing wage) are required for this project. The City of Medford programs, services and activities are open to all persons without regard to race, sex, .age, handicap, religion, ethnic background or national origin. For further information about this equal opportunity policy, contact the Personnel Department in the City of Medford, 770-4439 . This project contains no asbestos abatement work and the contractor and the subcontractors are not required to be licensed by the Department of Environmental Quality. CITY OF MEDFORD, OREGON Kathy Ame 1 . Purchasing Agent �{ emorttn � um '•,O4EGO�o . November 24, 1997 Mayor & Council ram: Jill Turner, Finance Director � QjP Financial Software Process BACKGROUND: Part of the Finance Department's strategic plan was to develop a process to select a Financial Information System. December 1996, the committee sent out a Request for Information to thirty-four software vendors who specialize in Governmental or Fluid Accounting programs. Responses were received from seven. This information was used to develop a software budget. for 97-98. In reviewing the information that was submitted by the vendors, it became obvious that the best way to select a financial software package is not through a formal bid process. Cities around the United States are learning that the formal process does not necessarily result in the best solution at the best price. Some very qualified software vendors are electing not to respond to the . RFP process due to the high cost and time involved. Due to rapid changes in technology, cities are having a hard time evaluating software systems without a live demonstration of the products to compare. RECOMMENDATION: I request that the formal bid process be waived for a Financial Software System. The responses to the Request For Information will be used as a basis to invite three to four vendors to demonstrate their software programs. Representatives from all departments will be invited to take part in the demonstration process. Vendor software demonstrations, background checks and price evaluations will be the basis for the selection.